Speaker 1: Hello, plastic pills listeners, We're back trying this again.
Speaker 2: We're back in our country. You're back in our country. Actually,
Speaker 2: Eric is not.
Speaker 1: Eric is not in our country.
Speaker 3: I'm in a foreign land speaking of gooning. And you
Speaker 3: can answer this or not. Do you have to do
Speaker 3: you have to sign in with your I D to
Speaker 3: watch porn in Britain. Oh that's right, yeah, or you haven't.
Speaker 3: I there's like i D laws here.
Speaker 4: No, you can't look at anything without doing some kind
Speaker 4: of I think it's either you have to upload your
Speaker 4: like driver's license or take a photograph of yourself and
Speaker 4: like give it to AI and it will like judge
Speaker 4: your age based on your like the I think there's
Speaker 4: a couple of methods I think. But yeah, it's this
Speaker 4: like UK wide policy where like yeah, progress, he's like
Speaker 4: strictly controlled here and you have to do the age verification.
Speaker 1: Kind of thing.
Speaker 4: So so people are like screw that. So gooning is
Speaker 4: extra hard here. No, not really. I was on the
Speaker 4: bus the other day on my way to work and
Speaker 4: some person who's sitting in front of me gooning real hard,
Speaker 4: like they had an open they were fucking I guess
Speaker 4: does that qualify you're on a hinge or whatever, a
Speaker 4: dating site in the likes six thirty in the morning,
Speaker 4: just hitting hinge hard on the bus on the way
Speaker 4: to work.
Speaker 2: That feels like coming, That is.
Speaker 4: Having it, giving your brain a dopamine bath at like
Speaker 4: fucking six am. That is goooning in my books. I
Speaker 4: had to move away because I'm like, I'm not watching
Speaker 4: this guy. I'm kind of sitting in a seat that's
Speaker 4: like sort of raised up over, so I'm just watching
Speaker 4: this person on like just trying to crush dates. So
Speaker 4: I'm thinking, no, fuck, I've got to move to another
Speaker 4: part of the bus. I'm not watching this in the
Speaker 4: morning because I'm trying to slow my brain down.
Speaker 3: He was not masturbating, No, not not.
Speaker 4: Not literally, not ala Lett, but just just the more
Speaker 4: the wider version of gooning that the that that that
Speaker 4: guy proposed what's his name on.
Speaker 3: The Daniel College so he's he's metonymically gooning, like like
Speaker 3: what Drake.
Speaker 4: Was doing when that drone spotted him on the in
Speaker 4: the middle of the day, gambling and drinking. What was
Speaker 4: he drinking? So yeah, that was that's qualifies as gooning.
Speaker 4: Or when Kanye goes around with his naked wife at
Speaker 4: public events.
Speaker 3: I'm going to pretend I understand those references and say,
Speaker 3: just when I thought we were done with Lacan, I
Speaker 3: found something else that I wanted to talk about.
Speaker 2: And look, I don't want.
Speaker 3: To be too strict about the Lacinian concept that we're
Speaker 3: introducing today, because Lacan himself.
Speaker 2: Is not very strict about it.
Speaker 3: He never I guess he never fully finished it. But
Speaker 3: I think it has a lot in common with other structuralists.
Speaker 3: And the term is signifying chain. Now, I think that
Speaker 3: the signifying chain will help us understand a troubled young
Speaker 3: man by the name of Nick Quines.
Speaker 4: I think the signifying chain helps us understand all right
Speaker 4: wing discourse.
Speaker 1: What about left wing discourse?
Speaker 3: We use this term, he used it specifically, but discourse
Speaker 3: discourse means like whatever's happening on Twitter to us. But
Speaker 3: you're right that the signifying chain is is what discourse
Speaker 3: is largely.
Speaker 4: I think a lot of left wing discourse too. But
Speaker 4: I think a lot of left wing discourse tries to
Speaker 4: be like full speech, not not empty speech.
Speaker 2: Tries you but do you think that's kind of batting
Speaker 2: for the home? Batting for the home? Team over there
Speaker 2: are you.
Speaker 1: It's a little I don't know. I'm not sure I'm
Speaker 1: super confident about that.
Speaker 4: I think I'm not either. I'm just I'm just making
Speaker 4: simple binaries.
Speaker 1: Making because I guess I just feel like I prefer
Speaker 1: the signifying chain of the left.
Speaker 4: But they're both like, yeah, same, that's my chosen chain.
Speaker 4: Change chain me up.
Speaker 1: Congrats tore On my mom. Dammy, that's good. At least
Speaker 1: that's some good left wing news.
Speaker 4: But yeah, that should be interesting. I mean, it feels
Speaker 4: like it's more interesting to hear about than it's actually been.
Speaker 4: But yeah, maybe I haven't been I haven't been getting
Speaker 4: my fix of politics.
Speaker 1: I haven't been following it much either. But Fuentes I
Speaker 1: have somewhat been following.
Speaker 3: He's uh, he's on what they're calling a meteoric rise,
Speaker 3: which is a turn of phrase I never understood because
Speaker 3: meteors do not rise.
Speaker 1: They do not I've never never heard that that. I've
Speaker 1: never noticed that. That also, Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: That's true.
Speaker 3: They're either like going in the direction they were going,
Speaker 3: or they're falling into like a gravity going fast.
Speaker 4: I hate inaccurate metaphors. I hate in metaphors. It don't
Speaker 4: make sense. Yeah, he's the opposite of socialism or.
Speaker 1: Some my so Fuetes, I've been like just my own
Speaker 1: sick curiosity with like weird right wingers online. He's someone
Speaker 1: I've been I mean, I don't want to say i've
Speaker 1: been like following him, but I've been like kind of watching.
Speaker 1: I remember the first time I noticed his stuff was
Speaker 1: after the Gjacques Peterson debate. He reacted to it, and
Speaker 1: I had no idea who he was.
Speaker 3: Oh wow, you've been on this this bit for a while.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for a while, And I didn't know who he was.
Speaker 1: And he was like this young kid and I'm supposedly
Speaker 1: on the right, And I just remember finding it amusing
Speaker 1: that he thought that the stuff that Jacques had made
Speaker 1: more sense to him.
Speaker 2: Wasn't he like twelve when that debate happened.
Speaker 1: I think he was like nineteen, okay, and he was
Speaker 1: talking about how like this, how like at least was
Speaker 1: saying some stuff that made sense, But Peterson was just
Speaker 1: fixated on this fantasy of individualism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, if I were to try to do some hegalienism,
Speaker 3: I'd say that Nick Fuentes is the alf Habong of
Speaker 3: the current right wing discourse. And I'm not committing to that,
Speaker 3: but it sounds like that's something that would be right
Speaker 3: to say.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think historically it overcomes, it cancels, it preserves.
Speaker 4: It's the next thing.
Speaker 1: I guess. I guess the way that I would make
Speaker 1: sense of him and the way that he's situated in
Speaker 1: right wing discourse right now is I think there was
Speaker 1: a time when, especially like kind of neo kon conservatives
Speaker 1: in America, we're like very pro Israel. I guess. Look,
Speaker 1: the way that I see, like if we want to
Speaker 1: think about Fuentes as being some kind of rift or
Speaker 1: leading to some kind of rift, is that he flowed
Speaker 1: with racism and anti semitism in like a pretty pretty
Speaker 1: overt ways. But I think also like the fact that
Speaker 1: he's gaining some steam, and you know, he went out
Speaker 1: he did that long interview with Tucker Carlson, which I
Speaker 1: did listen to. I don't know why, I just hate
Speaker 1: myself so I wanted to listen to them.
