3279 Will There Be War? | Stefan Molyneux and Vox Day
Vox Day joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss objections to free trade, the European response to the migrant crisis, the lack of immigrant assimilation, why liberals don't value diversity, how equality is impossible, the rise of nationalist political parties, generational differences on multiculturalism in Europe, how we're running out of time and the connection between migration and warfare. On the Question of Free Trade: An Economics Discoursehttp://www.fdrurl.com/vox-free-tradeSJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Policehttp://www.fdrurl.com/SJW-Always-LieCuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed Americahttp://www.fdrurl.com/cuckservativeOn the Existence of Godshttp://www.fdrurl.com/vox-existence-of-godsMultiple-time Hugo Award nominee Vox Day writes epic fantasy as well as non-fiction about religion, philosophy, and economics. He is a professional game designer who speaks four languages and a three-time Billboard Top 40 Club Play recording artist.Vox Day maintains a pair of popular blogs, Vox Popoli and Alpha Game, which between them average over 2.2 million pageviews per month.Vox Day's Books: http://www.fdrurl.com/vox-dayVox Day's Blog: http://voxday.blogspot.comFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
We're back with Vox Day, the three-time Hugo Award nominee, the author of SJW, Social Justice Warriors Always Lie, Taking Down the Thought Police, and Cuxervative, How Conservatives Betrayed America.
We'll put the links to those two fine books below.
He also maintains a pair of popular blogs, which average over 2.2 million page views per month, voxday.blogspot.com.
That's V-O-X-D-A-Y. How are you doing, brother?
Nice to chat with you again.
Good to see you again, too.
So, I'm just going to pause to allow everyone to make the Phil Collins jokes, twins-separated birth jokes and all that, or the Lobot jokes, I think, based upon your headset.
So, now that that has been safely put behind us, we're going to chat a little bit about...
Free trade.
Now, I, of course, come from the sort of Austrian school background, the objectivist school background.
So the argument is that, you know, free trade is a glorious path to prosperity and oneness and peace and unity and harmony around the world.
But you've got some arguments that I think are quite interesting that maybe cast a shadow on some of those Sunday glories.
What do you say?
Well, I have to say, first of all, that I have literally never been more prepared for a discussion like this in my life.
It's pure happenstance, but I just finished putting the final touches on a pamphlet of sorts, an e-pamphlet of sorts that's going to be out on Amazon in the next couple days, and it's called On the Question of Free Trade.
What that was, or what that is, is a transcript of a debate between myself and Dr.
James Miller from Smith College.
And like you and like me, a few years ago, he's a serious, hardcore free trader.
He's actually got his PhD from the University of Chicago, which is the signature freshwater school.
They're not Austrians, but they are every bit as hardcore about free trade as the Mises Institute.
And it was very interesting...
I think you'll find the debate interesting when you read it because Dr.
Miller did a really good job of summarizing the conventional free trade case.
He hit everything.
He hit how it benefits specialization, it benefits innovation, how it produces wealth for literally everyone.
I mean, it was really a virtuoso performance.
The problem, as I pointed out, is that it was also, in my opinion, fundamentally an irrelevant one.
And the reason is because what we're seeing with free trade, the arguments being presented for free trade, the arguments that you have for them, the They're not new.
And most of them actually go back about 230 years.
Smith and Ricardo won the argument with the mercantilists.
All of the objections to free trade since then have not been economic at their heart.
They've maybe been political.
They've maybe been, you know, designed to protect various industries, but none of them are actually based on economics.
The argument was over.
But what's changed and what even Dr. Miller agreed is different about the situation now is that we're no longer thinking about the free movement of capital.
And we're no longer thinking about the free movement of goods.
And more importantly, we're no longer thinking about the free movement of labor and services as theory.
Now we're seeing what it actually does.
And that was, I think, aspects of that were relatively new to Dr.
Miller.
And I'm not pretending that I have all the answers.
We simply do not have a good...
Well, and of course, back in the day, there were a number of economic environments and situations that I think I've imagined to be the case.
So, of course, the first thing is that back when the original free trade arguments were being promulgated, there was really no such thing as completely fiat currency.
There were, of course, central banks, but they were still gold-based for the most part.
So this idea that you could just print up this huge amount of money on a whim and that you could manipulate and control your currency in the way that modern central banking does, utterly unforeseen.
There was, of course, a huge amount of labor that was required to move goods around, which gave a natural preference to local industries.
Now, of course, some of the greatest wealth of the world can sort of squirt around on the intertubes in a moment's notice.
And there is a wide variety of changes, things that just unprecedented...
The amount of wealth that's available now and the degree to which that wealth can be used as collateral for more and more government borrowing and so on has created some significant distortions in the market.
And last but not least, of course, there was no giant welfare state back in the day.
And the welfare state has made things very difficult when it comes to any kind of rational pricing.
For human labor, because of course, if what you're going to be paid is less than what you can get out of the welfare state, and in a lot of places in the US, for like a single mom, for her to get off the welfare state and to achieve or to receive the similar amount of benefits, she's talking like $65,000 salary, which, you know, if you've got a couple of kids and maybe only high school or not even that, pretty hard to achieve that.
So there's a lot of distortions going on now that are not part of the free market.
I mean, central banking, No question.
I mean, all of those points that you're raising are serious.
They're all legitimate and they all need to be examined.
But there's actually a much more fundamental problem.
And what that's related to is labor mobility.
Now, when you talk to people about free trade, they often point to the free trade in the domestic United States as the basis for one of their arguments.
And it's not a bad argument.
It's a very reasonable argument.
They say, well, look, the U.S. benefits greatly because we're able to sell between Iowa and California and Minnesota and Mississippi freely.
And that's true.
But what they leave out of that equation is the fact that part of what makes that work is that the US has the highest rate of labor mobility in the world, and it has for decades, if not over a century.
To put it in perspective, the labor mobility rate in the United States is 3.2% per year.
In the European Union, prior to the last couple of years, the rate from country to country within the European Union was 0.1%.
The amount of labor mobility is so great in the United States that on average, only 50% of the working age population lives in its state of residence.
For example, for me, I was born in Boston, and then my parents moved to Minnesota while I was still a child.
So my parents were not working, from a fairly young age, my parents were not working in either of their original states of residence.
Now that's not such a big problem when you're dealing with a single country, which is at that time, for the most part, still a coherent nation.
The problem is, if you apply that to the international scene, What that indicates is that by the time the average American – if we had free trade on an international basis that operated similar to the domestic market, that means that 49% of Americans would need to emigrate by the time they turned 35.
And they would be replaced by other workers from other countries coming in and competing for the specialties and industries that they were better suited for here.
I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I understand.
So why would they need to emigrate to achieve some sort of income parity with what they could get at home?
Yes, for the same reason that you move to California because you got a job offer that suits you there.
One of the arguments that Dr.
or presented, for example, was that he talked about specialization.
He talked about how because of free trade, a doctor can treat patients globally.
You can specialize in some very particular surgery or liver function or whatever and reach patients everywhere.
But what he left out of the equation and what I pointed out is that that specialization is all going to take place somewhere.
For example, if you want to work in robotics and you happen to have a talent for robotics, then you are probably going to have to move to South Korea.
Or possibly to Japan.
Because that's where all the action in robotics is going to be.
