In this episode, I talk with Charles Haywood about his term, No Enemies to the Right (NETTR), and the updated version, No Enemies On the Right (NEOTR). It's not uncommon today to see conservatives attacking each other, but we talk about why guarding the right flank isn't the best strategy for winning the culture war.
We also talk about Charles' writings on Franco and a recent review he did of Camp of the Saints and why it matters to the immigration discussion today, as well as the rebuilding of the West.
Follow Charles on Twitter/X.
Follow Charles at The Worthy House.
Read about the Camp of the Saints.
Read about Franco.
Read about NETTR.
Sign up for the New Christendom Press Conference in June 2024.
Join the Patreon exclusive membership.
10 Ways to Make Money with Your MAXX-D Trailer.
Alpine Gold Exchange Website: alpinegoldogden.com
Set Up a Meeting: https://calendly.com/alpinegold/alpine-gold-consultation
Talk to Joe Garrisi about managing your wealth with Backwards Planning Financial.
Visit https://premierbodyarmor.com/hardmen and use promo code HARDMEN for 10% off your order. Got questions? Reach out to customer service or send their President an email directly at alex@premierbodyarmor.com and speak to him yourself.
Buy your beef or pork box today from Salt and Strings Butchery.
Contact Private Family Banking Partner at banking@privatefamilybanking.com to set up a free private consultation and get started building wealth now and unto future generations. "For a free copy of a new book "Protect Your Money Now! How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown" by Private Family Banking Partner, Chuck DeLadurantey, go to
In this episode, I talk with Charles Haywood about his term, No Enemies to the Right (NETTR), and the updated version, No Enemies On the Right (NEOTR). It's not uncommon today to see conservatives attacking each other, but we talk about why guarding the right flank isn't the best strategy for winning the culture war.
We also talk about Charles' writings on Franco and a recent review he did of Camp of the Saints and why it matters to the immigration discussion today, as well as the rebuilding of the West.
Follow Charles on Twitter/X.
Follow Charles at The Worthy House.
Read about the Camp of the Saints.
Read about Franco.
Read about NETTR.
Sign up for the New Christendom Press Conference in June 2024.
Join the Patreon exclusive membership.
10 Ways to Make Money with Your MAXX-D Trailer.
Alpine Gold Exchange Website: alpinegoldogden.com
Set Up a Meeting: https://calendly.com/alpinegold/alpine-gold-consultation
Talk to Joe Garrisi about managing your wealth with Backwards Planning Financial.
Visit https://premierbodyarmor.com/hardmen and use promo code HARDMEN for 10% off your order. Got questions? Reach out to customer service or send their President an email directly at alex@premierbodyarmor.com and speak to him yourself.
Buy your beef or pork box today from Salt and Strings Butchery.
Contact Private Family Banking Partner at banking@privatefamilybanking.com to set up a free private consultation and get started building wealth now and unto future generations. "For a free copy of a new book "Protect Your Money Now! How to Build Multi-Generational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown" by Private Family Banking Partner, Chuck DeLadurantey, go to
Well, welcome to this episode of the Hard Men Podcast. I'm your host, eric Kahn, and we have a very exciting conversation today with Mr Charles Haywood. Of course, you can follow him at the Worthy House on Twitter or X. That's at the Worthy House and we will also include links for that in the show notes, so be sure to check those out. We're going to have a number of topics for this conversation. I was really excited.
Speaker 1:I've been following Charles for a long time and really just encouraged by a lot of the stuff that he's putting out on topics that you're usually not allowed to talk about. So one of the things we talk about is he recently reviewed the Camp of the Saints about immigration in France and how that applies to our world today. That's really helpful. One of the big subjects that he's talked a lot about has been NETR, which is no Enemies to the Right. That's an acronym N-E-T-T-R no Enemies to the Right. That's sort of been amended recently to no Enemies on the Right, to no Enemies on the Right, thanks to some discussion with Douglas Wilson. Pastor Doug Wilson and Charles Haywood kind of going back and forth on that, settling on the term no Enemies on the Right, and we're going to talk about practically. What does that mean for us as people? You know probably you're on the right if you're listening to this show. But if you're on the right, how should you interact with people who are pretty close to you or somewhere on the right with you? How do you distinguish a genuine enemy? Because sometimes there are. You know, you got Russ Moore, who's over on the right, but he may be an enemy, so how do you deal with those people? So that's going to be a wonderful part of the discussion. And then we are also going to talk about Mr Haywood's essay on Franco. Who was Franco? We get into a little bit of Viktor Orban. Charles has got some background with Hungary, so we're going to talk about that.
Speaker 1:A lot of exciting stuff for this episode, and so I think it's going to be practically helpful. Just things that Christians need to be thinking through how to be savvy and wise as serpents, innocent, as doves in this period in American history. So we are, and I am, excited for this episode. We're going to jump in in just a moment. Before we do that, I want to encourage you. We've got special pricing going on right now for the new Christian Oppressed Conference. We are going to have a smattering, a genuine smattering, of wonderful people speaking at the conference that's june 6th through 8th in ogden, utah, and we've got a wonderful venue, seats up to 2 000 people. We are filling up and we want to make sure that you get your tickets so you can get special pricing. Follow the link in the show notes for that.
Speaker 1:Again, as I said, wonderful speakers. We've got Stephen Wolf. Dr Stephen Wolf talking about the problems with multiculturalism, like why is this such a bad thing that has been pushed in America and what is the alternative? We're going to be talking about classical two kingdoms theology. We've got Dr Joe Rigney talking about empathy and how institutions are overrun by this empathetic model which will destroy them.
Speaker 1:What do you do? How do you have wise leadership? How do we have movements that can be sustained? Wise leadership, how do we have movements that can be sustained? And then, you know, we'll also have Pastor Joel Webben. He's going to be there as well. He's going to be talking about fight or flight, how the balkanization you've heard lots of people talk about balkanization is a really terrible thing, but what if it's not? So we'll have Joel talking about that. And then we've got J Chase Davis talking about how to kill a movement. Acts 29 was destroyed by wokeness, so how does that happen? How do you kill it? And then, obviously, how do you prevent that from happening as well? So we are looking to build a movement, build burrows in the style of King Alfred here in Ogden. So we encourage you to come be a part of that.
Speaker 1:Follow the link in the show notes and you can join us June 6th through 8th in Ogden, utah. We'll be at Ogden High School. They've got a beautiful 2,000-seat theater built in, I think, 1936. They've had a $65 million renovation more recently and it's a beautiful facility. So we'll have tons of space. We want to see you there. If ticket pricing is an issue, we do encourage you to send an email to Cassie at newchristendepresscom. And we want you there. We'd love to have you there. So we'll work with you on pricing if that's an issue for you and your family. But if you are just looking for some amazing prices discounted prices anyway, follow the link in the show notes and join us in Ogden, utah, june 6th through 8th. We're going to jump now into the episode. Again, special thanks to Charles Haywood for joining us for this episode of the Hardman Podcast. Well, welcome to the Hardman Podcast. I'm your host, eric Kahn, and joined today by a very special guest we have Mr Charles Haywood.
Speaker 3:Charles, thanks for joining me. I am pleased to be here. I'm a little bit ashamed because I do not have as lush a beard. You know that's when I grow a beard I look like pervy Santa.
Speaker 1:You know, to each his own. We've got guys in our building the same deal. If you can grow it, grow it. If not, you know.
Speaker 3:I can grow it.
