The American Republic is, seemingly, in peril. The President has been impeached and denounced as a traitor on the floor of the Senate—not to mention cruelly dissed by Franciscan she-devil, Nancy Pelosi. And yet Trump’s status has never really been in doubt. A thousand miles away, in Iowa, chaos reigns. The first Caucus to determine the Democratic nominee was badly botched by a faulty app, developed by a bunch of incompetent Hillary insiders. No one knows who won. Conspiracy theories abound. All we do know is that Pete Buttigieg has assumed the throne as the Cornfield Queen. With all the markings of Banana Republic . . . with democracy itself in question . . . nothing much seems to have changed. Come for the political discussion. Stay for Ed’s excruciating analysis of the homosexual personality, from (ahem) top to bottom. 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
It's Wednesday, February 5th, and welcome back to...
The McSpencer Group.
Still undecided, with 60% of precincts reporting.
Top issue.
Situation normal.
All effed up.
The American Republic is seemingly in peril.
The President has been impeached and denounced as a traitor on the floor of the Senate.
Not to mention cruelly dissed by Franciscan she-devil Nancy Pelosi.
And yet...
Trump's status has never really been in doubt.
A thousand miles away in Iowa, chaos reigns.
The first caucus to determine the Democratic nominee was badly botched by a faulty app developed by a bunch of incompetent Hillary insiders.
No one knows who won.
Conspiracy theories abound.
All we do know is that Pete Buttigieg has assumed the throne as the cornfield queen.
With all the markings of a banana republic, With democracy itself in question, nothing much seems to have changed.
Come for the political discussion.
Stay for Ed's excruciating analysis of the homosexual personality from top to bottom.
It reminds me of Britain before the election.
The way that Britain was just two sides that hate each other, that can't come to an agreement, that can't move forward.
And then there's something that breaks the barrier.
There's something that has to give.
Yeah.
And that's it.
It's given.
And to be in a situation where they hate each other so much that he won't shake her hand, which goes against all protocol in these kinds of situations.
And then I thought it was extraordinary that she ripped up his speech.
The very thought of it, I mean, the very thought, like the British state opening of Parliament, the leader of the opposition taking the Queen's speech and tearing it up.
It's unthinkable.
I mean, she seems like she's mentally unstable to do something like that.
I can't believe that her advisors would have said, yes, do that.
It seems like it was spontaneous.
Extraordinary thing to do.
It might have been spontaneous or it might have actually been planned because she's Nancy Pelosi has made much ado about these little bitchy gestures.
So there was actually one photo of her in a room with Trump.
I can't quite remember what they were talking about.
And she was standing up or something like that.
And she was posting that everywhere of, you know, Nancy Pelosi, the spearhead of the resistance.
And then in the last State of the Union address a year ago, she sarcastically clapped at Trump like that.
And that was also played up on Twitter.
It became a meme and so on.
So I would not be surprised if that tearing up the speech was some semi-preplanned thing of like, basically, let's go make a meme tonight.
And she didn't.
And again, it's all nonsense.
Both sides are rightfully angry.
I mean, he didn't shake her hand as well, which is not, you know, it's reasonable to shake someone's hand.
He's being...
She has worked with him in the past.
They did a bill together in 2017 and so on.
So he's just being a jerk.
But it doesn't actually change anything.
It just basically activates the bases of both sides.
I found the whole thing a bit unbearable.
I mean, after she does it on Twitter, you have all these alt-right figures like Stefan Molyneux and they're so outraged.
It's like, oh, I can't even.
She ripped up the speech.
You know, one time I think she was clapping along with him was when they were celebrating this Venezuelan opposition leader.
And it's like, it just sort of underlies this fact that, like, on all the key policy issues, there's a really huge difference there.
And, like, you know, just this, like, left-right, the Democrats, all this stuff, like, it's just, it kind of belies how similar they are and that Trump hasn't really accomplished anything in three years.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, I did a tweetstorm on this about actually Nancy Pelosi's earlier career as Speaker of the House, which the Democrats took over the House in something that was a lot like the Tea Party election, actually, in 2006.
And it was basically after George W. Bush's re-election.
And it was at a point where the Iraq War had just lost all legitimacy or most all legitimacy among the public.
And it was like, we need to get these crazy religious lunatics out, and we need to put in good centrist Democrats to make America great again.
And there was a major push to impeach George W. Bush, or at the very least, disclose and have a...
Congressional hearing on the Iraq War, crimes, lies, and so on.
And Nancy Pelosi squashed it almost immediately.
And she said, oh, we have an election.
We're having a new one coming up.
We should move forward and not go back to the past.
And so where we are right now is this point in which impeachment, even though it has legal trappings and so on, is...
It's highly political, and it is political in its essence, but it's also partisan and kind of unserious.
At no point would Donald Trump be questioned by Congress about, what are you doing in Venezuela?
Why are you declaring this man who you plucked out of the garden or he came out of the woodwork, you're declaring he's the rightful leader of a country?
No, they don't talk about this.
They instead talk about some, you know, tiny little thing of, you know...
Trump is bullying Ukraine in order to get dirt on Biden.
Well, he probably was doing something like that, but who cares?
And so you have this heightened rhetoric, but then no substance.
