Speaker 1: Welcome back everyone. I'm Keith Woods. I'm my co host
Speaker 1: and friend Royan. Today, Ryan, we're going to be discussing slop, slopulism, ink,
Speaker 1: slop in all its forms. I'm not quite sure where
Speaker 1: to start with this. When when do we think the
Speaker 1: slop era began the slopulous era.
Speaker 2: As soon as the normy has got free speech. I think.
Speaker 3: Kind of, yeah, coalesced with the advance of AI and
Speaker 3: it becoming democratized, and I think probably October seventh as
Speaker 3: well brought more of the third world to platforms like
Speaker 3: X and now there are people grifting off this new
Speaker 3: audience that are love information, low intelligence, and it's already
Speaker 3: evolved from the incentives of the attention economy.
Speaker 2: I would say, yeah, well.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about how it concerns nationalism. So as far
Speaker 1: as the kind of online nationalist subculture, you know, you
Speaker 1: had the emergence of the old Ride and everything surrounding
Speaker 1: Trump and Brexit. You doubt initial wave in twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: fifteen sixteen. We've talked about this before, but it was
Speaker 1: a more intellectual right. It kind of had a European
Speaker 1: continental foundation. People would reference, you know, Julius Evela, YUMPHI,
Speaker 1: the French new right about in this kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: then heavily hit with censorship. After the Trump election, the
Speaker 1: big tech platforms came together and basically conspired to make
Speaker 1: sure something like that didn't happen again. The ADL and
Speaker 1: similar organizations blexter Muscle, we had a heavy plampdown and
Speaker 1: free speech. Practically everyone was banned off YouTube, and yeah,
Speaker 1: we were at a pretty bleak period through COVID. It
Speaker 1: looked like the censorship was just going to expand and expand,
Speaker 1: and we'd be limited to gab and Telegram and maybe
Speaker 1: subsec when that came on board. And then thank god
Speaker 1: Elon Musk purchased X that changed everything the direction he
Speaker 1: sent it in restoring band accounts include my own I
Speaker 1: was suspended under Jack Dorsey or Paul Singer Twitter, and
Speaker 1: at the same time, Rumble coming on board and being
Speaker 1: a I think, a better success than any of us
Speaker 1: really expected. That contributed as well. But since then, to
Speaker 1: my surprise, even platforms like Instagram now are full of
Speaker 1: right wing nationalist memes, videos, content creators, and yeah, part
Speaker 1: of it was just the overall relaxation that came about
Speaker 1: as a result of Musk's influence and then Trump winning
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty four, Zuckerberg came out and said, yeah,
Speaker 1: we kind of went a bit crazy during the Biden era.
Speaker 1: Part of it was just I think the flood of
Speaker 1: information like TikTok still sensor heavily, but there's just so
Speaker 1: many new accounts popping up posting this stuff that they
Speaker 1: can't really keep on top of it. So part of
Speaker 1: it is just our own talking points and ideas disseminating
Speaker 1: that it kind of became the norm and the right
Speaker 1: and it can't all be censored to some degree. And then, yeah,
Speaker 1: part of it, as you say post October seventh, this
Speaker 1: huge wave of noticing of views critical of Zionists and
Speaker 1: Jewish influence and the spread of talking points that used
Speaker 1: to be confined to the darkest corners of the internet.
Speaker 1: On you had to find forums, or you had to
Speaker 1: find these odd websines and blogs. Now they're getting blasted
Speaker 1: out on TikTok and Instagram and similar platforms for tens
Speaker 1: of millions of views. But yeah, it's created this new
Speaker 1: type of right winger. I don't know if ill even
Speaker 1: called them right wing, but it's created this anti he
Speaker 1: Zionist politics of someone who's pretty low information. They went
Speaker 1: through BLM, they went through Covered, they went through all
Speaker 1: these things and the remainder political and now in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four or five or six, and they've suddenly they've
Speaker 1: suddenly been red pilled by TikTok edits and it's a
Speaker 1: certain demographic.
Speaker 3: Literally, just before we started recording this, I saw a
Speaker 3: thread with two point eight million views claiming that Donald
Speaker 3: Trump had text with his daughter, like, and it's it's
Speaker 3: multiple times a day you'll see this kind of just
Speaker 3: absolute nonsense with half a million impressions, millions of impressions,
Speaker 3: and it's just like, how do you create anything political
Speaker 3: when this is the kind of thing that you're faced with.
Speaker 3: It's just the Epstein Files, the recent release were a
Speaker 3: peak because you could just every day, yeah, you'd see
Speaker 3: posts with millions of impressions, and you could just put
Speaker 3: anything out. You could say, I can't believe the Epstein
Speaker 3: files proved that Bill Gates ad a baby, and it
Speaker 3: would be like twenty million impressions, one hundred thousand likes,
Speaker 3: Like people were just posting the most insane self claiming
Speaker 3: it was in the Epstein files. And I mean, yeah,
Speaker 3: it got some challenge obviously because it's good content. There's
Speaker 3: also this other niche of slop that's emerged, which is
Speaker 3: Indians are you know, they'll do like relationship advice, they'll
Speaker 3: do crypto scams, they'll do a geopolitics, they'll do Inevitable
Speaker 3: West whatever it is. It's like, you know, getting millions
Speaker 3: of impressions. But I think it was actually a really
Speaker 3: good thing that X created this feature where you can
Speaker 3: see where the account is based. That at least brought
Speaker 3: truth back.
Speaker 1: Well that's another factor is demonetization must introduced a cheer
Speaker 1: revenue on on X and that that has totally changed things. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that was you know, that was the origin
Speaker 1: point of a lot of.
Speaker 2: You get paid for lion, that's basically yeah.
Speaker 1: And you just have you huge amounts of creators such
Speaker 1: as outsources everything today. I know, so you have huge
Speaker 1: news aggregator accounts that you know, write these posts. Here's
Speaker 1: the update on the round war, and it's just so
Speaker 1: clear from the cadence and everything that he's just feening
Speaker 1: into chat GPT and reposting it. And that's it's probably
Speaker 1: more than half the news accounts. And then yeah, like
Speaker 1: you said, so that you have a ton of accounts
Speaker 1: from Nigeria and India specifically another parts of the third
Speaker 1: world that realized you can get a lot of impressions.
Speaker 1: You know, hit a relationship niche, hit a right wing
Speaker 1: politics niche, shit a war coverage niche, and they just
Speaker 1: produced the most low grade mass appeal AI generated slop.
Speaker 1: And that's unfortunately a lot of people's feeds.
Speaker 3: Now And there are many millions of bottle counts on
Speaker 3: the platform. It's like, you know, accounts pretending to be
Speaker 3: women with forty followers and they'll have like the most
Speaker 3: generic replies. I don't even know what the purpose of
Speaker 3: that is. Maybe it's to sell on later for political purposes.
Speaker 3: Maybe it's to you know, get algorithmic support for other
Speaker 3: accounts that you know they're operating. But you know, it's
Speaker 3: all contributing to post truth. You know, you could accuse
Speaker 3: the legacy media of starting that that ethos, and now
Speaker 3: it's been democratized and people are very skeptical of the mainstream.
Speaker 3: They've created their own post truth mythos, and yeah, that's
Speaker 3: where we are. I think it's contributing to distracting people
Speaker 3: massively from real politics.
