All Episodes
Feb. 17, 2020 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
01:03:49
Based Bloomberg?

Everyone’s asking: Will America elect a racist New York billionaire as President . . . again? Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has thrown his hat into the ring, and spent hundreds of millions on ads, paid endorsements, Trump cringe videos on Instagram, and more . . . he’s got the media on his side and and it all seems to be working. But who is this man? The panel looks back at Bloomberg’s controversial stop-and-frisk policies as the triumph—and last gasp—of social-science-based politics and even “race realism.” Love him or hate him, “Mike” inaugurates an age of neoliberal totalitarianism. 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's Monday, February 17th, and welcome back to The McSpencer Group.
We've already frisked over 600,000 ethnic minorities, and we're ready for more.
Top issue.
Based Bloomberg?
Everyone's asking, will America elect a racist New York City billionaire as president?
Again?
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has thrown his hat into the ring.
And spent hundreds of millions on ads, paid endorsements, Trump cringe videos on Instagram, and more.
He's got the media on his side, and it all seems to be working.
But who is this man?
The panel looks back at Bloomberg's controversial stop-and-frisk policies as the triumph and last gasp of social science-based politics and even race realism.
Love him or hate him, Mike inaugurates an age of neoliberal totalitarianism.
Ed and Keith, welcome back.
Well, Bloomberg has risen.
He is clearly in it to win it.
I don't think anyone should call this a vanity campaign at all.
He is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on his presidential bid.
And that Might be a small fraction of his total net worth, but $100 million is $100 million.
And it is also clearly working.
He is trying everything.
He is getting the mainstream media approval.
He's getting endorsed by old, fogey journalists like Sam Donaldson.
He's having large rallies.
He is, I mean, I hate to even say this, doing well in the memosphere.
He is hired.
Internet influencers who create those, you know, like Keith as one person who's hired.
I'd just like to say, I am available for hire.
Yeah, I mean, throw me $10,000 a month and we'll boost your campaign for a little bit.
I'll do it for fractions.
You'll do it for less.
The Irish are undercutting the English.
I don't care how often it is.
We have much less self-esteem.
We'll do it for far less.
But, yeah, so he is dominating...
I promise it'll be on time, though.
Yeah, well...
It'll be shot at your work, you know.
But, yeah, he's doing all of these memes.
So this is a real thing.
I think his name was on the...
those.
He's basically foregone the initial primaries because he wasn't quite ready, but he is in them now.
And keep in mind, I mean, Bloomberg is a billionaire through Wall Street, but not as an investor himself, really.
I'm sure he now has billions invested, of course.
But he created this through the Bloomberg Terminal, which is this Kind of fascinating and...
Also kind of now weirdly archaic but still highly useful machine.
I've never used one because I've never worked on Wall Street.
But what I've heard, you can basically do everything with keystrokes.
It was kind of like the internet before that existed.
And everyone had one.
And to not have one would be unthinkable.
You could book a plane ticket.
You could sell stocks.
You could buy a future.
You could buy a commodity all on this one terminal.
And it became this staple of Wall Street.
I don't know if it's used in the City of London or elsewhere.
But yes, he became insanely wealthy by offering this service to Wall Street.
But the point I'm making is that he is all about data.
And he has tremendous amounts of data.
In his controversial comments, we can...
And he can use that data to understand what's possible and how he can win, and it's clearly working.
I think it's much to say he's the frontrunner right now.
He's kind of the frontrunner in the minds of many in the mainstream media.
And he is effectively buying a campaign, because as Trump said in one of his...
He is a mass of dead energy.
He has almost zero charisma and zero humor.
He just appears on there as a dull yet cynical billionaire.
Yet, it is clearly working.
As he is a major candidate, he is getting heat.
And this first major controversy of his campaign came from a Twitter user.
Who I think happens to support Bernie, but I don't think that's actually quite significant, who leaked audio.
He didn't really leak it.
He simply discovered it.
It was out there.
It was said in public at, I believe, an Aspen Institute conference about the New York City policing regime that he inherited.
and expanded dramatically and then ended and ultimately apologized for.
95% of your murders and murderers and murder victims.
It's one and all.
You can just take the description and pass it out to all the cops.
They are male minorities.
That's true in New York.
It's true in virtually every city.
And that's where the real crime is.
You've got to get the guns out of the hands of the people to get killed.
So you've got to be one of them.
Send the money for a lot of cops on the street, put those cops away at the crime, and just leave a team and minority neighborhood.
So this is one of the unintended consequences is people say, "Oh my God, you are arresting kids from marijuana that are all minorities." Yes, that's true.
Why?
Because we put all the cops in line arguing with us.
Yes, that's true.
Why do we do it?
Because that's what all the crime is.
And the way you get the gun by Richard's hands is to throw them against the wall at Christmas.
And then they start, they say, well, I don't want to get caught, so they don't get the gun.
They still have a gun, but they leave her at home.
And this is mostly known as Stop and Frisk.
And it was a regime.
I actually lived in New York City during the height of Stop and Frisk.
Yet for some reason, I was never stopped or frisk.
But it was basically an idea of, in Bloomberg's words, throwing people up against the wall.
And even if they've not committed a crime, but simply...
You know, stopping, questioning suspects, searching them, and seeing if they had a gun on hand, basically creating a kind of chilling effect for criminals that the police are going to be proactive.
They are not exactly pre-crime in the minority sense report, but...
They're going after you.
They're looking at everything.
And the fact is, this was part of this long-term trend in New York City, from New York being still fabulously wealthy, but also known for.
Crime.
Lots of petty crime.
This squeegee guy who would come and wash your car, whether you liked it or not, and then demand payment.
