Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 6, 2023 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

01:11:59

Journos Rage at Free Speech Decision

Gregory Hood and Paul Kersey break down the media's reaction to a court decision limiting the government's right to censor.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages, welcome to the July 6, 2023 edition of Radio Renaissance.
	This is Paul Kersey.
	We are once again joined by the great and good and gregarious Gregory Hood.
	How are you this morning?
	Happy Belated Independence Day!
	Yeah, what's going on guys?
	About what we're celebrating independence from is a separate question.
	Well, we celebrate an insurrection from the crown because they wouldn't allow the westward expansion and help us fight the Indians, the Amerindians back in 1776.
	So that's actually at the heart of what we're celebrating.
	But today, you're right.
	We are a conquered and occupied people, and we're going to talk about that today.
	So real quick, we had some great feedback from the from the show last week.
	I'd like to just read one quick one quick email that we got again
	we love hearing from our listeners all you have to do is go to amaran.com and
	Go to the contact us tab or you can shoot me an email at because we live here at protonmail.com
	Once again all one word because we live here at protonmail.com One of our listeners wrote this great show Paul and Gregory
	on the same podcast I knew it was gonna be a good episode, but Wow straight nitty-gritty
	talk. Thank you So, hey, thank you, listener, for liking that.
	And then we had another person who wrote this.
	Mr. Kersey, excellent podcast in Mr. Taylor's absence.
	A lot of very interesting insights were shared in your exchange with Greg.
	I especially liked your insight about MLK's shakedown of Coca-Cola and his quest for preferential hiring while being colorblind, and how conservatives continue cuck out for a man who read clever words he neither wrote nor stood behind.
	Mr. Hood nailed it when he pointed out how So many Asians are embarrassed to admit they've found success in America and that God forbid it could be linked to IQ.
	They do tend to vote Democrat and their party masters have taught them very well that it's always nurture over nature.
	They have dated a few Korean girls in the past and they were not particularly based, especially about the idea of race and intelligence, even though it's blatantly obvious that there might be a connection.
	Most Eastern Asians have a fairly based spirit, but put them in the West and they just become part of this stupid commie casserole.
	The ruling is good news, but you know there's going to be billions pouring in from Soros-funded ADL projects that go right to the ACLU, which will fight it at every turn.
	Bullying and intimidation is the only way they compete.
	Remember three months ago, that black female basketball player from Memphis Who assaulted the white player from Bowling Green?
	I don't follow women's basketball, but it was a news story that ran for a day.
	Well, they're going to take this court ruling like sore losers and most likely react violently.
	It's only natural because college admission starts the process of subsidizing them at a higher level.
	So if there's any hit to the status quo of giveaways in this artificial black middle class that we've created out of thin air, cities get burned down.
	And then we'll have to go back to court to address white racism.
	And going forward, I feel sure that Supreme Court Justice Contagi Brown Jackson will have thoughtful things to say about the subject of race, even though she's not a raceologist.
	Best regards.
	Thank you for that for that note.
	I thought that was a great episode that we did last week.
	And like I said, it's very rare that we don't that we're not blessed with the wisdom and temperance of an equanimity of Mr. Taylor.
	But we're here today once again, Mr. Hood and Mr. Hood.
	I'm gonna hand it over to you because it was it's been a very interesting past week.
	We did talk about Briefly at the end of last week's podcast, last week's show, what was going on in France?
	I'm just curious what your observations are on what's gone on with the Third World riots breaking out in France as we see the consequences of Third World immigration into a formerly homogenous country.
	Well, I want to point out that the BBC has identified the problem.
	The BBC says that the problem is discrimination.
	Against these non-white migrants, and of course, you know, their kids, because the second and third generation is often worse than the first generation.
	It kind of goes to show that you're going to be accused of racism no matter what.
	And this isn't me being paranoid or extreme or something like that.
	It's because I've actually read these anti-racist books on like a lot of Normal conservatives, and I think a lot of normal liberals.
	And of course, this is Robert DeAngelo 101.
	All whites are racist.
	I mean, you have to believe that.
	That is what you're being taught in DEI courses and programs.
	And if you take that as a given, that you're going to be accused of racism no matter what, and that being accused of racism means that you're going to have to give up resources, and you're going to have to sit through various courses, and you're going to have to give up control of your own life and your own society to comply with this newly invented moral standard.
	You have to ask yourself, what is better?
	Is it better to be eternally accused of racism and have to deal with these people forever?
	Or is it better to just be accused of racism once and just not let them in?
	So like, yeah, sure, you're, I'm racist, whatever you say, but you don't have to deal with it on a day to day basis.
	And what we're seeing now with Europe is that these countries that admitted these people.
	I've gained nothing from the experiment.
	There's no.
	And they're not getting any credit from letting these people in.
	No, but there's no gratitude.
	They just simply have invented an internal enemy.
	I think it's more profound than just a permanent underclass.
	It's really an internal enemy that hates the country and that the more it's given, the more it hates.
	And so the countries that are going to continue to exist, the civilizations that are going to continue to exist, are basically those that ignore the moral commandments of what's essentially a civilization wide minnowing process.
	Where you are told to admit these people, but nobody pretends anymore that there's anything to be gained from it.
	Nobody pretends that these people contribute anything to the economy.
	Nobody pretends that these people enrich the culture.
	Nobody pretends that there's even some sort of moral enlightenment waiting on the other side of this.
	It's just an intended and deserved punishment for a country.
	And for whatever reason, France went along with this, and now it's paying the consequences.
	Now, I think what's really interesting about this, of course, is that Macron has taken this opportunity to call for more censorship.
	He famously blamed the riots on video games and social media.
	No matter what happens, there's always an opportunity to censor the media more.
	And I thought this was, I mean, let's face it, there actually is fake news that unfortunately spreads among right-wingers more often than not.
	So I originally thought this was fake, just because it sounded too ridiculous, but more fool me.
	The French government actually passed a law basically saying that they can now spy through people's phones and social media sites regardless, anytime that they decide that there's a crisis.
	So you have essentially, I mean, the most memorable part of 1984 in terms of the technology, of course, was the telescreen, the thing that can watch you from the other side.
	Well, you actually have that now.
	And rather than opposing this, the great and the good in our society is saying, no, this is actually what we need.
	And if anything, we need more of it, which of course brings us to the other big thing that happened recently, which was the court ruling against the federal government communicating with social media companies here in the States and telling people who can be banned and who can't be banned.
	I mean, did you catch that?
	I think that's probably the most important court.
	I think in many ways, that's more important than the affirmative action ruling.
	Yeah, you know, it's fascinating.
	Just tying a bow on what's going on in France.
	You know, we do have Bastille Day coming up.
	There's these riots.
	It looks like we don't really know what's going on because there has been somewhat of a blackout recently with the videos and stuff.
	Yeah, they did control it.
	That was one of the big things.
	I mean, I do find it funny, some of the reactions.
	Somebody said, oh, you guys love the French Revolution, but now you hate this.
	It's like, I think by definition, a right winger has to be opposed to the French Revolution.
	Yes, exactly.
	That's literally where the terms left and right came from.
	Precisely, precisely.
	But it is interesting because, again, what more evidence do we need?
	I think there's some crazy videos.
	There have been some people on Twitter and social media who basically said what immigration is, what thorough immigration is.