Speaker 2: You know, learning, and.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's hard to say anything productive coming from from
Speaker 3: this kind of environment. It's it's almost as if it's
Speaker 3: by design to just leave people enslaved.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess we should talk about how it's affected
Speaker 1: the nationalist movement. I mean, a lot of the stuff
Speaker 1: post October seventh, the anti Zionist stuff, it's you could
Speaker 1: say nationalists adjacent. And you know, nationalists have always had
Speaker 1: this critique of Zionist influence subverting Western foreign policy, dragon
Speaker 1: Western countries into unproductive wars on Israel's behalf, you know,
Speaker 1: the foreign aid and sharing military intelligence and tech and
Speaker 1: so on. So nationalists, people that talk about Jewish influence
Speaker 1: were some of the only people blasted that out for
Speaker 1: a long time. And of course, only a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff becomes basically mainstream since October seventh, and you have
Speaker 1: You've got Ana Kasparian was on Twitter. What was the
Speaker 1: thing she said, you know, the guymer waking up it
Speaker 1: with something like that. So yeah, now you've, like manstream
Speaker 1: leftists blasted some of this stuff out, but yeah, it
Speaker 1: created a new kind of influencer, you know. I guess
Speaker 1: Ian Carroll is a good example like that. That was
Speaker 1: a guy who was. I think he was kind of
Speaker 1: a political up until a couple of years ago. But
Speaker 1: you know, he does kind of generic conspiracy content. And
Speaker 1: it said generic in that it's not really pushing any
Speaker 1: ideological angle, Like there isn't like an identitarian critique of
Speaker 1: Zionist influence or anything like this. It's it's just kind
Speaker 1: of generic conspiracy land stuff.
Speaker 2: You know. It's like the.
Speaker 1: Vegas shooting was staged, it was something involved in the
Speaker 1: Saudi royal succession dispute.
Speaker 3: He was onto some good stuff, like he did a
Speaker 3: I think nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I mean it's I mean, that's the thing.
Speaker 1: You just lists a bunch of conspiracies. But it's like
Speaker 1: it's conspiracy as a genre.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm saying he built his audience in something that
Speaker 3: was interesting and partaking.
Speaker 2: But that's the thing.
Speaker 1: It's like this is a genre now. It's like, oh,
Speaker 1: today I'm going to cover this conspiracy and tomorrow I'm
Speaker 1: going to cover the JFK assassination, and Thursday we're doing
Speaker 1: the Vegas shooting. And it's like the point becomes the conspiracy,
Speaker 1: Like the end in itself is the conspiracy, and there
Speaker 1: isn't really any ideological angles pushing. I think it's it's
Speaker 1: an interesting illustration. Like if you go to his website,
Speaker 1: you look at the merchandise he selling, it's like inflation
Speaker 1: is theft. You know, It's like it's like a I
Speaker 1: don't know, an anti inflation activist. I guess he's like
Speaker 1: maybe he's like a gold bug, which is like a
Speaker 1: very libertarian position, but then he'd have super left wing positions.
Speaker 1: He'd probably talk about, you know, the wealth inequality and
Speaker 1: the Epstein class, Robin everyone true through unfairwealth disparities, this
Speaker 1: kind of thing, but there isn't really an ideological cord
Speaker 1: to this stuff. I think that's what's different from the past.
Speaker 1: Like in the past you had maybe libertarian critiques of
Speaker 1: Zionist influence. You had pages like Lou Rockwell that would
Speaker 1: document a lot of this stuff, and you even had
Speaker 1: leftist critiques. James Petrius who died recently, very underrated guy.
Speaker 1: He wrote, he wrote a book I think it's just
Speaker 1: called the Jewish Lobby in the United States or the
Speaker 1: Power of the Jewish Lobby in the United States. And
Speaker 1: he's a leftist coming from kind of a Marxist critique
Speaker 1: of foreign policy, like post colonial, but still did some
Speaker 1: really interesting research on the influence of APAK and so on.
Speaker 1: And like I said, you've did the Nationals critique, but
Speaker 1: now it's just like the the ideology is the conspiracy.
Speaker 1: That's sort of what's changed. It's the same with Candace.
Speaker 1: What does Candace really believe? Well, I don't know. You know,
Speaker 1: she's Christian, she's like pro life beliefs, but then you know,
Speaker 1: does that does any is there any coher belief They're
Speaker 1: as far as like what the country should look like.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just basically there's evil people in charge
Speaker 1: and you know, ours nervousive content of the various things
Speaker 1: they're potentially doing. So there's there's no real ideological court
Speaker 1: to any of this stuff. Now it's just sort of amorphous.
Speaker 1: Non ideological elites are bad.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's the incentive structure of the platform. It's I
Speaker 3: would say even the biological incentive of the producer. A
Speaker 3: lot of these people are, you know, have some kind
Speaker 3: of neurological disorder where they require increasing amounts of attention.
Speaker 3: I think it's strongly associated with dark triad characteristics and
Speaker 3: the algorithms incentivized daily content, novelty content, and Yeah, it
Speaker 3: just becomes a cycle of.
Speaker 2: More and more.
Speaker 3: Outrage. And you know, even when they're getting at something
Speaker 3: that may be true as something slightly political, they redirect
Speaker 3: it and it ends up being the Jesuits and the
Speaker 3: Catholic Church or whoever that was actually responsible.
Speaker 1: So and once you see there, I'm saying there's no
Speaker 1: ideological core, but actually because there's none, it kind of
Speaker 1: falls back on tacit leftism, you know, the kind of
Speaker 1: societal taken for granted leftist premises. That's what kind of
Speaker 1: fills that void. When when you don't have an ideology,
Speaker 1: when you don't have something positive you're putting forward, when
Speaker 1: it's just critique, you basically fall back on the easy,
Speaker 1: ready made moral critiques of your enemy that are most
Speaker 1: acceptable to the largest possible audience, which is going to
Speaker 1: be they're racist, they're white supremacists, they hate black people,
Speaker 1: they hate poor people. It's the rich robin the poor.
Speaker 1: And that's that's kind of what it goes back to.
Speaker 1: You know, you mentioned the you know, like blaming on
Speaker 1: the Jesuits, Like you see this with someone like candae
Speaker 1: Owan's right, she sees this wave of anti Israel sentiment
Speaker 1: and she becomes this big spokesperson basically for anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: But then of course she's not gonna take that difficult
Speaker 1: kind of ideological stance and defend something that's that outside
Speaker 1: the Overton windows. So it becomes no, actually, these are
Speaker 1: fact Jews, these are Kazarians that converted to Judaism, and
Speaker 1: they're actually given the real Jews, who are the chosen
Speaker 1: people a bad names. That's her stance, or with some
Speaker 1: of the other kind of generic conspiracy content. You know,
Speaker 1: what does it fall back on. It starts out about
Speaker 1: you know, Jews, zionis power and so on, and that
Speaker 1: seems to have an identitarian element, and then it turns into, well,
Speaker 1: they want to keep us divided, and they've invented left
Speaker 1: versus right, and black versus white, and racial differences, gender differences.
Speaker 1: All the stuff is just like cultural or distraction, and
Speaker 1: it basically turns in to this, like, you know, occupy
Speaker 1: Wall Street, we should all come together as one and
Speaker 1: take on the bankers, who also don't have any identity, right,
Speaker 1: they're some group that's motivated by you know, Satanism or
Speaker 1: whatever weird occultic beliefs they have. But it's basically this
Speaker 1: nefarious group of villains versus the masses that really we're
Speaker 1: all united, and racial differences, all these things don't matter.
Speaker 1: That's just created by by the elites or maybe even
Speaker 1: the Zionists to keep us divided. So when you have
Speaker 1: this just generic conspiracy content, it always seems to default
Speaker 1: into a kind of leftism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it always ends up being more we need more democracy,
Speaker 3: more liberty to overcome this invisible tyrant. But you know,
Speaker 3: these people just seem to have no understanding of sociology
Speaker 3: or no theory of minds, like you know, a great
Speaker 3: example would be the assassination of Charlie Kirk that very
Speaker 3: quickly became a big conspiracy, Whereas I think the basic
Speaker 3: explanation was that the assassin, what probably had autism, was
Speaker 3: probably radicalized by all the you know, woke stuff that's
Speaker 3: been happening in the culture for the last decade, and
Speaker 3: he was in some kind of gay relationship, and you know,
Speaker 3: saw saw himself as a hero standing up for the
Speaker 3: righteous mob against the evil fascists. I mean, it's like
Speaker 3: Ockham's razor and no longer applies, and all these people
Speaker 3: on the internet have to have some elaborate conspiracy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, you know, it's crazy how further conspiracy traveled.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean we have they have his DNA
Speaker 1: on the weapon, right, Like all of it hasn't come
Speaker 1: out yet. They're like, oh, why doesn't the FBI release
Speaker 1: every single piece of evidence. It's like, well, he's likes
Speaker 1: to have a trail, you know, like we're going to
Speaker 1: see this stuff at the trail. You know it's going
Speaker 1: to be proved totally beyond reasonable doubt. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk, but the conspiracy content around that,
Speaker 1: it was just next level with this stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like you could kind of look past or to
Speaker 1: see this as beneficial to degree. In the time after
Speaker 1: October seventh, everything was very focused on Israel, Israeli influenced.
