Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the Peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe your substack or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star and
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan Yonashow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on candinal philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough. So thank you. The Pekanyonashow dot com. Everything's there.
I want to welcome everyone back to the Peking Yona Show,
returning after a little bit of a hiatus. Is Cameron
McGregor Are you doing Cameron.
Speaker 2: Very very good, very good, A little cold in the
dark days of winter, but very happy back on your show.
How are you, Pete doing good?
Speaker 1: Doing good? Yeah, you are. You are traveling and you
are far away and you've been able to see some
things overseas that we may want to jump into. But
first I wanted to start talking about, you know, what's
happening in the country, what's happening in the United States.
And it seems to me like since Charlie Kirk got shot.
We haven't talked since Charlie Kirk got shot, and but
ever since then, it was an opportunity for if the right,
if the quote unquote right was going to do anything
in this country, it was their opportunity to do it.
It was a It would have been something that they
could use that they could be like this happened because
of this, This is what needs to happen because of that,
And they've comed they never took advantage of it. They've
lost a plot. And you know, with some of the
things that Trump has said in the last week, it
seems like, you know, we're very, very very far off
of the quote unquote Megatrain, right right.
Speaker 2: Well, Look, I think that there are two very distinct
ways to look at at the United States right now.
The first is what's happening inside the edifice of power,
and I regard what's happening inside as panic. I think
there's a lot of confusion disorientation, which I'll elaborate on
in just a moment. And I think you see that
beginning to manifest a bit in Trump's interviews, which I mean,
he's typically inarticulate, and he tends to vacillate about a
lot of things. But the best way I've heard it
described is he's a tired fighter shadow boxing in the dark,
and I think I think that's a pretty good characterization
where Trump is right now. He's in battle domestically, he's
not really getting his way overseas, doesn't seem to have
a clear strategy. But inside the corridors of power, even
though Trump is sort of a lame duck in many ways,
the financial elites, you know, the Silicon Valley elites and
so forth, they've all sort of had their way with him.
But at the same time, I think things are really
falling apart, the wars overseas continue, Russia's making gains as
we speak. You've probably familiar with that. This this summit
was g I'm told did not go well in South Korea.
I think the Chinese have the upper hand economically. They
appear to have a more sound political strategy in or
national strategy than we do. I think, you know, the
wars overseas, the forever wars that Trump was elected to stop,
seem ever expanding. So in addition to Ukraine and the
proxy war that we almost became a full fledged war
against Iron. Now we've got Venezuela and we've got sort
of combat at Bellicoast language with Color, Columbia and Nigeria.
I mean, it's just kind of spiral out of control.
So while the elites seem to have gotten their way,
as I think it is your view, the control mechanisms
seem a bit frazzled, and that includes how they dealt
with Charlie Kirk. And remember, my view is sort of
the inversion of what a lot of folks think, which
is that you have these clever super bond villains that
are orchestrating power from behind the scenes, when in fact,
I think you're dealing with a lot of kleptocrats, bureaucrats,
Ponzi schemers that really don't understand what they're doing, They
don't understand the nature of the economy, so forth and
so on. So I perceive a sense of real concern,
a sense that they're losing control over various events. So
that's behind the edifice of power outside of it. I
don't like these terms right or left because that implies
there's some kind of a discourse that's happening inside the
political system. There isn't right, and Trump is of that.
In fact, the premise of the Trump administration was always
that you could get revolutionary change without having a revolution,
that you could get transformational executive action without the collateral
damage that usually comes with that. And I think what's
happened is that it's been demonstrated very clearly that that's
not the case. That in fact, Trump, if anything, has
invalidated he's delegitimized the electoral process even more. And that's
a very good thing, because, as I've said, the rights
quote unquote probably died a long time ago. What we've
been entertaining is a fiction, a theater, some kind of
an entertainment in which we show up every two years
or four years and we vote, but we end up
getting the same results and things just get worse and worse. Well,
now it seems as though things are escalating, they're sliding
out of control. But the death of Charlie Kirk, the
racial animus that's festering on the street, the ability of
the government to get control of major cities, whether it's
Chicago or Los Angeles or smaller cities, is like Portland
that seems to be transforming the right into something more revolutionary.
And I like to bifurcate where we are between globalism
and its various incantations and sovereignty, because sovereignty is a
word that means super, means above. And I think what's
happening again, not to use the right, but in the
sort of ethnos the nationalists that are gaining traction, whether
you want to talk about people like Tucker Carlson or
Nick Fuentes or Canadastungs, they're all sort of dancing around
this sort of thing. But what's beginning to kick into
gear is that the legacy structure, the constitutional order is
over and that we need a new legitimating force and
that's what is the project that we're embarked upon. But
to get the Donald Trump and MAGA have to fully implode.
They have not fully imploded yet. There's still plenty of people,
I'm sure you know them, Pete, who put a lot
of stock in Donald Trump, who maintain that he's fighting
the good fight. And I think that that battle was
concluded a long time ago. And so what you're seeing
is just the engine finally starting to die, not just
in a functional sense with Donald Trump and his government
his inability to affect change, but also in the minds
of people across the country who are increasingly living very
difficult lives. Right They're living paycheck to paycheck, they're getting
squeezed by inflation. Maybe they live in a demographically transformed area,
which is a nice way of saying there are no
white people where they live. They feel unsafe, there's a
specter of criminality and violence against them, and they definitely
think the country is on a worst track today than
it was when Donald Trump was elected back in November,
and then he assumed office in January, which was a time,
as you know, when there was a temporary break. There
was a temporary sense of optimism that's gone.
Speaker 1: Would you say a microcosm of that would be a
heritage basically coming out and defending Tucker and then seeing
the pushback, so it almost seemed like Kevin Roberts was
trying to save something, like he was trying to say, no,
you know, we have to we have to stand together,
the right quote unquote whatever that is, has to stand together.
And then all of a sudden he just got attacked
and attacked and attacked. And what you what you found
out is is that there is no there, there is
no cohesiveness.
Speaker 2: It's all gone.
Speaker 1: Everything is revolutionary now people are with you know uh.
And you talked about there's for there to be a
left and right, there have to be conversations, yes, And
then you take a look. You take a look at
someone like Tucker, who I consider Tucker to be an elite,
somebody who speaks to elites. His audience is not my,
his audience is different than my audience. And Tucker is
talking to people like Anna Kasparian, who is obviously on
the other side. So it almost seems like there's this
You have Tucker, who is an elite, talking to people
and having conversations about what comes next. And then you
have someone like Nick who's running around with revolutionary, fiery
language and splitting apart the old thing, and I'm and
I'm I'm here for it.
Speaker 2: Yes. Well, look, you know, I do a show with
Dave Riley, as you know, the backlash, subtle plug, and
I have to pat myself on the back because I'm
told I'm not good at that. But in any case,
you know, Dave, Dave Riley among many like him, they're politicos,
and so the prism through which they see everything is
electoral politics. You know, who's in the Senate, who is
the president, who runs the RNC, who runs the DNC,
this sort of thing. And what is increasingly happening, as
you alluded to, is that the two party system is broken,
it's invalidated, it is another institution. Both of these are
institutions that have basically conjoined, as we know. But like
legacy media, like the banking system, like marriage. You know,
for a lot of men under forty, these are institutions
that are failing period. They are broken. And so there
is a recognition of that on the fringe, and I
think that recognition is growing, it's spreading, it's metastasizing. And
it's not localized to the United States either. It's pervasive
across Europe that no matter what we do from an
electoral standpoint, no matter what party we fashion, we get
the same result. And in fact, things get work worse
and worse and worse. And so that fever. And that's
the way to think about it. It's not logical, it's emotional,
and it's not even reactionary. Right now, it's emotionally swinging
from pole to pole. There's a snapback that's happening. And
that's how revolutionary energy works. And that's part of the
problem for politicos like Dave Riley and others, is that
they're trying to rationalize this thing that's fundamentally irrational, right
that and you see this with data points, and that's
a crude way of saying it. But let's say these
human stories, whether it's a Ukrainian refugee that's murdered by
some black guy, right, or some kind of a terrorist
attack or some racially motivated event that has been happening
for a long time, right. I mean, I remember this
book White Girl Bleed a Lot. I don't know if
you remember that, which was written a decade ago. This
is not new, but guess what now, when it happens
all of a sudden, there's explosive energy, there's a fever,
and that fever is not just online anymore. It used
to be online, but now it's beginning to merge into
real energy on the street level because it's reached critical mass.
