Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 25, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:33:30

3468 Why People Are Divided Over Donald Trump | Vox Day and Stefan Molyneux

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio, back with a good friend of Vox Day, a multiple-time Hugo Award nominee.
	He writes epic fantasy as well as nonfiction, including Social Justice Warriors Always Lie, Taking Down the Thought Police, and Cuxervative, How Conservatives Betrayed America.
	We'll put the links to those excellent books below.
	Below, he is also a professional game designer and maintains a pair of popular blogs, Vox Populi and Alpha Game, 3.1 million page views per month.
	And the lead designer of the next generation Wikipedia replacement Info Galactic.
	You want to give us a flash of that there t-shirt there, my friend?
	It's our latest...
	A little higher, a little higher.
	We couldn't see the text at the bottom.
	Oh, yes.
	All right, show me some nip.
	All right, very nice.
	And he also runs Castellia House Publishing, which just released Mike Cernovich's new book, Maga Mindset, which I did the audiobook for.
	Okay, I was hoping to do that on one breath, but clearly your bio was outlasting my middle-aged lung capacity.
	How are you doing, Vox?
	I'm doing great, and it's amusing me how we have actually gotten more incestuous than the new atheists.
	Mike writes the book, I edit it, you do the audio, and next thing we know, Milo's going to be doing the performance art version of it on stage somewhere.
	Yes, it is.
	Basically, what it is, it's sort of a very loose commune.
	That's sort of how I view it.
	It's like we're all in the same walls, but we're in different continents, and that's how it seems to work.
	And no, it's nice.
	You know, when you find people you like, it's just important to stick with them and support them as best you can.
	So I'm thrilled that you're doing the book.
	I think the audiobook is going to do well.
	And it's a good book for people to read.
	I really liked it.
	I mean, I've done an audiobook or two before, but not one where I've agreed with so much of the content.
	So that's really, really nice.
	I admire your ability to do that.
	I try to do my own SJWs, always lie.
	I think I made it past the introduction and thought, I just can't do this.
	Now, what was it for you that made it a challenge?
	I don't actually know.
	I think I find it difficult to focus and get the pronunciations correct.
	Plus, I have a little bit of a sibilant S, which just bothers the smack out of me.
	It's just one of those things where I got through about, you know, the introduction halfway through the first chapter and just thought, screw it.
	Other people can do this better.
	I'll stick to the writing.
	Right, right, right.
	So we're going to talk a little bit about Donald Trump now.
	We've done some of this topic before, but the sort of angle that we're going to take, which I think is really interesting and fairly innovative, is this RK selection approach to understanding the divide between the new alt-right and the old uniparty.
	So I wonder if you could give people a brief intro to the RK selection paradigm or continuum for those who shockingly have not studied this in depth before.
	Well, the best place to get a solid grasp of it is a book by Anonymous Conservative, which is devoted to the subject.
	It's quite good.
	It's based on a theory of evolution that was developed by biologist E.O. Wilson, if I recall correctly, some time ago.
	It's somewhat outdated from a biological science point of view, but It is still extremely useful for understanding human behavior from both a political point of view as well as from a personal point of view.
	And what RK stands for is two different reproductive strategies, the small r and the large k.
	The small r represents the low investment reproductive strategy, which basically means You have lots and lots of kids, and you don't worry about the fact that half of them are going to get eaten by predators or, you know, kill themselves.
	Fish, for example, would tend to follow the R reproduction strategy.
	The advantages of that strategy are that it's very low investment by the parents.
	Basically, you could call it spray and pray if you wanted.
	It has a lot of long-term implications, not only for the species, but also for the behavioral patterns that the individuals of that species will take.
	The contrary K selection strategy is a high investment More conservative approach where the parents tend to have a much smaller number of offspring to invest considerably more time and energy in them.
	And they tend to have much fewer offspring.
	The offspring tend to mature much later.
	And again, that also has a tremendous impact on the outcomes and some of those outcomes are Visible in the different human behaviors, both in terms of individuals and as well as in terms of various divergent human groups.
	Right.
	And the Ks tend to be more complex organisms, and they tend to be more on the predator than on the prey side.
	And I think one of the challenges for the Rs is if you're in an environment where your survival is unpredictable and there's not much you can do about it, then you're going to be focused more on just the spray and pray.
	I mean, if the hawk or the eagle comes swooping down to pick up the rabbit, Well, the rabbit can run, but there's not a whole lot it can do to fight back.
	So it might as well just have as many babies as possible, knowing that some of them are going to not survive to adulthood.
	Some of them are going to be eaten by foxes or owls or eagles or whatever.
	So you might just have a whole bunch of them.
	There's not much strategy you can teach your kids other than run, and you don't even have to teach that.
	That's a fight-or-flight response.
	But for wolves or other pack animals in particular, the hunting strategy can become quite complex.
	And there's a lot of play that's necessary.
	And the food supply is limited.
	Like rabbits are never limited by food supply, or at least almost never, because they're never really gonna run out of grass or things to chew on.
	But wolves may run out of rabbits.
	And so you wanna have a smaller number of offspring, but invest a lot in teaching them how to work together, how to hunt, how to encircle.
	And there's gonna be a strong pecking order There's going to be a hierarchy.
	And there's going to be an in-group preference that's really strong.
	I read about this and I saw it in a documentary how there was a fox chasing a rabbit and it was running through this field full of rabbits.
	And the other rabbits were like, eh.
	You know, they didn't even look up from their eating.
	You know, it's like, yeah, you know, another one bites the dust.
	What do we care, right?
	Whereas, of course, wolves have fears to protect their cubs and so on.
	And I think that adaptation strategy is more for complex, more developed organisms that tend to be on the bulkier predatory side.
	Well, yeah, the examples that you choose there are the two that are commonly given.
	And they really do help understand the key differences between the two.
	The rabbits tend to be the symbol of the R reproductive strategy.
	Wolves tend to be the symbol of the K reproductive strategy.
	I think when you take the analogy and apply it to human behavior, what you see is that the R strategy is definitely favored by the people with short-time preferences, whereas the K strategy Is those that is more pursued by the K preferences.
	And so, you know, this has tremendous implications, not just for personal lives, but also for societies.
	You know, our selected individual is going to be much more fatalistic.
	He's going to feel that he doesn't have any control over his environment.
	He doesn't have any control over his life.
	He doesn't have much control over his destiny.
	I mean, even if we stop at that point, you can already start to see what sort of political ideologies are likely to appeal to that sort of individual.
	The case-elected individual, on the other hand, is going to be taught, because the parental investment is going to be stronger, is going to be taught To have longer time preferences is going to be taught to delay gratification, is going to be encouraged to build for the future, to think about the next generation, and that sort of thing.
	And so it's very easy to see how the RK paradigm is pretty easily applied to the conventional liberal conservative paradigm in its proper sense, not in the uniparty sense that we now know it to be.
	Yeah, and it sort of struck me that the R organisms have a much higher sex drive and much less capacity to control sexual impulses.
	And of course, one of the great challenges of civilization, you know, two forces, I think, need to be tamed for human civilization to flourish.
	One is male aggression, and the second is female vanity.
	But that's perhaps a topic for another time.
	But the control of the sexual impulse, right?
	So the idea that you have...
	Sex within the confines of a pair-bonded permanent marital situation.
	That's a way of sort of taking the sex drive and channeling it into that which is productive and helpful for men, women, for children.
	It's the best environment for children to grow up in and so on.
	And the R-selected people, the groups, have extremely high sex drives and they don't really benefit that much from political or particularly economic freedom because they don't have much capacity to defer gratification.
	So they choose sex.
	look at the 1960s, that helps, I think, put, at least for me, some of that in perspective, that in the 1960s, there was the rise of socialism, and, you know, the sexual revolution, which was, you know, the pill and all of that.
	So I think, if you have a very high sex drive, and you don't have much capacity to defer gratification, you'd rather have sex in the here and now than political freedom in the future, which is why I think sexual liberation, and socialism or government control tends to be, I think, coincidental in a lot of societies. and socialism or government control tends to be, I think, Well, what's ironic is that historically socialist governments and communist governments have been tremendously puritanical.
	And so what's obvious is that even those who most benefit from the politics of the are selected understand that if they want to have a functional society, they have to crack down on it and limit it in some way.