Speaker 1: It was all rooted in reality and in a real
Speaker 1: critique and a real issue, even if maybe some of
Speaker 1: the details were wrong. It's like, look, the ADL does
Speaker 1: have this huge influence. There is this huge foreign influence
Speaker 1: operation on behalf of this foreign power, and people were
Speaker 1: able to kind of unite around that. But then after
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk, Yeah, it's like these people came into politics
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago. This is the only lens
Speaker 1: through which they can view anything now, and so Charlie
Speaker 1: Kirk getting killed has to be a Zionist plot. And
Speaker 1: I mean the amount of slop that's been produced dround
Speaker 1: that topic. You know, since then you have content creators
Speaker 1: that just analyze the phone footage of the crowd before
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk was killed. And I've just been months making
Speaker 1: videos analyzing it of like why does this guy five
Speaker 1: rows back twitch his cap ten seconds before Kirk is shot?
Speaker 1: You know, it got to.
Speaker 2: The point why is he touching the cap?
Speaker 1: It got to the point where the theory was like
Speaker 1: a drone flew over Charlie Kirk. At some point his
Speaker 1: best friend and head of security twitched his cap to
Speaker 1: give the signal to begin the operation. There were a
Speaker 1: dozen people in the crowd wearing maroon T shirts, which,
Speaker 1: according to Candice owns our Special Forces outfits. So then
Speaker 1: they sort of began communicating facially with each other. Then
Speaker 1: the guy in the front row, some boomer, shot Kirk
Speaker 1: with his palm pistol, which actually shot him at a
Speaker 1: different angle than we are allowed to believe. The bullet
Speaker 1: came from or potentially his lapel microphone exploded Mossad style
Speaker 1: on which.
Speaker 2: Theory you go with?
Speaker 1: And yeah, this big elaborate explanation. Then the rest of
Speaker 1: the security team ran in and like snatched stuff off
Speaker 1: his body to hide the evidence. And then a black
Speaker 1: guy came in and eluded the baseball caps that Kirk
Speaker 1: was selling because he was involved in hiding the evidence
Speaker 1: that there may have been ballistics on those caps, so
Speaker 1: that that's actually why he looted the caps before they cleaned.
Speaker 1: Heard the sin and yeah, you go through that and
Speaker 1: it's like, wouldn't it be simpler to say a guy
Speaker 1: shot him with a rifle? You know, they're talking about
Speaker 1: how unrealistic it is that the rifle would not penetrate
Speaker 1: the back of his spine and go through is his skin,
Speaker 1: And it's like, you put all those pieces together, it's like,
Speaker 1: are we still saying that's the less likely explanation? Because
Speaker 1: even if it was the conspiracies, wouldn't they just have
Speaker 1: someone shoot him with a rifle? But yeah, it just
Speaker 1: becomes the conspiracy is the end in itself. You know,
Speaker 1: you talk to these people sometimes and it is actually
Speaker 1: like the more elaborate the conspiracy is, the more they're
Speaker 1: likely to believe it. You know, whoever, it was like
Speaker 1: this arms race after Charlie Kirk where they were like
Speaker 1: competing for the most elaborate conspiracies. Ago Candace Owens is
Speaker 1: saying it was a saying it was a it was
Speaker 1: a rifle that came from someone popping his head out
Speaker 1: of the underground bunker. Well, you know, actually I have
Speaker 1: this far more elaborate theory about a pan pistol and
Speaker 1: a robot bird. You know, it's now my theory is
Speaker 1: the winner, and somehow the conspiraties just go to whatever
Speaker 1: the most complex theory is, and it was just getting
Speaker 1: more and more elaborate over time. But yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: it's just you know, the psychology. It is weird. But
Speaker 1: I mean I think it just comes down to it's
Speaker 1: just entertainment for these people, you know, it's the entertaining
Speaker 1: conspiracy content, the new video dropping every day. I mean,
Speaker 1: Candace has made hundreds of hours of conspiracy content around
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk's death. Now the French arms dealers have been involved,
Speaker 1: and the Cron's have been involved. The Egyptian Air Force,
Speaker 1: all of TPUSA, Bill Ackman, Natanya, who were now at
Speaker 1: the point of Erica Kirk being involved, and I mean
Speaker 1: it's just she's really a master. It's like, how long
Speaker 1: is she going to keep this going? Like two years
Speaker 1: from his death, we will still be getting new angles
Speaker 1: on the conspiracy.
Speaker 3: To be fair, there was a crazy jew on site
Speaker 3: that he claimed that he had shot Charlie. So initially
Speaker 3: I could, you know, sympathize with people that got caught
Speaker 3: up in the conspiracy, but it quickly became clear that
Speaker 3: that guy is like a regular on the circuit. He
Speaker 3: was going to like every event and just you know,
Speaker 3: saying crazy stuff. He was some kind of demented leftists
Speaker 3: and he has been charged since for obstruction and investigation.
Speaker 3: You know, I was actually, you know, quite skeptical of
Speaker 3: it being a pro hit, like at the time because
Speaker 3: it was September tenth, it was a long range shot
Speaker 3: and all that, But when you saw the video of
Speaker 3: him making the escape, it was so unprofessional. I was
Speaker 3: just like, Okay, it's just you know, it's just I
Speaker 3: want to be hero assassin like probably some kid it was.
Speaker 3: You know, he had to jump off a building from
Speaker 3: I don't know what twenty feet and he obviously hurt himself.
Speaker 3: He was limping off, it was just so unprofessional it
Speaker 3: became clear. And yeah, the only possible conspiracy left would
Speaker 3: be if he was radicalized by some kind of foreign
Speaker 3: agent on a chat room, which is possible.
Speaker 1: But his dad also turned them in, so apparently his
Speaker 1: dad is also in the conspiracy.
Speaker 3: Well in the US do they always seem to work
Speaker 3: for the FBI or some CIO contractor or whatever. But
Speaker 3: you know what's interesting about a lot of these conspiracies
Speaker 3: is they, like people that follow them, always point to
Speaker 3: traditional nodes of authority. So in this case, you had
Speaker 3: like army veterans that claim to be snipers or whatever,
Speaker 3: and they were doing analysis on like the path of
Speaker 3: the bullet and whether the penetration on the flesh was
Speaker 3: significant enough to really be the bullet that the investigators said.
Speaker 3: And during COVID, anyone that had doctor in front of
Speaker 3: their name was always seen as an authority by you know, skeptics.
Speaker 3: And now we've got, you know, this professor Young who's
Speaker 3: like this friendly enough seeming Chinese guy. And this is
Speaker 3: again interesting because I think in general East Asians are
Speaker 3: very truthful and they're seen as a you know, a
Speaker 3: beacon of academic truth. So he's kind of adopted this.
Speaker 2: Persona.
Speaker 3: He's built millions of followers on platforms, and then again
Speaker 3: it's like Jesuits and you know whatever else, Frank Sabatine
Speaker 3: and Frank Kiss. It's like all these code names for
Speaker 3: Jews that it's not actually the Jews, it's just all
Speaker 3: these adjacent groups that are actually you know, behind things.
