Herman Hops book Democracy the God that Failed, natural order and Monarchy being superior to democracy and I think it was Churchill that quipped something along the lines of its democracy is what the best system we have or something and Hop obviously disagrees with that. I think that any system it has the capability of being an object failure at the bottom.
At the bottom of everything is engagement and you know, every system has its pros and it's cons, but if there's some fundamental principles that aren't understood by the general population and the general population can always be exploited, I think I think it's fair to say that certain governmental systems or certain societal systems are more prone to that than others. Perhaps or or at least safeguards aren't in place, but but plenty of times in the past
we have. There's plenty of historical context for systems that have had protections in place and, and those have systematically been sort of chipped away at until they don't exist anymore or they're ignored. And so, you know, it's, I think that the fundamental issue here is, is education and, and an understanding of what natural law is, what natural principles are. And that's something that isn't taught. And because of that, of course, we leave ourselves open to all
kinds of exploitation. I if I can just go back one to the idea of democracy as it's presented now. I don't think anybody sincerely suggests that the form of democracy that is exposed in the modern Western world has any anything to say about democracy, to suggest that it's a good system, unless they're actively trying to use that system to control the people within it and to make money out of it. I mean that that is effectively what it is.
I don't, I don't think any serious political philosopher over the ages has ever put forward democracy as we now regard it as being a sensible system by which people should live their lives. And, and when 1 looks at the way it's rolled out, well, the way it's practiced in societies like the United Kingdom or United States. And then the suggestion that that model should be sort of gifted to countries that are in say South Asia or the Middle
East is, is totally absurd. I would say because the in supposedly enfranchising people, in actual fact, all you're doing is imposing a system of daylight robbery. We were talking about the National Health Service on the news, most recent news Extra program that Mike and I were on together. And people obviously have different views about it. And I don't want to get dragged down that rabbit hole. But the fact of it is that the, the, the National Health Service costs over £200 billion every
year now and for what? You know, but, but that would not be possible without the system of supposed democracy that we have now, which is in effect saying, well, you know, you get to vote and because of that, we're going to take all your money. So that's a, that's a pretty bad place to start going towards the, the idea of, of monarchy. Again, I would suggest that it's a, it's a false binary.
And I have to be careful what I say here because of the way in which we're covering the devolution agenda. But to my mind, the idea of a population as large as that of the United Kingdom, which is approaching, as far as we're aware, about 70 million people, the idea that that number of people should be under control is not the right word perhaps, but but under the government or governance of one individual is
again, ridiculous. So, so the the suggestion that it's either a sort of representative democracy, which of course it isn't, or that one person can in any way have some sort of oversight or consideration for or regard for that number of people, again is ridiculous. Unless there is actually a system that operates consistent
with that. So, so that at at every lower level there is a coherent system by which people receive the benefit of the monarch's benevolence or wisdom or whatever it should be. But of course we don't have that. We have a monarch and then nothing in effect. I know I'm oversimplifying and and not actually actually representing the situation, but
it but it doesn't correspond. So I think that I think both systems have enormous problems and, and loathe as I am to bring him into the conversation this early, Yuval Noah Harari, Klaus Schwab, sort of jack-in-the-box academic bloke has he's written extensively and I would say quite coherently about some things, definitely not very coherently about others.
But one of the things he talks about is societal groupings and the idea that 150 people represents the approximate maximum for having a, a, a structure within which relationships between people can work effectively without, without there being all the ills that are associated with democracy. So that's that those are some of my thoughts on on the the, you know, the the answers that are presented, but I don't think any of them are actually answers.
I think I'll, I'll just add a little bit to that if I could. So the United Kingdom, let's say Britain is. And in fact, others would even argue that it's not even Britain, that it's England is, was never a democracy. It was a constitutional monarchy and the role of the monarch is 1 of this is one of these instance where instances where the role of the monarchy has been changed over the years and subverted in fact by the occupants of the role in many cases as well.
I mean, if I, if we look back through post Battle of Hastings history of, of England, actually there aren't too many kings or Queens of, of England that we can say did a good job. Henry the 7th is one that I think did a good job. Queen Anne while she lived did mostly a good job.
But the role of the monarch was to and once, once we became a constitutional monarchy was to, was to do that, to uphold the constitution and act as a, as a, a limit on the excesses of, of Parliament. And that's something that has been long since forgotten by the current incumbents of the, of
the position. So, so I've, I've, from a constitutional point of view, I've been quite in favour of monarchy in the UK, not at all in favour of the royal family because because they are not doing the job.
