Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 8, 2020 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

01:32:50

Podcast Number 200!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the latest episode of Radio Renaissance.
	Not only is this the latest episode, it is the 200th episode.
	Time does fly.
	Time waits for no man.
	Time waits for no episode of a podcast.
	And this isn't just any old 200th.
	This is a 200th that we will celebrate By inviting as a special guest Gregory Hood.
	Those of you who are not only listeners of our podcast but also come to our website know that Greg Hood is our star staff writer and it's my pleasure to have him on the program.
	There were, oh, a year or two ago, maybe more than that, I was asked to blurb a book that he had written.
	And what I wrote was, Greg Hood is unquestionably the best young writer in our movement.
	Heck, he may be the best writer, period.
	And that is what I continue to believe.
	It is a pleasure to have you with us, Mr. Hood.
	Delighted you could join us.
	Good to be here, sir.
	Great.
	One of the first things that I wanted to ask you about was a piece of good news, actually.
	President Trump has ordered the entire government to stop using these anti-white sensitivity and inclusion instructors.
	That's an across-the-board order.
	We'll see if it's actually implemented.
	The left will probably try to attack it in court in some way.
	But tell us your views about that.
	Well, one thing that's been pretty enlightening about the way the Trump administration has gone is while the press has been calling it white nationalists, white supremacists, making all sorts of ridiculous claims, when it comes to actually funding people, the Trump administration has actually funded people like Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility.
	Needless to say, American Renaissance has not received any federal money, and we're not doing trainings at the Department of Homeland Security or anything like that.
	There was a campaign on Twitter basically to get the president to defund these programs.
	And when he finally went and did it, it's interesting how NPR and the New York Times and these other groups are covering it where they're saying Trump is cutting these programs that are designed to fight white supremacy.
	And you see how quickly it shifts because They know most people won't look past the headlines.
	I know most people won't look very deeply into what is critical race theory, because when you actually get into critical race theory, very few people outside academia are going to say this is a sustainable way for society to function.
	But if you say, well, it's just about fighting racism and this and the other thing, then this is going to be another talking point.
	That people out there are going to use to accuse President Trump of racism.
	Yes, it all seems to depend on how words are used.
	If Black Lives Matter is fighting racism, and fighting racism is the most important moral campaign in our lifetimes, then just about anything Black Lives Matter does is fine.
	Whether it's looting, rioting, or arson.
	Right.
	And likewise here, if something is in fact fighting racism, and it's teaching government employees And government employees were, of course, one of those institutions that has systematically oppressed blacks ever since the year Dot.
	Well, it's got to be a good thing.
	Right.
	But yes, who was this guy on Twitter who was exposing the content?
	I can't remember his name.
	I believe it was James Lindsay, I think was his name.
	Perhaps so.
	but he did a great job of actually getting slides used in these presentations.
	And he was getting that leak to him from somebody.
	There were sources on the inside.
	And this is, we've seen some of this even with private sector scandals
	like what happened with Google.
	Alan Bakari over at Breitbart will occasionally publish stuff.
	He's got a book coming out this month with stuff from the tech companies.
	And people are there and they're getting this information and they're leaking it out to the outside.
	And for any of you guys out there who are forced to sit in one of these things in corporate America, I would suggest not doing what some people on Twitter advocate and trying to argue back.
	I think it would be far better for you to sit there quietly, but get as much material as you can and promote it.
	Because that's the best way to combat it.
	If you can discreetly photograph some of the materials they're handing out, some of the things that this guy on Twitter was pointing out were just the standard talking points for critical race theory, namely that every one of us, every white person, basically by breathing the air, simply by existing, is supporting white supremacy.
	Right.
	You and I are doing this without moving a muscle, without saying a word.
	Which is to me typified by this absolutely idiotic and astonishing line.
	White silence is violence.
	By doing nothing, we're committing acts of violence.
	But this kind of thing is what's being taught by the government.
	And as you say, the federal government is paying people like Robin DiAngelo One of the worst con men around for a long time, it seems to me.
	They're paying her to fill this kind of propaganda into the minds of people who you and I support with our tax dollars.
	So, I think it's great to get these people out of business.
	But as you say, to the extent that this can be known to the world at large.
	It's great.
	And I agree 100% with you, Mr. Hood, that when people find out, if they can let it be known.
	And actually, Amran is a perfectly good place to send this information, among many others.
	If you're out there, if you get something, a lot of people say, you know, how can I fight back?
	I feel oppressed at work.
	I feel that there's nothing that can be done.
	This is one of the things you can do.
	And this is in fact, one of the best things you can do.
	I would add that some of the best material that American Renaissance has ever published is first-person accounts by people who encounter race in a way that most of us never will.
	Cops, teachers, yeah.
	Yes, teachers, policemen, people in prison.
	These are folks who have really seen it firsthand and who are explaining things in a way that just has the ring of such truth.
	So, this stuff is really great.
	But we are, and you've pointed this out yourself, We are at a point where the vast majority of American institutions, practically without exception, accepts the basic tenets of critical race theory, namely that all white people are involved in this, whether we want to be or not.
	And it's in the legal system now, too.
	Critical race, I think it's called critical legal theory or critical race legal theory.
	That's also been working its way through the law schools.
	And at that point, things start getting truly dangerous because even the pretense of an objective rule of law is abandoned.
	As you may have seen and we had an article about this I believe by Robert Hampton about a defendant who was recently released from jail because they said he was falsely convicted of murder.
	In fact, it was several juries who had convicted him but the Supreme Court essentially ruled that or several courts ruled that he didn't get a fair trial because he didn't have enough black jurors.
	Right.
	And so now we're getting to a point where if you don't have enough of a certain group on a jury, That verdict no longer applies.
	If we're at a point where any kind of racism exists, and again, as you say, it exists just by us doing anything, then any kind of objective knowledge is impossible.
	They talk about decolonializing mathematics, decolonializing science.
	And you have to ask yourself, you know, can a society function when everything is being broken down into utter entropy?
	Exactly.
	If 2 plus 2 equals 4 is white supremacy, and there are some people who are prepared to at least raise the question.
	There was quite a thread on that, yeah.
	Thousands and thousands of likes and, you know, all sorts of explanations about how this is actually true.
	2 plus 2 can equal 5 if it's in the interest of equality and everything else.
	That's right.
	There is simply no way you can run a society on this basis.
	Unfortunately, in their daily lives, most whites, and in fact most blacks for that matter, operate on the assumption that 2 plus 2 is 4.
	Right.
	And for the most part, they realize that a white policeman driving by is not just looking for an opportunity to shoot them.
	If they really believed this stuff, they'd stay home, they would never talk back to police officers.
	Everyone understands at some basic level that no police officer is just looking around for some black guy to shoot.
	Everybody understands this, but this is a kind of mass insanity that swept the country in a way that after a career of 30 years of looking at race relations in the United States with a certain amount of interest, and I like to think a certain amount of I actually would have to say I'm not surprised.
	I'm actually shocked it hasn't happened earlier.
	I've always thought that the, for lack of a better term, the hard left, the Altarians have been pushing on an open door.
	I think it was Andrew Sullivan who said not too long ago that we're all living on campus now.
	And when people say, well, how did you get to your current position?
	I mean, you have to, if you're under a certain age, you were brought up thinking that Martin Luther King was the greatest American who ever lives.
	You were brought up thinking that racism is the worst sin ever.
	Nobody is brought into this thinking, oh, this is great.
	I'm, I'm a white guy and it's so great to be a white guy.
	I think a lot of people have no sense of racial identity until it's forced on you.
	And basically where that happens is on the college campus.
	And you know, you can react one of two ways.
	You can either accept it or resist it.
	And I think most people will accept it to go along to get along.
	But to me, it is still a surprise.
	The post George Floyd America is to me, qualitatively different from the pre George Floyd America.
	And I would say in, In a number of ways.
	One, for example, the fact that institutions and retail chains that have been looted, instead of raging into looters, give hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions, over a billion dollars to the organizations that support Black Lives Matter, or Black Lives Matter itself.
	And the other is that this time there are, unlike any race riot so far, there are white people out there.
	Lots of white people.
	An embarrassing number of white people.
	And in the places that are really keeping it up, Seattle and Portland.
	Overwhelmingly white, these places.
	The people who are doing the worst.
	This to me is a brand new thing.
	I just did not... And all of the media, the corporations, everyone, everyone is insisting on Black Lives Matter.
	The point that if you are not... Even Mitt Romney.
	No, I'm not surprised by Mitt Romney.
	But I am surprised that basically across the board, this is now a... It is an established fact.
	If you do not Punch your fist in the air and say Black Lives Matter, then you're a white supremacist, then you're evil, then you're in the way.
	This is a surprise to me.
	Why, in your view, I mean, I suppose I know the answer then, if you believe that so many people have been propagandized this way to the point that they really are zombies and lemmings, but why don't white people fight back against this?
	I think it's a bit more complicated than just being zombies and lemmings.
	I mean, one, I will say platform control, and I would define it in such crude terms as platform control, almost as Is now what it meant a hundred years ago to be control of coal or oil resources.
	If you were a military power, it's just a raw thing.
	And once you have it, you can force down whatever narrative you're trying to push and people will take it.
	At least I think a large percentage of people will take it.
	But there's also, you know, belief and fear often go together.
	And when people say the fear of God, that's also another way of saying belief in God.
