Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 20, 2024 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

01:30:10

20240220_Tue

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey guys, welcome to View from the Right.
	This is Gregory Hood.
	I'm here with Paul Kersey, and today we are going to be discussing the concept of not a state-run media, but a media-run state, specifically in response to this recent shooting that just happened with the Super Bowl.
	Paul, it's been some weird media coverage in response to all this.
	You know, it's funny.
	We'll talk about that in a second, what happened at the parade for the victorious Kansas City Chiefs during the Super Bowl parade, but I want to ask you real quick.
	Media run state.
	What do you mean by that, Mr. Hood?
	Well, I think that in any society, there's always like one key focus of power.
	And if you think about who really sets policies and who determines where money and power flow in the society, I don't think it's particularly controversial if I said that the courts are obviously the critical battleground.
	But in terms of What actually motivates courts to act what determines whether a case is actually brought to trial?
	What determines whether there's going you're allowed to raise money or have a real defense or whether loyals will take it?
	I think media is more important than anything else and insofar as laws still matter.
	It's not really the politicians who have the direct impact.
	It's it's the media and the people who shape the environment in which they act actually on X almost called the Twitter but on X. I've got subscriptions now with the video jams K account and I did a subscribers only post about the real nature of politics famous lecture by this guy Mike Rothfeld who you may remember and he did this.
	It was the first lecture on politics.
	I ever Saw I was like maybe 22 at the time and basically he went in there trying to shock and awe us saying that you think you're going to get elected to office.
	You think that that has power, but it doesn't matter what politicians actually believe.
	I've seen them watch.
	I mean he was taught he was a social conservative.
	So he was talking about abortion.
	I've seen them actually see like the footage of an abortion and then cry about it and then the next day vote to allow more of them because fundamentally they're going to do what's in their political interest.
	And he tried to have this whole case, you know, as an activist, this is what you can do.
	You can have angry voters, you can generate negative coverage and media.
	And this is that's what it is to have real power, not necessarily to be in office.
	But fundamentally, you could be the best activist in the world.
	And if you own a newspaper, if you own a magazine, if you have if you're writing the scripts for late night comedy shows, which increasingly now have just become sort of like group therapy sessions for hysterical, affluent liberals.
	I mean, Stephen Colbert is just like sobbing on the air every night at this point.
	That's going to shape the environment way more than any activism anyone can do.
	And also, the main priority of media at this point is basically to shut down opposing media.
	I would say that the predominant objective of every news outlet, when you get down to what it is they're trying to accomplish, when all said no, it's to make sure that other news outlets are censored and de-platformed.
	That's why they do it.
	This is why I don't say I'm not trying to be snarky or cute or whatever.
	I think the most deadly enemy of free speech is a journalist.
	That every single journalist as a journalist is a direct threat to what liberties we have left.
	Every single one of them.
	A.J.I.B.
	And.
	And so this is why I think the media is fundamentally sovereign, because they're the ones who shape the environment and they're the ones who determine how Even more than the lawyers in some ways, they determine how the courts are going to act because they shape the environment that these judges and jurors and lawyers work in.
	Fundamentally, a judge is a political official.
	A judge is not apolitical.
	There's no such thing as an area of power that's not political.
	A judge is no different than a politician, and that means they're equally vulnerable to media pressure.
	And so if you said, what is it that rules America?
	What is the one thing you really don't want on against you?
	It's media.
	Just to give one other quick example, I remember a while back, this is when Donald Trump was president.
	He was driving by in his limo and some hysterical woman ran out and, like, gave him the finger and did some vulgar thing.
	Vulgar?
	Yeah, and so it's just some trashy gesture.
	In Northern Virginia, right?
	That's right.
	And this became the greatest thing that these reporters had ever seen.
	Just adoring coverage and, you know, what a hero and everything else.
	And she was able to raise all this money and all sorts of things.
	And it's like, well, who is it that has power in this situation?
	Because on paper, you can have money, you can have lawyers, you can have public support, you can have people who take you seriously.
	But as we've seen today, where Donald Trump lost something like $360 million because a judge basically said that he had committed fraud, even though there were no victims, we all knew that verdict was going to happen.
	But, you know, it doesn't matter.
	At the end of the day, it's because he has the media against him, and that's who shapes the opinions of judges and jurors and the people who work in this environment.
	And that's what it is to have real power.
	It doesn't matter what position you hold.
	It doesn't matter what power you have on paper.
	What matters is what's the point of having power if you're not going to buy Public opinion through buying media and one of the most important insights, I think, and when you, I mean, I would go so far as to say that what is democracy, but democracy is rule by media.
	And the purpose of power is to buy media because public opinion is always, always, always dictated.
	Always.
	And this is why the fundamental premise of democracy, the idea that people discuss ideas I mean, the most important thing you're talking about, I mean, what is the point of power is to augment power.
	I mean, why would you share power once you've attained it if you positioned your enemy as an untouchable?
	I mean, what did the left do immediately?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	You know, I mean, the most important thing you're talking about, I mean, what is the
	point of power is to augment power.
	I mean, why would you share power once you've attained it if you positioned your enemy as
	an untouchable?
	I mean, what did the left do immediately?
	What did Scott Adams become famous for, the creator of Dilbert?
	He famously noted that, wow, the left, the media is framing Donald Trump as a Nazi.
	Even though I might want to endorse Donald Trump, I can't endorse him.
	I'm going to endorse his opponent so they don't kill me.
	He famously said that back in, I think that was 2019, 2020, when Biden was running, because he was terrified of what was happening.
	Uh, because the media was able to galvanize, uh, the other side.
	Uh, and look what happened with his, with his comic strip after the media decided, Hey, this guy is an enemy of the state that we're creating.
	And the whole concept of the media run state, again, they're dictating where things are going there.
	They're constructing This apparatus, this state, and why would you share power?
	I mean, that's one of the fundamental things that you and I have watched since Donald Trump came down the escalator.
	I mean, my great hope, the ultimate white pill from all this, is that, you know, that's a moment in time that we realize the Rubicon has already been crossed.
	I mean, I know you're going to laugh at that, Mr. Hood, but I kind of want to think that if we're going to win, that's the way we're going to look at Trump coming down the escalator.
	That was his moment where he crossed the Rubicon, so to speak.
	And so everything that we're seeing now is the media trying to rack this media run state.
	And like you said, I mean, we're recording this on February 16th, 2024.
	You think about nine years ago, almost he came down the escalator and here he is a judge, just what, $350 million in this, um, More than that, more than that.
	And the critical takeaway here is that, you know, the Attorney General ran on the platform of, if you put me in power, I'm going to get Trump.
	And that is why she was elected.
	That's not the only thing New York has been doing, both against other right-wing figures and groups, notably VETER, but also against Trump.
	I mean, where they basically, what did they, they changed the statute of limitations, right?
	Basically, just so he could get sued in this other case.
	If you think about who has the real power in this situation, it's because the case is ridiculous.
	It's because it has no resemblance to reality.
	It's because there's no victim.
	It's because it's so political that it's so effective.
	That's why they're doing it.
	If it was a real crime, They wouldn't want it punished because that's how New York and liberals, more broadly speaking, like actually work.
	I mean, you see a murderer and the journalists and the clergy and the rest of them immediately throw themselves on their knees, worshiping this person as the greatest thing that ever happened.
	I mean, there's nothing they love more than real criminals.
	I mean, the criminal kills a kid.
	And I mean, you can't wait till I get in front of the cameras and start talking about how they forgive them and how this is the greatest thing ever.
	And they need to give them more money and aid and whatever else.
	So the last thing they want to do is like punish crime.
	It's because it's a fake crime that they have to go after it.
	And the key element here is that there's nobody in America who thinks that if Donald Trump had not gone down the escalator, that this case would have happened.
	Ostensibly, it's about his real estate business, but nobody actually, nobody actually believes this has to do with his real estate business.
	Nobody believes that.
	There's none of these lawsuits would be happening now.
	None of these people who are suddenly recalling all these things that happened years ago, none of these things would be happening.
	It's purely political, but the thing is, it's important for us to remember that this is what law is, and this is what law has always been.
	The purpose of law is to crush political opponents, and the law is no different than it was 3,000 years ago when a king would imprison pretenders to the throne on false charges.
	I mean, America is no different than anything else.
	Yeah, I mean, that's, aren't these, huh, And again, that's one of the points that very few people have made.
	That very profound point a couple of years ago at one of the Ameren conferences where you brought that up and you were beginning to see that somewhat matriculate into conservative hate that word.
	Sorry, I said that you're beginning to see that matriculate into right of center discourse, dissident discourse.
	Again, when you say dissident, that already puts us in a bad light in a lot of ways.
