INTO THE WYDNA ARCHIVES ft. KANTBOT

um the person i'm gonna bring on is

aunt bot the famous contact you don't

know who kantbot is

you live under a rock and basically you

know you're just pretty much not even

cool to watch this stream in the first

i'm just kidding he's a uh

you know i'm gonna let him introduce

himself because i don't even know what

to say

he's a super interesting guy um

he's famous on twitter he's famous for

the announcement

that trump was going to complete the

system of german idealism

um yeah i'm just going to bring him on

right now

okay what's up man

oh can you hear me yeah oh great great

sorry

um if can you uh turn your mic up a

little bit if it's possible

yes i can let me turn up my game

better can you hear me more uh

how about that that that one's way

better yeah that's probably better okay

sorry

there we go for sure you know i have all

my little audio gears and

and shit like that i have this little

box thing this uh focusrite and i have

all these little

buttons and stuff you have to turn and

yeah i think

probably max volume would be best for

the mic

all right we're uh that's max for me

that's max right now

all right it's good it's good all right

ma'am

um so uh

i was thinking maybe if you could like

uh introduce yourself to the audience

because are we on right now yeah yeah

we're live right now

i was just listening to your a little um

intro that you gave me

i think you gave me too much cred i

don't think that uh knowing

people online makes you that cool

but i don't know i see you're in this

whole little world of like

debating uh vouchers and people like

that i don't get that

i don't know anything about that so i

don't know

is are we going to debate vouch can we

debate voucher right now like i'll help

you

no unfortunately like um

you know what oh my god i'd love to you

know what

maybe he will debate you he won't debate

me again because

i've been trying he just won't but i

don't know i don't

know of him i have no idea if he knows

who i am so i

no no clue if he would want to do that

but i'll yeah i'll champion you whenever

you want

oh my god that would be fucking

legendary honestly that would literally

be like

if you started debating these people

it'd be like

it's just yeah that would be

i'm too mean when i debate people people

get like upset

like trouble they get you know uh i did

this

debate with this guy his name is

thaddeus russell

uh i don't know if you know who he runs

something that's called like renegade

university

i don't know who that is i i'll tell you

i did see one of your debates before

and it was it was um actually you were

literally right like

unironically you were like exactly what

my view was

i don't even know if you were trolling

or anything but like it was my literal

like view it was like

you were debating this guy about stalin

and you were like

so have you seen dune and the guy's like

yeah and he's like yeah that was that

that's thaddeus russell oh

that okay i saw some of that one yeah

and i on iron like unironically that is

literally like

my view it was pissing me off so much i

mean he was like

kind of a scammer or something he's like

a

did this whole thing of teaching at

columbia he wasn't really a full

professor or anything as far as i know

but he sort of like played himself

off like i'm the renegade professor man

like i'm you know going rogue and i'm

going to like set up this new the the

renegade university

and he charged like 300 bucks or

something to like take the classes on

this website which are just like

little youtube videos of him just saying

the stupid shit

you know and then so then he like wanted

to debate a

communist or whatever and uh i thought

it would just be like a good time and

i thought he knew what he was what the

deal was

because he asked me and then but then

doing that debate

he just like he like cried afterwards or

something like i heard

he said that his audio uh didn't work so

he couldn't send me his track

and all types of shit like it was but

people got mad at that one they thought

i was like too mean to them so i don't

know if they'll get too mad if i do that

to whoosh

but i don't you know uh i will tell you

right now that

that would be like incredible

that would be like a work of art if you

debated fucking bread tube and all those

people

that would definitely be i mean where

did the bread tube stuff come from

you know uh that's it's like a chapo

thing it was on the chapa

chapo reddit i think they were talking

about the the

that quest for bread book or whatever

that was like yeah

is that what that is peter kropotkin the

conquistador bread yeah that's

yeah that's what it comes from so

basically bread tube

uh it's it was like

it was part of the gamergate

counter revolution so they're pretty

much like

the white guard of the fucking gamergate

like um so i think it came

they they pretty much like were you know

how like in

2016 like there was like this huge like

80s

kind of revival or whatever

um maybe i don't know

like in terms of like aesthetics and

like i don't yeah i

i don't believe in decades

yeah so basically like i think bread

tube was like

part of that stylistically like yeah

like the vaporwave thing

and they just like had a left-wing spin

to it i guess i don't know you know what

kind of reminds me of though it's like

during the french revolution there was

these

their counter-revolutionaries they were

called

muscadine you know what i'm talking

about yeah that's kind of what i'm

thinking when it comes to like bread to

whatever like contra points

uh nathan robinson he's got their style

i don't know i can't really follow it

but last time so the last episode that

we did so i don't know

i didn't uh introduce myself to

everybody

but i just do this like me and my my guy

ed berg who's my man

he he wanted to be here he just couldn't

because he's like doing all this house

sitting by the way

so he'll he'll do one he wants to do one

with you um at some point you can just

hit him up

but yeah so we do the show together

where we just cover

all these different topics in history we

go really deep down we do like

a hundred hours of research to do these

different topics like

you know iran contra and all this

different stuff so the last one that we

did was

on political economy right and so i

and for like the intro for it i do all

these little mixes of

like sound collages of different samples

and stuff so i went and tried to find

debates of these people like the uh

versus destiny or whatever and it just

is

it's incomprehensible to me it's just

garbage it's totally bullshit it's

nonsense

it's just gibberish like i was listening

through through this

uh like um putting in uh you know

editing the sample and it's like an hour

long fucking screed of these two guys

like yelling at each other about fucking

nothing and then i was just like

clipping out

like sections at random to get down just

like

uh taking out five minutes 10 minutes 20

minutes and then

there was no you couldn't tell that i

had done that if you just listened to

what i played back

yeah it just sounded like a continuous

like uh gibberish stream of them talking

to one another

like there's no there's no coherence or

structure or anything i was like you

could just take anything out at random

and it would still sound exactly the

same well

that's why it's so easy because like

these are people with like

hundreds and thousands and millions of

followers and stuff

and it that's the thing it's like it's

it's pretty much like you're walking

into an

open door like it it really wouldn't

take that much effort for someone who

like

actually knows stuff to just pretty much

completely just i guess

fucking sorry

it's just like pretty much like bto

police people you know

like there's like this whole debate

culture with bread tube and all these

people and it's like

oh you know is destiny gonna debate this

guy oh who's gonna win and it's like it

seems like there's so much

it's just the lamest debates that they

can have the the talking points that

they use it's just the oldest shit

that you can hear of like people busting

out these arguments

that sound like stuff just libertarian

talking points from like 10 years ago

yeah yeah that's what i mean it's like

so someone who really like actually

knows stuff

it would not be hard for them to just

pretty much swoop in

and it's i'm a i don't know i just

i like political economy i want to learn

more about it these people don't do

these

subjects justice they're lazy that's

what upsets me about it

yeah last show that we did i mean we

were just talking all about like

william petty and like the royal society

like going back to the

the financial revolution of uh 1690s

england and shit like that it's like

have these people ever read anything

about any of this it's it's like they

live in their own little

you know insular uh bullshit world

that's just complete fantasy they're not

engaged with these topics at all

so it was just like yeah they're totally

hypocritical first of all but also just

embarrassing to even they're stuck in

like this kind of like discourse trap

where like

they think the extent of

subject matter of any importance is like

exhausted by

the discourse that they're in like for

example

um they're like oh what did voss say or

what did destiny say or what did this

person say and like what

what are they arguing about like what

you know i mean like they're stuck in

this like

loop where the only things they care

about are defined by

the the subjects that they're so that's

what i'm saying like

it would be super easy for like an

invasive species pretty much

to come in and like just completely

change the game

that's you man that's what i hear you

you're doing i mean that's what people

are telling me i mean i didn't know

you know i had i hadn't heard of you

before and i hadn't heard of like any of

this

uh stuff before really but it was it was

edberg

who's like turning me on to your your

stream your youtube

so and i was like he's not the type of

guy who

watches streams or engages with a bread

tube or anything like that he doesn't

care he's way above that stuff so then

when he said that you know oh yeah uh

infrared is pretty cool like

i listen to that sometimes i said all

right

you know that it must be something then

it must be something worthwhile because

ed edberg doesn't fuck around like that

no yeah edberg is yeah he's an og he's

like super he's one of the problem well

yeah one of the most

uh well-read

and most unique and interesting uh

marxists i think uh

i'm ever familiar with yeah so but um

i've i've been i've followed that berg

for like since like 20

17 20 2018 so

you know we got hooked up just because

i i was doing all this um

you know got way more into into theory

on a couple of things because i've been

doing all this stuff with like

leibniz and like worlds and uh

you know content cosmological uh

idea and and things like that putting

putting that together

and so we got hooked up on that i he had

been around for a while but we had never

talked i mean we like followed each

other

but then like last year like last spring

or

whatever i think we started uh just

chatting a lot because

i reached out just started sharing some

of these i ideas i was having i was

going through like live nets and stuff

and then um

that led to us just doing all these

different shows about like jfk

and uh iran contra and it's just like

i love doing stuff like that so much

more i used to do these shows these

podcasts where

you get like dasha on you know who like

dasha is yeah yeah i know who that is

yeah

like you talked to dasha for an hour

it's just so it was always boring

there's like nothing you can ever

fucking talk about with those people

without knowing anything

so i always have to do these shows with

people who where just like you have to

carry the whole

thing to come up with stuff that they

can talk about which is like usually

just themselves

and then yeah yeah it's just boring but

just doing stuff with like ed berg is so

much better because i love

you know on all the shows that we do all

the research that we do it's just so

great because we can talk about

uh you know marxism and we do talk about

we talk about marxism a lot in the show

i feel like

this the stuff that we do talking about

marxism on

our show is way more than i've ever

heard any of these bred two people

oh yeah it's not even i mean like we're

pretty much dealing with

a completely different um universe

basically like

you know the way i think about it is

that um

i it's almost like when i'm dealing with

bread tubing like i don't

consider that to be like the actual

realm of like

thought or theory or like i don't really

even see

theory being like suspended in real time

as like even necessarily relevant bread

tube is literally just a complete

spect it's like a complete fiction you

know it's like a complete uh

fake world it makes me feel crazy

because it's like

do these people even know anything about

marx or something no they do not

talk about it but you know i feel like

there's so much of the actual

nuance of theory that's just missing i

mean i'm big into theory

what i have like a kind of a broader

understanding of it i mean this is the

whole point of you

like if you care about like dialectical

materialism that's like the whole point

of dialectical materialism is that it's

you know you're changing consciousness

and that's like the theoretical angle of

it and

the point is that it links together you

know changes in the economic situation

changes in you know through the

historical uh self-awareness

of you know the the proletariat and

theory is that self-awareness right it's

like their

self-consciousness of their own

historical position which then puts them

into a position where they can like

change

the material circumstances that they're

enmeshed at it's like

you know there's that's what the

dialectic is but you hear these all

these other people talk about just they

they revert back to the most bullshit

inane

like mean definitions and like one you

know

it's just awful yeah i mean um

you know the thing with that is uh

it's an interesting thing because the

the things that

redtube considers like profound and like

interesting theory and stuff

is really stuff you find interesting

when you first get into like caring

about politics at all when you're like

you know 14 13 years old like what

what wash says for example um

that's stuff that like i would think

about and say when i would when i'm like

14 years old and i'm first interested

but

at the same time you know paradoxically

i guess

this is what commands the attention of

hundreds and hundreds and thousands of

people so it's really like i know

cynically we tend to think like oh yeah

the masses are asses

me and ed we were recording uh an

episode yesterday we're doing this huge

episode

on newfoundland which is like a whole

can of worms did you know that

newfoundland is

uh just totally fucked it's the most

fucked country in the world that

the the british sold newfoundland to

canada

in exchange for canada for giving the

debts

war debts that from the uh loans that

they had given britain during world war

ii

and that canada that newfoundland did

not have any like say

or choice and joining uh

you know confederation with canada

and this was entirely completely illegal

by the way

yeah that's crazy no i'm not no it's

even worse than that this is like a real

thing believe me so

it's uh newfoundland was not part of

canada until

1949 right it's a dominion that's like

in

in the english common with the british

commonwealth there's the idea of the

dominion

so it's all these sovereign dominions

right they're sitting alongside one

another in this commonwealth and

they're like technically they're all

supposed to be ranked you know equally

as like all sovereign nations along with

great britain and until 1949 newfound

newfoundland and canada were both

separate dominions right there's

technical separate countries and so

during the 1930s um you know

after the great depression started

basically newfoundland was broke they

were close to bankruptcy so they went

back to

britain and they said they went to like

the the foreign office the dominions

office there

and they said can you give us some help

right to get out of bankruptcy we're

like

dying here and part of the bankruptcy it

had to do with

the fact that uh you know this was

during the great depression so they

had to do with their welfare spending

but it also had to do with like the fact

that they had made

um loans to great britain for world war

one that

britain didn't pay back stuff like that

but

basically great britain sent a

commission over to

newfoundland right and they said okay um

we are going to help you but we're not

going to give you a free ride or

anything

right you have to work for this you know

this is serious we're not

just going to give you a handout so what

we're going to do

is we're going to have a take away your

sovereign rule

and we're going to put a commission in

place a british commission

that's going to rule all of newfoundland

and have total power over and you're

going to have all of your democratic

institutions suspended until it's such a

time

when you're when you are profitable

again right

when you are no longer running a deficit

so

they signed a law of 1933 in parliament

there was an act

that put into place uh you know the

terms of this agreement where

it said that when newfoundland is

solvent again

