Endeavour: Hello. Endeavour here. So tonight I’m here with a special guest. He has a great YouTube channel. He’s a very astute commentator, and I’ve been enjoying a lot of his recent work. So I’m here with Leather Apron Club, or Alex, as he goes by on the Internet. How are you doing tonight, Alex?

 

Alex: Doing real good. Yeah. Thanks for having me on, man. I think it’ll be fun.

 

Endeavour: Yeah, thanks for coming on. So for anyone who hasn’t heard of you, what do you do on your channel?

 

Alex: It started off as kind of a more philosophy based sort of thing, and that’s when I was getting ten views, a video or whatever. And I guess it’s shifted now to people probably would know me for sort of like this representation series. I examine jewish representation in particular on a lot of mainstream platforms. And I guess in the past few months, I’ve kind of focused on examining historical narratives and political narratives and debunking, even though debunking sort of, like, has a bad name these days.

 

But basically that’s kind of what I’ve been doing. Yeah. Sort of political, sort of philosophical commentator, I guess, these days. I don’t know what you’d call it.

 

Endeavour: All right. Yeah. So what I do like about your channel is that you focus on kind of some a lot of your videos are focused on some kind of detail, some kind of thing, which a lot of people either a misconception in our culture or something that we hear very regularly or something you’ll hear on the news. And it’s oftentimes something that people don’t really think about. They just kind of accept it as true. And you’ve done these deep dives into why these are misconceptions and kind of from there, extrapolated. Well, what does this kind of misconception really say about our culture? Why is it in there?

 

The first video that I saw of yours, which I really appreciated, was the one about homosexuality in ancient Greece. So for anyone who hasn’t seen it, what’s that video about?

 

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

top

 

Alex: Yeah, it’s basically an examination of that claim that you hear repeated so often, that ancient Greece was this homosexual paradise. You know, I could sum it up by saying, obviously it’s a lot more complicated. But I think basically the consensus of people at the time, insofar as we can even extract something like that, was that it was a problematic thing. It wasn’t something that was universally appreciated by all Greeks. There’s just so many levels of nuance, even to a question like that. What city states are we discussing? At what period of time? Obviously, these opinions are going to differ drastically over time.

 

[03:00]

 

So what I’m trying to do with a video like that is just examine it and break down all of its aspects and then basically tell you why I think it’s more reasonable to conclude at the end of the day that they really didn’t practice homosexuality in this instance. You find that a lot of these opinions that people have, they get them from these kind of weird places and they end up being planted in their mind in such a way that’s, like very, I guess, without a foundation, without a strong reasoning as to why I exist there. Like:

 

“The ancient Greeks were gay thing!”

 

How many people have heard that repeated as a joke? That’s been the punchline for probably decades now. That’s been popular since that sort of idea has been moving around in popular culture.

 

So people, they have these ideas that I think ultimately are unexamined just because it’s just something that’s reinforced. They don’t really understand the reason why they think these things. So I view that as a really sort of good area that I can go in and actually do a deep dive on and then actually present people the facts in “easy enough” to digest sort of format. That is a YouTube video. I know a 45 minutes YouTube video isn’t like everyone’s cup of tea. But it does a lot in order to make it accessible, like putting it on a platform like YouTube rather than writing a book about it or something.

 

So, yeah, I think that’s kind of been my MO a little bit with the past few videos I’ve done on my channel. It’s like honing in on those things that people don’t really understand why they think is true, but it’s just sort of like universally accepted as true in our culture.

 

Endeavour: Yeah. And I did find the video really fascinating. Now I know a little bit about ancient Greece, but I certainly am no expert on it. I don’t have a very detailed knowledge, but I’ve read a couple of things. I have a very rudimentary knowledge on a couple of aspects of ancient Greece. But I obviously, like, pretty much everyone had heard this often repeated misconception that:

 

“Well, in ancient Greece everyone was gay.”

 

Or that that was just like homosexuality was just like a totally normal thing.

 

Now, it certainly did exist, as you pointed out in the video, it existed. But to say that it simply existed is not to say that it was normal, nor is it to say that it was even something that was widely accepted. So as I understand it, this kind of misconception was taken from the practice of pederasty, which was mentorship. It was mentorship of an older man, of a young twelve year old, 13 year old boy. But this thing was educational, it was not a sexual relationship, typically. But there were instances where the older man had taken advantage of the younger boy sexually. And this is where most of our knowledge of homosexuality in ancient Greece comes from.

 

But it’s kind of like this one detail which has kind of been blown out of proportion to say that:

 

“Well, everyone in ancient Greece is gay.”

 

That’s kind of the gist of the video, right?

 

[05:20]

 

Alex: Yeah, more or less. It’s not to discount that did happen. But it’s to first put that in its proper context and say this was a contentious thing even at the time. Most pederastic relationships were not sexual. And this was a point that after you release a video, you kind of think, like, oh, I should have stressed that more. Or like, oh, I thought of this thing. I didn’t even think of till right now. But I should have stressed this more in the video, that even if there are these men that are engaging in these essentially statutory rape of these young boys, these aren’t the men for which we remember ancient Greece. These aren’t the philosophers and the Statesmen and the warriors that we revere. These guys are the reason that when we think of ancient Greece, we think of it as a great culture. It’s not these random people that were taking advantage of little boys.

 

The Prominent People of Ancient Greece Were Against It

top

 

So even to the extent that they did exist, which was something like that, it’s pretty much impossible to say, like, okay, yeah, this percentage of people. But even though we can reasonably say that, yeah, there was a small percentage of people that were engaged in these relationships, and people didn’t like them. All of the reasons that we venerate, all of the people that we associate with ancient Greece and associate with the glory and the goodness of ancient Greece, they were against it!

 

If you look at the Plato’s, you look at the Aristotles, you look at the great rulers like Croesus, for instance, insofar as he’s even a real guy, these people all come out strongly against homosexuality. I guess there’s another point I just kind of wanted to throw in there. It doesn’t even matter if 2% of the population was gay and there were 10% of the population, that was kind of okay with it. None of these people were great men.

 

I guess these are all the levels at which these things need to be examined. That’s kind of how I’d like to break down these topics. I don’t know if it’s sort of like a Platonic method or whatever, but go through and approach it and ask questions from different angles, sort of like that.

 

Endeavour: But it’s also incorrect to say that, well, because this took place, it means that it was normal. Thankfully, at least for now, who knows, based on the way that things are going, this might not be the case forever. But in the West today, something like pedophilia is obviously considered a heinous crime. Now it still exists, but it’s very frowned upon. It’s kind of like saying that because there are some baseball coaches who abuse their position and their access to young men, it’s like saying that:

 

“Well, our culture endorses that because there are instances where that happens.”

 

[09:21]

 

Alex: Right. It is fair to say that all of the elites of our culture are, many of them, I should say, are engaged in questionable practices such as that, and yet they have faced very little in terms of legal repercussions. So it’s entirely possible that someone 2000 years from now could argue that we have an acceptance of pedophilia.

 

Endeavour: Yeah, which is clearly not true when you consider the overall culture. Let’s pray that it stays that way!

 

Alex: We would just have no way to know that though. Imagine everyone as it was back then, everyone that wasn’t part of the elite is illiterate and nothing was ever written about them. Even though it’s obviously the general consensus that it’s heinous, we would never know that.

 

Endeavour: And then the other aspect is that with this kind of detail, so from these instances where it occurred during pederasty, they’ve kind of projected that onto other aspects of Greek culture.

 

Like for example, I think on Wikipedia, … Now, I’m not someone who’s like an expert in Greek mythology or anything like that, but it lists Hercules as being like a LGBT figure in, … It’s just ridiculous! [chuckling] What they’ll do is they’ll then take that kind of detail and then project that onto almost any kind of instance where there was two men who had some kind of fraternal relationship. I think there are the examples of Alexander the Great, or what’s his name, Achilles in the Odysee, where they had like a close male companion.

 

And then in the modern day, people have interpreted, based on this kind of misconception, they’ve interpreted that as meaning that they were gay.

 

Whereas one thing you pointed out in the video is that never one says that they’re actually gay. When it says that they’re “lovers”. It means that they just have a strong fraternal bond. But it wouldn’t make sense if they were gay because we hear about them having sex with women, but you never hear in the entire myth about them having a sexual relationship with each other.

 

So it’s something that’s just pure projection, that’s been put onto them.

 

Alex: It’s just been put onto this claim about I didn’t go into this in the video, but that claim about Achilles and Patroclus in particular, it has some historical precedence in that it was this idea that was kind of bandied about in classical Athens that maybe they were in a pederastic relationship. It was sort of like a reframing of the Homeric tale, which had obviously no mentions of them as lovers in the modern sense, and no mentions of them even as being in sort of a pederastic relationship, because pederasty didn’t really exist at the time. But there was this idea in classical Athens where they’re like, yeah, maybe they were. And then some people would say that Achilles was the lover and Patroclus is the beloved, or vice versa. And that was kind of an argument that they were having at the time.

