The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1427: 'The RW Doesn’t Lose, We’re Betrayed' w/ Kevin DeAnna

Episode Date: September 27, 2026

71 MinutesPG-13Kevin DeAnna is a writer and podcaster who works for American Renaissance.Kevin joins Pete to talk about Con-Inc's continual subversion of the Right.. Identity PoliticsKevin at American RenaissanceKevin 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 Pekignona 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 Pekina show. Kevin Deanna's back. How are you doing, Kevin? Real pleasure to be here. Doing well. Cool. All right.

Let's just jump right in because so much has happened over the last week that we can talk about. I reached out to you because, like, let's just jump off on this topic right here. I was listening to your live stream from last Thursday. This week you did your live stream on Monday. Everybody go check that out because I think Kevin will be traveling. And you said something, and you said it real quick, and a lot of people might have missed it. You said the right wing doesn't lose were betrayed.

Yeah. When I heard that, I was like, yeah, right-wing ideas are always the most popular ideas. The only way they can't make them out there, the only way they don't make it into the public and politically get embraced politically is because they have to be betrayed. But you can only be betrayed by your own side or quote-unquote your own side. So talk about it, man. Well, I mean, I've been getting more cynical about it, I guess, in some ways. But it's really, it really goes back to the beginning. I mean, when I was starting off with this stuff, and back then, you know, way more radical, I guess in some ways.

But not really. I really haven't changed my mind about anything important. It's just I guess I'm less idealistic about the possibilities of certain Vanguard movements. But there were two rules that I set up way back when, which is that the first two, Kevin Deanna's first two rules of white nationalism, which is number one, the closer somebody is to your position, the more he is in existential. an existential enemy. Rule number two, the farther away from your position, somebody is, the more he is a secret ally. And at the time, I was referring to people where you would see guys on our side saying, like, oh, it's actually great, like Cynthia McKinney, who was like some black congresswoman out of Georgia, who I think got taken out because she muttered something about

Israel. It was like, oh, she's actually like the great champion of white America. And she's going to lead to these sorts of things. You obviously see this kind of stuff all the time. But there's another sense in which the closer somebody is to your position, he's an existential enemy, is actually literally true, which is, as you point out, that they're the only ones who can betray you. And there is an element of personal faith that is, I think, inherent to the right wing, which can be inspiring sometimes, but also makes you extremely vulnerable because you really have no choice, but over and over again, to keep putting bets on the character of individual people and hope that not just that they'll have the character to stand up to pressure,

but also does just have the political wisdom to overcome certain challenges. Maybe they believe all the right things. Maybe they want to do the right thing. But if they're not politically capable enough or smart enough to overcome certain obstacles, they may end up doing more harm than good. And you could say, well, this is why it's important to have an ideologically pure stand. But I mean, then that gets us into the other problem, which is I've been seeing people fall flat on their face with this kind of stuff for 20 years.

And let's face it, the people who tend to be the ideologically the best in some cosmic sense, the people who are closest to my metaphysically correct position, shall we say, they tend to spend most of their time and money and efforts trying to destroy one another, as opposed to getting any kind of political power. So you're always left in this really frustrating situation where you're probably putting more faith with people who are in the political system then is warranted. And then you're disappointed when they let you down, even though, truth be told, you always kind of knew it and you always kind of expected it.

But the alternative is to kind of be on the margin forever saying, well, this is why this isn't going to work. This is why we can't win. But if that's true, why not just take up sports gambling? Why worry about this kind of stuff at all? unfortunately I don't really see a way out of it other than just kind of keep plugging away and I do think there are some white pills out there both from a vanguardist point of view and believe it or not what's happening within the American right just before I jumped on here I was talking to Cyan Quinn of the white paper's policy institute which is having a big impact right now you know circulating all these things on remigration and everything else and they're getting a good reception at things like heritage foundation they're getting a good reception at groups in Texas among Republicans and conservatives and all these sorts of things. If you look at the grassroots, the rank and file of the GOP, I mean, it's a totally different

world, which is dramatically different as anyone who spent any time in this can tell you than where it was 10 years ago. But then, of course, you look at the people in charge, you look at the politicians, you look at these policymakers, nothing at all has changed. In fact, nothing has all has changed. Forget since the days of George W. Bush. Nothing has changed since 1980. Yeah, I will call Rod Dreher and Jeremy Boring,

just outright liars. They were talking about how, like, every staffer in D.C. is a Groyper or something. Like, that's what... What do they mean by that, too? I mean, Groyper has a very specific meaning, and I doubt they're using it the way that the word is actually meant to be used. Well, yeah, I mean, it's like Nazi. Nazi is basically anybody to the right of, you know, Jonah Goldberg at this point.

Yeah, basically. Yeah, but, yeah, you see that where... I know staffers and staffers are our guys, but they're working for people that just won't, their ideas can't get through. Although I do believe that there are some people, like all the good things you see happening in the Trump administration, I have this theory that doesn't, I don't think is crazy, that it's not from the top down. It's a Trump is, Trump and his people are so distracted with their war. for Israel and all this other stuff that a bunch of people who are aligned with us are just like, let's just do stuff. Let's throw something at the wall and see what sticks. Yeah. Tapping in the bureaucracy. Yeah. So I mean, is that going to be permanent? No. But it shows that stuff can

actually be done if you had the will to do it. That's what politics has always been about. It's about having the will to do it. But if you're beholden to your donors, I mean, if you're, I mean, all these people, the chamber, I actually consider the Chamber of Commerce, Republicans, conservatives to be way more dangerous than like the Zionist conservatives. I think there's, I mean, they tend to work in tandem, but I think especially at certain levels that you're talking about. I mean, let's be honest, if you're running for a local election, if you're running for state rep or something, I suppose in some sense, maybe they send you a question. questionnaire or something like the Zionist Republicans could have an impact on the race. But come on, you're running for state rap. That's not who you have to worry about.

