30 Questions With Augustus Sol Invictus
“To renounce belief in one’s ego, to deny one’s own ‘reality'—what a triumph! not merely over the senses, over appearance, but a much higher kind of triumph, a violation and cruelty against reason—a voluptuous pleasure that reaches its height when the ascetic self-contempt and self-mockery of reason declares: 'there is a realm of truth and being, but reason is excluded from it!’
But precisely because we seek knowledge, let us not be ungrateful to such resolute reversals of accustomed perspectives and valuations with which the spirit has, with apparent mischievousness and futility, raged against itself for so long: to see differently in this way for once, to want to see differently, is no small discipline and preparation for its future 'objectivity'—the latter understood not as 'contemplation without interest’ (which is a nonsensical absurdity), but as the ability to control one’s Pro and Con and to dispose of them, so that one knows how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge.
Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a 'pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject’; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as 'pure reason,’ 'absolute spirituality,’ 'knowledge in itself’: these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective 'knowing’; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our 'concept’ of this thing, our 'objectivity,’ be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this – what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?”
—Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, s III.12, Walter Kaufmann translation.
Preface
Philosophy as it arose in Ancient Greece— φιλοσοφία, philosophia, literally “love of wisdom”—which gave birth to all of Western Civilization, has always—at its roots—supposedly entailed the pursuit of “truth,” knowledge, of access into some absolute insight into the nature of reality. However, common, contemporary knowledge—the idea that “truth,” in a technical scientific sense, is an absolute which has superseded even God—yields only a cold, mechanical world, in which the human being cannot find any existential meaning. This is, perhaps, why famous 19th-century German Existentialist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was known not as a philosopher, but an anti-philosopher.
In the quotation above, Nietzsche gestures towards his concept called ‘perspectivism.’ In Nietzsche’s world, the doctrine of perspectivism means that ultimately, there is no such thing as absolute truth, in the sense of which we typically imagine. For Nietzsche, even scientific rationalism itself cannot escape its inevitably finite, partial perspective in favor of one which is absolute. At no point can humankind see itself from a birds-eye view outside itself, from the “objective perspective” of the totality of existence itself, in order to possess a detached and universal access to “absolute truth.” Certainly, there exist facts, established for example through scientific inquiry, which are objectively true, within a limited context. However, there is no absolute objectivity: not in epistemology or ontology, not in ethics, and, especially—not in politics. As human beings, we may accumulate our perspectives over time, but we must keep in mind that our only basis for ever privileging one perspective over another is, itself, another perspective. That is what it means to be finite, and to be mortal.
In this sense, Nietzsche’s world is fundamentally amoral. Yet Nietzsche detaches us from the value of truth not in order to dispose of truths altogether: instead, he wishes to reinvigorate human life by ensuring that our will to truth answers primarily to it, rather than forcing the mystical, perhaps unknowable origins of life to be the hand servant of Truth.
Many people believe, understandably, that this current of amorality or even relativism in Nietzsche is a basis for his condemnation. Some point, indeed, to the fact that the Third Reich of Nazi Germany deployed, or misappropriated, Nietzsche’s rhetoric in pursuit of their own goals. However, despite the imminent claims you are about to read in this interview with fascist alt-right political figure Augustus Sol Invictus—Nietzsche gives us several reasons to oppose fascism.
First, in Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche’s concept of the gift-giving virtue is paramount. This virtue implies that the generosity of the will is primordial, originating in an overabundance of health and strength, and is essentially giving, bestowing, and kind. By its very nature, such a will, need not kill or oppress others in order to exercise its influence. A healthy will is essentially generous.
Second, we must note that for Nietzsche—contra the essential doctrines of Nazism— there is value in weakness, just as much, or more, than in brute strength. Far from being an anti-Semite, Nietzsche viewed the Jewish people as playing an essential role in the genesis of all human civilization: for Nietzsche, Abrahamic religion, beginning in Judaism, was the first and most significant symptom of the arrival of ressentiment in humankind. Ressentiment may be loosely defined as “the resentment of those who are stronger that oneself,” and while it is commonly understood to be a bad thing in popular interpretations of Nietzsche’s philosophy, French thinker Gilles Deleuze makes it clear that such interpretations are not at all straightforward. Again, and again, Nietzsche links ressentiment with the will to truth, with memory, and consciousness itself. It arose when we developed cleverness in place of saber teeth or fangs to survive. Ressentiment is what Deleuze called “the motor of universal history.” If what ignites that motor is Abrahamic religion arising in Judaism, then one can argue that Nietzsche, in fact, believes that Judaism in one sense “invented” human consciousness itself—and while his work may also do much to question the primacy of conscious experience for the human being, there is no point at which he denies that self-consciousness is the distinguishing characteristic of humankind.
It is true that, inasmuch as Nietzsche can be said to have a “political philosophy” at all, he was, as Augustus Invictus will say, anti-egalitarian, and anti-democratic. However, Invictus is wrong when he argues that this means Nietzsche would have supported the institution of a totalitarian government of fascism. Ultimately, Nietzsche supported no government: his philosophy views brutality as inexorable from human society, yet he does not approve of that state of affairs for its being inexorable. He is not an anarchist, but nor is he willing to accept a future for the earth where conscious beings are dominated by the State. It is partially for that reason that Nietzsche views Man as something to be “overcome,” in favor of the Übermensch. What precisely that means is hotly debated, while one thing is clear: the path towards it, as we see in Zarathustra, is radical. It is, perhaps, Nietzsche’s only “absolute:” not simply the modification of human society, human affairs, human governments, but the departure from them—for better or for worse.
Getting back to the interview which follows: the value of Augustus Invictus, to me, is both that he is representative and that he is unique. He is representative of the move towards the far right occurring culturally and politically today in the U.S. and Europe. To be clear, white supremacy has existed in the United States since its foundation, but Invictus is part of a group whose goal is to shift the Overton window, as it were, such that white supremacist ideology may be normalized, admitted to, in the light of day. He is also part of a contingent of the far right which has an antagonistic relationship to the federal government, and, as he says himself, is “far more in favor of vigilante justice.” In that sense, Invictus provides one with a window of access and understanding into the violence of alt-right movement, writ large.
However, he is also unique. If you listen to or read the interview which follows, I believe you will see that this man is simultaneously a fascist, but also an intelligent and sensitive human being. The left must overcome the notion that the global resurgence of contemporary fascism is not simply an amalgamation of unintelligent, impoverished white “rednecks.” There may be rabble among the followers of this movement, but we need to be aware that there are leaders, as well. Augustus Invictus is a well-educated individual. He has complex reasons for what he does. I believe it is essential for us to understand that we cannot fight fascism through dismissing it as nonsense, nor as dismissing its proponents as inhuman. That sets us up for failure: if we encounter, then, a fascist who is charismatic and charming, we may be ill-prepared to identify them as being a fascist.
