Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe your substack or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star and
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan Yonashow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on condinal philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough. So thank you. The pekan Yonashow dot com.
Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back to the
pekan Yona Show for the first time. Cameron McGregor is here.
How are you doing, Cameron?
Speaker 2: I am doing great. That the weather sublime here on
the East Coast, and I am highly sensitive to the weather.
I need sun I need sunshine. I do not like cloudy,
opaque sky. So I'm happy.
Speaker 1: We got it's it hasn't hit here yet. It's June
in Alabama, and I haven't had a day where I
was like, there is no way I'm stepping outside the door.
It's just it's been. It's been great so far.
Speaker 2: That means we're talking not above seventy five.
Speaker 1: Not above eighty or eighty five. All right, tell everybody
a little bit about yourself.
Speaker 2: Sure, sure, Well, first, foremost and a blob ball. Thank
you Peter for hosting me. Uh you know, I am
one of the co hosts of The Backlash and they
speak very highly of you, and a lot of our
fan base was adamant that you come on the show,
So thank you for doing that. Thank you for hosting me.
For those of you who do not know my name
is Cameron McGregor, I suppose I call myself a YouTuber
These days, I don't really even understand what the hell
that is, but I make videos and I put them
on YouTube. The thrust of my work is really written.
But as I'm sure you've discovered, Peter, writing is just
a shrinking audience unfortunately. So I write a lot on
SUBTAC for a substect called Men in the City, and
I focus on a lot of things. I suppose part
of my weakness may be a strength, or maybe a
strength is a weakness. I'm not sure, but I write
about everything from the sexual marketplace to the JQ, to
global globalization, dedollarization, international relations, military strate I mean, all
kinds of things, but it's all under the rubric of
something I call neo masculinity, which I suppose we'll talk
about on your show a bit, basically a reimagined masco
nationalism that I think is about to explode in the
United States and around the Western world. So that is
the main thrust of my work before I got into
YouTube and substec. However, I would like to think of
myself as a practitioner. I've done a lot of things.
I was a surface warfare officer in the US Navy
early in my career. I have been to I've been
through the straits before moves. I did a tour to
the golf in two thousand and eight. I was actually
there at the beginning of the Somali pirate episode. Probably
remember that bad Tom Hanks movie about that. Anyway, I
was there, I think a year or so before he
was there, and we did all kinds of operations. That
was interesting as a young man to see. I left
the Navy at an ideal time, right after the Great Recession,
so there were no jobs. There wasn't much economic activity opportunity,
and so I fell into a difficult spot. But I
did a lot of things, including working on Capitol Hill.
Very briefly, I worked as a school teacher part time,
and then I did what a lot of folks do.
I went back to graduate school because what the hell
else are you going to do? And eventually I found
myself in tech and I worked for a variety of startups.
I worked in the procurement system for government contractors. So
I've done a lot of interesting things. And then I
left in twenty nineteen, and over the last five years
or so, I've lived all over the world. I've lived
in South America, I've lived in Asia, been all over Europe.
So it's been an interesting ride.
Speaker 1: You're talking about the plight of men, and especially now
young men. How do you diagnose it? What do you
think is what are the main points that people need
to understand about? Well, what you call neomasculinity. What are
you addressing? So let's do this.
Speaker 2: What I propose, Peter, if you're okay with it, is
I'll give a little bit of a structure to why
I think the way that I do. I do not
pride myself as an intellectual. I read as much as
I can. I have a voracious appetite to read, but
like I said, more of an action oriented kind of person.
Even now, I'm an investor, I run companies. I'm a
participant as much as I can be. And I say
that in part because I've seen the world change dramatically,
as I think most of us have over the last
ten years alone, in ways that I think a lot
of Americans don't fully process or understand, in part because
a lot of Americans just don't leave the country. So
what I'd like to do is talk a little bit
about where we are in a metaphysical or metapolitical sense,
in a historical sense, because I think a lot of
Americans at this point in time. Obviously there's a lot
of despair. There is a pervasive sense of declinism among
people like yourself, who are I would say, very aware,
well informed, open minded, that sort of thing. But we
tend to look at the United States as almost a
separate nation or entity from our European forebears, and I
don't view it that way. So in many ways, I
think the United States should be thought of as an
adolescent on our developmental stage. So to explain what I
mean a little bit, I would break the present historical
timeline I guess of the United States into four parts.
The first began in the sixteen twenties, so from about
sixteen twenty until the seventeen seventies when the Revolutionary War
broke out. That was really the ground level, initial developmental
process of the United States. That's when Anglo Protestantism showed
the seeds of the nation that would become. That's when
my ancestors came here. They arrived in sixteen twenty with
Bradford and the Mayflower. So I am part of the
founding stock. And that's a very conscious thing in my life.
Because the United States is not some kind of economic zone,
as you would call it to me, it is a
very real and visceral, spiritual, metaphysical thing, and it was
created from sixteen twenty to seventeen seventy at least the
initial a character of the nation. Then you get the
Revolutionary War, and the Revolutionary War, as the Tookeville and
many others said, was not a revolution. It was a
war separation. It was a war in which you had
Anglo Protestants basically say, okay, we want to chart a
different course, and we want to do so liberated from
the yoke of the British Empire. But for all intents
and purposes, the principles, the culture, the values, the institutions,
et cetera, et cetera, were all incubated and incorporated from
the British Empire. But we wanted our independence. Part of
that was because of the Great Awakening. We didn't want
the Anglican Church. That was a very powerful driver. Part
of it was because of the taxes, and part of
it was because we just didn't want a foreign king
to govern us. But that presented some problems, well, how
exactly do we govern ourselves? And that's produced I would say,
a very ill advised, loosely drafted document we call the Constitution. Now,
a lot of people who when they talk about the
United States, they fetishize the Constitution. They in other words,
they sort of associate America with the Constitution. I do
not do so to me, and I think you were
the Saint Peter. I think of a nation as its people,
not necessarily as a document. But what that document essentially
did is it began the next phase, which I think
is best called the Jeffersonian phase, and that was where
we basically were a nation of nations. We were a
nation of free states that all had sovereign power relative
to the national government, which was still at that time
fairly weak. That's what a historian named Donald Livingston. I
don't know if you know who that is. He calls
that Jeffersonian America. I think that's an accurate assessment. That
then lasts from the seventeen eighties more or less until
you get to eighteen sixty and you get to the
beginning of the Civil War in eighteen sixty one. The
Civil War was a war of federalization. It was a
war in which the sovereign states were subsumed underneath a
national government. That was the beginning as Livingston himself calls
it the beginning of Linconi in America. And there are
a lot of distinctions, but just to be brief, in
addition to sovereignty vesting in the people and with the
federal government, you got this idea of an American creed.
