 40 here. There's a pretty funny hashtag going around on Twitter that Elon Musk has endorsed and that is Ben the ADL. So the Anti-Defamation League is both an ethnic lobby and probably the premier force in the world for restricting free speech on public spaces, particularly social media. On the other hand, how different would the level of restrictions be on social media and the public space if there were no ADL? I'm not sure they'd be that different. But Duvud got into it with History Speaks, Matthew Garbriel. And so let me play some of this Twitter space here posted by the Twitter account History Speaks. He's a PhD student at the mainstream authorities. Note that people will be able to come back. So I've been perturbed by this whole Ben the ADL thing. And here's why. If you follow me, you know that I have no sympathy for this organization. I have no sympathy for people who are advocating censorship online. They're crazy left-wing organization. They've adopted the definition of racism that excludes whites. You know, I have no sympathy for this organization. So why would I be perturbed? I should be happy that there's a movement against them. Well, I'm upset because I'm also not an advocate of race hatred, of anti-Semitism, of Nazism, of these things. I oppose these things in point of fact. And I think, you know, obviously just normal person here, I think mainstream society should oppose these things and stigmatize them. I don't think they should be banned. I don't think any of these people who advocate such use should be banned from social media. But the fact that they are being validated by I think personalities on the right and then perhaps the richest man in the world with Elon Musk is disturbing to me. And I think symptomatic of a broader problem that's growing on the right, there's just no guard rails that the contempt for the left has grown to such a level, which is understandable. I share it. That it's basically just populist madness. And whatever the sentiment is of the masses at a certain day, right-wing influencers, whether it's Matt Walsh who endorsed this, Charlie Kirk who endorsed this, Markle Knowles who endorsed this, others I'm sure have as well, they just go with whatever the populist raving is at a certain moment. And that's very concerning to me. We can't overlook the cause of it, which is the failure of kind of mainstream authorities in our society. You know, there are many reasons for the failure. One of them is, as I said, I think white people feel alienated from them because of this crazy discourse where, oh, it's impossible to be racist against whites. It's ADL, ADL endorsed, for example. But as we oppose that, you know, as people of different backgrounds, not just white people oppose us, not different people oppose us. My mother isn't white. I don't really feel white. I identify as white myself. As we oppose this, we have to maintain... So I think Matthew tends to speak carefully. He tends to have a great deal of respect for the facts. So I think he's making good solid points here. And if you're interested, I believe his mother is Egyptian. In our society, the society that has been built in the United States for decades, which is one that is tolerant and rejects race, hatred and Nazism and fascism. And when you empower people like this, I mean, Keith Woods is engaged in blatant Nazi rhetoric. He calls Jews parasites, right? He is engaged in apologetics for the Nazis themselves, which I've reviewed on my page. This is socially destabilizing. It's dangerous. They should be allowed to speak. That's part of who we are too, that they're allowed to speak, right? It's part of who we are as Americans, that they're allowed to speak. But, you know, that's changed in recent years. It's been some effort to ban everybody who has fringe views. I disagree with this. But that might be part of who we are too. But it's serving to see these people validated. And what's also laughable is the idea that people like Musk or others who endorse them are just blissfully unaware of the anti-Semitism movement. That's just a joke. I mean, I'm not even going to entertain that because if you believe that you're either, you know, you're either so ignorant of the basic facts that you just shouldn't be talked to, like it isn't that you're a bad person. If you're like, maybe it's just like, you don't know what's going on. So you're just not really worth talking up to on this matter unless you learn more. Either so or two, you're just lying and being deceitful because if you know anything about these guys or look at their feeds, like they promote hatred of Jews, not hatred in the woke sense, where you're like, you're looking cock-eyed at Jonathan Greenblatt, but genuine hatred of Jews. I don't agree with that. I wouldn't. Here's another thing. I oppose the Black Lives Matter organization, right? The views they espouse, I think, are divisive, destructive, you know, stereotypical, contemptuous of whites. I would never jump onto some campaign to ban BLM from Twitter that was launched by David Duke and Andrew Anglin, because this is obviously just a proxy for hatred of blacks. And this similarly is a proxy for hatred of Jews. So I'm not going to endorse this, and nor should you. You're being socially irresponsible if you do, frankly. And yeah, I'm concerned that right when we move to the point where the discourse is so open on the right that there's just no, there's no constraints, there's no limits that does concern me, not just on this, but another issue is we have to look at how this came to be, as I said earlier, but, and I think the left, the failure of mainstream elites. It's been a huge role in this, but I'm just adding some speakers. I'm going to talk a little bit more, guys. I'm going to get your opinions. And by the way, if you're on the other side of this, you know, I'm a free speech guy. I am fatally, contemptuously disagree with your views, but you can, you'll be, if you don't, you know, say anything outrageous, you can share your views. Errol may disagree with me, for example. I think he's responsible enough to allow to speak, but yeah, that's basically my take. So three points. This is a proxy for hatred of Jews. This is not about one organization, and it's influence. One, two, the substantive proposal itself to ban the ADL is an anti-free speech proposal. They should be stripped of any power to censor discourse. They're a gross, cocooned, woke organization. You know, they also, another problem I have with them is they conflate criticism of Zionism, which means I'm a critic of Zionism. They conflate that with hatred of Jews, just stupid. And then the third point I'd make is this is indicative of just a genuine trend on the right with just, we have no guardrails anymore. We have to just have pure, whatever the populist discourse is into today is just what we have to endorse, and that's of concern to me. But the fourth point is the left has some responsibility for this too, because, you know, they have, the failure of experts has basically led, any, has basically led any appeal to expertise and norms to be just contemptuously rejected by the right. So I think, I think there is some responsibility for the left. And here's the other thing the left is responsible for. Like, you know, they call so many people non-season racist. I've been called these things. I'm sure I will be in the, I'm poised to be in the future. They overuse terms like racism and anti-Semitism to the point that when you get actual people like Keith what's calling Jews parasites and they think actual Nazi rhetoric, it doesn't have the same punch to say, oh, this is this guy's a neo-Nazi or because of the boy who cried wolf effect. So the left is a problem here too. And those are the ADL. It's just a hard organization to defend with what they're up to. It's very difficult to defend. I mean, it's, it's, that's why nobody, like, you know, nobody really likes them. If you look at there. Okay, that's history speaks Twitter account Matthew Gabriel, a PhD student, history, student of history at the London School of Economics. And thanks to Dover for pointing out that Nathan Coffness supports this idea of ban the ADL. So Nathan Coffness tweets, September 2nd, the ADL, an organization that exploits the tragedies of Jewish history, fraudulently claims to represent Jews and spreads vicious libel. It's literally one of the main causes of contemporary anti-Semitism. Elon Musk, you want to fight anti-Semitism, don't ban Pepe, the frog, instead ban the ADL. And Coffness responds to the question, what about free speech? There is no free speech. Thousands of people get suspended every day for lawful speech to make it fair. The ADL should be treated the same way as other hate groups, according to the rules that the ADL itself helped to write. And Nathan Coffness published an article in Quillette on the ADL's practice of falsely accusing their political enemies of anti-Semitism and scrolling through more of Coffness's Twitter feed. He says, Norm MacDonald was right, the Bill Mayer is the unfunniest person that's called a comedian. Bill Mayer is also the least intelligent person that's called smart and the least transgressive person that's called politically incorrect. Okay, so let's get back here to History Speaks, Matt, speaking here. This is horrible. No one can defend it. Let me just give you some background. I've been doing historical research about these Nazis in the 50s and 60s. The ADL was doing some of the most important investigative work about these organizations at the time. This is really valuable work. I have the most long-running poll on anti-Semitism that researchers rely on to just characterize the whole organization as horrible. I think it's just totally wrong. Can I have my opinion here? Yeah, go ahead. All right, so all I wanted to say basically was that I think that the ADL would be better off on talking about, forgive me for the mic quality, but I can't hear anything if somebody's talking. Really? Yo, can you hear me? Okay, or? Yeah, so all of us trying to say was that the ADL... Is someone else talking? Sorry, I can't hear anything. They should be better off trying to debunk myths as opposed to talk about why this is anti-Semitic or that is