Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Welcome everybody to this clubhouse with, uh, professor Jason Hill, senior scholar at the Atlas society. Um, this is going to be a banner week, uh, rather than our usual twice a week. We are having a clubhouse almost every day. Uh, we have four club houses this week. So, uh, today we are going to be taking your questions. Um, and, uh, if we don't have enough questions, we have quite a few that are, uh, backed up on our Instagram takeover. So make sure that you're following us there so you can add great questions in and, um, if you have the ability, please share this room, uh, with, uh, on your social media right now, so that we can get more folks who may have a question. So great. Um, you know, on the Instagram takeovers, Jason, we got so many questions on Ukraine, not surprisingly. So, uh, I know you've given some thought to that. Um, and maybe the best question was summed up. Would iron red advocate intervening in Ukraine? It's an interesting question because I mean, intervening can mean everything from sending troops to, uh, cutting diplomatic relations or what have you. So we'd love your perspective,
Speaker 1 00:01:42 Right? I'm writing an article for one of my columns. And, um, it's interesting to, to know, to what extent she would think that we shouldn't have been. I mean, if we take article five of NATO, which is the collective defense act, which says that a war against one is, is a war against all, and we're morally consistent. And we realize that during nine 11, the invocation of article five was the first time in history of NATO that it was ever actually ever involved. And we saw where, or our colleagues and our allies rather, um, joined us in the war. Um, so to be ethically, ethically consistent, we would have to, although the Ukraine is not part of NATO. Um, but if we take Putin's threats very, very seriously, and there are threats against two countries that are not part of NATO, Sweden, and Finland, to which he has issued less than fail threats.
Speaker 1 00:02:50 Um, and th but they are our allies. And also if he succeeds in the really, really not just taking the Ukraine, but holding the Ukraine, um, then the success of republics, you know, like, um, like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova, um, all the, all those successors states that, that we, that we, that are no independent republics Bellaruse, although Bellaruse is one of his, um, sort of puppet puppet states, but I'm thinking like Kurdistan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova perspective, Stan, um, Turkmenistan, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, those three, those latter politic states are covered under the, um, article five, then some sort of intervention would be necessary if it's even the sort of intervention that Germany has issued in the past 48 hours. That is supplying Ukraine with as many jets, as many fighter tanks and jets as possible, um, to stall off this rapacious, uh, Atlantic terrorist, because he is a terrorist and he's a thug and his or her patients thug is an expansionist.
Speaker 1 00:04:07 Um, um, fuck, who, who really wants the two questions at hand? Does he want to restore the Soviet empire in the Soviet style that is the Soviet union, or does he want, in some sense to return to, um, as our, a Russian czar estate empire, uh, before the 1914 borders before the start of world war one? So I, I would venture to say that probably I ran with, to say that it is not in our national self-interest to engage in full-scale bombing of, uh, Russia, uh, but that some sort of support to Ukraine and, um, and some sort of military help, um, to, to the Ukraine Ukrainian army, and you pick Ukrainian president, uh, would be in or rational self-interest because it cannot be in the U S rational self-interest to have an expansionist thug, um, running a muck across Europe and with it, with the intention of reclaiming, uh, some part of the Russian that the former Russian empire it's just that that cannot be in our self-interests. I said, we spoke about this the last time.
Speaker 0 00:05:20 Certainly it would be in our rational self-interest to lift all restrictions on fracking and development of our natural resources in order to make, provide a more robust supply of energy to, um, to the European countries so that they can also take a more active management in, in, uh, protecting their own borders and their own security. So, um, again, welcome everybody. We are here with professor Jason Hill. Uh, this is asking me anything. So any questions that you may have for professor hill, we've got Roger and Scott, I don't know if either of you two have a question you wanted to run by Jason.
Speaker 2 00:06:11 Yeah, for sure. And, um, it's interesting cause I've got a lot of respect for, uh, productor hill. Um, and, but I, I've also noticed that when it comes to foreign policy seems to be the one area where we're, I, I tend to disagree with him as he's far more hawkish than I am, but, but I always like listening to these ideas. Um, and it's, it's all theoretical until bombs start dropping. And so what I've noticed is that even my, my own thoughts about foreign policy change, the moment that the bombs drop and, and, and maybe this is a normal, uh, you know, thing that happens in the human mind that you just see things different as people die and you start witnessing, um, uh, you know, somebody just acting with pure malice and evil. Um, but my question for you, uh, Dr. Hill would be, uh, now that we have new neutral countries like Switzerland, that are saying that they want to make the statement of they're willing to sanction both the country and Putin, uh, certainly not an active neutrality, uh, you know, while it might not be putting bodies on the line and nobody's doing that for Ukraine right now, it's certainly a gesture that signals that the international community is like, okay, this guy's a thug and we've got to stop him.
