Speaker 1: In the first twenty minutes of this episode, my audio
was coming through my earbuds, so I apologize for the
audio quality in the first twenty I'll try to not
let that happen again. I want to welcome everyone back
to the Pete Canyona Show, returning Ryan turnip Seed.
Speaker 2: How you doing, Ryn, I'm doing very well. I'm glad
to be back.
Speaker 1: Very cool. You want to get this out of the way,
because whenever we do this, I'll put this on YouTube.
So the first comment will be what does he know?
Because he looks like he's to fifteen? And then the
other one will be get a haircut, you hippie.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I'll just the last one first, the get
a haircut hippie. Ninety percent of the reason that I
have not gotten a haircut so far as because it
generates so much interaction on all my videos. You know,
half the comments or some people saying get a haircut
really helps with the out algorithm. It's a very wonderful
form of of what would it be social engineering? No
partially joking, but and then with the with the youth comment, well,
I hopefully my own work shows for itself. Yeah, I'll
have you know, it's nine year old nationalism, not fifteen
year old nationalism. That's the that's the age that we
go by on the most hardcore of the zoomer circles.
Speaker 1: All right, well, one of the reasons I asked you
to come on, Well, the main reason I asked you
to come on is you word about the civil rights regime.
And I love that. I love that you put that
in there, and you did it for the Old Glory Club,
which I've I've shared the video of myself and Paul
talking about Justin McCarthy on here, the live stream that
we did for OGC. But why didn't you I've tried
to explain exactly, you know, why I'm a part of
it and what it is. What do you think is
the benefit of the old words?
Speaker 2: But there are multiple key benefits. I don't feel like
I have the authority to say that one is especially
core because we're doing a lot of stuff that needs
to happen which wasn't previously being done, so we have
it's Number one's an organization of friends that should be
in and of itself enough to justify being a part
of it. If your friends, like your closest friends, are
a part of something, and that's something is good, which
this is, then you should be a part of it
to you know, the basic community cohesion argument. But a
lot of what we're doing is we are organizing Americans
in a very clean, a very respectable manner, trying to
get our ideas across to key people and the public
as well, you know, both at the same time, not
at the expense of the others, which something that the
American right has long lacked. You will either find stooges
in the absolute mainstream that will sacrifice every little bit
of actual right wing philosophy, theory, practice, application for the
pursuit of respectability, or you will find people that want
the absolute standard of unattainable purity and will, in the
pursuit of that, sacrifice any form of a respectability of
appeal or any exoteric value, you know, actually trying to
share the idea. This group is so far doing a
wonderful job at doing both without sacrificing either. You know,
we aren't a bunch of a nut jobs, and we
aren't a bunch of spineless cowards trying to go for
a public spotlight or too public of a spotlight. I
should say, we're also working towards much higher end goals.
So it's not just we're not just making a media cluster.
The end vision here is the actually supporting one another
in a very old fashioned American way, something that was
much more common before the New Deal regime was enacted,
where people would just come together, oftentimes voluntarily, to support
one another in cases of hardship, poverty, basically acting as
a collective form of insurance, you know, the old Glory clubs.
Trying to resurrect that old tradition in spite of all
the different disincentives and regulatory boundaries and social barriers that
would prevent us from doing so. We're actually trying to
do that, which is invaluable. If we can't get this
core building block set up in the old Glory club,
I don't think that the American right, or any meaningful
right could succeed, it could succeed at all. Really, Like,
this is the basic community building block that we have
at the foundation here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just wish I could think meetings more everything.
Speaker 2: I mean, that is that's a good point. We're all
very productive, you know, we meet quite often. We have
a constant study supply of media that we are putting
out even though that's not the main thing we're shooting towards,
we are still doing it quite well, I might add. So, yeah,
people's minds are geared towards dichotomies one or the other,
you know, mutually exclusive choices, and that's not quite The
American way is that we can do all of it
at once and be good at it.
Speaker 1: Well. The reason I had you on is because you
wrote a substack for the Old Glory Club substack and article,
and it is a subject that I like to bring up.
And usually when you bring it up, it's one of
those subjects that get to both sides bristling, because, let's
face it, people a lot of people who call themselves
right wing call themselves right wing. When you bring up
things like the Civil Rights Act, or as you termed
it in the sub stack, the Civil Rights regime, people
have to fight back. They you know, oh, you want
slavery again and everything. The greatest meme I've seen in
a while is a black girl screaming at the Chad
white guy. You're just upset because I can't be your
slave anymore. And the Chad white guy goes, I don't
want you anywhere near my property.
Speaker 2: So that's wonderful because that was the I'm sure we'll
talk about this sentiment because that's going to it's kind
of going to play into a lot of what existed
before the civil rights regime.
Speaker 1: Right, right, So you you titled it enshrining the Civil
rights regime, and you took it in a lot of
people like to talk about nineteen sixty four, nineteen sixty
five Johnson, but you you jumped in with the little
known nineteen fifty seven Civil Rights Act. So I'm going
to put it up on the screen. And why didn't you?
Why don't you tell everybody a little bit about this?
Speaker 2: So you mentioned, yeah, I started with the the unknown one,
the nineteen fifty seven to one that happened under Eisenhower. Well,
it has one popular subject within it that usually gets
brought up in history classes or fact books or something.
But we'll get there in a minute, because it's it's
its own subject. But this is sort of like the
first post reconstruction Civil Right Act that is a one
moment sorry, yeah, our first post reconstruction Civil Right Act.
That's notable. You know, you have different categories civil rights,
voting rights enforcement, which is more of a reconstruction eray thing.
When we talk about the modern day civil rights paradigm
or regime or the acts, most people lump together civil
rights and voting rights, and the difference to the modern
person in the present day is probably very minute because
we just lump them together for good or bad. But
the Civil Rights Act had a lot to do with
more so the more social side of things, and the
Voting Right Act. The Voting Rights Act had much more
to do with the you know, actually taking control of
the infrastructure, getting people to vote, making sure that people
weren't prohibited from voting. As the narrative that you oftentimes
get told you know, less on the segregation side of things,
more on the electoral side of things. As in the
name might suggest, it sounds semantic, but you know, if
you read the acts themselves, it makes much more sense
why they are different categories. Nineteen fifty seven is very
interesting because this was sort of it was a compromise act,
so both the right, the right and the left went
along with it. It's also the obviously the first one
that really gets the ball rolling. So it's a compromise act.
Both sides went along with it, which means that neither
side was really happy. It went too far for the
more conservative sides in Congress, and it didn't go far
enough for the radicals. And also the sort of movement
that was going along in the background. We can talk
about those in a minute, if those are of interest.
But I recently did a show with mister Stephen Carson
a few weeks ago where we talked about sort of
the origin and the moral character of that movement, which
is absolutely reprehensible.
Speaker 1: But with the Act, Stephen Carson the only president that
I recognized.
Speaker 2: I mean, if we could all just be ruled by
the benign and benevolent executive Stephen Carson, I think our
society would be going a lot better.
Speaker 1: But Jeff Dice at too oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I forget. I forget sometimes that that is
his proper role there. But with the act itself, this one, yeah,
it's the start. People aren't really happy because it doesn't
go far enough, and the people that don't want any
of this at all goes way too far because it's
doing something, so it just gets brushed under the rug.
No one cares about it, no one likes it. As
you said in the beginning, a lot of people focus
on nineteen sixty four of the Civil Rights Act and
nineteen sixty five with the Voting Rights Act. This, however,
is very important because you don't get any of that
stuff that comes throughout the next decade without this one
small act. And that's really where that's sort of like
the backdrop that we're going to be working with.
Speaker 1: Here. By the way, that picture there, what is that picture?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is a This is from a counter
protest being dispersed by federal forces, I believe, if I
remember correctly, it was a federal forces dispersing a counter protest.
These were white Southerners that were counter protesting a sort
of a what would we call it a civil rights demonstration?
I believe is the uh, the sort of a neutral
term for it. This is a you know, there's the
trite saying, you know, a picture is worth a thousand
words or something like that. You can get a lot
out of reading the acts themselves. You can get a
lot out of reading the secondary sources that are evaluating them,
or even talking to people that were on the ground
at the time. But the actual pictures that we have,
I think tells a lot more about the the motivatations
driving the people pushing the civil rights regime more than
any sort of written statement or oral statement could.
Speaker 1: So I really hope these are National Guard because if
they aren't National Guard, there's some problems here.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, the whole issue here, all of the
opposition that came from any meaningful resistance is going to
be talking about the federal government overstepping its boundaries and
intervening into what shouldn't be the federal government. Obviously, the
motivations for these people could be just because they don't
like the Blacks. These could be because they don't like
the federal government, whatnot. You could speculate all the day
long and go into individual characters for the act itself. Though,
this is the backdrop because these guard units, if I
remember correctly, they are guard because there were a few
times that actual federally controlled forces were sent into forcefully
integrate places. But this takes place in either a year
or two before the nineteen fifty seven Act begins. The
only reason I have this up is because it's a
very famous photo if you want to display things that
you don't get shown in your school when they go
over these sorts of things in history. So why were
they counter protesting? Because the narrative that we often get fed.
And I write it here and I might as well
just say it because I it just gets the basic
thing down, what you get taught in school, what you
hear everywhere in the media and whatnot, is the Civil
Rights Acts ended segregation and voter suppression once and for all,
bringing about integration so that we could all move forward together.
You know, we don't have any of that yucky segregation
Jim Crow laws. We don't have you know, dilapidated, terrible
school houses for blacks and you know, normal conditions for whites.
We don't have signs saying one line over here and
the other line over here. All of that's gone and
we just get to have happy, warm, fuzzy feelings forever
because segregation is gone. So, you know, if that's the narrative,
this picture makes absolutely no sense. Everyone involved that's being
put away. The counter protesters must just be utter vile
demons basically, because you know, they're protesting the Civil Rights Act.
What could be possibly wrong with them, you know, going
against such a great market progress. While the right in
recent years has done a good job building a counter
narrative to all of us, and I basically summarized that
you could go more into detail.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: The the opposite, the counter narrative would be something like
the elites betrayed the Americans under internal and international pressure
and subversion. They stripped away American liberties and heritage, and
they paved a way for the current disintegration of the
nation that we are seeing. Because, yeah, this gets into
a lot of it. The current immigration crisis that you're
seeing in the country is only possible due to the
Civil Rights Act because before this push and movement and
the legal foundation that was laid here, you had a
quota system that was based off of national origin, which
meant that your immigration numbers were infinitely less than we
see now. You had much more rigorous academic standards because
there was less interference. We can put it politely and
call it the state, or we could put it and
put it in real terms and call it, you know, subversives.
Academic standards were higher, which completely gave way after these
sets of legislation, starting with this fifty seven Act. You know,
the state of the schools now can largely put the
blame at this push here for civil rights. You have
the sort of completely just royd uh, you know, rural
white communities in the South that have been just completely
left behind. You have the rotting urban centers. All of
this can really be traced back to this movement. It's
remarkable how much damage was done just with one simple
organized push. So the right's been doing good at this
counter narrative. Uh but as usual, you don't really get
the uh you don't really get the sort of emotional
impact because this is all a very real, cold analysis
of what happened, and it's very harrowing. Uh, but you
don't really get the fact that, uh, you know, your
own government, you know, pushed you away with bayonets for
protesting against this, uh, this development right here in this
counter narrative.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this wasn't done in the sort of idealized liberal
world where you have two people on a debate stage
arguing over the merits of a of a law, piece
of legislation. This was a very forceful movement and a
lot of people will confuse this with the seventies, where
there was quite famously a number of bombings. This is
not the seventies. This is the fifties, the nineteen fifties,
So you know, that's the I think this should go
to explain the motivations of a lot of the people
pushing this. This was not a popular movement. This was
not grassroots legislative change. This was not even sort of
like a cultural imperialistic thing like you'll see a lot
of more Southern libertarians say that this was a push
from the north. This was a push by you know,
high subversives in government that had control over the military
on multiple levels. They had control over what would become
your intelligencia that would inhabit the new university systems. They
would take control of the legal process, which is what
the rest of this article will go into. They would
completely rewrite the legal code, as we can already kind
of mentioned with immigration, and they would completely change policing standards,
which goes through that rotting urban decay that I mentioned.
We can summarize that there and not get too sidetracked.
Speaker 1: So you know what I find interesting about this is,
just before we started recording, I was on Twitter and
I saw a Kami calling himself a libertarian who based
in many such cases, who posted that Puerto Rico should
become the fifty first state. And when you went under
it and looked a lot of people said, well that
should be up to them they should vote on that.
None of those people would say that the people in
this picture should vote on whether they should have this
act forced upon them.
Speaker 2: Well, they won't. And there's two reasons behind that. There
is a reason that the Civil Rights Acts and the
Voting Rights Acts and all of these other integrationist measures
weren't put up to a proposition. They weren't put up
to a referendum. And that's because the laws that they
were trying to replace were oftentimes popularly voted local laws.
Those evil Jim Crow laws that you hear about in school.
They don't really get told what they do. Just they
separated whites and blacks, and you know they also did
mean things to the blacks and didn't harm the whites,
So the narrative goes, those were all popularly voted in.
