All Episodes
Nov. 17, 2020 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
46:06
The Big Rig

It’s Tuesday, November 17, 2020, and welcome back to The McSpencer Group ... an unrehearsed, hastily assembled program about meta-politics. Joining me as usual is Edward Dutton: he is a golfer, and he’s also a conservative. Main topic: The Big RigJoseph Robinette Biden Jr.—yes, that is actually his name—has won the 2020 U.S. presidential election. But Republicans aren’t having any of it. And that holds two-fold for Donald Trump’s most avid fans. Massive voter fraud . . . counting machine with Communist parts . . . late-night ballot dumping . . . You’ve heard it all. The Trump team’s lawsuits are getting tossed out of Court, but the diehards keep on believin’. Ed and I take a step back. Beyond the allegations, is something deeper taking place? Is this what “civil war” actually looks like in the 21st century: less organized violence but the same level of mutual loathing, mistrust, and dehumanization. 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 Tuesday, November 17th, 2020, and welcome back to the McSpencer Group, an unrehearsed, hastily assembled program about meta-politics.
Joining me, as usual, is Edward Dutton.
He is a golfer, and he is also a conservative.
Main topic, the Big Rig.
Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., yes, that is his actual name, has won the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
But Republicans aren't having any of it.
And that holds twofold for Donald Trump's most avid fans.
Massive voter fraud.
Counting machines with communist parts.
Late-night ballot dumping.
You've heard it all.
The Trump team's lawsuits are getting tossed out of court.
But the diehards keep on believing.
Ed and I take a step back.
Beyond the allegations is something deeper taking place.
Is this what civil war actually looks like in the 21st century?
Less organized violence, but the same level of mutual loathing, mistrust, and dehumanization.
Ed, how are you?
Good evening.
Yes, I'm okay.
Yes, good morning.
I haven't been on the streets of Washington, D.C. of late.
All my bones are intact, and no one has stamped on my head.
So I'm reasonably okay.
Yeah, I mean, if I was a big target three years ago at these big DC public events, then the sight of you, a traditional Englishman, walking around, conversing with MAGA, yes, you would likely have been...
I don't think so.
As we've experienced in Chicago, I get on very well with the people who would have been prone to brutally killing me, so I'm not sure about that.
My experience, when I've met them in real life, our IRL, as the young people call it, is that they tend to rather like me, so I'm not so sure about it.
Did I not get along with them as well?
Well, you did actually.
You did.
That is true.
You did.
Indeed, you impressed them a great deal with your basketball skills.
Yes.
But I think that it wouldn't necessarily be...
Quite so bad.
It seems to be working class Americans that they particularly despise.
Those who are members of groups like the Oath Keepers, is that what they're called?
Yes.
I don't know.
It's something about that.
That's where the real animosity lies.
But no, it's been just yet more evidence of the coming apart of the Roman Empire, I think, over the yesterday in your nation's capital, or your set broken up nation's capital.
Well, we'll see about that.
But I do agree with you that polarization is radical, and if anything, people are underestimating it.
You hear about polarization in the media, if you watch CNN or whatever.
Oh, this polarized electorate, blah, blah, blah.
I don't think they actually are telling you the half of it.
It's not just we have a bunch of people who want to vote for different parties.
It's two people who can't speak to each other and who hate each other and wildly distrust each other.
So let's back up just a little bit.
This weekend, there was a hastily assembled Million MAGA March.
I don't think they got really anywhere close to having a million participants.
And maybe that was a bad title to choose for their march.
However, they did get, I don't know, maybe the very lowest end, 50,000.
And at a high end, 150,000 or 200,000.
It was a lot of people who were there.
I think there were four main rallies that were kind of...
Organically coming together.
It was all about what they feel to be is election rigging.
And they don't believe that what they saw on television was real.
And I think that's also something that is a real part of this, where it's a kind of disbelieving the facts put out, put forward by what are institutions, whether it be Twitter or whether it be CNN or whether it be the New York Times.
