Reading Herbert Marcuse's 'Repressive Tolerance' w/ Aaron from Timeline Earth - Complete

I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekenona Show and welcome back eron what's up Nanks for having me. Yeah, yeah, always a pleasure, always a pleasure here to do a reading. And I don't know, this may take this will definitely take two, This could take three, So people be people can be uh patient with us as you're a very busy man to get you back on and uh and do more of this. But this is an essay kind of kind of popular. A lot of people, even people on the left push a lot of people on the

I know that very little other than that he was he was a Frankfurt school guy now big in the big in the sixties, leftist thinker, kind of a post Marxist.

Yep, yep. So let me do a quick little let's do the Wikipedia. Marcus born July nineteenth, eighteen ninety eight German German American died July twenty ninth, nineteen seventy nine German American philosophers, social critic, and political theorist, associated at

Oh wow, that's on the street from me.

Yeah, not a shock at all.

No nice neighborhood.

This essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.

All right, we'll stop you right there. What is the What is the end goal of tolerance? Is tolerance of means or an end?

I should say, tolerance should be a means to achieving whatever you wish? I mean, do you I mean, do you want? What happens?

What happens when you and Shapiro is tolerance and means or an end.

When you turn on Ben Shapiro, tolerance is whatever he needs it to he needs it to be at the moment.

Tolerance is the end goal. It's not. It's it's not tolerance of what it's We just need to be tolerant. And he'll tell it. People like him will tell you, you know, if he'll he'll he'll invite a leftist on a show, he'll invite a communist. It's it's really flipped where lip you know, modern liberalism still still calls for tolerance, but it's conservatism that's flipping the script saying, oh no, we're the ones being shut down. So now they're the

Well, yeah, and tolerance always you can you use tolerance to get where you want to go. I mean the way that we've gotten to where we are from where where this country was founded, where you make a lot of people make the argument, you know, and it's true the founders were you know, a lot of them were steeped in the Enlightenment, but when it came to tolerance, they were they were tolerant of certain things that about their culture, about the culture that they created that they

There were there were cultural bumpers put yeah, you know on the on the three by five index card of allowable opinion.

Yes and uh, and the by there being tolerance and tolerance has always been used against the right so that the left can basically just gain as much power as it wants. And people on the right, you know, the question, the question asked often, and I forget where where I was having this conversation recently, is is why does the right not want to? Why does the right never want to rule? Why does the right never want to Why why do you never have a right with an iron fist?

Yeah, yeah, but it's uh, that's going to be a hard book to break.

Yeah.

Right. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins at the beginning of the modern period, a partisan goal, a subversive, liberating notion and practice. Yeah, and you just to scroll down here to the definition of partisan because a lot of people the modern version,

Yeah, you'd also call it activist now, yes.

Yeah. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today is in many of its most effective manifestations, serving the cause of oppression.

Wow, he's just fucking bad.

In one thousand, the author is fully aware that at present, no power, no authority, no government exists which would translate liberating tolerance into practice. But he believes that it is the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and preserve historical possibility which seem to have become utopian possibilities. That it is his task to break the concreteness of oppression in order to open the mental space in which the society can be recognized as what it is and does.

That's critical theory in a nutshell.

Ye. So, and this is just basically like the just an outline. Now we get into the meat of the text. So tolerance is an end in itself. The elimination of violence and the reduction of suppression to the extent required for protecting man and animals from cruelty and aggression are preconditions for the condition of a humane society.

It's just a given, man, don't question it.

Such a society does not yet exist. Progress toward it is perhaps more than before, are more than before arrested by violence and suppression on a global scale.

I think I'm going to be pleasantly surprised at how much I agree with this, But not for the reasons he thanks.

And I would say that when he mentions utopia here, when I say utopia, I don't mean I have my own version of utopia. Utopia is getting the ideology in reality that you want. Like so if you have it in the box, ideology you get. If you can get it to exist in reality, you have utopia. My you know, my understanding is you get. My goal is to have the best and most orderly society I can. Considering man's fallen nature.

It's funny because you know, he was working for the precursor to the CIA in the late fifties early sixties basically critiquing Soviet Communism, and it was at that precise point in history that Soviet Communism was, you know, at their apex in terms of you know, their comparability and material conditions.

Totally, he's working for them from forty three to fifty, so he's even got two years of World War Two in there, and then and then the after and then the aftermath, which is I mean, you want to talk about one of the most interesting times in history, the Soviet Union between nineteen forty five and nineteen fifty, not only considering the the absolute horror that they imposed upon Germany, but also the purging of a certain group from the

Yeah, the glass ceiling for the j words. Yeah, strictly imposed.

All right, as deterrence against nuclear war, as police action against subversion, as technical aid in the fight against imperialism and communism, as methods of pacification in neo colonial massacres, violence and suppression are are promulgated, practiced, and defended by democratic and authoritarian governments alike, and the people subjected to these governments are educated to sustain such practices as necessary for the preservation of the status quoz. He definitely was

But you wouldn't have to go you wouldn't have to have too much of an imagination to replace all of the things that he mentioned with current day things that that we would mention instead of uh, wait, where is it? It's nuclear war police action against the version technically in the Yeah, I mean you could mention, you know, entire groups of black kids beating on white kids. You could

Mhm.

Tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery.

So he's talking about culture.

I know that.

Most schools of socialism don't like to talk about culture because it's stock grounded in materialism. It's transcendent. But he's talking about culture.

Yeah.

Of this sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested authentic liberals. The political locus of tolerance has changed. While it is more or less quietly and constitutionally withdrawn from the opposition, it has made compulsory behavior with respect to established policies, Tolerance has turned from an active into a passive state, from practice

Is that an opposition within the framework determined by the cost student authorities. We need to we need to roll back the state.

Let's go tolerance toward that which is radically evil now appears as good because it serves the cohesion of the

Are we are we frank for school? Now?

Disagree with?

Are we frank for school? Socialists?

Now?

Ship? Oh? Man? Isn't it amazing that once you know, if you're one of those people who's on social media the time, and you're like, oh, this is what I You know, I learned about communism from a meme, Or I learned about socialism from a meme. I learned about Marxism from a meme. Once you start reading it, you know, I learned about critical theory from a meme. Once you start reading it, you're like, it's just like reading Marx.

Yep, the prescription is exactly on point.

The authorities in education, morals, and psychology are vociferous against the increase in juvenile delinquency. They are less vociferous against the proud presentation in word and deed and pictures of ever more powerful missiles, rockets, bombs, the mature delinquency of a whole civilization. Hmm, that's an interesting.

That that's smacks of bumple Ted.

Yeah, yeah, there, Yeah, it really explains why Ted hates the left so much. According to a dialectical proposition, it is the whole which determines the truth, not in the sense that the whole is prior or superior to its parts, but in the sense that its structure and function determine every particular condition and relation. Thus, within a repressive society, even progressive movements threaten to turn into their opposite to the degree to which they accept the rules of the game.

Yep.

To take a most controversial case, the exercise of political rights such as voting, letter writing to the press, to senators, etc. Protest demonstrations with a priori renunciation of counter violence in a society of total administration serves to strengthen this administration by testifying to the existence of democratic liberties which in reality have changed their content and lost their effectiveness. In such a case, freedom of opinion, of assembly of speech.

That's Sam France, Sam Francis, Yeah, managerial revolution.

In in such in such a case, are you thinking Burnham or Francis? But as Francis wrote what I think is the greatest book on Burnham. He wrote this little book where he just does a commentary on every Burnham book. It's one of my favorite books. Is it's just because you get you know, Francis is so much closer to us, and he was just such a great man. Mean, he wrote for the USA today to a certain point, that's amazing. In such a case, freedom of opinion, of assembly of

Wait, I need to I need to chew on that. Sorry, i'mah yeah, I'm rolling that around a little bit.

All right.

