Will Cain Country - The Top 5 Revolutions With Douglas Murray

Episode Date: February 8, 2024

Story #1: Top 5 revolutions in history with author Douglas Murray Story #2: After branding a nine-year-old sports fan racist, maybe we can finally drive the stake in the zombie that is Deadspin Story #3: We hear from you, the listener!   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for $5.5 plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. One, top five revolutions with the incomparable. Douglas Murray. Two, after branding a nine-year-old boy as a racist in blackface, maybe we can finally drive the stake into the zombie that is deadspin.

Three, mailbag, interaction with you, the listener, the viewer of the Will Kane Show. And on the Fox News YouTube channel, always on demand and audio format, wherever you get your audio entertainment at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast, just go hit subscribe. And to get more of our interviews, for example, from earlier this week with Matt Taibi, or with the founder of Barstool Sports Dave Portnoy, or the incomparable Jordan Peterson, go to YouTube, find the Will Kane show, and hit subscribe. It is Super Bowl weekend. We plan to get you all set up for the big game tomorrow with our guest. Former NFL defensive end and former colleague of mine at ESPN, Marcellus Wiley. We're going to let you know the best bets and what to watch for. Plus, his story from South Central Los Angeles, from Compton to Columbia to the NFL.

And we'll talk about just how popular was I. How unpopular is he? within the halls of our former employer, ESPN. Earlier this week here on the Will Kane show, we had a fascinating conversation with Dr. Drew Pinsky. We were analyzing the moment. We were talking about the psychology of not just happening here at home in the United States of America,

but what's happening across the world. And Dr. Drew drew an analogy. He talked about the age of narcissism and that it is historically reminiscent of the mindset during the French Revolution. Here, listen to Dr. Drew Penske. What do you mean by that, Revolutionary France? I wrote a book on narcissism called The Mirror Effect,

and I was documenting the narcissistic trends and turn and how personality structures had dramatically changed, really internationally. And I wanted to write a chapter on where else in history, because I wanted to know what the consequence with this is. There's got to be other periods of history where this has happened. And the only thing I could find that was similar was pre-revolutionary France. And so I wanted to write a chapter about how narcissists tend to form mobs and scapegoat and that you would see guillot. And this was 20 years ago.

I didn't know cancellation was not a word. Social media was not a word. I didn't know that this would be the modern version of the guillotine. There was Dr. Drew Pinsky talking about the emotional temperament of the moment. Now, it is fascinating to think about what's happening in the United States of America, what's happening across the world when it comes to narcissism and how it can lead to bouts of mob violence and how it can set the groundwork for moments of revolution. And I have always found revolutions fascinating, philosophically, historically,

because we take for granted because of our American mindset that revolutions are a great advancement in human civilization. We sit today, most of us viewing here in the United States of America, within the birth of the most successful revolution in human history. What I mean by successful is not just throwing off the shackles of power, but replacing it with something more virtuous. You will find throughout history, Haiti, communist China, Russia into the Soviet Union, examples of successful revolutions that threw off the shackles of power, but failed to replace what existed with something new and more virtuous, failing to take a great leap forward for humanity. And it's fascinating to think about why some revolutions succeed, why some revolutions fail.

I've kind of had it on my bucket list to discuss this with someone I think is well-versed in this and capable of really looking at it from a philosophical and historical standpoint. I've had it on my bucket list to discuss this with Douglas Murray. So, let's start now with story number one. Douglas Murray joins us once again here today. He's a Fox News contributor. He is a deep thinker, and I always love talking to him. Thanks for being here, Douglas.

Great to be with you. Great to see you, Will. You know, I want to start actually with current events. You had a speaking event scheduled in London, where you intended to do as you have very often over the last several months and years, as a matter of fact, address the situation in Israel. You were interrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters. You were met in essence with a version of the modern-day cancellation mob.

I'm curious what you think about what Dr. Drew had to say to me earlier about this mob mentality and that it is not, while it might be unique in our life, times it's not unique historically. He drew the climate parallel, Douglas, to the mindset that existed in revolutionary France. I'm curious what you think about today as compared to the past in France. That's a very interesting place to start. You know, when the revolution began in Paris in 1789, the king was woken up, King Louis XVI, was woken up eventually by one of the members of his court. There was much discussion about whether they should wake the king and if so who should do it. It's said that what happened was that they woke him up and the king said

when they said it's a revolution in Paris. He said no, it's a disturbance. Now that you see there'd have been a lot of disturbances in Paris. But he said it's a disturbance and effectively wanted to go back to sleep. And the courtier said, know your majesty it's a revolution now one of the interesting things about that story is of course is that the word revolt the word revolution would have sounded very different to louis the 16th ear than it does to ours today there's a reason for that of course which is that all revolutions that we speak of today we mean that they are things that are in the shadow of the events of 1789 in france and that's one of the reasons why the king had such difficulty comprehending

the scale of exactly what was coming to him. By then, of course, it was far too late, and everyone knows what happened afterwards. But effectively, the king ended up isolated, hidden away in Versailles, eventually arrested, eventually guillotined, and his wife, the queen, of course, eventually guillotined as well.