	Some of the more thought provoking individuals on the right are realizing the perilous situation that we're in.
	And again, you're right.
	I think one of the ways to look at this shooting that just happened in Kansas City, where you have, I mean, again, Kansas City, Missouri is a majority white city.
	It's 55% white.
	They have a, they have a, they have a black mayor, a Democrat mayor, unfortunately.
	You had this Super Bowl parade where 800,000 people show up, Mr. Hood.
	800 police are assigned to try and keep the peace, and three black individuals end up opening fire on each other.
	There was no terrorist attack.
	It was not premeditated.
	It was basically over some sort of Quote-unquote beef and what one person is dead 22 people are wounded a number of those were between the ages of 8 and 12 and Immediately we had footage on Twitter.
	Thank you.
	Elon Musk.
	I'm gonna call it Twitter.
	You can call it X Elon Musk's Twitter we had photos of the suspects.
	We had the video of Multiple angles of, it looks like a Hispanic dude tackled one of the black guys, and we knew this right away.
	I was on a business trip, and I happened to be in the lobby of a hotel watching CNN breathlessly report that, well, Missouri has some of the laxest gun laws in the country.
	Did this have something to do with the outbreak of gun violence at this joyous celebration?
	Was this premeditated?
	Could this have been terrorism?
	And then Wolf Blitzer gets on and he says, you know, when I travel around the world, everyone asks when I'm in Europe, why does this keep happening in the United States?
	And of course, you and I said it off the air.
	Well, I mean, we all know that disproportionately blacks commit virtually The majority of gun violence in major urban areas, both fatal and non-fatal shooting.
	And it's really that simple just to say it, but it's much easier to try and blame Missouri's constitutional carry as if this had something to do with underage black teenagers indiscriminately opening fire into the general public as they try and celebrate a Super Bowl game.
	And again, 800 police couldn't maintain the piece at this. And then not only is this happening, but
	not that far across a couple states in Illinois and Chicago, the black mayor just
	canceled the contract for ShotSpotter because it disproportionately would go off in black and
	brown communities.
	ShotSpotter is a technology that uses acoustics to try and help triangulate when a gunshot goes off so that police can be notified to show up in case someone was injured or wounded.
	And because this technology was disproportionately utilized in black areas, brown areas of Chicago, they decided to cancel the contract.
	And it's just fascinating to watch all this happen as, you know, as our infrastructure, as our country is literally at a moment where the Super Bowl celebration, this should be a great time.
	You know, again, you and I grew up in probably the joyous 1990s, where I went to a number of events in Atlanta.
	To watch Atlanta Braves parades, whether it was for the NLCS championship or in 95 when they beat the Indians in the World Series, you wouldn't even think this would be possible.
	And I mean that, like Atlanta in the 90s was a very dangerous place.
	But this was something that was inconceivable, that there'd be a shooting where, you know, more than a score of individuals would be shot as 800 police are all around you.
	And then the media is, then CNN, As you talk about the media run state is still running interference to do everything they can to try and equivocate what was responsible for the shooting instead of just going to the source.
	Some individual black kids, again, just a couple blacks made an event that should be peaceful, impossible to be peaceful.
	And then to try and be like, oh, this is the fault of Missouri's, you know, all these right All these conservatives who voted for constitutional carry.
	You know, why should white people be allowed to have constitutional carry and lax gun laws when, you know, St.
	Louis and Kansas City are two of the most violent cities on the planet.
	And that's a fact, ladies and gentlemen.
	St.
	Louis and Kansas City are two of the most violent cities on the planet.
	Not just in the United States, but on the planet.
	And it's because individual blacks collectively commit the bulk of the fatal and non-fatal shootings.
	And again, the media, you and I have joked about this before, if the media-run state concept is true, which I totally agree with, if the media was run by people like us, it would take one week and this would all be over.
	Our side would win.
	Well, there just wouldn't be any crime too.
	I mean, it just wouldn't.
	The thing to remember here is that If if any of the laws being proposed, we're going to limit crime, they wouldn't propose they wouldn't support them.
	The laws that are on the books now.
	They don't want to enforce.
	If you look at Chicago, as you said, the shot spotter, but also if you look in New York, I mean, what was the big thing in New York City?
	We need to make sure that we don't do stop and frisk.
	We need to make sure that, you know, they want strict gun control, but then when it comes time to actually do it, it turns out blacks are the ones breaking all the gun control laws.
	So what do you do?
	You just stop enforcing the laws and then the crime goes up.
	Well, that doesn't bother anyone.
	I don't think anybody cares about the crime.
	I don't think anybody, I mean, I just deny it altogether.
	And I know a lot of people would probably take issue with this, but I just don't think they care one way or the other.
	It has no moral consequence.
	It has no moral importance to any of them.
	The only thing that matters is what matters in a media storyline.
	And they have it in their head that the existential enemy Are white rural conservative gun owners that the guns are the problem and so in the immediate aftermath you had this thing because they were even talking about like it was a terrorist attack as if like MAGA supporters are attacking it because of Taylor Swift or something.
	But as you say, and again, this is why they're going to give Musk the Donald Trump treatment.
	If Trump doesn't win in 2024.
	The facts get out on X. We all see who's responsible and just instantly.
	It's not even news anymore.
	I think you know it was.
	Buried somewhere beneath the fold on like NBC that they charged a couple juveniles, which means that you know, they're not even gonna get punished the one person who died Before they even got into who had committed the crime, they reported the victim who died, but they reported it as like Hispanic woman killed.
	Like that became the focus of the story, her Hispanic identity.
	And the obvious implication was that she was targeted because she was a minority.
	Mr. Hood, you forget one extremely important detail, a Hispanic popular DJ.
	Right.
	Right.
	I mean, it was, it was a little more, it was a little more shocking.
	It's bizarre.
	I mean, they have to do it.
	They have to frame it in this way.
	And the thing is, if they don't frame it in this way, it has no moral significance.
	It's not even, it's not even a bad thing that happened.
	It is less moral consequence than the weather because, you know, they believe we can control the weather now too with carbon stuff.
	So you can't even say like, Oh, it's just a misfortune that happened.
	It ceases to be news because it's actually a greater moral crime to say, hey, it's black guys than it is to actually do the shooting.
	There will certainly be more sympathy and aid offered to the shooters in terms of what they can expect than any of the people who are going to get their doors kicked in, you know, for gun laws or whatever else over the next few years if they're able to pass some of these things.
	And There have been some people, I think, Matt Yglesias and a few other liberals, but notice liberals who are more or less independent at this point, will make the case that, hey, if you look at the way these policies are actually enforced, the gun control laws on the books,
	As absurd as it sounds, the white liberal position seems to be, we want gun control, but we don't want it enforced against blacks who are the ones who keep breaking all the laws.
	But if you take a step back, no, that actually makes perfect sense.
	Because again, what is the purpose of politics?
	It's to reward friends, crush enemies.
	So what do you want to do?
	You want to disarm your enemies.
	You want to make sure they're vulnerable to crime.
	If they are victims of crime, they had it coming.
	It's privilege.
	They deserve it.
	You know, at worst, it's just like a bad thing that happened, but, you know, the blacks or whoever killed them were deprived and dispossessed, and so they're the true victims, if you really think about it.
	You want these people to suffer.
	And as far as, like, the high crime rates among blacks, and let's be frank, I mean, the people who are mostly the victims of these crimes are other blacks.
	Nobody cares.
	Certainly black leaders don't care.
	And I think there is something to be said that In a way, black leaders like high crime because it prevents gentrification, which as we know, again, there's far more media outrage over gentrification, which is white people moving into a black neighborhood and making it nice.
	People will get attacked for that.
	There's far more media outrage over that than there is about against black crime as such.
	You know, if you have high crime that prevents gentrification, it keeps the political base solid and makes sure that you get 95% of the vote in a lot of these cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit.
	I mean, you need these to win swing states.
	Blacks have to vote as a block, as a part of a political machine, if the Democrats are going to win these states and win national elections.
	So you're going to do whatever it takes to keep them in line like that.
	And frankly, there's also just a way That blacks govern, which we see everywhere from American cities, quote unquote, American cities to African cities, where the purpose of being in charge is to take money, waste it.
	Have these displays of largesse, show everybody how important and powerful you are, flaunt the fact that you aren't accountable to anyone.
	But whereas white people might be disgusted by open corruption, say, and do something about it, blacks think it's great.
	And they'll vote for this over and over again.
	This is what they want.
	This is who they are.
	And at a certain level, you can't argue with this.
	I mean, one of the kind of takeaways that I think It's something that you sort of creeps around the edges when you get into race realism and you start thinking about it a little bit but I'm increasingly persuaded that it's absolutely true is that politics is biological and a lot of these things from the way we approach public affairs but also just the way we interpret reality and moral behavior is just in the blood.