Speaker 1:I just look like a creep.
Speaker 3:I just look like a creep. You know I'm capable, I'm virile, I really am, but I just look bad and my wife is absolutely opposed to it. So I did it once, like 10 years ago, and it was not well received by anybody. You know your place. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1:No, that's awesome. Well, charles, I want to start the conversation by something that I think is gaining traction, at least among the right, in this concept of netter. We'll talk about a few articles that you've written on this. I know a couple over the last few years. But, in your thinking, just where did this come from and why was it an issue that you started to address?
Speaker 3:Well, the people on the right, or people who say they're on the right, historically over the past I'd say couple of decades, going way back when, to say when William F Buckley was ascendant, which I'm old enough to remember kind of the latter stages of that they talked a lot about how they wanted to do X, y and Z and accomplish A, b and C, but in practice, what they spent most of their time was pandering to what the left wanted, or rather the limits that the left set upon them. That is, the left would say you can do these kind of things, but you need to make sure that you police your rightward boundary and spend 90, 80% of your energy on doing that and not actually do anything that might push back against the left in any meaningful way. In other words, the left would allow the right to be performative, but anything that was smacked of actual accomplishment or of being too far right wing was something the left did not permit, and people on the right were happy to buy into this because what they really wanted was social acceptability. I mean, william F Buckley was a prime example of that. His wife was actually worse, but you know, this was back when there was a plausible case to be made that the right had a path to electoral victory back in the days of Reagan and so on.
Speaker 3:So you could maybe I'm being a little bit unfair, you could be say well, you know, that made more sense because he wants to attract the normie voter and not be too far right wing, leaving aside, of course, that the left wing there was no such thing and never has been as too far left wing.
Speaker 3:But as it's developed and as the left has gained total power over the narrative and so on what Mike Anton calls the narrative and the megaphone the right has increasingly ghettoized itself by allowing the left to dictate what it must do and what it must not do. And in particular, you see this with people who are prominent, who want to be considered socially acceptable by the kinds of people who write for the New York Times and there's a wide range of people like that and they spend a lot of their time policing the rightward boundaries and demanding that other people do that. The net effect of that, of course, is to prevent the right from accomplishing anything, even in these days when, paradoxically, the right is more able to accomplish things than it has been in the past, for a variety of reasons.
Speaker 3:So, I got irritated with this, and so I wrote this piece, which was an outflow of something I had commented on someone else's Twitter feed, and he had gotten all hurt that I said no enemies to the right, and then I was forced to write a whole long piece on it and a couple of long pieces on it. So, while it's not a new concept, I'm kind of associated with its most recent incarnation.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's helpful, and one of the articles where I first found this was on I Am 1776, no Enemies to the Right. Dc Miller vs Charles Haywood, One of the things that's interesting to me. You mentioned Buckley, but you actually tie this to scrutinism as well and to Roger Scruton. Buckley, but you actually tie this to scrutinism as well and to Roger Scruton. So for people who aren't familiar, this is sort of the beautiful loser type mentality among conservatives, but kind of unpack it for me. What is scrutinism? What's the tie then to Buckley and kind of the development of, I guess, moderate to conservative thought?
Speaker 3:Sure, I mean Scruton, the late Roger Scruton. I'm not really down on Scruton as such. It's a little bit unfair, because I have a lot of admiration for Scruton. I don't have a lot of admiration in some cases for some of these figures, but for Scruton I have a lot of admiration.
Speaker 3:He was a very deep thinker, a very interesting man of being, as you say, a beautiful loser, and I think he had a book I think it's what is Conservatism or something where he literally ends the book and Patrick Deneen did this in his most recent book, regime Change too where he literally ends the book saying, yeah, everything's terrible, yeah, we're losing, but isn't it wonderful we can sit in the evening in a country churchyard and I'm like what is this in a country churchyard? And I'm like what is this? This is stupid. So beautiful loser is the idea that not only it's two things. One is the churchyard. Like we're literally a beautiful loser, like we surround ourselves with nature and we ignore the fact that right down the road the Muslim gangs are raping our daughters and the police are locking you up for hate crimes or pointing it out. So that's kind of obvious beautiful loser. A second part of it related part is the desire not to be boat not so much in a way of becoming unemployable, much short of that just the kind of person who the right kind of people don't turn up their noses at, who's allowed to do those things and scrutiny wasn't really that and that's a little bit unfair. But there are many other examples of people like that, certainly on the right, and historically have been.
Speaker 3:I also refer to this. One of the tells of this is what I call preemptive apologies. So you very commonly see this in any kind of what's the word? Not really mainstream, but a right-wing person who's allowed to publish in the right kinds of newspapers or journals or appear on the right kinds of television and PR or what have you, or radio, always begins whatever he says with a lengthy set of preemptive apologies about whatever I'm going to say. Conservatives have certainly done as bad or as worse and will in the future and currently are doing. But, if I might make a little point, the left is doing something bad too. But we should talk about how conservatives do bad things. So preemptive apologies is part of being not so much a beautiful loser but just plain loser.
Speaker 1:Yeah Well, and you see that I mean from Buckley all the way to Dreher, which you mentioned, rod Dreher in the article, but I think it's helpful. You start with beginning with the end in mind, and I think this is something among conservatives that you typically don't see, and you have a definition of winning that I think, again, most people are not familiar with and it's not their line of thinking. So, as you think about what's going on in progressive left circles in America, who has the wheels of power, institutional power, what is winning in your view first of all, and why is that so important to keep that kind of at the head of what we're talking about?
Speaker 3:Yeah. So I'll define first winning by what it's not, which is winning the next election or regaining control of the Senate or something. Those things are useless. I mean, obviously they're useless because the Republican Party is useless, it's the uniparty and it's useless for all kind of the obvious reasons. So what I mean? Obviously they're useless because the Republican Party is useless, it's the uniparty and it's useless for all kind of the obvious reasons. So what I mean by winning is the total and utter, permanent defeat of the left, and that means kind of in the short term, obviously, the stripping of all power from the left in terms of institutional capture, whether that's the media or universities or cultural apparatus or entertainment media as well as news media.
Speaker 3:But that in itself is a relatively modest goal, though it doesn't really sound modest. The actual goal is the destruction of the left or the discrediting of the left as a philosophy. That is, before the 18th century the idea of a leftist was non-existent. I mean, yeah, maybe, like Satan in the garden is a leftist was non-existent. I mean, yeah, maybe, like Satan in the garden is a leftist and you can make that kind of thing, leaving aside whether the snake in the garden is exactly Satan in your biblical exegesis. But your average person 16 something, if you describe what a leftist believe, would have just regarded you as insane, or someone who really needed to go see his priest or or or his pastor or just needed to be shuffled off to a prison somewhere. And so this, the left, is a modern set of a modern ideology that the cast itself as the inevitable end point of history. I mean, it's enlightenment philosophy at its core, and even the propagandistic name given to it is designed to make people think that in the past we weren't enlightened and now we're enlightened and we're leftist, and that's the way it's always going to be so until leftism is completely discredited.