 

[12:35]

 

But even in that sort of instance it’s difficult to understand exactly the context in which they meant “lover”. Again, pederasty was something that was stated time and time again that ideally it did not become sexual because that would be just obviously that would be statutory rape, essentially. And they weren’t dumb. They understood this was awful. So even in this instance, which is a reinterpretation of the tale 300 years after it was initially written by Homer, we don’t know that it was something that they were thinking of as explicitly sexual.

 

Endeavour: Yeah, it’s just like a massive stretch to suggest that it was actually a homosexual relationship.

 

But what’s interesting about that, though, is that kind of this detail in the culture, it’s just something that you mentioned, people would joke about it. You hear it in some show like Family Guy. They’ll make a joke. A lot of times when you talk to somebody and say something about Greece, they’ll bring up homosexuality or something like that.

 

So it is a misconception. But a lot of the narratives that we live under currently are backed up by this kind of misconception. And it matters not just for a historical purpose, but also kind of what it says about this particular issue today. So one argument I remember hearing ten years ago during the debates over gay marriage, one argument that people would make is that they said that:

 

“Oh, well, this predates Christian conceptions of marriage.”

 

They would say:

 

“Oh, well, in ancient Greece, people were, …”

 

And the idea was the narrative that kind of this misconception backs up is that, well, this was something that was just normal. So homosexuality was something that was always accepted, and until Christianity or Abrahamic religions, they were the ones that made this taboo, whereas otherwise if it weren’t for this kind of socially constructed aversion, we have to homosexuality, would be something that would be totally normal. Which I don’t think is the case at all! Because I think that it differs from one time in history, one civilization to another. But it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of civilization societies have not had a very positive view towards homosexuality. And almost none of them had have considered it to be like, almost none of them have considered it to be the way that we have in the modern world, that it’s basically considered to just be no different than heterosexual relationships.

 

Alex: And that’s sort of the most defensible position of it. Sort of the crux of the whole thing is like, even if you after hearing all the arguments on both sides, you still go:

 

“Yeah, I think it’s still fair to say that they were pretty gay in ancient Greece.”

 

It’s irrelevant because their form know, you can’t even really use the word “homosexuality”. But for lack of a better term, their form of that thing has nothing to do with the modern form of the LGBT stuff.

 

[15:50]

 

Male on Male Marriage was Never Allowed

top

 

Even on the gay marriage front, for as supposedly accepting as they were, they never allowed. In fact, all male on male adult relationships were looked down upon. Like they were considered less than women, which is a huge insult for the ancient Greeks.

 

It’s so weird. I don’t know just the way they approach these things and the way they make these arguments and kind of twist the logic of them. I don’t know! It doesn’t even make sense. But the difficulty is that they have a much better way of spreading this stuff. They can make a joke. It’s always funny if you’re talking to a Greek guy to be like:

 

“Yeah, well, how you’re gay?”

 

They have the stand up comedians. They have the cartoons that they put on TV, the Family Guy or whatever. These are much more appealing sort of ways to spread these ideas, spread these tropes to people.

 

And unfortunately, I don’t know a better way to fight back against it, but I put out a 45 minutes, frankly, kind of dry video, kind of doing my best to combat it. But that’s sort of what I think we need. I think we need a way to make our ideas, make what we’re broadcasting more appealing. Some people do that in a way, but I don’t know, I feel like the Right, whatever you want to call us just doesn’t really have that unlock. We kind of need to be more “entertaining”, for lack of a better term.

 

If You Own the Media, You Can Create the Truth

top

 

Endeavour: Well, yeah, one thing you point to is that even if you have the facts, then well, there sure are a lot of examples of this. If you own the media, you can create the truth!

 

One thing I learned a couple of years ago was that having power is much more important than having truth on your side because you can have the facts. But if you don’t control the media and someone’s out there broadcasting falsehoods, that’s always going to have much greater reach. And you can point almost any kind of issue.

 

Did Thomas Jefferson Have Children with His Slaves?

top

 

The other video, I think it was your most recent one, which is kind of along the same lines, which I also thought was interesting, it’s also a historical one, is about Thomas Jefferson. This was something that I just had accepted. I had heard this and I just accepted as that it was true.

 

I mean, I’ve read a bit about the American War for independence, the American Revolution and that era, but I’m by no means an expert on so according to your video, it’s almost certainly not true that Thomas Jefferson had children with his slaves.

 

[18:32]

 

Alex: That is my opinion on the thing. Yeah. At the very least, it is something, this is how the Scholars Commission, who they disagreed that Sally Hemmings had children with Thomas Jefferson. This is how they put it. It is something that honorable people can disagree on.

 

My main qualm with the way it’s been presented is just how everything is presented these days. It’s almost like of a necessity when you are spreading something to the masses it needs to be kind of boiled down to its simplest form. When it’s political, it’s usually boiled down to its most outrageous form, the form that will induce the most outrage. So you get this simplified narrative of, like, he absolutely this is, by the way, what the Monticello Association that maintains Monticello and does the tours there. This is what they say:

 

“That he absolutely did have the children with Sally Hemings.”

 

And at the very least, it is certainly up for debate, in my opinion.

 

I would lean more on the side of that it is extremely unlikely that he even really cared much for Sally Hemings as a person. I think she wouldn’t have been given much more special consideration than any of the other 600 slaves that Thomas Jefferson owned throughout his life. Perhaps a little bit more because she was his wife’s half sister, very likely. But that and her and her children were all very White.

 

Her children would have all been 7/8ths White. And Thomas Jefferson was in the practice of if he had slaves that were White passing enough, he would let them run away, having given them a lot of training so that they can support themselves once they run away, and a lot of money to usually run away with. But besides that, she was just a slave. She was another person that he owned.

 

And all of the evidence, I think, points overwhelmingly towards this. And yet again, it’s something that through the reinforcement of these jokes, through just these out of these things that they’re constantly putting out there, this is a thing that most people just unquestionably believe.

 

And I had a lot of, I guess, personal desire to put out that video, because I always admire Thomas Jefferson as a man. I think he’s one of the greatest founding fathers. So it’s essentially doing the same thing as a lot of the other videos I put out. It’s just trying to take down that one brick from this facade that they’ve been putting up with, I guess just the whole sort of, like, modernist thing we find ourselves in.

 

What’s the Relevance is of Whether or Not Thomas Jefferson Had Children with His Slaves?

top

 

Endeavour: So what do you think the relevance is of whether or not Thomas Jefferson had children with his slaves? Because, as you said, it’s possible one way or the other. But you think that it’s most likely that he didn’t. Why do you think this is an idea which has been put into the culture and it’s so often repeated?

 

[21:36]

 

Alex: Yeah. I think we all kind of know the score, at least yourself and me, and probably everyone watching this. We know why they want to try to put out these things. It’s operating on a few different levels. For me, as an American, I think it’s an attack on the founding stock. Well, it’s attack on first the founding ideas of America, all the things that it stood for at its creation, at its time of rebellion.

 

But of course, it’s also an attack on the founding stock, because the issue of slavery in America is just inextricably linked up with the White-black racial struggle thing. Mean, maybe there’s a few other small issues but I think those are the primary issues.

 

Certainly if you listen to what the people who are pushing this idea that Sally Hemings had Thomas Jefferson’s children, if you listen to what they say, it is very much a racial issue for them. And it’s just like any other racial issue. It’s just like the Black Lives Matter movement and anything it’s just another brick in that whole movement, in that facade.

 

Endeavour: It’s kind of like a way of deconstructing the American mythos. It’s kind of a way of tearing down one of the major figures.

 

Alex: Yeah, I think it’s a way to destabilize people’s sense of belonging, and then of course a deracinated people is easily moved around, easily pushed about. I think that’s ultimately the goal.

 

Endeavour: Yeah.

 

And you see that a lot of historical figures kind of get that kind of treatment. I mean funny enough, speaking of the ancient Greece thing, with a lot of Canada’s prime ministers, with a prime minister who I really admire from our history, William Lyon Mackenzie King. I remember that there was an article because he never got married. There was this article in National Post from a few years ago that was saying:

 

“Was he secretly gay?”

 

When there’s literally no evidence at all that he was gay, it’s just that he simply wasn’t married. So then from that they project that well he actually is gay. From that they project that onto it., you know, I do find that this stuff kind of goes a lot deeper.

 

So I do think of things of people like Sigmund Freud. And before anyone posts in the Chat, look, both Alex and I know what Sigmund Freud’s ethnic background was just to get that out there or else the chat is going to go wild when I mention that.

 

Pathologizing What is Normal and Venerating What is Abnormal

top

 

So it’s pathologizing what is normal and venerating what is abnormal. So it’s this idea that:

 

“Well, the wholesome heterosexual family, …”

 

And you even see these memes that Leftists post on Twitter. Every now and then they’ll post a picture from the 1950s, one of those drawings of a family.

 

And then they’ll say:

 

“Oh, well, the dad was actually a transvestite and the young girl was beaten and she wasn’t allowed to wear pants, and she couldn’t even go to school! And the boy, he’s going to die of polio!”

