RadixJournal - Richard Spencer - Radix Live -- Ed, Keith, Richard, and special guest Sean Last.

Feb. 22, 2021 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer

02:16:30

Radix Live -- Ed, Keith, Richard, and special guest Sean Last.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit radixjournal.substack.com/subscribe

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, everyone.
	Welcome back to the long-awaited return of Raiders Live.
	Good morning, good afternoon, good night, wherever you are around the world.
	We're glad you are with us.
	I'm going to be doing some more of these.
	First off, I will start with Ed.
	Ed, how are you doing?
	You're looking a little blue, but I think that's just the shade of your camera.
	I don't know what that's been caused by.
	No, I'm not blue.
	No, I'm reasonably chipper because, of course, I'm in one of the few countries that doesn't really have a lockdown.
	So I'm not locked in the house and depressed or anything like that.
	I went out earlier, snowing.
	And, yeah, that's what's been going on here.
	Yes.
	Okay, that's good.
	We don't have a huge lockdown.
	I mean, I think there are a lockdown in some places around the U.S., but things are pretty much back to normal with masks.
	But I think we're going to get back to normal pretty soon in terms of...
	I really think the coronavirus is subsiding.
	You know, hospitalizations are down.
	Deaths are down.
	It's all good.
	Good news.
	Keith...
	How are you doing?
	I just put you on mute, but you actually sound good now.
	We were getting a little feedback from your mic.
	I'm very disappointed.
	Your tech setup seems to be declining, much like Western civilization.
	But it's okay now.
	So how are you doing?
	Yeah, not too bad.
	Not too bad.
	We do have quite a harsh lockdown here, and yeah, it's getting very tiresome.
	You have a harsh lockdown going, okay.
	Yeah, level five, full-on lockdown.
	I think they're giving people the worst-case scenario.
	They're talking about it not ending until May.
	I don't know.
	To be honest, I think we're getting a lot more pessimistic predictions from the media and the politicians than will actually happen.
	Like, we're getting close to where there's going to be a flood of vaccines.
	I just think some of the projections they have, I think, are kind of worst-case scenario.
	Well, you know, one thing that I would say that is that it's like...
	There was this talk over the fall of we need to reach herd immunity.
	And there was a certain kind of Darwinian cruelty that was being sometimes explicitly suggested by people, which is that these viruses come throughout world history.
	Let's just take it.
	Let's just take the hit now, as opposed to extending it with all these lockdowns.
	And some of them would mention that we didn't solve the problem definitively like we could have when it first began, as China did.
	But the thing is, I mean, I think there is a good case to be made for that.
	But at the end of the day, vaccines and social distancing are kind of part of herd immunity.
	I mean, herd immunity does not mean that we all get it or something like that.
	Quasi-suicidal It basically means that the virus is not reaching enough people to reproduce at the high rate that it was.
	So if it's encountering people who have been vaccinated, if it's not encountering potential new hosts through just mask wearing or some basic social distancing, we are getting to herd immunity.
	I mean, herd immunity is the goal.
	It's even the goal of the CDC and so on.
	Effectively, even though they might not say that.
	So I do think that things are going to get better very soon.
	I think certainly by the fall, things are going to be pretty okay.
	Even white males like myself might get vaccinated in the coming months.
	I remember looking at the list and I was way down it.
	But I was below the homeless.
	Vaccinate the homeless, vaccinate Nazis.
	Right.
	Well, there's dogs and then cats.
	Yeah.
	And then people who have already died of coronavirus will be vaccinated.
	And then it's...
	Yeah.
	Exactly.
	Yeah.
	And then it's...
	Oh, yeah.
	So, anyway.
	But generally speaking, I am optimistic.
	I think we are kind of getting out of this.
	And I think a lot of the...
	I guess, I mean, to be cruel about it, the kind of low-hanging fruit has been picked.
	People with serious conditions or who caught this, who are elderly, have already either survived or died of the coronavirus.
	And those are the people who are most affected.
	So it's been a catastrophe.
	I don't want to diminish it, you know, morally speaking.
	But I do think that we're headed out.
	Hopefully you can hear me better now.
	I have my proper mic set up.
	Is that okay?
	It sounds pretty good, yeah.
	A little hazy feedback.
	I was going to say, one of the reasons I think it'll end sooner than they're projecting is because Israel has more people vaccinated than anywhere, but it was kind of interesting looking at the results from Israel, because when you vaccinated the most vulnerable...
	uh, half a percent of the population, the death rate was down by 50%.
	So, I mean, once they have the, I mean, it's, you know, the death rate is only like what?
	0.3% anyway or something.
	Once they have the vulnerable groups, uh, vaccinated, I mean, the death rate will effectively be zero.
	I mean, in the UK, they're pretty close to that already.
	So, I mean, by...
	The middle of March, you're going to have all the vulnerable groups vaccinated in most Western countries.
	You've got two more vaccines coming.
	The Johnson& Johnson one is like one shot.
	So, I mean, by the middle of March, it's feasible that, like, all the vulnerable groups be vaccinated will effectively be zero deaths.
	And vaccines available for almost everyone that wants them.
	So even though they're projected lockdowns right into the summer, I think it's going to be fairly unjustifiable.
	I mean, I know people say it's unjustifiable already, but once there's basically zero deaths, I'm not sure they can continue with them as draconian as they're planning.
	But then they start saying, oh, well, there's a new strain of corona.
	But I think there are new strains, but the new strains are largely like media hype.
	I mean, so far, I think the vaccines have been effective against all these new strains.
	All right.
	Well, I was thinking, imagine if this is a new type of virus.
	If corona is a new type of virus, a new form, and then you're going to have this increasingly genetically sick population that has to put more of its bioenergetic resources into fighting off the virus because it's so sick.
	And so they're less good at fighting off the virus.
	And then they're increasingly in an evolutionary mismatch and whatever, and they're increasingly fat and unhealthy.
	So they can't fight off the virus.
	And so I wonder if it could go on.
	I think it's a bit too optimistic.
	I like being optimistic in the long run.
	In the short run, I'm slightly concerned this is a bit overly optimistic.
	We were all told in England three weeks to save the NHS.
	That was a year ago.
	Three-week lockdown to save the NHS.
	You've had the savaging regeneration of school children who are going to have to go to school during the summer or whatever to catch up.
	You've had this psychological impairment put on people that are already messed up and living in a way they shouldn't be living.
	You've had all these neurotic.
	Well, I don't think the ultimate effects are over.
	I mean, one thing that I was suggesting we talk about when Sean last joins us is the birth dearth.
	There was a lot of talk of a baby boom.
	When the lockdown started, because, you know, you have nothing else to do, might as well just go have sex.
	But actually, the opposite is the case.
	And in the United States, there's actually, according to the Brookings Institute, which is this, you know, center-left think tank in Washington, D.C., there's been 300,000 fewer deaths than there otherwise would have been.
	So, yeah, I don't think, I mean, this is a trauma that I...
	It's a lot like 9-11 or something.
	I mean, the radiation from this trauma is going to go through another decade of life.
	Yeah, I think they got the calculations badly wrong in terms of quality of life and how it's affecting people.
	I mean, if you look at the level of increase in suicide and mental health problems, especially among young people, I don't know.
	I think in hindsight, I mean, at the time, like when we were looking at it a year ago, they could have potentially done what China did.
	I mean, a country like Ireland could have easily done it, closed its borders, harsh lockdown for a month, effectively eliminated, no immigration into the country after that.
	I mean, that's what China did.
	China has like 80 cases a day for a country of 1.3 billion people just because it hit it so hard early on and it closed the borders.
	But I mean, the stop-start lockdown of going in and out of complete, like everything barred, essential services closed, I don't think a year of it was worth it at this stage.
	I mean, it was like they were kind of in two minds.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	a while but they're not effective enough to do anything long term and then the numbers come back up and then it's back into a harsh lockdown.
	Oh, it's the, you know, what are the conservatives of the 1950s?
	The middle of the road leads to socialism.
	But I mean, I think middle of the road leads to unhappiness.
	You have to just hit it hard, just slam it to the ground if you're going to do something.
	And I would have been totally fine with, you know, six weeks of just absolute pain.
	If we could then kind of reasonably come out of it.
	But I mean, I think the what coronavirus has shown is just this inability of Western governments to, A, have the authority to do the things that China did, B, to have the kind of coherence as a ruling class.
	I mean, I don't want to sound like MSNBC here, but it's like Donald Trump was in full-on Alex Jones mode for two months when the virus was coming, claiming that it was nothing, it's a Democrat hoax, it's whatever.
	People were saying, oh, it's just the, you know.
	I mean, people were wacky about it.
	And the governments were not...
	Really able to have, A, the authority or the willpower just to shut it down.
	I think it says something about the governments.
	I mean, it kind of tells us something.
	Under this stress, what have we learned about these governments?
	They're actually...
	It's funny, like, they were too weak to do either one.
	They could have been...
	I mean, I think either one would have been better.
	Just, like, very little restrictions, Sweden model, like...
	Go for herd immunity.
	Or complete lockdown for six weeks, GICOM style, you know, kick down people's apartment doors to swab their anus.
	Either we're locked...
	We are going to solder you into your apartment.
	You cannot leave.
	Like, we're just going to go full-on badass.
	Or the kind of Viking solution of, like...
	They didn't let the balls do either one.
	Because the UK did actually commit to doing...
	And then with the slightest backlash, it backtracked.
	So it's like, you know, there's not enough balls to go one way or the other.
	And it's just, yeah, middle of the road solution that pleases nobody.
	Right, but then what could they do?
	I mean, China is not an individualistic country in any way.
	Individualism is suppressed, and individualism includes things like individual harm avoidance and equality and all that.
	There was a part of the time when it was like that, in the 60s or whatever, but it's not like that anymore.
	It's utterly conformist, but it's focused on group values.
	And we've spent the last 60 years suppressing group values and saying, I'm not supposed to be an individual to the point where you select what sexual orientation, you select what gender you are, and you're So unique that you have a gender that nobody else has.
	And that should be mandated.
	And then in the midst of that chaos, then suddenly, oh, we all need to be group-oriented and clap for the NHS and conform and don't look after the individual, look after the society.
	It's not going to work.
	And it's particularly not going to work in somewhere like America, where you've already got this utterly balkanised society anyway, balkanised along regional lines, along racial lines, along class lines, with conspiracy theories and, you know, nobody trusting anybody.
	And so you can't do it.
	It's very hard to do anything.
	And due to federalism, in the sense that the states were the ones actually making these decisions under federal guidelines.
	So yes, keep going.
	So it's complicated.
	And then also you've got, I mean, China has a tendency to, it didn't used to, and there is corruption in China, of course, but it has a tendency to, at least in theory, want to promote its best people.
	OK, there is corruption, but they want to promote their best people, whereas America doesn't.
	America wants to promote somebody because they're a woman or because they're black or because they're transsexual or whatever.
	It's best.
	So you get the non-best people in charge in a time of crisis in a country that's ravaged with individualism.
	So I don't think it's asking for trouble, really.
	This will act as a warning, but I don't think it will act as a warning.
	Well, let's say this.
	We are doing Super Chats, and I am very happy to say that we have gotten a lot.
	So this is really inspiring.
	So it is entropystream.live slash radixlive is where you should go.
	Maybe the easiest thing to do is to go to my Twitter.
	Twitter.com.
	It's a website.
	It's now very boring.
	But you can look there.
	I have the link to it.
	And you can donate that way.
	So, first off, a man named Roman gave us $500.
	So, thank you, my man.
	I really appreciate that.
	And I will definitely get in touch.
	So, obviously, there's some people who are...
	Demanding that we do more of this stuff.
	So I think that is very good.
	The next one is 10. Just curious, why are you not having a regular scheduled daily podcast like Fuentes?
	It pays too, I assume.
	This way you can build a movement without major risk.
	You have a good brand, but no online presence.
	Yes.
	Yes and no, you could say.
	I'm not sure I'm going to do the full coffee mug thing.
	Keith, I think, might have been the one who tweeted that out.
	There's just this weird meme or something in the air where people under the age of 27...
	Have coffee mugs, green screens, and then these kind of goofy, you know, America first, Renew Britannia, or Orthodoxy first, or what was the one in Russian?
	I don't speak Russian.
	It was like Russian patriotism now, or something like that.