I'll if he's talking about the unit, if he's specifically talking about the United States, he may just be talking about how you you start by a revolution and then basically you maybe your restoration of the original oppositional function. Provided that the effort to transcend their limitations is intensified, it reverts back to it. All right.

Yeah, So you have these liberties, you're bumping up against opposition, you know, the the proverbial bumpers. And the more you bump up against the limitations imposed, the more intense the bumping gets. I get it.

Generally, the function and value of tolerance depend on the quality prevalent in the society in which tolerance is practiced. Tolerance itself stands subject to overriding criteria, Its range, and its limits cannot be defined in terms of the respective society. In other words, tolerance is an end in itself only when it is truly universal, practiced by the rulers as well as by the rule, by the lords as well as by the peasants, by the sheriffs as well as by their victims.

Once again, that's called culture. It's not tolerance. That's culture, fucking libs.

And such universal tolerance as possible only when no real or alleged enemy requires in the national interest the education and training of people in military violence and destruction.

Yeah, acab.

As long as these conditions do not prevail, the conditions of tolerance are loaded. They are determined and defined by the institutionalized inequality, which is certainly compatible with constitutional equality, i e. By the class structure of society. In such a society, tolerance is de facto limited on the dual ground of legalized violence or suppression police, armed forces, guards of all sorts, and of the privileged position held by the predominant interests and their connections.

I see no issue whatsoever.

Once again, these background limitations of tolerance are normally prior to the explicit and judicial limitationations as defined by the courts, customs, governments, et cetera. For example, quote unquote clear and present danger, threat to national security. Heresy, Ye can't yell nigger in a movie theater? Well, now I know, now I know which little preview clip is not going to be on YouTube within the framework such.

I'm saying, don't say that.

Within the framework of such, they wouldn't be able to hear you anyway. Damn it. Oh, within the framework of of such a social structure, tolerance can be safe. Tolerance can be safely practiced and proclaimed. It is of two kinds. The passive toleration of entrench and established attitudes and ideas, even if they're damaging effect on man and nature is evident.

Yep, that's right. That's now we're getting into it, this whole idea that you know, those those cultural bumpers that I was talking about. You need a bumper on the right, but you need to remove the bumper on the left. So that way the direction, as you know, as you and I and everybody else have said, the direction can only go one way. That's that's what he's calling for.

I call this nonpartisan tolerance abstract or pure inasmuch as it refrains from taking sides, but in doing so it actually protects the already established machinery of the discrimination.

That's right, Silence is violence.

The tolerance, which enlarged the range and content of freedom was always partisan, intolerant towards the protagonists of the repressive status quo. The issue was only the degree and extent of intolerance. In the firmly established liberal society of England and the United States, freedom of speech and assembly was granted even to the radical enemies of society, provided they did not make the transition from word to deed, from speech to action. Remember the I forget who was it was?

Yeah, that's probably a lot of places in the criminal code I imagine too sure, But yeah, I know that's you know, tolerance of repressive structures is in itself intolerant. Therefore, the direction can only move left because left means destroying oppressive power structures, and the right means keeping them or building them.

Yeah, I wish.

All right. Relying on the effective background limitations imposed by its class structure, the society seemed to practice general tolerance. But liberalists theory had already placed an important condition on tolerance. It was to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. John Stuart millt Yeah, where is this going that again? Then? But liberalist theory has already

I don't know if I want to be frank for school anymore, pete.

John Stuart Mill does not only speak of children and minors. He elaborates liberty as a principle has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Anterior to that time, men may still be barbarians, and despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end of the end be their improvement, and

Yeah, I mean you you have to have whatever whatever you need to do to benefit the condition of mankind. If that means a dictatorship, if that means a police state, if that means you know, uh, a military industrial complex with a health a health care industrial complex with it. If that is what you need to get to this betterment of mankind, then it is what it is. That's That's not what markc Use is saying, but that's what Mills said.

Mills often quoted words have a less familiar implication, on which their meaning depends the internal connection between liberty and truth. There's a sense in which truth is the end of liberty, and liberty must be defined and confined by truth. Yeah. Now, in what sense can liberty be for the sake of truth? Liberty is self determination autonomy That is almost a tautology, but a tautology which results from a whole series of synthetic judgments.

Wow, I like where this is going.

It stipulates the ability to determine one's own life, to be able to determine what to do and what not to do, what to suffer and whatnot. But the subject of this autonomy is never the contingent private individual as that which he actually is or happens to be. It is rather the individual as a human being who is capable of being free with the others.

So this is getting into just Frankfurt School socialism's whole end goal is the pursuit of self actualization. It's the removal of any impediment in that pursuit. So whether that be material or cultural, which is what the Frankfurt School focuses on, any any type of impediment towards self actualization.

And the problem of making possible such a harmony between every individual liberty and the other is not that of finding a compromise between competitors, or between freedom and law, between general and individual interest, common and private welfare in an estatelish society, but of creating the society in which man is no longer enslaved by institutions which vitiate, which vitiate, vitiate? I swear I know that word self determination from the beginning.

You can point to an oppressive structure and say that is inhibiting my pursuit of self actualization.

It opens It just throws open the doors to basically any anything being repressive, anything be anything, anything I can think of is stopping my self. Realism is permanent. Yes, yes, In the interplay of theory and practice, true and false solutions become distinguishable, never with the evidence of necessity, never as the positive only with a certainty of a reasoned and reasonable chance, and with the persuasive force of the negative.

I mean, we see this playing out every single day. Once they get one thing they want, then it's onto the next.

But the experience and understanding of the existence of the existence society may well be capable of identifying what is not conducive to a free and rational society, which impedes and distorts the possibilities of its creation. Freedom is liberation a specific historical process in theory and practice, and as such it has its right and wrong, its truth and falsehood.

So one thing that the Frankfurt School kind of improved upon Orthodox Marxism is that it's a lot less rigid in defining the historical process and these stages of history they're they're a lot more vague about it, and you can see this, I mean those that the last paragraph that you just read is talking about this prop this arduous march towards true freedom. It really has no beginning and endpoint. It's just a constant cycle. And I've listened to a couple of podcasters talking about this.

But uh, like.

What the actual end goal is is? It depends on depends on who you talk to. I mean, we we did a reading of uncal Ted and the the end goal is you know, you're you're a meat you're transhumanist meatbag battery.

Yeah. The uncertainty of chance in this distinction does not cancel the historical objectivity, but it necessitates freedom of thought and expression as preconditions of finding the way to freedom. It necessitates tolerance. How However, the tolerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal with respect to the contents of expression, neither in word nor Indeed, it cannot protect false words and wrong deeds which demonstrate that they contradict and counteract the possibilities of liberation.

That's right, that's the terms of service you signed a party.

Such indiscriminate tolerance is justified in harmless debates, in conversation and academic discussion. It is indispensable in the scientific enterprise, in private religion, but society cannot be indiscriminate where the pacification of existence, where the freedom and happiness themselves are at stake. Here, certain things cannot be said, Certain ideas cannot be expressed, Certain policies cannot be proposed, Certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the

Yeah. If everything's if everything is permitted, then nothing can be radical.

Yeah, However, censorship of art and literature is regressive under all circumstances. The authentic of war? Is it of war? Or how the hell do you pronounce that? I should have left that up before I read and just jump over and read let Me Go twenty one? A work of art, music, or literature. It's a French word, of course, where is it? There are cases where an authentic piece of art carries a regressive political message. Dostoyevsky is a case in point. But then the message is canceled by

Yeah, I guess in a in a truly tolerant society where anything goes, then you know, even even if you do put up you know, take take four Chan for like, four Chan would be Marcus's Dostoyevski. If everything's permitted on four Chan, then you, as a four chan consumer, like, aren't going to be inspired by really anything on it.

M hmm, yeah, m all right, here we go. Tolerance of free speech is the way of improvement, of progress and liberation, not because there is no objective truth and improvement must necessarily be a compromise between a variety of opinions, but because there is an objective truth which can be discovered ascertained only in learning and comprehending that which, that which is, and that which can and ought to be done for the sake of improving the lot of mankind.