We had shifted away from this sort of very crystal
clear ethnic or racial consciousness that defied the country. That's
not to say that it died, then, it is to
say that we opened the door to a more imagined
community than before, and I think that's accurate. Nonetheless, we remained,
for all intents and purposes in Anglo Protestant country until
you get to the Civil rights era in the nineteen sixties.
I would throw Vietnam in there as well. That period
of time is, ironically enough, I think that begins where
you began your intellectual journey that started a sort of
cold civil war in the United States. It was the
beginning of I would call it pluralism. So from about
the nineteen sixties until today, we have been in a
time of political disintegration in which the institutions of power. Yes,
of course we know they've been subverted. That's a major
driver of roy We stand today. But they've also aged,
They've declined. American power has declined, and some of that
has nothing to do with sabotage or corruption. Some of
that is just obsolescence. Some of it is negligence, and
some of it is adolescence. And that brings us to today,
and I would demarket twenty twenty is the beginning of
what I would call an interregnum and the emergence of
a new America. And this will bring about a war
of integration in which the national idea identity or a
character of the country, the real country, which i'll elaborate
on in just a moment, reintegrates into the state. Now,
some people would refer to that as a kind of cromwellianism.
I think in many ways that's probably what it will
look like. But that is nonetheless where we stand today.
So we are, in other words, at the end of pluralism.
We're at the end of this period of disintegration, and
now we're entering into a period of integration in which
the state and the people, the ethnos, the national identity
are going to recombine. And part of that will be
a modernization project. It will also terminate, it will end
the constitutional order. The constitutional order, as far as I'm concerned,
is over and something new is going to replace it.
So with that, I'll sort of pause and just see
if you have any questions for me.
Speaker 1: I mean I could that was a lot, so I
could start anywhere. Start at the end. Uh, if it's over,
so are we A lot of people will say that
we've exited the idea of consensus and now we're in
a post consensus kind of rule. Like anyone who anyone
who's going to be elected, anybody who's going to govern,
is going to govern assuming the consensus, but really not
really caring, basically thinking this is what needs to be done.
So I'm going to do this and basically tell their
base this is what's being done. So we're we're we're
in a post consensus world. It's not about to put
it in in a way that what I always said
was I said that if we're not careful, we're going
to or that we may be entering into an age
of authority, of authoritarianism, and we're going to get left
wing authoritarianism or right wing authoritarianism. If that's going to happen,
you hope for right wing authoritarianism, but be prepared for
left wing authoritarianism. And to me, that's authoritarianism is hard
to define. It's different. People are going to define it
different ways, but basically it's going to be post consensus.
Is what is that sort of the way you're looking
at the future?
Speaker 2: Not really, I would describe. I think you're right in
the sense that you're describing a transitional period. There's a
book that I read years ago. Believe it or not.
I read it in graduate school. And I say that
because I was forced to read it and Judith Butler
in the same class. How that happened, I'm sure, I
don't know. But it was called A State of Exception,
which is written by an Italian named Giorgio Agaman. Are
you familiar to that book, I'm not. Okay, it's an
excellent book. It's one you should do on your show.
But in that book he talks about the state of exception,
where the rule of law or the legacy authority breaks
down and you get a period of succession. Now, I've
said repeatedly on the backlash, and I've said it on
other interviews that I've done, and I'm not sure a
lot of people understand what the hell I'm talking about because
there's this fixation on succession, in other words, fragmentation, Balkanization,
et cetera, et cetera. But actually it's the sort of
constitutional order that's going to crumble. Now. I think that
means transition, and that will be a difficult time to
be sure, and just to be clear with you, because
a lot of people, you know, when I have these discussions,
it's sort of like hard to imagine, what are you
talking about. We have a debt crisis right now, a
debt crisis for which there is no answer. A lot
of people will tell you there's an answer, that there
are certain incremental reforms we can make. Now we're going
to default, and that's the answer. That is the right an.
So that's the way the game ends. We need to default,
we need to declare new currency. In a sense, that's
what we're going to do with the constitutional order. We're
going to sort of default on that order and we're
going to create a new order on top of it. Now,
when these things happen, if you go back to I
suppose the French Revolution might be might be an example
of this, the character of the nation really comes to
the fore. So another book that I think addresses as
well written by Gustaf Lebon It's called The Crowd, and
in that book he says that the character of people
really comes to the surface during crisis, when you get
these moments of distress and disarray, and all of a
sudden there's a coagulant that happens. Now, I would argue
that that's metaphysical, that it's spiritual, but that there's a connection, Peter,
between you and me and all of the other people
in this country who are real Americans, and that will congeal.
Now I've said that we will congeal into a neo Leviathan. Again,
Leviathan is sort of a pejorative term, but I don't
look at it that way, in part because Hobbs didn't
look at it that way. Hobbs was initially talking about
kings or monarchs either. He was talking about a new
authority that would emerge to fill the vacuum. I think
that new authority is already a mergent, that it's already
beginning to flesh itself out. You're an example of that.
It's happening in the alternative media, it's happening in the
red pill community. It's happening in the cryptosphere. All of
these are new expressions of a mass mobilization that has
yet defined its order. But that's where we're headed now.
That will almost certainly result in appointing people that are Cromwellian.
Now to address one of your fears, which is a
legitimate fear, is okay, well, why wouldn't that Cromwellian be
a neo Lenin And this is something I've talked about too.
I don't think that's the way it's going to go
because during the period of pluralism the left and frankly,
these terms just don't really mean anything anymore anyway. I
would say it's globalism and it's nationalism. That's it. That
sort of dichotomy died. I think over the last five
to ten years it's just dead. And that's why you
see these sort of bizarre alliances that blur these lines.
