This past week, Nick Fuentes was expelled from the world’s largest video platform, YouTube. Adding insult to injury, it happened on Valentines Day, already the most painful day of the year for incels. While dissident’s of the past circulated hand-written Samizdat among comrades, today, we use the most popular media platforms and, at least potentially, talk to the world. Whatever you think about Fuentes, his experience is paradigmatic. The sword of Damocles hangs over the heads of every dissident—and in 2020, that means every person who expresses white identity, however coached. The panel discusses deplatforming and modern heresy. 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
This past week, Nick Fuentes was expelled from the world's largest video platform, YouTube.
Adding insult to injury, it happened on Valentine's Day, already the most painful day of the year for incels.
While dissidents of the past circulated handwritten samizdat among comrades, Today, we use the most popular media platforms and at least potentially talk to the world.
Whatever you think of Nick Fuentes, his experience is paradigmatic.
There is a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of every dissident.
And in 2020, that means every person who expresses white identity, however couched.
The panel discusses deplatforming and modern heresy.
The panel discusses deplatforming and modern heresy.
The latest victim of this ongoing deplatforming, the great shuttening, was Nick Fuentes, a, how do you describe him, conservative Zoomer commentator.
He is someone who does a lot of live streaming.
He clearly has an audience.
And he was banned for basically doing things that he does on a daily basis.
So our friend JF, I think each of us has been on his program at least once.
I've been on it a dozen times or so.
Got into a personal feud with Nick.
Nick loves these personal feuds.
He's gotten into a personal feud with just about everyone.
And JF has posted a video on BitChute showing his channel violations, the TOS violations against YouTube.
But I watched that video, and to be honest, I don't like what Nick does.
I've never watched a full stream.
I've watched clips and I can't imagine listening to them for an hour.
It's crude and shallow, but at the same time, nothing that he did was illegal.
Perhaps you could say it was a violation of TOS at some level.
You could flag it.
I would not do that.
And again, what he got banned for was what he was doing.
For the last three years.
So it is highly inconsistent.
And that inconsistency is a kind of feature, not a bug of the system.
If they would just simply ban everyone to the right of Jeb Bush, we could then know what the rules were and go onto another platform.
But this...
Inconsistency, ambiguity, it creates an overall chilling effect where I can put up a video and say, oh, this is really good.
I bet we're going to get 25,000 views.
People are going to love it.
And also, I could think I'm going to upload the same video and my whole channel is going to be...
And I'll lose all of this investment that I put into the platform.
It is really psychologically damaging.
So anyway, let's talk first about the NIC situation, and then let's talk about the deplatforming issue on a more theoretical or policy basis.
So, Keith, why don't you jump in?
And you are a certified Zoomer.
So why don't you jump in and what are your thoughts on Fuentes and Nicker Nation?
I think technically I'm a millennial actually.
Maybe I wish I was a Zoomer, you know, self-hate millennial.
But then again, is there any other kind of millennial?
But yeah, I'm just on that border.
As bad as millennials are, Zoomers are kind of worse from what I can tell.
But go ahead.
Yeah, but you see, because, you know, if I was a couple of years younger and I was a Zoomer, I'd know optics.
Right, great optics.
I'm never sure of my optics just being on that kind of borderline, you know?
Yes.
I could be drifting into bad optics.
But in terms of DeFuentes, Bannon, I mean, I don't know if JF is responsible, because, like, I know JF said he was flagging his videos.
That was surprising, because...
To me, I kind of would have just expected that there was, like, dedicated Antifa flagging all these videos every day anyway.
But, I mean, even if that was the case, that he got banned for that, I mean, you can look at someone like James Olsup.
He got banned with no strikes.
Red Ice got banned with no strikes.
So many of these examples, Cultured Dog, all these people.
I mean, Zorius got banned.
He didn't even have any political content on his channel.
It was just music.
That was definitely the most egregious.
I agree.
Yeah, it is this problem of...
YouTube won't make clear what the guidelines are.
That's definitely intentional because it does lead to this kind of paranoia and self-policing.
Are they going to put work into building a channel and put work into making videos if they know that at any time they could be given the chop like that?
