The Humiliation of Rachel Janik of the Southern Poverty Law Center

Rachel Janik, author of such illustrious works as “See Firefighters Resuscitate Unconscious Cats” and “Captain America Is a Total Boss in the New Avengers Trailer” while an intern at Time Magazine, was drafted by the Southern Poverty Law Center for a series of hit pieces about Yours Truly last year. She should be congratulated for moving up in the world from staff writer about kitty cats and summer blockbusters to tabloid gossip columnist.

As I noted in an article earlier this week about “The Use & Abuse of Women by the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Rachel was understandably humiliated by the interview we did, and I imagine her superiors in the SPLC took her to task for the public embarrassment. That “interview” was transcribed for the upcoming book Set the World on Fire.

In the final edit, however, I had to admit that it far exceeded the scope of the importance of the Southern Poverty Law Center to the narrative and gave disproportionate attention to someone who is really no more than a third-rate yellow journalist. It was also 70+ pages in a >500-page book. So I am publishing it here instead. Thanks to K.A. and Rynne for transcribing this “interview.” Sorry it couldn’t be used in the book, guys.

 

 

Part I: Phone Call from San Luis Obispo, California

 

JANIK

 

Hi, this is Rachel.

 

INVICTUS

 

Hello, Rachel. This is Augustus Invictus returning your call.

 

JANIK

 

Hi! How are you? Sorry, I’m in a parking garage, so I might… let me know if you have trouble understanding what I’m saying.

 

INVICTUS

 

No, that’s alright. I can hear you fine. I do need to . . . three things before we start, though. One: I need to make sure you’re okay with me recording this call.

 

JANIK

 

Oh, yeah! Absolutely. Hold on one second … That’s fine. If you want to talk in more detail I might need to give you a call back later, though, ‘cause I’m like headed to my car. I did leave you a message that I can come to Huntington Beach and we can meet in person.

 

INVICTUS

 

Right. Well, I wanted to talk with you preliminarily before you come all the way out here to L.A. But the second and third things I needed from you: I need your last name and your email address.

 

JANIK

 

Yeah. My last name is “Janik.” J-A-N-I-K.

 

INVICTUS

 

Okay.

 

JANIK

 

And my email address is my name – Rachel – dot – Janik – at SPLCenter.org.

 

INVICTUS

 

Roger that. Alright. So how can I help you Rachel?

 

JANIK

 

So I’m with the Southern Poverty Law Center and we are working on a story about you.

 

INVICTUS

 

So I’ve heard.

 

JANIK

 

I wanted to just give you a chance to talk through some of the things that we are going to be writing about and ask you some questions about that. If we want to get into that, I’ll have to give you a call back when I have my stuff in front of me. Or we can talk about it in person in California. Or we can do it on the phone. It’s up to you. And it’s totally up to you if you want to talk to us. I mean I’d recommend it, just because you want to get the opportunity to say your piece.

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah, I don’t really think I have a choice. I mean, you work for an organization dedicated to blacklisting and slandering people, so if I don’t respond, then you just slam me for not saying anything, so…

 

JANIK

 

Well…

 

INVICTUS

 

The question is, Are you going to come all the way to Huntington Beach just to do an interview? Because I don’t think you’re going to be allowed into the event. So, if you want to do an in-person interview, I think that would be best because I find that people stab you in the back less when they have to see you in person. So if you want to come out here, I’d be fine to talk with you in person. I think that would be better than over the phone. But I do want you to know they’re probably not going to let you in for the speeches. So it’s up to you.

 

JANIK

 

Yeah, no… that’s fine. I wasn’t expecting that. I know it’s like a paid, ticketed event. But I was thinking we could meet some place before or after that works for you. We could get a beer or get a coffee or whatever.

 

INVICTUS

 

Sure. Well, I don’t drink, so it would have to be coffee, but I think before would probably be best, because afterward things tend to devolve into social matters and you can never get out of the building. So if you want to set up a time, I will be in L.A. all day tomorrow, all day Saturday. If you wanted to do it Sunday, I’ll be in L.A. Sunday as well. So it’s really up to you, I’m at your disposal.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. Well, let me take a look at some travel stuff and figure out what that would look like. And then can I call you back at the number where I left the voicemail?

 

INVICTUS

 

Yes, that is fine. I never answer it, but if you want to text me, I can get back to you or you want to leave a voicemail again, now I know it’s you calling from Alabama, I’ll definitely get back to you faster next time.

 

JANIK

 

Okay great. Thank you so much.

 

INVICTUS

 

Alright, thank you. Bye, Rachel.

 

JANIK

 

Alright, bye bye.

 

INVICTUS

 

Well, we’ll see how that goes…

 

Part II: Los Angeles, California

 

JANIK

 

Alright. So, I’m going to start with why you chose the name “INVICTUS Sol Invictus.” I know the Latin translation, I’m not so much getting at that. I wonder if you could speak to the individual significance of the parts.

 

INVICTUS

 

Right. So speaking of names, these names will be referred to by relation. [Here I gave her a piece of paper with the names of my wife, ex-wife, and former fiancé.] I don’t say their names in public because they’re family. So, just refer to them as those titles.

 

JANIK

 

Okay, sure.

 

INVICTUS

 

The second thing is: You have told everybody you talked to you are the investigative reporter. Who is actually writing this hit piece?

 

JANIK

 

Me.

 

INVICTUS

 

Okay. So you’re the author, too. Okay. The name – you seem to be under the impression that I changed my name to hide from something.

 

JANIK

 

No.

 

INVICTUS

 

That’s what you asked my father. So what do you think I’m hiding from?

 

JANIK

 

I don’t recall asking your father that. I just asked if you explained it to him at the time. And he said, “no.” So my curiosity is more, what does “INVICTUS Sol Invictus” mean to you?

 

INVICTUS

 

My name was given to me in a religious initiation. I didn’t choose it; I didn’t make it up; it was given to me. The way I explain it to people is same as Catholicism, where somebody comes into the Catholic church, they take a Catholic name. When I was initiated in Catholic church, my name was “Aurelius Augustinus,” after Saint Augustine. You don’t change your religious name, but the same is true in Western esotericism. So, in the OTO – Golden Dawn – all those traditions, you take a name or a motto to talk about . . . It represents your highest aspiration. My name was given to me, and it was supposed to be a religious name. I decided that my religious and public lives would become one, so that’s why the name change. You cannot get a name change – at least in Florida; I don’t know about the other 49 states – but you cannot get a name change if you are running from something. You have to do a bankruptcy check. You have to do a background check. You have to submit your fingerprints. You have to submit every place you’ve lived your entire life. There is no dodging anything. There’s a court hearing about it. So, there’s nothing to dodge. They don’t allow you to change your name if you’re dodging something.

 

JANIK

 

Yeah, no. I didn’t assume that there was anything behind that. That must have been a misunderstanding. I just assumed the name must have very special significance, so I wanted to get into that. In particular, the one that’s been coming up in a lot of my readings I’ve done is “Sol.” The religious significance, I just wondered if you could speak to that.

 

INVICTUS

 

Alright. “Sol” is the god of the ancient Romans. It represents the sun. Paganism is very much solar worship, it’s a solar religion, so again it’s all religious significance.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. And then I wanted to ask, are you an Ipsissimus?

 

INVICTUS

 

That would be a religious question that I don’t think would be appropriate for a political article.

 

JANIK

 

My perspective is more that as a public figure, you’re subject to public scrutiny, and it’s something that I find very interesting. And I was hoping you could explain for an audience that’s not familiar with Thelema, what Ipsissimus is and whether you believe you are or you aren’t. (9:22)

 

INVICTUS

 

Let’s start with why you think that’s interesting.

 

JANIK

 

My understanding is that an Ipsissimus is akin to a god, and I have some documents that you sent to your religious organization in which you declared yourself to be an Ipsissimus, and that’s why I wanted to address the significance of that.

