73: National Justice Party Program, Part 1 - Third Positionism
In this episode, the first of a two-parter, Daniel tells Jack all about the new 25 Point Program of the National Justice Party, the latest venture from Mike Enoch and the Right Stuff rabble, and their hope of peeling away support from disaffected leftists using 'Third Position' rhetoric. Daniel starts going through the program point-by-point, analysing its hypocrisies and contradictions. The 'left' rhetoric is exposed by comparison with genuine left ideas and principles. To be continued... soon. Content Warnings. Links / Notes: National Justice Party: https://nationaljusticeparty.com/ National Justice Party Platform: https://nationaljusticeparty.com/platform/ Mike Enoch/Peinovich "The Way Forward" Speech: https://nationaljusticeparty.com/2020/11/19/the-way-forward/ Strike and Mike Episode 137: (unavailable because it's paywall content, can't imagine why) Bernie Sanders Rally Ann Arbor March 8, 2020. AOC arrives around 1:14:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekJo2mW_yAA Relevant previous IDSG episodes: 9: Mike Enoch and The Daily Shoah https://idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com/i-dont-speak-german-episode-9-mike-enoch-and-the-daily-shoah 52: Genocide and The Right Stuff https://idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com/52-genocide-and-the-right-stuff 70: The National Justice Party https://idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com/70-national-justice-party Jack's article about why fascism and socialism are different things, including stuff about fascists appropriating left rhetoric: http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/killing-in-the-name-of/
I'm Jack Graham, he him, and in this podcast I talk to my friend Daniel he him, and in this podcast I talk to my friend Daniel Harper, also he him, about what he learned from years of listening to today's Nazis, white nationalists, white supremacists, and what they say to white nationalists, white supremacists, and what
Be warned, this is difficult subject matter.
Content warnings always apply.
Hello, Alice.
Yes, you, Alice.
I'm talking to you.
Statistically, at least one of our listeners has got to be called Alice, and she is freaked out right now.
Hello, Alice, and all the rest of you, and welcome to episode 73 of I Don't Speak German.
Yeah, stuff happening, but particularly... Not involving Tom Metzger.
Exactly.
We did the bait and switch again.
It's Lucy and the football, and the football is Tom Metzger.
Exactly.
I was going to say, stuff happening, but not stuff on this show about Tom Metzger.
And I think our listeners are sufficiently savvy to our ways by now to be completely unsurprised That despite the fact that we said last time, next episode will be Tom Metzger episode, this episode is not even remotely Tom Metzger.
Not about Tom Metzger at all.
I mean, I could probably connect to Tom Metzger if I did a little bit of extra work.
But we also, news happened, and we decided to throw in a two-parter.
About this, um, more as a, you know, it was originally let's just be honest for the fans.
My original plan was this is ridiculous.
Let's just read this together and laugh at it.
It's going to be hilarious.
And then I started kind of digging into the kind of background material and sort of prepping the episode and went like.
Oh, it turns out there's some serious stuff here that we have to discuss, and it's just sad when we can't just do a fun episode of laughing at a bunch of dipshits.
But we will be laughing at a bunch of dipshits, but also there's some serious stuff that we need to talk about as people on the left talking about American politics confronting fascism that is kind of part and parcel of this.
And I apologize for having to be serious in what I thought was going to be a fun episode, but Yeah, all those people that tuned in to I Don't Speak German expecting nothing but light-hearted giggles and just a carefree romp, you're going to be disappointed, I'm afraid.
I mean, I know that's usually I know that's usually how it rolls here, but not this time, I'm afraid.
Yeah, and apologies also to the people who were tuning in just for the promised Tom Metzger action, because we're going to have to delay that by two episodes now.
It's terrible.
It really is.
At least two, because it may very well be more things start happening, and we have to come back to it even later.
But hopefully we will get these out more quickly.
Then we had originally kind of thought like, oh, we're going to do every couple of weeks for a while.
And I was like, well, I've got some time off from work.
Let's just prep this and get them out there as fast as possible.
So you may get another episode in the next couple of days.
Who knows?
As soon as we start to record them.
We have a powerful way of summoning things into existence by planning on the opposite and announcing it.
But yeah, as you say, we're going to be talking in this episode and next episode about the National Justice Party.
I'm disappointed in the National Justice Party as it currently exists.
I'm waiting for the Snyder Cut.
Right.
Yeah, well, you know.
I've been trying to think of which superheroes would be in, you know, Justice Party.
You've got, like, Superman.
That obviously works, doesn't it?
Sure.
Ubermensch, he'd have to be called.
Fash Man, I suppose.
Who is the whitest superhero is kind of the question, you know?
And, you know, yeah, I mean, you know, maybe Captain America, but Captain America, like, overtly punched fascists, so I feel bad about, like, giving him That status, you know.
But, you know, it's a thing.
Shall we actually get into the meat of the episode?
Because there's a lot here.
Yes.
Let's get on with it.
No announcements or anything this time.
Just straight into the red-hot National Justice Party program action.
So, Daniel, go for it.
Anyway, so, again, we're kind of coming in in media res here and that we have done some past episodes about various people within this National Justice Party thing.
In fact, just a few episodes ago, we did a full episode about the National Justice Party, in which case, at the time, I even tried to re-summarize sort of the history of the Right Stuff and the Daily Shoah, and the various kind of personalities involved with that, which go back all the way to Episode 9, when we did kind of the Daily Shoah.
Also in this episode, we will probably be referencing episode 52, which is TRS and genocide.
That was the one I did by myself, because it turns out that whenever you dig too deeply into TRS materials, then discussing genocide is not far behind.
They are, again, lying about their own history and present, and we will get into that.
TRS lying?
Tell me it's not so.
TRS, Mikey and Ike lying?
It's funny, and I've said this on a previous episode, Mikey and Ike will literally, it's a meme within TRS that whenever Mikey and Ike misspeaks, he says, oh, am I lying again?
Or he says something wrong, or he has his facts slightly wrong, or whatever, and it's like, oh, I'm clearly lying because I've been called a liar so many times.
And I don't know this for a fact, but I know this to what Sam Harris would call a moral certainty.
Inside joke.
That the reason he's saying that is because I have called him a liar so many times and have demonstrated his lies, but he doesn't choose to actually respond to my criticism of him when he's lying.
He just turns it into a meme.
And so whenever he says, oh, am I lying again?
And even other TRS personalities say, oh, was I lying at that point?
It really is.
They're referencing me obliquely With their meme.
And the fact that they choose not to respond is really just a sign that they have nothing to say to that.
And so I expect no response to this episode, except I assume Mikey and I will throw things across the room or something.
I expect him to get very angry at this episode.
So we will find out, I suppose.
I'm sure we will.
Yeah.
The National Injustice Party, which is a do-nothing, not-actually-registered-with-the-FEC American political party, and which, again, we have discussed on a very recent episode, so I'm not going to get into that.
Just go back and listen to that episode for the background.
I'll put a link in the show notes for ease, so you can re-listen to that for the skinny before you get into this one.
So, they had long announced, even back in their founding meeting in August of 2020, That they were kind of putting off kind of the big like the major events were going to happen after the US presidential election and the kind of the major elections in early November of 2020.
And they did not disappoint.
I mean, at least in terms of actually delivering on like doing a meeting.
So they did do another kind of big event on November 14th.
which they released a video a few days later.
Apparently from the same location in Pennsylvania, although it does appear that they learned the lesson from the major, or at least the snarky criticism of you did a thing in a barn and it looks like you're in a barn, because now they have behind themselves or at least the snarky criticism of you did a thing in a barn and Oh, good, good.
Even if they are still recording in a barn, they no longer look like they're recording in a barn.
They look like they're recording in some dipshit space where they can't actually show the audience because no one wants their face on camera.
You know, focused with like really unattractive lighting onto a single figure before a black drape.
Which is, just in case you're wondering, the exact same thing that like white nationalist parties like the American Freedom Party, which was previously the American Third Position Party, were doing for decades prior to this.
Which should tell you something about where this thing is going to go.
They're doing nothing different, except that they are relying on the charm, quote unquote, of Mikey and I slash Pinovich and the massive audience, although probably shrinking audience that they have gathered over the years of like the alt-right.
So, and the way to kind of get into this, so they did release this 25 point platform.
And we're going to go through most of all these points during this kind of two-part episode.
We're going to basically, I've got some clips, we're going to talk about the points.
When we reach our kind of normal recording end limit, we're just going to kind of cut it off and then kind of start up with the next episode, and then discuss one of the other speakers who spoke at the National Justice Party event on November 14th, who leaned heavily into ecofascism.
And the thing that I think is important, the reason we're doing this in this format is because they are explicitly and implicitly reaching towards finding kind of disaffected, you know, basically Bernie Sanders voters from the left who might be enticed to come into their basically Bernie Sanders voters from the left who might be enticed
Which means what they're looking for is kind of like angry dirtbag leftists who, you know, might be willing to, you know, listen to their message and reject both the Democratic and Republican parties.
And we know that Eric Stryker, who is a member of the National Justice Party, who runs the website National Justice, which is in no way affiliated with the National Justice Party, of course, despite the fact that it's the same fucking people doing both, completely legally unaffiliated.
