All Episodes
Previous Next
March 16, 2022 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
01:21:28
What Makes a Nation?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey guys, welcome to Left, Right, and White.
I'm your host, Gregory Hood.
I am here with my superior, Jared Taylor, and today we're going to be talking about some first principles when it comes to the economy, when it comes to national sovereignty, and when it comes to questions of race.
And I want to begin by looking at what's going on with the Russian-Ukrainian situation, not get into it too much, but just note how quickly values such as independence, national sovereignty, nationalism, culture, language, heritage, all of these things that we have been told for so long have been evil and things that we need to overcome are now being praised as something that's good.
The colors of the Ukrainian flag are everywhere.
You're seeing it with companies doing it the same way they did with Black Lives Matter and other social movements that seem to be driven from the top down.
And yet we know that if you saw anything like this when it came to the American flag, or if it came to anything regarding American heritage or what we might call a historic American nation, it would never get so far.
In fact, the companies that are pushing this now, Have been very clear about denouncing what I guess we could call traditional American patriotism.
And so.
It really does show that our rulers geopolitical interests overcome any ideological consistency, but it also leaves American conservatives in a very difficult position because it often seems that American conservatives.
are nationalists, but they can only indulge in it by getting worked up about the nationalism
of other nations.
Mr. Taylor, do you think that that's something that you've seen in the past?
I mean, I see it a lot with Ukraine and with Israel and other American allies where there's
a lot of chest beating talking about what these American allies could do, but not that
much about what America itself can do.
Yes, it's certainly the case that the people who fulminate against the idea of nationalism,
national pride, or even sovereign borders or an armed citizenry, those people have turned
on a dime and they now think that all those things are wonderful so long as it's Ukrainians
who are demonstrating those aspects of nationality as opposed to Americans.
Of course, that's not new.
We have been defending the borders of other countries for a long time.
In Afghanistan, for example, in Iraq, we were very carefully guarding their borders, whereas we don't much care about ours.
But unquestionably, the kinds of things that we are now suddenly supposed to admire in the Ukrainians would be seen as some kind of betrayal of a much more globalist Homogenized view of the world, if Americans were displaying characteristics like that, or if any other Western European, traditionally white nation were doing so.
It's really quite fascinating, as you point out.
And the guilt by association seems to have faded.
Watching a lot of the, how to put this, I guess that network of NGOs that you always see, and they're putting out little guides about how to tell what's Russian propaganda, what's Russian disinformation, what's the truth, what's not.
And they're decrying the use of guilt by association tactics when it comes to the Azov Battalion, which of course has like the Black Sun and Wolfhook logo and things like that.
And I'm not, certainly I of all people, I'm not going to play the game of point and sputtering at them.
But it is interesting that in this case, you have an armed far right group, something that we are directly funding, essentially.
And the same people who will build an entire story and an entire narrative based on the fact that some guy may have showed up to a protest in the United States and the attendance of that one person discredits the whole thing.
In this case, guilt by association, if you try to use that tactic, that's actually Russian disinformation.
Now that's a bad thing.
Now that's something we're not supposed to talk about.
Same thing with weapons, too.
I can't help but notice Yes, the turn on the Azov battalion actually surprised me.
of everybody picking up assault rifles and fighting to the death,
were the same people who a month ago would tell you that you have no chance against the government if you're armed
with nothing but rifles.
And now they're saying actually, like, just random Ukrainians with rifles and very little training
are able to fight off the Russian army.
Yes, the turn on the Azov battalion actually surprised me.
I would have thought that any group that the other side has been continually denouncing as Nazi or Neo-Nazi,
and not entirely without justification, There have been photographs of those people with the stiff arm salute and actually posing with swastika flags, but that now they can be praised, the Azov Battalion can be praised according to Facebook, so long as we are praising not its ideology, but the fact that it's fighting the Russians.
This is most intriguing to me.
The fact that they are opposing Russians, I suppose, are Russians now the new Nazis?
I am a little bit surprised that the fact of opposing Russian, what we're told is unjustified and brutal aggression in Ukraine, That is more important than the fact that the Azov Battalion may, for some legitimate reasons perhaps, be called Nazi or Neo-Nazi.
Again, this surprises me.
I would have not expected even a land war in Europe.
To have caused our thought leaders and our rulers to say that, OK, now you can actually praise these groups that we've been calling neo-Nazi all along.
That's a surprise to me.
I wouldn't have expected that.
Yeah, there's something to that because there were a lot of investigative reports over the last few years when it kind of deteriorated into a frozen conflict and there wasn't much action on either side where Western journalists would go in and they would talk to Members of the Asshole Battalion, of course, you know, they would say, oh, we're going to do a story.
And by doing story, it was obviously meant to be a hit piece and make sure that all the funding gets pulled and everything like that.
And they go over there, talk about how horrible it is.
They would go to some of these.
I remember there was something on Ukrainian women and like a nationalist group they had started and.
Eventually the story just stopped being about the Ukrainians and more about the journalist and how she felt sad that women Thought they should have children and fight for their country as opposed to I don't know Taking antidepressants and feeling sorry for themselves or whatever it is journalists do but now like those same people are turning They've become like nationalist fanatics I mean, it's it's actually very startling when you take a step back and you hear people saying it's actually a good thing for people with little training The fight to the death with Molotov cocktails and rifles simply to make a statement.
And even though they they have to know that at some level, a lot of these people are going to die.
A lot of Western volunteers, apparently from the latest reports that I've seen.
We're just taken out by a Russian missile strike in the western part of the country and a lot of them are completely shell-shocked because we can't remember a time or a conflict when the United States didn't have complete control of the air.
Yes, this is going to be a surprise to the people who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan who think that they're going to bring freedom to the people of Ukraine.
I've also seen accounts of men who showed up in Ukraine and they did not get the kind of admiration and thanks that they expected, that they were not sent into the kind of units they thought they were qualified for, and who have just come back in a huff.
So this is going to be a complicated undertaking, as you say, both in terms of casualties and I suspect in the kind of surprise that people are going to find when they go over there thinking that they are the great military warrior fighting on the sides of goodness, truth and beauty.
And things don't turn out quite the way they expected.
But yes, this whole question of nationalism and the extent to which Zelensky is being admired as a man who is inspiring his whole people to act as a people
in the name of a nation, in the name of a heritage, a heritage which the Russians, interestingly
enough, do not consider to be anything other than a bogus heritage. But all of this, all of this is so
contrary to the way we are supposed to be viewing the world today that, yes, indeed, it has certainly
posed a dilemma, I think, more for the left than for the conservatives.
You're talking about how conservatives are baffled by this, that conservatives can praise nationalism when other people are exercising it.
But in the United States, by and large, it's only conservatives who would be caught dead waving an American flag.
That's one of the things I I was so struck by at the CPAC, which I attended recently, is that just about anybody on stage, so long as he bellowed it loud enough, would get a standing ovation and shouts of hooray if he said America is the greatest nation that ever existed.