In this interview, Augustus says two things that I think are essential: First, he says, “you have to understand the counter-arguments to your own worldview.” This is true. When one has an opponent, it may seem easiest to attack the weakest possible version of that opponent—the lowest common denominator, or the straw man. That, however, only leaves oneself open to being toppled by the stronger version of your opponent’s argument—which I would argue is the one which should be considered to be real. To caricature your opponent in light of their weaknesses indicates a deep disrespect for not only your opponent, but for the brutal reality of the danger they pose. It is thus only with great grief that I say that the Left today in America does not appear to understand how to correctly assess the opponent they confront in the resurgence of white nationalism.
The Left has yet to come to terms with the fact that, evidenced under the grim reality of the Trump administration, many of our own friends and family, at least tacitly, condone white nationalism—not just people like Richard Spencer, at whom we feel free to laugh when they are sucker-punched. Many of the people you love did indeed vote for Trump. Ultimately, the dominant regime in the mainstream Democratic Party in the U.S. has a similar foundation, beneath a more palatable veneer. Hence, on the Left we must come to terms with the actual strength and nature of our enemies and our enemies’ constituencies—not just what we’d imagine or prefer it to be.
There is a second thing Augustus says in what follows, which I also believe is important. He quotes Andrew Breitbart as saying, “politics is downstream from culture.” What this quote means to him is, “you’re not going to have political policies or political activism or anything of the sort that’s not already stemming from a culture that exists.” Culture precedes politics; thus, the wars of culture are “real wars,” with consequences that are ultimately real. If this is the case, then the far Left should be wary of a tendency to trivialize any violence. Even vigilante political violence committed against Nazis and members of the KKK—whether or not such violence is justified—ought never be considered to be an occasion for glee. The value that it is wrong to take human life, and the reality that neo-Nazis are in some cases quite everyday human beings, are uncomfortable to consider alongside one another. Yet to shirk that discomfort cedes the moral high ground entirely. Ultimately, a casual attitude towards vigilante violence does not discriminate it yields only a politics casual about violence in general, regardless of the specific identity of its victims.
Furthermore, to provoke hostility with a cavalier attitude towards slaughtering Americans who have been radicalized into fascism is extremely unwise for a political contingent which does not have an organized structure for community self-defense. The Left in the U.S. today absolutely does not have the militia groups of the far right. We can easily convince ourselves, in a world dominated by social media, that we would be willing to put it all on the line for some cause—but the bravery for enacting such violence which groups like antifa supposedly condone cannot be tested anywhere else besides the real world. I cannot partake in a culture where justified violence in self-defense against neo-Nazism operates primarily as a “meme,” when the harms of white supremacist violence yield real genocide, suffering, and trauma which lasts a lifetime. Often, we are happy to share a meme online, in the privacy of our homes, about sucker-punching Richard Spencer—even when we would pale in terror if we were ever to see him, face-to-face.
As Jean Baudrillard said, “the left is dead.” Far from being some sophisticated alternative to the current status quo, we are all-too-many frustrations and failures. Liberals trade their dreams and principles for success, while radicals forfeit both: we are sad people who, by virtue of our cowardice, disunity, and marginality, forfeit the very integrity of our dreams without even achieving success in return. We let Obama fail to deliver on his promises. We let Trump win the election. We do not have the high ground. Instead, it is the Left who must answer for neoliberalism itself. We are the ones who must answer for our all-too-human complicity with the same old cycle of consumption and destruction, which over 2,000 years has led our globe to the brink of climate change, widespread global fascism, and total collapse.
It ought to go without saying that I take issue with the content of much of the interview that is to follow. Although I do agree with Mr. Invictus’ theoretical, academic claim that Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch involves a literal progression “beyond man,” the concord practically halts there. It is ridiculous to believe that the link between Donald Trump and the alt-right is as tenuous as Invictus claims. Nor do I believe that Nietzsche’s admitted bellicosity would have made him a supporter of fascism today. Especially, I disagree with the Mao quote, “power comes from the barrel of a gun,” which Invictus says he prefers to Hannah Arendt’s claim that “power and violence are opposites.” Violence only ever emerges out of a vacuum of power. The type of power obtained through violence is not absolute power. It is a specific, reactive kind of power, a rule by fiat which can only be perpetuated with further violence. As Invictus himself says, for obtaining real power, spontaneous influence and diplomacy often go much further.
I reject Invictus’ emphasis on liberal use of the death penalty, which is particularly hypocritical since in his run for U.S. Senator he campaigned to abolish it. Further, I was incredibly disturbed by his “joke” in response to my question about genocide, where he says that, if he could, he would perhaps carry out a genocide against “Marxist professors.” Today, I understand that such statements from Invictus are not “jokes,” they are threats. There are further problems with Mr. Invictus’ claims, of course, but to list only one more: if he believes that the state is “necessary but evil,” then it is not at all clear why he would argue for treason as a capital crime.
Readers should please note that this interview is ultimately extremely disturbing, in part because it contains an element of Holocaust denial. In this interview, Invictus quibbles with the historical details of the Holocaust. In so doing, he misses the point with an obliviousness that, considered alongside his clear intelligence, appears to me to be deeply pathological. The gravity of the Holocaust does not lie within the specific number of “6 million” Jewish human beings who were slaughtered in this genocide. That number may be instrumental to its gravity, but the gravity itself is absolutely horrifying entirely regardless of the accuracy of that number. We all have a solemn responsibility to prevent such evens from ever recurring; yet they continue to recur, today, on different scales, in different contexts. Invictus says “genocide” is an overused term, but I would say it is in some circles under-used today. Even if it were overused, of course—the gravity of the tragedy of the Holocaust would still merit the word. That gravity is entirely beyond the need for perfect historical accuracy. In fact, there will never be a perfectly historically accurate portrayal of the Holocaust, because the only people who could ever produce a truthful or reliable testimony of the Shoah are those who perished in it. The only true witnesses are permanently absent, no longer here to tell their story. In that, all survivors of the Holocaust have lost something irretrievable. All of humanity has lost something irretrievable. Jew and Gentile alike have lost what is irretrievable, and therefore anyone who claims to have the authority to speak on behalf of those who died in the Holocaust deeply violates the memory of their spirits.
As David Carroll says in the preface to Jean-Francois Lyotard’s text Heidegger and ‘the jews,’ Western thought owes an “unpayable debt” to “the jews”—a term here taken to mean not only Jewish human beings, but all human beings who perished in the Holocaust, indeed, all who have ever existed in a state of radical subalternity and marginality. Human society can never be affirmed until we confront “the terrifying consequences” both of Western thought’s “refusal to acknowledge its obligation [to "the jews”], and of its attempts to liquidate its debt so that it will have no obligation.“ (H, xxi) That humanity has yet to confront these consequences is why we cannot today guarantee with any integrity that the Holocaust will never recur.
