The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1417: Order or Liberty? w/ Joey Oliver

Episode Date: September 3, 2026

79 MinutesPG-13Joey Oliver is an author.Pete invited Joey to come on his show to talk about the themes of his book, "American History Z: Gen Z's Journey to the Far Right"Joey's Book American History Z: Gen Z's Journey to the Far RightJoey on YouTubeJoey on Twitter/XPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete'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.

With election time approaching, political ads will be inserted into the episode, along with other ads that, frankly, I'm not going to like and you aren't going to like. So please ignore them, skip by them, whatever you have to do. I don't endorse any of the ads that are inserted, but it is another way for me to generate income. So I appreciate you guys putting up with them. If you don't want to deal with them, go to the Picanuena Show.com. can subscribe through Patreon. You can subscribe through Substack, which is my preferred one. Because with both of those, you get an RSS feed, only Patreon and only Substack give you an RSS feed. There's also a link to my website, Gumroad, and SubscribeStar, where you will get the

audio files that you can download and listen to or you can stream in most cases through those locations as well. So if you want to avoid the ads, consider supporting the show. If not, just know none of these ads get any endorsement from me. Skip by them. Do what you need to do. I appreciate all of you. Head on over to piquino show.com. You can get the show early and ad free over there.

If not, here's a show. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignano show for the first time, Joey Oliver. How you doing, Joey? Good, Pete. Thanks for having me. Sure. Tell everybody a little bit about yourself as much as you want to and take your time. Yeah.

Well, about a year ago, I started a YouTube channel called the Right Wing Coalition, which it was that. If I had known of the success, I would have picked a better name. But that sort of gained some traction essentially for really like an analytical breakdown of people in the right wing. And then that evolved more into thought pieces on general applied right wing philosophy. And that's kind of taken the direction, which I've gone since. And I then wrote a essay called Gen Z from Liberal to Far Right. I'm 27, so on the tail end of Gen Z. And it essentially tried to synthesize the last decade and create a narrative as to why you are seeing, quote, unquote, radicalization on the right for young men.

And off the back of that success, Artos offered me a publishing deal to turn it into a full book. So I really stretched out the narrative to actually give the evidence rather than it to simply be presumptive statements. I backed up what exactly happened, what were the numbers and how we reacted. That became American History Z, Gen Z's Journey to the Far Right, published about four months ago. And I lost my anonymity with the publication of it and have since been working on my YouTube. I just published a piece with American Renaissance. So I'm trying to kind of evolve more into the writing sphere. Essentially, I do the videos because most people don't read.

So it's easier to have it read aloud to them. But that's really my political background. And you will be speaking at Amran this year, correct? That's true. Yes. Yeah, that's awesome. That's awesome. As far as the right-wing coalition goes, I mean, I think it's a breadcrumb.

I think it's something that isn't automatically. something that someone would look at and be repulsed by. True. I think it's, yeah, it's not a bad idea. Before we get into radicalization of young men, what is your opinion of women and girls, females in Gen Z that you've witnessed? Well, from what I've witnessed, which to be fair, I think I've probably been in a, a specific demographic throughout, you know, growing up. I went to an all boys high school,

so I had a little bit of, yeah, a little bit of fraternal solidarity. Aren't you so happy that you went to an all boys high school? It was the best. It was the absolute best. Yeah. No, I mean, it really was like your eyes were open to a different reality while everybody else had to live in kind of the basic parameters. But following that, my experiencing, college and post-grad really was the opposite, I think, of what we're seeing with young men, where there is that doubling down on the liberal hegemony. But for that reason, it is because it's really a theology and a theology that's propagated by the institutions and women will essentially conform to whatever the dominant power

structure in their life is. That will be the deference for their opinions. But that being said, I don't think that we're seeing this amongst women, certainly not from the right, perhaps from the left. And even still, what I will also say, because there's a lot of refutation over the idea of radicalization among young men. But what it is, it's a very specific select cohort. And I think generally it tends to be your high achievers, high performers,

because on the backs of their excommunication from the institutions comes that breaking of the mythology for them to see, why have I not been treated in the way that my merit otherwise would allow for? So whether it's a broad trend of all men is kind of immaterial. The point is, if you were to apply like elite theory, like the most capable of the young men are typically going down this road, but the women are not. And my, I mean, I don't know how far you want to go off in this topic, but my, my presumption is you don't need to worry about that. What you need to worry about is replacing the institution and the women and their beliefs will follow that. So rather than trying to, you know, go to like a feminist college and explain the data,

you basically, and it's perhaps a more lofty goal, but the real way to fix that would be taking over the feminist institution and replacing that theology because these aren't conclusions that are being drawn. They are ideas that are being, you know, sent into people's brains through the mechanisms of our institutions. And I think the, just to use something from today that I was talking about with my wife earlier, the Lindsay Clancy jury is deadlocked. And I've seen women that I don't know in real life, but they're on my, like, and this is all on Facebook. I will not leave Facebook because it's, when you go on X, X is not Normieville.

Right. You get a good, you know, there's a lot of Normies on Facebook. I mean, there's a lot of bots on Facebook, obviously. but there's a lot of normies on Facebook, and you will see women without any evidence whatsoever and say, yeah, her husband killed those kids, threw her out of a window. And it's like, okay, so what's the evidence to that? I just feel it. Right.