And so, in much the same way, for the same reason that a girl grows up in Iowa and she moves out to California because she wants to be a star, she has to move to LA if she wants to do that.
So, if we had true free trade, then the models, instead of all going to South Beach, Okay.
Of course, one counter-argument to that would be that those industries have developed to be geographically specific because there's no free trade.
And if there were free trade, then it wouldn't all necessarily end up congregating in the same area but would disperse more.
I don't think that that's true because in an economy you typically see competitive leaders.
The more global things get, the fewer big winners there are going to be.
And that's going to be true of industries as it is of companies and so forth.
And that leads into another problem that we talked about.
For example...
Before the internet and before globalization and that sort of thing, it used to be possible to grow a business in its home market.
And then you'd have this battle internationally between, say, Honda and General Motors and BMW and Ford.
And all those companies would have their home market as their base, and then they'd be competing on the global scale from that basis.
Well, nowadays, you don't have that because, for example, if you were to start up something that was competing with Google, You do not have your home market anymore.
Google's already there.
You have no chance to even begin to grow up to a company that's at a level to compete with it because you're already having to compete on the global marketplace with the giant multinationals from the start.
In some industries, that's okay.
For example, maybe you could compete in AI, or maybe you could compete in some very specialized areas that the multinationals don't really have an advantage.
But if you're dealing in any sort of industry, any sort of big manufacturing or something, they're just going to be crushing people on economies of scale in a way that's never been seen before because they're working on a global scale worldwide.
Whereas the startups don't have a chance.
And that's not even getting into the whole political influence.
Well, okay.
And the political influence is not usually part of the free trade argument as a whole, which is sort of more capitalism and less sort of capitalism based.
But this fear of sort of big corporations, of course, you know, when you're in the middle of a market and you look up and you see these giant corporations bestriding the world like Julius Caesar or Colossus, they seem impregnable and enormous and so on.
But if you look at the turn of the last century… Of the hundred biggest corporations around then, I think only four or five are still around.
You know, they get big and then they get unwieldy and then they turn into dinosaurs and then there's some new mammal or some new innovation.
You know, the biggest monopoly horse and buggy company was then taken out by, you know, some guys who were producing cars in their basement and so on.
Right.
This idea that there are these big giant economies of scale and they're going to dominate the market from here to eternity.
Now, certainly, which they do, they get in bed with government and they create barriers to entry for other people and get special favors and deals from the government because they have the concentrated economic power which they can inject into the state to control it.
They have regulatory capture where they can go in and start managing all the regulations to make sure it's more – but in a freer market, The large companies, which seem so impregnable, generally end up folding over a certain amount of time.
Oh, I agree.
And I think that that is definitely a potentially mitigating factor.
But it doesn't change the fact that something has changed.
What has changed is you no longer have the ability to...
Grow up in your home market without facing immediate competition from foreign competitors.
It's just a whole additional level of competition that the startups have to deal with.
Well, and if – I mean, in terms of being shielded from the market, I mean, that's the whole point of the incubation process with venture capitalists, right?
That venture capitalists will give you enough money to sort of shield you from market demands while you develop your product.
But usually the idea has to be really, really good for you to get a significant amount of fence-off time for you to grow.
So you can still grow in a sort of greenhouse environment before being released into the wild.
But – It's not going to happen as the result of government.
It's going to happen as the result of venture capitalists giving you enough seed capital that you don't have to be market-focused while you're developing your product.
Sure, and I actually work a fair amount with the VC startup industry in Europe, so I'm quite familiar with that.
The problem that I see is that there are already some signs that the amount of innovation is decreasing as a result of the process that I've been talking about.
I know the guys at Google Business Ventures, both in Europe and in San Francisco.
The big companies like that are actively out looking to snap up the small future competitors in a way I think that was not necessarily the case when you're talking about the Rockefellers or the Fords and that sort of thing.
Now again, I'm not saying that That is not a conclusive part, or that's not a significant part of my case against free trade, but it is something that I think, it's something that has clearly changed, and it's something that I think that people on both sides of the debate really need to look into seriously.
One of the things that Dr.
Miller and I both agreed on, despite the fact that we disagreed fundamentally on a number of things, The main thing that we agreed on was that both sides need more empirical evidence because it's fine to talk about the theories and all, and the logic is there on both sides.
Both sides actually have fairly strong logical cases.
The question is, who's right?
Whose syllogisms are backed up by what we're actually seeing happen?
I've dug around.
I've been looking at...
Looking at first the information on this, and because the situation is relatively new, we really don't know.
Well, I mean, that is the great challenge with economics when you go from theory to empiricism, in my opinion.
Of course, for those, I'm sure, who may not be up to speed on this, the basic idea is that, praxeologically speaking, two parties who are voluntarily exchanging are both benefiting, right?
So, if Vox has a pencil and I have a dollar, and he wants my dollar more than he wants his pencil, but I want his pencil more than...
I want his pencil more than I want my dollar.
We exchange and we're both better off because no compulsion has been part of the exchange.
The moment compulsion comes in, then you get a kind of win-lose situation.
I think the core problem with that particular...
I agree that both parties believe themselves to be better off at the moment the exchange is made.
That's true in theory.
The problem is when people get it wrong.
Once you start bringing in time preferences and that sort of thing, the fact is people are not rational.
We both know that.
People have different time preferences, and so you might say, well, it's a good deal.
It's a great deal that you sold me that crack cocaine.
I'm happy to have the crack.
You're happy to have the money, and then I OD and die.
Well, okay.
Actually, if we look at that exchange, it was not in my long-term best interest.
And so I think that...
I like the praxeological approach.
I think it's very useful.
But I also think that it's a little bit naive and time-limited to simply look at the exchange only at the moment of the exchange and whether the people are...
The fact that you're happy with something doesn't mean that you actually did something in your own best interest.
I certainly have made numerous poor decisions in my life that were not in my best interest, even though I thought they were a good idea at the time.
Well, of course, voluntary doesn't mean perfect.
You know, you may get the girl of your dreams and then maybe you find a surprise when you undo the kilt.
So, I mean, voluntary doesn't mean perfect.
But what it does mean, of course, is that it's the best information that you have and the best choice.
Given that it's a choice you make at the moment, it's the best choice you want to make at the moment.
And the degree to which people are irrational, well, sure, we can certainly argue that at an individual level.
But the thing is, we tend to learn, again, the guy who OD'd probably didn't, but we tend to learn over time.
And because we are the best managers of our own long-term self-interest, we learn over time.
But the degree to which we let the government come in and start dictating terms, well, the government is much more corruptible and much more powerful than any particular individual.
Well, that's true.
And that's one of the arguments that Dr.
Miller raised.
And frankly, I think it is the strongest argument that the free trade side has now in light of the new information and new possibilities that are coming to the fore.
I even told him during the debate, I said, you know, I need to come up with a better way to address the counter argument of, well, you can't trust politicians.
I'm not arguing that you can trust politicians.
I totally agree.
That to me is the fundamental problem with the protectionist approach.
However, on the corruption side, I don't think it's as clear cut as you and I might naturally tend to think, both being libertarian minded and intrinsically skeptical of government power.
The problem that I see is that I suspect that the global multinationals are actually more corrupt and less accountable than the politicians are.
We may actually find ourselves...
When we talk about it in theory, we tend to talk about the individual transactions and that sort of thing.
