RadixJournal - Richard Spencer - The Self-Defeating Drive for "De-Radicalization"

Oct. 25, 2019 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer

01:13:54

The Self-Defeating Drive for "De-Radicalization"

Special Guest Tyler Hamilton ("Thamster") joins the Group to discuss the mainstream media's self-defeating drive for "de-radicalization." Topics include former IE member "Samantha," the outrageous decision over transexual surgery in Texas; the trend of trolling Charlie Kirk events, and more. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So the other big story in the news, maybe not national-level significance, but certainly for our little corner of the internet, was an interview on ABC News with a woman by the name of Samantha, who was a former member of the organization that was once known as Identity Europa, is now known as the American Identity Movement.
	And of course, Richard, you have a kind of close and personal I'm going to read a few excerpts of this first, and then just certainly closer than the rest of us.
	But I'm going to read a few excerpts here, and we'll just kind of look at this.
	Because it is interesting in terms of kind of exposing the underbelly of some of the movements that were kind of adjacent to two.
	Some interesting quotes.
	I never thought of myself as a racist person, but I was.
	When you're in there you think that you just know the truth the truth that white people are more intellectually capable than other people White people were the best.
	I started to believe that there's some sort of white genocide happening I started to use the phrasing in the language that there is an Overwhelming majority of Jewish people in media and banking and you start to ask yourself are Jewish people white?
	I The piece goes on to say there's nothing hateful about identifying with Evropian heritage.
	I was muted, but that is high comedy, what you just read.
	Maybe Samantha is actually the ultimate sleeper agent.
	She's using the mass media against itself by dropping all these truth bombs and being like, it's almost like you start thinking.
	There's a Jewish agenda in media.
	Returning back to the story of Samantha, actually the reason this is even in the news is because her story is part of New Yorker writer Andrew Marantz's new book titled Antisocial, Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation.
	And in her interview, Samantha talks about...
	Awakening to a white identity, questions about Jewish influence in the media and elsewhere, concerns about a global white genocide agenda.
	Marantz is quoted as saying, Samantha was someone who wanted to tell me her story about how she had gotten in, and more specifically, how she had gotten out.
	Samantha was one of the few people who was not in propaganda mode when she talked to me.
	So I felt like rather than getting spin...
	Or what the movement wanted me to hear, I was just getting an actual human's story.
	Morantz also said that these movements are mostly made up of men.
	Most of the women that were there, that were in there, were tied to someone who was already there.
	Morantz goes on to say they went to great lengths to make her feel important, that she was important because they needed someone to be the female face of their movement.
	Samantha said she became very active in online chat rooms under a pseudonym, although she didn't specifically recall posting hateful messages.
	She's quoted as saying, I probably did, and I knew it was wrong.
	I remember being really apprehensive, but I did it.
	Everyone else was doing it.
	So I think there's a lot there to chew on.
	Richard will give you the first swing at this.
	What interests me, and maybe this is where you can lead off, is the kind of notion that these are...
	Male-dominated spaces, that there's a particular treatment of women in the movement.
	I don't know if there's something there that you want to tackle before we...
	I think there's a lot here, actually, and that's why we're talking about it.
	I agree that this is a tempest in a teapot, and no one's going to be talking about this, maybe even in 48 hours.
	But it is interesting.
	I remember in 2017 and 2018 saying this very often, that...
	that basically you could call it radicalization, but in a good way, is a one-way street.
	And there is the Instacion Alta.
	I've met many former libertarians who are alt-right.
	I've met many former conservatives.
	I've even met former Marxists and environmental activists who are alt-right.
	But I've never met a former alt-right libertarian in the sense that you just kind of can't go back once you take that red pill.
	And I do think that that is true to a very large extent.
	And I actually don't think Samantha...
	Has changed my mind about that.
	Indeed, I don't even quite know how genuine she's being in these interviews.
	I definitely did know her, and she was a very ambitious girl, and I think she's been blackpilled like 99% of the movement, and she now doesn't want to be associated with the stuff.
	She's probably afraid of being doxxed and yet another server drop.
	You know, on Identity Europa or the American Identity Movement.
	And so she wants to kind of preemptively quit before she's fired, so to speak.
	But yeah, what we've seen over the past six to nine months is this new trend of de-radicalization.
	And someone like Christian Picciolini has made a life out of this and a career where, you know, he's a former skinhead record producer.
	I had never heard of this guy.
	I mean, granted, we're different ages, and I have a cursory knowledge of skinhead history and literature and culture, but I don't even know if his story is true, to be honest.
	It might very well be, but...
	It might also not be.
	Or I wouldn't be surprised if he got involved in some organization in some fashion and then just kind of pulled out much like Samantha did because he wanted a different career and life.
	Although he has more of a story to tell.
	I actually listened to Christian Picciolini speak live one time.
	He was in Whitefish while I was in Whitefish in 2017.
	I think it was early 2017.
	And he was giving this lecture.
	He had actually been brought to Whitefish by our local rabbis.
	And literally, I'm not, you know, engaging in anti-Semitic hyperbole.
	And he had been brought here and he gave this kind of set speech about de-radicalization and, you know, talked about all this kind of stuff.
	But yeah, it is an industry.
	Piccolini is currently being sued by his former colleagues.
	Again, I won't pass judgment on a lawsuit.
	I can imagine there's a lot of drama there, probably a lot of sinning on all sides.
	And, but yeah, there is an industry to do this that is symbiotic with the alt-right, where as the alt-right rises, you have this new industry of, you know, big, burly, tattooed former skinheads who give bear hugs, and so on.
	And there's certainly more and more people treading into Christian Piccolini's territory.
	And I think, generally speaking...
	Post-Charlottesville, we're going to see a lot more of this.
	And I don't think this is the last one, and I don't think this is probably the most dramatic one either.
	Charlottesville was a major turning point.
	I didn't think it would be right at the beginning.
	I was kind of ready for Charlottesville to be done with while we were leading up to it because there was so much difficulty involved.
	There were so many attacks.
	Obviously, the Charlottesville...
	The moment itself is quite traumatic, basically feeling oppressed by the police and the state and just wanting to...
	I just wanted it to be over, but it kind of would never end.
	And the movement was absolutely demoralized.
	The day before Charlottesville, we felt that we were winning and that we were...
	We were pushing ideas forward.
	We kind of were on the Trump bandwagon or he was silently supporting us and so on.
	Post-Charlottesville, it got real quick.
	The doxing, the lawsuits, the arrest of people who were quite obviously gauged in self-defense.
	The James Fields incident, which was ambiguous but unambiguously awful.
	You know, and preventable.
	And the alt-right became, it wasn't this fun movement.
