EXPOSING THE DEI INDUSTRY – With Am I Racist?’s MATT WALSH - SF452
01:12:30 Share

Hello you awakening wonders there on Spotify, Apple, Stink Whistle, Gurgle Dot or wherever you download your podcasts these days to remain at least peripherally connected to some tendril of truth in a bewildering medium.

miasma of lies and propaganda. We appreciate you and we love you. You're part of our community. So that's why we're very happy to give you an audio version of our live Rumble show five days a week. It's on Monday to Friday. We decipher the latest news stories. We break down current topics that the mainstream media should be covering and if they aren't,

then we critique why they're not and what they are covering. Every week as well, right, we do brilliant conversations with people like Jordan Peterson, RFK, Tucker, Carlson, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate. These things are already up and you can listen to them now. So remember, this is an audio version of our daily live show. To tune in live, go to rumble.com forward slash Russell Brand. You'll find it easily and I hope that you will love it.

Now, please enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand. Thanks.

Hello there, you awakening wonders. Thanks for joining me for a very special edition of Stay Free with Russell Brand. Today, my guest is Matt Walsh. You know Matt Walsh from the Matt Walsh Show on Daily Wire. He made Am I Racist? That's out now. Of course, he made What Is a Woman? Some consider him a right-wing provocateur or maybe an alt-right Borat character setting up scenarios in which, by their own unwitting participation, his dupes are provoked.

Excuse me, exposed. Now, Matt Walsh is also a Christian. So we talk about Christianity as well as racism and the subjects of his film, the history of slavery, DEI, Christianity and guilt. A good number of subjects come up. I would love to know what you guys think of this interesting conversation. Of course, his movie, Am I Racist? is out now. Thanks for joining us. Let me know what you think.

Matt Walsh, thank you so much for joining us today for Stay Free with Russell Brand. Hey, Russell, thanks for having me. I really appreciate it. I watch a lot of your content and I wonder, I suppose that your films have been uniquely successful in this space. First, what is a woman? It really sort of broke out, I imagine, of the presumed demographic of, say, even Daily Wire, which is a sort of a

growing demographic, let's face it, and perhaps did something successfully that had not been achieved up till then, presented arguments that had become taboo in a way that might be appealing to a wider audience. Your new film, Am I Racist?, I understand it's

is doing the same thing with regard to arguments around race. The dynamics around all of these subjects seem to be shifting radically at the moment. Do you consider your role...

Matt to be to pose questions to offer conclusions and yeah I'll just let's just start there what do you consider to be the function of the films? Yeah I think that's that's a big part of it is to pose questions especially that the the first film we did What is a Woman as you mentioned and I mean the questions right there in the title the whole the whole premise of the film is that

In the world of gender ideology, there's, well, they really can't answer any questions at all about their ideology because it's all really quite fundamentally nonsensical. But they can't answer this one basic foundational question, which is what is a woman? What is a man? So if somebody says identifies a woman, what do they mean by that? What are they identifying as?

And they can't answer that question. And so really the whole movie is just me. I ask a lot of other questions, but every interview comes down to that one question with the people that are... And talking to people that are not just... We talked to some people that are just walking in the street, but we're also talking to the supposed experts in this field and kind of letting the house of cards fall apart. Now...

In the new film, Am I Racist?, there's a question in the title, but it's not the same kind of question. You know, it's, what is a woman is a question that the gender ideologues don't want to answer, they're afraid of. Am I racist? is a question that the racial ideologues, the race baiters and the DEI grifters, they love to answer that question. They're not afraid of telling me that I'm racist. So it's a bit different in that that's kind of the question that starts me on this journey of self-discovery, shall we say, in the film.

where I get into the world of anti-racism, race-grifting, DEI. And one of the real differences between the two movies is that in "What Is a Woman?" I kind of maintain a skeptical attitude, sort of a blank slate through the whole movie. I don't really have an opinion myself until the very end. In this one, we decided, we flipped our heads a little bit in that rather than being skeptical, I'm gonna go into this and I'll just believe whatever they tell me.

