The Pete Quiñones Show - The Civil Right Era Episodes - Ryan Turnipseed, Greg Hood

Episode Date: July 9, 2025

2 Hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is a re-release of episodes:Episode 831: How the 'Civil Rights Regime' Was Enshrined w/ Ryan TurnipseedEpisode 905: The Civil Rights Act and Its Consequences w/ Gregory HoodEnshrining the Civil Rights RegimeRyan's Find My Frens PageGreg at American RenaissanceThe Age of Entitlement: America Since the SixtiesPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete'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.

Ready for huge savings, we'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye, distinctive by design. They move you, even before you drive.

The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited, subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply.

Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Little more to value. In the first 20 minutes of this episode, my audio was coming through my earbuds. So I apologize for the audio quality in the first 20.

I'll try to not let that happen again. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pete Cignonese show, returning. Ryan Turnip Seed. How are you doing, Ron? I'm doing very well. I'm glad to be back. Very cool. You want to get this out of the way?

because whenever we do this and put this on YouTube. So the first comment will be what does he know because he looks like he's 15? And then the other one will be get a haircut, you hippie. Yeah, I'll address the last one first. The get a haircut hippie,

90% of the reason that I have not gotten a haircut so far is because it generates so much interaction on all my videos. half the comments are people saying get a haircut really helps with the algorithm. It's a very wonderful form of what would it be social engineering. No, partially joking. And then with the youth comment, well, hopefully my own work shows for itself. I'll have you know it's nine-year-old nationalism, not 15-year-old nationalism.

That's the age that we go by on the most hardcore of the zoomer circles. All right. Well, one of the reasons I ask you to come on, well, the main reason I ask you to come on is you read about the civil rights regime. And I love that. I love that you put that in there. And you did it for the old glory club, which I've shared the video of myself and Paul talking about Joseph. McCarthy on here the live stream that we did for OGC. But why don't you, I've tried to explain exactly, you know, why I'm a part of it and what it is.

What do you think is the benefit of the old glory club? There are multiple key benefits. I don't feel like I have the authority to say that one is especially core because we're doing a lot of stuff that needs to happen, which wasn't previously being done. So we have, it's number one, it's an organization of friends. That should be in and of itself enough to justify being a part of it. If your friends, like your closest friends are a part of something and that something is good, which this is, then you should be a part of it to, you know, the basic community cohesion argument.

But a lot of what we're doing is we are organizing Americans in a very clean, a very respectable manner, trying to get our ideas across to key people and the public as well, you know, both at the same time, not at the expense of the others, which is something that the American right has long lacked. You will either find stooges in the absolute mainstream that will sacrifice every little bit of actual right-wing philosophy theory practice application for the pursuit of respectability. Or you will find people that want the absolute standard of unattainable purity. And we'll, in the pursuit of that, sacrifice any form of respectability, of appeal, or any exoteric value, you know, actually trying to share the idea. This group is so far doing a wonderful job at doing both without sacrificing either. You know, we aren't a bunch of nut jobs and we aren't a bunch of spineless cowards trying to go for a public spotlight, or too public of a spotlight, I should say. We're also working towards much higher-end goals. So it's not just, we're not just making a media cluster. The end vision here is actually supporting one another in a very old-fashioned American way,

something that was much more common before the New Deal regime was enacted, where people would just come together oftentimes voluntarily to support one another in cases of hardship, poverty, basically acting as a collective form of insurance. The Old Glory Club is trying to resurrect that old tradition, in spite of all the different disincentives and regulatory boundaries and social barriers that would prevent us from doing so, we're actually trying to do that, which is invaluable.

If we can't get this core building block set up in the Old Glory Club, I don't think that the American right or any meaningful right could succeed to succeed at all, really. Like, this is the basic community building block that we have at the foundation here. Yeah, I just wish I could make meetings more. I get everything. I mean, that's a good point.

We're all very productive. You know, we meet quite often. We have a constant study supply of media that we are putting out, even though that's not the main thing we're shooting towards. We are still doing it quite well, I might add. So, yeah, people's minds are geared towards dichotomies, one or the other, you know, mutually exclusive choices.

And that's not quite the American way, is it? We can do all of it at once and be good at it. Yeah. Well, the reason I had you on is because you wrote a substack for the Old Glory Club substack, an article. And it is a subject that I like to bring up. And usually when you bring it up, it's one of those subjects that gets both sides bristling. Because, let's face it, people, a lot of people who call themselves right-wing, call themselves right-wing.

When you bring up things like the Civil Rights Act, or as you termed it in the substack, the civil rights regime, people have. have to fight back. They hit, you know, oh, you, you want slavery again and everything. And the greatest meme I've seen in a while is, um, it's a black girl screaming at the Chad white guy. You're just upset because I can't be your slave anymore. And the Chad white guy goes, I don't want you anywhere near my property. That's wonderful because that was the, uh, I'm sure we'll talk about this sentiment because that's going to it's kind of going to play into a lot of

what existed before the civil rights regime. Right, right. So you titled it enshrining the civil rights regime. And you took it in a lot of people like to talk about 1964, 1965, when NB Johnson. But you, you jumped in with the little-known 1957 civil rights act.

So I'm going to put it up on the screen and, why don't you tell everybody a little bit about this? So you mentioned, yeah, I started with the unknown one, the 1957 one that happened under Eisenhower. Well, it has one popular subject within it that usually gets brought up in history classes or fact books or something. But we'll get there in a minute because it's its own subject. but this is sort of like the first post-reconstruction Civil Rights Act that is a, one moment, sorry, yeah, first post-reconstruction Civil Rights Act that's notable. You know, you have different categories, civil rights, voting rights, enforcement, which is more of a reconstruction error thing.

when we talk about the modern day civil rights paradigm or regime or the act, most people lumped together civil rights and voting rights. And the difference to the modern person in the present day is probably very minute because we just lump them together for good or bad. But the Civil Rights Act had a lot to do with the more social side of things. and the Voting Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, had much more to do with the, you know, actually taking control of the infrastructure,

getting people to vote, making sure that people weren't prohibited from voting, as the narrative that you oftentimes get told. You know, less on the segregation side of things, more on the electoral side of things, as the name might suggest. It sounds semantic, but, you know, if you read the acts themselves, it makes much more sense why they're different categories. 1957 is very interesting because this was sort of, it was a compromise act. So both the right, the right, and the left went along with it.

It's also the, obviously the first one that really gets the ball rolling. So it's a compromise act. Both sides went along with it, which means that neither side was really happy. went too far for the more conservative sides in Congress, and it didn't go far enough for the radicals, and also the sort of movement that was going along in the background. We can talk about those in a minute, if those are of interest, but I recently did a show with Mr. Stephen Carson a few weeks ago

where we talked about sort of the origin and the moral character of that movement, which is absolutely reprehensible. But with the... Stephen Carson, the only president that... I recognize. I mean, if we could all just be ruled by the benign and benevolent executive, Stephen Carson, I think our society would be going a lot better. Jeff Dice at the Neesis Institute, too.

Oh, yeah, yeah. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive. By design. They move you. Even before you drive. The new Cooper plug-in hybrid range. For Mentor,

Leon and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited.

Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? Well mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast.

Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. I forget sometimes that that is his proper role there. But with the act itself, this one, you know, it's the start. People aren't really happy because it doesn't go far enough. And the people that don't want any of this at all goes way too far because it's doing something.

So it just gets brushed under the rug. No one cares about it. No one likes it. As you said in the beginning, a lot of people focus on 1964 of the Civil Rights Act and 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. This, however, is very important because you don't get any of that stuff that comes throughout the next decade without this one small act. And that's really where we're, that's sort of like the backdrop that we're going to be working with here. By the way, that picture there. What is that picture? Yeah. So this is a, this is from a counter protest being dispersed by federal forces, I believe.

if I remember correctly, it was federal forces dispersing a counter-protest. These were white southerners that were counter-protesting a sort of, what would we call it, a civil rights demonstration, I believe, is the sort of a neutral term for it. This is a, you know, there's the, the trite saying, you know, a picture is worth a thousand words or something like that. You can get a lot out of reading the acts themselves. You can get a lot out of reading the secondary sources that are evaluating them, or even talking to people that were on the ground at the time. But the actual pictures that we have, I think, tells a lot more about the motivations driving the people pushing the civil rights regime more than any sort of written statement or oral statement could. So.

I really hope these are National Guard, because of, that they aren't National Guard, there's some problems here. Well, I mean, the whole issue here, all of the opposition that came from any meaningful resistance is going to be talking about the federal government overstepping its boundaries and intervening into what shouldn't be the federal government. Obviously, the motivations for these people could be just because they don't like the blacks. These could be because they don't like the federal government, whatnot.

You can speculate all the day long and go into individual characters. For the act itself, though, this is the backdrop because these guard units, if I remember correctly, they are guard. Because there were a few times that actual federally controlled

forces were sent in to forcefully integrate places, but this takes place in either a year or two before the 1957 Act begins. The only reason I have this up is because it's a very famous photo if you want to display things that

you don't get shown in your school when they go over these sorts of things in history. So, why were they counter protesting? Because the narrative that we often get fed, and I write it here, and I

might as well just say it because it just gets the basic thing down. What you get taught in school, what you everywhere in the media and whatnot, is the Civil Rights Act, ended segregation and voter suppression once and for all, bringing about integration so that we could all move forward together. You know, we don't have any of that yucky segregation Jim Crow laws. We don't have, you know, dilapidated, terrible schoolhouses for blacks and, you know, normal conditions for whites. We don't have signs saying one line over here and the other line over here. All of that's gone, and we just get

to have happy, warm, fuzzy feelings forever, because, uh, segregation is gone. So, you know, if that's the narrative, this picture makes absolutely no sense. Everyone involved that's being put away, the counter-protesters must just be utter vile demons, basically, because, you know, they're protesting the Civil Rights Act. What could be possibly wrong with them, you know, going against such a great mark of progress? Well, the right in recent years has done a good job building a counter-narrative to all of us, And I basically summarize that you could go more into detail.

You know, the opposite, the counter narrative would be something like the elites betrayed the Americans under internal and international pressure and subversion. They stripped away American liberties and heritage, and they paved away for the current disintegration of the nation that we are seeing. Because, yeah, this gets into a lot of it. The current immigration crisis that you're seeing in the country is only possible due to, the Civil Rights Act, because before this push and movement and the legal foundation that was laid here, you had a quota system that was based off of national origin, which meant that your immigration numbers were infinitely less than we see now. You had much more rigorous academic standards because there was less interference. We can put it politely and call it the state,

or we could put it in real terms and call it subversives. Academic standards. were higher, which completely gave way after these sets of legislation, starting with this 57 Act, you know, the state of the schools now can largely put the blame at this push here for civil rights. You have the sort of completely destroyed, you know, rural white communities in the South that have been just completely left behind. You have the rotting urban centers. All of this can really be traced back to this movement. It's remarkable how much damage was done. just with one simple organized push. So the right's been doing good at this counter-narrative.

But as usual, you don't really get the sort of emotional impact, because this is all a very real cold analysis of what happened, and it's very harrowing. But you don't really get the fact that your own government pushed you away with bayonets for pros, protesting against this, uh, this development right here in this counter narrative. Uh, you know, this wasn't done in the sort of, uh, idealized liberal world where you have two people on a debate stage, arguing over the merits of a, uh, of a law or piece of legislation. Uh, this was a very

forceful movement. Um, and a lot of people will confuse this with the 70s where there was quite famously a number of bombings. Um, this is not the 70s. This is the 70s. This is the 50s, the 1950s. So, you know, that's the, I think this should go to explain the motivations of a lot of the people pushing this. This was not a popular movement. This was not grassroots legislative change. This was not even sort of like a cultural imperialistic thing. Like you'll see a lot of more southern libertarians say that this was a push from the north. This was a push by, you know, high subversive government that had control over the military on multiple levels. They had control over what would become your intelligentsia that would inhabit the new university systems. They would take control

of the legal process, which is what the rest of this article will go into. They would completely rewrite the legal code, as we already kind of mentioned, with immigration. And they would completely change policing standards, which goes through that rotting urban. decay that I mentioned. We can summarize that there and not get too sidetracked. You know what I find interesting about this is

just before we started recording, I was on Twitter and I saw a Kami calling himself a libertarian who many such cases who posted that Puerto Rico should become the

51st state. and when you went under it and looked, a lot of people said, well, that should be up to them. They should vote on that. None of those people would say that the people in this picture should vote on whether they should have this act forced upon them. Well, they won't, and there's two reasons behind that. There is a reason that the Civil Rights Act and the voting rights acts and all of these other integrationist measures weren't put up to a, a proposition. They weren't put up to a referendum.

