Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 18, 2019 - I Don't Speak German

02:10:44

Episode 30: Unofficial Retroactive Pilot from December 2017

In place of a new episode, we're celebrating reaching 30 by re-releasing a podcast we originally recorded and released back in December 2017 as part of a previous project called Wrong With Authority. In retrospect, this sounds like a pilot for what became IDSG. We hope you enjoy it. TRANSCRIPT: https://idtg.net/30 FULL TRANSCRIPT LIST: https://idtg.net/

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So welcome to I Don't Speak German episode 30, which is actually not really I Don't Speak German episode 30.
	This is actually a thing that Jack and I did a couple of years ago.
	It was originally released on the 9th of December 2017, if I remember correctly, for kind of a footnote project on another podcast we do.
	He and I have been talking to each other over microphones and putting them up on the internet for a long time.
	Anyway, we used to do a podcast called Wrong With Authority, which was a podcast about movies about history and the history they're about, which is now defunct, but the archives are available, or around, and we did a little footnote about writing about the right.
	Now, this was part of a project in which Jack was writing a chapter in Elizabeth Sandifer's book, or kind of the full book edition of her Neo-Reaction of Basilisk.
	And he was specifically writing about sort of Marxist interpretations of libertarianism and sort of the various internal contradictions that are just basic to libertarianism.
	And in the incredibly knowledgeable way that he does, it's an excellent essay.
	You can find it if you buy the book, which Jack is going to put in the show notes, I can assume.
	So I'd recommend you read that.
	We do get a lot of requests for people asking us to sort of cover libertarianism more broadly.
	And one of the reasons we haven't is that Jack has completely done talking about libertarianism forever, I think.
	I think the process of writing that chapter and doing that research just kind of broke his brain on the subject.
	So, yeah, that's kind of where we are on that.
	Anyway, this podcast kind of came out of the process of he and I kind of talking amongst ourselves About the kind of process of writing and thinking about writing about the far right in the United States and around the world and sort of the sort of similar Lines that are that our minds kind of kind of went down and doing that project.
	So Yeah, I really listen to that to this this week.
	There's some stuff I definitely would not kind of hold to these days certainly sort of the the Direct connection with libertarianism.
	I think I wouldn't quite hold to the alt-right I mean, I wouldn't hold quite as strongly on that today I think I think I'm a little bit more that libertarianism is kind of an accidental feature of this kind of deeper movement But overall, I think this holds up pretty well a couple of things You'll notice one is that the audio quality is not as good as our current audio quality setup we were using a cheapy call recorder at the time and Those just basically suck
	You'll also hear some kind of moving around in the background.
	You'll hear some boards creaking and such.
	It's just kind of the nature of the beast.
	Also, we do refer to Elizabeth Sandifer as Phil.
	I assure you we are not deadnaming her.
	This was before her transition.
	I do feel a little bit bad for re-releasing this just because I do feel like we shouldn't be releasing something with her deadname.
	But I think that people who listen to this podcast will get a lot out of this.
	And we didn't really have a chance to record for this week because I kind of fucked up on some scheduling so That said I much like this.
	I think that the audience here is gonna enjoy it again I would not hold 100% to every interpretation here, but this will give you a nice look at kind of where Kind of a prequel to I don't speak German something that that Jack and I have kind of been talking about for a long time now and It gives you a hint of kind of where Jack's deeper interests are when he's not talking to me about the intricacies of 21st century American Internet fascism.
	So that being said, no further ado, we're just going to run right into the audio and the original audio from that podcast.
	And yeah, next week we will have an interview, the interview that I promised you last time about the Nashville dynamite bombings.
	Hello, Jack here.
	Just to clarify, I also would not agree with everything that I hear myself saying in this.
	There are some errors that I make when I speak, and there are some things that I would interpret differently now.
	And also, Daniel says that I wrote the chapter in Elle's book, Neo-Reaction of Basilisk, We co-wrote it, so just to clarify that.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	I know that's not what you want to hear right now.
	But I think like a full-on conversation.
	Or full on like, you know, twice this length that kind of goes into some of the stuff where you're like, this is the place to talk about, you know, like a full defense of the labor theory of value or the, you know, tenacious rate of fall in the rate of profit.
	I mean, I would love to see that integrated into this, honestly, and kind of make it more a full, a full blown, you know, sort of intro reader.
	Yeah, I think that's kind of a, that's kind of a separate thing.
	You know, I think there's, yeah.
	I mean, I've been toying with the idea of doing sort of, you know, intro stuff on some of these very important Marxist concepts, you know.
	As I've, you know, I've been getting more and more sort of obsessed with it over the last year or so as I've gone back to it, you know, and it's sort of rekindled my excitement about some of this stuff, you know.
	And I sort of toyed with the idea, because Phil's always nagging me for a book, you know, so, and one idea I had was sort of an, you know, an intro to Marx and or Marxism, you know, couched in terms of Doctor Who.
	I thought that would be funny, like one of those, you know, the philosophy of Star Trek or the philosophy of South Park and stuff, books that are all over the place.
	And I had various sort of ideas, you know, for how to do that.
	And I think it would have to be done with kind of heavy, heavy layers of self-awareness and irony, you know?
	But I think it could be done.
	I kind of have a sense of how I could do that and make it funny and appeal to Doctor Who fans, hopefully, and also get some of these concepts across.
	Alternatively, I could just write about the ideas without any of that sort of garnish on the top.
	I don't know.
	I'm still thinking this stuff out.
	But I don't think I would want to combine, because I do think there's like a fuller treatment of the Austrians, you know, because, I mean, we were talking about this, the final thing I gave to Phil, I don't know how long it will be in the final book, because we're still editing, but my final edit that I gave to Phil was nearly 22,000 words, and that's a lot less than I wrote, you know.
	You know, I've been cutting it down from A lot more than that, you know, like orders of magnitude more than that.
	And there's lots more that's not written yet, even in a first draft form.
	And there's still loads of, as I say, you know, it took so long because I kept on falling down these rabbit holes.
	Like one rabbit hole is the whole idea.
	Can you talk to me a little bit about that process, actually?
	Just sort of like, how did you get started?
	What was, I mean, you know, when you were kind of, I think Phil kind of said, Oh yeah, and then Jack will write about the Austrian school, and you were like, I will?
	That's sort of the impression that I got of how this kind of started.
	Is that accurate?
	Yeah, that's about right.
	Phil was putting together the Kickstarter or Patreon pitch, I'm not even sure which one it is, for his book, Neo-Reaction of Basilisk, which is going to be out soon.
	Which is, I think, if I understand correctly, it's like The original short book, Neo-Reaction of Basilisk, that he released last year, but with loads of extra stuff.
	You know, without the graphics this time, but with loads of extra writing.
	Right.
	And one of the things that he put into his pitch to potential funders was a piece about the Austrian school co-written by him and me.
	And he said, he asked, you know, he did ask me in advance before, he didn't just do that and then tell me.
	And I said, yeah, sure.
	And, um, you know, I thought, well, that'll be easy.
	I'll just find, I'll just go to one of my books or one of the blogs I normally read.
	Um, and I'll, I'll look up the Austrian school and I'll crib from that.
	That'll be easy.
	Um, the funny thing was, When I came to actually start researching it, I found that Marxists really haven't written very much about the Austrian school.
	Certainly not recently.
	You know, so it wasn't that easy.
	I had to start sort of going, you know, I had to be a bit less lazy than I was originally planning to be and actually do some fucking research of my own, you know.
	And it was interesting because The more I looked into it, the more I saw that there was to look into.
	You know what I mean?
	Not necessarily in terms of the Austrian school itself being more complex or impressive than I thought it was going to be.
	Not necessarily, in that sense.
	One of the things I was a bit puzzled by when Phil originally pitched this to me was, you know, why?
	Why do we need to talk about the Austrian school in a book that's about neo-reaction?
	And he's also going to be about the alt-right more generally, and the present political climate more generally.
	And I remember thinking, why is he...?
	Why?
	But I came to see in my researches that actually it is a lot more connected to where we are now, so to speak, than I thought it was.
	I mean, I really didn't I didn't know very much about Murray Rothbard, for instance.
	I didn't know very much about libertarianism in general, or paleo-libertarianism in general, until I started researching this.
	You know, sort of vague idea, and I knew more about Ayn Rand, to be honest with you, than I did about Rothbard, etc.
	I'd sort of, you know, I'd sort of looked into, because of course, one of the foundational Austrian thinkers is Eugen von Bonn-Bavot, He's one of those people who's always brought up by people who say, oh, well, you know, Marx has been disproved, you know.
	So when you're a young fellow, a student, you know, when you're investigating these things and you think you might be a Marxist, this is one of the things you have to look at.
	And I sort of, I have a vague memory of looking at it back when I was at university and, you know, thinking, well, that's not very impressive, is it?
	You know, he's misread this and that doesn't work.
	And, you know, Rudolf Hilferding answered it satisfactorily, instead of just chucking it to one side.
	Going back to it, I mean, it's like countless things I was surprised by.
	I keep on talking about rabbit holes, and this is another one of them.
	I always thought, sort of, oh yeah, Bohm-Bavook, he started the transformation problem.
	Now, the transformation problem is this long-running controversy about Marxist economics.
	I won't go into the details, but it's been rumbling on for years and years and years, ever since the Marxist economist Paul Sweezy sort of republished Bohm-Bawerk's piece about Marx, along with another piece by a Russian economist, who I think was a Ricardian rather than an Austrian, called Borkovits.
	And it started this long-running argument about whether or not Marx's account of values and prices is contradictory.
	And it's done an enormous amount of damage to the reputation of Marxist economics, and it's sort of diverted loads of Marxists away from some of Marx's pretty central ideas.
	And I thought, oh yeah, Bohm-Bawerk, transformation problem.
	You look into it, actually, no.
	Bohm-Bawerk's objection to Marx is actually, I mean, he kind of, he is the first person to draw attention to that, you know, to the idea that there's a contradiction in that aspect of Marx's account.
	Now, the transformation problem is essentially about the transformation of value from labor theory of value to prices.
	Am I correct on that?
	Yeah, that's right.
	And the long-running argument is that Marx's account is contradictory.
	Well, that's not... I mean, again, without getting into details, that's not what Bohm-Bavack said.
	Bohm-Bavack says that it's tautologous.
	Which is not the objection that has rumbled on all these years and caused so much damage, and caused so many, you know, including so many Marxists, to sort of say, oh, we need to redraw Marx, we need to chuck out this bit of Marx and rethink.
	So, you know, I was kind of fascinated to discover that this thing I thought I knew actually wasn't true.
	You know, I'm not saying Bone Babo isn't connected to this, But the transformation problem as such, it's not actually him.
	It's this other guy that founds the problem.
	And you go to Bambervac himself, and he is very, very unimpressive.
	I mean, to the point where huge stretches of his critique of Marx are based on just straightforward misreadings of Marx's text.
	He just misreads it.
	And I'm not exaggerating either.
	He claims that Marx says things that Marx simply doesn't say.
	And he does this repeatedly, you know.
	It seems to be a common thing with anti-Darwinians as well.
	Yeah, well I wouldn't want to necessarily draw a comparison between Marx and Darwin, but yes, I think that's very true.
	I wasn't trying to make a direct comparison.
	No, I know you weren't, but I have to be very careful about things like that so that people don't think I'm doing that.
	Yeah, so much of it, and certainly – until I met you, until we started talking, I will admit that I knew virtually nothing about what Marxists actually say.
	The only version of Marxism that I had ever been exposed to was the sort of… One paragraph long, you know, communism and the inevitability of communism, you know, one debunked Stalin, you know, that's sort of the, and I hate to, I mean, you know, that's, that's just an admission of, I mean, that's just an admission of reality.
	Like, that's just the version that I kind of had in my head, you know, the sort of the toy version of like, well, almost the Fukuyama-esque, you know, well, all that's over now because the Soviet Union fell, right, you know.
	Yeah, well, that's pretty standard.
	I mean, in my experience, even in, like, textbooks for students that are more in-depth than that and more sympathetic than that, you get egregious, egregious misrepresentations.
	Yeah, I mean, when I started to become interested in this stuff, I was at university, and that was in the mid-90s to late-90s.
	And, you know, Marx was just dead then, because this was pretty much immediately post the fall of communism, you know?
	So it was all post-modernism in the university department where I studied English.
	I mean, Marx was brought up, but it was very much sort of this This dead thing that was kind of an embarrassing, you know, remnant, you know.
	And I was taught things like that as fact.
	I mean, I was taught by philosophy lecturers that it was a political religion and, you know, it was all about a restatement of, you know, Jewish myths about the end of the world being inevitable.
