Jim Fetzer - The Progressive Erasure of Western Civilization - Paul Craig Roberts - Dec 8, 2025

Dec. 11, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

01:02:54

The Progressive Erasure of Western Civilization - Paul Craig Roberts - Dec 8, 2025

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In everybody's mind, that they want to scrub their brain.
	So, Donald Trump's naked in the shower wearing his peace prize, okay?
	Just, God, almighty, this is this is so bizarre, but you know, the level of insecurity on display is quite remarkable.
	And there he is, Mr. Roberts.
	Hello, Larry.
	Welcome, Paul.
	Thank you, Paul.
	Did you see that FIFA they have invented a new prize?
	They call it peace prize to give it to Donald Trump.
	It's unbelievable.
	Yeah, I was we were watching that.
	Paul, before that clip, we were talking about how, because we know you remember that last time we talked, we were talking about you said that Israel is winning in the Middle East.
	You, your thing, your take is that Israel has done, has weakened, you know, the acts of resistance and they're winning.
	Looking at Doha, what has happened in Doha?
	And we had the former intelligence, the head of intelligence, Saudi intelligence, saying that Israel is the biggest threat to the Middle East.
	And I'm glad they finally realized that.
	Yeah.
	Do you think, Paul, after all, do you see Israel winning?
	Look, I'm not an expert on all of that.
	I didn't need to know everything because for a decade or longer, I was at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
	And my colleagues were Henry Kissinger, Brzezinski, James R. Schlesinger, Admiral Murray.
	So I had my own AI before AI existed.
	And I was mainly interested in economic things, all the offshore, the loss of jobs, the destruction of middle-class jobs, the destruction of the lattice of upward mobility, the destruction of the tax base of over-committed cities and democratic regimes.
	And so I was focused on that.
	And if I needed to do anything, I would see what my colleagues had to say because I figured they knew more than I did and had been part of this for years and years.
	And Schlesinger had been one of my former professors.
	So I don't really know, but what I see in the Middle East is that we spent 20 years destroying Arab countries that Israel regarded as constraints on greater Israel.
	And our destruction of so many Arab and Muslim countries has flooded the Western world with refugees.
	We overrun with people that we drove out of their own country with bombs and everything else.
	And so is Europe.
	And it's really a question: have we destroyed ourselves eventually by simply displacing white ethnic populations?
	So I would say that Israel has removed all possible opponents other than Iran.
	And Iran, of course, is not Arabic.
	So I would have to say Because we destroyed Israel's enemies under the guise of a war on terror.
	They were able to use American money and lives and weapons for two decades or longer to get rid of constraints on Israeli expansion.
	And now we have Israel in southern Syria.
	They say they're there to stay.
	We have Israel in Lebanon.
	Hezbollah has been greatly weakened because Syria has been lost and the flow of weapons into Hezbollah has to be restrained and money.
	And so I would say I don't know what's in the way of Israel.
	And no one has done anything about what they're doing in Gaza.
	Everyone's afraid to oppose them.
	It's hard to imagine many countries getting away with what Israel gets away with.
	So as long as that happens, what's the constraint on them?
	Who's constraining them?
	Nobody.
	The Russians don't.
	Putin doesn't.
	Nobody constrains them.
	There are no Arabs left that I know of.
	The Arab states that were in Libya and Iraq and Syria, they're gone.
	So anyhow, I don't really know, but that's just the impression I get.
	While we still have Larry, I'd like to ask him a question, if he doesn't mind.
	Sure.
	I want to know, Larry, what the importance is of the annual national security strategy.
	Is it an important document?
	Does it have authority?
	I know it came from Trump, but who usually prepares that?
	And what does it mean?
	Does this have any force behind it?
	Because if it does, it seems to me Trump has really achieved a big, important thing.
	And he's put the United States and the world on a different course.
	And that should be recognized.
	He should get credit for that.
	So I wanted to know, I figured you would know whether this is an important document or just something that people do.
	Yeah, in fact, Neima and I were talking about that at the very beginning of our interview.
	It is, I'm not sure who has the lead on drafting it.
