All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2024 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
32:46
Nasty Women

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit radixjournal.substack.comWe love women on this show, don’t we folks? We have all the best female guests on Alexandria! The best female guests! That I can tell you. That said… not all the ladies in politics are so nice. In fact, when the GOP sends their haggard ran-through bimbos, frankly, they’re not sending their best! They’re sending gals…

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I have hated Ann Coulter, I guess, going on 25 years.
I mean, for most of my life, in fact, I have found her utterly repellent.
You've hated her longer than I've been alive.
That is true.
That is true.
When you were an inkling in your father's eye, I hated this bitch.
And she's just terrible.
Every possible opinion that she has is bad.
And I'm sorry.
I don't care that she belatedly jumped on the build-the-wall train.
It just doesn't matter.
And she's way off that train at this point, showing that what she said earlier didn't really have substance to it.
And so she made her name with a book.
That I believe was called High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
And it was a book on the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
So that's where she's coming from.
She's coming from the Gingrich era of obsession with Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton was largely a successful president, if we're honest.
And they just hated him for it, and they hated him even more because of that.
The fact that he would triangulate towards their position made them hate him.
They just hated the hell out of him.
And there's actually a lot of interesting precedents going forward that started out at that point.
Then we had 9-11, and she wrote an article for National Review that said we should bomb all Muslim cities and convert them to Christianity.
Now, maybe you could excuse...
You know, you can definitely excuse the emotion involved in writing that.
She didn't write it.
She didn't say it.
But you could maybe excuse the emotion.
That was a little too hot for National Review.
Like, a lot of them were like, whoa now.
But the fact is, that kind of attitude led to all the things that she now hates.
So... She was skeptical about going into Afghanistan to give her some credit here.
Because Afghanistan, it's where empires go to die.
You can't rule that country, etc.
She was not skeptical about the Iraq War.
And so these people are radically wrong on matters.
And then they just kind of like keep moving forward and going with the flow and picking up the next.
Hot, populist opinion.
So she was a terror warrior.
She went to CPAC and talked about how you can get your professor thrown in jail or fired if he's too sympathetic towards Muslims or he's a traitor or something.
So just all of this McCarthyite, Bush-era nonsense she was involved with.
She denies Darwin.
She writes all these books all the time.
She wrote a book about how the only thing that supports Darwinism is that moth experiment that we all learned in high school.
If I remember correctly, it was like there was genes for a gray moth and genes for a bright white moth, and when there's more smog, the gray moths are able to camouflage, and thus they are...
More likely to survive in this past on their genes, etc.
She's like, oh, this is all they've got.
This doesn't make any sense.
Darwin was a racist.
He led to Hitler.
He led to Hitler.
And this kind of fucking bullshit religious right nonsense.
I don't even know what her actual religious beliefs are, but she...
Does things that pander to that audience.
And that audience is gigantic.
You don't understand how big the religious right is in terms of money.
Like, just tens of millions.
A hundred million for Focus on the Family in the 90s.
These were gigantic organizations that did a lot of harm, actually.
And they're not just, like, grassroots good.
People who have good intentions and what.
No, it's a massive big business and industry that is full of crap and should just be simply rejected.
Anyway, she pandered to them.
She's a, like, just off-the-shelf conservative, except she's hardcore about it.
And then, around 2014, she discovers immigration.
And probably by reading Steve Saylor and Peter Brimelow, I would imagine, although I don't know, because she seemed to pick up a lot of those memes.
And so she becomes this Trump era, you know, if we don't stop immigration now, we won't have a country by 2020.
And in 2014, she did a speech at CPAC where she goes, if we don't stop immigration now, there'll be conservative death squads that will take revenge.
I mean, it's the kind of just...
Maybe it's sort of funny, but it's just cheap nonsense.
You know, it's like, where are these death squads?
Like, why don't you join a death squad?
Why don't you, like, do we have a country now?
You know, I don't know.
You're now a DeSantis supporter for 2020 or 2024 or 2024 or 2028.
Like, so do we have a country?
I don't know, Ann.
Maybe your rhetoric is just kind of overheated and full of shit.
So this is who this bitch is.
