All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 4, 2024 - RadixJournal - Richard Spencer
26:38
The Unnecessary Podcast

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit radixjournal.substack.comDid you know that there exist people who question the contemporary mythos of World War Two? While we’re at it, did you also know that bears s**t in the woods and that the moon is not, in fact, made of cheese?Tucker Carlson and “MartyrMade” Daryl Cooper’s recent X discussion endorsing WW2 Revisionism has made waves with much of the so-called “dissident” …

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
If we don't think people are important, then what do we think is important?
I guess that's what I'm saying.
It's not necessarily that we don't think people are important, but if evolution is real, and if there is this constant...
Is it real?
I don't know.
But it's visible.
Like, you can measure it in certain animals.
You can measure adaptation.
Yeah. But there's no evidence that evolution...
In fact, I think we've kind of given up on the idea of evolution.
The theory of evolution as articulated by Darwin is, like, kind of not true.
In what sense?
Well, in the most basic sense, the idea that all life emerged from a single-cell organism over time, and there would be a fossil record of that, and there's not.
There's not a fossil record of transitionary species, like species that are adapting to its environment?
There's tons of record of adaptation, and you see it in your own life.
I mean, I have a lot of dogs.
I see adaptation in dogs, you know, through the litter to litter.
No, there's no evidence at all that, none, zero, that people evolve seamlessly from a single-cell amoeba.
No, there's not.
There's no chain in the fossil record of that at all.
And that's why you don't actually hear people, you hear them make reference to evolution, because the theory of adaptation is clearly obviously true.
But Darwin's theory is totally, that's why it's still a theory.
This is so damaging.
Yeah, it's incredible just how far Tucker Carlson has degenerated over the past few years.
Because there was a time when he was on Fox News when one could make an argument that he was actually changing some paradigm and mentioning the Great Replacement on Fox News.
But now he's just engaged in, as Vince Dow says, he's interviewing the Tate brothers and Kevin Spacey.
And he's just coming now to World War II revisionism, which I saw you tweet about, and acting like it's this brand new thing that he's just discovered.
World War II was a war on us Catholics.
Well, that's like Candace Oates.
Yeah, but I guess this is what I was going to say.
I'm ambivalent about the whole phenomenon, and there are multiple layers to it, but...
The type of thinking exemplified just in this clip, which has this version of it, has been viewed 750,000 times.
And I'm sure it's the actual people who are affected by it are in the millions.
It's so damaging that it makes everything else wash away.
I can be forgiving or, like, everyone has weird, wrong opinions or whatever, but, like, this is so bad that it just makes me reject every single thing about him.
Right. Like, if someone had come out and said, I don't think we come from monkeys, you could say, eh, maybe not.
That's not a big deal.
But he's coming out and smugly saying, oh, Darwin, he was like this evil liar.
No one believes this anymore.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
That is actually, I'm actually so angry about the smugness now.
It's like boiling inside of me.
Because even if you disagree with this theory, like Darwin was this explorer who went on a weak wooden little boat and sailed out to the edge of the world.
And after years of examining thousands of animals, he wrote a book about his theories.
I don't know why he's like, well, the theory of adaption is obvious.
We all know.
I mean, that is Darwin.
Exactly. That is what he brought to the world, fundamentally.
That was the breakthrough.
And so it's like, no one trusts Darwin anymore while you're asserting this thing that was his breakthrough thesis that was rejected by much of the world.
Yeah, the Tucker Carlson's of the world rejected it vehemently.
And the fact that you're just like, oh, we all know this now.
It's just, it is, I don't know, it's just, it's like fucking immoral.
It triggers me.
It really fucking bothers me when people think like this.
Yeah, and the fact that he says things that are this insane just kind of, like you said, delegitimizes everything else that he's ever said, including the, as the Explore tab says on the right, Tucker Carlson platforms.
Well, I was thinking about watching this.
So I took a walk.
Yes, it's so funny.
Whenever I talk about this stuff, I was like, I walked the dog.
I walked into town to get lunch.
But, you know, I do have my headphones on often, and I try to multitask, get a little exercise.
While I ran a mile, I did a hard mile run on the track while listening to the...
Red Sox.
Blowing it once again.
So sad.
So sad.
Terrible. These are horrible, horrible people.
Horrible, horrible people.
But I mean, yeah, when you take a walk through the Garden of Life, some truths become so obvious.
Yeah. But when I walked into town...
