Woes: Dr Edward Dutton. So Ed welcome to Millenniyule!

 

Ed Dutton: Hello. Thank you for having me again. How’s it going?

 

Woes: It’s going quite well so far. As I say we’ve only got one, two, nights left. Well one night after this. So Millenniyule 2020 seems to have been a great success I’m very glad to say. So anyway, what kind of year have you had before we go into the main topic.

 

Ed Dutton: Well, what’s been going on this year? So I was working on, for a lot of the year, on a book, on a number of books. Well, at the end of last year I got onto the radar of Hope Not Hate! That was good fun. So I was in their magazine, whatever. Their thing about YouTube people.

 

Woes: Yeah. Annual State of Hate Report.

 

Ed Dutton: Chucked off PayPal and things like this. And then I carried on with my YouTube channel.

 

And then my colleague Michael Woodley of [word unclear], for various reasons left the YouTube channel halfway through the year. So I had to rebuild it. Which at first I was quite frightened about. And it was a bit of a kick in the nuts really. But I seem to have managed to do that. So I was quite pleased about that. I kept that going and whatever.

 

And then I’ve been working on a number of books. One’s called “Making Sense of Race”, which was published a few weeks ago. And then I’m working on a book at the moment called “Witch is Feminism and the Fall of the West” which looks at how our society is increasingly dominated by literal witches!

 

And then I’m working on a book on the future of civilization have in terms of breeding patterns for political views. And then I’m working on a book about the future Christianity. And then I’ve done various papers on various topics, intelligence, and religion and intelligence, and things like this. And then otherwise there was, …

 

Oh! And I was made professor! I was recognized! I was made full professor of Evolutionary Psychology at Asbiro university in Poland, despite all the evil.

 

Woes: Congratulations on that!

 

Ed Dutton: And then what else has gone on? And then, no. And then, that’s it! And then well, I one thing I got back into the other day with my, … I was couldn’t work out what to buy my son for Christmas. And so I got him a WWF wrestling game for the playstation. And I’d completely forgotten about how brilliant WWF was.

 

And then I found out about all the skullduggery behind the scenes and all this stuff, which I’ve been watching documentaries about that. And then I’ve noticed that the wokeness of wrestling! So now the wrestlers have gone from being big, beefy, guys they were in the early 90s, to people that like:

 

“Oh. I don’t take steroids, because I’m too moral. And I’m a moral woke wrestler!”

 

This is what’s going on now. So even that’s fallen into wokeness. And lots of women wrestlers and stuff like that, as well. So even that’s gone! Even they’ve even taken hold of WWF, which is very sad. So yes, that’s been my year. What about yours?

 

[03:03]

 

Woes: Oh it’s been not quite as productive as your year, from the sounds of it. But yeah, I mean, most people have talked about the BLM have Covid, and lockdown, and the US election. But obviously, you. And I have a different topic that we’re going to discuss. It’s to do with the book that you’ve got coming out next next year, about witches, transsexualism, and feminism.

 

Ed Dutton: Which is in “Witch is Feminism and the Fall of the West”.

 

Woes: And the fall of the West. Okay. So, first of all could you get us into this topic by discussing the archetype, or the figure of the “witch”?

 

Ed Dutton: Yeah. So I got thinking about it, … There was a comment actually that was made by Robin Riley, who I think you interviewed. And it was that comment that inspired it. That she was confronted with these purple-headed dragons, or something, and she said:

 

“Oh, could we start burning witches again?”

 

And I thought:

 

“That’s interesting! What are the kind of people that were witches in pre-modern England?”

 

I mean, the height of the witchcraft was the 17th century. And what were the kind of people that are witches now? What was going on? What’s the dynamic of the witch? What does the witch actually do? What’s her function? Why did they want to kill them? Are we supposed to believe the narrative that they were just unpleasant? They were just picked on, or whatever? Or is there something more to it?

 

And the more you look into it, what you’ve got is a system in evolutionary terms, as I discussed when I was on here last year, you can pass on your genes directly by having children. You can pass them on kin selection by looking after your nephews and nieces. And you can pass them on by elevating your inclusive fitness! That is your group, your extended kinship group, your ethnic group.

 

And once that happens then well certainly with the aristocracy of these two groups fighting, you get into a situation of group selection. Of two groups fighting each other to win out. And then, if you look at the qualities which ensure that you would dominate, that you win in the battle of group selection — and computer modeling has looked at those — these are high positive and negative ethnocentrism. High positive ethnocentrism is internal cooperation. High negative ethnocentrism external violence. So those are the groups that dominate.

 

So what the group is going to be selected to do, is to optimize it’s group fitness by ensuring it’s ethnocentric. How does it do this? Well, one of the things it does is it brings in religion. And religion makes adaptive things i.e., positive and negative ethnocentrism into the will of god. But another thing it needs to do, is it needs to ensure there isn’t much conflict. You need in cooperation.

 

So you can’t have inter-male conflict. Inter-male conflict is a bad thing! Now a lot of societies, weak societies, they’re under weak levels of selection pressure, like in Africa, or whatever. There’s massive inter-male conflict, because there’s polygamy. And so all of the women want to go for the high status males.

 

[06:00]

 

And so you get, in the case of the Bushmen, about 60% of the male population don’t breed! And what those men spend their time doing, is fighting and whatever. And so there’s this very little in the way of cooperation! It’s not good for the group.

 

So you have to reduce inter-male conflict! How do you reduce inter-male conflict? You create patriarchy! And there was a fascinating paper which looked at this. It was in the “Mankind Quarterly”. You create patriarchy. What patriarchy does it means that the male has control over the female. He controls her sexuality. She is controlled, by him whatever means it is. Whether it’s foot binding, or veiling, or whatever. But he controls her sexuality, so she is not independent of him. And that’s patriarchy.

 

And therefore the patriarchy helps to ensure the group is more positively and negatively ethnocentric. And therefore the patriarchy becomes part of the religiousness and becomes the will of god, and is promoted as the will of god. So that’s it! And the witches deviate from this.

 

And if you look at the kind of people that were accused of being witches everywhere — men are a slight exception that we I look at separately in the book. Basically the men that are accused of being witches are anti-social men! So they’re damaging to group selection. Group selection is about cooperation. They’re anti-social men! So they get accused of witchcraft. Deeply unpopular anti-social types.

 

It’s mostly women, because what these women are doing is inadvertently questioning the patriarchy. They do that in a number of ways. One, they work as prostitutes. They work as financially independent women, which is showing other women that they can operate outside the patriarchy, and which is also undermining the system of sexual ethics, and whatever. So prostitutes are accused of being witches.

 

Two, they’re sexually loosely! They have illegitimate children. Things like this. Again, they’re not conforming to the patriarchy. They should never be alone with a man. They’re not conforming to the patriarchy!

 

So thirdly, they are independent women, they’re widows that have money, and are independent, or they’re spinsters and they never marry. And so they operate as independent women.

 

Fourthly, they are anti-social women, who in a context of literal belief in witchcraft do actually believe it. They’re basically operating a separate religion of folk magic, which is therefore a rival to the patriarchal system. And so some of these people would genuinely believe that they were witches. And they would genuinely believe they had magic powers. And they would confess to it, and whatever.

 

And so in all of these ways that you can see that from an evolutionary perspective these witches were people that were undermining the patriarchy. And that’s why at times of intense selection — and that’s what the 16th the 17th century was, it was bloody cold — there was very intense group selection.

 

And so you can see how therefore the group is under harsh selection for religiousness. And it becomes so religious that gradually across the 16th and 17th century they start persecuting witches, particularly in your native Scotland. That was where it was very, very intense.

 

[09:02]

 

James sixth of Scotland, first of England, wrote a book on this, which I quoted extensively in my own book and he said:

 

“Witches are real!”

 

And I agree with him. So this is basically what you have. This is the nature of the witch! It is the person that undermines the patriarchal system. And in a system of harsh group selection it is adaptive to remove those people from the population, because they will spread negative social epistasis. They will spread behavior which undermines the group’s inclusive fitness. And so therefore they had to be removed, or they had to be stopped. And that’s what you get!

 

And you get it more intensely the more harsh the group selection. So it’s much harsher in the north of Europe than in the south of Europe. And so, yeah that’s basically the essence of it.

 

Woes: I can imagine a feminist hearing this and feeling quite vindicated. That witchcraft, the demonizing of certain women, was all an attempt by men to stay in power and maintain their power structure. And you seem to be saying that:

 

“Yes! That’s exactly what it was!”

 

Ed Dutton: Well, there’s slightly more to it than that. So yes, this is the nature of these witches. And so what you have is a society which is adapted towards patriarchy. If you are a female and you are patriarchal, you will signal that you are patriarchal. You will signal that you are religious. This is why one of the reasons why women are more religious than men.

 

Men will want religiousness, because it will be a sign, the woman is saying in order to have sex with me you have to invest! Then the man wants evidence that she’s not going to cuckold him. What is the evidence that she’s not going to cuckold him? It’s conformity to the patriarchal system. What is the evidence that they conform to the patriarchal system? It’s religiousness!

 

So you’re going to have a system where religiousness is going to become selected for, particularly in women, where submission to the patriarchal system is going to become selected for, particularly in women, and women that don’t select for, don’t conform, will not pass on their genes. And so the way that you will get women who don’t conform to the patriarchal system, and who go into prostitution, and illegitimacy, and witchcraft, and all these things that deviate from the patriarchal system, is through mutation. So you’ll get mutant genes!

 

Woes: Spiteful mutants!

 

Ed Dutton: Right! People who are high in mutational load will be born every generation, and they will die, because the child mortality rate in 17th century, 18th century, was 50%. And they will die out to varying degrees, of course, but they will die out.

 

And what you would expect is for these people who deviated mentally from the norm in terms of not being patriarchal and thus being accused of witchcraft for that reason, you’d also expect them to express other maladaptive behavior. Such as being mentally ill. Such as having depression. Such as having schizophrenia. Such as histrionic disorder. Such as being anti-social. Such as all the things that are associated with witches! So you’d expect them to be these ghastly, nasty, psychopathic, women who we are warned in fairy tales that we have to avoid! These nasty women, that live in gingerbread houses and kill you, or whatever.

 

And that’s what these women were! They were at the bottom of society, because and not only that, but, of course, the brain is about 84 percent of the genome. And so if you’ve got mutations of the brain, you’re going to sure as dammit have mutations of the body, because the brain is a massive target for mutation. And so this means that they’re going to be physically ugly! They’re going to have ugly faces, and big noses, and big chins. And they’re going to age quickly, just as the stereotypical witch did!

 

[13:00]

 

And. So if you look in detail those that were targeted, it was women who were spinsters, it was women, … I think I read that it was over half of those that were executed for witchcraft across the 17th century were spinsters, over the age of 50.

 

Woes: So that’s, because they were ugly?

 

Ed Dutton: Exactly! Why would they spinsters. Because they were ugly! Because men don’t want ugly women.

 

Woes: But then the other fifty percent of them must have been sexually promiscuous.

 

Ed Dutton: Widows, prostitutes, those that practiced magic, whatever. But yeah, so generally they were physically unattractive. So you have a situation where under conditions of harsh Darwinian selection, health correlates with intelligence, health correlates with good character, good character intelligence, good genes and they all are co-morbid.

 

And so those that rise to the top in that kind of society, are going to be highly patriarchal. And those that deviate from this, will be at the bottom, because of their personality, because of their low intelligence.

 

And, because of their high mutational load, which will mean that they’ll be more likely to find them being witches. So they were at the bottom of society these people, these anti-feminists. These women who were adapted to a fast life history strategy and ecology. Basically of the pump and dump, of live fast, die young. That’s the kind of people we’re talking about, right? Basically women that were whores, sluts, or wanna be whores, sluts. And that’s who ends up at the bottom of society.

 

Now, once those conditions break down. And that’s what you get in 1800. Once those conditions break down. So we go from 50% child mortality to 1% child mortality today, then you get a huge rise in mutational load across the population. You get more, and more, people who are mentally ill more, who deviate from what we were selected for was to be patriarchal, was to be religious, was to be pro-social personality, and was to be intelligent.

 

And you get more, and more, people that deviate from this. And it’s gonna normally be in a negative direction, because it was so strongly selected for these things. And they are going to be higher in mutational load. And they’re going to be physically ugly, and whatever.

 

But the selection pressure broke down first among the higher classes! They were under weaker selection pressure for longer. What is it that weakens selection pressure? Good housing, access to medicine, wealth basically. And so they have been under weaker selection for longer. And so you’re going to expect higher mutational load.

 

Remember the heritability of socioeconomic status is very high! It’s about 0.7. Higher mutational load among the higher classes. And therefore the witch, the women who are these maladaptive spiteful mutant witches, have moved from the lower classes to the upper classes!

 

And you get these women in those classes who are anti-patriarchal, who advocate male roles for women, who are aggressive, who are anti-religious, who advocate destructive ideologies for the group, who advocate things that just mess the group up and make the group maladaptive, and low and positive and negative ethnocentrism, who advocate the destruction — what is it that causes the reduction into male conflict monogamy? So they advocate the breakdown of monogamy.

 

So you have an increasing system whereby there’s lots of men that can’t get women. And so you have, you know, as we now see. And so they have lesbianicious tendencies. And they are feminists! They call themselves feminists. And they are the modern day witches!

 

And they are also physically ugly! I mean, there’s detailed studies on this that show that feminist identification correlates being ugly! It correlates with having masculine hands! It correlates with all kinds of markers of being [word unclear] and unattractive.

 

So you have basically these witch spinsters of yore, and the witch spinsters now! The social class has changed. But they are both witches. And the difference was that under pre-modern conditions we were adapted to be highly religious and thus skeptical of witches, so we dealt with them! Right? We jailed them, or we hanged them.

 

Now, because of a build-up of mutational load. And also, because of the destruction of the conservative society, and the inculcation of society, the flip of society over to these Leftist values that promotes Leftist ideas, anti-group ideas, as the norm.

 

Once you reach about 20 percent of the society advocating maladaptive things everyone moves over, apart from the genetic cream. Then people are inculcated by these feminists. Normal women are inculcated by these feminists to do maladaptive things. To delay fertility. To not have children, and whatever. And to destroy their own children! To allow their own children to be transsexuals. To what whatever it happens to be.

 

And. So that’s what I think we’ve got. The modern day feminists are literally witches! And when James VI of Scotland said:

 

“Witches are real.”

 

Yeah, they are. And they’re here now, and they’re called feminists!

 

Woes: But he didn’t mean, just for the sake of clarification, when James VI said that, he didn’t mean that witches are real in the sense of supernatural beings, you know, working with potions that alter, you know, affect life in a metaphysical way, did he?

 

Ed Dutton: Yeah! He strongly believed in, he literally believed in witches. And he believed that they tried to kill him when he was trying to get married to his Norwegian wife. And they tried to sink his ship. And that’s how this witch craze in southern Scotland in the 1590s, that’s how that started. And lots and lots of people were killed.

 

[19:15]

 

Woes: But out of interest, do you believe that there is any supernatural element to this? And presumably not.

 

Ed Dutton: No. But I think that what you’re dealing with the same type of people. But, for the reason I laid out, these people have migrated from the lower class, from what was called the lower sort the people at the bottom of society, to the people basically near the top of society, which is where these feminists tend to be.

 

Woes: Yeah. The Champagne socialists.

 

Ed Dutton: Yeah! Yeah! But you’ve got to talk about the really extreme examples, because a champagne socialist might just be some stupid private school girl, like Harriet Harman*, or something that push pushes the society in a maladaptive direction.

 

[Harriet Ruth Harman is a British politician and solicitor who has served as Member of Parliament for Camberwell and Peckham, formerly Peckham, since 1982. A member of the Labour Party, she has served in various Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet positions.]

 

I’m talking about the people who influence her! So the Andrea Dworkin, the Kate Millet! The real battle axe feminists.

 

Now one of the interesting things about. And it’s a parallel, so what we’re thinking is that women are selected to patriarchy. What does that mean? It means that the woman is submissive! It means that the woman is selected to what’s called a slow life history strategy. A woman that’s selected to patriarchy is the kind of woman that is selected to a society where you invest! The man invests in the woman, and the man invests in the children. And the woman invests in the man, and is loyal to the man. And the woman invests and nurtures the children

 

So we’re talking about a mother, rather than a whore, basically. If you think about the deviation from this, is a fast life history strategy. If you’re evolved to an unstable ecology, live fast, die young, you could be wiped out at any minute. And so you don’t bother with nurture and bonding with people, because there might never be any pay off.

 

Woes: R-type and K-type.

 

Ed Dutton: Yeah, R-type individual. That’s right, as we talked about last year. And so those, …

 

Woes: There is actually the expression “fast women” ironically, from decades gone by.

 

Ed Dutton: Right. Yeah, well that’s what we’re talking about. These kinds of women, right? And so they are evolved to an ecology of violence and whatever, where the men don’t invest in them. It’s not patriarchal at all! The men don’t invest in them, they are not invested in. They have to take on some of the male roles. It’s perhaps the polygamy and the man will invest in them for a bit, and then shun them in favor of the new younger, more nubile wife. And so they will have to bring up their children somehow. One of the things they will do, by the way, is alloparent*.

 

[Alloparenting is a term used to classify any form of parental care provided by an individual towards a non-descendant young. Non-descendant refers to any young who is not the direct genetic offspring of the individual, but does not exclude related young such as siblings, or grandchildren].

 

So they’ll get together with other co-wives and like lesbianiciously bring up the children. And it’s been suggested that’s the heritability of sexuality in women is very, very low. It’s 0.2. And it’s been suggested that one of the reasons for this is that women are adapted to this kind of situation, where you have to be able to — you’re going to get dumped, basically. So you have to be able to bring up your children.

 

And so you bond strongly to the point of sex with another woman, and you co-parent your children. Which is what happens to Sanna Marin [born 16 November 1985] who’s the current Prime Minister of Finland [since Dec, 2019]. We have it, by the way, a kind of witch government of Finland! I call them the spice girls. But you, …

 

Woes: Or the spiteful girls! [chuckling]

 

Ed Dutton: Spiteful girls! That’s very good, my Scottish friend in earlier, calls from the “spice girls”. He came up with that one. But the “spiteful girls”, that’s excellent! That’s right, that’s very good! I might have to quote you on that.

 

And so what you have is these women who, because they have to take on some of the masculine roles, because they’re not being looked after, there’s no patriarchy, they’re more masculinized! They’re much more physically and mentally masculinized.

 

Now one of the things that’s interesting in terms of the witch. So you’re [word unclear] and therefore they’re physically ugly and unattractive, which is true stereotypically, and provenly true of these feminists . And, of course, true based on the historical sources of these witches. Masculinized, unattractive, ugly, women. Also faster life history strategy, greater diversity, more ugliness.

 

[23:08]

 

But what’s fascinating is the fantasies they have. So it’s been shown that women feminist identification weakly correlates with having rape fantasies.

 

Now, why would that be the case? Well, because if you’re in a fast life history ecology, the kind of man you want, the kind of man whose genes will be passed on, the kind of man if you have his children your children will survive, will be a violent, domineering kind of kind of guy, because that’s who survives in an unstable ecology. Selection isn’t particular particularly favoring intelligence, or emotions, or character, or whatever. It favors a violent, you know, sort of WWE [World Wrestling Entertainment] wrestler, Chris Benoit type. Well that’s perhaps not a good example, but whatever.

 

Woes: It’s interesting thing that such women also create social discord, so that it is the violent men who will be able to survive that situation.

 

Ed Dutton: That’s a very good point! Precisely. That’s what I want to move on to now. You’re ahead of me here Woes! So it’s like sperm selection. So the man ejaculates with half a billion spermatozoa, and the woman’s immune system, she wants to get pregnant,. But she also does everything she can to kill the sperm! So that only the strongest possible sperm can get through. Only the R-strategy sperm, if you like, can get through. So she violently repels the sperm, like she’s being raped! She fights it off. And ultimately only the strongest man, the strongest sperm, if any of them, can get past her violent defenses. And then that’s the one by which she gets pregnant. Well, that’s how these rape fantasies work.

 

The woman is dominated by, she’s fantasizing about being raped by a fast life history man who can’t keep his hands off her. But ultimately, you know, by doing that, he’s proving ironically, that paradoxically, that he’s the man she wants. And so these fast life history strategy women will tend to have rape fantasies.

 

And feminist identification has been shown to correlate with having, ironically, having rape fantasies. And two of the major feminists, or second wave feminists that you may have heard of, (((Andrea Dworkin))) and Kate Millet, both had intense rape fantasies, and wrote about them.

 

 

In the case of Andrea Dworkin she thought it was real! Obviously it wasn’t. I mean, she was a fat, ugly, hairy, old woman!

 

I’ve got a paper that’s coming out soon on this. If you look at the witches in the 17th century. Right, first of all in England, not Scotland, forget Scotland, that’s different. In England they weren’t subject to torture, other than in the case of Matthew Hopkins, the Witch Finder General, where they were walked and sleep deprived. But put that thing aside. They weren’t subject to torture. They admitted freely to — in many cases it is documented — to being raped, to having sex with the devil!:

 

[26:06]

 

“The devil appeared to me in the form of a black man, and he had sex with me on six consecutive nights; the devil appeared in my chamber and he sucked my breasts until it hurts, and then he had sex with me from behind.”

 

Now what I think these were, were rape fantasies. And I think these are the kind of women who we would expect to have rape fantasies. These fast life history strategy, relatively fast strategy women. And I think that they were having, … There’s no reason, they weren’t tortured, they weren’t induced.

 

And if you go back, the idea of the incubus, is very ancient it’s not some new thing that was created, or something, by the patriarchy to have a go at women, or whatever. It’s very ancient, the idea of the incubus, of women, these night devils. And equally, .

 

Woes: Is that the same as the succubus?

 

Ed Dutton: The succubus is a woman. A succubus is a woman. And now that’s an interesting point as well. Because if you look at the research on BDSM. So people that like, you know, hitting, and whipping, and canning, and stuff like this. Those people are tend to be fast life history strategists. And also the tendency is for the women to like to be hit, which makes sense, and the men to like to hit.

 

Now why does, why is that the case? Well, because we know from the evolution of sex. There’s a very interesting book on this called “A History of Rape”, or something, “A Natural History of Rape”. I can’t remember the author, Palmer and something, or other.

 

And they look at this. Why is sex related to violence? Why do men become more aroused by violent porn than normal porn? They become more aroused by rape porn than normal porn. They ejaculate more when watching rape porn, and violent porn, than normal porn, right?

 

What’s going on? Well what’s happening is that in pre-history men that raped passed on more of their genes, of course! So, how do you pass all genes? Normally within marriage, or whatever. But also by ganging together and going around and gang raping. As you see with these Muslim immigrants, whatever, that are right at the bottom of society. That’s how you do it. And so therefore it would make sense that a man would be sexually aroused by violence. It would make sense that the two would go together, because it was the men that were, …

 

Woes: Yeah. I have heard that the parts of the brain in men that process violence and process sex are overlapping. I don’t know if that’s a physical thing, or just functional correlation.

 

Ed Dutton: Equally with women, you’re gonna get the same sort of thing. The women that would in a sense be aroused by violence, would get the more violent man. And that would be the man with the better gene quality in a fast life history strategy ecology, or the women that would just give in and would not be killed, or whatever.

 

So there was an advantage to being aroused by violence. And this would be higher among fast life history strategy people. And so you can see where these relationships come from. And then that you can again further understand the relationship between fast life history strategy, non-patriarchal types, and this rape fantasies, and whatever. So I think that’s what you’re dealing with.

 

And I think that basically this irony that these women who are these feminists, and whatever, go on about how:

 

“I’m an independent woman!”

 

And they ultimately, probably, want to be hit, and smacked, and beaten up! And that’s what they want.

 

[29:39]

 

Woes: There does seem to be a correlate. I mean, you hear about this. A correlation between women who hate men, and women who want to be beaten up by men. And rape fantasies, and so on.

 

Just for the sake of clarification, because some people are saying in the live chat that they don’t have rape fantasy, they don’t like violent porn. For the record, [chuckling] I certainly don’t like it.

 

Ed Dutton: Hang on! Wait a minute. We are a broadly nationalist show yeah?

 

Woes: Yeah.

 

Ed Dutton: So people who are going to watch are going to be highly group selected and patriarchal. So why would they like rape fantasies and violent porn?

 

Woes: I see. I just wondered, because you were saying it’s part of our makeup from, ..

 

Ed Dutton: It is part of our makeup. But you’re going to get group and individual variation in the extent of it. And what I would expect is that the kind of people that were religious, or were patriarchal, or who would have survived under harsh Darwinian conditions that I’m talking about, they would be less inclined towards this stuff, than the mutants, than the feminists, than the witches, than whatever. So that’s it!

 

So if I was on this show and there were a lot of Leftists watching. And they were perfectly honest, I think they would perhaps say:

 

“Yeah, I bloody well like this kind of stuff!”

 

The other thing I was going to say though, that you mentioned with the succubus, was that the relationship is in general that when it comes to BDSM the men like to be the dominant partner and the woman the submissive.

 

But there is crossover. And so you do get some, particularly men, that like to be the submissive. Why? Well, because if the woman could dominate them, then there’s a sense in which it’s like she’s a fast history strategy woman. Her genes would survive, good to get her pregnant.

 

Woes: Right.

 

Ed Dutton: So you can see some crossover. But in general, not. So basically that’s it.

 

So the rise of feminism then on that level is extremely bad for society! It’s the rise of anti-ethnocentrism. It elevates into male conflict, and it makes the society less group selected. And those that are advocating it are in that sense paralleling modern witches.

 

The second problem then is another element of a society that dominates, that wins in the battle of group selection, is ingenuity, is intelligence, is genius. And what the genius is outlier high IQ combined with, … By the way, you said there’s a chat. I can’t see the chat! Where is this chat that you’ll see? I can’t see any chat in the comments.

 

Woes: Oh, hold up. All right, yes, because Stream Yard doesn’t show that. Hold on a second I’ll show you where it is. I’ll send this to you on Telegram so you can, ..

 

Ed Dutton: All right. What’s that on then? Oh yes. All right.

 

So the other way that you win in the battle of group selection is genius. So even though the Japanese and the Chinese are more ethnocentric than us, they have a smaller gene pool than us, and they produce fewer per capita geniuses. They have fewer outliers, they produce fewer geniuses.

 

And so what is the genius? The geniuses outlier high intelligence plus moderately psychopathic traits. That’s what the genius is. And so that means that he can come up with the original idea and he thinks outside the box, low conscientiousness, and he doesn’t care about offending people, which new ideas almost always do! You know, I had a chap on my show and he’s disputing dark matter. And there’s so much wrapped up in that he’s like an outcast in physics, just disputing dark matter.

 

[33:09]

 

So women are a problem then! The promotion of women in academia then becomes, and in life in general, becomes a problem, because there’s less female genius. And one of the things that you have to do is you have to nurture geniuses. They’re often these kind of impractical types, they need someone to do their laundry for them, or do their cooking for them, or whatever.

 

And so the universities were a place that nurtured genius. They would allow these people to get there and just get on with it! It was about finding out the truth! Indeed these universities were founded originally on religious lines. We’re here to discover the nature of god’s creation, and lies, therefore blasphemy!

 

Now it’s been suggested by Simon Baron Cohen that you have an extreme male brain, which is basically autistic and focused on systematizing, and therefore essentially low in agreeableness and low in conscientiousness. And sort of quite the high testosterone they inter-correlate. That’s the male brain. High in systematizing, but blind to empathy.

 

And the female brain is very high in empathy, but system blind. So what the female is concerned about is not truth! It’s not systematic, you know, understanding the world. There are things that are more important than truth! Like everyone getting along, and being happy, and feeling validated, and all that.

 

Woes: Yes, of course.

 

Ed Dutton: But it is inimicable to what the genius does, which is the search for truth! And so if you have a society where women are allowed into higher education, then eventually you’re going to get the distinction between the genius who’s going to be outlier intelligent, but socially awkward, and, you know, crap to work with, and whatever. And the “head girl” type! The type who runs Finland. The straight A’s pupil at school, who’s very reasonably intelligent, but not outlier intelligent. And who’s very conscientious, and very hard at work, …

 

Woes: Very conformist!

 

Ed Dutton: Socially skilled, and conformist, absolutely conformist! Women are higher in conformism than men. Much higher conformism than men! Because they’re higher in agreeableness and higher in conscientiousness. And so who’s going to get the job, if you’re put up with a genius and someone like that? Well, obviously it’s going to be the woman that’s going to get the job, who would you like to work with?

 

And so, then original ideas, and originality, and new ideas, and whatever goes! And the whole spirit of academia that it’s to do with coming up with original ideas, and challenging convention, and whatever, you know, come what may, is suppressed, in favor of the new model of university as a kind of nursery school. Where everyone’s a winner, and everyone has to be happy, and whatever.

 

And eventually once the women make up about 20 of an organization, it starts to tip towards them and their values start to take over. And so the values of academia which is the pursuit of the truth no matter what, which is the genius strategy, that where you find out things, that goes!

 

And so you have a society dominated by women and all these things that would have happened, you know, things that, … We’ll think of all the inventions that have come about. Rockets! If people think we’ll have died in the attempt to get to the moon. All of this wouldn’t happen, because you have women in charge and women are averse to these things and they want everyone, …

 

[36:25]

 

Woes: Yeah, absolutely! And so modern academia is a very conformist space which specializes in enforcing a consensus! And adopting it. I mean, I did a video just for the sake of plugging here, I did a video back at the very start, 2014, called “How Feminism Killed the Space Age”. And it was basically making this point. That once you have women in charge of things there is going to be less innovation. And there’s going to be less, because women are less interested in things that aren’t immediately useful. I think that men have an ability to get, …

 

And they also have something called I would call “random curiosity”. I did a video with that title as well. Where I was making that point. That men can be fascinated by things which are not immediately relevant, or useful! But which end up being extremely relevant and useful. And I think that difference alone means that an academia dominated by women is going to be much less intellectually curious. Which is exactly what we see now!

 

[37:26]

 

Ed Dutton: Precisely! So that’s downstream of the destruction of patriarchy. And what that does to ethnocentrism. That’s the next problem.

 

Now the next problem then is that a lot of these women are, of course, adapted to patriarchy — most women are adapted to some extent to patriarchy — undermine the patriarchy and undermine the religious system. And what you get is this free-for-all that we now have. What they promote, these feminists, is not just feminism, but it’s this broader undermining of the traditional system a and what that does is it undermines group selectiveness, …

 

Woes: Just before you continue, there’s one thing that just occurred to me that I think (((Germane Greer))) actually said that:

 

“If women had been in charge all along, we would still be living in caves.”

 

I think that there’s a quote from Germane Greer about this. Let me just see if I can find it. But it’s basically backing up what you and I are saying here. Let me see if I can see it. Yeah, I don’t know, I can’t find it now. But anyway I’m pretty sure that even Germane Greer is on our side on this.

 

Ed Dutton: I wouldn’t be at all surprised. And by the way, she has this fast life history strategy background. She was beaten up by her parents, and things. She confesses to this.

 

So the downwind of that then, the next thing you get is the general Leftism of these feminists. So it’s undermining patriarchy. It’s undermining traditional values, promoting things like anti-natalism, and whatever. Being a feminist, as with the witches of yore, being a feminist and being a left-wing woman, of course, is associated with being mentally ill.

 

Why? Because it’s a reflection of general mutational load. And also having high levels of depression tends to be associated with being individualistic, and self-interested, and just everything’s bad! Everything’s awful! And having just a negative view of the world. And then the next thing that becomes. The problem is that it creates this arms race of virtue signaling. Where you have to move on to the next group, and the next group, and the next group.

 

And under normal conditions women are more religious than men. And they’re adapted to patriarchy, and they’re more religious than men. And this makes them more Right-wing and more conservative than men.

 

If you undermine the religiosity, if you undermine the patriarchy, which directs the women, because the women remember are evolved to be directed, they are evolved to not make decisions for themselves, but to make their fathers make decisions, or their husbands make the decisions. Then, of course, they become completely maladaptive. More so than men. And this is what you see.

 

So once the religiousness collapses and the religion itself stops being a protective force. They are more religious than men, but it becomes this left-wing deracinated religion of just pathological altruism! Of generalized altruism which means they’re highly in favor of immigration and stuff like that. And they make these very maladaptive decisions, which involve lots and lots of not having any children, and things like this.

 

Furthermore it may be the case that women are literally selected to be less ethnocentric than men, because under prehistoric conditions, it would be the women that would be abducted and taken away by other tribes, and raped by them, and whatever. And so if they could be less ethnocentric then they would be more likely to survive.

 

That may also be why women are better at learning languages than men, perhaps.

 

[40:52]

 

Woes: And then they’re also more social. I mean, they need language in a more immediate ways than, …

 

Ed Dutton: Yeah. And then the next thing is the issue of transsexuality. Which I think is absolutely fascinating! So you then move on to the next minority group, you know, this constant empathy, this constant desire, this female desire to constantly help the unfortunate, and help the marginalized and whatever.

 

And then you end up with the issue of transsexuality. Now I think that it associates with this sort of stuff in the sense that it’s like. I mean, it’s kind of demonic! It’s basically telling us that, … It says in the Bible:

 

“The devil is the father of lies.”

 

And it’s basically telling us that “lies are truth” and “truth is lies”. The purpose is to make us in a situation where there’s no structure, there’s no order! In religious terms:

 

“God decides what you are. God is the source of ultimate truth. And god says you’re a man. God says you’re a woman. Jesus says I am the way the truth and the light. God is truth. There is objective truth. God is truth! And the only person who is his own truth is God!”

 

And what these transsexuals are saying is:

 

“If I say I am something then I am that!”

 

And in that sense they are saying:

 

“I am God!”

 

And so that you could argue that like the devil, they are literally a fallen angel that is challenging God! And I look at this in the book, and it’s worse than that! If you look at these things about titles. Who is it that we give a special pronoun to? It’s god! God gets a capital “H”. Who is it that demands their own pronouns? And to have different say what my pronoun is? Transsexuals! And who is it that says to you:

 

“Look, this is how I have to be addressed! I have to be addressed like this. And if you cheek me I will banish you!”

 

The monarch! Who is it that asserts:

 

“Oh, I have to be addressed in this way. And that’s what you have to do! And I want sanctions if you don’t!”

 

Transsexuals! So it strikes me that there is something kind of demonic about this. To humiliate people, and to just grind them into the dirt and say:

 

“There’s no meaning! There’s no nothing! There’s nothing! It’s this is just hell! There’s no meaning! There’s no logic! There’s no nothing! There’s nothing! It’s just about power! It’s about power! And you bow down to me! Bow down to me! And if I say I’m a man, I’m a man! If I say a woman, I’m a woman! And it’s power!”

 

And that’s either saying you’re god, or it’s something demonic, as far as I can see. I don’t literally believe in these. I’m saying that’s how you can interpret it.