	And, you know, I was taught that as fact by philosophy lecturers.
	So, yeah, I think deliberately misreading.
	I mean, you know, I'm not saying you can't find stuff in Marx that makes you go, oh God, because you can.
	He will talk about the inevitability of socialism and the iron laws of history working themselves out and stuff like that.
	I'm not saying he isn't guilty of formulations like that, but it's like any great thinker.
	You know, he has, uh, he has off days and he contradicts himself and he speaks in different registers at different times and stuff like that.
	And sometimes he's, he, you know, sometimes he doesn't live up to his own, to the, to the better version of himself, if you know what I mean.
	Right.
	But what they do is they, they focus on the line that creates the impression they want to create and then they ignore everything else.
	Um, you know, unless you're Burt Babak, in which case you just flat out lie about what Mark says.
	But, uh, I don't know how we got into that, but, um, yeah, it's, it's, it's the rabbit holes thing because it kept, you know, I discovered it was, it was a more complicated story than I thought, than I thought it would be.
	And I kept on finding these little, these little byways like that and surprising things like that.
	And one of them, as I say, was the discovery that it actually is a lot more A lot more connected to our current situation than I thought it was, because, you know, the alt-right, you can trace that right back to right-wing libertarianism in America.
	And the person who, as far as I can see, is, you know, far and away most responsible for right-wing libertarianism in America being what it is, is Murray Rothbard, who is of the Austrian tradition, directly, you know, drawing loads of his ideas from Ludwig von Mises.
	And you can trace that right the way back to the avowedly anti-socialist tradition that is, for example, embodied in Bohm-Bawerk, with his anti-Marx stuff.
	And loads of their foundational ideas actually come from their engagements with Marx, sort of trying to counter him and socialist economics more generally.
	So I was surprised to find that sort of genealogy of ideas leading very directly to a lot of our current problems, so to speak.
	Yeah, it's interesting the degree to which Marx, regardless of how you kind of feel about him, seems to be one of those kind of fulcrums of intellectual thought, running from his time to ours.
	Widely read and misread and then influential and to some of the best and worst people that so much seems to be a response, you know, there's just this, I mean, you know, what are they all saying?
	Cultural Marxism.
	Cultural Marxism is such a bugbear, which has nothing to do with Marx at all, as near as I can tell.
	It's literally just, you put Marx's name on it and suddenly it's a, you know, therefore evil.
	That's all it takes.
	Well, that again, I mean, the whole sort of cultural Marxism thing, conspiracy theory, that flows from Rothbard.
	I mean, Rothbard is, he's one of the people who identified, you know, The Frankfurt School is sort of this conspiratorial group.
	And one of the interesting things about that conspiracy theory is the way it's a perfect illustration of these affinities, because it's got that lineage.
	It goes back to Rothbard, and it's directly descended from the Kulturbolshevismus Nazi conspiracy theory about Jews Um, you know, deliberately, you know, Bolshevik Jews deliberately degenerating German culture.
	Although, of course, in that version of the conspiracy theory, it was, it was modernist art and stuff like that.
	Whereas now they think it's, uh, you know, Hollywood movies and, uh, and TV.
	I don't, I don't, I don't know that a lot of them draw a big distinction there.
	Well, no, I mean, it's all, it's all, it's all just anything that is not this sort of, uh, very straightforward mainline, uh, sort of middle American working class kind of, uh,
	Straight to text, you know, paintings on a wall, you know, like, like a picture of a sailboat on a wall is the only thing that isn't, you know, cultural Marxism, essentially, you know, it's, it's anything that, you know, sort of derives revulsion in the reader, the listener, the watcher, or the viewer.
	That's, that's, you know, it's, it's, it seems like they resist really defining that too concretely.
	And then, you know, just sort of who they tend to blame on that depends on the speaker and how, you know, which version of the conspiracy theory they've really kind of swallowed, in my mind, you know?
	Go ahead.
	I was just going to say, I don't know as much about the real, you know, sort of serious far-right fascist people as you do, because you've looked into them a lot more than I have.
	But, I mean, I know, for instance, the The infamous Paul Joseph Watson video about art and culture.
	And he just has no definition of terms.
	He uses terms like art and culture and modern and present day and the past.
	He just uses these fundamental terms so incredibly freely.
	When he talks about these things, you don't know what he means by, you know, the art of the past, or the culture of the present, or anything like that.
	It just seems to be anything he doesn't like at any given time.
	And that's definitely a cultural Marxism conspiracy theory video, even if he doesn't use that term.
	Yeah, I mean, it's all about this sort of degeneration of past culture into today.
	Yeah, it's all about this sort of, well back in, you know, some unspecified time in the past.
	Before we had all this sort of outside influence.
	I mean, you know, it is, it is, I mean, you know, among the really far right, you know, not the... Paul Joseph Watson is not this far.
	But, you know, it really is just they blame it all on the Jews.
	That's it.
	It's the Jews.
	They'll even use the word Jewy, you know.
	Oh, I feel some Jewiness from that, you know.
	One of the things I've noticed is really how much of a continuum they're all on together.
	I mean, I agree with you.
	Paul Joseph Watson isn't a fascist in the proper sense.
	But these people, they really are very, very much on the same continuum together.
	I mean, it's almost like you're just sort of changing words around, you know, where they have the same enemies.
	It's just that, you know, the far right, you know, Richard Spencer thinks it's the Jews, whereas, you know, Paul Joseph Watson thinks it's, you know, the Libtards or the Frankfurt School.
	Versus, you know, if you look at someone, you know, kind of more, I mean, Sargon of Akkad just says, you know, it's the communists or the left or what, you know, all these terms are like very nebulous, you know, but they're all sort of referring to the same people.
	I mean, there was a piece that this Fash podcaster, actually a radio host named James Edwards, Who I'll be writing quite considerably about down the line here.
	He's actually a radio host out of Memphis, Tennessee, and he's been hosting a radio show since 2004.
	And he posted a thing on his website several years ago, I think, and kind of references to it.
	And originally it was something like, you know, Look at how the Jewish people are out to destroy the family or something like that.
	And then he sort of got chastised for it.
	He was about to lose his web posting and stuff.
	And he literally just went in and changed the word Jewish to liberal.
	And then suddenly it was fine.
	It was fine.
	You know, it really is just like... The funny thing is the actual far right, the alt-right, People, the anti-Semites, will look at that and say, well, look, you're just not allowed to say anything about the Jews, you know?
	And it just becomes part of the big conspiracy, right?
	Yeah.
	You know, it's just one more piece of evidence that, you know, the Jews control everything.
	And I mean, it would be funny if it wasn't terrifying, you know?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And I think that simple case of just changing some words, That really tells us something, I think, because I think, and I'm saying all these people are on a continuum, I think the main differences between them are aesthetic rather than political.
	You know, the serious difference, well, I mean, as I say, I don't even really think it is a particularly serious difference or a fundamental difference, but the thing that differentiates a Paul Joseph Watson from a Richard Spencer or whatever is simply the version of aesthetics they use.
	Down to word choices, you know.
	Right.
	Like, you know, the fascists take over tomorrow, you know, Paul Joseph Watson isn't going to be, you know, on our side against them, you know.
	We all know whose side he and Alex Jones and people like that and Sargon of Akkad and so on, we all know which side they'd be on if the fascists took power tomorrow, you know.
	What it is, is that at the moment, in the situation as it currently is, they just use different aesthetics.
	They present themselves differently, using different words and a different style.
	That's really the only thing that differentiates these people, I think.
	I mean, formally, they have different ideologies, but the ideologies are so vapid and empty and incoherent that, you know, at that level, the differences are very, very insignificant, I think.
	Yeah, there is a lot to that.
	And I mean, it is sort of one of those things where it's very easy to sort of like, kind of lump.
	You know, when I first started researching it, and I started kind of listening to what they had to say, it was, you know, well, They're all just fucking racists and Nazis and shitheads, right?
	And then, like, the more you start paying attention, the more it becomes, well, no, there are kind of distinct schools of thought within this, you know, kind of world.
	Like, you know, I can differentiate between the, you know, the sort of the National Socialists and the neo-reactionaries and the...
	You know, the various strains start to become more clear, and the various sort of factions even within certain strains.
	You know, what they call the Chad Nationalists versus the, you know, the more kind of hard right, far right guys.
	The Southern Nationalists versus the sort of American Nationalists versus, you know, so there are various strains, and there are very real differences between them.
	I think one of the things that frustrates me is when, you know, people who look into it only a bit do kind of like cram some of these people together.
	And when it might actually be useful to sort of highlight those differences to sort of drive wedges further between them, you know?
	Oh, I see what you mean.
	You mean, yeah, I got you.
	Strategically, if we know the, yeah.
	I mean, I mean, I guess, I guess, you know, in Charlottesville, there was a, in Charlottesville is a major, like, it's probably the single biggest event in the alt-right ever.
	Yeah.
	Even more so than I think the election of Donald Trump.
	Like, in terms of the way that it has really kind of forced these guys to show their true colors.
	It really has sort of developed a lot of the divisions between them.
	But one of the things that, you know, I kind of saw was You know there were multiple groups in Charlottesville and one of the groups a lot of the people who were kind of armed who are kind of standing armed with with Rifles, you know military arms.
	You know the militia groups Most of those guys are actually oath keepers and three percenters well the oath keepers and three percenters as Organizations don't have any more love for the alt-right than you and I do in a lot of ways now a lot of their members are very sympathetic and But they certainly do not like the sort of overt racism, to a large degree.
	Now, we can kind of talk about how, like, that's actually incoherent on their ideology, and I would agree, but certainly what they're telling themselves is, like, these racists do not deserve any of our attention, you know, this is not, you know.
	The people with rifles standing in the middle of the street were trying to stand in between Antifa and the alt-right, to a large degree.
	Despite being probably more sympathetic to some degree to the alt-right than to Antifa, to a large degree.
	But there are distinct differences of who they are and what they believe.
	That's what the Oath Keepers did in...
	Ferguson, wasn't it?
	They paraded around and presented themselves as trying to keep the peace between Black Lives Matter and the cops, didn't they?
	Yeah, they did.
	And I mean, you know, this is not to say, I mean, look, if it comes down to a shooting war, the Oath Keepers are definitely going to take the side of the cops and the alt-right against us and against Black Lives Matter.
	This is, you know, to like a 90-10 degree.
	I mean, you will have some of the Oath Keepers who will not, who will kind of like take the side, take our side.
	But for the most part, these people are sort of materially and ideologically much more sort of aligned with this sort of far-right ideology than with us.
	But for right now, they're certainly not... they don't see themselves as racist.
	And the alt-right, what they're trying to do is to make the Oath Keepers see themselves as racist.
	Yeah.
	And... Are they racists?
	A lot of the rank and file are yes.
	And it's not, I mean, it's not a binary, right?
	You know, it's, it's, it's a, uh, what the propaganda that the alt-right is producing, what all these podcasts are essentially doing is trying to find any bit of sort of racial animus or racial bias or, um, resentment you have in your head and make it and flower it into a full blown response.
	That's, The whole point, because if they can get you to agree with him on race, then they can kind of get at you with some of these more intellectual arguments.
	Intellectual in quotes, obviously.
	But they have a lot of talking points, and the whole thing is to make racism okay again.
	That's the point.
	And the genocide comes later.
	Well it's interesting you say, you know, to make racism okay again, because what we have I'm afraid in, it's an egregious generalisation but I'm going to go for it anyway, what we have at the moment in Western culture is a real cognitive dissonance about this issue, because what we have is a widespread, I mean I think anyway, we have a widespread perception on the part of most people And an acquiescence to this as well.
	It's not just a perception, it's a broad agreement, I think, from at least a large number of people that, you know, quote-unquote, racism is bad, right?
	I think huge numbers of people, probably a majority, in Western societies, you know, they perceive that and they agree with it, right?
	Racism is bad, as a proposition, okay?
	Yeah, and I think what we come down to is we have to then define what racism is, but yes.
	Yes, this is the thing, because they then reason backwards from this.
	Not, what do I do or think that's racist?
	I'm a good person, ergo what I think isn't racist, right?
	Yeah, I mean, I've said this before, what our culture has decided to do about climate change is to teach children in school to draw little pictures of the world, you know, and trees, and with little things on them that say, you know, protect the environment.
	That's been our response to climate change.
	What we've done kind of with racism is the same thing.
	We've decided to all say and believe, to a large extent, racism is bad.
	But not really do anything else.
	And that's an egregious oversimplification and overgeneralization.
	Because, of course, things have changed.