Speaker 2 00:07:31 So in that, the question that I have is, uh, what recommendations do you have for the NATO nations in terms of like investment? Uh, the commitment in NATO is supposed to be 2% of GDP. Uh, president Trump had recommended when he was president that that that'd be up to 4%. Uh, do you think that this might be a time where we consider, uh, like a radical shift of, uh, in, in dramatic, uh, military investment, at least for a short period of time, uh, to make sure that, uh, a, the, the investment is there. So we are adequately prepared for all threats, um, and, uh, and, and, and, and in a position to be able to deter these threats, uh, because of the massive buildup. And I I'd love to get, get your idea of like, what that investment should be.
Speaker 1 00:08:24 Yeah. I spent time long ago. I mean, I, I think, you know, I'm not a big fan of president Trump, but I think it was absolutely right that the, the, the military spending of these countries, um, has got to be increased. Um, now that you're asking the question of, of intelligence in terms of where these funds should be allocated, I'm not qualified to answer that question. Um, that's a sort of journalistic minutiae question of where exactly the fund should be allocated in terms of military spending. Um, and that's a question for the military in those countries, in those NATO countries to decide among themselves, because some of them are, um, better staffed militarily in, in, in Jetstar tents or whatever it is. But in principle it's is answer the question in terms of fundamental principles here that, uh, yes, um, it's time for them to increase, um, the percentage that they allocate towards spending it's been time long ago, depending on, primarily on the United States.
Speaker 1 00:09:27 The fund has been a colossal disgrace. Um, thank God, Germany stepping up. I think that to crush the bullet, even more Sweden and Finland, Sweden should get some spine, uh, and join NATO immediately, or whatever routes are necessary to, to join NATO should be undertaken by Sweden. Finland is not a coward. We have to remember that little Finland beat Russia, um, tiny Finland, beat Russia, staved off Russia, and the second world war. So Finland has been a face to the nation. They too should join NATO. And, um, so in principle, uh, the neutrality clauses are being lifted because Europe finally is getting its spine back and lost it for a long time when faced with a school yard. Well, there's one in the schoolyard bully. He's like, so just the spending has to increase. It's not fair that some countries should be shouldering the burden more than, than others.
Speaker 1 00:10:38 I hope that answers your question, but I can't, I would not be able to, I'm not qualified to get into the specifics of saying how much, uh, each country should be spending, or what percentage would be spending just in terms of fundamental principle. Europe should be protecting itself. Um, America of course, has its role to play, but, um, I'm delighted to see what Germany did, um, just two days ago. And, um, I'm hoping that Sweden and Finland will, will, will also step up as non NATO members, but as potential future NATO members, um, and not be scared of by his threats. Um,
Speaker 3 00:11:26 Thank you. Uh, thanks for having this. Um, I'm curious about, uh, just generally objectivity in war, we've seen a couple of cases with like the fighters on snake island that gave their lives only to find out they actually surrendered or the ghost of Kiev that that's not really true. And just, I I've had a few friends just say, I just don't trust anything. That's coming out about the war right now. And just, you know, that, that in itself, I mean, in today's information age, it makes it more challenging. And just versus the propaganda value of a, you know, trying to put up a break from,
Speaker 1 00:12:05 Well, I don't know who, I don't know who's saying this. I mean, people are the stuff I imagine are people who, um, it's, it strikes me, I've heard people say the stuff and they are disgusting disgraceful people on the right. Uh, the people in the GOP who are Putin advocates and, or Putin supporters, um, who are, who really are. And I sent off a tweet yesterday, wondering aloud, how is it Ronald Reagan, wherever he resides now in whatever dimension must be turning some assaults, because how is it possible that, and this question that you're posing, I've heard coming predominantly from conservatives and, and right when members of the GOP about fake news and not knowing what to trust or whom to trust. And I think that then there are legitimate news outlets that we can trust. But more specifically, these are individuals, I think who, um, we shouldn't even brand them as traitors because what they really want is for the United States to become like Russia, but they wanted an oligarchy, their whites, a lot of them are white separatists, racist, um, who want em and, and, and cultural and ethnic nationalists who want to cleanse this country, um, of what they considered to be its contaminants.
Speaker 1 00:13:32 That is anyone who's not white. And they want the United States to become like hungry and like Russia to the rule, by an authoritarian, dictatorial, thug. Um, they're not advocates of democracy. And so I don't even give these people the time of the day, because I think we live in a world where there are so many legitimate outlets that I spent all morning between grading papers, searching the BBC, the guardian, um, overseas, um, uh, the English speaking or English language PR uh, newspapers in, in Austria and so on and so forth in Germany. There are, if one is astute and one is determined, you know, well, you can, you can find the truth, the objective truth about what's going on out there. I think these people are, who are raising doubts about its use Kellyanne Conway's new lingo, alternative facts, right? Um, or fake news are people who really have an agenda to cast doubt about the legitimacy of defending the Ukraine and want to, in some sense, provide some kind of legitimacy for Russia's invasion, Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Speaker 1 00:14:50 I think those people are morally reprehensible. And, uh, we know what kind of junk is behind that kind of questioning it's people who are, uh, people on the far, right? Who, who for the most part, um, they're not people really this time on the left because the left surprise, not surprisingly are out there protesting. Um, and many people on the right are protesting the invasion of Ukraine, but I think these are extremists. These are, these are Nash, these are cultural, ethnic nationalists, white nationalists for the most part, um, who, who, who want America to become like Russia, like hungry. And that's my take on it spot.