Speaker 3: I watched that too, So that's where I'm getting most
Speaker 3: of my information from as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think, like what's kind of interesting about
Speaker 1: him is I do think that, like some people who
Speaker 1: are just critical of Israel for like legitimate reasons that
Speaker 1: probably all three of us would want to be critical
Speaker 1: of Israel about, right, Like the fact that, for example,
Speaker 1: the US just gives them, you know, billions of dollars
Speaker 1: for weapons, you know, discomfort with obviously the way that
Speaker 1: they've handled more than just discomfort with the way that
Speaker 1: they've handled like the October seventh Gaza response, So all
Speaker 1: these things that all of us would probably be critical
Speaker 1: of Israel for. It's almost like Fuentes, is you using
Speaker 1: that and then getting right wingers to be like, yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe Israel kind of sucks, like why are we paying
Speaker 1: them so much money? And that also is related to
Speaker 1: another theme I think emerging with Donald Trump of kind
Speaker 1: of protectionism America first. It's like which was always sort
Speaker 1: of a subtext in American conservative I mean Ron Regan
Speaker 1: used to say America first, but this kind of more
Speaker 1: over America first discourse is like why would we give
Speaker 1: money to anyone else? But that's so, you know, it's
Speaker 1: almost like he's using like kind of legitimate criticisms of Israel,
Speaker 1: but then to use those legitimate criticisms to basically be like,
Speaker 1: but maybe it's the Jews, right, it's not just like Israel,
Speaker 1: Like maybe it's actually like Jews that suck and not
Speaker 1: just Israel that sucks. Like that's kind of my sort
Speaker 1: of common sense like oversimplification of I think what's happening.
Speaker 1: It's like use legitimate criticisms to be like, you know,
Speaker 1: my stuff about because like cause Fuentez, I think is all.
Speaker 1: I don't know enough to say for sure that he's
Speaker 1: like come out and question the Holocaust, but he's probably
Speaker 1: questioned like the numbers, and this is.
Speaker 2: Obviously flirted with questioning it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's flirted with questioning the numbers. And this is
Speaker 1: like the classic thing that I think some conservatives do
Speaker 1: is kind of like these days is you know, kind
Speaker 1: of not go all the way or at least like
Speaker 1: far right is sort of flirt with it and be like,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not saying that they're the Holocaust didn't happen.
Speaker 1: I'm just asking questions, you know, I'm just like, well
Speaker 1: do those numbers really make sense? And like you know, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: I get that it's like the Israeli government, but like
Speaker 1: maybe there's something about Jews also that like is the reason.
Speaker 1: I'm just you know, asking questions here, I feel like
Speaker 1: that's sort of the move right. It's not it's not
Speaker 1: as overt as like classical kind of ku klux Klan
Speaker 1: Nazi racism. It's more like I'm just trying to be
Speaker 1: critical and like, notice that we're giving all this money
Speaker 1: to like Israel and the Jews and banks, and it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's this step and I don't know if
Speaker 1: how we can apply signifying chains to that. Whereas before, right,
Speaker 1: I think that in the past, conservatives, like even the
Speaker 1: Christian conservatives would have been like, no, like Israel good
Speaker 1: because Israel is like a partner in Western civilization and
Speaker 1: Judeo Christian values, and like fucking you know, conservative evangelicals
Speaker 1: had a huge heart on for you know, like the
Speaker 1: evangelicals because when the Jews returned to Israel, that's supposedly,
Speaker 1: you know, supposed to be when christ might come back.
Speaker 1: And like I know Mike Huckabee is like one of
Speaker 1: those evangelical I think he's the American ambassador to Israel
Speaker 1: right now, and he's like huge pro Israel guy. And
Speaker 1: again I think that's motivated by this. So that's I
Speaker 1: feel like I see like this rift in like this
Speaker 1: isolationism like America first and like why are we giving
Speaker 1: the money? And then that can and then people can
Speaker 1: be like, yeah, Israel, why are we giving some much money?
Speaker 1: But then like that's sort of in the background underneath
Speaker 1: being pushed towards the like why do we like the
Speaker 1: Jews kind of thing, Like that's being pushed that way,
Speaker 1: whereas the other is still more either neocon, but then
Speaker 1: also with this kind of religious evangelical drive toward like
Speaker 1: loving Israel because it's because it fits with Judeo Christian values,
Speaker 1: and maybe there's some kind of I don't know, is
Speaker 1: it is it correct to say missionic kind of like
Speaker 1: motivation towards liking Israel, like wanting it to be maintained.
Speaker 1: So I don't know. That's sort of my summary overview
Speaker 1: of sort of how I see this, and maybe we
Speaker 1: can now start applying theory to it. Or maybe there's
Speaker 1: something I missed that you wanted to cover, because I
Speaker 1: know pills you also watched the Fuenttez Tucker discussion, so
Speaker 1: maybe there's more in there that I didn't touch on.
Speaker 2: I did more than that.
Speaker 3: I did homework, I did, I watched I watched three
Speaker 3: hours of Fuentes actually this week.
Speaker 1: Oh nice, I think I know.
Speaker 4: Exactly how theory fits with that. Like what you were
Speaker 4: saying about how Fuentas like, we're we we be questioning
Speaker 4: the allegiance with Israel, but for very different reasons. But
Speaker 4: it's essentially like the same objective critique but coming from
Speaker 4: different ways.
Speaker 2: You know how.
Speaker 4: In in that article like the Agency of the Letter
Speaker 4: that look on Wright near the beginning.
Speaker 3: For listeners who are unfamiliar, Agency of the Letter in
Speaker 3: the Unconscious is an essay by about.
Speaker 4: Yeah, oh yeah, context, we have an.
Speaker 2: Introduced to yet it's in uh a tree.
Speaker 3: It's about it's about how structuralism fits into psychoanalysis.
Speaker 2: Well, he puts that.
Speaker 4: Picture near the beginning, right, Well, I think if you're
Speaker 4: a theory fan anyway, you know you might be aware
Speaker 4: of so serves signify or signified. You have the signifier
Speaker 4: the sound image connected to a concept, and it's represents graphically.
Speaker 4: In Lakhan he puts a big S and then like
Speaker 4: a bar, and then a small S underneath it. The
Speaker 4: bar just looks basically like a bar in like a
Speaker 4: math equation like one over two, but it's big s
Speaker 4: over little less and near the beginning. He doesn't like
Speaker 4: this sort of barred picture, so he puts the two doors,
Speaker 4: you know, the two doors, and puts ladies and gentlemen
Speaker 4: over top of it, over the bar. Like so the
Speaker 4: two doors on the bottom are identical, but you see
Speaker 4: gentlemen and ladies above it, and those are different. So
Speaker 4: you know, okay, he's talking about men's bathroom and women's bathroom,
Speaker 4: but the two bathrooms under the bar are the same,
Speaker 4: but the two signifiers on the top are different. And
Speaker 4: he's using this to illustrate how the signifier enters into
Speaker 4: the signified, and how that there's a slippage of the
Speaker 4: signified underneath the signifier. And that is what I wanted
Speaker 4: to say applies to this. Right, we're both like there's
Speaker 4: a left wing way and a right wing way of
Speaker 4: being critical of Israel, and it shifts over time. There's
Speaker 4: a slippage there, and now the right has sort of
Speaker 4: launched its own criticism. And you have the same situation,
Speaker 4: these two identical doors on the bottom, door on the left,
Speaker 4: door on the right, and the only difference between them
Speaker 4: is the signifier written over top of it. Right, It's
Speaker 4: like how wearing a poppy has become controversial lately. You know,
Speaker 4: you have two identical poppies on the bottom. Well, some
Speaker 4: people are there's been these debates about like it has
Speaker 4: the right like co opted wearing poppies now and there's
Speaker 4: now this like debate around wearing a poppy and whether
Speaker 4: this expresses like some kind of political allegiance. But in
Speaker 4: the end, you just have the two identical poppies on
Speaker 4: the bottom and the only difference is the signifier written
Speaker 4: on the top. Part's that's how And you know the
Speaker 4: slippage of the signified in the signifying chain and how
Speaker 4: the signifier enters into the signified. That's how I thought, Yeah,
Speaker 4: I realized I didn't set the context there. I just
Speaker 4: we had a power outage earlier and we'd already started
Speaker 4: talking about this, so like in my mind, context had
Speaker 4: been set right.
Speaker 3: And context of the poppy is in Canada from World
Speaker 3: War One, there was poppies that grew on the graves
Speaker 3: and then we're supposed to wear one on November eleventh.