You're getting something different, something that's integrative. But the left
over the last fifty to eighty years has one They've
won everything. They control all of the institutions of power,
and I would say the elites that dominate the institutions
of power, which I really refer to as the gerontocracy
or the financial elites. They're completely degenerate. And I don't
mean that they're immoral. What I mean is that they're incompetent,
that they no longer know how to operate the machinery
of government, that they are bankrupt, and to some degree
you see this in the Trump administration. By the way,
I would not characterize Trump as part necessarily of what
we are describing at all. Trump is trying to conserve
the pluralistic order, which is why he is failing. It's
not just that the institutions behind him don't want the
manifestation of a sort of nationalist agenda. It's not just that.
It's also that Trump really has no idea what the
hell I'm even talking about. He doesn't sense the moment
that we're in, and he thinks that he became president
because of himself, not because there's some transcendent movement that's
pushing us in the direction that I'm describing. But the
point is, I don't think it's going to be the left.
The left is sort of withered on the vine. Now
people will say, well, yeah, but it hasn't the right
experience of saying yes, yes it has. And most of
my commentary Peter, I don't even mention politics. I didn't
even mention Trump because what's happening politically is irrelevant. The
invisible forces, things like nationalism, things like masculinity, neo masculinity.
There's an now chemical transformation that's happening that's explosive. This
is feeding what I would say revolutionary ideas on the
right or in the nationalism that's happening not just in
the United States, but in Canada, it's happening in Europe.
It's happening across Europe, by the way. And I say
that in part because I've been to a lot of
these countries and I met with a lot of these folks.
But the short of it is that these sort of
revolutionary ideas, one of which is that democracy doesn't work anymore,
that the constitutional order is broken. Another is that we
have a Zionist problem that we have to deal with
a sort of Jewish intellectualism that has acted like a
cancer in our society. And thirdly, I would say, is
race realism that is beginning to scale. And yes, it's
scaling in some ways that are a bit idiosyncratic, that
produce these sort of culture personalities, but we're transitioning to
a much more extreme, much more mobilized form that I
think is poised to sort of take back control. One
other point here, so I can give you to a
crystal clear example of this, because again a lot of
that's sort of vague talk, but what I'm not talking
about is necessarily a candidate that shows up in some
remarte part of the country and says, okay, well, this
is my platform. That's what I'm going to do. As
much as you're going to see a network effect sort
of like what you see with bitcoin, in which you've
got all of these communities, corporate structures, financial organizations that
can yeal into a bigger movement, and Peter you and
I are part of it. That's what the backlash is
a part of in my view, and that's what this
sort of vanguard ism is part of. So hopefully that
answers your question. In other words, succession not succession, integration
not disintegration, and are reimagining of the country. And just
one last point on this too, because I think this
is really important. Yes, I am of the Founding Ethos,
Yes my family's Anglo Protestant, but Peter you and I
are the same and nationalism creates a new thing that
blends the modern with the traditional, and I think that
is white nationalism and Christian nationalism, which is certainly not
the same today as it was in the seventeenth century.
But we are Americans, and that new American national identity
is what's going to take power.
Speaker 1: What do you see as the high culture of that
what is it based upon.
Speaker 2: I saw a little bit of your interview on the
backlashing you were asked to You were asked that question,
I think by Rebecca, and then you mentioned I can't
remember if it was in response for later on, but
you talked about themisticals I'm sorry, not themistically as Thucidides
and the history of the Peloponnesian War. One of the
things that he talks about in the creation of the
Athenian state is the Periclean building project, which was sort
of instantiating the or memorializing the victories that Athens had
won against Persia, and of I don't know, encompassing this
sort of broader, this newly formed Athenian identity. It's going
to be something like that. In other words, it's going
to be the product of the conflict that we're going
into this sort of racial cultural conflict, and I think
you'll probably see new art forms. You'll probably see, as
I said, a blend of sort of traditionalism with modernism,
or a return to family values, a return to traditional
gender norms. But it won't be the past. It will
be some kind of synthesis with the modern world that
we live in. So the answer your question is, I'm
not sure exactly what it's going to be. I think
we're in a state of becoming, not being. But whatever
it's going to be, it will be the product of
the conflict that we're fighting.
Speaker 1: So one thing that I've noticed with start helping to
start a group three years ago, the Old Glory Club,
which is just the fraternity of Ben. And one thing
I noticed was after we started doing live streams, we
started getting our name out there and we had our
first conference that the response of people men who wanted
to join was so overwhelming that we could I mean,
it was, and it's every one of them to a man.
There are some who you know, want to concentrate nationally,
maybe you know, maybe think about what the culture, what
the culture looks like nationally, but as far as organization goes,
they seem to really care about where they are, where
they came from, and you know, preserving that is is
that something you see going forward?
Speaker 2: I do, and I think that's very scalable. The only
distinction I would make is that part of what's going
to happen is the vision sort of that I've outlined here, Peter,
in a sense that we need parent organizational structure that
can scale that. So again, it's important not to dismiss
the way your opposition functions. You know, if you look
if you go back to the nineteen sixties and you
look at this sort of slow takeover of our institutions,
most of it started in the financial system, then it
spread to the law schools, then it spread to sort
of these public action groups, all of which exists today
and have taken over the system completely, which is why
it's broken. It's why the system doesn't work anymore. We
need to replicate that we need parent organizations, financial organization.
These are things that I'm at present working on constructing
so that we can consume, or rather subsume all of
the things that you're describing into a bigger movement. Now
we're not there yet, which is what you're seeing is
sort of at the tactical level. It's this sort of
spontaneous reorganization. It's going to start to, I think, explode.
It's going to hit that network effect. And I say
that because I think the racial problem is hitting a threshold.
I think it's becoming apparent to even those that are
desperately trying to avoid it, that we're in trouble. I
see this with Frenchmen, I see it with Germans. I
see it with white Americans, whether they live in Alabama
or they live in Seattle, Washington. I was up in Vancouver,
Canada earlier this year, and Canadians get a terrible rap,
as you know, for being sort of these naive gumbies
that have no idea what the hell is going on.
I was shocked at the level of awareness of what
of the situation that Canada faces. But the frustration, Peter,
and I'm sure you've experienced this at your level too,
is okay, Well, I understand more or less what's happening.
