Know More News - Adam Green - Richard Spencer Talks Russia, Dugin, & Biden | Know More News w/ Adam Green

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 17, 2023 - Know More News - Adam Green

01:49:24

Richard Spencer Talks Russia, Dugin, & Biden | Know More News w/ Adam Green

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to No More News.
	I'm your host, Adam Green.
	It is Sunday, July 16th, 2023.
	And today I have a very special guest, one of the most high-profile people I've had on the show.
	When I was Googling his name to look for a thumbnail for the video, there were so many articles that it really gave me a flashback to when I first learned about the face of the far right during the Trump presidency, who coined the term alt-right.
	And he is here.
	I'm hoping to ask him a ton of questions.
	I've got a ton of stuff I want to get into.
	He is Richard Spencer.
	Thanks for being here, Richard.
	Hey, thanks for having me, Adam.
	Good to be here.
	Of course.
	Well, I find it incredibly fascinating that you got, you were like a media darling.
	You were like one of the most infamous people in the country a few years ago during the Trump presidency.
	So much attention.
	And then now that you seem to have maybe your views evolved or you're supporting Biden now from the face of the far right to supporting Biden, exposing Trump and how kosher all of that is and exposing Christianity also.
	And most importantly, the main reason I wanted to bring you on was everybody remembers Hillary Clinton, Rachel Maddow constantly talking about the alt-right and Trump and Putin.
	They're all working for Putin.
	They're all Putin's people.
	And then now you're being very vocal, like kind of exposing the alt-rights, Putin, pro-Putin networks.
	And it's like Radio Silence, where are all the articles?
	You'd think that this would be a big story and that they would be raising a lot of attention.
	What do you think?
	Why do you think that is?
	Well, I'll answer that.
	But first, I'm still getting a big echo.
	Got it.
	Maybe it's gone now.
	Okay.
	Got it.
	Good.
	I think the reason for that is very clear.
	So a lot of people who were my haters back in the day would say things like, oh, he's a creation of the mainstream media.
	And, you know, Richard Spencer is only popular with the New York Times and all this kind of stuff.
	Now, obviously, those are just insults, but there is a kind of kernel of truth to it.
	The alt-right burst onto the scene in 2015, really with Trump, and it was nebulous, incohate, perhaps crazy, you know, a Dionysian mystery cult is maybe the best way of describing it, because it was truly a thing of madness.
	And what it actually was, where it was coming from, what it all meant was a mystery.
	And with me, you had someone who had, you know, well, well, before even 2015, I mean, I had talked to the media, always used my name and face and so on.
	So there was someone to kind of latch on to for better and for worse.
	And I think when I leaned in Trump, that is when they showed the most interest in me.
	And I think, you know, to be cynical or even self-critical, it's when I think I was most useful to them in the sense that I had radical views.
	I could articulate a radical view.
	And then I was also wearing a Trump hat.
	When you start, you know, using your mind to, and look, there can be some other reasons for this, of course.
	This is a somewhat self-serving description that I'm giving everyone.
	But when you use your mind to criticize Trump or move in an independent direction, move in a direction that can't be easily codified through the current polarization dynamic of left and right, Koch versus Pepsi, et cetera.
	Then they're less interested because it doesn't really fit their narrative.
	There's not a kind of like immediate way they can see that you can be useful to them.
	I mean, I felt that the mainstream media and liberals were useful to me as well, but obviously I could be useful to them.
	And that was the kind of weird love-hate affair that existed for some time.
	But first off, they found new people.
	I don't think they've really replaced me in terms of someone who can think, to be honest, but they've definitely found new people.
	Who are the new people?
	Who are the new Richard Spencers of?
	Well, I would say Nick Fuentez, obviously.
	I mean, he certainly comes to mind.
	I mean, he, and I think he's more of a household name.
	I don't know, but maybe or maybe not, but he's definitely been a big figure on the far right.
	Is he the new like boogeyman?
	It was mostly like left wing that was giving you the interviews and the write-ups and stuff.
	You think it was like the left wing trying to use.
	They treated me the best.
	They treated you the best by giving you the most attention or.
	Yes, liberals treated me the best because they would, with some obvious exceptions along the way, they would at least listen to what I said and represent what I believed pretty coherently and fairly.
	Leftist wanted to kill me, to be honest, literally.
	The right wanted to ignore me or pretend that I didn't exist or demean me.
	And that continues to be the case.
	I've never had any, I shouldn't even say, when I say sympathetic, I don't mean necessarily they agree with me or they want to endorse me or something, but just they want to hear you out.
	I've never in my entire life received any sort of sympathy thus defined from conservatives.
	Conservatives have always despised me because they know what I ultimately believe and think.
	And I think they kind of smell it out.
	The other thing, the conservative movement is a low IQ movement.
	So they, I think they fear and resent and hate anyone who's intelligent or who's read anything and can articulate it.
	They loved Nick Fuentes for a time precisely because like, oh, look at this kid.
	He's like a cute little kid who just loves his country and America and Christianity and stuff like that.
	Once they started to learn that Nick Fuentes, who I should be fair to Nick, Nick is a talented kid and he can be funny in a kind of crazy way.
	And he is smart.
	He doesn't always seem smart because oftentimes he'll just speak in platitudes or mean talk.
	Is his Christian anti-Semitism smart?
	No, but it's something that you know well that we've, this is the traditional Christian hysterical anti-Semitism that we've seen since the Middle Ages, basically, of you killed Jesus.
	I want to convert you, which is a weird passive aggressive way of dealing with it.
	But it's not smart from our perspective, but it is very kind of true in a way to a very long-term anti-Semitism that has existed, certainly since the Middle Ages, maybe even earlier.
	I mean, you could probably, you could find some of this caducean dynamic in the Gospel of John, the talk of a synagogue of Satan and all this kind of stuff, where it was ostensibly anti-Jewish, you could say.
	But ultimately, certainly, John, everyone, more or less every author of the Bible is Jewish on some level or a Yahwist.
	But there is a certain kind of ostensible anti-Semitism to early Christianity.
	And as generations went on, I think that kind of passive-aggressive, false opposition quality deepened, where you could genuinely say that Christians were anti-Semitic for a long time.
	I mean, they engaged in pogroms, they engaged in violence, they engaged in discrimination, et cetera, et cetera.
	But it was all within that, what I would say is a caducean dynamic.
	So, caduceus is the famous two snakes wrapped around a staff, the heads are facing one another.
	It's a beautiful image for what is ultimately false opposition.
	You can see that in Koch versus Pepsi, but you can also see that in, say, left versus right today, where the left wing are kind of pro-Palestinian, but ultimately for human rights, and they might make their peace with Zionism.
	And then the right wing is extremely pro-Zionist and so on.
	There are many more positions that are possible than that.
	But they both take it.
	So it's like post-Christians who are critical of Zionism, but ultimately pro-Jewish, and retroactive Christians, that is conservatives, who are fanatically pro-Zionist.
	It's a way that these things can ultimately serve a very similar end.
	As you pointed out, there is a kind of, there's a very unhealthy dynamic between anti-Semitism and Zionism.
	You could even say that Zionism relied on anti-Semitism.
	You could even say that in the early days before the Balfour Declaration and the Jewish state, that Protestant, in particular, anti-Semites were the biggest supporters of Zionism.
	That Zionism would not exist without anti-Semitism, in fact.
	So this is a very unhealthy dynamic.
	It's almost like the, oh, I don't like the Jews because they're rich and pushy and all this kind of typical stuff that you hear from anti-Semites.
	But I also want to fulfill prophecy in the book that I treat as sacred.
	It's a very curious dynamic that defined European anti-Semitism.
	And I think it's something we just need to get over.
	We need to move past it.
	You can't be a Christian and a true anti-Yahwist.
	Let's put it that way, an anti-Yahwist, not anti-Semite, you hate the Semitic language, you hate Arabs.
	Let's define it.
	You can't truly be anti-Yahweh if you are a Christian.
	And so what you end up is in a kind of psychological hysteria, where you both want to kill the Jews, convert them to Catholicism, worship a Jewish God, worship a present your Messiah as the real one.
	Why don't you accept our Messiah?
	Why are you waiting around for another one?
	It's hysterical.
	And yeah, I think if we want to look at these issues in a fair and objective fashion, you have to get beyond that type of religious, superstitious hysteria.
	So Googling your name, looking for the thumbnail, like I said, and seeing so many articles, what was it like that time of your life to be getting so much attention and I'm sure so much hatred and was that stressful?
	Well, it's stressful, but it also is ego fuel.
	And I think that, you know, and that's something that I can recognize.
	You know, you have to be critical of yourself.
	Did you play into like the villain role a little bit to even get more?
	I did.
	And yeah, I think I played the villain well.
	Maybe I should have just been an actor and, you know, been famed for my portrayals of Macbeth and Yago and things like that.
	Maybe that would have been a better career choice.
	Better.
	Do you have any like major regrets or something big that you wish you would have done different?
	Well, you can always go back and rewrite the script.
	And it might be helpful to think about things that you would do better.
	But all of that has to be in the context of moving forward.
	You know, you can't ultimately go back.
	You can't wallow in regret.
	But there's certainly things that I would have done differently, but there's certainly things that I wouldn't have.
	It was a different, it was a moment in time.
	And I do think that despite it all, despite the kind of fanaticism against me, despite misrepresentation, despite it all, I was still able to articulate something.
	And I also kind of learned a lot as well that, you know, I could take things a long way when because I'm confident and aggressive and intelligent, you can drive that car a long way, but you ultimately are going to run up against the brick wall of money and power where they are going to actually shut you down.