Speaker 2: So I've seen you been going off to him lately.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I discovered this guy recently. I mean I saw
Speaker 1: he was super popular, never really looked into it, and
Speaker 1: then a clip came across my feed and it's just like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, it's it's to me, it reads like
Speaker 1: an MD skit, Like it's like if Sam Hyde was
Speaker 1: making fun of the Peter Zaihan geopolitical analysts. You know,
Speaker 1: there's this hilarious clip where he's explained the Iran war
Speaker 1: and he's like, so Iran wants to do a jihad.
Speaker 1: You know, this is like a technical term that he
Speaker 1: explains to the audience. And then he's explaining the map
Speaker 1: to his audience, you know, and he goes, he goes,
Speaker 1: so what he wants Iran wants to do is to unify,
Speaker 1: and he writes to unify in Capital letters on the board,
Speaker 1: you know, to explain the concept there were unified the
Speaker 1: Islamic world. And he said that that's what the outcome
Speaker 1: of the war will be. Will he Ran he Ran
Speaker 1: will create a Pax Islamica, you know, as he Ran
Speaker 1: is bombing like ten other Muslim countries because they're cooperating
Speaker 1: with with the US. And then he goes he he
Speaker 1: talks about the alliance still creating. He's talking about the
Speaker 1: all the countries with puppet governments that could join this
Speaker 1: packs Islamica. And he's like Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt, and uh,
Speaker 1: all these countries, just like the entire Middle East. But yeah,
Speaker 1: he's he's, he's he exemplifies it. You know, if you
Speaker 1: put professor or doctor in front of your name and
Speaker 1: you do subtle things to convey authority. You have a
Speaker 1: impressive looking whiteboard, interactive, you're speaking to an audience as
Speaker 1: if you're in a position of authority, even though I
Speaker 1: don't think there's there's even an audience. In the videos, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean you can clip that and people see it
Speaker 1: and it just you know, they assume that this person
Speaker 1: is a great authority. And yeah, he's been going around
Speaker 1: saying that the Epstein files proved that the world is
Speaker 1: run by the Jesuits who control the Catholic Church, the
Speaker 1: Savantaine Francis who control Israel, and the Freemasons who controlled
Speaker 1: the American deep state. But I was, I mean, people
Speaker 1: were vigorously defending him when I when I poked fund
Speaker 1: in him a little bit on on X. You know,
Speaker 1: you gotta watch all his videos. Of course, that's that's
Speaker 1: a common one. And then I saw the next video
Speaker 1: I saw of is after he said that. After they
Speaker 1: said that was him saying Hannibal Barson never existed on
Speaker 1: the Punic wars were invented by the Romans to justify
Speaker 1: a destroying carthage.
Speaker 2: So he's just like.
Speaker 1: Insane theories. But yeah, I mean, you can you know,
Speaker 1: there's a certain level of if you have a basic
Speaker 1: understanding and you put kind of comforting, simplistic good and
Speaker 1: evil geopolitical analysis out there, you know, the multipolarity is raising,
Speaker 1: the US Empire is crumbling, and then mix it with
Speaker 1: it's just the right amount of conspiracy content, you know,
Speaker 1: bringing conspiracies around Israel and Zionist influence. Yeah, you can
Speaker 1: reach a massive audience and fraud maxin fraud. Maxon is
Speaker 1: the meta, you know, because anyone could have called themselves
Speaker 1: a professor and pulled out the big, the big whiteboard
Speaker 1: and done the entire history of Western civilization and claimed
Speaker 1: to have a model that predicts the future and isolated
Speaker 1: the two of their one hundred predictions that got ride.
Speaker 3: Even the Russian FSB are tapping into this, because as
Speaker 3: soon as Macron and Starma said that they were willing
Speaker 3: to put troops in Odessa to stop the fall of Ukraine,
Speaker 3: we get these rumors about Macron's wife being a man
Speaker 3: and Starma being into Ukrainian rent voice. Now I know
Speaker 3: that it's very likely the Russian fs B finds especially
Speaker 3: Ukrainians on telegram, pays them five thousand dollars in crypto
Speaker 3: to do industrial sabotage. It's been a popular technique in Poland,
Speaker 3: although you know, they don't leave an official trail to
Speaker 3: the Russian state, but you know, it seems very likely
Speaker 3: they are behind it. So that would perfectly explain why
Speaker 3: these Ukrainian men were firebombing Starmer's properties and vehicles. But
Speaker 3: you know, even people that claim to be nationalists are
Speaker 3: perpetuating these falsehoods because it's funny, you know, it's something
Speaker 3: you can tell your friends. Oh yeah, Starmer's actually gay,
Speaker 3: ha haha. But again, if you participate in this, you
Speaker 3: are just contributing to a movement not interested in truth,
Speaker 3: and it's you know, you never get anywhere.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the rude impulse, is just a nihilism.
Speaker 1: And because if you talk to people about this one,
Speaker 1: most right wing people don't really recognize as a problem.
Speaker 1: They kind of say, well, that's the establishment's problem, you know,
Speaker 1: And they say, you know, the mainstream media has lied
Speaker 1: for so long, why can't we tell our own lives. Right,
Speaker 1: Let's let's just say the vaccine as nanobots and it's
Speaker 1: going to kill half the population or whatever.
Speaker 2: The new thing is.
Speaker 1: And they just they don't see any downsides to it politically.
Speaker 1: But what it amounts to is just a general kind
Speaker 1: of cognitive pollution. And this is actually what you would
Speaker 1: do if you wanted to make a movement ineffective. I
Speaker 1: believe there's a famous document written by this guy, Cass
Speaker 1: Sunstein that used to be an advisor to Obama. It's
Speaker 1: kind of like a specialist in syops. But he was
Speaker 1: talking about this idea of cognitive infiltration that you bring
Speaker 1: you know, bad ideas and wacky conspiracy theories into sort
Speaker 1: of dissent in truth movements, and you know, it creates
Speaker 1: a bunch of infighting and bad representatives that push bad,
Speaker 1: easily discredited ideas, and you can basically ruin a movement
Speaker 1: that way. And you can imagine, yeah, from the perspective
Speaker 1: of a foreign state, if you get everyone into this
Speaker 1: kind of incoherent, excessively conspiratorial content with no end, no
Speaker 1: kind of tell us or worldview behind it, I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: all it really leads to is incoherence in action civil strife.
Speaker 1: But from the perspective of a political movement, you know,
Speaker 1: I always say this, but the only thing we have
Speaker 1: on our side, right, we don't have the wealth of
Speaker 1: our enemies. We don't have the institutions, we can't set
Speaker 1: laws the way they do. We can't throw our enemies
Speaker 1: in prison the way they can. We don't have the
Speaker 1: big lobby groups. All we have. The reason that we've
Speaker 1: had so much momentum and so much growth is we
Speaker 1: have the truth on our side, and we have a
Speaker 1: powerful moralized the narrative. And you know, these these nihilists,
Speaker 1: these cognitive belluters. They want to say, no, discard that
Speaker 1: and let's just you know, say whatever feels good, say
Speaker 1: whatever is entertained, and say whatever. We think this credits
Speaker 1: the establishment the most. But of course the problem with
Speaker 1: that is intelligent people, thinking people eventually look into it,
Speaker 1: find that you're lying, and then you're the one that's discredited.
Speaker 1: And it's like, okay, the mainstream media lize, but you
Speaker 1: know what, generally the mainstream media attempts to get at
Speaker 1: the truth. Now they have you know, they have the
Speaker 1: big lies, they have the but these are really worldview fundamentals,
Speaker 1: you know, about egalitarianism and the good of liberal pluralism
Speaker 1: and so on, and these are kind of unquestioned premises.
Speaker 1: But in terms of fact finding, you know, you can
Speaker 1: find problems with the media, but I think I think
Speaker 1: broadly there's a level of self correction there with journalists.
