RadixJournal - Richard Spencer - Is Atheism Even Possible? [Live-stream]

April 11, 2021 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer

01:48:54

Is Atheism Even Possible? [Live-stream]

Ed Dutton, Richard Spencer, and Devon (AIU) discuss atheism, religiosity, and the future of the West. 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
	All right.
	Good morning, good afternoon, good night, wherever you are.
	Very happy that you are joining us live.
	We have Ed Dutton, of course, and then we have Devin.
	Atheism is Unstoppable joining us, and we're going to have a broad conversation.
	I think we'll probably talk about everything, but we'll talk about faith, what atheism kind of means in the West, degeneration of the West, how atheism might be a part of that or a symptom of that, maybe a cause of that.
	But before I introduce everyone...
	I want to suggest that if you would like to join the conversation via Super Chats, that you do it through Entropy.
	So it's entropystream.live slash radixlive.
	And that way you can ask us a question.
	All questions that are Super Chats are definitely right on air.
	You can join the conversation.
	We will read all Super Chats, even those that are exceedingly stupid and insultingly embarrassing.
	You're welcome.
	First off, special guest, Devin.
	How are you?
	Welcome.
	Oh my god.
	How did I get here?
	How did it all come to this, Richard?
	Well, the way I did it is that I said that I'm Lauren Southern and I would like to have a conversation with you about the future of the Republican Party.
	And you bought it and now here you are.
	Well, I'm glad I can join you on your show because I'm penciled in later for Derek Chauvin's podcast.
	So it's good to get this out of the way first.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	I've known of you for quite some time, and I guess I'll just get the formalities out of the way.
	I'm sure everyone has to give the caveats.
	Richard Spencer is the personification of evil and is the devil reincarnated, and I disavow everything he says.
	Now, having said that, we can talk.
	Yeah.
	Your being on here is like an act of resistance in many ways.
	It's like walking through a minefield.
	Everyone thinks that if you associate with Richard Spencer, then you're a white supremacist.
	I'm not a white supremacist.
	I'm a British supremacist.
	Exactly.
	That's a very different thing.
	The British Empire.
	Have you noticed that the Nazis get called white supremacists?
	And I always was tickled by that.
	because clearly they burrowed down and could care less about whiteness.
	Life is a little bit more complicated, but apparently not in America, because that's where it's flattened out.
	But I don't want to spoil.
	I'll let you lead the dance.
	Go ahead.
	Sure.
	Well, I'm interested in the topic of atheism.
	This is something that Ed and I have talked about.
	I was joking before we went live that Ed's a self-hating...
	Well, I joked that he's a self-hating atheist, and Ed's response was that...
	Ed, do you want to give your response?
	Well, I said that I'm perfectly happy to be an atheist to the extent that I am one, but I would prefer it if other people believed in God.
	Right.
	I want to be in a world where other people are atheists.
	I'm content most of the time.
	I believe in God sometimes.
	So very occasionally I find myself having religious belief, but most of the time there's nothing particularly there.
	But I don't want other people to feel like that.
	And when I was younger, I was a screaming out-and-out atheist.
	I was known as Atheist Ed.
	That was my nickname at university.
	I was an evangelical atheist.
	And I was in opposition to these fundamentalist Christians, these evangelicals and whatever.
	And as I've got older, the more I've realized that it is those people who are nice and pleasant and kind and who you can rely on and who have a sense of meaning and who are happy and who are content.
	And it is the atheists, and the data bears me out on this, who tend to be physically ill, mentally ill, narcissistic, malcontents, and generally unpleasant people.
	And they have now taken over society.
	And look, be careful what you've wished for.
	I've got my dream that I have at my Catholic boys' school when I was younger.
	I've got my dream of an atheistic society.
	And I think it's a lot worse than the society that preceded it.
	So that's why I say I'm happy for me to be an atheist, but I don't want anybody else to be an atheist.
	Devon?
	That is a very grim portrait of atheism, but I will say, when I used to talk about atheism, that was one of the sticking points that I believe religious people would kind of stab into us, into our flank, and twist the knife, which was, I think atheists commit suicide more.
	I think that might be true.
	That's true, yeah.
	Yeah, and I guess the rebuttal to that is, I mean, I don't think self-delusion is an answer.
	I grant you it's better than suicide, but I think, look, atheists, we're looking into the abyss.
	We're looking into that terror, and we're facing the demons of our situation.
	So we're basically, you know, we're looking down the barrel of the existential crisis of mortality, and it's not easy.
	There's no easy fix.
	So when people say, what are we going to replace Christianity with or religion with?
	It's clearly not atheism.
	That's not even an answer to that.
	Right, well then, so that's what I mean.
	So it is spreading.
	Negative social epistasis.
	It is spreading negative feelings.
	It is also an evolutionary mismatch.
	We are evolved under harsh conditions to believe in God.
	It's an instinct.
	It's been at times of stress.
	It's associated with positive feelings.
	It's associated with being pro-social.
	It's associated with binding society together.
	It's associated with physical health.
	It's associated with mental health.
	It underpins ethnocentrism.
	Indeed, it's been shown that being group-oriented, it's the same part of the brain that is stimulated when you...
	Think about God and things like this.
	So it's this thing we're highly evolved to.
	So if you take it away, you put people in an evolutionary mismatch, like, I don't know, locking a dog in a room and never taking it for a walk.
	And you send them mad.
	And I think that's what we're seeing.
	So it seems to me it's a very bad thing.
	Most people live a lie.
	Most people get through life by living a lie of many levels.
	And it seems to me that if there's one thing that is an example of a positive big lie, even if, I mean, maybe there is a God, I don't know, but assuming you're right that there isn't, is this,
	I just think that There's got to be a way that we push forward instead of going backwards.
	So I hear a lot of sort of nostalgia for the days of religion, or I wish other people were religious.
	But you're not going to convince people who have...
	I mean, we're through the looking glass here.
	And I am willing to grant that atheists, just because we're right, or let's say we are correct about the God...
	That doesn't mean we're not lying to ourselves on a variety of other fronts.
	So we have socially constructed lies that we live by.
	Why do you want to tell the truth on this one, then?
	Just because I think it's the most important one.
	I think it's of paramount concern.
	And I think that it's disrespectful to ourselves, individually and as a species, to not fully grasp our situation.
	But we're not meant to grasp it.
	That's the thing.
	We, as a species...
	If you look at the...
	And this cycle happens over and over again.
	We reach a certain...
	We are this homoreligiousness species.
	We evolve under religiousness.
	Religiousness is selected for because it's associated with physical health, mental health, group orientation, whatever.
	We select for this, and then eventually...
	We reach a certain level of luxury or whatever it happens to be, where this dysphoria is created, where we lose our belief in God because we're very, very low in stress or whatever.
	And so among intelligent people, selection pressure is weakened.
	They become bored.
	They become despondent.
	They start advocating atheism.
	It spreads.
	Everything is undermined.
	Everything that holds society together, belief in aristocracy, belief in patriarchy.
	Absolutely everything is on belief in uniqueness of the people.
	You get exactly the same thing in the winter.
	You always get it.
	You get atheism, you get feminism, you get immigration, you get whatever.
	You get people not breeding, you get declining IQ, and you get collapse.
	And so having atheism is an expression that we're in our winter.
	And it just makes that winter worse, I think.
	Grant.
	Go ahead.
	Well, I kind of want to go on this because I think there are a lot of interesting topics.
	First off, like Ed, I think in our last discussion, I mentioned that I attended church, Episcopalian church for Easter, and that I was kind of happy there in a way.
	I hope that I don't have a kind of spiteful...
	Visceral attack on the remnants of culture and community.
	And I do think that there are many atheists who are like that that would see Basically, Episcopalian white people gathering together, feeling a sense of community and want to annihilate that as just, you know, you know where that leads kind of thing.
	I'm obviously not like that.
	I'm the reverse.
	But there are a couple of different things going on here.
	I mean, first off, I think there are different types of atheism.
	And there's a certain kind of happy atheism.
	I don't think it's...
	Right to say that the Richard Dawkins type people are maladjusted or so on.
	They seem to be rather optimistic, kind of liberal types.
	Atheism is associated with high intelligence, as Ed has detailed.
	So high intelligence is generally speaking associated with good health, although that does, at the extremes, that can be a little tenuous.
	So I think there is a certain type of well-adjusted person who really does want to see reality as it is, and that's a sign of health.
	I think there's also a kind of, let's call him the Dostoyevskian atheist, or maybe even Nietzschean atheist, where you're gazing at the abyss and realizing that it's all for nothing, and maybe you might come out of that.
	I would say that...
	The way that I would describe contemporary people, when you go to your average Target or Costco, I don't think that everyone in there is gazing into the abyss and hoping that some Dostoevsky inquisitor will bring them out of it.
	There's a certain kind of passive nihilism, as Nietzsche described it, in the sense of...
	We go about our life.
	We might believe in some kind of big fuzzy man in the sky who's the big liberal in the sky is basically how I think people understand God at this point.
	He's not Yahweh anymore.
	He's a big liberal in the sky.
	He's like a big Joe Biden type figure going, come on, man.
	Why are you being racist?
	I mean, come on.
	He's Morgan Freeman.
	He's Morgan Freeman.
	Something like that.
	The big liberal out there.
	And that's obviously not the God of the Jews, Yahweh.
	That's not the God of Plato.
	That's not all of these things.
	But I think in some ways what we face is a kind of passive nihilism where there is no God, but it doesn't ultimately even matter.
	And even those people who are...
	Enthusiastically Christian suffer from the same type of nihilism.
	I mean, they're not really fighting for the truth or fighting for meaning on this planet.
	They have, you know, like, reach out and touch faith.
	Like, you know, Jesus died for me and like, I can call him up any night and he's there for me.
	You know, it's this just kind of deeply personal.
	Deeply shallow connection with your personal friend named Jebu.
	I think that depends on what kind of Christian you're...
	Well, I'm talking about the overwhelmingly popular version of Christianity, and I don't know what you're talking about, Ed.
	Well, I'm not talking about that.
	You try to talk about it as a phenomenon and not...
	I'm interested in the kinds of Christians that have children.
	That's what interests me.
	Well, we want to create more of this.
	Having children seems we're creating a lot more...
	And look, I've had children.
	I have a reproductive instinct, clearly.