	It's in genetics and they just don't see the world the same way.
	Certainly no white person would proudly enthusiastically, to the point of willing to use violence, defend murderers in our community.
	Particularly murderers who murdered other people in that community.
	But when blacks stand up for blacks, they don't mean standing up for the black victims.
	Nobody cares about the black victims.
	I mean, if anything, they seem to be regarded with certain contempt.
	It means standing up for the black criminals.
	Like they're the ones who are lionized.
	They're the ones who are heroes.
	If they're arrested, even if everybody knows they did it, they're the victims and they're the ones who people will march and attack and go to war for.
	What does that say about them as a people?
	And you know, I think the question for us is like, well, how do we respond to this?
	And the answer needs to be, you just, you can't babysit these people.
	You can't deal with these people and you can't pass laws Expecting that they're going to have any kind of an impact on their collective behavior.
	The same way we pass laws expecting it to have a collective impact on our behavior.
	Everybody knows that gun control laws simply do not apply to them because increasingly it's just been decided that no laws apply to them.
	Well certainly if we think of like shoplifting now I mean that's been completely abandoned as being prosecuted in these cities.
	Yeah, going back to the Kansas City shooting, Mr. Hood, of course, you know, you have to be 21 or older to buy a handgun.
	And the individuals who partook in the shooting were teenagers.
	They were black teens.
	Now, as we're talking... Well, here's the thing.
	Do you think if you could somehow corner a white liberal and give them that information, would that information change their view on any of this in the slightest way?
	No, not at all.
	That's what we're dealing with.
	Wow, you do.
	I can't really stomach them much anymore.
	We're past the point of, I mean, again, you and I, we both love, we both love movies and
	there are so many great lines from movies that really help encapsulate the time that
	we live in and you and I both.
	Wow, you do.
	I don't, I can't really stomach them much anymore.
	I've become much more reverting into Evala books in my old age.
	I agree.
	But the line from Independence Day, the 1996 movie starring Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman about the invasion of the world by aliens.
	And there's a line where the president of the United States has a telepathic connection to an alien.
	And he says, you know, again, after most of our major cities have been destroyed in these attacks, he said, you know, can there be a peace?
	Between us and the alien says, peace, no peace.
	And then the president asks, what is it you want us to do?
	And then the alien pauses for a second and then says, die, and then pauses again and then says, die.
	I mean, as silly as it may be, that one little exchange has so much Power and connotation for where we are now with the opposite side.
	Again, we don't, the right, unfortunately, doesn't think that way right now.
	The right wants to believe if we have the right, we're going to win.
	You have no idea.
	You have no idea.
	Even people who really should know better.
	I mean, they just, I can't tell you how many discussions I have, especially with older conservatives who will say things like, well, don't they understand?
	That the illegal immigrants who are being brought in here, you know, in some of these cases, they'll kill somebody DUI or something and they'll have already been deported five times or have violent crimes in the books.
	And they'll say something like, don't you understand?
	Why don't they understand that these people are being brought in with criminal histories?
	And I'm like, yeah, that's why they're being brought in.
	If they didn't have criminal histories, if they had something to contribute, they'd be, you know, shot along the border and it would be broadcast live on NBC and every reporter in the country would applaud.
	You know, don't they understand that like crime rates are going to go up because they're doing this?
	Why are they doing this?
	Because it'll make crime rates go up.
	You know, don't they understand that these policies are going to make things worse for ordinary people?
	Why are they doing this?
	Because they will make things worse for ordinary people.
	I mean, you have a very simple choice.
	You can either believe that, and we've talked about this before, Sadly in terms of just sheer IQ I mean if you're talking about whites Specifically the same people always say liberals or the smart ones never bring recent to the equation But if we want to just look at whites probably most of the high IQ people Among whites are liberals because it selects for it in terms of the jobs you go for and just because you have to do it You know you sort of assimilate to it, but you have a very simple choice.
	I mean I They're either actually just complete morons who don't understand secondhand effects and who somehow think that if you let a violent criminal out of jail 13 times that it's like a shocking surprise when he commits another crime or they support it.
	And they think it's funny and they think it's justified.
	And you're like, well, why would they think that?
	And it's like, well, what do you learn at college?
	What do you learn at grad school?
	You learn that white privilege defines all our institutions.
	You learn that nonviolent protest is itself white supremacy, because if you say a protest should be nonviolent, you're telling oppressed people how they are supposed to negotiate for their freedom and they should actually be willing to use whatever means are necessary.
	You are told to lionize various so-called civil rights protesters who actually did use violence to do these things.
	I mean, think of how crazy it is that, you know, Malcolm X has streets named after him in this country, and the kinds of things he said, you know, applauding when a plane would crash, or something like that, or when Kennedy was assassinated, and saying, yeah, this is hilarious.
	You know, they don't like him in spite of those things.
	Like, that's why he became popular to begin with.
	There hasn't been a third world guerrilla or insurrectionist anywhere in the world that hasn't killed white people, that hasn't immediately become a hero.
	So it's not crazy to say, no, they support these policies because they hurt people.
	Why wouldn't they support those policies?
	Their entire morality is built on inflicting suffering on the people that TV told them are bad.
	Well, today is the 16th of February.
	Year of our Lord 2024, and in a few, I think about eight days, it's Ahmaud Arbery Day in Georgia.
	You know, a quote-unquote conservative state.
	Ahmaud Arbery, of course, is the jogger who... Yeah, the patron saint of jogging.
	Yeah, I mean, again, that was the case that was... I mean, who among us hasn't just, like, randomly jogged into people's houses and started, like, rummaging around in work boots?
	I know I go jogging in work boots all the time.
	No, it's one of the strangest things to really go back and think about everything that's happened since the start of 2020.
	And, you know, it's almost as if it's like a Lewis Carroll.
	Through the looking glass situation, you can try and be like, oh, yeah, you know, like this is this is all normal.
	It's like, no, what's happened in the past four years has not been normal.
	But what was the impetus behind it?
	And it goes back to the concept of the media run state.
	You have the situation in Louisville.
	Forgive me for getting for forgetting the girl's name who was dating the drug dealer where the body was found in the back of the car and they opened fire.
	The Louisville police.
	What was her name?
	That was the Breonna Taylor case you're talking about.
	The Breonna Taylor case.
	So you have, I believe that both Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery predated George Floyd.
	I might be wrong with Breonna Taylor.
	That may have been after, but I want to believe it was right before George Floyd on May 25th, 2020.
	Like we're coming up on the four year anniversary.
	There's so many crazy things to think about.
	And this all happened during this so-called national emergency with COVID and whatnot.
	Again, top-notch media run state to create this fear and induce individuals to just quiver in the face of the CDC and Fauci and just to believe whatever you are told.
	And if you dare question anything, you dare try and think for yourself, you have Science Magazine saying, well, that's the real threat.
	You shouldn't think for yourself.
	You've got to believe in the authority because they know what they're thinking.
	And in regards to the whole concept of what's happening with gun violence, I believe the Brady Center for Gun Violence Research just came out with a study.
	I believe you tweeted about this, where they said, oh gosh, blacks are 60% of homicide victims, yet they only make up what 13% of the population, yeah.
	Yeah, they actually, they did the meme.
	They did the thing.
	They did the Leonardo DiCaprio jumping up from the couch pointing at the TV like, I've seen this one.
	But, I mean, you kind of wait for them to delete it.
	I mean, what's interesting about these things, of course, is occasionally you'll get these statistics and I'll show that the overwhelming majority of these Victims of black handgun violence of handgun violence are black and then people will be like well This is also about the victims and it's like yeah But what's the thing you're always told if you promote a if you talk about a black on white?
	Violent crime immediately your mentions are gonna get filled up with people saying like well actually most crime is within the same race like yeah, that's true which means that If most of the victims are black, it means that most of the perpetrators are black, too, because that's mostly who you deal with and mostly who you're going to commit crimes against.
	The real question is not just why, because I think we've already described why blacks just don't care about the victims.
	You know, again, I think it's something close to contempt, the way that they're actually treated.
	But the real question, too, is like, why do the white saviors not care?
	Why did the people, and again, their emotions are real.
	Why do people, smart people, educated people, occasionally these clergy at these mainline Protestant churches or something, why do these people who go into screaming hysterics, crying, disowning family members, making this the most important things in their life over somebody like George Floyd said, and yet if you talked about one of these cases, Just a black-on-black homicide, even a kid being killed, even in a particularly noxious case like these drive-bys you see at funerals or at a peace rally or something like that.
	It's not that they are less troubled by it.
	It's that this has no impact on them whatsoever.
	It's not even a thing.
