Showing posts with label transcript. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transcript. Show all posts

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Episode 2 Transcript


Edited 31Mar2019 by Kat/@leftgoth

JACK
Greetings fellow cucks, snowflakes, soy boys, and antifa super soldiers, and welcome to I Don't Speak German, the podcast in which I get Daniel Harper, Internet lefty person and my friend and colleague, to tell me what he learned and heard during more than two years of listening to and reading what the Alt-Right, which is really the far-right, say to each other in their safe spaces, their podcasts, their YouTube videos, etc… This is Episode 2. Last week, we talked about one of the better-known representatives of the so-called Alt-Right, Richard Spencer, and we're actually recording this episode too on the anniversary of the day he got punched. But I think we need to revisit Richard Spencer a little bit, in what might be sort of a regular feature of the show, which is the stuff that we didn't get to talk about last time. So Daniel, take it away. What was it that you wanted to talk about Richard Spencer that we didn't cover?

DANIEL
Well, I don't know if I really wanted to talk about Richard Spencer some more, but there were a couple of things I wanted to bring up, just things to highlight that I that I missed in last week's show.

JACK
“Wanted” is a relative term.

DANIEL
There are much better things that I could be doing in my time than following all these assholes and, you know, this is how it goes anyway. The first thing, you asked about the funding issues in terms of where Richard Spencer gets his money and where is their money. One detail that I do think I missed, there was that Regnery Publishing, this is a right wing, fringe book publisher publisher, basically anybody and everybody over right wing politics in the last 30 or 40 years.
It's run by this guy William Regnery II. William Regnery actually started and funds the National Policy Institute and he self-credits having quote unquote “discovered" Richard Spencer in 2011. So, you know, good for you, Regnery. One of the issues is that Richard Spencer is more overtly racist than a lot of the other people that he publishes are comfortable with. And so there's some friction there. But it does seem like Regnery is kind of right on board. He is a billionaire, apparently, and this is the source of one of the, you know, “Richard Spencer is secretly Jewish” stuff— Regnery himself. I think there's some family connections between [them], down the Spencer line and down the Regnery line and then somebody is supposedly half-Jewish or something, I forget all the details of that, but a lot of the lines of “Richard Spencer is an imposter”, seeking to bring down the movement stuff that you see in the fringier, weird corners. You go through that kind of rectory link anyway.

JACK
Well, that's reasonable.

DANIEL
Yeah. I mean, if you do decide to join the White Nationalist movement, and I'm assuming that, like, half the audience is just going to be convinced they need to do that after every episode, but if you do decide to join it, know that you will be accused of being a Jew by someone. That is just par for the course. The second thing I did want to mention was kind of the weirdest reference, one of the things that's the question of how connected these guys [are] to the “respectable” types, the suit-and-tie types, to the more violent paramilitary groups. It is really difficult to know with Spencer. As far as I can tell, I have seen no kind of direct connection anywhere. But there was one detail where, after the MSU [Michigan State] speech in, I think May 2018, there was a Unicorn Riot league. I was looking for the reference for this and I could not locate it so I'll see if I can I can dig it up and hopefully put it in the show notes. But there was an incident where, after that speech, he goes back to this undisclosed location/safe house somewhere in Michigan, somewhere in central Michigan, and with a whole bunch of, you know, kids, goons, fellow white nationalist types, and they were making Molotov cocktails out of tiki torch fuel and empty bourbon bottles—

JACK
Indifferent bourbon bottles, presumably.  We just put our first podcast in-joke.
Sorry, go on.

DANIEL
The issue there for me is it's hard to tell from the description because it's is very vague. Again, [were they] just these kids LARPing as revolutionary types or was this actually a more hardened attempt to defend themselves against the oncoming antifa hordes they were sure were coming? And that's just one of those weird details, that there were kids making Molotov cocktails and Richard Spencer is just, again, this suit-and-tie nationalism hanging out with all these people and [he] doesn’t seem to have any problem with it. Which does kind of speak to some of what his day-to-day life is like. But also, I find it's weirdly on-brand that [it] was tiki torch fuel, right. I really feel bad for the tiki corporation. So anyway, that's just one of those weird details, I thought it was just amusing and kind of scary. But I thought it was worth bringing up. And the third thing, and this is probably the one thing that I really felt bad about missing because I meant to mention it and I almost put it in a sentence and got distracted during the recording last week. He [Spencer] has been very credibly accused of domestic assaults against his now ex-wife. And in fact, this morning as we're recording this, there was a piece in The Huffington Post where the reporter actually spoke to both his ex-wife and actually spoke with Richard Spencer, and based on what I'm seeing, this does seem pretty legitimate. I mean, Spencer does not deny emotionally abusing his ex-wife and some of that. I mean, there are like violent texts and that sort of thing, [though he] does overtly deny ever actually hitting her. But there's pretty clearly a giant mountain of rage inside him that he keeps well away from the cameras. And I think the Huffington Post piece, there’s a lot of criticism going on, as there always is, about it seeming to let his ex-wife off the hook a little bit too much, because she has been working with Spencer for the last several years, nine years or so. I think they got married in 2010, so eight years. But there is. And you know, his wife has translated Alexander Dugin and was very involved in this movement, as much as Spencer himself. So yeah. Now that is just a detail that I would have kind of kicked myself for not bringing up at some point. I didn't want the listeners to feel like I was letting that slide and didn't care about that issue or whatever. You know, that was something that I just missed in the conversation forgot to bring back up again specifically.

JACK
I'm sure you know there are lots of people thinking now, you know, how can we criticize Richard Spencer for punching his Nazi wife if we think it's all right for people to punch him if he's a Nazi? Surely that's exactly the same thing. We’re massive hypocrites now.

DANIEL
Yeah, it's clearly, absolutely just one-for-one, exactly the same thing on both sides. You know.

JACK
A is A.

DANIEL
But are we quoting Ayn Rand or are we quoting Plato on that one?

JACK
That's too meaty for us. Okay, so having having dispensed with our unfinished business from last week, this week we're going to go back in time a bit. Well, not really go back in time because unfortunately he's still around, and [we’re going to] look at one-time Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. So Daniel, tell me about David Duke.

DANIEL
Sure. David Duke was born in 1950 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He moved around a lot. His father was a petroleum engineer, so he did move around a lot in his childhood. He briefly lived in the Netherlands when he was about three. They eventually settled in New Orleans in 1954-1955. He describes he had an African-American housekeeper whom he dearly dearly loved as a child, who was like a second mother to him.

JACK
So he wasn’t racist then.

DANIEL
Can’t be a racist then at all. He describes in his autobiography, which we'll get to, that he does have lots of purple prose about his basically Andy Griffith-like upbringing in Louisiana. He says, you know, “as a child, we often saw the Andy Griffith Show and thought that just looked like our lives”. Other people who have written about his past have slightly different views about that. Apparently he was often bullied and called “Puke Duke”, for one detail. But anyway, he describes being very liberal and very open to racial integration and, like, everyone around him in Louisiana in the late 50s and early 60s was clearly very interested in moving forward on the race question and being progressive, etc, etc. And he was assigned a school book report, kind of the Beat Club thing in 1963 when he was 13. And he said, “I would love to talk about segregation because I'm fully against it and I want to discuss it and that's what I want to do this project about”. And his teacher very clearly said, “Well, no, because this is a rhetoric class, you’re going to have to take the other side, young man, and that's the only way you're going to be able to do this report.” “Oh,” Duke says, “I can't find any material anywhere about this actually pro-segregation in New Orleans in 1963,” until he finds the Citizens Council Building downtown. And they had not just one book, but a whole library of books, among these titles was Race and Reason by Carleton Putnam. It's called Race and Reason: A Yankee View. And basically, this book transformed David Duke's life. He becomes a committed white nationalist at the age of 13 based on, well I think one day we may actually cover some of these books. I have read this book, it is filled with…basically every racist on Twitter uses some revamped version of this same kind of basic bullshit. So he becomes a committed racist at the age of 13. He meets William Luther Pierce, who is the guy who is best known for writing The Turner Diaries and who founded the National Alliance, a straight up Nazi-type in 1967. This is a detail that Duke leaves out of his autobiography, interestingly enough. [He] joins the Klan at 17 in 1967, goes on to basically become a full-fledged Nazi as a college student in the 70s, from about 1970-1974. Graduates. He does spend a year in Laos with his father, instead of serving in Vietnam. He had attempted— he was top of his class in the ROTC, but could not join the military to fight in Vietnam because of his racism. Even at that time, he was too well-known to be able to actually join the military. So he goes off and has a long and distinguished career as a, basically, professional racist. The details of that, I mean it gets kind of messy and contested, we can go into some of that, but the high points are, by 1978, he appears on the Phil Donahue Show, he does a ton of stuff basically mainstreaming the Klan, also nazifying the Klan, which is an interesting detail. He runs for office a few times, he actually serves a term in the Louisiana House of Representatives between 1988 and 1991. He runs as a Democrat in the 1988 primary, basically on the “I'm going to attack Jesse Jackson” ticket. Fails utterly. He had previously worked on the George Wallace campaign and there's some contested history there about, like, an arrest and he claims one thing and the authorities claim another, but he did join the Populist Party to run in their primary in the ’88-’89 era, and then kind of becomes a Republican after that. Has a run for president a few more times in ’92, ’96, and in 2000 attempted to gain the Reform Party nomination and failed at that. And then, [he] came back to the Republicans and he had attempted to run, I believe as governor of Louisiana, in 2016. Most people know David Duke in that late 80s/early 90s period. That's kind of the height of his era in the public eye. But the reason I really wanted to do him second after Richard Spencer was because David Duke in the late 70s and early 80s reminds me a lot more of where Richard Spencer is now. Although David Duke was in his late 20s at that point, Richard Spencer is 40 years old, but at least the strategies and sort of the connections that he's making. And so I think Duke's later career gives us a sense of where Richard Spencer might go in the next 10 or 15 or 20 years, assuming he remains active in the movement, which there's no reason to think he will leave it. The other big salient detail in David Duke's life after the year 2000, he does spend about five years living in Russia feeding on Russian right wing media money. He goes to prison from 2003 to 2005 for tax fraud and mail fraud. He was pretending to be penniless to his base of supporters and he actually got prosecuted for it. So he did serve in prison. He does a have a doctorate, Dr. David Duke. It is basically a right wing, racist diploma mill in the Ukraine that that published his book My Awakening, which is his autobiography, in 1988 and another book, The Jewish Roots of Communism, I think is the title, in 2002 or so. And, believe me, [that’s] basically an expansion of a section of My Awakening. Today he runs a radio show, without an RSS feed or I would like spend more time listening to it, but it's basically unlistenable. We’re podcast hosts, we kind of understand [that] the process of becoming a podcaster is often just, you know, I feel like I have things to say and certainly I'm not going to pretend that sort of vainglorious lack of self-enjoyment to a certain degree, but no man, I think in history, has loved the sound of his own voice more than David Duke. He talks and talks and talks. He does, particularly after 2016, he does a ton of guest-hosting on other people's podcasts. He appeared on one show once, I think this was like right before Charlottesville and literally the kid asked him one question, you know, “how's it going David Duke? Welcome to the show,” something of that nature. And David Duke continued to speak for a full hour uninterrupted.

JACK
Well, I hate to draw comparisons, but Adolf Hitler was also famous for that. He’d just talk and talk and talk endlessly. He used to keep people up all night at the dinner table just talking at them and then they'd all be allowed to go to bed when he finally finished at 3:00 a.m…

DANIEL
Yeah, I can't imagine that being with him personally is anything more than that. I mean, he sounds like an absolutely insufferable human being. He is now 68 years old, he appears on these radio shows all the time. He is regularly a guest on “Zee Public Space”, which is JF Gariepy, his show which we've mentioned before. I'm going to give you this link— there is a very cute little three minute video of David Duke saying, like, “oh no, let me stop you for a second, I just need to get something out before you can move on to your point,” and then continued to speak for long enough that JF is clearly made uncomfortable. So even the other people in the white nationalist movement don't really like him too much. Some of the leaked Unite the Right planning documents, like the texts that they were receiving, was pretty clear that Richard Spencer was planning on ditching David Duke after the rally and not telling him the place of the after party and that sort of thing.

JACK
You mentioned that the era he's best known for with the public is the 80s and early 90s and that era. I mean, firstly the famous Donahue appearance was in ’92, wasn't it?

DANIEL
He actually appeared on Donahue twice, once in ’92 and once in ’78. The ’92 appearance includes clips from the ’78 appearance. I cannot find the full 1978 interview anywhere online. If somebody has that, please let me know.

