102: Rittenhouse, Anarcho-Tyranny, and Blood Libel
In the second part of our Rittenhouse coverage, we start with a look at Kyle's reception as a rock star messiah at Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA and follow the thread where it leads, from more on Elijah Shaffer to Tucker Carlson and his 'Trial of Kyle' to Mike Enoch and the National Justice Party via "a twentieth century philosopher". In the process, we consider the currency of the concept of 'Anarcho-Tyranny' and how the term Blood Libel is being appropriated. Dialectical? Yeah, we're dialectical AF. And we don't apologise. Content Warnings. Podcast Notes: Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay ad-free and independent. Patrons get exclusive access to at least one full extra episode a month plus all backer-only back-episodes. Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618 IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_ IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1 * Episode Notes/Links LIVE: Kyle Rittenhouse LIVE At AmericaFest 2021 Face to Face With Kyle RIttenouse Slightly Offensive, The Untold Story of the Most Banned Person in America Carl Schmitt Wikipedia Carl Schmitt (/ʃmɪt/; 11 July 1888 – 7 April 1985) was a German jurist, political theorist, and prominent member of the Nazi Party. Schmitt wrote extensively about the effective wielding of political power. A conservative4(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt#cite_note-4)[[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt#cite_note-5) theorist, he is noted as a critic of parliamentary democracy, liberalism, and cosmopolitanism,6(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt#cite_note-6) and his work has been a major influence on subsequent political theory, legal theory, continental philosophy, and political theology, but its value and significance are controversial, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with Nazism. Something Jack wrote about Carl Schmitt and F.A. Hayek Oh Schmitt, Hayek! – Eruditorum Press Sam Francis, Chronicles Magazine, July 1994 Anarcho-Tyranny USA In the United States today, the government performs many of its functions more or less effectively. The mail is delivered (sometimes); the population, or at least part of it, is counted (sort of); and taxes are collected (you bet). You can accuse the federal leviathan of many things—corruption, incompetence, waste, bureaucratic strangulation—but mere anarchy, the lack of effective government, is not one of them. Yet at the same time, the state does not perform effectively or justly its basic duty of enforcing order and punishing criminals, and in this respect its failures do bring the country, or important parts of it, close to a state of anarchy. But that semblance of anarchy is coupled with many of the characteristics of tyranny, under which innocent and law-abiding citizens are punished by the state or suffer gross violations of their rights and liberty at the hands of the state. The result is what seems to be the first society in history in which elements of both anarchy and tyranny pertain at the same time and seem to be closely connected with each other and to constitute, more or less, opposite sides of the same coin. This condition, which in some of my columns I have called "anarcho-tyranny," is essentially a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what appear to be dialectical opposites: the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection or public safety. And, it is characteristic of anarcho-tyranny that it not only fails to punish criminals and enforce legitimate order but also criminalizes the innocent. At the same time the governor of North Carolina grotesquely fails to uphold his famous oath to protect the citizens of his state by keeping convicted felons in prison, he has no problem finding the time to organize a massive waste of his time and the taxpayers' money to hound and humiliate a perfectly innocent citizen for the infraction of a trivial traffic law. Knowledge Fight 614 The Purge of Gates
So ladies and gentlemen, please, let's get loud for Kyle Rittenhouse.
I just wanna be the hero right now, Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse.
Kyle Rittenhouse.
Kyle!
Thank you for having me, Charlie.
Riley, how's it going?
This is I Don't Speak German I'm Jack Graham, he him and in this podcast I talk to my friend Daniel Harper also he him and in this podcast I talk to my friend Daniel Harper also he him who spent years tracking the far right
In this show we talk about them, and about the wider reactionary forces feeding them and feeding off them.
Be warned, this is difficult subject matter.
Content warnings always apply.
Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world historical facts and personages appear so to speak twice.
He forgot to add the first time as tragedy, the second time as podcast.
This podcast, specifically, I Don't Speak German, featuring me, Jan Graham, and I believe it's called Another Person.
I'm getting the hang of this there being other people thing.
Are you there, Other Person?
At least in the electronic ether of the microphone.
I understand that COVID has isolated us all, but you and I were friends long before COVID, or at least that's what I tell you.
That's what you tell me.
That's right.
That's what I allow you to believe.
It's funny that Jack and I have been friends for years and have never met in person.
There is almost no person who knows more about me than Jack Grab, and we only know each other through this medium of electronic exchange.
The 21st century is a bitch, basically.
Yeah, as you will have gathered from our cold open, listeners, if in fact you are still listening and you didn't break your phone and immediately slit your wrists with the broken shards of screen.
So yeah, it is strange how the chain of circumstances that led us here, isn't it, Daniel?
Beginning with the BBC asking Russell T Davies to come and make Doctor Who for them.
Well, I suppose beginning with Doctor Who, beginning way back when in the 60s.
It's a chain.
It's the great chain of being.
And now Russell T Davies has been asked to come and do Doctor Who again.
And so everything cycles anew.
Exactly.
Yeah.
It's the circle of life.
Yeah.
Hopefully it will trigger the meeting of the next generation of podcasters who will be even better than us, if such a thing is possible.
But all that nonsense aside, yeah, this is IDSG episode 102, the 100th and tooth episode.
And this is Rittenhouse 2, the Rittenhausening.
Except that it's not really about him so much as he's just a synecdoche.
He stands for things.
It's about what he It's about where he leads us, isn't it?
It's sort of the conversation around him and sort of the different personalities that we've been exploring really in the last two episodes, because the Roman McClay episode, which I did get notes from various people from the last episode of like, this is the darkest thing you've done yet.
Weird, isn't it?
Because I felt that on a re-listen, and I wasn't, I kind of wasn't conscious of it at the time.
But then when I listened back to it, I was like, holy shit!
There's something about exploring the words of Amaz Berger and connecting them to, like, millions of people listening to YouTube videos that does just, you know, it's funny, like, this is the world we live in.
And we just, I just prep and then we talk.
And then later we listen back and go, oh, my God, why?
Why would anyone do this?
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, I go through the entire process, you know, prepping, we talk, I do the editing, I release it, and then I listen back to it, as I just have the habit of doing, and then, oh yeah, I live in the hell world, I was forgetting!
All right.
All right, yes.
But I think before we get into the meat and potatoes of this episode, we have a correction to make from a previous one, is that right?
Yeah, from the previous episode, in which I kind of offhandedly mentioned something that I had missed in episode 100, which is I said Malensky on the show, which shows you exactly how I did not have my notes in front of me at this point.
But Joshua Zemensky, who was the person who fired the first shot that sort of led to Rittenhouse's murders.
I had talked about him being the person who cradled Rosenbaum's head after he was shot and actually gave him medical care.
And apparently that was incorrect.
Like I had my facts twisted somehow.
That was a completely different person who was also sort of there who, I mean, obviously was in that same sort of thing.
At some point, I got the idea that Zemensky had been that person, and I was incorrect.
And I went and tried to find where I had sourced that bit of false information so that I could at least verify how I got there.
And I have no idea because I went back and looked through all my old sources and couldn't find anything that actually indicated that.
Somehow I got that in my head, but I was completely mistaken on like that specific fact.
And I think it's important to sort of call myself out for that because that was absolutely incorrect.
It was shown to me by a listener to the show on Twitter, just like correcting me on that.
So thank you to that person.
And I apologize for the for the for the correction.
So anyway.
Yes, indeed.
I think in fairness, I should probably own up.
It's probably me causing that by confusing you, by butting in and talking over you and pulling you off course and the way I'm doing exactly right now, actually.
There's a lesson there which I will not learn.
That was a complete, that was a factual error.
I completely had it in my head.
In fact, I even argued with the guy.
I'm like, no, I'm pretty sure it was Zeminsky.
And it's like, no, it was not Zeminsky.
Everybody agrees it wasn't.
Again, I have no idea how I, how I got to that piece of information, but I didn't want to, I mean, it's 30 seconds in the last episode, but I did want to correct it here and make sure we like really put a highlight on it that like, yes, that was me stating something factually incorrect.
And I just want to be clear about that.
So, Well, you made a good start there on being a right winger, being called out for saying something that's just completely factually inaccurate and doubling down and saying, no, it's true.
But then you went and admitted you were wrong.
So I don't know what's going to become of you, Daniel.
You're not going to do very well.
I guess we're just never going to be the real professionals here.
It's just not going to happen for us.
Anyway, so in episode 100, we talked a whole lot about Kyle Rittenhouse and the absolute dipshit that he is as a human being.
Very nasty piece of work.
I mean, he's 18 years old, but an 18 year olds like 18 year old white boys are.
I was a dipshit when I was an 18 year old white boy.
I'm kind of a dipshit in my forties as a white man.
So, you know, it's, you know, it's not unreasonable to think that Rittenhouse would be as well, but he has a whole like Nazi ecosystem around him, promoting him as a fucking hero, which if you listen to our cold open, He's treated as a fucking rock star.
That was audio from his AmFest TP USA appearance.
And three of the people on stage with Kyle Rittenhouse, whose voices you heard in that clip, were Charlie Kirk, who is the founder and leader of Turning Point USA, who I never think we're going to do an episode about people like that, but who knows?
We might.
Jack Posobiec, who we've talked about to some degree already, who has definite Nazi ties back in 2016, 2017, and who has kind of maintained a certain distance from his 1488 past, but who knows what he and who has kind of maintained a certain distance from his 1488 Who knows what he actually believes.
And a friend of the pod, we should say.
Not a friend of the pod, an enemy of the pod, but a recurring figure.
Recurring minor background figure, yeah.
He's kind of the new Cantwell, as far as I'm concerned.
He's all over the place.
Everywhere I look right now, I find Elijah fucking Schaefer.
Yeah, he does seem to have burgeoned pretty dramatically, doesn't he?
Yeah, very much so.
But then he's got all the qualities that appeal to these people, I think.
Indeed.
And one of the things that I think, where I want to start, because that's the last actual Rittenhouse you're going to hear in this episode, is him being fellated on stage.
You did like Tony Stark.
Yeah, at TPUSA.
Stark Expo, yeah.