 

[43:55]

 

Woes: Yeah. And it does say, … I think Roger Scrutton might have made this point as well. That when he saw Leftists rioting in 1968 in Paris, it was as if they were wanting to be “God”. They wanted to take control of, to have power over everything. He made some vague point in that direction which I’m completely misquoting it, but that was the broad point that he was making.

 

And apparently it was Camille Paglia who said that about, … It wasn’t Germane Greer, by the way, earlier on. People are correcting me.

 

Ed Dutton: Oh I see.

 

Woes: Yeah, go on.

 

Ed Dutton: No, I was just going to say that what you have, it’s quite interesting this, what you have with these transsexuals, if you want to understand what’s going on. Transexuality is strongly associated with autism.

 

And it’s also strongly associated with being masculinized. I did a paper on this recently. It’s one of the only papers that’s got like an immediate complaint, demanding, saying it should never have passed peer review. And it should never have been published. And that was published by the journal. And that was written, of course, by a trans-woman. A trans-women academic.

 

And what they are saying is all of these markers of being masculinized, associated with being a trans-woman. So trans-women, that’s male to female transsexuals, are more masculinized, psychologically and physically, than the average man. Now this is fascinating!

 

Now what that means, autism is an expression — of which is low empathy, high systematizing, whatever — is an expression of being of masculinization! So people that are high in autistic traits tend to be more masculine. So that’s consistent with that.

 

Now what you get with autism, is you get a limited sense of self! So the sense of who you are, a sense of having:

 

“This is me. And this is who I am. And this is my place in the world.”

 

Doesn’t develop properly. And it doesn’t develop properly, because autistics don’t pick up on social cues very well. And they’re easily overwhelmed by stimuli. And so they feel that they’re in a world of sort of chaos, and that they’re not in control of things. And so they feel almost separate from themselves. Almost like they’re watching their lives pan out. And they have no control over it. Which is why some autistic people will refer to themselves in the third person, and things like this.

 

And so, that’s what that that then is associated with what’s called borderline personality disorder. Which is when you have a fundamental lack of self and your world is chaos. And there’s this void at the heart of you. And you deal with that, …

 

[46:32]

 

Woes: And this is usually women who have borderline disorder, …

 

Ed Dutton: That is more likely to be women. And you deal with this — it’s also present in men — and you deal with this by creating a separate sort of personality, or something like a black and White clear sense of structure that gives gives life meaning and whatever. But that can be unstable and sometimes that will break down and you’ll flip to the opposite, the exact opposite of it.

 

You see that in religious converts. And you see that in even in the Alt-Right. People that go from being far Left, being far Right, to being Christian fundamentalists, to being whatever. You see people like this.

 

Now one thing that’s parallel, that’s very similar to borderline personality, is perhaps an example of it, is narcissistic personality. And this is much more common among men.

 

Woes: Yeah.

 

Ed Dutton: Because the way you deal with your chaos and your void at the heart of your life, is to create a very, very, you know, superior sense of self. You decide that you’re better than others, and whatever.

 

But you also need to have this, others need to tell you that’s the case, others need to worship you, and whatever so that you’re reassured that you are, in fact, brilliant! And when they fail to do that, indeed when they do something which questions your sense of self, or questions the dogmas which you believe in and, because you believe in them you’re brilliant, and whatever, … When those are questioned by them, this can trigger narcissistic rage!

 

Because you can realize that this will undermine everything, and you will be confronted with the hell and the nothing that you are! And so you can see that you’ve got these two things. Narcissism, which goes together with a limited sense of self, which goes together with borderline personality.

 

So another thing that’s associated with autism is sexual fetishes! Autistics, and masculine men in general, are focused on things! So a man will say:

 

“I’m a breast man!”

 

Or:

 

“I’m an ass man!”

 

And what a fetish is, is that taken to a kind of extremes. You could only get it up if there’s a nice pair of tits, or whatever! And these fetishes can then become things that are associated with sexual things, that aren’t actually sexual. Like, I don’t know, people that want to like leather [?], or something like that. And these are more common among autistics.

 

Now, this all comes together in the trans sexual according to the research by Blanchard. Because the transsexual is a narcissist! Transsexuals are high narcissism. And the transsexual fetish is that he is sexually aroused by the idea of himself as a woman!

 

[49:22]

 

Woes: Oh my god! This is like in Silence of the Lambs!:

 

“Would you fuck me? I’d fuck me! I’d fuck me hard!”

 

Buffalo Bill.

 

Ed Dutton: Right! Well, that’s what we’re talking about. They are sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as women! There’s a small minority where, yeah, it is true, they are intersexual, or whatever. But in general that’s what we’re talking about. They’re sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as a woman.

 

And why would that be the case? Well, because they’re narcissistic. And so what you would expect then, if they’re narcissistic, is they would demand that society accepts them as women. And they would demand! And they would get narcissistic rage and go bonkers, if people question them, which they do! They’d be very aggressive, because they’re very masculinized, and indeed they’re narcissistic.

 

And I think we shouldn’t even call them these, … What do we call them? Transgender, … We should just call them “trans-narcissists”! That’s what they are.

 

And so what is the devil? What is the narcissist? The narcissist is the person that thinks he’s god. And so that’s what these people kind of think they are.

 

And so I think it’s extremely dangerous! These people are seriously mentally ill! They are a danger to society. They’re narcissists, they’re capable of narcissistic rage and all that entails. And the idea that they should be given equal rights, or something, is insane!

 

Woes: Mmm.

 

Ed Dutton: And this I also look at in the book. That this feminism, this witchcraft, just takes us down to the bowels of hell.

 

Woes: Well, indeed! There is a dizzying array of personality disorders that one can encounter in life. And I think that a lot of us, … I certainly wasn’t familiar with it until maybe a couple of years ago. And yeah, they are very dangerous and destructive people.

 

I think it would be useful if you were to talk about, … You know, you were saying earlier about witches being anti-social, causing problems in the community, and so on. Could you go into some examples, or just detail about that? What would it be that they were doing?

 

Let me just preface this. Women are capable of social degree of social intelligence that I think often completely eludes men. And so they can do things, they can set things up, that really take men by surprise! I think women are very good at that. And so there are all sorts of subtle small things that could be set up by malicious women which then have devastating effects for the community.

 

Would you like to talk about this?

 

[51:52]

 

Ed Dutton: So in the book I look at examples from the 17th century, which was the height of the witch craze. And so it’s things like:

 

“Oh. Yeah, she put a spell on my cow and the cow died.”

 

Probably she poisoned the cow. So nasty things like this. Babies! Killing babies was a big thing that they were often accused of killing other people’s babies. And so it may have been that kind of behavior. You know, you get these nurses, what was her name, this case recently? There were case in the early 90s of a nurse killing babies and whatever.

 

Woes: Yeah.

 

Ed Dutton: And there’s that. And you have them just cursing people, and with a society that believed in the power of the curse, they believed in the power of the curse! People believed this:

 

“And they told me, now I curse you! I hope you’re infertile!”

 

And whatever. So they engaged in what you would call the “nocebo effect”. It’s the opposite of the “placebo effect”. And it can be extremely powerful! If you believe in the nocebo effect, then it can make you infertile if you really believe it. And these people did believe it. They believed in the power of the witch’s curse. And people would identify as witches, they’d be known as witches, and they cursed people.

 

Woes: That’s the power of suggestion.

 

Ed Dutton: So exactly. I mean, there was a case of a known witch. A little girl, she was about 16 years old, and she was walking past — this is about 1610 — and she was in a Pendle, in Yorkshire, Lancastershire is it? And she was walking past this guy called John Laws. And she asked him to give her some pins. And he wouldn’t give her any pins — which we used to hold clothes together — so she cursed him! And he immediately fell down and had a stroke. And then she admitted. She felt really guilty at what she’d done, and she admitted:

 

“I cursed him, and I did this!”

 

And they hanged her. And so, that’s the kind of thing they would engage in. Deeply anti-social, nasty behavior, which for people at the time, was very serious! And was taken very, very seriously, and had, as far as they could see, serious consequences. So that’s what we’re talking about.

 

And what do these feminists do now? They engaged anti-social behavior. They sit behind keyboards telling you I hope your children get killed in a car accident! You know, they smash up public, …

 

Woes: Yeah. And another thing that feminists do, and you see this in public life now, is they specialize in destroying men’s character!

 

Ed Dutton: Oh yeah! That judge that Trump appointed. Some Scottish, Irishy sounding name. And the moment he was appointed.

 

Woes: Kavanaugh!

 

Ed Dutton: Kavanaugh, right. And all of these women, some of them were ugly, frankly, who had dated him in the past, suddenly came forward after 30 years, or 40 years:

 

“Oh! He raped me! Touched me up!”

 

And you had this hysteria of all these women, one after the other, coming forward. Because this person had dumped them basically, or refused to have sex with them, or something. And so they had borne a grudge, as women do, for a very, very, very long time! And they had seen this person get into a position of power and success. And the resentment that they felt, they wanted to bring him down.

 

And these would, perhaps, be the kind of women that would have rape fantasies. That would have fantasies that he raped them. And that would deal with the feeling of humiliation of being scorned, by concocting this! I mean, we know that the nature of memory is such that it’s highly inaccurate. And you will tend to literally alter your memories to make you seem good at any given time.

 

And so you can see how one way you would do that is, if you get dumped by a girl and you alter the memory to:

 

“Oh well it was a mutual thing, or whatever.”

 

And you might genuinely believe that. And you can see how fast life history strategy women would have rape fantasies and things. And if it made them feel better that they had those, they would genuinely believe it happened:

 

“Yeah, I wasn’t dumped by this guy, because I’m ghastly. He dumped me but it was good that he dumped me, because he raped me.”

 

And all of this came out! And none of the allegations went to court, because they were for sure, they were all false. And so you get this in the wake of divorces, as well. I mean, women can concoct all kinds of things:

 

“He hit me!”

 

You know. And it turns out that she’s exaggerating, or whatever. And so, yeah, I think that’s the damage that some, a lot of modern feminists do. That’s why it’s so dangerous to have this idea in British courts, they should automatically be taken seriously. Automatically. No! I would say quite opposite!

 

Woes: Believe women, and so on. Yeah, it is very dangerous! I mean, obviously men are capable of all sorts of crimes, of course, they are. And they’re also capable of deluding themselves. But I think that women seem to have, especially when encouraged by society, women have an ability to believe whatever is necessary. Now obviously I’m not saying all women do this, or whatever. I just think it seems to be something that’s more, …

 

Ed Dutton: If you think about the kind of person that is high in empathy. We talk about multiculturalism and it being inconsistent. Of course, it’s inconsistent to say:

 

“Race is a social construct.”

 

And then to say:

 

“Oh! We need more black people to donate their organs, because black people are dying, because there’s no black donor organs.”

 

Well that shows that racism isn’t a social construct, clearly. That shows it maps onto something very important indeed. And they could hold together this, they’re like the Queen of Hearts from Alice. They can hold together two contradictory things! It doesn’t matter to them! Because there’s things that are more important. There’s power! Power is more important! So they can engage in practical nihilism. And they can:

 

“Oh yeah! Oh, when it’s race! Oh well there’s no clear borders!”

 

And whatever. Where’s anything else there is. Or when it’s race there’s no clear borders when I’m arguing with a racist. But when I want money, then:

 

“Yeah, race exists, it’s very real!”

 

Woes: Of course!

 

Ed Dutton: You can’t be racial! That’s a complete contradiction. But they don’t care about that, because what they care about is power, or empathy! That’s the other thing, you know, you give someone a logical reasonable argument, and the response of an extreme female type woman who traditionally would perhaps be quite patriarchal, would be:

 

“Oh, that’s just so mean! It’s so mean!”

 

Yeah, but it’s true. And it’s true! Woes is Scottish.:

 

“Yeah, but it’s so mean to say he’s Scottish! Scottish isn’t generous. It’s so mean to say he’s Scottish!”

 

Or whatever.:

 

“And the Scottish are run by Wee Jimmy Krankie*. And so, that’s fine! It’s fine.”

 

[*The Krankies are a Scottish comedy duo who enjoyed success as a cabaret act in the 1970s and on television in the 1980s. The joke is that SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon looks like Wee Jimmy Krankie – the pantomime, red-capped schoolboy figure played by the Glasgow comic Janette Tough — a female absurdly pretending to be male.]

 

And so you see what I mean? So that’s why it’s so dangerous in terms of academia, in terms of science, in terms of what I’m interested in, to allow women to overwhelm academia. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any women in academia. But when they started it at Oxford they brought in women, and it was found that it interfered with the ability to have harsh academic disputation. And then they reduced the numbers. And they said there could only be one woman to every seven men. Because they took the view that it wasn’t working. And eventually, of course, they overturned that and they brought them in.

 

I remember talking to an academic, a British academic, who working in Finland. And they have a thing here called a “Phd defense”. Now, it’s meant to be a formality. And you’ve got them having a party arranged in the next room, I think called “karanka”, and whatever. But as far as he was concerned the thesis that he was presented with, was not very good. And it was the first time he’d done one of these. You’re meant to have an opponent. And the idea is the opponent, you know, pulls apart your thesis and you defend it.

 

Now that’s what happens in a British, … Well, if you’ve ever had a Phd viva*, it’s private though. But you’ve got your internal, I had one. You’ve got your internal examiner, your external examiner. And their purpose is to rip your thesis apart! And your purpose is to defend it.

 

[*The PhD viva examination, or thesis defence, represents the culmination of the PhD examination process, and how you perform at it can determine whether or not you are successful overall.].

 

And this is being criticized increasingly because, of course, you end up with, if a girl has presented a thesis that only just passes, or whatever, or it’s not very good, then they’ll end up in tears! Because the people are being mean. And this is what happened at this defense.

 

The guy was expecting — he’d never done it before — he was expecting an academic disputation. It was a female Phd student and he basically just pulled it apart. And she was almost crying! And he couldn’t believe it! And people said to him afterwards:

 

“I think you were maybe a little bit too much, too harsh.”

 

And he’s like:

 

“What do you mean, a little bit too harsh? I was presenting her with the problems with her thesis. And I was asking for her response. What do you mean?”

 

Woes: And, of course, if it was a person who was committed to the truth no matter what, they wouldn’t really care about their own, they would separate their own feelings from the matter at hand, from the mission, as it were.

 

[61:10]

 

Ed Dutton: That’s right! But a lot of women I think like Jill Biden, or whatever they don’t get PhDs as a means of knowing more about the nature of the world. They get PhDs, because it’s a tick on the good girl picture on the fridge. [Woes laughs]

 

Woes: All right. Somebody makes the comment — this is when we were talking about society, stability, women, witches, and so on — and someone said:

 

“So it’s all women’s fault then?”

 

What would you say about that?

 

Ed Dutton: No. Maybe you could argue that it’s men’s fault for not standing up against this nonsense. And a lot of the spiteful mutants that have undermined the patriarchy and have undermined the traditional system have been men! So it’s not “all” women’s fault. No. But I’m just showing you the parallel is very, very clear, as far as I can see, between the witches of yore and the feminists now.

 

Woes: Okay. We have some Superchats:

 

“We’d love to know Ed’s thoughts on Gnosticism. Would it be a preferable Christian alternative for us well?”

 

Ed Dutton: Well, in the early church, so Gnosticism was this sort of esoteric belief system where you sort of gain greater knowledge through your own esoteric belief, you get closer to Christ. And I think that in the early church they were very unhappy about Gnosticism, because it was so subjective and whatever. And so it would break down into all kinds of infighting and things like this. And so then eventually the Gnostics were sort of wiped out. They were considered an element that, as it were, didn’t help in the matter of group selection.

 

So I’m not sure, … I was writing about Gnosticism quite recently. I’m just trying to find the document. Here it is. So I’m just trying to remember what it was they were unhappy about with Gnosticism. But they had these various Gnostic sects, but they didn’t get the balance right.

 

So one of the things was that they were extremely sort of generally pro-social, rather than ethnocentric. And so that was potentially a problem. Or they believed in all kinds of weird stuff which meant, which wasn’t in line with the broader church. And so that meant there was splitting and disagreement. And so that was a problem.

 

For example, Marcion — the blasphemous heretic Marcion — preached that the jewish god had created the world, but that a higher god had sent Jesus to the world. And there were some of them that believed that the Sethians, that Seth in Genesis was the receiver of crucial revelations and was kind of a divine savior.

 

The Ophites believed that Jesus instructed them to worship the serpent from Genesis, because he was the genuine source of knowledge. And so a lot of these things weren’t even particularly Christian at all. They involve sexual rituals and stuff like that.

 

So, no. I’m not sure that there would be a great deal of future. A lot of these Gnostic sects were not particularly ethnocentric. And I think that was why they got rid of them in the end. They weren’t ethnocentric enough!

 

They were promoting a “brotherhood of man” to a greater extent. And so they were selected out! There was basically an evolutionary battle of different ideas that were expressed in religious terms. And it was the Gnostic ones that were selected out. So I suppose not then.

 

[64:32]

 

Woes: All rights another Superchat. I don’t know what this is referring to, but he says:

 

“Ed, I had a fat Norwegian Forest Cat that lived to be 18.”

 

I’m not sure if this is a reference, …

 

Ed Dutton: He’s referring to my cat, Margaret the cat.

 

Woes: Oh yeah and he says:

 

“How is Margaret doing?”

 

Ed Dutton: I’ll just see if Margaret’s around. Just a minute.

 

Woes: Okay!

 

Ed Dutton: She’s been she’s been great, because the kids have been in northern Lapland, at a place called Keviarde [sp] for the last few days. And so they haven’t been here to stress Margaret out! And so she’s been a completely different cat. I mean, she’s been sociable. She’s been upstairs with us and just like not the anti-social cow that she normally is! And she’s been spayed, which I believe extends their life expectancy. And she’s 12, she’s 13, I think it is now. She’s 13. So yeah, so I think she could live quite a lot. She’s a moggy, but to the extent that she’s anything, she does look a bit like a Norwegian Forest Cat, that is true.

 

Woes: All right they look very nice and fluffy, and cuddly.

 

Ed Dutton: Very fluffy very, very furry! Very luxurious looking!

 

Woes: Okay [chuckling]. All right:

 

“Hi Ed! Why are the Ulster Scots so fiercely loyalist and pro-Britain, while Scots in Scotland seem to be slowly edging in the direction of abolishing the union, Great Britain? Why are people who are so similar ethnically beginning to diverge so drastically in their political expressions?”

 

Ed Dutton: So I think that there’s two reasons.

 

One is that it’s just the basic political reason, that the Ulster Scots are Protestant. And therefore they see themselves they are different from the Catholics religiously. And they are different from the Catholics ethnically, genetically.

 

And so they want to remain, obviously that it’s a choice between being part of a Catholic — and they’re deeply committed religious people — and that it’s a choice between being part of a Catholic Ireland, or a religious Catholic Ireland, or historically it was, and a choice of being part of Britain. And so it would be humiliation for them to be part of Ireland. And so therefore they are very, very pro, being part of Britain.

 

Secondly I think you’ve got to understand that the Ulster Scots are not representative of the Scots. Any more than the English people of Virginia, or the English people of Massachusetts are representative of the English. These immigrants tend to be more religious. And immigration is correlated with religiousness. They were very religious people they are under group selection more harshly, because of violence, or whatever in Ulster. So they’re highly, highly, highly, highly religious! They’re a fundamentalist community. And therefore they tend to be very conservative against change, and whatever. And therefore you would expect them to want to stay part of Britain.

 

Whereas the Scots, they’ve not been subject to that. So they’re going to be the religiousness and traditionalism and whatever is going to be less of an issue. And the nationalism element as well is going to be higher.

 

What is it that’s holding, used to hold things together? What held nations together? Group selection, the threat of destruction. Well that’s gone. There’s no Russia. There’s not gonna be a nuclear war. That’s under check. So we’d expect things to fall apart. We’d expect the European Union to fall apart. We’d expect Britain to fall apart.

 

Britain came together, because of war with other European countries, and stayed together, because there was something in it for the Scots. The Scots were dominant in the Empire. They were hugely overrepresented in the Empire, and indeed in geniuses, in British geniuses. I mean, pretty much a tiny population. I suspect they were more intelligent than us until quite recently, because they were under harsh Darwinian selection pressures. They were better at killing their witches, and so on. So they had every reason to be part of the union.

 

Whereas then you have this moving apart. And so therefore you have this rise in Scottish nationalism which has happened in Scotland. Their sense of national identity becomes wrapped up in their religiousness in a way:

 

“We’re better than the British, because we’re more left-wing!”

 

And that’s kind of what their Scottish nationalism is:

 

“We’re better than the English, because we’re more the sanats [?]. Because we’re more woke than them. Even though we can afford to be more woke, because we’re like 98% White!”

 

And so, that’s why those are the reasons why I think there’s a difference.

 

And also you should remember that the Ulster Scots and Scots diverged a very long time ago. I mean, we’re talking the 1600s here, early 1700s at the latest. And the people that emigrate they’re always more conservative.

 

The Afrikaans are more, even the language is more conservative. I suspect that the way the northern Irish speak is probably how the Scots spoke in the 1600s. And it’s just been preserved. Like we know that the way that the Cornish spoke in the 1600s is the way Virginians speak now. And the way that the Dutch spoke in the 1600s is the way Afrikaans speak now.

 

I mean, they like your “I”. The Scots people saying “aye” for “yes”. That’s a very old word. It’s died out in England. There’s some people say in Scotland. In Northern Ireland they love it! They can’t get enough of it! “Ayeee” all the time! And so on. So I think that’s my answer.

 

[70:01]

 

Woes: All right. Thank you. Okay. So Mr Dutton, Professor Dutton:

 

“Is removing female equality that was established into Western law in 1920 for most Anglo nations, the Right solution for a nationalist and traditionalist to aim to achieve? Removing female equality that was established in law in 1920?”

 

Ed Dutton: Who asked this?

 

Woes: Someone who’s constantly asking questions about women. [laughing] He says he’s not a MGTOW! But yeah:

 

“It’s time to grow and learn.”

 

Ed Dutton: I don’t see what, I don’t know what he’s talking about. Female equality was put into law in 1920? I’d dispute that. What do you mean?

 

I mean, in England, for example, women were allowed to become priests in 1992. Women weren’t allowed to engage in boxing until the late 90s. Women couldn’t be bishops in England until relatively recently.

 

Woes: I think he meant, I think he means a more legal level.

 

Ed Dutton: Does he mean, in America women got the Right to vote in 1920. Is that what he means?

 

Woes: I’m guessing, so yeah.

 

Ed Dutton: Right. So interestingly there was a very interesting book by a chap called Simon Webb, who I interviewed on my channel, and he showed that these women that wanted the vote, when the women’s social and political union broke down, a lot of them joined the British Union of Fascists.

 

So they were attracted to these, … Again this is what we talked about earlier, borderline personality disorder. They were just attracted to these extreme things. And Emmeline Pankhurst argued at a trial that 80 percent of English men had syphilis, and would go mad! And in order to save the English race from destruction women had to be allowed to take over England!

 

Anyway, that aside, what the vote for women initially brought about was greater conservatism, because in that time we lived in a conservative society, women were more religious than men. And so women were more inclined to vote for Right-wing parties than men.

 

And this flipped in the generation born in the 50s, and 60s, because this is when the religious society broke down. If you want to think a year it was probably 1963.

 

“Sex came rather late for me in 1963.”

 

Somewhere between the end of the Chatterly ban*, the Beatles first LP, and Kennedy, and all that.

 

[In 1960 Lady Chatterley’s Lover sold out all over England. Penguin’s first run of the controversial novel by DH Lawrence — a total of 200,000 copies — sold out on the first day of publication. The sexually explicit novel was published in Italy in 1928 and in Paris the following year. It was banned in the UK].

 

And so then women start to become more liberal than men. And now women are more inclined to vote for the Left than men.

 

So yeah! If you want to restore order then there has to be less female influence.

 

[72:42]

 

I mean, the damage! Think about the damage to children, as well. When I was at school, at my infant school, it was a hundred percent female. Okay, that’s fair enough. What kind of man would want to work at infant school other than a nonce? But at my junior school it was only two male teachers. And at my secondary school, okay that was probably majority male. But this is decreasingly the case.

 

Now about 60% even of secondary school teachers of women. And so it’s turning schools into female spaces! Where you have these different values like harm avoidance and equality. That’s female values. And male values, authority, and structure, and loyalty, and things like that. And that means you aspire for something. And it means that you see life as a struggle, which it is.

 

And so I think women dominating education doesn’t prepare people for life! And you just get these people that aren’t properly brought up.

 

I mean, I had a paper published recently on corporal punishment. We found that controlling for other factors like genetics, and whatever, corporal punishment has positive outcomes. But the feminization of education means it’s gone, no punishment anymore. And so you have a generation now that has no corporal punishment at school, no fear at school basically. Like we had in the 80s.

 

And so, yeah. I think the influence is ultimately too much, it’s too strong, it’s destroying academia, it’s destroying education. You’re getting boys that aren’t being taught with boys. That are being taught it’s bad to be a boy! You shouldn’t be a boy. So they’re going to become depressed, and maladapted, and developed sub-optimally.

 

And the only people that are going to be resistant to this barrage of maladaptive, environmental, pressure are those that are strongly genetically resistant to it, i.e., the remnant normal population! That would have survived, that would have been around in the 1600s, or whatever, before Darwinian conditions broke down. I think that’s what quite a few of us are! We’re the remnant normal population.

 

And so what I suspect is going to happen is that eventually all those people that aren’t the remnant normal population will die out. They’ll just won’t pass on their genes. And what you’ll be left with — and the data is consistent with this — is the people that we now call the “far-Right”, that’s who’s breeding, that’s what predicts breeding. A hundred years from now that’s what will be left, or less than a hundred years from now. And so things will change radically.

 

But yeah, the one way you could check it would be the abolition of higher education for women. That’s one thing that’s been suggested, or the limiting of it, or something like that. I mean, like this thing Jill Biden with a Phd, you know, education, it just undermines the value of it, because it becomes “woman’s work”. It’s like being a secretary.

 

Woes: Yeah, okay. Somebody’s asked:

 

“You explained earlier about the psychology of people who have rape fantasies. Do you have any insight into the increasing prevalence of incest porn in society?”

 

Fucking hell!

 

[76:00]

 

Ed Dutton: There’s been a couple of books on this. So there was one called “A Billion Wicked Thoughts”. And there was one that I did a video on. I can’t remember what it is, what the video was. It was quite recently I did a video that drew upon this book.

 

Yeah, what I would suspect is that what you get if you have no Darwinian, very, very limited Darwinian selection pressure, so lots of mutants, who will have maladaptive sexual desires that would have been selected out under harsh Darwinian conditions.

 

And so people who would want to bang their brother, or something, that those kind of people would be selected out. And people did. I mean, Egyptian royalty, ancient Egyptian royalty used to used to have sex with their siblings. They would be selected out, because of the consequences of that in terms of dysgenics. And so you would expect therefore this to spread.

 

Secondly at the environmental level you would traditionally have had a conservative religious system, which would make all this taboo, to the point of unthinkable! But now that is gone. And so you have free access to pornography, and free access to like increasingly aberrant taboo, or formally taboo practices. And so once you’ve moved away from “vanilla”, and once you’ve gone, … You can see how if you’re particularly into porn:

 

“Let’s go on to the next revolting thing! And the next revolting!”

 

And eventually you need some, … And there was research on this as well. That a lot of the zoomer generation that have had access to porn all their lives, they can’t get it up to the “vanilla” porn.

 

Woes: Yes. That has to get ever more extreme.

 

Ed Dutton: They’re immune to that. It has to be extreme! Whereas if you go back to Victorian times people could get up, if there was a bare ankle! Because they were so unused to nudity. And this is actually quite important. If you think that we have evolved basically, we Westerners, to a society where people are covered up. And so when nudity is something, … Not perhaps Finns. I mean, they’re into sauna and stuff.

 

But we British perhaps, to a society where people are covered up. And so you would expect us to be easily aroused by nudity. Now people that are fast like history strategists, of course, they’re involved with society doing any aberrant stuff. And so they would need more, and more, extreme things. Nudity’s not good enough in these fast life history societies. Women walk around naked, who cares with nudity. So you need more, and more, and more! And you eventually end up with more, and more, sick stuff. And incest porn would potentially be one.

 

I mean, it should also be noted there’s something called the “Westermark Effect”. Finnish anthropologist Edward Westermark. And he found that, … Kibbutz’s have shown this. That if people are separated at birth, you know, let’s say twins, a brother and a sister, or father and a daughter, and they’re not raised together in early life, then they will meet later and be deeply sexually attracted to each other. Because we tend to be sexually attracted to genetic similarity.

 

And so if someone’s 50% the same as you, and you haven’t been brought up with them in early life. And then you meet them later, then you’ll be very attracted to them. And this is a serious problem.

 

So yeah, that’s how I would explain the rise of incest porn. And there’s things that are much more. I mean, there’s sex with animals.

 

Woes: Yeah. On that note, I remember reading about two people who met and they very attracted each other. And then it turned out that they were both from sperm donors, and they had the same father. So they were half siblings.

 

[79:48]

 

Ed Dutton: And that would make sense. Because the sweet spot is third cousin. There’s research from Iceland. Of course, there’s only three hundred thousand people there. So everyone’s related. And the sweet spot in terms of fertility and not getting divorced, is third cousin. So the person you should marry is your third cousin, or equivalent.

 

So that is to say 1.5 percent above the baseline of the society, in terms of how related you are. And that seems that’s what slow life strategists do, because you select people that are similar to you. Because if you’re similar to each other you’re going to get on better, and you’re going to indirectly pass on more of your genes and whatever.

 

And so people who are slower life strategists do tend to be attracted to people that are more genetically similar to themselves. And that’s true. But in extremis you could see if they didn’t know they’re brother and sister, you could see, of course, they’re gonna be attracted, because they’re 50% the same.

 

Woes: Right. Okay, …

 

Ed Dutton: What?

 

Woes: Just the questions! All right:

 

“Why do some relatively inbred groups have high IQ? Icelanders and Ashkenazi jews, for example.”

 

Ed Dutton: Well in the case of the Ashkenazi jews it can be argued that, … So there’s two ways of understanding this. You have inbreeding depression, which is that if you have a child with someone that’s very similar to you, then there’ll be double doses of harmful genes. And so, that’s bad.

 

But there’s also out-breeding depression, which is that if you have sex someone that’s very dissimilar to you, then genes which haven’t combined, alleles that haven’t combined for a very long time, will combine, which in polygenic traits will have unpredictable results. So that’s bad!

 

But you could also have inbreeding vigor! Which is that if you inbreed then it will elevate positive traits. And you could have out-breeding vigor. And so there’s no reason why it can’t be the case. If you’re a highly intelligent subgroup and you want to make, …

 

This is what you see with the Indian caste system — inbreeding vigor. So they make sure that someone is relatively similar then, whom they marry, and they keep the highest castes highly intelligent, and whatever. That’s what they’re doing. Inbreeding vigor!

 

If they didn’t do it, then the men would just go for stupid, but pretty women. And the women might go for, you know, well off butch idiots. What’s that wrestler called? John Cena. People like him.

 

So that’s the problem. So you can be positive. And that’s what you have with the Ashkenazi jews. The Ashkenazi jews were pushed into a situation where they could only engage in certain professions [I don’t think this is substantially true. See Andrew Joyce on this.]. And this meant that if you couldn’t, if you weren’t intelligent enough to engage in that profession, then you would you couldn’t really marry out.

 

And so you just die out, and not pass on your genes. And so this heavily selected for intelligence. And it meant that if you marry other Ashkenazi jews, rather than who is of your family, or similar to you, you know, then you’re ensuring as an intelligent person you’re marrying someone else that’s intelligent. And so you get inbreeding vigor!

 

The flip side of it can be, of course, certain genetic disorders, being prevalent among them. And interestingly there was a theory by Henry Harpending, and somebody else, that some of those Tay Sachs, and some of these jewish disorders, are actually correlated with intelligence. So if you have, you know, one of the alleles, one of the mutant alleles, then you are very, very clever. If you have two then you get Tay Sachs. So the inbreeding vigour continues, and it stays in the population.

 

As for the Icelandic, I would say, you have must remember that until relatively recently cousin marriage was quite high. Parts of Sicily, and whatever, used to have in the 60s even very high levels of cousin marriage. So marrying people that are quite similar to you, … I mean, in Finland, for example, … In England we’re all 12th cousins. So we English are all related if you go back about 500 years, or 400 years.

 

In Finland you’ve only got to go back about 250 years, 300 years, everyone’s related. So even in Finland you’ve got people that are, perhaps without knowing it, marrying their third cousins, and stuff like this. And with the Icelandic, it’s just an extension of that. They were under very harsh levels of selection. And so you would expect very high levels of intelligence to be selected for. And that’s what’s happened.

 

So it is a problem though. There is actually an a in Iceland where you can type in the name of this boy, or girl, you want to go out with. And you can see how related you are. Because they’re all at least, they’re all like no less than fifth cousins. They’re all highly related.

 

Woes: Right.

 

Ed Dutton: And most people they marry their third cousin.

 

Woes: All right. Somebody asks:

 

“What mating strategy should Incels adopt?”

 

And that’s from someone calling himself Patrick Bateman! [laughing]

 

Ed Dutton: So it depends. I get the impression that what Incels are, are failed fast life history strategists. So they want to have lots of sex and be promiscuous, and stuff like that, and not commit. That’s what they want to do, and they can’t. Because in a situation where women are liberated and where women have power and control, then the women will just go for the alpha males. And the beta males, the women that are sluts, I mean, will just go for the alpha males, and the beta males won’t get much of a look in.

 

So what I would suspect the Incels need to do, is to go for the slower life history strategy females and be content with monogamy. And then at least they won’t be celibate. But I don’t think that’s what they want. I think that, I get the impression they want to compete to be alpha males. So that’s, that.

 

Woes: So it’s kind of all, or nothing for them.

 

Ed Dutton: Yeah.

 

Woes: Perhaps. Okay, someone asks:

 

“Ed, you previously mentioned the Irish score higher in extroversion. Which European ethnic group scores highest in introversion?”

 

[86:01]

 

Ed Dutton: It’s very hard to have exact measures of this. Because if you give somebody a personality test and they will compare themselves to people they know. And so you end up with this insane situation where if you compare international averages on personality tests Nigerians are higher in conscientiousness than the like Japanese. Which is insane!

 

So you can’t use personality tests. You can use them within a nation. But you can’t use them between nations. So based on proxies it’s, as far as I can see, it’s the Finns. The Finns are the lowest in extroversion, based on various proxies.

 

Woes: Well, they’re famously unsocial, aren’t they? There’s a sort of national joke about that. They like to keep to themselves.

 

Ed Dutton: Yeah! A pissed [drunk] Finn behaves kind of like, you and me are behaving now.

 

Woes: All right! [chuckling] Okay! All right. So in a related to that, the same person asks are there any measurable trait differences between Eastern and Western Europeans?

 

Ed Dutton: Well, if we regard the Finns as Eastern Europeans, then yes. They are lower in extroversion. There is a so-called J-curve of alcoholism which goes across north down, through Eastern Europe. And they tend to be more, the sort of Urgeric type people, this includes the Hungarians and even people in Slovenia. And they tend to be more prone to suicide. And in contact with alcohol particularly, suicide and depression, and things like this. Latvia, and Estonia, Hungary, Slovenia.