And so people that aren't political, people that don't really care,
you know, who's elected or vote for a particular party,
they're now activated because they feel unsafe, because they feel
as if something is about to happen that's going to
be very violent, unpredictable and dangerous. And then at the
same time, you have a lot of people who are
desperate to maintain the fiction of the old order, and
they're trying through patchwork and otherwise, as you said, to say, no, no, no,
we've got to stay together. We've got to maintain our
relationships with the Zionists. We cannot be too harsh with
illegal immigration or the race question. In fact, we shouldn't
delve into that at all. And that sort of moderate legacy, republicanism, conservatism,
that's dying. It's moribund, it lacks energy, it's completely enervated,
and so people are abandoning it, especially younger people. However,
the key in all of this remains the financial system.
Because the financial system, at least the stock market, has
held up, and that means that the baby boomers, who
are still one of the largest generations in the country,
they're maintaining control of the institutions, including the Republican Party,
including the two party system, including institutions like Fox News,
and so even though things are really broken at the foundation,
they're still collecting dividend checks, and they're still paying keen
attention to Donald Trump, and they still hang on his
every word. They shouldn't, and I think younger generations don't
listen to them at all. I certainly don't. I'll read
his speeches every now and again. But the reality is
it's a marketing ploy. It's a reality TV show that
bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, which is why the
President took a lot of flat recently when he was
interviewed by Laura Ingram, and he said, we're living in
one of the greatest economies in the history of the country.
That is self evidently false. And you could get away
with that when the economy was relatively robust and strong,
well now that is simply not the case. And so
people are beginning to say, okay, well you said a
lot of things, you promise the world you're not delivering.
And oh, by the way, the Republican Party, the legacy institutions,
the baby boomers that support you, they don't have answers either.
So what's happening is this legacy system is imploding. It's
not breaking, it's collapsing in and of it. And what's
left over is this revolutionary fervor. The problem is that
the revolutionary fever, the emotionalism that's come, has not yet
organized itself. It's beginning to there's a specter of that there.
But as I said, legacy politicos, people like Dave Riley,
they will routinely say, well, you can't build a party,
or you can't build a third party, or you can't
challenge the Republicans. You know, we've got to take over
the legacy institutions. And as I said before Pete, that
is a fool's errand that's not the way this is
going to go. We're going to have to create something new,
something super, something meta, something that we haven't seen before.
And I believe that that starts with young men that
are mass mobilizing in a sense online, and I think
there's evidence that it's happening on the street level as well.
Certainly there is in Europe, and I think the United
States is lacking behind. But I think we're on the
same track.
Speaker 1: What are you think of the strategy of while we're
doing that, especially when the when you have an economy
that could possibly implode, our guys getting jobs in the
government to not only survive, but also to run interference
for us while we're While we're doing that, well.
Speaker 2: Look at a personal level, we all have to survive,
and in fact, that may be the most important strategy
because there's no question that the people that reign today,
whether you call them neocons or zionists, or you call
them vulture capitalists, you know, tech pros, whatever, they all
seem to have one thing in common. They're very self destructive.
They're very self destructive. And that's a point that I
don't think a lot of people realize. In fact, I
know the elites do not. Ray Dalio, for example, put
out a tweet I don't know if you saw it,
basically saying that there are two countries and one country
is categorically failing. It's illiterate, it's unskilled, it's poor, it
lives paycheck to paycheck, it has bad credit. And then
there's a tiny other America. But that America is carrying
the rest of us. And specifically he said two states,
and by two states, he meant Wall Street and he
meant Silicon Valley in California, And I would argue that
he's got it reversed that actually speaking, Yeah, the majority
of the country is in big trouble. We know that
that social cohesion is breaking down for reasons that Dali
owned company aren't going to talk about. They're not going
to talk about racial demographic displacement, They're not going to
talk about the founding ethnos, they're not going to talk
about the illegitimacy of government. But they are quite right
to talk about the economic damage. But they don't seem
to understand is that Wall Street and Silicon Valley are
the poisonous vessels responsible for that right. They are responsible
for misallocating capital for the grift machine that's d industryalize,
the economy that has offshore manufacturing, that's replacing American jobs
with foreigners and bringing large numbers of people into the
United States. That is a direct assault on our national
interests without any regard whatsoever for the collateral damage, and
no doubt that. And I don't believe for a second
that the fortune five hundred CEOs in the nineteen eighties
any more than the tech bros that run Silicon Valley
today are unaware of the collateral damage that they've done.
They just don't think that they can be challenged. They
don't think that their reign, that their dominance over government
can be overtaken. But in fact, as I said, they
are self destructive. To your question, what do we do
within this model, Well, the first thing to do is
not to blow yourself up. So if you have a job,
if you're working for the government or what have you,
you don't want to get too far ahead of the
destruction or you will blow yourself up. You call it
ten to yourself. And a lot of this PETE is
very frustrating for white Americans in particular because we are
men of action. We tend to want to solve problems,
and I understand that, but the fact of the matter
is you have to let the process unfold. And to
be frank with you, reframing what's happening in a positive
light is the best thing that you can do. And
I'll give you a couple of examples of this. Mom.
Donnie winning in New York City is a massive victory
for US. Massive victory. Number One, it is a direct
rejection of Zionist power in New York City. And I've
been going to New York City for a long time.
The notion that somebody like him could be elected there
was fanciful ten years ago. And yet I'm given to
understand that twenty, maybe thirty percent of the Jewish population
in New York City supported his candidacy, ironically enough, because
he's a communist or a socialist, and a lot of
the Jewish population historically and today they are, and so
that interest superseded their tribal interest. It seems to some
degree that's a victory alone in and of itself, so
challenging the Jewish Zionists control of New York City, which
I would argue is still the most important city of
the United States, that's a tremendous victory. Second, it is
unambiguous evidence that the electoral process is broken, that we
are now overtaken demographically, and that we're going to have
to reevaluate how we're going to fix this country. It
is in some sense what Obama represented to the Tea
Party in two thousand and eight, a lot of people
if you go back to two thousand and eight, because
what people do not remember is that a majority of
the white population voted against Obama twice and he won anyway,
because demographically we were in a new era. We were
in a new time, and that was a very difficult
pill to swallow for a lot of people, and there
wasn't a at the time. You probably remember that we
were in a post racial America. That Obama had a
viscerated the Republican Party, and what happened was the complete
inversion of that. In twenty sixteen you got Donald Trump.
But within a year of Obama being elected, you got
the Tea Party. And the Tea Party was sort of
the precursor to MAGA, but it denied being so, and
that's sort of why it fizzled. But you got this
massive reaction. Mom. Donnie's election is going to be a
catalyst for that sort of thing as well. And then thirdly,
he's going to run New York City, which is already bankrupt.
It's already egregiously mismanaged. It's already i would say, systemically corrupt.
He's going to run it right into the ground. And
that's the best thing that could happen for New York City.
New York City needs a massive crisis to force a
lot of these issues to the surface so that we
can deal with them. So again, the ideas survive if
you're in the government would have you don't self immolate,
don't blow yourself up, but prepare because this self destruction
is spreading. But that will ultimately condition the white population
to wake up and that Pete. I think that's the
biggest takeaway of all of this is that whether Trump
is able to somehow reconcile things, and I don't think
he is. I think his administration has already done. I
think MAGA as a movement led by Donald Trump is dead.
That doesn't mean that the underlying energy is going to die.
If anything, it's going to strengthen that energy, it's going
to mobilize it.
Speaker 1: Even well, yeah, I think that one of the problems
you have with a lot of people who are still
trying to you know, the heritages of the world, even
people who are still paying attention to elections is they
don't understand the demographics. I was doing your research. In
nineteen seventy three, eighty three percent of the country was
white and eleven percent the country was black, So that
means you had about five or six percent from other places.