	And that's, I think, one of the big ironies that we're seeing in the transformation or really the way that the United States and Russia are beginning to see a juxtaposition.
	Because even though the United States had the economic advantages of freedom and liberty and the technological advancement that tends to go along with it, we also saw the transformation from a case elected to an R-selected population.
	even without immigration.
	Just within the core population, there was a gradual shift from case-elected to R-selected.
	At the same time, Despite the fact that you had communism throughout the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, because they were clamping down so hard on the citizenry and that sort of thing, because early on they experimented with institutionalized art selection, as well as I do, and it was a complete failure, so much so that they completely abandoned it and ended up becoming quite puritanical.
	And so I suspect that part of why We're seeing the rise of Russia as a relatively conservative power in global politics could partly be because of the way that Russia now has a more case-selected population.
	Eastern Europe has a much more case-selected population.
	I was in Serbia doing some work with a game company there.
	I have to tell you, I've seldom encountered such a group of hard asses in my life What do you mean?
	Because of the Balkan War and all that sort of thing, everybody had had military training.
	Keeping in mind, this is a game development company.
	You're used to running into more than a few spaghetti-armed dorks and that sort of thing in that environment, which is fine.
	You're dealing with people whose lives are mostly intellectual.
	These guys were just as smart, just as capable intellectually, but they all looked like they moonlighted as Eastern European bodyguards.
	It was kind of crazy.
	And also, I think because there was a bit of a crime issue and so forth, you know, everywhere you went, there was always, you know, three or four burly bodyguards, you know, with anyone who had a nice car.
	So, but it was just, it was interesting to see what, you know, what years of that sort of hardship, because hardship is what brings about case election.
	The reason that people adopt these conservative, longer-term perspectives is because they need to do it if they're going to stay alive.
	It's the old ant in the grasshopper.
	You can't live like a grasshopper and expect to make it through the winter.
	You have to plan ahead.
	You have to think about tomorrow and think about next year and think about the six months where you're not going to be easily finding anything to eat.
	Whereas if you're in the tropics and that sort of thing and the food is literally falling off the trees everywhere around you, you don't have to plan ahead.
	You don't have to think ahead.
	And so I think that regardless of whether You know, RK theory is something that the hardcore biologists are using these days.
	I still think it's a very useful paradigm to make some sense of what people's behavior is going to be, but also what people's politics are going to be.
	And it's a very useful predictive model to see how various societies are going to develop.
	That's why I think we can look at the way that China is on the rise the way that Russia is on the rise and the way that the US appears to be increasingly on the decline Right.
	And I think it's hard to understand society, these politics, without looking at two competing gene sets as if they're subspecies, like animals competing for the same resources, right?
	So it's sort of a fairly common tenet of biology.
	The two subspecies never inhabit the same area for very long.
	Like if the black squirrels move in, either the red squirrels push them out or the red squirrels get pushed out because they're both competing for the same resources, the same nests and so on.
	And so if we look at sort of R versus K as two gene sets at war with each other, it certainly helps explain some of the left-right paradigms and how deeply rooted in biology they tend to be.
	But I think another interesting way of looking at it, Vox, is to say, if I were the R selection gene set, what would I want to do?
	How would I want to change my environment to stimulate my spread?
	Well, we know that the R selected tends to spread when resources are...
	Plentiful.
	So what I would want to do if I was the R-selected gene set is I'd want to vote for a welfare state because a welfare state stimulates R-selected behavior because it creates an environment where it's the tropics, so to speak, right?
	There's resources pouring out of the government.
	You fill out a form.
	You get your money.
	You're guaranteed of free health care.
	You're guaranteed housing and you're guaranteed education for your kids and all that.
	And so I think if we look at voting patterns as not just people's immediate self-interest, but almost like it's the genes reaching through their fingers to pull or to tick the box that is going to create an environment that further allows for the spread of that gene set.
	And meanwhile, of course, all the case-selected people are on the other side saying, we're getting kind of stressed here because, boy, we're accumulating a lot of debt.
	Now, the R's don't really care about that because there's a short-term time preference.
	It appears to be a state of near infinite abundance.
	So they're like krill in a plankton-rich sea, you know, I mean, just no limitation.
	And on the K side, though, there is this sense of, well, we're eating our seed crop.
	I don't know if we're going to be able to make it through the winter.
	We got to be careful.
	And these two perspectives don't really seem to find any way to mediate because the R's reproduce until they overwhelm and destroy the economic and social capital of the society.
	And then there's a period of intense hardship, the dark ages and that kind of stuff.
	And then the K's start rebuilding the society, the society becomes wealthy and the R's are like, woohoo, free stuff!
	And man, it would be nice to find some way to interrupt this grim cycle.
	Right, but what's interesting about that is simply by applying RK theory...
	You're able to build a theory that underlies the cyclical pattern that we see in history.
	And so that illustrates the power of the paradigm because simply by correctly applying it and applying its logical conclusions, you suddenly end up with a model that looks very much like the model that we know, the historical model that we're all familiar with.
	And so, you know, the question is how do we break that?
	Well, it's not up to us to break that now because we're not at that point in the cycle.
	The point in the cycle that we're at is the entering the dark ages and so our job right now is to figure out how to ally with other case-selected types and think ahead and Plan for the future and make sure that as many of us and our children survive.
	And that's really, I think, what we need to be focused on.
	Now, it wouldn't be a bad idea to make sure that we have a few books out there outlining this so that hopefully in a few hundred years when we're on the upside of the cycle, we can try to remind some people that maybe we want to make sure that the R selected types don't take over again.
	And I mean, I know a lot of people have some significant hostility towards the R-selected types, but I like them as a whole, right?
	I mean, insofar as they have a sort of loose-limbed creativity, a sort of break-the-rules, a challenge-the-rules things, you know, I think pure K-selected societies to me, like if you look at sort of China's 6,000 years relative to the West kind of stagnation, the K-selected societies can, well, Well, those are the rules, and we can't question the rules.
	And I like the sort of tsunami of arness that comes crashing into the K societies and mixes it up.
	I think the problem is without the free market.
	Like, if you get politics overwhelming the free market, things change.
	In a free market, the K's will tend to accumulate more resources.
	Just work harder, think further ahead, save and don't squander and not hedonistic in general and so on.
	So K's will tend to accumulate more resources and in a free market, more resources means you can have and sustain more children.
	So the case will be the bulk of society and give it that middle class stability that you really desperately need in a society.
	And the R's will be going to be chipping away at the edges and the sort of creative destruction of questioning rules and so on.
	But they won't get enough resources because they're kind of chaotic and don't save and kind of hedonistic.
	They won't get enough resources to overwhelm through breeding.
	But if you bring the welfare state in, what happens is that tilts the whole resource allocation, so to speak, in society gets tilted away from the case and towards the R's.
	And that, to me, is really feeding the Petri dish.
	And I think that turns them from a sort of, I don't know, like a bug that makes your immune system stronger to like a cancer.
	It just spreads and grows without respite.
	Oh, absolutely.
	And, you know, I think that a lot of the, it's not just the Welfare state, but it's also the introduction of the pill, which, you know, so you've now got a, you know, for the first time in human history, you've got the possibility or you've got our selected behavior without one of the primary consequences, the primary limiting consequences of it.
	And so, you know, that's been tremendously destabilizing to Western society in general, the U.S. in particular.
	And then, of course, as our selected behavior becomes the norm, then they start changing the rules.
	You know, the K-types want to obey the rules, fine.
	But then when the archetypes start changing the rules, and you start seeing things like, you know, What's it called?
	No-fault divorce and more and more removals of consequences to actions.
	Your alimony and child support, I think, as well.
	I mean, to me, if you're in a marriage, it's like being a job.
	If you get fired, you don't get to continue to keep a paycheck.
	But the way it works with alimony is you do, particularly in California.
	Right.
	And so, you know, so what we're seeing is basically a quadruple whammy The thing that's a little bit dispiriting, I think, at times, when you look at the West, is that every single ucivic factor is either suppressed or in decline.
	I'm sorry, you civic?
	I mean, if you're going to break out in fluent Serbian, please give me some warning.
	No, I'm kidding.
	What does that mean?
	It means that which is beneficial to civic society.
	It's the opposite of dis-civic.
	And so what I was leading up to is that at the same time that we're seeing the you civic elements suppressed, we're seeing the dis-civic elements enshrined Not only in societal custom, but in law.
