The Funnel We Use to Make $250M+ | Ep 898

It's here! Hynac in Greenlight May, by Incoliday Weekend, Dublin 35X 10 Indomit Venues Thursday, April 30th Catch Madras Salah at Mary's Bar Friday May 1st Catch Tomorrow at the Button Factory Saturday May 2nd Catch Mike Skinner and DJ Seinfeld at Wing Wham Sunday May 3rd Catch Currency and Lil Skag at O'Reagans Sunday May 3rd Catch Horse Meet Disco at Street 66 Tickets at Hynac in Greenlight.ie Get the fact to be drink-aware of as a drink-aware.ie Welcome everyone back to the Peacognano Show. Thomas is here and we're going to take a little diversion away from the Continental Philosophy series, but as Thomas is about to explain, it relates to it. So, take it away, Thomas. Hey, first of all, how are you doing today? I'm doing pretty well, man. Health is better? Yeah, I've been feeling pretty well. I mean, I still have like respiratory symptoms. They can't seem to shake, but yeah, overall, I feel pretty well, man. Cool. I want to talk about the radical tradition with the School of Philosophy, which is a discrete intellectual tradition, and a lot of people don't understand that. And those that understand that basic posture with, they don't really understand what it is. The part of that is because like pop-academe, they claim that everybody from like Nietzsche, to Alexander Dugan, to a L.A.N. to Benoit, to, you know, Edmund Burke, is part of this thing called traditionalism. That's not correct. Yeah, we're talking about a very discrete body of thought. I didn't include, I'd include a heightager in Joseph the Maestro in there, too. Although some people probably wouldn't, but the same imperatives that frame radical traditionalism, its metaphysics and its ethics, and its posthilist about the human condition, translated to a political, theoretical construct. You know, that's what the Maestro and that's what a heightager is. And the Maestro also, people like Carl Loeth and people like Isaiah Berlin, they claimed he was the progenitor of what became fascist thought. I actually accept that. That's true. You know, obviously they were suggesting that in punitive terms. A little Loeth was not a liberal. He's somebody who's ill understood kind of like Leo Strauss', and they were, they were having correspondence. When I say ill understood, I mean the fact that they were anti-liberal doesn't make them right wing or like, they didn't make them pro-fascist or something, quite the contrary. But, you know, so Joseph the Maestro, he's essential to understand the position that I consider to be the right wing perspective or aspect of the resistance as it stands, and that's not for globalism. Okay, it's not conservatism. It has nothing to do with that. Okay, radical traditionalists aren't trying to conserve things. You know, we'll get into like why that's misguided when people suggest that that's their ambition. You know, in the traditionalist view, the entire concert of enterprise, who was the liberal tendency that, you know, holds attachment to certain institutions and they're deteriorated, modern, very, and at least, you know, things like the nuclear family or things, at least like nominal concepts of private property. You know, but they, but this idea that, you know, they're somehow the standard bearer of some perennial tradition, like that's laughable. And it's equally misguided to over people that act like, I think it was like the Maestro were conservative, like he wasn't at all. And he was a very, very, very heterodox Catholic. He was a free Mason. He defended the Jesuits. Now admittedly, in that era, the Jesuits were totally different than the era today. But, they were very much at odds with, you know, the Catholic leadership. And the Holy See. You know, he demised the support of the American Revolution wholeheartedly. You know, and it's not because you'll read like modern or contemporary scholars, really. So he was a friend of democracy, you'll call it, no, no, no, no. The American Revolution, nothing to do with democracy. Like the way he looked at it was, this was an aristocratic yeomanry. That was exhibiting, you know, this kind of like energetic tendency towards the creation of a new state based on higher forms and potentialities of human action. That we're known as based on, you know, transcendent the principles, you know, both historical and theological and major. You know, there's nothing egalitarian about this. There's nothing leveling about this, quite the contrary. You know, like when these, that's one of the really weird things about the current illiteracy of the left. I mean, they've always been pseudo intellectuals, like going back centuries. But now it's like they can't make up their mind. Like on the one hand, they'll claim that America was a monstrous center prize. Because only this white male warrior yeomanry had the franchise. But then on the other hand, they'll claim that America was basically this kind of like Jacob and socialist paradise that wasn't realized yet. But that's, you know, and such that people like Demo, you know, when he talks about democracy, you saw him out in the end, from meaning of the term, you know, the demos being the subject of it. You know, when, when regime people invoke democracy, they mean the literal opposite of what the term means. You know, they're talking about this social engineering regime, you know, based on these kinds of a radical humanist poshilits, you know, in these anti-traditional conceits. And this kind of tradition, such that any more even abides a discreet and intelligible philosophical tradition. They're drawing up people like Bentham and stuff, okay? Like they don't, this, this is nothing in common with, you know, but understanding the held by people like, you know, like, they're the Greeks, you know, during, they're in a periclete's world ever, which I'd consider to be the zenith of classical democracy. But he isn't me. The core thinker is a radical traditionalism. I, Said, was saying a seer, I think he's still alive. He was an Iranian academic, he was educated at MIT among other places. You know, like Wolfgang Smith, he came up through the hard sciences. But, uh, Nassir had interesting background. I wasn't jumping around a lot, but there's no more, um, cogent way to explain this and describe these personages and why they're significant within this, um, the school of thought. Um, Nassir, uh, he found himself at odds with Comaini's revolutionary government, which is interesting, because Nassir was no friend of the shop. And the shot was actually a terrible individual. I know the like internet guy, he said he was a beast. He was not at all. He was just, he was a kleptocrate, Pimp. But, um, one of the interesting things about the Iranian revolution is that one of the ways Comaini was able to, when he came back from exile, you know, you've seen, but you've been to exile for my rack for decades. Okay, and, um, the Shah had, uh, approached, um, the Iraqi regime, you know, this, this was, uh, this was basically like, in the week of like the bath is the sentencing. you know, and they'd worked out something of a concord, I mean, which makes sense because I rack along with that, I ran as, you know, like the Shia hard land. And I'm, Comanian Ben and I rack and he was unseeralously banished. But, um, Comanian was, Comanian, when he returned from exile, the revolution as it was developing in the street, it was these pious Shia elements over the core. But they also, there's a bunch of left-wing labor agitators and off my dean of jobs, for example, is like the legacy of that tendency. That's why you still find these guys in the Iranian government. There were, there were, there were kind of right-wing social nationalists among them. It was this kind of broad coalition, okay. And, uh, to, to Comanian and to, you know, many elements within the revolutionary cadre, they give to guy like Naseer as like a kind of reactionary. You know, this guy is an elitist, you know, even though he doesn't like the Shia, and he views it as a corrupt element, he still has no problem with monarchy, you know, he, he's not the kind of person we should permit, you know, um, within, you know, uh, the intelligentsia, you know, because people, I can't have a tendency to be able to corrupt revolutionary imperatives and open the door to, um, you know, kind of revolutionary activity. But Naseer was very much a disciple of Rene Guillon. And Rene Guillon was a French man who was a convert to Islam. I don't want to get into discussion as how people feel about those kinds of convergence. It's not important. But what is important is that Islam, especially on the Shia side, in my opinion, plays a huge role in the traditional school of thought. And in terms of praxis, they're, the significance of their participation in the resistance, counter-globalism can't be overstated. That's why the reasons why it really, really irritates me when stupid people talk about the hate Islam. That's unbelievably ignorant. Okay. And the fact that you don't like some random Pakistani criminal who's deployed the euro up under the Oospices of Refugee Relief, when in reality it's part of the Zionist ethnic cleansing efforts, declaring that that guy is some instantiation of Islam makes you just a complete ignorance. Okay. One thing is nothing to do with the other. Okay. And the traditionalist school from Rene Guillon to Julius Evela to Marcia Eliati, the Joseph de Maestro is highly ecumenical. They're not syncretic. They're not saying that all religions are equal. They're not saying that you should abandon your own tradition and worship in a mosque or in an orthodox seminary or in a Protestant church because it's all some sort of loose ill-defined spiritualism that, you know, and there's nothing holistic about it. That's not what I'm talking about. That's not what they're talking about. What they're talking about is that various permutations of religiosity, like true deep religiosity, are the kind that, you know, shapes the prime symbols of living cultures and a timeless capacity and that, you know, informs the configuration of institutions, cultural and political and social and that dictates where people devise their concept of authority and legitimacy they're in and duty and aesthetics and everything else. They're saying that like various religious traditions and tendencies, they're all permutations of this, you know, that the mind of God is received by man, okay? And somebody like Demacia would go a step further and while he wasn't a racialist in this sense, people think of it in the 20th and 20th century capacity, he would say that there's an organic and historically contingent and culturally dictated basis for how religiosity expresses itself in discrete cultures, okay? So being down on a great civilization like I ran because they're not Presbyterians like me is really, really stupid, okay? And plus to that itself is a liberal posh of it. Because you're saying like basically everybody's the same and should receive, you know, divine imperatives and perceive them the same way regardless of race or historical, you know, historically contingent variables are, you know, linear memory of an epigenetic character, you know, if you're a real, if you dig race seriously, if you take deep culture seriously, you would not only expect there to be this kind of sectarian diversity, but you you'd welcome its existence because it's yet another discrete signifier, you know, that demonstrates the insularity of races and cultures, okay? And that kind of thing should be curated, okay? Obviously, because the eradication of it is one of the prime imperatives of, you know, the regime's social engineering paradigm because it wants to reduce everybody to this kind of low humanist, deculturated, derasinated sort of, you know, slave cast as it were, okay? So that's what we're talking about and just to get into, um, just get into Renegion a bit. Puyla, what do you want to take? I want to take the most important part of the world, what do you want to take? I don't want to take the most important part of the world, I want to take the most important part of the world, what do you want to take? What do you want to take? But I want to take the most important part of the world, because I want to take the most important part of the world, okay? Okay, okay. Okay, okay. You know, because again, I think the most important part of the world is the most important part of the world, in terms of praxis arguably, um, Julius Evelin, particularly some of his later stuff, probably holds more significance to a contemporary partisan, but, you know, theory is paramount, in my opinion, because without theory there is no praxis among other things. But the, uh, you don't want to essentially identify, he said when we're talking about traditional civilizations, contra-modern ones, you know, not modern in terms of technological development, although it is a factor, modern in terms of their rejection of metaphysics and their rejection of God, you know, like what we think of as, you know, uh, the conventions of the enlightenment, the ideological conventions of it, you know, that's, that's synonymous to the modernity for praises of what Gion was talking about. You know, one of the things that that's done is it's eliminated metaphysical points of reference. You know, when every civilization prior, you know, great and small, or, uh, you know, dynamic and, um, brilliant or primitive and savage, all civilizations were characterized by the recognition of higher order than man. You know, even those that exhibited some humanist tendencies, you know, when, and their ethics or their aesthetical judgments are their, you know, what have you. Um, the understanding that, you know, it leads only derived legitimacy from a transcendental mandate. And the principles and values necessary and adequate to constitute, you know, the, not just the mandate, by the kind of guiding ethical disposition of authority, it has to represent some sort of pathway to higher knowledge, okay. At least in terms of its intended structure. And when leadership fails in that regard, Traditionally, they're understood to have lost their mandate. That gets a bit complex and we'll get into Demise's take on that. These will be the French Revolution because that is the case in point, really. Modern civilization and contrast is the deliberate opposite of that. This is an accidental. It's this mythology of moderns that, well, the scientific method and the enlightenment literally bring this out of darkness, it just revealed to us that these things aren't true. I'm sort of splendid, accident. That's nonsense. This was an ideological program to deconstruct not just the tendency of the body, but the politics to believe in God, but to do everything to make the higher belief impossible. By essentially breaking down the institutions that are suggestive of such things, even after not, and obviously the eradication of anything so dedicated. That's something Wolfgang Smith used to make the point a lot that one of the ways that particularly the Angles fear handles religiosity is they try and appropriate it in a way not unlike the communist did and just turn it into this goofy, almost like I'm going to a bowling league or something. I'm religious. I go to this building where there's a movie theater and this guy, Joel Osteen, he talks about self-help sorts of things and how to manage my money better. Then we go into this big room and drink lemonade together. It's deliberately shorn of anything suggestive of the divine or tending towards worship. I know that there's a tread, Catholic, like tread. It's not traditional, it's tread. There's a lot of problems with those people. I know that one of their favorite, one of their favorite straw men is, "Oh, that's Protestantism." Or that this imaginary Protestant church that, due to its iconoclasm, it did away with all the edifying aspects of religion and shut the doors of the cathedral so people had no choice but to draw upon these debates and kind of banal modalities. That's not true. Radical pietyism, basically the force is almost a kind of monastic degree of introspection, these of the inner witness on congregants. I don't want to start some sort of sectarian beef here, but you can't say that a sectarian orientation that suggests that people should be guided at all times by scripture, which quite literally is supposed to be timeless and resound in sacred time as Mersia Eliati described it. He can't suggest that someone like some secularizing tenancy. Moving on, Geon, obviously he was kind of the quintessential orientalist. He married an Egyptian woman, he converted to Islam. He became very insinuated into a Sufi school of thought. Some people call it mysticism. There are Sufi mystics and there's aspects of that in some of its permutations. The better to think of it as metaphysics. Like higher metaphysics in Islam derives in large measure from Sufi philosophies. Interestingly, many allowites who may or may not be occulted Christians, that's an open ended question. I'm not qualified to discuss it in deeper capacities. A lot of allowites find their way to the study of higher metaphysics through various schools of Sufiism. The reason why Geon gravitated to Islam was because he believed that in the orient. He said that there still are pockets of capital T traditional modalities of life. They're beleaguered in his mind. He talked a lot about how if you go into the mountains in India, you'll find people who are different from the majority racial populations in India who in his estimation were vestiges of the higher racial caste who still practice the pure like proto-Indo-European spiritual practice. He believed that places where his loronic way of life still thrived. Obviously not like in the Ottoman court or something, which was in a lot of ways as debased as these secular-oxid dental regimes. But nevertheless, within the orient and within the parameters of the Islamic governmental structure. You still could find pure iterations of it. Salah bin Laden had something of the same sensibility. I'm not saying he was like Runeid Yo'an. There were very, very different kinds of men. But there's something to this. That was Geon's that was what informed his sensibilities in this regard. It wasn't just the fetishism of the cultural anthropologist or wandering European who was able to insinuate himself due to a combination of cunning and genuinely furious, vigorous, and can like insinuate himself into these alien cultures and kind of master them from a perspective of deep reverence. Obviously, those are aspects, kind of enduring aspects of the European mind and soul. That wasn't his primary motivation. Again, if your entire life's work is, you know, I need to understand, you know, how can traditional ways of life and traditional