anti-Semitic. They should be better off debunking fake quotes about Jews. For example, there was an Ishmael Levitz quote that said, for example, how we need to rape white people or something like that. It's obviously fake. It's obviously fabrication, but the way that these people operate is they need to lie. I saw iHippocrat, if you guys know the Twitter user, iHippocrat, he posted a fake link from something called the Jerusalem Postal. It's not a fucking thing. It's called the Jerusalem Post, but he photoshopped something from a Jerusalem Postal and it got 2,000 likes. I think the ADL would be more liked if they started debunking shit like that and basically left talking about immigration and politics to other organizations. Yeah, so to both of your comments, here's the first one. I'm open to the idea that I'm being polemical or angry when I talk about groups of the ADL. I'm frankly just personally fed up and this isn't a political argument, but I've had multiple people on the left try to get in contact with my university, attack me personally, threaten me with cancellation, so I just do not have patience for these people at this point. I see the ADL as the ilk of these people like, oh, let's be the hall monitors and figure out who's saying something bad. I just have no, and I don't want to live in a society like that. Even Nazi scumbag monsters who have no empathy for the Holocaust victims, yeah, they're disgusting, but I don't want to live in a society where some body of blue-haired white girls can just ruin careers or destroy people based on whether they consider something to be hate because they're going to not just say the Nazis, they'll say anybody they disagree with, like me, is hateful and I'm not a hateful person. So I just see the ADL as of a piece with this very sensorious group of people that don't want you to be able to make a life in mainstream society. Now, they haven't gone after me, so I'm not talking, saying claiming that's personal, but I just see them other piece with these people that don't want anyone right of center or with kind of edginess in any question to be able to make a living in mainstream society. So yeah, there could be some impatience or exasperation on my part. I'm not claiming they've done nothing good in there because they don't know much about them really other than what they're doing these days. So anyone else want to contribute? Yeah, if I could. Yeah, I think I mentioned, I think the ADL on net is really probably does a lot more harm to Jewish people rather than it ever does help. At least in recent years, it seems like all the kind of exaggerated, you point to a couple examples of only white people can create racism, 17% of the numbers one through 100 are racist or hateful or what have you. I think all that really does is just kind of, I don't know, inflames normies, I guess. And it's why we get kind of, you mentioned kind of the guardrails have come off, all the sensorious approach. There is Matt talking about Nick Fuentes, he talks about the glorification of hillbilly culture on the right, right, recently represented by the promotion of the abysmal rich man, rich man from Richmond song is cringe. Still this is sociopathy from Nick Fuentes. It exposes his Catholicism as a sham compassion for the poor is a core Christian duty. So this is Catholic Nick Fuentes dubbing down on his recent rant about poor white people. There we go. The people of this country are furious. They don't like my hatred for the poor. They don't, they don't like that. And I don't know why I don't get it. But I don't care because I do fucking hate the poor and I hate poor people and I hate poverty and I'm sick of lying about it. I'm not going to pretend that I don't. Okay. I love the rich. I don't, I don't have any animosity for the rich men of America. Okay. The people. Okay. That's just funny. So I don't know to go after Nick Fuentes for that, I think was pretty weak. That was just, that was just a funny bit. Okay. Back to history speaks, hosting a discussion on the band, the EDL hashtag campaign. Roach and this heavy handed kind of censorship. I think on that just, you know, really poisons the discourse and inflames hatred on both sides. So I'm supportive of the kind of the movement to, I don't know if I necessarily want to see them get banned. So the neo-Nazi hashtag, that doesn't poison the discourse, but the ADL does, huh? So you're talking about the ban, the ADL hashtag? Yeah, the one that the Irish neo-Nazi and Nick Fuentes came up with, yeah. So yeah, the source of the hashtag. So that's an interesting point you guys brought up. So a lot of leftists will say, you know, at least the ideals of the United States. We're really debating this? Well, sorry, my point is just that, yeah, the source of it, you know, obviously might have its problems. I don't agree with, you know, the all the views of those people, but you know, debate the idea on its own merit. I mean, you know, that's just debate the argument. Don't, you know, even if the people who came up with Can I ask you a question? Go ahead. Who would you rather be on Twitter, the ADL or hundreds of prominent violent neo-Nazis? Hundreds of what? Prominent violent neo-Nazis. So you need to think about it. Okay. Well, that's a good enough answer. Okay, my thing on this is, first of all, I'll say this. First of all, I don't know that we can say, I don't know that we can say woods and these people certainly the neo-Nazi. Okay, the ADL has billions of dollars behind it. So the ADL can do, perhaps can do a lot more damage than neo-Nazis who may well never even graduated high school. On the other hand, neo-Nazis are far more likely to commit violent crimes than members of the ADL. So I don't think we can say they've advocated violence without evidence because that's a different level. I wasn't necessarily talking about him. Yeah, I'm not aware of the anti-deformationally advertising violence. It's a left-wing pressure group that uses the uniform of fighting bigotry to pursue its own agenda of bigotry. Anyway, the other point is, where I agree with you, and I strongly disagree with Arrow, is I think that sometimes people say, oh, guilt by association. At some point, if the instigators of a movement are all extreme, hate-filled neo-Nazis, you have to question the motives of the movement. It's like, if there's a reasonable sounding cause and you find that all the people behind it are pedophiles, you have to wonder what the motivations, even if the cause isn't going to be about pedophilia. So I'm not saying that neo-Nazis are as bad as pedophiles, but my point is you can't have an absolute aversion to guilt by association, even though that's almost a cliche. You have to look at what the motive is, and I think it's obvious what the motive is. They see this organization as disliked, widely disliked on the right, as akin to the SPLC and so on. I've criticized them many times, for example. I don't like them, but they're using that as a way of basically trying to associate all Jews with a lot of the parade of horribles they don't like, like censoriness and controlling things. My point is it's obviously a sham to promote hatred of Jews because you just have to, at some level, exercise common sense and say, why are neo-Nazis all behind this? Why is it originated by them? I mean, it's not that these are people who believe in free speech themselves, really. Isn't it obvious, though, that the main people who are the people that have been at the brunt of the ADL are the people that have been underwatched this, that have been pushing to be banned? So if you're looking like the main names in at Lucas Cage. All right. Do the speaking here in this history space. Keith Woods. You know, so Nicholas went as Adam Green. These are all people who have been censored by the ADL for years that the ADL made a specific point to try to censor them. So it's just a coalition of interests, like Elon Musk has his own problem with the ADL because the ADL has went after him. The ADL is continuing to go after him. And then there's the issue of, yeah, the counter-Semites. The ADL does a lot of things, but it's essential thing is protect the Jewish people. So it's main, you know, so to say, victims of the ADL are anti-Semites. So obviously, it's similar to Richard Spencer when he had his, you'll veered into the far right by teaming up with the malicious anti-Semites and just the convergence of interest. So I think you have to differentiate it between Elon Musk, conservatives, their problem with the ADL and just the fact that they're teaming up with the people, like, and then even to divide the numbers, let's say there's 100,000 people right now, they're actively, you know, pissed at the ADL, probably only 10,000 of them are vicious anti-Semites. And they're just the loudest voice in the matter. I think it's hard to know, so I was doing, if you guys know him, I think it's hard to know if, what the average person tweeting this says. But it's, I think that anyone who has any level of sophistication about the internet culture and so on knows that this is like a neo-Nazi 4chan type deal. And it just comes down to whether you think there's any limit to, you know, who you should associate with, like, is ISIS okay? Are pedophiles okay? Again, I'm not saying that the Keith Woods is as bad as those people. My point is, there has to be some principle where this is beyond the pale of whom I'm going to line up with politically, right? I'm not saying that Keith Woods is beyond the pale of what should be allowed on Twitter. I don't think he should be allowed for the record. But like, there also should be some... You have to make, you have to team up with who it's going to take to win. And, you know, so obviously there's a huge batch of people like right-wing Jews, orthodox Jews, the broad sport of Trump supporters, Elon Musk supporters don't like the ADL versus the, you know, the far-right counter- semites that have been, you're pushing this basically every day for a year. And now there's just a convergence of interest if it's Elon Musk basically saying like, ADL, if you don't back up, I'm going to team up with the... And a good question from the chat from LaPonious. How likely were members of the Jewish