222 words / 2:05:26
Greg Johnson and co-host David Zsutty tried something new on the latest broadcast of Counter-Currents Radio: discussing five essays that had been published over the previous week at Counter-Currents. These were, in order of discussion:
- David M. Zsutty, “On Treason and Loyalty.”
- Christian Secor, “Conservatism is Doomed to Fail, but Futurism Can Win.”
- Jason Kessler, “Christian Nationalism Has Made Me Agnostic.”
- Greg Johnson, “Havens in a Heartless World 2: The Homeland.”
- Jim Goad, “Straining to Care About This Year’s Election.”
- Spencer J. Quinn, “A Response to Critics of My Stance on the Jewish Rightward Shift.”
It is now available for download and online listening. Topics discussed include:
00:03:05 “On Treason and Loyalty”
00:15:48 “Conservatism is Doomed to Fail, but Futurism Can Win”
00:27:56 Christopher Zurn, Splitsville, USA: A Democratic Argument for Breaking up the United States
00:30:55 “How Christian Nationalism Made me Agnostic”
00:34:06 “Havens in a Heartless World”
00:59:53 If you could change the outcome of one moment in history, what would it be?
01:03:26 What if the Roman Empire had never become Christian?
01:08:20 We have to destroy American before it destroys us
01:10:49 Liberalism is about choosing and traditionalism is about valuing
01:20:05 “Straining to Care About This Year’s Election”
01:37:13 “A Response to Critics of My Stance on the Jewish Rightward Shift”
To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”
2 comments
Great discussion guys! I look forward to the Philosophy and Right essay. Please do that first. That may also be good for the book club, if it’s not too weighty.
This is a wonderful idea for a discussion series, and I am looking forward to it. Counter-Currents has an amazing array of writers who can and do inspire a lot of out-of-the-box thinking.
A few thoughts on the present podcast. The historian that Mr. Zsutty was thinking of was probably Prof. Charles A. Beard, a Marxist-adjacent Progressive who wanted to take the Demigod status out of the Founding Fathers with his An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913).
While I vehemently agree that the Founding Fathers were motivated as much by a spectrum of ideals as by personal economics (Gen. Washington, for example, ran a ferry business across state lines and appreciated the need for rational interstate commerce laws) and they were certainly not demigods (especially Marse Jefferson), but today this is basically just Libertarians crashing through an open door.
Columbia Professor of History C. A. Beard does get extra points in my book for being an authentic Liberal-Progressive who actually opposed FDR’s warmongering ─ and mostly got relegated to the Memory Hole as a result.
Also, I disagree with the newfangled idea that the Founding Fathers were Freemasons and therefore Jooish agents. No, Freemasonry was anti-Papist and it probably suited in some respects the networking that Protestant gentry needed for elite American leadership roles. The (probably overstated) abuse inherent was the arcane secrecy and lack of public transparency ─ but that was soon obviated in danger by the rising corporate plutocracy (sans the transcendant rituals and fun).
Btw, the Nazis were anti-Clerical as well, though not necessarily anti-Catholic as long as they were anti-Bolshevik, although I do disagree with E. Michael Jones that they were Paganists.
The inventor of the German concentration camp system, Theodor Eicke was anti-Clerical and anti-Communist, a non-Believer who believed in righting great wrongs and correcting enemies with the least amount of State persuasion necessary.
A lot of German Leftists were persuadable and could be returned to the national polity if basic class-warfare grievances were simply addressed in the public interest, and troublemakers peremptorily locked up for a short stint on the cabbage farm.
Eicke did have contempt for traitors and personally put a bullet into Ernst Röhm’s heart after the failed 1934 coup that unlawfully sought to purge the German military Junkers caste on misguided revolutionary principles.
Contrary to popular belief, Germany did not have a higher incarceration rate than the United States before the war. I am not saying that these tough measures would work in our case, but Eicke was a great man.