It's going to be the Chamber of Commerce Republicans. Like they're the ones who are going to nail you to the wall if you start talking about immigration. And they're the ones who are going to donate to your opponents and everything else. You had, who was it, Andy Ogles in Tennessee who was, he introduced a repeal of heart seller. So you're like, okay, well, you know, what's something that's actually happening in the real world? Okay, here's a Republican congressman saying we need to.

repeal the law that destroyed us all. That's a pretty big deal. He gets voted out. Why did he get voted out? Was it because he was, you know, he was racist. Is it because of this issue or anything else? No, it was because he opposed. He made the mistake of like saying something about a solar company that he thought was bad on Fox News. And so the company just spent like a billion dollars, not a billion dollars, but you know, however much money to basically get him out of office for challenging this specific business interest. And that was enough. And Steve, Steve King was on my show. You remember Congressman Steve King, who was basically condemned by the entire Republican Party. He told me a really interesting story because like everybody else,

I was like, well, look, it was obviously a racial purge and everything else. But actually, a lot of the interests who were mobilizing against him had to do with this very local, like, land use situation that he was involved in and he was an opponent of them of their economic interest. And so they just kind of align themselves with this other movement to get him out. But if you actually get into the politics of it, it wasn't about race. It wasn't even about ideology or conservative or liberal or the New York Times or anything else. It was actually just about money and these like weird little private interests that would be extremely boring for anybody who's not directly involved in it. Unfortunately, that's the big obstacle that a lot of

people are going to have to overcome because in a way, I mean, you can talk about the control of the donors over, say like someone like President Trump, but it actually means less at that level, which is, I guess, what makes so much of what's going on so frustrating, where the money really makes a difference is that these smaller races where that's that's victory or death right there and you can just straight up buy elections at a local level in fact i mean it's amazing that it's not done more often yeah the local you know when i talk about uh being more powerful than Zionists i mean Zionism is we think of that as national politics yeah and national politics at this point is unachievable for i mean that that's way down the road and i think you have to build locally

and you have to build out because the people who you build locally, you build state, those are the ones that can actually end up moving and doing something far into the future up in Mordor on the Potomac. But the Chamber of Commerce people are, I mean, this is where when you start talking about locally, and I've seen people do this, and I've actually seen Andy Ogles, I've been at an event. I mean, he'll rub shoulders with like remigration people, Christian, Christian nationalists and stuff like that. I think that's another reason why they were like, we got to get this guy out of here.

But when you start talking about remigration, when you start talking about halting migration, it's the Chamber of Commerce people on the local level and the county level and in your state who are all over you. Because they are the ones who are benefiting from this the most. And you have this other group out there that is that wants to insert as many Indians into the country to turn the country into something different, to destroy the country, basically. They have an ideological reason for it. This is just all money. This is just pure pocketbook stuff. These are mostly white Americans who have bought into the whole, you know, if the line's not.

going up and if the line's not going up for me. You know, they've actually, some of them have actually convinced themselves that if they're not making money, well, I'm not going to have, you know, I can't create jobs and, you know, everything is a rationalization. So, yeah, the Chamber of Commerce guys and local, local and state level, these are the guys that, they're, they're the ones who want the border open. They're the ones paying politicians to keep the border open and to, like, do not, do not cooperate with those kind of that that's where that's coming from and a lot of these guys are the down home christian rural americans that we've kind of built up in our head as like these are the guys because you know

you can look at certain influential people in politics and well every single time and then you're like okay this guy's like an evangelical who goes to whatever church maybe not even evangelical but some kind of churchgoing guy who lives his life and what everyone would consider to be a normal conservative thing, voted Republicans his entire life, donates to these things. Support is opposed to abortion, as opposed to this policy and that policy goes down the line with everything. But then on this one issue

on immigration, that's where the rubber hits the road. That's what he cares about most. And he is not even going to compromise on the idea of even limiting the amount of illegal immigration into this country, let alone legal immigration. You look at a guy, I think he's actually going to run for president, which should be an amusing

spectacle. Don Bacon, who's, I think, a congressman out of Nebraska, who's almost like a platonic ideal. Did you ever see my, did you ever see my greatest moment on Twitter? I mean, you've got a lot of great moments on Twitter, so remind me of this one specifically. I put under one of his posts, I said, you have to choose which one of these countries no longer exists anymore. A, the United States, B, Israel. Oh, God, yeah. And he said, read the book of Revelation. Yep, yep, yep. And I will tell you a story about that too. When I was working at WND, you know, this was like the evangelical site back in the day and, you know,

very different religious background. One thing that I actually figured out, because evangelicals were always kind of a foreign thing to me until I spent time in the conservative movement. Just there aren't, there are not a lot of them in North Jersey. I didn't meet a white. I grew up in New York City. I didn't. And so I moved south. Is it a South? You're like, ah, so this is what America is. Like, I had no idea. But. one of the things I kind of learned about them is they're not actually this WND specifically but I think it's an increasingly large faction in some ways they're not actually evangelical Christians they're actually messianic Jews who are just not of Jewish descent that's actually you know even to the point of Jesus is Yeshua and all this kind of stuff and I remember something I think it would be a little rude for me to give the name but let's suffice to say somebody that one of the people I was working for at W&D and I said you know one of the few times I kind of like showed what I was thinking. I mean, keep in mind, I was a pagan this whole, well, I am a pagan, but it was pagan even then that whole time. So I'm just trying to like, stay a little under the radar as far as what I actually think about religious stuff, less so politically. I could say whatever I wanted on that is I said, you know, I just don't like this idea that America's, not the Holy Land. I don't like this idea that America is the thing that doesn't matter to God.

I mean, I think like we should have a religion. We're like, we're the Holy Land. And like the Mormons do, I guess. And you had like the most American religion. Yeah, right. I mean, I married one. Not a not a believer, but of Mormon stock say. And so, you know, I read the book of Mormon when I started dating her. I was like, ah, there's a lot to like here. But that in the biblical curse against the non-whites, but that's another matter. But, you know, one of the things that she said in response is she was like, well, America's not in the book of Revelation. That was the exact quote. America doesn't matter to God in the same. way. So we as Christians have a responsibility to prioritize what God prioritizes. Now, there are two ways to take that. One is that this is an extremely heretical and subversive interpretation of Christianity

or perhaps even the more subversive thing. What if she's right in terms of the plain reading of the text? Because if one takes the book of Revelation seriously as written, she's right. Yeah. I mean, And people have been reading that. People have been reading the scripture for 2,000 years. You can make it say whatever you want, you know, in the grand scheme of things. Yeah, around 500 years ago, people decided to do that. But the, but let's get to this. Let's jump to this.

Because you talked about, we talked about where money goes. And recently, you know, one of our favorite people, Eric Erickson, how does he even still like have a job? You know, he was the original cuck-servative. I was, I did a live stream against him and I went back after because I, you know, you don't want to just recycle old stuff. I'm already an unc, you know, these kids don't care what he was doing in 2015 or whatever. But I remember, like, didn't I write about him at American Renaissance? And back in like 2015, 2016, I think myself and Jared Taylor both write about him.

I think Jared's piece. And this is Jared talking, like a cuxervative begs for mercy. Like he was like one of the original guys to which that now outdated term applied to. This is how long this has been going on. This sort of like endless gatekeeping of the right. And he doesn't really have much of a constituency anymore, certainly less of what he did than 10 years ago. If you look at Georgia politics, which is of course his great, you know, claim to fame, boy, I understand Georgia. I mean, Georgia is practically a blue state now thanks to the demographic change that he did nothing to oppose and told us that we can't.