But what's interesting in a way about the origins of the French Revolution, one of the many things that's interesting about it, as I say, is it's effectively the prism through which we look at all. such events subsequently the moment when the society starts to turn over completely when neighbor can turn upon neighbor or the street upon the king and of course to louis ears it was also something incomprehensible because although of course a hundred years earlier in britain in england the king had been executed the idea of monarchs losing their heads the idea of the

idea of monarchs losing their thrones was something that would rock all of Europe and indeed the whole world. And you mentioned the American Revolution. One of the fascinating things that one of my unending admiration for the founding fathers, an admiration which seems to be being lost in America these days. But one of my unending reasons for admiration of the founding fathers is that what they were trying to do at the same time in America was only really being tried in one other place in the world. And that was revolutionary France. And whereas the revolutionaries, of course, in France ended up losing control. The people who toppled the king ended up going to the guillotine themselves, Robespierre and co. And then France went into the terrors. America managed to

avoid this. America actually managed to avoid the terror. And I'm not sure still that enough Americans realize the sheer genius of the founding fathers in making sure that this experiment which had only been tried in one other place didn't go to the place that France did. When everyone thinks about revolutions, these two revolutions, Douglas, are at the top of their mind, America and France. One, to those in the know, understand that the American revolution is a great historical success. It's an advancement. It's not just. oh, we managed to overthrow the king, but we managed to create a society that has led to more freedom and prosperity, where that is not par for the course in revolutions. And for those in the

note, the French Revolution is largely understood as a failure, not just because the revolutionaries themselves ended up in the guillotine, but the only thing that seemed to then unify France afterwards was a great authoritarian power in Napoleon, some five, six, seven years later. I'm curious, what is the ingredient that made America's success and made France a failure? It's very hard to point to any one, and historians will always argue over this. But, I mean, one of them clearly was the successful separation of powers and the idea that there was an oddly passing over of governance from the first president to the second, for instance.

Part of Washington's genius was recognizing his unifying role. Had Washington decided to go back to his farm, maybe the American Revolution would have been different. But there were enough patriots in the early months and years of the American Republic that meant that actually the country did cohere. And whereas in France, you end up effectively, as you say, that France effectively, it was like a bungee jump. It was like they couldn't get away from the idea of a monarchical leader.

And as you say, that led to Napoleon and then the Napoleon dynasty, which is effectively the same thing as having the bourbons or the hapsburgs on your throne or the stewards. They went to the Napoleons. This America managed to avoid, and as I say, it was by a hair's breadth at times, as we know from the early discussions of the founding fathers. But that ability to peacefully progress

from the first to the second, third and fourth president was one of the things that made the American experiments so unique? So I want to take a broader look of history in the moment and talk about some other revolutions, but I think France is so worthy of study. So, you know, after King Lou the 16th was executed, and in fact, during that time period, you had the Jacobins, for example, extremists who looked to execute all of their political enemies. you had, as you mentioned, the Great Terror, which lasted, five years where it was basically what was described by Dr. Drew. It was this mob mentality that existed for quite a while.

And I know that's revolutionary France, and I don't seek to be hyperbolic. But, you know, again, I think it's worth drawing some lessons from history, even if they're not directly applicable to what happened to you in London this week, you know, or whatever it may be. But we do have seem to have fallen into, Dr. Drew described it as narcissistic, but this, there is, in my lifetime, and I would imagine to yours, Douglas, a greater reversion to mob mentality and sort of a lust for, if not violence, retribution that exists right now throughout Western society. Do you see parallels to what happened or lessons from what happened in France? Well, yes, I mean, there are some definitely there are always resonances from the french revolution um i mean one thing of course

that happened was that the people in power the king and his court were utterly uh distant from the rest of the country uh louis was a weak man he wasn't a particularly bad man but he was a weak man he wasn't like louis the 14th uh who knew how to exercise power uh louis the 16th was a ditherer and of course now of the activities of the French court I mean the banalities of what they were engaging in the frivolity and and the simple separatedness of the court from the rest of the country I mean Versailles was wildly out of sync with Paris at the time let alone all the rural areas where people were trying to scratch your living and very often failing so that that that that that that

disconnect between the rulers and the ruled is something actually which traditionally democratic societies have tried very hard to avoid. And we have a way to avoid them, of course, which is in the form of democratic elections where we, the people, get our say and nobody else can take it from us. And so whenever a democratic society needs to adapt, it has that great, important release valve of elections. I would say that one of the dangerous things in recent years has been the growing perception in America and in other democracies, that effectively the people when they speak are not listened to and that this separate court, as you were, rules over them anyway, whichever way they vote at the ballot box. And that's really, I mean, we have heard that language in recent

years, particularly in American politics, I think of sort of the deplorables and so on, that the sense that the political class doesn't like the people. and would like to find a way to get around the people. You know, the old joke, I can't remember who made it first, that, you know, the people have let the elected representatives down. We will need to replace the people. I think it was Brecht who made that joke first in the 20s. But in the 1920s, but it's, yes, I do hear little echoes of that.

And as for the bloodlust, one of the things that really is a remarkable, element of the period of post-revolutionary France, was this endless idea that, you know, you just sort of had to wade through enough blood and you would get to the nirvana. And what all that always misunderstood was that really once you've allowed the Pandora's box to open and the furies to stretch the metaphor to be released, what happens is something that no man or woman can contain. Once the use of violence enters politics, politics changes completely. Once you have people who want to pursue their goals through violence, politics changes. You mentioned this unfortunate incident early in the week, but I said in a piece today,

I don't recognize my native country of Britain when an audience at a theatre in the heart of the West End can't turn up to an event because it's too dangerous to attend. I don't recognize a Britain where, for instance, the police don't immediately say we will do everything in our power to keep this event safe. We will protect the public. And what it gives out the opposite is this terrible weakness, where as I say, even the police seem to be fearful of the public, and the public aren't

fearful of the police, certainly not the extremists in the British public. And I compared that to a famous event in the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, and when the IRA very nearly succeeded in assassinating her by putting a bomb in the wall of the hotel she was staying at in Brighton. It killed a number of her colleagues, very close friends of hers, seriously maimed the wife of one of her cabinet ministers. And she came very close to being killed herself. It was pure fluke that she wasn't. But she the next day stood in front of the British public and said the conference will go on. We don't allow the men of violence in that case, the IRA to dictate elected politics. And I don't hear that sort of determination or grit as much today as I would

like. I see people being fearful, fearful of mobs in a way which, of course, only ever encourages them. You know, when you were describing a dithering leader and an elite class that is totally removed from the people, I mean, of course, there are always levels of extremity, but it's hard not to think about Washington, D.C. It's not, it's hard not to think about our current president in, in Joe Biden. And again, to emphasize, there are extremes, but as you mentioned, history isn't repetitive. It echoes. I'm not sure it even rhymes, but it echoes. It doesn't repeat, but there are lessons to learn from those echoes. You know, Douglas, when I had fun with this topic and I was kind of like Googling revolutions, you know, the frame that we put on our

conversation today is top five revolutions. But I would make two interesting observations in putting this to you. Number one, when you Google that, it is shocking the number, like there are rankings out there, and I don't know from what type of source, but, you know, they'll place the American Revolution fifth, and often the Haitian revolution is second, or the CCP is third, or whatever they may be. And I don't know by what standard they're ranking revolutions, but what it occurs to me is, if they're talking about the improbability or the success in throwing off an existing power, okay, maybe. Like a slave rebellion in Haiti is a huge victory for the underdog, I guess, right?