	It's not real.
	And to me, I think there's, it's one of these things that I want to see the studies for.
	I want to see the evidence.
	I think that Media has a way to affect us more directly and more significantly than actually real world experience.
	I think in a and I think it also selects for people with high verbal IQ and people who engage with media more often, which tends to be high income, educated people, people who are more given to abstractions.
	We know, for example, one thing we do know is that if you look at the areas of the brain that light up with liberals compared to conservatives, Liberals tend to value universal morality more than particular relationships with kith and kin.
	So, and this is something like Charles Dickens was talking about way back when.
	If you see a story about some kid in Africa who's suffering, it's not virtue signaling.
	I hate that term.
	It's not virtue signaling when some rich white liberal is crying about it.
	That actually means more to them than the suffering that they see directly in front of their face.
	It impacts them physically on a different level.
	And I think that what my hypothesis, but I need to see the evidence for this, is that media reporting with these kinds of cases actually has an emotional, physical impact greater than the things they encounter in their everyday life.
	I have no doubt that to millions of people in this country, specifically the people who are the wealthiest, The best educated, the most intelligent, at least in terms of IQ.
	George Floyd meant more to them than their kids.
	George Floyd meant more to them than their husband or their wives.
	George Floyd meant more to them than their so-called friends.
	Like the TV is more real than anything that exists in their actual lives.
	And we've seen so many, but again, I don't want to get, this is a hypothesis, but certainly anecdotally we've seen how Organized religion has just utterly collapsed, even among populations where it was expected to be strong in the face of certain, you know, united media narratives.
	We've seen marriages break up over politics.
	We've seen, you know, they always talk about conservatives being quote unquote radicalized, particularly young men.
	But if you look at politicization and your objective about this in terms of radicalization, if you if you measure these things, young women have become more radicalized than young men.
	More susceptible to media, more susceptible to social pressure, and certainly more in line with liberal political beliefs, because that's what's being preached, that's what's in authority.
	And yet, all of the media narratives are, we need to prevent disinformation, we need to prevent misinformation, we need to prevent radicalization.
	Certainly, with American Renaissance, we get all sorts of critiques.
	I mean, every once in a while, some reporter will come out and, you know, more or less blame us for violence or something like that, and it's How remarkable is it that a website that is completely censored, not allowed on X, even in the Elon Musk so-called free speech era, not allowed on YouTube, not allowed in any certainly mainstream conservative movement thing, and yet somehow we're able to overwhelm NBC, CBS, all the networks, all the cable news, all the internet companies, all the streaming services, apparently just we're able to do it.
	And I think It's not that they don't really believe it, they do.
	But people are going to pursue their own interest and status.
	And it's in the interest of people who are journalists, who have power over the narrative, to make sure there are no dissenting opinions.
	So what are they going to do?
	They're going to interpret the morality as shut down opposing narratives.
	And the people who listen to them are going to interpret the morality the same way.
	I mean, that's what it is to have a media-run state.
	Fundamentally, Joe Biden doesn't particularly matter to me.
	I mean, does he matter to you?
	I mean, there are whole days where I forget that he's even the president.
	I mean, I'm sure there are whole days when he forgets he's the president.
	Exactly.
	Not only do I don't believe that Joe Biden has thought since 2021, January 20th, that he was president, I sometimes find it, I'm almost incredulous to believe that
	it's like, wait a second, is Joe Biden really president? Like, I, again, I don't
	watch the news. Like I've cut the cord.
	This has been that way for years. Like I used to digest the Drudge Report,
	a very few news sources. I would curate my news from, you know, from news, news.google.com. I'd
	search for everything because I don't really care about politics. Because once you understand that
	that the only thing that politics cares about are.
	are trying to make life worse for people like you and me and for for white people individually collectively because the most important thing that the media run state this this concept you've that you're talking about white people cannot have collective interests that's what this whole state is about and that's a media run state that's what everything is about that white people cannot think collectively and once you understand that you truly understand all these news stories where oh my gosh you know The disproportionate impact of something on on blacks, like I think the Los Angeles Times, there's a great meme when the Los Angeles Times just fired, laid off scores of employees.
	And there was a juxtaposition of a couple of news stories, Mr. Hood, where I think it was trying to equate Pollution somehow disproportionately impacted blacks in Los Angeles.
	It was a Los Angeles Times story and someone showed that and then they showed on the other side LA Times lays off all these employees and it was you you think you do but you don't hate journalists as much as you should because again it's like this whole concept that somehow pollution It's only attracted to majority BIPOC.
	Yeah, well, to go back to the COVID thing, I mean, one of the things that was a big wake-up call for a lot of people was when you had these Trump rallies being denounced as super spreader events, and then two weeks later they're saying, well, Black Lives Matter rally actually doesn't spread the disease because experts quote-unquote say that it depends what you're protesting, because racism is the real public health crisis.
	And I think One of the handicaps and one of the problems, of course, is that there is a stupidity problem on the right.
	There is certainly a weakness for kind of schizophrenic theories and everything else, but I think that's largely a function of the fact that the other side has this controlled narrative machine, essentially.
	These credentialist institutions, academia, media, government bureaucracies, So you can put things out with the stamp of legitimacy and things that are objectively conspiracy theories, like say white privilege, which is a conspiracy theory.
	If you, if you look at like what it is, if you are saying that the reason racial discrepancies exist is because there's this force, white privilege that extends through all institutions that we can't measure That we can't find that you may be guilty of even if you deny that you are.
	And we can't test for it.
	And also it's probably ineradicable.
	That there's nothing you can do.
	Like white people are always going to behave this way no matter what happens.
	And all we can do is just struggle with our demons forever.
	But that is the reason that all these racial discrepancies exist.
	That is a conspiracy theory.
	A conspiracy theory of breathtaking scope and ambition.
	But we are expected to take it seriously.
	Because it comes from, quote unquote, legitimate institutions.
	But that's not the real problem.
	The real problem, of course, is just if you have everybody reading from the same script, that by itself is stronger than people coming up with their own ideas and their own explanations.
	I mean, one of my own little kind of schizo theories is there are many rights, but there's only one left.
	I mean, the left is a spirit of entropy and egalitarianism.
	But if you're on the right, everybody has Their prime thing that they take legitimacy from it might be race.
	It might be religion if it's religion, which one we all have our own theories But that's a weakness in a globalized world because if you are united in your message, even if that message is wrong it's going to win in the political sphere and What we have on the right is I think we have more creativity and I think that's why you know the the saying leftist can't mean That's kind of true.
	I mean, even if you look at like the Biden glowing eyes thing that he tweeted out, the dark Brandon thing that originally came from the right.
	I mean, the right is driving a lot of this stuff, but as much brilliance and creativity there is, sometimes it's mixed in with a bunch of nonsense.
	And if you've got 30% geniuses and 70% lunatics, That's not like the best political movement compared to 100% of people who are all just reading from the screen, same script and will do what they're told and recognize critically, they recognize friend from enemy.
	That is what the right does not do.
	Certainly, if we want to look at, let's say, the problems that President Trump is dealing with.
	So Mitt Romney.
	I don't want to be careful about what I say here because I want to restate that I will believe whatever narratives about historical events from both the decades ago and also from the recent past involving contemporary figures, whatever narratives the law requires me to believe, I'd like to restate my belief in those narratives so I don't have to pay $800 billion.
	You know, President Trump was held liable.
	Does that agenda protect you?
	Yeah, maybe I'll add in Minecraft too.
	There was a sexual harassment thing that he was found liable for and suffice to say, some might suggest, that the circumstances of this were a little ridiculous in that it was, you know, decades ago.
	And if things like statues of limitations and all these sorts of things existed,
	it wouldn't be a thing, but we don't live in that country anymore.
	No, we don't.
	And so he was found liable, and a lot of people, and again, I'm being delicate here,
	a lot of people would say, hey, maybe there's something a little suspicious about this,
	but not Mitt Romney.
	And then Romney comes out today and basically says, well, the court found him liable for this.
	And that's why we know he can't be allowed to be president.
	And that's why I'm not going to vote for him.
	And of course, now with this fraud judgment in New York with Leticia James, who ran on the program of Get Trump, couldn't find a crime to convict him, to charge him with.
	So she comes up with some civil thing and just chose to bankrupt him.
	That's how the law operates.
	They immediately say, oh, OK, well, you know, we're going to go with this now.
	Now, to me, these cases and these cases alone, specifically the New York one more than the sexual harassment one, you know, in all things aside, I mean, who knows?
	Right.
	I mean, I don't know.
	But certainly with the fraud thing, I think it's pretty transparent that this is entirely politically driven.