Now it's almost thirty percent of people from other places
who you know, who have no right to be here.
I mean, I'm sorry, I'm not going to I'm not
going to say black people have no right to be here.
They fucking were brought here, you know it. So the
it seems like people who are still holding on to
this whole election thing really don't. Yeah, sure you can
where I am, where it's mostly white, you're going to
get You're going to get the elections you want. Someone
like Mom Damie is not going to even run. They're
not going to run somebody like that. But in the
power in the power centers where you know, where people
want to go, where people say, oh, you can't abandon
the cities, they're the power centers. But they're it's not white.
It's it's been the demographics. So what are you going
to do unless you're willing to, you know, move En
Moss there and you know, basically change the culture. And
most people can't afford that. Then you're going to have
to do You're going to have to do something else.
And that's something else is outside of the electoral system
that you and you also talk about mobilizing you know,
white America a fifty eight percent. Say it's fifty eight percent,
and some people say it's less. I mean, how yeah,
how much you know, I'm a vanguardist. I don't know.
If you have a million people, it's it's it's almost
impossible to it's impossible to organize a million people. But
you can organize. You can organize two hundred people, you
can organize three hundred people. So is that what you're
talking about. You're talking about people being mobilized to become
leaders and to become organizers. And you know, I'm not
scared of the term community organizer just because it's tied
to Obama. But I mean, that's basically it looks like
that's what we have to become.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so let me let me let me supplement or
reinforce a point that you made a moment ago about
the extent of the demographic change. I do not believe
white Americans are majority of the country anymore. I don't
do I have a direct proof of that. I don't
per se anecdotally. I've been all over the country, and
it's very alarming because in most jurisdictions that I've been,
I don't see a whole lot of white folks. I
really don't. Now. A very specific data point that does
suggest what we're talking about is even worse is that
if you go back to nineteen seventy that the top
ten most populous cities in the country, so we're talking
cities of a million people are more. All the big boys,
whether it's Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, New York, et cetera,
et cetera. They were all majority white, all of them,
and today they're all minority white, all of them. So
if that is not sufficiently alarming to you, then walk outside,
you take a trip, and open your eyes, because that
demographic transformation has occurred. And this is why framing our
issues at the border as an immigration problem. We had
an immigration problem twenty years ago. Now we have an
existential crisis of national identity, which is why people are
talking about civil war openly, which is a term I
don't use much because I really don't think that that
that template is what we're going to see for reasons
that I'll get into in just a moment. But to
your question about what exactly is this thing that I'm
talking about that I'm forecasting, what is it going to
look like? Well, one thing I do not think it's
going to look like is Caesarism. It's not going to
be one man who shows up from the heavens and
declares himself George Washington reborn. It's not going to look
like that. Maybe it never did look like that. You know,
I'm a student of history, and we tend to mythologize
the past. We tend to think that the past, I
know you are too. We tend to think that the
past sort of conforms to a Great Men theory of history.
To some extent, it does, to some extent it does not.
Occasionally you get Napoleonic figures. Occasionally you get figures like
Franco figures that come from the military, typically, which is
the essence of Caesarism. We don't have a system like that.
So I think what you're going to see some kind
of reorganization of communities that already exists. And I've talked
about this before. You have this thing called the manisphere.
You have this thing called the bitcoin community, you have
this thing called alternative media. Nick Fointees has his Worper movement.
And how did these things emerge? How were they scaffolded? Yeah,
some of it was a cult to personality, but I
would argue that that's not really what's happening. What's happening
is you're getting network effects that are scaling, largely because
of technology. And we haven't seen things like this before, except,
I would say, in revolutionary France. And in fact, I
just finished a book that was talking about this very issue.
It's called Revolutionary Temper, and the author basically argues that
the social media of its day in the lead up
to the revolution were these cafes. And you know, I
always assumed, Pete, that what was happening in the cafes
were these sort of revolutionary like figures that would sit
around and have philosophical discourse. But actually speaking, it goes
much deeper than that. They had their own news media,
There was a rumor mill, there were intelligence operations of
sorts that were all operating through these cafes in Paris
and across the country. The revolution struck all of a sudden,
these cafes which never intended to chop off the king's
head and declare a revolution. They were revolutionary thinkers, but
nobody assumed that such a thing was going to happen.
All of a sudden, they became the bridgeway to something new.
That's exactly what we're seeing in these online communities. That's
why they've been censored. That's why they're so threatening, because
they are revolutionary. And what they're doing is they're building
the foundation, the infrastructure, if you will, to then mobilize
in reality. And I would argue that that is exactly
what you're going to see happen. It will also not
strictly speaking, be a political movement. This is the other
thing is that we're in some kind of a spiritual crisis.
We know that, and I think there is a religious
revival happening in the United States. It's not a Protestant revivalism.
It is a Christian revivalism. It's Catholic, it's worth you know,
there's all these various iterations, but it's specifically embedded in
young men, and it does it is somewhat reminiscent of
the Great Awakening, and people forget that the Great Awakening
in the seventeenth and eighteenth century that paved the way
for the American Revolution in many ways because it was
a Protestant revolution against the Anglican Church, and that dovetailed
with this new cadre of thinkers that wanted ultimately to
separate from being governed by a monarch across the Atlantic Ocean.
So we have a history of this sort of thing happening,
and I think it is happening, but it's happening in
different forms everywhere that are going to congeal, and they
will congeal not because of one man per se, but
they'll probably congeal because of a crisis, of a convergence
of crises, and I think the epicenter of that is
going to be financial, because ultimately the financial crisis will
destroy what is a multi racial welfare state. And that's
what the system is, that's what they have built, and
that's what pluralism represents. And I'll add one more thing.
If you go back to what Ben Shapiro, he did
some sort of like sixty minute monologue that was a
defamation against Tucker Carlson, specifically in anger at hosting Nick Quentes.
If you listen to a lot of the points that
he said. I've got a couple of them here. He said,
the Republican Party is being eaten by radicals. That's true,
that's happening. He said Americans hate America. First, he said,
Americans hate Tucker Carlson. Well, if you describe Americans as
this sort of polyglot, amorphous, multicultural nothing, yeah, I think
he's quite right. The America that he's talking about is
what I've called pluralism. It's this a of disintegration in
which the Ethnos who is us has been villainized by
the state, and he wants to preserve that. He wants
to preserve that nation. And it is that nation and
that state that is dying because it's the past, because
it doesn't work. And this revolutionary fever that's manifesting in
something new with network effects, scaled by technology, driven by influencers,
with a new ethos, a new fever, that's what's coming,
and he's trying to stop it, and trying to stop
it is spreading it further.
Speaker 1: The one of the things that you mentioned there, you
mentioned how everything is so multi ethnic here, everything is
so multi racial, and you also mentioned like a collapse
and a financial system. What happens I think when like,
if I were to picture and civil war, to me,
here would not be something wise spread. It would be
pockets of it and pockets of violence. That's what I
see happening. I see basically a race war, because I
also see a race war. I see a race war
in Europe's future. I mean, I mean, like a bloody
like is people are going to start talking about World
War two again so much blood because it's going the
same thing is going to happen. It's going to get
to the point where they can't afford these people anymore.
And these people are you know a lot of the
people that they they imported were people from prisons and
people from mental hospitals and you know, the worst of
the worst from Africa and the Middle East. Yea, And
is that what you I mean, we could talk about
here as far as what would happen here when that happens.
But also, I mean, you've been all throughout Europe and
everything you've been spent, you've been spending time there, is
that what you're seeing in the future for them as well.
Speaker 2: Look, it's it's happening, and I would I would suggest
that they're actually farther along than we are. A couple
things here. So McGill University, and you may be familiar
that they did a study, I want to say, ten
years ago on various strategies, ethnocentrism being one of them,
and pluralism more or less I forget the exact name
that they use, but basically having outgroup preferences versus in
group preferences, and there were a variety of these. Ethnocentrism
one it won, it prevailed in this scenario of it
was basically an evolutionary fitness test, and ethnocentrism prevailed I
think in all their simulations. And that's exactly what you're
seeing happen in ironically enough, in Anglo countries, where I
think there's been the most propaganda, there's the most white guilt,
there's the most non white peoples are fetishized the most.