So the Democrats are going out there using the T word.
They're saying treason and so on.
If you're caught doing treason, the punishment is death.
I mean, this is like as serious as you can get.
Yet they ultimately know that nothing's really going to happen.
He's going to be acquitted today.
And they're not going to talk about actually serious issues because they're completely aligned on those issues.
You know, Nancy Pelosi, you know, oh, she hates Trump.
He's a fascist.
I mean, look at the reaction to the killing of Soleimani.
They'll clap alongside him.
Look at the reaction to the killing of Soleimani.
Surely there's grounds for potential impeachment there, but you didn't really see any strong criticism from the Democrats.
It was all this legalistic stuff like, oh, he didn't go through the right means, blah, blah, blah.
But there was no actual opposition to him killing the man.
No.
No.
You should have talked to us first, even though we're actually well beyond that, and that was an issue.
We would have approved it, but you should have shown it to us anyway.
Yeah, exactly.
And they would have given him a blank check anyway.
So what's the whole point of going to Congress?
Is it personal between them, do you think, that she can see parts of herself in Trump that she hates and vice versa?
They seem quite similar in terms of backgrounds.
They're both extremely wealthy backgrounds.
He's this hereditary businessman.
She's this hereditary politician.
Her father was the representative for Maryland or something, was it?
A mayor of Baltimore.
Her brother was mayor of Baltimore.
She's an aristocrat, so she's a Democrat aristocrat, like Al Gore.
You get so many of them.
They wax lyrical about the importance of helping the poor and whatever, and they're all from fantastically wealthy backgrounds that have never done a proper business work in their lives.
And she sees this in Trump.
It's the same reflected back at her.
It's the same kind of almost narcissism in some ways reflected back at her.
So she hates him and he hates her.
It's a personal thing.
It seems personal.
Yeah, there was a bit of a wealthy boomer-on-boomer violence going on there.
Yeah, I think it's about that, but it's, again, about this partisanship, which, at least for the time being, is actually stable.
In the sense that people are getting very mad and they hate the other side in a way that we didn't see even as late as the 90s or even the early 2000s.
They absolutely loathe the other side, but then due to the intractable nature of this...
Red-blue divide, nothing actually changes.
So Trump hasn't done much of anything.
And the things he takes credit for, he shouldn't.
The stock market's up or whatever.
Fed is just goosing the markets.
So there's this heightened rhetoric and heightened hatred, but then no actual substance, no policy is actually changing.
I think one of the real divides...
One of the real divides that's noticeable from the outside is that American politics seems to be split into people that think America is still, you know, something to be governed according to principles and to meet certain ideals.
And then people that think basically America is something that is on its last legs and just to get as much out of it as you can before it goes.
like AOC, I think it was AOC, no, it was Ilhan Omar posted a picture of her with some other brown female member of Congress and was like, this is what America looks like now, deal with it, you know, like rubbing people's face in it.
And then at the same time, you know, you have, again, people in the alt-right that are like posting pictures of all the Democrats wearing white.
And it's like, oh, the Dems never changed.
They're still wearing white robes.
And, you know, still playing these ridiculous games of universal principles.
And Trump, like Trump in 2016 was the latter.
He was, you know, one of the things He labelled the system corrupt, he labelled it failing, and he was basically going to get as much out of it as he could.
was going to go in as the sort of amoral billionaire and take as much out of it as he could for his base.
But now in the speech he's gone the other side and he is a The thing that's different...
Yeah, same speech, same conservatives are writing the speech.
I think what's slightly different is the, you know, kind of maudlin tales of illegal immigrants killing Americans or something.
I don't think Jeb would have done that, to be fair.
But in terms of would Jeb be bringing the same people up to, you know, this black single mom and her child and talk about school choice, which is a disastrous policy and not anything we should...
Support, by the way.
But also, bringing out this puppet.
Leader of Venezuela and calling him legitimate, of course Jeb would do that.
So Hillary would do it.
I mean, again, it's like they hate each other with such furious passion, yet they're the same.
And nothing is actually really fundamentally changing.
It's just a remarkable state that we're in right now.
She should stand to be the Democrat presidential candidate.
That would be a true battle to the death.
It would be a true grudge match.
Yes.
That would be more safe than Hillary.
Sepertinarian.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
But this is where we are.
On YouTube yesterday, I saw this video of Steve Bannon being interviewed on Fox Business Channel with...
This woman, I think I'm forgetting her name, Marina Bartolombo, or I'm mispronouncing it.
But anyway, she's a Republican-aligned, pro-business type person.
She's fairly smart.
And she was talking with Bannon.
And I was thinking to myself, Trump might very well win again.
Ironically, using Bannonism.
And it's not necessarily the tough talk on immigration and foreign policy, but it's basically this focusing on impeachment as...
As the issue that you should be voting on in a presidential election.
And basically saying, Bannon was saying, in his words, this is the crime of the century.
This was an attempted coup.
You have to tell them no.
And so on.
And I can see that working.
And the Democrats are just giving...
I mean, they are in such a great position to win.
Even the fact that he's an incumbent notwithstanding.
And they just giving him all of the messaging, the you know, this botched fake impeachment.
They can't they're playing dirty tricks or they're extremely incompetent or some kind of combination in their own primaries.