By contrast, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were
not popularly forced in. This is what we might call
bayonet legislation in regards to the modern day, where the
popular libertarian solution is to, you know, put it to
a local vote. You can really tell who is serious
about it and who is just saying it for who
knows what reason. If you you say, all right, so
we can do the same with any legislation, including the
civil rights Acts and the modern day that might not
make much of a difference because they, the people that
push this this societal revolution, just have complete dominance over
the media, education, and any any other propagandic institution. The
vote might not be different in the modern day, but
the very principle itself that you'd be probing from those
more communistic sort of libertarian types, I guess you could
call them. You can really test them with this because
it's an uncomfortable law by modern by modern standards, but
if you're really pushing for decentralization, it shouldn't matter, you know,
it should be up to the people in the location.
So yeah, to your point.
Speaker 1: That's the thing most people and I'm not even ripping
on libertarians so much. Right wingers do it too. Is
when it comes to uncomfortable things like this, they need to.
Speaker 4: Not upset that.
Speaker 1: They're not upsetting the Apple card, they're not upsetting the
They don't want to get attacked as racists or anything
like that. I mean, they just they care more. They
care more about what people who want them dead, uh,
you know, think of them, or if they don't care
about that. They care more about what they're in group thinks.
Because they're in group is has wild ideas about what
liberty looks like. You know, whether it be celebrating we
need to not sex work is real work, and we
need to celebrate it, not only accept it and things
like that. I mean that that's not that, that's not
romotan to talk about. Because you know, you're you're a
hero of civil rights. But if you talk about this, well,
I mean, you're no different than David Duke or you know,
anyone else who opposed the Civil Rights Act of fifty seven.
Speaker 2: Or right, and even a lot of terrible narratives that
come out of this. You know, on a fundamental level,
most people will not be able to tell you what
is wrong inherently with separating people based off of a
different characteristics. It could be race, or it could be
any other class differences. You know, surfs and peasants. Most
people will not be able to tell you what's inherently
wrong with that. You know, most civil rights supporters, they
will always resort to arguments of unequal application. You know,
welfare was there's a disparity in welfare between these groups
that were separated. There was you know, these laws weren't
equally enforced and all this other stuff, which, if you notice,
the rhetorical trick is not an issue with the separation itself.
It's an issue with the application.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: They always pull this trick. It's what the narratives do,
it's what the school systems do, it's what the media does.
And I wouldn't be shocked if most libertarian literature did
this as well, or at least the more left leaning
side of it. It's always the application that they will
focus on. And that's because for the longest time, most
people were fine with this way of doing things. It
was only with the advent of mass media in the
hands of certain people that this become a widely discussed
topic and outrage was manufactured for it. So I don't
know exactly where you want to go after that point,
because we can continue on or.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, let's continue on in the in the sub stack,
because the it starts getting into that, it starts getting
into you, right.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, we've laid a lot of background and discussed
some effects. So and that kind of goes under the
reason I wrote this. A lot of people that are
politically involved or and obviously people that aren't will have
very strong opinions on civil rights and the Acts and
all the other stuff it's supposed to. It's sort of
like the neutral moral point for the modern era. You're
a normal person in the modern era if you just
accept the Civil Rights Act. You're a weird outcast if
you go against it, and you're very moral if you
push for more of it. You know, that's sort of
a paradigm that you're working in. That's great and all.
No one actually knows what's in them. I would be
shocked if you know five percent of the population has
like read the pieces of legislation themselves, not summaries. That's
a step closer. But you can summarize anything out of
any piece of legislation to make it sound good or bad.
You get into the act full primary source. I doubt.
I doubt you know five percent of people have done that.
If one percent so the fifty seven, yeah, you.
Speaker 3: Want to jump down really good because it's short, and
I don't know if it's the shortest of the Civil
Rights Act, but it's definitely one of the most concise
and to the point.
Speaker 2: And for the article I actually start later because it
starts out with how it's going to enforce what it does,
and then says what it's enforcing. So for you know,
for the reader's purpose, I have I've switched the two
topics around chronologically and we just start off with what
exactly the fifty seven Civil Rights Act is dealing with.
And this is a I have it linked in the
substack right here. I'm sure this will be leaked somewhere
on Pete's uploads. So yeah, so you can go read
it for yourself. You don't believe me, this is in
the Civil Rights Act what exactly it does? And I'm
quick voting care No person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or
attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for
the purpose of interfering with the right of such other
person to vote or to vote as he may choose,
or of causing such other person to vote for or
not to for any candidate at any general, special, or
primary election held solely or in part for the purpose
of selecting or electing any such candidate. So that's very
that's legal ease, there's there's no way getting around it.
But what it's saying is that you cannot in any
in any major capacity, cause someone to change their mind
about who they were going to vote for or if
they were going to vote at all. Right, so, or
at least do so with the with a threat behind it,
which is why they say intimidate, threaten, or coerce or
intempt to do so. These are all very ethereal concepts.
They all have legal definitions shore but that only matters
if we have this first part here where it's actually
been done. We have the second clause right here at
the start that says, if you attempt to do so,
you know your you're in violation of the law. An
attempt Uh. If I need to remind anyone logically what
this means. You know, you don't actually have to do it.
It's just if the court finds that you looked like
you were going to do it, you're in violation of
this law. There's no way to get around it. It's
very sort of a draconian in that in that way,
which is why most of your good laws that most
people are fine with just leave it at. If you
do the thing, your in violation of the law, with
very few exceptions murder attempted murder, because it's really hard
to uh uh, you know, you're sorry. It's very hard
to get someone for attempting to murder without uh, without
them actually having done it. You can't really frame that
too terribly well. It would take a lot of ingenuity.
It's very rare. But this is a very relaxed and
elastic thing that we're dealing with. Intimidation, threats, coercion, and
any sort of any cause that would get another person
to vote for not to vote for a candidate or
at all. So you're dealing with a very ethereal concept,
something you can't really grasp. It could look like anything.
There's a very broad scope here. And if you go
against this, if the court decides that you go against this,
you're in violation of federal law. So you know this
isn't state law. This is this is federal legislation that
applies to every person. And then we go on it.
Speaker 1: Looks like there is something very specific there, and tell
me if I'm wrong. At any general, special, or primary election,
is the law saying that it's this only? This is
only taken into consideration at a polling place.
Speaker 2: So this is where we're going to get into actual enforcement.
Because the strictest interpretation of this, which we had for
a few years, would say yes, because the intentions and
not what's actually written here. The intention was to prevent
people from standing at voting boxes and boots and all
this other stuff and you know, intimidating other people, which
is a trope that didn't happen too terribly much, And
we had other legislation in the past one hundred years
before this that was preventing that. You know, quite famously,
you had the elections in eighteen ninety six and nineteen
hundred where this did happen, and you had retaliatory legislation
throughout the next like forty years or so trying to
prevent this. So in theory, this already existed. The strictest
definition would say, this is just reaffirming that that principle
that you can't intimidate anyone at the at at the
voting booths. However, you get the radical interpretation of this
that is saying, well, you can intimidate these people at
these elections without being at the vote at the voting booth.
So you can if you're in like a small town
in the South, we can use like their type of example.
You can have like a you know, prior warnings issued
like a few days before, you could have patrols on
the streets or whatnot. You know, the things that didn't
actually really happen that much that a lot of your
civil rights fiction and literature would point towards is why
this needed to happen. Your more liberal interpretation will include
all of that.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, I could take it to be that
anyone who says that if you vote for Trump, you're
a fascist and you shouldn't be you shouldn't be allowed,
you should have your kids taken away from you. I
mean that seems to be a violation of that when
you look at it from the list.
Speaker 2: But then we get into the reality of law, which is,
you know, who is actually deciding who writes the law
and not. It's not these words on the page, unfortunately
or fortunately one or the other. Right, So if you
were to be consistent with that very radical interpretation of this,
you would be correct having people say that there should
be an authority that takes away your offspring if you
do not vote in the correct way. Most sane people
would say, yeah, this violates the law, but that's not
how it's ever going to be enforced. And I didn't
actually include this into the article because I thought the
logical progress something that I'm making here I just thought
would be obvious or not obvious but understood. Rather, there
are provisions in here by the government, and I link
it in the article itself so you can go read
the actual act. The legislation makes provisions to sort of
a change how the jury system worked, so who could
be selected, who couldn't be selected. It's at a federal standard,
I believe, for the first time in history or the
second time one or the other. And on just the
bare pages, that's all I did. It just said like
you had to be you had to have this many qualifications,
or you had to be in this area or something
in order to serve on a jury. But in reality,
what this did is it put specific people in specific
places that allowed juries to be balanced in favor of
a civil rights push, which is why, for like the
fifty years preceding this, the South completely upheld you know,
basically every sort of a separate medieval doctrine that was
in existence. But afterwards, even without the Supreme Court in
some cases in local courts, what could happen is that
the jury could be you know, swayed in favor of
a more civil rights verdict. So I forget exactly what
it's what it's said, and I don't have it written
down in front of me, but I believe it would
later be expanded to allow women. You know, you had
to allow women onto the juris most most of us
might know that women tend to be much more left
liberal leaning, especially with the college system that's being set
in place by this regime starting this act. So you
you obviously have a balance or an imbalance going there,
but you also had a certain amount of pay that
was being offered, You had certain standards that were all
of which would allow people to balance these courts. If
this I can put this in a different way, if
this happened in a third world country, you would see
the United States media coming out and saying that they've
rigged the legal system, just sort of how blatant it is.
And most right wing figures at the time were saying this.
They were just trampled over and ignored because they did
not have the media complex under their control. So yeah, yeah,
So he goes on whenever any person has engaged or
there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is
about to engage in any act or practice which would
deprive any other person of any right or privilege secured
by this sub section. The Attorney General may institute for
the United States a civil action or other proper proceeding
for preventative relief. So simplify this, what does that mean?
If any person looks like they are about to violate this,
the Attorney General of the United States can basically take
complete and total action against them. The federal government will
interfere into state electoral laws and practices and initiatives and
legal customs. They will just bypass all of that, and
you will be subjected to the federal government. This means,
you know, you're not going to get any sympathetic Southerner
on your side if you're a Southern counterprotester. Later on,
if you're in the Midwest or the West coast and
you kind of like the more sort of separate equal
laws and you try to go against that, there is
a risk that you could be construed as trying to intimidate, threaten,
or corrosion, coerce, or interfere in the vote of a person,
and you can be subjected to Thettorney General. So obviously
this isn't a doesn't really happen to individual people. But
that doesn't matter, because individual people acting on their own
isn't what gets societies changed unless you're a great person,
a great man. What this basically means is if you're
an organization trying to go against this practically, what you
and I would say, Pete, is you know this organ
an organization will try to go against this law in
some sort of practical or even legal way, going off
of a strict interpretation of this text, and they can
very easily be construed as intimidating, threatening, or coercing or
attempting to do so. And then suddenly they're subjected to
infringing upon the civil rights and the privileges secured within
this act, so.
Speaker 1: Which seemed to be left wide open, and with a
civil action or other proper proceeding for preventative relief.
Speaker 2: That I mean, I believe what would have to happen
is that would have to be specified. I don't know
if that's a hard rule. I think that practically you
would have to specify that beforehand in like an act. Really,
what this means is that the you know, they're setting
the groundwork for their enforcement basically after they've said what
the enforcement is going to be. This act is really
strangely construed. But there's also a social effect of both
of these things. You know, if I replace you know,
voting or the vote or something like that in this
text with the words prey or worship or something like that,
and then you know, replaced general, special or primary election
with like the state church or something like that. We
have a blasphemy law like we would have had five
hundred years ago that would have been very common in
most Western countries. And this is why I went with
calling it the civil rights regime, is because this isn't
just a legal development or some terrible turn in United
States history. This is completely establishing a new society because
these are blasphemy laws.
Speaker 3: And you know, it's.
Speaker 2: Probably no coincidence that you immediately thought, you know, that
could be execution, because you know, it's far fetched, but
it's not impossible that this could potentially happen, especially with
some of the developments that we're seeing in other Western
countries of you know, what might have been impossible, thought
impossible two years ago is now happening in terms of
a publicly sponsored death. Yeah, this is a blasphemy law.
And we see that most of our governments are not
are not really too squeamish about enforcing blasphemy law us,
nor are they too squeamish about getting rid of people
that could potentially in the future go against them. So
and that and that's the point that I make here
in this paragraph is that this is a this is
setting like a new social standard, that thing that I
mentioned at the beginning, or closer to the beginning. This
is setting morality in the modern day. You know, if
you're normal people like the Civil Rights Acts, you're really
good if you really support them and want more, and
you're evil and terrible if you go against them. That's
being set up here. The language of the subject, the enforcement,
and the scope here it's a it's a social reconstruction
more than it is messing with anything electoral or mechanical
on that sort of sphere. So that's the importance of
these two things, plus just knowing what's actually in them.