Although I agree with Mr. Invictus that a sense of humor is important, and that sometimes even cruel jokes can have their place, I make these claims with an icy sense of sobriety. What Invictus unfortunately does not understand is that Mankind will absolutely never be "overcome” as Nietzsche wanted him to be, without the human repayment of the debt we owe ourselves, by owing it to all “jews.” We must learn as human beings the ethics of settling our own accounts. We cannot even promise that such a repayment involves anything finite—nothing less than an infinite form of obligation to the Other, and her world. In so writing, I can think of few more important things to keep in mind confronting the current manifestation of the specter of the state—and its alleged “necessary evil.”
—Alexandria Fanella
Listen to audio of the interview by clicking here.
Alexandria: Define fascism. Why is it valuable?
Augustus: I suppose I would go with an originalist definition of fascism which would be the form of government instituted by Benito Mussolini, more a political movement than a form of government, really, I think. Um, and the basis of it is from the fasces. “Fascismo” comes from the Latin word, fasces. And that was an item that was carried around by the Roman consul, or by anyone who was vested by the power of the state in Ancient Rome, the power over life and death specifically. So, the symbol was one of unity, so any of those rods could be broken, but united, they were invincible. And that is really the core of fascism. Um, as a political movement, it had certain aspects, um, that were defining characteristics: things like valuing the spiritual over the material. Things like valuing hierarchy over egalitarianism, which was in opposition to both liberal democracy and communism at the time. Things like the “will to power” over the social contract. Things like the vitalism of spirit over mechanical Darwinism. And those are things that came about I think more as a reflection on fascism, as it became a more popular movement, but as an initial philosophy and an initial movement, what it was, was a nationalist approach to politics that was anti-communism but that also recognized the failures of liberal democracy. So as to the second part of your question, how it’s valuable, um, does that mean “how is it valuable today?” or “how was it valuable back then?”
Alexandria: I would say as generally as you can, for this question, because there are other questions that relate to it, but: Why is it valuable as a philosophy?
Augustus: As a philosophy, I think it’s valuable because it does stand in opposition to everything we’ve been taught. So, at the very least, an understanding of fascism—as it actually is, and not as Antifa and liberals say it is—it’s invaluable in the sense that it can change your perspective on a lot of things. For instance, when I worked in international law, I bought into the whole globalist liberal democracy sort of program, and in reading Carl Schmitt, who was admittedly a fascist legal theorist, it completely destroyed that entire worldview. And in reading Schmitt—had I been exposed to that [sooner] maybe things would have been different. Had I been taught to synthesize that with the modern world, maybe I would see things differently, maybe I wouldn’t have had such a grand disillusionment with liberal democracy and internationalism—but I did. But at the very least, it is valuable so you can understand your own worldview, I think.
Alexandria: What is the connection between Donald Trump and the alt-right?
Augustus: If anything, it would be that the alt-right supports Donald Trump, end of story. I don’t think Donald supports the alt-right, if he knows who they are, I don’t think he gives a shit about them. They are just part of his voting populace that helped him get into office. I do know if I were on the other side of the fence, the immediate reaction I would have to that is, “Well, Donald Trump once retweeted this picture of Bernie Sanders in an oven, some meme with Pepe the Frog,” or something like that, you know “Donald Trump said this or that,” but really I don’t think Donald Trump has any idea who the alt-right is. I am sure he has heard of them I’m sure his advisors have told him, I’m sure he has read the media stories, because he reads everything. But as far as being a member of the alt-right or it’s his creation or his vehicle to come to power, I think that whole notion is absurd.
Alexandria: What do you think of Steve Bannon?
Augustus: I don’t really know anything about Steve Bannon, to be quite honest. He is head of Breitbart, right?
Alexandria: I think so.
Augustus: Yeah. So, Breitbart, I read sometimes for news, same way I would read CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, any other media outlet. And Breitbart—like I said, I don’t know about Steve Bannon, but speaking of Breitbart, which is why most people hate Steve Bannon—I’m not a big fan, because their headlines are clickbait. And to me, they are just the right-wing version of CNN. They’re the right-wing version of The Rachel Maddow Show, because it’s not true, everybody knows it’s not true, these are clearly slanted news articles, but they make no bones about it. And I guess you can respect that, but that doesn’t mean that is where I am going to get my news from, even if I am right-wing.
Alexandria: You studied philosophy at USF. In fact, you attended the Philosophy Honors program and you wrote your thesis on Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra, is that correct?
Augustus: Yes.
Alexandria: So, can you tell us about this? What was your thesis on more specifically?
Augustus: Hmm. Well, it’s been a long time since I’ve reviewed that thesis, but I think the two main points I was trying to make is that Nietzsche’s talking on the one hand, about eternity, and on the other hand, about overcoming, which seems to be teleological. And, my synthesis of those two conflicting, um, perspectives, is that of the spiral. So if you’re thinking of teleology in the terms of millenarian apocalyptic sort of thought, like Judeo-Christianity, you think of teleology as a straight line, and it’s going to end in the Kingdom of God or Jesus coming back, or Marx overthrowing the, you know, horrible rich people. But if you think of the ancients, which is where Nietzsche comes from, you think of time as a cycle. There is no teleology, everything is cyclical. And if you read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, it has both of those concepts together. And I think that it boils down to the fact of the spiral. Like, Crowley talked about the horns of Baphomet in a spiral, where all of existence or energy or the DNA helix, they’re all spirals, and that was the life-force. Nietzsche, I think, when he talked about the ring of eternity, was talking about something completely outside of time. And when he was talking about the Übermensch, I think he literally meant man was something to be overcome. Just like man overcame the ape—
Alexandria: Right.
Augustus: —so would the superman overcome the man. And a lot of thinkers—well, I use thinkers liberally—what I really mean is a lot of academicians. They read Nietzsche and they think, “Well, this can’t be literal, this is poetic, or this is metaphor, or Nietzsche is just talking about a higher version of man.” But he talked about the higher man. There were clearly different sorts of men, he never said all men were equal, and he specifically said only the highest can men can be that bridge to the Overman. Um, so that was a lot of what my thesis was about, was trying to reconcile the two notions of Overcoming and of Eternity, being outside of time.
Alexandria: What do you think Friedrich Nietzsche would say about WWII and about fascism?
Augustus: That’s a good question, because I know Nietzsche hated Germans as much as anything else, and he was talking about the Good European, and for all the anti-Semitic things he said, he also said anti-anti-Semitic things. So, Nietzsche has a lot of conflicting statements, even in his own corpus. But, you know, that’s no different than anything I’ve written about the federal government. I’ve said “the federal government has its uses; the federal government does positive things. I’ve even said positive things about the New Deal, and Roosevelt’s administration.” But I’ve also been the one to say, “We should burn it all down.” So, a thinker I think, can have opposing views even within himself, just like Nietzsche would say you have to have chaos within yourself to give birth to a dancing star.
As far as his view on WWII, I think the militant aspect of his thought would say, “This is great, because Germans are struggling, and life is struggle, and warfare is a fact of life that we cannot escape.” As far as the outcome of WWII, I think he would say, as any German would you after WWII, “This is not good.” Because, whether you think of Hitler as a hero or as the Anti-Christ, it is incontrovertible that his politics completely destroyed Germany. And I think Nietzsche would have had issue with that.