It's just it's funny, how it's I wish we were we had as much certain certainty and just like fanatic belief in what our outlook on what improving mankind looks like.

That thoughts like that were made illegal in the late nineteen forties. Yeah, yeah, made very criminal. Yes, the common and historical ought is not immediately evident at hand. It has to be uncovered by cutting, through splitting, breaking asunder the given material, separating right and wrong, good and bad, correct and incorrect. The subject whose improvement depends on a

So let me see if I can parse this out. This is painful. There is an objective way to arrive at truth, and it's through the It's through the process of critical analysis. Is that basically what he's saying. Sure, we imagine, imagine that that just happens to be the thing that he went, that he studied for his entire life.

But even the all inclusive character of liberalist tolerance was, at least in theory, based on the proposition that men were potential individuals who could learn to hear and see and feel by themselves, to develop their own thoughts, to grasp their own true interests and rights and capabilities. Also again established authority and opinion.

Yeah, but what if they agree with it. What then, what if they like established authority an opinion? Well, or what if what if the critical theorists become the established authority and opinion.

This was the rationale of free speech and assembly. Universal toleration became questionable. Becomes questionable when it's rationale no longer prevails when tolerance is administered to manipulated and doctrinated individuals who parrot as their own the opinions of their masters, for whom he heteronomy has become autonomy. The telos of

Yeah, I quoted me, and they're still hitting me.

And he enumerates the truths which were cruelly and successfully liquidated in the dungeons, and at the stake that of Arnold of Brescia, of fraud, Dulcino, of Sabon, of the alb Albigensians, valdenz Ians, Lollards, and Hussites.

So a bunch of like fringe h Christian sex.

Yeah, I guess that's what's funny. Is Yachi in imperium mentioned soeign many times? Tolerance is first and foremost for the sake of the heretics. The historical roads towards humanitas appears as heresy, target of persecution by the powers that be. Heresy by itself, however, is no token of truth. Well that that makes sense.

Yeah, yeah.

The criterion of progress in freedom, according to which Mill judges these movements is the Reformation. The evaluation is ex post, and his list includes opposites. Nourala two would have been would have burned the fraud Dulcino. Even the ex post evaluation is contestable as to its truth. History corrects the judgment too late. The correction. The correction does not help the victims and does not absolve their executioners. However, the

Why didn't he just start off with that? We got to skip that into higher page. It just read read up to those questions you just ask.

He has to do a little religion bashing. They always do. I shall discuss this question only with reference to political movements, attitudes, schools of thought, philosophies which are political in the wildest sense, affecting the whole the society as a whole, demonstrably transcending the sphere of privacy. Moreover, I propose a shift in

All right, Well, that's convenient.

Yeah, under yeah, the road you know, I mean, oh, that road is thorny. I think I'll take this one over here. Under a system of constitutionally guaranteed and generally and without too many and too glaring exceptions, practice, civil rights and liberties, opposition and dissent are tolerated unless they issue in violence and or in exhortation to an organization of violent subversion.

I'm with them.

The underlying assumption is that the established society is free, and that any improvement, even a change in the social structure and social values, would come about in the normal course of events, prepared to find and tested in free and equal discussion on the open marketplace of ideas and goods.

That's how it works. Which I'm happy he's like saying that that's stupid.

Yeah.

Now, In recalling John John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption. Free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from induc indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement.

That's the foundation myth.

However, such a construct badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal, and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course.

So sometimes a free exchange of ideas doesn't go in the direction you wanted to. That could be bad.

Sometimes I think he understands elite theory, and sometimes I'm just like, what the hell is he? Where's he going with this? Yeah?

I mean, we all see what happens when the free and open exchange of information, like the actual free and open exchange of information happens. The characteristics of whatever platform that's happening on inevitably comes far right, even yep, yep, without a doubt then you to start tamping down on all these fucking cell phone videos, cell phone videos and pop us subways.

And I mean, am I the only one who you know realizes that, like Twitter has become world star hip hop world star?

Yeah? I would like to think that Elon has something to do with that, or it could just be that he got rid of whatever the whatever, the algorithm, what whatever the algorithmic guard against that he just got rid of. And this is you know, organic.

Whatever it is. I'm liking it, well, not liking some of those videos I can't watch, but at least the exposure is there. Then then the if it fits, it fits even worse with a variety of pressures, unifies and coagulates into an overwhelming whole, integrating the particular countervailing powers by virtue of an increased standard of living and an increasing concentration of power.

Yeah, which is where we're at right now, Well maybe not right now, where the material conditions right now are still pretty good. Everybody more than likely has food, water, easy access to food, water, clothing, shelter, that type of thing. And then you know, if you really start thinking about what our luxuries we have access to, those two for the most part. And I mean this goes back to

Yeah, as you participate them.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's I've said this a bunch of times. But the more people I talked to who are leaving cities and going and you know, even buying a half an acre or an acre in the country and you know, saying, hey, I'm gonna grow some of my own food and maybe get a couple of chickens. These are people who they may not even know what Uncle Ted taught, but they're going backwards in order to go forwards.

It's it's uh, it makes me think of Julius Evola. It's some something is transcendent.

Yeah, what it was Evola thing, I've stolen it. My my values are that which were be normal before seventeen eighty nine.

Yeah.

Then the laborer whose real interest conflicts with that of management, the common consumer whose real interests conflict with that of the producer, the intellectual whose vocation conflicts with that of his employer, find themselves submitted to a system against which they are powerless and appear unreasonable. That's a great sentence,

Oh yeah, mark us who are.

Ah By the same token, those minorities which strive for a change of the whole itself, will, under optimal conditions which rarely prevail, be left free to deliberate and discuss, to speak, into assemble, and will be left harmless and helpless in the face of the overwhelming majority which militates against qualitative social change.

Yeah, you're allowed to talk about whatever you want. It's just it's not going to happen.

He Let me, let me see something here, looking at early early years of Marcus. Okay, I'll leave that alone. We'll talk about that.

I couldn't find anything in any early life check.

Oh it's it's right there. Oh yeah, second sent second sent okay, control by the same token those manner did I already say that sentence?

By the same token those minorities which strive for a change.

I don't think I gonna, I'll say it, I'll go No, No, I haven't said it. Okay, by the same token, those minorities which strive for a change of the whole itself will under optimal conditions which were oh no, I did say that one.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

This majority is firmly grounded in the increasing satisfaction of needs and technological and mental coordination, which testify to the general helplessness of radical groups in a well functioning social system.

Huh.

Within the affluent democracy, the affluent discussion prevails, and within the established framework it is tole are. To a large extent, all points of view can be heard, the communist and the fascist, the left and the right, the right and the negro, the crusaders for armament and for disarmament, moreover, and endlessly dragging debates over the media. The stupid opinion is treated with the same respect as the intelligent one.

So at the apex of American civilization, you can kind of define that by you know, all those I forget what it's called, but the roundtable show where they have somebody from the right, somebody from the left, the fascist, the communist, and they're all just having a calm conversation. That is the apex in material condition of America. Now what do you have? This pure talk? Well, good, but whether it's good or not, it's just an indication as to how well your civilization is doing.

This pure toleration of sense and nonsense is justified by the democratic argument that nobody, neither group nor individual is in possession of the truth and capable of defining what is right and wrong, good and bad. Therefore, all contesting opinions must be submitted to the people for its deliberation

Are on, we do this all the time.

Yeah, And then stepp Bee comes in and just frigging makes us all feel like idiots. They must have access to authentic information, doesn't mention what that authentic information is, uh, And that on their basis, their evaluation must be the result of autonomous thought. So this is somebody who's lived it has never been taught how to think what to think? I mean, we're in friggin fantasy land here.

It's the source. I saw it in a dream.