It's the year of an election and this isn't really an issue and you kind of wonder has the right missed a trick in not bringing this front and centre?
I don't know.
This could so easily be a central election issue.
I mean, even if there was a candidate like Andrew Yang that kind of ran a sort of quixotic campaign on tech censorship, and much as Yang was focused on the issue of AI taking jobs, as someone was focused on the power these oligarchs have.
But that hasn't happened, and I don't think it's going to be an election in 2020.
And, you know, Trump made a lot of noise about...
From Trump's perspective, I don't think it's a problem, because these social media giants, they're not really censoring the likes of...
You know, the sort of Republican conservative types.
And any time there was a hearing about Mark Zuckerberg, if someone like Ted Cruz were bringing up that, I don't know, an anti-abortion Facebook page was censored or something.
And, you know, I wouldn't be surprised if they actually did do something about that.
Maybe they did pull back their censorship of, you know, the turning point USA type stuff.
And, you know, from Trump's perspective, that is the conservative movement.
Like, Trump is promoting Charlie Kirk's latest book on the MAGA movement.
Charlie Kirk wrote the MAGA book.
So, I don't know, I mean, I think no matter who wins in 2020, I don't think anything's going to be done about this, and it's kind of, I think it's going to get to the point where it's just going to be too late, and, you know, YouTube is more and more becoming like a Netflix type, I mean, the idea that these are private companies, I mean, I know you've been, we've been over all the ridiculous libertarian arguments against this, but, like, it is very serious, I mean, anyone that has any pretense of believing in liberalism or liberal democracy, I mean...
You know, liberalism, you read someone like Habermas and, you know, how important dialogue and, like, in early liberalism, the coffee houses was where liberalism was birthed, if you believe, you know, the liberal genealogy of this.
And it was these free speech places where people could go and buy their coffee and newspaper and discuss the issues of the day.
And we don't really have a public space anymore.
I mean, what's the public space?
it's a mall or something else consumerism related dialogue is almost completely confined to the internet and then you have algorithms Well, I think...
I think we should make it, you know, in the alt-right or dissident right, whatever you guys want to call it, I think we should make it our big issue, if not our only issue.
Yeah.
Because this is where we were.
I mean, I can talk about this a little bit just because I have, you know, longer experience of this.
How old are you again, Keith?
24. Oh, 24. Okay.
So, yeah, you're much, that's way older than, you know, the Zoomer crowd who are, you know, 16. You know, living in a chat room, effectively.
But I can remember all these things in the sense that I worked for a brick-and-mortar publication for a time after I left graduate school in 2007.
I worked for the American Conservative, and I went to work at 9 a.m. and left at 5, and we produced a real publication, etc.
But basically everything that I have done since then has been digital.
I've published a number of books, but even those books, people know about them and will buy them because they know about my digital life.
And Silicon Valley was a huge benefit to that, an indispensable component of this in the sense of using Stripe, which I used very early.
I think I might have used that in 2000.
10, even.
PayPal, MailChimp, and then hosting is much more...
They don't have the monopolies that Stripe does now.
It didn't when I started.
But using all of these systems to get the word out, uploading a video to YouTube.
Ultimately, we're uploading gigabits worth of content.
They are hosting it.
They are delivering it.
They are dealing with customer service.
It is a massive benefit as opposed to, say, our producing VHS tapes and having to mail them out to people.
Yeah.
And so Silicon Valley was unquestionably helping dissonant movements, the alt-right, I mean, I got banned from Twitter in 2016, and then I was allowed back on.
They took away my other accounts.
They basically said, you can just have this one.
And then 2017, basically, a ton of bricks were falling down on us in the sense of mostly getting...
Banned from payment platforms, getting kicked off bank accounts.
I've been kicked off a dozen bank accounts, large and small banks.
And they've put us in this digital gulag.
And, you know, we benefited from it.
We went into this digital prison and we're like, oh, look how fun it is.
Look, the water works.
We've got all these utilities.
There's a cool big screen TV.
My prison is great.
Why would I want to get out?
But the problem is we're still in that prison and they can clamp down upon us anytime they want.
But I don't really know of a way out.
If we had full...
Just, you know, you are not allowed on the internet.