And in fact, they're too, they're so caught up in their own personal political imaginations, particularly around environment and climate change and these kinds of things, that they long since forgotten what the role supposed to be. So, you know, and, and it's the same in the United States, OK, Their, their constitution was created, as you say, and didn't sort of develop naturally, but it, but it, it was created out of what they perceive to be the
best aspects of, you know, constitutions in Britain and France in particular, which, which you could argue developed naturally over for hundreds of years. But all the protections that, that, that constitution that, you know, when the founding fathers wrote that constitution, they put protections in to, to try to limit the ability of, of future governments and future federal powers to, to the kinds of excess that they were likely, that they perceived they were
likely to, to enter into. And those limitations have been systematic, as I say, systematically chipped away at in both countries in the UK and in the United States. So that they don't, they don't basically exist anymore in the constitutions of both countries are ignored.
And of course in Britain, the constitution is ignored because, because people say there isn't 1, because it was because it's not in one place and it's, it's complex and it's hard to follow and so on. But of course, something which has developed and evolved over, you know, since basically certainly 1000 years is, is naturally going to be complex and difficult to, to understand, but that doesn't make it wrong.
So no, we, we just, we, we got to remember, we don't, we shouldn't, we don't live in a democracy. And the, the term democracy is, I think we've sort of mentioned this is, I think we, we can say it is 180° from what it should
be really, as Charles has said. So, you know, lots of people are, are looking at, at monarchy as being something dangerous because it's far in the hands of one person, but not necessarily it can be the role of the monarchy as supposed to be in the UK is, is one of, you know, being aware of what the limitations are on, on the executive in the country and, and protecting the people from that. And that is that's in the coronation oath and consistently ignored by monarch after monarch.
So, you know, upholding the laws and customs of the country is something that that, that is the core role of, of king or queen. It's been adhered to for a long time. At the risk of falling into the logical fallacy of the No True Scotsman argument, you know this. There hasn't been a real democracy or there hasn't been a real monarchy, but still striving towards something is better than simply, you know, brushing it aside. A monarchy is superior historically to democracy.
And I think the, the sort of idea that the monarchies are just sort of this King Joffrey idea from Game of Thrones where the king just wants to kill everybody. I mean, it's, it's, it's more, that's more in the realm of fantasy than, than reality. Because if you think of natural order emerging, like you'll have a, a family that settles on a piece of ground and they decide they're going to farm it a bit. And as it expands slightly, they might need a bit of help.
And so they'll get some, some people from the neighboring town or something to come and help them. They'll might, they might offer them some perks to stay on the property. And then over time it builds and it becomes something, but it still belongs to the the family,
the the farmer himself. Yeah. But historically, if we look at, at the, the history of all this, we've seen a number of styles of monarchy in the, in England, for example, we've seen the, I mean, this is probably an oversimplification, but nonetheless, it gives, it gives an idea. You know, we've seen the sort of really unpleasant dictatorial monarchy that, that believes that they own everything and, and therefore they are in complete control and, and can do what they like.
And they are the sort of King Joffrey figure from Game of Thrones. We have seen that in the past. And we've also seen weak monarchs that are totally manipulable and, and you end up actually with more or less the same type of outcome. Henry the Eighth would be a great example of that. You know, the, the people around him played him left, right and centre over the fact that he
couldn't have children. And, and you know, you sort of see an expression of, of, of how he was totally subverted in his own mind by this. There's a, there's a, if you go to the Tower of London, there's a suit of armor from Henry the Eighth's later life. And, and it's got this massive bulge in the crotch area because, because he was clearly trying to imply that he was an extremely virile person and, and that he was, he still was able to, to do it sort of thing.
But that just to me, when I saw that it's, it's, there's, it came across to me as someone who was actually quite from a mental health point of view, not quite all there that he needed to, to make that kind of demonstration. And so he was completely manipulated in many ways by many, many people.
And, and on the other hand, as I say, we have had some strong leadership from from monarchs, Henry the 7th being a good example of it. So, you know, it's, it's a bit of a lottery with with what you end up with at the same time.
So I take all your points. You're absolutely right that, that that type of thinking is something that that is a feature of monarchy, but it relies on person occupying the post, being able to, to think that way and to having the, the personal strength to, to, to, to, to fall through on it and, and not fall into the sort of psychopathic hold that we've seen from many monarchs over the centuries. I think Louis the 15th was also
considered fairly weak. Maybe I I can't quite recall actually, but but what I would like to say, first of all, I'm feeling a bit left out because I don't even know what Game of Thrones is. But I do have. I do have another. It's a it's a detective story. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's not get into that. But, but, but I do have a, a cultural reference which I think the audience will engage with on a far more profound level. Let's say now I disagree with you.