And so now even lefties are proposing the idea that some sense of nationality is a wonderful thing if that prevents the Russians from taking over.
Now, to me, this bespeaks a different kind of ideology.
I think that it's unquestionably the case that our rulers don't like Russia for all sorts of reasons.
One is that it has been nationalistic.
That Vladimir Putin acts unequivocally in the interests, as he sees it, of his own people.
And that also Putin has by no means been someone willing to carry water for all the fashionable views of our time.
The fact that he's not really keen on homosexual marriage.
He doesn't like bowing down to and licking the hands of people just because they turn out to be open homosexuals.
He has gone against all of our cultural norms, the things that we're all supposed to be fighting for.
And so long as he is against those things, then a nationalist organization or a nationalist movement or a nationalist nation that opposes that is okay.
Uh, it's, it's, it's a very interesting situation in which the various loyalties that are supposed to guide the left are in contradiction with each other.
Right.
And I think that maybe it's a mistake to look for ideological consistency from these people.
I mean, one of the things that we should keep in mind is when president Putin gave his speech is essentially his declaration of war.
He referred to Russia as a multinational people.
And he also specifically said that, you know, it was a denazification operation.
As someone, I briefly alluded to this in the last one, but a few years ago I was in eastern Ukraine in one of these breakaway republics just on what was essentially a propaganda tour.
I was the only right-of-center person there.
And I can tell you that what you were getting is no different than what you would get at a left-wing think tank in the United States.
The Ukrainians are all Nazis.
Here's pictures of the eyes of Italian.
Here's some atrocity that they're supposed to have done.
Look at the symbol.
The symbol is evil because blah, blah, blah.
And so one of the reasons why I think a lot of people are.
Kind of falling all over themselves is it's not like the Spanish Civil War.
You can't really point to a pure right and pure left.
And of course both sides are claiming that the other side are Nazis and both sides are claiming that they're the true heirs of the Great Patriotic War, the Russian or the Soviet, I should say, victory in World War Two.
What it really brings up is the question of what is a polity?
What is the state?
What is the reason for doing any of this?
And I think this idea of nation, when we look at Ukraine today, a lot of the social policies that the Russians are not particularly keen on, a lot of the Ukrainian right wing forces are not particularly keen on either.
And in the last Left, Right and White, I expressed my concern that these nationalist Ukrainians are essentially going to be used as cannon fodder to bring Ukraine into the post-Western world of deconstruction, of Well, I hope that does not happen.
self-hatred and self-loathing and taking apart your own country,
they may win independence and then 10 years later, they'll be told the same people who fought the hardest for
it may find themselves in jail for various hate speech laws or whatever
else.
Well, uh, I hope that does not happen at this point.
It's difficult to be able to say that the people who are fighting the hardest
are the kinds of people that you describe. Uh, Zelensky himself is certainly not the kind of man that we
would think of as one who is a conservative, a traditionalist.
And, but I don't get the impression that there is very much of a differentiation in the people who are actually packing those Molotov cocktails and people who are running around with their Stiger and Javelin missiles.
But it is entirely possible that even if there is no difference in the kind of people who
are carrying the war against the Russians, there's no question, and you have written
about this in articles for American Renaissance, that once a Ukrainian independence is established,
if Ukraine does tilt towards the West, which is what we would expect it to do if the Russians
permitted to do so, then they could end up having their sense of nationalism, all of
their sense of heritage, their sense of traditional sex roles, for example, all of these things
gradually taken away from them.
All melted away by the poisons that emanate from the West.
That's exactly my worry.
In the case of the Baltic Republics, for example, in the Baltics, as you know, there is generally an admirable sense of nationhood.
Some of, in my case, the most emotionally inspiring experiences of my life have been participating in torchlight parade parades.
I've done that on two occasions at once in Estonia and once in Lithuania.
And there's something absolutely marvelous and wonderful about seeing people singing patriotic songs, waving these torches, marching down together, absolutely overjoyed to be either Estonian or Lithuanian.
And those countries have resisted all the powerful pressures to let in Muslims and to change their own culture in the name of a kind of homoglobalism.
But it's a matter of time because the West is still powerful.
The West is still richer.
Some of the Ukrainians, I'm sorry, some of the Estonians and Lithuanians, the ambitions ones are emigrating out to the West where they can make more money.
And so all of the forces that are at work there will probably be even more powerfully directed against Ukrainians if they do end up in the Western rather than the Soviet, the Russian dominated camp.
Right.
Obviously, I think the same thing is going to happen to Poland, Hungary.
There were some stirrings in Austria and Italy that have been clamped down on.
And I think that I mean, this this is something that might be a little cynical, but for me, this the last few weeks, the last few years have really shown how top down our system of government really is.
It's hard to pinpoint the state as essentially the basis of it.
But the idea that what we would call the American oligarchs and big tech companies and our own federal government, it's almost like we shouldn't think of a public private distinction anymore, because at a certain level, if a company becomes wealthy enough or a person becomes wealthy enough, it's because they're being allowed to do that.
It's partially their own accomplishments, but it's not entirely so.
And we're seeing part of this with the sanctions that are being leveled against random
Russians, including businessmen and such, a lot of these people, they say they have quote unquote
close ties to the Kremlin, but that's because they're major business leaders and the same guys
essentially been in charge for over a decade. It would be like saying that American car company
heads have close ties to the Biden administration because they go to White House events and
talk about clean energy and get subsidies from the federal government. Well, I don't think
the combination of business and government is nearly as tight in the United States as it is
in Russia.
We can talk about those distinctions and I think you're absolutely correct to say that the distinction between public and private is no longer one that is all that legitimate, but I don't think it's for necessarily because the public authorities have permitted these private entities to succeed as far as persecuting the I really wonder what is the legal justification?
How does one really go through the motions of saying, OK, this is a Russian private citizen and we're going to confiscate his yacht just because it sailed into our harbor?
Everyone seemed to take for granted that's something that should be done
But if we're a country that really takes law takes law in any way seriously
I really am curious to know what possibly justifies doing this, but that's that's a really smaller
That's a really smaller question I don't think that in the United States that the only way
to become a billionaire is to Subscribe to all the shibboleths and bend the knee to BLM
and all of that stuff Maybe once you become a billionaire and you want to stay
that way all that stuff becomes important. That's how you have to yeah
to.
Uh, that's how, that's how, for example, there's this pillow guy who has been a big booster of the idea that the election was stolen.
I can't remember his name or his company, but I think you know what I'm talking about.
Yeah, MyPillow.
Yes.
The MyPillow guy.
Uh, that guy is obviously, uh, by elite view, he's an enemy of the people and yet he's amassed a fairly considerable fortune.
So it is, the situation is not one I think that is, Correctly parallel to the situation in Russia where I suspect it is probably is impossible to become a billionaire if you are at odds with the with the Putin circle, but be that as it may the extent to which big business and the government think the same on so many things I think is more a reflection of
Simply the power of academia and the media.