it will get itself ruled back it'll be

you know have its sovereignty return to

it

and so during world war ii um

newfoundland was very successful because

they made lots of like leases to

america and to britain for bases and

stuff like in

um the newfoundland airport is called

ganger airport it was the busiest

airport in the world

in world war ii because you know uh

newfoundland if you don't it's on like

the

the most easterly part of canada it's

like the

so gandra airport is where they were

flying all the supplies back and forth

between

north america and great britain so this

was just part of like all the different

things that newfoundland

did during world war ii that made very

strategically important and also

they made a lot of money and they became

solvent again they started making

a surplus budget surplus so then

after world war ii uh they they reopened

the

you know issue of sovereignty and

self-rule and ending the commission rule

and they held a convention basically

where they said okay now we're

everybody all your prof all the parts of

newfoundland you are going to elect

delegates they're going to go to

convention

and they're going to have some vote

basically decide making a suggestion

about what the next steps are going to

be towards newfoundland getting its

sovereignty back

but in secret and this is completely

true

in secret great britain and canada

had conducted extensive negotiations as

early as like 1941

to sell new finland to canada britain

was like

britain was exercising its complete

authority under this commission rule

over new finland and was negotiating to

sell new finland

to canada and but they didn't have any

right to do that under the terms of the

the 1933 act which

you know established commission rule

they were you know required to give

sovereignty back to new finland but

before

you know in december of 1945 is when

they announced this this convention

right

but before that in uh in september of

1945 they had already closed the deal

with canada

so this this convention and the delegate

the delegation that was sent to it

total bullshit it was all like pre uh

pre-arranged even before that

months before they had closed all the

terms that

uh newfoundland was going to have to

accept in order to confederate with

canada

that's so is there anyone raise the

issue afterwards or

people try to but they you know it's a

very contentious issue newfoundland i

talked to some newfoundlanders

uh while doing this this episode it gets

treated as kind of like a conspiracy

theory or something but in the 80s

all these foreign office papers got like

declassified and

you know it's completely true it's not

like even that

uh you know there's nothing crazy about

it

but basically it was all done um

by this guy named joey smallwood who was

the first premier of newfoundland

newfoundland and labradors the full name

is like labrador

labrador is the part of the the canadian

mainland which is like bordering um

quebec and then there's the island

newfoundland right and they form

together a province called

newfoundland and newfoundland and

labrador right

but it's like the size of can um

california right in it but

california has a population of whatever

like 40 million people

newfoundland and labrador has a

population of like 150 000

yeah and it's the same size so it's like

the last frontier of like mineral

resources right

so the premier the first premiere of

newfoundland is this guide

joey smallwood who's actually was a

socialist journalist

um who spent the 1920s in new york like

covering

eugene debs and stuff like that and

interviewing all these

famous socialists from that era and so

he has a big reputation as actually

being a socialist which is very

contentious because

when he became premier of newfoundland

like in the 1949 and then in

the 1950s is that he arranged

for all these companies like nm

rothschilds and company

and like rio tinto mining corporation

and like um

anglo-american uh anglo-american

uh south africa corporation like to come

into newfoundland and do all this

mineral

exploration right and if you don't know

like uh anglo-american like south africa

corporation like that's the company that

owns

de beers diamond consortium yeah and

then

and then rothschild is like the the

london bank of the rothschild family

it's like

so it's kind of like this whole fucked

up situation so those i mean the show

that we are doing

uh right now is just all about the kind

of that history but then going into all

these corporations

that did all this mining exploration

uranium is a big part of it

it's crazy but uh i don't know i i

didn't mean to summarize it at such

length because my real point

to begin with was just saying that when

we were me and edward recording

yesterday

um he had been mentioning you because we

were talking about all this um you know

this idea of how kind of economic

development happens

and he was talking about your well you

know

he he said that this is as far as he

understood was like your theory

of um you know development because we

were talking about

how the idea of like competition and

like

organic economic development how that's

bullshit basically

and how it's completely like you know it

is a kind of socialism right and he was

we were talking about the idea that like

communism has to come and destroy

socialism and that we already have

socialism

yeah is that you know something you talk

about that's

yes it's something i s we talked about

extensively at first

uh when i first started streaming but i

real a lot of my viewers started to get

super like upset

and they were like actually like if you

know like they're just pretty much like

a lot of marxists and

it's not that i want to like pander to

people but i was so annoyed

by like chatters just coming in like

you're just being marxists pretty much

you know like um

trying to like correct me like i'm a

student who like

got the wrong answer on a test so i just

stopped just because of how annoyed i

was but basically the idea is

my idea was that if you want to go like

really far was that actually marx

was the first critic of socialism

is and that marx and engels actually

anticipated socialism

as some kind of um

inevitability like a real force of

history and that they were the first

ones to actually

critically reflect upon it in some kind

of way like everyone else pretty much

denied it you know like the idea pretty

much is that anti-communism

or anti-socialism has always just been a

cult like even the fucking austrians

are in a way like some kind of utopian

socialist

uh thinkers well exactly exactly because

the thing about the austrians is that

the whole idea of like the planners

problem or whatever if you stop and look

at it right we're talking about like

uh von mises came up with the planner's

problem right and then hayek was like

the one

who like made it famous and popularized

a lot but

the whole con the whole point of that

problem is like

talking about coordination right and so

the the idea is between you either have

the choice between

a central planner or you know using the

market to coordinate

but if you really think about it the end

goal is the same in either case

the end goal is coordination yeah

so yeah like there's not yeah it's like

um

the main thing for me at least is the

way in which

politics is connected the way in which

economic ends

are indexed or even sometimes determined

by

politics right there's a there's

some kind of political goal with the use

of economics right and this is a kind of

elementary

socialistic relationship and it's one

that i'm

aware uh of course uh even precedes

like for example to simplify things i

often talk about

contrasting 19th century liberal

capitalism with the 20th century

capitalism of course

this is a real distinction but

um it's also very clear that even

uh 19th century liberal capitalism

was in a way socialistic

you know what i mean no i i totally

agree with you i think just like

factually

you're correct because if you look at

like what the first investment bank in

history is

it's a bank it's called um credit mobile

ra right it's a french investment bank

right and so the corporate form

that this took was it's the sa forum the

society and nominee

right and so in like france they

uh you know i think it's like 1802

uh they passed these it's a new

corporate code

and the corporate code they put into

place the possibility of like

forming these new kinds of companies

called these society nominee right

and really society and nominee is like

an older form

of uh royal charter corporations right

there's an implicit

public function that these that the

first investment bank

was uh you know understood to play

that's

why they were allowed in the first place

the idea

of you know credit mobilare was that it

sucked up all this capital that the the

middle class

had begun to accumulate and then use

that to build all these railroads and

shit all over europe

and right and they they were responsible

for all this industrial development they

were also like san simonians

by the way yeah yeah i think i i heard

about what you

what you're talking about actually um

yeah but that that i don't know if you

define socialism as just like

public um i think you know public

control of the economy or like

uh yoking uh corporations or you know

business activity to like public ends

and like government regulation and

that's like you know

that that has been going on since

the you know the turn of the 19th

century

and um that's how that's how all of

europe was developed in terms of like

building the railroads and utilities and

ship

i think another way to think about it

for me at least is that

so when when we think about for example

um

private property right um and of course

private properties like

the like the center of everything like

when it comes to

uh when we're talking about capitalism

or anything else right it's what defines

uh the range of exchange what's

the and the market and all that kind of

stuff

so to me um what's going on is an

interesting dialectic between

private property is something that's

objective

right like something that fundamentally

does exist

outside of um the public or state sphere

and then private property as an

institution which

is basically the extent to which private

property is

recognized and respected by the state

whether that's in the form of rights or

some other kind of

institution like in the pre-modern era

the basic idea is that

there's a because of this contradiction

you get a certain kind of paradox

private property is in a way

communi like socialist or communistic

because

private property gets to a point and

insofar as it's an

explicit public institution of

becoming so intermingled with the

political forms

of its instantiation and recognition and

so on and so on that

for example the prevailing form of

private property becomes sustained by

uh formal or informal networks

uh it becomes uh sustained by

uh connections with the government it

comes entangled with politics decision

making uh becomes a kind of estranged

from its

real objective basis and it becomes uh

instantiated in some kind of like

subject mostly subjectively mediated

form

and sing it yeah and then basically like

um agree with you

i totally agree with you i mean i just

want i don't don't mean to interrupt you

oh yeah i'm not trying to be i'm just

saying like oh yeah i think you're right

oh yeah i appreciate it yeah um and so

basically the idea

is that you get a kind of interesting

paradox with that like um

and then also you can think of marx's

terms like um this is where

value becomes recycled it ceases to be

the site of the creation of value but

the form of its recyclemen then uh

paradoxically the real objective basis

of private property

real private property if you will

becomes the very basis for a kind of

new communism or a new socialism

which seeks to um kind of like break up

these institutions or uh kind of um

uh break the power of cities which is

the historical example of it

uh you know like the ins the

relationship between cities and

uh nomads or cities in the countryside

and

before capitalism um

so it's it's interesting like

i don't know it's a very paradoxical

dialectic kind of thing you have to wrap

your head around which is basically that

this is kind of also how i understand

the reform and opening up in china it's

like

in in order to so pretty much let me

just put it this way to be a ron paul

libertarian you have to be like a

communist basically right you need

you need some kind of common social uh

basis and power in order to break up

monopolies break up big

institutions and re-parcelize

uh property in order so there can be

just a so-called real uh market or

whatever

no i you know this is a really key point

historically i think if you go back to

um you know the the

late um 17th century and basically the

financial transformations that happened

there

because um like this is what habermas

talks about in structural transformation

transformation of the public sphere and

so

the idea of what you're saying is about

this tension right between uh public and

private property and about

like that uh i think you're exactly

right and when you're talking about

like the you know the

disconnection the abstraction right of

economic activity into like own separate

realm that's a very historical thing

that like definitely

is uh you can trace it directly back to

like the 1690s into england

because that's in 1695 is when the bank

of england is formed right

and if you look at that whole history of

how that uh

you know surrounding that transformation

it's actually just it's incredible

because

the economy at that point was entirely

fictionalized into this

you know modern speculative economy and

they used to call like today we have

entrepreneurs

well back and then it was called

projectors right if you go you read like

um

you know daniel defoe or like jonathan

swift or stuff that you the term they

always use is projector like as in

somebody who's coming up with projects

right so

uh that was the big epidemic at that

time of the year things like the south

sea bubble

came from that i don't know if you uh

have looked into the history of that

it's just an interesting kind of

parallel to like the the

crisis of the 2008 or whatever but

very similar economically but the point

is that at that time

basically um during the the restoration

right so they had the they wanted to

base everything based on

land and um they had an economic theory

of value

right that held that uh there was a

finite amount of wealth

a finite amount of value that value was

you know linked

and uh you know as a substance that was

you know the essence contained by

precious metals

or by land or by labor and that's one of

the actual funny things is that

the the originator of political economy

is this guy named william petty who was

a physician

right and he uh came up with this idea

he's called

political arithmetic right and then

that's kind of the

point at which mercantilism changes into

a

classical political economy like the

18th century is through this guy william

petty

but william petty had a labor theory of

value

right and it wasn't until after that

until the the

um you know 18th century until like

um you know you get into david hume and

the scottish uh

you know common sense philosophers and

adam smith that you had a change

to subjectivize value because petty

starts off like he's part of he's like

an economic advisor

to uh you know charles ii like james ii

during the restoration years and they

their whole economic

ideology was based on you know there is

this finite amount of wealth

that you know precious metals like

silver that they contain

their own value that you know that labor

that value is a objective thing that

belongs to labor

metal or land and so they saw

um their natural enemy like england's

natural enemy

to be the dutch and because the dutch

were the ones

also who are going around asia and

trading and so they imagined that there

was a finite amount of wealth to be

gained from trading so they

they wanted to give like the east india

company a monopoly

on you know trade in asia because they

thought that all the british traders

just went over there

and weren't coordinated that they would

uh cut into each other's like

shares of this finite amount of wealth

that was possible to be obtained through

this trade so you know

they they had this very set idea of what

what value was

but that all changed when you get the

glorious revolution of like 1688 and

then

you have um the formation of the bank of

england and the financial revolution

there's a switch

between um you know immobile

property to mobile property right

that's exactly the whole the whole thing

a switch from this land and metal

and to a switch to uh credit and

financial instruments and you know

you know abstract value value that's

taken out of and abstracted from you

know metal or land

or labor and turned into uh credit and

and uh

money and you know bonds and

representations of value and that's

exactly what happens

uh you know in the in the 1690s but that

point

is also exactly when the public sphere

emerges

and the public sphere is exactly that

point that area where you're talking

about

where economic activity happens right it

gets like put into its own little realm

and if you know anything about like um

you know 18th century

uh british literature there's all this

very big tension

like you were kind of saying

economically but that's carried through