Speaker 0 00:15:31 All right. Brian question on Ukraine, Russia, or any topic under the sun?
Speaker 4 00:15:40 Hey, thanks. This is a son that just started crossing my mind a couple hours ago and it, and it was generated by some of this Russia Ukraine stuff. And so this is extremely timely. I appreciate a chance to ask this question. So on this app, and in general, we hear a lot about white supremacy. And so it's thrown out there as this scourge, the source of all things evil. And, and so I started assuming, or I guess, inferring that people understand, uh, have a common understanding of how it's, uh, manifested or implemented or applied, but yet, um, I'm wondering about the roots of it. And so I'm trying to think of not just the effects, if you will, but, but the cause. And so something I just came up with is, and you can help me think through this, maybe I'm way off base, or maybe it's stupidly simple.
Speaker 4 00:16:32 But, um, my assertion would be that white supremacy is basically the result of, of, let's say Europeans Caucasians, if you want embracing enlightenment values of individualism and self determination. And so if that's the dividing line and perhaps people on the other side are, let's say mystics, collectivists, et cetera. So if, if the root of white supremacy and the reason why let's say whites have have prospered and non whites, haven't I know that's overly simplistic, but let's just say for argument's sake, that's the case then what is the root source of that let's say advantage or privilege or whatever does that make sense? So can we say that embracing enlightenment values, the Europeans embracing enlightenment values has, you know, propagated or contributed to, you know, some longer-term advantage manifested primarily in America, you know, exemplified by the prosperity of America. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 1 00:17:42 Absolutely, but that has nothing to do with white supremacy. White supremacists are our bile and ran would call and she would have absolute hatred for these people, our biological collectivists, who practice what is called . Uh, they do not embrace enlightenment traditions. They are not individualists. They are abject tribalists who seek their self-esteem and their sense of self-worth by identifying with a herd, the collective, the white race, uh, enlightenment principles are based on individualism. That is you did use the value of an individual based on his or her more of actions, not the color of his or her skin or his, or her racial, a script of identity, uh, that there is an identified identification with what Ron would call chemical predestination, that if you belong to a certain tribe or you belong to a certain race that you automatically by default inherit the virtues associated with individual members of that race who are prosperous, who are achieving, there is no such thing as racial achievement.
Speaker 1 00:18:56 There are individual achievements of people who belong to certain races. Um, no. So I think that white supremacists are collectivists. They're heard pathetic heard creatures who can't stand on their own, and that anyone who embraces enlightenment principles will realize that we're all the legatees of the actions and the practices, the virtues, the achievements of individuals, individuals, regardless of race, creed, or color Jews, Caucasians African-Americans black Americans have made enormous contributions in the field of technology in the field of science that we don't hear about too often, uh, in this country and white supremacists are anything but individualist they're collectivists they're tribalists. Um, they have not, they have betrayed everything, enlightenment value that one could extensively point to because at the heart, um, they are writing on the prestige of a racial identity. And that itself is a form of massive collectivism, which in my understanding of enlightenment is, is inimical to enlightenment principles.
Speaker 4 00:20:21 I'm thinking about it more as a slur. So I completely agree with you, you know, why white supremacists are irrational evil. I'm just thinking of it as a counter-argument to when it's applied to, you know, anything that's American or pro-American, or let's say pro white and how it's used as a slur. I agree that, you know, enlightenment values can be adopted implemented by anyone, right? Any person, any rational person can embrace individualism. And self-determination so, um, uh, I appreciate your answer.
Speaker 5 00:20:54 This is a definition problem. There's the two different definitions of white supremacy. There's the one that Jason described of people who believe that they're better than others. And they collect, devise themselves into this race that they think makes them better and makes them, you know, able to do all of these things as a collective group, through history, these building and societies and cultures, et cetera. But then there's the other definition of white supremacy, which literally encompasses the entire founding building and constitution of this country is that's how it's described much of the time on clubhouse, at least. And in that case, I think you hit the nail on the head, Brian, that's exactly a great history of that system. And the part that you're mentioning anyone can be part of that. Um, and the job that we have is to take away as many barriers to other people entering that system as possible, not tear down and start something new. I don't trust anybody to do that. I think the system is good. It just needs to be opened up as best as possible.
Speaker 0 00:22:10 Jonathan, that's a really helpful distinction because, um, you know, yes, there, there's the correct textbook straight out of iron Rand, uh, definition that Jason provided. And then, you know, there's Nancy Pelosi and every Democrat, um, in the legislature, branding anyone who disagrees with, um, having requiring IDs for voting or anything like that as white supremacists. So, um, I, you know, I say, because I've been involved in Republican politics for, uh, 35 years or so, um, conservative movement, libertarian movement, I haven't met anyone who, uh, would fit Jason's, uh, definition yet. So maybe I'm just not, maybe I'm traveling in the right circles, but, um, I'd love to get our founder, professor David Kelly, to give his thoughts or ask a question with Jason's.