So there's no actual declaration that says segregation is no
longer allowed anymore or something like that, because you know
that would be way too that'd be way too on
the nose, that would be way too you know, sort
of door slamming for Congress at the time, it wouldn't
get through. This is once again you have to keep
in your mind, this is the compromise position that we've
got here.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: This really terribly written enforcement and uh and social law
that we see. This is the compromise. They could have
gone farther, and in fact they did in the next
few acts. But this is a not quite what the
popular narrative says. It's not quite as beautiful or glamorous,
you know, it's boring. Legally, is about the voting rights
of people basically in the South. This is targeting the
South quite obviously. You know, segregation technically would still be allowed.
A lot of your voting methods also wouldnically still be
allowed because a you would have to make a separate
legal case that say, illiteracy test does an interference with
the right to vote, because the counter argument to would
obviously be, well, everyone just has to take it and
everyone still has their right. It's just we don't want
illiterates voting on things they don't understand, which is why
literacy tests aren't included in here. Other Jim Crow laws
aren't included in here. So this the star of the
Civil Rights Acts, something that you might see in the
modern day are very gentle, very subtle, but still nonetheless
very dogmatic and very restructuring. So you know, these could
go farther, and they eventually will. But this is sort
of like boiling the frog in the pot. This was
what you could pass in nineteen fifty seven. Give it
a few years after this has been going, after you
have the media running twenty four to seven coverage over
this topic, and then you can pass something more extreme,
and you just keep going at infinitum until the country collapses.
Speaker 1: I like that you say that this is basically transforms
voting into being one of the holy sacraments of democracy,
because it really is. It's you. I was saying this
on a live stream the other night. Was the person
who tells you just vote the Republican, That person sounds
normal to me. The person who says, just vote Democrat,
That person who sounds normalst me. The person who says
I don't care who you vote for, just vote That
person scares the hell out of me. Because they are
seeking to legitimize the system and they need It's like
they need that system to exist, and they need.
Speaker 2: Most people's modern morals are founded on like a secular
government's mechanisms. I believe there's an old Glory Club article
that's talking about sort of like the other sacraments of
the of our enemies. Basically, voting is probably one of
the most key ones when you're in school, especially the
public schools. It's pushed on you basically from the second
grade on, where, if not the first grade, schools will
hold mock elections. It's not uncommon to have public schools
sort of like you know, have people have like a
mock vote for whatever president is under re election. It's
not uncommon for people to have to do a ton
of reports over the different party structures, the actual voting mechanism,
and all this other stuff. It's not uncommon for people
to have to, you know, actually go out and find
out how to register. As part of the public school system,
they want you to vote. They have a most places,
I believe, have some sort of mechanism to make sure
that you have all the time available to go and
vote on that day. There's probably a few other things
I'm forgetting as well. A lot of advertisements, a lot
of major companies that are affiliated with the state and
the state self will run advertisements trying to make sure
that you get as many people voting as possible. Now,
if you were to just take democracy on paper, voting
for the sake of voting doesn't make sense. You know,
you only vote about things that you care about, and
not everything needs to be voted on by everyone, because
if you take the classic democratic argument, you only want
the people that know what they're doing to vote, which
is why, you know, basically every democracy except you know,
this terrifying one, didn't have universal suffrage. But when you
stop looking at it from a governmental point of view
and you start looking at it from a religious point
of view, suddenly voting for the sake of voting being
a moral good makes much more sense. It's a sacrament
for religion, which you know, it's a it's a very
popular and sort of stale talking point now. But when
they were talking about the holy Temple of democracy being Washington,
d c. And Congress and you know, all the different
state buildings, you know, that was when most people sort
of woke up to the fact that this existed. But
it's not a new development by any means. Nineteen fifty
seven is almost seventy years ago. Right, and you could
probably find more developments preceding this that didn't go as
far as making this a sacrament. You know, this is
a this is radical for the time, and the rest
of the article will go into saying that, but seven
decades ago that we've had sort of a moral system
built up around the sacred vote with the Holy Temple
in Washington, d C. With the elected sort of press
that go up and vote on the inner esoteric workings
of this holy Holy Temple. Seven decades is a long time.
That's almost twice the amount of time that Moses and
the Old Testament had the Israelites in the desert basically
dying off so that they could be worthy and basically
completely restructured as a society to enter the Promised Land.
Seventy years is more than enough to completely destroy any
other religion or moral system that existed before whatever you're
trying to institute. And then you know, by the seventieth year,
it makes perfect sense that you have complete and total
dominance as a morality. Just to put that in perspective.
Speaker 1: Well, and I do want to say, because YouTube loves
to give strikes for things related to voting, we're not
telling people not to vote. We're just making the point
that we're in If we're in a quote unquote democracy,
people don't have to vote if they don't want to,
and pressuring people to vote is just as bad as
pressure people.
Speaker 2: The strict interpretation of this law would agree with you.
But uh, hopefully we've made the case now and hopefully
you have enough historical foresight to see that this didn't
stop here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, scrolling down because we got a.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so actual, So we have the ideal, we have
what the law says is and is not and will
be uh, you know, prosecuted. How are we going to
enforce this, Well, we get something uh that's very common nowadays,
but at the time would have been a very major step.
This is sort of a this is where the controversy
really lies. And I will quote the Act here and
we'll just go over it quickly because that there's not
much to dwell in here. It's just what is quote.
There is created in the executive branch of the government
a Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission shall investigate allegation
and writing under oath or affirmation, that certain citizens of
the United States are being deprived of their right to
vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion,
or national origin. Two studying collect information concerning legal developments
constituting a denial of equal protection of the laws under
the Constitution. And three appraise the laws and policies of
the federal government with respect to equal protection of the
laws under the Constitution. So there is a separate executive
commission whose only job it is to investigate any allegations,
not actual cases or probable cases, or warranty or warrants
or any of these other things, allegations that people just
write down and write their name to that this Act
up here is being violated. It's in the executive branch
as well, so there's a lot of a a lot
of autonomy, we could say, as opposed to some of
the other commissions by the other branches. Is also supposed
to study and collect information regarding the legal developments basically
of the status of these laws up here, and then
it has the authority to appraise the laws and policies
of the federal government with regard to these laws up here.
So this one commission that was just established out of
thin air has the ability to investigate allegations of this
wide reaching law that was just passed. It has the
ability to basically make its own reports and studies and
analyzes of different parts of the country, basically marking its
targets who are we going to focus on, And then
it has the authority to self correct the federal government itself,
the thing that is establishing it, to make sure that
it falls more in line with these laws. So in
practical terms are in real terms, we have a commission
whose only sole job it is is to find cases
in which it can apply these laws and as extravagant
as way as possible. Because it's the federal government. You
don't do things just slightly or within budget. You have
to keep going in order to keep your job secure.
So it's going to find allegations of which these laws
are being violated, it's going to find regions of which
these laws are being violated in order to have a
sort of macro focus, and it's going to completely restructure
the federal government in doing this to make sure that
it can just keep going. You know, it's a positive
feedback loop. This can only grow right here in this
one little section of the law. So in the modern
day this might seem less radical because we have other
commissions that do the exact same thing all the time.
In fact, if you look at the Wikipedia page, you
could probably find I don't know, like, was it fifty
different commissions within the last seventy years that basically do this,
but in their own fields not nearly as extreme. I
might add, there aren't many commissions that have the sole
purpose of completely restructuring your society, though they will affect it.
But this one was sort of like the start of
that of that development. If the federal government wants to
really do something without having to do with those you know,
written laws and checks and balances and whatnot, they found
a way to bypass the words on the paper. Surprise, surprise.
They just established a commission of people that you know,
just do what they want. So that's that's what this
is here.
Speaker 1: Why do you think they went further with this with
sixty Well, when when it comes to the voting rights,
the sixty five Act, was it just to make it right?
Speaker 3: There's a couple of reasons. Sixty five makes the legal
cases much easier because they prohibit specific things that were
happening in specific parts of the country. This stuff over here,
as I was mentioning it was all intangible. It's sort
of just laying out a principle, if you will, which
is why I called it a building block or a
foundation for the rest of them to build on. These
don't explicitly outlaw grandfather clauses or literacy tests or any
other sort of like fenangling you you know, fanangling you
could do with voting. Sixty five explicitly outlaws those things.
So basically there's no question as to whether or not
the counter arguments are going to hold up in court
because it's illegal. Now you also have the other thing,
the I want to make this a series where I
go through each and every individual one and not just
stop on fifty seven, but sixty four and sixty five
go way beyond just race and way beyond just equal protection.
Sixty fourth the Civil Rights Act quite famously applies to
basically every form of discrimination you can come across. So basically,
you as a citizen are no longer allowed to discriminate
in a public position, whether it's your own store, your
own private property that you are selling to the public.
If you are in a local government where the people
all agree that they don't want you know, these specific
people in the community, too bad you have to accept them.
If you have your own restaurant or whatnot. You can
only manage it in certain ways, because otherwise you might
be accidentally segregating all of those things come with the
later acts. You would have to be very, very creative
and very hard working in order to extrapolate any of
that from these pieces of legislation. Which is in summary
to say that you get those later acts because they
want to go farther. This does not go far enough
to the well for the modern steps quote, but for
the nineteen fifty seven radical this doesn't go near far enough.
This is just touching on voting. Great, they have their
sacrament locked down now, but they don't have the rest
of society that they want to engineer under their scope yet.
So that's that's why you get those later acts.
Speaker 1: And you also mentioned here that very famous senator tried
to fill abuster the act. Somebody that, oh that that
great right wing trope of making making the left out
to be the real racists. Yeah, that really works, right,
I mean, oh, I mean so many people, so many
people on the on the left are like, oh my god, I'm.
Speaker 4: The real racist.
Speaker 2: I mean, it works famously so well that for the
last twenty years, we've done nothing but go back to
the way that society was in the fifties. We haven't.
We haven't drifted ever further leftward, as we've accepted the
frame and the moral underpinnings of the radicals pushing these things, right.
Speaker 1: Pete, Yeah, or as our you mentioned, our friend raging
mandrel talking about the sacraments of our of the enemy,
our enemies like loss of sexual innocence, teaching children about
non reproductive sex, transitioning children, pedophilia, abortion, veneration of minority
groups and veneration of violent criminals, the principle of inversion,
the leveling of all individuals and a society to the
lowest common denominator. Yeah, all of those things that, Yeah,
I mean, all you have to do is tell the
left that they're the real racist, and we're back. We're back,
We're back. The New Deal regime is gone, the war
between the States never happened.
Speaker 2: I mean, okay, so we having said all of that,
that describes much more the sort of modern right wing
than it does Senator Swan Thurmond here, I think I
did a stream on my channel Ryan turn of Seat
on YouTube where I talked to a very well accomplished
American historian Christopher Sambatch about the party switch. Senator Thurmond
here at this point in time would have still been
a Democrat. He is one of the few people to
actually switch parties. Though there's a lot to go into there,
the basic summary I can give, hopefully not too terribly
incorrect or oversimplifying, that sort of a party switch that
a lot of American conservatives like to say never happened
at all, kind of happened. The issues did swap, and
the coalitions did change. But it wasn't like politicians were saying, well,
I'm a right winger and this is the right wing
party now, so I have to switch affiliation. Instead. What
happened is a lot of people just started running under
different parties and voting out the existing politicians. And but
one of the points that were made is that that
was made sorry by Christopher Sambatch, is that in a
lot of these places in the South, you can only
run as Democrat because that's the only political infrastructure that's there.
He uses Louisiana as an example quite a lot, as
he did on that stream, and he would say there's
just not like a Republican party headquarters in Louisiana. At
this point in time, Strong Thurman was the South Carolina
governor and senator. There was a Republican Party presence, It
wasn't non existent, but you're only ever going to get
anywhere if you run as a Democrat. And you know,
he himself obviously fit the Democratic bill. For quite a
long time, these Southern Democrats were very populistic economically, so
they supported a lot of the New Deal regime, which
you could kind of see as a fostine bargain. They
support this New Deal regime and it inevitably kind of
leads to the civil rights push. But regardless, Strong Thermond
here was basically the face of the right wing reaction
to the civil rights bills, even though I doubt most
libertarians would consider him right wing because he was a
welfare statist, which is what the Southern Democrats were. But
he opposed the Civil Rights Act the most thorough way,
quite famously by giving an over twenty four hour long
filibuster against this bill in the Senate. So just a
couple of things. I'm sure some of your audience has
probably heard of this, for you know, twenty four hour filibuster.
It's the record. It was through four Civil Rights Act.
It was an evil Southern racist that did it. You
know all of the all the tropes that usually get
passed around here. You know, that looks nice and it
kind of goes past the point to where most people
can't conceive of speaking for twenty four hours. I don't
know about you. I don't know what the longest stream
or discussion you've done is, but I think the longest
I've ever spoken consecutively was six hours. That was in person,
so it wasn't a stream, and my throat was bleeding
by the end of it. This guy was speaking to
a House of Congress without you know, modern microphone technology
and all this other stuff for over twenty four hours
before you had computers and laptops and all this other
stuff with which to keep notes to filibuster this bill.