Is kind of like a personal reply guy to Amy Therese of Red Scare and is, you know, has had very friendly, at least, public relations with her and who intimates on regular occasions about his communications with the leftists who agree with his positions.
And so, What we have to understand, and this is again just as promising, like this is the statement I'm making, and I will then justify it by going through all the material I'm about to go through.
The National Justice Party is an explicitly third positionist party, and what that means is, in case you are not aware, is they're taking a vaguely leftist economic agenda of redistribution of wealth, of kind of going after the capitalist class, going after the 99%.
They frame it as Jews.
But they're making this kind of appeal to a sort of middle class working man sensibility, We'll get into that here shortly.
But they are marrying it to an absolutely reactionary, far-right social agenda, which is overtly racist, overtly misogynist, expressly anti-trans, etc., etc.
What they're trying to sell to American leftists, like this is their explicit project is, come with us.
We're going to work with you.
We want you to come with us and we want to work on defeating the capitalist class and engage in some kind of social democratic reforms, which really aren't that because they're not universal because they're excluding so many people from them, etc, etc.
But in order to do that, you have to get on board with our incredibly reactionary, racist, misogynist agenda.
And so We need to address that this is something that is going to be happening in like subtle and overt ways over the course of the next four years.
This is the new project of the TRS crew.
They have given up on the MAGA people.
They have gotten all the MAGA people they could get.
They are now going after...
The Dirtbag Left.
They're going after the Bernie people.
And as a Bernie person, I want to say, like, go fuck yourself.
Yeah.
I was going to say, I know you didn't mean this, but it is slightly unfair to, as it sounded like, unintentionally, I'm sure, to sort of conflate Bernie with the Dirtbag Left.
You know, and I say that as a profound critic of Bernie, you know.
Well, and I'm going to, so, Bernie is certainly, he has his deep problems, and we can certainly kind of talk about the Bernie phenomenon and kind of what that means for the left.
I would love to have that conversation with other people, and I would love to be more involved in that conversation, because I think there are very real promises and there are very real defects in kind of the Bernie campaign.
The thing is, like, some of the online Bernie left is almost completely disassociated from, like, Bernie Sanders as a candidate.
Yeah.
Who was a deeply pragmatic candidate, who immediately, when he learned he wasn't going to be able to win, he moved to his secondary agenda, which is working within, using his leverage within the Democratic Party to defeat You know, Donald Trump and to push a further left legislative agenda within the people who listen to him within the party.
And whether that's going to work or not is an open question.
I am very skeptical.
I am not very confident that any of this is going to actually happen, but that's what Bernie decided to do.
And this is not to say that the Bernie left or the people who supported Bernie Sanders, again, of which, believe me, I was very invested in the Bernie campaign.
I believe that that man could have been one of the best presidents in American history, and it is a shame.
That the Democratic Party establishment did the things that it did to crush that man.
It is legitimately – I think that history will show that as being one of the – like a legitimate, truly terrible thing that could have been avoided.
With all of his problems and with all the, like, theoretical and realistic and all the things that kind of go around that, there's a big conversation around that.
I'm not criticizing Bernie.
I'm not even criticizing people who supported Bernie in the primary and who still support Bernie, even who didn't want to vote for Biden, whatever.
That's not the thing.
I'm saying that there is a small group of people who supported Bernie on this kind of, like, anti-woke left, in the kind of stupid-pole left, Who got very angry online, and whom these far-right figures are reaching out to.
Yeah.
And we need to definitely differentiate between that, and if there are any of those people listening to this podcast, I hope you will listen to my voice during the next two episodes, because if you think that these people are actually working for working people in the working class, You are wrong.
Yeah.
You are wrong, and we are going to demonstrate that in this case.
You have been misinformed, and we're going to tell you why.
These people, the Nazis are lying to you.
It turns out the Nazis lie.
It turns out the Nazis lie.
So what we're going to do, we're going to start off, and I just want to start off and do a little bit from Enoch's big speech on November 14th.
And the reason we're starting here is because I Listen to this bit of the speech and I thought like he's taking talking points from America from a partly America Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, he's taking talking points from AOC And I started pulling clips from a speech that AOC gave and then realized, like, it's really kind of a tenuous connection.
But I have the clips and it's very useful.
So first, we're going to play Mike Enoch trying to reach out to, quote unquote, a working class, middle class American working man, et cetera, et cetera.
What he has to say.
And then we're going to come back and then play a bit from an actual AOC speech, and I'll introduce that when we come back.
So first, let's listen to a little bit of Mikey and Ick's speech on the day of this kind of national justice party thing.
So let's just start here.
This is about a minute and 17 seconds long, so let's get started.
So far from being the end of the world, this election offers us a new opportunity.
The political field is wide open.
Both parties are fighting over who can throw whites under the bus faster, who can appeal harder to blacks and homosexuals, who can promote more Latinos.
But US politics is nothing more than a diversity pageant.
It's nothing more than an anti-white show.
All they do is they trot out more Uncle Tom's, more, oh, we have Latinos, we have gays, we have this, we have that.
Nobody wants to... It's like white people have the plague.
Nobody wants to be seen with the white constituency.
It's like a hot potato.
But we want it!
We want the white constituency!
We want the White Constitution!
So, the albatross of the Republican Party and Donald Trump is off from around the albatross of the Republican Party and Donald Trump is off from We have room to grow.
And there are a huge and growing number of people ready to hear our message.
You all know them.
Every one of you here knows at least five other people that want to hear what we're talking about.
At least.
Can I just say, as a fan of Coleridge, that's not what the albatross around the neck means.
It's like Donald Trump has been holding us back because he's not really pursuing quote-unquote pro-white policies because he is in some way invested in Jewish supremacy as opposed to white supremacy, etc.
Well, you know, Trump's Republican Party, it's just interested, it hates white people, it just can't, you know, there's no white people in it!
It's just a diversity pageant, they just want all the... fuck's sake.
And the whole thing that they're pointing at, the whole thing that they're pointing at here is that The Republican Party over the course of the last few years has realized that they are losing elections because they are completely unable to appeal to even tiny minorities of non-white people in the United States.
And so they have – and that there are many sort of like non-racist or kind of assimilationist like white people in the suburbs who are wanting to vote for Republicans because Republicans… Republicans are perceived as racist.
And so what they do is they do, yeah, let's put Candace Owens, let's bring her up and be like a big spokesman for the party and say, no, we want black people in the Republican Party to get off of the Democratic plantation.
You know, this is a very accepting space for black people.
And so you get like one or two percent of more of the African-American population who will kind of vote for, who are disaffected from the Democratic Party for a variety of reasons.
Partly because of, you know, kind of social conservatism issues.
Partly because the Democratic Party has done fuck all for them.
Fucking over black people.
Like counting them as a dedicated voting base.
And partly out of economic concerns.
You've got nowhere else to go, so we're going to fuck you over and there's nothing you can do about it.
Right, exactly, exactly.
And you know, neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party has been supportive on a national level of African-American people.
The Democratic Party is not actively trying to fuck them over, and so they get like 90% support among the African-American community.
Anyway, this gets into deeply complicated situations that I am, as a white American, I'm not willing to go there in quite so many... This is not the space to discuss that issue.
Very important issue, but it's off our target range.
Right.
It's off our target range.
I would be happy, again, to discuss this in another forum, if someone would like to invite me on another podcast.
I've been doing a lot of podcast guest appearances lately.
The thing that kind of struck me about that was that he used the words, like, he used the word grow, like, pretty explicitly there, right?
In terms of, we have to grow our party.
And this is a pretty generic thing, right?
But he also, like, said, like, if we need five more people.
And I sat there and I thought about, it struck me that there was a rally in Ann Arbor, Michigan on March 8th of 2020.
Which was the moment, kind of the last moment in which I had hope for even social democracy, even a mild social democracy to exist in America.
This was the weekend before the Super Tuesday in which Bernie Sanders got crushed.
Let's just be honest about that, right?
And there are a lot of reasons behind that.
And again, we can discuss that in another place.
But there was a rally.
There was a Bernie Sanders rally in Ann Arbor.
At which a number of people spoke, including Abdullah Syed, who was a primary challenger in the Democratic Party for governor, and whom I voted for.
I said in a previous episode, I voted for him above Gretchen Whitmer to be the current governor of the state of Michigan.
And the only reason I did not actually attend this rally is that even, uh, before, like, kind of March 13th or so, when everything kind of shut down in the United States, it was very clear that coronavirus was going to, like, be a serious problem.
And I did not want to go to a rally, uh, that, uh, where I was very likely to get, COVID-19.
So, there is a part of me that wishes I'd been there.
So, because I'm asking you to listen to some complete dipshits talk about politics, I would like to include this Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez bit, which is slightly long, but tells you what
The difference, and again speaking to leftists who might want to, who might be inclined to move in this direction, this is what an actual left of center voice with real empathy for human beings, with real With a real leftist analysis, even within the realm of electoral politics, sounds like, and I don't like to stand for politicians.
But this speech is one of those things like it's legitimately moving to me.
And we will play a bit more of the speech at the end of the second episode, because I think it's like, Legitimately, I kind of come down in tears to parts of this.
So, we're going to play this as a comparison to Mikey Knox's piece of bullshit that we just heard.
And you can make up your own mind about whether Mikey Knox is actually stealing from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which I don't believe anymore, but I pulled this clip originally to show that.