No one has any faith in that party.
It's kind of viewed as this dark, sinister organization picking elections.
What they are doing right now is incomprehensible.
Whereas if they could just ride it out and not poke the bear too hard, I think they could actually easily win in 2020.
And I'm questioning whether they can beat even Trump in 2020.
And I'm not particularly enthused by that, to be honest, because that means another four years of...
White America and the alt-right being deluded.
But, you know, there it is.
That's the main difference between a Jeb presidency and a Trump presidency, is that if Jeb had been elected, no one from the alt-right in 2016 would be defending this stuff.
But now when it's this choice of, well, do we support this or do we support a Democrat that's going to throw us in gulags?
Which is the perception among a lot of the right, that's a much more difficult choice.
And unfortunately, you know, Trump is kind of the worst of both worlds because he gives you the typical neocon globalist policies.
But the left still perceive him as a racist nationalist and his supporters and, you know, what was the alt-right still take the flack for that as if he is those things.
It really is the worst of every world, and it is definitely something of a dilemma.
You know, what do you do if you're a racially conscious American for this election?
Yeah.
I mean, that is a serious question.
I'm...
I'm certainly considering voting for either Tulsi Gabbard or Bernie Sanders and not on accelerationist grounds or something like that.
Like, let's make it so much worse.
If I were to do that, I would write in Ilhan Omar.
But just in the sense that...
Putting the immigration and the diversity stuff aside, I actually agree with them on more issues than I agree with Trump on.
But she can't stand, though.
This Ilhan Omar person, she can't stand.
She's not a native-born American.
She can't stand in the election.
Yeah, that is true.
You should vote for this Pete Buttigieg person.
That's why I think you should definitely vote for him.
Okay.
He's fascinating.
Let's talk about Mayor Pete.
Mayo Pete, as he's called on the far left.
Oh, yes.
I'll just go first.
I truly despise Pete Buttigieg in a way that I certainly don't despise Tulsi and Bernie.
Bernie is an authentic...
20th century social democrat.
He's bowing to woke pressure, but I actually don't think his heart is in wokeness or Me Too.
I think that's clear.
Whether he's able to resist it or reverse it is unclear and dubious.
Tulsi, I think, is just generally good.
I mean, I don't...
I would say more or less the same thing about her.
She is an authentic, real candidate.
I don't know.
I don't really hate Amy Klobuchar.
She just is what she is.
I don't have a...
Biden's just Joe Biden.
He's this delusional...
Early onset Alzheimer's case and a blowhard and a liar, but he is what he is.
Everyone knows it.
Buttigieg, I think, is so just demoralizing because he's such an obvious little weasel sociopath.
And his policies are Joe Biden.
He is a neocon, neoliberal, centrist who speaks in a kind of Midwestern twang of like, my policies are plenty bold and all this kind of thing.
So he would basically represent...
The continuation of boomer centrism ad infinitum.
So it's much worse.
You know, Joe Biden might very well die soon or be in an old folks home.
And I, of course, wish him well.
I would never wish him to be in that state.
It just is what it is.
Buttigieg is 37. I mean, he's Ed's age.
Even though Ed is on the interior.
At 39, okay.
He's younger than Ed, but on the interior, Ed, you're well into your 80s, so I'm not sure it actually counts.
Or maybe living in the 19th century, perhaps.
I like him.
He's a young millennial who is just continuing.
All of the nonsense.
It's like so demoralizing in the sense that we'll never get out of this.
We are going to be going down the Americanist centrism line until 2080.
And it's just, I truly despise him.
He does strike me as the most weasley sociopathic candidate.
Just kind of this little guy checking off all the boxes on his resume.
Like, you know, oh, I was in the military.
Oh, I was a Rhodes Scholar.
Oh, I speak Finnish.
Does he speak Finnish?
He might not speak Finnish.
I think he speaks Norwegian maybe or something.
He speaks multiple languages.
He did a Norwegian course at Pembroke College, Oxford.
I believe that's right.
I believe I heard that.
Right.
But he is just unbelievably annoying and I absolutely cannot stand him.
He is my least favourite candidate.
I've got a question about him though.
Is he a queer?
I'll do that a bit later.
Up the...
And...
laughter laughter laughter You're meant to say...
Well, some people have actually questioned because he's such a little weasel that he might have understood where politics was going circa 2011 and decided, hmm, see, I'm going to be gay, but then I'm going to quote the Bible and I'll be kind of conservative.
And so...
So some people have become people who are birthers.
You're meant to say he looks like a queer.
He sounds like a queer on the wireless.
He probably is a queer.
Although he does quote the Bible, which would militate against him being a queer.
But the point is that quoting the Bible is an interesting one because homosexual males are more religious than heterosexual males.
Because they have feminized minds.
So there's various theories as to what causes homosexuality.
But one of those theories is that it is good to have...
A certain degree of feminization is selected in men.
So females are sexually selected for masculine men, but they also like some qualities in men that are feminine, such as looking after them and not just pumping and dumping, whatever.
Feminine qualities.
And so consequently, you get these feminine qualities within the male gene pool, and sometimes they all manifest in one child, and that child is gay, or indeed a homosexual, transsexual.
And so that's one theory.