I suppose you could argue that maybe you've got to
run for your money with the Germans and the French,
But even there, having been to both of those countries,
I didn't see that at all. Germans tend to self segregate,
they tend to keep to themselves, and I think that's
what the data says. So they may publicly say, oh, yeah,
you know, I think this is great, but again you
have to look at how they actually behave. And the French,
in my experience, particularly being in Paris, the hostility for
the Muslims is feverish, no question. So I think what's
happening is a tribalization, no question about it. But that
tribalism for us is at a much higher level. It's nationalism.
It is spontaneous reorganization. And so, for example, in England,
you saw it's not just about protests. You know, I
don't protest. I don't know if you've ever been to
a protest. I sort of view it as a colossal
waste of time because it is for the most part.
But what is happening in England is you're beginning to
see new organizations emerge, because this is what we do
as white people's We organize, We create order where there
is none. And I would say, you know, what has
been deviled us for so long, it's not just the prosperity.
Certainly the prosperity has doped us up. You know, hey,
things are not that bad, et cetera, et cetera. But
it's been this this sense that, yeah, but the system
still represents me, it still looks out for me in
some particular way. This is the myth of Donald Trump
that is dying a thousand deaths. And so now people
in England, and I'll just give you an example of this.
He're seeing protesters show up at Buckingham Palace and they're
chanting where's the king, Where is the king? Where is
the king? And in France you have this for this
descendant of the Bourbon Kings, Louis de Bourbon I made
a video about this. I'm like channel who basically said, look,
the Fifth Republic is dead. Fifth Republic is the constitutional
form of government that has governed France since nineteen fifty eight.
It was basically stitched together by De Gaul and this
guy said, look, the Fifth Republic is over. It doesn't work.
The president of the country has no legitimacy, the public
hates him. He needs to resign. The parliamentary system itself
is broken. And so if you will have me, I
will be your king. And if you were coal the
last time we talked, I talked about this concept of succession.
And so what's happening is to your point earlier you're
starting to see on the edges and exoginously new new
organizations and so the protests in England, some of I'm
being told that there are new parties that have formed
and splinter groups, things of that nature. Again, nothing that's collapsed,
nothing that's going to scale just yet, but there's a
recognition that parliamentary system it's broken. So yeah, we can
vote out kir Stammer, who cares, You're going to get
somebody just as bad. And Nigel Ferraj he's not going
to solve it either. And so the edifice of democracy
and we know it's not really democracy, it's some kind
of a corrupt oligarchy that's now beginning to resonate with people.
They're starting to say, yeah, this is this democratic system.
It doesn't work, and we've got ethnocentrically organized. We've got
to nationalize to survive, to regain control of our country.
That comes later, but I think right now it's survival
and that hasn't reached the majority of the populations in
Europe yet, But there's fear. There's a sense, hey, you know,
these political structures, these leaders, they're losing control. And I
do think we're living in a time pede in which
capacity for leadership is demanded. And the fact of the
matter is whether it's Donald Trump who's telling people, hey,
the economy is amazing, I'm the greatest president ever, or
it's the eureaucrats inside the European Union who are saying, look, yeah,
the economy's bad. Yeah, the country's ransacked with immigrants. Let's
go fight the Russians. That's the answer. This is a
kind of bankruptcy that is only fueling the fire.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the idea that the structure as it exists now
has to always exist, that it's the perfect Anyone who's
ever like if you've ever been into cars, everyone has
had an old car that they held onto too long
where it didn't matter who the driver was, it just
didn't work anymore, and it was just a matter of
whether you could fix it or not. And if you
can't fix it anymore, or it's just beyond fixing, or
you just don't want to pay to fix it anymore.
Sure you parted out. There are some things you're going
to keep. There are some good ideas from the past
that you might forward, but a lot of that is
just going to the whole body of it is going
to be left behind. And I think people just haven't.
People don't realize because they this is one lifetime and
no one has seen real radical I have. I remember
the day that the Soviet Union, I remember the day
that Brilin Wall came down. I remember the day the
Soviet Union disintegrated. And it's like, in the way I
grew up worried about all that stuff, it was like, Oh,
this is forever, this is going to go on forever.
And now all of a sudden, this thing is gone.
And people see it as a kind of failure, like
it's a reflection of themselves. No, it's not a reflection
of yourself. It is what happens. It is the march
of history, and you're living in the march of history,
and they're trying to fight against it.
Speaker 2: You're one hundred percent right, I knew. I like to Pete, listen,
you're a smart man, and you're a student of history.
And nations go through this, and I've tried to convey
this to Americans. Look, I am a heritage American. I
don't like that term. Obviously, I'm just an American, Okay.
My family came from England and Scotland in sixteen twenty.
From the beginning. You know, I'm descended from Quakers, the
crazy Quakers in will Penn's colony that became Pennsylvania. All right,
so I know whereof I speak. And people think that government,
that the Constitution is what defines us. No, the Constitution
was a document. It was a first draft of sorts
that was designed to do one thing, basically, constrain the
power of the states so that the eth nose could
define itself. That was the idea. That was the point.
And so when you hear people like Charlie Kirk, God
rest his soul, but he was wrong. He would be asked,
you know, this is a white country. This is we
never voted to be demographically replaced. Where are white Christian
you know, things of this nature. And he would say, well,
show me where in the Constitution it says this. And
this is a complete bastardization, a misunderstanding of what that
document was all about. No, a nation is its people
always and forever, and the state can change. There's great fluidity.
There's any number of states that have ruled Great Britain
or Spain or what have you. Sometimes they're constituted, sometimes
they are not. And that is the proper framework with
which to see and understand where we are. It's not
just that pluralism as structured as falling apart. This this
multicultural America where I watch a movie called Captain America.
I think it came out in twenty ten or twenty eleven,
and it's ostensibly about Chris Evans, who's who's the white
American guy, and then his whole team of people. He's
got a black guy and an Asian guy in a
World War two And it's like, what's happening here? This
is cultural appropriation, this is revisionism. This is designed to
erase us and all at the behest of a state
that we know has been subverted, destroyed, and turned against us. Right,
So you're exactly right, that is what's collapsing that constitution,
which is predicated on one thing. And I just can't
stress us enough. Every legitimate state rests on an unspoken
covenant that we call a social contract. It is not written,
it is unspoken. Every society has that. The Russians habit,
the Chinese habit, and these social contracts are very different.
In our case, it was basically, we maximize freedom or
we trade off our freedom for the power of the state.
That was one. But before you even get there, you
have to have a social contract in which and all
forms of government are premise on this, in which there
is a separation between the citizen and the non citizen.
That is the cornerstone. And what has happened, and this
is what Donald Trump has articulated recently, among others, is
that that distinction between citizens and non citizens has been dissolved,
which means the social contract is broken, which means the
constitution is illegitimate, which means the state is illegitimate. And
if the founding fathers, and again I don't like that
term either, there was a founding Ethnos, and there were
a group of men that stitched together a framework of
government that expressed the will of thatth Nos. But if
they were alive today, they would say exactly what I'm saying.
They would say, give me liberty or give me death.
They would say that this is an illegal government that
has lost its mandate because it has violated the social contract.
There's one other thing I'll say about this too, just
as a brief philosophical point, there has been in the
United States and Great Britain for the last several hundred
years in every political science department, a standard instruction that
you teach that a social contract is this sort of
Hobbsy and social contract, or it's a Lockean social contract,
the Lockian social contract. As you have these natural rights,
they come from God, and ultimately that's enshrined in some
kind of legal document, and that confers legitimacy on the government,
protects the individual, et cetera, et cetera. And then there's
this Hobbsian social contract, which is about a collective security
agreement in which the population basically says, look and the
state of nature, restore order, and we empower you to do.
