Then I can go over here and I hit this button. It plays the intro music. You guys like that, right? It's good. I like that intro music. All right. Welcome to surreal politics. But it's October 30th, 2023 being the current. Yeah. Happy Halloween, ladies and gentlemen. Fine members in agenda binary. This is stage one, episode 32. Narrow nationalism, my title is today. I recently, I mentioned this briefly on another show. But I had an occasion of you at speech by an Australian gentleman by the name of Joel Davis, which he gave it a meeting of the patriotic alternative of the United Kingdom. You can find the speech in full on their website and it is linked in the show notes today for stage one, episode 32. And I encouraged the listener to give it their full consideration so that I cannot be accused of taking the man out of context and I found the talk more than a little bit disagreeable. And I mean here to use it as an example to describe a broader pathology, plaguing what has been called the dissident right. In that vein, I'll hear note that I have not yet invited Mr. Davis to be on the show, but that I am by new means of verse to discussing this subject with him at a later date. Mr. Davis is hardly alone in his view that raises the central question of our politics. To whatever extent this may be an error, you could easily forgive a man for making it, given the hysteria surrounding the subject in our discourse these days. Mr. Davis is however altogether less forgiving of those who disagree with this view. Describing for example Germans who do not vote for AFD, the alternative for Germany, or alternative for Deutsche Linus is. As quote politically retarded, along with the rest of the masses, whom he frequently describes in derissive terms as stupid, without much effort to understand or articulate their motives for who they vote for. Met with disrealization that the political party she supports do not win elections. Mr. Davis seeks different and altogether less precise measurements of political success. His talk was titled activist politics in white advocacy, and the amazing Joel Davis, as he was described, was introduced by the presenter as quote, an identitarian commentator and activist with a focus on white advocacy and political strategy. As he begins the talk himself, he states that he is there to share his thoughts on the subject of political strategy that have evolved for him over the last few years. But if Mr. Davis has a focus on political strategy, it was not presented during this talk. Mr. Davis would go on to make no subtle suggestion that electoral politics was a futile endeavor, though he was careful to state that it is quote, not bad. He specifically states that quote, unless we can raise billions of dollars, white advocates cannot compete in this realm. He describes activism as a different category of action, the purpose of which is to change what's popular, whereas electoralism, as he calls it, makes use of in his words, leverages what is already popular. The flaws in this are many, some quite subtle, some quite glaring, none at all rare. To the extent the talk has value, there's value in the talk, I should state. But among the values of the talk is that he's articulating somebody's flaws that I've observed elsewhere, in a matter of more befitting response than some of the much less articulate hurling of insults and subterfuge, commonly associated with the phenomenon that I observe here. Now, anticipating precisely such subterfuge, let us get a few things out of the way, because if we do not, it even quite likely though we do, our touching on this subject will incur the most predictable of responses from social media commentators who cannot show their faces in public, and yet consider themselves quite the authority on how to change public opinion. Were we not to head them off, we could expect a word cloud of their comments to include the word Jew, Fed, Fox News, Mitt Romney, John McCain, no wall, cuck, sell out that sort of thing. So he might state up front that not all politically relevant activity directly pertains to the winning of the next election, as if that requires saying which it shouldn't, but nothing goes without saying anymore, because we live in clown world. And in this, we encourage the listener to take note of the careful wording, not all as in some limited amount, politically relevant activity, which is to say activity that has some bearing on politics, whether or not that is its intent. Directly pertains, which is to say if it is politically relevant, it necessarily pertains, though perhaps not directly to the winning of the next election. This being of course quite loaded in that victory or defeat, this election or one subsequent, and of course, the issue of elections itself are all addressed therein. We exclude here for the purposes both practical, theoretical, and just a little bit legal, discussion of obtaining the powers of elected office without winning elections. Mr. Davis does not present himself as an advocate of violence in whatever anyone else tells you, post-politics is advocacy of violence. While some may theorize about the legitimacy of other means, it is as predictable as any given sunrise that the existing political system would violently resist any such means, and that the seeker of the power would either be destroyed by this or be compelled to take up arms himself. Since this is so very obvious, one must assume that he who advocates non-electoral answers has at least some awareness of this. So for this reason we must note that, given the peril of such advocacy, it is not inconceivable that some have this as their aim, and dare not say it allowed for strategic reasons and ultimately for fear of the consequences. The silver political analyst must assume much of what is said about wild eyed political theories which downplay the importance of the next election actually understands this. We offer this as a mere footnote and not as an accusation against Mr. Davis. Our focus thus far on the next election is not an effort to be short-sighted far from it. If today you lose a city council seat and in five years you rule the world, well, well played. That's fine, but the next election is ever present. Generally speaking, there are no fewer than one a year in any given jurisdiction here in the United States. The longest one must ever wait is two years given the schedule of US House elections. For this reason, electioneering never actually ends. What we sometimes call election season is just that part of the perpetual process that becomes too loud for the average citizen to ignore. All that occurs within a society impacts that perpetual process. The election is just the means by which we dilute ourselves into thinking we have solved our differences peacefully and thereby avoid more chaotic violence than that provided by the state. Every discussion at the dinner table, every word uttered on the news, every song played on the radio, every success in business, every criminal thrown in prison, every Facebook like or algorithmic suppression on X, impacts the general state of social affairs, assuming for the sake of argument though not as a matter of actual certainty, that our votes are counted honestly. That collective consciousness formed by all that has happened between one election and the next and all the collective events and memories prior are translated into votes which elect a government and so this process continues in perpetuity. For this reason, it ought to go without saying and it is conspicuous to the point one might describe as suspect the frequency with which it is said these days that actions not aimed at electing a specific candidate to a specific entity. Whether it is parents complaining at the PTA meeting or torches illuminating the campus of the University of Virginia to the extent that any activity can be described as non-political, it is only to the extent that we do not perceive its political significance. We might further note that some of the most successful political activity escapes this very perception by design. Activity which is very political entirely too often parades is non-political activity. Be it because this activity is subversive and hides its political nature or because the participants may have no idea what they are doing. And this requires stating sadly because within the dissident right when one calls attention to the centrality of elections and social affairs and their unavoidable significance, they are the most predictable and repetitive of social media uproars screaming off-refuted talking points about everything from Republican failures to the merits of insurrection. But on this show we say with what might be described as nauseating frequency that by the time election day rolls around all of the important decisions have long since been made. Both in terms of general cultural attitudes and as a consequence of partisan activity to determine who the candidates are. People who say silly things like yeah, food harder, huh? Demonstrate either their malice or their ignorance because no sane person suggests that one can increase or decrease the significance of showing up on election day to check a box. In many cases it is true enough that a man's vote means nearly nothing, notably a Republican voting in a general presidential election in the state of New York, owing to the danger of the electoral