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 Pekanyonashow 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 onkindinal philosophy,
it's all because of you. And yeah, I mean, I'll
never be able to thank you enough. So thank you.
The Pekanyonas Show dot com. Everything's there. I want to
welcome everyone back to the Pekanyona show. I got these
two guys back here, Fierrismodad and Ron Dodson. It's September eleventh,
twenty five, and I feel like there is like absolutely
nothing to talk about most of the time.
Speaker 2: Pete.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, obviously, about twenty four hours ago now news
started coming out that Charlie Kirk was shot. Does anybody
want to want to jump in either one?
Speaker 3: Well, Charlie, Charlie, if you if you know, and Charlie
was I tweeted about this. Charlie was not a right
winger by especially as as we would define the term.
He was a kind, uh and engaging conservative in the
in the in the best sense, in the in the
real American sense of trying to conserve a kind of
a legacy of American Christian ideals, and was willing to
talk and debate and do so in a kind way
with all comers. And usually he was successful when his
debates and and and talk, But even when he wasn't,
even when somebody maybe got the upper hand on him,
he was so dignified and kind and uh uh and
you know, so this is a real to me, this
is a real message. You know, who knows who ultimately
was behind this, if it was a uh you know,
trans zeal Or or something more even more nefarious. The
what struck me as if they're willing to do this
to Charlie Kirk, who was honestly a kind, family Christian man,
what are they going to do to somebody who has honest,
honestly wants to reconsider some of the precepts of liberalism.
And uh so, in that way, it's meant to be chilling.
I know both my daughters who live in Austin, Texas. Uh,
I don't know if any I mean, you know, they're
they're down there in school and Austin's a very liberal town,
and they're scared. You know, Dad, you're kind of an
outspoken guy, you know. And I told them, hey, you know,
I don't think you have anything to worry about, but
it's meant it's meant to frighten. This is what terrorism does.
And uh you know, so those are my and and
then my thoughts were just poor Erica. You know, they
obviously a tight marriage with two you know, beautiful young
lady and two neat kids who obviously.
Speaker 2: Love their mom and dad.
Speaker 3: Love their mom and dad. What a tragic story just
from a personal level, and the fact that they were there,
let me, when the.
Speaker 2: Shooting happened, makes it makes it so much worse.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let me challenge you there on something you said, Ron, Yeah,
you said that somebody like you know, somebody who challenges liberalism.
Do you honestly think that these these people are like
they're they're fighting for liberal ideals, like historic liberal ideals.
Speaker 3: Well, I think they're fighting for the the derivative of
liberalism or the natural tell us the end the goal
of liberalism, which is radical egalitarianism and the destruction of
metaphysics that uh and and and and this is my
concern honestly across this the political spectrum is I think
there has to be a metaphysical rooting in in in
whatever you're doing. Good people you know, disagree with that,
but but that I think. So that's what I mean
by uh, the the you know, fighting for liberal ideas.
I just mean that derivative that that pod at the
end of the rainbow, in the sense all all puns
intended uh for liberalism that you know, Charles my Charles
Haywood puts it very well that it's radical egalitarianism. And
you know that that ultimately it ends in neilism, and
yesterday was a neolistic act. That so that's kind of
where I.
Speaker 2: Stand on that fairs go ahead. I mean, I very
much agree with with Ron in that this was a
very rehalistic act and that it was a terrorist act,
and that this was precisely the intention. I'd go a
little bit further. I'd suggest that if you look at
the last few decades, the liberal left has sort of
reached the end of the line because it won everything
It won when it come when it came to cradle
to grave welfare. It won on immigration, it won on homosexuality,
homosexual marriage, got transgenderism enshrined in law and most European countries.
There's a bit of pushback in the States on abortion
on transgenderism, but throughout the West, the battle for the
left is completely won. The issue that they're facing is
that the results of these victories are absolutely abysmal. Racial
hatred has never been higher, with obviously the left and
the minorities and the black community being responsible for a
disproportionate amount of that racial hatred, and of the racial
violence and of the religious violence. Multiculturalism mass immigration have
proven to be completely disastrous. The tolerance of homosexuality didn't
end with live and let live and everybody does whatever
they want in their own bedrooms. It reached the point
of trying to indoctrinate children and even trying to mutilate children.
And therefore they can't achieve anything further through political needs,
and they're slowly beginning to lose in procedural and legal needs.
We saw that in the United Kingdom with them losing
the debate on transgenderism. It turns out that the Supreme
Court in the United Kingdom, a historic aberration created by
Prime Minister Tony Blair, said that no, a man is
a man and a woman is a woman, and you know,
they can't have the same bathrooms, they can't have the
same sports teams, et cetera, et cetera. So, now that
they're beginning to lose, and now that they've reached the
end of the line, they cannot moderate. And part of
the reason that they cannot moderate is because of the
ideologies of intersectionality and allyship. They need to maintain their
coalition and they need to maintain it across the board
because the implications of allyship and and intersectionality are that
you know, we're all in this together, and we saw
an example of it here in the United Kingdom. We're
having the green communist lefties allying with the most radical
Islamists and that immediately led to a conflict over you know, transgenderism,
because the Muslims will never say that a man is
in fact a woman. And the response from one of
the more high profile trans people here in the UK
was to a to a Muslim MP, was that well
if Muslim Pakistani MP was that, well, if you don't
say that I'm a woman, then I will say that
you're not really British. So in a sense, the web
lies that they have is completely interdependent because of the
way they think in terms of intersectionality and allyship, and
the result of that is that they cannot compromise. So
now that they're losing electorally and politically, the only means
that they have is the one that they've always used,
which is violence, and they cannot in fact calm down
and compromise because, as they say to each other in
their own internal fights, if you ditch me, I'll ditch you.
And once that abandonment happens, the whole house of cards
falls apart. So they're stuck escalating, or at least a
big enough radical minority of them is stuck escalating. And
by big enough, when you see some of the more
horrific tweets about the murder of the Martyrdom indeed of
Charlie Kirk, they're getting two hundred thousand likes, They're getting
massive engagement numbers, massive support for staying these absolutely atrocious
things because they're programmed that way. And the ones that
are so severely programmed, I would describe them as demonic,
because they're genuinely possessed by this ideology and they cannot
compromise on it, and they can't win any further politically,
and all of their political victories have turned the world
into a much worse place. But they can't back down,
and therefore they must escalate, and the only escalation pathway
that they have now is more radical violence. So I
think that this is the beginning of a wider trend.
And you see that because you see some people here
in the UK calling for the next assassination, and you
see it in the United States as well. People talk
about killing Pat Walsh, people talking about killing Ben Shapiro,
killing Trump, killing Vans, killing Teal, killing whoever, like they've
got a list of names of people that they want debt,
and so they they don't have another pathway if they
want to remain politically relevant, and they will take that
path of violence rather than give up power or compromise.
Speaker 3: You know, you mentioned interestingly, you said, you know, they've
they've kind of reached the wall of possible victory. I
think they still have. I still think that there's the
the the there's still one thing that they haven't completely
won yet, and that's complete and total emancipation from unchosen bonds,
of which gender is the most obvious gender and race.
And so I think that, but but they think they
can change their That's why I think this is the
tip of the spear. And it wouldn't surprise me if
this was you know, if this was a Zelot, if
it wasn't a you know, uh, one of the John
Brown trans Zelot types. But I think that's kind of
the I agree with you, But I think that's that.
I think that's the battle that's being Sadly, we need
to be fighting these battles way back over this direction,
but that's the battle that's being fought. Is this total
emancipation and and it does go back. Everybody says, oh,
we're kind of in a post Marx post. I don't,
you know, maybe in some ways, but but but Marx
ultimately it was a uh he sought this too, you know,
an emancipation from the family and so and that's the
seat of this reality. Uh and and so.
Speaker 1: What did what did he consider? What did he consider
to be the key fact or to emans to pay
people from the family.
Speaker 3: Oh tell me, Pete, I don't have my I don't
have my marks in front of me.
Speaker 1: Capitalism Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Well Land talks about this, the acceleration and the acceleration
of capital breaks all these bonds down. And that's kind
of my argument on the I mean, we don't need
to jump topics yet, but that's my argument I keep
telling people on the tariff thing is, look, tariffs can
be either employed or just economic borders. And just like
physical borders, they can either be handled poorly, unwisely, or
well and wisely. But you can't ignore the fact that
they exist. But yeah, no, Capitalism as an ism as
a totalizing system is a marx idea as opposed to
free price discovery, which is a Christian idea of equal
scales and measures of the ability to serve my neighbor
by the work of my hands. That's Christian. And so
I think, you know, again, don't I don't want to
leave the topic that we're on, but that's a super point.
