 Let's take a look at this video. You can see that's Mark Stein on the left and Tucker Carlson on the right. And we can take a look at this and I will interrupt. And pay attention, pay attention to the collectivism, to the tribalism, to the nativism. The Tucker Carlson expresses throughout this and we'll get to whether this implies racism as well in spite of the fact that he's denied it. Let me define racism. I'll define it now, I'll define it later. Just so we're clear, racism, I in Rand, I in Rand describe racism as the most primitive, barbaric form of collectivism. You know what she thought of collectivism? She thought collectivism was fundamentally immoral, fundamentally antagonistic to freedom, to liberty, to capitalism. She described racism as the lowest form of collectivism and I agree with her. I think it's one of the most immoral ideas that exist out there in the world today. What is racism? Racism is judging people based on their color of their skin or based on their ethnic background or based on their origin, not based on their individual characteristics, not based on who and what they are, but based on some attribute that relates them to other people who have this attribute and attribute that is insignificant to the character attribute that's insignificant to the ability as an individual. It is the opposite of treating people as individuals. It's a form of collectivism, treating people as a group, not as individuals and in this case treating people as a group based on the least important characteristic of a group that is their genetic origin, color of skin, proxied for by color of skin. That is what racism is. That's what anybody who bemoans, well anyway, we're gonna get to that. So let's listen to, Taka I have to put my headphones on so I can hear this, not that it's fun to hear Taka, but here it is. I'm pressing the one button, there we go. That the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term replacement. If you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the third world. Now let's start, what is replacement theory? Because he talks about replacement and he talks about the fact that if you mention replacement people are gonna go apoplectic. And yes they are. And yes they should. Because replacement is not just a word, it refers to a particular theory, it refers to a particular idea. It refers to the idea, first I think articulated in these terms by a French philosopher in the 1970s. It refers to the idea that whites, in this case white Americans, have a very low birth rate. And the white population as a consequence in the United States is shrinking. The native born white population in the United States is shrinking because the birth rate is just below replacement. As a consequence, and in order to cause the white population in the United States to be a minority even faster, there is a conspiracy. Maybe it's by Democrats, maybe it's by elites, maybe it's by, I don't know, the Koch brothers or maybe by Jotso's or maybe a combination of the Koch brothers and Jotso's. But most likely by a Jewish cabal to bring in people who are non-white to replace the white population. So the idea is whites, the white population in Europe and in the United States is shrinking. We need, in order to accelerate that trend, immigrants are being brought in from a variety of different non-white countries and replacing whites. And this is something that is scary. This is affiliated with the idea of white genocide, which was quite popular on the right just a few years ago. That terminology has disappeared, but was quite prevalent a few years ago. And the idea is that there is this mass of class of civilizations, but really it's a mass of class of races. And the white race is being replaced by non-whites. It's being replaced by non-whites within the country by the fact that blacks and Hispanics have higher birth rates than whites do. And it's being replaced externally by bringing people in through immigration and it's being exacerbated by mixed marriages, which are offensive because they dilute whiteness, I guess. Replacement theory is a racist theory that identifies individuals based on their race, identifies groups based on their race, based on, in this case, the color of their skin, is clearly advocating for a particular race, whites, and is antagonistic towards those who have a different race, non-whites. It is clearly racist, it would argue, for example, for immigration of whites only in order to maintain the white majority in America. The emphasis is not on, is all on color of skin, the emphasis is all on so-called race of the people involved. It categorized people, not even based on their ideas, not based on their character, not based on their work ethic, but purely based on the color of their skin and that makes it a racist, immoral ideology. And it's not just some benign ideology. Okay, so some people have this. It's an ideology that has been used or advocated for in the context of mass murder. I know of at least three cases of mass murder where those who committed the mass murder argued and articulated the case from the perspective of replacement theory, from the perspective of white people