	It was being associated with, oh, they're terrorists and they're killing people in the streets and so on.
	And it was a massive black pill.
	And the movement certainly has not been the same.
	And I don't think it will be the same.
	And I don't think that it will ever go back.
	And so there is this, it's not like people are, to go back to the metaphor that I used before about people, you know, you get more radical as you start thinking through these things.
	And you might start out as an edgy Republican, and then you're a libertarian, and then you're I don't think that dynamic has really shifted, but there is going to be a growing industry of people so-called de-radicalizing and basically telling their story.
	Katie McHugh was the most famous of this.
	I mean, Samantha is a kind of, I don't know, like B-side Katie McHugh, basically.
	It's a lot less interesting.
	But there are some people, Katie McHugh was an absolute bandwagon jumper, and much like...
	Samantha, she was very ambitious when she got in the movement and wanted to meet people and date them and so on.
	And then the movement doesn't become fun anymore and they get really depressed and angry and frustrated and they feel betrayed and they want to lash out and demoralize the movement even further.
	And I don't think this is the end of it.
	So while this incident in itself isn't particularly interesting or significant, Well, a question for Mark, and a little bit of pretext first.
	As you point out, Richard, there isn't kind of an industry for deradicalization, but it seems to be a meme that is being pushed in the media and the establishment to give the impression that there is a true diminishing of kind of illiberal thought or white consciousness.
	Rather than the opposite, Eric Stryker on his website, National Justice, I think published an article not too long ago saying actually the opposite is true, that Occidental dissent and some of these other websites are seeing their traffic explode.
	So the idea of a de-radicalization meme is something that is artificially being put forward to, as Richard is saying, demoralize the community to give people second thoughts about this kind of thing.
	One more time to hit Stryker, he published an article about Picciolini as well, who's involved in a lawsuit, Life After Hate, is suing him for basically appropriating funds for himself.
	So Mark, I'm curious to know, what do you think about this de-radicalization meme as kind of a psychological operation?
	Yeah, no, I think it's definitely the case.
	I mean, I think that...
	Polarization is going to continue apace.
	I mean, I think there's one direction to this train, and I don't see it actually slowing down.
	I do see the state to a certain extent, but certainly corporations we've seen in terms of censorship.
	I see basically the forces arrayed against this becoming more oppressive, effectively, as the only kind of method of dealing with this.
	I think these people that are trying to backpedal out of the alt-right to sort of save themselves, as it were, I don't think that anything psychologically has changed, though, in terms of the people that are aware of these ideas are still very much in the alt-right.
	Now, this girl may be a person who's trying to kind of save her own skin, as it were.
	And she is a woman, right?
	So there is a kind of different psychology involved there.
	I mean, that's not to criticize women in general, but they're not, you know, they are, they're kind of constituted in a different way.
	So, and they are more apt to kind of just, you know, going along with the flow, as it were.
	That's kind of an evolutionary trait of women.
	So she can't even really be sort of blamed for her relative cowardice in this incident, in this instance.
	But yeah, so I think the train is going to go forward.
	And actually a good example of what I'm talking about right now.
	It's going to be silent for a long time.
	I think the train was going full bore for a while and people were...
	Overtly jumping on people willing to go to Charlottesville and stand up and risk doxing.
	I don't think people quite expected what would happen eventually, but they certainly knew that risk were involved in the sense of being doxed, and they were willing to do it because it was so...
	You felt like you're part of this big thing.
	I don't think the alt-right is going to be in that mode anytime soon.
	But yeah, there's no question that for every one Samantha, there's like a hundred or a thousand other people learning about dissident ideas.
	Good and bad ones, to be honest.
	But dissident ideas on the internet.
	Well, a question then for Tyler, just to kind of move from the Whammon question.
	Hunter Wallace wrote about this for the Occidental Dissident, or Dissident, I forget the name of his website.
	And the thing that was interesting to me, Strawman Akkad, who is kind of an audience member of a lot of these shows, left several comments in the bottom of the article talking about how...
	One of the reasons he left the alt-right or the white nationalist movement was that there was just a preoccupation with degeneracy on the part of men who would then turn around and try to have sex with his wife, have sex with the wives of other people involved.
	And so there's this preoccupation with degeneracy at the same time, a willful engagement in that degeneracy.
	It seems like you read that article as well.
	What are your thoughts on that, Tyler?
	Yeah, I did read that article.
	I found his comments pretty revealing and also, honestly, pretty relatable to what I saw back in 2016 and 2017 and up to 2018, right?
	It reminded me a lot of, I guess, some of the weak foundations from a lot of people that came into this at the time.
	So, what I noticed, because he basically said, you know, he said a lot of these men were kind of behaving like typical degenerates, you know, they were losers, they were lashing out, they were full of resentment, but at the same time...
	In hitting on this guy's girlfriend, they were making essentially a checklist of all the things she should be trad about, right?
	So it's like they...
	What it indicated to me anyways is that this was basically the behavior of people who are...
	They're basically losers, and to some extent they feel justified, right?
	They should feel justified in that.
	But they weren't taking the effort to construct something new or something...
	You know, out of this, they were people that felt resentment.
	And then the Trump campaign comes along, and this was their very first experience with, you know, what we would call dissonant politics, but I don't think they thought of it as dissonant back then.
	You know, this is why they got very surprised all of a sudden, you know, post-Charlottesville, is because they realized that, hey, we're actually dissidents, right?
	The state doesn't like us.
	You know, they learned that for the very first time.
	And so you're...
	And so I remember back at these local kind of groups here, I saw this all the time, you know, women would come around, and then all the men, whether it be like one or two women, and these men would get very infatuated with her, and they'd be like, oh yeah, she's so trad and right-wing, she's saying all the right things, and the whole time I found it very pathetic, but like, it spoke to like this need that this was all coming from a place of, you know, justifiably, of course, that you're...
	You're losing your place in society.
	You're losing your role.
	You don't have any power.
	You have no future.
	But instead of working to build something new and understanding that this kind of work requires risk and sacrifice, and there's a lot of uncertainty involved in this, it was, okay, well, Trump took us to victory.
	Now we're all the way down here.
	And so what are we seeing from this?
	We're seeing two things.
	And this is what interested me about what Richard mentioned earlier about...
	You know, the Samantha story was Patrick Casey's response to this.
	He basically said, I agree, and then goes on to list all these groups that were not the one she was in, which was his own.
	So, and then they went, okay, well, okay, well, we need to focus on, you know, optics, whatever, basically reviving that optics argument.
	And then what do you get on the other side?
	Well, you get these people that think, okay, well, there's something called movementarianism.
	It's all hopeless, and it's going to collapse.
	So you just run to the tree.
