RadixJournal - Richard Spencer - The Case Against "Free Speech"

Sept. 15, 2022 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer

02:38:56

The Case Against "Free Speech"

Richard lays out his case against free speech, in particular how Oliver Wendell Holmes conception in Abrams v. United States (1919) is ill-conceived and increasingly irrelevant in the Internet age. 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
	Tonight I wanted to talk about a rather contentious subject.
	I guess it's contentious and it's not contentious on one level, and that is free speech.
	So everyone you know claims to love free speech, particularly if they are American, but not necessarily.
	It seems to be a kind of bedrock value, and it's very hard to find someone who will openly discuss the problems with that notion.
	It's obviously enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
	And since we live in an Americanized world, it has traveled.
	Around the world.
	And most new constitutions that you will see will pick up on the American notion of free speech.
	That notion of free speech, even in the First Amendment, I think should be looked at more closely.
	And the reason why I'm doing this, I guess the intention or what kind of spurred me to do it really, was some contemporary problems that we have with speech.
	Speech is everywhere.
	It inflects or infects, you could say, our lives more perhaps than at any other point in history.
	And there's a kind of user-generated, interactive quality to it.
	You can't get away from someone yammering on a TV.
	Whether you own a TV or not, you walk into any restaurant and there it is.
	Everyone, particularly if you're in this group, I'm sure is to some degree addicted to social media.
	That includes myself.
	Some have it worse than most.
	I think we should freely admit to that.
	So it is everywhere.
	It is different than it was in previous times.
	Just we're enveloped in it, drowning in it.
	And it is something that is extremely powerful and that we need to address.
	A few of the things that motivated me to rethink that value of free speech are some...
	contemporary issues that we have to deal with.
	Most recently, I have never visited that website.
	I have heard of it.
	My understanding is that it is much like 4chan, a kind of user-generated forum that is anonymous.
	Enlighten me if I'm incorrect.
	And it became a cesspool of doxing, bizarre revenge fantasies, lies.
	And what is textbook harassment, effectively?
	You have a right to go out to the center of town or a city sidewalk and hold up a You absolutely have that right.
	You don't have the right to harass someone who disagrees with you.
	You can, of course, have a conversation with him.
	You don't have the right to endlessly yell at him or follow him home.
	Or loudly shout his address where he lives and effectively urge people to go harass him or even kill him.
	You don't have that right, actually.
	And the notion that you somehow acquire that right through the internet is really stupid.
	You don't have a right to sell the internet.
	You don't have a right.
	Illegal drugs, that is.
	You don't have a right to contract a hitman on the internet.
	The internet is a means form of communication.
	It is tubes developed and built by the government.
	You have just as much right to contract with a hitman on the internet as you do on a public sidewalk.
	But there are many people who don't seem to fundamentally grasp this distinction.
	I've noted who is perhaps my least favorite political commentator and someone who is more popular than ever, although he has been in the line life for about a decade or so, and that is Glenn Greenwald.
	He took it upon himself to defend Kiwi Farms.
	It is interesting.
	I actually looked at this last night.
	I was curious about Glenn Greenwald defend...
	I mean, look, I'm self-interested.
	It's personal.
	I was curious if he ever defended my right to free speech.
	So I did an advanced search, and I looked at some...
	And apparently, Glenn didn't have the time to speak up on some very key occasions.
	And one of which was a moment about two years ago when I and Stefan Molyneux, I believe Jared Taylor and maybe a couple other people were kicked off YouTube.
	And, you know, I can only speak for myself, but I can more or less speak for the other people.
	That was a...
	That was pretty outrageous in the sense that I understand when someone gets kicked off for disobeying the terms of service.
	I mean, look, on some level, if you don't like the terms of service, you can get lost.
	It's not your platform.
	But when people are actually obeying them and really, you know, taking the time to obey them and putting forward whatever you think about me, whatever you think about Molyneux, whatever, putting forward.
	Content of a thoughtful nature.
	That is pretty outrageous.
	But, you know, I didn't notice...
	I did an advanced search.
	Glenn Greenwald didn't seem to have the time to speak up on that matter.
	There are some other cases like that.
	I don't want to make this some personal matter.
	It's a matter of principle.
	But, you know, there's this one whiner that sometimes...
	Attributed to Chomsky.
	He actually did say this on multiple occasions.
	Sometimes attributed to Gandhi and Voltaire.
	It's one of these quotes.
	Like, first they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win, or something like that.
	But the line that I'm thinking of is, the question is not whether you defend the free speech rights of The real question is whether you will defend the rights of people who you vehemently disagree with, maybe even the rights of people who are outrageous, maybe even poisonous or disgusting.
	That's the test.
	Will you defend Kiwi Farms?
	Will you defend Andrew Anglin?
	Well, I think...
	It's almost more of a test when you defend the rights of people who are rational, to be honest.
	It's kind of fine, I guess, but not very impressive when you vaguely defend the rights of Kiwi farms or just people's ability to say whatever the hell they want on the internet.
	That's, in some ways, it is a kind of low cost.
	There are clear implications to the existence of places like 4chan and Kiwi Farms.
	They are absolutely toxic.
	And whether it's 1% of 1% of 1% of people who will actually look at the rhetoric there, And go kill some, you know, Twitch streamer that they're secretly in love with but are madly jealous of or something like that.
	Or someone like the Buffalo shooter who will just cut and paste all of this, you know, great replacement type stuff.
	Not look at it in a proper context.
	Not look at it in the context of someone who can actually talk about these things rationally, but just kind of cut and paste a bunch of graphs and then decide that the only way forward is to go kill minorities, people of color.
	It's a football score and they're down 10 and I'm up 1 or something because I murdered them.
	In places like 4chan, where it's this toxic brew of just endless, horrible nonsense, total distortions of what many serious people believe, and kind of foreign assets acting in there as well, you can inspire that 1% of 1% of 1% to do something like that.
	And it's almost a mathematical certainty that something like that will happen.
	But you can also, in a cost-free manner, kind of vaguely defend the rights of these people to put forth just absolute garbage and to engage in what is textbook harassment due to their Supposed rights to free speech.
	I think people like Greenwald, they kind of get in this way of thinking that they see liberals who actually are at the very least trying to address this issue.
	And they basically see them as the fascist.
	And they see all of these people engaging in this toxic culture as somehow innocent or even the good guys.
	And they just moralize on that basis without seriously thinking about the problem.
	There's some other things that are important here about just our contemporary notion.
	of free speech and just some big problems within that legally and I think you could say philosophically as well.
	So you can be forgiven if you believe that since the First Amendment was penned and enacted by the states that we have just more or less had a Right to free speech.
	Now, that doesn't mean a right to, you know, sell drugs via language, writing or something like that.
	That doesn't mean a right to post, you know, graphic pornography or illegal pornography that is kind of a...
	form of expression, I guess, on some level, but is obviously illegal.
	But you have a right that is enshrined to speak your mind and no one can do anything about that.
	That actually isn't what freedom of speech means, at least in the common law tradition.
	Freedom of speech is Basically, a notion, and I'm drawing on Blackwell, that your ability to engage in speech cannot preemptively be taken away.
	So, no one shall destroy your printing press, effectively, before you've said something.
	That is your ability to engage in speech.
	But, even as early as the Adams administration, the government has had no real issue with enacting sedition acts that basically see speech as potentially a threat to public life.
	And certainly a threat to the government and something that needs to be addressed at the very least.
	Now, there was another Sedition Act that I guess indirectly gave birth to the current conception, legal and moral conception, of free speech.
	And that was the Sedition Act that accompanied The U.S. entry into the First World War.
	There were a number of suits immediately after that that reached the Supreme Court in which people, Eugene Debs being an excellent example, he was a famous socialist.
	He was a Also against the First World War.
	And he was being careful about his language, but he was valorizing or promoting people who evaded the draft.
	And he lost his suit against the government.
	And he was jailed under the Sedition Act.
	And one of the...
	The famous Supreme Court justices, maybe the most famous, who affirmed those rulings was Oliver Wendell Holmes.
	In one of a series of tests of the 1918 Sedition Act, Holmes wrote the now famous statement that you still hear repeated over and over again about how you are not alone.
	To yell fire in a crowded theater if it is not a flame.
	So you don't have the right to generate public mayhem, is what he is effectively saying.
	Holmes was a fascinating man.
	He was actually in his late 70s when these controversies were taking place.
	He remained on the Supreme Court into his 90s.
	And he was a, at the very least, memorable Supreme Court justice.
	He also gave furthest lines about, what is it, three generations of idiots is more than enough, or something like that.
	But he changed his mind in a famous case of Abrams versus the United States, which was the case of...
	Some Russian Jewish anarchists who were in opposition to some of these somewhat now forgotten military campaigns of the Allies, basically, including Britain, against the new Bolshevik regime.
	And Abrams was a pamphleteer of some kind.
	And Oliver Wendell Holmes...
	He reversed himself.
	So in an affirmation of a decision, of a verdict, rather, Wendell Holmes penned the lines, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
	In his dissent, he said something very different.
	And it's actually the dissent which has been the kind of precedent, if you will, Not exactly the right word there.
	It's been the logic of future rulings on free speech.
	And he effectively said that you would engage in the censoring and suppression of speech when you are 100% certain that you're right.
	And in that way...
	The other party's speech is at best useless.
	He is at best some kind of flat earth fanatic or someone who wants to square the circle.
	That's what I think the exact language Holmes used.
	But maybe it might actually be dangerous.
	We don't need to hear from communist anarchists.
	Or anything like that.
	We can have free speech within limits, but sometimes people just take it too far.
	But he said the United States is unique, and it actually has a legal conception that is unique from common law.
	So he was directly addressing the fact that, no, actually the United States is different.
	And while common law might grant you that right to own a printing press, but not necessarily grant you the right to say something toxic, in the United States it does, because the United States is, in effect, a free market place of ideas.
	It's an experiment.
	And in this sense, he was in some ways, I think, even calling upon Darwin to a degree.
	Holmes was a very literate man.
	He was a conservative, no doubt, but an intellectual conservative, to say the least.
	And he basically said this whole thing we're involved in is a kind of experiment, and we don't know if those anarchists are necessarily wrong.
	Maybe the Bolsheviks are right.
	Who knows?
	I don't think Holmes actually believed that personally, but he did, for better and for worse, make this principled stand.
	And so that tradition of free speech, you can see, that's coming from a dissent, that is coming from something that was not effective.
	You see that logic.
	In the many cases of the Supreme Court on free speech, when they would say, when they would hold that someone has a right, Brandenburg, to say really outlandish stuff and even talk about violence in the way of, you know, hey, we're going to round up Congress and hang them all or something like that.
	Yes, a call to violence on some kind of vague level, but is so vague that it doesn't seem like a direct order of violence.
	You can see that again in the Supreme Court's upholding the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest the funerals of soldiers in the most completely Outrageous manner possible.
	Offensive manner.
	The fact is they were engaging in some kind of political anti-war statement.
	Even if they are holding up a sign that says God hate fags or something.
	It wasn't mere harassment.
	It was outrageous but outrage used to make a political point.
	All of this is justified on that logic that the United States is a mere experiment.
	So it's an even more profound logic than we disagree on policy.
	Also, people are comfortable with free speech when we all agree on the basics.
	In your little town, Is there going to be a vigorous debate on whether we should raise sales tax to build a new baseball stadium or whatever?
	You all agree on the basics.
	You agree that the town should be prosperous, that baseball is good, that you might raise taxes a little bit here and there, but not too much.
	We just want what's the best for our community.
	We're all in agreement on those basic norms, and if in those basic norms we have some vigorous debate and yell at each other, but afterwards we'll go home because we're ultimately on the same team.
	This is saying something much more profound, which is that the United States is an experiment.
	We should listen to Ted Kaczynski.
	We should listen to Bolshevik anarchist pamphleteers.
	Maybe they're right.
	I think that, you know, to be fair, I think there are some good qualities of this type of free speech conception, logical and moral conception.