As for fascism, I would think he would be in favor of it—
Alexandria: —okay—
Augustus: —and that’s probably the most controversial statement I’ll make tonight.
Alexandria: Oh, we’ll see.
Augustus: Ha. I think he would be in favor of it, because it does recognize hierarchy, like I said, at the outset; it does recognize militancy, it is nationalist and, yes, Nietzsche was more nationalist than European than German, but Francis Parker Yockey was also a nationalist, and he talked about the Western Nation, about um, Western Civilization and not necessarily America or Britain, even though he was a British American. And not about the Catholic church even though he was Catholic, from what I recall. Um, so I think Nietzsche would have been mostly in favor of it. On the other hand, if you read people like Oswald Spengler, Spengler, who wrote The Decline of the West, was very Nietzschean, and he hated the Nazis. But what’s counterintuitive about that is that he hated the Nazis because they were not racist enough, they were not German enough, and when they signed that alliance with Japan, that was a betrayal, in Spengler’s eyes, a betrayal of the German people, they should never have done that. I mean, and geopolitically speaking, historically speaking, he was correct, they should not have done that because Japan got them dragged into war with everyone in the world. So, that was a horrible decision on Hitler’s part, um, but I think generally speaking, to answer your question directly, Nietzsche would have been in favor of fascism.
Alexandria: To switch these questions around—Dr. Martin Schönfeld was sponsoring your thesis at USF. How did you decide to work with him?
Augustus: [pause]
…I think he, if I recall correctly, he had the reputation as “the” Nietzsche scholar in the building. And, um, he happened to be German, and he was teaching a seminar on Nietzsche, so I think—I don’t think that I had a class with him before that, before the Nietzsche seminar and the independent study. No, you know what, I did. In the Fall, I took “Zen Poetry and Being” with him. So the point of that class was, talking about poetry, examining poetry, and learning Zen, and interpreting even German poets through the lens of Zen Buddhists. So, speaking with him in that class, and learning about his positions on Nietzsche and knowing that he was going to be teaching Nietzsche the next semester, that is how I came to ask him if I could do the independent study with him. That was it, it might have been 8 or 9 years ago, maybe 10 years ago, so my memory might be cloudy there.
Alexandria: Do you still talk to him at all, or what happens now with him?
Augustus: I haven’t. I have not spoken to any of my professors from USF except for West Gurley and Tom Brommage, who I’m friends with on Facebook. And both of them are at different Universities now.
Alexandria: Mm. Do you know why? Is that because you just didn’t want to, or because, did they not respond to you?
Augustus: Yeah, they did not respond to me. The only ones I’ve really reached out to have been Schönfeld and Sadler. but neither will respond to me, no.
Alexandria: Shifting gears, Mao said, “power is at the end of the barrel of a gun,” and Hannah Arendt said, “power and violence are opposites; where one exists, the other is absent.” Which of these do you agree with more, and why?
Augustus: I agree with Mao more, but I do appreciate Arendt’s sentiment, because I am reminded of a quote by Napoleon that he said once, uh, he was surprised how little force achieved in anything, because everything was about influence. Even as emperor, he couldn’t force anyone to do anything: he had to inspire them to do it or influence them to do it somehow. He—force really did nothing, even when you have all power as an emperor. But that being said, I think Mao is correct, that force comes from the barrel of a gun. It’s the same sentiment that Thomas Hobbes relayed in the Leviathan when he said that it is authority, not truth, that makes law.
Alexandria: Okay.
Augustus: The “why” side of the question? I think we would look to history for that. Saying that violence does not equal power is just an absolute denial of all of human history. Violence is power. Whether you like violence or not—which is a normative question, I suppose–you cannot deny that all of history is violent and that people come to power through violence. Um, it’s like Hume’s guillotine. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is,” or vice versa. And I think Arendt wants the world to be where real power is love, and understanding, and all these other feminine things, but in the real world—which is brutal—uh, violence does accomplish power.
Alexandria: It accomplishes it, but they are not identical…
Augustus: No, they are certainly not identical. I would agree with that.
Alexandria: Okay. I have a quote for you. You’ll have to forgive me, someone else gave this to me and I don’t have the source, but I can give that to you or maybe you’ll recognize that. I’ll just read it:??“The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.”
So, there’s that. And, on the other hand, although you do state that you are influenced by fascist philosophy, you also seem to appreciate Nietzsche’s passage in Zarathustra “On the New Idol,” which refers to the State as, among other things, “the coldest of all cold monsters.” So, how do you reconcile Nietzsche’s opposition to the State with your identification as a fascist, which as we see from the above quote, imagines the State as all-encompassing?
Augustus: Right. That quote sounds like it’s from [Giovanni] Gentile’s ghostwriting of the Doctrine of Fascism, which was published under Mussolini’s name. If I’m correct, then I believe what Gentiles is saying—that’s the original doctrine of totalitarianism. That’s where the entire concept comes from, is that essay. And the philosophy of fascism—totalitarianism is not Orwellian totalitarianism. Uh, it’s not total control of every aspect of a person’s life.
Alexandria: Hmm.
Augustus: What the fascists are getting at, at least the fascist philosophers, is that fascism is totalitarian in that it affects every aspect of your life, as in: the spiritual, moral, mental, uh, intellectual and physical levels. Not that the state is dictating everything you do from the moment you open your eyes to the moment you go to sleep, but that if you believe in things like hierarchy, like loyalty, like courage, and uh, nationalism uh, love of country and of family— if you believe in those things, then it does affect how you live your life, it affects how you vote, um it affects how you run your business. And, in America we have this notion that you can actually separate church and state, which is absurd. One way or the other, sure, you can cut off federal funding to a Catholic school, but you cannot tell a Catholic “Don’t vote the way your conscience tells you,” which is the way the Church tells you. That’s just not reality. Um, so in that aspect, fascism just recognizes the reality of the world, that your outlook on things really is totalitarian, you can’t divide things between church and state, or between the business world and the family life, uh, you really are a holistic person—I think that’s what they were trying to get at with the word “totalitarian.” But of course, we associate that world with 1984, which is not at all how the original fascists thought of it.
Alexandria: Okay.
Augustus: As far as Nietzsche’s “On the New Idol,” I did a fireside chat about that, during the campaign. That’s how strongly I felt about that chapter. I think every word of it is correct, that is why it’s the only Nietzsche reading I did during the campaign. The state, um—is indeed the cold monster. And the state is an evil. And as a classical liberal, one thing I point out to all the anarchists who support me, is that while the state is an evil, it is a necessary evil. Um, and I have been bashed on that by other anarchists, who say, “Well, how could you say any evil is necessary? That’s a horrible thing to say!” But it’s not saying I would like it to be there. I’m saying that is something you have to recognize in the world as it is not as you want it to be. And if you want to accomplish anything politically, you have to live with the world as it is, while still aiming toward your ideals. So, Nietzsche may well have thought the state should die, because the Superman cannot be born within something like our modern society. That is why he tells people, “Flee into the mountains! Flee into the wilderness, because you can’t do anything here. Don’t talk to the marketplace, go into your solitude.” He says that throughout the entire book, it’s one of the main themes of the book, it’s “Escape humanity, escape civilization, and there you will find greatness, and there you will find your own overcoming, and that is the only way, the only path to the Übermensch.”
