The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1293: Enemies of the Revolutionary Right w/ Cameron Macgregor

Episode Date: November 16, 2025

94 MinutesPG-13Cameron Macgregor is a writer and co-host of The Backlash.Cameron joins Pete to talk about the war in the United States, and abroad, for the soul of right-wing thought and action.The BacklashCameron's YouTube ChannelCameron's SubstackPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

You know, If you want to get the show early and ad-free, head on over to the Piquinez Show.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 yourself. substack or through Patreon. You can also subscribe on my website, which is right there. Gumroad

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 Picanioness Show.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 Dr. Johnson on 200 years together and everything else. The things that Thomas and I are doing together on continental philosophy, it's all because of you. And, yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank you enough. So, thank you, the Pekingona Show.com. Everything's there.

I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignano Show. Returning after a little bit of a hiatus is Cameron McGregor. How are you doing, Cameron? Very good, very good. a little cold in the dark days of winter, but very happy to be back on your show. How are you, Pete? Doing good.

Doing good. Yeah, 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 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 come 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 mega train. Right, right. Well, look, I think that there are two very distinct ways to look at the United States right now. The first is what's happening inside the edifice of power. And I regard what's happening inside is 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 of 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're probably familiar with that. This summit was Xi, 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, international 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. full-fledged war against Iran. Now we've got Venezuela, and we've got sort of combative bellicose language with Colombia and Nigeria. I mean, it's just kind of spiraled out of control.

So while the elites seem to have gotten their way, as I think 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 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 uh 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 uh over various events so that's behind the edifice of power outside of it um i i don't like this term right or left because that

that implies there's some kind of a discourse that's happening inside the political system. There isn't, right? And Trump is proof 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 right, 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 inability of the government to get control of major cities, whether it's Chicago or Los Angeles or smaller cities 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 Candace Sons, 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 there, 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. 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 worse track today than it was when Donald Trump was elected back in November. And then we 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. would you say a microcosm of that would be 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 attack and attack and what you what you found out is is that there is no there there is no cohesiveness it's all gone everything is revolutionary now people are with you know and you talked about there's for there to be a left and a 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. 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 40. 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 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 pull. 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 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 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 for 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. You know, 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 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 promised 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 itself. 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 lagging behind. But I think we're on the same track. What do you think of the strategy of while we're doing that, especially when you have an economy that could possibly implode, are guys getting jobs in? in the government to not only survive, but also to run interference for us while we're doing that? Well, 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. or 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 that 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 Dahlia and 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. What they don't seem to understand is that Wall Street and Silicon Valley are the poisonous vessels responsible for that. They are responsible for misallocating capital for the grift machine that's deindustrialized 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 500 CEOs in the 1980s, 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 attention 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. Mondani 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 10 years ago. And yet I'm given to understand that 20, maybe 30 percent of the Jewish population in New York City supported his candidacy, ironically enough, because he's a communist or socialist and a lot of the Jewish population historically and today they are. And so that interest superseded their tribal interests, it seems to some degree. That's a victory alone in and of itself. So challenging the Jewish Zionist 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 2008. of people if you go back to 2008 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 that was a very difficult pill to swallow for a lot of people and there was an assertion at the time you probably remember that we were in a post-racial America that Obama had eviscerated the Republican Party and what happened was the complete inversion of that. In 2016, 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 Dani'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 idea is survive. If you're in the government or what have you, don't self-immolate, don't blow yourself up, but prepare. Because this self-destruction is spreading, but that will all. 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 even. Well, yeah, I think that, one of the 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 i was doing your research in 1973 83 percent of the country was white and 11 percent of the country was black so that means you had about five or six

percent from other places now it's almost 30 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, they fucking were brought here. 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 Mamdami is not going to even run.