JACK
Yep. And he became known in the 80s as kind of the new face of the Klan, didn't he? Unless I've got this wrong. He was the guy that was making the Klan respectable, supposedly.

DANIEL
Yeah, that's a little bit more in the 70s because he actually left the Klan in 1980 and he founded something called the National Association for the Advancement of White people. Guess where he got that name from. This is a pattern that you see over and over again— even the term “white power” itself was a misappropriation of the Black Power rhetoric of the 60s and 70s.

JACK
Well, I mean, how can you object to it? How can you say it's wrong with white power if you  don't think there's something wrong with black power? Because hey, A is A, it’s the same thing, isn't it?

DANIEL
All lives matter, you know. So David Duke was “all lives matter’ing” the NAACP in 1978, 1979, that era.

JACK
It's almost as if there's only so many ways you can package the same old bullshit.

DANIEL
Almost, almost.

JACK
Okay, so I got my facts a bit wrong then, it’s more the 70s when he was looked upon as the guy revamping the Klan, right?

DANIEL
That’s a little bit earlier, but it's funny, like even those later appearances and during the 80s, [he] would [be] referred to as ex-Grand Wizard or even Grand Wizard of the KKK. But at that point, he had to ditch the robes in favor of the suit and tie, and he put on this very presentable appearance [that he’s well-known for]. In the mid to late 70s, up to about 1982, he did a ton of radio interviews of actively pushing the Klan as new and improved. You know, “we’re not the bad guys, we’re not the inbred yokels and hicks that the media tells you. We're just a civil rights organization interested in the rights of white people.” He also fought against something I mentioned a second ago. He is kind of credited in this book, Blood and Politics by Leonard Zeskind, and if there is one book on the white nationalist movement I would recommend, it is that one. It is an amazing amazing text; David Duke features heavily in it. I was going to re-read those sections of the book in preparation for this for this episode and then realized very quickly that he's in like 300 pages.

JACK
It would basically just be re-reading the book.

DANIEL
Basically be re-reading the book, right. But he's got his fingers in a lot of pies as he sees it. He’s a really, really important figure in that period and then later on when he was reaching for more mainstream political office. So, I mean, you get these two separate eras of David Duke, one of which is working with the Klan in terms of doing more straightforwardly classic, white nationalist organizing, like building a membership list, working directly with the Klan and other organizations, some campus politics, that sort of thing. And then later on when he becomes a quote unquote “mainstream” political candidate when he's actually trying to achieve ordinary political office. So those are the two separate kind of moments that we remember David Duke for. And he often is confused, I think, sometimes in terms of like how people think it's all kind of the same thing, but no, there's a Klan period and then there's a leader seeking, trying to become governor of Louisiana, trying to seek the presidency, trying to run for the Senate. You know, he ran [for] a bunch of offices and kind of got nowhere. His biggest claim to fame, definitely in terms of his electoral career, was he did run for governor of Louisiana in 1991. He was repudiated by his own party— he was too toxic even for the Republicans at that time. But it did come down to a definitely closer than expected vote. He ends up with, again, according to Wikipedia, about 38.8% of the total vote. But he did win over half of the white vote in Louisiana in that year, which is kind of terrifying, right.

JACK
Yeah, well, that's the incident in which I run into David Duke in my research into libertarians and Murray Rothbard and everything. Murray Rothbard wrote a thing about that where he says, “Oh, everybody is scandalized that David Duke did so well in that election,” you know, and then he goes on to basically defend him and say, “Well, you know there's very little in David Duke's ideology that that runs counter to libertarianism.”

DANIEL
Right. I mean, because Duke definitely was running under a sort of, you know, would couch it as “white civil rights”, anti-affirmative action, anti-civil rights laws, like freedom of association laws, states rights, that sort of thing. And that plays directly into that libertarian ethos [that] you see a lot of the political organizing around that time in particular, and particularly going into the libertarian/Libertarian-Republican politics of the 90s, [it] rests on that same kind of language and logic. So David Duke was seen as, “Well, we don't necessarily want to be quite that racist, but we definitely support his right to be racist.”

JACK
Yeah, you mentioned nazifying the KKK. Perhaps you could speak about that a bit.

DANIEL
Sure. This is again something that is covered in a lot more detail in Blood and Politics, but the basic idea is that the Klan was always an anti-African American organization in its early days from the 1860s, and then in the 1920s they didn't like Jews, but that was just kind of down their list of complaints.

JACK
Was a side issue for them.

DANIEL
And what they were looking to do was to engage in a more white supremacist vision in which African Americans lived under the same government as white people, but were subjugated. You know, Jim Crow laws, segregated housing. It was like, “We don't want them to be laborers, we just want them to be away in their own little crappy places and we don't want them voting. We don’t want them having political power.” And when Duke takes over the Klan, when he starts nazifying it, he’s looking much more in terms of the more modern idea of the ethno-state concept. “We want to have a government separate from Africa. We don't want them near us. We don't want the crime. We don't want,” you know, etc. And so it looks a lot more like an eliminationist rather than segregationist party, right.

JACK
And of course, the idea of the ethno-state, as opposed to the segregationist version of the same racism, is very integral to racism today, isn't it.

DANIEL
Right. In fact, when the modern day guys will say, “Well, I'm not a white supremacist, I’m a white supreeemist,” as a mocking of [the word] supreme. “I'm not a white supreeemacist, you call me a white supreeemacist because I don't want to live with black people. I want them to live in their own place away from me. I don't believe I should be supreme. I want separation.” And so that rhetoric ends up being used a lot. I mean, of course, it's a different version of the same thing, ultimately.

JACK
Yeah, exactly, because the justification for Jim Crow was separate but equal, wasn't it. It's just the same principle extended, and then they pretend it's a completely different thing, right.
We should probably mention, actually, the context that we're recording this, just I think a couple of days after Representative Steve King asked why it was offensive now to call yourself a white supremacist.

DANIEL
Among, you know, what could anybody possibly think is wrong with saying, "I think white people are supreme.” It's like, “white people, we’re just people with sour cream on us and tomatoes,” this is a terrible joke there as well. Apologize for that one.

JACK
Yeah, there's only so much you can do for humor.

DANIEL
Well, here's a funny detail that I skipped over there during the fallow period in between when he [Duke] was doing open Nazi shit versus Klan versus political stuff: he had trouble making money. And one of the things he did was he wrote a bunch of stuff under pseudonyms, and he did write a book called Finders Keepers in 1976. I cannot find a copy of this book. I would love to read it. The book contained, I'm taking this from a Washington Post article from 1990 so I'll give you a link, the book contained instructions on oral sex, foreplay, and vaginal exercises, and also encouraged women to have sex with married men because they make better lovers. Duke has said he only checked for grammatical errors in the sexual content of the book, but did not write those chapters. Apparently the bulk of that was just lifted wholesale from Cosmopolitan magazine and plagiarizing Cosmo and writing a book and using that to make money. Duke is also an inveterate womanizer. He was very well-known in the Klan circles in the 70s and, presumably to, I am hoping not present day. But you see a lot of people in the Klan groups who say, “keep your wife away from him,” you know, he's somebody who gets handsy and he's perfectly happy to cheat on his wife with whatever pretty young thing is hanging around with the Klan guys in the 70s.

JACK
Definitely keep your wife away from him, and keep yourself away from him, and just keep away from him, basically, for various reasons, let alone the ones just stated.

DANIEL
He did marry Chloe Hardin in the 70s. They eventually divorce; the details of the courtship are well-covered My Awakening, why she left is not so much, but she does eventually leave him. Then she marries Don Black, who would go on to found Stormfront and also has his own little shady radio show without an RSS feed. Don Black is a truly despicable piece of shit who went to prison for a few years for trying to take over the island of Dominica in the Caribbean, [in a] basically, an open imperialist attempt to form a white nationalist state.

JACK
Like a private act of imperialism.

DANIEL
Right. There's a very good book I actually just read called Bring the War Home. Kathleen Belew is the woman who wrote that. It’s a very good book that goes into the history of Vietnam veterans coming home and how they get involved in white nationalist, white supremacist Klan groups, and the ideological connections there, and that leads all the way up to the Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing in 1996. And that's a really interesting book that put me thinking in some different directions about that stuff, which I'm still kind of figuring out the way some of this fits in. But we don't have to cover that necessarily. David Duke is mentioned a couple of times in the book, but he's definitely the focus. It's more people that he used to hang out with [who] went on to do other things. In fact, you can often find that a bunch of David Duke's second-in-commands end up being, A) they end up not liking him very much, and B) they end up going on to form other organizations. Tom Metzger, who eventually is going to form the White Aryan Resistance, who is still alive, who produces, believe it or not, audio CDs of white nationalist radio programs that you can subscribe to. For $20 a month, he will mail you audio CDs of himself talking, which I'm sure is an incredibly effective way of spreading the message. He's also in the Louis Thoreau and the Nazis documentary. He's kind of a figure in that [documentary] and I hear he does occasional appearances on some of the more fringy white nationalist podcasts. So I've heard him speak a little bit. So Tom Metzger is one guy, Don Black is one guy, and a bunch of people who have peripheral connection to David Duke's work in the 70s, who went on to do more overtly violent things than he [Duke] could do. Also, he’s well-known for embezzling money from the people around him, and there's some evidence he probably informed on some of his underlings to the FBI. What I find fascinating is just how much of a clown he is today. And because I describe all this nazifying the Klan, like, “let's make the Klan worse. Let's take this down, it was already terrorizing people, and find a way to make it worse.” David Duke does that. You know, people know him as this pretty bright, smart person with white nationalist leanings. He does a lot of that. You see a lot of the coverage of David Duke in the 70s and 80s, [it] looks a lot like the “dapper young Nazi” Richard Spencer stuff. And so there's this clear link there. I mean, a lot of these more current guys are clearly trying to figure out where Duke went wrong. You know, engage in the same kind of mainstreaming of these far-right, openly genocidal ideas into open political discourse. In 1970, when he was a college student, he was well-known for having actual Nazi posters on his wall in his dorm room. A bunch of people who were there at the time will attest to that. And he used to go around campus wearing an SS uniform complete with swastika armband. And there are some widely-circulated photos of him in 1970 protesting the appearance of the Chicago Seven, who are the protesters who were arrested at the 1968 Democratic Convention, he is protesting the appearance of one of their advocates in 1970 when he appeared at the university, at Louisiana State, where Duke was a student at the time. And, again, David Duke wearing Nazi shit, being a straight-up Nazi, and that’s, again, something he does not mention in his autobiography. In the late 70s, 1978, when he was part of the Klan, he did a bunch of public attention stunts, one of which was he did the “Klan Border Patrol”, where he actually went down to the U.S.-Mexico border and basically did a militia-like stunt to stop the illegal immigration coming in. And seeing that repeated again, it’s just lovely.

JACK
Yeah, it's nice. It’s nice to see these old standards come back, isn't it, as they have done.

DANIEL
So, I mean, he's legitimately a scary figure. He's legitimately a nasty little piece of work. But I think the thing that amuses me is just how un-seriously most of the modern guys take him. Like [they] think, “oh, he did great work back in the day,” but nobody wants to hang out with him. In particular, he’s a huge fan of health food and fasting. He spends a ton of time talking about how, in fact, this hour long thing I told you about in that podcast episode was really not about, like, how terrible the Jews are, although he will tell you how terrible he thinks the Jews are at a moment's provocation. Although, he'll usually say things instead of, like, “Jewish,” he’ll say the “Zio-media”. He's big into that  “Zio-left, the Zio-media”. You know, “they're coming after our white people.” But he basically describes his fasting routine and his exercise routine and is like, “You know, you're a young guy and if you want to be whip-smart and you really want to be the best you can be, you really got to start to try fasting, and I've got this health food in my bag, and you should definitely try some of that.” Apparently, in the van in Charlottesville when they were driving around as part of the Unite the Right rally, he did give a small speech, it is online, I'll give you the the audio of that. He and someone we will definitely be talking about in the future, Mike Enoch, there is one video where they each give like a five minute speech, but apparently he was pushing health food on people in the van in Charlottesville. So in the post-Charlottesville and post-Unite the Right podcasts, you'll hear kids who were there, guests on the shows, and they will mock David Duke specifically for that, because he's like, “you got to eat pea soup and bran muffins and  fast everyday,” and it's complete nonsense. But that's what he's into now. He's basically like Natural News, but like a racial agenda.