Alexandria: Okay.
Augustus: So, while we may hate the state, as far as being it being a hindrance to the development of the Superman—it is a reality that even Nietzsche would have to recognize.
Alexandria: So long as there is humanity, and not the Übermensch, there is the State.
Augustus: Right, just like so long as there are apes, and not only man exists, there’s going to be communities of chimpanzees out in the wild. And as long as there are humans, there will be humans in society, and the state.
Alexandria: What is the role of the State in generating economic prosperity, and what is the role of the State regarding how such prosperity is distributed among persons?
Augustus: I don’t believe that the State has a role in distributing economic prosperity across persons. Um, like I said I’ve made positive remarks about the New Deal, I’ve often said I don’t think anyone wants to go back to 10-year old’s working in coal mines, no one wants to go back to bakers having 20-hour work weeks. For all of its evils, the New Deal did have pieces of legislation that we don’t ever want to go back from. Even conservatives don’t want to go back from that. Um, on the other hand, being a libertarian, I think the main role of the State as far as economics is concerned, is protecting the domestic welfare, and protecting from foreign invaders, and making sure that an economy can be stable. And you can’t have a stable economy as long as there is civil war, and you can’t have a stable economy if you’re being invaded, or if there are populations of mass immigrants coming to your country and wrecking the economy. So that is a proper role for the federal government. That being said, I’m also not of the hardcore libertarian position where like secularists believe in the separation of church and state, hardcore libertarians will believe in the separation of the economy and the state. And iI think that’s insane. Um, not insane in the sense of church and state, where, you’re just not recognizing the reality that people are going to vote according to their religion and things like that, but insane in the sense that if you separate the State from the economy, all you’re doing is creating a power vacuum, where these corporate interests will completely dominate every aspect of American life. And in that sense, that’s why I get called a fascist, because I do believe that the state can be a counterweight to unmitigated corporatism, uh, well, corporatism is the wrong word—unmitigated capitalism.
Alexandria: What is race?
Augustus: Ha! That is a trick question, I think. As far as race being a social construct, I think that’s bullshit. As far as there being general divisions among human populations, I don’t think that one can deny what white people and black people are two different races. I don’t think that you can realistically deny that a European person and a Chinese person are of the [different] races. So as far as that’s concerned, broad divisions of humankind, I think those are applicable. I think the main opposition that people have is, “Well, but you have French people and you have German people, and those may be two different nationalities, but then you have those people who are French and German, so you can’t really have French and German people. Or they’ll say, well, you’ve got white people and you’ve got black people, but you’ve also got mulatto people, or you’ve got white people and you’ve got black people, but you’ve also got people who are quarter white, or anything in between so it’s a spectrum, it’s a fluctuating spectrum. I don’t think that’s any different than saying that "Red and blue do not exist, because purple exists.” I think it’s more accurate to say, “Red and blue exist, and purple also exists, and it is the blending of red and blue.” Um, and to deny that is just sophistry.
Alexandria: One of your campaign platforms was to abolish the death penalty, is that correct?
Augustus: I don’t think that was one of the things I really stumped on, but it was probably in the platform, yes.
Alexandria: How do you reconcile this with your position that the people who committed the recent hate crime against a disabled person should be “shot in the head?”
Augustus: My position on the death penalty is that our legal system is so corrupt that it cannot be instituted effectively. Having been a criminal defense lawyer, I’ve seen innocent people get convicted. It happens. It happens every day in this country. So, if you are depending on this legal system to make decisions over life and death, then you are just setting yourself up for failure. Innocent people get convicted all the time in this country, and so if you’re going to sentence them to death, and you’re not sure that they’re guilty, ah, then you have a real serious problem. As for the people in Chicago, they’re on fucking camera. And the only reason for them to have a trial is to present mitigating factors. Any lawyer will tell you that they’re on camera, they’re 100% guilty. The only mitigating factors they’re going to be able to plea are things like insanity, um, and then some crafty defense lawyer will think up, “Well, they grew up in these horrible circumstances, et cetera et cetera,” but the fact that they committed the crime is incontrovertible. So—
Alexandria: —and you think that the crime that they committed is a capital crime? Because, they didn’t kill anybody.
Augustus: Right. I think a lot of crimes are capital, in which people are not actually dead. I think treason is a capital crime. So, I’ve often advocated hanging every member of the Federal Reserve board, and most of the politicians in Congress and the White House. And they didn’t kill anybody, I mean not personally, anyway. But treason being a capital crime, they deserve the death penalty. Um, torturing someone, especially a mentally retarded person, I think that warrants the death penalty. Child molestation or child pornography—um, we used to bury those people in the backyard 50 years ago. And now they’re getting five years’ probation. It’s absurd. Those people should be executed. My position on the death penalty as far as our legal system is concerned, uh, is that the legal system is too corrupt to be an effective tool in that regard. Which means I’m far more in favor of vigilante justice to be quite frank.
Alexandria: So, the first time we spoke and you—as you do now— you claimed to believe torture is wrong, but my understanding is that you also side with the Schmittian position that torture is acceptable in times of warfare. Given you think the people are always-already at war with the state, or more accurately, that the state is always-already at war with us, this would seem to mean that you don’t actually think torture is wrong. In fact, it would seem to follow that the people at war with the state have justification for engaging in torture and/or killing of representatives of the State—as you’ve just said—at any time. So, just confirming, do you believe this is true? Um, and in what sense, then, do you meaningfully oppose torture?
Augustus: I think the logical misstep there is to assume that I agree with Schmitt that torture is acceptable.
Alexandria: I seem to remember it in the first interview, but maybe I am wrong.
Augustus: No, I hold Schmitt in very high regard, and you can probably assume that I generally agree with him on everything, and he’s one of my biggest influences not just in politics, but in legal philosophy,—but I don’t think that war justifies torture. I think part of the development of Western civilization is that in fighting the Crusades we learned chivalry. And throughout the middle ages, chivalry developed. And the laws of warfare, they developed such that torture is illegal for a reason, because it is um, it is offensive to our consciences. So, war or no war, I don’t think torture is acceptable. Um, and whether the Federal Reserve board should hang from the lampposts or not, I don’t think they should be tortured on the way there. I think their death is warranted both as a symbol and as just punishment, but I don’t think torture fits either of those, um, justifications.
Alexandria: Why do you think fascism failed before? Why does it deserve to be tried again, and why will it be different this time?
