Latest / UK Column Radio / Repel The Cult Of Woke – With James Lindsay

Transcript

Repel The Cult Of Woke – With James Lindsay · UK Column Radio

0:07
Speaker 1: Hello. I'm Charles Mallett with a UK column interview today.
0:10
Speaker 1: I have with me James Lindsay, who describes himself as
0:14
Speaker 1: an American born author, mathematician and professional troublemaker, the last
0:19
Speaker 1: part of which will no doubt make him somebody that
0:22
Speaker 1: UK column audience will certainly want to listen to. James
0:26
Speaker 1: is also the founder of New Discourses and the creator
0:30
Speaker 1: of a new and much acclaimed film, Beneath Sheep's Clothing. James,
0:37
Speaker 1: a warm welcome back to UK column.
0:40
Speaker 2: Thank you, it's great to be here again.
0:42
Speaker 1: Great now there's going to be a lot to get through.
0:45
Speaker 1: And it was March twenty twenty three last year that
0:48
Speaker 1: you last spoke to us. I wonder, therefore, how the
0:53
Speaker 1: world looks now from your dvantage point of roughly eighteen
0:59
Speaker 1: months ago.
1:00
Speaker 2: Well, I think a lot has changed, for good and
1:04
Speaker 2: for bad. The trajectory, the origin I suppose of the
1:08
Speaker 2: trajectories that the world has taken, I think it's the
1:11
Speaker 2: same the analysis I gave previously is, of course, that
1:15
Speaker 2: what I believe is being pushed upon Western countries, including
1:20
Speaker 2: the UK, the United States, Canada and so on, is
1:23
Speaker 2: in fact a communist revolution. I think the model of
1:26
Speaker 2: communism is an updated model. It's not what they used
1:29
Speaker 2: in the twentieth century. It's something new that was incubated
1:33
Speaker 2: in China under Dengshuping, who succeeded Maw eventually, and so
1:40
Speaker 2: that I think is still continuing. But to say it's
1:43
Speaker 2: continuing a pace would be a little incorrect. But it
1:48
Speaker 2: gets complicated because we have to split the screen in
1:51
Speaker 2: a sense. On the one hand, Donald Trump has just
1:54
Speaker 2: won the United States election, and of course the world
1:58
Speaker 2: has taken notice of this. The business world has taken
2:01
Speaker 2: notice of this. Many things have you know, the stock
2:04
Speaker 2: market has exploded, Bitcoin has hit one hundred thousand, whatever
2:07
Speaker 2: that indicates. I mean, there's a very bullish market, I
2:10
Speaker 2: think is what all that indicates in response to this
2:13
Speaker 2: kind of new optimism that Donald Trump presidency might turn
2:17
Speaker 2: the corner on this kind of very dark last four years.
2:21
Speaker 2: But then on the other hand, in the UK you've
2:24
Speaker 2: put up here Starmer and cure. Starmer has enacted what
2:28
Speaker 2: are undoubtedly to be recognized as totalitarian policies that seem
2:32
Speaker 2: to be increasing rather than decreasing in their scope and
2:36
Speaker 2: in their tyranny. And so we have this bizarre split
2:41
Speaker 2: between America and the rest of the English speaking and
2:45
Speaker 2: free world, which complicates further if we go to Asia.
2:49
Speaker 2: So we'll leave Asia out of the equation for the moment.
2:52
Speaker 2: So these are the biggest changes. Obviously, nobody can deny them.
2:57
Speaker 2: I see across the accounts that I follow from the
3:00
Speaker 2: UK tremendous fear, sometimes horror, sometimes tremendous anger about the
3:08
Speaker 2: two tier justice system that you're facing. So I would
3:11
Speaker 2: say there the program has the communist program has advanced considerably.
3:17
Speaker 2: Of course, mister Starmer is a Fabian, and that's no
3:20
Speaker 2: surprise whether or not people understand what that means. It
3:24
Speaker 2: means that he's not necessarily a Marxist, what is in
3:27
Speaker 2: fact a Communist and is following the Fabian playbook to
3:31
Speaker 2: take Britain in that direction, up to and including all
3:35
Speaker 2: of the things that have happened with the migration and
3:38
Speaker 2: the imported proletariat if you will, that they've brought in
3:43
Speaker 2: in Britain over the past decades. It's now become a
3:46
Speaker 2: fever pitch problem. I was even there in the UK.
3:49
Speaker 2: I was in London last fall, so it's been about
3:52
Speaker 2: a year when all the big protests following October seventh
3:57
Speaker 2: kicked off every Saturday and you know, hundreds of thousands
3:59
Speaker 2: of people in the street. It was almost an unrecognizable
4:03
Speaker 2: phenomenon in city. Although I think every time I've been
4:06
Speaker 2: to London as an adult, there's been a protest of
4:08
Speaker 2: some kind or another neutrofoger. So London and the UK
4:13
Speaker 2: more broadly are very concerning. Canada is very concerning. Although
4:17
Speaker 2: it looks like Justin Trudeau is trying to ingratiate himself
4:21
Speaker 2: with President Trump, America, however, has become this kind of
4:24
Speaker 2: beacon of hope. I think that the US has the
4:29
Speaker 2: US population has given a clear and loud voice to
4:34
Speaker 2: not just our leaders, but also to the world that
4:39
Speaker 2: no more of this is going to be tolerated. We
4:42
Speaker 2: expect that Donald Trump is going to use the powers
4:45
Speaker 2: he has in office to great effect, the greatest effect
4:48
Speaker 2: that he can given the constraints and divisions of power,
4:52
Speaker 2: to push back on the progressive agenda. If you want
4:56
Speaker 2: to call it that, I would call it the communist
4:57
Speaker 2: revolution that has taken hold, pushing out DEI, challenging ESG,
5:02
Speaker 2: cleaning up the infiltration of these ideologies into our schools
5:06
Speaker 2: and into our businesses, and into our federal apparatuses, into
5:10
Speaker 2: our state apparatuses, and so we have this moment in time.
5:14
Speaker 2: Then to summarize that where something in the plan, if
5:18
Speaker 2: we consider the communist revolution, that I think is the
5:21
Speaker 2: underlying assumption we have to take for what's happening in
5:25
Speaker 2: the world, something has gone awry in their plan, something
5:28
Speaker 2: has gone off. And that thing that has gone off is,
5:31
Speaker 2: as it frequently turns out to be, that America woke
5:34
Speaker 2: up a little bit too late, but woke up indeed,
5:37
Speaker 2: as frequently happens when there are major moves happening on
5:41
Speaker 2: the world stage. And I won't get into further developments
5:45
Speaker 2: on the world stage, the development of bricks, the challenge
5:49
Speaker 2: with Russia with Ukraine as proxy, in between the battles
5:53
Speaker 2: waging in the Middle East with Israel. There's much going
5:56
Speaker 2: on in the world, in China of course always being
5:59
Speaker 2: a menace. There's much going on in the world stage
6:02
Speaker 2: that actually contextualizes all this. But for the start, I
6:05
Speaker 2: think that we're at this moment where the first the
6:10
Speaker 2: first country I should say that person I'm doing metaphorical
6:12
Speaker 2: people here, has stood up. The United States has stood
6:15
Speaker 2: up as a population and said no more and we'll
6:18
Speaker 2: see what President Trump is able to accomplish, to push back,
6:22
Speaker 2: to answer the mandate that the American people gave him,
6:25
Speaker 2: and hopefully that will be a beacon to the rest
6:27
Speaker 2: of the world, the UK in particular, Canada and Australia
6:30
Speaker 2: in particular, but also, like I've said, I won't get
6:33
Speaker 2: into the Asian theater, but South Korea, which is also
6:36
Speaker 2: now an interesting peace on the World board, in Japan,
6:40
Speaker 2: which are free countries that are up against the same
6:43
Speaker 2: challenges in their own unique ways.
6:45
Speaker 1: Fantastic synopsis, I think, which we can dig into a bit.
6:48
Speaker 1: I think what I'd like to do for the benefit
6:50
Speaker 1: of those who are sort of familiar to an extent,
6:54
Speaker 1: perhaps with you your philosophy and your work, but maybe
6:57
Speaker 1: not so intimately and not currently. Can we just bookend
7:01
Speaker 1: that by first of all a definition of well, the
7:05
Speaker 1: sort of working theory on what woke is and where
7:10
Speaker 1: it came from. And then I think for the latter part,
7:13
Speaker 1: which relates to what you've just explained, what its end
7:17
Speaker 1: state is perceived to be and how that can as
7:21
Speaker 1: you describe, how that can drift.
7:23
Speaker 2: I'm going to start off being provocative and very simple,
7:26
Speaker 2: which is to say that what woke is is communism
7:29
Speaker 2: updated for the Western world in the twenty first century.