These are media institutions.
No, they don't call the election, but they do have this institutional connection to the status quo.
And they think that all of these things that these institutions say are lies.
It's not even that you should be skeptical of them.
Just by the fact that they say them, you should disbelieve them.
And I don't think that I'm exaggerating their mentality because In some of the interviews that have come out from yesterday, that's exactly what they would say.
As you know, I wrote this thing on QAnon, and what was fascinating about researching that is the extent of it.
It reminds me of the English Civil War, where you really do have both sides, one literally and one metaphorically.
Portraying each other is in league with Satan, with Satan being stated in, is it 1 John or something like that, as being the father of lies.
And so they will not believe what they see with their own eyes.
The level of trust is so low that...
All that the mainstream media can be presenting them with is a huge conspiracy theory, a huge lie.
I have to say, much as I might like to believe that Trump has genuinely won this election and that there is a huge conspiracy theory, I'm not saying...
When I look into the arguments that are presented in favour of why there has been vote rigging, not minor vote sodding about, as there always is in elections in a country which is a little bit corrupt, but on a scale that is sufficient to shift the vote, I have to say, I'm not so sure.
Academic agent who is a YouTuber and people like this have been putting out this idea that it is actually Trump.
Look at the arguments.
I'm really not so sure.
It does seem to be rather more consistent with a huge polarization in whether you voted by post or whether you voted in Exactly.
We don't have to dwell on the notion of interference, because there are a number of lawsuits, and to be honest, they are getting laughed out of court.
They are, in some cases, based Solely on hearsay.
They are, in some cases, their exact allegation or claim of damages are ambiguous, like there were no poll observers, and then the judge asked them how many poll observers there are, and the plaintiff said a non-zero number.
I.e.
there were poll observers.
These things don't hold a lot of water.
So I think the likelihood that this is going to get to the Supreme Court and it will be overturned, or the likelihood that they will convince the leaders of these states to not certify the elections, because again, elections are run by the states.
It's a 10th Amendment thing.
It's not a federal issue.
The idea that you're going to get all of these states to not certify the election and then just put forth their own electors, and there are more red states than there are blue states, they would elect Trump.
I would say less than 1%, and that's maybe being generous.
But the point is that they genuinely don't believe this.
And you can say, as a liberal CNN-watching uppity, Jerk.
Oh, they're just stupid.
Or it's just a cult of personality.
And, okay, little bits of truth there, certainly with the cult of personality bit with Trump.
But the fact is that just the phenomenon of them not believing anything that they hear is radical.
And they've even taken it to kind of new levels.
Because one of the things I saw being chanted by a number of them was Fox News sucks.
And so we've kind of...
And then they've also...
The Proud Boys chanted Fox News sucks and then they chanted Tucker, Tucker, Tucker who's the star of Fox News.
On Fox News.
And I saw...
I was watching a program.
I was watching on YouTube the other day something which Tucker Carlson half-hour segment on...
On the election in which he casts serious doubt on the mainstream narrative.
So it's not quite true to say that Fox News is completely against them.
Fox News is prepared to give voice to these people who are skeptical.
But the thing is, they've taken this down.
They're making these refinements that are somewhat surprising.
Because Fox News was very much behind the Tea Party.
Great deal of the Tea Party.
This is kind of Tea Party 2.0.
And Fox News, they would just do PR for the Tea Party all day, including their supposedly hard news segments.
And the fact that they're now kind of countersignaling them a little bit is remarkable.
And the fact that they're making these distinctions is also remarkable.
Fox News came in an kind of early period of polarizations.
We were kind of breaking away from the nightly news model, where there were three middle-aged white men who told you the truth.
And no one, you know, if you were questioning the truth told you by Walter Cronkite...
Or Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather, you were a bit of a crank.
You were likely, you believed in aliens and foil hats and so on.
The vast majority of the population would listen.
To Walter Cronkite.