	And I am someone who has said some rather radical stuff.
	And I'm someone who's read some rather radical stuff as well.
	So I think at the very least the devil should be given his due.
	I might be a bit offended if Karl Marx got banned at my local library.
	But that is ultimately a matter of taste.
	And that's ultimately a matter of reading powerful but maybe not terribly relevant philosophical ideas.
	What's much more relevant, where the rubber hits the road, As it were, is the right of free speech of people who take part in these forums,
	like Kiwi Farms, like 4chan, like many other places, that might host some philosophical discussion here and there, but which are overwhelmingly used.
	As a platform for harassment.
	I don't think that any of you would be too upset if there were some restaurant-like establishment somewhere that was known to everyone.
	As a mob-owned hangout and distribution center for drug dealers.
	Yes, it might actually be a restaurant.
	You can order drinks and some spaghetti bolognese if you'd like.
	But it's ultimately a platform for crime.
	That's why it's there.
	No one actually created it so that they could serve you spaghetti or give you a martini.
	They created it as a platform for criminality.
	Would you really be that terribly upset if the cops shut it down?
	One other thing that I noticed recently...
	With a clip I saw of Tucker Carlson is that he has been hosting, for reasons I don't quite understand, he has been hosting people who, you know, at a time of crisis, at a time when the United States is not directly engaged in a war with Russia.
	And I certainly hope that we will not be engaged in a direct confrontation.
	Is, for all intents and purposes, in a global conflict with Russia.
	We are funding to the tune of billions of dollars.
	Our reputation, our know-how.
	Is all directed towards a very difficult and important conflagration in Central Eastern Europe.
	One that could have tremendous consequences.
	Are we really okay with the notion of Tucker Carlson hosting people who are, if not...
	Outright Russian assets, people who are simply promoting Russian talking points and delusions that are either meant to misrepresent reality or, in fact, to generate conflict and unrest and confusion, even like dissociation from reality among the public.
	All of the airways are, in effect, public airways.
	If the United States directly regulates the actual airways of broadcast, radio, and television, those tubes that bring us the internet or cable, etc., are on some basic level...
	A government project, much as is indoor plumbing.
	Now, you can promote things like, you know, the German ideology by Karl Marx.
	And I don't think any reasonable person, certainly including myself, would say, ah, we just ban it all.
	The Internet's a public space ban that.
	No.
	A serious work done in good faith by an intellectual, that is Karl Marx, but also one that isn't just, let's be honest, immediately relevant.
	It's something that's probably pretty easy to tolerate.
	The people daring to read the German ideology by Karl Marx are probably scholars or intelligent, sensitive, sensible, thoughtful people.
	Men and women of ideas, not people who are going to be somehow inspired at work, I don't know how, to commit violence or harm people's lives or anything like that.
	But can we say the same for people who have bad intentions?
	Whatever you want to say about Karl Marx, he did absolutely act in good faith in his writing.
	There's something for us to learn from him, in fact.
	Can you say the same of erstwhile generals who have been paid by the Kremlin to lie and inspire a kind of dissociation from reality among the American public?
	Is that really what we want to support in terms of free speech?
	That is bad faith actors polluting the public square.
	Might another argument be that the ultimate victims of a place like 4chan or Kiwi Farms or many places like that are not only The Twitch streamers who get harassed, they'll probably survive.
	But the real large number of victims are the people who use that site.
	There's something just profoundly unhealthy about spending your entire life on the internet engaged in a toxic forum.
	That maybe we owe these people a little bit of patronizing or a kick in the pants.
	Actually, why don't you leave your basement or apartment and get out there and throw a Frisbee around as opposed to living your life We're obsessively harassing and arguing about various transsexual Twitch streamers who you have worked yourself up into a frenzy to the point that you want to kill them.
	Maybe we owe it to you to, as it were, force you to be free.
	That is, through the power of the government, compel you to be a better person.
	And to get outside a little bit, touch the grass, feel the fresh air, have the warm sunshine on your skin, and do something with your life outside of existing on Kiwi farms.
	Might the users of these platforms be the ultimate victims?
	And when we engage in the kind of tedious moralizing...
	Of Glenn Greenwald and any sort of free speech absolutism, are we really losing sight of a much deeper issue?
	So anyway, there you are.
	For now, that is my argument.
	I have some other...
	I think there's a whole other layer to this.
	That would involve the theory of value.
	I guess there's a reason I brought up Karl Marx, but I will save that for a little bit.
	But surely I have inspired some kind of response to my outrageous assumption that free speech actually should be censored.
	The legal basis for free speech is flawed in its reasoning.
	So if anyone would like to talk, please make a request, and I will let you in.
	Okay.
	All right.
	you have the floor.
	Thank you.
	You have to unmute yourself.
	Thank you.
	Yazeed, you can speak, but you have to unmute yourself.
	Okay, I will go to white.
	So, you have before.
	Yeah, that clip where Tucker has the colonel on and he's saying that Russia's going to win, blah, blah, blah.
	I guess what I want to say about that is, I'm not sure any Fox News viewers have a clue what's going on.
	So, I don't know, I mean, about the Russia and Ukraine situation.
	So, I don't know if that makes his words...
	More or less dangerous?
	Because they're so focused on inflation that it might just go in one ear and out the other.
	You know what I mean?
	Absolutely.
	It's not like this person came on and said, I want to offer a reasonable critique or let's try to see things through Russian eyes.
	Or something like that.
	All of those things are obviously reasonable and worthwhile discussing.
	But no, we're dealing with the American public that, you know, what is it?
	40% of them believe that chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
	And a huge percentage of the American public thinks the election was stolen.
	that was a total top-down initiative started from Trump's Twitter account.
	They believe all sorts of nonsense.
	And so, you know, I think, I mean, there are places for, like, reasoned critiques and, you know, alternative views and so on, but that's not really the world we live in.
	The world we live in now is that you can say these You know, Putin invaded Ukraine to stop the bio labs because Anthony Fauci was about to create a new pandemic or something.
	So Putin saved millions.
	I've heard that or variations on that.
	A large percentage of the population, a significant percentage, probably believes that.
	And again, all of the news from sources that, many of which are liberally biased, no question, but sources that are at least acting in good faith to a large degree.
	and are attempting to talk about reality.
	And also I would add, you could also get news of the war from Russian fanboy sources who are saying the same thing basically.
	Russians with attitude.
	Yeah, Russians with attitude, so to speak.
	Or Kim Iverson.
	Kim Iverson, yes.
	I don't know what she's saying these days.
	Oh, yeah.
	They're basically saying the same thing as the New York Times.
	They're basically saying the lines have significantly changed.
	This offensive in the East is making a huge win for Ukraine.
	And actually, this brings up all these important questions about, you know, is Russia and Putin willing to actually declare war and not consider this a special military operation?
	You know, mobilize his country.
	I mean, these are really important questions that need to be discussed.
	But again, you go on Fox News and there's some 75 year old, you know, stuff or there's some whacked out, you know, social media addicts watching this and they're like, oh, yeah.
	Fake news, Russia's winning.
	They're about to just take over Kiev tomorrow.
	That's just wrong.
	To promote that and only that is acting in absolute bad faith and polluting the public sphere.
	Yeah, they keep going on.
	Tucker, in that kind of whiny voice of his, he just keeps going on and on.
	They've spent...
	Six billion dollars to help Ukraine.
	It's like, well, yeah, no shit.
	They got invaded.
	Yeah.
	I mean, like, from our elite's point of view, democracy is being threatened.
	You know, the whole thing.
	The whole, you know, what it's all about.
	Liberal democracy.
	So they can't just stand there and do nothing.
	At the same time, they really can't send Americans over there because we've got to watch Game of Thrones.
	Yeah.
	I think the elite at least worries about the war getting out of hand.
	But also, there are serious implications for Europe and NATO that we're involved in in this war.
	Obviously, Ukraine's not a member of NATO.
	But you can't just pretend that they shouldn't care about this or something.
	You know, like J.D. Vance or Marjorie Taylor Greene were like, I don't care two ways or the other.
	What happens over in Ukraine?
	You know, I just care about my mama.
	You're at home.
	Yeah, I mean, that's just really unsophisticated thinking.
	I mean, you've got, I mean, in the eyes of the elite, not necessarily me, but in the eyes of the elite, Vladimir Putin is a dictator.
	Now, probably the elections are all rigged.
	In the elite's point of view, he's a dictator.
	You've got a dictator going in to a liberal democratic country.
	I guess you could say a liberal capitalist democracy.
	You can't do that.
	That's like the cardinal sin for our elite.
	You can't just...
	Invade a liberal capitalist democracy and take it over.
	I mean, like, what are they supposed to do?
	And if Russia won, I don't think they're going to win, but let's say they had gone in there and won in like a week or whatever.
	Just, you know, hypothetical.
	You know, would they stop at Ukraine or would they kind of start, you know, pushing into other countries?
	I mean...
	So, at that point, it could get really out of hand.
	And I'm sure at that point, and that's a big what-if.
	I mean, it's not going to happen.
	It's got like a 1% chance of happening.
	But if they did conquer Ukraine and keep pushing into the other countries, the conservatives would get back on Fox News and go, oh, Biden's weak.
	He should have sent more money to Ukraine.
	So, they're just full of shit, really.
	It's just the opposite of what the Democrats want.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They're operating.
	Basically.
	Yeah, like this never would have happened under Trump or, you know, yeah, or if Trump were in there or some other Republican were in there, let's say, talking big about Russia, they would start talking about how the Democrats, you know, are peace next or whatever.
	Yeah, it's just not, it's just totally unserious discourse.
	And can I say one thing about just freedom of speech in general?
	Yeah.
	I've kind of become obsessed with Carl Schmitt the past year.
	I had all these lectures all over YouTube, and I listen to them.
	And some of them are actually quite good.
	And not all of them are from guys like us.
	A lot of them are more from leftists.
	And I think they're very fair.
	With Schmidt.
	I mean, they always do the obligatory, he was an unrepentant national socialist, blah, blah, blah.
	But then they really get into some good stuff, and I've learned quite a bit.
	And the main idea I take from Schmidt is not the friend-enemy distinction, but the idea of depoliticization.
	And I feel like the number one thing that has depoliticized man is freedom of speech.
	Because there's so many ideas, you know, so you could just, every day you could shop a different idea.
	And so that kind of increases individualism.
	Does that make any sense to you?
	Yeah.
	Does that kind of make sense?
	It makes sense.
	I mean, one defense of free speech that I've heard, and actually, while I was at the gym, I just hopped on and was casually listening to Another Space by Bartimu.
	Is that there's this libertarian assumption that in a way speech just doesn't matter.
	That's kind of Glenn Greenwald's assumption about Kiwi farms.
	I guess there's a famous Latin phrase about matters of taste we won't dispute, which basically says we shouldn't get into an argument about whether key lime pie or cheesecake is better.
	It's just a matter of taste.
	There's no...
	Correct answer.
	You can't rationally arrive at a conclusion like that.
	But I think libertarians or people like that almost believe that about speech.
	That, oh, it's just words.
	Words, words, words, you know?
	Words never hurt anybody.
	You know, you can't hit someone over the head.
	That's like, you know, non-aggression principle.
	But just people talking, whatever.
	It's basically assuming that language doesn't have any meaning, ultimately.
	Or some variation on that.
	And I think that's absolutely incorrect.
	Language has power.
	Otherwise, you wouldn't use it.
	And I'm not equating language with violence.
	Obviously, there's an important distinction to be made.
	But the notion that you can't change someone's behavior or in some ways make someone worse or better through language is ridiculous.
	If you believe that there is such a thing as a book...
	You also believe that there's such a thing as a bad book.
	And so I think there is a kind of depoliticization going on, just in the sense that, like, you know, we don't believe that any of this, we don't take our words seriously because we don't fundamentally believe that any of this matters.
	And I think that is actually a very, that's a naive place to be.
	And I just think it's a really bad place to be.