But what came after? That should be the measure of success. What did you replace the existing power structure with? And that's the success of the American Revolution. But the second thing, besides just these weird rankings, Douglas, is the American Revolution may be singular. I'm not sure you can come up with the top five. If I made you live in that format and say, give me your top five revolutions, most revolutions are, hey, we threw off what was, but didn't replace it with something that is better. Oh, yes, you bet.

I mean, it's extremely hard to come up with examples of revolutions that have been, first of all, successful, secondly, relatively peaceful, and thirdly, that have led to an improved society. And that's why, of course, the founding text of conservatism, conservative thought, Edmund Burke's reflections on the revolution in France, was such an important work, is such an important work. Because Burke foresaw and witnessed his own predictions coming true that what had been unleashed would always be worse than the situation that already existed. And France certainly demonstrated. that in the years after 1789. There are some revolutions you could point to, but then you always

get into dangerous corners of politics. For instance, I mean, in South American politics of endless revolutions and counter revolutions and much more. The left in America in particular very often talks about the revolution in Chile and the spectra of general Pinochet. And it's a very interesting one because Pinochet was a brutal man. He was, of course, a military leader. And I think it's estimated he killed around 5,000 of his political opponents. It has to be said, and I'm not by any means diminishing his crimes. But by revolutionary standards, historically, that isn't actually that higher number.

And Chile today is probably in a better position than certainly a lot of its neighbors. But, I mean, you wouldn't want to look back and say, therefore, this is to be celebrated because it's still, you know, thousands of lives lost. The problem is I notice that for ideological reasons, the left in particular, celebrates revolutions far, far bloodier than that in Chile and doesn't mind the blood that had to be waded through. I mean, in my own lifetime, only 15 years ago,

a Labour Party MP in the UK said that Chairman Mao was a, was a great historical hero and when asked why she said well he caused great advances in the agrarian economy of china i think well yes and then there was the 60 to 70 million people that he murdered along the way either by directly murdering them or by starvation uh so so the left i have to say is especially blithe in my view at celebrating horrifically bloody revolutions unimaginably bloody revolutions, which actually most, almost all of the time, did not lead to an improvement in the society, either materially or socially. You know, the commonality, there's two commonalities I see when you analyze revolutions. One is the obvious throwing off existing power structures. In the beginning, it was throwing off monarchies.

In many cases, it was throwing off perhaps colonial powers. Sometimes it's throwing off addictive. dictator, whatever it may be, changing the existing power dynamic within a country. But the result, the vast majority of time, comes down to replacing it with chaos. And as I look at it, Douglas, it sort of becomes the prism through which you see how society is ordered, order or chaos. I've always been fascinated by the mindset of the World Economic Forum. I've always been fascinated by the mindset of the Klaus Schwab or Bill Gates' viewpoint of what is the point of trying to engineer from on high some sort of utopia. But I do wonder if they look at the expanse of history and go, well, in their own minds, Douglas, they go, well, without order,

be it a king, be it a party, be it a dictator, you're left with chaos. And so in order to avoid chaos, we will impose a utopic order in the vision we manifest here together at the World Economic Forum. I don't think I'm being charitable. I'm just trying to understand. understand how it is they see the world and why there's an excuse to think beyond nation states into this utopic world globalist vision. Well, it's a pretty dangerous game they're playing, in my view. It gets back to that thing of the ruler and the ruled having too large a gap between them. I think, I mean, one of the interesting things about the emerging prominence of the WEF

in recent years has been that there seems to be a greater and greater awareness of it among the general public in all of the world's democracies. And that's that rather, I think, perfectly legitimate feeling of who exactly appointed these people. And why do they talk about us in such grandiose terms? And, you know, to quote a famous left-wing politician who put his finger on something quite good on this, One of the questions you have to ask anyone who has power is, how did you get it and who can take it away? And the question of who could take away power from Klaus Schwab, of course, is none of us and not you, not me, and no member of the public, we just have him making very grand pronouncements about our collective future and making decisions that affect that future. I think I've always thought in every country that it is a deeply disturbing situation to be in, to have people making decisions over you, who you cannot yourself do anything to get rid of.

As I say, there's one of the geniuses of democracy is you can vote people in and you can vote them out. I wanted to look up this tweet. It's by, I think it's Klaus Schwab's right-hand man, but basically he laid out that he sees. the prism as one between chaos and order. And I guess they have anointed themselves as the inheritors or the organizers of order. They put themselves clearly at the top of the pyramid, the World Economic Forum. They're not wrong, by the way, to see all politics and everything else as being a battle between chaos and order. That's always the case. And the problem for them is, of course, that that is one of the things that goes not between one

person and another, but down the center of everyone. I mean, everyone has the simultaneously, the capacity to admire order and the desire to create chaos. It's in all of us. You know, this conversation that I had with Dr. Drew, where he brought back up the French revolution, he talked about Napoleon as essentially the antidote to what was happening in terms of this bloodlust and mob violence in France. And, of course, as you point out, it's just a return to the mean. It was returned to a new authoritarian figure.