That's why I don't live now. that's where I moved. Yeah. I mean, I got a good friend who was there, you know, grew up in like buckhead and stuff. And, you know, it's just been made uninhabitable, like that of the whole Atlanta metropolitan area. The only time I've ever had like my car broken into or something like that was there. And this is happening under the nose of this guy. I mean, your whole beat is local politics.

Your whole beat is like the elections and like, oh, the little maneuvering of politics and everything else. And you're blind to this revolutionary transformation. and then 10 years later, you're still in this position lecturing us about how we can't be associated with these certain ideas. It's so evil. It's so bad. And the question is, well, how does this guy still have an audience? Well, he just got invited on all the Sunday talk shows, right? I mean, now he's got a mainstream audience in a way he didn't have before.

Same thing with somebody like David French. Oh, what relevance is David French? Well, you got a New York Times column out of it, didn't he? So from his point of view, he's doing good. Well, the whole thing is, you know, this is why so many of us are working so hard to get rid of the, you know, to destroy the post-war consensus. The only reason he exists is because he's still running around calling people Nazis and white supremacists and everything like that. And so it's no, it's not surprising to me that he would figure out that, you know, Charles Haywood gives money to. to, you know, Charles Haywood famously,

no enemies to the right. Yeah. You know, we, we, if we're going to defeat this menace that has built up a structure for a hundred years that has this incredible power and basically controls both sides, you know, has set up a dialect that controls both sides of it, then we're gonna need all the help we can get. And who does, oh, he gives money to the Claremont Institute.

Okay, okay, all right, so what's the big, Oh, he's given money. He started his own group called, you know, Sacker. And they're about, you know, Heritage America. And what you realize is, is that, and this is something that we've talked about, especially when you were on our live stream on the Pony Express Radio, is if no one gives us money. No.

No one gives us money. And one, and one of the, reasons they don't give us money is because this is what is going to happen if they give us money. They're going to get attacked as Nazis. They're going to get attacked as white supremacists. And they don't have the kind of balls that Haywood has where he's like, go ahead, go on the morning talk show. Call me that. I will sue your ass. Right. And I have the means to do it. And I don't care. And finally, someone stood up to these people and stood up to one of these people. You did back down somewhat, didn't he? He said he was going to go on the show and talk about the details of his article.

And he never talked about that. He never, yeah, he basically went on there and said, oh, this is, yeah, he backed down. This is, and, you know, look, I hate, like, legal warfare, lawfare, what they call it. It's just, it's, you're better off just, you know, pistols at 10 paces. It's more manly. But it's where we are. It's the environment we're in. And, you know, it's why you're, if you're going to have an organization, you should probably, it should be littered with lawyers.

And it just goes to show, though, that one person, this should be inspiring, one person with enough money to just go, you know what, I got fuck you money. Yeah. Let's do this. Right. And they back. And they immediately back down. Yep. Yep.

And this is really what we're looking for more than anybody else. I mean, this is one of the interesting things. And again, I can't give any names here. Well, I suppose I could say with the one thing is that the whole fucking world, thanks to Katie, knows that, you know, Teal, Peter Thiel met with me and some other people before Trump was elected back 2015, 2016. And I got the impression. I'm not, you know, I don't want to get into what a thing.

I'm embarrassed that meeting came out. And I still don't know how she figured that out. It must have gone in my email or something. I got the impression at the time that he was sort of, of looking at this alt-right thing and saying, like, is this going to be like a serious thing? And then at some point, he kind of clearly decided it wasn't. And apparently I was sure about this teal network. I haven't gotten any money from him.

I don't know anybody who's gotten any money from him. But I know, like, he does fund apparently some stuff. I think like Palladium magazine, things like that. Sort of, you know, boutique type products as opposed to like grassroots organization. Still, the left wing is constantly freaking out about him. Like he's a kind of right-wing Soros when in fact there is no such thing. People on the people on the people on that too. Yeah.

Like I don't think insofar as he has like a financial agenda, it's probably pretty much the same as most right wing businessmen, which is I'm going to kind of vaguely fund politicians and movements that are going to talk up some of the things that are in my economic interest, which frankly is not that crazy. I mean, that's basically what they all do. But if you look at some of the people, you always see the left freaking out about the tech right. And I think that's because it was an economic elite that was not fully.

under their control and could potentially be a threat. I think that's also one of the reasons they hate AI so much and want to bring it under their regulatory controls to make sure that you don't have this new emerging economic elite. But maybe they shouldn't be freaking out so much because if you look at these guys, there's no will to power. There's no ambition. There's no, I mean, Teal is probably the exception, except insofar that he actually

wrote a book in college or right after college about multiculturalism and why it's bad and at least has thought about some of these things. Well, and the whole whole Hulcogen thing that he used to take the ball. Yeah. I mean, yeah. I mean, that's why I'm never going to hate the guys because anything that'll shut down like a media outlet. That's just like, hell yeah. And eventually, the whole, sir, who's always, you know, one of my first heroes.

But when you think about all these guys who could be doing so much, who don't just have FU money, but like a level of FU money that could topple nations. And there's just nothing. I mean, people will talk about Elon. Musk, for example. Elon Musk, yeah, he put us in a certain situation when he bought then Twitter, now X, but everybody forgets he wanted to back out of it. He basically was forced to do it because that judge in Delaware forced him to go through with it because he couldn't get the price reduced. So it's not even something that he really wanted to do. And people, you always see people pitching

certain projects. You always see him talking up certain movements, talking up certain things. but there's never any funding for like a grassroots organization. There's never any funding for anything other than a particular candidate or just cutting a check to the GOP. There's not the kind of like in-depth investment like we are going to build a long-term political movement that can do these kinds of things, even culturally. Amanda Millius was on my show, John Millius's daughter. I mean, John Millius, you know, Conan the Barbarian and everything else. And one of the things that Amanda said is she said, look, I'm just not going to be dealing with like conservative cinema anymore. A, because conservative cinema generally sucks, and B, because the people on the right with money,

they don't understand the idea of investing in a long-term cultural product or changing the culture or something like that. And this is somebody who, if you look at Amanda Millie's work, there's not like the kind of extremism on certain issues, shall we say, that would scare away these kinds of donors. I mean, it's a perfectly acceptable thing within the Overton window or within the mainstream conservative movement, and they still won't do it. They don't get it. And this is sort of how I feel about the tech right, too. I mean, it's just they're like babbits, if I can use that novel title from the 20s.