It was a fever dream though all right. In the contemporary period, the democratic argument for abstract tolerance tends to be invalidated by the invalidation of the democratic process itself. The liberating force of democracy was the change, was the chance it gave to effective dissent on the individual as well as its social scale. Its openness to qualitatively different forms of government, of culture, education, work of the human existence in general, The toleration of free discussion and the

Yep, Uncle Ted and Mark hus one of the.

Same when he says here, well, the integration of opposites in a society, what's he talking about?

Oh, just the ability of the fascists and the communists to sit down and have a conversation mm hm, which I'm guessing at the time he was writing. I mean, what the hell was that show with? Was Buchanan on it?

Oh? The McLachlan group, Yeah, yep, yeah, yeah.

I mean that was probably the apex of society when that was on.

I used to watch it all the time. I watched it up until like two thousand and nine, two thousand and ten. Yeah, I was obsessed with it. I couldn't couldn't have that. Yeah, no, at least not in any man I think. Yeah, I think it does actually exist now. I don't think Buchanan's on it. I think there's a new version of it. But I mean, I just I can't wake up at nine thirty on us. I'm doing other nine thirty on Sunday morning. I'm getting to I'm

So this is the critique that we hear all the time of the legacy media, I mean, the corporate press, in the context of what the Internet did to them, they did have a monopolistic stranglehold on the flow of information. You know, what choices you're you're given at the ballot box are determined, you know, by the cathedral. He's he's described, he's describing, you know that as it's happening.

Under the rule of monopolistic media themselves, the mere instruments of economic and political power, a mentality is created for which right and wrong, true and false are pre defined wherever they affect the vital interests of the society. This

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, it's yeah. He's he's a little behind the times. He's a little too modernist. Just him talking about objective truth at all. Yeah, that's that's like a early frank like early Frankfurt school sixties characteristic.

Yeah. Yeah, the nineteen forty six Orwell essay politics and the English language. I mean it's twenty almost twenty years before this. Orwell's talking about the distortion language at that point, how it basically means nothing. And academic agent Nima calls him says, how most political language and journalistic language is loaded with thought terminating cliches. Yeah yeah, or these cliches are just fed in there, and it's like, oh, I know exactly what to mean now, I don't have to

I was just reading a critical review of Imperium, and I, I guess I couldn't really, I couldn't really put it into words to articulate like that that exact thing you just said, thought terminating just phrases.

That's what the the person who was writing the Yeah critique.

The entire time he was doing the review, it was just cliche cliches. Yeah did in early life check on him too, and.

Rational persuasion. Persuasion to the opposite is all but precluded. The avenues of entrance are closed to the meaning of words and ideas other than the established one established by the publicity of the powers to be and verified in their practices. Other words can be spoken and heard, other ideas can be expressed, but at the massive scale of

We I mean, that's where we're we're slipping down the slope from the things that he's talking about in his day right now, like we are still sliding down that slope. You know, the ability to think three steps ahead in terms of policy and just in terms of introducing ideas to the mainstream, the direction that that's going to, that that they're going to take. Now it goes back to the old trope that there are no conspiracy theorists anymore.

Yeah, so we're gonna do about another another page here, and then we'll cut it and cut it and uh, we'll do the rest, do the rest another episode. This is just take two episodes. In the beginning of this, when we were stopping every sentence, I'm like, oh man, this is going to take ten episodes. All right, But that's the process of reflection. And that's the process of reflection ends where it started in the given conditions and relations self validated. The argument of the discussion repels the

Just controlling the opposition speaking all you know, referring to your opposition to say a cultural trope in the exact terms of the enemy, the exact terms the enemy gave to you in order to talk about it.

For example, thesis we work for peace and to and to antithesis, Why did I want to say anti anti thesis, so that for example, thesis we work for peace antithesis we prepare for war or even we wage war. Unification of opposites. Preparing for war is working for peace. Piece is redefined as necessary as necessarily in the prevailing situation, including preparation for war or even war or even war, And in this Orwellian form, the meaning of the word

He's not telling us what we don't already know. But I guess at the time it was cool to notice he was doing a little noticing himself.

Yeah, I wonder if you ever searched out his early nevermind impartiality to the utmost equal treatment of competing and conflicting issues is indeed a basic requirement for decision making in the democratic process.

Here's why that's wrong.

It is an equally basic requirement for defining the limits of tolerance. But in a democracy with totalitarian organization, objectivity may fulfill a very different function, namely to foster a mental attitude which tends to obliterate the difference between true

That's my timeline. Just describe My timeline is man made horrors beyond your comprehension. You can then an add for some like cool gifts for your for your wedding.

Party, green anarchists, or have been all over this for so long. I mean, this is a conversation. Bellamy could be preaching this right now. The result is a neutralization of opposites, a neutralization, however, which takes place on the firm grounds of the structural limitation of tolerance and within a pre formed mentality. When a magazine prints side by side a negative and positive report on the FBI, it

Yeah. No, I mean if you think about it practically on an individual level, Let's say something hurt. Let's say I don't know, nine to eleven to two happens, and then at the same time there the article is in one column for that, and then the article right next

Or if a newscaster reports the torture and murder of civil rights workers in the same unemotional tone he uses to describe the stock market or the weather, or with the same great emotion with which he says as commercials, then such objectivity is spurious. More, it offends against humanity and truth by being calm where no one where one should be enraged, by refraining from accusation where accusation is the fact is in the fact themselves.

Yeah, yeah, I get what he's saying. It's psychological.

The toleration expressed in such impartiality serves to minimize or even absolve prevailing intolerance and suppression. If objectivity has to do with truth, and if truth is more than a matter of logic and science, then this kind of objectivity is false, and this kind of tolerance inhuman. And if it is necessary to break the established universe of meaning and the practiced and closed in this universe in order to enable man to find out what is true and false,

Yeah, just not, I guess, just not in this case, in the context of you know, propaganda.

Well, no, in this case, the tabula rasa, which which should have been from the very start, you know, probably taken away from their parents who maybe Christians or Muslims or or whatever, they're already poisoned. Yeah, yeah, so.

And then your average news watcher is yeah, definitely not a blank slate to be filled.

All right, let's finish this. I think if we finished these up to the right up to I think we finished this paragraph, it would be a good ending point, all right, to enable them to become autonomous, to find by themselves what is true and what is false. For men in the existing society, they would have to be freed from the prevailing indoctrination, which is no longer recognized as indoctrination. But this means that the trend would have to be reversed. They would have to get information slanted

Yeah. Yeah, I guess if if we suddenly started seeing journalists speak to people speak to us like they would in real life, it would probably blow our minds.

Yeah, it would be like.

Or just anybody on the Internet, because we're all purveyors of information.

It's like if you're used to seeing and if you're used to going to the zoo and seeing an animal performed tricks, they'd be like seeing them in their natural habitat where you're like, oh, they're actually really boring, and then you realize, oh, wait a minit, they're putting on a performance. It's a performance for me.

Yeah, I mean, it's it's always been an idea I've had that you know that not I've had, but just a popular idea that absolute tolerance can't work and can't exist any ways, just because we we live in we we we live in the system that we do, and all the venues that can show that that are that are bound by whatever whatever metrics of tolerance there is, like social media, TV, news, pop culture whatever like there there's it wouldn't work. It wouldn't work. Absolute tolerance wouldn't work,

I mean, he makes the point that if his goals are going to be achieved, any thought, any action that is against that would derail those goals needs to be repressed.

Yeah. And the goals are the destruction of oppressive structures.

Which some which could very simply be called hierarchies, aristocracies, things like that. Yeah, which hierarchy, Yeah, which I think are inherent in nature.

Yeah, absolutely there, but to the bottom left, they exist to be destroyed.

Yep. All right, Well we'll pick this up again. Do you want to plug anything I was listening to this episode today that I was actually supposed to be on on on Exorcism.

Yeah.

