Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 5, 2025 - Stew Peters Show

02:01:29

Logos Academy Episode 44: Intolerant Interpretations

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It is episode 44 of Logos Academy, and we've got a little bit of a roundtable going on today, something a little different.
	We haven't had two guests on in quite a long time, so it's going to be nice.
	We are joined by Josh Neal.
	He's a prolific author, and we're joined by Taylor from Antelope Hill.
	He is an advocate and representative of Antelope Hill, and we're going to be discussing one of Josh's many books, from what I'm aware of, Intolerant Interpretations.
	I've read this myself, and I believe Taylor has as well.
	Josh, welcome.
	It's nice to have you on.
	It's a real pleasure.
	Thank you.
	Big fan of Stu Peters.
	I'm honored to be even obliquely associated as a guest.
	And yeah, my name is Josh Neal.
	I've been around the, you know, what used to be called the alt-right for about nine, eight years.
	I have a couple of books.
	American Extremist from Imperium Press, Understanding Conspiracy Theories, also Imperium Press.
	And then obviously what we're here today to discuss, Intolerant Interpretations.
	I have a background in psychology.
	I'm a cancelled ex-professor of psychology.
	Now I'm just a vagabond, a rogue scholar, if you will.
	And I'm happy to talk about the book today.
	So thank you.
	Yeah, thank you for coming on.
	And Taylor, if you want to introduce yourself as well, so that the audience is familiar with everyone, I want to make sure we're all on the same page here.
	Sure.
	Hello, everyone.
	Sorry I don't have my face up on there with our lovely host and guest, but my name is Taylor Young.
	I'm from Antelope Hill Publishing.
	We're the publishers of Josh's latest book, Intolerant Interpretations.
	And, yeah, I don't know, not much more about me.
	I do the Antelope Hill podcast, so if by the, you know...
	The unlikely chance that you like what you hear from me specifically, you can hear more of me on our podcast.
	We actually have two episodes with Josh, one on his book and one on the movies of Robert Eggers.
	But yeah, very excited to be on here and very excited to discuss this book with you guys.
	Yeah, thank you.
	And I want to remind everybody in the audience as well, if you end up...
	Liking what you're hearing on the show and you like this book or many of the other books that Antelope Hill has, you guys can get this all on antelopehillpublishing.com.
	It's code LOGOS, L-O-G-O-S.
	We'll save you 10% on your order.
	So make sure that you do that if you do decide to check something out.
	So I guess to get us maybe into it a little bit, if you want to give...
	Maybe just a brief summary of the book, just kind of maybe why you decided to write it, what your kind of motive was behind it, and then we'll start to pick up on some of the actual concepts of the book and discuss them a little more in depth.
	Yeah, so it's a continuation of the Understanding Conspiracy Theories book.
	I got involved in writing after I got canceled, and I just kind of felt like...
	There were a lot of problems that weren't being solved conceptually, intellectually, however you want to say it.
	And I just set out to try to correct the record, I guess.
	And it started with American extremists.
	At the time, 2019, there was all this so-called stochastic, right-wing, radical, white supremacist terror.
	And the conversation was, still is at this point, but much less so, that...
	Political extremism is this bottom-up, completely random phenomenon that we just need to stamp out violently, if possible.
	When really, to borrow a line from the Scream movies, the extremism is coming from inside the house.
	It's a top-down phenomenon.
	If you want to think about where the problems in society are happening, it's happening.
	It's happening at the legislative branch.
	It's happening at the executive branch.
	It's happening through mass media.
	It's happening through the universities.
	It's happening through non-governmental organizations.
	So in terms of social and political dysfunction, it's sort of this punching down disciplinary.
	Tactic to say that, well, you and your uncle at Thanksgiving dinner talking about Trayvon Martin or George Floyd or COVID or whatever are actually what's tearing apart the social fabric of the country and not, you know, radical trans ideology, replacement migration.
	Stealing election theft, things like that.
	And so I continued that with conspiracy theories because, again, conspiracy theorist is this pejorative kind of informational contaminant, you know, like a Cass Sunstein-style cognitive infiltration.
	It's language that's used to break down the ability for people to put forth alternative explanations for what's going on in the world, like during COVID.
	If you were online on Twitter as COVID was happening, the actually correct narrative about what was going on was being disseminated by random people on Twitter.
	Meanwhile, the House of Representatives, these people are talking about while it's racist to call it the China virus and blah, blah, all this like nonsensical stuff.
	And when that book was done.
	So the whole purpose of this really is, and Tolerant Interpretations, is basically to argue that a couple of things.
	Primarily, that the conspiracist culture in America is foundational.
	It's actually part of...
	I think the psyche of Americans from the very beginning, because the United States is one of these few countries in human history that was founded late into the game, well after there were rival powers established, well after there were sort of conspiratorial networks influential on the world stage.
	And so the American founders were aware of Banking conspiracies.
	They were aware of maybe what Rome and the Pope and the Catholic Church may have been involved with.
	The early conspiracy movements in America were anti-bapist, anti-Catholic, in some cases anti-Semitic, anti-banker.
	So, I mean, these are all things that are like commonplace internet tropes now, but the people who are in...
	This country on the North American continent hundreds of years ago were basically forging the first steps in identifying really politically what's going on globally.
	So that's one half of the book.
	The other half of the book is basically highlighting, I coined this phrase, suspicion culture, which is a way of saying that there are social forces that deliberately Work to produce skepticism, doubt, suspicion, conspiratorialism.
	This is actually not a cockamamie word I made up.
	It's a sub-discipline in sociology.
	It's actually called agnotology.
	The whole idea is that there's an intentional production of conspiratorialism.
	If you want to take your tinfoil hat off for a second, marketing, advertising are industries that are predicated on Provoking doubt, discomfort, insecurity in people.
	You don't think you're fit enough?
	Come to my gym.
	You don't think your car gets you laid enough?
	Buy this car.
	Your teeth aren't white enough.
	Your bald spot is too bald.
	Whole industries are predicated on provoking doubt, instigating certain kinds of desires in people.
	But in a political sense, that's also true.
	What I argue in the book is that many of the most influential social science discoveries, if you want to say, or claims over the past hundred years really aren't scientific.
	They're not even objective.
	They don't speak to an external reality that we all participate in.
	Really, what they are is thinly veiled ethnic advocacy.
	And so I tried to split the book up between foundational examples of this that have led to where we are today, namely Karl Popper and Richard Hofstadter.
	If you want to talk about the frenzy of...
	People say this all the time.
	We must defend our democracy.
	Liberal democracy is sort of a sacral religious value for people.
	And part of the reason for that is because of the work of people like Karl Popper, who...
	Founded the Open Society in his book, The Open Society as Enemies.
	And then Richard Hofstadter, a very influential historian in his time.
	Now people don't talk about him very much, but his intellectual work is sort of the bedrock of the liberal psyche.
	His books talked about how dumb populists are, how anti-intellectual the American tradition is, how obsessed...
	They are with guns, how conspiratorial they are.
	He coined this phrase pseudo-conservatives to talk about basically people who didn't like communism in the middle of the 20th century.
	And so that's like the bedrock of the liberal democratic worldview.
	And then I chose some texts from the last 20 years which were well-received, influential.
	Most people my age and a little bit older who are active in political conversations know these works and probably regurgitate the arguments unthinkingly.
	In particular, I chose Jonathan Haidt for his book, The Righteous Mind, which the TLDR of that is liberals are sort of moral inferiors to conservatives.
	They have a sort of psychological deficit.
	Which we can talk about the problems with liberals, but that's not one of them.
	Then there's also Daniel Kahneman, who's actually a Nobel Prize winning behavioral economist, famous psychologist, worked in the Israeli Defense Force as a psychologist doing psychological training, psychological operations.
	And he helped establish this school of research called the Heuristics and Biases Program.
	The whole idea of the Heuristics and Biases Program is that human cognition I'm overstating it somewhat just to make my point.
	So just for your audience, this is a slight exaggeration, but not really.
	The whole point of the heuristics and biases program, or at least the received wisdom of Kahneman's work, is that human cognition is irrational, untrustworthy, lazy, not comprehensive.
	Statistically illiterate.
	And as a result, we need people, effectively paternalistic, credentialed experts to think for us.
	And Daniel Kahneman was a very close personal friend of people like Cass Sunstein.
	Richard Thaler, these are other people in the sort of information warfare world who have vested interest in controlling the public conversation and steering it in certain directions.
	Cass Sunstein famously wrote in 2008, he authored a paper with Adrian Vermeule, who's a famous Catholic integralist, sort of like one of these post-liberal types.
	And the whole notion of the essay is that...
	This is 2008, so this is on the cusp of Barack Obama becoming president.
	This is after the 9-11 truth movement.
	And he's basically saying, gee golly, this internet, it's making a lot of problems for Israel.
	It's making a lot of problems for certain ethnic groups because conspiratorialists are sort of...
	We're congregating around this idea that Jews are a nefarious conspiratorial group.
	So we need to destroy those communities and their ability to produce those kinds of conversations.
	And then the last person I discussed, just to put a bow on it, is Paul Bloom.
	Probably not as well known as the rest of the authors that I discuss.
	But nonetheless, his work is like emblematic of the mentality that is commonplace today.
	Paul Bloom sort of revolutionized developmental psychology by demonstrating that within the first year of life, children have sort of advanced cognitive aptitudes at their disposal.
	They can make, to borrow a Carl Schmitt phrase, they can make friend-enemy distinctions.
	They can tell good actors from bad actors.
	They show a preference for good actors.
	So they can make friend-enemy distinctions.
	More importantly, they also demonstrate kinship preference.
	So his whole idea is that sort of saying it without saying it, that we want to further the anti-racist agenda.
	And to further the anti-racist agenda, we need, like, toddler-level anti-racist education because you're three-month-old.
	Baby can name the Jew.
	I mean, not literally, but in a sort of roundabout, infantile way.
	They show preference for people like them, and they show disdain for people that are outside of the tribe, their community.
	Yeah, thank you.
	That's a great summary.
	And one of the things that stood out in the very beginning...
	Kind of touches on a little bit of what you laid out already, but your concept of ethno-narratives, which essentially your thesis is that these separate groups are always, in one way or another, vying for their own, right?
	And especially you see this predominantly with Jews that come with these, they call them, you know, liberalistic ideologies, and they go very overboard with these liberal concepts where...
	It's not the same liberalism that you might have seen in medieval Europe or something like that.
	It's this advanced Jewish form of liberalism, touching on Karl Popper's open society theory, where they have this concept of something that basically gives them control.
	If they want to live inside of one of our societies, if they want to continue the process that they've gone through nomadically for the last 2,500 years, the way to do that is to...