Speaker 1: We wasn't it? Also the poppy fields in Flanders Fields
Speaker 1: where they fought and like is it Belgium or or
Speaker 1: did maybe.
Speaker 2: Belgium in the Battle of World War One. Yeah, well they.
Speaker 4: Do it in the UK too. There's the poppy and
Speaker 4: they read it over the announcements in the morning in
Speaker 4: Flanders fields. The poppies grow between the crosses row on row.
Speaker 4: It was written by John McCrae, a Canadian poet. Yeah, Canadian.
Speaker 4: I'm was sure everybody was aware of that.
Speaker 3: Canada was part of Britain basically during World War One,
Speaker 3: right like we had to go if they started, if
Speaker 3: they declared war, we were automatically declared war.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that's true.
Speaker 4: We did automatically independent country still, but yeah.
Speaker 1: But I think that wasn't true during World War Two.
Speaker 1: I think world War Two we had more independence where
Speaker 1: we could have chosen not to. But I think we
Speaker 1: just did a declare war at the same time.
Speaker 3: And we're very proud of that, which is we did
Speaker 3: right wing coded. I guess when it comes to poppy anywhere,
Speaker 3: it's for America.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's America first.
Speaker 4: That's why it took them years to even enenter the war.
Speaker 3: So if you didn't catch that, Eric gave kind of
Speaker 3: a critique of so sirs signified that explains how the
Speaker 3: one meaning can like have multiple meanings depending on its
Speaker 3: place in the and here's the key term, the signifying chain. Now,
Speaker 3: we can't really abuse the signifying chain concept all that
Speaker 3: much because, like I said, it's not fully fleshed out.
Speaker 3: But what he does say about it is that it's
Speaker 3: made of signifiers. And these signifiers they're they're linked together.
Speaker 3: So you can see this when you get a term
Speaker 3: like Nick Fuentz likes to talk about, when you get
Speaker 3: the term white has a very important meaning to Nick
Speaker 3: Fuentes and then it's attached to different links for him
Speaker 3: that it may not be attached for me.
Speaker 2: I'll just I'll say that I'm I'm.
Speaker 3: Not in my mind all that concerned about whiteness as
Speaker 3: much as Nick Fuentes seems to be. But everyone, well
Speaker 3: I should. This is this is where it gets a
Speaker 3: little tricky. It's like, does everyone have their own signifying chain?
Speaker 3: Kind of yes, but you don't build it from scratch.
Speaker 3: It's not like you're special and unique.
Speaker 1: No, it's socially constituted.
Speaker 3: This is why we're bringing it into terms with like discourse,
Speaker 3: because basically, you have a you have a signifying chain
Speaker 3: that organizes your beliefs based on signifiers, and the signifiers
Speaker 3: that are most important to you. But Lecan says, like,
Speaker 3: your knowledge of these signifiers and your experience with these
Speaker 3: signifiers matters very little because actually these are pre constructed
Speaker 3: and you find yourself in them.
Speaker 2: And yeah, you could probably change.
Speaker 3: Like if your parents are religious and conservative, you can
Speaker 3: definitely adopt a signifying chain that is, I don't know,
Speaker 3: atheist and not conservative. However, you don't make these connections yourself.
Speaker 3: You're basically given these connections. So one thing that's really
Speaker 3: a consequence of this is that so much of speech,
Speaker 3: I think Eric earlier called it empty speech. So much
Speaker 3: of speech when you get in a discourse which is
Speaker 3: like managed by social rules that are particular to that community,
Speaker 3: So much of speech in that context is automatic, like
Speaker 3: you don't choose what said. And part of the reason
Speaker 3: that this got set off for me was because we
Speaker 3: said after that h after mister Kirk had his little
Speaker 3: accident over there, I said, I was so frustrated because
Speaker 3: it was an exciting event, an exciting there's no moral content.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying there's any moral excitement.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's just it was.
Speaker 3: It was exciting, like adding heat to a solution. It
Speaker 3: was an exciting event. But all the responses to it
Speaker 3: were so rote, like you could have predicted what everyone
Speaker 3: would have said in advance, like we condemned violence, blah
Speaker 3: blah blah blah blah. This is part of the signifying
Speaker 3: chain when you get this automatic type of space.
Speaker 1: Well, and it's the same thing I think with like
Speaker 1: the kind of lefty Twitter verse. I think it was
Speaker 1: also predictable to see that there would be like a
Speaker 1: bunch of woke leftists would be like, I'm glad he's dead.
Speaker 1: He got what he deserved. Like that was also its
Speaker 1: own kind of automatic response, I think, right. I mean
Speaker 1: like I was nod and like, and I guess I
Speaker 1: was also thinking about, yeah, okay, so it's okay, So
Speaker 1: it's like an automatic response. I was also just kind
Speaker 1: of thinking about what what is like what is like
Speaker 1: a conservative like signifying chain of like and I guess
Speaker 1: it's like things that I was like, try, So there's
Speaker 1: two things I was trying to disentangle because I guess
Speaker 1: there's like one sense in of it in which like
Speaker 1: you think, like one concept kind of like leads to another,
Speaker 1: like for you might say like family, and then that
Speaker 1: makes you think about values, and that makes you think
Speaker 1: about like morality, and then Christian and like I don't know,
Speaker 1: like law and order, freedom, patriotism, troops, like I don't know,
Speaker 1: just like things that like would lead you to other concepts.
Speaker 1: But then it seems like there's another sense if I'm
Speaker 1: remembering this correctly, in like a Lacanian point where there's
Speaker 1: like in sentences, there's like a there's like a retroactive
Speaker 1: meaning where like where like as you're saying hearing the
Speaker 1: words or hearing a sentence, it's like meaning isn't Maybe
Speaker 1: it's a point about meaning like that that it's not
Speaker 1: to side it into like the end word of a sentence.
Speaker 1: And I thought that that also had to do with
Speaker 1: signifying change. Do you guys know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I feel like this is maybe maybe
Speaker 1: I'm getting two things mixed up.
Speaker 2: No, that's right.
Speaker 3: It's because the idea of the chain is these links
Speaker 3: is it's not a closed system, which is a different
Speaker 3: view of language or meaning is that you can have
Speaker 3: closed systems, but this one is because there's links in
Speaker 3: a chain, you can always continue to add to it. Yeah,
Speaker 3: so then because you can add to it, then the
Speaker 3: meanings can change, and that's how you kind of explain
Speaker 3: the evolution of discourses, which, to bring it back to
Speaker 3: our current topic, FWENT is getting attacked by the other
Speaker 3: conservatives on the grounds of changing one of the signifiers
Speaker 3: it shows, it shows evolution, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I guess beforehand, right like in the sense
Speaker 1: that kind of Mike Huckabee evangelical sense, like maybe Israel
Speaker 1: Jews would have been a associated with like ally or
Speaker 1: like democracy, or like Western civilization, or like shared biblical
Speaker 1: values or something, right like, maybe those would have been
Speaker 1: kind of like like concepts. And then maybe now.
Speaker 3: You know, I checked, I checked the n gram you know,
Speaker 3: the Google history of word use. Oh yeah, Judeo Christian
Speaker 3: was only used like one time prior.
Speaker 2: To nineteen forty eight. That's it was by Nietzsche too.
Speaker 1: Oh that's funny, I was.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it's like Judeo Christian emerged with the state
Speaker 3: of Israel to say, you know, that's weird we have
Speaker 3: a shared history, because if you know anything about history,
Speaker 3: the Jews and Christians, they they didn't they didn't see
Speaker 3: themselves as on the same team until relatively recently.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly exactly, So I guess that would have been
Speaker 1: maybe some kind of see and then now I guess
Speaker 1: like the fund tes, the gropers, and obviously this is
Speaker 1: you know, just bringing to the four something that's of
Speaker 1: existed in the background, where like the concept of Israel
Speaker 1: is maybe now try like the it's being fought over,
Speaker 1: like what that means or like what you know, maybe
Speaker 1: jew and Israel are like you know, makes some fuentestyle
Speaker 1: conservatives think of like deep state or like elite or
Speaker 1: like globalist right globalist is another one of these conservative
Speaker 1: pejorative terms, and like you know, like yeah, I don't know,
Speaker 1: like it's you know, trying to shift that meaning in
Speaker 1: that chain to from like biblical ally to like you know,
Speaker 1: foreign parasite and then and then it's it's also maybe
Speaker 1: interesting to think like what what would like a left
Speaker 1: wing kind of pro Palestinian, like how would their signifying
Speaker 1: chain about Israel be organized? Right, it would obviously be different.