Augustus: I think fascism failed in its first instance because of its militancy, in large part. Hitler certainly did derive a lot of his success from diplomacy, you know, the Czech Republic, Austria was taken without a single shot fired, and he had some major accomplishments without any bloodshed whatsoever, taking back the Rhine, it was only in the instance of the Danzig where he actually invaded a country to take back land for Germany. And from that point, maybe there was nothing he could do, um, Churchill certainly was implacable, the English after Danzig were not willing to compromise at all. But I don’t think Hitler helped anything by then going against the Soviet Union and opening war on two sides. I think you can call yourself the Master Race all you want, but when you put yourself in a losing position like that, what are you trying to prove? So, I think the arrogance of the militancy that they had was probably their downfall. Um, Mussolini and Hitler waging war on everybody in the world, um, and Japan certainly had its reasons for bombing Pearl Harbor, but did that really help in the end? Absolutely not, I mean I’m sure America would have gotten involved sooner or later, because Roosevelt really wanted to get involved, and was just itching for a reason, but um, waging war on everyone in the world was a losing proposition. So, I think that’s why it failed in the first instance. What was the second part of the question?
Alexandria: Why does it deserve to be tried again?
Augustus: Right. So, I’m not saying that we should institute a fascist government, I’m saying that the fascist philosophy is valuable to understand, because there are real problems with liberal democracy, and there are real problems with communism, and fascism puts those on the table. So, if you don’t know those, you’re like, uh, like a Christian fundamentalist little girl going to college for the first time, and you’re Existentialism teacher’s going to turn you into a fucking nihilist in your first semester, you know. So, you have to be prepared for those things and you have to understand the counter-arguments to your own worldview.
Alexandria: So, you don’t think a fascist government should be instituted?
Augustus: No. If anything, if we were going to the ideal government, I would argue for the re-institution of the monarchy—because liberal democracy is not working out.
Alexandria: Hah. It’s not working out…
Augustus: No, and monarchy suited everyone just fine for a couple thousand years.
Alexandria: During our first interview, you said that Obama ought to close Guantanamo. You said, and I quote, “he needs to understand that is why we voted for him.” Did you vote for Barack Obama?
Augustus: I did. The first election. The second, I sat it out. Uh, well—it was a nice sunny day in Chicago, and I waited in a very long line, with all the other Chicagoans, and we all voted for our fellow Chicagoan. As for my reasons for voting for Obama, he said he was going to close Guantanamo, he said he was going to end the drug war, he said he was going to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; he said he was going to bring the banks under control, he said he was going to bring the corporate interests under control. All of those things are phenomenal. I campaigned on those same things myself for the Senate. But he did none of those things. Not a single fucking one of them. So, we were all betrayed. So, yeah, I would vote for him again if it were 2008, because I believed in the message that strongly, and part of that message is my own, but he clearly failed in that entire agenda.
Alexandria: What do you think about the recent death penalty verdict being meted out to the Charleston shooter Dylann Roof?
Augustus: Well, that’s another instance where I think he was clearly guilty. Um, and yes, I am against the death penalty because the legal system is ineffective, but he admitted to it, he wrote a manifesto, he did it on purpose so that people would know about it. His guilt is incontrovertible, unless there’s some grand conspiracy going on, I’m unaware of. His guilt is not at issue. The only thing that was at issue was his mental capacity. They want to say that he was insane, just like they tried to get Kaczynski’s lawyers—tried to get his doctors to tell everyone that he was insane, and Kaczynski said, “Absolutely not. I’m not insane, I’m perfectly fine, and if we go the legal insanity defense, everything I’ve written and everything I’ve done, means nothing. It’s just the writings of a madman.” So, you have to be found sane. Dylann Roof did the same thing to my understanding. I didn’t watch the trial, but from what I’ve heard of it, um, he argued that he was perfectly sane, and he was convicted because he clearly did it, and he was sentenced to death. Um—
Alexandria: He rejected psychology as a discipline, which is kind of different from just saying that he was sane—but yeah, he said that it was a Jewish invention and they were imaginary problems.
Augustus: I think a lot of us share the belief that psychology is largely bullshit, but that aside, no matter how you feel about psychology—
Alexandria: Right, because, that could be a whole other interesting conversation…
Augustus: Right. I mean, I think he warranted the death penalty, and he sought the death penalty, and that makes him a martyr. Now, that is a totally different question. So yes, he deserved to die, because he killed people, and I think most people would agree on that. However, what have you accomplished except making him a martyr for his cause, in sentencing him to death?
Alexandria: Do you mean you personally view him as a martyr or that you believe he made himself a martyr?
Augustus: No. Right, I don’t see him as a martyr, I see him as a horrible writer who got his manifesto published by killing people. That’s the American way these days, unfortunately. But he certainly made himself a martyr, because he made this political statement, and now the state is sentencing him to death for it. So, really, he won, in the end, if you ask me.
Alexandria: Okay. What do you think about Chelsea Manning recently being freed?
Augustus: What was the name of that kid that they were coming after for being a hacker? [Ed: the name of this young man mentioned is Aaron Schwartz.] Not Snowden, and not Assange, but some kid who killed himself because he was facing federal charges. Do you remember that guy? The Obama administration was to blame for that. Obama is also the one who denigrated Snowden for what he did. Obama also—correct me if I’m wrong—is not pardoning Assange, so the entire issue of leaking seems to be beside the point. Because if you’re going to hail this kid as a hero for doing the just thing in exposing corruption, then you should do the same thing for the kid who killed himself, because your Department of Justice went after him.
Alexandria: Oh, I know who you’re talking about now.
Augustus: Right. You should do the same thing for Julian Assange. These people are all in the same category, um, my friend Chris Cantwell, he was pointing out in his show that there was some guy who took a picture of the submarine and showed his mom. It’s not like he was giving these pictures to the enemy, but that was enough of an act of treason or of delivering state secrets, that he is in prison for that. He wasn’t pardoned, but Chelsea Manning was. So that entire thing is a social justice issue. It has nothing to do with what Manning actually did, which is the same—no matter how you view leaking state secrets, it’s all in the same category, as all these other people. Obama doing that is a political statement about the transgender community, which I think is wholly inappropriate. Either you’re going to pardon all of these people because what they did was heroic, or you’re not going to pardon them because what they did was treason.
Alexandria: Okay. So, throughout the time I have known you, you have made several statements containing negative generalizations about Jews.
Augustus: [laughter]
Alexandria: What, exactly, is the problem you have with the Jewish community? And, does that relate to a specific role that you think Jews play in culture or politics?
Augustus: It depends on what these negative statements are. These are not the joking statements? [Ed: Note that, in this 2017 interview, Augustus claims his expressions of racism and anti-Semitism are all just a silly joke. Yet on June 28th, 2019 Augustus states during his speech at the ‘Nationalist Solutions Conference’ in Burns, TN that he feels “humor is the best way to deliver uncomfortable messages.”]
Alexandria: You’re going to have to use your imagination, because I am not remembering any specific one right now.