Prostitutes and so on.
I can remember as a young person in the, I think it was the late 80s, visiting New York City with my parents when I was, you know, I don't know, around 10 years old or so, and we went to a Broadway show and the museums and all that kind of stuff.
But being in Times Square late at night, And it was like what you could imagine.
These, you know, prostitutes and, you know, outlandish purple garb and so on.
Petty crime everywhere.
A lot of people up to no good.
Returning to New York City in the turn of the century, it was vastly different.
Giuliani and company had created effectively a big, expensive luxury shopping mall.
And Times Square was...
It's unrecognizable, whether you think that this is, you know, great or whether maybe some of the grit and grime has been lost and some of the character of New York City's loss is up to you.
But the fact is, it happened.
New York City is an exceptionally safe place, particularly thinking about the demographics of the city and so on.
But, you know, at the end of the day, this is a...
You know, triumph of, you could say, identity politics over social science-based policing.
And the stop and frisk has collapsed, and Bloomberg has apologized for it.
Now, I could go into a couple of statistics, which I'm sure Ed will love, but do anyone want to jump in before I go into that?
No, I think you should go into the statistics, because otherwise, whatever you said is just, you know, it's not really backed up.
Oh, yeah, I know.
Yes.
Okay, so this is...
Again, what he was doing ultimately derives from an article written in the Atlantic Monthly that was co-authored by a man named James Wilson, who died recently, called Broken Windows.
And basically, it was this kind of triumph of neoconservative...
Social science.
In the sense that, no, we actually don't need more welfare to stop crime.
No, we don't need more after-school programs or night basketball leagues and all of these things that kind of liberals through it.
No, what we need to do is basically enforce the laws against small things, keep everything very nice, tidy, and clean, and that this will have an overall chilling effect on all crime.
So basically, if you expect to be...
Picked up by the police and thrown up against a wall for jumping a turnstile on the subway, you're going to be really afraid to go rob someone's apartment or store, and you're going to be even more afraid to engage in more heinous crimes.
So this was the broken windows idea.
It had tremendous effect on Giuliani's 1990s mayorship and certainly into Bloomberg.
There was basically a 20-year period of, you could say, neoconservative rule in New York City.
And that coincided with not only big financial run-ups and a couple crashes here and there, but also the city being transformed.
So, can I answer with some numbers?
So, it says here, in 1990, in New York City, there were 940, the death rate in New York State, I'm sorry, was 940 per 100,000 in 1990.
And then by 1995, it's collapsed down to 840 per 100,000.
And the turning point seems to be 1994, sorry, by 1997 it's 840, and the turning point seems to be 94. So something radical happens in 94, and there's a collapse from 920 deaths per 100,000 down, 1997 it's down to 820, and then it continues falling, but not as steeply, down to 2010, 740.
per 100,000 population, and then it climbs.
And it's now got back to where it was in 2008.
When did the climbing begin?
Okay, so that was basically at the tail end of the Bloomberg administration when Stop and Frisk was being cut down.
When did Stop and Frisk start?
Stop and Frisk, at least, I don't quite know when it started, but in terms of the effort at reporting was 2002.
So it was at the turnover between Bloomberg and, or Giuliani and Bloomberg, I believe.
Giuliani was, of course, the 9-11 name.
Giuliani was Republican, wasn't he?
And when did Giuliani start running New York?
When did he begin?
In the early 90s.
Right, well, this is when it changes.
Yes.
So you've got basically chaos, murder, and death.
And then 1994 or 3 or 5, right about then, it just...
Boom.
Yes.
Goes down very quickly.
Very quickly.
Again, this is obviously anecdotally, but I can remember I was actually doing this playwriting theater acting program when I was a freshman in college or something.
And I remember being in Chelsea where this theater was and it was run down.
It was extremely gay.
It was kind of the Castro Street of New York City.
I remember visiting a friend of mine who lived in Chelsea in 2010, so that was 10 years later, and none of those things were present.
It was not run down and gritty, and it was not even gay.
It was a bunch of financial...
People living in 400 square foot apartments paying $3,000 a month.
I'd imagine that the gayness would probably be negatively associated with the crime rate.
Well, there's the old adage of, you know, gays are the front line or the shock troops of gentrification.
They're basically gays because they don't have families to worry about.
They don't really care about the schools.
They're willing to go live in a neighborhood that's a little bit more crime infested or gritty if it's cool and urban and then they'll set up, you know, pet stores and perfume shops and the And then the whole neighborhood becomes boring and ungay.
That's generally the process that this takes.
We can talk about other things in New York City.
This could be a reason from a group perspective why homosexuality stays in the population.
Yes, it kind of does.
There's this other thing that, just because when I was in my 20s, I was living in New York City kind of periodically.
I went there right after college, then I was back at the height of Stop and Frisk and Occupy Wall Street and all that kind of stuff.
And again, I'll get to the numbers soon.
But there was this thing called the Chinatown bus.
And basically, you know, taking a flight from, say, New York City to Washington, not a long distance, but it can be expensive.
You go to the airport, blah, blah, blah.
Amtrak is really expensive for what you get.
And so there was this thing called the Chinatown bus.
That would take illegal immigrants, mostly workers in Chinese restaurants, to and fro Washington and New York City and Boston.
And the prices of this bus were insane.
It was like $5 or $20 at most, at least like 20 years ago, which even then was just insanely cheap for what you were getting.
And so basically, it was this illegal immigrant...
Like caravan or transport service, but because they were, you know, a certain type of illegal immigrant, they're not going to do anything to you.
They're cooking, you know, mushu pork or whatever.
All of these white hipsters started getting on the China bus phenomenon.
And of course, we ruined it.