We are going to clamp down on anything you do.
That might be better in the sense that we would say, okay, we're going to go back to the 90s.
We're publishing newsletters and books and so on.
That would at least be clear.
But where we are now is this ambiguous state of being in a prison, where when you're in a prison, you get treated well.
You get three square meals a day.
You get a little bit of entertainment.
You get to go out in the yard and run around a little bit.
But you're still in a prison.
And that is where we are.
And again, in terms of the Nick situation, I'll just say it.
I cannot stand the guy.
It's just a bunch of takes that are Like, racist, Republican, like, hateful mainstream screaming at people.
I think it's useless.
But I really get...
I do have some sympathy for him, and we're all in that same exact situation that he is in.
And I think we need to kind of have a, you know, have a little bit of solidarity on this issue and make this the one issue that we can actually all agree on.
Whether we want to go, I mean, I don't believe in this, you know, liberal notions of free speech.
But just in terms of our very survival, we need to demand our ability to exist.
I mean, I did notice a problem as well, like when Red Eyes got shut down, I mean...
Red Ice had over 300,000 subscribers, which is four or five times bigger than Fuentes' audience.
But there wasn't really a huge backlash because it's gotten to the stage in the dissident right that when someone like Red Ice gets shut down, people kind of go, well, we saw that coming.
And they might make noise about it for a day, but then they move on.
And, yeah, I mean, if there was any kind of cohesion, I mean, if there was a sizable, you know, whatever amount of people there is in the distant right, surely there'd be a sizable enough number to pledge abstention from the 2020 election unless Trump did something about this.
So I don't know.
I don't know what difference that would make, but, you know, it would be something.
And maybe that's the space for distant movement now is to sort of kind of quixotically try and meme single issues like that.
The problem is, people like Nick Fuentes, and to a far lesser degree, but kind of to a degree of red ice.
Are pushing against the notion of acting like that.
I've known Red Eyes for a while.
I was interviewed by Henrik, I think after I was jailed in Hungary in 2014.
It was the first time I found them.
And I was listening to some of their content.
A lot of it's really wild.
Some of it...
I find, you know, interesting but clearly wrong.
You know, the moon landing kind of stuff, revision, historical revisionism, etc.
But it was at least interesting.
I noticed a distinct trend of theirs of talking about demographics, which is the red herring, seemingly pragmatic, but ultimately red herring thing of just...
They're a problematic newspaper because on the one hand they want to be the newspaper that's the radical right newspaper that's rebellious against the leftist establishment and all this kind of thing and they will go for that and they will do sensationalist articles that are about that that are pro-Brexit or whatever in an extreme way.
Then on the other hand...
At some point, someone at the hierarchy says, oh, no, we'd better jump on this bandwagon of political correctness, otherwise we'll look bad and it might be bad for sales or whatever.
And so then you can get the other extreme, almost like they're overcompensating for the perception that they're this right-wing newspaper that you're not allowed to cite on Wikipedia or whatever.
They overcompensate by being really, really woke on certain things.
So they're a very schizophrenic newspaper in some ways.
Yeah, and again, I don't really need to go on red ice at this point, and I don't have anything against them.
I think it's somewhat telling that I'm kind of persona non grata.
I mean, whatever.
I don't really care.
I would add that people have been saying that they never got a strike.
That's not true.
They did an interview with me on my book, Race Differences and Ethnocentrism, and they got a strike.
Right.
No, and I absolutely support them.
But again, at least where we were at a time in the alt-right was...
We're demanding free speech.
We're even demanding speech for Anglin.
And when you play the optics game, you basically destroy all of your leverage.
So if we are a truly dissonant movement, people call themselves the dissonant right as this weird...
It's this kind of funny way to be more PC or something.
But anyway, if you were a real dissonant movement, we would say this...
We talk about all sorts of issues, but this is...
This is where the rubber hits the road, and we will not vote for you.
We will condemn you unless you do something about this.
But again, what was the alt-right played the optics game in 2017, particularly in 2018.
I think it's actually lightened up in 2019 and early 2020.
But we played that game, and we removed all of the leverage we have.
So it's about us being American nationalists.