into literature and the tension between

like your public self

and your private self your domestic self

right

and so a lot of the you know 18th

century english novels they all turn

around

um you know uh these these

problems of people projecting themselves

into the public sphere making themselves

appear to be certain ways

ah okay so that's one of the yeah one of

the big authors is

henry fielding like he wrote all these

books like tom jones

these different big english novels of

the 18th century and the humor of all

those books turns around like

the fact that uh you have people who are

uh

you know manipulating how they appear in

the public sphere

right into something that they're not in

order to gain various social benefits

and so that's directly connected like

historically

to the the creation of like finance

capital

as like an abstract thing like not only

does not only is like

uh wealth and value abstracted but also

like character and personality

so two things i find really interesting

about that is one

so so um this kind of puts into new

perspective

things like obviously the whole um

what do we call it uh in a now we call

it uh

the attention economy this entertainment

economy whatever

um but yeah you can very clearly see how

uh this is a kind of

very clear primordial unity i guess

sounds like

between um the economic financial sphere

and what we today call the attention

economy or the uh

information economy today it seems like

these two are very much

divorced like for example uh

the real uh so-called entrepreneurs

uh of the present day they're kind of in

the shadows and the people who represent

them

uh the fa the people they're pretty much

paying them

uh but there is a whole kind of

different economy going on there but so

it's interesting a projector basically

was the earlier form of an entrepreneur

and rather than like

the term just the term that they use

back then i mean

yeah yeah and and instead of maybe like

thinking about it how we do today in

terms of oh yeah a business person is

someone who creates

wealth a projector is more someone who

uh amplifies

their i guess

existence projects themselves onto some

kind of public common sphere

and rather than someone who creates

something from thin air it's someone who

is um occupying like the public

some kind of public view of public space

it's super interesting you know it's

like pr it's like this is exactly where

like public relations come from like

advertising comes from right

it's the same about like you know the

attention economy or whatever it's like

this is the same sort of stuff

that just happens on social media i mean

it's obviously way worse now than it was

in the 18th century so

when you talk about all these like

performative like debate people

or whatever on twitch and shit like that

it's like this is the same thing as that

they're totally alienated from there

oh yeah their own selves is that they

project these characters

that uh you know they endow like falsely

with all their uh reality that they have

of their own existence

and they turn like these characters of

themselves into uh you know these these

phantoms which they think are real which

are

off fighting all these battles on twitch

over like the bullshit version of

of economics that they don't even know

anything about so

the real the real question this is kind

of probably a hard question for me

is that to think about is

what actually is the object of this new

public sphere like what ultimately

is its substance what is

it really like um this thing in which

people

are uh projecting themselves onto or

this

um sphere of uh the public the so-called

public

um oh yeah another thing i wanted to

point out just as a quick aside

the distinction we're working with i

think um

probably continues also in the form of

uh the tension between the tories and

the wicks right the tories

represent more land uh substantive basis

of the economy and the wigs

or maybe it was the opposite i think

maybe they switched a few times right

yeah the wigs represented more of the

kind of uh

abstraction abstractionism of finance

one it's pretty much like it's simply

like the dugan's

distinction between uh land-based

and uh atlanticist right

but yeah but um

i think that he's totally right but just

a sign about

dugan i mean i don't like him very much

because i just see him as a

total propagandist and i think that like

most of the people who are attracted to

uh reading him like in the west in

america like all these

mean people online and stuff is that

they're just getting like propagandized

too and they

they only have like any critical

capacity to uh

engage with with that stuff and not be

like affected by it in a bad way

like it's obviously written it's it's

propaganda that's written for the west

to target people like that

but i think that like the what the whole

frame of like atlanticist and stuff yeah

yeah

i mean that that's real old i mean we

come across that a lot

in researching like walter littman and

like the early 19th century and like

uh you know the the influence of sea

power on history and like

there was there really is like there was

a whole attempt like a transatlantic

kind of financial quarter developing

between like new york and london

like uh you know during the inner war

years actually

um the dollar and the pound sterling

they

shared reserve currency status it was

like 50 50 in terms of reserve holdings

of like all the

world's major banks so that's like the

whole basis of like atlanticism you know

it's just like

that the sterling and the dollar are the

dual reserve currencies

yeah and so a lot of like the political

alliances and stuff of

of like you know in world war ii before

world war ii before they had unleashed

the first thing was called like

destroyers for bases

where america gave great britain all

these uh destroyers in exchange for

uh you know 99-year leases on a bunch of

like

properties of a military bases naval

bases in the

caribbean so that was like there's a

whole vision there that's like totally

like that parts

you know i think very very salient and

accurate

um yeah back to the question of like

what do you think it is

yeah about the public sphere what is its

real what is it ultimately that

uh people are participating

participating and i think like

maybe you know um some people would

probably say

i don't agree with it at all but like

just as a way to like um

give some context some people would

probably be like

it's really a.i ultimately what what

this

is is like it's it's it's all

uh ai you know like the whole like

landing bullshit like it's ai

assembling itself from the future

exactly where they go wrong i think yeah

i agree i mean that because that's just

hypostasis that's like

reification that's like just a total

erroneous like

yeah um you know taking something like

taking an abstraction or an idea like

the public and then just

you know endowed just closely with

reality immediately corporealizing it in

some kind of yeah and then i mean that's

exactly what like marxism is against

that's exactly like

you know i'm like i don't like um

you know the the second international

marxists

but you know the one that i go for is is

lugash

so he's like the the one who i actually

agree with and like a lot

but um you know that's that's something

that i think he understands really well

in particular and that that's like his

main uh

major critique that he levels against

all of his contemporaries of like the

second international

right is exactly that point against

hypostasis against reification

and i think that's not that's not even a

coincidence either because uh you know

he actually was a neocontian

yeah yeah i mean yeah i've um

i i've uh argued with people about that

before

but all about the cash yeah yeah yeah

but um

he went to heidelberg the university of

heidelberg not to go on a big

tangent but that's where like uh max

faber and stuff

um taught and uh carl mannheim

and that was like the big sociological

like center of like neocontinence had

like four major academic centers

in different universities in germany at

the time it was like you know marburg

straussberg

like heidelberg and uh whatever the

fourth one is i

can't even i can't it's on tip my tongue

can't remember it right now but

um yeah but yeah so lukasz definitely

had that neocontinent like

angle that he definitely carried over if

you read like theory of the novel or

whatever at the beginning he's talking

all about

how oh he was too content right because

he has that repudiation yeah he writes

like theory of the novel like

well it is um it's really what

the way lucox this uh this creates the

school of western marxism

itself right is this rejection of

engels's

dialectics of nature and this view that

um

material is dialectic only applies to

this kind of um

almost like the transient uh sociality

becomes like

another word for the kantian

transcendental uh

subject right this sociality is the

um are the way in which reality is

transcendentally

mediated the social sphere and because

that's the whole point about

trans like what the word transcendental

means transcendental does not mean the

transcendent

yeah mean second order that's the whole

point of like what the critique of pure

reason is about is that

this is this is only a second order

thing this this has no reality that as

soon as you start

applying the categories of like

causation and existence and like

substance to

to this idea it's like you're committing

like the major like fallacy that's

possible in all thought and that

you are hypostatizing like this idea

and turning into like a false idol yeah

i mean yeah the distinction kant makes

is basically like to avoid

kant really wants to put a um

some kind of uh barrier in front of like

this kind of

english benthamite kind of uh

greedy subject who really just wants to

get at

the thing and just kind of make it some

kind of

object of the senses that they can

immediately consume

or pleasure themselves with or

something like that so uh yeah

yeah it's an important point for kant

that you have to

respect uh when you look at like the

public's fear to go to like your

your actual question is like that's the

that's the site of

the discourse right that's the that's

the whole thing is that

that in that uh sphere is where you have

all this like um

you know writing happening public that's

where like the publication industry

takes place right

book culture like grub street is what

they call is like that's where you have

all these people writing letters

in their public personas and like

engaging in this public debate

right and the point of that is to like

legitimize

you know the state's actions is through

this mechanism of the of this discourse

right

yeah so it's almost like i think your

view would basically be that

this fear of the public is really uh

this kind of a social transcendent

uh mediation of reality itself

a really good book a really good book um

it's called i can actually just look

real quick and

bring it up here it's like m smith and

the spectator society i think because

okay so one of the big magazines that

got published

like in the early 18th century it's

called the spectators written by

these guys uh joseph addison and

richard steele joseph addison was like a

very important writer during that time

uh for like the wigs he was like a kind

of like a literary like intellectual

leader of the wigs

and so they wrote this this magazine um

called the spectator and the premise of

the magazine

is that there's something called this

spectator society right

that's like the fictionalized like

premise like conceit of this magazine is

that there's a spectator society

and anybody could be a member of the

spectator society you never know it's

like membership is secret and it has

members all over

the whole world and that they're just

observing how people behave

in their public selves is that they're

they're observing people

in terms of their public behavior their

etiquette like their

their habits their manner right

and that uh that's what the content of

the spectator magazine is all the

articles are about like

you know one of our members in such and

such a place

has a funny you know this curious story

about this one

uh guy's behavior that he observed and

yeah and

and you know that had a whole thing

about

uh kind of tailoring and like molding

like the public

like how people acted what's there's

there's um

i think it there's a there's a

some kind of author who is he he was i

think

uh in france paris he was like some kind

of

and it was yeah it was about observing

all of these kind of archetypes of

different

basically like characters that you find

what was his name though who was it i

i it was um

fuck i can't believe i forgot no not not

guide the board i'm talking about much

earlier he's i think he he was either

french or he was uh

ah fuck i forgot his name but yeah it

was basically like um

he was in the 19th century with some

kind of author

and i don't remember i don't know who i

i can't place who you're talking about

but

yeah look look it up and tell me because

it sounds like there's

there's some different there's lots of

interesting guys like uh francis

hutchinson

in england like uh uh francis hutchinson

with scotch and then there's the english

there's um

what's his name um it's so hard to

remember off the tip of your tongue

sometimes

but uh um lord lord lord lord

uh fuck it fuck it fuck a fucking but

basically you had all this debate in the

early 18th century

in like england and stuff where you had

this transformation

from um objective value like i was

talking about

right and that was carried through in a

lot of like literary writing

and like by people like francis

hutchinson because they

they wanted to like change to like a

subjective mode

uh get away from this like objective

value because this actually goes this is

like what lock is all about right i

think people

kind of misunderstand lock in this way

and that like

lock was like a he was like a silver bug

right

is that he like believed in that like

silver

uh contained value that belonged to the

silver

and so he was in all these debates at

the at the time when you know over the

monetary policy of the day

based on you know going beyond just

monetary

theory or economics is that the real

point in contention

was uh you know what you know the

metaphysical idea of substance right and

like where is the quality of different

things contained

is it subjective is like a matter of our

perception of objects or

you know is it something that is

inherent in objects themselves right

and so yeah it's um yeah i've i've tried

to call this

in my kind of critique of uh mainstream

marxism i call it

because it's something that permeates

even there i call it uh substantialism

right

so this is can go pretty far it applies

to

conception of the theory of value

according to which

there is some kind of uh underlying

tangible substance

behind the value it's the id you can

apply to class analysis that the

proletariat is some kind of

uh specific but it's yeah to me it's

substantialism is basically this kind of

um

way in which essence becomes

substance in this kind of uh time at

this time period you're talking about of

uh

english early modernity um

yeah it has to do with sentiment i was

thinking it's um

uh lord shaftesbury is who i'm thinking

of he's an english

writer who kind of like um transforms

right this whole debate uh going away

from

the objective like theory of value into

the subjective theory of value

and it's really like later it's like

smith later who is

um really addressing that most and so

the book that i actually wanted to

recommend you that

i brought up here uh it's called uh the

impartial spectator

and it's it's a really good book you can

see some of smith's quotes here right

he he says that like um

smith is talking about like how he says

when i endeavor to examine my own

conduct it is evident that i divide

myself as it were into two persons

and that i the examiner and judge

represent a different character

from that other eye the person whose

conduct is examined

into and judged of the first is the

spectator

the second is the agent so when you're

talking about like how people

are behaving in the public sphere and

like this is the whole point of like

why i was using this the joseph

addison's like spectator as an example

because the way that it ends up uh

becoming is that

we uh imagine like a hyper rational

kind of uh being over ourselves right

who's like uh impartial and that he's

like objective in his

judgment who we imagine like basically

that he's

a novel reader and that he's reading a

novel about

us and then that's how we then determine

whether or not our conduct is like right

or wrong

in terms of like the public standards of

behavior and public morality

is that we appeal to this imagined you

know

hyper rational judge that's a creation

of our own minds

and so we put it up over our own

behavior and so we try to assume

this like hyper rational perspective in

judging our own conduct

right and that's that's how like you

know smith's theory of moral sentiments

like that's what it's all about

so and it's it's it's very clear how

like um the big personalities on the

internet for example

try uh aren't do not to me seem

consciously aware of this

distinction it seems like for and you

know if you hear about a lot of these

debates

you're gonna hear very weird kind of

things like for example

should we support um

[Music]