What the hell do I do about this? Because there's
nobody to vote for, there's no political party that represents
me anymore. What can I do? And that is where
organizations like yours come into the fray. I just think
that's going to scale into a national movement. What will
facilitate that a crisis? And we are entering into an
atomic bomb of financial destruction. And I think very shortly
we're going to be in a major war overseas, and
we can talk about that as well. But if you
look at what's happening in Eastern Europe, and you look
specifically at the Middle East, I find it very difficult
to imagine how we are going to divest from the
Zionist war machine that appears to have captured Donald Trump
in his administration, more so this time than they did
last time. We're going to be committed, and I think
you're going to see shocking things. You're going to see
US naval ships sunk and potentially thousands of US sailors killed.
In part because of the obsolescence that I talked about earlier,
the US military is a shadow of what it once was.
And all you have to do was talk to veterans,
or talk to the rank and file that are you know,
white men in particular, sort of get them, corner them
in private, and they'll tell you how bad it is.
Of course, you can also look at the industry and
all the rest of it. But the point is that
it's going to shock psychically the consciousness of the country,
which still believes no matter how bad things are in
Saint Louis, or you know how apocalyptically they are in
Seattle where you have a drug epidemic, or how many
illegal immigrants we've got, well, we still got the military,
We've still got the world reserve currency. We've still got
these pillars of patriotism. That's going to sort of disintegrate,
and I think we're very close to something disastrous like
that happening. One other comment on that, though, is that
that's a good thing. We need to skew the world
reserve currency. That has been a cancer. It has destroyed
the middle class in this country. It has financialized our economy,
as you put it, It has de industrialized the United
States in ways that have crippled us and specifically men
since the nineteen seventies. How do we fix that, Well,
we need to definancialize. We need a financial crisis that's
going to purge the system so that we can reconstruct it.
There is no way Trump or Silicon Valley or Wall
Street can allocate capital in a grift machine called the
stock market, or the procurement system or Silicon Valley VCS.
It's impossible. Under the current regime. It cannot be done.
And I don't mean the Trump administration. I mean the
structure of the US economy. It simply cannot be done.
The fiscal financial disaster that I think we're in the
throes of will clear that path, and then we can
get back to the business of rebuilding the grid, of
industrial policy and all the rest of it. And obviously
that will couple with the reintegration of the country politically.
All these things sort of move together. Trump, in other words,
is the last one. He's James Buchanan before the Civil
He's Charles the First before the English Civil War. He
is Louis the sixteenth before the French Revolution. And I
do I do think it's interesting that in each of
those cases, those men weren't really bad men. They may
not have been terribly competent, but they didn't really wish
harm on their nations. But they caught. They were caught
in a torrential downpour. And so is Trump.
Speaker 1: All right, let's talk about Europe. Then. I've been of
the opinion that right now, if we were to look
at any look around the world. It seems that our enemy,
for reasons that most people don't know or can't articulate,
is the EU, the World Economic Forum, the City of London,
and all of the Zionist influence and control they have
over the levers of power in Europe. I see Europe
as our enemy right now. I think they're trying to
pull us into a war. I think they're willing to
go to war with Russia in order and suffer catastrophic
losses in order to try to get us involved. And
I think they're willing to provoke Russia to use nuclear
weapons to make a point. I think they're suicidal. I
think that a lot of I think that nihilism has
set in in many in many people of their reports
that I get from people that I know in Europe,
especially especially on the British Isle, I don't see how
any other spot in the world is as dangerous to
us as a people right now as Europe and all
of their all of their neo communists Bolshevik bs that
they're trying that they're trying to pull on basically the
world right now.
Speaker 2: Yes, the situation in Europe is not particularly good. I
was in I've been to Paris twice in the last
three years, and I was fortunate because when I was
When I was there, you know, France is like a
black hole because very few people outside of France speak French.
The French still regard themselves as sort of the center
of the universe, and that kind of pomposity tends to
turn a lot of people off. But but I think
the French are sort of the vanguard of what's coming
in Europe. A lot of people will say it's it's Germany,
but I don't think so. I think it's France. And
when I was there, basically what they said is in
a sense, what you did that the entire political system.
And I spoke to journalists, I spoke to a French general,
I spoke to a sort of independent Charles de goaal
like party that wanted to completely jettis in the EU,
wanted to exit NATO. You know, in the French throughout
their histories. I'm sure you know, I have never really
trusted the EU anyway. De Goal certainly didn't, and I
think the average Frenchman on the street does not. However,
the elites in France, just like the elites here, are
completely brain dead. The state in France is bankrupt, their
army is hollowed out. They practically don't have one. Neither
do the Germans. By the way, neither do the Brits.
They really don't have military power whatsoever, but because of
the banking interests. Because I think I would flip it.
I don't think it's Europe that's the enemy. I think
it's the angle. I would reframe it as it's the
city of London and Wall Street that's the twin pillar,
and through them everything is orchestrated. And again, historically speaking,
what we're about to see is the end of the
Anglo American Empire. We just inherited the British Empire. Basically
at the end of World War Two, the pound became
the dollar, but the city of London and Wall Street
together remained the twin pillars of global finance and through
that network control everything. So that's the way I see it.
I know Tom, I think his name is Tom Luongo
sort of sees it. They reversed. I don't think so.
And what I saw a lot of when I was
in Europe was sort of looking to the United States
all the time to do this, that and the other.
In any case, France itself, even though the political system
is completely gone. The National Rally, for example, is not
a revolutionary party, okay, just like Donald Trump and MAGA.
It's sort of a facade. And many of her or
the a f D, I mean, the a f D
is not I think the a f D is a
little bit better, a little bit. Yeah, But to your point,
I don't see any of these parties necessarily being able
to mass mobilize on the level that you and I
would like. Okay, so I would agree with you there.
But the situation on the street tactically, economically, racially is
it's a disaster. I mean, Paris is a it's not governable.
