Paul Joseph Watson defends his libertarian "conservatarian" stance against accusations of promoting conspiracy theories, arguing that platforms like InfoWars protect free speech while social justice warriors incite physical violence against figures like Donald Trump. He critiques the 2016 establishment's support for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and labels Black Lives Matter a hate group inspired by Assata Shakur. Furthermore, Watson claims the European migrant crisis in Germany and Sweden fuels unrest due to cultural incompatibility and accuses leaders of virtue signaling regarding Holocaust guilt to justify importing populations he fears will impose Sharia law, concluding that honest discourse is essential to counter media censorship. [Automatically generated summary]
I think you've probably already got some hate just for announcing that I'm gonna be on.
I mean, there's a lot of people who have some kind of butthurt over, you know, InfoWars and Alex Jones.
They think it's, you know, just conspiracy central, but most people don't realize that, you know, Alex is not this big main controlling force that is, like, dictating what everybody says.
He pretty much gives me free reign to talk about whatever I want, and that's what's good about InfoWars.
It's a very broad church.
So you've got, you know, numerous writers, commentators who work with him for Wars, and they can basically talk about and write about whatever they want.
So as far as I'm concerned, that's the best job imaginable.
So I think people need to get over it and move on because the issues that we're talking about Supercede any perception about what Info Wars is about, what people think it's about.
So, you know, I just want people to listen to what I've got to say and concentrate on the issues rather than, you know, what website it's hosted on.
I mean, I know there's this perception out there that, you know, Infowars is discredited or whatever, but I mean, we're breaking stuff every day.
We're linked on the Drudge Report.
You know, we've got 20 million listeners a week now for the radio show, so whether you like us or not, we're a presence and, you know, that's why some people have a problem with it.
But as I said, just concentrate on the issues of what I'm saying.
And in fact, my YouTube channel explores these kind of issues off on a tangent from the normal content that InfoWars would cover.
So I've kind of attracted a new satellite audience outside of InfoWars, so it's all about
bringing new people in, and that's what I've attempted to do.
Yeah, I'm curious, were you trepidatious to join forces with him?
Because obviously it was a good opportunity, it's saying that it's worked for you, but because of what I said before about I just send one tweet out and people start yelling at me, you must have had some level of concern, right?
So where do you actually consider yourself politically?
I think I have a good sense.
And one of the things we've been talking about here is sort of this new growing center, people who really want to stand up for free speech and civil liberties, but also understand that we have real threats and that this immigration issue in Europe
is a big problem.
They wanna be able to honestly talk about Islamism.
So the old dynamic of right, left, Democrat, conservative for us in the States, it all seems to be crumbling.
So I'm curious, what do you even consider yourself if you had to go with the label?
You know, our politics have gotten so crazy between a Democratic Socialist who's the hot guy on the left and Trump who's sort of off the rails but confused.
To some extent, yeah, but I mean, in the UK it's still extremely left-wing.
I mean, even the Tory party isn't classically conservative.
They're somewhat left on a lot of issues, so most people don't even know what a libertarian is in the UK, to be honest.
Only people who are really politically active will know what that actually means, so I think America is streets ahead in the sense of actually understanding that there is a political alternative Outside of progressivism, which is still what dominates the entire discourse in the UK.
I mean, people will think you're racist or a bigot if you're not a progressive, especially as a young person.
So the circles in which I move, there's very little understanding about what these labels even mean, which is why I try to concentrate on the issues without, you know, coming at it from a left or right persuasion.
I mean, there's still some debate within libertarian circles about certain issues like abortion or like open borders.
I mean, some libertarians think that to be truly classically libertarian, you have to advocate open borders.
Other people say, well, no, that's the government foisting open borders upon the people, you know, taking their tax money to pay for it.
But I mean, within the UK, As far as I'm concerned, in my experience, these labels aren't even known.
They're not even defined.
So when you describe yourself as a libertarian, people have no frame of reference.
So they think if you're not a liberal, then you must be on some obscure fringe of the political spectrum.
But, you know, I guess the understanding is growing, especially With the backlash against social justice warriors, which has really accelerated in the past 18 months.
So now these issues are beginning to be brought to the fore.
Now people are beginning to understand that libertarianism is a backlash against authoritarianism, which of course is embodied by this third wave feminist social justice warrior movement.
Yeah, I think the problem with libertarianism is they're not on the frontier of political discourse.
So when you get major issues that crop up in the news media, obviously as somebody who's politically active, you have to seize upon them and tell your story and try and control, change that narrative as best you see fit.
But libertarians tend to get stuck in the weeds.