And that's because the laws that they were trying to replace were oftentimes popularly voted local laws. Those evil Jim Crow laws that you hear about in school, they don't really get told what they do, just they separated whites and blacks, and they also did mean things to the blacks and didn't harm the whites so the narrative goes. Those were all popularly voted in.

by contrast, the civil rights and voting rights acts were not popularly forced in. This is what we might call bayonet legislation. In regards to the modern day where the popular libertarian solution is to put it to a local vote, you can really tell who is serious about it and who is just saying it for who knows what reason. if you say, all right, so we can do the same with any legislation, including the Civil Rights Acts. And the modern day, that might not make much of a difference because the people that push this societal revolution just have complete dominance over the media education and any other propaganda institution. The vote might not be different in the modern day.

You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive. By design. They move you. Even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Teramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro.

Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Cooper. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited,

trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? Well, mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th, because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs. When the doors open, the deals go fast.

Come see for yourself. Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Lidl, more to value. But the very principle itself that you'd be probing from those more communistic, sort of libertarian types, I guess you could call them, you can really test them with this, because it's an uncomfortable law by modern standards, but if you're really pushing for decentralization, it shouldn't matter.

You know, it should be up to the people in the location. So, yeah, to your point. That's the thing. Most people, and I'm not even ripping on libertarians so much. Right wingers do it too, is when it comes to uncomfortable things like this, they need to not upset. They're not upsetting the Applecart. They're not upsetting the, they don't want to get attacked as racist or anything like that.

I mean, they just, they care more, they care more about what people who want them dead, you know, think of them. Or if they don't care about that, they care more about what their in-group thinks because their in-group is, has wild ideas about what liberty looks like, you know, whether it be celebrating, we need to not, sex work is real work and we need to celebrate it, not only accept it and things like that. I mean, that, that's not, that, that's not verboten to talk about because, you know, you're, you're a hero of civil rights. But if you talk about this, well, I mean, you're no different than David Duke or, you know, anyone else who oppose the Civil Rights Act, though, 57 or 64. Right. And it's, you get a lot of terrible narratives that come out of this. You know, on a fundamental level, most people will not be able to tell you. you what is wrong inherently with separating people based off of a different characteristics. It could be race or it could be any other class differences, you know, serfs and peasants.

Most people will not be able to tell you what's inherently wrong with that, you know, most civil rights supporters. They will always resort to arguments of unequal application, you know, welfare was a, there's a disparate and welfare between these groups that were separated. There was a, you know, these laws weren't equally enforced and all this other stuff. Which, if you notice, the rhetorical trick is not an issue with the separation itself. It's an issue with the application, right? They always pull this trick. It's what the narratives do.

It's what the school systems do. It's what the media does. And I wouldn't be shocked if most libertarian literature did this as well. or at least the more left-leaning side of it. It's always the application that they will focus on, and that's because for the longest time, most people were fine with this way of doing things. It was only with the advent of mass media

in the hands of certain people that this become a widely discussed topic, and outrage was manufactured for it. So, I don't know exactly where you want to go after that point, because we can continue on. Well, yeah, let's continue on in the in the substack because the, it starts getting into that. It starts getting into. Right.

So, yeah, we've laid a lot of background and discuss some effects. So, and that kind of goes into the reason I wrote this. A lot of people that are politically involved or, and obviously people that aren't, will have very strong opinions on civil rights and the acts and all the other stuff. it's sort of like the neutral moral point for the modern era. You're a normal person in the modern era if you just accept the Civil Rights Act. You're a weird outcast if you go against it, and you're very moral if you push for more of it. That's sort of a paradigm that you're working in. That's great and all, but no one actually knows what's in them.

I would be shocked if, you know, 5% of the population has, like, read the pieces of legislation themselves. Not summaries. That's a step closer. But you can summarize anything out of any piece of legislation to make it sound good or bad. Get into the actual primary source. I doubt, I doubt, you know, 5% of people have done that if 1%. So the 57...

Yeah. You want to jump down? Yeah, you want to jump down into it. The 57th of the rights act is really good here. Because it's short. and I don't know if it's the shortest style of the Civil Rights Act, but it's definitely one of the most concise and to the point. And for the article, I actually start later,

because it starts out with how it's going to enforce what it does and then says what it's enforcing. So for the reader's purpose, I've switched the two topics around chronologically, and we just start off with what exactly the 57 Civil Rights Act is dealing with. And this is a, I have it linked in the substack right here. I'm sure this will be leading somewhere on Pete's upload. So, yeah, so you can go read it for yourself if you don't believe me.

This is in the Civil Rights Act, what exactly it does. And I'm quoting here, no person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce. Any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for or not to for any candidate. At any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

So that's a very, that's legalese. There's just no way getting around it. But what it's saying is that you cannot in any major capacity cause someone to change their mind about who they were going to vote for or if they were going to vote at all, right? So, or at least do so with a threat behind it, which is why they say intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to do so. These are all very ethereal concepts.

They all have legal definition, sure. But that only matters if we have this first part here where it's actually been done. We have the second clause right here at the start that says, if you attempt to do so, you know, you're, you're in violation of the law. An attempt, if I need to remind anyone logically what this means, you know,

you don't actually have to do it. It's just if the court finds that you looked like you were going to do it, you're in violation of this law. There's no way to get around it. It's very sort of a draconian in that way, which is why most of your good laws that most people

are fine with. Just leave it at if you do the thing, you're in violation of the law. with very few exceptions, murder, attempted murder, because it's really hard to, you know, acute, or, sorry, it's very hard to get someone for attempting to murder without them actually having done it. You can't really frame that too terribly well.

It would take a lot of ingenuity. It's very rare. But this is a very relaxed and elastic thing that we're dealing with. intimidation, threats, coercion, and any sort of a, any cause that would get another person to vote for or not to vote for a candidate or at all. So you're dealing with a very ethereal concept. I mean, you can't really grasp. It could look like anything. There's a very broad scope here. And if you go against this, if the court decides that you go against this, you're in violation of federal law. So, you know, this isn't state law. This is federal legislation that applies to every person.

And then we go on. It looks like. It looks like there is something very specific there. And tell me, tell me if I'm wrong, at any general, special, or primary election, is the law saying that it's this only, this is only taken into consideration? at a polling place. So this is where we're going to get into actual enforcement because the strictest interpretation of this,

which we had for a few years, would say yes, because the intention is not what's actually written here. The intention was to prevent people from standing at voting boxes and booths and all this other stuff and intimidating other people, which is a trope that didn't happen too terribly much. And we had other legislation

in the past 100 years before this that was preventing that. Quite famously, you had the elections in 1896 and 1900 where this did happen, and you had retaliatory legislation throughout the next like 40 years or so trying to prevent this. So in theory this already existed, the strictest definition would say this is just reaffirming that principle that you can't intimidate anyone at the voting booths. however, you get the radical interpretation of this

that is saying, well, you can intimidate these people at these elections without being at the voting booth. So you can, if you're in like a small town in the South, we can use like their type of example. You can have like a prior warnings issued like a few days before you could have patrols on the streets or whatnot, you know,

the things that didn't actually really happen that much, that a lot of your civil rights, fiction and literature would point towards is why this needed to happen. Your more liberal interpretation will include all of that. I mean, I could take it to be that anyone who says that if you vote for Trump, you're a fascist and you shouldn't be, you shouldn't be a lot you should have your kids taken away from you I mean that seems to be a violation of that

when you look at it from the liberal standpoint but then we get into the reality of law which is you know who is actually deciding who writes law and not it's not these words on the page unfortunately or fortunately one or the other so if you were to be consistent with that very radical interpretation of this you would be correct having people say that there should be an authority that takes away your offspring if you do not vote in the correct way. Most sane people would say, yeah, this violates the law, but that's not how it's ever going to be enforced.

And I didn't actually include this in the article because I thought the logical progression that I'm making here I just thought would be obvious. Not obvious, but understood, rather. there are provisions in here by the government I link it in the article itself so you can go read the actual act the legislation makes provisions to sort of change how the jury system worked so who could be selected who couldn't be selected

it's at a federal standard I believe for the first time in history or the second time one or the other and on just the bare pages. That's all it did. It just said, like, you had to be, you had to have this many qualifications or you had to be at this area or something in order to serve on a jury. But in reality, what this did is it put specific people in specific places that allowed juries to be balanced in favor of a civil rights push, which is why for like the 50 years preceding this, the South,

completely upheld, you know, basically every sort of a separate but equal doctrine that was in existence. But afterwards, even without the Supreme Court in some cases, in local courts, what could happen is that the jury could be swayed in favor of a more civil rights verdict. So I forget exactly what it said, and I don't have it written down in front of me, but I believe it would later be expanded to a little. allow women. You had to allow women onto the juries. Most of us might know that women tend to be much more left liberal leaning, especially with the college system that's being set in place by this regime starting this act. So you obviously have a balance or a imbalance going there. But you also

had a certain amount of pay that was being offered. You had certain standards that were set, all of which would allow people to balance these courts. I can put this in a different way. If this happened in a third world country, you would see the United States media coming out and saying that they rigged the legal system. I mean, just sort of how blatant it is.

And most right-wing figures at the time were saying this. They were just trampled over and ignored because they did not have the media complex under their control. So, yeah, yeah. So you want to read C? Whenever any person has engaged, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice, which would deprive any other person of any right or privilege secured by this subsection, the Attorney General may institute for the United States a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventative relief.

So, simplify this, what does that mean? If any person looks like they are about to violate this, the Attorney General of the United States can basically take complete and total action against them. The federal government will interfere into state electoral laws and practices and initiatives and legal customs. They will just bypass all of that, and you will be subjected to the federal government. This means, you know, you're not going to get any sympathetic Southerner on your side if you're a southern counter-protester. Later on, if you're in the Midwest or the West Coast, and you kind of like the more sort of separate but equal laws, and you try to go against that. You catch them in the corner of your eye.

Distinctive. By design. They move you. Even before you drive. The new Cooper plug-in hybrid range. for Mentor, Leon and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves.

Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings We'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th Because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back

We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items All reduced to clear From home essentials to seasonal must-habs When the doors open, the deals go fast Come see for yourself The Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale 28th to 30th of November Liddle more to value

There is a risk That you could be construed is trying to intimidate threaten or coerce or interfere in the vote of a person, and you can be subjected to the attorney general. So, obviously, this isn't, doesn't really happen to individual people, but that doesn't matter because individual people acting on their own isn't what gets societies changed unless you're a great person, a great man.

what this basically means is if you're an organization trying to go against this practically what you and I would say Pete is an organization will try to go against this law in some sort of practical or even legal way going off of a strict interpretation of this text and they can very easily be construed as intimidating, threatening, or coercing or attempting to do so and then suddenly they're subjected to infringing upon the civil rights and the privileges

secured within this act. So. Which seemed to be left wide open with a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventative relief. I mean, that could be execution. I believe what would have to happen is that would have to be specified. I don't know if that's a hard rule. I think that practically you would have to specify. that beforehand in like an act.

Really what this means is that the, you know, they're setting the groundwork for their enforcement. Basically, after they've said what the enforcement's going to be, this act is really strangely construed. But there's also a social effect of both of these things. You know, if I replace, you know, voting or the vote or something like that in this text with the words pray or worship or something like that. And then, you know,

replace general, special or primary election with, like, the state church or something like that. We have a blasphemy law like we would have had 500 years ago that would have been very common in most Western countries. And this is why I went with calling it the civil rights regime is because this isn't just legal development or some terrible turn in United States history. this is completely establishing a new society

because these are blasphemy laws and it's probably no coincidence that you immediately thought that could be execution because it's far-fetched but it's not impossible that this could potentially happen especially with some of the developments that we're saying in other Western countries

of what might have been thought impossible two years ago is now happening in terms of publicly sponsored death. You know, this is a blasphemy law, and we see that most of our governments are not

are not really too squeamish about enforcing blasphemy laws, nor are they too squeamish about getting rid of people that could potentially in the future go against them. So, and that's the point that I make here in this paragraph, is that

this is a, this is setting like a new social standards. That thing that I mentioned at the beginning, or closer to the beginning, this is setting morality in the modern day. You know, if you're normal people like the Civil Rights Act, you're really good if you really support them and want more, and you're evil and terrible if you go against them. That's being set up here. The language, the subject, the enforcement, and the scope here, it's a social reconstruction more than it is, with anything electoral or mechanical on that sort of sphere. So that's the importance of these two things, plus just knowing what's actually in them.