We're just conservatives.
Why are they calling us Nazis?
And what we did by that was destroy our leverage.
I think we should say we are radical.
We are saying things that go against the grain.
We aren't just normal, you know, in the worst sense of that word.
But we demand our existence online.
And that's how we could play this game.
I think it's very hard to play that game at this point.
And with the movement such as it is.
Also, I mean, I think it's clearly...
Ever-present danger to democracy if certain extra-governmental elements, such as trade unions in the 60s and 70s in the UK, such as the multicultural lobby, whatever, become too powerful.
It's clearly a danger to democracy.
That's why in England we have the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, because the attitude is that if a company becomes too powerful, has too much of a monopoly on the market, it's a danger to a democratic free society, and so it has to be broken up.
For some reason, in Finland, they don't seem to have a monopoly to Mergers Commission, and so a vast percentage of shops in this country are part of a duopoly of two groups, the S Group and the K Group.
It's vast.
Almost all supermarkets you're going to go to, apart from Lidl, and that only came in about nine, eight years ago.
YouTube and Twitter and Facebook are sufficiently powerful that they are a danger to democracy.
Clearly.
I think there is a very good case for anybody, whether you are left-wing and you object to the capitalism, whatever element, or whether you are right-wing and you're in favour of free speech, that these things should be broken up or they should be compelled in America to comply to American law on free speech.
I mean, you two banned the speech by Rand Paul.
I don't know, was it today or yesterday that he met in Congress?
It's like, this is just absolutely ridiculous.
And the people like Elizabeth Warren and a couple others who have demonized Mark Zuckerberg in particular and talked about monopolistic practices and so on, have been doing really the worst possible, they have the worst take on this, which is that you're a monopoly and we demand that you do more censoring.
I actually kind of get it in the sense of outright fake news.
There are people, particularly in 2016, who were just putting out clearly incorrect news items and so on.
The Pope has endorsed Donald Trump.
That was a famous one.
There's the Pizzagate thing.
There are all these things that I kind of...
But their, again, their general impulse is you need to censor more people or else we're going to go after you as a monopoly.
Whereas the only way for this to work for us is something like an opposite approach, which is basically saying you are not just some company.
You are using the infrastructure of the government, which is the internet, period.
And you are a more than just some company.
You are the lifeblood of free speech.
And therefore, you are a public utility.
You can still profit off this in the way that Comcast or an IP provider profits or a telephone company profits.
But you actually have to adhere to these regulations.
I would submit that some things...
People have commented on something.
That socialist side to me comes out when I'm in America.
And I can't believe how there's no health service, for example.
But you can pay waiters sub-minimum wage and expect that that's dealt with by voluntary tips.
I think these things are outrageous.
But certainly...
Particularly when you're eating with Ed, who would rather be waterboarded than give someone a tip.
I made it clear I don't like tipping.
I'm happy for them to just add it to the bill.
Add it to the cost.
Just add 30% to the cost of the items on the menu.
I do basically agree with it.
It's so obvious.
Anyway, the thing is they want you to tip for as well.
It's not just like restaurants.
They want you to tip cleaners in hotels.
Oh my goodness.
And you find in Europe then they try and gradually introduce tips so that then they can eventually lower the wages.
That's true.
And then you don't tip certain people.
Oscar Wilde wrote an essay against charity.
You know, don't give to charity because then you're just, you're sustaining these people and it's the system that's putting them on the street.
Leave them to starve and then, you know, let the system's guilt sort of take care of it systematically.
So, you know, don't give.
An excellent idea.
There was one person once when I was stopped on the motorway and he was trying to collect for charity.
I said, no, I don't want to give to your charity.
He said, what charities do you normally give to?
I said, I pay income tax.
What are you talking about?
I assume the government is confidently spending my money.
I think this is literally a scene from Reservoir Dogs that we are...
It was also, with the tipping, it was always 10%.
Spencer Theatre Group.
The tip was always 10%.
And now you have these places in London.
About 20 years ago, it was a 12% tip.
A 12% voluntary tip will be added to your bill.
So you have to...
Tell them to remove it.
And then it became a 12.5% tip.
And then a 13% tip.