But once we start applying it to the real world, suddenly we realize that we're talking about these large multinationals.
And let's face it, they're not only completely ruthless, but as we're seeing in places like North Carolina and that sort of thing, they don't shy away from just trying to dictate to the governments what laws are acceptable to be passed and that sort of thing.
And it's also important to keep in mind that corporations are creatures of government.
They're not individuals.
And for all that they may have, you know, these synthetic juridical persons legal approach, the fact of the matter is they are creatures of government.
And it's at least possible that by allowing free trade or freer trade to transfer power from national governments to multinational corporations, we may actually find ourselves as liberty-loving people essentially going from we may actually find ourselves as liberty-loving people essentially going from the frying pan into the And that's something that I think we need to look very carefully at before assuming that everything's fine and dandy with that approach.
Yeah, well, I mean, there's a lot in that.
And I, you know, like yourself, they are creatures of government.
They're created by governments.
They're kind of legal fictions which allow people to take profits out of a particular business entity without being personally liable for losses.
I mean, it's like, you know, hey, I'd love to gamble too if I get to keep my winnings and somebody else eats their shorts if I lose.
That sounds wonderful, but that didn't used to be the case.
Like in the past, before corporations sort of came to their modern phenomenon, if the bank lost money...
The bank owner lost his house.
And that, of course, is no longer the case.
And these issues that we're talking about, in general, there is this theory, which I'm sure you've heard a million times, which is that one government program creates distortions in the market or distortions in society, which then needs another government program, which creates its own distortions.
You just got these sedimentary layers of fascism piling up over your head and breaking your neck.
Because when it comes to these challenges, to me, it's hard to see how...
Less government doesn't solve all of these in one way or another.
There should be, of course, accountability for executives.
How many people from the Wall Street protests went to jail?
Hundreds and hundreds.
How many people actually working in Wall Street after the financial crash went to jail?
The answer, of course, is zero because it's almost impossible to prosecute that stuff in any cost-effective way.
Plus, of course, the government just wants to shake them down for billions of dollars in fines so that they can, you know, stuff their own coffers.
So why not just think about, you know, let's start loosening or making business owners more accountable for losses so that it's not just one-way grab bag of pulling profits out without being liable for losses.
And what about...
Of course, I've talked about this forever, getting rid of the welfare state, getting rid of public sector union, getting rid of tenures, getting, you know, so that people can actually voluntarily negotiate for themselves.
I'm just concerned that, you know, okay, we've got all these problems, and it's creating all these distortions, so now let's add another layer of protectionism on top of that, and that's going to be the final solution, but of course, the protectionism is going to be captured by the very corporations that are supposed to be controlled by it, and they'll just end up with more power.
I support every single thing that you mentioned.
I support all of those things.
I shake your hand.
It's important to understand that the objections that I'm raising to free trade are not because I want to add another government layer.
What I'm saying is that I think that that might be a layer that we need in addition to removing all these other layers that we're talking about.
My fear is that by keeping the various layers that you described that we've already got, that by thinking that we're going to get rid of this one layer here and increasing free trade, we might find that we've actually...
I would like to see...
The thing that I think that would most effectively address the problem right away is if corporations were treated like actual people.
I mean, if a corporation breaks a law, goes to jail.
If it breaks a law that requires 15 years, then the corporation is suspended for 15 years.
If we actually treated corporations the way that we treat real people, I suspect the corporations would actually behave considerably better.
You wouldn't see them breaking the law with impunity.
The reason that they love paying fines is because typically the fines do not even amount to 2% of whatever they benefited from.
If you look at the currency exchange rate manipulation that was taking place in England.
I think it was the LIBOR scandal.
Yeah, exactly.
They made ridiculous sums of money off that, and then they were hit with a fine that was in the millions, which I'm sure sounds very impressive at all, but if I could break a law and make 98% And only pay 2% of my proceeds in a fine.
I mean, that's a wonderful business to get in.
It's not like the executives even pay that out of their own pockets.
What they do is they lower the bonuses for their employees or they raise the price of their goods and services for their customers.
So they get to keep all of the profits.
That comes out and it's now yours permanently when you pull it out through the biosphere of the corporation.
And then if there are costs, it's not like you've got to go and put that back in yourself.
What you have to do...
Hang on, let me just fix my earpiece.
Let me back you.
There we go.
What you have to do is you then pass the costs off to someone else.
So you get to keep all the profits and other people have to absorb the losses.
Exactly.
And so, you know, I mean, if you think about it, the corporatist economy that we have now...
This is a contradiction in terms, but it's essentially an international fascism.
You don't have the national angle.
In fact, the international corporatist approach is, as we know, destroying nations.
I really think that we are entering a new Welcome to my show!
I don't think that we can really understand what is happening around us, what is going to be happening as these new developments continue to occur, and I don't think that we can understand what we should be doing about them unless we broaden our perspective again and look at it from a political economy approach rather than a purely I think?
Yeah, and I don't have any answers to this particular problem, Vox, but one of the things that has really troubled me over the last couple of years looking at the economy is, as you know, there's a bell curve of intelligence in the general population.
And no one knows how to substantially change someone's intelligence.
You know, by the time you're grown, you are your height.
You know, nobody knows how to make someone taller or shorter in any easy way.
And so my concern is that you have this sort of bell curve and you develop an economy that is not international in nature, at least not substantially international.
And, you know, to be fair, of course, in the 18th century, you could argue there was even more international trade than there is now.
But you develop this economy and there are people in the bottom third of the IQ ladder who are doing relatively low rent jobs.
And it's perfectly fine, perfectly appropriate for what it is that they can bring to the table.
You know, this is sort of the low rent manufacturing and sweeping and stuff like that.
And that's how the economy develops.
And then suddenly, there's this giant scimitar sweep and huge sections of generally lower IQ jobs tend to get outsourced to some other country.
And it creates a gaping hole.
And then, of course, everyone says, well, they're just retrained for X, Y, or Z. Well, no.
If you've got an IQ of 85, nobody's got a magic pill.
To flowers for Algernon you up to the stratosphere as far as intelligence goes.
And if the lower IQ jobs are just shipping relentlessly overseas, what happens to those people?
Well, now the answer generally has been, well, we've got unemployment insurance, we've got disability, we've got welfare.
But that is not a sustainable solution.
And I don't know what the answer to that is.
But that to me is a big problem.
All, you know, the 50,000 jobs, manufacturing jobs every month that have been leaving the U.S. for the past number of years.
Well, that's 50,000 people.
What, are they just going to go and become opera singers or are they going to become like YouTube stars and so on?
That's not a valid option for a lot of these people.
So my concern is that what happens to less intelligent people as the economy, you know, smart people are nimble.
They can adjust.
They can adapt and so on.
But that to me, I don't know what the answer to that is.
You could say, well, of course, they could just take lower salaries to keep the jobs local and so on, but I don't know the particular answer to that.
I don't like the idea of the welfare state solving the problem because it just creates more problems in the long run.
I don't know if voluntary charity is going to be enough to cover it, but that, I think, is a particular issue.
Well, are you familiar with – you probably are.
Have you read Douglas Adams' Life, the Universe, and Everything?
Yeah.
The more I look around at the current state of the global economy, the more it looks like the USA is living in what they call the B-Arc economy.
You know, in the story, they were told that their world was going to blow up.