Speaker 3:In the same way that I like to analogize it to Mithraism, the bull cult of the late Roman Empire, popular among soldiers. We know something about Mithraism. It happened a long time ago. No one claims to be a Mithrist or Mithraist or whatever it is today. It's an archaeological thing. So people should say, yeah, there used to be these people called leftists. Yeah, they destroyed the world. Yeah, if you believe in that, you need to be sent for reeducation down picking sugar beads for a couple of years until you learn what real life is all about, and that's that. That doesn't mean that there's a specific thing should necessarily replace that. What should replace it? I have various opinions on, but fundamentally you want to replace it with a non-leftist, that is, reality-based political philosophy, hopefully one that's not all that different from the one that we've lived under so far, but you have to remove its execrations.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's really helpful and so kind of what comes out of this is a different approach, right With, originally formulated as Netter. Recently you're writing about N-E-O-T-R no enemies on the right so I guess, walk me through that approach. Why does it matter and what's the fundamental approach you're espousing for the right in this case?
Speaker 3:Yeah. So no enemies to the right is the pithy original formulation of it, and the reason it's to the right in that kind of off the cuff formulation is because the original phrase was no enemies to the left, used by Alexander Kerensky when he unwisely decided not to kill Lenin while he had the chance because he's like. No enemies to the left, we need to focus on the people who are to the right and that didn't do Kerensky or the Russian people any favors. So he was wrong in a sense. So maybe it's not the analogy. The phrase is taken from that, but the political analogy is by no means exact. But when you say no enemies to the right, then your threshold inquiry necessarily is well, if I'm at point X on the right, where is that other person relative to me on the right? On the right, and not only is that kind of a fruitless inquiry for the most part because it's very as I'll come to when I come to definitions it's very difficult to say you know where the line left to right inside the right any given person is. You could spend the rest of your life arguing about that in many cases and of course the left wants you to argue about that once you get caught in this, which leads, of course, to a purity spiral as well. That is, if the farther right you are, then the fewer enemies you have to your right, and so people can. It's an incentive to move farther to the right when that's really irrelevant. The point is not to decide where on the right you are or how you need to be farther to the right because you're too close to the left.
Speaker 3:The inquiry is binary. I define the left as very precisely, as the philosophy of the Enlightenment, based upon unlimited emancipation and total egalitarianism in the service of a utopia here on earth, heaven on earth. This is very straightforward, and I stole that definition from Roger Scruton, though, to be fair. So another reason I don't like to rag on Scruton was my core definition. I basically stole from him, which stole is the wrong word, because I try to give him credit, but he doesn't return my calls anymore, and so that was low, anyway, and so so right in this context is then defined as not left, so that encompasses a very broad range of things. Of necessity, anything that's not left is right, and that can be a huge range of things, and so, therefore, that's double the reason why comparing yourself to other people on the right is a threshold. Inquiry is a waste of time yeah, yeah, really helpful.
Speaker 1:and one of the things you see, I guess, is a lot of the infighting on the right is, in the roger air style, particularly guarding the right flank um, you hear this language all the time, um, and what I usually hear is it's usually phrases like a tactical or wisdom issue, where we say, listen, we need to frame the message for the people to the left of us wherever you are on the spectrum, but we especially, as Dreher did for years, we have to save our fierce attacks for those on the right. So, in your estimation, why is this a mistake and why does it actually defeat that end goal that you mentioned in the beginning?
Speaker 3:Well, you have to decide what another definition is, which is enemies. So enemy, in the kind of Carl Schmitt definition, is someone who existentially threatens your way of life, and so the left off necessity threatens everyone's way of life, as we just have to look around us to say. So that means you shouldn't have enemies on the right in the sense of wanting to destroy those people. Destroy those people not physically necessarily, but in terms of, for example, the most common method of this, and one that Dreyer is past master at, is trying to get someone's livelihood destroyed so he can't feed their family and so on. So he can then claim look how pure I am and how good I am because these people were a threat, and of course he never says what that threat is, how good I am because these people were a threat, and of course he never says what that threat is. What they were a threat are as to his ability to be not spat upon by the leftist whose good opinion he craves. But that doesn't mean that you can't say person X on the right is a total too willing idiot, or I mean, like Rod Dreher's on the right, he's not a total too willing idiot. He's actually done a lot of good work and so on. I certainly don't want to remove Rod Dreher's livelihood. I wish Rod Dreher the best. He should go do his thing, but he doesn't take that. He wants to destroy people on the right and I don't think we should spend. I mean, I feel a little bit bad because when we have these discussions we spend a bunch of time basically slagging Rod Dreher because he's the kind of the origin of a lot of this stuff and I don't really mean to do that.
Speaker 3:I think most of these things should be done as privately as possible to a certain extent, especially in. I mean, the fact is that not a lot of our enemies are going to watch our podcasts because they think we're all losers. And why would they watch our podcast? So we're not giving aid and comfort to the left by discussing some of these internal things.
Speaker 3:But I would be very uncomfortable, for example, if an extremely unlikely event the New York Times called me up and said we want to do a piece about Hayward's views of Neoter or Netter, and I would have to struggle very hard not to say negative things about other people on the right because you don't want to give some ammunition to the enemy in order to say, to exploit divisions and just generally increase their power. But that doesn't mean you have to cooperate or spend your resources with everybody on the right. It just means you don't have to spend. You shouldn't spend your time destroying other people on the right. You have to be prudential about your actual political actions and if some guy is just an idiot or he holds views that are completely anathema to you like he's violently anti-Christian, for example I mean I don't want to spend my time in political action organizing with that person, nor should I, but at the same time I'm happy to have him go do his thing, as long as it's helping in the overall goal of defeating the left.
Speaker 2:As the saying goes, gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, but debt is the money of slaves.
Speaker 2:If you're tired of seeing your wealth sapped by the silent theft of inflation, consider adding gold to your financial plan. Gold and silver have been recognized as sound money and a store of wealth for centuries. Converting your savings into gold and silver will protect and preserve your wealth so that one day you'll be able to pass down a true inheritance to your children's children. That's where our friends at Alpine Gold Exchange come in, offering 0% buy-sell spread gold leases with up to 3.5% annual return paid in gold, by the way and secure vaulting right here in Utah. Alpine Gold approaches every transaction with fairness, honesty and respect, reflecting a strong Christian business ethic in all that. They do that they do. Head to Ogdengold today or tap the link in the description to sign up or schedule an appointment to speak with an Alpine Gold advisor today and see what would best serve your family. And just so you know, if you schedule a call, you'll be speaking with Jace, ethan or Stu, three members of Refuge Church right here in Ogden. Head to Ogdengold and check it out today.
Speaker 1:Here at the Hardman Podcast. I've spoken with some very successful and competent men. Most of these men share a characteristic of delegating to other competent men to manage various aspects of their lives or businesses. I've realized that I don't have the time to properly navigate investment portfolios, financial planning and tax strategies. It simply takes away from the most important work that I do. That's why I've used Joe Garrisi with Backwards Planning Financial to help me with integrated planning. Joe is a Christian man who focuses on insurance, investments, tax-efficient strategies, company benefits, debt plans, estate planning, multi-generational planning and more. He's been available when I have questions or ideas for my financial planning and future and Joe has made a plan specifically for my family and my goals that best suit my needs. Whether you have millions in assets or just starting to invest, joe Garrisi can help you reach your goals to grow the kingdom and leave a good legacy for your generations. You can visit backwardsplanningfinancialnmcom Again that's backwardsplanningfinancialnmcom or call 615-767-2555 to speak with Joe to prepare for your future.