And when he said something mildly critical about the Vietnam War, it actually really affected public opinion in a substantial way after he gave a 30-second op-ed, basically, on air about how the Vietnam War is not going so well.
There was just this top-down authority through media.
I think there still are mainstream institutions, but they're fragmenting and shattering.
And the idea that there actually is an American population out there that can be kind of informed through propaganda in a broad sense of the word, in a Jacques Ellul's sense of the word, that they can be informed and they can learn how to act through a media apparatus, that is breaking down.
Well, of course.
First of all, the I mean, as a book I read recently, I did a video on this on YouTube recently, that was very, very interesting, this coming apart by Charles Murray.
And I know that on quite a few things, Charles Murray has an unfortunate tendency to cut.
But on this, he didn't.
And it was very, very good.
And he basically identified the day on which, to simplify it, the day on which America changed was the 21st of November 1963, which I think is when JFK was assassinated, wasn't it?
Interesting, yeah.
And he was saying around that date, you had about four channels.
30% of the population, or 34% of the population, were watching one program on one night.
I think it was called The Hidden Billion or something.
And then in 2010, for 9% of the population to watch American Idol.
That was good.
That was considered a hit.
That was something that was going well.
Everybody has, whether they're working class or middle class, as you call it in America, or upper class, have the same lifestyle, the same kind of attitudes towards the legitimacy of children.
At marriage, about 3% of households were paid by a single parent.
And everybody, no matter what their social class was, basically lived, to some extent, the same lives and had the same values.
And of course, at that point, they were, what, 85%, 90% white as well.
So it was a united culture.
And not only that, it was united in all of these ways, even in terms of things that you ate.
There was no access to sushi or Chinese food or whatever, you know.
Everybody ate the same thing.
Everybody did the same thing.
There was very little diversity of choice.
And that, simply even down to having a diversity of what food you can eat, is going to change things and change the degree to which people identify with each other and abandon each other.
Church attendance was about 60%.
So you've got over half of the population united in this What they see is this profound, eternal ritual.
And all of this unity, which held together this America, of the black and white films and whatever, is completely, for various reasons, part of its technology, of course, and the access to multiple views.
Part of it is other factors, I think, partly even genetic factors.
Part of it is the breakdown of religion and holding people together.
It's all gone.
And so then at a time of crisis like this, where you have this very close election, there was a very close election in 1960, but both sides are very, very similar to each other in a lot of fundamental ways.
Interestingly, just a quick interjection.
In the 1960 election, JFK referred to himself as a conservative and Nixon advertised himself as a liberal.
So, I mean, that's a curious fact, but it just goes to show how close these parties were, you know, in terms of just, and how we hadn't even seen that, like, I'm a true American conservative.
Oh, no, I'm a liberal.
Like, we hadn't seen that just, like, ossification of two large populations that are both whites to a very large degree.
But just that...
Total divergence.
We had not seen that yet.
We've definitely seen that now.
Yeah, you've definitely, I mean, you had it conspicuously in the 80s with the rise of the fundamentalist Christianity and whatever, Bob Jones, university types, and fundamentalism becoming more fundamentalist as well, which is interesting.
So in the 60s or whatever, the idea that you, as a fundamentalist Christian, that you rejected the existence of dinosaurs.
The world was created old to confuse the non-believer.
That was a minority thing.
Whereas now it's become a marker that you're a genuine Christian, that you reject dinosaurs and that you believe in the Adam and Eve creation accounts and you're not descended from a monkey.
And all this sort of thing.
So even on that level, because once you diverge, then you signal how committed you are to the segment of which you're a part by going further.
And so the fundamentalists become more fundamentalists and the liberals become more liberal.
And so you can see how you would end up with a total lack of trust.
And this cognitive dissonance, which the people who have lost the election, the Republicans, are feeling.
And the way you deal with that is to come up with some...
Leon Festinger did, when he did his book on cognitive dissonance, actually found this, that when these people that were in these religious cults, when it didn't happen the way it was supposed to happen, they would come up with some massive conspiracy theory to demonstrate why it hadn't happened the way it was supposed to happen.