should we support uh this or that person

should we support this or that country

but they're not aware of of the fact

that

there's really a difference uh they're

not paying attention when they say this

thing

they're not making a distinction between

uh projecting the appearance of a person

who supports

and what it actually means to support

the thing

as an agent as like some kind of causal

agent like there's two things going on

right

there's the what should we project the

appearance of support

or should we actually uh support it's

two

entirely different things and and

they're not aware of that distinction so

for example when they

during the 2020 election when they got

on camera hey guys go vote for joe biden

i mean they knew that in they pretended

as though

this is actually supporting joe biden in

actuality as some kind of causal agent

which it wasn't they didn't make a

difference when in reality it was all

a complete spectacle it's they're just

um

they're just uh speaking as

if like hypothetically if we all shared

the same kind of adjential

position we should support biden but

they treated that as though it's

there's no uh distinction between the

two you kind of get what i'm saying

no i i think i understand what you mean

i mean it's like

this this whole idea of this judge right

that you're creating in your head that

you're appealing to

i mean that's like the same thing as you

know the idea of the public as like a

pure abstraction right it's like

basically

is that you're anthropomorphizing and

like turning into a character

like this hyper rational like public uh

you know idea this abstraction and

you're like making it into a person

and then like you're assuming in your

imagination like the perspective of that

person

right and you're not really the problem

is that you're not really realizing is

that

i think is what you're saying is that

you're not really realizing that there

is a subjective element to that that

that

you know the perspective of that like

hyper-rational like public judge

that's not objective yeah you know

that's like

you know that but that's the whole point

of the

economy of moral sentiments that

develops like in the 18th century

is that because they needed a way to

coordinate all all everybody's economic

behavior in the public sphere

and so if you can't appeal to an

objective moral order which is like what

locke did

right yeah yeah you know a lot is

appealing to

uh this whole idea there's just like uh

you know the

uh an inherent like moral or order that

god has imposed right a man just has to

like follow it

right and that man knows what the moral

order of god and the universe is based

on

like uh you know uh feelings of guilt or

shame or things like that

yeah yeah and then in the 18th century

it gets

by the time you get to smith that's all

you know changed is that you don't have

the idea of the subjective moral order

anymore to appeal to when it comes to

coordinating everybody's

economic and like public activities

which includes like political activity

like voting

and uh you know consumption choices

and uh opinions like what opinions are

you upholding

in your writing like you know like

that's exactly what we see

today on twitter it's like you know uh

are you that's what people are mean when

they are always using these stupid terms

like

signaling and counter signaling and

right yeah you're being contrarian

and what does that mean i mean that just

means that like uh

you know according to the hyper rational

judge or whatever

that you're you're contrarian to that

based on like

the idea is that it's supposed to be an

objective arbiter but it's not

and that's like the whole that's where

you begin to go off the rails

and you know um

it's also interesting because there's it

seems like there's

multiple judges

uh it's not only that it's not

it's going to have your own but not to

preempt you but i think what you mean

everybody's going to have their own

version of that judge because

you know you're creating it you're like

you're kind of it's like a pure

abstraction like you can't

yeah i mean uh yeah whenever any

individual person thinks about it

they're gonna like

uh reduce it down like boil it down into

like a new version of that thing that

belongs to them and they

the conflation that happens is in

assuming that

that version that you have that each

individual has that they all refer back

to

this like hyper rational objective

perspective it's not

yeah it's not only on the individual

level i mean to say

uh with different states

different states you know like um

it kind of it reminds me of how for

example uh there's different internets

like china has its own internet

for example america has its own internet

and it's also a different

uh kind of um i don't know if you're

like a fan of

like lacan or anything like that but the

the kind of judge where

we would be talking about because

there's a word for it in in lacanian

language

would be like the big other right have

you heard of that or

yeah i've only heard about because i

read like a

sublime object of ideology yeah it's

it's not it's not there's

it's not too loaded it pretty much just

means what you're saying this kind of

just like this

other basically right that basically um

interpolates

us uh that we

perceive as this kind of gaze uh

always uh judging us and kind of our

actions are

conforming to um

it seems like it's somehow instantiated

in the form of uh state the state itself

what do you think about that idea

i think that's what a lot of people want

it to be oh okay

no i mean that's what you get into i

think when you when you get into

like fascism or you know some of these

like uh mid 20th century

like political ideas because really like

then at the end of the 19th century turn

of the 20th century i think there's just

a general failure

of like liberalism right yeah and that

you get into like even in america like

20th century america is not liberal in

any traditional sense

that's the whole point of like the

development of our uh

pr controls of like the the progressive

technocrats right

who are you know using pr techniques and

advertising

communications theory social science in

order to like

uh you know control public opinion to

control the discourse to control

uh you know what's happening in the

public sphere right they put themselves

in a position where

you know they they uh set the terms of

the the discourse that's happening and

they set up what the options are

and they try to lead people to you know

the right decisions right

but that's exactly connected to uh kind

of this this ongoing collapse

of this appeal to like in in the

impartial spectator of like adam smith

right

because by the end of the 19th century

that kind of liberalism of like

classical

political economy that's what we're

talking about this is political economy

yeah like the classical political

economy at the 19th century falls apart

it ends

and that's exactly what happens because

that's exactly when you get

uh neoclassical economics uh beginning

right that's

you know in the last couple of decades

of the 19th century that's exactly when

you get like william stanley jevins

and the managerial uh the the

the marginal theory of value and that

kind of revolution that happens

during that time and that's exactly what

marx is like dealing with two marks and

angles

is that you know they're dealing with

this whole idea that political economy

as like a mode has uh run out

that's reached its end course so then to

go into the 20th century is that you

have all these different responses to it

and like neoliberalism or you know quote

unquote neoliberalism in america

that i was describing with like public

opinion control and like

uh progressive technocracy and walter

littman and bernays and

you know george gallup and elmo roper

and that kind of thing is one response

to that collapse

but then you also like uh these other

ideologies

uh you know of fascism or whatever is

that they are also responses and so i

think

their whole response is to try to make

that identity happen like you were

saying where

to make the state equal that public idea

yeah yeah yeah

yeah and okay so a few things um because

there's a lot

so i this is actually what i mean when i

when i used to say

we live in socialism basically what i'm

trying to give people an

understanding of is that when marx

and engels were anticipating the

collapse of capitalism and the

inevitability of socialism

this should be historicized as

a political economy of their time they

saw it was precisely this

that had come to an end and that this

corresponds to the uh

basically the inevitable collapse of

capitalism as they knew it

uh in general and that this is this is

what they meant by the inevitability

of socialism um of course

right about that i mean that that's the

whole point about like the

the that's that's what they

you know marx does is he historicizes

the theory of value

political economy is a theory of value

it gets used

this was the whole point of this huge

political economy episode that mean ed

did

but you know the whole point of that is

that political economy is not just

a general synonym that you can use to

refer to all economics

right throughout all time political

economy specifically means a particular

mode right of like you know a theory of

value

right that's happening at a particular

time mostly in the 18th century

following william petty and the

financial revolution

and the bank of england and that by like

the mid

um you know 19th century

it ends it reaches a terminal point like

uh you know js mill is the last

classical like political

economy writer but and then after that

you get into an entirely new mode when

you get into

you know william stanley evans and like

the the the marginal theory of value and

like price theory it's like

a neoclassical economics that's

something else that's like a new

uh that's like a new mode that

supersedes that

is the next stage right and so the

theory of value itself it's historicized

that's the whole point it's historical

that each each of these economic like

modes

you know is a theory of value and that

the value what it is is

being changed through the succession of

these theories

and i've seen that yeah yeah no go ahead

go ahead oh yeah i think my view is

basically that

this turn that you're describing of the

neoclassical

economist corresponds to what it appears

to me as

an era in which there's no longer an

objective uh

notion or theory of value and what this

impli also uh coincidentally and of

course

not a coincidence corresponds to is a

sphere in which the economy is seen

as a political tool as some kind of uh

thing the government can intervene in to

manipulate

and change according to different kinds

of political ends

whether those ends are relating to war

or social welfare uh

peace or something else no bro i'm sorry

but you're

totally no you're exactly right you're

totally right because

that's exactly what the change in

terminology is because this we're

talking about the change from the

using the term political economy to

using just the term economy

yeah and what happens is that that is

actually

uh you know that that is where the

concept of politics

is devolved into its own separate thing

as like something that you study

separately than economics right

yeah so i mean just in the term of

terminology you can see what what you're

saying is that that

innovation that's being made in the late

19th century with new classical

economics

is that that's you know exactly

corresponding to what what you're saying

at like all levels

yeah so it's like um that's really what

i'm getting at

the whole like kind of socialism thing

is like you you get to this point where

it's very unclear what is the objective

basis

uh of for example today's economy where

like

you know we always talk about

everything's a bubble but

what does it mean for something not to

be a bubble in in this day and age you

know like uh

is everything kind of virtualized

i just see that yes because i already

see the virtualization as having begun

like i said in the 1690s and i just see

this a continuous process of further

virtualization that's been going on ever

since to the point that you get to today

like by the time you get to like the

1970s and stuff like

it's just like this is the compounding

uh

you know you know just

it's debt you being used to

collateralize

more debt and that debt becoming like

financial instruments

that is used to collateralize like more

financial instruments and just like

we have like an almost infinite amount

of

uh so-called wealth that exists within

all these financial instruments and in

the futures markets and in derivatives

and none of it is real at all it's all

just based on this like compounding

like multiple uh multiplying of you know

debt

on top of debt like you being used to

collateralize more debt you know

and none of it's real and it's

interesting because

there's a clear dialectic that we're

dealing with

um throughout all of this which is

basically kind of the kind of dugan

thing i was talking about earlier

um and as we can see

i guess the um this is a crude term

but just for the purposes of

simplification

the atlanticist side of things right we

can see how it continually reinvents

itself

in new ways even six as even since as

you were saying

like the 1690s but what about the other

side

the side of uh substance the side of uh

objectivity is it possible this

uh side of the dialectic i should say i

suppose

that this also reinvents itself in new

ways that this um

you know what i'm thinking about for

example is uh

the fossil fuel economy right on the one

hand you do have

this complete virtualization uh but on

the other hand you have

this bizarre way in which this seems to

be uh

not of course uh oil is liquid we all

know that it's not gold

but still uh not liquid in the

financials but like just in general like

it it's not really

tangible in the same way gold is but

at the same time throughout through all

of this uh

financial abstraction you you get a kind

of deeper