And the French that I would say, the pillars of
state governance feed the population, shelter the population, protect the population,
those core competencies are not there. But the elites who
have been restaffed over the last fifty years in the
wake of the Second War and infused with this sort
of cancerous Bolshevism that you speak of, the globalism, you know,
whatever you want to call, it's all the same shit. Basically,
all they know how to do is virtue, signal and
grift off an Ever shrinking pile of money that's leveraging
a financial system that's completely bankrupt, and so there are
fires all over Europe, basically financial fires, economic fires, refugee fires,
and nobody's putting them out. And so you're seeing this
sort of slow meltdown, and I think the Russian plan
to some degree. I think the Russians have held back
in Ukraine hoping that the European Union that NATO would
sort of internally fragment. Now that hasn't happened yet, but
I think the likelihood that something like that happens is imminent,
or rather very high and potentially imminent because of the
fiscal mess. However, there is no question that there will
be no political change in Europe whatsoever until there is
some kind of a disaster. In other words, Europeans are
doubling down on all of the craziness that you speak of.
They absolutely, I mean they're mobilizing forces in Estonia and
absolutely they're trying to drag us in. Donald Trump, I think,
is at least wise enough to recognize that any war
biproxy or otherwise, if it escalates from here, would be
a disaster not just for the world but for him.
I think he understands that. But we're in sort of
a race against time, is the way I would look
at it. Does the financial disaster, does the sort of
social economic structure or fabric of Europe collapse first? Or
do you get this sort of war, of real war
that brings it about. I don't know, it could go
either which way. What I do know is that the
average Frenchman, the average German, the average Italian wants absolutely
nothing to do with it, and they are increasingly upset, angered, frustrated.
But they're getting their benefits, they're still getting their welfare payments,
they're still getting their days off, and I'm sad to say,
like a lot of Americans, like the baby boomers, who
collect their pensions and get their four to one K
of returns and their dividends, they're just not going to
move at scale in mass until their pocketbook is hurt directly.
My bed is I think the financial mess is going
to unfold first, but we could get both.
Speaker 1: We'll have to see what becomes of the racial situation here.
Speaker 2: I think it's coming to a head. I think it's
increasingly unavoidable. That means some kind of violence. How severe
is that violence going to get. I don't know. I
would point out that I had the fortunate I had
the good fortune, Peter, of growing up in extremely diverse environments,
that's what you want to call it. I went to
McClain High School where whites were a minority, this twenty
years ago, okay. And you would go into the lunch
room and you would see the Chinese totudents and the
Japanese students we had some, and you would see the Malaysians,
and you would see the Pakistani kids in the palace.
I mean again, the sort of organization that you speak of.
And then you'd see the tables where the white folks
would gather. That's sort of what is happening nationally, something
I think you talked about. But the white population has
sort of retreated and retreated and retreated. It hasn't reorganized
in any sense other than I guess you could say.
The Tea Party would start in twenty ten, and it
was not to address this, but it was there. The
specter of it was there, and then of course Donald
Trump twenty sixteen, but it never sort of got off
the ground or got beyond the sloganeering, the marketing of
somebody like Donald Trump. That's going to change. If the
pension system blows up, if the fiscal crisis explodes, if
Bank of America fails. You know, these sorts of things happen.
If we end up in a war with Iran, if
we end up committing force is to Ukraine. I think
you're going to see a revolt the likes of which
we've never seen before. And I understand that that's very
hard for people to imagine because they sort of see
a complacent country, a nation of people that are doped
up on fentanyl or people that are sort of lethargic,
and all they do is consume the dopamine hits. But
I have to tell you, in my experience at least
across this country and what's happening online, what's happening in
this sort of these masco networks as I call them,
in the Groyper movement, in sort of I would say
extreme maga is a fire of consciousness, and I do
think that's bleeding into the broader population. What happens when
the economic mess, the geopolitical mess, begins to affect people
on the street. What happens when you see more violence
against white people. That's when I think you're going to
start to see more mass mobilization. I think we're getting
closer to that, but we've got a ways to go.
The good news is I think there's a framework, which
is what I've talked about on all of my content,
which is a sort of neo masculinity, this reimagined hyper conscious,
you know, nationalistic sense that's on the edge. This is
not necessarily mainstream at all, but it's on the edge,
and it's going to pull I think the rest of
the population in that direction. As I said, I just
don't think we're there yet. In other words, the Cold
War of sorts that began in the sixties is about
to get hot, and I think that's going to wake
a lot of people up very quickly.
Speaker 1: Do you see localized, not you know, widespread, but localized
pockets of violence happening?
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, absolutely. Look I think a lot of this
has already happened. There's certainly been a crime wave that's
coming to the country, as we've seen tens of millions
of illegals come into the United States, and anybody that
goes into some of these areas you can already see
the sort of Dekenzian squalor and the lawlessness that's already there.
And what I always point out to people is like, yeah,
that's there, but what you're not seeing is what's holding
it together. And I say, what do you mean, Well,
it's the food stance, it's the social security, it's all
of these sort of emergency programs that were started decades
and decades and decades ago. You start losing those programs
all of a sudden, you're in big trouble. And then
you have to consider the decline of our sort of
paramilitary police forces, you know, our ability to govern the country,
which is exactly like Europe. We're certainly not in the
position they are by any means, but our ability to
sort of quell what I see as anarchy in a
lot of the big cities. I don't think that's going
to be a problem that's going to get solved overnight
by any means. So I think it's coming. I think
it's probably necessary, sadly, but I think that will revitalize,
It will wake up the population who will essentially do
what you've done, reorganize and re engage.
Speaker 1: From a metaphysical standpoint, what's happening right now?
Speaker 2: You know, I made a video a few months ago
about I think I called it the three fathers, and
it was a reference to Joseph Campbell quote in which
he said, every man has two fathers. You have the
biological father that raises the child, that teaches him the
basics in the world, that shepherds him to sort of adolescence.
And then you have the mentor, and the mentor teaches
him about climbing the social hierarchy, you know, learning his skill,
assimilating into a world of power dynamics of different genders,
of corporate politics, that sort of thing. But I've said
that there's a third father, and that third father is
basically the nation. It's the hero of the nation. It's
when you go to Europe and you see Stephanus Rex
in Budapest, that is effectively the father of the nation.