	Run to the rural areas, make a cell of three or four people, and just wait for the system to collapse, which is completely ridiculous.
	Even if that scenario was possible, regardless, you'd still have to actually engage in the world until those institutions change over time and create these conditions in the first place.
	You simply can't pose this dialectically, this dichotomy between good optics and engaging in your GOP and putting up this idea that if you just behave like Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you said.
	I'll disagree here slightly, but yeah, I think all of these reactions to Charlottesville are kind of all...
	The other side of the same coin, so to speak.
	Although this is a coin with many sides.
	There's the, oh, we can just be Republicans and Trump is so base that he's going to create a fascist revolution or whatever.
	Or we need to read Siege and go kill people and blow up.
	Our local electrical outlet or whatever.
	And then also, oh, I'm going to go and live in the country and everything will collapse and then I'll win by doing nothing.
	Or, oh, we actually need to like...
	Trick people by waving flags, and then they're going to allow us into the GOP.
	All of these things are kind of wrong, and they're all kind of weirdly similar.
	They're all about avoiding responsibility, and basically, they're all about avoiding becoming a real independent movement, which the alt-right, despite its myriad of faults, was kind of, sort of, fledgingly becoming.
	In 2017.
	And it failed.
	But it was kinda sorta doing that.
	And every reaction to it and every criticism is given in bad faith in the sense that it's given by people who just don't want to take responsibility.
	And so they get into these arguments that are ultimately meaningless.
	What is the point of the optics debate?
	Like, if you Google the American identity movement or Identity Europa, and you look at the newsfeed, I actually did this a few days ago, and you look at just Google newsfeed.
	Literally every headline will include neo-Nazi, white supremacist, white nationalist, fascist, maybe alt-right here and there, although that's becoming less common.
	What is the optics debate about if no one's listening?
	All you're doing is getting in these vicious internecine feuds between...
	You know, a bunch of people who don't want to take ultimate responsibility for things.
	And I just, again, it's like I'm willing to say this.
	I'm willing to admit it.
	But yeah, I mean, Casey, it's like...
	You know, the guy is endlessly in the friend zone with Samantha.
	He's been in the friend zone for three years, and he's still there.
	And he even says it himself, like, she's my friend.
	And then he goes on, like, I saw this.
	I'm blocked by Patrick Casey, by the way, but someone sent me a screenshot of the thing.
	And you basically see this kind of thing.
	It's like, but I agree.
	Like, all of these other groups that she did not join really are terrible.
	It's like, dude, at some level, you gotta take responsibility for this stuff.
	And, you know, the other one that I find amusing from him was...
	He was like, you low-IQ wignats or whatever.
	And he was like, you're blaming me for being on Discord, but we're not on Discord.
	So screw you.
	And it's like, dude, you have Antifa as dues-paying members who are leaking your chats.
	That's the problem.
	The whole Discord critique was kind of...
	But anyway, yeah, it's just a complete joke.
	And it's, again, all of these guys are just a bunch of ways of saying we shouldn't actually be an independent movement that is dissident, that is going to get lashed out at, that is going to be suppressed by the state to a degree, that is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way.
	Because we are in a similar position to dissident.
	And we can ultimately accept that and own it and move forward, or we can play these endless, meaningless games that people outside of the movement don't pay attention to.
	But I would say this, though, as just a marginal rejoinder to Thamster on the whole kind of degeneracy question and whatever.
	Let's also just be real about human nature.
	Now, are there a bunch of incels in the alt-right?
	No question.
	Is that a problem?
	Absolutely.
	Is there just a lot of resentment and a kind of false puritanism in the sense that you can't really criticize something you can't possess?
	If you can't get laid, then you can't be lecturing anyone on the virtues of abstinence.
	You have to actually abstain and not be such a loser that you can't get any.
	Let's just be...
	These are real chat hours here.
	I'm just telling you the truth, guys.
	But that being said...
	If you don't have a mouth, you can't criticize people who drink too much, right?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Exactly.
	And if you can't appreciate having a beer with the guys once in a while or...
	Enjoying a cocktail with your girlfriend or something.
	If you can't actually experience that, then don't start lecturing everyone about alcoholism or whatever, which is another thing that I hear.
	But what I was saying is that, look...
	There was a lot of energy in that movement.
	And, you know, yeah, young people get together and guys get jealous and they're all hitting on girls and people sleep with each other.
	And so I don't want to kind of Puritan post here in the sense of, like, there's going to be a movement that is the only way we're successful is if we're either, like, this...
	Christian moral movement.
	Like, let's just be real.
	There are a lot of moral...
	There are a lot of highly successful movements out there where, you know, people get laid.
	And it's just kind of human nature.
	There's a lot of energy.
	And so, I don't know.
	I found Hunter's article just a little bit kind of tedious on that regard.
	But, you know, again, emotions were going high.
	It is what it is.
	The fact that a young man who has good instincts and isn't resentful thinks, oh, I could actually join something and maybe meet a girl.
	I mean, is that really a bad thing?
	I actually would warn people from dating that one weird trad girl who enters your organization.
	She's probably kind of screwed up in the head.
	Nevertheless, is it really a bad thing for erotic desires to be at play at these kinds of things?
	I'm not sure it is, and I think it's just kind of natural.
	I think that's the least of the problems of this whole situation.
	Two thoughts, and we'll turn it over to Tyler, because I know Tyler has something he wants to say.
	I don't know about you guys, but I...
	Really didn't like the cringy Reagan Christian morality that seeped its way through the 80s into the 90s.
	It was really stifling.
	It was not pleasurable.
	And I know, at least for my generation, it's why a lot of us became progressives, leftists, kind of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-styled socialists, because we were tired of this grandma, old grandma hectoring about stuff that was...
	Essentially harmless.
	But you missed the point, Josh, because it was all utter hypocrisy.
	The ultimate way to get laid is to go to CPAC and wear a flag.
	That's the ultimate joke, is that it's Reaganites in the streets and orgies in the sheets or whatever.
	And I'm not saying that it's all some big satanic...
	But yeah, I mean, look, that's a movement that obviously sucks and we hate and has been totally destructive.
	But they feel like they're going somewhere.
	They feel like tomorrow is going to be brighter than yesterday.
	And yeah, they want to have sex because they're 20 years old, you know?
	The other thing, just a slight disagreement, I've been guilty of this too.
	And when people are quick to say that the alt-right failed, I don't think that the history book has been closed.
	That chapter is closed on what the alt-right was or still is.
	And I do think very much it still is a process of becoming.
	And all of these, taking Augustus into consideration, the grifter question from last week, the topics we've discussed tonight, these are all part of the evolution of what the alt-right can still become.
	So I just...