And you might think, oh, well, he did it for
such an absurdly long time. He must have just been
buying time. It must have just been fluff, nothing in
there at all. You would be very wrong. Senator strom
Thurman was a very thorough gentleman. He read out every
state's electoral laws to the Senate with the sole purpose
of making the point that these laws up here weren't necessary.
Most states had already covered them in their own laws.
On the state level. You know, most states had legislation
basically preventing any employee or official from interfering with the
votes of people.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Obviously they didn't go far enough as to put it
into such religious language and have such terrifying enforcement, but
they were on the books. And then furthermore, he basically
went through the potential ramification of enacting this law. What
happens if you put this you know, blasphemy law into
the hands of a federal commission and the federal government,
you know, with the sole purpose of finding cases of
which to enforce these laws, Well you're going to get
a massive overreach on the federal government. Sure, that's that's
the basic point. But he predicted a complete upheaval of society.
You know, he made the classic slippery slope argument that, uh,
you know, for whatever reason, I'm told the slippery slope
is a fallacy, But every single slippery slope that I
read in history just comes true quite magically. He's talking
about how they just won't stop after this. They're going
to completely uproot the American legal tradition itself. Uh, they're
going to completely uproot American society. Uh what would have
been recognized as traditional at the time. They're going to
uh basically make this all they're going to make. Ah,
you know, federal legislation, Uh sort of like the go
to in stuff state legislation. All these things that happened.
And this is a sort of a side tangent, if
you'll allow me to go on it. When most people
think of the amendments today, you know, your basic federal legislation,
if you will, constitutional amendments, but basically the same thing.
In most people's minds at this point, they usually envision
this happening on a ubiquitous personal level. You know, the
first Amendment to most people in the modern day means
that no government official can interfere with freedom of the
press or speech or religion. If you know your constitutional history,
though that's not how it was working for the majority
of its existence. All of those amendments in the Constitution,
except for few exceptions, applied to the federal government. They
were restrictions on federal activity. This act and the acts
that would come after, and the legal philosophy that would
be set in place. The you know the new foreign
legal philosophy that's imported here. This is the start of
most of those amendments and federal policies being incorporated is
what it's called incorporation onto the states, onto the individual. Now,
in some cases this can work to your advantage. It's
not all doom and gloom. You know, your Second Amendment
could technically be more expansive now, but a lot of
good that's done. Yeah, it's really that Second Amendment right
has really helped against the the complete upheaval society. But
a secator Thurman here in this twenty four hour filibuster
is making all of these points. Basically, he's calling all
of it. He's doing a lot of predictions, and he's
also very thorough in his in his proof, so he's
not buying into frame or anything here. He's not saying
like this is good because as a as a Southerner, obviously, yeah,
you want to keep your options open for voting. And
that goes into a lot of different reasons. Your modern
narrati would say it's because they're evil racists. If you
were more throw and did I don't know, if you've
read a book in your life, it's because the Southern
political philosophy is deeply rooted in a sort of like
an elitist democratic system. So you get what looks like
universal suffrage and all of that, but you also get
very powerful politicians and political bosses and leaders and sort
of like an elite that emerges in the Southern society.
That's the tradition that Thermin and a lot of these
Dixiecrats are coming out of. So, you know, in trining
the right to vote as a sacrament for everyone completely
uproots that, It completely uproots the American legal system, American culture.
You know, I'm repeating myself at this point. So I
actually linked the filibuster itself. It's a very long one.
I've read most of it. I doubt many people will
read most of it. That you can go and see
for yourself. And the first half of it, the first
like twelve hours, is literally just him reading word for
word this is what the electoral law in the state
of Montana says. And then he just reads the whole thing,
and you get the point after like Alabama, that you know,
this law, this piece of legislation probably doesn't just have
a sort of dry strict intent. This probably isn't what
they're doing here, why they're doing it. You know, there's
probably more ulterior motives in the background. At the time,
this would be considered a conspiratorial but we know now
with historical hindsight that there were many more civil rights
acts that came after this. So that's the fifty seven Act.
That's sort of your background. There's not much impactful things here,
if you will, I know that's a word that most
people try to avoid using in our spheres. But the
more substantial stuff, that's a better word, comes with the
other acts. This will make more sense to why I
start hearing say everything that I have once I go
over the rest of them, because this opens the door.
It sets the grounds, the groundwork. You can't get anything
else that comes after without this one act. You know,
it is this one thing in the chronological order that
opens the floodgates and starts destroying things.
Speaker 1: I mean, it has to start somewhere, you know, when
we there's always a genesis for it, and there's always
a genesis for the worst things that we've that we experience.
It's that we see brought into law. I mean a
lot of people talk about how bad the New Deal
regime is.
Speaker 4: You know how many people focus on.
Speaker 1: How the New Deal regime, how that was planned out,
how I mean you're talking about what is it when
you look at executive orders. I still I think FDR
still has like two or three times wrote the two
or three times any more than like the next person.
Speaker 2: In fairness, there is a person that did go over
the New Deal regimes operations. I believe that would be Burnham.
It's just the only issue is he also does the
thing where he kind of simplifies what happened. Every now
and then you'll get a nice quote of his where
he's dug something up and he's like, this is what
the law says, and this is how they're screwing you
over with it. But you know, he also does the
sort of counter narrative simplifying, which is fine. You need
a dogma or a narrative because not everyone is meant
to be some high minded intellectual or politically active politician.
Dogmas have utility, but there is an issue when the
people making the dogmas haven't actually read the primary material themselves.
So and that's kind of what I was just to
correct here and also just bring to people.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean, yeah, yeah, well I was along
the lines of naming names.
Speaker 2: I'll let you do that because you value your presence.
I won't go to overboard.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I mean I was. I'm talking about when
it comes to the New Deal regime. You know who
was responsible for writing all that stuff. You know, Art
Alex Jones the other day say in one breath that
naming names doesn't mean anything, and then he mentioned the
World Economic Form and class swap. So very very very courageous,
very courageous.
Speaker 2: Yeah. With a lot of that said, I mentioned that
I discussed sort of like the actual movement itself with
mister Carson, and perhaps there's like a sequel in there
in the works if you get him on to talk
about some of those things that we discussed. There a
You know, you don't get a movement out of thin air.
And I'm sure with your content, hopefully your audience is
well aware that, you know, populism just doesn't real you know,
you have people organizing things somewhere. Obviously, the legal stuff
having an origin that that's obvious. You know, you laws
have to be passed by someone. But the movement itself
doesn't just come out of thin air either. There are
organizers and there are names of people that you know
did these things, and most of them were communists, the
Highlander Folk School, the people that sort of trained the
initial wave of your civil rights activists that you wouldn't
recognize at the drop of a hat Rosa Parks, Martin,
Luther King, or Michael King.
Speaker 1: Rather.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this was a former communist organization unit that was
targeting union workers in the Appalachians and then turned to
social issues like the Civil Rights Acts because they figured
they could get their way easier with it. So it's
a kind of like the Marxist at the Frankfurt School
dead horse talking point at this point, But you know,
it's another example of an institution on the left going
from more focusing on a white poor working class as
the means to a Marxist revolution and turning towards literally
everything else and destroying that white poor working class in
order to bring about their utopia. So that's a place
to start. If you don't know who organized these things
and what was happening, you go look at them, and
they're very open about it too. So this isn't like
esoteric knowledge. The great thing about American political movements is
they tell you exactly what, when, and where they are
doing things.
Speaker 4: They're very proud of it. All right, plug anything.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: I wish you can find me on Twitter at Turnip
Merchant or you know, I'm under my name there as well,
sort of with the tag and the user name. I
haven't been posting there nearly as much. I have a
Telegram channel as well, which you can find. Our good
friend Charlemagne. He has a website called find my Friends
F I N D M Y. Yeah, okay, so link
will be there in the whatever description there is. I
have a Telegram channel that you can find there. I'm
slightly more active there because I like Telegram more than Twitter.
And then we also have my YouTube channel, which is
still monetized magically. I've talked about Southern segregation and Chinese
revolutions and reconstruction, still monetized and going. That's under my
name as well, Ryan Turnips. You can find it on YouTube.
There's quite the back catalog now, so there's plenty of
content there if you kind of like the discussions that
we brought here today, except it's not just me talking
about it, so you don't have to hear me waffle
on forever. I usually bring on someone else who is
also knowledgeable in the subject to talk about whatever it is.
So those are the places to find me. And I
think that's all I've got to plug. And you know,
by all means, everyone have a merry Christmas, since this
is probably the last public announcement I'll be giving on that,
all right, and thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it, Thank you so much. I want to
welcome everyone back to the Pete Canonas show. I want
to welcome Greg Good to the show for the first time.
How you doing, Greg.
Speaker 4: Hey, Great to be here.
Speaker 1: Tell everybody a little bit about yourself. You first time.
I always try to let people do that.
Speaker 4: Well. You might know me by several different names at
this point, a real name, Kevin Diana, that's no secret.
I write under the name of James Kirkpatrick over at
VDRE dot com, Twitter, VDRE James ka got the James
Polk avatar, and then at American Renaissance and other places
I've read under the name of Gregory Hood. I've been
doing this for a while, and you know, the pen
names have just sort of become brands associated with the
different sites. But you know, I'm not trying to hide
anything or do anything like that. At this point, it's
just that's how people know me, so I just haven't
had any reason to change it. I started off, I
did a group called Youthrun Civilization back when I was
working at the Leadership Institute and immediately post college, and
then I'm basically working in identitarian politics ever since, from
the beginnings of what you could call the alt right
to whatever the dissident right is today.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to remember, after nine hundred episodes how much
I've actually talked about the Civil Rights Act. But what
really sparked this was I was on vacation and I
just go on to Twitter, because that's what attacts do,
and I saw your tweet and this was I immediately
typed under a tweet of the year candidate. So I'll
just read it.
Speaker 4: At real quick.
Speaker 1: It says all of American life revolves around earning enough
money to escape the consequences of the civil rights movement.
It's one giant intelligence test of avoiding legal traps, escaping
compromise institutions, and lying through your teeth about what you
are actually doing.
Speaker 4: I mean, that may be a little harsh, but I
think that's fair, and I think that those explain the
way most people live their lives today. What is American
life except this desperate quest for status? And how best
do you show status except by opting out of the
rules that everybody else has to live under. I mean,
think of how many things that we take for granted
are basically the result of the Civil Rights Act, which
at this point I think I can comfortably say has
replaced the American Revolution and even the Civil War as
the center of what is now American identity, or perhaps
post American identity. If you were to identify one figure
that is the most important in American history in terms
of somebody that all political factions agree upon was a
hero and who can be honored without controversy in any environment,
it's probably Martin Luther King Jr. And Yet, if you
look at what the Civil Rights Revolution actually did in
terms of desegregation in the public school, in terms of
making sure that both northern and southern cities were more
racially integrated, in terms of setting up this regulatory apparatus
that governs not just desegregation but also interpersonal conduct and
businesses around the country, And of course the categories the
protecting classes under the Civil Rights Act continue to expand,
and we can get into that into a bit and
the way people live their lives in terms of where
they have to move, where they have to live, Just
that the things that are really dominant in every single
person's existence upon this earth, like the reason you go
to work, the reason you earn money, the reason you
do what you do. Why do you do these things
because basically, you want to live far away from a
crime ridden neighborhood. You want to send your kids to
quote unquote good schools. You want to live in a
place where you have a reasonable expectation of public safety
and can build value in your house. Steve Sailor often
jokes that when they talk about equity, what they really
mean is going out for the equity in your house,
because that's how most Americans build wealth, and we all
I wasn't trying to be flippant or KOI by saying this.
I mean this quite literally. This is what you will
spend the bulk of your life upon this earth doing.
Is trying to build wealth and ensure the safety of
your family, and ensure some sort of path of prosperity
where you don't actually have to deal with what the
Civil Rights Act at did, which was forcing you to
associate with people that most people in America do not
want to associate with. And they may call themselves liberal, conservative,
they may vote for this candidate or that candidate, and
they may have certain opinions about the Civil Rights revolution,
but in terms of real preference, in terms of how
they actually live, it seems that everybody, at least most
white people are pretty much on the same page.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that includes the liberal That includes because especially
the liberals.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think we both know.
Speaker 1: Ze Man and I remember him one time he had
written and it was it was what it was that time.
Speaker 4: I was waking up and my mind.
Speaker 1: Was turning away from you know, libertarianism, live and let live,
and starting to see the world. The scales were falling
from the eye, from my eyes. And he said, he
goes where I live, He goes, I live around more
black people than.
Speaker 4: The average progressive.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the average progressive doesn't live around black people.
And if they, if they work in academia, they don't
work around black people. No.
Speaker 4: And if you do work among black people, especially if
you're in a higher income I mean, the type of
minorities that you work among tend to be pretty carefully
selected culturally, they're of a certain type and a lot
of the but that doesn't mean that you necessarily hang
out with them, or that doesn't mean you necessarily live
with them. And I think one of the big indicators
of something really going on was back in twenty sixteen
when they had a number of polls talking this is
just in the Republican primary, and there was a very
significant correlation between the people who lived among diversity and
Trump voters and those who tended not to live among
diversity and Ted Cruz voters. This was at the point
when it was basically Trump or Cruise. And if you
look at moderate Republicans, I mean you immediately go to
Republicans and places like Utah, they tend to be Republicans
from almost monolithically white areas, very socially conservative, but socially
conservative in the kind of way that's particularly non combative.