I mean, you, I think one of the many brilliant things that you've said is that we don't have state-run media.
We have a media-run state.
I think that's a very powerful observation, and we see that over and over in the United States today.
When people are in agreement on so many things that are so obviously wrong, it's not a matter of conspiracy.
It's not a matter of getting together and saying, OK, you say this and I'll say something that's similar.
They actually believe it.
Or to the extent that they don't believe it, they realize they should pretend to believe it if they're going to be considered respectable or part of the ruling class.
It's like these Asians who, in order to really be considered part of the elite, They will start going against their own racial interests by supporting affirmative action.
Affirmative action is often leveled against them, just as it is against whites.
But in order to be truly part of the upper, upper class, these are attitudes that they must adopt.
So, it is something that builds on itself, but I'm not sure that it is government that directs business or even business that directs government.
It's something that constantly builds on itself and cooperates in snuffing out dissident voices like ours.
Right.
Even the MyPillow guy you referred to, I mean, he was able to amass a fortune at one point, but now he's staring down the barrel of all these lawsuits.
His, uh, I believe it was Bed Bath & Beyond, which used to carry his, uh, products.
I remember seeing them when you would walk in and stuff and that that's all been cut.
He's lost all these contracts and everything else.
If he was as politically vocal when he started as he is now, I dare say he would not have built up that kind of a fortune.
And I think there were some in when Silicon Valley started, uh, you did have kind of a Neo reactionary.
Tendency within some of the early Silicon Valley pioneers you also a lot of this implicit in the crypto project where after the financial crisis a lot of people lost trust in financial elites and They said we need to have something some standard of value that's different from government Whereas and at the time that was seen as almost kind of a Occupy Wall Street slash progressive position now it hasn't been that long since then but I think crypto Is now seen as something on the right because the left is defined by snuffing out things that don't go along with whatever the predominant narrative is.
Whereas the right is essentially the people who don't want to be constantly supervised all the time.
I mean, I've always said that like people generally tend to be as right wing as they're allowed to be.
But the system's response is to make sure that people aren't allowed to do those things.
And I think there's a lot more pressure being put on, on people to, to do these quick narrative shifts from one thing to another, from first it was COVID, then BLM, then back to COVID, then Trump, then January 6th, and now it's Ukraine.
And tomorrow is going to be something else.
People will really believe it, but they'll believe it because somebody at the top essentially pushed a button.
Well, I don't think it's really somebody at the top.
I think there is just this general assumption that is made by a large number of people.
It doesn't necessarily mean that the Sanhedrin or the committee Or the inner circle does this.
Maybe there are a few there, but because these people share a view of the world that is so monolithic, it doesn't even have to work that way.
As far as turning on a dime, I think one of the best examples of that is what happened to the idea of freedom of speech in Silicon Valley.
I can't remember when it was that the people at Twitter were calling themselves the free speech wing of the free speech movement.
I think that was 2013.
Not that long ago.
It was 2013 or maybe 2015.
No, not that long ago at all.
And you remember, I do recall that it was in 2015 that Amazon refused at first To pull from its sales selections a pederasts guide to picking up and buggering little boys.
And their view was, well, we think that this is a horrible idea and a horrible book, but once we start censoring, then that's a slippery slope and censorship is not what we're going to do.
That was in 2015.
I remember that date specifically.
But that was pretty much their last stand.
They capitulated on that and then very shortly it became impossible to sell books written by people like you or like me.
So, yes, they start off, some of them, with a kind of healthy instinct.
Yes, we have to be a free speech platform.
And then very, very quickly they change.
It's a fascinating phenomenon to me.
And on the one hand, this Realization that free speech cannot be tolerated because, under a regime of free speech, the things that we think are right, or the things that we hope are right, are not going to be able to stand up on their own.
This is ultimately, and this has been said many times before, an admission of how tenuous and how faultily constructed their worldview is.
If, after all, Gregory Hood and Jared Taylor are so spectacularly and obviously wrong, Any C-grade average fourth grade student should be able to explain why.
Well, they can't.
And even the millionaires in Silicon Valley can't explain why we're wrong in any kind of persuasive way.
That's why they have to shut us up.
So all of this speaks to be a terrible lack of confidence in their own views that they're continuing to try to force on us.
But we've come a long way from this whole question of nationalism and the purpose of government and what leaders, what elites really should be trying to mold or the directions in which they should be trying to lead.
Well, the reason I bring this up is I actually don't see it as too much of a departure because right now I would say that the biggest single thing that you can derive power from at this point is control of media.
And we're seeing this with Russia with the expulsion of Western social media companies and Russia essentially forcing its citizens to use its own platforms.
We're seeing in the way messages and certain ideas are being Constrained in the West where it's a very, I mean, there is a narrative capital N that you go along with at any given time.
And we're all kind of trapped in it because when everybody's talking about one thing, we have to give our take on it too.
And then next week it's something else.
And in China, of course, you've got the great firewall and you've got a lot of energy being put behind guiding online discussion and even What they call troll farms pushing back on certain forums and everything else which raises the question I think at the end of the day it all comes down to one thing when we talk about what is a nation what is the state it does come down to an ideal it's not just blood because if it was we wouldn't be seeing this unbelievable conflict between Russia and Ukraine I mean Vladimir Putin himself is saying
They're one people.
And yet, you know, the way he sees to reunify these people is through conquest.
Of course, not that Lincoln acted any differently.
And if you look at the West now, we're being told to somewhat come back to the ideas of American pride and American strength and even American militarism.
But what's interesting is that they've spent the last few years.
Deconstructing traditional sources of American patriotism.
Jefferson was a bad guy, Teddy Roosevelt was a bad guy, Christopher Columbus was a bad guy.
The latest thing is I think the New Yorker is pushing this idea, there was an article in the New Yorker at least, that George Washington, like Thomas Jefferson, supposedly, even though we both think that's not true, had a child with a slave, and they're gonna do all that thing again.
If you go to any if you go to Mount Vernon, you go to Monticello, you go to any of these places that people used to go to almost as a pilgrimage, because this was the closest thing we had to sort of a sacral founding for the United States.
There's not really much point anymore because you're just going to hear lectures about slavery and, you know, how terrible these people are and why you should feel guilty for even being there.
And so they're building up a state here in the West, you know, the strongest, country in the world, best economy, best military, thing that upholds the so-called rules-based international order.
And yet, if you said, what is the United States based on, considering what's taught in the state's own education system, most of the media, which of course has deep involvement with the government, big tech, all of this, if you said, well, what defines American patriotism at this point?
It's essentially hostility to everything that happened in America before 1965.
Yes, yes.
And of course, creating like an anti-identity.
That's right.
It is really an astonishing thing.
I don't know when a nation ever in the history of the world has systematically tried to undermine its own moral foundations and to drag through the mud every single one of its original people who are considered heroes.