And at least sort of I'll play as though I'm believing everything they tell me. And we'll go down the rabbit hole. We'll kind of let them guide me. So we talk to the first person. I ask them all the questions. She gives us the answers. Say, well, where do I go next? If I believe it, I'm into it. What do I do next? And she tells me. And then we kind of just follow. We let them drag us.

on this journey so that we can reveal by the end of it how like where it leads you if you take these ideas seriously. That's a really interesting device and technique to use to drive you and I was as you were describing that Matt I thought of the recent viral clip of

that guy, I don't know who he is, but he's doing a prank at the DNC where he's saying, oh, it's so great that Kamala is running and I'm a white male. And he sort of jokes about his wife's lover and stuff like that. And the reason that that viral clip seems so plausible is perhaps because all of us sense that the

culture is almost trying to generate the mindset that the protagonist in that clip was representing. So you've taken as your mode almost a kind of a Sacha Baron Cohen technique of a savant-like character who takes at face value

the perspectives of the antagonists and people that he or you in this instance encounter and see where that would naturally take us. And although you sort of point out that there are distinctions, certainly in the questions and it's brilliant, I suppose, I reckon to have questions as the, um, um, inciting incident for your movies. Uh, but Bo,

both the why is a woman an unanswerable question and am I racist a definitively answerable question yes you are a racist you're racist unless you or if you have ever and almost I'm presuming there's no escape from the diagnosis of racist and that's one of the the ideas that you're examining I um

Both of those areas, it seems to me, are designed or have culturally created conditions where there's a great deal of uncertainty about what constitutes the correct behavior. And there's also, I think, a real offering, a real opportunity, rather, for people to be condemned if they don't say the right thing or don't believe the right thing.

I wonder, do you think that both of these, let's talk about your current film that you're currently promoting, Am I Racist? Do you think that this method and modality is peaked and that we're going to come out the other side? Or do you think there's further to go with that kind of divisiveness? I'll tell you, we'll tell you why I'm posing the question that way. Because it seems to me that actually, and maybe your film contributed to this, the...

arguments around gender have altered for example keir starmer the uk prime minister for a while you know wouldn't answer the question what is a woman but you know say six months ago now he'll say well no if you have a you know this chromosome that chromosome then you're like he the culture has changed a little bit with regard to the the issues around your former film where do you think we are on that trajectory with the subject of race

Yeah, well, I think I just to start with the former film, I think I think you're exactly right that I've noticed. Well, even in the US, for example, there's been political big, big political changes, legislative changes. There are actually laws against against mutilating children in, you know, I don't know how many states now, but but many states.

But even more, it's the cultural change. I mean, in What Is A Woman, we did go, we filmed this three years ago, and we did go and do kind of man-on-the-street interviews in several cities across the country. And we found at the time that

No matter who we were talking to demographic wise, old, young, white, black, it didn't matter. Most people were terrified to talk about the issue. They were terrified to even admit that they could define the word woman, even though all of them, of course, knew the answer, but they didn't want to answer it.

ask him a question like, "Should men be allowed in the girls' in the women's room?" And most people at that time didn't want to say no, even though we know that their answer is no. Now I think it'd be very different. I think if I went out and did those man on the street interviews in the exact same places again, three, four years later, I think the vast majority of people that I stop on the street would say, "Yeah, woman's an adult human female. No, men don't belong in the women's room. That's ridiculous." So I do think there's been a cultural change on race. I think that

I don't know if the DEI stuff has peaked. I think it will peak. I think it's reaching a peak. I think one of the things that indicates that it's getting to a peak is the fact that everybody knows the term DEI. And not only do they know it, but it's been branded in a negative light. I don't have a study showing this. Maybe they've been done. But I think that if you get 100 people in the room and you say the phrase DEI to them,

98 of them will have heard of it and almost all of that 98 will roll their eyes. They'll have heard of it. It has a negative connotation for them, similar to what's happened with CRT a couple of years before that, where nobody had heard of critical race theory and then all of a sudden everyone had heard of it and most people recognized it as a bad thing. I think a similar thing is happening with DEI. Now, the only problem, of course, is that

When we get to the point where DEI is roundly condemned by almost everybody, does it just go away? Does the ideology go away? No, any more than CRT did go away. Now they look for a way to rebrand it. They take these same ideas and they look for new packaging. And so you always have to be on the lookout for that. What's the new packaging for these same ideas that these race grifters have really been pushing for decades?