Speaker 1: It would be I mean, maybe there'd be some shared
Speaker 1: but it would probably be more like genocide. You know,
Speaker 1: it would be like genocide and like colonialism. I feel
Speaker 1: like colonialism.
Speaker 3: Yeah, true, we'd have to spend so much time like
Speaker 3: I I like, uh, watching reading the transcripts because the transcripts.
Speaker 3: They don't let you get seduced in the personality of
Speaker 3: like Tucker and Fuentes. Instead, you can just like see
Speaker 3: the words and you can see what actually connects to
Speaker 3: another word.
Speaker 4: So Tucker Robot read it exactly.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's a good point.
Speaker 3: Like like chat GPT, its functions making signifying change. That's
Speaker 3: why it's like largely accurate, but then suddenly inaccurate on
Speaker 3: certain on certain discourses, because it's basically associating words that
Speaker 3: have been associated.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I.
Speaker 3: Think contrary to to some critiques, I don't. I don't
Speaker 3: really think from my limited experience, I don't think Nick
Speaker 3: Fuentes is either a Nazi or a white supremacist. I
Speaker 3: think he's best described as like white identity politics, whatever
Speaker 3: you call that, I tend to agree, because yeah, he
Speaker 3: he literally says explicitly like identity politics is a bad word,
Speaker 3: uh in that signifying chain. But he says everyone else
Speaker 3: is allowed to do is identity politics except white men,
Speaker 3: and white men are getting screwed by three The three
Speaker 3: groups is feminism, immigrants, and Jews, And every every one
Speaker 3: of those groups is allowed to do identity politics except
Speaker 3: white men. And then when white men do it, then
Speaker 3: it's chauvinist and racist. And to that, I gotta say,
Speaker 3: I gotta say, like, uh, they did they do they
Speaker 3: did do that. Identity politics is for everyone except white men.
Speaker 3: You know that the whin does rallying cry is, hey,
Speaker 3: let's get all the white men together and advocate for
Speaker 3: what benefits us, because we're getting screwed too. Everyone's just
Speaker 3: saying have male privilege, white privilege, but we're not because
Speaker 3: we're getting screwed to. So if we can get a
Speaker 3: handle on the immigrants and the women go back to
Speaker 3: the kitchen, and we get rid of the Jews that
Speaker 3: control America, then we can have our we can have
Speaker 3: our day again.
Speaker 2: Finally, that's the core.
Speaker 1: I mean, yes, that is the core. I agree. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think there's like a bunch of arguments for why
Speaker 1: his concern about identity politics. I mean, he's like right
Speaker 1: in a certain like very basic level, but I guess
Speaker 1: the purpose of identity politics. And look, I'm being critical
Speaker 1: of identity politics. Obviously anyone who's been listening for any
Speaker 1: period of time would know that. But obviously there's a difference,
Speaker 1: like when you think about the fact that identity politics
Speaker 1: emerges specifically to address issues of disadvantage to those on
Speaker 1: account of those identity kind of characteristics. So I feel
Speaker 1: like it just wouldn't make sense to have identity politics
Speaker 1: for white people. And now what does exist and I
Speaker 1: think continues to exist and has always existed in terms
Speaker 1: of like celebrating because you know, that's one thing Fwentees
Speaker 1: might say, it's like, you can't celebrate being white, but
Speaker 1: people celebrate being Irish and Italian and all the time. Right,
Speaker 1: there's fucking Saint Patty's Day that's like an an identity
Speaker 1: politics day. That's like, that's like a kind of white
Speaker 1: identity politics day. So I mean, I quimble, I quibble
Speaker 1: with the way that he frames up, but of course,
Speaker 1: like I kind of know what he's talking about. But
Speaker 1: it was funny though, like okay, so like but then
Speaker 1: on the on the idea, like is he actually a
Speaker 1: white supremacist. I mean, it's hard to tell, but he
Speaker 1: what he does do, is he And there was actually
Speaker 1: a bit of a disagreement between him, him and Tucker.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you caught it, Pills, but it's
Speaker 1: when I think Tucker's like, well, I just judge people
Speaker 1: based on their individuality, right, And then initially fwent has
Speaker 1: kind of agreed. He's like, well, yeah, of course, but
Speaker 1: then he started to say, but like Jews are different,
Speaker 1: They're you know, they were as a group, they and
Speaker 1: Tucker's kind of like, well, like, I don't know, like
Speaker 1: I know plenty of Jews who like disagree with Israel
Speaker 1: and that like that's just seems wrong. So like Tucker
Speaker 1: did kind of or sorry, I'm Fuentes did kind of
Speaker 1: want to go a bit further and suggests that there
Speaker 1: is something intrinsic in Jews that makes them want to
Speaker 1: only worry about their own kind, which strikes me as definite, definitionally.
Speaker 3: Racist, right in the sense of like in that interview,
Speaker 3: I lost my power went out, so I lost my tab.
Speaker 3: But I think he specifically said it's not genetic, which
Speaker 3: is like not laudable, but it exists, exists.
Speaker 1: Well, he says it's not genetic, but he also but
Speaker 1: he also still but he still thinks there's like value
Speaker 1: and and like there's value utility in generalizing about Jews, right, uh,
Speaker 1: and and like but yes, he does think that the
Speaker 1: cause is maybe social, but it seems to be like
Speaker 1: a very strong social cause. And that also, I mean,
Speaker 1: that seems just clearly wrong to me.
Speaker 4: But I liked the CON's concept here of that sliding
Speaker 4: of the signified under the signifier under the chain of signifiers,
Speaker 4: because it's just so typical that that a concept like
Speaker 4: identity politics gets its sort of right wing articulation. It
Speaker 4: was already laid out in advance, and now it seems
Speaker 4: in retrospects like inevitable that identity politics would see its
Speaker 4: right wing articulation, even though it was like the leftist
Speaker 4: thing in the eighties and nineties with political correctness and
Speaker 4: identity politics. But then it's easy to forget that identity
Speaker 4: politics goes all the way back to questions of national
Speaker 4: identity which emerged in the modern era groups in the
Speaker 4: tribe versus the end of visual and individualism. You have
Speaker 4: the right and left wing articulations of all those things.
Speaker 4: I mean, the chain of signifiers is always outrunning the
Speaker 4: meaning that it generates.
Speaker 3: Well, I find it funny that Nick Fuentez is catching
Speaker 3: all this flak from the right wing because literally, if
Speaker 3: you line up their chains, I think the only signifier
Speaker 3: that they disagree about is.
Speaker 2: Either Jew or Israel. I'm not sure are maybe both, but.
Speaker 3: When it comes to when it comes to like immigrants
Speaker 3: or women, like there's no difference between Nick Quentez and
Speaker 3: Matt Walsh except Nick quent As is funny. The only
Speaker 3: thing they disagree about is is the jew one. But
Speaker 3: if you want to map out what a signifying chain
Speaker 3: like this look like, I try it so I can.
Speaker 3: I can tell you what I came up with, which
Speaker 3: is just it's not exactly a line. It's not linear
Speaker 3: as much as it is a web. Symbolic web is
Speaker 3: one of the other experimental terms that he tried.
Speaker 2: To describe what this is.
