Speaker 1: Meaning a light man like this man notting butterfly flapping
Speaker 1: his wing big down in a force.
Speaker 2: Man, it gonna cause the tree fall, letting five thousand
Speaker 2: miles away.
Speaker 1: Man, nobody's seen nobody else. You don't need no man
Speaker 1: like you followed another story and you got back in
Speaker 1: fact that man's man. Man don't black and name on
Speaker 1: the panel. Man, Man, you don't no matter man.
Speaker 2: Noway, And that's what I told him. Korea is the
Speaker 2: pole of di Asia anyway, Dives, You're great to hear
Speaker 2: from you.
Speaker 1: Man. I love that. I yoink That's all I say
Speaker 1: that I'm taking bit.
Speaker 2: My new favorite bit is referencing funny things the audience
Speaker 2: has no reference, like, has no ability to comprehend. Going
Speaker 2: back to our earlier comments about leaving them just confused
Speaker 2: and anger. It's it's horrible podcasting, but I find it
Speaker 2: very entertaining.
Speaker 1: That's my whole show. Baby.
Speaker 2: Well, t'ms in a desperate attempt to keep this on
Speaker 2: track because the last episode was supposed to be this episode. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it ended up being about something different.
Speaker 1: We just got going. They Jay cast a spell on me.
Speaker 2: You get going, and uh yeah, it happens to the
Speaker 2: best of us.
Speaker 1: I blacked out. I went into a few stay and
Speaker 1: turns out we just got some hot, hot takes out
Speaker 1: of it. But then you know, you look at the
Speaker 1: clock and it's too late, and I just such a
Speaker 1: good time. And Jay was so gracious to offer a
Speaker 1: second appearance. And of course he's trying to sabotage me.
Speaker 1: Of course he's loving setting this trap where it's going
Speaker 1: to be too much. Everyone's loving the first one. Then
Speaker 1: then they see of Heaping helping me again, They're like, enough,
Speaker 1: enough of this shit.
Speaker 2: I work off the same logic that drug dealers in
Speaker 2: nineteen eighties PSAs do right, where it's like the first
Speaker 2: one's free, and then that's how I get you. And
Speaker 2: you know, and astute listener might notice, wait, aren't they
Speaker 2: all free? And I was listening anyway, so how does
Speaker 2: this get you? And I would say, you are thinking
Speaker 2: too much about this. Let me cook.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm like a drug dealer in the nineteen forties
Speaker 1: where I just give away drugs for free because no
Speaker 1: one really understands economics yet. What is this is this
Speaker 1: money is a fucking product. I don't know just this.
Speaker 2: This is not work. This business is horrible. You've given
Speaker 2: away all our product. We spent millions to me.
Speaker 1: I found this crazy covered in Chinese letters, and let's
Speaker 1: just distribute it. And that's how the CIA was started.
Speaker 2: It just works like wind 'ar where it's like please, hey,
Speaker 2: please remember this is not a free service. Please dip
Speaker 2: your dope. Boy.
Speaker 1: That's so funny. That's so funny. Like the idea of
Speaker 1: like a nerdy crack dealer. It's like, Okay, you know,
Speaker 1: I bet eventually they're gonna feel so much shame at
Speaker 1: me bothering them. They're gonna, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: Like it's a very libertarian way of thinking like that,
Speaker 1: eventually they're gonna give us a ton of money because
Speaker 1: they'll think, how many years I've been using wind rar
Speaker 1: for I'm gonna send you twenty thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: There are two ways to take this. One which is
Speaker 2: the like the sort of like you know, like mid
Speaker 2: two thousand sketch comedy show where the joke is, oh,
Speaker 2: you know, it's a it's a nerd, but he's a
Speaker 2: crack dealer and he dresses like he's super hard but
Speaker 2: he's not. That therein lies the joke in my mind,
Speaker 2: the true funny dynamic is imagining someone trying to socially
Speaker 2: shamed crack addicts into giving them money. It's just a
Speaker 2: very funny gun sund Here's.
Speaker 1: Another thing that just occurred to me. Facebook lays off.
Speaker 1: You know one hundred thousand people recently. Daily Wire just
Speaker 1: laid off, you know a third of its staff. Has
Speaker 1: win Rar ever had any layoffs? Have you ever heard
Speaker 1: of anyone getting fired from wind Ar? After all this time?
Speaker 2: This is actually a very good point. How many people
Speaker 2: work here? Do you know?
Speaker 1: It seems like the most stable investment. If I can
Speaker 1: go long on win Raar, I'm doing it. I'm saying
Speaker 1: this because I don't know what I'm talking about. I
Speaker 1: don't know how to invest, but sounds safe to me.
Speaker 1: I'll last Stormy Waters what he thinks of.
Speaker 2: This, Yes, uh, somewhat related. There are a series of
Speaker 2: companies that exist on kind of both ends of how
Speaker 2: many people work there. They're just baffling, Like Wikipedia has
Speaker 2: way way more employees than you'd think, and Craigslist right
Speaker 2: the kind of you know, default way to buy things.
Speaker 2: I think there's probably like ten people working there, which
Speaker 2: kind of makes but like I don't know, in my mind,
Speaker 2: there should be more of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for an organization like that, And then you hear
Speaker 1: that Caleb Hammer has like thirty five people working for
Speaker 1: his show, for his company. I just these numbers don't
Speaker 1: make sense to me anymore. I don't know who's doing what.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Wikipedia has fourteen hundred employees, which is just kind
Speaker 2: of crazy, Like, isn't the whole point that they use volunteers?
Speaker 2: Like what do they do?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well this You know, if you were to tell
Speaker 1: me that Wikipedia was a giant money laundering scheme, I'd
Speaker 1: believe you. That's just been a financial black box for
Speaker 1: a long time. It's always they're always lying about needing money.
Speaker 1: People have peaked behind the curtain and seen how much
Speaker 1: not revenue, but they have an idea of how much
Speaker 1: what their holdings are. But every three months they're doing
Speaker 1: a begging dry for money. They never need it. It's
Speaker 1: something else. It's just some rotten in Wikipedia. But I
Speaker 1: don't think anyone hairs to look anymore. They just accepted
Speaker 1: that's in the background of the Internet. And I think
Speaker 1: if it disappeared nothing, it wouldn't matter. If Wikipedia was gone,
Speaker 1: no one would give a shit. But I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just they kind of like they like it being there.
Speaker 1: You need to give something for these You know, I
Speaker 1: don't want to use any bad words in your show.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get you in trouble. Let's say
Speaker 1: gender confused people. You got to get them something to
Speaker 1: do all day. But that puts all the autists set
Speaker 1: of work. So I don't know, there's no easy answer.
Speaker 2: We need to talk about Canada.
Speaker 1: Yes, how many? How many minutes are in six minutes?
Speaker 2: Al right?
Speaker 1: This is good. This is what's a good.
Speaker 2: Six minutes, A bit that no one else understands.
Speaker 1: This is a good host. This is how you know
Speaker 1: you're hosting at a level that is rarely seen.
Speaker 2: See, people always made fun I had a reference Tuck
Speaker 2: her for the second time in this conversation, but people
Speaker 2: made fun of you know, Tucker for you know, the
Speaker 2: way that he handled the Vladimir Putin interview. But think
Speaker 2: about how much cooler it would have been if he's like,
Speaker 2: all right, vlad, how many people work at Wikipedia? Like
Speaker 2: that's the kind of content we really need from world leaders,
Speaker 2: Like your your opinion on a hit on history, philosophy
Speaker 2: at the arts irrelevant? I want kind of like ballroom
Speaker 2: trivia and crazy.
Speaker 1: Facts imagine the Tucker just interrupting him at an odd time,
Speaker 1: like after minute seven, mister Putin, do you like pussy?