I mean, they're just pure economic men. They don't understand anything that doesn't have a short term economic return. And so they're just going to get eaten alive. And any movement at this point, I've become persuaded that tries to to cultivate these people as allies is going to fail because they won't help you out, even if it's in their interest. The left-wing theory that you see in something like son of the century where you have the capitalist bankrolling Mussolini to put down the communist revolution,

that would never happen in America now. They would just let themselves be consumed or try to run away. I don't think the left has nothing to fear from these people. No, no. And they have nothing to fear from Khan Inc either. I mean, if you at all saw the take down the, video that Erickson did, he's like, these people like Francisco Franco. And I'm like, that's, dude, that is one of my, if you think there was something wrong,

that Franco did something wrong, we can't. National Review liked Francisco Franco. William F. Buckley's brother wrote like this touching eulogy about him when he died. It called him a great hero. the guy who wrote, the guy who ghost wrote, conscience of a conservative, Barry Goldwater's book, Bozell, he actually went to Spain under Franco, turned his back on America because he thought

this is actually a better conservative model. James Burnham, another National Review contributor called Franco. I think one of the great, was he the one who called him the most successful ruler of the 20th century? Somebody else in National Review called them that. I mean, and Burnham had kind of things to say, about Franco. Like, this is not even outside the conservatism, Inc. mainstream. The people at the time, not just at the time, but in the 70s, we're saying Franco was a hero. And now we're supposed to be

opposed to him. It's like we know, understand the history of the conservative movement better than this guy Erickson does. And he's trying to gatekeep it. Well, there's a reason. It's because enough people have figured out and enough people who have shows like we do. And, you know, even bigger platform, someone like Pesobic, whatever anybody thinks, thinks of him. Franco Friday, that was his idea, right? Yeah. Well, they talk about Frank.

And they talk about, look, the only way with this is going to be, this can be fixed is through a Franco. I've been saying for years that the future is either right-wing authoritarianism or left-wing authoritarianism. Correct. And I may not even like authoritarianism, but I know which one I prefer. I know which one I would choose. And the only reason they're freaking out,

James Lindsay, and have you seen this new term they're trying to use, you know, and it's probably really offensive to you, paganist? Yeah, I like a pagan right. I made a post about that where they're talking about the pagan right.

I'm like, I'm pretty sure the pagan right is just me. And I'm not important. I mean, the only other pagan right guys I could think of are like the red ice guys, right? Red Eyes has been around and then I guess Clay Martin, right? Who's who.

And who else is there? Yeah. But, you know, but the thing is like, I think Joel Barry put out, he goes, you're going to be seeing people on the woke right advocating for abortion to get rid of minorities. Like, they're going to minorities are doing a good enough job of getting rid of the minorities when it comes to abortion. It's like, what do you even talk? What are you talking about? Joel Barry also, who basically is trying to get every Catholic that's left in Gaza killed. Yeah.

You know, by saying that they're, that, oh, they're on the side of Hamas supporters. Yeah, right. Yeah, Hamas supporters. So, yeah, that's what this is. This, some people being like, oh, Franco, they know, deep down, they know that the only way. that this changes is through a strong man and through authoritarianism. I completely agree. And they know, and Paul Gottfried was on my show a couple years ago.

He's like, look, the only way this regime gets taken down is through right-wing authoritarian is through some form of authoritarianism. Yeah. And they know that their position is gone as the gatekeepers. That destroys the gatekeepers. And the whole gatekeeping class is now gone. Yep. Yep. And they've, they've lost their, there are obvious advantages here and that it's opened things up,

certainly. I mean, people say like, oh, where's William F. Buckley? No, William F. Buckley had certain institutional advantages that don't exist now. If you brought William F. Buckley back and made him an editor of National Review again or did whatever, maybe even give him a stat boost on certain things or gave them more money, it still wouldn't make a difference because you just don't have that top down sort of model anymore. Now, that leads to Dan. as well because obviously if you look at what we might call the right wing podcaster network, there's a lot of silliness out there. There's a lot of people running off on tangents and dead ends and everything else. And there are incentives to do that, right? It's not a movement. It's a market.

And there's always an incentive in saying some ridiculous thing, creating conflict where there doesn't need to be, leading people down a dead end and saying, don't listen to anybody else. It's all destined to fail. I and I alone will tell you the truth. But frankly, that's a small price to pay. That's just something we got to put up with because with the gatekeeping model that we saw in the past, there you didn't have a way out. And these people led us down to a dead end that was far more ruinous than maybe the occasional eccentric spouting off a conspiracy theory that I don't happen to agree with. That's not that big a deal to me. What National Review did to the right, especially in the 1990s, when we really could have done a lot of stuff that would have saved

the country, that's a much bigger deal to me. And that's something that can't be forgiven. If that means that we got to destroy the entire infrastructure that was set up, so be it. Yeah, 100%. You know, and they don't really, they love to complain about, I don't talk about her because I don't really care. I don't listen to a lot of women except, you know, I have to listen to my wife. Candace Owens. Tell me about it, brother. But Candice Owens, they, you created.

Yeah, I mean, they created Kansas Owens. Ben Chabiro created. Ben Shapiro did. I mean, like this is, I think Amaran even wrote an article about it, not by me, but somebody else wrote an article in Amaran a couple weeks ago about this. And the thing, the funny thing about Candace Owens is she got her start by trying to encourage a lawsuit against her school from the NAACP. Then, of course, she had that doxing website.

So it was going against her right, right. Yeah. Going against right wingers and everything else. And then she kind of pivoted over and, oh, I'm a conservative now. And credulous Ben Shapiro is like, oh, look, we found a non-white. Let's put them in charge. You know, the old joke. What do you call the non-white at CPAC?

The keynote speaker. Here we go again. And then, oh, no, she's saying all these things about Charlie Kirk and whatever else. It's like, yeah, but that's where the money leads. And there's nothing in her entire life or career that has ever suggested that she's changed in the slightest bit. She's always been about this is the thing that will get. me the most attention, the most money, the most power. And now you're complaining that she's

been following the same incentives that she followed her entire life. I mean, how many people, you know, good stalwart conservatives, not people like us, but just normal conservative movement types, pro-Israel, you know, whatever you want to say, these types of guys who would never get a job at the Daily Wire because some liberal reporter said something mean about them five years before they would have been hired or something. But Candace Owens, who was trying to docks these people. She gets a starring role because she's black. And then you're upset that the gollum turns on you. Come on. Yeah, many such cases. They always do this. The, and really, the reason why she can do the thing she, like yesterday, she, she had a video that came out on YouTube and I looked,

and after an hour, she had 250,000 views. I'm like, you created this. You created this. The slopification. Ben Shapiro is a slop machine. All he does is just put slop out there and comment on it. Him going to, the way he used to go to college campuses was not the way Charlie used to go to college campuses. Charlie used to go to college campuses and like really have an engaging argument. And he also had, he was, he almost felt he was compassionate about these people. Like, how'd you get so lost? You know, and how screwed up. Ben Shapiro just went there to just destroy people. And that's part of the slop.