	And I think that a lot of whites out there and probably a lot of blacks who are looking at their own communities being destroyed and thinking, you know, this isn't something I want to go along with.
	There's also this fear of resisting it.
	And sometimes I think you more fanatically attach yourself to something that you're afraid of.
	We saw this recently with the latest piece I submitted to you with this Jewish professor who claimed to be both black and Hispanic.
	Well, depending on the circumstances.
	Yeah, depending on the circumstances.
	Professor Krug.
	Yes, yes.
	And, you know, it's especially surprising in this case because it was such an obvious fraud that she would almost intimidate people into silence by being more militant and accusing them of being traitors.
	And I don't think it's just the simple thing of, well, she wanted to make money or this was good for her career or whatever else.
	I think it was also This is how I can define myself, this is how I can be a crusader, this is how I give meaning to my life.
	Well, there's certainly that, but I think you have your finger on an important point that had not occurred to me quite the way you put it, and that is, by being militantly anti-racist, In a time when racism is the crowning sin, then that distinctly puts you on the side of the angels.
	How can you be a perpetrator of racism if you're denouncing it and if you're hounding people as viciously as you are?
	Right.
	I think that that's an important safeguard that puts a measure of distance between you and all possible interpretation of racism.
	And it is a temporary protection because, I mean, even now you're seeing people go after Robin DiAngelo who, I believe, owns like five houses and certainly has made quite a bit of
	money, and they're saying, well, wait a minute, aren't you just capitalizing on what
	other people are doing?
	There have been a number of, from progressive publications, things going after Sean King,
	whose own racial identity, let us say, is debatable.
	And there are people who are saying it's going to keep going.
	So now you have black men are accused of not being sufficiently attentive to the interests
	of black trans and then this builds on something else.
	Like it ultimately consumes itself, but that happens over a fair bit of time.
	So if you take the most militant thing individually, you do have that protection.
	And I think that I wouldn't underestimate the ability of the average person to, for double thing, for two contradictory ideas in their own mind.
	For example, I have no doubt that the Portland mayor sincerely blames President Trump for everything that's going wrong in his city and thinks that he is the cause of all evil in the world, even though he's running away from these protesters and leaving his own place and begging his neighbors not to go after him.
	Let me try to imagine what would be the thought process of a guy like him.
	It would be this.
	Donald Trump has stirred up racial hatred.
	It is because of Donald Trump that we have such things as the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery.
	It's because of Donald Trump that we have the death of George Floyd and this Jacob Blake guy.
	All of these things somehow can be laid at the feet of Donald Trump as if he somehow by hypnosis caused these police officers or caused the McGregor father and son to shoot Ahmaud Arbery.
	Somehow, he has caused this to happen.
	And as a result of this, that the people of his city are rising up in righteous, legitimate rage, but they've gone a little too far.
	Right.
	My guess is that's the way he would put it if asked, okay, give us a timeline or a causation effect.
	A causes B, causes C, causes D, and now you're in this trouble.
	Where, in what way is Trump stationed at point A?
	That's my guess as to what he would say.
	But maybe that's assuming he actually believes it.
	I think most people don't logically think through their ideology.
	It's more of a gut thing, but I think you're right in that.
	And this, I also think, is why a lot of white seniors are going to be pulling the lever for Biden, is they may not have thought through fully what's happening.
	They may not have investigated, well, who's behind these riots, who's funding it, who's benefiting from it.
	But they know this.
	They know that things weren't so crazy before Trump got in.
	And if we pull the lever for Biden, somehow things will go back to normal.
	And this is essentially Biden's case, where he basically said, does anyone believe America will become less violent if President Trump stays in office?
	It's basically a threat.
	I mean, it's sort of the kind of tactic that college campuses use, even when like some
	college Republican group wants to bring in some moderate speaker and the leftists threaten
	a riot and then the college says, okay, college Republicans, you owe us half a million dollars
	for the security costs because ultimately this is your fault.
	It reminds me of the way the gun, the drug gangs in Mexico operate.
	Unless you pay us money, you're going to have hell to pay.
	We're going to burn down your store.
	Nice business you have there.
	It'd be a shame if something happened to it.
	Yes, it'd be a terrible shame.
	Yes, nice business you have.
	It's the mafia.
	It's the way all of these groups act when there's utter lawlessness.
	It's a shakedown.
	Vote for me and you'll get peace.
	Vote for the other guy, and the guys who really like me will make your country a wreck.
	But, you know, there are two different arguments.
	One is, we have to vote for Donald Trump because he's the only one who will tamp down the violence.
	Well, he hasn't done a thing, as far as I can tell.
	He's made a lot of, he's emitted a lot of hot air.
	He has sent a few federal guys here and there, but ultimately, it's a state and local responsibility to maintain the peace, unless there's an absolute insurrection, unless the local guys say, bring in the troops.
	There are things he can do.
	There are, and I did see a statistic the other day, 30 states, 30 states mobilize the National Guard.
	That's a pretty significant number.
	And those are ultimately a federal force.
	But still, I think you could almost make the stronger argument, get Biden back in, And all these wild things will settle down.
	And of course, what happens when we get the next George Floyd?
	Or the next Michael Brown?
	Well, yeah, that was under, right, and that was the thing is this really started during Barack Obama's second term.
	Ferguson was the great awokening, as people have called it, if you look at when these attitudes started to change.
	It was before Trump.
	That's right.
	And it's really a function more of social media.
	And also, I think, I would argue that there was never a time in American history where journalists have been politically neutral.
	I would argue that journalism is always a tactic, not a profession.
	But I think there was at least an implied code of, you report the facts, and there was an implied code of, we're going to at least give the appearance of balance.
	And they really have kind of taken the mask off now.
	If you took the New York Times of today, And showed it to somebody 10 years ago.
	They would say, this is embarrassing.
	This isn't journalism.
	Whole news cycles dominated based on anonymous sources.
	Well, who are these sources?
	Well, we're not going to tell you.
	Well, I mean, then that could be anything.
	And the utterly partisan way in which Trump's policies are described or those of Trump's enemies are described.
	I remember I had a conversation A couple of months ago, the guy, he'd been with the Reader's Digest for a long time.
	Now, the Reader's Digest, believe it or not, had for years a very, very thorough fact-checking organization.
	I actually worked as a fact-checker for the Reader's Digest for a while.
	And if this was something that we could check with a published source, we had to have three independent published sources to check it.
	And if an author Quoted someone.
	We had to get a hold of that person and say, did you in fact use these very words?
	Right.
	And it was a very thorough thing.
	I was astonished how thorough it was.
	Well, in any case, this fellow was an executive with the Reader's Digest, and he was just shaking his head at the way journalism operates today.
	He said, for example, the way the newspaper record treats me, Jared Taylor, They would say, white supremacist Jared Taylor, blah, blah, blah.
	It's just, in the old days, at the very least, if you wanted to link the idea of Jared Taylor to white supremacist, you would at least say, you'd at least quote someone who says, I consider him a white supremacist.
	But no.
	And it wouldn't be an anonymous source.
	It wouldn't be this guy who said this.
	But this is the voice of the times.
	White supremacist Jared Taylor.
	He says that is just a tiny example of something we see everywhere in the press and I agree 100%.
	Now I do think that maybe I'm romanticizing the past but in a time when a nation is not so radically divided As perhaps in the 1950s, and even in the early part of the 1960s, the idea was to simply explain what happened.
	And journalism is officially supposed to do that.
	But I recall one timesman, at one point, it was while the campaign was going on, he came right out and said in one of his newspaper columns, the time is over now.
	Yes, I remember which one you're talking about.
	I wish I could remember his name, but he said, you know, we have to save the republic.
	We're in a fight against fascism.
	Yeah.
	And all bets are off.
	And they also, to some extent, you question how much they believe their own propaganda.
	Certainly some of them do.
	I mean, the big thing about it was obviously the Russia thing.
	And this is another example of how the media lies without fully lying, where they'll say,
	well, Russian meddling.
	Lies, lies.
	Right.
	But they'll say Russian meddling, and you could say, well, Russia interfered with the
	election and everything else.
	And then you get into the details and you see what they were doing.
	And it's OK.
	They use the Twitter account and some other stuff.
	Tiny stuff.
	But right.
	There was a very large percentage of registered Democrats, and I believe this poll is dated
	now, but they believed Russia literally went in there and changed the votes on the machines.
	Now, nobody had said that.
	Nobody.
	I mean, that would be insane.
	People, if you keep suggesting this stuff, people are going to take it to its logical conclusion and run with it.
	There is a certain consequence of talking about this serious meddling.
	And when people think of serious meddling in an election, they don't think of a couple of anonymous Twitter accounts.
	What they think of is somehow falsifying the operations of a voter.
	And so if the headline says Syria, and they're trying to do it again, you really don't have to whisper this imaginary fact into their ear.
	It gets in there just because it seems like the only logical thing.
	It's the implication, right.
	Yes, it's the implication.
	But no, see, I don't call that lying.
	It may be deceptive, but if they came right out and said, and yes, the Russians by telecommunications or by fiddling with voting machines, they diverted 300,000 votes from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
	If they said that, knowing it was not true, that would be a lie.
	But I hesitate to use the word lie.
	Because a lie means we know what somebody knew.
	And we know that he deliberately said something that he knew not to be true.
	And I hesitate to use that term because sometimes it happens.
	And we have to be able to say, he clearly lied.
	Right.
	Fair enough.