Speaker 2: Apparently he does. Isn't he rumored to have a like
Speaker 2: a ballerina daughter or something? Yeah, I mean he's at
Speaker 2: least tried it once. Okay.
Speaker 1: I didn't know where you're going with that. I'm like, yes,
Speaker 1: but yeah, he tried it once. He tried it, which
Speaker 1: maybe that's all you need.
Speaker 2: Really results indeterminate, He's okay, you know, I take it
Speaker 2: to leave it.
Speaker 1: I like to believe that Putin is having a lot
Speaker 1: of sex. But then I think, do what is Is
Speaker 1: it better if it's zero or a ton? You know
Speaker 1: what I mean? I realize that I'm doing everything I
Speaker 1: can and not talk about.
Speaker 2: Well do you do you remember? I can't remember. I
Speaker 2: don't know who did this. It was one of the
Speaker 2: kind of like big progressive accounts. Uh. This was like
Speaker 2: kind of the classic millennial coded reactions to Biden winning
Speaker 2: the presidency where I was like, Wow, this is such
Speaker 2: a great day. I hope that that Joe and Jill
Speaker 2: go home and have that the dirtiest, raunchiest sex imaginable.
Speaker 2: And she went into much greater detail than I will.
Speaker 2: And you know, uh it's a it's humor, you know
Speaker 2: that they're in imagining such a thing. But also uh no,
Speaker 2: thank you, I know that's okay. You know, I'm that
Speaker 2: man is too old to eat solid food.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you brought that up, because I too had
Speaker 1: noticed that during the Biden years, liberals had never been
Speaker 1: more sexually wretched. I saw them saying just have horned
Speaker 1: things about Tim Wallace's penis, speculating on it like everyone was.
Speaker 1: It was horny in a way that I've never seen.
Speaker 1: Very performative, but very you know, like like a centemite
Speaker 1: would it was. It was divorce and pleasure even.
Speaker 2: Well, and that's the weird thing, right that, like the
Speaker 2: more performatively horny someone is, you know, the less they're
Speaker 2: actually getting down to it, because you know, you look
Speaker 2: back at you know, the Victorians right famously brutish people,
Speaker 2: but they popped out kids like they were doing something,
Speaker 2: you know, And then now it's like, oh, well, you
Speaker 2: know it's I think it's what fifty percent of men
Speaker 2: under thirty haven't had sex in a year, And you're like, well, clearly,
Speaker 2: this performative horniness isn't going anywhere. It's just performative horniness
Speaker 2: for horniness' sake.
Speaker 1: Well, the performative horniness is sort of the last dying
Speaker 1: gasp with sexuality. It's proclaiming to the world that I
Speaker 1: am a sexual being because you're you're not confident at all,
Speaker 1: and and you know, the other extension of that is
Speaker 1: getting very strange about sex. So other people have pointed
Speaker 1: this out. Wiser people who pointed this out how I
Speaker 1: think this it's more evident with young people like gen Z,
Speaker 1: but you see it's millennials too, and maybe they pioneered
Speaker 1: it with Reddit and whatnot. But you know, seeing a
Speaker 1: hot woman, what am I saying? A hot woman? Fuck
Speaker 1: me right? But you know they're like, oh, she's hot.
Speaker 1: I wanted to crush my head in her thighs. So
Speaker 1: getting violent. The only way you're allowed to approach horniness
Speaker 1: is if you're being dominated, and not just dominated but
Speaker 1: dominated violently, and that that's I don't remember that when
Speaker 1: I was younger. That's relatively new. I'm like that, that's
Speaker 1: not even sexy. You're just kind of you're doing this
Speaker 1: sort of ghost dance, just screaming to the world I'm
Speaker 1: a sexual being. Look at look at this twisted stuff
Speaker 1: I think of. But you know, as someone who has
Speaker 1: had sex, I'm like, I smell of void inside of you.
Speaker 2: Well, it's sort of like it kind of smacks of
Speaker 2: the you know, I my girlfriend goes to another school,
Speaker 2: you wouldn't know her. She lets me touch her boobs
Speaker 2: all the time. We're like, do you know what you're
Speaker 2: talking about here? You know, like it feels as if
Speaker 2: like this is entirely hypothetical. You know that this is
Speaker 2: something that you experience only as this kind of like
Speaker 2: performative online thing. And there's this term I can't remember
Speaker 2: I stole it from, but safe horning, right, which is
Speaker 2: like you're allowed to You're allowed to talk about that
Speaker 2: all you want. You know, you're to kind of, you know,
Speaker 2: throw out all of the kind of like body memes.
Speaker 2: But if you're otherwise attracted to conventionally attractive, particularly white women,
Speaker 2: like that's just a moral issue with you. You're probably
Speaker 2: like a pedophile if you've noticed the one that they
Speaker 2: like to throw out a lot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, unless you're putting the woman in control. If what
Speaker 1: you're saying involves you projecting yourself unto them or approaching
Speaker 1: them or saying what you would do to them in
Speaker 1: a normal, healthy way. They say, yikes. But if you're saying, man,
Speaker 1: I would love these guys who are lying and saying
Speaker 1: they're into milths, they're lying and saying like, oh I
Speaker 1: love I like muscle mommies, I like big women. No,
Speaker 1: you fucking don't. That's just what you feel like. You're
Speaker 1: allowed to say. It's safe to be the woman who
Speaker 1: can kick the shit out of you. And that's where
Speaker 1: we're at.
Speaker 2: To quote modern day philosopher Shane Gillets, you're getting clothes
Speaker 2: like that's what you're really getting clothes. It's it's more
Speaker 2: honest to just, you know, go to a truck stop
Speaker 2: bathroom with a with a a whole cutting agger at
Speaker 2: the end of your saw. It just kind of, you know,
Speaker 2: blast a hole in that uh that stall door. That's
Speaker 2: that's because.
Speaker 1: We had a good thing going with just the dumb
Speaker 1: bitch and the sun dress in the weed field. That
Speaker 1: seems so quaint now, doesn't it. We all made fun
Speaker 1: of that. That seems so simple and attainable. That's just
Speaker 1: a dumb dress a bitch can wear. Now, you got
Speaker 1: this is too much going on. I honestly think we
Speaker 1: need to put a moratorium on women until we figure
Speaker 1: out what's going on.
Speaker 2: Well, I think we should, uh for their own safety,
Speaker 2: just make xx chronisots like a thirty five years to
Speaker 2: life kind of criminal offense.
Speaker 1: Yes, just right right right from the rip. Yes, I'm
Speaker 1: with you.
Speaker 2: For their own safety. I will not be counting countenance.
Speaker 2: I will not be hearing put it in words that
Speaker 2: I can actually speak any objections to that, but times
Speaker 2: speaking of massive open air prisons.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, So Jay, I when done did a thing.
Speaker 1: I made a little short documentary which is a sequel
Speaker 1: to one I had released a year prior, called Paid
Speaker 1: Them Over the Public, and I sent it over to you.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've got time to watch it,
Speaker 1: but if you didn't, say nothing, and I'll just talk anyway.
Speaker 1: But we put quite a bit of time and energy
Speaker 1: and money into producing this, and I wanted to come
Speaker 1: and speak about with you because it's really it's centered
Speaker 1: on Canada. It's you know, within the Canadian context, but
Speaker 1: I think it's applicable to American audiences and also European audiences.
