This is a great qoute but the problem is fascism was developing on its own path at the same time as communism was. Maybe what happened is these guys saw the flaw in class consciousness and rejected it.
@@romanyrose4074 Not quite. They saw the flaws in the globalist, decentralised, anti-nationalist Communism -- and the fairly common idea, even in America, that Leninism was a Jewish system/propaganda. The exact nature of the Communist state, power, market system, and so forth were not clear by this time -- and were hardly the issue. If you look at Hitler and Stalin and the Empire of Japan and Italy, there was much in common at many levels. In fact, they enforced each other throughout the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s. Then, it's easy to see how Hitler might come to a pro-German national socialism (which is what they literally called it) that is semi-socialist, anti-Communist, anti-Marxist, anti-Russian, and anti-Jewish. Many members of the Nazi Party were actual Communists but pro-German (unlike the more anti-German Communist Party). Hitler, however, was not as interested -- he just cared about his Nazism, and became friendly with the elites and republicans and otherwise for this purpose. This is one reason Hitler did so well: his enemies were too blinded and Communist to speak to the wheels of German society, so they had little hope of actually having total power (though the Communist Party was more popular than Hitler in 1931 and was about equal in 1932. The key years are 1933 and 1934. Complete Nazi power and support/terror by this time, across all society). At the same time, the Nazis were doing something nobody else was: offering a positive vision for the future, at the darkest time in modern German history (about 1929-1933, as the Nazi Party was tiny in 1928 and not as redefined, populated, or funded). Another thing Nazism had going for it, a bit like the Japanese: it was a system of action and faith, not mere doctrine or philosophy. For Hitler, however, it was a system of the spoken word -- a massive advantage, evidently. Spain had its own Fascism going on, of course, as did a few other nations. For example, Fascism was becoming a popular idea in Poland pre-invasion. The same is true for most other nations: jumping between Communism and Fascism, depending on their pre-existing nature, how anti-Jewish they were, and how anti-Russian they were. Hayek's comment is quite accurate, then. One mistake we've made is thinking that Fascism only becomes an option after Communism. No. History proved that Fascism was an answer before Communism was even fully tested. The fact Communism was set up in Russia by this time was enough, and that its core ideals had been known already for decades -- and were deemed grossly anti-European and anti-nationalism. A mixed socialist capitalist dictatorship was the answer for almost all of them, it was just a question of the exact nature for each culture/nation. Naturally, you need to begin by first rejecting the possibility of freedom and democracy, which many of them had (either because it had just failed for them or they never had it in the first place). The fatal flaw they made, of course, was thinking that some kind of Fascism was the answer. In a sense, you can view it as nothing more than an instant-empire dream in the tradition of the Roman Empire. Of course, this is deeply insulting to the Roman Empire, though it did have some very terrible decades of its own. For Hitler, it was seemingly more about the Greeks and Germans in some weird fantasy. Naturally, it was all about Rome on the other hand, because, you know, Rome. For Japan, it was also all about Japan, so that's simple enough. Stalinism was actually all about Russia and Stalin, it seems to me. It's only natural that other nations would want to find something of their own. Communism in general, including in Germany, was more international/globalist and anti-nationalism, which naturally made almost everybody very unhappy. Nonetheless, Nazi Germany was never really socialist or capitalist. It was a mixture of state capitalism (i.e. manifested socialism, like Russia), crony capitalism, and military plunder/mass theft. This is why they ran into problems quite rapidly. Hitler was quite industrialist within the confines of Germany and nationalism and Nazism, but was anti-trade to a profound degree. At the social level, however, it was very socialist/Marxist in many ways. I would regard Nazi Germany as the only large-scale semi-stable example of any form of Marxism or Fascism (clearly, the line between the two is very complex). Communists naturally reject this, as they hate the simple reality that the Nazis tried their ideal and created something they seemingly dislike, or think they dislike. But, the history speaks for itself. Nazi Germany was the socialist utopia between 1933 and 1937. Just a few years is the problem. But, it was the most advanced, fast-growing nation in history, with the highest standard of living, with the most intra-peace, endless money now pouring in, everybody having nice jobs, urban planning, citizen and animal rights, clean cities, and much more. Many policies and ideas that the West took on in the 1950s, in fact. The state killing 'unfit' people included, now including teenagers in some nations. The major downside or hidden problem being the slave/death/prison camps, about 40,000 of them by 1937. That, and complete tyranny of people, no real freedom (which they largely gave up of their own free will for emotional regulation and safety), utter military state, mass anti-Semitism (in culture and law), mass theft, mass hatred. At the Nuremberg trials, Der Sturmer founder said that there were 3,000 daily newspapers under the Reich's control by 1934, all sending out Nazi and anti-Jewish articles, etc. For one, the Hitler Youth was one of the most enslaved peoples in history. There are reports that it was not only a military system, but an old prison-like system: this meant they were drilled in 'lockstep' like actual slaves, unable to move freely or talk to one another. A single hive-mind, in a sense. Hitler really drives this home during his famous and chilling 1934 speech in Triumph of the Will (1935), the propaganda film, speaking to tens of thousands of Hitler Youth (likely 100,000). These were voluntary until 1936, as well (which at least implies that Hitler was aiming for the total military readiness of every citizen by this time. Either for its own sake, or because he was actually getting ready to invade Europe, where there is evidence for this as early as 1937 when he started creating the list of Polish leaders thanks to Germans in Poland and the Gestapo). Pan-Germanism was always the aim: one Europe under one Germany. Hitler expressed as much quite early, with some second-hand reports indicating as much, back to about 1909 when he was a teenage vagabond in Vienna. But, there is a story that Hitler was confused by the 'different German peoples' about 1901, as a child. He thought there should be just one Germany, one German people. (Worth noting also that war was on his mind quite often: not only was he seen at a rally for WWI in 1914 (meaning, he was part of the radical groups that actually wanted WWI and a great German victory), but he also said that some of the best years of his life were during WWI. And at the end of WWI, he instantly blamed the weak Germans and the Jews, etc. for their defeat, which set him on a radical path, and ultimately -- like many others -- to extreme pro-German parties. He chose the smaller Nazi Party out of a sea of many (then known as the German Worker's Party) so he could become leader of it easily (which was his expressed aim), which he did in 1921. And, you cannot blame all this merely on the Treaty, as many do: the Treaty didn't come for another 7 months or so, yet he was already radical, anti-Jewish, and pro-German by this time, and was already getting into extreme politics a few months before the Treaty was signed.)