	It's revenge.
	You know, going back to what we were talking about at the beginning of this program, I was I picked up a Washington Post for the first time, Mr. Hood, and I was reading the sports section and the top story above the fold was about some all black golf association that is trying to feed black golfers from college into the pros.
	And they barely make any money.
	It's like lamenting the fact that at one hand, they're championing the fact that it's all non-whites and golf.
	But the other hand, there's not much interest and there's not much money.
	And that's the above the fold story on a Sunday.
	It's like, is this, is this really what the Washington Post is?
	But then I read this op-ed by the head of the Maryland, University of Maryland Journalism School, this black, I don't remember his name, but he used the word colonizer and enslaver seven times in the first five paragraphs writing about the fall of affirmative action.
	And I'm sitting there thinking to myself, wow, is this really what newspapers are now?
	Like, this is an op-ed on the cover of the sports page about affirmative action, and they're using the language that you're talking about, Robin DiAngelo and the anti-racist.
	I mean, it's just seeped into everything as something that's, you know, the sports page should be where you just read about things that happened that were positive.
	Yeah, it's children's games.
	But at the same time, now you're being hit over the head with, you know, basically a ball peeing hammer.
	Of these terms, I mean, colonizer, you know, enslaver, like, it's just insane.
	But that's the same motivation, Mr. Hood, that these third worlders are being taught in schools and all throughout France, all throughout England.
	And, you know, it's just amazing to think we both have young kids.
	It's amazing to think that our kids have to marinate and grow in this type of environment from an educational standpoint, where every problem that non-whites face is blamed on Little white kids and their past.
	And it's just now this affirmative action ruling just to just to kind of put a bow in France and affirmative action.
	My alma mater, one of the big.
	Celebrities, one of the big alumni.
	He's decided the most important thing is to start a scholarship and his will for only black students because of the affirmative action ruling.
	And he's like, oh gosh, you know the black enrollments now down to under 4%.
	And it's astonishing to sort of some of these colleges.
	The bulk of the black male representation is on the football and basketball team at UAB a few years ago in Birmingham, University of Alabama, Birmingham, they got rid of the football team.
	Guess what?
	They brought it back because the black enrollment was under like 20 people.
	And UAB is a pretty good school, but they brought the football team back precisely because they wanted to have more black males on campus.
	And it's just, Race is all on our face, and like you were talking about conservatives, at what point are conservatives going to be slapped and be able to understand, wow, this really is an existential crisis about what all these people from Carlton Putnam to Sam Huntington to Jared Taylor to Peter Brimlow to Pat Buchanan, they've all said this for so long.
	And is there ever going to be that mea culpa or will they just Well, I think that we have to take a step back and see what's happening with social media right now.
	Certainly, we do not have free speech on Twitter.
	For example, Jared Taylor still cannot be on the platform.
	Just as an experiment, I tweeted out an American Renaissance story a couple days ago.
	Still gives you the safety warning saying that like, oh, it's trying to steal your data, which of course is nonsense.
	So, I mean, the ideological.
	Censorship is still there, but clearly they have taken the boot off the neck a little bit in terms of what they're talking about, which is why the media has turned so decisively against Twitter and which is why I think that Zuckerberg has decided to roll out threads, which is sort of the Twitter killer, which is being received rapturously by media.
	And I think you're going to see a lot of help from both corporate media and also probably from the federal government.
	And we'll get to that in a second about this speech ruling.
	But it is contained.
	And I think one of the things that you notice now with conservative politics is there was a poll that was just tweeted out where it was more than about like 85 percent of conservatives do not think that race should be considered In admissions and in jobs, so no affirmative action so that you basically have a united belief among conservatives.
	I mean, monolithic essentially that affirmative action is bad.
	That doesn't mean that conservatives would have ever done anything about it, but the Supreme Court has gotten rid of it.
	I'm a bit doubtful about the importance of this ruling, because they left in a giant loophole, which in many ways I think will make things worse.
	But let's take it as a given for now.
	If you have no.
	Recognition of race and emissions and preferences.
	The key here is that's a death blow to all these DEI bureaucracies, which is a real reason we have a lot of this going, because people have a vested interest in it continuing.
	And conservatives, if they wanted to kind of grow up about stuff, you need to start targeting these bureaucracies and saying, we need to get rid of these things.
	I mean, if anything, if you actually cared about inequality, or if you were concerned about the poor or something like that, it's actually better just for straight up redistribution and income.
	Not that I'm advocating that, but that's actually more effective than creating all these bureaucracies.
	But, of course, that doesn't provide jobs for over educated, you know, want to be elites, which is why we have to deal with this problem.
	But as it stands.
	You just kind of have this vague complaining sense, like, oh, look at what's being done to white people.
	You can kind of get away with saying things are anti-white.
	I mean, that's a big change just in the last couple of years.
	That's something that is clearly allowed on the platform at this point.
	You see a lot of that kind of content circulating widely.
	I don't know really what's happening on other platforms, but I've been told that that's also circulating a bit more on other platforms, usually on YouTube and things like that.
	But the big problem is you still can't be pro-white.
	So you can complain about what's being done to you and you can complain about it in an impotent way, but you can't provide any solutions.
	And you certainly can't say, well, actually, we need to do something about this.
	You can just kind of complain about it.
	And there's a real danger here because what is the conservative activist establishment other than complaining performatively complaining about problems?
	And then collecting your money and not doing anything about it, you actually have to offer a solution.
	You actually have to say, like, this is what we need to do to solve the problem.
	And conservative politics in America, by its very nature, can't do that because it sees once it does that, it ceases to be conservative.
	And so I think the problem is that you're just taking all these people, you're taking this energy and you're just kind of leading them down dead ends over and over and over again.
	And I don't want to, I mean, to pick a fight a little bit.
	I think that part of this is also due to Trump because, you know, what is the, what is the cure for all these things?
	You know, vote Trump will put Trump in office again.
	Well, like, what did that get us last time?
	I mean, I'm not saying that there's a better thing for 2024.
	I don't want to start the Trumpy DeSantis versus third party thing, but the fact is nobody's really running on a platform of pro white politics.
	I think.
	In terms of policies, you've seen some interesting ideas from both Trump and DeSantis, but you still see far more pandering by Republicans to people who are never going to vote for Republicans and who really despise Republicans.
	And you don't see any attempt to really excite the base and turn them out for policies that will actually benefit them.
	Well, I mean, that that would be that earth shattering moment, that's that that's That's that's the moment where things change irrevocably and for good.
	And I just yeah, well, the big problem is that I mean, clearly.
	What I want, you know, on paper is you say like, well, this is why we need a third party.
	This is what we need to do political movement.
	The problem is, as you can see from the history of American politics, is that clearly you can make a much bigger difference running within a two party system.
	So, I mean, Trump flirted with the idea of a third party run.
	Papu Canon did run for a third party.
	It didn't do any good.
	But then when Trump ran as Republican, let's not forget championing certain causes that were anathema to the conservative movement, notably on trade, and he won overwhelmingly, and it's reshaped the entire party in its image.
	So maybe third parties have a role in local and regional places, but on a national level, there doesn't seem to be an alternative other than if you're going to deal with the electoral system.
	There doesn't seem to be alternative other than trying to fight it out within the big two parties.
	And that's a problem because you're not viable unless you have a tremendous amount of money and unless you have media access.
