Aug. 30, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:20:22
3397 What Is The Alt-Right? | Vox Day and Stefan Molyneux
In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s speech, one question has dominated mainstream news coverage: what is the Alt-Right? Vox Day joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss his thoughts on the Alt-Right philosophy, the preservation of western civilization, the failure of conservatism in the United States, how diversity decreases social trust, opposition to globalism, why overpopulation concerns are hypocritical, why environmentalists don’t oppose immigration, arguments against free trade, problems with multiculturalism and much much more!Multiple-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 close to 3 million pageviews per month.Vox Day's Books: http://www.fdrurl.com/vox-dayVox Day's Blog: http://voxday.blogspot.comCastalia House: http://www.castaliahouse.com"What the Alt Right is" by Vox Dayhttps://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.htmlSJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Policehttp://www.fdrurl.com/SJW-Always-LieCuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed Americahttp://www.fdrurl.com/cuckservativeOn the Question of Free Trade: An Economics Discoursehttp://www.fdrurl.com/vox-free-tradeFreedomain 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
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
Here with a good friend Vox Dey, a multiple-time Hugo Award nominee and writer of epic fantasy, as well as the author of the must-read books Social Justice Warriors Always Lie, Taking Down the Thought Police, and Cuxervatives, How Conservatives Betrayed America.
Vox is also a professional game designer and was in fact the original model for the guy with the monocle on Monopoly.
Maintains a pair also of popular blogs, Vox, Populi, and Alpha Game, and runs Castilla House Publishing.
We'll put the links to all of his webby vital statistics below.
Vox, how are you doing?
Thanks.
Good to be back.
So, Vox.
You may have heard the term alt-right.
Maybe it's new to you, but it seems to be floating around the planet like Superman attempted to turn back time, I think.
And I know that there's no official dude or dudess for the movement, and I find it a little confusing.
So as sort of the outsider with his face up against the biosphere, perhaps you can step us through the term as far as you understand it, what it means, what's Well, it's difficult to say who the leader or leaders of the alt-right are because we're seeing all sorts of crazy stuff.
I mean, the funniest thing I've seen so far was National Public Radio declaring that Milo Yiannopoulos and Alan Bakari, both of Breitbart, are the leaders of the alt-right.
The funny thing about that was they linked to an article which was written by the two of them, both of them expressly stating that they are not alt-right, they're merely sympathetic and covering it fairly.
So anyhow, I've been having a good time hassling Alam by constantly referring people to him.
I think he's appreciated that.
But actually, the people that people tend to look at are Richard Spencer, who is the head of the National Policy Institute, and also some guys like Ramsey Paul.
Some people even look at Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land, but they're really more nail reactionaries than alt-right proper.
And some folks have even looked at me, I think probably because Milo called me an alt-right figurehead a few months ago.
But what the alt-right is, is it's the alternative right.
It's the alternative to the conservative media that has been essentially speaking for the right wing for the past 25, 30 years, really since the rise of Reagan.
And even before that, with National Review, what you would call the Buckleyite crew.
And what the alt-right is, at its core...
We are the descendants of those who were read out of the conservative movement.
So we are the intellectual descendants of the John Birch Society, of Sam Francis, of Pat Buchanan, of everyone from John Derbyshire to Ann Coulter who have been consistently read out of the conservative movement,
mostly due to an unwillingness to defer to The conservative movement's attempt to ingratiate itself with the industrial military complex and the neoconservatives and the Bush administration.
There was a...
There's been a lot of branches and forks in conservatism, and, you know, it would be an entire show to go over all of the different kinds, but one that seemed very important to me was the Barry Goldwater split in the 60s.
Goldwater, if you read, I think it's the...
His books on conservatism, very small government guy, not quite objectivist, but not even that far from that particular mindset, blown right out of the water in the conservative movement, out of this desire, I think, to be conciliatory towards the left, because I think a lot of people on the right say, well, the left is in control of the media.
I really need positive media coverage in order to have a successful political career, so I better kowtow to some of the left's tropes in order to survive.
And then there was, of course, a bit of a Reagan branch.
Reagan coming from California, where he had been for a no-fault divorce and other stuff that the right has had some problems with.
And even Reagan did later on in his career think that that was not a great move.
But of course, I think that had a lot to do with the fact that as the Cold War was winding down...
you kind of needed a way to justify the military-industrial complex.
And the neocons with a very aggressive foreign policy seem to have stepped into that void caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
And that's, I think, where you got a lot of the bushes and all of that kind of stuff.
And it seems that the right has been playing a bit of a losing game by inches with the left, The left is kind of getting most of what it wants, maybe just a little slower because of the right, but there's not been a fundamental counterinsurgency against the expansion of the left.
What do you think of that?
I mean, obviously very fast drive-by skim of what's been going on.
It's mostly accurate.
The only thing that was at all incorrect was that Goldwater was always within the mainstream of the overall conservative movement that the alt-right is not part of.
Goldwater represented the right side of that versus the left Rockefeller side.
And interestingly enough, Romney's father was part of the Rockefeller side, which is of course why Romney was always Doubted by the true conservatives.
Overall, though, your summary was correct.
The thing that people don't understand is that the fundamental problem with the conservative movement goes back to its beginning.
It really helps to look at a guy named Russell Kirk.
Russell Kirk is generally considered to be the father of the modern conservative movement.
There's been a conservative party in England much longer than there's been a conservative movement in the United States, and the two are entirely separate.
They have no connection other than the American conservatives occasionally look back to Edmund Burke and that sort of thing.
But if you read A Conscience of a Conservative or The Conscience of a Conservative, or just look up the ten conservative principles that Russell Kirk What you'll see is that conservatism in America, the modern conservative movement, is not an ideology.
He even comes right out and says it.
It's not an ideology.
It is fundamentally an attitude.
And that's the core problem.
It's something that my co-author and I, John Red Eagle, we addressed this in our book, Cuxervative, which was a bestseller last year and deals quite heavily on Actually, the subtitle is How Conservatives Betrayed America.
And what we were really surprised to discover as we were looking into the history of conservatism in America is that this lack of ideology is the reason that conservatism has continually moved left.
It's the reason that conservatism has conserved nothing.
The damning thing that the conservatives are totally unable to Defend is the fact that not only did they not conserve the American nation, they simply did not even conserve women's bathrooms.