college system has no hope whatsoever of impacting the outcome. This is not to say that he has no capacity to impact the election, of course. He can donate to the candidate. He can volunteer in a competitive state. He can promote the candidate or the candidate's narratives on social media. There is hardly any limit to what he can do outside of that single useless vote to impact the outcome of this contest. And of course it is too often lost on those in the dissident right, either through ignorance or through intent that a Republican primary voter be he in New York or in Texas has a very significant impact on who the candidate shall be by voting in the primary. He has all the more significance if he is involved with the Republican party and engages in the sort of political activity that directs party resources and energy toward one candidate or another. And even in his capacity outside of the party such as on social media he has influence on the prevailing narratives within the party. This is of a certain sort just because he demonstrates that he is a supporter of the party's ideas. It is of a more significant sort if he is a committee, then. It is all the more significant than this is he is the chair of the party within a given territory. His social status as it relates to the party is dictated in some part by his level of participation. And so if say the Republican party in New York is a founder of Chris Christie, then of Donald Trump and his primary vote is unlikely to sway any delegates to Trump on account of this, his status as a committeeman or chairs still conveys the significance of his position when he advocates for the candidate on those primary voters outside of his region such as when he acts on social media. And so we proceed from here hoping to have amply demonstrated that we are not politically retarded. We understand very well the thing that we will be predictably accused of failing to grasp. And since we do comprehend this we do not dismiss the significance of what Mr. Davis calls activism. The construction of narratives, the spreading of ideas, the various social mechanisms by which political opinions go from unacceptable to debatable to respectable to obvious to no longer being political disputes at all because they are universally accepted. All of this occurs prior to the casting of ballots. The left has indeed mastered this art as Mr. Davis notes during his talk. They have managed to dominate our country and most of the world not because they are winning elections, but rather they are winning elections because they dominate our country and so much of the world, the other way around. The problem that we hear aimed to address is this idea that these are somehow separate categories of action that one is either involved in influencing elections or they involved in something other than this. That is of political significance. The challenge we find with this train of thought is that it allows no measurement of success. And we are not accusing Mr. Davis of being a loser, but you can see how this appeals to losers and why so much of the belligerent nonsense that goes on on the internet comes from people who are in for all to this idea that their political strategy has no test of merit. It encourages failure and the failures we see so reliably in the dissident right and similar movements which have preceded it in the past are common and predictable results of this pathology which is not new by any stretch of the imagination. Lacking patience and intensely seeking, lacking patience and intensely sensing the direness of circumstances having consumed literature or otherwise been exposed to information doubting the merits of democracy. It becomes acceptable and even encouraged to act as if elections are somehow a separate or even irrelevant phenomenon from other sorts of political activity in this mindset, the measurement of success is social approval from like minded ideologues. When others do not join in the fun, they are dismissed as to borrow Mr. Davis's wording politically retarded. But let us be fair to Mr. Davis before we borrow this phrasing again and quote the statement in full. Now I'm going to play some of the clips from the video for as we go for but I'm just going to read this one to you. And by popularity, I mean it is, you know, it's not just opinion polls. You know, we've had a recent opinion poll, I think from Germany that said something like 70 to 80% of Germans are against mass immigration. But if you look at the parties these people vote for, I mean this is including people who vote for leftist parties, you vote for centrist parties. If you're against mass immigration, why aren't you at least voting for the alternative for Deutschland? You know, the only party that's actually against it in Germany. So it's like yes, people will tick boxes on opinion polls that they're against something, but they aren't actually politically conscious of even a very basic step of voting for the correct party to align with your belief. Or perhaps they care about mass immigration, but they care more about I don't know getting their taxes down or I don't know even what goes through these people's heads. You know the masses are frankly whilst often sympathetic to our talking points politically retarded. So Mr. Davis says I don't know what goes through these people's heads. He speculates, you know, maybe it has something to do with taxes and who cares about those? What does it matter if the government takes, attempt to quarter a third half, 75% of your income? Who cares about that? But he doesn't know what goes through the heads. And he says that as a consequence of him not knowing what they're thinking about, but they are politically retarded. He, a man, purporting to speak on political strategy has not the biggest idea why people are voting in a particular way. Well, as a matter of fact, this is like the first thing a political strategist would want to know as a matter of fact, right? If you want to impact your, if you're strategizing about politics, like people are not voting for us, well why not? He says maybe they are trying to get their taxes down. Well, that's an important data point. Maybe if they think that the AFD is going to raise their taxes, or that for whatever other reason voting for the AFD is going to cause their taxes to be raised? Well, you know, if I was working for the AFD and I hired a political strategist, I'd want to know if that was the case. And maybe I'd try to ensure the voters that that wouldn't happen? When he opens up the talk, he tells you what he's going to say, he's tells you what his talk is based on here's what he says about that. Basically, when I'm going to discuss, it's just a basic collection of a few ideas around political strategy that have evolved for me in my time. You know, the past few years, engaging with a lot of white nationalist leaders around the world, kind of analyzing problems in different countries, discussing ideas with leaders. And you know, so hopefully you can get something out of this, the basic ideas that I think there's two core modes that you could really break down mass politics into. You could say there's activism and electoralism. And quote, well, you know, no wonder he has no idea what's going through those people's heads, right? Instead of trying to understand that and try to set up trying to understand what they're thinking about, what matters to them. He's been talking to white nationalist leaders around the world. He has been studying white nationalism. He has exhibited not to behavior of a political strategist, but of an ideologue. He has been studying things that interest him, that get his heart rate up, that inspire him, and he is not interested in what inspires or goes through the heads of those other people who he calls politically retarded. And so he finds himself entirely unfamiliar with this. Now, we would not suggest that Mr. Davis is politically retarded. He likely understands the issues of our day better than the average AFD voter we speculate. And I'll note that's all I can do is speculate because this is the first time I ever heard of Joel Davis. And I have not made any effort other than watching this 25 minute video a couple of times to familiarize myself with his ideas. I don't know. But what he does not seem to understand first and foremost is like something that you actually don't require a political education to discern. You know, perhaps if you've been married for a very long time or you are not very ambitious in your love life or you are just so attractive that all the best women are tripping over themselves to catch your eye, you might know or maybe you have forgotten this. But you know, for most of us, we can figure this out just from a little bit of dating experience, right? If you want to win over a woman, like of course, like you have to be confident of yourself, you have to be able to speak about the things that you know and what you believe and what interests you. You have to be able to communicate those things to her or sure. But if you want to woo her, if you want to gain the sort of emotional leverage that causes her to take an interest in that which did not, which her eyes alone did not fall in love with, well then you are going to have to put some effort into getting to know what she wants. You have to know what she believes, what she thinks about when