And so they sent out these ARCs.
And the B-Arc was filled with all of the completely useless people, the telephone sanitizers, for example.
And And they crash-landed on a planet and promptly decided to make their currency the leaves of trees.
And they were all really happy because now they were all super rich.
And it's a funny story, but it's actually a little scary from our perspective because if you look at it, And you look at what we do in the United States.
I remember even 20 years ago, I was driving with my dad and he said, nobody actually does anything anymore.
He's like, I own a $100 million company and we've got 150 employees and maybe 10 of them actually do something.
The other 140 are just basically moving information from one place to another.
And so he was ahead of his time, but he was troubled by the same thing you're seeing.
And the answer from the optimists, and Dr.
Miller, the gentleman I was debating the other night, is an optimist.
He's an optimist up to one point.
I'll have to tell you about it later.
But his answer is, well, we're heading into a post-scarcity world.
Basically, we can all become lotus eaters, and we can all focus on our poetry and our painting, and we'll have everything that we need, and all of the competition and that sort of thing is essentially going to be just jockeying for status, meaningless stuff.
Given how well we live in the West, you could almost make a case for that.
But the fact that there's going to be 4 billion people in Africa by the year 2100, that's what they're calculating.
And the fact that the US has already been invaded by 61 million people since 1965, the fact that a million people entered Germany last year...
It's pretty clear that that idyllic, lotus-eating world is never going to come.
And so my concern is that we have already peaked, and this is something that I mentioned in the book that I wrote with John Red Eagle, CuckServative.
We're already seeing that Our countries in the West are less coherent, less capable, literally less intelligent.
In Denmark and in Britain, they have measured noticeable and meaningful declines in average IQ. I calculated in the book that the United States has dropped at least four average IQ points since 1965 simply on the Changing demographics alone.
It's probably worse than that.
And this is a big problem because, I can't remember the guy's name, but an economist wrote a book and he demonstrated that the average national IQ is the single most important predictor of its standard of living.
So that indicates that Instead of heading for that lotus-eating future, we're actually heading for a lower standard of living and a less wealthy future, which kind of makes sense if you look at the debt situation and a lot of the other things taking place right now.
Well, I mean, as you point out in your book, CuckServative, I mean, you have Hispanics pouring into the United States.
According to the experts we've had on this show, they have a significantly lower IQ on average than Europeans.
They consistently want more and more government, and yet they are the smallest group when it comes to advocating higher taxes.
So, lower IQ, more government, and lower taxes.
Welcome to your Central American fiscal nightmare of dissolution.
And that, you know, can't sustain.
It cannot sustain a European civilization with massive hordes of non-Europeans.
It's something that I have come to painfully and regretfully, but it does seem to be empirically unassailable.
Yeah, I mean, I'm part Mexican myself.
My great-grandfather was Pancho Villa's secretary.
So I'm actually descended from American revolutionaries and Mexican revolutionaries, which is probably why I tend to...
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever telling people that there is no chance in hell that Hispanics are natural conservatives or that Mexicans are going to support Jeffersonian small government.
For God's sake, their two largest political parties are both members of the Socialist International.
And the other thing that people tend to forget about is that And this is kind of moving away from the economics a bit, but Hispanics don't give a damn about the whole white, liberal, we should all sing Kumbaya and get along.
They're really kind of a ruthless people.
And if they want a neighborhood, they'll clean everybody else out of the neighborhood.
And so I think that...
If you look at the low-level civil war that's going on in Mexico right now with the various cartels and everything, we're importing that to the states already.
People aren't really aware of it yet, but it's already crossed the border over the past couple of years.
I'm genuinely concerned that It's going to have a significant effect because the Hispanic population is now just beginning to realize that they have the political weight to do what they want in the American Southwest.
Right.
Well, and as has been pointed out by 1D Trump, a lot of the – it's 80% of the women who are coming across the border are raped on the way, right?
Their mothers load them up with birth control pills and try and give them condoms and so on because the very high likelihood is they're going to be raped and probably raped more than once along their way into the United States.
Now, women who have very little education, who come from a very third world culture, who are repeatedly – At least once and usually more than once raped along the way, what kind of citizens, what kind of mothers, what kind of contributions are they going to make?
All the sympathy in the world.
It's a terrible, terrible situation.
But you cannot build a sort of Western Republican-style democracy on those kinds of foundations.
No, and, you know, I think one thing that we are learning, both historically and scientifically, is that...
Equality is more of a delusion than a myth.
I mean, it's not even an ideal.
I mean, I understand that it was an ideal, and it was very important to a lot of the Enlightenment folks.
But even then, it was not really intended to be applied quite as broadly as they made it sound for rhetorical purposes.
Well, and they didn't have much exposure to other races and cultures in any particularly foundational way.
No, they didn't.
And, you know, it was very troubling to me, and it really irritated a lot of people when I first started writing about this.
But, you know, I noticed growing up in Minnesota, which a lot of people don't realize, it's very...
German-Scandinavian left-wing.
The most left-wing university in the country for decades was the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
All the socialist labor leaders and Torsten Webelin and all those folks, that's where they were.
And they planted the seeds in Upspring over 100,000 Somalis, which get Obamacare voted in.
Well, but even before that, and obviously that is a train wreck just waiting to happen.
I mean, I'm still waiting for...
I guarantee you, one of the next big SJW campaigns is going to be to change the name of a town in Minnesota.
Because in some unfortunate quirk of fate...
Or a very mischievous federal bureaucrat decided that they would take the Liberians who were immigrating and they would put them all in the small Minnesota town of Coon Rapids.
And so I'm just waiting for the media to discover that.
And you know they're going to go berserk, despite the fact that it's been called Coon Rapids since its inception because it has raccoons.
But, you know, they do the settlements, and you know no one's going to hesitate to have a fit over that one.
But anyhow, getting back to the...
Getting back to the national thing I was mentioning, you know, the Scandinavian immigrants who arrived in the late 19th century and early 20th century, they did not fundamentally understand the rights of Englishmen.
They don't understand limited government.
If you look closely at the...
People talk about, oh, well, immigration is going to be okay because we've had past waves of immigration and people eventually integrated and that sort of thing.
But they didn't really.
The Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the later Germans, and the Scandinavians, none of them truly understood the concept of limited government.
None of them truly accepted it.
They learned the national anthem.
They fought in the wars and all that sort of thing.
They were, on one level, indistinguishable from other European Americans.
But their national cultures and their traditions and so forth fundamentally altered what used to be the Anglo-American traditions.
And so I think that the true costs of immigration are actually political and cultural issues.
And I think that those earlier waves actually harmed the United States much more than anyone really understands at this point in time.
And I think it's going to become more obvious as we see all the Hispanics voting for their customary PRI socialism, and as we see the various Africans and Arabs moving towards their preferred ways of government.
Well, I mean, and it's in hindsight for myself, it's embarrassing how long and how hard a climb it was to get to this particular summit because all I had to do was really ask myself, okay, let's say that I move to Somalia, as some people have recommended.
But if I move to Somalia, how long would it take for myself and my family, let's say a whole bunch of us move to, how long would it take for us to be completely assimilated into local Somali culture?
And to not have any of sort of the historical cultural references that I came with.
And I think the answer is, well, pretty much never.
And that is particularly the case when there are racial differences, but even when there are strong cultural differences.
