Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 15, 2022 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

01:39:03

Left, Right, and Censorship

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey guys, welcome to Left, Right, and White.
	I'm your host, Gregory Hood.
	I'm here, as always, with Chris Roberts, and today we are going to be talking about something a little different than what we usually do.
	We're going to be talking about censorship, specifically how censorship is also now starting to be used against certain elements of what we would call the left.
	Of course, we did not plan this, but we're reporting on the day when Elon Musk has announced his bid to buy Twitter.
	Which has led to some rather predictable and amusing results from journalists who are very angry that they would not be able to police the discourse anymore.
	So this, I gotta say, I mean, does this change everything?
	Does this change kind of like the premise of what we were going to talk about today?
	I suppose only time will tell if you can pull it off.
	Yeah, I mean, there are two big questions.
	One, we don't actually know if he's going to buy it.
	Also, he might not even actually want to buy it.
	I mean, he might really just be trolling everybody.
	He might not seriously want to do this, right?
	And furthermore, I mean, even if he does want to do it, somebody has to say yes.
	I mean, somebody has to sell him all of the shares, right?
	It's not entirely up to him.
	Twitter was not just on sale somewhere.
	Yeah, he's offering, I think, about $54 a share, which is higher than what it is now.
	But less than a year ago, it was trading around $70 a share.
	And the question is, Jack Dorsey, of course, is gone, and in a weird way has kind of denounced what he actually did.
	He said that he played a role in the centralization of the internet, which he regrets.
	I always thought Jack Dorsey was the least eager to censor people.
	That Twitter remained more or less free longer than most other social media platforms.
	Now, I believe there's an Indian immigrant in charge and it does seem to be getting a bit more arbitrary in terms of who's banned and who's not.
	Specifically, what we're going to talk about today were some of the bans going against, I guess, what we would consider Old left type figures.
	I was especially struck when they banned Colonel Scott Ritter and I'm old enough to remember Scott Ritter as Marine Big anti-war advocate.
	I remember his arguments against the Iraq war and when I was a young naive college Republican protesting guys like that because we thought he was a traitor and everything even even though I opposed the Iraq war even at the time I I just thought like where his I'm allowed to oppose the war, but you are not because the reasons you're opposing it are bad.
	You know what I mean?
	But yeah, I get that.
	I've kind of come around on on a lot of that, but now he wasn't saying anything that you could consider hate speech.
	He wasn't saying anything that you could consider even really offensive.
	It was just a different take on the war in Ukraine.
	And now you have a lot of companies coming out with these policies saying if you defend the war in Ukraine, if you glorify the Russian army or something like that, however they define that, you can be banned.
	And this is interesting, of course, because Ukraine is not in NATO.
	The United States is not at war.
	I mean, when's the last time we've even had a declaration of war?
	And yeah.
	These policies just kind of emerge from nowhere, where It becomes borderline treason to take a certain stand on something, even though the government hasn't actually made a decision.
	And I think what we've seen over the last few years, and it really has happened since President Trump won in 2016, something I think that the people running things did not expect, including, I don't think Trump himself expected it.
	And I think the conclusion everybody drew, everybody with power, quite rightly, Was that they needed to use their power over algorithms, over social media platforms to curate the discourse and essentially nudge election results in the direction they wanted.
	I mean, social media and government essentially work together at this point, and social media can almost be considered an arm of the government.
	And it's become far more clear.
	In American Renaissance, we did an article Talking, I think it was myself and Mr. Taylor did an article talking about how the Department of Homeland Security, and this is under Trump, this is under based God Emperor Trump, right?
	His DHS was talking to social media companies saying, we're not allowed to actually ban people because of that pesky constitution, but we'd appreciate it if you guys would do it.
	And this is what he was saying at a public forum.
	When COVID-19 You had the White House coming out and identifying specific accounts and saying these people need to be banned for spreading medical disinformation as determined by somebody.
	We never really find out who.
	And, of course, one of the people there was Robert Kennedy Jr., who, again, wasn't that long ago.
	You could remember that, I don't know, homeopathic medicine and anti-vax stuff and And a lot of the suspicion of major pharmaceutical companies and corporate America more broadly, I mean, these weren't just aspects of the left.
	I mean, this is what defined the left.
	If you think of, you know, the battle in Seattle and globalization and all these kinds of protests from 20 years ago, that was really the anti-capitalist left.
	Now we're in a position where those people are thrown in with the far right.
	And journalists and the people who seem to determine what we are and are not allowed to say, maybe it's unfair dependent on journalists, they're just kind of the front guys, but the people who are making the calls have thrown them in and they don't seem to have seen any contradiction between what they were supposed to believe 20 years ago and what they believe now.
	I mean, can we even say there is a left at this point beyond simply being anti-white?
	They seem to have just jettisoned their opposition to corporate power if they can control it.
	Yeah, I think that's fair.
	I mean, the most important facet of leftism is anti-whiteness, and everything else is, you know, very distant seconds and thirds.
	To that point, interestingly enough, in Latin America, the bulk of the opposition to to vaccine mandates still does come from the left.
	I mean, the racial politics of Latin America being different, but it's still kind of that hippie, homeopathic, you know, artisanal left that's not really around in the U.S.
	anymore.
	It still exists in Latin America, and they are the ones against big pharma.
	The right-wing opposition to vaccine mandates is much more minimal there.
	It's just interesting.
	It's sort of like a You know to look at Latin to look at that aspect of Latin American politics from America today is sort of like stepping into a into a time machine because certainly if there had been some kind of disease going around in like the 1980s and Reagan had imposed mandates it entirely would have all of the opposition would have come from the hippie left.
	Oh look at what people say now about how The right responded to AIDS or GRIDS as it was originally called.
	I mean, you had mainstream figures.
	I think it was Huckabee.
	I apologize in advance if I've got this wrong, but you had people who were up and coming at the time talking about building, if not camps, but some sort of quarantine type system for this because nobody understood it, or at least they claim not to understand it.
	Now, of course, you have all these things.
	And if you go back to the beginning of that epidemic, you had health officials going to people who were running these establishments in San Francisco and saying, like, hey, you can't do this kind of stuff.
	Yeah, you need to shut down.
	Yeah.
	David Horowitz writes about this quite a bit.
	I mean, this was one of the things that he claims turned him.
	from being a leftist to a conservative.
	And, of course, these establishments said, no, because this is our culture, this is freedom, this is more important than your concerns about health and public safety.
	Well, they said they were small businesses and had a right to operate.
	Right.
	So, I mean, just like the anti-shutdown right-winger small business people now.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	And then now, of course, not now, because, again, it's changing in real time, but say a few months ago, How quickly it moved to if you don't have a vaccine mandate, the hospitals shouldn't have to treat you.
	And we can all laugh it if you die.
	I mean, how many articles were there where some old guy dies of COVID and is unvaccinated and just utter rejoicing across all of social media?
	And then the right would promote some case where you have some kid who takes the vaccine, dies of a heart attack at age 23 or something like that, and everybody goes nuts because this is disinformation, this shouldn't be happening and everything else.
	And I feel like a lot of what's happening in terms of health care and what the real story is, we'll find out a decade from now, maybe, when it doesn't matter anymore.
	And your point about the changing definition of left and right regarding vaccine mandates is well taken.
	As I understand it, in Hungary and in Russia, the right wing position was take the vaccine and it was the left wing position to oppose it because it's the right wing centralizing government that's trying to impose these mandates on you and leftism is about freedom and fighting the government and everything else.
	And I think we can all easily imagine An alternate universe where a more cynical President Trump sees the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to
	Scare the nation and rally voters around him.
	He's the one pushing massively consolidate power.
	Right.
	And all the same people who are screaming, laughing at people who are unvaccinated, dying or screaming that it's, you know, the Fourth Reich because President Trump said, get a shot.
	And of course, you can find the tweets saying, like, I will not take Trump's vaccine.
	This is a scam.
	Same people.
	This is a scam.
	I think to find else is the account on Twitter that usually compiles these types of things.
	And then a year later, If you don't take this thing, you should be thrown in jail and killed.
	And this is good and everything else.
	Now we're seeing it with foreign policy.
	And it's interesting, of course, because what was the new left?
	I mean, what was it really defined by?
	And you could say that there was a certain opposition to corporate power and consumerism.
	The May 68 riot in France, I guess, would be the defining element of that.
	Hippies in this country, but really it was opposition to the Vietnam War.
	And now same people, same class, same everything.