@@romanyrose4074 Yes, but you have to understand, many of the earliest fash, like Musso in Italy, were self-professed former socialists and communists. Even the funny moustache guy had pictures of himself associating with the communists before he did his own thing. This was all the way back in the frigging 1930s. There are other variants too, but they all derive from Marx in some way.
@@romanyrose4074That sounds about right. Mussolini saw how WW1 strengthened national identities in Europe, and realized that nationality was a stronger unifying force than class.
Monarchy is the stage after libertarianism which results in small local private properties. Then the powerful accumulate land and resources and create a Kingdom. Then poor private land owners all agree to be subjects to the King.
@@ChucksExotics Monarchy is the stage after the small local private familial properties form clans, and the clans form a super clan. Then the chieftain of the super clan, balancing the powers of the land with religion and politics, accumulates control of land, resources, and creates a Kingdom. Then poor private land owners all agree to be subjects to the King, whilst the clan leaders agree to allow the king to be king so long as he doesn't push them too far (and provided they can agree for long enough).
It doesn't matter what labels they apply to themselves, anyone who thinks it's a good thing to usurp other people's self-determination in the service of a 'Higher Purpose' is downright wicked. Most of us just want to live our lives in modest comfort, security and companionship and to fulfil our own purpose, whatever we may think that is.
That’s the issue. The majority are “living your lifers”. Brain dead idiots who watch Netflix. we need people who read books. Who ask questions. Living your lifers, are uninformed therefore a danger.
Yes, so long as none of the self determination, comfort, or security comes at the un-reciprocated expense of another/or group, because then it creates conflict, and if it’s engineered specifically to do so, it’s a responsibility to dismantle that transaction
There's a historian youtuber who introduced me to a very useful way to reframe Fascism and Communism to see past the BS. They're both offshoots of syndicalism and young Hegelianism, so structurally they are very similar in their logic. They all involve collectivization, but they differ on the specifics of collectivization. So the question to ask is which group seizes the means of production to become the dictator? For communism it's the dictatorship of the proletariat, for Italian Fascism it was dictatorship of loyal Italians veterans, for the national socialists it was dictatorship of the Aryan race.
Communism is a stateless society of autonomous communities. Hardly comparable to fascism. The Nazis' Lebensraum was inspired by the American Manifest Destiny. As the Americans exterminated the savages and expanded West, the Nazis were to exterminate the Slavs and expand East. There would have been no Holocaust had there been no plan to invade Ukraine.
The way I describe the relationship is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. If the doctor cannot accomplish his desires, Mr. Hyde awakens at night to commit the evils that Dr. Jekyll is afraid to go near. Dr. Jekyll is the counterpart to Mr. Hyde, they're not true opposites. Whether Dr. Jekyll does it through the front door, or Mr. Hyde does it through the back door, they are united within the same man working towards the same goals. We do not need to rouse Mr. Hyde to fight Dr. Jekyll, what we need is an outside observer to notice that they're the same man and stop him while he's still in the form of Jekyll and keep him weak until we can find a cure.
As far as I'm aware, fascism is basically socialism where the collectivising force is the nation, while communism collectivises around class, and national socialism collectivises around race
Fair statements. Fascism under national Socialism must hold the guinness book of records for the most red herrings during the most humungous murder / burglary known to history. If it was just those we'd never have witnessed a human holocaust. A fleet of trucks could never have taken the loot to Switzerland for safe keeping as the Swiss would have refused to be involved. Clearly there is a problem with the collectivist explanation attached to all those situations - but not ALL. In theory fascism could work like that as certainly positive models could be seen to feel that way. I'm not sure if to work they'd need to prove preconditions that had to be tabulated inside of the model ? These could mean nobody wants to attack/loot/religiously or irreligiously antagonise other countries anymore. In fact in europe thats what the fascism wants the people to believe it look like right now. But probably cannot since theres war like activity / a cold stand off with a large nuclear nation, and a lot of truth casualty.
It's nationalism on steroids. That's why everyone on the right are accused of it. Some of their beliefs overlap with the ideology but they typically don't go all the way in support of statist authoritarianism to get things done. It's like when a moderate leftist is called a communist. They may share some goals but the methods and how the state should be used can differ quite a lot.
Fascism, in all guises, requires an ethnic component. Ethnicity is the basis of the ruling state; Italians in Italy, for example. To me, this is one of several reasons why fascism is an illogical pursuit in America. There are more components of fascism which are illogical, but that one is the one which seems to explicitly apply in America's case. National Socialism was German Fascism. Fascism was Italian Fascism. That's my understanding. I could be wrong.
@@bnjmnwst Fascism and National Socialism are branches of the same tree, but viewing the latter as a derivative of the former is a bit reductive. I'd recommend this for some comparison: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bvm8I1mnucM.html
@@bnjmnwst This has the potential to be extremely misleading. What you have to keep in mind is that the racial/'ethnic' basis was possible in Germany but not Italy, due to Italy having a more diverse history, due to its geographic position and historical conquests. There were various ethnic groups, especially in regions like South Tyrol (with a German-speaking population), and the north-eastern regions with Slovene and Croatian communities. Additionally, Italy's colonial ambitions in Africa brought some level of racial diversity, although this was limited and often subject to Italy's colonial policies. Germany, under the deranged painter's rule, was more homogenous ethnically and was obsessively focused on the idea of racial purity, centred around its race ideology. Germany's policies were explicitly racist and anti-Semitic, leading to the persecution and systematic extermination of Jews, Romani people, and other groups considered non-Aryan. While there were ethnic minorities in Germany, such as the Sorbs and Danes, the regime's oppressive policies aimed at assimilating or eliminating these groups to create a racially homogeneous society. The OP and James mostly got it right. There is no inherent need for an ethnic component for the fash. Any group identity can be utilized in theory. That's what makes these ideologies so dangerous. They rationalize and intellectualize the primitive and often maladaptive tribal instincts inherent in all men.