Speaker 3: But I started with white because obviously that's important, and
Speaker 3: white not just the race like race is one one
Speaker 3: direction of the chain, I guess, but you can also
Speaker 3: go to white as clean, you know, white as snow,
Speaker 3: or white as purity, or white from the laundry detergent commercials,
Speaker 3: stain free. It gets your whites white again. But all
Speaker 3: of these actually eventually link up when, for example, immigrants
Speaker 3: are described as dirty, or when they're described in terms
Speaker 3: of infection. You know, you go from white to clean,
Speaker 3: to purity to health, and then you get all the opposites,
Speaker 3: so white as opposed to dark as opposed to sickness,
Speaker 3: as opposed to dirty, and you can see the way
Speaker 3: that both both the anti or the the antagonisms between
Speaker 3: those line up or they're applied to people in the
Speaker 3: real world. Right, So you get the symbolic chain of
Speaker 3: clean to white to peer just tracks perfectly with racist
Speaker 3: racist tropes. Enlightenment, the European Enlightenment versus the heart of
Speaker 3: darkness or the dark continent. Right, So, once you start
Speaker 3: with a symbolic chain, you can it doesn't have to
Speaker 3: be automatic, but it seems to be to be pretty automatic.
Speaker 2: And you saw that with.
Speaker 3: Just like the straight up, straight up racism against against
Speaker 3: Mom Dannie for being I think they're saying he's dirty
Speaker 3: for eating with his hands. We can get into that too,
Speaker 3: but like he's a terrorist and Sharia law and he's
Speaker 3: and he's dirty because he eats with his hands, which I.
Speaker 2: Don't know, we could.
Speaker 3: Since it's a discussion on the symbolic order, we could
Speaker 3: go all into that too, Like we have a whole
Speaker 3: symbolic order that determines which things it's polite to eat
Speaker 3: with your hands and which thing is not, Like pizza,
Speaker 3: chicken wings, ice cream cones, those are all acceptable things
Speaker 3: to eat with your hands. Rice, everyone are the Of
Speaker 3: course it's Twitter, so we could take it with a
Speaker 3: grain of salt. But Twitter freaks out that he's eating
Speaker 3: rice with his hands. Look at look at this barbarian.
Speaker 3: He's not one of us.
Speaker 4: All of those, all of those contradictory meanings. Yeah, they
Speaker 4: just coexist.
Speaker 3: In this, in this symbolic But then, what do you
Speaker 3: do with what do you do with dirty? You have
Speaker 3: to clean purge bleach. I found I don't know if
Speaker 3: I want to read this, because it's okay, I'll read
Speaker 3: I'll read it. I can't say I don't know if
Speaker 3: I want to. I found a tweet from an account
Speaker 3: named Pericles two thousand likes. So this is not a
Speaker 3: This is not a cherry pick, he says zooran mom.
Speaker 3: Donnie eating with his hands despite there being forks in
Speaker 3: front of him, reminds me of the residence of Sodom
Speaker 3: and good or demanded demanding to rape the male angels
Speaker 3: despite a lot offering them his virgin daughters instead. Jesus
Speaker 3: which is which is a fascinating tweet because it associates
Speaker 3: women with utensils with forks and brown, brown people who
Speaker 3: eat with their hands to rapists who should be purged
Speaker 3: with fire.
Speaker 4: As they say, reveals a lot more about the author
Speaker 4: than it does anything else.
Speaker 3: Also, is he applying implying that, like using utensils is
Speaker 3: more natural, like heterosexuality is natural, like wanting to rape
Speaker 3: a virgin woman is more natural than a man. There's
Speaker 3: a lot in there miracles.
Speaker 4: And then imagine if that account were a bot too,
Speaker 4: it would also be like it wouldn't even be shocking,
Speaker 4: It wouldn't be shocking that some weirdo said that, or
Speaker 4: that a bot has just sort of algorithmically assembled those words.
Speaker 4: And I don't think it would make a difference because
Speaker 4: that's the language that's out there. That's the language that's
Speaker 4: out there. Those are those are the word associations, right,
Speaker 4: we internalize the other, as we established we we internalize
Speaker 4: the other of language, and and AI does that too,
Speaker 4: just differently, but it does it.
Speaker 3: So of course it's aesthetically, that's that's pretty it's a
Speaker 3: pretty good metaphor. I mean, morally it's it's repugnant, abhorrent,
Speaker 3: but aesthetically it's I don't think an AI could have
Speaker 3: done that one.
Speaker 4: Yeah, maybe I don't know. I don't know that that
Speaker 4: like being named after this like Western Greek hero and
Speaker 4: then going straight to I think the sexist biblical narrative
Speaker 4: that it reminded him of. I don't, I can't, but
Speaker 4: I know I could see AI putting that together. Can
Speaker 4: building that out of you know, engagement with with weirdos
Speaker 4: in the comment sections.
Speaker 3: It could be it's the the point of that was
Speaker 3: the purgation part, right, the he's like the people in
Speaker 3: Sodom and Gomora that got Sodom and Gomor got they
Speaker 3: got meteorited, they got hit with fire from falling from
Speaker 3: the sky and burned up.
Speaker 2: So there's again the the.
Speaker 3: Dirty or urged that it's a meteoric and the biblical account.
Speaker 4: And the extraordinary absence subtext besides the racism and the
Speaker 4: sexism is the socialism too, because of course being capitalist
Speaker 4: is also baked into that cake.
Speaker 3: On the good side, Yeah, you ultimately get a whole
Speaker 3: side of divisions of all the good things and all
Speaker 3: the bad things. And there's very little like to speak
Speaker 3: of signifying chains being automatic. It's it's pretty noticeable when
Speaker 3: someone breaks the code of their community because they get
Speaker 3: that gets blown up like, oh you you were.
Speaker 2: Against this group of people. Now you're not a real leftist.
Speaker 3: But at the core of this, this whole thing that
Speaker 3: I drew out very scientifically, by the way, is that.
Speaker 2: White, white equals good.
Speaker 3: And that doesn't necessarily, it doesn't necessarily correspond with the
Speaker 3: white as race, but it often does, right. It's often
Speaker 3: recruited for that purpose, just like white is sinless and
Speaker 3: the the bride wears white at the wedding because she's pure,
Speaker 3: that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's an interesting one.
Speaker 2: Oh, I can apply this. I was gonna apply that
Speaker 2: to Fuintez.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, do that in order to say why he's
Speaker 3: not a Nazi, because the Nazi, the Nazi rhetorica wrote Jews,
Speaker 3: it's very dehumanized, dehumanizing. It uses insect metaphors and rodent raphors, spiders,
Speaker 3: rats and and that. Really like that dehumanizing stuff Fuentes
Speaker 3: in the in the three hours.
Speaker 2: That I've listened to him.
Speaker 3: Okay, there might be there's probably examples that I don't
Speaker 3: know about, but at least in his current iteration, I
Speaker 3: don't find that he dehumanizes the Jews. He doesn't think
Speaker 3: that they're dirty or maybe evil. But more more than anything,
Speaker 3: I think he believes that they are rivals.
Speaker 2: They are rivals to.
Speaker 3: White people in America, and they have their tribe and
Speaker 3: in order to combat them, and it's mainly Jewish billionaires
Speaker 3: like Akman is it Acmen and Ellison, the guy who
Speaker 3: bought TikTok. They we we need our own tribe in
Speaker 3: order to be able to combat them.
Speaker 2: So he does I said he was in a white
Speaker 2: supremacist I don't. He doesn't.
Speaker 3: He does dehumanize immigrants and blacks, but the Jews, it
Speaker 3: seems like he has a begrudging respect for them because
Speaker 3: they're able to keep their tribe together.
Speaker 1: So well, well, yeah, it's interesting because I think Jijiak
Speaker 1: has pointed out how a lot of Nazi rhetoric was
Speaker 1: a strange contradiction of like dehumanizing via like mentioning rodent
Speaker 1: or insect, but then also like talking about them as
Speaker 1: like an evil for like an evil kind of calculated
Speaker 1: like hiding in plain sight, you know, can compose as
Speaker 1: a German and be successful like a German while sort
Speaker 1: of infiltrating society, which obviously, but it's is like not
Speaker 1: flattering in a certain sense, but is also like not
Speaker 1: dehumanizing in the same way as a rodent. There's like
Speaker 1: a weird contradiction where they're like both dirty and unhuman
Speaker 1: while also kind of like scheming and like effective.