We don't have that father anymore in the United States,
and you could make the same case for the Europeans,
I suppose, and that has left men. And I think
this process began in the nineteen eighties. I really think
it started then because that's when the de industrialization of
the country really started to kick in a gear. And
so much of male power derives from economic output. It
derives from having a good job, generating revenue, buying a home,
creating a kingdom, and then bringing a woman into that,
having a family, et cetera, et cetera, And that paradigm
basically stopped in the eighties. And you can actually look
at a chart of per capita income and the group
that's been hurt the most since the nineteen seventies is
white men had been crushed. Okay, And obviously financialization has
played a role in that. My generation, and I'm a millennial,
about forty so millennials younger, we were further smashed by
the global financial crisis in two thousand and eight, which
basically terminated our or stunted, if not terminated, our ability
to accumulate wealth anywhere near our parents, never mind gen x. Okay.
In fact, I saw a statistic, I've seen a statistic
that's it's been talked about for the last few years,
but basically, the baby boomers owned something like fifty to
fifty five trillion dollars in assets and millennials own about five.
Now we're just now entering into our income earning potential peak.
But we are the ninjas, no income, no jobs, no assets,
and we're not married gen Z has gone through the
same thing because of COVID. So both of these events
accelerated what started in the eighties with the industrialization. Then
you can superimpose on top of it this complete distortion
in the sexual marketplace, which a lot of people just
do not talk about enough because they really don't understand
what the hell is happening there. But about a third
of men under thirty are having no sex, they have
no female activity connection at all, period. And an even
higher percentage of men has a sort of warped relationship
with the opposite sex. And these are sort of the
sexless men, many of whom are consuming our content. They're
watching my content, they're watching your content, and their household
is broken or their fathers emasculated because of feminism. Right,
So there's all of these things that are sort of
congealing together. And what men have been doing, I would
say what has happened to us is we've been set
into this sort of hero's journey where we've been forced
to tough it out, to eat through the propaganda, to
see through a lot of the illusions, you know, to
see the other side of the matrix. Because the American
dream for us is a fraud because the government is
completely corrupt, because the opposite gender seems to be interested
in destroying everything we believe in, including us. And the
good in that is that we're burning through all of
the lies that have been institutionalized since the nineteen forties,
and we are radicalizing now again. Radicalization can be a
dangerous thing, to be sure, but that is what's happening psychically,
metaphysically in young men. We are figuring this out, which
is why there is tremendous hunger for your organization and
the content that you make among others. What they want
is purpose, and this sort of reconstruction, as I call it,
the succession, is their purpose. It's their mission, and I
think they're beginning to figure that out. That we've got
to repair the damage that was done to us, and
that means some of us, a good chunk of us,
will never marry, we'll never have children, but it will
be our focus to get engaged in this sort of
spiritual battle. So as far as I can tell, it's
a hero's journey, and we have had to sort of
descend the spiritual mountain. We've had to tough it out,
and where we're now, I think beginning to climb out.
That's where I think we are.
Speaker 1: I think I saw clearly after October seventh that something
was going to change, especially when I saw the response
by Israel, which was basically they started their own program.
How is that going to change things? We know, I
know my history of the last two thousand years. I
know my history, especially of the last one hundred and
fifty years. Whenever they start talking about, oh, we need
laws against anti Semitism or we need to punish people
who criticize Israel, usually the reason they're doing that is
because they see that the numbers of their support are dropping.
And they also one thing that they've never seen before
is social media and how you can see in real
time how even though it may be a fake name
and a frog profile pick, they're calling you out for
being monsters. They're calling you out for being subverters. They're
calling you out for having oversized influence in our government.
You know what our you know what our ancestors fought
the country, our ancestors actually served and fought for. How
does this play out? Because right now I know that
a lot of the people who watch me, I'm not
one of these people. It's like if they come for me,
they come for me, I'm what am I going to do?
You know? I mean, I'm not going to sit here
and complain. I'm not going to sit here and be scared.
I'm just going to live my life. If they want
to come here, if they want to come after me
for things, I say, that's fine. But you know, there
are a lot of people who are like consider them
to be these superheroes who control everything. Yes, and they
do not see the fact that they are. They are
at they're at their wits end. They don't know what
to do when they're acting, when they're saying, oh, we
need to kill all these people every you know level
the place they think that's coming from a place of strength, yes,
and that I don't know how to tell. I don't
know how to communicate to people, especially younger people who
are in situations just like you describe that that's not
coming from a place of strength. That's coming from a
place of weakness. And wounded animals are very dangerous. But
that's exactly what we're dealing with now. The whole Zionist
international Jewelry Jewish world influence is taking a hit and
is diminishing, and I don't know how to make people.
I don't know how to help people to see that
the way I see it.
Speaker 2: They'll see it when the Israelis suffer or military defeat,
which I think they will in short order. And I
think they're also going to see it. And we got
a taste of this in two thousand and eight. You
probably remember the Occupy Wall Street. Well, it strikes me
is the ultimate irony that perhaps the epicenter of the
JQ discussion has been the left for the longest time,
I mean, and only recently has that sort of transition
to people that think like us. Listen, I'm so glad
you brought this up and said what you did, because
you're exactly right. What transpired in October, as you noted,
is I think the beginning of the end of the
Jewish state. And I think it's entirely of their own doing,
entirely their own doing. And I'm not the only one
who's saying this. I think they're actually a growing number
a minority, absolutely, but a growing number of Israelis, particularly Ashkenazi's,
that are saying this. One of whom is Eleon Poppy.
I don't know if you know who he is, but
of course, he's a brilliant man, and he has I
think accurately characterized a delineation between what he calls the
state of Judea, which is the ben Kavir Net Yahoo
Smotrich Mithrahi wing that wants total war to reassert the
dominance of Zionism in the region and the world.