So now it's expensive.
But yeah, there are these waves of gentrification that go in.
But let me just go in for some statistics about stop and frisk.
So when this was recorded in 2002, there were 97,000 stops recorded.
That was starting to almost double every year in the beginning of Bloomberg's administration.
So it went to 160,000, 300,000, 400,000.
And then, by 2011, we reached an absolute peak of...
Of Bloomberg's policing efforts, and there were actually 685,000 over that stop-question-and-frisk incidents.
And the overwhelming majority of these, 88% of the people who were stopped and frisked, were innocent.
That is, they were not committing any crime, they were not carrying a gun.
So 600,000 of those 685,000.
We're innocent.
They were frisking.
Of these people who were frisked, 53% of them were African American.
34% were, I can't believe I'm saying this, Latinx or Latinx or Hispanic.
This is in the New York City Civil Liberties.
They use the word Latinx.
And then 9% of them were white, and half of them were basically in the age group that commits crime.
That's 14 to 24. So this is where you get to this point of Bloomberg's a racist, and he's stopping and frisking blacks, and this is just some kind of totalitarian, sadistic effort at intimidating African Americans.
But...
If you look at the New York City's own crime data from 2011 in terms of major crimes, the ones that really matter, this is what you get.
So I'm looking at murder and non-negligent manslaughter.
So yeah, this is effectively the real murder.
Basically, of the victims, 62% of them were black, 56% of the suspects and more or less the arrestees were African American.
26% of the victims were Hispanic.
35% of the suspects and the people arrested were Hispanic.
And then you can go to robbery, and you basically get very similar incidents, which is that whites were 20% of the victims.
They were actually only 5% of the people arrested for robbery.
So robbery is interracial robbery is certainly a thing.
Blacks were 31% of the victims of robbery, but they were actually 70% of the suspects and 64% of the people arrested.
So, Bloomberg is not incorrect.
He's a dull guy, but he's a smart guy when he says these...
You know, outrageous things that are pissing off, you know, liberals and progressives and so on.
The thing is, it wouldn't piss off blacks or Hispanics.
They would take the view, I think, that that's what I found about them, that they're practical.
In fact, there's data on this of their practicality as well.
Their attitude is, we don't want crime.
And so, do something about it.
And they're very happy if crime is reduced.
It's the liberals who are sheltered from crime because they're rich.
And they live in these areas where everyone's white, and then they preach about the benefits of multiculturalism and multiracialism and all that, but of course live in somewhere where they don't experience multiculturalism and multiracialism beyond going into some corner of town where they can go and have a Pret-a-Manger or whatever, you know, Indian meal or something.
they don't live with it and the consequences of it that will get upset about this and that will of course damage his chances of making it onto the ballot of the Democratic Party it's not the minorities, the minorities will probably vote for it MR.
I agree with you to a very large extent, but maybe this is just my perspective, but it does seem like at least the image of white cops stopping and frisking black people does Get a lot of the minorities up in arms.
They don't like it.
But my major point with Bloomberg, and it also demonstrates something, which is the triumph of politics over social science, which all of this is correct, but it ultimately doesn't matter if enough uppity white people yell about it.
And so Bloomberg is correct.
He is correct.
They need to disguise the ethnicity of these white cops so they don't realize they're white.
Not all of the cops are white.
I've looked up all this stuff.
So basically, the police...
New York City as a whole is 45% white.
Around the edges, that might be a little bit deceiving just because of the...
Are you Hispanic?
Are you a non-Hispanic white?
There's a little bit of ambiguity in there, but more or less, 45% of New York City is white.
the cops are a little bit uh, whiter than the population, but not by a substantial amount.
So, uh, tons of people, police, engaging in stop and frisk were minorities.
Um, And by minorities, he means blacks and Hispanics.
And even that is a little bit deceptive in the sense that 60-year-old black ladies aren't committing any crimes outside of speeding or whatever.
And it is basically...
You know, the perpetrators are a smallish group of people between the ages of 14 and 30, let's say, Hispanic and black youths who are doing this.
If the blacks could operate, I mean, if the Nation of Islam or some equivalent could operate some system where blacks between the ages of 14 and 30 were removed from the society as part of a sort of a gogi.
and inculcated with the martial values of the Spartans between the ages of, well, it would have been 8 and 30, and then permitted to leave, the crime rate would be substantially reduced.
No question.
Something Spartan should be perhaps born in mind.
And as for these black old ladies that are done for speeding, they're probably speeding because they're late for church.
That's the general impression I get.
And so I think we should let them off that.
I think that's okay.
Yeah, that's true.
I like honesty in politicians, but unfortunately in a clown world run by lies, this is going to be used against him.
And the thing he has to do, and the problem is he's done it wrong, is never apologise, never say sorry, never back down.
Of course he has, the silly idiot.
Never back down.
If you do it, there's actual data on this.
There's proper...
A number of replicated studies that indicate in these kinds of situations where you're being criticised by a mob, if you back down, if you say sorry, it shows, A, it shows weakness and they're bullies.
So they're bullies that want to kill.
So if you show weakness, you go from being the gazelle in the middle of the pack that they're going for because he's...
Quite meaty to the gazelle at the fact that they can drag down.
So therefore, it makes it worse.
They will double down on you.
And B, it means they become suspicious.
They start to think, other people start to think, why is he saying sorry?
Has he got something to hide?
Is he dishonest?
Does he not mean what he says?
And so it damages him on every level.
It damages him among people that would be sympathetic to him because he's a truth teller.
If he apologizes, we think, oh, well, he's slippery.
He's a snake.
We won't vote for him.
And it damages him among the woke mob of screaming feminist.