Speaker 6 00:23:26 Uh, thank you. And thank you, Jason. I agree entirely with Jason's, uh, response to that questionable white supremacy and the, the, uh, antipathy between that, that idea. And, um, the enlightenment values that I think as an objectivist share, I want to add one thing that may be relevant. A flatter mirror Putin has, um, made clear in many states, many statements over the years that he he's, his goal is to reconstitute the, uh, the Russian empire let's call it that, uh, having thought that the fall of the Soviet union was, he was a historical tragedy. And so he's, uh, he's threatening, um, not just Ukraine now, but potentially the other former Soviet republics that broke free 30 years ago, but he's offered another, um, justification, which is, um, he started, I don't know if this is the beginning, but last summer he published, um, a talk and he has repeated it many times since do they affect that Russians and Ukrainians are the same people, the same history, the same ethnicity.
Speaker 6 00:24:48 And in that respect, he's invoking a kind of nationalist, um, principle of the zone. And, um, I, I suspect that some nationalists in America are, um, falling for that, uh, Ukrainians themselves have one, as far as I can tell from reading this one, nothing to do with this. Um, but that's, Putin's, um, second goal. I don't, I think the power struggle to be constituted. The Russian empire is more powerful motor, but the, the, uh, aesthetic justification, the tribalist justification that is also offered, um, is, uh, um, by which he hopes to attract, um, more support or at least, you know, um, and people saying, well that's is, that's just the Russians and the Russians, the slobs, so to speak, um, doing their thing. But I was, I just want to add one little, one little, uh, local point for us. Um, one of the society Jaroslav Ramana is currently he's a Bellin Bhushan who has been extremely active in the liquid Shenko government there. And, um, he had to flee Belarus because, um, threats from the government and last summer went to PF where he now finds himself having up from the frying pan into the fire. And, but he is there active speaking repeatedly, and we just published an appeal that I wrote for support, uh, for him in case he does have to flee. So, um, check out our website, that my appeal for him, um, was just published.
Speaker 6 00:26:44 But thanks, I'll leave it there much more to say about Ukraine. Uh, I don't want to monopolize or, uh, um, keep us removing idols, her Instagram questions.
Speaker 0 00:26:57 Thank you, David. Jason, did you have anything you wanted to add to what David said, or you want me to keep serving up the questions?
Speaker 1 00:27:07 I have something that, but, but if we have time later come back, um, it has to do with a nationalism that I think a lot of Americans might be buying into, but we can move on.
Speaker 0 00:27:19 We'll definitely want to return to that because I, I thought that you have the very interesting distinction on that kind of a civic nationalism versus an ethnic nationalism, uh, Damian Damian, if you want to unmute yourself, here we go.
Speaker 1 00:27:39 Hello?
Speaker 7 00:27:41 Can you hear
Speaker 0 00:27:41 Me? Yes, we can. He has a question for professor hill.
Speaker 7 00:27:46 Um, yes, that's kind of the topic
Speaker 0 00:28:00 And we lost you. Sorry about that. Um, man, do you have a question for professor hill?
Speaker 8 00:28:10 Uh, you know, I, I, uh, I am, uh, I do have a specific topic I'd like to talk about, but, um, I kind of am interested to hear where he was about to go with the nationalism question. I'm perfectly happy to wait if that seems more topical, right?
Speaker 0 00:28:24 Yeah. It's worthwhile Jason. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 1 00:28:28 Well, it tied in with, uh, with what I talked about when I talked about the white nationalists, who are, who are conservatives and part of the GOP who are pro Putin and poor and pro Russia, that I was perfect for a long time. I was befuddled by why would any conservative or why would any person on the right before, before, uh, Russia, pew? And then I started to think, well, of course it has to do with the nationalism. Of course they want an America like hungry or like Russia. And so the civic nationalists, I'm a civic nationalist, which means, and I think most of us in this room are civic nationalists, which means that we adhere to a thin loyalty to the state based around the Republic, Republican values that adhere that allow the state to, to be a cohesive coherent state. Um, we pledged loyalty to things like, you know, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of association, the things that are contained in the bill of rights.
Speaker 1 00:29:27 And we are allowed to carve out our conception of the good lives for ourselves. Our nationalism is not exclusive, but it's not the CRA it is not based on ethnicity, on lineage, on blood, on, um, religious affiliation or any kind of national affiliation. It is theoretically open to all persons versus cultural or ethnic nationalists, go with seek a sort of homogeneity along lines of race primarily, um, and would seek to exclude others from attaining citizenship by one single criteria or a set of criteria or many, or maybe three or four criteria that have to do with exclusion based on cultural, cultural issues that, that are not inimical to one's identity identification with the state that is wanting to still be a great Patriot, but, um, culturally deviate in certain ways, like one could be a Muslim or one could be a Xirrus 300 or something like that, and still be an American.