I hate her voice.
We can go through this.
I found the YouTube video of her, like, just obviously incorrect assessment of the Civil Rights Administration.
She basically supports civil rights, and she thinks that it's a Republican thing and the Democrats are racist.
She is an originator, a pioneer of the Dems are the real racist kind of thing.
So she's this bad in terms of her thinking, and yet she gets credit for, like, being racist.
And from the dissident right or whatever.
And my point is, like, yeah, she's racist in the way that most middle class and rich whites in the South are racist.
It means nothing.
It is a...
They might as well, like...
Have an opinion on food or movies or something.
Because that's all it is.
It's this cheap, meaningless, basically dispensable opinion that they have about they just don't like black or brown people.
But it has no consequence to it.
It is race baiting, which is an article I wrote like 12 years ago or something.
One of my favorite articles because I just, I located what this thing is.
They want to bait race.
They want to talk to you about, you know, the great replacement theory or whatever.
They want to do nothing and then continue to talk to you about it so that you vote for them.
Enoch Powell located this.
He said in an interview on the BBC.
They want to talk about it.
They want to talk about the immigration crisis and benefit from the crisis.
And they do nothing about it.
In fact, they're incentivized to do nothing about it because then they wouldn't have the talking point.
Abortion's another one where I've been seeing these things because they pass over my Twitter feed of her saying, oh, well, you know, abortion isn't really totally illegal, so don't get out of hand.
And, you know, the Republicans should stop talking about abortion because that...
We've seen all these referenda.
It's a loser issue.
It's like, Anne, you talked about this for decades.
As of Trump, you started to lift off the pedal and say, oh, it doesn't matter.
I don't care if Trump performs an abortion in the White House lawn.
We should still vote for him because this is so important.
Well, okay, but you can change.
I get that.
The vast majority of your political career was promoting this issue.
And then when you win, you want to pull back and pretend like it didn't happen or pretend like you didn't support all of these things.
So regardless of how you feel about abortion, it's just a completely unserious way of acting.
And I just, I don't know, I could go on.
I just...
Hate this bitch.
She's never been on the right side of anything.
She's constantly wrong.
She has a horrible way of thinking.
She ultimately doesn't like her dissident right fans to the extent that they still exist.
She doesn't like any of you people because what she wants is the Southern strategy.
What she wants are boring white men on stage talking about You know, tax cuts and, you know, maybe like Ronald Reagan giving a speech at some legendary civil rights era place and talking about tax cuts and welfare queens and basically just using this issue so that she can promote her Republican crap.
That's all she is.
I don't know.
She's actually not that hot as well.
Like, she's never been.
She's always been this, like, weird, man-ish, horse-faced bitch.
So, anyway, have I conveyed the fact that I hate her?
Hopefully I have.
I'll just let her speak for herself.
So this is back during the Confederate flag controversy in South Carolina.
She plays this double game.
She takes two totally incoherent opinions in order to pander to people.
So on the one hand, she says, Nikki Haley shouldn't ban the Confederate flag on the statehouse because she doesn't understand what it means to be an American or something like that.
So this race baiting, oh, she's Indian.
Yeah, we get it.
Why don't you just call her out for being Indian as opposed to doing this?
But anyway.
And then she also says that...
It's actually the Republican.
It's only Democrats who are racist.
Your thoughts on some of the debates that have sprung up in this country since the Charleston shooting.
We began this morning talking with our viewers about the Confederate flag issue and whether it should be removed from the South Carolina Capitol grounds.
What are your thoughts on that debate?
I think it's completely moronic.
I mean, this is an awful...
That happened in Charleston.
Luckily, it's quite rare.
But to jump on this and go back to a litany of liberal talking points that make Republicans look bad, how about banning the Democratic Party?
They were the ones who supported, who were on the Confederate side of the Civil War.
They were the ones who supported segregation for 100 years.
If we want to do something nice for black people, how about Ending immigration, which is dumping millions of low-wage workers on the country, taking jobs from African Americans, as innumerable studies have shown.
I mean, there are all sorts of nice things you could be doing here.