	But we don't want to just create more cattle for the cowboys.
	You're just perpetuating nihilism.
	And in defense of what Devin was saying, you shouldn't make a description a prescription in the sense that...
	Yes, I have no doubt that religiosity of some kind is deeply evolved.
	Now, is the platonic version of God, which you find among kind of higher educated, high intelligent Christians, who aren't really actually...
	Biblical Christians.
	They're kind of platonic Christians.
	Is that evolved?
	I'm not so sure.
	But I agree that there has to be some kind of supernatural bonding mechanism where you can't order everyone around.
	You can't...
	You're not always dealing with your son or your mother or your sister or something.
	You have to have some kind of bonding force that builds a community, and that's what religion does.
	Now, is our current state of religiosity evolved?
	I don't think so.
	It is.
	I think we should, again, if I refer back to what I was saying about the winter of civilization, you find this in late Rome.
	So what's going on with religion now, i.e.
	that you've got these sorts of ersatz religions that are basically nihilistic?
	The same multiculturalism where you worship this, that and the other.
	It's basically a religion, but ultimately it's nihilistic and it's saying that life is bad, the world is bad, everyone's bad, you're bad.
	Undermine everything and destroy everything and, for God's sake, get out as early as you can and don't have any kids yourself.
	This kind of attitude.
	And that was the attitude that was found among the Gnostics in the 3rd and 4th century.
	It was very, very, very similar.
	And what's comparable across both time periods is that it was very, very weak selection pressures.
	We have very weak selection pressure now.
	It's very warm compared to what it has been in the past.
	And, of course, we have industrialization.
	They didn't have industrialization in the third century, but it was warm.
	It was very, very warm.
	And that allows the gene pool to grow and thus the increase in mutation, basically, and thus...
	Things that are maladaptive and can take off.
	And I think that's what we're seeing now.
	And that atheism would rise for a variety of reasons.
	One, it would rise because people would be...
	In a high state of luxury, which would mean they would be low in stress, which would mean that the religion instinct wouldn't hit in as easily, and so therefore they're more inclined to be atheistic too.
	It would be the rise in just mutation, which would mean that atheism is associated with mutation, particularly with autism.
	Autism is the big predictor of being atheistic, and basically just testosterone.
	I mean, we did a study, me and a colleague recently, where we showed that Religious men have a more feminine intelligence profile than atheistic men.
	So they're more verbally tilted and less mathematically tilted and basically just less autistic.
	And that makes sense because what the opposite of autism is is empathy and what religious belief is is a kind of hyper-empathy.
	And so you would expect this rise, and then that would ultimately just tip over into individualism, into questioning everything, into questioning tradition, one of which is the traditional gods.
	Then we have this replacement religion of multicultural nonsense, which overtly says it's atheist, although it's got many, many religious dimensions to it.
	Obviously, I've far more time for a rational, sceptical atheist than I have an atheist that tacks atheism onto multiculturalism because he thinks belief in God is just what the silly right-wing people think.
	But nevertheless, I don't think it has done good for society.
	I mean, in terms of the arguments for the existence of God, I have to say I would concur.
	I don't find any of the arguments for the existence of God convincing at all.
	And they're arguing for a Platonic god.
	They're arguing for a creator, the Elohim from Genesis 1, or the god of Plato, basically, is what they're arguing for.
	And it's just a kind of circular, airy...
	You agree with it or you don't.
	Yeah, you've got the Thomas five ways, you've got the ontological argument, which is just...
	Playing with words, sort of intellectual sleight of hand.
	You've got this argument that, oh, there's uncertainty at the subatomic level and therefore there must be a metaphysical universe, which I just think is just an appeal to complexity and it's just silly.
	And so there seems to be no arguments for it.
	And the only one that I find remotely, I didn't say convincing, but that I have some sympathy for is the sort of William Jamesian.
	Argument, which is that almost like you should ask yourself this.
	Do you value civilization?
	Yes, you do.
	Is it therefore necessary?
	Is it good for civilization to have some level of religious belief?
	Yes, it is.
	Therefore, you should force yourself to believe this.
	Do you use this sort of Kevin MacDonald effortful control in much the same way that we force ourselves to believe in free will?
	I mean, we know logically there's no room for free will.
	Where's the free will?
	How does this free will happen?
	There's no free will.
	It's a rationalization of decisions that you're driven to make.
	Exactly.
	Because you can't live without believing in free will.
	You can't.
	You can live without believing in God.
	Devin, do you want to jump in?
	You guys are verbose.
	It's interesting.
	You guys have many thoughts on it.
	I've listened to you guys speak on this before and I'm hearing some themes come up.
	One thing I would say as an atheist, it's interesting because You're almost pitting these thoughts against each other.
	I don't think atheists are suggesting that an atheistic world is necessarily better.
	It's simply a statement about the truth claims made by religion.
	And really, if we could just get rid of the supernatural crap, I mean, Richard, you talked about we need a supernatural thing to bond over, almost as if we're trying to wield that as a threat.
	Like, hey, you better stay...
	Behave while you're alive, otherwise something's going to happen.
	But this is a primitive way of thinking.
	I mean, clearly, we can extract the good things from religion, or at least acknowledge what those are, and recreate them in a slightly more dignified manner than believing in ancient nonsense.
	So no atheist is saying, hey, community and purpose and meaning is stupid.
	I mean, maybe some are, but I don't know.
	Well, some are, but I agree.
	I don't want to strawman them.
	But isn't that kind of an implication?
	I mean, in the sense that, you know, I mean, even the community that I saw among Episcopalians when I re-entered the cave, as it were.
	That's something, but that's not really what we're talking about.
	I guess I'll put my cards on the table, as I usually do.
	I'm not really talking about making people behave in some kind of bourgeois fashion.
	I'm talking about dominance and conquest and maybe even of a planetary scale.
	That's fascinating.
	We need strong gods.
	Okay, but explain that a bit more.
	I mean, are we talking space travel?
	Are you talking about this planet?
	What sort of planetary domination?
	Yeah, well, there's no...
	What is the point?
	I mean, I guess I am more of a Dostoevskyan kind of person.
	And so I'm kind of like, life is all about suffering, and it's really tedious, and it's full of anxiety and angst.
	And it's ultimately not good.
	That's kind of the problem with it.
	So therefore, we need to...
	Well, it's ultimately not.
	No, it is.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	So we ultimately need, through a tremendous force of will, we need to inject meaning into the earth.
	I would agree.
	I think it is our responsibility.
	I love the question, what is the meaning of life?
	As if there's an answer to that.
	And as if that answer is supposed to come from someone else.
	What would you think about the idea then, Devon, that in the Church of England a hundred years ago or more, people in the Episcopalian Church, a lot of these high-level priests, they knew they didn't believe this stuff, really.
	They didn't believe this stuff.
	But they thought that it was for the good of the population that these conversations not happen.
	Publicly, because they need to have a sense of eternity.
	They need to be directed towards war, interplanetary conflict, whatever.
	And that is an argument for not publicly espousing atheism.
	Now, the problem with that argument, of course, is it can be reversed.
	You could have somebody in the British government now saying, oh, well, I've read all this research indicating there are race differences in intelligence and sex differences and whatever.
	And yes, this is clearly true, but it wouldn't be good for society for this to happen in public.
	It's dangerous for this to happen in public, so it shouldn't happen in public.
	That's, of course, the problem with that argument.
	And that's the horns of the dilemma that I'm on.
	I mean, broadly speaking, yeah, from a purely rational and scientific perspective, there is no room for God.
	And those that say there is come up with the most convoluted arguments I've ever heard.
	So we're talking about a mechanical system.
	And so...
	Well, I hear what you're saying, but I feel like you are sort of willfully infantilizing all of humanity.
	I mean, this is the sort of idea that we should just sedate ourselves with whatever lie, just so long as we can avoid the horror of facing reality.
	Yes.
	Human as your children.
	Yes, that's correct.
	Right.
	And what me, as someone who's trying to be slightly more enlightened as an atheist, I would hope that we could get out of the infancy of our species.
	If anything, it's going to get worse.
	I mean, you could argue that 150 years ago, we probably had an IQ that was 20 points higher than we have now.
	So if you were preaching to people 150 years ago, but they weren't as stressed about child mortality and death and illness and whatever as they were then, then you might be able to do this.
	But our intelligence is declining, and it's declining at quite a rapid rate.
	If we tack it currently at 100, it's going to be 85 among white people in America by the end of the century, which is the current IQ of black people in America.
	So that's going to be the IQ of white people by the end of the century.
	So the average IQ of America will be the same as the average IQ of Guatemala.
	Is that like a reverse Flynn effect?
	What's going on?
	Explain this.
	This is interesting for our audience and Devin might.
	It's interesting for Devin as well.
	Explain that, Ed.
	The Flynn effect in general.
	What happens with the Flynn effect is basically an IQ test is not a perfect measure of intelligence.
	Intelligence can be conceived almost like a pyramid.
	At the base of it, you've got these intelligence abilities like tying your shoelaces or counting backwards or something like that, which are weakly associated with intelligence.
	Then you have the big three, verbal, spatial, and mathematical, that are more strongly associated with intelligence.
	Then you have the thing that underpins them all, this is G, general intelligence.
	The IQ test does measure general intelligence.
	But it also measures other things that are weakly associated with intelligence.
	And so the problem is if those things at the base of the pyramid go up really quickly, really substantially, then it could come across as an IQ gain despite people not actually getting cleverer.
	In fact, despite people getting stupider.
	And that's what was happening.
	So there was this very narrow part of the IQ test to do with categorization.
	And that was super pushed up by our increasingly scientific society.
	And this was on the most environmentally sensitive components of the IQ test.
	And then that reached a peak in about 1998.
	And since then, we've been in decline.
	So there has been a reverse glint effect.
	And that's been on the more genetic components of the IQ test.
	And so what's been happening is that at the genetic level, intelligence has been going down.
	But it's come across as a rise in IQ tests across generations because the IQ tests are not measurement invariant across generations.
	And so therefore you have this illusion of the Flynn effect.
	So we've probably been getting stupider since about 1900.
	A couple of points here.
	One, what you guys are describing and what Richard was mentioning, you sound like the character from The Matrix who betrays his friends and wants to live in The Matrix.
	He wants to go back to The Matrix.
