News Brief: J.D. Vance, Eric Weinstein, Jack Murphy, Nick Fuentes and Groyper War 2
Jack and Daniel catch up with J.D. Vance's recent press, featuring guest appearances from a host of old IDSG characters, including Eric Weinstein, Jack Murphy, and Nick Fuentes. Show 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/posts Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618&fan_landing=true IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper Jack's (Locked) Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_ Jack's Bluesky: @timescarcass.bsky.social Daniel's Bluesky: @danielharper.bsky.social IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1
Here we talk about the far right, their fellow travellers, and what they say to each other when they think we're not listening.
The show is hosted by Daniel Harper and me, Jack Graham.
We're both he-him.
Be aware, we cover difficult, sometimes nasty subject matter, so content warnings always apply.
Okay, so welcome back to I Don't Speak German, and it's another News Brief episode, and the news, yes, it keeps happening, doesn't it?
Daniel, are you out there?
Are you out there in the void?
I am.
I am indeed been hanging out on Twitter and listening to my podcast and doing all the things and the, the DNC has officially announced or like installed Kamala Harris as the, as the new candidate and Wallace is the, as the vice presidential candidate.
And I guess we're just off to the races now.
And that DNC man, what a bunch of far left hippies that I just can't wait to punch.
Like, I'm just like, those guys are just, they're just way, way left of us, you know?
Yeah, it's quite frightening, isn't it, seeing such an explosion of far-left communist radicalism taking over the American mainstream.
I'm very worried about it.
When Jon Stewart does a bit, like, criticizing the fact that you wouldn't bring a Palestinian-American up on the stage for the DNC, when you've lost Jon Stewart, you know you've gone too far.
Meanwhile, they've got loads of Republicans marching in and endorsing Kamala Harris, but nary a Palestinian.
Even a Palestinian-American Democrat who had submitted her remarks in advance, and there was nothing unexceptionable in there at all.
Nope, not allowed.
Yeah, I mean, it's just like, are they just, are they terrified that you're just going to, that she's just not going to go by the script?
I mean, this is like, these are people who, like, they want to work within the party.
I mean, I saw some, like, private statements or some, like, statements outside the DNC, you know, where they were talking about, and I don't have it in front of me, but it was, you know, effectively like, look, what's being done to my people is an atrocity, and Kamala Harris is a, you know, is a part of that.
Joe Biden is a big part of what's happening here.
Nevertheless, I think you should vote for them.
And I think that's completely reasonable.
I don't know.
It's just one of those things of even the people who want to work within the system to confront this issue are just being completely shut down.
It's so disgusting.
It's just so disgusting on every level.
Absolutely.
Yeah, to move from the far left, which is obviously what we're talking about now, when we're talking about Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, over to the other side of the vast chasm that is American politics, the vast difference between the two parties, over to the other side.
The news that we're going to be talking about in this news brief is not actually about anything that went on at the DNC, although we might be talking a little bit about Something that happened outside the DNC in an upcoming episode that I'm prepping.
Little tease for you there, listeners.
But we're not actually talking about that yet.
What we're talking about this time is somebody to whom an awful lot of news has been happening and continues to happen, and that's J.D.
Vance.
Trump's running mate, or vice president.
The most charming man to ever walk into a bakery.
That's right, yes.
That was amazing, wasn't it?
What the hell are his team playing at?
Nobody scouted ahead, nobody made sure that those people were interested in being filmed, nobody checked that they weren't going to be hostile to him or anything, they just... I mean, I'm not making excuses for JD Vance, obviously, because he went in there like a malfunctioning replicant, you know.
This is what humans do.
Humans make small conversation.
I will replicate human behavior.
But, you know, he went in literally, and the place was full of people that obviously did not want to talk to him, and did not want to be on film, and obviously nobody had checked this.
How do you fuck that up that badly?
That's just so... I mean, it's just unforced error after unforced error over there.
I mean, it is one of those... The moment when Trump was shot, and he jumps up in the air and does the fight, fight, fight thing, that's like... You cannot teach that political instinct.
That is just 100%.
And then everything after that moment has just been, like, ratfalls into dogshit.
Like, the entire time.
And that's not even about their policies, that's just about them just failing utterly to do anything right.
Yeah, I mean, he is a big part of the dogshit avalanche, as you say.
There is a feeling, I think, in political campaigns, when things start to go wrong, they will just continue to go wrong.
There's a kind of a domino effect.
And I think we're seeing that very much on the Republican side at the moment.
But just on the level of choice, choosing J.D.
Vance was just such a... Again, apparently nobody vetted him for this job.
Or if they did, they looked at what they found when they vetted him and said, yeah, this is fine, this'll be fine.
You know, we talked about this on a previous news brief where we were, you know, when, after Vance was, was first like kind of selected, we, I think we recorded like a day or two after that.
And it's like, well, I mean, everything that I can understand is that, you know, it's just like, he was just personally loyal to Trump.
Trump liked him because he kissed Trump's ass, you know?
Usually there are like considerable effort is taken to like, you know, vet people for these things.
I mean, they do oppo research for a reason, you know?
This gets into some more complicated things about, like, the nature of political parties and such, but, like, the nature of a political party is to be a vessel for, like, holding and wielding political power, right?
You know?
And neither American party, neither party in the, neither of the two major parties in the United States, Really seemed to be moving the needle on that.
It's all about the person at the center.
Right now, it's like Trump just is the Republican Party.
If you remember in 2020, he didn't even release a platform when he ran.
It was just like, well, whatever Trump says, that's the platform.
And Democrats have learned that lesson.
Kamala has not released a whole bunch of policy positions or anything, and is really not answering questions from journalists.
And look, I'm not an institutionalist with a capital I or anything.
I have a Deep disrespect and deep antipathy for most institutions.
