January 4, 2025 • 55 mins
Happy New Year everyone! Our first guest of the year is Scott Powell. Homeschooler, historian and self-described, "nomad capitalist."
He is the author of three books, most notably, The History of Now, and The History of Tomorrow. We cover these topics and more. Give it a listen!
Call-to-Action: After you have listened to this episode, add your $0.02 (two cents) to the conversation, by joining (for free) The Secular Foxhole Town Hall. Feel free to introduce yourself to the other members, discuss the different episodes, give us constructive feedback, or check out the virtual room, Speakers' Corner, and step up on the digital soapbox. Welcome to our new place in cyberspace!
Show notes with links to articles, blog posts, products and services:
- Anchor facts of American history - Knowable World dot com
- Johann Gustav Droysen - Britannica
- The Early Ayn Rand: A Selection from Her Unpublished Fiction - Wikipedia
- Ideas and Revolution Locke and America; Rousseau and France by Scott McConnell, John Ridpath. Presented at: Lyceum, August 9, 1997. - Objectivist Media dot com
- John Ridpath - York University
- VanDamme Academy
- 4 Benefits of Teaching History Present-Centrically
- The 4-Hour Historian: An Anti-Textbook Volume 1: The World We Live In 1.0 - The Roots of Progress blog
- History Detectives
- Luc Travers - History At Our House
- Books by Scott Powell
- President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points (1918) - The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration
- Hari Seldon - Wikipedia
- The Fourteen Points reading group
- The Fourteen Points on YouTube
- Interview with Warren Fahy - Episode 45 of The Secular Foxhole podcast
- Jack Vance - Wikipedia
- To...
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Scott (00:00):
Foreign.
Blair (00:08):
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to another episode of the secular Foxhole
podcast.
Today, Martin and I are thrilled to have agentleman who actually reached out to me to
come on the show.
That's like the first time, I think that's
happened in all our episodes.
Scott Powell is an objectivist and historianliving a, quote, nomad, capitalist lifestyle
(00:29):
in Mediterranean Europe.
He is the author of the History of Now and itssequel, the History of Tomorrow, which
together present his integrated view ofhistory, which he refers to as present
centrism.
Excuse me.
Along with his partner Heather Schwartz, whichI hope I pronounced correct, he is the co
(00:50):
founder of Knowable World, the world's onlyfully integrated history curriculum for
students from kindergarten through 12th grade.
He is currently working on a science fictionnovel about time travel and the true power of
history entitled the 14 Points.
Welcome, Scott.
Scott (01:07):
Nice to be here.
Thank you.
Blair (01:09):
All right, nice.
Now, what do you mean by this was a new
concept to me, Present centrism.
Scott (01:17):
Right.
Well, it's certainly a neologism.
So in other words, I had to invent the termbecause I simply could not find an adequate
way to represent my thought concerninghistory.
And so the, you know, the basic idea is thattypically the serious study of history is
(01:40):
considered to be the study of the past.
And the unserious study of history that haskind of been spawned by a variety of
ideological movements in, in modern times isreally focused on the present, very much at
(02:00):
the expense of the past and very much, youknow, dependent on prejudices and
presuppositions in the, in the present.
And then there's the process of cherry pickingand, and all of the typical things that
corrupt what serious historians, quote,unquote, serious historians consider to be the
proper study of the past.
And you can see in both of these options,which are the two, basically the, the four
(02:26):
false dichotomy that currently dominates thestudy of history.
You can see that on the one side you have thepast, which historians are dedicated to,
serious historians are dedicated to, but theproblem is at the expense of the present.
And then you have people that are activists,have a variety of reasons why, but they
(02:47):
emphasize the present, of course, at theexpense of the past.
Well, what's missing, of course, is a properintegration of the two.
Right.
We could simply refer to that as past, present
integration.
And so that's what present centrism is about.
Present centrism, if you want me to give you a
formal definition, it is a mode of historicalinquiry that seeks to achieve an integrated
(03:16):
historical awareness of the world we live in.
There's a lot to unpack there, but basicallythat's what it is.
You can see the object of study is not thepast.
The object of study is the world we live in.
The past doesn't exist anymore.
Right?Okay, it once existed.
That's an important thing to recognize.
(03:38):
But why does it matter?Why it matters is because of how the well of
cause and effect has brought us to where weare now and where it's taking us.
And so we live today.
There's only one reason for us to study the
past.
That's in order to empower us with the
(03:59):
knowledge that it can provide us the insightand instruction that is available by studying
this amazing spectrum of experiences that allof humanity has gone through and deriving what
we need from it, right?
Finding some positive mental intellectualoutcomes from it and allowing us to navigate
(04:21):
through the world and hopefully to shape itfor the better.
So that's where we are.
We're in the present.
We need to live well.
And so the idea of present centrism is we needto be able to use the past, not merely study
it as an end in itself, but to use it as ameans to an end, to better shape the world we
(04:41):
live in.
Blair (04:43):
Very, very good.
Now, I hope I'm not jumping around too much,
but you use the terms Americanism andAmericanistic, they may be in one.
One in each book.
Do you want to jump into that for me?
Or is that.
Scott (05:00):
Well, I mean, so this is, you know, an example of periodization.
So in other words, one of the critical thingsthat has to be done with the past, which of
course, is a plethora.
It's a vast ocean of facts which typically
overwhelms the student.
(05:22):
And of course, you and I, and just aboutanybody listening can remember studying
history and being forced to rote, memorize awhole bunch of useless stuff.
Stuff and then regurgitate that for.
In order to pass the test and then promptlyforget it and then develop, you know, this.
This perspective, of course, that history isuseless.
(05:45):
And the problem, of course, is though, thatbecause history is vast, essentially about
5,000 years worth of decent recordedinformation because it's so vast and because
it involves so many cultures that we have tohave a method of organizing, condensing and
essentializing the vastness of it so that wecan render it into something useful now.
(06:12):
So, you know, because there you go, right?Present centrism, the goal is to.
For us to.
To embody the idea that knowledge is power.
Well, how can we generate powerful knowledge?
So in the.
In the problem of studying History, we
encounter something that I know some of yourlisteners are interested in.
Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand, as a philosopher, fascinating.
(06:35):
Gave us fascinating insight into theimportance of concepts in terms of how they
allow us to condense our perceptual experienceand arrive at this really powerful conceptual
level of awareness.
As it turns out, with regard to history, whichis a massive stream of one of a kind events
(06:58):
which are linked in this web of cause andeffect, there's a different problem.
It's a problem that is not quite akin to theneed that we face on a general basis of
processing the concretes that we find in ourexperience and integrating them into concepts.
There's a different problem.
There is a problem of this absolutely unique
(07:19):
stream of events, a procession and successionof events that are constantly unfolding.
And how do we.
How do we render that into some sort of usefulmental outcome?
And I discuss this on a theoretical level aspart of the History of Tomorrow.
Broadly speaking, I refer to the need toemploy what I refer to as constructs.
(07:45):
Now, there's a. We could probably spend anentire podcast on what are the difference
between concepts and constructs.
I don't think it's probably the best place for
us to go right now.
But periods, historical periods, are examplesof constructs because they are composed of
absolutely unique events which combine in someway.
(08:06):
We have to mentally integrate them in orderfor them to add up to something, use.
And to now circle back around a little bit toyour original question in order to take now,
American history, relatively short comparedto, let's say, Chinese history or something
else.
Right.
So we're talking 1776 word, if we're going to
(08:29):
be strict about it.
There's the colonial period before that.
But, okay, let's talk 1776 onward.
Well, that's still, you know, we're coming up
on 250 years worth of stuff, right?
And so that's a lot.
And most people try to memorize a few things
and forget and can't integrate.
All right, so how do we integrate those
things?Well, first of all, we have to definitely be
(08:50):
selective about how we approach it.
And the foundation of the method ofperiodization that I employ in present
centrism is to identify what I refer to asanchor facts.
And so that's the beginning of the answer.
There are certain facts.
Let's talk about the biggest one of all.
1776, the 4th of July, 1776.
To my mind, the single most important anchor
(09:13):
fact, what I call a cardinal anchor fact withregard to world history at this time.
The reason Why I say that is because it's anAmerica centric world.
And so the United States is overwhelmingly themost important country in the world.
It's not a matter of good or bad.
We all know it's also good.
But it's a matter of what is the significance
(09:34):
of American culture in terms of shaping theworld.
And it's overwhelmingly the most important.
And so where does that come from?
How did that come about?Well, the 4th of July, 1776 clearly is an
anchor point we want to talk about eventually.
We want to recognize, of course, the fullness
of something called the American Revolutionand so many other things.
(09:55):
But basically, how did there even come to bean America?
Well, of course, there's a birthday.
And so the country got started at a certain
point, Right.
And then there are other anger facts that have
brought about the transformation of Americanculture into what it is today.
And there have been, to my mind, twooverarching successions.
(10:17):
There was an original American culture that ofcourse, was dedicated to individual rights.
We have the classic statement in theDeclaration of Independence concerning life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And we have other statements by the foundersas well that are really wonderful.
And we see that.
We see also, unfortunately, the inability of
(10:40):
that generation and later generations ofpoliticians to abolish slavery.
Right.
So we have a strange problem.
We have a contradiction embedded in what Irefer to as American culture, the original
incarnation.
And there are other elements to that as well.
There's. There's political economy, There.
There are a number of other dimensions that
(11:00):
can be thought of.
There's the level of industrial development.
There are a variety of factors that go intothe construct that I refer to as the American
period.
And in my view, that period basically ended inthe.
In simple terms, with World War I, at whichpoint America began to exhibit a number of new
cultural traits.
Up to that point, its foreign policy was one
(11:23):
of political separation as embodied by theMonroe Doctrine.
And then America began to embark on this questto quote, unquote, Quote, unquote, make the
world safer.
Democracy.
Actually, that's not an exact quote.
It's always hard to quote that one because
Woodrow Wilson said the world must be madesafe for democracy.
So we have to carefully quote.
(11:44):
But.
And then, of course, you know, there was abacklash.
And then America began to, you know, gotdragged into World War II.
And then there's the Cold War, and nowthere's.
There's been the war on Terror and all ofthat.
That's foreign policy as well.
The United States became focused on civil
rights rather than Natural rights.
The political economy shifted from one of
(12:05):
encouraging industry through mercantilism tonow one of regulation and a mixed economy and
growing elements of socialism.
So you can see that there are a variety oftrends.