	Essentially create an open society where everybody gets to be a part of something, and then therefore they can blend into that open society.
	So it's an ideology that specifically is being preached for their own personal benefit.
	So maybe you want to go into this concept of ethno-narratives a little bit more and kind of explain that a little more in depth.
	Yeah, so people are probably familiar with the idea of the meta-narrative.
	Maybe they don't know the philosophical.
	We hate postmodern movement that has erupted over the last 10 years.
	People like Jordan Peterson, I think Stephen Hicks would be another good example.
	They talked about the problem of the collapse of metanarratives.
	This goes back to Leotard, who wrote the libidinal economy, the postmodern condition.
	And basically, metanarratives are sort of these grand discursive...
	We have about the world and our place within it.
	But, you know, the sort of conservative idea is that there was this, the received wisdom of, like, contemporary conservatives, while there was this collapse of metanarratives.
	grand metanarratives and we're all living in basically the fall.
	We're living in the aftermath of our shattered hopes and dreams and wishes I don't like this notion of the collapse of metanarratives, because I think it seems sort of...
	Well, to put it frankly, it wasn't a collapse.
	It was a conflict between ethno-metanarrative.
	That's actually the argument I make in the book, is that rather than just metanarratives, which are sort of like universalistic and not particular, ethno-metanarratives are the self-mythologized concepts of a group of people.
	And so we can think of a lot of philosophical ideas, a lot of scientific concepts, as really reflecting the spirit and character of the people who generated them.
	I make the argument in the book that the great American philosophy is pragmatism, and people like William James were at the forefront of advancing this idea of pragmatism as a philosophical justification for everything.
	And you might say, well, Okay, that's a great idea.
	Could the Japanese have come up with it?
	Could the Africans have come up with it?
	Could the Sudanese have developed this idea?
	No, not really.
	It's a particular type of Northwestern European Anglo sensibility.
	Not just Anglo sensibility.
	But like a diaspora Anglo sensibility, because you have these people who move to the North American continent, they're basically reinventing the wheel, and it kind of makes sense that they would come to this philosophical worldview or metaphysical worldview that says things that work, and I'm really oversimplifying pragmatism, but just to get the point across, things that work are good.
	If you're like separated from millennia of how your people have gone about the world and you're reconstituting a new social order, that seems like a really good heuristic.
	Darwinism as sort of a reflection of a stereotypical ethnic mentality.
	Similarly, the open society is a sort of expression of a particular ethnic design.
	So what we saw in the mid-20th century wasn't...
	It wasn't like this big Jenga tower that somebody knocked over one of the little pieces, and oh my god, all of our preconceived notions are totally gone.
	Actually, they were brutalized through catastrophic tribal conflict.
	And what happened was, as I argue in the book, this is oversimplifying a lot, but what happened effectively was, come the middle of the 20th century, And the movement of European Jewish peoples into North America, into the Anglosphere, the Atlantic powers, basically moving west.
	You have all of these ideas, temperaments, that get melded into the Anglo-American establishment.
	And there was a sort of utility to this ascendant Jewish intellectual elite because...
	And just to regress a little bit, you know, if you think back to the late years of the 19th century in America, early years of the 20th century, things like eugenics were on people's minds.
	There was a lot of concern about, like, racial degradation.
	You know, how do we maintain the health and stock of our people so that America can prosper?
	So there were people well before World War I, II, the ascendance of, like, Eastern European Jewish elites, intellectual elites.
	The founding stock of this country, they peered into the future and they saw a future that they didn't like.
	And they're like, how do we cultivate a strong racial stock so that we can fortify North America, fortify the American population?
	America, like many parts of the world...
	Decimates itself through, less so us, but nonetheless, lots of blood was spilled, American blood, in the mid-20th century, and the country went through this really painful process of trying to make itself a competitor on the global stage.
	And so there was a vacuum whereby a lot of these Jewish intellectuals came in and were able to reinforce sort of a...
	An Anglo sensibility with their own moral sensibilities, their own particular desires, their own type of intellectual justifications.
	And to fast forward a little bit, if none of this sounds terribly convincing to your audience, just think about the world that we live in today.
	The types of mantras that people shout, never again.
	Never again is now.
	That's an ethno-meta-narrative.
	That's a call to action.
	That's a clarion call, basically saying, you know, we want you to fight for us.
	We want you to have our values.
	We want you to sacrifice yourself for our survival.
	There's no intrinsically justifiable reason why I need to care, for example.
	Not to get too spicy on your show.
	There's no intrinsically justifiable, sensible reason why I need to sacrifice my family because the Holocaust happened.
	There's no intrinsic reason why I need to educate my children in a particular way because October 7th happened.
	There's actually not a concrete...
	Tangible reason why me, as a non-Jewish person, as a Gentile, as an ethnically European man, or racially European man, has to worry about those things.
	But what this idea of an ethno-meta-narrative, or the conflict of ethno-meta-narratives, is supposed to convey is how our self-justifying, self-mythologized concepts enter into conflict with other peoples, and then who wins out.
	And the winner of that...
	Basically has a claim to universalizing their first principles as a particular group of people.
	So I'm curious, in your assessment from a psychological angle, why do you think it is that people are falling for slogans like this, like this never again?
	You obviously can understand why Jewish people are repeating this, because that is essentially...
	The narrative of their people that they have to have, right?
	It's almost their defense mechanism in a way is to try to re-educate people.
	You saw this Dave Portney just like the other day.
	His instant thing was, oh, I could ruin this person's life, but instead let's send them to Auschwitz so we can re-educate them.
	We'll give them our education.
	Why do you think that people fall for this or they fall in line behind this?
	And when I say people, I obviously mean...
	Europeans, people of European descent.
	Why do you think that they're kind of just following suit with these kind of narratives and jumping on board and even sometimes attacking their own people who don't agree with that narrative and trying to shove it down their throat as well?
	So one of the other major themes throughout the book, really throughout all three of my books, is an attempt to de-emphasize This notion that we're all rational, self-interested, homo economicus, we're all pre-frontally working our way through all the challenges of life.
	Which isn't to say, I know your show is called Logos Revealed, I'm not making some anti-Logos polemic, but I am trying to say that on a fundamental basis, the driver of human cognition Is more social, more unconscious, I don't mean that in a Freudian sense necessarily, and more intuitive.
	And this was actually, if your audience is not familiar, this is a little inside baseball within the psychology world.
	At the turn of the century, into the 21st century, a glut of books and studies were published, all focusing on this kind of realization that human...
	Humankind is fundamentally irrational.
	Dan Ariely, another Israeli psychologist, wrote the book Predictably Irrational.
	Daniel Kahneman's book, Thinking Fast and Slow, is predicated on the idea that humans are sort of knee-jerk, instinctive in their cognition before they are more analytic and self-reflective and calculating.
	Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind, is based on his own, what he called the social intuitionist model, which...
	Basically suggests that when we think and deliberate and come to conclusions, that inevitably it's sort of a post hoc justification.
	For most people, most of the time, the positions that we hold, the beliefs that we have, are post hoc justifications for a sentiment.
	in the case of Jonathan Haidt, a moral intuition that is often ineffable and inaccessible to us.
	It actually takes a lot of labor to excavate our own moral priors and then to articulate them in a way that's not just simply giving lip service to how we feel, but that's actually internally coherent, rational, can be articulated, can be defended in a debate or some kind of discourse.
	So the answer to your question is that people aren't falling for these things just as much as people aren't really being persuaded by.
	I would say there's maybe three fundamental reasons why we're dealing with this phenomenon.
	One is technological.
	One is because of this social intuitionist model I've already described.
	And three, ultimately, is because of the sort of deracinating effect of New World societies.
	People come to North America and implicit in that is they are abandoning, oftentimes, or at least this is the way it used to be anyway.
	This is how whites did it.
	Not so much maybe non-whites today.
	Non-whites come into, it's a messy topic.
	I'll parse that a little bit more.
	But classically, if you were a European person, you came to North America and you, for the most part, gave up.
	You're European traditions.
	You gave up your self-conception as a European person.
	Just to make it really personal, half of my family is from the former Czechoslovakia.
	In the old country, decades and decades and decades ago, they were Orthodox.
	They came to this country.
	There's no Orthodox tradition in North America, or there wasn't in the 19th and 20th century.
	And they became Catholics as a result of that.
	So that's a kind of deracination.
	If they were in Czechoslovakia, they had a continuity as being Czechoslovakian, as being Central European, as being whatever, Bohemian, German, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	They come here, and they are...
	A white person.
	They're a white ethnic, and they lose that sort of continuity of themselves as a person, having a certain personhood from a particular part of the world.
	I'm making a very broad claim.
	Obviously, we can dispute that by talking about specific groups, but on a long enough timeline, you know, the Jersey Shore Italians are not the same as the...
	Italians from, you know, the 1880s, 1890s, 1900s, so on and so forth.
	They've gone through this deracination.
	They've been sort of re-territorialized in the context of this, you know, neoliberal, post-war consensus, consumerist, materialistic society.
	They've reimagined themselves.
	And they're different than they used to be.
	So there's deracination.
	If you were in the old country, I mean, like, my...
	Grandparents and great-grandparents on my father's side of the family had some very, shall we say, not kosher sensibilities about the world and the places of various people in the world.
	And then you come into America and it's this melting pot and you're subjected to the press, you're subjected to mass media.
	This goes to my first point, technology.
	Through the dissemination of...
	These narratives through television and radio and now ultimately the internet, people are basically bombarded with all of these deracinating ideas, sort of new self-concepts that they can adopt for themselves.
	And in that process, they're abandoning who they were, forgetting who they used to be to become this new kind of person.
	So it's technological.
	People are sort of ensconced in this new technological world.
	Which has its own prior, as Marshall McLuhan famously said, the medium is the message.
	So it's not even just that you're watching, if this were 70 years ago, that you're just watching Walter Cronkite on television.
	You're actually psychologically, neurologically being remade in accordance with the way that television works.
	Same way today, people, you know, it's funny.
	Maybe this seems like a little bit of a digression.
	I've noticed, like, IRL, people start saying grape instead of rape.
	And they say grape because on the particular social media platform that you're on, you can't use that language.
	This is the medium is the message, like, personified.
	Like, people's linguistic habits are molded by the censorship.
	Profile of a particular social media platform, and now they're a different person as a result of that.
	So technology is reshaping human consciousness.
	As a result of that, it's changing behaviors and attitudes and beliefs about the world.
	People are moving into America and they're becoming deracinated.
	They're abandoning their religious traditions.
	They're abandoning their ethnic traditions.
	I said there was a third one.
	And basically this social intuitionist model, the whole third chapter of this book is called Conformity and, goodness, what is it called?
	It's called Conformity and Political Economy.