Speaker 1 00:30:31 So the cultural nationalists want to exclude citizens based on criteria that are in their minds, inimical, anathema, and Chipotle to what it is to be an American. And usually that falls along racial lines, right? That is European into some sort of homogenous European identity that actually doesn't exist. It's just a myth in their minds. And so my sense is that many of the sympathies coming out of the far right, uh, that's extended towards, um, Putin and invasion of Ukraine fall along those kinds of ethnic nationalism where couldn't is invoking I kind of ethnic nationalistic, um, rhetoric that is Ukrainians are the same as us and therefore we should control them. And we see this when he talks about the separatists in Eastern Ukraine. Um, and I think that, you know, all of that whole section should be regarded as completely independent, but he invokes that the language of ethnic or cultural nationalism and the same with a solo, but I'm a loss of itch use to justify the genocide of the cost of both ethnic Albanian people.
Speaker 1 00:31:43 Um, and let me say that again. Yes, Rogers, right. I am a Hawk, one of the, again, one of the most effective and useful show forces that I have seen in my 37 years in this country was when president Clinton bombed the hell out of Serbia and every time Belgrade and every time a bomb felt, I popped my champagne bottle and drank another glass of champagne. And as the bombs dropped, I drank more and more in celebration because it ended that little thugs life. I didn't end it right there, but it ended his campaign of slaughter and butchery on a civilized continent called Europe. Um, so that's, that's, that's all I have to say about the nationalism nationalism issues for now, at least
Speaker 8 00:32:28 That is exactly where I kind of hoped you were, you were angling towards, um, you brought that up. Um, and I'm reminded of the, there's a, there's an essay by George Orwell called notes on nationalism. And if anything Jason just said is, sounds right too, I would really highly recommend it. Um, he basically describes nationalism as more like a kind of chauvinism. Um, and, and in this essay, he actually notes that it can be, it can be a, a sort of single-minded adherence to a church or a class, or, um, uh, not just a race or a geographical area. So he kind of tries to broaden that out. Jason, what you just did, I think is you, you, you, you defined a kind of American nationalism that is not that, but actually is in some sense kind of an adherence to a creed or a cause.
Speaker 1 00:33:22 Right? I think so. Thank
Speaker 8 00:33:23 You. And I think mistaking glamour Poot and for being on your side would probably be one of the most glaring mistakes that a conservative could make.
Speaker 1 00:33:32 Absolutely. It will be horrific and I'm going to stop calling myself a conservative right now. I'm just going to go back to the libertarian stance that I used. I used to call myself a libertarian for years, and there's such a disparate group with quirky views. Um, and some of them lambaste iron Rand was stealing from her ideas. So I decided to use the moniker conservative because it seemed to at least codified some of my values, but, but you're right. Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:34:03 Damian, I think we had lost you, but now you're back. If you have a question.
Speaker 9 00:34:11 Oh, I'm sorry. I thought, I guess my basic question was just anyone could like educate me and pointing me to the, the actual evidence or, uh, I guess I know that there's evidence of white supremacy, white supremacists thought, but I'm saying that for the amount that we hear about it in the conversation, I just want to see the amounts of it that would warrant that attention that we're seeing today. You know, I guess for me being as a black person, I'm trying to figure out why is it so much a part of the conversation? Because for me, a lot of times, I think people try to use it. I think you said this before, some people aren't using it from a racial standpoint, they're using it from a value standpoint, like the set of values makes you buy. I get it. But also, I guess if they're just using the truck to try to dismiss dismiss people's, um, you know, opinions about things and just characterize them in a certain way. So I just want to know, I see that it's a lot of attention given to that topic. And I just want to see what is, what are the actual evidence, the actual evidence that was seeing today, that's supporting all of that attention,
Speaker 0 00:35:37 Just, um, we're going to get to professor hill to respond, but have you ever run across somebody who you would say would fit that label? Or,
Speaker 9 00:35:48 I mean, so it was hard for me to say, because I think it's a different soul. There's some people who are different than I am. Whereas if somebody thinks a certain way about them, then that affects them. For me, it's different because you have to actually do something to me that it has to be, you know, force or inflict some type of pain or cause me some type of injury or something for me to, to, uh, to believe in that. So for some people it's just like, oh, you don't like me. And because you don't like me and you think you're better than me. And it makes a difference. I don't, it doesn't matter if somebody thinks they're better than me. If they're not doing anything or harming my life, they're just like a stupid person to me. It's kind of like, oh, look at, so it's hard for me to, I haven't had anybody do anything physically to me where I could just, it really bothers me or hurts my life. And that's, what's so
Speaker 1 00:36:54 Well, Damien, I completely agree with you. I mean, I've written a book, uh, most of a lot of it devoted to, um, stating that America is not a white supremacist country anymore, as it certainly once was on the Jim Crow law before the passage of the 1964 civil rights act, which, which ended in my view, it just, it not only brought blacks full standing before the law, but it ended an official ideology of holding the white race as superior or an ideology of, of white superiority and ended up punitive laws that were created. And that work created that were punitive of blacks because they were blacks. So the end of white supremacy has officially ended for me, but the 1964 civil rights act. And I think that it is a colossal disgrace that people on the left invoke that term, uh, when, as Jennifer was saying, uh, when they run into any kind of disagreement, right?