Unnatural colour hair, tattooed women who are going to be screaming about this.
And he's apologised, so he's done.
That's the brilliant thing about Trump.
I don't think he should even apologise about the grabbing by the pussy remark.
Never apologise.
He did apologise about that.
I think that was a mistake.
But otherwise, just no.
Never apologise.
And that's what he's done.
So I think he's finished.
I don't think he's going to...
He apologised.
You mustn't do that.
I get it.
I don't think Bloomberg's finished.
Sorry, Keith.
You've been waiting there patiently like the good young Irish boy in the pub who waits his turn to speak while Ed and I are talking.
So please jump in, but I have a lot more to say.
I was just waiting for you Anglos to finish with all your empirical data.
Get all the facts and stuff out of it way early, you know?
I'm starting to fancy Bloomberg to pick up the nomination and potentially win in 2020.
It's an interesting approach to basically ignore the white places like Iowa and target.
He's basically targeting the non-white voters.
It's an interesting tactic and it could be a sign of things to come because New York itself is kind of As far along the sort of linear path of techno-capital as any place in the world you'll find.
And then Bloomberg is like a proper expression of New York as well.
You know, he's a proper neoliberal mayor.
Like, he ran as a Republican, now he's running as a Democrat.
And he is kind of a...
I guess he's like kind of a Rockefeller.
He's kind of a Rockefeller Republican, yeah.
And it's interesting as well, like, Trump and Bloomberg have kind of a similar start in that...
I actually did a video today about...
What happened to New York in the 70s?
Because all those transformations you're talking about in New York, this was very much a top-down thing.
New York was like the first real test case, together with maybe Pinochet's Chile, of neoliberalism and of some of the ideas of the Business Roundtable and the Hoover Institute and all these people.
New York in 1975 was effectively about to go bankrupt.
That was in part due to the bankers, the investment bankers that had been lending money, refusing to roll over the debt.
And it was this incredible power grab in the mid-70s where this disorganization, eight out of nine of the panel were bankers, where bankers started to run the city of New York and started to slash social spending.
It's an interesting test case because while the ideas around neoliberalism are sort of individual freedom and economic liberalism and lack of state and all this, what you see with the New York test case, and it happened as well under Reagan and other neoliberal administrations, is that actually the power of the state wasn't curtailed.
It was just redirected.
The power of the central governing body of New York was sort of redirected from social welfare to kind of corporate welfare.
And Trump got a start out of this because he got the biggest tax break in the history of New York State to start doing his developments.
And he focused exclusively on these sort of central, more luxury developments aimed at this New York, that the finance...
Tears were taken over.
And at the same time, Bloomberg was working for an investment firm that doubled their revenue in the mid-70s at the time this was going on.
So this was a, you know, New York was completely reoriented.
And those social transformations you're talking about, the liberalization of culture and New York becoming a very sort of cosmopolitan city that focused on sort of cosmopolitan sexual trends and consumerism and stuff.
This was all a result of the empowerment of this elite.
And so New York is kind of a perfect example of the direction that neoliberalism that our elites are bringing us.
You know, it's 44% white.
It was almost 80% white in the early 70s.
You know, it's Bloomberg, the Jewish mayor ruling over this sort of brown underclass.
It's a tale of two cities.
You know, it has the super wealthy financial elite.
It's the home of Wall Street.
And then at the same time, it has obviously some very poor areas.
And Bloomberg is like the typical neoliberal politician.
He's not very strongly ideological left or right.
He's a moderate on most issues.
And he wasn't afraid to invest in infrastructure in New York and use the power of the state.
But his government philosophy was basically growth and growth-oriented.
And he basically ran New York like a business in that he was willing to invest in public infrastructure if it was going to be a big return on growth.
Bloomberg captures this model.
He's targeting non-white voters.
He's ignoring white states.
He's not ideological.
His only ideology is basically neoliberalism and growth.
I think Bloomberg is the perfect encapsulation of the values of the modern elite.
He's rabidly pro-Israel as well.
Probably the most pro-Israel candidate in the field.
I think it's a toss-up between Bernie and Bloomberg.
Just because the establishment is so I'm almost tempted to think that Bloomberg is going to pull it out.
Also, my colleague, Heiner Rindemann, in his book, Cognitive capitalism.
And one of the things he argues about America is that the Bloomberg idea of clamping down on tiny things, you have to stop and frisk them, of the slightest thing is severely punished.
It's something that tends to happen in multiracial societies.
It has to happen because there's nothing to hold them together in societies like Finland, traditionally, or Ireland, even traditionally, or England.
You're one big family.
Who are related six or seven or eight generations back.
You've got common ancestors.
So you have a sort of almost of a love for each other, which is there in America to some extent, in certain parts of America, and is promoted by religion and whatever.
But it's certainly much more difficult to achieve when you have a multi-ethnic society, and even more so with a multiracial society.
And so the only solution, as well, if you want to have equality...
If there has to be equality, everyone's equal before the law, and you have a section of the society who are unruly, who have low impulse control, have low intelligence and can't behave, is to have extremely strict rules of conduct in public places.
And I've noticed that in America, that it's enforced.
So whereas you might say in Finland it's socially unacceptable to spit, it's just something you don't do.
In America, I see signs saying no spitting.
to what you call in America jaywalk.
People do it.
It's not against the law.
There's laws on it in America.
Police can stop you for doing it.
Being drunk in public, again, Yes.
people might frown upon being drunk in public.
In America, you can be arrested for being drunk in public.
Yeah.
And there's all kinds of things like that, which in other countries are just, it's just custom, and the custom is socially enforced, because there's a bond between the people, which means there's unwritten rules.