I like Jordan, and think that his heart is in the right place, even if he is wrong from time to time. I like James and think he is brilliant, despite being wrong from time to time. As an international movement against Communism, Fascism, and National Socialism, I believe we need to be more communicative with each other, instead of shutting people out, more United in our goals and vision instead of trying to take this on atomistically, more coordinated in out resistance instead of firing shots into the fog individually. This is ultimately what ARC is supposed to do. The speakers at ARC varied on the specifics on their beliefs, but all held anti-woke and western revival in common. I really wished to see James as a speaker, as he could’ve warned about the excesses of reaction and fascism. I think James should be holding regular discussion and debate with prominent people in our movement like Johnathan Pageau, Jordan Peterson, et. al in order to come to some consensus of how to move forward. The commies have gotten this far by banding together and having a coordinated effort, and so must we. I am not advocating for fascism or reaction in any sense. I want the commies, Nazis and Fascists to lose, and I want civility and unity amongst us so we can win.
Yeah, I never got the impression that Peterson was in favor fascism or even state enforced Christian Nationalism. It seems to me that he is interested in establishing a stabilizing narrative.
Almost everyone just has rudimentary vague emotional definitions and attachments to any ideology. It’s how leaders have room to herd the cats in the first place.
They tend to define it's "features and characteristics" instead of it's doctrine on first principles. I believe they lack an ability to spot Fascism's principles because it's defining doctrinal elements are common to Socialism which they believe to be a correct understanding of the world. They completely miss the revelation that Fascism is just another type of Socialism because they know there is a difference but cannot find it. Framed another way, imagine you belong to a group that claims the sky is red and that is good. You know of another group that says the sky is red and that is bad. You're asked to define the other groups principles and so you conclude that their core belief is that the red sky is bad and you believe that the red sky is good. You also conclude that those claiming the sky is blue are at best allies of those claiming the red sky is bad because they oppose your correct viewpoint. Meanwhile the people who believe the sky is blue are shouting at you both for believing the sky is red and they don;t care if that is a good or bad thing.
This episode of the New Discourses Podcast is accessible in advance for members. It will be made public for everyone on Monday, January 8, 2024, at 2pm ET.
Hey JL! On Classical Liberalism: As a classical liberal, His is correct that fascism is wrong. If you asked SRHicks if there is a difference between fascism and napoleon total war, other than total war is temporary, and fascism claims a permanent ideology, then I suspect he'd agree with you. If you asked me that same question, I'd respond the same way. IMO ideologies are just different methods of conducting warfare during the industrial revolution's transfer of power from land to industry, and from aristocracy to middle classes, with the empowerment of the lower classes via that industry threatening the middle classes The question for the future, which I've not discussed recently but have frequently in the past, is how we, like the Romans, transition from a war-government (fascism) to a prosperity government (classical liberalism) with the same ease as did the Romans until Julius Caesar without getting 'stuck' in fascism. For all intents and purposes that's what the depression-second world war combination did to the states.
we are here because classical liberalism reached its logical conclusion-to obscure authority by pretending to do away with it, thereby making it unopposable. Ugo Spirito, one of the foremost Italian fascist theorists, criticized liberalism as too totalitarian and tyrannical, on this very basis. He described anarcho-tyranny all but in name. There's a reason you have never been told about him
Hi James, great content this episode. From an Italian sensible to giving Fascism (with capital F) its proper description. There's a worldwide tendency of equating fascism, namely national socialism with Italian Fascism. Nice work trying to differentiate and compare them. Obviously they're all Totalitarianism doctrines in their essence pointing at the same 'intended end'
That little rant about Peterson was kinda weird. He’s been talking about hedonism as the antithesis of personal agency, responsibility and a sense and pursuit of higher purpose That’s all. “ if one does not choose their own path, it surely will be chosen for them.” That’s all.
James has a grandiose view of himself which leads him to try and pull down people around him to confirm his bias. I agree with a lot of what he says academically but the way he acts as a person leaves something to be desired. I think Peterson touches a nerve with him, and Peterson has platformed him at least once yet James has seemingly opinionated comments on his position that seem like backhanded compliments. The insistance he's a "guru" and not an experienced clinical psychologist comes to mind.
Ok but Jim I’ve never seen the ‘dissident right’ advocate for elevating the state to deity/or fascism? Are these people u encounter because you’re terminally online & me slightly less so or because I tend toward libertarianism & am just less likely to generally? The lotus eaters perhaps (I feel so bad saying that, the lads would be shocked to discover that they were used as an example of my closest possible example of a group you describe as fascists.)
@@juliesomethinorother Lotus eaters are milquetoast middle of the road centrists. Carl tried to hang with the big boys but it was obvious that he was in too deep. Telling Jess Phillips he'd not rape her was hilarious but he's done everything he can to distance himself from that. When was the last time he platformed Dank or did something interesting? Lotus Eaters is just like a 4chan rendition of GB News. Slightly edgey commentary on current events.
Except, the American right isn't interested in fascism, none of the major rightwing personalities are advocating for fascism or when it's brought up say anything other then fascism is a bad ideology. These whole video while interesting in it's correct framing of fascism, is merely tilting at leftwing imaginary strawman and rhetorical duplicity.
@@deathtdow Thank you, that's what I was thinking but couldn't put into words. I listen to at least one of these talks a week, and I've never heard James go this far or set up such an obvious straw man. I was also shocked at his lashing out at Jordan Peterson?? I don't see how encouraging people to avoid hedonism is fascist- Jordan would be the last person to suggest placing the state as a subject of worship. From what I've gathered he's getting slowly closer to encouraging personal theism. I can see where someone inclined to atheism would take issue with that, but nothing in this particular talk or elsewhere made me think someone believing in God (in a traditional sense) equates or leads to fascism. Am I missing something James or Jordan have said elsewhere? Yikes. haha
When I was young, I had trouble understanding the Spanish Civil War because I couldn’t understand who were the good guys and who were the bad guys. I finally realized recently when reading Stephen Kotkin’s Biography of Stalin that they were all bad guys. Thanks, Dr. Lindsay. I never would have read this, but it does spell it all out.