But if you're going to be a superpower, you've got to have some institutional memory here.
There's got to be something going on that's more than just whoever happens to be wearing the big hat at the time.
So on the subject of Vance and vetting and his past and the news that keeps happening to him, the reason we're doing this news brief is because I was just amused, I suppose, by the fact that in quick succession, two clips, two old clips of Vance doing podcasts.
I mean, essentially far right or far right adjacent podcasts.
In the years leading up to today, they surfaced in quick succession, and they were both of him talking to people that you and I have not done episodes about.
We did two episodes about one of them, and we talked about the other guy quite substantially in the course of another episode, and those two individuals are Eric Weinstein and Jack Murphy.
I don't know.
The more I have read about Vance since his selection, the more he has kind of a weird history.
Right.
Because like he had like trans friends and at least one trans friend at university.
I believe people who knew him at the time were like, you know, this isn't like a politically radical guy.
This is, this is just a guy.
I mean, you know, he's, he's from Appalachia and he's going to Yale and he's, you know, just, he's just one of those guys.
But like, as he enters, the more he entered the mainstream, Certainly after the publication of Hillbilly Elegy, which got, I think wrongly, got a whole lot of praise from liberals.
It was praised for showing a portrait of the poverty of the region.
Really, it's like, no, this is about kicking poor people while they're down.
That's what Hillbilly Elegy is about.
It was, they loved it.
They totally adopted him and that book, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
But then he comes out and he starts doing this kind of alt-right stuff.
I think this is the podcast that has the most sense of what that word means of any podcast, and yet it's still one of those things of it's the version of alt-right that Vance was going for.
He wasn't doing the openly anti-Semitic, he wasn't doing the Andrew Anglin, Daily Shoah, And he wasn't really doing the Nick Fuentes stuff.
He was doing more the traditionalism, and the birth rates, and the families, and we need strong family formation, etc., etc., etc.
And I think that's a lot of what we're going to see in the clips that you're going to play.
It is this reactionary, almost monarchist view of the world, but filtered through this lens or this distorting mirror of populism.
And so you hear him go on these shows, which are by, you know, these kind of reactionary figures, particularly Jack Murphy is particularly one of those reactionary Manosphere figures.
But of course, he never quite gets so close as to like the Nick Fuentes stuff.
Although I think there's some connections there that we're going to highlight.
And as you say, that's very much the sort of stuff that was picked up on, I think, by the journalists who were obviously trawled through all his previous appearances in interviews and podcasts and so on.
I mean, what they're doing, I mean, again, not to make any excuses for Vance, but what's happening is that journalists are going through his old appearances and interviews and things.
And they're looking for outrageous, embarrassing clips.
Let's be honest, that's what's happening.
To create a news cycle.
And the thing about J.D.
Vance, of course, is that he's more than willing to provide.
Because he is some sort of fluctuating variety of far-right wingnut.
So the first clip I've got is a clip of him talking to Eric Weinstein on Weinstein's Podcast, The Portal, all of which we have talked about on this show.
We did two episodes about Eric Weinstein, and I can't remember the numbers, but if you look through the back catalogue, you will… I used to know all the numbers by heart, and I have completely forgotten them at this point.
I'm sorry!
But yes, we went into Mr. Weinstein in some detail.
And of course, it's no real surprise that J.D.
Vance and Eric Weinstein should be palling around with each other because one of J.D.
Vance's big influences and patrons has been Peter Thiel, the essentially fascist billionaire, Peter Thiel.
It's always it's actually been like really confusing to me because the more you look at like, what does Eric Weinstein do for Peter Thiel?
And it's like, he's just he just seems to be like, a quant guy who just sort of like, made some money, you know, just like doing advisory work, but there's never a sense of like, They were buddies.
He traveled around with him.
He did all kinds of stuff like that.
But it's not like, what was your job?
It's not clear.
But there's a position that he held as much as it was.
He was just one of Peter Thiel's money guys.
Just one of his numbers guys.
Whereas Vance was ruined by Thiel.
Thiel very overtly.
like picked Vance because of his, you know, kind of those kind of alt-rightish kind of reactionary positions.
You know, he watered him, he groomed him into this position.
So, and of course, it's not unusual for the two of them to do a podcast together because, well, of course, it's all the same ecosystem, right?
You know?
Yeah, absolutely.
So the clip I'm going to play you is, well, it's all the good bits, basically.
And I'm going to have to confess to having been lazy and harvested this compilation from the Majority Report because I went to searching for the clips on YouTube and I found a Majority Report video where they had very helpfully collated pretty much all of the good stuff in order to comment on it.
So you will occasionally, in the course of what you're about to hear, you will occasionally hear Emma Vigeland and a couple of the other majority report people commenting or laughing, but it does not get in the way, and it really was tremendously handy for me to just steal it from them.
And you can sort of see the effect it has on him to be around them.
Like they spoil him.
There's sort of all the classic stuff that grandparents do to grandchildren.
Talking about his son.
But it makes him a much better human being to have exposure to his grandparents.
Well, I don't know... And the evidence on this, by the way, is like super clear.
That's the whole purpose of the post-monopausal female in theory.
Did your in-laws, and particularly your mother-in-law, Show up in some huge way.
She lived with us for a year, right?
So, you know, I didn't know the answer that no weird unadvertised feature of marrying an Indian woman who it's yeah, it's in some ways the most transgressive thing I've ever done against sort of the the hyper neoliberal approach to work and family and My wife had this baby seven weeks before she started the clerkship.
He was still not sleeping any more than an hour and a half in a given interval.
And her mom just took a sabbatical.
She's a biology professor in California.
Just took a sabbatical for a year and came and lived with us and took care of our kid for a year.
And it was just one of these things where it's like, this is what you do.
So, a biology professor, PhD.
Yes.
Drops what they're doing.
