Speaker 1: Meaning a light man like this man letting butterfly flapping
Speaker 1: his wing big down in the forest. Man, it gonna
Speaker 1: cause the tree fall, letting five thousand miles away.
Speaker 2: Man, than nobody see it.
Speaker 1: Nobody see. You don't need no man like you followed
Speaker 1: him this story and.
Speaker 2: You got backed. Flect that that's still win.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 2: Don't black and dag on the Panama man.
Speaker 1: Man, you don't matter man anyway. All right, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be one hundred percent honest with you, guys. I ran
Speaker 1: out of time. I've got a flight leaving at five
Speaker 1: thirty tomorrow morning. It's about nine thirty when I record this,
Speaker 1: I still haven't packed. So uh, you know what a
Speaker 1: short monologue, So uh give me money. Episodes early in
Speaker 1: ad Free Axios Remote Fitness and Coaching. Here's Kevin Deanna.
Speaker 1: Thanks guys. All right, Indiana, welcome to the Jay Burden Show.
Speaker 2: How you doing man, Great to be back? Great to
Speaker 2: be back.
Speaker 1: We're here to discuss something relatively sobering, the murder of
Speaker 1: a young man. Carmelo Anthony, obviously a name that has
Speaker 1: become quite infamous in recent months, was just convicted of
Speaker 1: murder sentenced to thirty five years and while there's been
Speaker 1: a lot of analysis over the forensic details of the case,
Speaker 1: I think there's some interesting trends we can observe in
Speaker 1: the coverage. So before we get into that, Kevin, I'm
Speaker 1: curious what were your initial thoughts when this incident occurred.
Speaker 1: It's been roughly a year now. Unfortunately this is all
Speaker 1: but a rare occurrence. Was it something that hit your timeline?
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think it hit mine in the same
Speaker 2: way as it hit most people, which was essentially the fundraiser.
Speaker 2: I think that's why most of us know about this.
Speaker 2: I mean, unfortunately, a black on white murder is not
Speaker 2: exactly rare in this country. You have seen something about
Speaker 2: it when it first happened, But the fact that he
Speaker 2: raised about six hundred thousand dollars from blacks who seem
Speaker 2: to adopt him as a kind of real champion like
Speaker 2: this was seen as as almost like political victory. And
Speaker 2: it's worth noting that it is precisely because of this
Speaker 2: that when Shiloh Hendrix got into her bit of trouble
Speaker 2: where she dropped a hard r on a Somali kid
Speaker 2: who stole her own child's food, this was why she
Speaker 2: was able to raise so much money. No Carmarlo Anthony,
Speaker 2: no Shiloh Hendrix. And this is the pattern that we're
Speaker 2: in now. And if I were inclined to be given
Speaker 2: to censorship, I would blame social media. It is actually
Speaker 2: social media. But of course I actually think this is
Speaker 2: a good thing. We are actually now in a kind
Speaker 2: of tit for tat situation where every single interracial not
Speaker 2: even crime, but conflict of this sort becomes a kind
Speaker 2: of competition, especially when it comes to these fundraisers. And
Speaker 2: it was especially interesting as this thing developed where you
Speaker 2: had Austin Metcow's father initially going with the line that
Speaker 2: this has nothing to do with race. I'm going to
Speaker 2: go pray with the murderer's family, going to go to
Speaker 2: the press conference. Shouldn't we able to be all unite,
Speaker 2: that this was a terrible thing that happened. And what's
Speaker 2: happened since he got swatted six times, he got insulted,
Speaker 2: he got chased out of the press conference, his kid
Speaker 2: has been smeared from beyond the grave as essentially a
Speaker 2: bully and a racist, and god knows what else. So
Speaker 2: this is where we're going, and it's just going to
Speaker 2: be like this forever now, until they basically try to
Speaker 2: censor social media on the grounds of maintaining racial peace,
Speaker 2: like Singapore style.
Speaker 1: It's interesting you bring that up. Obviously, this has been
Speaker 1: the week of ethnic knife crime, and just a few
Speaker 1: days ago there's a savage attack in Belfast and African
Speaker 1: and I believe a Sudanese migrant nearly decapitated a local
Speaker 1: man purportedly don't know if this is true, a man
Speaker 1: with special needs. And what's interesting is that the local
Speaker 1: police have repeatedly instructed people not to share the video
Speaker 1: on social media. It's not the direct censorship, of course,
Speaker 1: but when the police so telling you not to do something,
Speaker 1: we understand that is only one short step away from
Speaker 1: doing what the UK was this in Northern Ireland, I
Speaker 1: can't remember whatever n.
Speaker 2: It's Northern Ireland, so this is technically a Great Britain,
Speaker 2: technically kingdom.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I believe I've probably caused some minor up.
Speaker 2: The riots have actually just restarted just now, like as
Speaker 2: you were talking, as you made that little flub, like
Speaker 2: sixty seven people are dead and like the troubles have
Speaker 2: begun again and it's all your fault. But you know,
Speaker 2: what are you gonna go?
Speaker 1: When I start my car tomorrow, it will explode. Uh
Speaker 1: That's what I wish for every morning, But every morning
Speaker 1: the car just starts and I'm disappointed again. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: really need to get on the you really need to
Speaker 1: start antagonizing the Fenians and maybe someone.
Speaker 2: Will uh make your wish.
Speaker 1: But in all seriousness of course, one, uh, god speed
Speaker 1: to the guys over there, if I can say that.
Speaker 1: And two we see exactly that inclination. The issue is
Speaker 1: not the issue, it's your reaction to it. And I
Speaker 1: think bringing up Shiloh Hendrix in relation to this was
Speaker 1: very interesting because, I mean, you can look at the
Speaker 1: OJ Simpson trial any other of these kind of large
Speaker 1: racialized moments and see that Black America looks as it
Speaker 1: looks at itself as a nation within a nation, right,
Speaker 1: they view themselves as being on a team. I wasn't alive,
Speaker 1: but I've been told by reliable sources that during the
Speaker 1: nineties there was a symbol for this, the crown. You'd
Speaker 1: put a crown in your car to signal that you
Speaker 1: were one of the brothers, the idea being hopefully no
Speaker 1: one breaks in. Did it work? Probably not. I know
Speaker 1: the FBI statistics as well as you do, but you
Speaker 1: get the idea there's an ethnic solidarity there, and the
Speaker 1: Shiloh Hendrix case particularly interesting because it's one of the
Speaker 1: first times where white ethnic solidarity, at least in my life,
Speaker 1: hit the mainstream. One of the kind of secondary stories
Speaker 1: in the Shiloh Hendrix affair was all of the normal
Speaker 1: American public officials getting in trouble for donating to this case.
Speaker 1: Volunteer firemen, police officers, things like that. Look, I get it,
Speaker 1: you know, edgy right wing politics are more popular than
Speaker 1: they've ever been. But the amount of money she raised
Speaker 1: means that hit the mainstream, that got out of our
Speaker 1: little corner. Now it bears saying. I believe she is
Speaker 1: still going through court troubles. I think her trial is
Speaker 1: scheduled very soon. But point is, I think it feels
Speaker 1: as if this information has sort of escaped the CD
Speaker 1: quarters of the Internet. There's a growing realization that politics
Speaker 1: is a team sport, oftentimes along to be honest racial lines. So,
Speaker 1: if I can returning to this case, a couple of
Speaker 1: things stuck out to me, which is one we see
Speaker 1: information control right from the very beginning. The foot whether
Speaker 1: the security camera footage or the body cam footage has
Speaker 1: not been revealed to the public. We haven't seen it yet,
Speaker 1: which noticers tend to assume that means it looks bad,
Speaker 1: means it looks really bad for the defendant.
Speaker 2: Now you mention the.
Speaker 1: Princely sum, this kid's family raised interesting biographical detail. I
Speaker 1: think they had already collected a lot of money from
Speaker 1: a major legal settlement before, so it seems to be
Speaker 1: sort of the family business, if you will. But pretty
Speaker 1: quickly analysts started to point out that this kid was
Speaker 1: probably screwed just due to the fact that his parents
Speaker 1: did not seem particularly interested in helping him out here.
Speaker 1: Did you see the same coverage I did on that issue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's worth noting he ended up having to
Speaker 2: rely on a quarter pointed attorney, which may explain why
Speaker 2: the defense was so incompetent. I mean, he had his
Speaker 2: own witnesses turning on him during this trial. It was
Speaker 2: not going to be a particularly close verdict, which of
Speaker 2: course makes the reaction of various Black Court analysts on
Speaker 2: TV and Black House side the courtroom all the more extraordinary.
Speaker 2: This was not a marginal case. There was more sincere
Speaker 2: guilt that, like I possess over OJ Simpson than I
Speaker 2: did about this one, well.
Speaker 1: Right, because at least in OJ's case, regardless of if
Speaker 1: he did it or not, the prosecution messed up.