	I would think that would come probably through the National Intelligence Council that they used to have the lead, I think, on drafting that.
	And when it's drafted, of course, you get the Defense Intelligence Agency weighs in and State Department INR weighs in.
	So you get all the different elements of the intelligence community come in.
	But it's also with some policy input.
	I think this one had a lot of input from Elbridge Colby, who is the Deputy Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of War now.
	He's the grandson of William Colby, who was director of the CIA that gave up the family jewels in 1976, 78.
	It's really a symbolic document.
	It always, I jokingly refer to it as it's one of the few instances in which the United States government can actually spell strategy, but in terms of actually having a strategy that they implement, you find it many times at odds.
	So it's not a document that actually dictates policy.
	It has the ability to say, okay, this is where our priorities are.
	And I used the analogy early on.
	This is, you know, this is like a couple that have been together for 70 years.
	And now the United States, who's the one partner in this, has come and told the other partner, Europe, you know what?
	I think we need to start seeing other people.
	It's sort of the start of a divorce, but I'm, you know, I was born and raised in Missouri.
	So you got to show me first that this is, is this just words on paper or is it going to be accompanied by action?
	And that's what I want to know.
	Yeah.
	And so when you go back and look at the strategy that Trump put on in paper in 2017 and the strategy that Biden put in place in 223, they usually end up being words on paper that don't actually translate into substantive policy.
	So what one follow-up question: it looks to me to be a document that's sort of a repudiation of the Wolfowitz doctrine of American hegemony.
	So how in the world did that get out of the government?
	I would have thought the neocons were still very much present in American foreign policy circles and certainly in the War Department and the State Department.
	I was wondering how did Colby get that out?
	And did he put himself at some kind of career risk and taking on the hegemony doctrine by doing that?
	I learned one of my first supervisors at the State Department taught me a very important lesson that when you're talking about a particular policy, and even if there's going to be a policy change, the key is you become the drafter.
	You draft the document.
	Because if you're the one who's actually written the key document that everybody's working from, then you can actually control the policy.
	So I think that that's what Colby, I think Colby actually got control of the process to be the one, the leading voice.
	And, you know, you know how the bureaucracy works.
	You know, it's sort of the corollary to the golden rule.
	You know, those with the gold get to make the rules.
	Those with the pen who are writing the document, they get to make the rules sort of too.
	Now, you're absolutely correct that the new strategy outlined in this document is, oh my God, we're divorcing Europe.
	And the neocon community is up in arms.
	The Europeans are having a meltdown.
	But, you know, let's see what they actually do.
	Is there going to be actual substance behind this?
	Or is this just going to turn out to be another government document produced that has great rhetorical flourishes?
	That's what I wanted to know.
	Yeah.
	So with that, I'm going to bow out and leave you guys to have the conversation.
	I mean, people line up.
	It does seem, though, that it seems to me encouraging now for the negotiations between Putin and Trump because he does say that We are avoiding, we are giving up this doctrine of hegemony and we want to reconcile Russia with the West.
	So this seems to me to imply hope for these negotiations for the first time.
	You agree with that?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, Russia's successes on the battlefield are bringing this about.
	And at least the Trump folks now recognize, okay, this party's over.
	We need to position ourselves.
	Yeah, that's why you saw Don Jr. and Doha.
	He got out the stick.
	It was just beating Zelensky up, you know, one side down the other, even though Zelensky wasn't there personally.
	There is no doubt that the Trump administration no longer thinks Vladimir Zelensky is a partner worth sticking with.
	So, hey, you guys have a great conversation.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Larry.
	Bye-bye.
	How's it going, Paul?
	Great.
	Paul, what is important, in your opinion, in this new document?
	This national security strategy.
	You remember during the Biden administration, they were talking about autocracy and democracies.
	And right now, the tone, as you've mentioned, has totally somehow changed.
	And how is that going to be helpful if they decide to implement what they're talking about in this document?
	Well, it gets us off the path to nuclear war.
	You know, you can't stay forever in conflict with a military power like Russia and continue provoking and attacking and causing all kinds of difficulties without the situation finally getting out of hand.