Another theory is that there's something wrong with the mother, so that the mother reacts to the male hormones that are released by a male fetus by flooding it with the immune system, floods it with these female hormones, and some of these will get through the amniotic sac.
And they will influence the child.
And if the child has a poor immune system, or the mother has an overactive immune system, then this will feminize the child.
It will literally physically feminize it.
Homosexuals have more feminized hands than heterosexual males.
They are physically shorter.
And you note that he's short.
I have noticed that among gays.
There's the so-called gay face that kind of seems rounder and softer.
Yes, feminizes the face.
And they kind of look like kids or something.
That's right.
It feminizes the face.
They're more likely to be left-handed.
Left-handedness is a...
It betokens something having gone wrong early in development.
Left-handedness.
One of the markers of this.
And so...
That's left-handed, by the way.
I confirmed this.
Oh, yes.
I was born three months early, so it's an example of something having gone wrong early in Are you left-handed, Richard?
No, I'm right.
Okay.
So left-handedness correlates with two things.
It correlates, therefore, with developmental instability, an example of which is homosexuality, but also being very, very manly.
So men are more left-handed than women, and high-testosterone men are, ironically, more left-handed than low-testosterone men.
So it's a strange kind of paradox there.
And it feminizes the mind, which would be consistent, therefore, with doing an arts degree.
It would be consistent with liking to wear a military uniform, you know, liking to sit at the captain's table.
And Germany messing about.
His military career was basically the village people.
I think that's the impression.
That's the general impression, I guess.
It was like Mr. Garrison fighting a Vietnam War in South Park where they're all on these different rides and so on.
It's like that.
Freedom, boys!
I can just imagine him being the only one that unironically believed in all the rhetoric.
Yes.
He feminizes the mind.
He feminizes the body, also feminizes the mind.
They have a feminine intelligence profile, homosexuals, so more high linguistic intelligence.
You talk about him learning languages.
You talk about him learning languages.
Yeah, of course.
Women are better at learning languages than men.
Women have higher linguistic intelligence than men.
Two reasons.
A, they just have to talk more and gossip and whatever.
And B, maybe the idea that they are...
He's taken captive in prehistory by other tribes, and the ones that are better at learning languages are less likely to be killed.
But for whatever reason, they're better at learning languages.
So he has all of these different markers of it, even high IQ.
He's been to Pembroke College, Oxford.
I assume he's quite intelligent.
And IQ correlates with being homosexual.
So, yeah, the only thing that militates against it, as I understood it, was that he was married.
But then I discovered he was married to a man.
The man is obviously much more feminine than him.
The man is obviously the bottom.
Most likely.
Well, at least Americans can know if they're going to have a gay president, he's at least going to be the top.
That's true.
See, this is where I disagree.
Just because I prefer authenticity and honesty.
Maybe to a fault.
And again, what drives me crazy about Buttigieg is I can see the smarminess.
And I feel like other people, you know, Iowa types who voted for him just can't.
Oh, he's such a good guy.
He's a gay, but oh, he's not one of those.
He's such a good guy.
I see through it.
And I know his game.
And I would much prefer...
If we're to have a gay president, just to go all out the full Monty, so to speak, and just maybe literally elect Elton John.
So you're against the optics coke gays.
Yeah, optics cucking gay.
I hate all optics cucking, but yeah, let's just be honest about what's happened and face the future and just, yeah, elect an absurd queen as president if we're going to do this.
I don't want to see Pete Buttigieg up there as this Christian patriotic gay.
That is just so...
Just become who you are, Pete.
So yeah, I would make a case for the bottom.
That's not quite fair, because there are clear psychological differences between tops and bottoms.
So it's been found that those who are bottoms are more feminized, physically and mentally more feminized than the tops.
They are more likely to suffer from depression.
They're more likely to commit suicide.
They're more likely to have asthma.
They're more likely to show evidence of developmental instability, basically, mutant genes or things having gone wrong early in life.
They are more feminized.
Much more likely to be entertaining.
Oh, yeah, that's true.
That counts for something.
He's not that.
He's not a boss.
His teacher, school teacher...
Husband person is almost certainly a bottom.
But he's a top.
He's like the lawyer in...
This is going to be every political debate in the West in 20 years.
In modern family, they've got the lawyer who's the ginger guy, and I get the impression he's the top.
And there's the fat school teacher.
I think he's the bottom.
And he's very much the lawyer.
He's the ginger-haired bloke here.
So he is being himself.
It would be dishonest for him to prance around being a queen.
That's not what he is.
I think when I'm referring to honesty, I'm kind of referring just to the honesty from a non-homosexual facing this reality that I would rather it just be completely ridiculous than to find this middle ground in which he's one of the good ones or something.
I hate that stuff.
You said face.
You said face.
But it's...
Sorry.
Yes.
Anyway, yes.
I just think the only thing worse, the only fate worse than being a Pakistani shepherd watching your village with your family getting blown up by a drone strike would be knowing that the guy that ordered it has a husband named Chastain.
I would join ISIS in his case.
That might lead to the end of the American Empire, actually.
Even worse, if the president was Cheston, if the president wasn't bottom.
That's a fair point, actually.
Awful.
I mean, they're three times more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety, these homosexual males.
Send them the drones.
Let them have drones.