Right, at AmFest, you know.
Another arms dealer.
- Yeah, yeah. - Slightly different affect.
Yeah, there's probably an essay in that.
Anyway, but I think it's one of the things that I have really been, that may not have been clear previously, is just how close Elijah Schaefer is to like overt white nationalist, kind of white supremacist content creators, is just how close Elijah Schaefer is to like overt white nationalist, kind of white supremacist content creators, and just how obvious it
This is him feigning ignorance in a way of justifying these ideas, or at least being open to overtly neo-Nazi ideas.
Can I ask you something first, just for a bit of context.
We've just been talking about Schaefer burgeoning, and there he is on the stage, almost, I mean I know it was Charlie Kirk that introduced Rittenhouse to the audience, but Elijah Schaefer's right there, he's like I mean, it sounds kind of at the remove that I'm at.
It sounds like he's kind of taking on the role of Rittenhouse's wingman or hype man or something in this.
And Schaefer, is he very well known in this sort of right wing subculture?
I mean, his podcast is You Are Here, and that's part of the Blaze Network.
Is it big?
Is it getting big?
I think it's getting big, and I think he gets a lot of guests from a lot of various factions in this far-right space.
He's also had a longer-running show called Slightly Offensive, and we're going to listen to a clip from that here in a few minutes.
Okay.
That one has run for a couple of years now.
What I've kind of gathered is that he...
was kind of part of that kind of alt-right thing but more like in that 2016 2017 era but more as a hanger-on more as an audience member than like a content creator and has sort of like come out of that like he's someone who has a professional media career which you know a lot of these kind of other guys you know the people that we've kind of covered previously
um you know richard spencer does not get to like he used to write for and edit for the american conservative but got shit because he was too close to an actual like white nationalist perspective um my Mike Enoch does not get to hobnob, or he did back in 2016, 2015, 2016, 2017, but after Unite the Right, no longer gets to hobnob with the people who are money men within this organization.
So the lesson that we're learning and the thing that you've put your finger on and that I'm emphasizing here, because it's basically the point of this whole fucking episode, is that a lot of these figures who were in that world at that time learned how to toe the line.
And the thing that they learned how to do is just don't talk about Jews.
Don't talk about the Holocaust.
Don't like it literally is that, right?
I was going to say, Richard Spencer, it's going to be the open antisemitism that is the, not the only thing, but that's going to be the trigger to, you know, like that sort of respectable American conservative thing.
That's going to be the trigger where they say, you know, we don't want anything to do with you.
Because that was, you know, since Buckley, it just became completely sort of, you know, to be openly, completely verboten, to be openly antisemitic on the American right.
Right, and believe me, we're going to kind of come back to this idea here very shortly, so I don't want to blow my water here, but there is this definite... I'm sorry to be causing you to be in danger of blowing your water too early.
Yeah, well, you know... I'm constantly doing this, so, you know, it's my fault.
But the idea here is that this open anti-Semitism, like Holocaust denial, Kevin Macdonald blaming the Jews for being Jews kind of stuff, as opposed to like, You know, the Judeo-Christian framework that allows for a kind of Christian nationalism, that certain kinds of Jewish people get, like, grandfathered into this, and so therefore we're not being anti-Semitic.
The kind of rejection of the more overt sort of white nationalist stuff, the more overt neo-Nazi stuff, Because that's untoward, because that doesn't show sufficient support for Israel, which is ultimately about the military-industrial complex and not actually about Israel as a nation-state for marginalized people.
To whatever degree that's true, let's just table that, set it aside for now.
That is a deeply complicated topic, which I am not qualified to discuss.
It doesn't really touch on this discussion because this is about the mainstream hegemonic orientation of the American right for a long time now being neoconservative.
So it's, you know, it's in support of American imperialist structures, which have, you know, whatever you think of Israel one way or the other, it is a fact that America as an empire has been in an alliance with Israel for a very long time.
So it's all tied up with that sort of stuff.
And the certain sections of the American political machine use a defense of Israel as a way of defending that military machine.
Well, we have to be in the Middle East in order to protect Israel.
And the thing with the kind of more overt neo-Nazis is that they don't see that for the obvious ploy that it is.
Like, there is no one in the American security establishment who actually cares about how many Jews get to live in some plot of land in the Middle East.
Like, this is totally about, like, geostrategic interests and, like, ultimately oil, right?
But no, the actual, the Nazis and the white nationalists, they think it's because the Rothschilds run the world from a boardroom.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Which, to be clear, they don't.
That's not what we think.
Right, exactly.
And I think it's important for us to sort of highlight that.
That is a very real difference here.
And we're going to, again, we're going to get into that here shortly in terms of, not in so many ways, but where I wanted to start.
So again, I've said we are, that is all the like overt Rittenhouse we're really going to talk about here.
Instead, what I wanted to do is to Mention this Elijah Schafer guy again, because I'm fascinated, but I think it's important to highlight just how close he is to some of these kinds of conversations that we've been talking about on this show, right?
Fascinated in the way that one is fascinated by, you know, a horrific injury as you drive past a road accident.
Fascinated in the way that, you know, people who listen to this show understand what I mean when I say fascinated, right?
Sorry, I forgot our audience there for a second.
You know, you know what we mean.
We're among friends here, I think, you know, it's going to be OK.
So.
So what I wanted to do first is just play a little bit of an interview that he did.
So prior to, like, immediately prior to Kyle Rittenhouse going and doing that stage performance at AmFest, Kyle Rittenhouse gave an interview to Elijah Schaefer behind the scenes, which is like, I believe, immediately behind that, you know, stage.
Yeah, I mean, probably literal feet away from the performance hall, right?
And Schaefer actually interviewed several people at the same time, right?
It was kind of like an EPK, like an electronic press kit, kind of, you know, bring people in, you do like a 20 minute interview and then move on.
And he published a bunch of those to his Slightly Offensive Show YouTube feed, right?
And I'm not going to like... It's very much the way that, you know, you grab a few words with Jennifer Lawrence as she walks past you on the red carpet on the way into the awards ceremony.
Right.
Everybody sits down, you sit and you have a chat.
I mean, you know, I could play you some of the Rittenhouse chat.
Apparently there were people sharing very creative signs to Kyle Rittenhouse, which presumably were Overtly sexual in nature is sort of the indication I got, although they didn't show any of those.
So one of the other people that Elijah Schaeffer interviewed behind the scenes of this TPUSA event is someone named John Doyle.
Now, you and I have not discussed John Doyle on this podcast, and I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people listening to this have never fucking heard of this guy.
Because he's basically one of the Nick Fuentes clones, who is a little bit better at not, A, was not actually attending Unite the Right in August 2017, so doesn't have that smear on him, and is slightly better at masking the overt anti-Semitism, while still maintaining the covert anti-Semitism, of course.
His YouTube channel is called Heck Off Kami, One of his gimmicks is that he doesn't swear.
Um, so there's that.
Um, but I just, this is a little bit, this is, this is like a minute and 40 seconds or so.
A little fascinating exchange.
The legendary king of heck off Kami.
He's young, he's rich.
By the way, this is another case of, like, the audio here is terrible, and I didn't even notice it until I imported it into my, like, audio rig, as opposed to watching the video, but there was some feedback thing going on with our microphones.
There is nothing I can do about that.
Again, just accept the audio is bad, but it's not my fault.
This is their fault.
And some John Doyle, welcome back to the show.
It's true, thank you for having me.
I'm very excited to be here at my favorite event of the year, the Turning Point USA event, with my favorite Blaze contributor slash host slash reporter, Elijah Schaefer.
Wow, it's just so good when your friends are doing so well, and you see the success, and you're one of them, and it's so amazing to have you here.
Obviously, this is an interesting event, right?
We haven't even had an AmericaFest, so you haven't been to this, you've been to other Turning Point events.
Yeah.
What are your initial thoughts on something like this?
I mean, I always love coming to these events, and you know, people have mixed feelings on Turning Point, but it's like, you come here, it's like, this is the conservative base.
I mean, there are people here of all the different sort of micro-facets of conservative beliefs, so like, I walk around and I see people wearing your merch, wearing my merch, wearing That philosopher, by the way, was Carl Schmitt, who was a Nazi.
And it's like everyone here is basically on the same page.
And, you know, there was a very intelligent right wing philosopher in the 20th century who said that all of politics can basically be reduced to the distinction between the friend and the enemy.
Like you look at that philosopher, by the way, was Carl Schmitt, who was a Nazi.
Exactly.
I try it.
I mean, not not.
I mean, literally a Nazi, like a member of the Nazi party in the Nazi government, the German Nazi government.
The OG Nazi, like not euphemistically, an actual Nazi.
Repentant as well.
After the war, he was still a Nazi, supported Franco and the whole thing until he died.
Agreed.
A lot of informational podcasts of this type get accused of just reading the Wikipedia pages to people entertainingly, and I hate to lean into that, but I thought it was useful here to just read a bit of the Wikipedia page for Carl Schmitt.
Carl Schmitt was a German jurist, political theorist, and prominent member of the Nazi party.
Schmitt wrote extensively about the effect of wielding a political power.
A conservative theorist, he is noted as a critic of parliamentary democracy, liberalism, and cosmopolitanism.
And his work has been a major influence on subsequent political theory, legal theory, constitutional philosophy, and political theology, but its value and significance are controversial mainly due to his intellectual support and active involvement with Nazism.
So, this also describes John Doyle to a T, by the way.
Like, all of these things are things that John Doyle kind of comes back to over and over again.
In terms of his in terms of his videos.
So we might cover John Doyle at some point.
I think he might be like a fun little one off bit to like make fun of this little teenage dipshit.
I don't think he's actually a teenager anymore, but it sounds like a teenager.
I was going to say, actually, just parenthetically, they all sound the fucking same.
You know that meme of like the seven white guys at a tennis match, also the ones at the back are leaning forward.
And it's just like the clones of the same guy down the line.
Yeah.
That's how I feel listening to these fucking voices.
It's just variations on the same fucking white guy voice.
I mean, I know I can talk, you know, but Jesus.
A lot of mayonnaise is dripping out of my fucking headphones at the moment.