Defamation League to commit violence about 50 times more likely than your average Jew? So yeah, the GDL, the Jewish Defense League, they were a frequently violent and criminal bunch. The issues counter-semites. Yeah, I don't see it. I don't see it on NDS. I'm going to let you speak. I don't see... Yeah, yeah. That should be called out to DS. I'm going to let you call that. But first, the first one I'm going to make is... I think that people like Matt Walsh, Charlie Kirk, Michael Knowles, who mainstream conservatives who endorse this, they did in a reactive way. They wasn't like, oh, let's team up with the Nazis because we don't want the ADL. They felt like pressure from their people to do this, which is also disturbing because I don't want, you know, somebody who identifies myself with the right. I don't want the right to... I want the right to fight anti-white garbage. Yeah, so much of, you know, right-wing punditry is really low IQ, just jumping on board with whatever's popular. And I agree with Matt's critique here. I'm trying to stay open to Nathan Coffness's point as well. So I don't have... No, I don't support Ben the ADL. So I guess I disagree with Nathan Coffness. And I guess I side with Matt here. I don't think I've ever said anything positive about the ADL. But they do do some good work, right? They help to keep track of, you know, people who are looking to commit massive numbers of violent crimes. So they do help improve a detection of potential mass murderers. They do have programs to help organizations to keep themselves safe from the attacks of mass murderers. So I mean, until now, I don't think I've ever said anything positive about the ADL. But now when you... If you put a gun to my head, yeah, there are some good things the ADL does. I do not support Ben the ADL from Twitter. I want the right to fight the censorship, including the people like Keith Woodson. So I do not have the right, and I'm appalled at the idea of the right lying out with people engaged in race, hatred, Nazism, Jew, hatred, etc. So now go ahead, I wasn't... I was honestly just curious, why would... And a good point in the chat, Elon Musk says that Twitter's advertising revenues still down 60% in the United States, and that the anti-deformation league is mostly to blame. What's with the term? But let me just enlarge your point. I just want to directly ask. So I think, and I think you're an academic, right? I'm not a historian yet. I'm going to be in like two years. Okay. So I believe the most long-running comprehensive data we have on anti-semitism in America is an ADL poll that they've been doing for decades. You dislike this organization so much. You'd prefer that they just had never done that? Well, that poll is really bogus. So if you believe that Jews have disproportionate power, that's counted as anti-semitic, but there are areas in life where Jews are disproportionately influential. So there are all sorts of things that the ADL classifies as anti-semitism, that are not, that are simply noticing reality. Yeah, I think that most right-wing Jews, most... No, no, no. I wasn't... Sorry, I was asking... I've always liked the ADL. So there's a large spot like... Okay, if you're asking a quiet-down question, I always dislike the ADL. I've always liked a quiet-down question. It's a dress question to me. I don't want them to be banned or anything like that. I would like them to lose the ability to influence corporations to ban things. No, no. I'm saying, do you wish that they had never like had gone under decades ago and they'd never been able to do that? I have to be. I have to be. I have to be. I have to be. I have to be. I have to be. I have to be. I have to understand their history. I don't understand this claim also about these guys accused of these horrible crimes where they're used in the center. I, this is a question I have done research into. I can, I can seek in the contemporary world, I see them as a woke, cocooned, naive, like a feat liberal group that wants to like ban people they don't like, which, which I... May I interject? We can let them, both like they speak and hero of justice, because both of them have a lot to offer and they haven't spoken yet. But either one of you go ahead and then the other speak and then do the quiet-down for a second. I'll let you speak later, okay? All right. So it seems that the ADL and their enemies have like a weird sort of symbiotic relationship. Where in one hand, you know, the more extremism there is in the world, you know, the more, I guess, reason the ADL has to exist. And the more like some psorias the ADL gets, you know, the more higher they're going to provoke. So it's kind of like a self-perpetuating cycle. But what I wonder is, I'm not sure that, you know, not that I think the, the strategy of censorship is the... Okay. In the chat, we've got someone saying, Jews are disproportionately represented in leading anti-whiteism. Really, are they that much more, you know, woke than, say, Anglicans, Episcopalians, than mainstream Protestants? I don't think there's any evidence for that. I mean, there are plenty of countries in Europe with very little Jewish influence, with very few Jews, such as Sweden or Germany. And they are just as, you know, woke left-wing as countries such as the United States with a substantial Jewish population. That's the best thing. But I don't know if it ultimately will break down because it will lead to some sort of institutional failure. Because it seems what's happening is that sort of, the left is getting more, like, ensconced in their epistemic framework of trusty experts. And then the right is getting more ensconced in their epistemic framework of, well, let's just believe the opposite and, you know, whatever, whatever that pot leads us to, you know, aliens, they're just flat, whatever. And it seems like the more crazy the right gets, the more dangerous they get in a way. But they also become more ineffectual, I think, like, unable to, like, seriously control anything, just out of, like, pure wackiness. So I wonder if at the end of the day, you know, I guess it could probably lead to, like, more attacks. But it does seem like the ADL strategy in a very weird way. It works accidentally. Can I just interject something? Go ahead, Lightning, and then I might hear from Robert because he doesn't have to speak widely, Day. Okay, I just want to interject something here. I think this illustrates the fact that antisemites have a very, very difficult time grappling with reality. The reality of the ADL is that it gets attacked as much from the left as it does from the right. And it doesn't have, it's not entirely about their stance on Israel. It's about their, they cooperate with law enforcement, and they have it, because of that, they have a very poor relationship with BLM and with a lot of the progressive groups. So, I mean, yes, they're a Zionist organization, but, you know, given the fact that Israel has been around for almost 80 years and half of the world's Jews live there and they're a Jewish organization, I mean, they almost have to be a Zionist organization at this point, just, you know, the facts on the ground. And I don't think that they under, like, I don't think that people on the far right just, like, understand what the ADL actually is. It's an ethnic organization, just like, you know, there's, there are Syrian ethnic organizations and Armenian ethnic organizations. And I mean, because of that, it's pulled in different directions. I mean, there are Jews who are very liberal, who want a more universalist agenda, and there are Jews who are more particularist, more conservative and particularist, who want it to focus solely on protecting Jewish interests. So, the ADL does contradictory things because there's different people within the organization who have different agendas. You know, and it's just like any other organization because Jews are simply people, like everyone else. And, but I don't know, anti-Semites have a hard time grappling with this. So, I mean, you know, I'm not the biggest fan of them as an organization. I agree with DS that they do a lot of good research, you know, but they're one of the few people who actually attempts to research anti-Semitism in a sort of dispassionate way, but obviously the organization itself has an agenda. And so, I mean, I get why it's problematic. I just don't think that the people on the far right have a grasp on reality of what the ADL even is. Can I just follow up on that? Again, if anybody does any archive research on neo-Nazi groups in the 50s or 60s or 70s, you will see that basically you are reading a lot of the fruits of the research that the ADL did, archiving publications, just doing basic research. So, I think the legacy of the group, look, I'm not going to defend everything about it. I don't know everything about it, but overall they've done a substantial amount of research on the most violent and extreme neo-Nazis. And I see that as a good thing. I mean, I, you know, that is a good thing that they did some research on the most violent and extreme neo-Nazis. I mean, I do think that politically, I mean, there's a lot about their politics that as a conservative I'm not comfortable with, right? I don't necessarily think that they represent Jews in general. And I don't think, you know, but the thing is, is that ultimately at the end of the day, they're simply an ethnic organization. The American Jewish Congress is composed of like 50 different organizations. And some of them are on the right, some of them are on the left. And the only thing they have in common is they're focused to some extent on Jewish interests. So like the Hebrew immigrant aid society is, they attracted the ire of that guy in Pittsburgh, but they're a Jewish organization, but they also help non-Jewish immigrants. And they, I guess they do legal work for them and they give them, you know, financial support and stuff and they help them in some way. But, you know, it's part of the American Jewish Congress and then there's other organizations like the Republican Jewish Coalition, which are conservative and the Zionist organization of America, which is supportive of the more right-wing parties in Israel. But they're also, they're