Speaker 1:The testimonials presented may not be representative of the experience of other clients and are not a guarantee of future performance or success of other clients, and are not a guarantee of future performance or success for their families and driven the economy forward. That's why I'm so excited to join forces with Max D Trailers, a Texas-based and family-owned company, to bring you this episode. I'm proud to partner with Max D to see the vision of New Christendom established. One small business at a time. Max D builds innovative, hardworking trailers for the builders, fixers and growers of the world. The company proudly supports blue builders, fixers and growers of the world. The company proudly supports blue collar haulers men whose businesses depend on Max D trailers. You can follow their stories by checking out Max D trailers on Instagram or by visiting the link in the show notes. Learn more about Max D trailers by visiting maxdtrailerscom, where you can check out the article 10 Ways to Make Money with your Trailer. It's a dangerous world out there and one of the main duties for men is protecting themselves and their families from all the crazy that the world might throw at you.
Speaker 1:Here at the Hardman Podcast, I rely on Premier Body Armor to keep me safe and trust me when you say unpopular things like I do. You definitely want the best in body armor. My go-to everyday armor of choice is Premier Body Armor's Everyday Armor T-Shirt 2.0 Bundle. It's discreet, comfortable and highly breathable. It features two level 3A soft ballistic inserts one for the front, one for the back and the bundle comes with white and black shirts that are moisture wicking and can be worn under a dress, short or a polo for more casual days. It's an incredibly practical solution for your EDC needs, and the total kit with both plates weighs under two pounds. Order your Everyday Armor T-shirt 2.0 from premier body armor today by visiting the link in the show notes.
Speaker 1:So it seems like the the primary thing that you should do if you see somebody on the right is and you disagree with them, uh, would be, you know, private discussion, handle things out of court, that sort of thing, or just ignore them. You list a couple of reasons why this you know, this sort of thing doesn't happen. One you mentioned is unmanliness.
Speaker 3:Of course I jumped on that one.
Speaker 1:It's a hard man podcast. You know we're talking about masculinity, but one of the things I like about it is that really is a core issue here. I think that's in play where, quite honestly, it's easier to pander to the left who you know you're is a core issue here. I think that's in play where, quite honestly, it's easier to pander to the left who you know. You're not a threat to them and you know I guess they're not a threat to you if you're not a threat to them. But I also am curious as you talk about a third reason with unmanliness, which is sort of this uh, moral equivalency with right and left, and I wonder if you wouldn't unpack that for me. Uh, just just seeing again, that gets to like what an enemy is. The third reason that you give right after unmanliness is a third reason is misguided attempt to be ethical, moral and just by positing moral equivalency between the left and right. So really, why is that a mistake to to do so?
Speaker 3:well, the biggest, more the left and right. So, really, why is that a mistake to do so? Well, the left and right are not morally equivalent. And this kind of goes back to I don't want to be overly repetitive, but it goes back to the core point, which is the left is affirmatively evil. That is, this is not some kind of well, you think the tariff should be 10%, I think the tariff should be 15%. We should have a political argument about that.
Speaker 3:I mean, this is an existential, kind of civilizational, world-bestriding, eternal even, distinction between people who are evil and people who are not evil. That doesn't mean everyone on the right is good or even not evil. It just means that the left's goals are just inherently evil and inherently destructive of all human flourishing. So therefore, there is no moral equivalency and you shouldn't pause it, as people frequently do, as an excuse. Well, the left is bad, but the right is bad too, and we have to be even-handed. The left is never even-handed. The left accepts, in their mind, of course, the right is evil because and I understand that within their frame that actually makes a fair bit of sense History has an arrow. History is leading us to heaven on earth. The right is preventing heaven on earth and therefore is causing untold happiness to the infinite future generations of human beings who are being precluded from reaching this utopia. So, therefore, death is the appropriate punishment for the right, and this is the inevitable left logic. And it always ends up in mass extermination of people once they gain total power in order to achieve their utopia. And this has happened time and again throughout history. It'll end up happening here as well if the left continues to gain power at its current rate.
Speaker 3:I mean, there's a little bit. There's arguments against that, in the sense that the regime, the left, is very feminized relative to previous regimes. So, you know, maybe they're not as into hard power, maybe they're just going to make us all watch, you know, tiktok videos about bad right people instead of putting us in death camps. But you know, there's a fundamental instinct is to kill everyone on the right, and unless you're aware of that, you spend your time saying well, you know, joe Blow, over here, said something that I think is really kind of offensive because it was racist, and you know that's terrible, even though, joe Blow, you know, two people saw his statement, and meanwhile, over there, the left is killing babies and mutilating children. Oh, moral equivalency. Joe Blow said something racist and now over here there's, you know, millions of dead babies. I really got to spend equal time at least on Joe because you know he's racist. I really got to spend equal time at least on Joe because you know he's a racist.
Speaker 3:I mean it's just, and the reason of course they're doing that isn't because they really think there's moral equivalency, it's because they want to be patted on the back and not attacked. I mean that goes back to the unmanliness. I mean I'm going to come back to it and I shouldn't, but no one on the left has ever attacked Rod Dreher, other than for being kind of whiny. I mean there's no hit pieces on Rod Dreher, there's no. Here's where he lives. Antifa people don't show up at his house or at his events. You know they think he's a harmless egghead who rants for decades about how, every year, how it's worse and it's got to change, you know. And so of course that person like that is fundamentally lacking in manliness. I'm not saying that Rod Dreher needs to get out there with a stick and start beating people. That's a counterproductive thing. It's like any kind of propaganda of the deed is always a waste of time, but if people aren't attacking you in a way that threatens you, that should probably tell you something.
Speaker 1:My other question about that is as you think about effective strategies based on that right. All that's true, netter, you know. Moving forward, do you see groups, entities? Where do you see people being successful employing this tactic, if you see it at all?
Speaker 3:I do, and I think you see that kind of happening around us because it has nothing to do with me writing the piece. This is merely diagnostic. No one's really listening to Haywood. Maybe a few people are, but it's not like my message is getting out.
Speaker 3:That's not my claim, but the things that people say now, or able to say now relative to a year ago, are night and day. I mean, a large part of it has to do if you're massively online with discourse on Twitter, but that's only part of it. People now are able to say with a straight face the obvious truth, which is true for decades, that the left regimes of the West are attempting to replace the white peoples of the West with new, compliant, non-white peoples. You know the great replacement theory. I mean, that's just obviously true on its face. If you used to say that in the past, even a year ago, you are a terrible racist, you are supporting the Christchurch shooter, and now people just say it as a matter of fact because it's obviously true. I mean, it's even true in America and Elon Musk deserves a large part of the credit for that.
Speaker 3:But I think that this is an example of the decaying effectiveness of people trying to police their rightward boundaries, because I mean, I haven't seen any real attempt lately to. I've seen the left try to police the rightward boundaries For example, there was an article on me and some other people last week and it was making the rounds and on the Guardian and some other things and but nobody cares. I mean there's no attempt by people like no one. No one's saying on the right, we need to not associate with these people. The only people who are saying that are people like Jonah Goldberg or James Lindsay, who are, who are part of the left. They're officially part of the left. I mean, you know, there's no one on the right who I think the amount of people on the right who are policing the rightward boundaries and getting traction for big shift, maybe even going back to 2016.
Speaker 1:But what is it about the last couple of years in particular? You know, sometimes when you're living in a strange moment like this, it's hard to analyze what's happening. But, for example, I was talking to my dad. He's almost 70. He said I don't remember anything in my lifetime. That was this, you know, cataclysmically shifting. So, as you're reading that situation, what is it that has caused? You know, people on the right, I see this. The window seems to be shifting right, but what do you make of the entirety of the situation? What's happening? Well, simple, easy question Charles.