data as Wolfgang Smith called it, how can that thrive and be recognized for what it is? Like, what are the conditions precedent where that sort of thing can still exist? You know, in a spontaneous way that is psychologically resonant and instinctive. You know, this is totally different than people deliberately trying to resurrect dead forms mind you. Okay, because any kind of deliberate effort to do that, I mean, that itself is just a sort of modern psychological coping mechanism or thought experiment. You know, that's the opposite of what we're talking about here. But you know, if you're somebody like you own who want to do discover again, like what the conditions were, were such, you know, spiritual practices can thrive. You know, that you would find yourself, you would find your way to the kinds of environments that he did. You know, and that would be your frame of reference as a scholar and as a partisan. And he was absolutely both. You know, in the. One of the things, excuse me, one of the things, one of the ties that binds conceptually of capital T, traditionalist thoughts is the concept of primordial tradition or sulfuria perennas, you'll find that phrase a lot in traditionalist writings. You know, it's not traditional societies didn't really draw a firm distinction between metaphysical aspects and historical aspects of cultural mind and memory. There was an understanding too that the origin of institutions is somewhat mysterious. You know, and that there's something really like enlightenment, modernity, never accounts for. It's this kind of purely horizontal understanding of data. You know, whether they're talking about, you know, whether they're talking about biological phenomenon, you know, like the Darwinist paradigm, it never gets into any sort of horizontal causation. I mean, we're any kind of vertical causation. It's usually horizontal. You know, it doesn't make any sense anyway, but it's okay, so matter just created itself or matter just exists, but then life got insinuated into matter somehow. You know, you're just both in not addressed that because according to Galilean science, which is totally outmoded, by the way, obviously, you know, that we just don't believe in God because there's just not something we believe in. It's like this weird trotology and interestingly like Wolfgang Smith too, he died if he had his, even in his late 90s, he still very much had his mind about him. You know, and he wrote his background was in quantum physics. So he specifically write a lot about how these deep field telescopes and the emergence of theories of things like black hole, cosmology. You know, it's really repudiating everything that was propping up however weekly, the kind of scientist perspective, you know, not scientific, but I'm a scientist. You know, this idea of, you know, emergent cosmological theories repudiating any possibility of a divine origin of, you know, matter and time. And that's a totally outmoded way of thinking about things like basically if you stop the clock, like the proverbial clock of a human knowledge pre Einstein and Heisenberg, you could arguably make that case, but you know, it's laughable these days to speak in those terms. You know, I mean, don't give me a wrong. That's only part of the equation. You know, like the godlessness of the modern condition, it has to do with, you know, ways of life and historical memory and the ability of people to receive primordial knowledge and to contextualize those things within a conceptual paradigm that's, or the historical metaphysical. It's not just a matter of, you know, the science not being hostile to, you know, the theological posh, it's or something, but it is an important aspect of it because I'm constantly brushing up against people who mean well and aren't stupid, but they're not particularly sophisticated and intellectually, and they act as if the left is somehow intellectually sophisticated or something. They're not at all. They're, they're proudly ignorant, you know, and such that they can muster any sort of, like the only thing they have or had was the bully pulpit. You know, that's one of the reasons why they're so censorship-preased, you know, because they have, they literally have nothing to stand on. You know, and that's important. That's not just a flex. I mean, it's important to keep in mind, you know, in terms of understanding how the, the kind of prevailing zeitgeist is, over to the window of the referesis shifting. But, you know, a Gion, like Mercy Aliati and like, he believed in a hyperborean tradition. You know, he believed in essentially a fall within the civilizational cycle, you know, which is tantamount or it can be understood as metaphorically, not unlike, you know, the, the, divine right of kings, it's, it's mischaracterized by pop history books. Like what it derives from is, is that, you know, the, the king's sovereign lordship over his domain is not unlike God's dominion over the universe, you know, with all that that entails. You know, because that's the transcendental model of, you know, authority and justice and sovereign legitimacy. So the fall of man, you know, quite literally has played out in temporal capacities, you know, and cycles of civilization, you know, and, you know, and, you know, comes back again and again, obviously, it's what it's been at the forefront of his mind, because in Egypt, you know, he would have been, and he was very much a man who was, was very respected there, you know, being this, this cultured Frenchman who was a great intellectual who spoke all these languages and had all his wisdom and, you know, he, he married a woman of a very high standing, you know, so he, he would have found himself, you know, in Cairo and, you know, in the, in the midst of these great monuments and these towering necropolis structures and things, it had to be on his mind in a very active sense, you know, like these people, I'm a monk and these, these men whose ways and, you know, belief structures have made my own, they can't make things like this anymore, you know. And that's very profound, you know, but that's obviously the enlightened and perspective is, again, it's like a pure inversion that like man is someone being elevated from this state of brutishness and ignorance and he's literally mired in darkness, which again forces one to kind of blind their eyes to, you know, iterations of high culture from the past, you know, I, you know, so how, if man was mired in darkness, you know, essentially until, you know, the 16th century or whatever, like how are there, you know, how are these grand monuments that this day, nobody can divinate how they were built that were erected 5,000 years before Christ, you know, it's, nobody can explain these things. I mean, how was it that, you know, people like Tolemie were, were mapping the stars or that, you know, essentially the greatest intellectual traditions came out of Doric Athens and have never been duplicated, you know, so I'm supposed to believe that these people were all basically, you know, a bunch of unwashed barbarians and that, you know, Pride month represents like the zenith of high culture, you know, paracles was an idiot, but like, down Trump is like a great, a great leader of men, you know, I mean like I was being liberally obtuse but this idea of like man being uplifted from you know ignorance that that that doesn't make logical sense but it doesn't make metaphorical sense either, you know, that's that's just not the way and that's not that's not the way this that's not how human life is I mean this this that's not the way organisms are this not that's not the way matter is you know that something gets more robust and stronger as it ages I mean there's good things about aging obviously and like it can probably wisdom and stuff but you know this idea that you know this this idea that you know things that things begin as as that like proto-human and in the end as in some perfected state I mean that doesn't you know it's it's not just counterintuitive it's it's at odds with you know the the human experience if nothing else the same nothing of the metaphysical you know illogic of it but you know that's something that's why you know the traditional is at least the ones who are you know worthy of the moniker they're not anti-science at all like again you know Naseer Wolfgang Smith Renegy on himself like these these men came from the sciences you know Wolfgang Smith made the point he said that you know moderns will tell you these secular humanist moderns they'll hold out something like scripture and say well scripture informs us that the apostles they saw Christ raised you know from from the dead he you know he was elevated from the earth and you know he disappeared into the heavens you know and the Galilean of you know the objection of the Galilean science was well you know space being infinite it has no higher low so there you know even if I accept that such an ascension was possible you know which it's not it's meaningless because there is no true ascension because there is no up there is no down but I mean like that itself is meaningless if you understand even as a layman you know general relativity you know they're very much can be like a heaven or a hell there's much can be an up and down they're still down they've got to dummy terms these things can be anywhere okay because it's a matter of perspective and situatedness you know Rudolph Boltman the kind of nonsense that he promulgated that underly a lot of kind of what became sort of the the milk to sort of Billy Graham kind of Protestantism as well as Vatican II his whole mandate as he saw it was the demathologized encryption script Christian scriptures like according to Boltman and and his intellectual progeny you know well before before there's an understanding of true cosmology you know there was people spoke in pure metaphors like nobody really believed in things like you know the descent of man or ascension or resurrection you know like people actually accepted this garbage you know especially like mid-century probably this probably like was earnestly believed until like the 80s like even in sadly even in a lot of you know seminary schools and such environments you know but that's but I mean to accept something like that first of all you're you're drawing up on science that is decades out of date at best in arguably centuries but also you know you don't really understand metaphysics of the human condition you know and you don't really understand what we're talking about in terms of a cosmological presentation and you don't understand the anthropic principle which is key to you know fordying an argument for or against this subject matter from a scientific perspective you know but the point is this is one of the ways that you know the regime and the kind of post-war consensus is drawn upon these enlightenment ideas that are negatively ideological you know again like it's one of the big lies of history by the proponents of these things that well these were just accidental discoveries or something you know no they weren't revelatory at all they weren't discovered they weren't the subject of a rigorous methodology these are ideological postulates then you know you don't this idea that you can just abolish hermeneutics by appeal to you know an outmoded science I mean that's that's preposterous but that's kind of where this cultural schizophrenia comes from in a place like America because in addition to people not understanding what traditionalism is like when I you know when we use that word the reason why people have a bad I you know feeling about religion because to them like religion is you know some some guy like Joel Osteen or it's Ted Cruz saying illiterate stuff about why he he has a kink for pretending to be Jewish and saying things that make no sense or you know what people think of religion they're like parents maybe go to this bullshit you know kind of glorified VFW Hall of his boring guy would talk about how you know you shouldn't be racist then you know basically give us these kinds of school marble lectures they were devoid of anything interesting or metaphysical or moral or you know but that's like he might understand that it really is nothing to do with tradition that's some weird it's some weird social convention that is how you know this kind of professional class of academics and commissars you know who had some sort of vestigial interest in in academic theology it's kind of like found their way to this role you know and that's because that's like what's the acceptable version of these kind of state forms that you know in their true manifestation are considered at best highly subversive and at worst basically criminal you know so that's when we talk about cavalier traditionalism we're not we're not talking about conservatism we're not talking about pretending it's the 12 hundred is we're not we're not talking about any of that we're talking about religion we're not talking about church unity or this kind of lame like bougie stuff or you know this kind of cornball stuff where you know it's it's people saying you know what religion is about like you know having manners and not using bad language and you know saying please and thank you like you're in kindergarten or something like a you know this is important because like I said it's I mean don't be wrong the last thing I want to do is try to convince masses of people the merit of our position that would be a fool to Aaron but this also not would be in good as do but people otherwise are sophisticated and puttically intelligent and stand by their their culture and their race and their heritage this is our hurdle sometimes must be overcome with them because this you know this is one of reasons why like abusive languages is such a such a deleterious effect on conceptual life and that's right deliberate because you know then you have to you kind of have to disabuse people of these meanings that they've developed negative associations with long to the endless reputation of them by ideological commissars whose entire intention and mission is to you know pervert the plane meeting of these things but moving on with the time We got left. You know, and that's why I encourage people to, you know, who say, like, what's the relevance of all this to the present? Well, again, I believe, like, this is our politics. Okay. I mean, this is my politics. Like this is the resistance, and there is only the resistance, control of globalism, you know, and again, it's not a reactionary sensibility. And it's not a return to superstition. Again, like that itself is, you know, an ideological posthilit promulgated by, you know, people who abide enlightenment, ideology, and, and scientism. The superstition, the stuff that there is one, is this kind of 19th century style materialism that like nobody believes in anymore, like that's the superstition. You know, and if I bookhoved people again, I, I'm very much a layman and, you know, this, the, the hard sciences, you know, but read, read up on what's being, um, realized by way of things like the James Webb telescope, like read up on black hole cosmology and what's being postulated there. Like, this is shattering all of this nonsense, you know, like this idea that, you know, there is, there's no more mystery. And, you know, metaphysics is dead and, you know, we can explain quantum realities just by like appeal to, you know, um, nakedly material quantities and, you know, things like that, like that, if that doesn't, you know, make you a man or woman of faith, I, you're kind of asleep at the proverbial wheel, you know, um, and that, um, you know, I'm not going to say that you know, look at, uh, in my own kind of wheelhouse, you know, I'm constantly talking about how, you know, these political scientists who I distinguish from political theorists, like even some of them occasionally kind of correct conclusions, you know, like mirror shimer, the guys, so really something of a simple thing, like this idea that, oh, well, structures, like a little structure of political institutions and states, not only are these kinds of late modern structures perennial, but the structures themselves dictate political events and either generate or mitigate conflict, like this is laughable, you know, the, look at what's underway right now, um, with the world situation, you know, uh, warfare arrives, um, like the seasons, you know, and, oh, and then nakedly theological imperatives, you know, um, and, uh, even just like the paradigm shifts that, you know, we've witnessed in the last 20 years, really, I posit that it began around September 11, 2001 or at least in the aftermath, but, you know, that should give people pause, even people who consider themselves to be secularists. And I mean, if that doesn't, I mean, if you're, your age or my age, like in real time witnessing you know, sort of the, the Marxist-Leninist dogma that literally had shaped the 20th century and been the catalyst, you know, proximate, nervally ultimate for the most catastrophic conflict in human history, you know, it, it, uh, it felt a piece as, uh, this is like, guys, it's no longer abided. You know, if that's not the cutting of a reason writ large, I don't know what is, you know, um, this idea that, you know, this school of thought is somehow an arcane curiosity or something of interest only to coistered, academically inclined people, you know, who have kind of opted to withdraw from the banality of the day to day and the political, that could not be further from the truth, you know, and, um, if you need another example of, uh, this phenomenon in action, I mean, consider, uh, the degree to which, you know, the resurgent Islamic political consciousness has shaped the last 50 years and continues to do so. Unfortunately, I think many iterations of that are perverted, but, um, you know, that is an aspect of the, the cutting of reason too. Um, there's a German phrase, uh, Meraos Leven, literally more than life. You know, that's what's required for, life to have any meaning at all. You know, and this idea, if you want, you know, another example of how this relates to praxis, well, there you go, you know, strip, strip way metaphysics and strip way anything transcendental, you know, and, and, and let me know, you know, how that fears in terms of posterity, you know, the mighty Soviet Union lasted less than a century for that very reason. You know, um, I was going to get into Renee, er, I was going to get into Joseph Demyre today and it, it seems that time got away from me, but I feel passionately about this subject matter. I'll pick up the pace next time and after part two, we can get back to the, when you're, um, progression of our continental philosophy series, that promise. And when we return to that, we'll get into, we'll get into live nets, spin-offs, um, and, um, where this, where this automatic converges with that, we'll get into, picked up, uh, show up in a hour, niche, uh, hide a group. And I know that people will be excited about that because they've been asking me about all that stuff and, um, I'm looking forward to it too. And frankly, I think I have more to contribute on that than on some of these thinkers who, um, I mean, I, I might not be in philosophy. I mean, I, I, I can speak intelligently on this stuff, but it's, I can speak a whole lot more intelligently on Schopenhauer and Heiter than I can. I'm like, live nets, but I was in Knot, like, for that one. But I hope people found this worthwhile. When you get a chance, please, um, give me a reading list because for the, this specific subject, because people are going to ask for that. So, yeah, I mean, yeah. Yeah. I will, uh, I'll do so later, late tonight or tomorrow. Okay. Sounds good. All right. Um, it's everybody where you're at and where they can find you. Yeah. The best place is at my website, which is almost finished being retooled. You can find all my content there is a feed where, like my new podcast appearances and my own podcast, like pop up and like other stuff. And some of my long form writing and some like video stuff. It's number seven, H one, A seven seven seven, dot com. Otherwise, hit up my sub stack. It's real time is seven, seven, seven on sub stack, dot com. And from there, you can find like other places where I'm at, like, Instagram and stuff. But those are the main places to go. Um, and like I said, I'm in the process of kind of retooling my content, generally, but I'm, I'm always active. I'm active every day on sub stack and I try and appear on a few people's pods every week. And I'm trying to do something every day. So, you know, yeah, I'm trying to be a busy beaver. All right. Thomas, so part two. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone back to the Peking Inno Show. Thomas is back and, um, and do part two of the radical traditionalist school of philosophy. How are you doing today? Thomas? I know pretty well. I mean, during the summertime. Um, I, uh, yeah, I was going to wait. Last time I was going to talk about Joseph Demastron. I didn't get to that because we were talking about Renee Deion. And I'm sure some people would like me to talk about Julius, Apple, I too. When some are moving forward, we will, but I kind of want to get back to the main. topical emphasis of this series next time but those are my most important I mean in my opinion I mean I've got conceptual biases in that regard I mean the mic is probably other than Frank this part of Yaki and Shopenhauer and Hegel he's probably most the fingers that I'm most impact on my own theoretical musings and interpretations of all things related to the subject matter I've dedicated my scholarly life to but he's ill understood you know I Paul Godfrey who's an insightful guy he comes close I think to kind of defining his you know singer season to Maestro in a way that most you know reasonably mainstream scholars don't but you know the Maestro was not a conservative like that's just the wrong way to characterize I mean wasn't like the French Edmund Burke or something he wasn't really French you know he was from Seville when and the Seville yards were an interesting people because they were they were under the rule of the Holy Roman Empire but they were often in revolt against its political culture you know and they were very much into it devolved it kind of federalist type of government the Maestro himself was an idiosyncratic Catholic he backed the American Revolution he he said that the Angles Saxons and he viewed the Americans as the true Angles Saxons which the Americans viewed themselves as they viewed themselves as as as a Germanic people were bolting against Latinate tyranny like that's undeniable and like like Hamilton and John Jay came out and said that in the federalist but you know that's that's something that people don't really seem knowledgeable about anymore because they don't really understand the kind of sectarian divide and how much it shaped you know a American political thought but the Maestro also said that he said he was a very critical affrontment you know and he he was very critical of the Catholic Church you know he suggested that the this this kind of yeomanry independence streak that the Angles Saxons scene to embody had been like Breotti Europeans you know he he believed in a Republican government with admittedly like a very authoritarian bent he didn't view the way forward for Europe as as some sort of you know having some sort of like people over the world or something like that you know you know you know at the same time you know he was very very devout and you know you consider Catholicism to be an essential aspect of you know of European cultural learning as well as kind of you know like Western metaphysics real large you know and he's a lot of his critics in the 20th century they in very punitive terms identified the Maestro it's kind of the progenitor of fascist thought it's not really wrong I agree with that I mean obviously I've not seen reasons they do but you know they're really they really weren't things the right who had that who had a syncretic perspective of of of revolutionary politics we're both you know authoritarian and right wing and a valued traditional forms and modalities you know but who also had you know I strictly progressive you a government and things you know Demiachra is really the first you know there was other people who were kind of non-ideological or hard to categorize I think human she was one of them all conservatives like the claim human which I don't really understand I mean I've got some idea why it's I think some of these rockford Institute types who are basically like liberals of the reservations a human is a guy in the in the empirical tradition that they can invoke without feeling like they're betraying conservative principles but even that is a bit you know in Gohan but you know Demiachra it taken in total his body of work you know he he belongs with people like Julie Seville like Renee Dion you know like some of these some of these is demonic theorists I cited you know and I that should be clear I think that anybody who spends time with the subject matter and I mean obviously like that's right fall you know what I mean I'm I'm I'm very much a a Protestant like non-conformist but I've got something of an ecumenical view of faith matters and that's what the traditional schools all about it's not all being tread or some stupid day thing like that you know it's it has to do with the way people approach things like culture like race you know in terms of praxis but at the end of the day it's about metaphysics and you know we're trying to bring the metaphysical tradition back into you know the Western way of life you know and Wolfgang Smith would get into this a lot especially in some of the stuff he wrote in the 80s and 90s like later he got into kind of more complex rebuttals of scientism and things but he was writing about metaphysics and ethical stuff primarily you know he talked about how you know people talk about Western things when they're really talking about like liberal universalism and stuff which admitted we it is like a product of Western idealism I don't mean I don't mean colloquial ideals only capital I okay but this idea that oh in the West where this you know the where this kind of you know we've just kind of like value neutral ideas you know on there's a culture and things and you know it's though the Western tradition is you know the empirical and progressive tradition like that's nonsense that doesn't make any sense you know like that's that's like saying that's like the claim that like Arab culture is mathematics you know like it earned numbers like it's the conceptual syntax is not sensible okay but like many things related categorically to the social engineering regime and all the kind of permutations of it people don't really know how to think I said that box so they don't have the tools that they're disposal intellectually speaking you know and that's so that's important but then again I also put Hiter in that tradition I mean Hiter was complicated you know and he was the last two panel philosopher and in my opinion I don't think that's just you know what you know in much the same way I think the mission needs to be situated there too and like I said it the device or should you brass text thinker for any right wing dissident you know and obviously where I fall in an issue when I talk about dissident elements and talk about people who this this is basically a matter of historical imperatives and and theological belief in metaphysics it's not it's not guys complaining about blacks or like guys don't like affirmative action or guys who don't like taxation yeah like I'm not saying there's something wrong with kind of putting those things but it's not we're talking or something totally different okay and then you need to be clarified too you know I and I don't blame norm you for not understanding these distinctions but people who spend time in genuine dissident spaces and can't grasp this they they even need to kind of educate themselves and move on because it's we're not here to when I hear to swoop you know which like their little kids or something you know and I feel very strongly about that you know not just because I'm holding can't tank risk but you know this is you have got to spend so he's made the point and obviously you know you're talking about very serious parts and activity I'm not suggesting people take on those kinds of commitments and break you know and break the law and stuff but um something one can extrapolate from what Spencer's talking about is like you've got to learn how to answer the question like why am I here you know and why am I doing what I'm doing and why am I committed to these things you know you you've got to you've got to you've got to to be a white man about this. You can't just sit there and decide that you want people to take on what should be your intellectual process and figure the Cliffs Notes versions of things. That's bullshit. And you're wasting our time in your own if you're not capable of kind of resting beyond that. But moving on, I think I got into briefly last time. Can I interrupt before we go ahead? Yeah, go ahead. What some feedback I got on the first episode was that Demystra was not particularly a fan of the Republican government here. But basically, it looks like he supported the revolution. He had no problem with the abandonment of the crown. But around 1797, he started having questions about how it was operating. And he thought that the revolution was much better than the one that happened in France. But he said he's still, he saw too much enlightenment, ideology creeping in around that time too. Yeah, that's why Jeffersonianism is bullshit. So many white nationalists, consider themselves Jeffersonian. I think part of that was and that goes way back. Even like a bunch of lost cause types, they're Jeffersonian. It's like why? Like Jefferson was something of a creep. And he was basically he fancied himself as this kind of cosmopolitan, like worldly man. And so it was like what he did, like his praising other Jacob and cause, it was basically equivalent when some Hollywood star or something like pretending he supports, whatever the current thing is. It's really not a good luck. And Demystra was talking about the period of active hostilities. And Hamilton, Jay, who was Hamilton's protégé, and Hamlin was watching this protégé. These guys were defining what the revolutionary philosophy was. And it was an aristocratic secession. I mean, that's why the Confederates view themselves as, you know, we're realizing the ideals of the revolution. It had nothing to do with enlightenment imperatives. That's why that's a point you can't have made too. Like this, the kind of delatant faction among the founding fathers, they decided they wanted to include this like astinine storing language about like, oh man, being creative equal. It's like a meaningless phrase. And notice how like that doesn't emerge anywhere in the constitution because it's meaningless. And that's also, you know, not something that would have gotten past the proverbial veto of, you know, the real Vanguardist's un-tech. But, you know, the people seem to not understand also one of the reasons Demaistra took the perspective he did. You know, it's not the French crown was killing it and doing great things before 1789. And does it reason why revolutions happen? You know, Demaistra and the St. Petersburg dialogues, part of this ode to his views on the theodicy and metaphysics. You know, he said the revolution, you know, he went to Jacob meant just being basic subhuman in the scum of the earth, but he also said that like the revolution had to happen, you know, and he's like the rena terror was like a punishment against the hubris of sinners who made it happen. But also because the world as we know it in our fallen state is essentially a giant altar of sacrifice, you know, the stuff of history is literally the mass center face of human beings and this constant agonistic struggle and apoccal forces that leads the tremendous suffering, including of innocent people and children. Okay. But you've got to look at the kind of cosmic balancing of feats as it were that, um, you know, what is good and what is godly eventually does come out on top. But you got to look at humanity again totally. We're on our actual innocent individuals. Okay. So that's the way that he was looking at it. That's the way that he approached it. Um, and uh, honestly, I don't think there's anybody after 1783 other than in, you know, I, the immigrant revolution has invented as envisioned it failed by the time of the final constitutional convention, which is why things like shades of belly and happen, which is why the words when the states happened and which is why America's political culture was a mess in the 90 and a reading years. Okay. But that's kind of a subject for another, um, dedicated, uh, episode or series. But, uh, I, the, if I can reduce why I believe the motion belongs in the traditionalist camp. It's, uh, as I can, I can't remember if I read this last time. It's, it's the concept of the Sophia Paranus, perennial wisdom. You know, um, which is a subject matter that it's, it's concerned primarily and essentially in first and last metaphysics. Okay. Um, the understanding that all science, all knowledge, all wisdom that can be said to be perennial and enduring comes from metaphysics. And metaphysics, in fact, are a reflection of, you know, as, as our own natural law, as a reflection of the divine principle and the mind and end of God. Okay. That's, uh, that's the traditionalist perspective in a nutshell. And the enlightenment and, uh, everything that followed is a repudiation of that principle. It's essentially the, it's essentially taking, uh, you know, the, the same kinds of, uh, ideological imperatives that inform Newtonian physics and, you know, attempting to rebut, uh, metaphysics, you know, applying that the same kind of, uh, anti-reason, punitive critique, uh, to the human condition and ethical times, you know, and, uh, you'll find, uh, the traditional view also is that like through science and through empirical, um, practices, you know, that, that, that, that revealed, there's a repudiate, you know, knowledge of God, it, it clarifies it, you know, and in the Pauline letters, there's, the, this is reflected, same as in the Quran, you know, um, the, uh, the idea, the invisible deep to the creator are clearly seen, you know, in the things that are made, you know, that's Romans. Um, science and the traditional sense is a matter of, uh, what was in Smith called, quote, "reading the icon." You know, um, really, it was Francis Bacon who kind of, uh, is the, is the progenitor, um, of scientism, in a more direct way than, um, Newton, but, uh, both need to be kind of considered as constituting the foundations of that, particularly conceptual, prejudice, but, uh, like the idea of, uh, discovering causal chains and reducing these things that purely physical phenomenon and like atomic matter, you know, that somehow repudiates God, like that, there requires a, uh, I mean, all these things require like a leap of illogic, they think of it, like seeing like Darwinism, okay, but that kind of tautology that kind of, uh, you know, the kind of, the kind of Western inversion of lasynco-wism, I think it's like baconism, and like anytime anybody invokes that, well, you know, there don't be weasin' God because of science, like that, that's basically a biconian posse of it. Okay. And the traditionalist perspective rejects all of that. In contrast to most conservatives who accept that kind of nonsense, you know, and that's I, it's imperative to breach with conservative thought entirely. You know, if you want to consider yourself seriously and completely informed about the current dilemma, like in a partisan capacity, you know, that's not, I think everybody needs to think like I do or people need to, you know, prioritize the authorities and theorists that they think are most important in the way exactly like I do, but you're not in the game if you don't realize that, you know, you're not really taking a partisan position against the kind of pillars of regime thought, unless you, you know, make that sort of leap of logic and acknowledge that, you know, that the aforementioned is totally lacking in intellectual rigor. It's essentially a faith-based enterprise, you know. And that's that one of my witness tests, you know. When I come across people who defend these things, I realize, well, you know, they're not one of us. And that's fine, but I, you know, it's imperative to not structure your conceptual life around, you know, these times of armatory parameters that reflect the extent power structure, you know, and that's, and if you, if people are, say, you know, what's the significance of that to praxis, well, I just gave it to you there. So the, the sign is perspective, it's a reductionist to methodology, okay. And methodology without substance, you know, is the absence of metaphysics. And, you know, it becomes a structure without essence, okay. And like I said at the top of the hour, that's kind of the essence of the beat and switch of when people, when regime people and regime adjacent people talk about like a western, that's what they're talking about. They're talking about this kind of hollowed out scientism that, you know, rejects metaphysics, has no cultural orientation, you know, is, is basically this, you know, premise that's kind of like radical humanism. But