corporealization i mean a

corporealization

sold so deep that it becomes

molten right it becomes like uh liquidy

like

like oil uh um

so i wonder if there's a kind of

dialectic at hand in which we also see

uh the earth so to speak

the uh the substance becoming deeper too

yeah hold on one second i just want to

find this okay

i think you're you're right about that

and i actually have a really good paper

let's bring it up oh another thing just

really quick too

is that we can also see how for example

uh

the ancient regime and the landed

aristocracy and the often case like

not in england uk is a very uh

peculiar case but clinically we

associate

the side of the land with the peasants

the

king and sometimes the landed uh

nobility

but we also see an end as opposed to the

kind of um

republican or democrat democratic

forces we see this distinction re-emerge

with a kind of a

so-called petrol of authoritarianisms

uh since the 70s including the soviet

union

who are more traditionalistic more tied

to the ground

more tied to the soil and of course more

politically

uh quote unquote authoritarian and this

kind of

london and new york and canada and more

financial

hot spots and centers which are

so-called

democratic yeah uh

well firstly so this is a really good

paper that i'll recommend

to you i can send to you later is that

is geology and world politics

mineral resource appraisals as tools of

geopolitical calculation 1919 to 1939

by andrea west uh westerman it's from

historical social research uh published

in 2015

volume 40 blah blah blah so this is a

really amazing

paper that i think goes along exactly

with what you're saying

about because mineral calculation itself

is like that's not

a scientific thing right at all

is that that's like a very social uh you

know calculations made people have a

false impression

that when uh we do estimates or whatever

how much

oil reserves a country has that that's

like an

objective scientific thing that that

it's not there's no accuracy there it's

very fluid and it's very dependent on a

lot of social

factors in terms of like uh you know

you never have any idea how much oil or

how much of a mineral is in the ground

until you actually go and take it

is that there's no way to tell otherwise

well that's all

that's also uh why i i personally

am very sympathetic i think ed edberg is

also down this uh

thing too is uh the deep hot biosphere

you know what i'm talking about

yeah the mytho fossil fuels that for a

really long time is that

uh you know that's just kind of a very

weird um theory it can be

hard to uh suss out what is actually

going on there because it seems like

kind of a conspiratorial

kind of theory i mean there's as far as

i can tell there's some like

reasonable kernel there but the idea is

is that like oil uh

you know it's made from when we call it

fossil fuels

the fossils that's made out of is like

the fossils of

you know algae and shit that's in the

ocean yeah right

and so the theory of like the deep hot

biosphere and like abiotic oil is just a

theory that

um that the fossils of that algae that

we

find in petroleum like that's why we

think that it's like fossil fuel like if

you take it out of the ground and do an

examination of oil

you'll find little fossils of these

little algae like plankton

guys floating around in it right so the

idea is like oh so oil comes from that

but then there's this like the deep

biosphere like reverses it of just

to say like well what if that algae

just lived underground in this biosphere

that we don't really know much about and

just

what if it ate oil yeah make oil

what if it was reversed what if like oil

sustained like an ecosystem that was

you know under underground somewhere and

even if it's not true i just still like

the idea

you know it's just i don't know it's

just uh it's cool to me i don't know

no it is it is cool but it's also like

there's such a

you know fictional aspect to the way

that we do this this mineral calculation

that they're

you know it's even important i think

just to kind of bring up sometimes

theories like that just to kind of

confound

you know the the traditional views of

things because with

you know a mineral calculation it's like

like i was saying a very social

thing that how they do it is they're

taking into account like

okay so

you know this country that this oil is

and that it's progressing

technologically and in terms of

engineering capability

at a certain rate and so the amount of

its

oil reserves is determined by that rate

of

uh you know engineering capability and

improvements

okay because as that as their

engineering ability improves

they're going to be able to get more oil

out of the ground

right and because oil the how much oil

you can actually get

out of the ground is a product of uh it

being profitable to get out of the

ground

right the oil might be there but if it's

not profitable to get then nobody's

gonna get it so it doesn't get counted

in your reserves you know so the reserve

doesn't mean

like just oil that's just in the ground

it means oil that can actually be

taken out of the ground yeah or will be

taken out of the ground based on the

idea that

if it's not profitable to get taken out

of the ground it won't be so

you have to rely on like technology

getting better in order to drop the

price of getting the oil out in order

for that oil to get put into your

your calculated reserves so based on

based on what you know

do you think do you think oil

is uh do you think any time soon like

how

we're we're being taught by the media

that

so-called fossil fuels are going to be

replaced by uh solar and all this do you

think that's gonna

happen or uh

i have no idea about that i mean i'm

really skeptical of the

the plans to do that like i hate the

fucking uh the democratic plans of

the green new deal and stuff yeah me too

that's all bullshit

obviously is that and i don't think

that's going to resolve

any uh kind of uh ecological problems

that's not going to make

you know solar power better if you look

at the fucking

plan that they have that they put out

for the green new deal

it's like part of the plans like in 10

or 20 years or whatever you know we have

to get off of

using um jet fuel and using using like

jet planes right

yeah and so they're like setting this

timeline and they're like

okay in 20 years we're going to be

totally off of

using all jet fuels and all jet

airplanes and we're going to have

something else right

the the the actual plan that they put

out that bernie sanders put out

it doesn't say like what any of that

means it doesn't say like what we're

going to replace jet aircraft with

and it doesn't even say like we're going

to ban air travel i mean i could be down

for that like fuck yeah ben

just like ban all air travel you know

i mean we we know the democrats are not

doers they're they're more yeah

democrats are just kind of

they're kind of like the party i don't

know maybe the republicans are also this

way but it seems to me democrats are the

party of discourse they're stuck in a

kind of

discursive game where they're all just

kind of

virtue signaling like and it has nothing

to do with

like the democratic way that the plan

works is so dumb because

bernie sanders like the way that he him

is like he just says that

all right i'm going to the green new

deal is going to earmark

300 billion dollars to do uh research

and development into a new kind of

airplane or some shit

it has no idea it doesn't you know it's

it's yeah plans like that are just

they're not made to

actually do things because they'll never

succeed i mean they'll never succeed

yeah objectively they should they know

they're not going to succeed they're

just made to kind of like

say oh yeah we intend on doing the right

thing

and to please the right kind of people

like you know the

environmentalist type of like

yeah but i don't believe in like the the

terms of

these kinds of plans ability to convert

the economy

to uh solar power or whatever they're

totally impotent and they're not able to

do that because

like you said the people who are making

them are are just total

bullshit artists con artists is all

rhetoric you know there's nothing to it

it's all yeah like like i said before

it's like this basic distinction between

appearances and kind of like the

appearance of someone who

intends on doing this uh

and the actual like

reality in which it is going to be done

i mean there are two completely

different things like

you know it's like um it's more it's

more to generate like

this yeah i mean the oil energy economy

that we have i mean my only point would

be just to say that

that is a product of you know

socialistic coordination even though

it can be framed as much as people want

in terms of it being like a

a product of economic competition and

shit but if you look at me

standard oil is a fucking global oil uh

monopoly

right and that was never repudiated you

can like talk about how

the standard oil trust was broken up by

the sherman antitrust act but that's not

actually true

because then later you can go and find

the congressional documents about like

um you know the the oil cartel in the

middle east

and how national security concerns over

oil production

officially superseded uh the the outcome

of the sherman antitrust like uh

dissolution of standard oil like you

know

frank church released the the many of

the documents pertaining to this but

there is

you know a giant oil cartel a ramco

right that was formed out of standard

oil of california standard oil new

jersey standard oil of new york

and texaco and that they formed a big

huge ass company in like the

the 1945 called aramco which ran all

saudi uh saudi arabia's oil industry and

then that's like officially

you know a cartel a full-on monopoly in

the oil industry so

that whole you know the modern oil

industry

and uh you know it's fossil fuel uh

energy economy

that is a product of you know

socialistic uh you know coordination by

the state and private companies working

together

so the idea too that you're going to

transl that you're going to transfer

everything to uh

solar power based on like if you can

only get

the amount of energy per a square inch

of the solar panel to be low enough

you know that that's going to out

compete fossil fuel or whatever

that's bullshit too i mean in order you

know in order to actually make that

transfer uh away from fossil fuel energy

economy

to something else it's like that's going

to require i believe

uh socialistic you know coordination as

did building the oil economy in the

first place

but the problem is is that you know

bernie sanders and all the democrats and

all the dsa people and they're all

fuckers and they're not you know they

have no idea what to do

so yeah i mean um you just look at

biden's new kind of

infrastructure thing and so many people

were impressed by it but

you can tell the democrats have started

to take into account

the like inability to just pass anything

because of the republicans

into their like so-called boldness like

they do things not because they think

it's going to work

but just to like posture to the world

that like oh yeah we're the good guys

and it's just the republicans

somebody says in the chat hold on i want

to fuck up this person in the chat the

people in the chat they're like

what's you what does he mean socialistic

aramco

fuck i mean what do you fucking think i

mean it is at the second cairo

conference

there's two cairo conferences you know

fdr

sent out survey teams to go to saudi

arabia to make oil

estimates of the reserves and then at

the second cairo conference

they fucking signed on to uh

build the the first major oil refinery

in saudi arabia

considered an emergency priority that

got expedited by fdr and the joint

chiefs of staff

right that what the fuck are you talking

about it was

considered like to be a major national

security priority

and it was completely done uh in terms

of engine you know

the action of the state right you know

who the

the lawyers for texaco were it's james

forrestal

who was the first secretary of defense

and also

working for james forestall was paul

nitz who authored nsc 68

right do you know that this was a very

fully coordinated plan

that they had that there were plans

basically to go and

bomb the uh soviet oil fields and baku

right at the start of world war ii

because the soviets were selling

uh their petroleum to nazi germany right

so the the british and the french they

they actually had a plan to go and bomb

the soviet oil fields and baku

that going back to like the 1890s that

there was a giant international oil

war between standard oil and between the

the

the baku oil fields and originally that

was run by the nobel family right of

like alfred nobel

right and it's like this huge oil war

that's been going on for so fucking long

and absolutely it's very you know

intimately bound up

in the national security concerns and

state intervention and geopolitics i

mean it's not just like

you know standard oil didn't just go

it's like

that's what i was talking about like the

kind of like actually like marxosoids

and so you have to understand what marx

was they live in this fairy tale

where socialism equals like

kind of the kingdom of heaven on earth

like socialism basically means

the good society where there's a unity

between

being and virtue and it's basically like

you it's a sacred kind of word you can't

use it unless you're referring to that

otherwise and that's why they have

debates like oh is this true

socialism or is this fake so like you

know like they don't understand

they don't use socialism in the way like

you know like people back then

were using it like marks and angles

which is basically like you know

this kind of discernible socialists

yeah they're scientific socialists

there's like other different

types of socialism like the kind like

america's socialist and that's in the

way that we're like

fabian socialists like if you look at

what walter littman

is that walter littman um he was a

socialist i mean he was like one of the

founding members or very major early