And when you try to encompass those and say,okay, we've got one way that America was at
the beginning, and we still have America, butit's clearly not the same thing, well, how do
(12:28):
we then, you know, how do we then capture thatfact?
And so I refer to the more modern interincarnation of the United States as
Americanistic.
If I can.
I'll just elaborate on that just a little bit,because I think there's something powerful
here.
Please, some of your.
Some of your listeners will enjoy.
(12:50):
The reason why I adopted that terminology isbecause in my studies of history, I came upon
a really interesting periodization by anotherthinker.
And actually it was a delimited one.
It was meant to be one that was applicable
only in the area of art history, but it reallystruck me as being more widely applicable.
(13:15):
And so it was the work of a German historiannamed Droysen, Gustav Droysen, something like
that.
And what he identified was that back in
ancient Greece, there was a succession of twodifferent fundamental artistic styles.
And he referred to the first as beingHellenic.
(13:39):
In other words, you know, the essential one,the.
The one of Praxiteles and.
And the other, you know, great sculptors of
that era.
And then he said, after Alexander the Great,he referred to the.
The merger and hybridization of Greek art withAsiatic elements as Helenistic.
(14:03):
So you can see it as interesting.
What he's trying to say there is that there
was something essentially Greek and then therewas something else which was derivative and
involves some sort of mixture andhybridization and unfortunately also a
downgrade.
And he called that Hellenistic.
(14:24):
So that's a terminology that I really found
empowering.
And I said to myself, well, that's exactly
what happened to America.
America had this original culture, which in
terms of fundamentals and especially on anaspirational level, as expressed by the
founders, is really as good as it ever got.
And now we have this lesser version, and it'sgot all of these elements in it, especially
(14:50):
from Europe.
The hybridization of American culture, the
invasion of European ideas, especially thesocial theory of rights as advocated during
the French Revolution by Rousseau and then thethinkers of the French Revolution.
And then you get this organization and thistakeover, because Europe's always been more
intellectual than America.
And so there's a lot of powerful ideas
(15:11):
circulating in European culture all the time.
And America's had this way of being theyounger kind of prodigal culture.
But it's always kind of been getting closerand closer and losing its distinctiveness and
becoming more European.
So that's my thinking.
Is that similar this year?
Blair (15:29):
Let me just throw something in there that, I mean, for me, I've noticed the
default, if you will, is always wheneverthere's a big crisis here, we fall back to
religion, we fall back to ancient religiousideas instead of, you know, instead of
exploring, oh, why did this happen?
You know, and using our intellect and usingour.
(15:51):
Does that make sense to you as far as theperiodization?
Scott (15:55):
Well, I would say that.
Well, I don't think, you see, that's a
difficult one because if you look at thetrajectory of American political culture, you
can't see.
Find a dominant religious strain in it.
What you see is the Founding Fathers.
(16:16):
And there, there is, of course, the, the idea
of, of, you know, individual rights being Godgiven, natural rights.
Blair (16:25):
Yes.
Scott (16:25):
But in, in the founders, in thinking of the founders, there's a. There's an element of
deism there which kind of, you know, the ideabeing that God is somehow necessary as an
Aristotelian prime mover, but then basicallyis retired.
Right.
And he's just, he's just taking in the
metaphysical dividends and just, you know,sitting on the couch.
Martin (16:49):
Hands off.
Scott (16:50):
So it's, it's not really dominant.
And now we have, of course, influence of
religion.
Absolutely.
It's.
It's undeniable and we see it in, in many.
But it's not a dominant element.
It's one that's difficult to factor in.
And it's one that really, for me, is an areaof continuing study because I'm always
(17:10):
interested in the most fundamental and mostpowerful trends.
And then, if possible, I like to see if I caninvestigate, well, what's feeding into that
and what are some of the conditioning aspects.
And I would.
That's the way that I would characterizereligion so far in American politics as being
(17:31):
a conditioning element, not a dominantelement, but always present, always
conditioning things, you know, and so we couldrefer.
We could talk about that in relation toprogressivism.
We could talk about it in relation toconservatism.
You know, you can see it.
Right?
You can see it, but it's not always obvioushow does it play into the development.
(17:52):
So. So it's not a basis of periodization forthe time being in my thinking, but it's just a
recognized conditioning element.
Blair (18:00):
I see, I see in, in your first book, the History of Now, you do break it down into
into great things.
Let me just.
Let me.
I want to throw this word at you.
Supranationalist, Europe.
Can you delve into that?
Yeah, because that's a word I don't.
Scott (18:19):
Think I've ever heard, so.
Oh, okay, good.
Well, you know, so basically, Europeanhistory, of course, is very complex.
Europe is, in my treatment of Europe, which Igotta tell you, Europe is, for me, as a
historian, Europe is my Everest.
Okay. In other words, it's the most complexand significant cultural block in world
(18:43):
history by far.
And so you've got, of course, these
overwhelmingly important cultures of Germanyand France.
These are the really core nations of Europe.
And then you've got this very strange element
of Britain and how does it relate?
And then you've got these adjunct cultureswhich play a role and, you know, every once in
a while rise to prominence, like Italy andSpain and so on.
(19:06):
But typically, it's a Franco German conditionthat dominates the history of Europe.
And so in my.
In my presentation in the History of Now, I
tried to ask myself, well, how do we properlycharacterize the history of Europe?
Because it's very easy to get totally draggedinto the past at the expense of the present
(19:28):
when you're studying Europe, because you'retalking 1500 years now, so it's already a
problem when you're dealing with the Unitedstates, which is 250 years.
But if you want to start the history ofEurope, let's say, with the fall of the Roman
Empire in 476, when you're dealing with 1500years, okay, so now you got a big problem.
Blair (19:46):
Right.
Scott (19:46):
And so, you know, I would say that the, The.
The. The kind of standard or classical way ofdealing with this is to refer to the first
thousand years, let's say, as medieval andthen modern.
Right.
Okay, but this is kind of empty.
What do you mean modern exactly?And what.
What matters about being modern?Right.
(20:08):
And, and so in my view, I came to the.
I came to this view that European history is
best understood currently because presentcentrism demands that it be characterized
according to what we need to know now in orderto navigate through the world we live in it.
Basically, the question of European history iswhere did the European Union come from?
(20:32):
This is what the Europe fundamentally istoday.
This is the dominant construct in politics andin culture.
Right. And what does the European Unionrepresent?
Well, it represents something very technical,Europe, always very ideological and very
complex.
It represents an ideological point of view
(20:52):
which is known as supra nationalism.
So supra means over and above.
Above and clearly the root word nationalism,
right, is the point of view that the nation,fundamental unit of reality and standard of
value in human affairs.
And so the.
The issue is that the history of Europe all
(21:15):
the way up until the World wars, was thehistory of separate and increasingly mutually
alienated nations, right?The tribes coalescing into countries, early
kingdoms and so on, always wars, wars, wars.
We've got the extra element, here we go, agood example of religion as a conditioning
(21:39):
factor.
We have the element of the Reformation and
religious wars, introducing sectarianism.
And so we've got all of these various factors
producing alienation.
And then while in modern times you have theadvent of the freedom French Revolution, so
now you get politics as alienating.
Everybody gang, young ganging up on France.
(22:00):
You've got, of course, Britain with its owntraditions, staying relatively separate.
And so you've got all these various factorsleading to the Europeans always being at war.
I mean, that's why the founders.
That's why George Washington said, let's not
get entangled in that mess, right?
Let's stay at it.
That was his farewell address.
He said, we.
(22:20):
We stay out of those wars.
And.
And James Monroe, of course, followed that up
with the Monroe Doctrine and basically said,the political system of Europe is
fundamentally different from that of America.
There's no benefit to us getting entangled inthat.
And so that's why America's original policy ofpolitical separation was so valuable to the
(22:42):
United States in, in terms of Europe, though,right?
They just kept going, going.
It got worse.
There was paired with imperialism and then it.
It culminated in the crescendo and the climax
of the world war, World War I. And then thatdoesn't resolve anything, largely because of
America.
And then you've got World War II, which ofcourse is the catastrophe, at which point.
(23:05):
And leading up to that, there was already somethinking along these lines.
Internationalism, meaning fundamentallydiplomacy, this hadn't cut.
It wasn't working.
The League of Nations, none of that managed to
really put a dent in the alienation of thevarious national peoples and their collective
identifications then.
So they said to us, how do we.
(23:27):
How do we solve this problem, right?And so they said, we've got to.
Now, the Europeans have never been able toshed collectivism.
And so they've all.
It's always been a very collectivist culture.
And so basically what they came up with was,we've got to have some greater good, that
(23:47):
we're going to some identity that isoverarching, that permits us to suppress the
alienating factor of nationalism.
What's that going to be.
It's going to be Europe as a whole, something
over and above of the nation as a fundamentalvalue.
(24:10):
So that's what's ideologically referred to assupra nationalism.
And, and if you look at the history of now,you can see, okay, they did a prototype of it.
It's called the European Coal and SteelCommunity.
The whole idea there was put the government ofthe, of the.
This new union in charge of these industriesso that we can ideologically transform our
(24:36):
thinking about how we use resources and makewar materially impossible, supposedly.
Right.
And.
And then they kept on working on it.
They created the European Community, and thenit gradually evolved and, and in 1993, they
just went all in with the European Union.
And, you know, that's what we have today.
(24:58):
Of course, what we have today is largely acrisis.
And in its present form and the ways in whichit functions, it's not viable in the long
term.
And there's a lot of reasons why,fundamentally, it's collectivist, so it's
always going to be a problem.
But also the European Union, you'd wish that
(25:22):
it would be in some way truly dedicated tofreedom.
And it has some elements which are positive,such as freedom of travel within the European
Union and things of that nature and free tradewithin the European Union.
But these are very much collectivists.
So it's a tariff barrier that insulates Europe
(25:43):
from the rest of the world, and then there'sthe Schengen Zone, which insulates Europe from
the rest of the world.
And so it's really.
Now it's organized.
It's trying.
The idea is to organize Europe into a peaceful
whole, but create a cultural block that canstand on its own and largely also supposedly
stand up to the United States.
(26:05):
But as it turns out, it's not working in any.
It's not working in so many regards that it's,
it's, it's going to be a long, long road here.
A lot of problems.
I'm not predicting that it's going to collapseentirely, but it's in trouble.
It's in trouble.
If you want to talk details, maybe that's
(26:25):
another podcast.
Let me throw.