Speaker 1: But we're getting to a point now where you have
Speaker 1: this this dissident truth movement, and you know, this is
Speaker 1: something Nick Fuent has has talked about that good people
Speaker 1: increasingly are just gonna check out, like they're gonna they're
Speaker 1: gonna go online see this stuff, and eventually it just
Speaker 1: gets tiresome it's like, you know, they're lying again about
Speaker 1: the numbers dead in this war. They're lying again about
Speaker 1: some detail to support a conspiracy. They've made a bunch
Speaker 1: of wrong predictions again. Eventually, intelligent people want to find
Speaker 1: reliable sources that correctly predict the future to correctly tell
Speaker 1: them what's going on, and the mainstream media might not
Speaker 1: have a good track record, but increasingly do. The right
Speaker 1: is becoming much less reliable.
Speaker 3: And at what point do people check out from influencers
Speaker 3: that have been telling them lies. It seems that a
Speaker 3: lot of these influencers can lie as many times as
Speaker 3: they like, and their audience only gross you know, And
Speaker 3: you know, in the eight years or whatever that I've
Speaker 3: been doing this, I try to be as accurate as possible,
Speaker 3: and I think I've only made one or two minor mistakes.
Speaker 3: And other people, you know, they've made some really significant
Speaker 3: mistakes which they've not apologized for. They've not set the
Speaker 3: record straight on, and you know, it's all forgotten because
Speaker 3: people's memory spans have really reduced, and it's just about
Speaker 3: how they can, you know, interact with entertain and boost
Speaker 3: their own profile within like a small clique for clout
Speaker 3: or whatever.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean again, there's there's some level of self
Speaker 1: correction with the establishment media where if a journalist is
Speaker 1: phonne to who have just outright lied about something, if
Speaker 1: it's something factual, something empirical, there's a level of self
Speaker 1: correction there where they're held to account by other members
Speaker 1: of their profession, by the audience, by maybe their own
Speaker 1: publication can become standing on the reputation. There's a level
Speaker 1: of correcting the narrative. But yeah, with the right, as
Speaker 1: you say, you can be wrong again and again as
Speaker 1: long as it's entertaining. The audience really doesn't care. In
Speaker 1: the most entertaining narrative wins.
Speaker 3: I quite like Rory Stewart from the rest of politics
Speaker 3: and the Conservative Party. When he gets stuff wrong, he
Speaker 3: does apologize for it in public, which is pretty rare
Speaker 3: to see. I mean, I really dislike his co host
Speaker 3: Alistair Campbell, but I do find Rory Stewart quite charming.
Speaker 3: He does try to explain things as well as he
Speaker 3: can within you know, the British liberal framework, and he
Speaker 3: has even balanced views on geopolitics and.
Speaker 2: Things like that.
Speaker 3: So you know, that's probably why they are so popular.
Speaker 3: You know, it's presenting an acceptable and accurate form to
Speaker 3: a middle class audience that wants to have the correct
Speaker 3: opinions to discuss with their middle class friends in polite society.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, The Rest is Politics.
Speaker 1: That's a podcast that began during COVID, I believe, and
Speaker 1: it always surprises me how popular it is because it's
Speaker 1: just like two you know, pretty uncharismatic establishment stooges, given
Speaker 1: pretty establishment takes and everything. But then you know, like
Speaker 1: you said, I guess there are a lot of middle
Speaker 1: class liberals that like establishment talking points, so they have
Speaker 1: to get their ideas and news from somewhere as well.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I guess on that topic of the podcast
Speaker 1: scene that emerged through COVID, there has been an establishment
Speaker 1: version of the slop right. There was a backlash to wokism.
Speaker 1: It was becoming evident that this was significant electorally. It
Speaker 1: ended up helping Trump majorly in twenty twenty four. It
Speaker 1: was becoming clear to establishment voices, I think, the more
Speaker 1: intelligent ones, that the excess of censorship hurt them in
Speaker 1: certain ways, and that people that they should have accepted
Speaker 1: and given a platform to establish as the safe you
Speaker 1: won't say controlled with the reasonable opposition within the Overton Window.
Speaker 1: They began censoring some of those people as well during
Speaker 1: COVID and kind of realized they went too fair with this.
Speaker 1: But now in the last few years we have had
Speaker 1: this new sort of anti woke, free speech centrist classical
Speaker 1: liberal types I'm thinking of like James Lindsay, Constantine Kissing, Triggonometry.
Speaker 1: There's a whole scene of these people now well produced podcasts,
Speaker 1: nice studios, get big guests, sometimes more mainstream celebrity people,
Speaker 1: and they make very kind of simple liberal arguments against
Speaker 1: the excesses of wocism. And you know they're pretty which
Speaker 1: all happened to be Zionists, right. They talk about the
Speaker 1: evils of identity politics and how you know, we have
Speaker 1: to have robust liberalism to stop the emergence of race
Speaker 1: politics or nationalism. And then they're all fervent Zionists and
Speaker 1: supporters of Jewish identity politics, right, James Lindsay, Trigonometry, Jordan Peterson,
Speaker 1: all of these guys. And so yeah, there's kind of
Speaker 1: a you know, it's not old media, it's sort of
Speaker 1: the establishment answer to old media.
Speaker 3: It's like you know, Zioslop, Yeah, Constantine Kissing, who has
Speaker 3: a very interesting family history, his father was associated with
Speaker 3: the Yeltsin regime. He even went as far as making
Speaker 3: a might is right argument in regards to Israel that
Speaker 3: the you know, we live in a world where conquest
Speaker 3: is righteous and the history remembers the victor. Therefore, Israel
Speaker 3: is justified morally in what it's doing. And you know,
Speaker 3: he is the face of anti woke because he got
Speaker 3: some nice clips saying how the UK arrests more five
Speaker 3: times more people than the Russian state or whatever.
Speaker 1: So and on that point, while he's endorsing Israeli might
Speaker 1: makes right expansionary racial politics. Do you remember the famous
Speaker 1: clip of him talking to a victim of the Gruman gangs. Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: for those that don't remember, he was interviewing a Wide
Speaker 1: victim of the Gruman gangs and he told her, you know,
Speaker 1: she said she felt targeted because she was Wide and
Speaker 1: she was you know another victims were racially abused by
Speaker 1: these Grooman gang perpetrators, mostly Pakistani Muslims. And he told
Speaker 1: her that even if that is the case, she shouldn't
Speaker 1: talk about that because that is feeding into the identity
Speaker 1: politics that is exactly the same as BLM.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it went around because these people are just sickening like,
Speaker 3: but they they.
Speaker 2: Seem to get away with it.
Speaker 3: They seem to, you know, build their audience very quickly
Speaker 3: on YouTube. But at the same time as people associated
Speaker 3: with our movement are being deplatformed, they seem to get
Speaker 3: a very big boost from the algorithm. I remember Trigonometry,
Speaker 3: It went from around one hundred thousand subscribers to seven
Speaker 3: hundred thousand in the space of a few months.
Speaker 2: Very fast. Rows Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I remember when YouTube, when Joe Rogan left
Speaker 3: YouTube to Spotify and a huge deal immediately, Lex Fridman
Speaker 3: got all these incredibly high level guests despite having no charisma.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's very good.
Speaker 1: Everyone didn't know there was, you know, it was always
Speaker 1: a popular I mean, like, why is this guy always
Speaker 1: on my recommended on you?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I remember that.
Speaker 1: I remember as well. Just immediate Lex Friedman, Washlegs Friedman,
Speaker 1: watch Legs, Rereadoman, wash Legs, Freedman. That was the YouTube
Speaker 1: algorithm for everyone.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but you know, the Zionists, they get such a
Speaker 3: good return on these kind of influencers. These you know,
Speaker 3: they'll have a handful of influences in on YouTube with
Speaker 3: high production value. They will have them on X wherever
Speaker 3: else that they can throw a a few million dollars
Speaker 3: at them, give them support on the platforms, and then
Speaker 3: this ends up being hundreds of billions of military support
Speaker 3: for Israel attacking Iran to gain hegemony in the Middle East.