If you can't even keep men in dresses out of little girls' bathrooms, you really can't call yourself a conservative.
You've conserved nothing.
And that's the big difference between the alt-right and the conservative movement is that The alt-right has an ideology.
The alt-right is developing a philosophy.
And the big difference is that even though they didn't have an ideology, a specific coherent ideology, they do have an ideological approach to the world.
The alt-right does not.
The alt-right takes an identity politics approach to the world, which of course, as you well know, is the approach that 95% of the world takes.
In Malaysia or in Nigeria or in Russia, the parties are not really separated by ideology.
They're usually separated by identity.
And that's what we're now seeing in the United States as the white American majority becomes a minority.
It is beginning to Evolve into identity politics the same way that the blacks do, the same way La Raza does, the same way that the Jews do.
White Americans are beginning to learn that they have to play the game just like everybody else.
Well, and the degree to which America was, I think Ann Coulter has pointed this out, a sort of white Christian and particularly WASP, like a Protestant nation for most of its history, and that that was well understood in its founding, and the degree to which that has diminished really since the 65 Kennedy immigration alterations changes, where basically Europeans were rejected in favor of a third world or other culture kind of immigrants.
That is something that's, I guess, easy to take for granted until it's no longer the case.
And then, almost with regret, I think some white people are looking and saying, well, you know, it's not my particular first impulse.
However, if everybody else is playing identity in group preference politics, what is our future if we don't try to play that game at all?
Yeah, they have no choice.
It's not a question of Deciding that, well, we'd prefer to continue to play with these rules.
I mean, the mainstream movement conservatives are still trying to make that pitch.
But it's falling on deaf ears because nobody buys it anymore.
And the problem that most white Americans have and that most conservatives have is that they were sold a myth.
They were sold the myth of the melting pot.
They were sold the myth of the nation of immigrants.
They were sold the myth of a proposition nation.
They were also sold the myth of a Judeo-Christian nation.
All of those things are lies.
All of those things are either middle 19th century or early 20th century concepts that have been sold and propagandized To the people in the United States so that they would believe that America was not a white nation, that America was not a Christian nation.
But it's completely bogus and all of your listeners can verify this for themselves.
Go to Google Ingram and type in a nation of immigrants.
Go to Google Ingram and type in Judeo-Christian and what you'll see It's that those words were not even in use at the time of the founding of the United States.
In fact, most of them were not in use within 120 years of it.
And so then you look at things like the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, and you can see that for the first 120 years, to be an American meant to be white.
Some of my ancestors Obviously, the Mexican ancestors were not, but my American Indian ancestors were not considered Americans because it specifically excluded American Indians.
You had various things like the Chinese Exclusion Act, an actual law saying that Chinese people could not be United States citizens.
And then, of course, they had the whole slavery issue, which was a special issue.
That there were various laws dealing with.
But the very clear historical fact of the matter is that all of those inventions about America being a nation of immigrants and a melting pot and that sort of thing, those were all concocted much later in order to make the second wave immigrants,
which was mostly the Italians, the The Italians, the Irish, and the Jews, to make them feel like they were real and proper Americans, just as American as anyone else.
But it wasn't true, and it's a self-serving immigrant myth.
Now, the idea that may be startling to people is the idea that it's important whether you're white or not.
And there is the general idea that America is a set of beliefs.
And if you come to America from wherever, whatever ethnicity, whatever region, and you accept or become part of those beliefs, you believe in the republic, you believe in democracy, you believe in separation of church and state, you believe in freedom of the press, you believe whatever.
I mean, all of the aggregations of the American experiment.
That the nationality or the race in particular is not as important as the belief systems and that to co-join belief systems with a race does strike people as alarmingly collectivist.
I wonder if you could sort of respond to that concern.
Well, the first and obvious rejoinder is that the idea is provably and observably untrue.
If it were necessary to hold to those propositions in order to be a citizen, then there would have to be a way of delineating or discerning who was adhering to those propositions and who didn't.
But there's no test for it.
There's no need to believe any of it.
You can become an American citizen without speaking English.
You can become a U.S. citizen without...
Believing in democracy.
You can become a U.S. citizen and fully subscribe to Sharia and believe that Islam should rule with a black flag over Washington, D.C. And nothing is going to get in the way of that.
And so the idea that it's necessary to adhere to these things, that these ideas So then, if I understand this correctly, the test was, do you come from...
A region or perhaps a race that, as you've pointed out, the sort of three foundational pillars, Christianity, a European nation, and the Greco-Roman legacy.
And of course, it's not likely that if you're from Somalia, that's going to be part of your cultural makeup or your identity.
So if you did want people who are more compatible with the ideals of America, you would want to bring your immigrants in who are Christians from European nations, which would, I guess, automatically be part of the I think that you can put it even more stringently than that.
It's rather shocking to people when I first point this out, but even the early waves of immigration fundamentally and intrinsically changed the United States and changed it in a negative way that was definitely in a direction away from the founders' intentions.
For the very simple reason that the Germans, the Scandinavians, the Irish, the Italians and the Jews have never ever understood the English common law.
They have no historical understanding of small government and they have no particular affection for it.
And this is very visible when you grow up in Minnesota as I did.
Because the German and Scandinavian nature of the people there is very, very big government.
It's very different than my Yankee relatives in Massachusetts where they're all of English descent and they tend to have a much more distrustful attitude towards government.
And it's very shocking to people to realize that these patterns are so...
Reliable, and yet they are.
And that's why it was important to the founders.
They understood this.
Most people haven't read many of the writings of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton, but all of these issues that we're discussing were issues that were of concern to them at the time.
Ben Franklin, in particular, was very concerned about the heavily Germanic aspect of Pennsylvania.
He was wondering if it would even be possible for Pennsylvania to properly integrate with some of the English-speaking states.
And sorry, just by the by, there are places, as far as I understand it, in that region where they still speak German.
That's true.
And in fact, until after World War I, there was much more German spoken.
It wasn't until World War I when...
Speaking German and German culture really kind of fell out of style that English became the completely dominant language that it became until Spanish entered the picture.
But the important thing to understand is that these issues are not new.
These issues were discussed.
These issues were established.
Decisions were made.
And all of them are very, very clear, and all of them are very, very different than what most people understand today, simply because most people today are very, very badly educated on these matters.