	Now that Russia isn't communist anymore, expressing skepticism about getting involved in a proxy war that could very easily turn into a major war has suddenly become verboten.
	You get the feeling that there are these leftists who are still playing catch-up.
	Glenn Greenwald, maybe people like that.
	Who, again, you know, by Latin American standards is still very much on the left when it comes to his opposition to the Brazilian government.
	Yeah.
	But in this country... No kid in Brazil ever accuses Glenn Greenwald of being secretly right-wing.
	Right, right.
	He and Bolsonaro do not get along.
	Well, and Greenwald's boyfriend or husband is a socialist, like, congressman or, you know, deputy, whatever the equivalent to the Brazilian Congress is.
	Right.
	Which, you know, would further suggest that Greenwald is not a crypto-fascist.
	Right.
	Why no?
	Well, there's some interesting racial dynamics, which we should talk about, given that we're American Renaissance.
	If you look at the way Russia is styling its propaganda campaign, first of all, all the denazification stuff.
	We've written about that.
	It's I think the propaganda on both sides is extremely stupid, and I'm not going to get into it.
	But one of the much more interesting things, I think, is how Russia is saying this is the end of the unipolar world.
	And it's putting itself up there as a champion of the so-called BRICS coalition.
	You know, this group of developing nations that's outside the G7.
	Right, BRICS being Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, B-R-I-C-S, BRICS.
	And India is cutting deals with Russia for petroleum and possibly for coal, and this is pretty significant considering that India was going to be America's big ally in Asia against China, along with Japan, of course.
	Right now, you're seeing a lot of diplomatic pressure being put on India by the United States and by the State Department.
	Probably some color revolution plans underway.
	You saw the fall of the Pakistani Prime Minister and what he openly alleged is an American plot because they were too friendly with Russia, supposedly, economically.
	You're seeing arguments From a lot of these countries saying NATO, we posted it on the NREM website as one of our news items where they're going back to sort of the old playbook of saying NATO is white supremacist and this war is about white supremacy and Russia is somehow a champion of the developing world and everything like that.
	And it's striking to me how you can see I'm not agreeing with these arguments, but you can see the logic of it from a left-wing point of view.
	Like, this is exactly what they would be saying if it was 1980, say.
	And you would be saying, You're all Russia's third world allies.
	This shows that we, as leftists, should be suspicious of American military dominance.
	We should be suspicious of corporate power.
	We should be suspicious of efforts to restrict speech.
	And this is creeping fascism.
	And you can trot out your own child scheme, whatever else.
	And now all of that is gone.
	And you just have these kind of sad paleo leftists.
	I don't know what else to call them.
	Who just haven't shifted with the times because I think now the we could say being anti-white is the defining characteristic of the left.
	But if we want to put it in class terms, it's almost they have accepted their role as the managerial class and they really anything outside that system of control becomes pathologized as far right becomes a threat.
	And you're seeing that, frankly, with the response to Elon Musk's move today.
	Now, again, exactly.
	Yeah.
	Musk is.
	He would have been considered a progressive hero during I think he was considered a progressive hero during the Obama years, because obviously, what is this big thing?
	Electric vehicles fighting carbon, carbon outputs and climate change and all of these environmental things.
	But even on environmental issues, certainly anyone Who's a white advocate or anyone who is familiar with the history of immigration in this country knows that the Sierra Club did a complete 180 on immigration simply because the donor told them to.
	And if you seriously are concerned about the environment, you're going to get into talk about population control.
	You're going to get into talk about birth rates.
	You're going to get talk into, When you have third world populations moving to first world countries, the carbon output skyrockets.
	And if you actually believe this stuff, you should be concerned about it.
	But none of that stuff matters anymore.
	All of that has just been kind of brushed aside.
	And certainly because many conservatives obviously don't particularly like talk about population control.
	And I would say the bulk of American conservatives, what, 80% or at least somewhat pro-life.
	You're not going to get that kind of rhetoric.
	So like that's an entire sphere of leftist narratives that were mainstream not that long ago, and that's just gone now.
	And it's really striking to me how easily the left has just been broken and transformed into something new.
	I think that there's I mean, again, can we even talk about left at this point, or is it just there are people who are anti-white and there are people who are not?
	Oh boy, what a big question.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I'm very much a, you know, a historicist and a contextualizer.
	I don't think it's a, I don't think it's really like a contradiction in terms at this point to say that right now The left is defined by being anti-white, and the non-left is defined as being not anti-white, although certainly not necessarily pro-white.
	And I think that's actually exactly why you see people like Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi being pushed out of the left, because that's what's defining it at this point.
	But I don't think that I don't think just because the left at this point is defined by its anti-whiteness that precludes it from being called the left, precludes it from being the left just because now anti-whiteness is more important than pro-environmentalism or something.
	Because what, you know, the biggest issue on the left is forever changing.
	I mean, it's a matter of context.
	Yeah.
	But if we talk about the left, I mean, if we want to get really Technical about it obviously the very terms right and left a lot of people are gonna say these terms are outdated We're beyond left and right of course the only people who actually say things like we're beyond left and right tend to be far, right?
	And Obviously it goes back to the French Revolution and we could get it to you know monarchy and trad and all this kind of stuff But today I think in terms of what it means now broadly speaking The left would be defined as opposition to concentrations of economic power.
	You do have a unionization drive going on at Amazon, at Starbucks, and these are both companies that if you look at the way they behave, where they put their donations, what their leaders, their corporate leaders have said in terms of political and cultural issues, most conservatives would consider them By which I mean Starbucks and Amazon on the left.
	Certainly, you know, we're banned from selling products at Amazon.
	So it doesn't matter to me if the company goes bankrupt.
	Well, and you and I couldn't get jobs at Starbucks.
	I mean, I think we're... If we suddenly felt so compelled.
	Not to, like, pull rank, but I mean, I think, you know, we're not English majors with $200,000 in student loan debt.
	So we don't need to be baristas.
	Union or no union, as far as crappy jobs go, Starbucks is actually one of the better ones because they give you healthcare.
	Baristas get certain health benefits that obviously you don't get if you work at McDonald's or some random restaurant or something.
	I'm not trying to defend Starbucks or anything, but I've known I've known more than one person that's gotten, like, laid off from an office job or a white-collar job, and they've immediately gone to, like, Starbucks, you know, between, you know, like, as a temporary thing before they get, you know, before they sort of get back to where they were, and it's because of the health care.
	But remember a few years ago that there was the whole incident where, I think it was a black guy was in a Starbucks, and He was asked to leave or somebody else.
	You're talking about what happened in Philly in 2018.
	Exactly.
	Two black guys came into a Starbucks to use the bathroom.
	They were told they had to buy something to use the bathroom.
	And that was the policy at the time.
	They refused to buy something and then didn't leave.
	So the cops were called and it turned into this huge racism scandal.
	Yeah, Starbucks is super woke, but I guess in terms of talking about right versus left in the context of right now of being anti-white or Neutral about whiteness.
	I think it still works in the left-right framework in the most basic sense of the left is defined by Disgust with the hierarchies that it sees and it seeks to invert those hierarchies.
	It believes that those hierarchies are unnatural or unjust or or both and the right is There's always defending hierarchies.
	And I mean, the left is anti-white because they feel that whites are at the top and they shouldn't be, that that's unnatural and probably unnatural and certainly unjust.
	So this is what I would challenge at this point, because when we look at media, for example, I would say the right case, the right wing case at this point is that The current hierarchy is the thing that we need to overthrow and destroy.
	And the leftist case is no, we need to maintain, and they're saying this quite explicitly, we need to maintain our hierarchy, we need to maintain our control.
	Because we are the ones who have the responsibility for making sure there is rational discourse.
	And if we let these people back into Twitter or wherever else, we're going to have Hate speech, we're going to have Trump back in office, it's going to be the end of democracy, it's going to be the end of the world.
	I'll quote a few things that are just being said right now in a little while, but I guess that's the core question.
	If we define the difference between right and left, as I would, as the struggle between equality and hierarchy, or equality and greatness, however you want to frame it, but that basic dichotomy is there.
	There is some self-awareness among leftists that they are the ones in charge now, at least in certain areas.
	And their goal now is to consolidate that system of control, to strengthen it, to make it stagnant, and to make sure there's no competition, and to make it more repressive.
	And they're openly defending it on these grounds.
	Now, if I was a leftist, I would respond by saying, well, that's all very well, but you right wingers, what is your master plan?
	That the richest man in the world buys this thing and opens the door for you.
	You guys are still the running dogs of capital.
	Fair enough.