Speaker 3: It's just an incredible return for Zionism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Kissing and James Lindsay are the two people
Speaker 1: that were heard is pushing the term walk road. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure it was one of the two of them
Speaker 1: that first coined it. It may have been Lindsay to
Speaker 1: coined it, but it may actually been Kissing.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure Jason was really pushing it hard I remember.
Speaker 1: But they were definitely the two that pushed at the hardest.
Speaker 1: And basically walk right was to apply to nationalists or
Speaker 1: people on the right that were in any ways okay
Speaker 1: with identitarianism for Europeans or for white people, or as
Speaker 1: they saw it went too fair an immigration issue, or
Speaker 1: basically any right winger that was critical of Israel, like
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson is walk right. Now. Tucker Carlson is not
Speaker 1: a white identitarian. He explicitly rejects white identitarianism. He you know,
Speaker 1: professes kind of classical liberal American values, but he's very
Speaker 1: critical of American support for Israel, so that makes him
Speaker 1: walk right. So you know, they portrayed us walk ride
Speaker 1: is like, you know, it's people on the right that
Speaker 1: are just like the wok left because they're also identitarians
Speaker 1: and they use bullying tactics and they see the world
Speaker 1: through the suppressor of pressed lens right, all the nonsense
Speaker 1: terms they have to described, but I mean it just
Speaker 1: comes down to people that take an anti Zionist or
Speaker 1: identitarian stance. And then of course you break it down
Speaker 1: and every single person two men that uses this term
Speaker 1: is a firm and Zionist that supports identity politics for Jews.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just so it's just so clear the contradiction.
Speaker 3: It's almost as if they're in the same group chat
Speaker 3: being directed by probably state officials. I mean that there's
Speaker 3: evidence of that from elsewhere, these influencers being approached offered
Speaker 3: money to shield for Israel. You know, it's even been
Speaker 3: said about big big account news accounts on x as well.
Speaker 3: So you know, as I say, it's a financial decision
Speaker 3: for the power of the Israeli state.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and like you said, the return when when Israel
Speaker 1: is thinking about median errators in the West. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's potentially about their survival as a state, right, So
Speaker 1: what what value do you put on that?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: And of course we've seen a huge expansion in many
Speaker 1: ways of Zionists influence in the media, in the establishment
Speaker 1: media in the last couple of years. You know. At
Speaker 1: the same time, of course, the narrative has really turned
Speaker 1: against Israel. Public opinion has turned, especially among young people.
Speaker 1: TikTok hugely anti Zionist narratives spread in there, and of
Speaker 1: course there began this huge campaign to take TikTok out
Speaker 1: of Chinese ownership, pushed for a long time by very
Speaker 1: Zionists lawmakers.
Speaker 2: In the US.
Speaker 1: They had pushed it previously under Trump, but then it
Speaker 1: was dropped and it was only after October seventh that's
Speaker 1: became an issue again. And there's even you know, there's.
Speaker 2: The phone call from Green Black.
Speaker 1: We've seen videos sense of people in the previous Biden
Speaker 1: administration saying that they've wanted to deal with TikTok because
Speaker 1: it was such a problem that there was constant videos
Speaker 1: of children in Gaza and what this was doing to
Speaker 1: the public conversation. So this was heavily lobbied for by
Speaker 1: the Zionist lobby, goes into the hands of Larry Ellison,
Speaker 1: who has since expanded his media empire even more with
Speaker 1: this Paramount acquisition.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: We talked about this in the pilot episode we did.
Speaker 1: But yeah, if you want to talk about kind of
Speaker 1: creating these old media influencers and this kind of new
Speaker 1: establishment media, that's very Zionist. I mean, look at his
Speaker 1: acquisition of The Free Press, which was Barry Weiss's sub sack.
Speaker 1: Barry Weiss, this Zionist journalist that left The New York
Speaker 1: Times over them not sufficiently supporting Israel, branded herself as
Speaker 1: the you know, anti woke rebel in chief, created the
Speaker 1: Free Press, which is a subsack blog, and brought other
Speaker 1: people on board, and that was acquired by Larry Ellison
Speaker 1: for I believe about one hundred million dollars what was
Speaker 1: the final figure, maybe a bit less, and then since
Speaker 1: then he installs Harry Wiss as editor in chief of
Speaker 1: CBS News. So now these kind of you know, it's
Speaker 1: hard to ever call her old mediu. I mean, she's
Speaker 1: a New York Times journalists. But these people that were
Speaker 1: established as the anti woke activists that bravely stood up
Speaker 1: on the fringes. Now she's been installed at CBS News
Speaker 1: and one of the first things they did, that's what
Speaker 1: it was friendly interview with Benjamin Naho.
Speaker 2: He's been doing the podcast circut as well, hasn't the.
Speaker 1: Yeah so Yahoo. He'll go on like these now he's
Speaker 1: gone on like the Dude Bro podcasts, and he'll he'll
Speaker 1: pop us in and explain what his favorite McDonald's order
Speaker 1: is and then explain why the Iranian leadership needs to
Speaker 1: be like decapitated with surgical strikes.
Speaker 2: I'm just like you remember green Blat on the Breakfast Club?
Speaker 3: Is that AO is your boy? Johnny g Here on
Speaker 3: Breakfast Club, We're talking about.
Speaker 2: Racism, sexism. That was peak. Yeah. Oh god. They're real chameleons,
Speaker 2: aren't there.
Speaker 1: I mean sometimes I feel from it at one point
Speaker 1: there they're their main global spokespeople. As a people was
Speaker 1: like Jonathan green Blat, Rabbi Schmooley, the guy who owns
Speaker 1: a sex shop with his daughter, the rabbi who.
Speaker 3: Sells dildo he grinds on his own daughters like pure celebrations,
Speaker 3: incredibly weird.
Speaker 1: Alan Dershowitz and maybe Ben Shapiro. You know that was
Speaker 1: like the top spokespeople. It's like you're you're having a
Speaker 1: rough time there. Oh and I guess they also had
Speaker 1: Sasha Baron Cohen as well. He was the he was
Speaker 1: the one that led the campaign originally by the Adel
Speaker 1: that led to the big advertiser boycott on Facebook and
Speaker 1: an ex letter than that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and he was comparing nationalists to like pedophiles in
Speaker 3: a speech at the ADEL. It's like, you know, your
Speaker 3: thing was like being funny, not you know, being well
Speaker 3: well also, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, you know him him document anti Semitics, tropes and stereotypes,
Speaker 1: and you know his I mean, his entire genre of
Speaker 1: comedy was him basically taking traditional enemies of the Jewish
Speaker 1: people and playing really basically racist stereotypes of that.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like it was like.
Speaker 3: Middle Eastern dictators, Germans, American white Protestants, and the English
Speaker 3: working class.
Speaker 1: The latest one. Yeah, yeah, you guess that one came later,
Speaker 1: but I guess you know, that was like the time
Speaker 1: of Brexitt and you know.
Speaker 3: I yeah, I think maybe it was a bit before that,
Speaker 3: like twenty thirteen or fourteen, but you know, sneering at
Speaker 3: like the de industrialized.
Speaker 2: But he grew up in Britain Road.
Speaker 1: Yes, so, yeah, I guess you would have had like
Speaker 1: a of the working class being racist and.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean it was just it was just sick
Speaker 3: that film, like just sneering at the de industrialized welfare class.
Speaker 3: It's like, maybe run out of jokes, and you know,
Speaker 3: that was an easy target. But they just seem to
Speaker 3: elevate just the most disgusting people they can find. It's like,
Speaker 3: I can think of, you know, some well presenting Jews
Speaker 3: like Jonathan Height. It's like, you know, why don't they
Speaker 3: they pick people like that to represent them in the
Speaker 3: public sphere. Probably it's because they've got such bad theory
Speaker 3: of mind.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, they have.
Speaker 1: Actually found one new intellectual spokesman to defend them on
Speaker 1: the world stage.
Speaker 2: Do you know who that is? I'm guessing you're going
Speaker 2: to say Tommy Robinson.