Speaker 1: But I have so many American friends. It's such a
Speaker 1: strong American Network, and I think the things that we
Speaker 1: discuss in it are they'll find it very interesting. So
Speaker 1: it's titled how to make a Canadian People. I've had
Speaker 1: to summarize it very very succinctly, and we can talk
Speaker 1: about some of the themes we discussed in it, but
Speaker 1: it's about how to trigger an ethnogenesis in the twenty
Speaker 1: first century, and that alone would require some unpacking, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: but just to start. Released a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people worked on it, and the
Speaker 1: same crew as the first one, and I'm very, very
Speaker 1: proud of it. I'd say the first one. The first
Speaker 1: one set the stage by discussing the history of mass
Speaker 1: migration in Canada and getting into the history of what
Speaker 1: led us to that, and specifically looking at public opinion
Speaker 1: polls from the nineteen forties up through the twinth century, showing,
Speaker 1: you know, census data and public opinion polls about what
Speaker 1: people actually thought about immigration contrary to what you're told.
Speaker 1: And I feel as if you're told this in America
Speaker 1: as well, that well, we voted for it, your ancestors
Speaker 1: or family voted for this life that you have right now,
Speaker 1: and you realize that If you take a historical view,
Speaker 1: and many of your audience likely have done this, you
Speaker 1: understand that they were very vocal that they were not promegration,
Speaker 1: but it happened anyway. There was a bureaucratic subversion that occurred.
Speaker 1: And because it's Canada and there just fewer people here,
Speaker 1: I found that the conspiracy was in sharper relief because
Speaker 1: we can trace this to a few specific prime ministers,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's across decades. It's a bipart it's
Speaker 1: an issue. You can't really blame it on the liberals
Speaker 1: or the conservatives. Those would be the Democrats or Republicans
Speaker 1: in America. It cuts across all the politics. The what
Speaker 1: led us to hear what led us to really opening
Speaker 1: the doors to you know, it didn't it's as bad
Speaker 1: now as it's ever been. But it really started around
Speaker 1: the same time as it started in the US in
Speaker 1: the nineteen sixties. That was a big pivot point where
Speaker 1: you started seeing these laws being passed, in fact against
Speaker 1: the proclamations of the prime minister. The entire time, you
Speaker 1: had these political leaders saying we're not going to do this.
Speaker 1: Mass migration sounds stupid. Why would we want to do
Speaker 1: that and then behind closed doors they're doing it anyway,
Speaker 1: And we don't need to discuss that entire documentary, but
Speaker 1: that set the stage for this one because we wanted
Speaker 1: to ask the question, you know, what is a Canadian?
Speaker 1: You know, in America you have a different self awareness,
Speaker 1: a different way, different sort of history, and a different
Speaker 1: self conceptualization. And you know, Canada and America are actually
Speaker 1: quite similar. They're at odds now in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: But I mean, it's it's not like Canada versus fucking China.
Speaker 1: It's not Canada versus Nigeria, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: That's like some people act like we're separate continents and
Speaker 1: I don't really have much patience for that. There are differences, Okay, fine.
Speaker 2: And I'm curious to get your thoughts on this because
Speaker 2: in my mind, there has been a deliberate desire to
Speaker 2: paint Canada as sort of the the better America, right,
Speaker 2: like more American than America. And so you guys are
Speaker 2: presented to us as what we could and what we
Speaker 2: ought to be by progressives, and the conception is basically,
Speaker 2: you know, you guys have taken our values and done
Speaker 2: them even harder. It's what we could be without evil
Speaker 2: racist chuds, if we could just get rid of them.
Speaker 2: And I'm also stricken struck, I cannot speak. Tonight dives deeply.
Speaker 1: Into I haven't noticed. I think it's like shift through
Speaker 1: a ghost. It's come, it's smooth.
Speaker 2: I've also noticed, and I'm curious this is sort of
Speaker 2: at some point, how much your politicians exist in relation
Speaker 2: to ours? And look, I get it, America is the
Speaker 2: world empire. That's going to happen everywhere. But there is
Speaker 2: a weird conception or this sort of weird development that
Speaker 2: Canada has sort of become defined in relation to America.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, there's a by my account, there's there's three
Speaker 1: good points there to address. So let me think that
Speaker 1: the first one was what was the first one is
Speaker 1: about do we seem like perfected America? The second one
Speaker 1: was about can you just repeat? I'm sorry, I'm blanket.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to figure what sequence to answer those in.
Speaker 2: Canada ends with sort of perfected America, Canada as you know,
Speaker 2: America without the evil chuds, and then you know, kind
Speaker 2: of Canada existing only in relation to Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, So what's interesting is that there's Canada as
Speaker 1: is portrayed in America, and it's different everywhere. Assume I
Speaker 1: bet the opinion of Canada and Texas is different than
Speaker 1: in California, obviously, but I'm sure it's it's viewed from
Speaker 1: the outside, and liberals would see Canada as a certain way. Okay,
Speaker 1: So Canada's idea of itself is in it's always been
Speaker 1: oppositional to America, and that's among liberals and conservatives, and
Speaker 1: there is a historical argument for that, and we talked
Speaker 1: about this on our show. We've covered a great many
Speaker 1: Canadian books recently, and I wrote this Vanguardist Journal article
Speaker 1: my substack about the history of anti Americanism in Canada
Speaker 1: because a great many Canadians view themselves as apart from
Speaker 1: America and as more enlightened, you know. And this is
Speaker 1: when I was growing up. This was the sentiment up
Speaker 1: here that Canada was more you know, they'll say liberal.
Speaker 1: But here's a thing. There's been a good amount of
Speaker 1: work put in by other content creators in our space
Speaker 1: right now, like my friend FORDA. Sachs. The Black Horse
Speaker 1: is another one. I think Ferryman's Toll would have probably
Speaker 1: spoken on this as well. You know, there's a historical
Speaker 1: argument you made that Canada is less liberal than America
Speaker 1: and depends how how you define liberalism. But it has
Speaker 1: always been less about individual liberty. It's been about personal freedom,
Speaker 1: and that's worked against US and forests in some regards.
Speaker 1: But they would look upon Canada and say, look, they
Speaker 1: are the actualizations of American values, and I think if
Speaker 1: you get down to the root of it, I don't
Speaker 1: think so they would just look at Canada and say, oh,
Speaker 1: look how clean and nice they are. But Canadians are
Speaker 1: also very passive, aggressive and British about it too. But
Speaker 1: again it's not so different than in America. They're not
Speaker 1: comparing different races of people here, frankly, but Canada, since
Speaker 1: I was, always had to define itself against America in
Speaker 1: terms of its tone and tenor and character. And we're
Speaker 1: just smarter than those boorish Americans, which I never agreed
Speaker 1: to with because you'll say that one time. But everyone's
Speaker 1: got like twenty thousand Americans that they like, yeah, Americans
Speaker 1: are stupid, except Steve Jobs, like shut the fuck up,
Speaker 1: you know, like, and I was saying that when I
Speaker 1: was younger, and like, this is this is a dumb
Speaker 1: thing that we're doing but it's something that people cl to,
Speaker 1: and so there's a there's a historical argument for that
Speaker 1: as well. With American interventionalism. There's actually quite a bit
Speaker 1: of military history between America and Canada or British North America,
Speaker 1: you know, between American and Britain at the time as well.
Speaker 1: There's I won't get into the nuts and bolts of that,
Speaker 1: but so the next one from that was we're talking
Speaker 1: about the political class. How much our politicians take their
Speaker 1: cues from American politicians. I would say very heavily. One
Speaker 1: of the issues is that American Canadian media is dominated
Speaker 1: by American media, just due to the in the sense
Speaker 1: that the whole world is because American media is so dominant.