Speaker 1: Pete, Well, we can come back to that then. So
you know, I guess one of the things that we
has already been mentioned is the celebration of violence, and
also not only the celebration of violence, but the celebration
of death.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, and you didn't even.
Speaker 1: You really didn't see that in the Soviet Union. They
tried to hide it. You know, arguments can be made
that personally they celebrated it, but it with pretty much
every person possible, every schizo and every ideologue having access
to being able to put a sentence out into the
public and have the possibility of sixty to seventy to
eighty million people seeing it. I think it's it's easy
to say, oh, this is just one person, but I
think you know, Pharos is right. If you put out
there celebrating Charlie Kirk's death, and yeah, I mean just
think back thirty or forty years ago, no one celebrated
the death of somebody unless they were like an absolute monster.
You know, it's like when is Fidel Castro going to
die or something like that. But now it's like you
have people who I mean basically classical liberals who want
to have a conversation with people and want to win
their conversation. Sure, but I mean he was he was
a liberal. I mean, Charlie was a liberal the right,
I mean the poster boy for liberalism, and they shot him.
They killed them because of that, because real liberalism is
fascism to these people.
Speaker 2: So what do.
Speaker 1: You people ask, oh, how did this group rise up?
You know, And Mike Shelby over at Forward Observer has
done a great job of pointing out that whenever you
see right wing authoritarianism rise, it's because a left wing
authoritarianism has already risen, and there's a response that needs
to be had.
Speaker 3: Well, John Locke would be considered. I mean, if you
read Everybody Wants to Sit on you know, some of
the things that we on the right have problems with,
Tabula rossa, so on and so forth, kind of a
regenerative revolution every every with every generation as a result
of that. But but leave all that aside. The rest
of Locke reads very right wing in the sense of
there needs to be a commonality again, a metaphysical common
common set of presuppositions that rule the public square. Otherwise
all this breaks down, and so so the the tenets
of classical liberalism, and again it all leads to this.
So I I don't want to sound like a champion
for class liberalism, because I think it has the seeds
of its own destruction. But if you just read Locke,
Locke would seem like an absolute, you know, right wing
monster to these people because the presuppositions that he's working
with are completely unacceptable, at least in my reading.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think the point that right wing authoritarianism rises
in response to left wing violence or left wing authoritarianism
should be emphasized more. And I think that we saw
that with their reactions from the right to the Martyrdom
of Kirk, which where to sort of try to paraphrase
and summarize them. If you want to kill the classical
liberal who's just there to debate you, that means you
want to do much worse things to us. And if
you're celebrating this murder, then there really is no point
in any further conversation with you.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Arguably there was no point in further conversation from the
time that the demonization started that if you were to
say that different groups of people were genuinely different, that
different nations distinctions should be preserved, that Christianity is the
bedrock of Western morality, you would be described as a
as a as a fascist, as a Nazi, as far right,
as an extremist, et cetera, et cetera. This was the
door to further debate being shut in our faces us
of the right, and Charlie Kirk tried to reopen that
door and to do and and did so in the
most order it gentlemanly way possible, just by having conversations
with the young people who were his age. I mean,
he died when he was thirty one. He was a
very young man, and their reaction was, Okay, we're going
to kill you for this, and then we're going to
celebrate your murder, and then we're going to speculate about
who we must kill next. So this is why this
moment has a different feel to it. It feels like
something completely broke in the possibility of this being resolved
through political discourse, and arguably there was never a way
to politically resolve the difference with the transgender movement, or
the Pride movement, or even with the standard good old Communists.
There was never a way to peacefully resolve this. What's
what my understanding of what you're saying about luck is
is that unless you have a shared theological foundation, you
can't really resolve differences peacefully, right because the value system
that you're using to resolve disagreements is not the same.
And therefore you end up in an Israel Palestine situation
where you're completely talking past each other and you're demonizing
each other endlessly.
Speaker 3: This is why, Yeah, it's existential friends and enemies, yeah
at this point, and it's it's conflicting ways of life exactly.
Speaker 2: And this is why the Church was always so harsh
on heresy, because it understood that if there wasn't a
shared theological foundation, you're not going to have a single
moral authority that allows us to resolve our differences peacefully. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and where and this is where. And everybody talks
about the Inquisition and all that, and in America gets
very anti Catholic. But but the Catholics, I think handled
it very well because it was never about the secrets
of your mind and heart. It was what you were
willing to profess in the public square. It was the Puritans.
And again these were you know, in a sense, my
people as a Presbyterian, But it was the Puritans who
wanted to make it about take it all the way
to the secret of your heart and police to that level.
And then that ultimately can't hold what what what you
have to have is a is a commonality of the
public square. Yes, and what goes on in a sense,
I mean, think about the Torah, in the in the
in the Old Testament, the Old Covenant. You never have
you never have a record, a record of homosexual being stoned.
Now do you think through out the history from Moses
to the destruction of the Temple that there was never
a homosexual in Israel? No? I think that's ludicrous. The
issue was is that that that practice was driven so
far underground, it was out of the public square. You're
not You're never going to be able to to to uh.
Jesus speaks of this, You can't, and Paul speaks of this.
The law doesn't change the heart. The law doesn't justify,
but but it does regulate public behavior. And that's what
we're talking about here. And I think that, uh, this
is why heresy as a public facing thing, the church
in the Continental Church was so concerned about it, because
we have have to have unanimity here. That's why Calvin
in Geneva was so concerned with Miguel Saradas and allowed
him to go to the stake, because the public square
there has to be Hey, we're all playing by the
same rules here exactly.
Speaker 1: That goes for socratess too. Sorry, well, yeah.
Speaker 3: It absolutely does, and that that's a whole nother that
that'd be a fun talk, but yeah, absolutely, And what we.
Speaker 2: Have with wokeness is fundamentally a Christian heresy. What we
have with the far left is very much a Christian heresy.
We have homophobia, racism, slavery, ancestral guilt replacing original sin.
We have glorified particular victims replacing our Jesus Christ. Cancel
culture is simply excommunication because you get canceled for blasphemy,
you don't get canceled for sinned. So if you're an
oil company and you say that I'm pro trance, then
you're sort of forgiven even though you're sinning.
Speaker 3: You have that's blood, that covers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you have an eschatology in the in the climate crisis,
very much so. And it's sort of patterned on Christianity.
It's completely patterned on Christianity. Even transgenderism is a fundamental
claim about the soul that look, it's not my appearance
that matters. There's an inner self, except it's it's sort
of a perverted version of a soul. So that means
that as they stick more close lead to this heresy,
even in the fact, in the face of the of
the reality of it having failed at every level, they
will defend it with violence because it's a it's a
it's a quasi religious belief system. These people must be
seen not as debating partners but as fanatics. And with fanatics,
you can't discuss it with them openly if they believe
that they have a pathway to political power, or if
they believe that there is political power that they must guard.
And that's what they're telling us with the murder of
Charlie Kirk and with the celebration of that murder, that's
the message that they're sending to us.
Speaker 1: Escape classic scapegoat too.
Speaker 2: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 1: It's definitely like a you know, if we can this
one is out there if it is a transhooter. Now
we're saying, but you know, we can we can point
to the shooting at the Catholic church in Minneapolis too
as this if.
Speaker 3: Nashville, Yeah, in Nashville.
Speaker 1: The this trans ideology has basically taking taken on a
a religion of its own. And every religion has to
have if you're going to have a to me in
the West, if you're going to have a legitimate religion,
you have to have a scapegoat. And scapegoating is it's
their version killing someone like Charlie, who's who was so
so outspoken against you know, basically what is mutilation and
turning people into eunuchs. Yeah, if you if you believe
you can put him down, if you believe you can
sacrifice him, maybe it takes away some of your sins.
Speaker 3: Well, it's anti it's so anti human. But because it
removes the ability to produce life, yes, and and that's
a it's truly Antichrist. And uh what I mean by
that is I was just interacting with Dugan on my
I've got a peace coming out an American reformer about this.
But but uh so in in the New Testament, this
term Antichrist is only used by the Apostle John, and
he says that anyone who denies that Jesus came in
the flesh is Antichrist. And then he he frames it
a couple of other ways. But the point there is
is that the one of the huge points of the
of the of the New Covenant is uh. And I
don't want to get turned this into a Bible study,
but but I think it's hugely important here the again,
the metaphysics of it Old Covenant. The Apostle Paul says
the law was administrated by the angelic realm. He calls
it the stoy kaa, this cool Greek term that means
elemental powers or elemental principles and that and this angelic realm, sun,
moon and stars, that kind of thing. And one of
the themes of the New Testament is this is with
Christ as the first fruits man, mankind is taking over
that role. That's kind of the point of the scene
in Revelation with the elders getting up from their twenty
four thrones and casting the crowns, and then a new
set sits down. Those are men who now with Christ
as a man, rule over the over the earth a
waiting for Christ's return, and anti Christ. John is making
the point is in denying that Jesus came in the flesh,
it's denying the continue it's denying that mankind, that humans
are to have taken over this this old covenant role.