They're not going to run. somebody like that right 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 there the power centers but they're it's not white it's you know it's been the dem the demographic so what are you going to do unless you're willing to you know move en masse there and you know basically change the culture and most people can't afford that you're going to have to do you're going to have to do something else that and that something else is outside of the electoral system that you know you and you also talk about mobilizing you know white America at 58 percent it say it's 58 percent and

some people say it's less I think is I mean how yeah how much you know I'm a vanguardist I don't you know if you have a million people it's it's almost impossible to it's impossible to organize a million people. But you can organize, you can organize 200 people. You can organize 300 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. Yeah. So 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 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 1970, that the top 10 most populous cities in the country, so we're talking cities of a million people or 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 know, 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 20 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 man 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 is some kind of reorganization of communities that already exists. And I've talked about this before. You have this thing called the Manosphere. You have this thing called the Bitcoin community. You have this thing called alternative media.

Nick Fuentes has his griper movement. And how did these things, emerge, how are they scaffolded? Yeah, some of it was a cult of 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. And when 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 Orthodox, 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 17th and 18th 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 multiracial 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 60 minute monologue, that was defamation against Tucker Carlson specifically. in anger at hosting Nick Quentes, if you listen to a lot of the points that he said, and 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. America that he's talking about is what I've called pluralism. It's this age 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 the one of the things that you mentioned there you you mentioned how everything is so multi-ethnic here everything's so multiracial. And you also mentioned like a collapse and financial system. What happens? I think when, like if I were to picture and civil war to me here would not be something widespread. 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 like a bloody, like is people are going to start talking about World War II again so much blood because it's going the same thing is going to happen it's going to get to the point where you 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 it's the worst of the worst from Africa in the Middle East yeah 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 spending time there. Is that what you're seeing in the future for them as well? Look, it's happening. And I would suggest that they're actually farther along than we are. A couple things here. So McGill University, and you may be familiar with this, they did a study, I want to say 10 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 out-group preferences versus in-group preferences, and there were a variety of these. Ethnocentrism won. 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 saying. 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, 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, Pete, 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 peoples. We organize. We create order where there is none. And I would say, you know, what has been deviled us for so long is 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 sense that, yeah, but the system still represents me. It still looks out for me in some particular.

white. 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, you'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 descendant of the bourbon kings, Louis de Bourbonne. I made a video about this on my channel who basically said, look, the Fifth Republic is dead. Fifth Republic is the constitutional form of government that has governed France since 1958. It was basically stitched together by De Gaulle. 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 recall 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 exogenously 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 coelapsed nothing that's going to scale just yet but there's a recognition that the parliamentary system is broken. So, yeah, we can vote out Kirstammer. Who cares? You're going to get somebody just as bad. And Nigel Farage, 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 an 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, Pete, 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 and I'm the greatest president ever, or it's the bureaucrats 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. yeah the 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 ever been into cars everyone has had an old car that they held onto too long where it 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 it out. There are some things you're going to keep. There are some good ideas from the past that you might bring 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 the Berlin 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. You're 100% right. I knew I knew I liked you, 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, from England and Scotland in 1620 from the beginning, you know, my, I'm descended from Quakers, the crazy Quakers in Will Penn's colony that became Pennsylvania. All right. So I know wherever 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 state so that the ethnos 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. We're a 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 is 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 is falling part,

this multicultural America where I watch a movie called Captain America. I think it came out in 2010 or 2011, and it's ostensibly about Chris Evans, 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 II, 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 this enough. Every legitimate state rests on an unspoken covenant that we call a social contract. It is not. written it is unspoken in every society has that the russians have it the chinese have it 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 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 citizen 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, was a founding ethnos, and there were a group of men that stitched together a framework of government that expressed the will of that ethnos. 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 Hobbesian social contract or it's a Lockean social contract. The Lockean social contract is 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 Hobbesian social contract, which is about a collective security agreement in which the population

basically says, look, end the state of nature, restore order, and we empower you to do so. What I am arguing to some degree is that the Hobbesian social contract is the precondition for the Lockhean 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 ethnos, 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 1640s. 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 Carl 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 1960s 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 60s 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 of north and across the country and 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's support us. I don't know. But I, 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 multiracial pluralistic society, it's, it's dying as we speak. And that's really what the boomers are fighting to hold on to. And that's why when Dinesh Dissuza, that's why when Vivek Ramswamy self-immolate and they say, oh, no, no, I'm an Indian. We need all Indians to come here. All of a sudden,

that throws that into sharp relief 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 asserting their tribal interests because there's a significant number of them here. Well, I think the argument that you'll hear, like if you bring up Japan, it's like 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, you know, just look at the founding stock and look, just come forward. You know, I'm talking, you know, when you look at 1973 and 95% of the country

is white and black, a majority white, a small section of black, okay, that's a, that is what America was for, you know, at least after 1865, 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 brought slaves over here and 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 while somebody will put up the book uh all the books that have been written about anti whiteness in the last 15 years which the overwhelming majority have been written by only one group which is you know we can