It's all slop. And it's like if you're wondering how she is getting a million views and has like, she has six million subscribers on YouTube, you create, oh, right wing, conservative ink, you created this. You created the ecosystem in which this thrives. You don't talk about history. You don't get on there and do frigging 127. I'm not telling anybody they need to do 127 episode readings on historical Russian novels that leave that to retards like me.

But, I mean, you could do a couple. You could do a couple episodes on something that actually means something. They don't even do like founding stuff. I mean, you've seen, I think you were talking about this on your live stream yesterday. they're quote people are quoting the founders at them and they're going don't quote that Nazi stuff at me and it's like yeah that's john adams right right you got thomas jefferson being called woke right like this is where we're at and what's amazing about it is you know they'll do the bit and then afterward they'll be like ha ha ha that was george was john adams whoever and you won't even get a reaction like they just won't respond to it

It would be like if you had Eric Erickson here and you were like, well, National Review praised Franco, were they wrong for doing that? He just wouldn't respond. He would just ignore it. He would just pretend you didn't say that. And they just kind of move on. It's the millennial woes tweet. Yeah. Yeah.

All of left is. And these are leftists. These are left. Do not get it fucking, I mean, calling these people, calling conservatives. I mean, if you have some conservatives in your, in your personal life, you may think that they do probably have some right wings in and then. these people who are getting paid to do this, these are leftists. I mean, all of their priors, when you nail down what they really believe and where their, you know, the foundation of their belief system is leftist.

And that's why they're shitting on Franco or, you know, you can't talk about like how this country was founded or this, you know, the 1790 immigration. act or anything like that without them screaming like a purple-haired college wildebeest. And a lot of people who do have some right-wing tendencies or some conservative beliefs are guilty of what Larry Auster would have called the unprincipled exception, where they say, well, I'm right-wing on this one. You see this all the time with Islam, right? Where like America's identity that's open to everyone, it doesn't matter who comes here,

but Islam, no, that's different. You used to see this with gay marriage, where they're, oh, the civil rights movement was the greatest thing ever, but this, this is totally different. Everybody is still operating off a, at best, classical liberal foundation. They have, they have no vocabulary with which to speak against egalitarianism, to speak in defense of real traditionalism, to speak in defense of hierarchy and greatness and all the things that I would consider to be core to the definition of the right. I mean, it's an open question whether there is an American right, other than just as a marginal dissident tradition. Now, I would argue that if the construction,

movement is to mean anything, it should be providing such justifications. And there are, in fact, some people from American history, some statesmen, some prominent figures, some intellectuals, who you can look to to to set this up. And you don't even need to go, well, I don't want to be an extremist. Fine. Somebody like Russell Kirk, for God's sake. I mean, just looking at some of the people that he quoted over the years, let's start there. I mean, you used to at least be able to do that within the conservative movement. Now you can't even do that. I mean, the only right-wing kind of primal impulses that you'll get is maybe if President Trump says something based once in a while, and because of the cult of personality, everybody convinces themselves that this is great.

But there's no substance underneath it. And of course, we're not looking to Trump to provide the substance underneath it. We're looking to the conservative movement to start setting the foundation for this kind of stuff. But instead of doing that, they're just dynamiting the foundation and leaving behind a garden of slop in which more leftist weeds can grow. And, you know, what we've seen recently is everything is BH and AH before Hitler after Hitler. Apparently, I didn't know this. Did you know that Teddy Roosevelt was a big inspiration, big inspiration for Hitler, kind of, I'm going to do a bonus episode, not this week, but maybe the week after on

Petty Roosevelt and his views on race. Of all people, there is a book by Senator Josh Holley. about Teddy Roosevelt, which gets into, because he was trying to set himself up as like a Teddy Roosevelt progressive at one point. I think he had aspirations

of running for president. And so most of the book is about, oh, opposition to corporate power and like standing up for the worker and all this kind of stuff.

But it does get into what Teddy Roosevelt said about race. And he explicitly supported eugenics. He explicitly was what we might call a racial nationalist. I mean, it is all there. But the problem,

of course, is that basically everyone of any prominence in America at that time was like that. So to say that Teddy Roosevelt was a proto-Hittler is to say that basically all Americans before 1965 were proto-Hitlers. And maybe that is the real point. I mean, they are the last great defenders of the idea that America was really founded by the great conservative hero, Martin Luther King.

And everything before that was kind of an unfortunate mistake. And only Martin Luther King fulfilled the true founding vision. and we know this because of one speech taken out of context that he gave in Washington, D.C. And that's what our entire national identity is based on. This sort of Hallmark card version of American history, that is the conservative mainstream at this point, or at least it was 10 years ago. Now, there has been some progress on this. I mean, you referred to Charlie Kirk before.

Let's not forget, Charlie Kirk a few years ago said Martin Luther King was one of his heroes and talked about him as a conservative hero and everything else. Just before he died, he was saying that he was saying that he was. a bad guy and not a conservative at all. And in fact, the Civil Rights Act should be repealed. So that does count for something. It's not fast enough. Maybe it doesn't go as far enough. But there is some change taking place within the American right. And these guys are just trying to fight a rearguard effort against it. And they will fail. Yeah. And there's so much, there's so many obstacles in the way, you know, the Civil Rights Act, you bring up that

that that needs to be repealed. And half of half the conservative. you know in real life will be like, whoa, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, the post-war consensus. I was telling someone earlier today that basically before World War II and especially before the New Deal, when Louis Brandeis was sworn into the Supreme Court, everyone in America knew a Jew was being sworn into the Supreme Court. Why? Because it was odd. It was a white country. And it's like, well, and then Felix Frankfurter, and they're like, huh, and then you see, and thank the American Jewish Committee for writing a book on how Hollywood, they had to save Hollywood from fascism, where they put a, they put a poll in there from 1935, 1936. It said 85% of Americans were weary of Jewish power. And it's like, then you, that's when you realize that, like, What World War II did was World War II and the Civil Rights era was meant to blind you from diaspora. Yeah.