Speaker 1: And let's just add real quick, the oshkar If Ashkinazi,
if Oshkinazi high IQ is true, that does not transfer
to the Mizrahi, right, That's why the average that's why
the average IQ in Israel is ninety two or ninety
three and not one hundred and ten.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very interesting you mentioned that because, according to
Lean Pape, something like seven hundred thousand to a million Oshkinazis,
who are more or less the technocrats that are instrumental
in the Israeli economy, defense government, they've left the country
since October of twenty three, and a lot of that
is because they resist the State of Judea, which, according
to Pape, and I'm not an expert on the state
of Israel, but I think he's probably correct, has become
a radicalized militant Zionism, not just externally but domestically, and
then the other side is sort of the state of
Jerusalem that we're or the state of the Israel rather
that we're familiar with since the nineteen forties. That project
is at an end. Now, what's interesting about this and
I am going to answer your question about how to
address this broader exaggeration of the financial powers that be. Unfortunately,
there's a lot of people like Whitney Webb, who does
good work in a sense, you know, she draws out
a lot of these connections, but continuously asserts the idea
that these people are maestros that are controlling everything. That's
just absurd. And anybody that has participated, and that's why
I said at the beginning, I am a practitioner who's
worked for companies, who's been in the military. It doesn't
work that way. There is this thing called friction that
Cloudswitz talked about. It's this uncertainty that human systems are chaotic,
they're nonlinear, they're unpredictable. It's very difficult to control outcomes.
It's not difficult to subvert, it is difficult to control.
And there is a delineation between the two, and a
lot of people conflate subversion with competency. They are not
the same thing, and subversion ultimately destroys the subverter right,
which is to some degree what's happening with Israel. In
any case, what is happening as far as I can tell,
not just in the United States, by the way, but
around the world. And it's just happening in China, it's
happening in India. The awareness of the JQ, if you will,
has broken containment. It's out of the bag. Everybody knows.
Everybody's talking about it. Some may be quiet about it,
some may be public whatever, but concealing it it's over.
At the same time, however, that group has more control
of the US government today than I think they've ever had.
And this is a very important point for your audience
to understand because it explains why net Yaho's doing what
he's doing. Net Yahoo is a warmonger. He is a
war criminal, of course, but we must understand why he
thinks the way that he does. His view is, Look,
I've got control of Congress and ways I've never had before.
I have the Wall Street elites behind me, I've got
Silicon Valley and the sort of mythos, the mystique of
Israel is this unassailable force that has been tarred, that
has been damaged. I've got to reassert it. Now is
the time to cleanse the local space of all enemies,
foreign and domestic. And that is what he is doing.
And of course he views the couter, he views the
apotheosis of that to be Iran, which is a big mistake. However,
and this relates to what's changed in the world since
two thousand. There's been a global shift in power around
the world. The United States doesn't have the military supremacy
that it once did. It doesn't have the industry that
it wants to. It doesn't have the homogeneous white population
that you can send to Normandy that it once did.
This is something that Yahoo doesn't understand. By the way,
I'm told that the Israeli Defense Force is similarly debilitated,
that it is a shell of what it once was,
and of course it is. Why do I say that,
well in parts, because well.
Speaker 1: I mean think about think about that too, But think
about our military. Our military has been recruiting I mean
dregs of society. And when I say drugs of society,
I'm not talking about you know, poor white people. I'm
talking about trans people. Israel Is is one of the
gayest nations on the planet, and they have and they
have compulsory or a conscription.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: Who are they bringing in there?
Speaker 2: Yep?
Speaker 1: But what does this look like? I mean, these aren't
These aren't the fierce fighters anymore that I used to
read about from the sixties and the seventies, or you know,
even like the Stern Gang and you know, Airgoon, Stern
Gang and Airgoon would be executing what would be throwing
these people out of the country, if if not worse
they can't Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're exactly right. And I would go step further
and here, you know, to some degree, I'm a student
of military history. The nineteen seventy three war was not
as it's portrayed. These Reelis almost lost that war. They
were surprised, particularly by the Egyptians. They never expected them
to cross the Suez Canal, and of course, as soon
as they did, they just stopped. What would have happened
if they'd kept going. Now, I'm not suggesting necessarily that
they would have lost. What I'm suggesting is it was
a lot closer than than people realized, and that the
Israelis miscalculated. And this is a recurring theme in the
people that we're dealing with, which is the overarching point
that you're trying to address. The Zionists thinking, which is
something I've spent a lot of time on, really understands
finance and finance is not economy. Those are two fundamentally
different things. Economy is about human capital. It's about industry.
It's about putting things in the ground. It's about cranks,
and tanks don't know anything about that. Financialization is about
arbitrage rights, it is about leverage. It's it's about currency manipulation.
That has nothing to do with economy and what happens.
So a lot of people in the financial system who
are of this mindset is they sort of lose eventually
because they can't see real value. Everything to them is
sort of this made up fugazi It's very much what
you hear from Michael Dougla in Wall Street. It's an
illusion that they repackage again and again. That's what you
see in private equity. Right in two thousand and eight,
it was CEOs collateralized debt obligations. Today it's collateralized liability obligations.
Same thing, just done differently different tranches of crap that
they've repackaged, and this time they're selling into pension funds.
That's not economy, that's not real wealth, but they think
it is. At in the same breath, I would say
that they don't really understand nations. They think that things
like nationalism, that things like masculinity they're made up, they're constructs.
There's nothing real about them. And as a result, they
can sort of bully people, they can kill people indiscriminately.
Nobody's going to do anything, and that's their view of
the Arabs, is that all will kill as many of
these few it doesn't matter. What I've talked about is
I think you're seeing the rise of Asabia in the
Middle East, which is the sort of coagulation of this
Islamic consciousness that's bringing Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, all of these. Now,
I'm not suggesting that they're all going to sort of
congeal together in one monolithic army. That's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that the chess board is changing,
that positioning is shifting, and Israel is very isolated, and
as I said, they've done it to themselves. One other
thing to note on this. In twenty sixteen, when Donald
Trump won, I was in Washington, DC, and over ninety
percent of the DMV area that's DC, Maryland and Virginia
voted for Hillary Clinton. And they were convinced with religious
conviction that Trump had absolutely no chance. Was it was
a joke, the idea that he could win, and that
the only people who followed Trump were sort of fifty
year old racist white men. There was nothing. You probably
remember this. When Trump won, the DC area was catatonic.
I mean they were completely at a loss, couldn't understand
it at all. And a lot of that is because
of the Zionists thinking, right, well, we already won those battles.
We control the media, we win, we have more infrastructure,
we have more ground people, you remember this and Trump's
Trump's campaign was a mess. It was, it wasn't well organized.
He in many ways got lucky. He wrote a wave
of people that supported him in spite of his sort
of incompetence is the way I would describe it. Anyway.
They then said, okay, well how did this happen? They
came up with there's an organization called data in Society.