 

INVICTUS

 

Right. So your hit piece centers around the fact of my religion.

 

JANIK

 

Not at all.

 

INVICTUS

 

You work for the SPLC? Does the SPLC not have any qualms about religious discrimination?

 

JANIK

 

This is not about your religion. This is about the way that you present yourself. And this is also not a conversation about the SPLC.

 

INVICTUS

 

It is religious. So…

 

JANIK

 

So how do you –

 

INVICTUS

 

If you had a Catholic running for office, I mean, would you be drilling him on that?

 

JANIK

 

If he was declaring himself to be a god, I would.

 

INVICTUS

 

If you had a Jew running for office, would you question him about that?

 

JANIK

 

If he said that he was real messiah? Yes, I would.

 

INVICTUS

 

Okay. What do you think his answer would be?

 

JANIK

 

Well, that’s why we’re having this conversation. I just have to ask, and I just have to let you know this is on our radar. If you want to respond and address it, this is an opportunity to do so.

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah, it’s in the religious writings. Anybody with half a brain can find all my religious writings. They can make that determination for themselves. (10:53)

 

JANIK

 

Okay, then let’s move to Albert Pike, the Confederate general. You said that the outfit you wore at the DC rally was a tribute to him. I’m just wondering in what way.

 

INVICTUS

 

That is incorrect. The photograph taken at the D.C. rally was a tribute to him because I was standing in front of his statue.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. And, I’d like to discuss his writings. Are you familiar?

 

INVICTUS

 

Albert Pike’s writings? I don’t think I’m a subject matter expert on that.

 

JANIK

 

So you’re not familiar with his work about the Aryan race?

 

INVICTUS

 

No.

 

JANIK

 

Or the Indo-Aryan theosophy?

 

INVICTUS

 

No. You can draw whatever conclusions you want, but he is a Confederate general and a Freemason. To my knowledge he’s the only Confederate officer with a monument in DC. So, as a Southerner that’s important to me.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. And I wanted to move to what you’ve talked about a lot: civil war. First, I wanted to talk about a destination. What would a utopian America or nation look like at the end of such a revolution?

 

INVICTUS

 

The right-wing does not believe in Utopia. So I don’t think that’s a question I could answer.

 

JANIK

 

Well, taking it outside that very specific context in which you’re using it more into common now, what is the ideal America look like to you? What is the end of your pursuit for this country?

 

INVICTUS

 

My entire aim is to restore the Republic. So, going back to constitutional principles, going back to what this country was founded on, and I think I’ve made hundreds of speeches on that subject.

 

JANIK

 

Yeah, but I’m just not sure that that’s everything. You’ve talked about how you want to bring back a restoration of old ways, including the strong dominating the weak.

 

INVICTUS

 

What speech was that in? (12:59)

 

JANIK

 

Let’s see… well.

 

INVICTUS

 

I’m pretty sure it was in a discussion about the Melian Dialogue. Which was Thucydides’ treatment of the Peloponnesian War. Which is completely out of context for what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the Island of Melos, which was dominated by the Athenians, and the point was: What choice did the Melians have but to fight the Athenians? The Athenians came in and told them if you do not submit to us, we are going to exterminate you, we’re going to sell your women and children into slavery. And the Melians said: Well, we have the Spartans as allies. Well, we have moral right on our side. In the end, the Athenians wiped them out, sold their women and children into slavery. My argument was we need to fight no matter what the government’s going to do. So it’s actually the exact opposite of what you’re accusing me of.

 

JANIK

 

I’m not accusing you of anything.

 

INVICTUS

 

Of course not. You’re an unbiased, investigative reporter.

 

JANIK

 

I’m just asking you questions to give you an opportunity to respond, however you want. So, you’ve talked in some other writings that war is a virtue in and of itself because it brings out valor and nobility. It is ultimately a good thing, a transformative force that is necessary. Can you elaborate on that?

 

INVICTUS

 

Is that from All-Devourer?

 

JANIK

 

It’s actually from a lot of places. From Aeon, it is in All-Devourer. I believe it’s talked about in “Il Tempio Florido” as well.

 

INVICTUS

 

Mmm-hmm. “Aeon” is a religious writing, so again it’s not something I’m going to discuss.

 

JANIK

 

Okay.

 

INVICTUS

 

All-Devourer and Il Tempo Florido, one was the novella and the other was the sequel to that. I’m pretty sure All-Devourer is the best statement of that. Both were written under a pseudonym. Teddy Roosevelt, I’d point out, wrote the same thing. He said, “If my sons shirked war I would be ashamed of them, just as I’d be ashamed of my daughters if they shirked motherhood.” I think that idea speaks for itself; that war is necessary for humankind, it is an inescapable reality, and that it brings out the best in people. Like the movie The Third Man by Orson Welles. He talks about the fact that in thirty years in Italy, you had Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Machiavelli, all these great geniuses. It was a time of unprecedented bloodshed and horror. Switzerland had 500 years of peace and democracy, and all they made was the cuckoo clock. So, war does bring out the best in people. It brings people to their highest potential. And that’s not my idea, that’s other people.

 

JANIK

 

But an idea that you share, though.

 

INVICTUS

 

Absolutely.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. Now, you mention in one of your speeches that you were kicked out of the military. That was your phrase, “kicked out of the military.” You’ve also mentioned in other things that you’ve published including some of your [inaudible]. I was wondering if you could elaborate on the circumstances why.

 

INVICTUS

 

It was an administrative discharge after five months. It was technically medical. That’s all there is to say about it.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. And then you mentioned your pen name, and I wanted to talk about the inspiration behind the pen name. And the pseudonym Franco St. Fond and why you chose that name.

 

INVICTUS

 

Apophis is a play on “Sol,” obviously. Franco is from the General, Francisco Franco from Spain. And St. Fond is from Juliette, the novel by de Sade. So it was a deliberate interplay between the most stern, stoic, and Spartan characteristics one could have and the most libertine, corrupt, and degraded.

 

JANIK

 

And that was meaningful for your work, the interplay?

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah, if you’re writing fiction – like, deliberately transgressive fiction – then yeah. It’s an artistic thing, it’s not political.

 

JANIK

 

Okay.

 

INVICTUS

 

You know, it’s not going to make sense in a political setting. It would make sense in a literature setting.

 

JANIK

 

Sure. You’ve often mentioned as a Pagan you worship the Goddess.

 

INVICTUS

 

Yes.

 

JANIK

 

It’s great. I want to discuss however your view of women who are mortal and who are human. How would you characterize it?

 

INVICTUS

 

How would I characterize my view of women?

 

JANIK

 

Mmm-hmm.

 

INVICTUS

 

I guess the same as I characterize my view of men. They’re human. I don’t really have an ideology behind how I view people.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. So, you’ve described yourself on Twitter as polyamorous, referencing a relationship with multiple women at once. My question is, does that mean the women you date are also seeing other men?

 

INVICTUS

 

Mmm-hmm. First of all, no. That was never the case. Second of all, the polyamory thing, that’s done and over with. If you had seen the Fireside Chat on Becoming a Reactionary, that was the end of all that. Things have been dramatically different ever since. So no, to answer your question directly, but also that information is itself outdated.

 

JANIIK

 

Yeah, I am familiar with the Fireside Chat, but I just wanted to address that as potentially a double standard. Why was it important to you – even when you were in a polyamorous relationship – why was it important to you to be the only man?

 

INVICTUS

 

Why is important to people to have one person? Why is serial monogamy important as though that’s somehow actual monogamy?

 

JANIK

 

Right, but you got to enjoy being the beneficiary what for them would be a monogamous relationship, but…

 

INVICTUS

 

So it offends you that a man would have multiple women and those women would not be allowed to do the same.

 

JANIK

 

I’m just wondering how you justify it.

 

INVICTUS

 

Because … I need to justify that?