4.6% of heterosexual men have been sexually abused compared to, is it 16% of homosexual men?
I've got the numbers here somewhere.
Chronic illness is much higher among them.
Asthma is much higher.
It's 20% of, 15% of heterosexual people suffer from asthma at some point in their lives.
20% of homosexuals.
It just goes on and on.
But at least these flamboyant gays are good for something.
Like, you know, they're entertaining, they, you know, support the opera or whatever.
Again, it's the Buttigieg gays that just, yeah, they have no redeeming qualities.
The worst is bisexual.
They're boring and gay.
Bisexuality coronates with psychopathic personality and narcissism in a way that homosexuality doesn't.
That doesn't surprise me when you think about it.
It's that kind of total disconnection.
I mean, I think, you know, I've never...
I've never taken the line which I've heard from a lot of conservatives that gays are faking it effectively, that they're just sexual freaks and they just want to try everything.
I don't think that you do that.
I think it's kind of a bit of an on-off switch.
You could say that a gay is subnormal or that he's suffering from something, but I don't think he's faking it.
I think that he does have these maladaptive attractions.
And it's real.
And we can talk about that and so on.
But I don't think we're going to pray it away or convey.
him to be otherwise.
Whereas the bisexual, I could actually agree with that line in the sense that it's someone that the sociopath is just disconnected from empathy.
He doesn't.
You know, having sex is the same as masturbating or having sex with the wall or something.
He's disconnected from that human connection or real attraction, and it's just all a kind of game to him.
So I could see that in a bisexual.
People are objects.
And if you are autistic, people are objects.
It's objects.
You're interested in objects.
And so you see how that would happen.
You also have a very weak sense of self and of who you are at any given time.
Very weak sense of identity.
And so the idea that you could literally be heterosexual one day, homosexual the next, whatever.
There's no grounded sense of self.
With gays, it's much more consistent.
And also the heritability of homosexuality among men is a point four.
Genetic component, which means there must have been some sort of evolutionary benefit to having homosexuality.
There's a number of models of why.
One of them is what's called gay uncle theory, which people are familiar with, which is that you have a gay uncle and he invests in the kinship group and therefore the kinship group is more likely to survive.
There's also this younger brother theory, which is that if you have lots of older brothers, then the woman's immune reaction against the male hormones of the...
Male child is stronger each time, which means that the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay.
It increases the odds by 0.3 each older brother that you have.
And so this then reduces intermale conflict, because once there's lots and lots of males, then you have a gay male, so there's not more intermale conflict.
Another possibility is...
Is it a response to polygamy in that sense?
Yeah, in that sense.
Yes, it would be.
The alpha gets a lot of wives, and so, you know...
There's conflict between the males, yeah.
Right, but you could reduce that conflict by simply reducing numbers, yeah.
The number of men that want to have sex with women, yeah.
And so another possibility is that they're more religious, we know that, and so they can be more group-selected, i.e.
they can do things for the good of the group rather than for the good of having children, investing energy in that, invest their energy perhaps in a male partner, but also in...
Group-selected things, like being a priest or being an inventor or being a genius or whatever, which would be consistent with them having higher IQ, actually.
And particularly, if homosexuality is illegal, if it's repressed, then they're forced to focus all of their energies in their group-selected work.
And so this helps us understand why it would be maintained even in societies like ancient Judea or whatever that have the death penalty for homosexuality.
It'd still be in their interest to have homosexuals who did group-selected work and more religious, remember, like priests.
And priests are group-selected, priests are inspiring the group.
So I don't think they're all with the anxiety that they're just degenerate or even that it's maladaptive.
It could be adaptive at the group level to have an optimum small number of homosexual men, I think.
Well, perhaps the best solution is an amalgam between intolerance and tolerance.
Obviously, what we're doing now is rather absurd, and I think it actually might be, or very likely, might be confusing kids who are going through puberty and don't know who they are and so on.
But the optimal kind of political solution would be to say that we accept this reality that a small percentage of men will be homosexual, but we are not really going to tolerate...
Yeah, and that's exactly what they did.
That's exactly what they did in the past.
There's so many historical examples of homosexuals or such, like geniuses.
Certainly, geniuses tend to be childless, overwhelmingly childless.
So I think that's, yeah, I mean, at the height of our group selection, when we were doing the best as a society in 1870 or whatever, when the West, the height of its genius, the capital genius, the punishment for homosexuality was a few years' hard labour in prison.
I don't think that's quite fair.
But that seems to be when the society was doing its best.
We had the Tchaikovskis and Oscar Wilde types, basically.
Well, yes.
But now we have Pete Buttigieg.
Just getting back to the politics, I do find it very...
Please.
I do find it very blackpillant that...
You know, I thought after Hillary losing, I expected the Democrats to kind of move towards a more Bernie Sanders-oriented socialism, a more kind of focus on structural issues rather than the woke politics that they're engaged in.
Now, I didn't think we'd see a Buttigieg character pop up like this.
I definitely didn't think he'd be anywhere near the potential for taking a nomination.
I am surprised that is his unnatural entry, which I don't know a lot about.
But I was even more surprised to see him bring up the rear and end up coming out on top in Iowa.
But what was the point?
Oh yeah, the point was.