	Things have been done by, you know, millions of people struggling and winning changes and stuff like that.
	But, you know, certainly in terms of mainstream culture, what mainstream culture has learned to do is to, you know, a bit more diverse casting and to disapprove of open racism.
	You know, if somebody says something that's openly racist or can be interpreted that way.
	Well, there's this, and this gets kind of right to a point, is that is, you know, you listen to these guys and they talk and they say, you know, the system is against us because, you know, we're not allowed to say what we really feel about race and what most people actually believe about race.
	And, you know, there is a, you know, lots of people have very negative feelings about other races, you know, and then they feel like they're not allowed to sort of express them publicly because People will look down on them.
	One of their major goals is essentially to move the culture to the point where they no longer have to worry about being looked down upon for saying, well, you know, black people are just inherently more violent.
	Muslims really do commit more terrorist bombings, etc.
	The Jews really are in control of all the banks.
	So what I see is essentially the sort of immediate response, particularly on the right among the sort of, you know, among the libertarians in particular.
	I think that there are libertarians, I have known, I have personally known libertarians who I would consider to be ideologically sort of pure, like actually believe in libertarianism because it is sort of the best, like they have been convinced into it and they actually will sort of support those like
	You know, the sort of the social justice causes, as well as the sort of like property rights, low taxes, you know, campus standard causes, you know, and those people, you know what, you know, to some degree, I will, I can work with those people, you know what I mean?
	We can, we can work with stuff where we agree and kind of disagree on some of the rest and it depends, issue to issue.
	I, I can at least respect that, you know, but I think that the vast majority of people who call themselves libertarians who, um, Don't really care about the sort of personal liberty of people who aren't like them and are not kind of money to propertarians.
	Basically reject the.
	So the rhetoric of the of the far right racist of the of the kind of open racist the explicit racism because it it makes them look bad you know they are essentially virtue signaling right there saying like no no those people are bad and it's also like you know we talked about Mississippi burning not that long ago.
	And sort of the depictions of the Klan and the Nazis.
	It's like, well, you know, the real racists are the people who are, you know, making black people use a separate bathroom or a separate water fountain.
	Or, you know, like, well, I'm not, like, burning all the Jews alive, so therefore I'm certainly not a racist, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	You know, racism means that sort of low-class, trailer-part hick, you know, saying the N-word, as opposed to Uh, you know, systemic oppression or just sort of like kind of personal implicit bias.
	So there's a lot to kind of unpack.
	I mean, you can ask me, are they racist?
	And I guess I should have kind of gotten into this then, because it does kind of depend on what you mean by racism, because racism isn't really about a person.
	It's really about this sort of system.
	It's about the.
	Exactly.
	Racism is not a system of ideas.
	It's a system of power relationships.
	everything is white supremacy.
	Exactly.
	Racism is not a system of ideas.
	It's a system of power relationships.
	It's about white supremacy.
	Right, right.
	But, you know, there is a sense in which the entire right wing, and this is not just the alt-right, this is all of them, sort of rely on this sort of nebulousness or nebulosity.
	Nebulosity?
	Can we say that?
	Yeah?
	Yeah.
	Of the term racism and, and kind of rely on, you know, this sort of a fifth grade understanding.
	There's a lot of, this is one of my big, like, you know, pet peeves these days is, you know, people kind of sort of relying on this sort of basic grade school education of like very complex topics.
	Yeah.
	This is why the writers are so dead set against any proper education on these topics getting into the education system.
	They don't want people to have clarity on these issues.
	Well, and they don't want there to be subtlety, right?
	They don't want to approach these things with any level of complexity, because once you start sort of asking complicated questions, or once you start kind of exploring things in more depth, then suddenly these sort of like simple-minded bumper sticker solutions don't make sense anymore.
	Yeah.
	But it takes a while to kind of explain, well, no, there's systemic racism, there's sort of implicit bias, That kind of racism.
	And then there's kind of like open, you know, people saying bad things and hanging people from trees kind of racism.
	And these things are, you know, there, there are kind of, there's a Venn diagram.
	These things are all sort of interconnected and they kind of feed on each other.
	But like when we use the word racism, you know, they, it's, it's, they, the right gets to just sort of define that term.
	However it makes their, you know, However, it makes the left look the worst, essentially.
	Aesthetics, again.
	And to loop back, this is what I was getting at with the, you know, well, you mentioned the Oath Keepers, although I think, if I can be a little bit smug for a minute, I mentioned the Oath Keepers in one of my Feces on Trump articles way back at the start of the, you know, before he was even inaugurated.
	I said that they were, you know, they and things like them were the possible germ of a future, you know, street fighting movement, which is always a part of Which is always a part of fascism.
	And I definitely agree with that.
	Especially to the degree that Trump... The Oath Keepers love Trump even more than the alt-right loves Trump at this point.
	Yeah?
	Yeah.
	I don't actually know all that much about them, I have to say, except that they seemed, at the time, because of their presence on the streets in Ferguson, they seemed emblematic of a particular way in which a particular kind of militarized, right-wing, cultic behavior in America could possibly develop.
	So, why do they, I mean, just to finish my thought about the aesthetics there, you say that they don't, at least most of them, don't like the overt racism.
	That's an aesthetic thing, isn't it?
	And of course it depends upon their understanding of that term as well.
	It's not just other people's understanding of that term and how it affects how they see them.
	It's about their own understanding of that term.
	And then you were talking about how the alt-right are trying to, you know, manipulate that themselves.
	But yeah, why do the, um, why do the Oath Keepers like Trump so much?
	Well, they like any Republican president because Republican presidents tell them the pretty things about, you know, faith and freedom and the flag and, uh, you know, raw and America's great.
	And, uh, you know, there is this, um, this is actually a term, uh, and, you know, I'm, it's something that actually makes a lot of sense in terms of, uh, kind of understanding, but this is something I'm getting from a lot of the, Sort of the alt-right who considers themselves white nationalists versus the civic nationalists.
	Sort of the civic nationalists in this kind of phraseology are people who believe that, well, I mean, if you're a citizen of the United States, you can be anybody, any color, any creed, any whatever, so long as you kind of follow the rules and you say you want to be an American and you follow the
	Sort of process by which becoming an American or British person or you know Japanese or whatever you are now part of that group and you're one of us and we are with you and that's you know that sort of idea now that only goes so far because they sure don't like you know people who disagree with them politically they don't like the left they don't like you know.
	Communists or socialists or even liberals.
	I mean, they're still a very kind of right-wing conservative movement.
	So you delve down into this far enough, you eventually reach the white supremacy, don't you?
	Because they're saying, you know, if you integrate into society as it is, Then that's fine.
	You can be part of our civic nationalist community.
	But that entails, of course, integrating into a system that's inherently white supremacist.
	And if you take any part in any politics that challenges that, then you're out of the vault.
	Right, right.
	It's all about saying, like, we define our vault as being people who have chosen to be sort of like, you know, middle Americans.
	People who have sort of Gone through that process and you can be any color so long as you like have a house in the suburbs and, you know, vote for vote for the Republican candidate and keep the taxes low and are not one of those like awful communists or, you know, queer people or whatever, you know, complain about, you know, the current inequalities of society, the current injustices of society that The fact that you're more likely to be shot.
	But you know, if you're a black person, you can be part of our civic community, and we're absolutely fine with that.
	Just don't complain if our cops, you know, are far more likely to shoot you.
	Right.
	I mean, whereas the alt-right is much more kind of explicitly about, like, Yeah.
	We have to go based on genetic averages.
	All of this is in quotes, please.
	This is not what I believe, I'm just describing their belief.
	I'm trying to avoid the language because it's so much easier to just say it the way that they say it.
	But we're gonna be nice here.
	We're going to avoid the racial slurs.
	We'll have put a trigger warning on this as well.
	Still, I'll try to keep it to a minimum.
	But the whole point is, you know, the idea is that it doesn't matter, you know, the talented tenth of black people, their terms, okay, again, you know, When you, when you have like that sort of, uh, you know, based black guy in a MAGA hat, you know, that's a, that's, that's one of the talented 10th.
	He's one of the good ones.
	He's, you know, high agency, quote unquote, all these are like, they have like special definitions within, uh, within this world, you know, but you know, this, this guy with a, with a low time preference, he's high agency and he's got his shit together.
	And so he, you might think he's one of you and Hey, you can have a black friend, but ultimately.
	These people and their kids and all of this, they're just going to come in and eventually they're just going to regress to the mean, the black mean.
	And that's lower IQ and higher time preference.
	And they're just going to make our country Africa.
	And that's when we got to keep them out.
	And I feel bad about that, but that's what we have to do.
	And that's, that's essentially the argument.
	I mean, you know, in a nutshell, that's it.
	And so, and so it's like, you can't, it's, it's biological, it's social, construction, constructivism as defined by genetics.
	You know, it's, it's, it's that, that's exactly what it is.
	And it took me a while to just sort of like say, you're really, you're really that stupid.
	You're really ignoring everything that we know about history and culture and sociology in favour of this not-even-accurate genetics?
	These sorts of arguments, they always rely on amputating history.
	They always rely on amnesia, forgetting loads of other stuff happened.
	You get people saying, Oh, well, you know, I'm not a racist.
	I'm just recognizing there are such things as, you know, genetic differences between people.
	Like, for instance, you know, Asian people are high scorers in academic, you know, exams and stuff like that.
	And, you know, that ignores a huge amount of, you know, historical context.
	There are very, very Material reasons for things like that, you know, which anybody who, basic common sense, you can, you can, even if you don't know anything about it, you can guess at the reasons, or you should be able to.
	Guess at the reasons why there might be a statistical higher average for academic attainment in certain communities.
	These sorts of things, even if you don't know the details, you should be able to guess at the sort of thing that's going on.
	You know why you believe that, though, Jack?
	You know why you kind of think that's true?
	Do tell, do tell.
	It's because the Jews have gotten to you.
	Yeah, must have been.
	I mean, you've been brainwashed by this, like, kind of Jewish media that is trying to convince you not to believe the evidence of your eyes.
	Yeah.
	And I mean, look at Japan.
	They've got lots of, like, wealth and power.
	And then look at Africa, and these are people living in mud huts, obviously.
	So clearly, you know, Japanese are just better.
	Western imperialism had no effect whatsoever on African economic development, you know, and social development.
	Exactly.
	And of course they have arguments that go around and around on that, you know.
	Of course they do, of course they do.
	And it's startling and dismaying how, if you know anything about the history of Western colonialism and imperialism in Africa, how completely these people are just Recycling the same old shit that Cecil Rhodes was saying, you know, and people like him.
	Because there's nothing new under the sun.
	But one of the interesting things... I mean, Richard Spencer is an open colonialist right now.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, I have some audio where he was, you know, saying, you know, hey, I'm in favor of mint julep colonialism.
	We're just going to take these countries over and we're just going to rule as You know, landlords drinking juleps in our hats all day.
	I mean, you know, and he's, you know, there is a sort of jokey tone there, but I mean, he means it.
	Like, he's totally like, you know, we're going to build our ethnostate and in a couple hundred years we're just going to come back out and we're going to rule all these people and it's going to be better for them.
	And that's what Spencer believes.
	That jokey tone, of course, is very key to the aesthetics, again, the aesthetics of the alt-right.
	It's very key to that.
	Sort of the delivery of Outrageous, disgusting things, but with a sort of a knowing smile and a wink and a nod, you know?
	Right.
	With all these sort of layers of, I'm kidding, I'm not, except that I am, except that I'm not.
	You know, all tied up in it.
	It's very much part of their shtick, so to speak.
	But no, I mean, that kind of race realist stuff, as they call it, it's actually race fantasist.
	They also call it Human Biodiversity, that's another term.
	Yeah, HBD.
	It's absolutely, you know, right-libertarianism or paleo-libertarianism is absolutely soaked in this, right?
	Arguably it came out of that same kind of school of thought, from my understanding.
	I think it did.
	A whole lot of it at least was popularized by, I mean, if you look at the sort of original writers, sort of the J. Philip Rushton And some of the other guys whose names I'm forgetting off the top of my head.
	Going right back, some of it kind of comes out of the 50s and 60s.
	I mean, basically people funded by people who are also funding the Klan, who are sort of academics.
	And then you find, kind of later on in the 90s, you get some of these guys who were moving in the same circles, who, it's less a sort of causation, sort of like, you know, one thing leads to the other, as much as sort of a web of connections, and that's what I kind of find.
	That's kind of what I wanted us to kind of talk about a little bit, because some of the same names are coming up for both of us.
	Yeah, we've kind of converged on similar things from different angles, haven't we?