Speaker 3:If I knew that right, you know, I would be much more popular and important. Certainly, everybody agrees that things feel different, and but what that means in the sense of what that holds for the future is extremely difficult to say. I mean, all the things we can say is that the near future is going to look radically different than the present, and everyone feels that that's likely to be associated with some kind of fracture or catastrophe, whether that's an economic collapse or a regime crisis. But we're kind of lurching from regime crisis to regime crisis, and one of the things I analogize it to in fact I'm writing a book review now about this is the decade and a half leading up to World War I, and everyone's always saying, well, you know, nothing's happening. We have these big brouhahas in the media, but then it all just dies down. But people have to remember that in the years leading up to World War, I, like very smart men who are very highly educated, were working very hard to avoid war and but also maximize their country's position and prominence in return. There were several major crises where it looked like there was going to be a big war and then nothing happened. So on the run up to any big change. There's always a lot of false starts, and that easily makes people say, well, nothing's ever going to happen. The regime is strong, everything is great, and then, of course, one day it's like Wile E Coyote and the Roadrunner you look down and there's nothing beneath your feet, and down you go. So what that means exactly is hard to say. Everybody, I think, correctly, identifies the upcoming regime crisis that's likely to occur as a result of the election as a potential breakpoint. But it could be something else. I mean there's many other possibilities. I think the only kind of certain thing is that the regime is very fragile, f fragile meaning not lacking in power, but unable to withstand any kind of crisis.
Speaker 3:And you see the harbingers of this. I mean on some things like foreign policy, you see us being humiliated in our attempts to keep the Red Sea open. I mean you know Operation Prosperity Guardian, while you know goat herders rain down ballistic missiles on our warships which we are able to shoot down so far to like $5 million a pop. And the country of Niger I don't know if you saw this this week pulled out of their security cooperation agreement with us because we sent two. They had a coup and, of course, like some hard man is in July, some hard man who got to his position the hard way is now running Niger. And so we sent two like fat middle-aged heritants from the State Department this week to lecture him on democracy and, like they literally kicked him out of the country, said it's illegal for the United States to be in Niger and we do not appreciate people coming in being condescending to us. And so I mean, in the past that would have been unthinkable, like no country like that would have dared to just kick the United States out someday.
Speaker 3:And Niger is one of the top producers of uranium in the world. I mean, they'll probably keep selling us uranium, but you know who else. They're going to sell uranium to the highest bidder. You know, this time when we could go to the government of Niger and say you know, more democracy, you will do what we say is just over, because you know General X, whatever his name is just has had it. And so you know, get the fat inheritance out of my face. And you know the United States can STFU. I mean it's just like if you describe this to somebody, even five years ago, they would have said that's crazy talk and you can, so you can see these little cracks, but what do they mean? I mean, I guess we'll find out.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's interesting because you mentioned this too the value of people on the right pushing the window right and even popular discourse. You see the rise of conversation, at least on things like Christian nationalism. The number of circles where you'll hear you know Franco mentioned is kind of interesting to see that on the uptick. But I'm curious, like if you're, if you're one of those people on the right and you're trying to drive the conversation where it needs to go. One of the challenges is, you know you've got, you just had a recent review, camp of the Saints. That'll be a good example of this. I mean, the left, the institutions, they hate this right, like you, are a straight racist if you even thought about reading that book. But again the narrative is shifting that way. So I'm curious again, strategically, if you're somewhere on the right, you have some sort of platform. Maybe it's outside regular institutions. What should people be doing to productively push that window wherever possible?
Speaker 3:It's a good question. I think that simply being a, so simply being honest, is probably the best answer, and also being calm, that is. This goes back to something you said earlier, which is that one of the reasons that people on the right get into fights is because it gets engagement right. Nice, calm, reasoned expositions of your position. Don't get the clicks, don't get the likes, don't get the clicks, don't get the likes. And so I think the best thing you can do is to be honest. But I think that starts with being honest with yourself, and the Camp of the Saints is an excellent example, that is, you read the Camp of the Saints.
Speaker 3:The book's a little bit over the top, as the author says. It's coarse humor, but it's extremely powerful humor, and it's basically a 50-year-old depiction of the total loss of moral fiber of the West. He focuses France because he's a French author, and so on, but it's very timely in the sense we see that exact same loss of moral fiber, combined with, of course, the political desire to bring in replacement populations here 50 years later. So being honest with yourself includes getting a copy of the book and just evaluating it honestly and then talking about it honestly. You don't have to. It doesn't really matter what the left thinks. And bizarrely, I think that I wrote that Camp of the Saints thing and it got a lot of traction. I mean I got tens of thousands of views and, like the Talking Points memo guy mentioned it, but he didn't spend his time like saying Haywood's racist Like in the past. He would have spent like three paragraphs saying you know terror. He didn't even say anything about Camp of the Saints. I mean, I think he said something generic about it. But you know, I think that the short answer to your question is we just keep doing what we're doing, because nothing succeeds like success. And I think the biggest single part of that is you shouldn't overweight. I sound like Elmer Fudd overrate Twitter or X, but that's a huge part of it.
Speaker 3:And you see these things especially in an election year. That is the ability of the left. The left can still gin up narratives. You probably saw that thing this week where they tried to gin up this narrative about Trump saying it'd be a bloodbath if he wasn't elected when he was talking about the auto industry. But I think I'm pretty sure that the narratives they can continue to gin up have far less reach than they used to. I'm not sure whether they reach kind of like the straight normie I think they probably do to some extent, but they tend to be much more confined to the left.
Speaker 3:Speaking of Neoder, you didn't see like even people like Jonah Goldberg were complaining that this is stupid and a waste of my time and undermines my just attempts to really destroy Trump by bringing up this foolish fake narrative, whereas a year ago he would have been totally on board with the narrative. Yeah, trump said bloodbath, yeah, trump's evil. Now he doesn't feel like he can do that because it's been exposed so widely as a complete sham, and so people like that have to admit it's a sham and look for other weapons to use. And not only is this effective, but it also makes the left waste enormous resources, and that was obviously a coordinated campaign that had much less impact than they expected. And when they're doing that, they can't be doing other things. That doesn't mean that they are substantially harmed, necessarily, but every little bit counts.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's interesting. One of the things that you mentioned in your review of Camp of the Saints was the role that church leaders played. I don't know in France if it was a shift or what, but basically you get to the point where the Christian leaders are just straight leftists. We've seen a lot of those shifts in our day. I've talked about it on the podcast before, but we've. You know, early 2000s you had guys like Russ Moore. He was dean of school of theology, southern seminary, very conservative, talking about patriarchy, all sorts of stuff like that. Fast forward 20 something years and it's just regime left. I'm with David French et cetera, not even pretending anymore to be conservative at all. So, as you look at our landscape and kind of making some connections with Camp of the Saints, what are some of the problems you see with church leadership and what's happened with those guys?
Speaker 3:Church leadership is a very broad group, obviously, but I think that's universally true. That is, there's exceptions, but the exceptions in a sense prove the rule. Most of these people have become, as they say, regime Christians, and by analogy to German Christians, which is the group of Protestants who endorsed the National Socialist regime in 1930s Germany. And so I think that it's. I'm not an expert in this, obviously, but my suspicion is it's a combination of two things. One is the simple desire to be socially accepted. I mean the same reason. People like John Roberts, who's not a I don't think they have pictures of John Roberts on Epstein's Island, which I think. He just lives in Chevy Chase and his wife wants to be admitted to the right parties or invited to the right parties.