	And the idea is that, you know, why are people seemingly brainwashed by the woke mind virus?
	Well, it's actually, there's no brainwashing going on at all, because there's not a rational...
	It's people are social animals first.
	Monkey see, monkey do.
	We acclimate ourselves to a particular social climate.
	If you go into a university setting, how many times have we both seen this meme online?
	Like the pretty 14-year-old girl with her sundress on and her beautiful long hair.
	It's like before college and then after college.
	And she's like 800 pounds heavier, shaved half of her head, dyed her eyeball purple.
	It's like, what the hell happened?
	It's like, well, she went to college.
	Nobody convinced her that those were good things to do, but she fell into a certain social climate and then acclimated to that climate.
	And now that's the kind Thank you.
	Yeah, that's actually a really good assessment.
	I very much appreciate what you lay out there because this is something I actually talk about a lot on this show is that process of Europeans coming to America Losing a lot of their heritage, their traditions, it slowly starts to break down.
	You'll see the initial generations that first come here, they still hold their culture, they still hold their language.
	And then as those generations start to go on, they slowly intermix with what is whitewashed white.
	Literally, everybody just becomes white and they forget those kind of original traits.
	And then they become almost like this open vessel that's open to accepting a new culture.
	And as you said, it's this consumerist, materialistic culture.
	I mean, we've gone from 40 years ago, people were wearing suits everywhere they went to now everybody's wearing a logo of some Jewish corporation everywhere they go, right?
	I mean, it's gone so far downhill just so quickly.
	And, you know, on your same note, with this being more of like a social pressure, I know people that 10 years ago when I was in high school or middle school or whatever, faggot was a completely acceptable word.
	Everybody said it and most people didn't even necessarily mean gay when they said it.
	They just said it as like an insult, right?
	Now those same people that 10 years ago were saying that with me on a consistent basis as a daily insult.
	They now fear saying these words and they feel like it's a moral wrong to say something like that simply because of the social pressure around it.
	I mean, another example is look at comedians that like 30 years ago they said something racist on TV and now in...
	2016, they're apologizing on their Twitter timeline to their audience.
	I should have never said that.
	I regret that statement.
	And they're reneging on a really good joke just because of a specific word they used or some kind of allegory to something that could be misconstrued as racist.
	It's just so absurd.
	Very good assessment.
	Taylor, I don't know if you have anything that you want to add or chop in on, or even if you have a question for Josh, if you want to hop in.
	Well, I was thinking earlier, after Josh's first statement, he was explaining the concept of ethno-metanarrative and how it is really the superior explanation for the change that's occurred in Western societies.
	You know, it's not like...
	We've kind of organically lost our way for some reason or other.
	It's that there has been a hostile takeover due to interaction with an outside group, a different group that isn't us, that has imposed their way of life.
	And there's another aspect of that that Josh goes into in his book a lot is Or at least mentions particularly in the first essay is,
	you know, like, and I guess this also could tie into the essay about criticizing Haidt about conservative or from the conservative standpoint, you know, how liberals are just like, they're just wacky people, you know, and it's part of this conservative.
	Like mindset or analysis or frame of analysis of what's happened, which is really kind of incoherent.
	And, you know, people see things like the fact that liberalism doesn't ostensibly live up to its own ideas and its own principles.
	You know, like it preaches inclusion, but actually that, you know, busies itself by excluding.
	White people, conservatives, Christians, you know, whoever, anyone who isn't liberal, really.
	And people get really tied up in knots about this.
	And that's where you get things like, you know, the whole, even frankly, I would say just from my own perspective, the whole idea of like woke or wokeness, which I've always seen as kind of a, if not...
	Exactly.
	An astroturf term.
	Nevertheless, not a useful term.
	A term that really has just muddied the waters and really, generally speaking, is just describing anti-whiteness of some variety.
	But they called it woke instead.
	So, yeah, there's a lot of analysis on how the only supposed reaction to what's happened comes from Conservatism and how fundamentally insufficient conservatism is,
	how it's ultimately fundamentally liberal itself and it can't extricate that from the issues at hand, as well as how that is then developed into populist politics and conspiracies and conspiracy theories.
	All of that to say, I think maybe if, Josh, you want to speak a little bit more about that and introduce the, and I know I kind of just threw a lot of stuff in there in maybe not the most coherent fashion, but if you want to speak a little about what you write about conspiracy theories and modern populism and modern conservatism and how it's...
	just fundamentally not capable of being the kind of reaction or counterforce that is necessary to not just deal with the ethno assault on white people, but even to understand it and analyze it coherently and effectively.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I did mention earlier Richard Hofstadter, in his essay, The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
	He was writing a polemic against McCarthyism.
	He was writing a polemic against the John Birch Society, against Barry Goldwater, who in 1964 was running against LBJ.
	He eventually lost the famous...
	Well, I don't know if this is factually true, but it's often sort of portrayed as Barry Goldwater lost because of a successful campaign by LBJ to paint him as sort of an insane warmonger.
	There was a famous campaign ad of a little girl in a daisy field, and she's like picking daisies for flowers, and in the background, a nuclear mushroom cloud goes off.
	This is an effective example of the LBJ campaign.
	Against Goldwater to make him look like a militaristic crank.
	So you had Goldwater, you had Joseph McCarthy, you had Robert Welch Jr., the head of the John Birch Society.
	This is all in the 1950s, the 1960s.
	And they are representing this sort of milieu that Hofstadter called pseudo-conservatism.
	And in one sense...
	We could, there's actually, it's a very complicated issue, because in one sense, the McCarthyist campaign, and the height of the John Birch Society, which would have been the 1960s, 1970s, roundabout there, were a, they would represent, or they would fit this category that Sam Francis called middle American radicals.
	Middle American radicals are sort of, you know, the, like the bleeding heart of what...
	Would be effectively our constituency.
	Engaged, economically successful, educated, patriotic people.
	And in a certain way, the Tea Party could be seen as kind of a, you know, many generations later.
	Iteration of that same type of mentality.
	In some cases, it was literally the same people.
	The Tea Party skewed older.
	It wasn't exactly a youth movement.
	So in some cases, it may have literally been the same people from the 1970s and 60s and 50s.
	But Hofstadter is skewering these people as pseudo-conservatives.
	So it's sort of a maneuver we see today where Khan Inc.
	will lambast people like us.
	For not being real conservatives.
	This is like what the whole idea of the woke right is basically trying to get at.
	It's like, well, you have these awful crypto-leftists who are obsessed with identity politics, obsessed with racial scapegoating, and they're abusing the name conservatism.
	They're sullying the good name of conservatism.
	So in a sense, Hofstadter was saying all those decades ago that these pseudo-conservatives were...
	They're bad because they had the will to fight.
	You know, it's like they're pseudo-conservatives because they should have just rolled down, rolled over and died.
	But on the flip side, he also did get at something that I think took many generations to actually bear out.
	So itself at that time, the John Birch Society, we're talking...
	The height of the John Birch Society followed multiple iterations of Red Scares in the United States.
	By the time Joseph McCarthy, hooking up with Roy Cohn, was involved in trying to purge Hollywood or the press or, you know...
	We had already gone through several iterations of communist panics, red scares.
	They're called red scares in the same way that the satanic panic was a panic as opposed to an actual phenomenon that people were responding to.
	In the United States, the problem of anarchism, socialism, and communism goes back to the 1870s.
	Before World War I, you had 30-odd years of anarchist violence, socialist violence, communist violence.
	The Garibaldi uprising is a good example of this, and I do talk about that a little bit in the first chapter of the book.
	So by the time that there's an actual, authentic, patriotic American movement against communism...
	The game was kind of already over.
	And so what you get are these pseudo-conservatives, people who are...
	A day late, a dollar short.
	They're trying to uphold a version of American patriotism and liberalism that had already been defeated.
	This is one of the arguments I make in the book.
	Communism isn't necessarily an enemy of liberalism.
	Socialism isn't necessarily an enemy of classical liberalism.
	What they rarely represent are fulfillments of certain strains of liberal thought.
	That, you know, people often set up Marx as like an antagonist of capitalism, as an antagonist of classical economics, when really Karl Marx was a fulfillment of those things.
	In many ways, he was making David Ricardo and Adam Smith, he was like crossing their T's and dotting their I's.
	He was saying like, actually we can do capitalism better, and what's going to come after capitalism.
	Again, I'm shorthanding a whole lot of things here.
	Probably there's inaccuracies in there, but the point I'm trying to make is that by the time that there was a sort of right-wing conservative attempt to stem the tide of communism, it had already changed, it had already transformed this political and social culture in the country.
	And so the types of movements we're seeing today, to get to Taylor's point finally, the types of movements we're seeing today, MAGA, The QAnon, although that's sort of like a relic of five years ago.
	Populism.
	Even the post-2020 conspiracy culture.
	I hope your audience doesn't take this as a dig.
	I don't mean it that way.
	Not to your audience.
	I think of Stu Peters and the whole network as one of the good guys.
	But the trend of like...
	Boneheaded, conspiratorial populism, slopulism, the kinds of things that we see getting huge views on Twitter now.
	This is actually the legacy of the John Birch Society.
	James Lindsay is the legacy of the John Birch Society.
	People who, in 2025, still want to fight communism.
	Communism has not been meaningful in the West in decades, conservatively.
	What is the problem in...
	In America is the redressed version of liberalism we call neoliberalism, which is, you know, and this is a point I make in the Jonathan Haidt essay.
	People, especially on the right, like to pejorativize liberalism without understanding that there have been many liberalisms.
	And each of those different liberalisms is really kind of fundamentally different.
	Some ways similar.
	But really not beholden to the same, it's not the same ethnic group advocating certain types of liberalism.
	You know, like neoliberalism would be like this Judaized version of liberalism that had the task of pulling the world together under a new economic order that would stymie fascism, national socialism, anti-Semitism.
	Racism, homophobia, misogyny, things like this.
	So the issue with pseudo-conservatism is that it's this defeated bygone era of right-wing sort of radicalism that has already been subsumed into the establishment.
	I'll end this on like a quick note.
	Not that I want to air anyone's dirty laundry, but I happened to...
	Attend the very last V-DARE conference.
	And I was shocked to learn that so many of the people in attendance were mad about things that had happened in the 1840s.
	These guys were not fighting the great replacement of 2025.
	They had all these hangups about what the country was undergoing in the 1860s or the 1890s.
	It's like, dude, the world has moved on.
	And like, you know, I appreciate that you're like an old stock wasp, whatever.
	And I can understand that maybe you personally don't like me as an ethnic Catholic.
	But like, we are well past like the major racial conflict in the United States being Irish Catholic, German Catholic versus white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
	We are many, many generations past, you know, some WAP being the problem as opposed to...