You know, they're always arguing with each other about these minutiae issues, and they're not really on the frontier of the cultural discourse, which is more, you know, now the domain of of conservatarians and people who oppose social justice warriors.
So I think in America, the libertarian movement is still so stuck in the weeds and arguing, you know, minutiae between themselves.
That they're not really a robust force as they could be.
I think that's one reason in which they could improve by, you know, hijacking these key issues, these core issues like the migrant crisis.
And they're not doing that.
They're debating with each other over, you know, what minarchism is and whether we should have no government or limited government and They have speeches and three-hour YouTube conversations about that, and they're not really reaching anyone outside their inner circle.
So I think that's how, you know, libertarianism needs to improve in that way.
Right, so I guess the silver lining to all of this is that because of the social justice warrior thing, and now we can get into some of these issues, is they're starting to push people into this idea of libertarianism, which is nice.
So let's go to the social justice warrior stuff.
You are not a fan of the social justice warrior movement, to put it mildly.
When did you wake up to it?
When did you really see it as a threat to free speech?
Yeah, it's interesting because I had very similar probably around the same time awakening about this,
because it was a lot on Twitter, right?
Because you're seeing this stuff on Twitter and you see the, you know, the stuff from Tumblr that makes its way over and all these people fighting about this stuff.
Then we hear about the trigger warnings and the safe spaces and all this stuff.
But I could never really figure out how much of this just existed For people behind computers, but basically what you're saying is that there's been a, this has been a long time coming and that's what sort of has seeped into the university space, right?
I mean, you've seen the Bernie Sanders people and we're going to get into the whole Trump thing later, but we've sent our reporters out to Wisconsin this past week, for example, and you know, it's not just Bernie Sanders supporters, it's leftists in general.
They're the most vile, hateful people you could ever wish to meet.
I mean, the sheer hatred that they give you radiates from their eyes when you so much as disagree with them is palpable.
And now they're out there, they're shutting down these private functions, these Donald Trump events.
which whether you agree with Trump or not, that's not your free speech, First Amendment right to
shut down a private function. You're impinging on other people's First Amendment by doing that.
And these people wave signs saying, you know, oppose hatred, oppose bigotry.
They're the most hateful people you could imagine.
So that's what I see now, the translation from Twitter.
Now they're getting out on the streets.
Of course, we've seen that with Black Lives Matter.
That metastasized into a similar hateful, violent movement, and we might get into that later.
But yeah, it's manifesting physically now, and it's why people are worried about civil unrest and riots, quite frankly, because these people are prone to violence, and they're very hateful people.
So one of the things that I've been saying is I can't believe we're at a place in 2016 in America where I fear that it will be us ourselves, the citizens, who will take away our right to free speech more than the government.
So, in other words, it's not a First Amendment issue in these people protests because it's not the government doing it.
But we do have a certain social contract that you have to let people speak and then you can use your speech to counteract it.
But basically you're saying by blocking roads and by stopping people from speaking, that's where it becomes a free speech issue, not necessarily a First Amendment issue, right?
No, I've got no problem with people being out on the streets protesting.
I mean, that's their right.
It's when they actually go into Donald Trump events in private buildings where they've paid to hire this building, and they get the event in Chicago cancelled, for example.
That's impinging on other people's rights to peaceably assemble, exercise their First Amendment, and just listen to somebody's speech.
But I mean, as you touched on before, it's this whole idea of You know, before the power was in the media, and we're going to talk about the media later, now it's kind of divested back into the hands of...
People.
It's people power, but it's people power gone mad.
So now you have organized groups of people who go out to publicly shame others, to get them fired, to censor content from the internet.
And that's how Twitter in one sense empowered the people, but it gave that power to these perpetually outraged mobs.
And that's what woke me up to the social justice warrior issue.
Because as you said, the concern for me a few years ago was the state, the government impinging on
our free speech rights.
Now it's perpetually, professionally outraged mobs impinging on our free speech rights.
I think that's the bigger danger right now in 2016 in comparison to anything that the
I can't even think of an example right now in America where the state is holding the First Amendment hostage.
I can't find one instance where you can't say whatever you want about the government or about government officials or anything like that.
But I can see many instances where the mob and the online mob, and they'll try to stop your Patreon funding if you're a YouTuber, or they'll try to figure out other ways to have you fired or shamed or whatever else.
Do you think that these people, like, for example, when Trump was doing the rally in Arizona and they blocked the road in Arizona, do you think that they thought that they were helping their cause?
Because I get it that not all of these people are thinking all their moves through properly, and they're going, ah, we're going to stop them from showing up, and that's all good.