it's not, it's not an active humanism or creative humanism. It's, it's a debased humanism that, you know, is essentially anti-culture and, you know, it's a gas cultural activity and the sources of cultural activity and a punitive light. So I, you know, it was essentially reduces the man to the state of an animal. And that's not accidental, nor is it instant, but, you know, and as these tendencies were taking shape as historical phenomenon, you know, Demyrester was like observing them in situ, okay. And like a lot of theorists, like Fictus and other one, Fictus got more, it's been, it's had more of an impact on kind of, you know, the mainstream academia Demyrester has. But similarly, Fictus was another political theorist who was tremendously impactful, but who is not widely read and really hasn't been, you know, for generations. Like a friend of mine said, these certain thinkers like this are, they're like the philosophical equivalent of that, like the velvet underground. You know, like guys who, like well and philosopher is read, but who, like most students of these subjects don't know about, you know, just like the velvet underground is like a band that, like a lot of guys listen to who went on to start bands. I think, I think, I think Johnny Ramon might have made that observation, but yeah, that's struck me as funny, but it's also happens to be true. I hadn't thought about it like that before, but you know, so that's one of the missions of people who have been the traditionalist perspective is, you know, to return the structure of Western or accidental intelligence, you know, this idea that there can be some sort of cultural perspective that doesn't imply a world of you for a discreet, historical orientation, you know, that's nonsense. And it's a kind of sophistry that doesn't stand up to intellectual rigor, but again, it's I really not supposed to because the whole purpose of these things like by design is supposed to take, you know, questions of metaphysics off the table and going to deprive people of the syntax and the conceptual vocabulary required to discuss and structure these things, you know, and that's a very insidious thing, okay, to say the least, but that's part of its purpose. And, you know, if you, you know, people talk distinctly about some like pop science, I mean, as they should. But I mean, that's what, that's part of the whole point is, you know, a lot of the kind of gatekeepers of scientism, they want to maintain this illusion that there's a esoteric knowledge that like very few men can actually grasp, which in the case of the subject matter that they promote for the absence of subject matter, maybe more appropriately, like that's a root, it's a conard, but they're trying to maintain some sort of appearance of elitism, it's almost rabbinic, you know, like I have the key to the interstantum, you don't, you can't possibly understand, like how do you criticize this perspective, because you can't really understand it, you know, like how people can claim that whose stock and trade is, it's trying to like abolish metaphysics and higher thought is laughable. But again, the whole point is the kind of stripper way, the layers of a meaningful contemplation and beyond that, the capability to engage in meaningful contemplation, but moving on, I'm going to back on a Demise dream self, like I said, he was born in Savoy in 1753, he was born in April and increasingly I'm finding myself agreeing with Carrie Mullis, I'm not going to run out and get into astrology, but I'm starting to believe that people's birth order within their family as well as the month of the year that calendar they are born does impact in some way their character and their intellectual tendencies. I find a lot of great men are born in April and I find a lot of crazy people are born in September, which probably doesn't go well for me because I'm one of those people, but because it may, he was the son of a high court judge who'd been enabled by the king of Sardinia, owing to his work in legal theory and specifically legal reform. This is Demise's father, Fraswa Xavie Demise from, from, from, I'm going to put on a pleading journal education, he studied at Turin, as soon as he gained his degree, he was appointed a public prosecutor in the senate to Savoy. The senate to Savoy was actually a judicial panel of which his father was the president and presiding judge. This was in 1774, so the kind of early iterations of Jagelman's sentiment were very much jumping off. But Savoy was sort of insular. You know, like I said, it was a historically part of the Holy Roman Empire or I mean under its authority, but it was very much like an island, like figuratively and literally, you know, until 1789, it was pretty much untouched by revolutionary activity and political disturbances and convulsions. And I think that's one of the reasons why, I mean, Demise was obviously a thoughtful and sensitive and very religious guy, you know, a legal scholar from a family of intellectuals who had been enobled. So, you know, it's a background, that's a unique background, you know, on the one hand, its middle class and bourgeoisie and professional and upwardly mobile on the other hand, I mean, it was aristocratic, like the lifestyle that the Unis family lived. You know, and so like a young guy, or a young-ish guy by that time period, by the sense of that time period, you know, something like the 1789 revolution would have really, really disturbed the guy habits of somebody like Joseph Demise and his entire kind of worldview and would have prompted deep contemplation on the cause of these things. In addition to, you know, more sanguine area and immediate survival concerns. But Savoy was also like a very pious place, very, very Catholic. Demise's mother was very devoted. She was some kind of, I don't know exactly how the Catholic lady, how they figure into church hierarchy. His mother was like the equivalent of what in my tradition, it'd be like a deaconess, okay, like a laywoman in Catholicism, you know, who was very insinuated into the church, okay. But when he returned home from taking his law degree, Demise joined a Masonic lodge. The thing is though, Freemasonry was pretty diverse, especially in its early iterations. Some of them were atheistic and positively pro-Jekobin and their sentiments. You know, some were phylosimitic and weird ways. Some were into neoplatonism and things like that. And some were pretty much into like mysticism. You know, the lodge that Demise joined, their patron saint was Saint Martin. And you know, this was well after Freemasonry had been categorically condemned by the pope. But there was an inter-conflict among some of these guys like Demise, who joined lodges that were not anti-Catholic. And that in fact were very much into things we'd probably considered to be interested adjacent to alchemy and occultism, frankly, but also Christian mysticism and stuff and tradition of Maister Eckert as well was what the kind of stuff that some of these men would be taken in by. So the Freemasonry which Demise was insinuated, it was mystical and occultic rather than enlightened. And it could probably be called conservative, it could be called anything, but it was definitely not democratic, it was definitely not reformist. And this wasn't the only lodge like this. There were guys who became like arch anti-Jacobins and anti-analymed part of the engine came out of Masonic lodges. So it's complicated. Okay. At any event, in the year, it was immediately part of the revolution. He was criticized heavily by his fellow senators, as well as not a few clergymen in Savoy, because he consistently defended freedom of thought, especially of aristocrats. And his first reaction to the Jacobin revolution was somewhat of a weight and sea position. But when he became clear like what was happening and the mega-sidal excesses and the the the the the based and sacral dissonaments, he became an arch partisan against it. But again, early on, the French crown was failing. France was losing out in the great power political struggles, relatively were rivals. And the majority of the view was that France is a great nation, possessed of a great destiny. But the revolutionary armies are going to return France to their greatness. It's godly. Even if the blood of incidents is going to flow, because again, the process of history is a sacrificial process, which is why we'll get into this too. Demise's view is that the most sacred figure in the national politics is the executioner. The executioner is a great man, not because he's just because he's singularly terrifying. But he's the distilled essence of sovereignty because he wields the power of life and death. And through that monumental power, to like deliberate death to any man or woman, he stands like singularly above all who populate the nation. He's a high priest of sacrifice. The art attack of the historical process and God's will. But any enthusiasm for the Jacob and Caws subsided around the time they've not before. And then, the time to avoid was assaulted by the new French Republican army in 1792. But by the time they assaulted, he'd already become this firebrand partisan against revolution. Revolutionary ambitions and jagumism in general. And a month after French armies entered the Seville art territory, he fled the country. He was almost certainly going to be executed. We're thrown into some dungeon and left a rot or drowned on a, like so many tens of thousands were, you know, for counter-revolutionary thought or habits. He returned briefly in 1793 to see if the revolutionary further debated. And tragically, he had a wife and children by this time. And, you know, he wanted to be with them. But he went into being clear that, you know, the cycle of killing and revolutionary. And they were almost very cycle. Like, it didn't, you know, was peaking if anything. It wasn't a baiting. He left again. He didn't see his family again for 20 years. All the way was in, like, I have a correspondence. And it's true that it's clear that, you know, the truth of the matter is being asserted as letters to his wife and whatnot. Very much a tragedy and figure. But he established himself in Sardinia. And Sardinians are interesting people. I mean, all Italians are, but he became ensconed at Lesan. And he was made a foreign representative of the Sardinian crown. And then he became an active counter-revolutionary. And in addition to kind of beginning his career as a prolific writer, a lot of what he wrote wasn't widely published to a general literate audience until the 1880s. But locally, this was very widely circulated among counter-revolutionary circles. It played a, it's worked with a huge role in motivating and kind of consolidating counter-revolutionary sentiment, especially among, because in, like, Corsica, Sardinia and on the mainland of Italy, there was all kinds of refugees who were like fleeing the terror. And the book Considerations on France, which is for the first time published locally in that became kind of the seminal anti-gigabond. and screwed. You know, and a couple years later, he returned to the mainland and eventually settled in Venice. And he found it with a Piedmont around 1799, 1800. Then by this time he became literally like a tenorant political soldier and writer. And that made him amenable to being deployed far and wide as a representative of the Serdenin Crown. So he got sent to St. Petersburg in 1802 and he really found a home in Russia. The Russians then is now, you know, they're very welcoming of a certain type of heterodox thinker from the West. You know, it's almost a cliche. You know, whether you're talking about Ars-Rite Winger's or they're talking about Kim Philby and the Cambridge Seven. Whether you're talking about Snauton, you know, this goes way back. And that's, this is a most prolific period. And his most intellectually rigorous. That's when he wrote the St. Petersburg dialogues. Obviously, he wrote this on the Pope. He wrote a degenerative principle of political constitutions. He wrote this pre-meral pudiation of the philosophies of Bacon. And he was in Russia throughout until 1817. So he witnessed an appolionic war from Northern Russia. We're just fascinating. And in a relatively advanced age, you know, he finally returned to France and you know, always forgiven, obviously, by that point. But, you know, in a lot of the last two, he started writing these kinds of retrospectives and the revolution. And that's when, you know, he came to, it's kind of his stories and came full circle. You know, as around this time, he started, you know, this is probably his most reactionary period too. But it was tempered, like I said, by this, this kind of idiosyncratic theology that tempered was otherwise a kind of conservative historicism. You know, whereby, you know, he's like, don't let him have the reign of terror. It had to happen. It was, it was both a crime and a punishment and an essential aspect of, you know, France's destiny and the historical process, which is always sanguine area characteristic of suffering. You know, and the, you know, like he said to his, like, had the revolutionary army's not been victorious. There would have been no Napoleon, you know, France never would have achieved greatness again. And then also, like, you know, we wouldn't be this repentant nation that had redeemed itself from decrepitude, you know, and that's actually, that frankly, like a very Protestant view of things. Like, I can't remember who it was. One, I think it was one of the guys who were counter-currents. He said that the money shows like the most, like, Calvinist Catholic, whatever it lived. I think there was nothing to that. And that's probably why, I found myself receptive to his theology early on. The first thing I read by him was the executioner. And I remember this was in the 90s. And that was when, um, that was when even a lot of, like, supposedly conservative Catholics were pretty milk toast, even in a place like Chicago, in every Catholic city. And I remember the response was, from a lot of these guys, I knew, like, oh, that's, that's disgusting, you know, like the death penalties anti-Christ. And even it wasn't. That's idolatrous. I'm like, I'm like, you don't understand. You know, I'm like, that's also preposterous. You know, um, and even if, uh, my favorite thing was you're like, you know, Christ is wrongfully executed. I'm like, no, Christ had to be executed. And you're not a Christian if you don't get that. You know, I, um, I don't want to spend this off into, um, this question of deep theology. But I know it's coming either in a comment section or by email. When Christ cried out, like, you know, I don't know why, why have you forsaken me? That's the hebraic, like death prayer. He's not saying, like, oh, no, I've been condemned to death. It's, you know, um, I find Andrew ischrewebshure as things to say on that. But, um, but because it may, like, I, I, um, that's one of the things I, one of the reasons I maintain that, uh, the Maestro of Belongs in the traditionalist, um, category because that, that kind of theological syncretism is not accidental. And again, it's free masonry is a component of that. You know, because there is, uh, there isn't, there's a, there's a theological ecumenism to traditionalism that seems superficially inconsistent with, uh, you know, the kind of, uh, racialism that tends to go along with traditionalism, but, you know, that, that, that, that it's not inconsistent in the least, you know, the, uh, relativism or pursued relativism of capital T traditionalism. You know, it always in the belief that, um, you know, part of a, an aspect of the mind of God, in, uh, the historical process is the development of discrete nations. You know, and, um, part of what makes us human and capable of higher reason is, uh, the historical consciousness that derives from, you know, linear natality and, you know, the kind of shared experience of, uh, of, um, historical existence. You know, that can only come from, you know, the, the, the differences between the races of men. And, um, you know, the basis of the congregation obviously too is the fellow feeling derived from the nation and to abolish that is, you know, to abolish, uh, the potentiality of Christian fellowship and in turn to abolish the potentiality of the church, you know, which is, uh, the body of Christ on earth, you know, um, it, uh, so they shouldn't seem inconsistent. But at the same time, you know, again, it, even to somebody who's, do I just eos in credit, even if somebody who's like traditionally Catholic, okay? I mean, that, that can't be denied. Um, but I'd argue, uh, so is Machiavelli, you know, Machiavelli's model of, uh, progressive statecraft was, uh, you know, Ferdinand and Isabella's spain, you know, and that's not, that's not a very Catholic perspective in the traditional sense, but, um, moving on, um, the, uh, but yeah, I mean, it experts throughout what is conventionally, um, precedented and stuff, uh, especially like the reflections on France and stuff from the period of self-imposed exile in Russia, uh, you know, the starting point, a Demistras, uh, thought, and, um, all traditionalist thought is, uh, you know, God in the divine order, are the starting point of understanding history and society. And, uh, the reason why the Enlightenment and its progeny, including the J. Gomerimolution, were at odds with reason, is because they were at odds with God, you know, and, um, scourning, uh, the sacred character of historical processes and printions, institutions, you know, like a monarchy, um, I had some in terms that doesn't mean, you know, kings are infallible or something, but the scourning of these institutions and categorical terms and essential terms. You know, there's a repudiation of the divine order in human affairs and Society and not the individual is a subject of history You know and any true kind of science of man or Science of history or theory of politics or ethics for that matter Because all ethics touching concern the political you know The subject matter can never be the individual Because the individuals in abstraction you know Invisioned by social engineers who You know in their hubris Wish to make themselves the architects of the struggle processes and lieu of God or by you know people who enlarge measure abide uh enlightenment conceits and who despite You know claiming to be these conservatives They uh They claim that you know individuals are the source of vitality and institutions and these like arbitrary institutions are what needs to be preserved for you know pragmatic reasons You know for reasons of familiarity You know like there's not a conservative position As an enlightenment liberal position with certain reservations waiting to the progress and