Blair (26:28):
I'll throw a small curveball then.
How did you yourself discover objectivism?
And then over the years, how did you learn ordiscover your present love of history and so
on and so forth?
Yeah. Et cetera, et cetera.
Scott (26:47):
Yeah, absolutely.
Oh, well, thanks.
That's a fun story to tell.
So, yeah, I mean, I first read Ayn Rand in.
Let me get this right 1996, 19 in 1990s.
And if I'm getting that right, so I might beoff by a couple years.
(27:10):
And I was in college at the time.
I was studying engineering.
And I don't mind, I laugh when I tell thisstory, so it'll be all right.
It's a little bit traumatic.
I failed my first class in engineering becauseI was relatively smart guy, but I didn't
(27:31):
study.
I never studied.
And so I just could get away with it in highschool.
I didn't care.
And so I got to college and the difficultylevel went way up and I failed my first class.
And that was my wake up call.
And, and so I said to myself, okay, how am Igonna grow up, right?
(27:52):
How am I gonna put.
Pull this back together here?
And I have this promise.
You know, one of the things that I can bethankful for in.
My father was somewhat of a, an eclecticintellectual and, but he had strangely made
(28:14):
mention of Ayn Rand at one point and, and,and, and purchased a book for me called the
Early Ayn Rand.
And it was on the shelf, I wasn't touchingthat.
He was very critical of my own reading, whichwas entirely science fiction.
And so it was like, for me, it was all aboutIsaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke and, you
(28:37):
know, Robert Heinlein and that kind of stuff.
And so it's like, okay, Ran character floating
around.
Okay, I don't know what that's about.
But you know, at that point where in, in my,
in my college career where I flunked out of aclass and I was like, okay, I gotta get my act
together.
And so how do I, how do I matureintellectually?
(28:58):
How do I get my act together?I thought, okay, maybe there's something here
that I have to investigate in the form ofphilosophy.
And it took me a while.
I won't tell the whole story.
I'll tell the short version.
And I saw the back of the Early Iran and it
said, it's really playing up Iran.
It's talking about these amazing novels, theFountain Head and Atlas Shrugged.
(29:22):
And I'm like, okay, let's see what that'sabout.
So I just, you know, headed over to the publiclibrary and I see the COVID of, of the
Fountain Head and it's this dramatic, youknow, weird art deco like thing with the
architect looking up the skyscraper.
And I'm like, hey, that's kind of cool.
And so, all right, start reading it, right?
(29:43):
And all of us, that first reading experienceof on it blew me away.
I couldn't believe it.
I, I'M like, I can't believe it.
This is exactly what I need.
It was unbelievable, as I like to joke, it wasHoward Roark that prevented me from becoming
(30:03):
an architect because, you know, I was.
I was studying civil engineering, and I didn't
think it was that interesting.
That was kind of leaning towards architecture.
Funny thing happened about Howard Rourke.
And I said, that's not for me.
I'm gonna go into philosophy.
I'm gonna go.
And then.
And I became interested at that point and
(30:25):
what's going on?
Where did this Iron man character come from?
And I said to myself, well, let me study thehistory of philosophy.
Let's see, you know, what's going on.
And now, immediately after reading the
valentine, like, immediately, I just wentright back to the bookshelf and I picked up
Atlas Shrugged and started in on that.
Right. So I was like, I couldn't wait and pourthrough that.
(30:48):
It was absolutely hectic reading.
I couldn't believe it.
And. And that.
That right there, of course, is the magnum
opus.
It's just incomparable in so many regards.
And that was.
That's it.
I was that.
That I was.
I was.
I knew.
That's what I. This is it.
This.
These are the right answers.
And. And then, you know, there's mention ofAristotle in there.
(31:11):
There's some really interesting things, right?So I'm like, okay, we're.
What happened?Where did the Sein Rank character come from?
And what's the.
What's the background story to this?
And why are her ideas so good?And why have I never heard them from pretty
much anybody else up until now?
And that was a. That was a tough slog.
The history of philosophy is not fun.
(31:33):
I mean, I enjoyed studying the Presocraticsand then the rise of Plato and Aristotle.
I found that totally fascinating.
Blair (31:41):
Sure.
Scott (31:41):
But then, you know, this.
Each, you know, a lot of bad stuff.
And then the modern period and human Descartesand then finally into Kant and Hegel and Marx
as absolutely dismal.
And so it was very difficult to study thattopic.
And I. And then I asked myself the question,well, what is this story in relation to the
(32:05):
history of the world?
I don't see it.
I don't see what is the interface between
these stories.
And so I was very much aware that I don'treally know history at that point.
I really had, you know, memorized and forgot.
And so therefore, that became my new interest,and I started studying that when I finished
(32:32):
my.
My engineering degree, went out, got a job.
I was working and stuff like that.
But I started studying history part time incollege and that was, that was a disaster in
the sense that everything that I was beingtold to learn was just unbelievably tedious
and useless.
And I was really upset by that.
(32:52):
And I didn't know what, what I could do with
this subject.
It felt overwhelmingly complex and there
didn't seem to be any application ofphilosophy at all.
So how, how could I solve that?
And, and I think I'm giving you a bad timelinebecause I know that it's earlier than 96.
The reason why I know that is because I'mthinking more along the lines of 94.
(33:17):
Because I went to my first Objectivistconference in 1997, which was a Lyceum
conference in Orange County, California.
I was there at that conference.
Yeah, where are you?
So at that conference, the highlight for methere were a lot of highlights that was quite.
(33:38):
Back then we had some heavyweights reallydoing some great stuff.
But the highlight of that conference for mewas John Ridbath.
And John Ridpath gave a lecture on Locke andthe American Revolution versus Rousseau and
the French Revolution.
(33:59):
Oh boy, did that, that right there was super
exciting.
And so I also happened to met my wife at that
conference.
I'm sure a lot of people have similarexperiences.
Anyway, we, we had a long distancerelationship there for a while and, and, and
she was pushing me to ask me figure things outabout my life and where I was going.
(34:22):
And I said, well, I'm, I think I'm intransition to becoming a historian.
I wasn't absolutely convinced.
And, and I said okay.
And, and she pushed me and, and ultimately Isaid, you know what, I think what I need to do
is go study with Redpath.
And lucky for me he still was teaching and Ithink he retired in 2002.
(34:47):
So I, I headed to Toronto and I went to studywith him for two years, two, 2000 to 2002.
And that was big in a number of regards.
It took economics from him.
We studied intellectual history.
That was, wow, there was some wonderful stuffthere.
And, but as good as that was the pivotalmoment for me, which looking back on it was
(35:13):
just a really huge moment for me,historiographically speaking speaking, the big
moment was 9 11.
I remember being on campus that morningwalking through, it happened to be the
economics walking through and there was astudent lounge there with a big screen tv,
(35:34):
walking from the parking lot to, you know, thesocial science building, whatever, and there
you go, you're seeing the first of the towersmoking and pretty soon the other one's
getting struck.
And that, of course, was extremely traumatic.
And that's, you know, that's for me, for my
parents generation, it's like, where were youwhen JFK was assassinated?
(35:57):
Everybody remembers, right?And for me, it's two things.
It's the Challenger disaster in 1987 and 9 11.
Those are the moments in my life where I
remember exactly where I was when those thingshappened.
Never forget.
But more than that, I was on my way to a
history class.
(36:18):
And so.
And of course, all the students were on their
phones.
There was a big buzz.
Everybody was very upset.
And I remember thinking, well, so here we arein academia.
Here we are in the place where we have thesewise men, these people that are learned and
(36:41):
that are going to give us insight into what'shappening.
And so there was, you know, there were somequestions about what's going on.
And the historian in that class basicallysaid, you know, that what we need to do now is
we need to study the terror, because we werestudying the French Revolution, not.
(37:06):
Not the war, not, not the terrorism of 9 11,but the.
The terror of 1793.
Yeah, I think that's what he was saying.
History is the study of the past.
And I have nothing to teach you.
I cannot tell you anything about the world we
live in.
(37:27):
I can only tell you about the France of the
late 18th century that I've been studying mywhole life.
And that's all I know.
Right.
So this was a really tragic confession on hispart, but it stuck with me for the rest of my
life.
And so then, you know, graduating from that, I
(37:48):
went on to teach at a school you've probablyheard of in Southern California called Van
Damme Academy.
And I started teaching history there to youngkids.
And that was the most wonderful experience ofall in so many regards, including the fact
that it didn't work.
There was a problem which was hard for me to
(38:08):
accept and to identify, which, as it turnsout, fundamentally stemmed from the same
problem that I was experiencing in college,which is I hadn't yet figured out that the
past divorced from the present, doesn't meananything, has no objective value.
And so I was a good storyteller.
I got a good sense of humor.
(38:29):
I had the kids laughing and rolling around,and I had them loving, you know, everything
from Martin Luther to Martin Luther King Jr.
And so they were fine with all that.
They enjoyed it, but it didn't stick, and it
didn't produce results for them that I couldreally point to and say, yeah, this is a
(38:51):
better person because they're studyingHistory, and they actually know it and it has
significant intellectual outcomes for them inthe long run.
And so I just began to challenge this questionof what is it and why isn't history working?
And after being there for a few years, Istarted teaching homeschoolers as a private
(39:14):
business.
And that's now what I do with my company,
that's called Knowable World, with my partnerHeather Schwartzen.
And on that journey, just at some point becamean epiphany and that the problem is the lack
of past, present integration and how do weachieve that.
And just, you know, there's just so much tosay about that.
(39:37):
But fundamentally that's how I came to my viewof present centrism.
So there you go.
That's kind of the story it wound up.
Blair (39:48):
Wow, that's great though.
Thank you for that.
Martin (39:50):
Great story, Scott.
And thanks for being here.
You are here and you're making history now,so.
Scott (39:56):
Well, I hope so.
I hope so in more than one sense.
I mean, I hope that not only am I helpingpeople to learn history in many regards, for
the first time and hopefully as many studentsas possible, our goal at Noble World is to
become the, literally the best place in theworld for parents anywhere to help their
(40:18):
children learn history and discover the truepower of history.
And I think we have, we're working on it.
It's tough project, but we're working on
scaling it and really reaching a really hugeaudience.
And I think at some point, because it'soverwhelmingly the best curriculum there is,
that it will take over the homeschoolingmarket and from there we'll try to get into
(40:40):
the private schools.
And by then hopefully public school will havebeen abolished, so we won't have to worry
about that.