	I don't know, some Somali pedophile videotaping a white single stay-at-home mother and trying to ruin her life and her livelihood?
	Like, a literal Somali pedophile rapist?
	Like, that's the problem.
	Not the fact that, like, you know, one of the guys taking up the white man's cause can't find his name in the Civil War registry.
	Like, that's not actually the issue.
	And if you're fighting that battle, you're not in the battle.
	That's kind of the point I'm making in the book.
	It's my critique of this sort of neo-populism and this sort of slop conspiratorialism that has become very prominent because there are real conspiracies and there are real people out there highlighting how they operate.
	But what we have now today are like, oh, well, Zach at Logos Academy is actually an AI...
	He's not a real person.
	And you've got the woke mind virus making you think Zach is a real person.
	He's a hologram, dude.
	This is what killed the 9-11 truth movement.
	For years, the 9-11 truth movement was actually a revolutionary force that complicated the day-to-day operations of liberal America.
	Jon Stewart, the most watched man in the country, would get...
	Booed out of events or would have to go to other events to chastise people who wanted to talk about 9-11 truth.
	And then five, six, seven years later, people are talking about, well, the towers were really holograms.
	And there's just all of this stuff that obfuscates the meaningful aspect of the conspiracy theory, right?
	Like we could be talking about the clean break memo.
	We could be talking about all kinds of things.
	And it's like, no, you want to talk about stupid things that are not politically meaningful.
	That's a really good point.
	And this happens with a lot of these.
	This even happened with the supposed Trump assassination, right?
	So people ignore what that implies, who would be behind that.
	They don't look at the motive or the suspect, but they want to look at, like, the fun, like, silly parts of it, right?
	Like, oh, you know, if his head was turned at this angle and they want to analyze, like, the angling and go into, like, would a bullet be able to hit you there?
	Maybe he didn't get shot and it was fake blood and a ketchup packet.
	It's like...
	These things don't do you any good, right?
	Maybe he didn't get shot.
	Maybe he did, right?
	Maybe that piece is important to understand.
	And then you would have to then look at, okay, now why would they want to impose the idea that someone was trying to assassinate him, right?
	But aside from that, people want to go into those nitty-gritty details about it that kind of distract us from the actual narrative itself.
	And you see this with so many things.
	I mean, you'll even get people that...
	I see this a lot in like...
	Christian identity scene, right?
	Where they're talking about some things that might matter, historically, biblically, things like this.
	And then they'll start to roll into the flat earth, and they want to push the flat earth more than anything else.
	And it's like, dude, does that help us, though?
	Let's just say you're right.
	Let's just pretend you're correct, and the earth is flat.
	I 100% agree with you.
	Okay, now what?
	How does that help us?
	Where does that actually make us any kind of progress in what's going on?
	They're like, oh, well, they lied to you about that.
	They lied to you about bigger things.
	And it's like, well, yeah, no shit.
	We're well aware that they're lying to us about a lot of things, right?
	And to talk about your explanation of conservatism and how it's been a failure, to kind of play into your point about the ethno-narratives, one of the ways that...
	Jews have done such a good job at imposing their narrative on us.
	They did this with the left wing, with liberalism and things like that, as we've adequately described.
	But they did this on the right, too.
	These neocons who come up, they're all Jews, and they start basically dictating what conservatism is.
	And it was around this time that conservatism really started to lose any kind of serious conviction or backbone.
	Again, a conservative 50 years ago was someone who was overtly racist.
	They wanted gays to stay in the closet.
	They didn't think they should even be accepted in society.
	They wanted them in Alcatraz, right?
	Now, a conservative is like, oh, hey, well, if you're gay and as long as you voted for Trump and you're not like tranny gay, you're a normal gay, right?
	So it's so far diluted itself that they're not conserving anything.
	It's lost its meaning.
	I mean, even you mentioned this defend democracy, this term that you hear all the time.
	This in itself is just completely crazy to come from a Republican.
	If you're a right-wing Republican, you're supposed to want a republic, not a democracy.
	So why are you advocating that we go to foreign wars to defend democracy?
	It makes no sense at all.
	That's a really big point.
	Yeah, and David Horowitz just died.
	David Horowitz is one of the arch architects of neoconservatism.
	David Horowitz, who explicitly talked about...
	We have to talk to the goyes one way, and then internally we have to have a separate conversation.
	Charlie Kirk is writing this, you know, multi-paragraph, long, glazing eulogy of David Horowitz when he's like the worst, one of the worst people to have ever walked the face of the earth.
	And did irreparable damage to the conservative movement in this country.
	And he's only one of a handful of people we could name.
	Bill and Irving Kristol, another really classic example.
	Leo Strauss, not a subject in my book, but would also be worth his own investigation.
	These are all people coming into and exist.
	And the thing that's really funny about, like, this idea, you'll see this among, like, They'll talk about the predominantly Jewish neoconservative movement and they'll be like, well, they came to the light.
	They used to be communists and they saw the light.
	They saw that America is good.
	And they had a McDonald's burger and they raised the flag.
	And it's like, actually, no.
	Actually, if you want to look at the trajectory for a lot of these people, Richard Hofstadter.
	He was a card-carrying communist.
	And he gave up his communist affiliation basically around the time that the purge of the Jews, Stalin's Jewish purges, were going on.
	These avowed Trotskyists decided that they didn't like communism anymore because it wasn't a safe haven for Jewish identity.
	It wasn't a safe haven for...
	For privileging Jewish political power.
	And the trajectory of communism at that point became, in a sense, very anti-Semitic.
	I know this is sort of a complex issue, and I'm certainly not a scholar on it, but looking into the relationship between Russia and Israel after Israel's formation and after they were not exactly the warmest ally of the fledgling state of Israel at that time.
	Many of these conservatives fail to understand that what is motivating these types of political activists isn't an ideology, isn't a love for freedom and patriotism and capitalism or whatever.
	It's actually they're looking for a privileged spot in a political ecosystem that they can exploit.
	That's all it is.
	So many of these people, there were others who had a similar trajectory, and they weren't, for example, ethnically Jewish, but they had the same trajectory.
	They were Trotskyists, and then they flipped and they became rabid American patriots.
	Like, James Burnham is a really good example.
	James Burnham, as far as I know, is a Gentile, was a Trotskyist, and then made the flip.
	And when he made the flip, he actually became...
	Like America's strongest soldier in the Cold War.
	There's a great book called Who Paid the Piper?
	And it's about the Cold War campaign and how the United States basically...
	It revolutionized its intelligence agencies and how it created this Cold War climate.
	And James Burnham was like a foaming at the mouth anti-communist who was spearheading a lot of these operations.
	So it wasn't strictly a Jewish thing, but if you want to look at the different groups and try to understand their motivations for making that turn, it was an ethnic motivation.
	It was not an ideological motivation.
	And to the extent that Jews are ideological, it's ideological.
	It's the construction of ideologies.
	To advance an ethnic agenda.
	The construction of universalistic ideologies is a way for them to manufacture consent with people outside of their tribe so that they can gain political influence so that they can assert for themselves political privileges that the rest of the society cannot have access to.
	I don't know that I have anything more beyond that to say, but conservatives are sort of like this eternally hoodwinked group of people.
	And I'll actually make one point.
	There's a tendency, if you get into this stuff enough, that you come to understand these things.
	And temperamentally, there's really only one of two paths you can go.
	One path, and it's the path I've taken, it's the path that informs the writing of this book.
	The whole third chapter of the book is really trying to explicate this, is that you have to understand that rank-and-file Americans are not, they've been shut out of the process.
	They don't have a foot in the door.
	They don't have anyone really advocating their interests.
	and they are basically shut out of what's really going on.
	And so whatever conclusions they come to, whatever political positions they hold, if they're stupid, contemptible, incoherent and self-contradictory, it's like that's by design.
	And so you can go one route where it's like you become like a Richard Hanania type where you want to now castigate these people.
	You call them low human capital and you say you deserve to be ruled and you deserve to be replaced.
	It's like they are this way because they lack leadership, because leadership has abandoned them.
	So, You know, there's two ways you can go.
	You can go sort of like the Richard Spencer, Richard Hanania pathway where you condemn these people for being victims of ethnic political warfare.
	Or you can go the direction that kind of I'm advocating for in this book, which is we need to have the right understanding.
	We need to have the understanding that...
	It's funny because to go in the direction of like...
	Polemicizing against these people is to affirm certain liberal premises that theoretically you shouldn't hold as a radical nationalist or populist or whatever, paleocon, whatever.
	You should have already purged those ideas from your mind.
	That the average person is engaged in the political process and reads everything and understands everything.
	You should have already abandoned those notions by virtue of taking the positions that you're holding.
	So, like, what I'm advocating for is, okay, yes, you know, your grandfather that loves Marjorie Taylor Greene, okay, it's a little cringe, it's a little embarrassing, but, like, that was by design.
	And we need to borrow a Cass Sunstein phrase, we kind of need to nudge these people in our direction and not isolate them, alienate them, antagonize them.
	I could keep going on.
	No, I agree.
	I think that's very well stated, and that's very much in line with when you look at the reaction of Weimar Germany and National Socialism.
	This concept that all of these left-wing people were just cannon fodder, that were just to be completely ignored or put aside, that didn't exist.
	That wasn't part of the ideal.
	It was actually the opposite.
	They wanted to take those people that were falling victim to Marxism and push them back over to their side and say, look, like you're being We still have that with the left today, but we have that with the right as well.
	These people that are like, Trump's going to save America.
	Trump is our savior.
	And they think that going and voting at the polls and going to all his rallies and stuff is somehow going to fix the things that are destroying our country.
	All you get are these very mild, lukewarm responses to major problems.
	And he'll do like two or three little good things, right?
	Like, oh, we deported a couple of legals.
	Okay, yeah, but we're still letting in millions of legals that are not ethnically us and that have completely different cultural backgrounds and completely different ideas of how the world should work.
	And they're going to come and they're going to take positions of power in this country.
	And they're going to have a say over top of us.
	And it's going to force us to have to change our culture, our traditions.
	It's not something that we want to do.
	I agree with you that we need to be more open to these people and look at this from a pragmatic view and not take what is already a very fragmented movement and make it inherently more fragmented by being negative towards everything that doesn't automatically agree with us because most of these people are, as you said, they're not thinking with reasoning capacity.
	Uh, making like an educated decision because they've read a book on the subject.
	Uh, they heard a couple of people on the television say something, or they, you know, saw a post on Twitter from, uh, what's his name?
	Uh, James Lindsay calling, uh, calling the woke right, uh, you know, MAGA communists and things like this.
	Right.
	So, uh, yeah, it's, that's a, it's a good assessment.
	Uh, Taylor, do you have anything you want to, you want to add in or any questions or anything?