Yeah, that really displays the heart of the matter. And I think part of this, too, is a societal shit test in that. many of them are putting that forth as their opinion to see if they will get shut down by, you know, if there's anything left of a patriarchy, if they will be shut down, or if the betas are going to cower and just say, yeah, you might have a point there. We don't know for sure. I think that we're oscillating between, you know, being fed that information and that opinion versus, I'm going to see how far I can take this, which a lot of men don't even understand is part of that psychology.

and we are told and we are taught to take things on the assumption that it's good faith and that it is presented at face value, which is obviously not the case. Yeah, I don't, I don't remember who said it. It was like two or three weeks ago, but they said, if you are married and you have, if you're married and if you're, or if you're married and you have kids and your wife is making TikTok videos about how Lindsay Clancy is. is basically defending what she did or saying she keep those, download those videos and keep them because you're going to need them in divorce court in a couple years. Oh, yeah. Oh,

yeah. Because there's no way that you're going to be able to live with somebody like that. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, it's, I mean, it's, it's really been a scary development. I think what also compounds the dangerous element of it is the fact that, and I'm certainly not, the first one to say this, but we're now having not just that behavior incentivized, but holding those opinions being incentivized. You know, her go fund me, her fame, her instant fame, basically. And I've heard Carl Benjamin talking about the women of Milusia in Greece. Did anyone tell you about that?

Yeah. No. So, and I'm sure I'm misremembering some of the details. but essentially some very high status woman committed suicide in this city and was basically immortalized, think of like 27 club type thing. And so women to achieve that level of, you know, martyrdom and fame, there was this string of suicides among young women. And I don't remember how bad it got, but it got bad enough to the point that they were trying to take state measures to stop it. And finally, the only thing that worked was the king basically said that the next suicide,

the body of the woman will be swung from city hall or whatever, naked to rot in public. So it took that opposite incentive of the shame and the disgust as a result to stop the suicides, but they did stop. And you worry about something like this in the age of social media. And I don't think we've answered the question of whether it's a trans thing. Exactly, exactly. And I don't think we've answered the question of whether humans, but particularly young women, even have the mental capacity to deal with what comes from their use of social media. And this might be another unraveling into madness. Yeah, that's something that we, a cadre of us talk about all the time, is we see people succumbing to social media brain. where not only are, does it seem like they can't interact with other humans, you know, they interact with other humans in a way on social media that seems completely foreign to

anything in history or anything European or white. Not only that, but they actually think that they're accomplishing, like they're accomplishing something. Exactly. it strikes me as the the alternative thought process that young men who are addicted to video games get, which is

that false sense of accomplishment. The problem I think on the female side is there's real world implications to that kind of false mirage. And I think we often we often lie to ourselves that what we're experiencing is just everyday regular human life, you know, written in a different key, basically, and not understanding that a lot of the things that we're being exposed to are the first time the experiment is ran. And there is no guarantee that it's going to end up being a success. God, there's so much I can deal with that.

But the, let's go to this. going back to young men, going back to Gen Z men. One of the points that you make, and if you think about it, it's rather simple, but no, I don't think anybody really expressed it in such a way that you have in such a simple way is, is that politics used to be something that you could either ignore, you know, you could ignore it, or you could watch it on the sidelines. You could be, but it seems like. because of a very real threat to young men and an existential threat, they're forced into politics.

And when you're forced into politics and you perceive an existential threat, you immediately, the radicalization process doesn't take very long. exactly i think um you still see this fluttering between reality and the vision that we were sold even amongst people who are radicalized um whereas there is this um there's this appeal to the future like how much you're saving into your 401k things of that nature um where if you understand the gravity of the situation, you realize that kind of the boomer mirage of life will not play out under any circumstance going forward. But there's still that desire to kind of hold to that imagination. But it has reached the point, like I said, I'm 27. When I was in high school, I went to an all-boys

school in downtown Seattle. It was a fairly nice city. And when I was young, like a child, then we would go downtown. I mean, it was, you know, pristine. From the time I was a freshman to a senior, it had gotten to the point where the homeless people were having machete fights to the death on the street. And these types of interactions were not rare or relegated to to, you know, under some disgusting bridge. That reality started to face us early and that is only expounded over the years. And now we're at the point, as everybody knows, not just a matter of the value of the dollar, go to a Walmart, go to a subway, whatever it, go to a Costco famously. You cannot escape this anymore. And not only that, but if you wanted to escape it, it would

require attaining material wealth that you cannot get through the otherwise laid out path. You are essentially forced to operate, I mean, I think at this point immorally, really, to achieve financial wealth. But that path of if you make responsible, smart decisions that you will be bestowed this life, that is not spectacular, but it's comfortable, it's safe. That is gone. And not only is that gone, but the daily life that you have to live in has already been inverted from what it was even when we were growing up, you know, in our mid-20s.

You can't deny these things any longer. And then you begin to ask, well, what changed? Why are we here? And it turns out that the answer, you know, as many of us can draw simply from our memory, is not all that complex. Yeah, the phrase, there's a political phrase now that people use that it's, no one would have thought to use it except for certain periods in the past is this was done to us on purpose. This was on purpose. Right.

And then you have to, then the logical questions come, okay, who did this and why did they do it? And so do you, what's your take on that? Well, I think, again, falling back upon the liberal theology, the assumption is that everybody's just trying their best at all times and any poor outcomes are a result of a improper analysis of how to solve the problem. And what you soon realize is that the answers to these problems are not just available, but they have always been available and always within arm's reach and often implemented to the point where, you know, nothing, no, no form of our governance has ever actually been replicated previously.