And then they would just carry on and entrench themselves and become even more extreme.
And so it just feeds into this polarization and coming apart.
And I suspect it's just going to get a lot worse from here.
But let me add, I mean, there's also a level to this to which it's kind of fake as well.
And in which it's not going to lead to real civil war level violence.
It already has led to appalling street-level violence.
This has been a trend over the last, say, four or five years, in fact.
And I saw many instances last night, just glancing at Twitter, of just brazen attacks by Antifa types or BLM types on Trump supporters.
I mean, it was totally outrageous.
Even if I'm going to criticize...
I think that is here to stay.
I don't think that's going to go away for the foreseeable future.
But there's also a certain degree of kind of fakeness to this polarization.
I mean, with the election of Abraham Lincoln, the South, they kind of meant what they said, and they said what they meant.
And this did eventuate into a major civil war.
A lot of people are, you know, they've been calling Trump a fascist for years now.
And they say he, they think that he's the cause of this polarization.
I think he's the symptom.
But the fact is, whether this is going to follow through in a way that's an actual civil war, I think is highly debatable.
I mean, let's also...
Kind of look at what happened.
So Trump attended this rally, quote-unquote.
He drove by them, apparently, as he was off to his golf course.
You know, just saying, but, you know, all these liberals are saying, like, this is a coup, and they're going to take power.
It's the Reichstag's fire situation.
Yeah, I think if you're going to engage in an actual coup, you should go give a big bombastic speech being surrounded by your supporters and make demands and bold declarations.
You don't just go and drive by and have a bunch of Trump fans, you know, kind of like they're watching the Beatles or something.
But there's also this level of, we've kind of seen this before.
Like, there was a...
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, almost immediately, certainly before he was inaugurated, there was this Tea Party phenomenon.
And I actually, I remember attending some of these things.
I was living in New York City and I attended a Tea Party rally in New York City, as crazy as that might sound.
But it was packed.
Tons of people, certainly thousands of people, they were talking about the Constitution and taxes and free markets and all this kind of stuff.
And it didn't really eventuate into anything.
It eventuated into voting for Republicans and voting in some new Republicans, like Mike Pompeo, who became Secretary of State, or Rand Paul.
There's this...
Way at which it kind of becomes fake.
It becomes kind of a fake revolution and a fake revolution.
That is true, but it could be argued that the intensity and the hatred and the division and the lack of trust is more substantial now than it was 12 years ago.
So the ante has been upped to a greater extent.
And what these models of polarization would predict would be that this will continue until something breaks.
Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be a civil war.
The problem with looking at this in the sense that we know it, that civil wars could be regarded as a sort of a...
A pre-computer age phenomenon, I don't know, that they're of their time and in a society that is more and more and more complex, then to the extent that something like a civil war occurs, it doesn't take the same form.
So, for example, if you look at what's happening in England at the moment, there are these people that are trying to set up a sort of an ethno-nationalist far-right political party.
The way on which they are attacked is not to be shot or assassinated or something like that.
That's the kind of thing that will be beaten up in the streets.
Even that's the kind of thing that might happen 50 or 60 or a hundred years ago.
Um, but their bank accounts are shut down.
Um, And they are stopped at the border and having their DNA taken under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Oh, wow.
Or they, you know, that sort of thing.
So it's a more subtle affair because the level of control which the state apparatus has is stronger.
So it won't necessarily be the same thing.
The manifestations of high levels of polarization will be slightly different.
But at some point...
Considerably different.
But it may be that it is the nearest thing that we could get on the way to some sort of collapse that would be the sort of safety valve of a sort of a Civil War skirmish or something like that.
And we are separating as well.
I mean, there's this phenomenon of the big sort of...
Separating off into red states and blue states in a way.
Or it's not quite like that, but it's separating off into red neighborhoods and blue neighborhoods.
And the idea of Whiteopia as well as this almost suburban place where you can create this simulation of the 1950s.
