Karmelo Anthony Killed Hitler w/ Kevin DeAnna: Ep. 501

It's been roughly a year now. Unfortunately this is all but a rare occurrence. Was it something that hit your timeline?

this was seen as as almost like political victory. And it's worth noting that it is precisely because of this that when Shiloh Hendrix got into her bit of trouble where she dropped a hard r on a Somali kid who stole her own child's food, this was why she was able to raise so much money. No Carmarlo Anthony, no Shiloh Hendrix. And this is the pattern that we're in now. And if I were inclined to be given to censorship, I would blame social media. It is actually

social media. But of course I actually think this is a good thing. We are actually now in a kind of tit for tat situation where every single interracial not even crime, but conflict of this sort becomes a kind of competition, especially when it comes to these fundraisers. And it was especially interesting as this thing developed where you had Austin Metcow's father initially going with the line that this has nothing to do with race. I'm going to go pray with the murderer's family, going to go to

the press conference. Shouldn't we able to be all unite, that this was a terrible thing that happened. And what's happened since he got swatted six times, he got insulted, he got chased out of the press conference, his kid has been smeared from beyond the grave as essentially a

bully and a racist, and god knows what else. So this is where we're going, and it's just going to be like this forever now, until they basically try to censor social media on the grounds of maintaining racial peace, like Singapore style.

on social media. It's not the direct censorship, of course, but when the police so telling you not to do something, we understand that is only one short step away from doing what the UK was this in Northern Ireland, I can't remember whatever n.

they view themselves as being on a team. I wasn't alive, but I've been told by reliable sources that during the nineties there was a symbol for this, the crown. You'd put a crown in your car to signal that you were one of the brothers, the idea being hopefully no

one breaks in. Did it work? Probably not. I know the FBI statistics as well as you do, but you get the idea there's an ethnic solidarity there, and the Shiloh Hendrix case particularly interesting because it's one of the first times where white ethnic solidarity, at least in my life, hit the mainstream. One of the kind of secondary stories in the Shiloh Hendrix affair was all of the normal American public officials getting in trouble for donating to this case.

Volunteer firemen, police officers, things like that. Look, I get it, you know, edgy right wing politics are more popular than they've ever been. But the amount of money she raised means that hit the mainstream, that got out of our little corner. Now it bears saying. I believe she is still going through court troubles. I think her trial is scheduled very soon. But point is, I think it feels as if this information has sort of escaped the CD

quarters of the Internet. There's a growing realization that politics is a team sport, oftentimes along to be honest racial lines. So, if I can returning to this case, a couple of things stuck out to me, which is one we see information control right from the very beginning. The foot whether the security camera footage or the body cam footage has

not been revealed to the public. We haven't seen it yet, which noticers tend to assume that means it looks bad, means it looks really bad for the defendant.

This was not a marginal case. There was more sincere guilt that, like I possess over OJ Simpson than I did about this one, well.

why he might think that. What the witness failed to recognize is that he was referring to surveillance video where this was after the sabbing, when of course everybody runs over to see what had just happened. It's a pretty big change. And this just kind of kept happening over and over again, with the defense falling into traps that nobody had actually set for them. It was a catastrophe

for the Defense the entire time. But of course, no blacks, and not even former congresswomen or outgoing Congresswoman Jasmine Crockets, seem to care.

comedically corrupt black women into positions of power. But setting that aside, another interesting element in the coverage is a few weeks ago there was media coverage that said that there were no black jurors, that they had all been pulled out of the selection pool. I think that's interesting for a couple reasons. One, we have this idea of a jury of your peers, right who who represents you,

who can judge your conduct? And we on the right have pointed out for quite a long time there's a heavy ethnic component to this that white juries are generally speaking pretty fair. They tend to treat people the same regardless of their racial background, and this is not true along other lines. For instance, black jurors tend to convict white defendants at a much higher rate, whereas they tend to let people off of their own race at a much higher rate.

are told that there were minorities on the jury. There's no blacks. This I got from a Daily Caller article about jury selection. It's one of these things though, where you could see that being grounds. I mean, you certainly could imagine someone like certainly Kent DEJ. Brown Jackson being amenable to this argument that, oh, well, there's no blacks on the jury, how could he get a fair trial?