Speaker 2: They'd loved ton't do things exactly right. I mean you
Speaker 2: genuinely yeah, yeah, exactly the bullshit theory. But like here, no,
Speaker 2: and when your own witnesses are saying, yeah, he started it. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Before when I said something, that was because I screwed
Speaker 2: up and didn't see the surveillance footage correctly. What I'm
Speaker 2: referring to is one of the witnesses said that he
Speaker 2: was basically surrounded by a white mob. You can see
Speaker 2: why he might think that. What the witness failed to
Speaker 2: recognize is that he was referring to surveillance video where
Speaker 2: this was after the sabbing, when of course everybody runs
Speaker 2: over to see what had just happened. It's a pretty
Speaker 2: big change. And this just kind of kept happening over
Speaker 2: and over again, with the defense falling into traps that
Speaker 2: nobody had actually set for them. It was a catastrophe
Speaker 2: for the Defense the entire time. But of course, no blacks,
Speaker 2: and not even former congresswomen or outgoing Congresswoman Jasmine Crockets,
Speaker 2: seem to care.
Speaker 1: Sidebar. I will say, as an avid watcher of the
Speaker 1: kind of low rent, corrupt politicians, my stable of favorite
Speaker 1: politicians has been devastated by recent leaders. We lost Lorie Lightfoot,
Speaker 1: now we lost Jasmine Crockett. I might actually have to
Speaker 1: pay attention to politic legitimately if we don't elect more
Speaker 1: comedically corrupt black women into positions of power. But setting
Speaker 1: that aside, another interesting element in the coverage is a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago there was media coverage that said that
Speaker 1: there were no black jurors, that they had all been
Speaker 1: pulled out of the selection pool. I think that's interesting
Speaker 1: for a couple reasons. One, we have this idea of
Speaker 1: a jury of your peers, right who who represents you,
Speaker 1: who can judge your conduct? And we on the right
Speaker 1: have pointed out for quite a long time there's a
Speaker 1: heavy ethnic component to this that white juries are generally
Speaker 1: speaking pretty fair. They tend to treat people the same
Speaker 1: regardless of their racial background, and this is not true
Speaker 1: along other lines. For instance, black jurors tend to convict
Speaker 1: white defendants at a much higher rate, whereas they tend
Speaker 1: to let people off of their own race at a
Speaker 1: much higher rate.
Speaker 2: And Okay.
Speaker 1: That meme, if you will, was popularized in our circles.
Speaker 1: But at the point where national media is saying, oh,
Speaker 1: this guy's screwed. He can't depend on that, he doesn't
Speaker 1: have that going for him, it's sort of an interesting thing.
Speaker 1: It indicates that, however much people want to deny it,
Speaker 1: all of these truths you and I are telling, everyone
Speaker 1: already knows, they're just sort of ashamed to admit it. Right,
Speaker 1: All politics are identity politics. Many people are saying it.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Someone even created a show called it right some guy, Yeah,
Speaker 1: some daego, though I don't watch it on white performers,
Speaker 1: and I think that's an interesting element to this. You
Speaker 1: and I were speaking before we went live, and you
Speaker 1: had brought up the point that this may well be
Speaker 1: the avenue for appeal. He may argue I was convicted
Speaker 1: by a non representative jury by people who aren't like me.
Speaker 1: You had a specific example you brought up.
Speaker 2: Right in twenty twenty one, there was a man named
Speaker 2: Gilbert in Tennessee, a black man who was convicted, I believe,
Speaker 2: of aggravated assault, and he was actually granted a new
Speaker 2: trial by a Tennessee Court of appeals and the grounds
Speaker 2: for that was that it was an all white jury
Speaker 2: and that there were Confederate symbols as you might expect
Speaker 2: in a Tennessee courtroom, and so therefore he didn't get
Speaker 2: a fair trial. Now a little different in this case,
Speaker 2: because there were no blacks on the jury. However, we
Speaker 2: are told that there were minorities on the jury. There's
Speaker 2: no blacks. This I got from a Daily Caller article
Speaker 2: about jury selection. It's one of these things though, where
Speaker 2: you could see that being grounds. I mean, you certainly
Speaker 2: could imagine someone like certainly Kent DEJ. Brown Jackson being
Speaker 2: amenable to this argument that, oh, well, there's no blacks
Speaker 2: on the jury, how could he get a fair trial?
Speaker 2: And this is one of those things where we all
Speaker 2: know the score and we all have to lie to
Speaker 2: ourselves and everybody else when we have to do our jobs.
Speaker 2: If you've ever worked on a campaign, what is a campaign?
Speaker 2: The entire purpose of the campaign is to turn out
Speaker 2: the demographics that you know we're going to vote for you,
Speaker 2: and try to suppress the demographics that you know are
Speaker 2: not going to vote for you. Ninety nine percent of
Speaker 2: the time it's about race. And if you look at
Speaker 2: jury selection, you are not allowed to say I don't
Speaker 2: want blacks on the jury, obviously, but it's essentially all
Speaker 2: these workarounds to get the demographics that you want, and
Speaker 2: the whole point of being an attorney, the whole point
Speaker 2: of being a specialist in jury selection particularly, is to
Speaker 2: know how to get the demographic turnout that you want
Speaker 2: on a jury. I mean, what is a jury other
Speaker 2: than a small legislature. So this is one of these
Speaker 2: things where we talk about a jury of your peers.
Speaker 2: Why do we use the term fears that has a
Speaker 2: very specific meaning Back in England during the Middle Ages
Speaker 2: or during the time when the aristocracy really meant something
Speaker 2: you could appeal to essentially be judge only by members
Speaker 2: of your class. And so when we say a jury
Speaker 2: of your peers, if you are a white professional man,
Speaker 2: you're going to want to be judged by white professional men.
Speaker 2: And if you don't, now you're at the basically the
Speaker 2: whims of a group that has far more racial tribalism
Speaker 2: and far more collective power than your group does, because
Speaker 2: your group doesn't really exist. You're just dealing with a
Speaker 2: bunch of individuals.
Speaker 1: I think it's particularly interesting when we examine the defense
Speaker 1: the idea that this was a case of self defense.
Speaker 1: The argument you saw from the protesters surrounding the courthouse,
Speaker 1: which I realized are not exactly August political theorists. It's
Speaker 1: the idea that well, he said repeatedly, if you touch me,
Speaker 1: I'll kill you. Austin Metcalff touched him, he was killed.
Speaker 1: Therefore it's self defense. And we can laugh about that
Speaker 1: because it isn't particularly coherent. That's not what that means.
Speaker 1: But what we're seeing is a radically different cultural idea.
Speaker 1: Now some of it is just pure ethnic chauvinism, right
Speaker 1: that no matter what the defense would be, there would
Speaker 1: be people that would pairrot it because he's one of ours, right,
Speaker 1: simple team sports. But that's a major cultural breakdown. The
Speaker 1: idea of self defense, at least in an English common
Speaker 1: law sense, is a deeply cultural idea, ironically enough, not
Speaker 1: a write you have in England anymore. But there's a tradition,
Speaker 1: there's a general social understanding of what that means, what
Speaker 1: the barriers are. Well, different cultures have different assumptions, and
Speaker 1: when you take a law designed for one culture export
Speaker 1: it to another, as we learned in Afghanistan, as we've
Speaker 1: learned in every one of these foolish nation building projects.
Speaker 1: It falls apart. It's the same thing here as halfway
Speaker 1: across the world. A constitution, a set of laws, is
Speaker 1: an expression of a people, and when that people changes,
Speaker 1: it falls apart. It's exactly the same reason why the
Speaker 1: constitutional conservatives are wrong, or at least half wrong. They're
Speaker 1: not wrong that the constitution is a particularly pleasant set
Speaker 1: of laws to live under. That if we could wave
Speaker 1: a magic wand and turn our country back to seventeen
Speaker 1: eighty nine, it would be a lot better. Well, that's true,
Speaker 1: But the problem is that constitution reflected a culture. It
Speaker 1: reflected a people, and that people doesn't exist in the
Speaker 1: same way it did. Then you need both one and
Speaker 1: the other. Law absent cultural expression. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: a piece of paper. Look at Liberia. They have the
Speaker 1: same constitution we do and a remarkably different expression.
Speaker 2: We should look at Liberia. I feel like Liberia could
Speaker 2: hold the answer to a lot of these problems that
Speaker 2: we're talking about, all right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm willing to admit that importing child soldiers
Speaker 1: and turning them loose, yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Was thinking I was thinking more of exports than imports.
Speaker 2: But you know, if you want to.
Speaker 1: Some have had this idea before, some have expressed it.
Speaker 2: I admire Marcus Harvey for a reason.
Speaker 1: It's it's interesting as well because I joked earlier that
Speaker 1: this has been the week of melodated knife crime, and
Speaker 1: it is of course a joke, but it is true.