Yeah, we're just gonna play it because it's good.
So we get to we get to do this.
So apologies for kind of, you know, indulge me on this.
All right.
And this is a two minutes and 11 seconds long.
David, all of us, the little guys.
What David had to do before he confronted Goliath was to shed his unnecessary clothes.
This is something that Jackson discussed in his speech.
And I want us to recognize this moment that we're in on the eve of Tuesday.
What we have to shed in order to grow.
Because in order for us to grow, well rather in order for us to win, we have to grow.
We have to grow.
We must be inclusive.
We must bring more people into this movement.
We must shed the unnecessary clothes of cynicism and exclusion.
And we must turn towards an embracing posture where all people are welcome into a people's movement of the United States of America to establish Free healthcare, to establish Medicare for all, to fight for a living wage, to demand humanity at our border.
That is what this movement is all about.
Michigan, we have a choice to make.
In November, we will do everything we can to defeat that margin of despair.
We will do everything we can to defeat that margin of despair.
The question is how?
Will we defeat it by going back to how things were?
Or will we defeat it by fighting for working people in every corner and every pocket of the United States of America, from the South Bronx to Ann Arbor to El Paso?
We have to make sure that we win this by fighting for someone we don't know.
So the key is, all of us need to go to the polls and bring five people with us on Tuesday.
Right, well I'm possibly a bit more cynical than you, but I totally think Mikey Nock ripped that off.
The coincidence of the motif of the word grow and the five people thing, I think that's absolutely him ripping that off.
Adapting it and distorting it out of all recognition, certainly.
But no, he ripped that off, I think.
Well, you know, the five people thing is like a kind of current thing within like democratic, like get out the vote efforts is go to vote and bring five people, you know, with you, which no one really brings like five people, but you bring two and go, I tried to bring five, you know.
Sure.
Maybe it's not a direct rip-off of that speech then, but he's definitely... I mean, your wider point is that he's trying to echo that sort of left... Well, he's trying to reach for this sort of, like, left language.
And Mikey Nuck has been very clear in that, like, I'm a former leftist.
I used to hang out in anarcho-communist circles when I was a teenager and, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
They all do that.
I'm so fucking tired.
Yeah, it is.
And we're going to kind of hear from Eric Stryker here in a bit.
And, you know, Eric Stryker is clearly like a kind of major figure within this.
And, you know, again, the whole idea of the American Third Position, or pardon me, the Third Position, you know, movement, or Is to embrace a sort of like a facsimile of this kind of leftist rhetoric, right?
Yeah.
And so of course they're looking at like AOC's things.
It's entirely possible that I retweeted that speech back in March.
I didn't go back and look at my tweets.
So it's entirely possible if Mikey Knight did steal it, he stole it from my own personal Twitter feed, you know?
Well, yeah, as we've seen, you clearly rent a room in his head.
I rent a room in a lot of their heads.
I rent a room in a lot of their heads.
So I think at this point, what we should do is to start going through the National Justice Party platform.
And again, if you listen to the difference between Enoch's rhetoric here, right, of he's reaching out to white men.
We need to...
Disassociate the kind of left and right of like American politics for white people and like all of us need to get together and beat up on the racial minorities like that's sort of the thing that he's trying to do is to try to reach out to the left as a way of You know nullifying any kind of systemic or any kind of and any kind of systemic analysis That's based on actual material conditions is based on history, etc, etc What he wants to do is to call the capitalist class the Jews.
You get rid of the Jews and then everything's gonna work out fine.
But then also we have like kind of particular policies that all white people and he goes kind of out of his way and says, And we'll go through this when we kind of talk about the various entries in the 25 point platform, that, you know, these policies are popular, quote unquote, and like, most people support these policies, etc, etc.
And so it is this kind of attempt to reach out for a, you know, a mass kind of populist movement.
This is the way his rhetoric works.
And one of the things I wanted to do by comparing it to the AOC bit is to say, AOC is actually reaching out to a legitimate mass coalition.
Yes.
She's actually trying to reach out to people who may not agree with her on everything, but who can get together on these kind of basic intersectional economic issues of like, hey, wouldn't it be nice if everybody got to have healthcare?
Wouldn't it be nice if we got free college?
Wouldn't it be nice if we got these, again, basic moderate social democratic reforms?
That's sort of the point of her rhetoric there.
And I find it, like, as an American who doesn't get to listen to that stuff very often from, like, prominent politicians, I find it incredibly useful.
And then you compare that to what Mike Pinovich is putting out there, which is this explicitly exclusionary, and this is explicitly racist, this is explicitly, this only works for a certain kind of people, and if you're not in my club, then you're not part of this movement.
I think it's important at this moment to highlight the difference there, in that there's a difference between not-me-us as a universal appeal to solidarity across the working class, and a we-white-men-need-to-band-together against the rest of humanity.
Yeah, no, I mean, not to get too drawn aside, socialism is about human liberation.
It's about universal human liberation.
It's about, you know, we can do better.
In order to do better, we all have to do better.
We have to, not just morally, but we have to do it collectively.
And it concentrates on the working class, not because the working class is particularly moral or good or anything like that.
It concentrates on the working class because the working class is the largest class.
It's global, it's vast, and it's uniquely placed because capitalist society depends upon its labor.
And the working class, in the process of being turned into the labor force for capital, it's collectivized, it's organized, it's put in a unique position where it can And could, you know, overthrow the system and replace it with something radically democratic.
And that's the whole point, that universal democratic liberation.
So, I mean, AOC's politics is very different from mine, but what she's reaching for there is something that, in principle, I absolutely agree with, which is that if we're going to change the world and improve the world, we have to do it through organizing working people
And the point of that, you know, is that the category of working people includes everybody because the working class is global, it's multinational, it's differently gendered, it's differently abled, it's differently coloured, it has every religion, you know, that's the whole point.
That is why socialism concentrates on the working class as the active agent of human liberation because it contains Everybody, apart from the people who are obviously separated from it by their class position, you know, the capitalists and the people allied with them.
And what she's reaching for in that speech, again, her politics is not mine, but there's enough similarity here for me to recognize what she's doing.
She said by talking about things like inclusion, we have to be inclusive, we have to be diverse, we have to be welcoming.
What she's saying is that if you're for human liberation, And you're for the working class as an agent of human liberation and the beneficiary of human liberation, then you cannot view the working class in these narrow terms.
You have to understand that it contains all these different colours and religions and nationalities and genders and sexualities.
It includes everybody.
That's the whole point.
So if it's going to be meaningful left politics, it has to include everyone, which means it has to fight for everyone.
The socialist has to be the tribune of the oppressed.
The socialist has to fight oppression Wherever they find it, even if it's not directly economic, you know, like the boss directly exploiting the worker, if it's the sexual harassment, if it's the misogyny, if it's the trans misogyny, whatever, that's what socialism has to address because it has to speak for the worker and it has to be the workers and all the workers speaking and fighting for themselves.
Basic principle of socialist politics, as far as I'm concerned.
And if you don't have that, that thing that AOC is reaching for in that speech, then you're not doing it.
You're being diverted into something which is not universal and not democratic and not potentially liberatory.
It's particularist.
And then, inevitably, you're going to be drawn into supporting this or that privileged group Over the working class as a whole.
And that's the danger, I think, that we're trying to... I'm sorry to go off on one, but that's the danger we're trying to guard against.
This is essential, and this is why I wanted to do this, because you can express this in much more eloquent terms than I can.
But just, again, to just feed off of that, and what Enoch and Stryker and all these other figures in this American third position kind of party, you know, this National Justice Party are trying to do, is to say, We as white men have previously been privileged in this society, and that this is natural and logical because like, it's a genetic factors, etc, etc.
And that is just the way that it should be.
And ultimately, there is this outside group, the Jews who are coming in, and who have subverted that and who are trying to destroy you as white people by promoting the interests of these kind of other You know, racial and ethnic groups, but also like sexual minorities and disabled people, etc, etc.
And ultimately, isn't it better for you as a white man to sit at the top of the society?
And they're trying to reach out to those people on this.
They're trying to use this faux leftism.
They're trying to use this faux rhetoric as a way of convincing people not to care about the global working class, not to care about the people who are in marginalized positions.
It's you in Britain.
They're using this kind of like class interest or this kind of like isn't it better for you as a working person?
To embrace this kind of version of it and ultimately what they're working for is Despite the fact that they will fight this tooth and nail, they're working for a version of capitalism.
They're working for a version of dividing the working class, which is ultimately always going to benefit the capitalist class against the marginalized.
They want to maintain their own class position relative to the people who are already marginalized.
And this will become even more apparent as we start to get through these 25 points, which I realize were already some length into this episode.
We will get into it shortly, but no, no, this is... It's worth emphasizing.
It's not just a moral... I mean, I'm not downplaying the moral question, but it's not just a moral question.
It's also a question of if you get drawn into that blind alley by sort of like this thing about, well, you know, identity politics is distorting real left politics, which ought to be about class, etc., etc.
If you get pulled down that blind alley into this completely anti-socialist channel, which is actually You know, it's a grotesque perversion.
It's not just a moral thing, it's also that you're actually being drawn away from the thing that's going to benefit you, even if you are a white straight man, you know, who's in the working class.