	And so it's like I said in my article this morning, if we can take this document seriously, then the Union of Atomic Scientists can move that the hand on the doomsday clock, which I now think is like a second or two to doomsday.
	They can move it back a couple of hours.
	And so this would be a huge achievement if we can get off of this path to nuclear war that we've been on ever since the Wolfowitz Doctrine was declared.
	And so by abandoning this war-prone document of hegemony or policy of hegemony, we've changed the course of the world.
	And Trump is emphasizing competitiveness, economic competitiveness between nations and giving up this claim that we can invade everybody in order to bring democracy.
	And we can bomb countries to bring democracy and overthrow countries to bring democracy.
	So this is an abandonment of the neoconservative policy that has been in place since, I think, 1991.
	So I see that as a huge, a huge change, if it means anything.
	That's why I wanted to question Larry because he pays more attention to that.
	It's more in line with his experience.
	Like I say, I didn't have to know.
	I had colleagues I could ask.
	And I see other very important things in there.
	He rejects the whole DEI process.
	He says if we don't have merit-based appointments and jobs, we'll be bypassed by countries that do.
	And it's correct.
	We are being bypassed.
	And I thought, too, it was an affirmation of there, and it is legitimate. to have ethnic nationalities.
	You don't have to be a tower of Babel in order to be justified.
	I thought this was very important.
	He was speaking of the cultural and spiritual health of the Western world.
	And to see that kind of important point brought out in a national security strategy, I thought was amazing.
	That's an extremely important development that we don't have to be some sort of multicultural tower of Babel in order to be justifiable.
	And that nationalism is justifiable.
	In fact, it's the only way you can have a country because the Tower of Babel is not a country.
	There are no common interests.
	There's no way to even have a common law.
	And we see this in the countries where the population has altered dramatically.
	There are now large numbers of Muslims.
	They're imposing a Sharia law.
	And we now see courts being accepted that rule on that basis, even though that's not the basis of the law of the country.
	So when the document speaks of European civilization being erased, that's exactly what's happening.
	It's what's happening.
	It struck me, we said that in 20 years or less, Europe will be unrecognizable.
	Well, that means the end of NATO.
	How do you have NATO when you don't have a nation?
	Well, you don't have a unity of nations.
	You've got a collection of what?
	Multicultural towers of Babel.
	These are not countries.
	So if this process of the Americans going in, bombing countries, driving all the people into the United States, all the people into Europe, all of those countries simply disappear.
	There won't be any Western world.
	There won't be any United States.
	I mean, just look at all of the publicity now coming out about the Somalis in Minnesota.
	The extraordinary scandals, the corruption, the way they raid federal payment systems and send the money abroad to terrorists.
	This is all in the news now.
	Minneapolis, a city, one city, the Biden regime located 80,000 Somalis there.
	Essentially taking over.
	So for this to be unrecognized for so long, and nobody dares mention it because you'll be called a racist or something or a nationalist today is a Nazi.
	If you believe in a national government, it means you're a Nazi.
	See, this is the way they've got the terms.
	This national security document looks at these problems in a realistic way and acknowledges.
	So these are far bigger threats to the West than Russia or China or Iran or any of the kind of excuses they create for massive armaments expenditures from which they rake off all kinds of commissions and all sorts of unaccountability.
	Anytime you are faced with a threat, you can hide all information simply by saying national security.
	You don't have to release anything.
	And the system just, it doesn't want to give up this extraordinary protection.
	But if you don't have a threat and you're carrying on illegally or badly, it's hard to say, oh, this is a national security matter.
	Well, what?
	What is the national security?
	Who's the threat?
	So getting rid of threats is not convenient for the powerfully established institutionalized forces that have used this for so many decades.
	So that's my take on it.
	Paul, when you mentioned, you know, the immigrants, those people who are not part of the culture, you know, the dominant culture of a country going there and they want to somehow make some sort of changes.
	But after all, look, you mentioned Somalia.
	Look at Somalia, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan.
	These countries were destroyed, were robbed.