So what I am arguing to some degree is that
the Hobbsy and social contract is the precondition for the
Lochean social contract. That we are now in a lawless
country where the state is illegitimate and losing control of
the country. So we need a leviathan. But hobbs did
not necessarily mean a leviathan is a king, but he
meant it is concentrated power that's given that power by
the people, by the e f nos and his contractual
obligation is to restore order. And if you know your history,
You know that Thomas Hobbs lived through the English Civil
War in the sixteen forties. He saw what happened when
the sovereign had his head chopped off and then all
of a sudden boom, you get a revolutionary moment. That
is the moment that we were in, and I do
think that this revolutionary fever is actually beginning to figure
that out, which is why you're hearing a lot of
people talk about monarchy. It's why you hear fascism things
of that nature. And that's not quite what's happening as
much as it is this Karl Schmidt moment in which
the state has lost legitimacy and we have to restore order,
and then we have to reform government so that the
citizen and the non citizen are sharply distinguished. And I
think the new form of government is going to do that.
How much collateral damage there is between now and then,
I don't know. But the problem for the Boomers, the
Conservatives and all the rest is that they're trying to
conserve and inherently broken and inconsistent a system that's in
conflict with itself. And it always was, it always was
from the nineteen sixties forward, it was never going to work.
One other thing I'll say, though, is that and other
people have made this argument, and I think it's correct,
is that one of the things that the racial civil
war of sorts, and I think that's what happened in
the sixties to some degree, and I think that that
racial conflict is coming back. But one of the things
that that accomplished is that it created what we call
white America. Before JFK, before the civil rights era, before
the massive criminality in the black migration up north and
across the country. In white flight, there were Italians and
there were Germans, and there were Wasps and so forth.
That fused. And I think what's happening now is you're
seeing a fusion again of that ethnos and that is
to say, something new is coming. It will be rooted
in the past, but some new identity, and it may
not be exclusively white either. The core will be white,
of course, but there may be others that support us.
I don't know, but I do think that that is
a fundamentally important point, because what's happening is that that
racial fantasy that we had created, the successful multi racial,
pluralistic society, it's dying. As we speak, and that's really
what the boomers are fighting to hold on to. And
that's why when denesh Tsuza, that's why when vivek Romswami
self immolate and they say, oh, no, no, I'm Indian.
We need all Indians to come here. All of a sudden,
that throws that into sharp belief and they're like, what
do you mean you're an American like me? And it
explodes the myth that we had successfully assimilated these people,
because that's the line. They're not really Americans. They're just
foreigners that came here, that made a good life for themselves,
and now they're serving their tribal interests because there's a
significant number of them here.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the argument that you'll hear, like if
you bring up Japan, it's like, we shouldn't Japan be
for the Japanese and shouldn't America be for the Americans.
Everybody wants to ask, well, what is an American? And
we just look at the founding stock and look it
just come forward. You know I'm talking. You know, when
you look at nineteen seventy three and ninety five percent
of the country is white and black. Majority white, A
small section of black. Okay, that's a that is what
America was for. You know, at least after eighteen sixty five.
We can argue. We could argue all day about the
war between the States, but no matter. And that's why
they have to kill and say there's no such thing
as white when basically it's you know, it's white Europe
that built this country and made it what it was,
you know, I mean they talk about, oh, well, you know,
you brought slaves over here in the country, wouldn't be
the same. It's like anyone who studied slavery knows that
they did as little as they could not to be punished.
They were running away all the time. If this had
been you know, if we had industrialized earlier, or if
that had been left up to white stock, who knows
how much further we could be along. That's and that's
why you have this. You know, every once in a while,
somebody will put up the book all the books that
have been written about anti whiteness in the last fifteen years,
which the overwhelming majority have been written by only one group,
which is you know, we could talk about the fact
that most of the people who write those books are Jewish,
but they have to destroy the fact that this is
a white country. And unfortunately, since nineteen sixty five when
em Manuel Seller another one threw open the gates that
now we have thirty percent people here who know nothing
about Europe and the heritage of Europe, and not only
don't know anything about it, they are adversarial to it,
just the idea of order.
Speaker 2: Look one quick note. Every society, every civilization on this
planet in documented history, was founded on some degree of barbarism,
all of them, whether it was slavery, or it was war,
or it was conflict, all of them. Let's stay Japan,
for example, the Japanese subjugated and destroyed the I knew
people who were indigenous to the island of Japan. Okay,
so there's your ethno state, there's no complication. Yes there
is complication. Yes there was a displacement. That's true for
all peoples in all societies and all civilizations in the
history of the world. I challenge anybody to point to
one that isn't. And if you get somebody who says, well, yeah,
what about Belgium or one of these ridiculous artificial states, Yeah,
that was a creation of a war. All of these
things are the products of human conflict in one way,
shape or form. That's just the nature of history. Regarding
our identity. George Kennon George Frost Kennon wasp maybe the
most significant diplomat history of the United States. Many attribute
containment to him. He said in a lecture, I want
to say in the nineteen fifties that the United States
is a country that admits that its capacity for assimilation
is limited beyond peoples of Caucasian descent. If you go
back in time, then you can go to Krevker, who
wrote Letters from an American Farmer, which was an attempt
to explain what was happening in the New World to
the French, and he said, what is an American? An
American is a melding of European peoples. That's right, That's
what it was. It was Huguenots who was Protestants from
the United States, Scots. You know. Eventually we had Slavs
who came, we had Italians and soff but we had
a core ethnos that shared the same culture, language, in
the same sense of destiny. And what I do when
I presented with that is I say, okay, fine, name
an idea of value that is universally recognized as an American,
whether it's the Constitution or it's a realizing the American dream,
you know, home ownership. Name one idea that is derived
from a source other than white Europeans. Silence, jazz music. Okay,
you know, fine, I'll give you that. But the re
reality is that actually speaking our identity, not only was
it pretty monolithic, but relative to a lot of countries
in Europe. And I talked about this on the backlash
because a lot of people don't understand that a country
like France very diverse. You have Italians and Germans and others,
and what unified them was less ethnicity than it was
in the United States. It was the crown. It was Catholicism.
That's what unified France for centuries. You could argue it
still does in some way, shape or form. But in
the United States it wasn't those things. It was the
English language. It was originally Protestantism, but I would say
Christianity because we always had Catholics and it was that
white Ethnos that was the glue that held everything together.
And that's why the constitutional framework of government worked because
the people that drafted that document really didn't know what
kind of country we're going to have. It's why there's
a lot of holes in it. But they had faith
in the white population that they could settle and build
this country without much central management and governance, and that's
exactly what happened. The issue today is that now we
need and this gets to the heart of the matter,
Now we need concentrated power, probably realized by some mass mobilization.
And I've used this term mass mobilization event. You could
use Leviathan. I've used that term before as well, to
transform the country, to restore order. And this is a
conundrum because you have a lot of people. I'll give
you an example, a guy like Judge Napolitano. I respect
Judge Napolitano. He's an intelligent guy. I agree with much
of what he says. But when he talks about Trump's attempt,
and it is an attempt to harness the power, to
marshal the power of the state to go into local municipalities,
round up a legal immigrant and who came here not
just came here illegally, but are subsidized illegally by the state,
by the taxpayers. So it's not just that they, oh,
you know, there are these innocent people. They had to
break our law so they could get here, and now
they're enriching us with their labor. No, no, no, these people
are disproportionately dependent on the largesse of the wealth that
we have created. That's theft, particularly if you haven't entered
into a contract with said individual who's donating or contributing
the revenue that subsidizes you. They entered into no such contract. Okay,
they have stolen in addition to violating sovereignty, in addition
to not speaking our language, so forth, and so on.
But Judge Depolitano says, well, there is precedent in the
United States is prints versus the United States, and in
prints versus the United States. You have these chief law
enforcement officers, these sheriffs Arizona and Montana, and in that
particular Supreme Court case, basically what happened is had you
had an attempt by the Democrats back in the late
nineties to mandate background checks when guns were purchased, and
you had these chief law enforcement agents who did not
want to enforce federal law to do that, so they
went to the Supreme Court and Scalia said the federal
government does not have the authority to do this, and
he gave three reasons why. He said, number one was
the historical understanding and practice of the United States and
its governance. Number two was the structure of the Constitution itself,
and number three was the jurisprudence of the Court, the
discretion of Scalia, and the other eight. The problem is,
and so essentially Napolitano, who's a libertarian, he uses his
justification to say, technically speaking, yeah, Trump can send in
the National Guard or ice to protect federal property, but
they are limited in their capacity to engage in police action,
particularly the US military, by this particular Supreme Court standard,
because it is a violation of the Constitution, and illegal
immigrants have due process and therefore the same rights effectively
as citizens of the United States. Technically speaking, by the
letter of the law. He's correct, that's true. The problem
is we are in an emergency. We're not facing we're
not facing an exogenous, rare, anomalous aberration. We're talking about
a mass invasion of the United States of America. And
that means that the rule of laws we understand it
has broken, it has dissolved, and that requires there is
a concentration of power in the sovereign to address what
is an existential crisis against the country. And unfortunately Napolitano
and when you hear him express those words, what are
you hearing. You're hearing the Republican Party, that's what you're hearing.
