The Show Jack Built

Are we all human cockroaches?

By

Braving the sweltering heat and practical limitations of the AEI podcasting studio, Jack Butler, the original Smithers to Jonah’s Monty Burns, makes his return to the Remnant to discuss the state of conservatism among young people. He and Jonah journey deep into the psyche of the hyper-online right, answering just about every question you could possibly have about the alt-right’s favorite thinkers and the appeal of pre-modern LARPing. What do national conservatives and integralists really want? Do any of them actually believe what they’re saying? And most importantly, can you argue with a Buick?

Show Notes:

– Jack’s author page at National Review

– Jack explains Bronze Age Pervert

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (82)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. SeanM76

    I loved this episode. It has been a while, but I just got around to listening to it. I really enjoyed the conversation and learned somethings. Thanks

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Chris Babcock

    Great show - and always good to hear Jack on the Remnant again!

    A "brief" (ok, a tl;dr) note on the intellectual history of what we call Christian nationalism. I think what you're seeing is an idea that is older than and grown in parallel with the idea of the nation-state itself, so yes, while you do need to go back to Henry the VIII to trace it out (I'd actually say Geneva is better, but people can disagree). You might tell a story that goes like this:

    For most of human history, what we call church and nationality have not really been separate. I worship the gods of Rome because I am a Roman. I may or may not believe in them, but I participate in civic religion. Said broadly, the idea that my own beliefs about the gods were relevant to my identity was simply weird, if even comprehensible; but I would still be expected to participate in civic/religious actions. (For example, one of the reasons the early Christians were persecuted under Rome was that they refused to simply, "toss a pinch of incense into the flames for Caesar" - no one really cared whether or not Augustus Caesar existed on a spiritual level and judged the souls of men, but the public ritual affirmed your "Roman-ness" and allegiance to Rome.)

    Fast forward to Western Europe; eventually, the Western Roman empire disintegrates, and the Catholic Church to a very real extent creates a commonish culture across the West, with local kings and lords taking on the role of the state - but now someone could be both a Frank and a Catholic. Instead of one ethnic identity, people generally get two as the peoples and political communities in the West fracture and are reborn, and the Catholic Church balances - sometimes supporting, sometimes resisting - the various political leaders.

    But how is one a Catholic? This changes over time - and I'm looking at this socially and not speaking as to religious truth - but by the 16th century there's a huge focus on ritual (indulgences being a form of religious ritual). But beyond that, you've got the printing press and literacy spreading - and this is overlooked, but important, and I'll defend to my grave the thesis that Luther splintered from the Church, instead of being incorporated within her like prior reformers (Sts. Benedict, Francis, etc.) in large part because of the printing press. Literacy, and fractured political actors, allows people to develop a spirituality tied into their tradition while circumventing their local churches - i.e., now that "I can read the Bible" why should "I let those priests tell me what to do"?

    (And this is important. We think about the Reformation's focus on faith, but a lot of the key points by the Reformers - in particular, the attacks on the Eucharist - are political attacks claiming that believers don't need to rely on an official priest to commune with their God. But even the focus on faith is fascinating - if to be in good standing in public religion means external acts, society is bound by those acts. But what if good standing means affirming correct beliefs? How does that change a polity? I think much of the idea that we need to just "get the right ideas" and then the Millennium will arrive stems from this strain in the Reformation.)

    This creates a cultural problem. If the political community had legitimacy because it was accepted/consecrated by the Pope/the Catholic Church, what is the basis for political community? I think this is why you see such great writings in this time - the long established moral center of society has been undone plus individuals can now speak with the educated masses through cheaply available books. This era gives us Locke and Hobbes and R*******u (sorry, children may read this); but it also gives us the political thinking of Calvin's Geneva, the Scottish Presbyterian movement (a movement for churches - and therefore communities - to be lead by elders instead of bishops), the Levellers, the Diggers, Oliver Cromwell and a host of people looking to build new religious communities on a definition of Christianity without the Catholic Church as an institution.

    The passion of these groups died out - over generations; think of the transformation of Boston from Puritan hub to Catholic city - and the projects to remake the state were often put down by the states themselves. But in the congregations, whose preaching was full of these thoughts of a Christian kingdom or universal brotherhood, etc., the idea survived. While Europe would be transformed by Napoleon and W*ls*n into "nation-states", Reformed Christian communities still defined themselves by common belief.