	You know, in Syria, before the fall of Assad, who was stealing the oil of Syria and sending them to where?
	The United States.
	This is the problem, Paul.
	This is the problem.
	The root causes of all of these problems that you've mentioned is that the people have no conditions in their country to live.
	That's what I said.
	I said, we went there and bombed everybody and created floods of refugees.
	So it's a policy that comes back and destroys yourself.
	We shouldn't have done that.
	We did it for Israel.
	See, people don't really understand the true cost of the United States serving Israel.
	And the cost is it's flooded the entirety of the Western world, all of Europe, United States, Canada, with people who are not assimilated.
	And they're in such huge numbers, they can exist without having to be assimilated.
	And they come from countries where corruption is the norm.
	That's what they know.
	And that's what we see unfolding in Minneapolis.
	We're seeing these elements who basically milk federal programs, and the money leaves the country in briefcases, cash, in briefcases, and goes to terrorists abroad.
	So when you, a country that brings that on itself and its allies, I mean, it's completely stupid.
	And who benefited Israel?
	And who's paying the cost?
	All of Europe and the United States.
	And, oh, you can't say that.
	That's anti-Semitism.
	So you can't say the truth.
	Everyone's afraid to mention it.
	You can't discuss what's actually going on.
	Well, if you can't discuss what's actually going on, then you don't know what's going on and you don't even know what's going to happen to you next.
	So, you know, you don't need to be making excuses for these refugees needing somewhere to go.
	But it would have been much better to say you'd have been cheaper and no threat to the nationalities in Europe, in the United States, to have kept them there and rebuilt the country you destroyed.
	The cost of the welfare systems to support all these millions of refugees is huge, is huge.
	It had been cheaper simply to use that money and rebuild the countries and to use the labor of those people to rebuild the countries so they'd be paid good wages.
	That's what should have been done, not just remove all borders and be overrun.
	But it happened because of the liberal left.
	The liberal left has been attacking Western civilization for a long time.
	And essentially, if you go to a university any time since I went there, you just learn the West is evil and has to be replaced.
	That's just what the story is.
	And so all the influx of foreign people is just part of replacing the evil white supremacist, racist, explorative countries that need to be replaced.
	So there was no intellectual or ideological opposition to the overrunning of Western countries.
	And so being no opposition, it never occurred to anybody.
	Why don't we just rebuild their countries that we stupidly and evilly destroyed?
	That's what should have been done.
	And it would have been cheaper.
	You just think about all the bills hard-pressed taxpayers all over Europe, the United States, are paying to house people in hotels to provide medical care and to give them debit cards with money on it so they can provide for themselves.
	And it's an endless expense.
	And the scandals that are now developing.
	Paul, do you really believe that liberals are left or leftists?
	I don't see that.
	I don't see a combination of all, you know, right, left, and, you know, liberals are not left and right.
	They're somehow the center and they have everything in their hands.
	The liberals are.
	Left is not in power, Paul.
	We know that right is not in power as well.
	None of these two.
	I don't see the left has ever been in power in the United States.
	Oh, right.
	Regardless, I don't think those people who voted for Donald Trump are in power.
	Look, many of the liberal professors have written it was an article not too long ago in Chronicles that we didn't realize the danger from the left.
	We saw them as just bringing new ideas and we, we were interested because we've been doing the same thing for a long time and we thought having a few new ideas would enrich the place and we let them in and we were foolish because they took over and drove us out.
	I'm certain uh, they totally controlled universities and the left in terms of the ideas it has successfully propagated that white people are racist and that Western civilization is evil and bad.
	This has been institutionalized and teaching for as long as I can remember.
	I remember when I was at Stanford University, two of my colleagues at the Hoover Institution, Lewis Gann and, I forget that name for the moment, they wrote a book, Verdon of Empire, which was an effort to counter the overwhelming argument that everything white people had ever done.
	done outside their country was motivated by the worst kinds of intentions, and so on and so on, and and they said, well, actually there never was uh, any policy like this, that the empires were in many sense accidents, products of private individuals, private companies like India took over,
	was taken over by private company.