	There is a difference between lying and merely being irresponsible.
	Yes.
	I would suggest though that they are... And believing your own baloney.
	That, but I would suggest that many of them I think so.
	I think so, yeah.
	of the consequences of their rhetoric. And I know this because think of the way they talk about us,
	where if we publish a study that says, and based on FBI statistics, objective data that says the
	explanation for the racial gap in schools is X, Y, and Z, or a crime is X, Y, and Z,
	they will take that and go running off about how this supposedly means there's some horrifying
	reign of terror that's about to descend that's been unleashed by these evil people and you need
	need to go after them.
	But they have a much larger platform and they say things with far less evidence.
	And if you are telling people, and now it's not just the news media, it's entertainment, you're seeing this leak into movies and everything else, when you're telling the country that they're being ruled by a fascist, that they're being ruled by a dictator, that they're being ruled by a traitor, that Vladimir Putin is actually a puppet master and everything else, At some point, people are going to start to believe it, and those people are going to act in extreme ways.
	And to me, that's far more irresponsible and far more dangerous than even the most extreme rhetoric on quote-unquote our side could ever be, because the platform is so much bigger for that.
	I agree.
	And certainly the things that we say, well, at the very least, if we publish a study based on FBI statistics, Bureau of Justice statistics, statistics.
	Yeah.
	At the very least, they'll say they've published misleading studies, misleading studies.
	Well, what does that mean?
	Perhaps that is a backhanded way of saying they may be factually true, but they give the wrong impression.
	Right.
	And that's because the facts give the impression that they don't want you to have.
	But yes, the way we are treated as some kind of present and serious danger.
	Whereas, when somebody, as recently happened at AutoZone, I can't remember what it was, this black guy marches in, he says he wanted to kill a white guy that day.
	He'd been watching police videos.
	And I can't remember even where it was.
	I thought it was an interesting irony.
	The guy turns around and this guy stabs him seven times in the back.
	That's exactly the same number as the number of shots that Jacob Blake stopped in Kenosha.
	But in any case, this guy who Utterly unprovoked.
	Wants to kill a... Well, not unprovoked.
	He's been provoked by the media.
	Oh, yeah.
	But this guy wants to kill a white man.
	And he attempts to kill a white man.
	And it's just by the grace of God that he did not succeed.
	This is of no interest to the press.
	No, it's not even a story.
	I mean, we recall when all this first kicked off, that shooting in Delaware, in the cemetery, where you had two elderly people visiting their son's grave, and a black man went in, shot him, No apparent relationship, at least not, that's been revealed by the police yet.
	No reason for this to have been done.
	Now the perp was killed at the scene, so presumably the investigation is just going to be dropped because they don't want those stories to come out.
	And there was also the one in, I believe it was Portland, I believe the person's name was Summer Taylor, transgender.
	I'm not quite sure which pronouns to use, so I'll just say the person in question.
	was hit by a car.
	And so you could see it in real time and it was fascinating on Twitter.
	This was the biggest story in the country and was about to be the biggest story in the world.
	And you could just see it for the course of like two or three hours, everybody losing their mind.
	And then it turned out it was a black immigrant who had been driving the car and just gone.
	Instant.
	It never happened.
	I mean, it's on page 17 buried somewhere and you'll never hear from it again.
	There's no question.
	Those of us who pay attention to the media and what it considers important, what it considers utterly trivial, and what it considers actually dangerous, it is crystal clear.
	And also the five-year-old kid who got shot in the head and they said, I remember reading some accounts and they're saying, well the far-right is weaponizing this case.
	If this is the standard, why are we burning the country down?
	What have you guys been doing with this George Floyd case?
	And furthermore, doing it before there's been a trial, before we have the facts.
	Now we're quietly being, oh well, actually he was on a lethal dose of fentanyl before any of this stuff happened.
	That may not justify the police conduct, but You would think these are things which need to be brought out before we decide we need to overthrow everything.
	You and I, on our little podcast, we are creating an atmosphere of violence, Mr. Fred.
	You and I. That's right.
	The next time a black person dies at anybody's hands, black, white, or blue, it's going to be your and my fault.
	But the New York Times and the Washington Post, these things have no power whatsoever.
	No, none whatsoever.
	They're on the side of the angels.
	Everything they say is anti-racist.
	To go back real quick because we were talking about words and how important they are in terms of the framing.
	And we've seen this argument put forward specifically where they talk about anti-fascist and they'll say, well, how can you be opposed to this?
	Because literally all it means is being anti-fascist.
	It's like, well, no, that's not all it means.
	As somebody who can speak with some authority on the subject, having written a book on it, It was always a brand.
	It was always a brand for, at that, when it was first created by the KPD, the Communist Party in Germany, it was a brand for them to have a front organization to oppose the groups on the other side that they were fighting.
	I'm sorry, what was the brand?
	No, where they came up with the term Antifa.
	Antifascism.
	I mean, it originally came out of, I mean, the, the irony of course, is that antifascism You know, communism by another name in terms of the people who organized and everything else, that preceded fascism.
	Because the reason you had all these radical right movements growing up is because you had a revolution in Bavaria, you had revolutions in World War I throughout Europe, and people were scared and people started turning to these things and you had pitched battles in the streets.
	And the problem, and this is why I think when you see guys like the New York Times and the Washington Post and Ostensibly mainstream publications carrying water for some pretty extreme people.
	If you want to talk about why things have become so crazy, if you want to talk about why political violence is being normalized, ultimately, I think the responsibility is theirs even more than in some cases, the people committing the actions, because They are telling people that they are living under tyranny.
	They are telling people that they're living under a reign of evil, and eventually people are going to believe it.
	Yes, yes.
	There's no question about that.
	I think that the media have blood on their hands, very clearly.
	They have blood on their hands.
	And what they will ever do about this, I should think that someday, if they wake up and understand the effect they've had on this country, they'd slit their wrists.
	Well, look what happened with, uh, I think Michael Tracy is one of the few independent journalists on the left and he has actually gone to these neighborhoods that have been destroyed in Minneapolis and everything else.
	It's not Jeff Bezos who's suffering the consequences of this.
	It's people who have small businesses, a lot of whom are not white and a lot of whom are not covered by insurance policies who don't, who can't just write it off.
	It's not just property for them.
	It's their livelihood and their lives have been destroyed because basically rich trust fund kids want to play revolutionary.
	It's despicable.
	I'm not sure it's even rich trust fund kids.
	The fellows who get shot by Rittenhouse, those are not rich trust fund kids.
	Those guys are human garbage.
	It tends to be one or the other.
	I think it's very much a top-bottom alliance.
	There's more human garbage than there is people who have somehow floated to the top, the flotsam.
	But in any case, well, I think Lenin says something about the fact that revolution attracts the very best and the very Well, we can certainly speak to that.
	I mean, it's sort of, when you get involved in anything, you always are going to be dealing with some people who are just attracted to the idea of conflict for the sake of conflict, being oppositional for the sake of being oppositional.
	And this gets into one of the larger things that I've been thinking about, and as you know, that I've been writing about with a forthcoming piece.
	To start with us, if you said, what is a time in history that you can point to where you would be reasonably satisfied?
	I'd like to think I've kind of moderated in my middle age, shall we say.
	And if you said 1980s America, I'd be like, sure, fine.
	That would seem like an unimaginable paradise from the perspective of today, if you could carry on modern technology.
	But that's not very inspiring.
	And if you go to the left and you say, well, what is a time in history, or as Joe Sobern put it, what was a society in which you would be a conservative?
	Very few have an answer.
	If they do have an answer, they might say like, The Spanish anarchist zone that existed for a couple weeks in Catalonia, you know, some sort of obscure thing that didn't even last.
	The Paris Commune.
	Right, which was like a lot, yeah.
	And so it'll just kind of, it's always this dream.
	And a dream, a utopia, inspires people to sacrifice everything.
	And so the very fact that their dreams are unobtainable is in a way a source of strength.
	Yes.
	I mean, the conservatives used to say, was it Richard Weaver?
	I can't remember, but don't amenitize the eschaton.
	You know, basically don't demand a paradise on earth.
	Yes.
	And I think we probably, within our own movement, though we have to be, you know, pretty modernist and materialist in terms of what are the facts and how do politics really work and what's real and what's not, and not believe our own nonsense and ideology in terms of like fantasy.
	But at the same time, you really do need something akin to a religious faith.
	You need something, some impossible goal that you're striving for.
	I think what we must do...
	And I thought you put it very well.
	You can't say, well, let's just get back to the 80s or back to the 50s.
	A lot of people think the 50s.
	Yeah, that's that's the stereotypical American conservative.
	But as you point out, by the standards of 2020, the 1980s, boy, what a great leap forward that would be.
	Yeah, of course, the movies from the 80s look like they're from the future.
	The problem, of course, is that many people argue, and I think justifiably so, that the seeds of the 20s were certainly present in the 80s.
	That all the tendencies that were there that have blossomed in this utter, utter flower of evil that we see around us today.
	And we can go further back to address something that I wrote in basically my start, and I guess what would be arguably my most radical, to use that word, period.
	I was saying, you know, America was ultimately fated to end up this way.
	Now, I'm not sure I agree.
	I don't think that's really true.
	I think I've developed a different understanding about how history turns and how everything looks inevitable in hindsight.
	But you can still see that From certain intellectual trends, from certain phrases that were used, how could it not end up this way?