So you couldn't see a diaspora anymore. Like today, it's pretty easy to see the Somali diaspora because they don't look like us. Right. They don't act like us. But the biggest diaspora that we basically has taken us to war. taken over our government, you're not allowed to even talk about that because we were given a new morality. And this new morality is, it's taken over everything. You know, I call Vatican to Nuremberg for the Catholic Church. They had to go, they had to go through it. Most churches,

you know, I tell people, there's no good denominations, you're only going to find a good church. here and there. Yeah. And basically the social engineering regime that we've gone through until we figure out a way to, you know, re to de-indectrinate what's, what's happened to us, it's going to be very hard to be able to even look upon like, okay, is that an enemy? Is that, is that an enemy in our country? people can look at the Somalis and they can be like, well, you know, maybe they're really sure, the Haitians, maybe they were, I used to live in South Florida, I know Haitians well. They did not belong here at all. They belong in Haiti. And that's the only place they belong. Even the Dominicans know that.

Oh, yeah. But until we, until we can get rid of this race blindness thing, I mean, we are done. White people are, the history of white Europe is white Europeans in. this country is done. And we're getting, you know, we're getting close to being the minority in this country if we're not already. Who the hell knows what the numbers really are? Yeah, if you look at that Mina census category, if the Democrats get back in in 28, I imagine that'll be one of the first things they do and it's going to have a lot of bad effects. But one nice thing it'll do is it'll get let those people be not labeled as white anymore. And we'll probably get a better idea of the true demographic situation. I'm not sure we're below 50%. We're definitely getting there. Just the demographic change from Biden alone is remarkable.

It is incredible what he was able to unleash in a very short time. Now, I have seen some figures out there suggesting that President Trump and the immigration efforts have reversed some of it to some extent. Actually, white non-Hispanic birth rate is now the highest and the majority of births again, or plurality, I should say. So, like, you actually have seen a reversal of the thing that everybody says couldn't be reversed. like the proportions are moving in the right direction, but let's face it. I mean, going into the midterms with this catastrophic economic situation and then what happens after that, that's all going to be swept off the board. I mean, you have there are so many, this is the great frustration, right? I mean, there are so many things happening on a policy level, probably for, as you say,

from within the bureaucracy, as opposed to the top down, I think the only guy in the Trump administration who is actually obsessing about the minutia of policy details, at least when it comes to immigration, It's probably Stephen Miller. And I imagine that a lot of the guys who are actually finding specific things and being like, let's do this are actually guys much lower down. In fact, I know that's true in some of the other bureaucracies. And it's so frustrating because these things happening are such a white pill and you can point to them. If you're trying to be optimistic and be like, see, we would have said we won if this was happening 10 years ago.

But all of it is just going to get eaten by the Iran war. Like I'm sure if I really thought about it, if I went back in time, I could find some things that President George W. Bush did that I would probably think are good. But of course, in the grand scheme of things, none of it matter because it just got eaten by his foreign policy. And this is what's happening now. And it's the danger has always been. And this kind of goes back to where we started. This is always like the big problem. You're always in this situation where you have this guy and he's saying something. And you know, what is the alternative? here's this person who's arguably the lesser of two evils.

At some point you've got to win, right? Like there is a time limit here. So we can't just keep waiting and waiting and waiting for the perfect guy to come along because we've got what, two decades max to actually do something here. And then you say, okay, we can take a chance on this guy. But the problem is not that he's either not going to do enough or maybe he's going to let us down. It's that if he fails, he destroys all of our ideas along with him. He destroys all the good things that he was going.

going to do and make sure that those things can never happen again. And that's the great fear that that's what's happening now with the Trump administration and all the good immigration policies. I'm actually, I think, more of a defender of the Trump administration's immigration policy than most people. But the problem is none of it really matters in the wake of this foreign policy failure. And by foreign policy failure, more than anything, it's the economic cost that have been imposed on the American people because that's what most people care about. If you really believe America is in an existential struggle, if you really believe this was our one chance, like the one chance to reclaim the country, then you don't start a war of choice in Iran.

And if you do do that, then all the brave rhetoric about how we're fighting to reclaim America can't be taken seriously anymore. But again, what's the alternative? That's where we are. Yeah, and then you have retards out there going, well, you know, Trump said they could never have a bomb and they've been in war with those 47 years. I'm like, He literally said, do not vote for Biden, we will go to war with Iran. And then he literally said, do not vote for Kamala Harris. She will take us to war with Iran. I'm sorry.

Maybe she would. That's kind of the funny thing is depending on how much power you think the lobby has. I mean, because I've heard people say like, oh, they're actually sovereign, in which case, it wouldn't have mattered who got elected. I mean, you'd be in war either way. Yeah, pretty much. And, you know, this goes back to the Franco talk. you know after and I I've admitted this over and over again mea culpa I didn't real I always thought Charlie Kirk was just this Zionist shill and I was just like screw you fuck you you know all this

it wasn't until after he died that I went back and I started looking and I'm like I didn't realize how much institutional power he actually had especially when it came to elections and organizing and stuff like that and I have to give it to him for that for the guy that age to be able to to rally the way he did and then to see that he was coming around, you know. Yeah, I was wrong about that. But after Charlie got killed, I mean, of all the people out there, Sam Hyde said it the best. You got two weeks, man. You got two weeks to shut this down.

You go after you declare every, you make it illegal in this country to be on the left. that's the only way you're going to stop. That's why we talk about Franco. That's why we talk about that the only way this gets fixed is for somebody to come in and go, yeah, that way of thinking, the old regime way of thinking, you go to jail. You go to Gitmo if you think that way. Oh, you're stepping out into the street. Oh, we're going to take all of your wealth.

And we're going to throw you in jail. That's it. That's the only way. Because as long as we still, I mean, we're going to have an election. in 2028. If the economy keeps getting worse, if diesel right now in California is like 950, I was up in, I was up in Milwaukee, not this past weekend, the following weekend, and I was in, I was in Milwaukee and Chicago. Diesel was like over six bucks, closing it on seven bucks up there. If this doesn't get, yeah, if this doesn't get fixed, what happens in 2028?

I don't know who's going to get elected. I honestly agree with you that I think that AOC has a fucking shot, which is insane. Because there's a lot of people, let me say, I think that a lot of people on our, who are sympathetic to us and on our side, especially quote unquote dissident, frigging to hate that term. But they saw the 2024 election as people. their ideology changing. Oh, now everybody's becoming far right wing and every vote they cast from now on. No, they looked at their pockets. They looked at the borders from the last four years and they said, we have to change this.

And they're not smart enough. They're not politically savvy enough to realize that if they vote for a Democrat in 28, the borders are, the southern borders immediately wide open. Yep. H-1B, everything gets reversed on H-1Bs. I mean, most of this stuff has been done with an executive order, an executive order can reverse it. Yep.

