Charles Haywood on No Enemies to the Right, Foundationalism, & other Scary things!

No Enemies to the Right as a Practical Political Rule

Hey everyone, welcome once again to the Conversations That Matter podcast. I am pleased to have a guest on today that many of you have actually asked me, John, can you have this person on? John, check out this video that he did with Tucker Carlson.

Check out this video or this article that he wrote on No Enemies to the Right and all these different views that are being debated right now. His name is Charles Hayward. How are you doing, Charles?

I'm doing great and pleased to be here.

The website, if people want to check out more of your work after this, is theworthyhouse .com. You're a businessman. You call yourself an internet scribbler. I called you a political philosopher, but what you're doing, I think, is fairly interesting to me.

I just want to say this before I ask you some questions and we hear from you. I've listened to a few of your interviews, Charles, and the thing I think that people find endearing about you is that one thing is you don't care about what other people think.

Am I right? This is true. Okay. You're very honest. You're sometimes maybe blunt, but you say what you think. What you say are sometimes things that need to be said that other people, maybe they think them, but they're not going to say them.

There's a bravery element to this as well. I appreciate that.

Let's not overstate that. The reason I can say these things is because I'm independently wealthy and don't have any points of vulnerability. Let's not describe something to virtue that's more than just a circumstance.

Okay. All right. Well, you're humble too now. All right. I want to start off with a question for you. There's so many things I'd love to talk to you about, but the main one, the reason that I initially wanted you on the podcast was my audience, I would say, is primarily evangelical Christians.

They're conservative, right? They don't like what's happened to their churches, to their country, and recently, I would say in the last year, there was an incident that you actually were part of, which I thought was interesting.

I didn't realize this is how the No Enemies to the Right thing developed, but there was a headmaster at a Christian school, Thomas Accord, and he had an alt account, apparently, that he had posted some things on that were considered racially insensitive.

There were some things I remember I thought were not great about marriage, but it was an anon account that had been exposed, and this became a big deal to try to pin him on anyone who had a relationship with him or even associated with him on a podcast or something.

Rod Dreher got involved, and you, I didn't realize you got involved, and you don't know anything about this headmaster, but you said No Enemies to the Right.

I deliberately have made no attempt whatsoever to get any of the details of what Dreher was accusing him because I don't care. It's completely irrelevant what he said, and hence my point, No Enemies to the Right, which I'm actually writing a follow-up piece to that.

A better phrasing might be No Enemies on the Right. That's a technical distinction, but the same basic principle is the one that I was trying to enunciate.

Policing the Right, Social Acceptability, and Sinners

Okay. Then you had people, though, in our circles, I would say, well, in the more conservative religious circles, but evangelical circles in particular, that just, I guess, could not abide this. People like Neil Shenvey, there's an account called Local Distance, and they started putting out materials basically saying, you're trying to blink, you're trying to wink at Nazis.

I'm summarizing, but we should be fine with Nazis. Is that what you're trying to say to everyone, is we should just all be fine with Nazis?

Well, no. I mean, I mostly don't care about Nazis is, I guess, my point. My point is that this, and I wrote a long piece. So I did that thing, I responded, it all started with a throwaway comment on Dreher.

So Dreher, as usual, was ranting in his kind of impotent fashion, trying to signal to the left that he's one of the good guys, and he's busy policing the right actively in order to benefit the left. And one of the things he was doing was attacking this ACORN guy, who's, I think, a schoolteacher at his kid's school, though of course his account had nothing whatsoever to do with his teaching.

So Rod's claim was not that his children were being mistaught, his claim, though he tried to elide that difference, his claim was that this person is not a good person, and I need to tell everybody that to virtue signal and show that I am on the side of advancing the causes of the left, even though I claim to be advancing the causes of the right.

So I commented on this because I was bored one evening, who cares, Rod, no enemies to the right, which of course is a inversion of the original political philosophy enunciated by Alexander Kerensky in his combats with the Bolsheviks in 1916 and 1917.