	I mean, one of the things that, as you guys can tell maybe from like a tweet thread I did yesterday, one of the things that just like drives me up the wall with the dissonant rite or the magosphere or whatever is just this like...
	Total lack of seriousness when it comes to these personalities.
	Now, obviously, everyone gets things wrong and everyone will kind of be off or whatever.
	That's fine.
	Everyone misses the mark.
	I miss the mark as much as anyone else misses the mark.
	But to almost consciously try to miss the mark In order to give good vibes to your fans?
	It's ignorance.
	Pure ignorance.
	Well, it's worse than ignorance.
	I mean, I use the example, and granted, it's comical of Tim Pool.
	But whether that is simply a fact that he's stupid or he's catering to his audience or whatever, but the fact that you will just say stuff that is just...
	Demonstrably, manifestly idiotic, but gives your fans good vibes.
	I despise that with my bone marrow.
	I despise those people.
	And, you know, I don't know.
	At some point, this notion that you have some right to just Pollute the public space with your just idiotic grift is...
	It's just extremely discouraging.
	It's a wonder how these people get platforms.
	It's honestly astonishing how they get a huge platform and stuff like that.
	It's crazy.
	Some of these guys have like 1 million, 2 million followers.
	Yeah, Tim Pool has millions of followers.
	The reason is that they are not operating on a basis of truth or reality.
	They're operating on a kind of advertising basis of A-B testing and pleasing their audience.
	Now look, everyone pleases their audience to some degree.
	Obviously, I'm not unreasonable about this.
	You don't want to just go around poking fun at the people listening to you.
	I get it.
	But there's something worse when you are presenting yourself as offering a perspective on the world or as reporting news or discussing the news.
	And again, through your just total stupidity, which might be the case with Tim Pool, or through malice, you are just disenfranchised.
	Misinforming them, and kind of worse, disconnecting your audience from...
	I mean, there is something just so profoundly despicable about this that, needless to say, if Tim Pool ever faces any de-platforming issue, I would be the last person to speak up for that guy.
	But Richard...
	You have to have a basis of, like, we're trying to...
	We have concepts, language, and there's reality, and we're trying to find a match here.
	Not that everyone's going to be right, of course, but you're trying to do that.
	If you aren't trying to do that, then just this notion of, like, I need to vehemently defend your right to lie and grift and just be a moron is just, you know...
	I'll call you on that one.
	Let me think about it.
	My question is...
	Yeah, but a lot of these dissident right...
	When I say dissident right, I mean everything from Tim Pool to NJP.
	I've been reading some stuff lately about some of these organizations and there's some evidence they're getting money from Russia.
	God knows what they actually believe in.
	You know what I mean?
	It's like they'll just say anything.
	Yeah, as long as they get their money in it.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Exactly.
	I have a question.
	If anyone thinks that that kind of thing is not happening, not that, I mean, obviously these are, any accusation should be examined in detail, but if any of you think that that kind of stuff isn't happening, you need to wake up.
	Because it is happening.
	And it happens on a very large scale.
	And it happens through kind of nudges and subtle kind of points.
	It is a very real thing.
	Well, it's gotten to a ridiculous level because it's like free speech.
	Somewhere along the line, it has turned into free anonymous speech.
	Like, you're funny from Russia.
	And you don't have to disclose it.
	That's the problem I've seen.
	I'll jump in if nobody else wants to speak.
	I mean, what I was reading...
	I want to ask a question.
	What do you think about Richard Hanania and Michael Trace's silence for the last two days?
	Oh, not surprising at all.
	I know a lot about Richard Hanania.
	I've known him for a long time.
	I'm always this pro-Russia.
	Now, you could say the same thing about me.
	Say I flip.
	Obviously, I give people the ability to evolve, but I also see these recurring talking points places, and it does make me rather suspicious.
	Yeah, in terms of, like, look...
	This is the other big factor, which is that there's been an explosion in the alternative media.
	First off, just due to the web.
	I think much more so due to just social media and things that are like social media, like YouTube, where you have followings and you're building an audience or something.
	Obviously, that can be great.
	But we are, like, past a point of no return where, you know, if Russia gave millions to the New York Times or something, that would be a scandal.
	I mean, people are still talking about Walter Durante.
	And I don't even know if Walter Durante took money from the Soviet Union.
	I think he was one of these typical...
	You know, head-in-the-sky communist, basically.
	But that's a scandal to this day.
	And needless to say, if the Kremlin were funding the San Francisco Chronicle, that would be just a sky-high scandal that people would never stop talking about.
	But, like, you don't have to do that.
	You can give nudges to alternative people and...
	It kind of like the constellation of those different personalities, it kind of adds up to the same thing as working on the Washington Post or something.
	And so it really is a serious factor.
	I mean, these people do have influence.
	And it's not just all a joke, which is this weird kind of thing about alternative media.
	It's very similar to when, like, Jon Stewart, I think, was correctly criticized.
	That whenever someone would push back on Jon Stewart, he would always say, hey, listen, buddy, I'm on Comedy Central.
	We run a fake comedy show.
	It's not real, you know?
	And, like, you know, after my program, we have, you know, some comedian doing fart jokes.
	So, you know, why are you pushing back?
	But then when he wanted to say something, and very often, I mean, say things that I agree with.
	You know, the Iraq war is bad, or whatever.
	When he wanted to say something, he could be taken seriously.
	But whenever he received criticism, it's like, oh, I'm just a comedian, man.
	And you see the same thing with alternative media, where it's like, why are you attacking me?
	I'm just a live streamer, bro.
	Like, I'm just doing my thing.
	It's like, no one's listening anyway.
	I mean, come on.
	It's just like my personal account, whatever.
	And it's like, no.
	Putting up my views or I'm not imposing a specific worldview or policy initiative here.
	It's just a conversation, you know?
	They become ultimate victims then.
	That's when they act like victims.
	Like, why are you telling me, man?
	Why are you telling me?
	What do you mean?
	You're speaking stupidity.
	Obviously, people are going to call you out on it.
	You get what I'm saying?
	So, I've got a question.
	I've got a question for...
	For Spencer, yeah, yeah.
	So, you know, I look at people like Alex Jones or Milo or any of these guys who have been censored heavily or, you know, Nick Fuentes or any of these guys who have been heavily censored throughout the years.
	And I see that you still have your Twitter account and I see...
	I guess my question would be, how is it that you've avoided the band hammer?
	It's very unusual to me that someone who says controversial things is able to avoid the band hammer while simultaneously not being, dare I say it, a fed.
	Oh yeah, that's a great comment.
	Yeah, the idea that I've avoided deplatforming is rather ridiculous.
	I experienced it very intensely in 2017 and afterward.
	And yes, I have held on to my Twitter accounts.
	Other people haven't.
	I also pretty rigorously follow the TOS of Twitter.
	But the idea that I haven't faced deplatforming...
	Is rather absurd.
	And also, additionally, the idea that there was no reason for Milo to be banned.
	I mean, again, this kind of gets back to this notion that I was talking about previously, where you absolutely have the right to go hold up a placard.
	On the sidewalk of your town that says, you know, say no to war or something.
	You don't have the right to follow someone home and yell at him.
	And whatever you think about Milo's victims, he was absolutely engaging in textbook harassment of them.
	And again, it's like, and I don't know how old you are, but it's like with young people only on the internet, you have this like, Bizarre notion of speech or whatever where you can just do anything.
	And that has never been the case in human history.
	You know, I don't know the reason.
	I can't remember offhand the exact reason why Nick Fuentes was kicked off Twitter.
	As I've been saying for a while, I think Nick Fuentes is going to have very serious legal problems due to the fact that he was involved in some kind of raid on the Capitol and an attempt to prevent the functioning of government.
	And you can't just pull out a free speech card every time...
	You guys do things that are just obviously against the law.
	Now, I also think that Twitter bans people who don't deserve to be banned.
	I mean, we're in a difficult situation where the whole free speech thing needs to be cracked on some level.
	And I can actually talk about that in tribulation.
	But just this, like...
	You know, let's defend Kiwi Farms, let's defend Milo, let's defend Nick Fuentes.
	I mean, there are real reasons why these people were deplatformed.
	I just want to add, with the free speech thing, a lot of its absolutist defenders, they like to call upon a great heritage.
	But this idea that every single idea has utility enough to be argued on the platform of ideas is very new.
	It's very contemporary.
	To that end, I think that there are just some things that have no utility and should not be given a platform.
	I think that makes me an extremist in the eyes of some people.
	It's just not the case.
	It's not an extreme position.
	It shouldn't be seen as well.
	No.
	That's facts.
	That's facts.
	QAnon has no value.
	There's no reason that QAnon needs a platform.
	It doesn't have anything but the value.
	To speak on Fuentes for a second, I think he was banned, if I remember correctly, for something that was deemed anti-Semitic.
	If I'm remembering correctly.
	I don't think that was major.
	It might have been, but I think the bigger issue was he was, much like Ali Alexander, his collaborator, he was a blue-checked, authenticated user who was heavily involved with January 6th.
	Yeah, I mean, I guess, you know, you look at these guys like that, who Alexander, Nick Fuentes, Milo, and they were involved with walking around the Capitol, not even going in.
	Oh, that's what they were involved with?
	They were out on a walk?
	Is that why they were arrested?
	It's funny, I actually went on a walk around the U.S. Capitol not too long ago, and for some reason I wasn't arrested.
	Why do you think that is?
	You're a liberal?
	Well, I mean, look at Brett Kavanaugh.
	There was a total storming of the Capitol by all these liberals, and they completely stormed the Capitol.
	You know why?
	Well, hold on.
	Let me finish.
	Do you know why?
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	You know why?
	Well, no.
	I wasn't finished speaking.
	No, they did that because they already won.
	Hold on.
	I wasn't finished speaking.
	They already won.
	Okay?
	That's why they can do that and we can't.
	They won already.
	Also, I mean, look, I don't know the exact details.
	I've heard this line of attack of there was a stormy.
	No one there was...
	I mean, if they claimed this is a revolution, it was, you know, it was said in a much direct way by conservatives.
	I mean, I don't know.
	There's just no comparison with those two events.
	But Richard, this line that I always hear from people in the dissonant right is...
	The liberals got it with it.
	I mean, why can't we do it?
	Well, think about it.
	Because they won.
	It's really simple.
	They won.
	I mean, the BLM thing in 2020, there is a difference in the sense that the BLM thing was anointed from on high.
	The BLM thing was...
	Mostly peaceful in the sense that you had all of these goofy liberals waving their hands and kneeling and all this kind of stuff.
	But even the stuff that started to get violent, and obviously it did get violent to a point that supporters of some level saw it as counterproductive.
	But there was no direct assault.
	On functioning of the government.
	And I'm sure that they, you know, knocked the windows out of a post office or did something in a public property.
	I'm positive they did.
	But at no point were they declaring that they were going to do something as dramatic as that.
	The one instance that was basically treated as benign hippiedom.
	Was the, you know, the rapper in Seattle who kind of created an anarchist, anarchic village for, you know, a week or something.
	And it was basically treated as, oh, this is the summer of 68 all over again.
	It was treated as not really capable of doing anything.
	January 6th was absolutely buffoonish, but at the same time, it wasn't just a bunch of guys getting drunk.
	In the Washington Mall.
	I mean, they, you know, if you go and get drunk and raise hay in the Washington Mall, you'll probably be arrested as well.
	You're not going to spend months or years in jail.
	It's that it was a concerted effort from the town to prevent the transfer of power.
	And even if it was buffoonish, this notion that it just, like, materialized, you know, it was just, like, random Americans just happened upon the mall.
	I mean, that's just such a fantastical notion of what it actually was.
	It was buffoonish as hell, but it was real.
	It was buffoonish because of the guys that were there.
	Had they been Navy SEALs, it would have been a whole different situation.
	If they were even a little competent, they've gotten to more than a few congressmen.
	If they were even a little competent.
	Yeah.
	But they weren't.
	It was a bunch of jack-offs.
	But that doesn't matter.