Yeah.
To immediately tend to the needs of a new mother with her infant.
Painfully economically inefficient.
Why didn't she just keep her job, give us part of the wages to pay somebody else to do it, right?
Because that is the thing that the hyper-liberalized economics wants you to do.
The economic logic of always prioritizing paid wage labor over other forms of contributing to a society is, to me, It's actually a consequence of a sort of fundamental liberalism that is ultimately going to unwind and collapse upon itself.
It's the abandonment of a sort of Aristotelian virtue politics for a hyper market-oriented way of thinking about what's good and what's desirable.
If people are paying for it, and it contributes to GDP, and it makes the economic consumption numbers rise, then it's good.
And if it doesn't, it's bad.
I think that entire sort of, to me, that's sort of the root of our political problem.
I just want to say at the outset, I have a degree in English and philosophy.
I have no idea what he's talking about when he says Aristotelian value ethics there.
I do not have that degree, but I majored in philosophy for a while.
I read some Aristotle, and I'm not sure...
What part of Aristotle's ethics is he referring to in terms of women choosing to stay home?
I don't know, he's talking about the system, the neoliberal system, and that's always not explicitly here, but that is often code for the Jews.
It's often that.
I don't think JD Vance is explicitly anti-Semitic in the way that, again, Andrew Anglin is explicitly anti-Semitic.
But still, yeah, no, like, I think the argument he's making is that, like, the system at large makes it very easy to make the decision to stay in the workplace, as opposed to, like, women staying home and taking care of their kids, and that he's standing against that because it's the more, like, natural way in that, like, government policy should sort of enact that.
Is that kind of how you read that?
Yeah, I mean, obviously the media people that talked about this, they glommed onto the most quote-unquote sensational moments, or most embarrassing moments.
I mean, the big one is where Eric Weinstein says of Usha's mother, Vance's mother-in-law, who helped look after the kids, that's the whole purpose of the post-menopausal female.
And Vance doesn't say that himself, but he responds with yes.
He does say yes, doesn't he?
Yeah, I listened to a full interview he did on Megyn Kelly's show after some of these clips surfaced, and he's like, you know, we're just opposed to the culture of anti-life that represents modern liberalism, that represents modern neoliberal capitalism, et cetera, et cetera.
I think the thing that should make us uncomfortable, the thing we should get out of this is that it's a fundamentally, like, sort of biodeterministic, like, way of thinking about the world.
You know, it's all about, like, spreading the gene pool.
It's all about, like, making healthier children and making better people, and, like, the point of the postmenopausal woman is not, like, well, she's a human being who gets to have her own life, but, like, your role is, like, built into your biology, and you were built to first gestate children, and then when you're no longer able to gestate children and to take care of them, you can Take care of the next generation, along with the other women.
You know, it's this reification of Ozzie and Harriet is what it is, because none of this has any, like, history.
I mean, you know, if we're talking about, like, how, like, villages used to take care of children, obviously, this varies considerably from place to place and culture to culture, you know, over the course of You know, 100,000 years of human history.
But you're talking about, like, a village concept.
You're talking about, like, a group of people who are all taken care of, like, that all of the children get taken care of by, like, the entire polity.
It's sort of like a more traditional way of doing things, as opposed to, you know, you're actively helping this particular child because you share a genetic inheritance from them.
This is just the fundamental error, and it comes arguably straight from the selfish gene.
It comes straight from this kind of sociobiological kind of thing, and they dress it up in fancy words, but ultimately it's like it is.
Well, it's a 1950s sitcom, and that's what we think life should be, because ultimately that's the vision of life they're trying to sell.
Yeah, it's hardcore evo-psych sociobiology selfish gene stuff plus misogyny, hardcore sexism and misogyny, plus just intense ignorance and illiteracy about anthropology and history and plus just intense ignorance and illiteracy about anthropology and history and sociology and so But I repeat myself.
We kind of talked about this on this show before, and ironically, one of the places where we talked about it was in the episode that we did where we talked about Jack Murphy, because that episode is about the guy.
There were problems with his name at the time because he had like 17 names, including his own fiction.
But he was the guy that wrote weird science fiction novels, the MRA guy, who then murdered some people in pretty much the way that he described in his book, Roman McClay or something like that, isn't it?
I think that's right, yeah.
I think that sounds right, yeah.
Yeah.
And that's an episode in which we get into his philosophy of life a little bit, and it's the same sort of thing, basically.
It's the same sort of hardcore, crude, 19th century race science, and all the attendant ideas, like the purpose of the female is to do this, that, and the other role in reproduction, just filtered through this modern It's kind of pioneered by Dawkins and E.O.
Wilson and people like that.
Yeah, no, obviously.
And I don't want to defend Dawkins, but I will defend E.O.
Wilson.
It's certainly more sophisticated in terms of his thinking than these guys.
I mean, they're taking the pureed abstracts of something that E.O.
Wilson said a hundred years ago, and that becomes the basis of this.
I think given how terrible Dawkins has been in the last 15 years, I don't really feel the need to defend the selfish gene very much.
I think to the degree that it needs a defense, it is certainly more sophisticated than Roman McClay or J.D.
Vance, but Dawkins has fallen down that particular brain rot himself.
One of the things we talk about in that old episode, the one I'm referring to, is the fact that if you actually go to the scientists who I would still think of as genetic determinists or biological determinists, the evo-psychologists and the sociobiologists and people like that,
They have retreated to a large extent from the kind of very strong claims, this kind of vulgar reductionism that you get from people like Weinstein, that JD Vance just, you know, without a second's hesitation, he just completely agrees with it.
Right.
No, absolutely.
Absolutely.
I mean, there is a difference between how, like, biologists and, you know, scientists and academics talk about it versus how, you know, the vulgarized version, as you say, that sort of becomes the pablum of our sort of, like, public discourse.