Speaker 1: We live right next door, so obviously we're gonna get
Speaker 1: so much media from America. Despite that, Canada actually has
Speaker 1: a surprisingly active music and movie and television scene given
Speaker 1: its population size. But put that to the side, I'd
Speaker 1: say that most Canadian politicians would be take would be
Speaker 1: living within the American context or under the American shadow,
Speaker 1: having to respond to arguments made by America. You saw
Speaker 1: this with Donald Trump talking about annexation. That's one extreme example,
Speaker 1: but you know, even during Trump's first term, if you
Speaker 1: were to walk to a newsstand anywhere in Canada, every
Speaker 1: major newspaper was talking about Donald Trump. And it was
Speaker 1: kind of a joke that during his first election it
Speaker 1: coincided with one of our elections, and every Canadian was
Speaker 1: watching Trump versus Hillary. No one was watching our election,
Speaker 1: and so it's just one of those uncomfortable things that people,
Speaker 1: you know, they complained about it, but the revealed preference
Speaker 1: shows something else. Canadian politics isn't as interesting. And by
Speaker 1: what do I mean by interest? Because I don't think
Speaker 1: you're going to see someone like Trump emerge. The conservatives
Speaker 1: are a lot more restrained and muted, and they don't
Speaker 1: really know what they're advocating for. The liberals, you know,
Speaker 1: I would say that Canada overall is more progressive, especially
Speaker 1: by American standards. Here's a funny thing. So one of
Speaker 1: the reasons I never took the annexation talk from Donald
Speaker 1: Trump seriously is because I don't think Donald Trump's an idiot.
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan of Donald Trump for various reasons,
Speaker 1: but on this one issue, I tend to think that
Speaker 1: he's at least thought it all the way through, and
Speaker 1: I think he understands that Canada's population over forty millions
Speaker 1: something like that. It's this population of Canada is comparable
Speaker 1: to that of California, and if America were too annex
Speaker 1: or absorb Canada, it would be like getting a second California.
Speaker 1: What do you think that does to American politics? Do
Speaker 1: you think that fucks the Republicans forever? Right? Do you
Speaker 1: think that that changes the state of play significantly? So
Speaker 1: it's like he wouldn't it wouldn't be in his interest
Speaker 1: or the Republicans' interests to even do that. So I
Speaker 1: didn't think they were going to do it. But that's
Speaker 1: something to keep in mind that if you want to
Speaker 1: be of our political persuasion. You know, I'm not making
Speaker 1: any assumptions about your specific policies, but you know, for
Speaker 1: people like us, I find there's fewer of us in Canada.
Speaker 1: The terrain is more hostile towards us. That's changing, I think,
Speaker 1: But I mean there's a lot of shit libs up here.
Speaker 1: Remember that Justin Trudeau was voted in pretty unanimously a
Speaker 1: couple of times after after people saw how stupid and
Speaker 1: inept he was. You see what I'm saying, Like, there's
Speaker 1: like Mark Karney wanted a fucking landslide right now. And
Speaker 1: Mark Karney is not your friend. But anyway, we don't
Speaker 1: need to get too much in that. But I'm saying
Speaker 1: is that there's not a sort of conservative base comparable
Speaker 1: to America. So you're dealing with a lot. By American definitions,
Speaker 1: you would say that Canada is overall more progressive, I think,
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of rednecks, there's a lot of guns,
Speaker 1: there's all that stuff. But I don't think you're ever
Speaker 1: going to see a prime minister, at least in my lifetime,
Speaker 1: really take a crack at universal healthcare or any any
Speaker 1: of the fundamental issues. Do that answer any of your
Speaker 1: questions at all?
Speaker 2: Yes, one hundred percent. As I flashed my face on camera.
Speaker 1: We know what you look like, Jay, You're a peach. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But I'm sitting here in my boxers.
Speaker 1: Well, no one knows that.
Speaker 2: I'm standing desk, I'm wearing suit correctly.
Speaker 1: I don't know about you. I dress for the occasion.
Speaker 1: I dress over the Jay Burden show.
Speaker 2: Well, thank you, I appreciate that. In fact, I demand that.
Speaker 1: I'm wearing a tuxedo bottom.
Speaker 2: That might be the most threatening hingle actually, which is worse.
Speaker 2: If you round a corner in the NCD part of
Speaker 2: town and you have a choice of seeing a guy
Speaker 2: sprinting towards you wearing only tuxedo top or tuxedo bottom,
Speaker 2: which would you pick.
Speaker 1: Tuxedo bottom? Because if I'm talking about my safety, I
Speaker 1: know that. Okay, this man's involved in a plot. This
Speaker 1: man is involved. He's the main character of whatever's happening
Speaker 1: right now. My job is to get out of the
Speaker 1: way and get out of the way of whoever's chasing him.
Speaker 1: This is an Indiana Jones moment. I'm excited. I'm not,
Speaker 1: you know, I not only would I rather see that,
Speaker 1: I hope I see that tomorrow. All right, fair enough.
Speaker 2: I can't remember talking about this documentary.
Speaker 1: Well, no, because because this all ties into it. Because
Speaker 1: one thing we talked about in the documentary is the
Speaker 1: outline of power politics in Canada, and it's a lot
Speaker 1: like elite theory. I know there's a lot of guests
Speaker 1: you've had on they talk about that, like where are
Speaker 1: the power blocks in Canada? Who are the elite families?
Speaker 1: And then where they clustered in the Western elites, the
Speaker 1: Laurentian eleads, the Quebecua elites. Hold on, I'm just gonna sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna a strange call there. Yeah, so where
Speaker 1: the civilizational power blocks are in Canada and then we
Speaker 1: build upon that, and so this is all relevant as
Speaker 1: long as we're talking about Canada. But as I'm discussing this,
Speaker 1: it's not so different than America, and it's really not
Speaker 1: so different from Europe because a lot of these we're
Speaker 1: dealing with a lot of the same phenomena. We're dealing
Speaker 1: with a lot of the same you know. The one
Speaker 1: thing about what led Canada down this path a mass migration.
Speaker 1: And I'm not trying to get too much in that
Speaker 1: sort of clouse Schwab Agenda twenty thirty stuff, but even
Speaker 1: going back to the sixties, there was this idea that,
Speaker 1: you know, globalism is happening, globalism is the future. Who
Speaker 1: is jumping on that trade and Canada jumped on very enthusiastically.
Speaker 1: That's one of the reasons that they're pursuing mass migration,
Speaker 1: just because they thought this, if we want to be
Speaker 1: on the side of international trade, if we want to
Speaker 1: be on the side of this new paradigm, this is
Speaker 1: what we need to do and not only should we
Speaker 1: go along with this, We should be the vanguards of it.
Speaker 1: We should be front and center. In Canada, for so
Speaker 1: long has taken at least his political class taking great
Speaker 1: pride and being very involved in you know, un strategies,
Speaker 1: un groups topping the list of the most progressive, the
Speaker 1: most multicultural, the most open. That something is pride itself on.
Speaker 1: But that's because it feels it needs to, because that's
Speaker 1: the status quo. And they're not necessarily wrong. You're seeing
Speaker 1: the same thing in Australia, You're seeing the same thing
Speaker 1: in fucking New Zealand. All across the Anglo sphere it's
Speaker 1: the same story. And I bet you if you're to
Speaker 1: look into it, you know, elite groups would be different,
Speaker 1: different sizes. And you know, America is almost an edge
Speaker 1: case because its internal politics are so dynamic and its
Speaker 1: influence is so wide reaching. It has, you know, so
Speaker 1: many different contained political battles going on right now. But
Speaker 1: I would say for everyone else, all across Europe, it's
Speaker 1: the same story, more or less and very similar. I
Speaker 1: would hate to call it populist, but nationalist pushback in
Speaker 1: various forms, and that's kind of what we were taking here. Look,
Speaker 1: take if we're taking a nationalist approach, but what is
Speaker 1: Canadian nationalism? It's different than American in national nationalism, New
Speaker 1: Zealand nationalism. Like if you look at the red ensign flag,
Speaker 1: which was the original flag of Canada before the maple
Speaker 1: leaf flag everyone's familiar with, there's a little shield on there,
Speaker 1: and that shield contains the founding ethnicities of Canada. You
Speaker 1: got the French, got the English, you got the Irish,
Speaker 1: and you know there's like four main ones. So from
Speaker 1: the beginning there's this idea and when people think of
Speaker 1: Canada and thing French and English, there's a demarcation there
Speaker 1: and you can never really reconcile those two. That there's
Speaker 1: a lot of tension up here between the French and
Speaker 1: the English. I think it's unfortunate. I would like to
Speaker 1: move past that. But you know, I talked to Quebec
Speaker 1: nationalists all the time and it ain't fucking easy. It's
Speaker 1: hard to get a hold of them. When they do
Speaker 1: it's like, well, you know, if you want to reconcile this,
Speaker 1: you really the English have to change everything that they do.