	And even with the other one, it's It's very hard to think that this would have happened had he not run for office when you look at the people who were behind promoting the lawsuit to begin with, and who convinced the people to push the lawsuit forward.
	The fraud case specifically, that by itself is reason to vote for Trump, because it's just like, screw these people.
	The whole system is completely illegitimate.
	I mean, we know, for example, that the government broke its own laws with spying on Trump.
	You remember when Trump said everyone was spying on him and everybody was like, oh, he's crazy.
	What a conspiracy theorist.
	Well, it turns out he was right.
	When you look at a lot of the predictions that he made about the way the government was going after his people with Russiagate and all these other conspiracy theories, that all turned out to be right, too.
	From day one of his administration, we started hearing I'm sorry, from day one of his victory, we started hearing from the media run state that the election was somehow illegitimate.
	And of course, General Flynn, one of his members of his, was he going to be the National Security Advisor?
	Is that, what was his role going to be?
	Yeah, I think so.
	And he was going to be, that or National Intelligence.
	And, but that was the first time they drew blood.
	Yeah, because Trump, I remember Cernovich talking about that.
	That was the first time Trump had backed down on something.
	And they forced him out.
	And especially when you look at the current debate with Russia now, it's interesting how much of it is entirely driven for, or driven by, the need to find a foreign scapegoat for domestic enemies.
	Because it's been often said that liberals don't have foreign enemies, they have foreign enemies that are stand-ins for domestic enemies.
	And when they look at Russia, I would say very inaccurately, but they see Russia as a stand in for MAGA voters, for Christians, for whites, for conservatives, for whatever else, even though As anyone who's familiar with Putin and Russia and contemporary and his whole theory of governance and nationhood That's not what Russia is about.
	I mean Russia's got its own version of like boomer liberalism Which is just as cringeworthy and stupid as anything put forward by the left in this country I think we saw parts of that with the Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin talking about like the massive influence of neo-nazism in the West I mean just absolute nonsense but It doesn't matter.
	It doesn't matter what the truth is.
	It doesn't matter what's driving Russia.
	What matters is how these things can be used.
	And ideology, it's the mask that power wears, right?
	And the interests and the identity come first.
	Yeah.
	Because your interests develop from your identity.
	That's why identity is the critical thing.
	And then you sort of just come up with the ideas afterward.
	It's like a rationalization.
	That's a bit of a simplification of what James Burnham says in the Machiavellians and maybe a bit of a simplification of what Sam Francis says in the Leviathan, but I don't think it's too much of one.
	And the problem is that conservatives are, it's sort of like the midwit meme, right?
	Where you have like the stupid person and the smart person gets it.
	That the stupid person is like friend-enemy and the smart person is like friend-enemy.
	And the conservatives, the midwit in the middle being like, the Constitution and limited government and free capitalism and da-da-da-da-da.
	It's like, none of these things matter.
	None of these words have any meaning to anyone other than you.
	And you're just babbling to no one in a locked room by yourself.
	And even the way that they interpret them are obviously wrong.
	If you look at everything that's happened since the Constitution was ratified, everything that we've had to endure.
	100%!
	Even to take another example, I mean, we should to stick with something that just happened recently.
	So and this is encouraging.
	And I think this is why, even though I get heat for sometimes, I am very much a proponent of no enemies to the right.
	And, you know, I'm supporting people who I think most would say are to my right, I say, on X. But it's getting a reaction.
	Ben Shapiro is now feeling defensive about his famous quote that, oh, it doesn't matter about the browning of America.
	What matters to me is ideology.
	And he tried to explain that away some more and, you know, was similarly unconvincing.
	But, of course, the problem is that the ideology comes from The race, it comes from the identity, but there's no scenario.
	I mean, leave aside the fact that if you're a nation of principles, if you're a nation of ideas, it follows that if someone doesn't share in that ideology, they're not actually American, which seems far more tyrannical and autocratic than any kind of racial state where you can at least believe what you want to believe.
	You don't have to actually like believe in the party ideology or get stripped of your citizenship or something.
	But leave that aside.
	Nobody actually thinks that this is how it's going to work, because obviously your ideology and what you believe is going to be driven by your self-conception and who you consider to be your people.
	I mean, would Ben Shapiro deny that his conception of himself affects how he thinks about Israel?
	I don't think that's an unfair thing to say.
	So why would it be unfair to say that people who are coming from Africa, say, and come to America might have a different take on what it is to be American and what American history is all about vis-a-vis race than somebody who came over here on the Mayflower or the Jamestown?
	I mean, these are common sense things, but The key with a media-run state is that control of the microphone is all important, as I think Steve Saylor calls it, the megaphone.
	It is a megaphone, yeah.
	Yeah, and control of the megaphone is the most important thing because, I mean, you'll see these debates, you'll see these sorts of things on Network television, and you'll even see it with streaming.
	You'll see it with certain figures who are simply de-platformed all the time.
	Obviously, Nick Fuentes has been de-platformed from just about everything, and, you know, he's not allowed on certain shows or whatever else.
	Patrick Casey had his show restoring order.
	I think Media Matters did a hit piece on him and got him taken off YouTube.
	Certainly, there are many others that we can talk about.
	Obviously, Jerry Taylor is another one.
	Not allowed on X, not allowed on YouTube.
	Well, stop for one second, stop for one second.
	Talk about the media run state.
	Go back to 20, again, the media did a post-mortem.
	We've talked about this a little bit.
	And you go back to our first episode where we talked about Elon Musk.
	And I've thought about this a lot because I know a lot of these people.
	In a prior life, you and I won't go into it, but we dealt with a lot of very high profile, quote unquote, right of center conservatives.
	And one of the people that I know very well and dealt with was Stefan Molyneux.
	And I've thought about just how crippling the media run state, the megaphone, basically quarantining him and trying to siphon him off and do as much as they could the New York Times to just say,
	this guy, this guy, this guy in particular, screw this guy, this is the bad guy. This is the worst of
	the worst. We have to cut him off and he has to lose access to every platform that he had. And he's
	actually allowed back on Twitter now, but of course he has, he lost all that momentum that
	the.
	I think he had a million subscribers.
	I would have friends.
	Guys who are highly loved.
	Yeah, it's interesting.
	You can see somebody just sort of disappear.
	And one of the things that bothers me is when you see people on the right, they'll occasionally snark.
	Because they'll be like, oh, like Molyneux, he's irrelevant now.
	And it's like, Yeah, but that could happen to you tomorrow.
	I mean, we're all on borrowed time.
	It's not an accomplishment that you've managed to get like a larger share of this shrinking market because they banned your opposition.
	But this is also...
	The problem with conservatism, Inc., because in any media-run state, you're going to need collaborators.
	You're going to need a phony opposition.
	You're going to need people to kind of, as Paul Gottfried says, sort of shadowbox with the left and not actually do anything.
	And this is the role of, you know, the Ben Shapiros of the world.
	Because if you purge everybody on what I would consider to be the authentic American right, they're the only game in town.
	And that's why when you go on Facebook, you know, the guys who get the most traffic are your Franklin Graham's and Shapiro's and Daily Wire's and all the rest of it is because, and it's not even that all these guys are so evil or every, every single guy who speaks on this or engages with them in every way is like total scum or something like that.
	The only reason they are where they are is because the competition has been banned.
	And so, to some extent, that makes you complicit.
	But at the same time, if we were still online, if we were still allowed to be online, we would be doing it too.
	I mean, the only real solution is you just can't cave for anyone.
	You can't allow the precedent to be set that censorship is permissible.
	And it's remarkable to me that you see no pushback from the Republican Party whatsoever on any of this.
	Jim Jordan, a few days ago, and this is pretty timely, Jim Jordan released some documents showing that during the COVID hysteria, the Biden White House was actually pressuring Amazon to remove certain titles about vaccines or whatever else by name, saying these specific titles need to go.
	And the people at Amazon were expressing amazement, saying, you know, is the White House telling us to censor these specific books?
	But the answer is yes.
	And if you're asking, well, did Amazon do it?
	The answer, of course, is yes.
	Now, of course, the real precedent was already set years before.
	And they even censored, of course, Jared Taylor's White Identity, which is a pretty moderate book.
	Most of you out there who have read it.
	I mean, it's, it's all, I mean, it's essential Jared, right?
	It's all data and basically an update of pain with good intention.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's just, here's the facts, here you go, dot, dot, dot, dot, dot.
	But you know, that's, you cannot get that on Amazon, but Jordan releases this and it's a pretty shocking thing.
	You know, the, the, the white house deliberately telling Booksellers, especially when you look at the way the Democrats have been making hay about banning books by which they mean like gay porn to like kids Accusing Republicans of like banning this in public schools and stuff But here you have the White House banning like actual books for adults on important issues But they just kind of like tweet it out
	Or post it, if we're going to do the X thing.