So there's no actual declaration that says segregation is no longer allowed anymore, something like that. Because, you know, that would be way too, that would be way too on the nose. That would be way too, you know, sort of door slamming for Congress at the time. It wouldn't get through. this is, once again, you have to keep in mind, this is the compromise position that we've got here. This really terribly written enforcement and social law that we see, this is the compromise. They could have gone farther, and in fact, they did in the next few acts.

But this is not quite what the popular narrative says. It's not quite as beautiful or glamorous. You know, it's boring legalese about the voting rights of people basically in the South. This is targeting the South quite obviously. You know, segregation technically would still be allowed. A lot of your voting methods also would technically still be allowed because you would have to make a separate legal case that, say, a literacy test is an interference with the right to vote. because the counter argument too would obviously be, well, everyone just has to take it and everyone still has their right. It's just we don't want illiterates voting on things they don't understand, which is why literacy tests aren't included in here.

Other Jim Crow laws aren't included in here. So the Star of the Civil Rights Act, something that you might see in the modern day, are very gentle, very subtle. But still nonetheless, very dogmatic and very restructed. So, you know, these could go farther, and they eventually will, but this is sort of like boiling the frog in the pot. This was what you could pass in 1957. Give it a few years after this has been going, after you have the media running 24-7 coverage over this topic, and then you can pass something more extreme, and you just keep going at infinitum until the country collapses. I like that you say that this is basically transforms voting into being one of the holy sacraments of democracy, because it really is. It's, it's, you know, you, I was saying this on a, on a live stream the other night was the person who tells you just vote the Republican.

That person sounds normal to me. The person who says, just vote Democrat, that person who sounds normal to me. The person who says, I don't care who you vote for, just vote. That person scares the hell out of me. Because they are seeking to legitimize the system and they need, it's like they need that system to exist and they need to participate. Right. And when most people's modern morals are founded on like a secular government's mechanisms, I believe there's another old Glory Club article that's talking about sort of like the other sacraments. of our enemies, basically.

Voting is probably one of the most key ones. When you're in school, especially the public schools, it's pushed on you basically from the second grade onward, if not the first grade. Schools will hold mock elections. It's not uncommon to have public schools sort of like, you know, have people have like a mock vote for whatever president is under re-election. It's not uncommon for people to have to do a ton of reports.

over the different party structures, the actual voting mechanism and all this other stuff. It's not in common for people to have to actually go out and find out how to register as part of the public school system. They want you to vote. They have a, most places, I believe, have some sort of mechanism to make sure that you have all the time available to go and vote on that day. There's probably a few other things I'm forgetting as well. well. A lot of advertisements, a lot of major companies that are affiliated with the state, and the state itself will run advertisements trying to make sure that you get as many people voting as possible. Now, if you were to just take democracy on paper, voting for the sake of voting doesn't

make sense. You know, you only vote about things that you care about, and not everything needs to be voted on by everyone, because if you take the classic democratic argument, you'll want the people that know what they're doing to vote, which is why basically every democracy except this terrifying one didn't have universal suffrage. But

when you stop looking at it from a governmental point of view, and you start looking at it from a religious point of view, suddenly voting for the sake of voting, being a moral good, makes much more sense. It's a sacrament for a religion.

Which, you know, it's a it's a very popular and sort of stale talking point now, but when they were talking about the holy temple of democracy being Washington, D.C., and Congress, and, you know, all the different state buildings, you know, that was when most people sort of woke up to the fact that this existed. But it's not a new development by any means. 1957 is almost 70 years ago, right? And you could probably find more developments preceding this.

They didn't go as far as making this a sacrament. This is radical for the time, and the rest of the article will go into saying that. But seven decades ago that we've had sort of a moral system built up around the sacred vote with the Holy Temple in Washington, D.C., with the elected sort of presbyters that go up and vote on the inner esoteric workings of this Holy Temple, a holy temple. Seven decades is a long time. That's almost twice the amount of time that Moses in the Old Testament had the Israelites in the desert, basically dying off so that they could be worthy and basically completely restructured as a society to enter the promised land. 70 years is more than enough to completely destroy any other religion or moral system that existed before whatever you're trying to institute.

And then, you know, by the 70th year, it makes perfect sense that you have complete and total dominance as a morality. Just to put that in perspective. Well, and I do want to say because YouTube loves to give strikes for things related to voting. we're not telling people not to vote. We're just making the point that if we're in a quote-unquote democracy, people don't have to vote if they don't want to. And pressuring people to vote is just as bad as pressureing people to not vote. The strict interpretation of this law would agree with you,

but hopefully we've made the case now, and hopefully you have enough historical foresight to see that this didn't stop here. Yeah. Scroll on down because we got a... Yeah. So we have the ideal. We have what the law says is and is not and will be prosecuted. How are we going to enforce this?

Well, we get something that's very common nowadays, but at the time would have been a very major step. This is sort of a, this is where the controversy really lies. And I will quote the act here and we'll just go over it quickly because there's not much to dwell in here. It's just what is. quote, there is created in the executive branch of the government a commission on civil rights. The commission shall investigate allegations in writing under oath or affirmation that certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote

and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin. two, study and collect information concerning legal developments constituting a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution, and three, appraised the laws and policies of the federal government with respect to equal protection of the laws under the Constitution. So there is a separate executive commission whose only job it is to investigate, you know, any allegations, not actual cases or probable cases, or, you know, warrants or any of these other things, allegations that people just write down and write their name to that this act up here is being violated. It's in the executive branch as well, so there's a lot of autonomy, we could say,

as opposed to some of the other commissions by the other branches. It's also supposed to study and collect information regarding the legal developments, basically of the status of these laws up here. And then it has the authority to appraise the laws and policies of the federal government with regard to these laws up here. So this one commission that was just established out of thin air has the ability to investigate allegations of this new wide, wide-reaching law that was just passed. it has the ability to basically make its own reports and studies and analyses of different parts of the country basically marking its targets who are we going to focus on.

And then it has the authority to self-correct the federal government itself, the thing that is establishing it, to make sure that it falls more in line with these laws. So, in practical terms or in real terms, we have a commission who's only sole. job it is, is to find cases in which it can apply these laws and as extravagant as ways as possible, because it's the federal government. You don't do things just slightly or within budget. You have to keep going

in order to keep your job secure. So it's going to find allegations of which these laws are being violated. It's going to find regions of which these laws are being violated in order to have a sort of macro focus, and it's going to

completely restructure the federal government. in doing this to make sure that it can just keep going. You know, it's a positive feedback loop. This can only grow right here in this one little section of the law. So in the modern day, this might seem less radical because we have other commissions that do the exact same thing all the time. In fact, if you look at the Wikipedia page, you could probably find, I don't know, like, was it, 50? You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design.

They move you, even before you drive. The new Kupra plug-in hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Terramar, now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Kupra and discover our latest offers. Kupra, design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Ireland Limited,

Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Broke wagon financial services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November.

Have your say, online or in person. So together, we can create a more. more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.com.i. 4. Northwest. Different commissions within the last 70 years that basically do this, but in their own fields. Not nearly as extreme, I might add. There aren't many commissions that have the sole purpose of completely restructuring your society, though they will affect it.

But this one was sort of like the start of that development. if the federal government wants to really do something without having to deal with those written laws and checks and balances and whatnot, they found a way to bypass the words on the paper, surprise, surprise. They just establish a commission of people that just do what they want.

So that's what this is here. Why do you think they went further with 60? Well, when it comes to the voting rights, the 65 Act, was it just to make the tighten the handtuffs down even tighter? There's a couple of reasons.

65 makes the legal case is much easier because they prohibit specific things that were happening in specific parts of the country. This stuff over here, as I was mentioning, it was all intangible. It's sort of just laying out a principle, if you will, which is why I called it a building block

or a foundation for the rest of them to build on. these don't explicitly outlaw grandfather clauses or literacy tests or any other sort of like finangling you you know finangling you could do with voting um 65 um explicitly outlaws those things so basically there's no question as to whether or not the counter arguments are going to hold up in court because it's illegal now um you also have the other thing um the i i i'm want to make this a series where I go through each and every individual one and not just stop on 57, but 64 and 65 go way beyond just race and way beyond just equal protection. 64 at the Civil Rights Act, quite famously applies to basically every form of discrimination you can come across.

So basically, you as a citizen are no longer allowed to discriminate in a public position. whether it's your own store, your own private property that you are selling to the public, if you are in a local government where the people all agree that they don't want these specific people in the community, too bad, you have to accept them. If you have your own restaurant or whatnot, you can only manage it in certain ways because otherwise you might be accidentally segregating. All of those things come with the later acts. You would have to be very, very creative and very hardworking in order to extrapolate any of that

from these pieces of legislation, which is, in summary, to say that you get those later acts because they want to go farther. This does not go far enough to the, well, for the modern status quo, but for the 1957 radical, this doesn't go near far enough. This is just touching on voting. Great, they have their sacrament locked down now, but they don't have the rest of society that they want to engineer under their scope yet. So that's why you're get those later acts. Hmm. And you also mentioned here that

very famous senator tried to filibuster the act. Somebody that Oh, that great right wing trope of making the left out to be the real racist.

Yeah. That really works, right? I mean, oh, I mean, so many people, so many people on the left are like, Oh my God, I'm the real racist. Yeah. I mean, it works famously so well that for the last 20 years, we've done nothing but go back to the way that society was in the 50s. We haven't drifted ever further leftward as we've accepted the frame and the moral underpinnings of the radicals pushing these things, right, Pete?

Yeah, or as you mentioned, our friend, raging mandrel talking about the sacraments of the enemy, our enemies, like loss of things. like loss of sexual innocence, teaching children about non-reproductive sex, transitioning children, pedophilia, abortion, veneration of minority groups, veneration of violent criminals, the principle of inversion, the leveling of all individuals in a society to the lowest common denominator. Yeah, all of those things that, yeah, I mean, all you have to do is tell the left that they're the real racist and we're back. dude we're back we're back the new the new deal regime is gone the the war

between the states never happened I mean I mean we having said all that that describes much more the sort of modern right wing than it does Senator Strom Thurmond here I think yeah

wait a minute wasn't he a Democrat I did a stream on my channel Ryan Turnip Seed on YouTube where I talked to a very well accomplished American historian Christopher Sambatch about the party switch. Senator Thurmond here, at this point in time, would have still been a Democrat. He is one of the few people to actually switch parties, though. There's a lot to go into there.

The basic summary I can give, hopefully not too terribly incorrect or oversimplifying. That's sort of a party switch that a lot of American conservatives like to say never happen, it all kind of happened. The issues did swap and the coalitions did change. But it wasn't like politicians were saying, well, I'm a right-winger, and this is the right-wing party now, so I have to switch affiliation. Instead, what happened is a lot of people just started running under different parties and voting out the existing politicians.

But one of the points that were made, that was made, sorry, by Christopher Sandbatch. is that in a lot of these places in the South, you can only run as Democrat because that's the only political infrastructure that's there. He uses Louisiana as an example quite a lot as he did on that stream. And he would say there's just not like a Republican Party headquarters in Louisiana at this point in time.

Strom Thurman was the South Carolina governor and senator. There was a Republican Party presence. It wasn't non-existent. but you're only ever going to get anywhere if you run as a Democrat. And, you know, he himself obviously fit the Democratic bill for quite a long time. These Southern Democrats were very populistic economically. So they supported a lot of the New Deal regime, which you could kind of see as a Faustian bargain. They support this New Deal regime, and it inevitably kind of leads to the civil rights push.

But regardless, Stram Thurmond here was basically the face of the right-wing reaction to the civil rights bills even though I doubt most libertarians would consider him right-wing because he was a welfare status which is what the Southern Democrats were

but he opposed the Civil Rights Act in the most thorough way, quite famously, by giving an over 24-hour-long filibuster against this bill in the Senate. So just a couple of things. I'm sure some of your audience has probably heard of this before. You know, 24-hour filibuster, it's the record. It was for Civil Rights Act.

It was an evil Southern racist that did it. You know, all of the tropes that usually get passed around here. You know, that looks nice. And it kind of goes past the point to where most people can't conceive of speaking for 24 hours. I don't know about you. I don't know what the longest stream or discussion you've done is, but I think the longest I've ever spoken consecutively was six hours.

And that was in person, so it wasn't a string. And my throat was bleeding by the end of it. This guy was speaking to a House of Congress without modern microphone technology and all this other stuff. for over 24 hours before you had computers and laptops and all this other stuff with which to keep notes

to filibuster this bill. And you might think, oh, well, he did it for such an absurdly long time. He must have just been buying time. It must have just been fluff. Nothing in there at all. You would be very wrong. Senator Strom Thurman was a very thorough

gentleman. He read out every state's electoral laws to the Senate. With the sole purpose of making the point that these laws up here weren't necessary, most states had already covered them in their own laws on the state level. Most states had legislation basically preventing any state employee or official from interfering with the votes of people. you know, obviously they didn't go far enough as to put it into such religious language and have such terrifying enforcement, but they were on the books. And then furthermore, he basically went through the potential ramifications of enacting this law.