So anyway, we'll see.
Blair (40:48):
Do you have a, do you have a web address for Knowable World or.
Scott (40:52):
Well, there you go.
It's, it's two words, of course, Knowable
World, but you mash them together and that'sit.
Knowable world dot com.
That's it.
Okay.
And we have live classes and we have recorded
classes.
And so, I mean, if you can't pull your kid outof public school, then you better be putting
your kid in the Knowable World recordings inorder to give them the antidote to all the
(41:16):
irrationality of history and social studiestoday.
That's the absolute best place you can do it.
Our curriculum is literally From K to 12.
So in other words, we have a program calledHistory Detectives, which is the first year of
a three year program that's still underDevelopment.
But history Detectives, level one is complete.
(41:37):
It's basically a lesson, lesson a week for theyoungest possible kids.
Not every child at a kindergarten level isgoing to be ready, but some are.
And I've had the pleasure of teaching 5 yearolds that are totally ready.
So it's sometimes the case that they're notready until 6, 7, 8.
(41:58):
But, you know, basically you just start itwhen they're ready.
But we start at the kindergarten level andthen the live classes and recordings are for
basically for about second or third graders onup.
And we have an elementary program and a juniorsenior high program.
And for the first time ever this year, I'mteaching something called the advanced history
(42:22):
program, which is for my absolute elitestudents because we're graduating students up
through the ranks and they're just getting sogood at history.
It's unbelievable.
And so they're pushing me to the highest
levels of requirements for me and my ownlearning.
It's basically far beyond anything you can getin college, but they're doing it in high
(42:42):
school, so.
So, yeah, that's our project Noble World.
Blair (42:45):
I'm so, I mean, I'm just.
I think Covid exposed the public education
scam so completely that.
And I know homeschooling has just exploded to
like, from like 3% of, you know, parents to20%.
And that's continuing to grow from the COVIDdebacle.
Scott (43:08):
Yeah, I mean, it's hard to measure.
It's hard to measure.
It's certainly constantly growing.
That's great for a variety of reasons.
And the, you know, the challenge forhomeschoolers is, of course, that, well,
they've got to now be parents and they've gotto, you know, they have two incomes or how are
they going to manage that?
(43:28):
It's always difficult.
My wife and I homeschooled our son.
He's now a senior and just finishing up.
And so we know how hard that is, and it's verydifficult a lot of the times.
And of course, history, who, who actuallyknows history.
And so that's a lot of what homeschoolers do,is they try to find experts, resources out
(43:51):
there where they can find somebody to dosubjects that they themselves are not equipped
to do.
Right.
And so that's exactly what Knowable World is
about.
I know that there's no way that you, as a
homeschooling mom or dad, are going to havetime to not only figure out the entire
curriculum and manage the day and what.
(44:11):
And study history and teach it to your kidproperly.
Thank you.
I've been studying history for 20 years, more
than 20 years.
And I know how hard it is and that's been full
time.
Thank you very much.
So, so no, it's not going to happen.
Right.
So that's why it's nice that there are experts
like myself.
You know, I'll just give a shout out here toLuke Travers, who's, who runs a program called
(44:36):
Literature at our house.
And so, so you know, there's another example
of, okay, you want to have some literature,you want to have some poetry, you want to have
a resource like that, great.
So you just hire an expert.
And so knowable world is your place where
basically history check, you're done.
You get your kid in there as soon as you can
(44:57):
and you're done.
That's taken care of.
The whole thing is taken care of.
And in most cases, you know what I like thebest is when parents are invest, are really
invested in their child's education.
It's quite frequently the case that they willjust sit in and they'll listen and they're
like, wow, this is what I was supposed tolearn when I was a kid.
(45:21):
Wonderful time being in my elementary classbecause that's about the level of adults when
it comes to history.
So you may as well just get in on it, right,
and just listen and learn.
Blair (45:32):
Not surprised in the slightest.
Yeah, I'm sure it's fantastic.
Go ahead.
Martin (45:37):
I was thinking of asking that do you still have courses for adults and older
people?
Scott (45:43):
Do I still have.
I have recorded classes for adults now.
I recently finished the, the course thataccompanies the History of Tomorrow.
So I have a number of course and all recorded.
I don't have plans for any live classes at themoment, but basically I've got a present
(46:04):
centric history of Russia, of China, of Europeand of the United States.
Those are available in.
And so those are, those are recorded classes.
And then I've got a recorded class in fact,
two of them on the history of Church Tomorrow.
(46:27):
And I've also got one on the History of Now Ishouldn't fail to mention.
So that's really for most adult readers, theHistory of Now and the History of Tomorrow.
That's a very deliberate sequence of twobooks.
You can't read the History of Tomorrow withouthaving read the History of Now for reasons
which are explained in the, in the second ofthe two books.
And so basically there is a, there's a,there's the History of Now as a book.
(46:51):
And yeah, for anybody that's really interestedin understanding what's going on in that book.
The History of Now course is a recordedsession with 10 lectures, which is absolutely
critical to gain insight into how it works andhow you can help yourself reprogram your own
thinking about history and make your ownthinking present, centric.
And then the History of Tomorrow is the nextlevel.
Blair (47:14):
And those are all available through nobleworld.com.
Scott (47:17):
Those are available through Noble World.
Yeah.
All right.
And if anybody wants to reach out to me, Idon't know if you have notes or how exactly
the listing podcast goes, but you can.
You can just reach out to me at Mr. Powell.
M r p l o, Mr. Powelloworld dot com.
Anybody listening can just shoot me an emailif they want to follow up on that.
Blair (47:41):
That's great.
Thank you.
Scott (47:43):
Go.
Blair (47:43):
More quick things, if I may.
And then, Martin, you can.
You can have it.
But you still reading science fiction today at
all?Are you too busy or.
Scott (47:53):
Yeah, I mean, I do, but I'm writing science fiction, so I'm.
Yeah, yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you for the segue into that.
Right.
So thanks.
Blair (48:03):
That.
Martin (48:03):
I was thinking of asking that.
So that's good.
How many points are.
Scott (48:07):
Yeah, I mean, like I said, when I was younger, I loved Isaac Asimov, the robot
novels, the foundation series.
Those were my top favorites.
And so that's always kind of been in.
In the back, in.
In my deep, in my subconscious.
I reread them as adults multiple times.
As an adult multiple times.
And over the past, I'm gonna say, five to 10
(48:32):
years, I've just been taking notes andprepping to write my own novels.
I've got two novels planned, but now,actually, everything's changed.
The fourteen Points is probably actually gonnahave to be a trilogy because I've got so much
to write.
But that's the title of the novel that I'mwriting.
It's called the 14 points.
(48:52):
And the obvious source of the title of the
book is that Woodrow Wilson, announced in1918, made a proclamation that is known as the
Fourteen Points.
And it has to do with America becoming theworld police power, effectively.
Right.
And so, without spoiling too much, right.
(49:15):
In my time travel novel, that ain't gonnahappen.
And so there's going to be.
You know, one of the things I particularly
enjoyed about the foundation series was thateffectively, historians are the heroes.
They're psycho historians.
Okay, but they're historians, if you ask me.
(49:37):
And so Harry Seldon is a historian.
Right.
So historians are the heroes.
Well, in my novel, historians are the heroes.
So it's going to take a combination of abrilliant physicist And a brilliant historian
to figure out how to save the worldeffectively.
So anyway, anybody that's interested can justgo to the 14 points reading group on Facebook
(50:03):
and there's a trickle there.
It's. I'm just gonna pick up again.
I'm. And I've got the 14 points channel onYouTube where I'm talking about the way things
are going there.
And.
And the first chapter is available in thefirst draft.
I have to say it's being massively edited atthis point.
So. Because I'm not a natural fiction writerso I've got a lot of skills to develop and so
(50:31):
I'm really massively editing.
I've written 250 pages and I know that there'sa tremendous amount of work that needs to be
done to fix it up as a fiction story.
So.
So. But it's.
Yeah, it's still fun.
I still love science fiction, of course, andI'm hoping to make a science fiction
(50:51):
masterpiece, which is of course a tall orderfor a first novel.
But I'm gonna try to do it right off the bat.
Blair (50:59):
Wait for the fences, swing for the fence.
Martin (51:02):
Yeah, that's good.
Scott (51:03):
Waiting for the fence.
Martin (51:03):
Have you talked to Warren Fahey? We have had this guest.
He's writer.
Scott (51:10):
No, I have not.
So thank you for the mention.
I'll have to think about that.
Blair (51:14):
Yeah, I just let me throw in that this is my.
The gentleman named Jack Vance is my favoritescience fiction author and he wrote the first
book I ever read by him is still my favorite.
It was called in paperback, it's called To
Live Forever.
And the Kindle version is called Clarges,which is the city.
This all takes place in C L A R G E S. So Ihighly recommend that to you and Martin.
(51:41):
And let me nitpick a little bit more about.
One of the things that's always bothered meis.
Well, when I think about it, the division ofNorth Korea and South Korea, I don't think
that's ever gonna be united because the borderof North Korea is China.
And if it's going to be one way, it'llprobably be swallowed up.
(52:04):
But I hope that doesn't happen.
What do you any thought on that?
Because I. I have not gotten to yourself.
Scott (52:09):
Yeah, I mean I have a chapter on Korea in the History of Tomorrow.
And you know, basically, if you want the shortanswer, you know, the Korean quote unquote
unification process is the same thing as theMiddle east peace process.
These are total, you know, BS neologisms whichare never going to happen unless one side
(52:35):
Basically destroys the other.
And so, yeah, basically it's a, it's a just a
joke.
And so it's not going to happen.
The jucha ideology of North Korea is literally
the.
It's, it's not really communist, it's in fact
much more akin to Nazism than just aboutanything else in the world today.
(52:56):
And, and so it's a virulently ultranationalist ideology.
And there's another problem for Korea, andthat is that Korea, like Japan and now China,
is facing a demographic cliff.
And so this is a country which is going to
(53:18):
begin to strain rapidly.
And so if they don't get their act togetherand start procreating, they're in big trouble.
And so that's another factor over the nextcouple generations that these countries are in
big trouble.
And.
Yeah, so Korea, no unification.
No, that's not, that's not.
(53:38):
The only, the only possible thing is somethingcompletely unpredictable, like a coup within
the, you know, the highest ranking families inthe strangely ideological, you know,
aristocracy of North Korea.