But to me, all they really do is strengthen Trump, because then, look, nobody that didn't get there is suddenly not going to vote for Trump.
It makes them want to vote for Trump more.
And everyone watching it on the news is going, wow, who's being oppressed here?
No, I mean, I don't know if they've got any idea of how ridiculous they look.
But they've got this media narrative backing them up, which is that Trump is inciting violence.
And this is something that I've been hot on.
Again, I don't agree with Trump on everything.
I'm not a vehement Trump supporter.
But if you go on Twitter on any single day and search for assassinate Trump or kill Trump, You will find hundreds and hundreds of examples, and obviously most people don't mean it, they're not going to do anything, but they're threatening to assassinate Trump.
And yet the whole media narrative is about how Trump supporters are violent, about how Trump himself is inciting violence.
There's a rap video on YouTube right now.
And we complain about, you know, Twitter censoring conservatives for having the wrong political opinion.
There's a guy who's still on Twitter.
His account hasn't been touched by the Trust and Safety Council.
He's got a YouTube video which calls for caving Trump's head in with a shovel, shooting him with an AK-47, filling him full of bullets.
It's not even age-restricted on YouTube.
I mean, I've had videos age-restricted for swear words.
And the media came out afterwards, and this is a rap video out of, I think it's out of Baltimore, and Billboard.com celebrated it as, quote, a powerful protest song.
This is a group of young men in a rap video threatening to kill Donald Trump.
Imagine if, you know, the Oregon militia or whoever had come out with a video threatening to assassinate Hillary Clinton.
Do you think the media would be celebrating it as a powerful protest song?
So it's that double standard.
They're given left media cover because we've got this narrative that Trump's inciting violence, when again, they're the most hateful, violent people out there.
Well, it's so fascinating, because as you've repeated several times now, you're not even a huge Trump supporter, and yet you are put in a position where you have to defend some of these ideals.
I'm not a Trump supporter, and I feel the same way.
If I want to stand up for the ideals that I stand for, I have to call this nonsense out.
Because apparently no one in the media will do it.
You know, there's another great example of that.
Did you see a couple weeks ago when that guy tried to bum-rush Trump on stage?
And then the next night, he was on CNN and all the news channels, and they were treating him as if he was some legit voice of counter-protest.
But meanwhile, he was trying to attack a presidential candidate, whether you like Trump or not, right?
So this is fully the fault of the media here, right?
If a right-winger tried to attack Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, he wouldn't be on CNN the next day being given a complimentary welcoming platform.
Yeah, well, I think it's slapping them in the face right now.
So how much of this do you think is establishment politicians and just the establishment on both the Democrats and the Republicans in bed with the media that they've all gotten so fat for so long that they've all just asked Terrible questions and no good follow-ups, and they've all just been in this game for so long that their fear of Trump is that he's gonna leave a lot of these guys without a job, a lot of these pundits on TV, and all these people who have professionally gotten everything wrong for years, but they've had a gig, and a lot of these people, I think, think, whoa, I'm not gonna have a gig if Trump gets in, so they're protecting their own asses more than anything else.
I mean, the other part of it is, you know, Trump is self-funded.
He's a maverick.
He might be a rich, bigoted buffoon, but he's unpredictable.
And the elite, the establishment, the political establishment is used to having not one, but two candidates in every single presidential race that they control.
I mean, you go back to 2004, you know, Bush and Kerry, both skull and bones members.
That's, you know, that's business as usual for the political elite.
Somebody like Trump comes along, he's a loose cannon.
He's unpredictable.
They don't know what he's going to do.
I think if he got in power, he would immediately start, you know, moderating his rhetoric or whatever.
But they're scared stiff because it's simply an unknown quantity.
And as you said, a lot of, you know, people in the establishment who have relied on this status quo for so long, for decades, People are now petrified because, you know, he's come along and upturned the apple cart.
So do you view this all as just a big negotiating ploy with him?
Because, you know, I was seeing this week he made this comment that, you know, maybe Japan should have nukes and everyone was saying, well, then he's going to start a nuclear arms race.
But what he really was saying was either Japan should be able to defend itself with nukes because North Korea is there and China and everything else.
Or they should pay us to defend them, meaning pay the United States, because we basically have agreements that we defend them militarily.
So it's not that crazy of a proposal that we should be paid, you know, if you're a celebrity, you pay your bodyguard, right?
So do you think a lot of this is that he just throws this stuff out there, then gets misquoted, you know what I mean, the media runs with it, ah, he wants to start a nuclear arms race, and then people, it even strengthens him more, because then people go, wait a minute, that wasn't that crazy of a proposal.