And in America now, you're expected to pay a 20% tip.
Yes.
When I did these conferences at the Reagan building, which were really great but very expensive, they would give you the price and then they would tell you the tip.
And it's kind of like, what is that?
So that 20% is just built in and it's non-voluntary.
It is legally voluntary.
It's legally voluntary, but you have to cause a load of fuss.
Like if you go to these museums...
Hire a lawyer or something to not pay a tip.
They're all free, these museums in New York.
They make out you've got to pay, but they're free.
But anyway, moving off, I would say certain things should be in a complex society, should be under the ownership of that society.
One of them is railways.
I see no reason why it seems to be perfectly logical that a railway system that spans the whole society should be run by.
I think it was crazy that they privatised the railways in the UK.
The Post, that should be privatised.
Probably even the telecom system should probably be privatised.
And I think that it should be within these kind of institutions are so...
I've had such a monopoly.
They should be either compelled to abide by the laws of the society, i.e.
you could only be chucked off YouTube if you have to make a police complaint.
If you've been literally cited murder or engaged in what...
And Nick did not do that.
However kind of edgy...
I think he talked about a car accident with someone.
I mean...
However kind of distasteful it was, it is not something that would be illegal in a public space.
So it is illegal in a public space for me to go up to someone and start just yelling at them and harassing them and telling them I'm going to kill them and whatever.
That is harassment.
That is illegal.
If you do that on YouTube, if Nick or anyone does that on YouTube, they should...
They should be, actually, at the very least, banned for a time or have that video removed.
But what he did was simply not...
It did not rise to that level.
It might have risen perhaps to a TOS level, but the fact is the terms of service are so...
No one reads them.
They're inherently ambiguous.
They can be enforced at the whim of a middle management administrator.
It's just not workable.
And just the simple solution is to say what you can legally do on a public sidewalk, you should be able to do on one.
So I had this video.
The first time I got a warning was I did a video that was a critique of this ludicrous book by Angela Saini, this book Inferior, which all I did was start off by doing an impression of her.
Which I think is perfectly reasonable.
She's a public figure.
Why the hell shouldn't I do an impression of her?
I did an impression of her, and then I just went in detail, in tremendous detail, about everything that was wrong with her book, and then I wrapped up in actually quite a nice way.
But this groupie of hers called Jess Wade, who's a Jewish physicist or something at Imperial College London, and is really like a lover, really loves this Angela Sadie woman, a real kind of worshipper of her, wears a T-shirt on her Twitter picture.
With the name of Sadie's book on it.
And she just got released.
She tweeted, this is disgusting.
When someone uses the word disgusting, you know there's something going on.
This is disgusting.
How could this be?
She said, this is hate speech.
It's literally inciting hate, she said.
She said it should be illegal.
It should be illegal, this video, and all this, and pressured YouTube to take it down.
And they did.
And videos that were far more edgy than that, like one where I did an impression of a Somali sort of sheik.
Or far more edgy.
Stayed up.
And that video was monetized by manual review.
Before they took it down, it was flagged as being a bit dodgy because it had the word race in it or something.
And then it was monetized after manual review, supposedly.
And I said to YouTube, I don't understand this.
You're saying that it's okay to have advertising.
It's suitable for advertising.
But it's hate speech.
How can it be both?
Bimbo that I was corresponding with, the person that worked for him, said, oh, the community guidelines rules are different from the monetisation rules.
And I was like, yes, but you're saying that under your rules, something can be OK for advertisers to want to advertise on it, but also be hate speech.
It's insane.
I had a shitposting page on Facebook a few years ago that was shut down four different times and then reinstated four different times on appeal.
It's a really Kafkaesque reality where you don't know who's making the decision.
You don't know what the guidelines are.
You don't know why it's been reinstated.
You don't know if it's going to be gone again.
And it's just this constant sort of paranoia and nervousness.
I had a video that they flagged.
I appealed.
They said the appeal is rejected.
We're going to demonetize your video.
And then a month later, it was monetized.
Yeah.
The other thing is that it's permanent.
And I actually think this is so much worse than crimes that you might commit in the physical world.
So if I go steal a car and I get caught for it, I have a trial.