There's nothing wrong with helping vulnerable people, but I suppose you, like me, are cynical as to whether or not helping vulnerable people is really the motivating idea behind many of these initiatives. In a kind of a literal Christian way, if you take the adage, by their fruits shall you know them, these concepts,

kind of ideas seem to create opposition, division, concern, confusion, and doubt. I wonder on the subject of race, say if you were to take the easily vilified and frequently condemned cultural group of like, even if you were to say as such a thing as the

most extreme MAGA voter existed, like a white male from the South hunting, maybe been in the military or whatever. Like I might imagine that those people would have quite an easy relationship around the subject of race. If you take people that work in the services, see accepted and assume that you're going to work with people that are from diverse racial backgrounds. If you come from the kind of communities that I sense have been,

from which a lot of MAGA grassroots support are drawn, it's likely that it's necessary for you to form relationships with people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds because it just seems that blue-collar backgrounds and people from low income, forgive the sort of, you know, the reductiveness of this inquiry, tend to have to live tooth-by-cheek by jail and have to get along together. So I wonder...

I wonder where the legitimacy, I wonder from where the legitimacy of these initiatives is drawn. To give you a very sort of broad sketch of a set of ideas I'd love to hear your thoughts on.

When you pass through some normal country town in Britain and see it adorned with rainbow flags, and I bet similar things happen in your country too, you wonder, who is this for? Who is this serving? If we were to approach this, Matt, in good faith,

Would you say that it's comparable even to seeing the stars and stripes in your national union, Jack, in mine? Do you think that what's being offered is that if you live under what would be commonly termed the patriarchy and under a sort of a presumed nationalist rubric, you are having imposed upon you a set of ideas that

are somehow marginalizing, are somehow repressive, and that there is some requirement for a pushback. I suppose now I'm starting to understand my question is, is there legitimacy at all to DEI arguments or conversations around gender? Or is there some legitimacy? And if so,

what is it and how could it be brought into the culture in a way that didn't feel so propagandist and exploitative and untrustworthy. From the rest of the show cannot be on YouTube because Matt Walsh and I are going to speak a little more freely now. So click the link in the description and join us over on Rumble. No, I don't think, yeah, it's an interesting thought. So,

A few things. Well, to answer your question most directly, I don't think the kind of DEI ideology, DEI policies that are pushed through in corporate America and in government and in academia, I don't think there's any legitimacy to those at all. I think they're fundamentally poisonous and toxic because they're all based in an idea of

you know, racism that the way that they would define racism, if they were to define it honestly, what they actually think, they would say that white people are inherently racist.

and that only white people can be racist because racism is a white construct. This is what they believe. This is what DEI is grounded in. And everything kind of revolves around that idea. And so I say that there's no legitimacy to it. Now, could there be legitimacy and could it be worthwhile to talk about race broadly and the experiences of people of different races? Sure. I mean, but as you point out, I think if you go to a lot of these communities that would be condemned as being bastions of bigotry,

You'll find there that they talk about race. They have no problem with it. They just don't have the hang ups about it. In fact, in the movie, I don't want to give any spoilers away, but one of the places that I go in the film is in the south to a biker bar that has Confederate flags hanging on the walls. And it's just nothing but a bunch of blue collar, white bikers with Confederate flag on the wall and tattoos, some of them.