Speaker 1: It's like okay, fuck.
Speaker 2: Well you should just counter with a reasonable you know,
Speaker 2: reasonable position, like you should take a shower.
Speaker 1: Here's a I'm trying to even move path the stereotypes.
Speaker 1: I love Montreal, I love Quebec City, I love poutine.
Speaker 1: I actually think I don't care that they do poutine
Speaker 1: better in Ontario. I'm not even I'm not even gonna
Speaker 1: sweat them on that. I just undid months of good
Speaker 1: work with that comment. But there's this idea in Canada
Speaker 1: that at best, and I made this claim before that Canada,
Speaker 1: if you look at the structure of Canada, it's more
Speaker 1: like an empire. And empire doesn't just mean you're globally dominant,
Speaker 1: but it's it's sort of this structure that contains nations
Speaker 1: within it. That's the form that most empires take, especially
Speaker 1: as they expand, they open up new frontiers and then
Speaker 1: absorb new areas and the periphery. Then the periphery ends
Speaker 1: up filtering towards US. And so pretty much every empire
Speaker 1: throughout history has ended up multicultural, which isn't to say
Speaker 1: every civilization does, but most. I can't think of an
Speaker 1: empire that hasn't. So interestingly, Canada kind of functions like
Speaker 1: an empire, has all these contained ethnic groups that it's
Speaker 1: trying to reconcile constantly. It's been constantly trying to figure
Speaker 1: out what to do with these groups that and we're
Speaker 1: not demanding really that they assimilate. We don't have a
Speaker 1: melting pot ideology up here. In fact, America never really
Speaker 1: had a melting pot. That was a bit of subversive
Speaker 1: fiction that was foisted upon you. But there's this idea
Speaker 1: that what is a Canadian is a Canadian one of
Speaker 1: these four founding stocks. That's most nationalists would believe. But
Speaker 1: it may really made me wonder that if we had
Speaker 1: to make a Canadian, what would a Canadian? Because there's
Speaker 1: characteristics that you would assume Canadians have, but they tend
Speaker 1: to be of the angle variety. But there's a lot
Speaker 1: of internal conflict in America in Canada rather right now,
Speaker 1: especially if you've heard about the Alberta separation movement. Alberta
Speaker 1: wants to separate. Part of that's driven by Trump's annexation doc,
Speaker 1: but not all of it. They've been unhappy for a
Speaker 1: long time. I'm hearing the same thing from British Columbia.
Speaker 1: Quebec has been talking about separating since I was a teenager.
Speaker 1: Manitoba is talking about it right now. So there's there's
Speaker 1: this I claim that we've made that the promise of confederation.
Speaker 1: What made Canada? Well, what made Canadian confederation? That was
Speaker 1: the movement to unite Canada from east to west. Was
Speaker 1: to create this united land mass and connect it with
Speaker 1: one giant rail line to facilitate trade east and west.
Speaker 1: So we did not all become dependent on American trade
Speaker 1: and business. That ended up happening anyway, But the entire
Speaker 1: reason we had this confederation movement was to mutually benefit
Speaker 1: every province financially. And I hate to say it, there's
Speaker 1: a strong argument to be made that we have not
Speaker 1: been keeping up that promise. In fact, the government situated
Speaker 1: in Ontario has been you know, handicapping Alberta for quite
Speaker 1: some time. So that's all to say that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of problems up here that people don't feel united politically.
Speaker 1: They certainly don't feel united ethnically. And so what is
Speaker 1: Canada because we can we even call ourselves a nation
Speaker 1: And we get into this in the film how do
Speaker 1: you define a nation? Again? This is something many other
Speaker 1: larger creators have talked about. We cite many books in
Speaker 1: this as well. But you know, the idea of nationalism
Speaker 1: or a nation of people goes back to the Middle
Speaker 1: Ages even but nationalism as a modern movement you can
Speaker 1: trace to around the nineteenth century. But the idea is,
Speaker 1: you know, a nation needs to be a coherent people
Speaker 1: and then you can grow into a larger sort of orientation.
Speaker 1: But you know, if you're not a coherent people, and
Speaker 1: even within Canada are there is ore Ontarians akherent people
Speaker 1: the Quebecua, I believe are, but are Albertans. What does
Speaker 1: Alberta standing alone in the world stage look like? So anyway,
Speaker 1: these are the questions that we're asking about. Okay, what
Speaker 1: who are these people? What is a Canadian? And can
Speaker 1: you create a new ethnicity in the twenty first century?
Speaker 1: What does that look like? It is possible to do.
Speaker 1: You can have nations on the smaller scale, We have
Speaker 1: nations all through Canada and the forms of Aboriginal tribal bands,
Speaker 1: your American Indians you might have. They they are nations
Speaker 1: unto themselves legally up here and they would have a
Speaker 1: self awareness of themselves that is profoundly you know, nationalistic.
Speaker 1: And we give other sources, examples and sources in the
Speaker 1: film looking at Oriana and looking at these these emergent
Speaker 1: peoples all throughout you know, Africa and elsewhere, you know.
Speaker 1: So it's it's not a question of size. It's actually
Speaker 1: more of a question of will. And so if you
Speaker 1: wanted to, it's less about uniting the entirety of Canada,
Speaker 1: which might be a fool's errand and more about you
Speaker 1: understand that there's there's something to being a Canadian, Okay,
Speaker 1: can you and a group of communities or families actually
Speaker 1: start something of an ethnogenesis in the twenty first century
Speaker 1: in Canada And that really became the through line of
Speaker 1: the entire piece. And it's a it's a pretty daring
Speaker 1: case to be made, and we do it well. But
Speaker 1: I gave you a lot of stuff just there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are a couple things there. So you mentioned
Speaker 2: earlier the different kind of power blocks within Canada, and
Speaker 2: as far as I understand, or as far as I've
Speaker 2: had it explained to me, what these state level independence
Speaker 2: movements are basically a conflict between the Laurentsian elite and
Speaker 2: the kind of like local power block which sort of
Speaker 2: draws its power from resource extraction, right, oil, gas, things
Speaker 2: like that, And so essentially, as far as I understand
Speaker 2: it those two groups are in conflict. That conflict is
Speaker 2: waged in terms of environmental policy on one hand and
Speaker 2: actually making money on the other. And so is that
Speaker 2: the kind of fault line? Is there a broader culture issue?
Speaker 2: How would you rate that analysis? And then also why
Speaker 2: would should we say Canada proper right the kind of
Speaker 2: current legitimate structure, why would they let that happen?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, to answer your question, there's a four main
Speaker 1: plow power blocks. I would say elite par blocks. So
Speaker 1: the Laurentians would be the biggest ones, and they're situated
Speaker 1: in Ontario. And so Ontario is where the nation's capital is,
Speaker 1: but it's also the financial center of Canada, and I
Speaker 1: would place that in Toronto. So i'd say the biggest
Speaker 1: city in Canada is also in Ontario. That would be Toronto.