There are important distinctions there, which we probably won't get into here, though, as I say, this piece I'm writing does give those distinctions between how that philosophy is applied on the left and on the right.

My point is that, and I followed this up with a colloquy with Daniel Miller in I Am 1776, the online magazine, enunciating the, wow, like using the word enunciating like three times today, I must be, my vocabulary improvement calendar is right there, it must be on it.

Anyway, so the core point is that all that matters for the right now, that is the present day right, is defeating the left, and these attempts to police the rightward boundaries of the right, which a huge percentage of prominent people on the right or prominent conservatives, a huge percentage of those people spend a huge percentage of their time policing the right.

Acorn is just one of innumerable examples, in other words, trying to cancel people who are deemed in their view, which is typically dictated to them by the left, as too far to the right. So my point is that we should spend no time whatsoever on this.

That doesn't mean we necessarily need to spend our time like embracing literal Nazis or something like that, or people who we disagree with. We can have disagreements on the right, we can have tactical disagreements, we have political disagreements, we can have philosophical disagreements, but those disagreements should not be aired in public, which is done merely to benefit the right and to benefit the individuals supposedly on the right who are, want to kowtow to the left, should not be done in public and should not be done in a way except with an eye on the prize, shall we say, which is total permanent utter defeat of the left.

And so anything that is done that is not advanced, that goal should not be done.

This is just a very practical way of approaching politics. That's all I'm hearing.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, so there are enormous amount of straw men floating around about this as well as just total ignorance as well, some good pieces, and again, this is why I'm writing a follow-up piece on it, but this is basically common sense.

And anyone who attacks it typically doesn't address that point. They try to gussy up their underlying belief, and their underlying belief is that I don't care enough about winning, I don't care enough about my principles, instead I want to continue to allow the left to have total power forever in this country.

So let me just make it concrete for everyone so everyone understands. If you did have someone, let's say, I don't want to say any names, but someone prominent, let's say on the right who had a, oh, I don't know, a show on Fox News or something, and a video came out, and this particular person had said some very racially insensitive things, what would Charles Hayward do about that?

You would say absolutely nothing? It would not

Absolutely nothing at all. I mean, I might not want my daughter to marry that person, I may not want that person to be like my buddy at the barbecue, or I might, frankly, I mean, that remains to be determined.

It's very, there's no reason why people with unpalatable political views should necessarily not be socially acceptable. That's a case-by-case determination. There's no general rule, certainly the left makes no such general rule, nor should the right make such a general rule.

As I've written, I actually wrote a review, my original line of thinking on this was some years ago, actually, in a review of Rod Dreher's Benedict Option. Now, Dreher has been spending the past year running around lying about me in various forums and then canceling my subscription to his sub stack when I commented on it, and so on.

But my point was that everybody associates, and just taking this, I mean, we can take it into a more directly Christian context, people associate with sinners. And as I put it in my Benedict Option review, in fact, it may surprise you to know that I too am a sinner.

So I'm not saying that people who sin, for example, racism is not any special sin. If it is a sin, it's merely a variation on the core sin of pride. That's all. There's nothing special about racism as an instance of pride, as opposed to things that have no racial component to an instance of pride.

There's nothing particularly heinous about racism at all. That's just the truth from a Christian theological perspective. And so it may be the case that I would, in fact, socially associate with such a person that I'm getting sidetracked.

My point is that if that comes out, I just don't care. If there are things that I can do politically that advance my overall goals with that person that I regard as beneficial, then I do those things.

And if I didn't, there weren't things that I wouldn't pay any attention to that person at all. The end wouldn't think about it again.

What about someone like a Lauren Boebert who has a moral failure that's on camera, who's advancing the goals of the right somewhat? At least she's stalling the goals of the left. And now there's a dilemma because she doesn't share, at least in one instance, she was a sinner, as you just said, and didn't share Christian's values.