also somewhat more supportive of the right-wing in America too. So, you know, it's just like any other organization that's out there. There's nothing, you know, magical or special about the ADL. I mean, well, they're worth studying, they're worth learning about because they are so effective. I mean, they are well-funded, but they also punch above their weight. They're incredibly influential, just like George Soros. So George Soros revolutionized criminal justice in the United States with his selective donations of million dollars here and a million dollars there. So maybe we should learn from how is George Soros so influential, how is the ADL so influential? But also to be clear, if Green Blatt was replaced tomorrow, if the article that the people complaining, what is it, the okay to be white means thing, if that article was removed tomorrow and they said, oh yeah, that was a mistake, all the points. The idea that that would change these people's perceptions or the way they would use and attack this organization is ridiculous. It's ridiculous. It would be the same attack. Well, no, because the ADL has a list of people that they want Twitter to ban and it includes the most voice-irrific names in the campaign that Elon Musk, I mean, like for example, Keith Woods was banned for over a year. What do you mean, no? You're saying they would stop attacking the ADL if they had a new CEO? Well, I don't think it's that much about the CEO. It's about the ADL's campaign for censorship. Yeah, most of the people that are leading this campaign are on the ADL's list and the ADL was acting up. So your advice to the ADL is to stop trying to limit the proliferation of violent hate groups. Is that what you're saying? Well, there's two things. I mean, first, just what Black Day was saying, I mean, Truman, with the creation of APAC. Okay, let's tackle a cliche in the chat. Virtually all Jews support mass immigration into white countries, but at ethno-state for Israel. Where do you come up with this stuff? All right, most Jews, like most non-Jews, are not politically active. So 90% plus of Jews don't have a considered position on immigration. Now, those Jews who want immigration restriction and want to build a wall in Israel, right? If they're citizens of the United States, they want the same thing in the US, right? The most Zionist American Jews tend to be the most right-wing and the most likely to vote Republican and to most favor immigration restriction in the United States. Left-wing Jews, whether they are in Israel or in the United States, favor more immigration and more multiculturalism. So by and large, Ashkenazi Jews tend towards the left, both in Israel and in the United States. But about 90, 95% of American Jews are Ashkenazi. In Israel, Ashkenazi Jews only comprise about 40% of Israeli Jews. So Sephardic Jews and Mizrahi Jews, they support building a wall, immigration restriction, right, for Israel. And when they live in the United States, they tend to favor the same policies in the United States. So right-wing Jews favor immigration restriction in America. And in Israel, left-wing Jews support higher immigration rates for both Israel and for the United States. But Jews like Episcopalians and Japanese-Americans and Mexican-Americans are not primarily thinking about immigration politics or these lofty issues. They're just trying to earn a living and take care of their families, just like everybody else. PAK in the 40s wanted a single voice to speak for the Jewish people. It was too complicated, all the various Jewish organizations. Since you have APAC created, you have the conference of the presidents of the major Jewish organizations, which APAC is a member. APAC is basically a part of the Federation Jewish-communal relations systems. In most major cities, APAC resides together in the Federation buildings and even gets funded by the Federation. And it serves to deal with the community leaders, the police, the FBI, and the politicians through one voice. Do you mean to say ADL or APAC? Well, APAC is the member organizations are the conference. Okay, Luke Croft says in the chat, Barry Weiss is pretty much the encapsulation of your average politically engaged American Jew. She is profoundly liberal in New York, Latin and so on, nationalist in Tel Aviv. She's not profoundly liberal. She's liberal in some things. She's conservative in other things. I mean, do you know anything about she has been leading the fight against woke-ism in schools, particularly private schools as well as public schools. So she set up a sub-stack. She set up a university to fight against the liberal hegemony in culture and in the news media. So she's not some raving left-winger in New York and some blood and soil right-winger. She is fairly centrist, both with regard to Israel and with regard to the United States. In some things, she is right of center. In other things, she's left of center. The Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations, of which APAC is like one of the 47 members. When we talk about the ADL? Yeah, the ADL is one of like the 40 members of the Conference of the Presidents of the Major Jewish Organization. Yeah, that's right. That was the organization I was thinking. Conference of Presidents of the Major Jewish Organization. Yeah, yeah. I forget the new guy. I mean, you have the AJC. I mean, there's a whole bunch of them. But APAC is basically the defense arm of the conference system that represents about, you know, basically organized Jewry outside of Orthodox Jewry, that Orthodox Jewry. She has the same positions, very wise, has the same positions with regard to multiculturalism and immigration, basically for America, as she does for Israel. You can't provide any evidence that her positions are different. You can just spout these talking points. He doesn't have to partake in that system, largely. Well, I mean, which I'm pretty sure that there are some, it doesn't, the Conference of the Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations, aren't some of the people Orthodox? Well, there are some Orthodox, but it's in the community. Why are you talking about APAC? Because APAC also is the collection of organizations in the Conference of the Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations. So we're talking about the ADL. The ADL is a member of APAC. So when you say, oh, Barry Weiss is for a multicultural West, but not for Israel. Well, if she supports the current Zionist state of Israel, it is incredibly multicultural. About 25% of the population there is not Jewish and is actively hostile to it. Like far more hostile to it than American minorities to the United States. I don't get it. No, I don't think so. I don't think that's it. I think you're screwing up the organizational chart. I think APAC is a member of the Conference of the Major Jewish Organizations. APAC is a member of the Conference, but they're basically all united in one unit. And although they're- Well, I think- I don't think so. These are two different organizations. We're not thinking too much into bickering about how it works. I mean, it goes back to Truman who wanted- I'm gonna impose some moderate discretion here, because I don't care about the structure of these organizations. DS, one question I have for you is, you say, oh, who cares if they wanna get these hateful people off? And I agree that the people behind this are viable people. But my concern with investing in this power, because I'm against it, strongly against it, is we're investing even Twitter with this power to remove so-called hateful conduct, provide that they're not advocating violence. If you're advocating violence, you should be off. But people who are bigoted, the problem is in a blind drawing, we've seen with- And Leponia says that 25% of the non-Jewish population of Israel was not imported into Israel. They were there, bro. Well, thousands of non-Jews move to Israel every year. Right? Non-Jewish spouses, all sorts of people who had not Jewish are allowed to immigrate to Israel. Hope that everything gets defined as racist. With Israel, you see people who are critical of Zionism, like myself, who are not Jewish haters, get defined as the same as Keith Wood. So do you think that there was a concern about line drawing that might give you some hesitance as to whether, you know, it's a good thing for organizations like the ADL or SPLC just to like, provide lists of hateful people and say they should be removed or otherwise have their reach limited? And then Robert should speak, let's not do it for a long time. I'm a little confused by the- The ADL does not speak for the majority of Jews. First of all, the majority of Jews are not politically active. They're not thinking in any kind of coherent manner about politics, including immigration policy or multicultural policy. So as far as active Jews, right? Jews who are active in Jewish life and say doing Jewish things like sitting Torah, most active Jews are Orthodox. And feel largely apart from the ADL's agenda. Now, if you're referring to, ADL represents the perspectives of most secular Jews who are politically active, then I think you're probably correct. The question, because it began with, do you think they should have this power? The power to, they can't tell Elon Musk could ban. And the chat says the Israelis just gone down some Eritreans a couple of days ago. They're just allowed to do that and remain a respected member of the international community. So they just gone down these Eritreans for no reason. These Eritreans were just sitting there studying the Bible and Israeli troops came along and gunned them down. No, the Eritreans were posing a threat to public safety. They commit an enormous amount of crime, all right? And when you engage in disruptions of the public safety and you defy police orders, I don't really care if the police gun you down. And that's in the United States, that's in Australia, that's in Israel, that's in Japan. If you defy police instructions and you continue posing a threat to public safety, then yeah, I'm absolutely A-OK with the police gunning you down. Whether it's in California, Tokyo, London. They have influence, though. I would be happy if Elon Musk, or not just Elon Musk, maybe Elon, they have no sway with him. I would be happy if we lived in a country where basically the standard response of every social media chair is organizations like the ADL and SPLC. Israel has suffered invasion from tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from Africa. And they haven't gunned them down systematically. They haven't even expelled them, all right? So Israel has suffered, it seemed to me, just off the top of my head, proportionately just as much illegal immigration as the United States. And unlike the United States, where illegal immigrants are rarely African, overwhelmingly illegal immigrants into Israel are African, right? Very different people than Israeli Jewish citizens. Not really compatible with the Jewish state of Israel. A massive disruption, dislocation to the Jewish state. I hope that the Jewish state summons the will to expel them. Just as I hope the United States summons the will to expel its illegal immigrants. And for the same policy for both countries, expel illegal immigrants, whether that's England, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, United States, or Israel. So you would just be to say kick rocks if they say ban this person. That would be my preference. I don't think it's your preference, but... Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let's be specific. But in the general, before we get specific, I want to get, I have a specific question. I'm just trying to understand. But the general thing you bring up is about, like, should anybody be banned? And so all I would say about that is, we've run this experiment called GAB. Okay, I would support banning anyone who doxes, meaning someone who publishes home addresses. I would support banning them. Anyone who encourages acts of violence. Anyone who encourages criminal behavior. I would support banning those people from public space. And I would be okay if social media platforms chose not to amplify those who refer to different groups as essentially subhuman. So I'd be okay if social media companies decide to ban such people. It would also be okay if they decided not to amplify their reach. But no doxing, no instigating of criminal behavior. No instigating of self-destructive behavior. So no encouraging people to drink bleach, anything like that. I would be all down for banning such people. You should go there. Check it out. Well, GAB even exists in social media. I'm sure GAB is just a disgusting, successful intro. But isn't that what you... I don't think you'd have GAB if you had free speech on a platform. I think most people would reject these ideas. One of the reasons I'm having this space is because I want to encourage people on the right. And the chat says, so you confirm 95% of American Jews are Ashkenazi. I believe that's correct. And they support mass immigration in the US but an ethno-safe for Israel. I said no such thing. I said 95% of American Jews are not politically active. They're not political activists and they certainly don't support an ethno-safe for Israel. American Ashkenazi Jews have the same basic politics for the United States as they do for Israel. Ashkenazi Jews tend to be on the left in the United States. They tend to be on the left in Israel. They tend to be on the left in various countries. To more forcefully reject these vile people behind this hashtag. Right, but I'm just trying to understand. So how absolutist are you against that? So I don't think you should be censored if you're not advocating violence or engaged in like defaming a person as this is defined in the law. I think if you're simply a bigot, you have prejudice against whether it's homosexuals, transgender, African-Americans, whites, Jews. I don't think that should be grounds for censor. No, let me clarify. Nor do I think Holocaust in Israel, for example, should be. And the reason why is I'm concerned about line drawing problems. Okay. So yeah. Do you have to get censored by the police first? They can ban people who say that what's happening in Russia, and I deplore what Russia's doing, but it's not genocide. So then they'll say, oh, some person will say, oh, if you say that it's genocide, you should be banned. So I do not trust these people to line draw. Does that mean that people should only get banned if the police or somebody has ruled that they violated that the Twitter should have no place in making this determination? And Lucroff says, when I say that most Ashkenazi Jews are left-wing, you just mean that they're not in favor of expending Laban's Rom in the West Bank. No, I mean that they actively fight to sabotage Israeli government's struggle to deport tens of thousands of illegal African migrants, that they are left-wing promoting homosexuality, transgender, all the other things that people on the left in the United States support. They also support that in Israel. So those Jews who favor strict immigration policies for Israel also tend to favor the same for the United States. Those Jews in America who favor loose immigration policies favor the same thing in Israel. They should only be banned if there's actually been legal presidents to find them guilty of- They have to be illegal. No, I wouldn't say that's to be that extreme. So like illegally speaking, under the Brandenburg decision, if you advocate violence in an abstract way, it actually, if you say like the Jews will have to exterminate at some point, will have to annihilate them and kill them. That wouldn't be criminal, but I think it should be bad. Okay, so here's my specific question. Let's take Fuentes and he gave a speech in July and he said, we will make them die in a holy war, them being Jews. Okay, and it was broadcast on rumble. And this is a guy who's clearly said that, he's very interested in doing pogroms, physical violence, physical attacks. Obliquely, he's smart enough not to just say it outright, but there's a clip that I refer to as zero to 60. I would reference that. Yeah, if this description, Nick Fuentes is accurate, then I would be fine with the social media platform banning him if he is instigating criminal violence. Take this guy and he says that white bull is to like go to war with Jews. He said that on Twitter, actually. Let's take him. So you think he should be back on Twitter? I would have to look at the comments that you're referencing. I think that we have to be careful about the line between hyperbole and a literal call to violence. I will say if he's actually calling for violence against Jews, I would ban him. He's smart enough to know how to... What is militant rhetoric? Whether it's a Black Panther or whoever, I wouldn't ban them on that basis. I would ban them if they are actually... Right, every politician talks about we have to fight. So it's invocations that we have to fight, fight for our people, fight for our nation, fight for what we believe in, but I wouldn't ban people for saying that. In a way that a reasonable person would find to be literal, threatening violence against a minority group, or any group. That's my view. Our views on this really matter, the real question is the lobbying pressure on Twitter to see to the demand, so to say, well, as a Jew, I don't like that these people don't like me. I don't like that they're organizing against me. And Leponius knows that the Anti-Defamation League threatened to destroy Iceland's tourist industry if Ireland banned circumcision. Okay, so circumcision's a fundamental ritual in Judaism. So why would a Jewish group not object if a key ritual in their religion was being banned by a secular state? So it makes sense to me that the ADL, or any Jewish organization, would want to be hostile towards countries that wish to ban fundamental rituals in the Jewish religion. Why would they not? Why would they just be A-OK with it? That's me. And in order to defend myself, I'm gonna pressure Twitter to kick these people off. I don't, I'm not attacking Dovid, because I don't, I really don't know that well. But I just, I do have a Dovid story because it's funny. And I don't know if you remember this. Dovid. What? Dovid. Sorry, my fault. You seem like a nice fellow, but it's just funny because I did a debate versus this anti-Semite named Adam Green. And Dovid came on and he just came to the, and Dovid is an orthodox Jew himself. And it was very bizarre because he was basically defending and backing up Adam Green. But anyway, it's just an interesting story. Yeah, for some reason Dovid likes these neo-Nazis. I don't understand it, but. It's very, it's just all I should have been saying that to me, the ADL is a bigger threat. And I would say the Hasidic community in general feel the ADL is a bigger threat. Okay, so people who live on the margins are gonna feel a sense of commonality with other people on the margins. So I have experienced quite a lot of my life on the margins. So I can have empathy for other people on the margins. And I think that's what's going on with Dovid and his empathy for other political distance. I think Dovid feels like a dissident. And so he has above average level of empathy for other dissidents, even though on the face of things, they may disagree on this or that. There is a emotional commonality between dissidents that includes people from Dovid to Adam Green. I think also dissidents who feel on the margins of their community and of public life, that they're also the ones who believe that the United States is on the brink of civil war or the United States is on the brink of breaking up. And I don't think this reflects anything about the United States. I think this reflects what life is like on the margins of which I have had quite a bit. I wrote on the pornography industry for about 10 years, which very much put me on the margins of society. I've written about the alt-right on and off for years, which again puts you on the margins of society. So I know about life on the margins and I know when I was a kid, there were two occasions when I tried publicly lighting fires when I was about age six and I can't fully accurately place myself back in my six-year-old body. But I have a sense. I remember I was a pretty miserable kid and I just noticed in the world around me that miserable people try to create more misery, people who feel on the margins, feel a