	There is this weird thing, and I think probably Zoomers might like this, and I think older conservatives love this, because older conservatives salivate.
	Whenever there's some young person who says what they want to hear.
	This is the kind of Charlie Kirk effect of like, you know, we want to turn the young people into boomers.
	But I probably am not going to do five days a week at any point.
	First off, I think it's good to kind of have a little bit of a break and I don't want to spread myself too thin.
	I'm kind of focusing on editing and doing some other bigger projects that I'm very...
	Uh, including my own writing and then also working with Mark Brahman and Ed and others to do these bigger books that I think are going to be really impactful.
	And, um, the other thing is that I have a supporter group and I do two live streams a week, but it's all private.
	So, uh, you gotta be part of the club.
	Uh, so anyway, but I do appreciate the comments and clearly there's a lot of demand for this.
	Okay.
	Mike gave us a hundred greetings from California.
	Wow.
	Thank you, Mike.
	Uh, I will definitely be in touch.
	By the way, I will be launching Ireland first.
	I've got my suits ordered.
	I've got some branded mugs coming with a tricolor on them.
	A green screen.
	Oh, that's just amazing.
	It should be turtlenecks first, perhaps.
	Because that's what you're really about.
	Before Ireland.
	Turtleneck, blazer.
	Patrick Casey is going to be my co-host.
	Oh, that would be wonderful.
	I would not...
	Well, Patrick Casey is Irish, isn't he?
	Yes, he is full on.
	I think he just seems like a really trustworthy individual who would never conceivably stab you in the back or attempt to steal your audience.
	He's going to be looking after the Super Chat money.
	Ed has no idea what we're talking about, do you?
	What are you talking about?
	What is this?
	Well, it's the Fuentes phenomenon.
	I mean, look, Fuentes has kind of driven me up a tree for years, but the fact is he kind of became the alt-right.
	I mean, that griper thing kind of became the alt-right, for better and for worse, and I think from my perspective.
	Or worse.
	But I'm not going to deny reality.
	But I think it's kind of coming crashing down, to be honest.
	Go ahead.
	When you were like 13, 14 years old, were you like that?
	Like that Nick Francis guy?
	No.
	I was like skateboarding or playing baseball.
	I was not...
	Boomer broadcasting about politics when I was...
	Well, it would have been the early 90s, though, wouldn't it?
	I think he's older than 14, to be fair.
	Produced your own magazine and printed it and distributed it to your friends.
	It would have been more limited in scope.
	Right.
	I mean, I was very young in the early 90s when I was 13. So when I was in my early 20s, I actually did do a couple of magazine writing when I...
	some kind of right-wing zine stuff.
	But mainly when I was that age, I was not so pretentious as to express opinions on politics.
	I mean, I was actually reading more.
	But I was in graduate school.
	But things have just changed.
	I mean, that was pre-social media in the early 2000s when the internet was, it was just a different thing.
	It was mainly pornography.
	Yeah, but it was a subtle form of pornography where it was the porn, it would load, you know, Keith, you were like five.
	So porn would load slowly down the screen through a dial-up, so it would almost be a kind of striptease.
	You'd have to wait for it.
	I've seen this through The Simpsons.
	Right.
	So much has been lost.
	We should return to tradition of dial-up porn and, yeah, she'll just slowly undress as the page loads over the course of, say, 10 to 15 minutes.
	I mean, in some ways, I'm serious.
	That was better.
	If someone's on the internet in your house, you can't use the telephone.
	The telephone's a game.
	You can't be telephoned on the internet as well.
	Bob, you knocked me off the internet again!
	The page is halfway.
	What are you doing?
	Alright.
	It's funny though, even, aside from Fuentes, it's funny what a big industry there is for daily shows of people just kind of talking about what's going on.
	Not even anything insightful, like Sargon has another podcast now where he just kind of, it is just that, just like two hours a day we're going to like...
	Look at what the SJWs are up to today.
	I guess Tim Pool is probably the worst.
	I never watched Tim Pool, but I think that's his thing as well.
	It's just like, you'll never guess what the Dems are up to now.
	Yeah, well, I could go into this, because this is an interesting topic.
	So, Tim Pool, from what I understand, is the number one right-wing commentator on YouTube.
	And that, in itself, is horrifying.
	He is...
	I think even saying mediocre actually would be a compliment.
	He has nothing going for him.
	He kind of presents himself as a, I'm a former liberal and now I'm just so hacked at what the Dems are up to.
	But the thing about him that I think makes it worse is, I guess, two things.
	First off, he is offering copium.
	he is a copium dealer to his audience.
	So he kind of presents himself as the nice liberals is very different than Rush Limbaugh, who we, if we have time, we can talk about it, but he presents himself as a copium dealer where he's like, I don't know.
	Probably not, but I think he is going to win, actually.
	He did, but after the election, he was dealing in all this, like, Trump's a genius and he's going to do this.
	But the thing that I've noticed the occasional times that I've seen him, I saw him debate, like, David Pakman.
	Who's this highly intelligent, though kind of off-the-shelf liberal.
	He misrepresents issues to the point where it is worse than mediocre.
	He's destroying knowledge.
	And I find that actually really, I find that extremely annoying and contemptible.
	He misrepresents pretty much every issue that he talks about to the point that his audience is less knowledgeable of reality than when they began.
	I don't say that lightly.
	I would not say that about Ben Shapiro, for instance.
	He does not misrepresent what he is talking about.
	He has his own perspective.
	Tim Pool, it misrepresents.
	It is misinformation, and I think that's just awful.
	I think we were talking about this yesterday a little bit, but it'll be interesting to see what happens to some of these people without Trump.
	I mean, a few of them have already kind of suffered, but the deplatforming has hurt people like us somewhat, but it's hurt the alt-lide types a lot more, because their whole thing was like, you know, in the case of Milo, he's getting coverage from Mainstream sources and he's getting support and so on.
	But when someone like him is off Twitter and YouTube, that's kind of it for him.
	Because he doesn't have a dedicated audience.
	He doesn't have Milo radicals, whatever the hell he believes in, that are going to follow him and see what he's doing.
	You know, it's like, what's Molyneux up to now?
	What's Gavin McGinnis up to now?
	Does anyone know?
	I have no idea.
	And even in the case of...
	I thought it was interesting with Stix Hexenhammer, because he was feeding Copium as well about Trump.
	But, you know, he spent weeks saying that the election was illegitimate.
	And then he did this video where he was like, you know, there's no reason to be blackpilled now because...
	We can spend the next few years making memes, making fun of Biden and the Democrat agenda.
	There's lots of things we can be doing, focusing on our life and guarding it.
	And it was like 50-50 likes, dislikes.
	And his audience were pissed off because they're like, you've told us democracy is illegitimate and we're living under tyranny.
	And it's like, what are we going to do except revolt or have a revolution or something?
	And you're just telling us to get on with it.
	Can I say, the advantage of being red-pilled rather than purple-pilled?
	Is that if you're red-pilled, you have the advantage of the fact that you're actually telling the truth.
	Right.
	And these people, these Stikel Hexenhombas, and what would be their funny names, they don't have that advantage.
	They're in that sort of Jordan Peterson zone of telling the empirical truth up to a point, because steady on.
	Right.
	We still want to get our invites to the local residents' association or whatever equivalent these people have of the local residents' association when they're in their 20s in America.
	And so that's the thing.
	So if they're removed from these platforms, well, what have they got?
	They are sort of circus performers without a circus.
	And there's nothing there.
	No one's watching them juggle anymore.
	Whereas if you're pursuing...
	An accurate understanding of the world.
	You're going to do that from some form or other.
	And so you can sort of carry on.
	And so that's how I see it.
	And I also find that when there was someone on his show, this Steichel Heichselheimer, who said, oh, you should get in touch with me.
	And all these people got in touch and said, oh, this person, this Steichel, what's the city name it is?
	He's got long hair.
	I won't bash him because he's always had me on.
	He's very unlike the other alt-right people who are rats.
	But he was also with that person Ram Zed Paul.
	Oh, I can't stand that guy.
	I know he said some very silly things when I went on his show.
	Yeah.
	So, yeah, I'm not I'm not I've got time for these people.
	As you say, if they're taken off their platforms and they've got nothing to say because they're not really saying anything anyway.
	They're sugarcoating.
	They're going slightly far enough.
	They can be edgy, but without being having something more important underneath, which is genuine.
	Right, and that was a Trump thing.
	Or like Lauren Southern, who did, I mean, I have to say, kind of did misrepresent some.
	Aspects of reality, but there's kind of like, when there was the Trump phenomenon, and you had nationalism as the mainstream of the party, and then you had the alt-right in 2015 through 17, as this, you know, oh wow, they're white nationalists, Spencer's talking about the ethnostate, they're, you know, whatever.
	We were the bad boys, we were the punk of this movement.
	And someone like Lauren Southern or Tim Pool or Cassandra Fairbanks or whoever we're talking about, they could be this kind of like mediating stage of I'm getting energized by the alt-right, but I'm, you know, supposedly more mainstream or something.
	But once they lose that alt-right energy...
	They also kind of have nothing.
	They're not energized by anything.
	They're energized by making fun of SJWs.
	Well, I hate to break it to you, but Ben Shapiro also makes fun of NJWs, and he is the number one person on Facebook.
	So, like, you know, what are you doing?
	What are you doing?
	You're an alternative conservative who says pretty much the same thing as National Review.
	They also like having a go at Muslims.
	They like doing that.
	Right.
	And being grotesquely offensive to them.
	Right.
	We're personally offended speaking as Muslims.
	Yeah, we are, as Muslims.
	Yeah, yeah.
	We're upset by that.
	They can't even do that.
	And you don't want to make us upset.
	But they can't really do that now with censorship.
	Yeah, it's funny because Trump was kind of a renegade in 2016.
	So if you were defending Trump in 2016, you kind of could be an edgy conservative saying edgy things.
	But as Trump got more and more mainstream, by the time it got to 2020, they were just indistinguishable from Fox News or any other conservative outlet.
	Yeah.
	And that's where they are now.
	There's another aspect to this, which is that...
	You know, Fuentes, due to the train that he got on...
	He involved himself in things that were much more radical than the alt-right of yore.
	And so, I mean, Fuentes kind of came onto the scene in 2017, and then over the course of 2018 and 2019, he became kind of the dominant voice of this, where it's kind of like, oh, the alt-right, that will never win because it's too edgy, and you can't tell the truth.
	You have to be ironic.
	Rather odd thing to say.
	But anyway, it's exceedingly odd to say that, in fact.
	Oh, I'm lying.
	I'm not telling the truth.
	I'm just being ironic.
	You can't do that.
	You can't win.
	But the odd thing is that by 2020 with Trump and the Stop the Steal movement, they got on this train track that led them to...
	Ultimately, serious radicalism.
	I mean, to go back to the Stix Hexen and everything, if you are claiming that the election is stolen by the Democrats or the Chinese or the voting system or whatever, then, I mean, I'm sorry, but you almost do have to go revolt.
	I mean, what else are they doing?
	Is QAnon real?
	I mean, you are not living in a legitimate society.
	You're living in this tyranny.
	You might have to go engage in an insurrection.
	Well, wait a minute.
	You can do the Nixon thing of when there was this journalist, wasn't there, that basically discovered that it was stolen.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And Nixon actually did his best to keep this under wraps.
	He said, look, our republic, we can't cope with this happening now.
	Right.
	So I don't want anything to do with it.
	How graceful of him.
	Well, he's a president, though.
	He wasn't president then.
	You mean Kennedy?
	Well, he wasn't a president, excuse me.
	Yeah, there were huge irregularities in Chicago, believe it or not.
	And I think actually in LBJ, Texas, there are similar things.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And there was a journalist that discovered, basically proved that the election was stolen.
	And Nixon said, I don't want you to go public with this.
	Well, okay, so Nixon wasn't, he was vice president, to be correct.
	With the election of 1960, but Nixon thought of himself as a statesman.
	I mean, he was kind of a right-wing rabble-rouser on one level, to be sure, but he thought of himself as a statesman, and he didn't feel like people could cope.
	I mean, even with the Pentagon Papers, he didn't feel like...
	I mean, that was, in some ways, revelations about LBJ, and he felt like we can't have this.
	People can't deal with these kinds of...