	And I think it was a good lesson to learn.
	I think there's a better path now.
	And that path is more intellectual.
	It's something that it's about not directly confronting people who have more resources than you or are more powerful.
	And it's also a path that you could say to some degree, deflection and insinuation and et cetera.
	You don't have to tell them everything.
	You can allow thoughts to be completed in other people's minds.
	You can do your work over here that will hopefully have long-term implications, but you don't have to go win everything now.
	And I think that's also, that's the best lesson that I learned from the whole way.
	But, you know, ultimately, regret, it's unhealthy.
	You know, it's more about learning things and moving forward.
	What do you think were the highest and lowest parts of your political career?
	Would you call it political?
	You're not really a politician.
	You're more of like a commentary, right?
	Well, yeah, but it was kind of metapolitical, You know, you could say it was, yeah.
	And also, what's your like educational background too?
	Well, I have a master's degree from Chicago, and I have a BA from University of Virginia.
	And then I was actually in a doctoral program at Duke before I got a job in journalism and dropped out.
	But I was going to get a doctorate, but in actually the history department, even though I was more focused on kind of intellectual history and philosophy.
	What were your degrees in?
	I have a master's in philosophy from U of C. Philosophy.
	And I have a bachelor's in English and music history from University of Virginia.
	So were you already writing articles and like being a political activist back then?
	How did you go from there?
	I was pretty political.
	You were at the university to like where you became in 2017-ish.
	Well, I had, it was funny because I was actually at Duke during the infamous Duke La Crosse case.
	And so that was an alleged crime involving strippers and the lacrosse team and all of this racial hysteria in Durham, North Carolina, where Duke is located.
	And I actually had a bit of a moment during all this.
	I wrote an article for the American Conservative in which I criticized my own faculty.
	Not really the best way to endear yourself.
	But that article also, it did become, again, it's probably kind of forgotten now, but it did become a fairly big thing in 2007, I guess.
	That was like your first big breakthrough.
	That was your first big break, kind of?
	It was.
	And I immediately felt like, I mean, millions of articles were written on that subject.
	Mine seemed to really get under people's skin.
	And I know this is like boastful, but I think that I have an ability to imply things and message in a way that other people don't.
	They realize that there's something going on behind my, say, discussion of the Duke LaCrosse case.
	But it created a huge stir.
	Yes, it was big.
	Everyone was talking about it on campus.
	I mean, yeah, it was huge.
	And it got me a job actually at the American Conservative.
	And I decided to move into that direction.
	And I did a lot of stuff in terms of web zines after that and creating the alternative right, webzine, etc.
	What's the rest of it?
	What's the word there you're saying?
	Webzine?
	You see, you're much younger than I am, Adam.
	This is what we used to call them back in the day, back in the aughts.
	A webzine, yeah, blog, basically.
	Magazine.
	So what was your blog called?
	I was the editor of Talkie's Mag for a little bit.
	So Talkie Mag, which is still around.
	And I did that for two and a half years.
	And then I created a website called alternativeright.com.
	And it wasn't just my own personal blog.
	We published tons of stuff.
	You might be interested.
	Very early on, we published an article on Why I'm a Pagan by Stephen McNallon.
	And that caused a bit of a stir as well.
	So I think right away, I was, as an editor, I was pushing people's buttons.
	We weren't just, you publish something like that.
	It's clearly you're not just some paleocon, you know, out to save the Constitution and the Bible or something.
	So, yeah.
	So you started alternative right or alt-right.com.
	And uh-oh, it looks like we're red.
	I hope we didn't cut out.
	Okay, there's a back.
	All right.
	So you're credited with coining the term alt-right, that that is, that's a fact.
	That's a historical truth you did.
	Yes, that is a that is a historical truth.
	Yes, I started using the term alternative right in, I think in my talking, actually, yes, in my talkie mag days.
	And I was trying to describe a number of people who were, this was back during the Bush administration.
	And I was describing a number of people who were anti-neocon, effectively, who were against the Iraq war, who were pushing in different directions.
	But it was, you know, at its inception, it was this huge tent.
	You know, it'd be libertarians are alt-right and paleocons are alt-right.
	And whatever it is that I was trying to create is alt-right and all that kind of stuff.
	And alt-right was just an abbreviation.
	But I think one of the first times, I think I might have used it in a blog about Rod Dreyer at one point when I was criticizing Rod Dreyer.
	So some things never changed.
	These people are still around.
	Still being wrong, as Rod Dreyer seems to be wrong 100% of the time.
	But I used it in an article with Paul Godfrey that he wrote.
	I think it was called like the rise of the alt-right or something, or the fall and rise of the alt-right or something like that.
	I'll also go look back.
	And he's Jewish, right?
	So like, I remember years ago, basically, like, you know, you get a lot of haters online, right?
	A lot of people are calling you like so many people get, calling you a fed, they're saying you're glowing and stuff.
	Sure.
	And that was one of the reasons because it was like, oh, there's his handler that's, I don't know.
	Were you like close to that guy at all?
	Or they just put you in an article together?
	Yes, I was close.
	I was very close to Paul Godfrey.
	We've kind of moved apart as the years go on, but I was very close.
	I mean, I've stayed at his home.
	He wasn't a handler in that sense of the word.
	He's more of a mentor.
	But Paul Godfrey is a very unique guy.
	He studied German philosophy.
	He taught me a lot about reading Hegel and Heidegger and so on.
	And he's an interesting guy, but someone who I think only feels comfortable around the paleoconservatives.
	I think that is his niche.
	This was the headline.
	So it's like, oh, Jews control the alt-right, right?
	It's the controlled opposition.
	That's the narrative.
	And also, there's a lot of things, you know, moving on to the Russia thing.
	I find it just mind-blowing that they were all over, oh, the alt-right's Russian, which they are.
	We're inundated basically with the Kremlin talking points, the support Putin in Russia narrative, like all over the left-wing media, alternative media and the right-wing.
	And so let's talk some about like how you used to be in that in your connections with Dugan and others and like how your views have evolved on that.
	I shared a documentary with you from my friend Johnny Gatt.
	He's always been all over the Russian talking points and alt media.
	And you thought it was good, interesting?
	I thought it was excellent.
	It's very informative.
	I retweeted it out.
	And yeah, everyone should go watch that.
	So They were all about talking about how Putin is running the alt-right.
	And then now the former leader of the alt-right is saying, talking about these things.
	And it's like radio silence.
	What's up with that?
	They don't.
	Yes.
	Look, believe me, it is a good story.
	And they don't want to talk about it because I think the reason is that it would make me look good.
	That's just, that's my reasoning there.
	I think that is why.
	But there is no question.
	They will talk about how the alt-right parrots Kremlin talking points, but they don't want to tell my story of going to war with them and making a clean break, as it were, from them.
	I think that I was breaking from them a lot earlier.
	I noticed that even in 2018, I would get called a Fed because I would dare to criticize Trump.
	And it just got to the point where it's like, look, are we serious or are we not?
	Like, is this basically a Trump cheerleading squad or what is this?
	And they answer that question.
	It is a Trump cheerleading squad.
	It ultimately is.
	And it will be against the US.
	Look at CPAC right now, right?
	Is that what's going on?
	CPAC?
	It is, yeah.
	It's Trump pack.
	Yeah.
	You think he's going to be back in?
	The alt-right.
	I mean, the point, the alternative or alt is just as important as the right.
	It's actually more important.
	It was about we have a totally different starting point than the conservative movement.
	We, in a way, have nothing in common with them.
	That's, you know, it was kind of big tent in many ways, but that's what I was trying to suggest by that term.
	Otherwise, I wouldn't have used that term.
	I would have called ourselves far right or super cons, super conservative, or paleocons.
	We're like Paleolithic fossils from the 1950s that they've just uncovered or something.
	I didn't say any of those things.
	I said alternative right because I was suggesting that we had a very different starting point.
	But clearly, they didn't.
	Well, they're the kosher right.
	They're all Christians.
	They're worshiping the God of Israel.
	And that's why they're, that's, that's the big issue with control and why the whole need for America first is like Trump says that he's America first and make America great again.
	And then he's saying Israel completely controls Congress and they rightfully so and they elect him and they're going to be back in.
	You think he's going to get the nomination?
	It's going to be him versus Biden?
	Well, it's definitely pointing that way.
	But I would say this.
	First off, we've got the Biden age issue, which even though I would gladly vote for him again in a year or so, that is a serious issue.
	Over every single Republican, you would vote for him?
	Oh, unquestionably.
	Yes.
	It's not even an issue.
	No.
	He's pretty good.
	He has handled, first off, just most immediately, he has handled the Ukraine situation in a good manner.
	I think that if I were advising him or if I were in his position, I would have articulated a stronger vision.
	But I think at the end of the day, I'm very glad that Joe Biden and Anthony Blinken, to be honest, are more or less running policy in this matter.
	I think Afghanistan was actually pretty good and he got a whole lot of hell for Afghanistan.
	The fact is, he completed a policy that emerged in the Trump administration.
	He stuck to his word.
	Anytime you withdraw from any country like that, it's going to be a shit show.
	This was a total clown act with handing it back over to the Taliban.
	But the good news is that we ended a 20-year forever war and he deserves credit.
	Critical praise, you could say, but he deserves praise.
	In terms of his overall policies, pretty good.
	I think there's some very good things going on with the CHIP Act and bringing industry home.
	I think obviously inflation's going down.
	So that was something that was kind of exterior to his policymaking, but something he's handled in a fairly decent way.