There are Christians calling for her to be, you know, she needs to be primary. She needs to step down, these kinds of things.

What do you say to that? Well, I have a very dim, I don't really follow retail politics, so I have a very dim view of these, from what little I understand of a lot of kind of politicians on the right who adopt, who purport to speak for people on the right or MAGA or what have you, because everything I hear about them, they sound like clowns.

But my objection to them is that they're clowns, not that they're sinners. And that there's a heavy, it feels like there's a heavy grifter element, that they're not actually fighting for for power, but they're attempting to either aggrandize themselves, gain money, what have you, who knows.

But so but I don't care at all about these people's sinning, like Volbert. I mean, my objection to her is that she appears to be a clown, not that she appears to be.

A sinner. I hear you. And there are times that, you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene, you could put some other senators and congressmen in there and you have the same analysis. I think this has been instinctual for me and for many conservatives for a while.

And it's just an understanding of the times we live in, because I would say I don't know if you've heard this term before, but Dr. Kerry Roberts has used this term. He's from Liberty University, the American virtue tradition, which he associates with John Adams.

And he says there's three competing traditions in America. There's this Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian and then this Adams approach. And the Adams approach, he says, I think that's what maybe you're running up against is this idea that the most important thing is the the squeaky cleanness, the character of that individual who's in the public office.

And so we should look for people with this this great character. And that seems to ring true in a way. But in a world where there are so few with good character and those rules do not apply to the left and you are fighting for your very survival in a war, as it seems, it seems like those priorities are second to survival.

Is that kind of what you're saying?

I think that's that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. I'll add a few wrinkles here. I'm all for virtue. I mean, I like virtue. I try to be virtuous. But more importantly, from a political philosophy perspective, you mentioned political philosophy early, a successful society, which my aim is to recreate a successful society, which is not our society, the ruling class and the society as a whole, but in particular, the ruling class has to be largely virtuous, not 100 percent virtuous.

But you can't run a successful ruling class that is not virtuous. I mean, I prefer Christian virtue. There are other types of virtue, obviously, that you can talk about. Pre-Christian virtues are nonetheless virtues in their own frame.

So I'm all for virtue. But right now and right now, the left has all the power. So let's say in the future, the power of the left will be totally broken. And as I like to say, the left will be as discredited as Mithras.

And people will say, oh, yeah, there used to be like Mithraism and there used to be leftism. And those things were long ago. And who really knows about them because they were stupid. And and but at that point, there will, in fact, be enemies on the right.

I'm willing to cooperate with all sorts of people now. But in terms of forming and running the new post left society, new divisions and existing new divisions will arise and existing divisions will become important again because there are plenty of people on the right who I would not necessarily want to be running the society.

So, for example, I have no objection whatsoever in the current frame to what may loosely be called the pagan right. And I'm friendly with people indirectly like Bronze Age pervert and these kind of Nietzschean.

But I don't really want to live in a society run by those people. Admittedly, it would probably be better than our current regime, but it wouldn't be the kind of society that I want. And so at some point, those people theoretically could become political enemies.

And that's something you can you can deal with that. This is a present day admonition for political success, for the most important aim, which is breaking the power of the left, not some kind of philosophical determination that there are not theoretically no enemies on the right.

This is just an aside, I suppose, but on that pagan right now, I don't know a lot of people on the pagan right. But the few I have known have been, interestingly, very attracted to Christianity. They they just seem like they want they don't want the modern era that we're living in and classical liberalism or social justice.

And so they want an anchor. And the paganism stuff doesn't usually offer that anchor, or at least they don't believe.

It. They don't really believe that's always the problem with modern recreations of supposedly ancient beliefs or doctrines that they're fake. You can't you can't recreate something that is totally unmoored from the society in which it's developed and say, like, I'm a druid now.