	It doesn't just bake the decline into the cake, it etches it into the granite, carves it into stone.
	And I think that's why we're seeing a lot of these recent events.
	To me, I find it shocking that after 150 years or more, 165 years, whatever it is, Of the United States extending its power into Asia and the Pacific through the Philippines, you know, the U.S. just threw it away, you know, with President Duterte coming right out and openly saying, yeah, you know, we're going to align with China now.
	I mean, that is a major shift of hemispheric level proportions.
	And yet, you know, the media is much more interested in talking about whether, you know, Trump hit on some Playboy model 10 years ago.
	I mean, it's...
	But that shows, again, going back to the R-selected mentality.
	I mean, that's pure R-selection right there.
	You know, we don't care about, you know, this major military establishment and one of our two...
	Chief areas to project force into the Pacific.
	We're fine with that.
	Even though we fought to keep it from Japan, we're fine with it just going over to China.
	It's mind-boggling that the triviality of our selected mind is not just difficult for the K-selected mind to understand.
	It's somewhat soul-shattering.
	I think that's a perfect way to put it.
	I just finished a video.
	I won't go over it again.
	But very briefly, this is Canyon.
	And people who are case-elected are looking at the Hillary Clinton campaign and saying...
	She's been accused of so many crimes.
	There's so much corruption floating around.
	There's so many god-awful mistakes and bad judgments.
	And, you know, she helped lay waste to the Middle East, which is now laying waste to Europe.
	I mean, how can this conceivably be any kind of presidential candidate?
	Because we have rules and the rules have been wildly broken.
	So how is it possible?
	But our selected people are like, she's the gateway to free stuff.
	What do we care about the rules, right?
	And they openly state that.
	That's in Saul Alinsky's rule for radicals.
	You know, hold them to their standards.
	We'll always win because we have got no standards.
	So they can't hold us to anything.
	Well, right.
	And that actually kind of ties into what you were talking about, the connection to the alt-right.
	Like, where does RK theory relate to the alt-right?
	Well, what the alt-right represents, in my perspective, is that it is the Case-elected abandoning the rules that limited them.
	And, you know, a lot of people are shocked, a lot of conservatives are shocked by the way that I and Mike Chernovich and, to a certain extent, Milo, Behave towards the left.
	You know, we don't...
	I say, not Queensbury rules in the boxing ring!
	What's going on?
	You're hitting below the belt.
	You're opening up trapdoors.
	You're releasing condors and jaguars.
	I don't find this in any of my rule books.
	Shocking!
	I mean, it's always kind of funny to me how these people say, you know, you're so mean.
	You're not being...
	Not being very polite.
	And, you know, to which my response is, you know, which part of Supreme Dark Lord do you not fucking understand?
	Well, and how's that been working for us so far, being really polite and following all the rules?
	How's that been working out?
	You know, when you're losing everything, you got nothing left to lose, and you might as well try the tactics of your enemy.
	Oh, absolutely.
	But not only try the tactics, I mean, utilize them better and more relentlessly and more ruthlessly than they know how to do because, you know, they're short term oriented.
	One of the interesting things for me in dealing with the SJWs in the science fiction world is the fact that they are permanently surprised.
	I mean, it's kind of funny that they will attack you and then they're genuinely surprised when you punch them back in the face, you know, and they're even more surprised when a month, six months, a year later, you hit them again, even six months, a year later, you hit them again, even harder.
	And they literally have no idea why you hit them.
	They're like, what was that for?
	And you're like, you were my enemy a year ago.
	You're still my enemy today.
	I'm still coming after you.
	And of course, you know, they're like the rabbit kind of going, well, yeah, there was a fox in the meadow a year ago, but I mean, you know, it came back.
	I think that's...
	No, go ahead.
	They don't just have short-term preferences.
	They've got short memories.
	And so they always think that every engagement is the final battle.
	And so that's also why...
	You've probably noticed this.
	When you see a leftist or an SJW attempt to write a rebuttal of a right-wing piece, they will always describe it as So-and-so destroyed so-and-so.
	Well, no, he didn't destroy them.
	He called them a few names.
	Maybe it hurt his feelings.
	Maybe it didn't.
	But he's still going to be around tomorrow to write another article.
	But everything about their language, everything about their perspective, always communicates that today is all there is.
	Tomorrow is this hazy, distant, you know, maybe it'll arrive, maybe it won't future.
	And so that's what makes it very easy for the K-selected types to outmaneuver them, because the R's, they have some effective tactics.
	But even the concept of strategy tends to be beyond the average R-selected.
	Yeah, I mean, it's funny to watch the leftists go after James O'Keefe.
	He's been dropping all these fairly powerful videos lately.
	And they're like, well, you know, he has had questionable behavior in the past, and he once had to do a settlement and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
	And it's like, well, okay, but Robert Kramer, the guy he's exposing...
	Went to jail for $2.3 million worth of bank fraud.
	And is now regularly meeting with the President of the United States.
	Been to the White House 340 plus times.
	Met more than 40 times.
	Convicted for bank fraud for $2.3 million.
	And like, well, but James O'Keefe has some questionable things in the heart.
	And it's like, I mean, how is this even remotely possible that you bring this up with a straight face?
	Not to mention Hillary Clinton.
	I've already met up with that.
	Wow.
	But that's the whole point, is that there is no logic to them.
	There is no reason.
	Everything is simply a weapon for the moment.
	And they're not listening to us.
	This goes back to what we've talked about with SJWs always lie in dialectic versus rhetoric.
	When we're speaking in dialectic, we might as well be speaking in Chinese.
	They don't understand it.
	They pay no attention to it whatsoever.
	It's kind of like talking to a child when you explain to them why they can't have the chocolate candy right now.
	And after you finish your eloquent and medically sound explanation of why it's not good for them and why they shouldn't want it and that sort of thing, they'll look at you as if they've completely understood everything you said and then say, so can I have it now?
	You can't.
	I can't believe I spent all this time studying logic and rhetoric and debating and Aristotelian approaches to convincing people when I could just use the magic word discredited.
	That study has been discredited.
	Those facts have been discredited.
	I mean, that's all they say.
	They never cite you any actual proof that anything is discredited.
	And the fact that they complain about...
	James O'Keefe, well, he selectively edits his videos.
	Okay, people need to understand this tiny rant here.
	Okay, let's say some guy strangles a homeless guy and buries the body in some remote location.
	And then he gets picked up by the police and they have him on video.
	Now, for two hours, he rambles about nothing.
	And then at one point he says, oh yeah, I totally strangled that homeless guy and he's buried over there.
	And they go and they find the body and they charge him.
	And then in the court, in the trial, they play...
	You know, his confession.
	You know what?
	They don't play the two hours before and after.
	They play the confession where he says, totally strangled that homeless guy and the body's buried over there.
	They say, well, that was selectively edited.
	It's like, no, that was edited to show where you confess to a crime and it eliminates the extraneous.
	That's the whole point.
	It's edited for relevance.
	Yeah, edited for relevance.
	Of course it's selectively edited.
	Of course it is.
	I mean, that's the point.
	Well, not only that, but, you know...
	The most useful thing about the SJW psychology is the fact that of the three laws, possibly the most important one is the third law, which is SJWs always project.
	If you want to know what bodies an SJW has buried, just pay attention to what he accuses you of.
	It's so funny because Somebody had noted that it is astonishing how many SJWs who like to throw around misogyny and that sort of thing.
	Half of them are convicted girlfriend beaters.
	And it comes out regularly.
	It's not just here and there and occasionally.
	It frequently comes out that the guys who are the most aggressive Well, can I mention one thing?
	Listening to...
	Listening to people on the left, listening to Democrats complain about sexual impropriety is like – it's beyond jaw-dropping.
	Like, I literally – I have to get a bra underneath because it's just my jaw is dropping all the time.
	And, you know, I mean, you could go on and on about this stuff.
	You know, Barney Frank's boyfriend and Bill Clinton himself and the fact that Hillary Clinton's chief aide's husband is sexting rape fantasies to a 15-year-old girl he knows is underage.
	I mean – The fact that Democrats can point any fingers at anyone anywhere about sexual impropriety, again, it's just, I don't even know what to say.
	But that's why it's so important to understand that we have to use the very simple, basic tactics that they use against them.