I, I don't think that that's a monarchy or a monarch does in fact conform to the idea of the natural order. I don't, I don't think that a monarch does come naturally. And what I would like to do is go back because you're, you're specifically talking about property and land ownership and people belonging to a particular bit of ground or the ground belonging to the people. And I think, I think it's a
very, very interesting thing. And I my belief is in fact that this rot, as I would describe it, started with the agricultural revolution, the first of many agricultural revolutions in that people had, as they still do in quite a lot of parts of the world. The world moved according to where there was food exactly like migratory birds or animals do, and there was no problem with that and quite how it came about. Obviously I can't explain
because I wasn't there. But what happened was that people who had existed on harvesting fruits and other things that were available at particular places, particular times and otherwise off animal products by and large. OK, I'm, I'm way oversimplifying, but, but, but taking advantage of, of what was there were convinced that their lives could be different if they started to eat slightly
different things, mostly grains. And I don't want to get drawn into some of the stuff that we've talked about in previous weeks. But if you look at where the, you know, human health, where we have concerns, it's very interesting to look back to the genesis of, of that in terms of agriculture being a system by which we, we control what we eat rather than the other way around.
So, so there's, there's that side of it, but but what that means is that immediately you're creating an artificial system. You're, you're trying to make land do something that it wasn't actually planning to do. And that persists today. And I think that's something that needs to be questioned. I appreciate we are where we are and we do have a certain number of people that need food and you can't just change overnight.
So, but still, I do think to go back to the point at which this changed is, is incredibly significant because the moment you do put people in the same place and ask them to try to exist in a particular way, then with that comes a loss of liberty and an ability to control. And it's, it was exactly the same sales pitch then as it is now, which which concerns productivity, which is, well, look, if you grow this stuff now, then you can produce a
surplus. So. OK, Yeah, OK. We'll produce a surplus. And then and then we'll then we'll produce more children. And then they, they, they will help us work and then they consume the surplus. And you, you see where this is going. And it continues and it
continues. And so to get to my cultural reference, which I've been absolutely itching to get into one of these banter sessions, I'd like to quote Australia's premier philosopher, Michael J Crocodile Dundee, because he's asked when, when he takes Sue Charlton that into the Bush in the first film, she asks him about all sorts of issues that he's concerned with. And he, he doesn't really have any axes to grind. And she says, OK, what about, what about land rights? What about the, the, the
Aboriginals claim to the land? And he says, no, well, that's not how the Aborigines see it. They, they, they believe that they belong to the land. So the analogy he gives is saying, you know, who who owns the land would be like 2 fleas arguing over who, who owns the dog they live on.
And I know that seems glib, but actually that that goes right to the heart of it. And this idea that you can demarcate an area and say that it's yours gives somebody else the potential to try to muscle in or to use that as leverage or what, Whatever it is. The point is that it's only from that that you can enter into any kind of situation where monarchy can be proposed or suggested or or or to come about.
Whereas if, if people were still largely migratory pneumatic, for example, you can see that clans and family groupings would develop, but there would be no need for anything more than that because you don't need the structure. Because you haven't constrained yourself by this rigid association with a particular plot of land and, and a particular way of life that you're trying to force onto the land rather than the other way around.
I just think I, I don't want to totally divert the conversation, but I, I just think it's a really important point to make that we have gone so far down the track that we've sort of forgotten in, in a way, when we're talking about the natural order, we have actually forgotten what the natural order really means. Well, let me, let me ask you something about that then, because if we look at Indigenous people in the, in what is now the United States or Canada, and
they lived that way as well. But those clans eventually grew big enough that they ended up or centuries at war with each other over. Well over what is it over natural resources? Was it over the right to be on a particular piece of landed time and, and, and get access to the animals and the fruits and so on, and they could get access to so at that point that once you're once you're, is that not a natural? Was that not a natural a result
of natural progression? And, and therefore they had, you know, their, their nations became larger than just family sized and they ended up with the chief. So there seemed to be a natural development of a head of the, you know, equivalent of a monarch of, of the tribe. And the tribe is much bigger than a single family or a single clan. So. So does that not sort of suggest that that the argument you've made is only correct up to a point?
Yeah, I'm sure, I'm sure it is. And I, I mean, I, I certainly don't know enough about that period of history to be able to give a, an objective viewpoint on it, because one wonders what, what other factors, what other influences there, there may have been, which may or may not have been accurately recorded in history. And I think with any society that that has a well, and for any tradition of history, it's, it's always very difficult to determine exactly what has has
brought about what. So I, I don't know is the honest answer, but I, but no, I absolutely take the point that yes, you are right. There has of course been conflict. And I, and I'm not, I'm not suggesting that there wasn't and I'm not suggesting that that hasn't meant that there'd been larger, larger groupings made.