	I think it's neat that you brought up Hanania and people like that.
	And I think, Josh, I've seen you refer to what he does and similar people as regime, well, I don't know why I can't pronounce a very common word, but regime polemics.
	And it seems to me like there's this style of arguing in defense of liberalism, which is...
	If you could get down to what's at the very core of what's being said, it's just, you lost, get over it.
	You lost, so just give up.
	Why are you still kicking and screaming?
	It's over.
	It's kind of interesting because at the very core of it, it's not...
	A rational argument, you know, in kind of just like an abstract logical sense.
	So if it's stated a certain way with enough confidence, it actually, I think, becomes a little difficult for people to deal with.
	Because, you know, they see Hananias saying stuff like, you know, justifying immigration and, I don't know, like interracial marriage or whatever.
	And it's just like, oh, you know, this is great stuff.
	And it's like, well...
	I'm sitting here with all of my arguments about how this is bad for the country.
	This is bad for social cohesion.
	Our economy has been destroyed by free trade, X, Y, and Z. And he just says, well, I don't care, though.
	That doesn't matter.
	You've already lost on this issue.
	And it was basically kind of just like taking a battering ram to a lot of the arguments that people have developed.
	So all that to say, I think it is very important to address problems.
	Yeah, I mean, this is a confidence game, effectively.
	That's what they're doing.
	And that's why I spend so much time It's a weird tightrope act you have to be able to commit to.
	Because on one hand, I'm saying a lot of this is not explicitly rational, reasoned out, first principles, logos, you know, like...
	Really tediously working out the minutiae for a coherent argument.
	But on the other hand, we can't completely abandon reason because that is actually our greatest weapon.
	Or one of our greatest weapons is that we can truly wield reason in an impactful and revolutionary way.
	So on the one hand, I've levied this charge regime polemicist at people.
	Like James Lindsay and Richard Hanania.
	And what I'm saying for the most part is that they are engaged in this confidence game.
	They are wielding their social status, their social capital, and their political influence over you.
	They are wielding their status as public intellectuals over you.
	And those are like the first barriers to debunking them, to contradicting them, exposing what they're saying.
	False, malicious, and ultimately just propaganda for the establishment.
	So those are all levels at which what's going on is not rational, it's not reason-based, or it's what's called motivated reasoning, where we're actually coming from a particular outcome that we already want to justify with our logic and our reason.
	And so it's a very tenuous kind of reason-based argumentation.
	The other side of that conversation is, as I was saying, we do have to have a solid grasp.
	Basically, we have to be better than these people.
	We have to know our history better than they know it.
	We have to have a more philosophical grounding that they don't actually have or are not willing to wield as propagandists.
	And we have to have ourselves the confidence not to hoodwink the audience, but to basically say that all of that...
	Monkey brain status anxiety stuff.
	I don't care about that.
	I don't care that Richard Hanania has 200,000 subscribers, that his book was a New York Times bestseller, that he was on with Tucker Carlson.
	I actually know better.
	And I'm willing to go toe-to-toe with him intellectually, whether it's in an essay or a podcast or whatever.
	Their confidence is all about using social status, using social capital to kind of mystify and obfuscate and hoodwink people.
	And for us, our strength in using confidence is just...
	The willingness to get into the arena, right?
	And for years, just speaking about myself personally, I was terribly intimidated by anyone with a large following that had awards, that had bestseller stickers on the front of their book.
	I was like, oh man, I don't have a chance here.
	And one of the reasons I called this book Intolerant Interpretations is I read enough of this writing to be like, oh my god.
	This is total horseshit.
	Like, this is really horseshit.
	Like, the whole first chapter of this book is, like, page after page going, dissecting line by line why this argument by Richard Hofstadter makes no sense.
	Why this argument by Karl Popper makes no sense.
	And it's not, it's like, it's like you sit back, not to invoke, like, a Hitlerism.
	Like, you're thunderstruck.
	It's like, I can't believe, like, how you're lying through your teeth.
	And you're being co-signed by the Pulitzer Prize Foundation or whatever, like the committee that decides to slap the award on your lapel.
	It's like you have to have the confidence to say, this is all horseshit.
	And I make the argument, you know, the whole purpose of regime polemics, I have an essay on my substack if your audience finds this interesting.
	It's called Why Richard Hanania is Wrong About Conspiracy Theories.
	And the whole point is to illustrate that the purpose of a regime polemicist is not to be correct.
	It's not to be accurate.
	It's barely even to be effective.
	It's simply to be there.
	You just have to fill an empty space and generate nonsense.
	Like Destiny, Stephen Bonnell is a really good example of like a regime polemicist who's awful at his job.
	And like the last five years has just been one exposure after another.
	Like he really doesn't know what he's talking about.
	Like how many times...
	I think I've seen clips of Nick Flantes mocking Destiny for not even knowing how to operate a map.
	He doesn't know where Jordan or Egypt is.
	The things he says are so...
	They're not even misinformed.
	He didn't even try to inform himself.
	And he's...
	His virtue as a regime propagandist is that he's simply willing to whore himself out every time they need somebody.
	They need a body to knock over whoever his conservative opponent is.
	And again, to harken back to something we were saying earlier, it's like people make the mistake of actually...
	Like trying to play the exchange of facts and logical arguments.
	It's like if you can understand that he is a moist robot there simply to parrot regime arguments and that there's no coherency to them, then it's a different game.
	It's not like you're at Cambridge University and you're on the debate club and you've actually got to follow certain rules.
	It's like actually...
	Again, it's all a confidence game.
	So the confidence for us is just to get into the arena.
	The confidence for them is to use their social capital to basically emotionally terrorize their audience.
	Same thing with James Lindsay.
	James Lindsay is a remarkable example of...
	On the one hand, he's not a moron.
	Same thing with Richard Hanania.
	These people are not morons.
	They're just dishonest.
	They're cynical.
	And James Lindsay, he puts out this meme of woke right, and every week he is generating a new definition of what it means to be woke right.
	If you were in an Ivy League or even a Z-tier university philosophy program, they will throw your ass out.
	They might not even let you in the door.
	You have to have, well, maybe these days, it's a different world in today's university system, but certainly when the universities were a respectable set of institutions, that wouldn't have flied at all.
	So, I mean, every week he's giving a new definition of what woke right means.
	And the interesting thing I've noticed, because I'm blocked by James Lindsay, when I just called him a fat loser, he didn't block me.
	When I said he was a dork and nerdy and he should work out, he didn't block me.
	But when I logically demonstrated a fallacy in his reasoning, I caught an instant block.
	I caught an instant block and for the next week or two weeks, he would screenshot my tweets with a snappy, you know, like, yes queen kind of like dunk.
	And it's like, I've got like 2,000 subscribers on Twitter.
	dude, you've got half a million subscribers on Twitter.
	One, you shouldn't even be putting the shine on me.
	Like that's like a bad move.
	Like if you really are like a superstar, Richard Dawkins doesn't like go to the bowling club to find, to pull some guy off of a bowling lane and be like, yeah, you and me, let's, let's go.
	We're going to debate.
	Like that's just bad form as like a public intellectual.
	But, but so yeah, The point I'm trying to make here is that they're charlatans.
	They're engaged in regime polemics, which means they're simply there to advance offensive arguments.
	They don't have to make sense.
	They don't have to be coherent.
	They just have to keep shooting out arguments, arguments, arguments after argument.
	Yeah, you know, to add to that, you know, you mentioned us – Actually combating them and speaking on level with them or having a debate.
	They avoid this at all costs.
	They do everything they can to...
	He would much prefer to take one of your tweets and just quote it where there is no...
	He can prepare as long as he wants.
	He can take eight hours quoting your tweet and researching as much as he wants in order to have this perfect argument against you to make you look bad.
	But to do a real-time argument...
	People like that know that they don't stand an intellectual chance with somebody that actually knows what they're talking about.
	So their default is to just insult you or kind of give this one-off, like, oh, that guy's not worth it.
	You see this a lot from Jews, too.
	They'll do this whole, like, oh, I'm not going to give credence to a racist and platform a racist, right?
	So I'm not going to talk to you about genetics or Nazi ideology or something like this.
	From, like, you know, oh, I'm a serious intellectual to, oh, well, yeah, but I don't debate people that are lower than me, right?
	So it becomes a status thing now, right?
	So, which also reinforces that whole...
	You know, social stigma around these things, right?
	Where now, oh, well, I watch this intellectual on the television and he says it's low quality or low status to talk to somebody who's anti-Semitic, right?
	So now I won't talk to people like that.
	I won't acknowledge them or give them the time of day.
	Jordan Peterson does this too, right?
	Just writes off any genuine critiques.
	It's psychopathy.
	They're just crazy people, right?
	Which is such a dishonest and disingenuous take from a guy who claims to be all about fair and adequate reasoning and finding the truth in things, which is his whole shtick from day one.
	And now you have him where he's getting called out on his grift so profusely that his only reaction is to just smear people as crazy.
	Like, it's so diluted.
	Well, it's funny.
	I'm sorry to talk over you.
	It's funny that Ben Shapiro literally made his bones...
	By debating people that were beneath him.
	Like, now that he can, like, you know, he's got the Daily Wire and blah, blah, blah.
	But, like, ten years ago, it's like Ben Shapiro smashes, you know, morbidly obese 17-year-old girl.
	It's like he made his bones by literally only debating people who didn't have the credentials to be there in the debate in the first place.
	But the thing with Jordan Peterson that's funny, I didn't watch that clip.
	I didn't watch the podcast, I should say, just because I...
	Physically, it hurts me to listen to Jordan Peterson speak.
	But he's, you know, are you familiar with Laurent Goyenot?
	I always butcher his last name.
	Yes, I am.
	I've interviewed him.
	Oh, fantastic.
	Well, that's a major feather in your cap.
	He wrote The Psychopath Nation about Israel.
	It's like, actually, Jordan Peterson is telling the truth on this one?
	He's just, like, not...
	He's not letting you know, like...
	Who the psychopaths really are.
	But yeah, it's criminal.
	I mean, again, Jordan Peterson is especially pernicious because he has an actual Ivy League credential to his name.
	And he's published many, many, many academic papers.
	As far as I know, none of them were like...
	He's redefined the discipline of psychology, but he's a prolific publisher.
	He's not like a lazy or incompetent person, but he uses his knowledge of the discipline to fortify the neoliberal regime.
	So it's like he can say, and this is factually true, he can say that psychopaths are the problem, and that's true.
	We've all seen the same statistic over the last 10 years of the percentage of like...
	Corporations where the CEOs are clinical psychopaths or the House of Representatives where the people sitting in office are clinical psychopaths.
	It's like in media and in entertainment where like the Harvey Weinsteins of the world are clinical psychopaths.