	But that's a president.
	Look, Trump is the opposite.
	Trump created insane controversies where there really was no controversy.
	I mean, he lost the election for really predictable reasons.
	But if you are whipping up this kind of insanity, I mean, 70% of the Republicans believe that the election wasn't valid.
	If you're whipping up this kind of insanity, then...
	What else is there to do but engage in an insurrection?
	So, I mean, the kind of irony of Nick Fuentes is that the initial meme was that we're just going to blend into the scenery of the GOP and we'll just kind of win, you know, through being sneaky and, you know, attaching ourselves to Trump.
	But attaching yourself to that alt mainstream, so to speak, meant attaching yourself to Ali Akbar, attaching yourself to Alex Jones, and ultimately rooting on an insurrection and saying things in a...
	Bullhorn.
	We've taken the Capitol.
	We're not leaving until Donald Trump's president.
	That is going to get you arrested, my friend.
	But it was this weird thing where kind of the mainstream dragged him into radicalness.
	Anyway, speaking of that, what are your all's opinions on Generation Identitaire?
	So I can share my screen here a little bit.
	There's some interesting video coming out of Paris.
	So Generation Identity, Generation Identitaire, and I believe the French group was the original one, is, as you can see, they have hundreds of people, if not...
	Thousands in the center of Paris.
	This is the major work, the identitarians, the major academic anthropological work on generation identity.
	What I was given by the author, who's a Portuguese academic, and asked to review.
	Interesting.
	Yeah, I...
	I have to say, I don't really understand what all the fuss is about.
	So it's written in English, that book?
	That book is written in English.
	It's about the French movement, about the Italian movement, about the British movement, about the movements in different parts of Europe.
	And I have to say, I don't know what all the fuss is about.
	That's my...
	My view on it.
	It seems to be much more focused on France, for a start, which is probably why it's had more trouble in France.
	And it's basically this...
	The key focus is being anti-Islamic, which is why it's very strange that this president of France is currently making his whole campaign on being anti-Islamic, and to the extent that he's accused Marine Le Pen of being soft on Islam.
	Right.
	And yet, at the same time, he's banning a group which is fundamentally anti-Semitic.
	I mean, it's against other things as well.
	I mean, this is a German poster, look, you see it.
	It's saying, you know, kick the hipsters in the bin and this sort of thing.
	But it's basically, it's the anti-Semitic focus.
	That's what comes to this again and again.
	I think the logic that's occurring is that Macron is setting himself up against separatism, and he's affirming a French civic nationalism pretty hardcore.
	And I think he'll ultimately be affirming a kind of European civic nationalism.
	I think he is a visionary type who looks forward.
	I think they're kind of...
	You could say both sidesing the identitarians in the sense that, well, we're going after the muzzies.
	We have to be fair.
	So let's also go after these quasi-separatist identitarians.
	I mean, I think the identitarians, it's difficult to pin down exactly what they believe.
	And I think this has been something that has struck me as a little bit annoying.
	You know, you're dropping these banners against migration and immigrants or whatever.
	Okay, that's great.
	We kind of all get it.
	And then you're kind of jumping on the alt-right bandwagon, and then you're claiming that, oh, no, the alt-right is racist, and we're, like, localist or whatever.
	We're nationalist, even, which is not an identitarian philosophy, if you want to go to the French New Right, either of Benoit or Guillaume Fay, neither of whom are nationalists.
	And then you're being oppressed by the conservative leader of your country, so what are you?
	Exactly.
	I don't know what to say.
	They certainly have a lot of revenue.
	The article I read said that they had 300,000 euros in revenue.
	You can do a lot with that.
	I think if they maintain the network behind the scenes and build community that way, I think that's great.
	I've spoken to people who have done...
	Who have given kind of lectures on what identitarians are doing, and they're doing kind of like summer groups and youth groups and meeting up and so on.
	And I think that's fantastic, obviously getting together.
	But, you know, from what I saw, particularly from the Austrians, I just found it fake.
	I mean, it's like taking pictures of them.
	It's a lot like Identity Europa or all these things, like taking pictures of putting up a flyer or, you know, just...
	Taking a photograph of engaging in activism and putting it on social media.
	Or the stunt where they were in the...
	Where were they?
	Were they in the Alps?
	Or they were at a major refugee crossing and kind of holding up a banner to no one.
	And I just...
	I find...
	If you did it 10 years ago, it would be new.
	At this point, I find it rather old, to be honest.
	Sorry I'm not showing enough sympathy, but I think if it's about intellectual development, we need more of that.
	And if you're looking towards the French New Right, that's a great place to start.
	So I think that's obviously extremely positive.
	If you're building networks and communities, I think that's good.
	But I think overall, the identitarian thing has just kind of played out, to be honest.
	Yeah, I don't understand what it is that is original about it, what it is that's distinctive about it.
	And I had a lot of trouble reading that book.
	And that's not that it's a badly written book.
	It's a very well-written book.
	But it's unclear to me what on earth they're getting at.
	And I want things to be clear.
	I want to know what it is.
	It's like when I interviewed that chap on my channel the other day, this Kurt Doolittle.
	Oh my god!
	I missed that!
	What is this thing, proprietarianism, then?
	I mean, singly unable to explain it.
	It's like, oh, well, it's not just libertarianism.
	No, it's that we believe in the world of laws.
	I'm like, fine, so what?
	Yeah, OK, what do you mean so?
	OK, and?
	And it was really an attempt to dress up with a neologism, like the kind of thing that the postmodernists would do.
	You haven't got anything in the original to say, and so you dress it up.
	With a new fancy word with lots of jargon in order to make it seem profound to disguise the fact that you're not really saying anything original at all.
	And I'm relieved that you're saying this because I remember learning about proprietarianism two or three years ago and listening to maybe like two hours of podcasting from Kurt Doolittle and just coming to the exact same conclusion.
	What is this?
	I hear some Austro economics in there Austrian economics, like libertarianism I'm like, okay that's coherent, but the Mises Institute does that, what are you And then, as well, I have on my channel this Russian philosopher, this Dugin.
	And I was like, okay, explain to me what it is that you're saying coherently.
	And he's like, okay, it turned out that apparently Russianness is a sort of a spirit that's dropped on you by the gods.
	And if you're black and you live in Russia, or even if you live in Russia, then you somehow absorb that spirit and you are Russian.
	What are you talking about?
	The Russian-ness clearly maps onto a genetic thing and whatever.
	No, no, there's no such thing as race, apparently.
	And race is all made up.
	And then he talked about it.
	It was just inconsistent nonsense.
	And I'm getting a lot of this.
	There was that chappy Michael Jones that everyone was talking about a couple of years ago.
	Oh, God.
	Well, that guy's not worth it.
	What is Logos?
	It seems to make about as much as just proprietarianism or whatever.
	Well, actually, it's interesting.
	Keith, because he's a mischievous young lad, he sent me a bottle of Irishness in the mail.
	And I didn't know what it was, but I opened it and it infected my entire house.
	That's amazing.
	Your entire house.
	You joke about that, but there was a guy that made thousands selling jars of Irish air to Americans for $100 a pop.
	Oh, really?
	Yeah.
	Well, maybe you should do that, to be honest.
	We could fund the movement off, like, you know, exploiting dumb people.
	Bottled Irish flatulence.
	Absolutely, absolutely bonkers.
	And that's the impression I got with this generation identity.
	I made my way through this extremely brick-like book.
	And I feel none the wiser as to what it is that distinguishes identitarianism from...
	From nationalism, from ethnic nationalism, from civic nationalism, from whatever.
	It just seems to be a sort of hot, an incoherent hodgepodge of stuff with nothing that holds it together other than the identity of being an identitarian.
	Right.
	And so you can get all kinds of other people, all kinds of things, all kinds of difference, all kinds of diversity, but what's that being a Republican?
	It's nothing in particular.
	Maybe it's a few issues that hold it together.
	Oh, we don't like abortion.
	And there was nothing clear like that.
	So I just think it's all...
	I'm sick of hearing about it.
	And also when I met people that claimed to be identitarian in IRL, as the young people call it, in real life, I found them tiresome and rude.
	So I wasn't entirely impressed.
	No, no.
	I'm more concerned about this identitarianism.
	I'm more concerned, frankly, because I've discovered this recently about what's been happening to Britney Spears.
	That, for me, is a kind of pressing concern.
	Okay, why don't you go off on that, Ed?
	She's a slave that's kept in bondage by her father, who's legally declared mental, and her father keeps her in bondage and makes her produce pop songs and do concerts, and then has complete control over everything she does, over her money, over what she does, over everything.
	And this has been the case since 2008.
	How did he manage such a...
	She went a bit bonkers when she shaved her hair off and attacked her.
	Oh, I remember that, yeah.
	Who hasn't gone a bit bonkers?
	Who hasn't, exactly.
	I'm kind of actually serious about that.
	You have to allow people to have a little trauma.
	And so it turns out that he took out a sort of a ward of court.
	What's the word for it?
	He's completely in control of her life.
	He's legally in charge of her.
	Completely.
	Finances, everything.
	What's the term?
	There's some term you have in America for this.
	Like a legal term.
	Like if an elderly person is considered too old and too silly to look after their own finances and whatever, then somebody else has complete control of them.
	Total control.
	What's the term for it?
	I don't know the term, but I know what you're talking about.
	That's what's happened to Britney.
	So all this stuff she's done since, it turns out, like being a judge on Idol or whatever it is she's done, all this stuff, she's not in control of her life.
	She's fascinating.
	She returned to Vegas Elvis Presley style and was having these huge Shows and, you know, nostalgia plus just Vegas showmanship and she was probably making millions.
	Wow.
	Yeah, but that millions, she has no control over that money and her father takes like 1.5% of everything he takes and then she goes to court to challenge his control and he's using her money to pay lawyers to oppose her and the judges rule in favour of the father, this Jamie Spears.
	She's a prisoner, basically.
	And there's this Free Britney campaign that's been going on since this was discovered.
	Let me look up what the word is for it.
	Well, I endorse this campaign.
	Oh, no.
	No, she's this sweet girl from Louisiana.
	Yeah.
	She's always been a bit conservative, kind of in bad ways to a degree.
	So you endorsed the campaign to free her?
	Yeah, I too.
	I too endorsed the campaign to free Britain.
	I think it's absolutely outrageous.
	I'm just trying to find out what the term was for it.
	Conservatorship, it's called.
	A conservatorship.
	Conservatorship.
	Yes, okay.
	That makes sense.
	And it's been the case for half her career, 12 years.
	Her father has been in complete legal control of her.
	Like, everything.
	Wow.
	So I think that's very, very interesting that that's been allowed to happen.
	And there must be something of the fact that she has challenged it in court.
	At some point, she was obviously pressured to accept it.
	And once you accept it, then you've got to legally prove competence in order to have it taken away.
	The burden to prove is on you.
	And she's gone to court to have it overturned, to have the conservatorship overturned.
	And no.
	So there must be something going on behind the scenes.
	It seems like she's clearly competent.
	That is what it would appear like, but apparently not.
	All right, let me do some super chats here.
	Before we totally get off generation identity, there is a couple of things worth pointing out.
	One of them is that French media is reporting that Macron is openly doing it to try and undermine Le Pen's upcoming election campaign.
	And a lot of it was supposedly from lobbying from Jewish organisations, International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism, Representative Council of French Jewish institutions.
	But I think the worst part of this story is that Marine Le Pen is basically ordering her party not to get involved.
	She's telling members of her party not to attend these protests, not to advocate for generation identity.
	And, you know, her father actually has come out publicly against this choice by her.
	But it's again, you see this thing where she's moving her party into this more sort of centrist, civic nationalist, anti-Islam direction where, you know, the differences between her and Macron are becoming less and less.
	I mean, that's not the first time her father has criticised her publicly.
	I mean, it was because it was like an open, like, ethno-nationalist party under her father, wasn't it?
	Oh, look, at the beginning, it was a fascist party.
	I mean, let's be honest here.
	And, you know, Jean-Marie Le Pen is a really charismatic guy and also kind of wild, you know.
	But it was what it was.
	But I've also read that he was kind of aping Americanism and Reaganism there for the 80s.
	So I think he had his own tendency.
	To kind of go to the center or a kind of weird tendency in France where, you know, anti-Americanism is famous and very mainstream, but to kind of try to look like the American right.