	And there is a case to be made for that.
	There is a case to be made for that.
	And I've argued this point with some very smart guys who actually know more history than I do.
	And yet it seems to me that something like the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal.
	Nobody at the time, certainly not Thomas Jefferson, understood it in the way that it's interpreted.
	And furthermore, For the first 75 years of the Republic, nobody thought that that was a particularly important document.
	No, they didn't.
	It did its job.
	It was just explaining why we're going our own way.
	And Jefferson himself said there were no particularly important ideas, no new concepts, no breakthroughs, nothing philosophical about it, just explaining why we had to do this.
	Mostly from George Mason and everything else.
	I mean, he slapped it together in a hurry and mostly went off existing sources from people from Virginia.
	Yeah, and it's really a bill of particulars.
	It says, you got George III.
	You did this, this, this, this, and this.
	We find that intolerable.
	So long, fella.
	Interestingly enough, he tried to pin the slave trade on George III, too.
	That's one of the things you wonder about.
	Every historian will say that would have been a completely unjustified charge.
	You wonder, it's a propaganda document, so it has to be understood in that way.
	But even in that document, he talks about the attacks of the merciless Indian savages, and there's kind of a veiled reference to inciting slave rebellions and everything else.
	Yes, but then when it got down to really coming up with the rules of running the country, the Constitution, there's no idle chatter in there about equality.
	For heaven's sake, it was a very egalitarian document.
	There are so many points along the line in which we could have taken just a slight turn towards the same.
	Oh yeah?
	And I think it could have been saved.
	At what point does it become inevitable that we end up with Black Lives Matter?
	I don't know.
	I like to think it was never inevitable, but who knows?
	But this really leads to a different question, a bigger question.
	Maybe, does America even have a future at the way things are going now?
	What kind of future should it have?
	It depends how you define America.
	I mean, one of the things I've always tried to say is America in the sense of the real nation is not the United States.
	And what I mean by that is that The government, the regime, the system, however you want to define it, is not the same thing as the nation.
	In fact, we kind of have the state at war with the nation.
	And this is something which I will frankly admit I was wrong about because I had a lot of focus on how this was ultimately America, a uniquely American problem.
	But Jean Raspail talked about this, about how in France, and he called it the fatherland betrayed by the Republic.
	And Godfrey, Paul Godfrey has written a lot about the same process taking place in Germany and other places where the idea of the nation is now simply this bureaucratic entity and you get these rights on a document and you've got a passport and now that's the nation.
	I think that Whether the United States continues in its present form, and I think there will be something calling itself the United States for the foreseeable future, I'm pretty skeptical of these grand proclamations that the country is going to break up or we're on the brink of some huge thing.
	I mean, the fact is, if you look at the amount of political violence in the late 60s and early 70s, it was on a whole different level than what we're dealing with now.
	I still think that It's going to be very difficult for the United States of America to go into the future as a superpower when the political ideology is basically everything that happened until 1965 was evil and that the foundations of the country are all wrong and we're going to tear down the statues and we're going to do all this stuff and then when it comes time to like sacrifice for your country and it's like yeah but you just spent the last however many decades telling us our country is wicked and evil.
	Oh, I think the idea of the United States engaging in sustained warfare is pure fantasy today.
	We have nothing like the kind of unity that would take us from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay on the Missouri.
	Impossible.
	There's no way we do that.
	Even that we had after September 11th.
	I mean, I don't, I'm not even sure you could pull off something like the Iraq War now.
	I think if you had, if you had, the United States military, and this is from people like, you know, I know who have been in it and, Still in it and things like that.
	I still think the United States military pound for pound is the greatest military in the world.
	And I think our frontline soldiers and special operatives and technology and everything else are the best.
	But there's no bench.
	And if you have any kind of a sustained conflict, I think American society would fragment.
	I mean, if you look at how much it tore, Vietnam tore the United States apart, America was far more united even at that time than it is now.
	So if there's any kind of a sustained challenge, it's going to be very difficult for this country to take upon itself the treaty responsibilities it ostensibly has.
	And this is a big problem because, let's face it, Given the polls now, and I don't think they're all just fake or that it's, you know, it's a sure thing, if I had to bet right now, and keep in mind voting's already started in some places, I would say Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be the next president and vice president.
	That could change in the next few weeks, but right now that's how it looks.
	And what they are proposing is a far more confrontational strategy with other countries around the world, particularly Russia.
	Now, Russia and China are in a de facto partnership.
	You have a lot of other countries who are sort of pulling together.
	We're pledged to defend all these little places all around the world.
	I mean, how are they going to be able to do this?
	Especially because the fiscal foundation of this country has also been crushed by the coronavirus.
	The real problem, I think, would be if China decided that it's about time they brought Taiwan back.
	Yeah.
	Would we?
	Would we go to war for Taiwan?
	Would we?
	I suspect we would not.
	And of course it depends on who's in the White House.
	Donald Trump might be crazy enough to do it.
	I think Trump would do it if they went for Taiwan.
	Trump might just.
	But, I mean, if they went after Taiwan in a serious way, sending boats across, landing craft.
	Right.
	Create some made up political crisis to justify it, whatever.
	But then, as soon as we lost an aircraft carrier, Oh, sorry, you know, no fun.
	We're stopping.
	We're quitting.
	That would be the end of it.
	That's my guess.
	Lose one aircraft carrier and we're out of the war.
	That's my guess.
	But I, who knows.
	You know, the great United States Navy.
	Speaking of the Navy, I remember there was a recruiting tagline for the Navy, and it was called Join the Navy.
	Good, yeah.
	It's not even defending America anymore.
	It's just this vague sense of global values and stuff.
	If you'd asked Fletcher or Kincaid or any of the guys at the Department of Defense, a global force for good?
	What?
	What does that even mean?
	We defend the United States.
	We kill people.
	You want to call that a force for good?
	Call it if you like.
	They would have thought that was just fantastic bullying.
	Keep in mind that great movie that I reviewed for you, Midway.
	I mean, Hollywood wanted no part of that.
	The only reason that movie even got made is because the Chinese government funded it of all things.
	And that was basically because it was a club to be used against Japan.
	Yes, yes.
	Quite astonishing.
	I mean, this is the ultimate question is what is the You and I have an answer for that.
	this point. And there's not really a good answer to that question because...
	You and I have an answer for that.
	Well, yes. But I mean, if you ask Republicans, I mean, I think it's just kind of this vague
	nostalgia and this colorblind American identity, which probably never really existed.
	Martin Luther King certainly never believed that.
	No, no.
	And the left, it's almost like the real American identity hasn't been forged yet.
	We just have to do away with all the symbols of the past and we'll create this new America based on equality and everything else.
	That's a good question.
	That's a good question.
	If you ask somebody like Ilhan Omar, well, what does it mean to be American?
	I wonder what she would say.
	Would she just sort of talk some sort of babble about, anyone can be American.
	It's inclusion.
	Right, right.
	It's tolerance.
	You'll get conservatives who, ostensible conservatives, will say much the same thing.
	I think it was just yesterday that Hill had her talking about how we, what we, you know.
	We are engaged in this centuries-long struggle against, or we're struggling against this centuries-long process of racism and this and that.
	And the other thing is, well, you got here, what, 40 years ago?
	I mean, what, who are you to tell us like what the country is and is not?
	And furthermore, you know, under American law, and this is something we really need to start changing our rhetoric around.
	She is a beneficiary of Mandated privileges by the government because of her race.
	That is a fact.
	And it's not an invisible knapsack of whiteness that we need 20 postgraduate degrees so you can come up with some unfalsifiable theory.
	There are specific laws, there are specific programs, there are specific things that discriminate against whites in favor of other people.
	And a lot of conservatives don't want to think of themselves as victims.
	I think David French makes fun of, like, Tucker Carlson because it's a cult of victimhood.
	No.
	This country was built upon rebellion and resistance.
	We're a rebel nation.
	And rising up against that and recognizing that you are subjugated, that is not victimhood.
	That's perilism.
	That's what this country was built on.
	And we should be Morally indignant and we should be filled with righteous anger about what's being done to us.
	Well, it's certainly true that the government and the people are by no means the same thing.
	And Burnham would argue they are never the same thing.
	No, they're never.
	There's always an elite, yeah.
	Yes, there's always an elite.
	But at least if the elite springs from the people in some way, at least racially and culturally, then there is something... Or at least they have a stake in the system.
	I mean, you could have people who are arguably... I mean, let's look at Europe.
	For most of its history, you know, the monarchies and everything else, These people were not of the same ethnicity as those they ruled.
	If you're from a royal family, I mean, we had people trading around chunks of territory like it was, you know, pieces on a board game.
	But they had a certain stake in upholding the system.
	They had a certain stake in like not bringing ruin upon these areas, if only out of self-interest.
	Right now, I'd say it's a systemic problem that People who have nothing to contribute to the country other than votes and grievances against the historic American nation, that's an asset for the left.
	And so they have an interest in bringing in more people even though it undermines the country's ability to do things.
	Well, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I think his book is called Democracy the God that Failed.
	Really great book.
	Libertarian to alt-right pipeline, isn't he?
	Journalists who are listening.
	Yes, yes.
	He draws the distinction between owners and renters.
	If there's at least a royal family, if you're king and you own France, you want to pass France along to your heirs in pretty good shape.
	You want it to at least produce enough wealth to maintain Versailles, and you want it to be in good shape.