 

JANIK

 

You don’t have to.

 

INVICTUS

 

You seem very offended by the fact I would have multiple women.

 

JANIK

 

I’m not. I’m just curious because I think that it actually plays into the overall picture of view of women.

 

INVICTUS

 

So the fact that I’m now married and monogamous, how does that play into the picture? Or does that not fit your narrative that you’re going with?

 

JANIK

 

Well… we’re going to continue this line of questioning and that might become clear. Whether or not it was a polyamorous relationship or not, I’m wondering if you’ve ever sought revenge against a woman you’ve dated, or harassed them after you broke up.

 

INVICTUS

 

That would probably be a better question for other people. I guess the real point is: what ball are you hiding? What are you getting at?

 

JANIK

 

If you’ve done it, do you think that that’s appropriate? Do you consider yourself a jealous person?

 

INVICTUS

 

Right, so what are you accusing me of? Because this is an accusation. This is not investigative reporting. This is not journalism. This is an accusation. So what is the accusation you’re making?

 

JANIK

 

I’m just asking if you want to respond.

 

INVICTUS

 

To what?

 

JANIK

 

To information that I have received from anonymous sources.

 

INVICTUS

 

Anonymous sources that you’re not going to tell?

 

JANIK

 

I’m not going to tell you, certainly.

 

INVICTUS

 

Correct. So you’re going to frame gossip from people I don’t know, about me, and ask me to respond to something when I don’t know what you’re talking about?

 

JANIK

 

Well… given the context that I have, I’m pretty confident that you know what I’m talking about. So, we’ll just move on to something that I’m sure you were expecting. In March, some really serious allegations of domestic abuse were made against you.

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah.

 

JANIK

 

So I’m going to ask if you if you’ve ever beaten or choked a significant other, or threatened them with a gun.

 

INVICTUS

 

Categorically: no.

 

JANIK

 

Okay.

 

INVICTUS

 

The detective has already looked into that, so he’d be a better person to talk to. I’ve already answered all those questions to him. I also brought all of the documentation on that, so I’m going to show you that off the record.

 

JANIK

 

Okay.

 

INVICTUS

 

I’m going to show you all that documentation off the record. It’s not going to be photographed.

 

JANIK

 

Okay.

 

INVICTUS

 

You’re not going to take notes on it. But you’re going to be on notice that this is actually what happened. So if you print that nonsense, the SPLC is in the same lawsuit that as those [inaudible]. So, you will know that it’s false after this interview. I have a witness with me so that it’s not going to be on camera that you’ll see it. You keep pretending to be an unbiased, investigative reporter. And the fact of the matter is, you and the Antifa both pretend to care about these people. But when this truth actually does come out, it’s not going to hurt me. It’s going to bury them. So I’ll show you all that later. You can make your own judgment on it, and then it’s up to you. That’s not something we’re talking about here.

 

JANIK

 

That’s fine. So, then, I want to turn to some of your poetry and some of your other writings in which you’ve denigrated women or expressed a desire to commit violence against women.

 

INVICTUS

 

Right, so you’re talking about poetry in a political writing just like you’re talking about my religion in a political writing. So if Steven King ran for political office, are you going to accuse him of being a crazy person that believes in aliens from outer space, dressed as clowns?

 

JANIK

 

I have a political example in a speech that you gave to the American Front for example. It was not on the level of some of the more interesting lines of poetry or prose, but it speaks to the sort of objectification of women or different understanding of gender roles that I don’t think you’ve been very open about. You’ve expressed what you felt to be the ideal woman as the prize of a conquering hero.

 

INVICTUS

 

And that offends you how?

 

JANIK

 

Is that all that there is? So later on in your poetry, you also compare women to breads, meats, and fine linens, spices …

 

INVICTUS

 

That’s not a comparison. I take it being a journalism major you never took a class in poetry. Have you ever read poetry in your life except for mine? Which you are trying to deliberately misconstrue in a political context?

 

JANIK

 

What I’m trying to do is understand all the different parts of your life and how they influence each other and play into each other as a whole. You are a public figure, and all of that determines. Especially when there’s a lot of overlap with ideas. For example, in some of your prose that you’ve written as St. Fond, the character Nero quotes some of your speeches directly.

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah. I’m actually quoting from there directly. But, more importantly, you’re saying you’re trying to understand different parts of my life. What you are doing is writing a hit piece. You’re trying to corroborate what you think you’ve found by getting me to just spit it out. What you are actually doing is writing a hit piece. So let’s be honest about that, at least. If you want to talk about all the different aspects of my life, you’d be talking about the charity work I’ve done. You’d be talking about community service. You’d be talking about how I raise my kids. You’d be talking about environmental work. You’d be talking about actual issues that I’ve run on. Volunteer work I’ve done for political organizations. What you are trying to do is dig all the dirt you think there is and use it against me in an SPLC hit piece. So if you can at least be honest about that, I think we can get this done a lot faster.

 

JANIK

 

Well, let’s just continue, then.

 

JANIK

 

I’m also wondering if you’ve ever had sex with an underaged girl?

 

INVICTUS

 

Negative. I have not, after I turned 18.  I mean yeah, sure, when I was in high school.

 

JANIK

 

And then, I am wondering, is it true, that during your time as a volunteer at a high school, coaching an extracurricular club, you pursued a romantic and sexual relationship with a student?

 

INVICTUS

 

Do you have, like, just a list of ridiculous questions you can just rapid fire, and I can just say no, no, no, no, no all the way down to like …

 

JANIK (interrupting)

 

So, you never pursued a …

 

INVICTUS (continuing)

 

“Have you ever had sex with a dog? Have you ever made pies out of human meats?”

 

JANIK

 

So you never pursued a romantic relationship with a high school student?

 

INVICTUS

 

She was eighteen.  So yes.  She was eighteen, she was not a member of the debate team that I was coaching, so it had nothing to do with that.  Yes, she happened to be in high school, but she was a consenting adult.

 

JANIK

 

Okay … Okay, so, when we talk about — and this is going to be the last question about this, and then we’ll move on — when we talk about art, and prose and poetry, as important to understand your political approach, it’s not that I’m so dim that I cannot understand the poetry. The question is, why does this theme recur so often?  You’ve got multiple, um, you know —

 

INVICTUS

 

Which theme?

 

JANIK

 

Violence against women, for example, uh, the ‘urge to rape every bitch at the bar’, um …

 

INVICTUS

 

That was in poetry.

 

JANIK

 

Yes, it was

 

INVICTUS

 

Being the prize of a conquering hero is also a poetic turn of phrase. It doesn’t mean you go conquer women, if that’s what you’re getting at. But it’s certainly not a recurrent theme in anything I’ve done politically.  Again, using transgressive fiction, deliberately transgressive fiction, as a way of hitting me politically is absolutely dishonest. I think you know that. I’m not accusing you of being dim-witted.  You went to a better school than I did; you went to fucking, basically, Ivy League. So the question is, why did you go to journalism school?  Was it to write tabloid trash? Or was it to do actual reporting?

 

JANIK

 

Well I think that …

 

INVICTUS

 

Because you are writing, basically, a gossip column, actually.

 

JANIK

 

… our definition of actual reporting, um … I don’t think that we’re going to find common ground there.  But, let’s talk about that.  Let’s talk about this transgressive fiction. Why is it important to you to do this transgressive fiction? Why is it important to fill — to have these [sic] violence and bloodshed in general, but also, why the dynamic? Is it satire, is it —

 

INVICTUS

 

A lot of it’s satire, sure.

 

JANIK

 

Satire of what, exactly?

 

INVICTUS

 

Well for instance, the letter that people keep quoting from 2013, where I said, “I have a poodle & a Cadillac & a winning handshake,” you know, some people think that was serious. They can’t see the tongue-in-cheek notion of that, that this is mocking all of your symbols of success. Like all the things you think are status symbols, that is absolutely satire. 