7:32
Speaker 2: I mean, you could say tag on the end of
7:34
Speaker 2: the twentieth century as well with the political correctness madness
7:37
Speaker 2: of the nineteen nineties, But really wokeness is the twenty
7:40
Speaker 2: first century phenomenon, and it is the conflict theory of
7:44
Speaker 2: choral Marx updated to sensitivities that the Western world will
7:48
Speaker 2: respond to. Where we didn't respond so much to class warfare,
7:51
Speaker 2: We do respond to racial and immigration status, we do
7:55
Speaker 2: respond to sex and sexual status, and these other dimensions
8:00
Speaker 2: of identity politics that we've become familiar with. So that's
8:04
Speaker 2: why I'm so adamant and saying that what I believe
8:06
Speaker 2: is happening is it is a new form of a
8:08
Speaker 2: communist revolution using a twenty first century, a new twenty
8:12
Speaker 2: first century model of communism, which is people will notice
8:15
Speaker 2: immediately and it'll be the question mark hanging over many
8:17
Speaker 2: heads using the communist word given what they see in
8:21
Speaker 2: their everyday lives. This seems to be coming very significantly
8:25
Speaker 2: through corporations and through large banks and large finance institutions,
8:30
Speaker 2: so it doesn't feel like the old working class communism
8:33
Speaker 2: of the twentieth century. So that's why I designate twenty
8:35
Speaker 2: first century. It's willing to use corporate power, it's willing
8:38
Speaker 2: to take new dimensions other than just class warfare, and
8:42
Speaker 2: in fact has mostly left class warfare behind. Whether it
8:45
Speaker 2: will return to that at some point or not is
8:48
Speaker 2: actually a matter of internal debate within these various socialists
8:52
Speaker 2: and communist movements. Some say yes, some say no, and
8:54
Speaker 2: it's not clear which factions will win out. But that
8:59
Speaker 2: is a place. It's not a very good starting place. Woke,
9:02
Speaker 2: I think, is more accurately defined as not just a disposition,
9:07
Speaker 2: but a worldview, kind of a totalizing lens through which
9:12
Speaker 2: you see the world. And I stick to the language right,
9:16
Speaker 2: The word woke tells you something about what woke means.
9:20
Speaker 2: The reason that we've decided to call this movement woke,
9:24
Speaker 2: which followed their use of the word woke for themselves,
9:28
Speaker 2: is because they believe that they have woke up to something.
9:31
Speaker 2: They have awakened to a true understanding or a more
9:35
Speaker 2: true understanding of reality. This is why I say it's
9:38
Speaker 2: a worldview they've adopted. If we don't need to get
9:41
Speaker 2: this philosophical, but they've adopted different metaphysical commitments than the
9:44
Speaker 2: rest of us that they have woken up to. They've
9:47
Speaker 2: adopted different analytical commitments to how they see and view
9:52
Speaker 2: and interpret the world around them. And they've awoken to
9:56
Speaker 2: different duties of conscience as it's called an American constitutiontional law.
10:00
Speaker 2: In other words, different beliefs about what they are to
10:03
Speaker 2: do with the knowledge that they think that they have
10:05
Speaker 2: woken up to. And specifically, I again reiterate, these factors
10:10
Speaker 2: are all derived from the Marxist theory. It's as I
10:14
Speaker 2: spoke at the European Parliament, roughly at the beginning, I
10:18
Speaker 2: guess it was in the last of March in twenty
10:21
Speaker 2: three I spoke at the European Parliament, and it's gone
10:24
Speaker 2: quite quite viral. Many people have seen it. I think
10:26
Speaker 2: it's the best talk I've ever given, even you know
10:29
Speaker 2: since And so I peaked that day in a good venue.
10:33
Speaker 2: But I spoke there and said that communism needs to
10:36
Speaker 2: be thought of as like an organism that evolves, and
10:39
Speaker 2: what we call Marxism is a genus. It's not a
10:41
Speaker 2: particular species of totalitarian thought. It's a genus of many species.
10:47
Speaker 2: And where you have classical Marxism as an economic species.
10:51
Speaker 2: You have critical race theory is a racial species. You
10:53
Speaker 2: have post colonial theory as an immigration status species, you
10:57
Speaker 2: have queer theory as a sexuality based species, and so
11:00
Speaker 2: on and so forth. But that the architecture underneath the
11:03
Speaker 2: model by which these all operate is the same as
11:06
Speaker 2: a former mathematician I would say that each of these
11:09
Speaker 2: is isomorphic to the other. You can very easily derive
11:12
Speaker 2: each one from any of them by just swapping out
11:15
Speaker 2: who the oppressed class and the oppressor class is renaming
11:19
Speaker 2: the dynamic of oppression of the objective is still the same.
11:24
Speaker 2: That the oppressed class is to band together and sees
11:26
Speaker 2: the means of production of whatever it is that is
11:28
Speaker 2: considered to be cultural or economic or human capital or property,
11:33
Speaker 2: and use it to their own ends. So woke is
11:37
Speaker 2: having woke up to a belief that reality is structured
11:41
Speaker 2: by systems of power, dynamics of power that create an
11:45
Speaker 2: oppressor class that is oppressing an oppressed class, and that
11:49
Speaker 2: this is a fundamental aspect of what history represents in
11:55
Speaker 2: the movement of history, and that everybody is a participant.
11:58
Speaker 2: And so there's a very kind of miniquean good versus evil.
12:03
Speaker 2: The people who are on the side of the oppressor
12:06
Speaker 2: become intrinsically and irredeemably evil, and the people who are
12:10
Speaker 2: on the side of the oppressed become by default as
12:15
Speaker 2: good as one can be as a person who can
12:18
Speaker 2: be still contaminated by evil values. And so there's a
12:21
Speaker 2: absolute dichotomy of good versus evil that's defined by the
12:26
Speaker 2: oppressor versus a press dynamic. And I mean quite literally
12:28
Speaker 2: in the Manichean sense. And so that's what having woke
12:33
Speaker 2: up means, and that also in such you are in
12:37
Speaker 2: this arrangement, I should say, you have a duty of conscience,
12:41
Speaker 2: a requirement, a moral and ethical duty to step up
12:45
Speaker 2: and do activism on behalf of the theoretical interpretation of
12:52
Speaker 2: the lot of the oppressed. And this is straight Marxism.
12:56
Speaker 2: Like I said, if we think of Marxism as a genus,
12:58
Speaker 2: and we think of all of these different these different models,
13:02
Speaker 2: whether communism, critical racing, or whatever, as species within that
13:05
Speaker 2: genus at all, very quickly makes sense. So that's what
13:09
Speaker 2: I think woke means in practice. It's identity politics. It's
13:12
Speaker 2: a constant sense of grievance and victimhood. It's a entitlement
13:17
Speaker 2: that you're you're absolutely right by virtue of being on
13:21
Speaker 2: the so called right side of history in this epic
13:25
Speaker 2: battle between good and evil, oppressor versus oppressed, you're if
13:28
Speaker 2: you are on the side of the oppressed, you are
13:30
Speaker 2: entitled to do whatever you need to do in order
13:34
Speaker 2: to liberate everybody from a from not from the specific oppression,
13:38
Speaker 2: but oppression in the abstract overall. And as in this
13:45
Speaker 2: belief system, they actually believe that they're building out a
13:48
Speaker 2: perfect world. The problem is nobody can describe what that
13:51
Speaker 2: world looks like because they can describe what it doesn't
13:54
Speaker 2: look like. It's as if it was a theology, we
13:57
Speaker 2: would call it a negative theology or an apathaticology. You
14:01
Speaker 2: don't describe what God is, you only describe what God
14:04
Speaker 2: is not. In such a theology, Well, here we have
14:07
Speaker 2: this kind of utopian vision of the world. It's a
14:10
Speaker 2: negative utopianism, where you don't describe what the utopia looks like,
14:13
Speaker 2: you only describe what it doesn't look like. It doesn't
14:16
Speaker 2: look like there's any racism, it doesn't look like there's
14:19
Speaker 2: any classism, or an equality of any kind, and so
14:22
Speaker 2: on and so forth. So what this amounts to, just
14:25
Speaker 2: as it amounted to in communism in the People's Republic
14:28
Speaker 2: of China and all the other Asian countries, in the
14:30
Speaker 2: South American countries, and also the Soviet Union and in
14:33
Speaker 2: the Eastern Bloc satellites Soviet satellites. What this amounts to
14:37
Speaker 2: is that communism Marxism is not a philosophy that does
14:41
Speaker 2: what the sales pitch says. It's not about helping the oppressed,
14:44
Speaker 2: it's not about ending oppression. What it's actually about is
14:49
Speaker 2: creating circumstances in which the communist party itself can concentrate
14:53
Speaker 2: as much wealth and as much power into the smallest
14:55
Speaker 2: number of hands that you can possibly have, and can
14:58
Speaker 2: erect a system of palitarianism that maintains their power for
15:02
Speaker 2: as long as possible. One reading of the history of
15:06
Speaker 2: Mao Zedong's rule in China, for example, when the People's
15:09
Speaker 2: Republic of China, which technically ran from nineteen forty nine
15:13
Speaker 2: till he died in nineteen seventy six, makes it very
15:16
Speaker 2: clear that Mao Zedong was a true believer in communism.
15:20
Speaker 2: It wasn't cynical about that. He absolutely believed in communism
15:23
Speaker 2: and that the socialist model was the best model. On
15:26
Speaker 2: the other hand, he also did all of his political
15:29
Speaker 2: maneuvering in every way and every time to maintain and
15:34
Speaker 2: multiply his own power over the People's Republic of China.
15:39
Speaker 2: The Communist Party, the CCP was not to be questioned,
15:42
Speaker 2: and Mao Zedong and his leadership was not to be questioned.