I mean, it's just dumb. It's like a classic example of this, of course, is Alistair Crowley and his made up Satanism, which is very bad. I don't approve of it, but it was also very clownish. And don't get me wrong, I'm sure you can get into some very bad stuff and summon up some very bad things going down that path.

But it's not real in any kind of meaningful sense.

Well, yeah, it has this ancient feel. I live actually in an area I'm close to a college campus, and there's a lot of, I don't know, witchcraft associated with it. The town has like two or three witch shops that you drive through.

Yeah, they have as many witch shops as there are bars. I mean, it's just like it's weird. But, you know, the students there, I think, think that they are finding some kind of an ancient wisdom that has been long forgotten by the modern world.

And they've got the key and they've got the secret. And of course, is attracting people on both sides. But but anyway, I know we're getting out of it's interesting to me, though, getting out of the topic at hand.

So all right. So no enemies to the right. This is a practical for this time period that we're in right now. The situation that's that's what that's about. This isn't about for all time as an ideology that we should apply universally.

This is just about a particular moment. I think people need to understand that.

Yeah. Yeah, that's what you're saying. But people, it's easy to understand that. But the various people who spend their time attacking the philosophy or attacking me don't want to understand that they're not interested in understanding it.

And you can tell that, among other ways, but they're never linked to any of the underlying written pieces on the topic. They offer tendentious lying summaries and straw men. And when these things are pointed out to them, they never course correct.

So these people are by these people, I mean, these various evangelical influences. I'm not evangelical. I'm Eastern Orthodox. So I don't actually know who these people keep cropping up who are apparently famous, who I have literally never heard of.

But they're clearly not interested in intellectual discussion. They're clearly interested in some combination of virtue signaling or signaling to the left that they're not a threat or ensuring that their monetary gravy train keeps going.

I don't really know what drives these people because I don't understand the underlying dynamics, but they're not interested in in learning or in thinking of, you know, maybe when you come to some conclusion, well, this is partially correct or partially incorrect because I think this and I don't think he was right about this or whatever.

That's not the discussion that they're having. They set up these these fake arguments and rant about them all the time in a kind of low IQ fashion.

Virtue, Clown Politicians, and the Survival of the Right

Well, in the Christian circles, the concern seems to be that we are going to corrupt ourselves, that we're going to allow too many people into our circles, our neat, clean Christian circles on the right, that now we're going to have a bunch of the thing, I guess my cynical side, you know, being a little bit involved in politics here and there and knowing people very involved is that you guys are already corrupted.

Like, you know, sure, it's already happened. But but that seems to be the concern you're going to.

Well, that concern is not expressed precisely in those terms. So that could be an underlying concern. But most of the time it's not. It's in the the expressions of concern are more tendentious. And I mean, you brought this up, too, like, yeah, who's this guy?

Vice. He's like arranging that Heywood likes Lennon, for example. And this is somehow weirdly. He stole that from James Lindsay, who's an atheist, who somehow weirdly associated with these with these evangelical types in a in a general attack on effectiveness of the right.

I mean, they all are betas who want to be ineffective. And like the Lennon thing was started by by Lindsay, because I've done several I've reviewed a biography of Lennon. I've talked about Lennon. And Lennon is a very positive figure in some senses.

I mean, obviously, and I've made this clear. I mean, Lennon is a very evil figure in many ways. But the fact is, he was an extremely disciplined and effective political organizer who also flipped a coin 20 times in a row and it came up heads every time, which is why he ended up where we remember Lennon.

But this idea that somehow it's because I make clearly delineated statements about certain sub aspects of Lennon's abilities that are positive, that that somehow that de-legitimates the concept of no enemies to the right, because the same person, namely me, is saying these things.

It just doesn't make any logical sense. So it's just an attempt to to avoid substantive discussion because these people can't.

Hack it. Yeah. I mean, if you go back in history, that most things are gray and you'd study people even that are historical villains. From our perspective, there's going to be admirable.