	Attempted murder is still criminal.
	Come on.
	You can't storm into Congress and not expect to get in trouble for that.
	They did it for Brett Kavanaugh.
	They literally stormed the entire...
	They did not storm it in an aggressive manner with zip ties like those both of January 6th did.
	It was a bunch of just shit-lib vegans that were crying about Kavanaugh because whatever he was accused of doing.
	You can't equate a 120-pound shit-lib vegan to a dude decked out with zip ties.
	They didn't bust through any police lines.
	They didn't bust through police barricades.
	I didn't mean to be mean to vegans.
	Vegans are okay, I guess.
	Whatever.
	I just wanted to add something as well, because there's a particular bit of footage where, and I'm British, so I don't know the layout of the building or anything like that, but there's a crowd and they're going up some staircase.
	It's a black police officer, and he's constantly retreating up and up the staircase, and he's telling them to get back and stay down, and they repeatedly go through the same process.
	Up a flight of stairs, he tells them, he goes back up a flight of stairs, they follow him over and over and over again.
	From what I've seen, the police are actually quite tamed, or they were quite reserved in their response.
	So this idea that, I think there's this idea among Magorites that it's like, oh, you know, Well, it was ambiguous because particularly at the beginning, at the first breach, you had some of these scenes like that police officer who was almost getting crushed by the door and you have these...
	that maybe they are a bit overblown in retrospect, but like that woman who testified saying it was like a war zone or something.
	I mean, you know, a bit overblown, granted, but I don't doubt that clearly people could have died in that scenario.
	And there was a lot of really serious pushing and shoving, smash, I'm coming at it from the...
	Sorry, I'm coming out from the claim.
	You also have scenes of like, particularly later on, of the police just effectively letting people in.
	And I think that was kind of like a tactic at some point.
	And also, a lot of people just, you know, they just seem less aggressive and dangerous.
	Like if you see 20 Proud Boys, like middle-aged men who lift weights and, you know, have beards.
	Or whatever.
	You're going to be a lot more than, like, some goofy kid or some old woman or something.
	So, like, it's just the whole thing.
	Yeah, it was a complete shitshow.
	And if you want to focus on, like, this five minutes of footage, you can say, this is purely peaceful.
	If you want to focus on this five minutes, you can say, this was purely hilarious.
	It was just a bunch of yahoos making hay.
	Okay, you can focus on this five minutes.
	You can say...
	Holy shit, they were about to literally take over the government and they were absolutely violent.
	It's all correct.
	All of that was there.
	It was a shit show.
	That dude with the zip ties, I watched this video of him and I was just on the ground rolling.
	That dude was so into it.
	He had like a hundred zip ties.
	I thought maybe it was just a couple of zip ties.
	He had a big roll of them on his side.
	He's looking around.
	He has this intense look in his eyes.
	He's looking around and I'm like, holy cow, this dude is Rambo or something.
	It was funny, man.
	It was really actually funny.
	I think a lot of people were active.
	My favorite scene was this lady.
	She got interviewed by some liberal journalist or whatever.
	And she came up to the journalist.
	I think she even went to the journalist to say her piece.
	And she was like, they used tear gas on me.
	They pushed me down.
	I don't know.
	Is this America or something?
	And the journalist asked, okay, so you're claiming abuse.
	What were you here for?
	And she was like, it's a revolution!
	So I was like, listen.
	If it is a revolution, you have basically wagered your life.
	The idea that they use tear gas should be the least of your concerns.
	It becomes more.
	If it's not a revolution, I agree.
	If you're hanging out on the Capitol, holding up a sign, and a policeman tear gasses you, obviously that's outrageous.
	But, you know, it's like, choose one.
	You know, like, they're not just going to let you do this.
	And according to you, they're all, like, satanic fascists or something.
	So, like, what surprises you about the fact that they used tear gas?
	That is non-lethal, temporary ones that are annoying but not dangerous.
	So, from a number of comments, I would deduce that...
	You maybe are not a Fed.
	I thought that probably if you were a Fed, you would have most likely just banned me and shut me up real quick and taken away speaking privileges.
	Looking at what you previously said, BLM was mostly peaceful.
	I know you're frustrated.
	It's tough to be held accountable for your own speech.
	You did say that.
	Do you disagree with that?
	Yeah, I do agree.
	I do disagree with that.
	I think that it was a huge disturbance.
	Maybe the largest civil disturbance that's ever occurred in the United States.
	And you think that it was mostly peaceful.
	Yes, mostly means at least the majority of all of it was peaceful.
	I mean, you said it was a disturbance.
	I mean, I guess I could more or less agree with that language.
	It could both be a disturbance and mostly peaceful.
	Could you shut up and let Richard talk?
	I mean, could you please?
	I'm in control of the space.
	I'm the moderator.
	Yeah, I mean, a bunch of retards are just chiming in.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I mean, mostly means that the majority, and I would say the vast majority of it, was peaceful stuff.
	I mean, it was absolutely a protest, and they disrupted traffic.
	Like, of course, it got very violent and I think actually just got totally out of control.
	And there's good reason, actually, why, like, public support for BLM declined significantly.
	I think they had won over a lot of, like, mainstream Republicans and liberals, actually, at the beginning, when it was basically like a Christian revival rally and they were, like, waving hands and getting on their knees and talking about their guilt and whatever.
	And then when it flipped over into...
	Granted, you could see that early on, but by the late hot summer when it was flipping over into planes, then yeah, it got out of hand.
	Richard, can I ask you a question?
	Look, we don't see BLM protests anymore right now.
	At some point it lost the anointing by the establishment that it had, and that's significant.
	Sorry, Richard, could I ask you a question, if that's okay?
	Sure.
	Do you think we'll ever get close to anything like true synthesis of the January 6th event, and how so, if so?
	A true synthesis?
	Like understanding of it, you know, because like you said, yeah.
	Well, you know, I guess maybe no, in the sense that, like, do we really...
	Do we have a true understanding of an event like 9-11 or something?
	No.
	It's so politically contentious.
	There's so many variables that it will always be a hotbed of conspiracy theory, but also a hotbed of ambiguity and sinister stuff as well.
	I think that's probably true, and it's been politicized to such a degree that people are terrified of Looking at it straight.
	So, I mean, if I said what I said on Fox News, I would be, like, I would offend them greatly.
	But also, I think I would also probably offend MSNBC with some of my other characterizations.
	So it's hard for anyone to, like, look at it.
	You know, you have to be, on MSNBC, you have to be, like, shrill.
	It's Trump and maniacs, fascists and whatever.
	And then on Fox, it's like, what was going on, man?
	It's just a tourist rally.
	So it's hard to see things straight.
	And it's so politicized that I don't know.
	But I mean, look, what's happening today, I don't know if you saw, but there are multiple subpoenas.
	I think there was like 50 subpoenas sent out today about the J6 issue.
	Of close confidants with Trump.
	So the DOJ is pursuing that.
	That's a legal trial, which is kind of different maybe than like a historical assessment.
	But I think a lot is going to come out.
	And it's going to be, I mean, I think I'll probably have the same view of it that I have now, which is it was like a top-down inspired, bottom-up executed circus act.
	So you think, and I'm sorry if this is too explicit, but you think it was a machination of the Trump campaign?
	I think they absolutely had that as one way of keeping Trump in office.
	Like, the elector's scheme was another...
	There were a lot of different options, but that was kind of a final option.
	And I do think that Trump genuinely...
	Wanted to, like, march with them to the Capitol and inspire Mike Pence to, like, throw away the electors and do something, accept the new electors that are fraudulent, legally fraudulent, or something.
	And so I do think that they were trying to do that.
	I mean, that's why I said it was like a top-down inspired, but bottom-up executed coup attempt.
	And so, like, it's just never gonna work.
	I mean, if you're gonna do a coup, if you're gonna fuck with the system to that degree, you need to have the military involved.
	They have to be totally on board.
	I mean, you just, you cannot rely on the fucking Proud Boys.
	I mean, not that they can't do damage or something, but, like, it's just bizarre.
	That they thought that this thing was going to work in some way.
	That's so true.
	And I agree with you there.
	That you can...
	Hey, my buddy Jeff is washing dishes over at the fucking McDonald's.
	And he's going to help us do this revolution or whatever.
	And so, don't worry.
	The three of us got it.
	We got this under control, right?
	So, I understand why...
	Like, practically, Spencer, you're like pro-Biden, you're pro-vaccine, you're pro-Ukraine, right?
	Do you disagree with any of those three things I just said?
	Uh, no.
	Go on.
	I understand.
	You know, rather than wait it out, you decided to decide with the top-down power structure rather than wait it out because the populace is against those things, right?
	And actually, I would add a fourth principle to what I just said, which is like the tranny gay thing, you know, which is most people are against all that, right?
	So there's the Biden, the vaccine.
	Okay, so we'll disregard that then.
	So you're with the Biden, the vaccine, the Ukraine thing, and then the tranny gay thing.
	The vaccine was a Trump initiative the last time I checked.
	Initially, but really he was never actually pro-mandate.
	So let me finish real quick.
	So I think...
	Probably where you're the biggest issue, because I used to follow you, man, and I fell off hard because I just think that you are like, you went from a leader to a follower, and you went from leading the people towards something positive to going, okay, well, I'm pro-Biden.
	You went, hey, I'm going to follow who's ever in charge.
	Because you understand the principle of top-down revolution, right?
	Rather than bottom-up revolution, which is impossible, right?
	But you refuse to wait until Okay.
	which is initiated by Russia.
	Russia is a vassal state of China.
	And so you were just too impatient.
	Okay.
	Bye.
	Thank you.
	Can I say something about that?
	Can I ask you a question?
	No, you can't.
	Just let Spencer respond if you don't mind.
	I don't really want a huge amount to respond to that because I don't think you're trying to offer a fair representation of me.
	It's not like I totally disagree with much of what you said.
	I don't think you guys should just be planning on a collapse.
	I do think that a collapse could come tomorrow morning or it could come in 50 years.
	So this idea of things declining, there are a lot of really major countervailing factors.
	I think American legitimacy...
	Recently has actually increased to some extent due to Biden, but I think mostly due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
	I mean, NATO is expanding even in Western and Northern Europe.
	That's remarkable.
	And it's becoming more legitimate.
	So I wouldn't count on all this collapse.
	I wouldn't count on China taking over the world.
	I kind of agree with Russia, the vessel of China, but I don't fully agree with that.
	But I think you are kind of right in the sense that I think populism is just impossible on some level.
	It's so vague.
	It's just this, it's like an emotion more than any kind of ability to govern or take power or even have a policy.
	That I just, on some level, can't take it seriously.
	So, I mean, you're kind of right about that.
	I think you're trying not being, you're clearly not a fan of me, or at least anymore, but I don't think your assessment was, like, completely wrong.
	I think there was actually some truth in there.
	Anyway, I'm going to move on.
	So, I'll remove you from speakers.
	You can still listen.
	Okay.
	Let me see here.
	Goth girl nationalism.
	Whoa.
	Okay.
	Gotth-girl nationalism.
	God, girl, don't let me down.
	What's your favorite Cure album?
	I'm more of a Smiths fan myself.
	You're more of a what?
	Smiths fan?
	Okay.
	Cool.
	Do you have something to say?
	You're not a girl, I don't think, listening to your voice.
	No.
	Okay.
	All right, man.
	All right.
	Not much of a contribution.
	Enlightened centrist?
	Hey, Richard.
	I wanted to ask you something, actually.
	I was wondering about, so January 6th, the people who are denying that Biden won, do you think they really believe it?
	Like, I know there's a whole bunch of these people like Dave Rubin, Nick Fuentes, Alex Jones, etc.
	Do you think they really believe that Biden actually lost the election?
	I think it's really, it's complicated.
	I actually would say that there's a large percentage of them who do.
	And they, but it's not like they've taken a step back and like Rationally assess the situation.
	These are people that are deeply embedded in the MAGA media ecosystem.