And to that extent, This, I hate the word narrative.
Yeah, I know.
But this idea, this set of ideas that we're supposed to subscribe to, this set of ideas is more important than even national survival is my guess.
Some time ago, I put together, I drew up a list of 10 doctrines that I think define certainly the idea of what it means to be an American.
Uh, not necessarily an American, but part of Western goodness, part of Western being on the right side of history.
And if you don't mind, I'll just, I'll just read them off.
Sure.
They're no particular order, but one is the poor have an absolute right to goods and services provided by the taxpayer.
And number two, except for the brute fact of reproduction, men and women are essentially interchangeable.
Homosexuality is wholly legitimate, perhaps even a superior erotic orientation.
And then mass democracy is the only legitimate form of government.
The races are equal in every way.
There's essentially no social problem that government can't ultimately cure.
And that because the brain is a marvelous organ, almost entirely exempt from the laws of genetics, and it's deeply receptive to the environment.
The brain is just a blank slate.
No culture or religion is better than any other.
Diversity is a strength.
And finally, the past was a dark and immoral time because people did not believe the things that we're supposed to believe today.
I think that's a pretty comprehensive list of all the things that you have to agree to.
And if you vocally disagree on any one of them, any one of them, then you are not fit for polite society.
And this whole set of ideas becomes central to not only our
Legitimacy as people who are in public, but it becomes the way that we define a moral and good country
It's this whole set of ideas every one of which I think are Utterly wrong, but you have to subscribe to every last one
of them Yes, I would note in passing
HL Mencken would never use the word narrative But HL Mencken wouldn't be able to have a blog spot these
days let alone a job at the Baltimore newspaper paper.
I think that, I mean, if you look at, I was in preparation for this, I was reading what experts at the time were talking about the Soviet collapse, especially compared to the way the Chinese government was able to hang on to power.
And the big mistake the USSR made was they opened up economic freedom and they also opened up Freedom of speech whereas the Chinese did not do this and Very quick and a lot of people think that the USSR could have been held together and you had guys like Andropov and and other leaders before Gorbachev who essentially wanted to do like what we call now the Chinese model where you open up this idea you open up economically and you gain wealth that way and
But the message and the narrative and the state ideology is still maintained.
The question, I think, is whether we in the West have what we can call, if not a state ideology, certain governing ideology along those principles that you just laid out.
As you say, if you disagree with any one of them, you're out of polite society.
And we need to start thinking about what it is to what's an alternative foundation.
Now, of course, If you look at what a nation is, going back to the earliest definitions, it's essentially groups of people who are tied by blood.
I mean, that's what a nation was at the beginning.
And if you think about what the West is, there is sort of a sacred political order that's been involved in this from the beginning, from Greece to Rome, America, which is considered almost a continuation of ancient Rome by some of the founders.
It's not enough to just say, well, this is a marketplace.
This is a, there's this government, then we drew up some rules and these rules allow us to try to get rich off each other and everything else.
You can operate that way.
But as we're seeing with this Ukrainian civil, this Ukrainian situation, even liberal states, classical liberal states or states that call themselves classically liberal have to call on the strong gods, the old gods of blood and nation and history.
And it leads to a contradiction, because ultimately, what are the things that undermine the strong gods most of all?
It's essentially neoliberalism.
It's the idea of globalization.
It's the idea that the free movement of capital is the most important thing.
It's the idea that private companies essentially should be the ones who determine how people live, and not the state.
Well, yes.
What would you consider to be the strong gods of America?
I'm quoting from R.R.
Reno's book.
Yes, yes.
No, no.
No, no.
I like that concept.
My question to you would be, say the United States were threatened in some very substantial way.
Hard to imagine how that would be.
and in a way that required a sustained, maybe month-long, years-long effort of the kind
we had during the Second World War.
This is something that's extremely difficult to imagine, the equivalent of the war in the
Pacific.
But if we had that, what would be the myths to which American leaders would appeal?
I can't think of any.
I can't think of any.
There's certainly no blood ties to other members of other people, other citizens of the United States.
There's certainly these days you can't appeal to the founders.
You can't appeal to the Constitution.
Everything has been undermined.
What would be the strong gods of American heritage that a nation would appeal to?
I think we're seeing a preview of it now where what America would be told to fight for is the way they kind of keep it together.
It's very tenuous, but it's still there is that the founders were flawed and maybe even evil.
But somehow out of the revolution came this idea of egalitarian mass democracy.
And that's what America is really all about.
That's also why an immigrant who comes to this country yesterday is more American somehow than a person who has been here, whose family has been here since before the revolution.
I think that if we did see an effort like that, we would essentially see the same.
We would be taught to defend The world will triumph of progressive ideas, and I think American conservatives would go along with it.
And I don't even think it would be that different.
I mean, to take the World War Two example for a second.
You had the pact between Hitler and Stalin over Poland.
World War Two in Europe, uh, the British declaration of war was ostensibly to protect the independence of Poland, something they had no ability to do.
Within a few years after Operation Barbarossa started, Stalin went from collaborator with Adolf Hitler to good old Uncle Joe.
There's a new book out called Stalin's War, which makes a very persuasive case in my mind that the Soviet Union probably would have collapsed were it not for the tremendous amounts of money and materiel that were sent to the Soviet Union during the war.
So I think when you say, well, it doesn't make sense.
There's there's too many contradictions.
They've sapped the foundations.
There's nothing drawn.
I think that's true.
I think that if you tried to do something like conscription, you simply couldn't pull it off now.
No, but I would.
But I also wouldn't underestimate the ability of propaganda to push people in a certain direction.
I mean, look, it is clear, for example, just today there was news that Someone who shot, I believe it was in Denver, it was somebody who was working as security for journalists, got into an altercation, shot and killed somebody, claimed self-defense, DA, dropped the charges.
This is only a couple weeks after the case in Georgia where even somebody who filmed the encounter was convicted of murder.
And I think that I think our leaders are just now coming to grips with the power they hold.
I saw something over the weekend, too, that the White House is actually coordinating with TikTok influencers to make sure they all have their message on point regarding international issues and everything else.
So if you said, well, what would we what would people fight for?
I think it would be this vague idea of opposing Nazism and standing up against fascism, and I think the majority of people would go along with it and the fact that they wouldn't sacrifice for it Probably true, but then again.
I mean well even during World War two.
It's not like Lower 48 were ever seriously in danger So no, but I don't think we would get some future conflict But a fight in order to be effective is going to require some kind of sacrifice.
But back to the point you mentioned about the British guaranteeing the borders of Poland, they in fact guarantee them.
And they were violated not just by the Germans, but by the Soviets as well.
Right.
And there was this backdoor secret agreement that nobody heard about, according to which, well, if the Germans violate their borders, then we go to war against the Germans.
If the Soviets do, well, then we look the other way.
But there was an obvious and spectacular contradiction there.
Now, yes, I'm aware of the book that you mentioned, Stalin's War.