But I think still to, to go back to the point that that therefore a country, I mean, you know, even then we're still talking about groups of people that by and large considered that they could go wherever they wanted to go. And, and if there were competition for the resources that were in that place, then that would result in conflict and quite possibly, as you say, would result in larger groupings
of people. But it's, but I, I don't know, it's, I mean, it's, it's a, it's a bit of a chicken and egg argument. But I, I suppose one thing that I've found fascinating, and I know this is, this is different. It's absolutely not to the point, but I think a lot of, if we look at a lot of the history of what we, what we regard as tribes in Africa and, and the way in which they have been either in conflict with one another or, or controlled or, or
whatnot. That shouldn't be disassociated from the beginnings of the colonial period where the initial control mechanism was exactly to manipulate and change the clan and family groupings in order to form what subsequently became known as tribes. So I think we have it's, it's very easy to have a have a very sort of blurred view of, of that period of history. But but As for North America, I, I, I don't know. Yeah, I know it's a, it's a very good point. And and and.
At what point any of this did start to change, I don't know. I I just say that the other thing, Jeremy, is don't want to necessarily take this conversation down a blind alley. But, but you know, if we're talking about natural order and we're talking about what is natural, I, I do wonder about this whole discussion about humans, human activity and what's natural and what's artificial.
When you know, if, if we say that we are natural in the sense we've we've evolved over time to, to what we are, just at what point did it become normal to to assume that everything that we produce is somehow artificial because it came out of our brands which are natural. So, so I don't know whether you want to go in that direction, but I think this is this would be worth having a quick discussion about. I'd be interested in Charles's view on that.
Let me just quickly apologize. I have some serious rain coming onto my roof, so if it's coming through, it's my turn this time. You might as well just blame me. I always come back to a farming scenario, an agricultural setting, because that is the heart of of civilization. It is farming and everything that's built on top of that is effectively centred around the agricultural setting. Of course now as we head towards sort of like a technocratic future, agriculture's on the
outskirts. It's no longer the centre. Yeah, well, yes, I I just to sort of split hairs. I mean, is it actually a farm or is it is it a source of food? Because it's quite fascinating How if if say, 1 takes the the incredible range of documentary series that David Attenborough has produced over the years and how as time has progressed, the climate change narrative has been woven more and more into his script and, and and actually has become the only point of
producing any of his stuff. As far as I'm Sam's in the the most recent thing. But I do remember watching one of I think one of his things quite recently, or it might not have been documentary, but anyway, he was suggesting he was talking about it. It it was actually not dissimilar to what Alan Savory talks about in, in in terms of rehabilitating desolate plains or areas of land that have have had major vegetation loss and rehabilitating them via
livestock. I mean, not necessarily what we might regard as domesticated livestock, but but but with animals. And Attenborough makes the same point, except that he is specifically saying, and then that's it, they must never be touched.
But of course, at the point going back to the, the sort of early days that we're talking about where there were animals there, which people would have eaten, but in such a fashion that there would have been no harm to that population in terms of its ability to maintain its levels or indeed increase its levels. And if, if they increase to a certain point, then presumably some of that herd or the entire
herd would have moved elsewhere. But of course with Attenborough now it's, that's not how you regard it. It's just sort of, it just keeps going, keeps going, keeps going. And humans never get the the benefit of it. So, so it's, yes, a source of food because I, I think for us to imagine that food can only come from, from agriculture, as in practices where we are controlling the meat or plant resources. I think is, is wrong.
When you look at, OK, I, I live in, in the countryside, but there is so much food that is just there without you having to do anything about it. So why on earth do we ignore all of that? So, so I sorry, I don't mean to, to be too pedantic. I mean, I do mean to be quite pedantic, but not too pedantic, hopefully. Because I, the, the reason I mentioned it is just, you know, again, it's this, this whole idea of natural and the difference between, well, if, if we can do it, is it natural?
And so this is the we're introducing the idea of cooperation really because of course, your city state you've just referred to and that that cannot work unless some people are going to do such and such a thing in order that other people are fed. I mean, otherwise, why on earth would you go and live in a, in a city? I mean, there's OK, there will be a little bit of food given what I've just said, but there will basically be no food. So, so that's a that's an element of it.
And I think this is what Ben Rubin and Will Keats recent discussion on this issue on on the natural order was, was fascinating in bringing out the this idea that in effect you may do absolutely anything until such point as it impacts on somebody else's life. But of course, the twin aspect of that is this idea of cooperation.
But the, but the, the reason that, that all that food that you're talking about is left on the trees, as it were, is because comes back to the original point of engagement by people, because people want to just sit in front of the television and be entertained rather than take an active role in their lives. The reason that systems of government collapse into corruption and, and, and despotic treatment of individuals is because individuals make the wrong choices.