	I think you could make the argument that Biden has taken the sentiment of make America great again.
	Like, what did you really mean by that?
	National industry pulling out of wars like Afghanistan.
	It's a little ironic.
	Let me just complete my thoughts.
	Oh, okay.
	Sorry.
	And turn it into actual policy.
	Unlike Trump, who is just purely, you know, memes and nonsense and mean tweets, et cetera.
	Go ahead.
	It's ironic that Biden says that he wanted to run against Trump because Trump said that there was good people on both sides at Charlottesville and you were one of the most prominent figures there.
	Why don't we segue into that a little bit?
	Yeah.
	What did he mean by that?
	Who?
	Trump?
	What did he mean by that?
	What did Biden mean by that?
	That's an interesting question to ask.
	Okay, are you going to answer or were you asking me?
	Yeah, no, I'll answer.
	I think he properly understood Charlottesville as something that actually was destabilizing to the America that he wants and that he has grown up ultimately loving.
	I mean, Biden has tons of flaws.
	There's no question.
	But he, maybe due to his age, maybe due to the fact that he does have a bit of a, you know, Scranton background, he wants a productive, prosperous, good America from, say, the 1980s.
	That is what he ultimately wants.
	And he maybe properly recognizes Charlottesville as something that was actually destabling towards that.
	I was invited to Charlottesville by Jason Kessler, who organized it.
	I thought it would be great to be there.
	I also absolutely think that there's something destabilizing, if we want to continue using this word, with tearing down statues that have been meaningful to people.
	I have a critical view on that, but hear me out on that.
	I also believe that people have the right to speak.
	You have an absolute right to go out in a public space and speak.
	That being said, I still recognize that there was something from his ultimately conservative standpoint that viewed Charlottesville as truly destabilizing.
	And what we need to do post-Charlottesville is not lean into polarization and certainly not lean into the far left, but bring Americans together, which is what he constantly has said, through a Prosperous middle-class society.
	Now, the degree to which that's possible socioeconomically and also in light of extreme polarization remains to be seen.
	I think it's actually impossible.
	But I do think that that is what he's genuinely doing.
	I mean, Biden has had some great trolls.
	I mean, not as hilarious and outlandish as Trump's trolls, but of saying, I'm going to go to Marjorie Taylor Greene's county, her district, and cut a ribbon on a new factory that's being opened.
	I'm going to deliver broadband internet to rural areas that voted for Trump at 95%.
	Why?
	Because the only, you know, you can lean into polarization and become shrill, or you can lean out of it and try to overcome it.
	Biden, despite his many faults and despite some failures along the way, despite maybe his incapacity to achieve this, has genuinely tried to do that.
	And I respect him for that.
	And I have to say this: I like him.
	I like him.
	Do you think that Biden is really running anything?
	And is he, are his immigration policies better than you'd get from a Republican or his anti-white sentiments better?
	His anti-white sentiments are not better or worse than any Republican.
	I mean, he's an old guy.
	I don't think he fully thinks in these ways.
	When he says things like, you know, whites are going to be an absolute minority and whatever in 20 years, I mean, that's a fact.
	Have you seen the commercials?
	Isn't it great?
	Have you seen the commercials?
	Have you heard him say that?
	Isn't it great?
	No.
	You haven't heard him talk about the commercials, how all the commercials are mixed race?
	It's like one of his campaign talking points.
	Isn't it funny that whenever he tries to be politically correct, he gets accused of racism?
	I remember he said things like he would.
	Biden has a peculiar way of doing it.
	He'll say things like, you know, this, we're one nation under law, and that goes for rich people and the blacks.
	He like can't, he's so reactionary.
	And a lot of the left-wing critique of Biden is true.
	Like he worked with all these segregations and so on.
	I mean, he shepherded into the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas.
	So, I mean, he's a kind of Republican.
	Yeah.
	I will say this: that when it comes to like groveling to Netanyahu into Israel, Biden seems to be not as pathetic as the right-wing, Trump, and all the rest of the Republicans.
	I think Israel has a direct interest.
	And I shouldn't just say Israel.
	I should say the Likud Israel, this coalition that Bibby Netanyahu has maintained that doesn't include actually the brunt of the Ashkenazi Jews.
	It's interesting.
	It's very similar to the Republican Party in the United States.
	We can talk about that maybe later.
	There is a direct interest for Likud to re-electing Donald Trump.
	We can all say how Donald Trump was such a disappointment.
	The wall, what do we have?
	50 feet of it.
	Did we bring back coal mining?
	Did he destroy the left?
	You can say all this stuff about how he disappointed everyone.
	And that's all true.
	There's one group that is not disappointed at all.
	They got everything they wanted and more.
	They got everything they wanted in spades.
	And that is a particular Likud conception of Israel.
	Golan Heights, embassy in Jerusalem, tearing up the Iran deal, almost, they almost, I should say, they were a little disappointed.
	I think they wanted a direct war with Iran, which was aborted by Trump at the last minute.
	But they got everything and it was great.
	Abraham makes you Abraham Accords as well, which regularized some things that were already happening.
	So, yes.
	And it also makes you wonder, you know, it's these curious things when you find Jewish people like supporting alt-right and racism and anti-Semitism and Trump, et cetera, kind of makes you wonder what's going on there.
	So let me ask you about Dugan.
	You had a relationship with Dugan.
	Dugan is like, he's called Putin's brain.
	He was doing lots of interviews, had some influence in these kind of circles.
	How is your evolve?
	What can you tell us about Dugan and like how have your views on Russia evolved in the last few years?
	Well, when I talk about Dugan, I probably should first talk about Nina Kuprianova, who is my ex-wife.
	So she became an enthusiastic Duganist many years ago, and I presume she still is.
	I don't really talk to her about these matters.
	But I had a number of connections with Dugan.
	I've never met Dugan personally.
	We've emailed and things like that.
	I don't even know if I've ever really interviewed him in a format like this.
	But she actually translated an interesting book of his on Heidegger, which is still, despite it all, worth reading.
	And that was her baby in a way that I helped Shefford along.
	I published it.
	I copy edit it and all that kind of all the stuff about publishing that's no fun.
	I did.
	She did the translation.
	There was actually an interesting event that I attempted to host in Budapest in 2014 that Dugan was going to be a speaker at, and it got scuttled by Victor Orban.
	It's actually a really complicated thing.
	But I would also, I was never a Duganist myself.
	If I would describe myself, I would say I'm a Nietzschean.
	And I think further I'd say I'm an Apollonian.
	So in many ways, these things are anti-Dugin.
	That being said, I was a kind of Dugan apologist or defender.
	I never certainly attacked him or went after him.
	And I have published some of his works in other ways.
	I played a small role, but some kind of role in promoting him.
	Also, during the heyday of the alt-right in 2016, many of these Dugan entities like Katyan magazine and other things like that would interview me.
	And they were actually just written interviews that my wife would, my then-wife, would complete.
	Wow.
	And so there was a lot of interest in me from the Dugan side.
	And during 2014, I mean, I don't really delete tweets.
	I'll delete one if it's impeccably stupid or if I misspelled something or something like that.
	But I generally don't delete them.
	And you can see this in 2014, I was, you know, riding the Kremlin horse on the Ukraine question.
	There's no question about that.
	And I did it kind of in my own way, but I can see all of the talking points that I was using in 2014 that have been revived.
	And it's a very weird experience when you see Candace Owens, for instance, say something that I said in 2014.
	I don't think she was influenced by me.
	I think both of us are being influenced by certain handlers, you can say.
	But all of I see that I can, because I'm kind of out of the loop now.
	And I do think that from the Kremlin standpoint, I'm an unreliable asset in the sense that I'm always going to go my own way, ultimately.
	And I do make hard turns.
	I went against my own movement, whatever, on COVID, on Trump, on the vaccine, on whatever.
	You and I might even have disagreements on some of those things.
	But the fact is, we can talk about it rationally.
	I can, you know, I go my own way.
	So I don't think I'm a reliable asset.
	I think the Kremlin wants different types of people.
	But I was very close, obviously, to my ex-wife, Nita Kuprianova, who was promoting this kind of thing.
	She was getting me in touch with, I mean, the person who I think is iconic in this regard is a man named Emmanuel Oxenrider, who was about my age.
	He was a very nice guy.
	He grew up in East Germany and he went on the far right, and as many East Germans do, but he was very smart.
	I liked him, personally speaking, a whole lot.
	He had that kind of German sense of humor.
	I know people say Germans don't have a sense of humor, but they do, in fact.
	It's maybe anyway.
	I liked him.
	He was smart, but he was also a clear Duganist.
	He was doing conferences in Iran.
	He was going to be at my event in 2014.
	What does that mean to be a Duganist, too?
	We got to back up a little bit.
	Like, what is your perspective on Dugin's ideas?
	And what does he feel like?
	Why is he a threat to America?
	Well, that's the question.
	I mean, look, what exactly Dugan is is a major question.
	You could read the book that I published on Heidegger and get a strong sense that Dugin is a Heideggerian crypto-Nazi type.
	And I don't think that's entirely wrong, but it's a very complicated matter.
	So Dugin does not have the degrees that other people that I think he wants to be, the circles he wants to frequent in.
	He does not have those degrees.
	And he was actually, after the Ukraine crisis, he was not given a professorship at, what is it, Moscow University or something.
	What he actually believes, I think, is actually questionable.
	I mean, he was an anti-Soviet dissident throughout the 1980s, and he paid the price for it to his credit.
	Wasn't he like the national Bolshevik leader?
	Well, that's what I was going to get to.