Speaker 1 00:37:51 If they, if they oppose critical race theory, as I certainly I'm one of the most ardent opponents of critical race theory, they would call me a blackface for white supremacy, or if a white person does it, they call that person a white supremacist, or if there is any kind of pushback against, um, illegal immigration or one could be pro immigration as I certainly am. But if one pushed the idea advances, the idea that America has the right to determine set criteria for a vetting process for how people get let into the country on is called a white supremacy. So I think that term is banded about recklessly carelessly as a way of silencing dissent of a way of inducing shame and guilt in whites are deviating from received wisdom and orthodoxy Orthodox positions. And it is way is used way too often. So are there white supremacists in this country?
Speaker 1 00:38:47 Yes. Are there an existential threat to America? No, but I think in terms of this conversation, I brought it up as a way of understanding conceptually, how I was able to make sense of people on the right who are pro Russia, pro Putin and pro the invasion of Ukraine. I can only classify or conceptually, let me say, I can only conceptually make sense of it by understanding it from the perspective of how a white nationalist who's a white supremacist by definition would defend Russia and defend Putin's rhetoric. When Putin is invoking language of cultural and ethnic nationalism, which white nationalists in this country utilize and employ, uh, as a way of defending their positions. Uh, so that's how it, that's how it became relevant in this conversation. But I think you're absolutely right that, um, you know, it's, it's banded about way too often and it's used recklessly. Um, and yeah, so let me just stop there because that's, that's as much as I want to say right now.
Speaker 0 00:40:04 Thank you. And Damien, I put the link above, uh, to one professor Hill's book. Uh, we have overcome and immigrants letter to America. I think Jason, that's the one you were referring to. So, uh, I want to encourage those who are in the audience. If you have a question on any topic for professor hill, go ahead and ask it. But otherwise I'm going to look into our pantry here of questions from, uh, Instagram. And one is from Chris. Uh, he says, I rant on religion. Do you think she would have a different view on it today?
Speaker 1 00:40:50 Well, I, you can't put word in, like, I am not wanting to put words in a dead man's or a dead woman's mouth, but I ran was a pretty good system thinker. And I mean, I've been reading her and studying her for 37 years, but not 37, 37 years. Yes. A little bit more than 37 years. Right before I came to America and I've taught her ideas for twenty-five years. I don't think she would have a different idea on religion. I don't see what there is in the nature of religion as it exists today. It's mysticism, it's a belief in the supernatural, something over and beyond nature outside of nature. Um, so I think she would consistently hold her atheistic position and that she would, um, as she said in the Tom interview, which I just watched her recently, that religion is canned philosophy, uh, that it gives you, uh, a shortcut to thinking independently for oneself and being, uh, creatively critical and, and applying your creative intelligence of the problems of reality. You get to set up canned answers from religion. And if one reads her a faith and forced the stories of the modern world one is left with no doubt, I think that she would be an ardent critic of religion today as she was, um, when she was alive and lecturing and writing.
Speaker 0 00:42:12 Yeah, I think that's true. Um, I just look at what are some of the big developments in the world that have happened since she died? And, uh, of course she was not around to see, um, the, the rise of, uh, you know, Islamic extremism with an impact, uh, on global security. Uh, so you know, that I think would have confirmed her views on religion and its detriment. On the other hand, I think that, um, you know, she opposed Reagan's presidency in part because of his association with the religious, right. And as I've written in the past, uh, you know, the, uh, the role fell and, uh, low versus weight stood. So, um, maybe it wouldn't have changed your philosophical position on religion, but it may have changed some of her, her views on the potential threat of, uh, of religious conservatives in terms of, um, you know, restricting the individual liberties of, of other citizens. So my 2 cents Isaiah,
Speaker 10 00:43:33 Hi, um, I have a, uh, a question that I want to run by oven banging on about this today, um, with, uh, Switzerland, uh, levying its sanctions for the first time in basically anybody's living memory in probably hundreds of years, what's the, Linda's no longer neutral on the Russia front. I think, uh, now would be a perfect time, uh, for these all of the, for, uh, the United States and other Western countries to expropriate the wealth of the oligarchy that that's invested, uh, in, uh, their societies. Um, I see no reason why this would lead to any sort of like, uh, capital flight, uh, because I mean, if everybody does it, uh, there's nowhere for people to invest otherwise. And I mean, Russia is kind of screwing up everybody's money. So we might as well take their stuff. They don't seem to respect property rights. Uh, so I see no reason to respect their, especially being that they didn't work for this money in the first place. Um, so I don't, I don't advocate, uh, uh, like freezing their assets. I advocate less us actually like spending the money, uh, and like, yeah, we could like use to pay down our debt. We could use it to, uh, invest in people, uh, working in middle-class people if we choose to, um, I don't see any reason not to do that. Um, but I would like to get, uh, Jason's view on that.