	Whereas if you're just in temporarily, you're like a renter.
	You're going to exploit the place.
	You're going to do the most for you while you're there, and who cares who comes in later?
	Right.
	There is a certain psychology to that.
	And I believe that, oh, people like Dean Aitchison or George F. Kennan.
	Certainly Kennan.
	Yes, the Dulles brothers, those guys, they had a sense of the country belongs to them.
	They had a kind of an aristocratic feeling about America.
	They were our equivalent of aristocrats who really want to work for the country.
	They wanted the country to be a better place for the future.
	I think they genuinely did.
	And I think some of the founders definitely did.
	You can go through and you could find examples of this, not these utterly cynical exploiters who, while they're in the White House, what was it, Bill Clinton walked off with half the furniture in the place?
	Good grief!
	What kind of just...
	That's just kind of petty larceny that you'd expect from somebody out from the gutter.
	Well, I guess we're talking about Bill Clinton, aren't we?
	But that kind of thing would be unthinkable to some of these sort of aristocratic guys who really thought that they were working for the country.
	And they had a sense of duty.
	Yes, a sense of duty.
	I mean, George Washington.
	Yes.
	I mean, for ourselves and our posterity, which is from the real thing that started this country, the Constitution.
	Yes.
	I mean, as far as a code, that's all we need.
	For ourselves and our posterity.
	That's right.
	And getting back to what's happening now or this current moment in journo-speak, the people who really have a stake in this country and still identify with it have always been the basis of any nationalist movement, which is the middle class.
	Because they have property and they have a stake, but they don't have so much that they can just pack up and leave.
	Because right now, The people with the great fortunes, the oligarchs, they always apply that term in Russia, but you never say it in America, but it's the same thing.
	What their citizenship is, where their corporation is based out of, that doesn't really matter to them.
	It's just a market.
	But if you have nothing and you're here filled with resentment and your gain comes from destroying
	what already exists, you also really don't have any ties to the community.
	But if you're a small business owner, if you're a guy who worked hard and has a house, if
	you have a neighborhood and friends and a community, you have nowhere to go.
	You can't flee.
	This is all you have.
	And so you identify with that community, you identify with that tradition, you identify
	with the nation.
	I don't think it's a coincidence that it's precisely that class which is being destroyed.
	I mean, this is the alliance of the top and the bottom against the middle.
	And arguably that's what's happening.
	And that's also why things like income inequality are something we should talk about because there is an ethnic and racial component to this.
	That middle is certainly shrinking too.
	Right.
	The coronavirus didn't help.
	And the fact remains that you may be a middle class person or a lower middle class person, but if you are an American of just a generation or two, chances are you do have a bolt hole.
	You can go back, even if it's to Guatemala.
	I mean, if things get really bad, Guatemala might look good too.
	Yeah.
	At least in Guatemala, as far as I know, they're not running around burning your store.
	Right.
	So, yes, these people have an out.
	It's white Americans who've been here for a long time.
	They don't have a claim on Britain.
	Ironically, if you sailed up on a boat from the Mediterranean and got rescued by some quote-unquote NGO, you can get into Britain, France, or Italy no problem.
	But if you're an American who's trying to get over to Ireland or Germany or Italy or any of these places, forget it.
	Too bad.
	Don't watch it.
	Too bad.
	And I mean, you saw this with these South Africans, the white South Africans who have been applying for asylum in Canada.
	And I believe a judge initially ruled in their favor because you have all these, you know, you have the murder rate and you have all these government policies that discriminate against them.
	There was a hue and cry and they reversed it.
	So now you're stuck there.
	I didn't realize they'd gotten that far.
	This is a few years back, yeah.
	In the United States, there were attempts to get some kind of humanitarian admission, and every one of them failed in the U.S., but I didn't realize they even got to the point of a first stage in Canada.
	Well, Canada seems to be a little bit more rational.
	They have a point system for people coming in, so that at least you have saleable skills to speak a language that might be in their favor.
	Yeah, although you do basically have this Asian colonization of Western Canada at this point.
	Yes, you do.
	But at least they show up with a certain amount of money, maybe even a trade, and that's better than these people who show up illiterate in their own languages.
	Well, maybe.
	Whether it's Nahuatl or Quechua.
	I mean, if you have...
	If you import an underclass.
	Well, okay.
	I see the argument you're making.
	You don't want to necessarily replace the guy, our own people who are getting college educations and say, guess what?
	Now you get to train your replacement.
	Because I mean, that's what happened at Disney and places and everywhere else.
	Yes, it sure did.
	In fact, what was it?
	Tech Walkers for America.
	I mean, this was one of the big, I just butchered the name of the group, but it was basically a lobbying group of Americans who had to Had this happen to them and they were pushing back against President Trump who wanted to expand these visas for quote-unquote skilled workers.
	There is an argument to be made that we're better off with people who are utterly untrainable and who cannot produce anything than bringing in a potential ruling class.
	Right.
	Well certainly both are disastrous so long as you have birthright citizenship.
	We're still waiting for that executive order, President Trump.
	Yes, good old President Trump.
	Well, I'm not sure we want to spend too much time talking about his defects of which our listeners are well acquainted.
	But, and I've been on the record on this point for some time, defects and all, he is vastly preferable, in my mind, to his opponents.
	And I will certainly vote for him and hope all of our listeners do too.
	I suspect they probably will.
	But, uh, yes, that's a subject for another time.
	I guess that does lead to the question of whether or not there's anything that we can build a political force out.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I think what needs to be done, what should be done doesn't change regardless of who's in the White House a few months from now, because first of all, there's also a spec, there's so much speculation involved.
	And people say like, do you think, you know, president Hillary Clinton would have The platform to use the status aggressively, maybe, maybe not.
	Maybe there's an argument to be made that the journalists and the ruling class, however you define that, wouldn't be so scared that they would have overreacted the way they have to President Trump.
	But on the other hand, you could make the argument that she would have just.
	You know, brought the iron heel down even more firmly with the state behind it, not just the media and everything else.
	So we don't know.
	And I think it's kind of useless to speculate on that.
	Yeah, and it could go either way in the future too.
	And there's also elements of just your chance involved in terms of what happens and what things develop.
	That said, it's very frustrating to me and I hope our European comrades understand how hard it is.
	When you don't have a multi-party system.
	And to me, one of the really depressing things is the closest anyone, closest, I guess, to somebody in our circles who could have done something would have been Pat Buchanan.
	And he basically tried this with the Reform Party in 2000.
	He had federal funding.
	I mean, granted, he had to fight a pretty crazy battle to get control of it.
	He was opposed among others at the time by Donald Trump.
	And it didn't really go anywhere.
	And so I think that, but I also don't want to take refuge in this thing, oh, education and metapolitics and everything else, because the masses are not going to be reached that way.
	I mean, this all goes back to platform control.
	I mean, ultimately we have to have a way to, we have to be engaged in the struggles that are affecting ordinary people.
	I think the things that need to be done, other than continuing what we're doing and doing more of what we're doing, are building sort of closed networks that can support people so you don't have the economic weapon that can be used against them.
	Because to me, the most devastating thing, but also It's kind of a sign for hope, too, is how quickly they go after your job, how quickly they go after your livelihood and everything else, which shows that they really have been reduced to just relying on force at this point.
	They no longer go through the... I don't even think the moral shaming is as big a problem anymore because they've expanded it so much that, I mean, you could be a communist and you're just as much at risk of being canceled as somebody who hosts an edgy podcast or whatever else.
	Yes, yes and no.
	It is certainly true that the other side has taken to silencing us.
	They don't even attempt to refute us anymore.
	The SPLC was never in that business.
	They would never say, now, this is why.
	Occasionally they would say Jared Taylor is wrong.
	Or they would say Gregor Hood is wrong.
	But they would never say exactly why.
	No point by point.
	They say basically shut the guys up.
	Don't even listen to them.
	We have listened to them.
	We have discovered that they're white supremacists.
	They're illegitimate.
	They're immoral.
	They're bad.
	They're wicked and evil.
	So just don't even listen to them.
	That's their argument.
	Now, they didn't have to say that because they've got all of these big tech companies doing exactly what they say and making it more and more difficult even to hear this for themselves.
	So, if you actually hear the name Gregory Hood, you can look Gregory Hood up and what's going to come up on Google, what's going to come up on YouTube, if there's anything at all, it's going to be, oh, he's a white supremacist that you can forget about.
	Just dismiss him.
	Now, what that means for our work in the future.
	Yes, it is important to be able to survive doxing.
	And it is awful that we can't even have any fundraising for any of our enterprises.
	Neither could Kyle Rittenhouse.
	Yes, Kyle Rittenhouse.
	That to me is one of the great shameful things that's happened recently.
	He's a guy who's really fighting for the rest of his life.
	He can go into jail forever.
	He's been tried as an adult, a 17-year-old.
	He can go to jail for 80 years.
	And he can't raise money for criminal defense?
	This to me is an outrage.
	And why isn't everybody practically marching in the streets against this?
	In fairness, I have been pleasantly surprised by how many quote-unquote mainstream conservatives have been rallying to this kid's defense.
	That's something he wouldn't have seen even a year ago.
	But have they, are they showing any outrage over the fact that he couldn't raise money for his defense?
	I haven't seen that.
	I've seen, I mean, I mean, the Federalist Society.
	Oh, the Federalist Society is completely useless.