 

They look at an image, … Now look, I know some of these images from the 50s they are a bit sappy, they might be a bit too wholesome, but nonetheless, …

 

[25:18]

 

Alex: Sounds great to me! I don’t know man!

 

Endeavour: Yeah, it does! But I mean, sure it’s an idealized image of it. But they can look at its kind of been put into the culture that just by looking at that you’re supposed to think that there must be something wrong with this family.

 

So you see the happy, heterosexual, White, nuclear family with a few kids, house in the suburbs. Well, there must actually be some like the wife must be oppressed, the children must be getting abused. The husband must be a total piece of shit!

 

But then when you flip that over to what is abnormal, and unusual. If somebody brings up things like what could be some of the drawbacks of something like homosexuality or well, even transgenderism, I mean it’s just even way worse.

 

But then they’ll play this kind of defense. They’ll say:

 

“Well, you don’t know that! Well, you can’t judge!”

 

And you see what I’m getting at here. It kind of all comes from its kind of this trope which I think dates back to Freud. But someone else could possibly correct me on that, where our culture seems to pathologize what is healthy but then venerate what is unhealthy. Do you notice that?

 

The (((Jerry Springer))) Show Venerating the Weirdos and the Freaks

top

 

Alex: Oh yeah. There’s a guy on YouTube, the channel name is, “Wyatt Stag”. I don’t know if you heard of that guy.

 

But he did a video kind of recently which kind of presented that. I for some reason I never thought about it that way, even though it’s kind of obvious. But he did a video on The (((Jerry Springer))) Show and it was basically just this whole thing about kind of what you’re talking about. It’s like they venerate the weirdos and the freaks and the people that will fight on stage.

 

And when they couldn’t find that apparently I don’t know if this is true, but this is what he said in the video. When they couldn’t find actual people that were trashy enough to be on that show, they would just hire actors. And yeah, the whole thing was just that.

 

It was like we have to recognize, of course, that there are always going to be, I don’t know what you want to call them, degenerates in society, people who are not reflective of our best qualities. But a healthy society doesn’t put these people in the limelight. They kind of shun them. They recognize that they have behaviors that we don’t want to emulate as a society and that we don’t want to venerate.

 

But of course Jerry Springer does the exact opposite. So I’d recommend anyone to check out that guy’s YouTube channel, Wyatt Stagg. He’s super good.

 

 

Wyatt Stagg – Jerry Springer – Ringmaster of Civilization’s End – Jul 15, 2023 – Transcript

 

[28:01]

 

Whites Considered to Be Bad, While Non-Whites Are Venerated

top

 

Endeavour: Okay, I haven’t heard of that one. I’ll have to check that one out.

 

And the other thing is also about not only venerating, so in terms of things like in terms of issues like relationships and families and stuff, they venerate that which is unhealthy and out of the ordinary. But then it’s kind of this pathologization of that which is normal.

 

You also see this with the issue of ethnicity and of race as well. More fundamentally that what is foreign is venerated whereas what is considered to be at the most fundamental what is considered to be White is considered to be bad. Whereas non-White is often venerated.

 

So you had a video which I thought was pretty interesting because I actually had people do this to me before as well. That it was about the Vietnamese noodles “Pho”. I think the video is titled, like, “Are Noodles Political” [Is Soup Political?], or something like that.

 

So what was the gist of that video?

 

Is Soup Political?

top

 

Alex: Yeah, such a stupid title. I’m terrible at coming up with titles for these videos.

 

Endeavour: It was intriguing. I got me to click on it!

 

Alex: Yeah, thanks, man. Yeah, basically the idea it’s kind of like a stupid sort of thesis to get you kind of thinking about it.

 

But the idea is that if you’re going to eat Pho, people, you’ll always have that person who wants to correct you and say it’s pronounced “Pha”, which it doesn’t really matter which way you pronounce it. But the whole point was that I think people are essentially just doing this, they’re making sure to correct you on how you pronounce these noodles, even though they know what you’re talking about, everyone knows what you’re talking about.

 

They do it to, I don’t know, distance themselves in a way from their own culture, from feeling White, I suppose, in a way. And they want to feel some sort of connection to this other culture which our society has sort of artificially elevated and put on a platform, like put on platform that is higher and better.

 

So if they can attach themselves to that, they get some clout in some ways.

 

And I think this is just like a kind of silly, kind of trivial manifestation of that larger issue. You can see it in much more impactful walks of life. But the language thing was just kind of like a funny example that I think everyone’s kind of experienced and I have some interest in languages and linguistics. It’s something as trivial as that. You’re seeing that exact same movement to downplay and denigrate the White aspects of society, of culture. To the point, obviously, that many people say that White people don’t even have a culture, which is just like the most nonsensical statement ever.

 

[30:49]

 

You’re White, You Don’t Have a Culture!

top

 

Endeavour: Yeah, there’s that famous video of that.

 

I can’t remember some bug man, I don’t know whether he was White or not, but I think he even claimed he wasn’t. You know the one where he screams like:

 

“You’re White, you don’t have a culture!”

 

Do, you know, that?

 

Alex: Yeah.

 

Endeavour: But I mean, it’s just like an absolutely ridiculous idea, because you even look at all these so-called someone like him who considers that, well, I don’t know, black people have a culture or Asian people have a culture.

 

Well, I mean, they’re all speaking the White man’s language. They’re all using the technology he created. They’re all wearing clothes that were created by White people. Andrew Joyce put this well, that he basically said:

 

“When they say this, it’s like a fish in water who doesn’t now what water is because he’s constantly swimming and he spends his entire life in water, so he can’t recognize what water is.”

 

But I like this video because I actually had somebody say this to me at one time that I said:

 

“Oh yeah, I tried Pho.”

 

And this person actually, I don’t know whether she was Chinese or Vietnamese or whatever, but she said:

 

“It’s actually pronounced Pha. It’s not pronounced Pho. It’s pronounced Pha.”

 

The insinuation is that:

 

“Oh, you’re this ignorant American!”

 

I’m not American, but, you know what I mean when I say that, though. It’s like:

 

“You’re just this ignorant, uncultured American who has no idea of the vibrance of Vietnam!”

 

Or whatever it is.

 

But it is like really kind of you pointed this out in the video. It’s just a really stupid way of actually thinking about language. Because as you point out, the actual way that people in Vietnam would pronounce Pho or Pha, whatever you want to call it, the way they would pronounce Pha, even a native English speaker probably wouldn’t even be able to say this word.

 

Alex: Yeah, you had to go on Google Translate and type in the word. It’s a strange sound. I’m not even going to try to reproduce.

 

Endeavour: Yeah. And it’s ridiculous to assume that because it’s that way in that language. Well, we need to have it that way in our language.

 

Another example of this would be, and nobody does this because they typically don’t care if it’s like another language that they consider to be like a White language, for example. Nobody says that the city Moscow should be called “Moskva” because that’s how it’s said in Russian. Nobody’s going to go around saying, well, Moskva. No in English it’s Moscow. Or nobody’s going to start saying:

 

“Oh, I’m going on vacation to Furaance.”

 

No, you’re going on vacation to France.

 

And it’s just kind of ridiculous to think that because something’s said in one language, you’re denigrating that kind of thing if you’re not saying it in a different language in that way. I hope people get what I’m trying to get at here.

 

[33:57]

 

Kiev vs Keave?

top

 

But someone put in the chat a good example of this was, now this isn’t necessarily as much of a one doesn’t really have as much racial undertones as it does political, but we saw last year with the way that the media all of a sudden started pronouncing Kiev, “Keave”, you remember that?

 

Alex: Right, right.

 

Endeavour: So they started saying that well, because in Ukrainian it’s pronounced “Keave”, not Kiev, then we’re going to now start calling it that way. It’s a lot more obvious why this is political. This was the news story which was capturing the world at the time. This was the big event.

 

But it’s just kind of ridiculous because, like I mentioned, are we going to now start calling Moscow, “Moskva”? Well, no! So why does it matter if in English Pho. Saying Pho and not saying Pha, they seem to think that that has this kind of either uncultured, or some kind of bigoted undertones. That’s just like something that’s just in the culture, which people don’t think about, but it’s there, and everybody kind of is aware of it. You know what I mean?

 

Alex: Yeah. I think, number one, it’s just a really easy way for dumb people to feel that connection. Rather than reading a book about Vietnamese history or something, developing an actual tangible connection to that country. If you feel that it’s so great, this is something that they can learn in half a second and then get that little smug sense of satisfaction when they correct someone.

 

Also, I think just continuing on the linguistics thing, obviously, people’s accents and how they pronounce things are like an extremely strong in-group preference or in-group indicator, I guess. I think it’s something we understand, even at a subconscious level, that is what separates people. That is what makes people Scottish. To the point that if you have an accent and you talk differently around your family not using your family’s accent, they’ll call you out on it. It’ll seem very weird to them.

 

So, yeah, it’s just a way to identify with other cultures, other ideally non-White cultures, because, like you said, no one does this for other White cultures.