	But the reason we're in this mess to begin with is because Twitter and all these other social media companies took deliberate steps to purge conservatives over the last Six years.
	And this happened from people who, at the very beginning, you know, as Twitter infamously put it, once the free speech wing of the free speech party.
	But once people actually started saying what they actually believed, and once you started seeing that have political and social consequences, that got shut down real quick.
	Well, I mean, I guess that's the question is like, do leftists have self-awareness about being in control, or even as they're calling for censorship, do they still think?
	That's exactly what I was going to bring up.
	Nobody on the left today believes that they have any power, and I think that's generally historically true.
	I mean, their calls to wield power to keep Elon Musk from buying Twitter and to censor more things, they feel that they are doing that precisely because they have so little power and because at any time the rug can be pulled out from under them because Either Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter, or Peter Thiel is going to sue Gawker, or Trump is going to win an election.
	There's this very five-minutes-to-midnight feel about all of it.
	It's amazing, but I've never met a leftist who felt, in the slightest, that America was a left-wing country, or had a left-wing culture, or that the dominant social forces in academia and media were left-wing.
	You know, everybody on the left of the left openly talk about how right-wing and how conservative the New York Times and the Washington Post are.
	And they believe it.
	This isn't some weird propagandizing rhetoric to, I don't know, trick us or trick people in the center or something.
	They really do very much believe it.
	And I wish I were smart enough to be able to convince them that they're wrong.
	But again, I mean, people generally People generally call for censorship precisely because they feel that they or their values are not in control.
	That's the impetus to censor, is the fear that if you do not censor that you're going to lose, right?
	That's sort of the fatal seat of censorship.
	So no, all of these people calling for censorship or some kind of economic provision to keep Elon Musk from owning a thing, come from beliefs that they are losing power.
	I mean, that's why they want to censor, you know, what they term misinformation, because they feel that if misinformation goes viral, it will dominate, that misinformation will beat out good information.
	Of course, the counter to that is that, I mean, again, this is American Renaissance, but the biggest, and I'm just saying this as this is an objective Reality, as far as I see it, as far as we can know anything, it's as sure as the existence of gravity.
	If you deny that race exists, and if you deny that it has consequences, that, to me, is the most destructive misinformation out there.
	I mean, that lie is destroyed the West.
	And it ultimately tears down every institution because If the only explanation you can have in any institution, any school, in any public body, in any military, in any anything, if the only explanation you can have of why aren't these groups performing the same is white racism, the only thing you can do in response is either bluntly attack whites or sometimes at the same time just destroy standards entirely.
	And of course, we could even argue that destroying standards is core to the leftist project because standards are, after all, a form of hierarchy.
	But and I completely agree with you that the left always has this kind of five minutes to midnight feeling, and that gives them a great advantage because it inspires passion, inspires dedication, inspires a kind of fanaticism.
	Whereas the biggest problem, I would say, with American conservatives is Even as they see the culture moving in a certain direction, even as, just to put a scenario, the most extreme scenario that people are talking about now, even if you see videos of public school teachers talking about like, yes, we want to push these sexual views on your second grader that we have under our control, furthermore,
	You, as parents, should not be allowed to teach your children.
	Only we should be allowed to do these things.
	And if you disagree, you should have your kids taken away, whatever else.
	I mean, these are things that are being seen.
	This is what's behind the right-wingers all using rumors and the controversy around that.
	But how many conservatives still see that, see what's going on, but at the same time think, well, that's kind of a fringe thing.
	We're still in control.
	The America of Reagan Still lives on, and America is still a center-right country.
	I mean, that's kind of the biggest gap that's emerged, really, since Trump.
	It's what the original alt-right in its original iteration was.
	It actually didn't have that much to do with, I mean, it acknowledged race, but that wasn't core to the project.
	It was the recognition that America is not actually a center-right country.
	America is not actually, in terms of who runs it, who controls it, it's not a force for good in the world.
	It's pushing all these things that conservatives claim to be against, and yet conservatives are the biggest offenders.
	And so you have this kind of bizarre situation.
	I mean, I'm sure leftists really believe that they don't have power, but For those of us who are kind of outside that framework, we have this bizarre situation where you have leftist CEOs, leftists who control the employment and the jobs of countless people.
	Think of every business or every influencer or every shop that was completely shut down, just wiped out because of social media purges.
	Think of every podcaster who becomes a best-selling author, who then becomes a pundit, because the internet created these opportunities, but these were all closed for people on the right.
	And yet, the left still believes that they're on the brink of just being annihilated.
	And most Republicans still believe that they're still somehow in control.
	I mean, it's sort of this It's the aesthetic sensibility when some 19-year-old kid who got an internship at Cato or something gives you a business card and starts talking about himself as a political insider.
	Just this desperate desire to believe that they're actually on top even when they're not.
	And the less desperate desire to believe that they're actually victims when they're actually the ones holding the guns.
	Well, well put.
	Yeah, really well put.
	Man, I do feel like we've really dramatically strayed from the general topic of censorship, though.
	Well, I mean, the Musk thing has kind of changed the environment.
	I mean, we had a whole framework for what we were going to go into, and then you have this kind of bomb that gets into it.
	And we'll have to see.
	As you say, this may You may be trolling.
	I suspect that it may also be a financial move.
	Obviously, if you're a stockholder, one of the best ways to get the share price to go up is to make a takeover bid and to state a price that is higher than the current price.
	Now, Twitter stock actually is not doing as well today as you might expect, but it was up early this morning.
	I do want to read a couple of the reactions here.
	And I think it's R.N.
	McIntyre.
	I'm going to credit him with this.
	The best bluejack meltdowns of the Elon Musk Twitter buyout.
	This is Axios.
	The world's richest man, someone who used to be compared to Marvel's Iron Man, is increasingly behaving like a movie supervillain, commanding seemingly unlimited resources with which to finance his mischief making.
	That kind of Sums up the transformation I'm talking about.
	He was Iron Man.
	Of course, they have no frame of reference except Marvel and World War II.
	He was Iron Man when he was making electric vehicles.
	But now that he might open up just a tiny bit more ground for free speech on one social media platform, he's a supervillain.
	This one's great.
	Jeff Jarvis.
	Today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar, Germany.
	It's really something.
	But again, that dude definitely believes that.
	Yeah.
	There's no self-awareness there.
	Yeah, he really, really believes that.
	It's interesting, too, that Weimar, Germany has gone from ultimate nightmare to no, actually, this is good and what we wanted.
	It's another stage in how the left goes from, this isn't happening, to this isn't happening and it's good that it is, and it's good that this happened, and if you ever question it, then we're going to kick you out of society.
	I mean, Weimer, it wasn't that long ago you could say Weimer, Germany, and you could be like, oh man, what an absolute nightmare, no wonder people reacted.
	But now, in academia and everywhere else, Weimer, Germany was this bastion of high culture and everything else, and this is what we want.
	Well, you know, I find it... forgive my centrism, I guess, but I find tweets like that and just language comparisons like that...
	Like, really, I mean, really disrespectful.
	People, I mean, people who owned and performed in nightclubs in Weimar, Germany, like, were imprisoned and killed.
	Like, you could lose, you know, some of those people died.
	Like, nobody would die if Musk bought Twitter.
	Like, this is just... Oh, but they think they would.
	That's the thing, is they always create... I mean, this is what I'm working on now with the shooting in the Brooklyn subway that occurred earlier this week.
	When you're constantly telling people, I mean, let's, let's think of this in terms of power.
	Anyone who listens to this podcast should understand, you know, what we're focused on most, uh, even more than ideas is just how ideas serve power relationships, right?
	I mean, that's what really everything is all about.
	The case for banning people like us, the case for banning people who are a lot more moderate than us, is that if we say certain things it constitutes a threat that it's going to inspire radicalization and that people are going to go out there and shoot people and kill people and so therefore it's kind of preemptive self-defense to shut up whoever you think is a fascist which at this point includes everybody to the right of Ron DeSantis and probably him too but
	If you look at the unbelievable media power that exists now, it's unparalleled ability to shift social beliefs.
	I mean, just look at how, and again, I'm not getting into this issue, but just as an example, the dramatic shift in people's opinions on, say, something like gay marriage within the last seven years, how it's gone from I mean, at the time it was mandated, half the country still more or less opposed it.
	Now it's basically universal acceptance, even among conservatives.
	And what is the message that they're saying about race?
	All the problems and discrepancies that we have are the fault of white supremacy.