Look what I'm wearing right now.
I'm wearing a Minnesota Vikings t-shirt.
I've been living in Europe now for...
Something like, what, 17, 18 years?
No, I mean, I'm pretty well culture-related.
I speak the language.
I play for the football club.
I've been a coach of the...
I'm sorry, that's confusing to a lot of people.
Oh, the soccer.
Soccer club.
There we go.
Just wanted to make sure, because otherwise it's like, what do you do?
That's football!
I'm integrated to that extent that I call that football.
Anyhow...
But there is still fundamentally – I mean, there's a huge, massive difference between me and the natives.
There is still a distinct and observable difference between our kids and the natives.
And there always will be.
I mean, my favorite story was I was sitting down with this woman.
We were just chatting.
It was approaching sunset, and people here like to live well.
So it was just about time to break out the Prosecco.
And she was sitting there, and she said something about how well we had really been accepted by the village.
And I said, yeah, it's really great.
And she said, yeah, but we'll always be strangers.
And I said, well, what do you mean, we'll always be strangers?
She said, well, I'm not from this village.
I've been here for 25 years, and I'm still a stranger.
And I said, oh, okay, well, where are you originally from?
And I was expecting her to name a province that was on the other side of the country or something.
She named literally the next village over, which was so close that I could just about throw a rock and hit it.
The idea that we're all the same, we're all interchangeable and that sort of thing, it just doesn't translate to the local level at all.
Especially over here in Europe, there's what we call town names.
Basically, each town has a name that an inordinate percentage of the town all have that name.
For example, in one town, 10 of the 11 starting players and the coach were all named Bernasconi.
And the weird thing is, you can actually tell, you can sometimes tell what town somebody's from by their face.
They all look kind of the same.
Fortunately, none of them have that Innsmouth look, but I think that the idea, this relatively new idea in human history that we're all fungible, we're all exchangeable, you can put a Mexican in Korea and he'll become a Korean within five years.
I think it's absolutely and utterly absurd.
Well, and it's one of these things that is relentlessly promoted by the left, but the left doesn't even believe it at all.
Because if the left really believed it, where are the left most in dominance?
Arguably in the media, particularly in the print media, in the media and in academia.
And I know this as a libertarian who was trying to make my way through Canadian academia.
I was just endless resistance.
So what they should say is the reporters, like 97% of the Washington reporters vote Democrat.
Well, they should just say, well, we'll hire the best person.
So he's a Republican.
Don't worry.
After a couple of years with us, he'll just become a Democrat.
Or they should do that in academia and say, well, you know, we value diversity, so we should bring a lot more conservatives or right-wingers or libertarians or free market people into our socialist paradise of academia.
But they never want to do that.
And why?
Because they know that that's a challenge.
They're not into diversity.
They're not into multiculturalism.
And they certainly don't believe that people are fungible.
They can't even stand to have people with differing viewpoints around them.
That's a good point.
As you know, I wrote a book based on the premise that SJWs always lie.
It's not a surprise.
To me, it's somewhat disappointing that so many people on the right still try to finesse the issue.
Instead of grabbing the nettle by the thorns and saying, you know what?
Equality does not exist.
I point out, equality does not exist in any material, scientific, legal, spiritual sense.
Even when you're dealing with something as purely, apparently hypothetical as religion.
Not just religion, theology.
Even in theology, they talk about all our There's no Greek or Jew, all are equal in Christ Jesus.
If you're a Christian, if you're not and you're damned, there's no equality.
So there's no equality in any aspect of the human condition.
Go ahead, sorry.
And even in the legal side, we distinguish between different classes of people in many different ways.
And so, equality is not a rational ideal.
It doesn't exist in any sense at all.
And we might as well be trying to devote our legal system to leprechauns and unicorns.
Yeah, or ensuring not that everyone has the same opportunity to grow, but everyone ends up the same height.
And there is another sort of aspect to this multiculturalism as well, is that once you're aware of, you know, the IQ differences, the biological differences, the cultural differences, the parenting style differences.
You know, one of the things that a guy who's been on the show, Lloyd DeMoss, has pointed out is that a lot of the enlightenment came out of significant improvements in child raising to the point where children weren't being tortured and beaten all the time.
When you have relatively child-friendly cultures like the West has become, in particular Europe, but also Canada to a smaller degree, America in the South and America is harsher for kids.
But when you have more child-friendly cultures, children grow up more rational, they grow up happier, they grow up better able to negotiate because they're negotiated with by their parents for many years before they get out into the marketplace.
When you have child-hostile cultures coming into child-friendly cultures, the child-hostile cultures will do poorly because the whole society has been set up for more child-friendly cultures.
So the child-hostile cultures, you know, where they yell, they beat, they threaten with hell, they rape, they torture, not all, of course, but, you know, there is that general problem.
And certainly child abuse in some cultures is vastly higher than in other cultures.
Cultures that move into the more child-friendly cultures will do worse.
And then, as a white male, you get the joyful expectation of being called a racist and a sexist and a bigot because there is inequality of outcome.
That is one of the things that I find least appealing about multiculturalism as it currently stands, which is that there are groups that on average are going to do much worse when they come into Western European-based cultures, which is bad enough.
You know, I think setting groups up for failure is pretty bad to begin with.
But what adds insult to injury is that then white males are going to get blamed for all of the discrepancies, and that I find particularly reprehensible because my daughter's going to grow up in a culture where she's going to be told that I'm a bad guy because...
People who come from Somalia to Minnesota aren't flourishing.
Well, I think there are bigger causes for concern than that.
I mean, the thing that I'm concerned about is war.
You know, one of the series that I edit, I have the privilege of being Jerry Pornell's assistant editor for the revived There Will Be War series.
We had Martin Van Krevel, who is the great Israeli military historian, take a look at the question of war and migration.
And he's a brilliant guy.
I mean, he's so much so that it's been said that you can't understand Clausewitz today unless you read him.
And he really startled us because he came back with an essay that was Fundamentally demonstrated that migration and war are synonymous.
That migration is a form of war, and it is intimately tied to war in both causal and consequential manners.
So the idea that multiculturalism is going to end in anything, but...
Ethnic cleansing and deportations, if we're lucky, that's the positive outcome.
That's really what I'm concerned about, and especially over here in Europe, you can see it coming.
In Sweden, some official was complaining about how the refugee centers keep getting burned down.
In Germany, 600-some refugee centers were burned down last year.
600!
That's not a small number.
But as my wife pointed out, if they're upset now, just wait until they start doing it with people in them.
I can tell you right now, that's going to happen.
We're not in Scandinavia, but we're already seeing the Sons of Odin That's kind of the nationalist resistance.
It started in Finland, but we're already seeing the Sons of Odin down in the south.
Well, and that comes to that fundamental question is where do white people go in the end, right?
I mean, whether we like it or not, the basic fact is that white flight is reality.
And if you look at the demographics, the statistics, the crime rates, it's not that hard to figure out.
When certain minorities move into a neighborhood, the crime rate goes through the roof, welfare consumption goes through the roof, single motherhood goes through the roof, dysfunction goes through the roof, and white people flee, which is why Detroit was the jewel of Of American capitalism and the richest city in America in the 1950s and now it's a smoking crater Democrat run hellhole of unbelievable dysfunction and debt and violence.
So where do white people go?