They can sort of take for granted a high trust society,
a high public safety society. They don't really have to
confront these kinds of difficult issues, whereas when you get
these kind of more aggressive political strategies. I think it's
the product of diversity. And of course there's a host
of intellectuals and writers who have very reluctantly, sometimes and
much against their own wishes, have published some stuff saying
that diversity tends to destroy social trust and it leads
us to a more destructive and a more combative society. Obviously,
the most famous is Robert Putnam, the author of Bowling Alone,
who published some research showing that diversity destroys social trust
not just between groups, but within groups. And what I
find especially amusing, I believe it was Brian Kaplan who
has actually praised immigration on the grounds precisely because it
undermines social trust, and so it undermines support for welfare
states and the kinds of social programs that Europeans have
taken for granted. What's interesting is as racial diversity increases
in Europe, I think you're seeing those welfare programs and
a lot of the state programs that used to be
the bedrock of their societies, you're seeing Europeans question those
because they don't work the same way anymore. No.
Speaker 1: No, And you know, if you remember, famously, up until
a certain point, Bernie Sanders was very much against immigration.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Cooke brother spot as they called it, and it
is a Koch Brothers plot. I mean if the people
who frighten me in the political battle, the people who
the enemy is, who keep me up at night, who
make me really think hard about how we're going to
get out of this mess. It's not the leftist, it's
not the antifot, it's not the watchdog groups. I mean,
they are what they are, right. I mean, you know
what you're dealing with with them, and we can get
into where their power really comes from. But the people
who are really difficult to overcome are the big business lobbies,
the chief labor lobbies, the people who when Conservatives win
elections as the Tories have in the United Kingdom and
immigration has skyrocket at even post breaksit, how do you
overcome that? Because it's one thing to overcome your political opponents,
is quite another to overcome the people who are supposedly
on your side, particularly when they have a lot more
money and resources than you do. And this is one
of the big things we have to think about in
terms of the Civil Rights Act and in terms of
the regulatory structure that we live under today, which is
that it provides certain advantages for those who already command
certain markets. I mean, if you're a big business the
fact is you can comply a lot more easily with
a lot of these regulations than smaller businesses. If you're
a company like Amazon, you benefit from a lot of
the social changes that have taken place in this country
even since twenty twenty. You benefit from that a lot
more than does a small business is trying to operate
on a San Francisco or Oakland street, right.
Speaker 1: I mean Amazon and the Koch brothers who have a huge,
huge presence here as far as their food division in Alabama,
they can afford to get around anything the mistakes that
they make if they hire illegals. They can afford to
if But like you said, the small business, you know
that's setting up shop in a small town here or
even in San Francisco, who's just a startup and doesn't
have that the insane VC money that a lot of
businesses have. They can't compete and they there there is
no That's what when I really started to understand how immigration,
pretty much more than anything, would disrupt what you know,
some would want to call the free market, is when
I was not only did I have to take a
stand against immigration, but I had to look at a
free market and say, is it even possible ever?
Speaker 4: Right. I mean, there's two things that we need to
There's two thinkers that I think we should consider when
we get into the Civil Rights Act. And also the
nature of free marketing capitalism today, if we can even
call it that. Obviously there's a very lengthy, perhaps tedious
debate about is it really capitalism? Is this really the
free market? I mean, we can argue back and forth
on that, But the fact is, if people ask why
are things working this way? Why is it that all
the businesses are putting up the pride flags and the
intersectional flags. Why is it that they're falling all over
each other with these transgender and the pronouns and everything else.
Why is it that LGBT is no longer LGBT. It's
now I can't even say what it is. It's got
like ten letters and numbers and I think a plus
sign for some reason. I mean, nobody even knows what
these things are anymore. But why is it multiplying in
this way? The very simple answer is because the government
says so. And the reason the government says so is
the Civil Rights Act. I think the book that has
really made a major impact on the American right and
has led to I think some of the more mature
understanding of politics that I would have been praying for
in the American Right ten years ago was age of Entitlement.
And in that book, Can't Well argues that the Civil
Rights Act Chris who Calwell, I'm sorry, yeah, right. Chris
Calwell basically argues that the Civil Rights Act essentially absorbed
the American Constitution, that a lot of the protections for business,
for states, for what the government can and cannot allow
you to do, were essentially taken away. And at the time,
Barry Goldwater, who was of course the man who began
the conservative movement more than anybody else, he was not
a segregationist, and he obviously opposed segregation in the armed
forces and in public institutions, but he opposed the Civil
Rights Act. Now, a lot of people will say, oh, well,
this is just being racist, or this is like what
you could get away with, or something like that. But
there's a very big distinction between, or at least there
should be, between opposing state mandated segregation and supporting the
right of the government to force you to associate with
people you don't want to associate with. More importantly, it's
not just a question of well, people are allowed to
use whatever business you want. It's a question of we're
going to set up this whole regulatory structure to make
sure that businesses treat people in a different way, and
if members from certain groups, their complaints are going to
be treated differently from everybody else's. So as this expands,
as the number of protected classes and this is a
legal thing, a protected class, as the number of these
classes expand, you essentially have this kind of woke aristocracy
developing where people who are members of certain groups just
have more rights and more privileges than do normal Americans.
And so we hear all the time this rhetoric about
a white supremacist society. But when you actually break down,
like what life in America is, you will go to
a business, you will see these pride flags or progress
flags or whatever else, which if you're a Christian, I mean,
this is a direct insult to your beliefs. But you
have to go along with that, Like there's no one's
going to listen to you if you say this is
a hostile working environment, of this offends you, you're just
not part of the club. But if you use the
wrong pronoun, if you say something even unintentionally racists that
people take offense to, and of course they don't even
need to really take offense. They just need to convince
a jury or a judge that they took offense. That's
the end of you. That's the end of the business.
We now live under a society where just about every
personal interaction is a potential federal case. That is a
level of government intervention far beyond King George the Third
could have ever dreamed of. It really raises the question
of what is the nature of a free society if
we're in a situation where everything we do can potentially
be supervised by bureaucrats and judges and you can be
penalized if you didn't act the right way. And a
lot of people are saying, well, these businesses need to
push back against this. We just need to be courageous.
We just need to make sure people don't go along
with this politically correct silliness. But I think what people
are forgetting is that there is an iron fist contained
within the velvet glove. Here. People are going to align
themselves with power because if they don't do that, they're
not going to be allowed to operate. And it's very
easy to take shots at corporate heads or ordinary people
who can find themselves caught in these politically correct controversies.
But let's face it, and I mean I'll put it
to you too. I mean, maybe there's some self examination here.
Every single one of us, at some point or another
has bowed their head to go along, to get along,
whether that's writing under a pen name, whether that's keeping
our mouth shut in a certain circumstance, whether that's keeping
our opinions to ourselves because you don't want to start
some giant thing. We're all guilty. We're all cowards in
that sense. But the reason we act that way is
not because people are just inherently cowards. It's because the
government and big capital have lined up against them. And
until that chain, I think we're expecting too much from
Americans to really fight back against this.
Speaker 1: I don't even think it's just that. I think it's
the people themselves. I mean, you know, your typical boomer
con will argue with you that you know, we have
free speech in this country, and then you'll go to
exercise your free speech, and they'll repeat to you progressive
talking points like well, you have freedom to speak, but
you don't have there's no freedom from consequences of your speech,
and they defend the Civil Rights Act and these institutions
that will come down on you for saying, look, I
just don't want to live and I'm not going to
move to that town because of the demographics.
Speaker 4: Right, And this is one of the questions we really
have to get into. Do people even have their own opinions?
Do people even really have their own identity at this point?
Because one of the things, and this is sort of
the predominant theme of my work over the last couple
of years, and certainly the main theme of the book
I'm writing right now, is if you look at what
happened in this country since twenty sixteen, I think there
was a consensus by journalists and by those in power,
including in the so called intelligence community, that they can
never let twenty sixteen happen again. That if people get
a more or less free flow of information, that quote
unquote misinformation is going to proliferarate. We need to stop this.
We need to make sure that only approved information is
getting before people. And that has justified a pretty staggering
breadth of censorship and top down control that I didn't
think Americans would ever put up with in twenty fifteen,
I certainly would have thought that there would have been
some pushback against what we see now and what we
kind of take for granted. Now, let's not forget back in.
I think it was a couple of years before twenty
sixteen there was a book on Amazon really repugnant. I'm
not even going to get into the subject matter, but
you use your imagination, and it was teaching people to
get away with some of the worst crimes imaginable. And
some people obviously said, you know, ba, this book, don't
sell it, and Amazon said, no, we are going to
err on the side of free speech. We are not
going to censor ourselves because if we do that, we're
going to start doing it for everything else. Well, eventually
they back down. Now, of course, we just take for
granted that there are certain books, fairly moderate books too,
like Jared Taylor's White Identity, that you just can't get
on Amazon. We just take for granted that certain people
will not be allowed on YouTube, that certain people will
not be allowed on Twitter, even under Elon Musk. And
yet in the same breath we will still hear leftists
talking about how brave they are for reading quote unquote
banned books because Ron Desantas doesn't want some book about
homosexuality in a kindergarten or something like that. You will
still see people beating their chest and talking about the
need for equality, even though their entire career may depend
on manipulating regulations and discriminating against white guys. You will
still see Chris pastors talking about how you know, as
a Christian, you ever noticed that the term as a
Christian what follows is always something against traditional Christianity. Nobody
ever says, like, as a Christian, I'm disgusted with this
immorality in our society. You'll still see these churches go
along with this stuff, and we all just kind of
shrug and say, well, you know, America is still like
a Christian nation and a Christian society. I don't think
there's been a better system of control devised than those
with power, and those with more power than I think
any dictator could have ever dreamed of, constantly telling you
that they're actually the ones who are victims, constantly telling
you that they are the ones who are oppressed, even
as they put the heel debt down on your neck,
and people go along with it. I mean, one of
the more depressing things is if you remember, like the
old days of George W. Bush Conservatism and the birth
of the Rom Paul movement, there was this kind of
libertarian meme going around where you saw the the stormtroopers,
you know, like Star Wars stormtroopers, and it said they
were lined up and it said something like fascism. Do
you really think it's going to be this obvious? But
the answer is basically, well yeah. I mean I think
people now just grad understand or take for granted that
when they think of the word tyranny, if it's not
being done by like white guys in uniforms who build
cool buildings, it's not actually tyranny. You'll read stories about,
for example, the state of Washington now can take away
your kids if you don't go along with transing them
at a certain age. I mean, that's an abuse of
government power that's just staggering in its ramifications. But normal people,
ordinary people, including many conservatives, will just go along with
it and say, well, yeah, that's a matter of individual choice.
I mean, I think we've the Civil Rights Act has
really changed our psyche in a way because it's convinced
us that even the most unlimited government power is justified
as long as it's done in the name of equality
or diversity, even if these are just words. Certainly there
can be no greater example of double think than the
fact that usually it's the Department of Equal Treatment or
Equal Opportunity which presides over affirmative action and state mandated
discrimination against Whites and Asians.
Speaker 1: It's incredible to me how people don't see it, and
they don't see basically how indoctrinated they are. I had
somebody point out to me the other day that there
was just another libertarian podcast that I'm not going to
give any I'm not going to give them any promotion
because that's what they want. And they basically they said
that anything that I'm promoting these days is just basically
based in racism. And I looked at these two guys
because I know who they are. They're two brothers who
grew up in New Hampshire. I mean New Hampshire. Is
you want to talk about homogeneous society, a white Anglo society.
It's like my friend dark Enlightenment said, he said, you
don't even have like some Slavs or Mediterraneans in there
to throw some low time preference in and these guys
are just like, oh, this is it's all about racism,
It's all about And I'm like, where did you grow
Did you miss where you grew up?
Speaker 4: You grew up in one of.
Speaker 1: The least violent states in the nation, probably in the world,
and why do you think it was?
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's there's something. I think, the thing that we
really have a hard time even conceptualizing. I mean, it's
sort of like that. And I meant to say Slovs.
Speaker 1: I meant to say Slavs and Mediterraneans to throw some
high time preference in there.
Speaker 4: My last name is in a valve, so I can certainly
part of the fact that we, yeah, we know how
we are with time preference and waving our arms around
and getting excited for no reason. But the thing that
we really had sort of like how a fish doesn't
understand water because he's constantly surrounded by it. I think
we've sort of accepted our own subjugation. We sort of
take for granted. And one of the big problems that
we have is that it's seen as a sign of strength,
and throughout all of human history it basically was a
sign of strength, where if you have problems, you shut
up and deal with it. Right. You don't go crying
to the government or to somebody else to help you out.