sense of empathy with other people on the margins. I probably had an inclination at age six that I wanted the world outside of me to go up in flames just like I felt like my own life was in flames. So I think people who feel on the margins, kind of not able to reconcile perhaps various parts of their own lives, they then take what's going on with them and project it out into the world around them. And so they see all sorts of impossible contradictions in the world around them because they experience all sorts of contradictions inside of them. On the other hand, people who are at ease with themselves and don't experience a lot of contradictions between various parts of their lives, various parts of themselves, their relationship with friends, family, community, profession, educational institution, church, synagogue, they are much more likely to see or believe in a coherent functioning United States outside of them. So I think we frequently don't see the world as it is, we see the world as we are when people are unable to reconcile various parts of themselves or various parts of their life when they feel on the margins, when they feel on the periphery, right? When they can't mend these various warring segments in themselves and their own life, then they're gonna be particularly attracted to believing things like the United States is gonna split up. I have one friend who just sees doom around every corner. The latest doom is AI and then other doom is prosecuting January 6th writers that that's gonna lead to a civil war and then he had 15 other explanations for what would lead to a civil war and how the United States was about to blow up and this has been his perspective for about 10 years. And so I don't think any of this has to do with what is objectively happening in the wider world, but I suspect that for people with this kind of orientation because I've had it, right? That there was a time 2014, 2015 when I thought the United States was gonna crack up that there'd be a coup, that there'd be some sort of civil war, something like that. And this was a time when I was struggling with over $50,000 in credit card debt, my life didn't add up, my life wasn't reconciled, my life didn't work. And so I saw chaos and an impossibility to maintain the union inside of me and then I projected it outside of me into the wider world. I think we all do that. We don't see the world as it is. We see the world as we are. Great article in the Financial Times. Donald Trump's status as an anti-hero is making him unstoppable, right? Talks about the appeal of the former president's mugshot, his inability to stick to the script, they're all part of the fascination, right? He's only increased his lead, the Republican primary since that image of Donald Trump in Fulton County jail. He's now 50 points clear of his nearest rival, Ron DeSantis in many surveys. His mugshot has become iconic. And Donald Trump looks to many Americans as a martyr. And Trump is no feeble martyr. He is something altogether more based. Trump is the ultimate American anti-hero. So anti-hero is normally associated with fictional characters, but it's someone who plays the central role in a story despite possessing none of the virtues associated with a traditional heroic lead character. So the anti-hero tends to be a bewitching, unrepentant, amoral outsider who breaks old rules and creates new ones while leaving chaos in his wake. That strikes me as a very accurate description. Donald Trump strikes me as a pretty accurate description of many dissidents. So Donald Trump's popularity was foretold by decades of pop culture obsession with an adulation for the anti-heroes such as Tony Soprano and the Sopranos, Walter White in Breaking Bad, or Michael Corleone in The Godfather. People love anti-heroes because they are fascinated by their amoral, even immoral stance, a stance which the individual cannot really take because they'd get into trouble. So people admire anti-heroes for their transgressions, for their corruption, for their wrongdoing as a kind of aesthetic achievement. So an anti-hero is not a villain, right? He might be twisted, but he's not pure evil. So Donald Trump has all sorts of redeeming features. He has charisma, he has charm, he is relatable, he has huge stamina, and he is very, very funny. And he's unafraid to other things that others will not. We love anti-heroes because they say what shouldn't be said, but what we really believe, and they do what shouldn't be done, but part of us thinks it needs to be done. So Trump is willing to go off script and stick to what he thinks he should say despite all his advisors saying, no, don't do that. So Donald Trump right now, says it's a very good chance of being re-elected president of the United States. Then these far-right counter-Semites. And like, it pays to team up with the timing purpose in these cases. Dovet! I'm gonna be pretty short-sighted. I think the issue is that right now, I guess you could say that, okay, well, these mainstream groups that have the power of censorship are the bigger threat because they're the ones with power. And you know, these guys are just crazy. So these guys don't have any power. So they're not really the threats to us. But I think that in order for them to be able to help you, like in order for allying with them to actually gain you anything, they would actually have to have some sort of power. And otherwise, allying with them wouldn't be worth your time, right? I mean, if they had any sort of power, then the argument that, well, they're powerless, so they're not a threat to us, so it makes sense. I'm not trying to get people to bash Dovet just to be clear. I'm not trying to do that. Can I make a quick point in defense of Dovet? It's not really a defense. It's just, okay, earlier, history speaks interjected that we don't have to talk. And Dovet says, you learned way more Torah and what the rabbis actually say, watching Adam Green, then look forward. Yeah, because less than 1% of my content is about what rabbis say. I guess he's right. Dovet says Adam Green is extremely careful to correctly quote his sources and to play videos of rabbis in exact quotes. I don't know how scrupulous Adam Green is in these areas. Am I biased towards Jews? Yes, I am a convert to Orthodox Judaism. I am biased towards Jews. Does this lead me to engaging Confirmation Bias in favor of Jews? I'm sure it does lead me to engage in Confirmation Bias in favor of Jews. Yes, those are good points. About the organizational structure of these different groups and what their relationships are. And I agree, it's tangential to our discussion. But I wanted to point out that the American Jewish community really is collectively better at lobbying and defense of their interests than other groups. I mean, these different Jewish organizations are quite well organized and quite effective. I mean, APAC is very effective at getting their way. And that's just how it works out is that certain groups are very effective at lobbying and sort of the business of government, of influencing government. And when you're good at something and you have some power, you have to use it judiciously. And I think that the ADL does not always use their power judiciously. And they end up pissing people off who aren't necessarily Nazis. And you have to be smart. When you have power and you have influence, you have to be smart about how you use it. We just do left-wing, right-wing. They're saying the ADL major Jewish organizations are left-wing Orthodox Jews and right-leaning Jews. Do they team up with the larger Jewish structure or team up with the right wing and say, well, I'm on the right wing. I'm going to join with the anti-Semites for these right-wing purposes. Not my fellow Jews who are on the left wing that have an opposite view on things like censorship. Yeah, but I mean, I mean, Duvid, like, that's still... Okay, Duvid says in the chat, Ford and I, we've never once interviewed a mainstream Jew. Well, I've interviewed, you know, probably over 100 mainstream Jews. I did a series on American Jewish journalism where I interviewed the 60 leading American Jewish journalists. This is in 2004. I did a series on American Jewish literature where I interviewed probably over 40 Jewish novelists and short story writers. Also interviewed many rabbis. So I just haven't done it on video in the last few years. So I used to be known as kind of the Matt Drudge of the porn industry for many years and then I became known as the Matt Drudge of Jewish life. And I've largely, largely disengaged from reporting on Jewish life over the last 12 years because it is very difficult. It's very demanding. It's very painful. It's very awkward to report on your own community. So I've largely disengaged from it. Really, because like a Jewish share collective interests and right and left-wing Jewish organizations have to cooperate, like to defend collective interests. Like any group that faces a problem like far right anti-Semitism and being targeted with hate crimes. And then, you know, for that reason... That's what the ADL is most hate. Like I would say, because Cedric Jews probably hate the ADL worse than these counter-Semites. Well, at the end of the day... I didn't think a Cedric Jews pay that much attention to the ADL. I mean, traditional Orthodox Jews just don't pay much attention to the ADL except for instrumental reasons if they need help with something. You sometimes have to just align for common interests and common purpose, right? Like I think that like Orthodox Jews who think that like, you know who are very much appalled by gay pride parades just along with, you know people who are very pro-LGBT, whatever just have to, you know, agree to disagree on like, on gay... It's the exact opposite. In New York, it's black crime and the ADL teams up with police organization and politicians in the opposite way that the Cedric community would want tough on crime and to focus on black crime. The ADL should just stop doing that because that's, you know if what they're doing is damaging, you know, their main purpose which is to defend Jewish interests and what they're doing is driving a wedge between them. They're performing catch and release. And looking at the chat