	You from very much the fascist far-right, and me from the Austrian school, and then thus into libertarianism.
	Right.
	But yeah, no, the alt-right absolutely grows out of paleo-libertarianism.
	It's probably simplest to say that It's simply rebranded paleolibetarianism because I don't think it is.
	No, there are.
	Yeah, there are.
	It certainly grows out of it and a lot of the rhetoric just, you know, I mean, it really is just a new paint job on an old thing.
	Yeah, there are definitely distinctions.
	I mean, the most fundamental one is that libertarianism is, it's completely about unrestricted free trade across borders.
	Whereas the alt-right is very much... But what they've done is they've taken pretty much everything... Because one of the interesting things about the libertarian attitude to this is that they are completely pro-free trade.
	But they are very ambivalent about a free movement of peoples.
	Like Ron Paul.
	In an interview that he did for V-Dare, which is an extreme right wing website.
	It's actually named after Virginia Dare, who was the first white child born in what is now the United States.
	Exactly, yeah.
	And it's a website, it's a far, it's an extreme libertarian website run by a guy called Peter Brimelow, who's a white supremacist and so on.
	And he did it, Ron Paul did an interview with VDARE where he talks about this.
	And it's fascinating to watch the contortions of the position, you know, because he wants a sort of a free trade in labor.
	Across the border, for instance, the Mexico border, you know, but he wants it on free trade grounds, but he sort of goes into all these contortions where, because obviously he doesn't actually want to be in favour of immigration.
	So it's about, yeah, let them come over here and then they can go back, you know, stuff like this.
	Well, that's the whole thing, like, we have, I mean, we do the, like, temporary work permits, you know?
	Like, yeah, you can come over and you can work for a while.
	And I mean, the interesting thing with the sort of the real alt-right is they don't even want that.
	I mean, you know, most of them will say, well, if you want to come and, like, be a tourist, you know, if you want to come and take pictures of our pretty stuff and then leave, that's probably okay.
	But they're explicitly, you know, What did he get into?
	Having guest workers from another country, A, they don't leave, and B, even if they do, what they're doing is driving down wages for real Americans.
	Or they're making it so that we're not developing more technology because if we didn't have the cheap labor source, then agribusinesses would just build machines that picked those fruits for us.
	laughs Which, I mean, there's actually probably some truth to that, quite honestly.
	I mean, you know, let's not pretend that global capitalism is not relying on these basically slave labor, brown people, for a reason.
	Yeah, like a lot of things, they sort of stumble upon a kernel of truth and then they completely fail to see, A, that it's actually a lot more complicated than that, and B, you know, evidence of barbarism.
	And, like, why blame the, like, poor Mexican migrant for the fact that, like, agribusiness isn't, you know, investing in better technology?
	Well, that's foundational as well.
	You blame the powerless, you blame the victim, essentially.
	In his Principles of the Alt-Right, Vox Dei actually makes this distinction.
	He says the alt-right is in favor of intranational free trade, but not international free trade, which is fascinating.
	And international free trade is, of course, Absolutely.
	A libertarian principle.
	So there's a distinct discontinuity there.
	And there's a... I can't remember who it was.
	I think it was Geoffrey Tucker.
	He actually wrote an entire thing about how libertarianism is different to the alt-right.
	The interesting thing there to me is that if you have to do that in the first place, then there's obviously a similarity.
	You know, if you have to go to pains to disambiguate yourself from something else, then obviously there's an extent to which you're similar.
	And What's interesting, I mean, Vox Dei does this.
	Vox Dei talks about how the alt-right is an alternative to libertarianism, right?
	Well, an alternative isn't a negation or a contradiction, is it?
	It's an alternative.
	It's something you can have instead of something else.
	It's not, you know, if you like seafood, you can have lobster, or you can have crab.
	The crab is the alternative to the lobster.
	There's still a fundamental similarity.
	And loads of these people talk about getting to where they are.
	Mikey Knox says this.
	Christopher Cantwell says this.
	Cantwell still describes himself as primarily a libertarian.
	Cantwell talks about the non-aggression principle to absolutely absurd ends.
	He is straight up libertarian like he's trying to justify his desire to like genocide everyone but white people through his libertarian principles which is fascinating and I we can talk about that if you like I can't well as tiresome to me because I'm just so sick he produces I mean he's producing an hours of the content a day from jail right now.
	Yeah.
	And I just have, I just can't listen to it all.
	It's just, there's just no, even at like high speed playback.
	Yeah.
	But Cantwell is sort of fascinating in general, in theory, but in practice he is just so tiresome and so hateful and so disgusting a human being that it's just difficult to bring myself to spend too much time thinking too hard about him.
	Absolutely fair enough.
	The only point I wanted to make about him as a general one, which is that like a lot of these people, like Mike Enoch and like Menachus Moldbug, the founder of Neo-Reaction, if you please, he talks about, and loads of them do this, that he talks about getting to where he is now, his current politics, via sort of transcending libertarianism.
	This is the sort of language they keep on using.
	I kept finding this as I was reading them.
	They keep on talking about how I transcended libertarianism, or I developed from libertarianism, etc, etc, etc.
	So, and as I point this out in the essay, the Austrians essay, another thing I point out in that is the fact that the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory It's right across this spectrum, and you can see that on YouTube, right the way from the soft people over to the hard people.
	Some version of it.
	We've talked about this before, like Paul Joseph Watson.
	He's engaging in all this stuff, the Great Replacement and Cultural Marxism and all that stuff.
	He's not necessarily using those terms, or he's peddling it more softly.
	I think he does actually talk about the Frankfurt School.
	Oh yeah, the Frankfurt School.
	I think Great Replacement, that's a little bit harder.
	I haven't heard him say that.
	I would not be surprised if he says it, but usually that's slightly further than the Infowars crowd is willing to go.
	But this is the point.
	He's talking about the same thing.
	Right, well he'll just say the West, as opposed to, you know, replacement.
	Like, he won't talk about demographics, so to say, Western culture is under attack by cultural Marxists.
	And really what he means is, white people are under attack by the Jews.
	Exactly!
	And they will couch these pretty much exactly the same quote-unquote arguments at different levels of intensity.
	Right the way across this spectrum, you know, from the classical liberals, so to speak, like Sargon, all the way across to the really hard-right people.
	And really, I think what we're looking at here is not a difference in anything other than aesthetics.
	It's a difference in terms of what level of aesthetic openness about what you're doing you're prepared to engage in.
	Tactically.
	And a lot of it, of course, is down to which particular audience they're pitching to, because some of them are making a lot of money from this, and they're doing it by pitching a certain kind of product to a certain kind of audience, you know?
	And of course, another thing they can do is they know that if they pitch it at a certain level, they can sell to people past a certain level of political radicalism, you know, on the right, and then everybody beyond that.
	So, because the full-on fascists will buy stuff, so to speak, literally or figuratively, even if it's couched in relatively mild, coded dog-whistly language, because they know what actually is being said.
	This is one of the things that's fascinating to what people like Lauren Southern are getting up to, and stuff like that.
	Stephen Molyneux.
	Stephen Molyneux as well, yeah.
	But, I mean, he's a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about, because he is absolutely a right-wing libertarian.
	I mean, he's a narco-capitalist or whatever.
	I mean, I actually find the distinctions between all these different things pretty uninteresting, because to me it's very random, because they all have their own definitions of what they're talking about, and the things they're talking about are very, very similar to the point of being near-identical anyway.
	But right the way across the spectrum you see it, and YouTube is a perfect place to actually see this, you see libertarianism in one form or another.
	And that to me, I mean I think there was a Daily Beast article talking about this, the fact that libertarians are so heavily represented, or former libertarians, or people who say, you know, I got to the alt-right via libertarianism or whatever, they're so heavily represented in the alt-right, despite the fact that there's far fewer libertarians in America than there are conservatives.
	You know, that tells you something as well, I think.
	And the fact that you've got people like Cantwell talking about getting to race realism, I'm not sure if he actually uses that term, but I mean, I read this article by him and that's absolutely what he's talking about.
	He's talking about race realism, which is the kind of thing you were talking about, how, you know, genetic, you know, hierarchies between black people and white people and stuff like that, they call that realism.
	He talks about pretty much openly getting there via Rothbard, you know?
	Yeah.
	Well, and that's kind of where, I mean, the term in a lot of ways was sort of birthed in that kind of Rothbardian era, in that kind of mid-90s.
	I mean, I remember seeing it when I was browsing Stormfront forums back in the 90s, honestly, was kind of the first time I ever ran across it.
	My shameful past is that I was a teenage libertarian because I was kind of edgy and leaned towards the right, you know?
	And in 1997, the way to do that was to get really into Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein and, you know, like...
	That's sort of the, you know, that was me being an edgy teenager.
	That was who I was.
	And then once you sort of start, like, thinking about that to any degree, and I guess sort of science fiction sort of helps me with this, you know, in terms of kind of giving us thought experiments that, like, where this doesn't make any sense.
	And it's not difficult to find internal contradictions in Ayn Rand, let's just put it that way.
	Not in the slightest.
	Without even knowing anything about her life.
	The thing that's interesting to me about Ayn Rand is that she's always touted as, and including by herself, as this great pro-capitalist philosopher.
	And she doesn't really, I don't think she really knows anything about capitalism at all.
	I don't think she's really actually interested in capitalism.
	When you read Ayn Rand, it's far more about, it's like she's got a sort of domination fetish.
	That's what she had definitely has that it It reads far more to me like she's sort of being excited by all these games of abuse and domination between essentially horrible people.
	She's far more interested in that than she is actually anything resembling capitalism.
	It comes down to the same idea and I'm not trying to gainsay you there because I agree.
	She's so interested in sort of This ideal of this, the ideal man, quote unquote, with a capital M. And that's, that's almost exactly the terms that she uses.
	It's been a long time since I've read a lot of Ayn Rand, but she's so interested in this sort of idea of this sort of prime mover of these great men of history and that we should all aspire to be that thing.
	And that the thing that gets in our way of that is, are the moochers, you know, and the state and, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
	Um, and she's so interested in that aesthetically.
	She's so in love with that idea that it's sort of, I mean, she's not talking about like sort of, uh, you know, capital accumulation in terms of, you know, and in a material sense, it's just about like, well, we've got to let these, these strong men do exactly what they need to do and to be selfish because the rest of us will benefit from it.
	Like the world will benefit from it.
	And this is the way things should be with, you know, capital S, capital B, these are the way things should be.
	Right.
	But again, that's aesthetics, isn't it?
	She has chosen a political position based on the fact that she has associated a political system, or an economic system, or at least the idea of it, with a certain set of aesthetics that she finds appealing.
	I hate ideology as biography or biography as ideology, but I would give her the slightest bit of credit in that if you grew up in Stalinist Russia, anything that smacked of quote-unquote collectivism probably left a bad taste in your mouth.
	Yeah, this is one of the problems I had talking and writing about the Austrian school.
	This isn't unique to them, but they are absolutely insistent upon their view of socialism as being, you know, rigidly authoritarian, centralised command economies.
	And, you know, as much as I think that is a deeply mistaken view of socialism, and it's certainly not what Marx was talking about, you have to admit that the history of what, you know, most people called socialism, including, you know, most socialists during the 20th century, You know, that gives them some warrant for that.
	So this is one of the difficult things, because there is a very real sense in which the things they are arguing against and calling socialism were real things.
	Yes, absolutely.
	And I mean, again, that's sort of one of those... I mean, it's very easy, I think, to overlook.
	You know, I'm against totalitarianism wherever it comes from.
	Yes.
	You know, it's not...
	You know, we're not tankies on the show, and I'm not going to, you know, criticize the Nazis without also saying, yeah, the Holodomor was also really, really atrociously bad.
	And yet, so many on the left seem to kind of negate that point, or kind of, you know, well, Holocaust denial is disgusting, but, you know, oh, Stalin, Stalin didn't mean it, you know.
	Yeah.
	That's a difficult, that's a difficult That's a difficult conversation to have because there are these sort of like niggling technical things that can kind of get in the way of like, well, what really happened in the Holodomor, etc.
	And then there's a lot of propaganda that's making that into even worse than it already was.
	And I'm not kind of historically competent to discuss those issues.
	But let's just say I'm no one to sort of defend totalitarianism on What's nominally considered the left any more than I am for the right, and I think that's worth pointing out at this point.
	Yeah, and I'd like to completely agree with that.
	I totally abjure totalitarianism.
	Not actually a term I'm fond of in terms of political theory, but we'll go with it for now.
	I'm completely, you know, because it's, we all know what we're talking about, those sorts of regimes.
	I have no truck with them whatsoever, even if they call themselves socialist, you know.