But it was something else as well that Napoleon represented. He represented, for one thing in France, sort of a national vision of a military expansionism. And that, I think, gave the populace an opportunity to find themselves unified once again on something. And that seems to be the great big challenge of the, the West right now. What unifies us, right? Either here in America or the West in general, what do we have any more that we rally around? I think one of the few places that you and I

kind of have a level of disagreement. I'm not sure, but you see that you see much more virtue or utilitarianism in the Western military presence, for example, in Ukraine. I'm much more skeptical of military expansionism. But it is true that. it is a way to unify people are never more unified than when they are attacked from the outside and even if they are the one doing the attack even if they are the one expanding and it's like napoleon by spreading his wings and all of a sudden i was watching this alexander the great documentary the minute that his father is killed right and it's there's pretty decent historical evidence that he if not his mother was involved in the death of his father who is the king of

macedonia the first thing he does is blame the persians and now the court is is unified. And now there's an outside forced, which we were all, instead of dividing us inside of Macedonia on the Philippites versus the Alexandrians, it's now the Macedonians versus the Persians. And I just wonder, like, is this not a tool, you know, and I'm not putting it in terms of virtue or vice, to unify us? Like, oh, as long as we are fighting over there, we're unified over here. I don't know, because I mean, you're right. We probably do disagree on Ukraine. I don't think the problem is i don't think well the person western forces aren't in ukraine in any meaningful way it's uh just a matter of arming the ukrainians to fight for themselves which has been since

the beginning uh the problem in ukraine is uh russian forces illegally invading it um but and if latin of putin withdrew tomorrow the war would be over um but i've been in many countries at war and yes you're right i mean nothing unifies a country than than being invaded for instance is another form of unification, for sure. But the most unifying thing of all is what happens if you're invaded. I saw that when I was in Ukraine in the, well, it wasn't that more than a year ago. And, you know, you've never seen the people more united. Other, I would say, that in Israel in recent months, Israel was tearing itself apart in recent years.

Protesters on the streets every weekend over the judicial reform bill of the government. you know after the attacks of october the seventh all that for now is put in the background because the country is unified in a war yes of course i mean evasion makes all of these things seem of course as they are in the grand scheme preposterous things to fall out about um when you got a matter of life and death in front of you uh by the one of the interesting things about napoleon is that he's a he's a he's an historical figure who is a good example of the fact that you don't have to travel very many miles to see a totally different interpretation of him. Of course, if you go to his tomb in Paris,

his grand and extraordinary tomb, you will see the reverence in which he is held in France. In Britain, he's seen quite differently. He's seen as a despot, a sort of proto-Hitler-like figure who tried to roll across Europe and then, of course, all the way into Russia, which is where he, like Hitler, failed. But it's very interesting. Some years ago, I was doing a project.

with a bunch of NATO generals and the French general involved said to me one day over lunch. He said, is it true, Douglas? In English schools, they teach that Napoleon was a tyrant? And I said, well, I'm afraid to tell you they do. And you know, Mondeurs. He couldn't believe it. Because for him and for France, Napoleon is the great hero. And by the way, that history is always still being litigated.

litigated. In 1989, on the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution, President Mitterrand invited Margaret Thatcher to the celebrations in Paris, and she refused to go. She refused to go and said that she would not go because the revolution was not something to be celebrated. So even the small stretch of water that is the English Channel divides opinion on this. this figure, even 200 years later. President Mitterrand, who Joe Biden recently spoke to, we all know that, even though he passed away just several years ago. I've got a curiosity, to the extent that it's acknowledged or discussed or taught, how is

George Washington viewed in Great Britain? I take a line from the writer Jessica Mitford on this one, who said that she was taught so little in her education about America and American Revolution, as was I. I mean, I educated myself on it. But the general feeling seemed to be, as Jessica Mitford said, that the Americans had done something bad and we didn't talk about it anymore. Like misbehaving children. Misbehavior, and we shouldn't talk about it.

Quite wrong. there are so many things I want to discuss with you, and I know it won't be the last time we talk. I've always enjoyed our conversations on colonialism, and I'm curious, like, why some colonial empires, and I know in modern day conversation, you're supposed to just dismiss them all as pure evil, but why some succeeded in ways that others failed and what culturally made them different. But actually, in the time that we have together today, I wanted to ask you this, because this has been your focus for, for, I mean, acutely for six months, but I know much longer as well. Israel, anti-Semitism. I'm speaking actually less about Israel and more about

anti-Semitism here. When people think about anti-Semitism, I think that they obviously primarily think about the Holocaust. Then they think, perhaps, in modern-day terms, about what's happening maybe on the streets of London or maybe what's happening on American College campuses. But what I think they don't fully appreciate is the long historical roots of anti-Semitism, the fact that pogroms have been a part of history long before the Holocaust, and they spanned the expanse of Europe, for one, I mean, from Russia to Spain. You know, wherever there were Jews, there were pogroms. And now you can say, well, there's always bouts of violence, and every tribal group is pitt against another tribal group, and there's always violence. But there does seem to be historically

a unique cross-cultural, cross-global focus on Jews. Why do you, what are in your estimation the roots of anti-Semitism? Well, I follow the superb analysis Vasily Grossman makes halfway through his great 900-page novel Life and Fate, which traverses the 20th century's darkest period from Stalingrad to Treblinka, both of which places and battles and massacre sites, Grossman himself, visited and reported from as a journalist. In the middle of life and fate, he devotes three pages to the subject of anti-Semitism. I urge anyone interested in the subject to read it, because he says pretty much everything that needs to be says there. He points out that anti-Semitism is something that can be encountered in the Academy of Sciences and in the games that schoolchildren play in the yard. But as he says there, it always tells you not about the subject of the bigotry,

but of the person who expresses the bigotry as grossman says tell me what you accuse the jews of i'll tell you what you're guilty of um they are effectively the mirror for the dispossessed the disgruntled uh the unhappy and much more um in fact i regarded i've spoken to the experts about this in the past i regarded as being an expression of um of paranoia among other things People who are paranoid, very often see secret workings. They see all sorts of plots and plots against them and, you know, people holding all the money, people holding all the power and that sort of thing. And I think, by the way, actually, we were talking earlier about the WEF. I think some people actually do that with that, to some extent.