	Which, again, I think we see in identitarianism as well, despite their claims.
	They were doing, you know, anti-mask rallies or whatever, from what I've heard, the Austrian variation of this.
	But, yeah.
	I think once you metoo someone else, it's always kind of the worst of both worlds.
	Because about marketing yourself is differentiating yourself.
	It's about saying, you know, this is something truly unique that you must support for these ideas to be out there.
	And if you're simply going to the center, it's a kind of false, you know, notion of...
	I can even remember, you know, there was a lot of very strong anti-war sentiment during the George W. Bush era.
	And John Kerry and John Edwards were not able to capitalize on that because they were trying to sound like Bush.
	You know, there was a huge pent-up angst against the Iraq War.
	And then you had the Democratic stalwart being like, well, we're going to fight the war on terror, but do it right.
	You guys aren't hard enough on Iran and things like that.
	It just did not work.
	They looked implausible in comparison to Dick Cheney, you know, i.e.
	Darth Vader.
	And in terms of, you know, Marine Le Pen, if you're promoting civic nationalism, why should anyone vote for you?
	Why not just vote for Macron, who's currently the president, who is leading you in the polls, although they are remarkably close, and who you're not going to get fired or looked at accusingly or suspiciously for voting for?
	Macron is a walking Oedipus complex, though.
	Oh, I know, but that's what makes him interesting.
	Well, it's not even an Oedipus complex.
	It's like an Oedipus triumph.
	He literally married his mom.
	And he hasn't gone blind.
	He hasn't lost his eyes.
	It's an Oedipus triumph.
	Yes, exactly.
	He's overcome this Western trauma for 4,000 years.
	He did it.
	He married his high school crush.
	Yeah.
	He's a fascinating guy.
	The most interesting politician.
	You have it in Scotland as well.
	Alex Saban, the former leader of the SNP.
	His wife is 17 years older than him.
	Which, admittedly, is nothing on Lecron, because it's like 26 years with Lecron.
	Right, and his actual teacher.
	Yeah, that is true.
	His actual teacher.
	Right.
	His drama teacher.
	Right.
	I mean, I wanted to do that when I was 16, but I guess you grew out of it, but he just went all in.
	We had a lot of Irish teachers because it was a Catholic school, and also Ireland was poor then, so they'd come over to work in England, and there was this teacher called Miss Flanagan.
	And I was like, oh, lads, lads, lads!
	Remember what we talked about in the last class?
	And she was an RE teacher, and everyone fancied her.
	It was just ridiculous.
	I mean, it was just...
	Miss Flanagan.
	My friend Duncan would do things like, when she came to help you with something, she'd come over, and we were in desks of two, rows of two like that, and so she'd come over, and she'd come behind you and bend over between you and your friend to look at your book, and so my friend Duncan would offer me whatever, like chocolate or whatever, to put my hand up to get her to come over, to bend over, and then he'd sit behind me.
	That was his day sorted.
	But yeah, it was Flanagan.
	When I was at the University of Chicago in my early 20s, I remember I had a bit of a coup where...
	I was throwing this house party at this apartment, which I shared with three other people.
	Two Germans, actually, and this other guy who was studying religious studies.
	And, you know, it was all grad school.
	No one had any money or anything like that.
	But we were throwing a house party.
	And I actually got, I finangled a date with this assistant professor who was 10 years older than me.
	And I got the date perfect where we went out to eat.
	At a place that, you know, when you were going to the house party, you would, like, walk by the restaurant.
	And so there were already rumors afloat that, you know, oh, what has Spencer done this time?
	He's, like, dating a professor.
	And then we went up to the house party after the date, and it was like, yeah, full Oedipal triumph or something.
	I don't know.
	No respect.
	There's a little bit of Macron in me, I guess.
	Okay.
	Let's read some Super Chats just to kind of knock these through so we get everyone.
	Dick, you tweeted out a 1991 60 Minutes interview on Rush Limbaugh where reporter Steve Croft repeatedly mocked Rush's weight.
	Rush was a master of counter-punching insults onto the left, but it was useless fundraising.
	It was useless...
	Fundraising for the GOP.
	With big tech removing us from the public sphere, how do we create our own Rush?
	That's an interesting question.
	I think before we can answer that, you have to analyze what Rush Limbaugh was.
	And I'm sure Keith and Ed have at least an inkling of Rush Limbaugh, even though they're...
	I can remember Rush Limbaugh even when I was in middle school or high school in the early 90s and my mother would listen to him.
	Granted, he wasn't as bombastic as he's depicted in that 60 Minutes interview where he's depicted.
	Some people take out the worst bits of Rush.
	He actually was a smart man and he could talk about policy.
	I think the left-wing caricature is true in the sense that he was about expressing a kind of pent-up anger.
	And that was certainly off the big three television stations that was verboten.
	And he did it on talk radio and he maybe kind of personally led to a revival of talk radio and this creation of this major right wing sphere that is, I think, now going to go away due to podcasting and YouTube, but was immensely powerful in promoting the Republican Party and Reaganism and so on.
	I think at some level, Russia's bombast on these culture war issues is kind of useless in the sense that He made fun of the feminazis and the gays and what have you.
	Has there been any advance on these culture war issues?
	No, there's only been retreat.
	Did you see last year he went on a podcast of this black YouTuber's YouTube channel with these three black people and they were sort of grilling him.
	It was during the Floyd riots and he just completely cooked on everything.
	He was like...
	You know, what happened to George Floyd is terrible, and it shook him, and now he has to speak out against racism and all this stuff, and he knows America can be a better country.
	And they were, like, berating him, and he was just, like, sitting there taking it.
	It's like, come on, man, you have, like, less than a year left to live.
	Like, you can go out and name them and get banned off everything and go out in a blaze of glory, and instead he's, like, groveling.
	Well, but was he ever...
	You know, was it anything other than pent-up angst?
	And, you know, there was an interesting...
	I would recommend that everyone go look at that interview on 60 Minutes.
	It's a bit nostalgic.
	It was from 30 years ago.
	1991, I believe.
	But he said, I'm doing it for the money.
	And I'm saying what all these people want to say.
	And I'm kind of saying it for them vicariously.
	There probably is some use to that.
	But at the end of the day, it's venting and not really advancing.
	You have to get at the bigger issues of why the West is declining and not just simply vent stuff.
	I see a lot among alt-light types or griper types where they'll just kind of say something that's never going to happen.
	We should increase testosterone levels now among all Americans.
	Or gays should be thrown onto an island.
	Or let's toss every illegal across the border.
	I get it.
	I get the pent-up frustration and anger.
	But all of these kind of impossible things just amount to venting.
	And if you're not...
	Also, it's a bad policy because if anyone who knows anything about WWF or WWE will tell you, if you artificially increase testosterone levels, it damages the body's own ability to produce testosterone and completely messes up your mental and physical health, which is why the death rate among WWF wrestlers, they all die in their 50s and 60s, if not earlier than that, because of their abuse of steroids, i.e.
	the artificial elevation of testosterone levels.
	So, I mean, ask Vince McMahon what...
	Doing that does to people.
	It's a stupid idea.
	Right.
	I mean, I think I saw that from Pedro Gonzalez, who I generally like.
	I mean, I think he's kind of...
	Of all the alt-right people, I think he's the most authentic.
	But yeah, it's just kind of meaningless hand-waving and so on.
	I just...
	I think there's a real...
	I think we've seen the real limits to that.
	And yeah, when Rush Limbaugh is pressed on a meta-political or an ideological issue, he caves because there's no there there outside of the anger.
	On the other hand, though, as I was discussing with Keith when he was on my show, wrestling has gone woke.
	Oh, really?
	It's become the world.
	It was a transgender female champion in one of the second biggest major promotions.
	The second biggest major promotion after WWE was a transgender female women's champion.
	Oh my god.
	You know how 20 years ago women's wrestling was basically just fit?
	Models rubbing their arms.
	Yeah, like bikinis doing sappy stuff.
	Like it should be.
	Yeah, it's awesome.
	And now it's like actual muscular women, which is awful.
	And then with the men, people are making a point of, I don't take steroids.
	I'm natural.
	And what natural means is you just look like an ordinary bloke.
	Just look like an English wrestler from the 80s, like Big Daddy or something.
	Right.
	So you don't look like the British Bulldog who admittedly died aged 38. But, you know, he suffered for his art.
	He took vast amounts of steroids and made himself into a superhuman and then died aged 38. Or the other bloke, the bloke that killed his family.
	Is it Chris Benoit?
	No, what was his name?
	Chris Benoit, yeah.
	Yeah, Chris Benoit, yeah.
	So, yeah, I think that's the problem with it.
	It's all gone.
	It's like everything, though.
	They've got a more niche audience, and their audience are all, like, bug men, like, guys that are, like, virgins in their 30s that collect, like, action figures.
	And so it's, like, they're, like, reflecting back on them what they want.
	Like, they want guys that they relate to more.
	Like, you know, they want, like...
	The 5 '8 guy that's in the opening match, that's like the best technical match to be the world champion.
	Have they got a 5 '8?
	Because I remember when I was into it, when I was about 11, the shortest wrestler that I knew of was Marty Giannetti, who was one of the rockers.
	And he was 5 '11.
	And 5 '11, which is just about average height, that was short for wrestlers.
	I mean, yeah, you had like Nick Luger or Sid Justice or whatever.
	They were like 6 '10".
	The WWE had a 5 '8 vegan world champion, actually.
	What's his name?
	Daniel Bryan.
	I'm surprised.
	Yeah, I don't know.
	Everything's gone woke.
	It's the dominant governing ideology of our time.
	It's kind of like the whole Gamergate thing was like...
	We're not going to challenge anything.
	Just don't take away my video games.
	Don't bring feminism to my video games.
	I don't know.
	My perspective is yes, we will bring feminism to your video games.
	It will inspire you to go outside.
	Centrists always idealized the 80s action movies as like...
	That was like the peak of like...
	There was like the perfect amount of like...
	You know, it was colourblind.
	There was a few black characters, but they fit in.
	It wasn't kind of shoved down your trudge.
	The 80s action movies was like the West had it figured out.
	Everything after that was downhill.
	The 80s, yeah.
	The 70s and 80s was peak.
	It was peak West.
	And comedy and everything.
	And then after that, it just collapses.
	And as you say, shoved down your throat.
	Female ghostbusters, black people in positions of power, in unlikely positions of power.
	I'm not talking like the mayor of Washington, D.C. I'm talking like, you know, a judge in Maine or something.
	And just, oh, this is nonsense.
	And so you can't...
	The suspension of disbelief is ruined.
	Although I did see an interesting politically correct film last night.
	It was quite a funny idea.
	It was a British film.
	And it was about these two refugees that come to Britain from Sudan.
	And so they're in the asylum centre and they say, OK, we're going to take you out of the asylum centre and we're going to put you in this house and you have to come once a week and register.
	You have to be on time always and you've got to promise.
	Do you understand?
	Yes, we understand.
	And you've got to come once a week.
	Yeah, we understand.
	And you're going to get this money and you can't work.
	You can't do any work.
	We understand.
	You've got to keep the house clean.
	We understand.
	And they put them in a haunted house.
	I love the idea of that.
	It was a refugee horror film?
	If you're a genuine asylum seeker, if you're genuinely fleeing from suffering and war, then you won't mind being put in a haunted house.
	Don't you think there's probably some messaging like they're entering a new house but it's haunted by the Nazi past or something?
	No, it turned out it was haunted by their own ghosts they brought with them.
	Oh, that's even more interesting.
	They're haunting of themselves.
	That messaging seems to be almost like right-wing messaging.
	What's the name of that film?
	I can't remember.
	Keith, I think you had a point about centrism loving 80s action movies as this high summer of colorblind American badassery.
	Were you making a point on that or were you just observing that?
	That was the point.
	Every centrist Xer I've ever talked to was just like, you know, in the 80s we had it figured out.
	They'll name some Schwarzenegger movie and they'll be like, look at that.
	One of the main characters was black and we didn't even pay attention to the fact he was black.
	I think Predator is the source of that now meme of the huge muscular bicep of Schwarzenegger slapping, you know.
	It was called His House.
	SolarFlex88 says that it was called His House and it sucked.
	He says it sucked.
	I don't agree that it sucked.