Traits. Yeah, you find another example of this, too, like Napoleon killed millions of people. I mean, admittedly, not like in the modern sense where we nuke cities, but he killed a lot of people basically for personal aggrandizement.

And we can all agree that killing people for aggrandize self aggrandizement is bad morally. But the the fact is that Napoleon had a lot of personal virtues and effectiveness at a time when those things were relevant in European history.

And you have to be able to discuss those things without saying, well, we can't talk about the virtues of someone who also has vices. I mean, everybody has virtues and vices. So obviously just a attempt to avoid substantive discussion.

Historical Villains, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Left’s Imported Standards

What about someone like MLK?

I'm just throwing this out there because he's lionized. In even evangelical circles, even some of the people attacking you have made very positive statements about Martin Luther King, Jr., even though he was a heretic, he was an adulterer.

He was, you know, I don't know, all kinds of things that seems to be acceptable. And but you can't say anything about an authoritarian. You can't say a Protestant Franco without it's a good example.

But I mean, it makes Martin Luther King was a scumbag, obviously. But the and for the moment, though, for that time, he actually had kind of probably turned more against MLK in terms of his historical relevance and effectiveness than would in the past.

But the fact is, that was a troubled time in American history where there were actual injustices going on. And those were probably exaggerated. MLK probably had less a less savory role in it than in a less he was focused on less savory goals than people say nowadays.

But the fact is that you can make the argument that he accomplished certain necessary or as part of accomplishing certain necessary changes in American society. But that's not the argument that they make, as you say.

And again, I don't like pointing out hypocrisy because pointing out hypocrisy is not a self-proving argument. And everybody, all the enemies of people on the right are hypocritical and pointing it out has never accomplished anything.

But it is a good it is a good point in this in this context that that these same people praise someone who is a total scumbag like Martin Luther King. And and whereas someone who has a much higher percentage of virtues devices, say Francisco Franco, you know, that person is somehow anathema in every way, shape and.

Form. And so what seems to have happened is the values of the left or I guess the framing of the left has been imported into the right. You had and I think it was in your article on No Enemies to the Right, the first one in the first paragraph, you talk about what leftism is to you, what you think needs to be defeated.

You boiled it down to two principles. Could you just let us know the audience what those are?

Yes, I did across the back of my mind about 10 minutes ago that that was probably a useful thing to do. So thank you for returning to this. Oh, good. So the leftism in my definition is, though, to be fair, I partially stole most of this from Roger Scruton, is the the persistence of two principles derived from the essence of Enlightenment political thought.

And the Enlightenment is only a political movement. People try to claim the so-called Enlightenment has like scientific progress. Those things have nothing to do with Enlightenment and long predate the Enlightenment.

So Enlightenment political thought focuses around revolves around two core principles. And these are the principles of the left, because there's a direct line from the Enlightenment through 1789 to 2023.

The first is total emancipation from all bonds not continuously chosen. So emancipation, no one is to be is to be hampered from total freedom in any way. And secondarily or second, the total forced egalitarianism, though you can argue these two things are intentional with each other, but that's a separate argument.

Together, those things are are serve to create a utopia, a heaven on earth. And that is the the entirety of left thought. Anyone who says that the left is classical liberalism, which is just a sub branch of this, but it's a disguised sub branch, is just wrong.

These are the core beliefs of the left. And they are relatively new beliefs, a couple hundred years old. And but they animate 100 percent of left behavior either directly or indirectly.

You would you would distinguish that from classical liberalism?

I would I would not distinguish. I think classical liberalism is a subset of this, despite that's what I thought. OK, contrary. In fact, I mean, I got I had a nice, polite exchange with Yoram Hazony the other day on Twitter.

And now I've agreed to to review his book, Conservatism. And I intend to use as a platform for discussing why classical liberal liberalism is merely a subset of left poison.

Yeah, because what the the argument seemed to be between the left and now, I guess the classical liberal right, if you want to call it that, is like, well, equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome or something like that.