JACK
There's a lot of that in this subculture in various forms. There's a lot of obsession with diet and health foods and healthy living and supplements and stuff like that. I mean, a lot of it's hucksterism, but…

DANIEL
Right, well, even in like Alt-Right circles, [there’s] the Brain Force Plus (an Alex Jones supplement), you know, all that kind of stuff. One of the things is this biological view of humanity that is, you know, “we are essentially our bodies, that society and socialization, those things don't count at all, just biology.” And so they get really obsessed with making sure that they're eating the right things and making sure that they're behaving properly as men. So they they work out constantly - or at least they say they work out constantly - that stuff happens a lot. You get a lot of talk about how you're supposed to eat, what you're not supposed to eat. “No, there are phytoestrogens in beer and you can't have beer…although beer is a European thing, it's like a European tradition.”

JACK
Isn’t that one of the great achievements of European culture?

DANIEL
“We as white men can absorb alcohol where the other races just don’t do as well, particularly Native American and East Asians, because of our unique genetic heritage, which leads to a culture which allows us to absorb alcohol responsibly,” and then the other half is like, “Yeah, but it’s got phytoestrogens and it's going to be turn you into a soy boy f—t cuck or whatever.” Apologies for the language there.

JACK
Do you want to talk about his appearance on Donahue, is it worth talking about or have we covered that enough already?

DANIEL
I mean, it's definitely worth watching if you're interested in seeing what the previous media environment is like and, in particular, looking at the old. You look at that appearance and you look at the way that Donahue does it, what Donahue does and doesn't challenge, because he can't. So David Duke, again, if you look at what he's done, he bases a lot of his justifications on this very strong, pseudoscientific, genetic argument, right. Like the ideas of race and IQ and then he claims to have been interested in biology from a very young age. And so you hear David come out and say, ‘Well, there are clear IQ differences and this comes from this unique genetic heritage,” and whatever, and talk show hosts like Donahue - he just doesn't have the rhetorical ability to really combat that directly. So it ends up being like the source of that “facts not feels” thing, right. There is actually more, I can't remember if that happens, if David Duke actually gets him on that kind of argument in ’92, but Donahue had an episode on about Holocaust deniers, and that comes up over and over and over again. One of the things that I think is a general challenge of dealing with this stuff, is how you deal with the arguments that they're making because the whole point of being say, “look, I've got all this genetic evidence and I've got all this, you know, William Shockley, the inventor of the transistor, and the Nobel Prize guy, and James Watson,” — today, they'll talk about James Watson, the discoverer of DNA, believes that black people are inferior, and “he’s the Galileo of our time”, and you know, responsible scientists do not want to challenge that because they don't want to give it airtime. But when they make these claims to people who don't know the science, they're very easily tripped up because they've got rhetorical moves planned in advance. So it's a real challenge in combating this stuff because they sound like they know what they're talking about even when they're actually speaking of clear nonsense that anyone with a basic knowledge of genetics should be able to refute. But then they've got these big names that they say all agree with their side. You see this a lot in creationism, which I think everyone who listens to this knows that I used to hang out in those circles, and that all the creationists use those same kind of strategies over and over again.

JACK
It's the same with anything you go into a debate about, you know [for example] 9/11 with a Truther. If you don't know anything about engineering and metallurgy and stuff, they'll beat you despite the fact that they're talking complete rubbish.

DANIEL
Right. And just by the fact that they can sound like they know what they're talking about, sounds like, “Oh, well, you have you ever looked at the IQ data,” and they can get the kind of jargon down enough to flim-flam, essentially, and that's something that's a really dangerous form of pseudoscience there.

JACK
So the interview [Duke and Donahue] is famous. What do you think the overall effect was? Did it make him more respectable overall? He seems to be quite influential despite the fact that almost everybody, including all the people on his own side, views him with contempt.

DANIEL
Because he comes across well in these interviews, because he's polite, because he can distance himself from the stereotype of the Klan, I think he has an ability to become the respectable face of this stuff in a way that few other people do. So the Donahue interview itself, I mean that was after his failed run, that was him on the downward slope in terms of any kind of mainstream respectability. Basically, he lost enough political races that he started to look like a loser instead of a winner. You know, because in the early days, he looked like, “Oh, this upstart,” who can come up and win electoral victories, and it's going to become the new face of the Republican Party in some ways. By ’92, I mean I don't know that it necessarily obvious at that time, that was kind of his peak. But certainly in retrospect, we can see that he really was never higher in public esteem, or in his public face, than he was in November ’91 when that election happened.

JACK
But would you say, then, that the main way in which he's been influential, I mean, you said earlier that Richard Spencer reminds you a bit of David Duke at this period. Would you say that David Duke's main influence, then, has been this idea of being polite and dapper and seeming respectable, etc, as a way in to the mainstream?

DANIEL
I think there's a lot to that and I think that this kind of gets into something that, if you've been following these guys at all, the modern Alt-Right movement, they’re obsessed with their optics, quote unquote “optics”, like the polo shirts and khakis, the idea of like, “We're not going to dress like slobs, we're going to be like kind of middle class, working class guys.” You know, kind of like wearing what you'd wear to work, if you work in the tech industry, which most of these guys do.

JACK
I wonder what that says about the tech industry.

DANIEL
Oh, that's kind of an amazing question, honestly.

JACK
That's a whole other series.

DANIEL
That’s a whole other thing. But, you know, this idea of dressing it up and cleaning it up and making it— I mean, ultimately the reason that David can do this is, in some sense, because the larger media, again post-World War II, never really dealt with the reality of what the United States is as a white supremacist nation. We never really, in Western society in general, but I can speak specifically for the United States, we just kind of pretended it wasn't true. We've always been multicultural, we have always been a multicultural melting pot here in the United States. We've always had people of many different races and many different societies and cultures who all joined together. We can't pretend that that's not true. But we have done that in this kind of openly white supremacist way that privileged certain kinds of people over others.

JACK
You know, I was going to say it's just that American capitalism was built on some of those people being owned and used as farm machinery, as Vonnegut put it.

DANIEL
Exactly. The rhetorical technique then was to paint [it like], “Oh, you want to be sophisticated, you want to be a better person,” and [it] embraces multiracial and rejects open forms of racism. And anybody who is a racist has got to be some inbred hillbilly from Alabama or Mississippi, which plays very much in terms of the way that the resentment of the American South, since the Civil War really, but particularly after World War II, you know, people living in the south do have a legitimate resentment towards quote unquote “coastal elites" who treat them as inbred. And this has both an illicitly racial and a cultural-Christian [thing] this gets played into. There's a big stew of this stuff in different bits and bobs that pop up every now and then. I grew up in the south. I know how the attitude is. I mean, you know when people say the Confederate flag is about heritage not hate, now there's a lot of bullshit there, but there are people in the South who genuinely think, “We were just rebelling against these rich guys who treated us like shit from another part of the country and we were trying to go off and do our own thing.” They ignore that the thing they were trying to do was engage in a continued system of exploitative labor where people get to own other people, like explicitly racist lines. But there is something to that, in terms of the psychology, and someone like David Duke and Richard Spencer and a lot of these guys on the Alt-Right now have basically played into this resentment wherein, if you live in this kind of rural area and maybe your life hasn't gone so well and you feel like you're looked down on by, again, “coastal elites” — you can put parentheses around that if you like — then somebody like David Duke is saying, “No, I'm speaking for your interests and speaking for white interests and speaking for the rural people who live in these flyover states in this flyover country, who do not live in these big cosmopolitan states” — again with and without parentheses — “who have legitimate interests, and that you are white people and I'm reaching out to you as white people.” You can take that ’92 [Donahue] appearance, you can take the stuff that he was doing in the late 70s, and mainstreaming and making it nice and polite, you can play that right into you. I mean, we can do a super-cut of David Duke in 1978, David Duke in 1992, Richard Spencer in 2009 or 2010, relevant to the modern guys today. We could do essentially one sentence, it just runs all through that. And it's that same basic idea that plays into everything, that's been going on in American politics, that's the southern strategy, at least on this idea. I mean, Nixon talking about, “It’s these New York elites,” privately he would say Jews, but you know, the idea that the liberal media is out to get you because you're conservative, because you're traditionalist, and this “great silent majority” rhetoric. We do get to this thing, like it feels difficult to take someone like David Duke seriously because, ultimately, he is a very marginal figure and even at his greatest success, he was not really reaching that high. He never really got that far in terms of like mainstream political success, and now he does a really shitty radio show without even an RSS feed. So, it tells you he's not a mainstream figure, but he is just the tip of the spear that is playing with, basically, harder-edged versions of what's going on in very, very mainstream politicians, of both political parties, particularly in certain regions. This is in no way trying to pretend that this is just a Republican thing, it is making explicit what is implicit. That's what I find fascinating, in a lot of ways about studying these guys, is that the whole thing that they're trying to do, is to say, “Hello, stop saying working class Americans and just say white people, which is what you really mean.”

JACK
So you wanted to talk about his autobiography.

DANIEL
Yes. There is, and I have given Jack the links here, you can buy it on Amazon if you like. We are not going to stop you, but don't. There is a PDF available, it is on the Internet Archive, it is Google-able, but again, I'll give Jack a link so you can have that. I do have that PDF, I did kind of go over [it], kind of skimmed a bunch of it while I was preparing for this podcast. But my initial experience of reading this book was not through the PDF or through the text copy, which I would not buy a text copy, I'm not giving this guy any money. He makes an audio book freely available on his website through the Internet Archive, doesn't actually host the files himself of course, because it's probably beyond his technical sophistication. But he does link to the Internet Archive. You can go and download an audio version that he recorded. It's unclear to me when he recorded this, but it was sometime after ’98 and before 2016 when he was running for governor. He not only reads the book, but he goes into and he does asides on the book.  So for instance, he'll do a sequence talking about then current data and the race and IQ stuff, he’ll quote  like Rushton from 1997 and then go and then do an aside like, “And actually, this was updated in 2004. There was an even better book…” and then would go into that kind of nonsense. So he’s not even really reading the book as much as meta-commenting on the book. There are tables in the book and he will describe the table and say, “If you download the PDF, you can have that table and look at that.” It is really insufferable. It is, I think, 42 hours long. I listened to it at 2.0 speed. I may give Jack some audio from this, I was looking for like a really choice package. Let me describe the contents of this book to you. It is split into four basic units, four parts of the book, and each one has several chapters inside. Part One is essentially David Duke's childhood where he describes how wonderful growing up in Louisiana was and the Andy Griffith stuff and then how he discovered the race question and segregation, right. So Part Two is basically race and IQ, and fraudulent sets of pseudoscientific data. So there's a lot of David Duke saying things like, “Blacks are more inherently inclined to crime and we know this because FBI crime data, such and such thing, and I'm going to give you a citation again if you want all the real data. I've got hundreds of references and you can find it in the paper copy of my book which you can buy and such and such.” Part Three is on the Jewish question, which is essentially a long list of people that David Duke thinks are bad who are also Jewish. I wish I was exaggerating this but…

JACK
That reminds me of Nick Griffin's pamphlet about how the Jews control the media in Britain and it's basically just the list of people in British show business who are Jewish.  

DANIEL
Literally in some places, he’s like, “Oh, look at all the people in, like, Lincoln's cabinet who had possible Jewish ancestry, look at all the people in,” — I guess the book was written in the Clinton administration, so he goes through and lists all the Jews who are running such and such department — “Look at all the media-Jews, look at it…” Literally, it's just a list. A whole bunch of it is just, “Oh, and so-and-so and so-and-so: Jewish. And then this guy is vice president: also Jewish.” The text version is bad enough, but listening to him, just like the way he says “Jewish" over and over and over again. Like every time it's supposed to be this stab in the face towards his rhetorical enemies, it's absolutely, you know, if it wasn't filled with the worst kind of antisemitic hate, it would be really amusing. It's completely on the face of it ridiculous to basically just name a list of Jewish people. It's not even like a correlation-causation error like the race and IQ stuff and all of the science around genetics. It’s just, “look at some Jewish bad people and they're overrepresented because of such and such, and you know the Jewish roots of communism. Karl Marx: Jew.” Again, it's literally just a list of like all the Jewish people who founded Communism in Russia in 1917.

JACK
The hatred is so visceral.

DANIEL
“The Russian mafia is really the Jewish mafia, don't you know, because all these people coming over and committing crimes and doing the the Russian mafia stuff. They're not Russians, they’re not real ethnic Russians. They’re Jews, that’s what makes them extra-bad, and they've got weird sexual proclivities,” and that sort of thing. It's hours and hours and hours and hours to just do this. I mean, I tuned out for big chunks of it because there's no reason to follow the details of this in any detail.