	And then it's just sort of left there and nothing happens.
	And it's like, yeah, because the precedent is already gone.
	I mean, 10 years ago, we would have been taken for granted that, yeah, the government censoring books is a bad thing.
	Now it's taken for granted that that's what it means to be a democracy.
	Like the point of a democracy is to censor speech.
	That's what it is to protect democracy.
	That's what it is to have our democracy.
	Free speech is actually an authoritarian thing.
	And in much of the world, it's worse.
	Keith Woods, who spoke at the last American Renaissance Conference and who has been doing quite a bit on X, just got banned again.
	Another media hit piece, I think, was Buy Me a Coffee or one of these fundraising sites.
	So they kicked him off that.
	Journalists scream.
	These services immediately hit their knees.
	So now he's basically just stuck on X, but one of the last things he was writing about was this new hate speech law, this hate speech regulation body that the Irish government is putting through.
	And Elon Musk has talked about this as well, but essentially what it does is it just makes social media impossible.
	And they're talking about something like 250 employees just to do nothing but censor speech all day.
	And this is all in light of the immigration debate.
	Recent polling shows something like 70% of the Irish people, cross-cutting all sorts of parties, are sick of the immigration policies of the current government.
	And yet, this has no impact whatsoever on public policy.
	There's not a single political party that is taking a restrictionist stance in Ireland.
	And that's apparently what it is to be a democracy.
	It's when you censor speech and arrest people and act in direct defiance to the will of the majority of the people.
	You can call it whatever you want, but in terms of like, what is democracy?
	That's what it is.
	And so if we wanted to say, well, what is democracy in its essence in a sentence, it's ruled by media.
	Full stop.
	Yep.
	No, I mean.
	There's so many things you've just talked about there.
	You know, Elon Musk continues to tweet out, oh, without freedom of speech, everything... They're going to break him in half after the election, dude.
	They are going to, they are going to snap his spine.
	He has no idea what he's in for.
	It's funny, I hate to quote from Dark Knight Rises, but you know, when Bane says to Bane Batman, I wonder what would break first, your spirit or your body?
	And you think about Tesla's stock price.
	Well, I hope not.
	Well, I mean, let's talk about the legal thing.
	Well, yeah, me too.
	But I mean, the Delaware thing.
	I mean, this is a remarkable thing where they had a contract.
	Just real quick.
	Actually, I signed off on that, by the way.
	Yeah.
	Back in 2018, I was assured.
	I remember.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Because it was like, hey, wait a second.
	This is insane that a CEO of a company would... Do you want to explain to the audience?
	I'm sure some of them have no idea what you're talking about, like what it actually was briefly.
	Yeah, so a lot of companies will incorporate in Delaware because it's a state that has a lot of great opportunity.
	It's very low red tape, easy to incorporate, so you can Then start to have the ability to start an S Corp or a corporation or a company, an LLC.
	And that's where Tesla was incorporated.
	And back in 2018, Tesla needed to to do a number of things to access the capital debt markets.
	And Elon Musk took a huge gamble.
	Uh, basically saying that, uh, if, if I reach these extraordinarily lofty goals, I am going to have access to a number of bonuses.
	It was basically, I don't want to say it was like balloon payments, but it was, it was this absolutely insane, uh, goalposts that he would have to cross.
	And then he would be, he would then be, um, He would enjoy the fruits of the amazing.
	Well, it was a ridiculous goal, the amount of revenue, like everybody, it was pretty
	much universally regarded as unrealistic and crazy.
	And so to some extent, I think a lot of the people who, when they kind of signed off at
	a time and people were talking about it, were basically like, well, nobody can do this.
	Which is why Mr. Hood, Tesla is one of the greatest shorted stocks.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly right.
	Everybody says, there's no way.
	There's no way.
	There's no way he could be doing this.
	And so what you had is you had somebody, I think, who owned nine shares.
	Of Tesla, like that's who filed the lawsuit.
	You know, they find somebody to file a lawsuit, and you get this girl boss judge in Delaware who, and I've read the decision, I'm not kidding you, she quotes Star Trek.
	She quotes Star Trek, she says, this verdict goes where no one's gone before, teehee!
	And like, yeah, that's a judge.
	That's how the system works now.
	You know, just some giggling moron on a bench.
	And obviously, you know, there's no actual argument.
	There's no there's no rationale to any of it.
	It's just, well, you know, he's like a silly face and he probably smells and I don't like his hair.
	So contracts don't count anymore.
	I mean, the Constitution basically says contracts are inviolable.
	But like, no, actually, they're not.
	Because, you know, if somebody is feeling if somebody feels sad, like actually contracts don't mean anything anymore.
	That's that's actually how law works now.
	And you know, if you say, well, according to the Constitution or the Magna Carta, it's like,
	yeah, none of those things matter. Like what matters is how she felt about the rerun of HBO's
	Girls that she saw last night. Like that actually is the legal doctrine. That's how the system works
	now. And so, you know, they basically just stole millions of dollars from this guy. And so he moves
	to billions.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Billions.
	And so, you know, they move it and they move it.
	He moves the company out of Delaware.
	And of course, you know, these reporters and things like, oh, yeah, the judge is like the opponent that Musk can't beat.
	And he's finally met his match.
	And it's like, there's no risk.
	There's no competition.
	She's not going up against him in any kind of a a sphere where he's allowed to fight back or do anything.
	It's just there's and this is the key is that I mean, the one addendum to the idea of the media-run state, it's just that I think law follows media, although I think you could at least argue, maybe Richard Harani might argue this, that media tends to follow law, tends to follow state.
	But clearly, there's no cure within the system for lawfare.
	Because once you have jurors and DAs and judges especially who are acting on completely not just partisan but really ethnic grievances.
	Certainly you see this with some of the DAs some of the black DAs and some of the black jurors that we've seen where You already know going in what the verdict's going to be.
	You know what's driving it.
	You know that evidence or what actually happened, like none of these things really matter.
	And we're going into these cases and we all like know how this is going to play out.
	But people say like, well, what can you do about it?
	Can you appeal?
	And it's like appeal to who?
	Talk to who?
	If you look at law schools now, A lot of these law schools, you have to study critical legal theory, which essentially says that if you find, you know, white privilege defines all of American law.
	And so, therefore, you can just ignore the law if you think that it's guilty of privilege, which, of course, is another way of saying there just is no law.
	There's an article I just wrote for American Renaissance about the Hawaii Supreme Court.
	The Hawaii Supreme Court said, you know, aside from saying that the annexation of Hawaii itself is illegitimate, Uh, it said that, you know, well, the Supreme Court found that there's an individual right to firearm ownership, but we don't like that.
	So we don't, we think it's bad.
	Uh, now that's actual defiance of the Supreme Court, not what Texas did where Texas didn't actually defy the Supreme Court.
	Of course, nobody was upset about this.
	And the way they grounded this was they said, well, the kingdom of Hawaii had the law of the broken paddle or something, which said that like old people should be safe.
	So therefore, you're allowed to ban weapons.
	And furthermore, according to The Wire, one of the characters, Slim Charles, says, the thing about the old days is days the old days.
	So therefore, the Constitution doesn't matter anymore.
	Again, I'm not being flippant when I say that a judge's favorite TV show is the law.
	Yeah, that is the law.
	That means more than the Constitution.
	You can say whatever you want, but all those books and your law office or something, none of that makes any sense.
	None of that means anything anymore.
	What's on HBO actually means more.
	And you can deny that all you want, but go talk to the affirmative action judge about how they're misunderstanding Blackstone or something like that.
	I promise you, none of that matters anymore.
	It's funny, if I had the opportunity to write something like that, I would just quote from John Milius's Rome and just be like, hey, he was a council of Rome!
	Well, I mean, what we really need is somebody who had Pompey's quote, which is, do not quote laws to those of us with swords.
	That's true.
	I mean, that's, I mean, where it ultimately ends up.
	The key, the key is, because a lot of rhetoric right now on the right, and I don't want to get too worked up and say something I shouldn't, a lot of people on the right will say like, well, we need a Caesar.
	Well, people won't put up with this.
	And it's like, no, people will.
	People, people adjust to power because Everybody has their line that they think will never be crossed, but it does get crossed.
	And then when that happens, you know, it's all very well to say like, oh, I'll fight to the end or I'll do this.
	But it's a different story when you got a wife, you got a kid, you got, you know, friends, you don't want your friends to be punished if you do something.
	A lot of everybody has like a reason for why they're not going to go to the match.