At some point, you know, there are now places in Europe where white people can't go.
I mean, I don't know if you've seen the video of that Australian 60 Minutes crew that tried to go into little Somalia, and a guy drove over their foot, they were beaten up, the camera was smashed, you can't go there.
And the police said this, we don't go in there.
We don't go, this is no longer, it's not part of Europe anymore.
And this is going to continue until when?
Until when?
Well, I can tell you until when.
It'll go.
I've been saying for a while that After the last election cycle, I said in two more election cycles, the nationalists will come to power.
We're already seeing that election in Austria where the Freedom Party looks likely to win the presidency.
In France, the National Front is on the rise.
In Germany, Alternative for Deutschland is rising fast.
It looks like Britain is going to vote to leave the European Union.
So, if we're lucky, not the next round of parliamentary elections, there's going to be a big advance next year, in the next round, but the mainstream parties are going to band together to keep the nationalists out.
So the same way in France, the right-wing conservative party and the socialists are teaming up to keep Marine Le Pen and the national front out.
They're going to be able to do that in the next round.
But the one after that, all the Sweden Democrats, all the true nationalist parties will take power if we're lucky.
The reason I say if we're lucky is because those nationalist parties are the responsible ones.
They will do things like start – they'll start deporting people, but they'll do it in a humane manner.
They're not Nazis.
I mean, they get called Nazis even more than we do, but they're not Nazis.
They're not neo-Nazis.
They're just nationalists.
The scary thing is if the mainstream parties manage to somehow keep them out, whether it's through subverting democracy or...
Any number of ways.
Contested elections, brokered conventions, you name it.
Exactly.
If that happens, it could get really ugly really fast.
Because a lot of Americans like to talk about Europe as if, oh, Europe's done.
We saw on the news that in Brussels it's terrible, blah, blah, blah.
What they don't realize...
The Europeans did something that is either rather clever or rather evil, which is they basically put all the foreigners into ghettos.
What that means is if they wanted to seal those things off and leave them sealed off or clean them out or whatever, they could do it very, very quickly and very, very easily.
The history of European ruthlessness is not limited to Germany.
I don't know if you heard about the Algerian riots in the 60s in France.
The Algerians were rioting about something or other, and so the chief of police went and handcuffed something like 60 of them and had them all thrown in the river.
They all drowned.
I mean, the sort of thing that would have just convulsed the U.S. at that time.
The French looked into it and gave him a medal.
And so, that's my concern for Europe, is that if the civilized nationalists don't take power, then the more ruthless ultra-nationalists We'll take power, and they've made it pretty clear that they intend to let Europe be Europe one way or another.
Well, and this is what is so astounding, and what just makes me so angry at the left.
I'm neither right nor left, but right now the left is pissing me off a lot more than the right.
And what drives me nuts is the degree to which they say these are far-right parties.
Far-right parties.
Listen, I've studied European history.
I know what a far-right party looks like.
And it's not a party that accepts multiculturalism as a concept.
It's not a party that says, yeah, giant welfare state.
We've got no problem with that.
Massive income redistribution, massive control of trade, massive government.
That is not a far-right party.
Because generally the party that is called far-right in Europe, They just say, well, you know, we don't want that many refugees and maybe we can sort of speed up this process of either finding people a home or getting them back to where they came from.
That is not far right.
That's left with enforcing existing laws.
But to call it far right, if they then scare the general population into not accepting any of the arguments from the supposedly far right, you will see, I think, as you point out, some honest-to-goodness far right parties coming in and that will be a very unpleasant thing for everything involved.
Yeah, I think it's kind of funny because in Hungary, I think it is, they complain about the far right party there.
I think they just recently came to power or something.
But there's another party that is nearly as strong, nearly as popular, and is much, much harsher.
To the extent that they have a paramilitary adjunct called the Iron Guard.
And it's like, look, you understand.
What they clearly don't understand...
If they were capable of thinking logically and if they had longer time preferences, they wouldn't be idiot leftists.
But the problem that they just don't see is that, look, if you somehow manage to keep out the more centrist parties, the parties that you're really scared of, your worst nightmare parties, are the ones that are going to take over next.
It's like with Donald Trump.
What's going to happen to the Republican Party if If they manage to keep Donald Trump out, whoever comes along next is not going to be quite as affable and is not going to be the figure of fun that Donald Trump is.
And Americans are going to respond to them simply because they know that the process is rigged against them.
Well, and, you know, we can look at the example of Brazil, where Brazil used to be 65% European and was a relatively civilized country, and now down to about 45% and has turned into a third world hellhole.
I mean, it is just the way, and I think people need to sort of understand that that train is coming without specific and significant action.
But do you think, Vox, do you think that Europeans have them in it anymore?
Like, I remember when I was a kid, so I'm half German, and when I was a kid, In England, we would have my German relatives come over, my cousins and all of that.
And of course, we were British kids, so we were playing war, guns all the time.
And my German cousins, oh, you know, we're not allowed to play with guns, we can't touch guns, you know, the past, you know.
I mean, I'm half Irish, half German, which means I regularly get the urge to self-flagellate myself about my past while drinking.
But do you think that the Europeans have it in them to assert any cultural relevance at all?
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Well, you're on the ground, so I'll take comfort in that.
It's been a while for me.
Look up a video that the Sweden Democrats put out.
It's called Europe Belongs to Us.
They're speaking in their own languages, but look at their faces when they're talking.
Look at the younger generation of Europeans that are not caught up in all the welcome refugees thing.
Frankly, they're a little bit scary.
I mean, I'm around a lot of teenagers because the way that the soccer club thing works, you're all members of the same club.
It doesn't matter if it's a seven-year-old kid or a 50-year-old veteran.
You all belong to the same club.
And so there's a sort of...
You have a little bit more contact, a little bit more...
You talk to them occasionally when you run into them wherever.
And so the way that the...
European kids talk is considerably more what one would call racist than anything you hear in the States.
I mean, probably more than you would have heard in the segregated South.
The anger is...
Yeah.
I see it on my videos whenever this topic comes up.
It's like page after page of like, wow, please somebody start listening to these people so we can avoid catastrophe.
Right.
And, you know, I mean, I remember, like I told you about the Sons of Odin, the reason I knew about it, the first I heard about it, was some of the kids at the practice, one of the kids' teams was practicing at the same time as our vets' team, And they were all talking about how they'd seen the Sons of Odin, like the Sons of Odin are here.
I mean, this is a generation that feels absolutely no white guilt.
It's a generation that feels...
Lord be praised!
The great curse is lifted!
Well, because the thing is that they've grown up dealing with The multicultural situation.
For people like you and me, we grew up in mostly, very heavily white backgrounds.
I mean, I grew up in Minnesota, which was like 98% white at the time.
And the part that wasn't white was Indian.
Chippewa and whatever.
We always have this fundamental attitude that it's always going to be like that because it always was like that.
They don't have that.
They fundamentally feel a sense of national competition, cultural competition.
It's really remarkable that And like I said, even for somebody who is an avowed nationalist like myself, and people say, well, are you a white nationalist?
I'm an everything nationalist.
I support all nations and their rights to exist.
I'm an Israeli nationalist.
I'm a German nationalist.
I'm an Irish nationalist.
And I'm an Indian nationalist because I absolutely support red segregation, being an Indian.