Yeah. We just dropped an over the line episode on Timeline Earth for our Patreon subscribers, if you want to check that out. It's about exorcism and spiritual warfare, getting into the history, the practice, the nuts and bolts. I haven't I do need to come up with a Boystown episode eventually. That's that's my personal spin off of Timeline Earth, and I haven't done one in over a year because I'm a piece of ship with a very demanding job.

Well, I think everyone appreciates you taking the time to do this, and we'll we'll we'll talk about when we can do part two and everything. Because I'm someone with a with all of time on my hands and you're someone with like no time on your hands. So and you know, someone with a lot of time on their hands, like canceled at the last minute to be on that episode, which I really wanted to be on. But you know the reason why you forgive me because you've been there recently.

So far, so good.

Let's do it all right, Let's get this up there and just jump right in. I had to look up exactly where we left off because you know, I'm not gonna remember that ship So the last the last paragraph before we ended, I was talking about the people exposed to talking about tabula rossa, people exposed to this and partiality. There are no tabula ras so they are indoctrinaty, so indoctrination.

Huh. That's uh, yeah, I don't know if I agree with full on dictatorship, but you know, whatever, we have, whatever you would call it right now, that's that's the main characteristic of the people of power. Yeah, I mean, that's that's the disease of intellectualism.

Well, and what we have now is so they're they're claiming to educate the people and the truth. They have the truth, and they are definitely at that drawing broadline friend enemy distinction.

It's they've conspicuously taken on that task as heroically as they can possibly make it. That, yes, this is their rise on Detroit is to educate, educate the people and the truth. And you see it every single day, whether it's all meeting. I mean that's what we're doing too. So I mean like, but when everybody is doing that, then you have that's yeah, you have a diseased society.

Yeah. Yeah, if we if you have a society where people are warring over what the truth is, your society is completely as far to the left because you're existing in chaos.

There's no order at all, even if the fight is between objective truth and this you know, idea of subjective truth, whatever subjective truth, whatever branch that gets off into for for both sides. Yeah, we are. That's I would say that would characterize this spiritual warfare that we're in. Then I talked about the Patreon episode that you should buy a tile on Earth.

It's a good episode, all right, with all its limitations and distortions. Democratic tolerance is, under all circumstances, more humane than an institutionalized intolerance, which sacrifices the rights and liberties of the living generations for the sake of the future generations.

All right, It is that a knock or is he just stating a fact?

With all its limitations and distortions, Democratic tolerances, under all circumstances, more humane than an institutionalized intolerance, which sacrifices the rights and liberties of the living generations. Now, when he says that, I immediately think of like what a like monarchy where yeah, where it also a humane, humane institute. You know. Thomas

Well, we don't have anything comparable to Goole Aggs or or even the destolinization process within living memory. And the further we get from these references that you know our grandparents, you know your grandparents, you're you.

Know, yeah, I'm older than you. Fuck you.

Yeah, I was gonna say, uh, certain certain members of your tribe. What you're Ukrainian background, Oh yeah, Ukrainian dash something.

No, I'm like my DNA thing says two percent on that part one drop, yeah, right, one drop role.

But no, we don't have anything like that in living memory. So the further we get from both the atrocities and the wine down from the atrocities being tolerable, the more apt we are to go back to them.

Yeah. Good point, all right. The question is whether this is the only alternative. I shall presently try to suggest the direction in which an answer may be sought. In any case, the contrast is not between democracy and the abstract and dictatorship in the abstract. Democracy is a form

Ah yeah, in theory.

Yeah, yeah, it sounds good. Yeah, this means that the ways should be This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their

Yeah, I mean maybe when he wrote this, I mean the last the social security, medical uh, public services, medical, medical care, all that grap I don't think there's a that's that's not really a thing with the left right debate. I think the right is okay with having a welfare state.

Yep. They they're actively anti racist. Just call them a racist and you'll find out.

Yeah. Yeah.

So Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the education, in the educational institutions, which, by their very methods and concept the concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior, thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives.

So that's not happening, right, I mean, the the the enclosed us of the mind is happening again. Like, this is all stuff that we can agree for, but for way different reasons than he wants us to.

Right. Yeah, and to the degree to which freedom of thought involves the struggle against inhumanity, restoration of such freedom would also imply intolerance towards scientific research in the interest of deadly deterrence of abnormal human endurance under inhuman conditions, et cetera. I shall presently discuss the question as to who is to decide on the distinction between liberating and

Yes, the fattest, most blue haired, most transgender Muslim activists they are are the ones qualified.

While the reversal of the trend in the educational enterprise at least could conceivably be enforced by the students and teachers themselves and thus be self imposed, the systematic withdrawal of tolerance towards regressive and repressive opinions and movements could only be envisaged, had envisaged envisaged enough to look that up as results of well, try to figure it out contexts as results of large scale pressure, which would amount

So corporations and media. Let's try to parse, parse all that together. I guess, to dumb it down. In a democratic system, there will never be any type of social upheaval that they haven't already approved of way ahead of time. What else is he trying to say? It's going to be the fortune five hundred corporations in the media, which are the most liberal and all so the most free enterprise. I don't mean free enterprise and like a libertarian context,

If that's what he's trying to say to you think we've seen that, Oh yeah, absolutely, it's default though, Yeah, against the emphatic insistence on the part of spokesmen for labor, I maintain that practices such as planned obsolescence, collusion between union leadership and management, slanted publicity are not simply imposed from above on a powerless rank and file, but are tolerated by them and by the consumer at large.

Yeah, we tolerate a lot.

However, it would be ridiculous to speak of a possible withdrawal of tolerance with respect to these practices and to the ideologies promoted by them, for they pertain to the basis on which the repressive, affluent society rests and reproduces itself and its vital defenses. Their removal would be that total revolution which this society so effectively repels.

Yeah, I mean again, I think what he's trying to say is our material condition is so good that they're willing to put up We are willing to put up with so much. When we will eventually reach that trip wire to where we chimp out, I don't know. But even now, however bad you might think it is, I think we still.

Have a while. Well. I mean, you were saying in twenty twenty that people aren't hungry yet.

Yeah, ye, people aren't hungry yet.

To discuss tolerance in such a society means to re examine the issue of violence and the traditional distinction between violent and nonviolent action. The discussion should not from the beginning be clouded by ideologies which serve the perpetuation of violence. Even in the advanced centers of civilization, violence actually prevails. It is practiced by the police, in the prisons and mental institutions, in the fight against racial minorities, it is carried.

Yeah, I would just gallons if if the general strike even approach entering the entering the modern discourse.

I mean when you every once in a while you'll see someone talk about it, it'll be like Caleb mop In and you just the people you would expect it to come from. But it's it's a I mean from the right.

Yeah, yeah, No, I mean as as blue collar as the rights become in the last you know, thirty years, you'll you'll never you'll never see a general strike because then you go.

Hungry, right, right, And we're not a grarian.

Nope, not anymore, we're not.

Nope. Robespierre's distinction between the terror of liberty and the terror of despotism, and his moral glorification of the former, belongs to the most convincingly condemned aberrations. Even if the white terror was more bloody than the Red terror. Yeah, well, I mean, who want to try and compare and see which one was more violent? I don't think we need

And it's each ideology's responsibility to capture either one of those terms.

First, I have seen people this week on social media and in comments that we actually read yesterday in the live stream we did for Old Glory Club where pro trands people, people who were actually celebrating what happened at that Christian school in Nashville were basically saying that they were the oppressed and that the government was the oppressor is still the oppressor to.

Them, They're yeah, I mean this is actually it's it's so perfect that we're reading this in the backdrop of that Nashville shooting.

Because you're seeing this in real life. Yeah, I mean, it's it's insane. It's been such a black pill to see just nobody, like even people that we would expect to have some type of strong take with it. Nothing, nothing except for the usual people like that that we see in our timeline that we expect, but man, it's been fucking it's just been disappointed.