This is, we're just, wait, we're just going election to election with executive orders, and the next election could open the borders and bring another 20 to 30 to 40 million in here. And people don't want to accept, people don't want to accept that because, oh, you're not trusting Trump's plan. I'm like, the only plan I see is to make sure Maria Madelson is happy. Yeah, because if you believed in the existential stakes, you wouldn't have started this war. I mean, and what is facing us, you also have to take a step back when people are like, well, you know, Franco, you violate the Constitution, everything else, it's like, look, if you have people and you have normal Republicans at this point going out there, Mike Johnson going out there

being like, well, we are on the brink of communism. this is a dire threat to the American way of life. Everything's at stake here. If you really believe that, doesn't that put everything on the table? Because if you really believe that, what is your plan to confront it? Because if your plan is, we just have to win every single election forever. And like, that's just how it works. So we're like one party rule, but one party rule in like a democratic way and like nothing will ever change.

that's completely insane. I mean, me declaring myself like emperor of Virginia and that like the official religion is Germanic paganism, that makes more sense and has a greater chance of happening than this Republican plan of just win every election forever for the next 40 years. I mean, this is the tragedy of so much as what's happening with immigration policy is if you look at it,

a lot of, I mean, all the trends are in the right direction, every single trend. There's so much happening. It's all good. But it only makes sense. if you were ruling uninterrupted for like 20 years because nobody out there thinks that he's even going to be able to reverse what Biden alone did. And again, I'm giving him way more credit than I think a lot of people listening to this are willing to do. But he can't even reverse what Biden did.

Now, the hard reality here is that to reverse what Biden did, to really make a difference, you're probably going to have to prompt a political crisis. You might even have to risk, political catastrophe. Yeah, that's something to think about. That's something to take very seriously. Maybe we should be cautious about doing that. But we already did it with the stupid Iran war. Like if you're going to do that anyway, why not do it for the thing that actually matters for this country? But of course, we know the answer to that question, don't we? You know, I was thinking about all this stuff that it seems that con-ink is, even the Republican Party is now on this communist thing. Oh, anti-communist, anti-communist,

and I had reached out to Paul Gottfried after he had written an article about this. And I said, you know, I asked him, I said, you know, historically, when there's a fear of communism, normally something else rises up as, you know, white blood cells to fight that. I said, what do you think? I asked him, what do you think the chances are that, you know, like some kind of right-wing authoritarian fascist, it would cause that kind of movement here. And he said, probably not. It will help keep us in a boomer Republican culture in which we can relive the Cold War every day and pretend that Mamdami is an American version of Kim or Fidel. That's fine with our conservative establishment and GOP spin doctors who have given up

on social issues other than blaming Democratic Party for crime and biological men in women's lockers. Right. I mean, it's, you would think that it's finally, you know, this, when I heard the whole this communism thing, oh, and also, you know, down here in Alabama, state, state representatives sending out flyers saying they'll never be Sharia law in Alabama. Well, if you keep admitting Muslims, I mean, as Oromaxir says over and over again, like it's not a question of putting something in a constitution. It's not a question of building a shield made out of paper.

It's a question of don't bring in the people who are inevitably going to demand this. But of course, that's a bridge too far. I mean, this is what's so frustrating, especially with the online right, is we talk about these sorts of concepts, especially, I mean, I work for American Renaissance, right? So every once in a while, I'm saying something and people are in the comments like, oh, race and IQ again. And we know this. And it's like, okay, maybe you do. But you do realize that like 99% of people out there don't. And like 99% of Republicans, all right, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much,

are still really uncomfortable with the idea that, you know what? Maybe a Somalian, any Somalian can't be an American. Like, that's a bridge too far for them. And until we have a large enough number of people who are willing to accept that tiny little step forward, it's going to be really hard to do anything that matters. This is, the American conservative is so, it goes back to the way they view the left and the left views them. If you look at the polls, not the polls, I'm sorry, if you look at studies about how American conservatives view leftists, they use words like naive or uneducated or

basically that they're simplistic and they don't understand like the harsh reality of the world, right? Which means that in their own mind, What an American conservative sees his historic mission as is saving the liberal from themselves, saving the gay guy from implementing Sharia law by accident, that kind of thing. Like, they don't understand the way the world really works. I mean, I think this is literally the plot of that new Daily Wire movie. But then if you look at the way the left views the right, they view them as savages. They view them as barbarians. They view them as animals.

They view them as barely even human. And so anything that you do to put these people down is justified. I mean, when you see the moral climate on each side there, which side do you think is going to win? Pretty easy question to answer. Well, it's the old thing that if you, I mean, you can still get this out of conservatives or anyone is, you know, what's the difference between the left and the right? Well, the left means well, they just, you know, they do things wrong. And the right, you know, the right is always out. So, like, they're always out to get somebody.

And or they're, give them a little too much leeway and they're going to get violent. And it's like, well, I mean, you set up a regime where leftists can be violent whenever they want. And, you know, a lot of right wingers, depending on where you live, you can't even protect yourself. Yeah. So where, you know, how do you, it's, it just goes back to indoctrination. and social engineering and brainwashing. It's like you're not going to, you're not going to democracy your way out of this.

You're not, I mean, and this is another thing that like the Eric Erickson's of the world freak out over is you're not going to vote your way out of this. So what are you going to do? And whenever you say that, everybody thinks, oh, you want to pick up guns and just start killing people. And it's like, no, I've talked about Francisco Franco a bunch of different times,

but I don't even know if that could happen because it's like for somebody to run, what do you think? Do you think that somebody could run on that platform of, look, I'm just going to tear, I'm going to, that's the enemy over there. The left is the enemy, elect me, and I'm going to destroy them. Do you think you could even get people who would normally, your base to vote for that person? Depend on the circumstances. I think if you put it that starkly, no, because people don't like being.

confronted with obvious truths like that, they prefer to be lied to, and you kind of have to lie to them to some extent. If you think of somebody who actually pulled it off like Buckele and El Salvador, he didn't do it all at once. I mean, he got elected and he started doing some things and, okay, we're going to change some of these policies here. But then he had to go back and ask for some new reforms and he had to win another election in between there. And there were some things that he did, which might raise an eyebrow or two. I mean, there was one notable incident where he had some troops go into the legislature when they were voting on something. But he did vote on it. And this is this is kind of core to the Anglo identity for better or worse, mostly worse,

that we have this fetish about going through the institutions. And so you're going to have to give it this quasi-legal dressing up regardless of how you go about it. It's not like France where we just form a mob and march on the capital and set up a new regime and everything's fine. It's going to be much more dishonest and much more annoying. As James Burnham said, the defining trait of Anglo-Saxon political thought is hypocrisy. And this is just how we operate, unfortunately. But I think you could do it in such a way if you had a long-term strategy and if you had the willpower where you said, no, this is my ultimate objective, where you could pull

it off. And the key has always been you have a certain amount of state power and then you let the left to essentially kick off the revolution for you and then crush them. I mean, to use one example, let's look at what's going on in Austin right now. So you had this ice agent, and I don't know the full specifics yet. I don't think anybody does. But there was this Venezuelan who supposedly had a final order to be deported. He tried to flee from the cops or from the ice agent, I should say, supposedly he got shot.