she is alone, what she desires for her future. Then you are going to have to organize your own thoughts in some alignment with hers and your own words in some alignment with those thoughts and your own actions in line with those words. You must do this to convince her first and foremost that you understand these things. Then to convince her that you two want those same things and then that you will give her some approximation of what it is that she desires. But if you have not the biggest idea what she wants, if you are so enamored of yourself at all that you can think about as the products of your own imagination and of the men that you desire well, then you are going to be quite limited to women who are very interested in you. And that in my rather tragic experience is not what causes a man to marry up to say the least of it. You know when I when I first took an interest in politics was after September 11, 2001 when I saw those towers fall and I knew that my country was going to war. Like I turn on the television, I had not the biggest idea what these people were talking about. And this frustrated me tremendously. So I began watching the news all of the time. Mostly the Fox News channel, but I made a point from my earliest efforts to understand these things to see what the other channels were saying. I found the liberal news channels intolerable even then, but I made a point to catch a little bit each day anyway. Eventually I stopped doing that nearly as often. It got to the point that I didn't think what they were saying was that important. I watched the Fox News channel and eventually started listening to conservative talk radio as my exclusive sources of information every single day from then until March 9, 2009 when I found myself in a bit of legal trouble that shattered my understandings of government and politics. And having had my foundations rocked, I became open to new ideas. And this is how I discovered libertarianism and I became completely immersed in this. But you may recall from the timeline that this was like the heyday of the tea party, right? And so there was a great deal of what I've been described as like fusionist activism going on with conservative and libertarians. And you know, I could speak quite comfortably with my new conservative friends because I was very familiar with Fox News and Conservative talk. I understood what they thought about because I was familiar with their media and ideas. I was not nearly so well read as the intellectuals among them, but to the average conservative activist, seven years of me watching Bill O'Reilly every night was quite sufficient to make me appear like a fountain of wisdom. Yet when I, but yet back then, I was quite determined to turn all of these people into libertarians, of course. And so I argued and I argued and I argued and it was somewhat amazing to you know a lot of my libertarian friends that our conservative friends put up with me in the way that they did because these debates did not last nearly so long with them. You see, they had spent the preceding seven years getting their information from Alex Jones and the John Burke society. So when they spoke, what conservatives heard were deemed conspiracy theories, you see. What's that? And conservatives understand this almost as well as they understand that they don't want to be called racist, right? They understand that if they start speaking about conspiracy theories, oh boy, are they going to have a problem? They're going to be called crazy and so they don't want to talk about that any more than they want to talk about race. I instead spoke to them about the Constitution. Conservatives really like the Constitution, you know. It is what gives them their political legitimacy and so to pick a powerful and not so random example, the libertarians you may know, they are not such big fans of the war on drugs and back then, neither was I. And so I would say to my conservative friends, if the federal government has the power to outlaw drugs, then why did they need a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol? Why did they need a whole other constitutional amendment to overturn that ban? If the entire time Congress just had the authority to really nearly ban substances at a whim, just delegate that to the DEA, let it be done for them without a vote of the Congress. Why are they able to do that now? Clearly this is not within the powers delegated to the Congress and so it is unconstitutional. Now it would have done me no good to speak to them about the medicinal benefits of hallucinogenic mushrooms or abstract theories about who owns one's body. But when you speak to a conservative about the Constitution, they listen very closely and do their best to apply their knowledge and reason and this argument was in fact unassailable. Now some of them simply thought that the Constitution should be amended yet again to ban drugs or that the state and local governments should set harsh drug policy. I did not convert them into libertarianism because I met them where they were and they were at least sympathetic to the argument that the federal government's war on drugs was an abuse of their authority. Now today I have little interest in loosening drug laws. It would be all too gentle that the FBI take every fentanyl pusher in my neighborhood to the park where their customers are overdosing and execute them by gunshot on mere probable cause. But this is an example of meeting people where they are and this is the absolute first thing that a political strategist would need to understand to call himself such a thing. We don't do that on the alt-right. You notice that the less power the alt-right dissident right, whatever you want to call this thing. They don't do that anymore. They do it less now than they did before. The less power they have, the more insisted they are that everybody just has to accept as fact the things that they say. And no matter how many catastrophes and disasters they run into. They just keep on insisting that everybody else should start emulating the behavior that causes them all this pain and suffering in catastrophe. You know you have to understand that you know the reason that successful people are successful is because they do not emulate failure right. And so if you just keep on insisting that they do, do not be surprised when you make no progress with those people at all and don't call them politically retarded because you're getting a rose reversal there. So Mr. Dave as he considers it his job or the job of us or whoever it is that's associated with him to racialize the right. And he goes on at some length about this. The video clip that I have here is actually like 10 minutes long. I think it's actually 12 minutes long, but I have specific clips in mind that I will play for you and we will get through them bit by bit. So stand by a second. I pull this clip up. Now let me just go check on our streams here say hello to everybody. I'll real quick maybe next time sends three dollars maybe if you get a dual turn table DJ mixing board from the eighties you can do those funny scratching noises and get the sink in sync. Are you telling me that my audio video is out of sync is that what I'm being told. It was in sync when I started the thing today or you telling me that it's out. Well, I certainly hope I hope that's not the case. Anyway, number to call in by the way, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to get on hold and sit there and wait for me to get to you, it's going to be a little while. But you can call 2176881433 if you'd like to be on the program or you're still the less I have to please to give a call. I'm being told that the sync is in sync and the man is making me worry for nothing. Well for three dollars as it were. So thank you very much for the three dollars maybe next time. And so back to back to not worrying about technical issues because I actually I you know I'm not going to trouble you guys with what I changed some stuff around today. To try to prevent that from being the case is it were. And I think it's working I think it's actually I think it's going pretty well. And so let's go and play this let's go and play this group here. There was a recent book that was written by an Italian guy, Guido Tieti. I didn't read the book because it hasn't been translated into English. It's on the Italian. There was a few reviews and a podcast that was done. It was a review in the unsreview I think and in countercurrence and there was a podcast that was done by someone with him with a speaking English that countercurrence put out. And it has interesting ideas a lot of ideas that I see as a guy from Casapound if you guys have heard of that organization and he identified this kind of two main fundamental relationships in contemporary political communication. And that this kind of corresponds to my activist electoralist distinction. One is you've got the kind of activist sympathize a relationship and then you've got the kind of political professional voter relationship. Now, voters are a low attention span low information low agency market essentially that's easily manipulated by the kind of institutionalized forces of professional politics, obviously through the media. But there's this kind of subterranean architecture, obviously of NGOs, think tanks, foundations and so on that feed into the media, the condition