It's not just that, you know, some of you, fine, might benefit from a certain privileged position within the working class, I don't know, but generally speaking, it's going to disadvantage you in your struggle as well, because, you know, you need to be united with everybody else that's in your class.
Right, and even if you care about your, like, white children or whatever, like, the way to preserve the future of the white race is ultimately to combat the capitalist class and to work alongside Everyone else.
And ultimately the numbers and the unity, that's the working class's strength.
That's the whole point.
Yeah.
Great.
Well, you know, that's the one big union concept.
You know, not to get all IWW on you or anything, but you know, so we should start going through this.
Sorry, I get emotional with this stuff.
Anyway, we should start going through these 25.
Well, you know, as a British person, I don't think I can associate with you if you're going to be having emotions all over the place.
You know, I might openly weep when we play the second clip of AOC that I have for the second episode.
We will see.
I wept editing it, so we'll kind of get there.
But, you know, look at me.
I'm a weak nothing.
The Nazis listen to this and are now going to clip that and demonstrate how much stronger they are than I am.
Yeah, soy boy cook.
And I would argue that the willingness to talk about that openly as it only proves that they know nothing of strength.
Anyway.
Totally.
So this is...
It's also, just as a sideline, I mean you've talked about it several times, the 25 point programme.
I was thinking about that, you were telling me, it was sort of tolling in my brain, is that, does that, that remind you?
And I looked it up and yeah, that's got to be a direct reference to the Nazi 25 point programme from 1920 I think it was.
Right, yeah.
The actual fucking Nazi party.
Well, I mean, these guys are open National Socialists.
I mean, like, this is not, like, that's not a gotcha.
I mean, their whole point is to sort of, like, slide in, like, kind of open National Socialism Within you know under the radar of like kind of like suggesting like don't you agree with this policy?
Don't you agree with that policy?
These things have majority support and therefore we should all just become National Socialists and yet kind of alighting the details that kind of make things they kind of demonstrate the toxicity of that and I'm Oh, that reminds me of a thing.
I'm sorry, I know I'm delaying you, but that reminds me of a thing.
About 10 years ago, I suppose it would have been now, I was on a forum, and there was a guy who was posting, and I don't think he was an actual fascist, but he was definitely a right-winger.
And he did this thing where he was like, oh, there's a political manifesto.
I'm going to quote you some bits of it.
Here's this policy, and here's that policy, et cetera, et cetera.
And he was saying to the left-wing people in the forum, Doesn't that sound good?
Don't you think that sounds good?
Do you agree with that?
It's like, oh, fuck off, dude.
That's obviously the BNP, the British National Party manifesto.
We know perfectly well what you're doing.
Which is an interesting point, actually, because it does showcase something, which is that third position is just a fucking lie.
Because fascists have always done this.
They've always copied left-wing talking points and pretended to be left-wing on certain points.
It's always been a part of the fascist strategy.
Well, they understand that left-wing things are actually popular when you present them to people.
And they say, like, what if we took that thing that's actually popular but difficult because it means, like, challenging actual, like, overt social structures?
And made it explicitly racialized and then fed it into people and said, hey, what if you could get a paycheck from the government and also get rid of the people you really don't like in society?
That's sort of the ink.
But it's not a third position, it's the position.
It's why the Nazis are called National Socialists.
It's because the people trying to design populist right-wing nationalist parties in Germany at that period, they wanted to try to get working class support.
So they started using left-wing rhetoric and left-wing verbiage to try to peel a layer of workers away from the Social Democratic Party, which was, in rhetoric at least at the time, socialist.
And that's why it's called National Socialism.
It's not a third position, it's THE position, it's what they always do, and it's the same con that it's always been.
Yeah, so, I guess I didn't, like, define third position... No, I'm not having a go at you, I'm just saying... I just kind of assume that our audience is going to kind of be along with, like, that sort of thing, but, like, third positionism is definitely, I mean, it's a misnomer, because what they're saying is, like, well, there's a left and right, and, like, what if we combine different elements of it?
Ironically, right libertarianism, and this is another aside, which We're never gonna actually get to our thing.
But right-libertarianism does the same thing.
It's like defining a similar kind of third position, but do it oppositely to the National Socialists.
And they say like, well what if we had like kind of a right-wing economic agenda, but you get to have weed and all the gay sex you want.
You know, like, and suddenly, you know, a certain number of people get on board with that.
But ultimately, that is also only in favor of the capitalist class who just want to cut regulations.
And like, if you want to go smoke weed and, you know, do coke and do heroin and, you know, like unregulated drugs and die, that's perfectly fine.
They don't care, but they're not going to support you in any way.
And, you know, Ultimately, a society that's kind of built around those principles will be kind of explicitly fascist for a variety of reasons, which we are not going to get into because we have to do this.
We do have to get on now, yeah.
We do have to get on here, but it is interesting that like there is this kind of like that both the sort of like overtly fascist figures and the right libertarian figures Use the same kind of rhetoric, but it's like flipped in reverse, right?
So many people who are former right libertarians moved into this kind of like far-right fascist space precisely because they realized that like, hey, wouldn't it be nice if I actually got like social support for, you know, like if I could actually get like funding and didn't have to work as hard as I do and didn't have to pay somebody my money to, you know, the capitalist class.
But also, like, I also just really hate gay people.
I really hate black people and I really you know, like so anyway, yeah No, that's really good.
Like right libertarianism as a direct mirror of third position.
Yeah, that's that's good.
Yeah, good one Yeah, but yeah, there could be a whole episode in that if I had thought about it ahead of time anyway Anyway, so I think we're getting it down to like number five on this list, but we'll get further on the next episode I promise so yeah number one on this list of 25 points is
It's the one that requires the most discussion, and it's the one that, and here's where I get to reveal that there was a paywall episode that Eric Stryker and Mikey and I did, and I have a clip from that episode.
In fact, I have That episode.
I would love to link you to that clip.
But it's part of their paywall, and they don't want people to actually listen to them talk behind the paywall unless you pay them $10 a month or have some other way of getting a hold of it, of which there are many ways of getting a hold of it.
But they really are not big fans.
So what we're going to do is we're going to read off the Uh, the first point and then kind of you and I will discuss it briefly and then we'll play a little clip of what they have to say about it to their fans.
And, uh, let's just be clear about this.
This is where we get into the genocide discussion.
And this is, this is, uh, this is where the, the conflict between what they say openly versus what they put on their platform versus what they know their audience really wants becomes the most clear.
And so.
They spent a lot of time on it because they have to, like, tamp down their base.
And we're going to spend a lot of time on it because it's very important that we not let them slide on this.
So, uh, so I'm going to read the first point, the first point in the platform.
Then we're going to discuss it briefly, says EvertheOptimist.
EvertheOptimist, yeah, we'll spend another 30 minutes talking about this stuff.
The United States of America will be declared an outpost of Western civilization.
Should I do this in, like, is there, like, a voice I could do this in?
I feel like, you know, like Alec Baldwin at the beginning of… The United States of America will be declared an outpost of Western civilization, and a state dedicated to its European heritage population and their posterity.
It will have the policy of the state to set immigration and natal policy that will ensure a permanent European majority.
The rights of historic minority populations will be respected.
You'll notice that there's a bit of a pivot there.
Yeah.
And so this is point one.
The first two thirds of it are the United States of America is European.
It is European Western civilization.
It's white.
It's majority white Yeah, we will set quote-unquote immigration and natal policy.
They will get into the details of this down the line We don't have to discuss that in so many ways but then they pivot even in this like first point of their plan, which is that We want America to be white overall, and they pivot to the rights of historic minority populations will be respected.
Yeah.
I'm sure that's completely sincere.
Well, yes and no, but yes and no.
Because they recognize that People find it really upsetting when you start talking about like Enoch has been on record for several years and I want to like just to be fair to this movement and to these people and to be completely clear as someone who is an expert on the things that these people have said and it was not going to actually lie about them.
Enoch has been very clear over the years of We know that African Americans first came to this country in 1619.
They've been here for a long time, and they have their own culture.
They have their own right to exist within the society.
their own right to exist within the society and um you know we don't want to actively say yeah we should just kill them or we should export them or whatever like they have a right to be here you know this is their way of sort of like papering over that kind of like peaceful ethnic cleansing thing that they've been talking about that was kind of the richard spencer meme kind of back in the day this is their way
this is the way of kind of squaring that circle and so that This is the statement that they put out there for the public.
They want people to kind of read that they're trying to get people onto their side in this.
This is the thing that if you were, say, an IDW member who was looking at this thing, and if you were Sam Harris, Looking at this thing, looking at our reason to say, well, these guys aren't racist, right?
You read that line, the rights of historic minority populations who we respect, look, they're going to respect the rights of historic minority populations.
Clearly, they're not after doing anything.
They want to, you know, kind of make common cause.
They want to work with people.
They're just, they're just immigration restrictionists, you see.
They're just people who want to, you know, maintain a certain kind of, you know, kind of background.
And this is where I now get to play the clip of what they said privately.
And again, I hate this clip that I'm about to play for you, because it's sort of 12 minutes that I cut down to about 3 minutes.
And it's got, like, kind of very obvious edit points, and I will admit to you that it sounds like I've edited them out of context, but that's because it's Strike and Mike, and they did a four-hour fucking conversation, and they just kind of go wander off into, like, random pieces of Nowhereville and come back, and, like, I'm not gonna ask people to listen to the big clip.