comment, what about white people? Are they allowed to defend their collective interests? Of course they are. And I think perhaps the most important point is why do white people do such a lousy job? Why do white people find it so distasteful to engage in racial spoils wars? White people don't really, they really look at people like Al Sharpton and Jonathan Greenblatt as heroes that don't want to emulate them. Do you... Yeah, I didn't think they would drop it. I mean, because they should just drop that stuff. The ADL is a bigger... If you're an Orthodox Jew in Brooklyn, the ADL is a bigger threat to you than any of these guys on Twitter. Because they're actually... I mean, I'm talking on a different point. I mean, like, I... Wait, how is the ADL a threat to you if you're a traditional Orthodox Jew in Brooklyn or in Crown Heights? I just don't think the Anti-Defamation League matters to traditional Jews, except in an instrumental way if they occasionally need its help. I think the reason why these guys are a smaller threat is because they're the losing team. Siding with the losing team isn't gonna get you any political power. So I think... They're not our neighbors. And they're not our neighbors. They're in red states. Keith Woodson is in Ireland. If you're in Brooklyn, the ADL's policy pushing for the bill reform and various... Nick Fuentes is in Chicago, buddy. Are there any Jews in Chicago? I think he's also in a different neighborhood and saying that... Oh, he's in different neighborhoods. I don't think so. I don't think so. I mean, even though Nick Fuentes has his opinions about the Jews, is it more important that he agrees about law and order and strong policing than his counter-Semitism? Yeah, he shouldn't... I'm not Jewish. If you're Jewish, you shouldn't align with people who are some of the people who murdered your relatives. It's just pathetic. Look, I'm saying this as a non-Jew. If I see a Jew similar to Nazis or neo-Nazis, I don't consider that to be a man. Do you use that much of a cock? No, I mean, you're missing the main point. So if you're in Brooklyn and your main issue is black crime and you're teaming up with anti-Semites in a different part, like, say, Staten Island, it's like, okay, those guys don't like us, but they're in a different part of town and our main issue is black crime. They're not just... It's like Giuliani. It's just like voting Republican for Giuliani. Like, stop and frisk. Most Orthodox Jews like stop and frisk. They want stop and frisk, and put in place and make pay. Okay, wait, let's just move on. Why would you team up with a group that clearly loses every battle? Like, even if you seem like, even putting aside the moral reasons to not ally with them, you know, like, will we get it on your Giuliani? Giuliani, I also say there's a difference between somebody who may not like Jews that much and they have made, you know, in his hard to part, he doesn't like Jews that much. Maybe Giuliani doesn't. I have no idea. And somebody who, like, sides with the Nazis. I mean, it's just no comparison. Why are we even talking about Giuliani? I think this is a whole discussion. This is a whole sidetrack. Because anti-Semites also like Giuliani, but Giuliani and the anti-Semites and the Jews had common interests in tough-on-crime policies. In order for Giuliani to win in the election, Jews had to team up with anti-Semites in order to get a Republican in office that would institute stop and frisk. Okay. I mean, just like Trump, I mean, it's really the creation of the outright and teaming up in order to get Trump in office for certain concerns. And that's what he said, like, okay, Nicholas, he's like, okay, we don't like him saying all these bad things. I think that's a really bad thing. I think that's a really bad thing. For certain, like, successful Trump picks is Donald Trump. He didn't really do very much once he was in office. Like, the problem is if your idea is, okay, we're gonna team up with the people who have the opinion that we like, and that's how we're gonna choose our teammates, that's not gonna win you. It's gonna get you victories. The way you're gonna get victories is by siding with the team that has more power. So I think this idea that, oh, let's side with this team that has some of the same ideas with us. Well, choosing a losing team, even if they have the same ideas as you, isn't going to get you anything at the end of the day. It's more strategic to side with the winning team and then maybe get them to moderate their opinions a bit and say, oh, let's place our bets on like these internet schizos who are- Right, this is good analysis. The alt-right seems to overwhelmingly have an addiction to losing. They're not interested in being effective. They are acting out of some compulsion that placed them in the position of being marginalized on the periphery, you know, unhappy and unsuccessful in life. All right, they have these compulsions that have circumcised their lives, have held back their lives that keeps them in these endless cycles of losing. One manifestation of their endless cycle of losing is embracing extreme forms of politics that regular people find extremely distasteful. But we have these emotional states and then we feel compelled to reinforce them. So the most intense emotional state that I have from childhood is rejection, all right? I grew up in foster care for some years. I remember moving about quite a bit as a child. So the most intense emotional experiences I had as a child were being rejected. And so my long-time therapist said, I should call my autobiography the uninvited. And so as an adult, I felt compelled to unconsciously recreate circumstances wherein I would be rejected and kicked out again and again and again and again because those were the most intense experiences that I had as a child. And so too many people in distant politics, whether on the right or the left, right? There are emotional, psychological, spiritual, soul-based reasons why they feel very much on the margins on the periphery of polite society. And so they engage in language and behavior and choices that will keep them on the margins because this is what is familiar to them. This is where they've had their most intense experiences of being rejected and pushed aside and kept on the margins. And so people tend to want to perpetuate that these intense emotional experiences of childhood. So let's get Doovid here speaking with Ricardo. Yeah. Dude, yeah, it's funny. You weren't trying to destroy the guy. You were being very polite, but I think he was just like, you know, these normie people. All right, this is Ricardo speaking about Matthew Gabriel, PhD student in history at London School of Economics who hosted the Twitter space on Ben the ADL. And we just heard some excerpts of Doovid and Company talking with History Speaks, aka Matt. Just the reaction with like many of the things you say or many of the things that we say is just, he can't take it. Is he Jewish or, he's some sort of foreigner, right? But he's not Jewish? Well, I had mistaken. He's not Jewish. He's not a foreigner. He's, you know, born American. I don't think it has anything to do with Matt couldn't take it. Like Matt handled himself, you know, perfectly, respectfully and respectively in that discussion. So I don't agree with Ricardo's analysis. Yeah, and I think he's American, but I think his father is Anglo and his mother is Egyptian. His mother is Egyptian. And he, it's unclear his background. Like, because there were so many people on the panel and we didn't just get to talk, but it's possible that he himself was like a revisionist or a denier at some point. No, he was never a revisionist, never a denier. You can't be that reckless. And then he looked into it and- I find it interesting, he's the only mutuals I have that follow him are basically, you know, like the vault right types, you know, like Halsey English. And so it's like, why would this little crew like follow this guy? Because history speaks, Matt is interested in some parts of right-wing politics, the extreme right, and he's interested in Holocaust denial, not because he believes it's true. He's interested in it as a phenomenon for someone who believes in history and he sees the flagrant, you know, flouting of all the evidence-based suppositions for history. And so he takes it on as a hobby. Well, because he's been putting a big thing into debating revisionists and he just tried to use the minimal code for the YouTube standard. So he may have started out as a revisionist and then he's decided to get his PhD in like World War II and then he made a big deal out of like trying to debunk deniers and debate them. He went on this like multi-month long, like really like two year long campaign to get Mike Enoch to debate him. And he finally did, but he was like messaging Enoch like daily for like weekly for like years until he finally spoke. Okay, I think he was messaging Enoch daily, but yeah, you have to put in some effort to get guests. And he particularly wanted to combat Mike Enoch on the topic because Enoch is a leading voice in that area. It was probably not a debate that was easy to arrange. He's spoken to a few revisionists, like Alt-Hype. We're Thomas777, you familiar with that character? Who? So Thomas777 is, I guess we'll be called a neo-Nazi, someone who's friendly to a Nazi perspective on life. Alt-Hype, Matthew Gabriel refers to him as a frenemy. So Alt-Hype, he's this interesting juxtaposition of someone who often tries to come across as just very backspace, statistic space, but he's clearly driven by very strong emotions to some really weird anti-Jewish rants. But he likes to do it in the guise of just sharing Foxman. You familiar with Thomas777? It sounds vaguely familiar. I mean, was he back in the train? No, he's like, I think he sort of got as a bigger account after we were done, but Pete Canonez, are you familiar with that one? He has like a, he started out libertarian and then like took the red pill and he has Thomas777 on there to like. Okay, so the chat says Rabbi spit on questions. That's a common observation. Yeah, about 0.001% of rabbis spit on Christians. Right, there'd be a high percentage of rabbis and Christian clergy who abuse kids than