they're talking points and align them with policy agendas and so on. That's you know, you can't really mobilize voters against this very successfully because you know, it's too complex basically just as I mentioned before now real quick two complex for whom exactly the white race of this I have my doubts. Things like this were tasked are dismissed for a lack of understanding or a lack of capacity are not in fact political strategy, okay, they are defeated and there's a lot of that going on here is we're going to get into as we go through this. The system of the transmission of ideas is too complex. He does not know what goes through the minds of voters, et cetera. This is a problem when you get up in front of a room full of people and tell them that you're here to talk about political strategy. So I want to say a little bit more about these German opinion polls. And even when you can mobilize voters against it when you have a quite populist movement. We've seen this with trumpism in the United States. It's so ideologically vapid because it becomes this kind of personal, this personalized attachment I just like trump because I've got these like vague sentiments basically that he's standing up for Americans. It can get filled that kind of ideological verpidity can be just filled in by these conservative establishments, fake opposition groups to corral the agenda into safe avenues and so on. And it doesn't really materialize in any kind of meaningful change. And so working within this professional politician voter relationship is just very difficult unless you have billions of dollars. You know, we just simply don't have those resources. Now there's a couple of things to pick apart here. One, the trump move it is ideologically vapid vapid. Okay. So he says, well let's let's just accept that as true. There are reasons to dispute this of course trump did not gain the support he did by being vapid. But the reason trump became the president of the United States was because he won an election, which is fundamentally a popularity contest. And this necessarily requires appealing to a very large number of people. And if support for your cause is an IQ test and the winning score is 120, then you are going to lose that contest 100% of the time. Trump gave the support of serious intellectuals as it turns out because what he said was not vapid at all. He discussed trade economics and foreign policy coherently more coherently than anybody for a very long time actually. And he inspired very serious people to support his candidacy with this. If he did not obtain that support, he would not have had the sort of social proof required to obtain the approval of those vapid politically retarded masses that are political strategists find so confusing. This is fashionable to say these days on the dissident right. That trump was some kind of to borrow a phrase carnival barker. You remember that one? They have adopted the empty indeed the vapid attacks that were waged against him by his political opponents in 2016. It's shameful and in the case of the people who understand what they're doing and again I don't know if Mr. Davis does so I'm not accusing him of being intellectually dishonest because I don't know. But in the case of people who understand what they're doing it's intellectually dishonest in the extreme because they know that that's not true. But of course then you have to hold the attention of those masses once you get them. And this is not something you do by being a high-minded intellectual. They do not think nearly so much as they feel and so to win a large popularity contest is it has to become something of a cult of personality and you see us have a way Democrats all the time they're the saviors of the people right they're going to remember when Barack Obama was elected the one that stand there's many of them. But you'll recall this video where some woman's like crying in an oil black woman and she's crying because she's not having to worry about paying her mortgage anymore. Barack Obama is the savi- Barack Obama is going to pay for everything after all right. All these people who have been keeping you down I'm going to save you from that do you think these people were intellectually convinced by that no they were they were promised money. And and promise that the people who were keeping them down were going to be harmed. And so you have to create a cult of personality to mobilize you know 75 100 million people to vote for you. That is how Donald Trump became president of the United States and that is what the left fears about him more than any particular policy agenda. And there's a reason why they compare him to his or her of course Hitler understood this. That is why everything in the nationals served social is Germany was about the fewer right it's not it's not that all of the citizens red mind confidence became convinced on the merits. It was that this guy came in with this powerful and unusual voice and spoke passionately and people cheer and when their enemies tried to chase them off the streets they prevailed in battle. That's not an intellectual movement actually. It didn't turn out so well in the end I'm sure you've heard but it took all the armies of Europe and the Soviet Union and the United States to stop this comparatively small nation who only a few years prior had been an economic catastrophe enslaved to reparations from the prior war. The people of that country were completely devoted to their leader. And if you think those was because there had been a great deal of reading involved I'm sorry to inform you that this is not how mass movements tend to work. Elite opinion and popular support are different things and it takes both to govern you cannot do it with one or the others not how this works. And you cannot make the masses become economists and philosophers just because it suits your purposes that's not possible. And so the second thing here is this concept that because something requires billions of dollars to do it is somehow beyond our grasp well that's actually not the case. I understand being short on resources probably as well as anybody at the patriotic alternative conference as well as anybody who gets on an airplane to go to another country to give a speech for 25 minutes I understand it at least as well as them OK. If the survival of our people costs billions of dollars then we might do well to start spending more time reading about the stock market than about conversing with white nationalist leaders in other countries might be one place that you go with that you know the line of inquiry. We might even go so far as to read a book written by a Jewish person if you really want to think outside the box a little bit. But you see this is the recurring theme I don't know what these people are thinking the media ecosystem is too complex this costs too much money and for these reasons I pursue goals that require none of these. Well fine you can do that maybe it brings you some kind of edification and I'm not saying that it's completely worthless. But you're certainly not describing a more certain or more virtuous course than those who work every day to overcome these obstacles. And while Mr. Davis is more respectful of this perception than many online who parrot these kinds of ideas that is certainly what he is conveying here whatever his intentions. He's not giving up because he finds a task too difficult no he is just in doubt with the wisdom to know that these tasks are impossible unlike those lesser men who toil in vain. He continues. The act of a sympathize a relationship however is something that we can get a lot more traction with and the act of a sympathize a relationship it's not about trying to win elections it's not about you know it's about trying to change the terms under which the political discourse within which elections are even conducted. So we can look at like models for this like for example feminism there's no feminist party that's running any of our countries that one 51% of the vote informed government. But obviously feminism has won it's pretty much dominating the institutions of every major Western country all the major political parties. That's an activist movement it didn't try to go out and win elections and form a feminist political movement that would contest for local council districts or something. It formed an organized activist pressure movement that was able to kind of plug itself into the political establishment and change the discourse around women's rights or whatever and you know we've seen the results. Okay, but this is really not a description of what feminism did if you're at all familiar with the phenomenon this should really stand out to you as as staggeringly obvious. Feminism did involve itself with politics as a matter of fact like right from the beginning most notably in pushing for women's suffrage in the first place. The idea that feminism was not political I mean the fact that we have a 19th amendment should tell you something about this. It necessarily had to deal with things other than their capacity to vote before women could vote. But this was among the first of their goals and since then politicians have had no choice but to consider the opinions of that half of the population. And while feminist ideas especially those of latter waves are bizarre and not at all representative of how women think