They overestimate, to some degree, what the WEF is. and sometimes overstate it. And of course, it's an issue of great concern. But I just say this because when the mind is borrowing for explanations for things, it very often lands on the nearest explanation at hand. And the Jews are very often the nearest explanation at hand. There is, of course, a very, very interesting thing about anti-Semitism, which is that it is, as I've said, very often a shape-shifting virus.

I mean, in all these centuries, you know, the Jews were blamed for having their own religion. They were blamed for being secular. You know, they were blamed for being too religious and for being too non-religious. They were blamed for being too rich and also for being too poor. They were blamed for assimilating into society and not assimilating into society. There's another twist of that, of course, which is that they were blamed. for not having a state and then attacked for having a state. All of this strikes me as being a sign that anti-Semitism is a sort of perennial vice

of the human spirit. It's a very dispiriting idea. The assimilation point is interesting. Because I'm sitting here thinking, and I can't escape the why, why. And I think that why requires one to look with a much broader view of history. Don't get caught simply in the 20th century. you're talking about it as well, right? Because this is something that's happened for centuries, right?

Primarily in Europe we're talking about, but not exclusively in Europe. And I'm thinking here, there are other, I was thinking, okay, well, maybe it's that Jews were the other, right, in Europe. They had a different religion, they had a different ethnicity. But there were also Muslims in Europe, and I'll profess historical ignorance on to the extent that violence was perpetrated on Muslims in Europe, wherever it may be. But Jews were more prevalent, I think, than Muslims throughout Europe. So why do you focus on Jews? Well, they were certainly more prominent.

And this is one of the things, I mean, if you look at, for instance, pre-war Eastern and Central Europe, a country like Austria, Jews were overrepresented in, for instance, the banking world. Well, I mean, it's true as well that in the years after Adam Smith, Scots, I'm half Scots, so I noticed this myself, Scots were also very much involved in the banking world, overrepresented by their numbers as a proportion of the global population. But the prominence of Jews, of course, particularly in the eras where they were able to lend money, I'm thinking, for instance, 15th century Spain. and Italy and much more. They were at a level of prominence. And one of the interesting things is that Jews historically have always been at a great point of danger

when they are prominent and weak. I'm thinking of, for instance, Spain in the 1400s. The problem was not that Jews were prominent. It's that they were prominent and weak. That is, they didn't have the ability to protect themselves. They had no state. no army so when king ferdinand expelled them and of course expelled the muslims as well from spain um but when and i mean there weren't that many muslims in europe at all really during this

period only the the muslims in spain because of the uh conquest of the southern part of spain many centuries earlier but the the interesting thing is that they say that what you see from that period is that jews were prominent but weak the jews of vienna before the the first world were before the first and second world war were very prominent but they were weak and i think at any rate that this is one of the lessons of history for jews and certainly one of the lessons that zionism teaches this is what believes this is what theodore hetzel when he had the dream of zionism and wrote the jewish state had which was when he saw of course drafus being stripped of his of his honors in paris in front of the mob in the 1890s he sees he sees

this happened and Hetzel realizes, we will never be protected and we have to protect ourselves. And that's the birth of the Zionist movement, the realization that Jews will never be protected by anyone else and therefore must protect themselves. But this will be the last thing we do together. This is fascinating. The why to me, because I think you're right on everything you say, but some of the violence and frequent violence on Jews predates even their, their, their prominence in commerce, certainly in banking.

And I've read about that, like, you know, banking was seen as within Europe, like a dirty profession a little bit. You know, like, that's not, and then the Jews go in, and they do it, and they do it very well, and it becomes, I get today the world's, you know, top profession. But some of the violence predates the Jews being prominent in those professions. And that's why I keep coming back to assimilization, as you said, because I'm a big believer that your biggest strength is also your biggest weakness as an individual. and as a society, Douglas, and the Zionist project in studying it, one of the most fascinating

things is it pulled people from all across the globe, right, from Russia and from France. And it brought them to Israel and under the banner of a commonality in case, and really only their religion, because there were cultural differences at that point. Certainly there was no linguistic commonality. They had to revive Hebrew, which is a stunning thing to have done. So they had all these differences and the only thing they had in common really was their religion. And I'm wondering if that separation, that separation within Europe, you know, no, we will maintain our Jewish neighborhood. We will make, again, this is the strength that helped create Israel. Was it the thing that drew the ire of Europeans across, you know, different countries? These people stay to themselves

and don't assimilate and celebrate their own religion. Is that why they became the scapegoat for every problem well first of all of course it wasn't always a case that the jews chose to self-segregate as you you see if you go to the uh in venice you know the jews were put into a specific part of the city and and locked in overnight each night um by the way rather sad fact of life now is that if you go to the jewish ghetto in venice it's protected by uh by armed police because it's a target like every other jewish target every other jewish site in europe and indeed the wider west um it's it's it's Of course, the religious element was one of the deepest under toes, the idea that, you know, the Jews killed Christ, which, of course, it was a sort of, was a claim that went through Christendom for the best part of 2000 years. It wasn't until actually the aftermath of World War II that I can't remember which Pope it was, but issued the encyclical absolving the Jews of responsibility for the death.

of Christ. But that way it was it was that that led to pogroms on Easter Sundays in the 15th century and many other periods in Europe across Europe when you know the pulpit fulminated and and the Jewish businesses were attacked. By the way I would just had one other thing you're completely right about the extraordinary unifying and I mean it's a miracle in my view the unifying of Jewish people from around the world in Israel. One of my favorite books, Stefan Zweig, The World of Yesterday, includes his meetings with Theodor Herzl in Vienna in the early 1900s. And he was there at Herzl's funeral as well. And it's a very moving description of how thousands and thousands of Jews from all across Europe, across from Russia, all flooded into