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 1965, when Emmanuel Seller, another one threw open the gates that now we have 30% 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. 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 was conflict, all of them. Let's take Japan, for example, the Japanese subjugated and destroyed the Ainu 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 and 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, 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 Cannon, George Frost Cannon, 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 1950s, 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 Krebkir, 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, it was Protestants from the United States, Scots.

You know, eventually we had Slavs who came. We had Italians and so forth. But we had a core ethnos that shared the same culture, language, and the same sense of destiny. What I do when I'm presented with that is I say, okay, fine. Name an idea, a value that is universally recognized as American, whether it's the Constitution, or it's 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 reality is that actually speaking, our identity, not only was it pretty monolithic, but relative to a lot of countries in Europe. And I've 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 illegal immigrants 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

in 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 Napolitano says, well, there is precedent in the United States. There is Pritz versus the United States. And in Pritz 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 you had an attempt by the Democrat. back in the late 90s 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 this as justification to say, look, 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 U.S. 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 a emergency. 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 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, 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 stress with people. A lot of folks, 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, I think one of the big problems is when you get into crisis mode, those people who even have a just a rudimentary. historical, have rudimentary 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 fail to realize is, is that one of the, one of the biggest problems we have is, you know, what Sam Francis called them, you know, the revolution of mass and scale is you just one, ruling 350 million people or probably 400 million people is just impossible you know people talk about this all the time oh we're going to get a strong man elected and he's going to he's going to what like Trump is getting like Trump has like mayors in towns who are like yes send the send the send the um

I was going to say the IDF which is pretty but uh send you know send um send border patrol here or send an INS 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. This is what, this is what James Burnham wrote about. When he wrote about the manager 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 yeah i mean it could go that way uh look some of what's happening too and i've talked about this before is a is a modernization project i mean right now uh the most important thing that's happening is nothing that we've discussed so far really it's the deterioration inside the financial system um it's uh the secured overnight funding rate that's becoming erratic It's the repo rate that's becoming erratic. 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 with dealing with that? Well, it's the Fed. Well, the Fed has been around since 1913. and the Fed has a model of the monetary universe, it 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 malfeasance and fraud that we saw in the lead up to 2008. They just do it indirectly via shadow banks, which are non-depository financial institutions, This 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, it's just a giant Ponzi scheme. 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 100 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 5 to 10 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 re-evaluate rewire what that nine to five paradigm looks like for average americans as the economy restructures and uh the government is at the sort of at the center of all of it and it's a disoriented obsolescent mess so i think you're 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 inappropriate it's that it's incomplete right and one of the things i've tried to emphasize with people christopher hitchin said that the 20th century was about three ideas solanism fascism and imperialism um we've moved beyond that we're in a very different world today uh equally you you listen to neocons

talk about or Zionists, talk about Hitler, Putin is Hitler, Xi is Hitler. They bear no resemblance. The world is 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. Do you think there is any threat considering how far we've come with technology, how far we've come? Is there any threat that you could have one country who could dominate the globe? I'm talking about, you know, basically like in, push their morals upon another, upon multiple, multiple, you know, countries and peoples, or is that just, are we, are we at the point where we're, we're looking at regionalism going forth? 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 um i say that in part because

i have traveled extensively i've been all over latin america for example columbia mexico i i speak pretty pretty good spanish too so i can talk to a lot of the locals um i've also been to asia you know i i haven't been to vietnam with a french corps 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 is gone. Yeah, maybe the edifice is still there. You know, there's French architecture. But, you know, you go 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, administer and run colonial holdings and the British monarchy was for all kinds of reasons. And that speaks to the difficulty of Imperium itself. You know, again, you could go back to the Romans, but you're talking about the Mediterranean.