what gained them the traction they did was in promising electoral results for policy. This is so obvious it's almost confusing that he would have chosen such a poor example but there's more. The same model you can see with environmentalism with gay rights etc. And I think this is a kind of model that we should look to more when thinking about who we are and what we're doing as white advocates. Now I just might not see. So I think as well another idea that I think is quite useful for kind of understanding what we're doing here and how to kind of stay the course is what I call having a one dimensional framing or one dimensional politics. Which in a nutshell is reducing politics to a pro-white anti-white polarity trying to analyze every issue through the lens of race. A kind of race reductionism. Marxists talk about class reductionism. Everything is really about proletariat versus visualizy or whatever. We should not obviously not be like Marxists but we should do the same thing but with race I believe break every issue down. So gentlemen earlier was speaking about climate change and about how climate change is basically just a way to transfer resources from white countries to non-white countries frankly. That's what the policies actually are. Whatever your position is on climate change we should talk about it like that rather than simply talking about climate change is fake and you have all these boomer conservatives railing against it but no one kind of points out the elephant in the room which is that it's very clearly an anti-white agenda. And just real quick I mean you know the derisive the derisive talk about the boomer conservative right. And this becomes especially important because as he gets into this he's about to tell you that we need to map this racial divide on to the left right divide which in my view is actually a coherent thing to do is will dress but like. Throughout this thing he's talking about peace of people in these derisive terms like oh you know these boomer conservatives saying it's fake. Well if it's an anti white agenda and it's fake you know pointing out that this is a complete sham might be worth doing and it's not like you dismiss people for saying well what do you care if it's fake. That's not you know that's not savvy and might be. You know and this is clear I think also this polarity we need to map it on to the left right distinction a lot of people myself included would describe themselves at one point or another as a third positionist and we've got to transcend the left right distinction and so on I think this kind of thinking what I call like ideological hipsterism which I'm been as guilty of as anyone in the past is a waste of energy and a waste of time and it just confuses people we know voters are that stupid the masses are that stupid that the. Majority of Germans against mass immigration as I said they can't even select the right party to vote for. Going on about third positionism and you know up bickering about you know what's real fascism or something you know it might be intellectually edifying but it's not actually going to get anywhere we need to have an approach that cuts through the bullshit. I'm sorry about the bs there. The way in the less they can map on to the real polarization that people feel every day which is a left right polarization particularly I think in the United States and the anglers fear because we have these two party systems. I notice it's in Australia especially since covid this kind of social mapping of leftists and right wingers that didn't really exist 10 years ago where you know social groups are getting split apart because you know people that are more conservative whatever that means can't handle. Around leftists anymore in vice versa and this is a good thing because it's clear that left number one priority is the anti white agenda you know there's literally no concern that they have that they won't immediately toss or compromise if it conflicts with the you know their anti white goals. Now you know so this I obviously think is useful but the thing to take into consideration here I say is if you want to map yourself on to the right you can't make from your enemy which is what the sky keeps on doing. And there's a lot of that going on here he mocked earlier when we talked about the the opinion polls in Germany. The idea that people will vote based on not wanting their taxes to go up like oh what's wrong with you. As if how much of their income is taken away by this government that's destroying them is somehow you know irrelevant to people with families. Later on he's going to say that he's more on the socialist side and you cannot like overestimate the the toxicity of that to right wing people at least in the United States. The socialist or the enemy don't you know like that's the Soviet Union that's communism as far as their concern. And I understand that you're in a room full of like minded people and you know and you're just expressing your honest views and you know God bless you whatever but like. This is what I'm talking about that the dissident right things oh well you know where this we're this tiny political fringe minority and we're so confident of our ideas that we'll just insist that they have to you know subsume the ideas of everybody else and if they don't do that we'll just we'll just call them dumb. Well this is what the libertarians have done right the libertarians is say that you're a status and you're immoral if you don't go along with the non aggression principle and you know there's arguments to be made the libertarians have completely dominated the world right now we live in the world where you know gay marijuana farmers can married gay marijuana farmers can guard their crops with they are 15's or whatever. You know you can't defend yourself against a writer but that's you know a small price to pay for gay marriage and marijuana right. But you know the libertarians did not dominate our politics by. Being uncompromising radicals as it turns out right it came as a consequence of them saying like okay well you know you'll keep your social security and you'll keep your your wars and you'll keep all of these talks of your income tax we're going to back off and all those things just give us gay marriage in marijuana you know. And so the libertarians that's how they got you know what they've gotten. And they got it with the Republican party not with the LP of course. So you know if you want to map yourself on to the right you you're not you're not you're actually not doing this and it's frustrating for me because if you listen to the show you know that him and I more or less see eye to eye on what he's saying here that okay you know and so does Papu can it right it's not a new idea by the way you know Papu can in suicide of a superpower which he wrote I believe was 2011. He wrote has a chapter called the white party and he says a Republican party is the white party and there's actually you know there's a lot of evidence to support that theory. So Mr. Davis continues. We saw this with COVID in the United States. COVID is a big problem we got to lock down everyone's got to you know don't go in public or whatever. Oh but you know black lives matter want to do marches now because George Floyd had a drug overdose. So now if I run in the streets the real public health crisis is racism you know. You know we see this on so many issues you know environmentalism is really bad global warming we've got too many emissions. Let's just import another million Pakistanis that are going to burn as much coal as possible when they get here because their carbon footprint doesn't matter because if you think it does you're racist. You know feminism people there's a rape culture let's import a bunch of Pakistani rape gangs and you know you guys get the message. So that polarity already exists and another hot take that I want to give you is that the left are the real racists. But not in the way the Dinesh D'Souza describes it in the sense that the left hate white people obviously right. They are actually racist where conservatives they're not racist that's the problem. I wish the right with the real racists that's our job is to make that happen. And that's key because you know we're not really going to be able to convert leftists leftists are already aware of race. They're fully aware of race and they've chosen the other side. We're conservatives asleep walking through reality like they just don't like literally they are colorblind. And they can't see you've reality as a result of it because there's these mental blocks put in the heads of so many people through you know the way that people have been conditioned by our culture. Our job is to open their eyes to race. Once you see it you know you see it everywhere then all of a sudden the political you know the political landscape makes sense. And if someone is already identifying on the right unless they it's because they have an Asian girlfriend or wire for something or whatever that's really holding them back from embracing racial identity organism. If there's a normal white person who you know sees themselves as right wing and they're sick of the tranny nonsense and all the immigrants and so on. You know once they see it they can't unsee it and then they're on our side and that's really that's the activist sympathize a relationship our job is