And yes, the guy goes into enormous detail into the just the incredible cornucopia of materiel that we sent to the Russians.
But this this reminds me of something I've never forgotten.
There was a guy who must have been this back in the Soviet era, a fellow named Hedrick Smith, who had been either the New York Times, the Washington Post correspondent in Moscow for many years.
And he wrote a book called The Russians, which I read with with a great deal of interest.
And I suppose this would have been perhaps in the 1970s or 80s.
I don't remember exactly, but he interviewed a lot of older Russians and he asked them, when was the best time in your life?
And you know what they replied?
They said, the best time in my life Almost invariably was during the Great Patriotic War.
In other words, this was a time when there was tremendous privation, people being killed right and left, but they felt as though they were involved in a wonderful, glorious cause.
This was when it was the very best in their lives to be Soviets or Russians or whatever they were.
This, this brings us back in a way to the Dominic Venner book that we were discussing on a previous podcast in which he said that we must live as if war were on the horizon and that war or the prospect of war is what keeps nations healthy and virile and keeps them from falling into all of the terrible, terrible morasses that now poison the West.
And you and I at that time discussed how does one, how does one do this?
How does one live with war on the horizon without necessarily engaging in war?
And what's happening in Ukraine and the sudden adoration of all of these nationalist, militarist, virile notions of nation that we ordinarily condemn, this just goes to show you the actual absolute power of war.
Not only did it make these poor, beleaguered, starving to death, being shot to death, the Russians think that this is the best time in their lives to be alive.
It also turns current ideology on its head.
Right.
And I think that one of the, a while back on Left, Right and White, we talked about Chris Hedges and his book, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.
And I think that There is still kind of the intensity of war that is being pushed now, because right now we're really discussing the question, what is it that defines a polity, a state, and a people?
And right now, I think the moral campaigns, particularly surrounding BLM, COVID, and now Ukraine, it's a kind of product, it's not a deep Something you experience the same way people did at the siege of Leningrad or something like that.
But it lets people think they're participating in something important.
It gives them meaning, it gives them purpose, it gives them a mission.
That's why I think a lot of people threw themselves into BLM and into making sure COVID-19 mandates were respected even when those mandates then get thrown out the next week because Ukraine takes over.
Why people were so So committed to this idea that President Trump was an authoritarian despot when you could openly criticize him and be rewarded for doing so, which doesn't seem to be the case and real authoritarian regimes.
And I think that the right.
Ultimately has to develop almost an entirely new vocabulary because for the left It's just sort of being provided for them like who we are what we're supposed to do and to some extent Analyzing the ideas.
I mean I do it that's part of my job, but in the back of my mind There's always a small voice that says well This is almost a waste of time because they could say anything and the same people would still go along with it Whereas our side we have to appeal to something more Primal and something that can kind of cut through the fact that we're so massively outgunned when it comes to media power well This reminds me something that I thought of saying when you were describing how The United States would try to pull its forces together to fight some kind of massive threat And you said well with enough drum beating with enough propaganda people would go along with it
I wonder.
I wonder.
You could be right, but when it comes to something like Black Lives Matter, people can walk around and wave signs and they don't really have to change their lives.
So they can preen morally, they can strut about like moral peacocks, but they really don't have to suffer.
They don't have to bleed.
They don't have to give up anything really important.
Whereas in a truly Fight a true fight for national existence or survival, which we've never had to do, of course, except, I suppose, for the for the Revolutionary War.
Under those circumstances, could you motivate Americans?
I'm really not sure you could.
And certainly if there were a major, serious conflict with any Latin American country, some sort of league of Latin American countries, oh, 18 percent of our population, it wouldn't be with us at all.
I sometimes muse on a definition by Muller Vandenbroek.
He was a 19th century guy who described democracy as a folk's participation in its own destiny.
Well, we don't have a folk in the United States, nothing even resembling a folk.
And how you would motivate Americans in any large and substantial way.
I think a huge number, mostly non-whites, would simply defect.
There'd just be no way to do it, no matter what kind of propaganda machine you had going.
Well, if you look at studies of patriotism over the last few years, patriotism is highest among whites, specifically among white conservatives, less with other groups.
And obviously, as America becomes increasingly non-white, the idea of identifying with the United States, I think, is going to decline.
I think for a lot of us, we think of the United States as our home because there's nowhere else to go.
Whereas, I think for many other people, this is simply a place to make money.
And they could leave whenever they felt like it, and it wouldn't make too big of a difference to them.
Now, I think that This idea of we as Americans don't have a folk, this kind of brings us to what I think is the core point, which is when we talk about we, we need to distinguish between Americans, i.e.
people who have an American passport, which at this point it has the moral significance of having a Card for sheets or 7-eleven or something.
I mean, it's a corporate discount card that that's what citizenship has been reduced to and you know before when you were talking about the rule of law and are we a country?
You know, how do we justify seizing people's property if we have any kind of?
Legal system.
Well, all that went out the window.
I think about 10 or 20 illegal immigrants, 20, 10 or 20 million illegal immigrants ago.
Like it's just, it's just not a thing.
I mean, you know, if you're like, oh, but the law says this and well, a papal bull of nine 95 AD says this, and it's like, why are you bringing that up?
And well, it's about as relevant as what the law is, but the, you know, we have to bring down like wool.
If we are not just Americans, meaning people with an American passport, what are we?
And I think the the identity that is the most meaningful and it's something that's not just with us and comes from us, but is also being forced on us, whether we like it or not, is our identity as whites.
And I think whites as a people.
Are capable of collective identity and collective action, particularly when the ideology that rules us now The ideology of the people who control the United States and really the entire Western world or the post-Western world.
It's no one can pretend that it's about being colorblind or looking past race anymore because being colorblind is now considered racist.
Yeah, race is always going to be at the forefront of just about every public policy decision going forward.
And you could be against whites.
You can be a white, a white person who doesn't want to be white.
But most people in polls back this up when they are told that America is becoming increasingly nonwhite, their own sense of persecution and their own sense of what identity tends to increase.
And so that trend, I can only, regardless of The justifications that are put forward in the media, that trend of more whites thinking of themselves as whites and acting collectively in defense of our interests, I think that's only going to increase.
And so the question of what is the state, what is the nation?
I would argue that those, the answer to those two questions are the nation is a collective that has What a common heritage, a common destiny, a common future.
And I would say whites in the United States at this point are a people unto themselves.
And they haven't quite broken with this idea of thinking of themselves purely as Americans.
And maybe we shouldn't, but there is a distinction between being a white American and what America means to you and being a non white American and what America means to you.
And as far as the ideological cause, I would say that.
We're essentially rebelling against the idea of down going.
We're rebelling against the idea of degeneration.
We're rebelling against the idea that because we've accomplished great things, we need to dismantle it because equality is better than accomplishment.
I would say our moral code is basically the opposite.
Oh, I think unquestionably a consciousness of race is burgeoning among whites.
