Adam Kokesh and Jay Dyer Debate the State (FULL DEBATE HERE)

Jay Dyer versus Adam Kokesh in a 2 hour formal setting of position, response, on the hosted by Spearhead Transmissions, Live-Streamed on YouTube.com and Audio via Alternate Current Radio Network.

Stream or download full audio here.

Purchase my book here.

patreon-become-my-patron

follow_twitterFollow_us_on_Facebookyoutube-subscribe-button-psd-photoshop-july-2013

To support my work, become a member at JaysAnalysis for 4.95 a month, or 60.00 a year, for my full talks and interviews, as well as purchasing my book, Esoteric Hollywood at the links at the site.

Subscribe to JaysAnalysis for more by clicking on this image!

Subscribe to JaysAnalysis for more by clicking on this image!

JaysAnalysis Podcast now on iTunes! Click the image.  JaysAnalysis offers the first hour for free and the full talks and interviews as a subscription below.

For full talks and lectures, subscribe to JaysAnalysis on PayPal here.

new-ad

JaysAnalysis on Stitcher:

stitcher-banner-300x250

 

28 thoughts on “Adam Kokesh and Jay Dyer Debate the State (FULL DEBATE HERE)

  1. Kokesh’s faith in the inevitablilty of a stateless society is rather Marxian. Kudos for pointing out that “Dark Ages” was coined by Voltaire, a likely Whig agent provocateur.

    Kokesh’s arguments were superficial and predictable. I would have found them interesting 15 year ago.

    When the discussion turned to homosexuality and weaponized culture, Kokesh seemed to be completely unaware of that dimension – very common among professed libertarians. Kokesh seemed to believe that today’s celebration of sexual perversion is emblematic of freedom’s inexorable march forward rather than the psy-op it is. Love does not require acceptance. Sometimes it requires admonishment and correction. His position is basically “I’m Okay, You’re Okay” and everybody should be left alone to do their own thing. Again, this is very appealing on a superficial level but it promotes the very atomization of society the NWO is seeking.

    Great debate performance!

  2. Good job defending the state and Christian faith Jay. Loved your book. The state, as religion, is an inescapable category. I liked your analogy to the family. A family with no sense of hierarchy or allegiance beyond itself can do great damage to both individuals and society, but this is no reason to forgo it. The state is the same. I strongly echo Tim’s comments above as well. Thanks again.

  3. You did do very well and it’s kind of hilarious to hear people blown away by having to deal
    with arguments from a level higher / further back and have to struggle to control their tempers / incredulity. I agree wholeheartedly that the strongest arguments you bring relate to observing the contradictions inherent in liberal presuppositions – hence the interesting reliance on deconstructionist lines typically considered leftist.

  4. On the other hand – this debate illustrates your – reluctance? – to really illustrate or flesh out your idea of ‘the good state’ or good governance. Would you contend, for instance, that the real problem with the feudal monarchies of the past, or the neofeudalist system coming into view, is that the ruling class is/was ‘merely’ in sufficiently Christian and chivalrous? Do you admit any organic causal line to the anti-monarchical, anti-clerical movements of the modern period beyond Lucifer, love of pleasure and the House of Rothschild? People don’t join secret societies on pain of torturous execution because they’re libertines.

  5. This would be the first natural reply that occurs to me in reply to your clerical-fascist associates, for instance – they admit that Richard Spencer’s LARPer trip back to a ‘nice white country’ is fruitless – how does that not apply to dreams of fallen Byzantium?

  6. Interesting debate, thanks for sharing.
    I agree with most of the comments about Kokesh coming across as fairly immature and superficial.
    And on those terms I think Jay won the debate.
    However, one doesn’t have to follow orthodox Christianity specifically to be a decent human and have good morals. In my opinion the raising of children in a strong family unit is the best way to “create” decent humans.
    Anarchy is good way of disrupting the current status-quo, and personally I act as an anarchist in my relationship with the state i.e. not complying etc. But if there was no state some form of hierarchy would be necessary in order to prevent the “corrupt” from taking over. In other words anarchy is a good way of combating a corrupt state, but not a good way of running a non-corrupt state.