	But they wrote some sort of milquetoast article about how, well, you know, these people who do crowdfunding, they're private organizations.
	And, you know, if they are letting somebody fundraise for an unpopular cause, they could get boycotted.
	So you kind of have to understand.
	Yeah, I mean, this is the biggest... What?
	It isn't until proven guilty, boy.
	The biggest ideological problem on the American right is just this refusal To understand that like the threat is not coming from the state or the government, that we're not fighting the Soviet Union.
	And the idea that there was ever, insofar as there ever really was a distinction between the state and capital, which was never really exist, they've always kind of worked together.
	I mean, that system is the problem.
	And you need to have a way to push back against it, because now it's gone from Start your own website, to start your own register domain, to start your own bank, to start your own currency, to start your own everything.
	And what kind of freedom is that?
	I mean, to me, it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest to pretend that something like Google Or something like Amazon is the same thing as like a diner down the street.
	Right.
	And especially when you consider how these things function off state subsidies, state payments, state contracts.
	Well, as you know, I have this incurable libertarian streak in me that people laugh at and scoff, but it is unquestionably the case that if the corner diner doesn't cook steak to your specifications, you go someplace else.
	There's no trouble.
	Or if the corner diner says, I don't like the cut of your jib.
	I'm not going to serve you steak.
	It's not going to be difficult to find somebody who will.
	Right.
	That ain't the case with these big companies.
	Now, at what point do you say these people are so big that we have to guide them in the benefit of the United States?
	I don't know, but at some point you have to, despite all of my libertarian leanings.
	This is not a healthy and legitimate situation.
	And for The Donald Trump administration not to have taken a stand other than to say, oh, we just have to be better.
	If we're better, then Twitter won't kick you off.
	It's because we're better that Twitter's going to kick you off.
	Yeah.
	What kind of foolishness is that?
	Well, I mean, it's... No, his pusillanimity... All paid for by the donors, I mean... Well, but I don't think Twitter's given him money to hit the election.
	No, but if you look at who subsidizes the conservative movement, and unfortunately, he's really funded... I mean, he's really gotten his staffing from the same old people.
	He did not bring in people from the outside for his own support and staffers.
	But the big problem is that The established conservative movement has an interest in making sure people, and I hate to use this term because it's imprecise, but let's just say farther to the right than them, are censored and deplatformed because it leaves them the only game in town.
	It leaves them as the controlled opposition.
	And the other thing, as far as, you know, the argument about federal control and state control, as far as I'm concerned, after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that's all gone.
	I mean, that bridge has already been passed.
	Yes.
	I mean, the federal government can tell you who every interaction you have with somebody, depending on the race, sex, whatever, that's a potential federal case at this point.
	Every aspect of our life is ruled by the federal government.
	Back to what you said.
	Whether or not I agree entirely with your motivation, The fact that the establishment right wants us to be silenced because we are competition.
	Okay, maybe that's true, maybe it's not.
	On the other hand, why is it the establishment right refuses to talk about race?
	That to me is the more interesting question.
	You have spent some time in the establishment right, I have not.
	And where is, is it just pure terror?
	Is it fear of criticism of the left?
	Why are they unable to realize that everything that they claim to love depends on a solid and continuing white majority in this country?
	Do they not understand that or do they understand they're afraid to talk about it?
	What is your sense of how they feel about race?
	I think it goes back to that union between fear and belief.
	I think they do really believe The MLK line, even though MLK himself didn't believe it and conservatives at the time didn't believe it.
	But I think they've just been so routed that they're afraid.
	But out of that fear.
	They're afraid of being attacked.
	They're afraid of being attacked.
	They're afraid of being fired.
	They're afraid.
	And this is still happening now.
	I mean, one of the ironies of the Trump era is that the conservative movement has become more cowardly on these issues.
	You are more likely to get fired.
	You are more likely to watch your back about who you associate with and who you talk to and everything else.
	But is that more, is that as much a reaction to the rabid viciousness of the left or is that a reflection of the changing nature of the right or is it a combination?
	I think it's a combination and I just like I don't think that you can separate Their fear of the left both in terms of journalists coming after you or potentially losing your job or anything like that.
	I think in a weird way that also twists into like really clinging to this belief in a colorblind America which exists only in our imagination and which nobody seems to buy other than American conservatives and maybe a sprinkling of You know, honest-to-god civic nationalists who are non-white.
	And they are out there.
	We should not deny that they exist, nor should we deny that they pay a heavy price for supporting this country.
	Yes, they do.
	And I think that this gets back to the problem between like idealism and practicality.
	I mean, on paper, there's no reason You couldn't have something where we say we're going to leave the demographics of this country, or maybe 10 years ago, say, more or less at this level.
	It's not going to be defined by race, but you have to subscribe to this founding culture and therefore it should work.
	But the problem is that kind of compromised language just doesn't inspire people to get out there and sacrifice and fight.
	And I think you've seen that with the American conservative movement where The most crazy radical ideas from the left, they never take them seriously on their own terms.
	They just say, oh, look at this wacky craziness.
	Ha ha ha.
	Aren't these guys weird?
	And then 10 years later or five years later, a conservative foundation will be firing you if you're not echoing the same line.
	I mean, we're seeing the same thing with critical race theory.
	It's a gag.
	It's a joke.
	It's wacky.
	But guess what?
	All those corporations you're fighting for tax cuts for, that's what runs them.
	The thing about it is, given their unwillingness to attack critical race theory at its roots, at its racial roots, what else can they do?
	They can say it's crazy, and they have been saying that, but until they are prepared to say, look, The reason blacks are failing is not because of all of these theories of systemic racism, etc, etc.
	It's because blacks and whites are different.
	Until they're prepared to say that, then they have, they are really accepting the key assumptions of the other side.
	Right.
	And all it is, is figuring out what's the cause.
	And critical race theory is as good a cause as any, if you agree that blacks are just as smart and hardworking as Asians.
	If you can find Uh, among the American conservative movement, I don't want to strawman them.
	They'll create this thing of, well, it's culture.
	It's not race.
	And you'll see, they'll make the case of the distinction between Africans, African immigrants, particularly, who tend to outperform African Americans.
	Now, there's an element of selection bias here because, you know, if a Nigerian comes to this country, odds are he's going to be much more well-educated and have higher career potential than your average Nigerian, which is why he's coming here, or how he was able to get in the first place.
	That said, they don't even say that.
	I mean, to me, what really is revealing about how the American conservative movement operates is If you really wanted to advance the colorblind America theory, you wouldn't even need to get into the whole biological existence of race thing.
	All you'd have to do is just say, we're going to go after affirmative action.
	Or if you absolutely still have to have something, we're going to base it on class instead of race.
	I mean, you see this get kicked around once in a while, but they won't even do that.
	And that's why I have a hard time taking any kind of resistance from them seriously, because even the most moderate things, there's no theoretical.
	Objection to abolishing affirmative action from within the conservative movement or even in the Republican Party.
	They just won't do it.
	Same thing for official English.
	I mean, why wouldn't you advance that?
	This is something where every poll shows you have like 70, 80% of the American people on your side.
	They won't do it.
	Why not?
	And basically they kick, you know, they just kick the can down the road until it gets to a point where we can't do anything about it.
	And then they say, well, we can't do anything about it.
	Well, I have never asked a, sure enough, legitimate beltway conservative, why don't you fight it?
	And if you ask them point blank, what would the reply be, do you think?
	No money in it.
	Would they be as honest and cynical as that?
	If there wasn't anyone...
	Listening in, probably.
	I think that... I mean, look, they've seen it writing on the wall.
	I mean, I always tell this story about... But that means there really are in it for a while.
	What did Sobern say?
	You know, it was a game.
	A way of making a living.
	And the guys who get mowed down are the guys who...
	Take it seriously and go out there.
	Well, I mean, look at, look at Turning Point USA.
	I mean, you get these, these kids who join and okay, free markets and capitalism and et cetera.
	And maybe they believe in that and they want to get worked up and do something.
	But if you're on a college campus, Even if you're doing a seminar on tax cuts or the gold standard or whatever wonkish thing, the groups that are going to come after you are going to be coming after you because they're going to say, this is racist, this is sexist, you know this guy, you know that guy, and you might say something back to them.
	And very soon, you know, the guillotine falls and you are cut off.
	And I think that If you look at how the movement has functioned over the last basically since Buckley, I mean it's always been this way.
	It's sort of like...
	How, you know, Chris Caldwell's new book, Age of Entitlement, he talks about how it's pretty hard to argue that there was a good civil rights movement that then got corrupted and turned into the bad civil rights movement.
	Like the one kind of flowed out of the other and it was inevitable.
	And to some extent that's true of the conservative movement too.
	I mean, you can find writings in the 60s, 70s, 80s where people will say, Hey, this is happening.
	We should do something about it.
	But when they had power to do something, they didn't do these things.
	But boy, they will go to the mat for some of the most unpopular economic programs imaginable.
	And they will do it.
	People will say things like, oh, they'll do anything to stay in office.
	That's not true.
	They'll suffer political defeat.
	Yeah, to stand up for unpopular principles.
	And at the end of the day, you got to ask yourself, well, what's the motivation?
	Maybe staying in office or winning a political battle is not their true motivation.
	Maybe to them, it's just a step on the road to something else.
	And think of how many conservatives who, you know, got their start in, I saw somebody on Twitter, they were like, oh, Conservative donors need to start funding conservative journalists and that's how we'll solve the problem.