He's still alive. He's in jail. Of course, all these Democratic politicians are rallying to them. You've got all these people in the streets waving Mexican flags and everything else. it would be very easy to come up with some sort of legal thing where you said you are interfering with immigration law enforcement and this constitutes a RICO violation or something like that. Oh, look, the Mexican government, and this is a fact. I mean, even Breitbart, I think it was Peter Schweitzer wrote a book about this,

and Breitbart was heavily promoting it. The Mexican consulates have this whole network where they are not only helping illegals get services within this country, but they're actually, helping organize some of the protests against Trump. This has been going back for years. And of course, they have all these territorial ambitions that they talk about and everything else. It's enough that you could build something about it and say, look, this is a threat. If you're promoting this kind of thing, if you're associated with this kind of thing, it's sedition. You're going to be denaturalized. You're going to be deported. You're in league with a foreign enemy. Now, a lot of people

are going to be really upset if you start doing these kinds of things. But at some point, you're going to have to start doing these things. And again, I return to the Iran war thing. If you're going to get in political trouble anyway, you might as well be in trouble for something that matters. I mean, this is the other thing. I think that there is a difference between leftists and rightists, if I can use those terms, on an inherent level. Like right wingers are just not capable of the kind of self-organization and activism and just kind of that, like militant spirit that you see among a lot of leftists. And that's a real big problem.

But what right wingers will do, what I should say normal people will do, is that. they will vote for somebody who will just take care of the problem. And they don't care too much about how he takes care of it as long as they don't have to confront it too much on an everyday basis. I think you can structure things in such a way where you can defeat these people. And as long as you're not too in their face about it, ordinary people will support you. And I think El Salvador is the ultimate proof of that. I mean, let's face it, Buckele is, well, something of a dictator, but is his popular support sincere? Is it organic? Is it real? Yeah, absolutely.

And is it justified what he did? Of course it is. How else could you have solved that problem? Hey, I went there last year. I would have allowed my wife to go walking alone in San Salvador. Yeah. I mean, it's he, he shut it down. And, you know, and, you know, the problem we have here is that we do have a, um,

a multicultural society. And it always brings me back to Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. He's like, they're like, oh, you know, why are the laws so strict here? He's like, because a lot of these people have nothing in common, and if the laws are not strict, they get out of hand. Yeah. And they get violent against each other, and we need order.

We need order in order to operate. And I've been saying for a while, I've said, the only way that you can have what we have, like right now, like say you just stopped it right now, boom, borders closed, so this is what we got. You're going to, and it's going to have to be on a nation. wide scale, which almost makes it impossible. Singapore is not, doesn't have 400 million people, which we probably have. So you're going to have to have governors. You're going to, I mean,

you have to arrest governors. You're going to have to, you basically have to install your own people. Right. I mean, but the structure is there. And you can, you can think of what the left could or probably will do in a couple years, especially if they went hog wild in the way that I think they would have if things gone a little bit differently. And, And you can imagine a president who went in with a single-minded determination of like, oh, we're going to shut this down what he would do. If you had governors, I mean, you had Waltz saying that Minnesota, I believe this is a quote, Minnesota is at war with the federal government and playing around with playing

footsie with the National Guard and everything else. And you have state and local officials trying to prevent illegals from being detained. I mean, this is what a state of emergency is for. This is how you do it. You have the paramilitary force now. You have ice. It says, well, staffed as most militaries. You have the military.

You have a lot of young American men who, if they were told, we're doing this, would rally to the colors. They would spring up overnight. You can't just do it in the sense of like, guess what? I'm proclaiming myself emperor. It doesn't work that way. It has to be done in stages. It has to be done in at least a quasi legal manner. But the precedent is there.

I mean, this is what's really remarkable. All the laws are basically on the books to do anything that you want to do. I mean, there are laws on the books that would let you just deport communists if you feel like it. You could do it. Now, maybe some court would say, no, I'm not going to let you do it. But that's what a state of emergency is for. You need to give people enough legal justification that the guy in the middle who wants to see his society saved, but doesn't want to see people marching around and saluting and matching uniforms and that kind of thing,

is going to say, no, no, no, this is actually okay, this is good enough, I'm willing to go along with this, because that's all you're really asking of most people. You're going to need a hardcore vanguard, and this is where I think the vanguards that are developing now will come in, who are willing to do what needs to be done, but you also need enough normal support that they're going to say, I'm at least going passively support this. I'll vote for it. I'll keep paying my taxes. I'll report violent left wingers who are trying to attack the police and things like that. Realistically, I think that's all you can expect from the right. I think the idea that we're going to get sort of a revolutionary movement of the far

right or the third position or the force beyond left and right and it's going to sweep the country. Ideologically, that's what I want when I was 20 or so. I think that's what I would have said like that's what I want. I just don't see it happening. Conservatives, rightists, people with something to lose, people who are not fundamentally neurotic about their approach to politics and aren't driven entirely by spite just don't operate the same way that leftists do. And if we try to use a purely leftist playbook to achieve right wing ends, we're going to lose. I think we should end it there.

It's all people where they can find your stuff. If you go to amran.com, obviously I do all my writing for American Renaissance. You can find identity politics on both Rumble. And believe it or not, YouTube, we'll see how long that lasts, right? And then you can find me on X. Still at VDair James K, although I'll probably change that over to Kevin Deanna pretty soon. Well, I was when they got, when they nuked my YouTube channel, I was, you know, I was upset for about five minutes. And then I'm like, you know, the longer I have this YouTube channel, the more people are going to think I'm a Fed or something because there's no way I should be on YouTube. I'm not, I'm not expecting it to last very long. Somebody was like, wow, this is really blowing up because, you know, it used to be you'd get like 200 views, right?

because I was mostly just going rumble. And as an afterthought, I was like, yeah, I posted to YouTube, whatever. It would get like 200 views. Then it got like 500 views. Now it's getting like, you know, 6,000 a day. And, you know, if it keeps going, it'll be tens of thousands. But it's not going to keep going. And we all kind of know this.

You're going to hit a wall. Yeah, 100%. Now will be the end of it. I appreciate it, Kevin. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you for having me on. Always a pleasure.