	We're going to go on these scavenger hunts where 150 years ago we're going to say that there was a black Wall Street, but then like the army came and bombed it just for no reason.
	And that's the reason why there's wealth disparities today.
	White people are, we're going to make movies where white people are hunting black people for sport.
	We're going to push this message at all levels.
	And then we look at the crime rates and we say, well, who is it that's committing the crime?
	Who is it that they're targeting?
	Who is actually the victims and the victimizers here?
	If you buy the left's belief that certain speech leads to extreme actions, if you accept that connection, and even that I wouldn't accept because I think You know, if you're going to have anything close to a free society, you have to say that there's a difference between advocating an idea and or even entertaining or discussing an idea and then taking militant action on behalf of a certain idea or violent action, certainly.
	But who has the media power?
	What are the messages they are conveying?
	And what are the results of those messages?
	I mean, we see it all around us, and yet they would deny it's even happening.
	At the same time, they think if some guy with an anime avatar gets back on Twitter, it's going to be the end of the world, and I'm not exaggerating here.
	Here's a quote from David Levitt, another checkmark, and I quote, if Elon Musk successfully purchases Twitter, it could result in World War III and the destruction of our planet.
	The Washington Post, which again, has their stupid, cringey Democracy Dies in Darkness Oh, man, we need to... I'm, like, holding back from just, like, just the physical revulsion at that slogan.
	I quote, Musk's appointment to Twitter's board shows that we need regulation of social media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.
	Oh, now we need that.
	Now we need regulation of social media platforms.
	How quickly it went from Just build your own company, too.
	Now we need the government to step in.
	Anybody except very wealthy people are going to own social media companies or huge newspapers or something.
	It's just a question of what kind of rich people.
	Like, that's the issue.
	Nobody on the left cares that Bezos owns the Washington Post.
	He's, I believe, the second richest man on the planet, after Elon Musk.
	Right.
	But he's got the right opinions about stuff, so it's not a big deal.
	I mean, hey, to be fair, and again, we're being, I think, a bit more fair to progressives than they would be to us.
	I do actually accept it as sincere, the unionization effort that they're going after with Amazon.
	We should point out, though, That one of the demands that I've seen fluttered around from union organizers with Amazon, because again, there's a lot of sort of self-styled right populists who are cheering on these unionization efforts because it'll hurt Amazon and they accurately see Amazon as one of our foes.
	But the workers actually think Amazon doesn't go far enough when it comes to censorship.
	I mean, a lot of times what happens, it's not that Amazon goes out of its way to censor stuff.
	It's that some reporters, some NGOs create an artificial controversy and they respond to it.
	But if that artificial controversy isn't created in the first place, I mean, you can still find, you know, a certain book or a certain author, if it's fringe enough, that nobody's heard of it.
	And then if somebody figures it out, they can create a moral panic and you'll have people who never heard of it.
	Saying it's a threat to their security the next day and then Amazon will respond.
	But I think this is part of it.
	I'm not saying that progressives.
	Are just throwing out economic disparities, but I'm saying that that has become subordinated to their cultural agenda.
	And even when you have something like unionization.
	That is coupled with anti white demands.
	And if they have to make a choice.
	Yeah.
	No question.
	over and over and over again, they're ultimately going to choose being anti-white.
	Yeah, no question.
	Here's another great quote.
	This is from someone named Lila Sturgis.
	I'm not gonna get myself in trouble by trying to decode what pronoun or sex or gender.
	I don't wanna leave Twitter, but it seems a given that if Musk buys it, it, sick,
	will become completely uninhabitable for trans people.
	Unless it's not for trans people.
	Completely uninhabitable.
	I'm reminded of... I'm the guy, but you know, how is cyberbullying even real?
	Just close your eyes.
	I mean, what's real?
	What's real is losing income.
	What's real is having like bank accounts stripped away.
	What's real is having your business opportunities be shut down.
	I mean, that's power, not Some guy you don't know speaking under a fake name calling you something.
	Yeah.
	And they've got this all mixed up.
	I mean, it's almost like a kind of, we're bringing back blasphemy laws under new rules, where instead you can insult God all you want, but you can't insult certain social classes.
	Breonna Woo, I'm not even going to get into the history there.
	The reason Truth Social, that's Trump's platform, Gab, and all these other right-wing platforms have failed is smart people don't want to spend our time there.
	I would argue Gab hasn't exactly failed, but okay.
	If Must Buy's Twitter dismantles everything the trust and safety team has done, many of us will go elsewhere.
	It will literally destroy Twitter.
	Right-wing lunatics may despise us and the standards of civility we expect, but the truth is their social media networks fail without us.
	The standards of civility coming from the left I mean, like, let's take a pause on that.
	I mean, how much obscenity, how much porn, how much just degenerate garbage can you find on social media accounts while Jared Taylor was banned?
	I mean, they don't even try to pretend that he violated the terms.
	They just kind of did it because they could.
	And I think we're seeing this, too, to kind of bring it back with this form, the foreign policy angle.
	When you saw the ban on the podcasters, Russians with Attitude, which was then reversed, when you saw the ban on Scott Ritter, there was obviously you saw a big crackdown on Russia Today and some of anything aligned somewhat with the Russian state.
	And it's interesting because With the war in Ukraine, and again, there's an excellent, thought-provoking column at Counter-Currents by Greg Johnson on defending the Ukrainian side, which I encourage people to read.
	If you don't agree with it, it's, you know, these are serious arguments that need to be considered.
	If you look at Russia's propaganda line, it's no different than what you would get in the Washington Post and the New York Times.
	Just kind of hysterical charges of Nazis hiding under every blanket.
	And this guy's a Nazi and that guy's a Nazi.
	And if anything, Russia's case might have a bit more truth than what the mainstream American press says when they try to call some random Christian conservative a Nazi, as opposed to somebody in the Azov battalion who might actually be a Nazi.
	But it doesn't seem to have any purchase.
	I mean, there just seems to have been this command from the top down that this is not It is in the interest of those of us with power to oppose Russia's efforts here.
	And so the ideological arguments just don't matter anymore.
	We're just going to dismiss them.
	And it's incredible because you don't have to go very far back.
	I mean, you can go to things like Vice a couple of years ago, where they're doing these investigations into Ukraine.
	And bemoaning far-right politics, complaining about the Azov battalion, complaining about there was a women's movement there that they did, you know, one of their big reports on.
	And about halfway through the report, it stopped being about the women's movement and just started being the journalists complaining that the women there were all patriotic and wanted to have kids instead of, you know, being journalists.
	And I don't know.
	Complaining and being on antidepressants or something like that Though there was this huge Inertia of ideological opposition to everything that Ukraine was doing and To kind of challenge our own premise here you would predict that if being anti white was all important that this would at least be brought up and That at least some people would entertain these arguments.
	And you do see a few leftists entertaining these arguments.
	Michael Tracy, I guess, would be one.
	He hasn't been banned yet, but he's one of the guys who will talk about it.
	Greenwald, too, of course.
	But it's just had no purchase.
	And I think this kind of really gets to the core of what we're talking about, that Being anti-white is an important component of the ruling system of the United States, and more broadly, the ruling system of the West.
	But there are still geopolitical interests, and there is kind of still a real world of geopolitical competition.
	And when it comes down to it, the interests of those in power overcome Whatever arguments that we're making even a few years ago, and so now we have this kind of bizarre situation where people are banning Russian accounts that are screaming hysterically about Nazis who probably don't even exist.
	And they're banning these Russian accounts because they're actually secretly far right and run by neo Nazis.
	It's I mean, we're just kind of like in a.
	Circle of insanity where arguments and realities and facts just have no Impact whatsoever.
	It's just sort of this funhouse mirror of narratives and I Don't know.
	I mean, I think that the only way you can really have any kind of Meaningful democracy if that means anything is you gotta You got to have some sort of space where?
	Arguments can be pitted against each other and you can introduce evidence that you haven't seen before And those of us on the far right like we deal with it all the time I mean you just by living in America or going to college or something like that You just have you're gonna see these arguments whether you want to or not.
	So we've like seen this stuff But if you're a normal Bourgeois leftist, I mean you can go your entire life Without hearing like a serious argument about something important.
	And when they see it, I mean, I think they just kind of mentally collapse.
	And it really just raises the question of if the left prioritizes anti-white rhetoric above class interests, I mean, would you agree with that?
	Yes.
	And if we see in The Russia conflict that they are willing to kind of throw out some of their arguments and concerns about so-called racism in the interests of defending American geopolitical interests.
	I think that's where we can really start to ask.