timetable of you know radical imperatives but um You know and and finally You know cultural uh aspects You know not Not not pure reason abstracted from Historical contingencies this is the only possible approach to reforming A revolutionizing government or social relationships Because otherwise you're speaking of things as they are not You know that's um If you're talking about like roles available ignorance You know you're saying like if man and society was not as it is and was perfectly malleable You know these these kinds of things would be possible Because uh People's hierarchies of desires and people's motivations And the things that color their passions It would be You know Spundedly unrelated to historical phenomenon You know and that that doesn't describe anything that actually exists So even by its own standard It's uh You know which is supposedly you know the rational and empirical You know it's it's not it's not it's not those things You know you can't uh And plus to like what's good for Because things like race and because things uh You know like cultural learning of a discrete character You know those those are the things that um Make it possible for us to develop A higher moral consciousness You know you you can't claim that those things are somehow At odds with what customary behavior should be and you know should not inform The wisdom of the law you know um Because again uh There's not uh That does not that does not some sort of like alternative ethics that's you know purely secular in nature And blind to uh discrete racial and cultural realities And beyond that even you know like what is good for uh in communitarian terms or what is good For a discrete race or nation of people Is uh obviously contingent upon um What's gonna sustain uh that racist posterity That's all point You know um You can't decide that You're going to remove a population From uh its cultural trappings And from historical processes and like identify arbitrary things as the good because supposedly According to some model where you know humans exist in abstraction You know this is just something that's kind of like guaranteed the dignity of all these abstracted people According to some arbitrary metric usually relating to like wish fulfillment and Individual desires like that's that's not even sophistry. It's it's just nonsense You know it's um It's like saying you're going to solve a mathematical equation with with um with letters That don't have a symbolic numeric value You know, it's just like if I scribble enough words on the chalkboard on a solvent equation Because I say so you know because Be because numeric notation is is is is is historically contingent and You know we we're just limiting ourselves with that It's a lot of the imperfect metaphor But yeah, that's what I got in Demonstra I don't like spin off another subject or we'll be here for a minute All right good stuff. I know people are going to like this one People are interested in hearing more about the master. Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah people should be reminded that places like Imperium press are reprinting his works. So go check it out you can He has collected works His work his letters on the Spanish Inquisition, which I've read on the show So yeah, yeah, it's up. No, I just you know at some point. I mean um, I'll I'll write some long form stuff on the executioner because there's one of my very favorite box Yeah, no demonstra's great stuff and highly readable um You know, not all put a little theory is and I say that is somebody who reads political theory all day But yeah, right just something feels a definitely read man All right, where do we find you now? Um check on my website. It's Number seven. It's a yeah, it's time is777.com Number seven each on me is777.com. We're going to sub stack Like pretty much everything I'm doing is on sub stack right now or on my website Um, it's real time is777.substake.com I'm gonna start doing more streams and stuff like live streams You know, I've been thinking about that for a minute and I've been uh, I've been working on my manuscript and kind of like chilling this summer Which has been like awesome but uh I'm I'm trying to put out more content and to my in my defense. I have been there. I don't go more than like five days without dropping something fresh, but I want to start Doing some weekly live streams and stuff so stay tuned for that um in august. We'll kick that off at some point Awesome. So the next episode. Thank you Thomas. Yeah, thank you wait Want to welcome everyone back to the pecan-yuna show How are you doing today, Thomas? I'm doing pretty well You know, I think I emphasize and and I hope I'm not retreading subject matter that I already covered Please tell me if I am I mean the point that there's a significance beyond one of trivial curiosity To the fact that it could very Honestly be said from about 1934 onward with an national socialist revolution was consolidated You know, particularly after June 1934. I mean, it's consolidated in a most unfortunate way, but you know um And as Mussolini really kind of came to the fore as as a a major figure and in european political life even before The Spanish Civil War jumped off There definitely was an internationalist movement around These accessories eems and these movements are adjacent to them and I don't want to get ahead of myself, but I believe and obviously I've got hagelian sensibilities There's a parallel between this and the Islamic Awakening in 1979 You know with the seizure the grandmask and the Iranian revolution and this Emerging some of the truly Islamic zeitgeist and praxis that people didn't think was possible Okay, um It was born of some of the same Historical pressures you know as uh those that classified and gave rise to faith in the sentient as a married other movement, and it's a national socialism and things. And the basis of that was you know what we could think of as a traditionalist praxis or the capital of T. And that's one of the reasons why I include a Heightaker in this camp. Okay, because he was really the first among this intellectual cadre to curate a meaningful revolutionary praxis, or at least try to insinuate such a thing and do a burgundy Zeicaist that had led to various iterations of real world politics. And there's evidence to substantiate this beyond reading the proverbial indicators of historical events. You know, Mercier Eliati. And what we're going to talk about him at length. You know, he served with the Iron Guard. And later in life, they were trying to indict him on grounds of that. Leo Strauss, so I don't have nice things to say about. I do give him respect because he came to Eliati's defense pretty aggressively. You know, when they were trying to deport him and what have you, they were colleagues in the University of Chicago. You know, but Mercier Eliati, Heightaker, Pearl Schmidt, Ernst Younger, Carl Lowe, if it wasn't part of that intellectual cadre, but he was kind of an intermediary between them and Strauss and other kind of Jewish intellectuals or more neutralist events. It's an odd dynamic. Marc Husa also reached out to this cadre. And it's interesting, because higher-gram are Husa ahead of pretty heavy correspondence. But these kinds of things were discussed, like the meaning of the politics in the German Reich and people make a lot of the fact that, you know, O'Joyah Seville was, for example, was it odds with the fascist regime? I mean, this is what's positive, or because the SS, specifically the Cicarez-Dienst investigated them, that this suggests that somehow, you know, he was some arch-idological opponent of the German Reich and the National Fascist regime. It's not, that's preposterous. You know, it's identically, when Otto Scorsini broke Mussolini out of the Alpine prison he was being held in. You know, Mussolini was scrawled away to Wolfslayer and he sent for Evela and Evela met Adolf Hitler. And Hitler said he wanted to meet Julius Evela. Like he wanted him there anyway, Evela was the closest Duce and Hitler were. Duce English was pretty good, as the German was not that good. But I mean, there was any number of people who were fluent who Hitler would have been comfortable having a deck. Okay, he wanted, and there was other Italian fascist intellectuals, he sent for it too. You know, the, especially in 1943, as things were, you know, the Ottoman in 1943, Hitler wasn't frivolously just like meeting people, okay? I mean, like, and just being admitted to Wolfslayer, I mean, that's pretty profound. Okay, I mean, obviously, I mean, Evela was his own man, you know, like he didn't count out at anybody and he wasn't somebody who was just impressed by office. You know, he, it's not like he was, and he was a genuine aristocrat. It's not like he was just starrer-struck at the prospect of meeting the führer or something. You know, he, he was his own man, and he definitely had reservations about the regime, but there was also things about it that he considered to be great. You know, and they can't be denied. But, you know, there's always, and when you're talking about powerful people, like men who actually wield great power, and, you know, men who have great power of intellect, you know, there's always, there's always going to be clashes of ego of conceptual disparities that, you know, become repersonal and things, you know. So, it's important, yeah, I mean, the, the access political culture was a house divided, but not interactively so, and I think that's important. But, I think I mentioned before, and again, calling me out of time repeating myself. I'm not going to get offended or something. I, you know, Heidegger, Heidegger's view of the national socialism was essentially Aristotelian. You know, he viewed the West as having been compromised at his core when the understanding of the experience of being, like quite literally intellectual and sensuously present existence, receded from, you know, immediate contemplation in both daily life, as well as in, you know, intellectual endeavors. You know, of course, Heidegger, and he wasn't the only one viewed the triumph of Platonism, of which he viewed Christianity to be in the same vein in basic subjective terms, viewed being as this eternal presence, you know, like only understood in fully experienced and access to this dialectical ascent. You know, I'm a higher-reviewed Christianity as the zenith of that. You know, Christianity describes so, theology in terms of this unattainable transcendence towards eternity. You know, this, in some ways, the conceptual opposite of, you know, the immediacy of being, that, you know, Heidegger posited was, you know, the basis of, you know, kind of, endo-European metaphysics, you know. And with the death of God, what, I should end the final withdrawal of being from immediate consciousness in the mind of an existence of Western man, was, you know, the sub-sumasion of all life by technology. Okay, the only thing that came to ground man then was man himself. You know, man was forced to kind of configure the world around his own kind of debased ontological aspects, you know, which, you know, what proceeded from that was an idea that nothing proceeded man, you know. And, concominantly, you know, as a real experience of the world and engagement with it, became obscured, you know, through the lens of technological processes, you know, objects encountered within life itself. You know, kind of basically just represent, you know, aspects that could be rendered in the service of technology or aspects that, you know, at one time, held features of the natural world or in some way we're related to It's kind of holistic understanding of reality, but you know could only really be experienced and ascertained in Fractured aspects, you know they constituted these kinds of technologically rendered things you know and That's kind of the final stage of like ripping man out of a a cultural existence and That's sort of the final alienation stage of alienation from historical memory So the higher you like the only potential for salvation of the West was Returning the question of being to immediate consciousness of You know the culture bearing strain Which presumably is you know you know European or Aryan if you prefer strain like still extant within European races, but at the same time you know reconciling That Palin genetic understanding of being and that sort of Reemergence of Cultural situatedness and historical situatedness With the reality of high technology, you know, Hightaker wasn't some Luddah it's in some reactionary and It didn't I mean you didn't think that was desirable But you know, but he made the point like even even if people thought those desirable. It's not You can't like stop knowing things that collectively are known, you know even if You know even if in his view like the German people weren't faced with this grandest struggle challenge That had these You know most severe of existential implications You know even if even if they could kind of like retreat to some sort of you know simple librarian life What they they'd be doing that in purpose Lee and in dialogue with you know a technological um Existence, you know, so it would be totally contrived even if it was desirable You know um So Hightaker's notion though too was that and this is a problem in national socialism to traditional is okay all of them even Even people who You know we're we're kind of in I consider the same campus Hightaker, but it very different emphases You know like Elliotty like Julia Sivola like Carl Schmidt to some degree. I mean Carl Schmidt wasn't really a traditionalist But he had certain sympathies in that regard You know there's limits to political life in terms of party politics so even if And Hightaker's you even if the national socialist party Was you know doc trinally this you know the greatest of all possible parties If you can't remedy crises of history by like passing the laws or if you can't just develop some sort of social program, you know to To rejuvenate you know, you know your opinion metaphysics obviously Okay, but at the same time party politics Is a Essential aspect to how people's lives are Structured and framed and in conceptual terms it it wheels a huge significance Okay, Carl Loweeth, though I mentioned I think before my life. Loweeth was an interesting guy. He was kind of this He was a German Jew. He was married to a Japanese woman and he taught in Japan. He was a university type and Obviously, after the NERBER laws were passed, you know as a racial Jew He he wasn't real thrilled with the prospect of returning to the German Reich but He wasn't some our designers then he wasn't He was more of a He had the sensibilities of a lot of Jewish Brailleurs, you know like Paul Godfried. I made a point is that's his heritage You know, Loweeth was kind of a Kind of a German conservative in his viewpoints, but He probably had more sophisticated intellectual leanings than a lot of that codery, but He had a high degree at a pretty evident correspondence and High degree in 1936 and again, this was a year that in my opinion what we would call a fascist international had really Was kind of ossifying and peaking as a As a truly global movement You know, um, in 1936 You know, he wrote to Loweeth this long letter and basically explaining his partisanship, you know for the national socialist cause You know and as since he said look You know The national socialist they're the only They're the only political faction That's truly situated in a historical capacity and whose goals constitute like an essential historical philosophy You know He said that they're consciously aware of the need for a spiritual renewal You know, he's like yeah, maybe like the bully boys, you know who won the streets in the communist have no understanding of this You know and and and maybe your average folder, you know who's it's you know, it's kind of like a a common working man or you know Nor they're in a Ryan Lant farmer or whatever like doesn't understand these things, but the what the vanguard does and every aspect of the national socialist program Is tailored towards a spiritual renewal and a return to this kind of immediate understanding of being within you know the racial consciousness and in terms of More conventional praxis You know it was in a high degree of view and I agree with this It was reconciling the social antagonisms that were You know availing Germany year up and the western world to communism you know the potential of a The global communist revolution which has succeeded would have Annihulated what remained of western dicing which in height of your speak is there being you know literally the consciousness of you know That immediate ontology that we're talking about and You know preclude the regeneration of any College for a productivity or historical situatedness. So this was I don't this was critical okay um There was a An understanding and how it was mind of existential crisis you know well before War arrived in a total capacity you know he understood the implications of these things you know and Also there one of the things the essential decision is um Of the fear of principle the man that's appealed a high degree to I mean not just for Supervisual reasons or we're gonna cliche reasons of oh you know two tonic people's like strong men who give orders You know eva la and ilia adi made the point that You know a strong state is the basis of a strong people Be it kind of like curate a strong state for its own purposes and that doesn't that doesn't mean some total state That doesn't mean some Leviathan bureaucracy You know what it means is you need a true seizer you need a true maha but you need to cram well You know you need some hero of personage Is capable of acting historically and rendering decisionism and sometimes You know the most Severe and frightening capacities you know you know you don't get the pick and choose who they at man is You know that's why I'm always coming out of the point that You know people like Hitler or are messianic personages not in theological terms obviously. I mean an historical ones and That's not that's not something they can just they can be cultivated What is that tendency? I hear it today people who, you know, they understand that we have an occupation that we're occupied, but they only want certain people to speak for them. If like, you know, if like, Zog was being exposed by somebody, you know, who isn't in their camp, they'd, that person to gatekeeper that person is trying to, you know, they want it to be their guy or they feel like, what do they feel like they're not, they're not winning themselves? What is that? Yeah, I think part of it is that they're basically just kind of decadent moderns and everything to them is some sort of vicarious, ego