And frankly, a lot of the stuff that I learned in research in Cuxervative, or I should say that John Red Eagle learned in research in Cuxervative that he then explained to me, that would probably be more fair.
A lot of it was relatively new to me because I swallowed the whole melting pot thing.
I was shocked to find out that the melting pot was actually popularized, fundamentally conceived and popularized by Israel Zangwell, who was a Russian Jew living in Britain.
It had nothing to do with the United States.
It was basically a play about the United States from somebody who didn't really know very much about it.
And here we've adopted it as if it's what Steve Saylor calls the zeroth amendment, which is the founding father, Emma Lazarus, carved it on the bottom of the Statue of Liberty in 1776.
I mean, it's a historical absurdity, and yet we act like it's more important than the Constitution or You know, than any of the early acts of the early Congresses.
And there is a strange disconnect, which is that there are resolutions that come out of the American government and the platforms of various political parties that will continue to avow their desire and their getting behind the idea that Israel should remain a Jewish state.
Israel should remain a Jewish state.
Right.
And yet, if there was a platform that said that America should remain a Christian state, that would be considered...
Well, abhorrent and shocking and some kind of ist that you can't even imagine how many n-dimensional ists you would get spiking out of that particular approach.
And so it is odd that a particular cultural or racial or religious heritage is affirmed for Israel by a lot of sections of the U.S. government, and yet not for America itself.
Well, it's not just the government itself.
What's really driving it is the media, both the mainstream media and the conservative media.
In fact, I'm pretty sure you've noticed in the last week there was a tremendous number of attacks on the alt-right by members of the conservative media who have parentheses around their names when we write about them on Twitter.
I got attacked by Ben Shapiro, who is Jewish.
Kathy Young, who is Jewish.
Andrew Klavan, who is Jewish.
And it was kind of interesting because they didn't dare to even try to call me anti-Semitic because I also happened to publish Israel's leading military historian.
But the reason for it is that what the alt-right is doing is pointing out that that myth Of the melting pot means that the whole idea that America is nothing, which is essentially what they're saying.
They're trying to say America is nothing.
It's just an idea.
Anyone can be an American.
It doesn't matter if you're a pygmy living in Africa or if you're an Eskimo born at the North Pole.
You're just as American as anyone else.
And frankly, that is absolutely abhorrent because what it's saying is that America's historical people and America's historical culture does not exist.
And that's simply not true.
And it would be the equivalent of anybody sort of waltzing into Israel and saying, I think I'm Jewish, and them saying, sure.
Whereas the process of converting to Judaism can be, what, a multi-year, close to a decade-long process of cross-examination and understanding and study and research and acceptance, I guess, what Donald Trump's daughter went through it, as did, I think, Elizabeth Taylor?
Anyway...
It's a big, complicated process to convert to Judaism, yet it seems like the Western experience is something that you can shuffle up, hold up your hand, say a couple of words, and boom, you're there.
Well, it's even worse than that, because even if you are 100% genetically Jewish, and you can prove it with a blood test, if you happen to be a Christian, They will not grant you the right of return.
And so, you know, it's not even a pure ethno-state.
It's a ethno-religious state.
Whereas, I mean, can you imagine if the United States passed a law saying that you have to be a white Anglo-Saxon who belongs to the Church of England, or you can't I mean, people would be screaming theocracy and Nazi from, you know, it burst our eardrums.
But the point isn't that there's anything wrong with what Israel's doing in that regard.
What Israel's doing is absolutely right.
And what Israel's doing is what most states around the world do.
The problem with the United States is And the unique issue that the United States is facing is that it is one of the only states where the citizens do not understand that state and nation are two completely different things.
A state is a political entity.
Anyone can move into the United States, become a United States citizen, and you can do the same thing in many, many other countries.
But if you were to move to Italy, and if you were to get your Italian citizenship, you would still not be an Italian.
I mean, I speak Italian, my kids speak fluent Italian, all that sort of thing, but neither we nor anyone considers us anything but stranieri.
It literally means strangers.
It doesn't mean that we're not welcome.
It doesn't mean that we're not treated very well, all that sort of thing.
But on a fundamental level, we never will be Italian.
And that's okay.
There's nothing wrong with that.
It's very strange sometimes talking to Americans about it because they'll talk about their neighbors from El Salvador or Sweden or whatever who have been there for Four or five years, and they're real Americans now.
And then I'll say, well, do you consider me an American?
They'll say, well, of course, you're totally American.
I haven't been there in 20 years.
I mean, how is it possible that you can become a real true American, as American as anyone else in five years, but if you go to Italy for 20 years or Sweden for 25 years, you're not Italian, you're not Sweden, you're not Swedish.
So the whole thing is based on this confusion of nation and state.
But a nation is nothing more than a people.
It is a group of people that share a common genetics, a common language, a common culture, and that sort of thing.
And the fact that the American nation is not as Right.
People also who are in the West sort of lose track, unless they're reminded, and then it kind of all comes flooding back.
I think they lose track of how many nations are ethnostates around the world.
And, I mean, the most common examples, of course, are the Asian nations.
I think it's sort of South Korea and China and Japan and other places like that, where racial homogeneity is almost...
I mean, it's like 99 or 99.5% the same stock, I guess you could say.
And it's hard to miss that they don't seem to have a lot of the conflicts that Western countries do, that their economic growth tends to be higher, that their welfare expenditures tend to be lower, that social cohesion and cohesiveness tend to be higher.
And, of course, they live in which, you know, for a lot of people might be a kind of conceptual paradise.
They live in a society where the word racism is virtually unheard of, because they're all the same race in general.
They don't ever have to sort of say, well, I better not put my foot wrong or say something wrong or, you know, raise my eyebrow at the wrong time for fear of the giant media scud missile of racist landing down on my head.
And I think that's a...
*sigh* That's something that I think could be considered a little tempting for some people.
Well, it was interesting to see how when I laid out the 16 principles of the alt-right, which is just my thinking on the subject.
A number of people have said, what is the alt-right?
We don't understand what it is.
And so, speaking only for myself, I said, okay, this is what I think.
And Richard Spencer was kind enough to say that he thought it was very solid.
A number of other alt-right figures and so forth indicated general agreement as well.