 

So yeah, some of them are exactly that.  Others are, I don’t know, I guess the best way to explain it is, there is a film that Salvador Dali did, and there’s no theme to it, there’s no narrative, there’s no storyline […] he just makes the most offensive possible imagery, just to make people uncomfortable. It’s just to get under people’s skin, to give them a violent reaction. So a lot of it has to do with that.

 

The more serious stuff, like the speeches that are in Il Tempio Floridio and All-Devourer? Those are real.  So you know, if you’ve ever read DeSade, if you’ve ever read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Starship Troopers, they are fiction, but it’s like a vessel to get these philosophical ideas across. They’re philosophical novels. So, all the imagery, all the trappings — that’s exactly what they are; they’re trappings in a vessel to disseminate philosophical truths.

 

So again, that is literature.  That is not political.

 

JANIK

 

Okay, what is the philosophical truth that you want to relay?

 

INVICTUS

 

There are many. I mean, those books have speeches on everything from family and marriage, to warfare, to restoration of the republic, to the destiny of the West. A lot of those are political, inherently, but the storyline surrounding it is not.

 

JANIK

 

Right. Okay, so, I’d like to switch gears and discuss your interpretation of Aleister Crowley’s Paris Working. Can you explain why you’ve spoken and written in favor of human sacrifice?

 

INVICTUS

 

I have not spoken and written in favor of human sacrifice, that is a deliberate misconstrual of “March of the Pigs,” which is what I know you are quoting.

 

JANIK

 

You did say “I will admit to having spoken of it favorably to a brother several years ago”?

 

INVICTUS

 

Right

 

JANIK

 

And then you mention his reaction, and the way that he argued against it, and then you said that he had flawed reasoning.

 

INVICTUS

 

He does have flawed reasoning. The point of Crowley’s Magick was not to make people happy or make them love him.  Thelema is not a social religion. If everybody were Thelemic in this country like everyone was Christian, there would be no country. Thelema does not have a community; there is no such thing as a Thelemic community.  Everything about Thelema is deliberately transgressive, just like the fiction that I wrote, just like the fiction that Crowley wrote. Everything is supposed to push the boundaries and break those boundaries.

 

His [not Crowley’s, but the brother who argued against human sacrifice] reasoning was, “This is reprehensible, this is morally wrong, this is backward” — a value judgment — and that is faulty reasoning. Because the point of the Paris Working is not, “let’s do something that’s going to lift everybody up and we’ll sing kumbaya and have a Catholic mass.”  This was something that was deliberately over the line and outrageous.

 

JANIK

 

Okay, now I’m going to remind you that you’re a public figure — also, I don’t know if you listened to my colleague interviewing Christopher Cantwell, but —

 

INVICTUS

 

I don’t know; who’s your colleague?

 

JANIK

 

Chris Cantwell put it out on his website. My colleague is Steve Lemons; he’s an investigative reporter, so you can look at it on Mr. Cantwell’s website.  He posted the entire thing, and he talks about some of these issues and definitely some more “out there” issues.  But I’m going to ask you if you use cocaine, or if you have in the past.

 

INVICTUS

 

I have used pretty much everything in the past.  I do not use anything presently.

 

JANIK

 

So, you’re talking about narcotics?

 

INVICTUS

 

I’ve used narcotics, drank alcohol; I’ve done a lot of drugs, in my past, yeah. But again, outdated information. You can watch the same Fireside Chat on Becoming a Reactionary, it explains that entire thing.

 

JANIK

 

Yes, I did; I just wanted to make sure that you got the chance to explain it, to tell me.

 

So, I’m also wondering, if you believe the Holocaust happened.

 

INVICTUS

 

Like, do I believe that Jesus Christ walked the earth?

 

JANIK

 

No …

 

INVICTUS

 

Because both are articles of faith.  Does it really matter if it’s historical or not?

 

JANIK

 

Do you believe the Holocaust happened?

 

INVICTUS

 

Well what does that mean?

 

JANIK

 

It means do you believe Hitler executed eleven million people?

 

INVICTUS

 

Eleven million people. You don’t use the ‘six million Jews’ quote? Why not?

 

JANIK

 

I can say “six million Jews and five million other kinds of people,” if you like … homosexuals …

 

INVICTUS

 

So the fact that Poland and Israel have both said that there were four million Jews — does that make them Holocaust deniers?

 

JANIK

 

So put this in context for me then. What, are you saying that you believe that the Holocaust has been exaggerated?

 

INVICTUS

 

No. My position is that if you are going to talk about something historical, then you can talk about it in a historical context. You don’t talk about it in terms of articles of faith.  You don’t say, “Well, Poland says there were four million killed, not six million, that’s Holocaust denial.” It’s not Holocaust denial. That is a difference in what are the facts.

 

JANIK

 

I don’t want to know what Poland says. I want to know what you say.

 

INVICTUS

 

I’m not saying anything. I’m not an historian.

 

JANIK

 

Okay …

 

INVICTUS

 

I studied philosophy.  I studied law.  I did not study history.  My point is, arguing about the Holocaust is completely counter-productive because no one cares about the historicity of the thing; all they care about is, What is the dogma?

 

JANIK

 

So … you … do not take it on faith … as the historians have written it, that the Holocaust happened?

 

INVICTUS

 

Okay, that’s completely contradictory in and of itself. You don’t take things on faith because historians said it. Historians are scientists, they look at things factually; it has nothing to do with faith.  You keep getting frustrated with me, I’m telling you how contradictory your logic is here.

 

JANIK

 

I’m just asking you whether you think the Holocaust happened, or whether you believe that it is a fiction.

 

INVICTUS

 

I want to know why it’s relevant what I think. I’m not an historian, what does my position on that matter?

 

JANIK

 

You’re about to take the stage next week with avowed White Nationalists. I think it’s very relevant what you think.

 

INVICTUS

 

So you want to know on what issues I agree with those people I’m speaking next week. Because that would be a more direct question.

 

JANIK

 

We’ll get to that later, but for now, I have heard from multiple sources …

 

INVICTUS

 

Mmm-hmm … More gossip, more anonymous sources with gossip, that you refuse to validate … You’re just trying to get me to corroborate something you know is bullshit.

 

JANIK

 

Hmm. Uhm, the question is, do you believe the Holocaust happened, and you won’t say, “Yeah, that definitely happened” …

 

INVICTUS

 

I don’t believe in history. Why would somebody have a religious faith in history?

 

JANIK

 

You don’t believe in history, then why do you want to recreate the republic? When was the republic theoretically beautiful and perfect?

 

INVICTUS

 

First of all, having a golden age to return to is not historical. That is 100% ideological. It’s ideology. It has nothing to do with history. And you can say “I think that in 1776 we signed this document that declared independence from England.” And you can say, “Do you believe that that happened?” And I’d say, “I think that did happen.”  I’m not going to say “I believe it” as an article of faith. You’re asking me, likewise …

 

JANIK

 

So you’d rather I say, “If you think the Holocaust happened”

 

INVICTUS

 

Do I think — Okay, now you’re getting somewhere. Do I think what happened? What is the Holocaust?

 

JANIK

 

The Holocaust is … the …

 

INVICTUS

 

Exactly. Nobody knows. There’s no definition for it.

 

JANIK

 

The … systematic

 

INVICTUS

 

Did six million people die because the Germans are evil people? Do I believe that six million people were killed by evil Hitler? That’s what you’re asking me?

 

JANIK

 

Sure, if you want to define it that way.

 

INVICTUS

 

Okay. Then I am still waiting to see those facts.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. What about the figure of the other people? The five million Poles, prisoners of war, gay people … I mean, does that fit in with …

 

INVICTUS

 

I’m sure a lot of people died. But again, I’m not a historian. I haven’t made a body count, so I’m not the person to ask about it.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. I’m curious, then, you know, within the details of this golden age that you want to return to, if you have to subject what we think that time was like — I say think — to the same level of scrutiny. For example, we don’t know what — I mean – I’ve seen some people comment that your accent reminds them of the 1700s, which we really wouldn’t know that; we wouldn’t know what they sound like, so . . .