I don't know if you and I discussed the little informal poll that I took when I was at CPAC, but I buttonholed about 45 white people at CPAC, and I asked them three questions.
The first was, is diversity good for America?
The second was, 20 years from now, whites are projected to be a minority.
Will that be a good thing?
And the third was, are the races inherently equal in intelligence?
And obviously the correct answer to all three questions was no, no, no.
Diversity is a bad thing.
Becoming a minority is a bad thing.
And obviously the races are not equal in intelligence.
A very disappointingly large number of people got most of the questions wrong.
However, the question that stumped them the most and got the most correct answers was, is it going to be a good thing when whites become a minority?
Now, believe it or not, of these 45 people, many of them said, gosh, I never thought about that.
Now, the fact that they never thought about that suggests to me that they had never been brainwashed on that subject.
They've been told it over and over and over.
Diversity is a wonderful thing, and black people are just as smart and hardworking as East Asians.
And so generally, they gave the wrong answers on that.
But a point on which they have not been lavishly propagandized, they thought, Hard about that.
And many of them said no.
So that was the one point on which these people who are white, who care enough about politics, enough about the United States, to spend $295 to register and who knows how many hundreds or even thousands of dollars in transportation, hotel costs to go to CPAC.
The one thing that they just weren't sure about was whether or not it was going to be a good thing when whites become a minority.
So I I am convinced that as we are constantly blamed for everything that's ever gone wrong for other people, for non-whites all around the world,
in our own country, everywhere else, in every period of history, more and more whites are
going to wake up.
Whether or not enough will wake up in order to accomplish what we wish to accomplish is
another matter.
But I believe just as despite the fact that Vladimir Putin says Ukrainian nation, the
nation is an artificial nation, it's a made up nation, by attacking it, he is making it
more real and more vivid and something that is a genuinely powerful motivator, then they
probably ever was before.
The same thing is happening to whites as a group.
Now again, the number though of whites who have been brainwashed to think that they really
are the cancer of human history, that is an astonishing and discouraging thing.
But I think there's absolutely no question that, as Sam Francis used to say, whites exist objectively.
We are an object to other people.
What we have to do is exist subjectively for us to realize that we exist In the way that other people who resent us and in some cases hate us realize we exist, we must exist just as vividly in our own minds as they envisage us in their minds.
Agreed entirely.
And that is the challenge.
And I think one of the biggest things that we need to do, and this is why we need to focus our critiques and our messaging toward American conservatives, is what it being an American and being part of a people does not mean Just living under a certain legal apparatus.
I think a lot of American conservatives who say, well, I want to bring back limited government as if it ever truly existed, or I want to bring back the constitution, or I want to bring back this right or that right.
That's not what's really important.
You have to be a people first and even things like fundamental rights and legal codes and common law.
These come out of the historic experience of a people.
It's not it's not a one-size-fits-all that you can put on the entire country and we're already seeing that we're already seeing that with the way certain juries are ruling the way with certain people are getting away with crimes the way that certain district attorneys are being elected on the explicit promise that they will not enforce the law or that they will lighten up on certain things and go after political opponents.
I think that The American right needs to change its whole trajectory because right now it's just sort of this populist force that's, it's against whatever is going on.
Like it's, it's matured enough that it's distrust the media and won't just listen to what message is being pushed.
But that's only the first step.
You have to, you have to go somewhere after that and you can't just define yourself by being against whatever the power structure is because then you're just a contrarian and who cares?
The, I think that ultimately we have to build ourselves from the ground up by saying, look, we're a people and that's what's critical and what defines us as a people.
And it doesn't matter whether people agree with me or disagree with me when it comes to the people in power and the way you're going to be treated.
You are white, full stop.
That's what you are.
You can, you can create whatever identity you want.
You can create your own sexuality.
You can change your name.
Pretend to be 132nd American Indian and therefore you're actually oppressed.
None of that's going to work.
You're white.
And so the only thing, the only question going forward is, are you going to use that as the basis for something great?
Or are you going to use that as fuel for self-hatred, which is what the other side wants?
We really have to reorient ourselves away from this idea that America is because America and and this is what the conservatives are saying and this is the the key problem America is not Just a place to make money and it's not maybe it's become that but if it is then we really shouldn't care about it too much one way or the other and even if you're an American conservative and you're talking about the Constitution and limited government Constitutions and limited government and laws.
These are tools.
These are just frameworks that we use to get things done.
But there's nothing truly sacred about them.
And I think for Americans, it's tough because the closest thing we have to like every political order is in some sense religious.
You have to have something that is beyond criticism or else it all falls apart.
And for so many Americans, that's the founding fathers in the Constitution.
But as so many people have pointed out, the Constitution has essentially been superseded by the Civil Rights Act.
And the federal government can get involved in whatever it wants to.
It's not, the states don't really have too much power of their own anymore.
And so far as the old republic ever existed, it's gone.
So what are you defending?
Well, you're defending, after all, What's known as the American dream.
Well, what's the American dream?
So far as I can tell, the American dream is strictly materialism.
I remember the Europeans used to refer to the British as a nation of shopkeepers.
Right.
Well, such a huge part of American political debate is haggling over money.
Where are we going to spend the money?
Who gets the money?
If the British were a nation of shopkeepers, we're a nation of wood merchants, for heaven's sake.
And because mass democracy is mainly about vote buying, this has turned politics into this massive sort of buy now, pay later scheme.
And just about every democracy in the world runs up these huge budget deficits.
So we shove the debt off onto some future chump.
And we don't even care if the future chumps are going to have to repay it, or our own grandchildren.
This, to me, is an obvious abandonment of Anything that recognizes the importance of a people, of future generations, this idea of an ever-ballooning public debt, who cares about the future?
That, to me, is proof of the extent to which any sense of real responsibility and peoplehood has disappeared in practically every so-called democracy.
It seems to me that mass democracy is an absolute guarantee for buy now, pay later.
Because all we ever talk about in the United States today, aside from these allegedly moral questions of treating the people who are at the bottom of the class as well as the people at the top of the class or sexual minorities in a particular way, or treating women exactly like men, it's all a question of money.
It's the most sordid, uninspiring kind of government you can imagine.
Nobody talks about duty or honor Or any kind of integrity.
None of those are qualities that matter in this country.
It's all about how you spend the money and who gets it.
And we may not even have that for much longer.
Looking at gas prices and looking at the increased energy prices around the world, it does seem that the United States and Europe are willing to put their countries into a recession to stick it to Russia for some I don't know.
I mean, I guess insofar as there's an objective, it's to it's to take out Putin and have Russia brought back to what it was in the 90s.
And you can just kind of plunder the resources and call it a day.
But it's not coming.
Whatever economic rewards may come of such a strategy are not going to trickle down to the average American.
The average American is just simply seeing the cost of living is going up.
The cost of the pump is going up.