Speaker 1: He wrote an article in well, I say he wrote
Speaker 1: an article. An article was written with his name attached
Speaker 1: to it in I believe it was the Jerusalem Post
Speaker 1: where he talked about the Epstein files, the rise in
Speaker 1: anti Semitism and the real lesson we should take from it.
Speaker 1: And you know we were talking about the AI slop earlier.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm kind of at the point now where
Speaker 1: I've seen so much AI cadence across X and you know,
Speaker 1: when it's obvious people are using it to right that
Speaker 1: now I can just detect it pretty easily. But this
Speaker 1: one was like the most obvious AI generated slop I've
Speaker 1: ever seen in my life. He I mean, if if
Speaker 1: you follow Tommy at all, you'll know he's like, he's
Speaker 1: no words worth, right, He's he struggles with the written
Speaker 1: word a little bit. I think that's fair to say.
Speaker 1: And this was, Yeah, this was well put together, but
Speaker 1: of course it had all these very AI sounding phrases.
Speaker 1: You know, that's not criticism, that's chaos. You know, it's
Speaker 1: like all of these not but this AI phraseology just
Speaker 1: so obviously not written by them. But this is kind
Speaker 1: of the future now, is you just take a guy
Speaker 1: that has a segment of an audience, get shat GPT
Speaker 1: to generate article in his name, say, hey, chachy bt
Speaker 1: megann article convincing the convincing people that Epstein has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Jews or Israel, and then you attached
Speaker 1: the popular guy's name to the article and put it
Speaker 1: out there that's like the future media now. But he's
Speaker 1: been on the podcast circuit as well. They've been kind
Speaker 1: of rehabilitating him US tour. Yeah, he's become this kind
Speaker 1: of spokesman for he really got made into like a
Speaker 1: free speech guy, and they made this narrative that he
Speaker 1: was the only one talking about the grooming gangs, and
Speaker 1: then everyone realized it and now you know, he's vindicated
Speaker 1: as the only one that stood up about this.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Obviously there were a lot of British nationalists, including the
Speaker 3: British National Party. Mark Collett was on trial for allegedly
Speaker 3: inciting racial hatred for bringing the grooming gang's issue to
Speaker 3: the attention of the votes in public, but Tommy Robinson
Speaker 3: managed to steal most of the clout for exposing that
Speaker 3: issue for himself. He was well supported by the Zionist lobby.
Speaker 3: He it seemed as though he was deliberately getting himself
Speaker 3: in legal strife to raise funds, you know, get sympathy
Speaker 3: from people organized protest marches and there were you know,
Speaker 3: around twenty ten and even before then. March is organized
Speaker 3: by basically football fans under the banner of the English
Speaker 3: Defense League, which Tommy managed to become the spokesperson off basically,
Speaker 3: and from the very beginning he was he always said that, oh,
Speaker 3: there were Nazis trying to infiltrate this movement, but I
Speaker 3: always made sure that we were multicultural and just speaking
Speaker 3: about the extremists and child rapists and you know whatever.
Speaker 3: But he eventually took all that attention for himself, and
Speaker 3: now he's being exported as the you know, the savior
Speaker 3: of the British girls, when in reality, there were a
Speaker 3: lot more people speaking up about that.
Speaker 1: And well, I mean, if you want to talk about
Speaker 1: his advocacy on the grooming gang issue, this will be
Speaker 1: something a lot of people will not be aware of.
Speaker 1: I think you'll remember this. He raised money for a
Speaker 1: documentary that he said would be the ultimate documentary on
Speaker 1: the grooming gang issue, and then he came out with
Speaker 1: a documentary that was much anticipated. What was the topic
Speaker 1: of the What was the title of the documentary? You've
Speaker 1: forgotten this? The title was Shalom, Yeah, And they turned
Speaker 1: out the documentary was about the persecution Jews were facing
Speaker 1: with the new anti Semitism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember that, actually, yeah.
Speaker 3: I think he went to Paris and spoke to some
Speaker 3: French Jews that were complaining about Arabs, like going on,
Speaker 3: this was.
Speaker 1: The guy that was the sole champion of the Groom
Speaker 1: and ganng iss Hume and speaking up for it, and
Speaker 1: you know, having collected donations from you know, working class
Speaker 1: patriotic people that were really desperate to get that story
Speaker 1: out to a larger audience. But what people forget about
Speaker 1: Robinson as well, And I can never find this. I
Speaker 1: remember watching Robinson in twenty thirteen fourteen where he had
Speaker 1: a newsnight appearance with the head of Quilliam and if
Speaker 1: you look it up, Robinson renounced his far eye views
Speaker 1: in twenty thirteen and joined this anti extremist think tank
Speaker 1: called Quillium that's led by a former Muslim Zionist liberal.
Speaker 1: But I remember seeing this at the time on television
Speaker 1: where he went on with this guy and was interviewed
Speaker 1: and renounced his past beliefs and said, you know, I
Speaker 1: tried to make the d L this liberal, anti racist organization,
Speaker 1: but now I acknowledge there were people in there that
Speaker 1: had racist views, so I'm denouncing it and I'm going
Speaker 1: in this new direction to help people out of extremism
Speaker 1: on the right and among Muslims. And you know, we
Speaker 1: should really all be coming together basically as tolerant liberals
Speaker 1: to help the Muslims deal with their extremist issues and
Speaker 1: you know, help our communities deal with our racist issue.
Speaker 1: But people forget about that, and then he disappeared for
Speaker 1: a few years. I believe he resurfaced during Brexit, and
Speaker 1: I don't know to what degree that may have been
Speaker 1: the establishment media trying to make him a figure in
Speaker 1: the Brexit campaign, you know, as kind of an unpopular figure,
Speaker 1: say oh, this is what Brexit is representing. Is this
Speaker 1: like hooligan Strand and so on? But yeah, now he
Speaker 1: is kind of a second life as you know, Oh
Speaker 1: he talked about the groom and gains, free speech guy
Speaker 1: and so on. But I think people in the US,
Speaker 1: especially under estimate, like just how disliked.
Speaker 2: He is in the UK. And then in Europe he
Speaker 2: was in and out of prison.
Speaker 3: He spent a lot of time in Spain because he
Speaker 3: I believe he moved his tax residency to Gibraltar. He
Speaker 3: was moving a lot of money to Gibraltar. Different shell
Speaker 3: companies and things like that. Someone investigated that and went
Speaker 3: on company's house and saw a lot a lot of
Speaker 3: different shell companies opening and closing and probably that's where
Speaker 3: donations were directed. But yeah, he's uh, he definitely has
Speaker 3: some kind of backing. He's been invited to Israel several times.
Speaker 1: I did a popular extra about it before, but you
Speaker 1: don't even have to go that deep into I mean,
Speaker 1: he got a big grad from the Shildman Foundation, where
Speaker 1: as she was Satisfier called shill Man. It's kind of funny,
Speaker 1: and David Horowitz's country, she had organization. There was some
Speaker 1: umbrella group of I think tag the director funded towards.
Speaker 1: There's quite a few connections there. But yeah, he's done
Speaker 1: a lot of fundraisers, you know, legal battles and documentary
Speaker 1: fundraisers and so on. He's raised a lot of money
Speaker 1: from from patriarchy people, which apparently his son has has
Speaker 1: been able to enjoy the.
Speaker 3: Roots of so on his US tour, some people went
Speaker 3: looking at his son's Instagram and I think it sounds
Speaker 3: about eighteen or something, very young.
Speaker 2: But he's uh. He's managed to.
Speaker 3: Have watches worth forty pounds on his wrist, something like this,
Speaker 3: like a Rolex quite sky Dweller, which is a very
Speaker 3: expensive model, and he's got an eye stout Cartier watch,
Speaker 3: and he's been photographing Lamborghinis and luxury villas with swimming
Speaker 3: pools on this US tour, so you know someone's looking
Speaker 3: after him.