participants in the intercollegiate

socialist league right

and that like we're talking about going

back to this is the socialist party of

eugene debs and like jack london and

shit is that

somebody like walter littmann he was

absolutely a socialist but

he explicitly like rejected any

scientific socialism

yeah he rejected class issues and he

replaced them with freudian

like mass uh you know psycho analysis of

on like a society-wide scale

and like public relations and

communications theory and that he like

used that in order to supplant like

the class basis of like marxian

socialism so he's a socialist

these people are all socialists like all

these like uh

you know herbert hoover and shit and all

these republicans in the 1920 and like

fdr is like

they're all socialists but they're not

like scientific socialists which is

the only you know that seems to be what

upsets people

yeah go ahead go ahead oh yeah and the

reason it does is because

nobody really cares to call themselves a

socialist anymore

because it's just superfluous it's just

like it's already happened you know like

why would you

like for example during the liberal era

of capitalism

supposedly liberal era it would make

sense to be a socialist because

but now that you know we have all these

institutions and you know everything in

place what

what is it actually you know that's why

i always say like even neoliberals are

neoliberalism is like a post-socialist

phenomenon it's like

you know it's not some kind of return to

actual like liberal

capitalism it's just a kind of it's

world planning that's what neoliberalism

is it's like

planning it's not like you know and

that's going back to like this whole

idea of the planner's problem and like

von mises and hayek is that even as they

are

you know uh trying to uh move forward

this idea

of the free market or whatever it's

the their idea of the free market

is that it coordinates everybody's

behavior into a system

yeah that has like a noble kind of uh

you know uh way of functioning that can

be understood in empirical terms and

like manipulate it

the the market is a tool of central

planning

you know that's that's what that kind of

terminology all means you know like

price sig

like it's all um price is a signal

that's the whole point of

their you know what this libertarian

economics is austrian economics

the idea is that price is a signal that

price tells people what to do

yeah it's it's like it's it's

information for central planners

basically you know it's like it's

exactly if if price

price you know if um if if we lived in

like a free a so-called free market

price would not be a signal because

price is just like an imminent

kind of uh reality that

is a byproduct of uh rational

independent actors

engaging in exchange based on individual

interest

but no clearly price is a signal for

some kind of higher

social uh reality right

but anyway it involves setting you know

a universal standard right because

yeah the idea here is like that like you

know uh

it's like you're saying that people

aren't negotiating in terms of like

two rational free actors coming together

in

you know a covered marketplace you know

like in the olden days of like

you know in aladdin or something going

into the bazaar

yeah you know the marketplace and like

trading their camels or shit

and then coming to a bargain is that the

idea is and actually it's william petty

who is the person who made up this idea

the idea is is that all these

marketplaces for commodities

that they all collapse into one another

that they're all reducible down to one

another and that price is a standard

that holds across all of them

and that like you know the so the idea

of the

that it's a standard of all people's

activities everywhere and that the

all these places are interchangeable

through time and space

i mean that's not exactly like that you

know

that that's setting a universal standard

for people's behaviors that

you know controls uh how society is

formed

so kind of semi-related to that

um this is like a really broad brush

kind of tough question but

what do you think is the real origins of

uh what is uh called cybernetics in the

20th century

like going even all the way you know you

can go as far back as you

i mean not too far but obviously like in

the context of uh

early modernity in european we just

looked we looked at this like a lot

um we have a cyber next episode that we

did but we haven't like fully

cracked that nut because it's like

norbert wiener is like the guy who

comes up with the term cybernetics it's

based on uh

you know the idea of regulation like

cybernetics

that's the root of the of the word like

that's its earlier origin it actually

refers to like steamship regulators like

of a steam engine

so i mean the whole idea is that it's

like a self-regulating

system that uses a feedback mechanism

it's really based on all the hypostasis

of all these like metaphors and biology

and yeah the idea of homeostasis right

that they take that

idea and they kind of like they

hypostasize it into

uh you know the idea of society right

they they

uh reimagine all social activity as

being kind of an organism

right and you can follow this whole

trend going back a really long way at

the

term organism that the origins of that

word

go back to the the english financial

revolution that i keep talking about

this was the crazy thing

if the the political economy episode

that we did because

i was researching all this for like two

months just going like fucking crazy

looking at like the history of the royal

society and shit because if you go back

to

the royal society that's exactly the

context

of uh where the term um organism comes

from right

it's actually it comes from i think the

first usage of it is by a royal society

member

named john evelyn in a book that he

wrote called silva which is about like

uh forestry right and about uh you know

um

planning out the use of the england's

like timber reserves

in order to like you know maximize like

ship building right

and it's like this is from like the 17th

century that's where the term organism

starts coming into play

and you know the organism and the its

original usage

uh usage just means uh you know a

self-organizing system

right a self-organizing process

so then when you get into like the 20th

century and you have like

cyber next people and systems people and

they're throwing around the word

organism

and saying like society is an organism

or you know

all they're really saying is to go back

to the 17th century is that

you know this this uh complex

self-organizing system is a complex

self-organizing system they don't even

realize that like

the way that the the they're using the

word doesn't even

make sense because it's just basically

referring back to itself and the thing

that they're trying to define because

they don't even know its origins

yeah i mean that that that idea of the

organism is like where

cybernetics like flows from i think like

historically and then in the 20th

century

you know it's uh the cyber next comes

from

especially like in world war ii um it

comes from

the coordination efforts and science

with the military

and operations research and in um

you know van aver bush and the mit

radiation laboratory

and the manhattan project and the office

of scientific research and development

osrd

and that's where like cyber next comes

from that's what like norbert avenue

like worked for

right is that he worked on um you know

automatic gun systems that's where his

whole idea of like cyber next comes from

is

uh he was trying to develop these gun

computers right for any aircraft

you know turrets or artillery guns

and that in order to target those at

incoming enemies aircraft is that you

would need to have this like feedback

system because

the guns would have to aim themselves

taking into account the actions of the

pilot that was trying to avoid the guns

so he was like trying to develop like

this algorithm to

um you know target so that the gun

computers could

could do this because they could take

that into account and target the

movements of the pilots as the pilots

were like

strafing back and forth like trying to

avoid the the

the gun turrets and so that's like the

genesis of cybernetics like in his

actual

like you know the form that norbert

wiener like lays out in his book

cybernetics is that that's where it

actually comes from

wow okay um that's interesting now to go

even deeper um this is kind of something

i have briefly talked to

logo about um do you think that

i don't i'm not speaking in terms of

cause you like what caused it but do you

think

um the kind of distinctions that enabled

the possibility of

uh something like cybernetics

i mean and the things like the organism

uh do can do we trace

its kind of real origins in some kind of

um

shift in the metaphysical view

corresponding to

uh i guess uh

protestantism some are some of the kind

of religious

changes that led leading up to it

like um i guess i guess i mean to say

it's very tough to talk about like the

origin of

for example modernity because

modernity itself reveals something about

history in the first place right but

still we do

find that in the beginning there's

uh thousands and thousands and years of

years of history and then suddenly

at this decisive uh period something

really changes and then

something kicks off so for me

uh a lot of the time i spend is to try

and understand

what that was like because you know i'm

always of the view that

some there is something new and unique

about modernity a complete uh change

of some kind well actually if you want

to read a really good essay i was

recommending

not to recommend you too many things to

read because you're

busy on your own and reading other

things but one

good essay you could uh check out that

like is

um wilhelm delthe's uh essay that he

wrote on like the

the history of the enlightenment and

it's about like enlightenment

his geography right and so i know i

agree with you what you're saying

and that's the thing about historicism

is that like you can't there's no

universal historical perspective from

which to judge different eras you know

so even when we're talking about like

trying to understand the formation

of modernity it's like we're trapped

within the horizons of like

understanding from the perspective

of the historical mode which like we're

trying to describe

so it's like you know it's uh

um this very like self-recursive like

looping process that goes back into

itself that you can't

obtain like any understanding

independent of that like historical

right mode so that's that's like one

thing to keep in mind but then

the transformation that specifically you

see happening

it really takes place with like voltaire

right and voltaire wrote this big huge

long book called

uh his essay on universal history so

what you're talking about the

distinction of modernity like

historically

it's in that idea of universal history

is like the key thing

because universal history has to do with

like

you know um understanding uh

the enlightenment right that's what

voltaire was writing about understanding

like the enlightenment era

like culturally and like spiritually

like as a subjective idea like

understanding the history of that idea

not as a chronology of like physical

political institutions

like legal institutions but unders

trying to tell the history of an idea

right and so before the uh you know 17th

century 18th century

that's what history was it wasn't the

history of an idea

or like a culture the history of a

society

it was a linear literal like physical

chronology

of like actual physical institutions

and so universal history is what you

know brings about that change

and that's like what is characteristic

about the way

that uh you know modernity sees history

and the way that modernity sees history

is how it distinguishes itself from

other eras which is what makes it like

come into being

as something opposed to you know uh

other periods of time you know what i'm

saying

yeah yeah um interesting

um

yeah it's like uh i don't know it's it's

very hard

not to

see everything in terms of like um

in terms of the kind of perspective when

you do all the research that you do for

example

do you ever think of it in terms of like

it's

leading up to something that has yet to

exist or come into being i don't think

so i mean i don't really

i think you can look at it in that way

it's just uh

you know people always get very upset

because people want to like change

everything

yeah yeah yeah you know they're always

like what does it matter if you're just

like learning stuff it's like

this is how is that going to like change

everything it's like i don't really want

to change everything

um you know it's not like that's that's

not my

uh responsibility to do and i think that

changed even further more like per

like you know uh dialectical materialism

and

and um sociology of knowledge and and

these these

modes are uh you know they come about in

like sociology and like marx's thought

in like the

late 19th and 20th early 20th centuries

those are like probably the the models

that i adhere most closely to in terms

of

actually how i would think about change

it's like

change isn't happening through like

action

yeah yeah it's not like a voluntary

i mean that's exactly what you get like

gen that whole like uh the capital

riot thing in like january that's

exactly what that was

you can see like the whole problem with

that mindset and how that played out

because it was basically just the

dumbest people in the world who were

convinced that

they were going to like we're going to

go act and we're going to go change

things

and then they just like not only they

got totally exploited

by you know forces that they didn't even

understand

and to basically just being patsies and

you know well

that's how it works in this game and

then being used to justify

other people's agendas and they had no

idea that that was even going on because

they just walked right into it

because they were just like you know

naively convinced that they could act