 

So that’s a known difference for some Eastern European groups. That there’s propensity alcoholism, and that it associates with suicidality and depression, and things like that. So that’s a known difference.

 

Woes: All right. Here’s a very good question:

 

“Is it psychologically healthier to be a jack-of-all-trades, or a specialist?”

 

Ed Dutton: Psychologically healthier? So you mean, …

 

Woes: Well, there’s more to that. I should read the whole thing:

 

“How does it affect the dynamic between insectoid European people, and all-rounder non-European people?”

 

I don’t know, let’s concentrate in the first bit:

 

“Is it psychologically healthier to be a jack-of-all-trades, or a specialist?”

 

Ed Dutton: Well, you will tend to have psychological health if you are (a), if you are of high status within your group. This makes people happy and undepressed and whatever, if they feel that they’re reasonably successful. And in Western societies normally the way you become successful is by being a specialist. That’s how you become successful. You specialize and you find a niche.

 

But, on the other hand, those that have a sort of easy attitude to life, that just live for the now and don’t care and are happy anyway, those people won’t tend to work hard, they won’t tend to specialize. And they’ll be quite content to be a generalist, that switches jobs, and they won’t worry.

 

But I think in general people are happier if they have high status, and it is specializing in a Western society that gives you high status. So that’s the first thing. Specializing is more important the more complex the society is. So if it is a complex society like ours, it’s much more important to specialize, and it’ll be much more important for social status that you specialize, that you find a niche.

 

Whereas in more easier societies everyone does the same sort of job, whatever. There’s less of a need to specialize.

 

[90:05]

 

Woes: Okay. So it’s conducive towards social status.

 

Ed Dutton: It’s conducive to a social status to specialize. So people want social status. And so people, and that’s associated with if you’re saying “contentedness”.

 

The other thing that’s associated with contentedness is an “evolutionary match”. So if you’re in an evolutionary mismatch, you know, like an elephant living in a cold place, or whatever. You will be unhappy. And that’s why we’re increasingly unhappy in the West, because we’re in an evolutionary mismatch! We’re not supposed to live like this. We’re meant to live in small communities where we know everybody. And they’re all genetically similar to us. That’s what makes us happy. That’s what we want.

 

Woes: Right!

 

Ed Dutton: And so we’re in an evolutionary mismatch! Immigration, people different, that is an extreme evolutionary mismatch! Being surrounded by ugly buildings is an evolutionary mismatch. Lack of religiosity, evolutionary mismatch.

 

So if you are the kind of person that is sort of fast life history strategist, or whatever, or happy go lucky type, and you’re lazy, or something, your evolutionary match may well be to be a generalist. And you will be unhappy if you are compelled to be a specialist.

 

So it depends on the kind of person you are. Maybe your evolutionary match is to be a generalist. So there’s different dynamics to the question.

 

Woes: Okay. It’s impossible to answer the question really, because it’s depends, it varies from one individual to the next. Okay:

 

“It’s one thing to prove that women are a negative influence when empowered in society, but quite another to offer a solution. Do you have any suggestions about how we can push back female influence?”

 

That is quite another thing indeed. And I don’t think it’s fair to ask the person who diagnoses the problem to also have a solution to it. But Ed is there anything you would want to say about this?

 

Ed Dutton: Well to the extent that you can do anything you need the promotion of a more conservative society. And once that starts to happen then you can more rationally present the evidence, and it is true that women are happier. And they are happier, because it’s an evolutionary mismatch! Remember, that’s what makes you unhappy.

 

The evolutionary match for most women is to be what they’ve always been. That’s what their happiest being. They’re happier, and they show this. If you look at the research by Joanna Williams on this. They show this, even if they get jobs. They want to retire early. They want to have a work life balance. They want to spend ages off work and be with the kids. That’s what they want to do!

 

To the extent they go into jobs, they go into jobs where they’re caring about people, and looking after people, and basically doing the kind of jobs which they always did even when they could work. It’s just that now they’re teaching boys and girls, whereas historically they’d just be teaching girls. And that’s what they do! That’s what they want to do! That’s what makes them happy. And you might get a few, and that’s interesting that when they have a real choice which they do in very feminist type societies like us.

 

Woes: Like Sweden.

 

Ed Dutton: Right! Whereas in Italy, or whatever, where there’s less choice they feel more of pressure, you know, because they need to make money, or something. They may feel more of a pressure to go into the sciences, which they don’t like doing! And they’re not very good at! And they ruin when they do go into it, because they don’t like, …

 

The kind of person that will come up with brilliant and original ideas, is the kind of person that will be autistic, and is therefore the kind of person that will make inappropriate jokes, and offend people, like Alexander Stromio — who I’m gonna have on my show next year — and whatever. And they’ll drive those people out! As they tried to do with him.

 

And so it’s bad for society that women, … We talk about how can we encourage more women to go into STEM subjects. No! How can we encourage women to NOT go into STEM subjects? [Woes chuckles] How can we encourage women to not go into STEM subjects?

 

Woes: Okay:

 

“Which European nation has the optimal level of in-group preference, not too high leading to a backward, or violent society, not too low, where they’ll be taken advantage of by hostile outgroups?”

 

[94:33]

 

Ed Dutton: European, … By the way, I’m perfectly happy with women to be involved in STEM subjects of a certain kind. Probably religious women, actually. Margaret Thatcher went into STEM subject. Highly religious, patriarchal, conservative women go into STEM subjects, and invent ice cream! [Woes smiles]

 

But with regards to that question, probably one of the Eastern European nations. It’s hard to say which, because the Eastern Europe is going the way of Western Europe, very slowly. There’s some evidence there is a backlash as well happening. There’s some very based stuff happening in Poland and Hungary, and whatever. But it is also, I think it will polarize very strongly. I think that’s what’s happening. But it’ll polarize.

 

We are polarizing now in a situation where the Left are culturally in power and the Right are not. And there’s this polarization, and it’s increasingly obvious. And eventually I think it will result in a tip back towards the Right. It may be that the Eastern Europe polarizes with the Right in power, and the Left not. I don’t know what’s going to happen.

 

But one of those kind of countries, probably has the optimum balance, somewhere like, … I would have said Finland 15 years ago. But now Finland has fallen to the “spite girls”. But probably one of those kind of countries, Hungary, or something like that.

 

Woes: Okay.:

 

“Professor Dutton, please consider Dr Andrew Joyce, Dr MacDonald, or Dr Johnson on one of your future shows.”

 

[96:01]

 

Ed Dutton: Well I’ve had Kevin MacDonald on my show twice. I don’t know how many other more times I can, … You’ll find that show on BitChute. Two of them, both those shows BitChute. And who are the others?

 

Woes: Dr Andrew Joyce and Dr Greg Johnson.

 

Ed Dutton: Andrew Joyce and Greg Johnson, right.

 

Woes: Okay. And someone else asks:

 

“Are people from the British isles predisposed to violent behavior? When I’m in mainland Europe, I don’t see half as many fights as I do in England.”

 

Ed Dutton: Possibly. I can think of two things. First of all, we industrialized earlier. And so if we industrialized earlier than anybody else, we’re going to be more dysgenic than everybody else. And also we were reasonably large population anywhere. But we’re more dysgenic.

 

And all of the religious people left, went to America. And so what you’re going to end up with is just the violent scum. And that’s quite possible, actually, that we would be more dysgenic. That’s certainly we were more dysgenic. That’s possible.

 

Secondly that we are a temperance culture. So this is something to do with being in the north, and also coming to farming relatively late by European standards.

 

So once you get farming, then you get the development of alcohol. Once you get the development of alcohol, it’s adaptive to be able to drink alcohol and not get drunk, or not get alcoholic, or whatever. Because then you don’t have to drink the water. And as you get a more complex society the water is going to be dirty and whatever. And so as farming spreads the genes resistant to alcoholism spread.

 

Now farming was founded in the Fertile Crescent ten thousand years ago. And so we’ve had the Spanish, and the Greeks, and the Italians, and the southern Europeans, have had much longer for the genes to spread. So therefore they’re completely resistant to alcohol. They don’t particularly like it. They don’t drink it much. They drink it only with meals. They have very low levels of alcoholism. And when they go out on a Friday night, they get dressed up in nice clothes, and go out on vespers and talk very loudly in cafes! That’s their Friday night.

 

Whereas our Friday night, because we are less resistant to alcohol there is a critical mass of people that are very attracted to alcohol and get drunk, and whatever. And very easily become alcoholics, and whatever. And become violent. And that may well be the reason for the difference.

 

Woes: All right. One last question:

 

“The genetic basis of your claim of today’s pervasiveness of witches is underpinned by the hypothesis that mutations leading to infant mortality also affect pro, or antisocial behavior.”

 

Ed Dutton: Not really.

 

Woes: And he said:

 

“Is there evidence for that?”

 

[99:00]

 

Ed Dutton: Well yeah, there’s evidence that with the collapse of, … That infant mortality is the crucible of evolution. There’s a paper on that called “Infant Mortality”, or something like that. It’s called something like “The Crucible of Evolution”, and looks at this.

 

And so there is certainly evidence of a rise in mutational load. There is evidence that physical mutations are correlated with anti-social mental problems, like schizophrenia, depression, autism, whatever. And violence psychopathology. It correlates with these mutations. So in that sense, yes! There is evidence for that. That physical mutation correlates with mental mutation, and mental mutation in a maladaptive, anti-social, direction.

 

One thing I’d add actually, about transsexuality. Being a transsexual correlates with hereditary deafness! And all kinds of other things as well. Crohn’s disease, asthma, whatever. Now you could put some of these things down to stress of being a transsexual, or something. But I can’t see how you could put deafness down to it. Curvature of the spine.

 

I was at university with this guy, Alex, who then became Drea, and then worked as a prostitute in Brighton and was murdered by a Scottish Sky Television fitter. Who he told he used to be a man. I probably told you that story. But he had some kind of appalling series of problems that they had to like operate on his anus, and things like this. Like all these hereditary mutations. And that would be consistent with narcissism, all these physical problems that correlate with narcissism, with mental problems, that are anti-social.

 

Woes: It’s not the kind of thing you want to hear about while you’re fitting someone’s Sky Television box!

 

Ed Dutton: Well no, he went there — he was a Sky fitter who went there to fit Alex’s box. And then I get the impression that Alex must have said, …

 

He [Sky guy] might even have said something like [putting on a Scottish accent]:

 

“You have very nice breastees, don’t you? Have very nice breasts, they’re very perfect!”

 

And then Alex would have said [in a soft feminine voice]:

 

“Oh. Yeah, they would be really nice, because I was born a man. So they’re fake.”

 

And then he saw red, and strangled him!

 

Woes: Bloody hell! Okay [chuckling]. There’s a very strange story! Okay. So that’s that question. And then we’ve just got the “diamonds” on Dlive. Someone says:

 

“Good to see Dr Dutton on Dlive. Thanks as always.”

 

And someone else said:

 

“Hail Woes! Hail Ed! Hail Scrubs!”

 

I’m not really sure what the term “Scrubs” refers to. But I’ve heard it’s associated with Dangerfield, and so on, so all right.

 

Well, excellent! It’s been very interesting stream. I hope that people have enjoyed it.

 

So would you like to summarize, just before we finish, could you summarize the theory about witches and anti-social behavior and the fall of civilization again? Just so that we can end the stream on a summary of that theory.

 

Ed Dutton: So the summary of the theory is that what witches are, in evolutionary terms, is people who are undermined patriarchy, the patriarchal system in various ways. And that was bad, because at the group selection level patriarchy was associated with maintaining positive and negative ethnocentrism, and maintaining religiousness, which is all associated with winning in the battle of group selection. So that’s what these witches are doing. They’re undermining patriarchy!

 

And that’s what modern day witches do. They undermine patriarchy. And it’s the same. They’re functionally the same. And so we must understand that we are living in a society that is dominated by literal witches! And that is not good!

 

And as I say that the book should be coming out later this year, “Witches, Feminism and the Fall of the West”.

 

Woes: You mean next year, 2021?

 

Ed Dutton: Next year. And yeah, I should plug my channel, shouldn’t I? Jolly Heretic, Online public house, live stream Mondays and Thursdays, seven pm UK time, two pm New York. And various books you can get if you look into it. So yeah, that’s it.

 

Woes: All right! Well excellent! Well, thank you Professor Edward Dutton, The Jolly Heretic, for taking part in Millennial 2020.

 

Ed Dutton: Thank you for having me.

 

Woes: Okay. I’ll be back in 15 minutes with John Bruce Leonard. In the meantime hope you enjoyed this. Thank you to everyone for watching. And I’ll see you later. Bye for now.

 

[103:50]

 

 

END

 

 

 

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

 

See Also:

 

Millennial Woes with Morgoth on Brexit — Jul 2, 2016 — TRANSCRIPT

A Woes By Any Other Name — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – To Be a Man in 2017 – Speech at Erkenbrand dinner — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – One Hour from Now – Speech to Erkenbrand — TRANSCRIPT

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

Millennial Woes – The Passion of Jordan Peterson – Speech to Blue Awakening — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes at the Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2019 – Daughter of Albion – Dec 28, 2019 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – The Strife of Tongues – Nov 30, 2020 — Transcript

 

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – John Waters – Dec 22, 2020 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – On the Offensive – Dec 15, 2020 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – Dangerfield – Dec 21, 2020 — Transcript<

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – The Jolly Heretic – Dec 29, 2020 — Transcript

 

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

 

PDF Notes

* Total words = 17,982
* Total images = 6
* Total A4 pages =

 

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

(Available later)

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 7: Mar 11, 2021 — Added See Also image 2 and 4 links.

 

Version 6: Jan 20, 2021 — Added last 23 mins of transcript. Transcript now complete = 104/104 mins.

 

Version 5: Jan 18, 2021 — Added 19 more mins of transcript. Total transcript complete = 80/104 mins.

 

Version 4: Jan 17, 2021 — Added 9 more mins of transcript. Total transcript complete = 61/104 mins.

 

Version 3: Jan 15, 2021 — Added 8 more mins of transcript. Total transcript complete = 52/104 mins.

Version 2: Jan 14, 2021 — Added 9 more mins of transcript. Total transcript complete = 46/104 mins.

 

Version 1: Jan 11, 2021 — Published post. Total transcript complete = 37/104 mins.

Woes: Red Pill Germany. Then Bitcoin Beginnings. That’s with Karl Thorburn. And then Jared Taylor. And Jared Taylor will be on Dlive only. So please make sure you’re subscribed to that, to me on Dlive.

 

But first it’s Dangerfield. It’s Chris Dangerfield. Now I should also say just before we get to that, E Michael Jones has been rescheduled. So tomorrow night there are going to be five hangouts. But do we still use the word “hangouts”? I can’t remember. Anyway there’re going to be five streams and E Michael Jones will be at midnight GMT, tomorrow night.

 

So with that said, I’ll just do the necessary linky stuff with Telegram, and so forth. There we go.

 

And Dangerfield, welcome to Millennial 2020!

 

Dangerfield: What an absolute pleasure! Three years on the trot I think now.

 

Woes: Yes! I think 2018 was the first time. I wasn’t aware of you with Millennial 2017. But by 2018 I think had you started doing the Three Stooges by that time.

 

Dangerfield: I think that’s probably where that link was made. I went [chuckling] and had a look at it and survived about five minutes!

 

Woes: What was that? Was it quite amateurish?

 

Dangerfield: I don’t watch my content back anyway. Not, because I’ve got any issues with my voice. Because I’ve been in stand-up. And I’ve been in bands all my life. So I’m used to hearing my voice.

 

But eeeehh! It was just a bit, you know, when things are significant, and important to you, they’re really significant! And they’re really important! And then when they’re no longer that important. And you see yourself with them fuuckk, blooody! I was like, oh, come on!

 

You know, it’s like when I watch videos around that Gamergate period, when I’m talking about, you know, transgender toilets. And it’s like it’s the most important thing in the world to me. And today I, well lack of a better phrase, couldn’t give a shit about [Woes laughing out loud] gender neutral toilets!

 

Woes: Yeah, it’s funny back, well in 2015 that stuff did seem important. And I guess it was important for a lot of people who were, …… I mean, I started in 2014 knowing Western civilization is in a terrible condition. And I don’t think I believed at that point that it was literally the end of Western civilization. I do now. But definitely I knew that things were very, very serious.

 

But then you’d get people who were more concerned with, who were baffled, rather than doomers. They were more like just:

 

“Well, what the hell is going on? Why are these feminists always moaning about this and that? And this trans thing and gay marriage! We never voted for that! And mass immigration, Islam!”

 

You’d get people who were still feeling around and trying to work out the scope of the problem. But I mean, a lot of them still don’t get the scope of the problem, even now, of course. I think that, I won’t name names. But there are people who still think that this is actually quite a trivial problem. And it’s just there are just some silly people who are “woke”. The woke people. They don’t get this is actually a very deep civilizational malaise.

 

[03:45]

 

Dangerfield: Sure. I think something else that affected me was, for various reasons, 2020 has made me, …

 

Well I might as well actually go into it. I mean, once I turned up in that Times article. I don’t know if you’re aware. I don’t know if anyone watching is aware. There was a Hope Not Hate had done some, what they usually do they decided to call out loads of dissident YouTubers. And the Times picked it up. And I was in that article.

 

And the article was about terrorism! It was about people who are actually planting bombs! They had these images that I had never seen before! I wouldn’t be surprised if they made them up, you know, skulls wearing Waffen SS helmets! And just bizarre images that have nothing to do with my experience of the dissident Right.

 

Woes: Was it a Photoshop of you holding a bomb, or something?

 

Dangerfield: Well it might, just as well have been. But they had me in this, you know, sandwiched in there. And although they couldn’t outright say I was involved the implication was. And they said I was grooming teenage Nazis! And this stuff’s serious! I just thought I had to step back from that.

 

And I luckily, about three weeks before that all happened, I had already decided to make some changes to my account. I thought now the climate has changed. YouTube, with the glory days of like 2010, you say anything you want! You build up a back catalog. You make money out of your back catalog. People can find your channel. They can binge watch five, six hundred videos. And I had about 600 videos.

 

But before the Times article I started thinking my 600 videos are actually the potential for people to use that content against me. Nearly all my videos were improvised. I’ve written about two scripts. And a lot of its jokey. A lot of its edgy jokey. And people can take that stuff out of context. They can put, …

 

Woes: Let me just interject briefly, because I know that this is an important story that you’re telling. And I don’t want to interrupt it.

 

But I mean, Hope Not Hate still use against me something that I said as a joke four years ago! At the end of 2016. I said that I think I might be pro slavery. It was like, yeah someone had asked me:

 

“What’s your most controversial, or your most outrageous Right-wing opinion?”

 

So it was like two in the morning. I’ve been streaming for two hours. I was exhausted. And so I just said, oh, that. There we go. Obviously a joke. And I’ve corrected it. I’ve clarified it multiple times! Surprisingly enough, I’m not pro-slavery!

 

But Hope Not Hate continued to use this, because it’s useful to them. And they can get away with doing that. I mean, they shouldn’t be able to get away with doing that. And this is again why I wish that we had, …

 

This is, you know, people often scoff at me when I say that the movement needs big funding. But this is an example of exactly why. We should be able to just fucking sue these cunts!

 

[06:52]

 

Dangerfield: Yeah.

 

Woes: You are misrepresenting me! You’re deliberately, you’re knowingly misrepresenting me! But we can’t, because we don’t have the funding to do that. And they will use that to get me de-platformed. Get me banned from things. So yeah, we need funding, surprisingly enough.

 

Dangerfield: Well that’s something we can get onto a bit later. Because I’ve been pulling what’s left of my hair out recently about this whole “grifting” thing:

 

“You’re grifting! You’re people are voluntarily donating to your stream you grifter!”

 

You don’t get that on the Left. The Left aren’t complaining about earning money. It’s just all our lot. I get it every day! Emails sent to me!

 

Woes: That’s another, that’s a problem from within our movement.

 

Dangerfield: Yeah!

 

Woes: And there’s a lot to say about that. I mean, I haven’t asked for money. I did the other night just as a one-off, because someone else brought it up. But other than that, I haven’t asked for money since March 2019, march last year. And people still moan at me for that.

 

Dangerfield: But I think that’s your detriment! I think that’s your detriment! And I think it’s your detriment, because of the environment you find yourself in. Anyone watching this channel give Woes some money! He’s doing five streams every day almost! This is hard to organize! Believe me, I do one stream, I kark out for an hour afterwards. Give him some money!

 

But I’d say that you don’t ask for money, because that environment is so toxic! If you were to:

 

“He’s asking for money out there! He’s only put five hours working today!”

 

Woes: I mean, in my specific case I can understand people not donating, because apart from Millenniyule, I’ve hardly made anything for two years, right? That’s a specific case. This is why I don’t really ask for money, because I don’t feel, I think it would be cheeky.

 

But the more broad point is there is a thing in this movement of you should be doing this for the love of it. You should be doing this, because you care about your country. Of course, I fucking do!

 

I mean, if you were doing this for the money you’d be doing something else. [Dangerfield laughing] You could make a lot more money far more easily by doing anything but this!

 

[09:09]

 

Dangerfield: Yeah!

 

Woes: It’s just a silly thing for people to say. But I think it’s a sort of purity spiraling thing.

 

Dangerfield: Without a doubt.

 

Woes: Does he ask for money? Well then he’s a fake! He’s a grifter! It’s:

 

“You should be suffering! You should not be able to get a normal job! And you shouldn’t be asking for money. You should be just the lowest in the lowest position you could be in. And then I’ll believe that you’re genuine!”

 

Dangerfield: It’s absurd!

 

Woes: It’s insane! And it’s not how our enemies got anywhere. Our enemies never had this mentality. They were completely shameless, right? It was, they’re thinking:

 

“Well, I’m doing something good, so why shouldn’t I get remunerated for that!”

 

Their attitude was:

 

“We want as much money as possible, because that creates options, and it strengthens us, and so on.”

 

But, of course, it’s a completely different, … And I remember Hope Not Hate again saying that I was begging! They used the word “begging” for money! But when they put out a funding drive on Twitter to ask for like tens of thousands of pounds to make up for their budget shortfall, well they’re not begging!

 

Dangerfield: No, of course, not.

 

Woes: They’re doing a good thing! [loud laughing] They’re doing good work, ruining people’s lives!

 

Dangerfield: Madness!

 

Woes: Scum!

 

Woes: Yeah, so we were talking about how the movement has evolved.

 

Dangerfield: And yeah, I realized that the environment’s different. I had five, six hundred videos. And I realized that people can chop bits out of it, you know, I was seeing the sorts of things that were happening to other people.

 

And I thought, you know, for the handfuls of views, literally like 20 a week my old content got, it’s not worth having that there. It makes me vulnerable. So I deleted it. You can’t even put it in private. You can get strikes for private videos. It might be private to the viewers. But it’s not private to YouTube. I got a strike for a video I’d already deleted! But that’s a different story.

 

So luckily I got rid of most of that. But they’d obviously done their research before I done all that, because in that time thing, … It was amazing! The quote they put in there, was I’d done a series of videos called “Talking with Teens”. And I said to my viewers:

 

“Are there any teenagers?”

 

I said:

 

“Not 13, 14. 16 and above really, who want to come on my channel and talk about life as a 16 year old, or as a teenager?”

 

That was it! That was it! They made out it was a like some kind of Nazi recruitment drive! And it wasn’t!

 

One of them was this kid with Asperger’s who couldn’t get a girlfriend. One of them was a kid whose parents were disabled, and life was a nightmare for him. It was a wide range of different topics, different kids at university.

 

[12:14]

 

And one of them who had Right-wing views was saying that he does try and get his Right-wing ideas into debates at university. And I said to him:

 

“Listen. I’d suggest not doing that. Keep your head down, because the liberal machine doesn’t want people like you at university.”

 

Basically trying to encourage him to keep his place at university. And they used that quote. They said:

 

“Dangerfield even told one of them to keep his head down, because the liberal machine!”

 

If it was some kind of evil thing!:

 

“You can’t encourage people to keep their place at university!”

 

Woes: So that’s like, okay you’ve got a message so just blare it out indiscriminately regardless of the consequences. If it will actually work, or not. If it will backfire on you, or not. Just talk! Just say it! That’s retarded! The real world doesn’t work like.

 

I mean, again you’ve got to look at what our enemies did. And I’ve said this so many times to so many people about so many different examples.

 

In 1967 they campaigned to legalize homosexual sex, right, behind closed doors, between two consenting adults. What they didn’t do in 1967 was say to the British public of 1967:

 

“We want drag queen story hour.”

 

Because they knew that the British public of 1967 were not ready to hear that, to tolerate it. They would go nuts if they heard that! So they met the public where they were. That’s just human communication. You’re meeting people where they are. This seems to be completely obvious.

 

So that’s to do with what you actually say, but also the context in which you say it. So you don’t do this at a fucking dinner, like a cheese and wine evening, or at a friend’s wedding, or something like that. It’s specific context where this will work. Where it’ll just backfire on you and turn you into a leper! [laughing]

 

Dangerfield: The crazy thing is its people like Hope Not Hate that made me say to this bloke:

 

“Don’t say things like that at university, because they’re part of that problem.”

 

And then they used it against me, and the Times used it against me.

 

So the point is though, the upshot is, the climate has changed. And this idea of having a channel with hundreds of videos, I think that’s finished! I think it’s interesting that people especially on the dissident Right, they’re now on Dlive, you know, that everyone’s gagging for BitChute to sort out streaming, because I think streaming’s where it’s going now. You don’t want all that stuff out there, that makes you really vulnerable!

 

[15:07]

 

You want to do a stream, people watch it live, when it’s finished, it’s done! The amount of people who are putting videos on YouTube now. And when it’s finished it’s gone! You don’t get to see it. And people are like:

 

“Oh, does anyone know where I can see that? No it’s gone.”

 

And what I do now, I stream twice daily. And when I’ve got five streams live, I’d chop a couple off the end. I record two more, I chop two off the end. So there’s only ever five, or six, up there. Now, if I do an interview stream, or if I do a stream that’s quite playful and not really political, I’ll leave that up.

 

But, yeah, I realized this year that I’m not going to let my YouTube channel make me vulnerable. I’m going to do something else.

 

And I’ve changed from being reactive to proactive. I’m not interested in looking at the news and laughing at it, or getting all mad about it. I’m more into trying to give advice, or discuss ideas that we can actually do in our daily lives. Again, because you have to, because you’re not allowed to do that other stuff anymore.

 

Woes: Yeah, it’s definitely a different climate. I don’t like, as you’ve said, you can’t really afford to have a big archive of all your past stuff anymore. I don’t like that, because I loved that there were all these old videos that I was still proud of some of them I was a bit embarrassed about but, you know, from the early days. But still I was happy to have them up. And that was a way that people discovered my channel and discovered me.

 

But YouTube throttled that anyway, because they stopped recommending you. You stop appearing in the recommended lists. So these videos were no longer useful to me in that sense. But they made me vulnerable.

 

Dangerfield: Yeah.

 

Woes: But, of course, the thing is when you take them down that means that no one can watch them anymore. And that is a shame! There are videos that I made, I mean, there’s basically nothing left on my channel about, you know, race, ethnicity, Islam.

 

Dangerfield: Same! Same.

 

Woes: There’s nothing left! And I think it’s a fucking shame!

 

Dangerfield: Yeah. Well, this is the mad thing! You can go in my back catalogue, YouTube are fine with stories of when I was a junkie, when I was a crackhead, doing the most horrific things! No that’s fine! And the press won’t call me out about that.:

 

“Oh, that’s no problem! You can inject in your groin, you can take a dump in the middle of the street, you can have a girl stop breathing when you’re having sex with her. Those videos aren’t a problem! This is YouTube, you’re fine!”

 

And those videos are literally still up! But everything about race? No. Got rid of all of it! You just can’t! That conversation isn’t allowed unless you’re pro those ideas, you’ll lose your channel.

 

[18:08]

 

Woes: Yeah. I mean, this is what’s so frightening about YouTube, they actually got rid of the slogan “broadcast yourself”. For a long time that was YouTube slogan for like, 10, 11, 12 years. They got rid of it.

 

Styx, actually, Styxhexenhammer, made this point about a year ago, or less six months ago, that YouTube got big in the first place, because it wasn’t the mainstream media. And it wasn’t the authorized word. It was little ordinary people putting their voices out there and growing big, because it was independent voices basically.

 

But now YouTube has obviously decided:

 

“We really don’t want this anymore. Yes it’s what made us, it’s what made the platform in the first place, but we don’t need it anymore. And it’s causing us a headache. We’re having to employ thousands of moderation staff and censors.”

 

So I think that they’ve just decided to basically get rid of all of it. And I think in time they will shut down every channel that’s political, unless it’s explicitly progressive. I think even centrist channels will go, as well.

 

Dangerfield: I think it’s an interesting point, because it’s been a bait and switch really. Make a channel, do this, establish the most successful video hosting platform on the internet. And let’s not forget after Google, it’s the biggest search engine! People go to YouTube after Google more than anywhere else to search things! You know, they don’t mind that the content is video. And I think it’s now like it’s an albatross, they’re absolutely gutted. But they can’t just shut it down, because then they hand that power over to someone like BitChute.

 

So I think you’re right. I think they have board meeting after board meeting and they’re pulling their hair out!:

 

“What are we gonna do about this!”

 

Which is [chuckling] good! You’re lumbered with it Alphabet [Google’s parent company]

 

Woes: Yeah. They’re in this weird position where they can’t afford to hand the cultural power to some other website, of being the political video place. Because that’s a huge amount of cultural power for any platform to handle. They want to have that power.

 

But at the same time they don’t want to have those political videos on their platforms! [chuckling] It’s like it’s a very difficult dilemma for them. And I guess what they’re doing is just slowly throttling it.

 

But I think what they’ll also do is, I think they’ll set up rivals to BitChute. I think Silicon Valley will deliberately create, because I do believe that, … For what it’s worth I have talked to the BitChute guy, once, or twice. And he is not very Right-wing. He’s not a nationalist. That’s worth saying. He’s just a guy who genuinely believes in free speech! That’s actually the truth. But he does genuinely believe in free speech.

 

And that’s the thing! Silicon Valley don’t. So what I think they’ll do is they’ll create rivals to BitChute in order to drive traffic away from BitChute. And then they’ll just shut down each of those.

 

[21:23]

 

Dangerfield: They’ll have a struggle though. I talk to Ray a lot, and BitChute is absolutely smashing it! He said I think they got 40 million unique viewers in November! It’s now something like, I think it’s something like the 800th most popular website in America. So out of everything. But it’s about 800. And this is two guys! This is Ray and his mate.

 

And what’s making BitChute a real threat to them now, isn’t a handful of Nazis, because no one really cares about that, it’s now starting to look like YouTube in 2010. There are people doing makeup, how to put your makeup on, whatever they’re called. There are people doing unboxing videos. Oh! It isn’t suddenly this evil dissident Right channel, it’s a video hosting platform. And it’s growing remarkably fast!

 

Woes: Yes it is.

 

Dangerfield: And in terms of what YouTube are going to do about that, I can remember a few years ago when they considered Jordan Peterson to be problematic. Well, I asked my subscribers the other day to give me a one in the chat, how many times do you get recommended Jordan Peterson videos. And everyone said:

 

“Yes!”

 

I get recommended Jordan Peterson after whatever I watch now. And I think that’s the angle they’re taking.

 

Woes: This is amazing isn’t it? [chuckling] I mean, Jordan Peterson is this guy who’s, it’s like they just wheel him out constantly! Like a thousand times a day gets wheeled onto the stage to do the thing!

 

But he’s, I don’t know what to say about that. He’s ineffectual, he’s unconvincing! Yes it’s true that you should tidy your room up! I’m hoping that my background doesn’t look too untidy while I say those words. But yes it’s true that you should get your own life certainly. I’ve always said that! I will make a point of emphasizing that in future. I think it’s better for people to be doing that than to be thinking about, to be leapfrogging that, to:

 

“Oh! I’ve got to change the world!”

 

Best if you get your own life under control first. Then you’re in a better position to change the world. Anyway.

 

That’s his one, that’s really the only good thing that he said, as far as I can see, Jordan Peterson. The rest of it is just flim-flam and waffle! And as he said it himself, that he’s trying to divert people, young men, away from nationalism, identity politics.

 

Dangerfield: And that’s what YouTube are now trying to do with him, as well. I think that’s the angle. They’re now trying to say:

 

“All right, you don’t have to be a progressive, but how about this? Because you don’t have to go over there and look at all that stuff! Because look, we like Jordan! Look, here he is! Yeah loads, loads of him! Read it!”

 

[24:12]

 

Woes: Fucking take your Jordan Peterson! [loud laughing] Be grateful! Enjoy it! Yeah, the message is:

 

“Don’t worry! You don’t have to be a progressive. You can be a complete cuck instead! You can be completely ineffectual instead!”

 

So that’s the option. [chuckling] But it is hilarious. Again it maps into this thing that I have this theory. That there are two poisons. One of them is progressivism, or communism, and the other is Libertarianism, or individualism. And they’re two different poisons designed to appeal to two different key parts of the European psyche. Altruism; communism, progressivism. And in the individual, the sort of innovation that independent-mindedness, that’s what Libertarianism appeals to.

 

And basically you can get almost any White person with one of those two poisons. And that’s why they’re there! Because they both end up in the same place! Which is that you’re an atomized, demented, individual, with no history, no identity, no meaning in your life, you’re just meat! You’re just meat that consumes and buys things!

 

Dangerfield: Sure.

 

Woes: Each of those two poisons results in the same end result.

 

So I think that Jordan Peterson is basically, he’s probably a well-meaning guy, who has been utilized to make that happen. So either you go with feminism. YouTube will give you these two options. It’s either fucking communist, Marxist, feminism, or it’s Jordan Peterson! Those are your options.

 

And, of course, they’ll also throw Douglas Murray in there, occasionally. You know, a bit spicy well. [loud laughing]

 

 

Dangerfield: The thing about Douglas, that’s hilarious, is this is the man that writes, “The Strange Death of Europe”. But ask him for a solution, and the geezer runs a mile! He doesn’t want to go anywhere near the solutions! And so, that’s why you’ll get Douglas Murray. We can all sit back and read and go:

 

“He’s right! Yes! Put the book down and then watch some Jordan!”

 

But you can’t dare say:

 

“Well look, we know this is now happening. Here’s some people who’ve got some ideas that might, maybe change the course of history. No you could [mimics Murray waffling on].”

 

Woes: Yeah, at that point Jordan Peterson will tell you [mimicking Peterson]:

 

“Don’t get into the identity politics!”

 

And Douglas Murray will say:

 

“Oh well, this is reminding me of the 1930s!”

 

Dangerfield: There you go.

 

Woes: So okay, I mean, that’s where he always goes to immediately is:

 

“Ideas from the 1930s, ..”