There are there are some of these podcasts that are like hosted by like three or four guys who like I'm used to kind of being able to after listening to these guys for a while, I can sort of pick apart the different voices or at least sort of know the different perspectives.
But some of these literally are like hosted by people where I've listened to 20 or 30 episodes and have no idea who is who talking at any given time.
And that makes it very difficult to actually, like, produce content about them because I can't fucking identify the individual people.
Well, I think it's like Baudrillard's simulated in simulacrum.
You know, the distinction between them just breaks down.
They're essentially just the same guy over and over again.
Exactly, exactly.
We might cover a little bit of that in a near future episode, because I ran across some stuff that looked interesting.
Anyway, we should finish the rest of this.
We hit the high point, but I think it's worth listening to the rest of this, because It's going to sound like I'm cutting away from Elijah Schaeffer challenging this in any way or asking who that early 20th century political philosopher is.
He doesn't.
He doesn't at all.
John Doyle just kind of moves on into the rest of the thing that he's talking about.
John Doyle has been a guest on You Are Here At least three or four times in the few months that that show has existed.
He is a regular co-host.
These people are friends.
They work together.
They have a similar political project.
And here's John Doyle referring to a literal Nazi, not by name, but in this coded way that like everyone who follows this stuff knows, you don't ask.
It's understood on the part of both of them when John Doyle does that little feint, you know, about an early 20th century philosopher.
They both understand that that's just to go between them and the listeners who were in on the reference, but not to be made explicit.
But you can't say that within a Turning Point USA event, because that event is not designed for overt white supremacist, overt white nationalist content, right?
That's not the place to do that.
If you come out and start quoting Adolf Hitler on the stage of TPUSA, somebody's going to Google that, and then that doesn't look good on the organization.
They kick you out because you're too overt about it.
So that's the key here, right?
Is to remain in that plausible deniability mode.
Let's finish off this clip and then we'll move on.
The left, they don't really spend time, you know, punching left or punching a little bit less radically left.
They all kind of know that they're allies.
Whereas conservatives, we infight with each other in the marketplace of ideas.
Oh, you're not a real conservative.
You need to be more small government.
It's like, you need to kind of let that go because we are losing so much ground.
It really just comes back to everybody here has at least sympathetic with our ideas.
They are our friends and we should not be infighting.
Maybe we can guide them in the right direction, give or take, but it's like we should not berate these people.
They're all basically, you know, fruit to be plucked, so to speak, towards a more authentically right wing movement.
Yeah, I'll let you pluck my fruit.
Yeah, yeah.
They should be more like the left with less infighting and more putting differences aside.
Yeah, yeah.
I do really just want to ask these people whenever they say that, who is the furthest left person you can imagine?
Who in American politics?
Who in this space?
Is a far left person.
And then who's slightly to their right?
What's your calibration point?
I think is kind of the question I always want to ask because it's like, who's far left?
Joe Biden.
AOC is the furthest left possible imagined person in this person's world view.
The other reason I wanted to keep playing that is, of course, it sounds like what he's talking about is this project of Uniting the right?
Yeah, I was going to say.
Around, like, pushing people more authentically right towards people who have ideas like Carl Schmitt's.
Yeah, I was going to say, what could, you know, let's think of a catchy phrase for this project, you know, where you've got, like, people who are more in line with the politics of Carl Schmitt, and we want to kind of get everybody on the right together around that sort of politics.
There must be a catchy, like, three-word maybe phrase that we could use.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
It's really overt.
It's really fucking overt.
No, Daniel, you're reading into things.
Elijah Schaeffer, he didn't know who that early 20th century statesman was, and he didn't want to ask because he was moving on and just doing an interview.
John Doyle, I mean, he's just a kid.
Who knows?
Who knows, like, what he was really saying at that point.
You're reading this in bad faith, Daniel.
I hear the audience saying you are reading this in bad faith.
You are not being intellectually rigorous in your critique here because, like, all sorts of things could be meant by this.
I mean, it's not like, I mean, what if, like, Nick Fuentes himself was interviewed on Slightly Offensive?
And started talking about Israel.
Like, maybe that would be an example of, like, things not being said that are very obviously going to be said, right?
If you had that example, maybe I would believe you, my hypothetical interlocutor would say, right?
Spoiler alert.
Let's just move into this.
You're not saying there's a plot twist coming?
This is not a plot twist.
This is rising action, is what I'm saying.
I now present to you from episode 215 of the Slightly Offensive Podcast, which is monetized on YouTube, Nick Fuentes, talking about Israel.
You know, for example, on PragerU or Daily Wire, you get an article that was And so this is just for context, this is Nick Fuentes talking about back in the battle days when he was moving away from movement conservatism to his current beliefs, the sorts of media he was consuming and certain questions that he didn't think were given good answers to and how he kind of came to his current political beliefs.
So, that's the context here.
So, I used to listen to PragerU, and they didn't ask about, like, X issue, and you get to find out what this issue is here in a second.
Yeah, he's complaining about PragerU and the Daily Wire not being right-wing enough.
Yeah, these are the cucks, you understand, and this is, I mean...
I'm making fun of it because obviously I'm making fun of it because the idea that Prager U and the Daily Wire are like cucks is not far right enough is ridiculous.
But within this world, this is literally what they believe.
It is a legitimate division point within these different subgroups because Dennis Prager is himself ethnically Jewish and the Daily Wire is Ben Shapiro's thing.
I mean, not just ethnically, but actually religiously Jewish.
I believe Dennis Prager may be Jewish as well.
I think they both might be Orthodox.
I could be mistaken on that.
And the fact that they are Jewish themselves means they can't be authentically right-wing because being authentically right-wing means being overtly anti-Semitic.
There you go.
I was going to say, you know, the real thing he's talking about is he thinks that PragerU and The Daily Wire, partly because of the ethnicity of some of the people involved and partly just because it's not right-wing enough, you know, ultimately in Nick Fuente's deranged universe, it's because they're controlled by, you know, somebody in three parentheses.
Exactly.
Here's the case for low taxes.
Here's the case for Second Amendment.
Here's the case for this.
And then there'd be an article that's like, here's why the Palestinians should be grounded in the dirt.
And it was this weird thing where there's like this fixation on this Middle Eastern conflict between Israel and Palestine.
And it was every few articles, you know, you'd have your conservative mainstays.
Here's a case for life.
Here's a case for You know, the Bible in school, and here's why, you know, the Jewish state has the eternal right, and, you know, whatever you think about that, I started to scratch my head and wonder, you know, my show's called America First.
Support Israel against Israel really makes no difference to me, but shouldn't it be America First always, every time, etc.?
And so I started to ask her, because she was a daily wire, They're prominent, you know, supporters of Israel.
I would say, hey, you know, how exactly is it America first to support, for example, foreign aid?
You know, $3.8 billion per year for Israel, and all of this, you know, how can you really say you're America first if you're so fixated on the benefit of another country?
And she would... Can I ask you a question there, though, before you even give her answer?
Is like, so when you say this, because this is where a lot of people I think get turned off, even these kind of questions, because obviously I know where this is headed, is Like, was your question just on foreign aid in general, or did you see something like, I could question A, foreign aid, but not to this country?
Or was it just like, you just noticed this one country gets a lot of attention in foreign aid, and so you wanted to start there?
Like, what is it about Israel's foreign aid?
Like, was it just, you know what I'm saying?
Like, was it just that you had a problem with, or was it like, the fact that you couldn't have a problem with it?
Like, what was going on there?
Because, obviously, I know where this is going.
Yeah, because obviously I know where this is going.
And let me elaborate before you answer on the various different versions of the way that you're going to attempt to justify this without saying, I am being overtly anti-Semitic and I think Hitler was good.
Like that's what Elisha Schaffer is trying to head off there, right?
Yeah, yeah.
He's not even lobbing a softball, basically.
What he's doing is lobbing a softball and, in advance, giving Nick Fuentes instructions about how to hit it back.
Exactly.
And Nick Fuentes answers the question in various ways.
Again, I think, and again, the point that I'm trying to bring at, and like, look, I understand that this is beating the dead horse to a certain degree, but I think it's worth documenting in this space because this is kind of what we do here is to just provide the documents for people to understand, but like, this is, this is not hidden.
This is, I mean, it's hidden by obscurity because this is, you know, a minute and 30 seconds out of a two hour podcast.
215 and a long-running thing, right?
And so only a madman would actually try to search through all this material, right?
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine the kind of human being who would subject this to himself?
The kind of twisted, sad, lonely person.
Yeah.
And, and Elisha Schaffer, like if you were to bring him on to a more mainstream show, and it was, and he was asked like, you know, about like, well, why would you talk to Nick Fuentes?
What would you like?
He didn't say anything that you could like clip a 10 second bit out of, like, he's not doing Holocaust denial, right?
He's not doing that sort of thing.
He's just, Clearly, within this world, within the framework that we know these people work within, and within this conversational style, he is exhibiting, by the questions he's asking and by the way that he's heading off certain kinds of discourse, that he understands this far darker material and this far more overt material than what he is allowing to be said on his show.
And doing so in a way that ultimately is meant to legitimize Nick Fuentes.
Like, he has every opportunity to ask pointed questions about the cookie meme, and then to, you know, poke and prod at, like, Nick Fuentes being a fucking, you know, being a Nazi.
He has every opportunity to do that.
But he doesn't, because ultimately, while I'm sure there's some daylight between Elijah Schaefer and Nick Fuentes on, like, exactly what kind of society they want to live in and what the, like, kind of The nitty details of the political project they envision.
I'm sure there is some light between them.
Ultimately, they agree and they are working together to enact a political program that is against everything that you and I believe in.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, because unlike, in contradiction to John Doyle's pablum about the right being constantly fiercely competing with each other about their differences in the marketplace of ideas, actually they're in lockstep to an extraordinary degree around shared interests.
And yeah, he's not challenging Nick Fuentes because it's not his job to challenge Nick Fuentes.
His job, clearly, his very lucrative job, clearly, is to legitimize and assist Nick Fuentes and to present him in a respectable way.