And liberals do that as well, too.
But we're not around each other.
We're choosing to be in different worlds and therefore meeting different people and marrying them and having children with them.
We're just choosing to create different races in a way.
One of the remarkable things is that it's interesting to talk about how race...
Plays into this, because it's not exactly clear.
People in our movement will have been talking for decades of, oh, there's racial turmoil and distrust, and there's going to be a breakdown.
And I do think that one of the background, you know, components of this, an indispensable cause for it, is this long-term demographic change.
And the chickens are coming home.
to roost in the sense that it's going to be harder to win elections as the Republican Party was winning elections, although the Republican Party is expanding into diverse populations as well.
But it's not...
It's not breaking down just purely on race.
I mean, the GOP for a long time has been kind of the white party.
It's been 90% of the voting bloc has been white and so on.
But it's not a racial breakdown.
It's something different.
I'm not sure about that.
It's a conservative party.
And so it's the party of those who have these five moral foundations where the emphasis is on authority.
On disgusts of purity and in-group loyalty.
And that's why you get, there is a black segment within the, as was seen at this rally in Washington yesterday, there is a black segment within the Republican Party.
There are those who are black and who see their ethnocentric blacks and they want to help the interests of the blacks.
But also there are blacks who are individualists and who want just right wing.
Candidate Owens or whatever.
And those kinds of people, or Hispanics or whatever, will be inclined towards the Republicans and will perhaps marry white Republicans and whatever.
That's the kind of process you would predict would occur.
And similarly, you get, of course, white people who...
Who are very, very rich and whose interests could be regarded as being a Republican government.
But the opposite is the case.
They're these childlike people that mentally haven't quite grown up.
And so they become involved with the Democrats.
But so I think, yeah, the point is that increasingly you have them working together.
I mean, this idea that they go on about that when George Bush lost the election in 1992 and he left a nice little message for Bill Clinton.
And that's the way it's supposed to work.
And you work together in Parliament.
You had this in Britain as well.
There was a TV series in Britain in the 80s called Yes Minister.
And the character that was about Jim Hacker remains friends with the person who was the minister in the old government that he was the shadow opposition to.
And then meets up with him for lunch and says, look...
The civil service I have to deal with.
When you were the minister, what did you do?
How do you beat them?
And he said, my dear fellow, if I could beat them, I wouldn't be in opposition.
They're like friends, even though they're different parties.
And that used to be, to a certain extent, how it was.
And that is just, in Britain now, that's decreasingly the case.
You have people in the Labour Party who despise the Conservatives.
I hate them.
There was this woman who is a shadow, a member of the Shadow Cabinet, called Angela Rayner, and there was some Conservative MP talking in Parliament, and she went, scum!
Ah, scum!
And the guy goes, I'm sorry, did the Right Honourable Lady just call me scum?
And the speaker intervened and told her off.
That's the level it's at, even in Britain, worst in America, of just mutual loathing.
And I find it's kind of one way, if I think about it from my own experience, particularly since over the last couple of years I sort of came out as a person of the right in a pronounced form.
The research by Height indicates that the level of disgust Is higher overall among people that are on the right.
But the level of moral disgust in particular.
So there's these different kinds of disgust.
Disgust about illness and whatever.
And the level of moral disgust uniquely is higher among the left.
And that is why people that are on the left are so intolerant of those that have different views from them because they have a disgust of visceral.
For people that disagree with their opinions.
And so it's kind of one way.
I remember when I was at university, you'd have these fundamentalist Christians.
And at the time, lovely people, I have to say.
I was a screaming atheist at the time.
And I would mock.
We disagree.
We disagree.
Let's be friends.
That meme you have on Facebook of Winnie the Pooh and Eeyore, oh, I voted Republican, you voted Democrat, never mind, let's be friends.
That's really what they're like.
That's not what the leftists are like.
That's not what they're like.
Their attitude is the other version of that meme, which was, hang on, no, you voted for Brexit, I didn't vote for Brexit, we can't just be friends, you've messed up our future forever.