	You know, the guy who wants to taste the taste of steak, and he just doesn't care.
	I don't care if it's a lie.
	I'm not sure I'm that bad, but I think you could make some interesting comparisons.
	With my supporters, we're actually reading Plato very carefully, and The Matrix is basically based on the myth of the cave.
	There's this idea that all people are bound, actually, in a cave with chains, in fact.
	And they're staring at the wall and there are these, you could call them priests behind them, that are puppet masters, as they're described in the Republic.
	And they're creating shadows on the wall, basically.
	And Plato's vision is basically you...
	Somehow break out of that.
	And you look and you see the sun.
	And so you see the context for all good.
	The idea of the idea of good.
	You see reality.
	But the problem is you re-enter the cave.
	And people think you're mad and crazy because you've seen truth.
	And how do you break them out?
	And I guess the question that I ask that I find the most tantalizing question, Who are those people putting the shadows on the wall?
	Who are the puppet masters?
	Are they not just as enlightened as the man who breaks free and sees the sun?
	Are they not perhaps more enlightened than the man who breaks free and wants to save humanity?
	That's a very interesting thought.
	It's kind of profound.
	But I mean, look, the truth is ugly.
	And the truth is very harsh, and I understand the desire to sort of sugarcoat or delude.
	Like, when I was a child, when I was five, I lost my mother.
	She died.
	And I was told that she was in heaven, and I was going to see her again, and she loves me, and she's watching over me.
	Now, I soon realized that wasn't true, and that's ugly.
	Now, would it have been smart for my super...
	No, obviously not.
	But what you're recommending is ignorance is bliss.
	That's the philosophy that you're basically espousing here.
	And I just don't know if that's...
	The best way to go about this.
	And also, another factor, which we haven't mentioned...
	You just perked my point yourself.
	I mean, look, would I not be a demon incarnate if I went up to you at age five and said, oh, by the way...
	These people who do embrace the void often...
	Religion is a coping mechanism which both reflects mental health, i.e.
	people that are religious do seem to have lower mutational load, and they're less likely to have specific gene forms that are associated with depression.
	But also it alleviates depression.
	So people that go to church and do these kinds of things and believe in God and whatever are more mentally healthy.
	And so if you take this away, then what you tend to get, and this is very noticeable, is yes, people that are atheistic are more likely to have mental illness, have mental health problems.
	Because if you really believe it, if you really feel it to be true, if you feel it to be true, really, that life has no meaning, I mean, that is depression.
	And so then they have to take antidepressants or medicate themselves or kill themselves or whatever, or have religious experiences and complete breakdowns or manufacture extreme identities to give themselves a sense of something.
	So I don't think we'll ever solve this.
	Plato tried to solve it.
	It's a fundamental problem that, yeah, you're...
	Reason-wise, you're probably right.
	Yeah, but it's so bad for society.
	And the thing is, it's only possible to have a society where there is the freedom and the space for people to go around pontificating about atheism and believing in atheism by virtue of having a society that is optimally sort of group-oriented.
	And has people that defend it from enemies at the gate and keep this freedom, which you didn't used to have.
	I mean, if we go back 500 years, they'd just burn you for saying this stuff.
	So you could only have this society by virtue of having a society that has this optimum sort of religious balance between group-oriented and individual-oriented.
	But then ultimately having atheism, spreading it, seems to push a society, reflect and create a society that is more individualistic, which is what we have now, so that there is then less space.
	to say your opinion and what eventually happens is we'll just go back to society and we are going i'm sure i'm sure of this we will go back to a society that is group oriented and religious and christian again and where you can't be an atheist anymore so i'll I would add this, though.
	What you're saying is very compelling, but I would add this.
	I don't think religiosity ever goes away, and I don't think there's ever going to be a society without it.
	And I think even what Devin was saying in the sense of, like, atheism isn't a thing.
	It's atheism.
	It's a not and not an is, so to speak.
	And that it can't really...
	It's almost like a bridge to something else.
	I think, and you would agree with me, that I think contemporary society with America being a...
	Full expression of this is a deeply religious society.
	I think we're just moving to a kind of new state.
	And I think calling it a secular world is an illusion.
	You've got the group-oriented religion, whatever that is, the cult of Rome or whatever, Christianity, whatever.
	That is on the decline.
	And the individualistic, basically, religion is on the up.
	And there's an optimum period of time where you're free.
	We've passed.
	We've passed that.
	Let me go on this just a little bit.
	I was talking with someone just the other day and we were at a kind of pub-like place and we were just thinking about the employees who are actually earning $15 an hour but are working class type people.
	What would get them fired from their job?
	What would get them fired?
	If one came out as a Buddhist, would he be fired?
	Absolutely not.
	If he came out as an atheist, would he be fired?
	Absolutely not.
	If he came out as a Antifa, would he be fired?
	Maybe.
	That's kind of an edge case, but probably not.
	If he just so happened to drop the N-word at some point or question some...
	Very basic conceptions of human equality in terms of psychology and intelligence.
	Would he be fired?
	Yes.
	He would be fired in an instant for those things.
	Those are fireable events.
	We live in a world in which heresy is a thing.
	We might be using collective individualism in different ways here.
	So I don't want to get into a semantic dispute.
	But there is a collective bonding mechanism that is going on right now.
	Our leaders, if you want to call them the puppet masters of the cave analogy, have cracked this nut.
	There is a religiosity that inflects contemporary society.
	There is a heresy that is in contemporary society.
	I think we're all in it.
	Basically, we're all heretics of varying degrees.
	And so, I mean, I guess the question that I have, it's not really, you know, oh, are we going to go back to Christianity and so on?
	I don't think we're going to go back to Christianity.
	I think that there has been a withering critique of Christianity that has been going on for actually hundreds of years.
	And I'm not sure we're going to go back to it.
	I think that there is...
	Disturbingly, a kind of staying power to this religion that has been generated now, in which the treatment of African Americans or maybe the Holocaust or something like this is a kind of exit from Eden, a primal guilt, the fall, original sin, whatever metaphor you want to have.
	And that these people kind of have...
	They will inherit the earth at some point.
	They are building right now a kind of POC elite coalition.
	Interestingly, 68% of American citizens who are in the class of Princeton, the freshman class of Princeton right now, identify as POC.
	So they've flipped it.
	The majority of elite institutions is POC, and you can join this elite structure.
	Maybe all this stuff is just based on lies and silliness and it's going to collapse.
	Totally reasonable to say that.
	But we have a new...
	There is a kind of new religion and binding collective that has emerged.
	And I think it's being...
	It's created now.
	And I think this is one of the reasons why conservatives or race realists or what have you are always kind of banging their head up against the wall because they're bringing a knife to a gunfight.
	They're bringing acts to a religious dispute.
	They just don't matter.
	So POC is this American term that means person of color, right?
	Correct.
	So 68% of the freshmen at Princeton are persons of color.
	68% of American citizens, and I think it's probably more than that because that's not counting foreign students.
	I agree with you unquestionably with regard to what you're saying about multiculturalism being a new religion.
	I think that's now clear.
	It's the Christianity of the winter of our civilization.
	That's what it is.
	The second religiousness that was prognosticated by Oswald Spengler, but it's maladaptive rather than adaptive, and I've set out why.
	I think it's transient, but it's very powerful.
	If that happens, though, and that's the interesting thing about these...
	These liberals, these left-wing people, they think in a much more black and white way than conservatives.
	They're much more essentialists than they are nominalists.
	There's a number of studies on this.
	Their thinking is more resistant to logical critique.
	They're more attached to their dogmas.
	And so it's very interesting that they have done that because they see something like prestige as set in stone.
	So their attitude is Oxford and Cambridge are prestigious.
	So for the good of equality, we need to have more black people there, more Asian people there, more children from lower class backgrounds there.
	It's fascistic to demand people can spell properly.
	These kinds of things.
	In the interest of equality.
	But what they don't understand is that if you do that, then prestige just goes somewhere else.
	Prestige goes...
	Where rich people go and where the nobility go, and that's where prestige goes.
	So if you cut them out of Oxford and Cambridge, and this is already happening, the universities like Durham and Bristol seem to have risen in prestige as Oxford and Cambridge have become more politically correct, because the aristocracy just goes somewhere else.
	So it's self-defeating to do that.
	I might agree with the liberals on this one.
	I don't...
	I mean, Durham...
	All of those other universities will be taken over by the same forces eventually.
	It might just be 10 years later.
	And there's something to be said for...
	Yeah, there's something to be said for if you really want to generate a new society, you do it top-down.
	You take over the elite institutions.
	And Harvard, is that...
	I mean, yeah, a lot of conservatives now say, oh, Harvard's a joke or whatever.
	Well, is it, though?
	I mean, literally every Supreme Court justice, I guess with the exception of Amy Coney Barrett, went to an Ivy League school.
	I mean, I don't know what to say.
	Why would it last forever?
	I mean, there was a time...
	It won't last forever.
	...when the Scottish universities, because they did science and things, and they were open to new stuff, were more prestigious than Oxford and Cambridge.
	There was a time in the early...
	until, like, really, I suppose, the mid-19th century, when the Scottish universities were more prestigious, were more scientific, and were more...
	Based around reason, than Oxford and Cambridge.
	And then there was a change, and there was a time when these Ivy League universities weren't that prestigious.
	They were just universities where rich people went that lived in that area.
	And it was in, I think Charles Murray traces this in one of the books that he did, where the change from how you're the clever person born in Mississippi, so you go to the University of Mississippi, to you're the clever person born in Mississippi, you go to Harvard.
	And that change happened in the 30s or something like that.
	Rich people are still trying to get into Ivies.
	But Devin, we're dominating the conversation too much.
	You are our guest.
	That's fine.
	I have many thoughts floating through my head.
	You guys are talking about...
	Yeah, for me, they're always kind of a pompous, fart-huffing joke, and it happened for a while, so it's a little bit pretentious.
	But I think even more important is in the media, and specifically in the news.
	Because the other day, I was doing some research on a murder from 1987, and I went back and I had to research a clip, and it was a news segment, and I believe it was Peter Jennings.
	And I'm sitting there listening to this man, looking at him, and I was overcome with a sense of trust.
	Which was nostalgic for me.
	And I was like, oh my God, do you remember looking at the news and trusting the man talking back at you?
	Now, maybe I was ignorant.
	Maybe I was naive.