Why is the US not fascism? Does it hinge on corporations not being effectively owned by government. Is car and health insurance in the US a form of fascism since it's mandated? When Obama offered student loans with additional protections and a much more forgiving credit rating threshold than any private bank would dare offer to be backed by the federal govt, and directed privately owned banks to manage the lending process via contracts with the Dept of Education to students applying for tuition loans, isn't this an example? Federal reserve setting quantitate easing amounts and interest rates? EPA banning sale of non-electric cars? I think TiK History was on the edge of suggesting this could be the case but never went as far as that. Is unionization of workers for public (not private) services, such as teachers unions an expression of fascism as well?
I would answer Yes to most your questions. Also enjoy Tik and want to see him and James together in some aspect. Maybe a Benjamin Boyce or Culture War together.
@@johnkrstyen7351 if you asked Rageaholic I recon he would say the US has been tilting fascist since the civil war, if you consider his take on Lincoln being a tyrant during this period.
@@johnkrstyen7351The video in question is an hour long takedown of Lincoln's conduct leading to and during the American Civil War, not condoning or supporting the Confederates either, just focusing on Lincoln called "Abraham Lincoln: American Dictator"
Mussolini knew that the liberal project in the 18th century limited the state for the sake of the individual as seen in your quotes from him. What was missing then was an understanding of Effective Egoism. The ethics of man as an end to himself, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. Don Watkins, following Ayn Rand, writes powerfully in his new book, Effective Egoism, about what it takes to live a life of happiness where your ego is rationally treasured. We have the benefit of history to more easily see what happens when a nation commits itself to socialism or fascism. It's great to hear another liberal thinker placing fascism and socialism on the same end of the authoritarian scale rather than polar opposites.
This is an argument I also try and take on. I use the term 'Rational Egoism' in the place of 'Effective Egoism', and I also reference Ayn Rand here and Friedrich Nietzsche. I am trying to craft the argument to correct for Satanism and its radicalism based upon Rand and Nietzsche.
Small contribution from Portugal to the audience: Fascism had also a foot in history of Portugal, from 1920ish to 1974. This 25th April, Portugal celebrates 50 years of the revolution of 25th April 1974 that ended the New State (Estado Novo, spearheaded by defunct dictator Antonio Salazar). The New State started to decline after the death of Antonio Salazar (JL is correct, according to History, after the death of the strong man, the state system collapses). The Portuguese Military revolted on 25th April 1974 and ended the regime with an almost bloodless Revolution (if not mistaken, 3 people died). There was massive support from the population, fed up with the current state of affairs, with the ongoing war in the former colonies, the decline of economy, etc. The New State embodied Corporativism and an Alliance with Catholic Church (same as in Spain, during Franco). Most of the rich people were doing big business with the State, being favoured on big contract deals, even doing business with the Nazi state itself. Portugal remained Neutral during WW2. After the 25th April Revolution, the void was clearly filled up with Socialist and Communist parties (marxist/leninist/etc.) trying to seize power - during the New State regime, they were banned. After the first elections, in which Socialist Party won (left moderate), the Communist parties started internal civil conflicts (Verao Quente, 1975) and tried to seize power through another Military Coup, which failed in 25th November 1975. There were some casualities, mostly military personnel, if not mistaken. If the Communist Party had won, there would not be a Democratic state with free elections in Portugal. The most interesting thing to know, is the relentless effort of the Communists to not acknowledge what they tried to do, a Coup to implement a Communist regime, and they try to erase the 25th November from Portuguese History. Basically, they name fascists whoever calls them out as instigators of the 25th November. And since the Left mostly controlled the Education system, the Modern History of Portugal always ended in 25th April with the acheived goal of Liberty from old regime and students were not taught abouth 25th November in Schools for decades. I dont know if 25th November 1975 is being taught to kids nowadays in school, and what Communist party planned to do if they managed to remain in power. But history needs to be taught and learned so that the future generation does not repeat the same mistakes from the past. Communism and Fascism, as well as any Totalitarian ideology, is Evil.
You could say that Fascism and Communism are the hammer and anvil of Socialism (doesn't really matter which one plays which part). The two come together to violently hammer man into becoming "socialist man".
reading Mussolini (vs reading Hitler) it is obvious to me that Mussolini is likewise using the "share your vocabulary but not your dictionary" strategy but for conservatives rather than liberals
In reality the only difference between fascism and socialism is under fascism there is still private ownership of business but the government regulates them in excess and uses them to control the people. Mask and vaccine mandates are a prime examples. Fasciam was called perfected socialism by Musollini snd his cronies. Its in the documentation written by fascist. GOEBBELS.wrote extensively about socialism even calling it his religion and the religion of all Germans. The only difference between nazis and the soviets was Hitler was about his own country snd wasnt pushing international socialism-communism like the Soviets. Same ideology basically. The soviets mursered over 70 million of their own people by execution and torture and also by starvation. They mursered Jews like the Nazis did. The Kulags being a prime example. This was big in the Ukraine that isnt a democracy in any way. None of that has anything to do with individual liberty or freedom conservatives stand for. Smaller less intrusive Government? Nope not that either. Now we have woke progressive socialist students and faculty chanting "death to the Jews" and supporting Islamic terrorism as if their is any moral equivalency. The onea calling everyone elae nazis are exactly what they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of. Talk about blatant nazi woke supremacist.
@@scott2452 Fascists usually agree with conservative morality and objectives and vice versa. Not always and not all the way but it overlaps. Mussolini abandoned socialism and replaced it with fascism.
@@scott2452 of course not, but the first half of this paper starts with describing normality banal or aspirational conservative ideas, only for him to have a completely different meaning for them in context. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth to appeal to traditional society in the same way leftists do with low information 'liberals '
If I had had a teacher like you, back in the day. I have no doubt I would have paid more attention. Please keep educating us, and watch your ass. War is hell.
I truly wish more people would listen, and instill their values and belief's first for themselves as parents, but more so, for their children that most are completely poisoning them. James has worked so hard to expose the madness let loose last decade and more by all these global criminals, it's hard to believe there are only 47k views for one, but only 1.9k likes...disturbing really. Keep up the good work James.