The point.
It kind of shows the paradox of this, because he's playing this identity, like, woke capital thing, and he's for minorities, and liberalism for everybody.
But at the same time, he's polling at 0% with black voters.
So it does kind of show the paradox within this.
Blacks have been under Darwinian selection until more recently, and consequently, blacks are also less group selective.
So there's A, less homosexuality among blacks, and B, they have more adaptive ways of thinking on a lot of things.
They're smart enough to see through him.
They are.
I think it's the middle-brained, sorry, white Iowans who are kind of like, oh, what a good guy.
He's so nice.
That sounds like Dave Chappelle doing an impression of a white person.
Is that how Ireland thought?
Ireland thought like Dave Chappelle doing an impression of a white person.
So why is it the case then that basically the result, because from what I've read, it's the result in Iowa is totally hung.
It's that the three of them, Warren, him, have got the same mouth.
I think Warren was a bit back in third, wasn't she?
Bernie and Pete are kind of neck to neck, but I think Pete is right, slightly ahead.
Yeah, well, let's get into this, because just like there's hot polarization between the parties, there actually is a very strong polarization within the Democratic Party that I think might not be exactly apparent to people looking into it.
And it might not really be apparent to those average Iowans who went and voted in this caucus.
And that is that, like, what you're saying is true, that you thought that there would be a more move towards social democracy and social reforms.
That actually is happening.
I mean, the fact is, all of the centrist old white guys, with the exception of Biden, lost in the debates.
They were polling at zero percent, and they were being shamed for not supporting Medicare for all.
You know, rewind 10 years, Medicaid or Medicare for All wasn't even really on the radar screen.
I mean, Obama, you know, with Obamacare, that was ultimately a Republican proposal.
He went back to the, literally, to the Heritage Foundation and used Romneycare as his version of socialized healthcare.
And so now there's certainly the woke contingent within the Democratic Party, and there's some crossover with this new...
We need to end capitalism.
You would not have heard that 20 years ago, or at least not heard it among so many people.
And they hate Hillary and so on.
And they feel like Bernie both bowed to Hillary, kowtowed to Hillary too much and was ultimately betrayed by Hillary when she threw him under the bus a couple of weeks ago.
And so there really is a kind of polarization or civil war going on within the democracy.
I think it's going to, from the outside of a normie voter, I think they're going to view the Democratic Party as corrupt or totally incompetent.
But within the party, I think there's a lot of demoralization and a lot of extreme anger.
Because if you look at what happened...
There was this hot new techie firm called Shadow, and I think its original name was like Ground Base or something of this nature.
And it's basically a bunch of C-tier...
Coders who go to the Democratic Party and say, we've got the hot new thing.
And they're actually, they were working on the Hillary campaign.
And this company was, they got paid by Biden for a little bit.
And then he kicked him out because he was afraid of their, it didn't pass the cybersecurity test.
So this whole thing is just these incompetent C-tier people who go to politics and say, I have this hot new solution.
And it's actually this app that doesn't pass muster.
The people in Iowa couldn't even download onto their phones.
They didn't know how to use it.
You had to bypass your smartphone security to put it on.
Sorry, excuse me.
Is this to vote?
Have this affected the vote?
The vote's corrupted.
I think it's malicious incompetence.
I think that these people are buffoons at some level.
Optics of it is that they are a shadowy, sinister group either covering for Biden or promoting Buttigieg.
Because the big story coming out, from what we can see from the election, the big story should have been, oh, Bernie won.
And according to Bernie's internal polls, he did win.
Obviously, we should take those with a grain of salt.
Those are coming from the campaign.
But that Bernie won and that Biden finished fourth or fifth.
So Biden's campaign is collapsing.
It's not gaining any traction.
And Bernie is ascendant.
What happened is that we had this incompetent snafu, and then Buttigieg declared victory.
And then the next day, I mean, we're going on 48 hours.
No one knows who won.
24 hours later, they released 60%.
And Buttigieg has a lead that is quite small.
And depending on the county, could just flip.
And we could end up a day from now, he loses by 5 points or 10 points.
But now he has a small lead.
Bernie is strong.
So it seems...
And Buttigieg paid this shadow group, not a huge sum, I think $20,000 for their efforts at sending text messages to...
Voters or whatever.
Did you see the link with this billionaire Seth Clareman that supposedly funded this app?
And he's also become one of the biggest supporters of Buttigieg because Trump mentioned something about debt forgiveness for Puerto Rico.
And he's one of these vulture capitalists that has like $900 million worth of Puerto Rican debt.
Yeah, so now he's throwing his weight behind getting Trump out of office, but he basically wants anyone except Bernie.
So he started with Biden, and now he's kind of shifted to Buttigieg.
Buttigieg is like the typical, what do you imagine the billionaire elites running America want?
He sees neoliberalism and social liberalism and paying lip service to some kind of social agenda that's just basically more capital.
But yeah, it seems like basically, you know, Buttigieg, he's the fake and gay candidate.
He's the gay op.
And it seems like if this is true and if it is because of this app, I mean, they genuinely are trying to rig this election.
But I mean, even if that's not true, I mean, people should really be jumping on this and holding them to account.
Right.
And that's the thing.