Augustus: There was a kid in my high school American History class who would respond to things the professor said with, “Well, that’s Jewish.” And the professor was African-American, and he kicked him out of the class for that, and I had no idea what was going on, because I didn’t actually know any Jews at the time. I didn’t really know any Jewish people until I moved to Chicago, which is literally run by Jews. Um, so was my law school, and so that was a whole new world that opened up to me. As far as any wisecracks I’ve made, I think they’re just funny. Um, I also tell the joke of, “What’s faster than a black man with a television set?”
Alexandria: I don’t know, Augustus…
Augustus: “His cousin with a VCR.”
[Augustus’ ex-fiancée laughs, in the background]
Augustus: Because it’s funny. I think I’ve told you that joke before too. It’s not because I hate black people, or because they’re natural born thieves, but it’s a funny joke. Um, just like a lot of Jewish jokes are funny jokes. So, it’s not that I have a problem with them, it’s just that it’s funny. And I have a very cruel sense of humor, and I don’t care about political correctness.
Alexandria: This may lose me points with my audience, but—
Augustus: Well, you can edit that part out where I said that I told you that joke before—
Alexandria: —I also think cruel jokes can be perfectly fine on occasion, and I will not edit that out. Which brings us to one of my favorite questions, number 20: Do you think the Holocaust a) happened and was wrong, b) happened and was justified, or c) did not happen? Why?
Augustus: I would pick, “d), none of the above,” because certainly Jews were killed, during WWII, I don’t think anyone could argue against that. As far as the textbook definition of, “6 million Jews died, because Hitler was a psychopath and all the Germans are evil people,” that I would certainly take issue with. As far as their causes of death, being put into ovens, um, being subjected to these terrible experiments, I mean, we know the experiments happened. We know that ovens existed, but what were they for? There are people that would argue they were there because typhus was spreading, because it was a time of war, and that these bodies had to be cremated—they would also argue that these ovens were not nearly big enough, no matter how many you had, to execute and cremate 6 million people. So, there are just technical difficulties like that. Or the technical difficulty that most of the Diary of Anne Frank was written in ball point pen, which was not invented until 1952. So the things like that, um, people were bringing up, and they were historical revisionists— I don’t, I’m not a historian, I’m a lawyer, so I have no way to judge those things, but I do think it is important to be critical of any movement that says, “If you question this, then you are a heretic. If you question this, then you are an evil person.
So, if I question the fact that Otto Frank wrote the Diary to Anne Frank and attributed it to his daughter—if I question that—I’m an evil person. I don’t know whether Anne Frank wrote it or not. I don’t give a shit, to be quite frank. To me, it does not change my world view whether this little girl wrote it and was executed in a camp or died of starvation or whatever, or whether her father wrote it to make a political statement against the Nazis. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t starve little girls to death in a fucking camp. Whether it happened or not is immaterial, and whether 6 million Jews were gassed and put into ovens and gotten rid of with "German efficiency,” is really irrelevant. I mean, the fact is, you should not do that. And I think that’s the real article of faith is, “Do you think this is wrong?” Well, of course if that happened then it’s fucking wrong. But the fact that we’re not even allowed to talk about it as an historical event, and we have to talk about it as a religious event, that I find offensive.
Alexandria: What do you mean by, “a religious event?”
Augustus: I mean that, if you do not believe that 6 million Jews were murdered, systematically, during WWII, then you are a heretic. You are an evil person. If you do not believe that Zyklon B was used in murder vans to go around kidnapping and killing Jews, then you are a bad person. If you don’t believe that every single person in a concentration camp was a poor victim, then you are a bad person. Those are articles of faith, they’re not historical statements.
Alexandria: So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying your position is that you don’t feel you have sufficient knowledge of history to make a definitive statement about the event that is called the Holocaust, um, and if it happened as “Holocaust-affirmers” say that would be [morally] wrong, but you don’t know that it did, and you take issue that with the pressure that is put on people to believe that it did.
Augustus: I would agree with 98% of that summation, except for the fact that I do think I have enough historical understanding to know what’s going on. I think that my study of WWII, and of fascism, and of the Holocaust are probably superior to most people’s.
Alexandria: So, you do think that the severity of the genocide against Jews is overstated?
Augustus: That, I would agree with. I would agree with that statement, yes.
Alexandria: Most people would consider that a form of Holocaust denial.
Augustus: Holocaust denial. Right, in which case, they would put me in the same boat as the government of Israel and the government of Poland, which both claim that it was not 6 million but 4 million. There are different statistics of the Holocaust all over the world, but the “official number” is 6 million, and if you deviate from that you are a historical revisionist and a Holocaust denier. That’s what I find offensive.
Alexandria: What are your general thoughts on the moral status of genocide? You do think genocide is morally wrong, correct, or incorrect?
Augustus: Uh, yeah, I mean, if you’re trying to wipe out a whole group of people, I’d say that’s morally wrong. Where I differ with people is—everybody wants to classify this or that or the other as a genocide, and I think the term is misused and overused. But yes, if you’re wiping out a whole group of people, I would agree that is wrong.
Alexandria: Okay. So, if you had the power, you do not think that you would commit genocide today?
Augustus: [laughs] Probably not. Unless it’s a genocide of bankers or Marxist professors—
Alexandria: Ooooooooookay…
Augustus: —Or corrupt politicians, but no. Not based on race, ethnicity, gender, or anything of the sort. Any of our protected classes.
Alexandria: Just… checking. What do you think should happen to social safety nets such as the disability programs that provide stable food and housing to disabled people, such as myself?
Augustus: Right. So, what to do with them, I don’t think abolition is the answer, like I’ve said a couple times now in this particular sit-down, I don’t think that all of the programs of the New Deal were bad. I think some social safety net is warranted. I would, however, say that I think state governments are better able to provide those safety nets, and probably should do it, and not the federal government. On the other hand, if you look at history, and you look at the real world, that did not happen, and that’s why the New Deal had to happen, because charities were not providing these services, state governments were not providing these services, at least not reliably. And so, the federal government under Roosevelt decided to step in and just get it done. So, I’m not opposed to social measures.
If I had to rank it in order of preference, I would hope that charities and private organizations would do it first. And if they do not exist, then state governments should do it. And only as an absolute last resort should a federal government do anything about anything that is not defending the country or preventing us from collapsing into a Civil War. The federal government to my mind, is a very limited institution. As far as disability specifically, Social Security Disability payouts, are actually part of the reason our government is going bankrupt right now. So, you can apply for Social Security Disability, and it takes you a few times to get it, for most people, but then, you have it forever. It’s like getting a government job. It might be difficult to get, might not be. But once you’re in there, it is almost impossible to get fired. You can try to get fired from a government job. Can’t do it. Same thing with disability payments under Social Security, and a lot of these payments, these people don’t actually need. If there were a review process, maybe we could reform it. But again, I think the better solution would be, “put it back in the hands of the state governments if the federal government can’t get their shit together.”
Alexandria: Okay. So, during your campaign, in response to accusations of white nationalism, oftentimes one of the things that you would cite is that your ex-wife is a Hispanic woman. I’m just wondering, what does she think of your political views?