 

He always fucking does that! [Dangerfield chuckling] He nods his head, it’s a signal to the interviewer to nod his head in agreement. And it always works.

 

But this is his sort of cucky, just don’t care about, I don’t know what to say! I get so exasperated whenever I start talking about Douglas Murray, because he’s so annoying!

 

Because he comes across as very intelligent, erudite. But I just think he’s selling, he’s just selling a sort of very discerning, stuffy, version of cuckoldry. And cowardice!

 

[27:47]

 

Dangerfield: Yes.

 

Woes: I want to like him. But I just wish that he would man up!

 

Dangerfield: Well no, you nailed it. It’s that cowardice. It’s like looking at someone dying and just writing about them dying. And the last chapter is:

 

“And then they died.”

 

Okay. Thanks for your help.

 

Before we move on, because I can feel that’s happening, I just want people watching to just enjoy the fact that we all hate YouTube! We hate what it’s done. We hate what they’ve done to us all. We hate the bait and switch. But it is a real pest for them! It’s causing them big problems! And that’s at least something we can enjoy.

 

Woes: Well, the fact is, they’re still writing reports about us. They’re still campaigning against us. They’re still lobbying social media to ban us, and so on. So they’re obviously still worried about it.

 

I mean from my point of view I don’t really want, and I never did want, to be involved in politics, direct politics. Because I always knew I’m not, I wouldn’t be any good at that.

 

But I do take an interest in dissidence. In general opposition to what I see as an encroaching, … Well frankly, at this point, an encroaching Police State. And I was always against political correctness, that kind of thing. So that remains the case. And I think that’s enough to make them worried about you.

 

You don’t need to be an explicitly whatever, anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-LGBT. Just the fact that you’re an independent voice. That you don’t have the rainbow flag somewhere on your channel. That you’re not voicing support for whatever, the latest BLM, that’s enough to make them think:

 

“Okay, you’re not on board. Because if you were on board we would know you were on board.”

 

And I think it’s got to this point where you’re either with them, or they assume that you’re completely against them.

 

[29:55]

 

Dangerfield: But I think there’s ways around it, because again, coming off of the back of that rethinking what I was gonna do as a channel, and deleting all the content. You know, this year I’ve mainly been telling people to start looking after themselves. Start dressing better. Start dressing well. Look after yourself. Get some nice shoes, get a suit made.

 

And this is where I’m going. This is what my content’s about. Set up neighborhood watch organizations, you know, community building actually works.

 

And I think they’re gonna struggle to ban channels like that. And the thing is, it’s overtly nationalist to talk about that. Set up revenue streams for yourself. Some passive, dress well, have self-respect, look after your body, set up things that involve your community.

 

And if people start doing those sorts of things, that will help the nationalist project as a whole immeasurably. And YouTube are going to struggle with that are they going to shut my channel down, because I’ve been telling people to see a bespoke tailor. [Woes laughing]

 

Woes: The latest horror that YouTube is profiting from is giving a platform to people who talk about this [laughing]

 

Dangerfield: But exactly, you know, I see channels like we Renew Britannia, Wes [?] bless him! A young man set up a channel, done loads of work, got very popular, gone! No strikes, or anything, they just got rid of him! And I just thought Wes, and I told him this:

 

“You’re in the 2016 model of dissidents. And they’ve got the TOS [Terms of Service] now to just wipe you off! You can’t do that anymore. But what you can do instead of that reactive stuff, don’t talk about.”

 

I can’t even think what, ..

 

Woes: The latest atrocity.

 

Dangerfield: Yeah! Don’t talk about that! Talk about things we can actually do to be proactive. And it kind of keeps us safe. And it’s worth doing.

 

Woes: Yes. And it’s also more productive. I mean, I think it’s better. It just makes you feel better, than constantly ruminating over what the Left has done now, or what some foreign element has done now. Because then you’re just their victim. And you’re constantly waiting for them to do the next thing so that you can then be outraged about it. That isn’t a good, it’s unhealthy! And I did unknowingly, unwittingly, do that for a while.

 

And I remember one stream I did in 2016 with my two friends, Reactionary Expat and Pale Hominid, we were going over the news, we did it once a month, and we’re going over the news of what everything that had happened in that month. And it was just unbelievable! I think it was in like June, July that year. And it was just an astonishing catalogue of things that had happened across Europe with the migrants, and so on. And I did think while I was doing it:

 

“Is this actually helping anyone?”

 

And then in the next year, in 2017, I started to have more doubts, because I started to think:

 

“Well we all know all this already, and there must be something more.”

 

And that’s what I’ve always been thinking about. That’s just partly why I was inactive for so long, because I was thinking:

 

“Well, now that we know the problem, or now that we at least have enumerated the symptoms of the problem, now what? Because there’s no point just continuing to do that, because that really is just, that actually is grifting. That’s just, you know, milking people’s disaffection. So what to do next?”

 

And I really wasn’t sure. But it’s at the point, I’ve kind of reached a similar conclusion to the one you’ve reached. Which is, it’s better to just encourage people to work on themselves.

 

And actually, the best way you can do that is to do it yourself, and be an example, I think, to other people. So that’s what I intend to do in future. I wanted to do it this year, but things got waylaid by Covid and the lockdown. And by other things as well, that we don’t need to go into. But yeah, that was my plan for this year.

 

[34:19]

 

Dangerfield: No, for sure! And look I understand there is an argument perhaps that:

 

“Well, we all know what the problems are, but maybe youngsters don’t.”

 

But they live it! They go to their schools, they’re seeing what’s happening. You know, they’re living it! They know what the problems are don’t worry about that! They’re not having to predict them, they live them! And there’s channels like this is why we fight. Very proactive, you know, talking about self-sufficiency. And they’ve got this ward idea they do. It’s a very small channel at the moment, but it’s really optimistic! And people come away from that feeling empowered!

 

Woes: What channel is that?

 

Dangerfield: It’s called “This is Why We Fight”. It’s very small. But they’re actually trying to strategize about the things that we need to do. We need to build stronger communities. We need to be more sufficient self-sufficient. And we need to get away from corporations.

 

The reason I talk about clothes, and my subscribers are getting proper sick of it! We’ve had a different culture imposed upon us! When I see people walking around in sportswear, that’s not English! That’s nothing to do about history that wasn’t a development that come through the Edwardians, and the Victorians, and through the wars, and all of a sudden. No! That’s been imposed on us by massive corporations, who have outright shown that they hate us! They hate us!

 

And I see loads of people walking around, especially the youth, in what is essentially African-American streetwear. And it’s appalling! And if you’re going to support that and give your money to those corporations, bearing in mind your polyester trousers are going to wear out in a year and you’re going to have to buy a new pair, compared with a bespoke suit which is in the classic style. Which is part of our ancestry, part of our history. A local tailor with cloth sourced from England, or Scotland, or the UK. It’s becoming more local. That is overtly nationalist, and it’s going to last you 20, 30 years.

 

[36:26]

 

Woes: Yeah.

 

Dangerfield: And these are the things that I’m now talking about. Because all that other stuff you were saying. About those channels where people read the news, I can’t watch them! I don’t want to see White people getting the shit kicked out of them for breakfast! I don’t want to finish my day’s work and:

 

“Oh, I see. They burnt down another church in France!”

 

And it does depress you. And then the problem with that is everyone’s getting black-pilled. Black-pilled gets rid of hope and optimism. And without hope and optimism you can’t win any fights! You lose them all!

 

Woes: Yeah. Very much. I think it’s an interesting thing, because you’ve got to be careful about the lessons that you learn. Because the lessons that you learn will affect your behavior going forward. But the lessons you learn are selected by the things that you do. So if you do things that are going to result in failure, then you’re going to learn the lesson of failure.

 

Dangerfield: Sure. Sure.

 

Woes: So, in other words, if you focus on what’s going bad in the world, then that is going to get you down. And then that in turn is going to make you feel impotent! And that’s not surprising. And so I think you’re absolutely right! That it’s better to focus on what you can do and, as you say, a proactive attitude.

 

Because, god knows, there’s enough shit going on. I mean, seriously I’m the same as you. I cannot watch a lot of stuff that once upon a time I watched religiously. I just can’t do it anymore! It’s too depressing.

 

Now, someone made the point in the live chat that there are a lot of people just arriving at certain realizations, and they do need to see this stuff. And that’s true. But I’m happy for other people to show them, this stuff.

 

Dangerfield: Spend a couple of hours on BitChute, you’ll be fine.

 

Woes: Yeah! Yeah, exactly!

 

Dangerfield: The other thing is, look England, I keep saying England, but Great Britain, is still probably one of the best places on the planet to live! It still is! By a long chalk! It’s a fantastic place! If you want to generate revenue, the UK is a fantastic place to be in! You can generate wealth there! The amount of people here going:

 

“Well there’s no jobs! There’s no jobs!”

 

Fuck jobs! Generate wealth! Make a job! I live in a country where there’s no welfare. If you’d haven’t got any money, you don’t eat. And so people create wealth. They generate it so that they can eat. And they manage to feed families of 20, 30 people, because they have to!

 

And how easy it is to do that in the UK, is unbelievable! It’s still a fantastic nation! And also if we’re generating wealth, setting up businesses, making passive, and active revenue streams. If we’re doing that, that money isn’t available for, let’s just say, other people. It makes you stronger. It’s overtly nationalist to make money. It’s overtly nationalist to be an entrepreneur. And so encourage people to do this, especially young people. Because they’re walking around saying:

 

“Well, there’s no jobs!”

 

Woes: Get into crypto! [loud laughing] This is one of the reasons I want people to get into crypto, because I know there are no jobs. It’s shit! And it’s not something that I want to take lightly at all, or trivialize.

 

But, as Dangerfield says, you could start your own business, or you could get into crypto and investments. And I know how ridiculous that sounds to a lot of people who are young, who don’t have any money! But just trust me on this. Well you don’t need to trust me on this, you can do what you like.

 

But I would advise that you get into to crypto. And I definitely would advise that you look for other thing ways that you could make yourself useful to the community. And including your local community, as well, not just the online community.

 

[40:30]

 

Dangerfield: There are, I mean, look I’ve got crypto. I’ve made and lost a fortune in crypto. It’s gambling! It’s gambling! That’s all it is really.

 

But I think if you spread your portfolio, bit of precious metals. And you haven’t got to go and buy a kilo of gold. You can go and buy a gram of gold. Get one of them every few months. Get a couple of grams of silver, then chip a little bit into your crypto.

 

But there’s just so many ways of generating money in a nation like England, in somewhere like Great Britain. You don’t only have to wait for someone to give you a job. You could just find ways to make money. You know, I lost the one that I had though. I had an example of something. But I would be a bit careful about just putting all your money into crypto.

 

Woes: Oh yeah.

 

Dangerfield: I mean, a good old ISA [Individual Savings Account] is still a good way, a reliable way, of making your money go up. I’d probably say if you haven’t got a lot of money, an ISA is a better idea than crypto, at this stage.

 

But if you come into a few grand maybe, maybe put a grand into crypto, and then four grand in your ISA. And get your 20 grand annual ISA allowance.

 

Woes: Yeah. I mean, this is the kind of stuff that I would rather be telling people. And that I would rather people were finding. This is much more useful to you than, :

 

“Oh! Another mosque built in this, and another town!”

 

Yeah that is bad! It’s depressing! It’s another sign of the cultural change. But the issue is, well what are you going to do? What can be done about it? And that’s something I’m not sure we should go into in this stream. But I think that we need to start thinking very practically, put it that way. Because dreaming that:

 

“Well, if we complain enough about this, then the powers that be will change their minds about it.”

 

That’s obviously not the case. They would have changed their minds about it in 1960, if they were going to do that, or 1970, but not now. So I mean, yeah, again we’re veering into territory that I don’t think is safe for YouTube anymore.

 

But all I would say is I’m not saying don’t care about this. Of course you should care about this. But I think that you should approach it in ways that are realistic. Because there are so many people who just are not realistic about these things.

 

[43:02]

 

Dangerfield: I think that the point I was going to say was there are countless resources on the internet for entrepreneurs who haven’t got a pot to piss in. You can go and join these forums and you can read countless stories of people who are in situations like you might be, where you’ve just left school, or you’ve just left university. You’re living at your parents house and there’s no employment, or there’s nothing exciting. You don’t want to wash dishes down your local hospital.

 

And there’s thousands, upon thousands, of stories in full detail, because people are proud of what they’ve done! How they’ve done it, how they set up their business. There’s no one way to be an entrepreneur! There’s the way you do it that’s successful.

 

And, rather than sitting around watching videos of bombs going off all the time, or god knows what, you could be spending that time on entrepreneurial forums reading how people done it. Doing that kind of research. Looking at your options. Start putting a little bit of money together away. So when you’ve got your five grand, you can make a little investment. And then you can start turning it over, doing a product, or a service, or whatever it is you want to do, based on the stuff you’ve learned from these forums.

 

And again, that will make us stronger. That makes us stronger as individuals. When you’re stronger as an individual and you’ve started generating wealth you’re more likely to have bigger families. So if we’re having bigger families across the nation, you know, once you’ve got bigger families happening then you start getting stronger communities. And then you can obviously see where I’m going with that.

 

It’s just a question of being proactive about our future, rather than just dwelling on this reactive stuff, that had a function four years ago. But now, not so much.

 

Woes: Yeah, I agree. Well, we’re at 45 minutes now, so we should probably finish in about 15 minutes, just for the sake of my health. But before we do that would you like to talk about 2020? Because that’s what we were thinking we were going to do. We’ve actually gone on a 45-minute detour. But we were going to talk about the year, or your general feelings about this year. So what would you say about that?

 

Dangerfield: Well, it seemed to start with, … I am the eternal optimist and I’m eternally hopeful. Because I know that, strategically that’s important. Psychologically that’s important. And the year seemed to start very optimistically on various fronts, various projects. And I remember thinking, this is interesting — got to be a little bit careful with this bit, because again we’re on YouTube — but what’s just happened in America seems to be quite a disaster really. The year’s ended disastrously, because I think without the “God Emperor” — do I really have to say:

 

“I know he’s not our man.”

 

Why does everyone always say that after they mention him? I know he’s not our man, all right? Everyone knows he’s not a man. But the alternative really isn’t our man. And he’s against us!

 

Woes: Oh yes.

 

Dangerfield: And that’s been quite, … You know, when I heard Greg Johnson talking about the realities of — I think it was Greg — the realities of what is going to happen when that man starts doing things concerning people like us, it seems to have ended quite the opposite. The year ended quite on the opposite of how it started. I started the year thinking:

 

“Wow! This is amazing, this is amazing! Look what’s happening here!”

 

And this little turnout has proven shocking. And again I know you can’t say too much. But I am convinced what’s being said that happened, is what happened.

 

Woes: It’s amazing how cryptic we have to be! Unbelievable! But yeah, so am I. I’m also convinced that what is being said happened, did happen, yeah.

 

Dangerfield: And you’re not allowed to talk about it. Which doesn’t make me think:

 

“Oh, okay, then I’m wrong.”

 

It makes me think:

 

“Well yeah, thanks for confirming my suspicions.”

 

Woes: Let me, actually I’ve got a good thing that I could read out to you, because I was thinking how could how to fit this into to Millenniyule. And I found this thing. Did I accidentally, I think I might have accidentally closed it. Ah shit! I think I have. Damn! How annoying!

 

There was a thing that I find on Facebook, because I hardly ever go to Facebook nowadays. But I did the other day. And someone was basically making the point that, imagine if we’d had the attitude to news and commentary that we have today. Imagine if we’d had the same attitude throughout history. Basically so many things wouldn’t have happened. Even the founding of America. And then the American civil war, and so on. All of these things it would have been fact checking, you know, rumor control, authorized sources. All of this would have thwarted any sort of innovation, or change, basically!

 

You see that’s what this is now. What’s emerged with social media is an engine to maintain the status quo, and to direct people in certain ways. But especially to just maintain the status quo.

 

Dangerfield: Well also to contain an illusion, a particular interpretation of it. So it’s not like you even get to see what they want you to see, you get to see the illusion they want you to see. It’s barking mad!

 

[49:01]

 

Woes: Yeah. It’s incredible! Hold on a second. Yeah, it’s this illusion. And I do think that — and I talked about this with Apollonian Germ last night, which is on BitChute, by the way — it is amazing how distant most people are, the general public, from our understanding of things. They really do believe what they see on the BBC, or on Fox News, or CNN, or Twitter, Facebook, to a great extent, still.

 

And it’s a shame because, you know, five years ago we really thought that we were replacing the mainstream media. And we probably were in actuality. It probably was the case. But then they joined forces with Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and then banned us! Or deplatformed us, and throttled us, and so on.

 

Now that’s not the end of the matter. And I don’t want it, you know, I don’t want the end of it to be this note of despair. I’m just noting that they have to put a huge amount of effort into maintaining the public’s ignorance and acquiescence.

 

Dangerfield: But it’s rather desperate that all they can do is try and silence us. And look at the speed that BitChute’s grown. Look at the speed that Parlor’s grown. The speed the brand new Tuba [?]. There’s all loads of others popping up. I think that the cat’s out the bag, and they can’t win that. I think it’s the desperate flailing of an empire on its last legs.

 

The mainstream media empire of the 20th century is literally just going:

 

“Shut it down! Shut them up! Just shut them up!”

 

And it’s not working. There’s a temporary kind of, sort of, the balance of power has gone back to them. But as these other platforms grow, I think that’s, … Look at all the surveys into the mainstream media. Faith is just going through the floor! People just don’t go for it! And that’s people now!

 

Zoomers, you know, come on! They’re not buying any of that nonsense. I’m absolutely confident they’re not.

 

Woes: I’ve managed to find this thing. And I’ll read it. And then we can maybe wrap up. It is actually quite lengthy. But I’ll go through it:

 

“Did you happen to catch the hearings with Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey? I thought it was fascinating. A lot of interesting points were raised. And I like doing thought experiments about this issue. Imagine if Facebook and Twitter had existed at the time of the American revolution. Could the revolution have occurred at all? I mean, if the largest disseminators of information to the populace had refused to let ideas and debates happen openly in the public square, then where would America be right now? Would Twitter and Facebook block the organizers of the Boston tea party from organizing on the grounds of inciting violence and criminal activity against the reigning British government? Would Twitter and Facebook block the likes of Benjamin Franklin time George Washington time from publishing their ideas and advancing ideas of limited governmental power and personal freedom and liberty?”

 

And so on, and so on. It comes out with other examples. But I think I’ll just read the last paragraph:

 

“I also wonder about social media companies policies on conspiracy theories. Some actually turn out to be true! Like project MK-Ultra, when the United States government, via the CIA, undertook immoral experiments on their own citizens in an effort to force confessions, and have a type of mind control of people. It’s all documented! My point is, without the freedom and ability to speak, discuss, debate, and examine, issues freely and openly we lose the ability to ever get at the truth. I feel that’s a danger in any free and open society, and people.”

 

Woes: So yeah, I thought that was quite an interesting post.

 

[53:02]

 

Dangerfield: But on that. And I think it’s relevant with what we’ve been talking about, YouTube and the internet. Don’t forget that the “clear net”, the Google internet, it’s only the tip of the iceberg. The internet is huge! This huge, massive, almost infinite space! And if we did get banned to that extent. If you couldn’t say anything that was vaguely controversial, or dissident, well I think we’ll be using Tor browsers.

 

And the day that happens, the day where we’re now going into the dark web to have our conversations, we’ll be absolutely free as a bird! I mean, I’m not into, oh what’s it called when you things all speed up and it gets worse really quickly?

 

Woes: Accelerationism.

 

Dangerfield: Yeah I’m not really into accelerationism. But, the day that people like us are on the darknet, incredible! Absolutely incredible! Because Google, YouTube, Alphabet, have got no place there! It’s not theirs! We are currently fighting this on their terms in the clear net. But once we go under that, we rule that! We’ve got the technology there, not them. They don’t! We get to chuck them out! [Woes laughs] And that’s coming! I think that’s coming.

 

And what a fantastic, … You talk about crypto, well that’s how I learned about crypto. Because I had to use a Tor browser to make purchases in the dark net. But people talk about these people owning the internet. They own a tiny little fraction of it. But yeah, I don’t fear that we’ll ever end up in a place where we can’t talk.

 

Woes: Well I hope not. I definitely hope not, because it just seems, certainly for me, it’s just become an absolutely central part of my life, even though I haven’t done it much for the last two years. The experience of being able to communicate with a very large number of people is something that’s just precious! I mean, it just changes your life really.

 

I mean, I know that if I get banned from YouTube — which is probably going to happen soon — I’ll still have BitChute, and I’ll still have Telegram. And I have like two and a half thousand people on there. So it’s not like that would be the end of the matter.

 

But still, it’s not something I’m looking forward to, to be honest, because I do — even though I don’t make much use of my channel these days — I do enjoy having it. I do enjoy the ability. And it used to be great, you know, that’s the thing. It’s now something that I treat very, very delicately. But it used to be that you could just say whatever you liked. And it was a wonderful feeling to be able to just be candid.

 

Dangerfield: You know, you wake up and your channel’s gone, every day!

 

Woes: Yeah. Yeah, definitely, exactly.

 

Dangerfield: Ray told me BitChute are going to have streaming, live streaming in 2021. And I went on the beta, and it’s all there set up. They’re just waiting to get it finished.

 

[56:00]

 

Woes: Oh fantastic! That’s great news!

 

Dangerfield: It’s all very well people saying:

 

“Get on Dlive! Get on Dlive!”

 

Dlive isn’t a free speech platform. It’s just everyone over there is under the radar. It’s not a free speech platform.

 

Woes: No. But it is its useful in the meantime.

 

Dangerfield: Sure.

 

Woes: But it’s definitely, I do agree with you that ultimately we need a platform that is dedicated to free speech. And that’s where we will be safe. That’s where it will be safe to speak openly. Although, as I’ve said, I’m not actually that interested in talking about these very dangerous topics anymore.

 

Dangerfield: So do I

 

Woes: Because I feel like I’ve said everything about it that I wanted to say. But yeah, it’s interesting times we’re living in. Let’s put it that way.

 

Dangerfield: And then look, let’s not forget, life’s always been a struggle. It’s always been a struggle for resources and power. And that’s where we are! Welcome to the world!

 

Woes: It’s a nice way to end. All right. Well let’s wrap it up there. So this is Chris Dangerfield. His channel is linked below, and you can get to there. And all right, you are on Telegram as well, you have a Telegram channel?

 

Dangerfield: I’m on Telegram, yeah. t.me/strangerfield.

 

Woes: Okay.

 

Dangerfield: I stream live twice a day, about half seven to eight. Starts about half seven, eight o’clock am English time. And then another one at four o’clock in the afternoon, English time, every day.

 

Woes: All right. Okay, I was muted. Okay. Well I’ll end it there. I really enjoyed this one. I’m sure that everyone else did. And okay, oh there’s one superchat, sorry! I forgot about that. Okay, this is not really connected to what we’re saying. But it’s a fifty dollar superchat!

 

Dangerfield: Well done! Give this man his money!

 

Woes: Thank you! It’s weird, Superchat seems to have died this year. I’m hardly getting any this year. Maybe it’s something that people aren’t aware that you can still do with Entropy. But anyway, here’s one:

 

“Any opinion on Steve Franson teaming up with Nick Fuentes? I asked Franson on Dlive if he’d be on Millenniyule this year. He was on in 2017. I think that’s the only time he’s been on. I asked him if he’d be on Millenniyule this year. He said ‘No. He was going in a different direction.’ He also said that ‘America First doesn’t need any more talent in the leadership area’, which raised my eyebrows. All the best woes.”

 

Well this is about very, very obviously, very much the American scene. And I honestly have completely fallen out of sync with, … I mean, in 2015 and 16 were there was a very close connection between Britain, and especially me, and the American the Alt-Right, as such. But honestly I definitely drifted apart for various reasons.

 

And, at this point, it’s well, Nick Fuentes in America First. I really don’t know much about them. And I don’t know much about Steve France neither. To be honest. I know that he’s on BitChute. I’ve got nothing against the guy. I watch his videos sometimes, but it just feels like, …

 

And this is weird to say this, because there are actually quite a lot of Americans on Millennial this year. But I really feel like we’re just operating in different arenas, because of the first amendment and the second amendment that leads to a different culture in America. Where they have different presuppositions about the way civic life is. I don’t know, there feels like there’s a big distance. And so they have a different war to fight.

 

Dangerfield: Sure. I think the biggest difference is our clock is ticking a lot faster than theirs, just due to the size of their nation.

 

Woes: Right.

 

Dangerfield: I can’t remember who said it, but they have — Kai Murros — they’ve got the luxury of White flight for about another 100 years. We haven’t! You run out of London, you’re in Birmingham.

 

Woes: Yes. Yes. It is a different thing. So do you have any comment on Steve Franson teaming up with Nick Francis? I don’t, because I’m not familiar enough with the stuff.

 

Dangerfield: I don’t really. I don’t really know what I make of Nick Fuentes. I think it’s probably quite a young audience. I think it serves a certain function. Actually it’s probably serving the function that we were talking about YouTube channels were in 2016. It’s probably bringing people in who aren’t too aware of what’s going on. And then they’ll move off and end up somewhere more proactive. But I don’t watch it enough to be able to help you earn that bull’s eye [chuckling].

 

Woes: All right, okay. Well we’ll just end it there then. Yeah, I don’t know either, so okay. Well this has been fun it’s been a lot of good points raised. So thank you for appearing on Millenniyule 2020 Dangerfield.

 

Woes: Thank you very much for asking me on. It’s always a pleasure.

 

Woes: All right. Thank you very much I’ll be back in an about an hour 45 minutes with Red Pill Germany. In the meantime, thanks for watching.

 

[61:38]

 

 

 

END

 

 

 

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

 

See Also:

 

Millennial Woes with Morgoth on Brexit — Jul 2, 2016 — TRANSCRIPT

A Woes By Any Other Name — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – To Be a Man in 2017 – Speech at Erkenbrand dinner — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – One Hour from Now – Speech to Erkenbrand — TRANSCRIPT

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

Millennial Woes – The Passion of Jordan Peterson – Speech to Blue Awakening — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes at the Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2019 – Daughter of Albion – Dec 28, 2019 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – The Strife of Tongues – Nov 30, 2020 — Transcript

 

 

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – John Waters – Dec 22, 2020 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – On the Offensive – Dec 15, 2020 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – Dangerfield – Dec 21, 2020 — Transcript<

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – The Jolly Heretic – Dec 29, 2020 — Transcript

 

 

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

 

PDF Notes

* Total words = 10,056
* Total images = 5
* Total A4 pages =

 

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

(Available later)

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 5:

 

Version 4: Added See Also image 2 and 4 links.

 

Version 3: Jan 6, 2021 — Added remaining 18 mins. Transcript now complete = 61/61 mins.

 

Version 2: Jan 5, 2021 — Added 13 more mins. Total transcript complete = 43/61 mins.

 

Version 1: Jan 5, 2021 — Published post. Total transcript complete = 30/61 mins.

Woes: It’s been one fucking dreadful year for everyone, and for me as well! And I think we’re all just waiting for it to be over now. But obviously it’s nice to do this at the end of each year. And especially a year like this where there’s been so much discord, darkness, uncertainty, fear, worry, stress, and all the rest of it!

 

But, of course, because we’re streaming to YouTube as well as Dlive, with this particular stream, we can’t say perhaps everything we would like to say about this year. So that’s very annoying.

 

But anyway, welcome to Millenniyule 2020! I think, I hope it will go very well. I’ve done a lot of preparation work for it. Sorry about the delayed start for this stream. Again annoying technical errors. Welcome to the show! And I’ll welcome my first guest of the year, On the Offensive, Hugh. So I see you’ve got your own festive gear on again!

 

Hugh (OTO): Again! It’s become a tradition! I found them. I moved house and I lost them and then today I found them. And I thought, yes, I can get them out! So yeah, here it is. And I also added the hat, you know. I had the glasses one year which were, oh god I’ve got some fluff in my eye. I had the glasses one year as well. Do you remember those? I don’t know, they’re blue rimmed with Father Christmases on them, or something. So I couldn’t get those. But hopefully this will do. I don’t know if people can see. I think people are appreciating.

 

Woes: The antlers are protuberant enough! [laughter] So it is sufficiently protuberant! So I think people will enjoy them. And thank you. And they’re wobbling quite nicely. It gives a nice sense of uncertainty, and, you know, amplifies my own sense of stress! So thank you very much.

 

Hugh (OTO): Modernity and a headpiece right here?

 

Woes: Yeah! I mean, obviously we can just go straight into it. What would you say, I mean, you know, opening question. What the fuck would you say about 2020? I’m just gonna sit back!

 

Hugh (OTO): It’s like the neoliberal dream. It’s like this is what they imagined for us all, along coming to fruition. The Great Reset! Nothing nothing gets them more excited than that, does it? And this is the ultimate, the ultimate prerequisite! The ultimate sort of setup to set that ball in motion. I think these people are absolutely evil in what they’re doing.

 

You look at the death threat of this virus. And sure it is highly contagious, and sure it’s going to put a burden on hospitals. I’m not someone who thinks it doesn’t exist. But what they’re doing is absolutely insane! It is the most, for so-called liberal democracies that have taken the most a illiberal route here. It’s very interesting that they’re keeping everybody under house arrest, essentially.

 

[03:00].

 

I can’t see my family this Christmas. I’m really pissed off about that. I don’t know if I should say things personal, but I’ll just say a family member had cancer this year. I couldn’t visit them. You know, things like that. I mean, it’s truly evil what they’re doing to people right now! And we know the nature of this virus now. In the beginning we didn’t but now we do.

 

Oh! You’re still there Woes? You’ve disappeared from my screen. You still hear mate? Has Woes gone! Am I the only person on this channel? Oh my god! I own his channel! I own it! It’s mine!

 

Well I hope everyone’s doing all right. I will shoot the shit until he comes back. He froze! He’s gone! Woes, frozen Woes! Oh fuck says people in the chat. Well, I’ll keep shooting the shit then, I suppose lads.

 

I’ll tell you one thing before he comes back enormous amount of work has gone into setting this up. He, you know, making the countdown clock. It wouldn’t render properly. He got very stressed about that. Setting up his studio at home to make it all work. Getting this sort of outline ready. All this kind of thing that he does for this channel. Hit that like button for Millennial Woes! Make sure you click like, for the guy!

 

God! I feel at a loss without him. But I didn’t expect, I didn’t expect him to go! Oh god, people are saying! [laughter] and so someone says in the chat, Woes is finally free!

 

All right, what should I talk about? I don’t know. Ask a question in the chat lads. I’ll just host it. Am I hosting? I suppose I am. Thumbs up, have thumbs up everyone! 14 for Woes. 14 in chat. Lads, I don’t know when he’ll come back. I don’t know. I’ll check my phone. See if he’s messaging me, or not.

 

Don’t worry, I’m not going to say anything to get the channel banned. I’ll message him. You okay, you okay bud? It is the first stream after all, you know, technical issues and all that. I wonder if his computer’s crashed. He’s been having problems with that.

 

All right, someone asked:

 

“Am I still making videos on my channel?”

 

I don’t know lads, I’m kind of done with big tech. I posted a video on BitChute, on my BitChute channel the other day. So, I don’t know about how I feel about YouTube anymore. They deliberately demoralize you, so that you will demoralize your audience! That’s what they’re trying to do.

 

If you’re someone who’s leading people in the wrong direction, if you’re like advocating civil war, or telling people how to make Molotov cocktails, or something. Molotov cocktails. They’ll promote you, right? If you’re a nutter, if you’re not, they’ll downgrade you. They’ll kind of shadow ban you. They’ll cut your views. And they’ll make you feel like you’re stuck in a rut like, why my videos used to get 200,000 views! Now I’m getting 10,000. What’s going on? And they’ll ban you!

 

[06:01]

 

And they’ll warn you. And they’ll send you these messages about how you’re treading on thin ice here, son, you know. And they’ll say these kind of things to you. And it’s like, god damn it! Do I want to post on this platform anymore? It’s supposed to be a “symbiotic” — I hope. I’m saying that word right — relationship, where it’s mutually beneficial. Where you’re creating content, they’re happy, because they’ve got the eyeballs, they put ads on your stuff, they make money.

 

But increasingly it’s felt like you’re their bitch! And they’re just messing with your head!:

 

“Hugh? Are you Hugh? Hugh? Hugh?”

 

Yeah I am Hugh. Someone says in the chat:

 

“Collett.”

 

Oh, I won’t read that:

 

“Looking pretty festive there Hugh!”

 

I feel pretty festive. I gotta say, as bad as the year has been lads, and ladies I suppose there’s probably three women watching, I feel pretty good about Christmas. I don’t know about you, I’m well up for it:

 

“How’s the shutdown Covid situation been in Vietnam?”

 

Not too bad. But the problem has been that I can’t travel. I can’t go home. I’m supposed to have Christmas with my family. Can’t go. As I said, earlier in the stream someone in my family had cancer, couldn’t see them. Couldn’t help take care of them. That was very, very difficult this year for me. And I don’t want to get all emotional, or something. But I got emotional off off, in real life, I’ll tell you that:

 

“When will the Three Stooges return?”

 

Well, we did an episode a few days ago, no, about two weeks ago. And we’re going to do one, I think, maybe this week. So the Three Stooges are still around guys. Don’t worry about it. We’re still there.

 

I’m just making sure that I’m still streaming on this thing. Goodness me! Poor Woes! I messaged him. Let’s see if he messaged back. See what’s going on:

 

“Reconnecting.”

 

He says. Okay. I’ll shoot the shit with you guys a bit more. Post anything in chat that you want me to talk about, and I will talk about it, as he comes back:

 

“Any thoughts on the rise of Dlive nationalism?”

 

Says Pragmatic Patriot. I don’t know when I get an “any thoughts” question, I’m always like:

 

“What are you referring to specifically?”

 

I mean, I know you said:

 

“The rise of nationalism on Dlive.”

 

Woes: Good! I am back!

 

Hugh (OTO): Oh! Hey! Hey! Hello!

 

Woes: This is, I should have said this at the start, my internet has been a bit wonky over the last few months. And I thought it would be just like it was actually happening this time last year as well and I was dreading that it was going to happen during Millennial. But somehow miraculously it didn’t.

 

And so I was thinking this time it’s just like the fucking thing, it’s going to happen! And it’s happened on the very first stream! So sorry everyone! Actually, literally nothing that I could have done about this. I actually reset the modern just before we went online in order to try and avoid this. But there we go. It’s happened. My apologies.

 

So Hugh. What have you been talking, and thank you for covering in my absence.

 

[09:05]

 

Hugh (OTO): I did my best! I honestly I felt rather anxious during that last period, as well lola. Like:

 

“Oh my god! It’s Millennial!”

 

It’s not just some regular stream where you just shoot the shit and, you know, chat the chat.

 

Woes: That’s why Schwab came in got me, while I was yeah trying to spread the word.

 

Hugh (OTO): I gave my thoughts on the year and just like, you know how these people have been treating us. What do you think about the year? It’s been worse for you, right? You’re in London, you’re in lockdown central.