And in America, that seems that a lot of things I think Rudy Giuliani kind of got elected in the mid-90s running on being tough on crime and taking a tougher stance.
A lot of these social problems were the crack epidemic in the 80s.
A lot of stuff was a direct result of this massive social shift.
And then what you see in the 90s and 2000s is Sort of the backlash of the middle class and of the problems that this is inflicting on them.
And yeah, they're willing to be tough with someone like Giuliani or Bloomberg.
And the middle classes in New York seem to be getting out now.
They seem to be moving out.
First of all, they've colonised.
When I was first in New York in 2005, it was...
What was that place called in New York that Winston Churchill was from?
View from a bridge, Arthur Miller.
That area of New York.
What's it called now?
Brooklyn, Brooklyn, Brooklyn.
And Brooklyn in those days, in 2005, was poor.
And when I was there in 2015, 10 years later, it was noticeably rich.
I mean, it had really changed, this Brooklyn area.
Brooklyn is a really big area.
Williamsburg is probably most famous.
That went from zero to 100.
In like five years, and hipsters moved in.
Park Slope, a place I've lived actually twice, is very bougie, kind of cool, hipstery people.
A lot of people will move out of the city if they want to have children, but they want to remain more or less in New York City.
A lot of strollers in Park Slope.
So there are places like that, but you can go to places in Brooklyn.
Not exactly rich.
Let's put it that way.
The most extraordinary part of New York, I suppose, is a place called the Bronx.
Yes.
And then right next to the Bronx, literally, there's the Bronx, sort of, what do you call it, subway station.
Yeah.
And on one side of that subway station, there's the, I forget the name of the subway station, but on one side of it, something park, something Dutch-sounding, van something park.
And on one side is the Bronx, and on the other side is this place called Riverdale.
And Riverdale is, like, white and Jewish.
And there's people jogging around, and there's buildings with doormen standing outside.
The 80s and 90s.
Alexandria.
Yeah, go ahead.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got elected in the Bronx, didn't she?
I think she is from there, yeah.
It's funny, I feel almost...
Forgetting a little bit of my New York City neighborhoods.
But yeah, the 80s and 90s is...
You can find...
You can be in the Bronx that is a neighborhood that I think most people...
You know, listening to this would not be comfortable.
You could also go to places where most people listening to this couldn't even possibly afford to buy a condominium there and pay the doorman and so on.
It is highly Jewish, but it's also kind of a vestige of WASP New York as well.
Van Cortland Park.
Yes.
Yes.
But I guess let me go a little bit more on the kind of neoliberal side, because, you know, first off, the gun control issue is also something that Bloomberg gets nailed on from, you know, the conservative movement type conservatives.
Oh, he wants to take away your gun.
He doesn't.
He wants to take away your big gulp and your gun.
Bloomberg is also notorious among conservatives for banning.
This is what Stalin would do.
Heaven forbid not let you become an obese slob.
Gun control in New York City, as I've said before, is not gun control in Wyoming.
Gun control in Wyoming is...
Guns are part of our tradition.
They're part of a sport that we do.
We can defend ourselves, even though there's not anything like the crime that you might have in New York City.
Why would you possibly want to take away your guns?
You must be totalitarian.
If you're living in New York City, you want to take away the guns to disarm the 14 to 30-year-old Hispanic and African Americans who commit 90% of the crime.
It is a pure calculation in the sense of, you know, gun control can't work 100 percent, but it's clearly going to work.
Otherwise, people wouldn't oppose it.
It becomes harder to have guns stopping and frisking people, creating that chilling effect among the population makes it easier for white and Jewish people.
And so there's just this fundamental disconnect.
But I think in a kind of funny way, as the whole country becomes a little more like New York City, someone like Bloomberg becomes a viable option where it's kind of like totalitarian.
Policing and controls in order to maintain this discombobulated, fragmenting social order.
And I don't think that will last.
Eternalistic liberalism.
Yeah.
Eternalistic liberalism.
That seems to be the model.
And this kind of, this kind of, this challenge is something as well, which is popular among the right, that like...
You know, the elites are bringing in all these immigrants because they want socialism, they want communism, whatever.
But I mean, what you see is, like, if the Democratic electorate was white, this would be between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Yeah, we'd have already elected Bernie Sanders, and Trump would have already done all the stuff he actually talked about in 2016, which was pretty socialistic.
Yeah, Bloomberg is ignoring white voters, and Biden has pretty much said he's waiting for the southern states, he's waiting for his black contingent to come out.
So these centrist neoliberal candidates are able to sort of use the biopower of having a mass of non-white migrants.
You actually see black Democrats actually, when they're polled, they're far more moderate or to the right economically than white Democrats, which kind of came as a surprise to me.
I kind of assumed that blacks would be, you know, Gibbs, very leftist, whatever.
But they're actually much more moderate and they prop up moderate.
Can I add something there?
I mean, they're sensitive.
They're not ideologues.
So it's the distinction that you always had in British politics or Irish politics or whatever, that you get those who are upper middle class or something, or wealthy, and they're communist, or whatever it happens to be, as a means of virtue signaling, as a means of creating a strong identity for themselves, as a means of carving out a social niche.
All these kinds of things which allow them to elevate status.
That's where they come from.
And then there's these people that are communists because they're just poor.
Because they're born poor.
And their relatives are poor.
And all of their people that they're related to, they're all poor.
They don't think about something like...
I mean, again, it's like...
Iowa and New Hampshire are effectively 90% white, and Bernie got the most votes in both of those states.
And, you know, Medicare for all, it's obvious.
Look, it's not communism, obviously.
It's single-payer for private.
Medical services is not communism.
But secondly, it's kind of orderly, and it all makes sense.