What happens if you put this, you know, blasphemy law into the hands of a federal commission and the federal government, you know, with the sole purpose of finding cases of which to enforce these laws? employers rewarding your staff why choose between a shop voucher or a spend anywhere card when with options card you can have both with options card your team gets the best of both worlds they can spend with Ireland's favourite retailers or choose a spend anywhere card it's simple to buy and easy to manage there are no hidden fees it's easy to use and totally flexible they can even re-gift or donate to a good cause make your awards more rewarding visit optionscard.i Today. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping

these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in-person, so together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4.Northwest. Well, you're going to get a massive overreach on the federal government. Sure, that's the basic point. But he predicted a complete upheaval of society. He made the classic slippery slope argument that, you know, for whatever reason, I'm told the slippery slope is a fallacy, but every single slippery slope that I read in history just comes true, quite magically.

He's talking about how they just won't stop after this. They're going to completely uproot the American legal tradition itself. They're going to completely uproot American society, what would have been recognized as traditional at the time. They're going to basically make this all. They're going to make federal legislation sort of like the go-to instead of state legislation. All these things that happen. And this is sort of a side tangent if you'll allow me to go on it. When most people think of the amendments today, your basic federal legislation, if you will, constitutional law.

amendments, but basically the same thing in most people's minds at this point. They usually envision this happening on a ubiquitous personal level. The First Amendment to most people in the modern day means that no government official can interfere with freedom of the press or speech or religion. If you know your constitutional history, though, that's not how it was working for the majority of its existence. All of those amendments in the Constitution, except for a few exceptions, applied to the federal government. They were restrictions on federal activity. This act and the acts that would come after it and the legal philosophy that would be set in place, the new foreign legal philosophy that's imported here, this is the start of most of those

amendments and federal policies being incorporated is what it's called incorporation, onto the states, onto the individual. Now, in some cases, this can work to your advantage. It's not all doom and gloom. Your Second Amendment could technically be more expansive now, but a lot of good that's done. Yeah, that's really, that Second Amendment right has really helped against the complete upheaval of society. But Senator Thurman here in this 24-hour Philoferman,

is making all of these points, basically. He's calling all of it. He's doing a lot of predictions. And he's also very thorough in his proof. So he's not buying into frame or anything here. He's not saying, like, this is good. Because as a Southerner, obviously, you know, you want to keep your options open for voting. And that goes into a lot of different reasons. Your modern narrative would say it's because they're evil racists. If you were more thorough and did, I don't know if you've read a book in your life, it's because the southern political philosophy is deeply rooted in a sort of like an elitist democratic system. So you get what looks like universal suffrage and all of that. But you also get very powerful politicians and political bosses and leaders and sort of like an elite that emerges

in the southern society. That's the tradition that Thurman and a lot of these Dixiecrats are coming out of. So, you know, enshrining the right to vote as a sacrament for everyone, completely uproots that. It completely uproots the American legal system, American culture. You know, I'm repeating myself at this point. So I actually link the filibuster itself. It's a very long one. I've read most of it. I doubt many people will read most of it that you can go and see for yourself. And the first half of it, the first like 12 hours is literally just him reading word for word. This is what the electoral law in the state of Montana says. And then he just reads the whole thing.

And you get the point after like Alabama that, you know, this law, this piece of legislation probably doesn't just have a sort of dry, strict intent. This probably isn't what they're doing here, why they're doing it. There's probably more ulterior motives in the background. At the time, this would be considered conspiratorial, but we know now with historical hindsight that there were many more civil rights acts that came after this. So that's the 57 Act. That's sort of your background. There's not much impactful things here, if you will.

I know that's a word that most people try to avoid using an or spheres, but the more substantial stuff, that's a better word, comes with the other acts. This will make more sense to why I start hearing say everything that I have once I go over the rest of them, because this opens the door. It sets the groundwork. You can't get anything else that comes after without this one act. It is this one thing in the chronological order that opens the floodgates and starts destroying things. I mean, it has to start somewhere. You know, when we, there's always a genesis for it. And there's always a genesis for the worst things that we've, that we experience.

It's that we see brought into law. I mean, a lot of people talk about how bad the New Deal regime is, you know, how many people focus on how the New Deal regime, how that was planned out. How, I mean, you're talking about. what is it when you look at executive orders i still i think fDR still has like two or three time wrote two or three times more than like the next person in fairness there is a person that did go over the new deal regimes operations i believe that would be burn him uh it's just the only issue is um he also does the thing where he kind of simplifies what happened every now and then you'll

get a nice quote of his where he's dug something up and he's like this is what the law says and this is how they're screwing you over with it um But, you know, he also does the sort of counter-narrative simplifying, which is fine. You need a dogma or a narrative because not everyone is meant to be some high-minded intellectual or politically active politician. You know, dogmas have utility. But there is an issue when the people making the dogmas haven't actually read the primary material themselves. So, and that's kind of what I was trying to correct here and also just bring to people. So, yeah, I mean.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I was talking more along the lines of naming names. I'll let you do that because you value your online presence. I won't go too overboard. Yeah. No, I mean, I was, I'm talking about when it comes to the New Deal regime, you know, who was responsible for writing all that stuff, you know.

I heard Alex Jones the other day say in one breath that naming names doesn't mean anything. and then he mentioned the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab. So very, very, very courageous, very courageous. Yeah, with all that said, I mentioned that I discussed sort of like the actual movement itself with Mr. Carson. And perhaps there's like a sequel in there in the works. If you get him on to talk about some of those things that we got discussed, there is a, you know, you don't get a movement out of thin air. and I'm sure with your content,

hopefully your audience is well aware that populism just doesn't real. You know, you have people organizing things somewhere. Obviously, the legal stuff having an origin, that's obvious. Laws have to be passed by someone.

But the movement itself doesn't just come out of thin air either. There are organizers and there are names of people that did these things. And most of them were communists. the Highlander Folk School, the people that sort of trained the initial wave of your civil rights activist that you wouldn't recognize that the drop of a hat, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, or Michael King rather. This was a former communist organization unit that was targeting union workers in the Appalachians and then turned to social issues like the Civil Rights Acts because they figured they could get their way easier with it. So it's kind of like the Marxist of the Frankfurt School,

dead horse talking point at this point. But it's another example of an institution on the left, going from more focusing on a white poor working class as the means to a Marxist revolution and turning towards literally everything else and destroying that white poor working class in order to bring about their utopia. So that's a place to start.

If you don't know who organized these things and what was happening, go look at them. And they're very open about it too. So this isn't like East of Territic knowledge. The great thing about American political movements is they tell you exactly what, when, and where they are doing things.

They're very proud of it. All right. Plug anything you wish. You can find me on Twitter at Turnip Merchant or under my name there as well, sort of with the tag and the username. I haven't been posting there nearly as much. I have a telegram channel as well,

which you can find our good friend Charlemagne. He has a website called Find My Friends, F-I-N-D-M-Y. Yeah, okay, so the link will be there in whatever description there is. I have a telegram channel that you can find there. I'm slightly more active there because I like Telegram more than Twitter. Employers, did you know, you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1,500 euro and gift cards annually, completely tax-free and even better.

can spread it over five different occasions. Now's the perfect time to try OptionsCard. OptionsCard is Ireland's brand new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love. It's simple to buy, easy to manage, and best of all, there are no extra fees or hidden catches. Visit OptionsCard.i.e. today. Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid

is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4.4. Northwest. And then we also have my YouTube channel, which is still monetized magically.

I've talked about southern segregation and Chinese revolutions. and reconstruction, still monetized and going. That's under my name as well, Ryan Turnipseed. You can find it on YouTube. There's quite the back catalog now, so there's plenty of content there. If you kind of like the discussions that we brought here today, except it's not just me talking about it,

so you don't have to hear me bwafel on forever. I usually bring on someone else who is also knowledgeable in the subject to talk about whatever it is. So those are the places to find me, and I think that's all I've got to plug. And, you know, by all means, everyone have a Merry Christmas. Since this is probably the last public announcement, I'll be giving on that. All right.

And thank you for having it. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pete Cagnonez show. I want to welcome Greg Hood to the show for the first time. How you doing, Greg? Hey, great to be here. Tell everybody a little bit about yourself.

First time, I always try to let people do that. Well, you might know me by several different names. at this point real name Kevin Deanna that's no secret I write under the name of James Carpatrick over at vidar.com Twitter VDair James K I've got the James Polk avatar and then at American Renaissance and other places I read under the name of Gregory Hood I've been doing this for a while and you know the pen names have just sort of become brands associated with the different sites but you know I'm not trying to hide anything or do anything like that at this point it's just

that's how people know me so I just have a had a reason to change it. I started off. I did a group called Youth for Western Civilization back when I was working at the Leadership Institute and immediately post-college. And then I'm basically working in Identitarian Politics ever since from the beginnings of what you could call the alt-right to whatever the dissident right is today. I'm trying to remember after 900 episodes how much I've actually talked about the Civil Rights Act. But what really sparked this was I was on vacation and I just go on to Twitter because that's what addicts do. And I saw your tweet and this was, I immediately typed under a tweet of the year candidate. So I'll just read it at real quick. It says,

all of American life revolves around earning enough money to escape the consequences of the civil rights movement. It's one giant intelligence test of avoiding legal traps, escaping compromised institutions and lying through your teeth about what you are actually doing. I mean, that may be a little harsh sounding, but I think that's fair. And I think that does explain the way most people live their lives today. I mean, what is American life except this desperate quest for status and how best do you show status except by opting out of the rules that everybody else has to live under? I mean, think of how many things that we take for granted.

are basically the result of the Civil Rights Act, which at this point, I think I can comfortably say, has replaced the American Revolution and even the Civil War as the center of what is now American identity or perhaps post-American identity. If you were to identify one figure that is the most important in American history in terms of somebody that all political factions agree upon was a hero and who can be honored without controversy in any environment, it's probably Martin Luther King Jr. And yet, if you look at what the civil rights revolution actually did in terms of desegregation in the public schools, in terms of making sure that both northern and southern cities were more

racially integrated in terms of setting up this regulatory apparatus that governs not just desegregation, but also interpersonal conduct in businesses around the country. And, of course, the categories, the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act continue to expand. We can get into that into a bit. And the way people live their lives in terms of where they have to move, where they have to live, just the things that are really dominant in every single person's existence upon this earth, like the reason you go to work, the reason you earn money, the reason you do what you do. Why do these things?

Because basically you want to live far away from a crime-ridden neighborhood. You want to send your kids to, quote-unquote, good schools. You want to live in a place where you have a reasonable expectation of public safety and can build value in your house. Steve Saylor often jokes that when they talk about equity, what they really mean is going after the equity in your house because that's how most Americans build wealth. And we all, I wasn't trying to be flippant or coy by saying this. I mean this quite literally. This is what you will spend the bulk of your life upon this earth doing, is trying to build wealth and ensure the safety of your feet. family and ensure some sort of path to prosperity when you don't actually have to deal with what

the Civil Rights Act did, which was forcing you to associate with people that most people in America do not want to associate with. And they may call themselves liberal conservative. They may vote for this candidate or that candidate. And they may have certain opinions about the Civil Rights Revolution. But in terms of real preference, in terms of how they actually live, it seems that everybody, at least most white people are pretty much on the same page. Yeah, and that includes the liberal.

That includes because especially the liberals. Yeah, I think we both know Chris, Chris Zeman. And I remember him one time he had written and it was, it was one, it was that time I was waking up. And my mind was turning away from, you know, libertarianism, live and let live and starting to see the world. The scales were falling from my eyes. And he said, he goes, where I live, he goes, I live around more black people than the average progressive.

Oh, yeah. The average progressive doesn't live around black people. And if they work in academia, they don't work around black people. No. And if you do work among black people, especially if you're in a higher income, I mean, the type of minorities that you work among tend to be pretty carefully selected. culturally, they're of a certain type. And a lot of the, but that doesn't mean that you necessarily hang out with them or that doesn't mean you necessarily live with them.

And I think one of the big indicators of something really going on was back in 2016 when they had a number of polls talking, this is just in the Republican primary. And there was a very significant correlation between the people who lived among diversity and Trump voters and those who tended not to live among diversity and Ted Cruz voters. This was at the point when it was basically Trump or Cruz. And if you look at moderate Republicans, I mean, you immediately go to Republicans in places like Utah. They tend to be Republicans from almost monolithically white areas, very socially conservative, but socially conservative in the kind of way that's particularly noncombative.