Going back to the Confederate flag in South Carolina, which I might add, contrary to everything you will hear on television, was not adopted by South Carolina because they were opposed to civil rights.
I kept hearing that on MSNBC last night.
But they were saying 1962.
Well, in 1962, as you read in detail a few books back of mine, Mugged, Racial Demagoguery from the 70s to Obama.
It's a terrible book.
It was the Democrats opposing Eisenhower and Nixon's aggressive civil rights laws.
It was 100% Democrats supporting, insisting on segregation.
The civil rights bills proposed by Nixon were blocked by the sainted Okay, so what is she arguing here?
Because this is just like the most incoherent gobbledygook I think I've ever heard, in fact.
So, yes, the Confederate battle flag, the stars and bars, went out of fashion for a while there.
Say, certainly post the Civil War, post Reconstruction.
In the 20th century of a revival of the, in the late 19th and 20th century of a revival of the Lost Cause myth, a lot of these statues were being built and so on.
But the Confederate flag started to play a big role.
During the burgeoning civil rights struggle, as she said.
So I guess she's saying that it wasn't about 1964.
It was about 1962 or something like that.
And in the 50s, Eisenhower and his Republican vice president were putting forth civil rights bills, which is absolutely true.
And these were blocked by LBJ.
Who was a Texas senator and a southern state, and they were blocking this.
So all of that is true, but it's like, so are these civil rights things good or are they bad?
Because it was actually LBJ who did the big one that is now the paradigm for today.
So is that good or bad?
When Republicans do civil rights, are they freedom fighters?
But then when Democrats do it, they're kind of like lying, hypocritical, you know, no good baddies.
Like, what are you arguing for?
Are you against the civil rights movement or are you for it?
Do you want to blame Eisenhower for pursuing civil rights?
Is that what you're arguing?
Because he used government force, the National Guard, to desegregate schools.
Is that a good thing, Anne?
Is that a bad thing?
I mean, it's just ridiculous that she says this kind of stuff.
And in terms of realignment, yes, there is this, like, secular social science consensus on realignment that I don't know how you could conceivably be against it.
I mean, it's just so obvious of people and their children who would say, vote for the Dixiecrats in 1948.
And, but were staunch, remained staunch Democrats even after that failed.
And then with Goldwater, you had someone who opposed the Civil Rights Act, in Goldwater's case, on libertarian grounds.
And he was thus making outreach to Southerners on that basis.
Even though he was not a Southern racist himself, he was making outreach there.
And he only wins in Arizona, his home state, in the Deep South, in a landslide defeat to LBJ.
As time went on, there was a gradual realignment where all of these former Democrat segregationists switched parties.
Strom Thurmond just changed parties at one point.
The fact that LBJ changed his mind or his policy and legendarily said after the Civil Rights Act, we've lost the South for another hundred years.
He said something like that, perhaps.
It might be apocryphal, but anyway.
He made a calculation that he has to go with the flow and move away from Southern racists, and Republicans were much more likely to support civil rights.
And so the people who were staunchly segregationists switched.
And after that, by the late 70s into the 80s, all of these former segregationists, Jerry Falwell being an excellent example, emerged into the religious right.
So now they don't, you know, they lost those battles.
Bob Jones University can't be a not-for-profit church or whatever if it's going to be segregated.
So they lost all these battles, and then they slowly discover that what they really care about is prayer in school or abortion.
Something, by the way, they never cared about until the 80s.
Southern Baptist Convention endorsed.
Roe v.
Wade decision explicitly at the time.
None of these people talked about abortion until the 80s, in fact, as they lost the racial battle and then moved to the culture war.
There's just no way that any serious person can deny that that is what's happening.
But apparently Ann Coulter thinks that Republicans are a race and the Democrats are also a race.
And so we should understand this issue as the democratic race.
You know, it's in your DNA.
You can test for it prenatally if that person's a Democrat.
The democratic race is still racist, I guess.
Isn't that a logical implication?
Do you see how this is just total nonsense?
She knows it's nonsense, right?
She's just dumping cement down the garbage disposal because I think it's very nihilistic.
It's like she knows stupid people.
We'll buy this hook, line, and sinker, right?