	And I don't think they're ever going to make the mistake of letting somebody like Trump ever emerge again.
	If you look at the rest of the Republican field, other than Santas, I mean, it's essentially far worse than what we were facing in 2016.
	I mean, you have your up and comers are people like Nikki Haley and Tim Scott and Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that the conservative movement, as such, has really learned anything from 2016.
	I mean, they really just want to bring people down out of their discipline again.
	Well, the donor, I would say the donor base probably has not.
	Again, I think the fact that... I question what they expect to gain from it.
	I mean, just throwing money away on Nikki Haley?
	Like, why do it?
	I mean, I understand the how, I just don't understand the why.
	What do they think is going to happen?
	Well, Nikki Haley and Tim Scott are polling horribly.
	I mean, my goodness, what's the...
	What's the guy from Arkansas, Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson?
	Is that his name?
	Is he also running?
	He's another one of these very sanctimonious Republicans on race, but I mean, he doesn't seem to be getting any momentum.
	But I think that, to pivot to what really matters, I think that our focus should be less on the politicians because, as I often say, the media is the regime.
	Correct.
	That's what matters.
	It's not a state-run media.
	It's a media-run state.
	Yeah, it's a media-run state.
	And I care a lot more what's happening within media and I care a lot more about the narratives being shaped and the power structures that support those narratives than the politicians because politicians, in a democratic system, The point of a politician is that they have no identity.
	They have no beliefs.
	I mean, if you look at what I've said before, you could always rebut what Joe Biden says today by quoting what Joe Biden said a couple decades ago.
	Like, there is no Joe Biden.
	There's no core to the personality.
	Heck, he even tells stories about his own personal life that are complete lies, and he says them with great conviction.
	I'm sure he believes it when he's saying it.
	What we really need to worry about Is the media and the financial systems that are often denied to dissidents, because without those things, we're really not going to be able to get anywhere.
	And we're just going to have to kind of operate from the sidelines and try to make gains on the periphery.
	And then eventually, maybe we can get back to the center.
	But what's happening with the media, I think is far more important than anything else.
	And that brings me to what I think is really the most significant thing, even though on the surface, it has very little to do with race.
	Which was this censorship ruling by a Louisiana federal judge, a Trump judge, as the media is saying.
	Isn't it amazing how quickly they jump in to point that out?
	That it's, you know, as he's, excuse me, as he's remade the judiciary and now they think, wow, they're doing the bidding of this dark Sith Lord.
	Because again, the media can only exist in this realm where everything has to be distilled through the lens of Marvel and And, you know, good and bad.
	I mean, I wish conservatives would think this way.
	One of the things Brimlow is always on about is whenever there's a judge that says something, he's always saying, like, well, who who nominated this person?
	And then who if they went up to an appeals court or something, who nominated him for the next thing?
	Because judges are political creatures and the court is a political realm.
	I mean, it's just not true that.
	It exists in this realm outside politics or that you can count on this thing called justice.
	I mean, maybe that was true at a prior time, but unfortunately now in a multicultural, multiracial, politically polarized country, it's just another realm of battle.
	I mean, this is why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is now saying that, well, the court is illegitimate.
	We don't have to obey these rulings.
	You never hear Republicans talk this way.
	They just kind of shrug their shoulders and say, well, the court has decided.
	I respect Democrats for not giving an inch.
	And you're seeing it with this ruling.
	To get into this ruling real quick, what the judge said is that the White House actually violated the First Amendment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that, and I quote, the injunction said that the government's actions likely violate the Free Speech Clause, and that in this 120-page opinion said that The federal government can no longer confer with big tech companies about which accounts are to be banned and which opinions are to be muzzled.
	And the very next day, even though the Biden administration has appealed this, so they are going to fight to make sure they can keep censoring opinions.
	But for now, the State Department canceled meetings with Facebook about this stuff, which raises the obvious questions.
	Why is the State Department, of all things, meeting with Facebook?
	About what can and cannot be said on social media platforms.
	And I think one of the big things we need to think about here is if we, if we take a step back and say, okay, like, what, what is a democracy?
	In the kind of society we live in now, America is so big and unwieldy that face to face conversations, meetings, grassroots organizations, these things mean very little compared to the ability to force a narrative on the entire country.
	And to have that narrative be interpreted even through smaller communities like groups of people on Facebook or even on some scaled groups of people on Twitter or any of these other things.
	And so if you can control these social media platforms that everybody is on, you essentially control the entire country.
	And you've seen huge changes in societal opinion just spike immediately.
	When social media became a reality, some of these things have been extremely destructive, such as the rise of black lives matter, such as the rise of crippling rates of depression and mental problems for young women because of body image problems and a lot of the psychological disorders, which are being promoted on a lot of these things.
	And some of these things you could argue have been more positive.
	Certainly, when you had the alternative, right?
	I mean, that would not have happened without social media.
	And they decided we're never going to let that happen again by controlling.
	But if you have the government, and this is something we've pushed very heavily on American Renaissance, because I think it's the most important issue in politics right now.
	If you have the government, including the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration, saying that we need to ban these accounts and we need to make sure that white advocacy is pushed off these platforms, telling you what messages are allowed to be discussed On these nominal private networks, in what sense are you a democracy?
	In what sense do people govern themselves?
	Because public opinion really can be dictated by the top down.
	And if you have a situation where the government is dictating public opinion from the top down, I don't care what you say about being a liberal democracy.
	I don't care what the Constitution says.
	I don't care what liberties you theoretically have.
	It's not a legitimate government.
	It's not playing by the rules that it is set forward to establish itself as a free country.
	And yeah, that's the reality of power.
	I'm not going to whine about it.
	That's just how it is.
	But that don't come to me and tell me that we're a free country because we're clearly not.
	Yeah.
	And just to go back, there was a story that broke.
	You probably remember this back in September of 2022.
	Dozens of federal officials across multiple agencies within the Biden admin communicated extensively with social media companies to coordinate censorship of information, according to internal documents released by Republican Attorneys General Eric Schmidt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana.
	Once again, ladies and gentlemen, we are learning that, you probably saw the story, Mr. Hood,
	that more and more people are moving to red states who have red conservative opinions
	and more and more people who have left-wing opinions are moving to left-wing states.
	And it's very important that we actually start to see action by Republican attorney generals,
	like what's happening to V-Dare by Letitia James, the AG of New York.
	You know, what's the point of power if you don't use it?
	Right, Mr. Isn't that something you say?
	I mean, one of the things that we need to see if there's going to be some movement for it.
	I'm kind of a skeptic of a lot of these national divorce ideas because I think anything built around partisan identity, like that's not the issue.
	I mean, at this point, the Republicans are just 10 years behind the Democrats.
	And I mean, you even see the person who promoted this, of course, is Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	And you see her when Some Democratic congresswoman, a black one, was complaining on July 4th about how evil and racist we all are.
	You know, her stunning comeback was like, well, you're funding like the white Nazi army of Ukraine.
	It's just, I mean, they can't help themselves from competing on the same ground.
	And so it's almost like even if you did break up the union, which is a big thing in and of itself, like, so for what?
	So we can, so we can have like the new state media tell us every, uh, Every January that Martin Luther King was secretly a Republican and how these evil people covered it up.