	These were not.
	And that attributing all these policies to some kind of a scheme to oppress dark-skinned people is is nonsense.
	So, and that was uh, that was around 1970, so we talk about 55 years ago.
	Uh, they felt they had to come to the defense of the truth about what is the real colonial experience and and of course, they were, you know, demonized.
	So it's been like that for a long time.
	How, how is how?
	How, in my opinion, what's going on in the United States?
	Who's going to benefit from these immigrants there?
	They're cheap laborers for the oligarchs in the United States, for the you know big uh, companies.
	You know they're not Paul, one of the basic, one of the most important uh, one of the biggest issues of today's Us the, the situation in the United States and the economy is, how did all these jobs were, you know, moved to China?
	Who did that?
	It was the left.
	Do you really think that?
	Do we have any left and right, after all?
	I don't see left and right.
	I don't see that, because look at what the situation you you mentioned israel.
	There are people, you know, progressives and people Maga.
	They're mostly united in the policy of their thinking of in the Middle East.
	But who cares about these people, you know?
	That's why I don't see the people You know, to be left and right, dividing the people, that's going to help any sort of logic in terms of how to deal with the issues in the United States.
	You know, we have some sort of military-industrial complex in the United States, hand in hand with Wall Street and those oligarchs.
	They're doing everything, you know, going a military-industrial complex doing the wars outside of the United States.
	Basically, they're behind each and every war outside of the United States.
	And those people who are coming into the United States, they're mostly cheap laborers for the oligarchs.
	Is that the case?
	Don't you think that's happening in the United States?
	No, that's not the case.
	The oligarchs don't need, let's see, how many people were let in during Biden's four years?
	Was it 14 million?
	14 million people in?
	The oligarchs have no need for 14 million laborers.
	There's been no growth in U.S. manufacturing jobs in as long as I can remember.
	And everywhere labor is being discharged.
	It's hardly even present in agriculture unless it's fruit and vegetables that have to be picked.
	But now they basically use machines.
	No, that's a false claim advanced in behalf of watering down the ethnic-based populations.
	And as for oligarchs, well, these people exist, but they're not united.
	Each industry has its oligarchs.
	And in some cases, industries are united behind the policy.
	In other cases, they're opposed to each other about a policy.
	And so there's not some oligarch organization calling all these shots.
	They influence things through their political contributions and the influence on this senator and that senator and these congressmen and so on.
	And on any kind of revolving door situation they can create between their own employment and federal regulatory agencies like Big Pharma.
	Big Pharma controlled the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC, the NIH, for years.
	They controlled them totally.
	And so these regulatory agencies that were supposed to be protecting the public were simply marketing agents for big pharma's products.
	And you see how the big pharma's influence goes into the medical schools the same way and into the medical journals because they finance the research.
	And so you have to look at it that way.
	There's not just some oligarch organization calling shots.
	The offshoreing of jobs, this was imposed by Wall Street.
	And it was because they wanted more profits.
	And they would tell a manufacturing company, you need to meet the Chinese price.
	And that was the way of them saying that you've got to get your labor cost down to the Chinese level.
	And the only way you could do that would be by dismissing your labor force, closing your facilities in the United States, building them in China and hiring Chinese labor.
	And at one time, the difference in wages was dramatic.
	And so it produced enormous profitability.
	And of course, that pleased the corporate executives as well because Congress had imposed a limit on how much you could pay an executive and the salary still be considered a business expense.
	You couldn't pay them more than a million dollars unless it was performance related.
	And then they got amazing bonuses, many multiples of their salaries.
	And what did it mean performance-based?
	It meant that you had lowered, you had raised profits.
	And so everything started turning on raising profits.
	So we lost an industrial labor force.
	We lost the industrial unions that used to provide political balance and so on.
	I can go on at length about this.
	I wrote a book, and there's a lot of it's in the book.
	So to get back to your point about the left not having any influence and the liberals not being left, you will always find the liberals will align.
	Well, I would say in 90% of the cases, liberals will align with the left against the right, or they will very seldom align with the right.