And also, you know, to signal to his audience certain things and to allow Nick Fuentes to signal to his audience certain things in a certain way.
And by that as well, to kind of educate them, at least the ones that are open to be educated and interested in maybe You know, like Elijah Schafer himself, coming up through the movement to this point, may be interested themselves in learning how to do this.
The job is educating the audience in how you say these things now.
It's like a course in not just the ideology, but in how you present that ideology aesthetically now.
If you listen to enough of this stuff, you imbibe this.
You learn how to say it.
Exactly.
And I mean, one of Nick Fuentes' early jobs in media was for Right Side Broadcasting Network, which is Jack Posobiec's thing back in 2016-2017.
Once United Right happened, they got ties with Nick Fuentes because he was there and because he was a little bit too aggressive with that Overt white nationalist stuff.
Like, here's the thing that happens is like, you know, TPUSA has a history of when they find one of their interns who has like a history of posting overt racist shit on like the worst forums on the internet, they cut ties with that person.
No, we found out about the horrifying racist things you said that were slightly further to the right than the things that we say and broadcast every day.
You are Out of our lives because you have done the overtly racist thing.
But and then they declare victory because like, no, we don't have racists because we get rid of the racists as soon as we find them.
But of course, what that really is saying is you hire a whole lot of fucking racists.
Yeah, exactly.
You know, why is it that you keep on having to do this?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, you know, like.
I was going to make a bad pun here, but we don't need to go there.
There's plenty more terrible stuff to cover on this podcast because I haven't even mentioned Tucker Carlson yet.
I love it when you don't mention Tucker.
Well, I love it when anybody doesn't mention Tucker Carlson.
What I, again, I'd like to just highlight kind of the through line that I've found through this, right, is Cal Rittenhouse is a rock star at TPUSA.
Yeah.
Behind the scenes at TPUSA, Elijah Schaefer is interviewing Nick Flint as his, you know, dumber younger brother, you know, is literally quoting Nazis.
On Elijah Schafer's other shows, he's interviewing Nazis and talking about Nazi stuff in ways to make it palatable to your regular audience.
I think that is now demonstrated, but Daniel, you might say, these are just the, like, these are the dregs.
This is like the kind of the far right.
These are, this is not the core of the conservative movement playing with these terrible ideas.
I mean, what if, What if you had, like, Tucker Carlson?
Imagine if you had, like, Tucker Carlson playing with, like, overtly white nationalist memes in a way that is, like, completely indefensible by any standard, and doing it specifically in defense of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Well, hang on a minute.
I mean, this is just too outlandish and ridiculous a scenario to even be entertained as a rhetorical example.
This guy, he's the most popular news and opinion broadcaster in the United States.
He's on a mainstream news network, a national cable network.
He is literally the single biggest name in cable news.
Yeah, this is complicated because Tucker Carlson is because Fox is the only like kind of mainstream right wing source.
And so Tucker Carlson gets all of those, whereas the left of center people get divided among like four or five people so that it overstates Tucker Carlson's importance slightly.
But he is the single biggest name in cable news is Tucker Carlson.
And the idea of someone like that doing the kinds of things you just suggested, I mean, it's ridiculous, Daniel, honestly.
And look, everybody knows that Chris Catwell is a giant fan of Tucker Carlson, and Nazis can be fans of people, doesn't make them Nazis.
Sure, Tucker Carlson talks about immigrants shitting in playgrounds, and has produced lots of content about the joint replacement.
Like, he's not talking about, like, white people.
He's talking about, like, nationalism in a civic sense, and people having pride in their communities, and immigrants just need to assimilate and not, like, shit everywhere.
This is not Nazi stuff.
This is clearly just reasonable red-blooded Americanism coming through, and, I mean, Daniel, you are being really unfair to poor beleaguered Tucker Carlson.
What if he was He would never use a meme that was created by an overt white nationalist to use it in the exact ways that that white nationalist used it back in 1994.
That would be ridiculous.
Let's go to the clip now.
Enough irony, I think.
I'm enjoying this bit.
I hope other people are enjoying it as well.
Anarcho-tyranny, you may have heard the term.
Here's the most straightforward definition.
It means Anarchy for the people in charge, tyranny for the population.
Antico-tyranny is a system in which pedophiles and career criminals are released from prison by the state to terrorize the law-abiding.
The law-abiding defend themselves.
They're prosecuted by the state for murder, smeared by the media as terrorists.
Arguably a domestic terrorist.
All as corporate-sponsored activist groups burn their country to the ground.
We're seeing this, but we've seen it before.
In the years before the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was deeply destabilized by crime and chaos, and that set the stage for the Bolshevik takeover.
In the Soviet Union, during the Great Terror, political dissidents were put on trial for daring to defend themselves against criminals.
In the Soviet Union, you could only use a knife in self-defense after you'd been stabbed.
Does that sound familiar?
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse may be the first anarcho-tyrannical show trial in the United States.
It may not be the last.
That is staggering.
The thing that I could not do on this show is actually... That's John Birch Society level stuff.
That is absolute fascist propaganda.
You didn't even see the video in which like all times like when it's like, you know, people are, you know, violating laws or whatever.
It's it's all, you know, like black people like looting stores.
It's George Floyd protest, whatever.
And then like angelic pictures of like, you know, white people, you know, trying to, you know, calm calm riots down.
And that's like it is this very, very slickly produced piece of propaganda.
This is the beginning of one of the Tucker Carlson originals on the Fox Nation website.
This isn't even Fox News.
This is the stuff that Fox News thinks is just a little bit too edgy to be on their broadcast network.
But it's absolutely part of Tucker Carlson's brand.
And this is one of the documentaries he has produced for Fox Nation.
The goal of which is to get people to spend $5 a month to get the real uncut Tucker Carlson shit.
Yeah.
Yeah.
This is from the 20-minute documentary, The Trial of Kyle.
And the central argument that he's making there is that people like Kyle Rittenhouse get prosecuted just for defending themselves against child molesters, while ordinary, decent folk are terrorized by Black Lives Matter terrorists.
Yeah, yeah.
And just to be clear, the term anarcho-tyranny, it is absolutely rife within sort of the online far-right kind of talking points.
It was originally coined by a man named Sam Francis.
Sam Francis is now deceased.
He was a paleoconservative who Sort of got kicked out of, you know, the kind of more mainstream right-wing papers and such, when he got just a little bit too close to white nationalism back in the day.
I believe he died in 2005, but he was one of the three Samuels that I mentioned in our American Renaissance episode, who sort of founded American Renaissance.
Samuel Jared Taylor, Sam Dixon, and Sam Francis.
He is a huge intellectual leading light for these people, even though he's been dead for 16 years.
His work and his ideas get spread around all the time.
He is within this more intellectual side of this white nationalist movement.
His importance really can't be overstated.
So I think we'll probably do an episode on him sooner or later.
I just try not to tread where others have gone.
And there's been a lot of like, writing about him in the past.
But if there's interest, then I'm happy to, I can put together a Sam Francis episode in an afternoon.
Like, believe me, compared to what I've been doing for this episode, if you think this is a little bit scattershot, believe me, the original notes were all fucking over the place, all right?
So, I had to find a through line.
I think it's worth quoting from the 1994 essay, which is most closely associated with the term Anarcho-Tyranny, just to demonstrate how close what Tucker Carlson was saying in The Trial of Kyle is to the way this term was originated and ultimately still used.
So, this is a little bit of an extended bit, but I think it's important to read it.
So, I've linked to this.
It is from Chronicles Magazine, which is a, I believe, like a right-wing Catholic magazine.
I may be mistaken on exactly what the, but it's a far-right, you know, kind of Christian nationalist sort of Soft Christian nationalism, I guess, a magazine published in 1994, July 1994.
It is linked in the show notes.
In the United States today, the government performs many of its functions more or less effectively.
The mail is delivered, sometimes.
The population, or at least a part of it, is counted, sort of.
And taxes are collected, you bet.
You can accuse the federal leviathan of many things.
Corruption, incompetence, waste, bureaucratic strangulation, but mere anarchy.
The lack of effective government is not one of them.
Yet at the same time, the state does not perform effectively or justly its basic duty of enforcing order and punishing criminals.
And in this respect, its failures do bring the country, or important parts of it, close to the state of anarchy.
But that semblance of anarchy is coupled with many of the characteristics of tyranny under which innocent and law-abiding citizens are punished by the state or suffer gross violations of their rights and liberty at the hands of the state.
The result is what seems to be the first society in history in which elements of both anarchy and tyranny pertain at the same time and seem to be closely connected with each other and to constitute more or less opposite sides of the same coin.
This condition, which in some of my columns I have called anarcho-tyranny, is essentially a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what appear to be dialysis.
Yeah, I know, I know, I know.
Of what appear to be dialectical opposites, the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding, and simultaneously a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection or public safety.
And it is characteristic of anarcho-tyranny that it not only fails to punish criminals and enforce legitimate order, but also criminalizes the innocent.
At the same time, the governor of North Carolina grotesquely fails to uphold his famous oath to protect the citizens of his state by keeping convicted felons in prison, he has no problem finding the time to organize a massive waste of his time and the taxpayer's money to hound and humiliate a perfectly innocent citizen for the infraction of a trivial traffic law.
In context, the framing of this essay is
A man who committed a $25 traffic violation and who, for whatever reason, had multiple officers come to his home to extract that little pound of flesh from him, while at the same time the governor of that state was pursuing policies that would increase parolees, would decrease the amount of time that people had to serve in prison because of the oppressive prison industrial complex in which we We're fine.
We found ourselves even back in 1994.
So, Hegel aside, which that's not even... You have no idea how much self-restraint I'm exercising right now.
There's so much here, but I do want to just highlight, like, this idea It's absolutely pervasive among the far right, you know, the idea that like we God-fearing white people are being persecuted for our beliefs while black people just go out and do whatever the fuck they want because they're, you know, they're black and they get, you know, they get the spoils of our society, et cetera, et cetera.
It's a rephrasing of an idea that's as old as the hills.
It goes right the way back, all the way through fascism, right back to the beginning.