And so it's not definitive, but I think it's informative.
And one of the points that I noted was that the alt-right is opposed to any non-native ethnic minority Wielding inordinate influence or domination over the native ethnic majority.
And that was something that really triggered a couple of the aforementioned conservative commentators that I mentioned, because of course they started shrieking holocaust and everything.
It really didn't have that much to do with them.
Obviously, it's possibly relevant in the United States, or it is relevant in the United States, but it's the problem that exists all over the world.
It's a problem that existed in Sri Lanka with the Tamils.
It's a problem that exists in Malaysia and Indonesia with the Han Chinese.
It was even a problem in parts of Africa With different African tribes that somehow became politically dominant despite being a much smaller tribe.
I believe that the situation in Rwanda was the consequence of one of those situations.
And this isn't something that I just made up.
This is something that Thomas Sowell, the noted racist black professor from Stanford, he wrote a whole book about it.
And then Amy Chua, who I believe is a Chinese professor at Yale, she recently wrote another book about the same topic, dealing with the same subject.
And we all know the equation diversity plus proximity equals war.
But apparently one of the best ways to generate serious and problematic ethnic conflict is to take a small ethnic minority and allow them to take political power or amass inordinate economic power because,
generally speaking, history indicates that the native majority does not take that well and eventually wants to do something about it, whether you're talking about what happened in India when they wanted to get the British out or what happened In places like Rwanda or potentially even in Nazi Germany.
And there are examples.
One pops to mind that there was a group of Germans, largely bureaucrats, who were invited over by the Tsars in the 19th century, went over to Russia and remained non-Russian speakers.
They had translators and they worked as bureaucrats and they worked in other occupations, I think, for about 100 years.
And they had made no attempt or success in sort of blending into the general Russian way of life.
And then, of course, as soon as...
Vladimir Lenin popped up his ferret bald head and went for power in 1917.
Then all of these Germans flowed all the way back to Germany and were still speaking the same language.
There is a kind of bubble.
You know, we are a tribal species and there's an efficiency to tribalism that I think is really underestimated in terms of how well it can work economically.
When you grow, like when I meet people from England or I meet people from other sort of walks of life where I've had some considerable cultural experience, easy peasy.
I know pretty much the jokes I can make.
I know the general formula for social interaction and all that.
Particularly, you know, something as eccentric as the British sense of humor can be off-putting for some people.
But of course, if I grew up at least until the age of 11 or so in England and have consumed a lot of British media over the time...
And so there's a kind of efficiency to it, and you get into business.
You kind of know what is expected.
Handshake is as good as a bond and all that.
Whereas if your neighbor is Japanese and doesn't speak English, it's complicated to borrow some sugar.
It's complicated to know...
What are the rituals?
Even when you go into their house, what is expected?
That stuff can be kind of complicated.
And some people like it and they want to go and learn these things.
And I always find that multiculturalism is something that is considered to be a much greater benefit when you're young.
And I understand that.
You know, multiculturalism, you've got great music, you've got great food, different experiences and exotic people and all of that.
But, you know, when you get older and you're trying to raise your kids, exposing them to a wide variety of sometimes incompatible belief systems, I think is just kind of disorienting.
And they don't grow up in a neighborhood where they have to learn a wide variety of cultures as other people have to learn a wide variety of cultures.
And sometimes that's fun, and sometimes that just seems a little wearying.
And I think there have been some studies that have shown that this increasing diversity in neighborhoods is one of the reasons why Why people stay home?
Why they cocoon?
Why they watch TV rather than go outside?
Because it's just really complicated to organize a barbecue when everybody's eating different things and has a different language and a different time of eating, perhaps, just whatever culture they're coming from.
They may even sit at a table in a different way.
It's just, you know, maybe it's fun once or twice, but it just seems like pulling a big rock uphill, I think, after a while for a lot of people.
Well, you know, you can't be a trilingual expat family without being aware of those things.
You know, I think it's easy for Americans living in a historical monoculture to be attracted to the romance of multiculturalism because they have absolutely no idea whatsoever of all those difficulties involved.
I mean, you, if I recall correctly...
You grew up in one country and then ended up in a different country, correct?
I was born in Ireland.
I grew up in England and spent some time in South Africa and then in Canada.
So, yeah, I had a bit of a tour of the colonies.
Right.
And so, you know, I grew up in the Midwest, but from an East Coast family.
And then adding to all of that, I was part Indian and part Mexican living around a bunch of Scandinavian blondes.
There are always very slight visible differences.
Nothing major, but even just the way that you pronounce things.
My parents used to grin a little bit when we were talking about going to church in Edina.
I could never understand why that was funny.
And I said, what's so funny about that?
And my mother said, Edina.
Edina.
I said, I don't get it.
It's called Edina.
They said, well, we thought it was pronounced Edna when we first arrived.
So it's, you know, just very little small things like that when you're dealing with different regions of the same country.
But, you know, then when I went to...
When I went to study in Japan, you suddenly realize how different things are.
There's that horrible Apple ad going around now with the people are all the same.
It's this horrible...
I mean, you knew it was an Apple ad the minute that you heard this guy whining about how, we are all different, my friend.
But he concludes that, but we are more alike than unalike.
And that's not really true.
I mean, not if you've lived in enough different places.
The first time I went to an Italian football game, just an Italian soccer game, I was actually genuinely frightened because of the way that the players were screaming at each other and the referee saying, I thought, as an American, that a major brawl was about to break out.
The people in the crowd were screaming at the referee, you won't make it home tonight.
At one point, one of the players grabbed one of the other players' faces.
I thought for sure the guy was going to punch him, and then all hell was going to break loose.
And nothing happened.
And what I gradually came to understand over time was that that's just how the Italians yell at each other.
I mean, if it was English people yelling at each other like that or Americans yelling at each other like that, you're talking practically World War III. But it got to the point once I got used to it that a Dutch teammate and I, we would sit there at midfield just chatting with each other while all the Italians on both sides were screaming at each other over nothing.
Practically every game, the last five minutes was just people screaming at each other, and it's okay.
But, you know, that's not what you would see at a soccer game in Japan.
It's not what you would see at a soccer game in the United States.
It's just a cultural difference, and it's just the way that they communicate, and that's okay.
But you can't put that, like you said...
How do you put that together in the neighborhood barbecue?