Which came out of that.
So you're dealing with people that can't tolerate other views.
And that's been the nature of the left throughout history, really, that they will portray, even go back to the Reformation, that you've got the Protestants, so basically the left, the new and the change and the equality, portraying those who disagree with them, like the Pope, as Satan.
And that's in a really visceral, nasty form.
That's an element that's there at these times of crisis.
I agree.
I totally agree.
In terms of people who have yelled at me in public or something, it's 100%.
Well, I would say this, 99% leftist.
In the sense of just randos coming up to me and yelling at me and being nasty and stupid.
99%.
I actually have had a conservative do that once.
With the Conservatives, though, one of the things that is associated with mental instability is periods of fervent religiousness.
And so you might get people who go through periods of very fervent conservatism, who are kind of mentally unstable as well, and who are insecure about it.
And if you question it, because they're a bit sort of...
What's the word?
They have sort of...
There's a scientific term for it, but sort of an unstable sense of self, essentially.
And those people will have a number of symptoms, one of which is that they will react very strongly to the slightest perceived criticism of them, which includes criticism of their worldview.
They will engage in what's called splitting, where they'll see the world in a very dogmatic way, either good or evil, if you disagree you're evil.
Borderline personality disorder, that's what it's called.
And so I have, I can think of a case on my field work with fundamentalist Christians where there was this rabidly fundamentalist sort of missionary, basically, who they'd invited to speak.
And he was trying to say to me, oh, yeah, you should believe in God.
There's such a thing as God.
And I said, well, I don't find any of the arguments for the existence of God convincing.
You'd have to, you'd have to, you know, he'd have to appear before me or something like that.
And he snapped as a, oh, if he appeared before, you'd come up with some idea, wouldn't you?
That you were seeing things or something like that.
Right.
Probably true.
Probably true, yeah.
No reason.
No, but I see your point, yeah.
It can happen the other way around.
Yeah.
So, granted, but I guess what I'm getting at, because I'm looking at this more from a political angle than not just personality, is that it's like...
That's true, and I think there is a natural conservatism where you and I would probably, we would at least appreciate and maybe be more likely to want to be around the kind of people who would be attracted to the MAGA March rally.
They're decent, they're normal, they're mentally stable, etc.
But they're in this kind of new position of resentment, and it is...
I don't want to sound too much like a liberal here, but it is a kind of resentment politics in the sense that they're not...
With the Tea Party, you saw this as well, and you definitely see this with this new burgeoning movement, which might become Tea Party 2.0, we'll see, is that there's no real claim of, say, political dominance or policymaking or a vision of the future.
There's simply, you cheated.
You're a bad person.
You're taxing us too much.
You're a socialist.
You're blah, blah, blah.
It's all this kind of negative resentment politics.
Whereas the left, and I sometimes think you kind of are we, but you also.
We kind of overestimate the degree to which the left are a bunch of blue-haired weirdos and just a bunch of sexual perverts and mentally unstable.
The fact is, most of them are not like that.
Most of them actually are stable.
They might be uppity and annoying in their own way, granted, but they're not just crazy people.
And they actually are a hegemonic entity in the sense that the liberals are slowly putting together a large coalition that can actually win elections and rule.
And what's standing in their way is this resentment coalition of the normal people in America.
But those people don't have actually any vision for power.
Protesting right now on a highly dubious claim about the fact that they actually won the election.
Back in the Tea Party days, they were almost like libertarian anarchists when you would listen to them, even though they didn't actually believe that.
Just pure constitutionalism.
It's all this negative energy.
Even within their coalitions, you have these hot-button things.
I care about abortion.
I care about gun rights.
I care about taxes.
You know, whatever.
Now it's free speech.
Oh, they're doing all these bad things to us.
You know, I can't believe that they're censoring the president of the United States on Twitter.
It's all this just negative energy.
It's resentment politics, whereas the left, in their own imperfect way, are putting together a ruling political coalition with actual policy visions.