And like a lot of fascism, it picks up on something which is, there's a kernel of truth to it, that in the kinds of societies we live in, the populace, the broad mass of the population are heavily regulated by a government that has a lot of control over their lives, etc., etc.
And there is an astonishing amount of legal and extra-legal freedom and laissez-faire for the people that run this.
That's all true, but as always with fascist politics, they take that essential truth, which ought to lead one to an understanding more along our lines, I would say, and they twist it around so that it becomes about how, when they say the people are overly regulated by a tyrannical government, they'd be white people or Aryans or whatever.
And the elites that enjoy the benefits of anarchy, again, it's the three parentheses instead of the people that would actually be talked about in a serious material analysis.
But yeah, it's like always, always with these fancy new terms these people come up with, it's just a rebranding of the same old horse shit.
Absolutely.
And again, I don't feel like I need to explain this, but I feel like I should at least speak slightly on this, and that is the idea that certain laws are enforced more than others, and that certain people are the beneficiaries of this society, that has material Like, reasons?
You know?
Yeah.
Traffic laws are easy to, you put a beat cop out with a speed trap and a radar gun, and they can fine you for doing two miles over the limit.
And it's a revenue source for your local county government or whatever.
Like, that's incredibly common in the United States.
At the same time, we spend tens of billions of dollars every year, uncounted, possibly.
If you count all the knock-on effects of the prison industrial complex, it's hundreds of billions of dollars a year on caging people for petty offenses.
Yeah.
The idea that common criminals are being given some kind of anarchic leniency.
Anarchy doesn't mean that, but are being given some huge amount of leniency because the draconian sentences are being slightly reduced according to some algorithm of good behavior or whatever at the height of the 90s.
Yeah, this is like, this is the height of, you know, the US prison industrial complex.
Like, we're literally caging as many people as the Soviet gulag system at this time, and currently as well.
But like, you know, and the idea that like, that gets just abstracted away, because like, suddenly, we're being soft on crime by like, trying to slightly reduce these things because of, you know, liberal, like, soft heartedness or whatever.
Like, Like, it's completely absurd.
It's absurd on every conceivable level.
Upside down, inside out, and back to front.
It makes absolutely no sense.
It's completely incoherent on every level.
But again, it makes a fundamental Part of the entire ideological superstructure of white nationalism is that white people are being unfairly attacked because of ordinary political activity.
And it plays into the, we're about to, I'm leading into this.
It plays into the way that the, so the January 6th insurrection there.
Well, yeah, it panders to, directly panders to, and feeds into and exploits and exacerbates the anxieties of that base, that white middle-class base of Americans that, you know, that is Tucker Carlson's viewership and was the basis of Trumpism.
I mean, do you.
Just very parenthetically, I just recently listened to an episode of a podcast I like, which is called Radio Free Humanity from the Marxist Humanist Initiative.
And that really good episode, which is, I mean, the episode itself, it might not be everybody's cup of tea, but I enjoyed it.
It's about sort of taking on some of the But one of the things, one of the backgrounds to the episode was the work, the study done by an academic, I believe his name is Robert Pape, into the economic and class basis of the people that were at the January the 6th coup attempt and their motivations.
And not only was it confirmed empirically by Pape that we're talking about the petty bourgeoisie, the white middle classes, but the single idea, the single ideological conviction that they have in common across the board, almost unanimously, is a belief in the Great Replacement.
And what idea has Tucker Carlson been peddling relentlessly for years now but the essentially white nationalist idea of the Great Replacement?
Exactly, and I'm just going to highlight this here, because there are competing versions of the Great Replacement, and I've discussed this before on this podcast, but I think it's important to highlight here, is that, and this plays into the rest of the episode, because we're now about to, we're moving away from anything relating to Kyle Rittenhouse, because I used that clip of
The Trial of Kyle video, documentary in heavy quotes, to talk about the way that Tucker Carlson is building entire parts of his brand on like kind of white nationalist ideology, like explicit white nationalist ideology from explicit white nationalists back in the 90s.
You know, almost certainly filtered through these same kinds of, you know, kind of youth subculture, white nationalist kind of meme plex producers like Elijah Schaeffer, etc.
Right.
People with groundwork for whom has been paved by loads of people who've been peddling these exact same ideas like Lauren Southern and Lauren Southern, who also did a spot on Elijah Schaeffer's podcast.
We will definitely be talking about that.
You surprise me not.
But we were talking, so Tucker Carlson is using these kind of explicit ideas, you know, in order to shape a narrative of a certain kind.
And I think I want to whet your whistle for that.
The thing, the difference between like kind of the Great Replacement and like white genocide, for instance.
Now, these are highly correlated ideas.
They have the same form, they have the same structure, they have the same sort of essential heft, but the Great Replacement is often within sort of like a kind of a far-right Republican politics sort of idea is Brown people are coming in.
George Soros is paying to bring brown people into our society so that they will vote for more Democrats and remove Republicans from power and therefore, you know, make your life worse and destroy the country because the Democrats are fundamentally communist, right?
That is effectively the same as a white nationalist saying, well, brown people are coming in and shitting up our country because they're filthy, dirty people who are not able to actually reproduce our society and will fundamentally change everything about our lives and will be violent.
And the wolves will come in and try to kill you once their numbers get high enough, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And ultimately we track it back.
We find it being planned in that boardroom with the Rothschilds in it that I was talking about before.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And you know, when you find like the Rothschilds and Soros and, you know, the, you know, various, you know, organizations that have at least a handful of people with three parentheses around their names who are planning, you know, cause sort of messaging meetings about, you know, sort of, you know, Quote unquote, open borders.
You get to, I mean, it becomes very, very similar, but these are competing narratives is what I want on within this far right ecosystem.
These people don't like each other, right?
Because on the one hand, your solution is, well, we need to elect more Republicans who will close the border so that we can have more Republican policies.
But the other side of it is, The problem is the Jews or the problem is race mixing or, you know, kind of whatever.
And ultimately, the Republican Party is trying to steal our thunder, is trying to take our ideas and use them and kind of co-opt in a way that is just meant to increase Republican dominance.
But the Republicans don't actually care about the actual issue that we care about, which is getting rid of the Jews, because ultimately they are funded by those same Jews.
Like that's the white nationalist argument here.
Yeah, sure.
It is fundamentally the same idea, but there's a continuum of extremism, and different people are trying to recruit at different nodes on the continuum.
That's probably the way I'd put it.
So I absolutely agree with that formulation.
I'm not trying to quibble over details.
I think the thing that I'm trying to point out is that while there is a very similar structure and they're very similar ideas and ultimately these people are going to, they share the same enemies, which again is us, right?
And people like us.
They don't like each other and they argue back and forth.
This is a point of contention.
Within these within these communities and a reason why, you know, Elijah Schaefer doesn't like appear on doesn't doesn't go on and write for Andrew Anglin's website and why Andrew Anglin never be invited on to, you know, you are here, at least hopefully.
There are points of contention here, and it's ultimately about how overt do we want to be about this, right?
And it's a way that both groups gain market share, and they gain audience based on being able to share the central idea, but disagree about what to do with it, because the people who aren't ready to be overt white nationalists See the kind of the edginess of the argument and they want to get involved in that.
They want to get involved in this thing and they get to tell themselves, but I'm not being really anti-Semitic because, you know, we're not as far as like those guys.
Whereas the people who are more overtly anti-Semitic get to see the cucks over in the Elijah Schafer world and, you know, embrace what they consider to be a more quote unquote authentic version of Of the movement, right?
So, so it sort of benefits everybody for there to be a, to be this, this, this kind of sticking point, this argument, this fulcrum between them, you know, and I think it's important to highlight that and not to pretend it's all kind of like it is a continuum, but there are very clear divisions and that's part of what we, what I'm trying to do here.
Well, that's kind of what's being talked about under the table, as it were, sort of in the under voice.
In that clip you played of Doyle, isn't it?
He's talking about how Schmidt defines politics in terms of friends and enemy.
We need to maybe think about, you know, how we define the category of friend and what he's really talking about is, can we recruit people who are in this different type of right wing politics?
That's kind of the whole thing he's talking about.
Absolutely.
And, and then the Nick Fuentes clip with Elijah Schaeffer and, you know, Schaeffer is delineating, you know, okay, here's where we're allowed to go and here's where we're not going to go.
And Nick Fuentes is, you know, on that balance of acceptability, like he codes his antisemitism in a way that is acceptable to that audience where, you know, Mike Enoch doesn't get to be on Elijah Schaeffer's show and Mike Enoch would would not benefit necessarily for being an Elisha Schaefer.
Like he gains benefit from making fun of people like Elisha Schaefer, for not being overtly anti-Semitic, right?
You know?
So we talked about the Trial of Kyle documentary and Anarcho-Tyranny being used and, you know, You might say, well, that's just one time.
Certainly, there wouldn't be another time.
It wouldn't happen twice.
It wouldn't happen in another documentary called Patriot Purge, in which overtly white nationalist language gets used.
Also, Anarcho-Tyranny, that's from 1994.
I mean, you know, maybe it's just a paleo-conservative thing.
Clearly, they're not going to do this again, or had already done it by the time the Child of Child documentary came out.
Daniel, you're being silly saying that.
Nobody would.
No, it totally happened.
And it's even worse.
And we're going to be talking about the blood libel now.
I deeply apologize.
And the way I'm actually going to do this is I'm going to play a couple of minutes from an episode of Knowledge Fight, because Knowledge Fight episode 614, the title of that is The Purge of Gates.
And it's talking about the first episode of this Patriot Purge documentary.
It's excellent.
I don't tune into Knowledge Fight all the time because I find Alex Jones kind of like fundamentally uninteresting, and I just have other things to do.
But Knowledge Fight is a brilliant podcast.
I really appreciate those guys doing this work.
So I'm going to play this clip because A, it's excellent, and B, As good as the researcher says they are, they missed something that I think is important and I want to highlight it here in this episode.
So this is a bit from Knowledge Fight talking about the use of the term blood libel.
In the first part of the Patriot Purge documentary from Dr. Carlson.