Essentially all forms of government has either followed the same trend or the same general direction. And what enrages so many people is they learn these things and they think, I just got the answer. We know how to do this. And you offer it. And you're met with vitriol, dismissal, whatever. Because for the good faith people, they're following. a theology that does not work. And for the bad faith people who actually control the levers of

power, they understand where this goes. I was thinking, I just sent a tweet out because I saw that there was a post about 2,000 ICE agents being detained in New York City. And, you know, I would be surprised if those in the administration who are able to make these decisions know less about this than I do, but not just me, but general common sense. With the number of illegals that are in this country, whether it's 30 million or 100 million or 150 million, to use the force of manpower to solve that problem, you're up against an impossibility of resources. So the only actual solution to that would be make life in hospitable for them so that they leave. And I'm not saying offer them a 3,000.

dollar voucher in a free flight home, which is, I think, close to what we did, you have to make sure that there is no advantage of being illegal in this country. That is not being done. And then you wonder, okay, so what is the point of a raid that takes out 2,000 people? Well, it sure seems like it's only good at doing one thing, which is maximally mobilizing the left against the right. What does that do? Well, it calls for justification of something like a blue Caesar or an authoritarian force that is in response to the right. And you have to start wondering, even from the current administration, is that the point? Because the people that are implementing these decisions, I concede there are plenty of idiots,

but there are a lot of people that understand exactly what's going on. And if the answer is in front of you and it's obvious and they are choosing not to do it, something else is at play and intent is very obvious. You know, I mean, you even look at, you look at the distorted mythology of America that opens the door to liberal globalism, basically. And if you were looking at it as charitably as possible, you could say, well, this is essentially a runaway train. We opened the door and now it's being applied everywhere.

but it makes no sense for people like I can't recall who but it was a Jewish woman who made the point that you know Jewishness was in ethnicity a culture a religion all those things which gives us the right to live in our ancestral homeland but to be British is an idea well that's never been the English mythology so you don't make that leap unless it's intentional and and that's when you you really start to see, you know, these outcomes, these motivations, there's nothing else to conclude but intent, it being intentional. Yeah, I think it's interesting that people can look through history and they can see a country being invaded and that country losing its identity and ceasing to exist. And there are even, we even have examples of,

by importing foreign populations, you know, Rome famously. But people can't see it today. People can't see today that diaspora politics is what has absolutely set this off. Because once one diaspora comes in here, they're basically going to start working for themselves. But if they can gain any kind of power whatsoever, they are going to start to, their intention is going to be to change the culture to their culture, to change our ways to their ways. And it couldn't be any more evident than the last 100 to 150 years that that was a specific plan. And it doesn't have to be everyone. It just has to be a small little group of elites, well-funded, well-organized, who can push that.

And then, boom, you don't have a country. Or your country is looked upon as there is no ethnicity to the country, even though you can look and see what the ethnicity of the founding stock was and basically what the overwhelming majority of it was up until, only 1970 and 1973. And, you know, but, you know, the myth that, you know, you have to have this myth that, you know, we're just, this is someplace. Do you how many people I know, like, that are like, yeah, I'm just here. And then I'm making as much money as I can. Then I'm going to retire back to my country because I'll be able to live. Like, I've had people tell me that.

I mean, tell me that knowing that it's going to insult me. And they're just honest about it. You know, I think that one of the biggest consequences of this liberal theology is the idea that neutrality is possible and that you can have some form of governance or really anything that is just a – I just look at the facts. How many like boomers have you heard say that? I'm not left or right. I just look at the facts.

Like you cannot interpret facts without your moral framework. And then they get all – then they get all their facts from Fox News. at all their brains from Fox News or CNN or MSN now, whatever it is called now. Exactly. And there's not even a concession to understand that facts can only be perceived through a moral framework. There's as many facts living in the bedroom that you're looking at as could be on the planet. It's infinite. The only way that you can interpret the world is to apply value to them and understand how they're actually impacting reality.

And I've come to the conclusion that if you don't prefer the majority, you will end up preferring the minority and then will end up demonizing the majority. So like in order to sustain the order, you have to have the deference to the majority. Like this is why I can't recall who originally stated it. But you know, if you're not explicitly right wing, you will eventually go left wing because that's, you know, the entropic forces. And you should apply that to anything. It's like how many white Western countries have officially declared that they're race blind? And the question is not should we be race, which that is their question because it's a moral, it's a moral assertion. But the question for these people is actually,

can you have a society that is race blind? And the answer is obviously no now. So if you take that information and you apply it the appropriate value to inform your decisions, then you can actually draw an effective conclusion that changes things. Otherwise, you will have the Henry Novak situation over and over and over again, you know, while the state or whoever the dominant power is saying, we're just race blind. We just, we treat everybody equal apathetically. It's not possible. You mentioned liberalism there. I wanted to ask you a question. And I'm going to frame this in like the in a really cheesy kind of interview style question. Joey, what does order mean to you?

Well, I would say to have order, you have to first have a sense of who you are and what you are. Identity is the first pillar of that question. because if you can't consolidate, you know, what even is this blob, you can't actually create some form of hierarchy within it. But order fundamentally is going to be hierarchy. The question is what, how is that hierarchy structured? So to start from a baseline, it would be, you know, an ethnos, right? A genetic reality of who we are. From there, it's a question of what we believe.

And, you know, I think that we, a lot of Europe really got it right, you know, pre the World War era. And in order to maintain order, you have to have a continual, a continual controlled burn upon the things you believe. It cannot be entirely set within a box. It has to be able to modulate, but only modulate under strict parameters, strict principles. And that's going to be relative to whoever that baseline people is. You know, I hear conservatives often they shout things like, we want law and order. Well, what does that look like? Because our current law puts Derek Chauvin in prison.

So you have to you can't we can't just defer to these broad labels for underlying structures. We have to reconfigure the structure to make sure that the label actually matches a true definition of what it is and not what a communist definition is, what a classical liberals and what an actual right wingers definition is. And, you know, obviously I believe that in the absence of criminality, if we're able to, you know, define that properly. But I fundamentally, I think the state actually has obligations to people, which your average conservative, your average classical liberal would reject. And that order is really a symbiotic relationship between the governed and the governor. And until you work that agreement out, you have no chance to actually put together something that resembles order. I know it's very vague. I mean, I could get into actual metrics.