But they're still after the same goal.

Yes, absolutely. I mean, those things are basically nomenclature designed to hide. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think everyone's being dishonest. I think there are people who think that, well, I can have my cake eat it, too.

I can have a subset of left doctrine without ultimately being swallowed whole by the parade of horrors that we see unfolding before us in the present day. But they're wrong.

Enlightenment Politics, the American Founding, and the Roots of Leftism

So, I mean, without giving a drawn out history lesson, I think people are probably curious how we got here, especially in the most religious right kind of conservative circles, importing these these standards from the left.

We don't find these in our Bibles. Right. We don't find these in our historic Christian doctrines or traditions. But somehow we've all we defend them now. I don't say mean we as in myself or you or anyone.

But we in Christendom, these things are defended as if they are cardinal doctrines and those who deviate our heretics. I just find that weird and interesting.

Well, I'm not an expert on the history in particular of religion in in America, but I do know a fair bit of history. And I think the the sad thing about America and I mean, this is slightly different in the West, more broadly like England and Europe.

But we'll leave those aside. The goes back to what you talked about, the American founding with virtue politics, Hamiltonian, Jeffersonianism. The sad irony is that the American founding was functionally informed by the Enlightenment, but it didn't appear to be in its extreme forms or didn't appear to suffer the same defects because of the unique virtue of the society of the time.

So basically, America has spent much of its history eating the seed corn of that virtue, much of which is based upon its religious underpinning and thereby sequentially revealing the underlying poison of the Enlightenment.

And this accelerated, of course, at the beginning of the 20th century with Woodrow Wilson and the progressives bringing in things that were explicitly anti-religious, that is, sometimes were clothed in religious doctrine like Unitarians who believe in one God at most, which was very, very common in New England and things like that.

And then, of course, getting into the post-war era where America seemed like it was riding high. But again, the underlying poisons were working their way through the system. And you can argue why they've emerged now, you know, what the Frankfurt School has to do with it or what have you.

But these things were baked into the cake from the beginning because they're baked into the cake because they're based upon these these pillars of the Enlightenment. And every so often I get these insane responses like the Enlightenment isn't that Immanuel Kant said X, Y, Z.

I'm like, I don't really or Hegel. People keep accusing me online of being engaging in the Hegelian dialectic. I mean, the only thing I know about Hegel is that he referred to Napoleon as a world soul.

There's literally I don't know what the Hegelian dialectic is. Don't care. Not interested. Same thing with Kant. I mean, there are other people who are political philosophers in this in this time period, but they're not relevant to the underlying philosophy of the Enlightenment, which is what has created the horrors that we see around us today.

Well, I think this is very important, because what you're saying is that there's some almost like inevitable things that were going to take place. If you look back and you know what, I don't I don't know if you're tracing this to the Constitution, because I see that as less Enlightenment, but maybe the Declaration of Independence more so.

And some of the parts of the same thing. I mean, it panders to make this point repeatedly. But function of the left offers what the serpent in the garden offered. That is, you you you shall be as gods.

Everybody is emancipated. Everybody is equal. You will have a utopia. It just took a long time, relatively late in human history for this to become a real political movement as opposed to a kind of heretical sect thing that's sub Rosa in a.

Few places. Right, because, well, the importance of this, in my mind, is that there are people on the right on our side, I guess you could say in a way, who want to attribute all of the changes we saw in twenty twenty two.

Well, it's a world economic forum. It's it's it's Hegel. It's just Hegel. It's just the Frankfurt School. It's just there's a boogeyman somewhere who's paying everyone off, who's giving them like bags of cash or something so that they do something that is contrary to the American spirit.

When when what you're saying is actually, no, this was this was present in the American spirit in a way. And it's and it's it wasn't rooted out and it's just grown. And that's our problem. It's homegrown.