JACK
It doesn't sound like a page-turner, no.

DANIEL
And then the fourth part, I'll just finish up the description of the book, is, “Look at all the times I owned the Liberals and the media, look at all the little edge lord activities I engaged in when I was a college student.” I mean, there's a lot of like the, “And then I asked my professor if you think that you know the egalitarian principles right, then how do you account for such and such? And they had no answer because clearly I was right. They were just parroting their egalitarian bullshit.” There literally is that: “Look at all the times I owned the libs when I was in college, and then when I traveled the world I went to India and everything was dirty and the food so spicy because they don't wash their plates. And then I went to Europe and everything was gorgeous.” And yeah, this is a rich kid. He got to travel the world, his dad was a petroleum engineer in the 70s.

JACK
Another rich kid like Spencer.

DANIEL
Yeah. I mean, I don't get the sense that he comes from old money in the way that Spencer does. But you know, these kids are very often pretty well-off. There's not a sense of real kind of material lack in their lives, in most cases. There is one detail, the only thing I'm going to like empathize with him a little bit here, is that his mother does appear to have been a really, really awful alcoholic and pill-popper, particularly after his uncle died when he was very young. And that like pushed his mother into this really, really awful alcoholism, like every source agrees this was really, really bad. And so I will say, you know what, yes, David Duke, you had a really terrible experience with your mother. That doesn't justify genocidal racism, but I will give him that.

JACK
Okay, so the other thing about David Duke is that he was at Unite the Right in Charlottesville, wasn't he?

DANIEL
He was and in fact—

JACK
As you've already mentioned.

DANIEL
The fact that David Duke agreed to go when Jason Kessler, who organized Unite the Right, asked him, seems to have been essentially the reason that Richard Spencer said yes. For instance, because again, we have text messages of Kessler texting with Spencer. He said, "You know Duke and Enoch are both going to be there,” and Spencer agrees, “Okay, yes, I will come.” You know, so David Duke does lend a certain legitimacy to Unite the Right, on the far-right at that time. Like, “Oh, we've actually got this. This is white nationalism 1.0,” is what they call it, “We've got this giant figure who's very well-known in the movement, who is taking us seriously.” David Duke appeared on the Fash the Nation podcast in 2016, for instance, and it was really weird for me because I had been listening to that podcast for a couple of months, and then I hear David Duke come on and using words like cuck. It was just like, what the fuck are we doing. You know like when your grandpa starts trying to play hip-hop or something. It felt like a really strange thing to me at that time.

JACK
Well, this sort of image of the “Facebook grandpa” has kind of been recurring to me a lot during our conversation.

DANIEL
There's a lot of that going on where David Duke is. I mean, they sort of respect him in the sense of like he's just been around forever and they give him a certain amount of space. But again, they don't seem to really like him, they don't think he really gets their meme. He's kind of a joke, but he's just, you know, he's clever, the doddering old grandpa, and there are some figures who seem to have legitimate affection for him. But I think everybody finds him insufferable and they think that he's going to try to steal their wives and he's going try to steal their money.

JACK
And wants to talk to them about health food.

DANIEL
About health food and “the juice”. It's just “the juice” all the time, everything, the “Zio-media is out to get us”. You know, I really should give you some audio just to drop in at some point. I think that people should listen to like 30 seconds of this at some point.

DAVID DUKE RECORDING
“Pinky” was my family's black housekeeper who seemed like part of our family. She cared for me as if I were her own son. Prepared many of my meals, tended my wounds, and listened to my dreams. I was 11 years old when she died and thinking about her now warms my heart. So how did it happen that, despite my childhood love for Pinky, I became a spokesman today for what the postcard sender had called quote, “the politically incorrect European American”? As my life and thoughts unfold in this book, you will find out why. I will lay bare the formative parts of my life, the experiences that stand out in my memories, and recount the search for truth that led to my awakening. In telling my story, I will challenge the vital premises of the establishment and roast some sacred cows. I will anger those who worship fashion rather than independent thought. Hopefully, a few of the more open-minded will pause to think. In this book, I offer an eye-opening view of the world today, a revolutionary view, to be sure. I also offer my evolutionary vision of the new world that will be created tomorrow.

DANIEL
Yeah, so, probably the only other thing I would mention is that, since we mentioned Richard Spencer’s disastrous personal relationships and violent activities, we should talk of that. There is a piece, I mentioned Chloe Harden, who he [Duke] married in the 70s, but we do have a little bit from a woman who did date David Duke in the 1989-2000 era. It's actually a woman named Laurie Eden, who is a former swimsuit model, who I think was in her 40s at the time, and dated David Duke. There is a really nice little profile where she describes the process of dating him and the fact that she thinks a lot of his racism is put on. At least, she did at the time. I haven't seen any more recent stuff. I did try to google around. I mean, she is alive, she is still living her life, as far as I know. She doesn't talk about this stuff ever anymore. There were some kind of Facebook posts by her where she just said, “I don't talk about that anymore.” I'm perfectly happy to let her have the rest of her life to not have to deal with it anymore. But at the time in this interview, she apparently feels that Duke is putting on some of this. She tells the story of one of his kids was playing in a pool where a black kid was on the other side of the pool, like playing, and David Duke was fine with it until one of his flunkies shows up, and you know, “We have to protect her, we’ve got to keep her away from those monkeys.” That sort of activity, meaning that he's maybe not quite as explicitly racist as he pretends to be for his buddies. I say, you don't spend 50 years in the white supremacy movement and not like actually believe this stuff. But that's her perspective.

JACK
I think it's more likely, you know, suddenly there was somebody there that he wanted to impress.

DANIEL
Right. I'm sorry. I'm re-reading this profile, she was 33 at the time that she independent inclusively and said this racism seems to depend on having an audience. Once, hanging around with his entourage, big men who had shot people before, men who would take care of him. He very publicly yanked her out of a large hotel swimming pool when a black child got in at the other end. But another time, at a small ice cream shop for her son's birthday, he got into a long and apparently friendly conversation with a black friend of hers. His followers weren't there at that time. You know, there's a lot of talk about like, humanizing these people, right. And [how] that giving them any kind of ability to be people at all, is to downplay the evil to some degree. And I think it's important to note that these are human beings and to understand them as human beings, as opposed to treat them as monsters all the time. I think that treating them as monsters who are just fundamentally different from you and I avoids the the real issue. It avoids the fact that these ideologies do not just come about because people are just like always bad. And it plays into the very thing that allows someone like David Duke, who comes across as, “Well, he's very polite to that one black person he knows and therefore how could he possibly be racist?” It's that exact failure of knowledge and imagination that allows these people places to grow. And I think that getting a sense of who he is as a person, even through an ex-girlfriend, who I think has her own issues with what she's willing to say and believe about him, does give us a peek into seeing him as a person as opposed to as a villain. Gives us a sense of the reality that seeing him as kind of the cartoon cut out of just you know racist man bad does not and I think we can acknowledge the evil and acknowledge the real harm that this man has done over his life while at the same time recognizing that those failures are human ones and not demonic.

JACK
Yeah, well it's always better to understand things properly, and the more you understand, the better it is. Always always always. And as you say, if you think of these people as monsters, the minute they turn up in a smart suit and they're polite to you and they speak reasonably, then you suddenly, “Oh, well maybe they're not so bad after all.” Whereas of course they are. It's the being able to understand that they are humans that allows you to understand exactly how they are so terrible, because if you indulge in this sort of fantasy of these people as just evil, you’re hobbling your own ability to understand, which is never good, right. And I feel like also, if you understand them as humans, you can understand how pathetic they are. I mean, this is a pathetic individual you're describing. He's obviously a raging narcissist. Nobody writes an autobiography that takes 42 hours to read out loud, which he then does, and record it unless they've got serious problems with a complete lack of self-awareness and self-knowledge, and a raging narcissistic personality disorder or something like that. There's something seriously wrong with this person. If he hadn’t devoted his life to spreading racism, it would be pitiful.

DANIEL
I know a lot of these guys feel like that, like I mean, you can imagine David Duke as the used car salesman, the guy who owns a car dealership.

JACK
Well, they are aren’t they, they’re just hucksters selling bullshit and it's a different kind of bullshit to a used car.

DANIEL
You got to get that true coat. Also going to rust. That's the whole thing. I mean, just so many of these guys feel that way. Donald Trump seems very much that way to me, like if he had not been able to inherit 700 million dollars over the course of his life from his father, that's a guy who would own a car dealership somewhere and he would be very, very good at that, and he would not be president of the United States. Understanding the personalities, so much of what I try to do is to try to understand who these people really are as opposed to the version of themselves that they put out there, and trying to understand that through the misty lens of their propaganda is difficult. But also, I think having a real insight from, again, just knowing that he spent 42 hours reading this thing while he was traveling into a microphone, it’s just ridiculous. It's silly. I mean, look at his website. I gave you the link to his website. Go check the website where he posts his radio show. It looks like it has not been updated since 1997 in terms of its style. A bunch of these old school guys have that problem, where it looks old and junky and nasty and it's just your racist grandpas. He’s just the king of the racist grandpas.

JACK
And that's a perfect place to end, I think, as long as as long as you're happy.

DANIEL
I am perfectly happy to leave it there, yes.

JACK
Okay, that's great. Thank you, again another great episode. Do you know what you want to do next time?

DANIEL
I think we’ll do Unite the Right next time. Just kind of feed into you something we sort of covered a little bit. We'll talk about Unite the Right and some of the issues of how that came about and what that meant in some of the before and after. Because I feel like a lot of people think we should do that one soon. And I was going to put it off for a while, but I think it's worth talking about now because I think so many of the things that we are going to talk about, how they sort of pivot point around the Unite the Right rally. So I think it's worth going ahead and getting [that] out of the way.

JACK
Okay, the next episode will be about Unite the Right. I have a feeling that one might run long, so we might split that into two episodes, but we'll see. Okay, so thanks for listening everybody and thanks for Daniel for being so informative again. And that was the second episode of I Don't Speak German. Goodbye.

Saturday, March 30, 2019

Episode 1 Transcript

Transcript by Kat (@leftgoth)

JACK
Greetings fellow cucks, snowflakes, soy boys, and antifa super soldiers, and welcome to I Don't Speak German, the podcast in which I get Daniel Harper, internet lefty person and my friend and colleague, to tell me what he learned and heard during more than two years of listening to and reading what the Alt-Right (which is really the far-right) say to each other in their safe spaces, their podcasts, their YouTube videos, etc…

We're going to be tackling a single subject per episode and this first episode is about Richard Spencer. We are going to be discussing racists and racism and fascism generally so trigger warnings definitely apply. Okay, first question: how would you define what you've been researching, Daniel?

DANIEL
To sort of casual listeners, normally I would say broadly Alt-Right, although Alt-Right is not a term that I like to use very much because it's really nebulous. It means a lot of different things to a lot of people, it's kind of intentionally that, it's always served their purpose in fact. I think we'll kind of get into the origins of the term here in a second. But there's no really clear definition that is sort of universally applicable as to who is and is not Alt-Right. And most of the figures who even kind of work within that kind of broad movement will sort of like define themselves relative to this term or they will kind of like say, “Oh, I'm not Alt-Right,” because they’re meaning it to mean, kind of one in particular definition of it. Well yeah, it is, it's just really not a clear term and so I try not to use it. And there are other kind of like subgroups in what is kind of broadly called the Alt-Right to, you know, I try to more use sort of their terms and kind of like how they define themselves as being slightly more clear, or at least not as prone to misuse, as Alt-Right. I mean a “dissident right” or “nationalist right” or “far right”, “hard right”. You know, all kinds of various terms that work for different sorts of factions within that. And one thing that I do want to make clear, one distinction I will make is the Alt-Light versus Alt-Right distinction. I really spent very little time with sort of the Alt-Light figures, these are your kind of Info Wars, your Paul Joseph Watson’s, Milo, those kinds of figures—

JACK
Sargon [of Akkad].

DANIEL
Sargon, who I don't think even, we could talk about whether Sargon is even Alt-Light, you know, by that standard he would probably not refer to himself as such, but—

JACK
Well, I’m sure he wouldn’t.

DANIEL
Yeah, I mean, Alt-Light is also kind of more of a style that—

JACK
Yeah.