But the main thing is that I mean, even though I do think it's a positive sign, it's still having the cultural burden that I do, having all the inherent assumptions that we have about what is normal, what is civil, and what is nice, and that sort of thing.
I hear them talk about things, and I just think, wow, people have no idea what's coming.
Well, and certainly, I mean, I grew up, I guess, fairly multicultural, but it was the first wave of immigrants.
And from the sort of studies and the experts that I've conducted and the people I've talked to, the first wave of immigrants are the creme de la creme because they're the people who can't stand living in these low-rent countries and come to the West because they have very smart and very ambitious and so on.
But as has been noted, In England, the second generation, third generation, well, it's the regression to the mean.
I hate to say it, but it's like, wow, these Chinese players who came over with the basketball team, wow, Chinese people are huge!
They're so tall!
And then the generations go on and it doesn't sustain.
And so the first wave, it's one of these things, it's almost like set up by nature to be really confusing and annoying and frustrating to everyone.
Because why would you ever want to complain about IQ 120 people coming from anywhere in the world and setting up in your society?
They're great, law-abiding, they contribute, they're professionals, they're respectful, they're...
But then there's this regression to the mean where you tend to go back to the IQ of the source nation and it's like, oh boy, by the time they're embedded, we've got lots of problems and maybe that's more what the younger people you're talking to are reacting to.
Well, I think that people tend to forget where homogenous nations come from.
We don't have homogenous nations because people all lived physically separated from each other by mountains and rivers.
For some reason, people seem to have this idea that nobody ever went anywhere and despite the fact that if you're familiar with history, you're aware that the Normans were down in Sicily and the Turks were up in Vienna and But the reason we have homogenous nations is because periodically people kill each other in large quantities.
And if they don't kill each other, they physically force them to move.
You know, one of the largest human migrations in the last 200 years took place in Europe.
And it was the forced deportation of 12 million Germans from the Slavic countries.
They think that as many as 2 million Germans may have died in the process.
You never hear about that.
In Yugoslavia, the Bosnians and the Serbs used to be considerably more intermingled.
But once the Bosnians started it off, and it was the Bosnians who started it, not the Serbs, you know, you had the usual ethnic cleansings and killings and all that sort of thing.
And so I am absolutely and utterly furious with the left, with the people who talk about equality and multiculturalism and that sort of thing, because given the level of Ethnic and cultural intertwinement.
I think that the amount of blood that is going to be on their hands, that the genuine culpability that they have for this is off the charts.
And that's why I'm very...
I'm very pessimistic about, I mean, when we talk about free trade, this is the funny part I have to tell you about the debate.
So you've got to keep in mind, Dr.
Miller, he's a very smart guy.
He's a very upbeat, positive guy.
I mean, I personally thought all of his arguments were fundamentally naive and Pollyannish.
Sorry to interrupt.
I just want one quick question.
And he is a professor at a university?
Yeah, he's a professor at Smith College.
So he's not that much into the free market himself, since he likes operating from within a government-protected cartel where he can't be fired.
Well, actually, yeah.
It's good for other people.
He's very keen on the free trade for other people.
But for himself, he kind of wants to be a mercantilist.
Well, he's actually quite interesting because they tried to get rid of him even though he was tenured because he's a conservative.
He's an interesting guy.
I sent you a copy.
You'll have to read it.
It's pretty interesting.
But the funniest part is after going through all this Pollyanna, naive, everything's going to be fine as long as we just have free trade, blah, blah, blah – We get around to discussing the singularity, because we've been talking about post-scarcity.
We've been talking about the same problem that you talked about with what are we going to do with all the non-productive people and so forth.
And he says, well, you know, the one problem with the singularity is that the chances are pretty good that the machines are just going to kill us all anyway.
I was like, whoa!
Where did that go?
Man, they must have one sinister toaster, I'm telling you that.
I know.
It was just hilarious after literally an hour and a half of positivity, suddenly, well, you know, it really doesn't matter because the machines are coming for us.
I mean, this idea that machines are going to kill us all, the idea that we create these things that are supposed to serve us that end up ruling us, that's just people's unconscious idea about government, but that's perhaps a topic for another time.
So listen, there was another point you were just going to finish off though?
Yeah, well, just what you were saying about how all of these issues with regards to multiculturalism and ethnic conflict and so forth, you know, I mean, how do we tie that together with free trade?
You know, it's almost like two different worlds that we're talking about.
I don't think so because I... Sorry to interrupt, but I think in a free...
The question is, how is this multiculturalism even economically effective?
How is it even possible?
If you have people with the same cultural background, with the same values, with the same language, with the same history, that is so economically efficient, it's ridiculous.
Like learning – if I went to Japan and had to start podcasting in Japanese, I'd lose like 10 years of my life's productivity just becoming nuanced enough to do what I'm doing now but in Japanese.
And then I'd have to find some way of tying it all into their cultural references and their jokes and their humor and their weird aficionado focus on sex robots.
I couldn't – like I couldn't possibly – so how is multiculturalism even occurring?
And it's occurring because it's subsidized by governments.
That's why it's occurring.
If it wasn't subsidized with welfare, if it wasn't subsidized with Obamacare, if it wasn't subsidized with minimum wages, if it wasn't – like you name it.
It's incredibly subsidized.
The government is literally plucking drowning people from the ocean and putting them on a train to Germany.
Yeah.
So – So without massive government intervention, people tend to sort themselves into that which is culturally the most comfortable and economically the most productive.
And that tends to be relatively – there's a reason there's a Chinatown.
There's a reason there's a little Italy and a little Greece and maybe that blends out over a certain amount of time.
But multiculturalism is so ridiculously economically inefficient.
I mean, just take a tiny example, like the unbelievable amount of money that Canada spends because there are two official languages.
I mean, if it was left to the free market, this stuff would blend out and it would segregate and it would sort of remain in its own economically productive areas and there'd be lots of cross-cultural references and so on.
But man, oh man, Immigration and multiculturalism is a government program.
It has no aspect of the free market whatsoever.
Free market is like fun films to read the subtitles to or whatever, right?
But Immigration and multiculturalism and everything that's going on in Europe right now, the Schengen Agreement is a government program.
The EU is a government program.
Immigration is a government program.
And what do government programs do?
Well, right now, we're in the appeasement phase of the government program, just as England and Europe was in the 1930s with regards to Germany.
And when the appeasement phase ends, particularly with people of the European stock, you know, I'll tell you this, Europeans, as you know, really, really, really nice people.
Until they're not.
And then they're really, really, really not nice people.
And this is the problem with all of this artificial steroid pumping up of this completely insane, let's throw the lions in with the lambs zoo called Europe.
It is going to blow up.
And it's my absolute goal and hope to get rational arguments out as wide and as far and as hard as possible so people know the facts so that it can be a controlled explosion because that's the best we can hope for now, in my opinion.
If it wasn't, if it wouldn't sound blasphemous, I would say hallelujah.
So I'll just say preach preacher!
I just talked to Diamond and Silk today, so I got some preaching popped up.
I had to let them do all the preaching, which was a lot of fun.
So no, I think free trade and free movement and so on, it's all been violated by everything the governments are doing.
Sorry, go ahead.
No, I was just going to say you're like the libertarian version of a Southern Baptist preacher.
Amen!
That's fine!
But, no, I'm open to that.