You're hearing the baby boomers, who again are trying to
legitimize an illegitimate state that must be delegitimized so that
we can save the United States, which is the preservation
of its ethnos. So this is the pickle that we're in.
But the good news is that you have the most
propagandized generations, the most disoriented generations of men. I'm talking
about gen Z and millennials. And what's happening, Pete is
the archetype of their national identity, their masculinity. I call
it masco nationalism. That is getting stronger, it's pulsating, it's feverish,
and it's beginning to organize itself. And that's what Ben
Shapiro and company fear because that's the future. That's the
direction that we're moving in. And frankly speaking, I don't
exactly know how far it's going to boomerang. I think
it's going to boomerang pretty far. But we'll have to
wait and see, and it's going to look a lot
different than what we've seen in the past. That's something
I've tried to streuss with people, and you know a
lot of folks of Peter are probably like you in
this space, is that they're very empirical. They're very logical,
and to some degree that's a precondition for being aware.
The problem is that the great events of human history
are not logical, They're not empirical. They tend to be metaphysical.
They tend to be spontaneous, and all of a sudden,
as you said, a moment ago, everything changes, and we
are in such a moment today. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think one of the big problems is is when
you get into crisis mode, those people who even have
a just a rudimentary historical have been historical knowledge will
be like, oh, well, Rome tried that and then Caesar
came along, and then Caesar never gave up power. And
I think what people don't, what people failed to realize
is is that one of the one of the biggest
problems we have is you know what Sam Francis called,
you know, the revolution of mass and scale? Is you
just one ruling three hundred and fifty million people or
probably four hundred million people. It's just impossible. People talk
about this all the time. Oh, we're going to get
a strong man elected, and he's going to he's gonna
what like Trump is getting Like Trump has like mayors
in towns who are like, yes, send the send the
I was gonna say the IDF, which is pretty but
you know, send send border Patrol here, or send I
n S here, and we're going to arrest them. It's like,
you do you realize how many people you have to
get on board, how many people you're going to have
to threaten, and you don't have that many troops. Oh
we can get that many troops. So our guys just
want want the one America back. It's like, now you're
falling right back into the same trap of going back
into a managerial state. And that's exactly what a strong
man is going to end up doing, is what This
is what James Burnham wrote about when he wrote about
the manager or Revolution. He was not talking about only FDR.
He was also talking about Hitler and he was talking
about Stalin. He's like, they're all going to fall into
managerial states because that's where we're at and that's what
they're that's what they're creating.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it could go that way. Look, some
of what's happening too, and I've talked about this before
is a modernization project. I mean, right now, the most
important thing that's happening is nothing that we've discussed so far. Really,
it's the deterioration inside the financial system. It's the secured
overnight funding rate that's becoming a ratic, it's the repo
rate that's becoming a ratic. And without getting into the
details of that, basically the circulatory system of the financial
system is disrupted. It's experiencing I think it's beginning to
experience a cardiac arrest. That's the most important thing. And
what's the institution charged we're dealing with that, Well, it's
the FED. Well, the FED has been around since nineteen thirteen,
and the FED has a model of the monetary universe
doesn't work anymore. If they print money, you get massive inflation,
and it's their charter to prevent inflation. At the same time,
they've got a labor crisis, and it's their charter, based
on the dual mandate to maximize full employment. If they
don't print money, then we get interest rates spike, and
you get a debt crisis and some kind of a
depressive economic activity. At the same time. Part of their
mandate is to regulate the banking system. Well, the banking
system has lent itself into oblivion through something called shadow banks,
which basically engage in all the same kind of malfeasans
and fraud that we saw in the lead up to
two thousand and eight. They just do it indirectly via
shadow banks, which are non non depository financial institutions, is
what they're calling it. It was shadow banks until recently,
and now they've got this official acronym that makes it
sound legitimate, but no, these are. It's just a giant
Ponzi scheme. And the point is that the framework, the
models that the FED is using, they're inadequate. The world
is too complicated, it's too dynamic, there's too many variables
to control, and that's why they're losing control of the
whole system. And that's a big part of this as well,
because that is just a microcosm of the entire government
trying to manage a pension system for one hundred million Americans.
This is insane. It simply cannot be done. You know,
it's been said that socialism in some way, shape or
form has been successful on a very small scale. Well
maybe in a city state slash country like a Sweden,
right where there's only five to ten million people. We're
talking about a society at scale that's hard to imagine,
and that may necessitate a brand new form of government.
To your point, that we haven't seen before. This is
the kind of thinking that we've got to engage in
beyond just the racial crisis, the Jewish problem, and the
rest of it. We got to rebuild the infrastructure across
the country. We have to reevaluate, rewire what that nine
to five paradigm looks like for average Americans as the
economy restructures and the government is sort of at the
center of all of it, and it's a disoriented, obsolescent mess.
So I think you're quite right. Part of the issue
is that we're talking about the future and the unknown,
and we're trying to use language from the past to
describe that. And it's not that that's an appropriate that
it's incomplete right, And one of the things I've tried
to emphasize with people, Christopher Hitchin said that the twentieth
century was about three ideas solinism, fascism, and imperialism. We
voove beyond that. We're in a very different world today. Equally,
you listen to Neocns talk about or Zionist talk about Hitler,
Putin is Hitler, g is Hitler. They bear an no resemblance.
The world has completely changed. Everything has changed, and their
model of the universe has not addressed that, and that's
in part why they're confused. They're panicking and losing control.
Speaker 1: Do you think there is any threat considering how far
we've come with technology, how far we've come. I mean,
is there any threat that you could have one country
who could dominate the globe I'm talking about, you know,
basically like In pushed their morals upon another, upon multiple
multiple countries and peoples. Or is that just are we
are we at the point where we're looking at regionalism
going forth.
Speaker 2: You know what's really interesting about your question is that
the premise of the question assumes that we ever had
such a super state? Do that? I say that in
part because I have traveled extensively. I've been all over
Latin America, for example, Colombia, Mexico, I speak pretty good
Spanish too, so I can talk to a lot of
the locals. I've also been to Asia. You know, I
haven't been to Vietnam with a French war, for example,
but I have been to some colonial former colonial states.
And what is truly remarkable when you go to a
lot of these places is how the European influence basically
disintegrates almost overnight, once that European population has gone. Yeah,
maybe the edifice is still there. You know, there's French architecture.
But you know, you got to a city like Ho
Chi Minh City and you think to yourself, Hey, is
there any am I in sort of France, in Polynesia
or in Southeast Asia? No, no, you're not. In other words,
I think that we were always a bit we as Americans,
in particular, the Brits less so, because the British Empire
was not about exporting civilization. It was about making money.
It was a business enterprise more than anything else, and
run as such. It was run very effectively in large
measure because the Crown outsourced it to private enterprises like
the British East India Company, which is far better equipped
to at least in the beginning, and Minister and run
colonial holdings, and the British monarchy was for all kinds
of reasons, and that speaks to the difficulty of imperium itself.
Know again, you could go back to the Romans, but
you're talking about the Mediterranean. Uh, there's a whole other
side of the world, folks. So I'm not sure that
we that there was ever a world in which one
country orchestrated disproportionate outsize power with one caveat wherever I
go with with with whomever I interact with. American media
does reach them. Our our movies, our music, our language.