But I think what's more important is the underlying philosophy of defining these things so that you can actually create order. Because right now, we wouldn't be able to give a definition of it because we don't know what the building blocks even are. Yeah, the problem I have with the classical liberals, I agree with what you said there about order, order is hierarchy, order is, and knowing your identity. Yep. And also, you know, if you, in ethnos, it, people want to be led by somebody who looks like them, sounds like them may even be their 10th cousin or something like that.

You know, that is when you have my, the reason I asked you about that is because from, I interviewed Ron Paul probably 10 times over the years, free 2020. I listen to the James Lindsay's of the world. I listen. They all say that the answer to all of this is liberty. And, well, first of all, that doesn't mean anything. You know, liberty to, you know, my, my question has become liberty to do what? Yeah. What do you want?

Because that's what it comes down to. And you can't have liberty if you don't have order. How can you have, if you, you know, it's like this whole flop cameras thing. Okay. I'll be down with flock cameras. Here's the way you get me down with flock cameras. Destroy, make it illegal to be left wing in this country. Like literally, they can't take power.

They can't have control over any institution, social, financial, anything. They can't be elected to office. Then I'll be okay with flock cameras. Oh, but guess what? Then we won't need them anymore. Well, I think that the flock camera debate really highlights so much of the problems in the underlying discourse because I saw RN reposted a video of like 100 non-whites basically ransacking a grocery store. And his point was, well, we certainly have all the evidence. We can see all their faces.

why is nobody going to be arrested for this? And it's the selective application of the state that, I think, to your point, we will concede that ideally we would like a public space that is ordered and free of criminality. But we seem to actually have all the resources to allow for that already, and we are not getting it, and you're asking for additional infrastructure

when we can very plainly see that the powers of the state are being applied to those who are viewed as an enemy of the state. But I would probably take it one step further where the libertarian or the classical liberal will say, well, obviously that's bad. We need an objective law. There's no such thing. What we need to do is redefine what the enemy of the state actually is, to your point. And that is how you properly wield power is you have a sovereign that's able to distinguish who is an enemy of the state and where does that get applied. Now, that's not to say that I think people of our disposition in power would be a lot more predisposed to simply using the power of the state to arrest anybody. It's not like we would just all of a sudden let white criminals go free. but the point is that there's always going to be an enemy of the state.

And that's what the liberals will never concede. They think that there is this world in which you can have a governing force of humans that's able to distinguish this without any bias. I'm writing an essay essentially on how liberals responded to Nathan Koffness's race realist talking points after the Jason Ardei exposure. Brett Weinstein, Joel Berry come to mind and I'll give the preface that I understand that some of these people might just be bad faith. But what you can't get away from is that there's many, many, many people, probably most standard conservatives that do hold their views in good faith. So you still need to attack that presentation.

And Brett Weinstein said in his interview that essentially the institution should be able to study these things effectively and without bias. that's not the question. The question is can they? It is a question of function. This is the same thing that we could apply to our previous conversation about, you know, women. And how does, and him more than anyone, how does he not realize that, considering what happened at Evergreen? Exactly. And the reality is because it's a theology. It is a moral belief. And even his, denial of the obvious facts and the obvious reality that we're having to face more and more every day. It could be said that in the 1980s or 70s, you're like, well, I don't know. I mean, let's hope for the best. But this is the same, I think, counter that should be applied to all

of these classical liberal beliefs predicated on equality, not just of the races, but of the sexes, but of all men, equal potential, blank slatism, really the core of that theology. is can it work? If you radically empower women to give them the political power of men at age 18 onward, the question is not, is that a moral good, which you can still believe? The question is, does that work? Or does it end in disaster? And I think the question that needs to be posed to these people rather than a refutation of their facts is if we implement your vision, what happens if X? What happens if in three generations we figure out conclusively that the empowerment of women politically ends in either the complete collapse of the birth rate, end of civilization? Are we still

obligated to give them equal rights then? You know, if you implement your colorblind meritocracy, and as Koffness talks about, blacks vanish from the institutions. They're out of all high-profile jobs. Do you think that 13% of the population is just going to be okay with it because it was a fair selection process? That misunderstands humans on such a fundamental level. You wonder how these people can really investigate anything if that's their baseline. So it is a question of function for the liberals now because we're not going to defeat their morality with our facts. And until we can impose and combat their morality with a new consolidated cohesive morality

that is not based on equality broadly and certainly not racial equality, they will continue to misunderstand and misinterpret our facts because in this liberal orthodoxy, a lie that is in service of it is seen as noble and the truth that contradicts it is punished conclusively. So you know it's not a game of facts. It's a game of theology. And that can't be explained to them because they have a different, they have a different theology. And all they end up doing, you know, I mean, I've, James Lindsay actually said once on Twitter. I have the screenshot somewhere. I don't remember if he said it to me or not. But he said people say classical liberalism caused this. He said, classical liberalism hasn't even started yet.

And I'm like, what the, what does that mean? What are you talking about? I mean, you're basically what these people, and I'm going to throw conservatives in with this, all they're fighting, all their voting to do is to keep things going the way it is. You know, what Thomas calls the Nuremberg system and what the New Deal regime, basically the new dealers. This is not the government of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. This isn't even the government of Lincoln.