	And it was the liberals who misunderstood the intentions of the left, who let them take over education.
	And so now we have law schools who teach the law students that the Constitution is in the way of progress and that your function as a lawyer is to use law as a weapon to revolutionize society.
	This is what they're taught.
	We have the same thing in journalism schools.
	They're told your job is not to report objectively.
	Your job is to create narratives that help the restructuring of life toward a time of Babel.
	So, and this is what they do.
	I mean, this is why we don't have a media.
	We have people telling us narratives.
	And the narrative is always against the West.
	It's against Western civilization.
	You see it everywhere.
	And now it is even apparent in the national security strategy.
	They recognize that this has been going on.
	And this is a threat.
	You can't exist as a country if the encultration system is teaching you guilt and destroying self-belief.
	So once the belief is destroyed and you're full of guilt, how do you have a country?
	You don't.
	You don't have one.
	If you don't have any pride in achievements and you've lost self-respect because you're a white racist and an explorer, the country's lost.
	This is an attack that's been going on for decades.
	And what were the conservatives worried about?
	Oh, the Soviet threat.
	It was meniscule compared to the internal threat from the left.
	And the universities today bear no resemblance to the universities I taught in.
	I wouldn't go near a university today.
	There's nothing.
	I wouldn't even go to give a speech or a lecture.
	There's nothing could get me anywhere near a university, an American university or a British university.
	Nothing.
	They have nothing whatsoever to do with truth or scholarship.
	I don't think scholarship any longer exists.
	It's all a narrative in service to an agenda.
	And the agenda is anti-Western civilization.
	That's the ruling agenda in the universities of the West.
	I've written so many articles demonstrating it, showing it.
	Example after example.
	There's no doubt about it.
	The best print publication in the United States is the City Journal.
	Paul, if that's the case, who's doing this?
	Who's behind the scene doing this?
	It's a consequence of the structure of ideas.
	It's a very long, complicated story.
	I wouldn't attempt right now on the spur of the moment to try to give it to you.
	But it's a consequence of the way certain ideas in the Western tradition unfolded.
	And so it doesn't mean there's some kind of an organized group there controlling it, pushing buttons.
	It works on its own.
	It's just the consequence.
	It's the logical consequence of a set of ideas as they unfold.
	And that's all I can say about it at this time.
	I haven't lectured on that in a long time.
	I would have to go and make a preparation and figure out how to explain to people who otherwise wouldn't have any idea what I was talking about.
	It's quite a piece of intellectual work to do that.
	And your audience for that is limited.
	So, but if you don't think the West is under attack, there's a lot of things that I don't see how you can explain.
	Why do we have leftist Democrats and blue states organized to prevent the federal government from deporting illegal aliens?
	They actually even use violence to prevent this.
	They pass laws to prevent it.
	So here you see state and local elected Democrat officials taking the side of people who have illegally entered the United States against the government of the United States.
	So we have the Democrats lined up with the people who've broken the law, entered illegally, and are fighting for them against the federal government.
	Well, how does that come about?
	This is insurrection and nothing can be done about it.
	Why?
	Because of the strength of the liberal left.
	There's no support in the media for doing anything about it.
	There's no support among the intellectuals for doing anything about it.
	Clearly, the Democratic Party want it.
	Why?
	Because they have been indoctrinated for half a century that white people are evil and that racism will exist as long as white people exist.
	And so you have to replace them.
	And this is their policy.
	It's what they're doing and have been doing.
	And look at the enormous opposition to Trump doing his first term, to building a wall.
	He couldn't even get a wall.
	He's president of the United States.
	He can't get Congress to supply the money to build a wall so that we can have a border.
	Now, what other country allows this?
	Does Iran allow all the people from Syria and Iraq and Libya?
	Actually, they did that to Iran, Paul, to be honest.
	Does Iran allow them to come in?
	No.
	They did that to Iran, Paul.
	They did that to Iran.
	You know, one of the, you know, the Israeli attack on Iran actually was somehow assisted by these immigrants, undocumented immigrants in Iran.
	They have prepared these people.