And I think I've come around to that opinion myself, just reading history and seeing that, hey, some of these ideas, they haven't they've been here for a long time. Even the puritanical kind of spirit of we're going to make this great city on a hill that the whole world's going to see.

And it's almost like a new Jerusalem like that. That kind of stuff is it's kind of weird when I read it. But that was here at the foundation of the country.

So you can you can get away with that. Like you can you can pay lip service to emancipation if the entire society is has the kind of classic definition or classical definition of liberty, which is ordered liberty.

If everyone lives his life and social stigma and forces that in a way that you're not emancipated, you can talk about emancipation all day long, but eventually it's going to catch up with you. And that's that's kind of what we see here.

Don't get me wrong, people like George Soros or evil and the World Economic Forum is full of bad people and there is lots of payoffs to advance the evil causes of the left. But those things just accelerating the slide rather than causing the slide.

So I have to ask you in our few moments together, since we've we've been talking now for half an hour about foundationalism, because that it seems to be that is something that some of the viewers here, because I share an audience with people who are in the G3 circles and some of them are on Twitter, they've seen Josh Bice, the president of G3 Ministries, accuse you, I think you referenced this earlier about liking Lenin and so forth.

But one of the sticking points seems to be that you your philosophy of foundationalism is being promoted by some kind of a secret society that's almost masonic and that it is at the root, this totalitarian society that wants to it's like Franco, right?

It wants to come in and crush with an iron fist and that you're fine being the dictator of that. So you have, I guess, yourself, which I thought that was just humorous, some things you've said about yourself.

But I just want to give you a chance to address that. I know you have online, but there's a lot of people listening who probably haven't seen what you've said online.

Sure. Absolutely. By the way, just as a sidebar, Franco was not totalitarian. There is other than the National Socialists, there has never been a totalitarian right government in modern history. Franco is the very farthest thing from a totalitarian.

But so this all got started when a Antifa asset, some it was a literal Antifa asset, some Guardian, the Guardian, as I believe, a far left wing UK paper wrote an article on me about my political philosophy of foundationalism, which is I have 12 pillars.

It's a designed to be a practical reality based set of rules for people to set up a future society, not an ideology. That is, it's not designed to create your utopia or give you all the answers. These just signposts along the way.

And I call this foundationalism. And I think it's pretty cool. So everyone should read it on my website, The Foundationalist Manifesto, if you're bored. So he connected this to something, two other things.

First of all, that I have a bunch of money, which is true because I used to make shampoo and I sold a shampoo making business. So I'm rich. Yeah, I like being rich. I've been rich. I've been poor. Rich is better, though spiritually corrosive.

But as everybody knows, I also have some interesting pieces on that topic on my website, including St. John Chrysostom's excellent book on wealth and poverty. But in any case, he connected that as well as I'm involved along with numerous other people in a nascent Christian men's group called the Society for American Civic Sacre, which has a couple of chapters scattered across the country.

And I've also written on my on my site about how in some future societal collapse, the reorganizing principle of society is likely to be local people providing for defense and patronage and that would rebuild society.

So he put all these things together into this bizarre construct where Rich Hayward wants to be a warlord through the imposition of the Society for American Civic Renewal everywhere, implementing foundationalism.

None of these things are actually connected to each other except through me, though. Sorry, it's just kind of. No, I know. I know. I know. I mean, it's true that all these things are, except for the warlord thing, which you basically just made up out of full cloth, are true in some kind of sense.

Like they're not like, you know, the Queen of England is a lizard alien or I guess the King of England now, but but they're not actually connected to each other. So but this is something that has gotten traction.

And it's kind of I would say it's easy thing for my enemies to use, but it's not really useful to my enemies because it makes me look kind of cool and based and awesome. He's rich. He has all this cool stuff.

So but people like James Lindsay, like, seem to think this is like a like a like the Lennon thing, like a self-executing attack on me. So all these things are unconnected. I think they're actually all pretty cool.