fulfillment. You know, everything's got to be subjective, we were relatable and in some kind of simple-minded crude sense. Or, you know, I'm always making the point, this isn't an evolution point too. You know, conservatives are enemies, and one of the reasons why the other kind of people, you know, when Caesar arrives, the lack like a bunch of Pharisees, you know, he's not respectable or something, like, or, you know, they, everything's about appearances, everything's about, you know, economics, you know, like national economics, but also kind of the economics of caste, dynamics, you know, they really is something too. I mean, they're up, I think their observations, they arrive at these things for the wrong reasons, but they're selling to it when when these old Marxists or when these, or when these post-Marxist like global systems, there are types, talk about, you know, how bourgeoisie types are, you know, kind of John Q and Jane Q, public, you know, conservative voters, they really are like culturally impoverished. I mean, I think that's true. So I can't fully explain it, but except, you know, but that they're metaphorical Pharisees, you know, like, you know, Crime Wells, the wrong kind of man, or Mohammed, he's from a family of merchants, he's not, you know, he's not a king, you know, Adolf Hitler, he's a roughian. I think it's somewhat, I think it's that simple in some ways, you know. Or if, like, if Hamas took down Israel, they'd be pissed off about that because it was the brown people who did it and it wasn't proper white Europeans who did it. Yeah, but they also, they, but they themselves like had, you know, don't even understand, they're on the lower in that regard. Like, yeah, I mean, that's part of it too, but they also, but they're all, I mean, so that too, it's just like stupid, stupid prejudices, you know, I don't mean Reese's, I mean, it's like unexamined, unexamined, boy, you've structures, you know, like, these people think they, and as everybody knows, I get a lot of shit for this. I don't get what fuck about. They're like, we don't know anything I care less about, but I get really, really irritated by my simple tens and, uh, and, um, mental midges who like think the heat is long. When like, they couldn't tell you anything about the faith, they have no understanding of the difference between the sects. They have no understanding that, you know, literally every race on this planet is represented within Islam. You know, they, they don't even understand that, you know, the, the founders, the Palestinians are resistant for Christian, not Islamic, but, um, you know, they, so if there's some, if there's, if there's some like, if there's some, uh, if there's some chronally minded, like, lumping black guy from like, Ingola, who gets dropped in the UK or Ireland, you know, by some, by some NGO, tailored to, overseer, like, ethnic cleansing, refugee in countries, like, and that guy does something horrible. They decide that that's Islam. It's not like some like, it's not some like, deviant third world guy who's criminally minded, like somehow it's somehow, somehow it's Islam doing that. You know, like, at any point, that'd be like, if like, when the Venezuelan vision, for the end of my Biden was underway, they'd be like me insisting that this was like, Catholics doing something to me. Like, you know, like, I, I mean, that's another issue, but it's, there is, uh, there is a serious provincial ignorance. I think it's all those things, you know, but, um, I, uh, but, uh, you know, at the same time, though, I mean, I'm always making the point that, with this kind of subject matter, you know, we're not, we're not through the hoes of witnesses, or we're not Scientology, and we're not, we're not a Billy Graham crusade. You know, we're not, we're not trying to like get normies to think right. It's always about, it's always about waking up the normies. Yeah, wake up the normies, man. Yeah, yeah, that's like, that's like the, the last thing I, I have any interest in doing. I mean, maybe, maybe if I ran a mega church or something, or if I was like a salesman, I'd feel differently, but, you know, there's nothing to do with what I'm, what I'm up on, but, um, you know, the, uh, and to bring it back, and I'll move us forward from higher, because I, I realize, uh, we can't spend like endless episodes on this subject matter. But, um, you know, the whole, in terms of practice, we're politics intersects with metaphysics, and with, you know, returning culture to a situation of, of higher development, you know, as, uh, the potential for, you know, a historical existence, an authentic cultural existence recedes as a potential for, you know, like an immediate, kind of ontological understanding of, of being, you know, as, as the truth of what is truly, what is genuinely fundamental, kind of like, recedes out of, uh, you know, the collective grasp of a people in psychological and spiritual terms, this leads to an inevitable nihilism. Okay, it creates pointless societies that kind of passively commit suicide slowly, or, you know, an active nihilism emerges, which is communism, you know, and you have, you have a mega-sidal class warfare, and, you know, again, the entire communist project is essentially the eradication of culture and the reduction of people to a, a state of slavery, you know, because slaves can't live historically, you know, they're precluded from it because they can't access it, an historical experience, they can't access a historical memory any longer. You know, and that's, that's basically like imposing a billion deaths, I mean, wiping out an entire culture of people, like, even if physically their descendants are still alive for, or many generations, you know, and I mean, so that's, that's both like the immediate crisis that, uh, you know, a high-iger and, and it's codery, and those adjacent realize that they had to remedy. I mean, but this was like, the nature, the emergency whereby, uh, the praxis is something like, you know, national socialism or, you know, the, the national fascist party or, uh, or an evil as you, the iron guard, which, again, they're, you know, he viewed as, uh, the most, uh, perfected form of, uh, this tendency, you know, born of the crisis, uh, modality, you know, born of the extensite guys. But that's, uh, you know, aside from whatever other differences and, you know, like ethical or aesthetical or, you know, um, moral differences, um, in basic terms, existed between, you know, the revolutionary right and, uh, conservative elements, you know, the former or the only ones acknowledging this or who probably really understood it. I don't, I don't mean people at the style home and you know. Christian Democrats understood these things. I mean, the obviously perceived that there was some sort of apoccal crisis of foot. I mean, that's obvious, but you know, even if people would mean well, and I don't think conservatives ever really mean well, okay, but even if they did, you know, in absence of a cadre that understands these things and understands what isn't it's not possible in terms of praxis and is capable of, you know, developing a meaningful conceptual paradigm of, you know, the historical situation as well as, you know, the metaphysical basis of you know, the values being defended and other things. I mean, without that, whatever movement or party in question is useless. You know, something that was a big part of a, that was a big part of Heidegger's partisanship too. You know, and when Heidegger stepped away, the people have a misunderstanding too. I mean, Heidegger pretty, he disengaged himself from active membership within the party pretty quickly after the revolution. And that wasn't accidental. And it wasn't because he suddenly decided that, you know, national socialism was grossly offensive to his person and that Hitler was a bad man. It was because mission accomplished in part. You know, that the chips are going to fall where they may, you know, fate has, or the historical process through the cutting of reason has ordained this outcome, you know, the national socialist, rather going to deliver Europe to, you know, a kind of racial and cultural salvation and historical and astrological terms where they're not. You know, like what? Like a man in Heidegger's situation. First of all, most people like Heidegger who are basically these kinds of introverted big thinkers, they don't really like engaging with politics. You know, I don't like that kind of thing. I'm not nearly the man Heidegger is obviously, but the last thing I want to do is fuck around with party politics. You know, and it would have been kind of unbecoming for a guy like Heidegger. Who I think that, I mean, Heidegger didn't have, I mean, Heidegger hadn't ego like all brilliant men do, but I don't only, His was particularly overly cultivated, but he doesn't, he did have an understanding of himself in his role, okay. In the German intellectual tradition and it's kind of the the last true continental philosopher in that discrete tradition. You know, if he'd been like running around trying to insinuate himself, you know, into party affairs and become some kind of partisan celebrity, like that would have been very gross. You know, so it's, I mean, you can tell me that speculative, I don't think it is. I think it's pretty clear. But you know, this process and nihilism, you know, this Heidegger view that is literally the most, the most catastrophic and disastrous development, probably since the fall of Rome. You know, it wasn't just a, it wasn't just something, that was the subject matter for, you know, kind of high-falutin disengaging intellectuals to debate about in, you know, in men's clubs or something. You know, this, this was a critical existential challenge, you know, that, that had to be met. You know, and even if it couldn't be overcome, history demanded that a European man, you know, go down while meeting the challenge, you know, when a man we in upright and forthright way. But, you know, moving on to Elvila and some of these other thinkers. You know, I think, there's a, there's a value in published. I can't remember who published it initially. Elvila wrote a series of essays directly, it was, you know, directly in the subject of national socialism and fascism. And various permutations of, you know, what he viewed as, you know, radical traditionalist thought within revolutionary right wing prex. This is also, in the same period that he wrote this kind of hegiography to the iron guard. And, 10 or 15 years ago, it might have had counter-currents. They published these collected essays and this is value. You can find a free PDF on a line. It was, you know, I think it's called fascism considered from the right, for teach from the right. But, you know, for context, Elvila wrote a lot of stuff that was criticality viewed as the overly proletarian character of the fascist, particularly their direct action element. And, I love Latin people. I'm not saying bad things about them, but nobody does honor a few, like like Latin people and especially Italians. So, like some of some of Elvila's takes on these scudri-steed type guys really, really raised their iron. His life was threatened repeatedly, but he came very much under the patronage of a man named Roberto Feronacci. Feronacci was a, he was the fascist party boss of Cramona. And he, he also ran a newspaper. Ilvila Regime Fesista. Regime probably. Regime Fesista. You know, which obviously was a partisan newspaper. And he brought Elvila on board as the editor of the opinion page. So, Elvila had, through an official party organ, you know, basically cart blotch to like drop like opeds on the state of the party, you know, and on the state of the internal situation in Italy, on the state of the reality viewed as, you know, an international fascist movement. And I don't want to get ahead of myself, but his correspondence with Elio Adi and George Dumazole. Well, getting to Dumazole next episode, but Dumazole was, he's still, he's one of the few traditional anthropologists, you know, and in the old days before, you know, long before the human genome was even, you know, before I present with him, it was contemplation that the human genome could be met. Anthropology and a comparative linguistics and philology, he kind of ran together as a common discipline. Dumazole is the progenitor of the tri-functional hypothesis of Indo-European societies. You know, those who work, those who fight, those who pray, you know, the priestly cast, the warrior cast, than the agrarian cast. through comparatively linguistics and through endlessly pouring over these recurring symbols in national mythologies of Aryan derived cultures. He developed a conceptual picture literally of where ancient Aryans emerged, where their cultural footprint was most strongly felt, cultures were derived from this root founding population based on the tri-functional social organization principle. And again, these kinds of prime symbols and their pantheon of gods and heroes and recurring motifs and things. And fascinating, we as the human genome has been mapped, Dumazil was basically correct in how he mapped these things, like literally on the physical map and conceptually. Okay. But Dumazil and Eliati had a notion and Evola shared in this that one of the things that made fascism an international tendency, a movement of zeitgeist, and something that was diminished in the fact that it was something that transcended and superseded ordinary politics, the martyrdom of Aryan Mozart and Bessilyan Marine in Spain. You know, they were Aryan guard partisans. He died fighting the communists. Dumazil and Eliati in their correspondence, they discussed that this was a blood sacrifice. Okay. And the blood of these martyrs has awakened this, you know, dormant tendency towards, like here and for dormant tendency towards palangenesis. And, you know, the racial memory and the ancestral memory with an Aryan derived peoples has been awakened by this to me, like an existential enemy. We even know at this time it's situated in Spain, you know, represents the traditional enemy from the Orient that, you know, has always metastia Europe, you know, and just as, just as, you know, the great con had to be resisted, as news of the Golden Horde, traveled by word of mouth, as millions fled in terror. It's in its stead and wake. You know, the similar awakening was underway. And, you know, from the tradition was perspective, blood sacrifice is always a catalyst for these sorts of awakenings, you know, which is one of the reasons why it's universal to human societies, you know, savage and civilized, you know, accidental and oriental, you know, wherever you find man on this planet, you know, from the most primitive, Sub-Saharan tribe to, you know, the most advanced, Western population. You know, this, this is a feature that exists within their cultural psychology and their understanding of worship and, you know, religious practice and even if it's cast under different names and even if it's theological, so knowing it's as obscured, you know, it exists, you know, it's the modern present, you know, in the form of, you know, the martyrdom of Partisans or in executing a condemned man, you know, because the blood of the victims cry out to heaven for justice and, you know, because wrongs can be redeemed, you know, by the, by the sacrificial bloodletting of the condemned, you know, however you want to characterize these things, you know, that was in the mind of Dumazil and Eliati and some degree of Evalon's self, you know, the true catalyzing influence upon, you know, the fascist international, you know, that was for context. They set the outset, there's a comparative analogy with the Islamic awakening that the martyrdom of Iron Mozart and Vestil Madin, that was the siege of the Grand Mosque by Salafis, okay, is a comparable moment or probably a more direct example of martyrdom. I would say that the martyrdom of Bobby Sands and, you know, the Catholic moment, as it was called, that I believe very much expedited the death of the East block. Okay, that's another example, all right. But, you know, so I, I think it's important to acknowledge too, I mean, I agree with these, the musings of the men in question, wholeheartedly, but even if you don't, it's important to understand that it agreed to which, you know, this, this, we're not just talking about like a prestige, it kind of discrete and isolated ad hoc, right wing movements that, you know, sort of arbitrarily collided when it was expedient to do so for military or political reasons. You're talking about a, you're talking about a genuine movement, just as much as the Communist International was, you know, and among other things, I think it's essential to understand the Second World War, you've got to understand that, you know, because that changes everything, you know, and the intellectual of Vanguard of that phenomenon were, you know, people like Doom as well, like Marcia Oliati, like Julie Seville, like Heidegger, you know, Carl Schmidt, who was also in correspondence with all of these people, although, you know, again, his, his orientation was a bit different, but, you know, he, he very much accepted these premises, you know, and anybody who accepts those premises, they're acknowledging that what was underway, again, was something that was outside of the conceptual parameters of what is viewed as ordinary politics, you know, but I mean that itself is a traditionalist imperative. The bifurcation of authority, of theology, of a social obligation, of metaphysics, you know, that's a modern contrivance that always to, you know, a corrupted experience of being, you know, the, and that's, and that's where, have a lot especially, but all the things are so, so named. I make a lot of the significant ceremony, Gion, as the intellectual father of a lot of these concepts. And one of his, one of the points he came back to again and again in his body of work, and that Elvila echoed directly was that in a traditional state, you know, there's a holistic and spontaneous unity, the human activity and acts of worship. You know, obviously some of these things are familiarly or ethically familiar to you know, anybody on the right, you know, the subordination of the economic, the political, but you know, again, this, I don't think people fully grasp that in the traditional as view a healthy state is like a healthy human. There's a unified coherence to all of its aspects. You know, there's not this kind of, there's not this kind of agonistic pluralism of institutionalized factions. You know, I mean, that's the crit, that was the critique of parliamentary democracy from the P. S. Felia in the 1930s. You know, it's that institutionalized social divisions as a matter of course, but you