	I thought it was a hilarious idea that they get these refugees from South Sudan and they go into...
	Eventually, of course, it turns out that it was haunted by Sudanese ghosts.
	But I love the idea that they get put in a haunted house and the attitude should be, well, look, we've run out of normal housing stock for all these refugees.
	The only houses we've got left for them...
	All haunted houses.
	And you could imagine the woke mob getting really upset about this, saying, look, it's not fair.
	It's not fair.
	You're putting these refugees, they fled from poverty and corruption, and they're coming here and you're putting them in houses that have ghosts.
	They could be racist ghosts.
	Most people in the past were racist.
	And they're like, no, the only houses we have left are haunted.
	It's haunted or no asylum.
	I'm sorry.
	Make a decision.
	And then they have to go in the haunted house.
	But then they, as I said, became Sudanese ghosts.
	Okay, I'm going to do something really quick.
	I'm going to have to take a one-minute break myself, but it will be quick.
	But I want to pass this question.
	This is actually a good question, and it's something I have a lot to say about.
	So I'll hand this over to you first, Keith.
	But this is Yehuda Finkelstein for 10. With people in our sphere talking about moving over to Odyssey for streaming, will the panel miss the psychotic conspirator comments on BitChute?
	Why don't you take that one, and I will be back in one moment.
	Alright.
	Well, I don't know about you, Ed, but I actually turned off comments on BitChute as a norm, because...
	It was, like, 15 comments and, like, 11 of them are spam, like, Nigerian princesses promising to, like, fill your bank account with their fortune and then, like, four of them would be fed posts.
	But, yeah, actually, you're on the stream.
	Yeah, Odyssey.
	Yeah, Yehuda is asking about people moving over to Odyssey.
	I'm trying to get Ed to sign up to Odyssey, but he's insisting that it's, I don't know, you're insisting that it's, like...
	Zoomer Tech or something.
	It's actually a very similar website.
	First of all, you have to tie into this thing called...
	Discord.
	I don't like that.
	I don't want to do that.
	I never got asked to do that.
	Then another option is to give me your phone number, but that's not allowed in my country.
	I never had to do that.
	No, because you did the Discord thing.
	I don't want to do that.
	No, I didn't do Discord either.
	What did you do then?
	I don't know.
	You must be doing something wrong because I got someone else to sign up to yesterday and they said...
	I'll show you.
	I'll tell you what.
	Tomorrow or something.
	Maybe we can Skype about it.
	But I don't understand.
	I cannot make it...
	Click over to my...
	Upload my stuff from Bitshue or from YouTube.
	The screen just goes...
	The option is there, but I cannot click on it.
	The button is in a sort of darker colour.
	It won't let me do it.
	Alright, let's talk about this seriously for a bit, because this is a serious thing.
	Keith, you were mentioning that...
	I don't read the comments on any of my videos.
	You were saying your comments were insane.
	They're either Nigerian scams.
	I just turned them off on Bitchute.
	It makes people mad, but it's like...
	It's not even the scams that bother me, but it's like you always get a handful that are just outright like Fed posts, calls for violence.
	What if there's a Nigerian princess out there that's trying to fund the movement and we just keep ignoring her over and over?
	She has resorted to Bitchute at this point.
	And she gets nowhere.
	Just send me an email.
	With this prince, he's just so upset that he can't get his money away.
	He just can't understand why.
	What's the problem with these people?
	I think that kind of sums Bedshoot up, though.
	Like, they have...
	You know, they've had all this goodwill, and they have all these users, and they've been having people giving the money, and their priority was to roll out a new comment section, which no one cared about, when they could be fixing, like, processing time.
	They took all Trevalbin off, and everybody was upset about this, and was publicly saying they were upset about it.
	I don't know who the chap is, but I messaged him privately and said, what's this about?
	Why?
	And he said, it's a mistake by a moderator.
	I was like, why do you have moderators?
	Why you shouldn't have moderators?
	And he said, because if we...
	I don't know what legal thing they're signed up to.
	They can get fined 5% of their annual turnover for having something that is illegal in some territory or other.
	This brings me to the major point, which is...
	Okay, so...
	Let's talk about this, and let's get a little nasty about this as well.
	Hang on a minute.
	Where's this chap coming on that we're talking to?
	Oh, Sean.
	I gave him the link.
	While I'm talking, why don't you shoot him a...
	I put you guys in a DM group in Twitter.
	Let's talk about this seriously, and let's even get a little nasty about this, because I think we need to talk about alt tech in general.
	I have always been a little bit skeptical about BitChute.
	And I don't like the name.
	I mean, I know that seems superficial, but names do matter.
	I don't like the UI, which looks like a website from 15 years ago or even 25 years ago.
	But...
	You know, I've been kicked off YouTube.
	I have nowhere else to go, apparently, and I am grateful that someone is doing this.
	And in terms of my aesthetic issues, you can take them or leave them.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	Maybe I'm being tedious.
	But the problem is that I don't think he ever really solved the real issue.
	From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, BitChute is being hosted in the UK, and it is basically hosted on a centralized server.
	So it is mini-YouTube in the sense of its structural model.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah, I mean, he's an Irish libertarian guy that's living in the UK.
	The impression I get is that he built, you know, he built Bitshoot in his shed, basically, and he probably never expected it to be a fraction the size it is.
	And now, yeah, suddenly he's got all these lobbyist groups, he's got the UK government discussing it in Parliament.
	And yeah, I don't think they ever expected any of this.
	But yeah, as you say, like, someone posted something the other day on Twitter, they tried to watch a...
	A discussion between you and Pat Buchanan, Richard, and it's banned in the UK.
	So it's like, I mean, it seems so arbitrary.
	I tried to watch a video on it the other day that sounded very harmless.
	And yeah, banned in your location.
	Well, I tell you, there was a video that I was watching last night.
	I actually have something quite relevant to say here.
	There was a video I was watching last night.
	The video is duplicate on Bitchute.
	So there's one site, one bloke's uploaded it, another bloke's uploaded it.
	You can watch one, not the other.
	And that's because if somebody gets a reputation for posting stuff which is illegal in the UK, then all their videos are stopped in the UK or whatever.
	Even if they're harmless.
	He doesn't want to take the risk because the fines are so crippling if you get it wrong.
	So he has to be super careful.
	Well, okay.
	First off, Sean Last, welcome.
	Thank you for being here.
	We haven't spoken in a little while, and I'm very glad you're here.
	How are you doing?
	I'm doing alright.
	Is the audio coming through alright?
	Can you hear me?
	You sound good.
	Yeah.
	So we're actually discussing at the moment deplatforming and BitChute and where we should go from here.
	So I imagine you might have something to say about this.
	But yeah, I mean, in terms of Bitchute, there was that weird thing where some podcast of Pat Buchanan and myself from probably 12 years ago was banned, even though I'm sure there was nothing terribly offensive about it.
	But the main thing is that, you know, again, maybe this is not really his fault, but he didn't think about what he was doing from the very beginning in the sense of...
	Are you just going to create a mini YouTube or are you going to structurally create something different?
	And when I was banned from YouTube over the summer, again, we had no strikes.
	It was just a, you know, they were sending a message, you could say, to American content creators.
	I think Amren got banned, Stefan Molyneux got banned, myself and some others.
	I liked LBRY, I guess it's pronounced library, because they seemed to, first off, they weren't like a right-wing site.
	So we weren't just going into a new ghetto, we were kind of going into a new platform.
	And so, you know, I want to try to speak to the world.
	I don't want to speak to a ghetto, to be honest.
	And it's one of the reasons why I've always disliked Gab.
	But they seem to also have cracked a nut in the sense of they're using blockchain and decentralization where effectively you couldn't be censored because the video is...
	Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's blockchain-based or it's almost like torrent-based where it's coming from all sorts of places and there's no one...
	You know, holy grail copy of a video.
	And LBRY has now gone, they've created a new skin on their website, which is called Odyssey, which I think is a cool name.
	And it doesn't strike me as they're trying to be a right-wing ghetto.
	It strikes me as they're trying to really solve this problem of deplatforming and decentralized solutions.
	And so I have nothing against BitChute.
	I wish the guy the best.
	But I feel like he never really cracked the nut, and Library is.
	And so I'm actually fairly eager to kind of move full-time to Library.
	Library's talked about live streaming.
	I've been researching it, and they've done a few live streams here and there.
	And so it seems to be working.
	I don't know what they're doing.
	If they've come up with some new live stream, decentralized live stream solution.
	Fascinating, well above my pay grade.
	But to be honest, I'm kind of eager to move there.
	I think what they're doing is right.
	Anyone want to jump in or is that just a model?
	Yeah, well, I made a video today just telling people basically go and make an Odyssey account new because...
	Yeah, I mean, I don't hold it against the guy at Bitshoot, but it's out of his hands.
	I mean, I don't know, like, there could be a day where everyone is just banned in the UK or Germany can watch this.
	Like, I was talking to someone that's based in Germany, and he said he basically can't watch anything on Bitshoot because of the rules.
	So, yeah, I mean, I think you need, like, something structurally resilient to censorship.
	I don't think Bitshoot is that.
	Like, you know, we're basically reliant on Bitshoot continuing to sort of look after nationalists and just decide not to...
	Crack down, but even that doesn't really count now because they'll just get them through lawfare.
	So, yeah, the decentralization, I mean, you know, I think the only long-term solution to the problems we faced is crypto and blockchain technology.
	And, yeah, you know, it's not gab.
	It's not trying to appeal to Q-terrors or conservatives or anything else.
	And, yeah, I think it has good potential.
	I mean, you can actually...
	Like, per view, you can actually make more money on LBRY Odyssey through their monetization system with blockchain credits than you can on YouTube through advertising because they're not taking as much of a chunk.
	So it's actually, I mean, it's the only one of these platforms I've seen where, like, there is actually reasons for people to join it other than political dissidents.
	Like, there are actually, it is tangibly better than YouTube in a lot of ways.
	Like, you'll be better monetized.
	you know it has everything in HD fast loading copies videos over instantly so I could actually see like a large move to Odyssey or LBRY but I think something like Bit Shooter Rumble are basically Yes.
	And this has been the problem of alt tech, is that...
	I was excited about Alt-Tech in 2016 and 2017 when the deplatforming issue was first rearing its head.
	And we had all these young guys coming out here saying, oh, I'm going to create this solution.
	This is going to be great for everyone.
	But I think Gab is paradigmatic.
	I mean, I can't stand Gab because I don't...
	I can't stand Andrew Torba.
	And Andrew Torba has not built a platform.
	He's built an echo chamber.
	He's built his fan club where you can go and buy Trump socks and Christ is King mugs and you go on Gab.
	It's almost like you're joining this movement of lib-owning.
	Can I say in his defense, though, I mean, there is that rule, isn't there, that if something is not explicitly right-wing, it will become left-wing.
	I get the O'Sullivan rule.
	But, you know, I think the problem is that, like, and I've said this before with deplatforming, where a lot of people will bring up, like, Section 230 of the Decency Act and saying, oh, we're going to attack these big tech monopolies and we're going to go after them and so on.
	I mean, look, from my standpoint as a...
	Dissident, but also someone who can speak to people.
	I'm not throwing Molotov cocktails.
	I want monopolies in the sense that there is a natural tendency in the digital realm of monopolization.
	There's not a hundred different Facebooks.
	There's one Facebook and there are a few competitors around the world.
	But there's this natural tendency because they have infinite reproducibility.
	In cyberspace for monopolization to occur.
	And monopolization can be good for us in the sense that we can enter the conversation.
	If I go to Gab, I am speaking to QAnon fanatics or E. Michael Jones readers or whatever.
	If I go on Twitter, I am potentially speaking to everyone.
	My tweet can be seen by...
	I think that was actually the intent behind Section 230, and that's why I don't think Section 230 should be repealed, and I think focusing on Section 230 is a complete red herring.
	So we want monopolies.
	As dissidents, we're not living in this You know, old age where we had to create little newsletters and mail them out to our friends and hope that someone will leave it in a coffee shop and a stranger might read it.
	We have this amazing advantage through a digital monopoly to actually reach the world.
	So I think alt tech as a concept was always kind of...
	I mean, it was an understandable response to a problem of deplatforming.
	But it was not handling it in the right way.
	It was creating these right-wing ghettos.