Speaker 3:But I think a bigger problem is the hyper-feminization of most of the churches, that is, the confusion of Christ's message with the idea of feminized caring and acceptance for everybody, as well as the uh, the accepting that that means that the left's prescriptions for us, or prescriptions for us are, are the one, the kind of things that a good christian does because they're kind and loving, and so so you get this kind of you know me mealy mouthed vision of the loser, christ, and who's super feminized and he doesn't. He doesn't say anything that might be perceived as negative, and this has become so ubiquitous among, I think, christian leaders, with obviously a few exceptions that it's it. It's kind of like the old parable or whatever. It is not parable that's the wrong word in this context. But the story where the fish doesnable or whatever. It is not parable, that's the wrong word in this context but the story where the fish doesn't know what water is, because that's what he swims in.
Speaker 3:And you see this, I think, among a lot of Christians, both because the leadership is feminized and because the rank and file is dominated by women. You're not allowed to say things that are not regarded as agreeable and, for example, saying all the immigrants should be deported, because your Christian charity is owed primarily to your co-religionists and the people in your nation. And if you have infinite wealth and your country is doing great, maybe you should direct some outward, but you should spend your time not importing immigrants to rape your daughters, but rather policing your borders. Somehow, everyone viscerally believes that that's something opposed to the message of Christ, which has been reinterpreted to mean the message of caring caring, hyper feminization, or something.
Speaker 1:It really just makes me want to puke. Well, yeah, and I mean even I can think back in seminary, so I left in like 2012,. But we were even starting to hear messages tied to immigration. You know, uh, jesus was a brown skin immigrant and you know all this nonsense. And so I was like, oh wow, I can see where you know, I can see where this is going. It seems like Charles, too. One of the things is with, like Christian nationalism, and that's been on the rise, I think, and even among Christians, it seems like some of it is a response to all of that. You talk to the loss of moral fiber in the West. I think people are sort of sick of it, and so you're seeing responses. My question is it's a big, you know, umbrella term, but as you look at something like Christian nationalism, what do you make of it? What's good? Are there areas where you would tweak? Just general thoughts on it.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I'm certainly favorably disposed to Christian nationalism, as I understand as I like to joke it combines two great tastes that taste great together, like Reese's peanut butter cups Christianity and nationalism. Tastes that taste great together, like Reese's peanut butter cups Christianity and nationalism. That said, most of the people who espouse and theorize about Christian nationalism are Reformed or Baptist or belong to Protestant traditions that I don't belong to, though I did go to a Reformed elementary school, so I do know something about Reformed theology. So I'm not really qualified to judge a lot of these things. You know lesser magistrates and some of these other well-developed but freshly applied in the modern day context theological doctrines, because I'm just not really an expert on them. I mean, I think at its root my joke is actually what I think, which is that Christianity is great, nationalism is great, and you know normally, for example, back to our earlier point, this is the point at which I would be expected to insert Well, it's true that nationalism can be bad and that historically, I don't think any of that at all. I think nationalism is awesome, and so you know, and so nationalism is awesome, and we could easily use 100 times more nationalism in this country than we have now Maybe 200 times 250 or 500, whatever so and Christianity is awesome. So it's kind of just definitionally, christianity is awesome. We could easily use a thousand times more Christianity in this country, like real Christianity.
Speaker 3:So as far as I'm concerned, anything that advances those two things is good. And if people want to combine those two things, obviously you don't want. There is a theological problem and I'm Orthodox and the Orthodox suffer from this more than anyone else the combination of church and state. They say that they want to work together, but the reality is that they become excessively entangled and that's a real problem. But you know, that's not our current problem. Our current problem is that the regime hates Christians more broadly, hates people who are religious, but for the most part 99.9% of that is hating Christians, and so I mean they may or may not hate some other sects or groups, but for the most part Christians are the objects of regime hate, and so you know Christians need to push more Christianity.
Speaker 1:Yeah, one of the things that brings to mind is the conversation about the regime and our elite ruling class. I think this is like a year and a half ago, something like that. Even Elon Musk had posted something like perhaps it's time for another Sulla, and I had been reading some Plutarch's lives and I was like whoa, I don't know if people realize what he's saying here, but one of the questions I have is what do you actually do about a ruling class in the condition that we have? Because it seems like as long as that's in place and it's as corrosive as it is and it's promoting the death of the West and all sorts of things like that, it's problematic. So, in your view, what is it going to take to solve that particular problem?
Speaker 3:One of my favorite memes is the you've probably seen the one that has Sulla and Santa Claus. It says he has a list, is checking it twice, is coming to town, so, but I mean it also says that's kind of what it takes. I mean you don't want to go all Sulla if you can avoid it, because obviously that was part of an extremely bad period in the late Roman Republic and there were a lot of dead people, et cetera, et cetera, though unfortunately a lot of these switchovers do end up in violence and that's not something people should be seeking or looking for or is desirable. But, as a historical matter, frequently tends to to come along with regime changes, which is one of the reasons why Patrick Deneen's book was bad, because he tried to pretend that you could have regime change without having some kind of catastrophic fracture. So the short answer is and also goes back to what we talked about earlier a regime change is fairly straightforward. You counter elite forms for some set of things, some set of reasons, not before change begins. That's, I think, a frequent historical misapplication. You can have some set of fracture and then a counter elite arises and then takes over, and that's a fairly straightforward process. That happens a lot throughout history.
Speaker 3:The issue here is there's two issues. One is that we have an ideological regime, and ideological regimes are a lot different because they they think differently, they act differently, they getting rid of de-ideologizing people is very difficult or can be very difficult, and the United States has this, at least apparent massive wealth and so on. So we're not talking about changing the regime of the government of Niger, which can happen, like some July 20th, the average guy in his apartment in whatever Niger's capital city is like well, I guess someone else is at the top now. I mean, a switch over in the American regime would be a much more dramatic event. The short answer is that, especially with the ideology and my kind of theory on this is that so Gaetano Mosca, who's one of these political theorists, had this theory of the governing elite, which is more or less the top 20% of the population, governing elite, which is more or less the top 20% of the population. And then there's a well, the governing elite is, I think, 5% roughly, and the non-governing elite is 15%, but together they form the elite classes, and that governing elite is probably the people who will hold on the most if the regime starts to fracture, say as a result of some economic catastrophe, or if we lose a war against the Chinese or something like that, you can see the circumstances arising where the regime would start to lose its grip on power.
Speaker 3:And so there's a hard core of people, I think, who are ideologically driven leftists within the regime, and those people will never change their ways. So those people will have to be physically removed from their power and literally exiled from the country, with all their assets confiscated and just kicked into Canada or something. I mean, that's just the way these things work in practice, but the fact is that otherwise, when there's a regime change, most of the people just change their views. So, for example, I was reading last week that not that this is really news, I don't think week that not that this is really news. I don't think, though, they were treating it as news that Musk's Starlink is working with people in the Air Force to do a new satellite constellation for military purposes Exactly the sort of thing you'd suspect.