Yeah, the other thing, of course, that surfaces in that clip is the Orientalist racism, the attitudes towards Indian women.
It turns out that half the population of the most populous nation on the planet can be summed up into one single stereotype.
Yeah.
Which has among the highest level of linguistic and ethnic diversity of anywhere.
Absolutely, yeah.
I wish people understood, really, that when they talk about India, they are very, very much not talking about a monolith.
It is an incredibly culturally and ethnically varied society.
Yeah, it reminds me a little bit of that thing, you know, you remember a few years back, the right were constantly on about soy.
You know, the big panic with soy meant we're turning into weak Beta males who like refugees because there was so much soy in our food and so on.
And somebody, I can't remember exactly who, it might have been Hbomberguy in one of his Paul Joseph Watson videos, but he said, you know, yeah, these massive societal shifts are taking place in our society just over the last couple of years because of a bean that was part of the staple diet of millions of people on an entire continent for literally millions of years, you know.
Including the staple diet of Genghis Khan, and this bean is making men into weak pussies.
Exactly, exactly.
Yeah, Hbomberguy, I think he did a two-parter, which was he tried the soy diet.
He went full soy, and his testosterone levels were higher after than they were before.
It's just, you know.
Yeah, no, I mean, but it does come back to that, like, biological determinism.
I mean, this is less genetic and more the things you put into your body, the choice of, like, what type of protein you eat is going to determine, like, your manliness.
It's going to determine your worth as a human being in these guys' eyes, you know?
That's the whole thing with, like, seed oils, is that you're not supposed to have vegetable oil.
You're supposed to have, you know, like, non-seed oils, because seed oils are, you know, this thing that's, like, it's ultimately feminizing.
It's like phytoestrogens and all that sort of thing.
So it's like this, You know, there's this weird—and it is fully, functionally pseudoscience, you know, but there is this really weird pseudoscience kind of going on in these guys' heads with these topics.
Well, it's all pseudo, isn't it?
I mean, the politics is pure pseudo-politics.
Like, the anti-neoliberal pose that is struck by guys like this, you know, the anti-capitalist pose, the talk about... I find it a little difficult to parse some of what Vance is saying there.
When he's talking about the most transgressive thing that he's done, do you... I mean, maybe you have an opinion.
Is he talking about Is marrying an Indian woman being the most transgressive thing that he's done, or is he just talking about marrying and having that kind of family?
Well, A, it's kind of word salad what he was saying there.
I mean, it is just very difficult to parse at all, at least in that form.
I know I listened to that episode when it originally aired, but I didn't re-listen to it for this.
Because I listen to every episode of The Portal, and boy, that was a chore.
I'm glad that podcast doesn't exist anymore.
But yeah, no, there's this pose that these guys give, it's like, well, settling down and having kids, it's like, that's something the system doesn't want you to do, that's something the sy- like, which is, y'know, the idea that, like, our culture- The capitalism famously opposed to the nuclear family.
Yeah.
The idea that, like, the US, like, culture, the world I live in, the place I live in, is not, like, relentlessly obsessed with children, it's just- It's like absurd.
And I mean, they're literally just going like, you know, they're talking about like, well, it's okay to be gay.
It's okay to be trans.
It's okay to like, maybe you could be single and not have kids and live your life and be productive and healthy.
And like, you know, it's like the slight reduction of like the absolute, like pressure you get to have kids.
It's like suddenly like that is, that is too far.
That is a bridge too far.
You can't go, can't go there.
Yeah, I think that's the argument, is that it's A, I decided to get married and have kids, even though I had a big career, and Elon Musk has 20 kids or something.
Yeah, but it's fine, because he doesn't care about them.
It's different for men and women in this dichotomy, because men are allowed to care about their kids in these hyper-competitive fields.
You're allowed to want to have kids.
In fact, you're seen as Throwback, or not a throwback, but an abnormality, if you're not raising children.
You're just expected to pay people to care for them for you, or to have a wife that's going to care for them for you.
And in this world, in this kind of high-powered world that he lives in, the wife is expected to work, to have another high-powered job, and to be doing something meaningful in the world.
And so I think he's saying that her decision to have the kid and stay home and be more of a caretaker, and not to farm out that labor to other people, not to farm out that labor to poor people, and then show up for the baseball games when it's time for the photo op.
I think that's what he's referring to as going against the grain.
And if anything, the fact that his wife is Indian, there's this perspective that this is a more submissive culture, a more traditional culture.
Yeah, like kind of like modern day like American women that American women are like inherently flawed because they exist within this like feminist, you know, like, girl boss, you know, kind of kind of philosophy and therefore, to have to have a wife from more and more submissive wife, more emotionally and like financially submissive wife is, is a is a bonus there like that.
So that's what he's saying.
That's the idea that he's trying to get across.
Yeah, and that's what's really at the root of the ostensible opposition to neoliberal capitalism.
When they talk about this stuff, they're not actually talking about the real phenomenon.
They're not actually talking about neoliberal capitalism as we understand it.
And people who actually know things understand it, which is a restructuring of how Western capitalism functioned on various lines, and also an attendant social and cultural counter-revolution, in a reactionary direction for the most part, but also with side effects like
The growth of openings for progressive liberal causes and stuff like that, that's the stuff that they're worried about.
They're worried about the fact that in recent years, well they're worried about women having careers, not being in the home, not being the mother in the home, and they're worried about things like The growth of acceptance of things like LGBTQ relationships and gay marriage and stuff like that.
That's the neoliberalism that they have a problem with.
And you can hear it in Eric Weinstein's excited joy when he starts talking about the concept of a woman with a career giving it up to stay home to look after a baby.
Just the concept of it gets him so hot under the collar.
Yeah.