being replaced, whether it's the massacre of Muslims in New Zealand where he wrote a whole manifesto where the main theme is this idea of replacement theory and we need to fight it. And one of the ways to fight it is of course to kill those who are coming to replace us. Pittsburgh, where the guy decided that the replacement was being guided, the replacement was being sponsored by Jews who were the ones bringing these over the border, the brown people over the border to replace whites and therefore Jews had to suffer and he went into a synagogue and killed, murdered a bunch of Jews. Sorry, El Paso, where again the manifesto of the gunman was filled with the content of replacement theory which had to do with whites being replaced by Mexicans crossing over the border by Hispanic immigrants, brown people replacing him, went into a, went into what was it, a Walmart and started shooting brown people. And of course Charlottesville, Charlottesville in which white supremacists and other types of neo-Nazis walked around chanting, you will not replace us or as the chance evolved into and became the dominant chance, Jews will not replace us. So clearly replacement as a term refers to a particular theory, a theory that has animated violence, a theory that has animated people who have gone forward and committed horrific acts of violence against those that the theory claims are going to replace whites. It's not some benign theory. It's not some theoretical thing that Tucker can refer to. It's something that people are advocating and if you go to Nick Fuentes' website, the America First Nick Fuentes, you will find him articulating exactly what replacement theory is. I mean, he chides Tucker for not being strong enough in terms of his commitment to replacement theory, but it's exactly what it means. Tucker knows exactly what it means. He's using it here, knowing what it means. And you'll see in a minute he tries to backtrack from it, but he knows, he knows. So he is basically articulating a theory. He knows to be racist. On prime time, Fox News articulating as if it's nothing. Now we'll see, I'm gonna replay what he just said and we'll see how he spins it and how he tries to convince us that this is not about race, this is about voting rights. And we'll get to discussion of whether this is about voting rights. But look, replacement theory is a racist theory. He has just said that what's going on in the world today is about replacement. He's just basically sanctioned a theory that is one of the most vile, disgusting racist theories out there. Now he'll try to backtrack. It ain't working because even he knows it's all about race. That's what this is all about. Here we go. That the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical. There's a reason why they become hysterical. If you use the term replacement, if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots with new people, more obedient voters from the third world. Now note how this is being positioned, right? This is about voting. So we're bringing in people. Now he's spinning it about voting instead of about race and that's gonna be his argument. This is not about race, this is about voting. But he's using the terminology of the racist. But what is he claiming? He's claiming that the Democrats are bringing in voters who are going to be more obedient voters. And they've been doing this for the last 40 years. Now first, let's note that illegal immigrants don't vote in this country. They don't vote. And therefore illegal immigrants crossing the border does not increase the number of voters for the Democratic Party. The fact is that illegals haven't been allowed to vote, there hasn't been amnesty since the 1980s. So for 35 years, there've been illegal illegals coming in to the United States, but they can't vote. Now it's true the Democrats would like to give them the vote, sure. And they're likely to vote Democratic because Republicans portray them as these horrific, monstrous, evil people. Of course they're not gonna vote Republican. Although note that Trump got a good vote, good number, good percentage of Hispanics voting for him. So first, the whole issue about this voting stuff is questionable because illegals don't vote. Children, by the way, don't vote. So all these children sneaking into the country, they don't vote, right? Illegal immigrants don't vote. Immigrants ultimately become citizens and ultimately they can vote, right? But even if you take that into account, the strategy seems to be pretty bad, right? So immigration, people complain about immigration laws, lots of immigrants have been coming in over the last 40 years, massive amounts of immigrants have come in. And yet the Republican Party has done phenomenally well over the last 40 years. If you think about post-World War II, or actually if you think about since 1932, Democrats have dominated American politics. Even when Eisenhower was president, the House and Senate were Democratic. Indeed, it was rare until 19, really until the 1990s, for the Republicans to have a presence in the House or the Senate. So Democrats, if you just look at their electoral politics, Democrats have dominated electoral