On another note, there is a movie called SALO, it's an Italian movie, about Italian fascist libertines, it is a very graphic movie and I did not finished it since it's full of depravity. But in one scene, the main character says, "We are the true anarchists since we are on top and can do anything we want." This seems interesting and dark for a how fascist really think. This movie also presents an idea of how Epstein world can become a thing or how it functions. Like fascism and sadism go hand with hand. Thanks again.
have you seen / are you familiar with Love and Anarchy (also an Italian film glorifying the anarchist-cum-laudi)? at university i took an Italian filn class [i was pursuing a triumverate minor in Italian, French, German to augment my BA in (Intellectual History) -- i got the German minor, and the pleasure of having had this Italian film class, among others], which praised la cínema verité (perhaps i presently only remember the term in the French...), of which genre Love and Anarchy is found. all i can currently recall about the movie is that there are soldiers held up in a brothel, there are sisters or mothers or some such, suspension of continuation of life i.e. everyone is primed but on pause... i still have two of the books from the syllabus. i will forward info here. ciao! 😊
That movie was made by a communist and is based on the writings of de Sade (not a fascist). It has no value in analyzing fascism unless you're interested in the projections of communists onto facism and love gross-out propaganda.
Salo is no more depraved than George W. Bush's presidency. Stop being a Karen. The fascists weren't like that quote, though the futurists maybe. They were fascists too, but more in the libertine fashion. Fascism isn't a disciplined ideology. Authentic fascism isn't exportable, as it draws from national history. Mythologized history. In the United States, it draws from the Hollywood Western myth of American Exceptionalism. American fascism will see itself as libertarian, whereas the European one will see itself as more statist. Religion will play a big role in American fascism but not in the European one. Most Europeans would roll their eyes if a politician started to talk about God. It wouldn't be seen as authentic. Fascism happened in a particular time. WWI. Great Depression. Democracy was failing. Fascism is no longer a real thing. There are fascists, but they are idiots. By idiots I mean losers who will achieve nothing other than ranting on online forums. Fascism cannot legitimize itself.
Left and right are terms that can only be used for liberalism. All political philosophies that do not respect the sovereignty of the individual, the rule of law and the democratic process are illiberal. Fascism and National Socialism are developments of Marxism. There's no "far" right or left. That's why people need to create ideas like "horseshoe theory". Stalin was our "friend" during the world, he had to be located as far as possible from the other totalitarian regimes to allow us to help him. This is the most important reason kids at university are permitted to idolise Marxism, and why they are taught to vilify National Socialism and Fascism.
Great job James. I took a solo 10 day vacation in Costa Rica recently and was able to really dig into your long form talks and build upon my understanding. The Marxism is a Religion piece was exceptional. Keep up the great work. You are making a difference!
"The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is replaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism - until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name. The most recent slogan is -"State Capitalism."- "Stakeholder Capitalism". It is not commonly realized that this covers nothing more than what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism." -Mises
I loved this. I love the tone of your voice and the cadence of which you speak. I’ve always wanted to know what fascism meant and never could wrap my mind around it until now. Excellent content.
The CCP has this fun notion of a "golden share". This means it is a normal corporation that is ultimately owned by the stockholders, but they are required to give a special kind of stock to CCP. This allows CCP to override all other votes under "certain specific circumstances". Also, any company with over 100 employees has to have a state commissar. The upshot is the outward appearance of free markets, but all control is kept by the state.
Hitler did the same. The Nazi Def union was the biggest trade union in the world, and every company had a Commissar setting production targets, and constructing "people's" social welfare facilities that the workers were too exhausted to use.
The appeal of Fascism both with a capital F and lower case F is that it has a unifying effect, while communists tended to divide (we see that with cultural Marxists today). Both Mussolini and Hitler admired the collectivistic tendencies of Marxism and their ability to attract activists - but they hated how divisive communists tended to be - and how there would be a lot of infighting. A unifying idea - like the nation, one's heritage (blood and soil) - was needed to unify the people under a shared Myth that they could believe and rally behind - in which the communists often failed to do. Also, the appeal of fascism is the unification of the private sector and public sector to serve state interests. Although this did not work so well under Mussolini, it was perfected by Hitler's regime and was quite effective. In no way is this a defense of fascism, but is a key to it's effectiveness and appeal to unifying a group of people under a vision - no matter how false or nightmarish that vision is. I recommend highly the work of Ryan Chapman who lucidly explains this concept in his video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1T_98uT1IZs.html
_"The appeal of Fascism both with a capital F and lower case F"_ There is no difference how you write the word. Fascism always refers to Mussolini's ideology.
Another aspect of the appeal is the legal enshrinement of culture. A lot of us first came to oppose Woke ideology when we saw it infiltrate and destroy fandoms and gaming. Gamergate was at the start of anti-woke movement en masse.
@@_Historia_Magistra_Vitae Politically, yes. Though a lot of people (particularly in Gen X) use it casually to refer to any group that intends to dominate the minds of others.
I'm doing my best to follow this explanation of fascism, and it's a struggle. I'm hearing him talk about how bad the ideas are in fascism, communism, liberalism, and the new right. What does that leave us?....I don't hear is what ideas he considers to be a good path ahead.
It can't be idolatry of the State, first of all it doesn't fit the definition of idolatry, which is the worship of an idol, and an idol is an image or an item to which divine powers are attributed. Second, if everything is in the State, that includes the people. The State wasn't considered a separate entity, like today, which is required for it to be idolatry, the State was made of all the people, everybody took part in it. For idolatry it is required to have an idol and someone who worships the idol. Here we neither have the idol, neither is the State a separate entity that can be worshipped, in fact it wasn't, and certainly they didn't attribute divine powers to the State. Mu**olini was venerated, Fa**ism was called "redeemer", so you could argue that they were given divine attributes, but not the State... Yes there are a few quotes by Mu**olini about the State but most of the time he never talked about it, there was no cult of the State, and I'm Italian so I watched, read, and heard pretty much every speech and every propaganda piece and everything done by Fa**ism or about Fa**ism. This focus on the State was only part of Mu**olini's ideology but the same could be said about other ideologies as well. I think it's incorrect, and pointless, to put all this emphasis on this topic of the State, to characterize Fa**ism as idolatry of the State. In actuality if you really think about it, what Fascism is saying is anti-idolatry, it's saying that the only thing which can protect a nation, provide guidance and support, guarantee prosperity etc. is the State, and not some false god or false ideology. These are all true facts, the State isn't perfect but it definitely can do all these things, because the State is made of all the individuals. In other words it's telling you if you want all these things you better work for them through the State. Idols have supernatural powers, these aren't supernatural powers. Idols are believed to reward you with whatever you want by just worshipping them or doing sacrifices of animals. Fascism is telling you to not believe in false idols, but to work for your goals, only by working you can achieve something and you will be rewarded. Working actually produces goods, you don't produce anything by just being lazy. Idolatry is lazyness. Sacrificing an animal thinking that will solve your problems is lazyness.