Speaker 1 00:44:54 Well, this is an issue that's very, very tricky because look, I agree that the west unleashing in swift bands, uh, and, and very crushing penalties on Russia is as far as we can probably go, unless we can extend the B show that is oligarchs. These billionaires that you're talking about are, are, uh, are gained their money through, you know, through like expropriating illegally funds from American American so long as it's not, I don't it's it's, we, we cannot play that role. We, we cannot, um, mess with the assets of individual Russians. I think in the manner that you're suggesting, I think the unleashing of the swift bands is going to hurt Russia in a way that long-term, uh, will have an effect on these oligarchs. But, um, we, we have to be very careful that we just cannot extensively, or we just can't in a wholesale manner assume that every single Russian billionaire in the world, um, how that person earned their money and that, that gives us the sort of unilateral, right, which we don't have to confiscate, uh, or freezer their assets.
Speaker 1 00:46:14 I mean, this is getting into some tricky waters here. I'm not sure that we, we have that power to do that. Um, we do have the power to unleash the swift bands and, and, and, and, and we have, uh, and that's that's as far as that's, as far as we can actually go. I don't know if other people would agree with me or disagree with me on that, on that issue, but when it comes to individual private, um, assets and, and, and, and wealth, um, it would take a great deal of investigation to, to do that. And we have to remember that we, this is, uh, we're not fighting the Russian individuals or Russian people, right. We're fighting Putin's policies, um, as a global fuck, who has an expansionist agenda in Russia and bringing on the oligarchs is really not going to bring down Putin himself.
Speaker 1 00:47:10 Um, so I, I take a sort of slightly different view from you on that respect, the kind of investigative work that would have to be done is not the province is not the business of the United States of America, uh, or of any Western nation really into, in terms of looking at, um, the wealth acquisition of these oligarchs. I mean, then we'd have to go into Saudi Arabia, right? And then we'd have to go into that gasoline, that country that exists has just one big gas gasoline station, which is the second largest sponsor of terrorism, Qatar. Um, and we'd have to go into Bahrain and then we'd have to say nothing of the Chinese billionaires. I mean, where do we stop if we, we follow the pecan exurban logic of your argument?
Speaker 10 00:47:57 Well, I think we could just do this one. I think this one's pretty easy. They started a war and, uh, I think we should put the screws to them. So-so Lance a good and, uh, rep, uh, he's, he's in the house, he's a Republican in the house is expected to, uh, release a plan, uh, to allow private citizens in the United States to seize Russian assets. Um, so, uh, yeah, I think, uh, if you know, any, any Russian oligarchs, anyone, uh, get ready for the five finger discount it could become into you.
Speaker 11 00:48:35 Uh, thank you. Thank you, Jennifer. And, uh, yeah, good afternoon day, uh, Dr. Hill. Um, so, um, uh, one of the things I've always found fascinating is, you know, the impact of our experiences and education on our political ideology. Uh, so, I mean, I've heard you speak in other rooms before, and I figured as much as you're sharing your experiences like me, you've happened to be from the Caribbean Jamaica particularly, and, uh, actually studied political philosophy in Jamaica and, uh, you know, professor like, you know, Dr. Hardy Brathwaite and hot. And so just curious, I mean, uh, I've met, sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 1 00:49:20 Yes. I know those people. Yes.
Speaker 11 00:49:23 Yeah. So I was just curious because, um, libertarianism is actually a political ideology that I came across much a leader in my life, um, particularly when I came to America. So I think when you said it earlier that, um, you were studying Ayn Rand for more than 37 years, which seems to suggest that they've not confirmed that this, uh, interest started before you came to the U S so I was just curious about what experiences or education or individuals you believe, um, impacted your political ideology as it is now?
Speaker 1 00:49:58 Well, well, thank you very much, Ryan. It's nice to meet you, um, from one Jamaican to another, without being a tribalist. Um, I must say that my, my, I come from a long line of communists. My grandfather was a pioneer in the independence movement and should have been the first prime minister of Jamaica, uh, which he turned down when my father was born. He was in a detention center placed by the British government because he was the first colored at the time they call it colored trade unionists. My father is a socialist Zionist, and my both my grandmothers are socialists. Um, my mother identifies as far left and my brother is a socialist. Um, I decided very early on, uh, despite my great love for my father that, um, socialism seemed like malarkey. I mean, I just remember witnessing under Michael Manatee, the industry, the nationalization of industries and, uh, the brain drain, um, I'm 56.
Speaker 1 00:50:54 So I grew up, I was 12 years old when the socialist government took over and always had an interest in politics. It was reading time magazine from the age of seven and use week and so on, and, and, and was developing a commonsensical idea that socialism just doesn't make sense if all the smart people are leaving the country because the government is expropriating their properties. And there are just a bunch of uneducated masses of people who can't run things. Then there has to be a better way. Um, so I come from a very, very, very political family. I mean, I sat at the feet on a Sunday, every Sunday, Saturday afternoon, my grandfather held court. He had what were called salons in which, uh, the deputy prime minister was there and intellectuals and secretaries of ministers of defense and so on and so forth were there.