Going forward to November, if your party is demoralized, which the Democrats were to maybe a degree that we underestimated in 2016, because they felt, even though Bernie was clearly not winning, there was this idea of the superdelegates, the party was cheating, doing dirty tricks.
And, you know, giving answers ahead of time to Hillary from CNN and all this kind of stuff.
And the party actually was demoralized.
And it's hard to win when you're demoralized.
You need to be moralized.
I kind of think this might help Bernie, though, because first of all, it's shades of 2016.
And there was, you know, there was a feeling that Hillary kind of robbed it from Bernie.
And now it's like, well, look, it's happening again.
And so suddenly there's going to be this split between people that want anyone except Bernie.
And Bernie.
You know, it's going to be Bernie versus everyone else.
I feel like it could galvanize a lot of support behind him.
I think that's true.
I think that's absolutely true.
He should run as a third-party candidate.
That's what he should do if they mess around.
I mean, why not?
I'm curious to hear what you think of Mike Bloomberg.
Like, he must be watching this with glee, you know, because look how bad it's making all...
Mike Bloomberg is just hedging on multiple sides.
So Mike Bloomberg immediately is hedging against Bernie.
He's basically representing – I mean, he was a Republican as of two years ago or something, or an independent.
He ran as a Republican for mayor of New York.
And he's hedging on all these sides.
So he's basically saying he's coming in now, and he actually is gaining support because he's poured tens of millions.
I even heard $100 million already into his campaign, which is, of course, chump change for...
I saw $200 million, apparently.
$200 million.
Okay, that's a lot of money.
I mean, you can buy support by just flooding normies with Facebook ads and getting your name out there.
So he's hedging against Bernie because Bernie, even though Bernie might have a...
You know, just the threat of it is real to the billionaire class.
And then I think he might do third party.
He's claimed that he'll support any Democrat against Trump.
But who knows what he'll do.
And so he's kind of hedging against Trump as well by taking away the kind of suburban Republican vote.
So he's just this factor in there kind of taking three...
Isn't this another thing that could actually help Bernie?
Because, you know, supposedly, pretty much all of Bloomberg's support are people that, when they're polled, would otherwise support Biden.
So he's kind of just taking support from these moderate candidates, which is, you know, leaving more of a vote proportionally for Bernie.
Yeah, there's no question, because I think the elite view Biden as a botched campaign, even though...
He'll do one, you know, snap, he'll do one gaffe after another.
He doesn't really collapse in the polls.
I mean, his eyes were literally bleeding on stage.
He says all this kind of quasi-racist.
I mean, it was normal, like in the 90s, it's now viewed as, you know, unacceptable.
He'll just start...
Like roboting and just saying random syllables that don't connect together.
He'll tell stories about getting in fights with blacks and swimming pools during the age of segregation.
I mean, they view this as like, oh my god, this guy is just out of control.
Whereas Hillary was like, you know, disciplined.
I mean, she doesn't have gaffes.
I mean, she just, you know, she keeps going.
But Biden, I think they view him as just a botched candidate as uninspiring and a disaster.
And we better have someone waiting in the wings to pick up the support.
And, you know, again, if Biden really goes down in flames, you know, we might be back where we were in 2016 with a lot of superdelegates saying, and they have a little bit less power this time because there are some internal reforms, but the superdelegates basically saying like, we've got to beat Trump, we've got to win, we've just got to flip over and just choose a candidate, which is, again, going back to the way, you know, pre-primaries, the way politics was, which is that party bosses and party members chose
We're kind of headed back in that So is Bloomberg going to contest any of these primaries?
Or when is he going to enter into this?
Or what's his plan?
Well, he's in them.
I mean, he's Steyer and Bloomberg.
He wasn't in the Iowa caucus, was he?
I think you could conceivably have voted for him, but he was not seriously contesting Iowa.
And he's not been in the debates.
So he's going to be in the next debate.
Yeah.
But yeah, he is absolutely a candidate.
He seems to be just focusing everything on attacking Trump.
He ran a Super Bowl ad on Trump, so he seems to be kind of ignoring the politics of the intra-Democrat thing and just kind of trying to present himself as the most viable candidate to beat Trump, which is an interesting strategy.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I agree.
I think basically there's a civil war in the Democratic Party.
And I think, you know, this snafu in Iowa will ultimately galvanize the Bernie bros.
But whether they can really take the party in their direction is questionable because you've got, you know...
The institution is not behind Bernie.
They kind of want to use Bernie, but they ultimately don't want him to be their candidate.
They are going to fight against him, and then you've just got billionaires just spend $200 million.
I mean, I can't imagine $200 million in my checking account.
That's just insane.
For Bloomberg, this is just chump change.
He's not going to even notice it.
And he can just play games with politics.
So it's going to be interesting.
But again, I don't know if a demoralized, fractured Civil War party can win.
There's no chance of Bloomberg running as a third-party candidate, is there?
He claims that he won't do it, but he claims that he will support the Democrat against Trump, and he'll start pouring money into that Democrat.
But who knows?
I mean, he's already playing these weird hedging...
You know, I mean, he's like a Wall Street guy.
It's like this, you know, a good hedge funder.
You know, you make bets, but then you kind of make the counter bet as well.
And, you know, just in case it goes wrong.