 

INVICTUS

 

Some people think my accent is from Bane. Some people think I’m trying to mimic JFK. Some people think I sound like a Confederate general. I mean, my accent has nothing to do with going back to the American Republic.

 

It also has nothing to do with restoring slavery, or with making everyone WASPs again. I mean, I happen to be of British descent, but I’m not saying we should go back to all being British slave owners. That would be ridiculous.  Having a golden age is an idea …

 

JANIK

 

OK, none of which I would suggest.

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah, but I’m saying, having a golden age is an idea. It’s not saying, “let’s go back to this historical precedent.” It’s not saying “let’s restore everything that was possible, let’s get rid of indoor plumbing” — like, that has nothing to do with it.

 

JANIK

 

Okay, well then let’s talk about how you define “republic,” then, because it sounds like it’s sort of separate from how — it’s more personal, we’ll say, than how somebody else, if you asked them, “what was it like when the Founding Fathers were around?” What does it mean to you? What does republic mean?

 

INVICTUS

 

It means that we restore the principles of federalism, that States’ rights are restored, that the Federal Government is restricted once again to being a limited entity that has only limited powers. That’s basically all it means — that the Bill of Rights be restored and that the Federal Government be reined in.

 

JANIK

 

Okay, and you believe that a revolution is necessary to achieve this?

 

INVICTUS

 

Yes.

 

JANIK

 

A violent revolution.

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah, not a Bernie Sanders bullshit type of revolution, but an actual shooting war.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. Now, I want to talk about Francis Parker Yockey. I know that you admire him a lot, I know that you named your law firm after his book, and I also know that you have sort of disavowed the anti-semitism or sort of written it off–

 

INVICTUS

 

Right —

 

JANIK

 

— and I was wondering how you explain that when those views are really important to his ideas about culture.

 

INVICTUS

 

Well, the same way a lot of Christians follow me in my campaigns. They can easily dissociate my paganism from anything I do politically.  I don’t think most people would see my paganism as essential to my political message. A lot of the Alt-Right kids, they follow me even though I have Hispanic children. A lot of people, they can separate personal choices and, you know, personal idiosyncrasies from the political message.

 

And I think the same is true of Yockey. If someone can look at me, and say, “I believe in his political message; I really don’t care if he’s a Pagan,” then I can say the same of Yockey.  I think he was probably obsessed with the Jewish Question, but the other things he’s saying, he was spot-on about.

 

JANIK

 

So, “obsessed with the Jewish Question.” Well, he’s called Jews the “bearers of cultural disease.” Basically this idea that they come in, they don’t really have a culture; they’re sort of a parasitic force and they destroy the civilizations they come to. Would you agree with that statement?

 

INVICTUS

 

You just prefaced that by saying I have disavowed all that. So why would you ask me —

 

JANIK

 

But, but but the reason I’m asking that, in that way, is because you said he was “obsessed” with the Jewish Question, as if it was more that he overstated it rather than the very same thing itself.

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah, sure, I mean, there is a Jewish Question. There’s no qualm about that. There is a Black question. There is a White question.  There is a WASP question. It means every race and ethnicity has their own problems with it. To say the Jews are the chosen people without problems would be absolutely absurd. Just like to say that white people have no problems would be insane.

 

JANIK

 

Tell me what the Jewish Question means to you.

 

INVICTUS

 

Not something I ever talk about. Not something that’s important to my politics, which again is why I say he’s obsessed with it. Same thing if you talk about the Black question. I don’t talk about it, nothing to do with federal policy, except that we should end this whole Great Society nonsense. It has nothing to do, to me, with race. Same thing with the Jewish question. Other people can talk about it — if they want to get into that — that’s fine; it has nothing to do with me.

 

JANIK

 

But when you have described cultures, it’s not entirely divorced from race.

 

INVICTUS

 

No.

 

JANIK

 

For example, when you talk about in Europe, when you said another culture, people, race, comes in, they will destroy or make worse . . .

 

INVICTUS

 

Right. Which is why Israel has a wall around it, and they don’t allow immigration. So why is Israel allowed to do that, and the European people are not?  That is a manifest hypocrisy. That’s not a Jewish question; it’s not a European question. It’s a question of protecting your own people. So if Israel is allowed to do it, and they’re not racist for that, then why are the European people not allowed to do it?

 

JANIK

 

But when you say like, “your own people,” I just want to be clear on how you define that …

 

INVICTUS

 

I’m American.

 

JANIK

 

Okay …

 

INVICTUS

 

No, I’m American, so it — that’s their problem.

 

JANIK

 

How do you define — for example, something that Yockey said, that the population of America only consists now of a bare majority that is indisputably American. The rest, you know, are Negroes, Jews, unassimilated Southern Europeans, Mexicans, Chinese, Slavs and Indians.

 

INVICTUS

 

Right. Are you making the case that everything I believe is from Yockey?

 

JANIK

 

What I’m saying is, the way he says — when he says “American,” he’s saying something in particular, so I want to know, to you, when you say, “I am an American,” what does that mean?

 

INVICTUS

 

Right. It means I was born in this country. I was raised to believe in American principles.  Immigrants from Third World countries are not.  Now, you can have immigration from other countries, that’s fine, but if they cannot assimilate, it’s not immigration.  At that point, it’s invasion.  That’s my position on it.

 

I’d also point out that Yockey was emphatically anti-American. So to put on me what he is saying would be fallacious, because I am running on an American First platform. I promote America all the time. So to kind of attribute his views on America to me would be wrong.

 

JANIK

 

Well, you’ve already suggested that you can kind of pick and choose, and so

 

INVICTUS

 

Right.

 

JANIK

 

— I’m just trying to get at what — at which

 

INVICTUS

 

It’s like asking me about Nietzsche’s influence on me and saying, “well what do you think about how he categorizes German people?” It has nothing to do with me.

 

JANIK

 

Well, so let’s talk about where your views overlap then.  Where you are united. What do you find inspiring about him?

 

INVICTUS

 

The main idea Yockey had, which is what I share, is that Spenglerian idea that the West is in decline. Yockey’s position was the same, that all high cultures are organisms.  They have a cycle of life and death — and rebirth, however. So the entire Western culture is wrapped up in that concept of life, death, and rebirth. The Imperium — the word itself — means that all things have an inner imperium. The acorn has the imperium to grow into an oak. So does the West have its own destiny. That’s where I agree with him.

 

JANIK

 

So, I also want to discuss how — and this is certainly relevant to what you talked about, you wanted to get onto political stuff — you called Carl Schmitt your primary political, legal and philosophical influence —

 

INVICTUS

 

That is true.

 

JANIK

 

— and I would like to know in more ways specifically how he has shaped your views.

 

INVICTUS

 

I’d say there are three main books that did that. One would be The Concept of the Political, another would be The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, and the other would be Nomos of the Earth.

 

The first one that really hit me was Concept of the Political.  I was doing research for a professor, because I was part of a think tank in Chicago, doing International Law, and I went up to Northwestern, because my professor had quoted Hobbes, saying, “Truth, not authority, makes law.”  And I knew that was wrong, so I went up to Northwestern, read it in the original Latin, and it was, “Authority, not truth, makes law.”  And in doing that study, I found Carl Schmitt, who said the same thing.  He was very much based on Hobbes, very much based on the fact that authority is what makes law, and without force, law is meaningless.

 

But mostly, Schmitt talked about the concept of friend and enemy, politics as a life and death struggle.  This notion that politics is somehow like this social contract is totally fallacious in Schmitt’s view.  He goes very much to a very elementary view of what politics means, and I’d say that’s the biggest part of what influenced me.