So if you want to talk, I mean, there's all this rhetoric about, you know, Trump's the world's going to explode the day Trump gets into office because he's so crazy and out of control.
If you actually look at his prior record and what he's advocating in terms of America's military role in the world, it's the most peaceful Definitely out of all the GOP candidates and definitely over and above Hillary Clinton who voted for the Iraq war.
You know, it's funny, I was at a very liberal, progressive LA party this weekend and people were freaking out over Trump.
And I kept trying to say to them, guys, if you fear Trump, if you're a liberal or a progressive or anyone on the left, you should fear Ted Cruz far more than you fear Donald Trump.
But I couldn't get people to quite understand why, and I'm sort of amazed by that.
And if you actually listen to Trump's speeches, which, you know, he rambles on for an hour or so, but if you actually listen to most of them, most of his speeches are devoted to things like trade deals.
I mean, this is why people are voting for him.
It's a reaction You know, to the lost jobs, to the ruined towns in middle America because of NAFTA, because of these trade deals that have screwed them over.
If you map his supporters, it correlates almost directly with deindustrialization and despair.
These areas of America that have been completely abandoned, completely left to rot.
these trade deals that have resulted in the great sucking sound of these jobs
leaving america so you know what she speeches they a liberal a progressive
will never watch his speeches
it's not mainly about building the wall it's not mainly about banning muslims
it's mainly about trade and that's why he has a lot of support amongst blue collar
workers because people's jobs have been shipped abroad
and that's your race about it and that's mainly a left-wing position
to be complaining about that has been in the past so that's interesting that most liberals just aren't aware
of the main body of his actual speech and why people are
And if you look at the lines of people going to these Trump events, which again, we've had reports in Wisconsin this week, you know, a lot of Asian Americans, quite a few black people.
In fact, back when Rubio was in the race, Trump had more than double the support from Muslim Americans than every other GOP candidate combined.
He's set to break records for black voter support for a Republican candidate.
So again, this narrative that it's just about bigotry and racism is just surface crap.
You delve a little bit below, and you have to understand the wider phenomenon,
why he has this support.
This is about a complete political revolution.
This is about an overthrow of the status quo.
Americans are sick of it, and now finally, they're putting their vote behind it,
I want to back up to something you said about Hillary.
So Hillary in your eyes, because of obviously all the connections between her husband and the establishment connections that she's been involved in this forever, from being a First Lady to a Senator, Secretary of State and all that, she's absolutely who the establishment wants, right?
I mean, I went to Bilderberg in... It was Denmark in 2014, Austria 2015, and even back then we got the inside leak from the Bilderberg group meeting, which is this...
Conference of 120 influential bankers, politicians, academics.
And even back then, they had come together and said, Hillary's our pick for 2016.
We're going to try and defund all her competition.
So years back, Hillary was their pick.
I mean, in 2008, she took the fall for Obama, and that was decided at a meeting in Chantilly.
So where does this put Sanders in your mind?
where the Bilderberg meeting was taking place back in 2018.
So yeah, Hillary's been a shoe in for a long time now for the elite.
I can't bring myself to agree with somebody who says that bread lines aren't necessarily a bad thing.
I mean, this idea that Bernie Sanders supporters, if he loses to Hillary, which looks like it's almost certainly going to happen, are then going to go and vote for Trump because he's the other anti-establishment option.
I just don't buy that.
Because for the very reason you just said, they absolutely hate each other.
I don't think many of Bernie Sanders supporters really jive with his anti-establishment cred.
I think they jive more with this extreme left-wing social justice warrior, pro-socialist, pro-massive welfare state position, which I can't bring myself to agree with.
But just from the behavior of his supporters over the past couple of months has really turned me off to anything that Bernie Sanders stands for, unfortunately.
I don't know that I've ever felt this way about a candidate, and I don't even know that I could have made this up, but I like him more than I like the reasons that people are supporting him.
I think, and this is what I was telling Milo Yiannopoulos a couple weeks ago, I think he himself is a decent guy, whether I disagree with him or not, but the underpinnings of what he's bringing I think a really dangerous and that's what I fear and that's a strange place to feel about a candidate when you like them but you don't like what they're sort of bringing along with them.
I don't know that I've ever felt that way before about somebody.
Right, so with the Sanders people, my sense is that a lot of them really want to just burn the system down.
And that's sort of why I can't get behind them.
Because yeah, we have a lot of problems in America.
We've done bad things internationally.
There's too much money in politics.
We need a fairer economic system.