Speaker 1: And in both the case of Henry Novak who was
Speaker 1: killed by a Sikh, and also the Sudanese man who
Speaker 1: nearly sawed some random irishman's head off, the reaction has
Speaker 1: been very telling. We see this exact same tribalism building,
Speaker 1: where on one side the Sikh community is almost reflexively
Speaker 1: coming to the defense of the murder of Novak, hiding
Speaker 1: the weapon right obfuscating the situation from the police issuing
Speaker 1: a technical condemnation of the murder, but again only slightly.
Speaker 1: And the coverage from much of the media has been
Speaker 1: the old Norm MacDonald joke when he said, imagine if
Speaker 1: Isis were to detonate a nuke in downtown Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: imagine the bashlac to peaceful Muslims.
Speaker 2: And that was a joke.
Speaker 1: He was clever for saying it, but fifteen years on
Speaker 1: it sort of rings hollow. It's not funny anymore. There
Speaker 1: are people dead and the media seemingly incredibly ethnically hostile.
Speaker 1: Seemingly it's not, it's just obvious naked ethnic hatred for
Speaker 1: the native population. See what I'm getting at, Kevin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's worse than that in some ways, because
Speaker 2: what do you have. Look at the response, let's say England,
Speaker 2: just because it's the obvious example. In the immediate aftermath
Speaker 2: of what happened in Belfast, and that should be noted,
Speaker 2: people were talking about like riots and oh Belfastest and
Speaker 2: flames and everything else, and of course everybody has an
Speaker 2: interest in exaggerating this. It's actually fairly localized. I mean,
Speaker 2: you had some property instruction, but even by the standards
Speaker 2: of Northern Irish history, not much to write home about it.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't think anybody's going to care in
Speaker 2: a couple of weeks. But the immediate source of blame
Speaker 2: was not even so much the rioters but Elon Musk,
Speaker 2: because they said no Elon Musk showed this video, talked
Speaker 2: about it. Therefore, this is a problem here. Starmer was
Speaker 2: talking about this from the Florida Parliament. The Liberal Dems
Speaker 2: were talking about this, saying, I think their party leader
Speaker 2: was saying they need to do something about this. The
Speaker 2: Labor Party leader was also saying something about this. They
Speaker 2: are going to use this to try to push more censorship. Earlier,
Speaker 2: you mentioned that police officer from Northern Ireland. I encourage
Speaker 2: the audience to actually find that on YouTube. The comments
Speaker 2: are disabled, but you find that guy's speech. And what
Speaker 2: you'll find and probably be viscerally disgusted by, as I was,
Speaker 2: is this kind of therapeutic language from the police officer.
Speaker 2: Why shouldn't you show the video? Well, because it could
Speaker 2: cause trauma and risk to the victims. I think we're
Speaker 2: already past the point where risk and trauma has already
Speaker 2: been given to this particular victim who almost had his
Speaker 2: head sought off, and they always he falls back. You
Speaker 2: said it, I think six times during the course of
Speaker 2: the video, this phrase that you see everywhere, and you
Speaker 2: see it throughout the Western world, and it's very ominous
Speaker 2: and I want people to pay attention to it. Our communities.
Speaker 2: It's never my fellow citizens, it's never my kinsman, God knows,
Speaker 2: it's never even my fellow subjects. From a Northern Irish perspective,
Speaker 2: it's always our communities. We need to ensure the safety
Speaker 2: of our communities. Well, what does that mean. It's an
Speaker 2: implicit admission that there's not actually a people, and they're
Speaker 2: certainly not a people that we are all a part of.
Speaker 2: But we have different communities, We have different groups that
Speaker 2: all live cheek by jel and they don't particularly like
Speaker 2: each other. And the job of the government is to
Speaker 2: kind of take money from the productive and spread it
Speaker 2: around a little bit and hopefully they won't kill each other.
Speaker 2: We get something out of this because diversity is our strength.
Speaker 2: What that strength actually constitutes nobody is really sure. But
Speaker 2: the purpose of government is to essentially be the head
Speaker 2: arbitrator between these different factions. And part of that means
Speaker 2: controlling speech. Part of that means not letting people find
Speaker 2: out about what's really going on. And here's the problem.
Speaker 2: Woker Moore correct than the mainstream right. They're not wrong.
Speaker 2: They're not wrong that there would have been no reaction
Speaker 2: had we not gotten that video. They're not wrong in say,
Speaker 2: not releasing the Austin Metcalf murder video, that there would
Speaker 2: be a stronger reaction if that video was released. Should
Speaker 2: be noted that apparently some jurors were crying when that
Speaker 2: video was shown in CORP. It's so harrowing. The issue
Speaker 2: is that you actually can force a social consensus if
Speaker 2: you are able to control the low of information. This
Speaker 2: is why even people who are pretty old like me
Speaker 2: express frustration with the boomers, because the boomers are so
Speaker 2: wedded to this idea that what the TV tells me
Speaker 2: must be true, that there is this authority, that there
Speaker 2: are these institutions that we can trust. Millennials don't believe that.
Speaker 2: Certainly gen Z does not believe that Jen Alpha is
Speaker 2: definitely not going to believe that what's on the media
Speaker 2: and what's aislop and what's completely made up, all of
Speaker 2: that is just totally indistinguishable. Now, there are costs to
Speaker 2: living in a culture where there's no guide for what
Speaker 2: is true and what is not. Certainly, if we look
Speaker 2: at the state of online debate with just random conspiracies
Speaker 2: that we know not to be true and people saying
Speaker 2: obviously untrue things for clickbait, we understand the cost of it.
Speaker 2: But we have to weigh that against in this uncontrolled
Speaker 2: information environment, we can actually find out what's going on. Like,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of garbage you have to dig through,
Speaker 2: But if you dig hard enough, you can find stuff
Speaker 2: like this and you can actually see what's going on,
Speaker 2: and that does destabilize a system that is leading to
Speaker 2: our genocide. I mean, let us call it for what
Speaker 2: it is. It's not going to be pretty, and the
Speaker 2: information environment is just going to grow more chaotic in
Speaker 2: the days ahead. But what is the alternative? Because if
Speaker 2: we go back to the way that the mainstream media
Speaker 2: used to be, and clearly the kind of government media
Speaker 2: partnership that cure Starmar is trying to take the United
Speaker 2: Kingdom back to, there's really no way out because you
Speaker 2: could very easily imagine a scenario where this video never
Speaker 2: sees the light of day, and then where are we well?
Speaker 1: And to that point, it's interesting that you and I, Kevin,
Speaker 1: are in sort of an odd position because on one hand,
Speaker 1: we have this desire for tradition, this desire for a
Speaker 1: people with a myth that explains who we are, the
Speaker 1: story we tell ourselves about ourselves, that creates a culture.
Speaker 2: We want that.
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, we're also in this position
Speaker 1: of critiquing and tearing down a sort of horrible, like
Speaker 1: moribund civic myth, right, that narrative that shoved us into
Speaker 1: this horrible reality. We can debate exactly what that is,
Speaker 1: where it came from, but we're sort of in this
Speaker 1: position of both creating and destroying one at the same time.
Speaker 1: So on one hand, I think about this with the
Speaker 1: media ecosystem, that if you and I lived in a
Speaker 1: cohesive society, the internet would be the worst thing ever. Right,
Speaker 1: It's clearly it's deranging people. It neutralizes the ability to
Speaker 1: form a cultural cohesion. We even maybe that in our
Speaker 1: own circles it nuked. It nukes romantic relationships for one.
Speaker 1: I mean this, like I've always said, I mean, this
Speaker 1: was the last chopper out of non I mean, there's
Speaker 1: no friggin way when you look at the dating market
Speaker 1: now and and people look at gen z and everything else,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's very easy to joke about it
Speaker 1: and be like, oh, look at what's going on with this.
Speaker 1: It's like, okay, well, if the foundation of the country
Speaker 1: is the family, and nobody's ever going to be able
Speaker 1: to form a stable family ever, again, now what do
Speaker 1: we do? Oh one hundred percent. I mean it's a
Speaker 1: silly example, and there are a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: social conservatives that you love to try it out arguments
Speaker 1: against porn, but like, uh, look at how many scripts
Speaker 1: for rectile dysfunction medication they're writing for guys under thirty
Speaker 1: and like, okay, some of that's diet. I would argue
Speaker 1: that's another symptom of the cause we're talking about. But
Speaker 1: also being exposed to literally everything and anything from age
Speaker 1: eight to the point where you're jaded and sick of
Speaker 1: it all by about age twenty seven. That's not good
Speaker 1: for a society. But at the same time, right, this
Speaker 1: incredible ecosystem, this erosion of narrative has from a certain perspective,
Speaker 1: it's loosened to the rates, right at least enough one
Speaker 1: that you and I can support ourselves, at least for now,
Speaker 1: we haven't been thrown in a gulag or you know,
Speaker 1: forced to basically live in a compound in woods.