And this is one of those things where we all know the score and we all have to lie to ourselves and everybody else when we have to do our jobs. If you've ever worked on a campaign, what is a campaign? The entire purpose of the campaign is to turn out the demographics that you know we're going to vote for you, and try to suppress the demographics that you know are not going to vote for you. Ninety nine percent of

the time it's about race. And if you look at jury selection, you are not allowed to say I don't want blacks on the jury, obviously, but it's essentially all these workarounds to get the demographics that you want, and the whole point of being an attorney, the whole point of being a specialist in jury selection particularly, is to know how to get the demographic turnout that you want on a jury. I mean, what is a jury other

than a small legislature. So this is one of these things where we talk about a jury of your peers. Why do we use the term fears that has a very specific meaning Back in England during the Middle Ages or during the time when the aristocracy really meant something you could appeal to essentially be judge only by members of your class. And so when we say a jury of your peers, if you are a white professional man, you're going to want to be judged by white professional men.

And if you don't, now you're at the basically the whims of a group that has far more racial tribalism and far more collective power than your group does, because your group doesn't really exist. You're just dealing with a bunch of individuals.

But what we're seeing is a radically different cultural idea. Now some of it is just pure ethnic chauvinism, right that no matter what the defense would be, there would be people that would pairrot it because he's one of ours, right, simple team sports. But that's a major cultural breakdown. The idea of self defense, at least in an English common law sense, is a deeply cultural idea, ironically enough, not

a write you have in England anymore. But there's a tradition, there's a general social understanding of what that means, what the barriers are. Well, different cultures have different assumptions, and when you take a law designed for one culture export it to another, as we learned in Afghanistan, as we've learned in every one of these foolish nation building projects. It falls apart. It's the same thing here as halfway

across the world. A constitution, a set of laws, is an expression of a people, and when that people changes, it falls apart. It's exactly the same reason why the constitutional conservatives are wrong, or at least half wrong. They're not wrong that the constitution is a particularly pleasant set of laws to live under. That if we could wave a magic wand and turn our country back to seventeen eighty nine, it would be a lot better. Well, that's true,

But the problem is that constitution reflected a culture. It reflected a people, and that people doesn't exist in the same way it did. Then you need both one and the other. Law absent cultural expression. I mean, it's just a piece of paper. Look at Liberia. They have the same constitution we do and a remarkably different expression.

been very telling. We see this exact same tribalism building, where on one side the Sikh community is almost reflexively coming to the defense of the murder of Novak, hiding the weapon right obfuscating the situation from the police issuing a technical condemnation of the murder, but again only slightly.

And the coverage from much of the media has been the old Norm MacDonald joke when he said, imagine if Isis were to detonate a nuke in downtown Los Angeles, imagine the bashlac to peaceful Muslims.

interest in exaggerating this. It's actually fairly localized. I mean, you had some property instruction, but even by the standards of Northern Irish history, not much to write home about it. I mean, I don't think anybody's going to care in a couple of weeks. But the immediate source of blame was not even so much the rioters but Elon Musk, because they said no Elon Musk showed this video, talked about it. Therefore, this is a problem here. Starmer was

talking about this from the Florida Parliament. The Liberal Dems were talking about this, saying, I think their party leader was saying they need to do something about this. The Labor Party leader was also saying something about this. They are going to use this to try to push more censorship. Earlier, you mentioned that police officer from Northern Ireland. I encourage the audience to actually find that on YouTube. The comments

are disabled, but you find that guy's speech. And what you'll find and probably be viscerally disgusted by, as I was, is this kind of therapeutic language from the police officer. Why shouldn't you show the video? Well, because it could cause trauma and risk to the victims. I think we're already past the point where risk and trauma has already been given to this particular victim who almost had his

head sought off, and they always he falls back. You said it, I think six times during the course of the video, this phrase that you see everywhere, and you see it throughout the Western world, and it's very ominous and I want people to pay attention to it. Our communities. It's never my fellow citizens, it's never my kinsman, God knows, it's never even my fellow subjects. From a Northern Irish perspective, it's always our communities. We need to ensure the safety

of our communities. Well, what does that mean. It's an implicit admission that there's not actually a people, and they're certainly not a people that we are all a part of. But we have different communities, We have different groups that all live cheek by jel and they don't particularly like each other. And the job of the government is to kind of take money from the productive and spread it around a little bit and hopefully they won't kill each other.