	I think the usual account of where they came from and how they came about and what they meant and why they did what they did is deeply flawed.
	And I could have an argument with just about anybody on that topic, but at no point would my side of the argument be anything remotely resembling a defence.
	On the contrary, the political tradition that I consider myself a part of has been ruthlessly critical of every regime of that type.
	So just to be clear about that.
	Right, absolutely.
	I have no truck whatsoever with any sort of Soviet Union apologetics.
	And some people might be about to cry, you've currently got a hammer and sickle in your Twitter handle, Jack.
	Yeah, the hammer and sickle was also used by, for instance, the POUM in the Spanish Civil War.
	You know, the Stalinists don't own the hammer and sickle.
	That's all I'll say there.
	Right.
	But that's taken us way off topic.
	That has taken us way off topic.
	But I think a worthwhile thing to say in this conversation.
	Yeah, I think it needs to be said, doesn't it?
	Unfortunately.
	No, please continue.
	Yeah, I can't remember.
	From that, before that particular Blind alley.
	We were in the Ayn Rand blind alley, weren't we?
	How did we get there?
	Yes, yes.
	Down that Ayn Rand rabbit hole.
	Yeah.
	Which, you know, I guess what we would say is, you know, despite sort of being the... I think she wrote a book that was called, like, In Defense of Capitalism or something?
	Yeah.
	I'm not sure what woman called it In Defense of Selfishness, but she's not much... and this is something that I think it is worth just sort of elucidating.
	Maybe we can get somewhere with it as well.
	I mean, it does seem like when the Austrians, or when sort of the libertarians, the sort of the ground-level libertarians that you just kind of find on Twitter or Facebook or whatever, because we know that these movements only exist online, right?
	Yeah, pretty much, yeah.
	You know, their defenses of capitalism seem to, you know, well, colonialism wasn't capitalism, and like slavery wasn't capitalism, and what they mean by capitalism is just, you know, like free people trading with one another.
	And and I it is it is this sort of thing where you know, you will you've defined a it's completely a historical I mean, it's almost like what we want to do is we want to start from now and just sort of forget history and then just like Remove any kind of like state action and then just kind of like everybody go from here where I already have a whole lot of advantages, you know and there's no sense of You know, let's look at where
	You know, my wealth has come from, you know, which, you know, built up over time through capital accumulation on the top, on the literally the broken backs of brown people, likely.
	Yeah.
	So the sort of ahistoricity is something that comes up over and over again, really, whenever you're talking about the right, it seems to be this fundamental refusal to look at anything that happened more than, I mean, 50 years ago, at most.
	Yeah, and to strip everything of its social and historical and material context.
	It's not just that they refuse to talk about the past, they refuse to talk about anything in the present as if it has a past.
	It's absolutely fundamental to the writers, you say, the ahistoricity of it.
	I mean, this has been said before, but they just You know, anything that's wrong with the system, they say, oh, well, that's because of... We're not in favour of corporate capitalism, we're in favour of the free market.
	And then you say, well, what about... Well, they say, well, I mean, look at the amount of prosperity that capitalism has brought.
	You mean corporate capitalism?
	They're incapable of holding a coherent position.
	And that's part of how they...
	The really clever ones will say, well, even the flawed, imperfect corporate capitalism brings so much wealth.
	Imagine what the real thing will bring!
	Yeah, which is, again, another thing that's so startling about these people is how much they resemble Stalinists and tankies, because they say things like that as well.
	They say, oh, well, you know, okay, we can agree there were problems with the Soviet Union, you know, but even so, look at what it achieved in terms of industrialization and stuff like that.
	Yeah, okay.
	There's this sort of desire, and this isn't unique to the right, as we've kind of brought up a couple of times, but it's this desire to sort of define away any kind of negatives.
	To sort of define your terms so that anything negative doesn't count.
	And then, but all the positive things that you can, you know, that come out of this kind of historical process are all because of the, you know, so capitalism, well, you know, it's free trade and look at what free trade brings and look at, you know, oh, people in impoverished countries being brought out of, you know, poverty through Like a lot of bullshit, it has a germ of truth.
	You know, that's all bullshit, obviously.
	But, I mean, you know, sometimes you can find one where it's like, okay, maybe that's, you know, some philanthropist did something, you know, etc.
	You know, built a well in the middle of a, you know.
	Like a lot of bullshit, it has a germ of truth.
	You know, I mean, capitalism does develop.
	It does create progress.
	It does develop the productive forces.
	It does create wealth.
	And, you know, it has created enormous prosperity and enormous technical advances and stuff like that.
	I mean, you know, there is more literacy, there is longer life expectancy, there is better health, etc.
	etc.
	in the world because of capitalism.
	And, you know, one of the first people to point this out was Karl Marx.
	You know, he's absolutely... you read the Communist Manifesto, bits of it are kind of almost rhapsodic about capitalism.
	He's talking about how amazing it is, you know.
	You could probably cry shenanigans with me, because I'm saying, well, they just define capitalism any way they like, and I've just gotten through saying, you know, well, the horrible totalitarian regimes, they weren't really socialist, you know.
	But I actually, I can actually tell you precisely why, you know, that those regimes weren't anything resembling what, you know, the founders of socialism thought of as social.
	You know, I can tell you coherently why, and I can actually tell you pretty coherently why those regimes were actually capitalist.
	So, I do think it's different.
	Well, I think the difference is that the criticisms of capitalism come from understanding of what capitalism actually is.
	Well, I hope so!
	Whereas the criticisms of communism come from a through-a-glass-and-darkly version of communism.
	I don't call myself a communist, but I can get along with communists.
	I feel like – I mean, there is this sort of human quality to sort of like, well, I don't have to deal with the bad things that happen in history because, well, I'm not in favor of those things, you know?
	But if we're trying to think systematically about sort of what a political system should look like and kind of what the world should look like, it means at least examining those things.
	And I feel like the sort of the response of sort of libertarians.
	You know, who will sort of quote Rothbard will sort of like come straight and, you know, kind of give this Austrian school vulgarization, at least that I ran into when you say, well, yeah, what about colonialism?
	Colonialism was done by the state.
	That was state activity.
	That doesn't count.
	OK, what about slavery?
	Well, slavery was allowed by the state.
	Yeah, but it was like private businesses and individuals owned people.
	Like, even if it was allowed by the state, that's still like.
	You know, private activity made that happen.
	And, uh, you know, why do you, you know, the state was, you know, it's almost like they just sort of use the state as a, um, as this sort of catch all bad guy where, you know, it's, it's literally just like, Oh, I can look at anything in history that went badly and then find the state, find like there's some state activity happening somewhere.
	And I put my finger that you see there and see there was state activity going on.
	Therefore the state was responsible for all of it.
	Yeah.
	Or the government, or, you know, whatever.
	And then, you know, again, we don't have to talk about, you know, the state as a... I'm ill-defining the state here, but, you know, it just becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card, exactly.
	No, you're doing fine, because you're just describing the way they use it, and the way they use it is ill-defined.
	I mean, they don't have a... The immediate next question there is, okay, so you're positing that there's the capitalist system, which is great.
	And then there's this thing called the state which keeps on appearing next to it and fucking it up, right?
	Well, why does that happen?
	Where does it come from?
	You know?
	They don't have an answer for this.
	And of course the truth is that that's not how it works at all.
	The truth is that you can't analyze these things as if they're completely separate.
	Like you have capitalism here and then you have the state there and it just happens to be there.
	You know, capitalism simply would not exist without strong states.
	You know, one of the reasons why it was able to develop in Europe was because it developed out of European feudalism, which was based on, you know, um, relatively strong centralized nation states that were, that were, that were arguing with each other and had military strength and stuff like that.
	You know, it's, it's like saying, well, if only, if only we could turn the clock back and have, you know, have rerun the rise of capitalism, but without the states.
	It wouldn't happen.
	Yeah, and capitalism today can't survive without the state.
	You know, the state props it up, and the truth is that it does that because it's fundamentally part of the same social system, you know?
	Exactly, yeah.
	But you try to get into stuff like that with these people.
	Like, you know, Hayek's view of what the state is, is basically, it's like an expression of the fact that because there's so many people who are employed, they have the whip hand over the employers.
	Like, that's his explanation.
	That's it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You know, well, gee, there are so many of them, they could just like, you know, band together and then just quit.
	And then where would the employer be?
	Well, that's kind of our point.
	Gee, wouldn't it be nice?
	I mean, I've literally heard... I mean, you know, this is Hans Hermann Hoppe, Democracy, the God That Failed, which is a book I have not read, but it comes up a lot in these circles.
	I haven't read it either.
	Hans Hermann Hoppe was one of the sort of...
	One of the rabbit holes that I never quite fell into, if you know what I mean, in the research of the Austrian school.
	I sort of familiarized myself with him, basically, because I realized I had to.
	But, like, there could well have been, from my cursory look at him, there could well have been an entire, separate, several thousand word section about this motherfucker, you know?
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, he may end up being a kind of bigger part of mine, just because He's not only, he's central to the Neo-Reactionaries, which is sort of a sideline, sort of one of the nebulous pieces of the alt-right, but Cantwell himself actually says that Hoppe was sort of the big, like, the big, like, moment that started him in this direction towards, say, towards Nazism, for lack of a better word.
	Cantwell likes to make the give leftists helicopter rides jokes, which apparently he gets that from Hoppe.
	Did Hoppe make that joke?
	I think I read somewhere that Cantwell gets it from Hoppe.
	I'm not sure.
	I'd have to look that up.
	Okay, well, Cantwell gets a whole lot of it.
	Hoppe was sort of the beginning of his turn away from a lot of the libertarian movement as it existed at the time.
	Basically, he says, you know, geez, all these so-called libertarians were more interested in gay marriage and trans He doesn't say this.
	Transgender bathrooms, he uses a different term for that.
	And not about basic property rights.
	And really, as libertarians, we should be interested in property rights.
	And then he starts quoting Hoppe, and he says, you know, Hoppe, basically, and this is, again, a sort of vulgarization of Hoppe, and I haven't read Hoppe.
	I'm probably going to have to read it.
	But the argument basically goes that democracy fails because The many can just sort of vote themselves the resources of the few.
	Yeah.
	You know, that one, quote unquote, producer, you know, who owns the, uh, the factory and then, you know, a thousand factory workers and they can just vote themselves or they can just take by force.
	And what we need is a system that, um, allows the productive and the strong to continue to be productive and strong so that they can keep making stuff.
	And then we just get meritocracy.
	That's where it just comes from, you know, that comes for the, Not for the sort of the the distorting thing of the state, we would just have strong people making stuff and then like you just everybody would just sort of filter into you know kind of where they naturally belong based on their abilities and isn't that what we want?
	Yeah, that you know and Matt comes pretty much directly from Austrian economics.
	Yeah, yeah, no absolutely absolutely.
	I mean in a way Hoppe is sort of a a kind of a return to those ideas and more he sort of Taking away the craft, and in that sense, I definitely think that Hoppe is more on line with those kind of original ideas than a lot of the people, a lot of the other kind of writers within the libertarian movement, certainly more than like Ayn Rand.
	You know, Ayn Rand, as we've said, is not a particularly.
	Good, uh, capitalist, you know, she's, she's after a different game.
	Um, but yeah, no, I, I think, I think there is, there is something to that.
	And, um, this sort of idea that like, well, you know, absent the state, absent this sort of outside interference, then, uh, people will just sort of, uh, survive on their own wits and like the goodwill, you know, the right people will live.
	And of course the right people means people who are best adept, who are most like me.
	And then that leads kind of inexorably if you're a, uh, You know, once you kind of accept that, like, sort of racial realism, human biodiversity shit, suddenly it's like, well, of course black people are, they live in mud huts and, you know, they don't have running water because they're just genetically inferior to us.
	And any attempt to make them more like us is just going to cost all our resources and we're just going to get dragged down to their level.
	Yeah.
	Well, it all stems fundamentally from the desire, like all reactionary politics, as Corey Robin has pointed out, it's all fundamentally a coalition around the defence of privilege.
	Reactionary politics is always basically that at the bottom, that's what it is.
	And what, I mean, you know, in a capitalist society, that is fundamentally the defense of capitalist private property.
	Now, what they're doing is, when they extrapolate into these imaginary utopias into the future, you know, Ancapistan or whatever you want to call it, they're imagining, like, what if everything I like about the world as it is were made perfect, you know, like the world now, but turn up to 11, you know, better, purged, you know.
	Purged of all the inferiors, right?
	Yeah, pretty much.
	But what they have to do, because everybody wants to think that their preferred version of the world is fair, right?