Speaker 2: But also speak for yourself.
Speaker 1: Yeah, fair, fair, But at the same time, you're right,
Speaker 1: that lets us cut through the narrative. And it seems
Speaker 1: that our enemies have realized that, at least in Europe,
Speaker 1: they've realized that that is a huge liability. James Burnham
Speaker 1: wrote The Managerial Revolution pre World War Two, talking about
Speaker 1: this new system where ownership and control were separated. Obviously
Speaker 1: in an economic sense, you know, the way that a
Speaker 1: company is run is not the same way it was
Speaker 1: run pre FDR. But also in a political sense, our
Speaker 1: leaders functionally are managers, and the relationship you're describing where
Speaker 1: our leaders function as the referees between sort of extremely
Speaker 1: combative units, sort of an atomized mass of different people
Speaker 1: with no real ties together. If Burnham had been writing now,
Speaker 1: he may well have the human resources revolution, right, the
Speaker 1: idea that basically we live in an hr state and
Speaker 1: the function of the government is well to make sure
Speaker 1: that you know, no one starts a fight in the breakroom. Effect,
Speaker 1: the state is an economic engine, right.
Speaker 2: I think Paul Gottfried, I don't mean interrupt, but just
Speaker 2: the term that comes find Paul Godfried, I think, calls
Speaker 2: it the managerial therapeutic state. That's essentially I mean. He
Speaker 2: also refers to it in his book Multiculturalism and the
Speaker 2: Politics of Guilt, which I encourage everybody to read because
Speaker 2: it gets to the core of why we're dealing with
Speaker 2: a lot of things we're dealing with. He called it
Speaker 2: towards a secular theocricy, and if you think of journalists,
Speaker 2: if you think of academics, if you think of hr
Speaker 2: in some ways, if you think of what is the
Speaker 2: clergy of today, who are the people who actually determine
Speaker 2: what is moral and what is not, who is allowed
Speaker 2: to have a hearing, and who is a heretic. It's
Speaker 2: basically those people and even the actual clergy are much
Speaker 2: more concerned with fitting in academia and journalism in terms
Speaker 2: of those narratives than what somebody in their own church
Speaker 2: tradition said half a millennium ago.
Speaker 1: Well, certainly, and I mean to that point, there's a
Speaker 1: reason I'm sort of mixing religious and political metaphor here.
Speaker 1: Dave Green, a thinker who's incredibly impactful on my thought,
Speaker 1: has long said one that Logar was completely correct. Not
Speaker 1: to go back into forty k autism, but the fact
Speaker 1: we talk about really for all one thing, but this
Speaker 1: is fundamentally a war of belief. We no longer share
Speaker 1: enough to argue within the same frame. So look at
Speaker 1: the protesters outside Carmelo Anthony's trial. They are arguing effectively
Speaker 1: that it's okay to kill someone if they don't look
Speaker 1: like you, which, okay, we can say beast mode based whatever,
Speaker 1: but in all seriousness that is a stark departure from
Speaker 1: the American Western tradition. We have not historically thought that
Speaker 1: at least an illegal context. Those are two completely separate frames.
Speaker 1: Jasmine Crockett said, of course, I don't think this was
Speaker 1: an offensive weapon. The blade was quote only three and
Speaker 1: a half inches long, arguing that somehow that justifies killing someone. Again,
Speaker 1: some of this is just pure reactive ethnic politics. Are
Speaker 1: you an ant from my hill or an ant from
Speaker 1: another one? On that level, there's not a lot of
Speaker 1: thought to it. But again we are seeing two different frames,
Speaker 1: completely different understandings of the world. And when we look at,
Speaker 1: as you've said, this sort of therapeutic mindset towards politics,
Speaker 1: the idea that there is no real connection between man
Speaker 1: and culture, we are simply interchangeable economic widgets. You can
Speaker 1: move a man from one country to another, and a
Speaker 1: man is a man is a man, so who cares
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. And clearly one that is an idea that
Speaker 1: you and I do not share any framing with. We
Speaker 1: can't reason or logic our way to some sort of
Speaker 1: synthesis between that position and ours. But also it's manifestly untrue, clearly.
Speaker 2: And they don't believe it. Either they don't believe it either.
Speaker 2: I mean, there are a number of points here. One
Speaker 2: is we're told two things at once all the time.
Speaker 2: I mean I hate using Orwellian right. I mean, every
Speaker 2: time somebody says that, you just want to rip your
Speaker 2: own head off because it's like, think of a better metaphor.
Speaker 2: But as Christopher Hitchins said when he visited North Korea,
Speaker 2: like your mind just automatically goes back to nineteen eighty
Speaker 2: four sometimes just because it's too perfect. Think of the
Speaker 2: concept of doublethink, because you simultaneously must believe, and you
Speaker 2: must believe this that wherever people go, they are essentially
Speaker 2: the same. And then if you have good laws and
Speaker 2: human rights, and essentially that's what it is to be
Speaker 2: in democracy. You have a bundle of rights, as one
Speaker 2: scholar put it, and you get to kind of carry
Speaker 2: them around wherever you go. And that's what it is
Speaker 2: to be a citizen. You have to believe that you
Speaker 2: can go anywhere and be productive. But at the same time,
Speaker 2: non whites are also racialized by these oppressive cultures, and
Speaker 2: therefore when it comes to the way the law treats them,
Speaker 2: they have to be treated as members of a group,
Speaker 2: not as individuals, and the law has to be very
Speaker 2: careful and how it deals with these individuals, and politicians
Speaker 2: need to liaison with community leaders and make sure that
Speaker 2: these different groups are able to get along. Of course,
Speaker 2: there is one great exception, which is where are the
Speaker 2: white community leaders. British police, for example, have this. This
Speaker 2: is now an institutional role where they have official liaisons.
Speaker 2: So when you had this unrest recently with these Muslim neighborhoods,
Speaker 2: they actually went in there and they would meet with
Speaker 2: the leaders of mosques and various community leaders who have
Speaker 2: a quasi paramilitary role now and basically say, look, this
Speaker 2: is what we're going to do. You need to make
Speaker 2: sure your guys don't do this. We will let you
Speaker 2: do this and everything else, and they essentially do a
Speaker 2: kind of peace settlement the way occupying American troops might
Speaker 2: do with like a village in Iraq. After negotiating with
Speaker 2: the elders, there's nobody from the white community who gets
Speaker 2: to work with the liaison. There is no white community leader.
Speaker 2: You're just kind of on your own. You're just kind
Speaker 2: of an individual. And the underlying assumption is that we
Speaker 2: either don't need this because there's the sort of liberal
Speaker 2: white supremacy that's still there and lurks in everybody's head
Speaker 2: or and maybe even at the same time, they don't
Speaker 2: deserve it because they're scum. They're the problem, and we
Speaker 2: need to actually suppress these people. Think of another thing.
Speaker 2: If you look at these riots in Belfast, it's an
Speaker 2: obvious point, but because we're sort of like the fish
Speaker 2: swimming in water, we don't recognize it. It's worth bringing up.
Speaker 2: Isn't it incredible that nobody ever says, look at the
Speaker 2: root causes of this, look at the grievances. Shouldn't these
Speaker 2: people be getting more money for programs? Isn't it an
Speaker 2: economic thing? Isn't this the cry of the unheard. Nonviolence
Speaker 2: was called white supremacy if you were called during the
Speaker 2: twenty twenty elections. Now they're saying it needs to absolutely
Speaker 2: be crushed. Now they're not saying, well, the oppressed can
Speaker 2: use whatever tactics they need to for their own liberation.
Speaker 2: And it is actually classist and supremacist to say that
Speaker 2: nonviolence is bad or you know, given that what we're
Speaker 2: talking about are basically natives using violence to drive out
Speaker 2: foreigners that they feel are occupying them. One is reminded
Speaker 2: of the tweet, what did you think decolonization would look like?
Speaker 2: Vibes Papers essays.
Speaker 1: To further that point, Kevin, it really drives home how
Speaker 1: much of politics is basically fake. And when I say that,
Speaker 1: I don't mean that laws don't create realities. Obviously you
Speaker 1: and I living in Virginia are painfully aware of that fact.
Speaker 1: Politics will make its presence known. But this whole liberal
Speaker 1: conception of neutral institutions, of a marketplace of ideas, where
Speaker 1: people debate, they have their minds changed, they strive for
Speaker 1: some sort of consistent worldview. I mean, to be about it, it's horshit.
Speaker 2: Nobody believes it. Sam Francis was saying twenty years ago.
Speaker 2: Nobody believes in liberalism as a coherent ideology. No one
Speaker 2: has taken it seriously in decades. It's not a thing.