	It's connected to so many other things and it's connected with a much deeper anxiety about the world as well.
	And a kind of fantasy about the world.
	You saw there's this interesting report on January 6th, people who have been arrested by Robert Poppy from U of C. But he said that a lot of them weren't even necessarily red staters.
	They were red people or red voters, I should say, in blue states.
	So they kind of felt a lot of anxiety.
	So it's like it would be more likely that you were from Pennsylvania than you were from Wyoming or Alabama or something.
	So I think there's a tremendous amount of anxiety that underlies all this.
	There is a just envelopment in a right-wing ecosystem where you just don't hear anything else.
	And there's this like neo-paranoia.
	About everything said by the mainstream media is fake and a lie or something.
	And so who can you believe?
	And there's also a bit of that Pauline Kael effect going on where it's like, you know, Pauline Kael famously said, how did Nixon win?
	Like everyone I know voted for a Democrat or something, which is, it's kind of a funny statement.
	It might be apocryphal, I don't know, but it's still, nevertheless, very funny.
	But I think very telling, like, you know, if you're enveloped in that world, you know, all of your neighbors and everyone you know was, like, red hot, you know, in favor of Trump.
	And so it's like, how is it possible that he didn't win, you know?
	I mean, we just have very difficult, we have a difficult time, like, assessing the whole, the big picture.
	I think this traces back to the idea of the silent majority.
	I don't know what your personal thoughts on that are, but I'll tell you mine.
	I just think it's basically a myth, and it has been for not the longest time, but for a while.
	I'm an outsider, I'm not American, but I think that...
	I just think that it's ridiculous to think that the election was stolen.
	When you look at the emissions of MAGA rights themselves, there was a lot of propaganda 24-7 against Trump.
	And I think because there is no silent majority, I think most people are with the mainstream consensus, which is obvious.
	With those two things being the case, I don't see any mystery.
	I agree with you to a very large extent.
	There is still a kind of semblance of a center.
	And I do think that, like, the left gets clapped back when it goes a little too far in that sense.
	But yeah, I mean, just look at presidential elections.
	Basically, George W. Bush in 2004 and his father in 1988 were the last Republicans to win a substantial majority.
	And, you know, so it's Clinton.
	Gore won the majority of the votes.
	Obama won the majority of the votes twice.
	Clinton won the majority of the votes.
	Hillary Clinton.
	That is...
	Biden wins the majority of the votes.
	I mean, there's just a clear consensus over the past 30 years of democratic centrism.
	Which they say they are always feeling the brunt of.
	It just doesn't make any sense to me when they turn around and say, oh, well, we're secretly Sparta.
	We secretly have this massive power base all over.
	Well, our situation would be...
	Fundamentally different if that was the case here and in Britain, you know what I mean?
	I don't know.
	It is kind of funny.
	There's a kind of inconsistent paranoia.
	Tucker Carlson would be like, you can't even recognize America at this point.
	It's completely taken over by immigrants.
	Now, I'm not talking about race here.
	I'm talking about culture.
	But you know what I'm talking about, right?
	And then two minutes later, he'll be like, The American public hates Joe Biden.
	It's like, which one is it?
	You know, like, all Americans agree with you or no Americans agree with you?
	Like, which one?
	And so I think they, like, they do suffer from that kind of schizophrenia.
	Where they can underestimate and overestimate themselves, like, at the same time.
	And I think, fundamentally, that's what this whole election question is wrapped up in, those two polarities, you know?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, but, I mean, I do still find it very odd, though, that I guess, like, with some people, like, for example, even like Sargon of Akkad, Dave Rubin, and so on, they won't outright deny...
	The election.
	What happened?
	They kind of just hint at it.
	Same with, like, Tucker Carlson, right?
	Yeah.
	In a way, it makes me, like, dislike them even more, as opposed to someone like Alex Jones or Nick Fuentes, who are just, you know, unhinged with these conspiracy theories.
	But, yeah, it just makes me find them just even more cowardly.
	The fact that they can't even come out and say what they believe.
	I totally agree.
	And it's part of that kind of grifting in a way of, like, you know, basically indicating that you believe in that nonsense, but then kind of giving yourself plausible deniability.
	Like, claiming, you know, many of my constituents are concerned about election integrity or whatever.
	Or, like, kind of making it a non-issue.
	You know, Facebook, I think Blake Masters said, like, Facebook suppressed, like, more conservative fake news sites than liberal fake news sites or whatever.
	Like, so I don't think Biden actually won.
	You know, it's this kind of, I agree, it's almost, like, worse.
	I would rather have been adulterated.
	The Satanist did it.
	Alex Jones mentality.
	Just something more honest.
	You can kind of deal with them as opposed to dealing with someone who's slippery as a fish and just kind of wiggling around what's obviously a very serious matter.
	The problem with them doing the slippery stuff is it makes it sound more reasonable to your average American when it's not more reasonable.
	But it sounds more reasonable to say, You know, I'm just asking questions on election security.
	Like, that sounds more reasonable, and that's why it's more dangerous.
	I agree.
	I'm just saying, but I'm not saying.
	You can't say that I said it.
	Right, exactly.
	Could I chime in, then?
	Sure.
	If that's alright?
	Alright.
	Thanks for letting me out, Richard.
	Evening, everyone.
	Sure.
	Is it possible to get back to free speech properly?
	I wanted to talk about that a little bit, if that's alright.
	Yeah!
	Do you want me to answer that, or do you have more of a...
	Oh, yeah, yeah, I wanted to answer that.
	All right, so I wanted to know, you know, if I joined late and you did talk about this, I wanted to ask, you know, we don't really talk about what are you supposed to do about the sports champion?
	How do you want to educate these people?
	Because de-platforming them is kind of like a simpleton, the world's black and white response, right?
	I understand that everyone, people don't deserve...
	Sorry.
	People don't deserve a platform because this is a brand new invention and there aren't any privileges around it.
	And I think you talked about which something we'll definitely need in the future, which is some sort of digital bill of rights.
	Yeah.
	Excuse me.
	To sort of navigate this new landscape, this two-dimensional landscape that we're going to be living in.
	So I do understand when you guys say this person has no value, therefore they deserve no platform, but...
	There are many options between those two extremes.
	Namely, let's just say, if we could put some sort of feature into Twitter where you would have, let's say, Destiny or People, a significant number from both audiences checking these people, and we would get closer and closer to some sort of a real consensus and sort of refining the public conversation.
	And you would give, for instance, Alex Jones, Nate Puentes, all these guys, his audience members, I think so, but I'm not sure.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so, I mean, there are a bunch of other things that we could do without, you know, that isn't just telling someone they can't express themselves, because I think that just opens us up to a new whole host of problems.
	So, if we could just talk about that.
	And then I just want to say something quick about the Biden win-non-win conversation.
	I wasn't clapping.
	I was just trying to indicate that I wanted to speak.
	Also, Jay, do you need some water, man?
	Go get something to drink, man.
	Yeah, I'm in the park.
	I'm looking for a fountain before I walk home.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I mean, I think it's kind of bigger.
	I mean, I would...
	I don't know, like force people to stop going on 4chan at all and like force them to join national compulsory flag football or frisbee leagues or something like that.
	I guess I'm just much more radical.
	I would absolutely use the power of government to...
	Get people off their ass and prevent them from spending all day on the internet.
	I do agree that we're in this huge problem because the way we think of free speech in a kind of naive way of like, well, everyone deserves a voice or we need to engage in the marketplace of ideas or something.
	We ultimately do need to look at the totally malign things involved with free speech.
	First off, just the toxic cesspool element.
	The foreign adversary's use of influencers to promote talking points and just a general dissociation from reality.
	I just think we need to Actually talk about this and have some kind of coherent message that's done by the government.
	So we're not just not addressing this.
	And then there's a whack-a-mole where a bunch of liberals will get Kiwi Farm servers to not renew their contract or something.
	And that's just not, you know, again, I'm not here to defend Kiwi Farms, quite to the contrary, but that's just not really solving the real issue.
	And they will regroup and go somewhere else.
	Well, look, yeah, exactly.
	What I was saying was that the real issue is, like, just, you know, it sounds basic, but a lack of education.
	These people are just, like, basically uninformed.
	And in an increasingly globalized world...
	We're going to have to find a way, and I think what you're describing is basically white noise.
	It can be very vitriolic and bad for society, and then it's just something the level of the Kardashians, right?
	It's still all garbage, and we wouldn't want our historical archive to be filled with this stuff.
	So since everybody has access, you know, I was actually thinking, I'm not a fashy or anything, but I was actually thinking about, is it...
	Possible that people shouldn't even deserve to have phones or internet because they're not capable of sort of, you know, weathering or, you know, using the power responsibly, if that makes sense.
	Kind of like harnessing quantum physics before we understand it in our Bluetooth and our phones.
	And we have no idea what kind of damage it can be doing.
	Interesting.
	No, it's an interesting comparison.
	As I mentioned, you know, like an hour earlier, I mean, 40% of the public thinks that chocolate milks comes out of brown cows.
	You know?
	I mean, that's a...
	I don't know.
	That can't be real.
	That can't be real.
	I think people just say that by brown cow, right?
	There's no way that's real.
	It's real.
	Can I add something?
	I don't know if it's 40%, but it's a very high number.
	Okay, let's move on.
	This is the issue.
	I mean, we need to be realistic about human nature and just kind of the nature of intelligence.
	I mean, just saying that, like, they're not educated, you know, actually, American education is not that bad in comparison to the world.
	Right, and we have the infrastructure.
	The conservative notion that it's all terrible or whatever, that's really incorrect.
	And there are some racial disparities, but I won't get into this issue, to be honest, because that's another issue.
	Just to clarify, I did mean that they were uneducated, but what I meant was...
	The bigger problem is that if we had a more competent public, we wouldn't have to worry about foreign adversaries.
	We wouldn't have to worry about all that stuff, right?
	It's pretty idealistic, but we'd have to make sure, you know, we'd have to get a population that's fit, that's healthy, that's intelligent, that's, you know, all those good things.
	We can't get that, and so we need to have a patronizing attitude towards the public.
	But is this in an effort to get there?
	Or just to kind of sustain the status quo?
	A little bit of both.
	I mean, I think there are limits to education.
	And look, I think academia has gone crazy on some level.
	I think it's gone extremely expensive on another.
	I mean, you know, whatever.
	They're huge problems.
	But just in terms of primary education, it's actually pretty good and we're still dumb.
	I don't think it's dumb, Richard.
	I don't think so much it's dumb.
	I think that the United States lives in probably the most complex society, right?
	330 million plus people, highly tech, and so on.
	So I really think that just like inflation, everything is kind of inflating outside of the capacity of anyone to grasp or grapple right.
	Can I add something, if that's okay?
	Of course, please.
	So I think, you know, it's really valid to bring up, you know, 4chan and things like that and the boards and what we can do about it.
	But I think there is something, there is an opportunity that gives us the chance to be preventative.
	And that is the metaverse situation.
	I think that now is the time where we really start formulating what is our response to that or how are we going?
	Because I think there's a serious risk there.
	And like I say, there's something we can do about it now before it really comes into place.
	Perhaps it's too late.
	I'm not too sure.
	But I think there's a real risk there because I think you could see the 20 or 30% of males that don't reproduce that people talk about.
	You could see them basically going into that world and festering until the point of at least spiritual death.
	You know what I mean?
	Isn't that Reddit though?
	Isn't that like the internet in general?
	Yeah, but here's the thing.
	Here's my sort of greater point here is that you could take our response to this to something that's upcoming and it could be a precedent where we turn it around and it could become the precedent by which we operate with all of this stuff.
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Like an all unifying principle.
	Right, right, right.
	And sparked by the metaverse question, if you will.
	Right.
	Yeah, and the metaverse is a great example.
	My initial instinct is to nuke the metaverse entirely.
	Yes.
	Well, that's good.
	Absolutely.
	Honestly, Richard, you're just honest.