We're all in this together.
This kind of socialism is backed up by a certain amount of social cohesion.
Going to, say, African-American voters in the South, I mean, they're already on Medicaid, and you can just go to the emergency room and...
your broken leg fixed and then not pay for it.
Declare bankruptcy.
The Medicare for all argument We're spending so much more than Germany on healthcare, and yet we get less.
This is so unfair.
A family might go bankrupt if their grandpa gets cancer.
None of those arguments...
Work on this new population.
So in a way, once again, just to hammer it home here, once again, conservatives are wrong.
And all of these kind of alt-right people who talk about the demographics, they want to bring in socialism.
Oh, it's alt-right people or Laura Ingraham or Tucker Carlson.
They're just simply wrong.
The elites are bringing in immigrants in order to maintain neoliberalism.
It's actually much simpler.
This gets into what Ed was saying as well, because if you talk to white Americans that are against universal health care, I mean, almost every time I've talked to one of them, the reason is pretty much always they don't want to be subsidizing non-white health care.
They see it as a redistribution of wealth.
Now, even if that's not the case, it just gets at something, which is that you only tend to see the growth of ideologies like libertarianism when a society starts to move towards multiculturalism.
Even in Europe, you see...
Even in the Scandinavian countries, a move away from social democratic models and toward more sort of American capitalist models.
And it does tend to go hand in hand with multiculturalism because obviously you're going to have much more of a problem subsidizing health care for people from another country than people that look like yourself.
So yeah, I mean...
I would hope the right would be past this by now, that it's this Trotskyist elite that want to bring in non-whites to vote for communism or something.
I think what they want is the world of New York.
If you're a Jewish billionaire, New York is a very good place to live, you know?
As Robert Putnam found in his paper, his notorious paper on this matter, public goods collapse once you have multiracialism, multiethnism, whatever.
Public goods fall apart.
They're gone.
They go.
It's one of the first things to go because people want to, as far as unconsciously, people want to act in their genetic interests.
Their genetic interests are to help a community of an extended genetic family, i.e.
their ethnic group, whatever, people like them.
The system of multiculturalism comes in.
It undermines trust even among the natives.
Even among the natives, trust is undermined because some natives are suspicious.
You're suspicious of your fellow natives because they could all now be potential collaborators against you.
They could all now be potential traitors, potential individualists rather than group operating people.
And of course you oppose investing energy and resources in the foreigners because they're different from you and whatever.
And so the result is always the same, which is the collapse of public goods.
And the health service is an example of that.
And that's why these societies with the so-called Nordic model, that's what we talk about in Europe, the Nordic model, which is the most...
Social Democrat kind of society you could possibly have.
And it's under tremendous pressure now in Sweden, whatever, because of the multiracial nature of these kinds of societies.
And Britain as well, the National Health Service, it's this unquestioned thing.
It's this sacred cow in the UK.
No one may question.
It has to be free to see a doctor.
It has to be completely free.
Even if you book a doctor's appointment and you don't turn up, and thus waste 10 minutes of that busy doctor's time, you're not fine for that.
Right.
And there's nothing, and you can't question it.
I mean, yeah, that's why they want to express, these Americans that are opposed to universal healthcare, whatever you call it, they want to express their ethnic interests, and as far as they can see, their ethnic interests are not, but they can't say it out loud.
Of course.
They can't even think it.
They maybe don't even articulate it, but they know on some level that they don't want to do this thing because this thing involves subsidizing other races.
Of course, the NHS is a good example, you know, because it came out of that post-World War II feeling of, you know, the nation coming together and that national spirit or whatever.
Sorry, what was the point I was going to make there?
I'm going blank.
Yeah, no, I mean, I can't remember who said this, but someone said the welfare state as we know it actually did originate in Britain, and one person in particular, I can't remember who it was, noted that it almost came out of that feeling of camaraderie.
Tony Benn of even the bombings of London, of saying, oh, we're going to all do this together.
We're going to go down into the metro and live out the night, but we're one community working together in socialism.
I mean, Tony Jutt, a very interesting Jewish historian, said similar things about the triumph of both the welfare state and industrial capitalism export economy in, say, Germany is a product of fascism.
This idea that we are going to have a welfare state, the union is going to work with management and capital, we're going to all be on the same team, and we're going to produce Mercedes Benzes and high-level medical equipment and so on, was ultimately a fascist legacy that is unspoken.
But it is about that collective...
If you look at another time, there was a high level of immigration to the United States.
It's like between 1890 and 1920, the time of the robber barons.
And, you know, at that time, union power and the power of the labouring class greatly weakened as well because of the immigration.
So these two things always do go hand in hand.
And, you know, the elite is definitely aware of the benefits that come from it.
Another thing as well I think you notice is that first-generation immigrants into Europe or into white countries...
They tend to be much more enamoured with consumerism.
They tend to make much better consumers.
I think young white people now are kind of jailed by that and they're looking for something else.
They're looking to find fulfilment in something more existential or in experiences or something.
But you see with the first generation immigrants from non-white countries.
You know, you will see them spending their money on sort of the cheap consumer goods that maybe young white people kind of think it is tacky to waste money on or whatever.
They're more practical.
They're more practical.
Their attitude is that they come there normally, they're from, let's say, Britain, the Hindus.
They're from India.
They're not particularly wealthy.
They open up corner shops and things like this.
And the pressure on the children is to somehow...
Be middle class.
And okay, you can be middle class by being a brilliant and successful artist or whatever, but if you're going to be practical about it, the better way, the more secure way of negotiating your way into the British middle class is to become a doctor or to become a lawyer.