	It's like, okay, you're taking something that is a factual and social reality, but then you're twisting it to make it work for the very same people that it's true about.
	So it's just completely insane what they do.
	But it's also good that they've never had.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, and interestingly, on the note of Ben Shapiro, you know, building his career off of debating people that are, you know, lower than him, he goes for the lowest hanging fruit, right?
	Funny enough, Jordan Peterson did the same thing, right?
	Both of them got big hand-in-hand with the whole SJW thing, right?
	Social Justice Warrior cringe compilation.
	You got all these morbidly obese, orange-haired, green-haired people.
	They're just screaming nonsense at Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson talking about how there's...
	Eight genders or fat people should be accepted and just nonsense.
	So it's such low-hanging fruit that it's not a problem for them to ever debate that.
	And that's why they'll do it because they know you can debate those people all day and make them look stupid till the end of the earth because they are.
	A lot of those people really are very, very lost mentally.
	But when it comes to then going a step up and debating somebody who is...
	Again, like an intellectual racist or someone who ideologically looks at what's happening with Israel and what Jews have been involved in in the West.
	Now, all of a sudden, that fruit's not low enough, but it's still low, so we won't address it, right?
	So they act like it's even lower than the fruit that is the lowest that they had no problem debating, but they won't touch this one, even though it's hanging a little bit higher, but they want to...
	Make it look as if we are somehow these really third-rail, off-the-cuff crazy people.
	Look how we talk.
	We're not screaming at people because we disagree with them or acting like ravenous children.
	We actually have actual points in conversations.
	Yeah.
	People would look at you.
	Or Stu Peters or myself and say these are, like, the worst people who have ever walked the earth.
	And here, like, we're talking, I mean, this could very well be like a conversation taking place in an Ivy League.
	This very well could be on MSNBC, Fox News.
	If you put a suit on us and some good lighting, you wouldn't know that we were a bunch of vile internet racists.
	Meanwhile, Jordan Peterson is like, you are a rat.
	He's basically cribbing Adolf Hitler.
	He's like, you are a rat and our patience has its limits and we will stomp you forever.
	And it's like, whoa, dude.
	Like, calm down.
	Like, calm down.
	It's not that serious.
	But, yeah, maybe you want to give the floor to...
	Yeah, Taylor, hop on in.
	Okay.
	Well, I had the thought a little while ago that we've talked about...
	The regime polemics from the perspective of how we respond to it, we as avowed opponents of Jewish power and of these people who are its apologists.
	But I think there's also a dimension to it where it can become attractive even to people on the right because they're attracted simply to the...
	Assertion to the authoritarian method in this type of argumentation.
	They're attracted to the might is right.
	If you're segmented by issue, which is all too easy to do because for any number of reasons, a lot of people don't have or maybe want to have a very cohesive worldview.
	If it aligns all of the things that are within the interest of Jewish neoliberalism, then people will say, oh, well, you know, it's cool if Israel curb stomps Gaza, because that's what we should be doing, or there are enemies as well, or something like that, or even on other issues as well, even if it comes to punching down on poor white people, for example, or the wrong...
	You know, subset of white people or something like that, or like, or Russia or like the Baltic countries or, you know, whoever.
	There's any variation of this where people who are ostensibly on the right, reactionary, maybe even, you know...
	To some degree, anti-Semitic or anti-liberal are nevertheless going to have this response to this method of regime polemics in some cases where they'll be like, yeah, you know, I agree.
	I hate those people too.
	And for one thing, it just breaks solidarity, obviously.
	It renders us ineffective in that sense.
	But yeah, just wondering if you, Josh, or either of you wanted to comment on that.
	Could I get you to say that again slightly differently?
	Okay, so what I'm saying is that, like we were talking about earlier, For example, Hanania's style of argument.
	I'm much less familiar with James Lindsay, honestly, so I don't know if he's as good an example of this or not.
	But the style of arguing that basically says, like, you white people, you have already lost, so just kind of get over it.
	And what I'm saying is that to that in itself, there's kind of this inherent authoritarianism that...
	Even people on the right can have a certain attraction to.
	And when it's deployed in the service of this specific issue, like, you know, let's say, I'm trying to think of something in the American context.
	I know there definitely is.
	But let's say, for example, and maybe this isn't going to be 100% mapped to reality, but a good illustration, like...
	Kind of like you were saying earlier, Josh, you know, you have people who are kind of like relitigating, you know, ethnic issues from 100 years ago or like class issues.
	And they'll be like, you know, I want to be part of a pro-white movement or pro-American movement, but I don't want to have too many poor people in it or like ugly people from West Virginia or something like that.
	And so they'll see an argument from like a Hanania type or something like that who's mocking these people and they'll kind of like get on board with that.
	So, I don't know if that kind of helps, but, you know, like I was saying, at the very least, this type of argumentation or, like, it's the reception that people have just to this kind of inherently authoritarian, might-is-right style of argumentation leads them to break solidarity with their own, with other white people, with other reactionaries, with other...
	I don't know if that's a better way of stating it, but just wanted to ask if you kind of have any thoughts or further analysis on that yourself.
	Yeah, okay, so I definitely get what you're saying now, and I appreciate that you said that.
	It's a shame that the caliber of...
	Put it to you this way.
	I don't want to be guilty of the very same thing I've been lambasting.
	This whole time we've been talking together.
	I do think, in general, people who get involved in this kind of conversation have to hold themselves to a higher standard.
	So often we are accused of being prejudicial and bigoted.
	And of course, I'm a prejudicial bigot.
	Don't get me wrong.
	And this is one of the themes of the book.
	There's prejudices that are easily justifiable.
	So, for example, I just saw a tweet of Randy Fine, who's a Republican representative in the United States, Jewish.
	He looks like three Thomas Masseys stapled together into one person.
	And he looks like he ate Thomas Massey.
	And he did a tweet responding to someone who said, hey, you're Jewish.
	And he's like, you're damn right I am.
	And we're going to drop the hammer on all of you Muslims and anti-Semites everywhere.
	Hashtag bombs away.
	And it's like, that's a really barbaric level of prejudice.
	And again, I'm not opposed to barbarism in a prejudice either, but it's like, that is like for a person in power, the full weight of the regime behind him.
	He supposedly has the moral high ground.
	He's Obi-Wan Kenobi swinging the lightsaber at Mustafar, like, don't do it.
	I'm going to chop you in half.
	And that's the kind of prejudice that they're able to put on display.
	And there will be people in his constituency who will be like, yes, stick it to those Arabs.
	It's like, there's two kinds of prejudices.
	One prejudice is you want to keep the Randy Fiennes of the world completely away from you, your children, the levers of power.
	Maybe keep them away from Denny's and Burger King's and KFC's.
	And then there's the other kind of prejudice where it's like this self-serving, egotistical prejudice that's entirely about making you feel better as an individual person.
	And the two are often conflated into the same thing.
	I don't want a, for example, I don't want a pedophile Somali rapist to be at my playground, you know, potentially videotaping my child or my wife and then trying to put them on the Internet and put them on blast.
	That's a totally justifiable type of prejudice that any sane, rational, good hearted person is going to be able to say, hey, they might even turn that around and say, well, that's not a prejudice.
	That's a virtue.
	It's like, well, yeah, I agree with you.
	But it's also both.
	but then you have these other kinds of people who they're prejudiced This has been kind of like one of the conversations that's been going on over the last few years, is the way that racism of different varieties have basically been co-signed by the regime.
	When it's to their benefit to let you indulge in that type of racism.
	Since the Ukraine war popped off, suddenly we could all say we hate white Russians.
	Since COVID popped, there's a period of time during COVID where we could all agree that we hated Chinese people.
	Now, since October 7th, we're all enjoined to hate Arabs.
	And so we're given license to indulge in a sort of...
	Prejudicial limited hangout to the advantage of the regime.
	And when people on our side, like a Richard Hanania, or ostensibly on our side, like a Richard Hanania or whoever, do that, it's really just more regime fortification.
	And, I mean, what I'd like to see people do is really, whether you want to say inner jihad.
	Dark night of the soul.
	People need to look inwards and they need to purge themselves of the...
	To borrow what Zach was saying, like the low-hanging fruit prejudices that make you feel good, that are not politically meaningful, that fracture the movement, that make you susceptible to being hypnotized by influencers and political cultural figures who are giving you permission to indulge in a tiny little bit of transgression so long as you sacrifice your revolutionary willpower to them.
	I mean, that's the trade you're making.
	Spitting all over myself.
	That's the trade you're making.
	You're, like, indulging in a small amount of transgression at the expense of your ability to be a radical.
	And, I mean, that's just contemptible.
	It happens all too much, I feel, online in the, you know, like, radical right, nationalist right, whatever you want to call it.
	This semi-big-tent coalition of, like, loosely unaffiliated, you know, radicals.
	That may be the biggest problem.
	I think that we have.
	So hopefully that...
	Could I, Zach, would you mind if I jump in real quick again?
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, no, I think that was a very good answer.
	And I really like the way that you kind of crystallized it as it's like a trade-off.
	You're trading off like the potential for...
	Future, you know, revolutionary, genuine revolutionary activity and what or a...
	Revolutionary memory, maybe I would say, I would put it that way, in exchange for, you know, temporarily right now, like I get to indulge in a little bit of racism or something like that, and I get to do it with approval.
	Even though, you know, five, ten years pass, or even less than that, you know, one to three years pass, and nothing will have changed, you know, on a systemic level, on a structural level, absolutely nothing will have changed.
	There's actually a part in your first essay in the book that kind of put me under this whole train of thought where you talk about you're arguing against the notion of the collapse of metanarratives as explanatory.
	And you say it is a defense mechanism against the reality that liberalism's revolutionary ethos no longer requires their bodies, their values, their prejudices, their being conservatives or anti-liberals in this context, their prejudices, and in fact was content to seek new ones with each successive generation.
	And I thought that the inclusion of their prejudices there was very interesting because it's pointing to this fact that even things that we associate...
	Aesthetically or even ideologically with the right can still be reactionary, but reactionary on behalf of liberalism, reactionary against challenges to liberalism.
	And if I could just throw in, maybe kind of like throw in another topic that we don't necessarily have to go down, but all of this to my mind, and this is something that I've talked about with Zach too recently.
	I have this idea about how one way you could describe the whole conflict that we're in is a conflict of memory and of self-knowing and self-identity.
	And you can't really have an identity without memory.
	And if you're up against a group whose memory goes back at least 2,000 years, if not significantly longer, We can't even remember the last election cycle, then it's only going to go one way.
	And really, the only way for anything to change is for that to change.
	And every time people take this short-term trade-off of, well, now I get to hate Arabs, so now let's go along with the plan because we'll get a few Lebanese students deported or something like that.