Speaker 1: Of course, there's Vancouver, of course, there's Calgary, There's some
Speaker 1: other big cities. Montreal, of course, Montreal's amazing city. But
Speaker 1: Toronto represents the financial and business center of the nation
Speaker 1: as far as I see it. And then you also
Speaker 1: have the nation's capital. So the elite, the government elite,
Speaker 1: and the business elite are clustered pretty closely. Together and
Speaker 1: that will constitute the Laurentian center power. Then you have
Speaker 1: the Western Block and that's that's a lot of Alberta,
Speaker 1: and that's a lot of these oil companies and they
Speaker 1: would have gotten like they'll lorentially can trace their power
Speaker 1: back to the founding of Canada. They're one of the
Speaker 1: oldest ones, I say, the Western elites. They're more not
Speaker 1: new oil based, but their power comes from oil and
Speaker 1: the Alberta oil sands. And you know they've you've got
Speaker 1: the government getting in their way of extracting the oil
Speaker 1: legally and through policy and whatnot. And that without getting
Speaker 1: too much into the minutia oft Canadian politics, this is
Speaker 1: why I say Alberta has a point to why the
Speaker 1: center of power in the country's getting in their way.
Speaker 1: Then you have the Quebec elites and they get a
Speaker 1: lot of their Honestly, they get a lot of their
Speaker 1: money from government subsidies. In Canada, we have what are
Speaker 1: known and as have and have not provinces and we
Speaker 1: make equalization payments, so provinces that have a lot of
Speaker 1: money just give money to other provinces. And the number
Speaker 1: one recipient of this has been Quebec. For like decades,
Speaker 1: and the number one payer of this has been Alberta.
Speaker 1: Alberta in Ontario, but mostly Alberta. I think, so Alberta
Speaker 1: at some point saying why are we giving billions of
Speaker 1: dollars to Quebec And all Quebec does is complain about
Speaker 1: us and contribute fucking nothing. I'm sorry, I love Quebec,
Speaker 1: but you don't fucking do anything. They've got like telecom companies,
Speaker 1: and they have this entrenched elite thing, but other than that,
Speaker 1: they're not. It's like they make circ to Sola and
Speaker 1: that's it. And I don't know if anyone's going to
Speaker 1: Cerch to Solat like they did ten years ago. I
Speaker 1: think they flew to the market. So then you know,
Speaker 1: those are the main ones. And then you have these
Speaker 1: elite families. These are they kind of fall in the
Speaker 1: orbit of these centers of power. But you have you know,
Speaker 1: the Molson family and all these dynastic families. Again, they
Speaker 1: can trace their lineage back many, many generations, but so
Speaker 1: many of them fall into the orbit of if not
Speaker 1: Canadian power, then American power as well. Their business interests
Speaker 1: in line with America. So that's more or less the
Speaker 1: outline here. Now your second question was why would they
Speaker 1: allow this to happen. So, just to clarify, allow what
Speaker 1: to happen.
Speaker 2: Allow some sort of separation or separatist movement, right, why
Speaker 2: would they allow their natural resources to leave?
Speaker 1: Oh? They never would, and that's why the way to
Speaker 1: view the separation movement is more of a shakedown. And
Speaker 1: I say that with all due respect and love and
Speaker 1: adoration because I love shakedowns. But Quebec has tried to
Speaker 1: leave in my life twice. So the way you exit
Speaker 1: the country is you have a referendum and it gets
Speaker 1: put up to a vote, So every province needs to
Speaker 1: vote on whether or not you can leave. So every
Speaker 1: province can just vote no, which is what they did
Speaker 1: to Quebec, which is why Quebec is still part of Canada.
Speaker 1: So practically they're not going to leave. They're just not right. Secondly,
Speaker 1: I don't think they really want to leave. I don't
Speaker 1: think Alberta that stands apart from the rest of Canada.
Speaker 1: I don't think that puts them really in an advantageous position.
Speaker 1: Actually don't think they've thought about that deeply. It's very popular,
Speaker 1: it's more popular than it's ever been, and I understand
Speaker 1: why I don't think they're going to separate. I don't
Speaker 1: think the will is there in Alberta, and I don't
Speaker 1: think the will is there outside of Alberta. But what
Speaker 1: I think it's just them causing a problem, taking their
Speaker 1: grievance auto saying fuck you to Parliament, and they should.
Speaker 1: But I just not long after that BC British Columbia
Speaker 1: was they have their own separatist movement, why just to
Speaker 1: become part of China. So there's a lot of chatter
Speaker 1: about this, but I don't detect that they're really serious
Speaker 1: about it, although I do think it's valid. But the
Speaker 1: same reason I don't think Trump is serious about annex
Speaker 1: and Canada. If you really think about it, it wouldn't
Speaker 1: serve his interest. I don't think it would serve Alberta's interests.
Speaker 1: I just think they want the government to stop fucking
Speaker 1: with them and they should.
Speaker 2: Right fair enough, that makes sense. So when we're talking
Speaker 2: about the different sort of nations within Canada, right you
Speaker 2: mentioned and the the to use your term, uh, the
Speaker 2: the Canadian Aboriginals uh or as I call them, uh,
Speaker 2: filthy red savages.
Speaker 1: But because I don't know if I red, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean?
Speaker 2: Dimes. You were naive enough to assume that that this
Speaker 2: is uh based in any sort of observation or firsthand experience.
Speaker 2: This is pure naked bagotry.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but some are. I get where the
Speaker 1: red comes from, but I don't know if we got
Speaker 1: that up here. I think it's colder.
Speaker 2: So the uh, we we just.
Speaker 1: We just we just we just showed up in Chinese
Speaker 1: people were here. We had to think of a different
Speaker 1: name to call them anyway, And.
Speaker 2: For some reason you're like, you know what we need
Speaker 2: even more Chinese.
Speaker 1: You know, it's two great things to go great together,
Speaker 1: Chinese and more Chinese.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you sound like a It's sort of like a
Speaker 2: Japanese sergeant in like nineteen thirty four, Like I could
Speaker 2: do with some more Chinese people, just.
Speaker 1: A Japanese guy in America, I could do with a
Speaker 1: few more Chinese.
Speaker 2: Like who's this unrelated?
Speaker 1: Then you see the fucking Kairo on the bottom Pearl
Speaker 1: Harbor nineteen forties. I don't know. I don't know when
Speaker 1: that shit happened.
Speaker 2: If it did. Uh, But you mentioned that, right, You
Speaker 2: mentioned the kind of small indigenous communities, But couldn't a
Speaker 2: skeptic look at that and say, well that that life
Speaker 2: seems awful, right, like just you know, sitting on your
Speaker 2: reservation drinking yourself to death. Do you give them casinos
Speaker 2: up there or is that our innovation they do?
Speaker 1: But I don't think it's at the scale of America.
Speaker 1: Like I know there's over here in a terrible got
Speaker 1: like Mohawk territory, so there's like Mohawk casinos and stuff
Speaker 1: in their reservation. I mean, honestly, you dry through a
Speaker 1: reservation up here and it's all gas stations and we
Speaker 1: dispensaries because they treat gas and weed as kind of
Speaker 1: the same things. So I guess that makes.
Speaker 2: Indian's own Indian gas stations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Like that's the whole idea, is that since they're
Speaker 1: there tribal bands or nations under themselves, they can chart.
Speaker 1: They can just have different taxes or have no taxes
Speaker 1: at different laws there.
Speaker 2: So I don't know exactly what guns you fell for
Speaker 2: a classic blunder, assuming I meant when I used that
Speaker 2: word twice in the same sentence, amended in the same context,
Speaker 2: I'm asking have the have the dot types uh infiltrated
Speaker 2: into feathery.