And that is what a lot of these Indians, particularly doctors, that's what a lot of these Indians, Hindus, have gone and done.
So many of them have become doctors.
I think that's part of it.
Another part of it may be...
Psychological differences.
We know that Indian immigrants, it's not necessarily true of other immigrants, but Indian immigrants, subcontinent immigrants, are higher in conscientiousness, the personality trait, impulse control, than are white people.
And this would make them better at science, basically.
They've got the same IQ, about 100 of these Hindus, and they have higher conscientiousness.
Isn't that the stereotype in the US?
Like the guy that works?
All week, all day in this convenience store.
He'll outdo the native population but it's purely just by constant work and frugality.
Yes.
And this is the type that Bloomberg also praised in another notorious audio, which came out, which basically said, if you want to make it, don't take lunch breaks, don't take bathroom breaks, work seven days.
I mean, he was literally demanding the impossible or demanding even slavery.
And obviously, there's some kernel of wisdom there, but coming out of his mouth...
It is pretty shocking and kind of disgusting, to be honest.
I think most people want to work and then spend a lot of time with your kids or, like, go to the beach or something or read a book.
I don't know.
They don't want to be working from 7 a.m. until 10. There's another interview at Bloomberg I'm surprised people haven't picked up on more from 2006 where he was on a radio show and he said that stopping immigration would be a disaster because there'd be no one to look after the golf courses.
Which kind of shows his mindset.
He's so much like Trump.
He's like a photographic negative of Trump.
They're both New York billionaires.
They're both racist.
I mean, sorry.
And they both say...
They say loudly what you should whisper softly.
And they just say it.
But Bloomberg gets away with it.
There's one key difference between, well, there's many of them, but one key difference about Trump is not a self-made man.
Trump has a very, very wealthy background, and okay, with that good start, he's done very, very well, for sure.
He's a much more successful businessman, I suppose, than his father, but he is not self-made.
Bloomberg, I get the impression, it's just from a sort of...
Lower middle class?
Yes.
A bookkeeper or something?
So he's self-made.
So when he talks about, okay, he's fabulously rich and probably out of touch with most people, but when he talks about the need to work hard and whatever, he really has had to do that.
Fred Trump is a better businessman than Donald Trump.
No question.
Donald Trump is a better celebrity than his father could ever dream of being.
His father was a brilliant businessman, but non-charismatic and outlandish.
Trump kind of took that amazing background that he had and turned it into celebrity.
But Trump is Trump because he's a celebrity.
I mean, most of his post-1980s, like when he was my age, he was kind of at his peak of wheeling and dealing, trying to start an NFL franchise and building the tallest building in the world in New York City, all these kind of dreams he had.
After that, I mean, most of what he's done has been just kind of grifting off his celebrity and disasters.
To be honest, they're selling his name for other people to build a high rise.
I think that if they were to be up against each other and it was portrayed as two billionaires, we're two billionaires.
I think Bloomberg should stress the fact that he is from a not particularly wealthy area of Boston.
Sure.
They're both making...
Yeah, but, you know, they're both making the same pitch, which is that I cannot be bought because I'm a billionaire, and I am going to – the system – Trump's pitch explicitly in the RNC was the system is rigged, and I know how it's rigged, and I'm going to rig it on your behalf.
That is a direct paraphrase, not even just like an implicit message.
I'm going to do this for you.
Basically, religious white people who vote Republican.
That was his message.
Bloomberg's message is, I can't be bought.
I don't even want campaign donations because I think he has 50 to 60 billion in the bank or something.
Not bad.
But I can't be bought.
But instead, what his message is, is that I am going to manage the overall chaos and decline of the United States, and it's going to be kind of better for everyone.
I'm willing to I'm not one of these Black Lives Matter...
YouTube progressives or Bernie Sanders types.
I'm going to maintain this order and I will explicitly make sure that this never becomes a welfare state that can help out blue-collar white people.
It's also kind of part of his message, to be honest.
We live in a fucking nightmare world.
I could see him being kind of a Democrat's version of Trump.
Like, I could see him winning not based on any policy, but just because such a huge proportion of Democratic voters will just be looking at this as just needing to find someone to beat Trump like anyone.
And I think he'd be able to present himself as that very well.
And if Bernie Sanders keeps kind of surging ahead and it becomes apparent that it's either going to be Bernie or Bloomberg.
You know, the centrist Democrats are going to jump on Bloomberg, and it seems like he's taken away Biden's voters in droves, and if Biden keeps doing as badly as it is, it's going to become apparent very soon that he's a dud, and where are those supporters going to go except Bloomberg?
Because Biden's like Trump in the sense that he talks and talks and makes gaffe after gaffe and is just a fool.
Bloomberg, again, when he says things that are controversial, they're still actually true and backed up by empirical data and so on.
He is a dull but clearly highly intelligent person, whereas Biden, the guy, we're just waiting for him to...
I think Bernie is obviously the frontrunner, but...
If I had to predict who's going to come out of this, I can't help but say I predict it's going to be a Bloomberg-Trump battle of the vulgar, racist New York billionaire versus the subtle racist New York billionaire.
Great.
Really great stuff we've got going.
This is kind of the last stage of managing clown world.
Yes, but did you successfully prognosticate that Trump would be the candidate for the Republicans?
Yeah, and I predicted he would win in 2016 on Twitter.
And I was on the Trump train in the summer of 2015 and saying this guy's going to do it and BTFOing all these never-Trumpers.
You hailed him, as I recall.
So to speak, yes.
I was pretty excited.
But I'm willing to, unlike some, I'm willing to look at the world and analyze it and perhaps even change my opinion and not just spout off the same talking points that I might have said in 2015.
But, yeah.