That in the New Covenant we have this new creation
that's by man, that we now set the calendar. We
now decide who the rulers are we now and that
and that hopefully is under under Christ tutelage and and
with wisdom, and and so on and so forth. But
these all these this this trans uh movement and these
movements of the radical left really are anti Christ because
they are anti incarnational. There they are denying this wise
incarnational rule and our perversion of it. And and uh,
I think that is I think it all gets back
to uh theology. For me, I'm i'm i'm I'm a
consistent Schmidtian here. I believe that political theology isn't prescriptive.
It's descriptive of of of every situation that we're all little, uh,
you know, theocrats in a sense, we all follow our
understanding of who God is and how He's communicated with us.
And for these and for these champions of this ideology,
it's it's anti Christ and demonic. And I don't mean
that too in a cheap way of saying there's a
demon under every rock and all this kind of thing. No,
I mean this in a very serious intellectual way that
you either believe that in Christ Man has been set
to to wisely rule the world, or you believe that
we're under this old pagan.
Speaker 2: Did we lose wrong?
Speaker 1: Ron froze up on us ephairis you want to pick
up on anything there?
Speaker 2: I mean it's it's absolutely right in that the the
denial of the fact that we are in God's image
allows the left to go to all of these extremes
that it regularly goes to, those extremes of perversity, the
center of pride, transgenderism, and also equally political violence. The
fact that these guys are first and foremost, I think
Georgian Peterson got it absolutely right. They are angry at
God for creation. That's absolutely right. Whatever else you want
to say about Peterson, he got a lot of things
absolutely right in terms of understanding the left and the
drivers of the left. And so because these people insist
that essentially they are their own God, that they set morality,
that they decide whether or not they're men or women,
that they could change their minds about this from one
day to the other, like within the whole trans thing,
all of the they THEMS insists that they are gray
gender or no that gender or whatever it is, which
which I looked it up, unfortunately, and all it means
is that their gender changes over time whenever they feel
they feel like it.
Speaker 3: So nova in the sense of new is that, yeah, yeah,
kind of kind of.
Speaker 2: And so their understanding of it is that, look, I
I am the ruler of my own destiny and everything,
and I decide everything about myself. But I can't get
myself to stop smoking weed or stop being violent or
to sort of people like for two seconds. But that's
okay because I'm allowed.
Speaker 3: Voluntary slavery.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly, voluntary slavery to to to sin. That's
that's all there is to it. And I'm they're telling
us that they don't want to reason with us. They're
telling us that they want they don't want to discuss
things with us. They are telling us that conversations with
them are absolutely pointless and that they will resort to violence.
The other day, a couple of years ago, I went
to some protest against sort of drag Queen Story Hour
for children, which was the thing that was happening here
as well. And this very nice Christian preacher comes up
and he tries to say a few words, and you
see these people with umbrellas and masks trying to make
sure that he doesn't get a word in edgewise that
nobody can hear it, and they just sort of scream
at him and stand in his face and go absolutely crazy. Well, okay,
if this is what it is, and you're willing to
go further, when when you can get away with it
like that's the that's the end of political life. That's
when politics turns to violence. And yes, political power does
come from the barrel of a gun in that sense.
But you've decided that you're not willing to let the
issue be debated, and you've decided that just because this
classical liberal out debated you, you're going to murder him,
and you've decided that you're going to celebrate it. Well,
message received, I guess. I mean, I hope that the
people within that coalition who are slightly more mature, who
are slightly more intelligent, I saw Chenk actually chank Oiger,
however you pronounce his name. He took a pretty good
position on this. He took a pretty good position on
this in terms of condemning the murder, in terms of
saying absolutely not, in terms of and you could see
that he wasn't just reciting the words like with Gavin
Uson and with Camel and with Obama. You could see
that these people just sort of reciting the magic words
because they want to be perceived as responsible. But he
took a pretty principal stance. Leftists, if you don't want
us to conclude that the only response you're willing to
or the only dialogue you're willing to have, is one
involving violence, then you need to show a bit of humanity.
You need to stop speaking in this mealy mouthed way
when you instigate this, demonize people to get them killed,
encourage the violence. You lead these people down the garden
path up until the last moment, and then you say no, no,
it wasn't us. You've got to stop doing that, guys,
otherwise the conclusions that we're drawing will become conclusions that
we have to act upon. And really, the only guy
who can make sure that this is handled peacefully. Is Trump.
He's got to go after these networks. He's got to
sort of there's no point in having Bungino and Patel
in the FBI. If you're not going to get the
FBI to go after them, them and their financiers and
all of these other others. You've got to sue them
for seditious conspiracy. You've got to sort of rico them.
You've got to move against the Pritzkers, the Bill Gates, Bloomberg, Buffet,
these guys who are very busy financing these groups. They've
got to they've got to feel afraid, afraid enough to stop.
Because the next steps from this can't be taken within
the confines of the American Constitution. The next steps are
going to involve, if this is how it plays out,
plays out violently, you're going to have to start to
go back to room and prescriptions where you say that
this person's assets is forfeit, and whoever season must do
him harm, that this is an enemy of the state. Sorry,
you've bleeded yourself.
Speaker 1: From dots in your dots and you're muted.
Speaker 3: Sorry, I was typing out, I was typing out notes
and so I muted my so I didn't click on
the pot. No, you're exactly right about prescription. And and
that's why Caesar says, I'm going to end prescription because
we're going to be all allied under the same we're
all going to be rowing the boat in the same direction.
I'm going to make sure we're rowing the boat in
the same direction, and therefore we don't need prescription. That
is Uh, it's one of the keys of why we
all need in our in civics class, we need to
be studying the move from republic, you know, early republic
to late Republic to empire, because people already went down
this road, you know, and and one of the reasons
for it was they were importing a huge number, you know,
a slave class in order to keep GDP up in
a sense, I mean part of this, and and fighting
battles on the frontier, and and uh, anyway, I know
you guys all know that. But it's it's it's it's
just I wanted to clap and applaud you for bringing
this up because it's not some esoteric piece of history.
It's hugely applicable to today. And as a response, this is
one of the reasons Washington was such a huge fan
of Cincinnatis in the in kind of the middle Middle
Republic period. Who you know, in case some of your
I'm sure most of your watchers listeners know, but to
remind us, here's a guy who was twice called off
his farm to help and was and was made dictator
over over the Republic in order to solve an existential
crisis two times. And he went back to his farm
each time. And Washington said, yeah, sometimes it takes that
to fix things.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 3: Uh, but temporarily and because as a service to the
to the to the Republic. And then hey, I'm I'm
going back to the farm. You know, you'll call me
if you need me. Uh. And then things eventually got untenable,
but absolutely fantastic point.
Speaker 2: For us, just sort of to to to briefly build
on that. They keep calling Trump a dictator when everything
that he's doing is a continuation of a trend that
started with Bush and Obama in the use of executive
orders to sort of impose the president's will, and when
everything that he's doing in terms of controlling the the
administrative state is well within his rights within the constitution.
What they're doing with their extremism, is willing into being
the nightmare Trump that exists so far only in their imagination,
or perhaps the nightmare successor to Trump, who exists only
in their imagination. And they can't see that their shrillness
and their extremism and their hostility and their violence don't
leave many other options. I mean, if you look at
what somebody like Norm Eisen has been doing for the
last ten years. This guy is a specialist in color revolutions,
and he was on record on time saying that, yeah,
we prepared a color revolution in twenty twenty in case
we didn't get the ballot. It counts to sort of
reach the numbers that we wanted. And since then he's
been continuing on this massive campaign of lawfare to paralyze
the president at every step, through every possible method, and
a lot of the judiciary has been compliant. Now, fortunately
thanks to Mitch McConnell, the Supreme Court looks the way
it does right now. But you can imagine that if
it didn't, we would have the Americans would have no
choice other than to take extra constitutional measures and to
shut down a bunch of judges and to arrest a
bunch of judges in order to restore order. What they're
willing into being is the nightmarish right wing authoritarianism that
only exists so far in their imagination. And then you
see their reactions to the murder of that Ukrainian refugee,
Irena I can never pronounce your last name in North Carolina.