know, that kind of thing, that kind of thing shouldn't be possible within a properly educated populist. You know, it doesn't mean people remain mired in a sort of honorable ignorance. You know, like I think in some ways was George Serelle's suggestion, but these things have a, when there's metaphysical agreement between worldly human affairs, you know, these tensions just don't emerge. You know, and again, to have a, or to a height of his point, the German Reich essentially accomplished that. You know, it's not to say it was something that's a little bit of a topian in terms of relationship between the classes, but it's not as if this was just some sort of speculative amusing, out of order, if when, you know, cruise ship would say that, you know, there'll be, there'll be true socialism by 1980, you know, and we'll, we will have done away with money and done away with, you know, ownership, you know, like the state itself won't even exist. You know, I, one of the reasons people find these, these images and these films from the Third Reich and in the, in the pre-war years, whether they found them so compelling, it's not as 'cause it's spectacle. I mean, there's, I can show you spectacle all day from, you know, Stalinist countries. I can, I can show you spectacles from places like Turkmenistan today, you're like, you know, the North Korean mass games. There's something evocative and stirring to people about the Third Reich for the reasons just elucidated. And I think anybody's paying attention realizes that, yeah, we'll end here because we're coming up on about an hour and I want to, I'll wrap up this little sub, sub-series next time. I just thought it was important to take up, you know, and I know that this, I know that this sub wanted to do, I wanted to dive into what the subject matter of it, you know. Well, you were talking about the, the reactions of the Reich, the prior to the war. You know, much of that was purely on aesthetic terms, but also it has to go beyond aesthetics. I think that's probably what scares people, people have been trained to be scared of that because, instinctively they look at that and they're like, yeah, I wish we had that. Oh, yeah, yeah. And so it conflicts with, you know, the state-related and anti-fascism. So it causes this, and it causes this cognitive dissonance that also has like moral implications because, you know, people, people in America don't have a real moral education, you know. There's just this kind of confused pastiche of, kind of conditioned responses and, and arbitrary, assignations of, you know, evil, the things are, you know, so they, it leads to really, really confused responses from, you know, people who weren't really thoughtful or self-aware. Yeah, definitely. All right. So people where they can find you. Well, I read you on social media recently. Like, we'll see how long that lasts, but I did that because, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to stroke myself, but people said they really wanted me to be on social media. So, this is my version. I set up a Twitter account. It's @ThomasCear777. That's, it's Thomas THO-M-A-S-C-Y-R, which is my government name, 777. The best place to hit me up is on subsick, because that's where my pod is and all kinds of other, good stuff. It's a real Thomas 777. That's subsick.com. And my website's a one-stop kind of location for my content. It's a Thomas777.com. It's number seven, e-chlamias777.com. That's all I have for now. All right. So the next time. Thank you, Thomas. Yeah, you're welcome. Thank you. Welcome, everyone. Back to the Peacanonna show. Thomas is back and we are continuing this series on the radical traditionalist school. How are you, Thomas? I know very well. I think today I'll wrap up this sort of like sub-topical treatment of the fastest international, as I think of it. And the intellectual cadre that constituted the radical traditionalist sort of vanguard in the 20th century. I'm going to primarily talk about mercy and aliyah today, but like a lot of people on social media and other platforms and stuff. They've been asking about like Renee Guionne, who's something of a mysterious figure, I mean, for all kinds of reasons. I think he curated that image, and he died, I think, in 1950. But Carl Schmidt, as I mentioned, Carl Schmidt had an active correspondence with Garcia aliyah with Julia Seville up with Ernst Younger. And we don't think of Carl Schmidt as being insinuated into this milieu, but he was. And that goes to show you again, there was a true cadre of intellectuals and a true internationalism to fascism-related movements. But Carl Schmidt said that he considered a Renee Guionne to be the most compelling living intellectual. Guionne's conversion to his alarm, I mean, that was a very French thing of him to do. He was very much an orientalist. Like a lot of Westerners were, and particularly, a certain-- certain type of adventurous soul. And you know there's a certain ecumenicalism to the traditional school like I indicated but also you've got to understand the context particularly in the first half of the 20th century. This was well before the Islamic awakening in 1979 but Islam seemed far more of a living faith in a way of life than you know is the case on the ground in Christian dumb outside of places like Romania and we'll get into that you know so I mean that's the way to kind of understand you own and I mean he lived among the Arabs and basically became one culturally you know he went native as a war but beyond that his attraction to that theological system owes to what I just said you know the the degree to which this kind of scientific or scientific secular scientist was the dominant conceptual paradigm that really can't be overstated you know it was just like a foregone conclusion you know that's why it was so interesting how the the the final phase of the Cold Wars shook out you know and just across cultural frontiers you know I the martyrdom of Bobby Sands was tremendously important and then and the Catholic revival you know that was so instrumental in the resistance behind the wall in Poland you know that that was an aspect of this zeitgeist shift you know a lot of this stuff's coming to like full realization today you know there's a there's a theological subtext to discourse right now and and just the way you know in symbolic psychological phenomena and all kinds of other things and this is fascinating and you know these these are very exciting times right now this one of the reasons I disdain it when when people like like they live in a boring century or something I mean there's always compelling things like like in any century you live in if you know you if you're conceptual horizon is an adequately wide temporal sample you know but you know what I mean but interestingly too you know Mercilla Eliati was at University of Chicago and at the University of Calgary now the Evelas letters letters to Eliati are you can you can access them there they're in the Mercilla Eliati papers which is great universities remain a really good resource like that um next time I'm in Portland Oregon I found out lately that the University of Portland that's where H. Keith Steinway who was uh he he was instrumental in them they assumed for a historical review in like very early 80s and he uh H. Keith Thompson became pretty close and uh Keith Steinway he died young he died of uh E's interestingly and apparently people didn't know that he was gay but apparently he was I mean it's I'm not speaking on that one or the other but when he died he was aggregating all these papers and taking testimony from you know a bunch of people because he intended to write a biography of Francis Yaki and Kevin Kuggen I believe H. Keith Thompson passed on a lot of the material which Steinway had aggregated to Kevin Kuggen who wrote a obviously the seminal biography of Yaki is um it's the one uh Kerry Bolton yeah yeah thanks I had a senior moment is the Kerry Bolton treatment but the the book by Kevin Kuggen is a great book and like the footnotes and end notes alone are like a treasure true of a data you know and it's and and and and Keith H. Keith Thompson elsed the wit you know a lot other people who were uh friends of Francis Yaki as well as George Lester Verick you know another guys in that Mille Lue they I mean they participated in it because they they came to trust Kuggen so it's not people shouldn't be put off by the fact that Kuggen's uh you know uh this kind of neo-Marxist type of guy but um be that uh as it may the critical thing to understand in terms of uh in terms of praxis how this fascist international what I insist was extant as an animating force and uh an intellectual tendency you know and in the inner warriors and and that really as I think I I think as I think we discussed the other day was it really catalyzing influence especially after the martyrdom of a ion moza and the seal marine but you know devil and um his he can't he met mercy at leody for the first time when he traveled to a Romania and uh devil I wanted to meet kudrian and in his estimation as well as in the estimation that Carl Schmidt I don't think uh younger directly commented on the situation or Romania but yeah I will have you to this a uh if you there's a kind of pure expression of traditionalist capital T traditionalist praxis you know if you did as a new kind of revolution you know and something unique unto itself and he traveled the Romania to meet kudrian who and that's when he first came across leody you know at that time leody was was was serving in the in the iron guard and um kudrian was intellectual mentor and we kind of considered to be his spiritual forebearer was email c-ron c-ron I'm probably puncturing that pronunciation um c-ron wrote a book called the transformation of Romania in 1936 it was basically a manifesto you know calling for palangenesis and uh ethno cultural terms you know and and and and national renewal um something that uh devil what commented on and we wanted to engage with leody and these young these then young guys who were kind of filling out the ranks of uh the iron guard there's a characteristic aspect of the iron guard movements you know it um they constructed their their primary organizational modality was what they referred to as nests you know and this wasn't just a way of you know breaking down paramilitary organization for political warfare and direct action they represented a an emphasis and a common or communitarian formal life that was primarily centered around ethical and religious sensibilities and criteria you know and that was something there wasn't really a counterpart to that and uh the German essay or the the fascist black shirts you know one of the things kudrian who said the level uh is that quote prayers and a size of element of victory you know it was a kind of pure crusader spirit transposed to the modern era like and uh the kind of the the modern interpretation of jihad and um militant Islam this is really kind of the Christian counterpart to that okay and in a very real sense and this is a important because until fairly recently there wasn't a lot of serious scholarship other than people like Ernst and the Volte who you know were in our somewhat esoteric in their work product you know like novelty was a political philosopher you know he wasn't an analytic historian but there's not there was not for many decades serious scholarship of of a fascist type movements you know and what their characteristics were and even those people in mainstream agademe who set out to be reasonably objective the kind of metrics they were applying in their methodology were wrong you know in the way they interpreted these variables wrong and the context wasn't something that they had a meaningful grasp of you know and so the the iron guard weren't weren't reactionaries that they didn't want to just kind of turn a clock back to you know it inculcate people like remains of medieval sensibilities or something their entire praxis was to bring about something that hadn't been seen before and it be clear seeron he he had certain progressive aspects to his worldview like you said that you know the relative democratization of political life was something that had to happen because otherwise ontological shock would have just led to revolution and we'd be in the situation the Soviet Union is which is of course correct beyond that one of the things that ties younger to a lot of these movements that were you know right word of his own perspective and something that set younger apart from his revolution a conservative ideological powder parts in a lot of ways you know the concept of the anarch is a man who's you know this kind of self contained agents who's neither master nor slave you know and who can't be categorized according to traditional sociological schema in terms of how he fits into you know a class paradigm and modernity you know that's very much the kind of historical personality that the iron guard and that seeron was was trying to cultivate and this is important okay there is a new fascist man and if I mean I'm being I mean Boeing kind of a colloquial phraseology but revolutionary rightist movements had as much of a concept of a new man as did their enemies you know in the Marxist Leninist because that's what history calls for and also you know the entire catalyst for this kind of revolutionary activity was ontological you know historical situatedness and the factors that constitute that historical situatedness this is what you know defines the culture and then you give an era you can't just say like I'm gonna consciously reject that and you know ascribe to something else that I find preferable you know that's a kind of retreat into fantasy or you know the relegation of oneself to irrelevancy by way of subcultural insularity you know so this is important because Romania is kind of overlooked anyway traditionally and analyses of the war which in military terms you know Romania was the German rights most important ally and you know they they dedicated the most forces to the crusade against the Soviets and Antoniscu and Hitler were actually quite close but beyond that you know Romania I think it's ill understood as a culture because it's it's the direct descendent like literally of both Rome and Byzantium I think the Balkans are kind of ill understood anyway during the Cold War Romania kind of staked out its own path which was which seemed very asiatic and kind of alien this is kind of morbid fascination with the Tsisetsk regime and its its ecstasy some things in America and in Europe Western Europe but the you know the the internal situation there was very dynamic and outsized in its impact you know so I think that that kind of insularity caused people to kind of ignore it as a historical quantity but also one of the the people remain prisoners of the kind of cold war conceptual paradigm and something that's neither a merely reactionary protest against liberal modernity or something that's not you know actively revolutionary in terms of its ambition to socially engineer traditional modalities out of existence if there's a political tendency this neither those things you know mainstream scholarship doesn't know how to deal with it and for them or two like the big imperative of the traditional school and one of the reasons why the revolutionary sensibilities the iron guard represent such a pure iteration of traditionalist praxis is that there's an integralism and a symbolic psychological aspect of this that sets it apart from we think of as politics in the late modern sense you know people like Kodrian who and people like Eliaudi they were talking about entire kind of modes of life and ethics they weren't talking about politics as this kind of discrete mode of activity that's separate from all other cultural activity you know or something that's for something that's a psychological aspects unto itself that don't touch and concern other you know identitarian aspects of the human being in you know in in in in any meaningful way that's the wrong way to look at it because all these things are viewed as one you know the only legitimate politics as a politics that derives from Christian ethics and you know orthodox Christian ethics in the case of Romania and orthodoxy is rather congregational you know so the the folk community or like you know the the Romanian race and it's it's heritage it's it's shared memory you know both epigenetic as well as you know the this symbolic psychological aspects that individual share and common in the culture relating to ritual and right and really just practice and things you know all these things are what makes congregational life possible which in turn um allows people to you know partake of the grace of the living God through the Christ you know and this is the metric of all activity as a Romanian patriot, but also like as a man as an Orthodox Christian and everything else. Church isn't something you do on Sundays so that you have something to do or for the sake of appearances or because you're worried about your kids not getting an adequate moral education. It's a totally different perspective than people in 20th century, late modern anglophone cultures had of things. I'm speaking in terms of the like the majoritarian sensibility, obviously there were exceptions within those cultures and countries, but it's also you know another aspect of the iron guard that was kind of overlooked or deemphasized. An Eliati wrote about this and the political writing that he did engage in after 1945 is pretty sparse for obvious reasons, but his correspondence with Evela he emphasizes you know the need for an intellectually rigorous vanguard. You know an Eliati was like an urban intellectual and most of these iron guard legionnaires they were university students and some like working guys. But this wasn't some like peasant movement or something. It wasn't you know comparable to say like the father Tiso's party. I'm having like punitive and I'm not saying it's something like wrong with that kind of agrarian peasant patriotic sensibility, but it's a very different thing. If you're talking about basically like you know, um, coderies of Christian jihadists who you know dedicate themselves to this kind of like monastic this like warrior monastic sort of like intellectually driven existence. It's very different you know. And um you know and key to uh I think understanding why this was an important movement for all the reasons we've been discussing. You know it's when I talk about the martyrdom of avion moza and vizio marine this wasn't some ex post facto sort of mythification. You know in the moments all kinds of men went down in theater who were fighting for the nationalist cause and who had a very romantic sort of backstory about what