And, you know, if just some 105 IQ guy watching Fox News will just start regurgitating this, I mean, like, that actually does have an impact on the body politic.
And it's gross and bad and stupid, but, I mean, these people are nihilistic.
And what you have to understand about the Republican Party is at the highest level, it's dominated by a certain cast of, like, very cynical lawyers who, like, everything about it is just optimized for winning, but, like, they really don't even have...
values, so to speak.
You know, like, really, everything is about winning.
And, like, they'll try to justify things on the grounds of, like, abortion, or, you know, sometimes they'll move it in a more sort of tribalist direction.
But, like, at the end of the day, these people are just incredibly nihilistic.
And, like, there's something very serious.
I think that white nationalists or identitarians or whatever who are more like formalist and who are probably much less just sort of bigoted and like...
They're hateful in their day-to-day behavior towards minorities.
They need to really condemn this sort of behavior.
Intellectually serious white nationalists need to denounce Anne, like, full-throatedly.
Oh, yeah.
She is the worst.
And I'm glad that, like, she attacked Nick Fuentes.
And so he is attacked.
So that's going to rub off on his group of people as well.
So he's attacking her back.
But it's like...
If you want to know what is, like, block, if you are a nationalist, you know, I'm kind of weird in my own way, I have other concerns, but if you are a coherent white nationalist or American nationalist or whatever, that face on your screen is the thing that is standing directly in front of you,
preventing you from moving forward.
That face and voice, that is...
The most immediate object that is preventing you from advancement.
Period. End of statement.
And if you think that she is, like, secretly on your side, or she secretly loves you or whatever, you really don't get it.
And even beyond that, her opinions are stupid.
You know, it's like, even, like, her, like, foreign policy is just stupid.
And so it's just like, all right, you have no redeeming qualities, actually, Anne.
I was just going to remark upon what the crux for argument is there in that segment, and it's a common one with culture, is whataboutism.
I mean, just to get back to what it was all about, right?
She said, well, you know, the flag, what about?
I mean, she literally introduces it to us.
But, um, but what's curious about the, uh, cause I know it's become something of like a meme of, you know, like the Dems are a racist sort of thing, but that, that argument, if you deconstruct it in a, I don't know,
like in like a Foucault kind of way, there, there actually is something there to, um, to, to understand, which is that she has to, in, in some way, In her presentation of this whataboutism,
she has to justify the sort of all of our hands are dirty sort of mentality of the current political discourse, right?
So by saying, well, yeah, but it was the, you know, the Democratic Party was the dominant party of the South and the Confederacy, right?
You know, I mean, what about them, right, if we're going to erase all of history?
Obviously, though, and you don't have to be like a really profound thinker to see the contradiction here, is that this is never reversed on Republicans who were, if we're going to be comparing comparable historical periods,
were the big government party.
They were the abolitionist party.
They were the elitist.
Liberal Party.
I mean, all of the major Republicans were from New England.
To some extent, the Middle West or the Midwest major military figures came out of that.
During the FDR coalition, the Plain States were Republican.
I'm going all the way back to the Civil War, even.
Correct. I mean, as recently as the Great Depression, this was the arrangement.
And these are all things that they obviously, at least purportedly, have to be against, ostensibly, is big government, elitism.
And that, I mean, if there was any political party that ever exhibited that, that was the Republican Party from the 1860s to the 1920s par excellence.
They waged a war.
You know, further these political ideals.
It wasn't practical.
So at any rate, my point is that they never turn the mirror back.
So if they're going to look at a historical period, looking at the Democratic Party, they don't do it to themselves.
But there's a reason for that.
And it's not because it's just some glaring contradiction in their thinking.
It's because to whom would you need to apologize for the Republicans' political past?
No one.
I mean, except for current Republicans.
But you wouldn't need to apologize to liberals for that.
So even when she does things like this, she is – this is actually – whenever people talk about the faults of whataboutism in debate, it's not because it's so much of a logical fallacy because it's actually kind of in a gray area between – because it's not necessarily a logical fallacy because you can follow logic and say,
well, what about?
In comparing comparable wrongs.
But what it does do, and this is why it should be avoided in discourse, is because it concedes your opponent's ethical parameters.