	There's absolutely nothing more useless than trying to prove that Democrats are the real racists.
	Or, you know, using some sort of logical juxtaposition in order to say, well, that just proves.
	I mean, anytime I hear somebody saying things like, that just proves, or so-and-so are the real, whatever.
	I mean, I know that they're basically an irrelevant conservative.
	Because they're still operating by the rules of America 2.0.
	You know, we're now into, like, America 3.5.
	And so the rules are different.
	The reality is different.
	The facts on the ground are different.
	The battles are different.
	Even as you can see from the current election, even the teams are different.
	You know, it's kind of crazy when you've got, you know, like my friend Louise Mech.
	I like Louise, but I know perfectly well that she is...
	Functionally, effectively, on the left.
	Yes, she's a Tory conservative, but as you know better than most, a Tory conservative is probably to the left of the average Democrat, or at least the average Democrat 20 years ago.
	And so when it came out that Louise was giving advice to the Hillary Clinton campaign, that was not a surprise to me at all, because I have a bet with her about the election.
	She was openly supporting Hillary, and so the fact that they might find it useful to package Heat Street as something that they want to try to appeal to conservatives or whatever, that's fine.
	But, you know, when you've got somebody who's openly pro-Clinton, very aggressively opposed to the alt-right, you're not dealing with somebody who is, you know, on the same side as the average Trump voter.
	Right.
	Let's talk for a moment about the joy of grudges.
	Because one of the things that I really like about Donald Trump is that he holds a grudge.
	And will hold a grudge for many years.
	And will bide his time for vengeance.
	And I guess like Peter Thiel with Gawker.
	I think I can nurse a grudge till it grows a good old ZZ Top style beard.
	And I think you have the same thing when you're talking about later vengeance.
	And...
	I finally, during this election cycle, I'm getting to disgorge myself of several grudgy hairballs that I've carried around, some for, I guess you say, close to a decade with the media as a whole, that our selected anger tends to sort of erupt like a tantrum and then fade from memory, fade from perspective.
	It's sort of like a one-night stand with incoherent rage.
	But I think the conservative treehouse, they refer to it as sort of cold anger.
	Like, okay, keep going.
	I'll be patient.
	I'll bide my time.
	I'll build my alliances.
	I'll build my case.
	And I will strike at a time convenient to me.
	You won't see it coming because you are selected.
	And you won't recover if I have anything to do with it.
	That seems to be something that our selected people, you don't hold a grudge.
	It's like, no, no, no.
	I think holding a grudge is a very, very good thing if it's justified.
	I don't know.
	I mean, a lot of people think that I'm prone to holding grudges just because of my ongoing thing with Scalzi.
	But honestly, I'm not.
	You know, for me, something, a situation like that It tends to be more symbolic than anything.
	My issue is not with John Scalzi.
	He's not even the primary focus for me.
	The primary focus is Patrick Nielsen Hayden at Tor.
	Scalzi is just his tool.
	Nobody gives a damn about Patrick Nielsen Hayden.
	He's an editor.
	He's a powerful editor, but nobody knows who he is.
	Nobody knows what he does.
	You know, Scalzi was the name that everybody knew.
	Scalzi was the one who was making, you know, making things public and that sort of thing.
	And so, you know, he was just a useful focus, a useful focal point for me, or to use Will Lynn's term, a schwerpunkt.
	And so, you know, so, I mean, I actually find that I tend to feel, at this point, somewhat affectionate towards my focal point.
	In order to not give in to my habitual laziness.
	As long as I have that symbolic focus, then I have the ability to do what I need to do.
	If I lost my symbolic focus, I would be very sad.
	And I would need to find a new one.
	But there's no...
	There's no anger or personal animosity or anything there from my perspective, but I will say that a grudge is fine as long as you don't let it corrode you.
	There are some people that I'm close to who have had almost lifelong grudges, and In some cases, it has functionally destroyed them.
	In other cases, they were able to get past it.
	There's one case in particular, I won't go into any details, but it astonishes me that the person who has a legitimate cause for a lifelong grudge, just as a good Christian decided that they were going to put it aside and And what's astonishing is they now have actually a pretty good and positive relationship with the person that they had the grudge against.
	But I will say that in these cases, the sins tended to be more of omission rather than commission.
	So when you're dealing with an enemy, it's very different.
	A grudge against an enemy is necessary, as long as they're an enemy.
	I think a grudge against a person who harmed you because they're just stupid and short-sighted and greedy.
	Really, what's the point?
	Because, like I said, like the rabbit in the meadow a year later.
	He doesn't even know why you're ripping him to pieces.
	Well, you can't have grudges against the stupid because that's not a big enough enemy.
	I mean, you can't spend your life fighting stupidity.
	I mean, you'll never run.
	There aren't enough arms in the universe sometimes to knock that statue off its pedestal.
	And for me, you know, I mean, the grudges...
	I was in the art world as an actor and a playwright and a director and found the art world owned by the state, controlled by the state, controlled by the leftists, and found that tough to advance in.
	I think I had obvious and decent talents in that area, but it was just too much of an uphill slog to get anywhere because I wasn't of that ilk even when I was in my early 20s.
	And in academia, it was the same kind of thing, especially up here in Canada, you know, controlled by the leftists, controlled by the socialists, a bunch of Marxists floating around.
	And, you know, there was a sort of respect for each other's intelligence, but they weren't going to give an inch or give a quarter when it came to sort of progressing in academia.
	And in the business world, it was better in a lot of ways, but there's a lot of corruption when it was involved in a sort of...
	A boom situation like a real bubble.
	A lot of corruption went on there.
	And I couldn't have any grudge against individuals because it seemed to me that individuals, they're just the shadows cast by concepts.
	Most people are not individuated and think for themselves.
	They're sort of infested or inhabited by a variety of perspectives that have been inflicted or wooed upon them.
	So for me, the grudge was not, oh, there's this person or that person or even this university or that business or this theater group or whatever, because they were all just shadows cast by the concepts.
	For me, the grudge became the concepts as a whole, you know, the collectivism, the irrationality, the narcissism, the sort of casual cruelty of hedonism, where the future is always sacrificed for the present.
	Those are what I set my sights on because, to me, those are worthy foes.
	Individuals, you know, it's sort of like having a combine harvester and saying, well, I'm going after that wheat bit.
	You know, it's like, no, I want the whole field.
	I want everything.
	And I think that, for me, growing the grudge from an individual to a set of concepts made an enemy worthy of my efforts and helps to stimulate me to do better.
	Right, but we all have...
	Different motivations, you know, to go back to that book that I edited and that you did the audiobook for.
	Something that Mike Cernovich writes about in MAGA Mindset is that we all have a different vision.
	He says, my vision is not yours.
	His mantra is, I will be too big to be ignored.
	Okay, now that works for Mike.
	That does not work for me because I basically live in a cave and very seldom go anywhere, have no desire to be famous, be on a stage.
	I could never do what Milo does.
	That to me...
	If you said, okay, you need to either work in a coal mine or go do what Milo does, referring to the speeches, I think I'd choose the coal mine.
	And so our visions are going to be different.
	What's going to motivate you, you need these broad conceptual motivations in order to give you something to fight against.
	It motivates you very well because you crank out videos like nobody I know.
	It's the one place on the web where I hope quantity is quality, but yeah.
	I hope they're not dime store novels, but yeah, I know.
	Hey, Shakespeare wrote a lot of plays in a short amount.
	Anyway, go on.
	I actually experimented with getting into some YouTube stuff earlier on, and it wasn't for me.
	I can talk with you, but I can't talk to myself.
	I can't just talk to a camera.
	It'd be me looking at the camera going, so are you going to say anything back?
	Hey, robot, how's it going?
	I suspect that your thespian training served you well in that.
	Because you have different talents and different motivations and different objectives, the The grudge that you need, the motivation that you need, whatever it is that you need is going to be different than mine.
	I need that.
	Why do I need a symbolic focal point?
	I have no idea, but I have no idea.
	In that sense, I do agree with you.
	If you're talking about grudge in the larger sense, there's no question that...
	For me, The dislike, the distaste, and the disgust for the concepts that you're talking about.
	I mean, that's not even just a...
	A grudge doesn't do it justice.
	I mean, I have...
	Visceral hatred?
	Yeah, I have a deep and abiding and unrelenting hatred for that.