politics in the United States from 1932 until I think 1996. Since then, Republicans have become almost dominant. They've held the Senate and the House more frequently than Democrats. They hold state office holders, both Senates and House more than Democrats. They hold governorships more than Democrats. Somehow Republicans have flourished. In this era, there was supposed to be, their death, demographics determine our fate. And therefore, demographics suggested that demographics suggest that Democrats should dominate. And yet it hasn't happened. Maybe that's because people don't vote their race. Now, it's a sad, sad situation to see the number of blacks who vote for the Democratic Party. It's just the sad to see the number of Jews who vote for the Democratic Party. And one has to ask a question of what is going on? Why is that happening? But demographics don't determine the future. What determines the future are ideas. What determines the future are ideas, policies, philosophies, not race. So if Republicans are worried, if Republicans are worried, then Republicans have to question their ideas or their marketing or their ability to convince. If Republicans claim they have some truth, then they should improve their ability to communicate. But this isn't about that. Republicans wanna find a convenient excuse. And the convenient excuse that Republicans have found, the convenient excuse that Republicans have found is immigrants, racism. It's just untethered to reality. Mysterical because that's what's happening, actually. Let's just say it, that's true. If, look, if this was happening in your house, if you were in sixth grade, for example, and without telling you, your parents adopted a bunch of new siblings. The state is not your parent. Them brand new bikes. Other people in your country are not your siblings. Let them stay up later and help them with their homework and give them twice the allowance. Is that true? Are the illegal immigrants get twice the allowance of Americans? I mean, who gets more wealthy? Immigrants or American citizens? Who gets more wealthy? Immigrants or American citizens? Who gets more subsidies? Immigrants or American citizens? Well, I mean, it's not even close. It's not even close. By what standard? By what standard? By what standard? Immigrants, legal or illegal? Getting better benefits, getting better treatment than American citizens. In what capacity? Wait, do American citizens pay more? Is there evidence of that? But the fact that you're paying to a system, does that justify that you get steal more from that system? So you're paying of taxes, justifies you accessing the welfare state as much and advocating for it? Who voted in the welfare state? Was it immigrants? Maybe from Germany and France and Italy and Ireland. Who voted in the welfare system? Who voted in welfare? Immigrants, Americans. They voted themselves, their ability to steal from some and redistribute it to others. Not immigrants, immigrants didn't do that. The welfare state was not created by immigrants, was not voted on by immigrants. It was voted on by Americans in the 1930s and 1960s, by European Americans. And the fact is, Brian Kaplan, the economist, has shown that immigrants pay more into the system that they get out as benefits. Even illegal immigrants get more, pay more into the system that take out as benefits. But let's not confuse economic facts with storytelling. Because, give me a break, it's not about economics. It never was about economics. This is about race. This is about whites fearing non-whites. Homeworking gave them twice the allowance that they gave you. You would say to your siblings, you know, I think we're being replaced by kids that our parents love more. So yeah, so we've been replaced, so people are coming in, they're getting more goodies than we are getting, they're getting more stuff than we are getting. Really? Is that the actual reality out there? It's completely made up, but it's told as like a story, and he doesn't have to give sources. He doesn't have to argue, make the claim. He doesn't have to support it with evidence. He just has to tell a story and we'll go, yeah, yeah, who wants those immigrants getting all of our stuff? Are they? What about all the companies that are started by immigrants? What about all the entrepreneurs who are immigrants? What about all the jobs that they do that create wealth that we all benefit from? What about all that? No, we can't talk about that. Don't confuse the issue. It would be kind of hard to argue against you because look at the evidence. What evidence? One piece of evidence. You haven't given us one piece of evidence. Look at the evidence. Where is it? So this matters on a bunch of different levels, but on the most basic level, it's a voting rights question. How is it a voting rights question? Democracy, one person equals one vote. And immigrants are not one person? So immigrants are not one person. Immigrants are collective. Your vote is being replaced by a group. Democracy, one person equals one vote. If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there. Oh my God. So if you have a kid, if you have children, you're diluting Tucker Carlson's