They can sort of take for granted a high trust society, a high public safety, society, they don't really have to confront these kinds of difficult issues. Whereas when you get these kind of more aggressive political strategies, I think it's the product of diversity. And of course, there's a host of intellectuals and writers who very reluctantly sometimes and much against their own wishes have published some stuff saying that diversity tends to destroy social trust. And it leads us to a more destructive and a more combative society. Obviously, the most famous is Robert Putnam, the author of Bowling Alone, who published some research showing that diversity destroys social trust, not just between groups, but within groups.

And what I find especially amusing, I believe it was Brian Kaplan, who has actually praised immigration on the grounds precisely because it undermines social trust. And so it undermines support for welfare states and the kinds of social programs that Europeans have taken for granted. What's interesting is as racial diversity increases in Europe, I think you're seeing those welfare programs and a lot of the state programs that used to be the bedrock of their societies, you're seeing Europeans question those because they don't work the same way anymore. No, no. And if you remember famously, up until a certain point, Bernie Sanders was very much

against immigration. Yeah, Coke Brothers plot, as he called it. And it is a Koch brothers plot. I mean, if the people who frighten me in the political battle, the people who the enemies who keep me up at night, who make me really think hard about how we're going to get out of this mess, it's not the leftist. It's not the anti-fah. It's not the watchdog groups. I mean, they are what they are, right? I mean, you know what you're dealing with with them. And we can get into like where their power really comes from. But the people who are really difficult to overcome are the big business lobbies, the chief labor lobbies, the people who when concerned Conservatives win elections, as the Tories have in the United Kingdom, and immigration has skyrocketed, even post-Brexit. How do you overcome that? Because it's one thing to overcome your political opponents, is quite another to overcome the people who are supposedly on your side, particularly when they have a lot more money and resources than you do. And this is one of the big things we have to think about in terms of the Civil Rights Act and in terms of the regulatory structure that we live under today, which is that. it provides certain advantages for those who already command certain markets. I mean, if you're a big business, the fact is you can comply a lot more easily with a lot of

these regulations than smaller businesses. If you're a company like Amazon, you benefit from a lot of the social changes that have taken place in this country, even since 2020, you benefit from that a lot more than does a small business who's trying to operate on a San Francisco or Oakland Street. Employers, did you know you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1500 euro and gift cards annually completely tax-free and even better. You can spread it over five different occasions.

Now's the perfect time to try Options Card. Options Card is Ireland's brand new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love. It's simple to buy, easy to manage, and best of all, there are no extra fees or hidden catches. Visit OptionsCard. today. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the Northwest.

We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid. I.E. Ford slash Northwest. Right.

I mean, Amazon and the Koch brothers, who have a huge, huge presence here as far as their food division in Alabama, they can afford to get around anything, the mistakes that they make, if they hire illegals. They can afford to, but like you said,

the small business, you know, that's setting up shop in a small town here or even in San Francisco, who's just a startup and doesn't have the insane VC money that a lot of businesses have, they can't compete. And they, there, there is no, that's what, when I really started to understand how immigration pretty much more than anything would, disrupt what some would want to call the free market is when I was not only did I have to take a stand against immigration, but I had to look at a free market and say, is it even possible ever? Right.

I mean, there's two things that we need to, there's two thinkers that I think we should consider when we get into the Civil Rights Act and also the nature of free market capitalism today, if we can even call it that. obviously there's a very lengthy perhaps tedious debate about is it really capitalism is this really the free market i mean we can argue back and forth on that but the fact is if people ask why are things working this way why is it that all the businesses are putting up the pride flags and the intersectional flags why is it that they're falling all over each other with these uh transgender and the pronouns and everything else why is it that LGBT is no longer LGBT it's now i can't even say

what it is. It's got like 10 letters and numbers and I think a plus sign for some reason. I mean, nobody even knows what these things are anymore. But why is it multiplying in this way? The very simple answer is because the government says so. And the reason the government says so is the Civil Rights Act. I think the book that has really made a major impact on the American right and has led to, I think some of the more mature understanding of politics that I would have been praying for in the American right 10 years ago was age of entitlement. And in that book, Chris Cantwell argues that Civil Rights Act. Chris who?

Colwell. I'm sorry. Yeah, right. Chris Caldwell basically argues that the Civil Rights Act essentially absorbed the American Constitution. That a lot of the protections for business, for states, for what the government can and cannot allow you to do were essentially taken away. And at the time, Barry Goldwater, who was, of course, the man who began the conservative movement more than anybody else, he was not a segregationist. And he obviously opposed segregation in the armed forces and in public institutions. But he opposed the Civil Rights Act.

Now, a lot of people will say, oh, well, this is just being racist or this is like what you could get away with or something like that. But there's a very big distinction between, or at least it should be, between opposing state-mandated. segregation and supporting the right of the government to force you to associate with people you don't want to associate with. More importantly, it's not just a question of, well, people are allowed to use whatever business you want. It's a question of we're going to set up this whole regulatory structure to make sure that businesses treat people in a different way.

And if members from certain groups, their complaints are going to be treated differently from everybody else's. So as this expands, as the number of protected classes, and this is a legal thing, a protected class, as the number of these classes expand, you essentially have this kind of woke aristocracy developing where people who are members of certain groups just have more rights and more privileges than do normal Americans. And so we hear all the time this rhetoric about a white supremacist society, but when you actually break down like what life in America is, you will go to a business.

this, you will see these pride flags or progress flags or whatever else, which if you're a Christian, I mean, this is a direct insult to your beliefs, but you have to go along with that. Like, no one's going to listen to you if you say this is a hostile working environment and this offends you. You're just not part of the club. But if you use the wrong pronoun, if you say something even unintentionally racist that people take offense, and of course, they don't even need to really take offense. they just need to convince a jury or a judge that they took offense, that's the end of you.

That's the end of the business. We now live under a society where just about every personal interaction is a potential federal case. That is a level of government intervention far beyond King George III could have ever dreamed of. It really raises the question of what is the nature of a free society if we're in a situation where everything we do can potentially be supervised by bureaucrats and judges, and you can be penalized if you didn't act the right way. And a lot of people are saying, well, these businesses need to push back against this. We just need to be courageous.

We just need to make sure people don't go along with this politically correct silliness. But I think what people are forgetting is that there is an iron fist contained within the velvet glove here. People are going to align themselves with power because if they don't do that, they're not going to be allowed to operate. And it's very easy to take shots at corporate heads or ordinary people who find themselves caught in these politically correct controversies. But let's face it. And I mean, I'll put it to you too. I mean, maybe there's some self-examination here.

Every single one of us at some point or another has bowed their head to go along to get along, whether that's writing under a pen name, whether that's keeping our mouth shut in a certain circumstance, whether that's keeping our opinions to ourselves because you don't want to start some giant thing. we're all guilty. We're all cowards in that sense. But the reason we act that way is not because people are just inherently cowards. It's because the government and big capital have lined up against them. And until that changes, I think we're expecting too much from Americans to really fight back against this. I don't even think it's just that. I think it's the people themselves.

I mean, you know, your typical boomer con will argue with you that, you know, we have free speech in this country. And then you'll go to exercise your free speech, and they'll repeat to you progressive talking points like, well, you have freedom to speak, but you don't have, there's no freedom from consequences of your speech. And they defend the Civil Rights Act and these institutions that will come down on you for saying, look, I just don't want to live in, I'm not going to move to that town because of the demographics. Right. And this is one of the questions we really have to get into, do people even have their own opinions? Do people even really have their own identity at this point? Because one of the things, and this is sort of the predominant theme of my work over the last couple of years, and certainly the main theme of the book I'm writing right now, is if you look at what happened in this country since 2016, I think there was a consensus by journalists and by those in power, including in those. so-called intelligence community, that they can never let 2016 happen again. That if people get a more or less free flow of information, that quote-unquote misinformation is going to proliferate, we need to stop this, we need to make sure that only approved information is getting before people.

And that has justified a pretty staggering breadth of censorship and top-down control that I didn't think Americans would ever put up with. in 2015, I certainly would have thought that there would have been some pushback against what we see now and what we kind of take for granted now. Let's not forget back in, I think it was a couple years before 2016, there was a book on Amazon really repugnant. I'm not even going to get into the subject matter, but use your imagination. And it was teaching people to get away with some of the worst crimes imaginable.

And some people obviously said, you know, ban this book, don't sell it. And Amazon said, no, we are. are going to err on the side of free speech. We are not going to censor ourselves because if we do that, we're going to start doing it for anything else. Well, eventually they back down. Now, of course, we just take for granted that there are certain books, fairly moderate books too, like Jared Taylor's white identity that you just can't get on Amazon. We just take for granted that certain people will not be allowed on YouTube, that certain people will not be allowed on Twitter, even under Elon Musk. And yet, in the same breath, we will still hear leftists talking about how brave they are for

reading quote unquote banned books because Ron DeSantis doesn't want, you know, some book about homosexuality in a kindergarten or something like that. You'll still see people beating their chest and talking about the need for equality, even though their entire career may depend on manipulating regulations and discriminating against white guys. You will still see Christian pastors talking about how, you know, as a Christian, you ever noticed that the term as a Christian What follows is always something against traditional Christianity. Nobody ever says, like, as a Christian, I'm disgusted with this immorality in our society. You'll still see these churches go along with this stuff.

And we all just kind of shrug and say, well, you know, America is still like a Christian nation and a Christian society. I don't think there's been a better system of control devised than those with power and those with more power than I think any dictator could have ever dreamed of. constantly telling you that they're actually the ones who are victims, constantly telling you that they are the ones who are oppressed, even as they, you know, put the heel down on your neck. And people go along with it. I mean, one of the more depressing things is, if you remember, like the old days of George W. Bush conservatism and the birth of the Ron Paul movement, there was this kind of libertarian meme going around where you saw these stormtroopers, you know, like Star Wars stormtroopers, and it said they were lined up. and it's something like fascism, do you really think it's going to be this obvious? But the answer is basically, well, yeah.

I mean, I think people now just understand or take for granted that... Employers, did you know, you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1,500 euro and gift cards annually, completely tax-free, and even better. You can spread it over five different occasions. Now's the perfect time to try Options Card. Options card is Ireland's brand new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love. It's simple to buy, easy to manage, and best of all, there are no extra fees or hidden catches.

Visit Optionscard.i.e. today. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid is powering up the northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4.N. Northwest. When they think of the word tyranny, if it's not being done by like white guys in uniforms

who build cool buildings, it's not actually tyranny. You'll read stories about, for example, the state of Washington. now can take away your kids if you don't go along with transing them at a certain age. I mean, that's an abuse of government power that's just staggering and it's ramifications, but normal people, ordinary people, including many conservatives, will just go along with it and say, well, yeah, that's a matter of individual choice. I mean, I think we've, the Civil Rights Act has really changed our psyche in a way because it's convinced us that even the most unlimited government power is justified as long as it's

done in the name of equality or diversity, even if these are just words. Certainly, there can be no greater example of double-think than the fact that usually it's the Department of Equal Treatment or Equal Opportunity, which presides over affirmative action and state-mandated discrimination against whites and Asians. It's incredible to me how people don't see it, and they don't see basically how indoctrinated they are. I had somebody point out to me the other day that there was just another libertarian podcast that I'm not going to give any, I'm not going to give them any promotion because

that's what they want. And they basically, they said that anything that I'm promoting these days, it's just basically based in racism. And I looked at these two guys, because I know who they are, the two brothers. who grew up in New Hampshire. I mean, New Hampshire is, you want to talk about homogenous society, a white Anglo society. It's like my friend Dark Enlightenment said, he said, you don't even have like some slabs or Mediterranean's in there to throw some low time preference in.

And these guys are just like, oh, this is, it's all about racism. It's all about, and I'm like, where did you grow up? Did you miss where you grew up? You grew up in one of the least violent states in the nation, probably in the world. And why do you think it was? Yeah, there's something. I think the thing that we really have a hard time even conceptualizing. I mean, it's sort of like the fish doesn't understand water.

And I meant to say Slavs. I meant to say Slavs and Mediterranean's throw some high time property. in there. I apologize. My last name ends in a vowel, so I can certainly testify to the fact that we yeah, I'm not hiding anything here. You know how we are with time preference and waving our arms around and getting excited for no reason. But the thing that we really had sort of like how a fish doesn't understand water because he's constantly surrounded by it, I think we, we've sort of accepted our own subjugation. We sort of take for granted. And one of the big problems that we have is that it's seen as a sign of strength. And,

throughout all of human history, basically was a sign of strength where if you have problems, you shut up and deal with it, right? You don't go crying to the government or to somebody else to help you out. You solve the problem. If there's somebody threatening your family, you protect your family. If your job fires you, you get another job. But if somebody says something that makes you feel bad, you put up with it or you ignore it or, you know, if they call you fat or something, you lose weight. You do what you got to do. You overcome. But we're in a system now where the less capable you are, the weaker you are, or to be really cynical about it, the more capable you are at pretending that you're offended, the more power and resources you get. And I think this may have been justified at a certain level because we feel bad for the underdog.