	So if it's the world as it stands that you think is fair, and of course you're very likely to think the world as it stands is fair if you're a, you know, a white guy with a fair amount of money, you know, and that's an incentive actually to deciding that the world as it stands is fair.
	If you're doing okay, that's a reason why you want to believe that.
	Why is it that in this world that it's fair that, you know, all is for the best and in this the best of all possible worlds, why is it that there are some people who don't have as much as me?
	Well, obviously, it's because they don't deserve to have as much as me.
	And you look at the fact that, you know, a lot of the people who don't have as much as you have browner skin.
	And rather than, you know, delve into the actual material social history of why that is, because, and this is the interesting thing, People don't look because they know they're not going to like what they see.
	So on one level, they do know, you know, this isn't this is another topic.
	And they don't listen.
	I just want to interject here briefly.
	They don't want to hear it.
	Because they think, well, you're just trying to guilt me out of something.
	You're just trying to make me feel bad.
	That's a defense mechanism.
	That's an ego defense mechanism.
	I mean, people do that in their private lives.
	Why are you getting at me?
	It's just extrapolated politics.
	But they, so the obvious thing to do is you say, well okay, if that's where they are, then that's obviously where they deserve to be, that's the only place they can be.
	So, and you know, you amputate history again, you don't look at why people of colour are generally speaking impoverished and marginalized in Western capitalist societies.
	You don't look at why that is, because you're going to find out that Western capitalist societies are basically built on the exploitation and the oppression, not to mention the slavery and genocide of people like that and their ancestors.
	You don't look into it.
	So you just generalize from now.
	You just say, well, they're there now.
	That must be where they've always been, where they're supposed to be.
	You know, and that's how you end up with them, with race realism.
	There's a direct line from the desire to defend existing property relations through to the conclusion that if black people are in a ghetto, that's the only place black people can be.
	And when they, when they extrapolate that into the future, that's basically all they're doing.
	They're extrapolating that.
	They're saying that, you know, it's just going to be like that, but more so.
	And quite right too.
	That's the attitude.
	I often think of the adjective Panglossian with these guys.
	Yeah, totally.
	My nose is where it is because my glasses are designed to fit.
	Yes!
	Exactly!
	You know, people are in ghettos because, you know, that's just the way the world is, you know, and some people, you know, some people use the religious language for that.
	But I mean, and this is the thing that like kind of started fascinating me the longer I Listen to this, the longer I kind of studied the propaganda and sort of reading where all this, where so it came from, is that none of this is new.
	You know, the same arguments were being made, you know, 200 years ago.
	Yeah.
	You know, in defense of slavery.
	I mean, this whole, you know, it's just they've got a more sophisticated language and they've got more sort of, sort of, they've got people who will, you know, kind of fit it together a little bit better and kind of give you a more kind of internally consistent worldview based on it.
	But ultimately, they're arguing because of the way they feel about the world and the way that they, you know, it's all intellectual justification, ultimately, you know, and that's, and that's something that's, you know, if you're trying to then like, fight it and argue against it, or to figure out how to diminish that in people, you know, it's, there is that, well, how do you How do you fight something that pernicious?
	Because it's built in this way to be pernicious.
	It's built in this sort of, uh, you know, um, self internally referencing thing.
	Um, and, and the right, certainly in America has been, uh, absolutely, uh, they absolutely hammer on this idea of, you know, the media or, you know, these sort of like, uh, leftist professors and left-leaning liberals, et cetera.
	Are just sort of fundamentally mendacious.
	They're just lying to you all the time.
	And, uh, so, so it's like, they're not going to listen to someone like me because the second I started saying, well, like, look, let's look at like sociology.
	It's like, well, yeah, all that is, is fake anyway.
	You know, that's all it's fake news.
	Fake news.
	Yeah.
	Sad.
	I mean, you know, what are you some kind of cuck?
	You know, it's, it's, um, And so it is just sort of like, what's the point in even talking about it?
	And this is where it just kind of comes down to, to some degree, if all they respect is force, I hate having that as the answer.
	But to some degree, there is that sort of argument of they don't respect anything but force.
	And if that's what it has to be, then, I don't know, that's difficult.
	I mean, that's a hard thing.
	Yeah, it's not nice, but, you know, I mean, you can't debate, and I think it's irresponsible to debate them, to be honest.
	I think there's a situational argument to be made.
	Okay, yeah, I can imagine a situation where, yeah, okay, but generally speaking, most of the time... I don't think you and I are ever going to convince Richard Spencer that his beliefs are wrong.
	No.
	Richard Spencer is unreachable.
	Richard Spencer believes what he believes for fundamental reasons.
	I think you can get under the skin of the people listening to him, you know.
	And so the point is, if you can, to debate, to argue, to use words, is to try to reach the audience, not to try to reach Spencer himself, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, no, I understand that argument.
	I think in a certain set of circumstances, okay.
	But I think, generally speaking, most of the time...
	If you're going to be debating Richard Spencer, you're probably going to be, to a certain extent, debating Richard Spencer on Richard Spencer's own terms.
	And I think the damage you're likely to do by engaging with him or taking him seriously is likely to outweigh any possible outreach you might have.
	I guess I'm meaning debate in a little bit more of a general, like, kind of cultural sense.
	If we're trying to debate these general ideas.
	Yeah.
	Spread the memes or whatever, you know?
	Yeah, if you're talking about debate in the wider sense of, you know, engage with the ideas, then yes, I absolutely agree with you.
	When it comes to the individuals, I don't think they should be engaged with at all.
	Except when they have to be, which is, you know, as you say, when it comes down to force, as it always does with these people, they either fizzle out and go away, or it comes down to force.
	Because ultimately, this is all it's about.
	Ultimately for them, it's not about It's about enforcing things they fear.
	Well, one of the darkest things for me in terms of, uh, when I really started to understand what these guys are about is that, uh, they have all these intellect, you know, intellectual, I always use that in quotes arguments.
	Um, they have this, these sort of justifications, but ultimately they also have mechanisms, sort of rejection mechanisms for anything that challenges that.
	And, um, Ultimately, when it comes down to is, you know, this sort of like, if you get right down to it, you're not going to convince them, you know, at least sort of the leaders in the movement, you know, because ultimately, they don't care.
	Ultimately, they just want what they want, and they're going to take it by force.
	Yeah.
	And once you realize that, once you realize that that's true, then The question is, well, how do we counteract that force?
	And how do we, how do we use it against them?
	Or what, what is necessary to prevent this?
	Because, you know, I don't think every person on the alt-right, I don't even think every prominent voice on the alt-right is sort of actively in favor of genocide, you know?
	The number of people who will actually say, yes, we should actually realistically and ironically throw Every non-white person into an oven is small, even within the movement.
	But I think a whole lot of them would stand aside while it was being done.
	And I think that, you know, this dehumanization is fundamental to them.
	And it's been the hardest thing in terms of just kind of processing it emotionally.
	It's just sort of accepting that on a gut level.
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, without, for one, fraction of a second defending them in any way, right?
	When the Nazis took power and started to do what they did, they weren't planning to genocide all of Europe's Jews.
	That was not, I mean, it used to be thought that Hitler sort of conceived the plan before he took power that he was going to kill all the Jews of Europe, and that was an aim right the way through, and they just set about implementing that as policy because that was something he wanted to do.
	As we now know from decades of historical research, the Holocaust evolved slowly, gradually, step by step, in the context of the war and loads of other things, and certainly, absolutely, in the context of vicious Anti-Semitic ideology.
	I don't want to downplay that for a moment.
	But it wasn't that people who voted for the Nazi Party, or even most of the people who marched with or were members of the Nazi Party before they took power, were actually thinking, right, we'll take power and then we'll kill all the Jews.
	That was not something... They wanted them out.
	They wanted to victimize them.
	They wanted to steal their possessions.
	They wanted to ethnically cleanse them.
	They wanted to torture them and beat them and do horrific things to them.
	Do not misunderstand me.
	But they were not Well, this is a kind of a point of contentious historical debate and then of course the fact that it's a part of historical debate then becomes foster for the sort of the doubt merchants on the Holocaust denial circuit.
	And this is something I've had to learn quite a bit about as well, you know.
	But yeah, no, there's this really famous recording of, I think it's Himmler, the Poznan recording?
	Poznan, yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And if you listen to that, and particularly if you listen to it, it's in German, I don't speak German, so I have to kind of read it with subtitles.
	This is a group of...
	A very high-ranking member of the Nazi Party speaking to other high-ranking members of the Nazi Party in 1944, is it?
	I think it is 1944, yeah.
	Late in the war, and even at that point not openly saying what extermination really means and what the final solution really is, and yet using some of the same rhetoric we see today and some of the same, you know, sort of
	Hectoring language, some of the same, you know, liminal space that sort of the modern alt-right rhetoric exists in, in terms of, we're just kind of not concerned with these people, you know?
	We have to because they're a poison and a cancer, and you know, like, and, you know, and once I had, you know, I'll admit that I sort of, like, Relisten to that after I'd been listening to these guys for a little while and It I I kind of had to shut everything down for for a day or two It was just sort of one of those like once you once you realize that particular parallel.
	Yeah, it's You run into those moments every now and then I don't I don't know that you ran into that looking at the Austrians necessarily But you definitely read I've definitely run into that I didn't run into that specifically with reference to the Austrians, but I ran into something like it, which we can talk about later if you like.
	No, sure.
	I mean, we can talk about it whenever.
	Yeah.
	I was just going to say, the other thing about that himless speech you're talking about is the civilizational rhetoric and the language of decency.
	That's what always strikes me about that speech, because he's talking about how they've, you know, they've done, and you're right, he's circumlocutes around it, but he talks about how they've done this thing, And they've done it for their people and their culture and their civilization and stuff like that.
	And they had to do it.
	And, you know, the fact that they've managed to do it, and he actually says, I believe, the fact that we've managed to do these things and remain decent, that's what's made us strong.
	He says something like that.
	And that is a startling formulation, you know, not just for its incredible, you know, hypocrisy and monstrous disconnect in thinking, but for the fact that he's talking You know, he's sort of praising his in-group in terms of, you know, bourgeois values of decent, good behavior, civilized behavior, stuff like that.
	And this is so, I mean, just straight up, you know, what are the polo shirts and khakis supposed to be exactly?
	Yeah.
	You know, the whole point is we look nice.
	We are aesthetically Pleasing to the eye.
	We are like well-off white people and people will want to be us, you know We had a permit unlike these writing black people, you know I mean, it's the exact same thing.
	It's like well black lives matter doesn't get a permit for their riots.
	I Mean but the fact like they're obsessed with the idea and this is partly because they have to because they know that you know, I If they start breaking laws and if they start, then, you know, the FBI is going to crack down on them.
	But I mean, you'll hear this from Mike Enoch constantly, like whenever they talk about anything, it's, we always obey the law.
	We are always, we are a lawful law abiding group.
	I mean, he, like just throw it in, in the, in the middle of everything.
	It's like, we are not advocating for anyone to break any laws, but we should throw the Jews in the ovens.
	I mean, you know.
	Cantwell was a little wobbly on that when he started making noises about how people should attack policemen.
	Cantwell is fascinating just because he doesn't have the same filter.
	And it's interesting the degree to which you can sort of... I mean, I think a large reason that Cantwell is in jail is because he doesn't have a filter.
	If you watch Cantwell in that Vice documentary, you can almost visibly watch him getting overexcited as he talks, can't you?
	And sort of saying more than he means to as he's doing it, I think.
	Well, he's sort of in control of himself.
	He was a professional radio host long before he was... He was a stand-up comedian or something, wasn't he?
	He was a stand-up comedian for a while.
	He literally wrote for A Voice for Men.
	Like, vicious misogyny was just, like, part of his, you know, long before he was, like, a race realist, a Nazist head, you know?
	He was a misogynist guy, and, like, deeply, deeply fucking misogynist.
	Speaking of byways and rabbit holes, the MRM absolutely fucking soaked in right libertarianism.
	It's fascinating the degree to which the, you know, We Hunted the Mammoth, like, was originally just gonna look at these, like, goofy, you know, like, nowhere, you know, rape apologists, you know?
	As bad as that is, and then it just sort of becomes like, and now they're all into, like, white nationalism, you know?
	That's right, it starts out as a sort of jokey site about eccentrics, and it turns into a fascist tracking site.
	Exactly, exactly.
	It's really like, and I think that's part of why Dave Futrell has had so much of a problem, like, updating regularly recently.
	Yeah.
	I know he's had some health issues as well, but I think it's just kind of like, well, what do you do at this point?
	Yeah.