And you know, if food is being left on on bushes and then breeze that's, that's growing naturally and it's available, it's because we don't want to spend our time doing that. We want to spend our time watching Game of Thrones. Yeah, well, this is it. And, and you know, this goes back to whether it be a constitutional monarchy or some variant of democracy or whatever. Effectively, there's there's always two different things.
There's, there's the, the system as we find it and as we can fault it over the years, or there's the system as you can design it on paper, which as the jokes always go about socialism or communism, it, it, it never ever works out like that. But does that mean that we should stop aspiring to be able to, to do it? And and that relates exactly to the production and consumption of food and, and indeed this whole idea of whether something is natural because it's
possible. I mean, look what what Hop was ultimately arguing is that a democratic system is a artificially designed and imposed B unsustainable because every democratic government becomes susceptible to being infiltrated, being bought, being manipulated because the president doesn't have a long term interest. He's only rent seeking for four or five years or whatever. I think these are all fair points.
And I think, I think that that, you know, it's certainly and implies that if you accept those points, it implies that that for the reasons you've just suggested, monarchy is superior to democracy. And I think one of the limitations of the conversation that we've had so far is that we're well, aside from the, the discussion of indigenous peoples, we've, we've been focusing on Western leadership and no one country that we haven't considered so far.
We're talking about big populations as China. You know, that that society has up up until the Cultural Revolution existed as an empire with emperors for thousands of years, very successfully. And not just as a not just as a, an empire that that within itself, but a trading empire.
And although the Western financial interests from, you know, once the Silk Road got going, once a certain financial interest from Italy started trying to take advantage of of that trade, nonetheless, they were largely successful in what they were doing. But but it was interesting that, you know, China clearly as as big as it was historically, decided that it didn't need to be any bigger.
So they built a wall with a view of with a view of, of keeping people out, But of course, that also made it difficult for them to expand any further than the wall. So, so you know, these China's an interesting, I think that that we should know much more about the history of China and how it's been governed over the years and having a look at it.
And I don't know enough about it, so I'm not going to try to wax lyrical about it. But you know, we something we should be looking at and seeing what the what the good aspects and undoubtedly bad aspects of that were over the centuries. I think it's a very good point. I was thinking about China also, and I think Japan in fact, in fact, you're right. Some of the non Western countries have very different historical structures of of hierarchy, which is what you're
alluding to earlier. Charles about culture playing a massive role. The whole world can't be run in the same way. That's absolutely obvious. I mentioned earlier Louis the 15th. I think it was Louis the 16th who ended up triggering the French Revolution and look at France now. Yeah, but the French resolution, it was really two revolutions. They had. They had a revolution, began as a revolution that was, you know, an intent much more like what
the American Revolution became. And then was the Jacobin terror took over the show and we ended up with, you know, France ended up chopping the head. So you had you sort of headed at this few minutes ago. They chopped with heads off anybody that had an intellect or a brain. And so you ended up absolutely with people that didn't really know anything about anything setting the rules. And, and so, you know, France, modern France and modern French bureaucracy is, is the result of that.
And anybody that spent any kind of time there knows how absolutely appalling that can be. And of course France exported that to, to other countries, you know, North Africa and Lebanon and so on and, and Syria and, and yeah, they exported that, that way of doing government which, which anybody that's lived there. And Vanessa will tell you what, what those countries can be like in terms of just trying to get things done.
So you know what what how the French Revolution ended up and and what came afterwards is a good example of of when you when sort of the the the populist mob ends up taking control. It doesn't necessarily work. But there is a pattern with you mentioned China a moment ago and the states is similar. As soon as you have a population that is very big, that goes beyond a certain size, what happens naturally? They start federalizing. I think, I think direction of
travel is important here. I think if as populations grow and they self organize bottom up, then then you know, you choose if you're, if you're, you know, if you're sensible and clever about this as as a group of people, you will choose the best people to be taking on the sort of leadership role. The difficulty comes, as we're seeing in the UK with this so-called devolution process, when, when the efforts to, to create these structures come top down.
And, and that, that is when you start to see the autocracy coming along and saying, right, don't worry, This is all about bringing democracy to the local level and making sure that you get to no, no, that's not how it works. This is about bringing centralized control to the local level and making sure that at locally the central controller
has the right puppet in place. I, I, I don't know enough about the development of China to know if that's how that those structures actually were created and, and what the effect on the ground is historically. That's something that I would like to know a lot more about, but I think that's an important distinction when we're talking about how how federalised structures are created. Timing also is another factor.