And so it is...
Very asymmetric.
There was a colleague of mine that made that point, and he compared the far-right, whatever you want to call it, these kinds of people, to actual Nazis, actual who were on the extremes.
And he said that those people are more dangerous, although they're totally fringe and irrelevant, but they are, in a sense, more dangerous than these kinds of people because those people, it's not just saying this is bad.
They actually have a vision.
We want to do this to society.
We have a plan.
Our plan is to get in power, to destroy all our enemies, and then build a society that is like this.
And I think you are right, that that is what these people on the right, that's what Margaret Thatcher did to some extent, although a lot of people that are our supporters don't like Margaret Thatcher.
It wasn't just that, oh, Labour has created chaos, and nobody has any money, and we need to do something about it.
It was, I want to create an...
A house-owning democracy in which everybody has a financial, physical stake in that democracy.
And I want to reinstitute traditional Victorian values in this way, but not this way, because it aids that democracy.
And that was her vision.
Whereas it was Labour that was the politics of resentment, was to say, ah, let's tax the rich, the rich too rich.
For example, at the height of Monty Python, the Monty Python people were paying 83% income tax.
So that level of income tax in Britain in 1979, you were a top earner.
So you're right, the Tea Party as well didn't really have a vision.
These people who are these fundamentalist Christians, I suppose you could argue they kind of have a vision.
They instantiate that in certain small ways in the areas of America that they run, like Utah or something, where they used to have special blockbuster video type chains with censored videos.
Things like that.
Everything you watched was a sort of little house on the prairie sort of level of wholesome Americana.
Even Michael Moore documentaries like Fahrenheit 9-1-1 would be censored to be in line.
So that kind of thing.
I think it's closed down.
I think it's called Clean Flicks.
Well, Erotica is more erotic when it's a little bit censored.
They got it right in a weird way.
Just a little bit of nipple right there.
That's all you need.
That's titillating.
A look across the room can be more arousing than a...
It's been some graphic pornographic.
So I think you're right.
It would be good.
The whole move is based around we want to get Trump in because it's just so unfair.
He's tenuous.
I can't.
I'm trying.
I really am.
Trying to be open-minded.
You know, it's in my nature.
I like to be contrarian.
Even when I was a child, I preferred to have the Skeletor toys rather than the He-Man toys.
I like to be contrarian.
But I can't bring myself to accept the arguments that are being propounded for why this was stolen to the extent that he would win.
Right.
Exactly.
I really can't.
I'm sorry.
I can't.
They don't make any sense.
Of course there's going to be a Biden bounce if they start counting the Biden votes overwhelmingly after they start counting the Trump votes.
Why wouldn't they?
I totally agree.
To go back to what I was saying about 15 minutes ago, it's like...
I totally agree that polarization is radical.
I mean, when I put out my election forecast, I actually found some of these things which were remarkable, which is that people...
True conservatives are more concerned about their daughter marrying a Democrat than someone of another race.
Now, granted, that's what they told to a pollster, so they might be censoring themselves a little bit.
And you see the same thing with liberals.
So an uppity liberal living in Northern Virginia, if they learn that their daughter is marrying a Republican...
It's scary for them.
The idea of having him over to dinner would be terrifying.
So we are reaching this radical polarization.
But I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really see full-on civil war.
I see full-on street violence, thuggery.
We've already seen that.
But there's no there there.
There's not going to be a Trump coup.
We're not living in the 20s or 30s, and I don't know if we're going to see something like that again.
And there's also this just extreme asymmetry, which is kind of discouraging or demoralizing, I think, for the right in general, because there's just no there there.
And we kind of look at these people and we say, oh, look, they're good and they're decent.
They're what we want America to look like and so on.
But you actually do have to say something beyond resentment.
Or you are going to be in this hamster wheel for the rest of your political days, just reacting to the latest thing that the left does.
But the thing is, the left is the ones that are actually doing things.
They have put together a kind of coalition which is incoherent.