	There is...
	No circumstance whatsoever that I find any value in it.
	You know, to me, it's, yeah, I mean, you know, I'm religious.
	So, you know, to me, that is, it is literally...
	Because it's satanic, as all our selected stuff is, at least for me, I'm sorry to interrupt, Vox, but it's satanic because it offers the promise of easy happiness, but it only provides long-term destruction.
	And isn't that...
	The endless and final temptation of the devil, it's the only trick he's got off his smoky sleeve, is to offer you relief from anxiety and happiness in the moment, like any drug dealer, at the expense of your long-term survivability, individually or as a culture.
	So to me, these ideas, and I was raised religious as well, a Christian, these ideas are as close to satanic as I can conceive of.
	Well, right, and it's interesting, too, when you think about...
	What was promised to his disciples by Jesus Christ was the hard and narrow path.
	I mean, when you're talking about the hard and narrow path versus the broad and easy way traveled by most, I mean, you could almost be describing our selection versus our selection there.
	And so, I mean, to me that's one of the things that is so remarkable from a philosophical point of view, is how many of these Various, not only eu-civic, but eu-civilizational concepts all fit together broadly.
	Even though I might be religious, Myla's religious, you're not, Mike's not, and yet we all see the same pattern.
	We all see the same.
	None of us sees the whole picture.
	I don't care.
	George Soros doesn't see the whole picture.
	Nobody does.
	But it's interesting to me how many people on the right, especially of the alt-right variety, tend to see the same patterns at work, regardless of what our core beliefs are.
	And at the same time, it is remarkable how many people on the other side Spout exactly the same nonsense, despite the fact that none of them appears to be doing any, you know, they're all listening to different sources,
	they all have different influences, and yet it doesn't matter if you're talking to somebody who is, you know, into ancient Greek philosophy or, you know, 20th century Frankfurt School cultural Marxism.
	The conclusions that they reach, the patterns that they follow, We end up being exactly the same.
	It's going to be interesting someday.
	One of the reasons why I hope that there is some sort of existence beyond this one is just because it would be so nice to find out why these patterns exist, how these patterns exist.
	I don't even care what the answer is.
	It's so remarkable that there are these constant behavioral models and the fact that they penetrate so deeply into our lives and into the destinies that we end up creating for ourselves through our stupid actions, our wise decisions.
	How you got to where you are was a combination of smart decisions, stupid actions.
	Everybody just ends up where they are one way or another.
	Very few people get exactly where they plan to be.
	And yet, all of those consequences do tend to come down to something as simple as were you raised and are you the product of case selection?
	Or, you know, were you...
	Fathered, indifferently cast aside to survive or not on your own?
	And are you just a fish in the big school of SJW fish, rapidly changing direction every time the narrative shifts?
	Yeah, and I was thinking while you were talking about Milo and Mike and yourself and myself and other people that I get along with well.
	I think a lot of it has to do with, although you're religious and I'm not, there is a larger narrative that we're part of.
	And for me, it's philosophy.
	For you, it is religion and other things.
	I'm not going to pretend to know your entire motivations.
	For the rabbit, there's only the rabbit.
	There's the rabbit and then there's another rabbit's hole that you crash into to make more rabbits.
	That's all there is.
	There's rabbits...
	Sex, grass, and running away.
	That's the whole deal.
	There's nothing bigger.
	Now, for the wolf, though, there's the pack.
	And this is not collectivism.
	For the wolf, there is something larger than his individual survival that is necessary for his survival.
	And for K's, you need something bigger than yourself.
	And the people I have the most in common with are people who are willing to make the sacrifice of personal comfort for the sake of a larger goal, a compassionate goal.
	You know, Milo, of course, comes along as a bit of a hard-ass and a cynic and so on.
	But he has a heart as wide as the Amazon.
	He really cares about people who are being harmed by a very toxic, anti-masculine, anti-K, if I can put those words in his mouth, culture.
	And Mike, very passionate, Scott, very passionate for helping the world as a whole.
	And again, willing to take personal hits for the sake of the larger goal.
	This, I think, is what people don't understand about Trump who don't come from that perspective.
	So if you have something that's larger than yourself that you're willing to sacrifice your personal comfort for, you look at Trump and you say...
	You magnificent bastard.
	And he points this out in speeches.
	He says, look, I had a great life.
	I mean, I got a beautiful wife.
	I got grandkids.
	I got a number one TV show.
	I could enjoy the fruits of my labor.
	I'm, you know, 70.
	I could retire.
	I could keep working.
	But I was having a blast.
	Everyone loved me.
	Nobody wrote up negative things about me.
	I wasn't called a racist, a sexist, misogynist, Islamophobe, you name it.
	Now...
	For those of us who have a larger mission, we look at that and say, oh, I get that.
	I get that.
	Like, what a courageous thing to do.
	Now, for people on the left who can only transmit or understand things in terms of personal advantage, they don't care about the principles.
	They just want personal advantage.
	And if that means smashing people according to principles, they'll do it.
	Not because they love the principles any more than I love a club.
	If a bear's attacking me, I just grab what I need and do what I have to.
	But the left, of course, look at Donald Trump and you can see this in waves when they try to understand him.
	It's like, well, it must be a publicity stunt, right?
	Because it has to only be about Donald Trump.
	It can't be about anything larger.
	It can't be about him, the noblesse oblige or the feeling, you know, he's been given a lot.
	And if you've been given a lot, much should be expected from you in terms of what you can do for society.
	I think I've been given a lot of gifts and I really feel an obligation to use those gifts to help make society a better place.
	Because I love living in the society that I live in, largely because people use their prodigious talents, some direct ancestors of mine, to make the world wonderful for me to live in.
	So I'm damned if I'm not going to use my talents to pay that forward.
	but you see the left trying to fathom Donald Trump and it's a publicity stunt He's only in it for the power.
	He's in it for the grandeur.
	He just wants to leave his legacy.
	Like, they genuinely can't conceive that he could be hooking into a larger story of Western civilization, which he's openly saying, Western civilization is great.
	I'm here to defend Western civilization.
	Western civilization should flourish.
	It should survive.
	It's under attack.
	Openly says it.
	And they can only...
	Back to your point, right?
	They can only project their own narcissistic hedonism onto him and say, well, it can't be for anything noble.
	It's something petty.
	It's something narcissistic.
	It's something for his ego.
	But again, all it does is reveal the soullessness of his attackers, not the grandeur of what he's doing.
	Well, the most powerful thing that he said in one of his recent speeches, and I was really...
	I was really kind of touched by it, was that when he said, I take these, I'm being attacked a lot, but I take these attacks for you gladly.
	Because he understands that he is the symbol of their hate for us.
	They hate his supporters every bit as much as they hate him.
	They hate what he's saying.
	They hate what he stands for.
	And because he has put himself in that position, and he put himself in that position clearly, knowing that he was going to take that kind of heat.
	And so what was meaningful about that to me was the way that...
	He didn't just say that he was willing to do it.
	He said he did it gladly.
	And I can relate to that a bit because, you know, I have the benefit of probably the most loyal following on the internet.
	I mean, no disrespect to your own.
	But the thing is that that loyalty is a two-way street.
	You know, and my VFM Know that I will do whatever I can for them just as they do it for me.
	And even with one of our...
	There's a guy in the media, he refers to this sort of loose affiliation of us.
	He says, I call you guys the cabal.
	But he said one of the things that really struck him It was the way that nobody ever bitches about each other.
	When Roosh was under attack by the global media during his speech tour, a lot of people were after me to disassociate myself from him.
	I know Milo at one point came under a lot of heat to disassociate himself from me.
	The thing is, there's nothing more that tells you more about a person's character as when they're presented with that choice.
	When the SJWs tell you, we're going to attack him, but you can be our friend and we'll leave you alone as long as you turn your back on him and just let us do it.
	But I would rather stand beside two guys who have the courage that I know are not going to run.
	And then, you know, 20,000 rabbits who are going to be running away going, I'm just glad they're not after me.
	You know, like that, like the rabbits you saw and just ignore the fox.
	And so I think that the, you know, whether Trump wins or loses, he has set an example that those who will come after him Yes, he's a flawed individual.
	Yes, he's got his track record and so forth.
	But the funny thing about Trump is that, you know, as a playwright, he is the story of Henry VIII. Not the full...