More or less, that does reach. But does it penetrate
in the sense that it changes. No, I don't. I
don't think it has. In other words, the Russians or
as Russian today as they've ever been. I think the
Latin American culture is actually reverting back to what it
was pre Columbian times. In other words, it's sort of
shedding the Spanish Portuguese colonial influence as it as it is.
So I think the answer to your question is no,
I don't think that's going to happen. And the leading
candidate for that that everybody is afraid of in the
United States is China, and China could not be more
disinterested in that prospect, nor do I think the Chinese
could pull that off. But from their vantage point, if
you're not ethnically Chinese, they don't care about you, and
they do not believe for a moment for a second
that if you're not in Chinese you can be Chinese.
So I think the answer your question is no, and
that should give us some comfort because there is this
fear mongering that you hear from a lot of the
DC elites who think that the international community's billiard balls.
So as we take a step back, somebody else takes
a step forward, our loss is their game. This is
just not reality. We live in a very complicated world.
And even though China and I'm very bullish on the Chinese,
I think what they have accomplished over the last thirty
to forty years is nothing short of spectacular. I mean,
they've affected an industrial revolution in about half the time.
I am as the Europeans and I saw it when
I was over there. But the Chinese have a lot
of problems, and they have especially the problem you mentioned earlier,
which is they've got a lot of Chinese and it's
very difficult to govern China, and a lot of people
think that China's is top down authoritarian state. This is
not true for logistical reasons. The country's too big to
be run that way. And actually speaking, it's very provincial.
China's largely run and governed by the provinces for exactly
the reason that you said. It's just so damn large.
And the fear in China is that it may come apart.
And this has been a fear in China for a
thousand years, two thousand years. So no, I don't see
I don't see that world emerging either, And I don't
necessarily I don't necessarily think that we are in a
conflict that has to be kinetic either. That depends more
than anything on our ability to desionize. Right, We've got
to aeskew Zionism. That's the real source of the balicosity
around the world. That's ground zero for it. That's what's
behind I think this ridiculous escalation against Putin. I think
that's what is pushing us into war with the Raan
Venezuela is probably a little bit different, But the neocons,
the Zionis, they support that too because they think it's
a proxy war against China. The fact of the matter
is the world has changed, has already changed. We can't
reverse that. And what we have to do as Western
peoples and as Americans is we've got to retrench. We've
got to save the national identity. We've got to become preservationists.
Expel the foreigners inside our borders before we completely implode.
That is the challenge of our time. It is not
some external enemy, it's internal.
Speaker 1: You mentioned that wherever you go, they get our news,
they get our media, they get our Hollywood and everything.
And you know, if you're talking about Asia and it
doesn't take hold, that's very good, because I mean that's
really a way of zionizing a population. But how is Europe.
Europe has to have fallen under that spell to the
most for the most part. Would you say it's zionized
or would you say this is the old European elite
who were or yeah, I think it's a social engineering
regime that Europe has undergone, the social engineering regime we
have since World War Two.
Speaker 2: I no, I think you're quite right when I say
that it hasn't penetrated. I'm talking about non Western societies
and you could argue, right, you'll go to countries like
Colombia and you will hear ideas, for example, like feminism.
It's discussed, but it's not really operationalized. I mean, you
go to a country like Columbia, you're in a very
different civilizational construct. So, yeah, maybe they watch some YouTuber
in the United States who talks about women's empowerment that
has nothing to do with daily life in Colombia. But
regarding the West as we understand it, and I would
basically say poland West, something of that nature, maybe the
old Roman line. It's completely brainwashed. And I would argue,
I think the Europeans are even more so than we are,
particularly the older generations and the elites. However, like us,
what is happening in young men I would say forty
and younger, especially the younger you go, is a total
rejection of that. Now the female matters. That's that's the inverse.
It's a mirror image and that has created a massive problem.
And you know, it sort of makes sense, right, Women
echo power, Men compete for power, and women sort of
there's supplicants to it. We know that that's not a
new revelation. And so my sense is when the power
structure changes, they will change too. It probably changed pretty fast.
But for the moment, the brainwashing has penetrated the psyche
of Europe. But I would argue it's not the brainwashing
so much as it's still the trauma of post war Europe,
you know, And that's why you hear everything is a
reference to Hitler, everything is a reference to Mussolini, even
though those historical events at this stage it's not like
they're unrelated. But to say that what we're living through
today is a precise template, that's just not the case.
It's a very different world. But nonetheless, that post war
trauma is definitely powerful and it has institutionalized itself in Europe.
The good news is that these Eurocrats, that's effectively, they're
so brainwashed and so embedded in that paradigm that they're
self destructing. In other words, they're not competent executives. You know.
This is back to this point, is they don't really
know how to run governments. What they know how to
do is virtue signal. They know how to give a
stump speech in which they can damn authoritarianism and racism
and all the rest of it. But in terms of
actually operationalizing anything. They don't know anything, and that's what's
really been on display since twenty twenty two. And the
special military operation is that you have a major war
Peepe in Ukraine, a major war in which millions of
people's lives are being destroyed, millions of people potentially have
been killed. I'm talking about people on the battlefield. And
Europe is de industrialized, it's hollowed out. They're in no
position to fight anybody. And yet to hear them speak, oh, well,
we're going to ramp up defense spending, okay, and do
what you're shutting down factories across Europe, there's no concept
of that because all they know how to do is
virtue signal because of the mind virus that you reverted to,
and that has been how you succeed in Europe and
the United States politically for fifty years. That's how it's been,
and that's why the system is so hollowed out, right,
that's why you don't get any change. And Trump is
an example of that too, not himself per se, But
who is it that he surrounded himself with. It's the
usual suspects. It's not like he had a counter elite
that went into government had the same views you and
I do. They don't, you know. They are people like JD. Vance,
They're people like Howard Lutnik or Whitcoff. They're either from
Wall Street or they're from Silicon Valley, or they're you know,
boom or billionaires that are still stuck in the past.
And again, that's why his administration is imploding. It's not
just corruption, it's also a broken paradigm that these people
just can't free themselves from. And an example of that
with Donald Trump is changing the Defense Department to the
War Department. You know why did he do that? I'll
tell you why. Because Donald Trump. And I've met many
people like Donald Trump in my lifetime, I really have,
you know, old timers. He thinks that the United States
has just a few policies away from the nineteen fifties.
That's what he thinks, and he could not be more wrong.
That's why he is deployed this ridiculous tariff package because
he thinks, oh yeah, I can sort of just hammer
the rest of the world and all of a sudden
everything will come back and we'll stitch it all together.
Everybody still needs the dollar. We don't live in that
world anymore. We don't.
Speaker 1: So in my opinion, just judging from what we've seen
so far, I think the midterms are going to go
to the Blue team, you know, just and so here's
a question I wanted to ask about. That is for
what you see for the future. And you and I
have very very similar visions for the future. Which would
be better? Would it be the Blue team winning next
year or the Red team winning next year? The Blue
team winning in twenty twenty eight, the Red team in
twenty twenty eight, Not that they're going to make any
change that is going to be good for us, but
to create an environment that would be good for us,
what do you think would be better?
Speaker 2: Well, I said a moment ago, I think the election
of Mom Donnie's is a very positive development. So if
the Blue team wins, that's probably a good thing. But
standing above all of it is Donald Trump's failure. You know.
I had a very good discussion recently with somebody that's
an expert in all things Russia, and I asked them
about Putin. I said, you know, what do you think
because we seem to be living in a time in
which these sort of older civilizations, it's not necessarily that
they're on par with us, or that's the wrong way
to think about it. But they're regaining a sense of themselves.
They're sort of marching in the right direction. At least
they have governments that are promoting their national interests. Right.
What do you think of this guy putin? Is he
a world historical individual? And this guy said, no, he's not.
He said, he's a transitional figure. He is facilitating the
way to the world historical individual. That is exactly what
Donald Trump is. Donald Trump was never the world historical individual.