 

Endeavour: Yeah. And it’s not even like saying, if somebody said, for example, I’m going to the “boulet” instead of going to the ballet, I mean, that would be wrong. I know that ballet is a French word, but in English it’s pronounced ballet. But this one’s like just changing the actual base pronunciation for it.

 

And this is something that it goes much further than that because this is just one example, but you kind of see in the entire culture that you’re considered to be a more moral person if you’re connected to something that’s not White. And then you’re considered to be either a backward, or a bigoted person or someone who’s uncultured if you’re considered to have a preference, or you default towards something that is, at its root, considered to be White.

 

[37:21]

 

Look ! I’m 5% Native American!

top

 

So you also see that with a lot of these DNA tests. I don’t know if this is so much of a thing anymore, but you used to see a couple of maybe a decade or two ago, you’d see somebody who had 95% European ancestry, and they would say, wow, look at this 5% I have from, I don’t know, China, or this 5% Native American that I have. And wow! It’s just like this kind of 5% that they have. That’s kind of like their way of saying:

 

“Under the current culture that I’m somebody who has some kind of richness to me!”

 

Whereas that 95% the message in the culture is:

 

“Well, that isn’t rich, that’s boring. It’s something that’s uninteresting.”

 

People “Finding Themselves” by Going to Asia

top

 

You’d also see this with the thing of now, thankfully, I don’t think this is as much of a thing anymore. But you’d see with maybe Gen Xers, Millennials that they’d go off to India to, quote, unquote:

 

“Find themselves.”

 

You ever heard of that kind of trend?

 

Alex: Yeah, yeah. Kind of think Steve Jobs did that.

 

Endeavour: [chuckling] So they have this trip. They’d take this trip to, it was usually India or somewhere in Asia, and they’d go there to, quote, unquote:

 

“Find themselves.”

 

And I’ve heard a few people talking about this before. My buddy Morgoth has brought it up, and it seems like it’s something that because our culture has been deconstructed to such an extent, everything that traditionally was held sacred within Western society, be it religion, Christianity, the nation, the family, race, all of that stuff, which things which once mattered to people, that’s all been deconstructed.

 

So you have these people today who most likely would be White, going off to Asia because they want to find something “authentic”. They want to find anything out there that actually hasn’t been deconstructed by this kind of messaging. And they find that in was it was interesting because Morgoth, a few years ago, he also made a video on this. I think it was a movie by Quentin Tarantino, a horrible director, horribly, awful, hateful person!

 

But I think that he had been criticized because he had mocked Bruce Lee or something like that in a movie? And it was interesting because people had this reaction to something Eastern, something from Asia being like something that was considered sacred, being mocked, whereas the traditional culture of the West, you’re allowed to mock that that’s already been mocked and deconstructed and ridiculed into oblivion!

 

But then when it’s projected onto another culture, then that’s seen as being like this great crime, right?

 

[40:35]

 

What Do We Actually Do About the Agenda?

top

 

Alex: Yeah, there’s a TV show starring the devil, I think, Lucifer. But yeah, I think generally speaking. Maybe it’s not true, but I think over the past few years, the messaging about all this stuff has really gotten out there. And people understand. They know the score. They know even to a certain extent, even if they don’t understand the full scope of the issue, they know kind of what’s going on, what the agenda is.

 

So I think the real question is, though, what do we do? What do we actually do about this? We have the messaging. I think there’s enough people kind of putting out this stuff, and we’re even getting help from a lot of the more traditional conservative influencers people on YouTube or whatever. They’re talking about some of this stuff. I mean, even Elon Musk tweeted out today about explicit White genocide in South Africa. These are talking points that are becoming more and more common.

 

Bickering Within Our Movement

top

 

But I don’t see anything coalescing into a definitive political movement. We don’t have a leader to come to us to actually put all these ideas into effect. And I just see constantly bickering between all these people. Okay, here’s an example. We don’t even know what do we call ourselves? Do we call ourselves Alt-Right? Do we call ourselves, I don’t know, certainly not conservative. There’s not even agreed upon term is what this is. Everyone, when they’re talking about it, they have to prefix it with like:

 

“Oh, the Alt-Right or whatever we are.”

 

Or the “movement”. And I see constantly all the people in these different groups just bickering with each other. People in our circles that are trying to start e-celeb drama between each other. And I just see it all as pathetic! I really hate that stuff that! I try to completely disengage with, … Even if someone makes a response to me that’s kind of mean, I don’t really mind at all. I’m not going to start mud flinging with them. It’s silly, it’s a waste! I don’t know. Do you have any thoughts about this? Any 5, 10 year plan? I’ve yet to hear anything that’s really going to well, in your ideal world, what do we do?

 

Endeavour: [chuckling] Well, I’d say that pretty much you need elite support. You’d need some people with money and resources to actually put it into organizing.

 

So the biggest problem that we’ve had is that we haven’t been able to organize any concrete political action based on these ideas. Because I don’t know if I would go so far as to say the ideas are something that everyone gets, because there are a lot of people who don’t get it.

 

But it’s certainly a lot more than it was. So there are a lot more people who are talking about the various issues that we are. There are a lot more people talking about this today than there would have been ten years ago, five years ago. I think even, especially since 2020. I think that the last three years have woken a lot of people up to the fact that we are dealing with these very malignant forces in society.

 

[44:03]

 

But I think that the biggest problem we’ve had is that we just haven’t been able to actually, we haven’t been able to organize anything. I think that ultimately for things to actually get going you would need somebody, some some people with money and influence to actually step in and start it and put resources towards towards that.

 

I think that the best that people like you and I can do is that we can get the message out and network with other people. And hopefully I think that some people have done some good organizing in terms of getting some kind of groups together.

 

But yeah, I do think that you do need elite support if you want a movement to go anywhere. Even though, to be honest, it’s not exactly the topic of the theme of the stream tonight because it’s like a whole other can of worms which unfortunately I don’t think that either of us really have the solution to.

 

Alex: Okay.

 

Endeavour: But yeah, it’s definitely a big question. It’s something that I hope we can answer within within the coming years.

 

Anyway, sorry, one second. Just wanted to get back to. Sorry. [chuckling] I had a thought but then I got a bit side-tracked by that, by the last question.

 

Alex: Yeah, sorry. It’s just what I keep kind of going back to with all this stuff.

 

Endeavour: Yeah.

 

Alex: It’s nice to do the messaging, I guess, the sort of things you and I do, but it just feels so indirect sometimes. Like I kind of want more concrete action.

 

Endeavour: Yeah, I do as well, but I don’t think that we can solve that. I don’t think you and I have the ability to solve that, unfortunately.

 

But the other thing. So you’ve done this other series. Now I think most people watching this will probably be aware of this issue already about this media representation of various popular streamers. So what did you do with that series?

 

Jewish Representation of Various Popular Streamers

top

 

Alex: Yeah, I mean that is simple as simple can be. I made spreadsheets looking at a few different popular podcasts. Joe Rogan’s, Lex Friedman’s, Tim Poole’s, a couple others, Jordan Peterson, and just kind of noted that in all these popular entertainment platforms there is a super abundant over-representation of jewish guests. You know, looking at someone like Lex Friedman. If you examine just his political guests, which I think by the way, is necessary, because he has on like MMA people, he has on a lot of people from these kind of random walks of life.

 

But if you look at just the political guests, that is people that are known as political figures online talking like Eric Weinstein, I guess his brother Ben Shapiro, people like that, then 70% of all the people that he talks to are jewish. And that was kind of on the more like ridiculous end. For Joe Rogan that figure is 42. Tim Poole, it’s lower, it’s closer to like a quarter of all people.

 

[47:27]

 

Strategy of Reaching Centrists or the Left

top

 

And yeah, it’s very simple. In the videos I refrained from kind of extrapolating it all from drawing my own conclusions about this data. Because I thought that basically what that would do is just like as soon as somebody could put a label on me, say someone who is kind of maybe they’re living in a city, they’re kind of Left leaning. They mostly don’t engage with politics, but they have sort of those default American ideas that are promulgated by the popular media. If they were able to say that:

 

“Okay, this guy, he said this thing, therefore he is clearly a ‘neon yahtzee’ or whatever, I don’t have to listen to anything he has to say and I will completely disregard this fact that he’s putting out. In fact, it’s probably not even true. The data is probably wrong.”

 

So I just didn’t talk at all about what this means. I didn’t talk at all about my opinions on it. I just said this is the data, look at the spreadsheet. I made, it intentionally boring.

 

And I think that is the way that it can best serve as a conversation starter. I wanted them to basically get out to people that are kind of like centrist or politically Left and just make them question these things. Like give them a different perspective on the world that most of us see. Or most of us. I guess in these circles, not most people generally, right? But just get them to have this idea in their head, understand that it’s true.

 

And then in a way, it sort of forces you, if you’re an honest person, to have to reckon with these facts too. And I guess in certain ways it’ll subtly change your perspective over time as you now have to square all of these ideas in your head with this new information. So that’s what that was.