	But that chapter stretching from summer of 2015 to summer of 2017 is closed.
	Like, that is a chapter, and it has a narrative and an arc to it.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, but yeah, no, I obviously agree, or otherwise I wouldn't be talking to you guys.
	Right, Tyler.
	That kind of sounded insulting.
	I didn't mean it that way.
	Wasn't taken that way.
	Tyler, your thoughts?
	I just wanted to say what might sound like an obvious point at first, but does play into this.
	One of the things which might be a slight retort to what I said earlier, but I see this a lot when it comes to the whole group dynamics and political movements, like the whole sleeping around thing and a bunch of drama going around.
	On one hand, I explain it as part of this resentment, but on the other hand, this is something people understand.
	I used to be a lot in the music scene.
	When you're an adult and you're in any scene, whether it be a music scene or some kind of hobby, all of these kind of sexual group dynamics and this drama dynamics happens in every single group.
	And so when often these kinds of complaints come up, like, oh, this movement's full of drama.
	Any group, because think about it, most of the time when you're older, your friend group thins.
	You go to work.
	That's the kind of people you talk to.
	You don't have much of a social circle.
	All these groups, dynamics, they take place in any hobby or anything that you're going to get involved in.
	So they're always going to be there.
	So the one thing I guess I agree with Hunter's take on, which might not be the Lutheranism angle specifically, but...
	It was the idea that if you're trying to form a new movement that isn't purely resentment but actually offers a positive vision, then at least within the groups that you're in, you should at least be able to live up to a certain code that kind of projects what kind of society you want to have in the future.
	So that would be the takeaway message I agree with.
	But on the other hand, I would like to say those group dynamics are present in all these things.
	So you have to be eternally vigorous with this.
	You have to monitor how exactly these dynamics play out.
	You might have to follow a code.
	If you're serious about building something new, that has to be in every area that you're in.
	Not just the theoretical realm, but when you're engaging with others in that group, you should be a part of building that.
	It should be in everything you do.
	And I have noticed this as well.
	I mean, I have not really been to a movement group in over a year now.
	But I would say this, and one of the last things that I went to was this basically private meeting in Indianapolis.
	And it led to friendships ending.
	It led to...
	Sometimes when you've got a lot of young people and you're just giving them beer, basically not much good can happen.
	And yeah, that was certainly an example of it.
	And I hear stories all the time.
	Whenever there's any movement gathering and it gets into a drinking fest, it's not going to end well.
	I also think this is a problem, even though it kind of is, let's also be honest here, a problem in every movement or every scene and kind of derives from youth and human nature itself.
	Yeah, trying to pin this as a unique feature of the alt-right or conservatism or whatever I think is a little bit misguided.
	But before we...
	I think we can close out this program by agreeing.
	The news of the day is absolutely mortifying.
	This is from the New York Post.
	Texas jury rules against divorced dad trying to stop seven-year-old son's gender transition.
	The Dallas panel denied Jeffrey Younger's petition for sole custody of sons Jude and James, which came as the boy's mom is pushing for James to begin.
	Hormone replacement therapy, the mom, pediatrician, and Georgioulis.
	We lost you?
	No, I'm just...
	Every time I hear this story, I just want to puke, basically.
	Yeah.
	Well, I'll put a close to Doritos.
	Not even that.
	I just want to cry.
	It's just so saddening and just...
	Yeah.
	Awful.
	Keep going.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, well, and Georgioulis, the pediatrician, contends that James is transgender, likes wearing dresses, and prefers to be identified as Luna.
	Maybe this is relevant, maybe this isn't relevant, and Georgioulis also performs a lot of circumcisions.
	I don't know if she just has a thing for emasculating men, young boys, I don't know.
	But at stake, potentially, is not just James' identity in the here and now.
	But it's health down the line.
	I think we're all kind of cognizant of the consequences of giving prepubescent boys hormone blockers, putting them through hormone replacement therapy.
	Richard, this is a real kind of, you know, puts a tear in the eye of any sober person.
	What are your thoughts?
	Well, yeah, you know, before we went on air, we were thinking...
	Of not even talking about this because, you know, this isn't just low-hanging fruit.
	This is fruit that's just lying on the ground asking to be picked up.
	And, you know, just simply expressing outrage is kind of easy because any normal person looks at this, and not to mention anyone.
	Vaguely on the right looks at this and is just absolutely disgusted.
	Although maybe that's changing with post-2016 and MAGA and all this weird pro-gay tranny stuff coming into the conservative movement.
	But yeah, I mean, it's just beyond insane.
	You know, young people are kind of...
	Inherently confused.
	They're going through puberty.
	They don't know who they are by the just very nature of maturation.
	The ability of young people to be manipulated and told that, oh, no, actually these completely natural questions that you're engaging in express some secret identity that you've always had.
	And then to engage through modern medicine in castration, mutilation, and desecration of the human body, it's just beyond anything that I could ever imagine.
	I, you know, I have to say...
	I thought that we reached a kind of end of the gay culture wars.
	In 2013, by that point, the President of the United States had, even though he didn't when he ran, he came out in favor of gay marriage.
	Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, one of the most beloved, also kind of one of the most hated, but one of the most beloved companies and a kind of cool capitalism company, came out as gay.
	I actually did kind of think, all right, we've kind of tabled these questions.
	Being gay is now boring.
	That means that you're a CEO of a company or whatever.
	Let's just move on and start talking about real issues.
	And I thought that it was kind of over.
	And needless to say, I was wrong.
	Within six to nine months, we were already talking about Caitlyn slash Bruce Jenner, which could be seen as a bizarre anecdote.
	But then by 2015 to 2016, We were going into transitioning children.
	I don't know.
	There really was a real culture war.
	And we like to, you know, kind of poo-poo the paleos and point out their limitations and so on.
	But when Pat Buchanan used that term, culture war, it actually meant something.
	And far worse than anything he ever imagined when he gave that speech in 1992 at the Republican National Convention, it has now been normalized in a way where some beady-eyed librarian running for president can talk to a nine-year-old transgendered person and be like, oh, that's great, that's great.
	We live in this society.
	We can't run away from it.
	And our society is profoundly sick.
	I think even talking about degeneracy, I don't know.
	I think a lot of people haven't...
	I think we almost need to reformulate that.
	That kind of stuff is all too human and maybe forgivable at some level.
	What we're seeing now is weirdly not that type of behavior.
	It's a bizarre, sick, and kind of...
	Kind of weirdly puritanical type of motive on the part of these people.
	And I cannot put into words the level of hatred I have not towards the young people who are clearly victims But towards the adults, that includes physicians, people I would usually defend.
	My father's a physician.
	But certainly includes these activists.
	It is just beyond sick.