	Is there a left?
	Is there is there a movement that actually wants to challenge the existing hierarchy in the United States and more broadly?
	The West, because when it comes down to it, they are siding with the people in charge.
	Same thing in France with the French election.
	You had a very strong showing by a left-wing candidate who came very close to almost knocking off Le Pen and going into the runoff round in the French election between Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen.
	Le Pen has not run a very immigration and race-focused campaign.
	Zamora has kind of taken the lead on that.
	Le Pen was talking about jobs.
	Le Pen was talking about the cost of living.
	Le Pen is talking a lot about economic issues.
	And yet, the leftist candidate, the night of the election, no reflection needed.
	You know, he had just waged a big challenge.
	Macron's whole shtick is that he's a technocrat who's going to Reduce benefits to workers and make things more efficient and make Europe more powerful and start all sorts of fun wars and everything else.
	And what did he say?
	He said, under no circumstances will we vote for Le Pen.
	So all that stuff he talked about during the campaign about opposing the system, about helping workers, about doing anything that we would consider left wing, all that goes out the window.
	And you just bow the knee to capital.
	The minute that you have a right-wing populist approaching.
	I mean, this is also why it's so hard to get any coalition between left and right, even on economic issues where you would think it would make sense, is because they would rather lose than be aligned with us.
	Yeah.
	I guess what I would ask you in regards to this sort of budding thesis of yours as to whether or not there is a left, I mean, Once the Bolsheviks took power in Russia and Russia became the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks in charge, did they stop being left-wing because suddenly they were manning the rudder?
	That's a good question and something I've thought about quite a bit.
	I mean, you could argue that following Stalin's purges of the old Bolsheviks that, and this is what Trotsky argued, right, that it had ceased to be A revolutionary state and had become something else.
	And certainly if you look at.
	The Eastern Bloc, say.
	In not under Stalin, of course, but in like the 70s or 80s.
	I mean, it's a and libertarians have made this argument.
	You could argue that these countries were more socially conservative than the so-called Christian West.
	Certainly by today's standards, that was true.
	Stalin banned abortion and you know the Germans invaded they brought they let the Russian Orthodox Church off the leash a little bit and started appealing to national memory and everything else and you know that's one of the things when people talk about Vladimir Putin and they say oh he's a he's a communist because he was in the KGB and it's like well if you were some vaguely patriotic guy born in Russia in The later stages of the Soviet Union and he joined the KGB.
	I don't think that means you were a communist the same way it would mean if you were a communist in 1915 and you were facing death because you were trying to overthrow the czar.
	I I would argue that it at some point you can say the Soviet Union ceased to be a revolutionary left-wing state and became something else.
	And maybe that's a that's why leftism or as Evelyn would call it just subversion.
	Is so powerful is because by its very nature, it can never actually win.
	Even if it actually achieves absolute power, it can't conceive of itself as being in power.
	Core to the self-identification of a leftist is lacking power.
	And yet So even when they're wielding power, even in something as petty as, oh, we're going to ban these Twitter accounts, or we're going to make sure that we control whatever social media platform, or we're going to make some guys, I don't know, Etsy or Amazon shop, we're going to get that shut down.
	They still frame it as they're fighting for the little guy.
	And in their own heads, I think they really believe it.
	But I think from a broader perspective, there does come a point where If we're going to be a bit more objective about it, leftist social movements, once they achieve a certain amount of power and influence, they cease to be leftist.
	And, you know, it's like saying that is the People's Republic of China a communist country?
	It'd be very hard to argue that it really is.
	I mean, it's it's something else.
	And when you hear all this stuff about the people and the workers and everything else, I mean, it's it's a propaganda.
	It's an ideological justification for the policies they're putting forward.
	But clearly, we would say that China is more nationalist than communist at this point.
	People have even argued the same thing about North Korea.
	If you I believe there was a book a few years ago called The Cleanest Race, and It was a study of North Korea's ideology, you know, Juche, which is almost incomprehensible if you try to break it down and see if there's anything there.
	But if you actually look at the propaganda that the regime puts forward, it essentially justifies itself by saying North Korea is the true Korea, South Korea is too demographically mixed, and the propaganda they use to display American soldiers, say, looks fairly similar to what you would see in Der Sturmer about, like, Jews or something like that.
	I mean, just kind of these, like, weird goblin-esque creatures that aren't really human.
	That's the way they portray us.
	And, you know, was North Korea on the left?
	I mean, if you're a tankie, I'm sure you can think of all sorts of arguments that it is, but I would say it's not.
	And those with power, Don't think so either.
	I mean, that's sort of where we begin here is that the tankies, the anti-imperialists, the third worlders who want to still believe Yankee, go home.
	These people have essentially been purged from American controlled social media networks, and they've been purged by people who regard themselves as leftists.
	And so.
	That Maybe we can, it's a bit of an overstatement to say there is no left.
	I mean, there's a certain amount of just playing semantic games here.
	But I think we can say that the left has fundamentally changed.
	And however regards itself in its own mind, however its followers regard themselves, we can argue that they are the ones in power.
	They are comfortable with the role as the managerial class.
	And they see their job as essentially supervising us and making sure that certain arguments, certain movements, certain people aren't given a chance to get off the ground.
	And maybe they believe they're acting in the interest of the little guy, but in terms of how it actually is exercised and practiced, they're always shooting down, you know?
	They're not There's never a case of these guys trying to support, I don't know, some small business who was shut down because of a vaccine mandate or because he might have put a Blue Lives Matter sign in his window or something like that.
	I mean, these are not people that you're going to see leftists defend.
	Instead, you're going to see very wealthy and elite-backed social movements go after these guys.
	I mean, to some extent, it's gotten to the point of parody.
	I mean, Black Lives Matter, right, where they bought that mansion for $6 million and people looked at them and said, what the hell is this?
	And they said, well, it's for cultivating joy.
	So it's okay.
	I mean, imagine if we did that.
	We just took millions of dollars and just bought it, didn't hold any conferences, didn't do anything, and then people said, hey, you stole our money.
	What are you doing?
	It's like, oh, it's about cultivating white joy.
	My emotional well-being is actually a service to the larger cause.
	I mean, I don't think it would fly.
	Okay, so regarding, I mean, backing up just a bit, I mean, Marxism is easier to define
	than leftism writ large.
	So, I mean, I think it's much easier to talk about whether or not North Korea or China are communist.
	But as to your point about leftism, you know, when I asked you whether or not the Soviet Union was left-wing, you brought up the kind of Trotskyite critique that's really focused on Stalin and his purges starting in the 1930s.
	So I guess what I would ask then is, I'd say it was in transition.
	I'd say that there was a contest going on.
	means? Before, between, between the revolution and Stalin was, were the Bolsheviks left-wing
	even though they were in power?
	Say it was in transition. I'd say that there was a contest going on. I mean, that's like
	arguing what, I mean, really the argument is, was Stalin leftist? Which is actually
	a fairly complicated question.
	That's why I'm that's why I'm skipping it by asking here if Lenin well, well in power was a leftist.
	I mean you could argue could argue that stopped being a leftist once he took power.
	That's what I think that you could you could argue that once a leftist revolution seizes power.
	And begins compromising with capitalism and conservative social policies that ceases to be leftist.
	And from that standpoint, the Soviet Union following, I believe, the New Economic Policy, if I'm not mistaken is what they called it, when they realized, oh wait, none of this stuff actually works.
	And they started to reintroduce some capitalist principles at that point.
	Well, but that wasn't until, I mean, you're talking about... You're talking about the 20s though, right?
	Yeah, the 1920s.
	New Economic Policy was, I think, considerably earlier.
	Considerably earlier.
	The Bolsheviks didn't take power until like 1917, 1918.
	What do you mean considerably earlier?
	No, but I think the new economic policy took place before the 20s.
	I mean, when did Lenin have his stroke and Stalin move in?
	Late 20s, early 30s, I'm not sure.
	I mean, I think, leave Stalin out of it for a second, I think you could argue that once Lenin seized power, once the Bolsheviks seized power, and once you started re-implementing a system of hierarchy, which they did fairly quickly, at that point I think the Trotskyite critique of the Soviet Union is essentially correct, that it ceased to be a true worker state.
	The counter-argument is that this is the great strength of leftism, is that Yeah.
	You know how we always argue, Hey, look at this communist state that killed millions and millions of people.
	And they'll say, well, that wasn't true communism.
	I would argue to some extent that's correct, but that's only because you can't have true communism.
	It just doesn't, it's never existed.