Speaker 1: It's not just that he's showcase in his affluence, but
Speaker 1: he was also I think the post are really god people.
Speaker 1: He posted himself outside of private jet and yes, the
Speaker 1: gaption was something like you're in row thirty two and
Speaker 1: I'm flying private You know, it's like dunkin on the Brookies.
Speaker 1: Who are probably you know, are the kind of people
Speaker 1: that are donating to his dad's fundraisers over the years.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think many of them are flying private jets.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they are very aggressive emails begging for money, saying that,
Speaker 3: you know, just one hundred thousand more to get the
Speaker 3: new round of lawyers.
Speaker 1: That I do remember he had one he was making
Speaker 1: an appeal the United the Kingdom rally that they were
Speaker 1: going to have in London. He had a last minute appeal.
Speaker 1: They were almost there with the fundraising, but you know what,
Speaker 1: they were just short. I think it was about twenty
Speaker 1: seven pounds.
Speaker 2: For the big screen.
Speaker 1: No, they were just short to expand the stage to
Speaker 1: have the Maori performers from New Zealand perform the hacker.
Speaker 3: You know that there's nothing more patriotic than a Mari
Speaker 3: hacker in central London. Of course, that's yeah, yeah, classic Robinson.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's quite something, isn't it. But I mean, clearly though,
Speaker 1: they're making an attempt, right they. Netnyahu has said this
Speaker 1: recently that this is like the fifth front of Israel's war.
Speaker 1: He's used this kind of language and green Lad has
Speaker 1: talked about how important it is to win this battle
Speaker 1: in the twenty first century. He said, the military know
Speaker 1: how and the genius that Israel used for the Pagier
Speaker 1: operation on Hezbolah, they need to apply that now to
Speaker 1: control the narrative in the Internet. I mean he actually
Speaker 1: said that. But yeah, they're making an attempt. We're going
Speaker 1: to see more of it. We're going to see new
Speaker 1: influencers emerge, flashy production style, suddenly have a large audience
Speaker 1: and you know it, say all the right things, seemingly
Speaker 1: on most of the topics, but are super pro Asrael.
Speaker 1: What else do you see in that regard as far
Speaker 1: as how they're trying to consolidate the narrative.
Speaker 3: Well, another influencer that joined the fray recently is Winston Marshall.
Speaker 3: He used to be in a pretty famous pop band.
Speaker 3: He's the son of Paul Marshall. Paul Marshall is married
Speaker 3: to a Jewish woman. He's some kind of Zionist Christian himself.
Speaker 2: I believe.
Speaker 3: He now owns The Spectator, which is very old weekly
Speaker 3: newspaper in the UK. He has other media assets as well, is.
Speaker 1: Rogue Nationalists the Spectator. He's had a few beasts there.
Speaker 2: Oh, interesting raw eg Zionist.
Speaker 1: It's off for his writing talenties one of the worst
Speaker 1: writers I've ever read, speaking of slave.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I'm not a very good writer to myself,
Speaker 3: so I have to be careful here.
Speaker 2: But yeah, they've obviously got you know.
Speaker 3: The other big asset he owns is gb News, which
Speaker 3: loses about twenty five pounds a year, but they're very
Speaker 3: supportive of reform. They generally tap into, you know, all
Speaker 3: the terrible migrant crimes that have been unleashed on the
Speaker 3: on the British people. And then it's that, you know,
Speaker 3: energy is used to support reform. They've even attacked Restore
Speaker 3: and yeah, so that you know, there's that establishment media
Speaker 3: Zionist complex. Also Axel Springer se a German media company
Speaker 3: that owns a few brands has now purchased the Telegraph
Speaker 3: and they actually have a corporate constitution which mandates that
Speaker 3: all employees must promise to support the Jewish people and
Speaker 3: the state of Israel. So establishment media in the UK
Speaker 3: is being completely locked down. They have a very big
Speaker 3: influence in new media and all the while people that
Speaker 3: would be opposed to all this are getting distracted and
Speaker 3: increasingly descending into the slop culture on social media, so
Speaker 3: that you know, that's really how the the battlefield looks
Speaker 3: as it were.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, this is it. As you said, with
Speaker 1: the censorship, a lot of these people were able to grow,
Speaker 1: and they're growing. You know, if you talk about the
Speaker 1: Trigonometry and similar guys, they're growing on you know, our
Speaker 1: kinds of issues or mass immigration, the free speech crackdown,
Speaker 1: the gruing goings in the UK, the you know, excessive
Speaker 1: you to radical overreach, all these kinds of issues, nationalist issues.
Speaker 1: They have the large platforms to be talking about these
Speaker 1: things and are reaching a large audience and are trying
Speaker 1: to put out more intelligent, reason content and squeeze in.
Speaker 1: Of course, the poison pill designers been there, but yeah, Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we have a lot of our guys now just went
Speaker 1: off in a very unproductive route. It's just this cycle
Speaker 1: of outrage and conspiracy content and slop. Whatever is going
Speaker 1: to get the most clicks, whatever is going to get
Speaker 1: the largest payout in the next round. You can see
Speaker 1: it's already melted the minds of a lot of people.
Speaker 1: And you know, we really need our better advocates now
Speaker 1: to be able to put out the competing vision and
Speaker 1: compete with these people. And you know, you have to
Speaker 1: just push forward against the audience like there's always going
Speaker 1: to be when you have like a right wing audience,
Speaker 1: there's just a massive kind of rhytoids that are low
Speaker 1: information and basically their basic approach to the world is,
Speaker 1: you know, they have a theory of social change not
Speaker 1: explicitly articulated, that everything reduces to a conspiracy of some
Speaker 1: individuals and they just kind of apply this lens in
Speaker 1: an ad hoc way ready for entertainment value a lot
Speaker 1: of the time, and that's what the content feeds into.
Speaker 1: But yeah, we need just better representatives to to articulate
Speaker 1: these ideas there because you know, I think there's a
Speaker 1: bigger audience than ever for our ideas, but people, you know,
Speaker 1: again and again they want to attach it to the slop.
Speaker 1: They want to go through the easy clicks. But you
Speaker 1: can see with how many resources they have to deploy
Speaker 1: to try to press us, with all of the censorship
Speaker 1: across platforms and invest in tens of millions into these
Speaker 1: alternative influencers and you know, trying to control the narrative
Speaker 1: and treating this like something that's a generational struggle, fifth
Speaker 1: front of their war. I mean, this is usually important
Speaker 1: to them, and they see us as as a broad
Speaker 1: them And yeah, I mean we we shouldn't. We shouldn't
Speaker 1: forget that. We should stick with trying to build an
Speaker 1: narrative and bring people to our side and bring them
Speaker 1: to something something positive and real, not just the transient
Speaker 1: cliques and outrage. Because people can be outraged and they
Speaker 1: can believe in all manner conspiracies, but you know, oftentimes
Speaker 1: that that just leads to them, you know, the to
Speaker 1: move on to some other entertaining content they find the
Speaker 1: leftists to satisfy it, or you know, they become so
Speaker 1: black built by the constant tchurn of outraging conspiracies that
Speaker 1: they check out. So we have to try to put
Speaker 1: something positive out is what I would say.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's it.
Speaker 3: We've had a principal stand on Zionism for the last decade.
Speaker 3: We support nationalism for all people. I think the Zionist
Speaker 3: war machine will eventually be an existential threat to.
Speaker 2: Europe.
Speaker 3: They control media and they control politics to extract blood
Speaker 3: and treasure from white Western nations, to build the Greater
Speaker 3: Israel project, to become the Middle East hegemon. And you know,
Speaker 3: we need to put that out there. We need to
Speaker 3: have a principal to stand. We need to do what's
Speaker 3: best for Europe and the West. So please support us
Speaker 3: in that, and you know, stick to truth and justice.
Speaker 1: All right, that's a good place to leave it. Thanks
Speaker 1: as always, Ruined. Thanks everyone that tuned in. We'll catch
Speaker 1: you next time.
Speaker 2: Take care.