developing a larger. Okay so you know he's got a very strong point here. And it baffles be here that the the the strength of his point seems to be lost on him as you're going to see momentarily okay I'm going to play the next clip to show you what I mean. But remember that I agree with him in this moment before he turns around and in my view Rex it. And larger cadre of sympathizers that will then permeate social institutions and that's how you get real change because you know the that's what the left did the left didn't win opinion polls didn't you know get one day to 51% of the population now thinks that transgenderism is real and not a mental illness now we can do the transgender no they knew that their ideas are unpopular but they built a cadre of sympathizers with a focused and direct ideology and look where that's gotten well. So I think that needs to be the central focus of what we're doing and I think it already is for the people in this room largely from what I can tell. It's an important thing to maintain in our minds to talk about clearly it's defend you know what we're doing here. And so you actually don't need to make race the most salient factor in a person's politics okay this is something that. It was sort of I was I was reluctant to accept this myself. But you know first of all the left did win opinion polls okay they won the opinion polls not by saying hey they didn't come out and tell you hi nice to meet you I'm the Democrat party in 30 years we're going to sterilize your children with drugs and surgery they didn't do that they did win opinion polls and they entirely took over the government and all the apparatus of media and corporate life. And they did that by persuading people that they shared their values and then as a consequence of invading everything by so convincing people of this then they started to you know the trans valuation of all values right. That's exactly what the left did and then once they were completely in control of all the cultural levels levers then they were like yeah you know. Gender is a social construct gender is you know between the ears sex is between the legs and we'll just you will swap that stuff between the legs around it will be all set right. That's something they did after decades of manipulating public opinion it's not something that they came out and did Barack Obama in 2008 said that marriage is between one man and one woman. He did not say that your child should be drugged and mutilated because the kindergarten teacher read them a weirdo book right he did not say that that was something that came much later. And it came as a consequence of winning elections and wielding political power. It's a great effect as a matter of fact and they could not have done it otherwise. But you don't need to make race the most salient factor in a person's politics you don't need to radicalize them or racialize them. They just need to know a few basic facts about IQ and hormones and how these traits are transmitted genetically and grouped along racial lines due to evolutionary pressures these are actually but you don't have to read all of Charles Murray to get this. They don't need to make it the central focus of their lives. If they understand that there is such a thing as evolutionary psychology and they are made to understand that it is not as it has been called Nazi pseudoscience then the very legitimacy of the phrase evolutionary psychology tells them that personality traits are transmitted genetically and that this explains all of our demographic disparities and this totally destroys the narratives of white supremacy prevailed by the left. You know you mentioned before once they see it they cannot unsee it as he says. So you don't have to get these people into like a totally racialized race centric worldview they don't want that. But listen to what they're saying. Listen to what they're saying and stop ignoring what they want. That's not what they want. The left wants that and they don't want it. All they need to understand is that this is a component of a very complex political system. If you are monomaniacly focused on that one thing and they are not. You know these people appropriately see you as the weirdo ideologue. You're the one with the narrow focus that is excluding all the other issues that they think are relevant and which they have very good reason for thinking are very relevant. They are very concerned about whether the government takes a tenth or a quarter or a third or a half or more of their income. And when you treat this as some kind of like silly unimportant detail you look like a fool to them. It's not it's not that they don't understand you they understand you perfectly fine. You're telling them all that they need to know about you that you don't think tax rates matter tells them everything that they need to know about you. They're appropriately dismissing what you say when you do that. He mentions at another point that you know if getting mixed up in foreign policy the war in Ukraine for example. Well you know if you think that people don't care about whether a war is waged or who wins the war or whether we're paying for the war or not. You know they don't presume that you're above the fray when you say that they they presume you're below the intellectual level of the conversation and they come to that conclusion quite appropriately like they're not politically retarded for believing that. And he continues. Now so the other component of this is I think our message to the broadly self identified right is that you know we are the only real true foundational opposition to the leftist paradigm and left like leftists in general leftist power. And they make clear leftists do our job for us they identify us as their main enemy and you know they make it very clear what they stand for. And so someone's already agreeing that well man these lefties and their agenda it's horrible what they're doing. It's not that much of a leap to say okay well we're the only real opposition so what do you want do you want total victory over them well that's only going to occur if we are elevated. Teaching the right wing to stop canceling people for being to right wing basically is is is a large portion of our job. And you can already see this process starting to gradually occur I think across the anglosphere in conservative media world where there's more and more acquiescence to a lot of racial talking points and shifting tides in the discourse because of the work that's been done since you know what like 2015 the emergence of the alt rights it's a. Now I've said this a million times and I'll say it again because people seem to forget this too often. The alt right made inroads with conservatives in 2015 and 2016 because of Donald Trump because of Donald Trump. And now Mr Davis is on a stage in the United Kingdom talking about the inroads that the alt right made now resulting in the positive effects that he's describing where conservatives are like hey. You know you can't you can't go shut everybody down just because you disagree with them now it'd be nice if they had figured this out six years ago obviously right. Nice if I still had a PayPal account but better late to never and you know I was among those who was you know prepared to fall in a sort to you know create some positive change in here we find ourselves all the better okay. But people keep on forgetting this that the way that the alt right made those inroads that are creating the positive effects that he's now describing was by. Riding the Trump train and now they're like oh you know Trump is you know an agent of the Jews or whatever you know silly thing that they you know that that makes them feel intellectually and morally superior to do. And while they're doing that their their political power is fading very very rapidly. You know I think we need to humanize a lot of these people in the conservative movement they some people get this kind of mentality that everybody in the entire. That conservative movement is like like some kind of agent that's getting paid off by like these like networks of intelligence agencies or and massage has like a video of them like raping a three year old and they'll never come around at any talking point or never make any adjustments their position. And whilst we should hate them and we should call them out as fake opposition I think this is a strategic misstep to our pressure actually does tell there's a lot of people in the conservative movement who actually their minds can be changed. And so we should have more radical over time we should have I think faith in our capacity to transform the culture not support the conservative party obviously we're in the kind of realm of activism here more about changing attitudes changing the over to windows so to speak where it lands in the kind of right wing cultural space. But that's an area where we're going to win regardless even if we do a bad job we have so much momentum there it's already happening as Tony mentioned like our idea it's time has come and it's somewhat inevitable. But I think so much of our work is about accelerating that kind of transformation of the right the racializing of the right. And so hopefully the people that he's trying to win over not watching him stand on a stage and saying that yeah we should hate them. Something tells me most of them are not so he's fortunate