	So he fell in love with the USSR the moment it fell, which is almost as if, you know, I don't know, when Trump goes to jail, if I start becoming a Trump fanatic again, there is almost a kind of religious lost cause quality to it.
	He was a founder with some other people of the national Bolshevism.
	But I think the way that I would try to describe Dugin, Dugin has some interesting theories that I think are useful.
	For instance, the structure of the third political or the fourth political theory, excuse me, is interesting and useful in the sense that we had the oldest modern political theories, liberalism, then that almost birthed or transformed into outright communism.
	There was a reaction to it with fascism.
	And liberalism, the oldest one, has actually been the one that's lived the longest.
	And fascism now is, you know, Nazi LARPers or whatever.
	Communism is kind of old and not really a threat, whereas liberalism remains.
	And so he's imagining a fourth political theory that could emerge that would be a kind of, I don't know, gross realm, I guess might be the way I would describe it, a massive geographic and ethnic block.
	And I think geography is very important for Dugin.
	He is ironically an acolyte, you could say, of McKinder and his geographic pivot theories, where basically the part of the Russian sphere is the central role.
	Everything is all of geopolitics is about controlling that space.
	So I think a lot of these things are interesting.
	They can be useful.
	You can take them in different directions.
	But why Dugin is powerful?
	It's not necessarily that he is able to whisper into Putin's ear and Putin will do what he says.
	Because Dugin can be very outlandish.
	I mean, he can just be like, kill the Ukrainians, kill them all, et cetera.
	He can say things about how American Christian blacks who are kind of primitive and closer to an essence of Americanism should take over.
	I mean, he can say things that are just wild and outrageous, if somewhat philosophically coherent.
	But what makes him powerful is the fact that his vision of the world can ultimately be projected upon the Kremlin's long-term geographic vision.
	So he can be seen as a kind of philosophizer of geopolitics, where what they want to do anyway, he is justifying through some pretense of orthodoxy, some pretense of geographic strategy, some pretense of neo-Bolshevism or national Bolshevism or the alt-right or whatever.
	So the Kremlin strategy is ultimately one of geography.
	America and Russia are similar in the way that they are both huge continental powers that have a large landmass.
	So there needs to be tremendous mobilization in the land mass and strategically placed forts that basically protect this empire.
	Russia is inherently an empire.
	And when we think about it, like if we were Finland, we're kind of a little state or Luxembourg, a little statelet, we think in terms of democracy and the nation states and parliaments and etc.
	Russia can't think that like that.
	You cannot control that amount of Space with that few people without imperial policies and grand mobilization.
	If there is ever going to be a threat to the Russian empire, it is going to come through a German army, effectively, marching through Ukraine to the Caspian.
	That is what almost happened in the Second World War.
	That is a great fear, and it could launch a kind of knockout blow.
	So, Ukraine is geographically of the utmost importance.
	I am not a Putin supporter.
	I am outraged by the invasion of Ukraine, and I would do everything within my power to help lucky Ukraine fight off this thing.
	But I do understand why Russia is doing this.
	Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, lots of differences between those three men.
	They all agreed on one thing, and that is that Ukrainian sovereignty is an abomination and should never have allowed to take place.
	It is a geographic outlook.
	So, Putin is powerful in the sense that he can project all of this kind of mystical nonsense onto what is ultimately a geographic or geopolitical strategy that the Kremlin would have anyway.
	So, to put long story short, I think Dugan is a kind of cart that's being pulled by a horse.
	I don't think Duganism is the horse pulling the cart.
	I think it's a kind of retroactive rationalization for what the Kremlin already wants to do.
	So, basically, his purpose for doing all these shows and affiliating with these people in America on the right wing is just to try to inject and advance Russia's geopolitical goals.
	I think it's completely naive to think that there's Mossad agents everywhere, there's CIA agents, but that Putin doesn't have like Kremlin agents shouting their line.
	What?
	I didn't think besides you and I. I mean, you work from us.
	Besides you and I, of course, you worked for a lot of people.
	According to the Christians, yeah.
	I'm long time in my six agent.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, he's joking.
	So, yeah, there's people like everybody is just kind of like everybody in alternative media is like completely anti-Zelensky, constant, always making fun of Zelensky, right?
	And then, like, glorifying Putin, like he's the savior.
	He's the great Christian leader.
	He's, you know, has no choice.
	He's the only good guy.
	He's fighting the new world order.
	The QAnon people see this.
	People on the right, people on the left that are even like anti-Zionist, people say he's fighting Zionism or he's a threat to the new world order, all this stuff.
	What do you think about that whole dynamic that's set up and the presence of like Kremlin propagandists in internet media?
	Well, I'll answer the second question first.
	Yes, there's no doubt that Dugin himself is very interested in all sorts of alternative media, a various and sundry.
	Dugin himself is a kind of like RT incarnate.
	So, Russia today, to be fair, did some pretty good stuff, you know, over the years.
	They had me on.
	I would talk about my disagreements with American foreign policy.
	They'll have Alex Jones on.
	They'll have Ian Michael Chunk on.
	They'll have whatever.
	Some of it can be good.
	Some of it can be.
	They'll bring on anybody.
	They'll promote anybody that is going to be pro-Russia and bash America, basically.
	That's not necessarily even pro-Russia.
	I think it's basically about stirring the pot around, confusing people, promoting things that are wild and wacky.
	You could even be critical of Russia, but if you are talking about like UFOs or, you know, the Federal Reserve Bank is run by aliens, they're going to find a spot for you.
	Because if you're a critic of Russia, but then you believe in moronic stuff and you're a goof, then that it almost helps Russia to platform somebody like that.
	Exactly.
	It's not propaganda in an older sense of like we want someone to come on and just talk about Dostoevsky and the greatness of the Russian ballet tradition and Russia's cool.
	They don't want that.
	They want to confuse you and basically kind of alter your perception of space and time and up and down and right and wrong.
	That is more advantageous to them.
	Now, with Donald Trump, you had someone for his own reasons.
	And to be fair and maybe even charitable to Trump, I think he had genuine reasons for being opposed to NATO that came from his kind of 1990s Ross Perot era.
	You know, why are we being the world's policemen?
	Why are we paying so much to this organization?
	Why can't Germany defend itself?
	Blah, blah, blah.
	You know, I don't necessarily agree with those, but those are kind of rational.
	But they, oh, am I back?
	Yeah, you cut out there for a second.
	You're frozen.
	What is the last thing that I said?
	Ross Perot, I think.
	Oh, yeah.
	So Trump came from a kind of Ross Perot 90s era, right?
	Where they were fearful of Japan.
	They thought we were being the world's policemen.
	We need to come home.
	The Cold War is over.
	I think these are all really rational ways of thinking.
	I might have disagreements with them, but they're not crazy.
	And so in the figure of Trump, I mean, there's no doubt that Russia supports Trump.
	I mean, give me a break.
	Okay.
	But there's no, the idea that he would insert into the airwaves or the bloodstream the notion that we should end NATO.
	That is something that is worth its price in gold for the Kremlin.
	Because again, they don't actually care about American conservatives getting canceled or whatever that Putin might say.
	They care about NATO in the sense that they want Eastern Europe and I would say most all of Eastern Europe, not just Ukraine, but I would obviously Belarus that's in a unitary state with Russia, but Poland, et cetera, maybe even throwing the Baltic states.
	The loss of these countries to the Russian world is a debacle, and we must bring them back.
	And that, in fact, is the only way to let me do this.
	I keep freezing.
	I'm going to switch Wi-Fi Networks, real quick.
	Okay.
	Are we going to disconnect the call and come back?
	Oh, okay.
	I'm back, I think.
	I'm back.
	There we go.
	I just flipped on a different network.
	I saw that I was a few times.
	I just want to change gears for a second.
	I'm curious to this question.
	I think it'll be interesting.
	When there was the punch a quote, punch a Nazi situation.
	What is that like to, for people that don't know, there you were doing an interview and some guy, a masked Antifa guy, came up and sucker punched you.
	And then basically all of the internet was laughing and celebrating.
	And what was it?
	What was going on through your head when all that happened?
	Well, there are some people who are defending me as well.
	I mean, to go back to what I said earlier, there is a kind of ego fuel situation there.
	I mean, I was giving an interview to, I think, an Australian television network when I was attacked, absolutely assaulted in broad daylight.
	So I was a sympathy vote there, too.
	Thank you.
	Didn't get knocked down.
	But I was discombobulated, to say the least.
	It was a very stressful thing.
	But yeah, it was just kind of, you know, ego fuel.
	Look, I don't, I kind of roll my eyes when I hear people get obsessed with Antifa, but I still do hate them, to be honest.
	They are truly scummy people.
	I was wondering if you were going to be like traumatized or like, I don't know, having everybody like celebrate, not everybody, but lots of people.
	Obviously, lots of people were celebrating and say, yeah, you know, that's great.
	They should all be punched.
	You know, Captain America type of stuff.
	Yeah.
	But so you're saying just the fact that you were such big news with that, it almost made you like, is that the highest point of your career, Kitty Punch, right there?
	Your biggest most famed moment?
	This is pretty sad, isn't it, Adam?
	Yeah, maybe I'll never reach those peaks again of being assaulted on camera.
	No, but I can imagine like, I don't know, it may be like being depressing, you know, having like so many people like want you to be punched.
	Was it depressing at all?
	It was a little scary.
	I mean, I had a rational fear, but I wasn't depressed.
	I'm more depressed when I feel like I'm not being productive and I'm not doing my work and I'm not moving forward with something and I don't believe in something.