Speaker 1: Ah, it's it's I get it now. You're trying to
Speaker 1: he's trying to get them a good side. So I
Speaker 1: camplain about Indians here, I don't I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't know, Like I don't know. Here's what's interesting is
Speaker 1: that I speak to nationalists all the time. Look, you
Speaker 1: know i's talking about. This was Geo Pinochetti, who I'm
Speaker 1: sure you're aware of, and he was like, there's got
Speaker 1: to be some relationship that can be broken between nationalists
Speaker 1: of our side and over there they must have their
Speaker 1: own nationalists. I'm like, yeah, maybe, but you don't understand
Speaker 1: how much they hate white people, like they really there's
Speaker 1: no way around that. And I don't know how that
Speaker 1: affects their view of mass Indian migration. I just don't know,
Speaker 1: because they don't want to talk to us, and I
Speaker 1: have a feeling they would dislike us both egally. But
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't think that the new Indians
Speaker 1: even want to fuck with the old Indians because like
Speaker 1: these reserves suck man like no one's like Indians want
Speaker 1: to be in urban centers and suburbs. They don't want
Speaker 1: to go into like the rural areas where you know
Speaker 1: they're living like rednecks. Basically and they say that with affection, right,
Speaker 1: But like that that's completely antithetical to the Indian worldview
Speaker 1: where they're like going hiking and sand like they're going
Speaker 1: hiking up a mountain and sandals. They don't know what
Speaker 1: they're doing. They don't know where they are at any
Speaker 1: given moment. So yeah, I don't think they'll encroach over there.
Speaker 1: I think that was the answer to your question. It
Speaker 1: was an answered to something.
Speaker 2: Look, I thinking I might title this the worst documentary
Speaker 2: review ever because we talked about this.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's actually it's it actually is all
Speaker 1: related because it's you might you might not think so.
Speaker 1: Good guys, watch watch it and tell me how related
Speaker 1: is all to all this? Because we're talking about the
Speaker 1: power box. I don't here's that the documentary is also
Speaker 1: created for a mainstream audience. So there's some people who've
Speaker 1: been initiated into our ideas and our talking points. For
Speaker 1: some of this might seem old hat, but it's not
Speaker 1: for you and I the best reviews I have heard
Speaker 1: from people liked it and said this is something I
Speaker 1: can show my aunt, my mom, my work friend, or something.
Speaker 1: You know, if you've listened to Blood Sale, we can
Speaker 1: be a bit, you know, outside the bounds on certain things,
Speaker 1: but little toward There's none of that in here. This
Speaker 1: was made to introduce, if not mainstream aligned people, then
Speaker 1: people who are maybe on the periphery of that and
Speaker 1: looking for something else. It's trying to introduce some pretty
Speaker 1: radical ideas, maybe some ideas that these people haven't heard before,
Speaker 1: package in a certain way that they haven't seen before.
Speaker 1: And that's what this one. The first documentary was great,
Speaker 1: that one might even be easier to show people, and
Speaker 1: this one was more fashion from my way of thinking.
Speaker 1: So it lives or dies based on that. Some people
Speaker 1: might think it's too weird. I'll own that, but we
Speaker 1: take it in some pretty weird directions and it's got
Speaker 1: a pretty large ambition for this thing of what it
Speaker 1: wants to get across to someone just a first time
Speaker 1: viewer who hasn't really heard it any these ideas before.
Speaker 1: So that that was the ambition of this project. But
Speaker 1: believe me, everything that we're talking about serves that interest.
Speaker 1: We can emplain about Indians more if you want to,
Speaker 1: because I don't mind that. I'll do that all day.
Speaker 2: I got a video taken down for talking about them,
Speaker 2: so I got to be nice.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I can do it. I can do it in
Speaker 1: a nice way. But I think that we don't there's
Speaker 1: certain groups that a lot of people blame for this
Speaker 1: or that. I'm not going to mention it on the show,
Speaker 1: but now that comes up in the film at all,
Speaker 1: you know, baby steps.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, and so I'm curious because in my mind,
Speaker 2: the last event in Canadian politics was justin Trudeau dating
Speaker 2: Katy Perry, and then before that it was the Trucker protest,
Speaker 2: and then before that the War of eighteen twelve. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so in my mind it seemed as if during the
Speaker 2: coop there was this sort of explosion of discontent. And
Speaker 2: I don't see that anymore now. As I've said earlier,
Speaker 2: don't have the you know, my ear to the ground
Speaker 2: when it comes to Canadian politics. But is the public
Speaker 2: primed for this sort of product?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Are they in a moment of profound discontent? What is
Speaker 2: the feeling on the ground.
Speaker 1: That's a very interesting question. It's a big question. I'm
Speaker 1: going to try and answer it as acutely as I can.
Speaker 1: So the Trucker protest was so interesting because a lot
Speaker 1: of people didn't expect that from Canada and there's a
Speaker 1: few realities that facilitated that. One is that there is
Speaker 1: a pretty strong you know, people have this idea of Canada,
Speaker 1: like I described it as sort of liberals and whatnot,
Speaker 1: but there's a like, there's only really a few cities
Speaker 1: that matter in Canada, and it's said a lot of towns,
Speaker 1: a lot of villages, a lot of rural areas, and
Speaker 1: a lot of people who are very outdoorsy. So you
Speaker 1: have a certain I don't want to call it a
Speaker 1: frontier character up here, but maybe I will. Maybe I'll
Speaker 1: just fucking say that. But there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are a bit more conservatively aligned. And the Trucker protests,
Speaker 1: you know, coalesced a lot of different groups. It was,
Speaker 1: you know, vaccine skeptics plus conspiracy guys, plus white nationalists
Speaker 1: plus free speech people plus like, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: right wing groups that probably wouldn't get along otherwise that
Speaker 1: really crashed together and did this one miraculous thing that
Speaker 1: was so cool to see and it was so big.
Speaker 1: And then there's still some people that have been arrested
Speaker 1: that are dealing with the consequences of that. But one
Speaker 1: of the things that facilitated that was that the Canadian
Speaker 1: security apparatus and the Canadian military. They did not have
Speaker 1: the ability to project force inward. And I think that
Speaker 1: was what scared them, that if they wanted to send
Speaker 1: in the cops of the military to stop this, they
Speaker 1: fucking couldn't. They just didn't have the manpower, They didn't
Speaker 1: have the will, they didn't have the strength, they didn't
Speaker 1: have the plan to do that like they would in America.
Speaker 1: America can direct so much power at its own citizens
Speaker 1: at any given moment. But they couldn't do that and can.
Speaker 1: I think that showed a great weakness in their ability
Speaker 1: to marshal their forces interiorly. But you know, so what
Speaker 1: does what does that represent? So I would say that
Speaker 1: of those groups I mentioned, they don't align on most
Speaker 1: things when it comes to even mass migration. At that time,
Speaker 1: there might have been a lot of anti vaccine people
Speaker 1: like the Alex Jones types. Right, like Alex Jones, even
Speaker 1: though they tried to turn info Wars trans for some reason,
Speaker 1: Alex Jones for being a far right schitzo, he's always
Speaker 1: been pretty LGBT friendly. A'm ninety nine percent sure he
Speaker 1: had Blair White's feet in his mouth, and that you know,
Speaker 1: he's he's not a racist guy either, right, So you
Speaker 1: had like those people who wouldn't even agree on racial stuff,
Speaker 1: and maybe they've come around recently, but you know, if
Speaker 1: you were trying to build a movement with them outside
Speaker 1: of that flashpoint, you probably couldn't. So we're talking about
Speaker 1: what is the movement on the ground. I'm right now
Speaker 1: I am more excited than I've ever been and more
Speaker 1: hopeful from seeing groups like the Dominion Society up here
Speaker 1: in Canada and Second Sons up here in Canada. Both
Speaker 1: these groups I speak to the leadership of them quite often.