And again, I would love to- Don't you just hate podcasters that wander off into big digressions and don't stick to the point, honestly?
Honestly- I've never felt closer to them than at this point.
Honestly, it is kind of part of the thing, of like, I want to demonstrate this is kind of the thing that they're saying, and I've kind of cut around some of the more overt racism, but Strike it Mike.
You can't really cut out all of the really over racism.
And so this is a I Think for most of the normie listeners.
This is gonna be a really difficult clip because it's TRS paywall content, but We're gonna play it and I do apologize.
And so if you feel like you need to skip ahead from this Skip ahead three or four minutes and you know, you'll it's gonna be okay you know what's in this clip, but I'm going to play it.
I think it's worthwhile to document it at this point.
All right?
Okay.
Yep.
All right.
So this edited version that I have here is two minutes and 39 seconds long.
And there are, again, with apologies to Jack, there are the Law & Order DocDocs where I've clipped this bit.
Don't apologize.
Just pay me my royalties.
Well, your royalty is for Dick Wolf's, you know, Donk Donk.
Yeah.
That sounds really dirty.
Anyway, all right, so we're going to play this clip.
And my apologies in advance, but yeah, let's go ahead.
I mean, if blacks wanted to live in an all-black nation, they could move to Africa.
And they don't.
I mean, this is not something that is actually offensive to the majority.
Now, there are obviously spokespeople and activists that Jews promote to the front of these races to supposedly be their racial leaders.
The lies of the Jew media and then the gaslighting and then the fact that there are people, weirdos and other people on the right, you know, who embody these scare stories that Jews make up, embody the thing where they do talk about this stuff and people make jokes about it, but every race makes jokes about every other.
Fact is that there's nothing morally wrong with whites maintaining a majority status and a political power status in the country.
That's an opinion that most people feel, but when have you ever, ever, ever heard anyone in mainstream politics say it?
You know, you can figure out an agreement with blacks to figure out a way for the white man and the black man to get along.
Well, this has been done.
I mean, it's been done.
We have proof.
We have proof.
You know, we've seen it in other places.
We've seen it in South Africa.
We've seen it in America.
I mean, it's been done before.
And every place where whites and blacks live very close to each other and Jews aren't in charge as they weren't in charge in South Africa from 1948 to 1988.
And as they weren't in America in various epochs of history, some kind of separation agreement is worked out.
Yes.
That's actually what happens.
Really, the big problem in America has always been American influence.
America and Britain were the ones that... But of course, that's because Jews, right?
That is because ever since Jews have ruled, they didn't always rule either country.
There was plenty of times when they weren't in charge.
Listen, some people, especially on the internet, are going to say this is too moderate of a position to have.
But in real life, you have to deal with politics.
How do we get from point A to point B?
It's not popular to say genocide blacks.
It's not popular with other whites.
That's just stupid.
It's just dumb.
It's also dumb.
It's just dumb.
I feel dumb even addressing it.
But there are people that have gotten used to, on the internet, Saying that, and they probably are hoping, you know, Jews were hoping that there would be something, oh good, they're gonna, hopefully they'll say, like, they're gonna genocide all their races, it's stupid.
The most genocidal race is Jews themselves, I mean, look at their holidays, look at their religious holidays.
So let's step through this thematically.
And again, it's fairly disconnected, but I think re-listening to it myself, my edit, it's pretty clear what's going on.
They're describing, first of all, that given natural preference, revealed preference, this is kind of a term that they'll use from time to time, people of different races would just kind of naturally segregate.
People just choose.
Like, oh, I'd rather live among white people.
Black people would choose to live among black people.
Um, Hispanic people choose to live among Hispanic people, and this is perfectly fine.
We can just live in, we can just live separately and live under separate laws, and this is, you know, and so this is kind of the, like, the nice version of ethnonationalism, you see.
Like, oh yeah, like, it's just a natural thing, and, you know, like, birds live with birds and bears live with bears, and isn't this just kind of a natural thing?
I don't have to respond to that, right?
I can just move on from this?
Yeah.
There's such a thing as history and society, you know, in context.
There's such a thing of, like, reality, right?
Yeah.
This is complete nonsense.
Anyway.
And then they move on to describe, well, based on this, You know, there are certain societies that actually did this well, right?
That actually did kind of this like natural separation properly in those societies.
Explicitly or implicitly are like the Jim Crow South and apartheid South Africa.
Yeah, that's just incredibly telling.
You know, his example of harmonious societies where it worked fine because, I mean, firstly because, you know, quote unquote, the Jews weren't in charge.
But it was, you know, there was- When the Jews are in charge, things go badly because they just force people to interact.
Force people to mix, yeah.
But when white people- When white people are in charge, like in Jim Crow South or Upward Head South Africa, then it's just a harmonious relation.
It's fine.
There's no direct state violence against the minority population, against the marginalized population.
There certainly aren't.
That doesn't happen.
No, it's just a natural thing.
The black people choose to live in shanty towns.
The black people choose to live in shantytowns under the force of police state violence, working for pennies on the dollar on, you know, farms, you know, because that's just the way they choose to live.
And, like, how can you really complain about that?
Because that's just their natural place, you see.
That's just the way that they need to be.
That's the way they choose to live.
And who am I as a white man to, like, decide for them?
And white people choose to live in, like, wealthy societies.
And wow, that's such a I mean, it's unfortunate for the black people who choose to live in that society, but ultimately, that's just the way they are.
And ultimately, if we want to go to space, if we want to have a proper society, we just need to go off and separate.
And that's what peaceful ethnic cleansing means.
That's what this is the basis of.
This is the thing that I've been saying forever about these people, is that This is the headspace they want you to get into, right?
They don't want to acknowledge any kind of reality.
They want to see this kind of race realism kind of version of sociology that's built around this, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah.
It's all about just letting people follow their ostensibly natural preferences for discrete, impermeable, separated racial communities.
That's ostensibly just what people want to do, you know, regardless of all fucking the evidence.
That's just what people want to do, you know, with no prompting, it's just genetic or whatever.
And examples of that working great are Apartheid South Africa and the Jim Cross, which of course weren't literally held together with staggering levels of savage state violence.
I mean, it's not- No, people just chose!
It's just people's natural choices, you see, Jack?
It wasn't enforced by a police state at the arm of a club?
No, clearly not.
Like, come on, who would believe that?
No, people just chose.
People just chose to be that.
Yeah.
Which is why, you know, things like the Jim Crow South, it didn't really need police to police the division between the races.
It didn't need to be enforced at all.
That's why that never happened, obviously.
Yeah.
Two other points that are essential here.
One, there are a bunch of, like, People telling jokes that we don't like, that we don't support in this movement because we're a serious political party.
And they're telling jokes about how much fun it would be to genocide all the black people.
And that's a...
Terrible thing that no one in our movement, that no one that I am personally connected to, like a person named G.O.
De La Rey, who talked openly about unironic exterminationism.
I thought about re-including that clip here, just to make the point, but go back and listen to episode 52.
I was talking about this at some length.
Anyway.
Back in 2017, they were considering worldwide extermination of all non-white people as a reasonable political position.
And while they have moved away from that, as we say, in terms of like, you know, Being more relevant to something like a normal political process.
They have never repudiated it, and the person who literally, like, called himself an un-Iraqi exterminationist has not only never repudiated that statement, but has never, at least where I've seen it, it's entirely possible, if he has, then I will be happy to report that.
But I've been following for a while, and Jiajie LeRae, who is one of the top people within TRS, he is still a top member within TRS, and so I am forced into the conclusion that what they are doing is hiding what they really believe, and hiding the thing that is clearly on the mind of many of their most hardcore followers, and many of the people who are in that barn on that day believed that a genocide of African Americans was unnecessary.
They are spending a lot of time, like, Rejecting that, like, saying, like, no, nobody actually believes this, nobody actually wants to do this, there's a bunch of stupid people on the internet who will support this, and, like, this is the moderate position, right?
Like, you know, the separation of the races is the moderate position, which tells you, I mean, again, ultimately all you really need to know about this, right?
Like, the reality.
I mean, it might seem a little Strange, to some people, that we've taken this long to demonstrate the truth of the proposition that Mike Enoch and the right stuff and these people are... The guys that make the Daily Show-Up podcast are genocidal racists, but they pretend they're not.
And they pretend they're not to enough fidelity and often enough that as long as I keep having to cover them, until they start admitting what they are, I keep having to tell people what they are.
Yes.
I mean, it's just the reality.
We need to keep pointing this out.
We need to keep pointing out this is the hypocrisy of the optics thing.
And then within that, the hypocrisy of, you know, you associate with people, you're partnered with people who talk about this.
So it's not just that you're That you're just hiding it for optics levels.
It's also that you're actually associating with people that barely hide it as well.
And you get, you know, it's not just hypocrisy.
When there's that much hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy, you're just talking about lying.
And again, it might seem odd that we need to belabor this, but you put the NJP platform in front of Well, I don't know, somebody like Tim Pool.
And what are you going to get?
He's going to go, well, I'm reading it and it says the rights of native populations will be respected.
That sounds good to me.
And loads of people will buy that.
Yeah, absolutely.
And so, absolutely agree.
And this is a real thing.
And in fact, I have one more clip of Mikey and I talking about science, which we're just going to play at the very end.