All kinds of stuff that I can get on board with the ideas of what he says.
But there's still something pretty good here in America.
And I think we forget that as Americans.
And that's what I fear is that these people want to actually burn the system down.
And I'm afraid if you burn it down, what rises out of those ashes is not going to be any better, or at least the chances of it being any better are not very good.
Well, when his supporters are carrying around hammer and sickle communist flags and talking about a socialist revolution, I mean, that gives me the jitters.
I mean, you can look at Sanders personally, you know, he didn't have a job until he was 40 years old.
He was basically a bum living on the floors of other people's apartments.
So his personal lifestyle kind of turns me off towards him as well.
But as you said, the kind of things his supporters advocate are, in many cases, a lot worse than what he's advocating.
So they want to tear the system down, but they basically want to replace it with outright communism, a lot of them.
And again, it goes back to this, you know, Resist capitalism hashtag that was on Twitter a couple of months ago.
These people are, you know, they're probably aged, what, 20 to 30.
They've got no idea whatsoever of the absolute horror that communism has wrought on the world over the last 50, 60 years.
And we keep having to, you know, have that debate over and over again of why communism is bad and why leaving people to their own devices and building a free market economy is good.
Because there's this fundamental ignorance surrounding capitalism.
People think that the system of capitalism we've got now is free market capitalism.
It isn't.
It's corporatism.
It's crony capitalism.
But they think that that's free market capitalism, which is why they go to the extreme other end of the equation and think that communism is the solution.
When history has proven that it's not, we keep having to recycle that argument over and over again.
So instead of detangling some of the crony capitalism and some of the Wall Street money and all that stuff, which he talks about, which is extremely legit, they go, we're going to burn the whole thing down.
We're going to become communists, which is crazy.
All right, so a lot of the Bernie support is obviously mixed with the Black Lives Matter support.
And, you know, one of the things I've been saying about the Black Lives Matter movement is their intentions are good and somehow what's happened to the movement seems to have been hijacked or derailed by, I think, what you would call far leftists.
Do you agree with that or do you think the movement was always that way?
Well, I mean, back in 2013, 2014, myself and InfoWars were on the forefront of exposing police brutality.
I mean, probably 25% of my content every day was about police brutality.
Now that that whole narrative has been hijacked by Black Lives Matter, It makes you less enthusiastic to actually talk about police brutality.
The effect that they've had, and the polls show this, is massive support for police departments across the United States because the tactics that they engage in are so divisive and turn ordinary Americans off to such a degree that now a lot of people simply would immediately support the police, even in a flagrant case of police brutality.
So, You know, you have to go back to the founding of Black Lives Matter.
Obviously, a lot of well-meaning people jumped on board in the first six months or so.
But the inspiration behind Black Lives Matter, and this is the woman that the three female founders of that embryonic group said was their inspiration, was a woman named Assata Shakur.
Now she's on the FBI's most wanted terrorist list because she killed a cop in New Jersey back in the 70s and then fled to Cuba.
This is a woman who, you know, Black Lives Matter activists, they invoke her name at nearly every rally.
She's a domestic terrorist who left the Black Panther Party because it wasn't violent enough.
She joined the Black Liberation Army.
You know, this was another domestic terror group that was involved in bombings and assassinations, killing police officers.
So when you have that kind of guru, that inspiration behind a movement, obviously it's going to tend towards violence.
You had Black Lives Matter protesters in New York walking down the street chanting, what do we want?
Dead cops.
When do we want them now?
That's only going to turn people away from your movement.
So it's not an inclusive movement.
It's been a divisive movement since almost the beginning, since just after the first Ferguson protests.
And it's only got worse as it's been hijacked by all these opportunists and operatives.
Yeah, so for you, as you said, you guys were ahead on this stuff, and I remember seeing a lot of videos that you guys were doing where you were talking about police brutality before it had really bubbled up into the mainstream news.
So it must be extremely depressing for you as someone that is in this and you talk about this.
You understand that there was something good here, and as you just laid out, that it has been derailed.
How do you get it back?
Back to that, is it too late?
Is the wave already gone to get it back to what was right?
Well, when the entire movement, you know, BLM, was founded on this Michael Brown case, the whole hands-up-don't-shoot myth, and the media peddled that for, what, six months or more?
The autopsy, of course, it turned out that was complete BS.
He never had his hands up.
So they base all their grievances on these completely fraudulent cases.
And then you have a case like Eric Garner, Which was a, you know, a legitimate act of police brutality, which, you know, we supported the victim in that case.
But they tend to base all their grievances on these ridiculous cases that are obviously justified use of force by the police.