15:45
Speaker 2: And Mao Zedong thought was as they called it was
15:48
Speaker 2: to rule everything. So it's to concentrate all resources, all money,
15:52
Speaker 2: all opportunity, all power in very few hands who are
15:55
Speaker 2: the most ideologically pure, and at the end of the day,
15:59
Speaker 2: because of the nature of real politic, the most ruthless
16:03
Speaker 2: in being able to maintain and handle that power once
16:05
Speaker 2: they get it. So why we want to stand up
16:09
Speaker 2: against that is I think intrinsically clear, especially in the
16:14
Speaker 2: British context, because you've got such a glorious warning about
16:18
Speaker 2: what you're dealing with. Obviously, I said earlier that the
16:23
Speaker 2: Kir Starmer is a Fabian, and many of your leaders
16:26
Speaker 2: have been Fabians. It's not just Kure Starmer, but he's
16:28
Speaker 2: a particularly obnoxious and glaring example. The Fabian society was
16:34
Speaker 2: criticized probably in one of the very small number of
16:38
Speaker 2: the most famous books ever written. In that book was
16:41
Speaker 2: called nineteen eighty four, a man named Eric Blair, better
16:45
Speaker 2: known as George orwell as his pen name, wanted to
16:48
Speaker 2: write a story explaining what would happen if the Fabian
16:51
Speaker 2: Society found it in eighteen eighteen eighty four, had a
16:55
Speaker 2: century to consolidate its power and generated power roughly equivalent
16:59
Speaker 2: to stalins, and he wrote this allegorical story called nineteen
17:03
Speaker 2: eighty four to imagine that situation. The totalitarian entity in
17:08
Speaker 2: that book is called ingsock I n G SoC And
17:12
Speaker 2: I don't know if they teach you, because they don't
17:14
Speaker 2: teach us this. Here in America. We study nineteen eighty four,
17:17
Speaker 2: and no one tells us that IGSOC is an abbreviation
17:21
Speaker 2: for English socialism. But that's exactly what it is. And
17:26
Speaker 2: it was a warning to the world and to Britain
17:29
Speaker 2: in particular, about the Fabian Society working underneath the cover.
17:34
Speaker 2: And so Britain I think has had a clear warning
17:37
Speaker 2: what the end game actually looks like. And hopefully my
17:43
Speaker 2: friends across the pond are not going to find at
17:46
Speaker 2: the end of the day that they do in fact
17:48
Speaker 2: love Big Brother.
17:49
Speaker 1: No, indeed not, I mean, certainly that would be the
17:51
Speaker 1: view of people listening and watching they're very much not
17:56
Speaker 1: to find out what that's all about. And that's, you know,
18:00
Speaker 1: fantastic place to take it with the or Willian element.
18:05
Speaker 1: Now you mentioned earlier this being pushed, and of course
18:11
Speaker 1: that is the case. But I think we see, or
18:13
Speaker 1: have seen, over the last few years, as it's evolved
18:18
Speaker 1: and developed, an increasing degree of what you might call pull,
18:22
Speaker 1: people who appear to desire to want to go in
18:25
Speaker 1: this direction. But of course, unless you would disagree, but
18:29
Speaker 1: I think I'd be fair to say that this hasn't
18:32
Speaker 1: enveloped the whole world or all societies within the world.
18:36
Speaker 1: So what is it about the places that have been
18:39
Speaker 1: affected that sort of defines or provides that susceptibility of
18:46
Speaker 1: the populace.
18:47
Speaker 2: So this is an interesting question, and I think that
18:50
Speaker 2: the answer is a slightly uncomfortable one. I want to
18:55
Speaker 2: use a metaphor to start. Obviously he didn't start the term,
18:59
Speaker 2: but I think he is now the person who's made
19:01
Speaker 2: it the most famous. Certainly other people, I mean, I
19:04
Speaker 2: think I used the term years and years ago, and
19:06
Speaker 2: certainly Gad Said and some other commentators have used the
19:09
Speaker 2: term extensively. But Elon Musk has been very, very notable
19:14
Speaker 2: recently in calling it the woke mind virus. So it's
19:18
Speaker 2: the metaphor of a psychological and social virus that I
19:24
Speaker 2: want to kind of focus on for a moment to
19:26
Speaker 2: make this explanation. And having read again recently, I read
19:29
Speaker 2: the entire history of Mao's time in China. I read
19:32
Speaker 2: a number of books on the Cultural Revolution and in
19:35
Speaker 2: the circumstances of the nineteen fifties, which was not yet
19:39
Speaker 2: the Cultural Revolution. And the idea that this is a
19:44
Speaker 2: mind virus, that communism in general operates as a mind
19:47
Speaker 2: virus is particularly clear reading that as well. So I
19:52
Speaker 2: think this is a decent way to describe it. And
19:55
Speaker 2: so the question that you're asking in that metaphorical framing is,
20:00
Speaker 2: I are certain countries, the Western countries in particular the
20:04
Speaker 2: Anglo sphere primarily so susceptible to this mind virus. And
20:09
Speaker 2: I come back to that evolutionary model that I gave
20:13
Speaker 2: in the previous answer, the evolutionary model. If we think
20:18
Speaker 2: of this, you know, this is a This is not
20:20
Speaker 2: a literal virus, so it's not literally evolving in that sense,
20:24
Speaker 2: but it is a in a sense, as Richard Dawkins
20:27
Speaker 2: called a mimetic virus. It's a it's a set of
20:33
Speaker 2: ideas and beliefs and propaganda and motifs that look and
20:39
Speaker 2: act a certain way, and that they have changed over time.
20:42
Speaker 2: And I think that the answer to your question is
20:45
Speaker 2: that there has been a very long standing project, roughly
20:49
Speaker 2: one hundred years old, reaching back to the beginning of
20:53
Speaker 2: Soviet Union, and you know, nineteen seventeen to nineteen twenty
20:58
Speaker 2: one or two where this was wrapped exported. The target
21:02
Speaker 2: of the Western world became a high priority. The KGB
21:07
Speaker 2: was very interested in infiltrating the United States, and infiltrating Britain,
21:12
Speaker 2: and infiltrating Europe, but particularly the anglosphere. And I think
21:17
Speaker 2: that this particular we and the englishere are so susceptible
21:20
Speaker 2: to this mind virus because this mind virus was and
21:24
Speaker 2: i'll say engineered, because it was it was philosophers cooking
21:28
Speaker 2: stuff up, activists taking stuff to the streets to see
21:31
Speaker 2: what worked. It didn't just kind of happen. This mind
21:34
Speaker 2: virus was engineered to affront our sensibilities, and those don't
21:39
Speaker 2: always match across other cultures. The thing that I've noticed
21:43
Speaker 2: that repels the woke mind virus most effectively and this
21:49
Speaker 2: has actually an interesting and long history. The word that
21:51
Speaker 2: I'm about to use is now considered not to be
21:57
Speaker 2: an acceptable cosmopolitan way of being in Western countries, particularly
22:03
Speaker 2: wealthy English speaking Western countries. You know, we can make
22:08
Speaker 2: all the jokes we need to about the French here
22:10
Speaker 2: in a minute, which in that word is chauvinism. So
22:13
Speaker 2: the Soviets, you know, to overcome the they had all
22:17
Speaker 2: these satellite states, had all these internal states within the
22:21
Speaker 2: Soviet Federation that were minority ethnic states, and they had
22:25
Speaker 2: to go up against the fact that the majority population
22:28
Speaker 2: was Russian, and it turned out that it was about
22:30
Speaker 2: sixty percent Russian and about forty percent spread out across
22:34
Speaker 2: twenty or so ethnic minorities. China had a similar situation,
22:38
Speaker 2: with the Han Chinese being you know, some incredible proportion
22:42
Speaker 2: I don't know the actual proportion, but probably north of eighty,
22:45
Speaker 2: maybe even ninety percent of the population of China, and
22:48
Speaker 2: the fifty five minority ethnicities making up the rest United
22:53
Speaker 2: States has similar proportions to the Soviet Union, fifty some
22:56
Speaker 2: odd percent white and forty five or so percent the
23:01
Speaker 2: other ethnic minorities as a kind of conglomerate block. I
23:07
Speaker 2: think this is kind of standard across a lot of
23:09
Speaker 2: these countries. And what has happened is that the Russians,
23:15
Speaker 2: the Soviets, i should say, cowed the Russian population by
23:19
Speaker 2: introducing an affirmative action program for the ethnic minorities. It
23:24
Speaker 2: was called kore Nitsatsia in Russian, and it was a
23:28
Speaker 2: direct policy of Lenin and Stalin. Stalin actually came up
23:31
Speaker 2: with it, even though he wasn't leader yet, and Lenin
23:33
Speaker 2: and Stalin implemented it together starting in nineteen twenty one
23:36
Speaker 2: in Soviet Union, and they created this affirmative action program.
23:39
Speaker 2: And then they said that any opposition to this by
23:42
Speaker 2: anybody who was Russian was called great Russian chauvinism. And
23:46
Speaker 2: the reason is because this willingness to say we are
23:49
Speaker 2: who we are and you can't change us, which is
23:51
Speaker 2: in a sense chauvinism, actually repels this woke attempt to
23:58
Speaker 2: needle people into guilt and shame for their history. And
24:03
Speaker 2: we have as a kind of broad English speaking culture,
24:08
Speaker 2: not to say that we all have the same culture,
24:09
Speaker 2: but will take the Anglo spheres having certain cultural elements
24:13
Speaker 2: in common as a broad cultural object. We have become
24:17
Speaker 2: particularly wary of being chauvinistic about ourselves, probably as an
24:23
Speaker 2: echo of both colonialism and slavery, which we all recognize
24:27
Speaker 2: now to have been really inappropriate in a lot of
24:31
Speaker 2: the ways that they acted to slavery in particular being
24:34
Speaker 2: just a moral abomination. Colonialism is much more complicated or
24:37
Speaker 2: not even allowed to say that. Yet it brought good,
24:40
Speaker 2: it brought bad, But many of the techniques, many of
24:43
Speaker 2: the activities were absolutely brutal and unforgivable in a lot
24:47
Speaker 2: of ways. But we've become unable to say that on
24:50
Speaker 2: balance we did good and our culture that we thought
24:55
Speaker 2: we were bringing to the world, maybe not by always
24:58
Speaker 2: the best methods, was a good culture to bring to
25:00
Speaker 2: the world. It did elevate what we brought. That's chauvinism,
25:04
Speaker 2: as it would be called, is absent, and I think
25:09
Speaker 2: was worn away. And I think that the main drivers,
25:12
Speaker 2: if you read again in the People's Republic of China,
25:15
Speaker 2: the primary objectives for Mao's campaigns through the nineteen fifties
25:20
Speaker 2: while he was consolidating power were to induce guilt and shame.