	It's like, how many people started off as journalists in conservative organizations and then just immediately got bought out by the other side?
	Shout out to my good friend Oliver Darcy.
	Well, it certainly is the case that political victory, although we expect that to be the only thing politicians care about, it's clearly not always the case.
	Paul Ryan.
	Paul Ryan cut, you know, the minute they got in, they win the election.
	Ryan, I am firmly convinced, tried to have Trump lose in 16.
	He wins anyway.
	Trump gets in there in just staggering Unbelievable political ineptitude, basically hands over.
	All the momentum was victory behind a standard GOP agenda.
	What do they do?
	They try and fail to pass this health care bill.
	Now they've been running against Obamacare for 10 years.
	Somehow the conservative movement didn't have like a plan on the shelf that was like ready to go for this opportunity.
	Then they pass a tax cut, he quits, now he's on the board of Fox News, Speaker Ryan, former Speaker Ryan, and he's campaigning for the network to be more anti-Trump.
	But that is not an illustration which he sacrifices political victory for something else, I don't think.
	I think a better example of that is John McCain, when he ran against Barack Obama the first time around.
	Remember, what was the name of Barack Obama's preacher?
	The guy who... Oh, Jeremiah Wright.
	Jeremiah Wright.
	So virulently anti-white.
	It seems to me the obvious campaign ad would be just clips from this guy.
	Goddamn America!
	Goddamn America!
	And say, this is the man who was my opponent's minister.
	This is the man who performed his wedding ceremony for his wife.
	The two of them sat in his pews for, however long it was, a dozen years.
	I don't think he could have lost.
	But would he dare do such a thing?
	No.
	Because even though that might have been a winning combination, it would have been said that he was using race in an illegitimate way.
	Well, that's how you see it.
	I mean, you see it reported this way.
	Fighting back against what's being done to you suddenly becomes weaponizing the issue.
	Exactly.
	Willie Horton, you started it.
	Willie Horton, you cannot put a black person's face as part of an ad even though the black person's face absolutely belongs there.
	To say that Willie Horton was released, and you're not saying he was released because he was black.
	You're just saying that Dukakis released this guy and he went on to commit a murder and a rape.
	Is that a good thing or bad?
	Oh, my God.
	Even that, even that makes George Bush senior.
	Quite a few cases of that over the last few months.
	A lot of these people were being turned out and released either from the First Step Act or these people who basically get arrested for rioting and then they get released the same day because they got legal protection.
	They go on to commit more serious crimes.
	Now, a lot of these guys, too, are white, as you pointed out, in these riots.
	And yet, you still don't see any action.
	I mean, this is to me is like what's most interesting is you'll have cases where you really don't need to touch the racial thing.
	You really could talk about like whites doing this or whites doing that and they still won't go after it.
	No, I don't understand.
	If you're talking about something like crime, for example, or something like Antifa or something like any of these other things that people were starting to kick around on the populist right as things that need to be opposed.
	Even if you are to say...
	Hey, look, most of these protesters are white, but they're advancing this agenda.
	Shouldn't we do something to stop them?
	You know, investigate the network, start shutting these things down, bringing RICO cases, doing all these things.
	You still don't see any action.
	You still just see these kind of complaint, these vague complaints on Twitter about how somebody should do something, even though they're the ones in power.
	And I think one of the big things, and this is important because I think Trump is doing this for his re-election campaign, is they want the issue.
	But they don't want to solve the problem.
	They want people worked up.
	They want people to say, look at these things that are happening.
	The Republicans will defend us.
	But if the Republicans solve the problem, then the issue goes away.
	And I think that's a dangerous calculus because... It's a terrible calculus.
	Yeah, because he's not delivering.
	So, you know, he'll say, vote for me.
	Otherwise, yeah, and I'll keep the peace, but you're in office now, so why wouldn't you do it?
	And the other, of course, is if he is finally going to do something about big tech censorship in his second term, he needs a second term.
	He needs to end censorship and the people who support him.
	He needed to end it three years ago and he would have kept the house.
	It's just astonishing how short-sighted he is.
	Peter Brimlow would have said it was inevitable on inauguration.
	We saw all those protests and riots and everything else and, you know, nothing happened.
	They just turned him loose.
	Well, I'm afraid we could dedicate an entire episode to the failings of Donald Trump.
	I'm glad to say that I never expected him to be anything more than someone who just basically reacts on gut one way or another.
	Right from the get-go, he was described as someone who basically agrees with whoever he's with.
	He was the last person, yeah.
	Yes, the last person he spoke with.
	Somebody like that is not going to have an actual compass that points north.
	But you have to ask yourself, Let's take the worst possible things about him.
	Let's say all the stories, the worst possible stories, the biased stories about him are all true.
	That he says, you know, this or that terrible thing, that there are all these skeletons in the closet, that he doesn't have a principal bone in his body, that he's stupid and this, that.
	Although I will say Trump handles press, you know, going back and forth really quick.
	Whereas Biden, even when it's scripted for him, seems to have no idea what's going on.
	But let's say all the worst things about Trump are true.
	Yes.
	Wouldn't some ambitious Republican look at this program and think, my God, this guy was elected president in the face of all this opposition.
	Maybe there's a constituents here that I as an ambitious politician can use to advance my own position and I'm better at this than he is.
	Nobody has stepped forward.
	Nobody has done that.
	They would rather lose.
	I have been thinking this ever since David Duke won his race for the Louisiana Statehouse.
	That was 1980s, I think.
	Here he is, a guy who used to wear an armband and a pointy hat.
	And of whom the entire press across the, around the world said nothing but the worst possible things, he wins his race for the State House.
	Now, he packaged himself in a new way and he said very, very reasonable things.
	And I thought, well, that's done it.
	That's done it.
	Even a guy with a past like that, he has packaged, basically he was fighting against rampant illegal immigration.
	and affirmative action. That's pretty much his campaign.
	Yeah, so why wouldn't somebody who didn't have that passed?
	Exactly. That's exactly the same argument you're making about Donald Trump's platform.
	Yeah, I mean this is the...
	Why not? Why not? I just don't understand it.
	If you have a Republican or, you know, some kid starting out and you look at,
	let's say you're coming into it now and you say, well, I'm not going to associate myself with these extreme
	right movements.
	I'm not going to say anything stupid.
	I'm not going to join some crazy group.
	I'm not going to do X, Y, and Z. I'm going to be, you know, clean nose, whatever, but I'm going to advance this populist agenda on these issues.
	And there's this constituency.
	Nobody does it.
	And you have to ask yourself, if the objective was political power, if the objective was advancing my own career, why wouldn't you do it?
	And the only guy who even comes close right now, basically like the only voice out there who's even close to something like this is Tucker Carlson.
	And even Tucker Carlson is only able to do that because he had a long established career in media before this happened.
	Well, I think that, and I've thought this for years, ever since David Duke won his statehouse seat, that there are parts of the United States, there are places in the United States where you could succeed on an intelligently packaged, not over the edge, sort of Race realism, light.
	Nationalism, light.
	I think it would work.
	I think it would work.
	A guy who really knows the score, but knows how to make the arguments, and I just don't see it happening.
	Now, is that because people are stupid?
	Is that because not enough people see things the way we do?
	Or is that because people know that even if they package it as carefully and as attractively as possible, they're going to be called fascists?
	They're going to face a lot of opposition.
	They're going to face an awful lot of opposition.
	I'll give two points.
	One, and I think this is something that, I hope I'm not misquoting him, Martin Sellner might have said when some hostile press was asking him about some group he may have been involved in however many years ago.
	And he said, you know, look, you got to understand, you'll see these problems.
	And I think this is true of my own case as well.
	You'll see these problems and you'll see something happening and you'll say, this is ridiculous.
	I'm going to fight back.
	And so you do some stuff and maybe you associate yourself with things you shouldn't.
	Maybe you say things you shouldn't.
	Maybe you, you basically disqualify yourself from being able to do the kinds of things that you're talking about because you've got this past now.
	And the second problem is that on an individual basis, Unless you are purely a political animal.
	I mean, if you're just looking to avoid trouble and have like a quiet life, you're not going to touch these things because you're going to get so much opposition.
	It was something I used to say that only the people who can see it are capable of like doing something against it.
	But once you see it, you're automatically disqualified because the minute you start doing stuff, You're never going to be in a position to have your hands on the levers of power.
	But we have proof that that's not true.
	Look, Donald Trump got elected.
	Donald Trump did get elected.
	He got elected, I think, for several reasons that were unique to him.
	And I think this is why so many people threw such crazy hopes into him, the God Emperor and everything else.
	One, the media thought it was a joke.
	And they were broadcasting his speeches because they thought it was a circus show and they didn't understand what they were unleashing.
	He also, he's a creation in the media.
	I mean, for decades, to use a kind of MAGA boomer meme, basically, you know, nobody thought Donald Trump was a racist until he started running for president.
	I mean, you've got all these pictures of him palling around with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and everything else.
	And, They won't be caught sleeping now.
	And I think that we're sort of in this tough position where you could have a populist agenda, you could have a civic nationalist agenda from somebody who's in office now, and they could rebrand themselves that way.
	The question, I think, should be less, why isn't somebody new stepping up to do this?
	The question should be, why aren't people who already have a platform, who already have access, Even if they just wanted to do it for their own career, why aren't they stepping up?
	Because that would be the logical thing for them to do.