You don't.
And that's why Robert Putnam, I believe it was, that released that big study.
And the result shocked him when he realized that diversity was not only not our strength, but diversity was absolutely destroying community cohesion.
And one of the reasons that the United States is crumbling, one of the reasons that it is in decline, is because it is no longer homogenous.
It has become like the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Yugoslavia.
It is now essentially a multi-ethnic empire and so what is going to happen is what happens to all multi-ethnic empires which is it is either going to break up or it is going to collapse.
When?
We don't know that will happen but we can be very, very confident that it will happen because it's what happened to every other multi-ethnic empire before.
To go from the macro to the micro, something sort of popped into my head, which hopefully will encapsulate what it is that we're talking about.
And yeah, the Putnam study, he sat on it for years because he just couldn't believe it.
He didn't want to release it.
And the loss of social trust and social cohesion and neighborliness and all of that is really catastrophic.
We are social animals.
We are tribal animals.
We need contact.
You know, as Aristotle said that the only people who can live alone must be the gods or the beasts.
But for human beings, we need the tribe.
And whatever undoes the tribe, It undoes our humanity and undoes our empathy and turns, I think, into isolated couch surfers.
But when I was a kid, I'm trying to think, maybe it's like eight or nine years old, I was walking down the street.
We lived in an estate, which sounds very Downton Abbey, but wasn't.
It was sort of an area with sort of ringed by roads, and there were a couple of apartment buildings.
And so, you know, people kind of knew each other.
We all sort of played in the same...
Area.
So I'm walking down the street, and I was kicking a little piece of glass that I'd found, and then the glass spun over and then broke.
And, you know, because I was a kid, I was like, let me just move off.
You know, maybe I can slide away and all that.
And there was a woman there, one of my friend's mom.
She's like, yo, get back here.
You have got to clean that up.
You made glass on the road.
You have to go and clean that up.
And, you know, long story short, you know, we figured out a way.
We got some newspapers and brushed it up and, you know, which was good.
She did the right thing.
I shouldn't be leaving glass on the road.
And it was a good lesson in, you know, personal responsibility and not trying to slither away from a mess that you've made.
And it was a good thing.
And I appreciated it, you know, afterwards, you know, as these things is usually the case.
Who are you to tell me?
Oh, yeah, right.
You're someone's mom.
Now, the fact that we spoke the same language, the fact that there were the same expectations for children at an age-appropriate level, the fact that we had the same cultural background, the fact that we had gone to the same churches, all of this meant that there could be a social enforcement of rules outside the immediate family. all of this meant that there could be a social And that is something that is really important.
And that is something that is really important.
I mean, if – I don't know, if I'd been some little Somali kid who didn't speak English, would she have had the opportunity to teach me about the wider application of social rules in a community?
I mean, if, I don't know, if I'd been some little Somali kid who didn't speak English, would she have had the opportunity to teach me about the wider application of social rules in a community?
And, you know, nothing pro or negative any ethnicity.
And, you know, nothing pro or negative any ethnicity.
These are just basic realities of not knowing what to do.
These are just basic realities of not knowing what to do.
And there's a great interview with, again, Tom Sowell.
And there's a great interview with, again, Tom Sowell.
And the interviewer was talking about how he used to work for a media company.
And they would, you know, park their van in the street and they'd walk up and down the Italian neighborhood.
And the kids were all sort of pouring in and out of each other's houses.
And, you know, they all had the same cultural references.
They all knew how to say grace.
It's another complicated thing, you know, go to somebody's house and what are their religious perspectives?
You don't, I mean, take me to a Shinto shrine.
I'm sure I'm going to offend everyone no matter what I do because I don't have that particular experience.
And these things which we either had them, in which case we kind of take them for granted and think that they're more transferable than they really are, or we've never had them, in which case I don't think we really know what we've lost.
I don't think we know what we've lost, and I think that the differences are much deeper and more profound.
Mike Czernovich, who is absolutely slaughtering it on Twitter these days, I was all excited.
I got to 20,000 followers, and he's like, hey, congratulations, I just hit 90!
Anyhow, he was pointing out a study that we'd been looking at, and it was really remarkable because 92% of mixed race children with black fathers are born out of wedlock.
92%.
82% of them end up on welfare.
And what was really astonishing to me was that only 2% of the mixed race children with a black father and a white mother are financially supported by the father.
Now, you know, people, the automatic reaction of people in the states to that is probably going to be, oh, well, you know, it's poverty, the legacy of slavery, blah, blah, blah.
Well, that's not true.
What it actually is, is it is a normal African behavioral pattern.
You know, we went to a church some years ago and there was a reasonably sized Nigerian contingency And one of the things that I thought was very strange was that the Italians and the expats would all sit together as families.
And the Nigerians would come in, and whether they were married to a Nigerian or not married to someone and had a kid with them or whatever, they didn't sit with them.
The men would just kind of go off and do their own thing.
And not even necessarily sit together with the men, but they just did not sit with their families.
And I asked one of them about it, and he just looked totally confused and said, well, why would I? I don't live with them.
I said, you don't live with your wife and child?
And he said, no.
They live with They live with their mother, and he just does his own thing.
I was kind of shocked at the time until I realized that that was actually their normal pattern.
Obviously, I don't think it works terribly well for them as a culture, if you look at the history of Nigeria and so forth.
But the point is that that is a cultural norm on some level.
That is totally foreign and is not very compatible with the Western family structures and in particular the United States welfare system.
And so that's not something that you're going to fix simply by taking a diversity as our strength approach.
It's never going to change.
There's never going to be any sort of assimilation because the separate diverse cultural patterns are being supported.
Something else that comes up a lot when discussions about the alt-right is the idea that to have an in-group preference is to believe that your group is superior.
Now, it's not often put that way to non-white groups.
Like, nobody says, oh, if you have a Jewish in-group preference, you must be a Jewish supremacist, or if you are a part of La Raza, you must be a Latino or Hispanic supremacist, or something like that.
But...
That is not the approach of the alt-right as far as I understand it, that there's no question or approach that any group or nation or race is superior to any other, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is equally compatible.
This has been my approach for years.
I sort of reluctantly have been dragged into understanding that there are some significant differences between the races, but Because I am staunchly scientific, none of this has to do with superiority or inferiority, just adaptation to local environments or circumstances or whatever.