The way that they hit the murder, the way that
they tried their best not to cover it, the number
of articles about her versus the number of articles about
George Floyd or trayvon Martin or who whoever else of
their thuggish martyrs, And you see the way in which
they insist on refusing to have a reasonable conversation about crime,
and the way that they try to impose on the
public a life of fear. I mean, when you look
at the footage of that murder, you know, the murderer,
the carlis brown. He's just sitting there, calmly, there's nothing
threatening about him. She sits in front of him. He
pulls out a knife, stabs her in the next three
times and says, I call that white girl.
Speaker 3: And they tried after how many arrests fourteen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, from fourteen arrests. And if you look at pictures
of the whole chain of command of the judiciary. There,
it's sort of all fat black women.
Speaker 1: People who look like Charles will look like the perpetrator.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know that this is deliberate. You know
that this is sort of their version of racial justice,
that because the whites got away with slavery for one
hundred and fifty years, we're going to pay them back,
as if slavery was some kind of historic aberration.
Speaker 3: As if it wasn't happened, We're going to kill the Ukraine.
Speaker 2: It wasn't still happening in Africa, right, And so you
you've reached that point with the left where what they're
trying to impose on society is so absolutely insane, but
they're so committed to it, and then you have to
ask yourself, well, okay, Luckily, in the United States, Trump
on a second term and he has a majority in
both houses, although Congress is completely sitting on their hands
doing nothing, and he has a supportive Supreme Court. But
just a couple of small changes in that would have
meant that the United States would be already in civil war,
that the United States would already be so ungovernable as
to require extra constitutional measures, emergency measures intended to put
down these lunatics. And they're doing the same thing all
over the West. It's coordinated. We see it here in Britain.
What's happening here in terms of petty crime, especially petty
crime by or pretty severe crime as well, you know,
violent crime, rapes by immigrants, not just by the Pakistani
community but also by the new boat arrivals. The way
that the demographics are changing so rapidly, and what is
the reaction from the left. The reaction from the left.
We have three four left wing parties here, the Liberal Democrats, Labor,
Jeremy Corbyn's outfit, and the Greens, and all of them
are following the same playbook, which is to go more
extreme on economic communism, more extreme on cultural Marxism, and
try to rally the Muslim vote to their side. And
that last part is genuinely treasonous. And they haven't learned
anything from the Islamic Revolution in Iran. They've learned nothing
from it. The Islamic Revolution, there was this alliance between
the Reds and the Blacks, the Reds being the communists,
the Blacks being the turbine clerics. And when Komeni one
he just murdered all of the reds all of them,
put them in jail, hungable. But they refuse to learn,
and they refuse to show any kind of respect for
or solidarity with their own people. And that's a constantly
repeated theme. You see all of these congressmen, senators, et
cetera going crazy over this Albergo whatever his name is.
M he's a human trafficker and then a thirteen gangster,
a criminal, and you're going to visit him in Al Salvador,
and you're suing to make sure that he gets to
come back to the United States. Like why. They don't
see this as.
Speaker 3: Why and d.
Speaker 2: But that's the only objective way of describing it. You're
siding with external enemies, you're siding with criminals who want
to hurt your own people, and you're pretending to be
righteous about it.
Speaker 1: Here's something, Yeah, here's something I said last night. There
was I guess Lauren Bobert yesterday in the House Chambers
tried to have a moment of silence, and the Democrats
you could hear them protesting, no, no, no, We're not
going to do this.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And apparently one of the new grifty kind of GOP
people is like you, you're responsible for this, and people
were saying, you know, look a look at the way
these democrats are acting. And I'm not unconvinced that we're
at the point where Spain was in nineteen thirty six,
where the politicians were just as scared as the people
on the streets, as you know, probably Charlie Kirk should
have been. I mean, I don't think you know, we
talk about these these shadowy figures, these you know, the
the Eysens and the Soroses, and you see Charlie Kirk
get shot, and I mean I think he was wearing
body armor at the time. I don't know that that
hasn't been confirmed, so they had to avoid the body armor.
But these are people who like to go out in public.
These are people who like to go to the finest restaurants.
These are the people who don't want to have secret
service with them all the time. I'm not unconvinced that
these people do not are You can't say out of
one side of your mouth people aren't in charge, they're
bought and paid for, and that at the other side
of your mouth be like, oh, they're doing this because
they're ideal. I think it's just lost now. I think
it's like the Cortes, you know, the remnants of the
Cortes in nineteen thirty six, where these are just politicians
who are who are voting however which way they want,
because they know that there are anarchists and communists out
there that will just kill them in the street as
soon as they walk walk out the door.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think they should be afraid of their own
side because, in comparison to left wing violence, right wing
violence is very rare, and it's not particularly well targeted.
It's not particularly intelligent, and I worry that it might
become that, and I sincerely hope that it doesn't. I'm
from Levadon. I don't want you guys to go through
a civil war. I really don't wish that for you.
I hope it gets RESI within the law, but at the.
Speaker 3: Same we don't want to go off script it gets weird.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I don't think we'll have a civil
war here again. I think basically more of what you'll
have is it'll probably be like multiple locations around the
country like Italy's Years of Lead.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, which is but sort of Northern Ireland situation
sort of Northern Ireland situation in the seventies.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, so Fara's does do you think the UK
or the US leads in where does the conflict happen first?
Because Franz.
Speaker 2: I think quite possibly, Franz, if they don't fix themselves. Look,
here's how I would because in France you have the
same thing. You have the left allying with the Islamists
just to keep just to make sure that they make
zero concessions on their extremism. And you have a much
bigger Muslim population in France, and you have Marseille, which
is more or less a conquered city with a point.
Speaker 3: Yeah it's Algiers, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. And so where this is basically just to
go back to the point about Congress, it was the
same exact thing in the European Parliament. In the European
Parliament they tried to have a moment of silence for
Charlie Kirk and the President of the European Parliament would
have none of it. And if you think about it
for a moment, the Christian thing to do for a
man who was on his way to the gallows was
to pray for him and to pray that this punishment
would redeem him and shorten his time in purgatory if
he were truly penitent for his crimes, whereas these guys
aren't willing to have a moment of respect, let alone
prayer for someone who was, in a very real way
one of their own, or at least their parents in
the sixties would have recognized as one of their own,
as a sort of classical liberal. So you see the
extent of extremism that is coming out of the left,
and I think we on the right we need to
label this properly as fanaticism and extremism. I mean, when
you're a communist allied with literal Gihardes, you've lost your
damn mind. You are so fanatical in your hatred for
your own people that you would prefer a different religious
tradition who will make you submit and be permanently humiliated,
rather than actually side with your own own. Very briefly,
it's treasonous fanaticism, and that's what it should be understood as.
This is what it should be understood as, and it's
the same playbook. In Germany they construct this car doos
Nitel basically quarantined around the AfD, which is the right
wing party that Musk has been championing, which is now
polling as the which is now the highest polling party.
Speaker 3: It led upper thirty percent, right thirty eight, thirty nine percent.
Speaker 2: Something like that, and it's led by a lesbian woman
partnered with a Sri Lankan woman. And they call that nazi.
They call that fashism. Like, guys, do you understand the
terms that you're using. This is about as liberalith gets.
Speaker 3: Yeah, then no, they don't understand.
Speaker 2: And all they're asking for is somewhat less migration and
slightly better a management. They're not asking for anything radical.
And that's why I keep going back to the point
that they are willing into being the night mayors of
their imagination, rather than mildly compromising with these people, as
the Danes did to their credit, like the Social Democrats
in Denmark decided, you don't want migration anymore. Okay, fine,
we're going to restrict it. The Swedes now they have
negative migration, they're slowly getting people out. But in the
Anglosphere and in France, the extent of extremism is so
high that they're not leaving political or legal options. And
this is deliberate and this is a conscious choice on
their part. So I don't see, like if they don't
back down a little bit, if they don't throw us
a bone here and there. Here they called Nigel Faraj
far right. The chairman of the Reform Party is a
Sri Lankan Muslim. That's that's that's the British far right
really like honestly, m hm in in what sense? Right?
Speaker 3: Yeah, they don't know what. There's a couple of pretty
interesting underground, anonymous internet magazines over there that are pretty
interesting to read on all this. Uh uh but uh yeah.
The UK thing is, I don't know as much about
the French deal because I just don't have much faith
in them fixing it once they you know, I really
liked uh what was his name, the the.
Speaker 2: Jewish, the Jewish uhah Zamur.