Speaker 4: It's that that enemy paradox is like respecting your enemy,
Speaker 4: Like if they hate their enemy, they also acknowledge that
Speaker 4: their enemy is something to be respected.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, some kind of.
Speaker 4: Paradoxical like respect mixed in with the hatred, but that
Speaker 4: makes the hatred all the more virulent.
Speaker 1: But look like all these efforts to sort of just
Speaker 1: you know, want to reductively label any sort of like
Speaker 1: reaction y right wing, right wing figure as a Nazi
Speaker 1: is like also something that I'm sympathetic to being is
Speaker 1: a little over is a little too much of a simplification.
Speaker 1: But then I think what's also kind of fascinating to
Speaker 1: analyze here is like the pushback from people like Ben
Speaker 1: Shapiro right, who are furious, who are trying to excommunicate
Speaker 1: in a way trying to excommunicate Tucker. And actually, like
Speaker 1: one of the most interesting parts, I don't know if
Speaker 1: few degree pills of that Fuentes interview with Tucker was
Speaker 1: sort of hearing the origin story of how initially Fuentez
Speaker 1: was sort of falling into a Ben Shapiro crowd, and
Speaker 1: he himself was also you know, not necessarily initially in
Speaker 1: America first worried about Jews, but was more of like
Speaker 1: a Marco Rubio, or maybe not Marco rub it might
Speaker 1: have been Ted Cruz. He was like a Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: Republican and he sort of fell into like a Ben
Speaker 1: Shapiro crowd. And one of Ben Shapiro's people was like,
Speaker 1: you got to see this Nick Flentez guy just did
Speaker 1: this debate with this liberal student at I think it
Speaker 1: was Boston University. But then as soon as Shapiro noticed that,
Speaker 1: like he was asking questions about Israel according to Fuentez
Speaker 1: at least in the interview, you know, he started to
Speaker 1: tweet about Fuentez as being like a dangerous person that
Speaker 1: shouldn't be shouldn't be followed, right, and then like and
Speaker 1: in a way at the time, Fuentt has had like
Speaker 1: no followers, and Shapiro the analogy I think that came
Speaker 1: up in the in the episode was like, oh, he
Speaker 1: like tried to squish you like a bug before you
Speaker 1: could get any followers. Right, smother in the crib, Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: smother in the crib before you, but it didn't work.
Speaker 1: So that was kind of an interesting part of it.
Speaker 3: But I guess the problem, the reason it's catching on
Speaker 3: so much is because like what he says is true,
Speaker 3: and it's not like Jews. Individual Jews are are helping
Speaker 3: the case any like the Larry Ellison thing, We're gonna yeah,
Speaker 3: because you've I've heard people like Shapiro say, oh, it's
Speaker 3: just the age old trope, like he's accusing Jews of
Speaker 3: doing dual loyalty, but like Jews are doing that, and
Speaker 3: I don't mean the Jews, I mean specific there are
Speaker 3: particular jew Larry Ellison said in public, there is no
Speaker 3: greater honor than sending the IDF millions of dollars of it,
Speaker 3: like just for fun. He said, for two thousand years,
Speaker 3: this is an American. For two thousand years, we were
Speaker 3: a stateless people. But now we have a country we
Speaker 3: can call our own. Through all of the perilous times
Speaker 3: since Israel's founding, we have called them the brave men
Speaker 3: and women of the IDF to defend our home. And
Speaker 3: then he buys TikTok like that's that's not a dual
Speaker 3: loyalty trope.
Speaker 2: That is a dual loyalty.
Speaker 1: Example, definitely agree.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and if they did, like if he didn't have
Speaker 3: all this evidence at the moment, like he wouldn't be
Speaker 3: he wouldn't be catching on like he is.
Speaker 2: But he can.
Speaker 1: He wants to run. He wants to run. I think
Speaker 1: he wants to be a political leader if he could be.
Speaker 1: He wants political power. I feel like he said it
Speaker 1: in several interviews and including I think the Tucker one.
Speaker 1: I thought he said like, I want political power. I
Speaker 1: want it.
Speaker 4: Six million people saw it.
Speaker 2: Million The.
Speaker 4: Attention brokers have given him the shot and he's got
Speaker 4: Look at some of his categories hate, swede and alcohol,
Speaker 4: porn is destroying men, toxic feminism.
Speaker 1: Yea, how about that porn part? Did you did? Did
Speaker 1: you did you clock? That part? Pills? Because they're reminded me.
Speaker 2: Of what when Tucker asked what is porn?
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was like what is it? He's like what
Speaker 1: It's like, come on, man.
Speaker 2: His rhetorical questions have just gone too far.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah. And then but then they started getting
Speaker 1: into some stuff that I feel like remind me of
Speaker 1: the of the gooner discussion. But anyway, not to but
Speaker 1: it's just like which again like this is the weird
Speaker 1: thing I feel like about uh figures like this is
Speaker 1: like they will say some things like I mean a
Speaker 1: lot of what they say has like a grain of
Speaker 1: truth to it, right and then and then like that's how.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's more, it's more than a grain, you know. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I will say I think he has a demonstrably fact
Speaker 3: checkably false world picture.
Speaker 2: Though yes, yes, but it's not it's not that off.
Speaker 3: But like there are Jews in America who are on
Speaker 3: board with the foreign policy of America as it's existed
Speaker 3: until like the last two years. But the Nick Fuentes
Speaker 3: his world picture doesn't have Chevron or Exxon or Halliburton
Speaker 3: or Pfizer or DuPont, Like he thinks the Iraq War
Speaker 3: was caused by Jews, and he thinks that America is
Speaker 3: run by Larry Ellison and Bill Ackman, which are two
Speaker 3: billionaires that love Israel and are Jewish. But what about
Speaker 3: the Koch brothers and the Waltash or the white like,
Speaker 3: what about all the white ones, all.
Speaker 4: The Christian billionaires, all the like?
Speaker 3: In his In his world picture, America is just this
Speaker 3: horde of resources. Immigrants are taking a bunch of them
Speaker 3: and then the rest of them are being sent to Israel,
Speaker 3: which is just a false picture. Like it's the wealthy
Speaker 3: as a class in America who control most of this
Speaker 3: horde of wealth that is America. And that's a material fact.
Speaker 4: It's not speculative the conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: But that and then and then like there are things
Speaker 1: that happen that make you that, Like I I see
Speaker 1: why people are tempted right by which, like you said,
Speaker 1: mentioned like Larry Ellison, but then also the way the
Speaker 1: media like like kind of elements within Trump's orbit, right,
Speaker 1: like trying to deport that like student who at a
Speaker 1: student visa because they wrote a piece being critical of Israel. Right,
Speaker 1: It's like when those little things happen, you're just like
Speaker 1: what the fuck is going on here? Like I could
Speaker 1: see why people would be tempted to buy into a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory because it's like you're not going to have
Speaker 1: like you know, you'd never see like a lobby I
Speaker 1: don't know, like like an Armenian lobby that if you
Speaker 1: see someone denying the Armenian genocide, they're going to get
Speaker 1: deported if they're like not a student, right, Like no
Speaker 1: one cares about that, But that doesn't happen, right, it's
Speaker 1: just like an Israel adjacent or you know, because there's
Speaker 1: a bunch of intermingled interests in military and financial interests
Speaker 1: at play here. And yeah, there probably are like some
Speaker 1: really which you know, Israel adjacent Jews who you know,
Speaker 1: do have an interest in trying to pay a lot
Speaker 1: of money to preserve Israel's image as best as possible.
Speaker 1: And that can look a little creepy, right, and that
Speaker 1: can like invite a certain kind of conspiracism that ends
Speaker 1: up being counterproductive. Those actions can end up being counterproductive.
Speaker 2: I mean it is.
Speaker 3: It is on another level with Israel, like if for
Speaker 3: both parties and universities.
Speaker 2: I don't know how it happened.