We get something out of this because diversity is our strength. What that strength actually constitutes nobody is really sure. But the purpose of government is to essentially be the head arbitrator between these different factions. And part of that means controlling speech. Part of that means not letting people find out about what's really going on. And here's the problem. Woker Moore correct than the mainstream right. They're not wrong. They're not wrong that there would have been no reaction

had we not gotten that video. They're not wrong in say, not releasing the Austin Metcalf murder video, that there would be a stronger reaction if that video was released. Should be noted that apparently some jurors were crying when that video was shown in CORP. It's so harrowing. The issue is that you actually can force a social consensus if

you are able to control the low of information. This is why even people who are pretty old like me express frustration with the boomers, because the boomers are so wedded to this idea that what the TV tells me must be true, that there is this authority, that there are these institutions that we can trust. Millennials don't believe that.

Certainly gen Z does not believe that Jen Alpha is definitely not going to believe that what's on the media and what's aislop and what's completely made up, all of that is just totally indistinguishable. Now, there are costs to living in a culture where there's no guide for what

is true and what is not. Certainly, if we look at the state of online debate with just random conspiracies that we know not to be true and people saying obviously untrue things for clickbait, we understand the cost of it. But we have to weigh that against in this uncontrolled

information environment, we can actually find out what's going on. Like, there's a lot of garbage you have to dig through, But if you dig hard enough, you can find stuff like this and you can actually see what's going on, and that does destabilize a system that is leading to our genocide. I mean, let us call it for what it is. It's not going to be pretty, and the information environment is just going to grow more chaotic in

the days ahead. But what is the alternative? Because if we go back to the way that the mainstream media used to be, and clearly the kind of government media partnership that cure Starmar is trying to take the United Kingdom back to, there's really no way out because you could very easily imagine a scenario where this video never sees the light of day, and then where are we well?

It's clearly it's deranging people. It neutralizes the ability to form a cultural cohesion. We even maybe that in our own circles it nuked. It nukes romantic relationships for one. I mean this, like I've always said, I mean, this was the last chopper out of non I mean, there's no friggin way when you look at the dating market now and and people look at gen z and everything else, and you know, it's very easy to joke about it and be like, oh, look at what's going on with this.

It's like, okay, well, if the foundation of the country is the family, and nobody's ever going to be able to form a stable family ever, again, now what do we do? Oh one hundred percent. I mean it's a silly example, and there are a lot of you know, social conservatives that you love to try it out arguments against porn, but like, uh, look at how many scripts for rectile dysfunction medication they're writing for guys under thirty and like, okay, some of that's diet. I would argue

that's another symptom of the cause we're talking about. But also being exposed to literally everything and anything from age eight to the point where you're jaded and sick of it all by about age twenty seven. That's not good

for a society. But at the same time, right, this incredible ecosystem, this erosion of narrative has from a certain perspective, it's loosened to the rates, right at least enough one that you and I can support ourselves, at least for now, we haven't been thrown in a gulag or you know, forced to basically live in a compound in woods.

run pre FDR. But also in a political sense, our leaders functionally are managers, and the relationship you're describing where our leaders function as the referees between sort of extremely combative units, sort of an atomized mass of different people with no real ties together. If Burnham had been writing now, he may well have the human resources revolution, right, the idea that basically we live in an hr state and the function of the government is well to make sure

that you know, no one starts a fight in the breakroom. Effect, the state is an economic engine, right.