And I wonder if you can sort of help people deal with that, you know, jack-in-the-box, I'm sure, that is popping up maybe with a little Aryan salute in their mind about whether there is such a thing as racial or ethnic superiority in the perceptions of the alt-right.
What you're talking about is what I would call the Transnational element of the alt-right, which is to say that everyone, every people, every nation has a right to exist, and they have a right to live in their own homogenous nation, in their own homogenous culture, however they want.
So we support, at least my side of the alt-right, We support the right of Israeli Zionists to live in their Jewish ethnostate.
Why shouldn't they?
We support the right of Nigerians to live in whatever style it is that they prefer.
The same for the Chinese, the same for the Japanese, but most importantly, same for the nations of the West.
The nations of the West have the right to live as they prefer, and they have the right to live Amongst themselves, not invaded by every other nation.
And the other area that I would slightly push back on you is that because the alt-right is, at its core, a Western movement, and so we do believe in the superiority of Western civilization.
But that superiority is not an objective claim.
It's a subjective claim.
We prefer it because it's our culture.
We prefer it because it's what we know.
I'm familiar with Japanese culture.
I used to speak Japanese pretty well.
I have tremendous respect for Japanese civilization.
I think now that Umberto Eco has died, Haruki Murakami is probably the greatest living writer out there.
But I prefer Western civilization.
I just do.
When I got back from Japan, I was tempted to kiss the ground.
I was so happy to be home.
But the fact that we prefer it, the fact that we consider it to be superior to all other civilizations and cultures does not mean that we are making an objective claim for its superiority or that we are saying that there's any reason why the Chinese should not be able to live with their You know,
grand history, you know, and great culture that they've developed over, you know, thousands and thousands of years.
The phrase white genocide, I think, was used, it was a username, I think, that Hillary Clinton quoted in her anti-alt-right speech.
And for a lot of people, I don't remember when I first read about it, it seemed quite startling.
I wonder if you can help people understand what the phrase means.
I know that there's a bunch of different meanings, but what it means to you.
Well, personally, I mean, it's kind of funny that you should ask me because, you know, I've criticized it as rhetoric because it's not rhetoric.
It's dialectic being used in a rhetorical sense, so I tend to find that less than entirely effective.
But, you know, your reaction actually tends to indicate that I'm wrong.
White genocide indicates that, according to the official definition of of genocide put forth by the United Nations.
The white nations are currently undergoing a genocidal attack through the invasion of their homelands and through the intentional replacement of them in their native lands.
This is backed by a tremendous amount of evidence.
There's the The Kohagi Plan, I think, which dates back to the early 20th century.
There's a Jewish woman living in Sweden who's a professor.
There's a whole bunch of academics that you can see that talk about the desirability of the extinction of the white race.
This is not crazy white supremacists making stuff up.
These are well-documented, well-referenced Statements and projects that are conceived to weaken the influence of white people throughout the world and in some cases actually to exterminate the white race through interbreeding.
And so it is a legitimate issue and the fact that someone like Hillary Clinton The problem with it rhetorically, of course, is that when most people think of genocide, they think about the Holocaust.
So when they look at the concept of white genocide, they say, well, how is that possible?
Where are the stacks of bodies?
They can understand What happened in China during the Great Leap Forward, they can understand that that was genocide.
They can understand that what happened in Turkey to the Armenians, that was genocide.
But nobody is slaughtering white people in industrial quantities anywhere, so how can it be genocide?
But the fact is that if we were to send a million people If we were to send 10 million Chinese people into a small country like Denmark and forcibly interbreed them with all of the Danes for several generations and keep sending Chinese in,
within a certain period of time, there would be no more Danish people.
That would be a genocidal act.
The Orthodox Jews worry all the time about excessive assimilation.
You can see lots of articles all the time about, is America dangerous to the Jews?
Not in the Nazi sense, but in the overly friendly sense, like Ivana Trump.
Yes, she converted to Judaism, but at the end of the day, genetically, In fact, if you look at how Italian the Ashkenazi Jews are, her kids are probably less than 20% Jewish in the actual genetic sense.
And so the white genocide term is an abstract term referring to the ongoing invasion of white native lands and the attempts to dilute the white genetics by encouraging them to interbreed with people of other races.
And of course, you see this on, like we talked about, you see this on practically every commercial you see on television.
So, yeah, I just wanted to differentiate it.
You said with the example of the 10 million people, 10 million Chinese that was forced interbreeding.
The encouragement of interbreeding is a bit of a different moral category.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, I like I said, I've I've criticized the heavy reliance on the use of the term simply because I think it is too abstract a term for people to understand.
It does fit the legal definition of genocide, but it's a very soft form of it.
And because it's a soft form of it taking place over a long period of time, that's something that the average individual is not Really able to recognize or understand is taking place.
Well, then it's interesting to me, one of the...
And I do find this whole line of thinking very challenging.
So, you know, bear with me as I hack my way through the undergrowth of the language.
But one of the things, and I know I almost hesitate to use the obvious polar bear example, but when...
There is a decrease in the birth rate in a particular species to the point where the numbers of that species decline precipitously.
Then, you know, oh no, the spotted owl is, you know, the polar bear over there.
We're running out.
The population is in decline.
And it certainly seems to be the case if you compare sort of the birth rates of whites in Europe and in North America, more so in Europe, the birth rate for whites compared to the baby boom in the post-Second World War period is down by what?
500%, 400%?
Depends on sort of Where you count, but you know, from sort of four to five kids, it's like one to two.
That's a huge drop-off in the birth rate, and that is going to result in a significant population decline.
But when it happens to polar bears, it's a catastrophe.
If it's happening to white people, it's progress?
That, you know, is one of these things that's a little challenging to unravel, at least from the outside of this intellectual approach.
Well, where you realize that it's not just some sort of coincidence or something is when you look at the fact that back in the 70s when the country was considerably more white and the population was much smaller, they used where you realize that it's not just some sort of coincidence or something is when you look How often do you hear them talking about overpopulation as millions of immigrants are flooding in?
You never hear them talking about overpopulation in Nigeria despite the fact that that country cannot feed itself and is projected to have over 400 million residents, 400 million people living in Nigeria by 2050.