Speaker 3: But it's it's on another level, like anti Semitism is
Speaker 3: its own special kind of racism, Like there's more than
Speaker 3: a grain of truth to it.
Speaker 1: But it's like anti Zionism is anti Semitism.
Speaker 3: You should have expected this. You guys made this happen. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and I don't mean the Jews, you guys. I mean
Speaker 3: I mean the political establishment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we have to keep saying that. We do have
Speaker 1: to keep saying that. I mean, it's it's uncomfortable to
Speaker 1: like to point out these observations because it can be
Speaker 1: used as ammunition, right for real anti Semites, Like I
Speaker 1: think Nick fuent has I don't think it's it's outside.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's it's it's over. It's an exaggeration
Speaker 1: to say that Nick Fuentez is an anti Semite. I
Speaker 1: think he probably is.
Speaker 2: He says his best friend's Jewish, So yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, yeah, massive generalizations.
Speaker 3: If we're gonna suddenly decide that this guy is evil,
Speaker 3: Israel's the only thing that differentiates him from prager U
Speaker 3: or Charlie Kirk or Matt Walsh. He has exactly the
Speaker 3: same opinion on everything else, except that.
Speaker 1: I do think that like making generalizations about an entire
Speaker 1: people is kind of like racist. And I think, regardless
Speaker 1: of if he thinks it's caused by culture, he's doing it.
Speaker 1: He talks about the Jews having plans like that is
Speaker 1: anti Semitism. But but I take your point, like I
Speaker 1: understand what you're saying. I just do think it's and look,
Speaker 1: I'm not someone who likes to throw around isms and
Speaker 1: accuse people, but I just feel like the evidence to
Speaker 1: say that he's some kind of anti might it's pretty
Speaker 1: fucking strong regardless of.
Speaker 2: I'm not even gonna defend that I think he is.
Speaker 3: But it's like it's fine, It's everyone else is fine
Speaker 3: with the entire conservative movement being racist when it's Muslims. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's like we have this, they have a special signify,
Speaker 3: special protection of racism that's not allowed, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, And it's interesting the overlap. But and then
Speaker 1: you know, because there's people like Candice Owens too, who
Speaker 1: is a black Conservative who's used to work for Ben
Speaker 1: Shapiro and now has gone hard against Israel. But like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, it's that's that's what's really interesting about
Speaker 1: like internally in the conservative movement, because when it comes
Speaker 1: to left and right like whatever progressives, it's pretty obvious
Speaker 1: that the reasons that they're critical of Israel are really
Speaker 1: different than the reasons that like A Fuentes or others. Although,
Speaker 1: but although there's obviously a bit of overlap, but I
Speaker 1: don't know, I like, I feel skeptical that Fuentees really
Speaker 1: cares that much about the Palestinians. I just I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe I'm wrong about that, but I but I I
Speaker 1: just feel like he maybe doesn't care But then when
Speaker 1: you get to someone like Candace OANs, at least the
Speaker 1: way that she talks about these things in my limited
Speaker 1: but not nothing observation of her, it's it's kind of
Speaker 1: gets interesting because.
Speaker 4: It's clearly a moral position.
Speaker 1: Yeah, her perspective seems a bit more moral. I mean,
Speaker 1: she talks all the time about like children being killed,
Speaker 1: and like her Christian values make her be outraged about that.
Speaker 1: But then that seems a bit closer to the I
Speaker 1: guess progressive position than it is to like the we're
Speaker 1: wasting all this money on Israel and like the Jews
Speaker 1: are trying to steal like and control our government, and
Speaker 1: seems more like a humanitarian Christian If we take Candace
Speaker 1: Owans out of her word, which some may not unreasonably
Speaker 1: not want to.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't even know if she knows what her
Speaker 2: words are. She's she's a couple.
Speaker 1: She also thinks that the president, that the French president's
Speaker 1: wife is actually a man.
Speaker 3: So despite having pictures of her and her supposed brother
Speaker 3: that she replaced or vice versa. Anyway, Yeah, leftists are
Speaker 3: hostile to the idea of an ethno state, right. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and Nick Wentes is not. He just wants to be
Speaker 3: in charge of the or he wants an Ethno state here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he wants a white Ethno state probably, although he's
Speaker 1: a little bit of evasive about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's hard to know if that's what he wants,
Speaker 3: or if he just wants like white people to be winning, or.
Speaker 1: If he just wants to be like an edgelord like
Speaker 1: and kind of if he just wants to be sort
Speaker 1: of provocative.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a whole nother like can of worms that
Speaker 3: I find it very difficult to interpret zoomers with, like
Speaker 3: whether you can say, well, they believe something else, but
Speaker 3: they're saying this performatively as as something that contradicts what
Speaker 3: they believe. Yeah, exactly, Well he is this is a
Speaker 3: question and maybe it's a plan for future study or
Speaker 3: or something like that. But Nick invokes often Catholicism and
Speaker 3: the Catholic Church and he says, because I'm a Catholic,
Speaker 3: I love everybody, which sounds.
Speaker 1: Well. That was that was also interesting. Yeah, that was
Speaker 1: also kind of an.
Speaker 4: So you got to dehumanize people.
Speaker 1: There was an interesting thing going on there too, because
Speaker 1: that was I think related to the conversation that him
Speaker 1: and Tucker were having where Tucker was like, well, I
Speaker 1: don't hate a cool group of people. I just like
Speaker 1: judge people on an individual basis. And Tucker claims, that's
Speaker 1: what my Christianity commits me to, is to just judge
Speaker 1: people on their individual merits. And that was sort of
Speaker 1: interesting he was It felt like he was putting fwent
Speaker 1: Has on the spot because fwent Has also invokes Catholicism
Speaker 1: all the time, but does seem to want to judge
Speaker 1: a whole people based on them as a category.
Speaker 3: So this is, yeah, this is what I mean, is
Speaker 3: a question because another point about signifying change, they can't
Speaker 3: be contradictory. You can only contradict or they can only
Speaker 3: appear contradictory if you're observing them from the outside. But obviously,
Speaker 3: what what I think Christianity is, or what a what
Speaker 3: better yet, what a what a historian or an archaeologists
Speaker 3: believes Christianity to be is going to be very different
Speaker 3: from the place that it occupies in a right wing
Speaker 3: ideologues system.
Speaker 1: Of course, American American Christian right wingers have a long
Speaker 1: history of supporting things that seem quite anti Jesus, like well,
Speaker 1: I loved al frankens Old, the Gospel of supply side
Speaker 1: Jesus his his joke gospel to make fun of American
Speaker 1: Christian conservatives where there's like a part in it when
Speaker 1: when his disciples are following supply side Jesus around and
Speaker 1: he's like, He's like, Jesus, shouldn't you heal the lepers?
Speaker 1: And He's like, that would just make them lazy. He's like,
Speaker 1: leprosy is a is a is a problem of personal responsibility.
Speaker 1: If I was to heal the lepers, there'd be no
Speaker 1: incentive to avoid leprosy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, it's a moral failing. That's very medieval.
Speaker 3: Many many such examples. But if you're trying to map
Speaker 3: out the signifying chain here, is Catholicism like part of
Speaker 3: it centrally or is it kind of an exogenous like
Speaker 3: hmm thing that he just said. I can't figure that
Speaker 3: out because it doesn't make sense to me. And knowing
Speaker 3: what I know about Grouper's I can't imagine that these
Speaker 3: guys are in church on Sunday morning. And if they are, yeah,
Speaker 3: maybe I'm the one who's out of touch. But this
Speaker 3: doesn't seem like the crystological or papist. This is the
Speaker 3: other thing. Why do American right wing Catholics never mention
Speaker 3: anything that the pope says because the pope is not
Speaker 3: on board with their shit over here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's definitely not. And he's American too, And.