	Henry V, I think you mean.
	Henry V, yes.
	As we used to say in theater, Hank Zank, because we were just so cool.
	Yeah, well, it's that inevitable need to make petty and trivialize the noble.
	But, you know, I mean, here you have this beautiful narrative of the wastrel prince living his hedonistic life, And then suddenly, you know, maturing and hearing the call of the nation.
	Now, in Trump's case, it took him until he was 70 or so.
	But that only makes the story all the more powerful.
	And that's why I think that if he wins, and I still believe that that's a possibility, despite what, you know, the polls say, if he wins, it's certainly going to make for one hell of a story.
	And it'll be very interesting to see what comes next.
	Yeah, I wouldn't trust the polls as far as I can throw them.
	The polls are just another media slash government program designed to dispirit people.
	And, you know, the messages we're getting are like, oh, it is lost.
	You know, I feel like the guy falling down, hitting his head on the Titanic's propeller at the end of the movie.
	No, no, it's nonsense.
	I mean, there's a lot of people out there that shy Trump voters.
	And the reality is, my perspective is, if Trump loses, that's it.
	There's no more story.
	There's no more story.
	Because if Trump loses, what's going to happen is Hillary's going to get in.
	Hillary is going to legalize.
	And boy, you'll find out just how many illegal immigrants there are in America when Hillary gets in and tries to draw them out onto the citizenship and voter rolls.
	If Ann Coulter's right, it's going to be like 20 or 30 million.
	20 or 30 million guaranteed new votes for the Democrats.
	Plus, she's going to be importing lots of people from the Third World, from Muslim countries and so on.
	Again, guaranteed votes for the Democrats.
	That's it.
	There will be no Republican Party ever again.
	I mean, it's like California.
	California used to be a reliably Republican state until, ah, good old Republican hero Ronald Reagan went and gave amnesty, and now it's as red as red can be, and there's no possibility of recovering it.
	That's the rest of the United States if Trump loses.
	If Trump loses, there's no spine left to stand up for America.
	There's no spine left to inspire people in Europe.
	I'm telling you, and I know it's coming down to these last two weeks, don't believe the pulse.
	Get out there and act.
	I say this to the people listening and watching this.
	If Trump loses, that's it.
	The Republic and the West is done.
	See, I'm going to disagree with you there.
	I do think that the Republic is done.
	But the nation is not the country.
	The nations will rise again.
	In Europe, things are getting very close to the breaking point.
	And liberal democracy, or the charade of liberal democracy that we have, may be done.
	I'm in Spain right now.
	Spain was conquered by the Moors, and it took the Spanish Christians 500 years to drive them out.
	And yet they did.
	No matter what happens, you know, I mean, and maybe this is something that I also like to remind.
	I'm sorry to interrupt.
	I'm with you there.
	I'm not predicting 500 years out.
	I'm with you there.
	But I'm just saying for the foreseeable future.
	Yeah.
	Well, the thing that I always like to point out, because, you know, sometimes you've got some SJWs who are, you know, I think they're actually paid by Soros because they come and they say the same things every time, but they have different names every time.
	But you can tell, you know, as a professional, three-time Hugo-nominated editor, I can tell that it's the same style, it's the same guy.
	Either they're pasting stuff in there or it's just the same guy.
	But what's funny is that they always try to talk about how, oh, you're so outnumbered.
	You're outnumbered.
	You can never win.
	And I always like to remind them that, you know, as a Christian, I always like to say...
	All we need is 12.
	At one point we only had 12.
	It's the IQ gap that matters.
	And you know what's interesting?
	And I just want to share this so that people can flame me in the comments because, you know, I always have to have at least one of those.
	But I gladly take this punishment for all of you.
	Huh.
	Why does that ring a bell?
	Tell me, tell me.
	For me, it's Socrates.
	But for you, it might be somebody slightly different.
	Somebody, say, 500 so years later.
	I mean, I gladly take these punishments for all of you.
	Ah, yeah.
	Deja vu, ringing a bell.
	The name will come to me.
	Jesus.
	No, wait.
	Hang on.
	Hang on.
	No, no.
	I lost it again.
	But it's interesting though, the thing that concerns me the most about a Hillary presidency, and maybe it's because I live in Europe, but I'm concerned about the fact that she will bring Ukraine into NATO. Because that's something that Russia cannot permit.
	Right, right, right, right.
	That's going to be part of the dominoes to war that she seems to be beating the drums so much for.
	In fact, I even wrote a post a few weeks ago where I was talking about how strategically it might make sense for Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine this week.
	I wrote that several weeks ago.
	Now, obviously, so far that hasn't happened.
	I don't think it's necessarily likely to happen, but if If Putin was certain that Clinton was going to win, and he was certain that she was going to bring Ukraine into NATO, he would invade.
	And so, maybe it's a good sign that he hasn't, because perhaps, perhaps, that might indicate that he believes that Trump has a reasonable chance of winning.
	Because one thing that we know about Hillary Clinton is that she is going to significantly increase the level of U.S. bellicosity, and she's definitely going to get actively involved in war by proxy in Syria.
	And given some of the movements that have been taking place by putting American troops in Ukraine and in Poland and that sort of thing, there is a reasonable chance that there will be some sort of direct conflict in Eastern Europe.
	This is something that, you know, in my mind, in my heart, I sometimes refer to Hillary as the pirate queen, our queen, because she's so our selected and appeals to so many our selected people.
	The one thing that's really, really essential to remember, Donald Trump cares about America and really cares about Americans.
	And that's one of the reasons why he's willing to take these hits for the cause that he believes in and willing to confront politically incorrect truths and take all of the normal stuff that comes from that.
	So he's not going to send Americans off to war because he doesn't want to hurt his tribe.
	The important thing to remember, in our selected environment, you are interchangeable and expendable.
	That is the fundamental difference between nationalism and globalism.
	For globalists...
	They're the, you know, they're in charge and we're just a bunch of ants.
	Indistinguishable, right?
	Which is why, oh, you know, whether you're here or here or here, whether you swarm over there or these people, it doesn't matter.
	If the ant is over here or the ant is over there, it's still an ant.
	They don't recognize culture.
	They don't recognize philosophy.
	They don't recognize values.
	We're all interchangeable.
	And everything which is interchangeable Is expendable.
	You know, if you've got a big bucket of nuts and you only need one and you're driving someplace and one bounces out of the car, you're like, I don't care.
	But if you only have that one nut, you're going to circle back and go and get it, right?
	So it's really, really important to remember that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for your entire insignificance in all of her machinations and calculations.
	She's not going to care about you.
	Anymore than she cared about the people in Syria.
	Anymore than she cared about the people in Libya.
	Anymore than she cared about the women her husband is reported to have preyed upon.
	Anymore than she cares about all the laws she's broken.
	She doesn't care.
	Doesn't care.
	you are a step on a ladder for her to get to power.
	She doesn't care.
	Once she's passed you, and this is what, you know, black community complains about this.
	You know, the Dems bungee, they bungee, in and they're, oh, we care, oh, we got your vote, bye.
	You know, it's like the voting booty call, you know, you've got the walk of shame out of the voting booth knowing they're never going to call again until they need you the next time.
	And this, who would want to vote themselves into a bloody mist of political insignificance?
	Because that's all you're going to be is a cog in the machine for her to pursue her global chess game of power lust.
	I believe it is a soul entirely corrupted beyond redemption in any context.
	And putting that woman in power turns you into a porn to be used at her will with no value other than how you serve her preferences.
	And that is a terrifying position.
	And K's see that.
	That's why K's are getting anxious.
	But the R's are like, dum-de-dum-de-dum.
	We might get free college.
	Yay!
	Hey, you know who else got free college?
	GIs coming back from a bloody multi-continent war in the 1940s.
	They got free college too.
	I have this fantasy.
	I'll stop after this.
	Thank you for the rent.
	I have this fantasy that one day there's going to be, maybe before the election, maybe after, people are going to say, all right, hands up everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton.
	Hands up everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton.
	Good job.
	You're now drafted for her wars.
	Get your shit.
	The bus leaves in 10.
	Right.
	Well, actually, I have to say that I enjoy your rants because, you know, being interviewed by you is literally the easiest interview in the media.
	Just find something that pokes his irritation center and then get some popcorn, right?
	Am I that transparent?