	I mean, if you're going to take something that a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, are going to consider, you know, treason and a really big step, it better be in the name of something worth it.
	And I doubt the capability of conservatives to do that right now, but there are plenty of solutions shy of that.
	And I think one of the biggest things that we could do is we could start seeing, I mean, again, if the GOP wants to win, of course, they don't, but maybe at the state level, some do.
	I would like to see.
	Not just second amendment sanctuary counties and some of these other movements, uh, also trying to restrict the FBI from operating in certain areas, uh, working to enforce immigration law.
	Governor DeSantis just put through some really positive.
	Legislation through that in Florida, but I would actually like to see some restrictions on social media and also some mandates for them to have free speech.
	Now, you've already seen, I believe it's Montana pushing through some restrictions on TikTok on the grounds that it's a Chinese owned company and that it's basically taking user data and sending it to the People's Republic.
	Correct.
	Other states have been doing that.
	There's been some action bipartisan, in fact.
	at the federal level, but it's probably not going to take off, but certainly states still have a
	role in that. And you've also seen, I believe it's in Virginia, they passed a law for age
	verification for pornography. Correct. Yeah. And as a result, Pornhub basically said,
	okay, we're not going to operate in Virginia anymore, to which obviously the retort is good.
	But I mean, you could, you can think of regulatory structures that you could put through
	for social media sites that may actually create some free speech havens within this country.
	And I don't want to get on the Ronald Reagan thing of, you know, the last best hope or something like that.
	But when it comes to the West, I mean, the only thing we have going for us in America, the only thing is the First Amendment.
	I mean, you see these headlines from Britain or France or something like that, and they can't
	quite do that here yet. They want to, but they can't, because the First Amendment is pretty plain.
	And if we get a Supreme Court of Justice Jackson's, yeah, it won't hold up very well. But
	for now, we still have it. But you can't just be passive about it.
	You can't rely on the courts to just save you.
	You have you have to be putting in regulatory structures that are preserve Americans right to free speech.
	And this is something that I think is really important for race realist is because we talk about power and we talk about what's being done to us.
	And every once in a while, we'll say something like, well, you know, I don't believe in free speech for my enemies.
	And even I'll say something like that if I'm annoyed or something.
	But at the end of the day, I actually do have a principled take on free speech, and I would grant it even to my enemies, because we win if people tell the truth.
	I mean, I'm not a race realist because, you know, it's some sort of devious tactic to gain power or money.
	If you believe that, you're insane, because obviously this is not the best way to get rich or something like that.
	I mean, I am this because it's true.
	It's obviously true.
	It will be true until the last stars die out in the heavens.
	And we have to operate on the basis of truth, which is the highest virtue and free speech for all its problems that it causes sometimes is the best way of ensuring that your society isn't hijacked by a lot.
	The reason we are in the mess we are in is because we have all these mechanisms in place to force people to operate on the basis of ideas that they know consciously or unconsciously to be lies.
	And right now, Freeing people from having to operate under the reign of lies, I think, is the best mission statement for the race realist movement that exists right now.
	It's very noble, but going back to just, as you stated, this ruling is so important because you go back and you think about just how strange the past, my goodness, three years have been for so many people.
	And the fact that the Biden administration, Mr. Hood, was collaborating closely with Let's not take Trump out of this.
	It was during the Trump administration, and this cannot be emphasized, it was during the Trump administration that DHS was doing this.
	It is during the Trump administration we saw massive deplatforming that ultimately culminated in Trump himself being deplatformed.
	It is during the Trump administration when all of this could have been stopped.
	And frankly, whatever theories people have about 2020, Trump would not have lost in 2020 How'd they stop this?
	Because the entire team that they had going for him in 2016 was not there in 2020.
	So how, how could he possibly have won?
	And frankly, how could he possibly win in 2024?
	Because you have this whole network of groups and fundraising sites and ways of getting people active and excited.
	And that's this, this firmament of ideas and this, this whole fountainhead that was like launching an entire movement.
	All of that is gone.
	Instead, you just see this old conservative desire to just kind of take that momentum and kind of almost like build a dam around it.
	The only wall they've been able to build and sort of control it and fundraise off it and make money off it.
	But it doesn't actually lead anywhere.
	I mean, truth social is not going to save America.
	I'm sorry, guys.
	Truth social is not going to save itself.
	No, of course not.
	And when you're seeing When you're seeing the movement, just the MAGA movement, I should say, just constantly just cripple itself and falling into traps that like nobody's actually laid for it.
	It's extremely frustrating because I have to believe the people who are in the midst of it know how this is going to end.
	But they've they've just made the decision that we're going to take short term monetary game over like accomplishing anything.
	But you do see some people becoming aware of this.
	I mean, one of the.
	The most positive trends on the American right.
	And at the end of the day, I mean, I do, who radicalized Gregory hood?
	I mean, you know, there's the conservative movement.
	I mean, my ideas are not that, you know, it's Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke.
	It's like, it's not some revolutionary right tradition.
	I mean, yeah, I've read that stuff, but like at the end of the day, I'm still basically just a conservative who recognizes the reality of race.
	And if you look at.
	A lot of the things that have been purged out of the conservative movement, the American conservative movement post Buckley, a lot of those ideas are coming back in and they are they are actually traditional conservative ideas.
	And one of the most important is the way power functions.
	And you're seeing people talk about this stuff, honestly, and being aware of how power actually functions.
	And I think that this free speech ruling is going to be a real A real milestone for us because the conservative movement has to, it's now there.
	The court has given this issue to, given us this issue to fight over whether the movement wants to deal with it or not.
	And they're going to have to defend it because as we're seeing from the reaction of the media, they are not taking this lying down.
	Let me give you a quick quote.
	Yeah.
	Limits on Biden officials working with social media firms, a weaponization of the court expert.
	We know how, You know, narratives are laundered, right? I mean, you
	basically, you quote an expert, and then this expert's opinions lays down the null
	hypothesis, the thing that you basically have to agree with if you want to be considered an educated
	person, and then it goes from there.
	Well, who is this expert?
	This expert is Nina Jankowicz.
	Who is Nina Jankowicz?
	You may remember that that was the person who the Biden administration wanted to DHS wanted to set up as sort of the head of this new office, which was going to monitor social media and basically look for disinformation.
	But the Guardian quotes her, which says, this is a weaponization of the court system.
	It is an intentional and purposeful move to disrupt the work that needs to be done
	at the 2020 for election.
	And it's really chilling.
	Notice the way they seize on these terms, chilling, which is always used in terms of chilling effect,
	meaning that the government is doing something which is going to intimidate people from taking action.
	Now, this is reversed.
	It's chilling to tell the government not to interfere with people's opinions.
	Correct.
	Sort of the same way Gavin Newsom has adapted the language of book bans.
	Book bans.
	You know, these books that you see in every library in the country and every Barnes & Noble.
	But he'll say, no, you know, we didn't stand up against these book bans.
	None of these people have ever been stopped from anything in their lives.
	Don't want basically pornographic stuff being given to little kids in public schools, but now this is framed in the language of book bands.
	So even when the government is trying to restrict people's freedom quite openly and tell you what you are and are not allowed to say, they still frame it in the language of individual liberation and democracy because that is the vocabulary of American politics.
	Let me Just quote one more thing from the Guardian here when she basically, when this person was going to be the head of this DHS thing, the way the Guardian frames the downfall of that body, it's just very revealing and I quote, the board was shut down days later after it came under a massive storm of right-wing criticism.