And of course, none of these people would ever, like, you know, consider, like, well, what if a man, what if a successful man decided to, like, stay home and take care of the children?
That's a weak position.
That's a weakling.
You know, that's something that you're a cuck.
You're a soy boy if you do that, you know?
And yet, like, you know, those are one of the most admirable things a man could do is to stay home and take care of his children if he has the ability to do so.
This is not against people staying home and taking care of their children.
It's about the enforced social rules.
It's about the... There's this one vision, and I keep saying it's Ozzie and Harriet because that's exactly what it is.
It's just this filtered memory of a sitcom that just becomes... And that's what they build their whole ideology on, and they just call that neoliberal capitalism.
Neoliberal capitalism is man, woman, two children, but the woman is working.
Yeah.
Well, they want the fantasy of the vast transfer of wealth upwards to the capitalist class, and the hyper-deregulation, and the attendant growth in sort of statist repression of social movements, the destruction of social movements, the attempted destruction, I should say.
The attempted destruction of trade unit.
They want all that stuff, but they want it without any of the stuff that they don't like, which is, you know, like capital accumulation needed to get women into the workplace so that it could start exploiting their labor as well.
They have this fantasy that they can have the one without the other.
And that's where it makes direct contact with the online, young man, resentful, anti-feminist, reactionary sorts of movements.
And that really does link up.
I mean, it links up firstly with one of the big reasons why J.D.
Vance is the running mate, because he was popular with exactly a couple of those kind of chud guys, online reactionary guys, who just happen to be Trump's sons.
They like him because he's got the same sort of shit poster, edgelord, online reactionary energy.
And it also links up with the other podcaster that JD Vance got in trouble for having spoken to, who we have previously spoken about, Jack Murphy, who of course comes directly out of the online men's rights activism movement.
Have we, or describe please, the difference in our approach to who we decide to let into America, who can become an American, what changed, who changed it, and what was the purpose, and what is the negative side effect?
Yeah, you know, I think it's one of these things that's evolved over time, right?
So obviously you had this massive wage wave of Italian and primarily Italian-Irish and German immigration, right?
And that had its problems, right?
It had its consequences.
You had higher crime rates.
You had these sort of ethnic enclaves developing.
You had inter-ethnic conflict in the country where you really hadn't had that before.
And so there were downsides to it.
Obviously, there were upsides, too.
And one of the cool things that we did in the 1920s is we just sort of slowed down immigration a little bit.
We let those sort of populations who had come to the country as new citizens really incorporate themselves into the broader American fabric.
the broader American fabric.
That obviously was turned on its head in the 1960s with some of the things we did with our immigration laws.
That obviously was turned on its head in the 1960s with some of the things we did with our immigration laws.
But even in the 1980s, I think that if a new immigrant came to the United States, wherever they came from, they received a pretty straightforward message from the leadership of the country.
This is a wonderful country.
Obviously, it has its problems, but it's a good place.
It's a good place to live in.
You have chosen to come here.
You owe something to this country, and this country owes something to you.
There's this sort of common bond of citizenship.
That is directly playing into one of the, I mean, probably the key issue, to the extent that it talks about issues at all, that the Trump campaign is talking about, which is immigration.
Immigration into America.
Well, certainly in that era, certainly in that time period, you know, that was, that was the big, you know, that was the big alt-right, you know, far-right, you know, Trump administration, you know, you know, emphasis.
And you notice he, he even like goes a little bit further.
He talks about like, previously there was Irish immigration, that there were, you know, there were immigration from like Eastern Europe and, you know, from, from poorer countries in Europe.
And that that was a problem at the time, but that we, we absorbed that.
Okay.
And like, you get the sense that like, no, he's really talking about like, A pure, like, Anglosphere America.
He's talking about, like, the Puritan stock.
It's like, those are the real Americans, and then everybody else who came after that is, you know, in some way, in some way just dirtied the place up, it has tainted the soul of the nation.
And that this current wave, the current wave from Central and South America, well, Mexico is Central and South America, obviously Mexico is not part of Central and South America, but The current oncoming brown hordes, it's a step too far that we managed to let the Irish in, and I guess that was okay.
They don't speak Spanish.
Those people, we can't possibly let into our societies and absorb properly, because that's just a bridge too far, again.
Yeah, and so I think that detail is something that kind of interests me, because I was listening to all this stuff at the time, and it was just a constant refrain that, well, we can handle the poor whites because they're still of us, but then we can't handle the new waves of immigration, which are not of us, which is obviously completely absurd on 50 different levels.
One of the insidious things about this, I think, is the way... I mean, the clip surfaced and there were lots of comments on social media like, oh I see, we're going back to early 19th century racism now.
As if we ever got away from that.
But the interesting thing is that the unspoken idea behind, in the media's mind, when they're putting that forward as a shocking clip, whether they're conscious of this or not, it seems to be like, It's extra shocking or extra reprehensible because he's talking about people who we've now decided are white.
That really seems to be what's underlying it.
It became extra clear to me, because he was asked about this at a press conference, and I'm gonna play a little clip of that and his response.
Firstly because his response is very funny, and secondly because I think the question is really interesting.
Senator Vance, Chris Cameron with the New York Times.
You were talking about the relationship between crime and immigration, and my question is on that issue.
Please.
In an interview when you were running for Senate in September 2021, you were speaking with Jack Murphy, and you were talking about previous waves of immigration to the United States.
You said the following, you had this massive wave of primarily Italian, Irish, and German immigration, and that had its problems and that had its consequences.
You pointed to these problems as being higher crime rates, ethnic enclaves, and inter-ethnic conflict.
Should the United States have prescribed similar policies to what you're proposing now, including mass deportation, to deal with those issues?
Well, first of all, I also said there were a lot of benefits to that wave of immigration, but has anybody ever seen the movie Gangs of New York?
That's what I'm talking about.