 

Woes: Yeah, well I mean, yeah, weirdly London actually hasn’t been that bad. I think when I visited Scotland a few weeks ago and it’s definitely more of a, … See, I once heard the phrase “the moral rectitude of the Scots”. And I didn’t really recognize it at the time as a thing. I didn’t really know what the person was referring to. But I think it was in a written article. But now I do.

 

And one example of it is this! The English are more laissez-faire about, you know, Covid restrictions, you know. That yes there is a community spirit. Yes there’s a desire to do the Right thing, and all that. But with the Scots it’s a wee bit more deep seated I think. And it’s not a bad thing in itself. But it’s obviously manifests in different ways.

 

And I think that with the, like with the smoking ban back in 2006, they were first to do that, and that’s for a reason. And I think it’s the same now with Covid. I’ve only been asked once about wearing a mask. And it happened when I stepped off the train at Edinburgh. And by two police officers who were standing there. So that seems kind of significant. But anyway. So we’re talking about.

 

Hugh (OTO): The mask. The mask to me seems to be, and many of these things are just memetic warfare, it’s all a psyop! It’s like the constant reminder of the threat of the danger!

 

Woes: It’s a constant reminder of your own obedience as well, though!

 

Hugh (OTO): Right. It’s the first step of putting you in a submissive frame of mind. And so you’ve got, well the masks work apparently, you know, masks work they tell. You can look at graphs where.

 

Woes: Well, hold on! Hold on! Hold on a second! I don’t know if it’s against the YouTube rules. I think, this is to say, that the masks, to cast doubt on their efficacy might well, you know, piss them off in Silicon Valley!

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah. So let’s just assume that the masks are tremendously effective!

 

Hugh (OTO): The masks tremendously work! But then I wonder if they tremendously work, why the social distancing? And if the social distancing works then why the lockdown? You know, I’m just wondering about the rationale of our betters here! I know that experts are running the show, and I should just follow what they say, and take everything as gospel.

 

But occasionally I like things explained to me so that it seems reasonable! [chuckling] I like it when the proposals appear rational, you know, that’s what I like! And I can’t seem to see this. I’ve heard that droplets can pass through the mask, of course, even a fool would know that a mask will stop blobs of mucus flying out, when someone sneezes so there’s that. The sneeze prevention is very important for saving lives. [laughing]

 

But it does seem to me, and I’m no expert here guys, but it doesn’t really seem to make sense! And I wish, I would just wish Bill Gates were here right now. You can clear it all up and tell me:

 

“Don’t worry! Stay in your house for the next three years! And then everything will be okay!”

 

Even after you’ve taken the vaccine! Stay home!

 

Woes: I’ve got to say one of the scariest memes, and I’ve collected a lot of memes about Covid over this year, and the one of the scariest ones was I think it actually might be a real graffiti mural somewhere. And it’s Bill Gates with a syringe. And he’s smiling and it says:

 

“Time to install your update.”

 

Aahhhhh! That is just so unnerving! So frightening! Because that’s the thing, for a lot of us — you’re similar age to me — we remember Bill Gates as this fucking hopeless geek in the 90s! Just a dork! A complete dork!

 

[13:13]

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah! [chuckling]

 

Woes: And now he’s there’s something from “They Live”, you know, this scary, globalist, titan who’s in league with all sorts of powerful people. And he might be a puppet of them, he might be a collaborator with, whatever.

 

But either way he’s operating in these leagues where they’re literally, they’re making huge decisions that affect not just countries, but that really the whole world!

 

I mean, somebody pointed out to me the other day I mean, even Iran is on this. Yeah, I mean, everywhere! I think the only two exceptions that I know of are Belarus and Sweden, which are continually.

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah, it’s amazing, Sweden isn’t. Yeah, it’s like, why are they resistant to this? And their results seem to be much the same as other European nations, maybe a little bit better. They seem to have a lot allowed the virus to get into old people’s homes, which obviously cause some deaths. Like old people are susceptible to this disease and it is fatal for many of them.

 

But look, I mean, Chris Christie, that fat fuck survived it! Look at the guy! He lives off cheeseburgers and full sugar cake. That’s what he does. The guy the guy is, you know what I’m talking about, right? Chris Christie.

 

Woes: I don’t. I’ve just got a mental image.

 

Hugh (OTO): An obese Republican, very unintelligent, inarticulate, man who bumbles and baffles around, you know, and bounces off pillars in Washington. He looks like an absolutely, like if you imagined an unhealthy bloke in your mind this guy would fit that image pretty. Well, that’s the point in itself for god’s sake!

 

Woes: That’s an interesting point in itself. You just said he’s baffling and bumbling around. This is an interesting thing about Covid and the lockdown, is that it really reveals that it’s the same with all politicians.

 

Boris and his fucking health secretary Matt Hancock, Dominic Cummings the advisor to whatever he was. All of these people now seem completely out of their depth. It’s obvious that they’re just doing what they’ve been told to do. It’s revealed all of these national politicians as inept. And I think that is an interesting thing in itself. I mean, Brexit, it was similar in a sense. But this is obviously a global thing and yeah.

 

Hugh (OTO): What is Matt Hancock, right? Like crying, crying, about the vaccine being rolled out. And it was still I don’t understand this new trend. It’s very 2020. Men crying on the news. It’s happened a lot this year, and just fake crying in general, a lot of people.

 

[16:01]

 

Woes: You and I are going to cry on this dream!

 

Hugh (OTO): The racial injustice is just too much, you know? [Hugh mimicking a cry baby] it’s the inequality! What are you doing? Who. You think you’re winning? Any points here? Who are you appealing to? The middle-aged single cat lady, you know, who’s like:

 

“Oh! He’s very nice I’d like to take care of it.”

 

What exactly is this demo you’re focusing on here, you know? Who’s the target? What’s the target segment? I don’t understand it! I don’t get where this is, … It looks to me like the cringiest thing you could possibly do, is fake cry! No! You know, I’ve never done it in my life. I’ve never faked cried!

 

Woes: When Matt Hancock did that, it was like he did it for a second and then thought:

 

“Oh no one will buy this!”

 

So he stopped. But then they went with it. They ran with that:

 

“Oh, you’re really emotional are you?”

 

And then he had to go along.

 

Woes: Would have been ashamed lola!

 

Woes: But the thing is, all of this is just to support what seems to be a farce! I mean, you know, there is a massively high survival rate from this virus. And there’s so much that could be said about it. Again, I don’t know, I’ll have to brush up on the rules before we do any more streams. But I should have done that before hand. But I’ve just been hearing from other people what the situation is on YouTube nowadays.

 

It’s obvious that like with the election you can say one thing, and you can say the other thing. But you can’t say the two things in one video. This is the kind of thing that you’ve got to keep track of.

 

I can remember in 2014-15 it was just you could say whatever the fuck you like! And I don’t want to go into a big nostalgia, because everyone knows this. But it’s fucking depressing! It’s really sad! This is why I want people to transfer to Dlive and BitChute when it eventually does live streaming. Which I think is probably going to be within the next year, or next six months.

 

Because we desperately do need to get away from YouTube. Now it’s possible, this is another topic altogether. Well I was going to say it’s possible if the Democrats get in, then they’ll actually lay off all of this heavy-handed censorship. But, of course, that depends on the outcome of the election.

 

So do we want to go into the topic of the US election?

 

Hugh (OTO): Well I have kind of given up on following the ins and outs and every lawsuit and stuff. I just can’t keep up with that. So I don’t. But if the Democrats win I can say that they will, the hammer will come down on us. My main fear is this, that if they come in, the First Amendment’s toast!

 

[19:03]

 

They’ll find exemptions to it, they’ll pack the courts, they’ll pack the Supreme Court. They already have been filling the judiciary with activist judges who don’t give a shit about the law! Even with a cucked conservative he’ll actually follow the letter of the law.

 

And the letter of the law ain’t that bad! It’s not awful! You know, a lot of consideration has gone into it. New precedents are hard to make it. Judges are very scared to create and, or not scared, but that’s a huge deal to change the law with a new, you know, when they’re in that situation, so it evolves incredibly slowly. So it evolves far slower than the rate of social change that’s taken place over the last 10, 20, 30 years. Way more based than, you know what’s going on. What were going to say? Go on.

 

Woes: Well, I was going to say that you’re absolutely right! That law changes more slowly than social change. But that is why a lot of the control and maintaining of social mores has now been transferred from law and the government to private corporations, because they can do whatever they like. They can implement a policy so quickly that we don’t even know what the situation is.

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah.

 

Woes: A situation where you don’t even know what the rules are.

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah, well I mean, you know, I think it’s called a common law system, right? I remember studying this at university. But so there’s civil law and there’s common law system. But in France it’s all legislation. It’s just like they just pass the law. They just, you know, they just make up the law as they, and it’s done by politicians.

 

But in America it’s done by judges. So its way slower. But if you pack the Supreme Court with activist judges who are Leftists, they will find ways to “reinterpret” the constitution to make it like, well I mean, you got “free speech” but you don’t actually have the Right to!

 

They’ll basically find a way to enact hate speech laws and to lock people up. I mean, they’ve already had this a lot of talk about red flags for gun owners, right? If you:

 

“Oh well he visited this forum, he displayed signs of being maybe schizophrenic. He shouldn’t be allowed to go on.”

 

Or all this kind of stuff. And it seems very reasonable on the surface to say:

 

“Well, of course, the schizophrenic shouldn’t be allowed a gun.”

 

I mean, they have a high propensity for suicide, and for murdering people, you know, they have episodes, of course, they shouldn’t. And people will go along with this. The housewives vote! [chuckling] And this is a big problem. So they’ll go along with it. They’ll say we’re keeping the kids safe! Think of the mentally deranged child at school who’s going to get a gun! We’ve got to they’re going to have these red flag laws!”

 

So this is step one. And step two is okay now you can’t actually say all of this stuff! And if you do say this stuff you lose these rights! And you start implementing gradually a Social Credit system like they have in China.

 

Woes: Well yes. And then I guess that gets us to the well the question if the Chicoms. And I used to be quite skeptical of this and now I’m think I’m reappraising it and thinking is there actually some truth to this now. What do you think about that?

 

Hugh (OTO): By Chicoms, you mean like by like Chinese infiltration?

 

Woes: . I mean, the damn Chinese communists are taking over the West, via Silicon Valley!

 

[22:55]

 

Hugh (OTO): Well, I don’t know. But yeah, I don’t know about that specifically. But I live in southeast Asia so I can tell you about China. I mean, incredibly aggressive country! Colonialist to the core! Ethnocracy! If you’re not Mandarin speaking Han Chinese, you don’t have a lot of rights in that country.

 

You don’t have a lot of opportunity to elevate your status, to go up in society. Unless you are some sort of equivalent of a shabbos goy for them. And you’ve got to go along with it with everything these people want.

 

They just don’t care! I mean, the extent to which they don’t care what you think of them! Not giving a fuck “defined”! Chinese-owned firms produced baby milk that was poisonous to babies, and killed babies in Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines, a bunch of other countries. Right? It’s that powdered milk stuff. They were faking it! They’re making fake baby milk.

 

And it was a Chinese-owned company. No repercussions! All these babies died! No apology. Nothing! There was a storm I think in Indonesia. I can’t remember. It’s Indonesia. This is about four, or five years ago. So I can’t remember exactly. China said:

 

“Oh! We’ll do food aid. We’ll come in with food aid.”

 

And what they really did was bought off a bunch of local politicians during this. But the actual food they gave, they gave people fake rice! So it’s like 30 percent rice, and the rest is plastic. They make Chinese-owned firms, right? Like the government owned firms, because loads of stuff is government owned there, right?

 

Like it’s not really communist anymore. It is free market. There are free markets. You can own a house. You can own a car. You can set up a company. Loads of people own their own businesses there. But, Chinese-owned, government-owned, firms are making fake eggs! That’s the extent.

 

Have you frozen again Woes? You look like you’re frozen.

 

Oh my god! I’m alone again! He’s frozen hasn’t he lads? Tell me in the chat has he frozen, or is it just me? I’ve got to go down. Fake rice. Yes, fake rice, fake eggs. Yes, sounds like fascism! Yeah, you know, okay I’ll keep chatting, because you know why not? Woes isn’t there.

 

A lot of people are like, China’s based! Right? Like, you know, in our neck of the woods, they’re like China’s based! Like they’re oppressing the Uyghurs! They’re setting up camps! Like they’re taking care of business! They’re expanding their territory. Who doesn’t want to be like the Chinese? And I do understand exactly where people are coming from with that narrative. Like why wouldn’t you just have, they express the will to power? They’re just going for it. And no, no, like moralizing can stop them! So I do get:

 

“Hugh, what have you done?”

 

I didn’t do anything, all, right? It’s not my fault! It’s not my fault.

 

[26:00]

 

Anyway I understand why people think like China’s pretty based. I get it! But if you’re not Chinese like this is a problem for you, right? Like if you’re not one of them it ain’t good. Like if you’re Chinese I get why you would support the government.

 

But if you’re not and people seem to think like we’re so far removed from China. Like, it’s not going to be an issue. But we see right now a trade war between Australia and China taking place. And these kind of things can escalate. They have a tendency to, … I’m not saying World War III is imminent. But the Chinese killed Woes! They didn’t! That’s a false narrative [chuckling].

 

What I’m saying is who are we gonna side with? Australia, or China, or with New Zealand, or China? We know how these things will play out like if it escalates.

 

Give me something to talk about lads. I’m not good on my own. I don’t stream on my channel. I’m not Dangerfield, you know, I don’t stream on my own.:

 

“Hugh killed Woes!”

 

I swear, grossly offensive, that’s not true!:

 

“Dlive is owned by a Chinese national.”

 

Is it? Very interesting. But I don’t think they have anything to do with Woes’s modem going down.:

 

“How is OTO based?”

 

I don’t know, maybe I’m not! Maybe I’m a lose bag!:

 

“Talk about gutter oil.”

 

Thanks for the suggestion [laughing] all right.:

 

“Mandarin, Han Chinese, not just Chinese.”

 

Yes that is an important distinction, you know. Within the country itself it is an ethnocracy, right. Depending on how you break it down in China, I believe that certain academics will break it down to being 556, I think, ethnic groups! Distinct ethnic groups!

 

There are different ways you can measure this. Like, you can look at intermarriage between different peoples. You can look at genetic, or racial differences. A lot of people think that China is just this big blob, and everyone’s the same. You know, obviously the [word unclear] aren’t the same.

 

The Uyghurs are a Turkic ethnic group. They don’t look anything like the Han Chinese. Right now they’re taking Uyghur men, right, accusing them of terrorism, putting them in camps. And then they move Han Chinese dudes into their wives homes! And basically like it’s state mandated rape, to get rid of this population. They also force the Uyghur women, they’ll like accuse them:

 

“Oh, you were teaching a lesson in Arabic! That goes against our motto!”

 

They’ve got some motto, which is like:

 

“One people, one mind, one country!”

 

Something like that. Where, you know, every everyone’s got to be a fucking robot, you know! And they’ll, … Oh! Is Woes back? I can hear him now.

 

[29:00]

 

Woes: I’m back! I’m back.

 

Hugh (OTO): I talked about China while you know, ..

 

Woes: You didn’t say anything racist about China did you?

 

Hugh (OTO): Hell no! I love those little guys! [chuckling] They’re great! I will say this, I’ve met many Chinese people who are lovely. So I do want to distinguish between, ..

 

Woes: What the fuck have you said!

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah, I was really, I was really racist! So I really went off. [chuckling] But I want to distinguish between the political systems that are going on in the country. The political setup, and the way the government operates, and the incentives that are provided by the government to the people. Which I think are destroying the people, just as much as destroying outsiders. And the people themselves who are pretty cool.

 

Like if you meet a Chinese person you have a chat with them they’re always nice. That’s my experience with them anyway. A little dodgy with business dealings. A little funny in contract readings. Gotta be very careful with your language and a contract when you’re writing one with the Chinese guy. He’ll always look to make a buck! That is just true!

 

But other than that pretty cool people. So anyway what is going on with you. Like your modern keeps fucking up?

 

Woes: Yes it does indeed. And it’s rather frustrating. But I don’t know. It doesn’t usually happen twice in one night. This is very unusual.

 

Hugh (OTO): When I saw you and I saw your computer set up, I was like:

 

“Jesus Christ! You have like a million things open! You’ve got like all these external hard drives.”

 

I don’t know how you keep track of it. I mean, I’ve got a laptop, you know. Like I have a few windows open.

 

Woes: I can’t remember when you came over. Did I have my big computer, or was I still using the laptop? Because that’s a while ago.

 

Hugh (OTO): Big computer I think.

 

Woes: The big computer, right okay. Yeah, well yeah, no I’m still on the big computer. Yeah it’s, but that’s not the issue it’s the modern. But I don’t want to bore people with technical stuff.

 

So yeah, the question I want to ask you at the start. You said that this has been the manifesting, or the birthing, of the neoliberalist dream. So why don’t you say what is, … And this is what I wanted to ask you at the time. What is the neoliberalist dream?

 

Hugh (OTO): Well. I think they love a certain type of free market. They like a specific sort of freedom. Which is everybody’s got to be of the same mind. But the trade is pretty much unlimited.

 

It’s like Thatcher didn’t like unions, but she loved free markets. Well isn’t a union part of the free market? What’s wrong with the union? Isn’t that just people organically collectivising for their own self-interest? And I’m not a particular fan of unions, you know, I’m not saying, but it there’s a contradiction there. If you say I’m really pro-liberty. And that’s what I’m about. But I’m gonna dismantle the unions. I’m gonna do it legally. I’m gonna rip them apart!

 

And actually of course, you know, in her dismantling of the union she ushered in the Blairites, so it didn’t really work. She got in technocrats. But I think now the neoliberal thing is its just an absolute reliance on a certain narrative.

 

I mean, they claim to be empiricists, right? And they think that everything they believe in has been justified through experiment. They’ve tested the hypotheses! They’ve done the experiments! It’s proven! This is the way it is! And they’ve kind of worked it all out. So now they have this broadly materialist worldview. I wouldn’t say they’re necessarily, what do they call it? Physicalists, right? They’re not necessarily that. Some of them still believe in god, the occasional one. But they’re kind of, their ideal man is Stephen Fry, I think. And it’s:

 

“I want to know what’s actually true. So I’m an empiricist! I’m an empiricist!”

 

And that’s like what they want everyone to be. They want everyone to be like Stephen Fry. [laughing] And this is the “new empire” that they’re looking to build, based on free movement of Labour, low wages, obviously is part of it. And yeah, they absolutely do! Have you read Harare? Have you read, what’s he called Yuval Noah Harari. He wrote a book “Sapiens”.

 

[33:45]

 

Woes: No.

 

Hugh (OTO): And Barack Obama recommended the book. Mark Zuckerberg recommended this book. They’ve got blurbs on the back like:

 

“Recommended by Barack Obama and Mark Zuckerberg.”

 

And it’s like a history of humanity. It starts like a hundred thousand years ago. And it talks about all sorts of things which are highly, you know, it’s a very egalitarian book. So it completely denies basic things like the MRI tests that were done in Australia, between Europeans and aboriginals and stuff. Just don’t feature. He says:

 

“The brain evolution ended 45,000 years ago, or 50,000 years ago.”

 

I believe. So that’s before the aboriginals left Africa, right? And it’s like:

 

“Well, wouldn’t they have identical brains now?”

 

You know, there’s many, many problems with it. But he has a whole unit in his book justifying Empire. And the idea is you can just reshape people’s identities, and reshape their cultures, to mold them into a broader thing. And that means you get more trade!

 

And you get, you know. I mean, the British empire for all it’s faults, did usher in like 100 years of peace. And we controlled the seas and trade flourished. And people were using either the same money, or things that were, you know, valued in the same way. So everybody knew what they were doing when they interact:

 

“Okay, well I’ve got this. We know what that’s worth in your money.”

 

And it could work, right. So you could just meet someone, have hardly any language and go! And people were already, … English was becoming the lingua franca of the world. And this is the globalist, neoliberal, dream. Is to make that truly global! Not so much I think through force, but through like technocratic mechanisms, social engineering, nudge, nudge not force! Use the corporations as you were talking about, and make it happen.

 

And this is what they see as true prosperity. They see it as liberatory. They don’t see it as destructive. They see it as setting people free from their identities. Setting people free from markets that they’re within. They see the setting people free from sort of the cages of nationalism. And when you say:

 

“Well this will homogenize the world. And this will destroy true diversity.”

 

I don’t think they care. I think that they think:

 

“Oh jolly good!”

 

[36:01]

 

Because there’s a point, you know, there’s a convergence, the end of, the sort of the real end of history, where we’ve all worked out what works. And they think they’ve worked it out so it’s ultimately sort of a cultural eugenicist and an economic eugenicist project to meet that final point. And a virus like this [Covid] is just the ultimate gift in achieving that dream.

 

Woes: Why? I mean, I don’t know [word unclear] I just want to hear it in your own voice, you know.

 

Hugh (OTO): Well! What do you think? I just rambled on for like five minutes. What do you think?

 

Woes: Well you see, I’m not used to, I’m, … And this is something I want to get back into, is the sort of art of collecting your thoughts together, and articulating them, you know? But right now, I’m not really in that mode! And so I just want to hear what other people think, because yes, it seems like the Right thing to do on Millennial.

 

But in terms of, … I’ll give it a go. You see, it is a very different world view. And it’s one that’s fairly forthright, assertive, sure of itself! Whereas ours is much more hesitant, I mean, because we don’t have all the money behind us, the institutions, the corporations, and so on. But I also think there’s a certain doubt in our minds that well, if people wanted to live. And I’m not trying to plant doubts, or anything. I’m just saying the way I feel about it.

 

If people wanted to live like, you know, villagers 500 years ago where everything that you use is made within a mile radius of where you live, then they would. But frankly no one does that. So that implies to me that either they don’t want it, or they can’t be bothered being, they don’t want to be the first one. They want someone else to do it first. They want someone else to set up that settlement and then maybe they’ll join, you know.

 

But no one’s doing it. And so that means that we begin our argument, our defense, our attack on globalism from a position of weakness, because we don’t actually know how workable is this. And how pleasant would it actually be as a life. I mean, people say it will be more meaningful. Yeah it would be, but that’s true.

 

But as I say no one’s doing it. It’s like we’ve got a similar kind of dilemma to the one that the libertarians, or the anarchists, had. They advocate this type of society, but no one’s ever done it. And so I think in the same way we, if we’re going to fight against globalism, then we have to do it in a way that’s meaningful, and palatable, but also feasible! So what are our real objections to globalism? What are the fundamental things that we just that we object to about it? And I think it is that this dissolution of everything! This dissolution of nations, people’s, histories, but even, ..

 

[39:08]

 

Hugh (OTO): Tradition.

 

Woes: Tradition, but even sexes, men and women. It’s I mean, yes, there’s fun to be had in the world! There’s fun to be had with all the possibilities of existence. That’s true! But also if you’ve got nothing but possibility, then you’ve got really not much. Because there’s nothing meaningful. It’s just endless sensations, and endless novelty. And I think that, ..

 

Hugh (OTO): A spiritual death! I mean, that’s the problem with modernity that I think we all feel! Is it’s a spiritual problem and the betters want to solve that with, in empiricism. They want to solve it scientifically, or they want to solve it politically. And that’s not the Right framework. If you ask like Richard Dawkins:

 

“What’s the meaning of life?”

 

He’ll like, you know, smugly laugh you off, like:

 

“Oh well, science can’t answer that!”

 

And it’s like, well aren’t we facing a spiritual crisis? Isn’t that what’s going on here? Why do people feel so empty? Why are suicide rates up? You know, that’s what’s going on right. That’s the void. And they admit that it’s there, that within their epistemological framework that they’ve chosen, that they’ve adopted. They don’t have any, they can’t even use it to address that question! To say:

 

“Well, what’s the purpose here? What am I doing here? Why is there something, rather than nothing?”

 

They’ll just go:

 

“Well, you know, that’s not science! That’s not science!”

 

You know, [laughing] they’ll say that! And you go:

 

“Well it looks like your fucking entire outlook is kind of lacking something, don’t you think?”

 

And they don’t see it! They just don’t see it! It’s the arc of progress they believe to drop all of that! To drop the spiritualism, and the beliefs, and the faith. And even things like a priori reasoning, they don’t like it! They think that:

 

“No! No! This is the way! This is the framework we’ve got it! We’ve worked it out!”

 

I think that when you asked me “why?”, it is partly ideological commitment to this project. A belief that if you look throughout history it seems as if peoples have gotten broader, right? It used to be separate tribes in England, and now it’s England. And then it became the UK.

 

And there were different European countries, now it’s the European Union. I mean, there are still the different countries there, but, you know what I mean.

 

And you see that throughout history, like smaller groups becoming together. And then they meld and they become a new identity, and they become a new people, genetically as well. They all race mix. And then they’re one. And they just feel like that is how it goes!

 

And to try and resist it, to try and preserve, to try and conserve, is a, you know, it’s a fool’s errand! Don’t bother! Like that’s just not how history works. It goes the other way. And they spend an incredible amount of time, and effort, and money, trying to convince other people that that is how history works. That:

 

“No unique identity can ever really be preserved. And it’s kind of worthless, because it’ll be gone in 100 years, anyway. So why bother!”

 

Woes: Yes. But the fact is, that there are unique identities that do get preserved.

 

Hugh (OTO): Absolutely! Yes!

 

Woes: Yeah, so like the Han Chinese that you were talking about earlier. They protect their interests. And they protect their existence. Their first interest is their existence. So it is a lie. They’re also spreading a lie that people don’t want that, you naturally shouldn’t care about your group identity. Whereas I think people just do, because it’s familiar, it’s the thing you are! So from that point of view alone.

 

[43:07]

 

Hugh (OTO): Well I think we know of so many examples that contradict their narrative. You look at Sudan, right? Like if it works, why is it why is it such a crime that the British and the French went into Africa, and a bunch of other European people, and drew borders, and pushed different tribes together. Why is that such a crime? Isn’t that just progress? Then they would have melded together. No they didn’t. They genocided one another! As soon as soon as colonialism ended, absolute, ..

 

Woes: [words unclear]

 

Woes: No political class that could rule things. And they all started murdering each other! The Arabs and the Muslims really did very badly.

 

Woes: And this is something that’s held against the British as well. That they’re just maps, across ethnic lines and across tribal lines, and mixed people together. And that was a dreadful thing for the British to do. But it’s fine for it to happen in real time now within every European country. In every Western country.

 

Woes: Right. We see succession movements all over the place as well. Where people have been forced, independent states, or group of people who see themselves as a unique people, have been forced to join a greater nation. I mean, a lot of people in the nationalist movement don’t support Barcelona, or Catalonia becoming independent, because a lot of Marxists are involved in that secession movement. But I remember, who was the chap passed away this year? What’s his name?

 

Woes: Simon.

 

Hugh (OTO): Simon Harris. He wasn’t a big fan of it, right. He wasn’t a big fan of the secession movement, because he was like:

 

“They’re a bunch of stinking Marxists!”

 

And I understand where he’s coming from. But it’s also they were drawing on a natural desire. I mean, they were, the fact is they speak different language. Their first language isn’t Spanish, they all speak Catalan. I mean, you’re going to try and make them Spanish? Like it’s pretty hard to do that. Like to just take people and go:

 

“Well, you’re Spanish now!”

 

And you see these people, after years, decades, deciding:

 

“No! We still are not you! We’re not you! We’re different. And we want to be different.”

 

And we don’t give a fuck if these people are Marxists over here we’re going to go with them if they’re the ones running this movement. And you look at the repression of those people as well, just being beaten up by the cops for voting to leave, for having a referendum. They got beaten in the streets for it.

 

It’s very interesting. I feel like on our side, this is the last thing I say, because I know you wanted to come in. But I feel like on our side we don’t care what other people think! Like I voted Brexit I don’t care if somebody voted leave, sorry remain. They very much care that I voted to leave! They very much care! Like there must be something deficient in me! My worldview has to be stamped out!

 

The people in Barcelona who wanted to leave got absolutely, you know, shat on by the powers that be! They very much care what we want. And what we think! We don’t really mind about them I feel. We’re like well, of course, like Leftists exist, of course, like Remainers, you know, that’s natural. But they’re very keen to oppress them.

 

[46:00]

 

Woes: Yeah, I don’t really know where that comes from. I mean, obviously I know the facts on the ground. But it obviously as part of our psychology. There’s some desire for moral purity in the populace. Everyone else should think like me that, yeah, there is clearly something there that’s being utilized towards this end. But what I wanted to say, because you mentioned that the Catalans speak a different language.

 

And it occurred to me that, well in America you quite often hear that Spanish is becoming ingrained as a second language. And indeed in some workplaces it’s the necessary first language that you have to speak [chuckling]. And I thought it’s just interesting, because the language that you speak is obviously critical. It’s critically important to your sense of self and your identity.

 

And I think it’s interesting that such effort has been put into deconstructing America. And I don’t want to go too much talking about America, because there will be plenty of Americans on Millennial.

 

But I’ll just say this now, so much effort has gone into deconstructing American, White, European identity. And that would be one of one thing, because it’s not easy to do that. It’s its not something that can just be done! The literature has to be printed and reprinted, and so on, the signs have to be made, the road signs, etc. And another thing, another aspect of this which, and again it all seems like a precursor to what we’ve seen this year.

 

Other things would be the discrediting, shaming of the Confederate flag. Where in the 80s, and 90s, and 2000s, and most of the 2010s, the Confederate flag was just nothing! It just was absolutely not controversial!

 

And then, of course, the statues that came down this year. And that happened in Britain as well. I don’t know if it happened elsewhere. It definitely happened in Britain. And you do get the sense that our history is being dismantled.

 

So if, on the one hand, I’m open-minded, I’m interested in the limits of people’s ethnocentrism, and so on, because we do live in a unique age. But I also think, well clearly a lot of effort has to go into destroying their sense of self, because that’s what’s happening. It’s something that is being done. And it’s something that’s artificial and I think in the normal run of things most Americans, and most Brits, would not just out the blue decide to just destroy their own damn statues! It’s just not something that would happen.

 

And, of course, the big irony, the big grotesque irony, about the statues, is that in the end it turned out that George Floyd, well I don’t know. Again, I don’t know for safe saying this. But there’s a question about whether he was murdered by the police, or whether it was a fentanyl overdose, or drug overdose, and a heart attack. And everyone’s seen the footage now. I’ve seen the footage several times. And basically I think that the whole thing was built on a lot of shite! I think it was just a lie!

 

The whole summer of BLM, … And BLM now I saw, just before we went on air, I saw there’s a new video from Sargon, the lotus eaters, about Biden has apparently disavowed BLM. Which I don’t know if that’s, I’ll have to look into it. But it interests me, because it’s like, well they are the ultimate useful idiots, then.

 

[49:59]

 

Hugh (OTO): They get activated like that when an election is growing and you’ve got something like Donald Trump in the White House. But yes, the video was, of course, disturbing. No one could watch it without going:

 

“Oh god! Looks a bit rough!”

 

But the guy’s off his face! He’s off his face on drugs. You watch the full footage. Yeah, the whole thing is a lie. Okay I basically agree with you.

 

It’s very interesting how the incentives work in this system. And how people will play along. I’m a big believer in incentives, you know, I think that’s probably a libertarian hangover, perhaps. Maybe a bit of conservative hangover they still have. But I think that people do react to incentives, to financial incentives, to social incentives.

 

Woes: Of course they do! Of course they do!

 

Hugh (OTO): The fact that you can say certainly and behave in a certain way, and be and be utterly rewarded, and praised as, you know, that they’re revolutionary as they engage in these acts of destruction. As they tear down statues.

 

Look at the people that tore down, was it Colston in Bristol, and threw him into the river, through the statue into the river. All young White people who basically who are in Bristol. Bristol is something like 87% White. It’s a hub of Extinction Rebellion.

 

I’ve got several friends from school who live. They’re all an Extinction Rebellion. Two of them are communists. One of them is a neoliberal. It’s painful, honestly! One of them, actually the neoliberal, contacted me and said that I was putting out “hate speech” on my channel. And that:

 

“What are you doing? It’s spreading hate!”

 

He was particularly upset that I wasn’t fond of five-year-olds being taught about homosexuality! He thought that was a real affront to liberty, or something [chuckling]! But if you’re not a particularly thinking person you’re just going to react to the carrot in front of you. You’re just going to follow it along. I think that a lot of it is to do with that.

 

And the Left have always been very good at sculpting a facade over reality to make it seem like they have the majority view. To make it seem like everybody agrees with them.

 

You see it in debates where those Intelligence Squared debates, where it’s not even particularly controversial. But maybe somebody is arguing that Islam is a problem say with terrorism. And the other person is saying Islam is all peace and love. And every time the person saying “Islam is peace and love”, everyone claps! Everyone’s like [sound of approval] and the other guy is getting woo noises [sound of disapproval] from the crowd. I think Jesus! You know, he’s making some all right points, doesn’t he? And then it comes down to the vote. And it turns out he’s one the guy. The guy who’s getting the woo sound effects has won.

 

[53:00]

 

And it was the same thing with Brexit. It seemed like everybody is against it, you know, the Left us so good at sculpting this false reality, to make everybody feel this. And political correctness is the ultimate example isn’t it, of that. Where you can mold reality to appear that everyone surely agrees with the general Lefty view.

 

But, of course, there are repercussions if you don’t! Because you’re violating political correctness! And then therefore people don’t! And therefore it appears that the majority view is Lefty. And so they continue to march.

 

Woes: Yeah, well I mean, that’s why that is so important that the vote is private, because if it were public, you know, ..

 

Hugh (OTO): Oh I wonder if they’ll change that?

 

Woes: Well [laughing] I mean, Brexit was a surprise to everyone, because the public mood, what you saw on TV and everything was just so pro-Remain!

 

I remember being very surprised. I thought that it would win, I thought that Brexit would win. But it was a weird situation, because I thought it’s clear that they’re absolutely going for it. And then the same thing happened with Trump in 2016.

 

The same thing absolutely happened this time with 2020. They’re demonizing them in the press constantly, non-stop! It’s remarkable. But you’re right the Left are experts at this. They’re experts at shaping a social situation to make something seem like:

 

“Yeah, this is the state. This is the consensus!”

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah.

 

Woes: If you go against it you’re some kind of weirdo.

 

Hugh (OTO): That’s the word I was looking for earlier. Yes. That’s exactly right. Yeah, go on mate.

 

Woes: Yeah, well they give you a set of options as to what you can be if you defy the consensus. And one of them is “stupid”. One of them is “uneducated”. And the other one is just a “bad person”. You’re just full of “hate”!

 

Hugh (OTO): Conspiracy theorist! You must have seen this word, this term that would come on just suddenly right? I mean, they’ve always used it for decades, “conspiracy theorist”. But it is very much explained, you know, :

 

“You’re a total conspiracy theorist if you think the Great Reset is happening. Also the Great Reset is happening!”