	Accusing it of censoring conservative speech.
	She believes that it was the start of an orchestrated right-wing campaign that culminated with this week's court order.
	They got a win in shutting us down.
	So why would they stop there?
	She told the Guardian interview.
	This is why the lawsuit continues because they won and nobody knows how to deal with it.
	Disinformation expert predicted that one of the most insidious effects of the ruling would be a rash of self-censorship on the part of civil servants.
	They will stop doing their jobs because they don't want to be on the end of a lawsuit like this.
	So right wing, interestingly enough, right wing has become a single word now, which is incredible to me.
	It's immediately identified, coded basically as illegitimate.
	Because people who read things like The Guardian know that if something is coming from the right wing, single word, hate term, that it's automatically wrong.
	We see now that the censorship is now, the problem is that it's being inflicted on civil servants.
	It's not on the people.
	This is actually a pro-censorship ruling now.
	Civil servants, how they can't do their jobs.
	And the real problem is that It's this was not something organic.
	This was not something that just happened.
	This was not about the court standing for civil liberties.
	It was an orchestrated right wing campaign that somehow illegitimate and false and artificial.
	When, of course, in reality, everything that happens in our system now is essentially an orchestrated campaign from the top where you basically have a phony issue created by NGOs, legal firms, Orchestrate a storyline created by the media, and then that's how social change happens.
	It's always the top bottom alliance against the middle.
	This is one of the very few times when you actually have a court ruling on behalf of the mass of the American people, who are basically unrepresented in their own government right now.
	Now you have something coming from the courts that actually defends American's traditional liberties, and how is it framed?
	It's pure projection.
	It's described as an evil plot that came from some shadowy group at the top, and now it's restricting these poor civil servants who just want to do their jobs, and now they aren't allowed to speak out anymore.
	The way these things are framed is very important.
	And we have a dog in this fight, because even though the bulk of this case was about COVID-19 and vaccines and things like that, The way that, I mean, ultimately, it's not really about what is being said.
	It's about who has the right to discern and to censor.
	And it really shouldn't be about, well, you're allowed to talk about, you know, COVID disinformation or vaccines or something, but you're not allowed to talk about race.
	I mean, you have to be allowed to talk about whatever you want to talk about, or you don't have free speech.
	Perhaps the most destructive trend in American politics over the last six years is the fact that the people who matter, the educated classes, the people who are in the press, the people who have a bit of money, the people who really run this society have decisively turned against free speech and will now quite openly say that this is a problem and this is something that we're lagging behind in compared to the rest of the Western world.
	And the First Amendment needs to go in order to protect democracy.
	No, that's, that's a great point.
	I mean, once again, it's astonishing to think all that was taken down.
	Do you remember that Time Magazine article that came out, uh, maybe right after the election in 2020, where they bragged about the writer, uh, she was a female, don't remember her name, but they basically bragged about what they did in coordinating everything, uh, to, to, to defeat Trump.
	They were able to destroy a number of very big, It's not, I think a lot of people kind of get into the weeds where they say, you know, oh, well, this state stopped counting this.
	And, you know, if you look at this ballot harvesting and blah, blah, blah.
	I mean, to me, the fundamental rigging, if you want to use that word, Joe Rogan, in fact, did a couple of days ago where he said that the media essentially rigged it in 2020.
	The fundamental rigging of the election was not, you know, this company or that company doing something wrong.
	It was the fact that information was kept from the American people, quite deliberately, factual information, particularly the Hunter Biden laptop.
	And we're seeing how that's a gift that keeps on giving with his antics in recent days.
	And with the fact that certain people were prevented from honestly discussing issues.
	This is one of the big problems that we have with the internet right now is that if you don't have free speech as a cultural norm, not just a legal norm, but as a cultural norm, it's not something that actually opens up the public discussion.
	It actually gives you an unbelievable ability to restrict it because now you can identify dissidents a lot more effectively and you can punish them.
	You can make sure they don't have bank accounts.
	You can make sure that you can get them fired from their jobs.
	You can make sure that everybody affiliated with a certain group is suddenly brought under legal liability.
	For example, the Proud Boys, I believe, I think they torched like some BLM sign.
	OK, you know, destruction of property.
	Don't do that.
	But so, you know, it's a crime.
	You can't just torch somebody else's stuff whether you like it or not.
	But they were given something like, what was it, like a million dollar fine because of like emotional distress or something.
	And the very idea that this is like a real ruling or that anybody involved in this believes what they're saying or that, you know, that it really like the torching of a sign was worth like a million dollars or the idea that this could ever, ever be reversed in any other context.
	I don't even know what that would be.
	Like somebody goes to an American Legion base or building and burns the American flag in front of a
	bunch of veterans, like would those guys get a million dollars?
	Of course not.
	It wouldn't even be brought to court.
	So I mean, maybe you get like a $10 slap on the wrist for like lighting a fire in public.
	In fact, in Philadelphia, just a few days ago on July 4th, the Revolutionary Communist
	Party hijacked some Fourth of July celebration, burned a flag and got off with a warning.
	Why?
	Because Americans, normal Americans are just not given any protection.
	I mean, you're allowed to step all over them, but privileged groups must be carefully guarded
	by the courts.
	And we have to, we have to think about this because it's not right now what it means to
	be free or equal means that you have a collective identity.
	And I know Americans don't want to hear this, but you have a collective identity and people
	cannot transgress against you with impunity.
	That's what it means to be a protected class in this system.
	Americans, unhyphenated Americans, white Americans, do not have such an identity.
	You can do whatever you want to us, and the courts will sit back and just let it happen.
	Yeah, you can't just like attack people on the street, at least not yet, but you're never going to see the kind of collective punishment put against our opponents that you'll see Put against conservatives and or or like you said the Proud Boys or the people who attended UTR back in 2017.
	Yeah, and I'm not even saying that the the Proud Boys are part of this.
	I mean, I think it was what was it a couple months ago?
	We had another one of these stupid fights between the Proud Boys and I guess some was it it was some white nationalist group up in the Pacific Northwest and there was all sorts of like stupid doxings and counter doxings between everybody because You know, right wingers love these little distinctions, even though nobody else pays attention to this stuff.
	But that's not the point.
	The point is that whatever special snowflake identity you've created for yourself, like the left just sees you as the problem.
	And unless you have a collective identity that you can defend, I mean, you really don't have any power underneath the current core system, under the current media system, under the current system of power.
	I think that one of the things that I would do if I were an elected official, heck, you could even do it if you were state rep, is I would obviously I don't think hate crime should exist, but given that they are and given that so many people derive power from them, I would make it so burning an American flag is considered a hate crime.
	That should have been done.
	I believe there was actually a major debate about was that before 9-11 that there was actually a push to.
	Yeah, I mean, every once in a while there's I mean, this was one of the traditional Issues that you could use to build your direct mail list or something in the conservative movement is a flag burning amendment.
	It gets passed all the time.
	But then, of course, every time they have the opportunity to do something about it, they never do.
	This is one of the things Trump talked about 2016.
	But I think maybe instead of trying to ban it outright and setting up a court battle, just label it as a hate crime, say it offends veterans or whoever else, which it does, and let them fight it out on those grounds.