This is the government of FDR. And the government of FDR is a government of chaos, of socialism. I mean, you know, Social Security, social, you know, 6,000, six thousand, six thousand, executive orders that I don't know that anyone's ever tried to turn over, a restructuring of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court decisions that basically turned whatever the Constitution was at that point on their head. It doesn't exist anymore. What these people want, oh, we need to go back, you know, the answer to 1984 or 1776. What are you talking about? all you're fighting to do is to go back to FDR.

And FDR is what gave you this. The reason why people are willing to fight and die for a liberal system and say, and want liberty before they want order, or to say that, you know, was it liberty, something about liberty being dangerous liberty, You know, you don't want tyranny and dangerous liberty. You'd rather have dangerous liberty than, you know, than safe tyranny or something like that.

It's not tyranny. It's called order. Right. And it's what most people in Europe lived under for thousands of years. Was it perfect? It's not ever going to be perfect. We're fallen people. I mean, that's why marriage is so hard.

People are like, oh, you know, marriage. Well, you have two fallen people. I don't care if you're both Christians. You're both fall in. You both have a fallen nature. You both have a sinful nature. So how does liberty, how do you put liberty in front of order? How does giving people more freedom to do what?

To ransack, you know, to ransack CVS's, to, you know, kill and to rape and be, and get less time in jail if they get any time at all? than some white guy who fucks up on his taxes. I mean, what are we talking about here? What is this liberty? Like, I used to talk about liberty all the time. Now when I study it and I look at it, I'm like, it doesn't make any sense.

One man's, you and I are going to look at liberty differently. We'll just have to come to, we just have to come to an agreement on how we can coexist. If we can, if we share enough, if we share enough, you know, foundational values? Well, I think that the fetishization of liberty has been kind of the result of the libertarian foundations of modern conservatism, which is why it applies so much to the disaffected liberals, because they're essentially indistinguishable at this point. But that's another phrase.

Well, first of all, what James Lindsay really was saying, is that real liberalism has never been tried because these are a utopian vision that is predicated on an incorrect assumption of human nature where you believe if you're able to set the parameters up properly that incorrect but theorized human nature will flourish within those constraints obviously it doesn't happen I think this is the one of the great arguments that that struck me originally and of my evolution out of that classical liberalism idea was either the Constitution led directly to this or was too impotent to stop it. And that's that underlying logic is what once you're

freed of the direct theology of this this liberalism allows you to analyze liberty, how it's being framed is a it is again, it's a theological idea to these people that has no real world definition, which is why they appeal to it in explicitly or implicitly because your perspective of liberal liberty is something that is good and would not otherwise be contested. Because what what you think of that as is I don't want somebody with the authority to tell me what I can't do. But our definitions of what I can do and what I would want to do are entirely different. As you said, pillage of CVS, rape somebody. These are all things that some people do want to do. So are we okay to restrict liberty in that sense? Oh, yes, of course, because why they're

basing their understanding of the world on these baseline presumptions that are result of the liberal theocracy that have no definition to them at all. This is what bothers me so much when I hear people like Elon Musk and others talk about, I'm just a normal person from the 90s. I just want to get back to normalcy. They cannot even define what that means. It is all vague assertions of a time that they remember being pretty good, but can't even articulate why it was good. And if you don't understand why it was good, then you can never get back to it because you can't create the infrastructure to allow for it. All this, a lot of this rides, and I would say, if you haven't reached many of our

conclusion, it rides on this idea that we don't have to define the world, that we can just understand it as is and govern in a way that broadly is in the direction of liberty and individualism, basically, without understanding the mechanisms. that create these systems. Like I said, with order, a lot of this really is this inability for anybody to actually understand what they're calling for. They're theological calls to this old heaven on earth that they once inhabited, which is why a guy like Brett Weinstein continually says things like, you know, back in the 90s when

liberalism was actually working properly. What made liberalism work properly back then, but not now? can't define it. And if you can't define that, you don't understand the system and how it's operating. And if you don't get that, and this is what I say all the time is, if you don't get the diagnosis right, it is impossible to get the prescription right. You have to understand what is the problem to even attempt to solve it. So I think that that's the underlying disconnect there. Well, you quoted Lysander Spooner there about the Constitution either being too impotent to stop what's happening or what's the other part of it? It either directly allowed for it or was too impotent to stop it.

Yeah. Well, you know, here's a thing, and I used to agree with that. And I agree with it to a certain extent to the extent that a constitution is a constitution. supposed to be a reflection of the constitution of the people who are living under it. Yeah. And as soon as you start importing groups that do not, that that constitution doesn't match their constitution, their metaphysical constitution, that constitution can't, what you're going to end up doing is, is you're going to see that people are, people can't survive,

cannot thrive or be successful under that constitution. And instead of letting them fail, you're going to alter that constitution or turn your back on it, or you're just going to let them fail. Instead of the whole situation of quote unquote colonization, really the best thing I think you can do for these people is like go. there, figure out what their constitution is, and then write a constitution around that. One thing I want to clarify, because I agree with you fully, the reason I said that about the constitution is because that I think is the first breadcrumb to allow for the next conclusion that refutes liberalism, which is the idea that you can have a system that doesn't

have to ever deal with the exception. You can write a framework that, that will never have to deal with the singular lever of power that really decides. And which is why, obviously, the Middle East wars had certainly other objectives to them. But the reason why the general public was allowed, allowed themselves to go along with that mythological framing is because at the core of liberalism, you know, building upon that blank slate theology is the idea that there is a universal structure that can be applied to all people and never, it's self-perpetuating, self-correcting, and always moving toward the direction of progress, again, something that everybody has a different definition for. And if once you can

kind of break through that mold of understanding, well, the Constitution is a system and that system one way or the other allowed for this, maybe that means that a system in itself is, not always going to be able to deal with every single problem that gets put in front of it. You see what I'm saying? Well, yeah, the whole thing about having somebody to decide the exception. And if you have a constitution and it's reflecting the constitution of your people, there has to be someone there who goes, no, we just can't allow this person. This person can't be a part anymore.