It includes upper class white people on board with African Americans in Chicago and most of Hispanics and the underclass.
It doesn't make sense in some way, but neither did their other liberal coalition of...
Of the FDR era.
For 60 years, they ruled with Southern segregationists aligned with eggheads in New York City and the urban poor and unions and farmers.
So you can do this.
You can put together these coalitions.
But also what I see in the left is an actual vision.
You know, I have a vision for what the world is going to look like.
You know, you have a vision for what the world is going to look like.
You have to have something.
You have to have a kind of platonic ideal of where we're headed.
They need to put together more overtly, I think, a religious coalition.
I mean, that's as far as I can see what it could divide along.
down in america anyway a coalition of those who are who have these monumentalist eternal values and those who don't of all races and does have to be of all races because of the right which people are inculcated with Right.
be.
And there are some movements in that direction, in the sense that there are people in the Republican Party who are not white.
And Trump, of course, has attempted to appeal to black people in particular, saying, look, I've done this to black unemployment or whatever.
But somehow it has to have more urgency to it.
It has to be that they have to stop identifying as black.
Margaret Thatcher tried this as well.
She put a poster with a black man saying, Labour says he's black, the Conservatives say he's British.
And that was part of her attempt at this.
You hear that all the time in America.
I don't see colour.
The Hindus, for example, are really, really into the Conservative Party.
Yeah.
So, I mean, it can be done, but the problem is this fundamental problem where the story of history seems to be that things move in a left-wing direction until there's total chaos.
And it seems that at the moment, because people are so rich, I guess, The chaos that you have with BLM or whatever is just not enough.
And also another problem is the polarization of it.
So if you live in these kinds of places like Chicago or whatever, and you're white, then you experience chaos and it's awful.
What if you live like where you live?
What if you live in North Dakota?
Yeah, exactly.
What will impact you?
Because there's racial polarization in America.
Okay, they try and just mess it up by putting in refugees in Minnesota and refugees in Maine or whatever, which actually would benefit the right in that sense indirectly.
But they're kind of protected from it, and so they don't really feel it.
Whereas in a small nation of the European kind, if it's happening, it's kind of happening nationwide.
And so it allows the change of government to occur.
With America, it's much more complicated because you're holding together all of these different, really very different places.
So I don't know, but my expectation is that this will just get worse and worse and worse until the level of chaos is so bad that something breaks, and that's what normally happens.
There has to be something there.
There has to be something that can take over.
Again, I'm the one who's always most critical of the right because I feel like that's what we have to criticize.
If we're going to get it right, we have to criticize conservatives.
We know the left sucks.
I could spend my entire day tweeting about...
You know, SJWs in California, but it's just, it becomes old after a while.
But if there's nothing there to actually assert itself, if all you have is ultimately a resentment coalition, then the left will learn how to be hegemonic.
Because, you know, the liberals, you hear a lot of this on kind of the far left, like raging against Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
As, oh, they're conservatives, and they're in with the wealthy, and they're not going to actually do these things we want.
Well, that's true, and they're bought off to some extent, sure.
But they also know how to govern.
And they don't want endless BLM chaos.
And they will crack down on these people at some point.
And they want stability.
And so what I see with those types is an ability to govern, an ability to use power, and not just want to grab power for your little cause or whatever, or not just want to grab power to reduce it or whatever the conservatives say they want to do.
They want to grab power and hold onto it and govern.
And there is something admirable about that.
That's one way that you could see the BLM stuff as a sort of punishment beating.
On the population for having voted the wrong way.
So look what we can do to you.
We're going to do this to you, and we're going to keep doing it to you unless you vote Democrat.
And now you've voted Democrat, and so therefore they may rein in the punishment beatings.
Yeah, I think it's deeper.
It's just a kind of taking your little pound of flesh.
It's just, you enslaved Grandpappy, and I'm going to...
Hit you over the head, basically.
It's like this primal court where when the evildoer did something, you just get to kick the shit out of him, basically.
Export Selection