So with apologies to Dan and Jordan, we are going to play a little bit of this clip and then kind of move on.
Hey, let's collaborate sometime.
It would be great to.
Yeah, that'd be an honor.
Yeah.
Can I guess?
Can I guess what white people are the real victims of the blood label?
You're a little bit ahead of me.
You're a little bit ahead of me.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
You're right.
Tucker Carlson doesn't go there.
The overt Nazis go there.
Wait till you learn what Tucker Carlson's version of this is.
So let's, let's hit play.
Darren Beattie of Revolver News is one of the few in media who's done real reporting on what actually happened on January 6th.
The establishment narrative.
The worst single act of political violence since the Civil War.
Donald Trump supporters killing police officers.
Was NAGA blood libel.
Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during the hours-long attack.
They beat a Capitol Police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.
Officer Brian Sicknick died after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher during a fight.
He died at the age of 42 after he was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.
A rioter hit Officer Sicknick in the head with a fire extinguisher.
Hit in the head with a fire extinguisher.
Bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher.
How did he die?
There's just one problem with this story.
It never happened.
The New York Times has quietly retracted its story about the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.
There was no such thing.
There was no fire extinguisher involved at all.
And the paper is backpedaling, admitting that it's possible he was never even hit at all.
So the first thing I want to point out, this is very very important, is that Darren is way out of line referring to shoddy reporting that was later retracted and corrected with blood libel.
If you want to say that the media was eager to blame Officer Sicknick's death on the Trump supporters at the Capitol, be my guest.
But to use the term MAGA blood libel is a disgrace, and honestly that is a disqualifying comment.
I can't, it's awful.
The blood libel is an insidious false accusation that's fueled generations of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and has led to countless deaths and untold suffering.
For Beattie to attempt to co-opt that term to exaggerate Trump supporters' oppression is completely unacceptable, especially considering that a large percentage of the people at the January 6th rally were QAnon followers who believe that the elites kidnapped children to torture them and drink their blood to get high on adrenochrome, which is basically nothing more than a modern-day version of the blood libel.
Like, fuck this dude.
Right off the bat.
It is a time-honored and effective way for them to kind of neutralize so much horrific shit by just claiming that, no, it's happening to us, and using those terms to the point where it lowers their effect, you know?
Mega blood libel.
It's a blood libel against Trump supporters.
I thought you said Tucker Carlson didn't say that the real blood libel was against white people.
Saying MAGA blood libel, it's basically saying it's against white people.
I don't disagree.
I don't disagree.
But again, we're putting our finger on the fulcrum of the difference between the more sort of overt side of this and the like, you know, we use the coded language.
Okay.
Yeah, I get you.
I understand.
Darren Beatty.
So first of all, highly recommend listening to episode 614 of Knowledge Fight.
I was going to sort of go through this Patriot Purge documentary with a fine-tooth comb, and believe me, there is so much.
We could do an episode on any random three minutes of this thing.
It is Astonishing how full of bullshit it is.
We can pull out factual errors and inaccuracies and misstatements and, you know, lying by omission.
We can do that all day with this thing.
It is that bad.
And Knowledge Fight does a great job of highlighting sort of the high points of this and talking about who Allie Alexander is, who shows up later in the documentary.
Elijah Schaefer is a talking head.
And this Patriot Purge documentary, I believe in all three parts of it.
But he's definitely in this one.
I wanted to include a little bit of him talking, but he wasn't saying anything interesting.
I'm starting to feel like I need one of those conspiracy boards, you know, with the red string and shit.
It's really not even that, it's like there's a little board where we put a bunch of photos of people and then you draw a big circle around them and you just go like, post it in the middle, Nazis.
That's really all you need to know here, you know?
Yeah, we don't need like a web of red string.
What we need is just a circle of red string with all the photos inside it.
Yeah, I got you.
Right, exactly.
Yeah, no, no.
Again, there are differences of opinion here, and we try to elucidate those because I feel like that's the goal of what I try to do, is to make sure that we understand these people so that we can combat them more effectively.
But ultimately, You know, it's the same fucking thing, right?
To say MAGA blood libel versus blood libel, like, fucking no difference.
So, um, Darren Beatty, by the way, previously worked for the Trump administration, the guy who is currently running Revolver News, who was saying MAGA Blood Libel.
In fact, he says it twice within about three minutes in that documentary.
Like, it is a very clear meme that Tucker Carlson's people are trying to push on their audience is this MAGA Blood Libel idea.
Darren Beatty formerly worked for the Trump White House And an office which was overseeing Holocaust memorials.
Yeah, okay.
That's it.
I'm done.
I'm quitting.
I've got to go and kill myself.
I can't.
I'm going to have to find somebody else to do this bit of the podcast, co-host, and do the editing, because I can't do this anymore.
I'm going.
I'm just going to go, and I'm going to find the nearest wall, and I'm going to beat my head to a bloody pulp, because that's just it.
I don't know.
It was revealed that Darren Beatty attended, I believe, a VDARE conference, and I think one of the HL Menken clubs.
But he was hobnobbing with overt white nationalists like four years ago.
Joe Biden's administration.
Trumpism was fascism, everybody.
You know that.
You listen to I Don't Speak German.
You're the smartest podcast listeners.
Joe Biden finally fired the guy just a couple of months ago.
So, you know, go Joe Biden.
Well done.
I suppose apparently there were apparently there were regulations about like when you're allowed to like he had to be in the office for a certain amount of time or some seniority.
Anyway, I understand that there may have been some like administrative thing that prevented that from happening on January 20th 2021.
But still he should not have been there in the first place.
And it's just the fact that that was his position, like that is just a giant fuck you.
Like that's like that's that's just like it just epitomizes sort of the nature of our previous presidential administration is like we're going to put a real Nazi in front of in charge of like Holocaust memorials.
Like that's a that's a thing.
So this is where things get dark.
This is where things get dark.
People have said of the last two, this is about as dark as this show can get.
Oh, no, my friend.
No, no, no, no, no.
Because we're now going to listen to some Daily Show.
This is actually, so what I wanted to highlight and the thing that I wanted to, again, not correct, but sort of gently provide a little bit more context for is that when Darren Beatty, who was hanging out at VDARE conferences a few years ago, is starting to coin the term MAGA blood libel.
That's not because necessarily he's reading the protocols of the elders of Zion.
Like maybe he's getting it in front and he's just kind of calling it blood libel, but it turns out that there has been an organization, a far-right organization, who's been pushing Blood libel, anti-white blood libel, as a meme, for several years now.
And that group is therightstuff.biz slash thedailyshow.us slash the National Justice Party, etc, etc, etc.
Sounds familiar.
People, we have discussed it some length, and we will be discussing it much more length because we have gone a long time without talking about them.
But I think it's important to point out this next clip is from The Daily Show Episode 389.
They are currently about, I think 812 or 814 is their current, I forget exactly how high they are now, but this is like three years ago.
They're talking about blood libel, about blood libel against whites and how the Use of the term, the use of certain kinds of historical narratives, shall we say, are used to bludgeon against white people advocating for themselves in their language, i.e.
pursuing a, an agenda of genocide against other people or, you know, Jim Crow or, you know, other kinds of like overtly state oppression against non-white people.
That would be the better way of describing it and the more accurate way in the way that I'm going to do so.
But I think it's worth, and this is, this is just kind of one that I happen to have in my, they were definitely talking about this before then, but this is sort of the beginning of them kind of using it as like a regular meme.
And so I think it's worth playing a little bit of this from episode 389 to get the sense that like the similarity here is uncanny, right?
But again, you're going to hear from the Daily Show boys, it's going to be much more overt, much more discreet and much more We're about to hear it in its pre-processed, pre-laundered form.
Before that process of ideological, you know, sort of aesthetic processing that we were talking about before.
Exactly, exactly.
We're about to hear it in its pre-processed, pre-laundered form, before that process of ideological, you know, sort of aesthetic processing that we were talking about before.
Exactly.
Exactly.
You're going to hear the uncut version. - I mean, well, racism is illegal in Europe.
And essentially the purpose of this whole network, you got to understand, the purpose of this whole network is slandering whites.
So they have basically set up a number of different narratives and a number of different slanders and blood libels against the white race.
And you are prevented legally in some places, socially everywhere, from pushing back on it ever, because to do so, Breaks apart their ability to have essentially the level of cultural imperialism and dominance and ultimately, you know, genocide of our race.
It breaks apart their ability to do that.
And it's when you look at it in terms of here's another slander on whites that I'm not allowed to push back against.
Because if I do, either socially or legally, I'll be punished depending on where I am.
And it's the genocide of the Native Americans.
It's the Holocaust.
It's the treatment of black slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, all of these things, and then the current condition of blacks, all of these things, blood levels, and it's not about equality.
It's not about creating a new and equal world.
It's about getting rid of us, and these are narratives that facilitate that, and that's why you can't push back on them.
So if you're a white person that promotes these, then not only are you just as silent, I understand being silent because you're intimidated, But if you actively are out there pushing and promoting this stuff, you're a fucking scumbag.
You're a traitor.
And as far as I'm concerned, you've lost your white card.
Get the fuck out of here.
We don't need you.
You're a traitor.
You are actively aiding and abetting those things that are destroying your people.
You're a fucking scumbag.
And if you're doing it for social upcomings, for approval from Jews, for approval from wealthy elites, fuck you.
If my people includes that smear of excrement, then I'm quite happy to hand in my card.
I really am.
I am very happy to turn in my white card, if that's what you mean.
I'm very pleased to be considered a traitor and a scumbag by that smear of diseased diarrhea.
A traitor to Mike Pinovich, Mike Enoch and his political project.
100% absolutely true.
Yes, that is absolutely 100% true.
I am a traitor to my project, yes.
I'm going to boast now.
I was once called a race traitor to my face by a member of the British National Party and it was one of the proudest moments of my life and it always will be.
Fuck you people so much.
Do you know?
Not to brag, but Mikey personally hates my guts.
It is perfectly fine.
In a previous episode, I played audio of him wishing me dead of coronavirus.
It's fine.
There is no question in Mike Pinovich's mind whether I agree with him or not.