We're going to do like three or four more of these points.
But the one thing that I do, the other thing that I do want to highlight from that clip I just played, right, was the fact that at the end, They're talking about the genocide of all blacks.
Right.
They're talking about the genocide of black people.
They're openly talking about it and then saying like, well, that's just a stupid thing.
Like nobody, no, you can't say that.
You can't, you can't say the thing.
You can't say that.
Like clearly that's not, it's just stupid.
I feel stupid even talking about it.
And it's not, this would be a horrifying thing that nobody should ever actually believe.
It's, Well, we've got to make reasonable statements to reach out to a reasonable audience.
We've got to make reasonable things to make inroads to people who would find that objectionable.
That's the clear meaning of these guys talking In this kind of random chat strike and mic four hour live stream that they do to each other for their like paywall audience that they expect no one, except for me, they know I'm there, but they expect that no one outside of their little milieu is really gonna like pay that much attention to.
And so I bring it up and I highlight it so that Anybody looking at this platform and reading it and going like, well, that sounds really reasonable.
Well, no, this is what they say about that when they're promoting this platform to the people who are already following them.
This is what they say is like, well, it's not so much that we really disagree with this as much as we have to sort of play with language and we have to like pretend that we have to appeal to a broader class.
And in the, you know, in that kind of larger 12 minute clip of which I clipped like two minutes, 30 seconds from, they talk a lot about that kind of issue of, you know, these issues are popular if we promote like the whole thing of this 25 point plan is Things that they think, stated as they are, will appeal to people, but will clearly be more radical once they can sort of get in charge, right?
And so they're literally hiding everything about themselves, despite revealing everything about themselves as we kind of move further down the list.
Yeah, with that stuff at the end about it's just silly, he just means it's silly as a strategy to outwardly say it.
That's all he means.
But they get their way.
They try to institute their explicit policy of segregation.
You can't do that without violence.
Again, there's no such thing as peaceful ethnic cleansing.
It's not possible.
It's got to be done with, and then kept in place with, enforced with, staggering, savage, vicious levels of state violence, as indeed it was in the two examples that he explicitly brings up as examples of harmonious situations.
Yep.
I agree.
Exactly.
And so if you're a person on the nominal left listening to my voice right now, and Jack's voice right now, and you think maybe the National Justice Party platform is something that I might kind of be inclined to be on board with, that's what you're actually supporting.
Yeah.
That's the thing.
We should do a few more of these before we wrap up for this episode.
So moving forward, episode two, or not episode two, apologies, point two of 25 in this platform.
We're doing really well.
We're doing great.
I expected us to kind of be there.
There might be a three point, who knows?
We might do three parts on this.
We demand the extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to provide equal protections and privileges to the white majority, or the act must be repealed.
That's point two.
There's a lot of... We could spend 30 minutes on this.
Actually, the 1964 Civil Rights Act does actually protect Every person of every race from what they're really talking about is things like affirmative action and kind of various programs that they perceive as being, you know, kind of like overtly against white people for a variety of reasons.
There's a really complicated discourse around like kind of affirmative action and kind of the way that that works.
And, you know, and I'm perfectly happy to kind of have that conversation.
This is point two.
This is something that they kind of bring up kind of over and over again.
I'm not, I don't really want to kind of get into it at this point to kind of say, but they also kind of refer to like the fact that like, you know, well, You can't pray before school in American schools.
You can't sit together with a private group and pray because it's disallowed in the American school system.
That's kind of an example of Christianity being disallowed.
Diminished by the Civil Rights Act.
Sorry, when did they bring this in?
I haven't heard about this.
That's actually not true.
It's legitimately not true.
It's just not.
This is the right-wing talking point, and this is where, as you start to read through these, you have to filter it through Fox News brain, and you have to understand that all of these people have been inundated with Fox News and Newsmax and all these other, Rush Limbaugh and all this stuff, like that's the stew in which they've just kind of lived in for their entire lives, because actually, I grew up in the American South, and there was, you know, there were prayer groups that met around the flag every morning.
I was going to say, I believe.
Like, you can, you can actually, as a student group, pray whenever you choose to.
In school, so long as it's not in class.
What you can't do is make an overt statement that people who are not in your religious group have to obey your religion.
It's what we call freedom of religion, and it actually works on everybody.
It's actually like a thing.
And then they bring up like, oh, there's a menorah on the White House lawn.
Well, there's a menorah during a particular event, which is...
During Hanukkah, which is a way of, like, kind of highlighting, you know, that kind of religious tradition.
And, you know, maybe there should be more religions because, you know, there's a Christmas tree and there's a menorah.
Like, I would perfectly think that, like, the White House lawn to the degree that that's the thing that matters should have, if we're going to have a Christian menorah, we should have many religious traditions and non-religious traditions, but it is like a thing that is brought out as not a sign of like Jewish supremacy over the white house.
Anyway.
Um, I listen, I listened to that like full like hour and 20 minutes of that four hour live stream that they did a couple of times.
And these are the points that they brought up.
Like it's like, Again, we could go through all of this.
We could go through that 12 minutes of them talking about point one of this.
We could do probably two or three episodes just digging into all the nonsense that we could just pull out.
Yeah.
Point three.
It shouldn't really need to be said, you know, equal rights legislation is meant to address existing inequalities.
And if you add stuff to equal, I mean it's far from perfect, but if you add stuff to equal rights legislation to say, you know, but white people still get to have privileges, it's not equal rights legislation anymore.
So that's their real priority, is maintaining the privilege of white people, obviously.
Right.
Well, and later down the list, they say, you know, we'll get there.
Part three.
We support the nationalization and strategic breakup of banks, mass media and monopolistic corporations that urge to create public accountability and guarantee that they serve the nation first.
Who do you think they're referring to there?
Yeah.
It's a puzzle, isn't it?
I can't crack this code.
It's a real puzzle.
I can't crack this.
No.
I think we may have to send for Poirot.
Work this one out.
I think point four might clarify this a bit more.
We support a 2% ceiling on Jewish employment in vital institutions so that they better represent the ethnic and regional population balance of the country.
There you go.
There it is.
I would like to say Antisemitism is completely incompatible with anti-capitalism.
There you go.
Absolutely, I agree.
That wasn't the point I was going to make.
I was going to reveal an internal inconsistency here, and that is that Jewish people have been in this country since the 18th century at the very latest, and point one, if you identify it explicitly, is the rights of historic minority populations will be respected, and then point four is
We're going to kick Jewish people out of their positions in businesses and in places of authority because, like, so it's internally, like, even outside of, even if, like, just on its face, it's completely internally inconsistent, right?
Yeah.
Like, you know.
And it reveals them as liars.
Let's, you know, let's not.
No, no, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Yeah.
I mean, it reveals them as, like, they're trying to, play this kind of game of like, no, we're reasonable people.
We're like rational centrists.
We're producing like internally consistent and a populist policy that most people will agree with.
And if you listen to the striking Mike episode, like at every point, they're just like, this is popular policy.
Most people agree with this.
People agree Jews shouldn't be in charge of the media.
And this is like, again, Fox News brain and like their kind of far right ecosystem.
But points three and four.
And look, you know, I actually agree.
Break up banks.
Break up the mass media.
Break up corporations.
I'm an anti-capitalist.
Like, yeah, I'm fine.
Guaranteed they serve the nation first?
Well, let's put a big red circle around the word nation.
And what do you mean by nation here?
And what they mean is nation is derived from natal, which is derived from the European-American population, which is derived from White people.
And so what they really mean is we support the nationalization, strategic break-up of banks, mass media, monopolistic corporations, in order to create public accountability and guarantee they serve white people first.
That's what they actually mean.
Yeah.
But they don't say that.
No.
And that service of white people that they're talking about, that will have to be enforced, as with the segregation, by the state, by state violence.
By state violence, yep.
And so, again, I completely agree.
Let's us as the working class go in and break up all of these things.
And the way that we do that is very much up for debate.
I think it should not be done by armed agents of the state, it should be done by A mass uprising and a general strike and all the various things that kind of come along with that.
And there's a long conversation that we can all have about that, and in another place we'll do that.
But this isn't because they're Jewish.
In fact, I would argue that most American Jews would be on my side in terms of saying, like, yeah, wouldn't it be nice if we could break up the banks and all these things and actually make it work for working class people?
The Jewish people are people who are not actually genetically programmed to work for, you know, subverting white society or whatever.
I hate that I have to include that.
I just feel like it's worth it at this point.
Yeah.
And it's also worth stressing, you know, just from the point of view of hopefully inoculating anybody normally on the left from sliding over to this.
That if you're breaking corporations and banks up and stuff like that, and you're bringing them under the control of the state, and it would be at this point a fascist state to be run in the interests of the nation, in other words white people, but even if it's not in that sense, you know, nation, if it's just nation generally, that's not a socialist policy.
That's not the workers having collective democratic ownership and control.
That's that power still being alienated from them and being in the hands of fascists in this case.
And fascists always say this stuff, as we said before, and they always lie.
They always get into power with the backing of corporate interests and big monopoly capital, which is not Code for Jews.
It's a different thing.
And they always serve that.
They don't serve working people.
We know this from history.
Yeah, and we know this from the things that they actually say.
We know this, like, they're telling you what they believe.