Speaker 3:I suspect that whoever's in the Air Force running that doesn't care who's in charge of the United States. I mean, if Elon Musk is the new God Emperor of America, they're like fine, whatever you know. So there are a lot of set of competent people the few competent people remaining in the regime who just change their views if there was a new set of people in charge. So I think that the whatever leads to that regime change, to a return to reality, and the exiling of left ideology from our country is going to be, in a sense, less catastrophic than people might think, because people just change their opinions, and this happened, for example, under Napoleon. You had these things where people were, they were monarchists, then they were revolutionaries, then they were members of the Directory and then they were big supporters of Napoleon Bonaparte. Most people would just change their views based upon what benefits them, and that's fine, because that's just the way the world works. Change their views based upon what benefits them, and that's fine, because that's just the way the world works.
Speaker 1:Red meat is a staple of a healthy, protein-packed diet, but not all meat is created equal. That's why I buy my meat from Salt Strings Butchery. Salt Strings is owned and operated by my friends Quinn and Samantha Bible, and the meat they offer is raised, harvested and processed exclusively in Southern Illinois. It's cut and packaged by my friends Quinn and Anthony, and not only is it the best meat I've ever had, well, all their meat is sourced from local farms that share our Christian values. Salt Strings is now offering a beef and hog box that can be shipped directly to your door. The 15-pound beef box features 100% black Angus beef and includes ribeyes, t-bones, sirloin, chakros, fajita meat and ground beef. You can order your beef box today for just $259. It will send it directly to your door. The hog box is $239 and features premium Duroc pork, including eight thick pork chops one of my all-time favorites pork steaks, cured and sliced bacon, ground pork, bratwurst and breakfast sausage links. You can place your order today at saltandstringscom or use the link in the show notes, and also be sure to follow Salt and Strings on Instagram. We'll also include the link in the show notes.
Speaker 1:Our sponsor, private Family Banking Partners, is on a mission to help, thank you, in tax-free growth without exposure to typical stock market risks, to join this growing community that is already building wealth into future generations and converting post-mill talk into post-mill action. Contact Private Family Banking partner Chuck DeLaterante at his email chuck at privatefamilybankingcom Again, that's chuck at privatefamilybankingcom To set up an appointment and to receive a free copy of Chuck's new book Protect your Money Now how to Build Multigenerational Wealth Outside of Wall Street and Avoid the Coming Banking Meltdown. Go to the link in the show notes for more information. Yeah, no, that's helpful. We were talking earlier about World War One. At that time period You've written a lot on Franco, and so that's become sort of like a buzzword attached to your name to espoused uh, what some of the lessons there are. But a tumultuous time, uh, in european history. And on the scene comes franco um. So I'm curious what? What sparked your interest in him? Was it just biography or reading? And then how did that dovetail into wanting to write about him?
Speaker 3:yeah, it's a good example of the the thing we were talking about, which is that I wrote a long piece on franco, maybe in 2019. I think it was, maybe it was 2018. And back then that was pretty edgy, like I was very positive about Franco and so on, but of course, I had no readers back then, so no one noticed. But, yeah, the piece has really had legs and gets a lot of. This is basically just an exposition of, as well as commentary on, franco, and I think that the lessons of Franco obviously, every country in time is different, but the lessons of Franco are that well, there's many lessons from Franco, but in the run-up to the Spanish Civil War, you saw the exact same behavior of the left that you always see, which is the demand for ever more power, coupled with the demand for ever more power, coupled with the demand for ever more elimination of the right, and physical elimination if necessary, and in that case, for example, they were killing thousands of people. At the same time, they were trying to delegitimize the electoral process, and so it's weird, because if you look at the run up to the Spanish Civil War, you see the exact same things you see now. You see them saying well, there's this right wing party that's won a lot of seats, but they're illegitimate. Not because they're procedurally illegitimate because they stuffed the ballot boxes, but they're just inherently illegitimate because their arrow of history only points left in. Any rollback entitles us to kill people, because the arrow of history is not allowed to move right, and so therefore, these people must die. And so that's why Franco, famously, was famously silent, famously basically self-interested. He was not an ideologue at all, he certainly wasn't a fascist or whatever. He was just this kind of authoritarian guy who disliked order and disorder. And he only got persuaded to get into this rebellion against the supposedly legitimate government, which had gotten to be elected through actual fraud, more or less, when the left literally assassinated the, dragged out of his house and killed roughly the equivalent of the speaker of the house, and so he's like well, this is going no place. Good, so something has to be done. And that's eventually what you see in all left grabs for power, that is, to the extent that the right is not perceived as defeated. Ever more violence has to be used to put it down.
Speaker 3:I mean, I like to point out that we now have in America many more political prisoners than the late stage communism did, with the exception of maybe Romania, like East Germany, had far fewer political prisoners than we do now at the end, in the 1980s, and they were going very rapidly down to zero. The amount of propaganda, I mean I traveled and I'm half Hungarian, so I traveled in Hungary in the late in the mid 80s. I mean I traveled in I'm half Hungarian, so I traveled in Hungary in the mid 80s the amount of propaganda we're subjected to is 100 times what people were subjected to under late. Communism is getting traction and you see that with Trump, you see that with some of the other things we've been talking about, which necessarily means that they're going to up the ante. That's just the way it goes, I mean historically, and Franco is instructive for those purposes.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I'm curious too. You mentioned Hungary and maybe I don't know, in some ways a modern example of things moving back to the right with Viktor Orban. I moving back to the right, uh, with victor orban. Um, what? I'm curious. What about that? What made it successful? You know, the assumption, I think, in america is like nothing like that could ever happen here. Um, I guess could it and and and what? I guess what lessons could be pulled from orban's rise there?
Speaker 3:I'm hardly an expert. I though I have been there relatively recently and so on, so I do know, and I more or less speak Hungarian, so I am probably slightly better informed than the average person. Orban, I was in Hungary in 1991 for almost a year, and Orban's my age basically, though he weighs more than I do and he was like a young politician then. Fidesz, which is the ruling party now, was originally the youth party. I think he had to be under 30 to belong, and so he was around. I remember him being around immediately after the fall of communism and he was prime minister, and then he lost an election. The Fidesz party lost power and the communists actually came back with the renamed communists, and so the Fidesz party, which is comprised of a large number by Hungarian standards small country, it's 10 million people spent years working extremely hard with an extremely detailed plan to come back to power, like building grassroots groups, figuring out their political program, and that's much more difficult in the American context. For a variety of reasons, it was successful for them because they did all those things and they offered what the people of Hungary wanted, which is they wanted to keep the immigrants out. They wanted to maintain some relation with the EU. For example, german automakers are a huge employer in Hungary and you can't just kick them out.
Speaker 3:And there's also Hungary-specific things. For example, there's a big gypsy problem, and so there's certain elements of Hungarian politics that are opaque to outsiders because they're designed to beat down the gypsies. But you know, for example, you frequently hear incorrectly that I think a Hungarian woman who has three or more children is exempt from income tax. That's partially and is designed to raise birth births. But it's also designed to screw the gypsies because the gypsies don't have jobs, so they don't pay income tax.
Speaker 3:I mean, everything you hear stereotypically about gypsies is 100 true. I know from personal experience. But you know, in terms of like, their cultural approach to the, the world around them, that said, gypsies are actually hungarian, I've been there for hundreds of years and so on. It's an internal Hungarian question, anyway. So that's a long way of saying that. In my opinion, it'd be much harder in America, both because it's much bigger, the regime is much more entrenched I mean, the communists there had a couple of years of power and they're much more of a free-for-all and the biggest single problem is that the vast majority of people on the right who have political power or are close to political power are clowns. I mean just look around you.