One of these stupid nonprofits. And they wrote a paper
called the Alternative Influence Network, and that was guess what YouTube?
Twitter is all these people, people like Stefan MOLINEU Fantees whatever. Anyway,
So they said, okay, well this is why Trump won.
So let's smash let's censor everybody. Let's get him off
of YouTube, get him off Twitter. Well, guess what here
we are didn't work. It has changed nothing. And the
act of sense ship, it's caused a reverse feedback group.
You would think they would understand this, but they don't
understand the host within which they operate. They don't They
don't understand the invisible forces, the metaphysical properties that are
the most powerful things that drive humanity, that win wars,
that build economies, that create new civilizations. They don't anything
about it.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna cut this right now. I
have another I have another obligation, but I want to
leave it open. If you thought that we had a
good conversation, for you to come back on and let's
talk some more, because this is this is just the
beginning of a conversation. So and these are the kind
of conversations that I like to have. I mean, one
of the things I like to say is is that
the reason why I cover philosophy and I cover history
and I cover what you know what, my wife won't
watch because she's just like, I mean, this is so
esoteric I can deal with it. Is because most most
people don't know what they are. They don't know where
where they should be, they don't know what they believe,
they don't know what right wing is. They they think
right wing is, you know, is you know, understanding the JQ,
or they think right wing is you know, being willing,
being willing to fight, or you know, because I have
you know, you know, Viva Franco or something that's not
what it is at all. So you know, having conversations
like that, this I think helps a lot because even
if I don't agree with the wanted to present everything
you said, and people watching don't agree with one percent
everything you said, you're still saying things that have to
be said, and they have to be They're being said
in such a manner and with with your background and
understanding of what's going on, they have to be dealt with,
and they have to be addressed. They have to be considered.
And people who just and I'm one of these people
is I really hope there's no one in my audience
who just dismisses people because they say, oh, he said
something I don't agree with. So it's like, well that,
how can you dismiss me by now because I say
stuff that you're going to disagree with all the time,
you know, So if you're willing to come back on,
I'd like to continue the conversation, but up, and you
know what I will ask is, I know you just
have the YouTube channel. What's the name of the YouTube channel?
And what have you been You know, I've watched a
couple of your latest videos. What can people expect to
find there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so there are three places where you can go
to find me. I should mention the Backlash. Rebecca and
Dave will be upset if if I don't mention.
Speaker 1: That, they'll yell at me. They'll yell at me too.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I am a co host on The Backlash, which
is an effort very similar to what you're doing to
bring people together, to facilitate dialogue, to ventilate new ideas,
new thinking. And part of our mission, by the way,
is to platform people that don't have a lot of followers.
This is something I've been adamant about because it's no
offense to people that have a large following, you know,
good for them. It's very difficult to achieve that, and
they deserve credit for that. But I think we're moving
into a new direction and the backlash is an effort
to facilitate that. That's one you can find that on
Rebecca hard Graves channel Blonde in the Belity of the Beast,
and I think we've got a new backlash YouTube channel
as well, So just go on to YouTube and search
for it. You'll find it. The second is you can
find me on YouTube, at least for the time being, Peter.
We'll see that continues. Neods I can't believe.
Speaker 1: I actually can't believe I'm still on there. But they
demonetized me a long time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, neodesk masculinity or you can type in Cameron
McGregor men in the City. And then thirdly is a
Men in the City substack, which is where as I said,
I put a lot of effort into writing because that
sort of helps me. You may be the same, Peter.
It helps me structure a lot of my thinking. There's
so much discipline that goes into writing. It really builds
that framework. The last thing I'll say is, yeah, I'm
happy to come back on Peter. You're obviously an intelligent person.
Nobody has all the answers. But what I do think
is we can solve the enigma, if you will, the
enigma machine that we're dealing with with leadership, which is
in part what you're talking about, is a facilitating discussion,
pointing people in the right direction, reorienting them based on
real identity, metaphysical, philosophical principles, et cetera, et cetera that
build us, build cohesion, and bind us together. And I
think the biggest thing holding us back, I really do.
I really believe this from the core of my being
is fear of the sort of white consciousness. I think
we're afraid of it. I think it's the jonahcomplex, so
to speak. And I think we're going to get over
that fear because we've been so propagandized against it. We've
been so we've been told for so long that it's
wrong and it's evil and all this other bullshit. And
as I said, I think we're burning through it. And
that is happening in young men, and yeah, some of
them are a bit off the beaten track. You know,
they go too far here, too far there, whatever. But
it is in men on the edge where the pendulum
will swing, and that is my my thesis, my hypothesis,
and I think that will change the world.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate that I need to hear that because
I have a tendency, especially during my live streams, to
yell at the spergs and so I'm to stop spurging
out so.
Speaker 2: I understand this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, but I do have to I do have
to recognize that it's generally coming from a good place
and you know, but there is the perception out there.
I think one of the reasons why I can do
things like two hundred Years Together is because we do it.
We do it from an academic standpoint, and when you
do it from an academic kind of standpoint, I think
places This is what I've been told by people who know,
people who more mainstream, people who you know are on
our side, but try to keep it quiet, is that,
you know. One of the reasons why they may not
want to come after me is because strikes sound effect.
You do not want ten twenty thousand young men hearing
two hundred Years Together by Alexander socialistan.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, and I know you've got to go. I'll
just say this, it's obvious that you know, you're a
literate person and you're an intellectual person, and a lot
of people that are like that are very frustrated right now,
and understandably so, because it's very difficult amidst the chaos.
And I made a video about this. If you're interested,
you know, we can talk about the next time. But
we are in chaos media, and chaos media is fragmentation
because the legacy media has collapsed. It's collapsed, but chaos
media is a transition and we're leaning into authority media.
And I think that's going to be more intellectual, it's
going to have more depth, it's going to have more analysis,
less screaming, less sort of ridiculous exaggeration, hyperbole, whatever. I
think that's the direction that we're going, and I actually
think there's a business case to be made for that,
in other words, sort of marrying the alternative media audience
with a new professional media that rests on a new paradigm,
new thinking, our thinking.
Speaker 1: Awesome, let's talk about that next time. Thank you, Cameron,
Thank you.