25:23
Speaker 2: They used meetings that they called speaking Bitterness, and it
25:27
Speaker 2: was to induce guilt and shame in the population for
25:29
Speaker 2: their old feudal values for their old nationalist support, and
25:33
Speaker 2: the same techniques have been modified and unleashed on the
25:37
Speaker 2: Western free countries, particularly the anglosphere, and we've accepted this.
25:42
Speaker 2: We've accepted that being proud of our history, as they say,
25:46
Speaker 2: warts and all that, yes there were horrors, and yes
25:50
Speaker 2: there were things that were of their time that we
25:52
Speaker 2: would look back on with you know, I was going
25:57
Speaker 2: to say shame, but I don't think shame's the right
25:58
Speaker 2: word that we would look upon now and not approve
26:01
Speaker 2: of for ourselves because we don't want to be anachronistic here.
26:04
Speaker 2: But on balance say, what we have actually done in
26:07
Speaker 2: the world and through history was good. The culture that
26:09
Speaker 2: we brought was good and brought the world up, not down.
26:14
Speaker 2: We've lost that ability, which makes us extremely susceptible to
26:18
Speaker 2: the korinit Zazia program. I'd say, in Britain, it's a
26:21
Speaker 2: very interesting situation, and again Kreinitzazia was the affirmative action
26:26
Speaker 2: DEI program of the Soviet Union that Stalin created specifically
26:31
Speaker 2: for that purpose. What I would say is that in Britain,
26:35
Speaker 2: because of the fact that until relatively recently your island
26:39
Speaker 2: was overwhelmingly one racial makeup. Uh. And now that's obviously
26:44
Speaker 2: changed that I said earlier in Imported Proletariat. But the
26:48
Speaker 2: interesting thing is korini zazia. Korini in Russian means roots.
26:52
Speaker 2: And so what you're doing is you're digging into the
26:54
Speaker 2: roots of the ethnic minority populations and saying, you know,
26:57
Speaker 2: you guys are here, and we're going to let everything's
27:00
Speaker 2: to be in your native language. You're going to get
27:01
Speaker 2: to run your own affairs, and it's going to create
27:03
Speaker 2: this friction. But what we're going to do is get
27:06
Speaker 2: the Russian, the Great Russian, to criticize himself for his
27:10
Speaker 2: bigotry against you. Somehow they've managed to flip the script
27:13
Speaker 2: in the UK, and so the native population where the
27:16
Speaker 2: roots actually are the Karini of Russia or sorry, of
27:19
Speaker 2: the UK, the Karini are the everything's upside down. You're
27:23
Speaker 2: not digging into the roots and say you're the indigenous population,
27:26
Speaker 2: therefore you have these privileges. It's upside down. They brought
27:29
Speaker 2: in a new population that's to be treated as though
27:32
Speaker 2: they're the more legitimate Brits. And what I urge people,
27:36
Speaker 2: because this is extraordinarily frustrating and extraordinarily infuriating an extraordinarily
27:41
Speaker 2: unfair and a true robbery of your country and your heritage.
27:48
Speaker 2: And that's a dangerous, poisonous, explosive circumstance to have your
27:54
Speaker 2: population put under. So I wouldn't urge, you know, indulging
27:57
Speaker 2: the catharsis of one to let those negative emotions flow
28:02
Speaker 2: and fight back kind of in the blatant, obvious and
28:06
Speaker 2: physical kinetic ways that the government's going to bait you
28:10
Speaker 2: into doing again and again. But rather I would urge
28:13
Speaker 2: your population to understand that the entire question around immigration,
28:20
Speaker 2: particularly Islamic country immigration into the UK, has been a
28:24
Speaker 2: Communist Soviet Union plot that if you want to know
28:28
Speaker 2: its actual origins, you can go read them in Lenin
28:31
Speaker 2: and Stalin, and the point was to break your country,
28:35
Speaker 2: and that when you hear kir Starmer come out and
28:37
Speaker 2: talk about it like he did recently and say things like, yes,
28:42
Speaker 2: we were trying to do this policy intentionally and it
28:45
Speaker 2: kind of got out of control. That this has a
28:48
Speaker 2: precedent in the Soviet Union as well. When Stalin finally
28:52
Speaker 2: had to admit in the early nineteen thirties that the
28:56
Speaker 2: Coorinatesatsia program had flared ethnic tensions so much they couldn't
29:00
Speaker 2: advance as a unified Soviet Union and what they call
29:02
Speaker 2: their new economic policy, and so what he had to
29:06
Speaker 2: do was flip it over completely. And what he absolutely
29:09
Speaker 2: destroyed the ethnic minorities, particularly the Ukrainians and the famously
29:14
Speaker 2: in the Holodomore. He starved anywhere between three and nine
29:16
Speaker 2: million of them to crush ethnic minorities. So this policy
29:20
Speaker 2: flipped on a dime. So I worry because when you
29:24
Speaker 2: look at that situation, Keir Starmer seems to be admitting
29:28
Speaker 2: that this is what they have been doing. This is
29:30
Speaker 2: a Soviet program that Britain has been importing for over
29:35
Speaker 2: fifty years into their country. And when you look at
29:39
Speaker 2: the flipped script, it is not the imported people who
29:43
Speaker 2: are the ones who are going to get crushed. It
29:46
Speaker 2: is in fact the native British population. And it's a
29:50
Speaker 2: very concerning moment. I think that the Brits generally need
29:54
Speaker 2: to understand that you guys are being subjected by your
29:58
Speaker 2: government to a Soviet technique to break your country, and
30:04
Speaker 2: the response is not to get mad on the street
30:07
Speaker 2: against other people, but rather to focus the energy against
30:10
Speaker 2: the government that's trying to take advantage of you.
30:13
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I mean that's a message that will resonate loud
30:18
Speaker 1: and clear, and I think that's a really good analysis
30:20
Speaker 1: of where the United Kingdom is and unfortunately, where it's going.
30:24
Speaker 1: You referred to the changes afoot on your side of
30:27
Speaker 1: the Atlantic and how you see that there might be
30:31
Speaker 1: the reason to believe that the Trump administration could be
30:34
Speaker 1: a beacon of hope. And again you use the word
30:37
Speaker 1: that I think people will have clung to, which was
30:39
Speaker 1: to repel all of this. Are you suggesting therefore that
30:45
Speaker 1: in a way, although the land masses in the populations
30:48
Speaker 1: can't really necessarily be compared terribly directly, but the United
30:52
Speaker 1: States has gone through this process to a certain extent,
30:55
Speaker 1: and therefore has passed back to the powers that perhaps
31:01
Speaker 1: shouldn't be that they have had enough.
31:03
Speaker 2: I think that we are at a moment of testing
31:06
Speaker 2: that hypothesis. I would love to say, yes, I think
31:10
Speaker 2: we've been through this and that we have, in typical
31:13
Speaker 2: American exceptionalist fashion, we have rejected communism without having dipped
31:20
Speaker 2: our feet into other forms of tyranny like fascism as
31:23
Speaker 2: a means of repelling it. But and I don't think
31:26
Speaker 2: that in any regard that Donald Trump is a fascist
31:29
Speaker 2: and he certainly didn't act like a fascist in his
31:31
Speaker 2: first administration, So that is a very popular myth about
31:36
Speaker 2: him that he is one. I don't think that. I
31:38
Speaker 2: think that America has rejected both. But I think it's
31:41
Speaker 2: a precarious moment. Many things are going to happen. Certainly,
31:45
Speaker 2: Donald Trump is going to meet incredible resistance that maybe
31:49
Speaker 2: we may see some very very ridiculous, you know, attempts
31:52
Speaker 2: at law fair lawsuits, other things getting in his way.
31:56
Speaker 2: Political machinery like Senate Republicans were working against him, who knows.
32:01
Speaker 2: I think he's going to face a much steeper hill
32:04
Speaker 2: than the American people hope, and that's going to cause
32:07
Speaker 2: a lot of anger and resentment in the American people
32:09
Speaker 2: when they see that the thing that they voted for,
32:11
Speaker 2: which wasn't necessarily Donald Trump, it wasn't necessarily Maga, it
32:15
Speaker 2: was this. We've had enough of this, and you can
32:18
Speaker 2: tell because the coalition is made up of so many
32:20
Speaker 2: people who up until this last election only have ever
32:23
Speaker 2: voted Democrat. And so this was a rejection of the
32:26
Speaker 2: left in our election more than it was a validation
32:30
Speaker 2: of Trump or Maga. And I say that as somebody
32:32
Speaker 2: who likes Trump and feels aligned in many ways, but
32:36
Speaker 2: not always with MAGA. And so I think that what
32:40
Speaker 2: we're going to see is a much more frustrating situation
32:42
Speaker 2: as this actual fight. The election was the easy part.
32:46
Speaker 2: Now the actual fight is going to begin. But what
32:49
Speaker 2: I do think is, and I have been saying this
32:52
Speaker 2: well before the election, is that the American people, I
32:54
Speaker 2: believe have moved on. American people are not at all
32:57
Speaker 2: interested in this woke agenda. This fundamental transformation is Barack
33:03
Speaker 2: Obama of our country, and we want to not only
33:08
Speaker 2: stop the fundamental transformation, but go back to a time
33:11
Speaker 2: when the fundamental transformation had not yet begun and get
33:14
Speaker 2: back on track. And I think the American people are
33:17
Speaker 2: going to fight tooth and nail for this, and I
33:20
Speaker 2: think it's going to be a huge inspiration to other
33:22
Speaker 2: countries such as Britain and Canada that are in much
33:26
Speaker 2: I think, more dangerous situations. I really am deeply concerned
33:31
Speaker 2: about both Britain and Canada at the moment. And I
33:34
Speaker 2: think that the American people, into a degree, what Trump
33:39
Speaker 2: is able to do with his powers in his administration,
33:43
Speaker 2: we will see in America actually taking up the fight.