Vienna for the for the for the funeral it was a massive pre-state occasion there's one other thing I wanted to say very quickly will by the way just picking up on one thing earlier which just might be worth throwing in we didn't talk much today we should another occasion about one of the very very interesting elements of revolution which which which young people in particular always have to be reminded of I mentioned earlier that that constant desire for the refining fire the the wading through blood to get to the point of perfection. And one of my favorite stories about this can be found in a really,

really remarkable book. I much recommend. I'm just about to forget the author's name. She's a British woman writer. And she did a very good book a number of years ago called Petrograd 1917. And it's all firsthand accounts from the members of the public, from foreign ambassadors and diplomats, from every imaginable angle firsthand accounts

of what was going on in St. Petersburg in the immediate aftermath of the revolution that was so catastrophically brought by Lenin when he got on the train to the Finland station. And my favorite story, many, many stories in that book, which is just chilling to read about. It's all a reminder of the fact that the people who dream of the violence

getting you to a better place should always remember stories like this. In the days immediately after the revolution of course, the police had been disbanded, all the Tsarist authorities have been killed or chased into hiding and much more. So the question came up, and all American revolutionaries of the modern era

should consider this, the question then, only then, came up of how do we ensure safety or security? How do we police? Maybe we do need some structure. And there's a story that is told in that book, true story of people on a tram or bus in St. Petersburg, and there's a woman on the bus who suddenly starts screaming, a rather distinguished-looking woman, or she has a rather smart

coat on. And she's lost her purse. Her purse has been stolen, and she accuses the young man beside her, who sort of looks like a bank clerk. She accuses him of stealing it. And he is absolutely outraged and adamant that, of course, he hasn't stolen her purse. but she insists, she doesn't have it on her, he's standing beside her, he must have stolen it. The revolutionary guards, authorities such as they are, the bus stops, they try to work out what to do with the situation, and what they do is they take the young man off the bus and they shoot him in the head. Just after this happens, the woman who'd lost her purse finds that it has fallen through the lining of her coat to the bottom of the inside of her coat.

and she realizes this and then there's a question of what to do with her so they take her off the bus and they shoot her in the head as well problem solved the point is that what the kid on American campus who celebrates revolution

doesn't realize is that you allow all of the furies of the world out and you might think you would know a final anecdote on this my favorite quote Leonard Bernstein's much in people's minds at the moment. In Tom Wolfe's great seminal essay, a radical chic about the Black Panther Party

at the Bernstein's apartment. Bernstein and the other guests are being lectured at by these Panthers and being told what they're going to do when they overthrow the current regime in America. And Otto Preminger, who is there, keep saying to the lead panther, but what are you going to do after your revolution?

What will you do? And eventually, the Panther is sort of infuriated, and says, you can't put a blueprint on the future, man. And Leonard Bernstein leans forward and says, you mean you're just going to wing it? Now, that's the thing. All revolutionaries always think, we'll know what to do. Let's just get the revolution. Let's just overthrow.

We'll sort out all the other details next. They never have. They never do. And that's a perfect place. Destruction is easy. Creation is hard. And I think that's a perfect place to end because there may not be a top five list of revolutions. It truly may be, and I know it sounds like a patriotic American thing to say,

but it truly may be a singular event of able to throw off the shackles of power and replace it with something better. Douglas Murray, there's so many more things I'm looking forward to talking to you about next time. Always respect and appreciate your work. Thank you. Thank you. Pleasure to be with you. there you go it goes douglas murray long deep conversation i hope you enjoyed that uh we'll put that up on our youtube will kane show uh and you can watch that at any time i think that's the kind

of conversation you might hear twice or share or um uh be able to listen to at any point in times not tied to the things that happened today let me say something that did happen this week and that is we may finally be able to find the hero that can drive the stake in the zombie That is the trash of Deadspin. That's next on the Wilcane show. Stop. Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun.

Liam Neeson. Buy your tickets now. I get a free Tilly Dog. Chili Dog, not included. The Naked Gun. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. Book Club on Monday.

Jim on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday. town on Thursday. Quiet night in on Friday. It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too. Because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers, you'll know just how healthy they are.

Visit Spexavers.cavers.cai to book your next eye exam. Eye exams provided by independent optometrists. Drive a stake into the zombie. That is Deadspin. It's the Will Cain Show stream. live at foxnews.com and on the fox news youtube channel always as well streaming live on facebook at fox news the family of a nine-year-old kansas city chiefs fan who deadspin framed for wearing blackface filed a lawsuit against the outlet on monday for those unfamiliar deadspin is a

sports website far left sports website that in my estimation trafficked largely in sneering, condescension, insult, and inaccuracy. In this case, defamation. Deadspin largely went under when Hulk Hogan sued Gawker. Deadspin under the Gawker label. But it's kind of been walking around in a zombie version of itself ever since. No one really pays attention until they do something like they did back in December. They put a picture up, the author Karan J. Phillips,

Put a picture up of a nine-year-old boy, and it showed a side profile shot of him wearing an Indian headdress and black face. And the author suggested with the headline, the NFL needs to speak out against the Kansas City Chiefs fan in blackface and Native American headdress. It went on in the first paragraph to claim that this nine-year-old proves that the fan hates black people and Native Americans. now this has been written up the timeline of this event is up on outkick.com right now in a column by bobby burrack because the timeline's important deadspin knew the truth the truth was the nine-year-old fan had both black and red face paint on why because he is a kansas city chiefs fan half his face was red half his face was black he's wearing the indian headdress

because he supports the kansas city chiefs as it later comes out to the extent that it's important he's also this nine-year-old part Native American. But Dead's been put up this doctored version of the photo or this manipulated half-truth version of the photo and proceed to write an entire column about how racist he was and the NFL needs to do something about this. Now the first ugliness in and of itself is any writer or outlet out there

that thinks they need to make a moral point on the backs of a nine-year-old. If you are moralizing by dunking on a nine-year-old, you have no ups, you have no vert, you have no moral, higher moral authority. You are a cretan if a nine-year-old is your target. But if you have to defame the nine-year-old, you're a whole other level of cretan. And this is what I had to say on the subject back in December. I hope somebody puts the stake through the temple of the zombie version of Deadspin.