 

I don’t know if you have anything else in particular you want to ask on that. I have some extended, I guess, work related to that I can kind of talk about.

 

Endeavour: Sure.

 

But I think most people watching this video are probably already aware of this issue.

 

But I think the big problem though is that as you probably know, that any discussion of this issue automatically gets people to think about World War II, the National Socialists, the big bad mustache man.

 

And I think that it’s kind of something which we’ve had a very difficult time people who are aware of this kind of issue and see it in the way that you and I might. We’ve had a very difficult time really communicating this to the broader political discourse because of these kind of boogeymen which have been associated with this one issue.

 

What I really liked was kind of that the videos were really just saying:

 

“Well, this is who’s on these podcasts. And make of that what you might.”

 

I think that that is a very effective messaging because I think it’s something that unfortunately a lot of people get, I think in our sphere get a bit too carried away with this one issue.

 

[50:47]

 

But it’s something that is very important to understanding the way that countries like America work, or in particular America, but it also is very impactful on the broader Western world. I would say that many of the things that we were talking about earlier, things like the issue of why is it that having the correct, even though it’s not correct pronunciation of Vietnamese noodles makes somebody more cultured than if they just called the noodles Pha, or Pho. If they just call the noodles Pha why does it make them more cultured? I think that ultimately it is because a lot of the discourse over the past couple of decades in a country like America has been dominated by well, kind of has been dominated kind of by this foreign group.

 

Tropes Put into the Culture for Nefarious Reasons

top

 

And to understand kind of why the culture is as anti-White as it has become, you have to understand that a lot of the perspectives, the perspective that has really dominated is one that is at best is quite alien to the way that most White people would see themselves or in many ways hostile to that.

 

And I think that’s kind of where you’d have to go with that issue. It’s about getting people to understand that a lot of these tropes that we’ve been discussing, they’ve kind of been put into the culture for nefarious reasons. And it isn’t really just a matter of this is being something which arose naturally, it’s kind of been something that’s been put into the culture.

 

The Importance of Earning the Viewers’ Trust

top

 

Alex: Right.

 

And I think in a way, that not that everyone’s going to come to this conclusion, but I think many people will come to that same conclusion if you can only get them to at first engage with the ideas, which is what the idea of just putting out spreadsheets with that much else information is doing. It’s hopefully getting them to engage with those ideas.

 

And I know I said earlier that I hope that centrist and Left-wing people watch my videos mostly. I know that’s not the case, I know it’s probably like 95% the boys, but if I can reach out to even like a few thousand of those people and just get across the idea that I’m a rational person, you can trust me. Put out that aura into the world, show that I’m never going to just jump to conclusions, make statements that are wildly extrapolatory, I’m never going to betray your trust, I’m always going to cite sources just like even doing simple things like that. I will strive always to earn your trust as someone who is viewing me, I think that’s one of the most important things we can do for messaging.

 

[54:40]

 

Endeavour: Yeah. And you said you had something deeper about that project or something like that.

 

Media Representation Project

top

 

Alex: Yeah, I don’t know how much I should go into it. I’m working on this thing with other people.

 

But yeah, basically as part of the Media Representation series, I won’t drop the name or anything, but basically we’ve done an expanded project, the scope of which is going to go into the hundreds of thousands of entries. I’ve taken the Media Representation Project, and me and a small team have just drastically increased it’s scope with the idea of eventually putting this thing up on a website.

 

And essentially the pitch is something like we will examine, as I’ve done with the past videos on the channel, we’ll examine individual groups, individual walks of life, like all the guests on Joe Rogan’s podcast, for instance. We will do things like that, but we will also, for each of those guests, generate a unique entry within the website and associate with it as many as dozens or however many tags essentially we can get, basically associate these tags. These are going to be things like organizational relationships, maybe if they’re an actor, like a show they’ve been on, essentially any organization, anything whatsoever, that these people are associated with, we’ll be able to tag them with that thing.

 

So the goal eventually is that we’ll be able to not only look up those groups that we have explicitly put on in order to find out. For instance, I could run data on all Supreme Court justices, past and present, right? And you could look that up and you could do much as I have done with my previous videos. You could look at the racial makeup, among other things, of that group, but you could also, this is a stupid example, but I keep going back to it in my mind. If there’s an actor, or a director, for instance, that was associated with the making of Shrek Two, and you want to know how jewish was Shrek Two? Well, you could find that out with this website because they essentially will be cross referenced, and that is a category that you could find. There’s a lot more detail.

 

I’m going to probably sometime within the next few months, I don’t know the exact timeline, going to probably put out a video, once it’s up, detailing it, going through it, and yeah, that’ll be coming.

 

But it’s basically just the final [solution? – k], … I don’t know how to put it. It’s basically just conclusively showing that this issue of representation that I’ve observed in sort of the trivial walk of life that is podcast guests exists everywhere, broadly. Of course not in all walks of life. There are going to be some walks of life, some areas in which we don’t see this phenomenon, but in many, it is the case that it’s there, and we’re essentially trying to create a tool that will let people figure that out for themselves.

 

[57:15]

 

And yeah, it’s a big undertaking. We’re using AI for some of it to help us gather some of this data.

 

But yeah, I think that’s enough of maybe like a teaser on kind of what we’re working on with that.

 

So I haven’t given up on doing the media representation stuff. It’s just that it would get really boring if I would just occasionally drop another video on like:

 

“Oh my gosh! Did, you know, the racial makeup of the guests on Ben Shapiro show? You’ll never guess!”

 

It obviously just becomes like way too pedantic, way too, … No one would watch that it’s just stupid, it’s boring. So, yeah, I don’t know if I gave you a good enough explanation as to kind of understand.

 

Mass Media as an Echo Chamber

top

 

Endeavour: All right, so it’s kind of like a database on it. Yeah, I think that’d be useful. First reason is because it kind of is just something that’s there where people can look it up. I think the broader point is that we use the phrase “the echo chamber”. That’s true about a lot of people in our sphere. It’s not like we’re immune to being in an echo chamber, but kind of the entire media complex is an echo chamber in itself. In the same way that some discord server is an echo chamber, the mainstream media is in many ways an echo chamber as well.

 

One thing that really struck me this past week is that you’ll see these big media names like Tucker Carlson, some people in The Daily Wire I think it was Candace Owens. Does she work for the Daily Wire? I think she does, yeah. I don’t know exactly, but they’re all interviewing Andrew Tate now.

 

So some guy who’s like a self confessed, romance scam artist who’s facing very serious charges, they’re okay with having that kind of person on their show. This isn’t the Left. This is like what is supposed to be nominally the Right. They’re okay with having someone like that on their show who’s legitimately a despicable person, but then they will never, ever engage with someone like, let’s say, Jared Taylor, or Kevin MacDonald, or Mark Weber. They would never in a hundred years have that kind of person on their show!

 

And it kind of just shows where the boundaries are for what is kind of considered to be acceptable discourse. And the things that your database would show, I think that that kind of says a lot about why these boundaries have been placed where they have.

 

The Fauci Dog Experiments

top

 

And then, I guess, one more video that you made that I thought was interesting, and this one kind of takes a different path. It was the one about the Fauci dog experiments. Because I really found that that’s something I heard of in the media. I heard about it for a couple of weeks, and then it kind of just disappeared. And it was an interesting turn because this is one that’s kind of a trope, or not really a trope. This was kind of a narrative that was pushed by the Right. But what did you say in the video on why you felt that this was kind of something that was made a media narrative of the Right where it really didn’t make sense?

 

Alex: Yeah, man, I’ve made that long enough ago that I don’t even totally remember the points. I know essentially it was this big thing because conservative media really disliked Anthony Fauci at the time, and they were constantly doing hit pieces about him. And yeah, the big one was that what was it? I can’t even remember.

 

Endeavour: Experiments for allergies on dogs or something like that? And the dogs died.

 

Alex: Yeah, they had a number of Beagles who they essentially put this very cruel experiment that involved these fleas biting them and I think, like, laying eggs inside them. Again, the details are fuzzy for me. But essentially what it boiled down to is that Fauci really had no direct oversight into this thing. He was very tangentially related. It was just something, it was just a hit piece that they could conduct against him. And I don’t know, I guess I just put it out there without even a particular political bent. I don’t know, maybe it was a bit to just show that I certainly don’t align myself with conservatism, mainstream conservatism or things like that.

 

Endeavour: Well, I think wasn’t the point of the video that it wasn’t like a defense of Anthony Fauci. But at least this is what I got from it that was that it was kind of more of a commentary on kind of how juvenile the discourse has really become.

 

Whereas he had actually done things like possibly committed perjury, but people weren’t interested in that story. But then they kind of had to run with this kind of played up dog story.

 

Alex: Right. Yeah. And of course you had the element of that it is dogs. So they were just trying to elicit an emotional reaction. And it’s something that you can also explain to someone in 5 seconds and then get that emotional reaction if they are a conservative. I never know to what extent the mainstream media can actually be said to just be serving their financial interests, I’m always kind of skeptical of that. I think they have larger agendas that are completely detached from their financial interests. I think they’ll lose money if they have to.