33:48
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a worn out metaphor. Nobody really enjoys
33:51
Speaker 2: World War two metaphors anymore. But the fact is Trump's
33:54
Speaker 2: election was very much like coming to Normandy and taking
33:59
Speaker 2: Omaha b But we're nowhere near Berlin yet, and there's
34:04
Speaker 2: a lot to do to get there, and it's not
34:05
Speaker 2: going to be pretty. And then just like to stretch
34:09
Speaker 2: the metaphor a little further. Even should we win to
34:13
Speaker 2: Berlin and you liberate Europe, so to speak, there's the
34:18
Speaker 2: Pacific theater to concern ourselves with still, which is this
34:22
Speaker 2: in our case, the CCP, and the creation of bricks,
34:25
Speaker 2: which is a much more concerning and very dangerous development
34:30
Speaker 2: on the world stage, probably unlike it much we've seen
34:33
Speaker 2: in about a century.
34:34
Speaker 1: I was about to ask you something else about the woke, right,
34:37
Speaker 1: but having dropped the bricks sort of descriptor, go on,
34:43
Speaker 1: you must go on, tell us what you mean by that.
34:46
Speaker 2: China is, of course the world's second largest economy. It's
34:49
Speaker 2: a very powerful country, but it hasn't in fact been
34:52
Speaker 2: powerful enough to achieve its goals. Russia under the leadership
34:58
Speaker 2: of Vladimir Putin, who I think is no friend to
35:00
Speaker 2: the West, but I don't share the sentiments of many
35:05
Speaker 2: of my conservative friends here in the US who think
35:08
Speaker 2: that he must be doing something right. I very much
35:11
Speaker 2: distrust Lattimir Putin and do not think even if he has,
35:15
Speaker 2: you know, bad intentions for say, our foes and the
35:19
Speaker 2: Democratic Party, I think he has equally bad intentions for
35:22
Speaker 2: the United States in the Western world overall. So you know,
35:26
Speaker 2: the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, or
35:29
Speaker 2: something like that. But okay, So now Russia is this
35:32
Speaker 2: kind of rising power wishing to be a rising power.
35:36
Speaker 2: It's obviously asserted itself in an incredible way on the
35:39
Speaker 2: world stage with its invasion of Ukraine. Is a gigantic
35:44
Speaker 2: country with mountains, literally mountains of resources is one of
35:49
Speaker 2: the more important things. Its economy is not exactly huge
35:52
Speaker 2: or thriving or robust, but there are resources, unbelievable resources.
35:57
Speaker 2: And now you have, because of the situation as it's
35:59
Speaker 2: place in Ukraine, not just the development of bricks, which
36:02
Speaker 2: is downstream from this, but you have this alliance between
36:05
Speaker 2: Russia and China that then extended to India, that then
36:09
Speaker 2: led to the building of the bricks alliance. And this
36:12
Speaker 2: is a this becomes an somewhat artificial rather like LGBTQ
36:18
Speaker 2: as an artificial acronym. The letters do not represent the
36:22
Speaker 2: same things. This is a rather artificial superpower. It's not
36:27
Speaker 2: a country, but it's an alliance that is now operating
36:32
Speaker 2: in something like European Union fashion to create its own
36:36
Speaker 2: transnational currency. And the goal of this transnational currency and
36:41
Speaker 2: of this alliance is in fact to destroy the United
36:45
Speaker 2: States Dollar as the world reserve currency. We all know
36:49
Speaker 2: that that would be an extremely upsetting circumstance. But the
36:52
Speaker 2: word that they use for that circumstance is called multipolarity.
36:56
Speaker 2: The idea right now is that the world is unipolar
36:59
Speaker 2: from the United States and its allies, particularly the so
37:02
Speaker 2: called Five Eyes, and they want to shift the balance
37:06
Speaker 2: of power so that it is no longer located in
37:08
Speaker 2: the US and the Western Alliance and put on the
37:12
Speaker 2: stage a second alliance of equal or greater power in bricks.
37:17
Speaker 2: And a lot of people are cheering this on for
37:20
Speaker 2: whatever weird reason. I mean, conservative people who should know
37:23
Speaker 2: better are cheering this on. Tucker Carlson cheers this on.
37:26
Speaker 2: And I don't understand why we would want to move
37:28
Speaker 2: to a multipolar world, because what a multipolar world is
37:31
Speaker 2: going to end up with is we, on the one hand,
37:33
Speaker 2: have the United States, which has not always been the
37:35
Speaker 2: best actor. Again, on balance, though, has been a very
37:38
Speaker 2: responsible steward of its power as a global superpower in
37:42
Speaker 2: ways that few countries that have had that status have
37:44
Speaker 2: ever matched. And then we have the CCP led China
37:49
Speaker 2: with Vladimir Putin's led Russia here, and then Lula's communist
37:55
Speaker 2: Brazil are now forming a union. So now we have
37:58
Speaker 2: not just not just irresponsible actors rising to the level
38:03
Speaker 2: of world superpower through this alliance, but also malevolent actors
38:09
Speaker 2: who we know have tremendous ambitions for global conquest. Whatever
38:14
Speaker 2: Russia's ambitions are are murky. Virtually everything that comes out
38:18
Speaker 2: of Moscow is a lie. It's very difficult to tell
38:20
Speaker 2: what the truth is. But certainly putting Russia back on
38:25
Speaker 2: the map as a global superpower would be one of
38:27
Speaker 2: Putin's ambitions. Getting China to be the world's global hedgemon
38:32
Speaker 2: is certainly Beijing's ambition. I mean, even even down, I
38:35
Speaker 2: laugh about this because I speak barely enough Chinese to
38:39
Speaker 2: understand that, you know, China, what we call China in
38:43
Speaker 2: China is jungwo. Right then what that means is uh
38:48
Speaker 2: is center Kingdom, right, So they see themselves as the
38:52
Speaker 2: center of the world, and they want to be the
38:54
Speaker 2: center of the world, and their entire philosophical existence is
38:58
Speaker 2: I know, Britain's on the map at the center of
39:00
Speaker 2: the world right now, by the way, but their entire
39:03
Speaker 2: ambition is to become the new center of the world politically, economically,
39:07
Speaker 2: and in every other sense. Which you know, if they
39:11
Speaker 2: were a free and democratic country, that's an open question
39:15
Speaker 2: as to whether or not that's okay. But we're not
39:18
Speaker 2: talking about it being a free and democratic country. It
39:20
Speaker 2: is a dictatorship. It is a communist dictatorship as a
39:23
Speaker 2: matter of fact, being led by somebody who's not even
39:26
Speaker 2: as pragmatic and open ended as Dungshaoping that I mentioned earlier,
39:30
Speaker 2: as was in the nineteen eighties. He was presiding during
39:34
Speaker 2: the Teneman Square incident, by the way, though, so he's
39:36
Speaker 2: not like he's a good guy either. He was far
39:38
Speaker 2: more open than Xi Jinping. Xi Jinping has actually moved
39:42
Speaker 2: China back toward what was called Mao Zedong thought, and
39:45
Speaker 2: to think that we want an economic superpower, I guess,
39:52
Speaker 2: an artificial superpower to rise that can threaten the Western
39:57
Speaker 2: Alliance's current global power basis is to me madness when
40:04
Speaker 2: we have these hostile entities like China and to the
40:08
Speaker 2: degree that it can organize itself with a communist leader Brazil.
40:11
Speaker 2: And then, like I said, whatever Russia's ambitions are, Russia
40:15
Speaker 2: getting into that mix with its enormous coal and oil
40:18
Speaker 2: and other reserves besides minerals and whatnot, is a tremendous
40:23
Speaker 2: concern for the viability of bricks becoming a weapon that
40:28
Speaker 2: economically undermines United States and the Western Alliance, at which
40:33
Speaker 2: point the world is going to be in the most
40:37
Speaker 2: unstable and most dangerous point it's been since World War Two.
40:40
Speaker 1: Well, we'll have to wait and sail on that one.
40:42
Speaker 1: But I mean as fur interesting insights, and actually it
40:46
Speaker 1: brings to back to what I was about to ask, which,
40:49
Speaker 1: although on a different scale, you're talking about shifting power
40:53
Speaker 1: and friction in a sense, and I was going to
40:57
Speaker 1: ask you about something you've spoken about increasingly in recent times,
41:00
Speaker 1: which is the concept of the woke right as a
41:02
Speaker 1: sort of counter to how we would typically view the
41:06
Speaker 1: wove as being of the left. You just go into
41:09
Speaker 1: that in a bit of detail, but also particularly the
41:14
Speaker 1: sort of hoax exercise that you played out in order
41:17
Speaker 1: to verify your hypothesis.
41:19
Speaker 2: I'll begin again with what I said woke means, because
41:22
Speaker 2: if we're going to talk about woke right, we can
41:24
Speaker 2: understand that there's a set of left wing values that
41:28
Speaker 2: this woke operating system or worldview or belief structure could
41:33
Speaker 2: operate for and within. But there could also be other values,
41:36
Speaker 2: more traditionalist values, or religious values, or something else. And
41:40
Speaker 2: so woke means that you have awoken to a belief
41:44
Speaker 2: that there is a kind of grand conspiratorial power structure
41:47
Speaker 2: that oppresses people like you to the benefit of other
41:52
Speaker 2: people who are keeping their hands on power. And undoubtedly
41:56
Speaker 2: there's degrees of truth to these claims, but the characterization
42:02
Speaker 2: I would say is not true nor false, but misleading.