I got into about 35 minutes of Tucker Carlson's interview with Martyr Maid, who's this guy who I've never done anything to him, but he clearly hates me.
The few times I've jabbed at him, he has responded with utter vehemence.
So it's interesting.
He, I think, came onto the scene.
For doing this sort of explainer.
Let me actually just play this.
I think I've had discussions with enough boomer-tier Trump supporters who believe the 2020 election was fraudulent to extract a general theory about their perspective.
Okay, so he's just talking to a bunch of boomers, and he's going to explain them to us.
Most believe...
Some or all of the theories involving midnight ballots, voting machines.
But what you find when you talk to them is that while they'll defend those positions with info they got from Hannity or Breitbart or whatever, they're not particularly attached to them.
I think that's true.
Here are the facts, actual confirmed facts that shape their perspective.
The FBI spied on the 2016 election.
Okay, these are Tea Party people, the types who give their kids a pocket constitution for their birthday and have founding father memes in their bios.
They're just so good.
The intel community spying on a presidential campaign using fake evidence is a big deal to them.
These guys care about the country more than most.
Everyone involved lied about their involvement as long as they could.
This was true with everyone from CIA director.
I don't know.
Should the intelligence agencies not investigate someone with ties to Russia who's becoming president?
That's going against the secret.
If they're patriots who give their children pocket constitutions, I mean, I guess not.
Yeah. We know as a fact the Steele dossier was the sole evidence used to justify spying in the Trump campaign.
The FBI knew the Steele dossier was a DNC op.
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
I'm not positive that the Steele dossier is wrong.
I think it's probably mostly correct, to be frank.
Like, how dare you question Trump's patriotism?
Okay, they could have managed the shock if it only involved the government, but the behavior of the corporate press is really what radicalized them.
Oh my god, the media might be in on it too.
That's just radicalizing me to believe more stupid conspiracy theories.
I don't know.
I don't want to go through the whole thing.
It's just...
Or it's like the people who are like, oh, look, the Lancet is using gender-neutral pronouns or using the birthing person term in its papers.
So like, what else are they lying about?
Evolution? You know, it's just this non-fucking sequitur.
My frenemy, Leah McElroy, this thread is filled with lies.
Okay, it's true.
It's not even lies.
It's filled with half-truths is the problem.
Half-truths are worse than lies.
That's the thing.
All right.
So this is seven minutes.
Let's read a little bit of it.
in which he tried to explain why so many Trump voters believed the last election was rigged.
Really smart.
He crystallized it.
We'd like to read some of it now.
-So smart.
-Here are the facts, actual confirmed facts that shaped the perspective of Trump voters.
The FBI spied on the 2016 Trump campaign using evidence manufactured by the Clinton campaign.
We now know that all involved knew it was fake from day one.
The voters this was aimed at are Tea Party people, the type who give their kids a pocket constitution for their birthday and have founding fathers' memes in their bios.
The intel community spying on a presidential campaign using fake evidence, including forged documents, is a big deal to them.
Trump supporters know the collusion case front and back.
They went from worrying the collusion must be real, to suspecting it might be fake, to realizing it was a scam.
And then watched as every institution, the intel agencies, the press, Congress.
Notice also how they, he's always giving the benefit of the doubt to like boomer tear gons.
They're like, I'm really worried about the Russia collusion thing, but now I realize that it was like, no.
No. That was not their response.
Yeah, and people who had Founding Fathers memes in their Twitter bios, maybe they should be shot.
Yeah. Just made into chicken bake.
Long pork.
And fed to the Costco family, yeah.
Or work on the Kirkland plantations.
Gaslit them for another year.
Worse, collusion was used to scare away good people from working in the Trump administration.
They knew their entire lives would be investigated.
Many quit because they were being bankrupted by legal fees.
The DOJ, the press, and the government destroyed lives and actively subverted an elected administration.
This is where people whose political identity was largely defined by a naive belief in what they learned in civics class began to see the outline of a regime that had crossed all institutional boundaries.
That regime stepped out of the shadows to unite against an interloper, Donald Trump.
A lot of Trump supporters understand this regime is not partisan.
They know that the same institutions would have taken opposite sides if it was a Tulsi Gabbard versus Jeb Bush election.
It's hard to describe to people on the left how shocking and- That's fascinating knowing what Tulsi- where Tulsi is now.
I mean- I think he is saying that the Republicans would have- Trump supporters would have supported Tulsi Gabbard rather than support Jeb Bush.