Right. this child that's been born into this society has become unruly and is a threat. And they need to be cast out. I mean, this is something that has happened throughout history. You know, but the whole idea of like, oh, you're not allowed, you know, having someone that decides the exception. I mean, that's tyrannical. That's a family. Yeah, exactly.

That's a father. That's what a father does. That's what a father does. That's what a husband does. You know, you can't, everything cannot come to a vote. You're going to have emergency issue. You know, if the, if the barbarians are at the gate, you need somebody who, you need somebody to step up and go, this is what, it's, it's a lot better to have one person going,

this is exactly what we should be doing right now. You do this, you do that. Oh, let's get Congress together and have a committee. No, screw that. And, and. We need one person. The, the whole idea. of committee rule, I think, as it's gotten worse and worse, is a direct result of the

feminization of society because the longhouse governance is the feminine opposite to an empowered executive. And I think to your point, I mean, that's a concept I've talked about a lot, which is that the state to operate effectively must be, be operating with paternal care toward its citizens. And I think aside from history, we have a real world example of that in Buckele and El Salvador. Now, where does that all start though? As you said, the constitution of the people

must be reflected in the leader, which it is there. And then there is some congruence between the two and what drives, I, this is again the most charitable interpretation but what drives his decisions which are undeniably ending in success at least according to our moral framework it seems to be a care for his people and if you ask a libertarian i mean they couldn't even tell you why a father is incentivized to care about their children a true libertarian because well there's no profit motive there you know that oftentimes that that you know perception of the world has a hard time understanding the spiritual components and something like that.

I think, you know, if we were just dealing with a question of how do you confirm the legitimacy of their beliefs, I get that. But we're not even entertaining that core reality that many people do talk about it, but nobody to the point where we're actually considering making change to reflect it, is that do our leaders care about their people? And I don't think you can do that. I think if they are not of your ethnic kin, the tie to be able to care about them to the degree that you would need to effectively govern is lessened a considerable amount.

I think that is probably a prerequisite to responsible patriarchal governance. And again, that is a question of function. That is not a moral proposition. It is to say that that is likely one of the key ingredients to allow for that governance. I'm not saying it should or ought to be that way. You know, I was in El Salvador last year in March, in March of 2025. And I went to, well, just to give you an idea of what he did. done there.

I've been twice. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, you've been twice? Yeah. Remember the Civil Guard? Yeah. You have Civil Guard with a shotgun every, what, 500 feet? Yeah.

And then like every quarter of a mile to half a mile, there's soldiers with M-4s. Yep. I mean, if that's what it takes. Exactly. And I remember, did you go to the, did you go to the museum? Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

So I was talking to somebody about an exhibit there. And we were talking about Buckelly. And they were complaining about, you know, in his sweeps, innocent people getting caught up. And I'm like, so how many people do you think innocent people were caught up in his sweeps? They said, well, at least five that I can think of. And if one of those five was me or someone I cared about, I get it. But also, this is literally the murder capital of the world.

Right. And now it's not. I would, if someone that I love was caught up in that sweep, I would understand it. And I would do everything I could to convince Buckelly's government, hey, that person needs to be let go because, you know, they just got caught up in this. I honestly believe that there weren't any innocent. and people caught up in this. I mean, I'm, yeah, yeah.

Maybe, I mean, there's a good chance they were, but, you know, I think that that's just another bullshit liberal, you know, liberal tactic. But the thing is, is that he basically brought back, brought the country to become like, I felt safer walking around San Salvador at midnight than I do walking around, you know, some neighborhoods in New York City in the middle of the day. It's not even close, honestly. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, people are partying on the streets like late and just having a good time. And he is beloved because he did that. Right. So what is it? Why do I look at that and I admire what he does and others look at it and want to kill him in his whole family? Right. Because I have a different set of values. Exactly.

I have a different religion. Your religion is chaos and people with neck tattoos running the country. My idea is you put them down like dogs and we live in an orderly, we live in an orderly society. You know, I think a lot of the liberal framework, at least what it's evolved into is set up a system according to the mythical exception. If I were to say that there's one woman in all of the world that had the ability to play in the MBA, the liberal would say, well, we need to create mass training facilities throughout the world to try and identify this one woman and any other women in the future to ensure that they have an equal shot to maximize their potential. What I say is, okay, we'll just, miss out on that one woman being in the NBA. It's not worth the capital to create an infrastructure

to guarantee this mythical person a chance at equality. And you see that reflected in the understanding of the immigration debate. It's like, well, if there's a theoretical Ugandan who is right online with American values wants to integrate, which we don't even understand what those are at this point, wants to integrate perfectly, gets here, we've actually no way of testing whether they have cultural congruence or their beliefs are even in line with a vague outline of what American beliefs are. They should have an equal chance. I say not worth the infrastructure. Again, that's my functional rebuttal to not even engage the theological approach to it, is that that's not worth the infrastructure. And I think,

you know, Buckelay has deployed that same style of thinking, but certainly more in the moral framework of it, that great interview. I think it was actually with Tucker Carlson when he talked about, you know, these journalists, they come to me saying, what about the human rights of the criminals? And he says, what about the human rights of a woman not to be raped and a child to be able to play? That is the restructuring of the framework that must occur for anybody to be able to come comfortable with those types of measures. Because if you're always worried about the hypothetical, mythical, innocent guy who happened to be living in the basement floor of the 40-story gang communal house and during the raid, he gets swept up, it's like, but is it worth destabilizing your entire society just for that? hypothetical person who almost certainly doesn't even exist and their freedom. You've just described our society. Exactly. Yes, because they will say yes. Yes.