	That guy, I mean, as much as I have my, you know, differences with David Futrell, his efforts are nothing short of heroic, you know, and if he's making a living from that site, then, you know, good.
	He deserves to!
	No, I hope so, legitimately.
	There are some other sites that do some of that Yeoman's work on the alt-right side as well.
	Angry White Man is sort of the most prominent one that I know of, in terms of tracking these guys.
	Really useful research.
	If you don't want to listen to these guys, but you just want to read someone else, Talk about them on a regular basis.
	That's a great source.
	But no, Cantwell is, Cantwell is fascinating because he was a radio host for years and he was just kind of on like conservative talk radio, kind of libertarian talk radio.
	And then you can kind of like.
	Watch his progression as he sort of gets further and further to the right.
	But he has no, he's a very professional, like he has sort of his technique down.
	So if you listen to his podcast for a while, you sort of get like, he can get really emotively, performatively angry and then move directly into like, sort of the more like, now we're going to take calls, call me, etc.
	He's got all his pattern down completely.
	And so there is a sort of manipulated quality to that.
	At the same time, I get the sense, listening to him long enough, like I know when he's actually upset about something and when he's just sort of putting it on for the audio.
	He really is this guy who, and you know, I'm not, I'm not trying to, uh, you know, assuming Chris Cantwell ever listens to this.
	Um, I certainly don't, um, you know, I, I'm not, I'm not trying to make a sort of legal determination of anything, but, um, I really think that there is a, a sense in which, uh, he's a guy who, uh, feels like, um, his emotions are very close to the surface.
	If that makes sense.
	And he's never more than kind of an instant away from snapping.
	And he might kind of intellectualize that and kind of say, I have an irrational response to this.
	But there is a very real sense in which he went to Charlottesville armed to the teeth because he was prepared to do what he had to do.
	And I think if he'd been given the slightest provocation more than he was, I think, you know, I think you could have seen some really, really awful moments from him.
	Well, you know, we did see something awful in Charlottesville, and that's no doubt a similar sort of guy with emotions similarly, you know, at the surface.
	You know, another angry white man.
	I can't remember the guy's name, the man who murdered Heather Dyer.
	James Allen Fields.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, the thing is, we don't really know anything about... I mean, he very cleverly has not spoken to anyone.
	Like, as far as I can tell, he has spoken to no one since his arrest.
	I imagine that's probably on legal advice.
	Oh, well, yes, but Christopher Cantwell is doing daily podcasts from Jacob.
	Um, and I really hope, I really hope there are people listening to that on, uh, you know, I hate to be in favor of the police, uh, you know, for a leftist audience, but I really hope that law enforcement and legal people are taking down every word of that because there's so much material in there.
	Um, uh, I mean, I, I admittedly, I haven't listened to all of it, but, uh, I mean, there are times when like he very clearly has to like, Refused to talk about Heather higher for instance and how much she thinks that you know, well, that was just great.
	I mean, it's just Yeah, he's a disgusting even by the standards of the alt-right Christopher Cantwell is just this disgusting vile human being But he wants me to think he's that he wants me he that's what he wants me to think of him By the way, just for the audience there is a and I can give you a link to this if you want to listen to the audio because Christopher Cantwell recorded the audio of the entire
	Process of making that vice documentary on his end and he put it out as a podcast before he went into jail so you can listen to the whole thing if you want to actually like get a better context into what was actually being said it's legitimately fascinating.
	And it tells you a lot about exactly how that documentary was put together.
	And I'm probably going to end up having to talk about it in a bit more detail in text and pull it up.
	But if you want to listen to three and a half hours of Cantwell and El Reeve's talk, it is out there.
	OK, we'll put a link to that in the show notes.
	I hate to give him a download, but whatever.
	What you should do is, you know, Put a copy on Google Drive or something and people can download it from from you, right?
	I also have I also I have all of these podcasts stored on both the Google Drive and my home PC Yeah, because these guys do get kicked off their platforms often enough and it's really annoying for me Like I'm happy that it happens, but then I have to go track down the new RSS feed, you know, yeah So it is kind of one of those like annoying things like one of the podcast stops like updating for a few weeks and And then I find out, oh, they get kicked off their platform.
	Yeah, that reminds me ever so slightly of, you know, trying to research the Austrian school and finding that there are certain books that aren't really in print anymore, and you can only buy them for, you know, £50, £60, £70 on eBay, and being at one at the same time, you know, really annoyed and really pleased.
	Well I mean it is it is one of those I mean I've had this kind of argument that like I want all of this to continue to exist for historical context you know and I don't want these guys certainly I don't want these guys to ever get to hide from their words you know I want it to exist so that people can know that it existed at the same time.
	Uh, you know, kind of breaking down the platform does make it harder for people to find them.
	And, uh, that does, that does make me happy.
	It's definitely, I'm of two minds about it.
	Um, yeah, one of the biggest, uh, podcast, uh, Fash the Nation, um, there was a doxing, uh, kind of thing going on right around Trump's inauguration.
	And, um, they're one of, they're on the, the right stuff radio.
	They're on the same podcasting, uh, kind of the same site, the same group.
	That Mike Enoch is on, that Mike Enoch runs.
	Yeah.
	And they're the other, like, biggest alt-right podcast.
	And they had archives going back, like, a couple of years, or like a year and a half, something like that.
	They'd done 70-something episodes.
	And they were the first podcast I really started listening to, and then they just disappeared.
	And what happened was the doxing thing kind of went around, and they, like, they scrubbed the internet of everything.
	Fortunately the Internet Archive still has a bunch of it and YouTube still has a bunch of the older stuff And they didn't come back for like seven months But then they came back and now there's a new RSS feed, but it really was kind of one of those moments that was like oh They're just pretending this didn't exist because they're scared of you know being found out and you know doxing works Although it doesn't it doesn't I don't know.
	That's a complicated question.
	I do have to, you know, acknowledge my debt to you, to be honest, because you helped me make a lot of connections that ended up in the Austrian School essay.
	I mean, just us chatting in what, as Wrong With Authority listeners will know what we mean when we talk about the back channel.
	You know, I mean, you were the one that made me look seriously at Some of these people, like Cantwell, and their connection to libertarianism, you know?
	I mean, we chatted about him, you know, his former libertarianism, his being involved in the Free State Project, and, you know, I went from that discussion that we had, and I looked up the Free State Project, which, you know, a lot of... I mean, some of it didn't end up in the final essay, you know, some of it ended up as background research, and some of it ended up in, like, the thing about the The Koch brothers and their funding of think tanks and stuff that I posted on the site.
	But that led me down, you know, I mean, like, you go to the Wikipedia page for the Free State Project and it's another rabbit hole, you know, it takes you to all the people that, you know, praised it, you know, that takes you to Ron Paul.
	I mean, I was already on to Ron Paul via Rothbard and stuff like that.
	But, you know, like, you know, Walter Bloch, he's an Austrian economist, he's praising the Free State Project.
	I mean, you know, these people are so connected.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Despite their formal disagreements.
	It's that web of connections.
	It is a web of connections.
	Yeah.
	Where they all sort of, like, and this is where, and I feel like they like to distance themselves from each other and say, well, you know, I took a photo, you know, Ron Paul has a photograph with, you know, so-and-so.
	And well, what does that mean?
	Well, it means, you know, it's not like Ron Paul agrees with every single thing that, you know, so-and-so ever said.
	Ron Paul relied on these people for funding.
	He took donations from Stormfront.
	Yeah.
	And of course, infamously, I talk about this a little bit in the essay, the infamous newsletters, you know, probably written by Lou Rockwell, who's Rothbard's cohort, they co-founded the Mises Institute, Rockwell now runs Rockwell.org, publishes libertarian Austrian school, right-wing stuff.
	You know, Rockwell wrote these, probably wrote these newsletters that were released under, you know, Ron Paul's name, and they're full of, they're full of this, um, paleo-libertarian shit that's, you know, racist, and sexist, and, you know, conspiracy theorist, and, you know, praising David Duke, praising Jared Taylor, you know, they are all connected with each other, and as much as Ron Paul, Ron Paul's kind of like the perfect example of this, because he's very, you know, he's very respectable, and he's very, uh, very widely respected, you know,
	And he now disavows all the stuff in the newsletters.
	He says, I don't agree with that.
	I didn't write them.
	I don't agree with it.
	But you know, he made a lot of money from those fucking newsletters.
	Through the, through the... And it's, it's all about like kind of, and this is the point I would make, and I mean, you've been talking about how it's sort of a spectrum of belief.
	Um, and I agree with that, but it's also about like, they're all going after the same basic base of supporters and voters and ideologues.
	They're all going for, This same general, like, kind of group of sort of far-right reactionaries.
	I mean, I don't know, um, you know, the funny thing, the difference between you and me in terms of, like, kind of the research that we've done is that, you know, you've, uh, done a lot of the, uh, sort of, sort of big picture, you know, sort of reading the sort of ideological kind of background and kind of digging into this stuff.
	Whereas I've spent a lot of time just sort of, uh, you know, paying attention to the propaganda and sort of like much closer to the ground level.
	Um, and so I kind of admire you because you've given me sort of theoretical, um, understanding of some of this and kind of pointing me in directions to sort of like understand, oh, this is where this comes from.
	in sort of a more big picture kind of way, particularly in terms of kind of understanding the history of, you know, so Germany in the 20s and, you know, the actual rise of Hitler and, you know, how, you know, communism isn't nearly what we're told it is, etc.
	You know, so if there's, you know, I don't want to, you know, it's mutual aberration both ways if we can.
	Yeah.
	I think one of the reasons I think we wanted to chat about it was just to sort of compare notes and to kind of say, like, we've, this has definitely been sort of a, you know, we have, it's two different projects, but they've definitely sort of overlapped to some degree.
	And we've helped each other out, I think, and that's been wonderful.
	Certainly you've helped my understanding, but you know I think that the the sort of the the point of you know I was a you know I was a teenage libertarian in the 90s in the early days of the internet and you know Geocity sites were full like the gold standard and all that kind of stuff and that was and even at the time I'm like some of this stuff is bullshit, right?
	You know there's a bunch of like conspiracy mongering nonsense, and you know they're all complete I mean you know the you know, but but you kind of look at this.
	I mean the the Ron Paul newsletters are just That's such a moment, you know.
	Yeah, it's a big thing and I'm sure it had a, you know, very quiet but I'm sure a very, like dominoes toppling, you know, a very large effect.
	Ron Paul is very, I mean, first of all you mentioned the gold standard, I want to mention that goes right back to Mises, not just him, I think it comes from various places, but Mises is one of the people who initiated the long-running libertarian fixation with the gold standard.
	But, yeah, Ron Paul, like a vowed Austrian economist, he had portraits of Rothbard and Mises and Hayek on his wall and, you know, he's, in his various presidential campaigns, his campaigns for the nomination, you know, he specifically went after the young, angry, disaffected, rebellious, young white guy vote.
	That was absolutely central to his campaigning approach.
	And I think he played a role in radicalizing some of the people who are now in the alt-right. - They're There are people who were Ron Paul delegates in 2008 who are now prominent members of the alt-right.
	Yeah, absolutely, yeah.
	And I say that like, I could name names that wouldn't mean anything to most of the people listening, but there's at least one person I know of who claims to have been a 2008 Ron Paul delegate when he was a teenager, of all things, because that's how young most of these people are, right?
	This is another one of the rabbit holes that I didn't quite have time to fall into.
	You know, I could have gone into researching this, but so I didn't myself find any specific names.
	But I'm absolutely sure, from what I have found out, that this is part of this process.
	Absolutely certain of it.
	Yeah, no, I mean, there was this awful book, the megal book, Kill All Normies, which I read, and I was really worried she would kind of beat me to the punch in terms of talking about these guys, and I had no reason to worry.
	It's an awful book.
	Yeah, I still haven't read it myself.
	She seems to have no grasp of the historical context of any of this, and she takes the Pepe memes way too seriously.
	And just seems to, like, I think she understands the difference between the alt-right and the alt-right, for instance.
	But she doesn't talk about it at all, and she uses the two terms, and sometimes sort of slots people into the wrong place.
	And, I mean, it's just a mess of a book.
	It's really a mess of a book.
	I have to say, I haven't read it, so I can't comment.
	A. B.
	I have to say, it is very easy to fall into this trap that they lay for you of terminology.
	Because this has happened to me.
	You know, you will say, so-and-so was a paleolibertarian.
	You know, and you will go, oh, no, he wasn't.
	No, he specifically said in this issue of this article from, you know, 1978 that he, that's a bit early.
	But you know what I mean, you know.