I mean, I can't remember if it's meant to be ascribed to one particular Chinese diplomat or whether it's just sort of the Chinese view. But but the, the, so the story goes within the last in a couple of decades, a Chinese diplomat was asked at a state event, a state banquet I think in, in the UK, who's asked his opinion of the front of the results of the French Revolution. And his, his reply was that it
was too early to tell. And it's, it's sort of often reported as though ha, ha, ha. It's a, you know, it's a funny one. It's not funny. I mean, I, I think it's completely serious. And we, I'd say we all these societies that we talk about, whether they be defined by the idea of an ethnicity or nationhood or, or a state, they're all at different points in the various cycles they go through.
And I think that's a really important point to make because yes, I would agree with you that there you can absolutely point to examples to reinforce your point about a federalist approach to this, that and the other. I would say that what we're seeing in the United Kingdom at the moment is being sold as that, but completely mis sold. It's it's absolutely the opposite.
And the point about society, let's say in in the UK is that we are at yeah, you know, we're at a certain stage of this iteration of our civilization, if you, if you will. That means that we are prone to or unable to do or, you know, the, the conditions are set for something that that they may not be ripe for in even France or China or the United States.
And I think there's some very interesting, I mean, there's something I would like to look at more, but the but to look at the indicators, you know, what are the associated factors with the sorts of things that we're talking about? And one of the things that springs to mind, which again, I would like to investigate much more fully, is the you're talking about culture, but particularly the way it
expresses itself in art form. And this is something that Camille Paglia, the academic who who who's been controversial over the years, but this is something she talks about a lot, how the art of the civilization indicates at what point that is. And there's every suggestion that are certainly British, Western, whatever civilization is absolutely reaching an end point. Not not, I'm not saying the end, but but an end point in this cycle because of the way that
this art expresses itself. And she says typically that it brings out themes of, say, androgyny or the idea that the male form is somehow pathetic as, as compared with, say, the types of sculpture that Michelangelo was producing, you know, of, of strapping muscular men and that kind of thing. So it's, it's just those sorts of things are are really interesting, not taken in isolation, but looked at alongside. All the sorts of things that are happening politically in civilizations.
And we talked about this the other week, actually, I was talking about Brits getting tattoos of stuff that they just simply don't understand. Whereas if you think, you know, let's look at the former Soviet Union countries where there is still this ideal of the sort of perfect specimen. I mean, the propaganda posters which go back many years and, and are in a way sort of laughable, but actually they do
still mean something. And I think we've gone way beyond that now in, in the UK. So, and, but I think all these things are really related and we should bear them, bear, bear the whole situation in mind, not just what we might describe as the sort of political element of it.
There are so many other factors at play, because if you don't consider the other factors, then you can't see how the population has been either brainwashed to ignore or go along with something, or indeed motivated to change it. Gavin McInnes has often said that everything is downstream from culture, and I think that kind of echoes your sentiment to some degree, Charles, that politics is not upstream from culture, but in fact it is downstream from from culture and
and. This, that's a really interesting point because the question, because if we're talking about natural order, the question is, does culture develop naturally or is culture manipulated? And, and you know, to echo, to follow on from Charles's point, when we're looking at the artwork that's being produced at the moment and the, and in fact, you look at academia as a whole, This has such an influence on culture, not only because, because what follows from what's being taught in academia is
scripts for television shows. It's, it's scripts for plays. It's, it's the, the type of art that we're seeing and, and maybe perhaps it's a, a feature of a collapsing society that that culture becomes something which isn't an expression of that society, but is used to as a mechanism of control in and of itself. Right. And, and I think, I think it's important to to acknowledge that. Yes, I mean, sure, I I agree.
But I also still think that historically, you know, everything was down downstream from culture and that culture did emerge if it's considered the Zulus, for example, right, They emerged out of the various Bantu tribes in Southern Africa. And now, yes, what's interesting, they maintain their culture thanks to their sort of monarchical structure.
So, so my, my question is whether that is because of democracy or whether it, whether it actually even matters what your system of governance is because because you know it, it.
So this is a question I suppose we're, we're asking in this whole discussion is, is democracy in and of itself such a weak system that it naturally collapses under, it's a wit or is it that no matter what your political system, at some point, as, as people Start Stop paying attention or they relax their, their guard or whatever, the, the parasitic class moves in and, and perverts it to its own ends.
And, and I think, I think the problem here is that, that, and we can discuss whether this is part of the natural order or not, whether there is naturally a, a minority within the human race which is parasitic by nature and psychopathic by nature. And that they will always move
in and take control. And and once that happens, then without whatever your system of governance, see the devolution of of our culture, of our societies and and the tendency towards conflict and and disgraceful treatment of of individuals. Sure, and I think you're
correct. But I mean, if you think about our understanding of modern democracy, I don't think any democracy has somehow led to more prosperity and freedom over the last 250 years or so. Consider the the civilizations that have had the largest historical impact. You mentioned China for sure. I mean, they were around for thousands of years and as you said, successful. And I think the Roman Empire too. And that also wasn't really democratic.