	But to see the decline of that institution to where it is today, I mean, that is a true debacle.
	And so I think if you're talking about the shifting sense of prestige, I mean, God, the news, it's no worse example than what's going on in the news.
	I agree.
	This is a tremendously important phenomenon, and I don't know where it leads.
	We're all in our 40s, and so we're in that in-between period.
	We might not remember Walter Cronkite or the equivalent in Britain, but we do remember Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw.
	This is straight news.
	This is the truth.
	This is reasonableness personified.
	And I think, you know, just look at these pollings.
	They're shocking.
	I mean, the trust is going down.
	And I mean, I think the Trump phenomenon was an expression of this in this interesting way where Trump, you know, he had the alt-right as his kind of wild and crazy meme propaganda factory and quasi-intellectual force going on.
	But he was reaching just average normies via Facebook.
	And Twitter.
	And so they were getting their news from social media before they got it from any top-down source.
	And again, a lot of people, we kind of think that this is a good thing.
	At the same time, this can lead to situations like QAnon.
	I mean, QAnon, among other things, I think QAnon is its own religiosity, but among other things, it expresses the breakdown of that propaganda structure described by Jacques Ellul, that top down, this is the news, this is real, this is how you act, a type of structure.
	I think we're in this place where I think elites don't know what to do.
	They don't know how to handle this thing.
	They don't know whether they want to get social media on their side, you know, or they don't know if they just want to shut down social media altogether.
	Very confused, because at one point they're saying to us, oh, there's no such thing as race, race is a social construct, and you have very mainstream things saying that.
	And then in the same breath, they're saying, oh, the concept of BMI, they're now trying to get rid of this, of BMI, is a problem.
	Body mass index?
	Yeah, because it persuades black people that they're fat and elevates anorexia among black girls by telling them that they're fat because their BMI is too high when they're not.
	Why does BMI not work with black people?
	Why?
	Because they have a different modal body type.
	That's why.
	That's why BMI, it's designed for white people.
	Right.
	And so, of course, it doesn't work as well with other races.
	And so, therefore, race is real.
	All but no, race is not real.
	And they don't know what they want to do.
	And this whole situation is so reminiscent, as Paul Goldfrid has argued, of the early church, where you've just got all these people believing all these different things.
	The Roman cult has broken down.
	Yes, you've got the new multiculturalism, but there's new strands within that, rather like Gnosticism, that's self-destroying and self-eating and fighting.
	And then you've got QAnon, which is quite Gnostic in its own way as well, the belief in the conspiracy devil behind the events.
	And so there's just total breakdown and split up of coming apart, as Charles Murray said.
	Is it safe to say, gentlemen, that the situation as we see it now is a complete clusterfuck?
	I mean, what I'm hearing is, we live in the information age, but it's more like a food fight with information.
	There's far too many microphones.
	There's far too many chefs in the kitchen.
	When I'm listening to Peter Jennings, he didn't cut away and say, "Now let's hear the random opinion from this total idiot from the street," or from some e-thought model who happens to have big tits.
	These people are popular, accidentally, and this is an unintended consequence of that popularization.
	No one planned out, by the way, what the internet was going to do to society.
	This is a one-time A real-life experiment that's playing out in real time, and it's a disaster.
	I mean, the suicide rate has gone up 25% since the year 2000 in America.
	Wow.
	I was against the internet from the beginning, from the very beginning.
	I'm quite clear.
	I opposed it.
	For the whole time I was at university, as an undergraduate, I didn't use it, and I insisted on things being sent to me by letter.
	Well, it's also, though...
	Couldn't you say this?
	There's obviously many good things that it has brought, but it's almost a race between us taking those negative aspects and having it destroy us.
	It's almost like the weapons race.
	So we get more technology.
	What do we do?
	We create nukes.
	But we also create many.
	We cure cancer or whatever.
	We do good things with tech, too.
	And it's like us versus ourselves.
	And I don't know who's winning, but it doesn't seem like the good guys are winning at this stage.
	No, indeed.
	And one thing that is a problem is that they report what happens on Twitter.
	So you get the Twitter mob.
	And you can, like, lose your job over what people on Twitter are saying.
	And I think that's a serious problem.
	I think Twitter should be designated as, like, down the pub.
	And people should no more in newspapers report on it than they would report on random stuff they overheard down the pub.
	It should be the down the pub space.
	Yeah, the thing that's alarming...
	For me, I never wanted to be smarter than the president.
	I don't want to be more moral than...
	I definitely don't want to be more well-researched than the guy on the news.
	I don't want to be a better pilot than my pilot.
	And so this is what's alarming when you grow up and become an adult and you realize, holy shit, no one is steering the ship.
	And I think we're right in that spot right now.
	Oh, I'm kind of an anti-conspiracy theorist in the sense that I think in some ways the real problem is like the lack of puppet masters or the puppet masters are...
	Clueless or unenlightened.
	I think this isn't just some game or some show that we're watching.
	I think it's not a show.
	I think it actually is going to lead to chaos.
	That's how they see life.
	These people, we're now in generations like our own.
	When Prince Philip died, by the way, I'm quite shocked that we didn't begin this by paying tribute to...
	His royal highness.
	Well, the good news is that he was reincarnated as a deadly virus that will...
	That's what he wants.
	That was his dying wish.
	That was his dying wish.
	He's a good guy.
	Is it true that Prince Philip was twice as old as DMX?
	Might be true.
	That's kind of incredible.
	Yeah.
	But the...
	You made me completely lose my point now.
	Sorry.
	They kept saying that he was from a tougher generation.
	He was tougher.
	And that's true.
	That's very true.
	It was tougher.
	You were brought up.
	Life isn't a game.
	Life is serious.
	And it's serious for you, and it's serious for your people, and it's all very, very serious.
	And now people are brought up.
	It's almost as if life is a game.
	As if it's a rehearsal.
	As if it doesn't matter.
	It's not important.
	It's not serious.
	And so therefore we get to this point where...
	We don't even promote our best.
	That's what Bruce Charlton did in this book, Not Even Trying.
	Once you get these dogmas of equality, which are, of course, empirically wrong, then you start not promoting the best.
	You don't promote the best people.
	You put them in Princeton because they're POC rather than because they're clever or whatever.
	You don't promote the best.
	And then you end up undermining everything, undermining medicine.
	You're going to soon get people trained as medics in America that don't know how to do basic medical stuff, but they know all about...
	Structures of oppression.
	And the worst thing is you get short women police officers.
	And that was the reason they were able to invade the capital, was that they fundamentally were able to push over a short woman police officer, get past her, and they were in.
	That's what happened.
	And so it was because of this, and I saw it, and I don't know why it wasn't commented on very much, that there were these group of police officers stopping them from getting through.
	One of them was a short woman.
	She couldn't stand up for them.
	She fell over.
	They were in.
	There were a lot of male cops that got run over too, and one of the people leading that charge was a woman, that woman who died.
	So what?
	The point is that if it had been a tall, muscular police officer, if a police officer should be six foot tall, that used to be the rule, then it wouldn't happen.
	I don't care what they should be.
	This is kind of sailor-esque.
	Yeah, it's fun to talk.
	There were some men who got surrounded.
	There were men fighting at the gate.
	It was a man who shot Ashley Babbitt.
	Yeah.
	When you guys were talking about religion and comparing the new woke cult to religion, one thing came to mind, which I hadn't thought about before, but this connection to history.
	I think is one of the selling points of religion.
	So put aside the eternal life and the universe was created with you in mind.
	You are connected to thousands of years of human history.
	And that feels good.
	You are nested in the warmth of that understanding.
	And this is when I hear woke people, specifically blacks, who I call bleeps, but I guess, where are we, Odyssey?
	You can call them blacks.
	You can use the B word.
	Yes, a hard P. The bleeps talk about 400 years, and I was always taken aback.
	What did they mean?
	Why are they including 400 years as some random arbitrary starting point of their coming into North America?
	They weren't there for that.
	Why is that their thing?
	You don't get those 400 years, but then I realized they want to be connected to the past because there's a bond there, and there's a purpose for that.
	And I see that in that parallel.
	And I'm just wondering if we could somehow...
	That's why it's going to win.
	Because look at the opposition to it.
	There's this guy that I follow on Twitter and he annoys the hell out of me.
	I think his name is David Lindsay.
	He wrote a book called Cynical Theories on...
	Apparently the Frankfurt School were cynics.
	That was the issue with him.
	But he's always basically just saying like...
	In the words of Kylo Ren, let the past die.
	We're just individuals right here.
	Why are you attacking us as white males?
	That's so unfair.
	That kind of attitude is almost atheistic in a way because it is ending that component of religion which is connecting you to the past and connecting you to a larger story.
	There is no story.
	We're just a bunch of individuals sending out resumes and tweeting.
	And that will lose.
	That might hold sway for a little while.
	That will lose to a dogma that connects you with the past.
	And so that African American who has no identity from contemporary life, you know, who's just kind of like buying, selling stuff, what life sucks, whatever.
	Oh no, actually, I was on a slave ship and I'm kind of connected to that experience and story.
	That is...
	Infinitely more powerful.
	Similar things with Richard Dawkins or whatever.
	One thing interesting, I've noticed this in recent years, is the use of the word back in.
	So people say, oh, back in the 1950s.
	And what they're implying by saying that is, oh, it's a different era.
	We're not connected to it.
	It's something else.
	And I've noticed that there's an increase in the use of the word back in.
	And there's also an increase in how recently people, back in 2016, five years ago, for God's sake.
	And it strikes me that if you live in a society where you're bonded to the past and there's this profound bond between you and the past, it's not back in.
	It only becomes back in if that bond is somehow weakened.
	Or if we're living in a revolution and change is so radical that a couple of years ago seems like a millennia ago.
	Or if you're becoming stupider and your time horizons are lower and so therefore your sense of time sort of slows down.
	But it's interesting.
	I've seen it all the time now.
	The most recent I hope is back in 2016.
	Back in 2016.
	You know, I think there's something so comforting about this connection to the past and it reminds me of people who are, if you're suffering right now, if you're depressed, There could be a myriad of reasons why, but typically it's because you are disconnected from other human beings.
	You are not belonging to a group.
	So you might be ostracized for whatever reason.
	You might be a geek.
	You might be autistic.
	You might be a shut-in.