    So what's happened then, since, is that gradually the idea of the nation-state stopped being a foreign intervention and became an accepted "truth." People began to think Germany is real in a way that Saxony or Hesse wasn't - that there was some ethnic "German" peoples. (Think about the Celtic obsessions of various Anglophiles in the 19th century, or the identity of the French with Gaul, rather than, you know, the Germanic speaking Franks.) The context in which these Christian communities was changed. America was now a real and a personal thing - and thanks to democracy, it could be changed into a reflection of the local community (or some thought it could). If America is a real thing and must be my true identity and true community; and if there is an objectively right belief and that none of the rituals or forms or social controls really matter, then it follows that I should make America a Christian nation whose laws reflect God's law.

    Supercharge that in an environment where the nation is becoming less outwardly Christian (Aaron Renn has a popular essay talking about positive world, neutral world, and negative world, where public Christian profession turns from a social asset to a social cost -- it's garbage and heresy and ignores a lot and I would be happy to eliminate it, but it's necessary in a lot of modern evangelical circles); add in a generation of political catechesis that focuses only on the right laws (belief) rather than the character of those applying them (works/rituals); and fear, and you get the soup out of which a lot of Christian Nationalist ideas congeal.

    That's far too long, rambling, and says too much and too little, and I've used my lunch hour and now need to go back to the world, but that's a not-nearly-brief-enough mapping of some of the intellectual influences on Christian Nationalism, at least as I see it.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Steven Potter

    Great to have Jack back for a Very Special Remnant™. I really appreciate the deep-dive into these trends coming from the Right over the last few years, and conservative critique of them. The JPod-esque explanations of the terms and back stories was helpful for those of us who are not in the know. I've seen these views online, or heard it talked about on podcasts, but not fully grasped them. It was both helpful and entertaining.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Jack is back! RIP Young Americanz though… actually it was probably the right decision. Maybe Jack can join Jay Nordlinger on Q and A.

    This was a really excellent podcast. I found myself in violent agreement on all subjects touched upon: the New Right, capitalism, Yoram Hazony’s revisionism (and his need to apply the lens of Israel to every political conflict), the intellectual roots of these “new” ideas, the over interpretation of a chance occurrence (the 2016 election), the fact that these nationalists seem unaware of basic history and likely haven’t read a book, and especially the stuff about young men on the right and BAP. A lot of these guys need to get outside more.

    Collapse
  5. Snoopyboobs

    I thought "knowing what time it is" came from 80's hip hop, black culture, no? When did Claremont institute coin it?

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Anthonyjohnmartyr

    I've said before that I'm not generally a fan of Jackie Butts podcast persona and presentation. He seems a very worthy and bright fellow, but he just strikes me wrong, I guess.

    This was different - really enjoyed it, and as someone else said, "I could listen to these guys talk all day. So much information packed between the lines..."

    While I should probably leave it there, I'll try to put my finger on it a bit more firmly - Jack's not trying to be anything, nor is he Jonah's employee. He's just an intelligent, well-educated and well-read commentator, with some particular knowledge and expertise, which matches well with Jonah's own. That brings out the best in both of them.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Daniel Jett

    What a GREAT episode. I've been subscribed to this podcast (and The Dispatch) for 3 years now, but I don't recall listening to an episode with Butler, although Jonah has talked about him and his legacy in building the podcast frequently. I could listen to these guys talk all day. So much information packed between the lines...

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Ethan Cordray

    I loved this show. Jack is solid gold.

    Collapse
  9. Mogrenjack

    I really enjoyed hearing from the boy wonder in the podcast

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    C C Writer

    I'm interested in this Vermeule thing, though my take hasn't changed since I first thought about it.

    So, I get that they want to merge the Catholic Church with the U.S. government, or something like that. And they can endlessly marshal arguments about why this would be a good thing and/or why they want it to happen.

    But the problem they always run into is that pesky U.S. Constitution with its inconvenient Bill of Rights and frustrating First Amendment. How can they get around this or knock it over? When they start to go there, they become positively incoherent. They spout random collections of words; they change the subject suddenly. In no event do they explain what the plan is. I mean, their idea is that there shouldn't be a First Amendment, and they go various historical places to explain why they think that--but they have no actual ideas on how to get rid of it. The First Amendment has withstood all attempts to remove it. But they keep trying. Well, not really trying. Just wishing and hoping.

    It's almost as if they never heard of Thomas More and the idea about cutting a great road though the law in order to get to the Devil. And then when the law is demolished, what will you do for protection?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ethan Cordray

      I also just really don't understand why they think there are enough Catholics to actually do that. There's, like, a whole lotta non-Catholics out here.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        C C Writer

        Apparently things like this are not about numbers, they're about wishing really hard.

        Collapse
Load More