	Not just go to the mat in the sense of like resist But go to the mat in the sense of go to jail say on a point of principle, you know Some people would might even talk about this with regard to the vaccine thing, but let's say Let's say they a lot of these lawyers now They have to actually make a more or less a statement of allegiance to DEI policies before they're admitted to the bar let's say You go to law school, you do well, you somehow get through, and now you're underway to be a lawyer, and it's like, oh, well, it's time to make your statement of allegiance to the DEI policy.
	Are you going to give up your career?
	Are you going to waste all that money?
	Are you just not going to do it?
	I mean, that's the equivalent to basically, you know, the Christian being asked to burn the pinch of incense to the emperor.
	You know, are you going to do it?
	And 99% of people are going to say yes.
	And they may even have good reasons for doing that because how can you fight you know to change the system unless you're within the system or whatever else but the fact is people do compromise and people do bend the knee when all is said and done.
	And the side that is more willing to use state power not crazy fantasies of revolution or violence or whatever else because there's way too many people on the right doing that but it's all it's all nonsense and a lot of it is in bad faith anyway and I think are bad actors but Generally, what's effective is doing stuff within the state and maybe using the state disingenuously or in bad faith, which is how the left has been using it all along.
	But that is what's effective.
	And the fundamental problem is that conservatives are still looking at these institutions like they're legitimate.
	They're still looking at these institutions like the same thing that the founders created.
	And it's like, well, if they did, they failed.
	Mr. Hutt, it's even worse than that.
	One of the most shocking things that we see are people who will utilize the
	spirit of Ronald Reagan to talk about, oh, gosh, what would Reagan say in regards to
	what's happening with Russia, as if Russia has continued to be this nefarious and insidious
	enemy as so many people say.
	Well, I'll tell you one thing that Ronald Reagan did say.
	On a phone call with Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan said that these African ambassadors to
	the UN were from these primitive countries who didn't even know how to wear shoes. And then
	Nixon laughed.
	So, if anybody asks you, like, what Ronald Reagan would say, like, that's what he would say.
	He'd say, like, these Africans are too stupid to wear shoes.
	Don't blame me.
	Blame Ronald Reagan.
	No, I mean, here's the terrible thing.
	I mean, we've all heard the tapes of Nixon and, oh my God, Billy Graham talking about everything that they talked about, whether, you know, Nixon talked about IQ and other things on these tapes.
	The things that Buchanan and Nixon talked about.
	Yeah.
	And then what did he actually do at the end?
	It was affirmative action.
	I mean, he's responsible for 90% of the stuff.
	So you have, you have cases where, and this is one of the, I mean, it actually goes back to what Mike Rothfeld talked about in the whole real nature of politics speech, um, which I'm not, I'm not sure you can find online, but one of the interest, you know, the general takeaway is essentially that it doesn't matter what a politician believes.
	It matters the environment that he has to act in.
	And one of the elements that seems to support that is if you look at Nixon, I mean, Nixon was clearly a race realist.
	Nixon clearly knew the score.
	He clearly believed as we do.
	But then it's like, well, what did he actually do, though?
	And the answer is he made everything much, much worse.
	In many ways, he's responsible for a lot of the institutional problems we have now because he did these things.
	And it's like, well, what good is knowledge if it's not followed by action?
	If there's not political will, if there's not, if there's not a willingness to do something on these issues specifically, not just, you know, give red meat to the base and then go run off and play foreign policy games or whatever else.
	That's the situation we're in because the left fundamentally is focused and as I think defined by race in a way That the right doesn't understand the economy, the environment, labor, foreign policy.
	None of these things matter.
	Everything is seen through race.
	That's what defines everything.
	There's not a single traditional left-wing cause that won't be immediately thrown overboard if there's a way you can screw over white people with it.
	And I mean clearly you see this with like environmental stuff I mean how many times have you seen in these European countries these leftists will show like a picture of a field Somewhere in England or Ireland or something and they'll say like how dare you say this country's full we could like fill this up with apartments and everything else like yeah, that's like the left now and But the right is still kind of goofing off and talking about like, well, you know, the New York's making a mistake because Trump's going to pull these businesses out of New York and other businessmen are going to follow.
	It's going to hurt the economy.
	It's like nobody cares.
	A, it probably won't.
	But even if they did, nobody cares.
	They would want him out.
	And the voters would reward them for that.
	I mean, did anybody pay a price for like the collapse of Rhodesia into Zimbabwe?
	Does anybody pay a price when the power goes out in South Africa?
	Did anybody pay a price for East St.
	Louis or Newark or Detroit or any of these cities that were just completely annihilated in the United States?
	No, of course not.
	What ended up happening is they got political power forever.
	They will be in office forever.
	Nothing will ever change in any of those places.
	And it's because they're failures.
	It's because they were destroyed.
	It's what they want.
	Spite is the strongest force in politics.
	So you're saying that they're being rewarded for.
	Again, policies that unfortunately disenfranchise, no, no, no, no, sorry, wrong word.
	They're being rewarded for policies that made life worse for their constituents, but by making life worse for their constituents, They are going to never have to face any opposition, because any opposition they face, it's like you talked about.
	Obviously, you go back to a friend of ours, Jack Cashel.
	He wrote a book about the destruction of northern cities and white flight from black crime, from what that created.
	And basically, you know, E. Michael Jones got it all wrong.
	He tried to claim, oh, this was some Uh, conspiracy by wasps, uh, against, you know, the Catholic enclave.
	It's like, what the, what?
	Uh, no, it's like, this is again, like what was the NAACP founded upon, uh, back in, in the, uh, 19, early 1900s, they went to war with restrictive covenants because you and I probably disagree with one thing.
	And it's really simple.
	And it's very, very nuanced.
	I believe that freedom of association trumps freedom of speech.
	Because if you have freedom of association, you can do whatever you want to.
	Freedom of association is the ability to discriminate.
	And that's what the NAACP went to war with first.
	It took them 30 years to finally destroy the concept of restrictive covenants in 1948 in Shelley versus Kramer.
	And and basically, you know, there was an amazing article, Mr. Hood, that was just published on a website called My San Antonio.
	And it was about this black community that was created during segregation in East Austin.
	And basically, the article claims that there were all these thriving black businesses.
	It was almost like this, the goofy idea that Tulsa, Oklahoma had the Black Wall Street that was just somehow destroyed in the 1920s.
	But anyways, and then it never grew again, whatever.
	The article talks about how, well, you know, uh, unfortunately a lot of the businesses started shutter as gentrification happened.
	And then, you know, everybody left.
	And then there's this one business, this one barbecue restaurant, the owner of the barbecue restaurant just sold his, uh, his house for $4 million.
	And it's like, wait a second, wait a second.
	So.
	The property value of all these homes when the area of East Austin was all black, property value wasn't that great.
	You claim that there was this thriving business community, but the property value, again, it was nowhere near what it was like when white people moved in.
	And then as blacks were, quote unquote, forced out, again, they weren't forced out.
	They were, they were, as whites moved in, They were priced out because whites brought in prosperity, new business, changed the whole dynamic.
	The few blacks who remained, they were rewarded handsomely, Mr. Hood, by maintaining their property within that said racial enclave that was created during segregation to a point where the property value had increased, had appreciated so dramatically that, wow, What magically, with the advent of white into this formerly all black community, how is this possible?
	You read this article and you're wondering, the journalists who wrote this, do they realize what they're writing?
	Like, wait a second.
	So why was this house that This black owner sold for $4 million when it became almost an all white community.
	Why was it not worth $4 million when it was an all black community?
	What changed?
	What magically transformed this property to be so sought after?
	And, and, and that's the whole concept of the media run state.
	Cause if you had, if you had, if we were in charge, you'd be able to point out like, Oh, wow, wait a second.
	So.
	This whole concept of white privilege is wrong.
	If you have whites who move back in and who gentrify this area that they were forced out of, blacks who hold onto their property are going to be handsomely rewarded for their foresight, for their future time orientation.
	Those who didn't sell Because again, it's as more whites move in, it only increases the property value.
	Whereas paradoxically, the more blacks, the lesser the property value.
	And that's what this article was all about.
	And I'm reading this because a reader sent that to me and I've never seen, I came up with this concept.
	You and I talked about this about a decade ago.
	You know, Adam Smith has the invisible hand.
	of economics.
	I think that was in his Wealth of Nations.
	And I was like, Oh, well, hey, what about the visible hand of blackness?
	You know, he talked about like Jackson, Mississippi, or Baltimore or Memphis, just all these places where there's not even potable water.
	And it's like, well, it's so obvious, like, Detroit, like, what's what's the reality?
	Yeah, just it's it's just fascinating to look because the whole the inversion of the media run state we know what would happen if if our side.
	One of the key elements of this, and this is why it's so important, and we'll close on this, is that it's impossible to exist under egalitarianism.