for this fact and I don't figure he's going to be running for office anytime soon so he can get away with that maybe. But you know when I was when I when I didn't have internet access you know I read William F Buckley's God and man at Yale I read Russell Kirk's the conservative mind I read I think it's I want to say Randy weaver but now I'm wondering if that's somebody else I'm ideas have consequences I read a lot of conservative books I read the right the hundred year war for American conservatism by Matthew Constanette. Who worked for like the American enterprise institute and married Bill crystals daughter okay I read I read Irving crystals book the neoconservative persuasion as a matter of you know I'll bring up real quick well let me play the I'm going to play one more clip from him before I do this and I'm actually I'm going to pull up to you a letter that I actually wrote to somebody. Because to demonstrate that the idea that I'm talking about here is really not fundamentally about him it's something that I figured out a while back. You know a lot of discussion at one point I would say like 2018 2019 in the broad online scene debating should be be nose balls should be should be racist liberals you know do white people want to be free market or do white people want to have socialism and it's like you know I don't really give it I just want to win you know we can figure that out. Later a lot of these things actually quite counterproductive you know I would say probably I'm probably more on the social side but you know if if we can win I'm give it about the economic policy I don't give it about the foreign policy I just care about white people winning. So. And so you know look don't give me wrong okay I am we try not to centralize the show on racial themes here it's a real politics okay there's good reasons for doing that aside from the fact that it takes a lot of people that we do business with but part of the reason that I that I am comfortable doing that on an intellectual level. Is because it avoids getting caught in traps like what he just said okay like oh I don't care about the economic policy I don't care about the foreign policy all I care about is my ethnic group winning. Well these things are not disconnected sir okay like if you think that you can have that you can win with a 2% sales tax or 99% income tax and it's all just the same. You know don't don't talk to me about philosophy and strategy like that's not a serious proposal. If you don't think that foreign policy matters to the winning your people winning well you can lose a war your people could be wiped out. In a mushroom cloud and a nuclear blast that's what happens when you're not concerned about foreign policy. Especially right now I mean we're on the brink of world war 3. So if you go and you talk to serious people and you're like look I don't care about taxes I don't care about war all I care about is race. You should really hope our politics don't get to that point you know what I mean you should really hope so and the thing is this too. You know I understand why like race becomes a very salient component of our politics on account of what. Well becomes a salient component of our politics on account of the diversity that's imposed upon us okay so we have this we have this these this collection of warring tribes in white countries in America and Europe whatever okay. And these people are basically you know warring over the scraps of the carcass that is the country that's really no longer viable you know if you face it ultimately. And so now there's like this contest on for the spoils right well if that's not a healthy politics okay and serious people understand that that's not a healthy politics. Whether they understand all that led up to it that's another question but serious people understand that anybody moving towards that they're actually not pursuing a better course than a healthy politics okay a healthy politics is we don't have this problem of racial grievances distorting all the things that we care about okay. We have meaningful discussions about foreign policy and economics and cultural matters and how we educate our children because we're not fending off the other racial group all the time that's a healthy politics. And when you say hey all of the other things that you care about what's wrong with you pal like what's wrong with you and they're right. And the and the dissident right the alt-right white national whatever that movement wants to call itself and whatever shakes out from the you know the mess that it is now. Anything that goes on to do something of significance is going to figure that out and and and defeat this that we just witnessed. The people who incest that there's a racial issue are wrong that's actually not an accurate description of our politics we have a a vast apparatus of government that interferes with every aspect of the human condition and the ways that it's doing that are very dangerous and destructive and you know you can you can get a certain amount of like popular support by saying hey this group is a problem for us okay like you know the liberals talk about this all the time like it's some kind of like you know dictatorial manipulation tactic and find whatever like just accept that it is you know why bother arguing about it but like. But it's not just that right it's you can you can wield support in this way you say hey this group that you can identify yourself as a part of has a threat from the outside group and then we need to get together to fend the outside group off okay you can do that you can obtain a certain amount of political support this way. But in the course of that you're going to have to figure out you know who's who within that group and those people are going to have to have the debates over the things that are actually of substance right. And if one of you says that we can have a universal basic income guarantee and socialized health care and the other one says that's economically in coherent and you're going to deform prices like a legitimate debate ensues there and you're going to have a discussion and if you say the guy who wants to debate me on economics is not looking out for the best interest of our race then people who are capable of understanding the depths of our politics are going to see you as somebody who's actually not up to the level of conversation that's necessary to engage in this exercise. And what you end up with in that situation unfortunately and we see this all time you know people in the dissident right are constantly complaining about other people in the state right I'm not you know making a controversial point here to say is there always like this guy is a bad guy this guy is a bad guy and I do this I try to keep this to a minimum but believe me I notice it more often than I say it okay. Other people notice this too and they look at it and they're like this is a bunch of like scum bags what do I want anything to do with them. They're not good people and they don't achieve outcomes that I wish to achieve for myself all their outcomes are catastrophic and I like I actually aspire towards higher things and they they're capable of. So they don't care about the things that I care about they're not accomplishing the things that I want to accomplish what why would I emulate their behavior and you if you think that you can interlock into electrolyze that away racialize that away then you know you're going to be doing you're going to waste a lot of time and effort frankly. They see this remember you'll remember the Tucker Carlson thing okay so like Tucker Carlson came on when on the ad in Corolla show was like you know some guy is going to go and say that he represents white people and I'm going to tell him to f off and everybody's like ow screw you Carlson. And I was like you know there's a lot of people claim it will speak on behalf of white people right now that I I wouldn't want to stand in the same room as you crazy like yes somebody just comes up and says I speak for white people I'm like well you know you're going to have to actually. You're going to have to come up with something more intellectually stimulating than that sorry thank you very much. There's a time when Richard Spencer thought he spoke for white people and the other day he's on Twitter saying that there's something good about the lemon you're being melted right. You got a lot of people who have claimed to speak on behalf of white people who turn around did really bad things so like. That's actually the result of what he's saying like okay forget about all the things that you think are important just focus on you know monomaniacly on this one thing well no. There is not a race issue there are many issues and race deforms all of them and if you're not up to the task of engaging on those subjects then actually the people are going to reject your proposals and they're going to do so appropriately that's my view of it in any case. If you have a different view of it I'd love to hear from you at 217 688 1433 if you would like to be on the program and the way you told the less I have to so please give us a call. Let's see here let's go check on people. 