I mean, I hope I made some sense last night, because you know, I'm one of those people who believes that trans people are victims. I believe they're victims of a campaign that, you know, just like any other campaign, the campaign for FIAT money, the campaign for wars and everything.

If tragedies like that are just, by the odds going to happen, then I I almost hope that the level of vitriol and shaden freud and just the opportunity, the opportunism that comes about from basically dancing on victim's grave, I almost hope that it drowns out rational voices. That's that's what needs especially on the internet.

Yeah, yeah, excelent accelerationism on the Internet is basically the default. There should be the default.

I I I don't like seeing it, and I don't I don't know if if there is a way to separate your internet self from your real life self and say that it's the complete fucking opposite. I'm I'm there. I don't know if I'm morally correct. I don't know if I'm going to burn an l for that, But.

Yeah, yeah, right. In terms of ethics, both forms of violence are inhuman and evil. But since when is history made in accordance with ethical standards? It's a great question. It's a question that I ask all the time when people try to make moral arguments with me. So what

Silence is violence.

But I mean, you see see people on our side too.

Yeah, I'm an ally.

You're an ally. That's great, all right. The very notion of false tolerance and the distinction between right and wrong, limitations on tolerance, between progressive and regressive indoctrination, revolutionary and reactionary violence, demand the statement of criteria for its validity. These standards must be prior to whatever constitutional and legal criteria are set up and applied in an existing society which has clear Yeah.

First principles shouldn't be my constitution, yep, orm due process.

Well, I mean, yeah, I remember the first person I really talked to who who said this was Arn McIntyre, and he said, look, if you got to write, if your society has to write stuff down, you've already lost. If you have to write your laws down, you've already lost.

Yeah. Who are you writing them down for?

Yeah? All right? So okay, read that whole thing again. These standards must be prior to whatever constitutional and legal criteria are set up and applied in an existing society, such as clear and present danger and other established definitions of civil rights and liberties. For such definitions themselves presupposed standards of freedom and repression as applicable or not applicable in the respective society. They are specifications of more general concepts.

Just democracy is just a bunch of interest groups fighting.

Yeah, it's it's whichever group of elites you win. Basically, the ironical question who educates the educators i e. The

Chazz, he's describing Chaz.

And Capistan and Japistan.

Yeah, autonomy and freedom.

Such a society does not yet exist anywhere in the means, and it never will. In the meantime, the question must be treated in an abstract though abstraction, not from the historical possibilities, but from the realities of the prevailing societies. So he's basically going to apply something that doesn't exist to reality. And as I think it was, Sam Francis said, channeling James Burnham, that never works because, and I will paraphrase, everybody thinks they have a plan till they get punched

Right now, we're getting into some Marxism.

They depend on the material and intellectual resources available at their respective stage, and they are quantifiable and calculable to a high degree. So are at the stage of advanced industrial society the most rational ways of using these resources and distributing the social product, with priority on the satisfaction vital needs, and with a minimum of toil and injustice.

Oh god, oh.

H, you knew it was coming. You knew it was coming.

Oh I was waiting for it so excited. I'm back, I'm back.

In other words, it is possible to define the direction in which prevailing institutions, policies, opinions would have to be changed in order to improve the chance of a peace which is not identical with cold war and a little hot war, and a satisfaction of needs which does not feed on poverty, oppression, and exploitation. Consequently, it is also possible to identify policies, opinions, movements which would promote this

It's power as a fixed pot, baby, and the Marxists wanted, I want it.

My My theory is that power is a power, is a constant, and it's just it's just being divvied up. Who divvs it up? Who gets the biggest piece? The question who is qualified to make all these distinctions, definitions, identifications for the society as a whole has now one logical answer, namely, namely everyone and the maturity of his faculties as a human being. Everyone who has learned to think rationally and autonomously. What about Yeah? Well what about

What they if your average country is plummeting?

What if this is Somalia? John Stewart Mill's conception of the of the rest publica is not the opposite of Plato's. The liberal, too, demands the authority of reason, not only as an intellectual but also as a political power. Huh okay, I was just thinking how the objective the objectivists all, you know, say they need a society based on reason, where the police would they would be the police would enforce reason. I'm not even kidding. I'm not even kidding.

Huh.

Imagine that the problem is not that of an educational dictatorship, but that of breaking the tyranny of public opinion and its makers in the closed society.

Yeah, I mean, public opinion can never really be organic, can it? Because public opinion is itself a weird, fucking nebulous idea.

Even if you broke it down to like Dunbar's number, the whatever natural elites or pastors are in that group, or who are going to make public opinion, you know, the they're they're going to be the leaders. Pretty much what people say about their governing style. Their governance is going to be coming. They're just going to be repeating what those men.

Are saying, yeah, more or less, or basing their opinions off of what they were taught from, you know, the progenitors of those men.

Yeah.

However, granted the empirical rationality of the distinction between progress and regression, and granted that it may be applicable to tolerance and may justify strongly discriminatory tolerance on political grounds, cancelation of the liberal creed of free and equal discussion. Another impossible consequence would follow. I say that, by virtue of its inner logic, withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements and discriminatory tolerance in favor of the progressive tendencies would

All right, now, he's on to something.

Yep.

The historical calculus of progress, which is actually the calculus of the perspective reduction of cruelty, misery suppression, seems to.

Such a vagina.

Read it again, The historical calculus of progress, which is actually the calculus of the perspective reduction of cruelty, misery, and suppression seems to involve the calculated choice between two forms of political violence, that on the part of the legally constituted powers, by their legitimate action or by their tacit consent or by their inability to prevent violence, and

I love it, We're getting taken on another wild ride. Why here's why you should throw your face into the brick being thrown at you.

With all the qualifications of a hypothesis based on an open historical record, it seems that the violence emanating from the rebellion of the oppressed classes broke the historical continue of injustice, cruelty, and silence for a brief moment, brief but explosive enough to achieve an increase in the scope of freedom and justice and a better and more equitable distribution of misery and oppression in a new social system. In one word, progress in civilization. Oh, I'm glad he's

That's a very generous interpretation.

With respect to historical violence emanating from among ruling classes. No such relations to progress seems to obtain the long series of dynastic and imperialist wars. The liquidation of Spartacus in Germany in nineteen nineteen. Fascism and Nazism did not break, but rather tightened than streamline the continuum of suppression. Really, I guess where that.

Did not break, but rather tightened in streamlined. Yeah, I don't get that. I don't get why he would describe Nazism as tightening and streamlined. Yeah, I guess lining the continuum of suppression.

Yeah.

But if he's if it's meant to be pejorative, then yeah, he's giving it more credit.

I said, emanating from among ruling classes. To be sure, there is hardly any organized violence from above that does not mobilize and activate mass support from below.

Oh all right, I see what he's saying.

The decisive question is on behalf of and in the interest of, which groups and institutions is such violence released?

I mean the National Socialist Party, I mean that's that's started as grassroots kind of street brawling, right, yeah, like it didn't really get well, I don't know were there's some like old old kaiser Reich types in it from the beginning.

Well, I mean they were all guys who fought world in World War One?

Yeah, yeah, But were they like aristocrats?

I mean there were a couple.

There were just a couple, not enough to characterize it as an aristocratic movement.

I would probably say there may have been a chance that there were more aristocrats in the KPD. Yeah, yeah, right. And the answer is not necessarily expost in the historical examples just mentioned. It could be and was anticipated whether the movement would serve the revamping of the old order or the emergence of the new liberating tolerance then would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left. Yes, absolutely.

Right.

There highlight that as to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance, it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, as well as of word.

And you're seeing that since twenty.

Fifteen, since he came down that escalator. Yeah, yep. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no. We talk about that, We talk about how people want to discount exactly. I mean, who cares. I mean, Trump didn't get anything done and couldn't get anything done, But that's not the point of Trump. That The point of Trump

I think if Trump were the most competent, most machiavellian politician, political actor, power player in the world, that he still would have wouldn't have been able to do anything.