There are massive, massive human catastrophes that are just waiting to happen and yet they don't want to talk about the idea that there might be overpopulation in Africa is never discussed.
They're worrying about overpopulation in countries like Germany, where the birth rate is well below the replacement rate.
And so that's when you start to realize that, okay, this is not about a genuine concern for too many people living on the planet.
You know, there's something else going on here.
There's definitely an anti-European agenda at work.
Well, not to mention, of course, the fact that when you take people from the third world and put them in the first world, their resource consumption and environmental footprint and impact and carbon impacts and so on go up many, many, many times.
But there doesn't seem to be any particular discussion of the environmental impacts of moving people and giving them first world consumption standards.
Well, we know why that is, and it's because I believe it was, it might have even been David Geffen, but someone promised the leading environmental organization in the United States a million dollars as long as they would drop their opposition to immigration,
which they then did, and that's why you never hear environmental groups talk about the environmental impact of immigration because they've been paid off To not talk about it.
And so...
So there's another term which I find hard to parse, which is the term globalism.
And I know that Donald Trump referenced it, the reject the siren song of globalism and so on, and it's been talked about by some of the other presidential candidates.
What do it mean, brother?
I do not know.
What does it mean?
Well, there's multiple levels of it.
And one of these days, we're going to have to get into the whole religion-atheism thing, because I think a lot of people would love to see the two of us discuss it.
But on the economic level, your globalism essentially means international corporatism.
You've got these corporations, immense corporations, they act on a global level.
They have no loyalty to any nation.
They have no interest in benefiting.
They just have no concept of belonging to any nation.
And that's what I would consider to be the economic level of globalism.
Then you have the political aspect of globalism, which is the idea of converting the United Nations into a one world government.
And that's been the dream of people for I remember when I was a little kid, it seemed like every other cartoon involved the bad guy trying to destroy the UN. I didn't realize until I got much older that the UN are actually the bad guys.
And the thing is, it's just logical, if you think about it.
I mean, you've got all sorts of power-hungry sociopaths around the world.
So let's take all the global power and concentrate it in one place.
So we have a winner-takes-all for the biggest sociopaths and most power-hungry people on the planet all grabbing at the same brass ring.
I mean, you know, it's kind of obvious how that's going to end up.
So that's the political angle, and what we're seeing that is we're seeing it take place on a regional level.
You've got the European Union is the most advanced form of it, but then you've also got various Asian economic treaties.
You've got things like NAFTA, which was intended to bring Canada and Mexico together.
And, of course, that's part of what is behind the mass immigration that's been taking place because, of course, It's a lot easier to institute those political entities together when you've got 30 million Mexicans already living in the United States.
Well, why not just merge the two as long as we're all here?
And then, if you don't mind my getting a little bit strange, there's also the spiritual component.
And a lot of the...
This global elite subscribes to a form of religion that I call Neo-Babelism.
It's the old dream of the Tower of Babel, the old dream of all the nations becoming one again and there being one humanity.
You see that all the time.
Sorry, that's my dog.
One world, one race, etc., etc., which It's kind of funny because it sure sounds a lot like, you know, Einreich, Ein Volk, ein Führer.
But the Neo-Babelism is intentional.
Like if you look at the, if you learn how to read architecture, you can look at the structure of the, oh gosh, which building is it?
I believe it's the EU headquarters in Brussels.
And it is intentionally designed to look like the most famous medieval painting of the Tower of Babel.
And so, all of these things connect the spiritual element, or if you prefer the religious element, the political element, and the economic element, and together they make up globalism.
And globalism is fundamentally and intrinsically opposed to nationalism.
There is an interesting dichotomy, at least from my view, of how we deal with different groups.
There does seem to be, you know, we've done, I've done a lot of research in this.
We've got presentations out about this.
If you look at aggregates of political perspectives of groups like Hispanics or Latinos in the United States, yeah, they're for big government and they're for lower taxes.
You know, that's producing all of the wonderful stability that we see with these two opposing ideas in the sort of Central America.
vote overwhelmingly Democrat and so on.
And so we could sort of go on and on, but there are characteristic or habitual behaviors within groups that are not compatible with the desires of other groups.
So white males want smaller government and lower taxes, and women often want larger government and don't mind as many high taxes, because in general, it's a lot of the men who pay the taxes, and Hispanics want lower taxes and more government, And there are incompatibilities in general, and lots of exceptions at the individual level, but we're talking about a big perspective here.
So groups do act in ways that are relatively predictable.
I mean, otherwise there'd be no such thing as polling or political machinations around voting lines and so on.
And, and, I mean, sorry, one other thing, the conservatives, traditional conservatives, are always drawn into that.
You find a way to appeal to the Latinos by doing what the leftists want you to do, and it's like, nah.
So what they're saying is that there are voting blocs that have predictable patterns that are incompatible with other voting blocs, yet somehow diversity and multiculturalism is a unifying strength.
These sort of two, like one reality, the other ideological, don't seem to mesh for me.
No, it's absolutely illogical.
It's totally incoherent, and it's obviously a lie.
I mean, there's no strength to diversity at all.
It destroys community.
It destroys even the possibility of community consensus, and that's partly intentional.
You know, we know in England that the main reason that the Labour Party We know from their own documents and statements that the reason that they brought in all those immigrants was in order to reduce the political power of the conservatives.
Now, of course, that backfired on them badly because people ended up fleeing the Labor Party.
And the same thing is happening in the States.
It was really interesting.
There's this state senator, a Jewish woman.
She'd been in for 22 terms.
And she got beaten in the primary by a Somali.
So the very immigrants that she encouraged moving in ended up taking her own job.
And you're seeing the same thing happen in the British Labor Party now as the British people Are not only fleeing London physically, but they're fleeing the Labour Party because the Labour Party is being taken over by all of the Asians that have been brought in into the party.
And so what I think this tells us is that leftists are actually even dumber than we thought because you would think they would have been able to do the math and figure out those consequences, but they can't.
And that's actually one advantage that the alt-right has.
In fact, I thought it was really interesting.
The usual left-wing approach is to call right-wingers stupid.
You know, I'm sure you've been called stupid thousands of times.
I have too.
That's one of the nicer phrases.
But yes, I think it does float around like a little tiny moon around Jupiter, but yes.
Right.