	And it's not just about free love and sex.
	It is about the radical transformation of human nature.
	And that is just profoundly disgusting.
	I agree.
	My thought, and maybe we can get Tyler's impressions on this as well.
	It speaks to, I think, the deep ideological possession that the average American man and woman is under, that they look at their child and they think, oh, little Johnny must be little Janie.
	That's what I'm looking at.
	But it also is kind of like this boomer.
	I don't want to...
	You know, bring an ageist aspect to it, but it's almost like this boomer aspect of, like, well, gee— Plenty of boomers even for this.
	Slightly unfair, I guess.
	Well, let's remove age from it, but, like, the mentality that, well, as long as this person is happy, if this will make them happy, if this will bring them fulfillment, it's almost in a certain sense, like, people recognize the world is— Kind of hopelessly perverted and evil and going in the wrong direction.
	And people want to steal joy wherever they can find it.
	And so, Tyler, I'm going to get your thoughts on this.
	Taking the age out of it, I apologize.
	We love our boomers.
	But the kind of like a very American, almost like 60s, new age humanist psychiatrist movement of like happiness, happiness, happiness, fulfillment.
	That seems to me to be at the core of this as well.
	Tyler, what do you think?
	Yeah, I think degeneracy isn't a strong enough word for this.
	And I think when you connect boomers and then this kind of new age hippie mentality and then this activist mentality, I think there is a family lineage here with this line of thought in the sense that liberalism in its inception has always been essentially the liberation of human nature.
	From biology with the power of technology.
	It's liberating us from our biological pretense into this kind of realm of human freedom in which the individual becomes realized, right?
	And what ends up happening with this is this kind of defacement of human nature, which, you know, human nature itself, what makes someone what they are, is formed from this kind of bodily engagement with the world, through the environment, you know, through the mind of other people around you, your culture, and yourself.
	And this literally develops into who you are.
	This is how you become who you are.
	This is how people become who you are.
	And when you try to liberate us from those kind of roots, you essentially create the situation in which this kind of horizon of meaning is stripped away.
	And all you have is this kind of individual projection in which you're looking for meaning, but you're not going to find it.
	And so you get caught up in your own anxieties and your desires and there's nowhere to situate it.
	There's.
	There's.
	There's a kind of mental disfigurement that you can't situate anywhere in some kind of meaningful way.
	So what happens with this, this is where you get this shared lineage between Americanism and this kind of liberal idea of freedom that was there in the very beginning of America's founding.
	And that's where it led us to where we are today.
	At least.
	Let me have a follow-up question because Some members of the audience have challenged this idea that, you know, wow, we're anti-liberal, we're anti-freedom, we're anti-liberty.
	What do you think with regards to the idea that the kind of American or Enlightenment conception of freedom was a high freedom?
	And it was something that when we say freedom, it wasn't this base freedom from responsibility or freedom from biological condition, but freedom from...
	The freedom to do in a willful way, but also in an intentional, deeply meaningful way to exercise freedom.
	The freedom that we are all talking about today in this broadcast is probably not the same kind of freedom that was meant 200 years ago, 300 years ago.
	Do you see a distinction there at all, Tyler?
	Well...
	You know, I mean, certainly when you read the Enlightenment philosophers, we're not all thinking of the situations that we have now, right?
	Like, that's for sure.
	I mean, like, you can even read someone as lame as Locke, and then you get it.
	But he still had this notion of natural law, and he's still connected to the divine and God.
	But, you know, there's a certain sense in which ideas on their own and when you take away power and how that they're actually put out into the world by a community of minds that helps build up and constitute them over time in the sense that everything you do and you think and how you live in the world comes out of these kinds of conceptions that are before you and they're after you and they, you know, in a certain way kind of designate where you're going to go in thought and where you're going to go as a people that you can't
	Well, sure.
	But in a sense, when you're trying to essentially create a project in which the universe and the human is all quantitative, and it's all the matter of the technology liberating us from our human nature that we inherit from the world and from our biology and from...
	Well, you're going to end up with the same kind of problem.
	There's no way around it.
	And it's the same reason that Marxism was not a good answer either, because in the same sense, it kind of created this scientific materialist understanding of which the end of history would be realized in the matter that there'd be this absolute freedom that we would progress that way from some kind of perfect understanding of how, you know, the economic realm played out, how these, you know, these means of production, this class warfare.
	Would lead us to this ideal state.
	It comes out of the same ideology, that you could somehow reconfigure human nature and you could ignore these very primordial elements of what makes us who we are.
	And you're going to end up at the same point.
	And I think any kind of genuine philosophy for the future, something that we would need to take up, would require understanding at least a kind of sense of who we are as a people.
	And that would be the only real challenge.
	And I don't mean just us as white people, but humanity in general.
	What exactly that means to be human, and that in itself would be a bulwark against the idea that the liberation of humanity from our kind of inherited nature through technology.
	I don't think it would.
	Yeah, real quick.
	Unquestionably, people in the 1950s, the 1850s, the 1750s did not.
	I think that what they were doing was leading up to Caitlyn Jenner and this very depressing case in Texas, but you can understand the beginnings and origins of their ideas by ultimately viewing their outcome.
	I mean, we do live in their wake, and we can understand the foundations of America by looking at where it is now, and not just merely being a reactionary and saying, it was better 50 years ago.
	Yeah, it was better 50 years ago.
	It was also...
	And that's just a very limp response to this problem as opposed to saying, no, actually America was wrong from the very beginning.
	There is something profoundly wicked in its origins that led here.
	And that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of redeemable things about America's past, but to just...
	Try to wish it away and think that we can just turn back the clock a few decades or maybe a century or maybe a few centuries is, again, it's that kind of mirror reaction that we absolutely need to get away from.
	It is also interesting in the future.
	I do think that we will simply need to assert things and assert them differently, as opposed to asserting things like natural law or God-given rights or things like that.
	I think we actually will have to force people to be free in the sense that we will assert certain aspects of human nature that won't be questioned, and that these questions will have been answered, and we will not discuss this anymore.
	We are not going to have another debate about whether an eight-year-old is a transsexual.
	And we will assert that using the power of the state and the power of law.
	And we will just simply have to do that.
	And, you know, you can say, oh, gosh, how fascist and whatever.
	But again...
	That fascist term is just a way, it's liberal blackmail, it's just a way for them to avoid actually answering these questions.
	And yeah, there's no question that politics in the future, it's going to be a kind of culture war, it's going to be a philosophical war, not in the way that that term is used by Charlie Kirk, but we will absolutely have to answer certain questions about the nature of man for us to move forward.
	Very well said.