	I don't get depressed when, you know, a bunch of shrill liberals are yelling at me.
	And I know they ultimately secretly love me and want to hop in bed with me, to be honest.
	It's so funny.
	I've got all these other questions I have lined up for you in the chat.
	Just will not get off of you supporting Biden.
	I guess I got to go back to that because the chat demands it.
	And we also got a super chat asking you about Christianity, but just people cannot believe that you support Biden.
	It really is authentic.
	Is it that you really like him or you just think he's the lesser of two evils and you backed Trump and that was a disaster for you?
	So now you're going the other way.
	It wasn't necessarily a disaster for me.
	It was a disaster for me to some degree.
	I think the Trump presidency was a disaster for the world and it was bullshit and it was extremely toxic.
	And there was something about the QAnon movement that is for someone of my state of mind, you could say, the way that I think, there is something just so obnoxious about it that I just profoundly hate it.
	I profoundly, ultimately kind of hate the QAnon adjacent movements like America First or whatever, all those people raiding the Capitol.
	I hate them.
	So it was so toxic that I basically want, yes, I did see Biden as a lesser two evils, a kind of necessary cleanse.
	But I will say, Biden has been a better president than I imagined.
	And I think he should be given credit where it's due.
	I don't think he's, he's not my hero, but I think he's actually a decent guy.
	I like him personally, and I think he's been a pretty good president.
	So I would gladly vote for him again.
	I would never vote for a Republican, to be frank.
	Interesting.
	Any of them.
	So I find it so interesting that you, is it true you defended yourself in the Charlottesville trial?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	It got too expensive to pay lawyers.
	Too expensive.
	So you had to defend yourself.
	And you lost that verdict, though, right?
	What's the mixed bag?
	Or is it still going on?
	What's the situation there?
	Currently an appeal, but it's a mixed bag of a verdict.
	The fundamental issue was undecided.
	And there were some secondary things that were, I was held liable for.
	And then the, you know, the amounts were reduced pretty significantly, to be honest.
	But yes, we'll see where it goes.
	But I would actually rather not talk about something that hasn't been a legal matter that hasn't been fully completed.
	Still ongoing.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	There's a super chat here.
	Who is this?
	Esau's Revenge says, what's your stance on Christ cookery?
	Christianity?
	No, I've really never really been a Christian.
	I don't think at least a sincere one for my whole life.
	I mean, I went through when I was a lot younger.
	I was raised in the Episcopalian church, and I actually still have fond things to say about the Episcopalian Church.
	They certainly are not the ones that would bother me.
	I think maybe you, you more of a fundamentalist background, if I remember correctly.
	And I would have reacted strongly, more strongly against something like that.
	Yeah, mine was just like old, old people.
	I don't know.
	I wouldn't even call it fundamentalists.
	I don't remember them ever telling me about the state of Israel or anything like that.
	It was just like, it was Church of Christ, just like regular Protestant Christianity, as far as I know.
	Okay.
	So I don't have any, I'm not a new atheist or something, although I certainly was influenced by them when they had their day in the sun 15 years ago or so.
	But I've always, I think really when I was in college, I was reading, I was mostly focusing actually on Shakespeare when I was an undergraduate.
	But I did read The Birth of Tragedy first by Nietzsche, and then I read his entire corpus shortly after that in the subsequent year.
	That did affect me More than anyone.
	And it's not Nietzsche never donned a fedora or anything like that or claimed that Christ isn't rational.
	I mean, in some ways, he might even take the opposite position of that.
	It was an acknowledgement of where we are as modern people in terms of the death of God.
	It was an attack, a vehement attack against Christian morality.
	And I think he was.
	Nietzsche wasn't quite a mythicist as we would use that term today in terms of questioning whether Jesus actually walked the earth.
	He believed he did.
	He believed, in fact, that the only Christian died on the cross.
	And he was in this kind of funny way.
	He kind of had a residue of a devout Lutheran.
	His father was a Lutheran pastor, in fact.
	But he was a mythicist in the sense that he understood that Paul was really the generator of Christianity, that it was this man who actually did more for creating a religion.
	And in many ways, Christ was someone who didn't even quite know what he had done in being this sincere.
	And again, this is from Nietzsche's standpoint.
	It's an interesting one.
	The death of God, of course, has kind of layers of irony to that statement.
	But nevertheless, I always did have a Nietzschean bent in terms of looking under the skirt, you could say, of Christian morality and seeing Christian morality as bequeathed to us in the modern age.
	So, you know, devotion is, of course, down.
	Church attendance falls, you know, every year, at least in the West, and it's fallen precipitously in some parts of the West.
	There's, you know, Northern Europe is almost becoming atheist as a majority.
	But the revolution that really occurred was something that Nietzsche identified in the genealogy of morality.
	It's a moral vision.
	It's an attack on something else.
	It's a polemic.
	And that has triumphed.
	So in many ways, the modern age still is Christian.
	We're kind of living in the age of the Holy Spirit and not the age of the son, say, or the father, to take a kind of structure of history from Joachim of Florence.
	We're living in a kind of age of the Holy Spirit in the sense that we don't need to be redeemed, but we still have not overcome Christian morality.
	It is something that is still dominant among modern people.
	It's dominant on the left.
	It's obviously dominant on the right.
	And Nietzsche's true impulse was viewing the coming collapse of this and imagining what could come after this, what could come after the ultimate death of God or a post-Christian age.
	So this is the way that I look at things.
	I don't think exactly I'm a fedora-tipping atheist.
	I think Nietzsche would respond to someone like Dawkins or Hitchens and say that you're ultimately Christians is the irony.
	You've never really overcome the power of Christianity.
	Even if you don't believe in God or you believe in science, you've never fully overcome this revolution of morality, which actually goes back to Plato.
	And I think that's how Nietzsche would kind of respond to new atheism, ironically.
	He would say, I'm still a Christian.
	You're not really anti-Christian because I've got like subconscious Christian views from the Christian culture and the Christian upbringing I had.
	Correct.
	And so did so did Nietzsche himself.
	I think there's a lot of there.
	I recently reread Thus Book Zarathustra and I did a kind of a course that I do with, I have this thing called Alex University and we do courses with people.
	They're all online.
	They're fun.
	We do close readings of texts.
	So it's not just me up there pontificating.
	It's really everyone participating in kind of a Bible study type environment symposium, if you will.
	And we actually reread Zarathustra and that was actually the major takeaway that I took from that.
	I think there's a tremendous legacy of Christianity in Nietzsche.
	It's actually a remark, kind of makes him an interesting thinker.
	Yeah, I saw you had Uber Boyo on.
	I had him on for an interesting talk about Nietzsche as well.
	Super chat in from White Falcon, Afghanistan, Fiasca.
	Okay, this is about Biden.
	Leaving Taliban, 1 billion in weapons and throwing Americans under the bus, destroying the economy, Ukraine war, 7 million migrants from open borders, blackmailing other countries for personal financial gain, destroying female sports, supporting child genital mutilation.
	Biden is better, question mark.
	Yeah, why?
	I mean, I'm not a Biden endorser.
	I think that his cabinet is full of Jews.
	He's still super pro-Israel.
	He's got the LGBTQ thing completely supported.
	Like, can't you just say both sides suck?
	Yeah, well, of course, both sides suck.
	That's obvious.
	But you have to get off the fence at some point.
	And as you yourself admitted, like, we are treating Israel more reasonably, and we are treating everyone involved in that conflict more fairly with Democrats.
	And so there you go.
	It's not, we can't have the Adam Green party when the presidency.
	I mean, I'm sorry to say.
	And so you have to make a choice at some point.
	Afghanistan was good.
	We had to get out of there.
	It was a disaster.
	Look, you know, it's like your hand is stuck in a vat of acid.
	This is maybe a grotesque metaphor.
	You're going to pull it out and see how bad it is, but you've just got to pull it out at some point.
	There is no point in leaving your hand in this asset.
	It's going to get worse and worse and worse.
	You've got to withdraw.
	There was no withdrawal that would have not sucked, basically.
	And so I give him a kind of respectful pass on Afghanistan.
	And again, it was Trump's policy.
	In terms of all the LGBT stuff, look, all of that stuff got far more intense under Donald Trump than it did under, say, Barack Obama.
	All of these things are macro trends that are occurring in the culture at large.
	And whether a president is changing any of these things, I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if transsexuality doesn't kind of peak in the next few years and start to decline under the second Biden administration.
	I don't know that for certain, but what I am stressing is that these are major secular trends that have really nothing to do with the president.
	You could be right about That I'm a little surprised by my own chat because my chat, as far as I know, really hates Trump, but then they're so upset that you're saying that Biden's the lesser of two evils.
	I'm a little surprised by that.
	I want to ask you a question that I'm sure you've probably gotten a million times, but I'm not familiar with what your answer is.
	What's like the descriptive word that they would usually use for you?
	Would they say white nationalist or white supremacist?
	Did you get that?
	Yeah, I get that.
	I mean, I've seen, certainly seen neo-Nazi or whatever.
	I actually do reject that.
	I mean, if people want to just call me, if they want to use a term that's helpful for them, that is more or less fair, you know, I'm okay with it.
	Would you say they were to call me a white nationalist or whatever?
	You know, look, if it's useful for you, go for it.
	I'm just me.
	I mean, it's like, if you want to learn about me or learn about what I think, then come listen to this podcast.
	Come subscribe to my substack.
	Come look at something I've written or look at something I published with Mark.
	I mean, that's who I am.
	And you're Apollonian now, right?
	That's that's the new title, Apollonian.
	Somebody in the chat said neo-duganist.