You solve the problem. If there's somebody threatening your family,
you protect your family. If your job fires you, you
get another job. But if somebody says something that makes
you feel bad, you put up with it, or you
ignore it, or you know, if they called you fat
or something, you lose weight. You do what you got
to do. You overcome. But we're in a system now
where the less capable you are, the weaker you are,
or to be really cynical about it, the more capable
you are at pretending that you're offended, the more power
and resources you get. And I think this may have
been justified at a certain level because we feel bad
for the underdog. I mean, if you look at like
a transgender, you look at somebody who maybe is from
a certain group, and you say, well, you know, they
got a heart shake or maybe there's something wrong with
their head, so we can afford to be nice to them,
and we'll give them some stuff just to kind of
feel bad, almost like charity. But at this point it's
become so predominant, and it's become the driving force behind
just about every single institution in our society, to the
point where you can't do anything without getting a lecture
about politics. And you have to ask yourself, when does
this cease being a marginal force, and when do we
start talking about it for what it is, which is
really the predominant state religion of the most powerful empire
that has ever existed. It's very strange, and again you
don't think about it, but if you actually take a
step back and say, this intersectional flag, for example, with
the triangles and all the other stripes and everything else,
this was something that didn't even exist a couple of
years ago. Now as we speak, American embassies are raising
this in countries around the world, even in countries, especially
in countries where it's guaranteed to offend the populations there
that supposedly we're trying to maintain good diplomatic relations with.
How do we account for this overwhelming public acceptance of
something that wasn't even a thing a couple of years ago.
How do we account for the power of the state
being put behind this idea? And although this may sound simplistic,
I think it's just because power tends to expand until
it is checked and with the Civil Rights Act, you
created a permanent constituency of social managers who gained power
and prestige manipulating social relations. And if everybody in society
takes for granted that the highest moral good is equality,
you're always going to have a reason to find examples
of inequality, and you're always going to have reasons to
give people money and power to solve that problem. And
it won't just spread within the United States, It's going
to spread internationally. If you want to be really cynical
about it. I don't know if this is planned or
I think more likely is just the way things developed.
If you're trying to have a population that's easy to control,
a population of permanent dependence, utterly crying out for more
management and resources get taken from people they don't like
and given to them by government bureaucrats. I mean, that's
pretty much ideal for a modern democracy. And I hate
to be crude about it, but if you look at
this trance stuff, I mean, what is a more perfect
example of an utter dependent than a literal unuch. Yeah,
somebody who is.
Speaker 1: Wholly dependent for the rest of their life upon companies,
corporations that have basically merged with the government, like pharma.
I was looking at a chart from twenty twenty one, No,
it was from last year, and it was talking about
the ten biggest ten companies to get the most from
the military industrial complex. Four of them were pharmaceutical companies. Yeah,
four in the top ten, four were pharmaceutical companies. And
you have to ask yours. You have to ask yourself
how and why?
Speaker 4: And I guess the big question. And this is something
that I think about a lot, and I think it's
hard to determine because you know, as Jeria Taylor's always
telling me, it's he doesn't like the idea of mind reading.
It's always tough to determine motivation, especially when you're in
a society where people are rewarded for essentially making things up.
I mean that's one of the problems with Civil Rights Act,
or sexual harassment laws, or a lot of these ideas
of a hostile working environment. It's all completely subjective. So
I mean, once you get into the territory of subjective law,
I would basically argue that's tyranny by definition. When you
look at these companies who talk about quote unquote our values,
is if they have a value other than making money.
If you look at these pharmaceutical companies, say who may
have a stake in vaccine mandates or transgenderism because they
stand the benefit from pushing these treatments or everything else.
Is it really so cynical as we are going to
put money behind these things, created dependent consumer base that
will then buy our products forever. Do they really think
that far ahead? Or do they simply adapt to social
movements that other people are pushing forward. I'm not sure.
I mean, I think that's a psychological thing. I think
probably both, but certainly with the way they act now
just defending their institutional interests, and I think we should
be very suspicious of any kind of public morality that
tells us. You know, even when people say like, oh,
they're virtue signaling, Well, it's not really virtue signaling if
you're just acting in your economic self interest. I mean,
actual virtue signaling would be doing something that's a sacrifice.
But none of these companies that are fastuning these symbols
anyway are doing anything other than what you would expect
them to do. Yeah, And the thing about.
Speaker 1: The reason I wanted to talk to you was to
talk about the Civil Rights Act, and you know basically
how it's become the constitution. But what better group If
that is your constitution, the more people you want you
can add to it, the better. And if you have
trans people who you know, who are and I mean,
I hate to be crude, but they're basically having to
force open a wound for the rest of their life
if they're you know, male to female.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean youre's you're I think we've all seen
the uh web form posts that occasionally get posted on
Twitter or something like that. When you actually see what
the reality of this thing is, and it's it's gruesome
to the point that if people are voluntarily choosing to
do this, that doesn't convince me that we need to
honor individual choice. It makes me question the very idea
of choice altogether. I think one of the problems since
twenty sixteen is journalists have acted in such a way
where they assume people are too stupid to understand things,
so we have to censor the media to make sure
people vote the right way. And in a democratic society
that's pretty ominous, because what you're saying is that people
are too dumb to make up their own minds, in
which case, why are we giving them the right to vote.
But I think the scarier possibility what if they're right.
And the trans thing has sort of made me think
about this because you look at these people who are
very clearly products of broken online subcultures, who are doing
these things out of a certain sense of attention, self gratification,
and also, I think just sort of a yearning for
human connection that they're not getting in a broken society,
and they take these destructive choices, and then the rest
of society demands that we affirm these things. To me,
this is sort of a reducto ad absurdum that the
entire social order has gone wildly in the wrong direction
and probably needs to be overturned completely. The real question becomes,
how do you reverse it? When the Civil Rights Act
now not in every state, but a lot of these
states have guarded these groups as protected classes. So you
can say, oh, well, we just shouldn't go along with it.
It's like, okay, but you can say that, but you're
going to lose your business if you try to actually
on these things. You can say whatever you want under
an anonymous Twitter handle, but if you go into your
business and use the wrong pronoun that could be the
end of your career then and there. And the reason
for that is not the free market, it's not the
liberal media. It's the government. And at the end of
the day, it's the Civil Rights Act and I sixty four.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you see people who there's an industry built up
around trying to explain this, trying to explain why it happened,
the James Lindsay's of the world famously, and you know,
their answer to it is basically more of it. There's
more liberty to to fight against. This to do is
if we if we just do classical liberalism right this
one time, you know, we'll be able to push past us.
Speaker 4: Well, let's let's take that for granted for a second.
Let's let's take them at their word. I mean, if
we say, I mean, let's take you know, Caldwells thesis.
I mean, what he's writing about in Age of Entitlement
is that the Civil Rights Act dramatically changed the relationship
between the people and the government, and certainly the relationship
of the constitutional order to the people. If we talk
about classical liberalism, if we take as a premise that
people have the right to make their own value judgments,
that people have the right to define their own identity,
to associate with the people they want to associate with,
to say what they want to say. At the end
of the day, that has to mean being able to
do with your own property what you want. That has
to mean freedom of association. That has to mean that
you actually do have the right for your speech to
have consequences in the real world, not just sort of
this abstraction that you convent about on Twitter. So, if
you really believe in classical liberalism, and I would say
somebody like Barry Goldwor was championing this when he opposed
the Civil Rights Act, you really need to oppose the
Civil Rights Act in nineteen sixty four. You actually have
to say, yeah, the federal government should not be in
the business of managing social relations, and it certainly should
be in the business of filing federal lawsuits if an
individual business doesn't act the way that we want it.
I think this is a very different thing than state
mandated segregation. I think there are many good reasons to
oppose state mandated segregation that do not apply to saying
the government should force you to serve whoever they want
you to serve. So the question for someone like James
Lindsay is okay, well, if you're a classical liberal, do
you believe in abolishing the Civil Rights Act of nineteen
sixty four? And he's going to say, well no, And
it's like, all right, well, then we're just wasting time,
aren't we. Because if you're still going to have this
bureaucracy enforcing all these laws you don't agree with, and
you're still going to be funny with your tax dollars
and it's still going to be the law of the land,
why even bother talking about this? I mean, why not
do what I think most people do, which was the
point of my tweet, which as you shut up, keep
your head down, and work around it as best you can.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And that's what basically anyone who doesn't work for
themselves or work from home, even if they work from
home and they have clients or whatever, that's what you
have to do when you go to work.
Speaker 4: I mean, I.
Speaker 1: I used to work for a German company and this
company had a diversity video that you had to watch
ten years before they had them in the United States,
before United States corporations were coming out with them, and
you have to watch exactly what I had to watch
exactly what I said there. You know, I would get
offered I would get offered promotions all the time where
I'd have people under me, you know, where I'd be
commanding people, and I'd be like, now, I'm very happy
doing what I'm doing because I know that I'm going
to be around people that I'm going to let slip
one one day and we're going to be into We're
going to be into something.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, that's the atmosphere of silent terror. I
think that during twenty twenty and a lot of these
kind of viral video controversies that followed, one of the
things that really struck me is when I believe it
was a black guy who was like bird watching or something,
and he was in a park and he pulled a
phone on this older white woman and the woman was
like screaming in terror, trying to cover up her face,
borderline out of control. And I don't think it was
just fear for her job, although that was part of it.
I don't think it was just fear of attention of
that's part of it. I mean, I think that the
real dilemma for whites is that they've accepted the moral case.
They've accepted that racism, what we call racism, a word
that didn't even really exist one hundred years ago, is
now the greatest sin that has ever could ever exist,
and to be found guilty of it is to be
cast outside not just polite society, but really the protection
of society. How many cases have we seen where a
guy gets beaten up or even killed and they let
him go because, oh, we said the N word or
something like that, like did he actually say it? Who knows,
But this is taken as legitimate. And this idea of
constantly being at the whim of other people, of having
no moral right to your own existence, of no moral
right to your own community, of having no identity aside
that of shame and disgrace, I think that's a powerful
psychological drive for, as you pointed out earlier, a lot
of white people who are drawn to this kind of
trans stuff or one of these other LGBT whatever category is.
I think it's partially cynical because they're just trying to
have protection from civil rights laws and things like that,
But I think part of it is a deeply felt
need to be part of the coalition of the oppressed,
because it's unbearable to be considered the bad guy, and
most people don't want to be considered the bad guy.
And as much as we might like to tell ourselves
comforting stories about the underdog or how people make up
their own mind, or how if a government tries to
impose a certain code of values on people, most people
will resist, that's not true at all. Most people will
align with power. The fact that you go to the
movies and you hear stories about, you know, plucky underdogs
fighting the tyrannical government. You know, these tyrannical governments in
fiction are never saying the kinds of things that the
governments who are actually in power today are telling.
Speaker 3: You.
Speaker 4: The same people who like identifying with the rebels in
this movie or that movie are the same people who
are the most fanatical enforcers of orthodoxy today. The fact
is most people will do what they're told, and whites
especially tend to follow the rules. Yeah.
Speaker 1: The famously, when the National Socialists came to power in
nineteen thirty three, so many people who had been in
the Communist Party just started wearing different colors. They just
switched overnight.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you see this in the Spanish Civil War two
was interesting because you know, the Spanish Civil War was
originally supposed to be kind of a lightning coup, right
the nationalists were trying to just take over the government failed, and.
Speaker 1: So I'm doing a series on the Spanish Civil War.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Spanish Civil War is fascinating, and one of the
interesting things about it is that people found themselves caught
behind quote unquote enemy lines all of a sudden, even
though they had no idea, like, this is what they
were signing up for, this is something that was going
to go down. It was supposed to be initially a
battle for control of the whole country, and it ended
up becoming really a territorial conflict. And what ended up
happening is the Foalongay activists who were caught behind republican
lines reidentified as communists, and the communists who were caught
behind nationalists a lines reidentified as members of the Flangai.
And it makes sense because when your own safety is
in jeopardy and you need to prove your credentials to
literally stay alive, the best way to do it is
to identify with the most fanatical soldiers on the other side.
And so if you're a right wing to this and
then you put on a communist uniform and start executing
traders to their class, then you've protected yourself. And it's
hard not to see that with what's happening now. I mean,
I suppose the good news is that if the quote
unquote right people had power, you would see most people
align with better values. And I do think that the
system we live under now is so unnatural that it
takes a tremendous amount of repression and power to keep
it stumbling along. I think if we had power, it
would be a more libertarian society. We would need such compulsion.
But I mean, if you want to call that a
white pilled reading of things, I mean it's still pretty
cynical way to look at people. Unfortunately, I don't think
people are giving me much of a reason to think.
Speaker 1: Otherwise, honestly at this point, and I've been harping on
this for yeah, basically since COVID started. Is I think
that until something could be done at the national level,
and I'm almost fully convinced it's going to have to
be some kind of caesar in order to do it,
someone who has the military behind them and such, I
think that the best chance we have for surviving and
being able to speak openly and not have to live
a life where we have to watch our every word.
Is to find a location that is amenable to our values,
and I think a lot of people have figured that
out in the last three years. People contact me all
the time and are like, yep, I moved, butught a farm.
I'm in a you know, a super majority red area,
And even though I may not be a conservative, it's
a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I think there's two interesting things happening right now. First,
when you look at somebody like Caldwell, this guy's fundamentally
product of the conservative movement, is a fundamentally product of
what I've called conservatism MinC. This is not some crazy outsider.