Speaker 3: I thought that was all the whole thing of their
Speaker 3: religion is what does the pope say anyway?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know how central the Catholicism, because Catholicism, with
Speaker 3: its many, many, many thousands of years advanced symbolism and
Speaker 3: its symbolic chain or signifying chain that doesn't seem to
Speaker 3: get much use from Fuentes as I see it. He
Speaker 3: just kind of declares, you know, I love everybody, but
Speaker 3: I love white people the most.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: Again, it's hard to tell in the environment, like if
Speaker 3: he's popular because people agree with him or because he's
Speaker 3: norm deviant enough. He's the first guy on the scene
Speaker 3: with a different signifying chain than the establishment authorized signifying
Speaker 3: chain that doesn't seem to be working for people.
Speaker 2: Exactly very much anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I guess the way that he appropriates these these images
Speaker 4: and symbols and signs and the and the derry to
Speaker 4: which they resonate with with an audience, and how his
Speaker 4: popularity is is yeah, the the official discourse on those
Speaker 4: things is insufficient. The fact that there's residence with a
Speaker 4: huge audience, and that they never mentioned what the Pope
Speaker 4: actually says, but they claim to do things in the
Speaker 4: name of Catholicism, which is obviously just This is the
Speaker 4: suppleness of signifiers and semiotics is they can be freely appropriated.
Speaker 4: There's no there's no commitment to any previous meaning that
Speaker 4: they have. You can simply resignify and if it catches on,
Speaker 4: you know, it shows, it shows something. I don't know
Speaker 4: what it is, because you don't.
Speaker 1: You know the.
Speaker 4: Again that the owl of Minerva always flies at night,
Speaker 4: you know, at dusk, you know, you know, looking back,
Speaker 4: you know, oh yeah, it was bound to go that way,
Speaker 4: But when you're on the brink of it, you don't.
Speaker 1: You don't know.
Speaker 3: Oh, start with Egel and with Hegel. So by my
Speaker 3: uninformed Hagel take is like, if you if you let
Speaker 3: the white boys into identity politics, then we'll have tried
Speaker 3: all the versions of identity politics. So what's left after that?
Speaker 3: Class politics? Because class is not an identity. Class is
Speaker 3: a fact of your relation to the means of production.
Speaker 3: So maybe this, maybe Nick is going to conclude the
Speaker 3: ideal dialectic in history, so we could finally recognize our
Speaker 3: position in the material historical dialectic.
Speaker 1: It's really hard to imagine what white identity politics would
Speaker 1: look like racism, Yeah, other than just racism, other than
Speaker 1: exactly exactly, because I was just trying to think. It's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you have to say that you're oppressed by I guess
Speaker 1: other races. So that's I don't know. I mean, obviously
Speaker 1: that's maybe like being overly reductive about what identity politics is.
Speaker 1: But it seems like it kind of is that right,
Speaker 1: It's like different races talking about how they're being oppressed
Speaker 1: in a unique way. And then and I guess like
Speaker 1: white people doing that does seem to me to only
Speaker 1: lead to racism, and yeah, then maybe that'll lead to
Speaker 1: class politics. Yeah, hopefully, I.
Speaker 2: Think run away.
Speaker 3: But Webdas is against our Women are the ones who
Speaker 3: are oppressing men because they oh yeah, they nag at
Speaker 3: them and they take positions of authority when God didn't
Speaker 3: give them one.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, he's he's extremely sexist. Actually that's something.
Speaker 2: He for sure is This is this is interesting.
Speaker 3: I wrote, I forgot my book over there, but I
Speaker 3: on the signifying chain. I was writing it while I
Speaker 3: was listening to him, like what words does he say
Speaker 3: and then connect them to other words, and one of
Speaker 3: them was he connects Jews to women because they're both nags.
Speaker 3: So his in his view, you have women, you have
Speaker 3: women and Jews both trying to tell real white men
Speaker 3: what they can and can't say, like, oh, you can't
Speaker 3: make jokes about Hitler, I think was the topic. But
Speaker 3: just like women tell men that they can't make sexist jokes,
Speaker 3: Jews tell white men that they can't make Holocaust jokes.
Speaker 2: Which of course you should be able to do.
Speaker 3: So both of them are nags in deciding what's appropriate.
Speaker 3: So we need to overthrow the Guino Semitic hierarchy.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's it's so strange that this populist appeal, this
Speaker 4: like us versus them thing, but with enormous numbers. It's like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 4: it's white versus like other races. Like again, huge numbers.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of grapers that aren't white. That's another
Speaker 3: thing that I find hard to understand. And Fuentes is
Speaker 3: like what a quarter Hispanic too, it's.
Speaker 1: Hard Mexican and also friends with Kanye West famously now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I had dinner with Trump and Kanye.
Speaker 2: I see that.
Speaker 4: I see that marked up.
Speaker 3: We could say, look at all the contradictions, but again,
Speaker 3: in a signifying chain, they're not logical contradictions.
Speaker 1: See see Friend of the Show j Reg's video. I
Speaker 1: think it was like the political right meta update, and
Speaker 1: he argues that there's such thing as a post racial fascism.
Speaker 2: Oh did you see Nick Fuent has responded to for that.
Speaker 3: No, I didn't, because j Ra j Ray correctly pointed
Speaker 3: out Friend of the Show that all these uh, all
Speaker 3: these fascists are no longer white, and that I think
Speaker 3: Nick Fuente.
Speaker 2: Is it's something like, yeah, that's just something that Jews
Speaker 2: tell you.
Speaker 4: As if to prove the point.
Speaker 2: That's so weird, that's so weird.
Speaker 3: That's good times good, going to end it on all right,
Speaker 3: Signifying chains pops up a lot in like structuralism, which
Speaker 3: I think we need structuralism. Everybody just dismissed because post structuralism,
Speaker 3: but you got to remember that post structuralists are still
Speaker 3: like eighty percent structuralist. We threw the we threw the
Speaker 3: baby out with the bathwater.
Speaker 4: Unfortunately, well that that is such an interesting story that
Speaker 4: the main structuralists got translated into English after the post structuralists,
Speaker 4: so we were getting translations of like Dari Da before
Speaker 4: we got translations of like grimass right. Oh who the
Speaker 4: fuck is grimas right? Yeah, exactly right, like the structuralists
Speaker 4: cut translated way later and given a lot less attention.
Speaker 4: By the time the Anglo world was reading structuralism at all,
Speaker 4: it was post structuralism and it was like, oh yeah,
Speaker 4: structuralism was dead on arrival. That that itself is an
Speaker 4: whole interesting story about how it hit the English speaking
Speaker 4: world in this weird order that killed structuralism before it
Speaker 4: even took off.
Speaker 3: Speaking of which we missed that, Uh what was it
Speaker 3: the I had? Continental philosophy is unserious thing.
Speaker 2: Maybe we have to read that next week.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'd like that.
Speaker 3: Another another one. They keep trying to kill us, but
Speaker 3: we were not. We're not dead, all right, we'll end
Speaker 3: it on that note. Thanks guys, thanks for listening.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we'll goon you later.
Speaker 3: I think you need to re listen to what that
Speaker 3: episode to find out what gooning is.
Speaker 4: Eric, Yes, it's I'm appropriating the term. I'm gooning out boys.
Speaker 2: I gotta go goon to my signifying chains.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna go goon in the kitchen with my roommates.
Speaker 3: Oh did you see my new vape? By the way,
Speaker 3: we're at the end, but my vape is now it's
Speaker 3: just a dowel. It's a piece of wood that I
Speaker 3: suck on.
Speaker 1: Oh literally, yeah, Oh, there's not actually anything in it.
Speaker 2: No, it's just a piece of wood.
Speaker 1: It's just too it's just to us your oral fixation.
Speaker 4: The substance itself.
Speaker 3: What am I displacing. It's a metonomy, it's a autonomy
Speaker 3: for a vape.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think I see a merchantilizing opportunity. Slap a
Speaker 4: pill on that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: They are selling like air air as instead of a
Speaker 3: way to quit vapes. They just sell flavored air.
Speaker 1: You should sell you should sell plastic pills.
Speaker 4: The pills trying the best method of quitting smoking.
Speaker 2: Just suck on a piece of wood. You'll be fine.
Speaker 4: Pills would Yeah,