	It has never existed.
	It's like saying, you know, people have claimed to see unicorns, but that doesn't mean they actually exist.
	And every time you try to point to something from a progressive and you say, like, well, what is it that you actually want?
	Like, point to a time and place in society where things were running more or less as you think they should go.
	They can't really do it with Very rare and limited and weird exceptions, like the very beginning of the Spanish Civil War in Catalonia when the anarchists were kind of in charge.
	But even they ended up joining the Spanish Republican government at some point.
	You could argue they abandoned the principles at that point.
	For us, even the far crazy, call me whatever you want, the most extreme right wing, you know, beating Ebola, whatever.
	But even me, if you just said, Hey, point to a time in society where you'd be content to live in.
	I'd be, oh, you know, it's just fine.
	I mean, I can think of, you know, dozens and including like this country not that long ago where I'd be like, yeah, this is, this is pretty good.
	I'll take this.
	I'll go be a history professor instead of a, you know, professional revolutionary or whatever it is.
	But the left can't do that.
	Yeah, a lot of conservatives will say that's a weakness, but I think it's a strength.
	I think it's the When conservatives say don't amenitize the eschaton, you know, don't try to bring heaven to earth That's that's essentially cutting your own legs off when it comes to Political activism.
	I think you should actually be striving for the impossible I think the reason why leftism is so strong why their soldiers their political soldiers are so fanatical and Even as they, from an objective viewpoint, suffer one humiliation after another, you know, we've all seen the videos of the meltdowns and everything else, even as we see their principles, them go back and forth, even as we see all these contradictions, it doesn't stop them because they're kind of disconnected from reality in the pursuit of this messianic vision.
	But I would say that's a strength, and it's a strength the same way that a religious vision is a strength.
	I mean, it's a real mistake to believe that logic and reason and arguments and, you know, facts don't care about your feelings.
	That wins in the end.
	I mean, the truth is that feelings don't care about your facts.
	The only way that we could get around that is if you have some semblance of a platform where there are certain rules Where we as a society have some sort of power to keep everybody in awe and say we are going to permit discussion on these things and you aren't allowed to just silence people through force because you just don't like it.
	But that's what we're talking about now, isn't it?
	And right now, if you say, I want free speech on Twitter, you are going to find people who say, This is a direct threat.
	I quote another checkmark here.
	Elon Musk buying Twitter is the end of the world, basically.
	He'll amplify every extremist right-wing Nazi he can find.
	Now, you know, again, take a step back and just try to put yourself in the mindset of a guy who thinks Elon Musk, somebody who just would not B. If it weren't for the drive for electric vehicles and fighting against climate change and all these other kind of Obama-era trendy leftist causes, imagine truly believing that he would either amplify every extremist right-wing Nazi or is himself an extremist right-wing Nazi.
	And now imagine trying to reason with such a person, or like what common ground you have for discussion.
	And I think that's also why the left has done such a good job of purging itself of all these throwbacks to the anti-globalization protests and anti-American foreign policy protests.
	Guys like Ritter and Voices in Latin America and some of the people who might have protested what the Ukrainian military was doing a couple years ago, all those guys are just gone.
	They don't have to see those things in front of them, and I think that's very central to the American Leftist Project, is you have to have total control of the narrative.
	You can't let any kind of cognitive dissidence in there.
	It just has to be switching from one message to another almost without delay.
	And I think that's really what defines them at this point, any more than Opposition to hierarchy or even more than maybe to kind of put ourselves in dangerous territory or maybe we should question about whether being anti-white is really what defines them at this point and it's more just alignment with the current narrative.
	I mean we are seeing them now defend things that they would have called Nazi a year ago so and I'm not You know, being hyperbolic, I'm not saying, like, oh, this was a Nazi-like policy.
	I'm talking about, like, military units that are saying, like, yes, we are national socialist.
	And you have, you know, cool wine ants who are vaxxed and boosted 18 times and watch MSNBC 25 hours a day.
	You have these people saying, these guys are heroes, this is good, this is liberal democracy.
	If you're able to overcome that kind of cognitive dissidence, what does that tell us about what the left really is at this point?
	I mean, I think that's a very scary thing because we at American Renaissance, and certainly Mr. Taylor, we're always trying to put forward facts, right?
	I mean, this is how I get in trouble.
	I get too polemical.
	We're always trying to put forward facts.
	We're trying to present evidence.
	We're saying, hey, look, here's a study.
	And one of the core premises, I guess, of our movement, which leftists could attack, is that it's natural to support your own race and to have a sense of belonging to a people and that this is healthy and good.
	And that one of the reasons so many people are miserable right now, so many white people are miserable, is because they're essentially being forced to act against their own nature.
	They're being shamed and told that their ancestors are scum and that they themselves are racist, which is a sin, and there's nothing they can do to get rid of it.
	I mean, that's central to the idea of white privilege.
	And we say, hey, this is bad.
	This is wrong.
	Here are reasons why you don't have to live this way.
	But what happens if you're just talking to a void?
	What happens if you're just talking to a nullity?
	I mean, the NPC meme is very condescending, and it's very easy, especially for people in our movement, and I admit I'm as guilty of this, probably more guilty of this than most, to say like, oh, I am a critical thinker, and I can see these things, but other people are just, you know, puppets, wake-up sheeple, that kind of thing.
	Looking at the left now, looking at the Twitter explosion now, I mean, this is what's happening right now where people are screaming for venture funds to come in and save them, you know?
	What is the left when you're screaming for BlackRock to come in and save you from Elon Musk?
	I mean, what, how can we even say it exists in any meaningful form?
	How do we, what do we call these people other than just people who agree with what journalists say?
	I guess the reason I was really trying to nail you down on this on the Soviet question is because I actually think it sort of illuminates all of these other questions that you have.
	I mean, I think if you're not willing to say that 1920s USSR was left-wing, that at that point it already stopped being left-wing, then yeah, I think it would be fair to say Drawing from that, that there isn't a left right now, and that in a sense, as you're kind of alluding to, you're kind of drawing on Evola, who's not a thinker I'm terribly familiar with, but you sort of mentioned in passing the idea of the left being just sort of a force of debasement, just kind of like
	Yeah, I mean that's... What do they call it?
	Headbusters?
	Culture jamming?
	Of just like the leftism just being a only sort of like a dissenting or a force of disruption.
	And if that's your view, which it seems like it is, well then yes, nobody with power is on the left because that's basically how you've defined the left.
	It's sort of tautological and I don't really mean that as a criticism necessarily.
	The point is just that like for me, Yeah, 1920s USSR, I mean, that's a good example of, like, the left in power.
	I mean, I think that's about as pristine an example as you could come up with.
	And if, so if you don't think That that was leftism.
	Well, then yeah, to you, for sure, leftism is just sort of culture jamming.
	It's just sort of, you know, debasement or sort of a force of just kind of entropy, even.
	Well, that's exactly what I was going to get to before, even more prompt, because I've thought a lot about this as I've One of the things when you're trying to write a book is you kind of you start writing on something and then you you uncover a premise and you're like, well, let me dig into this more and you get deeper and deeper in.
	I think that most people would say that the left is defined by the pursuit of equality.
	I think that's a fair.
	Would you agree?
	Yeah, that would be yeah, and you could say that the right.
	Now, this is a bit trickier.
	You could argue that there's one left and many rights, that the right, you know, some would say conservatism is the negation of ideology.
	You can't say that it's defense of God because people have very different opinions about which God, which religion.
	But I would say that there is something to the idea of the right being defined by the defense of hierarchy slash greatness, the idea of And I hate to keep drawing on Evola, but I just think he nailed it.
	Listen, if Evola, yeah, if you think he nailed it, then draw on it, come on.
	Everything must be oriented towards that which is above.
	And that would be the best definition.
	But if we go even deeper, we could say, if we see the left as pursuing equality, and if we see, if we argue, as we talked about when we talked about James Burnham, And as we talk about, as every leftist social scientist will agree, that there are social classes and that you've never really had a true egalitarian society, there's always going to be hierarchy.
	And so if there's always going to be hierarchy, and if you as a movement are defined by pursuing egalitarianism, you're always going to be seeking to break that down.
	So yeah, the left is a force of entropy and chaos.
	That said, That said, there are situations where you could say, well, you do need this.
	Like if we're going to say left is chaos and the right is order, where you can certainly think of times when order is not a good thing.
	It can be stultifying, it can be repressive, it can lead to disasters.
	In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the Soviet Union in its late stages, Was right wing in the worst way because of that.