DANIEL
It's sort of like, you know, “we're gonna push these sort of right wing, anti-gay, SJW”, quote unquote, talking points and, to put this fairly straightforward, kind of like right wing conservatism, at least in the US. It's basically Republican talking points, but we're going to do it in kind of a snarky, in-your-face way, and we call ourselves, “we’re the Alt-Light”, you know, and therefore, “we’re not your dad's conservatism because we'll use the swear words that they won’t". So the people that I spend my time with, that I really spent my time studying and  learning, are the explicitly race realists, ethno-nationalist, white nationalist right who gird their arguments in pseudo-science and socio-biology and evolutionary psychology, and who use those those kinds of explicitly racial arguments because that's really come to the forefront, it's really come to popularity and it infects the whole discourse, I think online, and has for the last four or five years now and that side of it I think, A) just sort of interested me more than the Alt-Light, the Milo figures, just in terms of it feels like there's a little bit more of an intellectual or pseudo-intellectual, I put everything in quotes here, but there is a little bit more of a an argument that you can push against there. But also the fact that we are seeing people embrace more and more of this really, really far racist rhetoric and it's infecting more and more traditional politics and our traditional stuff that’s just in the air and the way that that works, the way that sort of online culture and meme culture and social media have enabled this to spread like wildfire until the president of the United States can spread genocide conspiracy theories and it's sort of a thing that happens. That's the stuff that really upsets me, that's the stuff that scares me. And that's where I've really put most of my focus. So again, I spent very little time with someone like Milo, he is more just kind of a figure of fun for me. The people I follow are mostly people who are in that explicitly ethno-nationalist, white nationalist Right.

JACK
Right. I don't want to get sidetracked into the Alt-Light, because as you say, it's not your focus, but that is kind of the vector or one of the vectors whereby this more hard-right fringe that you've been investigating has had that kind of influence, hasn’t it. Particularly I'm thinking of you know Bannon and Breitbart and so on.

DANIEL
Yeah no, it's all in this, again, gets into the question of where's the dividing line here? And to me, I have a pretty clear thing in my head of like, there are these people who are spreading the explicitly race realist stuff and then there are people hiding that, but who clearly are working on the same assumptions, and then there are people who are not and who are pushing more kind of like Trumpists, you know, more straightforwardly just Republican, right wing kind of stuff even though they may be very far-right on like, for instance the transphobia, and let me be clear, I don't approve of any of these people. But you know, I do see there being a difference between the sort of like coded, implicit racism of some of, you know, talking about states’ rights vs. actually wanting to, you know, push all of the black people into their own like ghetto, their own country or something. It’s a very different kind of thing if you've been looking at the history of American politics in the last 80 years or so, the fact that this is now fairly mainstream rhetoric in a lot of places and particularly online and in that people are being radicalized to this. You see teenagers who just don't believe the Holocaust because it’s been mocked so many times in their presence. It's just like nobody believes in the Holocaust because that's just the way they, where they come in, you know. And that's really scary.

JACK
Yeah, well, maybe another time we'll get into it.

DANIEL
We'll definitely have to talk about the Holocaust. I am not prepared today to spend too much time talking about where that comes from. But it's a very prominent example.

JACK
Now I do want to get into that and I say, maybe at some point, we'll get onto the way in which this hard-right fringe that you've been looking at reaches out through these more disguised versions into the mainstream. But as you say, or, I mean, I'm sort of emphasizing the fuzzy spectrum, you're emphasizing the hard distinction, and I think that's just as valuable, if not at a certain point, politically more valuable. So let's focus in on that one figure who's been very much a nexus figure between the two, or has tried to position himself that way, and who's very well known, is of course, Richard Spencer. So tell me about Richard Spencer.

DANIEL
Sure. Well, Richard Spencer is definitely Alt-Right. He is actually, to the degree that this thing has a definite origin point, it is actually not technically with Spencer himself, it was a speech given by a guy named Paul Gottfried and Paul Gottfried is still alive. He does not claim the term “alternative right”, but at a speech at H.L. Mencken club during, I think, Thanksgiving weekend of 2008, he gave a speech called The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right. This was reproduced in Taki’s Mag [takimag.com], which was edited by Richard Spencer at the time, and Richard Spencer was also editing at the American Conservative. And these are paleo-conservative/paleo-libertarian magazines. And if you read the actual thing, I can see your notes, it's actually kind of a tough read unless you understand the context in which it is given, because Gottfried is very much the Old Man of the paleo-cons. Some people actually say he coined the term “paleo-conservative” back in the 80s, although I haven't seen a really concrete reference for that, but he is widely credited with coining both the term “paleo-conservative” and “alternative right”. Now, the reason it becomes associated with Richard Spencer is that Spencer is both editing Taki’s Mag and American Conservative. But he kind of likes tension and kind of makes it his own. He forms AlternativeRight.Com, just a website, like basically a Blogspot blog, a few months later and then eventually shortens it to Alt-Right and makes “alt-right” common, in the sense like actually doing events, giving speeches with that banter and made that term into a kind of defined political thing. But if you read the speech that Gottfried gave, it's very much about a reaction, a rejection of movement conservatism, of the time of the Reagan and Bush years from say, the mid-70s to what was (at the time current), you know, 2008, basically the failures of this neo-conservative style of politics and really, kind of read between the lines, it's very clear that like the war in Iraq went really badly. And the conservative movement was scrambling to see what they were going to do next. And it really gave a vacuum, this power vacuum or this ideological vacuum, that really gave power to this rising movement of the paleo-cons. [They] could take back over just because Bush was so hated, even within the Republican Party, and again, largely, largely not. I think it's amazing that 60 million people voted for George W. Bush and I can't find a single one of them anywhere. It's like, you see in this piece and again, you can link to it if you if you want to, but it is very much about kind of rejection of this particular kind of conservatism and this particular kind of— you know, the endless wars, the spreading of democracy around the world and kind of fighting communism abroad, and that sort of thing. And in that sense, what’s interesting about Spencer, then, is that he was very much kind of in this paleo-conservative, but not in the core of the conservative Republican Party. He wasn't being groomed for those higher positions, but certainly within this smaller world they’re outside of the warm fires of the neo-conservative think tank money. So there was definitely some— he was definitely one of those blue bloods. He was definitely one of those people being groomed for this kind of position. I have a video that was actually on C-Span of a Ron Paul event at what was called the Robert Taft Club which was— And again, I can give you this link [to the C-Span video], I've got in front of me, I re-watched them. But Richard Spencer actually introduces Ron Paul on October 11, 2007, so this is when Ron Paul is sort of doing the, you know, his Ron Paul ‘08 run for president.

JACK
Ron Paul Revolution.

DANIEL
The Ron Paul Revolution, right. And Richard Spencer is right there. And you look at him here, I mean, I guess he's like 28 or so. I mean, you can tell the difference that the 13 years or so or 12 years or so has made in terms of the lines on his face. He definitely looks like a more callow youth at this point [in 2007], but it's amazing how much he still sounds exactly like he sounds today. But he's definitely sort of hiding, he's not going out nearly as far as he would [on] a right wing podcast or Alt-Right podcast today, but he's toeing the line, out of respect, I think, for Ron Paul and out of respect for trying to keep access to those institutions.

JACK
Right. I mean, that's what Ron Paul's doing as well.

DANIEL
Exactly. And ironically, Spencer, again, I just re-watched this a few minutes ago — just his little introduction, and it's entirely about the failures of foreign policy and he's making jokes like about the other Republicans that are running in that primary campaign at the time. I have to go look up some of the references, some of the jokes [because] I don't even remember that incident, but apparently it was current at the time. But it’s fascinating to look at him then and see just how completely he's just one of these up-and-coming people and within two years, he’s founded this alternative right movement. And he's going off and he starts up a campus speaking tour in like 2009 or 2010. He's doing a ton of speaking at events. He did a big event at Vanderbilt that was like 200-300 people in attendance, talking against affirmative action and spreading this idea that affirmative action is quote/unquote “anti-white”, which was a term. He's using the terminology that was on that far-right wing of the paleo-conservatives. He's still in that [paleo-con] headspace, he’s still part of that movement, but he's pushing at the further right fringes of that. Because the paleo-cons [back] then, there were some sort of quote unquote “white nationalist” thinkers who are included within that paleo-con label. But the movement itself, even the paleo-cons really didn't want anything to do with open white nationalism. And if you went too far from them then you ended up being in, like, the Third Party hell-hole, this hellscape, and you couldn't get any kind of money or any kind of institutional support. So at this point certainly when he's introducing Ron Paul, he's so thoroughly ensconced within this blue blood world of blazers and ties and, you know, “we're going to talk about conservatism and foreign policy”, etc…

JACK
So he's still at that point maybe not entirely, fully ensconced inside the mainstream, but a basically mainstream-adjacent, respectable political career, you think?

DANIEL
He's basically looking to be, you know, some kind of, I don't know—  It is funny that Richard Spencer is someone that I really go back and forth a lot [with] exactly how I feel about what he's done and who he is and what he's really been. Like what's really going on behind his eyes, what’s in Richard Spencer's head and what's his meaning? Because when I first started approaching these topics in late 2016 and I first heard, really listening to, these guys and following the movement, I thought of Richard Spencer as just more of a PR guy. At that point, I never really felt like he was pushing the memes and pushing the ideology and pushing that the movement was really his. It always struck me that he was just kind of the guy that cleaned up real nice, that you could put in front of an NPR microphone and give him five minutes and he'll do a pretty good job of trying to turn the tables on the liberal media or whatever.

JACK
In between getting punched obviously.

DANIEL
Well, this was— I started following him even before that. You know the funny thing is that I wish I had been archiving some of these podcasts and stuff like way earlier than I ended up archiving them, because there are podcasts that were recorded— There's one recorded right after that incident, where he talks about, like, “oh, I've been silly-stringed too many times before and I've never actually been punched,” and he's like talking about, “oh, it wasn't that bad there”. But, I wasn't archiving yet, I guess, and I deleted it when I was finished listening to it and now all that has been down a memory hole, because as these guys lose their hosting providers, they tend to not put up their old material again. So unless somebody has it, it's gone. One of the real negative things about de-platforming these guys is that it's harder for me to track them. It really makes it easier if you could just like put them on, like, iTunes, then that would be really easy for me to follow them. But I'd rather not be the case.

JACK
I would sort of put out an appeal to our listeners, you know, if any of you have all this stuff backed up get in touch with Daniel, but I'm pretty sure you're the only person from the left doing this.

DANIEL
I'm pretty sure I have a larger archive of this stuff than almost anyone out there. I'm in contact with other people who are tracking it as well and comparing notes and yeah, I'm pretty sure because I've been archiving pretty completely since around Charlottesville, actually a little bit before that. And I try to just grab whatever archives I can and I'm pretty sure I have stuff that literally no one else has at this point.

JACK
So, yeah I don’t want to get sidetracked. So on the subject of Spencer, I mean, what is his ideology

DANIEL
The interesting thing for me is that if you look at the history of Spencer, sort of after 2010 but before 2015, that five year period, he kind of went nowhere. In fact, even the alternative right label, he kind of stopped using it. He got this job at NPI, the National Policy Institute, and he moved away from doing those campus events and away from using that label just because it wasn't very effective. A couple of buddies of his who were involved in the beginning, I don't have the names in front of me right now, but a couple of buddies kind of took over the website [Alt-Right Blogspot] and they just kept publishing this little web zine that might as well have been— I mean, there are plenty of right-leaning little web projects that have a few thousand readers or whatever, and they just keep going by luck and by pluck. And it was kind of one of those. And interestingly, the fact that Richard Spencer was not directly associated with it [the term Alt-Right] and that it wasn't explicitly a white nationalist term for a while seems to be the thing that allowed it to be embraced by the sort of “edgy right”. And it seems they just embraced it as a term and so that's where Breitbart and Milo and a lot of those kind of figures start calling themselves Alt-Right around the 2013 to 2015-ish period. And in fact, in 2015 basically up until the 2016 election cycle, the term Alt-Right was very young. It was this catch-all term that kind of included everybody and they all embraced it as they were all moving under this one banner. It just kind of meant “edgy right winger” and that could be anybody from sort of a center-right libertarian all the way to you know like, “gas the Jews”. It’s kind of everybody working together. And it was really only after the election and only after this event, Heilgate, which is after Trump's election and before his inauguration. Richard Spencer gave a speech at one of the Washington D.C. ballrooms, I forget the name of it, but the Atlantic had a reporter there and they shot some video of Richard Spencer and this is a really fascinating speech. I'm going to go through this bit by bit as part of the pieces of writing I do. I mean, it's really fascinating in terms of what it tells you about Spencer and about where this movement is. In a lot of ways, it's as important, if not more so, than the original Paul Gottfried piece. But what's really interesting, what kind of like bit them all in the ass, was Richard Spencer is lording it over that suddenly, “we are the ones in charge,” and he's using terms like “Lugenpresse” and he's really openly rubbing it in that, “oh no, we're actually going to have this far-right, racialist ideology that's going to be in charge now,” and Trump is sort of the vehicle for that, but also a bunch people in the back. After the speech, they’re giving their Roman salute, the “Heil Hitler" salute, and the Atlantic cut together this, like, two minute piece of video that's the highlights and lowlights of Spencer's speech alongside this kind of dark and toning music. Then, you know, some people throwing those Roman salutes and suddenly all of the Alt-Light figures who did not want to be associated with outright neo-nazism are really distancing themselves from the term. So after that, Alt-Right was very much more that kind of openly racialist, white nationalist term and really, in fact, the Unite the Right rally, the original point of that was to combine everybody back into one thing again, which became a total complete failure for a lot of reasons. But Spencer, as for what he believes in, Spencer is an interesting figure in that sense in that he believes in sort of a racial— that white people are genetically superior, or at least different, from other people and that white people, because of sort of inherent genetic advantages, have built civilization around themselves like that, that “we as white people,” as he would say, “made this.” And like all the other people in the world, like black people and East Asians, etc, are not, have not, been able to do that, and that colonialism is good because then, suddenly, Africans get access to this amazing thing that white people can make because black people are not able to build this for themselves, and isn't it beneficial for white people to control them— Richard Spencer is an open colonialist. I have some audio of him talking it in not uncertain terms.