	I'm willing to go along with the plan.
	I'm trading my revolutionary intent or my attitude, my vote, my voice on social media, whatever it may be.
	I'm trading it because I think I'm getting this.
	Next year passes, you know, next election cycle, and what has changed from our perspective, from the perspective of white people who don't want to live under Jewish rule?
	Nothing has changed.
	And we have failed to learn any lessons.
	We failed to build up a collective memory that could serve as a defense mechanism or as a identity with which to fight for ourselves.
	So with that, I'll stop talking.
	Yeah, I think...
	One of the pieces I just wanted to touch on as well that I think is really important with what Josh was laying out, where we're seeing a lot of people waste unbelievable amounts of effort, energy, and time on this kind of like lowbrow attacking things that, quite frankly, the Jewish system wants you to do this, right?
	You see this, probably the most potent example that I can give is libs of TikTok.
	Jewish-run account, and they're constantly posting all these tranny liberals and things like this, ranting with their mental illnesses that they clearly have, sitting in their house ranting to a camera by themselves, or they post a bunch of Muslims in Europe, and they're like, oh, look at this Muslim invasion, and they want you to get riled up around this and focus on this and just shit on these people.
	You see this a lot.
	We do see it in our movement, so to speak, the more radical sphere of the right.
	But you also see this in MAGA entirely.
	Every MAGA conservative or person that describes himself as such, their whole thing is just shitting on Democrats, shitting on the left.
	It's like this low-hanging fruit where they never actually talk about...
	You ever talk to a MAGA conservative and have a conversation about actual political change and positive benefits that can happen, aside from gas prices?
	Beyond that, they don't ever want to actually talk about how these things get fixed, but they love shitting on the problem and complaining about it.
	It's like this negative, like, dwelling on things.
	But they also get the satisfaction out of it where, like, oh, me and my buddy, we can both shit on that, you know, that low IQ, green-haired weirdo.
	Let's do that together.
	Now we both feel real good and it kind of gives us that, like, brotherly vibe.
	But you're right, you know, and again, it's very clear that they want you to focus on these things because there's a lot of Jewish accounts that do that.
	Libs of TikTok is not the only one.
	It's one of many.
	I get infuriated when I see our people in our movement retweeting things like libs of TikTok, which you should absolutely know.
	First off, it's a Jewish account, so already you're doing something wrong.
	But then additionally, when now you're just spending your time and effort shitting on things that they want you to shit on, it's very clear that you're wasting your time and your energy.
	And as you said, it's not revolutionary activity.
	Out of curiosity, would you, do you think that was, let's keep going with lives of TikTok, Haya Rachik, four or five years ago when she was first on the scene, do you think it was as bad then to have been boosting that?
	I feel like I concede totally to what you're saying, but I wonder, like, A couple of years ago, when the cultural shift hadn't moved in a direction away from woke stuff, that it wasn't still useful.
	I talked to people at that time, whether it was my family, friends, guys on the street, and they just couldn't bring themselves to believe, A, that those people existed at all.
	And B, that they existed in the numbers that they actually did.
	And I do think it was good that there was that type of content to pull the wool from people's eyes.
	So they saw that actually that's not just something that is cherry-picked online or that your out-to-lunch uncle rants about after too many glasses of wine or whatever.
	I think there was a point when it was useful.
	Categorically, it is a limited hangout, and categorically, it is a sort of containment.
	But, I mean, this is kind of the perennial question.
	Is there ever a utility to the containment ops?
	Is there ever a utility to the limited hangouts?
	I still kind of feel like five years ago, that was when that content actually had a positive effect.
	Do you feel that way, or was it always bad?
	Every time it happens, it's bad.
	I'm curious to know what you Yeah, that's actually a really good question.
	And I would actually, I would disagree with you.
	I would say that it is always bad.
	And it comes, so I think it's kind of like two or three fold what they're doing, right?
	So it's not just getting you to focus on all this shitty negative stuff and distract, kind of like a bread and circus away from important political things.
	But I think also it's part of the normalization process of it, right?
	So the only time I ever saw green-haired freaks ever.
	My whole life was when Ben Shapiro was debating them, or Jordan Peterson was saying this and that about their bathrooms, or when Libs of TikTok was promoting and pushing it.
	So they kind of forced this into the public psyche.
	And then this is a demoralization tactic, right?
	So now you're constantly seeing these freaks, and you're like, what is happening to my society?
	What is this?
	And then additionally, now, as they're pushing this on you, they also get to dictate How you argue against it, right?
	Like they always do.
	They're framing the conversation around it, right?
	So you can say certain things about what they're doing or what they're saying, but anything that you say beyond that, now it's hateful, right?
	So you can say that there's only two genders, but you can't say that being gay is wrong too, right?
	So they're kind of creating that framework as to which you can actually argue this in, and that's why they set it up in this fashion.
	So I argue actually that it's...
	It's always bad.
	I think from the start, it came out with intention.
	These accounts set themselves up in a very specific light to force this into the public conscious as a demoralization tactic.
	Think about another example would be 4chan.
	They had this big thing that came out.
	There was a bunch of Israeli accounts operating all over 4chan.
	It was really just like a Jewish hangout.
	And they had all of these accounts.
	That were posing as black people and they were just mass posting interracial porn, right?
	And it's a demoralization tactic, right?
	Because now you're a young white guy and all you see is interracial porn and you think, wow, that's what my women want now?
	This sucks.
	So when the only case examples you're seeing are the negative case examples and nothing else is being boosted, you don't see a boosting of decent people against it.
	Unless it's in the kosher mold, right?
	So you'll see some just regular, normal, conservative American at a school board meeting saying, oh, I don't really want tranny books in my kid's library when they're eight years old.
	I don't think that's right.
	You should wait till they're 18. Well, wait, hold on.
	No, the argument should be we don't want that in general, right?
	So they mold it in specifically that fashion.
	And I think...
	Yeah, so I guess my argument would be that it's always negative inherently.
	Dave, from the jump, they set up the false dialectic and they set the framework for the conversation.
	I totally agree with that.
	On a similar related note, I know we're getting off the topic of the show, but I think this is a good conversation and hopefully I'm not overstepping my role here as a guest.
	But I'm curious, by that same token, how do you view the new ownership of...
	Twitter over these last few years because it also seems to be pretty obvious who Elon Musk is aligned with and what his goals are.
	The early arguments to support him buying Twitter was that it was like getting a new lease on life on the platform and finally we've got a social media platform that is favorable to us and now for the most part what I often hear people say about X today is that it's never been worse, that everything is slop.
	I mean, the whole revelation of like the Pajit payouts, like the way that the monetization on X had basically been third worldified.
	Were you ever optimistic about the new ownership at X?
	And how do you feel about the direction it's taken these last two?
	Yeah, personally, I wasn't ever optimistic about it.
	So the way I viewed it from the get-go is that the system was starting to lose massive amounts of credibility.
	Post-COVID, all of these different things that were happening politically, everything that was considered mainstream was losing all forms of credibility.
	So they had to take like a couple steps back.
	And gain that credibility back.
	And so they put a guy like Elon Musk at the head of it.
	You know, he seems like a free speech advocate and he talks about, you know, some decent things, right?
	Yet again, he kind of goes into that kosher mold against the left and things like this.
	And it's always in that mold.
	And he'll step the line just a little bit from time to time, right?
	Just to kind of make the people seem like, oh, he's a radical.
	He's a lot better than the average stuff.
	So it gains some faith and confidence back in these platforms so they can force the people to keep staying on them, right?
	Because they were losing people on Twitter.
	I didn't have a Twitter account.
	I know a lot of people that were deleting Twitter accounts and keeping themselves away from it because it was just turning into a liberal cesspool of political correctness and complete nonsense.
	And now...
	Quite frankly, I'm only on there to push a political message.
	I have no other reason to be on.
	I don't scroll Twitter for the news.
	Unfortunately, I think some people fall into those habits.
	I think that's like a control mechanism.
	It's to pull people back in, gain their trust again, kind of like neutralize the suspicion a little bit.
	And then what can they also do?
	I mean, look at Twitter now.
	Like you were saying, there's pornography all over the platform.
	There's all of this third world nonsense.
	So they're starting to now...
	Put the propaganda back in, but in a fashion where it's like, oh, but it comes with some free speech, right?
	So now I'm going to accept some of that propaganda because it's coming with the free speech.
	Like, I mean, I don't want to be like too vulgar here, but like I saw an advertisement on Twitter yesterday.
	I'm not kidding.
	I hate that I have to physically say this because it's disgusting.
	I saw an advertisement on Twitter yesterday of a naked man spreading his asshole to a camera.
	An advertisement.
	It was a Twitter advert.
	It's the only time I've ever reported content on Twitter because I was so repulsed that this is an ad that's just casually on my feed.
	That is so disgusting.
	And the caption, if I would say the caption, makes it even worse.
	So, no, I had no faith in it.
	But, yeah, I think it's a way to pull people back in, get a little more faith in, like...
	There's some kind of hope.
	There's some kind of solution.
	So they don't get too demoralized and go completely radical.
	It's like a neutralizing agent.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Definitely a vector for manufacturing consent.
	If we want to go with the theme of what I was discussing earlier from an agnotological perspective, yeah.
	It's remarkable when people unmask a lot of those large accounts like Radio Genoa.
	There's every large account that's like hundreds of thousands or millions, and especially the ones that post.
	Yes.
	The ones that in particular post replacement migration stuff, it's always like, well, France is cooked.
	That's it.
	UK is cooked.
	We should just nuke it.
	And then it's like a Taiwanese guy or a Vietnamese guy.
	Like an Ian Miles Chong type character where they're just trying to poison your mind and steal your hope and steal your radicalism and put you into despair and profit off of your misery.
	So yeah, it pains me to say I agree with you.
	Yeah, I think one more example and then we'll get Taylor's thoughts on this too.
	You know, this Libs of TikTok account, a lot of times the woman that owns that account, the Jew, a Jewess or whatever you want to call her, she'll make posts about Muslims in Europe.
	And she made a post one time and she said, Muslims have completely taken over Europe.
	And it's like a video of a bunch of Muslim people in the streets in Europe and like everything is just completely third world.
	And I quoted it and I said, like, don't be twisted here.
	She's not shitting on that.
	She's bragging.
	That's what that tweet is.
	Like, from your perspective, it's like her going, oh, it's awful.
	It's terrible what's happening to Europe.
	But from her perspective, she's bragging, right?
	She's looking at this through the lens of, oh, my people are accomplishing what we want to accomplish.
	So it's actually bragging.
	And again, it's demoralizing when all you're consuming is watching every single country in the West being turned into a third world country.
	It's demoralizing.
	I mean, like scrolling Twitter all day and watching.