This is not somebody who would be considered necessarily like
a far right activist, unlike the person whose name I
mentioned accidentally. But this is significant because you wouldn't hear
somebody saying something like, well, the Civil Rights Act is
the reason all these things are going wrong. Richard Haniya,
who's widely followed on Twitter and a lot of different people,
including some center left people, He's made essentially the same take,
which is that it's because the government is pushing these laws,
and Woke is essentially just downstream from the Civil Rights Act.
I think Orn McIntyre, who thinks that the Blaze is
saying this kind of stuff now, the Blaze to me,
will always be associated with Glenn Beck. The idea of
Glenn Beck's institution opposing the Civil Rights Act would have
been crazy to me ten years ago. But here we are. Well.
Speaker 1: I mean, yesterday he had on, or it might have
been the day before he had James Lindsay on, and
James Lindsay explained to him how Christian nationalism I mean
basically straw manned anyone who knows anything about about the book.
He just straw ended, and he got he got back
to the point where he goes, well, we can't have
people being forced to be Christians in this country. And
I'm just like this Lindsay guy has to be exposed.
I mean, he is, you know, Glenn Beck to me.
I mean I was listening remember when Glenn Beck was
on the radio. You know, I used to listen to
him just because he was entertaining, and then he had
the Fox Show, and you know, he does some good things,
but in the end, he's a freaking boomer.
Speaker 4: There was a book author in the name is blanket
on me right now, But there's a book called Thomas
Jefferson in the Art of Power, and it talks about
how Jefferson and his movement basically governed the country after
the Washington administrate, after the Washington Adams administrations, and how
his approach to politics still define us. And well, the
lines that really took away from it was, in America,
everything is justified in terms of individual choice and individual freedom,
and then what you do, as long as it's essentially
covered in the cloak of those words, is basically irrelevant
as long as it's compellingly identified with those phrases. That's
sort of the trap we're in because the reason we
face all these problems. We can talk about government bureaucracies,
we can talk about violations of the Constitution. We can
talk about the fact that you don't control your own property,
that the state can take your kids, that what public
education is doing. All of these things are true. But
at the end of the day, the Left will justify
everything they're doing on the grounds of people are allowed
to decide from themselves who they are and what they
want to be, and who are you to get involved
with that to interfere with that, that is a compelling
argument to most Americans. Unfortunately, the problem the response is
that I think it's something that I don't a lot
of us, maybe even we ourselves don't really want to consider,
which is choice itself is something of an illusion. I mean,
what we've seen over the last few years, particularly in
regard to Christians, certainly since gay marriage became legalized, is
even the most deeply held values, even people who claim
to be defending the value, you know, the law of
the Living God, will change their minds in response to power,
and they're not just being cynical. Maybe they may change
it that way out of cynicism, refear at the beginning,
but eventually you do come to believe what you're saying.
Where you stand is where you sit, as the old
bureaucratic saying goes. And so when you see these people
redefining even who they are biologically, I think there was
that guy. Did you see the assistant on Mister Beast,
who's that YouTube personality? And he became like some transgender
guy and everybody was going nuts about this. Well, somebody
dug up a thing a few years before where he
was making the kind of tired transgender jokes like oh,
I identify as an attack helicopter. Fast forward a few years,
this guy's transgender, and you ask yourself, well, how could
it have come to this? What if The really terrifying
possibility is that the journalists and the big tech executives
and all the rest of them are basically right that
if you just feed people a certain diet of a
certain amount of content for how many years, even the
most fundamental parts of their identity can be changed, can
be changed from the outside. And more than this, they'll
be convinced that they've made up their own mind. There's
a book called Dedication and Leadership by a guy named
Douglas Hyde. He was a Communist party organizer. They used
to give it to me when I worked at Leaderspins
two because it's a good book on how to convince
people of certain ideas and how to organize people. And
he was talking about discussion groups in the idea of
basically educating your activists, and he said, the best thing
to do is to make people think that they've made
up their own mind. I mean, this is at the
heart of a lot of political persuasion. There's an incredible
amount of citicism, even in that where you're basically leading
people to predetermined conclusions, but you're essentially tricking them into thinking, well, actually,
I came up with this idea, all political advertising, really,
all political activism is in some sense and exercise and gaslighting,
and God is on the side of the big battalions,
i e. The ones who controlled these social media platforms,
and that ain't us. So the question becomes, how do
you push back against the movement where the other side
controls the main weapons in this battle, in this battle
for persuasion and even the people who are being governed
from the top down through persuasion in terms of media,
but also in terms of naked repression in terms of
civil lights laws, they are going to believe that they
made up their own mind. How do you combat that?
That's a tough question, but that's the question that we
need to answer.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, just asking him the question and trying to answer
it gets you targeted.
Speaker 4: Well, it's insulting to most people. I mean, if you say, look,
you know, you don't actually you didn't actually make up
your own mind. You've just been told this because the
media convinced it. I mean, you're basically calling this person
an idiot now. Of course, the media has called all
of us idiots for years by saying that people are
too dumb to operate on social media freely. During the
COVID pandemic, people said, you know, they said people are
too stupid to make their own medical decisions. They're too
stupid to research their own health. I think that there's
a lot of double think going on, because on the
one hand, people people believe that other people are dumb
animals who can't be trusted to make up their own mind,
and that they're easily tricked. But everybody is convinced that
they themselves are very good in making up their own mind,
that it's an incredible violation if they themselves are robbed
of certain in from a few years ago. A guy
who would be utterly canceled today. He could never get
hearing today, And I'm waiting for Slate to apologize forever
hosting him, the late Christopher Hitchins. He was giving obviously atheist,
opponent of Christianity, not a man of the right, but
I think a principal defender of free speech. And he
was giving a speech in Canada, and Canada had passed
some sort of hate speech regulation or something like that,
and he asked the audience. There were people obviously arguing
in favor of it, same arguments you hear today, lots
of crying and caterwauling about how people's feelings are hurt
and we need to prevent this, and how it leads
to violence, all this stuff. And he said, well, look,
is there somebody who you would trust for you to
determine for you what you were allowed to see, what
you were allowed to read, what you were allowed to watch.
And of course nobody raised their hand, and he said, well,
the loss says there has to be such a person.
But evidently none of you believe in this, and all
of you know that it makes you a hypocrite, so
to hell with this law. These are not new arguments,
but we've still I think, quietly accepted by we. I
think most people in this society have quietly accepted that
it is offensive to us at some level. It does
make us hypocrites and cowards, but we are going to
go along with it. And I think the way that
those in power have managed to get away with this
is I think they the created enemy of Christian nationalists,
MAGA activists, racist white guys, terrorists, domestic insurrectionists, all the
rest of it. The hatred against these people, however artificially created,
is real. And I think people are willing to give
up even their most fundamental freedoms if it means taking
the poke at a constituency that they have been carefully
instructed to hate. And I think that we saw this
during COVID too. There was a poll that had a
not insignificant number of Democrats said that kids should be
taken away from people who don't get the JAB. I'm
beginning to think that the percentage of people who would
answer that question, yeah, their kids should be taken away,
if they had just said do you think people's kids
should be taken away if they vote for Trump? I
think the percentages wouldn't really change. It has nothing to
do with the actual issue that we're talking about. It
has nothing to do with the in and out of
who's right or who's wrong. It all has to do
with identity politics. All politics as identity politics. And this
is again, this is another thing that our system kind
of to go back to what we were talking about
the beginning, Our entire system is basically premised upon the
idea a very crazy idea when you really think about it,
that if you take everybody, literally everybody in the society,
men and women above a certain age, and we all
just kind of sit down together and like, look over
these arguments, we're gonna basically come up with the right answer.
But that's not true. I mean, as Leekwan Yu of
Singapore said, and in multiracial society, you vote with your group,
and the real poison of the Civil Rights Act is
that it creates an incentive for you to only identify
with your group because the common good, the common treasury,
just becomes something to be looted. Everything that you gain
has to come at the expense of somebody else, because
everything becomes identified in terms of oppression and victimization. There's
always a good guy, there's always a bad guy. There's
never anything where we all gain together. I think there's
an argument. Nobody would listen to me, of course, but
you could make an argument that if you actually wanted
real race relations to benefit in this country, you got
to abolish the Civil Rights Act and have people get
along to be as individuals. I mean, this is the
most common thing you hear among boomer conservatives. But I
don't think the people who say that kind of stuff
are ready for what that would actually entail. I mean,
if you had a Republican candidate today talk about getting
rid of the Civil Rights Act, I mean, what they
said about Trump would be as nothing compared to what
they would say about that guy.
Speaker 1: It goes back to what we were saying before. This
is all this has all just been put inside of us.
It's all a part of us. I said on a
recent episode, we were talking and somebody was saying that
really the only way through this was like white identitarianism.
And I said, when you consider the spirit of the age,
by the time you convinced every white you know enough
white people of white identitarianism, we'd be passed this spirit
of the age. We'd be pasted this age. And that
wouldn't even be applicable anymore except for some kind of future,
you know, for a future application of some sort. We're
just at the point now where people have been so
their their brains. Think in one way, when you talk
about the person who would vote to take someone's kid
away because of the JAB also voting for the Trump,
anyone who's a Trump supporter to have their kids taken away,
these people aren't thinking this is as instinctive with them
is breathing now, and the question is how do you
change that. I mean, it's very black pilling when you
think about it.
Speaker 4: It's a religious thing. I mean is I was thinking
about how to frame a lot of this stuff, and
I'm kind of going back and forth with writing about
a lot of this, and I think that the real
way we have to look at this, and this is
going to sound maybe a bit difficult, but unfortunately, I
just don't see an alternative, and I'd love for you
to push back after this. I think what we're fighting
fundamentally is a religion, and it's not just a religion
in the sense that there are certain faith based claims.
I mean, you could argue that egalitarianism is a faith
based claim because you're just assuming that all groups are
the same and there's no real evidence to suggest that.
But it's bigger than that. We've gone beyond this abstract
ideal that everybody's the same. Now we're saying things like,
for example, where George Floyd died, people were bringing people
there and claiming that literal miracles were taking place. You
have these you have Christian churches honoring guys like treyvon
Martin and Floyd and whoever the latest blm martyr is.
These people worship these people far more than they do
Jesus of Nazareth. I mean, you can blasphere Jesus all
you want, you can blasphem Jesus all you want within
a church, but you're not going to be able to
blaspheme certain figures. They're certainly not going to be able
to Blaspheme somebody like Martin Luther King, regardless of his
own personal conduct, regardless of his own non existent faith
in Christianity. By the way, Martin Luther King, I believe,
is carved as one of the saints on a major
Anglican church in the United Kingdom. What we're facing now
is the attempt for people. It's the actual worship of victimization.
It's the actual worship of victims of oppression. And the
problem is that it's not actually oppression. I mean, the
way the society functions is that the so called oppressed
people are the ones who get preferences and jobs and education,
whereas the so called privileged people are the ones who
get fired if they so much as speak of themselves
as having an identity or any kind of a collective interest,
and so you get the moral hit of fighting on
the side of the oppressed without actually facing any costs.
That's a very potent thing. I mean, how do you
turn that down. One of the things that is tough,
because you know it leads to certain, maybe not great
reflections on human nature is that if you look at
the spread of Christianity, a lot of the Christian martyrs,
they didn't just come at the hands of the Romans.
They came when Christianity itself had become better organized and
state power could be directed against opponents of the dominant faith.
You had Christian entity really caught on once it had
lad sponsorship. Yeah, there were people who suffered at the beginning,
but it didn't become mainstream. You didn't have the fanaticism,
you didn't have sacking the pagan temples or all these
kinds of things once it really became safe for people
to do so. I would argue that a lot of
the people, if you want to call them proto woke activists,
the type of people who were the International Workers of
the World one hundred years ago, with the strike organizers.
Perhaps maybe some of the early civil rights activists, although
frankly the federal government was always on their side from
pretty early on. A lot of these guys really did
face violence, and did face oppression and did make sacrifices.
But the people who are rallying to this cause now,
they've never faced depression in their entire lives and they
never will, and yet they still get to cloak themselves
in the mantle of righteous avengers, like there's some kind
of John Brown. Convincing people not to go along with
that is a very tough thing to do, because you're
essentially giving people and identity, a cause, a meaningful life,
and material benefits. How do you possibly convince people to
give all that up?
Speaker 1: I will say this, if it is a religion, then
I do not think that there are enough of them
who are willing to die for it, who are willing
to suffer for it.
Speaker 4: But they are willing to kill for it, and more importantly,
they're willing to let other people die for it and
approve of it. I mean, let's take something that I
think is maybe there's a bit on the borderline, but
let's just take it because it's something I see all
the time. Let's take the case of Ashley Babbott. I
don't want to get into election denialism or did he win,
did he not win? Whatever, Here's Ashley Babbitt, here's this
white girl who air force veteran. And after months of
riots in twenty twenty and people being killed and cities
burned down, police precinct burned down, let's not forget you
see a black capital police officer shoot dead this white
woman in front of everybody. Media says it's great, government
calls the guy hero, including Republicans, that you could all
kind of expect. What I think people really don't expect
and people really need to get through their skull is
the fact that every single day on Twitter there's this
kind of almost pornographic celebration of the fact that she
was killed, the kind of zooming in on the corpse
and being, you know, f around and find out isn't
this great? Isn't this funny? This is something that happened
in front of everyone, And a lot of times conservatives
will we'll look at some example of cruelty or some
example of repression and say, well, aren't you ashamed? Isn't
this violating your beliefs? Don't you feel guilty about this?