Speaker 3: I thought it kind of was at least an opportunity
to kind of thread a little bit of a needle
and push the But but you know they weren't going
to have that.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: But but you know, talking about extremism, you know, Gavin
Newsom the other day when the when the shooting happened
with the kids at mass you know, he he mocked,
he mocked, them for the prey. Yep, so we're at
a we're at a real untenable point here, and uh,
it does again, I think, I think you're exactly right.
These they're they're they're they're doing a good job of
creating their nightmare, of instantiating what they what they fear,
because eventually this is it's got to lead to some
kind of conflict, you know, And and I don't know,
it's a it's a scary thought because, as Eric Prince says,
look when things go off script, it's very even if
the outcome is what you think you want, it get
the the process, you know, there's so much collateral damage,
you know, innocent people die, and so that's a.
Speaker 2: But if it.
Speaker 3: Doesn't get fixed in the in the interim, that's that's
where we're headed, you know, the UK is is I
don't know if you had a chance to read Christopher
Caldwell had a really really good piece in uh in
Claremont Review of Books about Golly. What's the title of it.
Maybe we can put it in the in the show notes,
but it's you know, Calwell's not a you know, some
kind of Callwell's a very It's called Land's End. But
he he talks about what what's going to happen in
the UK. It's not like the populace is armed, but
but but armor. You know, was the leader of this
movement to reduce the voting age, which is insane. But
he goes, he says, that's going to backfire because you
know so and I love that's my people. You know,
I'm I'm English by heritage. My ancestors came over in
the eighteen fifties from Southampton. So I for nothing other
than just a romantic interest in my heritage. I want
England to do I love, you know, I honeymooned in London.
I love England. I follow Arsenal, you know, go Gunners.
I want I want England to be English. Yes, but
I thought it was pretty funny, Caldwell says in that article,
he says, you know, somebody, somebody wrote, if Japan is
so great where it's Pakistani vape shops, that's bru, that's sums.
Speaker 2: I love.
Speaker 1: I have an episode coming out tonight with an American
who's been living in Japan for seventeen years, and he'll
tell you where the uh that these vape shops do exist.
They may not be Pakistani, But I forget which, uh,
which ethnic group he talked about. How you know there's
one neighborhood now in that's right outside of Tokyo that
people avoid yep, yeah, gen.
Speaker 2: Chompioning in for Japan. By the way, you wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, well what we covered, we we cover that too, Okay.
Speaker 3: They the the the the Kynesian idea is that that
it's it's really post Knesian. But is that that's the
answer to every every economic problem? Is you just you
you create, you import your own demand right to to
to fix the issue. And it's so short sighted. Uh,
you know, I just read I wasn't aware of this
secret move in the UK to import all these Afghanis
who supposedly were helping in the uh you know what
I'm talking about, right for for us?
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: They kept tried to keep it secret and now it's
busted out. It's all over the kind of the anonymous
internet in uh in the UK, and you know, and
they kind of they kind of set the bar for crime. Evidently,
the imported Afghani population, they're.
Speaker 2: Most likely to be involved in rape. They are natural gangsters. Frankly,
mm hmm. It's a completely uncivilized population and it must
be described as such. And it's reached a point really
where like a visit to the playground has become a
bit of a radicalizing experience for me, because you see
all of these new faces that have just shown up
in the last few months, a couple of years, et cetera,
and they have of zero conception of how to behave right,
and it's getting worse at a pace that is just
difficult to describe. I go to a town every week
where the Lotus Eater studio is and sort of do
my shows there. The cab rank outside the station, there's
not a single Englishman in it. There's forty cabs, fifty cabs,
not a single Englishman. And their behavior is increasingly foreign
in a way that is abrasive. And you see, you know,
young men loitering about everywhere and they're not British, and
they're being paid for by the taxpayer. And now they're
being taken out of hotels, some of them living in
four star hotels and complaining, and they're being put in
residential properties as a way of dispersing them. And that
makes it even more of a national security threat because
if they are at least in somewhat managed locations, you
can contain them. But if they're just dispersed among the population,
you have zero ability to control them and to control
their behavior. And so what they are creating here is
something that is extremely unstable, and they're making the taxpayer
foot to the bill at a time when Britain has
a debt to GDP ratio of one hundred percent and
a budget deficit of five percent in peace time. In
peace time, the number of illegal migrants that are being
hosted by Britain at the taxpayer's expense is now larger
than the army of the United Kingdom. That is simply insane.
And it's coming to a towards a perfect crisis because,
as you know, Ron, the the guilt yields, the sort
of yield on British long term debt are at historic highs.
Speaker 3: Oh, this is a real problem. This is a real
This is a real, very real problem.
Speaker 2: There is talk a mainstream media about the possibility of
Britain needing the IMF again, but the IMF cabriage bail
out Britain. There is not enough money in the IMF,
and the French are in a worse position. They have
one hundred and fourteen percent debt to GDP ratio, they
have a six percent budget deficit, and the yields on
their long term debt are higher than those of Greece
and Italy. So the market is saying that the French
are managing their economy worse than the Greeks and the Italians,
which is in and of itself an achievement. And they're
not backing down and they are not relenting. So and
you're seeing in Britain and in France rising waves of unrest.
Yesterday Paris was burning. Nobody paid attention to it because
of the of the Katla strike the day before and
of the Curt murder, but France was burning. There were
riots all over the place. And on the eighteenth of
September they are set to have major strikes. And the
Chile Jean, the previous protest movement of I think twenty
nineteen twenty twenty, they have been sort of reincarnated as
the blocko tooth movement, which translates to let's block everything.
And these guys are being an egg done by the
far left. This time the far left is joining the
protest that is saying, yeah, let's go all the way.
They just lost another prime minister on Monday, that would
make it Macron's fifth or sixth prime minister. Parliament is hung.
They can't agree like he probably won't succeed in getting
confidence from Parliament, So they're heading towards a constitutional crisis,
and things are accelerating at an insane pace. And it's
the same everywhere in the West, with the left refusing
to pause, relent, debate, discuss whether or not their ideas
have really been to the benefit of their countries. And
the reason for that, the reason they can't pause is,
as I explained it earlier, that the various ideologies that
they have, but it's also because they see violence as
the only way of retaining power and they're willing to
use it, and they're willing to rely on the islam
Is to stay in power in the same way that
the Democrats want to rely on the illegal migrant community
to stay in power. And it's just literally treason. There's
no other way of describing it. It's treason. So this
kind of extremism, like one of the Western countries, is
going to be unable to resolve this in political in
using political means and it's an open question. Will it
be France, will it be Germany, will be Italy? A
little bit less probable in the next couple of years
now will it? Will it be the United States, will
it be the UNI Kingdom. You know, they're all candidates,
they're all candidates for this, and you end up in this.
There's one line in Thucydides where he's talking about the
series of civil wars that just break out everywhere, and
where any compromise becomes treason, and where nobody can find
middle grounds and solutions, and so the answer everywhere is
to massacre your enemies. Guys, if we're not careful, this
is where we're going. And again I don't wish this
on anyone. I was lucky not to grow up during
the Lebanese Civil War because my dad like he was
going to get killed, so he left. But I was,
you know, in a sense there, and I was visiting
every year and it was at home the issue. So
this isn't where you want to end up. And unless
the left relents, this is exactly where you're going to
end up. And then the lucky countries are going to
be the countries that get a kind of Franco or
that get a Salazar. These are going to be the
lucky ones and the unlucky ones are going to be Balkanized, Lebanonized,
call it whatever you want, irishize, whatever it is. But
this is where, this is the trajectory, This is the
direction of.
Speaker 1: Travel, the track of history that led up to eighteen
forty eight, when Marxist started writing they're socialist. There's Marxist
style writings everywhere, and you have the eighteen forty eight
and basically eighteen forty eight is the start of we
need to kill the kings. That's what we have. We
have to get rid of the kings. Now, go out
into the streets of Baltimore or in New York City
and you know some of the worst neighborhoods or place
in Europe, some of what have become ghettos, and there
are your fruits of killing your kings. But you know
what eighteen forty eight was was it was something that
had to start, that had to happen, that spread like
wildfire in order for them to do that. Well, you know,
the way I look at it is is that basically,
at this point, we there's going to be an eighteen
forty eight from the right. And what's going to happen
is the first country that topples. I think there's a
good chance it could be Australia. Australia may have a
may have an eighteen forty eight moment. But as soon
as that first country, as soon as that first Anglo
you're Anglo or classically European country, that first domino falls,
you're going to see it spread like wildfire. And I mean,
I just don't think I don't think that there is
any argument against it.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: I've been saying for a few years the future is
right wing or a left wing authoritarianism. The only matter
is which one do you want? Pray you get the
one you want, and prepare for getting the one you
don't want. Yes, because that's just the track that we're on.