	Yes, apparently.
	No, but what's great about it is that I don't have to worry about, you know, putting my foot in something.
	Yeah.
	Or any awkward pauses whatsoever.
	Or breathing between my thoughts.
	Well, the thing is that both Mike and I have largely stopped talking to the media.
	I mean, he did the New Yorker piece, but that was a special case.
	Because what we both figured out was that it did us no benefit.
	They would spend like three or four hours talking to you.
	They'll spend like three or four hours talking to you.
	Just so they can try to get you to say one little thing, but then they can inflate out of proportion and turn into a weapon against you.
	Oh, no, no.
	The why was not, why didn't you talk to the media?
	Why would you ever talk to the media?
	It's tough to make converts to glory at the Church of Satan.
	That's just my particular thought.
	Well, what I've taken to is, when we have certain books, I like to kind of troll the media by sending out press releases.
	And so what I like to do is I send them out in the Persona as the Supreme Dark Lord.
	So it's got all this stuff about drinking the blood of SJWs and these sorts of things.
	And my favorite part is, you know, writing some...
	It tastes like self-pity.
	Anyway, sorry.
	But basically writing some over-the-top press release in the Dark Lord Persona and then seeing...
	Different reporters from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal reading it, seeing that it's been opened and read, just knowing that they're thinking, what the hell is this?
	Because I defy them to use that.
	I want to see them actually try to use that as the rhetorical weapon.
	Did you know that he flays his personal slaves in his basement?
	But anyhow, I have not yet...
	There have been a couple blogs that have picked up the stuff, but unfortunately, they've yet to run in any major media outlets.
	That's kind of my dream.
	I'm sorry.
	Oh, these press releases and so on?
	Yeah.
	They may be a little bit over the top, even for the mainstream media, but...
	I'm sure they'll be cashing out.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I sort of, I know they have a lot of power and for that I give them props.
	You know, they've worked very hard to get to the sort of empty thrones of manipulation that they currently inhabit.
	But to some degree, fighting the media, I don't know, it just feels like kicking an old guy because, you know, their average viewership on TV, you know, like late 50s, early 60s.
	I mean, good lord, who reads a newspaper these days, you know?
	Like, I mean, they have to be specially designed for arthritic claw hands or something like that, you know?
	A special Crypt Keeper edition with, you know, 72-point font for the people who are in the old-age homes.
	So, I mean, they really attach themselves to a readership that literally is dying off.
	Like, not just...
	Figuratively, but literally.
	And this is why they're so desperate.
	It's this election or bust.
	They either get their people in to office.
	They either help pave the way to Hillary Clinton getting into office or there's going to be a net drain of the illegal immigrant South as they either are deported or self-deport.
	There's, I think, going to be, I imagine there's going to be some slowdown or pause on immigration as 83% of Americans desperately, desperately want and have been saying so for 30 years.
	And that is going to vastly undercut the base.
	And Donald Trump knows how to talk to people without needing the media.
	He needs the media now because he wants to get elected.
	I think after he gets elected, he's going to go straight to Facebook, Periscope, YouTube, you name it.
	He's going to bypass these guys completely.
	And if the Dems are done, which they will be if there's a demographic shift back towards more of a European base of Americans, if the Dems are done, And Donald Trump's going straight to the people and bypassing the media.
	Man, we could be like two weeks away from the end of this, not to insult the word, cabal that has been ruling the West for, what, 150 years?
	Oh, it's glorious to the consummation devoutly to be wished!
	But I think that, you know, I mean, maybe I'm a bit more strongly case-elected than most, given that on my paternal side, Is American Revolutionary and my maternal side is Mexican Revolutionary.
	We were talking about this the other day and some of the people were predicting doom and gloom if Hillary won and the world descended into chaos.
	I said, you know, somebody looked over at me and I was just apparently smiling or something.
	I said, well, what are you smiling about?
	And I said, well, you know, I kind of always wanted to be a medieval warlord.
	So there's a silver lining in every crowd.
	Yeah, that's all well and good.
	Dungeons and Dragons is fine until you get a toothache or you need an appendectomy.
	They're not having much fun in Venezuela at the moment, hunting pigeons in the town square and trying to desperately find some antibiotics because they got a cut two days ago.
	I mean...
	I know what you mean.
	I mean, it looks fun, but it's more than dice rolling when you actually have to live with that kind of nonsense.
	Oh, of course.
	But, you know, the thing is that that's the thing about the case-selected mentality is there's honor in the challenge.
	You know, I think that when the Soros trolls are predicting doom and gloom and trying to demoralize us, they don't understand...
	That there's a certain mentality that says, oh well, we're surrounded and we have no chance.
	Let's take as many of the bastards with us as we can.
	That's right.
	When I hear those messages, I don't think, oh well, gee, then I should give up.
	My first thought is, okay, well, let's make sure that we're escorted to Valhalla by An honor guard of thousands, you know.
	It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
	That is the case-selected motto.
	And there are conditions under which life is, you know, for our selected people, get by under any system, you know, they'll find a way to survive.
	They don't make waves.
	They'll just, you know...
	Have TV and food and sex and it'll be fine.
	But there are, of course, people constituted by which any form of really overt control over one's capacity to think and to express, to argue, to reason, to improve the lot of humanity with eloquence and passion, if that is taken away, it's like, okay, and tomorrow I will be doing what exactly?
	Well, the thing is, we just published a book called Cleo and Me.
	By the Israeli military historian Martin Van Krevel.
	He's a brilliant guy.
	He's probably the one legitimate genius that I've ever met.
	Some people call him the heir to Clausewitz.
	His level of thinking is that deep and profound.
	He's actually fundamentally transformed the way that we view warfare.
	It was really interesting because he wrote this book because he wanted to write an intellectual autobiography.
	It's not about, you know, and then I didn't get a pony for my 10th birthday, so I cried.
	There's none of that kind of stuff.
	It's all about his intellectual development and how he researches, how he teaches, and how he...
	Happened to make the mental adjustments that led him to some of these conceptual breakthroughs that he had.
	And one of the things that he writes about, I think you've got nothing in common with this guy, in terms of his background and whatnot.
	He's really smart, Steph.
	But you've got...
	No, I'm just kidding.
	Yeah.
	I'm just kidding.
	I'm not that sensitive.
	That's kind of funny.
	But what was interesting, though, is that he says that to not be able to think and write as he pleases is the very worst thing he can imagine.
	Right.
	And this is somebody who has twice...
	He's been under rocket fire in Israel.
	He's descended from Holocaust survivors.
	I mean, this is somebody who knows about human tragedy.
	But still, despite that, he doesn't live in fear.
	And the thing that he considers to be the most unimaginable thing is to have his mind chained You know, the way that the SJWs want to enchain our minds.
	And so, you know, and that's why I think that, you know, what we're building, like, you know, we talked a little bit about InfoGalactic and stuff earlier.
	You know, what we're building there is alternatives to the giant social media prisons that have been erected.
	You know, Wikipedia has 531 thought police.
	They call them admins, but what they really are is thought police.
	They are there to enforce the narrative that has been agreed upon by the SJWs.
	And I'm sorry to interrupt just very, very briefly, but if you can create, you have no desire to control.
	So the people who want to control other people, the thought police, by definition, are not people with original thoughts, are not people who can create, are not fertile minds, It is small minds that want to control.
	It is great minds that wish to create.
	So the people who are producing things get written about in Wikipedia, and it's the tiny-minded people who control the flow of information.
	They do that because they are sterile intellectually, and all they can do is monitor.
	Well, not only that, but they live in fear.
	I mean, that's the one...
	We talk a lot about the sexually libertine side of the are-selected, but the other thing that...
	The case selected tends to forget is that the R-types live in constant fear of everything.
	Because disaster can strike at any time, from anywhere, and there's nothing they can do about it.
	So it's natural that they do tend to live in fear, and that fear tends to manifest itself in a desire to control whatever they can.
	Especially if you're dependent on the state or dependent upon prestige or dependent upon the good opinion of others.
	If you are what Rand used to call a social metaphysician, somebody who doesn't say what is true, but what can I get away with?
	Not what is real, but what do people believe is real.
	If you are a dependent personality, then, you know, the parasite always has to monitor the host.
	The host can survive without the parasite, but not vice versa, which is why they are so fascistic in their monitoring.
	Right.