We know that when you have these massive ethnic enclaves forming in our country, it can sometimes lead to higher crime rates.
But I want to say two things about that.
Firstly, I love that his response is, have you seen Gangs of New York?
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
I'm dying over here.
I forgot that was in here.
Oh God.
Yeah, I have seen Gangs of New York.
In fact, Daniel, you and I did a podcast about Gangs of New York with our friends Kit and James back when we were doing the old show Wrong With Authority, a podcast about movies about history and the history thereabout.
And yeah, I remember that movie.
And what that movie's about is nativism and bigotry and The confluence of that and toxic masculinity and dirty money in corrupt politics.
So I don't know if really that's the movie you want to go to, J.D.
Secondly, the question from the reporter is interesting to me on a more serious level.
It's an interesting question to me because what he asks him is, Should that original bout or round of immigration of German and Irish and so on people, should that have been subject to the same restrictions that you and Trump are now advocating for immigration on the southern border today?
So what he's saying is, Do you think that white people should have been kept out in the same way that you're now saying that brown people should have been kept out?
And it's an interesting question because he can say one of two things, can't he?
He can say no, in which case he's being revealed as hypocritical on specifically racist lines, you know, skin colour racism lines.
Or he can say yes, And it seems to me like either answer would kind of be equally scandalous for the mindset that poses the question, because if he says yes, then he's saying, what, you want to keep white people out?
You want to keep Germans and good European stock and white people out of America?
How dare you?
Right.
No, this gets into, because the actual Nazis even argue about this.
In their safe spaces, they will sit and have extended debates about, within certain communities, about whether, particularly when you get European, far-right people involved, when you get, I don't want to say Mark Collette, Personally, but people who run nationalist movements or far-right movements in European countries who often see like, well, no, the Polish invaders are not our friends here in England.
We want England for the English.
And whereas Americans, we just don't have that ability to distinguish in the same way.
And so we use this more generic, or not generic, but this overarching, this sort of idea like whiteness covers all.
And so it's just like, if you are white or if you are considered white, Then you get to be, you know, kind of part of the crew, but like, they'll talk about, like, you know, the Southern Italians being, you know, like, really swarthy and nasty and dirty people, as opposed to, you know, the Northern Italians who are, you know, more of our kind of people.
God, I could probably, there was an old, old fascination.
Where, you know, Jazz Hats McFeels went through this whole thing of, no, no, it was in his travelogue.
He did like this, he traveled around Italy and he just like filmed himself driving through Italy.
And he was like commenting on this, it's like, you know, the quality of person, like the more North and West you go, like, so like, so like up to like Scandinavia, like Scotland, you know, England, et cetera, like those are the most rarefied people.
And then like the further Southeast you go, it's just, they get dirtier and dirtier and dirtier.
It's just such a, like, you know... This is an interesting thing, actually, it's just a by-the-way, but you know Birkenhead, the body snatchers, the resurrection men, and famously the guy that employed them to acquire bodies for him, Dr. Knox?
Dr. Knox was, in his own time before all that, he was primarily known as a theorist of race, and he wrote a lot about the Hibernian race, and its difference from the different European races.
This is this stuff!
This is mid-19th century race science.
No.
And I mean, oftentimes they will legitimately admit to this.
They'll say like, yeah, no, science has got it wrong now.
And this is why you're talking about Charles Murray and talking about these creators of these pseudo-academic works defending this stuff and resurrecting these old ideas.
They have to say like, well, you know, Modern, modern science has got it wrong, that they're actually not taking into account, and they say, well, it's because they're woke, or it's because they're Jews, or it's because whatever.
But they ultimately can't take, like, anything like a realistic look of, like, what an actual geneticist would look at this stuff.
You will find very few people who actually study genetics at this level who will, like, sign on to any of these kinds of ideas.
Like it's just, once you start studying genetics, it all, it gets way more complicated very fast, as you know.
Yeah, absolutely.
Do you want to talk, do you want to refresh people's memories a little bit about Jack Murphy?
Because that episode that we did about him, well, we didn't do the episode about him.
As I say, he came up in the course of the Roman McClay episode because Jack Murphy used to be a regular collaborator with Tim Pool.
He would go on Tim Pool's show.
And he came under our notice going on what was then Elijah Schaeffer's show.
You were here.
You are here, that's right.
And, uh, causing a ruckus because the chat, the super chat, kept on bringing up the cuck letter.
Right.
Because it turns out that Jack Murphy had, God, I can't even remember the details.
It's like Jack Murphy is like such a little dick in terms of my memory.
I just have very little, like, I remember watching multiple episodes with him and I like remember, but, uh, He was a big Manosphere guy, and he was a big, like, I-like-to-fuck-around kind of guy, y'know?
He had a girlfriend who was much younger than him, and in his telling of it, at any rate, he made her.
And of course, he gives himself all sorts of alibis.
Oh, right, he made her go and, like, seduce this guy, or whatever.
And then he gets to be the alpha because, like, she's bending to his will.
Right, that does sound familiar.
Yeah.
ALICE That's right.
And then, it backfires on him, it turns into this great big... y'know, because of course the community that he's talking to don't take it like, oh wow, what an impressive alpha male.
They just think, cuck.
And, y'know, by the time he's on You Are Here, and Sidney Watson is reading out the Super Chat questions about, y'know, clear up the cuck letter, it sends him into a complete rage and he storms out of the studio.
And, like, Sidney Watson had no idea what was going on.
She's just reading the season notes, you know?
But Jack Murphy, like, that's the big Banley man.
He just can't accept the slightest question about these things.
And he's like, yeah, I've been disrespected by Sidney Watson.
I won't work with her again.
And it's like, yeah, well, whatever, dude.
You know?
It eventually got so bad, the reason that I haven't paid attention to him at all is because he basically went underground.