	They made it network in Iran to facilitate why they were trying to do these terrorist attacks on Iran before, you know, with the 12-day war against Iran.
	They're doing this everywhere, Paul.
	Let's ask the question.
	Why is Israel so opposed to Iran?
	Because the only country that exists in that region, in my opinion, we have two countries, two important countries, by the way.
	We have Turkey and Iran.
	Turkey is not that much of a problem for Israel because they try to, you know, negotiate.
	They try to talk with Israelis when it comes to the case of Gaza and Palestine, but Iran doesn't negotiate.
	Iran doesn't want, you know, Iran's official policy is to support Palestinians.
	They're not going to compromise and cooperate on any, you know, they don't want to let Israel to capture to dominate the region.
	That's the main point on the part of Iranians, even in Doha.
	You see the tone how somehow has changed, Paul.
	You know, even Arabs said, you've mentioned the Arabs, Saudi Arabia is talking about, Qatar is talking about, you know, without Iran, they feel it because they were attacked.
	You know, when they see Israel after ceasefire, Israel is attacking Lebanon, Syria.
	Syria, the new, you know, HTS was put in Syria by CIA.
	And after all, they're attacking Syria.
	You know, with the case of Gaza, the case of the West Bank, it's not about Iran, Paul.
	You know, Israel is trying to somehow manipulate the whole region, and there is no force against what they're doing, but Iran.
	That's the problem with Iran.
	I don't see any because for such a long time, I was asking myself why there is no good relationship between Iran and the United States.
	What's the problem?
	I think the both parties would benefit from any sort of agreement in the Middle East.
	And the only reason Iran is Israel and nothing more than that.
	Well, the Israel lobby is far more powerful than Iran.
	That's correct.
	You see, the Israelis have no problem acting in their self-interest.
	You can't make claims about Israelis that you can about Western civilization, because that would be anti-Semitic.
	But you can say whatever you want about white people, and it's not, there's no consequence that there's no way you can be discredited as a hater or something like that.
	So it's open season on white people and white civilization, but you can't even criticize Israel for genocide.
	And so we have these kinds of situations that immobilize Western civilization.
	You can't even defend, a white person can't even defend himself against some charge because that proves he's a racist.
	So when you have what was once the most important part of the world debilitated to the extent can't even defend itself without being called further names,
	you can see how ideas can undo you even more effectively than military conquests.
	So, but I don't know exactly how I got into this, but as far as I can tell, in many aspects, liberals are displaced.
	And if you look at the immigrant greater invaders who are now serving as Democratic members in Congress and as prosecutors and judges and state and local governments, they're very assertive in any sort of normal situation.
	They behave outrageously and yet nothing is done to discipline them.
	No white person could behave that way in those offices.
	So we can see that they're quickly gaining power, they're quickly acquiring power.
	And it's a power that's hostile to the host country.
	And so it should be recognized.
	People should be aware.
	There should be some way of being confident that this exists and that it's a threat.
	And yet it's not remarked.
	But Trump in his national security strategy speaks about the erasure of Western civilization, of Europe, just being erased.
	And of course, this is what the French novelist Jean Rospet made clear would happen in his 1973 book, The Camp of the Saints.
	He says, The West is finished.
	It's gone.
	It's just a matter of time.
	And it certainly looks like he was right.
	But in the meantime, why don't we, maybe you and Larry exhausted the national security strategy by Trump.
	I don't know.
	But it seems to me to be hopeful if it has any influence.
	In other words, if it translates into the so-called peace negotiations about Ukraine between Putin and Trump, it implies that Trump will see the attractiveness of Putin's proposals and that this is the way to end it consistent with Trump's national security strategy.
	But who knows?
	As we've said many times, presidents aren't all that powerful.
	And it takes a movement.
	And the question is, how committed to this strategy would Trump's government be?
	That's why I was asking Larry where did Trump fall?
	Well, if you just look at the books that are published, the articles that are written, the curriculums and the universities, you do not find affirmative statements about Western civilization.
	You just don't find them.
	They're gone.
	You find white fragility.
	And the person who wrote that now has written a book about nice racism.