 

Lolg We should say you’re a conspiracy theorist if you don’t like lockdowns. Also lockdowns exist, and you can have an opinion on it.

 

Woes: This is the thing something I noticed this year was that I remembered that people used to say, it was a common phrase that you would hear people saying very frequently, like when we were kids. You’d hear someone saying:

 

“It’s a free country! Do you like. It’s a free country. Yeah, you can do that, it’s a free country!”

 

No one ever says that now. Maybe it’s just me. But I heard someone saying it a few months ago. And it was the first time I’d heard it in years! It’s just not something that people, … And this brings us back to the lockdown thing. Because I mean, it was really frightening in late March when it started. Because I got the sense of this is how easy it is, that this is how easily life can just change drastically, and people’s expectations can change drastically.

 

[56:32]

 

The other day I was hearing about some graduates who have begun their working lives, and in a certain set of professional sector. And they’re working from home on laptops. And now a year ago if they’d graduated the year before, they would have gone into an office. Now yeah we can say that’s got it’s own drawbacks. I’m just saying that.

 

The point I’m making is that this has already started to affect people’s lives, like their inauguration into certain new areas of their lives, are now colored by Covid, and the lockdown, and so on. You’ll get kids who begin school this year in lockdown with social distancing. Kids who begin nursery, kindergarten, this year with that, and so forth. And people who got married this year in lockdown, with social distancing! [laughter]

 

Hugh (OTO): That’s the one that I as well, the funerals. The no one’s allowed to attend. That’s an awful one! And the weddings as well. Like what should be a community event to celebrate these people announcing their intention to start a family, in a stable relationship. And they’re going to be engaging in high investment parenting. And it’s like:

 

“Well, no one’s allowed to attend anymore!”

 

That’s! I just can’t get over the unconscionable evil of this! The videos of old ladies. And I don’t want to get everyone depressed. So I’ll move on very quickly from this. But of the old ladies stuck in old people’s home begging for their families to visit!:

 

“I’m gonna die soon! I need to see my daughter! I need to see my grandchildren!”

 

Saying things like this. And you think, what possible end could this serve? This the amount of evil that’s going on here to deprive this poor old lady of human contact, in the last months of her life! Who gives a fuck if she dies of Covid! Really! Like let her see her kids! Let her see her family! She’s going to die in a few days! It could be weeks, days, or weeks, right? What is going on here?

 

And the fact that people have kind of been really conned into this to think that’s necessary. I saw a video of a woman being arrested for trying to take her grandmother home. She’s a nurse.

 

Woes: Yeah, I saw that.

 

Hugh (OTO): She was trying to take her mother home and she was arrested. And her granddaughter, the granddaughter is filming it on her phone, crying. And she says:

 

“It’ll be all right! It’ll be all right!”

 

You can tell the grandmother doesn’t really know what’s going on. And she’s in the car like, you know, dazed and confused. I just think this is such a far departure from the norm! We’ve really gone so, this is like getting ready for living in a pod and eating bugs, isn’t it? It’s like it’s really evil!

 

Woes: When that meme started about a year and a half ago it was completely outlandish! And a lot of people were thinking it was a sort of alt-light, civnat, talking point that was completely irrelevant and immaterial. But now, suddenly, …

 

See, this is a thing, this is interesting, because they were correct. And the more sort of ethnat side were wrong about this. Because I think they were more alive to the more cultural side of what the globalists are up to, and what they want, what they advocate. And it’s turned out to be quite correct. I mean, you’ve got them now talking about this kind of thing. Just a life where you, …

 

[60:06]

 

Hugh (OTO): [words unclear] about this, like two years ago and I was like well, ..

 

Woes: Are you serious? Who?

 

Hugh (OTO): Orwell and Goode.

 

Woes: Right, yeah.

 

Hugh (OTO): He was making videos about this like two years ago. And I remember thinking at the time, you know, mate, I don’t know. And he was like:

 

“It’s gonna happen! They’re doing it already. They’re dripping it in!”

 

He’s very connected to the media. And what they’re putting, the kind of signaling they’re putting out. And about two years ago they started the bodybuilders eating caterpillars, and stuff! And he was like:

 

“This is where they’re going with this. We’ve got to reduce our meat intake, and controlling our diet.”

 

Of course, the return on this for us is supposed to be greater security, healthcare, housing, secured. So it’s that old thing that conservatives have been talking about. And actually maybe they were right about giving up your liberty for greater security. And they are going now the full hog:

 

“Okay, you live in a little apartment, you don’t own anything, but you’re happy! You rent!”

 

And I look at my mates in London at the moment. Almost none of them are married. I think one of them is married from my school year, that I can think of one. Out of the guys I’m still in touch with, he’s minted! He made it in banking! He’s an investment banker, so he’s fucking people over, doing highly immoral stuff. He’s probably a psychopath. He was always a bit of a quiet weirdo. So he’s got a wife and he’s got a nice house.

 

The rest of them are in shared accommodation, even though they’ve got seemingly good jobs, you know. Their business cards look nice. They work 50 hours a week, minimum. Sometimes it’ll be like:

 

“You’re up for promotion.”

 

So you’ve got to prepare for this interview. So then they have to do like six months of preparation for their interview. Where they are worked to the bone! And it’s just every single day, seven days a week. Work! Work! Work! Work! Work! And they’re still all living together in shared housing.

 

Four of them bought a house together. They’re all renting. They’re all renting. None of them even own a car!

 

And my dad bought a house when he was 24 years old in a in a, you know, very low level position at IBM. He started off at the very bottom of the company. And he was able to buy a house. And you hear about stories from that era where firemen bought houses. Firemen! I mean, what’s a fireman buying a house? Get real, he’s on a council estate! Relies on the government for everything.

 

Woes: Yeah, it’s unthinkable. I mean, the people that I know of getting on the property ladder is just a pipe dream. It’s just not something that most people think about it. It’s not even an intention. It’s not even a thing that they want to do at some point. It’s not even on their minds, because it’s so difficult now. And well especially if you live in a city. That’s it, you know.

 

I mean, I know a guy who, he was in his early 20s, in the early 70s, and he bought a fucking four-bedroom house! A four-bedroom house, when I think he was 23, in London! I mean, that is just unimaginable now!

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah.

 

Woes: And again how can that be a good system? But, of course, it ties in with what they want now. They don’t want you owning a house. They don’t want you having that autonomy. They want you renting. Yeah, they all want you on government, like the UBI thing.

 

[63:40]

 

Hugh (OTO): The manipulation of the economy has so many benefits for the elites because first of all, everything they own goes up in value! Everything that they own. And they can pay you next to nothing with this mass importation of low wages, the constant competition, making you compete to ridiculous levels with the entire world’s population, now!

 

If you’re working in London you are competing with the entire world’s population! And every single square meter is demanded by the basically the adult population, let’s say. I mean, I could be more specific, sue me! But that is basically what’s going on. And this definitely serves the real bourgeoisie, if you want, the real ownership class.

 

Like not just people who own a restaurant, or something. They’re fucked too! Small business owners how screwed have they been over the last few months? While these big business owners, the transfer of wealth right from the High Street to Amazon, has been astronomical!

 

And it’s interesting, right, these antifa types who claim to be Marxists. Yeah, they’re not really Marxists, are they? When are they, where are they protesting? Do you see them outside banks protesting? You know, fractional reserve banking, which is completely fraudulent! [Woes laughing] Do you see them outside Nike getting mad about the exploitation of labour? Do you see them outside government buildings, you know, saying:

 

“Allow small business, ..”

 

You know, small business owners in the Soviet Union, like grocery store owners, used to put up signs saying “Workers of the world unite”! I mean, they didn’t believe in it. But they were considered part of like the working class.

 

And, you know, where are antifa for them? Antifa only show up when someone violates political correctness! All they care about is language! All they care about is opinion. It’s like:

 

“Oh! A Candice Owens is giving a speech! Let’s get upset!”

 

Like this is the last of your worries if you’re truly somebody, trying to start off a classist revolution, or whatever! I mean, these people are such frauds, it’s amazing they don’t seem to see it! I think obviously it’s like there is a bent of Stalinism. There’s a bent of the Maoist influence there, in terms of like the strategy tactics.

 

But in terms of what they’re really trying to achieve. They are basically defending the neoliberal order by shutting down anybody who’s politically incorrect, who’s challenging it. That’s really what they’re doing. It’s amazing.

 

[66:25]

 

Woes: Yes. And antifa are the stormtroopers, the shock troops of the establishment. That’s absolutely true. And it’s interesting that Occupy Wall Street was, … I honestly wonder how many connections, and how many disconnections are there between Occupy Wall Street from 10 years ago, and antifa of today? That would be a really interesting discussion in itself.

 

But one thing I wanted to say was that, this question of whether they’re communist? Because people say:

 

“This isn’t fascism you dumb civnat! This is communism!”

 

I don’t think that’s true either and, you know what you’ve just alluded to is part of, well it’s why? Because it’s happening via global corporations, and yeah, I mean, there was always a connection between big capital and communism which we know about. That’s true. But it was still communism that was being implemented in Russia. Now that was the project, the creation.

 

This is not communism as such. We need a new term, maybe neoliberalism is the term to use. But I think we need to define what exactly it is, because it is something that seems to be pretty unprecedented. And it also well unprecedented in real life. Perhaps not unprecedented in science fiction, especially cyberpunk.

 

Because I really I mean, I’m sorry! But it does seem to be like the world of Bladerunner, where the Tyrell Corporation can get away with whatever the fuck they want to do! It doesn’t matter.

 

I mean, look at Pfizer now, for Christ’s sake! Everything is owned by a small number of of huge, corporate, unimaginably huge corporations that are so wealthy! But in any case the money supply doesn’t really matter, because they can just print money. They can do that. So they’re so wealthy that you could actually imagine them being put in charge of, like in Robocop, OCP been being put in charge of the police force of a city.

 

You could imagine a global corporation today being put in charge of like “debt”, I don’t know, something like that, or healthcare, or policing, education. And literally they are the authority! It’s not just that they are a supplier in that sector. It’s that they’ve taken over the government. Like in the same way that Twitter has taken over the public square, and so forth.

 

But I think they’re going to probably spread this out from social media to, well reality. I wouldn’t be surprised if, …

 

[69:01]

 

Hugh (OTO): It’s happening! It’s happening already.

 

Woes: Yeah. Yeah, what you’re saying, you know, because these people are so obsessed with language the neoliberal elites, whatever you want to call them, the people that are really running things, maybe you call them capitalists. I mean, fair enough.

 

It’s so easy for them to adopt the language and just carry on the mechanisms that are making them money. So they can keep exploiting child labour in Pakistan, and meanwhile talk about how they’re fighting “systemic racism” and bringing “gender equality” to the workplace! It really is about language I think.

 

I was talking to you about this the other day when we were chatting about Derrida [an Algerian jew], the postmodernist philosopher, right? And he had this thing, nothing, what is the quote? I got a penned down here. Yeah:

 

“There is nothing outside of text.”

 

So text is shaping reality.

 

Woes: Here we fucking go!

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah, well I mean, okay to you and I, this is kind of retarded, [laughing] because we think of, like a word. Like I don’t know “bottle”. If I say “bottle” we think that that is a real thing! That it exists ontologically, right. Bottles exist.

 

But he will say, well, he’ll say several things. First of all, about any word you could think of he’ll say first of all, that there’s a duality. So there’s like a word in itself it has no meaning without its opposite. There’s no, “up” means nothing without “down”, or “on” means nothing without “off”. And with prepositions this works quite well. What’s the opposite of a “hat”? I don’t know what the opposite of a hat is.

 

But anyway, then they’ll talk about there’s the “signifier” and the “signified”. So when I just mentioned “bottle” to you, right, and you’ve got an idea in your head. So you’ve got the “signified” I gave you. The “signifier” which is the word, and you’ve got the “signified” in your head, which is your image of a bottle. And maybe I’m thinking of this plastic bottle here, but you were thinking of a totally different bottle!

 

Woes: Aaahhh!

 

Hugh (OTO): Oh! Words are meaningless! Words are meaningless! Meaning is subjective! But then there’s also, this is quite a clever one though. If you were to look up. Hold on, I’ll get the definition of bottle up. All right, okay, bottle:

 

“A container typically made of glass, or plastic, and with a narrow neck, used for storing drinks, or other liquids.”

 

Okay? So we’ve got the definition. Now let’s say we didn’t understand any word in that definition. So we would then go to the dictionary and we would look up those words. And then we would get more words to describe that word. And then we’d look up all of those words. And then we get more words, and we’d look up all of those words.

 

And we could go on, and on, and on, and on, until the word “bottle” would re-emerge! And hence bottle is, it’s meaning, is reliant on all these other words that are connected to it. It’s connected to, ..

 

Woes: Just imagine how fucking annoying it would be to be stuck on a desert island with Jack Derrida! [loud laughing] Can you imagine that?

 

Hugh (OTO): Because, you know, doing this like little mental mind game though, they’re able to say that basically, words in and of themselves don’t really have meaning out in the real world. It’s within the text! It’s within the text, itself! And so therefore like, because we’ve already established that your interpretation of text is subjective, it’s all just discourse. And you read it and you imagine something different from everybody else so it’s subjective.

 

And therefore knowledge is situated in the time and a place, and how you read it. In England, in the year 2020 will be different from how somebody read it in 1900. And in, I don’t know, whatever.

 

[73:08]

 

Woes: Yeah, go on, yeah.

 

Hugh (OTO): I know I mean, it would be in the minutia right? But therefore there’s no universal truth! There’s nothing universal! And all of reality is actually constructed socially, via text. And I think when we talk about antifa, they’re heavily influenced by this!

 

Same with the trans movement. Derrida said like the connection between words. Like if you’ve got “bottle” and you’ve got “glass”, “structure”, and you could connect them. And those connections between would be, he called it “differance”, right? Like “difference” but with an “a”. And he said:

 

“Maybe the meaning is along those lines. And we need new words to fill those voids.”

 

So like “cisgendered”, or like “non-binary”, or like this. And he said:

 

“It was highly problematic that we privileged certain words over others. Like we privileged “presence” over “absence” and things like this. Again a lot of the words that are used very commonly today by the Left.”

 

And his method of critique was called “deconstruction”. That’s what he called it. And you hear this all the time:

 

“We need to deconstruct systems of privilege!”

 

You hear all this stuff. So it’s very, very important. You go to a restaurant and they’re serving you a “deconstructed burger”, or whatever! You know, he’s in pop culture.

 

But you look at someone like antifa, they’re not really communist anymore. Yes, there’s the bent of it. But it’s all about language shaping reality.

 

Like, if you misgender Ellen Page, that’s a big fucking deal! Because how we write about now, Elliott Page, you know, this girl right who was in Juno [2007 film], who is now a man, whatever, called Elliot. If people don’t know, movie star, weirdo., you know, thought that the justice similar thing was legit. Like cried about that on TV. Like total fucking loopy Lefty. Yeah it just looks like a damaged child, to be frank!

 

Anyway, if you misgender, you know, actually as long as we all use the Right language for her, then she does become a man, epistemologically. Because it’s all relative anyway. So as long as we say the words, as long as we write the words, then we shape society, then we shape reality. And therefore collectively we could just make her a man.

 

And you might remember that scene, I know it’s cliche to bring up 1984, but when Winston is in room 101. And he says, the guy who’s torturing him I forget the guy’s name, but he said:

 

“Yeah, I could float to the ceiling in my chair right now.”

 

And Winston says:

 

“That’s impossible!”

 

He says:

 

“No actually, if everybody says I float to the ceiling in my chair, it happened, then that’s history. If it gets written that’s truth!”

 

And this is really the game that they’re kind of engaged in. It’s just:

 

“Make it up! Sing it in chorus! If anybody says the wrong thing, beat them up! And prioritize language above all else, because there’s nothing outside of text!”

 

Woes: I don’t want to contradict you too much. But I think that, it’s been a long time since I read 1984. But I think what O’Brien says is:

 

“If everyone believes that I floated to the ceiling, then it happened, then it’s reality.”

 

Hugh (OTO): Contradict me all you like! [chuckling]

 

Woes: But yeah, I’m just interested, because it’s a sort of prototype of what you’re talking about. Where it actually requires people to believe it, whereas by the time of Derrida, it just requires that we say it, is the case!

 

Hugh (OTO): Yes.

 

Woes: And then it becomes the case. Then everyone just will believe it, because it is the case! It is the truth! I mean, that is, …

 

[77:08]

 

Hugh (OTO): With Derrida though, I just want to make one very quick point. I don’t know that he meant it to go this far! I started reading his book on grammatology. It’s a very difficult book to read. I thought it was a retard, because I couldn’t understand it. Well, I was finding it very difficult to read. And then I watched the Yale lecture and the guy was like:

 

“It’s really difficult to understand.”

 

And I was like:

 

“Oh! You’re professor at Yale and you found it hard, all right. I don’t feel too bad about myself!”

 

But anyway, I don’t know if you meant it to go this far. I feel like if you told him his ideas were being used to chemically castrate young boys, I don’t know that he would be entirely on board. He was definitely a liberal. But, I don’t know how liberal! [laughing] Yeah, I don’t know if we go that far! And I think that they’ve taken his ideas, midwits, have probably taken his ideas to this possible conclusion.

 

Woes: It’s possible that ideologues and, you know, destroyers have taken the ideas of a curious, inquisitive, fluffy, woolly minded, intellectual, and weaponized them. Because another one was, I think it was Gramsci Antonio, I think it was him. One of the Frankfurt School was apparently shocked when he saw the hippie movement. He saw the students outside his university, you know, being layabouts, and so on. And he thought:

 

“That’s not what we were all about in the Frankfurt School! This isn’t what we wanted. It’s not what we were building towards. But it’s what it has become.”

 

And now again I’m not trying to defend the Frankfurt School, or let them off with anything. I’m just saying it’s an example of a sort of high-minded intellectual [Really? Not subversive? — kat] whose ideas become, well, weaponized.

 

Hugh (OTO): Right, well Marx wanted zero states, right? A stateless society. I don’t think Stalin was what he envisioned at all.

 

Woes: Yeah.

 

Hugh (OTO): I mean, his ideas are wack, you know, there’s no two ways about it. They’re crap! He doesn’t understand human beings, as far as I’m concerned.

 

But, like you can see logically now, with the perspective of history, but in hindsight you can see how it led to that, because his ideas were so rubbish. But yeah, I think he probably would have been horrified to see, like Ukrainians exterminated. I don’t think that was his intention. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe other people in chat can correct me there? But I don’t think.

 

Woes: So yeah, I’m sure. Yeah he’s gonna be a more complex, … I don’t think he was just a genocidal maniac.

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah.

 

Woes: Probably. I don’t think he was a very nice guy at all. But I don’t think he would have approved of what happened. But yeah, so I guess, I probably should be wrapping this one up. Which seems ridiculous, because we only started an hour 15 minutes ago, an hour and 20 minutes ago, although I’ve been absent for several of those minutes. And I do apologize again.

 

I guess I would ask, I mean, there’s just so much that we could talk about. We’ve been skating over this at a very rapid pace! There’s so much to be said.

 

Hugh (OTO): It has felt quite frantic, I’ll be honest [laughing] it has felt like:

 

“We’re on! Millenniyule! First guest!”

 

Woes: Well I should actually, because there were many things that I wanted to see at the start. I should have made a list! Because one of the things I wanted to say at the start was usually Sargon opens Millennial. That’s been a tradition for the last, because this is the sixth Millennial, …

 

The first one was in 2015, and he gate crashed the very first one. And so ever since I thought it would be funny, and fun, for him to open it every year. So he had the first stream every year. And this year I asked him, and he said:

 

“No.”

 

But I want to make it clear that it wasn’t, because he said that he didn’t like it. He said that he felt bad saying no, but that he now has five employees, plus his family, depending on him for his income. So he didn’t think it would be sensible to risk that.

 

[81:13]

 

Hugh (OTO): Well clearly it was censorship.

 

Woes: Oh, Yeah, it’s the censorious climate on YouTube that is the reason. And yeah, that was I think a respectable reason to give. Because after all, I mean, everyone does have to think about practicalities. So I just wanted to put that out there, because it’s not like he just blanked me, or gave me some bullshit reason, or whatever. So I want to make that clear to people. So don’t go after Sargon. I mean, who knows, maybe next year the situation will be different.

 

But that does bring us back to what we were saying earlier. Do you think that if, okay predictions! We may as well wrap up on that. Do you think that Trump is going to win? Or do you think that Biden is going to be, ..

 

Hugh (OTO): Oh god! Don’t do that to me! I don’t know! Fuck, I don’t know mate. I think, I don’t want to demoralize people. No. I don’t think Trump’s gonna win. That’s my honest, it’s my honest take. I don’t think, I don’t know that, but that is what they want me to think, you know? That’s what they want me to think, it’s game over! I’m not sure where this big thing is? You know, I’ve got a mate who, oh fuck, I can’t even repeat what he says. Because he’s just like:

 

“Military tribunals will be taking place, within two weeks.”

 

And it’s martial law, and Trump’s gonna win! And I don’t see it! I don’t see it! I don’t see martial law! I don’t know mate, yeah. What do you think? Is Trump’s going to win?

 

Woes: I did think so until about a week ago. And then it just seemed, … I don’t know I can’t remember what it was that made me switch. But I think, at this point, it does seem like fate is closing in on this. And yeah, I don’t know! I hope he wins. But I think he’s probably going to lose. Unless something changes, something drastic happens in the next couple of weeks.

 

[83:17]

 

Hugh (OTO): The power he’s up against! The forces he’s up against. Extraordinary power! It’s they were happy enough to take the speed bump. I think they want the show to be over.

 

And it’s like, how much support does he truly have? The Conservatives on the whole are cucks! The Left are obviously against him. The military are they with him? Maybe 65, 70 percent are. So it’s like, what can he actually do? What can he pull off. And what are the consequences of him actually winning for the United States? Is it even the best thing now?

 

Because imagine if he takes power. What’s going to happen to America in terms of like who will work with America? Who will trade with America? Like what’s the UK going to do? Is Boris Johnson going to abandon that relationship? What’s France going to do? What’s Japan going to do? It’s like it might not even be necessarily the best thing. Because it’s going to be discredited across the board, at least in public discourse, as being this guy’s a tyrant! This guy’s, he’s become the dictator we warned you about.

 

Woes: Yeah.

 

Hugh (OTO): I’m not sure that’s even necessarily that good for Americans. How much will they have to suffer if Trump wins? And, you know, relative to the suffering under Biden, I don’t know, though. We have no idea how crazy Biden would be. How far, I mean, Biden it doesn’t even seem like he knows what’s going on! So who’s running the show?

 

Woes: And then the other thing there is, is that he probably wouldn’t, going by the look of things, he probably wouldn’t actually be the President for long. Like a year, or two, and then Kamala takes over. And at that point you’re in, you know, it’s SJW world at that point.

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah. And it’s like full-on globalist world! Which I think would happen even if Biden is still there. But don’t you think like Sam Hyde said:

 

“They’ll hit him with the heart attack gun!”

 

The freak accident! [laughing] he’s got bye-bye. He killed by Covid!

 

Woes: Bye! Bye! Bye!

 

Hugh (OTO): He’s out of the scene now that now they’ve taken over. But I’m like, I find it impossible to predict politics now. It’s so much crazier! And every time I talk to you I feel like we go:

 

“God! It’s really fucking crazy now!”

 

We live in a, you always used to say:

 

“We live in a fucking mad house!”

 

[laughing] And it’s like it’s gone beyond, it’s like when in spinal tap, when they say:

 

“Well, we’ve got it up to 11!”

 

You know, it’s like we’re on 15 now, or something. I don’t know where we are. But things are just beyond anything I could have foreseen a year ago. It’s nuts now! It really is.

 

Woes: Yeah, it really is. I remember in 2008 thinking that with the Parliamentary expenses scandal, I thought:

 

“Surely the British are going to revolt.”

 

[86:36]

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah [laughing]

 

Woes: I really thought that I thought:

 

“Surely it’s gonna happen now!”

 

I mean, all the shit that’s going on in the country and I was concerned about other issues, … Well, yeah issues that I’m still concerned about now.

 

But I was, yeah concentrating on immigration then, and things like that, and the loss of civil liberties, and so on. And I thought, surely the Parliamentary expense, that exposes the system is completely corrupt! The establishment is useless now! No, nothing happened!

 

And then the Rotherham Report in 2014. Nothing happened. The migrant crisis in 2015. Nothing happened. And now this. That’s the British context. And it just goes, it just gets crazier, and crazier!

 

But then in America! I mean, it just sounds, … Like I don’t know how Americans, I don’t want to black pill them. I mean, it’s not like they’re that much worse than us, it’s just, I think it’s louder, over there, than it is over here. I think it’s a bit quieter. But it’s the same insanity.

 

It’s just that in America you have like, you know, street gangs of antifa and BLM literally intimidating people in their homes, on their streets, and their businesses, torching businesses. I mean, it’s just insane. And I remember someone said, I think it might actually have been Kamala, who said the rioting will go on even after the election, and it should do!

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah.

 

Woes: Yeah, protests, protests, yeah. So again, I mean, that’s our President, probably going to be the President, if not, well she’s definitely the fucking Vice President of America, saying widespread protests, involving rioting, murder, looting, arson, it should go on, and on! [loud laughing] I mean, that is absolutely insane! There’s no, I cannot think of anything like that remotely like that in my lifetime!

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah. You got to fight till all the injustice is gone! You gotta burn down all the businesses until everyone’s equal! You know, make everyone “equal”! Yeah, it’s gonna be done.

 

Woes: All right, okay. Well on that bombshell, let’s wrap this one up.

 

So, well this has been fun. I’m so sorry about the delay at the start. And I’m sorry about my technical, the modern cutting out twice. Very annoying. But nonetheless I think this has been an exciting, and interesting, and very fast-paced discussion.

 

So Hugh, thank you very much for opening Millenniyule 2020!

 

Hugh (OTO): Mate, it’s absolute pleasure. Yeah, I’ll be back next year.

 

Woes: And I should say that, because people were asking that you haven’t put up many videos on YouTube this year, rather like me.

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah. Not even seven months I think, I haven’t published. I would say subscribe to me on Bitchute. I will be putting up content there.

 

Woes: Yeah. Hugh is another one like me who feels that it’s just a minefield putting stuff up on YouTube nowadays.

 

Hugh (OTO): It really is.

 

Woes: You put one up on Bitchute the other day. And also you’re very active on Telegram, it’s worth saying.

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah, I am, yeah.

 

Woes: Again people really should get onto Telegram, because it’s a fantastic platform. And people who aren’t that active on YouTube anymore a lot of us are very active on Telegram. So I think that like daily stuff, daily commentary. I’ve been doing voice notes, I’ve been doing essays. I’ve been doing all sorts on there. And polls as well. I quite enjoy that. So yeah, that’s something that people should do. So excellent!

 

Well, thank you very much Hugh, On the Offensive. And I hope to see you again next year, or hopefully before then. And well, god knows where the world will be by then. But anyway.

 

Hugh (OTO): Yeah! [laughter] who knows? But Merry Christmas everyone! Try and enjoy it.

 

Woes: Okay, all right. Excellent On the Offensive. And I’ll see you in about five minutes with the Writer’s Block Crew. So all right see you then. Bye bye for now.

 

[90:49]

 

 

 

END

 

 

 

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

 

See Also:

 

Millennial Woes with Morgoth on Brexit — Jul 2, 2016 — TRANSCRIPT

A Woes By Any Other Name — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – To Be a Man in 2017 – Speech at Erkenbrand dinner — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – One Hour from Now – Speech to Erkenbrand — TRANSCRIPT

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

Millennial Woes – The Passion of Jordan Peterson – Speech to Blue Awakening — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes at the Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2019 – Daughter of Albion – Dec 28, 2019 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – The Strife of Tongues – Nov 30, 2020 — Transcript

 

 

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – John Waters – Dec 22, 2020 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – On the Offensive – Dec 15, 2020 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – Dangerfield – Dec 21, 2020 — Transcript<

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – The Jolly Heretic – Dec 29, 2020 — Transcript

 

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

 

PDF Notes

* Total words = 15,117
* Total images = 4
* Total A4 pages =

 

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

(Available later)

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 5: Nov 29, 2021 – Improved formating.

 

Version 4: Mar 11, 2021 – Added See Also image 2 and 4 links.

 

Version 3: Jan 3, 2021 — Added last 13 minutes. Transcript now complete = 90/90 mins.

 

Version 2: Jan 2, 2021 — Added 17 more minutes. Total transcript complete = 77/90 mins.

 

Version 1: Jan 1, 2021 — Published post. Total transcript complete = 60/90 mins.

Woes: In two hours time it’ll be the Duke of Durham. And then an hour after that American Zarathustra. And then an hour after that E Michael Jones. And then two hours after that Endeavor. So it’s gonna be a very busy night.

 

But first of all we have John Waters. So John Waters is an Irish columnist and academic, and more recently an activist. Well, how would you describe yourself John? And welcome to Millenniyule.

 

John Waters: Actually, probably not, I think none of the above. I don’t think I’m no longer a journalist. I kind of think journalism has become a pretty shameful profession. So I’m pretty ashamed that I ever was a member of it.

 

I’m a writer, I suppose. Yeah. Activists say there’s been a lot of controversy about me being called a human rights activist. Apparently a lot of the gay fraternity are quite annoyed about it, you know. They think that I don’t qualify, or like all contrary, you know! So, I was actually doing what you might remotely call “human rights” stuff 30 years ago. And I have been doing it ever since. But there you go! They kind of have claimed that label now.

 

So I’m a writer and I’ve got a kind of my own blog. I hate the word blog, as well. I’ve got it on sub stack John Walters unchained, recently. So I’m kind of making a comeback at this late stage, you know.

 

But I mainly write books these days. And my last one was “Give Us Back the Bad Roads”, which came out two years ago. Which is kind of about the last, interestingly what I would have called the last, you know, five, or six years of insanity in Ireland.

 

But that was before 2020. So the word “sanity” no longer has any purchase on normative events, or even semi-normative events!

Woes: So yeah, everything’s stepped up a level. We’re now at a different order of magnitude of insanity!

 

John Waters: We need new words! We need some kind of word factory to produce new words for 2021, I think. These ones will not work anymore.

 

Woes: [laughing] Well, I mean, this year has been unbelievable. And quite a lot of my guests have talked about it. But I heard you speaking to Dave Cullen recently. You’ve done quite a few discussions with him.

 

And one thing you mentioned, which we’re going to go into here, is how Covid has really and some people might say this is an exaggeration, and some people might say it’s hypothetical, at this point, speculative. But I think that it looks like Covid has, and the government’s reaction to it, treatment of it, has really changed life in general. And for the long term. It’s not just a blip.

 

It seems to be that this is something where they are going to make maximum use out of it in order to change what people expect out of life. And you alluded to this in a recent talk with Dave Cullen.

 

So I thought it would be interesting to ask you in depth about that.

 

[03:00]

 

John Waters: Yeah. I mean, the way you kind of phrased it is a little bit ambiguous, in the sense that they’re kind of two options. I mean, is this actually just taking advantage of Covid, or is Covid the instrument of this, to begin with?

 

You know, that’s still an open question in my mind, although I’m actually leaning more, and more, towards the idea that this is all engineered. That would be the David Ike view of the world. Which previously I wouldn’t have kind of really gone into that deeply.

 

It’s not that I didn’t reject it. I was kind of vaguely aware of what he was saying. But it didn’t seem to be relevant. And that’s kind of relevant to your question, you know. Because what you’re really talking about is kind of the normative assumptions that people worked through life with. Which kind of by and large, change, but not dramatically. They change osmotically as you go along, you know.

 

And I think that this year has been a year when clearly there’s been kind of a rupture in all of those things, and all of the assumptions that people had. And what I mean, by kind of those assumptions is that you kind of think, for example, that your government. And this is complicated as well.

 

But let’s go through it. Your government is there to kind of serve the people. I mean, maybe that sounds a very naive view in some respects, but that’s kind of what most people think. And they think that their newspapers are there to tell them what happened yesterday, right? More, or less. And similarly the news on the RT, on the national broadcasters, the BBC, or whatever.

 

And this year really massive question marks opened up over all of those assumptions. But not alone that, what I would call the “furniture of reality” in a socio-political context, seem to kind of just be taken away overnight, and replaced with other new stuff! And we didn’t actually, it was kind of odd. It was like there was no such thing as chairs anymore! It was like some odd thing that remotely resembled a “chair”, while you couldn’t sit on it, because that would be, you know, public order offense, or something.

 

And in all of the things that we kind of assumed to be there. You know, that in the sense that we could have walked through the room in the middle of the night without turning on the lights, and we would know where, but now suddenly we’re bumping into stuff all over the place.. And we have no idea why, or what’s going to happen next, or who’s doing this, or why they’re doing it.

 

Now at the back of all this is the kind of hypothesis that there’s a pandemic. But there’s actually very little evidence, there has never been little evidence, and whatever little evidence there has been, if you go into it you can actually find credible explanations, counter hypothesis about it, you know, in relation to the spikes in April, for example, of spike of deaths.

 

[06:00]

 

The interesting fact that in most countries there are virtually no excess deaths over the full span of the year. All of that kind of thing. The kind of trickery they’ve been playing with, you know, certifying deaths in a very odd way. The PCR tests, the controversy about that. All of these things.

 

But at the root of that it seems to me there are two syndromes which are related. One is what I would call the outright corruption of the press. Which is a word I kind of use for the entirety of the media, the mainstream, legacy media. Outright corruption! In the sense that they have not simply ceased to perform well, or be starting to perform badly, but they’ve actually flipped their product! From truth to lies!

 

Woes: Yes! It’s not a “bug”, it’s a “feature” kind of thing. That this is not happening by accident. They’re not just messing up.

 

John Waters: No! Yeah, that’s exactly right Colin. That this is actually, … What is actually going on is that it’s like somebody approached them and said:

 

“Listen. You’ve got a great reputation. How would you like to blow it for a lot of money in one year?”

 

Right?

 

Woes: Yes.

 

John Waters::

 

“Because you’re going to be gone in 10 years anyway! And we can actually give you enough money to get you out of there. You’ll go out in the blaze of something, or other. It won’t be glory, for sure! But, you know, you’ll do much better than if you hang in for the medium to long term, because it won’t be a long term.”

 

That kind of thing, you kind of think, happened in some kind of smoke-filled room, or actually now that it’s 2020, unsmoke-filled room.

 

Woes: Maybe a hate-filled [?] room.

 

John Waters: Yeah, or maybe they did, they held it all out in the smoking room out in the back.

 

And the other syndrome, of course, is what’s happened to the public mind? Which we didn’t actually notice until this year. But now we noticed that actually, again osmotically, all the years something massive has been happening to the psyche and the intelligence of ordinary people, shall we say. Normative people. That they don’t seem to be seeing reality in the way that their fathers and mothers, or grandparents, would have seen it. They don’t see freedom as being, …

 

Woes: That, yeah, that’s a very interesting point. Take us back to and, of course, you can talk from the Irish perspective, how did people in the 1960s see reality compared to people post Covid? I mean, what are they what are the differences here?