 

But insofar as I guess maybe that is true, it’s just something that they were doing to get views. I don’t know. Or maybe if it is serving their agenda it was to further polarize people and that was somehow serving of a benefit to them. I don’t know. Yeah, I don’t know. It was an interesting case study in how the media acts, how it actually reports on these things. And it’s just ridiculous! It’s in no way like seeking truth or seeking to actually inform people.

 

[1:03:34]

 

On Eating Bugs

top

 

Endeavour: Yeah, I don’t know.

 

And then there was the one about eating the bugs which I also found that one interesting. The thing I actually kind of disagreed with the video. So your argument was that eating bugs is not going to happen in the future because it’s really first of all, it’s disgusting!

 

But not only that, it’s really not something which is really as feasible as they’re claiming. That’s pretty much the gist of it.

 

Alex: Yeah, pretty much that.

 

Endeavour: Would you say though, that the thing of eating bugs, … Because the thing is I don’t necessarily think it’s about and this also speaks more like to what kind of regime this really is. But I don’t really think it’s as much about the environment, as much as it is just about sadism and kind of just tormenting people and reducing the masses to kind of just like these battery hens.

 

So it doesn’t seem as much like actually about because it’s efficient. I kind of thought that when I saw this video I thought it seems like it’s more something that they’re going to do because they’re sadists and they basically just hate the people that they rule over. Not necessarily because it’s actually efficient.

 

Alex: I mean, that very well could be the case. I didn’t want to come across as naive in the video, but the reason I didn’t take that tact is because that’s a much more difficult thing to prove. How are we going to prove the intentions of these people twirling their mustaches in smoke filled rooms? Rather, the only thing we can do is assume they’re talking in good faith. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve that. Whatever. I’m just taking their claims at face value and examining them, see if they make sense.

 

Obviously, the main one is that if we were all to switch to eating bugs, then it would be better for the environment. Well, if you examine this, actually a lot of what I did is just look at what other scientists have done in the area.

 

And if you look at all their work and then do whatever else, whatever other reading I did on that video, there’s something like 40 some odd sources that you can look at if you go to that video. But really the claim just doesn’t even add up. I guess it’s impossible to know how effective of a strategy that is.

 

[1:05:55]

 

But that was my thinking. It’s just like:

 

“Okay, take them at face value. And then if it comes out that what they’re saying about them being environmentally friendly really isn’t true, then we’re forced to go on to the further question of like, well, why are they pushing these things? Is it because they’re simply ignorant.”

 

Probably not. Probably not most of them. I think people, the elites in power generally are going to be pretty intelligent.

 

As much as people don’t like to think that they like to think our government officials are imbeciles. That may be the case for some of them, but generally speaking, they’re pretty intelligent. And especially those people who are actually pulling the strings from the background, they’re going to be even more so intelligent.

 

It was essentially to get people to where I’m at in thinking on that issue. It’s just like it can’t possibly be because of the environmental thing. We could all just eat chickens. And even the cow question, even though they produce methane, and by certain metrics they are worse for the environment. It’s a much more complicated question than just examining CO2 and methane. Right?

 

I guess we’re left to speculate essentially on a few different things. Either it is that they’re ignorant, probably unlikely.

 

It could be, and I think this is a pretty viable and kind of mundane explanation that no one really considers with the whole bug thing. People generally right now, especially with recently, with inflation being what it is, investors will put their money into stuff that they’re really taking a fairly big risk on. Because to not invest would just be essentially to sit on that money and have it wither away to inflation.

 

So it’s best to keep your money in things, even if most of them are going to be losers in the long term. If you bet on something getting on the ground floor and it becomes the next big thing, well, then it’ll be a worthwhile investment. You see this all the time. Some really stupid things can just survive for as long as a decade on just marketing hype. So literally, it could be as mundane as that. [chuckling] They’re getting investors, they’re putting a lot of money into marketing these things, and it’s fairly easy to get investment money.

 

Now, it sounds kind of mundane, but that’s a legitimate explanation. We should generally edge towards the mundane explanations. It could also be that they hate us and they want to see us reduced to cattle. But I have no way to prove that. I have no idea!

 

Endeavour: Yeah, I tend to think it is a lot more malignant, the driving force behind that. I’ve even looked back and I’ve seen this eating the bugs argument. It’s not something that only came about in the last three, four years. It’s something that has been talked about a lot more in the last couple of years. But I even look back in some of these old textbooks that I had. They even had an article in the textbooks from like, … And these were maybe six, seven, eight years old. The textbooks have this article in them. More than one of them have an article about eating bugs.

 

[1:09:16]

 

And I even remember in university there was some kid who thought he was being intelligent by giving a presentation on why people should eat crickets. Yeah, he didn’t win me over on that one.

 

And you’d even see the same kind of arguments being used, kind of like what we were talking about earlier, that something being considered to be White means it’s considered bad, whereas something that’s non-White is considered to be good.

 

You’ll hear this argument regularly that they’ll say:

 

“Well, you know, in Africa or in Southeast Asia well, this is just really a common part of people’s diet! You know, it’s really just kind of these prejudices of Euro-centrism really which has this disgust for eating bugs. And it’s really something that is normal for everyone else in the world!”

 

They take this same approach.

 

Whether or Not the Elites Are Machiavellian?

top

 

So where would you say you stand on the question of whether or not the elites kind of are Machiavellian and they use this stuff to advance some kind of agenda which they have planned out, and it’s all about power for them. They’re just kind of power hungry and they want to reduce the population to cattle and have a system where they have control over?

 

Or do you think it’s something that’s kind of a lot more ideologically driven that there are people who have this kind of vision of this kind of technocratic egalitarian futurist utopia and nothing will get in the way of their vision? Do you tend towards it being more of the Machiavellianism or more of the ideological idealism?

 

Alex: Right. I think definitely more the second. It’s not to say that there isn’t hatred, I guess. I think that can definitely exist. But for me, if I were to examine it on an individual level, if I were to go to one of these people that I would consider to be in the elite, I think, generally speaking, they drink the Koolaid on this stuff. They genuinely believe in mass migration. They genuinely believe in something as stupid as eating the bugs. They’ve been told they don’t really have an educated reason why they believe these things, but they just like everyone else.

 

I mean, they consume the same media. I think they’re getting a lot of the same ideas. There’s always the temptation to sort of go one level beyond it’s. Like okay, yeah, that guy is a billionaire, but he’s just a businessman. The fact that he is sort of milk toast conservative who’s kind of like lukewarm, kind of okay with the idea of transgenders as long as they’re not shoving it down my throat. The fact that he’s like that.

 

But that doesn’t explain the real elite. There is a real cabal, just one level deeper that they operate in the shadows. They’re Masons or whatever you want to say they are. I don’t know.

 

It’s difficult because at a certain level, there is circumstantial evidence to say stuff like that exists. And I’m certainly not totally discounting it. I’ve done a lot of reading in that sort of realm, and I get where they’re coming from. But it’s like so often people will just like I don’t know, they conjure this thing in order to explain the way the universe works.

 

[1:12:56]

 

It’s like, this happens this way. Therefore, this would make sense if there was some elite cabal behind the scenes pulling the strings like this. I think that’s all too tempting of an idea that people always try to pull. But generally speaking, not all the time, but like 90% of the time, you can explain away most behaviors with mundane explanations, which I think we should all, … Again, it’s not to say that there aren’t these deeper cabals. It’s just that we should always emphasize, is there a simpler explanation? Could it just be like:

 

“Okay, yeah, that guy’s a hedge fund manager, but maybe he just watches CNN and that’s kind of where he’s getting these ideas.”

 

Or he uses TikTok and the algorithm is such that he gets these sort of mainstream, somewhat Left leaning political takes that are popular in America and that influences the decision that he makes at his company. I don’t know. It’s a very fine line between reasonable speculation and full on tinfoil hat!

 

I Think the System is More About Control Than Money

top

 

Endeavour: Yeah. One thing, the explanation I had a couple of years ago was my theory was that it was kind of all about money, that they were doing it because it would make them more money. I’ve since abandoned that theory. My argument back then was that, well, they were trying to create a system which is the most profitable for them. But I’ve since changed that view. I think the system is more about control.

 

On the question of whether they’re Machiavellian or they’re true believers, I think that there are a bit of both. You know, someone like, let’s say, Joe Biden, for example. I don’t think he truly believes in diversity. I don’t think that he actually genuinely cares, uh, black female representation in the Supreme Court or whatever it is. I don’t believe that Joe Biden actually cares about that because he’s gone back and forth his entire career and you’ve always seen he’s gone where power has been. And these days he probably doesn’t even believe anything because he doesn’t have the mental capacity to anymore.

 

But then you also see other characters who do seem to be genuine believers. I’m trying to think of someone who off the top of my head who actually would be that. Just trying to think of one really good example. Maybe you could argue someone like maybe Justin Trudeau could be seen as like a true believer.