	He said he's not a duganist.
	How long has it been since you talked or had any like communication with Dugan?
	I meant to ask that too.
	I think, well, communication, there were some interviews in 2016, but I wasn't really personally involved in those.
	And I don't know.
	I think he kind of dissed me or something.
	I don't think I'm a reliable, I'm not really a reliable asset for these people.
	I mean, like, Dugan went, remember, you know, Jack Murphy, that like crazy gay pornographer whose actual name is Boldstein, and he like ripped off schools or something.
	Yeah, so I was a cuck.
	Yes, a literal cuck, yes.
	Before he, all of that came out, he was actually interviewing Dugan and they were talking, you know, and so he was also a Claremont Institute fellow.
	So there are these sinews of like Kremlin influence are really interesting.
	And you sometimes won't find direct evidence for things, but you kind of have to follow your gut.
	You kind of have to see who's saying the same talking points.
	Who is flipping on a dime on their positions?
	Obviously, we all evolve, we change, whatever.
	Who just changes 180 without any sort of justification?
	You know, you can kind of find the, you can look at the sinews.
	It's like a map.
	You can kind of see where they all go.
	The Claremont Institute is clearly to some degree connected with these people.
	But the fact that Dugan was going on Jack Murphy's podcast, I remember seeing this, he would get like three digits of views on YouTube.
	He had not been banned from YouTube, which is also significant.
	And he's interviewing Dugan.
	Why Dugan would want to talk with him?
	It's again, it was that outreach to a sort of a sort of alt-right that was controllable and that certainly did not involve me.
	I mean, all of these people who parrot stuff that I say and try to pick up the vibe or recreate 2016, all of these people, if you ask them about me, they would to some degree say they hate me or they or they don't know who I am or whatever.
	I mean, I'm really the odd man out and I kind of like it, but it's whether I like it or not, it's kind of irrelevant.
	It's what I'm destined to be.
	So did you ever like, did you ever identify yourself as a white nationalist or like, what would you say?
	I'm sure every mainstream media that ever interviewed you would ask you, like, are you a white nationalist?
	Did you, what was your answer to that?
	My answer at the time was I'm an identitarian, which is a kind of softer, effectively way of saying you're a white nationalist.
	I don't even say that at this point.
	I say I'm Richard Spencer.
	You can listen to what I say.
	You can take me for what it is.
	The labels are lame.
	If you want to use a category for me, yeah, the labels are lame.
	If you want to use one, if that's helpful for you, go ahead.
	Just don't call me like a Satanist or something that's obviously incorrect.
	Did you ever even have a label?
	I would say Apollonian.
	Yes.
	Apollonian.
	Did you ever even have, like, were you a big advocate for like trying to create a white-only America or anything?
	Or did they just like always call you that?
	And it wasn't even like at all justified?
	Didn't even really, wasn't even really what you believed.
	Well, what I did is I gave a speech actually at.
	Okay, you're back.
	We're back.
	My internet just completely dropped.
	Hopefully, we'll wrap it up here in a minute.
	We got about 10 minutes left for the scheduled call.
	I found maybe your other worst moment is that you're a big Depeche mode fan.
	How heartbreaking was it for you to see this article?
	I'll share it with you right now.
	I got to share screen.
	But you probably know the one I'm talking about already.
	I know the one you're talking about.
	No, I mean, I saw that they wrote, yeah, see, they really hate super fan.
	Was that an older one?
	Was that 2017?
	It's 2017.
	Luke O'Neill looks like.
	But so your favorite band, you're a super fan, apparently, and they disavowed you.
	Was that when you decided to start supporting Biden this moment?
	No.
	You know, it's very funny because they were interviewed about it on like Swedish television.
	And they basically, I think Dave Gahan called me the C-word, which means something different in Great Britain than it means here.
	But then he said, well, you know, he's a very intelligent man and the way he articulates these things.
	So they kind of codified it.
	And then a very educated cunt.
	Not the worst insult in the world, right?
	You're so dangerous because you wear a suit and you have a good vocabulary.
	Exactly.
	So I took it as a kind of compliment.
	Do you feel like the left tried to like use you to make Republicans look like racists to make Trump look bad?
	Do you feel like that was kind of their agenda?
	Yes and no.
	I think that there was a general fascination with me because I was a Trump fan at the time, but then I was saying things that were genuinely interesting and were unusual and were not just the kind of utterances that you most of Mag get at this point.
	And I think there was a certain fascination with that.
	But yes, but I think the more kind of cynical response, there's probably some truth to that too.
	And before we cut out there, you were answering the question about the white nationalist term.
	You started by saying you gave a speech one time.
	Can you pick up?
	Oh, yeah.
	Someone was just texting me, like saying, you said you're a white nationalist.
	Oh, you just got a text about that, huh?
	Yeah, people are very worried about my reputation.
	I never really liked that term.
	And what I said is I'm being totally fair here.
	If that is a helpful way for other people to label me, then okay.
	But if you want to know who I am and what I think, you really do have to talk to me or read me or listen to me.
	I am not a political cheerleader who does pom-poms for certain things or is, I guess, in this way, you know, go white race, go Donald Trump, MAGA, MAGA, MAGA.
	I don't do that.
	Now, if everyone needs a category, if you want to use that category and it's helpful to you, fine.
	That's not how I think of myself.
	Actually, when I did do those interviews and they used that term, I said I prefer identitarian, which, you know, is kind of a softer version of nationalist in this sense.
	But I don't like the identitarian term.
	I do think that an intellectual, spiritual identity is more important.
	That really is where you're headed.
	That's showing the direction that you want to bring yourself.
	And in that sense, yes, Apollonian is the term that I would prefer.
	That's what I believe in.
	All right, let's get into that next.
	Apollonian.
	But let me read the super chat.
	25.
	Oh, about the ethnostate thing.
	Let me go back.
	I want to just tie a ribbon on this.
	So I actually gave a speech at the American Renaissance Conference in 2013, I believe, in which I talked about the ethnostate.
	And what I said basically is that whites are going to be a minority in the United States no matter what.
	Like it's baked into the cake.
	You're not going to like halt immigration and reverse this trend.
	So you instead, you need to start to recognize and be realistic about what about this thing and what it's going to mean and how you're going to deal with it.
	And I suggested that we start thinking in these kind of grander visions.
	Like Zionist, you know, Herzl was being laughed at by many.
	He was being opposed, in fact, by many Jews, not opposed by some other ones.
	When he offered this grand vision of an alt noise, you know, this work can time, we're fulfilling the Bible, that I'm also an atheist and let's make it old and let's make it new at the same time.
	There was something what I want to say about Zionism, your opinions might be about the current state of Israel.
	There's something grand and visionary about it.
	And I said that we need such a vision, a kind of on the European continent or on even North American continent, a kind of neo-Roman empire.
	So that's what I said.
	And that's what I meant.
	And it's often taken as, you know, like, oh, you want to like kick all these people out.
	I mean, I said then, and I would say now and et cetera, that whether I, that's just totally ridiculous and impractical.
	It is a grand vision of something new.
	It could be birthed on Mars.
	It could be birthed in South America, all sorts of things.
	It's just a vision of recreating Rome, which I think was an animating vision for all sorts of cultures and civilizations and empires since the fall of Rome.
	It's been a vision of Byzantium.
	It's been obviously been a vision of Russia.
	It's been a vision of the British Empire, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
	And so I was trying to call upon something grand.
	And the only way that they can understand these things with their little minds is, you know, oh, you want to take us back to, you know, southern segregation or something.
	So it's very hard to speak in an idealistic and intellectual fashion with these people because they're ultimately kind of trying to get you.
	And so that's something that's very disappointing, but it is what it is.
	Sol Indigis says, glad to hear that Nietzsche is so in vogue in the moment lately.
	His philosophy is at least a good stepping stone to a post-Abrahamist Welton Schwang.
	Is that a word?
	Beltanchalong, yeah.
	Beltanchalong.
	Was that worldview?
	Worldview, literally.
	Great conversation between you two, as always.
	Thank you, Soul Indigis.
	And that's a good segue to what's the appeal?
	What's the vision of Apollonianism?
	Well, I think in many ways, at least for me, it's a bit of an apocalyptic vision to some degree.
	What I mean by that is this.
	Immediately, the vision of Apolloism is an intellectual movement that is attracting the best people.
	And most importantly, it's actually attracting artists and not politicians.
	Politicians are little puppets.
	You can put words in their mouth.
	You can pull their strings.
	You can blackmail them.
	You can bribe them.
	You can do whatever you want to them.
	The world doesn't really turn around them.
	The world turns around artists and intellectuals and visionaries, poets, etc.
	So it is a critical movement that is, and I think so much of the work that needs to be done right now is deconstructive, deconstructive of the Bible, of a biblical symbolism that's been passed down for 2,000 years, a deconstruction, a deconstruction of Christian morality, etc.
	So a lot of it is critical and I think in that way, very intellectually exciting, but it is kind of negative, you could say, kind of ground clearing.
	That in itself is very Nietzschean.
	Nietzschean wanted to sound things out to see if they're hollow or not.
	He obviously engaged in polemic and critique to the utmost degree.
	I do think that there is a path forward with Apolloism in the sense of a spiritual movement that does genuinely view Apollo as someone who we follow, someone whom we admire, and is a genuine attempt to revive a Roman system.
	And that is a good thing.
	But I'm also aware of the kind of limits of that and the lack of broad appeal and all of it.
	I get it.
	It's a modest vision in a way at the beginning.
	But remember, Christianity was a very modest vision.
	Started with 12 and expanded from there.