42:05
Speaker 2: So the woke right has adopted this point of view,
42:08
Speaker 2: including the grievance politics, the identity politics, and so on,
42:13
Speaker 2: saying that the world is now organized not actually as
42:16
Speaker 2: a communist revolution, but rather in a grand conspiracy to
42:20
Speaker 2: oppress white people, to oppress Christians, to oppress straight people,
42:24
Speaker 2: to oppress men. And enough is enough if they say
42:28
Speaker 2: we're not allowed to hold those identities and be proud
42:30
Speaker 2: of them. We will hold those identities and be proud
42:33
Speaker 2: of them. Which is why I said it was awkward
42:35
Speaker 2: to talk about this chauvinism, because there's a very fine
42:37
Speaker 2: line between pride and chauvinism, and yet another fine line
42:43
Speaker 2: between chauvinism and supremacy and what I see the woke
42:48
Speaker 2: right doing in this sense, and it's very factionated. There
42:51
Speaker 2: are lots of people that do this that don't agree
42:53
Speaker 2: with one another. There are people whose conspiracy is that
42:57
Speaker 2: the Jews are the problem and that run everything, and
43:00
Speaker 2: it's Jewish power and Zionism that needs to be taken on.
43:03
Speaker 2: But then on the other hand, there are people who
43:05
Speaker 2: say that there's a broad post war liberal consensus into
43:07
Speaker 2: which Israel is merely one small piece, but a consequential piece.
43:12
Speaker 2: But this post war liberal consensus was actually designed to
43:14
Speaker 2: create a false conservatism, what we call rhinos is exemplified
43:18
Speaker 2: by kind of the Fabian Tories in the Britain, and
43:22
Speaker 2: you have this belief that they created a false conservatism
43:27
Speaker 2: that actually agrees with the left, and that its primary
43:30
Speaker 2: purpose is to box out what they call the true right.
43:34
Speaker 2: But when you start listening to what they say, the
43:37
Speaker 2: true right is it's not just people who are skeptical
43:40
Speaker 2: of immigration. It's not just people who are and I
43:43
Speaker 2: mean mass immigration obviously, not you know, bringing in and
43:47
Speaker 2: allowing skilled people from other countries who want to come
43:50
Speaker 2: benefit your country and who are net positives, and just
43:53
Speaker 2: mean mass immigration and illegal immigration, especially in our country.
43:57
Speaker 2: So we're not just talking about people skeptical of that.
44:00
Speaker 2: Or you start to see people openly advocating that fascist
44:05
Speaker 2: dictators like Pinochette and Francisco Franco in Spain and even
44:11
Speaker 2: openly Hitler had the right ideas. It's a very hot topic.
44:16
Speaker 2: I'm a great deal of x right now that Adolf
44:20
Speaker 2: Hitler knew how to stop communists, which is a little
44:23
Speaker 2: bit funny since communists ended up taking over East Germany
44:27
Speaker 2: and holding it for the rest of the century more
44:29
Speaker 2: or less after he died. But they're openly glorifying fascism,
44:35
Speaker 2: and when my reading of the fascists themselves indicates that
44:39
Speaker 2: they're making the same mistake that the fascists made, and
44:43
Speaker 2: that mistake that the fascists made was well, the methodologies
44:48
Speaker 2: of Marxism are very powerful, and they work and they
44:51
Speaker 2: are correct. But the conclusions about radical egalitarianism are wrong.
44:56
Speaker 2: So where communism comes along or Marxism comes along, in
45:00
Speaker 2: says there's all this oppression, the system is inherently oppressive.
45:03
Speaker 2: Oppressive power is how society is structured. That's the woke belief.
45:08
Speaker 2: Oppressive power is how society is structured, and that's bad.
45:11
Speaker 2: So we should be able to take over and run
45:13
Speaker 2: everything because we were anti oppressors. That's Marxism, which of
45:17
Speaker 2: course is a lie. They're going to oppress everybody too.
45:20
Speaker 2: What the fascist response is to say, yeah, actually, oppressive
45:25
Speaker 2: power is how society is structured. But it's also what
45:28
Speaker 2: kept things together all this time, so we should go
45:30
Speaker 2: back to that and in fact do more of it
45:32
Speaker 2: than ever. And so it's you two sides of the
45:37
Speaker 2: same awful coin, and the results in both cases are
45:41
Speaker 2: equally almost equally bad. I don't know which one's actually worse.
45:44
Speaker 2: I think communism's actually worse, to be honest. But we
45:48
Speaker 2: shouldn't have to choose between those when there are other
45:50
Speaker 2: choices on the table, like free republics where people have
45:54
Speaker 2: individual identities and individual liberties that are secured and protected
45:59
Speaker 2: by their government, which otherwise is operating at a light
46:01
Speaker 2: touch and allows them to engage in unrestricted trade within
46:06
Speaker 2: the boundaries of you know, normal safety regulations and you
46:10
Speaker 2: know some basic environmental regulations like we learned in the
46:13
Speaker 2: early twentieth century. So this is a very concerning movement.
46:19
Speaker 2: I don't know how big it is. It's bigger than
46:21
Speaker 2: I thought. I do know it's well funded, and some
46:25
Speaker 2: of that funding is coming from having convinced wealthy people
46:28
Speaker 2: within the movement itself, and some of that funding is
46:32
Speaker 2: undoubtedly coming from foreign sources. The Chinese understand dialectical warfare,
46:37
Speaker 2: so the CCP would understand that it benefits to create
46:42
Speaker 2: the conflict between a very radical left that you fund
46:46
Speaker 2: in a very radical right that you also fund. Russia
46:50
Speaker 2: has been famously funding kind of what they sometimes call
46:54
Speaker 2: buffalo run movements on the right wing politics scene throughout
46:58
Speaker 2: Europe and America for years years, which a buffalo run
47:01
Speaker 2: is when you get a movement to start believing absolutely
47:05
Speaker 2: crazy things so that you can use that to discredit
47:07
Speaker 2: them at the big reveal after several months after you
47:11
Speaker 2: get many prominent members to sign on and say whatever
47:13
Speaker 2: the crazy thing is, the Earth is flat or whatever
47:15
Speaker 2: it is, and then you come out and prove that
47:18
Speaker 2: it was all a hoax, and they all look like
47:23
Speaker 2: fools and they're now discredited in the mainstream politic Russia
47:26
Speaker 2: has been known to fund buffalo run type operations on
47:29
Speaker 2: Western right wing movements for years and years, and so
47:32
Speaker 2: there's a great deal of hostile foreign money. Certainly within
47:36
Speaker 2: the jew hating side of this, there is an awful
47:40
Speaker 2: lot of money from hostile Islamic republics pouring in Iran, certainly, Katar,
47:47
Speaker 2: very likely, I think, certainly at this point, pouring in
47:50
Speaker 2: to foment this woke right reaction to the woke left
47:55
Speaker 2: menace that they happen to also be funding, because what
47:57
Speaker 2: they need is chaos and discord and civil breakdown of
48:01
Speaker 2: our free societies in order that we would start to
48:05
Speaker 2: demand tyrannical power to fix these problems as they are
48:09
Speaker 2: increasingly generated, or that politicians that have tyrannical ambitions can
48:13
Speaker 2: take advantage of the chaos to implement tyrannical policies. So
48:17
Speaker 2: I'm very concerned about the rise of the woke right,
48:19
Speaker 2: which is timed almost exactly with the rise of a
48:24
Speaker 2: reaction that is actually proving effective, whether that's the election
48:28
Speaker 2: of Donald Trump or even preceding it. We have come
48:32
Speaker 2: a long way, much further, I think than is healthy
48:36
Speaker 2: for the Communist project in understanding that what we're facing
48:40
Speaker 2: is communism, understanding how it works, understanding its manipulations, understanding
48:44
Speaker 2: the importance of getting involved to do something about it
48:47
Speaker 2: rather than hoping it blows over. And I think we've
48:50
Speaker 2: become involved enough to thwart most of their plans in
48:55
Speaker 2: most of our countries, and the best way to divert
48:58
Speaker 2: that attention is to create this toxic radical movement on
49:04
Speaker 2: the right, tapping into people's frustrations, tapping into their anger,
49:08
Speaker 2: tapping into the desire to have catharsis and revenge for
49:12
Speaker 2: all of this injustice that we've been suffering for many years,
49:15
Speaker 2: and the fear that we face for losing our countries,
49:18
Speaker 2: losing our heritage, losing our lives, losing our children's lives
49:22
Speaker 2: or safety. They want to tap into that negative emotion
49:26
Speaker 2: and channel it into an unproductive direction. And I fear
49:29
Speaker 2: very much about this. So you mentioned the hoax I've
49:32
Speaker 2: been trying. Actually, going back to early twenty twenty one
49:35
Speaker 2: is when I realized that this movement was organizing and
49:38
Speaker 2: getting money behind it and becoming an eventual threat. I
49:44
Speaker 2: was at a conference, and many people at some of
49:46
Speaker 2: the lunch tables I was sitting at, not from the stage,
49:49
Speaker 2: were saying many of the same things that I've just
49:51
Speaker 2: been talking about. And this was in January of twenty
49:53
Speaker 2: twenty one, so you know, four years ago more or less.
49:58
Speaker 2: And I came back so shocked by some of the
50:00
Speaker 2: things they were saying, like, well, at least Hitler knew
50:02
Speaker 2: how to get rid of communists. It was a quote
50:05
Speaker 2: from the table at one lunch. I came back so alarmed.