They're just hiding it behind this mealy-mouthed language.
Yeah.
Point five.
We support- immediately after point four, which Jewish people do not get to be in positions of- and there's a complicated kind of language here around positions of authority or kind of whatever.
Point five, we support the sacred rights of free speech, freedom of religion, dot, dot, dot, dot, dot, highlight, highlight, highlight, big, big exclamation point, freedom of religion and freedom of association.
Political views will not be censored by the state or any large private concerns.
It will be illegal for any employer to retaliate against workers for political activism and expression outside the workplace.
And therefore, Jewish people, by the points of work five, who are expressing political beliefs about or religious and political beliefs about like where they think that um, age to be gone or like, et cetera, et cetera, cannot be discriminated against within the workplace.
IE they cannot be fired for their jobs in whatever position that they have within like the banking industry.
Like again, by the stated language of 0.5, 0.4 is completely nonsense.
Yeah.
But of course by 0.5, what they mean is we support free speech for us.
We support free speech for us, non-Jewish white men.
We support freedom of association.
And when they say political views might be censored by the state or need to alert private concerns, they mean I get to have a Facebook account and I get to post all the Nazi memes I want.
And I get to have a Twitter account and post all the Nazi memes I want.
And I get to harass anybody I want to so long as I'm not actually illegal, you know, threatening material.
Yeah, yeah, if you're a white man or a white worker, you know, you can have those sorts of freedoms.
You can't have a fucking independent union, but you can say whatever the fuck you like on Facebook in our regime, yeah.
Oh, there's a whole thing about unions down the line, which we'll not get to in this episode, but it's a doozy, don't get me wrong.
Also, it will be illegal for any employer to retaliate against workers for political activism and expression outside the workplace.
What they mean is, like, if you talk to me and you find out that I'm an oxy, you can't fire me.
Um, actually, and this kind of gets me into controversial hot water among certain people, like, I would take that deal.
Um, so long as it is also extended against people who are LGBT, who have, who have, Marginalized identities.
Because you can be fired in something like 45 states just for being LGBT in the United States.
And, you know, right to work laws.
Like you can be fired for being a leftist organizer in most states.
You know, I think, you know what?
Actually, I would like divorce, you know, like I would introduce kind of a large social safety net, in which case people who are Deeply antisocial, which all Nazis just inherently are, get some kind of public support so that they can feed themselves and have their stupid, bigoted beliefs and not actually impose those upon their co-workers.
But, you know, I would make kind of the devil's bargain to some degree and say, like, well, would you actually agree that queer people and trans people should be protected from, you know, From losing their employment based on, based on their identities.
And the answer they give is no.
And the answer, the thing that they, the thing that they're highlighting there is political views and political activism.
And so they think that like, and they are deeply homophobic, etc.
come down this list, but they, draw that kind of very straight line between political activism and political beliefs is something that should be protected but like if you're just a gay person like no you're you should be discarded from society etc etc like that's yeah yeah and and in practice in a fascist state any political opinion that you know uh opposes the the interests of the nation by which we mean the the power of the fascist state that would be an exception you know the
There wouldn't be any protection for people talking left-wing politics at work.
In practice, that just wouldn't happen.
Again, they always say this stuff, they're always liars.
Yep.
Absolutely.
We support private property rights.
Okay.
First of all, just that statement alone, like just like, there's so much there.
There's just so much, right?
So we're just going to have to move upon it, but it only gets worse.
Including a program to make home ownership more accessible, pause, to stably employed family men.
Okay.
A program, a It's like these people that try to triangulate around the issue of healthcare.
They're desperate to avoid agreeing to any kind of socialized medicine, so they come up with these liberal-sounding strategies.
We need to work out a policy where we make healthcare accessible and affordable.
These are just meaningless bullshit terms.
Right.
But to again, more accessible to stably employed family men.
So yeah, stably like, it's like, it's, it's, it's so like, once you start to like, Again, we could spend an hour just digging through what they are actually saying here.
But ultimately what they're saying is, well, if you're a productive white man, you get to have a home and nobody can take that from you.
And that's the thing.
And so it's deliberately meant to kind of like take that away from the marginalized, from the people who are in poverty, from the people who are outside.
And that's just the first sentence of point six.
Because then it goes on to say, small businesses and communities will be granted the right to review service or home ownership to anyone for any reason they see fit.
Meaning, if you're a white person who owns a business, or if you're in a white community, you get to keep all the darkies out.
That's what this means, right?
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, and while we could dig into this to a large degree, I feel like we need to move a little bit faster.
So I'm just going to move beyond this, unless you have something explicit to say here.
No, no.
I think that's clear.
Go ahead.
All right.
Seven is pretty quick.
We stand firm in defense of the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms.
You could talk about what law-abiding citizens means at this stage.
And they kind of write this as a – like as a kind of affirming the Second Amendment and kind of like going above – anyway.
They got asked in some previous appearances, like, are you explicitly in favor of, like, the Second Amendment?
And so they threw this in here.
It's one sentence they, in their world, it's not even worth discussion.
Anyway, point eight, which, again, we could go into for an hour.
We demand the FBI, which acts as nothing more than a political secret police force for elite interests.
Be abolished and replaced with a legitimate federal law enforcement agency This one is so complicated in turn like it is just kind of feeding into like TRS memes in terms of like what the FBI is and like they believe that the FBI exists solely to oppress white men because their experience with the FBI is like it just exists to crush them personally yeah, because they're Nazis and I That's it.
That's all it's for.
They're not against the cops.
They're just against them personally being oppressed by any kind of law enforcement agency.
Anyway, point nine.
Point nine.
We demand an end to political contributions and corporate lobbying.
Elections must be publicly financed.
I actually agree with that one.
Yeah.
I get one.
You get one.
I'm on board.
Yeah, there wouldn't be free and fair elections under their regime, though.
Well, of course there wouldn't.
Of course there wouldn't.
But what they think is, like, the Jews are controlling it all, and the Jews control all the money, and, you know, all this, you know, no.
Like, actually, yeah, no, on its face, I actually think, yeah, get all money out of politics.
Just publicly finance everything.
Yeah, it's not going to work with the rest of the things that you had to say, but yeah, I actually agree with that.
Look, 1 out of 25.
The corrupt two-party system, this is point 10, the corrupt two-party system must be abolished and replaced by a system that offers real representation to racial groups and economic classes.
By which they don't mean, hey, maybe African-American people should be included within uh you know elected representatives what they mean is kick the jews out that's what that means it's just another get the jews out like yeah it's in code but that's what it means so um that's the first 10 and we're here at about an hour and a half and so uh we will hit the other 15 in the second episode i think i think I think that's a pretty good way to go.
Oh, I can't wait!
Yeah, and they do, some of the, like, it is kind of, you can tell this is a padded list, because some of them are, like, deeply worth discussing and kind of digging out, and some of them are just like, yeah, you kind of threw that in there, right?
Because they wanted to get to 25.
Since we've been discussing the IDW to such a degree lately, I thought we would end with another little bit of Mike Enoch's truly, truly amazing political speech that he gave on November 14th, talking about science.
So, yeah, we'll do that.
Oh, great, because I'm really interested in science, and I'm sure Mike will have fascinating things to say.
So yeah, this is about a minute 31 if you want to skip ahead, but this is, again, because we've been talking so much about the IDW and about the connections and the way that the IDW feeds into this, I would like you to listen to this and just close your eyes and imagine Sam Harris or Eric Weinstein or Jordan Peterson saying the same words and understand that
Within this kind of far-right Nazi world, they treat this sort of like race and IQ stuff.
They treat this as kind of settled science.
Also, there's a deep, deep bit of transphobia here, which is only reflected in TERFism.
And so if you doubt the connections between the TERFs and the overt Nazis, well, give it a listen.
Urban liberals and the Jewish elites that take so much joy in mocking the ignorant among the white masses pretend like they're for science.
But the doctrine that they promote is just as irrational as that of any doomsday evangelical.
In fact, it's more so.
Science is clear in saying several things.
There are only two sexes.
There are clear and observable differences in behavior among racial groups.
Depraved and risky sexual practices lead to disease.
Stunting the natural development of a child with hormones is destructive to their body and mind, and I would say even evil.
But if you state these things publicly, you risk your employment, In some cases, you risk your physical safety.
Anti-racism and gender ideology are presented as a metaphysical and mystical moral absolute.
Pointing out the obvious facts is tantamount to blasphemy.
And in America today, that's what a hate speech law is.
In Europe, hate crime laws, blasphemy laws, laws about what you think, not what you have done.
They are so full of shit.
That stuff that he says you can't state publicly, that's the content of a good many, you know, columns in newspapers in my country every day.
Oh, and here as well.
Yeah, like, uh, you can kind of pick and choose your, you know, Andrew Sullivan, uh, you know, wrote the, you know, edited the, uh, Race and IQ, uh, bit from the New Republic, which brought Charles Murray into all of our lives.
And, um, while he, he left his, uh, his, uh, gainful employment, uh, at a newspaper, uh, at our magazine, he is now, uh, making, uh, thousands of dollars a month on Substack.
Charles Murray wins prizes.
He is highly influential within government, within the AEI.
Despite the fact that his bullshit has been comprehensively debunked.
Comprehensively debunked, including in some tiny way by this podcast.