	Because, I mean, we have to fight fire with fire here.
	Unfortunately, unfortunately, Mr. Hood, the system has to be used as fully by us.
	And if that means that the system becomes completely unworkable, so much the better, because right now it seems that conservatives are playing by a rule book that the left has long since thrown out, especially when it comes to free speech.
	And if they don't wake up about it, I mean, whites are going to be reduced to not just a powerless minority in the country that they created, but a hated minority.
	That can be attacked with essentially impunity.
	Well, we're already a hated majority.
	And wherever we are, excuse me, a minority, whether it's a city, I can't think of how many states that are actually majority minority now.
	I believe that Texas, you know, there was a lot of there was a lot of brouhaha and the media was celebrating the great replacement because I believe that Hispanics are now the largest group in Texas.
	And I'm going to say something a lot of our listeners might not like, but if you go to Texas, yeah, it's not the greatest state in my opinion.
	But, you know, Hispanics, they look a lot of Hispanics look pretty white to me, Mr. Hood.
	Am I wrong in saying that?
	Like, that's I mean, again, maybe I almost kind of want to have a debate at Ameren.
	Conference about this.
	I think Hispanic is just a fake category.
	I mean, it's interesting in the sense that Hispanic was created specifically to get government benefits.
	And this isn't a conspiracy theory.
	This isn't some crazy, whatever, like this, the people who came up with it said, like, this is what we are trying to do.
	But, and it's not, it's not a racial category.
	I mean, Hispanics, as the Census Department points out, can be of any race.
	I mean, if you want some particularly hilarious reading, Because it's defined by being part of a Spanish speaking culture.
	You know, what do are his Spanish people from Spain?
	Are they an oppressed minority?
	But black people from well, I guess blacks would just call themselves black, but let's say people from Brazil.
	They are not because they speak Portuguese.
	And therefore they are somehow more part of a oppressor class that people who speak Spanish.
	There are all sorts of hilarious fights about whether Portuguese speaking people are considered Hispanic or not.
	I mean, all of this is really about getting and you see the same thing with the effort to create the so-called MENA census category, which is people from the Middle East and North Africa.
	It's all about creating a group of people that can then appeal As a group to the government for special funding, and then you essentially have an entire group of petty bureaucrats that can advocate for your interests.
	And unfortunately, this over a long enough timeline, this basically drives the society into the ground because you've got this sort of, it's like a cancer, this parasitic growth on everything that you're trying to do.
	You're seeing the same thing with Asian American and Pacific Islander.
	I mean, talk about just a completely invented minority identity. Like that's not a thing that all these
	people have like the same interests or a part of the same race or any of this stuff. It's just
	nonsense. And I think that, again, for if you were a moderate Republican, if you were somebody
	who is not a white nationalist, I mean, I'll just claim the label, but I understand that's like the most hated label.
	So I'm not saying like, follow me, everyone charge the guns.
	I mean, everybody does that we win, but like, I understand who goes out first, like is probably gonna get it.
	But if you were like, okay, well, what are some more incremental things that we can do?
	I mean, as I said, it's basically unanimous among the Republican Party and Overwhelmingly among independents and quite a few Democrats as well that people don't want decisions being made based on the basis of race.
	So get rid of all these multicultural characterizations.
	Make it illegal to have these sorts of bureaucracies.
	Make it so that you don't have the funding for this class of activists.
	That keeps taking over all of these institutions, because if you dry up the funding, if you drive the career paths, a lot of these problems simply go away.
	You're certainly going to have a major impact on these Asian Americans who suffer from affirmative action.
	But if you're class conscious, you understand that the way to get ahead in American society is to claim to be oppressed.
	And so that's why you see a lot of these second generation, third generation Asian Americans Well, you have to target the structure.
	You have to make it so that people don't have anything to gain from giving these kinds of things.
	you know, their communities gain nothing from the existence of this system, but they themselves can
	work their way up the ladder and get into positions of power. Well, you have to target the structure.
	You have to make it so that people don't have anything to gain from giving these kinds of
	things. Certainly one of the things that I would do is you need to abolish Hispanic as a census
	category. It's fake.
	It's complete nonsense.
	And I don't think we as race realists, we who are concerned with truth, and we are the ones who are saying like race is a biological reality.
	It's not just a social construct.
	It's nonsensical to have a census category where the people involved can be of any race.
	And with the entire purpose of it was to basically steal resources from the majority population and hand it out to a parasitic network of activists who contribute nothing.
	Essentially hold everybody back.
	And insofar as there is hope for assimilation, I mean, you're not going to get it when people are literally incentivized to keep complaining about how oppressed they are.
	Correct.
	And that's that's America 2023 in a proverbial nutshell, Mr. Hood.
	Speaking of America in 2023, let's finish up this podcast by talking about fireworks that went off all throughout the nation in And interesting, culturally, racially enriched areas.
	We can start, you know, I believe, you know, one of the main things that Biden has tried to push is some form of gun control on semi-automatic weapons.
	Of course, one of the great things that conservatives have done is they've been able to pass constitutional care in so many states to where you don't even have to go and get a permit at a place like Georgia or or Missouri, or Florida. You just, you can just carry. And
	what's fascinating though, as a lot of these states continue to proliferate freedom when it
	comes to the Second Amendment, places that are notorious for gun crime seem to be doubling down on the
	insanity of these mass shootings.
	And one of them, Mr. Hood, again, they happen so frequently now that it's just, it's like,
	oh great, another mass shooting in Baltimore.
	And what is it?
	Sailor's Law?
	The more victims there are, but the fewer deaths, the more obvious it's a black shooter.
	Well, over July 4th, or right before July 4th, there was a mass shooting at a block party.
	and the Brooklyn area of Baltimore. Baltimore is about 7% black, by the way, ladies and gentlemen.
	There were 30 victims in a mass shooting, more than half were teenagers, but there were only two
	dead. I mean, that's an insane amount of violence. That's probably more people who were hurt than
	there were hurt in all of France during these riots. Mr.
	Hood? Yeah, it's, it's, I said, I mean, this is probably a somewhat off color joke, but I said the
	problem is that a certain element of our population is bringing the traditional Juneteenth
	celebrations to the 4th of July, which is bad for all of us, because that form of
	celebration, of course, is spray and praying across every crowd that they can
	encounter.
	Yeah, instead of shooting Roman candles at each other with mirth and And, uh, Minneapolis.
	Sure.
	They did.
	It wasn't just like harmless fireworks that were blazing away at the cops.
	And of course the cops just kind of gently told them to stop because obviously we don't really have the rules and you're allowed to do whatever you want.
	If you're part of a certain group, I mean, and, and you see the kind of like Reddit take after these sorts of things like, Oh, like America, the 4th of July, there was a mass shooting.
	Look at all these dead people.
	That's how you celebrate America.
	And it's like, no, we don't.
	It's not a gun problem.
	Like, it's a black problem.
	That's just the reality.
	And yeah, there are mass shootings, and yeah, that is a certain socio-political development that deserves careful attention, but it's dwarfed by just the tedious and banal reality of just day in, day out in these cities.
	You just have people lighting up every kind of a mass gathering, whether it be a block, quote unquote, block party, whether it be a funeral, whether it be an anti-violence vigil, that's an especially favorable target for wounding a bunch of people.