And that's why our society is the way it is now. Not taking into account the people who are here to purposefully destabilize us. Exactly. Right. You know, that's the best people. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry, that was what? That's just that's the most charitable interpretations that they're even thinking about that honestly. Yeah. Oh, and there are people who are, who are just genuinely wrong and their religion is wrong. And then there are those who are here to destabilize the society and destroy it. And it is, a lot of them are born here.

They can't do it. You know, these are foreign operatives, but they can't do it alone. Exactly. You need traitors. And these are people they just need to be dealt with. They need to be singled out. and they need to be pulled out of society. And until it is absolutely illegal,

just like it's been criminal and basically illegal to be right wing for the last 80 years, it has to be reversed. Because you can only have order with a, if you properly understand what right wing is. And there are groups of people who, there are groups of people that don't, have the IQ level to be able to live in an orderly society. And then there's another group of

people who everywhere they go, they destabilize it just because of who they are. Well, and to, you know, I mean, that's another layer of the inability for the good faith, classical liberal, good faith conservative to come to terms with is that there are people that upon that hierarchy of human capacity and potential, simply don't have the ability to govern themselves in a way that's reflective of societal order. And that has, you have to come to terms with that. Because if you don't, you're going to start genuinely believing that

what distinguishes the CEO and the president is just a matter of work ethic. And it's not. and to even attribute something like you were alluding to of a specific population, having a predisposition to behaviors in general, but certainly those types of behaviors, it requires a rejection of the blank slate idea. It requires it. And so that is the god of liberalism. And even those like the Brett Weinstein's who claim not to not,

to believe it to the degree maybe that it was originally theorized, their political positions are still entirely reliant on it. And that, you know, that gets supplied to everything. So if that isn't defeated, then you can't make any progress. Yeah, the idea that Western nations, and, you know, calling them the West now, the West is Christendom, and we're not We're not Christendom anymore. That Western nations are not allowed to decide who can come in and who they can allow in and who they can't allow in. Because one group historically has proven that they're not compatible with any Western, any historic Western nation. And they always end up getting kicked out.

As soon as that group takes power, gets any kind of power, they make sure that every, Every formerly Western nation has to be overrun and take in whomever they decide they have to take in. I mean, we're just, we're at a crossroads now. And you cannot, until people are, you know, even people I like are willing to say that, then you're just not going to, until you have people who have the kind of money and power who are willing to step up and say, things like that. It's just not going to, you're not going to have order. It's just going to get worse and worse. Have you noticed, because I've noticed this particularly in the older generations, specifically Gen X and Boomers, their understanding of the top is purely through the lens of

our merchant society. So the most ambitious people, have no concern for actual power. It's purely, you know, be the next Steve Jobs, Elon Musk. That is it. And there seems to be this immediate recoiling to whenever state powers applied against them, even if it's as absurd as, you know, a all black woman city council. There's just an immediate deference to it. And very few of them are willing to reframe their

outlook and think, you know, maybe the one who makes the actual decisions broadly, maybe that's the pinnacle of, you know, if I've, if I've reached the top and not even from a egotistical perspective too, you could apply it to a moral obligation, right? To, you know, they'll play a line of, of, if you choose not to rule, you'll be ruled by your inferior, that would be your punishment. I rarely see that. And I think that's changing because, like I said originally, because politics operated well enough to allow for that material prosperity,

that became the goal. And as that's going away, there's that clinging to the mythology that, well, if I just get rich enough to evade the system, then I'm good, which is really what you see nowadays. But I think that it's going to take people that

want the power and again we're so allergic to that idea too um because just saying it while it's certainly important and i i i'm sure you agree with this as well while it's certainly important uh that's not where the overton window is not exactly where the power lies it's still going to require you know somebody somebody assuming that position um and the only i think the only way that you could possibly put up with the amount of hatred and uh and vitriol that would come from trying to do that would be through like a deep spiritual love and obligation to your people otherwise it's like what what's the point you know if you're just looking at it through material lens there there is no point which is i think why we rarely see anybody trying because we've been separated from that spiritual um you know devotion i guess to our people uh that that must all people right Like that, that must all people in their respective groups. And so anyway, have you kind of seen that too?

I mean, nobody seems to have those aspirations. Well, as a Gen Xer and an old Gen Xer, the, yeah, I do recognize that boomers and Gen X and we've all undergone a social engineering regime. that was very successful, very successful. I mean, just how they taught you to not only like lionize black people and people from other places, but also, you know, all the people pretending, thinking that they're Jewish or saying that they're Jewish because, you know, Jews are like these uber munches that, you know, just happened. be persecuted everywhere they go for no reason whatsoever um you know my dad was one of those boomers it was just completely out of his mind lying about being jewish and things like that i mean a fucking

it's just in no political sense whatsoever you're just your typical conservative your typical christian conservative where it's like oh if we just get the right pastor elected or something it's like, what do you think it's going to be any different? But no, I think you're right. I mean, at this point, when you look at it, the only way you're going to have any change, like, drastic change, and it would probably have to be something done in a very short period of time is to elect somebody who is willing to do that. If anything that the election of Trump twice, three times could give you hope is that people are willing to vote for somebody outside of the system. It was up until Trump, there was no, you know, I mean, you could say Obama presented

himself as an outsider, but pretty much everybody knew who he was by the time he got elected, but, you know, you had no real outsiders up until Trump. So all bets are off. You have, you have, You can clearly see that there are people, especially in the Republican, in the GOP camp, especially the neocom camp, who want to go back to Mitt Romney and George W. Bush, things like that. And they're pushing as hard as they can to cancel anybody. If they have to do it, and if they have to do it through the Democrat Party, they'll do it through the Democrat Party, too. It doesn't matter. These people have an identity, and it's not Republican or Democrat.

it's not left or right. I do think that there is a chance that that could happen, but that is going to have to be somebody, it's going to have to be a messianic figure. Agreed. Along the lines of, you know, what Thomas talks about, Cromwell, Napoleon, Adolph-Fieler.