brought them there. It was these pious orthodox iron guard legionnaires you know who became the martyrs and you don't I mean the the congregants decided to murder and who's not okay and this funerary train of the two martyrs you know everywhere they went they were saluted you know by phalanx you know by black shirts by national socialists you know by carless you know in belgium in france and um in italy in austria you know there was this ecumenical kind of fascist reverence around uh the sacrifice and murder dogma these two romenians you know who again represented in a pure sense of christian jihad i mean that speaks for itself you know um and aliyahdi throughout his life you know um the concept of sacred time and how that situates people psychologically and historically and how that functions as you know an essential aspect of worship this was kind of one of the core concepts within his uh political theology but also like the catalyzing effect of sacrifice and martyrdom you know and this was a huge huge revered thing among the iron guard you know and they were talking about this years before any of them deployed to spain you know they they were in touch with the zeitgeist and instinctive ways you know that the national socialists save um you know people like Hitler himself just were just weren't apprehending and in the case of people like Hitler you know like like Lenin or Mussolini you know he understood the like historical imperatives at play and he and like in an absolutely instinctive way and he was like you know in some ways he had like a savage genius for these things but uh we're talking about something very different you know i think that's clear um and i don't know a movement like the the legionary movement or like the iron guard i that wouldn't have jumped off in in Germany i it wouldn't have had a context i can see something i can see maybe a pious Catholic movement emerging in Austria there was like openly fascist and that and whose praxis was strongly oriented towards martyrdom but i but even that i think it's somewhat dubious you know so this uh any serious scholar the era and again of these you know of of the of the of the movement you should account for this man um and that's changing but like i said even even a modern sympathetic scholar i think i think there's something that then there's something basically lacking in um they're understanding not just of the concrete particulars but of the kind of conceptual hold um you know and um i go as far as they too i mean kudryano obviously wasn't dialogue with the the revolutionary proletarian movement because i mean anybody so engaged in the political struggling in the interwarriors i mean that that's literally what all discourse was in dialogue with so i mean like that that itself situates any partisan in a uh sort of modernist category you know so it's kind of like neither human or there i mean kudryano and leotie they weren't like reactionaries any way but it it's kind of a meaningless criteria to assign as a characteristic you know when we're talking about people who are engaged in like direct action against the communists you know in the 1930s um it's uh you know and the uh yaki some of the language that he whiffs uh or like some of the concepts that he flushes out particularly in impure yam like the first few chapters the book where he's kind of touching on like you know the new fascist man he's talking about how the new year up is going to require a new consensus specifically one of living dangerously and sacrificiale and that's uh a hundred percent um you know the the kind of philosophical disposition of the iron guard it's not a conventionally political concept you know and it's not a kind of superficial extremism and it's also not a conventionally even among the more sanguine area and like re-oriented modalities of Christianity. It's not really a Christian sensibility either, at least in the sense that is under discussion. That's very much a modernist understanding of what constitutes, you know, reductive factors in worldly conduct. You know, it's a and Carl Schmidt to, you know, he even in no most of the earth, which is, I mean, that says the magnum opus, but it's also probably his most kind of mainstream scholarly work, but he's dealing with a lot of conceptually theological things, okay? You know, in the 1950s and 60s, obviously nobody on the right, you know, even people who were pretty far right, unless they were openly dissenting elements, they're like underground, national socialists or something, you know, they weren't openly trying to drop parallels with themselves and the fascist international, but there's concepts that just axiomatically adored within, you know, right wing thought in the European sense, you know, and the concept of sacrifice, if not martyrdom, and the understanding of sacred ground and what makes land appropriation legitimate is the sacramental stealing of blood. You know, that's a shmidian concept that owes very much to this kind of political theology, you know, so this stuff had, it's not like this stuff was totally dormant or these concepts, were totally dormant and so, you know, a couple of decades after the Cold War and now like, you know, the kind of subcultural tendencies that we represent, like we discovered this stuff, it was a consignated all throughout everything subsequent to it, you know, so this can't be dismissed as some strange artifact of a, a bond logical shock, you know, and kind of that tragedy of the commons amidst, you know, the European Civil War and and all these horrible events that, you know, led to, you know, led to communism and resistance to it and things, you know, there's an independent significance here and there's an enduring significance that is, yeah, is, must be accounted for in its own right. You know, and the younger and even in all quite in the Western front, I'm not a fan of Eric Maria Remarky, I think he's, I think he was a very, I think he was a very egoistic person who, uh, dressed up as personal grievances as some, in his own moral cowardice as a, as some sort of principle stand against, you know, the, the heart was crushing establishment or whatever, but the concept of the First World War constituting a mass sacrifice and thus moving forward to having expiated the sins of the German nation and race, you know, and thus the punitive sanctions they were availed to deliberately in terms of the political structure of their side, that, that is a subtext to, you know, all Vimart discourse, you know, um, even the KPD kind of acknowledged that in their own strange and tolerant way, you know, um, and, uh, also this understanding of the sacrifice, the sacrificial victim status, actual or potential of the entirety of the nation or as the kind of international sensibility set in all trappings of nationalism fell by the wayside after the Great War, you know, speaking in auditors in terms of the nation, but, you know, the, the race writ large or, you know, the west of European civilization, this understanding of every man, woman and child they were in potentially being availed, uh, sacrificial status that also made certain things possible, um, that wouldn't have been before, you know, in terms of, uh, in terms of ethics and what becomes what was previously unthinkable, because not just something that can be entertained in the abstract, but can be implemented for the sake of civilizational survival, you know, obviously there's like the immediate threat of, you know, being subject to extermination, and that was no these old point, but if people want to know how the, uh, inner struggle relating to the ethics of resisting such things by comparable and direct countermeasures became resolved, I would say that that's how, and, um, that of itself as a sacrificial implication, like Kodrian who made the point that, uh, a legion there making them himself to hell for his, uh, commitment and for his actions and the service of that commitment, but that's the ultimate offer of sacrifice because, you know, obviously the pious man, the holy warrior, the man on the path of jihad, he always hopes that God will let him come back and return to grace, but if the survival of his people and if his commitment to his comrades and even his commitment to God, call for him to do monstrous things that will damn his soul for eternity, there is no sacrifice greater and no conceivable martyrdom or severe, you know, then the literally willfully bear witness to his own damnation. So there's part of this ontology too, and, uh, I'm not just speculating here, um, it's, uh, in trinzig to, um, a lot of the red, it's in trinzig too, a lot of the, um, reflections that believe of people like gearing, especially at neuroburet, although he didn't characterize it that way because, uh, gearing was many things and I, I think he was a real hero, like we talked about, but gearing was not a pious man, uh, I don't know if he spent a lot of time contemplating these kinds of things, but it was intrinsic to the zeitgeist, um, aliyahdi too, and this is something aliyahdi's probably, it's probably, probably it's almost famous books, we're a shamanism archaic techniques of ecstasy, which is a great book, and, um, the sacred and the profane. He wrote another book called the Myth of Eternal Return, Return. recurrence. That problematic because people associate eternal recurrence within the G-in, posh, which incidentally, and we'll get to this later in our series, eternal return in the G-in sense, there's the equivalent of const categorical imperative. It's a fascinating concept. It redefines ethics and moral action in terms of aesthetical principles. It's just fascinating. But Elie Adi's meaning of that phrase was that ritual and spiritual practice in the form of rights, it's temporarily situated outside of ordinary human time. It connects the past and the present and the future in a way that no other human activity does. And that's part of its purpose. Obviously, there's a symbolic psychological aspects that presumably trigger epigenetic memory and things. There's aspects of the shared cultural mindset that respond to aspects of ritualized worship that are familiar even though people have never been taught these things in the way that one is availed the simple steps in a process that they then emulate. Elie Adi's main, one of his main contributions was his methodology and the way that he approached discussion of religious phenomena in terms of worship and existential aspects of it. He said that you've got to approach something. If you're looking at whether you're talking about a primitive tribe and ever go out with you're talking about some highly developed society like Japan and you know like the shamanism that they practice like with the Shinto priest. You know there's not like variables you can code to try and flesh out the significance of this, the human psychology or the cultural learning. It requires a kind of instinctive ability to perceive the meaning of these things and symbolic psychological capacities. You know it requires a certain empathy that you know allows one to see subjects to the eyes of the other and such that these things can be modeled in a more conventional analytic format. The variables we're talking about in something like shamanism or sacramental practice. You've got to identify the aspects in common that allow for a proper categorical description. Now what are the aspects of shamanism? There's things like astral projection, real or perceived. Some people think some people don't. But the inner experience of it of that sort of ecstatic response. A lot of people attribute it to you know sort of spiritual soaring or elevation. You know things that relate to people's pre-rational emotional responses to a sacramental symbols across cultures. You know like you can't code these things in a way that reveals the essential meaning of them to the human being. You know it's something that can only be experienced and anecdotally relayed. So, "Eliotti relied a lot on direct testimony on subjective interpretation and in common psychological features of a symbolic nature that could be of dessert." You know and obviously made shamanic a deem claim that well this is all conjecture and like reactionary romanticism or you know fanfist epilogy. But, "Eliotti was right." Wolfgang Smith, his methodology was a bit different and the subject matter that he emphasized was a bit different but he similarly issued a conventional modeling when dealing with this kind of experience like religious phenomena as experience. Okay. This is what Wolfgang Smith called traditional data. You know it is data, make no mistake but it can't be analyzed and interpreted or properly situated within a wider analytical paradigm according to conventional and quantitative research methods. You know and it goes, "Yeah, it's not just, you know I know it when I see it. It goes beyond that. There's a real method here although not again in the sense we think of it in something like economics or you know other types of social research. You know and the concept of course too of a there return to sacred time. This is one of the things that grounds people in their own culture because it means that you know there are aspects of the human psychology and the human inner life. You know if you're a religious man or woman you know you interpret that as spiritual life that are not historically contingent. You know and that's one of the functions in terms of revolutionary praxis that prayer and ritual serve is that it literally takes us out of you know historical time and situates us in sacred time. You know and that's the key element of what is sacred and what is profane and that dichotomy isn't just isn't just an essential aspect the Mercia Eliaudis thought. It was an essential aspect of email Cran is a paradigm. It was an essential aspect of kodrian who's understanding of the existential aspects of you know the path of the legionaire you know and also while removing us or the subject population or congregation or cadre from historical time at the same time it does allow us to relate to historical and primordial psychological settings you know so in these renewal ceremonies they're on the one hand they're timeless but in the other hand you know they bring a historical phenomenon into that's a living memory but living experience you know and a participation of the individual and self-intensity, as well as a member of the congregation and the nation and the race, it initiates them into a kind of mythical framework, such that these things aren't merely trivial abstractions or inaccessible, you know, arcane behavioral observances of the distant past, and that's essential as part of a cultural education, as well as communitarian bonding, because one of the things about sacramental practices, it's very intimate, it's not a gonna thing you share with strangers, you know, the deliberate diminishing, and in some cases purging of these things from cultural and national life, this is one of the reasons, and this is changing, thank God, that people are overly focused on sex, and these post-Nurber, socially engineered cultures, because that's one of the only avenues of intimacy, like people still doesn't just available, but people can even conceptualize, and it's very worth, not gonna be wrong, and people who think it through, or who, you know, have their modesty and their kind of internal moral core intact, don't go that route, but a lot of men and women are weak, and there's nobody there to properly guide them as to why that's, that's perverse, I'm not like equating them from responsibility, but a lot of people are easily misled, okay, that's a fact, but yeah, I don't want to dive into the next part of the subject matter yet, I was gonna kind of try and tie this to the broader topical essence of the series, but we'll do that next time, and along the way, we'll return to the to the main topical thrust, which is kind of philosophy, I hope people found this worthwhile, I think it was important to kind of articulate that, the significance of the traditional was school of thought, to, you know, the revolutionary right, and all of that, you know. I wanted to add this just because our mutual friend Carl Dall and I were recording on the the Iron Guard yesterday. Yeah, that's awesome, both you guys, that's great. Yeah, here's, here's Vasilie Marine's quote that we ended it on, said, "soaked in dynamism, our movement is revolutionary, the Legion promotes the creative spirit in all the field to public life, and sincerely rejects conservatism. The Legion organizes the conquest of the future with the help of all the productive categories of the nation and does not represent a reaction toward the past." Yep, and I think a lot of people will hear that and they will forget that their Orthodox Christians and that nothing that is said there negates that. No, it defines it. No, and this was, you know, I know Carl's, he's a great guy, like he's, he's our, he's our friend and comrade, but he's also a brilliant dude and the, it's not just like intellectual curiosity that that brings thoughtful people to a study of the Iron Guard. It's got a hugely outsized significance in terms of revolutionary praxis, you know. And the essence of, you know, it was, not only was it not reactionary, it was like very forward-looking. That kind of thing is incredibly, I mean one of the things that doomed the Legion movement was that it was like too early, I think. You know, it's very much suited to the world of like 1989 and beyond, like obviously, you know, it's our present. Yeah, no, that's, that's great. And no, I'm glad that you and Carl were covering that subject matter because that this will be kind of a column and piece to that stuff too. Well, I think this, this went a lot more into the philosophy behind it and why, you know. Good deal. No, I'm glad I'm, I'm glad I'm being useful and I'm just redundant, but yeah. Yeah. All right, Thomas. Tell everybody where they can find you. Yeah, man, you can find me on my website. It's topest777.com. It's number seven, H1AS. I'm on social media of the time being like we'll see if I'm certain at some point they're going to like ban this account too, even though I, I never violate TOS. But it's at Thomas Seer. That's my government name, TH1AS, CYR777. And my substack, we're a lot of the magic happens. You know, like my podcast, like some video content, long form stuff, like announcements relevant to like our cadre, you know, and, and when we're meeting often stuff, that's it. Real time is777.substack.com. And forget my voice and stuff, like I'm feeling a lot better and that was like some weeks back, but I, I'm so dealing with some like respiratory stuff, you know. All right, no problem. Thank you. It's our 10 a couple days. Take care.