So it's difficult to see how we're going to get back to a rational conversation about it.
When these people are, you know, invoking the inspiration, the guru of a domestic terrorist, they're chanting for dead cops.
You know, you had people plan to bomb the Ferguson police station.
You had the cops that were killed in New York as part of a Black Lives Matter revenge attack by Ishmael Brinsley.
So when it attracts those kind of extremists, I mean, at this point, I call it a domestic hate group.
If this was a bunch of white Oregon militia members who were, you know, chanting for black cops to be killed or black people to be killed, Who some of them were actually planning to do that and whose ideological inspiration was Timothy McVeigh, for example.
The media wouldn't get behind that.
But we've seen elements of the media get behind Black Lives Matter.
We've seen, you know, Time Magazine in defense of rioting.
So they built this whole grievance industry.
It was supported by some elements of the leftist media.
And now you've got Hillary Clinton meeting with Black Lives leaders back a few months ago saying she's prepared to change laws for them.
I think this is a very, you know, divisive, destructive movement.
And it's delegitimized genuine opposition to police brutality, which was an issue and continues to be an issue.
But now people are so turned off towards that.
As I said, the polls show that people don't like Black Lives Matter.
Well yeah, there was a young guy holed up there in the wildlife center right at the end of that situation who was threatening to kill himself.
And it was being broadcast live on the internet.
It was a tragic situation.
But on Twitter you had all the regressives celebrating it, calling him a racist and saying he should shoot himself in the head.
You had Lavoie Finnegan, who was in the vehicle with a couple of these other protesters, females, Traveling through this FBI roadblock, he gets out of the car, he gets gunned down, God knows, two dozen times or whatever.
That was a shady situation.
But again, as you said, a complete lack of outrage.
They filled the car with bullets.
It's a surprise that these are the women who were unarmed and were not showing any resistance, didn't get slaughtered themselves.
But on the left, there was no outrage whatsoever.
Because they weren't black.
I think we should treat everybody who's a victim of police brutality the same, regardless of race.
But because they don't do that, it turns white, middle-class America away from their movement, and it prevents us from becoming truly united in addressing police brutality.
They're unintended consequences of what they do actually drive people the other way.
What would you say to, I have progressive friends, most of them, well, most of them won't talk to me anymore, but I had progressive friends, that when we discuss this stuff, they would say, well, a certain amount of violence, if you really want social change, a certain amount of violence is necessary.
Do you buy that at all, or do you think that's just an excuse?
Because look, you're not gonna get headlines if there isn't a certain amount of violence, right?
If you just have peaceful protests, the media doesn't show up.
I mean, if you look at everyone throughout history who's actually changed society, if you look at, you know, Gandhi or Martin Luther King, who now the progressives are trying to disavow because he wasn't inclusive of transgender people, then they don't need to resort to violence because their cause is powerful enough Well, people become a threat to the establishment when they unite black people, when they unite white people, when they unite people from different political persuasions.
Yeah, and it's also directly linked into why these regressives, and now we can get into the regressives, somehow we did 45 minutes, we barely said the word regressive, why they label everyone, you, me, everybody else, as bigots and racists and everything else, because they can't control people without Splitting us all down into the little racial markers, or, you know, this one's oppressed more than, you know, as somebody keeps saying, the oppression Olympics, basically.
So let's talk about the regressives.
Was your wake up to them at the exact same time as you sort of woke up to the social justice warrior stuff?
Or did it come a little bit after that, when you really saw that there was this group of people that was protecting and pushing this ideology?
Well, it probably correlated, you know, with the rise of ISIS, with these terrorist attacks in Europe, with the migrant crisis and the fact that we're importing people from bad cultures.
And I mean, that's the heart of regressivism.
You know, it's self-proclaimed liberals who defend and tolerate non-liberal ideologies.
And I think because At their heart, they're cultural relativists, right?
They believe that all cultures are equal.
Well, I don't believe that.
I think there are bad cultures and good cultures.
I made a video a few days ago.
Some cultures are better than others.
But at the heart of progressivism is this idea of utopianism.
So there can't be such a thing as a bad culture.
Accepting the fact that there are bad cultures demolishes utopianism.
So that's why progressives, so-called progressives, can't entertain the fact that there are bad cultures even for a second, even though they blatantly are.
I mean, you know, when US troops blew the whistle on how Afghan police officers were bringing young boys onto the army base and raping them, and they were told to shut up about it because that was, quote, part of their culture, I think that's a bad culture.