	And the only reaction that the people have, the only reaction that you're permitted is basically, well, get rid of the guns.
	But of course, we know that in most of these cases, that would do nothing to actually stop the issue.
	And furthermore, A lot of these in a lot of these cases, if you can't tell from the pretty woeful kill to wounded ratio, it's mostly handguns.
	And of course, the gun control that they're always going nuts about is like assault weapons and stuff like that.
	So-called assault weapons, which, of course, the point is not to actually stop the shootings.
	I think to a certain extent, they quietly rejoice when this happens because it gives them an excuse to get another media narrative going.
	The point is disarm white Americans and make sure that you yourself are not allowed to defend yourself. And people might say,
	well, why do you need, let's say, an AR-15? Well, I don't know. After 2020, when the
	government basically said you're on your own, I mean, that's when I went out and got mine, because, you
	know, it was basically an indication that, OK, like, they're not going to protect you. In fact,
	just a couple of weeks ago, I believe, one of the police officers was involved in one of these
	school shootings who was brought up on charges for not going in to save everybody was found not
	guilty.
	It is reality.
	The Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect you.
	So if the police don't have an obligation to protect you and the government will make it so you can't protect yourself, where does that leave you?
	Correct.
	Well, that's that's the situation that they want us in.
	I mean, I've It is true.
	We shouldn't overstate the case here.
	Crime is actually down significantly over the last year in a lot of these big cities, but it's still much higher up than it was, say, five, six years ago.
	And that itself was a big jump from where it was before BLM started.
	And that, of course, was a huge jump from where it was in the 1950s and the early 1960s.
	What we consider the now habitual rates of urban violence really only took off after Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Great Society.
	As LBJ famously complained, like, why are they burning down the cities after everything I've done for them?
	Well, because it emboldened them.
	I mean... It was a victory party.
	Yeah.
	It's, it's, what is Steve Saylor called it?
	It's, uh, not black enthusiasm, but, uh, I can't, I can't, I'm blanking on the exact term that he used.
	Oh, uh, you're talking about deaths of the spare versus deaths of exuberance?
	Yes, thank you.
	That is an amazing, is an incredible graph that you showed there.
	And the thing is, I do really think about what it must be like if you're a black guy living in one of these hellholes, and you just want to, like, go to school, or you just want to go to work, or you just want to have a family, and you're just in this war zone all the time.
	But if you actually care about these people, the policies that we're doing now are making things much worse.
	And if you're a Republican, if you're a conservative, and you say, oh, we need to win some of the black vote.
	The only people who are even going to think about voting for you are the people who are suffering from this lawless environment.
	And the Platinum Plan and paying off the worst people in the community is not helping.
	I mean, the great irony of everything, and again, maybe this is just another example of even how white nationalists need to speak in universal terms, but if you actually cared about so-called minority communities and To me, every time they say the word community, it's an indication that no such real community actually exists.
	But if you actually wanted to take care of these people, you know, an overt white nationalist would actually deliver more good to these people than the current liberal leadership.
	Because, you know, cut taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king.
	That's basically where we need to be at.
	And if you look at people will say things, and again, I quote the Guardian, Look at El Salvador.
	I mean, the whole fields of sociology and, you know, all these studies about, oh, it's about discrimination.
	It's about loss of opportunity.
	Like, no, it's about just locking up violent criminals.
	And then the problem just goes away.
	Yeah, simple.
	It's fascinating.
	You say that because one of the fun things that we've seen across the country over the past few years.
	Well, it's not fun if you live in these cities, but the left has gone after the gang databases in cities like New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., because there's virtually zero white people that are part of these gang databases.
	They're overwhelmingly Black and brown and cities that are, you know, again, New York is about 33 percent white, Chicago, about 33 percent white, and there's just no representation.
	So the these parasitic groups that you talk about, these NGOs, they are suing these police departments and the police.
	They know.
	I mean, one of the most fascinating things about what just happened in France And I think you agree with this.
	In the United States, the Fraternal Order of Police in the United States is one of the great unions.
	They're the ones that are constantly pushing back against consent decrees that the DOJ forces on cities where there's been a white cop who's done something to piss off the media.
	And so then we see the DOJ come in and all sorts of articles about how,
	oh my gosh, blacks get disproportionate amount of tickets.
	Well, and the fraternal order of police, or Mr. Hood is the organization
	always fights back on behalf of cops.
	It's like, just unleash us, we can take care of it.
	And in France, we saw two of the big police unions basically say the vermin are taking over,
	like step up and do something.
	And I think back to what Trump must have thought back in May of 2020, when he's in the bunker
	of the White House, Mr. Hood, and he's there with Stephen Miller.
	He's there with General Milley.
	And they're basically he basically wants to do the Insurrection Act.
	And he's he's basically the Joint Chiefs of Staff say, you can't do this.
	We're not going to back you.
	And it's it's it's that's what the West, unfortunately, or at a micro level, these cities are going to have to do.
	Your El Salvador reference is totally true.
	We know who the gangs are.
	Go arrest the people.
	You put them in jail.
	Guess what?
	Crime is going to drop dramatically in Chicago, in New York, in these places overnight.
	It's not hard.
	We know who are the we know who the criminals are.
	And unfortunately, because we know who they are, American Renaissance is targeted for for, you know, for digital deletement.
	So where you can't even put a story about the founding fathers like you tweeted out.
	But what they really thought about race without some sort of warning, it's not hard.
	It doesn't take, you know, a rocket scientist to navigate through all these different problems.
	It's simply cutting the Gordian knot, Mr. Hood, is it not?
	Yeah, I mean, the problem we face is not, oh, we don't know the policy solutions to these problems.
	I mean, the policy solutions are there.
	It's actually, even within the conservative movement, you have an increasing awareness of what needs to be done coming from mainstream institutions.
	The problem, of course, is just power.
	And we now have a detailed analysis of power that people are spreading around.
	I mean, this really is probably one of the more positive changes on the American right, that people are becoming better educated and more aware of how power functions.
	Both in the United States and the entire Western world, specifically the partnership between the state, the NGOs and the media, which is really the nexus of power.
	And of course, you know, global finance, which is really the nexus of power.
	The big problems, of course, is that sometimes you get these sort of see, I hate to bash conspiracy theories because, you know, it makes me sound like some media reporter, like lecturing people over disinformation.
	It's very easy to blame like, oh, it's the World Economic Forum or like, oh, it's, you know, the Bilderbergers or something like that.
	It's like, well, no, I mean, it's actually, you don't have to go for some secret plan.
	Like it is there right in front of you in terms of like, these are the groups doing it.
	They tell you what they're doing and this is how it functions.
	These are the people who fund them.
	I mean, it's not, it's not hard.
	We don't have to go for some like grand scheme.
	And it's also very easy to explain, like, why they are doing this.
	I mean, the most fundamental problem is that the goal of power is power.
	I mean, why do you put consent degrees on people?
	Why do you make it so NGOs manage social relations?
	Why do you want to use, say, the transgender issue to break up the family and undermine parental authority?
	Well, because if you do all these things, you have vastly more power to manage people.
	And that means a lot of money.
	That means a lot of careers.
	That means a lot of social status.
	I mean, these are the things that drive people.
	And if you're on the right, you may look to great men, say, I don't know, somebody like Alexander the Great.
	There's always a lot of like classics posting when it comes to right wing social media.