And that's what he seems to be doing.
So I have no idea.
I mean, it's just, it's going to play out.
And, you know, it's going to be pretty interesting.
And there's going to be a lot of anger.
You know, Bloomberg is the candidate in the summer at the DNC.
I mean, there is going to be serious anger.
And they're going to point to Iowa as, you just stole this election from us.
You know, this is just totally sinister.
You took it from us.
And it's interesting.
Buttigieg is genuinely the one candidate that would have no chance of beating Trump.
Like, there's no way he's ever going to be president, surely.
I think so.
Yeah.
I mean, a Buttigieg-Trump matchup, people, you know, you're going to get the goofballs who vote for Buttigieg.
But, yeah, I think that that would change.
Although, I don't know.
I mean, again, the big demographic change in elections is white suburbia moving democratic.
And suburbia in general going Democratic, which is definitely not the dynamic 50 years ago or even quite 10 years ago.
I mean, the 2010 GOP won 65% of the white vote.
They're now pushing down to 55% of the white vote and less in the Trump era.
And so all of these, you know, kind of annoying professional upper middle class white suburban types might actually go for Buttigieg and he could do it.
But, you know, just the optics of it, no red blooded American is going to vote for, you know.
I don't get why Bernie Sanders doesn't just double down and do a Trump 2016 on it and really present himself as anti-establishment, as the whole Democratic Party apparatus out to stop him.
Yeah, pre-2016, he was speaking out against open borders.
You know, that's a Koch brothers' policy, a famous quote.
He's never seemed like his heritage is in all this woke capital stuff, but yet in the last few years, he's kind of aligned with the squad and the Green New Deal stuff.
I mean, I don't know.
I mean, if you're talking an election in 2016, surely he could win some of those swing states more focusing on the kind of economic populism that Trump used in 2016 than bringing all this identity politics stuff into it.
But yeah, he seems to want to moderate between both positions and kind of synthesize them, but it doesn't seem like that's going to help him.
Unquestionably.
I mean, I think he could absolutely, you know, maybe not win as a third party, but as a, you know, a third party candidate winning the Midwest and some of the Northeast, that would be...
Huge.
And, you know, he would be a kingmaker in the election.
But again, Bernie's, you know, he's a serious and authentic guy, but then he never really wants to go after the people on top.
I mean, in, I think it was 2017 or 18, Bernie did this unity tour with the Democratic Party and standing on stage with billionaires.
I just, he doesn't...
He doesn't really want to go after them viciously.
He didn't go after Elizabeth Warren viciously, even though she implied that he was a raging misogynist.
So I don't know.
But that would be actually really fascinating if he did that.
And he certainly could do it.
Yeah, I mean, he has that same populist energy.
You know, you get that...
You get that feeling of him riding a wave like Trump was in 2016, but there does always seem to be that hesitancy there that definitely was never there with Trump.
There's not that same opportunism to capitalize on it and ride that wave, which I've never understood about him.
This Elizabeth Warren, is he queer?
I don't think we should make these suggestions about a Native American.
It sounds like a queer on the wild.
I think his wife might be a lesbian.
Is his wife a lesbian?
By looking at her, yeah.
I'm worried.
Oh, well.
to tell me he could be a part-time player so That's a good one.
Mitt Romney has voted to impeach Mr. Trump.
That just happened.
Yeah.
That's a bit much, isn't it?
That is a bit rude.
I think, really, they should gather around in a situation like this.
But he doesn't have to get two-thirds.
It's two-thirds, and it's not a simple majority.
It's not a simple majority.
It's a simple majority to impeach, two-thirds to convict.
So he's going to be...
Yeah, okay.
Mitt Romney is just signaling.
Very virtue-signaling nonsense.
Yeah, gotcha.
Fair enough.
Just wonderful.
Just wonderful.
Have you heard of Angela Merkel?
Yes.
Is he a queer?
Well, he looks like a queer, doesn't he?
Well, he looks like a queer.
He's wearing a dress.
He sounds like a queer on the wireless.
Oh, he sounds like a queer on the wireless.
Well, he looks like a queer in a dress.
He sounds like a queer on the wireless.
I should think he's probably a queer.
Yes, if he looks like a queer in a dress and he sounds like a queer on the wireless, he's probably a queer.
Probably a queer?
Probably a queer.
Probably a queer.
If it's possible to sound like a queer on the wireless, don't mind speaking German.
Oh, that's a very good point, yes.
Have you heard of Pete Buttigieg?
Well, yes, I have.
Is he a queer?
Well, he looks like a queer.
He does look like queer.
And he sounds like a queer on the wireless.
He does sound like a queer on the wireless.
And he's left-handed like a queer.
He's short like a queer.
He has an arts degree like a queer.
He's religious like a queer.
He likes regular uniforms like a queer.
And he has IQ.
High IQ like a queer.
Well, then I should think he's probably a queer.
Probably is a queer.
Looks like a queer, sounds like a queer on the wireless, short like a queer, let's handle like a queer, ask me like a queer, witness like a queer, probably is a queer.
Although I hear he's married.
Married?
Ah.
Well, that would militate against him being a queer.
What's his wife like?
Well, she looks like a queer.
Wife that looks like a queer, sounds like a queer on the wireless.