But I mean, OK, that's a whole different discussion, but part of its collapse is linked to its its desire to constantly expand. Yeah, it's a, it's a really interesting point when we're, you know, considering the natural order and the in the constant, the constant requirement to search for equilibrium like like any system.
And I, and I think the point about the prevalence of say, psychopathy is fascinating because I, I think this is where, this is where a lot of people will come unstuck, perhaps in that we, in this discussion here, the three of us would have, you know, as articulated by these conversations, broadly overlapping world views. And yet they are very much discordant with the majority of people who are out there because they have been conditioned, I would say, to think a particular thing.
I don't think there's anything natural about that. I think they've been, these are thoughts that are introduced by all the mechanisms that we talk about, whether it be subverted democracy or culture that's been again, subverted. But there is a a, a, a well recognised, well documented quota, let's say of people in any society who have a tendency
towards psychopathy. There are all sorts of other things, but I but I believe that that largely human nature, if that's what we're going to call it doesn't, doesn't really change. And therefore there will be times where the equilibrium is, is upset because a certain force will be able to exert itself in an unchecked sense, but not all
the time. And, and I think therefore what we go through is a, is a constant process by which by which those those things do eventually self correct, which goes back to the point I'm making about timing in that I, I would imagine that that the system surrounding us in the United Kingdom, I don't mean this in apocalyptic in that sort of sense, but but what I mean is that it, it, it will, it will
collapse at some point. And that's fine because something else will replace it. But we don't really know what that is yet. But I think we can be quite clear on, on why it's happened because the number of people that want to behave in such a fashion has to create poor conditions for others in society. And they do unfortunately have the control, the will and the means to do so. We're talking about the sort of the, you know, elite oligarchic class.
Well, it doesn't, doesn't really matter who they are, but the point is that the influence they have, I say is, is, is absolutely disproportionate and they, they shouldn't wield it, but they've been able to. But that, that will only go on until a certain point. Quite, quite what will determine that? Like, I don't know, but, but, but the, the, you know, we'll go back to the natural order.
For whatever reason, that does seem to be the way in which people express themselves across, across the entire spectrum of society. So there will be a point where that does sort of self correct. And, and I think what we're talking about the, whether it be going back thousands of years through Chinese history or, or anything else, that there will have been points all along the way where that will have happened. The same thing with, with the fall of Rome and, and everything else.
So ultimately greed, let's say psychopathy, whatever does burn itself out or does, does 'cause that implosion, to what degree an awareness of that can mean that people can actively do something about it. Whether it has to just run its course I I don't really know, but I think it is. I think it is absolutely observable. Isn't a great way of looking at it. Also, if you just take a step back and scale everything down, right down, how do you govern your home and your family and
those who work on your property? I mean, that's the way I like to look at it. And then from there you scale up. Yeah, to an extent, Although I mean, I sort of go back to the the, let's say the prehistory of before we're talking about property ownership, land ownership, agriculture, whatever.
This idea of conforming to somebody else's plan will whatever I think only comes from a situation in which if you didn't conduct yourself in a particular manner, you would either starve or die because you there there were obvious ways in which you dealt with a particular situation.
And I think all, all you're talking about now is really just an extension of that where there will be in most cases, one person that has a vision and an understanding of how to avoid starvation and death at one end of the spectrum. But but mostly to engender a system that is for the benefit of everybody. But it does, but it does, it does need to conform to the, the sort of natural requirements, I
would say. And, and the, the mental side of that, you know, happiness and all the rest of it is, it is, it's clearly an absolutely enormous part of it. And that's the, that's sort of the struggle we have. We imagine a, a life where every day is in fact a battle for survival, then you're not really at leisure to be considering all the sorts of factors that we do consider now. And therein lies a massive problem a little bit like the whole idea of knowledge and even the very discussion we're
having. I mean, this, this people who would want to enter into a discussion like this or even listen to it are in a very, very small minority. I wouldn't have it any other way. I would, I would not want at all to be in a position where you just don't even think about these things because they're just, you know, that that's you just go through life and it sort of passes you by and you just get what you get that, that I, I think that would be, that would be appalling.
Even if in considering these things, you, you appreciate that the situation is not perhaps exactly as you'd have it. But but yes, I, I, I think this is, this is sort of what it goes back to this, this idea of through cooperation and all the rest of it, we've, we've achieved what is regarded as sort of development. But but with that comes this extraordinary sort of slack in the system and, and, and it's kind of what what the, what the heck do we do with that?