There's a whole other side of the world, folks. So I'm not sure that there was ever a world in which one country orchestrated, disproportionate, outsized power. With one caveat, wherever I go, with whomever I interact with, American media does reach them, 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 are as Russian today as they've ever been.

I think the Latin American culture is actually revering back to what it was pre-Columbian times. In other words, it's sort of shedding the Spanish, Portuguese, colonial influence 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's 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 non-Chinese, you can be Chinese.

So I think the answer to 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 is 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 30 to 40 years is nothing short of spectacular. I mean, they've affected an industrial revolution in about half the time 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 this 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 that world emerging either. And 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 eschew Zionism. That's the real source of the balacocity 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 Iran. Venezuela is probably a little bit different, but the neocons, the Zionists, they support that too, because they think it's a proxy war against China. The fact of the matter is the world has changed, it's 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. you mentioned that wherever you go they get our news they get our media they get our um you know

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 part would you say it's Zionized or Or would you say this is the old European elite who were, yeah, or, yeah, I think it's a social engineering regime that Europe has undergone the social engineering regime we have since World War II. 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 40 and younger, especially the younger you go, is a total rejection of that. Now, the female matters, 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 would probably change 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, 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 condemn 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 2022 and the special military operation is that you have a major war, Pete, 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 deindustrialized. It's hollowed out. There are no position to fight anybody. And yet to hear them speak, oh, well, we're going to ramp up the 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

averted to. And that has been how you succeed in Europe and the United States politically for 50 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 and had the same views you and I do. They don't. There are people like J.D. Vance. There are people like Howard Lutnik or Whitkoff. They're either from Wall Street or they're from Silicon Valley or they're boomer 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 is just a few policies away from the 1950s. 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. 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 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 2028 the red team winning in 28 in 2028 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. Well, I said a moment ago, I think the election of Mamdani 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 was, I had a very good discussion recently with somebody that's an expert in all things Russia. And I asked him 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 what this is the wrong way to think about it but they're regaining a sense of themselves they're they're sort of marching in the right

direction um at least they have governments that are promoting their national interests right what 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 Oliver 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 50 years of populism since Richard Nixon in 1968. That's dead. The promise of Richard Nixon was the promise of Ronald Reagan, was the promise of Pap 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 it piecemeal, 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 deindustrialized the country. He basically handed everything over to Wall Street. We know how that ended. He pumped the national debt and deficit. He created a lot of the structural deficits we're dealing with today. and he brought in the Zionist, the neo-conservatives. A lot of that happened under Reagan. Nixon, 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 was continuity with the great society, which is why we're structurally broken as a government. When Trump goes down this time,

that 50-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 1929 or 1932, you could argue. Now, it did come back. It managed to survive. It sort of reorganize itself. But look, the Democratic Party more or less died in the 1860s. 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, will 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. 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 1950s, 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 prefer the latter. And the latter 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 what we need is radical change. But this is the crucial point, right? Pete, because,

and I try to emphasize this to 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 up 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 going to work. Persuasion is the most overrated art form I've ever seen. I mean, just as an aside to give an example of this, did Nick Fuentes ever debate Charlie Kirk? No. Did he ever debate Ben Shapiro? No. Has he, has his views and the Greiber 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 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 fight it. 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.

Very small number of people financed the revolution. And it almost disbanded because of that. 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. through. 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 maggot thing is going to fail. And I can prepare mentally and otherwise for that realization. Whereas the vast majority 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, 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, impassioned, 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. And 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 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, 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 this with your group, Pete, 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 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 long 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, better organized. I think we'd be farther along. My great fear, Pete, 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 cult like, you know, Andrew Tate 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 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 our leaders. We cannot tolerate people like Donald Trump. I'm sorry.

And I'm not even talking about it's corruption, which is bad enough. But the lack of articulate thinking, of discipline, of leadership, that just cannot fly anymore. 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. So you can find me on YouTube on Neo-masculinity, where you can type my name in Cameron McGregor, Men in the City.

I'm also on Substack. The Substack is 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. Thanks. Thank you, Cameron.

Thank you. You know, I'm going to be the Thank you.