Speaker 2: Very much so, very much so. And if and if
either France or Britain ends up with a financial crisis, well,
what are you going to do. There's got to be austerity, Okay.
How are you going to justify imposing austerity on the
taxpayers while still giving welfare to foreigners? How are you
going to sell that? The only way to do it
is to import more voters, and if you import more voters, well,
then their response is going to be violence. M hmm.
We're reaching a point where it's obvious to anybody who's
sensible anywhere in Europe that you can't integrate Africans, you
can't integrate Middle Eastern Ners, you can't integrate Indians, you
can't integrate Pakistanis, and especially not in these numbers, especially
not in these numbers, And if you insist on it,
the answer is going to be the kind of indiscriminate violence.
In Lebanon, people would get stepped, stopped and checkpoints and
they'd have to produce their identity card and if it's
set the wrong religion, they'd get shot because everybody in
Lebanon is ethically the same. But in Europe you can
visually tell who's European and who isn't, and then you
get this race based violence, which is what the Left
has been panicking about endlessly while also willing into being.
So this is getting very dark and heading towards outcomes
that really nobody's saying should wish for. And there are
solutions to it. There are still even now this late
in the game, there are still solutions. You can say well,
I'm going to pay people to remigrate X amount of money,
and I will reduce it over time to encourage more
of them to leave sooner. And if they don't leave,
I'm going to expropriate their assets and make them leave,
and then you get people voluntarily leaving in large numbers.
Fair Enough, this is a much better outcome than the alternative.
But for the left, this is still unacceptable and they're
literally willing to ally with the Jihades to stop it.
Speaker 3: What do you does this touch Does this issue touched
China at all? Or is it just a weakness that
China can exploit to increase their regional hegemony and their
global influence.
Speaker 2: It's very much the latter. I mean, if you're in China,
you would be insane not to be funding the Green movement.
You'd be insane not to be funding BLM. You'd be
insane not to fund the various minority race drifters, the
global majority race drifters, let's call them that. You'd be
insane not to do these things. And then you've put
yourself in this situation where, because of Indian bad behavior
and because of Trump's approach to India, the Indians and
the Chinese are sort of trying to find a way
to get along.
Speaker 3: As are the Russians well.
Speaker 2: Because of the inability to just give up on this
stupid war in Ukraine. On this apps soolutely pointless war
in Ukraine, you're pushing the Russians towards the Chinese, and
now with the Israelis literally on a rampage, on an
uncontrolled rampage that no other president would have tolerated. H
bombing Utta, which happened two days ago, is a really
big deal. It's a it's a major non NATO ally,
it's designated as a major non NATO ally. And it
seems that the Trump administration sent some kind of peace
offer got to the leadership of Hamas together, and then
the Israelis used that with the with the Americans knowing
about it obviously because Suncom controls all of that airspace well,
to bomb the ham Ask agotiating team.
Speaker 3: Well, it was, it was, it was, you know, we
how can I say this without I know, I'll just
believe it at this I know Trump was personally very
upset about the uh the bombing and was informed very late.
Speaker 1: Look, I was very upset, well that let that that
just tells me it's twenty nineteen, it's twenty nineteen or
twenty twenty all over again, and the generals are doing
things behind his back exactly.
Speaker 3: I mean, yeah, I don't that there's a yeah, I
really can't. I really can't say no, you don't say
nothing or but but I will put it this way
with And we talked about this a little bit, I
think on our last contact. But uh, there's a real
pickle because the answer this is going to say on
very crass. But there's a sense in which this uh
ethnic nationalism that is being practiced at a ridiculously extreme
level is a there's a sense in which Trump knows
that that there's there's that although not at this lat
at this extreme, there is a pattern there that that
there's a nationalism that is a that is a blueprint
going forward that helps that that helps solve some of
these issues. I think we'd all the problem is then
how do you how do you how do you ride
that bicycle and not fall over?
Speaker 2: One way?
Speaker 3: Where hey, uh, you're acting you're acting you you are
acting like the uh your your last century persecutors guys.
Yet there's a sense in which where we don't want
to completely counter signal a certain amount of nationalism. And
I don't know that. You know, I'm a fan of
of of of the president, but I don't know if
he completely has the intellectual tools just because that's not
his strength, uh to to to divide that baby in half,
so to speak. Do you know what I'm saying here?
Speaker 2: I understand, I understand, yeah.
Speaker 3: And I don't. I don't know how he I don't
know if if he has the the people around him
to help him sort to divide that baby in half.
Speaker 2: I just don't.
Speaker 3: I don't know what I.
Speaker 1: Would nobody expects. Let me, I'll just say something. Nobody
expects perfect governance. Anyone who expects perfect governance is you
should just be dismissed. Please stop paying attention about six right,
We just expect governance in our own interests.
Speaker 2: In our own interest exactly. And to build on that, sorry, Ron,
just to build on that. When a major non NATO
ally is bombed by Israel, while at the same time
we have the Israelis saying that they're going to bomb
Turkey next to get the Hamas officials who are in Turkey,
you're basically doing several things at the same time. First,
you were saying that Article five guarantees are going to
be worthless or going to be extremely selective because nobody's
going to sort of defend Turkey against Israel. That's just
not going to happen. Which is when you see the
Russian drone attack over Poland and Russian reconnaissance drones going
over Poland testing NATO defense systems, trying to probe, trying
to see maybe we can sort of bomb some of
the warehouses in Poland, bomb some of the training camps
in Poland, things of that nature. I mean it's a test, obviously,
it's a brigsmanship. This is what the Russians are doing.
They're testing the reaction and they're figuring out what to
do next. This is not a good outcome, not now.
And you're pushing the Muslim world closer and closer to China.
So you're doing the same stupid policy that Clinton, Bush, Obama,
Biden all did, which is to push Eurasia closer together
under Chinese leadership and to feed the Chinese industrial machine
with the resources of Eurasia and to give the Chinese
a new Libenstyn. That's what's happening. That's the direct result
of this policy or the second order consequence of the
decision to allow these readies to do this. And if
Trump this late in the game can't get the Pentagon
under control, even with HEXT there, it's a real problem.
It's a very real problem, and it should make us
question whether or not Trump can get the far left
under control in a way that averts domestic conflict in
the United States. It's insane enough that the Americans have
allowed the white population to shrink to just sixty percent
of the total. It's extreme enough when these kinds of
demographic changes happen everywhere and anywhere there's a war. Prosperity
keeps that away sometimes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, especially when you couple it with uh a debt crisis,
a debt overhang that we're seeing across the West. Those
two things together historically always equal war. How can we
go find resources or reclaim resources in order to make
this problem go away exactly?
Speaker 2: Which is what makes the attack on the boat in
Venezuela interesting, Which is what makes the build up around
Venezuela interesting, because this is a natural resource superpower. It is,
and so controlling that helps the United States to some extent.
Speaker 3: But well, and I'm a Monroe doctrine.
Speaker 2: Guy.
Speaker 3: So, I you know, if we're gonna if we're gonna
have silly if we're gonna have silly conflicts, can they
at least be in our own hemisphere. Can we get
the Chinese to quit overfishing our own hemisphere's waters exactly?
Can we can we get you know, can we get
everybody kind of singing somewhat the same tune, maybe not
the same anza, but at least in the same key
in our own neighborhood as opposed to driving the rest
of the world. Again, to me, it seems like, I know,
I cut you off, but to me, it seems like
anti colonialism in an Africa disaster Part two. Exac's what
we're doing exactly.
Speaker 2: You're I couldn't agree more. You're absolutely right. You're absolutely right.
So something has got to give, something has got to give.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, historically it's it comes to is going to be violence.