Speaker 2: And yet, just like we talk about a stuck culture
Speaker 2: in terms of pop culture, it's almost like how you
Speaker 2: have a stuck political philosopher when we just keep recycling
Speaker 2: these cliches over and over and over again, and nobody
Speaker 2: believes in any of it, even the sorts of things
Speaker 2: that distinguished liberalism, things like freedom of speech as a
Speaker 2: foundational right, that is just gone. It's already gone in Britain,
Speaker 2: it's already gone in continental Europe, and of course if
Speaker 2: the Democrats get back in, it'll be gone in America too.
Speaker 2: But here's the thing, and this is the interesting thing
Speaker 2: about it. They'll get rid of it, and then in
Speaker 2: the next breath they'll say, but we have freedom of speech,
Speaker 2: and they'll seem to actually believe it. And you remember
Speaker 2: when JD.
Speaker 1: Vance went over to Britain and basically said, hey, stop
Speaker 1: locking people up, give them freedom of speech, and Kers
Speaker 1: Starmer said, we have freedom of speech with no and
Speaker 1: there's seemingly no awareness in his head.
Speaker 2: And I think that's because, and I hate to be
Speaker 2: simplistic and crude about it, but we're essentially, again to
Speaker 2: cite Paul Gottfried, we're in kind of the anti fascist
Speaker 2: state post nineteen forty five. And so the only thing
Speaker 2: that I think most people think of when they think
Speaker 2: of free speech is the freedom to basically offend Christian
Speaker 2: morality and be degenerated or something to show them that
Speaker 2: what for, or to oppose authoritarianism. But authoritarianism has to
Speaker 2: literally mean a militaristic guy in a uniform ordering people
Speaker 2: to march around. If it's like a fat woman ordering
Speaker 2: people like when their businesses can open, or what they're
Speaker 2: allowed to say in the workplace, that's not authoritarianism, that's
Speaker 2: actually freedom, that's actually defending our democracy. And so we
Speaker 2: just keep hearing these same cliches over and over again,
Speaker 2: even though the substance has been gone for at this
Speaker 2: point what a century, and there seems to be no
Speaker 2: indication that people are going to change it up anytime soon.
Speaker 2: It's just this endless stuck pop culture, governmental culture, legal
Speaker 2: culture going forward forever and regardless, so the facts on
Speaker 2: the ground, nobody is going to change their mind, because
Speaker 2: when it comes to the people who rule us, they
Speaker 2: garner their status from the credentials given by these institutions.
Speaker 2: And so if you attack those institutions and you say
Speaker 2: what you are teaching us is wrong, you're essentially stripping
Speaker 2: these people of their identity. You're stripping them of their
Speaker 2: sense of status and of worth, and they'd rather die
Speaker 2: than give that up, or at least rather we die.
Speaker 1: We were speaking earlier about the myths that bind these
Speaker 1: sort of civilizational narratives, and again referenced Paul Gottfried, for now,
Speaker 1: what must be the tenth time in this podcast. But
Speaker 1: anti fascism is functionally the religion of our empire correct,
Speaker 1: much more so than Christianity. I mean, just look at
Speaker 1: the fact that, yeah, that Bonhoeffer has, in a weird
Speaker 1: way become a Christian saint, at least for Protestants. There's
Speaker 1: a movie coming out about him. It may have already
Speaker 1: come out. It may surprise you, Kevin, I was not
Speaker 1: really waiting in line to see a Bonheffer movie whatever
Speaker 1: in the past.
Speaker 2: Wasn't he not even really a Christian in the sense
Speaker 2: of orthodox belief.
Speaker 1: He didn't believe in the divinity of Christ, which, look,
Speaker 1: I realize that used to be pretty important.
Speaker 2: I mean, but I mean that again, neither did Martin
Speaker 2: Luther King, so exactly.
Speaker 1: You know, again, I'm no theologian, but I figured that
Speaker 1: was kind of like a top light issue. But you
Speaker 1: know what, it turns out he hated Hitler, so I
Speaker 1: guess he's good enough. But in the same way that
Speaker 1: the Internet has acted as a cultural acid that has
Speaker 1: both burned us and freed us, I wonder if we
Speaker 1: will see a similar dynamic with the death of the
Speaker 1: baby boomers. There's a lot of anticipation for that moment
Speaker 1: among younger people, motivated by economic concerns, frustrations around the
Speaker 1: dynamic you spoke about with believing everything on the TV.
Speaker 1: But fundamentally boomers are the only people who really believe
Speaker 1: in America anymore, on both the right and the left.
Speaker 1: And you see this even in the No King's protests,
Speaker 1: which tend to be an older crowd. And they're gay,
Speaker 1: and they're cringe and they're embarrassing, but they're identifiably post
Speaker 1: war American. They feel like what a seventy year old
Speaker 1: would do if they were trying to live out their
Speaker 1: twenties again fighting the man, And of course it's goofy,
Speaker 1: but look at their children, both literal and ideological, the
Speaker 1: sort of pro Palestine rallies, the Larraza riots from Los Angeles. Okay,
Speaker 1: we can argue our sympathies with those positions relative to
Speaker 1: the No Kings movement, that's not what we're talking about,
Speaker 1: but they're identifiably different. We're seeing a breakdown in that
Speaker 1: civic religion, and just like the Internet, there's an advantage
Speaker 1: with that, certainly that many of the sort of cultural
Speaker 1: chains we've been bound by are weakening.
Speaker 2: But also.
Speaker 1: Just like our culture got eaten in a sort of
Speaker 1: pop culture sense with the Internet and other things that
Speaker 1: dating culture got eaten, well, America is kind of getting ethan.
Speaker 1: We don't have a myth to take the place of
Speaker 1: the post war consensus. No one's really settled on what
Speaker 1: comes next.
Speaker 2: Right right, and we The horrifying thing is at some
Speaker 2: point we're probably going to miss the boomers because they're
Speaker 2: able to create something functional. I mean this in an
Speaker 2: economic way. In some senses, some people have pointed out
Speaker 2: there are all these like vast systems of infrastructure that
Speaker 2: nobody knows how they work anymore, and the only thing
Speaker 2: keeping it going is like some sixty eight year old
Speaker 2: guy living in Des Moines who hasn't like left his
Speaker 2: garage in ten years. I mean, like there are lots
Speaker 2: of things that they're still keeping it together because they
Speaker 2: have the old school knowledge that never got passed on.
Speaker 2: Partially their fault, but they're the ones that have it,
Speaker 2: but also because they're the ones who still believe in
Speaker 2: responsibility to the system as such, even the liberals believe
Speaker 2: in that. To some sense, what I think is happening
Speaker 2: is we are going to see the end of the
Speaker 2: left and the birth of many rights. I mean, one
Speaker 2: of the things that I always say is that everybody's
Speaker 2: a blood and soil nationalist for the people they actually like. Now,
Speaker 2: to some extent, you could say that's a bit of
Speaker 2: an exaggeration. When you look at people in mostly white
Speaker 2: states in this country, the way liberals behave in these areas,
Speaker 2: you could say, Okay, well, they're blood soil nationalists when
Speaker 2: it comes to their neighborhoods or something like that. Fine, maybe,
Speaker 2: but it's not quite the same thing, right, But once
Speaker 2: you have a majority non white America, which we continue
Speaker 2: to move forward despite some of the demographic changes that
Speaker 2: the Trump administration has been able to do. When you
Speaker 2: see these anti ice protests in Los Angeles, when you
Speaker 2: see the way the Palestine flag is used in England,
Speaker 2: it's not even really about Palestine so much as an
Speaker 2: expression of territorial ownership over parts of England. When you
Speaker 2: see the way that the Mexican president talks about having
Speaker 2: sovereignty over the forty million Mexicans who live in this country,
Speaker 2: and how they are the ones who made America great
Speaker 2: and we apparently did not. None of these are really
Speaker 2: leftist movements. They're all essentially ultra right movements for their
Speaker 2: own kind, and white people are sort of left out
Speaker 2: of this because we basically have this cultural baked in
Speaker 2: assumption that well, no matter what happens, we're all basically
Speaker 2: going to stay in charge in some way. Like, Yeah,
Speaker 2: there are these colorful little neighborhoods, but they're sort of
Speaker 2: like Chinatown. You can go to them once in a while.
Speaker 2: Maybe they affect politics on the margins, but it's not
Speaker 2: fundamentally their country. We're still going to determine how it works.
Speaker 2: That is just not true anymore. That is what really
Speaker 2: goes with the boomers. And as a result, America is
Speaker 2: going to become far less high trust than even it
Speaker 2: is now, far more dysfunctional, far poor, far less competent,
Speaker 2: and you're going to see a lot more of these
Speaker 2: cases that you see cropping up in government all the time,
Speaker 2: where you see people just giving away military or industrial
Speaker 2: secrets to foreign powers, or just not doing their job,
Speaker 2: or engaging in this kind of brazen corruption that just
Speaker 2: wouldn't have occurred to even a liberal boomer forty years ago,
Speaker 2: just because that's not the kind of thing that you do.