 

[09:00]

 

John Waters: Well I think that actually it’s something about bubbles. It’s something about that the kind of space that you inhabit imaginatively, you know, as a person.

 

I think of it in terms of my parents, who lived their lives working lives and family, and all that. But they also lived a civic life, which kind of embraced the idea of Ireland, and it’s institutions, and it’s history as being a very intimate set of quantities in their own lives. It was part of the “furniture”, again, to use that metaphor, that surrounded them. And it seems that we now see that that has gone completely. That furniture had actually been taken away quite a long time ago, for most people. They didn’t see such furniture in any way from a day on a day-to-day basis. They only if there was something particular that could be, …

 

Like for young people in particular, in Ireland we’ve seen it only recently in the last 10 years, did it seem that the Millennial generation became politically active. And that was for gay marriage and abortion. But otherwise they’re completely disconnected. They couldn’t tell you the name of the T-shirt which is the Prime Minister, or whatever, the President. Not that that matters all that much. And I can get that.

 

Woes: [laughing] Yeah!

 

John Waters: What I mean, is that at that time it seemed to matter a hell of a lot more! And there was what you might have called this “Democratic discourse”. I don’t necessarily mean that just in terms of the media. But actually the conversations that ordinary people had among themselves were quite political in a way that isn’t true anymore. It hasn’t been true for some time, if you start to think about it.

 

So that was one aspect that I trying to, I’m still piecing it together, because it’s actually quite surreal. And you’re still observing it. I’m still kind of, like we’ve gone through nine months of this now, and there are shifts and turns in it all the time!

 

For example, like in the beginning I would have had this sense of expectation, again in myself, that okay what’s going to happen here? Well in April, okay, we’re going to get over Easter and we’re going to get into, once the summer kicks in, this will all die out! The virus will burn off and we’ll just go back to normal.

 

But it became clear very soon that wasn’t going to be allowed to happen! And I stress “to be allowed to”. So that was dragged through the summer. It was clear that they were keeping the ball in the air for the summer by introducing face masks in public transport, and in public, in shops, and so on. Purely as a way of creating a visible, you know, sign of the pattern, .

 

Woes: It’s almost creating a visible culture of obedience. A culture of Covid! Like we’re all taking part in this, because we’re all wearing the masks, right? It’s like a uniform.

 

John Waters: That’s right! And also that you couldn’t wear that mask and not be aware but almost all the time that that you were doing this. And that it was actually, in a certain sense, debasing you. That it was actually castrating you, if you’re a male. That I felt that was a big factor in the whole thing that men were attacked probably more than women. That they were really emasculated. Emasculated in this process. And then but just to go back to my point that we come back to that so I would have thought:

 

“Okay, well come the winter. Well then you see the winter, there’s going to be the flu season and are they going to company-opt that?”

 

And basically, you know, start counting flu deaths which come every year. Which is exactly what they’re doing! And they’re making this now the third wave. So that’s another topic really. But this sense of like that now all your expectations and that are confounded, because you would have thought that a certain point, normatively, the way I would have thought.

 

And this is a lifetime kind of sense of reality, that people at a certain point would become really angry and start to do things to revolt, to protest, to disobey!

 

[13:00]

 

Quite the contrary has happened! Now there has been a little bit of that at one extreme. But I think it’s actually been quite marginal compared to what’s happened at the other extreme, which has after being a kind of an intensification of the kind of obedience, and the subservience, and the almost what like a masochism, that that you see now. And people want to seem now.

 

It’s become really cultish, you know. It was always, but it has become intensely cultish now. And the people who say now that it’s kind of like a new religion, I used to think:

 

“Yeah! That’s a good metaphor.”

 

But it’s actually not any longer a metaphor. It’s absolutely true!

 

Woes: Yes.

 

John Waters: We’ve actually plugged into the kind of historical roots of religion, which is in mythology going back to the very first, you know, standing up of the species on its hind legs. And the evidence we have from the cave walls of all those kind of stories that were told, which are to do with to a high degree transcendence and commonality, and all of those things.

 

And so here we are now. And it’s getting worse. And so you kind of have to say, it’s time to stop the kind of punditry, in a sense. You can’t really predict any of this anymore, because we’re in a different realm in terms of the imagination of people.

 

Woes: But also in terms of the resourcefulness of the powers to be to create this narrative. To keep spinning it. I mean, that was something that, … Sorry to interrupt, but that was something that struck me at the start of this. The fact that, well not so much the start, but definitely a month, or two into it I thought:

 

“This seems to be a different level. It’s a level that I’ve never seen before of creating narratives and programming the public.”

 

John Waters: Yeah.

 

Woes: And then you started to see evidence of how they’re spinning this. Sociological studies, survey groups, market research, about how to persuade people to wear the mask, to social distance, to take the hypothetical vaccine — it was hypothetical at that time. They were clearly doing research into how to program the public, and checks and balances about how is the process working, how much uptake is there, how much rejection is there? And so it seemed like just all of this, … There’s a term for it. Social engineering nudge, that kind of thing taken to like a terrible level suddenly, this year.

 

John Waters: That’s right. And I have had this escalating since in that period, that nine months period. That actually they were increasingly astonished by how easy it was, because they didn’t expect the change that I’m talking about to be there. They didn’t realize that what they were going to encounter was basically sogginess, all over the place! Wetness! Softness! You know, there was no resistance virtually at all and that must have kind of put them back on their heels thinking:

 

“God, this is too easy!”

 

Because like if you push a door, if it opens, you’re expected to get resistance, you’re unlikely to end up on the top of your head in the room, you know. And it was almost like that for a moment with the authorities.

 

But it’s interesting, I find it interesting in lots of different ways. I mean, “interesting” is probably not the right word, because it’s deeply upsetting, and disturbing, .

 

Woes: And morbid.

 

John Waters: Yeah. But I find it interesting in the sense that I’m watching the kind of different voices on, if you like, the other side. Commentators from David Ike on one side, to someone like say Peter Hitchens, let’s say on the other. Because even though they’re both on this same side, they have two entirely different views of what’s happening.

 

Ike, I guess, kind of like what for years would have been called a “conspiratorial” view of it, or “conspiracist” sense of it. But increasingly by the day revealing itself as very close to what’s actually happening almost to the hour, you know.

 

On the other hand, you have someone like Peter Hitchens who has equally been doggedly and very courageous in the way he’s come out against it. But draws a line at beyond incompetence. He simply says these politicians are “incompetent”. And they don’t know what they’re doing and they’re destroying the economy, and so on. And you can see him when he’s pushed to go to the line of why, he backs off!

 

Woes: Yes!

 

John Waters: He recoils from that idea. Now that maybe, because he’s a mainstream journalist and there are certain limits even if you don’t acknowledge them, they’re there! And, you know, in your gut, that they’re there.

 

So I’m not, I wouldn’t just say anything too critical of Peter, because I admire his tenacity, and his courage, and his capacity to be uninterruptable! You know, he’s unique in the world. I’ve never seen anybody who is as difficult to interrupt as Peter Hitchens!

 

But what I’m getting at here is that as we watch this I’m in the kind of middle of this. I’m floating between those positions. If you like, imaginatively. And I still haven’t made up my mind, although I veer, I have to say right now, very much towards Ike’s scenario. But, I’m looking at everything. And all the time I’m trying to interpret every development.

 

And it’s interesting that. When you see some new development, each development has the capacity to be interpreted as a response to a pandemic. It might well be genuine. The people doing it might just be stupid! They might not be able to count! You kind of can’t discount this in a sense.

 

[19:00]

 

On the other hand, it might be everything that David Ike says, that it’s a conspiracy that’s going on for hundreds of years to enslave the human race! To turn this into a new, to create a new feudalism, in which there will be an oligarchy at the top, a very tiny minority, and the rest of humans will have very limited lives, and their very limited prospects. I actually don’t discount that. And I do think that Hitchens is right. There’s a hell of a lot of incompetence mixed up in it, at the local level.

 

But you see, this is kind of very interesting, because what’s missing here is a general conversation. We don’t have the capacity to put things out, have them corrected, come back, answer back. You know, there’s none of that happening, except in a kind of micro-way online. And as a result of that, there’s no consensus evolving. There’s a kind of a polarization of, …

 

Woes: A consensus is being imposed from above.

 

John Waters: Yes.

 

Woes: If I could just interject, I think you’re absolutely right that there is incompetence at the local level. And I would even include at the national level. I think that for years. And people have been moaning about this for years, decades really, that our politicians seem to get ever less impressive as people! They seem to be like, we don’t have statesmen.

 

I mean, and you’ve seen this in the case of Scotland, for example, we went from somebody like Donald Dear [sp] to somebody like Nicholas Sturgeon in the course of 20 years. Which is an astonishing descent! It’s just the quality of people has clearly sunk.

 

John Waters: Yeah.

 

Woes: The same same with the Tories in England. Boris is just clearly a buffoon! He’s clearly not clever. He’s clearly not capable. I dare say he has some charm at the interpersonal level, but he’s not a serious person! And. I don’t think he’s a very capable person.

 

And that goes for, I mean, Matt Hancock I’ve lambasted before on Millennial. I think he’s just utterly unimpressive as a man. He does absolutely not come across as a statesman, a man of substance, quality, education, awareness, worldliness, integrity! No! Not none of that.

 

So I think what the point I’m getting to is, I think that our politicians perhaps this has been engineered in some way that, or maybe it’s just the course of social democracy that it veers, it edges towards the mediocre, because they’re the least offensive people. So they’re the most acceptable to a large number of voters. So you get all of these, basically the institutions that make decisions at the national level rely on high quality, competent people being there, but they gradually get washed out and replaced with incompetent people.

 

So now the governments of Europe are filled with incompetent people, and bland, or very unimpressive, people. But the institutions above them, at the international level, at the globalist level, are not full of unimpressive, incompetent, people. And I think that there that’s where the orders are coming from.

 

I think that and clearly in the World Economic Forum, and so on, I suspect those are not incompetent people. I don’t think that you could do. And you don’t even have to go into conspiracy theory territory, you can just observe what they’re doing, what they’re saying. They do not seem incompetent.

 

Some people say that Klaus Schwab seems incompetent, or whatever. I think that’s just a ridiculous delusion! I think he clearly is a highly intelligent man. And I am certain that there will be people around him who are even more intelligent than him, and more capable.

 

So that’s the point that you were making. Yes, I think there’s incompetence at the local level. But I think it’s by design. And I think it enables competence at a higher level to interfere and shape what goes on in the national theaters.

 

[23:00]

 

John Waters: Yeah, I broadly agree. I mean, I do think that the reason that we have this domestic mediocrity phenomenon, it has to do with the fact, because of the our belonging to these supernational organizations, like the EU and the UN, and all these. That that was a part of, you talked about engineering, yeah. I mean, I’m sure that certainly a collateral aspect of that was that it created the culture of politics locally, by which I mean, nationally I suppose, that would no longer attracted the brightest and the best into politics, because it was seen as in a sense an inferior, having slipped, having ratcheted down, to being essentially at a local level politics, local democracy kind of level.

 

So you don’t no longer get the de Gaulle’s, or the Churchill’s, in politics. And politics in my experience in Ireland has become deeply parochial. And, you know, almost like village idiot kind of level. You will get one, or two people who are a bit more, they have better suits than the rest of them. But they’re still pretty much village idiots!

 

Woes: Yeah! [laughing]

 

John Waters: And they’re good messengers. That’s the important thing. They’re good at doing what they’re told. And they don’t have any loyalties. There’s nothing about them that cannot be bought! These are the qualities which kind of seem to make the modern, national, domestic politician.

 

Now regards the other thing, I think yeah up to a point. But I would question whether these guys, like the Klaus Schwabs, you know. And I’ve been reading his books and things. And I don’t think they really understand the human being in his totality. I don’t think they have a deep knowledge of human beings and how they really are. And maybe as opposed to how they can behave in a kind of a consumerist society, for example. I believe, this is my own belief. But it remains to be seen, that there is a deeper level which may be suppressed over time by a culture such as consumerism. But which if you push it, it will regenerate itself. That’s my sense. And we’ve seen this in history before.

 

Woes: Well I dearly hope that you’re correct. And I think you are.

 

John Waters: Yeah. So I do think this is my hope that I cling to. That these guys, I agree they’re not stupid people.

 

But there’s different kinds of intelligence as well. Like sometimes I think people can deceive people about their intelligence by simply having, for example, a very good memory, a prodigious memory, that you just remember everything you ever heard, everything you’ve ever learned. And you seem to be highly intelligent. That could be misleading. So sometimes I think when people seem to lack what we call “lack soul” [?] I think “soul” is a form of intelligence.

 

[26:02]

 

Woes: That’s such an interesting point! Because I think I know exactly what you mean. You see these technocrats and you think:

 

“Okay I can imagine you’re intelligent in this way, or that way. A good designer, a good engineer, a good planner, good with logistics. But there’s something really missing from you! There’s something really, you’re just not, …!”

 

I can’t imagine! I would not want to have a drink with you in the pub, to put it in low brow terms.

 

John Waters: That’s right. Yeah, that’s right. But there’s so many disquieting things Colin.

 

I mean, that brings us, for example, to the question of a very, very glaring question for nine months. Where are the artists? Where are the people who are supposed to have soul in abundance? Apart from van Morrison and Eric Clapton now, god bless them! But where are these people?

 

Woes: Yes. I think they’ve been enlisted, they’ve been politicized in advance of this. I mean, for the last five years, ten years, in fact, I can remember in 2005 applying for funding for an art project. And even then one of the requirements on the application form was:

 

“How will the work, the project that you’re proposing, how will it advance, promote, diversity, and equality, and multiculturalism?”

 

That was in 2005. I’m sure that in the years since then it will have just increased, and increased, and increased! And I’ve made this point myself that everything! Every cultural product, and every cultural producer, artists, musicians, and so on, seems to have the rainbow flag attached to it now! It’s emblazoned somewhere! It’s like they’re always showing allegiance to that, to globalism, to open borders, LGBT, multiculturalism! You cannot have a creative career today unless you’ve voiced support for those things.

 

John Waters: That’s right, which is a contradiction of the very concept of culture. Which is a particularity of [word unclear].

 

Woes: Yes. It’s also a contradiction of the concept of being creative, and an artist. Because they’re supposed to be outsiders! They’re supposed to be a bit different! They’re supposed to be a bit annoying and rebellious to the mainstream! That’s kind of the whole, it’s not the whole point of being an artist, but it has traditionally been a crucial part of it. And yet, they are today are as conformist as anyone.

 

John Waters: That’s right. It’s very similar, it’s analogous to what we’ve seen here in Ireland. I don’t know if you’ve had this over there. But we have intermittently our police going around with rainbows painted on their cars. This kind of thing. That’s exactly not what the police is supposed to be! Which is partisan to begin with. So if you have an argument with somebody they just point to the rainbow and say:

 

“Sorry, I can’t do anything for you, because you’ve fallen out with the wrong person.”

 

And it’s the same with the artist. I find it astonishing that artists who, … I was talking to Dave Cullen recently about it, and it’s reminding me of kind of like what’s actually happened to the artists.

 

And I know a lot of these guys, and grew up with them, and worked with them. And they all have the same kinds of outlooks. And they all appear to be positive for a long time, they seem to be the most intensely, genuinely progressive ideas that you could, … I’m not being cynical in saying that. I’m not using the word in this kind of more recent kind of incarnation.

 

But what seemed to have happened is that they lost track of the fundament, of what that was connected to. And when the whole world changed around them, and began to twist, when the nature of power began to twist. And you had all this suddenly these kind of, what we used to call “the man”, you know, in rock and roll terms. It was the corporate, you know, he’s the guy they get the suit. Suddenly they found themselves on the same side as the guy in the suit, except this guy in the suit was no longer wearing a suit, he was wearing a baseball cap, and jeans, and a [word unclear].

 

Woes: [laughing]

 

John Waters: And he was the Vice President of Google, so he was cool, you see. He was no longer “the man”, but he still was “the man”, you see. And they didn’t see that!

 

And which was kind of like in footballing terms where they kind of got caught offside without knowing it. The flag was up! The linesman was waving furiously! But they were still running, as they all was, because they assumed that the game hadn’t changed, and would never change! And they’re still out there running, you know!

 

And they think that people like myself, that we are sort of far Right, or something! When, in fact, what we’re actually doing is following the same impulse, which is to counter exploitation, and power, and corruption, and tyranny, and all these quantities in the world

 

[31:00]

 

 

Woes: Yes! And nihilism! Yeah that’s the one that’s always frightened me the most and energized me the most, because when I started my channel it was really the main thing was that I knew that, and this was in late 2013. So it’s a long time seven years ago now. I felt that life was kind of meaningless. Not, you know, life itself but the culture, the society, that we have was no longer, was not giving me the what I needed in order to be happy here. To be happy in this world!

 

So I could see it everywhere. I could see the loss of religion, the loss of national cultures and national identity, and so on, and the loss of morality in a certain way. And also the loss of faith in civilization. All of this the things that I had been, as a child in the 80s and 90s, you could believe that okay, that this is what I’m growing up into. So that this is the framework and it’ll be there still.

 

But by the time I reached 20, 25, it was not there. It had just dissolved really.

 

John Waters: Yeah.

 

Woes: And actually a good indication of this is in 1993 there was an adaptation of “The Secret Garden”, which was a really nice, I never read the book. But it was a lovely, lovely adaptation. It was extremely, really nice, rendition of England and rural England, 1993.

 

And they’ve just released a new version now, a new adaptation. And it’s got a multi-racial cast! Even though it’s set in like 1910, or whatever. So that in itself is suddenly English history and identity just becomes a product that can be given to anyone. It doesn’t matter anymore! Nothing really matters!

 

[33:00]

 

John Waters: Well you see, this is really fascinating, because you see all of that is kind of coming from a particular, it’s where those guys are running from, you know, or not away from, but just that was their starting point. Which is like the 60s and what happened in America. The eruption in the civil rights movement in the United States, and Martin Luther King and all that kind of thing. And escaping from Jim Crow and all that kind of cultural thing.

 

And therefore, you know, it became highly virtuous to take those positions.

 

But the world has changed now, because that category of person that they’re kind of mentoring, or defending, have been adopted and co-opted and weaponized by “the man” who is now using those people as, you know, literally proxies to basically infiltrate and recolonize whole societies which have these profound ancient cultures. Which they want to dismantle! We look at them when we see the baseball cap and we think:

 

“Oh, he’s cool! It’s okay! Don’t worry, nothing to worry about here.”

 

But, in fact, these guys see our cultures, … Remember Colin, you see, because we grew up in free societies we kind of assume that’s the natural order but, in fact, it’s not at all the natural order in history. It’s not. Apart from Greek and Roman civilization and then afterwards, what we would might loosely call Christian civilization, emanating out of those two, everything else is barbarism! Everything else is tyranny!

 

Woes: And yeah, and that is the natural state of man. I mean, this is a thing! The natural state of man is not freedom, love and plenty, it’s a tyranny, loathing, fear and poverty. That and starvation! That’s reality.

 

John Waters: Yes, that’s right. So I mean, I think that a lot of this stuff is delusional. I see these guys now and I’m torn, because I have a deep affection for them personally, you know? But they’re lost, because they can’t actually shake off, they can’t shake off whatever that clothing is that they’re wearing, the apparel of ideology, or attitude, that they have put on 40, 50 years ago. And they’re still wearing it. And it’s threadbare as hell!

 

And worlds change all around them and they cannot see it. And the tyrants are now different people, and different kinds of people. They’re not recognizable. It’s not Donald Trump! See it’s like a spaghetti Western still, you know, politics in the world is like a spaghetti Western, where you always know who the bad guys are, because they’ve got the droopy mustaches. And they laugh all the time, right? That’s kind of what these guys think of, that’s how they think of the world. But what happens is now is that the bad guy looks like a good guy!

 

Woes: It’s amazing, you know, because I can remember growing up as being, and absorbing, the message from American Hollywood cinema, and so on, that corporations are bad, and the Right-wing is bad! Capitalists are bad! Even though this was being delivered by a capitalist right-wing corporation, or whatever.

 

That that was the sort of thing you got like Christian evangelism, religious fundamental, these old right-wing Christians capitalists in suits! These are just the worst people on earth! Bigoted, racist, close-minded, hateful, don’t care about anyone. And I think that stereotype from yesteryear has been maintained. And that’s what is projected onto Donald Trump, today.

 

[36:40]

 

 

John Waters: I think of it as a Hunter Thompson view of the world. Which is very funny! This is the interesting thing and Hunter Thompson was a fantastic writer.

 

But he was very partial in his understanding. And he belonged to a particular slice of time in reality, which was America in the post, you know, 50s period. For maybe 25, 30 years he was the sharpest thing on the block, right? But he’s no longer is. It’s tedious now! Because, you know, it’s interesting as a kind of a theme park understanding of American reality at that time. But if you want to see the world now you shouldn’t put on those particular glasses, because they’re literally mislead you.

 

Woes: Absolutely! The American, or indeed any globalist corporation of today is not right wing in, or at least it’s right-wing in some sense perhaps, but in other ways it’s very progressive. And that’s something that it’s not accommodated by that world view at all that conception of capitalism being right-wing, corporations being capitalistic, whatever, and bigoted racists, homophobic, transphobic, no! In this era the corporations are the ones who are purveying progressivism most effectively.

 

John Waters: Yes. But you have to be careful with the word “progress” and “progressivism”, because, …

 

Woes: Yes. I’m just using it as you, …

 

John Waters: You have to use air quotes around it all the time. Because really when you look at these guys actual behavior, look at YouTube the way they’re censoring people. Look at Google, the way they’re trying to manipulate elections and filtering out information, or Twitter, lecturing the President of the United States and telling them that these tweets are not conforming to their idea what is true, and so on, unbelievable stuff!

 

And then when you actually think well what do these guys want? Well they want to be all-powerful! And they actually think their motives are benign. Which is kind of like if you go back to things like the Milgram Experiment. Which was the core idea at the heart of all that experiment.

 

And the Stanford prison one which was that what those guys were going to be doing, was going to further science and make the world a better place. So just keep pushing, giving those shocks, because you’re going to be doing good work. You know, don’t worry, don’t let your conscience get in the way. Don’t worry about that, we’ll worry about that. And it’s the same thing.

 

So these guys claim to be doing good. But at the heart of what they’re doing is the idea that they know best! They know better. And that is the end of freedom! Because they don’t they see freedom as a problem, because freedom allows ignorant, stupid people to actually decide their own futures. And that cannot be allowed!

 

[39:35]

 

Woes: Yes. Yes. And I think a lot of leftists, liberals, progressives drew that conclusion in 2016. As recently as 2016 when the Brexit happened and then Trump was voted in. Prior to, I think from 2012, 2013, there’s a clip of one of the founders of Google, I think Sergey Brin, saying that, and he was saying this is a good thing, celebrating this:

 

“That we’re reaching a point where censorship on the internet will literally be impossible!”

 

He was celebrating that in 2012. Four years later Trump got elected. To some extent, because of free speech on the internet.

 

So what did Google do? They did a complete about face! And now they want censorship, because they realize that, or they’ve concluded that if you give people absolute freedom of speech things might happen that you don’t want to happen. Because your side will not always win the debate.

 

John Waters: Well that’s, of course, the Mercuzian [?] idea of repressive tolerance, you know, going back, .

 

Woes: Yes!

 

John Waters: You can actually virtually see that now in culture! It seeps out of almost every conversation you hear now this subtext in a political context. Which is this idea that:

 

“Well, it’s okay to do that to that kind of person, because they’re not a good person! They’re a bad person! There are bad ideas! They’re bad thoughts!”

 

You know, he’s far-Right!

 

Woes: And this is why it seems like a replacement for religion, because the Right-winger, or whatever. I mean, I don’t even consider myself very right wing to be honest.

 

John Waters: Me neither! I’m not in the slightest right wing in any meaningful sense. I balk at being called a “Conservative” because, you know, look at the Conservatives! I don’t know!

 

Woes: Well [laughing], the point is that, … And yeah, I know exactly what you mean. I feel the same. But the point is that people like us are used as the “sinners” in this new religion.

 

John Waters: Yes.

 

Woes: And I think it plugs into a part of human psychology that’s just theirs. It literally is you see something what we’ve been told for decades is people love a scapegoat! They love to blame everything on one person in the community, and point at him and unleash all their frustrations on him! It’s actually true! Because [laughing] they that’s what they’re doing now with us! [loud laughing]

 

John Waters: Yeah. There’s a lot of hatred stored up. And, you know, something it actually works, and it’s terrifying, if you actually think it through. Because people can actually come to believe these concepts, and they stick. And people don’t actually know anything about you, of course, now, you. Because they only know what they’re told. And it’s like a tweet. And this is who you are. And so it’s quite terrifying actually what some of this stuff where it can lead, potentially.

 

But it’s very interesting to kind of contextualize this in the Covid. It struck me right along the way. I believe that if you move closer to the David Ike pole of all this you kind of have to see Covid as, if Ike is right, then Covid is the most ingenious conceptualization that the world has ever seen, virtually. In terms of a socio-political psyop.

 

Because just think what they’ve done. I mean, you talk about sense. And they’ve actually turned the capacity of human beings to become infectious with disease with pathogens which are necessary for their own survival, because they are what keeps the body strong, right? They’ve made that into virtually a crime now. That if you actually contract a seasonal bug and you’re in public, and you cough, everybody looks at you. It is like virtually now a public order offense.

 

[43:41]

 

Woes: Well it’s a sequel to the climate change, 10 years ago, 12 years ago. They’ve effectively made a sin out of the fact that you consume the EU’s carbon. So I mean, every living life form requires carbon, and so on. But they made that into something bad! The sort of unavoidable, fundamental, biological fact, of every human being suddenly becomes something that you can hold against them!

 

John Waters: Yeah, well you see all of these things, this is what I mean, by it being frightening. Because actually, now going back and we’re kind of bringing the whole thing if you think of that idea, the concept of “furniture” in a certain sense, now the “furniture” is virtual in our world. And it’s we live in a virtual world. It’s like that Jean Baudrillard* idea that we are in a simulacrum of reality. And it’s almost not a metaphor anymore. I don’t know if you ever intended as a metaphor. But it actually isn’t really a metaphor now.

 

[* Simulacra and Simulation — Simulacra and Simulation is a 1981 philosophical treatise by the sociologist Jean Baudrillard, in which the author seeks to examine the relationships between reality, symbols, and society, in particular the significations and symbolism of culture and media involved in constructing an understanding of shared existence. Source: Wikipedia].

 

And we’re actually now living in this place where these concepts that are being generated around us, are changing the way we think. And drawing us into an imagination that is not our own. So that Covid is now an imaginative zone. And it is possible you can divide the world. And you can actually scapegoat people very easily within that world if they don’t conform.

 

I mean, it is now plausible that, you just think about it, Colin. I mean, I was involved in taking a legal action here in Ireland in about this. It’s still going on, because we have an appeal in January. We got knocked back in the same way Simon Dolan got knocked back in the UK. But we’re still in the game.

 

But this was about the constitutional freedoms that were being usurped in this whole thing.

 

But when you think about it, now people are now talking openly, journalists are writing articles about it, it being quite acceptable that people who don’t take a vaccine — which is untested, untried, may actually cause all kinds of damage physically and otherwise to people — that if you don’t take it you will be banned from all kinds of things! Including like traveling, going into shops, going to theaters, going to cinemas, going to sporting fixtures. This is what I mean, about the furniture having been taken away!

 

Woes: And that’s for a virus that has a 99.6 survival rate! I mean, this is absolutely insane! And a year ago. I don’t think if you told people this is going to be the situation in December 2020, …. I don’t think they’d have believed you! I think that it took this months, and months, of fear-mongering of the public.

 

One thing I wanted to put to you actually, or do you want to finish that line of thought first?

 

[46:28]

 

 

John Waters: Well just to say yeah, that’s right. But I just again kind of pick up what you said there, because it’s interesting. You the way you phrased that was interesting, because I sometimes would face things like that as well, of saying this for a virus that is a 99.6 recovery rate.

 

But what if there is no virus? What if there is no pandemic? What if this is all like a conjuring trick in the [word unclear]. So that what if it’s all about the other stuff? What if it’s all about the responses and the actual thing doesn’t even matter? You know, it doesn’t matter if it’s a 99.9999999, for the Covid, recovery rate! It will be all the same to them.

 

And that’s the only thing. That’s the line, or the tight-rope I’m teetering on now. I just don’t know whether to believe any of it, or believe none of it!

 

Woes: Well, that’s part of the scary thing about all of this, is that you obviously can’t trust the mainstream media anymore.

 

John Waters: No! No.

 

Woes: You’d be a fool to think that, yeah, by default I’ll I can trust the mainstream media. Because, at this point, they’ve been they’re so politicized and so in lockstep with the government and the scientific community, and so on. And they never seem to seriously question anything that the government does. So you cannot rely on them anymore.

 

John Waters: You can’t! No. And again. I mean, I have the same questions about them. I mean, I worked with some of these guys. And they were bright journalists and there were not so bright ones. But I kind of wonder. I almost like to go back to a newsroom for a day and sit there in the corner, or go to the news conferences and just try to say:

 

“Are these guys really as stupid as they seem to be now?”

 

Could they be that stupid, you know? Because I mean, it’s that Hitchens thing again. Hitchens, Ike thing. Are they stupid, or do they know what they’re doing?

 

Woes: Yes, I find it difficult to believe that they don’t know what they’re doing at a certain level. But I’m willing to believe that the politicians at the national level are just following orders! That they’re just doing what they’re told. And they don’t understand and they don’t need to understand. They don’t care to understand, I think. I can believe that.

 

What I can’t believe is that the likes of Matt Hancock actually believes what he’s saying. That just doesn’t seem, he just seems oily, and slimy, and untrustworthy to me.

 

[49:00]

 

John Waters: Yeah this is the puzzle! It’s quite amazing at that level alone. There’s so many amazing kind of layers in this. And that’s one of them.

 

Where I look at Boris Johnson and I say does he realize that he has become evil? To the apprehension of any sentient person this man is now pure evil! And this is a guy who wrote a book about Churchill! Who saved the world from Fascism! And he seems to want to undo the work of Churchill*, while still lionizing his reputation. I mean, it’s quite extraordinary really when you think about it in these terms.

 

[*John needs to read some revisionist history on Churchill, etc — K]

 

Woes: I think that Boris Johnson is, I mean, you’re right that he is on the side of, … He’s done a very bad, … Let’s just, I’m trying to think what’s YouTube friendly to say here. He’s done a cruel thing by denying us Christmas, let’s put it that way [chuckling]. So that that is he’s venturing into the realms of evil in that sense by stealing Christmas.

 

But also he has, well he’s taken part in this whole thing over this whole year. He’s the deliverer to the British people of this thing! This disaster! This unfolding nonsense. But one thing I wanted to put to you is that, … This idea that it’s been months, months, and months, of fear-mongering. But the thing that seems to be, because you obviously wonder how can they get people this under control? How can they get people this afraid?

 

So my theory that I want to put to you is in an age where there was mass religion, you probably wouldn’t be able to do this to people. So something like Covid, to get them afraid of dying from something. Because I simply don’t think that, … People would have thought:

 

“Well it’s more important that I live an honorable life, because I’ve got the afterlife, and my soul is what matters.”

 

In a godless age people believe in their biological reality. They believe in their physical body. They care about their health and not much else. And therefore if you can threaten their health, or make them think that their health is threatened. You’ve got them, you’ve got them!

 

John Waters: Bingo! Yeah, I think that’s right. I think there’s so many fascinating aspects of this, it’s incredible!

 

But just to take a couple of things you say there, I think that’s dead right I mean, one of the things is that we’ve come to an era where death was basically pushed, as it were, underground, culturally. You know, that it was pushed out of sight to whatever extent that was possible.

 

And I grew up in a small town in the West of Ireland, like 2,000 people, so death is always in your face there. In the sense that everybody, a certain number of people die every year, at different times. And you have the same kind of patterns that you now see in the graphs to do with flu and all the rest of it. Because like this time of year older people would die in quite significant numbers, and into January and February, and then it would tail off coming up towards March.

 

And then every so often what you would see that a person, maybe once every like four, or five times a year in a town of that size, somebody would die who ought not to have died. It would be complete shock, a very young person, or somebody who just everybody would be shocked.

 

So you kind of get familiarity with death. And then the culture of that was the funeral, everybody would go and, you know, people would talk it through. But if you go in the city, in the modern world, that’s kind of pushed out of sight. And I think what actually Covid has done is to kind of reintroduce death to the public as if it were a completely new thing! It’s a new threat.

 

Woes: But also as if it has a neat easy solution.

 

John Waters: Yes! Yeah, well there’s a paradox there in the sense that you don’t really believe that they want to save lives, but that they’re able to use that as a kind of moral blackmail. You have to!

 

But also the fact I think there has been here something that you would call “mass hypnosis”, by the use of the media. I think this is a thing that we’ve only a very rudimentary understanding of propaganda at this level.

 

You just remember Colin, we’re in an era that has this kind of mass media, 24-7 news channels, all kinds of channels, soap opera, movie channels, Netflix, you name it! And so people are immersed in something else, in different worlds to an extent that never was true before. Even up to 20 years ago it wasn’t true in the world.

 

[53:40]

 

Woes: Oh yeah.

 

John Waters: So this is a completely new thing. And this is what I think it counts to large part for what I’d earlier described as the shock, or surprise that these tyrants are finding such an easy passage for their tyranny. It’s so much easier, because of this, you know.

 

And one of the reasons for that is that I think that these technologies, mass media, television in particular, allows for a process of mass entrancement, which essentially bypasses the reason and takes you right into the lizard brain!

 

If you think about it, like most people when they come home from work they might catch the six o’clock news. And then they have their TV dinner and they sit watching like two hours of soap opera. And then they see the nine o’clock news. So their minds are tuned, imagination, the hypnosis works big time on the imagination, I’m creating an imaginative state which you can then be placed into. And the lizard brain is a place where there’s a devoid of reason.

 

So what’s in there is emotion, pure emotion. And once you’re transported there and you have fear waiting for you, you can be manipulated in all kinds of ways without even knowing. Because you become convinced that this is absolutely true. And the truth is not the fact! The truth is the terror! And that’s what they’ve done.

 

Woes: Yeah, I think you’re absolutely right! That it can only be the case that they have learned, “they”, certain powers, have learned how to use media to manipulate people. If they haven’t done that then what the hell have they been doing for the last 70 years? Obviously they’ve been doing that! Obviously there are hundreds of studies and research papers into this topic. How to manipulate the masses with media.

 

And, of course, that includes also internet era media where it’s not something that’s being broadcast to five million people at the same time, it’s an advert that each person will see at their own pace. And it will slide into their life and slide out, but it will leave some sort of trace. And then that will marry up with the traces from other adverts that they see, other [word unclear] of media that they see.

 

[56:00]

 

John Waters: And the culture provides no mechanism for monitoring this. You think about we talk, and talk, and talk, about virtually everything. But one thing you can be certain we never talk about is this process, because they control the process.