Oh, that's what he's saying.
Yeah. Yeah.
They're the good ones.
Yeah. One of the good ones.
Yeah. Yeah.
This was for conservatives, people who encourage their sons to enlist in the army and hate those who don't stand for the anthem.
They could have managed the shock if it only involved the government.
But the behavior of the corporate press is what really radicalized them.
They hate journalists more than they hate any politician or government official because they feel most betrayed by them.
The idea that the press is driven by ratings and sensationalism became untenable.
If that were true, they'd be all over the Epstein story.
But they're not.
The corporate press is the propaganda arm of the regime.
Nothing anyone says will ever make them unsee that.
Period. This is profoundly disorienting.
They feel betrayed by the New York Times.
They're just dying to believe the New York Times.
It's just...
What do you think it is with these people?
They're just so terrified of offending their boomer uncle.
Basically. I just...
Their boomer uncle writes the checks.
Yeah, their boomer uncle writes the checks or their boomer uncle is going to elect their base Trump officials.
Their base Trump to office.
So they gotta...
Yeah, they can't piss him off.
Oh. It's unbelievable, yeah.
The Epstein story.
But they're not.
They're not talking about that.
They're only for ratings, no.
Let me...
So I listened to...
I think I got into the World War II discussion.
We can go to one of these things and see what he's talking about.
This is my impression after listening to 30 minutes of it on a walk.
And I tweeted this last night.
The weird thing about conservatives is that they're 20 years behind And then they rehearse or redo something that other people did at a point where it was, in fact, dangerous and relevant.
And then they proceed to believe or at least tell you that they were the first one to do it and then pat themselves on the back for doing it.
I was hoping you were going to get to that because he acted in this interview like he invented...
World War II revisionism.
He's the first guy to have a nuanced view of the Holocaust.
Or anything about the Second World War, not just the Holocaust.
It's just absurd.
I was listening to Daryl Kobe.
He seemed to be some sort of DOJ contractor.
And, I mean, you can claim that he's a Fed or he's whatever.
Maybe that's true.
I don't know.
I mean, I'll just examine what he says directly.
But he did this thing on the Israeli-Palestinian question, and he starts bragging about reading secondary literature.
He was like, at first I just read two books, and then I must have read 60 books on...
Okay. Reading a bunch of secondary literature, I mean, that is fine.
And that's not history.
I mean, if you want to offer your own interpretation of something, that's great.
But that's not...
Ronchian history, exactly.
Secondary literature is, of course, a history of the conflict or someone's article or whatever.
You're reading someone's interpretation of it.
Actual history writing is going to an archive or going to an archaeological dig or talking to someone directly or something.
So I'm not terribly impressed that you read a bunch of books.
And then you want to say, oh, I want to give this nuanced view of both sides and put myself in their shoes.
Yeah, dude, this is what everyone has been doing before Ronka.
This is just not new.
And the fact that you're discovering this is kind of precious.
It's like...
It's like literally a child rolling a can and thinking that it invented the wheel.
I mean, it's like truly pathetic.
I listened to about 30 minutes, this is a while ago, of the Israel-Palestine, and I put it down because I found it just bizarre.
It was like him in this voice, like, imagine you're a Jew living in Europe and they've killed your family and they're attacking you.
It was just this sort of sentimental garbage.
I don't know.
Perhaps I did not give it the requisite amount of time, and I just felt like I didn't...
I don't want to waste any more time on this stuff.
There are better historians working on this, most of which are left-wing historians, to be honest.
And I just was not terribly impressed by it.
Perhaps I should give it another look.
And then he talked about the Jonestown cult.
So it's a fascinating thing.
And he's like, did you know that most of the victims were black?
And did you know that it was this left-wing group?
It wasn't like a Christian fundamentalist, only a Christian fundamentalist.
It was actually a left-wing.
And it's like, yeah, I actually did know that.
That's not new information.
And maybe it's something you could bring to the fore to talk to people.
But this idea that...
Books have not been written on this subject is just absurd.
And he supposedly listened to all of the files from Jim Jones' sermons.
Okay, that's great.
That is doing history.
But what are you doing?
You're either uncovering new material.
So this material is in the public domain.
That's not anything.
You're either uncovering new material.
In order to advance our understanding of facts, or you are offering a new interpretation.
But if you're not doing either of those things, you're sort of entertaining people, and that is totally fine.
Totally fine.
Maybe we need more of that.
But don't claim that this is somehow brave or new.