But there's no reason to expect that thatwould produce any really positive results.
So. No, I don't see it.
(53:59):
I don't see it.
But basically, you know, North Korea is, ischeckmated.
Right.
There's nothing they can do.
They know that if they make the wrong move,they cease to exist.
So that's the story.
It's, there's really, there's almost nothing
to it.
It's tragic for the people there, but hey, if
they want better, they got to get their acttogether.
Blair (54:19):
All right, ladies and gentlemen, we've been talking to historian Scott Powell and he
has three great books out and he's working onfourth.
Scott, thanks for manning the foxhole with us.
Scott (54:34):
Been great.
Thank you.
Blair (54:36):
All right, Martin, you want to add anything?
Are you good or.
Martin (54:39):
I'm all.
I'm all set.
So we will do a follow up and we'll talk moreabout how to support your work, Scott, and
support our show.
Foreign.
Blair (00:08):
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to another episode of the secular Foxhole
podcast.
Today, Martin and I are thrilled to have agentleman who actually reached out to me to
come on the show.
That's like the first time, I think that's
happened in all our episodes.
Scott Powell is an objectivist and historianliving a, quote, nomad, capitalist lifestyle
(00:29):
in Mediterranean Europe.
He is the author of the History of Now and itssequel, the History of Tomorrow, which
together present his integrated view ofhistory, which he refers to as present
centrism.
Excuse me.
Along with his partner Heather Schwartz, whichI hope I pronounced correct, he is the co
(00:50):
founder of Knowable World, the world's onlyfully integrated history curriculum for
students from kindergarten through 12th grade.
He is currently working on a science fictionnovel about time travel and the true power of
history entitled the 14 Points.
Welcome, Scott.
Scott (01:07):
Nice to be here.
Thank you.
Blair (01:09):
All right, nice.
Now, what do you mean by this was a new
concept to me, Present centrism.
Scott (01:17):
Right.
Well, it's certainly a neologism.
So in other words, I had to invent the termbecause I simply could not find an adequate
way to represent my thought concerninghistory.
And so the, you know, the basic idea is thattypically the serious study of history is
(01:40):
considered to be the study of the past.
And the unserious study of history that haskind of been spawned by a variety of
ideological movements in, in modern times isreally focused on the present, very much at
(02:00):
the expense of the past and very much, youknow, dependent on prejudices and
presuppositions in the, in the present.
And then there's the process of cherry pickingand, and all of the typical things that
corrupt what serious historians, quote,unquote, serious historians consider to be the
proper study of the past.
And you can see in both of these options,which are the two, basically the, the four
(02:26):
false dichotomy that currently dominates thestudy of history.
You can see that on the one side you have thepast, which historians are dedicated to,
serious historians are dedicated to, but theproblem is at the expense of the present.
And then you have people that are activists,have a variety of reasons why, but they
(02:47):
emphasize the present, of course, at theexpense of the past.
Well, what's missing, of course, is a properintegration of the two.
Right.
We could simply refer to that as past, present
integration.
And so that's what present centrism is about.
Present centrism, if you want me to give you a
formal definition, it is a mode of historicalinquiry that seeks to achieve an integrated
(03:16):
historical awareness of the world we live in.
There's a lot to unpack there, but basicallythat's what it is.
You can see the object of study is not thepast.
The object of study is the world we live in.
The past doesn't exist anymore.
Right?Okay, it once existed.
That's an important thing to recognize.
(03:38):
But why does it matter?Why it matters is because of how the well of
cause and effect has brought us to where weare now and where it's taking us.
And so we live today.
There's only one reason for us to study the
past.
That's in order to empower us with the
(03:59):
knowledge that it can provide us the insightand instruction that is available by studying
this amazing spectrum of experiences that allof humanity has gone through and deriving what
we need from it, right?
Finding some positive mental intellectualoutcomes from it and allowing us to navigate
(04:21):
through the world and hopefully to shape itfor the better.
So that's where we are.
We're in the present.
We need to live well.
And so the idea of present centrism is we needto be able to use the past, not merely study
it as an end in itself, but to use it as ameans to an end, to better shape the world we
(04:41):
live in.
Blair (04:43):
Very, very good.
Now, I hope I'm not jumping around too much,
but you use the terms Americanism andAmericanistic, they may be in one.
One in each book.
Do you want to jump into that for me?
Or is that.
Scott (05:00):
Well, I mean, so this is, you know, an example of periodization.
So in other words, one of the critical thingsthat has to be done with the past, which of
course, is a plethora.
It's a vast ocean of facts which typically
overwhelms the student.
(05:22):
And of course, you and I, and just aboutanybody listening can remember studying
history and being forced to rote, memorize awhole bunch of useless stuff.
Stuff and then regurgitate that for.
In order to pass the test and then promptlyforget it and then develop, you know, this.
This perspective, of course, that history isuseless.
(05:45):
And the problem, of course, is though, thatbecause history is vast, essentially about
5,000 years worth of decent recordedinformation because it's so vast and because
it involves so many cultures that we have tohave a method of organizing, condensing and
essentializing the vastness of it so that wecan render it into something useful now.
(06:12):
So, you know, because there you go, right?Present centrism, the goal is to.
For us to.
To embody the idea that knowledge is power.
Well, how can we generate powerful knowledge?
So in the.
In the problem of studying History, we
encounter something that I know some of yourlisteners are interested in.
Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand, as a philosopher, fascinating.
(06:35):
Gave us fascinating insight into theimportance of concepts in terms of how they
allow us to condense our perceptual experienceand arrive at this really powerful conceptual
level of awareness.
As it turns out, with regard to history, whichis a massive stream of one of a kind events
(06:58):
which are linked in this web of cause andeffect, there's a different problem.
It's a problem that is not quite akin to theneed that we face on a general basis of
processing the concretes that we find in ourexperience and integrating them into concepts.
There's a different problem.
There is a problem of this absolutely unique
(07:19):
stream of events, a procession and successionof events that are constantly unfolding.
And how do we.
How do we render that into some sort of usefulmental outcome?
And I discuss this on a theoretical level aspart of the History of Tomorrow.
Broadly speaking, I refer to the need toemploy what I refer to as constructs.
(07:45):
Now, there's a. We could probably spend anentire podcast on what are the difference
between concepts and constructs.
I don't think it's probably the best place for
us to go right now.
But periods, historical periods, are examplesof constructs because they are composed of
absolutely unique events which combine in someway.
(08:06):
We have to mentally integrate them in orderfor them to add up to something, use.
And to now circle back around a little bit toyour original question in order to take now,
American history, relatively short comparedto, let's say, Chinese history or something
else.
Right.
So we're talking 1776 word, if we're going to
(08:29):
be strict about it.
There's the colonial period before that.
But, okay, let's talk 1776 onward.
Well, that's still, you know, we're coming up
on 250 years worth of stuff, right?
And so that's a lot.
And most people try to memorize a few things
and forget and can't integrate.
All right, so how do we integrate those
things?Well, first of all, we have to definitely be
(08:50):
selective about how we approach it.
And the foundation of the method ofperiodization that I employ in present
centrism is to identify what I refer to asanchor facts.
And so that's the beginning of the answer.
There are certain facts.
Let's talk about the biggest one of all.
1776, the 4th of July, 1776.
To my mind, the single most important anchor
(09:13):
fact, what I call a cardinal anchor fact withregard to world history at this time.
The reason Why I say that is because it's anAmerica centric world.
And so the United States is overwhelmingly themost important country in the world.
It's not a matter of good or bad.
We all know it's also good.
But it's a matter of what is the significance
(09:34):
of American culture in terms of shaping theworld.
And it's overwhelmingly the most important.
And so where does that come from?
How did that come about?Well, the 4th of July, 1776 clearly is an
anchor point we want to talk about eventually.
We want to recognize, of course, the fullness
of something called the American Revolutionand so many other things.
(09:55):
But basically, how did there even come to bean America?
Well, of course, there's a birthday.
And so the country got started at a certain
point, Right.
And then there are other anger facts that have
brought about the transformation of Americanculture into what it is today.
And there have been, to my mind, twooverarching successions.
(10:17):
There was an original American culture that ofcourse, was dedicated to individual rights.
We have the classic statement in theDeclaration of Independence concerning life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And we have other statements by the foundersas well that are really wonderful.
And we see that.
We see also, unfortunately, the inability of
(10:40):
that generation and later generations ofpoliticians to abolish slavery.
Right.
So we have a strange problem.
We have a contradiction embedded in what Irefer to as American culture, the original
incarnation.
And there are other elements to that as well.
There's. There's political economy, There.
There are a number of other dimensions that
(11:00):
can be thought of.
There's the level of industrial development.
There are a variety of factors that go intothe construct that I refer to as the American
period.
And in my view, that period basically ended inthe.
In simple terms, with World War I, at whichpoint America began to exhibit a number of new
cultural traits.
Up to that point, its foreign policy was one
(11:23):
of political separation as embodied by theMonroe Doctrine.
And then America began to embark on this questto quote, unquote, Quote, unquote, make the
world safer.
Democracy.
Actually, that's not an exact quote.
It's always hard to quote that one because
Woodrow Wilson said the world must be madesafe for democracy.
So we have to carefully quote.
(11:44):
But.
And then, of course, you know, there was abacklash.
And then America began to, you know, gotdragged into World War II.
And then there's the Cold War, and nowthere's.
There's been the war on Terror and all ofthat.
That's foreign policy as well.
The United States became focused on civil
rights rather than Natural rights.
The political economy shifted from one of
(12:05):
encouraging industry through mercantilism tonow one of regulation and a mixed economy and
growing elements of socialism.
So you can see that there are a variety oftrends.
And when you try to encompass those and say,okay, we've got one way that America was at
the beginning, and we still have America, butit's clearly not the same thing, well, how do
(12:28):
we then, you know, how do we then capture thatfact?
And so I refer to the more modern interincarnation of the United States as
Americanistic.
If I can.
I'll just elaborate on that just a little bit,because I think there's something powerful
here.
Please, some of your.
Some of your listeners will enjoy.
(12:50):
The reason why I adopted that terminology isbecause in my studies of history, I came upon
a really interesting periodization by anotherthinker.
And actually it was a delimited one.
It was meant to be one that was applicable
only in the area of art history, but it reallystruck me as being more widely applicable.
(13:15):
And so it was the work of a German historiannamed Droysen, Gustav Droysen, something like
that.
And what he identified was that back in
ancient Greece, there was a succession of twodifferent fundamental artistic styles.