Yes, absolutely. Somebody like that. Francisco Franco, it's going to have to be somebody who is willing to die, will, you know, will, like, these are my people. I'm fighting for my people. And I'm going to tell you exactly who my people are. Right.

And it's not going to be, it's not going to be, you know, everyone in the country. Right. I'm working for these people. And when does that happen? I don't know. Will the Overton window help pushing the Overton window? I think it does. It will help.

I think people, people of an elite status are going to look. and see what kind of support they would they would have. But I also, you know, think Charles Haywood's idea of, you know, people raising up their own basically, like civilian security forces or call it a private army to protect themselves is going to be something. I mean, the person who does this isn't going to rely on Secret Service or even the military. They're going to have to They're going to have to have their own security force. And how does this happen? When does this happen?

I mean, we just got to keep praying about it. Something I do every day is and try to keep pushing and doing what we can on our own to let somebody know that they're, whoever that person is who's willing to step up, that there'll be people there to support them and even fights. protect them because I mean we're the country is headed towards and I hate I mean I I hate this because it's so just cliche at this point invoking South Africa yes but I mean the more the more the white population the European population drops the more it's going to be that whites are basically going to have to arm themselves and they're

they're going to have to put together civilian security forces to protect themselves from, you know, Haitians that are eating the cats and eating the dogs. Yeah. I, I, although it is probably overstated in our circles, many that are still riding the fence over whether accepting the reality of the situation, I think can be persuaded by, what has happened in South Africa and the neighboring nations. But you're right. As the majority population diminishes,

you're only growing the opposition force. And so it becomes even more of an ordeal to fight by whatever means the battlefield is laid out in. But yeah, I agree. I agree with everything you've said. It's just it has to happen very, very fast, which is why the flock camera issue is so disturbing to me because it certainly feels like they're creating the infrastructure

to entirely stop any possibility of that. And so that by the time we would be prime, for that ideologically, there would be no way to actually instigate it. Yeah. Yeah, they want us to live in a panoplican of our own that we beg for. I mean, that's always what they make us an offer and we choose to accept it. Not all of us, but if we are a democracy and people are not willing to fight back, and let their, you know, let their opinions be known. I mean, Flot cameras are being, I think DeSantis has announced that he's making fly cameras

illegal in Florida, something like that. I mean, I have huge disagreements with DeSantis, obviously. But, you know, what he did during COVID and this right here, if he follows through on this, I mean, that is what leadership does. Right, right. It says, I don't, screw you, screw you. And unfortunately, you're going to need someone who has that kind of attitude, take on the Leviathan in Washington, D.C. It's one thing to do it in Florida or to do it in Alabama or to do it in Washington State.

It's another thing completely to do it in Washington, D.C., where for 100 years, power has been consolidated to the point where there's no head to the snake anymore. Yeah. Yeah. You know, it's like something horrible could happen to like every member of the Senate, every member of, you know, all of Congress and the whole, all three branches of government. And somehow it's still going to go on. Exactly. As it is.

So it's like the only way that this gets changed is. is either it dies of its own hubris and its own entropy at this point or somebody changes it. I have its tendency to believe the first one is probably more likely, unfortunately. So it's what you know, you're not seeing anybody step up and willing to do it. what Trump said he was going to do a lot of things. And maybe he is doing some good things now. And there does seem like he's doing some good things. But it's the system.

The system needs to be destroyed. And making the excuse that, oh, we need flock cameras to stop crime, it's like, well, we have all these CCTV cameras. We have judges. We have prosecutors. is we have cops and crime keeps going on. How do you think, how do you think flock cameras are going to help with that? Yeah, I mean, if how can that be the deciding factor between whether you can enforce crime?

You know, at this point, I think it's becoming fairly obvious that anybody defending the Trump administration, especially in matters like this with the flock camera. I mean, how can these people tweeting about it not be getting paid? Either that or they're just so scared, they're so scared of the left that they're willing to build the infrastructure that they're going to use to enslave them, because we know that the left is not being destroyed. Yes, but many of them must know that even if that infrastructure was created, it would never be used actually to wield power in that way. It would only be exercised in opposition to the right, which is why, I mean, I think that after this administration, I mean, if I assume a Democrat's going to win, and if they do, I'm pretty

positive, they're all going to be in jail. All of the, all of the actual supposed or renegades. Well, yeah, well, and you're right, there are a lot of people getting paid to even attack their brothers, which I'd rather kill myself before I betrayed people that I've, that I'm tied to. But they, they're going to find out that they, I mean, they literally just took 30 shekels of silver. Exactly. Exactly. And I mean, I hope you can live with it because a lot of us are not going to forget about it.

You're not, we're not going to let you back in. Sorry. Yeah. So Joey, tell people where they can find your book. And I want to thank you for coming on today. Thank you for the conversation. Absolutely. Likewise.

You can find my book on Amazon, arctose.com. I think I'm Barnes & Noble, American History Z, Gen Z's Journey to the Far Right. Follow me on X at the RW Coalition. Same on YouTube. Name again, the right-wing coalition. And those are my two hubs for where I'm putting stuff out at. Well, I appreciate you. Thank you very much.

Likewise, thank you.