Covington kids sued CNN in the New York Times, settled for big figure. for what they did, again, just criminally libelous to the kids of Covington. And I don't, this kid's not a public figure, no actual malice, no recklessness required. This is just simple libel. This is defamation. Sue what's left of the zombie version of Deadspin. And they have. This kid and his family have now sued Deadspin.

So when you're suing someone for Deadspin, you need to, to show that the author didn't make a mistake. Well, what's clear is the Deadspin could have or should have known the full picture that he had red and black on. It was readily available all over the Internet and chose to put it up anyway. In Bobby Burrack's article on Outkick, he quotes Lexi Rigden, who's been here on the Will Kane Show, who's an attorney and a frequent legal analyst here at Fox News. And she says the following, defamation's law vary from state to state. But in general, to prove defamation, the plaintiff would have to show that a false statement was made. That's satisfied.

The child was wearing blackface. He was not wearing blackface. Second, that the statement was published to third parties. That's easy. They published it all over the internet, including on X. Defended by some of the biggest, or responded to, interacted with by some of the biggest accounts like Elon Musk. And third, that the defendant knew it was false or it was at least negligent in publishing it. And that seems pretty readily apparent.

They knew there were other photos of the. kid out there and put it up anyway. In fact, they didn't make a correction or a change the article for 11 days. And when they did 11 days in, what they did is, quote, a representative of the Chumash Indian reservation saying that the headdress is offensive. So they defended themselves by finding an Indian to say, hey, wearing a headdress is offensive. That's not the point. you misrepresented, you defamed, you caused harm to this child and his family, who again happened to be

Native American, and this should be the death knell. And as I mentioned, the Covington kids in that clip from December, this is what's, I do not like lawfare. I don't think litigiousness is a virtue, but this is what's going to have to happen. If this is going to be this blatant, if this is going to be this irresponsible, these outlets have to pay the price. Good for this kid. Go ahead and strive drive the stake into zombie deadspin. All right, coming up, your viewer, listener, interactions, your mailbag, your emails, your tweets, your comments. Here, we interact on the Will Cain Show.

Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise $7 million. Visit go.fox forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. You, the listener, you the viewer here of the Will Cain Show, streaming live at Fox News.com, Fox News's Facebook page or on YouTube. Watch the Will Cain Show Live, 12 Eastern, always on demand. Will Cain Show on YouTube.

You can go back on that Facebook page and watch every day's episode at Fox News, and you can listen on Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. It's been a lot of interaction this week. There's a chat on YouTube, and there are comments on Facebook, where you can jump into our conversation. I don't want this to be one way. I want this to be back and forth. In fact, 855 Fox Talk is our number.

In the future, I want you here. Jump right in. Let's have some interaction. I want this to be a two-way street, not a one-way street. That was one of the things I was most excited about and launching this live show is beginning to bring you into the show. So let's bring in two days, Dan, who can walk through some of the comments from this week

and what people are saying. What's up? No, people have been great. The live chat's been awesome. I've been watching everyone say things about the show. Also, I have a grievance to air before we get started. Someone pointed out that there must have been a black shirt memo because you and Douglas Murray were both wearing black shirts.

And I would appreciate just if I could get the memos on what we're wearing for the day show. So if we could do that going forward, I'd appreciate it. I don't want to interrupt your garage band practice. I mean, the hoodie with the jeep jacket. It's cold, man. into a cover of Nirvana any moment, and I don't want to mess up the vibe in the garage. It's fine. It's fun. Yeah, I saw Douglas is wearing black as well.

You know, the thing is, I had this debate recently on Foggs and Friends with Heggseth. He says he doesn't own a single item of black in his closet. And as I've gotten older, I've gravitated to dark colors, and I don't know why. I like navy. I like black. he thinks there's no occasion where you should ever wear black. It's just not a color. Now, Steve Jobs famously only wore, I think it was white t-shirts and jeans. And you know his reasoning for that? What was that? He said that you only have so much capacity for making decisions every day. And if you burn up your decision-making capacity, like your energy for making decisions, you get decision fatigue. If you burn it up on what you're wearing, that stuff that he could have saved for something else. And I sort of did. like that mindset. I don't want to wake up every day and be like, what am I wearing? I hate that. But the easy solution for me largely has become just dark colors. That sounds like an Uber

smart guy thing. I just I can't get behind that. I have a lot of time. You know, I'm rocking my garage fan look and I'm sticking with it. That just sounds like a big-brained idea that I do not follow. So, reverse justification. Yeah, but we have some, some comments from the weeks. This person said, Mahomes and Brady proved dad bots can win Super Bowls, which is from your conversation with Danny Cannell last week, and he'll probably talk about it with Marcelus Wiley tomorrow. They can't. Yeah, fact. Now, that's quarterback. I mean, I think that's a pitcher in Major League Baseball. I think that's a golfer. I don't think it's a defensive lineman. I don't think it's a running back. I

don't think it's a receiver. But yeah, man, I mean, pliability, flexibility, natural athlete. I see there, Bob Foster says, Brady once said that he's not an athlete. He's a quarterback. Exactly. There we go. But he doesn't need to be jacked to be a quarterback. Yeah, exactly. All right, let's keep going.

When you're talking to Rachel yesterday on the Bud Light CEO, this person says on Bud Light, not until the CEO comes out and apologizes for being wrong with their decision. Can we move on? How do you feel about that? Well, that was Rachel's point. I thought it was an interesting point because, you know, The whole point is, what if Bud Light changes position? Like, and they have.