I am a traitor by his standards.
What I think is important here is that like, at this point, he's not even really like, he is what he isn't kind of talking about sort of the factual accuracy of the Native American genocide and like, you know, or the Holocaust.
I mean, you know, Yeah, at this point, they weren't like now they are absolutely they spend time regularly kind of like, quote unquote, debunking or fact checking, like the Holocaust and that sort of thing.
But at this point, this is more like early 2019.
They're also kind of licking their wounds from the aftermath of Unite the Right.
This is kind of the beginning of Terrorgram and, you know, kind of the overtly white nationalist terror groups.
And they were trying to kind of keep their nose clean to some degree.
But so they're not like challenging necessarily the factual accuracy.
And you hear this in some like segments of this community of, look, it's not like we deny the Holocaust or we deny the, you know, the genocide of Native Americans.
But Ultimately, that has nothing to do with our current political project.
It has nothing to do with wanting to maintain a white country, or wanting to maintain a Christian country, or wanting to maintain You know, current immigration levels, depending on how they want to frame it, you know, like we should be able to have this kind of conversation without being like accused of being part of this like monstrous legacy.
Like we all agree that this legacy is monstrous.
It's just that the thing we're trying to do now is a much more like limited thing.
You hear this like from James Lindsay is like the king of this fucking shit.
He's also really dumb about it, and so it's very fun to make fun of him on it, because he has no tact at all.
He just blunders right into this shit, right?
Andrew Sullivan will say very similar things to this, of, well, look, we need to have a rational conversation about immigration policy, and we can't do that if suddenly, if you want to restrict immigration by, if you want to remove illegal aliens or whatever, You're accused of wanting to genocide all the Native Americans.
How are we supposed to advocate for policies and ideologies that are predicated upon the idea that structural white supremacy and racism don't exist when you people constantly and and gratuitously and unfairly insist upon raising historical and present-day social material facts that prove that it does?
You absolute bastards, you're not playing by the rules.
Right, right.
And like in their language, it is like, it is like an unfair thing.
Like suddenly it's like outside the bounds of conversation.
Like to say that me wanting to engage in a certain kind of like political activity, like I'm not a violent neo-Nazi.
I'm not curb-stomping black people by wanting to increase work requirements in order for kids to get school lunch, because making small children go hungry because their parents can't afford to feed them is a very different thing than being an overt violent neo-Nazi.
We're just talking about policy, and policy You know, people have, you know, this should be something that we get to have a reasonable conversation about at a cocktail party.
It's just a political disagreement.
And can't we just all be friends at the end of the day?
And just, you know, that's, and that's the, that's the, you know, you put this ideology, you put this idea in the kind of nicer shirt, you put it in, you know, in a like fancier packaging, you You engage with it in better editing and you keep the most, you know, the hardest edges of it, you just file those down slightly and suddenly you get something that gets to be considered within mainstream discourse, you know?
Tucker Carlson doing the Patriot Purge documentary.
I mean, we've said this before.
Richard Spencer in 2016 sounded very much like Tucker Carlson talking about narco-tyranny.
Like, it's the same fucking language.
You know, Richard Spencer is willing to go on The Daily Show, which Tucker Carlson is not, or was in 2016, which Tucker Carlson wouldn't do today.
I mean, but that's ultimately aesthetic.
That's ultimately a question of optics.
That's ultimately a question that has nothing to do with, you know, whether they You know, fundamentally agree on the kind of larger political project, right?
Yeah.
We've talked about this, but I mean, we talked about this with Ina on her show about the idea of the ecosystem, the far right ecosystem.
You know, an ecosystem is comprised of loads of different species, and some of those species are in competition and they might be predators upon each other.
But together as an ecosystem, they continue to allow each other to exist.
And that's exactly what's going on here.
Exactly, exactly.
So I thought, just as a way of bringing everybody down just a little bit more, because I was originally going to then like, plug into the Waukesha attack, in which a man apparently intentionally ran over about 50 people in a car in Waukesha, Wisconsin, and the way that Nazis treated that.
But ultimately, That's going to be a topic of a future episode because we have enough to talk about, but I was going to plug this into like kind of how these same topics come up in terms of the way that people talk about Wakisha and those events, but instead I thought Again, you may not believe me, but blood libel is something that they just come back to over and over again on the Daily Show, and this is a constant recurring meme.
And I could point you towards the whole hour and 12 minutes that they did talking about the Tulsa Massacre in 1921 as a blood libel, as Black Wall Street as a blood libel.
I could point you to the episodes in which they talk about the Holocaust for hours about a blood libel.
Instead, since we were talking about Patriot Purge and the Tucker Carlson documentary, I thought maybe let's talk about Mike Enoch.
Let's play some clips of Mike Enoch at a National Justice Party show at one of their conventions, one of their live events, talking about the January 6th defendants and do a little compare and contrast.
Now, We could, believe me, I thought about doing this, is just play a bunch of clips of Enoch, then Tucker, then Enoch, then Tucker, and ask you to find the difference.
We might do that.
If people want that, I could produce that.
It's a lot of work, that's why I didn't do it.
Not clips, just turn it into text and then just read them and then say, which one is this?
Make it into a quiz.
Yeah, no.
Tucker or Enoch.
Tucker or Enoch.
Right.
I have given you the tools to which you can determine.
Now we will read them and you get to decide.
Every now and again, you can throw in a wild card, you know, like a bit of Schmidt or a bit of Goebbels or whatever.
Right.
You know, let's throw in a bit of the Poznan speech from Himmler.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because I'm serious though, believe me, that they always talk like this.
You go right the way back to the OG Nazis.
I mean, you started the episode with that, really, but yeah.
Yeah.
So I'm going to play a little bit of this 37-minute speech from the beginning.
Of Enoch's NJP speech, which is something like August of 2021.
I don't have the exact date in front of me, but it's from one of their events.
And, A, if you remember back when we were talking about the National Justice Party, I made fun of Enoch's public speaking style, in which he was very obviously trying to do his podcast, but speaking in front of a podium, and he sounded like an overactive child.
Um, he has improved as a public speaker.
Um, although, uh, I still don't know how he's going to actually handle, uh, you know, a non hand selected audience of people who are given all the, like all the, uh, all the, uh, poking and prodding to applaud at just the right moments.
Uh, who knows how he responds to like an audience of normal people.
Um, but, uh, He at least has gotten slightly better at this, but I think again it's worth highlighting exactly how this blood libel talk in terms of the January 6th defendants gets used by Enoch and the National Justice Party.
So we're going to start off with his opening and then I think we might just play the closing like as our closing, you know, and because the closing ends with the applause to Mike Enoch.
And I think that's a fitting parallel to the way Kyle Rittenhouse was applauded at the beginning of our cold open here.
So, thank you.
When I spoke six months ago in the immediate wake of the January 6th protest, if you're hearing a theme here, we spoke about the government and the media frame-up of the protesters as terrorists, as crazed right-wing militias plotting a coup against our hollowed as crazed right-wing militias plotting a coup against our hollowed institutions of democracy.
Despite the obvious farce of this media narrative and the government case against the protesters, the ongoing revenge campaign nevertheless has hurt thousands and even millions of people.
Not just the individuals that are being convicted in kangaroo courts on bogus charges, but all white Americans who are currently being blood libeled as potentially dangerous terror threats in their own country.
Huge amounts of money and resources have been poured into building cases against the January 6th protesters, even as the narrative that they were lunatic murderers has collapsed.
For example, The claim that the crowd murdered Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was totally debunked when the coroner's report came out and it revealed that he died of a stroke due to a condition unrelated to the protest.
It had nothing to do with it.
Completely unrelated to the protest, yeah.
Nothing to do with the protest.
And you know that like his initial thing that he's bringing up is Officer Sicknick and the sort of the media libel, the libel against whites, the libel, you know, and he's talking about this.
That's the very same point that Darren Beatty was making in the clip that we were making, listening to before.
And again, we can do an exact parallelism between these two, this speech and the Tucker Carlson documentary.
And we could pull and it would be, you know, you could you could literally intercut them and they sound very similar.
The import of what they're saying, though, is slightly different because Tucker Carlson's narrative is, well, there were outside infiltrators coming in and it was really like Black Lives Matter people in Antifa.
who incited this riot from the inside, you see.
And so these are like peace-loving MAGA people who would never do anything wrong, who would never actually do these things unless they were incited by violence.
And ultimately their narrative is, you know, months worth of like the media giving like soft gloves to the violent, you know, George Floyd protests and, you know, gave permission, gave this implicit permission to the Trump supporters gave this implicit permission to the Trump supporters to do this thinking that they would be treated with the same kinds of kid gloves that the George Floyd protesters were.
This is complete horse shit on every conceivable level.
Right.
But this is the world in which they live, which, you know, you know, nothing bad ever happened to an African-American protester in the streets.
No, no, no.
Like there weren't there weren't like so much tear gas that was visible from space, you know, given against people who were, you know, like lighting McDonald's wrappers on fire, on fire and like touching a piece of wood, you know.
There weren't people literally shot in the face with tear gas canisters, and journalists shot by cops.
None of this happened, of course.
Well, yeah, and shot to death by people who were then told, yeah, it's fine, on your way, son.
Right, exactly.
No, the Black Lives Matter protesters, they're the ones getting the anarcho.
It's the poor old MAGA protesters who got the tyranny.
Exactly.
And again, what do they do is they then use like the impossibly, I mean, I'm sure deplorable conditions that all American prisons exhibit.
Yes.
Again, use the complaints that we constantly stress this.
We've talked about this in one of our Cantwell episodes.
No, absolutely.
You know, that the J6 defendants who are, you know, they get treatment by like Marjorie Taylor Greene comes in and, you know, they make a big show out of like these people are being kept in these terrible conditions in which they're taught critical race theory.
Did you understand?
They complain that they're taught critical race theory.
There's mold in the floors and on the walls.
The food is terrible.
Clearly, these people are being singled out for torture.
No, they're probably given better conditions than most defendants in their situation.
And you're just only noticing when it's these people, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I can't help noticing that Tucker Carlson's version is actually more, well, I wouldn't say more extreme, but it's more, it's more wack doodle as a claim.