rabbis who spit on Christians. All right, exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare. But yeah, you could probably find three, all right? For whom there's evidence that they, as a regular thing, they try to spit on Christians, right? So 0.001% of rabbis. Like, you know, who's like a revisionist, not a very, you know, it's very subtle. I mean, it doesn't, you know, I think, I think coming kind of, I mean, I was thinking at this other day, man, you realize like the things that we used to talk about on that show are like normal right wing online discourse now in a lot of ways. Well, because the, I mean, the Republican party has largely fallen apart. I was telling him at the end, after we were talking about the ADL that, I mean, you have to be a white Christian to be a Republican. Well, it used to be that way. But I say that the demographic change has already occurred, that the traditional American Republican party necessitated a super majority of white Christians and that super majority of white Christians no longer exists. And therefore you no longer have the traditional Republican party. So there's the attempts to like, you know, Luke Ford, Ben Shapiro, Neocons, Charles Moskowitz types to redefine the Republican party. But I'm not sure that, I don't think that's gonna work. And Is there like a George Bush? I mean, I mean, it sounds like you are just like kind of out of politics now. You've kind of just like given up, like you say, like, okay, we lost. Are you gonna bite? I mean, you could still be like, okay. Yeah, I mean, kind of. You can work with the family. Yeah. I mean, I would say that like, it's the new role, you wish it wasn't, but like all this stuff you're worried about, it's over. The demographics have changed. There's never gonna be a super majority of white Christians again. And the nations don't, the nation's not going back. I think it's so regionalized. I think it's like North and South, it's like rearing its head again, particularly with like COVID, sparking a lot of being a catalyst for even more migration. You know, where, you know, red people in blue states come South and vice versa. I think we're like sorting into basically geographic battle zones again. Well, I think it's one of those things where they may have their super majority, but they don't have it in large chunks of the country. I mean, it was you who got me to talk about this at length, because I just kind of, you know, briefly thought about it until, you know, the conversation with Norvin and Rodney, and then it was like a regular talking point on like half of our shows, the Balkanization of America. Yeah, yeah. And, you know, like, I was the show Defense Politics. Okay, so why were they doing so many shows on the Balkanization of America? All right, because of the Balkanization going on inside of us, inside of me, Luke Ford, inside of Ricardo, inside of Dover, right? The inability to reconcile contradictions going on inside of us, an inability to cohere inside of us, a feeling of being peripheral or marginalized going on inside of us. And then that will cause us to project out and see a Balkanized world, you know, all around us just filled with impossible contradictions and surely the center cannot hold or everything's gonna fall apart because this is what we feared was going on inside of us. And so we projected out. Asia, the Russian, Ukrainian war analysis from this guy from Singapore. But, you know, I see plausible scenarios now that like any day, you know, especially regarding Trump and the arrests in the election, that America could split apart. You know, they could try to arrest Trump. Trump could seek refuge in a state that would refuse to. Yeah, absolutely. And you know. That's never gonna happen, right? I wouldn't put the chances of this at even 1%, right? I mean, I don't believe there'll be a United States of America in 3,000 years, but I believe that the chances that there would be United States of America because of some internal fragmentation in the next 40 years, I'd place those odds at below 1%. No, remember, especially the Russian on doubling down in like Ukraine, Russia. There's so many paths to the disillusionment of America that could happen any day. Yeah, you remember. About five years ago was just hypothetical. No, I completely agree. And I just remember. Yeah, I don't believe we're that much closer to the dissolution of America than we were five years ago. But that has nothing to do with America. It has everything to do with the people who are attracted to seeing that kind of reality where I don't believe it's actually there. Once you were, it was probably October of last year. I feel like did this whole thread about phone. He basically... Whatever happened to Manchur is just gone off the deep end. I noticed last year or so, his tweets are just crazy. Seems to have completely lost touch with reality. He basically said that the Republican primary process would, you know, split apart the Republicans and that there would be like some catalyst of like them trying to jail Trump leading to, yeah, like a governor, like someone, yeah, some refuge and then, you know, if you're not sovereign, if the federal government's not able to go in and get him, then what else are they not sovereign in? Like, why would you send them taxes? So, but, you know, geopolitically, the breaking apart of the United States will be... The reason you send them taxes is because your life will be a lot easier if you do so. You are cruising for a bruising if you don't send in your taxes. That's the best reason to send in taxes. Probably bad for Americans in terms of the ability to be dominated by foreigners. Unfortunately, that's kind of already happened. It's dominated in certain ways, like military... America is the most self-sufficient of all the major powers, all right? We are less reliant on foreigners and on foreign trade than any other major power, right? We are protected by these two enormous ocean boats. We have the world's most powerful military by far. We spend more on our military than all the other countries of the world put together. Fairly. I mean, like, I mean, still think even if the U.S. collapses, that the U.S. is still probably from the best places in the world to play because, you know, geographic isolation, protection against, huge resources and relative populations, varsity that I would say even close collapse, that the U.S. is still probably from the best places in the world to be. But, you know, it's kind of interesting in that I could see, you know, I mean... I don't know where to do, but guess this idea that I changed my mind, like Richard Spencer in favor of immigration and multiculturalism. I haven't changed my mind in favor of immigration and multiculturalism. I still have the same basic views. I have four immigration restrictions. I have four an end to immigration, essentially, to the United States. And I believe we need to put more effort into creating a dominantly unified American culture. So my views are the very opposite there. You know, are they gonna put the woke away and try to, like, is the regime gonna kind of try to synthesize what they've done into, like, a new identity? You know, I think Trump in some ways is almost, like, being set up to, like, be the vehicle for the destruction of democracy, you know what I mean? Like, the right wing... I think one of the two things that you wanna... I mean, like, American identity is kind of, like, globalism, new world order or bust. And so, you know, like, Trump... And the other thing I said is that, you know, he claimed that, like, the left hates America. I said, well, no, the left just wants to redefine what it means to be American. But I think, you know, like, Richard Spencer's turn that the left at least has a vision for America. So the right, the Republicans, have no vision for America in, like, so at best, you have, like, Trump, Ben Shapiro. Well, I think the right has a vision for America. Let's crime, lock up super predators, restore more freedom of association and rights of private property. Create America where bakers don't have to bake, you know, gay pride cakes if they don't want to. Bro, it's just, like, some version of crony capitalism, claim to meritocracy in constitution that's based on global dominance. And we're probably not going to have global dominance. So the left is the only one that has a vision for... No, I think there's, that we're on a trajectory to lose global dominance. I think we're on a trajectory to have increasing global dominance in years ahead. You're the continuance of the multicultural wokist experiment. And I mean, if you look at the left, the left is the keeper of the vision on the right front. But even you yourself, like, I doubt, like, you know, when we were talking five years ago, your vision was like, okay, we have to reverse demographic change and demigration. Yeah, I like what autistic merit puts here. It sounds like you're mistaking a less confrontational, more thoughtful, more high-brow, more nuanced approach and style for a fundamental change of position. Yeah, I think that's accurate. And I've taken my show in a more high-brow, less confrontational, more thoughtful, more nuanced direction and have fewer blood sports and more thoughtful discussion. But I still hold with all the basic things that I hold in 2018, essentially an end or severe limiting of immigration and taking steps to create a more coherent society in the United States to reverse the declines in social cohesion and social trust, to lock up super predators, do away with affirmative action and instead create a more merit-based society. And even at that point, I want the American government and American society to favor people making the right choices and to punish people making bad choices. So the more we give to the homeless, the more we encourage homelessness. So I would like to see less subsidizing of anti-social behavior and more subsidizing of pro-social behavior. So I think that was my basic position in 2018 and I think it remains my basic position. Okay, I wanna play some Charles Murray here. This was put up on YouTube seven months ago. They haven't taken it down. Intelligence, past, present and future. Charles Murray and Helmut N-