Speaker 1: The Domain Society ran by Daniel Tyree, which is a
Speaker 1: political organization. Second Sons is more of an active club network,
Speaker 1: but very nationalist minded guys. The growth of these groups
Speaker 1: has been phenomenal. I'd see the growth is more impressive
Speaker 1: than anything I've seen outside of America, and maybe even
Speaker 1: compared to America, just from the numbers I'm seeing and
Speaker 1: the quality of the people who are involved in the
Speaker 1: projects that they're starting to pull off. So based on
Speaker 1: the feedback to that, I think the movement on the
Speaker 1: ground and sort of the tone of everything is very
Speaker 1: very good, at least where I am in Ontario. I
Speaker 1: can't speak to what it's like across the country, but
Speaker 1: the growth of these groups, these nationalist minded groups, these
Speaker 1: remigration groups, has been phenomenal and the amount of content
Speaker 1: people don't like to talk about that, but I would
Speaker 1: say the intellectual movement from some other people, other content
Speaker 1: creators that are trying to dig through Canadian history and
Speaker 1: make it more relevant to Canadians. So they're not just
Speaker 1: always drawn towards international politics and international concerns, like they're
Speaker 1: trying to get a stronger awareness of themselves, of their
Speaker 1: history and make it more relevant to Canadians today. And
Speaker 1: so much of Canada's history is pretty nationalistic and you know,
Speaker 1: a militaristic in tone. So I'm very hopeful from what
Speaker 1: I'm seeing from the youth, people younger than myself. I'm
Speaker 1: not that old, so I think the stage is set
Speaker 1: right now for some very very interesting things. And I
Speaker 1: think for a lot of people in the conservative movement,
Speaker 1: they're kind of they're gravitating a way from the center
Speaker 1: of that because they're looking at Pere Polyev. What time
Speaker 1: are we at? Am I going to Okay, we have
Speaker 1: some time, so I'll explain what happened with Trudeau was
Speaker 1: really interesting because you remember Justin Trudeau, don't you. Yes,
Speaker 1: I'm familiar with Yeah. So he was really funny because
Speaker 1: he's been stupid for that as long as he's been
Speaker 1: Prime minister. But at some point near the end of
Speaker 1: his tenure, there was a green light that was placed
Speaker 1: over his head that made it okay to bully him,
Speaker 1: bully him in a way that I've never seen done
Speaker 1: to a world leader by his own people, even with
Speaker 1: like George W. Bush. But that's where you started seeing
Speaker 1: fuck Trudeau bumper stickers everywhere. You saw like ladies making
Speaker 1: fun of Trudeau for being stupid and whatnot. And I
Speaker 1: was hopeful for a minute because he got a divorce
Speaker 1: while he was Prime minister and he started getting a beard,
Speaker 1: but a very specific type of divorced guy beard. And
Speaker 1: I said, Weave, I don't even think America has had
Speaker 1: a proper divorced president, and we've certainly never had a
Speaker 1: divorced prime minister. Are we ready for such a thing?
Speaker 1: And I'm like, this guy, he's got a divorced brain
Speaker 1: right now. He's capable of anything. It's like when Trump
Speaker 1: got shot in the fucking head. You don't know what
Speaker 1: he's going to do next, right, same thing, like a
Speaker 1: man going through divorce might as well be shot in
Speaker 1: the side of the head. But everyone was just making
Speaker 1: making fun of this guy, and because there was such
Speaker 1: a green light placed over bullying him, it's you know,
Speaker 1: I think people got like the wrong idea about how
Speaker 1: Canadians feel about the Liberal Party. And so because everyone
Speaker 1: was making buntradea this guy named Peter Poliev who is
Speaker 1: a leader of the Conservative Party, he was a shoe
Speaker 1: in at the election. Trudeau was on his way out,
Speaker 1: he announced everyone he didn't even want to be Prime
Speaker 1: minister anymore. So this guy Pierre Poliev, who's a fucking dork,
Speaker 1: who doesn't have a single original idea in his head.
Speaker 1: You know, he's a shoe and he's gonna just slide
Speaker 1: right in there. And then here comes this guy named
Speaker 1: Mark Carney and just decimates him. Because it turns out
Speaker 1: no one, no one liked the Conservative Party as much
Speaker 1: as they hated Trudeau, and just because they hated Trudeau
Speaker 1: didn't mean they disliked the Liberal Party at all. And
Speaker 1: so that's what happened at that election. And even prior
Speaker 1: to the election, we were saying Pierre Poulyev is gonna lose.
Speaker 1: The Conservaives are gonna lose. And that was hopeful because
Speaker 1: I said, you know what they can do now is
Speaker 1: they can reassess. Get Pierre Poliev out of there, find
Speaker 1: a new guy. Who are you gonna get, I don't know,
Speaker 1: go crazy, Find a dark horse candidate like Trump, Find
Speaker 1: a psychopath, I don't know, you know, find just anyone
Speaker 1: but Kevin O'Leary. You know. But what they I wasn't
Speaker 1: expecting them to do what they did, which was just
Speaker 1: keep pure poly even power and change nothing. So right
Speaker 1: now there's a lot of people in the Conservative Party
Speaker 1: that are looking for not an out, but saying that
Speaker 1: what the fuck are we doing? Mark Karney, the liberal
Speaker 1: prime minister, We're gonna have twenty five years of him.
Speaker 1: You could be prime minister for as long as you want.
Speaker 1: By the way he could be. He could be prime
Speaker 1: minister for one hundred thousand years if he wants to,
Speaker 1: if he just keeps getting re elected. So there's people
Speaker 1: within the Conservative movement they're looking for some of that
Speaker 1: energy that they felt. They remember what it's like to
Speaker 1: hate a liberal leader, They remember what it was like
Speaker 1: for the Trucker protests. There's something here, and these conservatives,
Speaker 1: the prison they're in is so fucking boring and offers
Speaker 1: them nothing. All it offers is scolding. So I'm looking
Speaker 1: at them and saying, there's an alternative, and it's it's
Speaker 1: this other thing outside of the politics. This this this
Speaker 1: emergence nationalistic thing that I was just describing.
Speaker 2: So, Dimes, we are fast approaching time. I'll make sure
Speaker 2: to link to this documentary. Everyone should check it out.
Speaker 2: It got burden wife seal of approval, so matters to you. Yeah,
Speaker 2: she liked it, and so you know, for what.
Speaker 1: The brain's upound the operation, it's.
Speaker 2: Uh uh yeah, I've you know, we kind of floated
Speaker 2: the wrong idea, you know, like, oh, it'd be you know, fun,
Speaker 2: maybe you and I do a show talking to her
Speaker 2: and she goes, yeah, now, why would I listen to
Speaker 2: you steal my ideas? Wow? Okay, fine? Uh in all seriousness,
Speaker 2: she enjoyed it. So if that kind of you know,
Speaker 2: a lofty praise moves you, I'll be sure to link it, Dimes.
Speaker 2: Where else can people find you?
Speaker 1: Oh, you can go over to blood Satellite dot Ca
Speaker 1: to find all of our content from the show. On
Speaker 1: there and clips and full episodes and everything. I'm on
Speaker 1: substack at Vanguardist Journal dot substack dot com. Jay was
Speaker 1: so gracious has to include a link to that on
Speaker 1: our last appearance. But those are the main things. I'm
Speaker 1: also on x at Legally Ironic.
Speaker 2: Well if you're interested, highly recommend it. As far as
Speaker 2: my stuff, Jayburden Show, Apple, Spotify, YouTube, you guys know
Speaker 2: where to find me. I appreciate it. And the dimes.
Speaker 2: Thank you again. Man, This is a ton of fun.
Speaker 1: Every time I come here. That's That's not Bagaragary program.