	And again, Odyssey, I would praise just because it's not a right-wing site.
	It is a technologically different site.
	So it is truly alt-tech.
	It definitely seems true that the ideal situation would be a monopoly because that would...
	As I say, allow you to reach the maximum number of people and all that.
	But it seems like it would be a predictable thing that if you are a dissident, then insofar as the elites view your dissident movement as being actually a threat, any monopoly that's going to happen is going to predictably be censorious towards you.
	So even though that would be the ideal, it seems like maybe the best we can hope for are things like sort of oligopoly systems, things like Gab, where a bunch of right-wing people go that are...
	Right-wing and problematic people, a lot of them are crazy and whatnot, but they're not...
	It's a less censorious environment, and they're people that aren't part of the sort of dissident riots, so they're people that may be converted and the like.
	In the long run, it seems like that might be the best we can hope for, even though in the short term it's good to sort of advocate for sort of free speech norms on monopolies like Twitter and whatnot, but I don't know how realistic that is in the long run, since, I mean, they do hate us.
	I don't...
	Why do they hate us?
	We're so nice.
	Yeah, they do hate us.
	And the fact that a live stream that Ed, Keith, and I would do that would get maybe 20,000 views or something, a good audience, but by no means...
	Millions, it's not like we're leading a movement, but that that in itself was seen as a threat is telling.
	But I don't know.
	I mean, I think the nut has to be cracked.
	I think the easiest thing that could be done would be for there to be a kind of internet bill of rights that...
	takes the spirit of section 230 and expands upon it, which is natural that 230 is 20 years old or so.
	Poland is actually doing something like that where they're going to give citizens a right to sue social media companies for...
	up to millions of euros if they kick them off for political opinions, which is always interesting.
	But what can a small country do against it either?
	Suing means that you have to hire lawyers and you have to go to court and it's going to take months or years and tens of thousands of dollars.
	They need to just establish...
	I mean, again, in an ideal world, they would establish a right that says, much like you have a kind of right to...
	The electrical system, the electrical grid, you have the right to a telephone grid, which is a kind of public-private enterprise in the United States.
	You don't have a right to engage in illegal activities on these grids.
	So I don't have a right to use my telephone to hire a hitman.
	Or something like that.
	Or sell drugs.
	But I do have a right to use it and I have effectively free speech.
	And if we could extend that right to the internet by saying every citizen has a right to one or two social media accounts and that unless they are not breaking the law they can use those as they please.
	The issue really is that social media has I mean, the origin of the term fake news came about in 2016 by this writer in BuzzFeed,
	and he was doing a quantitative study of news articles, and he noticed that The fake, the literal fake news articles were getting shared more on Facebook than the New York Times or the Washington Post or mainstream articles.
	And so the top articles that were getting shared were Pope Francis endorses Trump, which is kind of funny.
	That didn't happen.
	And the other one was Hillary Clinton funded ISIS, which I would say is kind of true.
	In fake news's defense.
	But nevertheless, those articles were actually surpassing mainstream reporting.
	And so I feel like there is a kind of problem in that, in the sense that...
	People have tuned in.
	They're not watching the nightly news.
	They're not reading the paper.
	They are tuning in to their Facebook group.
	That was fascinating if you've read about what's been going on in Australia, of course.
	They shut down.
	They stopped people from sharing news links and from newspapers having Facebook sites.
	And then they were saying, oh my god, it's going to lead to lots of conspiracy theories being on the rise.
	And people won't be able to get information.
	Because it would never occur to them.
	Just go and read the newspaper website.
	They've got to do it through Facebook.
	They're so glued to Facebook.
	And then they said, oh, look at this.
	There's all these emergency services and hotlines about your wife being beat for batters and whatever.
	And they've all gone down as well.
	And, oh, it's terrible.
	How can they do this?
	And I mean, well, you've allowed yourself to become relied on Facebook.
	That's what you've done.
	So it's your, you know, what's...
	But going forward, I do think, and I'm not sure if this will affect us.
	I think it will affect us at least a little bit.
	I do think that there will be legislation on a different term, which is going to be misinformation.
	And because, you know, there is a difference between Sean Last engaging in a You know, analysis of race and crime and policing.
	I just actually saw your video on that last night, which is, you know, politically incorrect, to say the least, but clearly based in fact and, you know, in an engaged analysis.
	And the kind of thing that...
	I do think that if they're not going to There's one nut to crack,
	which is like you're right as a citizen, but there's another nut to crack, which is misinformation.
	And I think they're focused, the liberals, the elite people, they're focused on misinformation now much more than they're focused on, say, We need to get rid of that.
	I think they're now recognized a reality, which is a true reality, which is that these kind of usually right-wing conspiracy...
	Misinformation spheres are actually much more powerful, much, much larger than anything we're doing, and kind of have more of an impact on contemporary politics.
	Because they have to solve this.
	Previously, they were able to create what Jacques Ellul thought of as a propaganda system, where there was a limiting of opinion, there was a national consensus.
	Even if it was divided, there was still a general consensus on what is news, what matters, where are the lines, what's right and left.
	And they now kind of can't manage that in the way that they could in the age of public opinion in the 20th century.
	Well, I think that sort of thing, legislation, or just more broad internet rules about misinformation, or for that matter, a lot about something like even hate speech, even in an American context, seems to me more likely than a really serious sort of internet Bill of Rights sort of situation.
	I mean, again, well, that certainly is an ideal, depending on how, I guess, pessimistic you are about the situation, but obviously, like, if you imagine someone in Stalinist Russia or something like this, right, saying, you know, it would be quite good if we had, you know, The law is protecting free speech here, and that's sort of the plan going forward.
	That'd be a very, like, a good thing, but unrealistic sort of thing to actually count on.
	What do you think about the idea that as these things become, the censorship becomes ever broader, they start banning more and more misinformation.
	And the sayings for misinformation obviously are insane.
	I don't know if you've read the YouTube guidelines for hate speech.
	There's actually a specific provision in there that you cannot say that certain racial groups have larger brains than others, even though...
	I mean, that's just a consensus empirical fact about the world.
	There was a historian called Simon Webb who got a strike for saying, in the 19th century, you had these people that said this information on brain size, and he got a strike for saying that.
	That they said that.
	I remember, like, J.F. Gary Eppie seems to be the only one that, like, actually understands, like, the YouTube guidelines.
	He had, like, a Word document.
	I just remember reading it before I went on.
	It's like, it's so, like, random and, like, you could never, like, figure it out intuitively what's banned and what's not.
	Like, you can't call someone a cat lady.
	It's, like, this isn't even, like, an accepted insult.
	All this kind of thing.
	But over time, obviously, that's become...
	You know, broader, like a few years ago, there was the brain size thing.
	Now, the YouTube guidelines include things like talking about the election in a way that would be cast out on the results or something like this.
	And so, to me, anyway, what I would be the most optimistic about would be the potential of them broadening it to such an extent that sites like Gab, which in the long run, I think, have a much higher probability of upholding sort of free speech norms than does a site like Twitter, will be filled with increasingly...
	Sort of normal conservatives as opposed to just crazy ones.
	Because, and to some degree, I think we saw this recently when Trump was being, I'm not sure exactly how big of an effect this is, but supposedly anyway, there were a large number of people moving to Parler and Gap who weren't previously on there.
	I assume they're more moderate people than were the previous residents of those sites.
	And that might be...
	Sorry.
	Oh no, go ahead.
	I was going to say, when I did some research on these fundamentalist Christians, it took me a while to understand, to think how they think, and thus to not break their speech codes.
	So they had certain words.
	And if you were a fundamentalist Christian, you would just intuitively know that, no, you can't say that.
	You just know it.
	And even if it changed over time, what you can and can't say or can and can't do.
	You just be synced in, and you just know it, and you wouldn't get it wrong.
	And that's what we're dealing with, this heresy of multiculturalism.
	It's a religion, and the people that are the true believers, they just know, yeah, of course you can't say cat lady.
	They intuitively just, yeah, they're hooked in.
	They know, yeah, no, that's an insult, but that could be...
	They know.
	And so it's a way of screening out those who don't.
	Basically, as I think, these groups are just anti-autistic hate groups.
	Because people that are autistic will never be able to get it right.
	They'll never be able to know.
	They'll always think logically and they just persecute them.
	That's what ADL is.
	It's an anti-autism hate group.
	But I think that's the thing.
	It's a religion and it's a way of making sure that you're a true believer so they can cast it wider and wider and wider and wider.
	The flip side, the people that are going to defend that kind of free speech that interests me, I'm afraid, they're also going to be religious.
	It's just which religion is worse?
	And I used to think when I was younger that it was Christianity and tradition that was worse.
	And I used to be atheistic and go on and on about it.
	And now I think it's not.
	No, I think it's the new multiculturalism that's worse.
	But it's one or the other.
	You're never going to be able to say anything.
	I mean, you can say what you like about race in Saudi Arabia.
	Fine.
	You can have a much more frank scientific discussion in Saudi Arabia than you can now in the West.
	But you can't slag off Islam.
	That's the border.
	And as long as you don't care, you've got to make a choice, which is better, to be able to slag off Islam and not say anything about science, or to be able to say what you like about science, but you can't slag off Islam.
	You've got to make a choice.
	I think that's the thing.
	Do you want to talk about the Gina Carano situation?
	Because this discussion kind of leads there, but unless anyone wants to say anything else about deplatforming.
	I'm actually going to have to jump off here because I'm talking to someone else that ate my time.
	Oh, okay.
	It's okay.
	I know nothing about the Gina Carano situation anyway, so it might be a good time to leave anyway.
	All right.
	Yes.
	I don't even know what you're talking about.
	Oh, yeah.
	I can't believe you.
	I'll explain it to you.
	By the way, Keith, I sorted it out with Odyssey, and it's now uploading my videos, but it's only uploading the ones that are published.
	It's not uploading the ones that are privated, and it's not uploading the live streams.
	Well, If you do a live stream, it'll upload it afterwards.
	But yeah, your private videos won't get uploaded.
	Well, that's useless to me.
	But it'll be a complete copy of your YouTube channel.
	I want it to copy the things that aren't published as well.
	Well, you could upload them separately.
	But then that would take ages.
	Well...
	Right, anyway.
	It's going to be worth it when you're totally censored in the UK on Bitchute.
	And no one in Germany is allowed to watch Ed Dutton videos.
	You'll at least be on LBRY.
	All right.
	Take care.
	All right.
	Thank you, Keith.
	I'll talk to you soon, man.
	All right.
	Let me read a couple of super chats and then I'll talk about the Gina Carano situation because I think our discussion kind of leads into that.
	And we have some other topics we can mention.
	First off, Magic Fish gave us $50.
	Thank you.
	Yehuda Finkelstein, this is for...
	Okay, this relates to Britney Spears.
	Ed, Britney is nuts like Michael Jackson was.
	Her dad is managing her estate and her life so she doesn't meet a bad end like Jacko might be true.
	So this is for Sean.
	This is Boomer Deadhead.
	Okay.
	We have got the over 60 Grateful Dead audience.
	That is a huge part of this coalition.
	Sean, are you an academic?
	You sound like Griff Dullion.
	He red-pilled me on social issues.
	I already knew something weird was happening as I was a welder in mines and knew diesel engines were safe even if you tuned them when you were totally buzzed.
	I have no idea what that means, but do you want to respond to that?
	Well, I don't have a very good response, I suppose.
	The only response I can give really is I don't talk about sort of my private life stuff on the internet.
	We can leave it right there.
	Okay, so Gina Carano.
	So Gina Carano is a famous MMA female mixed martial arts badass.
	And she was kind of the first woman to get on these big winning streaks.
	And I think her discipline is my tie.
	And so on.
	So she kind of became a celebrity that way.
	And then she had a bit of a film career.
	She had one action movie here and there.
	One action movie I think she starred in called Haywire and so on.
	So she was a kind of minor...
	She got a big break recently on the Disney Plus show The Mandalorian, which is a Star Wars thing.
	It's led to a certain kind of revival of Star Wars.
	It's full of nostalgia and Baby Yoda and even Luke Skywalker comes back.
	In a weird way, it's a bit of a conservative show.
	It's certainly become the show.
	Right-wing fanboys.
	And it is fun.
	My kids actually love it.
	But she was doing some kind of conservative tweeting on Twitter.