I mean, I hate to say it. You know, people
have been asking me, you know, what do I because
you know, I've been talking about eighteen forty eight, like
a right word kind of eighteen forty eight, and they're like, so,
how do you see that playing out? And I'm like, well, here,
probably brush fires, brush fires in certain places. No Europe
like England. I'm reminded of the title of a famous
enoch Pal speech.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, Look, the one advantage that England has over
everybody else is the nature of the English political system,
where one parliament can literally reverse every law that favors migration,
that favors DEI, that gives citizenship to people who shouldn't
have it, that does all of these catastrophic things. This
is the huge advantage that Britain has. The constitutional structure
of Britain has zero checks and balances, none and if
some court says that it doesn't, the next day, you
can legislate with whatever majority that you have that in
fact it does now, and you know, you can do
whatever you want. That's the one thing that Britain has
going for it. Its ability to change things in legal
means if a single election is won by the right
people is enormous. It's genuinely enormous. Because there isn't a
written constitution, because Parliament is fully sovereign. The Crown in
Parliament doctrine allows Parliament to do whatever it wants so
long as it gets the royal assent. And if good
King Charles won't give it, well, you know he knows
where that ends. So this is the advantage that Britain
does have. If it decides to withdraw from every international treaty,
if it decides that it's going to impose remigration, if
it's going to impose a new bill of rights that
excludes Islam from these rights, it can do that. It
can absolutely do that. And this is a huge advantage,
whereas in a sense, the American Constitution, because of the
power of the States, means that somebody like Newsome can
hold out indefinitely and with an economy that size, it
can become a real problem that therefore becomes a unarmed situation,
you know. So there are these differences. And with the
American Bill of Rights, you can't simply designate a domestic
group as a terrorist organization. You have to go through
the judiciary, and if you get the wrong jurisdiction or
the wrong judge, you're in very deep trouble. So there
are these advantages that make me more optimistic about Britain
than I am about the rest of the West. But
this is contingent on the right people winning an election
before twenty thirty five, because by then the amount of
change in the country would have become so dramatic that
the only answer is violence, because the English aren't going
to just be dispossessed and go gently into that good night.
That's not in their character. And you're seeing people getting
angrier and angrier, and the atmosphere here is really grim,
and the Kirk murder has really hardened people's positions, and
it might even go as far as to convince the
chunk of the right that looks our own petty disagreements
are irrelevant. This is a battle for survival mm hmm.
Especially I don't know if you saw this. The BBC
had somebody literally laughing about Kirk's murder. I saw it.
It was disgusting, appalling, I absolutely appalling. And this is
supposed to be neutral, like the BBC's mandate is to
be a neutral political channel. So we're just getting into
a very extreme situation here globally and domestically for the West,
and nobody's being sensible about it. I was very optimistic
about Trump. He'll try to reconcile with the Russia and
the Ukraine war solve these problems slowly. Instead wishing not
just Russia but China, India, the Muslim world altogether. This
is just reckless. This is geopolitically the suicidal.
Speaker 3: I was at nat CON last week and it's it
was amazing how there was one panel on of kind
of a realist restraint versus neo kon position talk and
the neocon guy, I mean as you would. I mean
it was just name calling, that's all it was. And
the restraint realist kind of mirror kind of a Meersheimer class,
you know, approach. It's just like, do you understand what
you know?
Speaker 2: Look, they are the mirror image of the leftists. In
the same way that the left want everything to burn,
the neocons want everything to burn in they can't back
down over anything. The neocons also can't back down.
Speaker 3: And well, I just don't get what the long term
vision is, uh, both of it.
Speaker 2: In nineteen ninety two, wolf of It's articulated it.
Speaker 3: No, yeah, and that little demon yeah exactly.
Speaker 2: His view was essentially, there is no way we can
tolerate another Cold War, and therefore we must destroy our
enemies completely. But by the way, we should focus that
on Russia.
Speaker 3: Um, yeah, how's yet, how's Russia doing? What's the single beacon.
Well maybe not single, but what's one of the main
beacons of still having some type of of of religious
public life of having it again. I'm no, I'm not gonna.
I'm not. I don't want to say here in uh
and be a Putine uh apologist because he is a
brutal man. But uh, just look at you know, Russia
is generally safe, clean, employed, religious, uh and and able
to exist without the United States teat They've proven that
they we got they got cut off from swift, they
got cut off from US exports, and they're existing. I mean,
regardless of all the uh, all the propaganda. You know,
do I want to move to Saint Petersburg, although I
hear it's beautiful. No, But but they're doing they are
they are not. They are not turning into the wasteland
that everyone predicted. Ah, you know, and more sanctions, more sanctions.
Speaker 1: Okay, what have these sanctions done a Western nation? Russians
are not Russians are not Westerners. They're never going to
be Westerners. Yeah. Sure, some Western trash ideologies have entered
there and putin fights against it all the time. And
you see the buses pull up and just arrest every
protester and throw them in a bus, and I don't
care what he does with them. I wish they would
do that here. But they're not Westerners. They're not I
mean literally, Russians are not like us. We grew up
completely different way there. We were wired a completely different way.
And trying to compare Russia to the West and think
it's just it's a fool's errand there's no there's no
way that they're, with their history and who they are,
that they're going to be like us.
Speaker 2: They will be different. Absolutely, yeah. And the the whole
idea that the West, I would argue, sorry to interrupt you,
but the biggest weakness of the West, especially Europe, is
the extent to which it is Americanized. I mean, the
idea that I don't know Britain or Germany or nations
of immigrants is absolutely absurd. It's just a complete historical
fallacy with absolutely no roots in reality. You see these
propagandistic shows coming out showing black Vikings. Are you out
of your mind?
Speaker 3: Black Swedes?
Speaker 2: Black Swedes? Are you completely out of your mind? Right?
So there's this attempt to remake Europe into America, which
was always going to be insane, because the whole premise
of America was that it was the one place where
Europeans could go to escape European conflicts. It wasn't about
importing Hindus, and it wasn't about importing Africans, and it
wasn't about importing Chinese people. And everybody who was involved
in slavery at the time of independence thought well, when
we free the slaves, we need to send them back.
So there's this problem with Europe when it comes to America,
and there's the reality that Europe is a sovereign and
that's a big part of the problem. They've subordinated their
national interest to the American national interest and it can't
go on like this indefinitely.
Speaker 3: For us. Tell me about your experiences, as you know,
as Lebanese seeing how this is very interesting to me,
how the UK the racial tension there seems to be
far less black and white as it is with the
other ethnicities. Is that is that reality or is that
just seeing it from afar and not seeing the reality
on the ground.
Speaker 2: Look the so for example, the firstly, the black population
here is maybe three percent, whereas in the States it's
thirteen percent, and it's very concentrated in London more so
than other parts of the country. And in London you
get the same thirteen fifty two dynamic. London is about
thirteen percent black and fifty percent of violent crime at
least life really yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Really yeah. So we don't get that news over here,
you know, because it's not reported.
Speaker 2: You have to go through the office data and find it.
But nobody in the media will touch it.
Speaker 3: But they're real because over here you see that. You
just see you know, Bacaya Saka or somebody like that,
who's you know, I think he's Ebo and they're kind
of outliers anyway. But you don't And again I'm not
trying to be crass or anything. I've just always wondered
what the different dynamic there is, and but you're telling
me it's not that different.
Speaker 2: In London. There is this issue, but the English pride
themselves on never having had that experience that the Americans
had with slavery. Fair enough, The big tension is with
the Pakistani community and with the Muslim community in general. Right,
these are six percent of the population twenty eighteen or
twenty seven percent of the prison population. I think it's
eighteen percent I think it's eighteen percent of the prison
population growing rapidly and growing very rapidly. And the Indians
that originally came here were uppercased Indians and they ended
up integrating. The newer Indian arrivals are more of a problem.
The Serra community is generally well regarded. They don't cause
a problem for anyone.
Speaker 3: And same here, yeah, same here.
Speaker 2: But the not in Canada, well the ink Yeah in
Canada that they're involved in the Khalistanatarism stuff and that's
a different dynamic there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And it's a numbers thing, and it's a number
and that's what they all gets to.
Speaker 2: The numbers.
Speaker 3: This gets I call it the chef problem. It's I have,
I have my entree and yeah, the chef uses spices
to make it more interesting, to make the flavors pop.
But once this becomes majority spice, it tastes like yeah, exactly,
manure exactly, you can't the spy. There has got to
be this cohesive dish that tastes, that has a that
has a flavor that is that is uh, that is
uh that that doesn't fight against itself. And once you
once you become majority uh, you know whatever, pick your
spice of choice. It it you're not you know, you
no longer have the benefit of whatever that entree. It
doesn't taste like steak anymore, or uh, you know, or
or chicken cought on blue or whatever you're you know,
whatever your thing you're eating, And that's that sounds like
a silly example, but it's, uh, I don't think it is.
I think we are. You know, each nation in a
in a liturgical sense, is to be a pleasing aroma
to God. And how is it going to be that
if if you can't anyway.
Speaker 2: If you can't distinguish it, and if it's all covered
by you.
Speaker 3: Can't distinguish it. That's exactly right.
Speaker 2: So the numbers here are really becoming a problem because
in the last couple of years, I think something like
it's an insane number, but something like seven percent of
the population of Britain has arrived in the last five years,
which is just crazy. Britain took in in some years
more migrants than the United States.
Speaker 3: In absolutely terms. Oh my god.
Speaker 1: You know, Enoch Powell was complaining about five thousand a year.