	Since you mentioned Charlie Kirk, I think this is probably a good opportunity to discuss a series of videos that have been floating around Twitter and elsewhere on the internet, which I think before the call started, before the show started, Richard, you referred to them as Chad Catholics or something like that.
	I don't know who these young men are, but there's a group of these young guys and they are going to these culture war broadcasts or college lectures, whatever they are.
	And they're antagonizing Charlie Kirk about the relationship that we have with Israel, paying them $3.8 billion a year, bringing up the USS Liberty.
	In one video, a guy – It's like, we're giving them money to blow up children.
	I don't think I'm putting words in his mouth.
	I mean, almost like Ed's Lord Twitter type of comments, but in this very open public forum.
	And Charlie Kirk responded in the very predictable way.
	What was your impression of this, Richard?
	Well, look, I think it's great.
	I also think there's some limitations to that.
	But first off, I'll talk about the great stuff.
	I mean, Charlie Kirk is kind of fascinating.
	And just in the...
	The boy band quality of him.
	He came out of nowhere.
	I don't know if anyone had heard of him before, say, 2014, and then he's sitting on this, you know, multi-million dollar 501c3, which is, you know, the envy of all these other conservative organizations that have tried to gain traction for decades.
	He did it.
	He's a campus activist, yet he has no degree.
	I think he might have attended a semester of college or something, which I've always found rather...
	It's funny, but kind of, I don't know, perfect in a way.
	But he is a boy band, and what I mean by that is that the normal stories of rock bands is that they get together, they're friends, and they don't even know how to play instruments, and they play pubs for four years, and they put out their first album, and then by album, like three or four, they're actually good.
	And with a boy band, it is basically producers.
	They retro-engineer a group, and so they have an idea of what they want in the sense of this poppy, bubblegum, appeal to teenage girls type thing, and then they go out and they find the talent, and they just create this band, New Kids on the Block, NSYNC, etc.
	I'm sure there are many more that I don't know about.
	The Spice Girls, all that kind of stuff.
	And he kind of is this in the sense that he is...
	Perfectly retroengineered for this time.
	He is evoking MAGA populism to some degree.
	He is a fierce defender of the president.
	I think he actually will probably defend him.
	He knows where he has to be right now as a conservative.
	And so he's doing this culture war college tour.
	And he's going up there, you know, evoking Pat Buchanan, evoking Pat's most famous or notorious speech from 1992.
	And while Pat was talking about...
	We shouldn't allow gays on TV, and the police should justifiably crack down on the LA rioters.
	That's what he was actually talking about in that speech.
	Now it's, we need to confront Iran because they throw gays off buildings and don't allow transsexuals.
	So that's literally where we've come.
	The culture war almost means the exact opposite of what it used to mean.
	And that is remarkable.
	So he's an interesting figure.
	He is perfectly chosen for this time.
	The fact that he's answering these questions so emphatically and he has a set answer for them means that he's prepared.
	He knows about this stuff.
	He's ready to denounce it.
	I would say this.
	When I was 20 years old in college in, you know, 1999 or whatever, I did not know what the USS Liberty was.
	And I certainly was reading radical philosophy or something, but I did not have edgy opinions because the web was just in an infant state at that point.
	And now these 20-year-old kids know about this stuff.
	They have facts.
	They're owning with facts and logic, and they can get it on YouTube, they can get it on Twitter.
	So things have advanced.
	I mean, there are some good things to say about this.
	But in terms of limitations of it, there are limitations as well.
	I mean, first off, we kind of have done this before.
	You saw a lot of this with the Milo College Tour.
	And I don't want to make this all about my personal pleading, but it's kind of like...
	We, at one point, had our own college tour, in which we didn't have to go in the comments section and troll the comments section.
	We actually had our people putting forth radical ideas, and a lot of the alt-right was at the end of it, rejecting it and calling it cringe or whatever.
	That was a lot more powerful than this.
	So we've kind of stepped back, to be frank.
	And I'm not against it.
	So I don't want everyone to think, oh, I'm countersignaling these kids.
	I'm glad they're doing it.
	They're smart kids.
	And that's good.
	And this is a lot better than where we were when I was in college.
	But it's kind of not enough, guys.
	And we've already done this as well.
	And just being the people who are like cranks in the comment section is really limiting.
	We want to be the article, not the comment section.
	Yeah, very well said.
	The use of this term culture war, I'm teeing you up for a big one here, Mark.
	Very Caducean in the sense that we're commandeering this concept and then using it to ultimately put forth the exact same land project.
	What do you see in this Charlie Kirk phenomenon, Mark?
	Yeah, good use of the word Caducean.
	I actually, I mean, yeah, I think it's exactly what Richard said.
	I mean, I don't have many points to disagree.
	I mean, it is a kind of shadow of the alt-right, right?
	It's the alt-light, and the alt-light has become more robust in a lot of ways than it was previously.
	So I think that they realize, this false opposition, as it were, realizes that this has to be, the alt light has to grow into a kind of robust movement.
	So it's a fascinating thing to watch.
	Whereas, you know, six years ago or seven years ago, they wouldn't want a robust alt light, right?
	Yeah.
	So I guess that is a sort of positive development in the sense that the Overton window has moved.
	You know, things increasingly are becoming polarized, as I was talking about earlier.
	You know, one thing that we didn't mention, for example, is these Proud Boys got arrested and they were put in jail for four years.
	That's that's a kind of remarkable thing that's happened, because if you watch the video, it was basically a melee between two parties.
	Now, granted.
	The Proud Boys probably outweighed each one by 100 pounds each.
	It doesn't matter.
	It was a melee between two parties that were both involved in a fight.
	And I think the story is that the Antifa kind of characteristically started the melee.
	Oh, of course.
	Yeah.
	So now, these guys should not have gone to jail, let alone for four years.
	I mean, it's a kind of insane miscarriage of justice in my mind.
	Because it was a fight.
	That was not started by them.
	They were basically defending themselves.
	They might have been a little excessive in their reaction.
	Maybe a slap on the wrist could have been warranted.
	But going to jail for four years?
	Now, the judge in that case was saying that he sort of evoked the...
	The pre-Hitler period, the 1930s, in that, like, if we allow these sort of street battles to take place, then next thing you'll know, next thing you'll know, fascism will have taken hold in the United States.
	Now, I mean, the truth is, actually, that this is actually the worst thing.
	This is actually a kind of worse reaction, because now everyone, you know, and now kind of relatively mainstream Republicans are reacting to this and saying, hey, that's a miscarriage of justice, right?
	Yeah.
	It allowed this kind of like kind of relatively innocuous street battle to occur that most people would not have been aware of otherwise.
	Then people just would not have been aware of it.
	But now there are these kind of mainstream Republicans rallying to the Proud Boys.