JACK
To say, go back even 100 years and that's a completely standard, mainstream set of ideas.

DANIEL
Exactly. And I think that, what one of the interesting things is, that they do kind of openly embrace this idea that “this is what’s our answer, this is what our grandfathers believed was just natural and right”. And this has all been subverted sometime in the last 60 or 70 years by, you know, certain people, who have parentheses around their names, to convince us that this is not right and natural. I mean, it's with him that really this idea, that the ethno-state— he didn't invent the term “ethno-state”, that draws back from the, I think the 70s or 80s, you started seeing people using that terminology explicitly— but certainly, he's the one on the Alt-Right who's really thinking in terms of that big picture, in terms of saying, “look, what we need is to re-embrace a sense of our destiny as white people to make things for ourselves and to rule by will and to not feel guilty about the things that we might have done in the past to other people”, and that this is sort of right and natural and good, and that we need this sort of ethnic identity in order to move forward as a people, and that that ethnic identity being subverted is what's the root cause of the weakness of modernity. It's very much a direct rejection of modernity in ways that feel very similar to what the neo-reactionaries are like. But, you know with certain slightly different valences. I mean, there is some kind of interesting overlap there. But it is in Spencer— you know, he has serious academic credentials. I mean, one of the two things that really differentiates Spencer from a lot of the other figures in this movement is that he has serious academic credentials, he has a master's degree from Duke, he was working on a PhD until he kind of entered politics more directly. And he is actually a son of very, very wealthy family. Most of the other kind of figures you end up being,you know I hate using class this way, but some of the upper middle class you know grew up in a suburb somewhere and dabble in the tech industry. Basically most of the other figures look a lot more like that. Spencer is actually a, you know, blue blood his family line. I mean they own plantations in Louisiana, I believe. And he still has think, I think, some family down there. I think he owns an acre there. There's a bunch of— where Richard Spencer's family comes from— there's a lot of conspiracy mongering in the Alt-Right about Richard Spencer really being Jewish. I mean there's a lot of that going around as well. And again, the thing that kind of gets me about Spencer is that he does have this very big picture view. I mean, he is not interested in like local races, he's not interested in things like who's controlling the House this cycle, or he's interested in that in terms of being able to push ideas, but he's not interested in the details of policies. He’s interested in creating that vision and doing that very, very big picture viewpoint. He’s thinking in terms of centuries and not decades, if that makes sense. Whereas a lot of the other figures, if you do follow this movement, a lot of them are doing sort of like the day-by-day looking at what Trump is doing. You know, here and now and a lot of the day-to-day politicking. Richard Spencer, I mean he does a bit of that, but even on his own, he's kind of hanging out with his buddies, doing some sort of Alt-Right— it's kind of his personal brand. It feels like he's definitely trying to not get caught up in the minutia of the day-to-day, like he finds it just beneath him. And that's another thing, personality-wise I mean, he just bleeds this sense of natural superiority to other people. He's really disgusting, when you see behind the scenes footage of him, the way he he talks to the people around him, and he sees himself as just inherently superior, because, you know, he comes from wealth, because looks good in a suit, because he drinks— he actually drinks very mediocre bourbon. I'm kind of amazed at some of his bourbon choices. If I had his budget, I would drink better than he does. But that's neither here nor there.

JACK
So I was going to ask about his his funding, how he funds himself?

DANIEL
 For the funding of the stuff, honestly if there was one question I could get really concrete answers on, [it’s] where this money comes from. That would be the thing that I would— that's a really big open question and it's sort of like this movement-wide. Because they are very reticent to sort of give out any information at all about, like, where their money comes from. My understanding is that Spencer has a kind of personal family wealth that he's able to use. There are quite a few sort of millionaires, not billionaires, like they're not getting, like, Koch Brother money, but there there are people who are known as donors, who will make small donations of “only” 20,000 dollars or so to fund these projects. And that's where a lot of the nationalist-right, this Alt-Right, this explicitly race-realist-right gets a lot of funding, through those kinds of sources [where] there are people who have enough money to be able to drop in a few thousand dollars at a time, but not actually sort of creating foundations that will be self-sustaining the way that movement conservatism was able to do. This is, again, a source of that resentment. Richard Spencer thinks he should have some billionaire giving him all the money he wants and he doesn't. And that resentment is very, very clear in a lot of these guys, that they can’t, that Richard Spencer has to kind of balance gripes in a way that, say, Ben Shapiro doesn’t. Ben Shapiro has an actual institution behind him that, they’ll pay him and researchers and, you know, graphics and all that, whereas Spencer has to do it by himself in his really nice apartment in Alexandria, Virginia. He’s not missing meals here. But he doesn't have access to the kind of funding streams that he thinks he should. And, again, this is all over this movement. Like they all think they should be making way, way more money.

JACK
There's always a question of you know the form following function or the other way around. But you wonder if partly why he's not getting more money from more quote unquote respectable sources is going to be that he's got this profile of somebody sort of beyond the pale. But at the same time, if he was getting more money, he'd be able to set himself up to look respectable and he probably wouldn't be beyond the pale anymore.

DANIEL
Oh no, absolutely. And, again, Richard Spencer has been really clear from the beginning, from the get-go, if you look at interviews he made to the Atlantic right after Heilgate, in that same package of interviews, he has been very explicit about, like, “the whole point, the whole thing we're trying to do is to move the Overton Window in our direction. We are trying to move the realm of acceptable discourse towards where we can say we just want to make a state for white people. We just want to be working in favor of white people and white people only”. And [he’s] very open about that. But the whole point is that because he's kind of on the edge of that, he's not able to get that kind of institutional support. But he's actively trying to make it to where he can. That's the whole point. Also I think that there are. And this is where some of their own conspiracy mongering comes from, like kind of real places, because one of the most powerful lobbies in DC is AIPAC, the Israeli lobby, and the Israeli lobby is obviously not going to give money to Richard Spencer for many, many reasons. And so the fact that AIPAC won't fund these guys, the fact that like the Jews control all these kind of neo-conservative funding sources, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, right. Like, “you know they won't fund us because we want to throw them into ovens” or, you know, it's complicated, exactly how they feel about what they want. “We want to ship them all back to Israel” [is] essentially the mainstream opinion, I think that would be Spencer's perspective. it's like, “they should they should go live in Israel instead of here”.

JACK
Well, it always is at start, that’s what the Nazis said at the start, deport them.

DANIEL
I'm trying to be clear about about what I mean and also not getting sued by one of these guys because I made a joke. But clearly, yes. They say, “yes, we want to export the Jews to Israel, we want to get them, we want them to have their own country, they should go live there and not subvert our society”. But from somebody like Spencer's point of view, whenever he tries to go and get real institutional money, there's “always some Jew saying no”, and that definitely feeds into that same persecution complex, you know. It's like, “oh, the banks are all [in] control, the credit card processes are all controlled by the Jews”. It's not like, no, people find your views really repellent and they just don't want to be associated with you. No, it has to be this group ethnic identity that the Jews are gaining on “me". It's completely absurd and it’s, like, absolutely pervasive in this movement.

JACK
Yeah, because paranoia is one of the animating forces. On the subject of anti-Semitism, there's a book by George Hawley, Making Sense of the Alt-Right.

DANIEL
That is an excellent book.

JACK
You know, I haven't read it, but I read the review of it by Noah Berlatsky and he interviewed Hawley, and he talks about how the the big dividing line in American conservatism after World War II was anti-Semitism. You know, anti-Semitism was kind of, I wouldn’t say purged because that's giving them too much credit, but the line was that it had to be eliminated from American conservatism. Then you have William F. Buckley famously viewing that as the main task of the "respectable right” in America and anathematizing Pat Buchanan and stuff like that.

DANIEL
Anti-Semitism became completely associated with the Nazis and the Holocaust. And this, again, comes right back to the centrality of the Holocaust and justifying this ideology. I am very cognizant of like, you could cut some of this out and make it sound like I'm saying this— I obviously don't believe this— but the animating myth of you know, “well, after World War II, the Jews used the stories of the Holocaust, whether it is real or not, to browbeat ordinary white people, ethnic Europeans or Anglo Saxons or Germanic people and whatever, to act against their ethnic group cohesion by accepting more and more Jewish people into society, and once the Jewish people were allowed to take positions of power and authority over white people, they basically ran the country into a ditch by then allowing African-Americans to have expanded rights to vote and the Hart-Celler Immigration Act 1965 which changed the racial makeup of who was allowed to immigrate into the country”. And on and on and on. I mean, it's like, “the Jews took over” and suddenly “we had all these quote unquote mud people in our country”, and it's all with the explicit goal of removing white people from quote unquote white countries. This is the white genocide myth, exactly. And you can you can hear these guys. They will put it in almost exactly these terms that— I don't think I've ever heard Spencer himself really kind of like put it this explicitly, but I think he believes it. I don't think, I don't have any doubt that he believes that, I think he's just slightly cagier about [it], he doesn't talk much about the Jews. I was actually thinking about this as we were planning to record, I'm not sure if Richard Spencer believes in the Holocaust or not. I legitimately don't think I've heard him discuss it one way or the other. This is the central idea why they believe this. And just to be clear, there's some truth to the idea that after World War II, basically Americans and Western European countries, western societies in general, recoiled at how terrible the Holocaust was and that became a rhetorical tool in terms of making life better for ethnic minorities within Western countries. For instance, a lot of lynching legislation went into effect after the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed. And that was certainly used as a, “this is the really bad version of this and we don't want this to happen”. And returning American GIs saying, “look, no, we fought those Nazis and we're going to be not racist, we’re going to be better people”, and you know, there's something kind of admirable in that. We saw how bad things can get. And that's good. But because there wasn't like a sort of real left material basis to a lot of it, it just kind turn into, “it was all we needed to do”, right. And that's where this gets complicated. Like to what degree is Richard Spencer really speaking for the sort of mainstream beliefs that people hold underneath, and what degree is he actually— as he would describe himself as sort of a dissident within American politics. And of course, that's a whole other kind of complicated about what we mean by “white supremacy” and complicated issues there around where the rhetoric works.

JACK
But yeah, I mean the whole founding myth you just outlined is, et’s be in no doubt whatsoever, poisonous bullshit, but like a lot of poisonous bullshit, you can find bits and bobs in that that are based on truth, distantly, like it happens to be, for contingent historical reasons, that the fact that Jews in America have tended to be politically liberal for pretty obvious reasons, really. They've been an historically oppressed and persecuted minority so they're going to identify with other oppressed and persecuted minorities despite the fact that they're white, generally speaking. And then you have the question of Israel becoming a major American ally in the Middle East after the ’67 war, I think it was. And you have a group of people, quite well-off, you know, Jewish liberals, and conservatives, who realize in that atmosphere that they can do very well for themselves by aligning themselves with Israel, because being loyal to Israel is now no longer something to be scared of in terms of the old dual loyalty charge. It is now kind of a good thing, you can boast about how patriotic you are via being behind Israel. I mean that they're not doing it because they're Jewish, they're doing it because they're opportunistic chancers, but they're using this set of circumstances.