And the idea of, I mean, when you said the American dream, the thing that's most closely been tied with the American dream, and this has a lot of ties with our history as a people and settling the frontier and everything else, is owning your own house and owning your own land, even if it's a relatively small parcel.
Well, that's just ridiculous for a lot of people, especially young people.
And what's really troubling about this is that Even though it's occurring because we have a hostile ruling class, even though it's occurring because we're bringing in more immigrants for cheap labor, the cost of are then dumped on the taxpayers.
And of course that creates more demand for housing, which we're no longer able to meet.
Even though this is all being caused by, I would argue a deliberate strategy of, of hacking away of our sense of identity and pride and history and community.
The way most people are going to respond is essentially by turning to the hard left, because they're going to see that their living standards are going down, and they don't have the vocabulary to attack what's happening, other than to blame it vaguely on the capitalists and the rich.
Now, I would say the capitalists and the rich kind of have it coming, considering they've been the ones going along with this woke agenda, but that's not the root cause, and it's not going to lead to anything good.
Yes, we are in the process of negotiating with a fellow who is considering writing an article for American Renaissance on what he calls the alt-left.
Believe it or not, there is some small contingent of leftists who are actually race realists.
Now, what sort of politics would you have If you were a traditional leftist in the sense of being a strong supporter of labor as opposed to management, for example, and yet you had an understanding of racial differences.
I think this is an intriguing question, and it falls into line in some respects with my view of what unites us ultimately as a people.
As it happens today, people who have an understanding of race tend to be conservative on most things.
But there's no logical reason why you couldn't be a big government socialist, a cradle-to-grave Scandinavian socialist, Or believe in gun control or think that the Soviet Union was off to a good start and also understand race.
I mean, Jack London, for example, he was a big socialist, but he certainly understood race.
He thought socialism was the solution for white people.
It wasn't a worldwide solution.
It was the way white people are going to get ahead.
So, yes, this question of How does a confused American who sees things going in the wrong way, what are the ideas that are going to appeal to him?
Some of them will find leftist ideas appealing exactly for the reasons you described.
And there is, as I say, an interesting small contingent of race realist people who are old school leftists.
Now, I believe that the real uniting, the real common ground that we white people have is an understanding of race.
And when we ever do arrive at some kind of independence along racial lines, we will have leftists, we'll have conservatives, we'll have liberals, we'll have Christians, we'll have pagans, we'll have atheists.
The only thing that must unite us is race.
But again, before we have arrived at that, there are a hundred different ways that people can go astray if they don't understand the racial problem.
And I tend to be more of a conservative on economic questions, so I don't much enjoy the appeal that these leftist arguments are going to have in the current situation of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
But all of these are fascinating questions.
Right.
And we would be in a much better position, of course, if we had some kind of governing
entity that really had our collective interests at heart, rather than being thinking it's
just constantly being on the right side of history.
That's all that seems to motivate them.
Right.
I think that if there is a sense of unity that we can appeal to that transcends right
and left, we can look to, as you point out, a lot of the American progressives from the
early part of the 20th century, including, of course, people like Teddy Roosevelt.
Uh, Josh Howley wrote a book about Teddy Roosevelt, uh, where he does the usual, oh, this is terrible, but still goes into in great detail, Teddy Roosevelt's views on race and on what we could broadly call eugenics.
But really I think, I mean, these are unfortunate terms.
I would just consider it sort of the improvement of the human condition.
And if we have a, Philosophy that puts our race first and identifies us and defines us as as a people questions of politics and questions of policy become Essentially things that we can debate in good faith because there's a right answer If we have if if we have if we're all white and we say okay, we're white people.
This is how we define ourselves This is how the world looks at us whether we like it or not because at this point you don't Like very few people choose this.
You're kind of pushed into it because your back's against the wall and you're basically told to hit the floor with your knees or stand up for yourself.
And if you've got any pride, you're going to do the latter.
If we're at that point, we can we can have debates.
About should we have universal health care?
What is our trade policy supposed to be?
What is our foreign policy supposed to be?
We can do these things and in theory there's a correct answer if we have some idea of the common good.
The biggest problem right now with America is there there is no common good and because there's no we.
There's just kind of a landmass and there's a bunch of people paying into a system and the system is more or less telling us to our face that it doesn't like us very much and wants us gone.
Well, yes, it's back to this Vandenberg definition of democracy, a folk's participation in its own, a folk's participation in its own destiny.
First of all, you have to have a folk.
And I agree with you 100%.
If we all have at least our racial consciousness in common, then we can have a genuinely loyal opposition.
Whereas here in the United States, we have divisions that are so profound that opposition is not loyal.
Opposition is in some cases explicitly disloyal.
And that is, I believe, the fate of any kind of multiracial, multicultural kind of nation of the kind that we are all supposed to be building all around the world, for heaven's sake.
Right.
You look at people like Ilhan Omar or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, And I see these people and it's, I don't even see them as progressives.
I just see them as sort of extreme nationalists for their own side.
It's just, it's just not, they're not American.
I mean, or if they are American, then America doesn't mean very much.
And so it's almost like you can't be mad at them because they're just standing up for their own.
But the, you know, why are, why are, why do I have to know who these people are?
Like that in itself justifies like scrapping the whole thing and starting over.
Yes, any self-respecting nation that can throw up people such as Ilhan Omar or Anna Presley or Kamala Harris, for example, is a nation that no longer deserves our respect and loyalty.
And I like one of the phrases that you've coined, namely the Potomac regime.
As opposed to anything that is genuinely or authentically American.
We have no loyalty.
No loyalty.
Ultimately, we consider those people vermin.
And rightly so.
They have nothing to do with what we care about and what we expect or hope for a future America to be.
Sometimes I'm just struck by the utter incongruity of someone like Ilhan Omar walking through the halls of Congress.
Every detail, every architectural detail of that building is something to which she and her entire heritage are utterly and completely alien.
The name of one of our houses of legislation is the Senate.
What on earth does the Senate, which has roots back in Rome, of course, have anything to do with someone like Ilan Omar?
She might as well be a Martian or some other species.
It's so utterly, utterly incongruous that someone like her should be walking through the halls of the Congress of the United States.
I think that when we talk about questions of loyalty, uh, particularly with the Potomac regime and questions of identity and succession, and you know, this idea that of national divorce that gets kicked around every once in a while.
The main reason that why I don't think there'll be a national divorce is because if there is a, if politics is kind of a substitute for war, if I don't actually think there's going to be a war or civil war or anything like that, but if we take intense political conflict, if we say this is happening and we use the war metaphor just because it's the best way to help us think about this thing conceptually, only one side is fighting.
And I think that's the biggest problem.
It's that the left ultimately can redefine America and every red line that conservatives expect that they'll defend has already been crossed.
Uh, this has built up a certain, and again, maybe this is something you and I may disagree on this.
This has given me a certain cynicism when it comes to people's beliefs, just because I remember when I started off in conservative politics, people who would swear up and down and left and right by their living God, that they would oppose gay marriage.