a lot of things we're dealing with. He called it towards a secular theocricy, and if you think of journalists, if you think of academics, if you think of hr in some ways, if you think of what is the clergy of today, who are the people who actually determine what is moral and what is not, who is allowed

to have a hearing, and who is a heretic. It's basically those people and even the actual clergy are much more concerned with fitting in academia and journalism in terms of those narratives than what somebody in their own church tradition said half a millennium ago.

the protesters outside Carmelo Anthony's trial. They are arguing effectively that it's okay to kill someone if they don't look like you, which, okay, we can say beast mode based whatever, but in all seriousness that is a stark departure from the American Western tradition. We have not historically thought that at least an illegal context. Those are two completely separate frames. Jasmine Crockett said, of course, I don't think this was an offensive weapon. The blade was quote only three and

a half inches long, arguing that somehow that justifies killing someone. Again, some of this is just pure reactive ethnic politics. Are you an ant from my hill or an ant from another one? On that level, there's not a lot of thought to it. But again we are seeing two different frames, completely different understandings of the world. And when we look at, as you've said, this sort of therapeutic mindset towards politics, the idea that there is no real connection between man

and culture, we are simply interchangeable economic widgets. You can move a man from one country to another, and a man is a man is a man, so who cares doesn't matter. And clearly one that is an idea that you and I do not share any framing with. We can't reason or logic our way to some sort of synthesis between that position and ours. But also it's manifestly untrue, clearly.

four sometimes just because it's too perfect. Think of the concept of doublethink, because you simultaneously must believe, and you must believe this that wherever people go, they are essentially the same. And then if you have good laws and human rights, and essentially that's what it is to be in democracy. You have a bundle of rights, as one scholar put it, and you get to kind of carry them around wherever you go. And that's what it is to be a citizen. You have to believe that you

can go anywhere and be productive. But at the same time, non whites are also racialized by these oppressive cultures, and therefore when it comes to the way the law treats them, they have to be treated as members of a group, not as individuals, and the law has to be very careful and how it deals with these individuals, and politicians need to liaison with community leaders and make sure that

these different groups are able to get along. Of course, there is one great exception, which is where are the white community leaders. British police, for example, have this. This is now an institutional role where they have official liaisons. So when you had this unrest recently with these Muslim neighborhoods, they actually went in there and they would meet with the leaders of mosques and various community leaders who have a quasi paramilitary role now and basically say, look, this

is what we're going to do. You need to make sure your guys don't do this. We will let you do this and everything else, and they essentially do a kind of peace settlement the way occupying American troops might do with like a village in Iraq. After negotiating with the elders, there's nobody from the white community who gets to work with the liaison. There is no white community leader. You're just kind of on your own. You're just kind

of an individual. And the underlying assumption is that we either don't need this because there's the sort of liberal white supremacy that's still there and lurks in everybody's head or and maybe even at the same time, they don't deserve it because they're scum. They're the problem, and we need to actually suppress these people. Think of another thing. If you look at these riots in Belfast, it's an obvious point, but because we're sort of like the fish

swimming in water, we don't recognize it. It's worth bringing up. Isn't it incredible that nobody ever says, look at the root causes of this, look at the grievances. Shouldn't these people be getting more money for programs? Isn't it an economic thing? Isn't this the cry of the unheard. Nonviolence was called white supremacy if you were called during the twenty twenty elections. Now they're saying it needs to absolutely

be crushed. Now they're not saying, well, the oppressed can use whatever tactics they need to for their own liberation. And it is actually classist and supremacist to say that nonviolence is bad or you know, given that what we're talking about are basically natives using violence to drive out foreigners that they feel are occupying them. One is reminded of the tweet, what did you think decolonization would look like? Vibes Papers essays.