Speaker 1 00:51:46 And I was listening as a young child to all these conversations. And so when I encountered, um, and I was reading political theory very early on, my father plowed me with books on socialism, socialism, Marxism, and of it resonated. And then I read Iran, of course, and, uh, it all came together. It all made sense to me. Uh, this was the philosophy that I was sort of looking for a philosophy that advocated, not just individualism, um, but, um, but it's political corollary, which is, it's just basically a fear of free market capitalism. Um, so it's a very interesting journey that I, that I went on. Um, but to answer your question specifically, the roots were to be found in my background. I mean, I come from a political family. I mean, my, there were purges, you know, there was like a Russian styler purges in my grandfather's circles, where if you're a Trotskyite of your, if you weren't, he was a Leninist, if you're too much of a, not enough of a Lenise, then there were purges held.
Speaker 1 00:52:51 And my father had his own inner circle, much like Enron had her own class of 43. My father had his own in a circle there, he was a monster. There were even more massive purges in his inner circles. I witnessed him lambasted and berating people for not being socialist enough and not being Zionist enough. And, and, um, uh, fortunately I'm a professor and I cannot employ any of these things in the classroom. And I am not temperamental. I'm just not like that, but it did, it did light a fire in my belly for not politics, but for political theory and, um, and the roots of why people behave politically, the way they did, which is why I started also political psychology when I was doing my PhD. So I hope that answers a little bit of your, of your question right
Speaker 11 00:53:41 Quick. Follow-up with, was there a particular, uh, book, um, work or, uh, uh, political professor that, um, you think was the catalyst, or was it just a slow process of, um, of information?
Speaker 1 00:54:01 I must say there were no political, all my political philosophers were whom I revered actually in high school, I went to Campion, I went to six form and I did a levels which was to Americans. It's like the advanced, advanced college. It's almost like a community college. Um, we're all Marxists. Um, and, um, and I loved them because they were very sweet and they were very smart, but, uh, it was not that I really, really read Atlas shrugged that I can honestly say that a thinker had a profound political effect on me. So I, I encountered rant at 19 having read political theory, thanks to my father. Um, from the age of about eight. I mean, I was just proud with these books and books, which I did not nothing resonated with me. I just, I read it and I acquired an enormous vocabulary and master of English language that I'm able to employ in my writing, but at some grateful for that.
Speaker 1 00:55:04 And my mother gave me the dictionary to study every day. So, and she wrote out all these big words. And my father also wrote out these big words from his political books, but there was no one in my background. There was no one in my, there was no book aside from, this is a note around apple shrug. And then later on, um, capitalism, the unknown ideal that really, really brought things together in a, she gave me a method of cognition, of tying seeming disparate events and phenomena into fundamental principles. Um, so that's, that would be my answer.
Speaker 0 00:55:43 We have three more minutes. Uh, Josh, did you have a quick question? If not, we are going to be having, as I mentioned, three other clubhouse chats, uh, this week, um, plus a current events webinar, and a book club on Frederick Douglas tonight. So, John,
Speaker 12 00:56:04 Yeah. If you only have 40 minutes less than then maybe I'll save my question for another day. I'll just quickly say to Jason that, uh, uh, uh, lo you know, I saw a tweet that you made yesterday, I think with respect to Putin. And I'll just good, sir. I I'm with you on this. And I must say in, within the conservative ranks, I have felt pretty isolated in this regard where, um, you know, maybe I don't know what it's a reflection of, sir, but I would say that I'm approaching this in a similar fashion to you. And I just feel like it, there maybe, maybe the ranks of which we have been associating with for a period of time where there's been unanimous agreement about a lot of different subjects. It's interesting to see how, you know, the echo chambers react to, to, to a voice of, of, of descent.
Speaker 12 00:57:07 So, you know, I just want to say that I'm with you on that. And it's just kind of somewhat of a quandary because, you know, maybe leftists are, are with us as well. Uh, but you know, I just appreciate the courage in really just calling the issue out as it is with respect to Russia. Putin is a thug and, uh, in many different ways, um, you know, the action has been delayed for a period of time and, and, uh, you know, at some point in time, something's got to give, and, and maybe this is the point in time for action. So I support that. Uh, but I'm just not seeing, I'm just seeing strange behavior from people who I would otherwise think in unison with. So I don't know I was going to ask you a question, but I'll just leave it there.
Speaker 0 00:57:55 Thank you very much. That takes us to the top of the hour. Um, I added a link here to the events page of the Atlas societies site. Uh, we have, uh, quite a bit going on, uh, this week. Uh, we also have, um, events that are just for students and young people that these are not included there. We are trying to cultivate those, um, forums specifically for that peer group in age group. But, um, these are the events that are listed here, are open to everyone. Uh, we're actually going to be having, um, Timothy sand for who's the author of self-made man, uh, a biography of, um, Frederick Douglas. He's joining us, uh, later on this evening. And, uh, and then you will be able to see all of the other events that we have. Uh, I want to encourage you, if you just, when you go to the website, sign up for our updates, so you will get those in your email. So you'll always be abreast of what we've got going on. And, uh, and yes, please also follow us on social media, including on Instagram so we can get, uh, continually improving questions worthy of our scholars. So thanks so much.