 

JANIK

 

In the past, you have cited the work of J. Phillipe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray. Do you agree with them that black people are intellectually inferior to whites as a matter of genetics?

 

INVICTUS

 

Well, I would agree that they have done studies that show population IQ, and that I have not seen those refuted.

 

JANIK

 

Okay, well, you use them as a basis in this article in which we’ll talk more about, so — it’s the eugenics article, we’ll talk more about it. But you talk about intelligence work, intelligence research, as if it is an absolute, as if the work they have done on the intelligence quotient somehow means that a eugenics program, for example, that if it was based on — would disproportionately affect minority populations [….][unintelligible]

 

INVICTUS

 

Do you have any studies to the contrary?  That there are population IQs that are in contradiction to the work they have written?

 

JANIK

 

So, what you’re saying is that you take — on faith — the work of people who have been — had a long history of academic racism, have headed organizations like the [unintelligible] and have avowed white supremacy?

 

INVICTUS

 

Okay, now that you’ve made your point, the answer is no, I am asking for contradictory research.  If you have research that contradicts their scientific findings, I’m all ears. I’ve been asking for it for decades, no one has given it to me. So when you have it, I will have an open mind, but it’s not about faith, it’s about, these are the facts that I have found; I have not found them contradicted. Do you have those studies, or do you not? Or are you just going to call them “racist” and hope that I say, “Oh, I’m so sorry, I didn’t know they were racist”?

 

JANIK

 

I just wanted to — to get a sense for – for how much you — uh — take their research to be true. They’ve all said that their conclusions are those genetic […], so I just wanted to confirm that…

 

INVICTUS

 

And I’m still waiting for you to tell me where that is contradicted. Because I will happily write an update to that paper, which I’ve already written a disclaimer for, saying I’ve disavowed it, if you give me those. You have my word on that.

 

JANIK

 

Okay, well, you know there’s a lot of different interpretations for difference in IQ that is not based on genetics, is not based on these ideas, that are inherently based in race.  So Rushton for example has a lot of other ideas about race differences too, that extend far beyond this intelligence quotient…

 

INVICTUS

 

You mean like evolutionary behavior and all that?

 

JANIK

 

Yeah.

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah. Did I quote that in the paper?

 

JANIK

 

No you didn’t, but you’re quoting him means that you …

 

INVICTUS

 

— believe everything he says. Just like if I quote Yockey, it means that I believe everything in that book.

 

JANIK

 

OK, what you’re doing is that you’re quoting them as scientists —

 

INVICTUS

 

Yes.

 

JANIK

 

— and you’re taking what they say to be scientific fact.

 

INVICTUS

 

I am taking it to be science. Yes. I am taking it to be uncontradicted science. Like I said, if you find studies that disprove Rushton, or Murray, or anyone else, I will happily print them.

 

JANIK

 

I don’t — I don’t really think that the lack of evidence is the issue, I think —

 

INVICTUS

 

Leftists NEVER believe that lack of evidence is an issue, that’s why you’re printing this swill. If you had any evidence whatsoever, or any real sources, we wouldn’t be wasting our time with this.

 

JANIK

 

Okay, well, why did you call your eugenics piece “Future or Ruin”?

 

INVICTUS

 

That is a tongue-in-cheek joke, actually. Why do you ask?

 

JANIK

 

What is it in reference to?

 

INVICTUS

 

I think you know what it’s in reference to. Which would make you the smartest person in America, I think, because nobody’s ever gotten that joke before.

 

JANIK

 

That it’s that speech that Hitler gave.

 

INVICTUS

 

That’s correct.

 

JANIK

 

In 1921.

 

INVICTUS

 

It is.

 

JANIK

 

Ok. And you knew that, when you titled it this.

 

INVICTUS

 

100%

 

JANIK

 

And what was the joke?

 

INVICTUS

 

It’s about eugenics. And it’s a reference to Mein Kampf. That’s hilarious. The fact that nobody has caught onto that for ten years is about the funniest thing there is. So again, it’s the same thing — and that was written in law school, that was written long before I got into politics, before I started practicing law or anything of the sort.  So a lot of things I’ve written — like Il Tempio Florido and All-Devourer, and my poetry and everything else — a lot of it is deliberately transgressive.  A lot of it’s a big middle finger, because “I’m a 20-something American, and fuck you, that’s why.” So to hold me to “you made this inside joke ten years ago, that makes you a terrible person,” again, would be deliberately dishonest.

 

JANIK

 

Yeah, I’m not saying that. That’s why I asked you, why did you call it that? You knew it was a Hitler speech and you thought it was funny. That’s the answer. So, while we are on the topic of the paper, and also the timing of the paper, and how old it is, I want to clarify something, so you did write this in law school, that would have been right around 2011? Is that right?

 

INVICTUS

 

No…

 

JANIK

 

Earlier?

 

INVICTUS

 

Probably 2009.

 

JANIK

 

Okay

 

INVICTUS

 

2009, 2010, I think, in that second year of law school.

 

JANIK

 

So, seven years ago — seven or eight years ago — and then, when you started to run for office, you gave an address on YouTube discussing some of the various controversies, and you said basically that you denounced it, but you didn’t qualify that. And so I wanted to make sure that I got this clear. What you’re denouncing is the idea of the state-sponsored program, is what would happen with such a program in the hands of government bureaucrats. Is that right?

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah, that’s a huge problem.  Like I’ve said a million times, the problem is about the difference between abstract theory and actual implementation.  I think that’s the difference between the right and left wing generally, is that left wing has this faith that you can actually implement policies and everything will go well. You try to implement any sort of eugenics policy, no matter what it is, in anybody’s hands, and it is going to go wrong. So that is my main problem with it.

 

JANIK

 

Okay, what you said was, “It is not the love of strength” – it’s the problem, with the eugenics paper — “it is not the love of strength, but it is the pettiness of men in government,” […]

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah?

 

JANIK

 

So you agree that in the perfect hypothetical program, it would ultimately be a social good?

 

INVICTUS

 

No, that is putting words in my mouth.  I have never argued for a program. I don’t think that a program should be implemented. I don’t think that a private program would be any better than a public one. My point is that we have abandoned values, so that Americans are now obsessed with meekness. They’re obsessed with stupidity. That it’s better to be stupid than intelligent. That it’s hateful to be intelligent and strong.  Those are the transvaluation of values we have in America. That’s my point.

 

JANIK

 

Who says that?

 

INVICTUS

 

The SPLC, for one. The Antifa, Black Lives Matter … if you are intelligent, or able-bodied, or white or male, or straight, you are somehow a relic of the barbaric past.  That is a value judgment I cannot agree with, but that has nothing to do with a eugenics program.

 

JANIK

 

Hmmm. I’m curious about the distinction between shaming people — I think that’s just too long a discussion.  Sort of deviates from what we’re talking about.

 

INVICTUS

 

Well I’m really talking about …

 

JANIK

 

But I really don’t think that anyone’s ever said that it’s a love of stupidity and weakness, unless you equate that with …

 

INVICTUS

 

With a resentment of intelligence and strength? You don’t think there’s any resentment on the Left for people that are stronger than them? Or more intelligent than them?

 

JANIK

 

I’m wondering where that comes from, and where we end up —

 

INVICTUS

 

I imagine it’s from their own —

 

JANIK

 

— talking about differences in intelligence across the political spectrum. So, are you arguing that people on the Left, or people that vote Democrat or whatever, are stupid?

 

INVICTUS

 

That is not what I said.

 

JANIK

 

Then why would they be resentful of people who are smarter than them?

 

INVICTUS

 

I don’t know, why are weak people resentful of stronger people? Why are intelligent people resentful of more intelligent people?

 

JANIK

 

So they’re not stupid, but they are weak?

 

INVICTUS

 

Is that what you’re going to print? That what you’re going to say I said?