and like make things

change in some way that they didn't even

understand well

a lot of people often times will

reproach me and they'll just be like

what is what is your plan what are you

going to do

like what change you know it's like i

people are really looking at it the

wrong way

in the first place like uh real change

does not happen

by means of uh someone with a plan you

know what i mean

if that makes sense if you're going to

go change like

uh politically anything like even if you

could do that like what would

that's not going to actually change any

spiritual or like subjective qualities

of modernity right

even if you even if you were empowered

to go and like

be the speaker of the house for a day or

something like what would you actually

fucking do

like nothing like there's nothing you

can actually do to that it's a

process where people are getting very

confused about two separate things

where they think that politics is you

know the

the mechanism through which uh you know

social harmony

and uh community and truth and beauty

and all these

they think that politics is what

controls that but it doesn't

and that's the illusion that people

follow that misleads them into

you know acting like idiots about you

know these stupid pretend political

debates all the time so you get

this whole uh you know thousands of

people on the internet and all these

stupid uh

bread tube people you know who are uh

pursuing this having these stupid

debates thinking that they can like

you know make exactly that kind of

change politically if they just have the

right ideology

but the whole thing about ideologies

ideology is fake

ideology is inherently an illusion it

like mystifies

the the actual underlying material

relationships of things ideology is not

something you want to have you should

not want to have ideology

you know you should be using a critical

uh you know methodology

like critique in the true sense to

uh you know dispel these illusions of

ideology

because i that's the you know that's the

whole you know that's what marxism is

i don't understand because to me that's

just so simple

uh and what if you go read the german

ideology

it's like what's not to understand but

then to get into all these debates and

stupid shit that people are talking

about online it's like they

they think that ideology is just like

this thing that you have to have the

perfect ideology

and if you just move your opinions

around and make sure that your

your opinion about uh you know this

racial issue is the

socially correct one and this economic

issue is more correct and you can just

tweak it all and then you have the

perfect ideology and if you do that

then you've like saved the world or

something it's like it's nonsense

yeah i mean um the the bread tube

phenomena

is interesting because you can also tell

that

it has exhausted i mean it is on the

decline

already because biden was elected and

the era of trump is over right so their

whole kind of uh

reason for existing is gone

but i don't even know i mean logo always

says that

uh the biden is like the

um you know that after trump that people

just

didn't want to have a president so

that's why they gave us brighton

yeah like the president of like not

having a president and everybody was

burned out on having a president

true yeah it is true it is a

that is actually a good way of putting

it yeah

i always feel like you know i he does he

barely even exists to me so

yeah i mean i definitely he i definitely

don't notice his uh

existence often but um

no i get i think um

yeah an interesting thing is that uh

it's also a very ominous uh atmosphere

right now in america though like uh you

know it's it's a very kind of um

how should i put it it's kind of like

this moment where

something has happened but it's almost

like you know in marxism

how first there's a change in uh

the forces of production and then the

relations of production catch up

and it's kind of like that or there's a

change in the base and the

superstructure it doesn't catch up yet

and it's kind of what happened in

america like

i feel like that's what the discourse

like that's what the discourse is really

that's his purpose

yeah right is over to make to keep the

you know public perception in uh step

with that

change right and so people always think

that having these stupid like

twitter debates about like every fucking

thing that happens in the news

they think that that is like productive

in some way but really i see that as

just like the ultimate trap of like

that's exactly how uh you know the the

new status quo and the the different

changes that have happened

that's exactly how they're uh you know

normalized and

uh justified and legitimated

yeah so yeah you know it just makes

everybody miserable having these stupid

debates online about

nothing and just acting like they matter

and you know if you talk about the news

cycles like

people think they're engaging in this

heroic uh you know

heroic battle of uh you know expressing

their opinion

and like having the discourse but really

the discourse itself is like the exact

thing that makes it so that uh the the

underlying

changes are legitimated and like you

know

uh permanently installed

yeah i mean um

there's also this kind of whole stuff

about like the great reset and all that

stuff but i don't know my view of the

great reset is basically like uh

it's a cope like i think the people in

power

want to do this but they're too

incompetent and they're not actually

able to what do you think

yeah i don't really have much of a faith

in them

that like maybe like a good uh uh

you know a great reset would be a good

thing

in the sense that you know if we could

use something like that because

basically our society is is failing

in comparison to least like china and

that's the whole thing with china is

that they actually have a society that

can do stuff like that

but the whole mode of how we've come to

uh you know function

in uh the 20th century is just like it's

it's like on its last legs so we can't

actually

uh bring about change on that massive of

a scale as much as we may need to

so i don't really have any faith in

their ability to do it

and um you know

it would be good if we could you know

make a change like that under a new mode

of culture or something that could

coordinate society in like a you know a

more

uh you know just way and bring about a

way to address like

some of our most you know pressing

issues and the things that actually

matter the most but we're not gonna do

that

as long as like people are having online

debates and stuff and living in this

fantasy world

and like we can't really rely on you

know our elites or whatever to lead us

because they're all incompetent and the

you know

it's just like it's a total shit show so

i have like no faith in it at all

like i'm not i'm not holding my breath

for anything i think um one of the big

turning points in how people like saw

things

was really that epstein stuff and i

think

it was kind of around that same time

that i started to

notice uh urine ed's kind of um

work more because i don't know just the

kind of atmosphere set the tone

but in general do you think that there

is

really a like a genuine in the works you

guys been doing

a real genuine element of just real

conspiracy you know like

of elites in power yeah it depends

on what you mean by conspiracy it's just

conspiracy is like a totally false

uh you know the the way that people

uh the concept of conspiracy that they

use

is like the idea of the cabal right yeah

yeah it's like this idea that there's

like a room where like the most

powerful people are and that they're a

secret society

and that they are uh planning things out

and you know

making a plan for everything and that

they are all go then going and doing

their part of the plan and that

is going to have this big effect but i

don't you know that's not

the only way that you can describe how a

conspiracy works but that's what

everybody means by the word conspiracy

right

yeah yeah but like you know even the

idea of a secret society

or a conspiracy that's like a

sociological uh construction right

and one thing that you know if you want

to go read um

you can go read the secret society right

by uh

you know these these uh earlier like

sociologists is that if you go back to

like the 19th century

um you know max weber's friend was uh

uh you know the sociologist who like

wrote this

uh god what's his name now i'm getting

like my throat's getting dry here i've

covered uh steve here but what's what

what's his name

um let me just look it up

what is that

uh

uh durkheim find my my library here no

no oh it's

similar symbol symbol symbol has this

book it's called

the secret society that you can go check

out where he does the sociology of the

secret society and talks about how it

works but

you know uh the the point that he makes

in his sociological writings and about

something like the secret society as an

idea that

you know when we talk about uh you know

the

his historical ideas too and how those

are wrapped up in the

the historical modes of understanding

that we use to try to like interpret

them

the same thing applies to like these

sociological ideas like a secret society

right and so you know we we need kind of

like a post

uh cabal view or model of a

conspiracy and that's kind of like what

i feel

me and do more on this on our shows that

we try to like go in more into that

direction of actually like decoding

uh like sociologically like the social

uh relationships and structures

that are uh you know working to

carry out these so-called conspiracies

they're not really conspiracies

you know it's just that this is

it's a way of coordinating between all

these uh you know top businessmen

the rockefellers and the whitney family

and stuff

uh that is causing them to come together

it's not like they have a

bad idea in their minds it's like

you know these guys aren't evil geniuses

they're not super villains it's not like

james bond where they're

they have a self-consciously evil

conception of like what they want to do

and they're sitting down in a room and

they're saying like

we want to control everything and we're

going to like enslave humanity

is that they actually think that they're

acting in like a very good way

you know on behalf of the world and that

they're trying to like promote

international trade and they're trying

to promote like

monetary unions and that their belief

and this comes from like world war one

right is that their belief is that in

the inner war years and

at the end of world war one you had the

paris peace conferences failed

you had the league of nations fail and

that the great depression happened and

then what

how did people respond to the great

depression all these different nations

they put tariffs into place

right and those tariffs that economic

protectionism

it collapsed world trade and so all

these

national domestic businesses and all

these different countries is that they

couldn't export the goods that they made

anymore so they had to like lay all

their workers off and then that caused

the great depression

and then you know that led to world war

ii because that whole the whole

interwar economic order broke down and

so

when you get into the post-war era of

like then

uh bretton woods and the united nations

and the the world bank that that is all

um targeted at basically preventing that

from happening again

again right so in their minds the people

who are like

these worlds federalists who are trying

to

you know control everything and like

manage the whole world is that

they're doing that in this uh you know

through these economic institutions

and you through this program of

development right and

you know they're gonna make world bank

loans to third world

undeveloped countries that are going to

allow those countries to

develop economically and that wages are

going to go up in those countries as a

result

and the jobs are going to be created and

that those countries are going to become

more politically stable and that

you know ed the education systems in

those countries are going to improve

and that like they have this whole

theory about how all these things are

going to stack up

on top of one another of one another and

that you know the world market is going

to be a vehicle

of like world peace and so in like the

minds of like these

different people like nelson rockefeller

or whatever is that they

they see themselves as pursuing this

goal and they see it as a good thing

and i think even if you talk to like a

lot of normal people who'd uh

you know that they would probably agree

with a lot of aspects of this

like you know uncritically is that they

would say like

you know it's good for economic

development to happen in third world

nations and

you know even like a lot of the

democratic party rhetoric and like ngos

and all this stuff is that

that's what it was all designed to do so

that's like in my mind what the

conspiracy is but it's not like a secret

conspiracy

it's like very public it's for open and

like this agenda is totally fully stated

by

the people who believe in it so like why

is hillary clinton like is she like an

evil schemer

behind the the uh you know the

in some closed board room with her

little people and she's like scheming

out her gain control

it's like i don't really think so i mean

i think that she's like personally just

like you know

you know a shitty person but i think in

her mind

that like she believes that you know

she's carrying forward

uh you know international peace and that

this is what america is designed to do

you know in her mind it's not like

america uh you know

the point of america is to preserve this

whole structure right and if you

preserve that structure that's good for

america because america

historically like since the end of world

war ii is on top of that structure and

benefits the most from it

because it's like the enforcer of that

structure so in her mind like pursuing

this agenda of like globalism and stuff

like as opposed to what people on the