Speaker 2: And in that chaos, there's going to be a lot
Speaker 2: of opportunity, but make no mistake, we are still the
Speaker 2: population that has the lowest ethnocentrism, and therefore, unless we
Speaker 2: develop it very quickly, we're just going to get eaten.
Speaker 1: An example that springs to mind is sort of a
Speaker 1: I guess a rough analog to how we started the conversation.
Speaker 1: Do you remember what the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse
Speaker 1: case looked like?
Speaker 2: Exactly? That's exactly what I'm talking about. I mean, I
Speaker 2: was talking to somebody about who had been through some
Speaker 2: various legal adventures, and we were talking kind of a
Speaker 2: vanguard activist and everything else, but he had been through it,
Speaker 2: and we were talking about like, well, you know, given
Speaker 2: like your stance and everything else, what do you think
Speaker 2: about elections and this sort of thing? And he said, look,
Speaker 2: you know, it's one thing to say what politics doesn't
Speaker 2: matter and this party's compromise and there's nothing we can
Speaker 2: do and everything else. But here's the thing. If you're
Speaker 2: dragged before a judge, you better hope to god it
Speaker 2: is a white guy appointed by the Republicans, because then
Speaker 2: the law still might matter the other side if they
Speaker 2: screw up some filing, if they get evidence the wrong way.
Speaker 2: If they do something wrong, he might just let you
Speaker 2: go like the law still means something as such, you
Speaker 2: get brought before one of these Star Wars judges, you
Speaker 2: might as well not even show up. You'd probably be
Speaker 2: better off just fleeing the country. There is quite literally
Speaker 2: no hope. There is nothing you can do because in
Speaker 2: the rest of the world, that is how government works,
Speaker 2: that's how the law works. It's essentially just a weapon
Speaker 2: that you use on behalf of your group. And that
Speaker 2: is the world that we are moving toward. And if
Speaker 2: you look at a lot of the judges that Joe
Speaker 2: Biden appointed, I mean a staggering number of them were
Speaker 2: black females. I mean, I'll put it to you directly,
Speaker 2: regardless of what you did or didn't do, if you
Speaker 2: got dragged before a black female judge, you already know
Speaker 2: you're cooked. It doesn't matter what the facts are.
Speaker 1: Well, I think we've all seen this happen in the
Speaker 1: workplace where you see your boss and you already know
Speaker 1: how it's going to go, how you're going to be treated,
Speaker 1: what the power dynamic is going to be like. And okay,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're a particularly liberal person, you may
Speaker 1: sort of whip yourself over that conclusion, but you're not wrong. Again,
Speaker 1: we see the same dynamic. Everyone understands this. It's just well,
Speaker 1: do you want to say it or not? I mean again,
Speaker 1: when we're talking about this question of does politics matter,
Speaker 1: I think that, especially on the Internet, it's easy to
Speaker 1: adopt a certain tactical nihilism. I don't care. It won't
Speaker 1: affect me, but to your point, well, it does affect you.
Speaker 1: Your life will change, particularly in a time of crisis.
Speaker 1: The medical system is a great example, right, Sometimes you
Speaker 1: don't get to choose when you interact with it. It
Speaker 1: would enforce itself upon you. If you get in a
Speaker 1: car accident, you end up at the er, even if
Speaker 1: you're unconscious. And a DEI doctor from Howard University, well,
Speaker 1: guess what, you might not make it.
Speaker 2: Similarly in Indian Judge that happened the or Indian Judge
Speaker 2: Indian doctor that happened the other day where they they
Speaker 2: hooked up the heart backwards, then they put it in
Speaker 2: the wrong way and almost killed this person. And of
Speaker 2: course then a real doctor came in there. I was like, oh,
Speaker 2: you can't do that and put it back. And it's
Speaker 2: just this is what just happened. I mean, god knows,
Speaker 2: you see only these cases that come out of the
Speaker 2: NHS and everything like that. I would say even more
Speaker 2: than the medical system, I mean, the legal system is
Speaker 2: really where you encounterpower. Because you can say I'm not
Speaker 2: going to get involved in politics, I'm not going to
Speaker 2: run for office, I'm not going to touch any of this.
Speaker 2: And yeah, you can avoid a lot of trouble if
Speaker 2: you say, like, look, I don't want to work with
Speaker 2: a compromise party because it's just going to bring me trouble.
Speaker 2: You're fundamentally right, like it is going to bring you trouble.
Speaker 2: Your life will be less stressful if you don't do
Speaker 2: that kind of thing. But that doesn't mean you're going
Speaker 2: to remain isolated from the legal system. There are all
Speaker 2: sorts of reasons you might get dragged into that, and
Speaker 2: once you're in front of those judges, it's going to
Speaker 2: matter quite a bit whether it was a Republican or
Speaker 2: a Democrat who appointed that person.
Speaker 1: Well, to go back to the boomers, right, one of
Speaker 1: the great lines from the protest movement was you don't
Speaker 1: care about the war, but the war cares about you.
Speaker 1: Politics doesn't particularly take your consent into the picture, it
Speaker 1: will happen. Power will make itself known. Obviously on the
Speaker 1: most basic level, with the sort of an arco tyranny
Speaker 1: that Sam Francis talked about that say what you will. Okay,
Speaker 1: you know you and I are both physically fit men
Speaker 1: were not exactly prime targets. But there's a material difference
Speaker 1: between living in a fairly rural part of our.
Speaker 2: State and.
Speaker 1: More enriched areas. Right, that can make itself known. I
Speaker 1: mean again, Metcalf was.
Speaker 2: In pretty good shape, and what good did it do?
Speaker 1: The exactly right And I understand the instinct right, the
Speaker 1: drive for purity, the drive to have something uncompromised. I
Speaker 1: sympathize with that. But on a very basic level, Kevin,
Speaker 1: when we look at the demographic trends, the consequences for
Speaker 1: losing even on a small local level, I don't know
Speaker 1: if we have the luxury of purity anymore, at least
Speaker 1: in a political sense. I don't think we have the
Speaker 1: luxury of setting it out waiting for the perfect opportunity
Speaker 1: to arise. Because even simply if we adopt this sort
Speaker 1: of Ben Garrison kind of boomer Tard Maga mindset, if
Speaker 1: you were only that far down the rabbit hole. You
Speaker 1: understand that when things go blue, it sticks, they don't
Speaker 1: like to lose. They will engineer the procedure so that
Speaker 1: they don't really have to be a real political party.
Speaker 1: I mean, look at what's happened in La Yes, exactly right,
Speaker 1: exactly that you will not be afforded a position, at
Speaker 1: least easily through traditional means. I'll put that caveat on
Speaker 1: it to win that ground back, and that is uncomfortable
Speaker 1: in certain instances. Right there are positions where I really
Speaker 1: don't like xyz figure a failed governor in win some
Speaker 1: Earl sears a particularly relevant example. But nonetheless, politics has
Speaker 1: become existential, and one of the frustrations I think that
Speaker 1: many people feel with the boomers is that they grew up,
Speaker 1: they formed their political understanding in an era where politics
Speaker 1: was not existential. It didn't seem like it mattered that
Speaker 1: much because we still had a cohesive culture.
Speaker 2: We have an ethnic.
Speaker 1: Majority, we had a common understanding of how people are
Speaker 1: to act, and certainly there were radically different expressions of that.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to pretend that the past was a
Speaker 1: sort of you know, a sort of halcyon age of
Speaker 1: political good feelings, not at all.
Speaker 2: But to say, as.
Speaker 1: Politics becomes more and more nakedly identitarian, well we start
Speaker 1: to enter the Schmidian state of politics, where those two frames,
Speaker 1: those two mutually contradictory understandings of the world, they will
Speaker 1: not and cannot coexist, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you look at Vietnam, the one thing
Speaker 2: I I would push back a little bit was when
Speaker 2: they said, like, well, it didn't have the same high stakes.
Speaker 2: I mean, you did have Vietnam, but it should be
Speaker 2: noted that, of course, who are the people who are
Speaker 2: most identified with the resistance of that war was precisely
Speaker 2: the people who were going to college and therefore didn't
Speaker 2: have to worry about the draft as much. And also
Speaker 2: a lot of that went away once they got rid
Speaker 2: of the draft entirely. If you look at what was
Speaker 2: going on in the seventies, late sixties, early seventies, we're
Speaker 2: all familiar with the book Days of Rage. I mean,
Speaker 2: you had a level of political violence that is far
Speaker 2: beyond anything we can even imagine in the America of today.
Speaker 2: But I don't think that's because America is less divided today.
Speaker 2: I think America is more divided. It's just that we
Speaker 2: almost don't have the courage to actually fight in the
Speaker 2: way people did even a couple generations ago. It's all
Speaker 2: kind of a game of illusions. It's a game of media.