That is public and that is explicit.
I can serve a jail sentence with good behavior.
I could lessen that jail sentence.
And then afterwards, I might be kind of haunted by this crime for the rest of my life, but I can live as a citizen.
I can vote.
I can hold a job.
I can do whatever.
You get banned from social media.
I have not...
I don't...
This is apparently a lifetime ban.
I mean, there's nothing you can really do to get back outside of pulling a full Christian Piccionili and, in Christian's case, just lying and kissing ass and so on, and just totally apologizing and going in the total reverse way.
But I couldn't do a video.
Let's say I was a little bit tipsy or angry or whatever, and I did something that was stupid.
I would simply be banned for life.
For that one little instance.
Whereas you are not just removed from society if you steal a car or do drunk driving or whatever.
You have to murder someone in cold blood in order to be removed from the world.
But that's what hate speech is.
It's like murder, effectively.
Yeah, but it's true.
You've got to think about it in a historical context.
What we're dealing with is a replacement religion.
What we're dealing with, to a certain extent, is Christianity.
It's the second religiousness that Spengler talks about, which is that it takes aspects of the first religiousness and sort of revives them in some mutated form.
And the worst thing is that with this, it takes away the God.
It takes away the moral God that's telling you to act in this moral way and not in this moral way.
And it creates this kind of moral realism where you worship certain concepts and you're either in the group or you're not in the group.
And you will know implicitly that something hates speech or it's not.
That's why they don't need to define what hate speech is, because if you are it's a marker of group membership, a Christian, a Christian fundamentalist.
Pentecostals will talk about, you know, I think the Holy Spirit is is not with him.
It's just something they know.
They implicitly know.
That person's not really a Christian.
He's not really one of us.
He's just doing it to get status or whatever.
Be careful of him.
The Holy Spirit is not with him.
It's nothing that you can articulate why.
It's just an instinct.
When I visit...
Fundamentalist Christian sects, they hand me a snake.
They're like, this guy is one of us.
So I've never experienced what you've experienced.
No, I'm not saying they said the Holy Spirit is not with me.
Maybe it's because I'm speaking in tongues at the time.
Yeah, you're speaking in tongues and you're handling a rattlesnake.
So you're kind of indicating your...
I was at a snake handling church in a place called Lafoyette, Tennessee.
We went down there.
I have a 22-year-old father of five, Andrew Hamblin.
I think I've told you this story, haven't I?
I don't think so.
We wanted to go to a place called Jolo, West Virginia, to the Snake Hamding Church there, but we couldn't because shortly before we were about to go there, the pastor was bitten to death by snakes.
That's the way to go, I guess.
Rearrangement in my itinerary, so we didn't go to West Virginia really at all.
We went down to this place, Lafayette, Tennessee, middle of the countryside, past Trailer Park's Confederate flag in the windows, things like this.
And I said to this Andrew Hambling guy, did you know this guy, I can't remember what his name was, who died in Jolo?
And he goes, yeah, he was my best friend.
And then I said, are there any rules here?
And he said, we only ask you to stay off the hardwood.
And my friend, who's from New York, he went and sat at the back.
Little pussy.
And I said, come on, I'm up for doing this.
If the Holy Spirit inspires me, I'm up for doing this.
And, you know, that would be interesting.
But no, the only person that handled the snakes was this Andrew Hambling guy.
He'd been bitten twice.
He'd lost the use of a finger on one hand, and he'd also been bitten on the back of the head.
And he said it was because when he handled the snakes, he wasn't quite sure that it was God's will.
Right.
And then, of course, he was bitten.
I'm imagining some fantastical image of, like, let the Holy Spirit be with you.
We've got to support Israel.
And their just crusade against the Persian terrorists.
Oh, God!
Jesus!
These snakes!
That would be, yes.
Maybe both Trump and Bloomberg should have to handle snakes in the debate.
We might ironically get banned for this.
I'm not wishing the death on anyone.
That was a comedic sketch.
But anyway, the point is, we're dealing with a religious...
Dealing with a religious group, you implicitly know, you just know how to behave or you don't.
And so the hate speech are a marker that you don't know how to behave, you're not part of their group, you're not part of the religion, and they want you out.