And yet, just like we talk about a stuck culture in terms of pop culture, it's almost like how you have a stuck political philosopher when we just keep recycling these cliches over and over and over again, and nobody believes in any of it, even the sorts of things that distinguished liberalism, things like freedom of speech as a

foundational right, that is just gone. It's already gone in Britain, it's already gone in continental Europe, and of course if the Democrats get back in, it'll be gone in America too. But here's the thing, and this is the interesting thing about it. They'll get rid of it, and then in the next breath they'll say, but we have freedom of speech, and they'll seem to actually believe it. And you remember when JD.

what for, or to oppose authoritarianism. But authoritarianism has to literally mean a militaristic guy in a uniform ordering people to march around. If it's like a fat woman ordering people like when their businesses can open, or what they're allowed to say in the workplace, that's not authoritarianism, that's

actually freedom, that's actually defending our democracy. And so we just keep hearing these same cliches over and over again, even though the substance has been gone for at this point what a century, and there seems to be no indication that people are going to change it up anytime soon.

It's just this endless stuck pop culture, governmental culture, legal culture going forward forever and regardless, so the facts on the ground, nobody is going to change their mind, because when it comes to the people who rule us, they garner their status from the credentials given by these institutions. And so if you attack those institutions and you say what you are teaching us is wrong, you're essentially stripping

these people of their identity. You're stripping them of their sense of status and of worth, and they'd rather die than give that up, or at least rather we die.

come out. It may surprise you, Kevin, I was not really waiting in line to see a Bonheffer movie whatever in the past.

baby boomers. There's a lot of anticipation for that moment among younger people, motivated by economic concerns, frustrations around the dynamic you spoke about with believing everything on the TV. But fundamentally boomers are the only people who really believe in America anymore, on both the right and the left. And you see this even in the No King's protests, which tend to be an older crowd. And they're gay, and they're cringe and they're embarrassing, but they're identifiably post

war American. They feel like what a seventy year old would do if they were trying to live out their twenties again fighting the man, And of course it's goofy, but look at their children, both literal and ideological, the sort of pro Palestine rallies, the Larraza riots from Los Angeles. Okay, we can argue our sympathies with those positions relative to the No Kings movement, that's not what we're talking about,

but they're identifiably different. We're seeing a breakdown in that civic religion, and just like the Internet, there's an advantage with that, certainly that many of the sort of cultural chains we've been bound by are weakening.

garage in ten years. I mean, like there are lots of things that they're still keeping it together because they have the old school knowledge that never got passed on. Partially their fault, but they're the ones that have it, but also because they're the ones who still believe in responsibility to the system as such, even the liberals believe in that. To some sense, what I think is happening is we are going to see the end of the

left and the birth of many rights. I mean, one of the things that I always say is that everybody's a blood and soil nationalist for the people they actually like. Now, to some extent, you could say that's a bit of an exaggeration. When you look at people in mostly white states in this country, the way liberals behave in these areas, you could say, Okay, well, they're blood soil nationalists when

it comes to their neighborhoods or something like that. Fine, maybe, but it's not quite the same thing, right, But once you have a majority non white America, which we continue to move forward despite some of the demographic changes that the Trump administration has been able to do. When you see these anti ice protests in Los Angeles, when you see the way the Palestine flag is used in England, it's not even really about Palestine so much as an

expression of territorial ownership over parts of England. When you see the way that the Mexican president talks about having sovereignty over the forty million Mexicans who live in this country, and how they are the ones who made America great and we apparently did not. None of these are really

leftist movements. They're all essentially ultra right movements for their own kind, and white people are sort of left out of this because we basically have this cultural baked in assumption that well, no matter what happens, we're all basically going to stay in charge in some way. Like, Yeah, there are these colorful little neighborhoods, but they're sort of like Chinatown. You can go to them once in a while. Maybe they affect politics on the margins, but it's not

fundamentally their country. We're still going to determine how it works. That is just not true anymore. That is what really

goes with the boomers. And as a result, America is going to become far less high trust than even it is now, far more dysfunctional, far poor, far less competent, and you're going to see a lot more of these cases that you see cropping up in government all the time, where you see people just giving away military or industrial secrets to foreign powers, or just not doing their job, or engaging in this kind of brazen corruption that just

wouldn't have occurred to even a liberal boomer forty years ago, just because that's not the kind of thing that you do. And in that chaos, there's going to be a lot of opportunity, but make no mistake, we are still the population that has the lowest ethnocentrism, and therefore, unless we develop it very quickly, we're just going to get eaten.

about elections and this sort of thing? And he said, look, you know, it's one thing to say what politics doesn't matter and this party's compromise and there's nothing we can do and everything else. But here's the thing. If you're dragged before a judge, you better hope to god it is a white guy appointed by the Republicans, because then the law still might matter the other side if they screw up some filing, if they get evidence the wrong way.