	It was a stagnant bureaucracy defined by hierarchies that didn't really make sense anymore.
	I mean, in many ways it was.
	There's a certain dynamism that is lacking when you don't have that element of chaos, but.
	What we have now is a situation where.
	It has been so completely, we've got a situation where the left holds power in any, every significant way.
	And it's redefined power where something like a venture fund or something like the CEO of a major corporation can be a progressive and good standing while someone who has no power Some worker, some Trump voter from Appalachia, some guy who got wrapped up in the QAnon, wandered into the Capitol and gets sentenced to 45 months in jail or whatever else, somehow those guys are being pathologized as the far right.
	And so why I think we need to start really thinking about the terms right and left, what they really mean, And why I think this fight today, this kind of social media explosion on Twitter, which is, again, going nuts even as we're talking here.
	The market's just closed.
	They're going to be closed tomorrow because it's a good Friday.
	So we're going to have to see how this plays out over the weekend, this takeover bid.
	But we're now at a point where the left sees its role As controlling the discourse as enforcing a certain kind of social order.
	And just because they claim to do it in the name of protecting the underdog.
	Doesn't mean we have to accept it.
	And.
	It it's the system we have now.
	It's sort of like entropy from above.
	That's sort of the closest thing that what of how we're governed today where.
	If the government or the system, more broadly defined, the media, intervenes in your life, it's not doing this to, say, put an end to a riot or to impose order on a criminal-ridden neighborhood.
	It will intervene to actually break down the order that exists.
	At American Renaissance, some things that I can think of in terms of race would be the Obama administration's policy on, maybe we can put some of the links to this, the Obama administration's policy on school discipline, where they basically said, you have to have the same percentages of how you do this across different racial groups.
	Well, guess what?
	The different racial groups don't perform the same way in school.
	If you're held to the standard, what ends up happening is you basically get chaos.
	You get more misbehavior, you get more violence.
	Now, you're imposing a kind of order, right?
	You're imposing a bureaucratic rule saying you have to have this discipline standard.
	But what's the result?
	The actual result on the ground is chaos.
	It's crime.
	It's violence.
	Okay, what you just said right there is actually Precisely why I believe it's not a contradiction to talk about leftists in power, because leftists, when they wield their power and do create hierarchies, it's always in the name of eliminating prior hierarchies, or eliminating hierarchies entirely.
	And this inevitably creates new hierarchies, but those new hierarchies are defined by their inversion of the prior ones, which is the leftist goal.
	Right, sort of like in the French Revolution, if you were an aristocrat That was bad for your career prospects, that kind of thing.
	Same thing within the Soviet Union.
	Yeah.
	Which is why I'm comfortable talking about leftists being in power.
	But I mean, as far as what you're kind of talking about, your vision, I mean, first, I think you might have to write a book about this and develop something.
	You might have to develop kind of a new political lexicon.
	Yeah, I'll see if I can fit that in.
	I mean, to you, it's sort of like, I mean, if you're viewing this kind of metaphysical view of the left as just this chaotic debasing force that by definition doesn't really hold.
	I'm saying it's entropy.
	It's not necessarily debasing.
	I'm saying that if you have a system that's not working.
	It's Loki.
	Your view of the left as Loki is just a chaos.
	Well, yeah, but I mean, all right, let's, I mean, obviously those of you out there know my beliefs on things, but let's take Loki, right?
	In the myths, not like the, you know, cape shit.
	There are many times when I mean, Loki is the doom of the gods, right?
	But he's also what saves Asgard on numerous occasions.
	They wouldn't have the walls of Asgard if it weren't for Loki and the tricks that he played.
	There are as many times where there's a disaster that Loki causes, he's also the person who fixes it.
	Like you do have, I mean, Nietzsche, right?
	You have to have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
	I'm not saying that you can't have, and this is I guess where I would break with somebody like Evola, you can't have a regime where that it's just purely right wing, right?
	If we're going to define it purely as hierarchy, purely as excellence, purely as order, that would be complete stagnation.
	You would never get anywhere.
	And it would fall apart and it would deserve to fall apart.
	But what we have now, and this, I guess this actually gets us into what Trotsky was saying about the Soviet Union, to take your point of, you're saying that there are times where leftists can exercise power and still be leftists, essentially.
	But as Trotsky put it, I think he called it a, what did he call it?
	Degraded bureaucratic worker state, something along those lines.
	Is there a point at which a revolutionary regime degrades to the point where it's no longer leftist and just becomes a new example of a stagnant conservative regime.
	Trotsky's critique of the USSR was excessively left-wing because Trotsky was operating under The false leftist assumption that it is possible to create a society in which there are not hierarchies or in which there is equality.
	Right.
	Because Trotsky's belief in that possibility is the basis of his criticism of Stalinism.
	Now, I don't agree with Trotsky on that at all.
	And because I believe this leftist utopia is impossible, to me, The fight between left and right is simply one of which hierarchies?
	And on the right, it's people who take, you know, people on the right to defend the sort of natural occurring hierarchies or historical hierarchies, traditional hierarchies, and the left defends the inversion of them and can use the prior existence of these historical hierarchies as permanent justification It's like how leftists are going to want affirmative action in the United States for another millennium, and that still wouldn't be enough to make up for slavery.
	And that again is an example of a left-wing imposition of an unnatural hierarchy, because it's just not natural for blacks to have a In Silicon Valley, it's just impossible for blacks in Silicon Valley to be proportional to their population at large, because just not enough of them have the cognitive capacity to be represented at that level.
	That's the natural hierarchy that I defend.
	I think it's natural that Asians are overrepresented.
	Right, and we're not trying to commit the naturalistic fallacy here.
	We're saying, like, these are realities.
	Right, right.
	Yeah.
	We're not, like, appealing to, like, a sense of naturalness.
	We're just saying, like, what exists.
	Right, and that's what puts me on the right, at least on this issue.
	Meanwhile, the left will use the existence of the disparity to forever justify flipping it.
	And just a weird thing about left-wing psychology is it's never good enough.
	It's a, you know, equality is never reached, and I think that is the basis of so many of the purges, and just like the insanity we see in especially Marxist states, is they just, the left can kind of just sort of run out of answers, it can run out of explanations, it can run out of enemies, and it has to create new ones.
	In this sense, Stalin's purges are very left-wing.
	And they represent the same weird reach for new enemies that leftists have to take that's similar to the way here in the United States, the second You know, homosexuals got rights, immediately there is a reach to trans people.
	It's that same perpetual reach.
	I'm obviously not saying advocates for trans rights are as evil as Stalin or something, but there is this perpetual reaching because what the left wants is literally impossible.
	We just cannot have You know, the Paris commune didn't work, you know, this is just never going to happen.
	And the reason the left is just always reaching is because it just continually never happens.
	This again is why I think it's okay to talk about leftists being in power.
	Can a leftist state sort of stultify into being conservative?
	Yeah, I guess there's no like obvious metaphysical reason.
	Maybe to consider China leftist?
	I don't know enough about China, honestly.
	I would have to know a lot more about Chinese culture and history.
	But what I'll say about what you're getting at, I think your view is different than mine.
	I'm not upset about that, but if you want to see the left as something that doesn't hold power, but is just Loki, is just a trickster god of chaos, that's fine.
	But then when you're talking about Elon Musk versus Jeff Bezos, you're really just talking about sort of competing Classes, as opposed to right and left.
	Well, we're talking about competing elites within the same class.
	Right, right, or just sort of different power blocks, or something like that.
	And then at that point, yeah, you really, you can sort of evade talking about left and right if you really just want to take that, that just sort of competing elites theory, while the left is just sort of a, you know, Loki, just sort of lurking in the background.
	um which is like a which is actually like a really fascinating uh world view and man if that's if that's what you think yeah you you should find some time to oh i i don't agree but i mean it's a really there's a lot to chew on i think that you know we we call this left right of white and and there is a difference put it this way as as many have observed i think i'm quoting the boss here and if i'm if i'm misquoting him i'm I apologize.
	I'll hear about it and I apologize.
	But I think he made a, you know, he was talking about the ideal of an ethnostate and he said something along the lines of, you know, if we had a hypothetical white republic, whatever you want to call it, you're going to have progressives in it.
	You're going to have conservatives in it.
	You're going to have homosexuals in it.
	You're going to have Christians in it.
	You're going to have, you know, whatever else in it.
	And that That raises certain questions which is which are clearly just being white is not enough if you just define it as here's a group of white people and that's enough to build a country because if that was the truth we wouldn't be in this situation because there was a point when America basically was 100% white and or at least you know the people who voted.