	So, I mean, there are errors being made.
	Now, it's not like it's not like the judge is necessarily some act.
	I don't know that he was.
	I haven't looked at the case very closely.
	And he probably was, he could have just been sort of a kind of mainstream sort of increased polarization.
	He failed.
	I mean, it's exactly, he heightened the sort of salience of the case by putting these guys in jail for four years.
	And he made them a kind of sympathetic case to the broader, you know, sort of Republican or conservative movement.
	So it was a good thing.
	I mean, for, you know, this sort of the accelerating pluralization, it was obviously a terrible and tragic thing for these young men who have to go to jail for four years.
	But, you know, I mean, things so things will continue apace.
	But as Richard was saying earlier, I think there is going to be a relative silence because they are actively suppressing voices on the right now.
	That's the difference.
	But people are not becoming less radical.
	People are becoming more radical.
	And, you know, because the kind of the chains have been sort of we've been sort of unshackled.
	I mean, we've kind of been psychologically unshackled in this country and there's no going back.
	So the confrontation that lies.
	So what we can predict and people in the movement have been predicting this for a very long time is that this kind of corporate and even state suppression will.
	And that's what we'll face.
	And they're not going to sort of just give up on their sort of hold on power.
	They will eventually lose their power, but it's a kind of, I think there's going to be a kind of dark struggle ahead.
	So there has been a campaign, a conscious campaign, to demoralize us for a very long period of time.
	Just us now being aware that it is a conscious campaign is a kind of moralizing, liberating thing.
	Because what we're facing, what we're looking at right now is the cheerleaders on the other side of the football field.
	That's basically what we're looking at now, right?
	But now we're becoming aware that it is actually a football game that we're in.
	We're actually in a contest, right?
	And now we know this is all kind of bullshit.
	And we can react accordingly, you know?
	So I think that these things...
	You know, what's the kind of old sort of hackneyed aphorism?
	You know, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
	And so I think that there is going to be a kind of distilling and purifying of people that are involved in this movement.
	And we kind of had this conversation last time that there is a kind of middle class sort of disappeared from the movement, it seemed, to some extent, right?
	There was a kind of normie sort of middle class in the movement.
	including some of the guys that were holding torches at Charlottesville.
	Like it had become sort of mainstream and it had become a kind of middle class movement to one extent or another, at least among sort of young men.
	But that kind of evaporated after Charlottesville to one extent or another.
	What remained were people who were highly intelligent and just not pussies, basically.
	And then another element remained as well that we talked about on the last podcast.
	some elements that are, Augustus is probably dealing with right now.
	But who are just not good people.
	You know what I mean?
	Who are just kind of like trashy people and are doing this because it's a kind of heretical movement and they're not going to win in life in any case.
	So they may as well kind of lose in a sort of dramatic fashion.
	Telling people to fuck off in the process, right?
	So in that, you can kind of respect.
	It's the guy at the football game who runs out onto the field naked from the stands, basically.
	Yeah, and so that's what we're seeing.
	We're seeing a kind of purifying and distillment of the movement, I would say.
	And again, as the going gets tough, the tough get going.
	And I think that the...
	Their side, the wheels are coming off the cart.
	Because they're dealing with a problem.
	Their tension is they want to demoralize us, but they don't want to piss us off.
	I've discussed this before, right?
	Like, they want to walk, they want to kind of demoralize us in a sort of subtle and gradual enough manner that we're just not like, hey, you know what?
	Trannies?
	Like, that shit happened overnight.
	It was like five years ago.
	We didn't have this sort of phenomenon known as trannies as a mainstream thing.
	That happened overnight.
	And so they may have hit the accelerator a little too aggressively on some of these things.
	Now, people are bunkered down to one extent or another, but they're also getting more intelligent.
	They're also thinking of ways to get around this block, right?
	So we're going to be forced to become more intelligent, and we are becoming more intelligent.
	The people that I encounter in this movement are more intelligent than the people that I encountered previously in the movement.
	I mean, it's just there has been a kind of like...
	A kind of incremental IQ upgrade in the movement among, you know, admittedly a sort of small population in the movement.
	But you only need a small population, right?
	They have a small population.
	Yeah, they have a small population.
	So that's what we're seeing now.
	We're seeing kind of evolution at work.
	We're seeing nature, you know, firsthand.
	And we're getting smarter and we're getting leaner and stronger in some ways.
	One thing that I wanted to mention that I didn't say before is this girl, Samantha, that was in the movement, she tells a story that I think is probably a true story, that she was dating a guy and that's how she got into the movement.
	She'd been dating a guy that she said that she'd fallen in love with a guy.
	And he was talking about...
	Turner Diaries.
	You know, real, like, 1.0 stuff.
	And, like, there's going to be a day of the rope, right?
	He's telling that, you know...
	And this chick just happened to be, you know, unfortunate enough to, like, fall in love with this fucking weirdo, right?
	So, and he's saying, you know, there's going to be a day where they're going to be hanging people.
	And I actually think that that's probably...
	Like, I don't think that...
	I don't think that she's just sort of, like, selecting the most extreme thing that she heard in the movement.
	Maybe she's doing that.
	But I think it sounded credible to me that the first person that she encountered and she was dating was this guy that was into Turner's Diary and was talking about Day of the Rope, right?
	That's an immature fucking movement.
	Those idiots.
	We don't need those idiots.
	They sort of failed an evolutionary test by being that idiot.
	The guy failed an evolutionary test.
	So now, you know, those were some of the elements.
	Obviously, there were many elements, and I talked about a kind of middle-class element that was in the enormity middle-class element that was in the movement.
	So that guy was kind of an outlier within the movement.
	But there were these sort of remnant parts of 1.0, effectively.
	And that hurt us.
	But who cares?
	It hurt us, but it was a kind of necessary sort of evolutionary process.
	That had to happen.
	We had to sort of go through that.
	Because we were a young movement, you know, just waking up to the fact that we were actually at war, you know?
	Yeah.
	Anyways, sorry.
	Yeah, and we were at a point where things were growing and everything was exciting.
	We didn't really want to push people away.
	And so it's kind of like, all right, well, you came through that direction.
	That's okay.
	We're all here now.
	But...
	Obviously, that kind of tolerance is ultimately not good.
	But again, I don't want to get into a kind of optics kind of thing where it's like, oh, these idiots are so bad, you know, whatever.
	No, like there are going to be some...
	Imperfect people are going to come to this movement.
	And I actually feel like there are other elements that are actually more toxic.
	The people who, like Patrick Casey, for instance, who just, their MO is demoralizing the movement itself and basically defining yourself as, oh, I'm, you know, this kind of middle class status signaling.