Back to the topic of discussion. I can appreciate that after 9/11 ─ or even after the First Gulf War, which was notable for its florid Support the Troops yellow ribbons since there had not been a military draft since 1973 ─ there was a lot of jingoism and flag-waving going on. I used to ask, why does anybody need more than one kitschy plastic flag on their lawn?
But in the main, I would question how important or impeding Boomers venting on social media really is. They are not the ones setting any kind of policy. I don’t really understand why Millennials confuse Boomers with the 1 percent who actually do run the show and arrange the 501(c)(3) support.
When a Populist gets some political buzz and notice, the Establishment plays the rayciss & anti-Semite card, and soon-enough the beloved guru caves in and brings a Negress along as his running mate like Pat Buchanan in 2000, and the conversation suddenly switches from A Republic, Not an Empire (1999), back to dismantling the welfare state and lowering capital gains taxes, and abortion (of course).
The thing is, 99 percent of those touting muh Constitution would not know anything basic about Constitional Law. This is crucial in my opinion because the Founders wrestled with basic political questions in many debates, and it is very important to know when to discard the hidebound bathwater without throwing out the precious baby.
I remember a lady (whose father was a U.S. Senator) arguing red in the face about how evil Trump was and how he must be replaced by a good [Kosher] Conservative from the Center-Right. At the time President Trump was keeping bearded weirdies out of the country, I think from Yemen. She actually made the argument that immigration was not subject to a “religious test” under the First Amendment. I was stunned by how bad elite private schools must be.
Moving on to the Second Amendment, it is mostly about protecting your person, home and community rather than engaging foreign armies ─ although it could (conceivably) happen, and those invading aliens might be Federal conscripts.
But short of a Civil War, if a Fed comes into town on a white horse, you have to engage him with the tools of rhetoric and the law and not with your musket.
I don’t quite understand why there is so much hate martialled against gun enthusiasts from even the Right.
No, gun enthusiasts are not going to “save” us ─ let’s not crash into more straw ─ but we should not look away in fear when the Feds drive a tank though some noisy (senile) Fedposter’s livingroom and then claim that he tried to resist.
It is extremely important to know what is unfettered speech that we should support with all our intellectual might and being, and what is impotent incitement best left to idiots and Trolls.
One of the truisms from George Lincoln Rockwell’s 1960s Legal, Psychological and Political Warfare training was that the police ─ all police, everywhere, and every time ─ have a certain common mentality. And properly understanding this mentality works wonders for political activists. Some of his advice was that if and when you act like a criminal, the police and courts will treat you like one.
If some true leaders had been in charge of the J6 protests and the pent-up rage, it could have moved a lot more than the Overton window.
This advice in general should be updated to account for the realities of the 21st century because the FBI is far less principled today than J. Edgar Hoover was, but I think it is soundly grounded. Rockwell did not see Feds as primarily the enemy.
Flagwaving patriots and other activists could learn a lot. We can’t count on future elites being as enlightened as General Washington. But if the Founders were to decisively put down mobs or to repel boarders, you can bet that it would have been for good national interests and not for the purposes of emboldening our racial enemies.
So to answer the question of what I would do if I could change something about history…
I think history tends to work out the way it does in spite of certain flash-in-the-pan events like the assassination of an Archduke or a beloved playboy President. The barbarian invaders were probably going to eventually take over Rome, circa 476 or Byzantium 1453, and that was long baked into the cake in any case.
But it sure would have been nice if the Constitution had been ratified in a more explicit way about whose country this was meant to be for.
Something in smooth ink that would have explicitly precluded the 15th Amendment scores of years earlier, plus precluded this modern “nation of immigrants” nonsense.
Perhaps also provisions could have been made to manumit but manditorily deport slaves, with some just compensation as long as they returned to their own continent.
Of course, I am not sure how that could have been practically ratified. There were and are too many who think that the country would have prospered as thirteen Switzerlands. But I’m not one of them.
🙂
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.