And he referred to the first as beingHellenic.
(13:39):
In other words, you know, the essential one,the.
The one of Praxiteles and.
And the other, you know, great sculptors of
that era.
And then he said, after Alexander the Great,he referred to the.
The merger and hybridization of Greek art withAsiatic elements as Helenistic.
(14:03):
So you can see it as interesting.
What he's trying to say there is that there
was something essentially Greek and then therewas something else which was derivative and
involves some sort of mixture andhybridization and unfortunately also a
downgrade.
And he called that Hellenistic.
(14:24):
So that's a terminology that I really found
empowering.
And I said to myself, well, that's exactly
what happened to America.
America had this original culture, which in
terms of fundamentals and especially on anaspirational level, as expressed by the
founders, is really as good as it ever got.
And now we have this lesser version, and it'sgot all of these elements in it, especially
(14:50):
from Europe.
The hybridization of American culture, the
invasion of European ideas, especially thesocial theory of rights as advocated during
the French Revolution by Rousseau and then thethinkers of the French Revolution.
And then you get this organization and thistakeover, because Europe's always been more
intellectual than America.
And so there's a lot of powerful ideas
(15:11):
circulating in European culture all the time.
And America's had this way of being theyounger kind of prodigal culture.
But it's always kind of been getting closerand closer and losing its distinctiveness and
becoming more European.
So that's my thinking.
Is that similar this year?
Blair (15:29):
Let me just throw something in there that, I mean, for me, I've noticed the
default, if you will, is always wheneverthere's a big crisis here, we fall back to
religion, we fall back to ancient religiousideas instead of, you know, instead of
exploring, oh, why did this happen?
You know, and using our intellect and usingour.
(15:51):
Does that make sense to you as far as theperiodization?
Scott (15:55):
Well, I would say that.
Well, I don't think, you see, that's a
difficult one because if you look at thetrajectory of American political culture, you
can't see.
Find a dominant religious strain in it.
What you see is the Founding Fathers.
(16:16):
And there, there is, of course, the, the idea
of, of, you know, individual rights being Godgiven, natural rights.
Blair (16:25):
Yes.
Scott (16:25):
But in, in the founders, in thinking of the founders, there's a. There's an element of
deism there which kind of, you know, the ideabeing that God is somehow necessary as an
Aristotelian prime mover, but then basicallyis retired.
Right.
And he's just, he's just taking in the
metaphysical dividends and just, you know,sitting on the couch.
Martin (16:49):
Hands off.
Scott (16:50):
So it's, it's not really dominant.
And now we have, of course, influence of
religion.
Absolutely.
It's.
It's undeniable and we see it in, in many.
But it's not a dominant element.
It's one that's difficult to factor in.
And it's one that really, for me, is an areaof continuing study because I'm always
(17:10):
interested in the most fundamental and mostpowerful trends.
And then, if possible, I like to see if I caninvestigate, well, what's feeding into that
and what are some of the conditioning aspects.
And I would.
That's the way that I would characterizereligion so far in American politics as being
(17:31):
a conditioning element, not a dominantelement, but always present, always
conditioning things, you know, and so we couldrefer.
We could talk about that in relation toprogressivism.
We could talk about it in relation toconservatism.
You know, you can see it.
Right?
You can see it, but it's not always obvioushow does it play into the development.
(17:52):
So. So it's not a basis of periodization forthe time being in my thinking, but it's just a
recognized conditioning element.
Blair (18:00):
I see, I see in, in your first book, the History of Now, you do break it down into
into great things.
Let me just.
Let me.
I want to throw this word at you.
Supranationalist, Europe.
Can you delve into that?
Yeah, because that's a word I don't.
Scott (18:19):
Think I've ever heard, so.
Oh, okay, good.
Well, you know, so basically, Europeanhistory, of course, is very complex.
Europe is, in my treatment of Europe, which Igotta tell you, Europe is, for me, as a
historian, Europe is my Everest.
Okay. In other words, it's the most complexand significant cultural block in world
(18:43):
history by far.
And so you've got, of course, these
overwhelmingly important cultures of Germanyand France.
These are the really core nations of Europe.
And then you've got this very strange element
of Britain and how does it relate?
And then you've got these adjunct cultureswhich play a role and, you know, every once in
a while rise to prominence, like Italy andSpain and so on.
(19:06):
But typically, it's a Franco German conditionthat dominates the history of Europe.
And so in my.
In my presentation in the History of Now, I
tried to ask myself, well, how do we properlycharacterize the history of Europe?
Because it's very easy to get totally draggedinto the past at the expense of the present
(19:28):
when you're studying Europe, because you'retalking 1500 years now, so it's already a
problem when you're dealing with the Unitedstates, which is 250 years.
But if you want to start the history ofEurope, let's say, with the fall of the Roman
Empire in 476, when you're dealing with 1500years, okay, so now you got a big problem.
Blair (19:46):
Right.
Scott (19:46):
And so, you know, I would say that the, The.
The. The kind of standard or classical way ofdealing with this is to refer to the first
thousand years, let's say, as medieval andthen modern.
Right.
Okay, but this is kind of empty.
What do you mean modern exactly?And what.
What matters about being modern?Right.
(20:08):
And, and so in my view, I came to the.
I came to this view that European history is
best understood currently because presentcentrism demands that it be characterized
according to what we need to know now in orderto navigate through the world we live in it.
Basically, the question of European history iswhere did the European Union come from?
(20:32):
This is what the Europe fundamentally istoday.
This is the dominant construct in politics andin culture.
Right. And what does the European Unionrepresent?
Well, it represents something very technical,Europe, always very ideological and very
complex.
It represents an ideological point of view
(20:52):
which is known as supra nationalism.
So supra means over and above.
Above and clearly the root word nationalism,
right, is the point of view that the nation,fundamental unit of reality and standard of
value in human affairs.
And so the.
The issue is that the history of Europe all
(21:15):
the way up until the World wars, was thehistory of separate and increasingly mutually
alienated nations, right?The tribes coalescing into countries, early
kingdoms and so on, always wars, wars, wars.
We've got the extra element, here we go, agood example of religion as a conditioning
(21:39):
factor.
We have the element of the Reformation and
religious wars, introducing sectarianism.
And so we've got all of these various factors
producing alienation.
And then while in modern times you have theadvent of the freedom French Revolution, so
now you get politics as alienating.
Everybody gang, young ganging up on France.
(22:00):
You've got, of course, Britain with its owntraditions, staying relatively separate.
And so you've got all these various factorsleading to the Europeans always being at war.
I mean, that's why the founders.
That's why George Washington said, let's not
get entangled in that mess, right?
Let's stay at it.
That was his farewell address.
He said, we.
(22:20):
We stay out of those wars.
And.
And James Monroe, of course, followed that up
with the Monroe Doctrine and basically said,the political system of Europe is
fundamentally different from that of America.
There's no benefit to us getting entangled inthat.
And so that's why America's original policy ofpolitical separation was so valuable to the
(22:42):
United States in, in terms of Europe, though,right?
They just kept going, going.
It got worse.
There was paired with imperialism and then it.
It culminated in the crescendo and the climax
of the world war, World War I. And then thatdoesn't resolve anything, largely because of
America.
And then you've got World War II, which ofcourse is the catastrophe, at which point.
(23:05):
And leading up to that, there was already somethinking along these lines.
Internationalism, meaning fundamentallydiplomacy, this hadn't cut.
It wasn't working.
The League of Nations, none of that managed to
really put a dent in the alienation of thevarious national peoples and their collective
identifications then.
So they said to us, how do we.
(23:27):
How do we solve this problem, right?And so they said, we've got to.
Now, the Europeans have never been able toshed collectivism.
And so they've all.
It's always been a very collectivist culture.
And so basically what they came up with was,we've got to have some greater good, that
(23:47):
we're going to some identity that isoverarching, that permits us to suppress the
alienating factor of nationalism.
What's that going to be.
It's going to be Europe as a whole, something
over and above of the nation as a fundamentalvalue.
(24:10):
So that's what's ideologically referred to assupra nationalism.
And, and if you look at the history of now,you can see, okay, they did a prototype of it.
It's called the European Coal and SteelCommunity.
The whole idea there was put the government ofthe, of the.
This new union in charge of these industriesso that we can ideologically transform our
(24:36):
thinking about how we use resources and makewar materially impossible, supposedly.
Right.
And.
And then they kept on working on it.
They created the European Community, and thenit gradually evolved and, and in 1993, they
just went all in with the European Union.
And, you know, that's what we have today.
(24:58):
Of course, what we have today is largely acrisis.
And in its present form and the ways in whichit functions, it's not viable in the long
term.
And there's a lot of reasons why,fundamentally, it's collectivist, so it's
always going to be a problem.
But also the European Union, you'd wish that
(25:22):
it would be in some way truly dedicated tofreedom.
And it has some elements which are positive,such as freedom of travel within the European
Union and things of that nature and free tradewithin the European Union.
But these are very much collectivists.
So it's a tariff barrier that insulates Europe
(25:43):
from the rest of the world, and then there'sthe Schengen Zone, which insulates Europe from
the rest of the world.
And so it's really.
Now it's organized.
It's trying.
The idea is to organize Europe into a peaceful
whole, but create a cultural block that canstand on its own and largely also supposedly
stand up to the United States.
(26:05):
But as it turns out, it's not working in any.
It's not working in so many regards that it's,
it's, it's going to be a long, long road here.
A lot of problems.
I'm not predicting that it's going to collapseentirely, but it's in trouble.
It's in trouble.
If you want to talk details, maybe that's
(26:25):
another podcast.
Let me throw.
Blair (26:28):
I'll throw a small curveball then.
How did you yourself discover objectivism?
And then over the years, how did you learn ordiscover your present love of history and so
on and so forth?
Yeah. Et cetera, et cetera.
Scott (26:47):
Yeah, absolutely.
Oh, well, thanks.
That's a fun story to tell.
So, yeah, I mean, I first read Ayn Rand in.
Let me get this right 1996, 19 in 1990s.
And if I'm getting that right, so I might beoff by a couple years.
(27:10):
And I was in college at the time.
I was studying engineering.
And I don't mind, I laugh when I tell thisstory, so it'll be all right.
It's a little bit traumatic.
I failed my first class in engineering becauseI was relatively smart guy, but I didn't
(27:31):
study.
I never studied.
And so I just could get away with it in highschool.
I didn't care.