If they do something wrong, he might just let you go like the law still means something as such, you get brought before one of these Star Wars judges, you might as well not even show up. You'd probably be better off just fleeing the country. There is quite literally no hope. There is nothing you can do because in the rest of the world, that is how government works, that's how the law works. It's essentially just a weapon that you use on behalf of your group. And that

is the world that we are moving toward. And if you look at a lot of the judges that Joe Biden appointed, I mean a staggering number of them were black females. I mean, I'll put it to you directly, regardless of what you did or didn't do, if you got dragged before a black female judge, you already know you're cooked. It doesn't matter what the facts are.

do you want to say it or not? I mean again, when we're talking about this question of does politics matter, I think that, especially on the Internet, it's easy to adopt a certain tactical nihilism. I don't care. It won't affect me, but to your point, well, it does affect you. Your life will change, particularly in a time of crisis. The medical system is a great example, right, Sometimes you don't get to choose when you interact with it. It

would enforce itself upon you. If you get in a car accident, you end up at the er, even if you're unconscious. And a DEI doctor from Howard University, well, guess what, you might not make it.

NHS and everything like that. I would say even more than the medical system, I mean, the legal system is really where you encounterpower. Because you can say I'm not going to get involved in politics, I'm not going to run for office, I'm not going to touch any of this. And yeah, you can avoid a lot of trouble if you say, like, look, I don't want to work with a compromise party because it's just going to bring me trouble. You're fundamentally right, like it is going to bring you trouble.

Your life will be less stressful if you don't do that kind of thing. But that doesn't mean you're going to remain isolated from the legal system. There are all sorts of reasons you might get dragged into that, and once you're in front of those judges, it's going to matter quite a bit whether it was a Republican or a Democrat who appointed that person.

were not exactly prime targets. But there's a material difference between living in a fairly rural part of our.

to arise. Because even simply if we adopt this sort of Ben Garrison kind of boomer Tard Maga mindset, if you were only that far down the rabbit hole. You understand that when things go blue, it sticks, they don't like to lose. They will engineer the procedure so that they don't really have to be a real political party. I mean, look at what's happened in La Yes, exactly right, exactly that you will not be afforded a position, at

least easily through traditional means. I'll put that caveat on it to win that ground back, and that is uncomfortable in certain instances. Right there are positions where I really don't like xyz figure a failed governor in win some Earl sears a particularly relevant example. But nonetheless, politics has become existential, and one of the frustrations I think that many people feel with the boomers is that they grew up, they formed their political understanding in an era where politics

was not existential. It didn't seem like it mattered that much because we still had a cohesive culture.

of the draft entirely. If you look at what was going on in the seventies, late sixties, early seventies, we're all familiar with the book Days of Rage. I mean, you had a level of political violence that is far beyond anything we can even imagine in the America of today. But I don't think that's because America is less divided today. I think America is more divided. It's just that we almost don't have the courage to actually fight in the way people did even a couple generations ago. It's all

kind of a game of illusions. It's a game of media. We wield power indirectly. Nobody's planting bombs instead, people are getting unqualified people appointed to be district attorney and then locking them up in jail for thirty years under the

guise of process. And in a way, it's far more difficult to sort of find your way through this because what's really remarkable, and this is the primary characteristic of power in our age, is that the system, the institutions, the way things are done has not changed very much on the surface. American constitution still applies. Even if you look at an antaricho tyranny nightmare like the United Kingdom, the king is quite literally still on his throne. The

