Nice interview, Chris. I agree with a lot of what you've stated here, especially regarding how the international banking elite, the owners of the world central banks, rule the world, and they use divide-and-conquer tactics like "wokeism", along with race, gender, sexual orientation differences, so people are too busy fighting amongst themselves to focus on the financial parasitism. That's a very important point to have in common.
The core issue I take here is regarding a definition of "left" and "right"; the way I use the term (and people use it a lot of different ways), the core of leftism is egalitarianism and the core of rightism is inegalitarianism. This is why, for example, the Bernie Bros and the Occupy Wall Street crowd were fundamentally unwilling to ally with the far-right Alt Right types, even though they shared in theory much of the same economic populism. Because for the left they would rather compromise on *every other stated issue they claim to care about* versus compromise on the core belief in ubiquitous egalitarianism. This definition also explains why communism was a leftist movement (economic egalitarianism) and why white erasure is a leftist movement (racial egalitarianism), and why Nazism was a blend of left and right (economic egalitarianism at home, racial inegalitarianism versus the world, where Hitler chose the nationalists over the socialists when he purged Rohm). If one fundamentally believes that people are unequal - both on an individual level, a background level, etc. - and that these differences cannot be bridged by state attempts to the contrary and they will implode society instead, then it is hard to imagine Francis Parker Yockey's vision of a far left/far right alliance: https://substack.com/@neofeudalism/note/c-101764152?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1w6cct
One may also note it is only the libertarian right who were against the COVID lockdowns and forced vaccines, although I agree with you that the response to lockdocks and forced heart attack jabs cut across typical political lines (by that I mean much of the right sided with the tyranny; the left were almost uniformly in favor of it). Even a guy like Chomsky basically wanted to cut the anti-vaxxmos out of society and have them starve to death. The left was *entirely* silent on this issue.
That’s an interesting point about the egalitarian-inegalitarian divide between left and right. I’m not sure what I think about it. Much depends on what kind of “left” (and “right” for that matter) we’re talking about. What passes as left nowadays is to my mind nothing of the sort. There may be irreconcilable differences that militate against a L-R collaboration; on the other hand, in the war between the ruling class and the masses, then said differences might be resolved by common investment in a political programme. The ruling class itself practises a perverse form of egalitarianism; it regards the rest of us as equally contemptible.
I agree that the left (expect for Real Left!) was uniformly pro-tyranny but I don't think that it was only the libertarian right that was anti-tyranny. Resistance erupted organically, much of it from people with no formal political tradition or affiliation. It could be argued either way that the characteristics of the resistance were essentially libertarian right or essentially radically left, which suggests that the reality of resistance defies conventional classification.
Finally, if anything good came out of the covid operation it was the exposure of Chomsky as a gigantic hypocrite.
AFW - ALWAYS FREE WORLD is a transnational political movement, whose goal is the implementation of a PERFECT POLITICAL SYSTEM.
Free spirits & free thinkers have been always against political systems, because they all have been anti-freedom. Unfortunately, nobody ever came up with a feasible positive option, until now.
Book I of AFW's Trilogy reveals the political system that can change the status quo, foster human freedom, avoid nuclear wars, and solve most of the problems that have afflicted humanity for millennia. Books II and III complement the system.
With respect Calvin, that’s a bit of a straw man position. Although the interview wasn’t concerned with such matters, there is nothing in the foregoing that precludes a consideration of natural law and objective morality.
Nice interview, Chris. I agree with a lot of what you've stated here, especially regarding how the international banking elite, the owners of the world central banks, rule the world, and they use divide-and-conquer tactics like "wokeism", along with race, gender, sexual orientation differences, so people are too busy fighting amongst themselves to focus on the financial parasitism. That's a very important point to have in common.
The core issue I take here is regarding a definition of "left" and "right"; the way I use the term (and people use it a lot of different ways), the core of leftism is egalitarianism and the core of rightism is inegalitarianism. This is why, for example, the Bernie Bros and the Occupy Wall Street crowd were fundamentally unwilling to ally with the far-right Alt Right types, even though they shared in theory much of the same economic populism. Because for the left they would rather compromise on *every other stated issue they claim to care about* versus compromise on the core belief in ubiquitous egalitarianism. This definition also explains why communism was a leftist movement (economic egalitarianism) and why white erasure is a leftist movement (racial egalitarianism), and why Nazism was a blend of left and right (economic egalitarianism at home, racial inegalitarianism versus the world, where Hitler chose the nationalists over the socialists when he purged Rohm). If one fundamentally believes that people are unequal - both on an individual level, a background level, etc. - and that these differences cannot be bridged by state attempts to the contrary and they will implode society instead, then it is hard to imagine Francis Parker Yockey's vision of a far left/far right alliance: https://substack.com/@neofeudalism/note/c-101764152?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1w6cct
One may also note it is only the libertarian right who were against the COVID lockdowns and forced vaccines, although I agree with you that the response to lockdocks and forced heart attack jabs cut across typical political lines (by that I mean much of the right sided with the tyranny; the left were almost uniformly in favor of it). Even a guy like Chomsky basically wanted to cut the anti-vaxxmos out of society and have them starve to death. The left was *entirely* silent on this issue.
That’s an interesting point about the egalitarian-inegalitarian divide between left and right. I’m not sure what I think about it. Much depends on what kind of “left” (and “right” for that matter) we’re talking about. What passes as left nowadays is to my mind nothing of the sort. There may be irreconcilable differences that militate against a L-R collaboration; on the other hand, in the war between the ruling class and the masses, then said differences might be resolved by common investment in a political programme. The ruling class itself practises a perverse form of egalitarianism; it regards the rest of us as equally contemptible.
I agree that the left (expect for Real Left!) was uniformly pro-tyranny but I don't think that it was only the libertarian right that was anti-tyranny. Resistance erupted organically, much of it from people with no formal political tradition or affiliation. It could be argued either way that the characteristics of the resistance were essentially libertarian right or essentially radically left, which suggests that the reality of resistance defies conventional classification.
Finally, if anything good came out of the covid operation it was the exposure of Chomsky as a gigantic hypocrite.
AFW - ALWAYS FREE WORLD is a transnational political movement, whose goal is the implementation of a PERFECT POLITICAL SYSTEM.
Free spirits & free thinkers have been always against political systems, because they all have been anti-freedom. Unfortunately, nobody ever came up with a feasible positive option, until now.
Book I of AFW's Trilogy reveals the political system that can change the status quo, foster human freedom, avoid nuclear wars, and solve most of the problems that have afflicted humanity for millennia. Books II and III complement the system.
https://www.alwaysfree.world/
Still missing the point and no mention of natural law and how objective Morality is the key to freedom and freeing the human condition from slavery.
With respect Calvin, that’s a bit of a straw man position. Although the interview wasn’t concerned with such matters, there is nothing in the foregoing that precludes a consideration of natural law and objective morality.
It's the natural law of freedom.
Objective Morality in the aggregate = FREEDOM.
That's how it works.