It was interesting, this chap out in Rutherford, who's this woke anti-scientist.
He does PC science.
He's just published a book called How to Argue with a Racist, which is not the kind of book you'd expect a scientist to publish, really, which I'm looking forward to.
It's a science hack, really, which I'm looking forward to reading.
But he noted on Twitter that, oh, it's a bit of a red flag when an academic uses a non-university email address on papers, i.e.
the person is an independent academic.
They're not working at a university.
Why is it a red flag?
Well, obviously, because these days, working at a university is evidence that you are part of the religion.
It's evidence that you either pay lip service to the religion or you genuinely believe in it.
So, of course, it's a red flag if you use your own email address.
It means you don't work for a university.
You might be advocating truth that is not limited by religious truth.
Right.
So, by the new religious truth, by the multiculturalist truth, the moral truth.
And so that's what we're dealing with here.
And so that's why they can do these things.
It's a religious cult which is allowing a church, really.
That's what YouTube is kind of, a big cathedral in which the infidels are permitted to enter.
But if those infidels break the rules by besmirching the shrine or whatever, then they will be removed forever.
They will be burned, indeed.
It's unforgivable.
And that's where the comparison you made to murder fits in.
Heresy is worse than murder.
Heresy was always worse than murder.
The sentence for murder, it was a felony.
The sentence under English law for murder was the same as the sentence for stealing.
You'd hang him.
But the sentence for heresy, you're burned at the stake.
Tortured to death, yeah.
Tortured to death.
And it's to death.
So I think it makes sense.
permanent destruction and no going back because you're a heretic.
Well.
you Thank you.
Well...
We're the heretics.
We are.
I'm the jolly heretic.
We have the Irish heretic and the American heretic.
The southern heretic.
Texas heretic.
But yeah, this is it.
It's terrible what's happened to him, but he's been burned.
He's been burned.
Yeah, and optics won't save him.
I mean, it's kind of also the lesson, and his optics were god-awful to begin with, but it's always kind of a joke.
But anyway, it is definitive proof that even ultimately telling your followers to support Republicans won't help you either.
It's about those times where he has ironically or unironically spoken something true, and that is unforgivable.
When you look at the size of these tech giants and the power to have it, and you hear some of the mainstream discourse around these issues, it kind of shows how outdated our approach to these things are.
When you hear people talking about Their private property rights or whatever.
The fact that they acquired this power fairly or whatever.
So much of these companies was just timing and getting there first.
There's not anything especially superior in the layout of the Facebook website.
Twitter's technology or something?
It's technology that was around for a decade.
It's blogging, effectively.
It's just kind of done.
Maybe you have the right to capitalize on that for a few years, but, like, two decades after to still just be having a monopoly and just endlessly accumulating on the basis of, you know, doing well 20 years ago with that business model.
And then, again, the separation as well of public and private.
I mean, like, the Internet basically came out of the Pentagon.
And, you know, that's just fine division then that any Mark Zuckerberg that comes along and becomes...
I think the scale of these things are moving on.
Even looking at someone like Mike Bloomberg, the power he has to shape culture.
He's put 300 million into targeting social media and spreading memes and all this stuff.
The whole models we have to discuss this just seem so outdated now.
That's why I support the wealth tax.
There's a stage of accumulation now where it's a smaller and smaller elite, but their wealth and power is just beyond any scale conceivable, and the power it's given them is just insane.
What about a national maximum wage?
No.
I don't think it's necessarily the wage that's the issue.
It's not even the income, it's the wealth in that sense.
Just the potential for endless...
Accumulation.
Yeah.
I just, I think ultimately, I mean, this is a much bigger issue, but I think we need to get away from having a wealth, middle class based elite.
I mean, I think that is kind of the root of the problem.
An Aryan tripartite society, there are those who fight, those who work, and those who pray.
And effectively, we have those who work, a kind of bourgeois elite, and those who pray working together.
There does have to be an elite that's outside of that that's about blood and iron.
I mean, the military people, I mean, they're tools of the system.
I mean, they're not guarding anyone.
And we need to ultimately cultivate that.