 

But I feel that kind of the malignant Machiavellianism and the true believer idealism really kind of play off of each other. So someone can go into it being all about, well, what do I do to get ahead? How can I gain power? What will raise my standing in this system?

 

[1:16:08]

 

So then they start repeating the lines about diversity and about climate change and about all that stuff, and then they begin to believe it later on.

 

Whereas the true believers, oftentimes they come into it as these idealists. But then once they’re given the taste of power, they kind of become this ruthless Machiavellian. Because it’s a hard question to answer, because I look at a lot of things and I just think that, well, they must just totally be mad with things like mass immigration and all this stuff. It does seem like this is coming from this true belief in things like diversity.

 

But then on the flip side, you’d think that if it really was all just about belief, and not about kind of this Machiavellianism, you’d think they would have made a lot more mistakes. But it always seems like it’s extremely rare for them to make a mistake out of incompetence, which reduces the amount of power that the system has. Do you see what I mean by that?

 

Alex: Maybe. Can you, …

 

Endeavour: Yeah. If someone’s a true believer and they’re just totally died in the wool devoted to an ideology, they’d make a lot more mistakes, which would basically harm their position.

 

An argument that had been made a while ago was whether it was malice or whether it was incompetence. And I definitely think that the answer can’t be incompetence. But a true believe, I think would be open to making mistakes out of incompetence a lot more than they would be if they’re really just like strong Machiavellian.

 

There is a Racial Animus in the Elite

top

 

Alex: Yeah, it’s so difficult just to pinpoint the exact percentages of what percent of the elite just true believers, versus dimwits with actual malice? I don’t know, man! It’s a real tough question.

 

Certainly at a certain level. I’ll just say I believe there is a racial animus of the elite involved in this. And it’s not simply that they are parroting ideas, but that they, I guess I’d have to question even where their ideas came from.

 

But I do think that people driven by this racial animus see it as an imperative that, for instance, the mass immigration thing happens. But where do we draw the line there between, … If they genuinely believe that let’s just say they think they’re chosen to do this right, if they genuinely believe that that is what they’re put on Earth to do, and that this is a good that they’re ultimately serving. In what sense? It’s just like a matter of defining terms.

 

[1:19:19]

 

Like if you say they’re acting out of malice or not, if they’re Machiavellian or just a true believer in whatever power they believe in. It’s kind of splitting hairs. Honestly. I think that is their motivation. And probably the vast majority of people are just following what is preached. They’re following the mainstream narrative that has been promulgated to them. But there certainly is a subset of those in power that are driven by cultural, social, or religious animus.

 

But it’s just difficult to say whether or not that constitutes true malice or not, I guess is what I’m getting at.

 

Any Projects You’re Working On?

top

 

Endeavour: Yeah.

 

Anyway, I think we probably can wind down soon to finish off. Are there any other projects that you’re working on or anything yet other than the one that you already mentioned?

 

So the database? So other than that, any projects you’re working on that you’d like people to be aware of?

 

Alex: I guess I can talk briefly. I’m working on videos constantly. I think the one right now that it’s going to be just like a massive project is just pretty much kind of as a follow up to the ancient Greek homosexuality one, but just a large video on ancient Roman homosexuality.

 

And again, breaking down what I think has just been like a way too simplified narrative about what was going on there. And then even there’s sort of philosophical dimensions to it of how can we attain knowledge? What knowledge truly can we attain from this? How much of this is it possible even to know that this is true?

 

So there’s a lot more so than with the ancient Greek one, which is dealing with a smaller subset of people in a smaller time period. The ancient Roman homosexuality question, you’re dealing with at a minimum from like 200 BC to 200 AD. And in a much more complicated society, the politics are totally different. It’s difficult to even understand a lot of how their society functions.

 

So how can we get down to that? The minute details of their sexual life when, generally speaking, they didn’t even write about sexuality explicitly. It was just something that this guy might have mentioned in a book talking about something totally different.

 

So it’s like, how do we even begin to answer these questions? And with what degree of certainty can we actually say that come to this grand conclusion that ancient Rome was gay? It’s becoming like, a big undertaking. I’ve been doing a lot of reading on that for the past few months even. But I hope to kind of do that question justice and show what people mean when they say:

 

“Ancient Rome was gay.”

 

Of course, it’s not that I was always going to come to this conclusion. I’m leaning a lot more towards like they tended to disdain homosexuality. In what form it did exist? It was entirely different from what we have today. But I would also argue that it’s generally not a good thing in their society. Even limited though it was, it was usually either viewed as a negative explicitly by people or had clearly negative outcomes.

 

So, I hope to get into all that in the video. I’m always working on a number of videos, and usually once I get enough work done on a particular video, I’ll actually finish the whole script and actually make it and spend a couple of weeks exclusively on that. But until that time, I’m usually doing a couple of different ones in parallel, just, I don’t know, kind of keep it interesting.

 

Endeavour: All right, well, good!

 

So I think that we’re ready to finish then. Thanks for coming on, Alex. And definitely, everyone check out his channel if you haven’t seen his work already. It’s linked down below and he has a lot of great work. So thanks for coming on tonight.

 

Alex: Yeah, man, thanks for having me.

 

Endeavour: All right, talk to you all later. Bye.

 

[1:23:25]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 8/2/2023 = 54)

@niciassmith1204
1 day ago
Video suggestion:
Demographic representation at Ivy League schools. I read Harvard is 40% white but it’s really only 15%. A certain group is lumped into the white category.
75

3 replies

@SlurMaster9000
19 hours ago
IIRC that was based on an estimate that used students’ last names. So it would undercount students that are half-Jewish via maternal lineage (which is what matters in Judaism).
6

@watariovids1645
16 hours ago
I believe Ron Unz put out some numbers on that but i don’t have a link.
2

@Th3BigBoy
20 hours ago
Alex’s philosophy videos are the best.
8

@omgjimmyboy
1 day ago
Yeah I remember hearing in school that Alexander the Great was gay, I remember just being so dissapointed and couldn’t respect him, now it makes sense how this was purposefully done
78
Endeavour

11 replies

@substantivalism6787
1 day ago
You heard he was gay. . . and then you were disappointed and couldn’t respect him. . . I’m not seeing the connection. . .

@omgjimmyboy
1 day ago (edited)
@substantivalism6787 like they say in the video it’s a deconstruction, obviously I’m not a fan of the lgbtq nonsense, hearing that a great man such as Alexander is gay is like a punch to the gut.
3

@substantivalism6787
1 day ago (edited)
@omgjimmyboy Is it a punch to your gut. . . not because they manipulated a historical narrative. . . but because he was accepted at first sight by you as gay, right? I get the being mad at liberal manipulation angle here but that isn’t the reason. . . right. . . its that he was proclaimed as gay and that ‘tainted’ his image? Or am I wrong?

@nobobonobo
1 day ago
@substantivalism6787 who could possibly respect a gay?
5

@niciassmith1204
1 day ago
Another white pill is that Michaelangelo was anti gay and accosted DaVinci in the street
29

@aaronwilkinson8963
1 day ago
He wasn’t gay but his father did have male lover’s.

@omgjimmyboy
1 day ago
@substantivalism6787 I don’t like bundles of sticks
21

@substantivalism6787
1 day ago
@omgjimmyboy I get it that you feel left out if its just a bundle and not a triple. You can still be in the corner watching, .

@user-pt7kz1ng4q
19 hours ago
@substantivalism6787 anime, star wars and buggery. now thats a triple

@Vingul
10 hours ago
​ @omgjimmyboy I do like bundles of sticks…. ie fasces.
3

@wiggawithattitude
20 hours ago
‘out of africa’ is another thing that is just stated as fact, with any questioning of it drawing bemused glances from people who have never even thought about the issue, let alone examined it critically.
24

3 replies

@whoever79
16 hours ago
It is this phenomenon that we fight
4

@niciassmith1204
11 hours ago
I would follow Robert Sepher if you don’t already

@Cronoo
7 hours ago
Look forward to this ‘early life’ tool. It will be a very effective method of showcasing this data to the uninitiated.
3

@michipichi0
22 hours ago
Appreciate that Alex had his camera on for this talk
7

1 reply

@lordnelsonmc.billionberg9166
15 hours ago
I actually don’t care, because I always only listen to the audio, anyways .
1

@iMakz07
18 hours ago
Great discussion
5

@jimeyhat
12 hours ago
When the ancient world finally beats the gay allegations
10
Endeavour

@Kevin.A.S
22 hours ago
Wow, great crossover!
4

@FRANKMUSIKOFFICIAL
1 day ago
The cross over I was hoping for
7

@DeadSabbath806
7 hours ago
About to start, but random: Joseph Bronski made quite some noble efforts to debunk Leather Apron about things such as Ancient Greeks being gay, tho I’ve yet to watch the Bronski deboonking vids

2 replies

@stevecastillo3011
2 hours ago
He isn’t. However, his ego is getting the best of him. I completely dropped him when his response to Keith Wood’s criticism of democracy was in very philistine and in bad faith to the point where he doesn’t even address the points Keith make by the end.

