This summer I decided that I was not going to do any more interviews in 2020, since they generate more correspondence that I am set up to handle, and I don’t particularly want to become an unofficial spokesman for the Q movement. I have politely turned down a dozen or so requests since, and focused my energies on art and writing.
However, I do also like to keep my commitments. I had recorded an interview in the spring with Jake Anderson, and there was a technical issue that made the audio unsuitable for publication. Therefore I have made an exception and agreed to re-record it.
Jake is a freelance journalist and someone who I personally respect and like. He has a completely different take to me on the Trump administration, but also shares with me many underlying political and philosophical positions. He is not a “liberal” in the same way that I am not a “conservative”. His questions in the first interview made me stop and think hard. I value Jake’s integrity and intelligence.
I believe it is important to step outside of our bubble and echo chambers, and these kinds of difficult conversations take courage. Whilst I believe that in the short term there is going to be hurt pride on the left as corruption is exposed and Trump supporters are vindicated, there is more to this situation than meets the eye.
Many of the critiques by the left against the military-industrial complex — and its abuses of power — were close to the mark in identify the real enemy of the Deep State. Furthermore, many of the potential solutions to our problems also come from the technical and social toolkits of left-leaning thinkers. Open source and commons-based institutions; social enterprises and voluntary cooperative movements; direct action that bypasses the incumbent powers; peer economies and agorism; collaborative and distributed technologies; and much more.
We need people who are skeptical of militarism, corporatism, and theocracy — as all power needs to be held to account. Those on the centre left were targeted by social engineering and infiltration precisely because they were asking many of the correct questions and challenging illegitimate power. They are not Marxists by nature, but see the potential for mankind to improve its welfare through intelligent design of institutions and incentives — that account for power.
I hope you enjoy our hour-long conversation. We are also joined by a colleague of Jake’s to enliven the debate.
Read It Now