Speaker 2: We wield power indirectly. Nobody's planting bombs instead, people are
Speaker 2: getting unqualified people appointed to be district attorney and then
Speaker 2: locking them up in jail for thirty years under the
Speaker 2: guise of process. And in a way, it's far more
Speaker 2: difficult to sort of find your way through this because
Speaker 2: what's really remarkable, and this is the primary characteristic of
Speaker 2: power in our age, is that the system, the institutions,
Speaker 2: the way things are done has not changed very much
Speaker 2: on the surface. American constitution still applies. Even if you
Speaker 2: look at an antaricho tyranny nightmare like the United Kingdom,
Speaker 2: the king is quite literally still on his throne. The
Speaker 2: British constitution in some way still functions. All the old
Speaker 2: forms are there, albeit with a couple changes, like the
Speaker 2: way they got rid of that traditional peers in the
Speaker 2: House of Lords and that kind of thing. But you
Speaker 2: could be forgiven if you are a World War two
Speaker 2: vet living out your last years and saying, yeah, Britain
Speaker 2: is still here. There will always be in England, and
Speaker 2: yet we understand it's a complete one to eighty in
Speaker 2: substance for what existed before. I think what really distinguishes,
Speaker 2: I would say millennials and younger from the Boomers is
Speaker 2: that the Boomers really confuse the form with the thing itself.
Speaker 2: If you are still appealing to the Constitution, if the
Speaker 2: the formal rituals of process are still being obeyed, then
Speaker 2: fundamentally nothing has really changed, regardless of what race the
Speaker 2: judge is, regardless of whether the district attorney is a
Speaker 2: communist to says that we should get rid of the
Speaker 2: police and that kind of thing. The process will still work,
Speaker 2: You can still expect justice. Everything is going to be fine.
Speaker 2: I think younger people understand that's just not true at all,
Speaker 2: that power moves through institutions, and that the fundamental error
Speaker 2: of our founders, although one I think they can be
Speaker 2: forgiven for because how could they have anticipated this sort
Speaker 2: of thing. Is this idea that institutions can actually regulate
Speaker 2: the flow of power and the competition for power, when
Speaker 2: that is not true. Its networks, it's tribes, it's ethnic groups.
Speaker 2: That is the way power is exercised, and that goes
Speaker 2: through institutions and even the barrier between what constitutes the
Speaker 2: government and the private sector these days, that's almost irrelevant.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, to sort of paraphrase Nietzsche, God is
Speaker 1: dead and we have killed the old civic religion. No
Speaker 1: one believes in it anymore. That old sort of cohesive
Speaker 1: fabric is well and truly gone. In both your in
Speaker 1: my life, the temple was empty, there were no miracles,
Speaker 1: the God was dead. It was sort of this rote
Speaker 1: sort of set of civic religious rights that everyone went through.
Speaker 1: And once that's done, well, that's well and truly done.
Speaker 1: It's over. There's no way to bring the magic back
Speaker 1: to repair this. And I think that that's what makes
Speaker 1: Trump's kind of trying to do right. I mean, Trump
Speaker 1: in the end is a boomer oh one hundred percent,
Speaker 1: and the deep irony about that and maybe sort of
Speaker 1: a of sort of just Diddy in parallel here, not
Speaker 1: looking to defend anyone, but in striving to return, he
Speaker 1: has made it impossible to return. He's well and truly
Speaker 1: killed it. Like look, right, I'm not looking to drag
Speaker 1: this into a discussion about Israel and anti Semitism, but
Speaker 1: in that state religion of anti fascism, What is the
Speaker 1: central of what is the crucifixion exactly? And that has
Speaker 1: really in the Trump presidency been well and truly desacralized.
Speaker 1: It is fully, at least for people under a certain age,
Speaker 1: out of the realm of the sacred, down to the
Speaker 1: point where you have And this is a stupid example,
Speaker 1: but UFC champion Sean Strickland, a professional athlete, joking about this, right,
Speaker 1: editing the people he's beefing with, giving them curls in
Speaker 1: a prominent nose. And Okay, that's stupid, that doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: But even for an edgy figure, he's not getting demolished
Speaker 1: for this. He's not getting dragged through the mud. The
Speaker 1: general consensus is it's a bit edgy, but it's funny.
Speaker 1: It entered the realm of comedy. I mean, Dad died
Speaker 1: in the Holly and all that kind of thing. I mean,
Speaker 1: you see these sorts of jokes and songs and everything
Speaker 1: else everywhere. I mean, the question becomes, though, I mean
Speaker 1: that not to get into the whole debate, tired debate
Speaker 1: over Third worldism and whatever else. The question is, is
Speaker 1: the Jewish or Israeli exemption to anti fascism being revoked
Speaker 1: because as I'm sure we don't need to go over
Speaker 1: I mean, the left wing case against Israel is not that,
Speaker 1: oh they're chosen and special, and then you know there's
Speaker 1: this complicated thing around it. It's that, no, it's actually
Speaker 1: just another white settler colonial state and they're behaving like
Speaker 1: fascist and this is bad that they have. Essentially net
Speaker 1: and Yahoo is a Nazi, So we still have the
Speaker 1: same religion. It's just you don't get an exception to that.
Speaker 2: Now in some ways, that religion is still it's still there,
Speaker 2: it's still being reinforced in some ways. It reminds me
Speaker 2: of the way Russia tries to justify its attack on Ukraine.
Speaker 2: What is the problem with Ukraine. It's governed by a
Speaker 2: Nazi regime. Western Europe is governed by a Nazi regime.
Speaker 2: This is the Great Patriotic War all over again. We
Speaker 2: are still trapped in the long twentieth century. We are
Speaker 2: still refighting World War Two over and over again. But
Speaker 2: you can see the other side of it. I mean,
Speaker 2: even President Trump talks about this, talks in this way,
Speaker 2: talks about like this World War II style narrative. Nobody
Speaker 2: is going to think about World War Two with anything
Speaker 2: other than a war that happened in the past, and
Speaker 2: insofar as people take a giant lesson from it now,
Speaker 2: even something like anti fascism, it means something subtly different
Speaker 2: than what it meant to the people who fought it
Speaker 2: and the generations that came afterward. I think it's now
Speaker 2: going to be fought basically on racial lines. And now,
Speaker 2: of course you would expect me to say that, right,
Speaker 2: it's kind of my job. But this is also how
Speaker 2: I think it's playing out in terms of where the
Speaker 2: coalitions are. We don't really talk about totalitarianism anymore. If
Speaker 2: you notice, nobody really talks about, like, well, the problem
Speaker 2: with Nazism was really, in some way it's the same
Speaker 2: as communism. This is a very boomer thing to say,
Speaker 2: because it was restricting human freedom and government was overwhelming
Speaker 2: and restricted what people could think and what they could say. Now,
Speaker 2: pretty much every liberal says that the government should actually
Speaker 2: tell you what you should think and what you should say,
Speaker 2: and that is actually a criminal offense if you think
Speaker 2: or say the wrong things. So we don't really talk
Speaker 2: about totalitarianism anymore because to some extent that's just not
Speaker 2: a debate. I mean, with the kind of technology that
Speaker 2: we have now. To some extent, just about everybody except
Speaker 2: a kind of primitivist, considers themselves essentially a tatalitarian. If
Speaker 2: you think about the way anti fascism is set up now,
Speaker 2: it has less to do with well, we're opposing militarism,
Speaker 2: because even military action is something that's practically mandatory to
Speaker 2: pit for some people, certainly for some liberals. I mean,
Speaker 2: look how many Ukraine flags you see everywhere on these
Speaker 2: liberals on social media. But it has more to do
Speaker 2: with what we're opposing white supremacy. We're opposing white institutions,
Speaker 2: We're opposing ultimately the existence of white nations as such.
Speaker 2: And so even something like Churchill or de Gaul, these
Speaker 2: are fascist figures. They are morally indistinguishable from Hitler in
Speaker 2: some ways. In fact, they may even be worse because
Speaker 2: of the Look at what Churchill did to the Indians.
Speaker 2: Look at where de Gaul's you know, Free French Empire
Speaker 2: was based. It was operating out of Africa, it was
Speaker 2: dependent on on colonialism. Look at the Belgian Congo, look
Speaker 2: at all of these horrible things. In fact, I think
Speaker 2: it was joy Reid who said something along the lines
Speaker 2: of well, the Holocaust was just a bunch of white
Speaker 2: people killing a bunch of other white people. Now you
Speaker 2: can snicker at that, but I think for the new
Speaker 2: American majority, that is how they think about it, and
Speaker 2: that is all they think about it. But that doesn't
Speaker 2: mean that the old civic religion is essentially going to
Speaker 2: go away. It's almost like a heretical version of it
Speaker 2: is being developed, and then that's going to become the
Speaker 2: new faith.