He privated his Twitter, I think it eventually got deleted, and I haven't seen him on anything since that era.
He may be still out there doing something in censored TV or something, but I haven't seen anything from him.
I looked to see if his Twitter was still active, and I couldn't find him on Twitter.
This is just what tickled me, because these clips are surfacing, and there's Jack Watson, Jack Murphy rather, and it leads me in my head straight back to Elijah Schafer and Sidney Watson, and of course the episode we did where Kyle Rittenhouse goes on Schafer's show, and it's literally that game of one step of association.
JD Vanz is that far away from all these fucking people.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
I mean, he was, he was a part of that.
And this is kind of one of those things where it's like, you know, what, like why the, the word alt-right really doesn't mean anything in 2024.
Is that like, well, A, the people who are actively calling themselves that no longer call themselves that or are no longer active.
And B, you know, it kind of just becomes the face of young Republican politics.
They file off as many of the serial numbers, they file off as many of the rough edges as they feel like they can, and then they all kind of show up in this, it's just part of the culture now.
Like, Charlie Kirk, he was, he was, Groyper Wars 1 was, you know, was against Charlie Kirk.
Yeah, he was the victim of Groyper War One, yeah.
One of them.
And now he's doing podcasts with Blinkmasters doing straight up Nazi shit.
But again, one step removed from the people who are actively hating Jews.
It's just, all this is extremely mainstream now.
The mention of Groyper War One leads us on to another thing concerning JD Vance, which, I don't know, I don't want to spend too much time on this, but of course, we call it Groyper War One because there is now Groyper War Two.
I'm declaring a new Groyper War.
You have alienated us.
You have ignored us.
You don't listen to our concerns we have been left behind.
The Trump movement and the GOP have moved on without us.
It serves Israel and corporations and immigrants, but it doesn't serve Native Americans.
What about Native Americans?
What about Americans?
What about young white men?
And others too.
But what about us?
Charlie Kirk is to the right of Trump on immigration?
That's unacceptable!
So I think it's time for another Kruiper War.
We're bigger, better, stronger than ever.
I'm on Twitter.
I'm on Rumble.
This is a big livestream every night.
We have allies.
So I think it's time to up the ante a little bit.
Joker 2 is premiering in October.
Joker 2?
Five year anniversary?
The show is back?
We're opening the chest?
I think it's time for Groper War 2!
And this time, we're going all out.
Justice once, And we will bring the energy.
It's just a question of whether they want to get on board or get out of the way.
That's the question.
But we're, we will bring, the Groipers will bring the energy.
Memes, edits, replies, trolls.
Get with us or get the fuck out of the way.
Groiper War 2, coming soon.
Do you know much about what's going on here?
It seems to be a bit of a damp squib from what I can see.
Yeah, it's nothing.
I mean, even the first one was kind of a nothing burger in its own way, because it just concerned a handful of people in this... It concerned thought leaders within this right-wing ecosystem.
This one is really just... Nick Fuentes has rejected Donald Trump, and has decided he's no longer going to support Donald Trump.
He kind of goes back and forth on this.
Because he thought, for a while there, he thought he was going to really get in there because, of course, he was dining at Mar-a-Lago with, you know, and taking Ye with him.
Well, I mean, there's always been this, like, this sort of... Which, again, we did an episode about.
Yeah, we did, we did.
There's been this, like, cynical approach to, that a lot of these guys, not just Flint is, but, you know, will take towards Trump.
And this goes all the way back to, you know, 2015, 2016.
Richard Spencer knew Donald Trump was a fool because Richard Spencer, for all the negative things I can and have said about him, he is not a fool.
He actually sees the reality in front of him, but cynically supported Donald Trump because it was a way of bringing his style of politics, Spencer's style of politics, into the pulse of power.
Fuentes has just hung on to that longer than most of them have.
And ultimately, there is this sort of Trumpist right, who just follow Trump wherever he leads.
And then there's a more ideological kind of far right, which is very opposed to Trump the person.
They see him as maybe a vessel, but ultimately, they don't even think they're going to get that from him anymore.
And we did an episode about when Facts of the Nation, just 180 degrees, just went the whole other direction.
At a certain point in 2019, it was just like one week they were all on the Trump train, and then the next week they were not.
It was amazing.
And this is Nick Fuentes kind of understanding that Trump is no longer the meal ticket, that they've got to find something else.
I don't think it means much other than that.
I think it's a bunch of whiny 25-year-old boys Yeah.
I mean, how much do you think the impetus for Fuentes' current tantrum, anti-Trump tantrum, is JD Vance, though?
think this has anything to do with like an actual like political movement or anything this is this is again a very much a damn squib compared to even garber war one yeah i mean how much do you think the impetus for fuentes current tantrum anti-trump anti-trump tantrum is jd vance though because fuentes reacted very negatively to jd vance largely because jd
Vance is married to an Indian woman.
Yes, absolutely.
And has kids with her.
Right.
J.D.
Vance also has a non-white wife, an Indian wife, and a kid named Vivek.
All his kids have Indian names.
So it's like, what exactly are we getting here?
And that's not a dig at him just because I'm a racist or something.
But it's like, who is this guy really?
Do we really expect that the guy who has an Indian wife and named their kid Vivek is going to support white identity?
Like, there's a white genocide going on in the world.
White people are being systematically replaced in America and Europe through immigration and to a much lesser extent due to intermarrying.
This guy has a non-white wife and a kid named Vivek.
This guy is gonna be a defender of white identity?
I don't think so.
This guy's gonna defend American identity?
If he does, it's gonna be no better than any of these other civic nationalists like Vivek Ramaswamy.
How else could you countenance American identity if you have a mixed-up family like that?
You know, for some of these people, it's like, well, you know, you, you have babies, you did your thing, you know, like you're, you know, but yeah.