Yeah.
Isn't it?
Well, and, and I, that's something, and I look, you know, no, seriously, you don't have to hand it to them.
Right.
Like let's not, don't, don't say that I'm doing that.
But one of the appeals of the kind of overt white nationalist, overt white supremacist thing is they kind of have to lie less.
They kind of have to spend less time, you know, like, Making mental circles, like doodling on paper, right?
They don't have to pretend, well, the Founding Fathers weren't racist.
They just sort of believed in liberty and equality, and they had their blind spots.
And this is like this great pattern of American history, which we now are coming close to achieving.
And so we just need to stay the course and not see everything through this racial lens, because that's divisive.
The Nazis will say, oh yeah, George Washington, hella racist.
Abraham Lincoln, hella fucking racist.
And they will accurately point to legitimate parts of American history and being like, yeah, there were theocracies on the North American continent well after 1791.
The state of Massachusetts wasn't a theocracy until I think 1824 or something.
Like, this is a part of American history.
We just want to go back to that.
And that is legitimately more honest, right?
That is legitimately more accurate, right?
It's just that they say, like, well, this was a good thing and we want to return to that, right?
And so this is a, I mean, that's kind of part of the red pilling phenomenon, right?
If we want to kind of think more broadly about this is, You're getting something that sounds more like a valid truth because like when you do start to learn a little bit about American history, when you do start to, you know, when you're, when you break out of that bit of Fox News brain and you learn like a little bit more about the world around you, you suddenly start to see the cracks in like the very edifice of this, like, you know, of this worldview that is movement conservatism, which they are just always lying all the time.
And so instead the white nationalists Are kind of telling a lot of truth again, not handing it to them.
They're telling truths, but, and they're blaming it on the Jews, right?
They're viewing things through this racialized lens.
Like if you were to say, There is this group of people who are controlling society, and we are all subject to their whims.
And those people were billionaires.
And the system that creates billionaires, which is more important, it's not a personal slight against, you know, as terrible as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are.
It's not, well, if you take care of those two people, suddenly everything's fine.
It's the system that allows them to exist, right?
You know, You understand this.
I'm just clarifying.
Right.
But when you suddenly say, oh, no.
Well, I mean, kind of the liberal answer is it actually is just those people.
And if we had like a black trans woman in charge of Amazon, everything would be OK.
Right.
You know, the lean in feminism version of this or the Nazi version, which is it's all the Jews.
It's because all these people are Jews.
And if they were all white people, then everything would kind of be OK because white people wouldn't do this to the white people.
Right.
Both of these answers are fundamentally false because they ignore the systemic factor, right?
And they ignore the system that has created that and et cetera, et cetera.
Again, you understand this, I think our audience understands this, we are running along already, but I think it's important to highlight, this is why the Nazi ideology, why the alt-right stuff is both I'm appealing to people because it tells more truth, and yet it's more wrong because by telling more truth, it has to give a false answer.
It has to give you this thing that is just fundamentally wrong, whereas the sort of the MAGA version of it, the, you know, the Tucker Carlson version is just kind of wackadoodle on its face, you know, because it just doesn't make contact with reality at all, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I mean, again, you have no idea how much I'm restraining myself now.
Oh, yeah, no, no.
Three hours long.
Let's let's crash through.
We're just going to have to wrap it up.
These Jews in the government and media that libel us as domestic terrorists for being racial activists in our own cause are themselves fanatical, racist, and terrorists.
All of them are staunch Zionists, defenders of the rogue state of Israel, the main exporter of terrorism on this planet.
They can't prove a single shred of what they say about white people.
Who's the conspiracy theorist? - Who's the conspiracy theorist?
Who's libeling an entire race?
Who's really hateful?
You!
Yes!
Ultimately, these people hope that they have poisoned the well with so many years of propaganda, with so many lies, that even as all their lives fall apart, the stigma they have created against white racial organizing will persist.
But for that time, that stigma, it's all coming to an end.
That's why we're here.
That's why we're here.
We are fed up with being lied to and being lied about.
We will not be cowed by the blood libel of the wealthy and powerful.
This is why we formed the party.
Yes, this is why we formed the National Justice Party.
We know the truth.
We will continue to organize for ourselves, for our race, and for our freedom.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And you know what?
He's right.
It is becoming more acceptable.
It is white racial organizing, as he puts it.
It's becoming more acceptable.
That is basically what January the 6th was.
That is what the anti-CRT backlash is and was.
It's what all these things are.
White racial organizing.
No matter what the words or even the consciousness of loads of the people involved, you know, that's what it is.
It's white identity politics, which is Well, people listening to this know what that is, and it is becoming more and more acceptable in its various forms.
It's as we've pointed out, ironically, and with evidence in this episode, it's in the mainstream now.
Well, and this is ultimately kind of the project and what we're doing here and why it's necessary to elucidate this is that there is this thought that like the alt-right lost On August 12th of 2017 that they all went off into their hidey holes and ultimately, you know, like banning them from Twitter was enough that Milo Yiannopoulos isn't on Twitter anymore.
He's now, you know, like decided to be a religious conservative Christian who's anti-gay and like ex-gay and showing up in the 700 Club and suddenly like all these people are pathetic and therefore their project lost.
And it's like, no, they, they, they learned how to, um, Move their message.
They are winning.
They won.
The fact that this stuff is now relatively mainstream, and the fact that it's just getting more hardcore and more extreme, that further right ideas are being mainstreamed, Every, every week and every month, I'm seeing more of it like creeping into like mainstream discussions.
That's the ultimate political project.
And it was always the political project of, you know, Mikey, I can enter England and Richard Spencer to a lesser degree was to get these ideas into the mainstream was to make it okay to be a white nationalist.
And let's be honest, it's kind of okay to be a white nationalist in a lot of ways in the United States right now.
Like, As long as you use slightly mealy-mouthed language.
But the idea is to make it really explicitly okay to be an anti-Semite.
And who knows where this is going in another five years, ultimately.
And that's why I wanted to make this episode.
This is one that took me longer to prep this episode than almost any other.
May not seem like it, but this Was a really tough one to prep, just in terms of figuring out what to include and what not to, because there were so many different ways this could go.
But ultimately, that's the political project, and I think it's important to note that they are succeeding because they have no organized political movement.
I mean, there is anti-fascism.
This is not to shit on the work of other people doing amazing work, but the Democratic Party is not doing anything about this.
No, but yeah.
That movement you just talked about, that movement is relentlessly demonized and marginalized and, you know, treated as part of the problem by the very same mainstream discourse that thought after Unite the Right, well that's over with because, you know, it went wrong and they killed somebody and it looks bad.
It looks bad.
So, you know, they've lost the media battle, they've lost the battle of aesthetics, so now the feeding frenzy begins, they're a busted flush, that's okay, over, back to normal, back to brunch.
That sort of thinking, that kind of thinking which is endemic in the mainstream discourse, let's be honest, in the mainstream discourses dominated by liberal centrist ideology.
They think that way.
They think of everything in terms of those sorts of processes.
They think after Unite the Right, oh that's the right, that's that over with then, that's okay then, that's over.
That sort of thinking is exactly how Trump won in the first place.
That sort of thinking is exactly how after January the 6th they thought, oh well that's that whole thing discredited.
Trump discredited, the movement discredited, QAnon discredited forever.
All we have to do is do endless think pieces on MSNBC and Rachel Maddow and stuff like this about January the 6th and we get the cross-party commission and we get the impeachment and everything like this and it'll be fine.
We'll get them indicted and the rule of law and our democracy will reassert itself and it will fail.
It is failing again.
Even if some people even higher up the echelons, even if they end up being prosecuted, it will still fail because this process is fundamentally not taking place on the register that these people think it's taking place on.
It is taking place on the level of a growing movement and a movement that is assimilating itself into the mainstream through this dialectical process that you and I have been documenting in this episode.
Right.
I mean, Destiny, Stephen Bunnell is defending Lauren Southern.
They're besties now.
We disagree politically, but calling her a white nationalist, people aren't allowed to change.
Well, not when they repeat the same fucking talking points.
Erase the roughest of rough edges and don't do anything to actually change their opinions.
No, you don't get to say you changed.
Look, I'm sorry.
And this stuff is more and more normalized.
And this is something I've been saying for a little while, but it really does feel a lot like 2016 and 2017 to me right now.
It feels very much like a lot of these threads are kind of coming back together in the way... The right is uniting, but it's doing so In a more intelligent way than going off and doing marches in the street where Antifa can throw water bottles at you.
It's a very different thing and trying to document it.
That's the plan.
So we're going to be doing a lot more of this.
I'm sorry, but it's necessary at this point to delve into the muck again.
But at least we're not doing Brent and Heather anymore.
Although we may do their book.
I think we're going to do their book in the near future.
I think we're going to talk a bit more about Brett and Heather.
But just to put a pin in that, finally, and to be done.
But I'm done.
I've said all I need to say, I think, at this point, at least for now.
Yeah.
Okay, well, that's an episode.
Thanks for listening, everybody.
If you want to help us document this process, which I think needs to be documented, we are going to do that.
We're going to try and do that, not to be hubristic about it.
It needs to be done.
But we are one of several people in several podcasts and several people writing, etc., who are documenting this process.
But it is important it should be documented.
And we want to do our bit, and if you want to help us do that, there are ways.
You can talk about us, you can share our episodes, you can spread the word, you could even help us out on Patreon if you wanted to.
A dollar a month to either of our Patreons will get you access to at least one bonus episode a month and access to the entire back catalogue, and it will help us to keep going and keep being completely independent and ad-free, etc, etc.
That would be very much appreciated.
But it's great if you just turn up every time I was going to say every week, but every time we release an episode, I should say, because we are a bit inconsistent about two or three times a month.
This is where we land at this point.
Yeah.
But yeah, just listening is is great.
Thank you very much for doing that.
If you made it to the end of this episode, then God love you.
But oh, fuck.
Anyway.
Yeah, definitely.
That was another episode.
That's another one.
cheers bye 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 idonspeakgerman.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.