Yeah.

They they started working on him from the second he blew away the primary debates.

Yeah.

Yeah, when when he acted like a like no one's ever seen in you know, in this lifetime and in many lifetimes, someone acts like that in a political debate in this country. When he started acting like that and the people responded to him positively, you know, when a certain group on the right responded to him positively, the right. But basically then they knew that there was something really good, and then brexits it was another thing. Yeah, but which

Yeah, I mean again, you could have the most the most ruthless, ruthless political actors, the highest caliber, and I think they still would have ended up like Trump, just as effective as Trump and breaks it. Yeah, they were, they were, They were ready. They had everything in order well before he posed a real threat or while before he've got formal power.

These people have been doing this for one hundred years. They're not stupid. Yeah, all right, let me start that one again. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance, it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda of deed, as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation the theater audience when somebody

He sounds like every jew on my timeline.

All right, let's keep going. The whole post fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication, in word, print and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only in the whole of a society. Only in the whole of a society is in extreme danger.

Yeah this once you declare a state of emergency, it never goes away.

Different opinions and philosophies can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds. The marketplace of ideas is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. Hey, I'm back, I'm here, I'm back, we're.

The description of the problem is spot on.

Yeah. Yeah. In this society for which the ideologists have proclaimed the end of ideology, the false consciousness has become the general consciousness, from the government down to its last subject objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped. Their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties, which grant constitutional powers to those who

Yes, all right, I'm rock hard again, look me gaining my sense of normalcy requires you losing yours.

That's exactly what it is.

And more and more people are having less and less problem telling people that, which is great because he's absolutely right. There is no rational discourse. There hasn't been for a while, and even when there was, it was artificial in every sense.

How can you have a rational discourse with people who are I mean, it used to be Oh it was someone on Oh, this is just someone on Twitter. Come on, just turn on the cable news.

All right, it's two channels.

Man.

There's a plu.

Right withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active in tolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, towards the self styled conservatives to the political right. These anti democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society, which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance.

Yeah, they're doing that right now. It's great.

The conditions under which tolerance can again become a liberating and humanizing force have still to be created. When tolerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, when it serves to neutralize opposition and to render men immune against other and better forms of life than tolerance has been perverted. I mean you're yeah, I agree, Yeah, I agree.

Only let's let's fucking let's rotate this. Yeah, one hundred and eighty degrees. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual in his consciousness, his needs when hetero, when hetero, when heteronom heteron heterononymous, heterononymous. Let's do that again.

And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual in his consciousness, his needs when heteronomymous interests occupy him before he can experience his servitude, than the efforts to counteract his dehumanity. Dehumanization. Dehumanization must begin at the place of entrance. There where the where the false consciousness takes form, or rather it's systematically formed. It must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this conscious.

That's right, that's why we're going to crack down on disinformation.

I see what you're saying.

Oh yeah, you know, planting the idea sees in people's head like that's bad and wrong and you shouldn't do it, And it goes from there. You go from there too. Now you're not allowed to do.

It, to be sure, this is censorship, even pre censorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media. Where the false consciousness has become prevalent and national and popular behavior, it translates itself almost immediately into practice. The safe distance between ideology and reality, repressive thought and repressive action, between the word of destruction

Going to ameliarize the escaton bro.

Today, they are hopelessly dispersed throughout the society, and the fighting minorities and isolated groups are often in opposition to their own leadership. In the society at large, the mental space for denial and reflection must first be recreated. Repulsed by the concreteness of the administered society the effort of

It's going to be a much more annoying world.

And this contradiction is not simply stipulated, is not simply the product of confused thinking or fantasy, but is the logical development of the given the existing world. To the degree to which this development is actually impeded by the sheer weight of a repressive society and the necessity of making a living in it, Repression invades the academic enterprise itself, even prior to all restrictions on academic freedom. The preempting

What would that look like nowadays?

Mean the academy scholarship, i e. The acquisition and communication of knowledge prohibits the purification and isolation of facts from the context of the whole truth. An essential part of the latter is recognition of the frightening extent to which history was made and recorded by and for the victors. That is, the extent to which history was the development of oppression.

Yeah, that needs to be changed, but uh, he'd be I think you would be extremely happy with how that's working out today.

Yeah, Oh, did you know that Marcuse was? I think he was Paul Gottfried's doctoral director.

I I believe that. Actually, Yeah, I haven't listened to Godfried and a long time. He must he must be like in his nineties now.

No, he's like eighty, he's eighty. But oh but he's sharp. Yeah. He was riding a bike like a year and a half ago and just got hit by a car and he's fine and he's like recovered and everything. And I mean that guy's not That guy's not going anywhere man, all right. An essential part of the latter is recognition of the frightening extent to which history was made and recorded by and for the victor. That is, to the

Yeah, hell yeah, facts don't care about your feelings. Oh yeah, face the wall.

All right.

To treat the great Crusades against humanity with the same impartiality as the desperate struggles for humanity means neutralizing their opposite historical function, reconciling the executioners with their victims, distorting the record. Such spurious neutrality serves to reproduce acceptance of the dominion of the victors in the consciousness of man.

So getting back to last episode, no, actually, an objective, an objective overview of history is not good.

Actually yep. Here too, in the education of those who are not yet maturely integrated in the mind of the young, the ground for liberating tolerance is still to be created.

That's right, children are our future.

Education offers Still another example of spurious abstract tolerance in the guise of concreteness and truth. It is epitomized in the concept of self actualization, from the permissiveness of all sorts of license to the child to the constant psychological concern with the personal problems of the student. A large scale movement is underway against the evils and repression and the need for being oneself.

Frequently self heavily medicated in all times.

Frequently brushed aside is the question as to what has to be repressed before one can be a self oneself. The individual potential is first a negative one, a portion of the potential of his society of aggression, guilt, feeling, ignorance, resentment, cruelty,

This process involves at each stage SSRIs.

This process involves at each stage, to use the ridiculed terms which here reveal their succinct concreteness, the negation of the negation, mediation of the intermediate. An identity is no more and no less than this process. These people so much. Alienation is the constant and essential element of identity, the objective side of the subject, and not as.

We identify ourselves through alien through what we are alienated from.

For the most part, alienation is the constant and essential element of identity, the objective side of the subject, and not as it is made to appear today, a disease of psychological condition. Freud Well knew the difference between progressive and regressive, liberating and destructive repression the publicity of self actualization promotes the removal of the one and the other. It promotes existence in that immediacy, which in a repressive

Thats mite bark.

It isolates the individual from the one dimension where he could find himself, from his political existence, which is at the core of his entire existence.

This is why I fucking hate Frankfurt School because it is basically just Freud and it's all German. So you can you can take probably two thirds of the sentences that we read so far and just delete them, and then the remaining third is what he was actually trying to say.

Freud Yaqui does some destruction of Freud in part one of Imperium that is beautiful and is just a map and unbelievable takedown. Instead, it encourages nonconformity and letting go in ways which leave the real engines of repression in the society entirely intact, which even strengthened these engines by substituting the satisfactions of private and personal rebellion for a more than private and personal and therefore more authentic opposition.

Oh God.

The desublimation involved in this sort of self actualization is itself repressive inasmuch as it weakens the necessity and the power of the intellect, the catalytic force of that unhappy consciousness, which does not revel in the archetype, in the archetypal personal release of frustration, hopeless resurgence of the id, which will sooner or later succumb to the omnipresent rationality of the administered world, but which recognizes the horror of the

It's he just fucking freuded up. God, I can't do it so bad.

Oh oh.

The TV show Mash used to push Freud. They would bring on this, It would bring on this psychologist every once in a while, Sydney, you know, try member. Oh yeah, and he would he was like writing letters to Freud. He was constantly like, you know, talking, quoting Freud. And it's just like, oh God, that show was so bad. It was. It was great in the first couple of seasons.

All right, he's he's back to being somewhat understandable.