	Whatever it is, the solution to that tends to be getting out there, forming connections, having humans around you, belonging to a group of humans.
	But this also applies on a historical...
	So on a grander scale.
	And that's why things like religion are so attractive, because it puts you in a meaningful context, and this makes you feel good about yourself.
	And you guys talked about how religiosity is an evolutionary thing, and it's part of us, and it's in our DNA, essentially.
	And what we're seeing today is essentially a modern version of ancestor worship.
	They are trying to tie themselves to...
	Some greater family of people.
	And that's why, by the way, the concept of race.
	What is race but a large extended family?
	Yeah, literally.
	Right.
	And that's why you do get some people that are atheists that will involve themselves in religion.
	I mean, there was a priest in England in the 90s called, what was his name?
	And he wrote a book called God in Us.
	Anthony Freeman, that was his name.
	And he basically argued that what...
	He was a priest in some village church in Essex or somewhere.
	And he basically said, look, what these people are doing, it's like this society called the Sealed Knot, which is where people get together and they reenact English Civil War battles in the clothes.
	They're redoing what their ancestors did.
	And that's what these people are doing in this church.
	They're going through these rituals that their ancestors went through in order to commune with their ancestors and commune with each other.
	And that's the point of it.
	And he basically said, he doesn't believe in God.
	He's a priest.
	He said to ask whether God exists is like asking what kind of the wind is.
	It's like asking is the wind green.
	It's a meaningless question.
	It's a matter of bonding us with our ancestors and going through rituals that our ancestors did because that's what we should do.
	And he was defrocked the day after that book was published for saying this.
	But I think he made some very reasonable points.
	And Andrew Fraser, who is an Australian-Canadian...
	Lawyer, academic, argues a similar thing.
	He's done a book called something like Dissident Dispatches, Christianity for the Alt-Right, which has a picture of that frog on it, the cover, Peppy the Frog with a mitre, which he argues a similar point.
	That was back in 2016.
	That was back in, yeah, that was back in 2019.
	We don't do that anymore.
	That was a long, long ago.
	I'm thinking of another thing that religion provides, and it's not just this connection to the past and inserting yourself into a grand story.
	It's a glorious story.
	This is not just a long period of time.
	You are a hero in this story, and you will ascend to even more heroics out in heaven or in eternity.
	And so I compare that to the Black experience in America.
	Their history is the exact opposite of a glorious one.
	It is one filled with humiliation.
	Their own names are often not essentially their own names.
	So they're not connected to a successful story or a story at all.
	And so in lieu of that, I think this is why this cult of wokeism is even more attractive, because it not only connects them and bonds them in a group, it's trying to say, look, you guys are beautiful, you have black pride, you would-be Wakandans, you are great.
	This is a message that humans like to hear, especially if they're suffering from an inferiority complex or just a lack of a good feeling about yourself.
	Yes.
	I don't feel that.
	As a white guy, when was the last time you guys have referenced something that white people did 400 years ago?
	Well, you guys are historically well-versed, so you might have, but I've never been like, hey...
	For 400 years, back in 1600, a white guy did this, and I'm going to talk about that, and that has relevance to me somehow?
	Never.
	There's no need for it.
	You said back in again.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Let's not say back in 1600.
	Let's say we're connected in an unbroken line to these people from 1600.
	Here's the problem, as I see it, is that you do see this to a degree among conservatives.
	And let's go back to...
	Sorry.
	Let's return to the 1776 project, which came late in the Trump administration.
	And they put forth a kind of national religion in this thing.
	It was a kind of cringe-inducing document, but that's what it was attempting to do, is trying to create order, create a sense of pride in the nation that actually involves everyone.
	And the way they describe America, what does it really mean?
	Put aside money, put aside we won wars, whatever.
	What does it really mean?
	And it's a creedal nation that isn't based on this long story.
	And it's a kind of severing away from the European story.
	I mean, that's how I would boil it down.
	You can see this in Heritage Foundation put out all of these statements that, you know, America is unique.
	They're quoting Chesterton, actually, not my favorite.
	But America is unique.
	It's based on a creed and not a race.
	And so the problem, as I see it, I think conservatives kind of naturally tend towards some kind of religious-like understanding of who they are and where they are in the world.
	This poison that is injected into conservatism from the very beginning.
	So what it means to be an American is to believe in this system and to be an individualist and so on.
	And so I think all of this, we can't change all of these things, but we can look and criticize the kind of new religion that is developing, whether you want to call it multiculturalism or POC or whatever.
	Wokeism.
	But until you offer a real alternative...
	There was an alternative.
	It's not going to win.
	Kaufman looked at this.
	This thing about America being based around certain values and Enlightenment ideas, that's only really become popular since the 60s.
	Before that, we are Anglo-Saxon people.
	And indeed, we are more Anglo-Saxon than the English.
	We're the real Anglo-Saxons.
	We've inherited these liberties and freedoms that the Anglo-Saxons didn't have in England, that they became taken over by the Normans or whatever, and we're not.
	We're the real Anglo-Saxons with these real freedoms.
	We're the real...
	This is the kind of myth that they were trying to create.
	For a number of different reasons.
	They lost out to academia.
	The Boazians won academia.
	The problem came really in the 1950s, and I'm sorry if I'm going to get divisive here, but the problem came with the onset of conservatism, the conservative movement surrounding Catholics.
	I mean, you went away from a kind of Anglo-Saxon supremacy, which is clearly present in Madison Grant.
	Who was wildly popular for a time, Theodore Roosevelt, who's president and writer and icon.
	You went to a new conservative movement that was largely Catholic in inflection and Jewish to also a very strong extent.
	And they created this poison, poisonous myth.
	In which America is based on kind of vague religiosity and a creed that involves individualism.
	And that we are still paying the price for the birth of the conservative movement.
	And I think this is a problem that's just really underestimated and is not put into kind of let's say racial terms.
	I mean, that kind of conservatism that I described, you can see articulated in current British conservatism, etc.
	And it's a real problem, and it needs to be destroyed before anything new can come into the world.
	I'm trying to understand why anyone...
	Maybe in the past it was easier to understand this.
	Why would anyone care about national identity?
	At this stage, it couldn't mean less if it tried.
	I mean, we are totally at each other's throats.
	I don't care that I'm American.
	And it's just such a lazy cop-out of a thing to put meaning into.
	Because you did not create America.
	So first of all, what's the attraction?
	The attraction, I guess, is similar to what we've been talking about.
	It is an extended family.
	It is a connection to other people.
	Also, America has a glorious history.
	So we win all the wars.
	We have a bunch of great people who have done a bunch of great things.
	I agree with that.
	But it wasn't you that did any of that.
	But it was.
	Because we are them.
	Okay, but not literally.
	You're being poetic.
	Actually, kind of literally.
	In the sense that we're kind of...
	A race is just a kind of reincarnation, you could say.
	That we just kind of pop up here and there.
	And we're connected to our fathers and ancestors.
	You're talking about race.
	I agree with the kind of...
	You hear this a lot among liberals where they'll show a picture of like the proud boys and these guys are like short and fat and ugly and whatever.
	And they'll be like, Oh, yeah, look at these white I kind of get that.
	It is.
	And in some ways, you shouldn't just rest on our laurels, so to speak.
	We shouldn't just be like, America's great.
	We can just sit back and enjoy it.
	But that is a proper understanding.
	We are us.
	We are them.
	Our ancestors are living in us now.
	We are not an individual.
	We are just a kind of current expression of a biological entity that is eternal, that actually persists across millennia.
	We are just the latest kind of flower and will die.
	If I could interject, do you have children, Devon?
	No.
	No.
	If your child does something and you're proud of it, if you were to have a child, why are you proud of it?
	Well, let's think about why you might be proud of it.
	You're proud of it because that child is 50% you.
	So there's an extent to which it's your genetics and your decisions.
	And perhaps you're nurturing as well, although this is also an expression part of your genetics, that has helped to create that.
	So you're proud of something that your child has done.
	And similarly, we divide into these clusters, these genetic clusters, whatever you want to call them, races, ethnic groups, clans, tribes, whatever.
	And they create an environment in which a person can or cannot achieve things.
	And so if there's something about the nature of a tribe which you're part, which helps to ensure that that tribe dominates the world or that tribe achieves amazing things, then there's a degree to which you're playing a part in it.
	And so you can understand how there would be an element of pride involved in being even the lowliest member of a tribe that produces some of the greatest people the world has ever known.
	So I think that's where the pride in nation comes from.
	Yeah, but we're kind of swapping.
	From national identity to racial.
	We could say national, we could say racial, we could say tribal, we could say clout.
	It doesn't matter.
	The point is it's a collective group of people that are related to each other.
	But isn't this the point?
	I mean, Richard started talking about us, and he said our, this, us.
	But you have to acknowledge that this is a completely arbitrary social construct, and you could choose...
	It's not arbitrary.
	No.
	What do you mean?
	No.
	I'm still not arbitrary.
	No.
	I'm talking about...
	In the sense that everything's a construct.
	I mean...
	No, but this is the point.
	This is you playing the puppet master.
	You are setting the rules now, and you're saying us.
	And so you went from national identity, which, you know, America has all the races, to then just discussing whites.
	But are we talking about Slavics?
	Are we talking about all these other groups?
	At some point, you have to draw lines, and this is just Richard Spencer making up those rules.
	Yeah.
	I endorse being a puppet master as I...
	In my sinister fashion said.
	But beyond that, I'm not creating something that has no basis in reality.
	I'm saying something that is real and that is deeply felt by proto-humans.
	This is the realest thing ever.
	I understand and agree that there is a lot of major kernels of truth to this.
	For example, if somebody in your family, your immediate family does something, you take pride in it.
	You see the through line there.
	This is part of your team, your thing.
	The further though you extend that outwards, there's not a law of diminishing returns, but it just becomes less and less of an actual authentic.
	Fine, but it's still an evolutionary issue, isn't it?
	So you invest the most in yourself, then your immediate family, then your extended family, your kin, then your ethnic group.
	And the ethnic group, I mean, it's been demonstrated.
	Frank Salter has done this research where he has shown how many people, let's say, who are Bantu.
	Would have to emigrate to England for it to be the equivalent of each English person losing a child.
	In terms of genetic terms.
	So these things matter.
	And then from that you can extend it to the ethnic group, and from that to the race, and from that to a group of related races, and from that to the species, and from that to beyond the species.