You know, when UNICEF has to do PR campaigns to educate 600 million Indians, half of their population, not to defecate in the street because it's causing deadly infections and child malnutrition, that's a bad culture.
We need to call out bad cultures because I don't think importing them into the West is compatible with Western ideals of, you know, liberal tolerance.
But the regressives can't entertain that for a second because they're cultural relativists.
They can't entertain the notion that some cultures are better than others, which is why in Germany, for example, these migrants that came in and started defecating in hot tubs, started masturbating in swimming pools, started raping children in swimming pools.
One of the swimming pools in Germany responded by banning male migrants.
How did the regressive left respond to that?
They complained.
They said it was racist.
They intimidated.
They forced the swimming pool into lifting the ban because, again, they can't entertain the notion that some cultures are worse than others.
And that's the heart of, you know, regressives.
It's this utopian idea that everybody's the same and everybody's equal, even though this is bad behavior that we shouldn't be accepting and embracing in the West.
That's why this snake will eventually eat its tail.
Because, you know, if you look what happened in Germany, you know, right on New Year's with all the rapes and all the sexual attacks on women, suddenly all the regressives were defending basically the perpetrators.
They kept saying, not all Muslims, all this stuff.
Nobody was saying all Muslims.
People were saying the specific people here who did this They have these set of values.
They're the ones that did it.
That's what a rational person would say.
We didn't say this is condemning every single person that believes in this and yet they go to defend that so they throw women under the bus.
So it's like they have their pecking order and in this case women came below the migrants because the migrants are mostly Muslim.
Yeah, it's that whole oppression Olympics idea, and you know, when it came out in Cologne, it later emerged that most of the perpetrators were not newly arrived refugees.
They were migrants who had been there for several years, and the regressives celebrated this.
I mean, at this point, the Islamophobia industry is bolstered and exaggerated to such an extent.
I mean, there are Islamophobic attacks and they're horrible and we shouldn't decry them, but it's presented as... But those are anti-Muslim attacks, right?
Yeah, those are basically racist attacks, but if you look at actual hate crimes, you know, they're far outweighed by anti-Semitic attacks, for example, in most Western countries.
So I think that's exaggerated.
We saw that again in Molenbeek just the other day, where the media reported that a right-wing protester had run over a Muslim woman.
Later turned out that it was a Muslim teen from Molenbeek who ran over the Muslim woman.
There are these fake Islamophobic attacks.
There was another one on Wall Street where a Muslim woman said she was slashed across the face in an Islamophobic attack.
Turned out it was completely made up.
So again, you know, at this point, why not own it?
Why not say, yes, I'm afraid of an ideology that supports Sharia law that supports stoning women to death, executing homosexuals, killing people who leave the faith of Islam.
Yes, I'm very afraid of importing those kind of ideas into the West.
And when, for example, 50% of Muslims, of American Muslims, support the right to live under Sharia law in the United States, that's a problem.
And I'm going to call attention to that figure because it's It's way too high.
And to call attention to that figure is not to be Islamophobic, it's to be rightly concerned about these intolerant beliefs being imported into the West as they now are in such great numbers.
So for people like us that wanna have honest discussions about this without bigotry and without hyperbole, and I know it's very hard to do and we don't win any points for doing this really, but for people like us, and I know it's a growing movement, Should we start thinking of Islam more as a political ideology than a religion?
Because people, no matter how many times we separate ideas versus people, religion versus people, people can't seem to do it.
They just, there's a certain amount of people, they cannot detangle these two things.
But I'm starting to think that If we start describing these actions as political actions, killing gays, not good.
You know what I mean?
Oppressing women, not good.
If a political party was pushing these ideas, the left would be completely against it.
So is that sort of how we have to, not to give up our tactics publicly right now, but is that how we have to start focusing on this argument?
I mean, you know, Sam Harris, Majid Nawaz, they've outlined the fact that this is not just jihadists.
The problem isn't just jihadists.
Yes, you can point to that and say that's a tiny minority, but the main problem is Islamists.
You know, I agreed with Obama when he said terrorism is not an existential threat.
I mean, we're not going to all be killed by terrorists.
There's not going to be such a massive You know, onset of terrorist attacks that it proves an existential threat.
But when you import these ideas that are incompatible with Western society, then that's a direct to our quality of life, our culture, and the entire underpinnings of Western society as a free, liberal, tolerant society.
So we have to emphasize that distinction, that there are not just jihadists, there are Islamists.
I mean, look at Salah Abdeslam there in Molenbeek in Brussels.
He was protected for months after the Paris massacre by his friends and neighbors.
OK, they're not jihadists.