	You can't actually live as an egalitarian, because you don't live as an egalitarian when you try to figure out where you're going to send your kid to school, where you're going to live, where you're going to define yourself in relation to others.
	Nobody consciously pursues low status, right?
	It's sort of like the truism where, oh, somebody's coming here for a better life.
	It's like, well, yeah, anything anyone has ever done ever is for a better life.
	Nobody goes out to do something for a worse life.
	That's just not why people do things.
	But it's because you can't live as an egalitarian.
	And it's because, actually, living as a normal person and, say, hiring the best person for a job Or firing someone if they don't do what they're supposed to do.
	Like, those things are all actually illegal under civil rights law.
	Like, if you actually enforce the laws as they're written, nobody can do anything.
	And this sort of feeds into what's happened to Trump, what's happened to a lot of these other people with these legal doctrines that we're all basically already guilty.
	We're all underneath the sword of Damocles because we can't actually justify Why we're allowed to be in a safe neighborhood, why we're allowed to be in a decent school, why we're allowed to have these business, because all it takes is one reporter coming along and saying, well, actually, the black population in this area is 20% and you only have 10% employees.
	Actually, if you look at the history of this neighborhood back in 1950, there was redlining.
	Therefore, we have a case to do this.
	Actually, you know, 300 years ago, there was slavery in the state.
	So you need reparations for this thing here.
	That's all it takes and there's no resistance to it because nobody's arguing back against it in a direct way.
	So what ends up happening is you just sort of get this, this, I don't know, it's almost like a carousel where people are running away from the consequences of the policies that we're all obligated to say we believe in, namely egalitarianism and civil rights.
	But the minute those things are actually enforced, the neighborhood or the business or the school is instantly destroyed in the same way that, you know, you look at some of these great like civil rights battlegrounds like Selma or something like that.
	And, you know, Hiroshima is a thriving metropolis compared to Selma.
	I mean, these places were annihilated in a way.
	I mean, Dresden.
	Dresden, yeah.
	Dresden had nothing.
	Dresden had nothing compared to like what was done to these places.
	Thanks to the civil rights movement.
	I mean, all these public schools, like, oh, you know, why did they, why did they protest these kids coming to the public schools?
	It's like, I don't know, go 20 years ahead and you'll see why.
	Like now nobody can read.
	And now these people are getting like beaten to death in the hallways.
	And that's all, that's all it is now.
	That's why they, but I think the key here is that I think there may have been a time where The moral belief that, oh, well, we can do this and everything will just be equal.
	So that's why, you know, we favor civil rights.
	That's why we're on this moral crusade and everything else.
	I think there may have been a time, and I'm probably being too nice here, there may have been a time when people could be excused for believing that.
	But at this point, the two things we have going for us is that one, People benefit from failure and dysfunction because the way you gain power in the society is by managing social relations and if you have a system where everything is illegal because everything is unequal and it's not allowed to be unequal but the world is unequal and everything therefore can be redistributed and everything also you can write crazy news stories about how evil something is and you know basically put the eye of Sauron on it in terms of the legal system
	That's one.
	And the other thing is, I think a lot of it is just spite at this point.
	I mean, I think that the reason they're encouraging these policies now is because they're destructive.
	It's because they don't work.
	It's because they see a nice thing and they want to ruin it.
	And once the thing is ruined, it's bad for the people that they were supposedly going to help, but they don't actually care about those people.
	It's just that they hate these other people.
	I mean, you sort of see the same thing.
	Certainly you saw that with Zimbabwe, where I mean, you had the whole scale annihilation of a lot of these black populations, but there's not a single person anywhere in the world who cared about this, any more than there was anybody in Zimbabwe who cared.
	So, the way you combat this, essentially, is you almost have to have a secession of the heart, a secession of the mind, and insofar as it's possible, a secession geographically, and in terms of, institutionally, in terms of where you get your money, and your social ties, and everything else, because Any kind of vulnerability to or exposure even to these people Can cost you can cost you everything and that's some at some yeah, and at some level I think that Everybody knows this which is why things like volunteerism People step people joining the military people stepping up to do stuff for the community to sacrifice for it nobody does these things anymore and
	You'd be crazy to do these things.
	I mean, we'll close with the Ahmaud Arbery thing.
	Let's not forget, regardless of what you think about the case, the guy who videotaped it, who took the video that he thought would clear them, was charged and convicted of murder.
	And it's because it was so outrageous that it had to happen.
	If it was an actual murder, you know, the media would be celebrating it.
	No, I mean, I think what you're talking about, obviously, the only way to rebel against what we're seeing is how we have to go so minute here, but you've got to tribe, you've got to tribe up.
	And that is, you have to understand that whether it's living in a smaller municipality and interacting with people, again, I'm not going to cast aspersions on anyone.
	I actually believe you should try and get involved with your kid's school.
	You should get involved with the Parent Teacher Association.
	You should get involved with your children's sports.
	You should get involved with the people you live with if you have an HOA.
	You should meet your neighbors.
	You know, again, without doxing myself, like I'm part of all that.
	It's a lot of fun to know your neighbors.
	It's a lot of fun to engage with people.
	They have no idea my views.
	They have no idea the character that we're talking about here, Mr. Hood.
	And yet... Go ahead.
	Well, I just wanted to close it up.
	There does seem to be I mean the the problem of course is that the temptation is in an age of social media that Everybody puts their self out there, and I do think that it's it's difficult now to to sort of lead two lives in the sense of Being a private dissident or a public something else.
	I mean, I don't really do that anymore But I realize I'm in a if I can use that word kind of privileged position to be able to do this but I do think that You have to regard the larger society as simply a resource to be extracted.
	Clearly our rulers don't have any particular attachment to America as such.
	Insofar as they have any regard for it, they seem to resent it and take active pleasure in its destruction.
	So, you know, appealing to an American identity or appealing to an American nation and trying to guilt them into doing the right thing, it's not going to work because they're not part of you.
	They're not part of your people.
	You can say whatever you want, but they don't regard themselves that way.
	So you have to fundamentally operate with just your people and move forward to take what you can.
	And I'll close with that.
	Well, here's what I'll say.
	I'll close with this.
	The Super Bowl just happened.
	A lot of people who might be listening to this, I myself went to a couple Super Bowl parties, one in my neighborhood, one with people that I am involved with a church with.
	And it's funny, everyone's talking about the I think in the end zone, it said, and racism.
	And then there was the black national anthem.
	And Stephen Cohen is a Democrat rep from Memphis, white guy.
	He was upset that people didn't stand during the black national anthem.
	And again, I'm one of these people who's apathetic.
	I don't think I'd stand for the national anthem.
	And I think that's the most important thing to understand.
	We, as you've talked about, Mr. Hood, we live in a media run state and the country that you and I thought that we lived in growing up in the 90s and in the early part of our formative years when we graduated college, grad school, et cetera, et cetera, started to work.
	That country doesn't exist anymore.
	And the most important thing is for people to realize The hostility that not only the ruling elite, the managerial elite, but those who are the true gatekeepers, the media run state.
	I mean, they're laughing at us for even caring about these issues because these issues don't even matter.
	They're they're able to be like, oh, wow, you're getting upset about the black national anthem when in reality we're dictating and we're creating and we're pulling the strings of this of this.
	Of this game that that you're not a part of, really, because there is no reset.
	You know, you don't have you don't have a say in it.
	And I think that's the most important thing, just to be like, OK, OK, sure, whatever.
	And that's the beauty of where you came up with this concept.
	And I think that hopefully this is going to begin to permeate into the.
	We've seen a lot of people who who work for very important organizations who are beginning to ape The ideas that you're talking about in regards to this and you are you are the true hair of San Francis.
	And if I could end with this, I was just reflecting on this.
	I went to my first American residence conference when I was an undergrad 20 years ago, back when they were still able to host AR Right outside of Dulles International Airport in Herndon, Virginia.
	And I met Sam Francis, and I think Sam would really have a fun time talking to you about the whole idea of Meteor Run State as a worthy successor to his concept of anarcho-tyranny.
	So kudos to you.
	Don't be blackpilled.
	A lot of great stuff is happening.
	And I mean, again, It comes down to this, like it's, it's, yes, we are, we are all targeted for, for the same fate that unfortunately Mr. Trump is facing, the same fate that, that VETA is facing, the same fate that the NRA faced.
	Yet at the end of the day, it doesn't matter if there are still people who say, No, we're not going to give up.
	We're not going to, we're not going to bend the knee because there's something more important than that.
	And I truly believe we are reaching something that, that point of no return.
	And in a lot of people's eyes, um, that this whole reality, this whole paradigm is, is, is illegitimate.
	And, uh, yeah, you've done your part.
	That's all that matters.
	All right, guys, thank you very much for joining us.

▲