DANIEL
So then politicians use rhetoric around Israel to justify things like a Middle East interventionism, which is ultimately about controlling oil revenues, and stamping down populist movements, left movements. I'm assuming you know far more about sort of the late 20th century history of Middle East wars than I do necessarily, but certainly you know Israel gets used as a sort of like intellectual justification. “Oh, it's the one democracy in the Middle East and they're surrounded by these sand people.” I mean, I don't want to use the language, but essentially that's what plenty of otherwise “respectable” people will essentially say, though in private they may not say “people” there. But you know, “all of these savages surrounding Israel" and Israel is this Cosmopolitan modern state, it's a democracy, and therefore we have to defend it— it becomes the intellectual justification for what is ultimately just a power play. But people like Richard Spencer don't they see it as that, that it's just sort of the fig leaf covering a naked excuse for power. They see it as, in some sense, a real expression of an ideology that is causing these things to happen and therefore, that's where you get things like the Zionist Occupied Government, you hear “ZOG”. That dates back to the 70s, actually.

JACK
Yeah, because the fascist viewpoint is intensely racial. I mean, it conceives the world in racial terms. So they look at this contingent, contested, messy history about Israel, and America forging an alliance with Israel to have an ally in the Middle East so they can contain Arab nationalism, to do with controlling oil and oil supplies and stuff like that. They see that. And a group of people who are quite well off, who happen to be Jewish, rising in the establishment, and the fact that you have, you know, AIPAC and all this messy contingent history. They see it in terms of races. So all they see is a bunch of Jews controlling the world, And again, it can't be said enough, this is toxic bullshit.

DANIEL
And you find that same rhetoric, if you watch my YouTube recommendations, most of you would not like to see all my youtube recommendations, just to make it clear, for a while I was getting actual—

JACK
The algorithm pretty bad anyway, but with you I mean—

DANIEL
I actively go and search like other things just so it's not literally just like that. Ironically, it mostly gives me things that I'm interested in seeing, but not because I think this is good, because it's worth knowing.

JACK
You’re one guy that the algorithm works for. Just because, you know, research purposes.

DANIEL
Just for research purposes, right, although it doesn't tend to push me further right, it seems to push me into more of the same. Meaning that I've pretty much found the Right wall of what is allowable on YouTube.

JACK
You found the edge, the very edge.

DANIEL
Yes. It's a scary edge, but for a while YouTube was actually recommending actual 1930s, 30s and 40s, Nazi propaganda films. And so if you watch some of those, I don't speak German, but if you watch them, you know with subtitles. I have not spent a whole lot of time on it, but a lot of these things, it’s the same rhetoric. I mean, there are films that were basically, they look back toward World War I and they'd say, “Oh, there's this group of people that didn't really suffer the way that the rest of us did during World War I and during the Weimar days, and they’re not starving and look at these wealthy Jews, they've got diamonds and they've got money and they're not hungry and they're subverting our society.” I mean, again, the exact same logic, the exact same rhetoric. And that's the stuff, when when you do find those kinds of direct parallels, it's something I'm used to at this point, but certainly when I first started running across them, that's like chill the blood kind of stuff for me. When you can look at something, when you can really pull rhetoric and change the word Germany to America and a couple of other words around and you just plop it right back in, and then see some 22-year-old chud on YouTube, repeating the exact same thing to 100,000 views. You know, it's scary.

JACK
Getting back to Spencer, from the description you've given so far, he's a well-off, privileged young man who—

DANIEL
Although he's now 40.

JACK
But yes, young man. Well, I'm sort of telling a story here. He's a privileged young man from a wealthy background who finds his way entering politics as a career, the way a lot of these guys do. And he seems to have entered that sphere with pre-existing extreme right views. Would you say that's right?

DANIEL
Oh, yeah yeah. No, I think he always had this at least implicit white nationalist kind of ideology. The earliest stuff I see from him, from anybody who kind of knew him back in the day, I see no indication that this was something that just came to his mind in 2008 or whatever. Like it feels like it was always a part of his ideology. He was always in that, ensconced in that far-right version of paleo-conservatism as opposed to [being] openly National Socialist or openly genocidal, you know.

JACK
So he enters the sort of semi-respectable political sphere with preexisting hard-right views, finds himself in essentially a sort of eccentric cul-de-sac, which is what paleo-conservatism is by that point, I would say. Sort of experiments with breaking out into the, as I say, the mainstream-adjacent by getting into the Ron Paul thing, because you know libertarianism, paleo-libertarianism, it's so adjacent to paleo-conservatism. Ideologically it's almost identical, as we've talked about in the past. And then it sounds like he kind of gives up and then takes advantage of the fact that this phrase he picked up from this Gottfried guy, Alt-Right, gains traction in the result of events out in the world that he really doesn't have anything very much to do with. It just sort of happens while he's not looking. And from then on it's a matter of, it looks to me, escalating opportunism. Would you say that's a fair enough summary?

DANIEL
Certainly. There's a lot of the sequence of events I'm still not clear, that [are] kind of contested and you can have sources that can go one way or the other. Again, Hawley's book, I have my issues with Hawley's book. Hawley is sort of a guy who leans right, I believe so. We are mutual followers on Twitter. I haven’t spoken to him privately or anything. But I believe you probably would consider him kind of vaguely Republican-ish kind of guy. So I have my issues with him certainly politically, but he is definitely able to articulate some of the inner divisions of these movements in ways that I've seen no one else do and for that reason alone I highly, highly recommend that book [Making Sense of the Alt-Right]. A lot of the information that I have got, a lot of my perspective on this has come from that. But a lot of the details of what was actually going on between 2010 and 2015 I am kind of unsure of. A lot of it again from sort of listening to and reading and the materials that were produced by talking about Spencer, references to Spencer on other shows that were recorded in late 2014 or something like that. You know, there's a lot of figuring out exactly where he lands there. But I think that you basically get it right. I think that's really certainly my perspective of him, that between 2010 and 2015, he was kind of looking for his place. And the fact that Alt-Right kind of rose to prominence in some of these online spheres, pushed by a troll army is as much as anything, basically the sort of like misogynistic, GamerGate, man-o-sphere kind of movement. Through using this term Alt-Right,  he can take advantage of it. It’s difficult to know exactly what's going on in his head and what sort of long term plan [he has] for himself. He very briefly planned to run for Senate, I believe Senate in Montana right after the Trump victory, like when they were all riding high in that two-month period between the Trump election and the inauguration. You can find a couple of news articles from The Times that this is confirmed, he was going to run for Senate in Montana and take over that seat and kind of become a politician. Although in other places he’s seen to talk about how that's beneath him, he doesn't really care about the mechanics of state level politics. He's interested in the national and international perspective on things. But yeah, I think that's a very accurate portrait of who he is writing. He's got the bull by the tail a little bit. There's a sense of bouncing around and, in fact right now, he just recently took over running this YouTube channel called HeelTurn, which I kind of know about. It was this very kind of a run-of-the mill, nothing, YouTube channel when I first kind of discovered. It's sort of like these guys on the Internet inviting these white nationalist figures to come out and do live streams and now, that's where he's putting a lot of his focus and he's not even really focusing on the Alt-Right brand. Like he hasn't released one of his podcasts in months at this point. He's really doing these live streams on YouTube and embracing that audience, which is definitely a way of, the fact that he's able to toe the line enough to not run afoul of the YouTube content moderation allows him to reach a much, much larger audience than he could producing just a podcast that's branded Alt-Right.

JACK
Youtube lets them get away with a hell of a lot.

DANIEL
Oh, no it does. And one of the one of the big stories of really the last year of 2018 into 2019, is that these guys have figured out how to not get banned from YouTube and a lot of that is literally just not using certain words. You know, they'll change, like in the in the n-word, they'll change the G's to B’s and say “nibber”, you know, in the end and literally that's enough. Like you can literally say, “I think all the nibbers should hang from trees” and that's perfectly acceptable apparently, according to YouTube. It's pretty disgusting, but it really is this legalistic approach and they've become very successful doing that. But the irony being that Richard Spencer, who's hypothetically this kind of big blue blood, wealthy, intellectual guy with serious academic credentials is running a, what I would consider to be, a no-name YouTube livestream [with] guests jumping on and off and yet, he's decided to do that. It's again, you know, Spencer himself is kind of a mass of contradictions. This is why I feel like I don't necessarily have a really clear picture on exactly what he's trying to do at any given time. But I think that maybe you're right, maybe he is sort of opportunistic in taking whatever is available to him at the time and just using it for his own agenda until it doesn't work anymore and then he can leave it behind. That does sort of make sense.

JACK
That outline that I just sort of improvised, that is a fairly classic fascist origin story. I mean, there are several fairly classic variants on the fascist origin story, one of them, of course, is to start out being on the left, a socialist like Mussolini. But the one I outlined, that's very definitely one of them. It's pretty standard.

DANIEL
And the irony, if you look at the degree that he has, policy presentations, like once you take  race [out of it], if you don't consider the ethno-nationalist stuff, he's like, “yeah, I'm in favor of universal health care, sure. We should have nuclear power and green energy and all”. If you look at him in that sense, he's very heterodox. He's not a straightforward Republican on a lot of these issues. He's a Trumpist, more in terms of Trump's attitude, Trump’s troll-ish behavior in the way that he [Trump] pisses off the left as opposed to really embracing Trump as a real political figure. I think Richard Spencer and I think most of the larger, what I'm just going to keep describing as the Alt-Right but you understand what I mean by it, they really do kind of look down on Trump. They like him, they want him to do what they want to do, and they think that he he should. But you won't find them thinking of him as this intellectual giant, amazing politician. They see him more as kind of a tool that they can use to push their own agenda, whereas the more overtly Trumpist online figures, the “rah, rah, Trump” people, I mean, Richard Spencer is definitely not one of those.

JACK
No, he's not Ben Garrison.

DANIEL
Right, he’s not Ben Garrison or what's his name, Bill Mitchell. You know the kind of “Trump can do no wrong” thing. And this also means that none of this movement has any time for the QAnon stuff because all that is based on Trump [being] this secret mastermind, doing 11-dimensional chess or whatever, and I think this is another, this is one reason why I find these guys more interesting to follow and try to understand. In many ways they have a much more realistic view of the world than the mainstream Republican view, which is sort of based on lies about history, like “oh, America was always this multicultural,”— No. Richard Spencer will sell [that] America was built on this vision of white supremacy and genocide and that was good. You know, “that's just what we had to do to get things to happen, and I don't hold any animosity towards African Americans, I want them to go live somewhere else where they can be themselves and and build their own society.”

JACK
You know, how much of it is flimflam, for show, and how much of that is real? Do they genuinely have this sort of disinterested view of ethno-states and racial segregation based on this ideology of race? How much of it is that and how much of it is that they just hate black people?

DANIEL
I think it varies from person to person. It's hard to say whether Richard Spencer is one of these people. I think he's too canny and he's too…I think he sees black people, I think he sees Africans as distinctly inferior to him for the reasons we discussed.

JACK
I mean, I don't see a distinction without a difference. It's all hate, but there's no sense in which one would be better than the other. I'm just interested as an academic question.

DANIEL
Sure. I mean, I don't like framing these things as hate. I find it to be sort of a not useful metric, in terms of understanding. I think that if you listen to them long—

JACK
I mean on the level of emotions it's more about fear anyway, isn't it.

DANIEL
Right, and it is more about material conditions. It's kind of built around this ideology…What I hear from them over and over again, if you listen to them talk to each other for hours and hours and hours, which I've done…I’m not going to talk about Spencer himself here because it's difficult, but you know, it's a very common story that, “Oh, I grew up in a white suburb where everything was clean and things were nice and the streets were swept and things just kind of looked nice. And then I went to the city for college, or I went to this, and then I had to be around black people for a while and look, the city is dirty and nasty and there's crime everywhere and this and it's basically because of these people, these human cockroaches, these monkeys”. You know, so many slurs, so much language that I could reproduce if I was trying to keep this relatively clean. But there is this sense that it's “these people doing ooga-booga and they're dirty and disgusting and I just don't want them around me”, and a whole lot of them, there are definitely figures for whom it really is this visceral dislike almost on this genetic— I [hesitate to] say genetic level because that just feeds into the same kind of racialist, socio-biological ideas that they would love. So, I don't want to use that as a metaphor, but you definitely get the sense that for some of these figures, it really is just almost intrinsic dislike of being around people who are not white and, in particular, dark-skinned people of African descent, and the darker the worse it is. The Australian Aborigines are the other people that they really find just physically disgusting and off-putting. And it does seem to be this gut instinct level that they seem to respond to. Spencer doesn't strike me as that. He strikes me as someone who sees himself as being superior to anyone who looks more like him. I find interesting. The British journalist Gary Young, I'm sure you know him. He did a documentary. He interviewed Spencer and he shows up at, I think, one of the NPI conferences, and he had been driving and he shows up and he's wearing a t-shirt and he's a journalist, right. But he had like a little sweat on him or whatever, I mean, it's Washington D.C. I think it's July or something like that, and Spencer comes out and he's clearly had a couple of bourbons in him, and if you listen to his voice he's clearly you know. He just thinks this man is disgusting, because he's black, because he's overweight, because he's not dressed nicely, and he really just dismisses him. I mean, he talks down to Gary. I don't know Young too well personally, but I follow him on Twitter and I find him to be a perfectly reasonable human being.