British constitution in some way still functions. All the old forms are there, albeit with a couple changes, like the way they got rid of that traditional peers in the House of Lords and that kind of thing. But you could be forgiven if you are a World War two vet living out your last years and saying, yeah, Britain is still here. There will always be in England, and yet we understand it's a complete one to eighty in

substance for what existed before. I think what really distinguishes, I would say millennials and younger from the Boomers is that the Boomers really confuse the form with the thing itself. If you are still appealing to the Constitution, if the the formal rituals of process are still being obeyed, then fundamentally nothing has really changed, regardless of what race the judge is, regardless of whether the district attorney is a communist to says that we should get rid of the

police and that kind of thing. The process will still work, You can still expect justice. Everything is going to be fine. I think younger people understand that's just not true at all, that power moves through institutions, and that the fundamental error of our founders, although one I think they can be forgiven for because how could they have anticipated this sort of thing. Is this idea that institutions can actually regulate the flow of power and the competition for power, when

that is not true. Its networks, it's tribes, it's ethnic groups. That is the way power is exercised, and that goes through institutions and even the barrier between what constitutes the government and the private sector these days, that's almost irrelevant.

to repair this. And I think that that's what makes Trump's kind of trying to do right. I mean, Trump in the end is a boomer oh one hundred percent, and the deep irony about that and maybe sort of a of sort of just Diddy in parallel here, not looking to defend anyone, but in striving to return, he has made it impossible to return. He's well and truly

killed it. Like look, right, I'm not looking to drag this into a discussion about Israel and anti Semitism, but in that state religion of anti fascism, What is the central of what is the crucifixion exactly? And that has really in the Trump presidency been well and truly desacralized.

It is fully, at least for people under a certain age, out of the realm of the sacred, down to the point where you have And this is a stupid example, but UFC champion Sean Strickland, a professional athlete, joking about this, right, editing the people he's beefing with, giving them curls in a prominent nose. And Okay, that's stupid, that doesn't matter. But even for an edgy figure, he's not getting demolished

for this. He's not getting dragged through the mud. The general consensus is it's a bit edgy, but it's funny. It entered the realm of comedy. I mean, Dad died in the Holly and all that kind of thing. I mean, you see these sorts of jokes and songs and everything else everywhere. I mean, the question becomes, though, I mean that not to get into the whole debate, tired debate

over Third worldism and whatever else. The question is, is the Jewish or Israeli exemption to anti fascism being revoked because as I'm sure we don't need to go over I mean, the left wing case against Israel is not that, oh they're chosen and special, and then you know there's this complicated thing around it. It's that, no, it's actually just another white settler colonial state and they're behaving like

fascist and this is bad that they have. Essentially net and Yahoo is a Nazi, So we still have the same religion. It's just you don't get an exception to that.

you can see the other side of it. I mean, even President Trump talks about this, talks in this way, talks about like this World War II style narrative. Nobody is going to think about World War Two with anything other than a war that happened in the past, and insofar as people take a giant lesson from it now, even something like anti fascism, it means something subtly different than what it meant to the people who fought it and the generations that came afterward. I think it's now

going to be fought basically on racial lines. And now, of course you would expect me to say that, right, it's kind of my job. But this is also how I think it's playing out in terms of where the coalitions are. We don't really talk about totalitarianism anymore. If you notice, nobody really talks about, like, well, the problem with Nazism was really, in some way it's the same as communism. This is a very boomer thing to say, because it was restricting human freedom and government was overwhelming

and restricted what people could think and what they could say. Now, pretty much every liberal says that the government should actually tell you what you should think and what you should say, and that is actually a criminal offense if you think or say the wrong things. So we don't really talk about totalitarianism anymore because to some extent that's just not a debate. I mean, with the kind of technology that we have now. To some extent, just about everybody except

a kind of primitivist, considers themselves essentially a tatalitarian. If you think about the way anti fascism is set up now, it has less to do with well, we're opposing militarism, because even military action is something that's practically mandatory to pit for some people, certainly for some liberals. I mean, look how many Ukraine flags you see everywhere on these liberals on social media. But it has more to do