Or like, no one's willing to do this or something.
I mean, it's like they're so sheltered and ignorant conservatives that they, again, it's like they roll a can across the ground and they think they've invented the wheel.
I mean, it is like truly pathetic, if maybe a little bit precious, how sheltered they are.
But that's actually a charitable reading.
I think they know that other people have done this work, and they're just trying to go and take credit and signal to everyone how brave they are that they're the only one willing to engage in World War II revisionism.
Ever heard of AJP Taylor?
You know, Martyr Maid?
Ever heard of that guy?
I mean, even Niall Ferguson, who I believe...
He worked mostly with secondary literature.
He wrote a revisionist history of World War I 30 years ago in terms of the causes of the war.
He actually blamed Britain.
It caused a bit of a scandal.
David Irving?
Never heard of that guy.
Then there are more controversial figures.
David Irving.
I'm sure he would spit David Irving's name.
He would call him a terrible anti-Semite.
Yes. While he basically is going to say a half-baked version of what David Irving said.
How about Pap Buchanan?
Did he mention Pap Buchanan?
No. No.
He would never have the integrity to go and do the research the way that David Irving would.
David Irving went to a bunch of archives.
And David Irving traveled the world acquiring documents.
From what I can tell, examined the document skeptically.
Who wrote this?
Who published it?
Is it reliable?
Do they have an interest in saying this?
I just can't even with these people.
The best you could say about them is that they're highly naive.
And the worst you can say about them is that they're actually kind of malevolent.
In the sense that...
I mean, it's this thing that I've talked about a while where it's like these conservatives have now discovered race realism and they're going to be like, oh, look, why are so many people...
Why did no one talk about this?
Why am I the only one talking about this?
We need to start talking about it.
And it's like...
People have been doing this for a century, and more obviously, people have been doing this for the last 30 years.
You give them zero credit, and you pretend that they don't exist, and then you offer this half-baked version of what they did.
It's just infuriating.
It's a lot like Candace Owens is doing right now also.
Yeah. It is a conservative mentality.
They are a race of midwits who act like this.
And there's no getting around it.
This is another thing that I would say because one guy who's been a kind of conversation partner and critic, I remember Xbox Live responded.
He was like, well, isn't it sort of good that they're finally giving this to the normies and things like that?
And I guess you could say, It's somewhat good.
But, you know, I'm ambivalent about this whole phenomenon.
But this is what I would say.
You know, when the rubber hit the road, and I'll go back to my dear friend Ann Coulter, when the rubber hit the road with Ann Coulter, when she was at a point where what she was saying mattered, what she was saying was hyper-relevant and inconsequential,
She never talked about immigration.
She talked about maybe Muslims immigrating here, and they're going to come and blow up your dog or something.
She blew her wad on supporting the Iraq war.
And once the impact of immigration has been baked into the cake, Someone like Ann Coulter is like, we've got to stop immigration or we won't have a country.
And it's like, you realize this is over.
You realize that even if you halted all immigration, the white majority is done.
If you halted immigration, you might put it off by 20 years or maybe even less.
So you're...
Once something is in a way no longer relevant, you retreat into that space and then talk about how consequential it is.
And I would argue that World War II, it's always worthwhile talking about this, the most deadly conflict in human history.
But World War II is actually much, much less relevant now than it has ever been.
When, after Schindler's List was released in, say, 1994 or thereabouts, and then Saving Private Ryan some five years later, and leading into the Bush administration, the direct callbacks to Nazis and the Second World War and another Munich and all this stuff that occurred in the W administration.
That was a time in which World War II revisionism Would have been consequential.
You might have been fired for doing it, in fact.
Fast forward to 2024.
30 years after, say, Schindler's List or 25 years after Saving Private Ryan, just using the movies as a metric for understanding the popular imagination.
20 years after the Iraq War debate.
It's just a lot less relevant.
And so you're, like, retreating into this safe zone where you can be edgy.
You know, like, no one's gonna get fired for, like, Egyptian pyramid revisionism.
You know, like, all of that is very interesting and curious and worth talking about and whatever, but it's not relevant.
I mean, it's worth doing, but you're not really impacting the world.
And I just feel like conservatives do this.
It's like once something has been resolved and is no longer an issue, they kind of go back into that safe merely academic zone and start having these controversial opinions, knowing that it's never going to really affect anything.
So I don't...
I don't even want to be attacking them like this.
I do this sort of reluctantly, but I just...
▲
Export Selection