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