	That even progressive Democrats are racist, but they try to be nice about it.
	So, in other words, there's nothing a white person can do to not be guilty of racism.
	And This idea has completely taken control of the liberal left.
	It's completely.
	That's their idea.
	And everything reflects it.
	So the effect is to destroy the confidence of white people.
	And over time, they kind of get demoted.
	They don't have the same protections in law.
	And look, just the other day, a person, an immigrant invader who had stabbed a guy on a train several times, was arrested for whatever the charge, attempted murder or something, put on trial.
	And there was no doubt about the evidence.
	All the video cameras, it was all shown.
	The stabbed guy had done nothing.
	He was white.
	The black guy that had stabbed him, he clearly stabbed him, unprovoked.
	Just another deranged person like seems to happen continually, day after day, on the trains and subways.
	And the jury let the guy go because after the white man was stabbed like this, he used the N-word.
	He called the guy who stabbed him.
	He used the forbidden N-word.
	So the fact that he responded after he stabbed with the N-word, the white jury thought that this was unacceptable.
	And so they released, they found the stabber non-guilty.
	Now there you see a form of legal privilege for non-whites being instituted in the criminal justice system.
	The jury wouldn't convict the black guy because the white guy after being stabbed called the black guy a name.
	Now this actually happened.
	This just recently happened.
	Well, what does that tell you?
	It tells you we are developing a multi-tiered system of justice.
	There's no longer equality under the law.
	There is a different justice system based on race, on claimed gender.
	For example, if a guy claims he's a woman, then the system imposes him on female privacy.
	He has access to their toilets, to their showers, to their sports teams.
	If I were to claim I'm a woman, I would have that access.
	But if I'm a man and don't claim that, I don't have it.
	So this is not equality under the law.
	There's an endless number of these.
	Your rights depend on your declared sexual preference, your declared gender, your race.
	You can discriminate against white people in a university admission and employment and promotion, but you cannot discriminate against black people on those grounds.
	You can discriminate against males on those grounds, but not against females on those grounds.
	So the whole notion of a system of law under which everyone lives equally is being erased.
	And the law schools are in favor of it and are leading the way.
	So you reach the point, Nima, where the question is, does Western civilization even exist?
	Because one of the attributes of Western civilization is equality under the law.
	And yet, who's erasing it?
	The white liberal left.
	It's erased.
	You can look at every Western, every institution that's associated with Western civilization, and it's being erased.
	None are being built.
	They're all being erased.
	Function of the media is not to tell the truth.
	Indeed, telling the truth can be hurtful.
	It can be offensive.
	If you can't tell the truth, how do you have justice?
	If you can't have justice, what do we got?
	So this is a very serious thing.
	It's got nothing to do with oligarchs wanting people to work, having people come in.
	Look, I just read an article today about Jeffries, and he says, I'm a white male.
	How can I get a job?
	You have to read it.
	He goes through, you can't get a job.
	You can't even get an interview.
	He said, what is this talk about?
	Nobody will work.
	It's all made up.
	So they make up things so they don't have to face what the real problem is.
	So, well, they won't work.
	White people won't work.
	So we have to have all these.
	It's just, but why don't they work?
	Well, because they can't get a job.
	You know, they don't enjoy living in their parents' basement when they're 30 years old.
	So I think we have to understand that the entire structure of Western civilization is extremely fragile at the present time.
	And it seems like it's made more fragile every day.
	Yeah.
	Thank you so much, Paul.
	Great pleasure.
	Always.
	It's always, it's your fault.
	You provoked me.
	Yeah, I think we have to understand we have to talk to each other.
	After all, it doesn't, you know, we don't have to agree with each other, but we have to understand each other.
	We have to talk to each other.
	It's important, in my opinion.
	Yeah, you perform a very important function.
	And I look forward to it.
	I like to be provoked.
	It makes me think about things that I haven't thought about because I'm thinking about something else.
	Yeah.
	Thank you so much, Paul.
	Thank you, Dan.
	See you soon.
	Goodbye.
	Send me the URL.
	I'm going to send it either way.
	Okay.

▲