I'm proud to say, yes.
You were talking about Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson.
Jordan Peterson's one of the best-selling non-fiction authors in the world.
Sam Harris makes more money from his podcast than I'll ever see in my life.
This stuff is absolutely routine for him.
It's complete shit that this stuff is, you know, this completely unquestionable orthodoxy.
That is just a lie.
What it means when you start to talk, and, you know, they would, you know, Enoch would feed some of these ideas.
He would kind of feed some of this language into, like, different directions, and sort of the IDW crowd would go in terms of, like, for instance, you know, the different races, quote-unquote, act differently.
He's talking about kind of black crime, and I think most of, like, the Sam Harris types talk about, like, there's a problem of culture, and if we change the culture, Whereas Enoch believes that it's ultimately genetic and that it derives from a genetic thing.
But there are members of People Funded by the Pioneer Fund who write for or edit Mankind Quarterly who would absolutely go right along with.
Yeah, there's probably a 40-80% genetic component to this, and while they wouldn't go quite so far as to say, well, this is just in their nature, etc.
etc.
That's basically what they're saying.
They're just gussying it up in slightly more acceptable-at-cocktail-parties kinds of language.
Sam Harris has done this on his podcast.
Oh, it's settled science.
I can't remember the numbers, but a huge amount of behavior has its basis in genetics, and there's settled science that there's genetic racial differences, etc.
He peddles this stuff.
It's not blasphemy.
On the contrary, it's mainstream.
I mean, it actually is.
It's not blasphemy, but it's completely unhinged reactionary nonsense, too.
It's complete shit, but it's prevailing shit.
And I want to be clear about this.
People do have reasonable conversations about the nature of the science, and there are people who are more reactionary than I would be, who know more about the genetics than I do, because I'm not an expert in this field.
Who believe that there is a stronger genetic component than I think there is evidence for, based on my read of the evidence.
And those people should be allowed to express those opinions, they should be allowed to publish on that, so long as they're expressing those opinions within scientifically validated ways and having a real scientific conversation about these things.
That's the point!
the real debate with that's the point they are right but but that's the thing they are and i'm not saying and i you know there there will likely be people listening to this podcast would say those people should not be allowed to be within the field and i think there are people who are pushing a like reactionary far-right racist agenda who should not be listened to in these fields but
But there are also people kind of doing this research who I think, you know, it is worth, you know, there is, like, value in bringing it in, if only to respond to it and debunk it.
Like, there is, like, real science being done.
It is currently being done, and there is a current debate about this.
And the problem becomes when you then say, well, I published a paper and declared that 40% of the genetic variants and the variants in crime rates is because people have more melanin in their skins, which is not the explicit thing that people say, but, like, is kind of the implication in many occasions.
And then go on and talk to the AEI and then get, like, meetings within, like, people who are making public policy and say, like, well, like, if crime is just genetic, then maybe we should just, you know, put all the black people in jail.
Yeah.
Maybe that's the thing that we should do.
Yeah, and the fact that loads of this supposed race science stems from explicitly racist organizations as well.
Yeah, absolutely, absolutely.
And we've gone through this on several occasions.
And I wanted to highlight that here separately from kind of the National Justice Party platform.
Because I kind of ran across it, it's part of his speech, it's part of like sort of the base, like the base assumptions that the NJP and this thing they're trying to build is going to have, because it's part of like one of the very first speeches.
Like everybody listening to this speech in the room believes all this kind of junk race science, and so it is worth challenging those assumptions at every occasion possible.
But it's also worth pointing out the degree to which the The highly educated rubes who understand their science very well and who have, you know, educated opinions and who get like respectable positions for this thing, who nonetheless do not understand the sociological implications of what they're saying is going to be interpreted by bad actors.
Um, and who don't care when that is pointed out to them over and over and over again, um, are shoveling this bullshit into, um, they're, they're, they're putting fuel in that flame, right?
Like that's what they're doing.
And I think that's, what's really important about like kind of challenging the IDW figures within this space, within understanding that like Mike Enoch will absolutely just kind of use this as a base assumption.
And Sam Harris will use it as like, well, this is good science and there's no reason to doubt it.
And while I don't agree with Mike Enoch about his beliefs about the Jews, ultimately, we need to have policy discussions that are completely disassociated from this.
It's like, well, maybe we need to have more detailed conversations about why people are researching this and what the Um, how valid that data really is before we start making like policy, um, positions on it.
Like, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
The IDW people like, you know, Sam Harris has said that white nationalists are the fringe of the fringe, you know, he downplays the danger and the, you know, You know, he performatively disavows them, but he will pedal this racist pseudoscience under the cover of, well, everything should be on the table, and the left are just crazy because they say you're not allowed to discuss these things.
And that sort of crap, it helps to deliver people in this direction, doesn't it?
It helps to create a network.
People can fall into this network.
It's all on a continuum.
Right, and I mean, for the record, I would be happy to go on Sam Harris' podcast and tell him why he's full of shit.
I'm beneath his notice, and he would definitely record a little bit afterwards.
It's like, well, that Daniel Harper guy, he just seemed just a little bit too woke, and clearly, you know, he's just as racist as the Nazis he's fighting because he sees things through the value of race, etc., etc.
Because I think, like, actually systemic structures have, you know, like, authority.
But I would be happy to debate Sam Harris, personally, and to have, like, a very reasonable... I would give him so much rope, I would not even, like, I would be happy to not even really yell at him, but to just, like, Ask and answer questions to Sam Harris, but of course he won't like actually reach out to me Ditto for for Brett Weinstein and Heather Hying if they wanted to to have a public conversation.
I'm down for that So anyway That was the first half or the first, you know third or so of the National Justice Party's platform Yeah, yeah.
That was part one of our coverage of this fascinating document.
Fascinating document, and all the various things that go along with that.
In the second part, I think we mentioned earlier, we're going to discuss this guy Warren Ballag, He gave a speech.
Yeah, the Gandalf.
Well, there's Alan, who is Warren's father, you see.
And Alan is the guy who was actually photographed next to William Luther Pierce, who wrote the Turner Diaries in 1984.
So right around the time that The Order was a thing, that's Warren's father.
So not much is known about Warren Balogh, but he gave a very interesting speech for the National Justice Party, in which he expressly is kind of working on the left from the point of view of environmentalism.
And just to wet your whistle, the thing that you have to understand about this is that none of these people believe that climate change is a thing that's actually happening.
And the reason they believe that is because they're imbued with Fox News brain.
They're just imbued with.
I wonder, do they have any theories about who might be pushing the myth of climate change?
Oh, I'm sure that's... I'm sure they do.
I haven't quite figured out who explicitly... No, no, it's the Jews.
It's the Jews.
They think it's the Jews.
Pretty much whenever you ask a question of like, do they have a theory about who is doing this thing that they think is bad?
It's always three parentheses.
That's the answer.
That was actually my joke, Daniel.
Oh, well, I didn't realize that.
Flew right over your head.
Yeah, I was just flabbergasted by that.
Anyway, this is a long... My sophisticated satire humor is... We've been here for a long time doing this episode, so we should now give the audience a break from us.
We should, yeah.
We'll wrap it up for now, and we will come back to this, and we'll see if it turns out to be a two-parter or a three-parter.
I think we can get through the rest of the 15 in the next episode, and we can also do the kind of eco-fascist material.
I think we can do this in two parts.
I'm dedicated to doing this in two parts.
Yeah, yeah.
Let's go for it.
Let's do it.
Let's really try.
Okay, so tune in next time to see if we manage to succeed in doing so.
But for the meantime, that's it.
Thank you very much for listening, as ever.
And if you want to support the show, please tell people about us, share and retweet and do all that lovely stuff.
And hey, I've become aware that we have a lower rating, star rating on Apple podcasts than we ought to have.
Because our reviews are mixed because there's loads of people on there saying nasty things about us.
And I have suspicions as to their motives.
So if you think, as you doubtless should, that this is a brilliant podcast, you know, why not toddle along to Apple Podcasts and leave us a five-star review to help even things out a bit.
You can even say nasty things about us, and particularly nasty things about me.
If you don't like me as a person, that's fine.
Just give us five stars so that we get higher up on the rankings.
Exactly.
I don't read the reviews.
I chose a long time ago not to read the reviews.
But I'm assuming Jack is saying there are Nazis voting us down, so we should I suspect that.
I can't prove it, but I suspect that.
As Daniel says, you don't even have to give us a good review.
Just give us five stars.
That's all we need.
You can still call me insufferable and smug.
It doesn't matter, as long as you put five stars.
There's also our Patreons.
That would be lovely if you want to donate a little bit to help us keep the podcast going and keep it independent, etc.
That would be very generous of you.
But if you can't, then it's understood.
So yeah, until next week, goodbye.
Goodbye, cheers.
Particularly to Alice.
That was I Don't Speak German.
Thanks for listening.
If you enjoyed the show or found it useful, please spread the word.
If you want to contact me, I'm at underscore Jack underscore Graham underscore, Daniel is at Daniel E Harper, and the show's Twitter is at IDSGpod.
If you want to help us make the show and stay 100% editorially independent, we both have Patreons.
I Don't Speak German is hosted at idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com, and we're also on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify, Stitcher, and we show up in all podcast apps.
This show is associated with Eruditorum Press, where you can find more details about it.