	They're all levels of relatedness.
	There's no black and white line between family and ethnic groups.
	And I think in the contemporary world, it really is race where we draw those lines.
	I mean, I agree that those lines, those concentric circles might have been drawn.
	Closer at different periods.
	But I mean, there's an interesting passage in Beyond Good and Evil in which Nietzsche is talking about this European man that is developing.
	And even in his day, we have train travel, there's telegraphs, there's postal service.
	I mean, all these technologies that kind of led to where we are now, where we're talking to you halfway across the world on...
	We have English as a technology, as a lingua franca, as a Latin that is connecting everyone.
	I could have this conversation with you.
	I could have this conversation with a Frenchman, a German, a Hungarian, a Venezuelan.
	We are becoming a real entity.
	A lot of those dividing lines I think what conservatism is trying to do, and this is why I find conservatism to be the enemy, is that they are trying to create a line based on creedalism.
	The church writ large or believing in Americanism or free markets or whatever.
	That is a competing entity to what we are trying to do.
	But in terms of ethnicity breaking down through intermarriage, through technology and travel, that is really happening to a point where I think the nation state as it is, is just kind of this artifact of a previous era.
	And what we really need now are racial states.
	That is the thing that makes sense.
	Well, it's funny that you're talking about that.
	You're bringing out the big guns.
	But when you said race is this biological truth that connects us and bonds us and it does so organically, when I heard you say something to that effect, that is true for how people of color view race.
	And they do it unabashedly, and they celebrate this, and they're applauded for it.
	You might believe that as a white man, but there are very few other white people who actually believe that sentiment.
	They don't view their whiteness as something to be celebrated or as something to even identify as.
	So this is not their tribe.
	In fact, they reject the tribe.
	This is the great contradiction where kind of...
	Whites are the enemy of what we're trying to achieve here.
	I agree that this is a contradiction.
	Maybe that contradiction is not a right word.
	Maybe irony is the right word.
	I have a question that I'd like to pose to you, too.
	I thought of it.
	We're talking about size.
	I think there's a size issue here.
	If your conception of us gets too big, how big can it get before it will automatically be pointless and just...
	Not even serve you as an abstract thought.
	Well, I think the multiculturalists have to deal with that question much more than I do.
	First off, they're in power, and I'm not.
	But beyond that, they are the ones trying to expand this, maybe even beyond the species in terms of animal rights and so on.
	And I think if anything will give us hope that their new religion and the world that they have instituted will fail, it is that.
	Because there is power in size.
	So I get that.
	For anything.
	For business, money, just teamwork.
	I mean, you're not going to kill a woolly mammoth without a few other guys on your side.
	And yet, if you get too big, it becomes pointless.
	There's division.
	It's so watered down that it doesn't even mean anything at that point.
	So what is the perfect size of a tribe?
	It depends on the nature of the enemy.
	So humanity as a whole should unite in the face of an alien invasion.
	And it would be in their interest to do so.
	Although you would definitely get some groups that would probably collaborate with the aliens or something.
	I can imagine that happening.
	But even so, it depends on where you are.
	As a rule, if there is conflict within Europe, then obviously you're...
	You identify with your ethnic group.
	If there's conflict between Europe and the Islamic world, as there was in the 1600s, then it becomes a more united Europe, as indeed did happen around the time of the siege of Vienna.
	People put aside their ethnic rivalries to deal with the common enemy.
	So it depends on what the nature of the enemy is.
	Well, it's interesting that you even bring up enemy, and I understand why you did, because that's been the story of human history.
	But my first instinct is to say, well, why do we need an enemy?
	Wow.
	There's an answer to that, but the enlightened person...
	If we're a species and we're competing for resources and for survival with other people, there's always enemies.
	You call them opponents, you call them competitors, but ultimately they're enemies.
	But this is the worst version of tribalism.
	This is like just cave people fighting someone else, and I understand that you can rally behind a common enemy, and that's how...
	Life has worked, and I get the competition factor.
	But shouldn't our goal be to not have enemies and to bond over more positive, constructive things?
	You can't not have it.
	If that's the way you see things, then you just get out-competed and you get destroyed.
	That's what happens to Bushmen.
	I acknowledge, too, by the way, that this woke cult, they have a common enemy.
	And you know who that is?
	Yes.
	Yeah, I think you might.
	Everyone on this podcast, I mean, yeah.
	So when you see Asians stop Asian hate and they're doing a rally with Black Lives Matter, there is a big bad wolf in that speech and it is white people or white supremacy.
	So they are unifying behind a common enemy, which I find interesting, but I'm saying that's primitive and not constructive and to be avoided.
	Well, good luck arguing that with them, but you're going to go down in flames.
	I say that with the best will.
	We need to recognize that and bring that into ourselves.
	So I really hate it when conservatives are kind of centrist.
	Like, attack BLM for being tribal or something.
	Like, oh gosh, you know, they have a sense of their race and they're focused on this as opposed to rationality or something.
	That's what's powerful about BLM.
	That's what's admirable about BLM.
	But why?
	Wait a minute.
	Because they're exaggerating.
	Because that wins!
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And nothing else matters.
	Well, they thrive off it.
	It makes money.
	It generates outrage and fear, and they bond over the enemy.
	And I know that that dynamic is completely real.
	I guess what I'm suggesting is, oh, man.
	I mean, look, here's one thing I'd like to say.
	I think it's important sometimes when we talk about these things to quantify or at least attempt to quantify things.
	So when I ask someone if they're depressed, I don't just want to hear, Flowery terminology.
	I say, on a scale of 1 to 10, how are you feeling?
	10 being you're perfectly blissful, 1 being you're suicidal.
	And so when I get a number, I can get a truer sense.
	When it comes to our enemies right now, I think there's two ways to indicate it through numbers.
	And these two are the percentage of people that think O.J. Simpson is innocent of the double murder and the percentage of people who are in favor of reparations.
	Now, we know those numbers.
	We have polled people.
	And those numbers...
	You know, are obviously lopsided, depending on the race.
	But it's about, what, 75% of people are against reparations?
	Something like that?
	Or maybe it's a little less.
	I don't know.
	It's 85% of blacks are in favor of it, and 15% of whites want it.
	So that percentage of white people, those I would view as an enemy to a lot of causes.
	What percentage of white people is it?
	What percentage?
	At least 15. No, maybe it's 25, actually.
	I think it could be 25. Yeah, that would fit.
	Once you get about 20% of people that say individualists, then the whole society flips over and we let those people basically take charge.
	That percentage is completely consistent with the research.
	I'm not against the idea of...
	I don't shy away from enemies.
	I don't shy away from conflict.
	In fact, somebody told me the other day, they said, Devin, you've made so many videos and you have some people like you, some people hate you.
	And I'm like, good.
	That's the point.
	If people didn't hate me, I am either doing nothing or I'm doing it wrong.
	So I'm not saying that to avoid the battle here.
	Obviously, there are people out there that have interests that are counter to your own, to someone else.
	So it's just I'm trying to figure out the path forward because what they are doing works, a common enemy.
	But I don't know.
	This idea of us seems so vague and so arbitrary.
	I'd love to hear your thoughts as to...
	Well, we can ask our enemies.
	I mean, we can just rely on them.
	They've defined the battle lines.
	They are in power and we are not.
	So we don't have really any choice but to agree and amplify what they tell us.
	Well, you know what I think the new us could potentially be is just anti-woke.
	That's not drawn down racial lines, but it's...
	I don't think it's beneficial to turn people away at the door if you have reason to ally with them.
	I think that is going to be the Republican political engineering strategy for the next 10 years is a so-called anti-woke coalition.
	And I think that will be they won't do anything policy-wise because they can't.
	They're too lazy and stupid, but they will win elections based on anti-wokeness, effectively.
	As they turned out millions for Donald Trump, who was a bombastic, vulgar buffoon on some level, through ultimately saying anti-woke, the left hates you, the left is crazy, unhinged, mad.
	I think that will be a thing, but I think there has to be some people who recognize...
	We're going for a kind of civilizational project and not just kind of impotently raging against the left.
	Because I would say this, I think woke is sovereign.
	To go back to that anecdote that I told you about these people working here in the pub, what would get them fired?
	Would being a sexual...
	Would a pervert get them fired?
	No.
	Would being a Buddhist get them fired?
	Would being an atheist get them fired?
	Of course not.
	But casually expressing racism, they'll be fired in a second.
	That is what sovereignty is.
	That is the exceptional moment.
	Wokeness is sovereign.
	Therefore, all of these Republicans raging against it, rage all you like, you are going to lose to that.
	And it might be successful kind of as an electoral strategy, but it's going to lose.
	So I think we need to recognize that and start, even if we're kind of on the margins or whatever, we need to start building up a bigger civilizational project.
	That's kind of our mission.
	Yeah, and who does that include?
	I mean, because you can see what they are doing.
	They are trying to gain numbers and gain power in so doing.
	It reminds me of like Game of Thrones when the Stark...
	Tried to go and fight his brother, and he's summoning all the clans.
	That's why you have the term people of color.
	This is a totally artificial, fabricated term.
	Trying to unite indigenous people with blacks and Asians?
	When is that last time an indigenous person, a black, and an Asian walked into a bar?
	This doesn't happen, and yet they're trying to force this tribe into being.
	And why?
	Because they have to compete.
	This is why there's a European Union.
	Because they said together, you know, apes together strong.
	You've got to unify.
	And meanwhile, half the white people out there, 99% of the white people, don't even realize that they are being dogpiled upon.
	They are being vilified constantly.
	And they're in a war.
	It takes one party to enter a war.
	I mean, it's like we didn't have to agree when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to be in a war.
	We were in a war.
	And so I think people are just asleep at the wheel and they don't even realize.
	This is ramping up, I would call it exponentially.
	I mean, since when?
	2015?
	You were in that war because President Roosevelt fancied the Crown Princess of Norway and did things for her.
	He sent dick pics?
	What was he up to?
	Yeah, something like that.
	They probably snogged.
	I don't think it went further from snogging.
	It was kind of an affair.
	An affair of the heart, anyway, between President Roosevelt and...
	At the moment, and I think probably for the next 25 years, upper-level, more intelligent whites feel like they can be the managers of this system.
	And so they will vilify themselves, in fact, and enjoy it and manage the POC.