	And you know, what they're doing is the worst of both worlds, because they claim to be Trump supporters, but they're not saying the things that Trump said that I believe motivated the people who voted for him.
	So they are tying themselves, this guy who is a fascist, a threat to democracy, all of these things, the world's worst president, and then, but they don't say the things that made people find him attractive.
	I just don't get it.
	And I think there is a time limit here.
	I mean, people talk about, well, you know, Tucker and Sir Kennedy of your choice in 2024.
	It's like, yeah, once they end this, the everybody, that's it.
	I mean, Texas goes blue and that's the end of it.
	And so at that point, you got to start asking yourself, what do you do?
	What do we do as a people?
	But also like, what do you do as an individual?
	Because you're essentially under occupation at that point.
	Well, you hate to think that you got to start teaching your children Hungarian, but it may come to that at some point down the road, Estonian or Lithuanian.
	But that's the question we were talking about earlier.
	What's the future of the United States?
	Who was the neocon weekly standard?
	Crystal.
	He was saying that how can you possibly claim to love your country but hate the government?
	George Washington, the same question.
	Yes, good grief man.
	That's like falling off a log.
	But the idea that somehow that whoever our rulers happen to be, whatever the structure happens to be, is something that we must love.
	Right.
	Not just obey.
	Love.
	Yes.
	Love.
	No, no.
	Sorry.
	Sorry, Billy.
	It doesn't work that way.
	No.
	And anybody with any brains, and he probably realizes it doesn't work that way, but he's got interest in maintaining these fictions that he probably And I won't call them lies.
	I suspect that he knows that they're not true.
	But yes, what future for the United States?
	I agree with you that this country can stagger on for decades, maybe even another century.
	And turn into a kind of North American Brazil.
	It will, as you point out, lose the kind of international clout that it once had.
	Right.
	And it will be a complete delusion of the kind of thinking that's common among the people that are around Trump, or at least Trump himself, that we are so important that all we need to do is stop trading with some company, some country, and it will start kissing our feet.
	No, no, no, no.
	We don't have that kind of clout anymore.
	No.
	We are not the essential country the way we used to be.
	Look at the attempted coup against Venezuela.
	I mean, Dulles would have been able to do that before breakfast, and that was a humiliating failure for the Trump administration.
	Yeah, we just don't have that kind of power.
	So, we will become a kind of an international irrelevance, but the United States, within its current territorial boundaries, I think it can continue to crawl along.
	It will crawl slower and slower with more and more parasites on our back, with less sense of unity.
	It'll be the shambling wreck of a country.
	But there's no reason why it will necessarily break up or completely go bankrupt.
	Nobody has an interest in that.
	The thing that I imagine being the precipitating problem, if there really is a catastrophe of some kind, is if we have to default on the national debt.
	And that could happen.
	Yeah, if the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.
	What are we already paying?
	What, 20% of our budget is debt service?
	For the first time, I think, since World War II, the debt now exceeds GDP.
	It exceeds GDP.
	Now, the thing is, you actually can, if you are America, you actually can just print money.
	There's this whole thing, modern monetary theory, which talks about how you can do this.
	And it really is, debt for a household is not the same thing as debt for a country.
	And even debt for a country, Doesn't mean the same thing as debt for the United States, because we are in a unique position.
	That said, and you can't say, well, why would China and Russia not put an end to this?
	Because that would mean destroying their own economic potential.
	Nobody right now has an interest in seeing this ship go down.
	But will that always be true?
	Well, the bondholders, the people who own the paper, own the debt of the United States.
	If they begin to think that the United States cannot pay its debts, they're going to unload.
	That could happen.
	Those are individual decisions.
	A lot of it's government help, a lot of it's not.
	I am more inclined to think, having once been in fact a banker myself, that the rules of both supply and demand and almost household economy are not exempted from a country.
	It's true that the United States is supposed to be this engine that can go into debt in an unlimited sort of way, but I don't believe that's true.
	There will be a come a point when nobody wants to lend us money anymore and if interest rates are 10% or 15% or at 70% for government debt, then the country goes toes up.
	Now what that will lead to in terms of the daily lives of Americans, I suspect by then I'll be hoping to be collecting Social Security.
	It won't be fun for me.
	It won't be fun for a whole lot of people.
	But that is the one clear precipitating factor, something that could destroy the United States as we know it.
	Major revolution that I've seen in the last few centuries is always preceded by a major fiscal crisis.
	I mean, what was it that destroyed the French monarchy?
	I mean, they call that sparked the English Civil War.
	I mean, basically you call in an assembly because you need more money and that leads
	to the demand for political changes that the system isn't willing to accommodate and then
	things spiral out of control.
	Terrible crops, terrible winters, yes, the French Revolution, all of those things.
	There are things that precipitate it.
	Yeah, but I mean, without that monetary crisis initially, you wouldn't have had those things.
	Now, interestingly though, before Napoleon established his regime, one of the last things
	the directory did, and arguably Napoleon wouldn't have had the success he had had they not did
	this, is they just unilaterally repudiated part of the debt and basically made the case
	like you're not getting all of this back, but you're just going to have to take this.
	And that was able to put the country on a sound enough footing that a new regime took over.
	Of course, it made them.
	Pretty unpopular, which is why they supported the new regime.
	But had they not done that, you wouldn't have had a country or a government structure that he could have used.
	I suspect we'll see.
	They're making it very explicit they want the Electoral College to go.
	That's a different question.
	I think we're going to see systemic changes to the point where the United States of America will exist, but it'll be a fundamentally different regime.
	It's already a fundamentally different regime from the one that was ratified in 1917.
	Oh yeah, but I think it'll be a fundamentally different regime than the one that exists now, with all its failings and everything else.
	Yes, but in terms of what would bring about the dissolution of the United States.
	People talk about secession.
	Some people encourage it.
	I would encourage it as a descendant on both sides of my family from double secessionists.
	First from England and then from the United States.
	I'm all for secession.
	Secession is in my blood.
	But I... I just don't see it happening.
	I don't see it happening either.
	Although, and I've argued this many times, if a state were as determined as my ancestors were to leave, I don't think the United States would be determined to kill them just to keep their corpses within the Union.
	You could go if you wanted to at this point.
	Yeah, I mean, I think the issue, though, is that there's no... it's not like... well, even Quebec's a bit imprecise now, but there's no...
	There aren't these homogenous blocks within the country that would form a thing.
	I mean, Samuel Huntington in Who Are We talked about the idea of a Hispanic block in the South, or not Hispanic, I misspeak, Mexican block specifically.
	But even that's not really true.
	I mean, you've just got kind of the same random mix everywhere.
	And so if you had some sort of a coherent You keep there's no coherent subnational identity where you could say we are the you know Texas were the Republic of the Dakotas or something like that wouldn't it wouldn't work.
	And I think I think if you did have things spiral out of control it would be more kind of a.
	I agree.
	nightmare of like neighborhood against neighbor. It would look more like Lebanon than anything.
	Yes. I agree.
	In our history. And it would just be a complete disaster. I mean, we all, everyone, everyone
	imagines that like, they'll be the ones to take over and they'll be the ones to impose a new order
	when actually like, you know, It's probably El Eme that would take over.
	And then it would probably be like cartels and the groups that already have the guns and willingness to do it.
	Those guys are organized.
	Those guys are ruthless.
	Yes, they would control the pipelines, not just for drugs, but for food.
	No, it'll be a very, very bad scene.
	But on this pleasant note, we have reached an hour and a half.
	And so I believe this conversation is going to have to come to an end, despite the fact that I think we'd have gone on for another hour and a half.
	We do.
	We mustn't abuse the patience of our listeners.
	I do want to make one closing point, if I could.
	I mean, the most important thing for us now is we do need to have a political, social, cultural block outside the Republican and Democrat parties.
	People say things like there is no political solution.
	There's always a political solution.
	You know, everything is political.
	Personal is political.
	There just may not be an electoral solution, but that doesn't mean, but if you're building up your own groups, if you're building up your own networks, if you're building up your own neighborhoods or whatever else you're doing, like that is political work.
	And that's the kind of thing that needs to be done regardless of who wins the White House.
	And in terms of what we're striving for, I mean, I think there was this concept of the civilization state that is gaining currency now where you have a regime that is rooted in the traditions and history of the past that has been linked to that area.
	And you see this in China, you see this with Russia, and I think ultimately that's what needs to happen with Europe and America.
	And the impossible dream that people need to be striving for, you know, to demand the eschaton, I think that that's what we need.
	We need like a Western state.
	Yes, we do.
	But Russia and China are, to their great advantage, composed of Russians and Chinese.
	And that's what we cannot, we can no longer claim.
	We can no longer claim that the United States is composed of Americans, as they were traditionally understood.
	And the fact that where the remaining Americans are, as you say, we're scattered, disunited, we're here, we're there.
	And so on a territorial base makes it so much more difficult to call us.
	Well, we may need to...
	Start thinking of deliberate efforts to start coalescing.
	And those efforts may not necessarily mean coalescing within this territory.
	And as far as like the country, you know, a nation is a people.
	It's not lines on a map.
	So true.
	So true.
	Well, thank you, Mr. Hood.
	It's been a pleasure.
	And I'm very delighted that you were able to pass by on this for this 200th podcast.
	And so once again, our listeners, it is an honor and a pleasure to have your ears for as long as we have.
	And I look forward to speaking to you again very soon.

▲