217 688 1433 if you'd like to be on the program and the more you talk the less I have to so please do give us a call what's the other thing I was going to bring up here. Oh I said I was going to bring up this letter okay I'll do that hang on a second let me go put this thing back here and I'll bring up this letter. This is a correspondence that I sent to a man by the name of Ian free and Freeman. And you might recall we interviewed him I believe it was episode 20 or 21 of stage one of serial politics and it was one of my proudest professional accomplishments actually was my interview of my radio colleague Ian Freeman and we go way back me in him. And I recently said to him you know let it that I sent to him at the Merrimack County correctional facility. Excuse me. I'm not going to read this whole thing to you. Maybe I should it's only four pages maybe just read the whole letter. Um alright my dear friend Ian I was glad to receive your reply and also glad if unsurprised to find you seeming in better spirits than most men would be in your position. I imagine by now you have received the interview transcript I sent which had been dispatched before I had the chance to read your letter. What you say about the federal block being the adult block reaches be as good news if largely unsurprising while I was held at strafford they did not separate the local cases from the federal cases. And so I was in the decidedly makes company of dope fiends and withdrawal and king pins not soon to leave. Once shipped to the federal system those one comes into contact with tend to be of a higher caliber and I suspect you may discover this to be your own experience. Law enforcement of course has the responsibility of cleaning up the nuisances off the street such as the junkies who just can't stop smashing windows to steal change. Sharing a cell with one of these types as they vomit lose control of their other bodily functions makes for a rough night. I have remarked many a time that I'd soon or spend my days with killers and bank robbers then with such low water creatures and the feds having the luxury of being more selective in their targeting tend to acquire these more sophisticated criminals as well as folks like yourself who are not criminals at all. While it is needless to say unfortunate to see non criminals thrown into cages it is for those of us who must have convicts as neighbors and all together less troubling experience to be around people whose activities were not so disrupted to daily life outside that local law enforcement felt like they were not in the right place. The law enforcement felt compelled to intervene before the feds got there. My this is about a book that I sent them. Oh you know what? This is the wrong letter. This is not even what I meant to read to you. I'm sorry. Hang on a second. This is not the right letter that I even meant to read. I meant to read to you something much earlier. Let me scroll ahead. I'm sorry. Now that I read that whole thing. I don't want to read this whole letter to you. This one's a little bit longer. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was reading. I was reading. Matthew Contanetti. I wanted to try to understand these other views that I didn't understand. Even I mentioned the tea party and stuff earlier. I went and I got involved with the tea party. I read the communist. I read the communist manifesto. I read the communist. I read the coming insurrection. I read a lot of left-wing books like early in my political education. I didn't just read what conservatives had to say about communism. I read the source material. I know. There's some guy out there. I'm not going to give him the name recognition of mentioning it. There's some guy out there who says, oh, because I read Alexander Dugan while I was in prison. This is evidence of being a Duganess. You must think very strongly of Alexander Dugan's words to believe that. If you read Dugan, that must mean that you believe the things that he believes. That's not my experience with reading books, actually. I read Karl Marx. I read Vladimir Lenin. I did not turn around and become a communist for sure. I actually thought that the fourth political theory was sort of a powerful critique of leftism. But I don't think that it came to a lot of very useful conclusions beyond that, truth be told. I found that amusing in the extreme. This is like people who think, oh, you read my conf. You must be a Nazi. You must think very highly of Adolf Hitler, don't you? No, it's a monster. If you think everybody who reads this book becomes a Nazi, that tells you something about what you think of the quality of the material. So you read whatever you want. I will keep on coming and talking to you for two and four and six hours a week depending on what you're listening habits alike. We do this every Monday at 9.30 p.m. U.S. Eastern. Wednesday, you get extra, extra, extra close access to me on the, on the member of the Zonely video chat. We do a little video conference. And I would invite you to join us for that. You go over to serialpoliteaks.com. So join and become a member there. If you use code agenda 33, you'll get 33% off your first three months. Now, make it down to $6.70 for the first three months, each month for the first three months. And if you do that, then you go to serialpoliteaks.com.slay shop and then you get all the, the, the merch that we sell at a really deep discount. That's a great idea. It's math. You can argue with math. And then of course, Friday, we come back for the uncensored production. And like, I have just completely stopped apologizing for the F's. I don't even care anymore. So we have a lot of fun on the radical agenda is the name of that show. And it's basically, you know, if you guys are watching on the Odyssey, you know what I'm talking about. Those of you who watch and listen elsewhere, you know, if you're watching on rumble, you don't get the radical agenda, which, you know, we're, we don't want to get kicked off of rumble. So you should get on my mailing list. The Christopher Kent will that net slash subscribe. And that will get you access to everything that I do. You'll be informed really well informed provided that you're, you know, your email provider doesn't bounce my emails or put them in your spam trap. Which you should definitely keep track of and complain if they do. And so if you do all of those things, if you had done all those things before, then you would know, already that my birthday is coming up. It's November 12. I'm going to be 43 years old. And that's great. I love getting older. I know you do too. It's great. A dying very slowly. I think it's kind of the way you describe this in some circles. Now it's, you know, I'm, I'm okay. And so the, I'm not, I'm not having a, you know, mid light crisis or anything. I'm sick. The, but this is the first birthday that I've enjoyed in freedom for a while. So I'm looking forward to that. And of course, if you want to buy me a present, you can do that. And I make it really easy, as a matter of fact, first of all, you just like give me cash. You do the Christopher Kent World.net slash donate. I'll tell you how to do all of that. It's very easy to give me money. I make it very easy to pay me. But I also make it easy to buy me presents. So if you go to Christopher Kent World.net slash gifting GIFT, I FTI and G. I actually wrote 2300 words, which will help you figure all of that out. So like I have the main public Amazon wish list. And then I actually made like some other wish list. I have a wish list. Calm wish list and a new egg wish list and, and, and I made extra Amazon wish list for like different things. And they're all described there. I got like my measurements. If you want, I have like you can buy me clothes and like I got my exact measurements. Like I have the screenshot from my health app. And I do I have the I have the rent Renfo REN PHA. You should get this thing, by the way. I have the Renfo Health app. And I have the Bluetooth tape measure. So I literally took all of my body measurements and put them into the app. And I keep track of these things because, you know, I'm trying to change the shape of my body. And I'm succeeding at that, by the way. And so the exact measurements are actually there. And you perverts asking about that one measurement, you're you're you're you're out. Get your minds out of the gutter. I didn't do that. That is nothing to do with my clothes. You people are sick. So all those things. Christopher can't. Well, that net. So I subscribe. Get you on the email newsletter. Christopher can't well dot net slash donate. You can fork over your shackles. Christopher can't well dot net slash. You can give me a present. Christopher can't well dot net slash. How can I help? You know, if you want to volunteer time and talent, all those different things. It's really just, I mean, the the opportunities for you to participate in this great thing of ours. They are just they border on limitless. I mean, I mean, there's probably limits, but we're not going to find them anytime soon. So go ahead, do all of those things and we'll be back Wednesday and again Friday. Back here again Monday for surreal polities because how could we even dare to think about missing an episode of this? We're having such a great time. You know, you guys want to get a hold of Mr. Davis. You want to tell him that I was talking about him. You guys want to see the bake on go tell him that, you know, we'll see what happens. Maybe maybe even I'll have a talk. See how it goes. I'll see you soon. Thanks a lot. Yeah.