with what we're opposing white supremacy. We're opposing white institutions, We're opposing ultimately the existence of white nations as such. And so even something like Churchill or de Gaul, these are fascist figures. They are morally indistinguishable from Hitler in some ways. In fact, they may even be worse because of the Look at what Churchill did to the Indians. Look at where de Gaul's you know, Free French Empire was based. It was operating out of Africa, it was

dependent on on colonialism. Look at the Belgian Congo, look at all of these horrible things. In fact, I think it was joy Reid who said something along the lines of well, the Holocaust was just a bunch of white people killing a bunch of other white people. Now you can snicker at that, but I think for the new American majority, that is how they think about it, and that is all they think about it. But that doesn't mean that the old civic religion is essentially going to

go away. It's almost like a heretical version of it is being developed, and then that's going to become the new faith.

the real moka. I mean, they care about the MLK that was sold to me when I was coming up in the conservative movement. They care about Reagan's Yeah, He's yeah, Reagan's MLK.

about what that might mean. But a boomer conservative and maybe even a boomer liberal, they're not going to understand what you're getting out with that. I mean, you're going to see that with the celebrations such as it is that's coming up for the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary and some of the rhetoric that is being tossed around, nobody buys any of it except the boomers. I think.

Shiloh Hendrix. The reaction to the Carmelo Anthony verdict, where look, I mean, we've seen even more bad behavior. A random old white guy was beat up outside the courthouse allegedly for being on the jury. It may surprise you that was not exactly a rigorous evaluation. It was just an old white guy that got punched. But you were seeing more and more that as white people become a minority, they are starting to view themselves as a minority. There are pros and cons to that. Look, I would love

to live under the demography of nineteen twenty two. We don't have that advantage, right, and so even in a situation that's very, very grim, there's at least a spot of hope to it. I mean, it's not great, but it's better than at least I would have expected.

going to take a hard line on immigration. This was smash mouth politics. This was ethnic politics, this was identitarian politics. And there are more studies that back this up. When whites are told that they are a minority or becoming a minority, their political views subtly change. It's not like a total reversal, but it's enough that it's measurable, sort of the way you know, you've seen the study where if like a moderate Democrat has given testosterone, they become

more conservative. It's not like an instant in oh, one eighty and whatever, no, but it's it's something, it's significant, it starts them down a certain road. This is what is happening to white people now. The problem is that this is also I do not think the next great

wave is going to be pro white politics. I think the next great wave is going to be what a lot of conservative ink types called gay race communism, where essentially it's this sort of vague anti white socialism, but weirdly enough, a lot of white people are going to buy into it. This is what I think is happening in Maine. This is what I think is happening in a lot of these congressional races, because yeah, white people

are so beaten down. Young white people, especially people who went to the universities and think they deserve a job as a kind of elite, as a kind of manager. But they can't get these kinds of things. And if you are offered nothing but slop, if you are not even slop, if you're offered nothing at all, you are going to choose socialism because at least that offers you something.

You're still going to come out behind compared to everybody else, but it's more than what you have now, and plus you get the resentful, spiteful pleasure of seeing your betters humbled.

I mean, there's a there's a line I think I've quoted this dude before in Malcolm X, which I think is one of the great racial nationalist movies of all time, where Elijah Muhammad is talking to Malcolm X, and he says, look, he pours ink into a glass and a glass of water, and he says, look, if you offer this to the people and nothing else, like, they'll drink it if they're thirsty. This is basically what this kind of anti white socialism

is offering to struggling young white people right now. Their patriotism has already shattered, They already don't believe in the oldness of American nationalism. A lot of them aren't quite on board yet with what we might call pro white identitarianism. Why not get on board with this thing and try

to be a part of the winning team. I think that's the next big political trend that we're going to be facing, and it's triumph for at least the beginning of its triumph may be at hand in the midterm elections. What happens between them and twenty twenty eight is a separate question.

a Project of American Renaissance. Well, of course, I think y'all should head over there. Recently did an episode with Greg Bob Bavino. That's one of your people's names. I don't know if I mispronounced that. Yeah, we'll say in America. You know, like these the Romans, we are they now you're looking at them.