  7. About half the way through the debate, I wondered what happened to the subject at hand which was the necessity or non-necessity of the state. As I mentioned in a previous (but deleted) comment, political philosophy is not the strong point of either participant.

    • On the contrary, my undergraduate thesis was the one and the many in western political philosophy. It was deleted because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    • I don’t think that’s a fair assessment at all, Other Jay – the debate just didn’t necessarily stay there because Mr. Kokesh had to spend the requisite mike time giving into astonishment and doing a quick capsule review check of the extent of Mr. Dyer’s nonmodernity. “Do you wanna stone teh gheys?” is the new “but who will build the roads?”

      • I think that Jay was trying to get to the ultimate topic with the gay question though, and that should have been what is the deeper meaning of justice and how is it procured in any given society.

        I admit, near the end, when the host actually asked about the state, I was very glad when Jay said the function of the state is justice, but there was very little discussion about justice and how to procedurally enact it in a given society during the debate.

        Kokesh made the argument that happiness is found in freedom and that because individual freedom just exists, it can best be maintained through private property, ethics (the non-violence principle) and market exchange. Can you clarify what Jay’s counter-position was?

        That’s my only point.

        I am not a troll but I am rooting for Jay, and I just thought I would add my two cents.

      • My position was that happiness and NAP are only coherent in a wider worldview. They aren’t sufficient by themselves as maxims because they are ambiguous and can mean all kinds of things.

  8. I found this debate really important and love it that people outside stodgy and stifled academia are finding a way to have an intellectual life, and are pushing this out into the public, and for people actually care about these things (unlike most 20 year old zombies on a college campus)

    But hindsight is always 20/20 eh? When Kokesh chided that “for people who are against homosexuality, Christians sure seem to spend a lot of time on it,” I wanted to say “sheesh man, it’s a central plank in the architecture of your thinking…so does make a Christian?”

    Kokesh’ notion of the self, love, the “non violence principle” (or whatever his camp calls it) are all very subjective. What Jay said the other day (on T Kelly’s show) about a consistent notion of personhood being absent in Libertarianism could have been brought out against Kokesh’s fixation on homosexuality and their protection. Maybe it was. Jus sayin.

    Todd

  9. sorry, let me rewrite my third sentence:

    I wanted to say “sheesh man, it’s a central plank in the architecture of your thinking…so does this make YOU a Christian?”

  10. I don’t know much about these things, really, but I thought every Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, but you said, for example a prophecy of Daniel was manifesting itself in what could be viewed in a way as kingdoms emanating out of Israel. (I think you said Daniel, and if I didn’t completely misunderstood that part.) It seems contradictory if the prophecies should already have been fulfilled.

  11. Pingback: JaysAnalysis: Refuting Anarchism, Marxism & All Revolutionary Thought (Half) | Jay's Analysis

  12. Pingback: ROME IS BURNING PODCAST 024: MR. ANALYSIS – Rome Is Burning

  13. Jay, over 40 years I went from Catholic to Agnostic to Atheist and back to ‘believing’. Your work and that of E. Michael Jones, Brother Nathaniel and others have led me to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church is mostly the real deal. All you have to do now is convince E, Michael Jones that RC, despite some of its great deeds, is an imposter. He already knows it has been taken over, so the task should be easy.

  14. Yes, Kokesh did bring up the gay issue and you used it as an example to make a wider point because that was the best example on hand at the moment. Don’t worry Jay, we get it even if sometimes our comments aren’t written properly.

    My own feelings about libertarianism and the Austrian School (as opposed to left-anarchism) is that it is a reactionary ideology devised to move the goalposts so as to put a roadblock up to the advance of labor. The rightist response to the crisis of the early twentieth century was not libertarianism, but rather some form of distributism as expressed by the Church and others like Hillaire Belloc.

    Belloc’s analysis of the state is unique and his The Servile State I think deserves mention in any discussion like the one you had with Kokesh. (Not expecting you to think of everything, of course, but that book expresses a deep concern for labor, freedom and the “evolution” of human dignity that the Church is responsible for. It also answers one of the arguments raised in the debate about medieval property rights; Capitalism was founded on the expropriation of Church-owned land by the King and the result was the immiseration of labor which led eventually to the tyranny of 20th century “socialism.”)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s