But that's an intergenerational project that will, if it is completed, will...
I mean, even if you look at the university system, you can count on one hand.
Like, you know, you'd think academics having tenure that there'd be more people maybe speaking out, but I mean, you know, you can count them on one hand, like Kevin MacDonald and Ricardo Duchesne.
Think of the social pressure you're under, though.
You're working in these departments and you have to work with these people.
Do you want to go in every day and be hated?
Yes, is the answer to that question.
You'd hope that there'd be a few academics that would put the integrity of the work ahead of that.
Yeah, there are a few.
There would be a minority like J. Philippe Rushton.
Get a rise out of that.
Fine.
They'd be happy to do that.
In fact, they would enjoy doing it.
They would double down.
But for most people, they absolutely don't want that.
And as someone, I was in graduate school and I was hiding out.
I did have my views while I was at Duke University and at the University of Chicago, but I kind of wouldn't let it slip too much.
But, you know, as Ed knows this as well, the kind of, I don't know the right word, this just mundane, unbearable totalitarianism of the faculty meeting, all of these just pudgy people with ponytails sitting around talking about minutia for two hours.
It's just unbearable.
I mean, do you even get through that is something.
And if you're a heretic in that system, they will just, they'll kill you by a thousand cuts.
They'll just slowly eat you alive.
My PhD supervisor was a New York rabbi.
And he was a Marxist.
He was a New York rabbi and a Marxist.
Makes sense.
He was also a reasonable guy.
He was one of those leftists who he wouldn't agree with you, and he wouldn't go mad and emotional if you criticized the orthodoxy.
And the problem is, particularly I think with the rise of women in universities, because they are less emotionally stable than men, this is increasingly a problem.
that's why I really am pushed towards the view that something needs their numbers need they're ruining higher education and something needs to be done about it something very I do wonder if it was only men in academia.
I think it would be a lot different in that sense.
I think people would like—men also like the confrontation more.
They would like the, oh, let's actually get in a debate with a fascist.
This will be really—sparks will fly.
Women do not tolerate that.
They want to attack you and silence you and be passive-aggressive and so on.
I do think it would be better.
I don't think it would be a total solution because this is an ideological thing, but it would certainly be a lot better.
I mean, I always found in college, doing social sciences, it was like 90% women in that 110-120 IQ range that just kind of...
were capable enough to repeat back what they could figure out their lecture would want them to say and They just kind of happily coasted through for four years like that and then went into some sort of mid-level management or graduate Yeah, I remember the last time...
Real quick, the last time I was in an academic environment, strictly speaking, was actually 2018, and it was at Georgetown, and I was still in the D.C. area at that time, and I went to hear this lecture at Georgetown on the alt-right, and I guess they were probably a little bit surprised that I arrived there, but there was this pudgy woman who came up, and she had a really round head, and she just kind of waddled up, and she was just saying...
All of this nonsense to introduce everything.
I can't even repeat it because it doesn't make sense.
It's just all of these buzzwords and non-logical connections between concepts and so on.
And she looked so much like an American Puritan type.
just this boring, not good looking, not dynamic person just spouting off dogma.
And I was just thinking to myself, she is that type.
Her great great grandmother was doing the same thing at her Presbyterian Which is basically maintaining ideological order while being just goofily incoherent while doing it.
And just being a total mediocrity and kind of benefiting from your own mediocrity, which is something that I despise.
*laughs*
That's the brilliance of Jim Goode's concept of the new church ladies.
It's exactly true, and it can be sort of proven, really, through historical data.
Women were more religious than men until the 50s.
At that point, the church, or the 60s, at that point, due to the undermining of the traditional culture.
The church began to collapse.
They were no longer inculcated with religion.
And then they started to be inculcated with feminist ideas, essentially anti-religious ideas.
And now women are less religious.
They're more left-wing than men.
Women are more left-wing than men.
I've got this a bit mixed up.
Sorry.
Women were more right-wing than men.
Right.
And that was because they were more religious than men, and the religiousness was a traditional religiousness that was promoting right-wing traditional things.
With the collapse of this religiousness, they're still more religious in the sense that they're more likely to believe in God or whatever, but they're now more left-wing than men.