And so I got to college and the difficultylevel went way up and I failed my first class.
And that was my wake up call.
And, and so I said to myself, okay, how am Igonna grow up, right?
(27:52):
How am I gonna put.
Pull this back together here?
And I have this promise.
You know, one of the things that I can bethankful for in.
My father was somewhat of a, an eclecticintellectual and, but he had strangely made
(28:14):
mention of Ayn Rand at one point and, and,and, and purchased a book for me called the
Early Ayn Rand.
And it was on the shelf, I wasn't touchingthat.
He was very critical of my own reading, whichwas entirely science fiction.
And so it was like, for me, it was all aboutIsaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke and, you
(28:37):
know, Robert Heinlein and that kind of stuff.
And so it's like, okay, Ran character floating
around.
Okay, I don't know what that's about.
But you know, at that point where in, in my,
in my college career where I flunked out of aclass and I was like, okay, I gotta get my act
together.
And so how do I, how do I matureintellectually?
(28:58):
How do I get my act together?I thought, okay, maybe there's something here
that I have to investigate in the form ofphilosophy.
And it took me a while.
I won't tell the whole story.
I'll tell the short version.
And I saw the back of the Early Iran and it
said, it's really playing up Iran.
It's talking about these amazing novels, theFountain Head and Atlas Shrugged.
(29:22):
And I'm like, okay, let's see what that'sabout.
So I just, you know, headed over to the publiclibrary and I see the COVID of, of the
Fountain Head and it's this dramatic, youknow, weird art deco like thing with the
architect looking up the skyscraper.
And I'm like, hey, that's kind of cool.
And so, all right, start reading it, right?
(29:43):
And all of us, that first reading experienceof on it blew me away.
I couldn't believe it.
I, I'M like, I can't believe it.
This is exactly what I need.
It was unbelievable, as I like to joke, it wasHoward Roark that prevented me from becoming
(30:03):
an architect because, you know, I was.
I was studying civil engineering, and I didn't
think it was that interesting.
That was kind of leaning towards architecture.
Funny thing happened about Howard Rourke.
And I said, that's not for me.
I'm gonna go into philosophy.
I'm gonna go.
And then.
And I became interested at that point and
(30:25):
what's going on?
Where did this Iron man character come from?
And I said to myself, well, let me study thehistory of philosophy.
Let's see, you know, what's going on.
And now, immediately after reading the
valentine, like, immediately, I just wentright back to the bookshelf and I picked up
Atlas Shrugged and started in on that.
Right. So I was like, I couldn't wait and pourthrough that.
(30:48):
It was absolutely hectic reading.
I couldn't believe it.
And. And that.
That right there, of course, is the magnum
opus.
It's just incomparable in so many regards.
And that was.
That's it.
I was that.
That I was.
I was.
I knew.
That's what I. This is it.
This.
These are the right answers.
And. And then, you know, there's mention ofAristotle in there.
(31:11):
There's some really interesting things, right?So I'm like, okay, we're.
What happened?Where did the Sein Rank character come from?
And what's the.
What's the background story to this?
And why are her ideas so good?And why have I never heard them from pretty
much anybody else up until now?
And that was a. That was a tough slog.
The history of philosophy is not fun.
(31:33):
I mean, I enjoyed studying the Presocraticsand then the rise of Plato and Aristotle.
I found that totally fascinating.
Blair (31:41):
Sure.
Scott (31:41):
But then, you know, this.
Each, you know, a lot of bad stuff.
And then the modern period and human Descartesand then finally into Kant and Hegel and Marx
as absolutely dismal.
And so it was very difficult to study thattopic.
And I. And then I asked myself the question,well, what is this story in relation to the
(32:05):
history of the world?
I don't see it.
I don't see what is the interface between
these stories.
And so I was very much aware that I don'treally know history at that point.
I really had, you know, memorized and forgot.
And so therefore, that became my new interest,and I started studying that when I finished
(32:32):
my.
My engineering degree, went out, got a job.
I was working and stuff like that.
But I started studying history part time incollege and that was, that was a disaster in
the sense that everything that I was beingtold to learn was just unbelievably tedious
and useless.
And I was really upset by that.
(32:52):
And I didn't know what, what I could do with
this subject.
It felt overwhelmingly complex and there
didn't seem to be any application ofphilosophy at all.
So how, how could I solve that?
And, and I think I'm giving you a bad timelinebecause I know that it's earlier than 96.
The reason why I know that is because I'mthinking more along the lines of 94.
(33:17):
Because I went to my first Objectivistconference in 1997, which was a Lyceum
conference in Orange County, California.
I was there at that conference.
Yeah, where are you?
So at that conference, the highlight for methere were a lot of highlights that was quite.
(33:38):
Back then we had some heavyweights reallydoing some great stuff.
But the highlight of that conference for mewas John Ridbath.
And John Ridpath gave a lecture on Locke andthe American Revolution versus Rousseau and
the French Revolution.
(33:59):
Oh boy, did that, that right there was super
exciting.
And so I also happened to met my wife at that
conference.
I'm sure a lot of people have similarexperiences.
Anyway, we, we had a long distancerelationship there for a while and, and, and
she was pushing me to ask me figure things outabout my life and where I was going.
(34:22):
And I said, well, I'm, I think I'm intransition to becoming a historian.
I wasn't absolutely convinced.
And, and I said okay.
And, and she pushed me and, and ultimately Isaid, you know what, I think what I need to do
is go study with Redpath.
And lucky for me he still was teaching and Ithink he retired in 2002.
(34:47):
So I, I headed to Toronto and I went to studywith him for two years, two, 2000 to 2002.
And that was big in a number of regards.
It took economics from him.
We studied intellectual history.
That was, wow, there was some wonderful stuffthere.
And, but as good as that was the pivotalmoment for me, which looking back on it was
(35:13):
just a really huge moment for me,historiographically speaking speaking, the big
moment was 9 11.
I remember being on campus that morningwalking through, it happened to be the
economics walking through and there was astudent lounge there with a big screen tv,
(35:34):
walking from the parking lot to, you know, thesocial science building, whatever, and there
you go, you're seeing the first of the towersmoking and pretty soon the other one's
getting struck.
And that, of course, was extremely traumatic.
And that's, you know, that's for me, for my
parents generation, it's like, where were youwhen JFK was assassinated?
(35:57):
Everybody remembers, right?And for me, it's two things.
It's the Challenger disaster in 1987 and 9 11.
Those are the moments in my life where I
remember exactly where I was when those thingshappened.
Never forget.
But more than that, I was on my way to a
history class.
(36:18):
And so.
And of course, all the students were on their
phones.
There was a big buzz.
Everybody was very upset.
And I remember thinking, well, so here we arein academia.
Here we are in the place where we have thesewise men, these people that are learned and
(36:41):
that are going to give us insight into what'shappening.
And so there was, you know, there were somequestions about what's going on.
And the historian in that class basicallysaid, you know, that what we need to do now is
we need to study the terror, because we werestudying the French Revolution, not.
(37:06):
Not the war, not, not the terrorism of 9 11,but the.
The terror of 1793.
Yeah, I think that's what he was saying.
History is the study of the past.
And I have nothing to teach you.
I cannot tell you anything about the world we
live in.
(37:27):
I can only tell you about the France of the
late 18th century that I've been studying mywhole life.
And that's all I know.
Right.
So this was a really tragic confession on hispart, but it stuck with me for the rest of my
life.
And so then, you know, graduating from that, I
(37:48):
went on to teach at a school you've probablyheard of in Southern California called Van
Damme Academy.
And I started teaching history there to youngkids.
And that was the most wonderful experience ofall in so many regards, including the fact
that it didn't work.
There was a problem which was hard for me to
(38:08):
accept and to identify, which, as it turnsout, fundamentally stemmed from the same
problem that I was experiencing in college,which is I hadn't yet figured out that the
past divorced from the present, doesn't meananything, has no objective value.
And so I was a good storyteller.
I got a good sense of humor.
(38:29):
I had the kids laughing and rolling around,and I had them loving, you know, everything
from Martin Luther to Martin Luther King Jr.
And so they were fine with all that.
They enjoyed it, but it didn't stick, and it
didn't produce results for them that I couldreally point to and say, yeah, this is a
(38:51):
better person because they're studyingHistory, and they actually know it and it has
significant intellectual outcomes for them inthe long run.
And so I just began to challenge this questionof what is it and why isn't history working?
And after being there for a few years, Istarted teaching homeschoolers as a private
(39:14):
business.
And that's now what I do with my company,
that's called Knowable World, with my partnerHeather Schwartzen.
And on that journey, just at some point becamean epiphany and that the problem is the lack
of past, present integration and how do weachieve that.
And just, you know, there's just so much tosay about that.
(39:37):
But fundamentally that's how I came to my viewof present centrism.
So there you go.
That's kind of the story it wound up.
Blair (39:48):
Wow, that's great though.
Thank you for that.
Martin (39:50):
Great story, Scott.
And thanks for being here.
You are here and you're making history now,so.
Scott (39:56):
Well, I hope so.
I hope so in more than one sense.
I mean, I hope that not only am I helpingpeople to learn history in many regards, for
the first time and hopefully as many studentsas possible, our goal at Noble World is to
become the, literally the best place in theworld for parents anywhere to help their
(40:18):
children learn history and discover the truepower of history.
And I think we have, we're working on it.
It's tough project, but we're working on
scaling it and really reaching a really hugeaudience.
And I think at some point, because it'soverwhelmingly the best curriculum there is,
that it will take over the homeschoolingmarket and from there we'll try to get into
(40:40):
the private schools.
And by then hopefully public school will havebeen abolished, so we won't have to worry
about that.
So anyway, we'll see.
Blair (40:48):
Do you have a, do you have a web address for Knowable World or.
Scott (40:52):
Well, there you go.
It's, it's two words, of course, Knowable
World, but you mash them together and that'sit.
Knowable world dot com.
That's it.
Okay.
And we have live classes and we have recorded
classes.
And so, I mean, if you can't pull your kid outof public school, then you better be putting
your kid in the Knowable World recordings inorder to give them the antidote to all the
(41:16):
irrationality of history and social studiestoday.
That's the absolute best place you can do it.
Our curriculum is literally From K to 12.
So in other words, we have a program calledHistory Detectives, which is the first year of
a three year program that's still underDevelopment.
But history Detectives, level one is complete.
(41:37):
It's basically a lesson, lesson a week for theyoungest possible kids.