He was not Julius Caesar, He's not Ouiver Cromwell. He's
a transitional figure, and he is presiding, I would say,
like Buchanan over a mess. And when he is finally exposed,
his administration fails. And I think it is failing, and
I do think the specter of that failure is becoming
more and more undeniable. Although there are a lot of
people that are still carrying water for him, I think
it's getting harder and harder to do that. I think
his failure, Pete is the most important development, because when
he fails, you're talking about fifty years of populism since
Richard Nixon in nineteen sixty eight. That's dead. Promise of
Richard Nixon, was the promise of Ronald Reagan, was the
promise of Pat Buchanan, was the promise of Donald Trump,
And that was, finally, we've elected somebody that's going to
push back the progenitors, the subversives, the villains that are
destroying this country and are destroying at piece mill systematically,
who hate us. And in each case it was a fraud.
Now we could quibble about why it was a fraud,
but what's particularly dangerous about it is that we just
kept coming back for more. You know, people thought, oh,
Reagan's great, and they didn't realize, well, yeah, but he
de industrialized the country. He basically handed everything over to
Wall Street. We know how that ended. He pumped the
national debt and deficity, created a lot of the structural
deficits we're dealing with today. And he brought in the Desigonists,
the neo conservatives. A lot of that happened under Reagon
and Nixon, and I think was a bit better. But again,
did he restrain, did he arrest his takeover of institutions? No,
he legitimated it. He legitimated affirmative action, He maintained. There's
continuity with the great society, which is why we're structurally
broken as the government. When Trump goes down this time,
that fifty year period of populism is done. It's over.
The Republican Party will die in the same manner. I
think that the Republican Party died in nineteen twenty nine
or nineteen thirty two. You could argue, now it did
come back, it managed to survive and sort of reorganize itself.
But look, the Democratic Party more or less died in
the eighteen sixties. You know, we have this sort of seesaw.
This time the two party system is going to die.
This time the Democrats and the Republicans are going to
go down. But Trump has got It is vitally important
in my view that he fails very publicly for the fraud,
the untoward the subversion that he ultimately represents, because that,
I think we'll say to the American people, hey, look
this is enough. I've had enough. I no longer believe
in this fiction, and I'm ready for something new. We're
not quite there yet, but the murmurings, the beginnings of it,
it's there. It's in this conversation, it's online that's the future.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think when you will hear people say that
Trump is a transitional figure, and it's just a matter
of what the transition is. I think most people think
it's going to be a transition into a new golden
age where everything gets reborn like the nineteen fifties, or
it's going to be a transition into something that's radical
and something that's new. And most people are just too
comfortable to to prefer the ladder, and the ladder is
the only way forward, and the ladder is really the
only way you're going to live through history, where you're
going to experience history. If you want to keep if
you want to keep experiencing this New Deal regime, this
Nuremberg regime that we've had, hope for the best, keep
kicking the can down the road if you want to
see what comes next, and you want to be a
part of history, if you want to experience history. It's
it's what we need is radical change.
Speaker 2: But this is the crucial point, right Pete, because and
I try to emphasizes the people all the time, because
there's a lot of people in our spaces and I
know you experienced this too, that are very frustrated because
they have the realizations that we do. And they say, yeah,
but I want to go to the street corner, I
want to hold of a sign and I want to
scream to the top of my lungs that these truths
that I know and the reality is number one, that's
not gonna work. Persuasion is the most overrated art form
I've ever seen. I mean, just just as an aside
to give an example of this. Did Nick Flentes ever
debate Charlie Kirk No? Did he ever debate Ben Shapiro? No?
Has has he has? Has his views? And the Groydberg Movement,
if you want to call it that, have they outpaced
the Daily Wire and Turning Point USA. Yeah, they have.
Time makes more converts than a reason. And that's what
we're seeing unfold. People are waking up, but the majority,
the masses don't really matter. They don't the normies are
sort of irrelevant. And this is not an opinion, this
is a historical fact. If you look at any major
war that's ever been fought, only a small minority fighter.
The vast majority are in the rear. They don't fight.
If you look at the American Revolution, a very small
percentage of the American people supported the revolution. A very
small number of people financed the revolution, and it almost
disbanded because of that. You know, a lot of people
don't realize that those who made the revolution, they sacrificed
a great deal. Most of the country were tories or
they were neutral, they did not get involved. In that sense.
What we're experiencing today is exactly the same thing. It
is minorities that change the trajectory of history always. This
is how it always is. This is why when we
talk about history we talk about mass movements and things,
not really we talk about vanguards, we talk about individuals.
We talk about small numbers of people. Whether it's a
scientific breakthrough, you're talking about a very small number of people.
And that should be empowering because then you realize, hey,
I'm awakened. I sort of know where we're headed. I
know that this MAGA thing is going to fail, and
I can prepare mentally and otherwise for that realization. Whereas
the vast majority of the pep of the country, they
are in denial. They may suspect, but they don't really know,
and they probably choose not to engage. And frankly, that's okay.
That's fine. Most people shouldn't engage in this. They probably
shouldn't participate in this. It should be about a minority,
a minority that's informed, that's passion, and passion, so forth
and so on. That being said, what is precarious about this?
And I can't stress this enough. There are three components
that we need for this whole thing to come together,
and I think it will, and I think it's going
to happen across Europe. I think there's going to be
a conjoining to some degree of these kinds of movements,
a confederation of sorts of Europeans and Americans who will
cooperate to promote sovereignty wherever they may be, because we
all face the same problem in more or less the
same manner, and I think it can be overcome with
that cooperation. I'm not talking about a super state, I'm
not talking about any of that. I'm just talking about
a common enemy that we can all fight similarly. We
can help each other together, and a lot of the
Europeans are doing this. It is happening here. But there
are three components that are essential. The first is the opportunity.
The opportunity has not presented itself yet we are migrating
in that direction, and I think we're accelerate. We're on
an accelerated track for all the reasons that we've discussed,
namely the financial mess. And god knows, we'll see maybe
there's a war overseas that's thrown into the mix. Usually
that's how these things go. Maybe that'll happen as well.
But opportunities number one. Number two is organization some of
the things that we've talked about, and how to scale
that and how to purpose it in the right direction.
And then thirdly, and this is what I'm particularly worried about,
leadership And you can sense, and I'm sure you experience
it with your group, peep, there is a hunger for leadership,
particularly from young men. It's a very masculine thing. I mean,
I've talked about this before. We're leaving an age of prosperity,
which is a feminine age. It's an age in which
you don't think about the future, you think about the present.
It's an age in which there is an abundance, whether
it's real or perceived. And it's an age of tolerance,
right of ease. Now we're going into an age of scarcity,
which will be more masculine and that will demand leadership.
But Americans in particular have a real fetish for clownish leaders.
Donald Trump is an example of this. If Donald Trump
were a lot smarter, more capable, we could be farther
along than we are. There's no doubt in my mind,
as structurally broken as the government is, as monolithically opposed
to him as the media was, if he was a
little bit smarter, a little bit savvier organized, I think
we'd be farther along. My great fear, Peede, is that
the masses in the United States are going to pick
shitty leaders again. The sort of vanguard groups that we're
talking about will select the wrong people, the people that
don't really have a vision, that are sort of a
cult like you know, Andrew Tape like figures, And we
don't need that. We need serious minded people to go
into these institutions and really repair them and restore order
in this country. And I just the fear in me
is that in the United States we just have a
bad track record of picking those people. The rest of
it will come. The opportunity is coming, As I said,
the organization, I think that's going to be there. We
have historically been very good at at spontaneous organization. I'm
not worried about that. We also understand money and marketing
in the United States very well, something the Europeans don't understand.
But we need to demand more from leaders. We cannot
tolerate people like Donald Trump. I'm sorry, and I'm not
even talking about his corruption, which is bad enough, but
the lack of articulate thinking, of discipline of leadership, that
just cannot fly anymore.
Speaker 1: All right, Cameron, let's end it right there. Good message
to end it on. Tell people where they can find
your work wherever you want to send them to.
Speaker 2: So you can find me on YouTube on Neo Dash Masculinity,
where you can have my name in Cameron McGregor, Men
in the City. I'm also on substack, the Substack, it's
called Men in the City. You can find me there.
I write about all kinds of things, some of which
we've discussed tonight. And I am also the co host
of a show called The Backlash, which is about America's awakening.
So I look forward to seeing all of you guys there.
Speaker 1: Thanks, thank you, Cameron, Thank you.