I mean, if you look at like a transgender or you look at somebody who maybe is from a certain group and you say, well, you know, they got a hard. shake or maybe there's something wrong with their head, so we can afford to be nice to them and we'll give them some stuff just to kind of feel bad, almost like charity. But at this point, it's become so predominant and it's become the driving force behind just about every single institution in our society to the point where you can't do anything without getting a lecture about politics. And you have to ask yourself, when does this cease being a marginal force and when do we start talking about it for what it is, which is really the predominant state religion of the

most powerful empire that has ever existed. It's very strange. And again, you don't think about it. But if you actually take a step back and say, this intersectional flag, for example, with the triangles and all the other stripes and everything else, this was something that didn't even exist a couple years ago. Now, as we speak, American embassies are raising this in countries around the world, even in countries, especially in countries, where it's guaranteed to offend the populations there that

supposedly we're trying to maintain good diplomatic relations with. How do we account for this overwhelming public acceptance of something that wasn't even a thing a couple years ago? How do we account for the power of the state being put behind this idea? And although this may sound simplistic, I think it's just because power tends to expand until it is checked. And with the Civil Rights Act, you created a permanent constituency of social managers who gained power and prestige from manipulating social relations. And if everybody in society takes for granted that the highest moral good is equality, you're always going to have a reason to find examples of inequality. And you're always going to have reasons to give people money and power to solve that

problem. And it won't just spread within the United States. It's going to spread internationally. If you want to be really cynical about it, I don't know if this is planned or I think more likely is just the way things developed. If you're trying to have a population that's easy to control a population of permanent dependence, utterly crying out for more management and resources, taken from people they don't like and given to them by government bureaucrats, I mean, that's pretty much ideal for a modern democracy. And I hate to be crude about it, but if you look at this trans. stuff. I mean, what is a more perfect example of an utter dependent than a literal eunuch? Yeah, somebody who is wholly dependent for the rest of their life upon companies, corporations that have basically merged with the government like pharma. I was looking at a chart from

2021. No, it was from last year. And it was talking about the 10 biggest, 10 companies to get the most from the military industrial complex. Four of them were pharmaceutical companies. Yeah. Four, in the top 10, four were pharmaceutical companies. And you have to ask yourself how and why. and it's I guess the big question and this is something that I think about a lot and I think it's hard to determine because you know as Jared Taylor's always telling me it's he doesn't like the idea of mind reading it's always tough to determine motivations because especially when you're in a society where people are rewarded for essentially making things up I mean that's one of the problems with Civil Rights Act or sexual harassment laws or a lot of these these ideas of a

hostile working environment it's all completely subjective so I mean once you get into the of subjective law, I would basically argue that's tyranny by definition. When you look at these companies who talk about, quote unquote, our values, as if they have a value other than making money, if you look at these pharmaceutical companies, say, who may have a stake in vaccine mandates or transgenderism because they stand the benefit from pushing these treatments or everything else, is it really so cynical as we are going to put money behind these things, created dependent consumer base that will then buy our products forever, Do they really think that far ahead or do they simply adapt to social movements that other

people are pushing forward? I'm not sure. I mean, I think that's a psychological thing. I think probably both. But certainly with the way they act now, they're just defending their institutional interests. And I think we should be very suspicious of any kind of public morality that tells us, you know, even when people say like, oh, they're virtue signaling. Well, it's not really virtue signaling if you're just acting in your economic self-interest.

I mean, actual virtue signaling would be doing something that's a sacrifice. But none of these companies that are forsooning these symbols anyway are doing anything other than what you would expect them to do. Yeah. And the thing about, and this, the reason I wanted to talk to you was to talk about the Civil Rights Act and basically how it's become the Constitution. But what better, if that is your constitution, the more people, people you want you can add to it the better and if you have trans people who you know who are and

I mean I hate to be crude but I mean they're basically having to force open a wound for the rest of their life if they're you know male to female yeah I mean yours you're I think we've all seen the web forum posts that occasionally get posted on Twitter or something like that when you actually see what the reality of this thing is. And it's gruesome to the point that if people are voluntarily choosing to do this, that doesn't convince me that we need to honor individual choice. It makes me question the very idea of choice altogether. I think one of the problems since 2016 is journalists have acted in such a way where

employers did you know you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1500 euro and gift cards annually completely tax-free and even better you can spread it over five different occasions now's the perfect time to try options card options card is Ireland's brand new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love it's simple to buy easy to manage and best of all there are no extra fees or hidden catches visit optionscard.com.com. today. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say, online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4 slash Northwest. They assume people are too stupid to understand things, so we have to censor the media to make sure people vote the right way. And in a democratic society, that's pretty ominous because what you're saying is that people are too dumb to make up their own minds, in which case, why are we giving them the right to vote?

But I think the scarier possibility is what if they're right? And the trans thing has sort of made me think about that. this because you look at these people who are very clearly products of broken online subcultures who are doing these things out of a certain sense of attention, self-gratification, and also, I think, just sort of a yearning for human connection that they're not getting in a broken society. And they take these destructive choices and then the rest of society demands that we affirm these things.

To me, this is sort of a reducto-ed absurdum that the entire social order has gone wildly in the wrong direction and probably needs to be overturned completely. The real question becomes how do you reverse it when the Civil Rights Act, now not in every state, but a lot of these states have guarded these groups as protected classes. So you can say, oh, well, we just shouldn't go along with it. It's like, okay, but you can say that, but you're going to lose your business if you try to actually act on these things. You can say whatever you want under an anonymous Twitter handle, but if you go into your

business and use the wrong pronoun, that could be the end of your career then and there. And the reason for that is not the free market. It's not the liberal media. It's the government. And at the end of the day, it's the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Yeah, you see people who there's an industry built up around trying to explain this, trying to explain why it happened, the James Lindsay's of the world famously. and their answer to it is basically more of it.

It's more liberty to fight against this. If we just do classical liberalism right this one time, we'll be able to push past this. Well, let's take that for granted for a second. Let's take them out their word, I mean. If we say, I mean, let's take Caldwell's thesis. I mean, what he's writing about in Age of Entitlement is that the Civil Rights Act dramatically changed the relationship between the people and the government and certainly the relationship of the constitutional order to the people. If we talk about classical activism, if we take as a premise that people have the right to make their own value judgments, that people have the right to define their own identity, to associate with the people they want to associate with, to say what they want to say. at the end of the day, that has to mean being able to do with your own property what you want.

That has to mean freedom of association. That has to mean that you actually do have the right for your speech to have consequences in the real world, not just sort of this abstraction that you can vent about on Twitter. So if you really believe in classical liberalism, and I would say somebody like Barry Goldwater was championing this when he opposed the Civil Rights Act, you really need to oppose the Civil Rights Act. you really need to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You actually have to say, yeah, the federal government should not be in the business of managing social relations. And it certainly should be in the business of filing federal lawsuits if an individual business doesn't act the way that we want it.

I think this is a very different thing than state mandated segregation. I think there are many good reasons to oppose state mandated segregation that do not apply to saying the government should force you to serve whoever they want you to serve. earth. So the question for someone like James Lindsay is, okay, well, if you're a classical liberal, do you believe in abolishing the Civil Rights Act of 1964? And he's going to say, well, no. And it's like, all right, well, then we're just wasting time, aren't we? Because if you're still going to have this bureaucracy enforcing all these laws you don't agree with and you're still going to be funding with your tax dollars and it's still going to be the law

of the land, why even bother talking about this? I mean, why not do what I think most people do, which was the point of my tweet, which is you shut up, keep your head down and work around it as best you can. Yeah. And that's what basically anyone who doesn't work for themselves or work from home, even if they work for home and they have clients or whatever, that's what you have to do when you go to work. I mean, I used to work for a German company.

And this company had a diversity video that you had to watch 10 years before they had them in the United States, before United States corporations were coming out with them. And you have to watch exactly what I had to watch exactly what I said there. You know, and I would get offered, I would get offered promotions all the time where I'd have people under me, you know, where I'd be commanding people. And I'd be like, now, I'm very happy doing what I'm doing because I know that I'm going to be around people that I'm going to let slip one day.

And we're going to be into, we're going to be into something. Yeah. I mean, that's the atmosphere of silent... Employers, did you know, you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1,500 euro and gift cards annually, completely tax-free. And even better, you can spread it over five different occasions. Now's the perfect time to try Options Card. Options Card is Ireland's brand-new, multi-choice employee gift card,

packed with unique features that your staff will love. It's simple to buy, easy to manage, and best of all, there are no extra fees, or hidden catches. Visit optionscar.aE today. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November.

Have your say, online or in person, so together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i. 4.n. Northwest. Terror. I think that during 2020 and a lot of these viral video controversies that followed, one of the things that really struck me is when I believe it was a black guy who was like birdwatching or something and he was in a park and he pulled a phone on this older white woman and the woman was like screaming in terror, trying to cover up her face, borderline out of control. And I don't think it was just fear for her job, although that was part of it.

I don't think it was just fear of attention, although that's part of it. I mean, I think that the real dilemma for whites is that they've accepted the moral case. They've accepted that racism, what we call racism, a word that didn't even really exist 100 years ago, is now the greatest sin that has ever or could ever exist. And to be found guilty of it is to be cast outside, not just polite society, but really the protection of society. How many cases have we seen where a guy gets beaten up or even killed and they let him go because, oh, we said the N word or something like that.

Like, did he actually say it? Who knows? But this is taken as legitimate. And this idea of constantly being at the whim of other people, of having no moral right to your own existence, of no moral right to your own community, of having no identity aside that of shame and disgrace. I think that's a powerful psychological drive for, as you pointed out earlier, a lot are white people who are drawn to this kind of trans stuff or one of these other LGBT, whatever category,

is I think it's partially cynical because they're just trying to have protection from civil rights laws and things like that, but I think part of it is a deeply felt need to be. part of the coalition of the oppressed because it's unbearable to be considered the bad guy. And most people don't want to be considered the bad guy. And as much as we might like to tell ourselves comforting stories about the underdog or how people make up their own mind or how if a government tries to impose a certain code of values on people, most people will resist. That's not true at all. Most people will align with power. The fact that you go to the movies and you hear

stories about, you know, plucky underdogs fighting the tyrannical government, you know, these tyrannical governments and fiction are never saying the kinds of things that the governments who are actually in power today are telling you. The same people who like identifying with the rebels in this movie or that movie are the same people who are the most fanatical enforcers of orthodoxy today. The fact is, most people will do what they're told. And whites especially tend to follow the rules. Yeah, the Famously when the National Socialists came to power in In 1933

So many people who had been in the Communist Party Just started wearing different colors They just switched overnight Yeah, you see this in the Spanish Civil War too It was interesting because you know the Spanish Civil War was originally supposed to be kind of a lightning coup right the nationalists were trying to just take over the government. And it failed. And so what ended up having a series, I'm doing a series on Spanish Civil War.

Yeah, Spanish Civil War is fascinating. And one of the interesting things about it is that people found themselves caught behind, quote unquote, enemy lines all of a sudden, even though they had no idea like this is what they were signing up for. This was something that was going to go down. It was supposed to be initially a battle for control of the whole country. And it ended up becoming really a territorial conflict. And what ended up happening is the Falunge activists who were caught behind Republican lines

re-identified as communists and the communists who were caught behind nationalists lines re-identified as members of the Falunge. And it makes sense because when your own safety is in jeopardy and you need to prove your credentials to literally stay alive, the best way to do it is to identify with the most fanatical soldiers on the other side. And so if you're a right-wing activist and then you put on a. communist uniform and start executing traders to their class, then you've protected yourself. And it's hard not to see that with what's happening now. I mean, I suppose the good news is that if quote

unquote right people had power, you would see most people align with better values. And I do think that the system we live under now is so unnatural that it takes a tremendous amount of repression and power to keep it stumbling along. I think if we had power, it would be a more libertarian. society, we would need such compulsion. But, I mean, if you want to call that a white-pilled reading of things, I mean, it's still pretty cynical way to look at people. Unfortunately, I don't think people are giving me much of a reason to think otherwise. Honestly, at this point, and I've been harping on this for, you know, basically since COVID started, is I think that until something could be done at the national level.