@arbendit4348
13 hours ago (edited)
Well to suggest that Homosexuality in Greece was treated like the 1950s isn’t fair either. Homosexuality in Greece was socially acceptable. It may have been frowned upon by some, but just as much it was accepted by others.
Also to say that just because someone had a heterosexual relationship they were not also engaging in homosexuality is not fair since the differentiation wasn’t very clear back then. Even if you liked women that doesnt change the fact that you could also like young boys. For example young Eunuchs were commonly used for homosexual relationships, even though that was mostly because they are much more feminine than most men.
And you also have to consider the fact that many Greeks had a clearly negative view of women which made them believe that men should only have sex with other men, Because women are not worth enough to have sex with.
Finally you have to consider that to a large degree Christianity was legalised and officialized within the Roman Empire as a moralising force. Many Romans saw the debauchery and lechery that was prevalent during the final epoch of the Empire as complacency and self indulgence became the norm. This is important because to state that an extreme aversion to homosexuality is the norm within all societies, that removes the very important role that Christianity had to play for the moral revival and strengthening of Europe.
2

Endeavour
·
8 replies

@endeavour8273
12 hours ago
I disagree. While Greek society was very male-centric, that does not mean the men desired to have sex with each other in any significant number. While homosexuality existed in Ancient Greece, it was not any more accepted than it would’ve been in Europe or America before the mid 20th century.
Acceptance of homosexuality differed between various civilizations and eras, but it is certainly the norm that people have had an aversion to it across civilizations and eras. I do think Christianity brought some benefits to Europe, to say the Ancient Greeks before Christianity were “gayer” is incorrect.
8

@arbendit4348
11 hours ago (edited)
​​ @endeavour8273 But if that was the case homosexuality would have been illegal. But it obviously wasn’t, taboo maybe, but it is taboo among men even today.
Also don’t you think that if Ancient Greeks viewed homosexuality in the same way as we did in the mid 20th century they would not have written about it so much in a neutral or even positive manner? Why did they have plays or myths about it? A very simple example is of the god Apollo’s beloved Hyacinth who was killed when a jealous lover, the wind-god Zephyrus, diverted a discus into the skull of the young man. Apollo himself had many homosexual relationships that were written about. Why did a society that supposedly opposed homosexuality as clearly as in the 1950s create such myths?
The problem here is that you assume Ancient Greeks must have seen homosexuality or pedophilia as a bad thing, because it is obviously a negative for us, when our morality clearly originates from Christianity and theirs from a completely different context. There was no issue regarding consent. Girls as young as 12 commonly married men in their 50s and 60s. This was seen as a non issue.
The reason why Ancient Greeks opposed homosexuality between adult males much more than between a boy and an a man, is because of the nature of the relationship. A homosexual relationship has a dominant and a submissive partner. And to be submissive to a man as an adult was seen as effeminate. It was seen as the role of women to submit to men. Therefore a submissive male partner was not respected by fellow men. It also was not seen as morally good to sexually dominate a fellow adult man since all men needed to respect one another and retain their strength and masculinity.
So you see, it is not the act of having sex with a man that was disliked by Greeks (although no doubt not everyone engaged in it) but it was the consequences of such an act that were the problem.
1

@arbendit4348
11 hours ago (edited)
​​​​​ @endeavour8273 Also it obviously differed between city states as Alex said. Athens was much more strict regarding homosexuality than Sparta which didn’t have any laws against it. In Athens however if a man was found out to have sex with another adult man both were forbidden to Vote in Athenian elections or to hold any public office.
So do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that there is not a natural aversion to certain phenomena that exists within society, but rather that the aversion is expressed in different ways for different reasons.
The reason even today that men who accept homosexuality and gay marriage will beat you up if you call them gay is the same reason Ancient Greeks opposed homosexuality thousands of years go. Because it makes you less of a men. It emasculates you, so to speak. This is an obvious example of a natural aversion that doesn’t go away regardless of the amount of acceptance towards homosexuality.
I hope this explanation is reasonable to you, but let me know if you still disagree.

@MaximilianAgrippa
9 hours ago
​ @arbendit4348 everything is explained in the video Leather Apron made, go check that one
3

@arbendit4348
9 hours ago
@MaximilianAgrippa I know about his video. I am criticising what was said here. And as someone who has researched this particular topic extensively, I believe I have some things to say about it.

@greglyhoblit
5 hours ago
​@arbendit4348 you are homosexual ?
1

@arbendit4348
5 hours ago
@greglyhoblit No. Hetero, but a historical realist. I oppose incorrect interpretations of history wherever they may come from. Recently I have been arguing a lot with Africa-centrists regarding their stupid beliefs, but ultimately even here where I agree with a lot of things these guys are saying none of them are above criticism.

@andrearaujo4038
1 day ago
The gay greeks video was how I got into him.
34

5 replies

@zircconium2680
1 day ago
Or lack thereof
5

@omikhlephonon
18 hours ago
Sexually and politically

@FirefoxisredExplorerisblueGoog
15 hours ago
Same, great video.

@lordnelsonmc.billionberg9166
15 hours ago
Now get J woke !
3

@mtra5812
17 hours ago
great interview
3

@GerNiels
6 hours ago
What was that youtube-channel Alex recommended?

@marocat4749
19 hours ago (edited)
I disagre it deproves. that that being gay wasnt acceted,because it was apearently conditional. And existed. Also that pedestry isnt would be a lie, and i hope they dwere considered , ok i avoid that ., that just shows it was just still conditional. like the ottom shaming.
Hell even now peope say its not gay if “yada yada ative and toppart stuff, … And i hope its, yyeah still a gay thing . That is no different.
Hell even now things tat definitly gay arnt callthat. No way grece wasnt doing that and maybe deragatory ut very much doing it and acceptig conditional.
like with slaves, yeah its more about status apearently than anything else.
besides they didnt have a concept of gay as known now, why would it be called tt like moder context?! probably default i or something ot at least have a child
also i highly disagre why they werent shown in the act, it might be to never ask or bring up who was the bottom there. Not ringing that upwouldnt bring up that controvercy

1 reply

==========================

See Also

top

Morgoth’s Review – The Dover Crisis and the Great Serco Grift – Nov 2, 2022 – Transcript

 

 

Morgoth’s Review – The Morgcast 13 – Resist the Lobster Pot – Nov 22, 2021 — Transcript

 

 

 

Millennium Woes with Morgoth on Brexit — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes’ Millenniyule 2017 No. 66 – Morgoth — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review – YouTube Hangout 01 – Skeptics and Cucks — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review – YouTube Hangout 02 – Merry Holocaustmas — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review — Discussing the Government’s Anti-Extremism Agency ”Prevent” With Based British — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review — Hate-Reading The Guardian – Hirsch, Critical Theory & Nihilism, Jan 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review — The Psychotic Left, Feb 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review – Fishing For White Pills, Feb 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review – Hope Not Hate and the State of Play, Feb 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

 

 

Morgoth’s Review – A Conversation with Jacktion, Mar 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Morgoth’s Review – YouTube Hangout 01 – Skeptics and Cucks — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV – Extinction Rebellion, Our Future of Bugs and Pods – Morgoth’s Review – Oct 10, 2019 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Against The Controlled Warmongers of The Right – Jan 3, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Turbocharged Atomization – May 15, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Free Falling – Jun 1, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – ”Cracka” Is Anti-White Filth – Jun 29, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Edward Bernays – The Group and The Herd – Jul 1, 2020 — Transcript

 

 

Morgoth’s Review – Why The Conservative Party Conserves Nothing – Jul 16, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Telegraph vs The Guardian – Or How To Lose A Culture War – Jul 31, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – On Liberal Blindness To The Jewish Question – Aug 4, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Notes On Machiavelli – Aug 14, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Neo-Liberalism & the Ballad of Terry Bell – Sep 15, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Morgoth & Endeavour’s Classic Movies 1 – Lawrence of Arabia – Oct 10, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Systems of Control – China’s Social Credit vs Western Political Correctness – Oct 16, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Deep Breath Before the Plunge – Nov 3, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Twitterfication of Everything – Nov 17, 2020 — Transcript

 

Morgoth’s Review – My Image of 2020 – An Analysis – Dec 7, 2020 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – London’s New Year’s Firewoke Display – Jan 1, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Winter is Here – Jan 9, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – Reading ”American Extremist” by Josh Neal – Feb 6, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Frozen North & Frozen Thinking – Feb 10, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Equation That Destroyed Our World – Feb 14, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – The Last of Us – Feb 24, 2021 — Transcript

Morgoth’s Review – How Piers Morgan Shapes the Discourse – Mar 3, 2021 — Transcript

 

============================================

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 13140

• Total words in post = xxx
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB): (Available later)

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2: Wed, Aug 2, 2023 — Completed rest of transcript. Youtube comments updated (54).

Version 1: Tue, Aug 1, 2023 — Published post. First 47/87 mins of transcript. Includes Youtube comments (25).