	A random black thug beat the shit out of some white kid or some old white dude walking his dog.
	That's demoralizing to consistently consume those things.
	And I always try to tell people, try not to watch too much of that.
	In the beginning, I will say, kind of negating my point a little bit about the LGBT stuff and how they were posting those things, but I will say, in the beginning, the one thing I think is positive for people to see is...
	Black crime like that, right?
	Where they're seeing all of these mobs in the airports and things like that.
	Because too many of our people are neutered on the racial question and they can't see race and they're very blind to it.
	And when they start to see enough of that content, it can kind of start to awaken something inside of them.
	Who can watch seven black teens beat the shit out of an old white guy walking his dog and not go, okay, this is unacceptable.
	There's nobody that can justify that.
	So I think it helps to an extent, but then yet again, you'll have people that just consume it all day and get negative and mull about it, and then now you're demoralizing yourself intentionally to watch all of these things.
	It has to have a stopping limit.
	It's almost like drinking, right?
	Sure, you can have a drink on the weekend or whatever and kind of relax a little bit, but once you start going, okay, now I need to have a drink every day to get through my work week, now it's becoming a problem for you and it's now...
	Harming you rather than being something that's just kind of like a one-off benefit.
	Taylor, do you want to add anything and hop in?
	And then we have about 10 minutes left.
	So after you finish up, maybe we'll kind of hop to conclusions.
	We'll promote the book one more time and then we'll close it up.
	Sounds good.
	Yeah, I don't have too much.
	I agree with both of you.
	I do agree with Josh's point earlier about how, and what you were talking about now, seeing that stuff, I think the fact that it got out there, I think that it did contribute in a significant degree to the backlash against it, to just people being aware of stuff that was going on that I think they probably could have done without people being aware of.
	The bigger issue just being who had control over these sources of information?
	Who were the accounts?
	The fact that it's a Jew that runs libs of TikTok and so on.
	You can build a platform and you can build credibility among ordinary conservatives by doing this stuff and then you can turn around and you get to control how they think about it, what they want to do about it and so on.
	For me personally, I was actually Part of my political journey was I used to be like a classical liberal type and I would watch Sargon of Akkad.
	I don't know if either of you remember him.
	And I do think he's a little different.
	I think he's more of an independent, or he could be more of an independent figure.
	I think he probably is more likely that he made a rational, not rational necessarily in a morally positive sense, but he made a calculation to just take a certain side rather than being like, Kind of like a controlled person in the other sense.
	But I would just watch his stuff and it was just like seeing day after day all this anti-white stuff that was happening that it did.
	It awoke a racial consciousness in me.
	I'm like, you know, these are my people.
	This is what's happening to my people.
	And I just don't want it.
	And that's kind of like the beginning of my nationalist politics was just like...
	Saying to myself, I just don't want this to happen.
	I see that it's going to happen unless something is done to stop it.
	At that point, you're some kind of radical once you say that.
	I agree with you as well on the outrage porn, basically.
	I hate to say it, but it's kind of like a test for people.
	If you engage with that stuff too much...
	You're doing it wrong for basically all the same reasons that Zach said.
	It becomes demoralization.
	You have to know what's going on, but you also have to balance that with other things.
	You have to not spend all your day doing that.
	You have to be doing something about it.
	Otherwise, you're just going to hate yourself.
	That's it.
	I agree.
	I'll repeat something I used to say back when I still had a YouTube channel many, many years ago.
	I borrowed it from Alan Watts.
	Maybe that makes me a cringe limbtard for quoting Alan Watts.
	But Alan Watts used to say, when you get the message, hang up the phone.
	And that's how I feel about the outrage porn.
	Yes, you need to understand the world is like that.
	But once you have that understanding, you've got to then act.
	You've got to do something about it.
	And staying in that habit of consumption is psychologically destructive.
	And it saps you of your agency.
	And then you become counterproductive to the entire project that we're all invested in.
	Yeah, I concur.
	Well, with that said, we got about seven minutes left on the show, folks.
	So I want to make sure I close up at six because I have another show that's running on the network after and I don't want to roll over into their time slot.
	So we'll conclude a little bit.
	First off, what I'll do is I'm going to promote this stuff one more time.
	I'm going to promote Antelope Hill and I want to afterwards allow Josh some final words on the book.
	And then I would like to allow you to also promote your stuff where they can find any other books, any writings that you have, your platforms and stuff.
	So first and foremost, folks, if you like this discussion and you liked what you heard that was laid out about this work, Intolerant Interpretations, make sure that you get yourself a copy.
	And you know me, I'm a big physical copy guy, so pick up yourself a physical copy so you can write in it and take notes and kind of analyze things in real time.
	This is like...
	Philosophic psychology here.
	So it's more than, you know, you're not just reading like some random mantras of like a Stoic or something, right?
	You're reading something that's a little more complex and in-depth.
	So you want to take your time with it.
	You want to actually like eat it rather than just kind of swallow it.
	You have to actually chew something like this.
	So make sure you take notes in it and kind of pay attention to it.
	And if you want to get this book...
	Again, antelopehillpublishing.com.
	All one word.
	You get this book up on that website.
	Many other good books up there.
	I'm not sure if Josh Neal has any other works up there, but I know there's a lot of good works up there.
	You can use code LOGOS.
	You're going to save yourself 10% off.
	It's L-O-G-O-S.
	With that said, Josh, let's have your final words on the book and then feel free to promote anywhere that my audience can find you, follow you, and check out anything else that you're doing.
	Well, first off, I really appreciate the kind words.
	And they're true words, so you're not just saying it.
	I appreciate that.
	This is my life's work, really.
	I mean, I've worn a lot of hats over the course of my life.
	I tried to be a musician.
	It didn't work.
	I tried to be, like, academic.
	It didn't work.
	I tried to be an entrepreneur.
	It didn't work.
	I don't have children, you know?
	So when I think of, like, what I'm leaving behind, I've tried to make a concerted effort to do something with my writing that was not just different, but constructive.
	And one of the compliments or comments I've received from multiple people who have read my writing is that when I read your book or when I read your essay, they say to me, I really felt like you were actually trying to solve a problem.
	And that's all I'm really trying to do.
	I'm not going to lie and say I don't have an agenda.
	You know, my agenda is the recovery and restoration of the white race, effectively.
	You know, I want the recovery and the restoration of the United States of America.
	I want justice in the world.
	I want things to be as they could be.
	And these aren't big asks.
	This isn't like...
	Give me world peace.
	We're going to solve hunger.
	It's like, okay, that's utopianism.
	This is like, I consider these to be pretty modest, accomplishable goals.
	And I'd like to think that my writing has made a small, has brought us, you know, a few small steps closer to those goals.
	So if you agree, then find me on Twitter, still JNeil.
	Find me on Substack, jneil.substack.com.
	I have three books.
	All are available for sale on all of the major platforms.
	My first two books from Imperium Press, American Extremist, very widely received, sold thousands of copies, Understanding Conspiracy Theories, and now Intolerant Interpretations.
	I think I'm most of this third book with Antelope Hill.
	Who knows?
	Maybe you'll see more publications from me with Antelope Hill.
	They do a lot of great work.
	They do a lot of great contemporary work.
	Duchesne's greatness and ruin.
	And Dr. Duchesne is another great renegade academic, you know, sort of like myself.
	Well, he's way more esteemed than I am.
	But Antelope Hill takes a chance on people like me, and I'm grateful for it.
	So head over to their website.
	And obviously, I'm grateful to you, Zach.
	Thanks for giving us the platform today.
	Of course, brother.
	I'm more than happy to do so.
	This was a great discussion.
	And Taylor, I want to give you a chance as well to promote Antelope Hill, anything that you guys have going on, any news, the podcast, things like that.
	Please go ahead and take a moment to promote your stuff as well.
	Well, thank you.
	Thank you again so much for having me on and for having Josh on.
	Honestly, thank you, Josh, for giving great advertisement for us as well.
	We're very happy to have published your book and would definitely welcome, you know, if you have more books in the future, further collaboration.
	Yeah, so...
	Our website is antelopehillpublishing.com.
	We have really a very wide variety of books on there.
	We have fiction.
	We have some kids' books.
	And then we have a lot of books.
	We have books like this, more modern, contemporary authors who are dealing with contemporary issues like Josh's book.
	We have investigations of transgenderism, globalism.
	The opioid epidemic.
	Our two latest books are, like Josh said, Greatness and Ruin, which really takes a look at the achievements of European civilization as well as its current state of decay and how both of these things are related to the uniquely European trait of individualism.
	And our other recent book is Peasantry as the Lifeblood of the Nordic Race by Richard Walther Dare, who was a minister in the German...
	National Socialist Government, which is pretty much the other half of our catalog is books from the 20th century, including a lot of new translations into English that you can't get in English anywhere else, and a lot of other stuff like that.
	Besides that, we have a substack.
	It's antelopehillpublishing.substack.com, and there you can find our book.
	Our book club podcast, which usually reviews books.
	Sometimes we do movies as well.
	I'm one of the hosts on that, and we frequently have guests such as Josh and other people.
	And we also publish original short stories from our other co-host on there, as well as book reviews and other stuff like that.
	Oh, and we're also on Twitter, of course.
	We're on Twitter.
	We're on Telegram.
	On Twitter, we're at...
	At Antelope Hill.
	So you can find us on all the social media.
	So please check us out.
	And thank you again, Zach, very much.
	Of course, my friend.
	Thank you to both of you.
	And again, for the chat, don't forget, on your way out, after you've followed them and done all of that, if you don't already follow my stuff, make sure that you're doing that.
	You're going to get a lot more interviews like this.
	I mean, this is probably like the...
	80th interview that we've done on this channel.
	A lot of different prolific authors and thinkers in our scene.
	If you want a lot of the intellectual content, make sure that you're following here.
	The best thing you can do is share my work around.
	Get it to other people.
	Help other people see what we're doing over here.
	If you want to go a step above and beyond, you can always support my work financially.
	The link is in the description below.
	You got plenty of options in there.
	They got the Rumble Super Chats.
	FTJ is always the best place to do it.
	There's no middleman fee.
	You've got Entropy as well.
	If you fancy Entropy, I know a lot of people like to use that.
	It's always greatly appreciated, but it is not...
	Obligatory.
	So if you want to do it, you can.
	Thank you, folks, again, for watching.
	I really appreciate it.
	Make sure that you're following everybody on the panel.
	And I'll see you guys on Wednesday, I hope.
	I'm not 100% sure if we'll be live Wednesday, but if not, I'll definitely see you Friday.
	I've got an interview coming up on Friday, so make sure that you guys are there for that.
	4 p.m. Eastern, as usual.
	I'll see you guys then.

▲