I mean, the question, of course, is can we get there from here?
How do we get there from here without a...
Absolutely horrific scenario.
And it's looking increasingly unlikely.
I mean, there's a reason why Jerry Pornell revived his series, There Will Be War.
It ended in 1989 because the whole series was focused on the Soviet Union and the war with that.
It's kind of depressing when you think about it.
I was listening to some music from the very late 80s, very early 90s.
And there's that beautiful song by Jesus Jones right here, right now.
And it talks about watching the world wake up from history.
It's such an intelligent song.
And it's such a hopeful, optimistic song.
The Berlin Wall coming down and just how hard it was to believe that this was happening.
And it's so frustrating to look back on the kind of hope that we had for the future and then see what it turned into.
Well, it's a basic fact of history that there are always more assholes.
You know, hey, we've defeated the assholes.
We're free of assholes.
Look, we defeated the Nazis.
Oh, wait, what, communism?
Oh, we've defeated communism.
Oh, what, Islam?
There are always more assholes coming around.
And hopefully, you know, at some point in a couple of hundred years, we'll be out of assholes.
But we're a long way from peak assholery at the moment.
No, clearly.
And of course, then you look at the behavior of the US government over the past 20 years, and you start going, well, are we the assholes now?
Yeah, yeah.
The assholes are calling from inside the house.
I mean, it was really...
That's good, actually.
It was very eye-opening to be in Serbia and working with some Serbs and get their perspective on what had happened.
And There's no question that the US government made that whole situation vastly worse than it should have been.
We have to get our own houses clean, whether we're talking about Canada, whether we're talking about the USA, whether we're talking about the European nations.
We have to return and embrace some of the old ideas that you and I and a lot of other people are not necessarily all that comfortable with whether we're talking about traditions,
whether we're talking about the old ideas of liberty, whether we're talking about getting rid of We need to stop dancing around and pussyfooting around and speaking part of the truth because the other part of the truth is too uncomfortable.
No, go ahead.
No, I was just going to say, one of the things that I like, you know, I'd heard about you, obviously, before we did that show a month ago or whatever, and one of the things that I'd heard about you that I liked was that you have a propensity for telling uncomfortable truths.
And I think that We need more of that.
We need more people like you and like Chernovich and like Milo who are pissing people off simply because they're saying what they understand to be the truth to the best of their ability.
You're not right all the time.
I'm not right all the time.
None of us are right all the time.
But the more that we can speak out and Make it clear.
Make a clear, strong case that is compelling to more and more people.
The greater the likelihood that we can get out of this, that we can get through this without it being some sort of...
History-making catastrophe, because we don't want to see ethnic wars throughout Europe.
We don't want to see the United States splitting into five different warring provinces or whatever.
We're probably going to see some of it somewhere.
And for Americans, I think it's important for them to keep in mind that They've actually got, statistically, a bigger problem because they've got 61 million.
Europe is bigger than the U.S. is in terms of population, but their Muslim population is only 4.5%.
The Hispanic population in the United States is pushing 30%.
There are other problems around.
There's problems in Asia that We're barely cognizant of, but yeah, they're dealing with some of the same demographic issues too.
Well, yeah, I'm certainly not always right, but I'll be damned if I'll be wrong because I'm afraid.
I mean, that is, you know, that is the deal.
If you want to be a public voice, you have to use whatever verbal weapons you can to pierce through the delusion that destroys civilizations.
You know, we all have a daydreaming and fantasy life and creativity imagination.
The denial of immediate reality is part of the genius of the species.
But you've got to get that Aristotelian mean.
You know, you don't want to be a totally concrete guy just putting one foot in front of the other.
But at the same time, you don't want to be pure Platonic abstraction detached from reality.
We have to find that balance.
And we've swung so far towards being sucked in by leftist idealism that the empiricism is just piling up and beginning to claw down the structure.
And leftist idealism has united so much with what we think of as civilization that when we begin to see the degree to which the empirical evidence Of ethnocentric incompatibilities and bioincompatibilities and the basic biological reality that two subspecies never continue to inhabit the same space for very long.
That's what you were talking about earlier with homogenous societies.
When I was a kid growing up, there were lots of red squirrels and then some asshole brought in a gray squirrel and next thing you know, There are no red squirrels because they're all competing for the same resources.
And in a state of society, they're all competing for control of the state, just like the Christian denominations did before the relative separation of church and state.
So that is the deal.
You've got to drag people back to reality.
And when they've been dissociated from reality for so long, they do it kicking and screaming.
And the pill that you know is going to heal them, they think is poison.
And it is a very, very tricky operation.
But if we don't do it, Then you can ignore reality, but nature will just wipe you out.
You know, if you think the tiger is your friend and you think that the water is fire, you will get mauled to death and die thirsty.
No, there's no question.
And, you know, I increasingly don't think in terms of ideology.
You know, I mean, I'm naturally an abstract thinker, so ideology is quite comfortable for me.
But more and more, I just look at it as...
Look, either you are a Western civilizationist or you're against it.
Either you're for civilization or you're working against it.
Either you're a nationalist or you're working against it.
In all those things, it's just getting to the point now where, like Ann Coulter said the other day, That despite the fact that she's very strongly pro-life, very strongly anti-abortion, she didn't give a damn what Donald Trump thought about it.
Because it doesn't matter.
She said, if we let in another 30 million people who vote for abortion, it doesn't matter what Donald Trump thinks, because we're going to have it.
The main thing is, get the damn wall built.
I think where a lot of us are at the moment, Vox, which is I thought we had more time.
I thought we had more time to continue the conversation, to chip away at the welfare state.
I thought we had more time.
Oh, it's a multi-generational change and so on.
I thought we had more time than I was willing to be more strategic.
But I think, as Ann Coulter points out, we're out of time.
If we even want the conversation of Western civilization to continue, we've got to have some walls.
If we want any of the negotiations and challenges and debates to continue, there cannot be an overwhelming propensity of anti-European sentiment, which is what's going to happen when you get third world people into the country.
And so that is...
We've gone from strategic to tactical and people have been kind of bewildered in my show because I've been talking about long-term solutions for many years and suddenly it's like, okay, forget the long-term view.
We've got some immediate stuff to do.
We're not designing third-generation weapons now.
We've got to grab some shells.
And that is challenging for people and if you don't know the demographics and if you don't know the race and IQ and if you don't know, I mean, then it is confusing to people.
But nonetheless, she's saying, look, if we're going to even continue to have any kind of debate, then we have to find some way to stop this incursion from Mexico because then there's no possibility of having a debate because...
Everybody who's on the right will be outvoted by everyone on the left, and that's it for the history of America.
So, yeah, it is a bit of a switch, and I'm glad that we're able to have these kinds of conversations.
Again, this is not where I came from intellectually, and I think back to certain podcasts I did even sort of six or seven or eight years ago before the demographic winter facts came in and before the massive – and immigration was kind of hidden.
I look at the immigration statistics on America and I'm like, damn, I had no idea.
I had no idea.
There was this quarter million Muslims coming in a year.
That's mental.
So anyway, I'm glad we're able to have these conversations.
I invite people to call into my show and provide feedback in the comments below.
I always wanted to get as well-rounded an approach to these things as possible.
I really do appreciate your time and having this conversation today.
It's always great talking to you and I wish you all the best in the fight.