Speaker 2: M because he could see what that was going to
roll into, and because the people who first came here,
I mean, especially the Pakistanis. They were horrific and as
Powell said, the only word that they knew was racialist,
and they would just go around accusing people of being
racist towards them, and then they try to sort of
take over neighborhoods and kick people out of their neighborhoods. Yeah, ghettoization, ghettoization,
and in those numbers, it's impossible for their not to
be ghetoization.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: So you got parts of London that are just fourteen
percent white British. Fourteen percent white British, that's all in
some parts of London, and that is just not sustainable.
No sane person thinks that this can work.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I saw the picture of the banana. Yeah, London
that everybody, everybody with any sense, lives within the banana.
Speaker 2: If you can afford it, right, It's become so obscenely unaffordable,
especially with the communist policies of this government. I mean,
remember they had a bunch of lawsuits where because of
the way the law is written, companies were being forced
to pay front front store retail workers the same as
they were paying warehouse workers, which is a pittance in
either case. Like wages zero are much lower than they
are in the United States. But they've decided that all
work is of equal value and that the market shouldn't
set the price of work. And this ended up see
how well, I'll tell you how it's worked out. It
led to a situation where Birmingham went bankrupt and they
haven't collected the trash in Birmingham in several months, maybe longer,
maybe a year now because the workers have been on strike.
It's led to a situation where companies are facing bankruptcy
because you know, the extension of this logic is if
you pay, because now they're trying to sort of equalize
it more in terms of race, and so the consequence
is that if on average, your black staff are getting
paid less than your white staff, or your Indian staff
for that matter, somebody could take you to court. The
judgment found that there was no intentional discrimination, but that
the companies were still liable even though there was no
evidence that they were discriminating on purpose, and their reason
for it was because the warehouse workers were forty seven
percent women, whereas the front of store workers were seventy
two percent women, and because they were getting less than
the warehouse workers, they had to pay massive amounts of compensation.
And so if you're an employer, why the hell would
you hire anyone? Why would you consider hiring anyone? And
if you don't hire enough people from minority backgrounds, you
can still suit for a discrimination because you're you're you're
you're choosing based on race. So the way that the
legal system is operating here is absolutely mad, absolutely mad.
And if you were to reverse what we call the
Boris Wave, the huge inflow of migrants that have come
in the last few years because of Boris Donson, I
think housing prices would crash. But if housing prices crashed,
that can take down a big trunk of the banking
sector with it. Mm hmm. So they're stuck in this
doom loop where every aspect of the economy has a
gun to every other aspect of the economy's head, and
once someone pulls the trigger, everybody dies and the whole
economy comes crashing down.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a house of cards.
Speaker 2: It's a house of cards. And that's why I think
there's going to be a massive devaluation of the British
pound and then you're going to have to impose austerity
and then again, the question becomes, how are you going
to justify austerity when you're giving welfare to foreigners? Why
should the taxpayers pay for it? They're going to revolt.
So like the hour is late and there needs to
be very dramatic, very quick change, and it's possible within
the constitutional British system, within the British constitutional system, but
nobody seems to be thinking about this. So all of
the like Reform, the supposed opposition party who are going
to probably form, god perform the next cabinet. It's a
bit of a clown show. Mm hmm. They're not serious.
They're just not serious about policy and they're not serious
about what needs to be done. Nigel Fowrs is saying, well,
we don't want to confront Islam, but Islam wants to
confront you, brother, whether.
Speaker 3: You like it or not. Yeah, I'm do not care
about politics, but politics cares.
Speaker 2: About you exactly exactly. So this divorce from reality, this
insistence on the left that you know, nothing's happening, it's
all fine, it's all good, we're gonna sort it out
in the end. Distinkering at the margins, it's just disastrous.
Now we have a Muslim as the Home Secretary and
she's Pakistani. She's like fully Pakistani, she speaks fluent with
who she's says that her entire worldview is based on Islam.
Everything that she does is for Islam, and she's in
charge of the Home Office. Mm hmm, Like that's insane.
We just had a Guineian as Foreign Secretary. He happened
to be such a complete and comprehensive moron that when
the BBC a few years ago asked do you expect
black smoke or white smoke coming out of the attic,
he thought it was a racial slur. He didn't even
know he had previously been Minister of Culture. So the
talent pool is atrocious and the people in charge. He
was asked on some kind of quiz show who succeeded
Henry the eighth? Do you know what he said, Henry
the seventh?
Speaker 1: Oh, like he didn't know what succeeded me. I mean,
it's it's no different than here. I mean, these people
are morons. You politicians. The average politician in this country
cannot go on a podcast and have a conversation about
politics because you know, they run into someone like me
or my friends. We're going to just absolutely annihilate them. Yeah, yeah,
they're just they don't. They have a set of talking
points and they can stick to those. And then the
press is the same way. Notice press do they will
not do a podcast or an interview unless they're being
interviewed by somebody who is a fellow member of the
baptized press. Yes, because that person is just equally as
stupid as they are, and they can just sit there
and talk about nothing for an hour.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's all talk. It's all talking points, boiler plate,
applause lines. There's no there's no ability to synthesize on
the fly. No, I see the same thing. I mean,
I uh, Anyway, guys, I'm gonna have to wrap up
here in the next five to ten minutes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's let's let's start wrapping up here. So I'll
give each of you, you know, a chance. I have
a couple of minutes to end with and and and
give your thoughts about whatever is you know, what's happening
in the that gest whatever.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 3: I think for for me, I'm concerned all of these
things historically lead to some type of bloodshed, uh, some
type of conflict. I think the great, the great temptation
for all these Western governments is to be the to
keep the party going whatever it takes, you know, can
I get another bump? And eventually you stay on, You
stay on the juice long enough, and it turns you suicidal,
uh and homicidal. And I think that works in civilizations
every bit as much as it works in individuals, that
you stay on the stimulant long enough, and it turns
you You forget metaphysics, you forget what brought you here,
you forget the meaning, and you forget love of people,
and you just become homicidal, self destructive, nihilist, and and uh,
you don't really care who you take down in the process.
And I'm just looking both from an investing standpoint and
from a you know, doing these things and writing standpoint,
what's what is? Where does it spark? Where does the
spark of of of the true you know, conflagration begin?
And I don't have the answer to that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're you're absolutely right. I pray that the left
can see sense and moderate a little bit, because they are.
They moderated yesterday. Yesterday was their moderation. Yeah. Yeah, that's
what I'm afraid of. That's what I'm afraid of. If
they don't relent, if they don't touch grass, if they
don't begin to see reality, they are going to will
into being nightmares upon nightmares. And I'd also say that
the United States government, as the leader of the West,
has a particular responsibility here. Leadership comes with a responsibility.
It needs to do something to keep everybody from rallying
to China. It needs to do something to just normalize
some relations with some countries. Even you know, I'm not
a fan of free trade. I'm not a fan of immigration.
There has to be balancing there. There has to be
a return to national identity. This can be done peacefully.
And it's on the United States to show an example
as to how this can be done, because it's the
leader of the West. And if these two things don't happen,
if we don't see some moderation from the left, if
we don't see better leadership from the United States, we
are heading for some very dark times. And I sincerely
pray that I'm wrong, and I pray for peace. But
as an analyst, this isn't where things are going.
Speaker 1: All right, Let's leave it there, Pharahs. Tell everybody where
they can find your work.
Speaker 2: Sure, I'm on modadgeopolitics dot com and I'm on Lovethienemy
dot net. Check out both of them and you can
find me on Twitter on modad geoph So you know,
I hope to see you there.
Speaker 3: Run yeah, follow for us on Twitter. He's a good follow.
He's very, very good and very He'll give you a
good kind of way to center your thoughts. I refer
to his feet often during the day. You can find
me at Claremont's The American Mind. I write there. I
write for the American Reformer.
Speaker 2: Site.
Speaker 3: I write at ron Ron Dodson The of the Eyes
of Apillies. That's my sub stack. I write there. I've
started being more writing a little more often there and
then on Twitter and on a podcast near you because
guys like Pete are so gracious to have me and
I really appreciate this. This was a profitable talk. I
love both of you guys. You you guys are not
just smart, but you uh, you care about civilization and humanity,
and I love that about you both.
Speaker 2: I need to get you both on the Lotus eaters soon.
I need to invite you both on on on my
lotus each throw soon.
Speaker 3: I would I would love that. I love Carl Carl,
Carl Carl.
Speaker 1: Is amazing, so absolutely in a heartbeat. All right, gentlemen,
have a great day, Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Bye bye.
Speaker 3: M h
Speaker 2: Yeah