 

JANIK

 

I’m just trying to understand —

 

INVICTUS

 

That I called all Democrats weak and stupid?

 

JANIK

 

I’m just trying to understand what you’re saying, because you’re making it political …

 

INVICTUS

 

Well, I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. Because you’re saying, in a hypothetical eugenics system, that I secretly adore, this is what I would implement, in my utopian right-wing fantasy.

 

JANIK

 

Well I’m just — you know, uh — How about this … well, if we get back to the eugenics a little bit — In 2015, you posted something to your website where you were, um —

 

INVICTUS

 

Declaration of the Failings of Federal Government?

 

JANIK

 

Mm-hmm

 

INVICTUS

 

Right. And I faulted the Federal government for having abandoned its eugenics policies?

 

JANIK

 

You did

 

INVICTUS

 

The Federal government had no eugenics policies.

 

JANIK

 

Right …

 

INVICTUS

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that eugenics policies in this country are constitutional — that has not been overruled. That’s in the paper that you’ve got right there.

 

JANIK

 

Yeah, mm-hmm

 

INVICTUS

 

The point of it is not “let’s bring back eugenics policies” any more than “Protect the South” or “Defend the South” has anything to do with restoring slavery.  It’s again, the question of values. That we have lost all faith in what it means to be an American, that we now do not value strength or intelligence, which are greatly important to me, and that “in abandoning its eugenics programs” wasn’t about the programs themselves; it was about a change of values. That was the statement that was being made.

 

JANIK

 

So a eugenics program would ultimately make society stronger, smarter, and that’s better, and that is ultimately a social good?

 

INVICTUS

 

That is not what I said. I’ve actually said the exact opposite of that. I’ve said that if you implement a eugenics program it would necessarily be corrupted, because people cannot be trusted with it. So no, a eugenics program would not make people better or stronger.

 

JANIK

 

But there’s a difference between saying it’s going to go wrong because it’s going to be fumbled and saying that the very idea of a eugenics program is …

 

INVICTUS

 

Okay, so your real question is, do I think it would be better if people were generally smarter and healthier and stronger? Because in that case, yes. I think that if we all were strong, healthy and intelligent people, we would be a lot better off.

 

JANIK

 

And you think that — I mean, it’s just —

 

INVICTUS

 

I know. It doesn’t fit with what you came in here to blast me with.

 

JANIK

 

But the — using eugenics as — it’s more of the method, right, — it actually does — it actually does fit in with, with a lot of — and you’ve mentioned, too, then — this gets to something that I’d like to — actually, we’ll actually probably move to it now, because next, I’m going to go on to a totally different thing.

 

INVICTUS

 

Okay

 

JANIK

 

It speaks to what I kind of started this with, is the, the relationship between your religion, politics, art. That these are all pieces of a whole, and they are complementary. And they influence each other — there’s a section in, I think it’s Aeon, where you talk about one of the values is “the right of the strong, the ecstasy of the powerful,” that it’s very hierarchical.

 

INVICTUS

 

It is hierarchical. My entire worldview is hierarchical. That I will admit. It’s not political, it’s not poetic, that’s reality.  There’s a natural hierarchy in the world.  That I have made political speeches on. So that I will happily say, ‘okay, let’s talk about that.’  So what do you want to know about that?

 

JANIK

 

Well why don’t you just lay it out for me. Tell me what your worldview is, in the context of that hierarchy.

 

INVICTUS

 

That there is a natural order to the world, basically. And then humankind’s responsibility, or duty, is to discover that hierarchical order, and is to live by natural order. So, you know, and that’s not a Pagan thing, it’s not a Fascist thing, or an American thing; that just crosses all borders, all races. You can talk about Catholics talking about natural law. You can talk about anybody believing in natural rights, hierarchical order – and that goes back to the foundations of human civilization. So, yes: republics are based on the concept of equality, but that is largely a myth, as everybody knows. A lot of people will say, “Well, Thomas Jefferson was talking about ‘All men are created equal.’” It’s not at all what he meant and anybody who’s actually studied it knows that. What he’s talking about is rejecting the divine right of kings and saying that that ‘men are created equal’ in the sense that they are not divinely descended from Adam – the first man – and they are not divinely entitled to rule. All people should rise based on merit. And I actually think a meritocracy does recognize implicitly that hierarchical order of things, that people rise by the merits of their works, not who they were born to, or anything else.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. And you believe that going back to a republic as you see it would achieve that? Would achieve a more natural meritocracy?

 

INVICTUS

 

I don’t think there’s any achieving anything in politics. I think everything is asymptotic. Everything is a reaching for something. You’re never going to have a plateau, you’re never going to have a utopia. You guys on the Left all seem to think there’s going to be some point where something changes. Humanity never changes. That’s the entire tragedy of politics. It will never get better. You can only reach for better things. Just like ethical systems. There are ethical philosophers who believe that one day, men will start acting right because they’re going to follow this theory of ethical principles. And that’s nonsense. Men are going to be men, women are going to be women, and the only thing you can do is approximate virtue and try to live by virtuous principles. The same thing is true in politics. There’s no end goal. There’s only trying to do better.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. So let’s talk about politics. Are you planning to run for office again?

 

INVICTUS

 

No comment.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. You did run for office, though. And you talked a lot in your speeches about letting the system burn – “bullets not ballots make change” – I just wanted you to speak that dichotomy of why would you want to pursue change through the system?

 

INVICTUS

 

Right. Why run for office if all the offices should be burned to the ground? Because, on the one hand, it is the most effective way to get a message across. Because when you are a legitimate political candidate registered with the system, it makes you a lot more dangerous that some lone asshole outside of the system. Same reason you get a law degree. Same reason you get a Bachelor’s Degree. It’s not to prove how intelligent you are, it’s because you are now part of the system and that makes you far more dangerous than being outside the system. The other hand of that is that you have to exhaust all possible avenues. If you start taking up rifles and assassinating politicians – or bankers, or journalists, or anything else – people are going to start faulting you for that. They’re going to say, “‘‘This’ could have been done. You could have done ‘this’. You could have at least tried to do ‘this.’” So if you don’t try to run for office and effect change from within the system, you are automatically saying, “I didn’t really give it my all. I didn’t try to change the system. I just thought that fighting was the best idea.” So, you know, you have to try.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. So, moving to next week’s rally. What are you personally hoping to achieve in Charlottesville? Is it about building awareness, showing strength in numbers? Is it about networking, connecting with people?

 

INVICTUS

 

Sure. It’s about all those things, but my personal goal in doing the event is what the event is named for. It’s uniting the right wing. There are a lot of disparate factions in the right wing with no real leadership to unite them all. They’re infighting just like the left wing, the radical Left infights. And I think that is counterproductive, and my entire point in doing this is to say: Knock off the infighting. Let’s all focus on the common enemy, and let’s unite as one mass movement. And I’ve been making speeches about that for months now.

 

JANIK

 

What are your thoughts – in that spirit of uniting – sharing the stage with Richard Spencer? I know before you said you guys don’t really know each other. But you spoke together at the D.C. rally, so I’m wondering how did it go, and what are your thoughts on speaking together again?

 

INVICTUS

 

Just like anybody else on the stage, I don’t necessarily have to agree with him to be on the stage with him. The thing in D.C. was that it was a free speech rally, and to drop – I was one of the original speakers – and to drop that event just because Richard Spencer was added to it would completely defeat the purpose of free speech. If you can’t get behind the person with whom you disagree, what is the point of free speech? That’s not at all what the concept means. The Unite the Right rally, likewise, is something where we both believe in the same thing, as far as that is concerned. We both think that all these factions should cut out the infighting, and we should unite as one movement. I don’t have to agree with him on race. I don’t have agree with him on his economic policies, which are absolutely not libertarian whatsoever. But conversely, he doesn’t have to agree with me on my libertarian policies. He can think I’m a degenerate all he wants, or a race traitor, or whatever. But he’s still going to speak at the same event as me. So that goes both ways, is what I’m trying to say.