And some of them would be like, well, was she a high cast Indian woman or was she, you know, exactly how dark was her skin?
You know, it's kind of weird.
So, you know, I'm sorry, this is horrible.
I'm not laughing because I agree with them.
I'm laughing because it's absurd.
It is funny that a man with the last name Fuentes is questioning how white somebody's kids are.
But I think it is a, that is, that is a very like, Right vector of attack for someone like Fuentes is to say, well, you don't even have white kids, man.
Well, neither do you, asshole.
First of all, for a movement that's built on the utmost importance of reproduction, it's amazing how many of these guys just have not ever managed to have any children of their own.
It is a useful vector.
But I think it's also about, like, Vance kind of sucking up the air in the room in some of these spaces.
Like, he didn't just get to be vice president because, like, he's like Dr. Trump, but he's also, like, he's been a mover and shaker for a while.
He's been able to, you know, kind of get his ideas out there into the mainstream.
I mean, he's an awkward dork when he does it, but he is able to move in these corridors of power, and that's exactly where Nick Fuentes thinks he should be.
I think that's kind of what he thought the yay thing was going to bring him, was that Nick Fuentes is going to be Trump's best buddy, and then he's going to be able to bring in the youth vote by pushing Gorbachev memes on people or whatever.
Fuentes wants to be where Vance is, basically.
Or even where, like, a Charlie Kirk or a Jack Posobiec is.
And I think that's where, you know, it's an animosity that's built on the different nature of their political goals, but also just... And this is something I can't... You can only speculate about this, right?
But back in 2016, 2017, there was a ton of overlap between the Sun Amour mainstream figures and these kind of more Frenchy far-right, alt-right figures.
You can't take them at their word, but the guys at the Daily Show I have talked about how, back in the day, they were quoted by media figures who were like, look, just lay off the Jew stuff just a little bit, and we can bring you in and give you positions of authority and give you positions of, you know, be a part of our network and that sort of thing.
There was a lot of that going on in 2015, 2016, 2017.
And it would not at all surprise me if, like, JD Vance and Nick Fuentes have been in the same, like, chat room together or something, or have, you know, like, attended the same party.
Like, it would not shock me knowing that they have met, at least, you know, in some kind of private capacity.
The Vance types of the world, I don't know Vance in particular, but the Vance types, the people in that aura, like, and the people in that area, They use, you know, they use Groyper as like, oh, the little snot-nosed kids who can't stop talking about the Jews or whatever.
And we're like these serious political actors.
And then the flip side of that is that the Groypers that make Fuentes are going, well, these guys are just, they're not pure enough.
They're not, they're not actually doing what needs to be done.
And they're just like holding onto their meal tickets as opposed to actually like trying to make things better for white people.
So that's where this anima, that's where the conflict comes from.
Yeah.
It's been reported, and I think it's probably true, that the Trump campaign is trying to get, and is to an extent relying upon, that young man demographic.
I mean, younger men are as likely or almost as likely to vote Trump as older men.
He has that appeal for younger men too, and he had that bizarre little pipsqueak guy who sniffs people's chairs over at Mar-a-Lago.
They are trying to court these people, so they obviously want the young, white, online, reactionary asshole vote.
I mean, I think that's part of what Vance is there to try to get.
As I say, he kind of has that reactionary, online, edgelord quality to him.
It's interesting to watch Nick Fuentes sort of constantly having the same realisation that people on the left sort of, you know, it's like baby's first political realisation when you start entering politics from anywhere on the left, which is that, yeah, you can't rely upon the reformist left or liberal parties.
To do what you want, to consider you, if you're any further to the left than them.
He keeps having this realization from the right, we can't rely on Trump to do this, we can't rely on Trump to do that.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
I think that's where we are.
That's where we are.
Okay!
That was a News Brief episode, everybody.
Thank you for joining us as we chatted a little bit about J.D.
Vance and these amazing connections that he has to us, really, to our show.
Yeah, as I joked on Twitter, I think it was, I wouldn't be surprised at all to, you know, if an old, and if anybody knows, of course, you, Daniel, would be the one to know, I wouldn't be surprised at all if an old episode of Fash The Nation or The Daily Show had turned up and a very young, three-beard JD Vance's voice was on there somewhere at this rate.
Simply the basis of his track record of talking to people that we've talked about on this show.
I can almost guarantee you that never happened, because he was moving in different circles at that point.
I mean, a lot of people showed up on Fashion of the Nation in the early days.
A lot of people.
But JD Vance was not moving in those online circles in the same way.
Or he may very well have been interviewed.
I think my favorite absurd early Fashion of the Nation guest was Tequila Tequila.
Yes, that tequila appeared on Fashion of the Nation, and despite what Gaz Anspach-Fields and his co-host at the time said about non-white women, and because I believe tequila is French-Vietnamese, I believe, they very clearly wanted to fuck her.
It was very obvious that they were really obsessed with how hot a woman they had on their show.
That's besides the point, you know, but yeah, no, I don't believe JD Vance ever went on that show, but if anybody would know, if anybody had the clip, it would be me, but I do not, so... Well, I mean, the Trump campaign has kind of just adopted an unofficial replacement vice-presidential running mate in RFK Jr.
They've even got signs now, which is like, Trump, Vance.
Kennedy!
If that doesn't work out, then maybe Trump will be phoning Tila Tequila.
Who knows?
Maybe, maybe.
Maybe, maybe.
It's possible.
That was I Don't Speak German.
Thanks for listening.
Follow us in all the places you usually follow podcasts.
For now, at least, we're both still on Twitter.
I'm at underscore Jack underscore Graham underscore, and Daniel is at Daniel E Harper.
And the show's Twitter is at IDSGpod.
If you want to help us do the work we do, and gain a few benefits along the way, we both have Patreons.