They haven't gone out and slaughtered anybody, but they were protecting the jihadists because they're Islamists.
And this is this is the problem when we get huge numbers of people moving into Western societies.
They create these ghettos.
They create centers of power.
And then ISIS comes out in its manifesto and says, we're going to encourage the creation of these ghettos in the West, to radicalise these populations, to support our cause, then that's a problem.
I mean, you can get an AK-47 on the streets of Molumby within a few hours for 400 euros.
That doesn't just arise out of jihadists.
That's this whole Islamist support network that protects Salah Abdeslam, for example.
So that's the distinction we need to emphasize to leftists and regressives.
Again, it's not a tiny minority.
We have to include Islamists as part of the problem.
And if you include them as part of the problem, the figures show that it's a distressing proportion of people who support, advocate, and promote these intolerant beliefs.
Yeah, and I know no matter how many times we repeat the difference between jihadists and Islamists and the average nominal Muslim, Somehow, that just can't get through to a certain amount of people.
But before I let you go, I wanna dive into the immigration thing a little deeper, because you've done a lot on it.
And when I've watched some of your videos, you know, we really, in the mainstream media in the United States, we barely talk about it.
I would guess that if you watched CNN 24 hours today, that you wouldn't see one story on it, literally not one minute on it.
And then I watch your videos and some other people, and I'll watch some stuff on the BBC or something like that, And I get a sense that it's a big problem, and I get tons of messages, mainly, I'm getting a ton of stuff from Sweden, especially, talking about this.
Would you say, out of a 10, where is this thing at right now?
I mean, is this really as bad as the videos that you've put out?
It makes it sound like there's a massive crisis right now.
There tends to be a tipping point when a country goes above, for example, six to seven percent Muslim population.
That's when you get the no-go areas, which the media still claims is a conspiracy theory.
I got chased out of one in Molenbeek, I can attest to the fact that it's not. So that's the kind of
tipping point. I mean, to illustrate this, you can look at the prison populations in these different
European countries. So for example, Belgium, which of course just suffered the Brussels attack,
the Muslim population is around 6%. But the prison population of Belgium comprises 45% Muslims.
Wow.
The 45% of the prisoners in Belgium are Muslims despite the fact they only make up 6% of the population.
You look at France.
Six to 10% Muslim population, but the prison population is 70% Muslims.
Same in Spain.
Muslim population 3.7%.
Prison population is 70% Muslim.
So obviously something is broken here.
And we're seeing the creation of more of these ghettos.
They don't assimilate, but our political leaders want to bring them in for their own agenda, which is The goal of importing huge numbers of people from the third world to vote for bigger government.
If you look at polls conducted amongst Muslims, they typically support expanded welfare state and they vote once they become citizens for bigger government.
So they've placed Europe's security, they've placed our entire social cohesion under grave danger in favor of advancing this political agenda.
So she said that simply as a way of pissing off the right wing in Germany, they would bring in these migrants to displace the German population.
So part of it is virtue signaling on steroids.
Part of it is that guilt about the Nazis, which of course we have to remember Only a minority of the German population actually supported the Nazi party in the 1930s.
So I would argue that why would you punish, you know, German citizens taxpayers now?
We've got Germans being kicked out of social housing to be replaced by migrants.
Over 1.2 million migrants brought in already over the past year.
And again, politicians celebrating the demographic suicide of their country.
And it clearly isn't working because every single day we have these cases of people being raped.
Now, the primary victims of rape are Muslim women and girls in these migrant camps.
But now you see these reports of, you know, Afghan migrants raping boys in swimming pools.
And quite frankly, I'm sick of seeing it every single day.
This is a bad culture.
These people aren't being assimilated.
If you import huge numbers of people at breakneck speed with no clear plan on how to assimilate them, there's going to be bedlam.
There's going to be chaos.
And that's now why top military chiefs in Sweden, in Switzerland, in Norway are warning that this could lead to civil unrest and outright war, basically, if it continues this way.
They don't point out that 72% of the people coming in are men.
These are generally not families.
Four-fifths of them at one point weren't even Syrians.
But the fact that I can do a video about this and it gets over a million views proves that people are thirsty for the truth and we are shaping the narrative and eventually the hope is that that will change government policy by sheer force of pressure.
All right, well, listen, that's exactly why I try to have these conversations, and that's why I like the work you do.
And you know what?
Here's what we'll do.
For anyone that's watching this that thinks that anything that Paul said was conspiratorial or unfactual, tag me on Twitter with him, and we'll talk some of this stuff out.
Will you make that commitment?
We'll talk some of this stuff out with a couple of the people, not everybody.