	And in some ways, let's be honest here, the POC coalition needs managers.
	They need people kind of behind the camera.
	Giving you visions of diversity in Hollywood and so on.
	I think for a long time, maybe for the rest of our lives, whites will think that they can be the managers of this system and they feel like they will benefit from it.
	To a certain extent, they will be benefiting from it.
	I think what we need to understand is...
	They have to have a better vision so that they can manage something else.
	Do you think that the moral panic we're going through right now in regards to racism is worse than the Red Scare and McCarthyism?
	If so, to what degree?
	Yeah, I think it probably is much worse.
	I didn't live through the Red Scare or McCarthyism, separated by a couple decades.
	Yeah, I think it is more widespread.
	It's more radical.
	I mean, I don't think if you told me even five years ago that transgender ideology would be seeping into lower schools, I mean, I would just be like, oh, that's not going to happen.
	That's just too insane.
	And now this is like a norm.
	You have old Joe Biden just kind of going along with it.
	I mean, wokeness is sovereign.
	At this point.
	And it's not Marxism.
	It's not actual socialism.
	The worst thing about it is it's never, because left-wing people are mentally ill, it's never secure in its sovereignty.
	It's never like, okay, I'm sovereign, that's it.
	It's always more, always more, always needs more power to reassure itself.
	It always believes, ironically, that its enemies, the evil white racists or whatever, are really in power and they have to be fought against.
	So it's an eternal revolution.
	It's much worse.
	If you were working in a bar during the Red Scare, could you be sacked for expressing left-wing opinions?
	Actually, maybe.
	It's up there with the Salem Witch Trial, I think, at this point.
	It's gotten comical levels.
	I see your point, Ed, but I think actually there was a point where if you were a commie, you'd get fired from being a bartender, but your point stands.
	I'd like to put you on record, Richard, and just...
	Have you explained it?
	I think you've explained it to me before.
	The notion that what's wrong with white people, if you don't like that you're being demonized and people have negative feelings towards you, why not just do what you and I have done, which is you live in Montana, which is 90% white.
	I live in Berlin, which is 90% white.
	Why not just do that?
	Berlin.
	Berlin is 90% white?
	Yeah.
	Really?
	Yeah, we got I mean, it includes Slavs and Russians.
	There are a lot of Turks.
	Yeah, there's a chunk of Turks, but outside of that...
	Right, no, we're not counting that.
	I kicked them out of the white race, in fact.
	But what is wrong with that as a solution for, I would say, the near term, but for the duration of your life?
	Why not just...
	I think that is a solution.
	I think there's a kind of internal migration that is happening.
	I think I mentioned this before.
	This is just a funny anecdote.
	There were supposedly 30,000 new vehicle registrations.
	In the Flathead Valley recently, like everyone from, you get all this migration from Texas, from California, and so you meet all these people that you'll say, oh, I grew up in Texas, I grew up in Houston, or something.
	And I think there's an internal migration going, and I think that could be a good thing if that leads to something bigger, if it's just simply running away.
	153,000 people left California in 2019, just that year.
	But I mean, what I'm saying is, why even LARP and pretend that there's a political viable solution in terms of some ethnostate that's never going to happen, when you essentially live in an ethnostate right now, and it's like, you know, why put yourself up against an unconquerable task?
	Well, because I know that's not the ultimate solution.
	And so when I talk, I mean, first off...
	What I talk about in my dreamier moments do have historical precedence.
	And I would go back to that just unquenchable, maybe unspeakable drive that you have to have.
	I don't want to just run a small business or just get on in life.
	I want to be part of a much bigger project.
	There's some spiritedness that infects.
	People who are engaging in this.
	And maybe it's a kind of contrarian.
	You want to kind of poke holes in the system or whatever.
	But I think that's part of it, I guess.
	But there's a kind of spirit that you want something better.
	I don't want us to just merely survive.
	I mean, that's almost kind of horrifying in a way.
	We have to flourish and move higher.
	And only we can do that.
	And we have that mission as a people to improve the entire planet and ultimately explore the galaxy.
	That is what we are here.
	If we don't have that mission, then why are we bothering with life?
	Because at the end of the day, life is no good.
	You can go move to the suburbs, you can go move to Montana, and it's fine, but it's ultimately tedious drudgery.
	Life is no good.
	You inject some meaning into it.
	Okay.
	It sounds like you seek glory.
	It sounds like you would have been a guy that got on a ship and went out to the New World.
	You want the adventure?
	I've heard you use the word conquest.
	And conquer.
	Well, that's what your ancestors did in both cases.
	That's what your ancestors did.
	They got on a ship and went out to the New World.
	Most definitely.
	And then you've branched out.
	You've gone back to the Old World, which is, I suppose, a New World from your perspective.
	Oh, no.
	Literally, my family is part of the British Empire.
	We did it all.
	We went out and did it all.
	But the question would be, what is left to conquer?
	What is the final frontier?
	I mean, you've brought up space.
	Are you...
	Literally thinking that this is a project that you're going to take part in in your lifetime?
	Probably not, sadly.
	But there needs to be people pushing towards that for that to ultimately happen.
	I do think that we are in a state, we're kind of in an age of anxiety, very similar to the age at the end of the Roman Empire.
	Ed and I actually talked about the Bronze Age collapse in the last podcast.
	I mean, there are these periods of anxiety and degeneration and collapse that seem to recur about every 500 to 1,000 years.
	I think we are in that point right now.
	You think life is better when you have a goal?
	When you're moving towards something.
	And if you don't do that, you described it as boring, it's tedious, and essentially you're just going to stare into the void and it's going to laugh back at you and you're going to die.
	And so I think that there's some logic to that and I would agree.
	I guess the next question would be, what are the projects?
	What are the goals?
	And have we kicked the tires on those goals?
	And are we sure about them?
	Those are very good questions.
	I mean, I think what we are doing right now is kind of talking about those projects and kicking the tires of them.
	And I think in some ways, one of the challenges right now is to have kind of intermediate goals where we have the big picture, but we need to kind of have some more pragmatic goals.
	I mean, there's not really an institution for this type of thinking.
	There are multiple BLM institutions.
	BLM is at Yale.
	BLM is the actual BLM.
	I think one of the problems with the alt-right, if we want to still use that term, is that it's kind of personal brands, maybe a webzine.
	It's kind of a bunch of cynics and contrarians.
	Throwing stuff out to the ether.
	I think that is actually a real big problem.
	And we need to start working as a team.
	When we were working as a team, that really created a tremendous amount of anxiety among our enemies.
	And that was interesting.
	And we have to get there.
	Now, the way we did it back in...
	2016 obviously did not work.
	I've admitted that.
	I mean, I faced reality.
	You just have to.
	There has to be a different way of doing it.
	And I think some of those ways we can talk about publicly, some of those ways we shouldn't talk about publicly.
	But I think we kind of need some more intermediate goals at this point.
	I think that's actually a challenge for us right now.
	I have to go soon.
	Do we have any of these private chats or anything?
	Oh, let's read the Super Chats.
	I've been messaging you for the last half hour.
	Oh, yeah.
	I haven't been looking at that whatsoever.
	Okay.
	So...
	Let's go here first.
	What are the consequences of higher school damage?
	Oh, that was from yesterday.
	I agree with Ed about...
	Okay, this is the first one.
	So this is Yehuda Finkelstein, prolific donor.
	I agree with Ed about not wanting most people to be atheists.
	Why are militant atheists such jerks?
	There's a variety of reasons for that.
	I mean, I'm what I call a true-blood atheist.
	I was born an atheist.
	I never came from religion.
	So I don't have a chip on my shoulder.
	I'm not trying to dunk on.
	I'm not trying to convince myself that I'm right.
	So there's no hard feelings, in other words.
	But there are a lot of atheists who are not in that boat, and they can be cunts.
	There are cunts all around the world, of all different stripes.
	That is true.
	Okay.
	I've never heard an American use that word before.
	Oh, well, I'm first-generation American.
	I was named after Devonshire.
	Ah, interesting.
	Shulgi for 25. Thanks for the livestream, Richard.
	Keep up the great work.
	Thanks for everything you do.
	Well, thank you for that.
	I agree.
	This was a fantastic conversation.
	Yehuda Finkelstein again.
	Ed, should Harry and Meghan be barred from Prince Philip's funeral?
	I think I would like to put a poll on Twitter, which is, should Harry and Meghan be allowed to go to the funeral and then be taken to the Tower of London for treason?
	Or should they be simply immediately arrested at the Port of Entry and taken to the Tower of London for treason?
	It's one or the other.
	What if he showed up dressed as Adolf Hitler like he once did?
	Or naked, as he also once did.
	Turned up naked or dressed as Adolf Hitler, because that's the kind of thing he does.
	Harry, what a Chad mind has been overthrown.
	He seemed to have real...
	I don't think he was an intelligent guy, but he seemed to have real rambunctious Chad-like instincts.
	He went into the military.
	Wasn't there rumors like he was going to Vegas and just banging all these chicks or whatever?
	Not that I endorse that.
	Yeah, but yeah, just the cucking of Harry, you hate to see it.
	He succumbed to his gingerness, I think.
	It's a shame.
	He did.
	They are very high in estrogen, ginger people.
	That's the real difference.
	That's why they get cancer of the rectum.
	It correlates with estrogen.
	Wow.
	You're not just joking, that's real?
	No, no, no, it's not joking.
	That's a well-known film.
	Okay.
	James Madison, Richard, what are your thoughts on Richard Nixon?
	Like Trump, he was clearly disliked by the powers that be, but also made some bad appointments, like Kissinger.
	Would things be better if he had beat JFK?
	That is an interesting question.
	So he did beat JFK, I guess, the Stop the Steal 1960 version.
	I think most mainstream historians kind of agree that there was a tremendous amount of fraud, I think, in Illinois and Texas.
	So he kind of did beat JFK, although it was razor thin.
	Yeah, I mean, I think Nixon was...
	I'm probably less hostile to Kissinger than maybe this super chatter.
	I think Nixon and Kissinger were developing a kind of post-Cold War realist strategy that was very interesting.
	I think the outreach to China was an example of that.
	They were kind of getting over the hyper-moralism all or nothing of the Cold War.