	You're right, because, you know, I don't know how many people follow tech that closely, but, you know, they're looking for business models, but that's really asking how is it we want to sell it?
	What kind of, what do we want to use it for?
	And so on and so on.
	And you can bet it's going to be the least imaginative people in the world who are making this thing for some bottom line and so on.
	And so it's going to be some sort of a hellscape.
	But could I actually say something about that Biden thing as well?
	I think someone asked...
	I think someone asked...
	I think someone asked, do you think that people really think that Biden didn't win the election?
	But I don't know if you guys are being...
	Genuine here, this election, you're right, obviously he didn't win and he should stop disputing it and it seems petty at this point and so on and so on.
	But Biden won in the middle of the night over two weeks in an unprecedented mail-in voting election by a rounding error with a definite asterisk and there wasn't this much questioning on either side about whether or not Trump won.
	So I think you guys have to appreciate that this was...
	Not unlike every other election.
	So people have major reasons to speculate and wouldn't put it past the DNC and leftists to do something like that, right?
	So, I mean, you guys are just making them seem like they're just putting this out.
	Just to play devil's advocate here.
	Well, okay.
	I'm a little and devil's advocate, but I get what you mean.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I wouldn't...
	I wouldn't put it past any of these people to be horrible.
	I wouldn't put it past Donald Trump to sell nuclear secrets to Saudi Arabia or whatever.
	But that's not the same as they then did it.
	The other thing, just that structural, historical notion of the presidency being a center-left institution.
	It's just overwhelming.
	You've got to pray that Trump somehow miraculously became president.
	Ever since I was nine years old, Democrats have, with two exceptions, significantly won the popular vote.
	You're right, because we're always moving towards progress and not tradition, I guess.
	Apologies, there's going to be some overhead that's going to make me feel like I'm in the airport.
	That was kind of funny.
	Alright, anyone else want to jump in here?
	Oh, Capybara.
	I remember Capybara.
	Sorry about that.
	The overhead is gone.
	I just wanted to jump in.
	I'm sorry.
	Thank you.
	On the topic, recentering back to the titular subject, let me ask you, Richard, there's opportunity costs to free speech, right?
	Both of us having this conversation.
	Shout out to you on some level for having more cojones to let me up.
	I'm not a famous guy.
	I don't have a huge following.
	I feel like even stages where there's not that many people, and most people are in the hundreds as soon as they're following, won't let people out.
	It's like, what the fuck?
	But anyway, so thank you for that.
	But this opportunity costs the both of us talking to each other because you are who you are, and I am who I am.
	And I'm sure that our audiences, whatever, might have some feelings about that.
	Whatever.
	But let me ask you.
	What do you...
	I want to open the horse's mouth.
	How do you identify yourself?
	I know you've been in the process of a rebrand and whatnot.
	What do you identify now, as now, and how do you feel about the opportunity costs of you having conversations during your rebrand?
	Well, I don't think there's any opportunity cost.
	I mean, in the sense of I could be doing something else.
	I go up here.
	Okay, risks.
	I mean risks then.
	What's the risk during your rebrand?
	Sorry.
	I don't know.
	Someone calls me a bad name and I kick them off.
	The risk is not very high.
	I don't do these every day.
	I do talks in different formats over the course of the week, but I like to get out here and the Twitter space gives me a chance.
	To talk to 200 followers or something.
	And I think that's interesting.
	And I have kind of, you know, met some interesting people this way.
	So I will continue to do it.
	I don't see any major opportunity costs.
	I'd be twiddling my thumbs otherwise.
	In terms of my own, you know, evolution of what I identify with, I mean, there's no question that I've rethought a number of things.
	And I do think that...
	It's an evolution.
	There's a difference between someone, you know, like, renouncing all of their views or something and dying and crying and crying and whatever.
	I'm not going to do any of that, but I am going to rethink certain assumptions I have as information changes, but also as I change.
	And I'm also older now.
	And, you know, it's been, I don't know, four or five years, but still.
	And I've kind of seen how a lot of the things that I got involved with, particularly in 2017, like the logical conclusion that all of that stuff leads to, and I really don't want to be a part of it.
	And so, you know, and on other issues, I just kind of rethought or have a little more of a nuanced take on it.
	I do identify with what's called Apollonianism or Apolloism.
	That's kind of the big project that I'm involved in, the kind of macro project, big picture project, that I don't think probably a very small percentage of people on here know about it.
	But when I first started...
	Using the term alt-right in 2010 or earlier, 2009, I believe.
	No one also heard about that either.
	So I think this will probably take 10 years before it's anything like a household name.
	So that's how I would identify.
	But in terms of my opinions, my take on free speech, I speak for myself.
	This is my take.
	This is Richard Spencer's view.
	You can take it or leave it.
	You could associate me with all the Trump stuff from years ago, or you could not.
	It's up to you.
	So, I'm just looking it up since you got the right.
	It's kind of a neologism.
	So, reason, culture, harmony, restraint?
	Those would be like your four tenets or things that you would photonically...
	I don't know what that is.
	That might be someone else claiming to be a follower.
	No.
	If you look up Mark Brahman and myself, I think we're Mark Brahman's the Pope and I'm the disciple.
	So I kind of want to ask something or sort of get your opinion on something.
	So earlier on, you kind of mentioned this tendency for these people to want to Create good followers, these YouTube stars.
	And this is something that I've kind of been thinking about.
	It's something that really holds back the chances of any positive movement.
	And it definitely kneecaps the whole YouTube sort of sphere for me, is that, you know, these people are fundamentally invested in, you know...
	Not telling the truth, but basically placating the doctrines of their fans and the sensibilities of their fans.
	Do you see any sort of...
	Do you think that is inherently a problem of the YouTuber sphere and the whole YouTuber dynamic?
	Is there a way out of that as a YouTuber?
	Can someone...
	Well, I think we could maybe create different incentive structures.
	I think also, to be honest, I've had a certain appreciation for the need for a mainstream media that sets the tone and kind of gives general parameters to people's lives.
	And I'm not claiming that I'm in love with Walter Cronkite or the New York Times of 2003, which went right along with the Bush administration.
	But I acknowledge serious problems with that.
	And I also acknowledge the fact that I've always been a kind of alternative voice.
	And I'm fine with that.
	I understand the necessity of that.
	And I do think that 2016 really was a watershed year.
	It's like the social media were invented in that year.
	But it was that there's the first instance of the term fake news was basically pointing out that these news items that were just obviously fraudulent, like the Pope endorses Donald Trump or...
	Hillary Clinton is a member of ISIS or something.
	News items like that were actually getting more traction than USA Today.
	That actually really is a crossing of the Rubicon.
	You kind of came back once you've reached that state.
	I don't have a full solution To all of these problems, but I also acknowledge that these things are problems and that if you're just strapping yourself in with this free speech absolutism or just vague moralizing like Glenn Greenwald or whatever, there's just no way to solve these issues.
	No, no, no, no.
	I think you were in the conversation earlier with the libertarian Swedish guy.
	And just this idea that, you know, that authority or, you know, in the terms of Walter Cronkite or in that example, like a tone-setting voice that gives stability.
	The fact that the idea of that is, like, inherently wrong or oppressive is just really, like, stupid in a practical sense.
	You know what I mean?
	I mean, we just, you know, like, Elizabeth II didn't do much as Queen, but the fact that there is this, like, worldwide mourning, and in particular, serious mourning among Brits, I mean, it expresses there's some need within us to follow the leader and to have some, like, source of stability that is authoritative.
	I was at the Requiem Mass, actually, on Friday at Westminster Abbey, and you totally kind of felt that.
	People looking for that prompt, for that leadership role that is now gone, or that guidance that is now gone.
	Yes.
	All right, guys.
	Copybara.
	I'll do Copybara McNeely, and then...
	Some other guys.
	Hey, what's up?
	Hey.
	Go ahead.
	You've got the floor.
	Yeah, so for the January 6th protest, I was just curious, how many of the people who went do you think actually believe the election was stolen?
	And plus?
	Like, of the people who went, how many?
	Probably 100%.
	If, like, you told them that it was, like, it was legitimate, I still feel like a lot of them would have gone anyways, just because they hate Joe Biden so much.
	That might be true, but, I mean, it's just kind of a weird question.
	Like, a large percentage of the population believes the election was stolen, and so, in terms of if you were motivated enough to, like, drive to Washington, I bet that 100% were on board with that.
	What percentage of the Trump supporters do you think?
	Well, there's a polling on this.
	I mean, I don't quite know, but it's like 30% of Republicans or something.
	It's a high number.
	It has changed and it's gone down.
	And there was an interesting thing.
	I remember doing this when I was working on...
	This article that Ed wrote on QAnon, because I worked on some background for it.
	And it was interesting, because first off, a significant amount of Democrats believed it.
	And then also interesting, many people would say, with QAnon polling, many people would say, I'm not QAnon, but I believe that Satanists run the government.
	So it's really weird things.
	I don't...
	Effectively believe in QAnon, but then have never heard the name or reject it because they heard a liberal say it's QAnon's stupid and wrong or something.
	Who knows?
	That's pretty much how my parents are.
	It's just a sizable percentage.
	It's not the...
	It's bigger than people who are Wiccans or people who are atheists or...
	People who are fans of the Cincinnati Reds or something.
	It's a significant percentage of the population.
	I was actually going to bring up the poll.
	It doesn't make any sense.
	What I've looked at, it shows 30 or 40% of these Republicans don't believe these elections are legitimate.
	In terms of people I know, it's pretty much every Trump supporter thinks this way.
	I don't know.
	All right.
	Let's move on.
	Neely, would you like to speak?
	Hey, how's it going, everybody?
	Hey.
	Hey, so I'm a middle-of-the-road, open-minded American, as I would think a lot of people are.
	I just got two points I want to make real quick.
	So I think we all can enjoy the company Starbucks.
	I think they make great drinks.
	How that relates to the conversation.
	So on August 15th of this year, headline on CNBC, Starbucks asked Labor Board to suspend mail-in ballot union elections, alleging misconduct in the voting process.
	So that's a company of 250,000 people.
	They don't trust it.
	There's 340 million of us.
	But, you know, if you're a critical thinker, that just, you know, if they can't do it for their union elections, well, why would it be valid for any other election?
	And then point two...
	Well, if you were a critical thinker, you would know that that is a total non sequitur.
	Well, point two, you know, you can Google this.
	There's videos, pictures, whatever.
	What I have yet to see for years is...
	Any enthusiasm for the Biden administration on camera and public.
	Like when you look at rallies, when you look at...
	There's no comparison.
	I mean, like I said, I'm just seeing it as it is.
	That is also a non-sequitur.
	I mean, I'm sorry, but like...
	But you have to look at the imagery, though.
	I mean, how can that not be a factor in things?
	Because imagery is not a quantitative count of votes, and imagery can be very deceptive.
	Absolutely.
	I don't disagree with that at all.
	I'm just saying that it is something to ponder.
	Well, I more or less agree with you that Trump's supporters are more intensely dedicated than Biden's supporters are dedicated to Biden.
	I mean, I think that's not a contest.
	Again, it's just a non-sequitur.
	It's very different than saying, was he elected?
	I mean, you don't have to be an enthusiastic rally attendee to vote.
	Right.
	I don't disagree with that at all.
	But one way that I kind of gauge this whole optics thing with votes, just out of my own thoughts, is looking back to 2008.
	I mean, Barack Obama...
	You remember back when he ran, I mean, there was so much enthusiasm.
	I mean, you saw t-shirts, bumper stickers, yard signs, flags.
	It was everywhere you looked.
	It was like everybody was for Obama.
	And they're trying to say in a way that, well, I mean, they're not trying to say.
	They're saying that Biden got way more votes than Obama did back then.
	I mean, it's kind of confusing.
	Trump is much more hated.
	Can I offer...
	Sorry.
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead, guys.
	I can't offer a perspective, because I think there's a danger of getting too caught up in the minutiae of how elections run mechanically, and this, that, and the other.