And I'm almost fully convinced it's going to have to be some kind of Caesar in order to do it, someone who has the military behind them and such. I think that the best chance we have for surviving and being able to speak openly and not have to live a life where we have to watch our every word is to find a location that is amenable to our values. I think a lot of people have figured that out in the last three years. People contact me all the time and are like, yep, I moved, bought a farm. I'm in a super majority red area, and even though I may not be a conservative, it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Yeah, I think there's two interesting things happening right now. First, when you look at somebody like Caldwell, this guy is fundamentally a product of the conservative movement. He's a fundamentally a product of what I've called conservatism, Inc. This is not some crazy outsider. This is not somebody who would be considered necessarily like a far right activist, unlike the person whose name I mentioned accidentally. And, but this is significant because you wouldn't hear somebody. saying something like, well, the Civil Rights Act is a reason all these things are going wrong. Richard Hania, who's widely followed on Twitter and a lot of different people, including some

center-left people, he's made essentially the same take, which is that it's because the government is pushing these laws, and Woke is essentially just downstream from the Civil Rights Act. I think Orrin McIntyre, who is the thing is at the Blaze, is saying this kind of stuff. Now, the Blaze, to me, will always be associated with Glenn Beck. the idea of Glenn Beck's institution opposing the Civil Rights Act would have been crazy to me 10 years ago, but here we are. Oh, did you? Well, I mean, he, yesterday he had on, or it might have been the day before, he had James Lindsay on. And James Lindsay explained to him how Christian nationalism, I mean, basically straw manned. Anyone who knows anything about the book, he just strawmanned.

And he got back to the point where he goes, well, we can't have people being forced to be Christians in this country. And I'm just like, this Lindsay guy has to be exposed. I mean, he is, you know, Glenn Beck to me. I mean, I was listening. I remember when Glenn Beck was on the radio. You know, I used to listen to him just because he was entertaining. And then he had the Fox show. And, you know, he does some good things.

But in the end, he's a frigging boomer. There is a book. Author in the name is Blanking on me right now. But there's a book called Thomas Jefferson of the Art of Power. And it talks about how Jefferson and his movement basically governed the country after the Washington administration, after the Washington Adams administration and how his approach to politics still define us. And one of the lines that I really took away from it was in America, everything is justified in terms of individual choice and individual freedom. And then what you do, as long as it's essentially covered in the cloak of those words, is basically irrelevant. as long as it's compellingly identified with those phrases.

That's sort of the trap we're in because the reason we face all these problems, we can talk about government bureaucracies, we can talk about violations of the Constitution, we can talk about the fact that you don't control your own property, that the state can take your kids, that what public education is doing. All of these things are true. But at the end of the day, the left will justify everything they're doing on the grounds of people are allowed to decide from themselves who they are and what they will. want to be and who are you to get involved with that, to interfere with that. That is a compelling

argument to most Americans. Unfortunately, the problem, the response is that I think it's something that a lot of us, maybe even we ourselves, don't really want to consider, which is choice itself is something of an illusion. I mean, what we've seen over the last few years, particularly in regard to Christians, certainly since gay marriage became legalized, is even the most deeply held values, even people who claim to be defending the law of the living God will change their minds in response to power. And they're not just being cynical. Maybe they may change it that way out of cynicism or fear at the beginning.

But eventually you do come to believe what you're saying. Where you stand is where you sit, as the old bureaucratic saying goes. And so when you see these people redefining even who they are biologically, I think there was that guy, did you see the assistant on Mr. Beast who's that YouTube personality? And he became like some transgender guy

and everybody was going nuts about this. Well, somebody dug up a thing a few years before where he was making the kind of tired transgender jokes like, oh, I identify as an attack helicopter. Fast forward a few years, this guy's transgender. And you ask yourself, well, could it have come to this? What if the really terrifying possibility is that the journalists and the On the many nights of Christmas, the Guinness Storehouse brings to thee Christmas nights at gravity.

This Christmas, enjoy a truly unique night out at the Gravity Bar. Savour festive bites from Big Fan Bell, expertly crafted seasonal cocktails and dance the night away with DJs from love tempo. Brett take infuse, amazing atmosphere, incredible food and drink. My goodness, it's Christmas. the Guinness Storehouse. Book now at giddlestorehouse.com. Get the facts be drinkaware, of visit drinkaware.com. Big tech executives and all the rest of them are basically right, that if you just feed people a certain diet of certain amount of content for how many years, even the most fundamental parts of their identity can be changed, can be changed from the outside.

And more than this, they'll be convinced that they've made up their own mind. There's a book called Dedication and Leadership by a guy named Douglas Hyde. He was a Communist Party organizer. They used to give it to me when I worked at Leadership Institute because it's a good book on how to convince people of certain ideas and how to organize people. And he was talking about discussion groups and the idea of basically educating your activists. And he said the best thing to do is to make people think that they've made up their own mind. I mean, this is at the heart of a lot of political persuasion. There's an incredible amount of cynicism even in that where you're basically leading people to predetermined conclusions, but you're essentially. tricking them into thinking, well, actually I came up with this idea. All political advertising,

really all political activism, is in some sense an exercise and gaslighting. And God is on the side of the big battalions, i.e. the ones who control these social media platforms. And that ain't us. So the question becomes, how do you push back against the movement where the other side controls the main weapons in this battle, in this battle for persuasion. And even the people who are being governed from the top down through persuasion in terms of media, but also in terms of naked repression, in terms of civil rights laws, they are going to believe that they made up their own mind. How do you combat that?

That's a tough question, but that's the question that we need to answer. unfortunately just asking the question and trying to answer it gets you targeted well it's an it's insulting to most people i mean if you say look you know you don't actually you didn't actually make up your own mind you've just been told this because the media convinced it i mean you're basically calling this person an idiot now of course the media has called all of us idiots for years by saying that people are too dumb to operate on social media freely uh during the covid pandemic people said You know, they said people are too stupid to make their own medical decisions. They're too stupid to research their own health.

I think that there's a lot of double think going on because on the one hand, people believe that other people are dumb animals who can't be trusted to make up their own mind and that they're easily tricked. But everybody is convinced that they themselves are very good in making up their own mind. that it's a incredible violation if they themselves are robbed of certain information. A few years ago, a guy who would be utterly canceled today, he could never get a hearing today, and I'm waiting for Slate to apologize forever hosting him. The late Christopher Hitchens, he was giving, obviously atheist opponent of Christianity, not a man of the right, but I think a principal defender of free speech, and he was giving a speech in Canada.

And Canada had passed some sort of hate speech regulation or something like that. And he asked the audience, there were people obviously arguing in favor of it, same arguments you hear today, lots of crying and catarwalling about how people's feelings are hurt and we need to prevent this and how it leads to violence, all this stuff. And he said, well, look, is there somebody who you would trust, you know, for you to determine for you what you are allowed to see, what you were allowed to read, what you were allowed to watch? And of course, nobody raised their hand. And he said, well, the law says there has to be such a person. but evidently none of you believe in this and all of you know that it makes you a hypocrite so to hell with this law these are not new arguments but we've still i think quietly accepted by we i think most people in the society have quietly accepted that it is offensive to us

at some level uh it does make us hypocrites and cowards but we are going to go along with it And I think the way that those in power have managed to get away with this is I think they, the created enemy of Christian nationalists, mega activists, racist white guys, terrorists, domestic, insurrectionists, all the rest of it. The hatred against these people, however artificially created, is real. And I think people are willing to give up even their most fundamental freedoms if it means taking the poke at a constituency that they've been carefully instructed to hate. And I think that we saw this during COVID too.

There was a poll that had a not insignificant number of Democrats said that kids should be taken away from people who don't get the jab. I'm beginning to think that the percentage of people who would answer that question, yeah, their kids should be taken away if they had just said, do you think people's kids should be taken away if they vote for Trump? I think the percentages wouldn't really change. It has nothing to do with the actual issue that we're talking about. It has nothing to do with the in and out of who's right or who's wrong. It all has to do with identity politics. All politics is identity politics. And this is again, this is another thing that our system kind of to go back to what we were talking about at the beginning, our entire system is basically premised upon the idea, a very crazy idea when you really think about it, that if you take everybody, literally everybody in the society, men and women above a certain age, and we all just kind of sit there.

down together and look over these arguments, we're going to basically come up with the right answer. But that's not true. I mean, as Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore said, in a multiracial society, you vote with your group. And the real poison of the Civil Rights Act is that it creates an incentive for you to only identify it with your group because the common good, the common treasury just becomes something to be looted. Everything that you gain has to come at the expense of somebody else because everything

becomes identified in terms of oppression and victimization. There's always a good guy. There's always a bad guy. There's never anything where we all gain together. I think there's an argument. Nobody would listen to me, of course, but you could make an argument that if you actually wanted real race relations to benefit in this country, you got to abolish the Civil Rights Act and have people get along to be as individuals.

I mean, this is the most common thing you hear among boomer conservatives. But I don't think the people who say that kind of stuff. stuff are ready for what that would actually entail. I mean, if you had a Republican candidate today, talk about getting rid of the Civil Rights Act, I mean, what they said about Trump would be as nothing compared to what they would say about that guy. It goes back to what we were saying before. This is all just been put inside of us. It's all a part of us.

I said on a recent episode, we were talking, and somebody was saying that really the only way through this was like white identitarianism. And I said when you consider the spirit of the age, by the time you convinced every white, you know, enough white people of white identitarianism, we'd be past this spirit of the age. We'd be past this age and that wouldn't even be applicable anymore except for some kind of future, you know, for a future application of some sort. We're just at the point now where people have been so their brains think in one way. When you talk about the person who would vote to take someone's kid away because of the jab, also voting for the Trump, anyone who's a Trump supporter to have their kid taken away, these people aren't thinking. This is as instinctive with them as breathing now. And the question is, how do you change that? I mean, it's very blackpilling when you think about it.

It's a religious thing. I mean, this is, I was thinking about how to frame a lot of this stuff, and I've been kind of going back and forth with writing about a lot of this. And I think that the real way we have to look at this, and this is going to sound maybe a bit difficult, but unfortunately, I just don't see an alternative. And I'd love for you to push back after this. I think what we're fighting fundamentally is a religion.

And it's not just the religion in the sense that there are certain faith-based claims. I mean, you could argue that egalitarianism is a faith-based claim because you're just assuming that all groups are the same. And there's no real evidence to suggest that. But it's bigger than that. We've gone beyond this abstract ideal that everybody's the same. Now we're saying things like, for example, where George Floyd died, people were bringing people, and claiming that literal miracles were taking place. You have these, you have Christian churches honoring guys like Trayvon Martin and Floyd

and whoever the latest BLM martyr is. These people worship these people far more than they do Jesus of Nazareth. I mean, you can blaspheme Jesus all you want. You can blaspheme Jesus all you want within a church. But you're not going to be able to blaspheme certain figures. You're certainly not going to be able to blaspheme somebody like Martin Luther King, regardless of his own personal conduct, regardless of his own, non-existent faith in Christianity.

By the way, Martin Luther King, I believe, is carved as one of the saints on a major Anglican Church in the United Kingdom. What we're facing now is the attempt for people, it's the actual worship of victimization. It's the actual worship of victims of oppression. And the problem is that it's not actually oppression. I mean, the way the society functions is that the so-called oppressed people are the ones who get preferences and jobs and education, whereas the so-called privileged people are the ones who get fired if they so much as speak of themselves as having an identity or any kind of a collective interest. And so you get the moral hit of fighting on the side of the oppressed without actually facing any costs. That's a very potent thing.

I mean, how do you turn that down? One of the things that is tough because, you know, it leads to certain, maybe not great reflections on human nature is that if you look at the spread of Christianity, a lot of the Christian martyrs, they didn't just come at the hands of the Romans. They came when Christianity itself had become better organized and state power could be directed against opponents of the dominant faith. you had Christianity really caught on once it had elite sponsorship. Yeah, there were people who suffered at the beginning, but it didn't become mainstream. You didn't have the fanaticism. You didn't have sacking the pagan temples or all these kinds of things once it really became safe for people to do so. I would argue that a lot of the people, if you want to call them proto-woke activists,

the type of people who were the international workers of the world 100 years ago, the strike organizers, perhaps maybe some of the early civil rights activists, although frankly, the federal government was always on their side from pretty early on. A lot of these guys really did face violence and did face oppression and did make sacrifices. But the people who are rallying to this cause now, they've never faced oppression in their entire lives, and they never will. And yet they still get to cloak themselves in the mantle of righteous Avengers, like there's some kind of John Brown. Convincing people not to go along with that is a very tough thing to do because you're

essentially giving people an identity, a cause, a meaning for life, and material benefits. How do you possibly convince people to give all that up? I will say this. If it is a religion, then I do not think that there are enough of them who are willing to die for it, who are willing to suffer for it. But they are willing to kill them. for it and more more importantly they're willing to let other people die for it and approve of it i mean let's take something that i think is uh maybe there's a bit on the borderline but let's

let's just take it because it's something i see all the time let's take the case of ashley batitt i don't want to get into election denialism or did he win did he not win whatever here's ashley babbitt here's this white girl who air force veteran and after months of riots in 2020 and people being killed and cities burned down. Police precinct burned down. Let's not forget. You see a black cap of police officer shoot dead this white woman in front of everybody. Media says it's great.