right think they imagined her as like

scheming and she's like i want to

destroy america in exchange for this

globalism

yeah that's not how it is at all like

she's pursuing globalism

because that's like the the policy

that's best for the united states

historically

and it you know it um no it it makes

sense it's like and it really makes

sense that

how things work is that you have a very

vague floating good aim and that and the

pursuing

apparent pursuing of which is what

reveals all of the material

and objective contradictions but

i think the conspiracists

very deep suspicion

and you can tell this in the diversity

of conspiracy theories about it

is that things are at such a great scale

that at

some top top level

there has to be this kind of um

some type of self-aware kind of

conscious

articulation of what it all of a

conception of like

what it all is that goes uh

deep at the level of like you know i

don't know

renaissance occultism or kind of some

kind of mysticism like

some there's been this kind of

preservation of this this

uh occult change

which is responsible for the modern

world as we know it

like uh the reason why the world

is the way it is is but this is not what

i

necessarily believe but i think this is

i know what you're saying somebody in

the chat is just saying like i guess

sarcastically just trying to like get on

what i just said like organized crime

think they're the good

fellows or i don't know if that's what

they meant but i mean it just just

respond to that

yes they do yeah you know that's how a

uh you know uh you we have this a false

idea of

unitary sovereignty right that there's

like the

that all of america's like sovereignty

is uh endowed and like joe biden or

something that's not true is that like

you know obviously sovereignty is shared

between a lot of different parts of

society and a lot of different agencies

within the government

right that's what people mean by like

the quote unquote deep state it's not

they mis

people mystify all these things and they

can't understand them but in my mind

it's like

you know it's it's much clearer than

that in that

there is like a national security

council uh

you know that's what the national

security council is is that it's

an attempt to fuse together the

fragments of sovereignty health

state department and the intelligence

community and like the department of

defense

and like the president's office and each

of those

parts they hold a part of our

sovereignty and so the national security

con

council in um you know historically

that's exactly the purpose it served is

to like

act as a way to bring those those shards

together

but even like with the mafia i mean

absolutely

the you know that's what how the mafia

like starts is as

basically providing a police function

and a security function

to like immigrant communities in the

united states because they weren't being

protected by police and so

you know that's why the you know the

mafia is like

you know a shadow state in that sense or

you know in italy

it was just the actual state i mean you

know it's

it's not necessarily just like yeah you

know

scarface or whatever going back to like

the early 20th century

i mean really it's like this was the

state of the immigrant communities that

was like

imposing justice and like maintaining

order in like these marginal communities

that weren't uh

you know that were ignored by the police

and justice systems

yeah they did see themselves with

something good do you um

yourself ever suspect like re because i

know you you you just taken so much

information

do you because this is really what like

uh

this is like what is people want to hear

right

not necessarily what's true but it's

just like what people find so

interesting is like

do you suspect any kind of um

eccentric kind of occult belief

at uh the level of this kind of

rockefellers and ford foundation type

people

i hate no i don't i hate people who are

going on this whole thing of like this

is the satanists they're satanists

yeah no no no not necessarily satanists

but like uh let's say like

out uh alchemy or something like this

you know what i mean

i think that's all such bullshit like

the jeffrey epstein is the state in this

pedophile and it's a global

uh you know pedophile elite and they're

conducting the rituals to satan and if

you look at the actual

like historical like look at like john

foster dulles right

you know john foster does was a fucking

a protestant

right and he was legitimately

legitimately very sincerely uh

you know um a protestant modern right

is that you know he was uh what

he was like presbyterian like very

genuinely his like father was a

preacher you know if you look at what he

was actually

doing like going to all these uh you

know ecumenical like uh prostate

conferences and like

uh engaging in you know the whole

prostate community is like

his whole idea for like the united

nations and everything was like

you know came out of theological

discourse that was happening that was

you know as part of the uh ecumenical

protestant movement in like the inner

war years

that was all completely genuinely very

spiritual

religious like protestants like he

wasn't like faking

like i don't know why people how people

can think stuff like that

like what they think that like the

dulles brothers and like of the

rockefellers and all these people that

they

you know uh were all just fakers that

uh you know pretending to have all these

religious sentiments or

uh you know humanitarian sentiments and

that i don't think so at all

i think that those beliefs are all

genuine and that's you know

yeah and i think that yeah i think a lot

of it originates in the counter culture

with like this kind of

new um interest in people like

crowley and this

uh psychedelic kind of culture which

itself is a

i personally find a little bit spooky

the psychedelic kind of thing but

i think another reason is because people

saw how

among the media

people who were in media power were kind

of seemed like they were

interested in this kind of uh

uh thelima and all this kind of stuff

yeah you know i don't i think that's all

it's just

you know it has to be stressed that it's

such bullshit i mean aleister crowley

was just like a

he you know he was an intelligence agent

as well

and yeah he's all of these later like in

the 19th century like theosophy

yeah yeah yeah like blabotsky occult

movements they're all scams

like they're not you know come on that's

the whole point of them

is that they're they're just scams that

these uh

people were exploited by right they're

not like real things

um and i don't think the elite like

holds them i think that those

ideas are actually for if anything like

the lower classes and like yeah

like it's to manipulate people it makes

sense yeah

yeah because if you actually look at it

with like a lot of the psychedelic stuff

is that you know

uh you know new world humanism and like

eastern spirituality

and like new consciousness and stuff

like that

like the 1960s is that that you know

uh it's like a cover or like a

a version of kind of the more mainstream

like rational beliefs of like world

federalism right

it's just a way of you know getting

stupid people

to believe in your agenda of like

we need uh you know a global economic

union

so that we can survive like climate

crisis right

yeah like economic coordination so that

we can like

you know do this and this and you know

uh

overcome like the the you know scarcity

of resources and overpopulation and

things like that

it's the same stuff but you know it gets

sold back i think if anything by

a a lot of kind of kooky groups to

uh you know stupider people as you know

it's kind of like a psyop in that sense

but so here's the kind of um

question i have uh there's a lot of

evidence well actually i mean

me and ed are probably gonna do shit

about this uh because there is a lot of

weird stuff that goes on with like

the guy who came up with the idea of

plant consciousness

you know and like all these people they

worked for um

like the remington rand computer

corporation and they had like a special

research division

that was interested in like all this new

age shit and then like even on like the

early internet like the

uh arpanet and stuff is that they it had

a lot of like kind of kooky or

new age stuff that was being done

alongside that

and but i think that like that's what

you know what's going on historically is

that

you know it's it's uh a way to just sell

back

those beliefs and like world federalism

and stuff in different kinds of

basically marketing packages for these

different demographics that you know

to appeal to them right it's just

advertising if anything

you know uh another question i have is

you mentioned

how like the belief of these kind of

big visionaries is a genuine one

when it comes to the post-war

anti-communism

do you think that this was resulting

from a genuine kind of ideological uh

thing or was it kind of a was that

it's all it's all manufactured i mean

like the whole idea of the cold war

was made up during the cold war you know

if you think about it like

the cold war is a narrative of history

that says that

you know that the soviet union and the

united states that these are the two

global powers and that they're having

this like battle that's being conducted

through all these different avenues and

that

blah blah blah blah and that like that's

just us

a narrative that was imposed on history

like going back to the 40s it's actually

walter littman

who comes up with that and he wrote a

book called the cold war

that's why we think about that period of

history as being the cold war

because walter littman wrote a book that

said that that

told the american public this is the

cold war now

there this is what's going on and he i

mean i don't know if that's

too fine of a point to come across but

if you see what i'm saying is it like

yeah

but to what ends was was this uh

manufactured

i think the big you know the big one is

that stalin

um pulled out the of uh bretton woods

that he didn't go along with it right

they had made all these concessions to

like stalin and been negotiating like

bretton woods and to get the soviet

union's participation for a really long

time

and then like at the very last minute

like at the conference

stalin's like no he's like i don't want

to do this and he just like walks away

right ah and that's a really big thing

because it goes into this whole idea of

what i was just saying about like

international

like uh you know trade and uh financial

coordination

is that that's why you know the soviet

bloc has to be

um separated and like you know excluded

that's the basis of it because if you're

not part of the economic order

of they get set up by like bretton woods

and like all the post-war

economic agreements if you pull out of

that

you become like you know like they say

today a rogue state

right so your existence of being a state

outside of that system

is a threat to that system so from that

yeah it justifies then you know doing

some kind of uh embargo or

blockade of these states who are not

participating in this system

because this system is you know

international law

so if you're not following international

law you're a criminal

rogue state and then that justifies you

know

uh the imposition of economic sanctions

of blockade

of you know making an exclusionary zone

that you know you're not allowed to

participate in international trade if

you're not willing to follow the rules

so you know that what happened to the

soviet union that's the whole point

so it's almost like there's a direct

continuity between

the post-war soviet union um

and the kind of rogue states of uh the

21st century like

iraq and libya and uh

yeah i i think the logic of it is is

exactly the same not that

you know every state that uh follows

that path is

the same but like the reasons like

anything is like you know

and you know certainly uh you know every

case is

there's lots going on with these i mean

the different motivations the leaders

may have for

not participating in these economic

systems they may be different but

really that's the logic of it like

internationally speaking in terms of

the whole doctrine of global development

and you know global trade

is that like once you stop participating

in the system

you become like an economic you know

international criminal in a way

because you know you you are you can't

participate in this

free trade of the world without

following these agreements

that the whole world you know signed on

to right

and america is you know uh governing

this world trade system and the dollar

is the reserve currency and if you don't

follow that

you're a threat to that you're like you

know you're a fugitive

it's it's um i remember one of the last

speeches stalin gave was basically like

the old banner of kind of bourgeois

rights

um of like free speech and you know

like has been set aside and trampled on

and it's kind of true also in terms of

this rise of uh the bretton woods here

where it's like

the old kind of paradigm i guess i don't

know actually if it's really old of like

national sovereignty and

self-determination and kind of um

right is completely trampled over and

it's like

countries are forcefully integrated into

this

global system um that's why libya was

bombed by obama

yeah yeah i mean but i mean i'm so i'm

sorry to cut you off i

try to message you on on uh discord

sorry i gotta start wrapping up i got

oh okay

i really enjoy talking to you man i

don't want to cut short but i got a

couple of things i got

oh yeah yeah i understand thank you so

much for coming on it was really an

honor and hopefully uh the next time you

come on we'll have uh

we'll have ed as well yeah i would love

that too i'll

be happy to do it again thanks thanks a

lot to you i mean i really

appreciated the opportunity to come talk

to you and talk about shit that is a

little bit more interesting so

yeah then everyone else is talking about

so thanks a lot man thanks

genuinely was great fun great man okay

i'll see you around

you too have a great one you too thanks