	So you have to start small, and that's okay if what you're starting with is good.
	I do think what I meant by apocalyptic is that I do think that the world, the Veltan Shaolong that we're currently dominated by, I think the world has to kind of fulfill itself.
	We have to see the end of this.
	We're not just going to like pull a lever or vote in some great Republican or whatever, and things are going to change.
	I do think that Apolloism is something that, if it could, because it is a vision ultimately of leadership.
	It's not just a vision of, say, criticism.
	That's not just a vision of art.
	It is a vision of politics ultimately.
	But I don't, I really enough, and I'm say modest enough to understand that I don't think that vision can be implemented in the world until the current world order has kind of fulfilled itself.
	So I do think there's something, there is going to be something after Americanism.
	There's going to be something after liberalism.
	There's going to be something after Russia.
	In fact, I think we're going to see that something after Russia within our lifetimes.
	There is going to be something after we get past all this.
	And my hope and the hope of Brahmin and other people who are part of our community is that that vision will be Apollonian and that we can create a civilization for the entire planet that is productive and prosperous and ultimately allows us to achieve our destiny, which is as a space-faring and galactic people.
	In what ways is Apollo, what does he have to do with galactic or space?
	Apollo is a god of many things.
	He is a god of plagues, among some things.
	And I think we might need to send some plagues down on certain people.
	But he is also a god of sobriety vis-à-vis Dionysus.
	So he's a god of intelligence.
	He's also a god of music and thus a god of art.
	Dionysus and Apollo are kind of dual, competing gods of music, so to speak.
	Actually, Nietzsche recognized this in the Birth of Tragedy.
	So he is a god of civilization.
	And I think that there's something to be said for a kind of deconstruction.
	There's something to be said for a kind of Dionysian fury.
	I think there's a great strong Dionysian quality to even the current right or MAGA.
	They have, after all, they did their own kind of crazed revolution a couple of years ago.
	They are obviously a destructive force.
	They have no, they don't even have a vision.
	They certainly don't have a vision.
	They don't even have policies.
	All they know how to do is say no and yell at people and tear things down and raid public buildings and declare Trump, you know, God or whatever.
	Let's go, Brandon, right?
	Let's go, Brandon, unironically.
	But Apollo is a god of civilization.
	And that is something very different.
	And I do, I admire the things in America.
	I admire aspects of the American Empire.
	I admire aspects of Biden to the degree to which they actually are civilizational and to the degree to which they can, in their small way, make the world a better place, or at the very least, a more stable place.
	That is an Apollonian vision.
	Apollonian vision is not one of these Germanic pagan groups where you go out into the woods and cut yourself and get massively drunk and cover yourself in ash or around or whatever.
	Voting Dionysian thought in many ways.
	Oh, shoot.
	I have my, I did an audio noise.
	I gave you a boo for trashing on my Viking religion.
	We could have a we can have a civilized discussion about this.
	I know.
	I was just joking since you wanted to talk trash about the Vikings.
	It was the Romans, the Apollonians, that imposed Christianity on the northerners.
	So you guys, you got, I saw one of the comments.
	Well, you know, actually, I don't even want to joke around about that.
	It's the serious question is Christianity was so successful because they did a good job at convincing the world that Jesus was a real person that did all of these magical things.
	Do you think that there, yes, Christians go, okay, well, if Jesus isn't real, what are we going to go to?
	What are we going to, who are we going to worship?
	What's going to be our worldview, our philosophy?
	So your answer would be to go back to the Roman pantheon, I suppose.
	Go forward to the Roman pantheon.
	You know, it's not, it's not, it's not about recreation or reiteration.
	It's about making it new again.
	And I do, the other thing I would say is that, yeah, and I actually published this from Mark's book, actually.
	Did I get frozen again?
	Yeah, just for a second.
	You said you published.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I published something on Substack that people can go look at.
	I forgot what I titled it, actually.
	It's actually a chapter or a section from Mark's book.
	It's worth a read.
	But I talk about this.
	There's a pretense of historicity in actually the Bible writ large.
	So something like Adam and Eve or the flood seems obviously figurous to us or mythological or parabolic, you could say.
	But a figure like Moses or the Hebrews' exodus from Egypt or David's monarchy, etc., these are treated as historical facts, or certainly Jesus is.
	He is to, we understand him as walking the earth as a real guy.
	And there's a kind of cottage industry around the real Jesus.
	This is the kind of like Bart Ehrman type guys, or, you know, you can go back to, you know, Strauss, you can go back to other people, Renal.
	Obviously, I don't think Jesus actually walked the earth.
	I think there might very well have been some people he was based on in a kind of composite.
	But I don't think there was this world historical man who actually existed.
	He exists as myth, and that way he exists as a kind of new form of Dionysus who dies and rises, who turns water into wine, etc.
	He's actually the son Of a God who was also identified by ancient monographers with Dionysus, that is Yahweh, although I think he could probably better be understood as Kronos or Saturn or Vulcan.
	He too, Yahweh, is a kind of composite of different forms of this God that we knew obviously.
	So Christianity does have this pretense of historicity, and I think even the Old Testament does.
	There is no archaeological evidence whatsoever that some like golden age of David ever existed.
	There might have been some dude named David who was like a local warlord or something.
	But all of this is myth.
	All of it.
	It's very easy to say that about, say, the flood or Adam and Eve and Eve.
	It's more difficult to say that about the Exodus or about, you know, say the numbers book about the Gospels.
	We treat the Gospels as like a journalistic narration of what happened.
	These were, of course, written generations after Christ supposedly was crucified, etc.
	So all of it is myth, but it's this weird type of myth that almost presents itself as not myth.
	And I think that's one of the profound powers, but also one of the profound deceptive qualities of the Torah and Tanakh and Gospels as well, all put together.
	But people like Bart Ehrman, I mean, I like Bart Ehrman to a degree.
	I mean, I think he's a good historian.
	He seems like a great guy.
	But, you know, you have to understand what his audience is.
	You know, he's going on like NPR.
	He's actually giving lectures in churches because his audience is lukewarm or last Christians.
	And the way that he'll tell this story of like, oh, you know, Jesus really was real, but he was actually this nice guy.
	You know, he was like a communist, proto-communist pastor, rabbi walking around helping out people.
	And then you look at other books like the one Reza Aslan from a few years ago, and he was just plagiarizing other people's zealot theory.
	So it's like, no, Jesus was antiphal.
	Like he was this extreme zealot Jew who was an actual revolutionary and that's why he was crucified, etc.
	Now, these are all interesting things.
	There's a lot of use to them.
	You can learn something from them, but they're all marketed to an audience of current Americans that is lukewarm Christian, the reading public that is older people who lukewarm Christians.
	And I think they should be really understood as that.
	They're telling bedtime stories to people who can't quite bring themselves to believe in the way that they did when they were children.
	I agree.
	It's just he, I'm reading Bart Ehrman's book right now.
	Did Jesus Exist is the title.
	And I've read the mythicist books over and over and then now hearing his like retort to this and it is so weak.
	It is such straw man's.
	It's missing all the major points.
	And he went to, he was educated and trained as a Christian apologist at Moody Bible Institute and Princeton Theological Seminary where he was there being educated to be a Christian apologist.
	And it's like, that's why the Christians love him.
	They go, even Bart Ehrman, he's an atheist.
	He says Jesus is real.
	I don't even know how we got into the Jesus Bart Ehrman thing.
	What did we segue from?
	I think I was talking about mythicism and Apolloism.
	I was just using Bart Ehrman as an example.
	And again, I don't want to bash him too hard.
	I mean, you know, I think he's a sincere guy, you know, who's smart and so on.
	And he seems like, he seems very nice.
	Like he seems like a guy I would like to talk to or whatever.
	But we just have to understand the context that these people exist in.
	And that is the current, you know, the current kind of lukewarm Christian reading public.
	He's like, oh, I don't want to deconvert anybody.
	I'm just doing history.
	And I'm like, if you numb the history, you wrote a book called Forgery.
	Christianity is based on forgeries.
	So if you're, you shouldn't want people to be Christians if that's the case.
	But yeah, he's got a different.
	I think if anything, I think if anything, if he has had any effect, I think it's actually to expand the population of Christians.
	Probably.
	Because he kind of makes it intellectually defensible.
	Kind of like Jordan Peterson.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	You know, it's like, oh, I'm an atheist.
	I've read Jung and Nietzsche and stuff, but oh, wow, we can't give up on this.
	There's Christian.
	Yeah, this is great.
	Yeah, Jordan Peterson has even a more profound effect.
	I mean, I think he's probably, I mean, again, the tide is the weakening of Christianity as a devotional religion in the United States and the Western world.
	But there's some people kind of swimming against the tide, and they are having an effect to some degree.
	And yeah, I think Bart Ehrman, despite the fact that he announces himself as an atheist, he's probably converted more Christians than he has deconverted.
	Yeah, I think his overall score is like 50 new Christians and like 20 new atheists.
	That's what I would guess.
	Just the fact alone that all these biblical critics, biblical scholars are keeping this idea that there was a historical Jesus is like if all the top scholars just started talking like Carrier and saying, yeah, it looks like it started from a mythological character, this would be a huge blow to Christianity.
	People would be, if this was a big topic of conversation, which it's not, all of, in fact, Christians are always like, oh, they're trying to destroy Christianity.
	They're always trying to disprove it.
	I'm like, no, they're not at all.
	No, they're not.
	They encourage it.
	Yeah, they are terrified of that notion of it going away.
	The way that I would do it, and I actually, because, you know, this book of Marx, it is his core ideas.