	And, you know, kind of creating certain factions and treating people as equal and not judging them on their domestic behavior, but judging them, treating an enemy not as a hostile enemy that he must destroy, which is the rhetoric of the Cold War, but treating them as real, meeting with them and so on.
	I think there's actually a lot of positives.
	The election of 72 was just an absolute landslide.
	It was as if, it was like the election of 2020 that is activated.
	You know, middle America.
	But then we didn't have all of this immigration in between.
	And you just had this landslide election.
	I don't think Nixon was able to have a vision, a policy vision, or to implement something.
	But I think he did kind of, much like Trump, kind of represented a certain, you know, back to America, kind of back to normalcy type thing.
	I've used that in...
	With Joe Biden, but I'm using it a different way here.
	But yeah, I think he's an interesting kind of tragic figure.
	Personally, I've listened, this is a while ago, I listened to this long biography of Nixon, just his whole personal life and being a kind of underdog and tackling dummy on the football team, not going to the Ivies and having a certain resentment and chip on his shoulders.
	Fascinating guy.
	Also, though, we know what would have happened if he had won because it's featured in the movie The Watchmen and that whole comic franchise.
	Oh, that's true.
	Yes.
	Parallel history or alternate history.
	It's pretty interesting.
	Yeah.
	Ozymandias nationalism.
	That's, I guess, what I'm kind of promoting.
	Okay.
	Evan McLaren, my good friend.
	He's now in Norway with a family.
	Nietzsche viewed Rome versus Judea as the salient conflict.
	Running throughout history, but was also critical of anti-Semites.
	He said that they are driven fundamentally by resentment.
	Can you unpack that a little?
	Yeah, it's kind of interesting.
	I was joking with some, when I do these private lives, I guess they're live streams, you want to call them that.
	We were joking about that, where when Nietzsche praises Jews, they almost get uncomfortable.
	And then when Nietzsche...
	Nietzsche did attack anti-Semites and German nationalism as just beer-guzzling Christian resentment.
	But then when Nietzsche will really be critical of Jews, Jews really get uncomfortable.
	He's a very interesting person.
	In this Nietzschean way, he'll look at both sides of the issue.
	Jews were the slave caste to end all slave caste.
	The notion in the ancient world that this people, of all people, have the one true God who invented the universe was just treated as absolute silliness.
	These were just...
	Banned, not even racially coherent, band of liars and malcontents.
	I mean, they were viewed extremely negatively in the ancient world.
	They were not viewed as high-intelligent as they are now, correctly.
	I think the intelligence came later.
	But at the same time, Nietzsche saw them as creating kind of morality in the grand style.
	And so, in a way, we became deeper, you could say.
	By ultimately adopting this resentment slave morality.
	So Nietzsche is a very nuanced person, and I could go into him at length, but I think I'll leave it at that.
	So he saw kind of the morality and the grand style that is world-denying and nihilistic, but it can ultimately kind of flip over into something else.
	By the way, Richard, you might get a kick out of the ADL's recent public statement about Tucker Carlson's latest episode where he's talking about white replacement, or he wasn't talking about it.
	He was talking about Republican replacement theory.
	They put out a letter trying to get him fired to Fox News, and I think they mentioned white supremacy 20 times in three paragraphs.
	It's incredible.
	Yeah, I definitely took note of that.
	I did a little video on that last night.
	He talks about it in the wrong way.
	It becomes Republican replacement, as you said.
	We're diluting.
	And I don't think it's necessarily even right.
	I think in this weird way, and this is kind of my hot take on the matter, in this weird way, Hispanics were very attracted to Trump.
	I think Hispanics might very well be attracted to an anti-woke coalition.
	And I think they're not quite a part of this.
	they're not you know it's like black the black history the black experience that's the original sin that's those are the people who get moralized and the new poc ruling class are like people you know it's not really hispanics well hispanic silence is deafening i mean there are huge yeah the country and they're really not going on the shows and they're not they're not even going one way or the other so yeah I don't even know if I give them a pass.
	They should be standing up and being actually anti-racist.
	They don't.
	I think it's actually kind of complicated.
	I don't think Tucker was able to get it.
	I think Tucker is also just kind of playing these games.
	This isn't about race.
	It's a voting rights issue.
	It's like, come on.
	Come on, man.
	He's a political wonk.
	It probably was him just talking about voting rights.
	He has no ambition to get into that.
	Fire.
	That might be true.
	And it's good Republican when me get more money, basically.
	Okay.
	The us AIU wants to know about is a new Aryan-centric religion.
	Hail Apollo.
	That's from Stephen Lauder for three.
	Yeah, that is my big...
	Sun worship.
	Well, that's my big project with Brahman and so on.
	We're going to bring back the gods.
	And we will worship the sun.
	I know this sounds outlandish or silly or like, oh, we're doing Scientology.
	It's not.
	It's not a superstitious faith.
	And it is a rational faith and a faith of intelligence.
	And it's also a moralizing faith.
	And I think a faith that's going to appeal to Thumos and the best of us.
	Okay.
	Let me go on here.
	I think this might be the last one.
	This was for eight.
	Oh no, we've had some more.
	I'll read these pretty quickly.
	I can't read this name.
	It's not that it's a bad word.
	It's just weird letters.
	As Christianity took a thousand years to annex Europe while incorporating pagan practices with new meaning, what aspect of current order could be recycled with new meaning, perhaps?
	I can answer that real quickly.
	The new order is going to be Christian, and they have adopted...
	The structure of Christianity that is original sin.
	It is a guilt religion, fundamentally.
	White guilt.
	The dangers of white supremacy.
	And it envisions a kind of new world.
	It is pretty much the meek shall inherit the earth, but it's a new kind of meek.
	It's not necessarily the poor or the working class.
	It's a kind of new P.O.C.E.
	that will...
	That will take power.
	So when we are opposing this wokeness or something, we are opposing Christianity's latest evolution.
	And maybe even how it was at the beginning.
	I mean, it kind of almost neo-Christian returning to origin, so to speak.
	To add to that, when one religion takes over from another, often it would adopt the holidays and just sort of modify them, but they'd keep the day because people were just used to practicing whatever holiday on that day.
	So now you get the 4th of July.
	Well, For the woke, that's Fuck America Day.
	Christopher Columbus Day, I mean, don't even start.
	There's multiple holidays throughout.
	President's Day, they're like, oh, those are all slave owners.
	Fuck you, whites.
	So they're going to take those holidays, and then commandeer them, and then just spin them to their own ends.
	Yes.
	I totally agree with that.
	That's insightful.
	TL, when is Spencer getting his blue checkmark?
	Well, I had a blue checkmark, and then they took it away.
	I don't know what they're going to do with me.
	I don't know.
	I don't think I'm going to be kicked off Twitter because I more or less behave.
	But they still...
	Not as much as they did, but they still kind of want to talk about me.
	But I've kind of thrown up all these smokescreens and so on where it's like...
	Wait, he's a Biden supporter.
	He doesn't like Tucker Carlson.
	So I'm kind of engaging in a certain cripsis, you could say.
	That's where we need to be right now.
	Mike R for 50. Thank you.
	This is for Ed.
	What would the world look like if English princes never married American divorcees?
	Well, the first time round, it would mean that George VI would never have been king.
	So it would have been Edward that was king.
	And assuming that nothing else changed, he married Maurice Simpson and then Edward would have been king during the war.
	And Edward was a Nazi sympathiser.
	So in that sense, perhaps the world could have been quite different.
	Because he may well have used his influence to steer England away from the war and to ensure that we didn't go to war with Germany.
	But it was marrying an American divorcee, which meant that he didn't do that because he abdicated.
	So it could have been quite different.
	That reminds me of one of my favorite films, Remains of the Day, which looks at German appeasement and some elites meeting at this great manor house to go over those things, starring Superman before he had his horse accident.
	I don't know if that short answer I just gave you justifies the very generous donation that you gave, but I don't know what more detail I can go into.
	It's quite possible, because a lot of people didn't want him to abdicate.
	He was very, very popular, and so if he hadn't married her and he would have become king and remained king and nothing else changed, then we would have had a king.
	Who was very, very much a sympathiser with the Nazis.
	And the king ultimately could decide who you appoint as prime minister.
	And he made it quite clear that he was prepared to...
	There's all of these theoretical powers that the royals have, which Elizabeth, for example, or George VI never use.
	So the tradition is you do this, so you do it.
	You don't have to do it, but you just do.
	And he broke with those traditions.
	He didn't appoint the natural successor as his private secretary.
	He appointed someone he wanted.
	He didn't appoint the person that was expecting the job as so-and-so.
	He appointed just someone he wanted.
	He did what he wanted.
	So it's quite possible he would have interfered in politics.
	So again, I stress, these American divorcees have a lot to answer for.
	It's a disturbing trend.
	There's no question.
	Gents, fantastic conversation.
	I'm not just saying that.
	This is, I think, really enlightening and wide-ranging.
	So I'd love to do it again.
	And Devin, if you want me to denounce you so that you could save face, I'm more than happy.
	Richard, I wasn't here.
	I wasn't even here.
	But it's very good to have these conversations.
	I'm glad that people can be brave enough to kind of push through the taboo and have the conversations because I think this is enlightening to me and I know that it was enlightening to the audience as well.
	So thanks.
	Why don't you do some plugs?
	Just tell everyone where they can find you.
	Yeah, well, I was kicked off YouTube because essentially George Floyd.
	I mean, I had been banned from YouTube twice before and managed to get my channel back because it was all bullshit.
	But in fact, one of the times I got banned was for showing the ass of Jesus Christ from a scene from The Life of Brian.
	But George Floyd was the final straw because everyone had to go.
	Yeah, in fact, I think, weren't you not banned recently?
	Well, I think we were banned at the same time, weren't we?
	There was a big purge in July or something like that.
	Yeah, my last video was like, what the hell?
	They banned all these other people.
	This is messed up.
	And then I was gone.
	But I'm over at Sensor TV.
	It's a platform.
	I post my stuff up.
	You can sign up using AIU as a coupon code.
	I get a few shekels that way.
	And I can say whatever I want.
	I churn out content.
	And I'm happy as a clam.
	Happy to have a home on the internet post-YouTube.
	Very good.
	All right.
	Let us put a bookmark in it.
	Great conversation.
	Thank you, Devin.
	Thank you, Ed, as always.
	And we'll see you soon.
	Ciao.
	All right.

▲