Government calls the guy a hero, including Republicans. That you could all kind of expect. What I think people really don't expect and people really need to get through their skull is the fact that every single day on Twitter, there's this kind of almost pornographic celebration of the fact that she was killed. the kind of zooming in on the corpse and being, you know, F around and find out, isn't this great, isn't this funny? This is something that happened in front of everyone. And a lot of times conservatives will look at some example of cruelty or some example of repression and say, well, aren't you ashamed? Isn't this violating your beliefs? Don't you feel guilty about this? The answer is, well, no. People know exactly what's going on. People know exactly what they're doing. And they think it's good.

Edward Dutton, just a couple of days ago, was promoting, and I think Jordan Peterson and a few others have been promoting this research, was promoting some research, which I have yet to read, so I don't want to put myself on the line too much defending it, but linking leftism to basically sociopathic tendencies, where you say these kinds of things because they allow you a justification to exercise power and cruelty over other people. Certainly on my own experience, I think a lot of leftists, especially hard leftists, that is why they do what they do. It allows, the cruelty is the point. And certainly when you look at the way Antifa operate, when you look at the people who beat up people on the street or destroy their business or docks people and drive them to suicide, all this kind of stuff, you can imagine them having fun while they're doing this. And so I think when conservatives think that there's going to be a limit or there's going to be a point or that things will never get too out of control because people react against it, they don't quite understand what time it is. People know exactly what's happening. They think it's good. They think it's funny and they want more of it. And if you don't believe me, I mean, take whatever martyr, take whatever clause you want, put it on Twitter, watch the

responses, watch the responses from journalists, watch the responses from those in power. Certainly on racial issues, the most common refrain on anything is imagine if it was the other way around. I mean, we say this over and over and over again to the point where it's sickening. And I think there are still some conservatives who are thinking themselves, oh, well, the journalists don't know. Or they just aren't aware of these cases. It's like, no, they're totally aware of these cases. They just think it's funny and want more of it to happen.

Well, I had a talk to Paul Gottfried about a month ago. And we were talking about this exact thing, is how does this end? How does this complete insanity, what is, you know, basic cruelty? How does this end? And his, he was very clear. He said he believes the only way this ends is with right-wing authoritarianism. That are just continued degradation. I mean, well, that sounds more optimistic than I would have given Dr. Godfrey credit for,

or certainly me. I mean, in terms of like the way this ends, if it ends, I think we do have to consider the possibility that it just doesn't end. I mean, the system we have now is remarkably stable. People, as we've talked about, if we can call the intersectionality, the imperial faith. I mean, this is something that has united the West more completely than any ideology since what, the Reformation? I mean, you go to Britain, you go to Germany, you go to Italy, you go to any of these places, you're going to see the same flag, you're going to see the same politicians honoring the same heroes, defending the same ideals, and everybody's still operating off the same moral premises.

And insofar as there is a right, they're still going to share, most like James Lindsay, they're going to share most of the fundamental ideals of this. I mean, there's not really a systemic rejection of everything that's been going on. And the problem with counting on right-wing authoritarianism is it presupposes that, you know, things are going to get to a certain point where they just become unworkable and then somebody's going to come in and restore order. But as we've seen in, let's take Chicago, Chicago, it's just a fact, crime has gone up tremendously. In fact, over Memorial Day, I believe more than 50 people were shot, 11 were killed. this fact and the mayor blamed it, I think, on disinvestment or something like that. Yeah, we're talking about, in a lot of these cases, we're talking about like dead kids.

We're talking about the most lurid, unimaginably horrific cases imaginable. These things have no impact whatsoever on public opinion. There's not a single person anywhere of any significance in the black community who cares about any of this. And when the next election rolls around, they are going to vote hard left every single time, just like the new mayor of Chicago was somebody who's significantly to the left of Lori Lightfoot. There is not going to be a reaction from the communities that are most involved with this, just like there was no reaction in Zabawai, just like there's no reaction in Venezuela. And just like there's no involvement, there's no reaction in California.

People just left. If there is going to be a reaction, it's going to come from communities that are not culpable in all this, from communities that are actually communities, where you actually have a tradition outside of this, where you have a certain amount of identity and cohesiveness, where you can bind together and fight back against this, turn it back, and maybe even reconquer lost territory. But that's not going to happen naturally. That's going to happen through fanatic organization, and that's going to happen with people who are willing to suffer on behalf of another faith that I think a lot of people would consider

unreasonable. Certainly, if you were a believing Christian today, you would not be welcome in just about any mainline denomination, Protestant or Catholic. I can't even think of what would happen to a mainline Protestant who tried to say that his parishioners should not participate with any business or give money or work for any business that honors, say, Pride Month. I mean, that's probably the biblically correct stance, but he's probably not going to find a lot of people willing to sit in the pews or he might find a lot of people willing to sit and pews, but who aren't willing to follow up. At the same time, the priests and pastors who go along with everything that's happening from the top down in society, yeah, they may be allowed to keep their position. They may even be allowed like David French or somebody like that or Russell Moore to write an article for The New York Times once in a while. but people are fundamentally going to leave their churches because what's the point of going

to church if what you're saying is no different than what Vice Magazine says. I mean, it's going to take an unreasonable group of people from outside the existing system to stop this. And it's going to take people doing something that is against their short term safety and economic interest. And that's a heck of a thing because like I said, I'm not putting myself up as some guy who's different from everybody else. I mean, my job is essentially different from everybody else's because I work for American Renaissance.

So I can get fired the same way as other people can. I mean, you're asking people to basically be heroes and defy public morality with nothing telling them that they're right other than like a small little voice inside and their trusted friends. And that's a very big thing to ask. We should have no illusions about the nature of the struggle and how uphill it's going to be. Well, unfortunately, I agree with you. I think the only thing that could really push it, push it along would be money elites who are willing to fund those who, who are willing to do things that go against our quote-unquote American principles. Yeah, I mean, I've said over and over again, I've gotten, you know, some pushback from people, I think, even on our own side. if you had the free speech norms of 2015 to 2016,

I think we win and we win very quickly. I do believe, I'm not, I think that choice may be more malleable than many people expect, but obviously people do have individual judgment. Obviously, people are capable of determining certain things. But if you, there's a line in the Malcolm X movie, movie that I think all nationalists would watch, where Elijah Muhammad founded the Nation of Islam,

I was talking to Malcolm X and he pours some ink in a glass and he offers Malcolm the ruined water and he says, you know, if you offer the people this, they'll, and there's nothing else, they will drink it if they're thirsty. But if you offer him this glass and he pours them a glass of clear water, they will choose the correct alternative. The problem now is people are not being given that choice. Insofar as there is a way out through the existing system, it's going to have to be grounded in the rhetoric of choice and individual freedom whether we like it or not. That's just the way it is. Obviously, at this point, insofar as I expect anything from the political process, I'm a single issue voter, not on guns, not on immigration, but on free speech, online free speech. Elon Musk taking over Twitter was obviously a big step in the right direction. But, I mean, let's face it.

My boss, Jared Taylor is not allowed on the platform at all, even though he's about, he's certainly more polite than me. certainly more respectful than I am when it comes to certain issues in terms of the kind of language he uses. Yet he's not welcome on the platform. Why is he not welcome on the platform? Because it's not because of how he says it or because he violates any rules, but because of the subject matter itself. Because once you get people discussing these things, it's inherently destabilizing. YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, all these other mediums that people that are really shaping the minds of, of the next generation, and even older generations now,

they're even worse than Twitter. So until we can make some progress on that front, we're sort of left in the wilderness of these, vanguardists, tribalist, underground type strategies where you might be able to build something and we can talk about that, but what you're going to build is always gonna be small scale at a certain level.

And it's also not necessarily going to be for public consumption. I mean, if you have a good business going, if you have a network, if you have a tribe or something going, the first thing not to do is broadcast it on the internet and make yourself a giant target. Yeah, 100%. Which is sort of the thing. And, you know, I'm just saying this for people out there. I get messages all the time.

Like, well, what should we do? You know, why don't you talk about what we should do? It's like, well, if I, I have plenty of ideas for what we should do, but I'm not going to give a giant speech. Like, you know, first we're going to meet it this time at this place and this is what we're going to do. Like, no, like, that's the opposite of how we should be conducting ourselves. I mean, if we've learned anything from what happened with the alt-right, it's that maybe like publicly announcing where we're all going to be and who everybody is and this is how we're going to operate from here on now. Maybe that's not the best idea when the other side controls law enforcement, media, and money. Yeah, I'm sure you've experienced this too where you're trying to make a point online and somebody comes in and goes, well, what are you doing?

So I mean, I might be vague, but I'm not telling you what I'm doing. I mean, that's retarded. This is sort of the problem with advocating. Obviously, I'm a big proponent of tribalism, but what I mean by tribalism is not necessarily, although I'm not opposed to the idea of starting like a literal tribe where you meet in the woods with a bunch of people and do X, Y, and Z. that is one alternative, but what I also mean is homeschool co-ups. What I also mean is starting your own churches.

I mean, one of the things with evangelical Protestants is unlike people of papist descent like myself, I mean, there's nothing stopping people from organizing a new church with a pastor who's a Bible believer and organizing on that front. You don't have to wait for blessing from high command to move forward with any of this stuff. There are lots of things people can do. But one of the things that you shouldn't do is broadcast to all insubes. sundry, who you are, what you're doing, all the names of your members, where they work, where are the best ways that they can have pressure to bear on them. I mean, this is not going to, the biggest thing that is getting in the way of people,

and this is another lesson from 1516, people are generally as right wing as they feel themselves to be allowed to be, both morally and practically. I mean, for me, being right wing, if we want to use just such a crude term, but it's basically just being militantly pro your own side. It's militant pro-common sense. Like, yeah, the group that I'm with should be stronger and more prosperous and the groups that don't like me, I don't want them to have power. I mean, it's very simple, but it's very straightforward.

But if you've got people screaming at you that that's wrong, especially because your group is inherently depraved or inherently racist, as Robin DiAngelo teaches, you know, all whites are racist, no matter what you do. Like that is the mainstream consensus on what racism is, whether you like it or not. You know, don't take it from me. Take it from the people who are teaching your diversity classes. And if you live in a society where if you even associate with the wrong person, you could not just lose your job, but you're also going to have pressure put on your family. People pressure your family to disown you.

You might lose your bank account. You might lose your house. You might lose all sorts of things. You know, the police aren't going to care too much. If you've got threats being made against you and whatever else, you have to give people a certain amount of cover from that. when you have, yeah, at some level, everybody just kind of needs to be tougher and put up with this stuff. But if the political advice you have for everybody is, hey, just be tougher or be more heroic or overcome everything in the name of your ideal, that's not very good practical advice. And, you know, I encourage, especially when someone like me is talking, if someone like me is telling you, like charge the guns or everybody follow me, like, yeah, if everybody just shuts up and follow me, like, yeah, I think we're all going to win.

but the fact is I work for Jared Taylor. Like, I'm not going to get fired for saying this stuff. You are. And so what I say needs to be taken with caution and with a recognition of where everybody's circumstances are. And I am not one of these people who thinks that, like, treason is the same as caution. And we are going to need to be forgiving and we are going to need to be patient with leading our people forward because at the end of the day, what we need to do more than anything

else is not just make the case because I think the case is kind of been made and there are a lot of people who already agree with us. They're just scared and they need moral support, but even more than that, they need material support. So they're able to take action without losing everything. And that's and how do you do that? Well, there are lots of good ways to do that. But again, you don't broadcast what they are to the entire world because then they won't work

for much longer, will they? Yeah, 100%. 100%. Couldn't agree more. All right. remind everybody where they can find your stuff and we will end this. Well, I'm writing over at Amaran.com. I will be speaking at the American Renaissance conference in August.

I would also encourage people to go to Viter.com. There is going to be a conference this month happening fairly soon. You can email Lydia Brimelaw if you want to come to that. Steve Saylor will also be speaking at that. That's going to be a really big event because Steve Saylor doesn't do speaking engagements all that often. So that's going to be a very significant one. And I have another major event coming up in the next couple weeks, which I will be telling everybody about once I get back from one of these things that you don't broadcast what you're going to do. Greg, thank you very much.

Thanks for having me on. I appreciate it.