I was anti-Republicans up until Trump.
And then I liked Trump precisely because he was the chaos candidate, in the words of Jeb Bush.
It was like, this guy's going to change everything.
We don't even know what's going to happen, but he's going to make everything chaotic and there's going to be open up new space for us and so on.
And that was true to a certain extent.
But yeah, I mean, I think what has happened with Trump is not so much that he has captured the Republican Party.
It's that the Republican Party has captured him.
They've used a lot of his rhetoric, the other N-word, nationalism, populism, which they would kind of use before, but now they're full on.
And he has basically pursued the Paul Ryan agenda while tweeting like a...
You know, like an alt-right edgelord.
And it's kind of the worst of all possible scenarios.
And there's no reason to believe that he would change in a second term.
And in fact, I think there might be dangers in a second term of going to war with Iran and other things like that.
There's dangers of Bloomberg going to war with Iran.
You know, but...
And who knows?
And then all of these things that we've talked about, which are, you know, flawed and...
You know, but but but effective social policies Bloomberg has apologized for.
And, you know, like identity politics and virtue signaling triumph over social science because we aren't in academia.
We're in the real world where it's about confrontation and victory and identity politics trumps social science.
So I don't know how he could actually.
Well, I might be wrong, but I don't know how Bloomberg could actually implement totalitarian policing on a nationwide scale in the United States.
I think we just get more neoliberalism, more immigration, and not even policing of murder and robbery.
So, yeah, it's just utterly awful.
Bloomberg versus Trump would really be the worst of all possible worlds.
I can't even think how Bloomberg would be any different policy-wise, really.
No, not that different, actually.
He'd do tax cuts.
He would do pro-Israel stuff.
He would likely have the same foreign policy, maybe worse, maybe better.
You can kind of make arguments on both sides on that, because he is more subtle.
More likely to be diplomatic and go to the UN and work with other...
I mean, I think that's probably true.
But, yeah, it's just an absolute disaster, and we should never underestimate the elite in the sense of their ability to capture energies and use them for their own ends, and their ability to maintain themselves.
I mean, they are kind of crazy at some level, but they're where they are for a reason.
I mean, butt gig, it's just as bad policy-wise, but at least there'd be some good memes for a few years, you know?
Nice.
I love you.
Yeah, and Chasten might go full Elton John on us, and we would have State of the Union addresses where he would perform various musical theater numbers in full drag, and that would be much more entertaining than Trump talking about socialism and the Holocaust.
Well, you know, a lot of the decline in empires had the growth of, like, the palace eunuchs, so the butt gig kind of fits in well there.
Yes, he does.
That is true.
Is Bloomberg, is he on the other bus?
Or is he married?
I've heard this insinuation about Bloomberg.
I don't quite know.
He almost seems a bit asexual or something.
A sexual what?
A sexual dynamo.
Okay, the other controversy which we didn't talk about was that Bloomberg was pretty Trumpian when it came to women working in his organizations.
So I can't remember some of these things, but when women would ask for pregnancy leave or something, he'd be like, oh, another one!
I can't believe we have to hire these women!
And he's been accused of very sexual harassment and things like that.
I don't know if he's also gay.
I don't know, but I don't.
Yeah.
Imagining...
It's why I don't like sexual scandals among politicians or whatever.
It's like you have to imagine Bill O 'Reilly sexually harassing.
I like it when you imagine, like, oh, I wonder who Margot Robbie's sleeping with.
That's kind of like, oh, interesting.
But when you're like, who's Bloomberg sleeping with?
I don't want to know.
I promise I will not investigate your sexual life.
Yeah, I don't know if you heard the descriptions of Harvey Weinstein's genitals that came out in that recent court case.
Well, apparently he's a eunuch.
Yeah, I could have done it.
They talk about him masturbating.
If he was a eunuch, he wouldn't have a sex drive, would he?
I don't...
Apparently he has no testicles and egg-shaped penis.
How could he have a sex drive?
He wouldn't have a sex drive.
And he has a botched penis.
They're like genital scarring from a botched circumcision or some bizarre...
I just love the description.
No testicles?
They had to show the jury the pictures and the court description was like, many of the jury winced.
Such public shame for Weinstein.
But shouldn't the solution be that he should have to show his penis and then we can see whether these people are telling the truth or not?
I think that is considered a war crime and that would be a crime in itself.
All right.
That's a good ending.
We always end on total juvenile.
It's like, is he a pedophile?
Real question.
How short is Blake Bloomberg, actually?
How short is he?
Because Trump has come up with the nickname Mini Mike for him now.
He's not shockingly short.
I think he's like 5 '6 or 5 '8, so he's just kind of a shortish man, but he's not like a midget.
I know.
He's not that short.
I heard he was 5 '4, which is short.
That would seem short.
I don't think he's that short.
I've been in the same room as Mike.
Yeah, yeah, he's more like that.
I've been in the same room with Mike Bloomberg, and I was not shocked by his height.
You know, in either way.
I was talking about Bloomberg.
I thought I was talking about Butty, Butty, Butty.
Bloomberg isn't a way to find it, so I'm talking about that.
Apparently he has to stand on a phone book at the debate, according to Trump.
You know, this is like locker room banter.
I mean, you know, it's amusing.
But that's the funny thing, if they run against each other, because there's so few policy differences, it'd be easy to, like, New York loudmouths, like, insulting each other the whole campaign.
Well, yeah, and then Bloomberg does the same thing.
He just does it more subtly and more kind of postmodern.
So Bloomberg has created these memes of Trump being fat and golfing.
Which are pretty effective, because you just have a kind of disgust mechanism when you see this asshole on the golf course.
So, yeah.
Export Selection