 

JANIK

 

Then what are his ideas that you do agree with?

 

INVICTUS

 

We both agree on intellectual principles. The one thing we are sharing the stage for is uniting the right as a mass-movement. The last thing we spoke about, we agreed on the principle that everybody should have the right to speak in this country without Antifa throwing bricks at your head, or without the SPLC blacklisting you and trying to ruin your life for it. So we agree on those things. But deeper than that, we do have intellectual principles that we agree upon. He is a fan of Carl Schmitt, just as I’m a student of Carl Schmitt. He also has read Spengler, and Yockey, and all the rest of the New Right – the European New Right. I’m very much a student of the New Right, so we have that in common. But that doesn’t mean we agree on everything any more than we agree with everything Nietzsche ever said, or Schmitt, or Yockey.

 

JANIK

 

What about Mike Enoch? He’s another one. I’m curious where you find common ground with him.

 

INVICTUS

 

I don’t know, I actually don’t know Mike Enoch very well. I met him once in D.C. We never really got to have a conversation, so I don’t know.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. I believe that you were on his show when you were running…

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah, like two years ago, right? I don’t know, really. I’m not an expert on his work. I know Richard a lot better.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. You’re also going to be speaking at Northwest Forum with Jared Taylor?

 

INVICTUS

 

Yes, and Greg Johnson.

 

JANIK

 

So, I wanted to talk about that. What are you going to be talking about?

 

INVICTUS

 

I don’t know what they’re talking about. I’m talking about Carl Schmitt and the failures of liberalism. Actually, I’m giving an entire lecture on Schmitt. Everything that I’ve been talking to you about, with Carl Schmitt being an influence on me, that’s what my lecture’s going to be about.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. That is getting into territory of self-avowed White Nationalism, these two folks.

 

INVICTUS

 

On their part.

 

JANIK

 

Right, on their part. So my question to you is, what message do you think it sends speaking at these events with them? About you, about where your values are?

 

INVICTUS

 

The message it sends is that Carl Schmitt predicted the failures of liberalism and predicted all the problems we were going to have. It’s going to be about the message of international law and how it’s fallacious. About the hypocrisy of liberals in saying we should bomb democracy on the rest of the world. That’s the message that it’s sending. As far as who I share the stage with, that’s not up to me.

 

JANIK

 

Well, you know, Greg Johnson and Jared Taylor, it’s not just about being with them. They’re going to attract an audience, too, of white nationalists. Is that your audience?

 

INVICTUS

 

It is not my audience. That’s the entire purpose of it. If I were to go speaking at audiences where everybody already knew me and agreed with me, I wouldn’t get anywhere. The entire purpose of talking to new audiences is broadening your demographic and broadening the group that receives your message. If you know a group of Democrats who wants to invite me to speak, I will go speak with them, too. But Democrats don’t care about free speech any more. They’re don’t care about talking honestly about international law, or foreign policy. But if you get a group that wants to invite me, I will happily go there.

 

JANIK

 

You said they don’t believe in it anymore. When did that change?

 

INVICTUS

 

About international law or free speech?

 

JANIK

 

Free speech. They don’t believe in free speech anymore, when did that begin?

 

INVICTUS

 

I’d say when the P.C. culture arose, probably in the Clinton era.

 

JANIK

 

Okay.

 

INVICTUS

 

I actually don’t have a historical qualm with Republicans or Democrats. It doesn’t matter to me. Woodrow Wilson showing Birth of a Nation at the White House, I don’t care. I’m not going to blast the Democratic party for its history. I’m not going to blast the Republican party for having Abraham Lincoln. That’s history. It’s done and said. It’s over with. What I’m concerned about right now, there is a movement in this country to demolish free speech under the banner of political correctness and so-called humanitarianism.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. And “so-called,” because you believe that it does not achieve those ends?

 

INVICTUS

 

No. So-called because it’s not humanitarian at all. Because it’s all about, “let’s pretend that we care about humanity. Let’s pretend that everything we do is in the name and the interest of humanity, so that anyone who disagrees with us is not human. Anyone who disagrees with us is barbaric. That’s exactly why I’m talking about Carl Schmitt, because he made that exact point about the liberal order, about international law, saying, “If you don’t agree with democracy, you are inhuman. You deserve to be bombed. Your civilians deserve to be bombed. You all deserve to die and be slaughtered so that we can make liberal world order.” That’s exactly what’s going on right now.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. And then there’s something that I want to go back to, because I skipped it earlier but I’m thinking of it now. When you talked about the coming war and the necessity of civil war, this is another place where I see very relevant overlap between your religious and political selves. You described it in terms of prophecy and faith. So I was wondering when you started to believe that this was an inevitability and something that was going to be necessary and be ultimately good, how you came to think of it, and why.

 

INVICTUS

 

I have thought that since I was a child. And it wasn’t about black magic or anything of the sort. I’ve had dreams to that effect since I was born.

 

JANIK

 

Dreams, like you were asleep and you had dreams?

 

INVICTUS

 

Yes.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. That’s interesting. Like regularly? I mean, this is interesting.

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah. All the time. Until I was in my mid-twenties. I had dreams about this war since I was born.

 

JANIK

 

Can you share any details? I’d like to know.

 

INVICTUS

 

I don’t think it would be productive.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. Do you see yourself as a leader in the war?

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah I, we’re already in the war. That’s the joke. Because four years ago, people laughed at me when I said there was a war coming. No one’s laughing any more. The problem is that no one seems to have realized the fact that it’s already going on. It’s a dirty war. It’s not clear, the sides, yet. But there are intelligence operations on both our sides. And with the Federal government, there are counterintelligence operations. There are blacklists being made. So it’s already in the thick of it. The only question is when does the real cataclysm come.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. I just have one more question, and this I’m just curious about. Do you as of now – I know you recently made a change to the Republican party and explained your reasons behind that – do you consider yourself a Trump supporter?

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah, absolutely, I voted for Trump. I supported Trump the day he announced. It was the greatest thing in the world.

 

JANIK

 

But on March 27th, 2016 – it was in one of your speeches – you called him an “internationalist liberal.”

 

INVICTUS

 

Yeah, which I still think he is. That’s exactly the contradiction. This internationalist businessman is running his entire campaign on a nationalist platform. That makes me automatically suspicious. I’m pathologically suspicious of politicians as it is. Trump, however, I love because he’s the American icon. You know, he was in Home Alone 2, he’s in American Psycho, he’s as American as apple pie. I thought he was great from a cultural perspective. Once his platform came out, I became suspicious because you’ve lived your entire life getting rich off this international liberal order, and now you’re speaking to us like you’re one of us, which I don’t believe. I still don’t believe that to this day, necessarily. I’m still waiting to see the fruits of him. Like the Christ said, “You will know them by their fruits.” So I remain reserved, but I do support the man.

 

JANIK

 

Okay. Alright. Those are all the questions that I have.

 

INVICTUS

 

Okay.

Augustus Invictus
​Augustus Invictus is a jurist, writer, and political activist in Orlando, Florida. Best known as a radical philosopher and social critic, Invictus is a right-wing libertarian and a member of the Republican Party. In 2016 he ran for the United States Senate in Florida as a Libertarian, and he is a former Chair of the Libertarian Party of Orange County.

Invictus earned his B.A. in Philosophy at the University of South Florida in Tampa and his J.D. at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago. Returning to his hometown of Orlando, he studied leadership at Rollins Crummer Graduate School of Business and opened the law firm for which he served as Managing Partner until his retirement from law practice.

A Southerner and a father of eight children, Invictus contends that revolutionary conservatism requires a shift in perspective from the exaltation of abstract ideologies to a focus on our families and communities.