	Yeah.
	And And how people conceived of who's a citizen, as we see in this country's first immigration law.
	But if you look at what it is to be on the right or on the left, I would say that The left's primary value is equality.
	The right's primary value is hierarchy.
	The right exemplifies order.
	There are times in France when you would see coalitions running explicitly.
	They would call themselves like the League of Order or the Coalition of Order or something like that.
	And it was always against a perceived revolutionary threat.
	And the left is ultimately a force of entropy and chaos.
	I mean, every one of our myths, if you go back, is usually about some battle between order and chaos.
	And it's ultimately about imposing order on chaos, but there's always that kind of little reminder that you do need a bit of that chaos.
	You do need something of that dynamism.
	You do need something to at least alert the people in charge to problems.
	That doesn't mean that those people who see these problems should be put in charge.
	I mean, I think this was like Teddy Roosevelt's view of the muckrakers, right?
	When he was saying, when he was criticizing them, he wasn't denying that the problems that they were pointing out existed.
	But he was saying that if all you do is look at the muck, you don't see the chandelier above you.
	And the issue is not, we should smash the chandelier and make sure nobody has anything nice.
	The answer is, how do we fix these problems?
	And still keep people on a higher path of development.
	And I think that if we look at this in terms of race, and this is why I said, you know, in the speech and everything else, it's actually bigger than race because we are now in this weird area, as you say, the left always has to be looking for scapegoats, wreckers, as they would say it in the Soviet Union.
	And white is now being, it no longer just means being white racially.
	I mean, I still remember when the African-American Smithsonian put out that thing and they said white traits like being on time and like rationality and the scientific method and working hard, the Protestant work ethic, things like that.
	And if you get to the point where certain people and certain traits can be called white, Even if there are no white people actually involved, I mean, we can certainly think of plenty of figures in the conservative movement who are not white, who are constantly accused of being white supremacists, even though they're not white, then it becomes something bigger than just a question of, do we have enough members of this ethnic group to build a society?
	It becomes an issue of what are What is a society?
	What are the values that we're trying to promote?
	What is the order that we're trying to defend?
	And at this point in modern America, I'm not saying this has always been true, but I'm saying that the way the media frames arguments today, white is a stand-in for excellence, for rationality, for accomplishment, for doing things, and for order, for not committing crime, for building wealth, because very quickly, And all of that is considered bad.
	Yes, all of that is considered bad.
	And that's why, this is also why if you're just some white guy listening to this and saying, well, you know, race is not that important to me.
	If you look at the latest Pew Research data that I saw, I think it was something like five to 10% of whites considered the race to be of fundamental importance to their identity.
	Solid majorities of every other group, every other group saw it as fundamental.
	But, so you might say to yourself, well, you know, I don't really think of myself as white.
	Well, first of all, not thinking of race is itself proof of racism now, because you're thinking of yourself as normative.
	Now, why you shouldn't be allowed to think of yourself as normative in a society that your people built, I mean, I don't see why that's a problem to begin with, but leaving that aside.
	But the bigger thing is that you're going to be dragged into this And the battle is going to be fought on racialized terms, whether you like it or not.
	And even if you keep saying, well, it's not about race, it's not about race, it's not about race.
	Well, a lot of it is about race because race exists and has consequences.
	And you're always going to deal with these discrepancies.
	And if you don't admit racial reality, you're not going to have really good answers to what to do about them.
	And the second thing is you're not the one with media power, which I guess brings us back to the start of this.
	The people who have control over the discourse are the ones who set the terms of the ideological battle.
	And if they say these types of things are racial issues, they're racial issues.
	And if you say that they're not, I mean, you can believe that yourself, but your beliefs have no importance.
	Like, the battleground is here, and you're either going to win or lose on that battleground.
	And you trying to be clever and sneak around it or say that, no, actually it's really about this other thing, it's not going to work.
	You're preaching to the choir.
	Not that that's always a bad thing, but yeah, I got to disagree with you there.
	I mean, we've gone a bit long, but I think we got into the core elements of human psychology here, so I guess we can be forgiven for that.
	But if you wanted to see a glimpse into the madness of human consciousness, you could do worse than looking at Twitter right now.
	I'm going to quote Matt Walsh, who's not exactly on our side, but he's been getting better.
	And he was referring to the subway shooter, and this is what he tweeted earlier.
	The subway suspect is a black supremacist.
	The Wakasha killer is a black supremacist.
	Wakasha killer is a black supremacist.
	The guy who tried to assassinate a mayoral candidate is a black supremacist.
	I believe that was in Louisville.
	The man who murdered a Capitol Police officer was a black supremacist.
	That's another crime that's been, we all remember that when they hit the gate with the car, but that's another thing most people don't know.
	In summary, white supremacy is the problem.
	That's the view.
	That's what we're dealing with.
	And even he's putting, he's still got a verified checkmark for now, and he is putting, he's not even advocating a pro-white view here.
	He's just simply inserting a little cognitive dissonance into the official narrative.
	Right.
	Even that can't be tolerated, and as you say, just as the hunt for enemies must go on eternally because their vision is impossible and not even desirable, more importantly in my view, the left's hunt for enemies has to go on.
	The same goes with censorship.
	They can't stop with purging Jared Taylor.
	They have to keep going, and eventually it gets to leftists like, say, Andrew Sullivan, Who rather blasphemy, blasphemously declared is accomplished when gay marriage became a reality.
	Yeah.
	And I mean, I'm saying that because he claims to be a Catholic and, you know, it seems a bit presumptuous.
	I mean, not that I'm going to be the great defender of the church, but I'm a better defender of it than, say, the current Pope.
	And it seems a bit arrogant to compare gay marriage to You know, the opening of salvation to the human race, if you're a Christian.
	And now Andrew Sullivan is saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is going too far.
	I'm getting embarrassed on Bill Maher and people are calling, or not Bill Maher, I'm getting called a racist on Jon Stewart's show and everything else.
	And I wanted social change to only go this far and no further.
	Well, it doesn't, it doesn't work that way.
	Ideas get taken to their logical conclusion, and that's the insanity of leftism, but that's also its power, that it just eats through everything.
	And while I would argue you do need a subversive element somewhat, you need a chaotic element for a society not to completely stultify, right now we've got far too much of it, and it's defined by chaos and entropy and degeneracy.
	And if we don't stop it, it's just, it's going to eat through everything.
	And I'm not being hyperbolic here.
	It eats through everything you have.
	Like you think you have the right to raise your kids the way you want?
	Like that's gone.
	You think you have the right to live in a house in a neighborhood with single families that isn't going to be complete insanity?
	That's gone.
	You think you have the right to expect public safety?
	That's gone.
	Do you think you have the right not to be besieged with just insane degeneracy when you turn on the television or turn on the radio?
	Like, that's gone too.
	And so, and you know, again, with the COVID stuff, I wasn't particularly militant on this issue, but again, it would have been taken as like a very leftist position and still is in some countries 20 years ago to say, oh, I'm going to make medical choices about my own body.
	Well, guess what?
	I mean, you don't have that anymore.
	Like, apparently it's a private medical choice when it comes to abortion, but not about taking a vaccine.
	So, I mean, this is kind of the alarm that I'm trying to tell people that you're going to get dragged into this, whether you like it or not.
	And there is no end game for leftism.
	It just keeps going and going and going.
	And if you don't If you say, well, I'm not going to fight this battle, I'm just going to hang out and grill, well, they're going to come for you, whether you like it or not.
	So it's just a question of either standing when you have a chance of winning or, frankly, getting your deserved fate.
	Because at this point, if you think it's going to stop, you just got to ask.
	Don't say deserved.
	Come on, be a little nicer than that.
	I mean, I'm the token extremist, so it's my job to push the Overton window.
	It's your job to be like, Kev, come on.
	Yeah, you could say I'm the Andrew Sullivan of American Renaissance.
	That's right.
	Hey, guys, we've gone too far.
	We'll just publish the bell curve cover on the New Republic, but that's as far as we'll go.
	All right, we should really wrap up here.
	Yeah, that was a fun one, though.
	Yeah, this is still going on, even as we say, so who's to say how this will all turn out?
	With the markets closed because of the shorter trading week, it's going to be an interesting weekend.
	You want to wrap it up?
	Yeah, we'll catch you guys next week.
	Thanks for tuning in on the most freewheeling episode I think we've done yet.
	Yeah, it was fun.

▲