	I kind of made the point earlier on, I made the assertion that people would, and Trump supporters can understand this, the people were propagandised against Trump 24-7 for four years.
	We know that the power that mainstream liberalism, if you want to call it for now, has over the population.
	And let us not forget, in a basic political sense, Trump failed on many aspects of his mandate.
	He didn't build the Mexican wall, but he built Israel.
	You know what I mean?
	And I just want to understand that if you try and combine these factors, It's not so crazy to think that, yeah, maybe you just didn't win the election.
	You know what I mean?
	I don't know.
	No, I totally get it.
	It's just odd to me, and it's...
	I mean, I don't know.
	Just sitting here, seeing what they feed us on television and in the papers, it's like, damn, you know?
	What a...
	What a confusing thing.
	And it's like, you know, if you guys...
	I watch both sides.
	So it's like, I watched the Biden speech last week or the week before, and I also watched Trump's speech just to see what he had to say.
	And I was just like, okay, this is, again, just kind of crazy.
	But it just, it really is nuts that, like, back in 08 when Obama ran, you know, he got 69 million votes.
	And then now...
	With all that enthusiasm and show throughout all the support in the public, and then in 2020, they say Biden got 81 million, so 11 million more than Obama got.
	And that brings another point.
	It's like, did so many people vote out of hatred?
	And if so, then that's a sad state of our country.
	Yes.
	I mean, first off, the population is literally bigger.
	Also, yes.
	I mean, I think John McCain and even Mitt Romney were, like, slightly toxic, you could say.
	And certainly the, you know, liberals tried to make them as such.
	But there was just nothing in comparison with the demonization of Trump, but also just the, you know, genuine hatred of Trump by tens of millions of people.
	And they're willing to, I mean, I don't know.
	Joe Biden didn't campaign and I think he could have not campaigned at all and still won.
	All you had to do was have Trump on stage.
	Trump, he enthuses his base and he enthuses a verb.
	He enthuses the opposition.
	He is just such an extreme polarizing figure.
	Well, I just hope for all of us that we can get to a better place.
	And that's all I've got to say, guys.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, who was that?
	Oh, Arsia, you added me in.
	Oh yeah, I was about to say your name, actually.
	I want to say, it's kind of an honor.
	I've been watching you for quite some time now.
	Oh, thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	You know, I want to just ask you a few lighthearted questions I've had about you, if you don't mind.
	Sure.
	So first off, what does your music taste contain of?
	Because I noticed you brought up the cure.
	Yeah, you know, I liked The Cure a lot when I was younger.
	And I had their CDs.
	I mean, Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me is a great album.
	But I even bought their, like, early 80s, like, you know, 17 Seconds, Pornography, Faith.
	They're kind of like post-punk, dark.
	Weird albums.
	Depressive albums.
	You know, it doesn't matter if we all die.
	And the whole nihilistic aspects of it all.
	Yeah, definitely.
	And I like The Cure a lot.
	I kind of got out of them.
	I probably didn't listen to them for 20 years or something.
	And just, I don't know.
	It was like the last year or so for a reason I started to listen to them.
	I don't think they're my favorite band, but I do like them.
	Quite a bit.
	I think Robert Smith is a really unique figure.
	Like, he just created a sound that is uniquely him.
	Definitely.
	And, yeah, so I think he's, I think the Cura is a great band.
	Yeah, I mean, I guess it's fairly well known that I'm a Depeche Mode fanboy.
	You know, unrepentant.
	I think basically I liked them when I was a kid and I still like them now.
	I like a lot of the Euro, New Wave stuff that was in my childhood.
	I think it's a very similar story.
	You listen to stuff that you listened to when you were 13. I've noticed you like a lot of 80s hits that I've been getting into.
	Oh, okay, cool.
	Yeah, I always make the joke that you were kind of the Marilyn Manson of 2016 and 2017, that era.
	The whole, like, going up on stage, saying the most, like, you know, what's considered controversial and becoming a household name, trolling news reporters.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Probably some truth to that.
	I actually, believe it or not, I actually saw Marilyn Manson.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so I...
	I was, again, not a huge fan, but I was a fan of Trent Reznor and Nine Inch Nails.
	Really?
	I went to a concert, and it was really quite funny.
	For instance, I think Depeche Mode concerts, you have a smorgasbord of the popular.
	There are a lot of different people who like Depeche Mode, particularly now.
	I went to the last Epeche Mode concert, Hago, in 2018, I think.
	And there were people my age.
	There were people older than me.
	There were actually people in their 20s.
	There were a few goth people.
	There was, like, a Hispanic contingent.
	It was actually, like, a fairly, like, representative or something.
	When I went to the New Image Nails concert, I forgot who I was with.
	And I just walked up, like, dressed typically in, like, jeans and a t-shirt or something.
	And it was, like, 99% hardcore goths.
	Wait, so you never went through that phase where you were, like, starting to dress all, like...
	No, no, no.
	I was never, like, a goth or anything, no.
	That relates.
	Yeah.
	I mean, again, I guess I kind of liked music that was somewhat like that.
	But even The Cure had kind of a broader following.
	This was almost this, like, extreme niche following of...
	I was, like, so...
	I was the only one who didn't have, like, a nose piercing or something.
	And the opening act...
	And so...
	And I remember, like, Nine Inch Nails was a cool concert.
	It was, you know, totally wild.
	He was...
	I think he broke his guitar by playing it, not by slamming.
	It was intense, 90s nihilism kind of stuff.
	Marilyn Manson went on stage and he was totally unknown.
	This was probably 1997 or something.
	Prior to Columbine, huh?
	Yeah, prior to Columbine.
	He was just totally outrageous.
	Like, I believe he stuck a beer bottle up his butt and threw the beer bottle.
	Like, it was, like, probably illegal.
	Yeah.
	Like, I'm surprised he didn't kill a puppy on stage.
	It was just, like, shocking, totally outrageous behavior.
	I don't even remember the music, and I've never...
	I liked Marilyn Manson's music.
	The only music of his that I've liked are when he covers your rhythm or whatever.
	I don't like his actual music.
	But I just remember this figure, but he was totally unknown.
	But even then, when he was totally unknown, he was pushing the boundaries.
	Nine Inch Nails didn't do anything that gross.
	But they were pretty badass in concert.
	They were pretty...
	It was a badass concert, you know, just like, you know, mosh pit, full, you know, crazy lights going on, screaming, like, head like a hole.
	Like, it was, it was, I wish, I mean, it was pre-cell phone era, I don't have any recording, but I remember it.
	I was like, whoa.
	Do you have any musical abilities or just any artistic talents of your own, by any chance?
	Yeah, I mean, I can play the piano and I can kind of sing, I guess, a little bit.
	I mean, I know a lot about music and classical music as well, and I care about it, but I'm not, like, super talented or anything.
	Would you ever consider, like, releasing anything of your own?
	I have considered it, yeah.
	I've kind of considered doing, like, a Depeche Mode cover album or something and, like, doing some recordings where...
	I play and then sing.
	I thought about it a lot.
	That would be my gift to the world via SoundCloud.
	I didn't imagine you being a singer type.
	Now that I'm thinking about it more, I can hear a little bit of it.
	Yeah.
	I think it would be fun.
	It would be a good project.
	I should definitely do it.
	Maybe you can make your own music in your edits for your...
	More Apolloistic projects?
	Yeah, I mean, it's...
	I mean, I've taken...
	I don't think I should compose the music for anything, but, like, compose original music.
	And, like, someone like Zurious, I think, has done some really cool, like, synth wave, you know, dance house music, almost, like, stuff.
	I think he's done some really great stuff.
	I could probably collaborate a bit, I guess, but, you know, my musicals are not super high.
	I guess I know my limits.
	I mean, you're definitely a good writer.
	Thanks.
	I appreciate that.
	Yeah, I mean, and I would, yeah, maybe I should, like, write, you know, some lyrics or something.
	Maybe that's where I should.
	Yeah, if you can collaborate with some people and, you know, you can be the writer of the projects, I could definitely see that.
	Can I course change radically?
	Yes.
	Sorry, this is going to sound so drastic compared to the conversation you just had.
	I want to mention the phenomenon surrounding what unfortunately happened to Dugan's daughter.
	I want to ask you specifically, why do you think the Western media is enamoured with this idea of, like, the man behind the man sort of thing?
	you know, like the brains behind the man.
	So like with Dugan, he's presented as like the brains behind.
	Oh, I see what you're saying.
	Yeah.
	And with Boris Johnson, it's Dominic behind Boris Johnson.
	But in both cases, there isn't much to really sort of, you know, to, to, I think basically they want something that they can get their hands on that explains the political actors.
	I mean, I wrote a tweet thread on this.
	I actually had two really good discussions on this.
	And we've lost the recordings of them.
	So it kind of pisses me off.
	But I guess I'll reiterate what I've said.
	I mean, Dugan was more notorious in the West than he was influential in the East.
	But that doesn't mean that he wasn't influential.
	And it also doesn't mean that, like...
	His philosophy didn't gel or maybe you could say undergird Putin's geopolitics.
	I mean, it wasn't...
	I think it's ridiculous to say that Dugan was whispering in Putin's ear or something.
	It would be like someone in China saying that...
	Richard Spencer is best friends with Donald Trump, and he just tells Trump what to do, and Trump, you know, does it.
	Well, that was kind of being said in 2016.
	Yeah.
	That was kind of being said in 2016.
	You know.
	It was, but no one, like, actually said that.
	I mean, it was kind of whispered, but sure.
	But it was not true.
	It's a bit similar with Dugan.
	Like, I don't think he is, like, Rasputin, like, in the court of the Tsar, affecting his daily opinions.
	I mean, that being said, like, Duganism is, like, you could absolutely use Duganism to justify Russian geopolitics.
	So it's not, you know, it's not like that foreign affairs article is totally irrational or something.
	You know, but, I mean, I think, I mean, I wrote this, and I'll tell you what I think.
	I think the Russian government killed Daria Dugina, and I think they might have been aiming at Dugin, or they might have actually been aiming at her.
	And I think Ukraine did it, that is, the Ukrainian government, I think they would have admitted it.
	You know, I mean, like, they're, I mean, granted, it's a huge escalation to kill a citizen in a foreign country, but nevertheless, you know, you could kind of plausibly say, well, this guy's the mastermind behind it all, so we need to take him out.
	But they didn't.
	They vehemently denied it.
	And I don't think that, like, I think they have bigger fish to fry than killing Alexander Dugan.
	Or his daughter.
	And I think, you know, there might be some like radical group acting on its own that did it.
	That's very possible.
	But I think my vision of it, that it was a kind of message sent by the government.
	I mean, you know, it's not implausible for me to say this in the sense that there is a long list of people who...
	We're close to the Russian government who end up dead.
	And in fact, their entire family ends up dead.
	I mean, it's a disgusting thing, actually.
	These guys, they become billionaires, they own a copper mine or whatever, and then they get out of sorts with Putin or they're a perceived threat or something, and their whole family ends up slaughtered.
	I mean, it is horrifying in many ways.
	So, it's not like the Russian government is above this or something.
	What's the hypothetical message?
	The message, I think, people misunderstand Dugan.
	They think that he is a fanboy of Putin.
	That's not exactly correct.
	Dugan is supportive of Putin.
	He more or less likes what he's doing.
	But he's a kind of potential threat in the sense that...
	You know, he wants to go all the way.
	He wants a total war, a existential war with the West and with, like, satanic liberalism or whatever he thinks.
	And so if Putin has to, like, pull back or negotiate or, you know, he loses or something, Dugin is going to be there saying, you betrayed the Holy Church.
	You know, he's not going to be like, oh, well, get him next time.
	And so I think it was a kind of shot across the bow and to a lot of these ideologues saying, like, you know, watch yourself.
	um you decided putin on occasion um albeit in a be it in a very like slight way i know at one point during an interview he had said that uh putin sort of missed his chance to become the dictator that he could have been where the people really wanted putin to stand up or step up and seize a substantial amount of power but unfortunately that time period left and so putin missed his chance and
	dugan said this explicitly on an interview i think with rt oh yeah it was 16 minutes yeah i'm just curious sorry to interrupt the bottom-up dictator we demand Yeah, I remember that.