JACK
Well, he is a nice guy and he seems to be about as good as mainstream journalism gets,
I would say yes.

DANIEL
And he was certainly asking the appropriate questions and Spencer, you know, certainly at as bright as Spencer is in that moment. Spencer, he just he dismisses him completely. And it's based purely on this like physicality, on this purely, “Well, he's slovenly and fat and black and quite black at that, like not the high yellow”, like, again, I don't want to get into even talking about descriptors they use.

JACK
You know that's that's another old one.

DANIEL
I mean, that's what they will [do]. They will embrace very old terminology.

JACK
That's what they said about Jefferson. The rumor mongers would, “he had a taste for the yellow”.

DANIEL
Right. They embrace, I mean, the people [Alt-Right] say, “yes, we're going to talk about detailed, modern, genetic evidence which indicates clearly that the human race is composed of the negroid, the mongoloid, and the caucasoids”, they just embrace this completely outmoded, 20th-century, eugenic language and say, “oh, this is completely justified by 20th and 21st-century genetics”. You know, “those people in parentheses will not ever share this with you honestly”. 

JACK
It’s completely discredited, 19th-century, imperialist race science that they just insist is verified despite the fact that, by every reputable scientist, it's been put in the same place as phrenology. They just insist that it's all true and it's been proven.

DANEIL
Or they'll take some genetic map from some paper, completely out of context, and then kind of draw on it and go, “see the gap between the African DNA and the rest of the world DNA”, and it's like, you don’t understand, but because they've got a graph and can manipulate it, and I think a lot of them, there’s a lot of the bottom-feeder kind of stuff to where they clearly believe it. And I think some of the other figures are lying and seem to be able to communicate clearly enough about this stuff, and I think some of them are openly misrepresenting stuff and then hoping it spreads. Spencer doesn't use a lot of genetic arguments, he uses more cultural arguments. More, you know, “Well, obviously our history tells us that we're just better”. You very rarely see him make the explicit scientific or pseudo-scientific arguments.

JACK
No, he doesn't. He doesn't nail himself down somewhere, like he’s pretty canny. He's good at debating people. He's good at presenting himself as Mr. Reasonable. A lot of that is knowing what not to say outright. So you mentioned that he's doing this YouTube channel now. I mean, what else is he doing now? What is his actual place in the movement? What is the structure of the movement and where is he in it?

DANIEL
What's funny is that, I feel like again, in late 2016 and 2017, you could point to a handful of people who were kind of undisputed leaders, thought leaders at least, in the movement.
And I don't think Spencer is— you know, it's much more fragmented than that. I know a lot of that has to do with Charlottesville. Charlottesville and the repercussions of that really had this this fragmenting effect where I think today, I was thinking about this earlier today like, who who are the leaders right now? They sort of have their own little fiefdoms, that are certainly like broadly respected within certain threads of the movement. I mean he’s [Spencer] certainly this big name and I think even people who don't like him broadly respect him for like what he's done for the white race or whatever. But I don't get a sense that there's one place where everybody goes for their information and talking points and stuff.

JACK
It's very diffuse, isn't it. It's one of its weaknesses and its strengths.

DANIEL
Right. So, what is Spencer's place? I mean, he's respected by a good solid chunk of the movement, [they] still respect him even if they don't personally like him. They think he’s got his head up his ass or his nose in the air. They think he's hoity-toity.

JACK
Well, they all hate each other personally.

DANIEL
Right, I mean it comes up over and over and over again, as if these people cannot get along for more than 15 minutes at a time. It's astonishing to see some of the fights that they have and again, any person of any kind of prominence, there is always the conspiracy that, “oh, they're secretly Jewish”. That's always the thing. You know, like I've seen people do family trees and like, “oh, this was his half-sister and she was a full Jew,” and, “it’s that awful DNA in him,” or something. But, no, I mean he still does HeelTurn and he still goes on the “Zee Pooblic Space”, which is JFK. Oh, there's another YouTube channel— it’s one that is interesting, like the number of different kinds of people that the JF [Jean Francois Gariepy] talks to on any given day because he seems to really have been able to carve space for himself. It’s kind of one of the central gathering points where everybody seems to like JF in the movement. I really don't see a lot of negativity directed at him specifically and I think it's because he's just a really canny operator. He, in some ways, does the same thing you were talking about Richard Spencer, knowing what to say and what not to say. There's another guy with real academic credentials, I think he has a PhD in biology and in neuroscience and so he puts out all the pseudo-science talking points about genetics and all that kind of bullshit. But Richard Spencer has been regularly on his program as well, which I think I mentioned earlier, he’s kind of like, in all but name, a co-host. He’s there often enough to do that. And I think one of the things is that, after the public speaking tour ended in Michigan, we had basically a big confrontation and then Spencer puts out a video like, “this isn't fun anymore, antifa is winning,” etc…Everybody clapped and cheered and my perspective was like, he's coming back, guys. He's been doing this for 10 years already, this is not going to end just because somebody punched him in the face. It’s not going to happen. It turns out he was going through a kind of nasty divorce as well, and he came out after it was over with his new girlfriend, who apparently is a liberal, quote unquote. There's been some kind of doxxing going on around her and some commentary about who she is and all that sort of thing, I don't know, which strikes me as kind of slightly unproductive. But he's got a new girlfriend now and she's appeared on his channel a couple of times and just kind of like said hi or whatever, and he's just kind of a person producing content, but not explicitly under the Alt-Right banner. He does seem to have distanced himself from his old people that used to be his crew from the old days, like Greg Conte and some of those guys. It's not that he's not associated with them, but it does feel like, the Alt-Right brand, he's moving away from that slightly, and he's just pushing the ideas through other channels, but he's in a nebulous place. I just don't know exactly what he’s got going on right now, but I'm not ready. So, yeah go ahead. What were you going to say?

JACK
No, I was just going to say, I mean, he doesn't have an organization, like the Richard Spencer party or something like that.

DANIEL
No, I mean, I'm pretty sure AltRight.Com still exists and I believe he's still working for the NPI, the National Policy Institute. I think he's still kind of like drawing income from that and working on that level. He still writes sometimes. But certainly in terms of like his face out there, I mean he did kind of step away for several months, probably like eight months or so, where you barely heard a peep out of him. I think he put up two or three podcasts just sort of like to keep up appearances a little bit, but he really stepped away to where he is. You just didn't see him around much, whereas in 2017 leading up to Unite the Right, he was everywhere. He would just go on and show up on a bunch of shows, and he would do appearances on pretty much anybody that would have him for a while.

JACK
But the trouble, of course, with a high profile, it kind of paints you into a corner, doesn't it? It nails down what you mean to people, how people perceive you.

DANIEL
Right. Well, I mean a lot of these podcasts, a lot of these Alt-Right podcasts, I mean it's like you and I recording in a basement. You know, they don't really have any more of an audience or any more of a cultural push than you and I do. But there are literally hundreds of these kind of guys doing it and, you know, every little bit helps. But he [Spencer] would show up on a lot of those, even some of those little guys, would show up and do a 20 minute interview or whatever. So he’s mostly pushing the same kinds of ideas. But I mean, I think it was having that kind of an omnipresence. And again, that's changed since Unite the Right in Charlottesville, you see a lot more people deciding who is and is not in their little group and who is trustworthy or not. And I think Spencer's still navigating that space. I'm actually interested to see where this Heel Turn thing is going because it does seem like a really weird kind of left turn for him, a heel turn in a way, right.

JACK
Yeah, exactly, it works.

DANIEL
It does. No, I mean, it's kind of weird thing and I'm not sure quite what it means but I'm still following him. So I'll let you know if I figure it out.

JACK
Watch this space. Yeah. I mean, I feel like you know the death of the Alt-Right was pronounced far too early and they were clearly in a period of fragmentation, but it's also a period of retrenchment and they're waiting for the next, you know, like he sees the opportunity when the Alt-Right took off, they’re waiting for the next opportunity.

DANIEL
I think they’re going to. And again, I am not looking forward to the 2020 election, but also am. I think that they're going to use a sort of Trump re-election or, I mean, I can only imagine if like a Trump impeachment happened that they would really rally together again like they had. What the whole thing lacks, and this is something that Richard Spencer just has not really expressed interest in being, although I think a lot of people wanted to thrust it on him— Richard Spencer was going to be like the leader of White Nationalism and he was going to be that face and he was going to be like that charismatic figure who could really push it forward. And Spencer himself, he said that he didn't want to be Hitler, he wanted to be Goebbels, to be the cultural attache in the ethno-state. But he didn't want the job, he didn't want the top job.

JACK
I'm fine with him shooting himself.

DANIEL
Yeah, I would, you know, I really try not to wish death on anyone, but I would like him to just go away. I was really happy when he wasn't producing, I just didn't have to think about him for a while. It was really nice for me. I wish they'd all just do that, just go and live your life. Yeah, you have to stop, just stop.

JACK
Oh yeah. I'm happy for them to live if they just go and be quiet, just go and be quiet and happy and don't say things or talk to anybody. That's fine.

DANIEL
Just turn your microphones off. That's all, you know. That's what I'm asking. There was this thought that he was going to be the one big leader that everybody was going to rally behind, but I think he just doesn’t, I think he's just not good enough at it. Like he just doesn't inspire that kind of passion in enough of the movement. He's just too smarmy and he's too put together, but not in these kind of, again a mess of contradictions. He's not really one of them, in that way. Like he just doesn't have enough mainstream foothold to really become that.

JACK
Well, he's not quite the standard issue among his type. You know, if he was, he'd now have Ben Shapiro's job or whatever. He's ended up in this cul-de-sac because he’s, for whatever reason, he's decided to become a fascist and now that goes with certain things. You can see that they, you can smell it on them. He's the slickest and the most respectable and the most plausible of them and he's still, you know, he's a bit odd. I mean, he just is. I don't like to psycho-pathologize stuff, but these people, they're all a bit odd, and you see it on him too, you know the waistcoats and the tank tops and the weird hairdo.

DANIEL
He wears the like immaculately-constructed suits.

JACK
Oh yes, the dapper nazi.

DANIEL
He wears a 1,000 dollar suit, but suit jacket is a size too small. So whenever he buttons it when he’s marching, then it looks like he's wearing somebody else's suit jacket, you know and then we all make fun of him for that. It's again, I mean I've said a mess of contradictions a few times and I don’t know that I quite want to explore that, but there are a lot of different competing impulses. I think that he has this kind of idea of being the next David Duke. But I don't think that he really has the ability to do so. I think maybe if Unite the Right had not gone the way it went, he might have been able to build that, but I don't think he has this kind of like mainstreamist charm. David Duke is someone we should probably talk about at some point.

JACK
David Duke is somebody we should talk about, we should probably do an entire episode on just Charlottesville and Unite the Right. But I think we’re done for this episode.

DANIEL
I think we can wrap this one up. Any other any other details on Richard Spencer, I'm sure we can talk about them in the future.

JACK
Okay, that's great. Thanks for listening, everybody. And Daniel, do you know now what you'd like to do for the next one or if not, I can edit this out?

DANIEL
Well, I mean, it's tempting to just do another figure and I think David Duke would be an interesting one to talk about that history a little bit and like who he is now. And also, he's much funnier to talk about than Richard Spencer. Let this got a little bit dry. So, there are lots of details about David Duke and in particular David Duke in Charlottesville. And I think that might be, it’s hard to say like, “oh yeah, let's do a fun one,” but let’s talk about David Duke. I think he is legitimately an interesting figure in some of the history, a little bit before it was Alt-Right and the way that some of these old figures have embraced the term Alt-Right and embrace the terminology in some ways. So yeah, David Duke next time.

JACK
Okay, sold. You heard it here, listeners. Come back next week for us having a fun, amusing chat about David Duke. Until then, goodbye.

DANIEL
I promise you there will be jokes.

JACK
Oh, they're all jokes.