50:08
Speaker 2: I called my colleagues that I worked with and said,
50:11
Speaker 2: I think we are getting close to the point where
50:14
Speaker 2: the right becomes a bigger problem than the left. But
50:16
Speaker 2: for the last several months at least, I have become
50:19
Speaker 2: increasingly concerned watching their activity rapidly rise. I think either
50:23
Speaker 2: in anticipation of a Trump win that they would wish
50:25
Speaker 2: to infiltrate, or in anticipation of a Trump loss that
50:29
Speaker 2: they would wish to capitalize and whip people to anger
50:31
Speaker 2: in rash action. I saw a lot of rising energy,
50:34
Speaker 2: so I decided to start speaking up openly about it.
50:37
Speaker 2: And this has not gone well for me. They say
50:39
Speaker 2: that I'm grifting and trying to engagement in all this.
50:43
Speaker 2: Actually my engagement is down by almost fifty percent. I
50:46
Speaker 2: have no outstanding speaking invitations any long. I'm being canceled
50:50
Speaker 2: by these people very effectively for standing up to them
50:53
Speaker 2: and pointing out that they exist. And so I thought
50:55
Speaker 2: it would be a little bit helpful to clarify what's
51:00
Speaker 2: going on and to test my hypothesis that they actually
51:03
Speaker 2: are woke. So a few weeks ago, I was on
51:06
Speaker 2: a long flight. I was flying to Alaska, and it
51:09
Speaker 2: occurred I was preparing for a podcast I wanted to
51:11
Speaker 2: record about the Communist Manifesto, and so I was reading
51:14
Speaker 2: the Communist Manifesto when it occurred to me that the
51:16
Speaker 2: language I was reading, with Marx railing on the bourgeoisie
51:19
Speaker 2: and extolling the proletariat, sounds exactly like these woke right guys.
51:23
Speaker 2: About how they talk about this new Christian right and
51:25
Speaker 2: the new right they call themselves the dissident right, and
51:29
Speaker 2: how it's rising up, and how angry they are at
51:32
Speaker 2: classical liberalism and what they call the post war, post
51:35
Speaker 2: World War two liberal consensus that the world has been
51:37
Speaker 2: forced into to prevent the rise of fascism, which is
51:40
Speaker 2: what they actually want, is the rise of fascism, and
51:42
Speaker 2: I said, wow, this is almost, you know, exactly the
51:46
Speaker 2: same argument, but for bourgeoisie and proletariat. So I just
51:49
Speaker 2: did a little copy paste out of the Communist Manifesto,
51:51
Speaker 2: swapped around the words massage the language, sent it off
51:54
Speaker 2: to one of their leading publications, which is called The
51:56
Speaker 2: American Reformer, which is a kind of middle of the road.
52:00
Speaker 2: They're not particularly anti Jews or anti Israel. They're in
52:04
Speaker 2: the middle of the road so called Christian nationalist publication.
52:06
Speaker 2: They're Protestant in their orientation, not Catholic. There's a whole
52:11
Speaker 2: thing with that that we don't have to get into.
52:14
Speaker 2: And they published it. I was rather surprised to see
52:17
Speaker 2: they published, you know, this very transparent rewrite of the
52:21
Speaker 2: Communist Manifesto that maintains the logic but reverses the It
52:24
Speaker 2: doesn't reverse, it reorients the the targets of Marx's conflict theory,
52:33
Speaker 2: which are the bourgeois and proletariat become classical liberalism versus
52:36
Speaker 2: the new Christian right. And not only I say it's
52:41
Speaker 2: very transparent, how transparent was it? Well, they published it
52:44
Speaker 2: on their site, and unbeknownst to me, they didn't tell
52:46
Speaker 2: me that they published it on their site. I didn't
52:48
Speaker 2: know for ten more days they published it on their site,
52:50
Speaker 2: and on the day it was published, a commenter of
52:53
Speaker 2: their magazine left a comment saying this was pulled directly
52:56
Speaker 2: from the Communist Manifesto, with extensive proof of the parallel
52:59
Speaker 2: language in the comments. So it was so transparent a
53:02
Speaker 2: comment or recognized it immediately. And so they've published the
53:08
Speaker 2: dialectical conflict theory of Karl Marx for their own conclusions.
53:12
Speaker 2: And their response to this, other than, you know, viciously
53:15
Speaker 2: attacking me online as one would expect, is that they've
53:19
Speaker 2: changed the author I submitted it under a pseudonym Marcus Carlson,
53:23
Speaker 2: which is very close to Karl Marx, and it's now
53:27
Speaker 2: listed on their website under my name instead with an
53:30
Speaker 2: editor's note. And the editor's note includes the sentence that
53:35
Speaker 2: it is a reasonable representation of some of new right thought,
53:40
Speaker 2: new right ideas. I should say that's the exact quote,
53:43
Speaker 2: a reasonable representation of some of new right ideas. And
53:47
Speaker 2: so they've not only did they publish this when they
53:50
Speaker 2: found out what it was, they've stood by it and said, yes,
53:52
Speaker 2: this represents us. And so now the most bizarre part
53:55
Speaker 2: of this for me. I mean, I knew there would
53:58
Speaker 2: be at least some fools who stepped up and said, well,
54:00
Speaker 2: Karl Marx was right about a lot of things. This
54:02
Speaker 2: has become their main vector of defense is to say
54:05
Speaker 2: Carl Marx was actually write about liberalism. Karl Marx was
54:08
Speaker 2: actually right about capitalism. And it's very revealing because a
54:11
Speaker 2: lot of people don't understand that they also want to
54:13
Speaker 2: abolish capitalism. They want to replace it with G. K.
54:16
Speaker 2: Chesterton's idea called distributism, where again there's some party that
54:20
Speaker 2: decides who gets what in society, so it's just another
54:23
Speaker 2: kind of you know, family friendly, I guess, socialist model.
54:28
Speaker 2: And they not only have stood by this, they're arguing
54:32
Speaker 2: that Carl Marx was actually illuminary that we should be
54:35
Speaker 2: looking to for his critiques of liberalism in capitalism, although
54:40
Speaker 2: we should not adopt his specific solutions, which I go
54:43
Speaker 2: back to the fascist mistake that I mentioned earlier Adolf
54:47
Speaker 2: Hitler in myn KAMFF, which I've also read. And rewrote
54:50
Speaker 2: for a leftist magazine some years ago, and they accepted it.
54:54
Speaker 2: Actually a leftist social work academic journal, Peer Reviewed Journal
54:58
Speaker 2: accepted a rewrite of of Mine Kampf that I did
55:01
Speaker 2: some seven years ago. Well, Mine Kamf, Hitler's explaining his
55:08
Speaker 2: I mean, if you've never read it, it's a sprawling diary.
55:11
Speaker 2: So he's explaining how he came to be where he
55:14
Speaker 2: was to think. What he thought and what he wrote
55:17
Speaker 2: was that he argued with Marxists and argued with Marxists,
55:21
Speaker 2: and frustratedly argued with Marxists until one day he decided
55:24
Speaker 2: to properly study Marxism, and he developed He figured out
55:29
Speaker 2: that the formula was to adopt the Marxist methodologies for
55:33
Speaker 2: what he called his own firm convictions, which is exactly
55:37
Speaker 2: what they're doing now. They're saying Karl Marx was great
55:40
Speaker 2: for his critique and his analysis, his rhetoric, and I
55:43
Speaker 2: think my favorite comment was when Mike Cernovitch said Karl
55:46
Speaker 2: Marx was a great writer, which I think means he's
55:48
Speaker 2: never read Karl Marx, because he certainly was not a
55:50
Speaker 2: great writer. He was a great writer. He had great rhetoric,
55:54
Speaker 2: he had great demagoguery, I guess, and he had in
55:57
Speaker 2: an excellent critique of liberal and capitalism, which is a
56:01
Speaker 2: misreading of Marx. He did not have an excellent particulos,
56:04
Speaker 2: and therefore we should use that, but we should go
56:08
Speaker 2: toward our own fixed conclusions instead of the communist conclusions.
56:13
Speaker 2: We shouldn't take the communist solutions. We should take our
56:16
Speaker 2: new Christian rights solutions. So I was flabbergasted to see
56:19
Speaker 2: that they've just owned it and implicitly admit that they're
56:22
Speaker 2: making the exact same mistake, exact same mistake that Hitler
56:27
Speaker 2: made in devising how he would organize national socialism as
56:33
Speaker 2: a movement, down to its demagogery, its propaganda, and so on.
56:36
Speaker 1: It's completely bizarre tale and well worth reading your accounts
56:39
Speaker 1: of it on your new discourse's website. It also teases
56:44
Speaker 1: out that, quite like you say, many people have not
56:47
Speaker 1: read Marx or at least have really a very basic
56:51
Speaker 1: grasp only of Marxism. And I'm sorry that we haven't
56:54
Speaker 1: got to it sooner. But I obviously want to talk
56:56
Speaker 1: about your film, but he Sheep's Clothing, which I think
57:00
Speaker 1: I do sort of deal with exactly this in much
57:03
Speaker 1: more specific term. So just please provide a sort of
57:07
Speaker 1: snapshot of what it was that prompted you to make
57:10
Speaker 1: a film in the first place, and what it is
57:12
Speaker 1: that the film encapsulates and does for you and your audience.
57:17
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, yeah, you said it. It's that people
57:19
Speaker 2: haven't read Marx and they don't understand. Like one of
57:22
Speaker 2: the guys arguing about this hoax said, oh, you could
57:24
Speaker 2: take a piece out of any you know, sufficiently long
57:28
Speaker 2: book and you could find something anyone would agree with.