They've kind of tried to redouble down on patriotism, military ventures, and, you know, as Trump suggests, you know, they're donating to his presidency, so they're, or his campaign. The, so do you forgive and forget? Do you move on? Do you say a cancellation is successful if the company changes its positioning? And that's the argument. Well, Rachel argues, and that commenter that in order to forgive, you have to ask for forgiveness. I don't know. I mean, corporations are they ever going to say I'm sorry? I do think it's a victory for somebody to reposition and take on at a minimum no political stances. And that's all I ask, by the way. I don't ask that you agree with me. Same in my personal relationships. I don't ask that you agree with me. But you don't have to shove, you know, in Budlite's case, transgenderism down the literal throats of America with your beer. No, I agree.

This next person was going on. You're talking about the deterioration with Biden. They're saying Joe is to the point that every single step he takes is a potential health hazard, especially when he's on stage, which is so true. You see him just kind of walking around and doesn't know where it really is. It's the biggest issue that, and I'm not saying no one's talking about it, but I firmly believe it's the biggest issue. I think most people vote on fairly shallow reasons.

That's not to say anybody listening or watching. does. But if you ask your mom, your mother-in-law, what kind of answers do you get? Like them or don't like him? And for Biden, part of that calculus is he's old and increasingly incapable. And I think that is going to decide more votes than we've currently realized. The leader of the free world just can't be so so feeble. I agree. We had a lot of response from your, where you were talking about Maui and immigration. If you wanted to get to that clip real quick from you the other day, you want me to play it for you?

Do it. And the government's response to that is $700 checks versus this. Versus $1,000 checks to illegal immigrants in Washington, versus $53 million in credit cards to illegal immigrants in New York. Now, I ask you,

is that a proper moral hierarchy? Is it a proper response to say, hey, you're focusing on illegal immigrants, Hey, you're focusing on foreign aid to Israel. Hey, you're focusing on Ukraine. Is it a proper response to say, how dare you point that out? Anti-Semite.

How dare you point that out? You xenophobic American. Yeah, and we had some responses to that. What people say? Nail on the head, Will, we need changes quickly. I mean, everyone in the comments that day was saying, echoing this kind of sentiment right here. Man, because it is becoming, I mean, I do,

I'm sure there are a lot of people watching who instinctually would agree and I'm aware of that and you know I that's not my game my game isn't like hey let me just say things that I think people are going to agree with but this is real like Americans are looking at their government and going who's it for like how does it make sense that you're giving $1,000 to legal immigrants and the people in Maui are freaking stuck without a town and they got $700 per household I just doesn't make any sense the needs of Americans take a back seat to the needs of the rest of the world or those that break the law here in the United States?

Yep, and this person saying absolutely disgusting, our government is broken, just like what you're saying. And then this next- And so it goes, hold on real quick, that's like what Douglas Murray was talking about. When he was talking about the French court and revolutions, and how does, is that not Washington, D.C.? When he was describing that, did you not think about Washington, D.C., or elite elements of America that are removed from the problems of? of the regular people, you know, good Lord, there's people doing coke in the White House.

There's people having sex in the Senate hearing chamber. And you don't think of the French court and removal from the problems of everyday American lives will they send money to illegal immigrants. This, is this partisan? I think it's kind of obvious. It's true. And then this last one here, America first is racist, but America last is amazing. Vote Democrat, thumbs up.

That kind of goes to the point you were making the other. day that's sarcastic right that's sarcastic of course of course a little tongue and cheek there but that's what we got and people didn't you tell me two a days that somebody came away from this conversation or at least mine with rachel and said i'm a biden supporter yeah didn't you say something there's multiple people in our comments that thought multiple not just one that thought you were a secret biden supporter somehow i don't know where that came about or how but yeah there was some people are saying is what this is the word people are saying some people are saying it's my favorite it's my favorite piece of evidence trump's mastered that people are

saying and then that's all um first of all i i i mean as we get to know each other new audience members to the show i don't hide anything like i'm gonna be a hundred percent real with you on everything personally and professionally so i'm not hiding anything and i really don't know how any of would come away with the um idea that i support joe biden it may be look i will say this like i said earlier i'm not, I'm not in a, I don't, I don't hold pom-poms and I don't, I'm not in a choir. I am someone who arrives at these positions by thinking through them independently, and I only get there by asking things like I asked to Douglas, okay, I understand anti-Semitism, but why? I always want to know the why, so that I can either, you know, question my beliefs or root them more firmly

in a foundation of understanding. And I'm not going to, like, every step of the way, I don't know what the context was when I was talking with Rachel. I assume maybe it was about Trump. We were talking about Biden's inabilities and physical incapabilities. But maybe me pointing out that some people just hate Trump was as accurate reflection of reality isn't a sufficient enough confirmation bias or endorphin release for those that already believe it. But that's just not, I'm not how I'm built. I don't need affirmation. I need understanding. And I believe understanding leads me in the right direction of things. And this came up during the Santa stuff two days like I'm not root I wasn't rooting against DeSantis but I was trying to

accurately understand reality as to why he was failing and I don't think you can change reality unless you can diagnose reality I don't want to show up at the doctor's office and have him just go hey you don't feel good here's an opioid I want him to diagnose my problem so we can address it directly is that what we have is that it two days that's it that's all we had people keep sending them in sending them in I'll I'll I'll grab them and we'll bring them on the show. What's our email address now? Has it changed? Matt, I see you over there today. Is it still Will Kane podcast at Fox? What's our email? I believe it's changed to Will Kane Show.

Yeah, it's Will Kane Show at Fox.com. Will Kane and Will Kane show on Twitter. See Will Kane on Instagram, Will Kane show on Instagram, Wilcane on Facebook. That's where we get together. That's where we interact. I hope we do it more. Fox Talk. That's going to do it for me today. Tomorrow, Marcellus Wiley gets us ready for the Super Bowl. Former NFL defensive end, former cowboy, Bill Jacksonville Jaguar, Charger, gets us ready for the football weekend, plus his fascinating personal story. You don't want to miss that episode of The Will Kane Show tomorrow. I'll see you again next time. Listen to ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and

Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free, on the Amazon music app. This is Jimmy Phala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding, it's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com.