	They will find a quote where so-and-so said, I'm not a paleolibertarian because X, Y, and Z.
	You know, and so much of it is such crap.
	Honestly, the supposed distinctions between, you know, I'm not a paleo-libertarian, I'm an anarcho-capitalist, or I'm an analytic Marxist, etc., etc., etc., or I'm just a libertarian, or I'm a paleo-conservative, so much of it is just absolute nitpicking shit, you know, and it's kind of like a load of traps they lay for you, where the minute you try to generalize about any of this, you know, you talk about the Austrian school and you bring up Schumpeter, you'll get people going, oh, Schumpeter, you know,
	Yes, okay, I understand that they had loads of internal disagreements and maybe some of them didn't want to be identified as being Austrians or, you know, such and such.
	The guy believed everything that the paleo-libertarians believed, but he said he wasn't a paleo-libertarian.
	No, this is a real minefield, so without having read Nagel, I will sort of issue a provisional defense of her.
	Oh yeah, sure, sure.
	Because this is something you, this is a minefield you fall into when you start trying to write about these people.
	Right, absolutely.
	And certainly, I'm not trying to... It's less that... I mean, it's not even that concrete, because she doesn't get that deeply into it, you know?
	But sort of using the terms alt-right and alt-right without really ever clearly saying what you mean is only going to work for people who already sort of know these terms, are already sort of familiar with it, and are already sort of on board.
	You have to know as much as she does already in order to get anything out of the book.
	But if you already sort of know, she's not adding anything to that conversation.
	That's sort of where I land on the book.
	Actually, Noah Burlatt's review is, I mean, I was going to talk about it more, I was going to I don't know.
	Maybe I'm going to write about it, who knows, but Noah Berlant already kind of did the heavy lifting on that, as far as I'm concerned.
	There's a great piece he wrote about it, and it just sort of hit the high points, and I was like, yeah, no, he's right on that.
	I think I retweeted that at the time with a disclaimer that I hadn't read the book, but if Noah's right about it, then I'm not surprised.
	I've had Twitter conversations, like kind of sort of brief ones about the book with him here and there.
	And yeah, certainly kind of when it came out.
	And I think he and I are broadly in agreement, at least.
	So it's worth knowing.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I think we found another rabbit hole, didn't we?
	We did rather, yeah.
	But then, as I say, this is what happens.
	Yeah, I mean, the thing is, I mean, I guess where I was going was, you know, it's so, like, looking at this sort of movement and this sort of group, this sort of political thing, like, as it exists.
	Part of what's kind of fascinated me is just the process of, like, understanding it as sort of this living, breathing, evolving thing.
	And if I'd started writing in, like, March, I would have definitely said things that probably were only vaguely true then.
	And certainly aren't true now.
	For instance, even the relationship of the alt-right to Trump has dramatically changed over the last year.
	This is something Richard Spencer has said.
	It's also like, how seriously do you take these guys when they say things?
	But this is something I kind of agree with.
	He said the alt-right has grown beyond Trump, and that's true.
	They no longer sort of take him... I mean, Trump was their metastasis.
	It was the chrysalis, you know, that sort of led to where they are now.
	Like now they're the moth, the butterfly.
	They've gone through the pupa stage.
	I hate to sound smug.
	I don't like sounding smug, you know, but I said all this way back in Theses on Trump.
	I said, you know, the real danger of Trump.
	I mean, I'm not, I think by the time this is out, people will probably have heard our Trump-aversary
	Wrong with authority, so I'm going to sort of vaguely restate something I think I said in that, but you know, the real problem with Trump, as much as he, you know, I'm not saying he hasn't done horrible things, because he has and will continue to do so, but the real problem with him is this, you know, as the word you used, metastasize, metastasization, that he's, you know, catalyzing, which is, it's on the streets.
	It's these forces he's unleashing.
	The alt-right would not exist in the form it does today without Donald Trump as a prominent candidate.
	Yeah.
	And Donald Trump would not be where he is today without this group of, like, dedicated fans pushing for him.
	Yeah.
	And, um, that's a, that's a big complicated, I mean, there's, there's definitely, you know, a chapter or whatever, some essays talking about sort of the relationship of Trump to the alt-right, you know, both ways.
	And that's, that's going to be...
	That's why you need a dialectical analysis.
	Because so much that's written about this is such shit, honestly.
	Oh, yeah.
	I mean, I feel like part of what I'm trying to do is to figure out how to explain this to liberals.
	If you can explain it so simply that even a liberal can understand it.
	If I can get the liberals to improve their rhetoric by 10%, we'll win.
	It'll be fine.
	improve their rhetoric by 10% will win.
	It'll be fine.
	Major victory.
	But yeah.
	No, I feel like I'm winding down.
	I mean, we could go on for two hours.
	I feel like this is enough for now, especially if we agree to do it again.
	And I'm going to try to get some writing done.
	I don't know.
	It's very easy to just kind of keep researching.
	God, I know.
	I mean, you know, yeah.
	It's only really the looming deadline and the fear of letting Phil down that sort of forced me eventually to start turning half-written things and first drafts and copious notes into something vaguely readable.
	At least I hope it is.
	It's very readable.
	The thing for me is that the piece we have is so dense.
	I just want it to be...
	I just, I kind of want to sit down and kind of niggle at some things.
	Like, I'll read a paragraph and then I'll go and think about it for 15 minutes and then kind of come back and go, yeah, I agree.
	I think I agree with that.
	Let's move on.
	And then I read the next paragraph and go, oh god, now I've got to think again.
	There's a lot going on.
	Yeah.
	And that's a compliment.
	That's a deep compliment.
	That's a deep compliment.
	You know, it's not a skimmable 22,000 words.
	Let's put it that way.
	Thank you.
	In the best possible way.
	In the best possible way.
	And I hope people listening to this will... I mean, I'm... I don't... maybe I'll buy a paper copy of Neo Reaction of the Bascalus so I can get the extended version.
	Or sort of the paper copy, because I did support at the $5 level, so I get the e-book.
	But yeah, no, this is something that sounds like, I think people are really going to enjoy, and I think people listening to this podcast, if they're not already kind of supporting you on Patreon, they really should.
	Well, this is it.
	People who support me for as little as $1 a month on Patreon can already read this masterpiece of political analysis, in its current form anyway, before it gets, you know, a few more alterations ready for the book.
	So, you know, why would anybody hesitate?
	That's what I want to know.
	To read, you know, to read 22,000 fucking words about the fucking Austrian school.
	22,000 pretty fascinating words about the Austrian school, to be fair.
	I mean, Jack is underselling this.
	This is really good writing.
	And it's not, I mean, it's about the Austrian school, but it's really as much about, you know, Marx and it's about, it's a really fascinating read.
	It's really interesting.
	If you're a fan of Jack Graham, you're going to be a fan of this piece of writing.
	I'll say that for sure.
	For sure.
	I did have to cut a lot out of it.
	One of the things I had to cut out of it was a more extended look at Friedrich Hayek, who I found a fascinating figure.
	A genuine thinker, a genuine intellectual.
	Enormously frustrating because he's, you know, he keeps on sort of showing, presumptuous of me to say this about one of the foremost intellectuals of the 20th century, but he keeps on showing so much potential, you know, and then he keeps letting me down, you know, you're almost there, Freddy, you're almost there.
	You know, but yeah, he's a person who absolutely disgraced himself through his Association with, I mean, putting the issue of neoliberalism aside completely, right?
	He is one of the foundational figures of neoliberalism, and neoliberalism has done enormous harm to them.
	And, you know, in concrete terms, to millions of people's lives, it has created enormous misery.
	I mean, I think capitalism is the inherent problem, but neoliberalism is a particular, you know, form of capitalism that has done enormous damage.
	But putting that aside completely, Friedrich Hayek, a civilized man, a cultured man, an educated man, a genuine intellectual, he disgraced himself beyond measure by his association with Pinochet's Chile.
	Yeah.
	Because he was, he was not just one of, and as I discovered looking into this, that his links with Chile under Pinochet far more extensive than I realize.
	You know, I thought about Chile and the Pinochet, I thought Friedman and the Chicago boy economists, you know, and all that.
	I knew Hayek was sort of associated, but I didn't know the extent of it.
	His writings, his books, are explicitly an inspiration to the people running Pinochet's junta.
	He's over there all the time on speaking engagements, lecture tours, he's instrumental in getting the Mont Pelerin Society's annual conference held at the Vina del Mar, which is the place where Pinochet's coup was planned, and they know that, it's a deliberate reference.
	They're over there hobnobbing with Pinochet himself, with members of the regime.
	He's writing defences of the regime to newspapers, It's absolutely disgusting, and you can repeat this pattern more or less for other places.
	I mean, he's mixed up with South Africa, he's trying to pimp his ideas to Salazar in Portugal, and this is a regime where people who were deemed a threat to the regime because they were too left-wing, or they didn't like the idea of the Pinochet dictatorship, or just their hair was too long, or they were a woman who wasn't dressed the right way.
	You know, this regime rounded people up and sent them into a system of, you know, absolutely unimaginable torture, including, you know, they had a... Well, the helicopter rides are Pinochet.
	The helicopter rides, exactly, the things that Cantwell jokes about, free helicopter rides for leftists.
	It's not just Cantwell, it's an alt-right meme, it's a huge one.
	Absolutely, but he's one of them.
	Yeah, no, he's definitely one of them.
	That's a joke about murdering people for being socialists.
	That's taking people you don't like and throwing them out of a helicopter in air.
	That's what the helicopter ride means.
	The Pinochet regime was assisted in this by the CIA and the Nixon White House, we should add.
	Just punched his fist in the air listening to this.
	But you know, this is a regime that had... I won't go into it, but this had institutionalised sexual torture.
	They had a place devoted to sexual torture, as I say.
	And this is not something... I mean, I don't know if they needed details, but this is not something that Hayek and his buddies didn't know about.
	In fact, they specifically praised it.
	It was great.
	It was great.
	And this is the great classical liberal, this is the great defender of freedom, this is the great opponent of totalitarianism, speaking.
	And this is what I was talking about earlier, when you were talking about the moment you had to take, you know?
	I had to take a moment as well, when I got to this stuff.
	I mean, you know, apart from anything else, he's drawing his ideas, this is what my next post is going to be, which will be out by the time you hear this.
	You know, he's drawing his ideas from Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist, you know?
	I didn't know that, I'm definitely going to have to check that out, for sure.
	Um, but there you go.
	Yeah.
	I mean, the thing is like history is such a, it's such a series of, uh, people just brutally murdering one another and otherwise being really shitty to each other.
	Right.
	And I feel like, uh, this is simplistic and, and, uh, you know, but, but you know, the left wants to end that and the right, uh, sort of accepts it as inevitable.
	And that seems to be one of the just sort of fundamental differences.
	Yeah.
	And you know, I'm trying to work for a world in which there is no ritualistic murder of dissidents of any kind, you know?
	You communist!
	I guess so.
	That's what that makes me, that's what that makes me.
	I don't understand.
	I mean, are you a communist because you want to stop people being ritualistically murdered?
	And it's bad to be a communist because, of course, communists ritualistically murder people.
	That's how it works, isn't it?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Catch-22, libtard!
	Pwned!
	Oh, man.
	I think we should wrap up.
	I think it's time.
	But I definitely want to come back to this and I really want to talk.
	Once we can talk more in detail about the essay, I want to talk about the writing process and how you came about it and get into some of the nitty-gritty.
	I want to ask some questions about some of the details, some of the stuff, but I've got to get a printout and a highlighter and some notes, etc., before I can do that.
	Wow!
	Yeah, so before the book comes out, we'll do another one of these, definitely.
	Hopefully, in the next few weeks, I will actually start writing.
	We'll see what that turns into, but once I start posting, my plan is to start a Patreon so I can make some money off of this.
	I've read a first draft of the first bit, and it's really good.
	It's really interesting.
	I think you've got the right tone, which I know you were searching for for a while.
	You were worried about the tone, and I think you've cracked it, basically.
	I really want to read this, so get on and write it.
	People listening, bully Daniel to get on and write it.
	No, don't bully, because bullying is...
	Step into fascism, honestly.
	We want to encourage positive things.
	Positive reinforcement.
	You can follow me on Twitter at Daniel E Harper and you can ask me questions if you're so inclined.
	Basically all that I do on Twitter anymore is correct people's misapprehensions about fascism.
	So check that out if you're so inclined.
	And you can find me on Twitter Thanks so much for chatting with me today, Jack.
	No, that was great.
	We never get to talk.
	We never get to talk.
	It's certainly not like a daily occurrence where we're sharing notes about some bullshit that happened.
	Let's go.

▲