	And so the...
	That fear leads to that need to control, and that need to control ends up needing to repress, because we will not be controlled.
	The type of person that I want contributing to InfoGalactic is the kind of person who's constantly getting banned at Wikipedia.
	The kind of people that Andrew over at Gab wanted to come on to Gab were literally getting banned Ricky Vaughn is there.
	Milo is there.
	Paz Dickinson is there.
	I'm there and I will be posting more after the election.
	I'm kind of busy right now, but I'm there as well.
	We'll put the link below.
	Scott Adams is there now because all of these are intelligent, insightful, creative people who have a lot to say and Twitter wants to silence them.
	Twitter wants to control them.
	Who are we going to appeal to?
	The Trust and Safety Council are the most extreme, out-of-control SJWs attached to Twitter.
	Yeah, my glorious future is these empty of creative minds and full of nothing but cat pictures and what I had for dinner last night.
	Let's close off by talking about, to me, one of the glorious aspects of the Trump revolution, which is the I
	think?
	I mean, forget the arts.
	I mean, God knows I can't watch another De Niro film to save my life, which is a shame.
	You know, he's a good actor, or at least was a good actor.
	There's so many people who's like, oh, please, stop talking so I can continue to enjoy your creative side.
	Oh, please, I used to like Star Trek, and now that...
	Anyway, so...
	The artistic side is usual garbage because high creativity is often associated with the art stuff and they've just gone completely Hillary.
	Plus, they want to sell to a worldwide audience so they can't be nationalistic.
	It's the whole nonsense that goes on.
	But on the intellectual side, the people...
	It's at least been cut in half.
	Now, of course, I found new people who are interested in new people to follow, but at least 50, probably closer to 60 or 70% of people have just gone crazy.
	Like, they've just gone nuts.
	Not because they're against Trump.
	I mean, be against Trump, but don't be stupid about it.
	Don't be idiotic about it.
	Don't be like, well, he's a monster or he's authoritarian.
	It's like, I get you don't have an argument, so you're going to wave this word authoritarian around like it means something.
	But it has shown, How crazy people can get when confronted by something they cannot fathom and lack the self-knowledge to understand why they have a reaction to it and therefore lash out in very, very childish and immature ways.
	That has been this sort of scrubbing of people I sort of formerly thought were kind of on the right side of the fence and now like are...
	Like, so far over the fence, they're almost come round again.
	That has been one of the great gifts, because you can spend a long time in the orbit of people who will betray you before you know it, but boy, has he ever given that gift to all of us.
	Well, I think that what we're seeing there is something we'll have to talk about some other time, but that's where you're starting to see elements of the male social-sexual hierarchy.
	And, you know, Trump is an alpha.
	He's a very alpha, alpha male.
	And in the press corps, the chattering classes are predominantly made up of gammas, the men.
	You know, that they I mean, and you can you can tell that you don't even have to know much about them to know that, you know, your average media commentator is not somebody who did well with girls in high school.
	You know, you know, and so like I was particularly disappointed with Jonah Goldberg.
	You know, I liked Jonah's liberal fascism.
	I think that, you know, yes, he he kind of he's kind of clung to the young Turk position or persona a little longer than he should have.
	But, you know, his his his reasoning, I'd interviewed him years ago.
	He always struck me as a cut above the average commentator.
	And then to see his just, you know, complete lack of inability, or his complete inability to see the political scene for what it was, and to see events for what they were, was very disappointing to me.
	But what I realized is that that type of low-rank male It's totally irrational.
	It's basically the visceral hatred of the nerd who is upset at the quarterback You know, in high school.
	And so, I'm not saying that's the whole thing.
	I'm just saying that there's… No, I see that.
	I just sort of wanted to expand the guy who's also the grand chess master and the guy who… Like, it's not just the physical abilities because intellectuals have, I think, reason when they're younger to be frustrated at society's veneration of brute force or brute physical attractiveness, which is generally unearned.
	But, of course, it's more alpha in terms of intellectual and power in the culture and so on.
	So, sorry to just be annoying and jump in.
	I just want to mention that, but please keep going.
	That's fine.
	But, you know, the thing is that that mentality, you know, because that sort of your position in the hierarchy, your psychological position in the hierarchy tends to remain the same.
	Even if your personal circumstances change, even if you change, you're always going to have the scars or the shape of your formative years.
	Some of these guys are very successful guys.
	They're on TV, they're famous, whatever, but it's very clear that some of them never got over their just blinding anger for the The guy who goes out with the hot girls and doesn't deserve them.
	Which, of course, is a ridiculous concept.
	But, again, it's not coming from a rational place.
	And so, to me, it's been very revealing to see which commentators tended to gravitate towards Trump's nationalism, and then which ones didn't.
	And then, of course, you have the inevitable...
	You have the inevitable national interest stuff where it just happened to be a lot of the conservative Jews who ended up not supporting Trump because they were concerned that his nationalism might be bad for Israel, despite the fact that Trump's very pro-Israel.
	There's a lot of these different complicating factors.
	Trump has been wonderfully clarifying in terms of causing these lines to be drawn.
	Who really is in support of America's national interests?
	Who really isn't?
	Who talks about the American national interest and yet is willing to go against it at the drop of a hat?
	Who is capable of understanding the significance of 30 million new Democratic voters, And who is so stupid that they can't do the math?
	These are all different issues.
	But enough about libertarians.
	Enough about libertarians who love states' rights.
	You want to have everything devolve down to the states' rights, but somehow are negative towards nationalism compared to globalism.
	Nationalism is better than globalism in the same way that states' rights is better than federalism.
	Anyway, that's the topic for another time.
	So the last thing I wanted to mention, sneak one in under the rug here, is that our selected people Like war.
	And they like war because case-elected people get killed.
	And this is really something to remember when it comes to voting and so on.
	It is case-elected people who end up either going into the military or flourishing within the military, because the military is a lot about deferral of gratification, hard work, discipline, team play, martial courage, hunting, masculinity.
	I mean, before the Military got totally cucked by the social justice warriors.
	Let's do a whole show on that one day, because how that happened is the one place I think that wouldn't happen.
	How is it that gamers can survive social justice warriors, but people with tanks can't?
	Anyway, that's a topic for another.
	You're not pear-shaped enough.
	That's the problem.
	But yeah, our selected people love starting wars, because our selected people don't go fight.
	K-selected people do.
	They understand.
	That we're the enemy.
	And I really want to remind people, we better wake up to that fact too, because the consequences are going to be dire.
	Yeah, their core strategy is, lets you and him fight.
	Yeah.
	To the death.
	To the death.
	And the only thing that's going to prevent it is a fear that some weapon of mass destruction is going to hit our selected nest, which is...
	All right.
	Well, listen, I really want to thank you for a great conversation.
	I'm looking forward to everyone saying, I thought it was long.
	Turned out, it flew by just like it does for me.
	I kind of lost a quarter to nine almost here.
	So it flies by for me.
	Hopefully it flies by for everyone else.
	Please, please remember.
	Pick up Vox Day's books.
	They're great.
	Social Justice Warriors Always Lie and Cuckservative How Conservatives Betrayed America.
	And check out his websites, Vox Populi and Alpha Game.
	And, of course, we'll link to your Castalia House Publishing, which is really, really...
	Fantastic in terms of the quality of books that you provide.
	And just give us some more info.
	We touched on it.
	The two new big tech platforms that you've got where people can go to get information.
	How easy it is to sign up and give us the elevator pitch, if you can, my friend.
	Yeah.
	If you're tired of getting censored on Twitter, come over to Gab.
	It's at Gab.ai.
	I'm not actually involved with that, but they're one of our alt-tech allies.
	And the new site that we unveiled two weeks ago is Infogalactic.com.
	If you're tired of not being able to edit or having all your edits reverted on Wikipedia, register with us.
	And we've even gotten a browser extensions for Firefox and Safari and Chrome so that If you click on a Google link to Wikipedia, it'll take you to InfoGalactic instead.
	So join the alt-tech revolution.
	Absolutely.
	You can free yourself long before you get freed by others.
	So thanks, Vox.
	A great chat.
	I'm sure we'll talk again soon.
	And enjoy your vacation.
	I look forward to getting you back into your giant vampiric cathedral chair anytime soon.
	Thanks a lot.
	Take care.
	Always a pleasure.

▲