	I've done a lot of work with him.
	So there's a lot of me in there.
	And I'll just take credit for this useful metaphor.
	But I remember I was actually in Denmark one time and we visited Hamlet's castle.
	And this was, you know, oh, look, you know, we can see the prince himself.
	Maybe he walked through these, you know, halls and maybe his bones.
	It's like, look, Hamlet exists in a text written in 1600 in the English language during the reign of Elizabeth.
	That is where he exists.
	Now, Hamlet himself is actually based on a number of different stories.
	There's that good movie, I'm forgetting the Norsemen, that came out.
	There was a kind of Hamlet story that was based on an earlier myth that inspired Hamlet.
	And there might very well, you know, have been some prince who went mad in, You know, 1200 or something who got this thing going, who knows?
	But that's ultimately irrelevant in the face of the power of literature, the power of Shakespeare's Hamlet, what he was saying.
	I have always thought that Shakespeare's Hamlet is in many ways a take on Luther.
	I don't know if this is a super hot tick and blowing everyone's mind.
	So, remember Martin Luther?
	Correct.
	Remember where Hamlet went to school, as his mother says, you know, go thee not back to Wittenberg.
	Yes, I absolutely think that Shakespeare is engaging in a kind of dialogue between Protestantism and Christianity that was particularly relevant for the time in which he lived, in which he had a Protestant virgin queen on the throne.
	I think it was an extremely relevant play.
	But that's where Hamlet exists.
	There's no Hamlet back in the Middle Ages who, you know, the power of Hamlet is a literary creation.
	The same thing can be said for Jesus.
	You're never going to uncover, you know, you're never going to find the tomb or find the cross or something.
	You have to understand all of these things as metaphor.
	And it's extremely powerful metaphor.
	They might very well have kernels of facts in there.
	And that's interesting.
	But you're looking.
	There's an old joke of a guy who was out standing under a lamppost at midnight.
	And someone asked him, Oh, you know, what are you doing?
	And he's like, well, I'm looking for my watch.
	And he said, oh, well, you lost it around this lamppost.
	And he said, oh, no, I don't know where I lost it, but this is where the light is shining.
	You know, it's like an expression of how not to understand something.
	You're just looking there because the light's there.
	These things are powerful as literature.
	They're powerful as myth.
	Jesus is powerful as a new reincarnation of Dionysus.
	Jesus is powerful as a fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy as a Messiah, but a different type of Messiah, a new Messiah who isn't David, and who might very well be traced back to the notions of a Messiah that were created in the book of Daniel,
	a son of man concept and a different kind of suffering version of a Messiah that's not the badass warlord of David, not a beautiful man loved by women, something different, a kind of new character in the world.
	That's what's powerful, and that's what needs to be discussed.
	Even in the ancient times, the pagans didn't really believe that these gods were true.
	They were just kind of like symbolism and stories and almost like mascots in a way.
	But Christians all believe Jesus was a real person.
	He really did all the miracles.
	The Son of God came flesh, came to earth.
	How will you ever be able to overcome that embedded view?
	I think it's happening.
	I think it's happening slowly, but surely.
	It's not, I don't think that like, you know, a two billion people are going to read Mark's book.
	I mean, that would be great.
	I mean, wow, all my problems would be solved in an instant if that happened.
	I don't think that's going to happen.
	But I think that this is happening on its own.
	Like there is a slow but sure progress.
	Sorry, I froze again.
	Let me just wait till I'm back.
	Yeah, I hear you.
	Yeah.
	Oh, well, I'm frozen, but you still hear me.
	There's a slow but sure progress away from literal Christianity.
	I mean, the Southern Baptist Convention gets smaller year by year.
	It actually reached its peak in 2005 in the Bush administration.
	As time goes on, more of the Bible becomes allegorical and not that to be taken figuratively, the more we realize how absurd it all is.
	Yes.
	And I think that is a step in the right direction.
	That's not the full picture.
	That's not what I ultimately want.
	But I think you do need to kind of escape the hold on your imagination that fundamentalism can have.
	The other thing that I think we're moving beyond is just this true fear.
	I mean, if you imagine living in Germany for the first millennium, you genuinely believed that there was one way to escape a wrath that you deserved.
	Your life was based around your afterlife and what would come after.
	That was a genuine feeling among peasants and nobles alike.
	It's kind of really remarkable to even do this thought experiment of what it would be like to live during that period.
	It's fascinating.
	I do think that we're kind of getting past that intense immediate fear of hellfire that really did capture the imagination of people who were otherwise cultured and intelligent.
	Well, I've definitely noticed that when I'm trying to show that Christianity is built on a lie and fake prophecy fulfillment, people always go like, okay, well, what are we going to follow instead?
	Like they really are desperate to have an alternative or replacement.
	And at least.
	That's understandable.
	It is.
	And something like the guy Zirka, he was like, oh, your movement isn't based on anything.
	You know, our movement has the cross.
	So even if you're right, you know, it's not going to, there's no like unifying factor that everybody gets on board with.
	But I just feel like for that.
	This movement does have something.
	I feel like if for it to really work, though, for it to be effective, people have to really be true believers in it.
	I just did an AI and AI of Apollo.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	So I just typed in Greek God, Apollo, Golden Statue, Cinematic, Photorealistic.
	This is what it came up with.
	This is AI's.
	Here's your new mascot.
	This is what Apollo looks like.
	Yes, that's awesome.
	Absolutely.
	Yes.
	I love the gold as well.
	Yes.
	Totally pagan, totally European there vibe.
	Yeah.
	They have the cross.
	We have the liar.
	And that is music and art and culture and things that make life worth living.
	And we have the arrow, the bow and arrow, the archer.
	And you can maybe understand what I'm referring to when I talk about that.
	I've kind of to break off the yoke of Abrahamism.
	I've more connections with like the Viking Nordic myths.
	Although I don't even know them very well.
	Obviously, I don't believe they're real, but that's the mascots of my ancestors.
	So I think.
	That's all Christianity, though.
	Balder is your, that's a Dionysian god.
	Botan was identified with Dionysus, in fact.
	But it's all his name, Botan itself, means madness and stuff like that.
	I think what we know about Germanic paganism, we know through monks.
	Christian monks, that is.
	So maybe there is a kind of older Germanic folk religion that preceded all this, but what we know about it comes via Christianity.
	And I don't think you can really get away from that.
	I think so many people who dive back into Germanic paganism are diving back into a kind of like comic book version of Christianity that was created for them, probably for the purpose of conversion.
	Well, the thing is, is like, I view it like, obviously, you don't believe it's true.
	Maybe there's some good morals to the story, but it's just like, it's just like a comic book hero.
	It's like, yeah, that's that's our comic book hero.
	It gets pathetic when it's like all these Europeans are like, ours is the Jewish one that the Jews gave to us.
	Right.
	Anything but that.
	That's what I told Zirka.
	I'm like, I'm all for having a symbol as long as it's not the symbol that the Jews gave us to be our symbol.
	Right.
	But they kind of did give you.
	It's kind of what I'm saying.
	The super red pill, like maybe black.
	Are you telling me Thor is Jewish?
	Is that what you're trying to break to me right now?
	I think these things might be heavily tainted.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Oh, okay.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	And I wouldn't even quite say Jewish.
	I mean, I think Abrahamic is what it's there.
	They're starting to bring people from a different religious system into a Christian or Judaic, if you want to say, or Abrahamic worldview.
	And I think Germanic paganism played a big role in that.
	Okay.
	My buddy in the chat says, where is it?
	Liam T. Jared.
	We can reconstruct to some degree pre-Christian culture.
	Like, I don't even care if it's a hodgepodge between a bunch of different things.
	Just if people can stop believing in the magical superhero Jesus, that he's our savior, that's a step in the right direction.
	I don't care what other gods you choose to quote unquote believe in.
	I would disagree with we can recreate it.
	I just simply disagree with that.
	We've got to make it new.
	You know, we got to, you know, I don't make it sing again.
	We got to, you know, we have this thing of a cultural inheritance.
	We might need to tune it and we might need to break some things, in fact.
	But we don't want to.
	All right, guys.
	My internet cut out.
	It's not reconnecting.
	Spencer had to go.
	We were over the time that he had for me today.
	He had to go to dinner or something.
	I appreciate having him on and sharing his thoughts with us and answering the questions.
	I enjoyed the talk.
	I thought it was interesting to hear his thoughts on these things.
	I appreciate you all for the super chats and for the support.
	I'll be back very soon.
	I got a lot of great content coming up.
	My epic Rabbi Mix and some news to cover, as well as I'm having Adam King back on Thursday for an interview.
	It looks like it just cut back in.
	Let's see.
	I was recording that.
	Let's see.
	Where?
	Are we back?
	My computer is whacked out right now, and I guess I got to restart my router again.
	All right, we're back.
	Guys, Spencer had to go.
	He told me an hour and a half, so we were already over time.
	He had to go to dinner.
	He needed to wrap it up.
	And my internet is wigging out again.
	So I apologize for that.
	Appreciate everybody for the super chats tonight.
	Thanks, everybody, for watching.
	Let us know what you think in the comments.
	I will be back on Tuesday.
	I've got an epic show coming on Tuesday with the rabbi clips and some other news that I want to cover.
	And then I'll be back on Thursday.
	Adam King, the Kabbalah Jew that's got the show on InfoWars, will be on my show.
	I'm going to take him through the ringer about the Torah and Kabbalah.
	It's going to be a good one.
	So stay tuned for that.
	Love you all.
	Appreciate the support.
	See you again very soon.

▲