The Norwegian electricity state model is a prototype. Norwegians left their homes and thought they owned the hydropower however, the State sold it to EU.
I've made the point that the French Revolutionary government under Robspierre was/were the first seeds of Fascism; from the uniforms to the hymns, it represented "blood and soil."
Thank you for reading this, James. I was startled and disappointed though by your rudeness toward Jordan Peterson. He has perhaps done more than anyone in the world to divert young men from potential fascism toward lives of genuine meaning.
Didn't Jordan Peterson use to work on the UN climate panel (before his fame took off)? With Arc he talks about "governance" and is openly advocating for ID:s to use internet. That sounds an awful lot like UN. Arc needs to be scrutanized.
JP speaks openly about his work experiences. That is how he learned what the UN is. I am a clinical social worker and have been since 1984. I started out with a sincere desire to help - in my case, at risk kids and teens, and had no idea how corrupt and destructive the mental health , social service, legal , and education systems were and are. I did not know until I had first hand experience. Being part of a system or endeavor for a season doesn’t mean you approve of it.
@@nancybaumgartner6774 Thanks for that insight, it makes sense to me. Furthermore, doesn't it help someone argue against a system if you've seen at least some of the inner workings, and not just in an academic sense (which is what James seems to focus on?). I was shocked by James' lashing out at Jordan, I didn't think they had anything to disagree about until listening to this episode. Seemed very immature to me, taking something so personal and resulting to swearing, when so much of James' material is delivered in a calm tone and what I thought was a rational mindset... I'm now questioning how rational and unbiased James actually is.
You’re doing the work of Yahweh. Regardless of belief you are fighting the darkness with light. I have turned more people to this channel than any other on this site. A nice caveat to this series is Evan Sayet’s “how modern liberals think” speech at the heritage foundation and its inspiration “the closing of the American mind”. I’d recommend the audio book for the latter but I’m also a former mouth breathing airborne grunt; a book that substantial in length and content is too much for my tiny brain lol. With that stated my all time favorite quote and as a former infantryman and student of tactics I can say the most applicable to everyday life outside war fighting, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”- Sun Tzu. Cliche to quote the “art of war” maybe, but in a war for the very soul of western society I think a book titled “the art of war” may be more appropriate than most think.
I don't know why the shot at Jordan, but... okay i guess? I don't expect everyone to agree all the time. That just came off as really personal. I do appreciate the discussion though. For years now people online have been throwing around "fascist" and "nazi" to the point that it's cliche. They don't understand what it actually historically is and was. So it's good to hear it actually explained well and in detail.
We need to stop thinking of these as left and right. Left (individual, decentalized ownership), all statist modes are right (monarchy, communism, fascism, feudalism, corporatocracy, globalism, oligarchy) are all centralized power theories. I am king by divine right, and our small group should rule because we know best are all opposed to individual liberty. It would be good to redfine American Idealism (individual liberty, voluntary society) as a radical rejection of all centralized modes. Capital has voluntary power (quit, boycott) unless it infiltrates a state OR if the state subordinates itself to NGO power by means of selling out its people, which should rightly be called treason.
China is a fully fascist state, at this point. That, to me, is the most important & relevant point from this pod. I know James gets around more than I do, but I'm simply not hearing/reading all of these calls for fascism that he seems to be hearing/reading. I think he'd do better if he'd stop attacking individuals or movements, perceived or actual, & focus on debunking incorrect ideas, as put forth explicitly by said individuals and/or movements. He could quote them & then tear the ideas to shreds, without actually speaking ill of any individuals.
While I agree with you, I REALLY appreciated his podcast covering Christian Nationalism, as it is a very real movement. (Though fortunately it's a fringe movement.) Being aware of its existence empowers people to more effectively rebuke leftists who slander people as "white or Christian nationalists".
@@CosmosArchipelagoHe's another one of those lefties that is still completely married to the idea of the moral liberal and are desperate to hold onto the moral superiority it used to give. They can't admit that Liberalism is a dying ideology and it needs replacing.
54:00 - a Sacristy is kind of like the Catholic equivalent of the green room in the theatre. It's where the vestments and other alter artifacts are stored when not in use and where the priest goes to get ready for mass.
@@chrispollard341Until it doesn't. Limit and constrain all of mans capabilities, ideals, desires to production tends to produce that "undesirable" by-product, Revolt.
Well yes obviously hedonism is bad. People should be advised against it like many on the conservative right say. That isn't the same as forcing people to not be hedonistic. Hence saying hedonism is bad does not equal a move toward fascism...
Yes! I was shocked by that comment, it seemed completely out of nowhere... I didn't think James was a champion of hedonism? I don't think he is, but the way he lashed out at Jordan Peterson there about it makes me wonder?
Communists: Society needs mom! Fascists: Society needs dad! Modern synthesis: Society needs mom and dad to get back together! Liberals/libertarians: Society needs to move the fuck out on its own 😅
Seriously, where do you get that Liberals want to be self-sufficient? They gravitate to the dependency welfare state to take care of them and they are epitomized by the Pajama Boy meme of an immature adult still living in his working parent's basement.
Thank you for understanding that China is not a communism; rather that it is a fascism. Very few people understand that, especially communists who point to China as a successful communist state.
James gets a lot wrong here. I think he himself blends contexts and uses sometimes superficial similarities in order creat connections that might not be there... However, th most important thing I learned from James Lindsay is that you have ACTUALLY BELIEVE something. To cling to an ideology because you are worried society is falling apart is idolatry. You have to belive what you believe, and live by those beliefs. Don't convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism because you think they are "based". Rather, serve the God you actually believe in, and be willing to lose everything you have in His service.
James is a goofy progressive and he’s not helping at all. Explaining definitions is very rudimentary. Yes that’s necessary considering we’re dealing with morons and NPCs but he’s a bleeding heart liberal progressive at heart. Closer to Woodrow Wilson than say the original constitutional amendments. No suffrage, no term limits, no federal reserve and no secret federal police.