	And so there were people demanding that she put her pronouns in her bio.
	So she put her pronouns beep-bop-boop, which I found kind of amusing.
	And she also was kind of doing a little bit of light.
	Stop the steal stuff and anti-math stuff, but nothing that was really...
	It was pretty typical.
	She seemed to be signaling that she was a conservative, but I don't think any of those things were much of a big problem.
	But she was fired from the show, and she was more or less denounced by Disney that said, you know, we find her...
	Unacceptable and they were denigrating people.
	But what seemed to be too much was this comment which she posted on Instagram and then she deleted.
	And it says, Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers, but by their neighbors, even children.
	And then sad emoji.
	Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being.
	How is this any different from hating someone for their political views?
	She seems to be indicating that hating on conservatives is like the early days of the Third Reich and might lead to a conservative Holocaust, I guess.
	It's interesting how this statement was cancelable, because it is not by any means denying the Holocaust.
	She claims that history is edited.
	We don't talk about the Holocaust enough.
	But what it is doing is kind of using the Holocaust for her own For her own ends, you could say, in the sense that it's equating conservatives with Jews.
	And that is something that is absolutely verboten.
	I think to a very large degree in academia, and I notice this pretty intensely, is that the Holocaust has no peer.
	There are new...
	You know, disciplines of genocide studies and so on.
	I actually was even a TA for a course on genocide.
	But there is a very strong impulse towards not equating anything with the Holocaust.
	It is kind of the baddest of bad.
	It's a kind of negative moral center of the liberal universe.
	And in this weird way, Gina Carano was, I think...
	In some ways, trying to appeal to Jews by evoking the Holocaust.
	But she didn't get the memo, she didn't speak the language, and got cancelled for it.
	Well, I guess the point about not speaking the language, because you show that you're part of the cult by speaking the right language.
	But couldn't it also be that...
	They have secret doubts, and they are these liberals, and they are in denial.
	And on some level, they know that they are the kind of people who were at Nazi Germany.
	They'd be the super conformists who would be killing the Jews.
	That's exactly what they'd be doing.
	And it would be people like us who would be defending them.
	The non-conformists, the dissidents.
	And so then they know that, and they don't like that.
	And it is ironic that they acted like they cancelled her.
	Yeah.
	And they justify the triggering by saying, oh, well, there's nothing you can compare to the Holocaust.
	The Holocaust is unique.
	You're downplaying the suffering of six billion Jews or whatever, you know.
	But in reality, it's triggered because they're all mentally unstable, neurotic, these leftists.
	They don't like themselves.
	And it's triggered this thing they really don't like about themselves, which is deep down they know they are a conformist who's capable of killing.
	But of course, I mean, they do allow...
	As to compare some things to the Holocaust, I mean, liberals have said innumerable times over the last four years, oh, look, they're rounding up the children at the border, we know where this goes, this sort of thing, right?
	There are things that they compare to the Holocaust.
	It just shows a kind of hierarchy of suffering in their minds, the things you can and cannot compare to it and whatnot, which is, well, it is what the left is.
	But I don't know if they know, I mean, from their eyes, right, I doubt that they know that they would be the Nazis.
	They would just view themselves as the people who would have done what the liberals of the time wouldn't have been willing to do to stop the Nazis from happening, which is, I guess, just killing anyone or otherwise harming someone with a certain probability of becoming one.
	It's interesting somewhat that this woman now, I guess, is working for Ben Shapiro's new movie studio, as I understand it.
	It's kind of the gab of Hollywood in a way because it's like the anti-Hollywood but that's kind of reproducing Hollywood.
	It's a Caducean function to name drop a little bit.
	So you get...
	You know, you get banned from Hollywood because you don't quite speak their language precisely.
	And then you kind of go into this conservative Hollywood where conservatives are going to buy this, much like, you know, the religious right actually made a lot of these films like, you know, God's Not Dead 1 through 3 and Fireproof and all of it.
	They kind of create their own kind of conservative Hollywood.
	But one that...
	In many ways, messages the same as Hollywood itself.
	I have to go now.
	Okay.
	But it's a pleasure to speak to you both, and see you in Alm.
	All right.
	I'll talk to you soon.
	But, yeah, I think there's...
	It's an interesting thing when you ask, like...
	What is liberalism?
	In that it seems to be, it has this negative center, moral center to it.
	In the sense that, what does it really mean to be a liberal?
	I mean, they're incoherent and contradictory in so many ways, but what it means to be a liberal is to not be Hitler.
	Whereas in other societies, there's a kind of moral center that's based on an institution or something like this, or God, or a book, or what have you.
	The moral center of liberalism seems to be a black hole.
	It's just pure negation.
	It's not being Hitler.
	I mean, I guess I would see that as a kind of mask.
	For one thing, Hitler, for instance, if we're talking about Mexicans or Blacks or something like this, the idea isn't, oh, we can't have the attitude that Hitler had towards Mexicans or Blacks, and that's the worst thing in the world, because that famously wasn't all that racist of a view to begin with in some ways.
	But, I mean, to me, anyway, I think there are different sort of, in different societies and at different times you call things the left or liberalism, and maybe there isn't one essential definition across all contexts, blah, blah, blah, but I think the The most important, I think, understanding of it has a positive element,
	which is just a kind of rebellion against a set of pre-existing natural hierarchies in society, whereby mostly through tactics of subversion, those groups, which are naturally, tend to be for various, for different reasons depending on the group, towards the bottom of those hierarchies, attempt to not equalize but invert those hierarchies, right?
	And that...
	I mean, to be a Nazi in our society is sort of just to think that virtually any kind of natural hierarchy is justified, right?
	That's what functionally it means to be a Nazi in our society, is to think that we don't need to invert any of these hierarchies.
	Well, but what does that mean for liberalism as a ruling hegemonic ideology?
	And it's funny, because I tweeted about this last night.
	There's a spate of anti-Asian violence going on in, I think, San Francisco, but also New York City most prominently right now, where there's been lots of...
	Just street-level brutality caught on camera.
	And this is overwhelmingly done by African Americans against Asians.
	And there's probably some interesting reasons why this is happening, why this is happening now, and how that relates even to COVID and lockdowns and unemployment, all sorts of things.
	But that is the racial dynamic.
	And they responded to this by marching against white nationalism.
	I don't know of a single white nationalist who was engaged in anti-Asian street-level violence recently, but that's what they march against.
	I joked that white nationalists are behind this, and the worst of all, to add insult to injury, they've been attacking Asians in blackface.
	But it gets at this weird thing where you...
	The left, at some point in time, was a genuinely anti-authoritarian, anti-ruling class entity.
	But that is not where we are right now.
	We're kind of in this point of institutionalized revolution.
	To say liberalism...
	You know, whatever that might mean, but liberalism is hegemonic, is redundant at this point.
	This is the ruling ideology of academia, the federal government, most churches, most chess clubs.
	I mean, is this?
	Is diversity, liberalism, individualism, liberation, etc.
	And again, how can this...
	Like, not eat its own?
	Or how can this actually be a governing ideology in the future?
	Well, in the long run, probably it can't because it is a conflict-oriented thing and it's increasingly hard to sort of espouse the ideas of liberalism while being so obviously contradictory to them.
	But, I mean, with respect to the sort of authoritarianism thing, I mean, I don't know.
	How anti-authoritarianism liberalism really was?
	Maybe we want to section communism off of something that's not liberal and call that the left versus liberal distinction or something like that.
	But even if you look at an American context, liberalism certainly, I mean, for one thing, we were not very tolerant of.
	I mean, fundamentally, what liberalism was not tolerant of is...
	I don't think it's a coincidence that once liberalism really was quite dominant around the world...
	And moreover, left-wing people gained control over institutions.
	Fairly quickly thereafter, those institutions became very authoritarian.
	I guess maybe I have a less liberal view of liberalism, so to speak, or the history thereof.
	Right.
	Well, I mean, on some level, pure individual libertarianism demands a world government.
	Because somewhere...
	Out there, someone's going to be oppressing someone.
	In the sense of, if that is your view, then you need to engage in an infinite liberation of people.
	You can first liberate the slaves.
	You can then liberate someone working in a sweatshop or forced labor or something.
	But then you...
	If that is your governing ideology, that is going to go to the church, to the family, to government, to maybe taxation.
	Who knows?
	It just kind of never ends.
	And I think you could see a little bit of this animus, certainly in Americanism, but even in so-called conservatives who were Dick Cheney talking about women voting in Iraq and little girls going to school finally and all this kind of stuff.
	This idea that someone out there is not liberal is kind of horrifying to the liberal mind.
	And it has to ultimately engage in a global revolution.
	Yeah, and I mean, that kind of attitude is also, I think, very good for the sustainability of liberal democracies because sort of a, and American Civil War is a good example of why this is, people naturally have a predisposition towards being tribal and hating another, and if in a democratic context, the group that sort of, if you have a thing about societies divided into groups that increasingly hate each other, that's very threatening to a democratic system because the whole basis of democracy is this idea that, look, our
	We can get together and vote.
	And because people aren't actually quite tribal and hateful, a way, and I think maybe the only way to really sustain that in the long run, is to get them to hate someone outside of society.
	Which is why you have, like during wartime, everyone in the country is really on board in this sort of thing.
	And this is a kind of driving ethos of liberalism for a long time, is we can all unite.
	We have our differences, but we can unite because we're fighting the enemy, and the enemy is outside of our borders.
	A ticking time bomb situation because we can say it was predictable because literally people wrote about this in the 30s and whatnot.
	It literally was predicted that if that's how the situation works, then once liberalism becomes dominant, obviously that strategy cannot perpetuate.
	And then you're going to have people starting to increasingly have to find that sort of satisfaction for their need to hate and outgroup within the society.
	And then that will lead to a kind of, well, sort of intolerant norms that mirrors what we see now.
	Right.
	So, I mean, Gina Carano is kind of right, basically.
	And, you know, if you don't have an evil, oppressive fascist in the Middle East that you can go to war with, and I think the...
	I don't expect any kind of Iraq-style campaign to come about in the foreseeable future.
	I think the...
	The American empire is actually kind of strained to a degree that we shouldn't underestimate.
	You have to create some kind of other within the society.
	And that could be Trump.
	It could be this vague white nationalism of New York City, which is attacking Asians at random in Chinatown, whatever.
	Or it might kind of be what Gina Carano is saying, which is that there needs to be an other within the society that needs to be crushed.
	And that can kind of take place on the level of canceling or outrage politics or social media shrillness, etc.
	But it might actually kind of eventuate in a physical confrontation with this other group that's used to unite a broader society that might actually fragment on you.
	Yeah, a physical confrontation or a sort of...
	I mean, the main way to avoid that historically in our society has been to just scare people into...
	You can't really have a physical confrontation because no one will admit to holding the views anymore.
	But we already see that.
	I mean, you know better than most people.
	If you went out, for instance, and just...
	I don't know.
	I think in some ways the Biden ascension is about...
	At least rhetorically, it's about, you know, back to normalcy.
	It's, let's go back, you know, seven or eight years where things were kind of happier pre-Trump.
	We'll all come together as Americans, etc., unity, etc.
	But I think that's really impossible.
	It's a kind of nostalgic vision for a stable society that I think is increasingly impossible.
	Oh yeah, I mean, it's totally, I mean, obviously it's just, it's completely insane.
	The idea that we're going to have some kind of unity behind an ideology, which says that there's a moral impetus behind hating people that hold views that something like half the country holds.
	I mean, that's just, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that's crazy.
	Yeah.
	And it's also, it's kind of weird rhetoric.
	Biden obviously talks about unity constantly.
	This inauguration speech is very centric with it.
	And it sounded...
	I think more than seven years old, it reminded me of what a politician, especially a politician like him, a sort of Democratic Catholic politician, might have said about diversity sometime in the 90s or 80s.
	Yeah.
	Which makes sense, because that's, I mean, he's so old.
	That's literally, you know, there's a reason for that.
	But, but yeah, I mean, this is just, the unity stuff, I mean, obviously, they don't want unity, it's a...
	Again, it's a mask.
	I mean, for whatever reason, these people, and for an obvious reason, I guess they can't openly say what they're doing, but we all know what that unity ends up looking like.
	I mean, communist talked about unity, too.
	Yeah.