 

So we don’t know, we know about other stuff, we know a little bit about virtually everything perhaps. But, because we don’t get shown this we assume, well it never occurs that something like this could possibly exist. And in a way that’s kind of what media in general has become now. It’s a process whereby people’s imaginations are managed.

 

Woes: Yes. And I absolutely agree that it works at a subconscious and very vague level. It’s very difficult to pin down. But the thing is if people are not influenced by what they see then, … Well first of all, advertising simply wouldn’t work, but also there wouldn’t need to be any sort of moral judgment of what is shown, like in TV dramas, films, and so on. There always has been, because people understand:

 

“Yeah, of course, this stuff is going to influence people.”

 

Seeing somebody shooting someone in the head is not going to make every viewer go out and shoot someone in the head! That’s ridiculous! That’s an absurd caricature of the idea that that media influences people.

 

But seeing a cool character doing something, or saying something, or believing something, might well influence people to think:

 

“Well, I want to be a cool guy as well! So I’ll do that thing. I’ll say that thing. I’ll believe that thing! I’ll find a way to accommodate that belief into my life. Because I want to be a cool guy!”

 

John Waters: That’s right. But I think this thing is also like you watch three, or four soap operas, they’re pretty trite most of them, but they do take you to a certain kind of level of emotional engagement.

 

And then you watch the news. And the news is presented in a kind of a similar way. It’s kind of all human interest stories and stuff like that. So it’s seamless. That kind of emotional state is continued into the real accounts, supposedly, of the real world. So you’re actually not ever back in the real world. You’re not actually a reasonable apprehending human being at all. You’re simply absorbing this stuff. And they’ve managed this really cleverly.

 

So we still [word unclear] you see, because the The Guardian, or the Irish Times, or the BBC, still have the same logo, the same kind of masthead, or the same insignia on the screen. That it’s the same thing. But actually they’ve changed their product. It’s literally like they’ve gone from selling sausages to selling coal, or something like that, but they didn’t tell anybody. And you still think it’s sausages that you get in your bag but it’s actually black stuff, and you can’t eat it, you know! [Woes chuckles]

 

And that’s kind of something like what’s happened with the media. And this has been central! I do think that if Ike is right, that one of the things that has happened, that these people behind this, the architects of this whole strategy, identify this moment as being one which was the optimal moment of the decline of the media. That they were not quite powerless, because they still had a residual audience, and still power on that basis. But relatively powerless to the extent that they were waning, they were running out of money, and so therefore they could be bought! And not just bought, but bought pretty cheaply!

 

Woes: Yes. Indeed! Well one particular aspect of this conditioning of people is that, … And this is something I could really go on about this at length, but I’ll say it concisely. That non-fashionable opinions are made non-fashionable. But then also made unmentionable, or disgusting, reprehensible, by the way, that they are presented on TV, or the way that they’re ignored, or dismissed in news, and current affairs things. But especially the way that they’re presented in dramas, in fiction. So, you know, obviously a conservative character will always be a bit of an idiot! Or it’ll be a bad person, and so on.

 

And I think that you see this. I mean, there are examples I could go into contemporary TV that are staggering! And I’m going to be doing videos about that next year.

 

But that brings me back to something I wanted to pick up on earlier. Which was, because we were talking about why do artists today not rebel. And I think part of it is exactly this! That they grew up, especially artistic people, tend to grow up immersing themselves in media. And so they get this idea that, well they see the range of possible opinions and they acclimatize themselves to that. So really:

 

“Okay, I want to be a rebel! I want to be outrageous! I want to be a bit different. I want to annoy people a bit. I want to be a eccentric, whatever. So I will have that opinion which is even further Left than you’re supposed to go. But I definitely won’t go Right-wing! Because that means I would be an evil person.”

 

And Right-wing in this sense that that spectrum could be used to denote anything that:

 

“Basically I’ll be even more fashionable than you’re supposed to be, but I’ll definitely not be unfashionable!”

 

And I think that this has this effect that the artists simply don’t realize that there are options.

 

[61:51]

 

John Waters: The first thing that must occur to you then Colin is that actually these are not artists at all, because by definition an artist is somebody who’s capable of seeing through all of this. You’d imagine that that an artist, say a great novelist should be able to see this and write a novel which captures all of the contradictions of this. But actually it hasn’t happened.

 

I don’t think that they’re actually any novelist, apart from perhaps Michelle Welbeck, who has actually addressed these kind of things in the modern world, and these kind of contradictions.

 

But you’re dead right! It’s an amazing thing. I mean, that kind of idea of the “bad person”, again it’s the Spaghetti Western thing. I mean, I used to talk about this, kind of humorously, back in the day when we thought it was still a joke. The conservative on the TV panel always had dandruff! That’s essential. The conservative has to be a kind of a guy who wears a tweed jacket, right? And a sweater underneath, a vee-neck sweater underneath, and a shirt and tie then, and dandruff! Because that’s what nobody wants to be, right? No male wants to be this in the modern world.

 

[63:00]

 

And that’s a part of the drama that’s staged. It’s not that the guy, you know, is necessarily anything other than he could be a very bright smart guy, who just doesn’t care how he looks. Fine!

 

But actually it suits the dramatists in the media, in the TV show, to get him on. Because then he can be defeated in a kind of a symbolic way and look terrible in modern terms. And therefore put people off, not just himself, but everything he believes and everything he says. And in that context therefore the more articulate he is in expressing his own ideas, the more he repels people! This is the amazing thing about it.

 

Woes: That really is amazing isn’t it? Because then you’re turning him against himself, you’re turning his abilities against him.

 

John Waters: Yes you are.

 

Woes: So yeah, that’s amazing. But yeah, all of this bears further thought.

 

But one thing I wanted to ask you about from earlier that you briefly mentioned I think would be very interesting to ask you more about is. You said that people don’t have political conversations anymore.

 

Now that might surprise a young person to hear that, because they think that people are constantly going on like in school, in university, about equality, diversity, multiculturalism, LGBT, and, of course, now Covid, which has become a political issue in a strange sense, in that moral sense. All political issues now are moral issues. So Covid is as much a political issue as LGBT. It’s all the same thing.

 

Yeah, so maybe I’ve just inadvertently answered the question for myself. But would you like to say, what do you mean when you say that people don’t have political conversations anymore? Could you explain that given that it would seem to a lot of people that they do?

 

John Waters: Well yeah, I mean, they actually put out stuff that sounds political but they don’t have any involvement in it. They simply regurgitate what is given to them. So they’re programmed.

 

For example, one of the things they constantly have a obsession with of certain kinds of people. In fact, an awful lot is the idea of “racism”. And they see it everywhere. They feel it everywhere, even when it doesn’t exist. And mostly it doesn’t actually. But they see this necessity to kind of “defeat racism”.

 

I mean, you saw it in the context of the “Black Lives Matter” stuff in like remote places like Ireland, where there’s no connection whatsoever! People are excited and they’re marching on the street, because of this guy called George Floyd. And if you actually point out to them, that this guy last engagement with the law was that he held a loaded gun to the belly of a pregnant woman, they’d call you a “racist” for that, right! That’s a racist thing to say, you see.

 

So like this is a kind of form of craziness! I mean, it’s not politics in any sense at all. I mean, it couldn’t be further from any engagement between people and, you know, stories, narratives, facts.

 

[66:00]

 

It’s actually about attitudinalizing. It’s about a part of their own personality, their identity. This is about virtue. And that they must be seen to be good. It’s very important, because in the culture that has been generated around them, electronically, there is this constant threat that they will be pointed at. It’s almost like that that moment, where it’s the kind of moment when Saint Peter was when after Jesus was arrested. And everybody seems to be saying to me:

 

“Weren’t you with him? Oh no! No, not me! Not me.”

 

And that’s kind of what it is. That’s the politics now:

 

“Not me! No, no. I’m not! I’m actually the opposite of racist! I am the opposite. I’m so pro LGBT that I want to be gay myself! I am gay actually! I’m allowed to mention it. I’ve decided I’m gay!”

 

That’s the kind of way they kind of go on! And it’s nothing to do with politics at all! It’s actually, because they’re so terrified of being identified as somebody who is, you know, demonic, that has been demonized.

 

And I can understand that for kids, it’s a very terrible thing! Because even for old fellas like me, it takes you a while to get used to the fact that people are calling you names and they’re having the faintest idea who you are, what you’ve ever said about anything.

 

The only thing I can say is. I mean, I get this all the time where, you know, newspapers, or TV stations, tell me they’re going to write, do a profile of me. And I say:

 

“Well, okay, but I’ve written like about 2,000 articles, and I’ve done about, I don’t know, 100 documentaries. And so you’ll need to be making sure you read everything. And I’ve written 10 books. So make sure you read all that, before you do anything and see how you get on.”

 

Because they haven’t read anything!

 

Woes: Yes.

 

John Waters: So that’s enough to shut them up, because they know that.

 

Woes: But it’s interesting in the same way that a political conversation is really just a virtue conversation today. A profile of someone like you, or indeed me, is no longer a profile of you. It’s just a hit piece! It’s just a virtue of the writer, saying:

 

“This guy’s a bad guy! And, you know, that I’m a good person, because I’m pointing out all the horrible things about him!”

 

And that’s it!

 

John Waters: Yeah. It’s like Wikipedia! It’s like your Wikipedia entry is written by your enemies! You’re just, ..

 

Woes: Yeah oh! Yeah!

 

John Waters: There’s no point in fighting it. You just let it happen, and you assume that anybody who’s intelligent enough to be interested in what you’re saying in the first place, isn’t going to take it seriously. That’s all you can do.

 

But you’re always wrong about that, or very often wrong. Because you go somewhere abroad to speak and they read it out in its totality, you know! [laughing out loud] So there you go! But yeah, this is amazing stuff actually!

 

I mean, there’s a lot of good writing about some of this stuff now. Douglas Murray and people like that. The Madness of Crowds, very good book. And there’s quite a lot of commentary about all this.

 

But there’s a lack of commentary I think, about the kind of deeper, that “furniture” concept of reality. The way the furniture’s changed without anybody knowing it during the middle of the night. Somebody’s coming and whipped all the old stuff away. And now you don’t know what anything is anymore. And you certainly couldn’t walk across the room in the dark as you used to be able to do.

 

Woes: Absolutely! And this year has absolutely accelerated in this year!

 

And something I mentioned in another episode of Millenniyule, was I realized that quite recently about, I don’t know, within the last year, I realized that you used to hear people saying, people used to use the expression “it’s a free world”, or “it’s a free country”. We used to use that all the time. When I was a kid, and a teenager, you used to hear people saying that all the time:

 

“Yeah, you can do that. It’s a free country!”

 

And I realized that I hadn’t heard it in about 10 years! It’s like it’s something that’s just disappeared! Like we now instinctively, even with before the Covid thing, but especially since, the Covid thing now fits into this new mindset, we have. But even before then, I think we’d already become habituated to the idea that it’s not a free country! That’s what you shouldn’t expect it to be!

 

[70:24]

 

John Waters: Well exactly! And that it’s a good thing that it’s not a free country, actually. And that’s the Marcusian idea again. That’s the idea that freedom benefits very bad people, people who have bad ideas. And they shouldn’t be allowed to have those ideas. And if they have they should be made to keep them to themselves, type of thing, you know.

 

And I think you can see that in a lot of polls now about younger people. That their idea is that they don’t necessarily believe in free speech anymore, and all this stuff. Which they have no idea what that means, of course, because they don’t know how the other furniture used to fit together and why it was so essential. And what the world would be like without it. They have no idea! Because they assume the world will be what it is anyway just without the bad stuff, right?

 

Woes: Exactly, but they don’t realize once you’ve taken out the underlying structure, guess what? Anything can happen!

 

John Waters: Anything can happen then. Yeah. But you’re right about the Covid thing, that’s very interesting. And it’s something I have still haven’t gotten my head around this kind of way that Covid actually came, was born, in a certain ideological address. It’s like it was fully formed, it came out as a left-wing phenomenon. It’s amazing! And every left-wing person knew that they should be on one side.

 

Woes: Absolutely! There’s very much a polarization along the political spectrum.

 

John Waters: Yeah.

 

Woes: Obviously there are Right-wingers who are up for it as well, and there are few some left-wingers who are against it, but by and large, it’s clearly, as you say, that the Left loved Covid and the lockdowns. The Right wingers don’t like it! It’s a very strange thing.

 

John Waters: Yeah, I was thinking, like if I went back to when I was working in the Irish Times say, maybe 20 years ago, and good to go to a weekly features conference. And sitting talking about this new pandemic, or this new virus.

 

In a million years, you know, you couldn’t imagine the kind of conversation that would make it clear that certain people were believing in this and determined to take it seriously, and that others were clearly skeptical from the off. And that you could actually predict their views on other matters as well from that like that.

 

Woes: When do you think that became the case? Because I’m pretty sure that even in the 90s like if you met someone who was broadly left-wing, they might well have some Right-wing ideas and vice versa. Whereas I think like, at this point, no! It’s like a whole package.

 

[73:00]

 

John Waters: I think it goes back actually a little bit, or maybe quite a lot to what you’re really saying about religion. The point you’re making about religion. That actually that vacuum that opened up post religion.

 

Okay, I put it like this, you know, when we were kids we were intensely, I grew up in the Western Ireland in the 60s. Religion, Christianity, Catholicism, was a huge central part of your life, you know. And I mean, I’ve written a lot about this. And people misunderstand, because they think you’re kind of advocating everything to do with Catholicism.

 

But what I’m talking about is culturally, like we live in a pretty basic kind of house. But there was one sumptuous house that you could always walk into and treat as your own in a certain sense. The church! And you could stay there all day if you wanted to, in this building beautiful building. And so there was an affiliation from that and the sense that in terms of belief in Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ was with you in every room you ever entered, in a sense, that was possible to make that imaginative connection.

 

Now if you think that kids who grew up without that idea. I mean, one of the things about that is that you can offload all the fears and anxieties, and worries, and sadnesses that you have onto this being in a certain way. But if you don’t have that. What do you do?

 

And I think what actually happened is that a lot of young people have grown up seeing the State in some kind of analogous way to that, in a certain way, depersonalized perhaps, or to some extent personalized occasionally in the figure say maybe a Boris Johnson, or a Leo Rateher in Ireland, becomes this figure. Or Macron, or something. That maybe imaginably for a short time you can identify with this person in that way. And that’s sufficient to keep it going. And in that sense that makes the Covid connection really clear. That this is something that the State wants us to believe and therefore we do.

 

Woes: Yeah I actually wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up being not figures of the State but figures of private corporations, who we see as central to our survival. In an age when the only good in life is physical health, well then why not worship the President of Pfizer corporation?

 

John Waters: Well. But I think where we’re going Colin, I mean, we’re going to the kind of a public-private idea of government I mean, this is the amazing thing that democracy is now really in the “exit lounge”! And we never thought that was possible.

 

Like we grew up, you know, democracy was the highest virtue in public civic life, right?

 

But now it’s not! It’s kind of like seeing it as a little bit inconvenient. Because it allows all these stupid people to have a say in how things are run. And so again these things can be [word unclear].

 

And this is the amazing thing! I’ve said this before, the analogy that I use is that when I hear all these, … I mean, I’ve grown up with these people and in righteous circles whether it’s in artistic circles, journalistic circles, progressive circles, obviously democracy was the highest value! And believing in the people and in egalitarianism, and the Right to free speech. All these things. And you kind of now begin to see a lot of the people who actually said that are beginning to back away from it! They’re saying:

 

“Maybe, …”

 

And this is interesting, because you kind of think:

 

“Oh! They never really believed in that. It was just that there was nothing else on the table.”

 

Now they think there is. That there’s some kind of new system that will benefit them more than others.

 

Woes: Yes! Technocracy! Sort of corporatism.

 

[76:01]

 

John Waters: Yeah. And so I think we’re moving towards, it seems, the nightmare scenario that we seem to be moving towards is some kind of mixture of Google and the Chinese Communist Party, you know, social credit systems which are watching your every move, measuring your every thought.

 

Woes: Yes, oh yes! Yeah. And, of course, Google being so tied into every aspect of your life that could be very easy for them to judge your credit rating on what you’ve been looking at online, and so on. In fact, there was an article the other day advocating that.

 

John Waters: Yeah, I kind of often wonder, or not often, but occasionally I wonder like is there any hope for people like myself, and maybe yourself as well Colin? Like what would we have to do in order to bring ourselves back to zero on the social credit system? [Woes laughing out loud] So that we could start on January the first with a clean sheet! Like what would we have to do? We probably have a brain transplant, or something, you know?

 

Woes: Yeah! I would think so, yeah!

 

John Waters: I’d have to hang around until George Soros dies, and get his brain, or something like that. And have a transplant. And then I’d be okay to go! Presuming that nothing terrible happens to me in the interim.

 

Woes: Yeah, I don’t know what! It’s an amusing idea! It really is, because I think that the thing is they need people like us anyway. They need people like us to point toc and be the villains. Even when we’re obviously not villains! I mean, I’m going to speak for myself here, and that may sound a bit vain. But I don’t believe I’m a bad guy! [chuckling]

 

John Waters: We should all get those droopy mustaches and laugh laugh at everything! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

 

Woes: Give them what they want! It’s a very strange world that we live in! And as you said, it got a hell of a lot stranger this year. But again we’re going to see what happens next year.

 

[79:00]

 

John Waters: One of the things I’ve been saying to various people, including Dave and others, is that optimism now is something we have to park, you know, in the sense that we’re going to be wrong in what we predict, or what we expect, or how we anticipate. And it’ll probably be worse than we think.

 

So, what we have to do is, you know, not fix ourselves on any kind of outcome, because we’re going to be disappointed, and we’re constantly going to get feeling that we’re kind of being knocked back. We’ve got to assume we’re going to work through this. And we’ve got to keep ourselves sane to get to the point where we can see clearly what we’re dealing with. And then confront that. And then summon up. Not that it would be us, because it won’t. Our only function Colin, is to kind of be around still speaking for long enough to waken up the rest of our fellows.

 

And I think that for the reason that I alluded there, that I do think that the Klaus Schwabs, they do not understand the human spirit in its depths. And they don’t understand at a certain point you awaken something, which is absolutely indefatigable, if you push it too far.

 

Woes: Yeah, I agree and hope you’re right. And I do believe that you’re right about that. Before we end that, because let me go through some questions that have been put to you:

 

“Has John seen the Covid hysteria in Irish soap drama Fair City? It’s probably the worst propaganda out there in Irish television.”

 

John Waters: No I don’t watch that stuff. I never watched that stuff ever actually, I never watched that particular one. I did watch Brookside one time for a little while. And then it got really bad, so I stopped. I don’t know, I can imagine. Well, I can’t imagine, I guess.

 

But I know what you mean. I know what they would do. That’s kind of what it’s for. I think that’s something we have to understand that actually that, however that works. An amazing study actually to see how they manage to get people who seem to be just doing a job writing a script, fictional script, for a soap opera. How do they get them to do that? That’s amazing!

 

Nobody’s ever written a book actually describing that actual process. I’ve kind of tried to do it in journalism, because it has something to do with being loved. The desire we all have to be loved. And if you feel that you’re going to lose the affection of people you will almost do anything to stop that happening. I think that’s kind of what happens. But no, I haven’t seen it, but I can imagine in a general sense how awful it is.

 

Woes: Yes, I’m the same. Whenever I hear about modern TV, I haven’t watched it. But I can only imagine and I’m still dreading watching the new Doctor Who with the women. I haven’t watched any of it yet. But every single thing I hear about it is just appalling! So but yeah, that’s another matter really.

 

John Waters: I threw my TV out about five years ago.

 

Woes: Yeah, I’m the same. Okay:

 

“What do you envision as an ideal form of future Irish governance?”

 

John Waters: Well I think an Irish government will be a good start! One that actually was loyal to Ireland, and the Irish people.

 

But I actually think there are many kind of, if we could clear the decks of all this stuff, some promising kind of resonances now. I mean, for example, this whole idea of a united Ireland. Which is a big question. I don’t believe in it on the present terms, it’s never going to happen.

 

But the amazing thing is that if you actually look now at the landscape of Irish ideology, and you actually see that the real Irish nationalist, the person who kind of loves Ireland, and wants Ireland to be an autonomous place, an autonomous country, has a hell of a lot more in common with the most extreme, as it were, I don’t mean that in the pejorative sense at all, the people of the furthest end of the Unionist spectrum.

 

Ideologically we’re much closer than we ever imagined. I mean, in all the other things the value systems that we would share in terms about how humans live together, how they actually see the world, the civilizational values that we share. All those things which have been hidden from us in the last 50 years of conflict. So I think there’s a future there.

 

But I think we have a hell of a lot of a mess to clear out the way before we start get back to any of those questions.

 

Woes: Yes. Exactly. We’re so much in the abyss here it’s difficult to think of what you would build if you weren’t in the abyss!

 

[83:39]

 

John Waters: It’s like the joke about the guy in Kerry in the south of Ireland. The traveler from Dublin stops and asked them the way to Cork. And he says:

 

“Well I think, well if you go, no I’ll tell you. If I was you I wouldn’t start from here!”

 

[Woes laughing loudly]

 

Woes: Very good! Okay there are two other comments here. They’re not questions. But I believe this guy has left them for you. So I’ll just read them out:

 

“People enslaved to man, because they are no longer ready to be made free by being a slave to god!”

 

And then he gives a Latin phrase. I don’t know if that’s familiar to you?

 

John Waters: No.

 

Woes: No? Yes, it’s just strange wording.

 

John Waters: Yeah, well I mean, you know, it depends. You could read that in different ways. But there’s some truth in the sense that, I mean, I’m not sure how he intends it.

 

But what I would say is that the idea of god, shall we say, has actually enabled men to transcend their own tendency to tyranny in lots of ways. And more often I think than the opposite has happened. I mean, of course, there is the other different factional forms of religion that can end up in conflict as well.

 

But I think there’s an impulse in human beings which they want to, they have a desire to move beyond this reality. That’s what drives us. I think that if we actually are centered on the world itself alone that somehow we just get grounded down into in the mud of reality.

 

So I know it’s a big question, but I’m not sure exactly what his intention was with that.

 

Woes: Yes. Yes. Well I think that. I mean, I think it echoes what we were saying earlier that if you’re too much tied down into the biology of here and now then that that is very limiting, spiritually.

 

John Waters: It is. And it’s also where things like what we call depression, and all those things come from, is we haven’t managed to find, whether you believe in god, or don’t believe in god, we actually have not, in our so-called modernity, developed an ideology, or a view of the world, which allows us to function in the same way as religion did through thick and thin.

 

[86:13]

 

Woes: Yes. Yes. Okay. Someone, the same guy, says:

 

“As societies collapse morally their institutions lie to and exploit the people, because they are exploitable.”

 

John Waters: Yeah.

 

Woes: I mean, these aren’t questions. It’s just posted these as sort of remarks. But, of course, yes I agree, as society’s collapsed morally institutions become corrupt.

 

John Waters: Yeah, they do. And fear is a big thing. I don’t think that we really understand, no sorry, that’s not fair. I think that we don’t have fully in front of us at all times, to the extent that I think we should, to see it in proportion, the importance of fear in our lives! Big fears, small fears, every day little fears. Like the fear of going to sleep at night, the fear of waking up in the morning, the fear of opening a letter from somebody you don’t know where it’s come from. All these things are there working away at us. And we don’t think about that. It’s phenomenal!

 

And what’s actually happening now in this post-religious area era, is that it’s erupting in the hearts of our children. And we don’t know what it is, because they don’t have that place to go to deposit it, you know, as it were “at the lotus feet of the lord”, as Khalid Khan put it. And I think that’s kind of something we need to think about.

 

I mean, this is a big area Colin. And again it’s very dangerous, because people assume that you’re evangelizing in some way, or another. I’m not! I’m a great fan of Joseph Campbell and the way he talks about the origins of religion and all that, as well as being, you know, a Christian as well. And I don’t necessarily see a contradiction between the two, because it’s about imagination, fundamentally.

 

And I think what has happened in the last, very much visibly in Ireland last 50 years, very, very recent. These happened in the broader world in a much over a longer period. But in Ireland it’s probably in 20, 30 years, that we’ve actually abandoned that dimension of our culture, as though it could be jettisoned like, I don’t know, just like yesterday’s newspaper! Well I can tell you can do without yesterday’s newspaper a lot more easily than you can do without the concept of god! Whatever about god himself.

 

Woes: Oh yeah. Yeah, absolutely! And I’m not religious myself. But I can see, … And this has always been a part of my channel that people in general seem to need god, or seem to function better if they live as if god is real.

 

John Waters: Yes.

 

Woes: And also for the purposes of that social unity, setting moral standards in society. For those reasons as well, religion is good, is useful, and healthy.

 

[89:19]

 

John Waters: History tells us that atheistic societies don’t live for very long. Don’t survive very long. And now the question that opens up then. Is it possible, … And this has never been done either. Is it possible for society to live in tacit disbelief, by pretending to believe in order to survive? That’s a really amazing question. That nobody seems to be asking. But it’s the most important one of our time I think.

 

Woes: Yes. I was going to say it might become very relevant in the near future. Okay. Oh yeah, here’s one more:

 

“Do you think that there is too much doom and gloom tactics in the Irish national circles? And that could lose future support for the cause, no?”

 

John Waters: I don’t think. So I mean, I don’t think it’s possible to have too much doom and gloom at this moment! [Woes bursts out laughing] But I kind of know what you mean, but the question remains.

 

There’s different problems. I think there’s a kind of a theme park dimension to Irish nationalism which is kind of a bit worrying, that it doesn’t seem to be able to make itself contemporaneous in a way that it would need to do in order to offer a real future. I think that’s something that needs addressing.

 

But it’s also a question of lack of unity. I think a lot of people, the new nationalists, shall we say, side failed to see what was happening with the Covid thing early on. And I think that’s a big problem, that something that attacks freedom in such a fundamental way and you can’t immediately reconcile it to the national question, or the national questions, it goes to that point that they think in a kind of a theme park way about Irish nationalism.

 

As if, when we get Ireland back again, we’re all going to talk [word unclear] Pierce and wear tweeds jackets and things. And that ain’t going to happen and, nor should it.

 

Woes: Yeah. That is a problem that’s common to quite a lot of nationalist movements. You don’t want to just preserve some ideal, or even largely fictitious version of the country from some time past. It has to actually relate to people in the here and now. And it has to be authentic.

 

John Waters: Yeah, well I mean, right that’s always the problem with culture. It needs to be a living thing. Often it becomes fossilized, it’s dead and that’s been the problem in Ireland.

 

In many ways that was the core problem after independence, that there didn’t seem to be an understanding that albeit that we had broken away from England, shall we say, nevertheless in a certain sense we remained English! And remain English, you know?

 

That we are in a certain sense British. In the sense, I don’t mean that in the political affiliations, but culturally. Shakespeare is as much a writer, our greatest writer to the Irish people, as to the British people. I mean, we are steeped in that, or the dandy, or John Peel on the BBC, or your Manchester United. Like that’s not, because what’s actually ended up happening is that this kind of schizophrenia. I’m not allowed to use that word. But I do.

 

[93:04]

 

On the one hand we have Irish culture. And then we have kind of culture in general. And no, it’s gotta be all connected, because it is! We sing English songs, or Irish songs from the same place. And so I think that that paradox has never been really acknowledged in Irish culture. And I think the real problem in most kind of postcolonial countries that they’re kind of caught on that kind of, … They want to purge themselves of everything alien, or anything colonial, but that’s like literally cutting off your nose to spite your face!

 

Woes: Yeah, exactly! To do so would be dishonest and disorientating. And you’d be trying, you’d be pretending that you were still the people you were 300 years ago, pre-colonialism, in the case of some countries. 300, 500. But it’s, but you’re not. And so it’s sort of delusion.

 

John Waters: There’s absolutely no harm in going back to that point, because it’s almost like when a culture is occupied, or colonized, that the river of its culture goes underground, and it becomes impossible to find, or imagine. And so you don’t know what your culture would have been if that hadn’t happened to you.

 

Woes: That alternative history thing.

 

John Waters: Yeah that’s right! And what happens after, decolonization then, or whatever, you get this kind of attempt to reimagine yourselves. But it tends to be a very and kind of arid, sterile sense of the nation. And I think that’s been a big problem in Ireland.

 

And that’s why the reason that the Irish language is virtually dead now! Because nobody could make it part of the life of the nation. It was the first national language, but virtually nobody could speak it.

 

Woes: Yeah. I think a similar thing happened in Scotland where you don’t know, … Okay, so we’ve got devolution, we’ve got our own Parliament now, and we’ll probably be a separate country at some point in the next few decades, I would think. But who are we without England? What would we be if it never, what are the Scots?

 

And so because that’s unknowable, because we’ve been melded with the English in various ways for 300 years, or more. Because that’s unknowable, what they default to is either just globalist progressivism, or it’s globalist progressivism with some light Scottish touches. Like:

 

“I believe in gay rights, and I wear tartan!”

 

John Waters: Yeah.

 

Woes: Well good for you! You know, that’s just not much of an identity. It’s not. It’s nothing, in fact! You’re something that’s you could have been picked out of a [96:00] catalogue! You’re that shallow! You’re that hollow! It’s nothing! That’s just a lifestyle.

 

John Waters: Yeah. I do think that there’s a massive thing to be done there in nations like Scotland and Ireland in terms of what you might call a “collective re-imagining” of ourselves, which is not a reaction against something, either Englishness, or our own past. But I try literally, it’s almost an attempt to kind of re-imagine what that river, where it would have re-erupted, and what it would be like.

 

But nevertheless, allowing for the fact that now we are this, we have been changed in all these ways. Like we speak English, for example, suddenly at the end of all that! So can we at least acknowledge that?

 

And acknowledge that we have already in the past, the last century contributed, enormously to English literature like true Joyce and Beckett and those guys. So there’s something massive there, but we just can’t reconcile that to what Ireland is. That’s the thing, it’s like there’s something else.

 

And the modern novelist now isn’t really an Irish novelist at all, and most of them are not, there’s a couple who are, recognizably. So although what would that be? This is a big question! I mean, there’s all kinds of traps.

 

Like I’ve often said it to people like that the paradox of being Ireland is like that you think of the kind of iconography of traditional Ireland, like the thatch cottage, right? And so therefore if you’re a writer you must not in the modern era, you must not write about thatched cottages, right? That’s you must write about tower blocks, right! That’s if you’re to be a modern Irish writer. The problem is.

 

Woes: The trouble is that everywhere’s got tower blocks!

 

John Waters: Yeah, but the problem also is that actually thatch cottages still exist. And people, real people, actually live in them. So, how do you get around that if you’re a writer and you just do tower blocks? How do you deal with the reality that isn’t the tower block?

 

Because it’s a very narrow view of reality. It’s a reaction! It’s a ricochet! It’s a cultural ricochet, that is not really helping you in any direction, or helping your readers, or your public in any way at all.

 

Woes: Yeah. It’s not deep. It’s not deeply relevant. It’s not something that people can, … And again it’s something very modern, it’s like something that’s been bolted on to Ireland, or Scotland. The concrete, the brutalist tower block, well there it is. Yeah, it’s not something. I mean, I know yes, there are Scottish people today dealing with that situation. There are Irish people today dealing with that situation. But again it’s kind of circumstantial, it’s not deep.

 

John Waters: It’s very like that thing where I’m talking about the kind of the culture figure, or the artist, who’s kind of running up, …

 

Like you’re probably too young to remember Terry Cooper. But he used to do this for league in Ireland. You know, you get the ball at the goal, if he’s on goal and he would run right along, completely predictably, along the touch line all the way up to the top. And nobody seemed to be able to stop him, even though he had done it a million times before. And then he would cross the ball from the corner flag.

 

[99:04]

 

It’s like they’re running like that guy, but the flag is up, and history is kind of turned on its axis, and they’re offside. And they don’t know what to do, but they just keep running anyway. And so it’s the same thing. These kind of directions have been thrown up as reactions, as ricochets, but they just seem to be unable to see what’s happening in front of their noses! And to change, and to try and find a way around the problem. Or even to recognize the problem exists! It’s a real dilemma, it’s very disconcerting to watch, because it seems to be fixable with little imagination.

 

Woes: Yes! Well and again that that relies on artists waking up, doesn’t it?

 

John Waters: It does, yeah. Very much.

 

Woes: We have to get through to the creative people in society.

 

John Waters: And to stop worrying about their image, and start worrying about their work. Because that’s what they’re going to remember for. Not their image.

 

Woes: Yes, indeed. Well this has been a wonderful conversation. But I said about an hour. We’ve gone on for an hour and 40 minutes! So thank you very much for that. I think that many people have enjoyed it. There have been lots of positive comments posted.

 

So thank you very much. I know that this was the first time you’ve appeared on my show, on Millennial. And yeah, it’s very, very kind of you to do so.

 

John Waters: I really enjoyed talking to you Colin. It’s very interesting. I mean, it’s kind of a different way of coming at it. And it’s very interesting for me to do it.

 

Woes: Oh, thank you very much! Okay. Well I’ll end it there. And I’ll be back in 15 minutes with the Duke of Durham. I’m not sure whether that will be on YouTube. It might be Dlive only. I’ll speak to him first. But in the meantime thank you John Waters for taking part in Millennial 2020.

 

John Waters: Thank you very much Colin. Good bye.

 

Woes: All right. And everyone else I’ll be, ..

 

[101:04]

 

 

 

END

 

 

 

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

 

See Also:

 

Millennial Woes with Morgoth on Brexit — Jul 2, 2016 — TRANSCRIPT

A Woes By Any Other Name — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – To Be a Man in 2017 – Speech at Erkenbrand dinner — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – One Hour from Now – Speech to Erkenbrand — TRANSCRIPT

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

Millennial Woes – The Passion of Jordan Peterson – Speech to Blue Awakening — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes at the Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2019 – Daughter of Albion – Dec 28, 2019 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – The Strife of Tongues – Nov 30, 2020 — Transcript

 

 

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – John Waters – Dec 22, 2020 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – On the Offensive – Dec 15, 2020 — Transcript

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – Dangerfield – Dec 21, 2020 — Transcript<

Millennial Woes – Millenniyule 2020 – The Jolly Heretic – Dec 29, 2020 — Transcript

 

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

 

PDF Notes

* Total words = 17,076
* Total images = 4
* Total A4 pages =

 

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

(Available later)

 

 

 

Version History

 

Version 6: Mar 11, 2021 — Added See Also image 2 and 4 links.

 

Version 5: Dec 28, 2020 — Added last 17 minutes. Transcript now complete = 101/101 mins.

 

Version 4: Dec 27, 2020 — Added 14 more minutes. Total transcript complete = 84/101 mins.

 

Version 3: Dec 26, 2020 — Added 24 more minutes. Total transcript complete = 70/101 mins.

 

Version 2: Dec 25, 2020 — Added 15 more minutes. Total transcript complete = 46/101 mins.

 

Version 1: Dec 24, 2020 — Published post. Total transcript complete = 31/101 mins.