Speaker 3:I mean, yeah, there's a few exceptions, but they are not the kind of people who will spend years in the wilderness building up something in order to enhance the greatness of the nation. They're like Rudy Giuliani, who's always grifting. I mean, it's like the and this is one of the problems with Trump, of course he surrounds he's such a bad judge of character. He surrounds himself with these just awful human beings, and I've been in in the conservative movement for 30 years. They've always been mostly grifters. It's just unbelievable. It's probably a slightly lower percentage now because there are people with prominence with platforms because of technology and the internet that are not grifters. But the people who actually are in DC, I mean, there's a tiny handful of people in elective office and a tiny like JD Vance not a grifter, everyone he hires, as far as I can tell, not a grifter, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
Speaker 3:Maybe it'll get better. But Lindsey Graham, I mean, like what planet do we think that Lindsey Graham is someone who is fit to lick the boots of Victor Orban? I mean, he might enjoy it as kind of a kink thing, but that's not there. It's just the Americans on the right can't do it with the people we have now. We need a new set of people, and maybe JD Vance is the harbinger of that, or some other people We'll see To do that. It's not directly applicable to America. Do that, it's just not. It's not directly applicable to America, I guess.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, that's helpful. And then I guess the tied to that, the question you've got with Camp of the Saints right with you know whether it's gypsies, whether it's immigrants, whether it's stuff like this, do you see anybody who could pose a legitimate resistance to the flood of immigration coming into the country, obviously structured by the left to destroy Western civilization, right? Do you see any really anybody pushing back hard enough against this or just in a position to do something about it?
Speaker 3:Well, there are any number of people who are in a position to do something about it. I mean, this is just a classic example of what Napoleon said when they asked him how he became emperor of France. Right, I saw the crown of France lying in the street and I picked it up with my sword. So just take an example, abbott, you know, if you're Abbott, I'm in the position. I think a couple of weeks ago, when Abbott had that brouhaha with the federal government, was a major defeat for the federal government. It was an actual happening, and the reason it was a major defeat was because the federal government was humiliated and forced to back down, which they would never have done even a couple of years ago. Just on the principle of the thing. But that doesn't mean that Abbott is going to extend that.
Speaker 3:What Abbott needs to do is he needs to militarize the entire border and then, when they try to federalize the National border with, and then when they try to federalize the National Guard refused, I mean that is the correct play that he could easily do. I mean and at that point the I mean that's a regime crisis that the federal government almost certainly been unable to do anything about. It might well have catastrophic consequences for our kind of existing political setup, whether good or bad. It's hard you can never tell in advance whether they're good or bad but it's very easy for these things to be done. It's just a question of having the will.
Speaker 3:I mean, the federal government could then purport to arrest Abbott or something, and that could have any number of unforeseen and foreseeable consequences, but it's just a question of who's going to do that, and so you have Elon Musk running around basically pushing this. I mean, he doesn't say so in so many words, but you've got to know that a guy like that, who they just stole $55 billion from, and his response was I'm going to reincorporate my business in a new state. That wasn't what he was thinking. What he was really thinking was how can I help Greg Abbott destroy these people? I mean not that he shared that with me.
Speaker 3:I'm surmising what he said, and so we're just waiting for someone to do that. And it's a very bad position for the regime right now because it's an election year and normally they can because of people's short memory spans and their control of the propaganda narrative and so on they could do all these things to make the immigrants continue to be admitted and then people would forget about it. Right now it's kind of front burner and Musk is keeping it front burner and it's only eight months to the election and this is looking real bad for them. So we'll see. But it's easy. It's just a question of who has the will.
Speaker 3:It's always a question of who has the will. But the beauty of it here is that many times when I when you say someone has to have the will, that involves something very unpleasant, Like when Franco, like rebelled against the federal government of Spain, he came with soldiers and they started shooting immediately. Here you could imagine a situation where you don't want shooting, the federal government just agrees to let Texas defend the border and we go back to having. This is a more common kind of historical direction where the center of an empire gradually loses power over the periphery. There'll be a lot preferable to people engaging in violence.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. None of us can obviously know the future. But as you look at this year politics, obviously election year, as you mentioned what do you kind of see coming down the pipeline? Any anticipation of you know? We've we've heard all sorts of crazy theories, but like what? What do you expect to happen?
Speaker 3:So my I used to not be a prediction guy, but somehow I've been backed into prediction guy. So my predictions are that Trump will easily win the election, regardless of the massive fraud, and that the left will immediately engage in violence from top to bottom. From top, meaning, like the cabal of military officers who purports to be in charge of the military will try to, will engage in some kind of coup activity. The entire deep state will try to undermine him. They'll unloose their foot soldiers for violence upon American cities. Yada, yada, yada. Just basically like 2020, you know 10 or 20 times. So that's kind of like a low hanging prediction. I mean, the Trump winning prediction is maybe a bit more aggressive, but certainly, if Trump wins, it's low hanging fruit to predict that latter set of events. So that's my one prediction. I would assume that would unleash some set of events. So that's my one prediction. I would assume that would unleash some set of chaos. And my kind of stretch prediction is that I expect were there to be some kind of regime crisis and chaos, which will hopefully be happening far away from me, here in Indiana, where I lead my peaceful life. I don't have to live anywhere near Washington DC Were that to happen.
Speaker 3:My and I get a lot of grief for this on the right. My expectation is that Trump may or may not end up taking office or being president, but that sooner or later, elon Musk is going to show up and attempt to assert himself as a regime hegemon. Because my reasoning on that though I can go into more detail, but I probably don't have time is simply that Elon Musk is one of these guys who has a very defined goal he wants to get to Mars. Leave me aside whether that's a sensible goal or not. He has maybe 20 years. They're stopping him. His only play is to take advantage of a fractured regime in order to ensure that he can do what he wants to do, and the only way to do that for sure every entrepreneur knows is to be the guy in charge.
Speaker 1:That's it. That's the way it is. He certainly has a lot of resources. I mean, we'll give him that. Of anybody who could probably accomplish something like that, he might be the guy. I want to ask you. We'll link to the Camp of the Saints in the show notes for this. Is there actually a good way to get a copy of that book?
Speaker 3:No, as I say in my review, I bought it for $12 in 2018, and now they cost several hundred dollars because it's a banned book. But the answer is that there are some copies online, but they're not well formatted, for example. I'm sure the libraries have all banned them. I'm sure you can't get it. My guess is that sooner or later, interest increases, someone will torrent the book. I don't really understand this. The young ones apparently have access to various libraries of pirated books or what have you. My guess is they'll get pirated at some point and circulated around. I wouldn't know how to do that, but I bet it happens. Okay.
Speaker 1:Awesome. Well, Charles, I really appreciate you coming on. The podcast been very helpful. We encourage our listeners check out your podcast. They can also check out your writings at the worthy housecom. Again, sir, Thank you so much for joining me.
Speaker 3:It was my pleasure. Thank you, dot com.
Speaker 1:Again, sir, thank you so much for joining me. It was my pleasure. Thank you Well. Thanks again for listening to this episode of the Hardman podcast. For those who are not yet supporting on Patreon, we do encourage you to follow the link in the show notes. Support this show, get more content and support more content that you want to see out in the marketplace. You can get access to early episodes by signing up today. We also want to encourage you to check out the 2024 New Christendom Press Conference, june 6th through 8th in Ogden, utah. You can find more by clicking on the link in the show notes. Get special pricing today. Join us in Ogden. We are going to be talking about rebuilding Christian boroughs in the style of King Alfred. Until next time, stay frosty, fight the good fight, act like men.