Augustus: Um, she agrees with my political views. I can’t think of any area where we disagree, quite honestly. But, she’s also not an exceedingly political person. I mean, she’s not an activist, she’s not a member of the party, she did not work on my campaign, um, but I can’t think of any area where we’ve had an argument about what policies should be taken. Maybe that’s more testament to her disinterestedness in politics, but if what you’re asking is “Does she support the fact that white supremacists support my candidacy?” I don’t think she really cares. The fact is, we are running on these policies, she agrees with those policies, um, and she understands that politics is politics and you’re going to have people supporting you that you don’t necessarily agree with 100% of the time. Um, and you also can’t control who supports you. Um, I think the real question is, “Why don’t you disavow these people?” And, “Does your ex-wife expect you to disavow them?” I really don’t think she does. But most people do, and it’s funny that it’s all the strangers who are all suburban white people who expect me to disavow these people when the Hispanic woman says, “This is politics, this is the real world, you have to live in it.”
Alexandria: What was your relationship like with your mother? Where is she now?
Augustus: I have no relationship with my mother, and I never did. She lives in North Carolina.
Alexandria: You recently quoted Breitbart on your Twitter, saying “politics is downstream from culture.” Can you explain what this means?
Augustus: Yes. First, I’d like to clarify that I was quoting Andrew Breitbart, not Breitbart the news source. I was quoting the person, not the company and its policies. As far as what it means, is that politics is really a manifestation of the culture. You’re not going to have political policies or political activism or anything of the sort that’s not already stemming from a culture that exists. So, a lot of people, let’s take the libertarians, for instance. They like to think that we’re going to elect this guy as Senator, and that will change everything. At least, some libertarians believe that. Most libertarians are realistic to know that’s not the truth. But some people I have to remind, “Look, even if I were to have been elected, I’d be one person in Washington.” What is really needed is a cultural shift. You have to convince Americans that a limited government is not only possible but desirable. You have to have a culture of independence and of self-sufficiency, in order to bring about that shift in perspective. Because right now, Americans expect the federal government to take care of all their problems. They expect the federal government to legislate over all these matters they could very well take care of themselves. They don’t need the federal government, but they don’t know that. So, part of what my message is, is that we need a cultural shift back to individualism, and a rejection of the paternalism of the federal government.
Alexandria: Okay. A rejection of paternalism, I didn’t expect to hear that from you.
Augustus: Hah. It is probably counterintuitive.
Alexandria: Okay. So, how do you feel about the fact that many people, such as the people in antifa, sincerely hope for you to die? Is that ever hard, or scary?
Augustus: No. There was only one time it was concerning, and that was in Portland when we were unarmed, and surrounded. That was the only time it’s ever been a concern. Ever since then, we’ve been prepared to kill every Antifa that comes near us, and they never do, because that particular circumstance will never occur again. So, really it doesn’t bother me at all. Like Roosevelt said of the financial interests, “I welcome their hatred.”
Alexandria: Who do you think you have hurt the most during your time in this world, that you intended to hurt and that you think was justified?
Augustus: [long pause] Politically speaking?
Alexandria: You can interpret it as you choose.
Augustus: [pause] Let’s come back to that one. I’ve hurt a lot of people. I’ll have to put some thought into that one.
Alexandria: Well that is part of a four-part, which is all about hurting people: Who do you think you have hurt the most in this world, that you regret hurting? And then, who has hurt you the most? And, what do you regret the most?
Augustus: No, that’s fine, those are easier to answer. As far as politics is concerned, I regret hurting no one, because politics is a contact sport, as the chair of the Libertarian party likes to say here in Florida. Um, I’d say that the people I’ve hurt the most have been in my family, or at least, those are the people I’ve noticed that I’ve hurt, those are the ones I’ve noticed, and have regretted, because they are family.
Alexandria: Who has hurt you the most?
Augustus: Also family.
Alexandria: What do you regret the most?
Augustus: As far as hurting people, or like in my life?
Alexandria: This is, in your life.
Augustus: Generally speaking, I’d say probably my biggest mistake was withdrawing my candidacy from the Naval Academy and enlisting in the Navy. I think that set my life on a course that was absolutely irreversible. When I was 17.
Alexandria: What happened with that?
Augustus: Well, I was involuntarily separated for medical reasons, which is another reason it was a horrible decision, because that would not have happened, if I had gone to college and been an officer. So, every step of the way, everything that happened from that one decision, it was irreversible. There was no fixing any of that. That one decision changed everything. Now, as far as personal regret, like, interpersonal, that is, I could talk all night about that. Like I said, I’ve hurt a lot of people, and done a lot of shitty things. I think all you can do in those instances is learn how not to be a shitty person, and don’t do it again.
Alexandria: Okay. This is the last question, and it’s from a friend of mine, who asks, “Do you know that dominating others without their consent does more harm to you than to them?”
Augustus: [Laughs] No. I did not know that. I’d love to hear that lecture, though.
Alexandria: He just wanted to know if you knew that.
Augustus: No. No, I do not. I would actually argue that that is incorrect.
Alexandria: So, you believe that dominating others without their consent does more harm to them?
Augustus: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, if I were to enslave someone or rob someone or rape someone, I 100% believe that is far more harmful to them than it is to me. And unless I’m a Christian, and I think that’s going to have me eternally damned to hell, then, yeah, that would be much more harmful to me. But I’m not a Christian, and morally speaking, yes perhaps I’ve incurred great culpability on myself, but really, they were the ones who got robbed, raped or murdered, or enslaved—that seems far worse than me feeling guilty, or me feeling like a bad person—I, that seems completely backwards to someone who is talking about moral agency. I mean, the “wrong” is on the person wronged, not on the person doing the wrong, that’s like clinically insane.
Alexandria: Okay. I’m not entirely sure I understand that question, I am just the messenger.
Augustus: So the one we were coming back to was “Who have I hurt the most that I intended to hurt and that I feel is justified?” There are a lot of people I’ve hurt because they interfered with my family. I have destroyed entire lives because someone said an unkind word about my children, or because someone tried to come between me and my woman. If somebody interferes with my family, I am pathologically defensive about that. So, I will do whatever is within my power to destroy those people, and I think that it is justified, because family is sacred, and you cross that line, there is no going back from it. Politically speaking like I said, I don’t really feel regret in those instances, but in a—they’re also playing that game and they are trying to destroy me, so politics in a sense is warfare, and you do what has to be done, which is an unfortunate situation, but I think it’s completely different than when someone, unprovoked, interferes with your family. That is crossing a line that I think most people would agree is unacceptable.
Alexandria: And by “family,” you mean, “people related to you by either blood or marriage?”
Augustus: Yes.
Alexandria: Okay. That is an interesting place to stop! Thank you!
Augustus: Where were the confrontational ones?
Alexandria: Well, if those weren’t confrontational enough, I can keep working on some.
Augustus: Fair enough.
Comment