	Do you think, I mean, to go back to something that I brought up briefly, do you think the American empire is kind of more fragile than...
	People imagine it.
	And it's a weird situation where there's not another serious competitor out there for defining a global geopolitics.
	Now, there's certainly China, although China has been and still is tightly integrated into the American empire in terms of manufacturing and consumerism, etc.
	There's certainly no Soviet Union, which was I've been thinking about this recently.
	Maybe I'll run this idea by you.
	The American Empire is fundamentally about 1944 and Bretton Woods.
	It is fundamentally about a planetary dollar system.
	It has been It has benefited from this in tremendous ways, whether it's the dollar as a reserve currency, whether it's oil being priced in dollars, which has been militarily enforced.
	And it has allowed the United States to create debt like no other...
	I mean, we like to say things like the American taxpayer is funding this welfare program and the American taxpayer is funding this war overseas or whatever.
	The American taxpayer is not funding any of this.
	This is all funded through the creation of digits, effectively, through debt financing.
	And that at some point...
	I think there's going to be a lot more things possible.
	And I think some kind of real ideological adversary will arise against America as it begins to fall.
	But you look at all of these new pushes for direct Whether it's something like UBI, which was an unknown...
	You know, concept four or five years ago, or barely known, is now actually pretty mainstream.
	The push for $2,000 a month, at the very least for one month, but maybe on an ongoing basis, due to COVID.
	Just the kind of reality setting in of the middle class American dream not being possible.
	On both left and right, there is a renewed energy for...
	Direct populism, that is direct payments.
	And whereas the United States has been able to engage in just unbelievable type financing, when it's throwing money at war, throwing money overseas, just creating almost infinite credit through the Federal Reserve and that kind of going into the financial system, sometimes equities, sometimes other things.
	Once you start, once there is this push from the public for direct payments, that this is where the rubber hits the road.
	If the government is giving everyone $1,000 a month, or the government's giving $2,000 to the public in a one-time or multi-time COVID payment, that money is going to be spent almost immediately.
	Some of it will go to pay off debt, but a lot of it is just going into the economy.
	I hesitate to sound like a libertarian, but these kinds of things really are going to start creating inflation.
	Inflation creates a lot of uncertainty and additional angst.
	It seems like...
	This whole planetary dollar system is going to unwind because they can't maintain a middle-class lifestyle on the home front.
	If they push all of these digits into the financial system or overseas or whatever, that they can maintain that because it is all in the air.
	Once the rubber has to hit the road and they have to start...
	Paying all citizens just to maintain some kind of basic level of survival, then I think we might actually start to see the kind of unwinding of this system.
	Serious inflation, a lot of moves to alternatives.
	I mean, we see this now with, you know, cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, and so on.
	Maybe within the next 25 years, we're going to start to see the unwinding of this empire.
	Well, I mean, there's a lot there.
	Certainly, there's more populist push for direct payments, and that puts stress on the financial system.
	Although, we do have to say, obviously, that the...
	Elite establishment such as it is has done a reasonable job constraining this so far.
	They've not given people nearly as much money as they want.
	It looks like Biden probably won't even raise the minimum wage very significantly, etc.
	But the trends are what they are.
	It seems inevitable that eventually this kind of debt will have some kind of...
	Profound effect.
	The effect that it's had thus far, aside from maybe inflation being higher than what it otherwise would have been, although it's been very low as it is, obviously it's just people lending money to the government rather than the sort of private economy, economic costs involved in that.
	But I think that it could, in terms of a looming sort of financial disaster that threatens the system at a fundamental level, that seems reasonably...
	It's hard to put an exact date on it, but it'd be interesting to think about the ways in which that could break down.
	In America, something that I think is a potential thing that could happen anyway is a kind of war, not a literal war, but a political war of welfare groups, because if the American financial system and the government debt problem does become untenable, something that is immediately obvious is that there are Two very large sort of division between our welfare payments.
	There's welfare for poor people and welfare for old people.
	And these are very different things.
	And conservatives have said this for a long time, but I think it's reasonably likely to be true that a trigger for this could have to do with Social Security.
	And that would lead to a particular political scenario.
	I guess what I'm getting at is depending on the exact trigger, I think the sort of political potential of that moment.
	Will differ quite a lot.
	Because if it's that kind of thing that happens, I'm not sure exactly how ideologically...
	Well, I guess it's not clear to me that there's a great way to go in that moment.
	I imagine that probably...
	The entitlement promises is unfathomable.
	It's like $200 trillion.
	I've heard this.
	What is ultimately owed in Social Security and maybe even increasing Medicare costs and so on is just unfathomable.
	Those people in their 80s are going to be competing against people in their 20s and 30s.
	Who are part of an underclass that also needs welfare.
	And money has seemed infinite throughout my entire lifetime.
	We can just keep creating debt.
	I mean, where are we in the national debt?
	What is it?
	30 trillion or 20?
	It's some insane number.
	Yeah, it's just some insane number.
	It has seemed infinite, and you can just create monopoly money.
	And even though there certainly has been inflation, it's been slow enough that it hasn't really bothered people.
	But this just can't go on.
	And at the very least, right now, we're seeing these maybe early stages, but real stages of just demanding direct payments.
	I have not really seen that in my lifetime.
	The liberals never really talked about welfare that much.
	The middle class.
	And welfare was just a thing out there.
	Some conservatives would rage against it, impotently.
	But now, giving everyone cash now is in the air.
	And even though Biden is there to resist it, clearly, it does seem inevitable.
	And as things get worse, it definitely seems inevitable.
	And I just think that is a kind of new situation for the American empire where it's not about borrowing a trillion dollars to go to war in Iraq or some nonsense like that.
	It's about there is a demand for multi-trillion in payments coming from both left and right.
	Yeah, and I think that reflects more so than anything particular about America, a problem with Well, I suppose a problem with capitalism to some degree, and to be clear, I have a favorable view of capitalism in general and whatnot,
	but there's a, I mean, in our society now, there's a kind of weird thing where a certain kind of greed is almost seen as a virtue, and as long as it's framed as a morally, you're morally justified to things you don't have and this sort of thing, and what's gone on in our society for a long time now.
	This is the root of a lot of different political discussions surrounding the economy, is that while people's income has risen with time, our norms for the standard of material living have risen even faster than our incomes have.
	And that, I think, is created by the fact that we don't know how to deal with very well the momentum of innovation that you see in a capitalist context, which is not the historical norm, obviously.
	The historical norm is a flat line, virtually, in comparison.
	And I don't know...
	The political solution to that is not at all obvious, but so long as that's true, and that's been massively true in America, the entire economic populist thing going on in America is significantly based on just utter fantasy.
	People talk about things like, oh, the median wage has increased since the 70s or something like this by playing various little statistical tricks.
	It's absolutely not true.
	The proportion of income people spend on the necessities is much lower now than it was in the 70s or 80s.
	And yet people are much more upset politically about not having things.
	And that's because the things that we think we just need to have have risen in obvious ways and in some non-obvious ways.
	Like, for instance, you cannot and it's not even legal to buy the sort of house you could buy in 1970 because of various things like the pipes, the paint, etc.
	To some degree, there are involuntary changes in the standard of living, reflecting legal regulations about how things are built.
	But insofar as we're talking about the domestic thing, yeah, that seems to me to be the fundamental problem.
	And there's no, I don't see any obvious solution for that.
	It's so rooted in sort of just psychology and what people are going to do when they see all these new things happening.
	What can you do?
	I mean, it's just...
	Well, I think it's rooted in two things.
	I mean, to push back a little bit on the wage increases, I mean, wages obviously have increased.
	I mean, the minimum wage hasn't increased for a decade or something like that.
	In terms of being a middle-class American, while it's true that there hasn't been a tremendous amount of inflation on food or basic necessities or so on, the inflation of, say, higher education and all of these things that became norms as this is what it means to be a middle-class American is that you go to undergraduate college.
	These things have inflated beyond...
	I mean, just, you know, it is, and again, it's debt finance, certainly housing inflation over, you know, a longer, it can go up and down, but over a longer period, it's gone up tremendously where, you know, just buying a house with your first job is unthinkable.
	But go ahead, if you want to add on that.
	Sure.
	I mean, so with respect to both those things, with regards to education, I mean, we see horror stories sometimes about people going like $200,000 in debt or something like this.
	But there are ways to go through college that do not cost all that much money.
	I've looked at it in a couple years.
	The last time I did the median amount of college debt was something like $20,000, which is significant but very payable over the course of someone's 20s.
	But also, we have to...
	And this is also part of, like I said, the changes of standards for what we consider...
	But with respect to education, we do have to also consider the change of the return you get from education because now the income difference between people who have degrees and people who do not is much greater than it was, say, in the early 20th century.
	And so if you calculated in terms of how much you're paying per dollar increased in terms of your income due to the education, the price of American education actually peaked sometime, I want to say, in the 1940s, but a long time ago.
	It's nowhere near, and this is on average.
	Now again, you can get a very, there are elite colleges that sort of charge, I mean, amounts that are totally crazy.
	But it's important to remember that most Americans go to community colleges and public universities that do not cost all that much money.
	Now with respect to housing, so houses on average cost more now.
	Most of that So much surprisingly is due to increases in the sizes of houses that people buy.
	So that the price of like the square foot, per square foot of houses now has not changed much in like 30, 40 years.
	It's very close to what it has been for a long time.
	And that I think more directly speaks to what I'm saying about changes in material standards of living.
	Because people buy, yeah, people spend more in houses now and more in apartments, but also our houses and apartments are just...
	Physically much bigger than they used to be.
	If we were still buying ones of the same size, it wouldn't cost nearly as much.
	There was something else.
	Oh, with respect to the minimum wage.
	So it's true the minimum wage is lower now in terms of real terms than it used to be.
	But, I mean, it's also...
	Unless you're...
	You have to be...
	That's a nice way to put it.
	You're not supposed to have a minimum wage job for very long.
	If anyone gets a minimum wage job a year or two later, they should be able to get a job that does not pay the minimum wage.
	It's a very small number of people that are stuck for a long time in the minimum wage section of the economy.
	The vast majority of people have got greater amounts of income with time, even though I suppose that's probably not true if you look at people who just live off of the minimum wage.
	That's it.
	Right, but isn't there a kind of, like, McDonald's and even, like, barista class that's emerging that they're not really going to go somewhere?
	Like, this isn't a summer job.
	This is their life?
	Well, I don't know if that's...
	I mean, there are a few things to say.
	I mean, one thing, that's partly due to a change in the demographic composition of people.
	So if you follow, like...
	The grandchildren of the people who were here 60 years ago overwhelmingly are not doing that.
	But we have brought new people into the country who we have to deal with, but it is worth noting, in fact, this is an economic improvement over where they would have been otherwise for the most part.
	But I don't know.
	I mean, I don't think many people are staying.
	I don't know.
	You would have to be...
	I had to stay at a McDonald's for a while.
	I worked at McDonald's.
	It was my first job I had whenever I was 14 or something.
	I can't imagine what you'd have to do.
	I've seen people like this.
	They were 35 and somehow working at a McDonald's.
	I don't think there's a very significant number of people.
	They've gotten louder.
	I think it's more than anything what it is.
	They've gotten louder.
	It's also worth noting some of these people are actually coming from our previous non-working class due to welfare reform and acting in the 90s and the like that moved a bunch of people.
	So they used to just literally do nothing and they were invisible to most people to now all of a sudden they're like at your RVs or whatever.
	Hmm.
	Thank you.
	I have to put a bookmark in it.
	I have to go to my supporter call.
	Yeah, I'm really glad you joined us.
	We've been talking about this for a while.
	We didn't quite talk about what I thought we were going to talk about, but that's all right.
	That's what usually happens on these streams.
	But yeah, let's stay in touch.
	I'd love for you to come back on.
	I mean, I think you're kind of pushing back against some of the things I'm saying, so I think that's good.
	Yeah, even on the distant ride, I have an unpopular take, I guess, on some of these things.
	Yeah, you're a boomer capitalist Rush Limbaugh listener or something.
	Can't have that.
	But anyway, thank you everyone for donating on our Super Chats.
	This is great.
	This is kind of our triumphant return to live streaming and you guys definitely want us to do more of this, so we will.
	And thank you everyone for watching, and thank you especially, Sean, for being on.
	I'll talk to you guys soon.

▲