vote. Because instead of being one vote out of 350 million, now it's one vote out of 350 and one million. So growing population is a bad thing because it dilutes the natives. It dilutes the natives. So he's upset because he doesn't have his big of a vote, but the fact is that even with the natives, you know, his side doesn't always win. If you change the population, you dilute the political power of the people who live there. Do you have a right not to have your vote diluted? Where does that come from? I mean, this is complete insanity. So increasing the population is bad because it dilutes Tucker Carlson's vote. And it's still true that you have one vote, one person. It's just not other people, Tucker. I mean, get your act together. So every time they import a new voter... Import. Nobody imports people. We don't have slavery in America anymore. Every time a new immigrant, legal immigrant, by the way, legal immigrant because only legal immigrants ultimately can vote. Illegal immigrants don't vote. So every time a legal immigrant comes into the United States, what happens? What happens? I become disenfranchised as a current voter. So I don't understand what you don't understand. I mean, everyone wants to make a racial issue out of it. Ooh, the, you know, white replacement there. No, no, no. That's what Nick Forentus was very upset. Very upset. Why did Tucker have to say it's not about race when everybody knows, Nick Forentus says, everybody knows that it's all about race. It's 100% about race. And of course, Tucker Carlson knows it's about race as well. But Nick Forentus was very upset with Tucker Carlson. Why didn't he just leave it alone? It's not about race. But now, Tucker's trying to distance replacement theory from race. That doesn't work. This is a voting rights question. I have less political power because they're importing a brand new electorate. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. It's not a voting rights question. It is a political power question. That's what it's about. And in the end of the day, in a mixed economy, political power matters. In a mixed economy, the group that has power gets to allocate resources towards its people. In a mixed economy, in a democracy, which is what we've become, political power matters because you can violate people's rights to favor your group, your collective. The whole framing of the debate, the whole framing of the discussion is pure collectivism. It's all about your tribe versus mine. And it's all about I want power so that I can benefit my people. Be they race, be they people who vote with me. And I want to prevent you from having power so that you can't give goodies to your people. So I don't want immigrants who might vote against me. What about this idea that the white population, a much really troubled tucker, is shrinking relative to blacks and Hispanics? What are you going to do about that? Subsidize white babies? Penalize, maybe? Babies that are not white? How are you going to deal with that, tucker? There's a whole generation out there that might vote against you. Why should I sit back and take that? The power that I have as an American guaranteed at birth is one... You don't have power guaranteed at birth. You don't have power over other people. That's not guaranteed for you at birth. All you get is one vote, one person. And indeed, if you think about the 19th century and you think about how American voters were diluted in the 19th century, oh my God. The number of people coming into the country, legal immigrants coming into the country at that time was much, much larger than today in terms of the percentage of our population. So Americans in the 19th century, their vote was quote, diluted dramatically at the time. Imagine if we'd stopped immigration then. Where would we be today? I mean, this is so disgusting. Tucker is so disgusting. I mean, he plays, he's playing the collectivist game, the racist game that Ein Rand warned us against, that the mixed economy was inevitably going to lead us towards more collectivism, more racism. Vote and they're diluting it. No, they're not allowed to do that. Well, it turns out they are allowed to do that and they are doing it whether Tucker Carlson likes it or not. So this is the consequence of the mixed economy. What we get are gangs, tribes, collectives that will go to any means to protect themselves. And as Ein Rand pointed out, the most primitive form, the most primitive form of all collectivism is racism and it has to deteriorate into racism. We're seeing that on the left with critical race theory, with the emphasis on skin color, with the emphasis on so-called multiculturalism and we're seeing it on the right with this fear of replacement, fear of people with darker skin than you have. We're seeing racism become the dominant factor, the dominant factor in American politics today, both on the right and on the left. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, we need any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at your own book show dot com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for the work, for the value hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.