	Oh, I'm not like those guys, kind of thing.
	I think that is probably more toxic.
	But, yeah, no, in terms of...
	I mean, to your point, though, about Casey, I did see that he was kind of strawmanning a white nationalism, for example.
	Right.
	You know, and I was thinking, you know, I mean, obviously you have this sort of history with Casey, and...
	I don't even have a history.
	I don't know him at all.
	I have no interest in him whatsoever.
	It's just, you know, so much of what he was doing was geared towards we need to have this group that will never have anything to do with Richard Spencer, basically.
	And, you know, it's like, all right, guys, congratulations.
	You achieved that objective.
	You're the most, like, demoralizing, genuinely sad organization, I think.
	I would offer this as kind of an honest piece of advice to Casey, which is that it is kind of this sort of a mention that we used to have of don't punch right.
	And a lot of times there's actually no value in punching right.
	But one guy that was kind of a master of this was Pap Buchanan.
	The guy never punched right, right?
	Yeah, and he was effectively a civic nationalist, as far as anyone could tell, right?
	So, the guy never punched Wright.
	He never criticized.
	He wasn't even punishing.
	You know, you can punch Wright if you need to, like if someone's doing something wrong, but it's like, Pat Buchanan never defined himself as, oh, I'm not a Nazi.
	I'm actually the good guy that you can deal with.
	He never, in his entire career, defined himself in that way.
	And yet, that is...
	Exactly how this post-2016 GOP Zoomer group defined themselves.
	Again, it was bad for the movement for a long time, but I think it's also clear that these guys are not going anywhere.
	Everything they claim is obviously false.
	I don't see them...
	Getting mainstream acceptance anytime soon.
	So I think it's kind of over, but it is worth just kind of dealing with it and kind of having our antennae up when similar people come in saying this kind of stuff.
	This kind of intramural status signaling of, oh, but I'm the one who's pragmatic and so on.
	Whenever I hear that, I just...
	Yeah.
	You're dealing with someone who's not serious.
	He ends up effectively treating us in the way that the old light treats him, right?
	Right.
	So he's created this kind of narrow corridor for himself that's neither appealing to the people on the right of him nor appealing to the people on the left of him.
	Right.
	So it doesn't benefit him is what I'm saying.
	Ultimately.
	So I would just offer that to him as just a kind of honest piece of advice.
	And Flentes as well.
	Yeah, no, I get it.
	And, you know, Fuentes is like this little, like, you know, evil, like, sort of puppet-like figure.
	But I, you know, still, I would offer him that advice.
	I think it's actually intelligent for the guy not to do that.
	Because neither of those guys are getting accepted.
	It worked for them at a time.
	I know.
	They're not getting accepted to the matron.
	It worked for them at a time because the movement was so demoralized.
	And so that rung true for a lot of people at a time.
	But, you know, again, that act only came out.
	Tyler, some months ago, actually in my program, you expressed the need to kind of retake the universities or not abandon the universities.
	And Richard made a point earlier about how there was a time not too long ago where, to use an analogy, Do you see a future for retaking university activism, whether it's in the form of the 2015-2016 speeches Richard and others gave?
	Do you see any utility in that in the present or in the future?
	Well, I certainly see a utility in the sense of how I'm...
	Personally doing it, maybe I shouldn't go too much into it because I'm still in it.
	But what I'll say, though, I do think it's completely necessary.
	And I guess the way I'll go about this is because me and Josh, we were on that Goist talk stream last week about grifting, right?
	And the message I wanted to get across was that that conversation was not actually about funding.
	What that conversation was about was a...
	At least from the detractors' point of view, to our suggestions that we need to become professional, we need to get involved in these kind of institutions of power, which these battles are actually taking place in.
	They're not happening with guns, they're happening with ideology, and they're happening at an institutional level.
	And it seemed to me the uniting thread between the detractors as well as the Casey-style amnets was a stunning lack of imagination.
	That's what it seemed to me that...
	This was actually about.
	It wasn't about funding.
	It was about the lack of imagination.
	It was a sense in which they kind of exhausted their avenues of thought.
	We haven't had anything more to say about it or where to go in the future.
	And so it's essentially, you know, it's a battle over people who don't want to take it to the next level and understand that becoming the article, not the comments, takes real risk and sacrifice.
	And just to put this into perspective, Yoram Hazoni, the guy who wrote Virtue of Nationalism, he recently did an interview.
	This is what he said, and this should be very telling to everybody.
	He said, the reason I do the work that I do is because we're trying to articulate a national conservatism that will oppose the global liberal order that is not bound up with concepts of race or biology, but instead our own kind of individualistic liberal order version, but somehow in a nationalist context.
	In other words, He was saying that he's scared of what we could possibly come up with as an alternative.
	So these people, without their imagination, suggesting that we're somehow outside of the arena, we are not.
	They are completely scared of what we could come up with.
	But the fact of the matter is, we're largely repeating a lot of the same sort of talking points and the same arguments and these same squabbles.
	But in reality, we have an immense task ahead of us, which is kind of re-articulating these new foundations for where we should move forward.
	And this should be the task that's occupied.
	Whether that be working on funding, professionalization, new articulations, new foundations.
	This is an arena that we need to re-enter.
	This is not something that we could stay outside of and just expect other people to do the work for us.
	It's going to take risk.
	It's going to take sacrifice.
	And it's going to take professionals that are willing to do the work.
	And it's going to be a lot of uncertain work.
	And we don't know where we're going.
	But regardless of that arena, we're in it whether we like it or not.
	And there's no getting out of it.
	Yeah, very well said.
	And also, Harzoni, and I could sense this unquestionably when Harzoni came on the scene, and the fact that you found this interview where he just expressed it is interesting.
	But yeah, we are in the arena, even if we are kind of silently there in the sense that people are reacting to us.
	But the answer to that is not to sound like them.
	It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if you really want to change the world.
	If you've been red-pilled in the...
	Deeper sense of that word in the sense that it has changed you to go and then say, oh, let's mimic all the people who are trying to steal our thunder and destroy us.
	That's the way to win.
	No, you are becoming like them.
	You are doing the exact same function as them.
	You're leading us off into all of these dead ends and meaningless virtue signaling against the movement.
	So it's the exact opposite of what we need to do.
	We need to become more radical.
	And no, that doesn't mean we need to become stupider or more bombastic or whatever.
	Maybe here and there.
	But no, it does mean that we need to be who we are, our radical selves, and not mimic people who are attempting to destroy us.
	Absolutely.
	Agreed.
	So, on that note...
	We will end this edition of the Nick Spencer Group.
	Thank you, Tyler, for joining us this week.
	It was a great program and we hope you enjoy it.

▲