57:30
Speaker 2: That was his deflection. But the Communist Manifesto, the Body,
57:33
Speaker 2: chapters one and two are thirteen pages long. It's not
57:36
Speaker 2: a long book. I use six of the thirteen pages
57:39
Speaker 2: it's I used, you know, not quite half, almost half
57:43
Speaker 2: of the Communist Manifesto. As a matter of fact, it's
57:45
Speaker 2: a very short read. But people don't know that. That
57:48
Speaker 2: was the point, is that people don't know that because
57:50
Speaker 2: they actually haven't read marks. Oh, the Communist Manifesto must
57:53
Speaker 2: be a very long book. It's not a very long book.
57:55
Speaker 2: Capital is a very long book, a thousand pages or
57:58
Speaker 2: some odd almost seven harder pages something like that, depending
58:02
Speaker 2: on the book, but not the Communist Manifesto. So what
58:06
Speaker 2: we recognized, me and Julie Bailing, who wrote the book
58:09
Speaker 2: called Beneath Sheep's Clothing upon which the film was made,
58:12
Speaker 2: and our executive producer and filmmaker. What we recognized is,
58:17
Speaker 2: you know, the interviews like this are fantastic, and they
58:19
Speaker 2: do a lot. They reach a lot of people, They
58:21
Speaker 2: help a lot of people understand and get people interested
58:23
Speaker 2: to find out more. Books are fantastic. They really lay
58:28
Speaker 2: out the story. But reading takes a lot of time.
58:30
Speaker 2: And I read for a living and have to struggle
58:33
Speaker 2: to commit to reading another book. There's so many articles
58:36
Speaker 2: and other things to read. There's so much else to do.
58:39
Speaker 2: Sitting down to read a book is going to cost you,
58:42
Speaker 2: best case scenario, one to three days of your working
58:45
Speaker 2: time to get through. And it's a genuine, you know, impediment.
58:49
Speaker 2: Articles are great, podcasts are great, everything's great, but nothing
58:53
Speaker 2: tells the story and gets people's full engagement and attention
58:58
Speaker 2: like a film, a documentary or other film. And this
59:01
Speaker 2: film is going to run roughly an hour and a half,
59:05
Speaker 2: give or take a few minutes, because you want to
59:06
Speaker 2: keep people's attention, don't want to drag it out, and
59:08
Speaker 2: it's going to tell them the story in a visually
59:11
Speaker 2: compelling way, ideally with a great soundtrack, so they're really
59:14
Speaker 2: emotionally connected to it, engaged, paying attention, and it comes
59:18
Speaker 2: away with a story told in a way that can't
59:20
Speaker 2: be told any other way. In a digestible form. People
59:24
Speaker 2: will sit down for an hour and a half and
59:25
Speaker 2: watch a movie. They are most less less likely to
59:28
Speaker 2: pick up a book or sit through a long interview
59:30
Speaker 2: or something like that, or a long podcast. And so
59:33
Speaker 2: it gives you a way to reach a mass audience
59:37
Speaker 2: with a very compelling part of the story and actually
59:39
Speaker 2: a lot of very good information very quickly. And so
59:42
Speaker 2: we knew that this would be an important thing to build.
59:46
Speaker 2: Julie had Julie Bailing, who is the author and director
59:49
Speaker 2: of the film, fortunately had run into this filmmaker and
59:54
Speaker 2: he had run into her book and had wanted to
59:56
Speaker 2: build this film. Then I got involved later after they
1:00:00
Speaker 2: contact of me and told me that this was going on,
1:00:02
Speaker 2: and I of course wanted to be a part of
1:00:03
Speaker 2: the project because of what I just explained. So we
1:00:06
Speaker 2: made this movie to create a mass market appeal to
1:00:11
Speaker 2: what's happening in the world, and the kind of the
1:00:13
Speaker 2: tagline of Beneath the Sheep's Clothing is it's not coming,
1:00:18
Speaker 2: It's here, meaning you know, communism is here, and it's
1:00:22
Speaker 2: very I will admit, for a British audience. It's very American.
1:00:25
Speaker 2: We start off and end with Ronald Reagan, you know,
1:00:27
Speaker 2: and all this. But I think that the message that
1:00:29
Speaker 2: we chose is is very, very very strong and compelling.
1:00:34
Speaker 2: From what Reagan has to say, it'll resonate. But the
1:00:39
Speaker 2: idea was that in so Julie in her research from
1:00:42
Speaker 2: both when she did her a mission, a religious mission
1:00:48
Speaker 2: to Russia just after the fall Soviet Union in the nineties,
1:00:52
Speaker 2: and then in her studies where she did a double
1:00:55
Speaker 2: master's degree in Russian history and literature and something else
1:00:59
Speaker 2: it's her degree, I don't know. And she realized that
1:01:02
Speaker 2: a lot of the tactics that the Soviets had used
1:01:04
Speaker 2: in education and in religion were being replicated in the
1:01:09
Speaker 2: United States and to bring communism to the US through
1:01:13
Speaker 2: a kind of a long march, through the institution's infiltration
1:01:17
Speaker 2: from the bottom up. And so she wanted to document
1:01:20
Speaker 2: the parallels that she saw, and so that's the book
1:01:23
Speaker 2: Beneath Sheep's Clothing that she wrote. And then we move
1:01:26
Speaker 2: forward to make a film that would show those parallels
1:01:29
Speaker 2: and explain the phenomenon in a way that's really resonant
1:01:32
Speaker 2: with people and everything. I hear about the film is
1:01:34
Speaker 2: that it's overwhelming, that it's blowing them away, that it's amazing.
1:01:38
Speaker 2: Everybody needs to see it. I sat and watched it
1:01:42
Speaker 2: in Louisiana at an event that we did to show
1:01:45
Speaker 2: the film a few weeks ago, and I was like, Wow,
1:01:47
Speaker 2: this is even better. Because I haven't watched it in
1:01:49
Speaker 2: several months. I thought, Wow, this is even better than
1:01:50
Speaker 2: I remember. Israeli tells the story, so that was the point.
1:01:54
Speaker 2: That's what the film is about. How has how have
1:01:58
Speaker 2: communist tactics that were tried and true and Soviet Union
1:02:02
Speaker 2: made there and also in People's Republic of China to
1:02:05
Speaker 2: a lesser degree for the film, how have those made
1:02:07
Speaker 2: their way into American religion and education? And I think
1:02:11
Speaker 2: that because the programs are largely global, a lot of
1:02:14
Speaker 2: them are un coordinated. As a matter of fact, you'll
1:02:17
Speaker 2: find extraordinary parallels in the British context. And it's just
1:02:23
Speaker 2: an eye opener. That's all I can really conclude about it.
1:02:27
Speaker 1: That's a great synopsis, and I would really urge people
1:02:30
Speaker 1: to go and watch it.
1:02:31
Speaker 2: Now.
1:02:31
Speaker 1: Tell us they where can we find it? Where can
1:02:34
Speaker 1: we watch it?
1:02:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you remember the name of the film, you
1:02:37
Speaker 2: can remember where to find it. The film is called
1:02:39
Speaker 2: Beneath Sheep's Clothing and it is at Beneath Sheep's Clothing
1:02:44
Speaker 2: dot movie. And so it's pretty easy to find Beneath
1:02:47
Speaker 2: Sheep's Clothing dot movie, which I will one use a
1:02:50
Speaker 2: lot of letters to type in a URL.
1:02:52
Speaker 1: Okay, well, we'll make sure that goes into the notes
1:02:54
Speaker 1: below the interview. And also for people who are keen
1:02:57
Speaker 1: to follow up on what they've learned today, where should
1:03:00
Speaker 1: they go with regard to your website, social media and
1:03:03
Speaker 1: any of that sort of thing.
1:03:05
Speaker 2: My website is new discourses dot com. That's, you know,
1:03:09
Speaker 2: like we're having a discourse right now, but new ones
1:03:11
Speaker 2: New discourses dot com, and you'll find the article that
1:03:15
Speaker 2: we discussed about my hoax. You'll find I think they
1:03:19
Speaker 2: told me. I'm at almost six hundred hours of podcast
1:03:21
Speaker 2: explaining various things that I've been learning about, whether it's
1:03:26
Speaker 2: mostly a little bit about this woke right but overwhelmingly
1:03:29
Speaker 2: about the woke left and communism and communist history. And
1:03:33
Speaker 2: you'll find articles and videos and some other things. There
1:03:36
Speaker 2: are lots of resources at new discourses dot com. I'm
1:03:39
Speaker 2: on social media at Conceptual James and I think I'm
1:03:43
Speaker 2: on all of them, all the big ones at least
1:03:45
Speaker 2: except for Facebook, so don't look for me there. They
1:03:48
Speaker 2: kicked me off forever for a joke, and so that's
1:03:50
Speaker 2: how that works. But I'm primarily active on x at Conceptual, James,
1:03:55
Speaker 2: and it's a wild ride.
1:03:57
Speaker 1: If you joined me there, perfect no, I imagine a
1:03:59
Speaker 1: lot of people will be joining you there. Also, I
1:04:01
Speaker 1: would encourage people to listen back to the interview that
1:04:04
Speaker 1: James last gave to uk Column, which as I say,
1:04:06
Speaker 1: was in March twenty twenty three, and to the audience.
1:04:10
Speaker 1: If you are in a position to support Ukay Column
1:04:13
Speaker 1: financially in order that we can continue to bring interviews
1:04:16
Speaker 1: of this quality to you, then please consider a membership
1:04:19
Speaker 1: or indeed a donation at ukay column dot org. And
1:04:23
Speaker 1: it just remains for me to say James, how much
1:04:26
Speaker 1: I've enjoyed talking to you, and to thank you very
1:04:29
Speaker 1: much indeed for joining me today.
1:04:32
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. It was a real pleasure. It's
1:04:33
Speaker 2: always nice to talk with you, so thanks for the invitation.