The results is an objective contradiction between the economic and political structure on the one side, and the theory and practice of toleration on the other.

I can get down with that.

The altered social structure tends to weaken the effectiveness of tolerance towards dissenting and oppositional movements and to strengthen conservative and reactionary forces.

Knowing what we know now, not so much.

Equality of tolerance becomes abstract spurious with the actual decline of dissenting forces in the society. The opposition is insulated in small and frequently antagonistic groups who even were tolerated within the narrow limits set by the hierarchical structure of society are powerless while they keep within their limits, I mean one hundred percent.

He's describing the right.

Well, yeah, yeah, but the tolerance shown to them is deceptive and promotes coordination and on the firm foundations of a coordinated society all but closed against qualitative change. Tolerance itself serves to contain such change rather than to promote it. Yeah, I mean, this is just more chomps what Chompsky eventually really starts talking about.

I forget who the organizer was, but the guy that started Lollapalooza back in nineteen ninety one and originally intended it to be like this.

Was it Perry Farrel? Was it for Perry fell from Jamee's addiction or was it someone else?

I think it was somebody else. I'm pretty sure it was a Jewish guy.

But uh, it was a Jewish guy.

All right, Maybe maybe it was him. I don't remember his name, but within like it started in nineteen ninety one, By nineteen ninety two, there were t shirt kios selling selling t shirts for like twenty three dollars, which at the time was ridiculous, and the bands weren't allowed to undercut. There were you know, you weren't allowed to bring blankets in because they wanted to charge you for their own plank.

I was at one, two and three. Yeah. Yeah, the first year was great. The first year was fantastic. Yeah. After that it was just like, yeah, I mean.

It still looked great, Like looking at the videos from back in the day, it still looked amazing.

But well the bands were great and everything. But you know, it's just like, yeah, but it did. It was like it was sort of like it sort of wanted it to be like the Agora. Yeah. Yeah, but I mean it just yeah, yeah, I mean ten dollars waters and stuff like that. Eventually within a year. But the tolerance shown to them as acceptive and promotes coordination and on the firm foundation of a coordinator society all but closed

These yeah, think of lollapalooza, these things.

Yeah, and I just looked it up real quick. They do. At least Wikipedia calls Perry Ferrell the founder. These same conditions render the critique of such tolerance abstract and academic, and the proposition that the balance between tolerance, the tolerance towards the right and toward the left, would have to be radically redressed in order to restore the liberating function

Well, I mean, if you ask any liberal what their ideal, I mean, where their definition of tolerances it would they would probably say that it includes you know, movements, subversive movements, which is, you know, in and of itself leftist and anti rightist. No, it is you know. They would also say that they would tolerate, you know, activism towards a return to tradition and a return to uh you know, homogeneity and all that, but only up to a point where you used to Hitler.

Well, well, I mean you you're a an iron kingdom. More so in the twenties, the existing government and Hindenburg and everything was I mean, they were tolerance of the left, but they were more aligned with the right.

Yep.

So the the real revolution you would call the real revolutionaries would be coming from the left, and that would be the k KPD.

Yep.

There is not there cannot be any such right for any group or individual against the constitutional government sustained by a majority of the population. But I believe that there is a natural right of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extra legal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate.

All right, you heard him, did he?

I mean, but I wonder what he would when he's looking at this, if he were to see, now, what would his opinion be of what is happening and the fact that it's actually promoted from on high.

Yeah, I mean you could probably there's probably more than a handful of people that are directly influenced by Marcuse on the left that you could kind of see that they're in lockstep with whatever they're told to be Yep. Whether that's whether they're doing it grudgingly or whether they're skeptical, I don't know.

Law and order are always in everywhere, the law and order which protect the established hierarchy. It is nonsensical to invoke the absolute authority of this law and this order against those who suffer from it and struggle against it, not for personal advantages and revenge, but for their share of humanity. There is no other judge over them than

Yeah, that's right.

Hold on, someone send me it, Ryan Dawson Bell, Well, let me read that again, because that's that's a good one. If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence, but try to break an established one.

Does that mean violence is permissible in all instances?

Well, only from one group, I'm sorry, since they will be punished, they know the risk and when they are willing to take it. No third person, and least of all the educator and intellectual, has a right to to preach them abstention.

Hey, I mean to their credit, like actual Marxists, actual communists have no problem calling calling the pacifist a liberal.

Yeah yeah, oh yeah, I mean yeah, what was that that one piece of graffiti that was making it around Liberals get the rope too, Yeah yeah, I had with a hammer and sickle on it.

Yeah.

Yeah. If only there were more of them like that.

You know, it's a lot of people from our side came to understand just how useless and actually dangerous liberalism and classical liberalism is from like from neo reactionary, from like Italian elitists and everything. And I think we both came to it from like reading Lenin. Yeah we can't. We finished reading Lenin and we're like, oh, oh, those guys kind of go those guys are useless. Those guys they're not only useless, they're kind of productive. Holy shit.

Yeah, oh atross around our neck.

So what do you what do you think of this one?

That was good? I I I love getting into uh, getting into dialectical materialism. I hate Freud, and I love that he finally he finally said it. We need to tolerate violence from the left, and we need to not tolerate violence from the right.

Yeah, I mean I would rather they just speak the truth. I mean, that's the Yeah, it's a great thing about people in the Frankfurt school and you know Marxist Leninis. They they're going to tell you exactly, You're not going to question what they believe. Yeah, yep. Where you know people who may have more right wing tendencies than say like Glenn Beck, I have to hide them because yeah they uh yeah, yeah, because.

They get their their material material condition is contingent on pleasing their liberal overlords.

Yeah, classical liberal overlords and neo liberal overlords.

Yep, don't get canceled.

And it's you know, it's I understand why Owen Benjamin went out there and he has eighty chickens and ten goats and all these cows and everything like that.

He is.

Everything. If it all got taken away from him, even if he couldn't spend paper, still live, still survive. Yeah.

Yeah. I Actually, my my cousin who's in my in my wedding party, he texted me today is like, hey, man, like, should I start thinking about like you know, forming alliances and like getting to know my neighbors and stalking up on Ammo? Because thanks right now? Really fucked and I don't know how high or drunk he was at the time, but I was like, man, we'll be fine, Like, we will be fine.

You didn't want to you don't want to break it to them.

Well, that's that's the uh, that's the difference between online me and real life met. I know that at least where I'm at, I have a good support network I have. I'm pretty secure in my Uh. It's like ship would really have to go down for me to be in any any real danger of starvation or going to jail or anything like that, which it may very well, but at the end of the day, I'll be fine.

Mh.

I think. I think if you're watching this show, you already kind of have that in your in your mind. You know, the the the trip wires that need to happen before you start really freaking out. And I don't think we're there yet.

No, No, we're not there yet, but I know what it looks like.

Yeah, exactly, Yep.

To study, if anybody wants to go study, don't ask me for book recommendations. Steady Yugoslavia sided places like that, Yep.

I mean we can draw a lot on history and we can kind of you know, parse things out a priority with everything that's going on right now, you know, foreign policy wise, domestically. But I think by and large, if you're not in a highly populated urban area that with you know, less than favorable demographics, you'll probably be fine.

Yep, yep, working on Uh even where I am right now is a little too much for me. Working on getting out Yep. We're going to get a little more. Yeah, h the potential place. You're gonna have to know exactly where that is to even find it.

It looks amazing.

Yeah yeah, oh man, But all right, why don't you talk about t L E or whatever you want to talk about.

I don't want to talk about t Luck. Those guys.

Those guys are there's something wrong with them sometimes. Yeah, this is one episode they got Donald Trump on there and like Tucker Harles, the weirdest thing I've ever heard.

I'll give your audience a stick peek where we're going to get to the manisphere. Oh my god, we're gonna be talking about the linear man doing everything in a straight line.

At least it'll be straight all right, man, Thank you very much, thanks for having me. Thank Gar