	But the fact is, it's just a different technique.
	The things that people use to attain greatness and high social status in the past are just different from the things that are used to attain these things now.
	I mean, you used to conquer Asia.
	Now you become the head of an NGO and you basically can govern an entire continent with your diktats about what people can say and think.
	And so you're dealing with fundamental human drives.
	Now, I think people are beginning to gain some awareness of it.
	The question is, how does we overcome it?
	And unfortunately, there's not a quick answer to that.
	There are certainly things that could be done at the national level, at the state level, even at the local level.
	Which could give people space to organize.
	And I think the one thing that we have going for us, but it's a very big thing, is that we have seen that if we are given the freedom to operate, we sweep all before us.
	Like, Antifa types actually are correct in their paranoia that they need to stomp out every little spark before it becomes a wildfire.
	Like, it really does spread that quickly.
	Yep.
	The system, as I see it, has fatally compromised its legitimacy over the last few years, trying, explicitly defending censorship, explicitly saying that the state should tell people what they can say and think.
	And because of the nature of the system, it has to keep spreading its list of targets.
	So they de-platformed a lot of white nationalists, but they can't stop there.
	I mean, it would have been smart if they had just stopped there, right?
	But instead they have to go after Kobe.
	They have to go over people who don't like transgenderism.
	They have to go after Christians.
	They have to go after all these other groups.
	And so you're building up this this opposition to the system.
	Now that opposition is divided doesn't really agree on very much other than the fact that they don't like being censored, but like we can work with that and.
	You know, it's not some.
	Evil scheme that we're trying to trick people like actually do believe in freedom of speech, like actually do believe in living in a free society and we win if we get those things.
	Yep.
	And I think that there are some communities forming, forming on the periphery where they're going, they understand that they're operating in essentially what is occupied territory and they're thriving anyway.
	The only thing that I really don't have an answer to.
	And I'm not sure there is one, is just the problem of lawfare.
	Because when you have courts basically just saying like, well, you know, we're gonna, we're just gonna punish you and make up evidence and we're gonna throw you in jail because you did something we don't like, or, you know, oh, I'm some state official, I'm just gonna start some never ending investigation into you and you owe me, you know, half a million dollars just for no reason, and then maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't.
	I mean, certainly, again, I'll preface this by saying I was not there.
	But if you look at what happened to a lot of these January 6th defendants, you know, people who clearly had no idea what was going on and were just kind of blundering into the Capitol because the doors were open.
	Just the legal nightmares that have been unleashed on a lot of these people.
	There's not really a good way to, there's no clever way to get around the lawfare problem.
	I mean, you just have to kind of dig in and try to fight it on its own terms.
	And that's depressing because I mean, the system really is rigged against you, but as we have seen with a number of recent court decisions, just because the system is rigged against you doesn't mean that it's impossible.
	And the other thing is that there is a cost to the system for everything that it does.
	I think the left is increasingly comfortable with repression, but the more they repress, the more people start looking around and understanding that they don't actually have to buy into a system that doesn't deliver the things I promised you.
	And so it is sort of creating its own opposition, I think.
	The what we are able to say and what we are able to do on the surface is very small compared to the potential that is shaping up.
	And I think that I mean, maybe this is just copium, but I think that the left, what Peter Berman calls the totalitarian left, is really driving itself into a crisis.
	Uh, the key for us is that we need to make sure that when the moment comes, when there is an opportunity that is, it comes in the name of defending whites collectively, that it's not just some vague thing.
	Oh, it's against the world economic forum, or it's about vaccines, or it's about this.
	It's like, no, the ideology that justifies everything that is happening is hatred of white people as such full stop.
	You could try to disguise that.
	You can try to dance around it.
	You could come up with some story about 1776 or whatever else.
	But until we grapple with the fundamental issue of race, we're not going to get anywhere.
	Well, not just that, Mr. Hood, but we have to grapple with the fact that the NAACP was specifically created to destroy freedom of association.
	They spent 30 years, almost 40 years actually, trying to find a judge, trying to find a court that would overturn restrictive covenants.
	And there's actually a story by that goofball, Radley Balco.
	Is that his name?
	The libertarian who hates cops?
	Yeah, I know we wrote a recent articles about the cops.
	I haven't read it, so I'm going to defer to you.
	Yeah, it's just it's and we'll end with this story because it's basically this all white, very nice area.
	I want to say it is Minnesota where they looked around and they they they did some perfunctory thing against covenants.
	Well, this guy, Balco, tried to be like, oh, they still had restrictive covenants to keep blacks out.
	And they hire this black police chief and a black female gets a high position.
	And they're like, all these cops quit and crime went down.
	Oh, my gosh.
	Well, the city is two percent black, 98 percent white.
	There was no crime to begin with.
	And yet at the same time, there's the Balcos trying to say, oh, and they finally get rid of restrictive covenants.
	No, they did some they did some ceremonious act to be like, oh, we repudiate the fact that we once had covenants.
	And Mr. Hood, it really comes down to you.
	You talk about these classical liberal ideas of free speech.
	It really comes down to if you can discriminate.
	As to who you can associate with, whether it's neighbors, whether it's a community, whether it's, you know, it's why I'm against school choice.
	School choice is the dumbest thing ever, because the whole point of living in a suburb is to choose who your neighbors are, basically, without a covenant.
	You can go around a neighborhood and be like, oh, I want to live here.
	I can see who lives here.
	I can see they maintain their yards.
	There's an HOA.
	when you have school choice, you basically are going to allow people you've tried to
	get away from in the inner cities who will then have access to your schools.
	And what's going to keep your property value up if the school quality goes down?
	So to me, it even goes further back, Mr. Hood, and it goes to simply Shelley versus Kramer,
	the most disastrous Supreme Court decision ever made, because that's when we lost the
	country and Carlton Putnam talks about that actually, and in Race and Reason, which I
	believe is available by the New Century Foundation.
	But hey, we have run out of time.
	I hate to say that because you and I could talk for hours.
	Perhaps, uh, maybe there'll be a spinoff, uh, from Radio Renaissance to some other show where we can get into some of these ideas and, and not just... I'm probably going to be asking, uh, our readers, um, I'm looking to do a streaming program and I'm going to be asking, uh, readers to give me some feedback about what I should call it.
	I was thinking something like the Western voice or something like that, just because you all know that I'm very much, uh, pan-European, pan-Western, white nationalist.
	Here to give you some story about like, oh, how America itself can do something.
	I think terms, but I want to hear what you guys think.
	I want to hear your ideas and I want to hear some feedback from everybody and we'll go from there.
	Yeah.
	And how can they do that?
	Well, the contact information is obviously all there on the American Renaissance, uh, including my email and phone number and everything like that.
	And obviously some people have already been contacting you about the podcast Uh, certainly we want to hear your feedback, not just in terms of how you think the show is going, but also the kind of topics that you want to see us addressing.
	And stories.
	So all you have to do, dear listener, wherever you are around the world, send an email to BecauseWeLiveHere at ProtonMail.com.
	Once again, BecauseWeLiveHere at ProtonMail.com or go to Amarin.com and go to the Contact Us tab.
	There's a conference coming up.
	We'll get into that next week.
	We appreciate each and every one of you listening and hope you had a wonderful Fourth of July for Mr. Hood.
	This has been Paul Kersey.

▲