Not every child at a kindergarten level isgoing to be ready, but some are.
And I've had the pleasure of teaching 5 yearolds that are totally ready.
So it's sometimes the case that they're notready until 6, 7, 8.
(41:58):
But, you know, basically you just start itwhen they're ready.
But we start at the kindergarten level andthen the live classes and recordings are for
basically for about second or third graders onup.
And we have an elementary program and a juniorsenior high program.
And for the first time ever this year, I'mteaching something called the advanced history
(42:22):
program, which is for my absolute elitestudents because we're graduating students up
through the ranks and they're just getting sogood at history.
It's unbelievable.
And so they're pushing me to the highest
levels of requirements for me and my ownlearning.
It's basically far beyond anything you can getin college, but they're doing it in high
(42:42):
school, so.
So, yeah, that's our project Noble World.
Blair (42:45):
I'm so, I mean, I'm just.
I think Covid exposed the public education
scam so completely that.
And I know homeschooling has just exploded to
like, from like 3% of, you know, parents to20%.
And that's continuing to grow from the COVIDdebacle.
Scott (43:08):
Yeah, I mean, it's hard to measure.
It's hard to measure.
It's certainly constantly growing.
That's great for a variety of reasons.
And the, you know, the challenge forhomeschoolers is, of course, that, well,
they've got to now be parents and they've gotto, you know, they have two incomes or how are
they going to manage that?
(43:28):
It's always difficult.
My wife and I homeschooled our son.
He's now a senior and just finishing up.
And so we know how hard that is, and it's verydifficult a lot of the times.
And of course, history, who, who actuallyknows history.
And so that's a lot of what homeschoolers do,is they try to find experts, resources out
(43:51):
there where they can find somebody to dosubjects that they themselves are not equipped
to do.
Right.
And so that's exactly what Knowable World is
about.
I know that there's no way that you, as a
homeschooling mom or dad, are going to havetime to not only figure out the entire
curriculum and manage the day and what.
(44:11):
And study history and teach it to your kidproperly.
Thank you.
I've been studying history for 20 years, more
than 20 years.
And I know how hard it is and that's been full
time.
Thank you very much.
So, so no, it's not going to happen.
Right.
So that's why it's nice that there are experts
like myself.
You know, I'll just give a shout out here toLuke Travers, who's, who runs a program called
(44:36):
Literature at our house.
And so, so you know, there's another example
of, okay, you want to have some literature,you want to have some poetry, you want to have
a resource like that, great.
So you just hire an expert.
And so knowable world is your place where
basically history check, you're done.
You get your kid in there as soon as you can
(44:57):
and you're done.
That's taken care of.
The whole thing is taken care of.
And in most cases, you know what I like thebest is when parents are invest, are really
invested in their child's education.
It's quite frequently the case that they willjust sit in and they'll listen and they're
like, wow, this is what I was supposed tolearn when I was a kid.
(45:21):
Wonderful time being in my elementary classbecause that's about the level of adults when
it comes to history.
So you may as well just get in on it, right,
and just listen and learn.
Blair (45:32):
Not surprised in the slightest.
Yeah, I'm sure it's fantastic.
Go ahead.
Martin (45:37):
I was thinking of asking that do you still have courses for adults and older
people?
Scott (45:43):
Do I still have.
I have recorded classes for adults now.
I recently finished the, the course thataccompanies the History of Tomorrow.
So I have a number of course and all recorded.
I don't have plans for any live classes at themoment, but basically I've got a present
(46:04):
centric history of Russia, of China, of Europeand of the United States.
Those are available in.
And so those are, those are recorded classes.
And then I've got a recorded class in fact,
two of them on the history of Church Tomorrow.
(46:27):
And I've also got one on the History of Now Ishouldn't fail to mention.
So that's really for most adult readers, theHistory of Now and the History of Tomorrow.
That's a very deliberate sequence of twobooks.
You can't read the History of Tomorrow withouthaving read the History of Now for reasons
which are explained in the, in the second ofthe two books.
And so basically there is a, there's a,there's the History of Now as a book.
(46:51):
And yeah, for anybody that's really interestedin understanding what's going on in that book.
The History of Now course is a recordedsession with 10 lectures, which is absolutely
critical to gain insight into how it works andhow you can help yourself reprogram your own
thinking about history and make your ownthinking present, centric.
And then the History of Tomorrow is the nextlevel.
Blair (47:14):
And those are all available through nobleworld.com.
Scott (47:17):
Those are available through Noble World.
Yeah.
All right.
And if anybody wants to reach out to me, Idon't know if you have notes or how exactly
the listing podcast goes, but you can.
You can just reach out to me at Mr. Powell.
M r p l o, Mr. Powelloworld dot com.
Anybody listening can just shoot me an emailif they want to follow up on that.
Blair (47:41):
That's great.
Thank you.
Scott (47:43):
Go.
Blair (47:43):
More quick things, if I may.
And then, Martin, you can.
You can have it.
But you still reading science fiction today at
all?Are you too busy or.
Scott (47:53):
Yeah, I mean, I do, but I'm writing science fiction, so I'm.
Yeah, yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you for the segue into that.
Right.
So thanks.
Blair (48:03):
That.
Martin (48:03):
I was thinking of asking that.
So that's good.
How many points are.
Scott (48:07):
Yeah, I mean, like I said, when I was younger, I loved Isaac Asimov, the robot
novels, the foundation series.
Those were my top favorites.
And so that's always kind of been in.
In the back, in.
In my deep, in my subconscious.
I reread them as adults multiple times.
As an adult multiple times.
And over the past, I'm gonna say, five to 10
(48:32):
years, I've just been taking notes andprepping to write my own novels.
I've got two novels planned, but now,actually, everything's changed.
The fourteen Points is probably actually gonnahave to be a trilogy because I've got so much
to write.
But that's the title of the novel that I'mwriting.
It's called the 14 points.
(48:52):
And the obvious source of the title of the
book is that Woodrow Wilson, announced in1918, made a proclamation that is known as the
Fourteen Points.
And it has to do with America becoming theworld police power, effectively.
Right.
And so, without spoiling too much, right.
(49:15):
In my time travel novel, that ain't gonnahappen.
And so there's going to be.
You know, one of the things I particularly
enjoyed about the foundation series was thateffectively, historians are the heroes.
They're psycho historians.
Okay, but they're historians, if you ask me.
(49:37):
And so Harry Seldon is a historian.
Right.
So historians are the heroes.
Well, in my novel, historians are the heroes.
So it's going to take a combination of abrilliant physicist And a brilliant historian
to figure out how to save the worldeffectively.
So anyway, anybody that's interested can justgo to the 14 points reading group on Facebook
(50:03):
and there's a trickle there.
It's. I'm just gonna pick up again.
I'm. And I've got the 14 points channel onYouTube where I'm talking about the way things
are going there.
And.
And the first chapter is available in thefirst draft.
I have to say it's being massively edited atthis point.
So. Because I'm not a natural fiction writerso I've got a lot of skills to develop and so
(50:31):
I'm really massively editing.
I've written 250 pages and I know that there'sa tremendous amount of work that needs to be
done to fix it up as a fiction story.
So.
So. But it's.
Yeah, it's still fun.
I still love science fiction, of course, andI'm hoping to make a science fiction
(50:51):
masterpiece, which is of course a tall orderfor a first novel.
But I'm gonna try to do it right off the bat.
Blair (50:59):
Wait for the fences, swing for the fence.
Martin (51:02):
Yeah, that's good.
Scott (51:03):
Waiting for the fence.
Martin (51:03):
Have you talked to Warren Fahey? We have had this guest.
He's writer.
Scott (51:10):
No, I have not.
So thank you for the mention.
I'll have to think about that.
Blair (51:14):
Yeah, I just let me throw in that this is my.
The gentleman named Jack Vance is my favoritescience fiction author and he wrote the first
book I ever read by him is still my favorite.
It was called in paperback, it's called To
Live Forever.
And the Kindle version is called Clarges,which is the city.
This all takes place in C L A R G E S. So Ihighly recommend that to you and Martin.
(51:41):
And let me nitpick a little bit more about.
One of the things that's always bothered meis.
Well, when I think about it, the division ofNorth Korea and South Korea, I don't think
that's ever gonna be united because the borderof North Korea is China.
And if it's going to be one way, it'llprobably be swallowed up.
(52:04):
But I hope that doesn't happen.
What do you any thought on that?
Because I. I have not gotten to yourself.
Scott (52:09):
Yeah, I mean I have a chapter on Korea in the History of Tomorrow.
And you know, basically, if you want the shortanswer, you know, the Korean quote unquote
unification process is the same thing as theMiddle east peace process.
These are total, you know, BS neologisms whichare never going to happen unless one side
(52:35):
Basically destroys the other.
And so, yeah, basically it's a, it's a just a
joke.
And so it's not going to happen.
The jucha ideology of North Korea is literally
the.
It's, it's not really communist, it's in fact
much more akin to Nazism than just aboutanything else in the world today.
(52:56):
And, and so it's a virulently ultranationalist ideology.
And there's another problem for Korea, andthat is that Korea, like Japan and now China,
is facing a demographic cliff.
And so this is a country which is going to
(53:18):
begin to strain rapidly.
And so if they don't get their act togetherand start procreating, they're in big trouble.
And so that's another factor over the nextcouple generations that these countries are in
big trouble.
And.
Yeah, so Korea, no unification.
No, that's not, that's not.
(53:38):
The only, the only possible thing is somethingcompletely unpredictable, like a coup within
the, you know, the highest ranking families inthe strangely ideological, you know,
aristocracy of North Korea.
But there's no reason to expect that thatwould produce any really positive results.
So. No, I don't see it.
(53:59):
I don't see it.
But basically, you know, North Korea is, ischeckmated.
Right.
There's nothing they can do.
They know that if they make the wrong move,they cease to exist.
So that's the story.
It's, there's really, there's almost nothing
to it.
It's tragic for the people there, but hey, if
they want better, they got to get their acttogether.
Blair (54:19):
All right, ladies and gentlemen, we've been talking to historian Scott Powell and he
has three great books out and he's working onfourth.
Scott, thanks for manning the foxhole with us.
Scott (54:34):
Been great.
Thank you.
Blair (54:36):
All right, Martin, you want to add anything?
Are you good or.
Martin (54:39):
I'm all.
I'm all set.
So we will do a follow up and we'll talk moreabout how to support your work, Scott, and
support our show.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com