But what I thought was kind of fascinating was that the people that were writing about the alt-right and attempting to warn people about the alt-right especially kept talking about how intelligent and intellectual it is.
Now, I don't think that they have any, you know, unless they are thinking that they're going to blow smoke up our asses in order to cripple the conservatives, which is a possibility, what that indicates to me is that they're actually concerned.
That they're actually genuinely concerned that we have an approach that they really don't have any legitimate means of countering, whether it's...
Because they can call us all the names we want.
How do you effectively call people names when they don't care?
It's been interesting to me to see the difference in the way that they've reacted to the alt-right Compared to the way that they've historically attacked conservatives in the past.
A couple of more things to sort of close off my sort of education in the alt-right.
The alt-right doesn't care what you think of it.
Yes, I think we've got that one down.
International free trade.
Now, of course, I grew up as a free trader and...
free trade.
So the alt-right, as you've written, rejects international free trade and the free movement of people that free trade requires.
The benefits of an international free trade within a country is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
Step me through that as somebody who grew up with all of the typical sort of Chicago school and Austrian school arguments for unfettered free trade, interplanetary, if at all possible.
Well, first, let me point out that I grew up with those two.
Not only did I grow up with them, but my father had me reading Free to Choose when I was about 12, and I was actually reading some of Milton Friedman's more technical work before I graduated from high school.
So that's what happens when you grow up with a Dad who's an engineer from MIT, you're like, here son, here's a paper from Milton Friedman.
I was having to learn the math just to be able to read it.
It's ridiculous.
But my point is that I am absolutely as deeply drenched in free trade rhetoric and arguments and general culture as you are.
And so possibly the The biggest shock of my life, other than becoming a Christian, was probably the realization that there were major flaws in the free trade argument.
You can even see a lot of this on my blog.
If you go to Vox Populi and click on free trade, you can see a lot of these discussions taking place a few years ago.
It was a book by Ian Fletcher called Free Trade Doesn't Work.
That first really got me thinking about it because he does a really good job of dissecting David Ricardo's comparative advantage argument.
It was very clear from that that what worked to a certain extent in Ricardo's time would not work once capital and labor were able to move freely because comparative advantage It requires that those things stay frozen in place.
In fact, Ricardo's reliance on freezing other factors in order to prove his point is something that he did so regularly that Joseph Schumpeter ended up calling it the Ricardian vice.
Now, in that particular case of comparative advantage, Ricardo was not cheating because at the time, labor was not very mobile.
So his customary tactic actually lined up with reality.
But the problem is, what made sense, more or less, several hundred years ago, no longer makes sense in light of the changes in technology and the mobility of labor now.
And so I did a calculation, because you often hear people talking about, well, free trade works in the United States, so why wouldn't it work in a global environment?
Well, and the answer is labor mobility.
The reason that we're able to have a level of free trade in the United States is because there's a labor mobility rate of about 3.2% per year.
What that means is 3.2% of the US labor force moves from state to state that year.
If you take that and you calculate that out on a global level, What that would mean in the case of the United States is that by the time you turn 35, 50% of the people under that age in the United States would have to leave the United States in order to get work.
So you're not going to have the benefit without the labor mobility, but the labor mobility requires completely destroying the country.
And of course, you can see why The free traders, the corporate free traders, gravitate towards globalism because they think that's great.
We don't need these borders.
The whole world will be richer if your kid goes and gets a job.
One kid gets a job in Nigeria and one kid gets a job in Mexico.
And of course, a sane parent says, I don't want that.
I would like to be able to see my grandkids.
I would like to be able to...
Have them be a part of my culture, but the globalists, because the economic globalists only think in terms of economic growth, they don't care.
If any of your readers are interested in learning more about this, we had a really great debate at Brainstorm.
James Miller, who is a PhD and a professor of economics at, I believe, George Mason University, He actually got his PhD from the University of Chicago, and he also has a JD from Stanford.
So it was very interesting because I was obviously way out-credentialed.
I'm a video game designer who writes fantasy novels.
But we had a debate, and it was interesting.
He was gracious enough to concede that I had won the debate, that he did not have Any answers for some of these issues with free trade?
And what we ended up doing was publishing the debate together as a book called On the Question of Free Trade.
And it's on Amazon.
If people are interested, they can check it out.
But it really covers a lot of these, both the strong arguments for free trade, as well as the arguments that I think that it's becoming increasingly obvious as the negative effects of the free movement of people and labor mobility become more and more apparent to everyone.
It's becoming more apparent that the whole concept of free trade really is I also wonder the degree to which bad economic policies are propped up by the importation of cheap foreign goods.
Oh, I don't...
I mean, that's a whole other problem.
I mean, I don't tend to focus...
Because that's an area that a lot of other people focus on, I didn't see any...
I didn't see any point in bringing that up with someone like Professor Miller, who is perfectly capable of...
If we're going to get into statistics and equations and macroeconomics, he's going to smoke me every time.
But I do think that there is a fundamental flaw in the idea that we're always better off with cheap foreign goods than slightly more expensive stuff that we make at home.
One of the things that changed my mind about the legitimacy of the free trade arguments is that someone challenged me to critique Henry Hazlitt's free trade argument.
I'm sure you're familiar with his...
Economics in One Lesson is his big book, yeah.
Exactly.
And it's a great book.
I mean, don't get me wrong.
That was the first one that I handed to my kids to read.
But that doesn't mean it's perfect.
And someone challenged me to see if I could find any errors in the free trade argument he presented.
And I was somewhat surprised to find that I found 11 specific confirmable flaws in the argument.
And I think it was very surprising to a lot of people.
In fact, a lot of people who read my blog reluctantly came over to the anti-free trade side despite having been pretty strong free traders.
After reading that critique, because it was new to me too.
It wasn't like I expected to read it and find no problems at all.
And to find 11 errors of the gravity that some of them were, some of them were minor, but it just became very clear that this is not consistent with a strong, internally coherent argument.
All right.
Well, I really, really appreciate your time, Vox, in stepping me through some of the more challenging, convoluted, and controversial aspects of the alt-right.
And, of course, just remember there's no particular leader.
This is one, of course, knowledgeable man's perspective, and I really appreciate that.
I wanted to remind people, of course, that you can go to the links below.
We'll put Vox Populi and Alpha Game, and, of course, Castalia House Publishing links below and really, really appreciate your time.