	Yeah.
	It was very interesting.
	And obviously kind of like pushing on Putin, like you're saying.
	This is not necessarily just the brains behind Putin.
	This is...
	Yeah, this is someone who's a potential threat.
	Right.
	Or may sway Putin, not because even necessarily Putin wants to be swayed, but he feels compelled after...
	Maybe being criticized.
	Right.
	So I think it's a dangerous business, and that's just my assessment.
	I don't, and I'm not claiming that, like, Ukraine are angels or something.
	I just, the idea that, like, the government would do that, and, like, in America, would the CIA do that?
	I mean, I think they would kind of prefer Dugan around as, like, a boogeyman or something.
	I don't think they're like, we must stop this man.
	I don't think they think, unless they're a lot stupider than I give them credit for.
	Using Cooley Bono as a logic, I just don't see it.
	Also, the orthodoxy wants to be a martyr.
	And so it would be really politically unsavvy to make a martyr out of Dugan or his daughter.
	Not to switch topics, but there was that movie made by Martin Scorsese about the Japanese interaction with...
	Silence.
	Yes, silence.
	And they were very intelligent in the way that they dealt with the Christians, which was they killed followers that the priests had created and said, okay, here, I'll kill one of your followers if you step on...
	or I won't kill one of your followers on the Bible.
	But I'll never make a martyr out of you.
	It's because they understood Christianity very well.
	And it just doesn't make any sense to me that the Ukrainians, who are also Orthodox, would not understand their own religion.
	Right.
	And there's no question that Daria Dugin is more powerful in death than she was as a young political commentator.
	You know, who was going on Russian television sometimes, going on RT, going on live streams.
	You know, she was, I don't know.
	I don't say this to be like, I'm not being arrogant here.
	You're like, kind of like me or something.
	Like, it's not, you know, like, the country isn't, like, rallying around me.
	If someone brutally assassinated me or something, Then they might, actually.
	You know what I mean?
	The dissident right hates me, but if I were brutally assassinated, the dissident right would be like, we loved him!
	He was the best of us!
	You gotta keep that in mind.
	I think you rightly connect Duganism like an anti-Western crusade.
	Would you then say that It's innately stupid or inherently stupid for, you know, Western writers to kind of take on Duganism like they do.
	Well, yes and no.
	I mean, I think that Dugan is highly intelligent and he is interesting.
	So, you know, I'm enough of a free spirit intellectual to say that, like, you know, you can address Dugan and take him seriously and criticize him or whatever.
	So he's not a dummy.
	I mean, I think there is a lot of...
	There is a bit of fluff and fluff in Dugan, but there actually is a lot there.
	Like, he's synthesizing a lot of things.
	I mean, he's attempting to synthesize, like, Plato and Russian orthodoxy and mysticism and so on into this...
	And Mackinder geopolitics into this, like, big thing.
	And so it's interesting, and he's intelligent.
	But, you know, yeah, there is a lot of, like, self-hating Westerners who, you know, have projected all these fantasies upon Russia.
	And, you know, Russia's going to...
	The West is evil.
	We need Russia to take over the world and we'll all be free.
	You know, there's a lot of that, you know, silliness going on, too.
	Speaking of hate, Do you think that we're going to see a ripple, a repeat of 2018, where the GOP get a ripple just because of a type of voter called a contrarian voter who just votes against the opposition party?
	And do you think that's what the Republicans were banking on?
	Last year, and they thought it'd be a big wave, big 10, but now they're just going to get a few people, and it's just going to be a ripple, and it's not going to be massive, in part due to their own shenanigans.
	Well, I, yeah, I mean, this is the midterm question, and, you know, it's worth talking about.
	I mean, I, this is the Republican election to lose.
	You know, I mean, as many people have pointed out, there is this off-year tendency for, like, big opposition victories.
	And even in 2021, when they had kind of successfully made it about critical race theory and parental rights or something, you know, those are winning issues.
	And, you know, look, are they kind of overblown?
	Okay, sure.
	But, like, they're winning issues.
	And I just think things have changed.
	First off, like, the accumulation of shit piling up on Trump is just too much to bear.
	And he's always inserting himself in politics.
	So it becomes like a referendum on Trump, much like 2018.
	And so I think that is back.
	I also think they have some kind of uniquely bad candidates.
	That they promoted, particularly like the Teal candidates, just kind of uniquely bad and then uniquely nuts in the sense of like some of these like Carrie Lake or whatever.
	So I think there I do kind of see a ripple.
	I mean, negative polarization is like the most powerful force in these elections.
	And so just, like, full-on hatred of the Democrats.
	The other thing is that, like, there's no, I mean, again, here I sound like a mainline pundit.
	I mean, there's no question that Roe v.
	Wade is activating Democratic voters.
	So, I mean, I tentatively have thrown out there that the Democrats are going to increase their lead in the Senate.
	And particularly if you get a wipeout of Dr. Oz, J.D. Vance, Blake Masters, you have all these guys just losing dominoes.
	I think you could have 52-48 Democrats in the Senate.
	And I kind of tentatively threw out there, I'm wondering if it's just going to be a watch or if Republicans just fail to even win the House.
	That is, lose their majority.
	I don't know.
	I'm not sure I'm bold enough to go out there and say that because I want to get things straight.
	I mean, this is the Republicans' election to lose.
	But if they lose power in the Senate and maybe they gain a dozen, two dozen seats in the House, that's going to be viewed as a loss.
	Like a big loss.
	So I think that's kind of what I'm seeing.
	And I think there's just going to be some surprises, like a lot of Democratic victories in places.
	I don't think this is good for Republicans.
	And they're like, they're just, this is the, they've squeezed the towel and there's no more water in it for this kind of like...
	Trumpian stuff.
	At some point, you're just activating the other side to such a large degree that it's really not worth it.
	Alright.
	I'm getting a bit sleepy.
	Go ahead.
	I just want to ask you, this is a bit of an abstract question, but if we're getting to the end of it, maybe this is a nice place to end.
	If you could theorize on The average young Trumpian Nick Fuentes type.
	Where do you see this person in 25 years time?
	What's the end of the road if they carry on this path?
	In the same place they are now.
	Yeah.
	Just older watching live streams and getting mad about shit.
	Speaking of which, would you ever...
	Would you ever be tempted to have a final conversation with Fuentes, whether it's to squash the beef or finally talk out all the tension that's been going on between you guys for a long time?
	I've always said yes to that.
	People have asked me that many times, and I've basically said yes.
	What about people like Giorgiani?
	I would talk with Georgiani.
	I don't even know what Georgiani's up to at this point, but I would talk to him.
	I think he's making his own cult as well.
	Based on Prometheus?
	Okay.
	Well, I guess we have some competition out there.
	Yeah, I would definitely talk with him.
	I mean, I don't have any real issue with any of these people.
	Would you reach out to Quaronsens, or have you tried?
	I have not tried to reach out to Nick Fuentes in some time.
	I think it goes back many years now.
	I'm just not that terribly interested in Fuentes.
	I mean, yeah.
	And Fuentes' whole shtick was basically anti-me from the beginning.
	I don't think he paid attention.
	I don't think so much anymore.
	Yeah.
	I don't know what to say.
	Like, I would almost rather...
	I don't really want to reconcile with people in the dissonant right or something.
	Like, I don't want to get the band back together or something.
	Yeah, I definitely want to go on my way.
	So, like, you know, like, I don't...
	I don't really want to talk to TRS people or something at this point.
	It's just like, you guys gross me out.
	And I just not, you know, I don't see value really there.
	I mean, it's like I would much rather reach new people and I don't want to reinvent 2017.
	And, you know, so that's kind of where I am.
	By any chance, is this live stream going to be posted?
	Because I would love to clip some of it.
	Yeah, it will be recorded.
	Actually, if anyone...
	I guess I could download the recording and I'll put it up on Substack or something like that.
	I do think they delete recordings after a while.
	Yeah, I just want to clip some of our conversations.
	It's been pretty interesting.
	If you flip it, just put it up.
	You don't have to give it to me.
	Just put it up on your own wherever you want.
	I give you my...
	Okay, real quick, Mike, and then I'm too tired.
	So, Mike.
	Okay, thanks, Rich.
	Why do you call me Rich all the time?
	Why do I do that?
	I'm sorry.
	You corrected me before.
	I'm sorry, Richard.
	Are there any people on the far right that you get along with despite their political views?
	I think I more or less get along with most people.
	I mean, it's just a question, you know, I mean, yeah, sure.
	Okay, and then is there any literature or posts that you have that encapsulates your reason for going from the far right to, I guess, whatever you want to call yourself now, a liberal?
	I've caught bits and pieces of it when I...
	Listen to the spaces, but I've never heard the full idea of why you, you know, kind of did the 180.
	I haven't done a 180, and I'm not a liberal.
	Okay.
	But you know what I mean.
	You're on the far right, but now you have ideas that are kind of antithetical to the far right, and I just want to know how that came about.
	I know you don't want to explain it now, but is there anything you've written?
	I think the Trump era was more of an aberration than anything else.
	I think I'm coming home.
	All right.
	I love that idea of getting the band back together, and I really think sometime in the future that's going to happen.
	Well, okay.
	I'm rooting for it.
	I think we might be in a different band.
	Well, maybe it's a modified band.
	For a musical project that I was talking about with you, you and Nick can be your own little industrial rock band.
	Maybe.
	Destiny's a good composer.
	Speaking of which, I would love to see you actually have a conversation with him.
	Well, actually, I kind of dropped the ball a little bit on that.
	There was some push towards that, and I suggested a topic for debate.
	And he didn't want to debate it because he agreed with me, which was kind of funny.
	And then I kind of dropped the ball.
	I got really busy this summer.
	Let me put that together.
	I don't think Destiny is hostile towards having a good faith debate.
	You're not the first to suggest that, so I'll try to get that going again.
	Better than Mike from PA or Vosh.
	Yeah, I mean, Vosch is kind of fascinating because he's smart in many ways and then, like, really annoying in a lot of ways.
	Yeah.
	And I don't think he would debate me, actually.
	Maybe he would, even though he says he'll talk to anyone, because I think he much prefers, like, debating a kind of unknown...
	Unsophisticated white nationalist that he can just, like, slam dunk on.
	Yeah, he doesn't really like to debate people he knows that he might not have a chance against.
	Like, his excuse is always, I don't want to platform these people because it sets whatever presidents...
	But he platforms people who are, like, much worse than I am.
	Like, I've seen his debate.
	So, I almost...
	Yeah, that's my read on him.
	I don't...
	I mean, I would do it, but...
	I'm almost thinking he would kind of, like, weasel out of it.
	That's what Destiny says about it all the time.
	Yeah.
	So, because he likes...
	That's kind of his shtick, is to just dunk on...
	You know, I mean, he's debating people, effectively, on his show, but he's debating them in absentia.
	I mean, he's playing their clips and just, like, dunking.
	You know, rightfully in many ways.
	But, like, you know, it's not fair.
	So, I don't know.
	I would talk to him.
	I doubt he would do it.
	I think a lot of his content is kind of interesting.
	I think a lot of it, you know, annoys me to a degree.
	He is kind of sincere.
	He does have a perspective.
	And I do agree with him that there is a kind of Marxism.
	That you shouldn't conflate with Bolshevism or the Soviet Union or anything.
	I do think that you could genuinely call yourself a Marxist and not be caught up in that legacy.
	I find him smart and interesting.
	I've listened to Destiny less, but he's a smart guy.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, makes sense.
	All right, guys.
	For the most part, I think he'll let you.
	But yeah, have a good night, man.
	You too.
	Guys, sleepy.
	So I will talk to you all soon.
	Thank you for jumping on.
	And I appreciate everyone, especially those who ask questions.
	So I will see you guys on the flip side.

▲