The answer is, well, no, people know exactly what's going on.
People know exactly what they're doing, and they think it's good.
Edward Dutton just a couple of days ago, was promoting
and I think Jordan Peterson and a few others have
been promoting this research. Was promoting some research which I've
yet to read. So I don't want to put myself
on the line too much defending it. But looking leftism
to basically sociopathic tendencies where you say these kinds of
things because they allow you a justification to exercise power
and cruelty over other people. Certainly on my own experience,
I think a lot of leftists, especially hard leftists, that
is why they do what they do. It allows the
cruelty is the point. And certainly when you look at
the way antifi operate, when you look at the people
who beat up people on the street or destroy their business,
or docks people and drive them to suicide, all this
kind of stuff, you can imagine them having fun while
they're doing this. And so I think when conservatives think
that there's going to be a limit, or there's going
to be a point, or that things will never get
too out of control, because people will react against it.
I think they don't quite understand what time it is.
People know exactly what's happening. They think it's good, they
think it's funny, and they want more of it. And
if you don't believe me, I mean, take whatever marder,
take whatever calls you want, put it on Twitter. Watch
the responses, Watch the responses from journalists, Watch the responses
from those in power. Certainly on racial issues, the most
common refrain on anything is imagine if it was the
other way around. I mean, we say this over and
over and over again, to the point where it's sickening.
And I think there are still some conservatives who are
thinking themselves, oh, well, the journalists don't know or they
just aren't aware of these cases. It's like, no, they're
totally aware of these cases. They just think it's funny
and want more of it to happen. Well, I had.
Speaker 1: That talks to Paul Gottfried about a month to go,
and you know, we were talking about this exact thing is,
how does how does this end? How does this complete insanity?
What is you know, basic cruelty? How does this end?
And he was very clear, he said he the only
way this ends is with right wing authoritarianism that.
Speaker 4: Or just continued degradation. I mean, well, that sounds more
optimistic than I would have given doctor godfree credit for,
or certainly me. I mean in terms of like the
way this ends, if it ends, I think we do
have to consider the possibility that it just doesn't end.
I mean, the system we have now is remarkably stable people.
As we've talked about, if we can call the intersectionality
the imperial faith, I mean, this is something that has
united the West more completely than any ideology since what
the Reformation. I mean, you go to Britain, you go
to Germany, you go to Italy, you go to any
of these places, You're going to see the same flag.
You're going to see the same politicians honoring the same heroes,
defending the same ideals, and everybody's still operating off the
same more premises, And insofar as there is a right,
they're still going to share much like you know, James lindsay,
they're going to share most of the fundamental ideals of this.
I mean, there's not really a systemic rejection of everything
that's been going on. And the problem with counting on
right wing authoritarianism is it it presupposes that, you know,
things are going to get to a certain point where
they just become unworkable and then somebody is going to
come in and restore order. But as we've seen in
let's take Chicago, Chicago crime, it's just a fact. Crime
has gone up tremendously. In fact, over Memorial Day, I
believe more than fifty people were shot. Eleven were killed,
this fact, and the mayor blamed it, I think on
disinvestment or something like that. Yeah, we're talking about in
a lot of these cases, we're talking about like dead kids.
We're talking about the most lurid, unimaginably horrific cases, imaginable.
These things have no impact whatsoever on public opinion. There's
not a single person anywhere of any significance in the
black community who cares about any of this. And when
the next election rolls around, they are going to vote
hard left every single time, just like the new mayor
of Chicago with somebody who's significantly to the left of
Lori Lightfoot. There is not going to be a reaction
from the communities that are most involved with this, just
like there was no reaction in Zimbabwe, just like there's
no reaction in Venezuela, and just like there's no involvement,
there's no reaction in California, people just left. If there
is going to be a reaction, it's going to come
from communities that are not culpable in all this, from
communities where that are actually communities where you actually have
a tradition outside of this, where you have a certain
amount of identity and cohesiveness, where you can bind together
and fight back against this, turn it back, and maybe
even reconquer lost territory. But that's not going to happen naturally.
That's going to happen through fanatic organization, and that's going
to happen with people who are willing to suffer on
behalf of another faith that I think a lot of
people would consider unreasonable. Certainly, if you were a believing
Christian today, you would not be welcome in just about
any mainline denomination, Protestant or Catholic. I can't even think
of what would happen to a mainline Protestant who tried
to say that his parishioners should not participate with any
business or give money or work for any business that honors,
say Pride Month. I mean, that's probably the biblically correct stance,
but he's probably not going to find a lot of
people willing to sit in the pews, Or he might
find a lot of people willing to sit in the pews,
but who aren't willing to follow up. At the same time,
the priests and pastors who go along with everything that's
happening from the top down in society, yeah, they may
be allowed to keep their position. They may even be allowed,
like David French or somebody like that, or Russell Moore
to write an article for The New York Times once
in a while. But people are fundamentally going to leave
their churches because what's the point of going to church
if what you're saying is no different than what Vice
magazine says. I mean, it's going to take an unreasonable
group of people from outside the existing system to stop this,
and it's going to take people doing something that is
against their short term safety and economic interest. And that's
the heck of the thing, because, like I said, I'm
not putting myself up as some guy who's different from
everybody else. I mean, my job is essentially different from
everybody else's because I work for American Renaissance. So I
can get fired the same way as other people can.
I mean, you're asking people to basically be heroes and
defy public morality with nothing telling them that they're right
other than like a small little voice inside and they're
trusted friends, and that's a very big thing to ask.
We should have no illusions about the nature of the
struggle and how uphill it's going to be. Well.
Speaker 1: I unfortunately I agree with you.
Speaker 4: I think the only thing.
Speaker 1: That could really push it push it along would be
moneyed elites who are willing to fund those who who
are willing to do things that go against our quote
unquote American principles.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, I've said over and over again, I've gotten,
you know, some pushback from people, I think, even on
our own side. If you had the free speech norms
of twenty fifteen to twenty sixteen, I think we win,
and we win very quickly. I do believe. I'm not
I think that choice maybe more malleable than many people expect.
But obviously people do have individual judgment. Obviously people are
capable of determining certain things. But if you there's a
line in the Malcolm X movie movie that I think
all nationalists would watch where Elijah Muhammad, founder of the
Nation of Islam, is talking to Malcolm X and he
pours some ink in the glass, and he offers Malcolm
the ruined water, and he says, you know, if you
offer the people this and there's nothing else, they will
drink it if they're thirsty. But if you'll offer him
this glass and he pours them a glass of clear water,
they will choose the correct alternative. The problem now is
people are not being given that choice. In so far
as there is a way out through the existing system,
it's going to have to be grounded in the rhetoric
of choice and individual freedom. Whether we like it or not,
that's just the way it is. Obviously free at this point.
In so far as I expect anything from the political process,
I'm a single issue voter, not on guns, not on immigration,
but on free speech online, free speech. Elon Musk taking
over Twitter was obviously a big step in the right direction.
But I mean, let's face it, my boss Jared Taylor
is not allowed on the platform at all, even though
he's about he's certainly more polite than me, certainly more
respectful than I am when it comes to certain issues,
and in terms of the kind of language he uses,
yet he's not welcome on the platform. Why is he
not welcome on the platform Because it's not because of
how he says it or because he violates any rules,
but because of the subject matter itself. Because once you
get people discussing these things, it's inherently stabilizing. YouTube, Instagram, TikTok,
all these other mediums that people that are really shaping
the minds of the next generation and even older generations.
Now they're even worse than Twitter. So, you know, until
we can make some progress on that front, we're sort
of left in the wilderness of these you know, vanguardists, tribalists,
underground type strategies where you might be able to build
something and we can talk about that, but what you're
going to build is always going to be small scale
at a certain level, and it's also not necessarily going
to be for public consumption. I mean, if you have
a good business going, if you have a network, if
you have a tribe or something going, the first thing
not to do is broadcast it on the internet and
make yourself a giant target. Yeah, one hundred, which is
sort of the thing. And you know, I'm just saying
this for people out there, I get message all the
time like, well, what should we do? You know, why
don't you talk about what we should do? It's like, well,
if I I have plenty of ideas for what we
should do, but I'm not going to give a giant
speech like you know, first, we're going to meet it
this time, at this place, and this is what we're
going to do. Like no, Like that's the opposite of
how we should be conducting ourselves. I mean, if we've
learned anything from what happened with the alt right, it's
that maybe like publicly announcing where we're all going to
be and who everybody is and this is how we're
going to operate from here on out, maybe that's not
the best idea when the other side controls law enforcement, media,
and money.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the I'm sure you've experienced this too, where you're
trying to make a point online and somebody comes in
and goes, well, what are you doing? So, I mean,
I might be vague, but I'm not telling you what
I'm doing.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's retarded. It's this is sort of the
problem with advocating. Obviously, I'm a big proponent of tribalism,
but what I'm mean by tribalism is not necessarily although
I'm not opposed to the idea of starting like a
literal tribe where you meet in the woods with a
bunch of people and do X, Y and z. That
is one alternative. But what I also mean is homeschool
co ops. What I also mean is starting your own churches.
Speaker 1: I mean.
Speaker 4: One of the things with evangelical Protestants is unlike people
of a papist descent like myself, I mean, there's nothing
stopping people from organizing a new church with a pastor
who is a Bible believer in organizing on that front,
you don't have to wait for blessing from high command
to move forward with any of this stuff. There are
lots of things people can do, but one of the
things that you shouldn't do is broadcast to all in
sundry who you are, what you're doing, all the names
of your members, where they work, What are the best
ways that they can have pressure brought to brayer on them.
I mean, this is not going to the biggest thing
that is getting in the way of people. And this
is another lesson from fifteen sixteen. People are generally as
right wing as they feel themselves to be allowed to
be both morally and practically. I mean, for me, being
right wing, if we want to use just such a
crude term, but it's basically just being militantly pro your
own side. It's militant pro common sense, like, yeah, the
group that I'm with should be stronger and more prosperous,
and the groups that don't like me, I don't want
them to have power. I mean, it's very simple, but
it's very straightforward. But if you've got people screaming at
you that that's wrong, especially because your group is inherently
depraved or inherently racist, as Robin di'angelo teaches, you know,
all whites are racist, no matter what you do. Like that.
That is the mainstream consensus on what racism is, whether
you like it or not. You know, don't take it
from me, take it from the people who are teaching
your diversity classes. And if you live in a society
where if you even associate with the wrong person, you
could not just lose your job, but you're also going
to have pressure put on your family, people pressuring your
family to disown you. You might lose your bank account,
you might lose house, you might lose all sorts of things.
You know, the les aren't going to care too much
if you've got threats being made against you and whatever else,
you have to give people a certain amount of cover
from that when you have Yeah, at some level, everybody
just kind of needs to be tougher and put up
with this stuff. But if the political advice you have
for everybody is, hey, just be tougher or you know,
be more heroic or overcome everything in the name of
your ideal, that's not very good practical advice. And you know,
I encourage especially when someone like me is talking. If
someone like me is telling you, like charge the guns,
or everybody follow me like yeah, If everybody just shuts
up and follow me, like yeah, I think we're all
going to win. But the fact is I work for
Jared Taylor, Like I'm not going to get fired for
saying this stuff. You are, And so what I say
needs to be taken with caution and with a recognition
of where everybody's circumstances are. And I am not one
of these people who thinks that like treason is the
same as caution. And we are going to need to
be forgiving, and we are going to need to be
patient with leading our people forward, because at the end
of the day, what we need to do more than
anything else is not just make the case, because I
think the case has kind of been made, and there
are a lot of people who already agree with us.
They're just scared and they need moral support, but even
more than that, they need material support so they're able
to take action without losing everything. And that's and how
do you do that? Well, there are lots of good
ways to do that, but again, you don't broadcast what
they are to the entire world, because then they won't
work for much longer, will they?
Speaker 1: Yeah, one hundred percent, one hundred percent couldn't agree more.
All right, remind everybody where they can find your stuff,
and we will end this well.
Speaker 4: I'm writing over at amerand dot com. I will be
speaking at the American Renaissance Conference in August. I would
also encourage people to go to vider dot com. There
is going to be a conference this month happening fairly soon.
You can you know Lydia Brima if you want to
come to that. Steve Sailor will also be speaking at that.
That's gonna be a really big event because Steve Sailor
doesn't do speaking engagements all that often, so that's going
to be a very significant one. And I have another
major event coming up in the next couple of weeks
which I will be telling everybody about once I get
back from one of these things that you don't broadcast
what you're gonna do, Greg, thank you very much, thanks
for having me on. I appreciate it.