Speaker 1: Well, I realized I've started about six different sectarian conflicts
Speaker 1: in this podcast alone, but you've.
Speaker 2: Already kicked off like the Third Irish War, so we
Speaker 2: might as well start one in the Middle least too.
Speaker 1: But functionally, we're witnessing the birth of Protestant anti fascism.
Speaker 1: It's identifiably the same in a broad context. It's not Hinduism,
Speaker 1: but it's a stark departure. We see new figures. I
Speaker 1: think it's important to mention you and I were joking
Speaker 1: earlier about MLK. MLKA has moved out of the pantheon.
Speaker 1: No one, yeah, functionally other than American conservatives care about
Speaker 1: him anymore, and why And they don't even care about
Speaker 1: the real moka. I mean, they care about the MLK
Speaker 1: that was sold to me when I was coming up
Speaker 1: in the conservative movement. They care about Reagan's Yeah, He's yeah,
Speaker 1: Reagan's MLK.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right. He was a patriotic American. He just
Speaker 2: wanted to fulfill the vision of the Founding Fathers. I mean,
Speaker 2: weirdly enough, this is one of the things that suggests
Speaker 2: that we're going to into a different era. If you
Speaker 2: talk to some anti fond for some reason, you're not
Speaker 2: in a fistfight or something. You'll both agree on what
Speaker 2: the Founding Fathers actually believed. Like, you're both going to
Speaker 2: agree that they were racist. You just have different opinions
Speaker 2: about what that might mean. But a boomer conservative and
Speaker 2: maybe even a boomer liberal, they're not going to understand
Speaker 2: what you're getting out with that. I mean, you're going
Speaker 2: to see that with the celebrations such as it is
Speaker 2: that's coming up for the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary
Speaker 2: and some of the rhetoric that is being tossed around,
Speaker 2: nobody buys any of it except the boomers. I think.
Speaker 1: Another just to put a coda on this, the same
Speaker 1: sort of set of cultural taboos around World War Two
Speaker 1: that are going away are also going away. With regards
Speaker 1: to white ethnic chauvinism. We're in the early nation stages
Speaker 1: of this. It's not done yet, certainly not.
Speaker 2: Weirdly enough, it's much easier. Weirdly enough, it's easier to
Speaker 2: be antisemitic than it is to be pro white. Have
Speaker 2: you noticed this. You can be on you can be
Speaker 2: on YouTube and it will be fine. You're still gonna
Speaker 2: get censored. If you're like, Israel's bad because it's getting
Speaker 2: in the way of white majority states, that'll.
Speaker 1: Get you kicked off. But if you're just like Israel's
Speaker 1: bad like that, that's kind of fine. You can get
Speaker 1: away with that, no problem. Well, you're entirely correct, But
Speaker 1: in my mind, the primary thing you and I are
Speaker 1: interested in is trend lines. Where are things going? Because
Speaker 1: look like if we stayed in this eternal present forever,
Speaker 1: we'd be screwed. But just as we look towards national
Speaker 1: birth rates right, the changing demography and say, well in
Speaker 1: twenty years, where does that leave us? In my mind?
Speaker 1: Shiloh Hendrix. The reaction to the Carmelo Anthony verdict, where look,
Speaker 1: I mean, we've seen even more bad behavior. A random
Speaker 1: old white guy was beat up outside the courthouse allegedly
Speaker 1: for being on the jury. It may surprise you that
Speaker 1: was not exactly a rigorous evaluation. It was just an
Speaker 1: old white guy that got punched. But you were seeing
Speaker 1: more and more that as white people become a minority,
Speaker 1: they are starting to view themselves as a minority. There
Speaker 1: are pros and cons to that. Look, I would love
Speaker 1: to live under the demography of nineteen twenty two. We
Speaker 1: don't have that advantage, right, and so even in a
Speaker 1: situation that's very, very grim, there's at least a spot
Speaker 1: of hope to it. I mean, it's not great, but
Speaker 1: it's better than at least I would have expected.
Speaker 2: Arguably necessary. I mean, even during the twenty sixteen campaign,
Speaker 2: there was an interesting trend that was developing. Do you
Speaker 2: remember when it was basically down to Trump v. Cruz
Speaker 2: during the Republican Primer, And what they found was that
Speaker 2: in the more diverse areas, Trump won and in the
Speaker 2: less diverse areas, the wider areas cruise one. This makes
Speaker 2: sense because Trump, especially the way he was interpreted in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen, was basically a white identity figure. He was
Speaker 2: going to take a hard line on immigration. This was
Speaker 2: smash mouth politics. This was ethnic politics, this was identitarian politics.
Speaker 2: And there are more studies that back this up. When
Speaker 2: whites are told that they are a minority or becoming
Speaker 2: a minority, their political views subtly change. It's not like
Speaker 2: a total reversal, but it's enough that it's measurable, sort
Speaker 2: of the way you know, you've seen the study where
Speaker 2: if like a moderate Democrat has given testosterone, they become
Speaker 2: more conservative. It's not like an instant in oh, one
Speaker 2: eighty and whatever, no, but it's it's something, it's significant,
Speaker 2: it starts them down a certain road. This is what
Speaker 2: is happening to white people now. The problem is that
Speaker 2: this is also I do not think the next great
Speaker 2: wave is going to be pro white politics. I think
Speaker 2: the next great wave is going to be what a
Speaker 2: lot of conservative ink types called gay race communism, where
Speaker 2: essentially it's this sort of vague anti white socialism, but
Speaker 2: weirdly enough, a lot of white people are going to
Speaker 2: buy into it. This is what I think is happening
Speaker 2: in Maine. This is what I think is happening in
Speaker 2: a lot of these congressional races, because yeah, white people
Speaker 2: are so beaten down. Young white people, especially people who
Speaker 2: went to the universities and think they deserve a job
Speaker 2: as a kind of elite, as a kind of manager.
Speaker 2: But they can't get these kinds of things. And if
Speaker 2: you are offered nothing but slop, if you are not
Speaker 2: even slop, if you're offered nothing at all, you are
Speaker 2: going to choose socialism because at least that offers you something.
Speaker 2: You're still going to come out behind compared to everybody else,
Speaker 2: but it's more than what you have now, and plus
Speaker 2: you get the resentful, spiteful pleasure of seeing your betters humbled.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a there's a line I think I've
Speaker 2: quoted this dude before in Malcolm X, which I think
Speaker 2: is one of the great racial nationalist movies of all time,
Speaker 2: where Elijah Muhammad is talking to Malcolm X, and he says, look,
Speaker 2: he pours ink into a glass and a glass of water,
Speaker 2: and he says, look, if you offer this to the
Speaker 2: people and nothing else, like, they'll drink it if they're thirsty.
Speaker 2: This is basically what this kind of anti white socialism
Speaker 2: is offering to struggling young white people right now. Their
Speaker 2: patriotism has already shattered, They already don't believe in the
Speaker 2: oldness of American nationalism. A lot of them aren't quite
Speaker 2: on board yet with what we might call pro white identitarianism.
Speaker 2: Why not get on board with this thing and try
Speaker 2: to be a part of the winning team. I think
Speaker 2: that's the next big political trend that we're going to
Speaker 2: be facing, and it's triumph for at least the beginning
Speaker 2: of its triumph may be at hand in the midterm elections.
Speaker 2: What happens between them and twenty twenty eight is a
Speaker 2: separate question.
Speaker 1: Well, Kevin, this has been a great conversation. I really
Speaker 1: enjoyed it. We've mentioned, of course, your show Identity Politics,
Speaker 1: which I know is on YouTube and Rumble. Do I
Speaker 1: have that correct?
Speaker 2: Correct? The livestreams are seven pm on Rumble seven pm Eastern.
Speaker 2: We're going to be rolling them out on Mondays at
Speaker 2: the same time, probably in a couple weeks or so.
Speaker 2: I just got a lot of trouble I got to
Speaker 2: take care of in the short term, and then we
Speaker 2: do it a Tuesday and Wednesday during a recorded thing.
Speaker 2: If you go to Cofi Identity Politics, we do bonus
Speaker 2: episode that you can sign up for, and of course
Speaker 2: everything is available at amran dot com. It is fundamentally
Speaker 2: a Project of American Renaissance. Well, of course, I think
Speaker 2: y'all should head over there. Recently did an episode with
Speaker 2: Greg Bob Bavino. That's one of your people's names. I
Speaker 2: don't know if I mispronounced that. Yeah, we'll say in America.
Speaker 2: You know, like these the Romans, we are they now
Speaker 2: you're looking at them.
Speaker 1: I mean, that was a great episode. I'm not quite
Speaker 1: done with it. Recommend that as a starting place again, Kevin.
Speaker 1: It was a ton of fun. Everyone at home, keep
Speaker 1: your head up. I can't last forever. Good Night.