Exactly. You're saying, no, in fact, yes, I concede these are the parameters in which we are operating.
And that is exactly what occurs whenever she does something like this.
Surrendering the past before the battle begins.
Nothing that she says makes sense outside of the civil rights myth.
It's gobbledygook, no doubt, but it only has rhetorical power if you believe that...
You know, there was this terrible thing called segregation and MLK saved us from it and Jackie Robinson and all that.
It exists within that and makes zero sense, is like actual nonsense, like not even understandable outside of that.
So everything she says is reinforcing her enemy's ethical parameters.
Yeah, I mean, that's essentially it.
What I was going to add there at the end, though, is that it's not...
When we talk about...
This is something that started to come up on the internet, and I'm happy that it did, ultimately, is sort of framing conservatives, you know, in scare quotes, as, you know, just the liberals of, you know, 20 years ago, or, you know, however long you feel like making the time frame.
Which is correct, because that's in some ways sort of just the nature of any reactionary movement, but it's particularly poignant when it comes to the American right wing,
if you want to call it that, the Republican Party.
But people always, it's like they want to illustrate that dynamic with the most extreme.
Sort of instantiations of it.
Not to say that they're not true, but it kind of makes you gloss over a broader point, which I think is important to the dialectic, because if you just look at, say, Republican overall acceptance of Homosexuality and gay marriage rights and stuff like that.
And you say, look, just 20 years ago they were against this and now look, now they're saying this is what we're for.
We're just not for that transgender stuff.
While there's an ounce of truth to that, obviously, those glaring exceptions don't illustrate the pervasiveness of the issue because ultimately what's really...
illustrative of this dynamic is exactly the type of arguments that people like and culture make when they concede those ethical parameters, historically speaking, and engage in this sort of revisionism, especially
as selectively as they do.
Because that is precisely what prevents any sort of intellectualism from being born out of
And this is...
This is the dynamics of power.
It's not about someone looking up and seeing a certain face with a boot on their head.
It's in these little things that permeate all of discourse, and they're not going to be the glaring, obvious examples that one can point out.
They're going to be these dumb fucking things that are the fundament of the argument of someone like Ann Coulter, which may seem, even though it seems far-fetched to us, that may seem relatively
reasonable to the average...
And it's stunting.
Because not that the average listener who was going to be convinced by Ann Coulter would have been some leviathan of a greater movement somewhere along the line.
Obviously, their predilection to belief in whatever it is that she's saying would have precluded them from that.
frustrate just any sort of original discussion about anything that doesn't immediately fall back into a preconditioned set of ethical issues.
Yeah. The framework for having a discussion in the first place is just already pre-structured.
That doesn't do anything.
And it needs to be avoided where it can be and called out where it should be because, like you just said, she's actually the first obstacle.
It's not some blue-haired Black girl who's protesting whatever it is at the university.
That's not the first option.
If she even has won in the first place, it's precisely people like Anne.
Yeah, and no, it's excellent.
And to go a little bit deeper on what you're saying, Anne Coulter is why there isn't an intellectual right of any substance.
And it really is because of her and people like her.
Yeah, I'm sure, to go back to what Walt Bismarck said a little while ago, it's like, yeah, I'm sure on centrist Democrats, you also have a bunch of cynical lawyers, you know, angling for power and just reading all these polls and etc.
etc. I get it.
That's what a political party is like.
But the left also has a coherent worldview and people engaging in discussions and debates.
Within this worldview and advancing it.
And they do have that.
And that is one of the reasons why they're hegemonic.
The right doesn't have anything close to that that is active and funded and engaging in things that are actually reaching people and even trickling down to policy, etc.
We don't have that because we have people like Anne.
And I just, yeah, I have nothing more to say.
I just, I hate, I truly am a hater.
I hate women like that, or men like that, so much more than I hate like some Foucauldian, you know, laced deconstructionist at Cal Berkeley.
Because at least there's something.
There's like a discourse you can engage with, even in disagreement.
With Ann, there's no like discussion.
It's just like liberals are lying.
We're either real Democrats or whatever.
▲
Export Selection