With every, you know, they would rather die because they saw it as a holy cause and rather than accept this.
And within a few years, they had not only accepted it, but we're claiming that conservatives needed to rally behind it.
And the real problem is Trump, because he might make people think that we're racist or evil or rude or something like that.
And of course, now, you know, not only is it a good thing, we're going to fight and spread it to the rest of the world.
When we talk about ideas of loyalty, And we talk about idea.
It can't just be something.
It has to be something that can defy media.
I don't even want to say narratives, but almost like storylines, because people live like they're participating in a movie or something.
And it's got to be something beyond the economy.
And I think that when we talk about loyalty, it's got to be something that it's inherent to us and you can't change.
Being white is who you are.
It's not an accident.
Everything had to happen exactly the way it did.
And so if that's who you are, the question becomes, okay, this is who you are.
These are all the other people in this situation.
This is the heritage and identity that has been deliberately taken away from you.
What is your response?
And there really are only two, which is submit or fight back.
Well, Mr. Hood, I've been in the business of trying to Imbue white people with some sense of racial heritage, duty and destiny.
And one of the things that I've discovered is that the vast majority of our species are conformist and those who are not conformist, the vast majority of them are cowards.
So we're dealing with one of the problems of human nature.
I'm sure you have run up against it many, many times.
These conservatives, Who swore on the Bible, and as you say, in the name of their living God, that they would fight to the death, or whatever it was they were going to fight to, against same-sex marriage.
They fell away.
They fell away.
Why'd they fall away?
Probably because if they weren't conformists, they were cowards.
Those are the two human nature problems we have to deal with.
And it may be, it may be that white people are sufficiently conformist and sufficiently cowardly that they will let themselves be shoved aside.
I don't believe that.
I think there's still, what, 160, 170 million white people in the United States.
I don't think they're just going to walk off the stage of human history.
The question before us is how best we can inform and motivate these people.
And I believe that, as you yourself have said, It is in the face of these unprecedented and explicitly anti-white attacks that we find the best opportunity for motivating the most, the largest number of people.
And I continue to believe that to be true.
And I believe that it's through podcasts like ours, through all the work that we do, that we are moving that campaign forward.
I think that We have seen some important signs of progress in the fact that just the term anti-white is now something that is said on television or in forums or can be used as a legitimate criticism.
That was something you didn't see even a few years ago.
In many ways, we're in a better position than we were before President Trump was elected because First of all, the illusions have been stripped away.
Classical liberalism essentially had to dynamite its own foundations and say, OK, we don't we don't actually trust you to make your own decisions.
We don't actually trust you to make your own to make up your own mind when it comes to voting and everything like that.
You have to be guided.
So a lot of the ideological justifications have been stripped away.
Now, propaganda overwhelms that a lot of people aren't simply just aren't going to see the double standards, even if you pulled it out in front of them.
But there's definitely more people who see it now than Certainly when I started and the fact that more people come in now When things are arguably the hardest they've been is an encouraging sign And it's a strange thing because the system seems more invincible than ever in some regards and in other ways It feels like it's gonna fall apart at this, you know slightest setback Well, I think the desperation with which the tech companies and increasingly even the federal government
Act as if people like you and me and a podcast of this kind is some sort of mortal threat to democracy?
For heaven's sake!
They're terrified.
And orthodoxies lash out with greatest desperation and bitterness as they die.
I think at some level, the realization that for their story to continue to be the main one in this country, they have to absolutely shut us up rather than even attempt to refute us.
This shows just how weak, at some level, they realize they are.
And to me, one of the greatest differences, compared to when I first got into this business, is the number of young people.
I really didn't start understanding the whole racial question until I was 35 years old.
Now I meet people who are in their early 20s, who have a remarkable, sophisticated, multi-layered, multi-disciplinary understanding of history, human nature, genetics, Very, very impressive and entirely sane, put-together people who understand what faces us and are willing to work for some kind of change that will ensure our survival.
And at the same time, despite all the intense levels of deplatforming and shadowbanning, we continue to get more and more hits all the time on the American Renaissance website.
It's amazing when you really look at that.
Yes.
Like how many barriers are put in the way and it almost doesn't seem to matter.
I know, they find us anyway.
And it does make me wonder, well, what if we still had our YouTube channel?
Right, right.
What if we still had?
What if Google were actually treating us fairly?
Good grief, we'd run the world!
Yeah.
Maybe not yet, but no, these are exciting times.
And you talked about the necessity You talked about a religious component to a sense of nation.
Well, to me, our sense of the destiny of our people is at least as powerful a component and a motivator as religion.
Great.
And this is something this is something that I think and well I'm sure more and more people find to be one of the most meaningful things in their lives.
This is an opportunity I think for young people this is going to be the opportunity for greatness that they will never otherwise have is to work for the survival of our people and the continuation of this glorious heritage of ours.
I think that's a good place to end it.
I just want to add my agreement with that and Just one quick clarification or comment.
I think that for a lot of people when I talk about the idea that every state essentially has a theological component something beyond reason like you even Fukuyama in the end of history said you can't defend democracy just based on reason you have to have things that you can fall back on ideas of nationalism that you were seeing that in Ukraine now where Even a fight that's supposed to defend the values of the European Union is ultimately coming back to rhetoric that sounds a lot like blood and soil.
But if you think of religion and you think of the idea of duty and mission, I think a lot of people, it's not that your race is your religion.
It's that your faith, whether you're a Christian or whether you're not, Your race is part of that and there's no the people who are coming into this movement now There's nobody who believes that the religion mandates their self-destruction and if you believe that your religion does mandate your self-destruction or does prevent you from fighting back I've often said that American conservative movement really can be summed up as our values don't allow us to pursue our own interests and
If you have somebody telling you that, I don't care if they're a priest or just some random bum on the street, if they're telling you that you're not allowed to act in a certain way, that you aren't allowed to do things that will actually make your life better and, as I see, better develop humanity, you should ask yourself, well, what does this person have to gain if I believe them?
You have to consider the possibility that these people who are pretending to be your moral leaders are acting in bad faith.
And at the very least, you need to press them on their arguments.
And if their response to that is to just censor you and shut you up, well, as I see it, that's pretty much an admission of defeat.
Would you agree?
Oh, I agree 100%.
And to put an aspect of what you said, In folksy terms, I'm sure you recall that the poet Robert Frost defined a liberal as someone who can't take his own side in an argument.
And white people as a group are profoundly liberal in that respect.
White people, so many of them are incapable of taking the white side in any argument.
That's right.
But don't lose heart, everybody, because if defeat were inevitable, their propaganda would not be necessary, and neither would their censorship.
So with that, we'll bring this episode to a close.
Unless sir, you have anything else you want to add?
No, sir.
Uh, I've been, uh, I've enjoyed, uh, participating in this conversation and thank you very much for inviting me.
Thank you, sir.
Keep the faith boys.
▲
Export Selection