@@Simon_Alexnder and that leaves nothing but a waste of time. That said he does leave a few gems here and there so he’s not a lost cause but he’s absolutely scared of disenfranchising women which is an essential liberal progressive value/virtue even tho it was never apart of the constitution or bill of rights.
@FazeParticles honestly, I don't really care if he holds my political views. I am not a liberal, but I'm not a Fascist or whatever. I think he is a great explainer and his ideas about Gnosticism and the fact that Gnosticism is a part of the conversation now are huge contributions. His exposing of the UN in plain and clear language is invaluable, and his work on Friere is also very helpful. If he genuinely believes in Liberalism, as he does, as an outgrowth of Christian Civilization, I say more power to him. He wants to center God as a basis for liberalism and individualism. I don't agree per se, but I am curious to see how he deals with the problems with Liberalism (as he has begun doing, and doing well, I think).
Hey James, On this podcast you say that fascism is an antithesis to marxism/communism. But wouldn't it be closer to the truth that fascism sees itself rather as a dialectical synthesis of capitalism and communism? Fascists described themselves as "third positionist" and I think it may not be just a coincidence.
_"But wouldn't it be closer to the truth that fascism sees itself rather as a dialectical synthesis of capitalism and communism?"_ No. Fascism opposed both capitalism and communism. It comes from a belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society. It cared about unity in a strong central government with society being brought together by syndicalist organizations obedient to the State.
What helped me was realizing that this isn't a political fight. Left and Right are political terms. The Left did the long march through culture and society. Stop worrying about an election that might make a change you like but is nothing but a token until the next potus reverses it. Build culture. Build society. Get out and do things like we use to, join clubs and go to activities. Stage 1 (demoralization) worked by making what we love and enjoy toxic to us. They didn't kick us out of our pastimes and escapes, they made them so we left on our own. FUCK THAT! Push back. All those people getting cancelled in pop-culture are doing the fight that needs doing. Pop-culture is our culture, like it or not.
Maybe I'm I'll informed, but I'm not aware of any trad Catholics advocating the return of Italian Fascism. Not sure who Lindsey is arguing against here.
“The 1846 meeting of the Communist Correspondence Committee in Brussels is enshrined in left wing mythology as the birthplace of what was to become a global movement, a movement that dominated world politics in the 20th century. Marx and Engels were the main players, and the authors of the Communist Manifesto of 1848, the most tangible outcome of the gathering. Moses Hess was there too. For him, Communism was the inevitable fulfilment of Biblical prophecy, both Jewish and Christian. As well as a communist eternity, Hess's bible study also revealed a future where the whole of humanity would speak a common language. This was essential for mutual comprehension and harmony. The Bible points to a return of the Jewish Kingdom with a restored Jerusalem. Hess took this literally. Races must cooperate, but they must live separately. Hence the Jews must return to their ancient Promised Land. Theodor Herzl wrote 'The Jewish State' in 1896 and is often proclaimed as the father of Zionism. Only after the publication of his own book did he discover 'Rome and Jerusalem'. Had he known of it before, he said, much of his own writing would have been superfluous. Hess comes across as benign; a man well aware of the squalid horrors of early industrialisation as well as European anti semitism. From a 21st century perspective, though, we can see the grim results of his racial separation theories in Nazi Germany and the disaster that arose from a faith in the inevitability of world communism.” Review on Amazon re Moses hess www.commentary.org/articles/jonathan-frankel/the-communist-rabbi-moses-hess/
It is interesting that Mussolini drew a distinction between socialism and fascism. To Mussolini, communism was socialism. Hitler seemed to take a far more honest approach. He acknowledged that fascism is simply another form of socialism. He declared in his writings on multiple occasions that he is a socialist, and he put the word socialism right into the Nazi party name.
Liberalism and individualism free the actual person to worship anything at all. Everything else is indistinguishable from Stockholm syndrome, as it relegates the actual person - the thing capable of worship - as mere raw material for other ambitiously psychopathic individuals' ambition.
@54:04 Not a misprint. Sacristy is a word in English: it is a vestry, a church chamber where sacred items including vessels, vestments and books are stored. It all for the chamber where the priest prepares for service. Mussolini is here referring metaphorically to the choir boys preparing for service. It is a synodoche for the whole body of Christendom.
Halfway through and enjoying it as always. I have to admit that the comment regarding Jordan Peterson was good. I miss Professor Peterson; unfortunately, pop commentator Peterson is where we are now, and it's not the same. I enjoyed the James Lindsay Jordan Peterson interview, though.
yes, agreed! -- that was a good one!! ...and i do see your point : with this particular conversation as your example, i remembered imagining that Peterson speaks to most people off camera as he spoke to/with Dr Linds'. and James, on the other hand, i believe speaks in similar fashion across the board. cheers 😊
He seems to get some interesting guests on his show, but he is now so annoying that I can rarely be bothered to FF through his patronising waffle. Watched his latest yesterday, and his first question was 5:30 long. What a knob. Such a shame.
@@LeeGee It's funny... I was / am a fan of the work of Joseph Campbell and Peterson's work reminded me heavily of that. I even got the audible version of Maps of Meaning, which was quite good. While I can certainly appreciate a person changing their political stance and or personal philosophy I feel like more than that happened. I can't be sure that it's Daily Wire influence, but that might be part of it. I think that in some quarters there's been a strange trend where commentators take a kind of parental tact in their speech and I think that is some of what I'm getting there. It's a kind of smug superiority that they know the right way of things. The waffle bit annoys me too, it's as if he's always grasping for the right words. Frankly he was far better as an exiled highly cited professor who made independent commentary and did fun Q and A livestreams, perhaps the money was too good.
I guess I need to see where liberalism was opposed to the french revolution. I always thought liberalism and freemasonry were joined at the hip (maybe the way theology and its religion are joined) and that the revolution was their dream, & subsequent nightmare, come true.
Nietzche was more theoretical in his "will to power" writings. Mussolini obviously thought the theory should be tried out to see if the theory was correct.
@22:40 Greek myth trivia note: Jove birthed Minerva from his brow, and carried Bacchus to term in his thigh, but Saturn fathered children with Ops in the normal way. But the point of your metaphor still stands: Fascism springs from Communism via parthenogenesis.