And, and then that leads into what? And you know, let's have a monocle, let's have a democracy or, or, you know, all the other stuff that you wouldn't have had when it was just right. We need to go and get some food today. Yeah. But I mean, what the point that I was making, I mean, I'm agreeing with you, but the point I was making is that nobody sits down and and says, right, this is how we're going to run our household. It just naturally occurs. Yeah, sure. No, no, I mean, sorry, but I
wasn't trying to disagree. I I all I was doing was, was sort of harking back to a time where it's just right. Well, you know, if you don't, if you don't jump across the ravine, now that bear will eat you. And. And we, we, I think that that's how I tend to think of it. Now. It's not so much with the ravines or bears, sadly, but yeah. Also, I just want to point out, because I'm fairly certain that somebody will mention this, but the anarchy or anarchist view of having no sort of governance
structure. I used to think that I just see it as as silly. Now I think it's just, it's just academic. It's what it's what people think could work. But I mean, it doesn't happen in reality. Human nature needs hierarchy. Well, I think that goes back to the we are where we are based.
And, and so it's, it's largely A hypothetical, but I, but I, I, I think, I think I would say there's a pretty strong case for it in conditions where there's, if we talk about what the, the, you know, will Keats preposition that that you're at liberty to do whatever it is you would like to do until that encroaches on somebody else's ability to do the same.
And if you're if, if people are in such a situation where there is an availability of land, resources, et cetera, and therefore there is no need for people to necessarily come into conflict with one another. I can see exactly how that would work. And that, I mean, I, I do need to just turn this into a kind of cyclical conversation, But, but I do think that that there is absolutely a way in which that can work without there needing to be any sort sort of formal
hierarchy. Because look what you've just described, you've just described a family unit working, you know, having a natural hierarchy. Well, no, as you say, you don't, you don't draw some document up and pin it on the House notice board. You just, you just do it. And I, and I think that that's sort of the way I look at it. So I think the terminology is confusing. I think I think people are people have this idea that anarchy and chaos are are the same thing.
I don't that's not how I see it at all. No, exactly. They're not they're not the same. So the the trouble is, you know, largely in this day and age, it is of course, hypothetical. There are there are society. I can't, I can't speak of one off the top of my head, but there are definitely some societies in various parts of the world that do exist more or less on that basis without there being a, a rigid structure and, and any idea of a sort of defined leader that must be
followed. But but yeah, they are few and far between and that and that's because of all the factors that I think we've talked about. I well, I mean, I think, I think to a certain degree what we have been discussing is slightly
academic. I think that that or whatever my question at the end of the day would be the reality of, of our lives at the moment is, you know, 70 million people in the United Kingdom and whatever the populations of, of other major states are at the moment, that that's how we're organized at the moment. What what comes next in the, in the event that this democracy experiment has failed, which undoubtedly it has, how are we going to self organize to keep
ourselves in one piece? Because when societies collapse, that can be quite a violent act. Now, maybe, maybe that's maybe that's part of the natural order, maybe that's something that's required. I don't know, but I'm sure it's something that most people would prefer to avoid. And I am, I am, I am most concerned at the moment that that people are so demoralized and disengaged that actually they're just going to sit and wait to see what's coming. And I think that's the best policy.
I, I think these kinds of conversations are completely fascinating because I think they provoke all sorts of ideas and thoughts that we really should have, but largely don't. Sometimes they're, they're, they can be a little bit sensitive. Sometimes, of course, exactly like we said, they're very nebulous because we just, we don't really know. We don't we don't know what really what happened in the past and we certainly don't know exactly what's going to happen
in the future. I think in looking at the United Kingdom in particular in what would be described as Western civilizations, Western democracies, I think yes, for sure there probably will be conflict, violent conflict in in some places as these systems collapse. But I think actually probably to a far lesser extent than we
imagine. And I think that is it, it, this is exactly what I'm talking about in, in so far as the system sort of implodes rather than explodes, because I think that populations now, the UK in particular, has become so weakened. This is sort of how we finished last week. But but the, the actual condition of the humans that are operating within this system is so far below what it was that I don't think that that sort of level of activity is really even possible.
So either mentally or physically. So I don't think they'll be, they'll be sort of catastrophic and cataclysmic result. But I do think that that things will break to such a point where a new system must emerge. And what form that takes, I don't know, but it should. But you know that I, I don't think that should be regarded as
a negative. It should absolutely be a a positive because it it does return to the idea of there being a natural order and there being a proper understanding of people having liberty, which by and large people just have no idea about. I'd very much like to see South Africa break apart into various kingdoms. I think we'll have a more successful future than we do right now. Yeah, but that's my personal view. Yeah. OK. Charles, Mike, thanks for the
discussion, for the banter. I'll catch up with you guys next week.