James's homie Benjamin Boyce is very NRx-friendly, and I rly like Benjamin's channel, and think someone like Yarvin is pretty brilliant. But I DON'T AGREE WITH THEM.
Awesome as usual! I was wondering if you have a reading list anywhere so I can read for myself all the essays and books you use as a basis for your shows.
9 месяцев назад
The similarities between nazism (fascism) and communism was the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It wasn't broken until Hitler commenced Operation Barbarossa and sent his army against Moscow.
The similarity was a treaty? Well damn, a common war effort between the Anglo-Liberal & communist Powers must as well constitute similarity on that basis then!
So Jordan Peterson gives you a nice platform and you grow your audience and you smile at him and do your nice little interview about you trolling the left and you turn around and moch and cuss him because he rails against the very real problem of wasted talents due to hedonic self gratifying pleasure seeking...???
Thank you! I was shocked by his lashing out like that! I'm glad I'm not the only one who heard and took it that way, I'm still reeling at realizing how much animus James has for Jordan??
Yep, the paradigm is used to control thinking, anything good is "left wing" and anything bad is "right wing". The paradigm claims that Progress can only occur on the left and preservation (conservatism) on the right.
@@Planeet-Long can you actually give examples of things promoted on the right that are in fact good and not regressive - I mean things that are exclusively promoted on the right. Because it's very easy to say this is all some sort of mind control - but much harder to actually give a reasoned account of your idea with actual evidence.
Not sure why everyone bashes the Prussian model of education. It was simply an effective and efficient way to provide education to the masses. Oh no! It was for teaching children to adopt the values of the nation and to train them to be productive members of society. What monsters! Lol. The alternative was that only the rich could afford a tutor for their children.
Recently the UK government celebrated 150 years of public education. Originally set up to improve the literacy rate. Private education (almost exclusively church schools) had only achieved a paltry 79% literacy rate. 150 years later the government has now improved the literacy rate to 79%, and there are almost no private charity schooling, according to UK government reports. And it only costs 100 times more (inflation adjusted)!
Unfortunately have to turn this off after you used Jesus Christ's name as a cuss word. Do you use your mother's name as a cussword, or anybody else in the world, or from any other religion?
The only problem with James 's insights is that to understand and relate irl one need to have a very very good ability to apply analytical approach to a huge amount of available information which is way above the reasonably sharp minds! Somebody needs to articulate them to the commons... seems Vivek Ramaswamy can do that, but that's something time will only tell.
The bit about Jordan Peterson going on about hedonism had me laughing. Humor does so many good things, including humility. I started tuning him out when the crying became a regular thing. It came across as wallowing in the attention, and the clown suits seem a vindication. Ironically, I was permanently banned from commenting on his channel. It happened after I became critical about the chronic public displays of emotion. My criticisms were as polite and objective as one can be about this sort of thing, but I was censored nonetheless. I suspect I hit a nerve with whoever does the admin. How ironic that I've never been banned from leftist channels, where my volume of criticism is in many multiples by comparison.
I didn't mind the crying as much as the angry dad shit. No one is infallible though, and he has done a lot of food work overall. People burn out, or play out. Been feeling that way towards Tim Pool lately as well
It seems like you are doing a lot of mind reading, which is impossible. Cynical reactions to emotional behavior does not constitute a moral high ground.
@@allyourbase888 You're doing a lot more mind reading right here than I did about Jordan. You know nothing about me, but I'd been following Jordan and his work for years. We all make assessments based on evidence, but I had a heck of a lot more to work with than a single comment. I'm also no stranger to psychology. The crying in and of itself didn't bother me. I come from a family that it's ok for men to cry when the emotional state dictates. It started bothering me when it became a chronic feature that often didn't fit the context. The moral high ground is your framing. The framing in my mind was preference based. Seems to me the attention started going to his head, but I recognize this would be a relatively common outcome, to varying degrees, of someone thrust into such a role.
Tim Pool said that they're saying this after seeing what the communists did in places like Spain and what resistance appeared as a result of it. Don't know what Jack said specifically but you seem excessively angry about it. Not everyone on the right is a libertarian, they're in fact just a small minority.
I'm not a fascist or a communist. I'm not any type of liberal either and I don't really like James Lindsay I'm probably what he would kinda consider a "post liberal/illiberal 'post modern' Trad rightist" so there's few national conservative reactionaries who watch let alone like or are subscribed to James Lindsay same with fascist/national socialists-Bolshevist Marxist types too. And I seen a comment where a commenter probably a fascist or natsoc one was saying: "James Lindsay being a good boy, bypassing a struggle session criticizing the only ideology that challenges (((them)))" something along those lines, so no the Fascists and natsocs who watch James Lindsay likely just hate watch him same with the Communists who watch him or many of the neo reactionary authoritarian national conservatives who watch him too. There's none of them recruiting here, just because he doesn't like communism and critisizes the libtard and commie left a lot doesn't mean much when it comes to that. Btw fascists 'recruiting' from people who don't like communism doesn't make much sense at all since if you were to watch fascists like Keith woods, Shandon simpson and Cultured thug and many more actual ideological and Intellectual fascists you'd see that they don't make any effort to separate themselves from communism and Marxism really at all and will critisize figures like Pinochet or Franco way more than they'd criticize figures like Mao, Stalin, Kim IL Sung, Ho chin Minh and Lenin. Historically most of the original fascists and fascist intellectuals from Italy had Marxist priors so classical fascism and to a lesser extent/some extent national socialism has some Marxian undertones quite a bit. The natsocs and fascists who claim they are opposites likely don't get the ideology in full and that's probably a minority of the GLR/William Pierce type natsocs who other natsocs fascists and probably a lot of other H*tlerites would denounce as 'racist libertarian' or racist conservative reactionary revisionists, similar with how communists often consider other Communists who may not fully get that ideology as counter revolutionary revisionists. A lot of actual ideological fascists don't make the distinction between them and the commies it's moreso the communists who make the distinction between themselves and the Fascists.
Really great podcast with some much needed insights into what fascism is. What I disagree on is the commentary on modern day. I don’t think the modern day alt right is going fascist but instead they are being heavily influenced by The Forth Political Theory of Dugin. I’m doing my own research on this but would love James to give it a shot because I think he presents complex topics in the most digestible way.