And, you know, of course, we're playing it for laughs a little bit because I'm kind of I'm throwing out I'm throwing all these far left ideas at them just to see how they react to it. But then when we get down to actually talking about race issues, they just, you know, they have really normal things to say. They say, hey, look, we all believe the same. And I don't care if you're black or white. Doesn't matter. It's fine. Like, that's basically their idea. You have to go into these into these kind of.

white, liberal, urban areas to find the places where when you bring up race, it's just, there's this like silence that falls over the room and everybody gets really tense and awkward about it. And then one of the first things we do in the film is I go to a support group. It's a real thing, everything's real. It's a support group and you're all sitting around, it's like AA style, you're all sitting around in a circle

And it's all a bunch of white people and the support group is for white people who are experiencing grief over their whiteness essentially. And the group is led by this black woman, kind of this DEI expert. And just sitting in the room with these people, again, for the film, we're trying to play it for laughs, but these are real people. And I was there for like two hours in real time as they're all talking about

all these feelings they have about being white. And I'm sitting there as I think a normal person myself, and in my mind I'm thinking, "What are you...?" I've never had any of these thoughts. Like, it's what... I can't believe that you're walking around every day actually feeling this burden of guilt just because of the color of your skin. And if I was to... And I've thought a lot about that, this kind of white guilt that these people seem to actually feel.

might be some virtue signaling involved, but I think that there's something real underneath it. I think they do feel the guilt. And I think that there's a, there's kind of a spiritual explanation. I, for, if I was to look at it through a Christian lens as a Christian, you know, everybody has guilt. We all feel guilt because we are all sinners and we all are members of a fallen species, the human race. And so we all have guilt. But if you're a member of, let's say a traditional religion, you,

the religion comes to you and gives you a way to understand that guilt, gives you a framework for understanding it and also something to do with it and about it. But if you don't have religion, you still experience the guilt because you're still a person, you're still a fallen human being, but you don't know what to do with it. You don't know what it means. You don't know where it's coming from. And then you have these race grifters who come along and they say, okay, well,

I'll tell you, whitey, why you're feeling all that guilt. It's because you're white. And here's what you can do about it. But by the way, even after you do those things, you'll still be white. So you'll still be just as guilty. And so you will never actually be free of the guilt. There is no atonement. There's none of that in the end for these people. That's the great tragedy of it, I think. We can't make this show without our partners. Here's a message from Tax Networks USA.

Are you struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns? The IRS is escalating collections, adding, get this, 20,000 new agents and sending over 5 million collection letters to kick off 2024 to spend on things that you probably don't agree with, like wars and measures and a total lack of infrastructure. In these challenging times, your best defense is...

Tax Network USA. Don't let the IRS take advantage of you. With over 40 years of experience, Tax Network USA have saved their clients over $1 billion in back taxes. No matter the size of your tax issue, their expertise is your advantage. They specialize in negotiating with the IRS, aiming to significantly reduce your debt. Tax Network USA doesn't just negotiate, they also protect your assets from IRS seizures and manage your yearly returns for

ongoing compliance. Importantly, they are licensed to help you with all state tax issues, regardless of where you live in the United States. The clock is ticking. Don't wait as the IRS steps up its game. Seize control of your financial future now. Contact Tax Network USA for immediate relief and expert guidance. Visit taxnetworkusa.com forward slash

brand. Don't let tax issues overpower you. Turn to Tax Network USA and find your path to financial peace of mind. All right, let's get back to this content. I think that's an excellent framing, looking at it from a spiritual perspective where the function of spirituality becomes prevalent. And it is, of course, easy to dismiss a spiritual purview as being somehow

impractical and not connected to reality. But in your example, you demonstrate that it's precisely it's pragmatism that makes it valuable. The acknowledgement that there is indeed an in here feeling of sin, but the possibility of redemption, not through moral action, but through the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. I've got a bunch of points to make, Matt. I think you might, I hope you find interesting when you said early in your answer that there's the idea that, that,

racism is inherent. If racism is inherent, it would be, uh, it would warrant being regarded almost as a protected characteristic. If there's nothing that you can do about it, if it is in here, then it would qualify under the same terms as some of these other, um, uh, identity aspects that are, that we're currently debating to the point of, um,

sense of racial awareness, racial identity assimilation and how that could be handled differently. In my country, there was a windrush famously in the 40s and 50s where former Commonwealth countries or in fact current Commonwealth countries were invited to live in the UK because it was like a labour crisis. At least that's the narrative. I've not looked into it too deeply, but there was a requirement for nurses, doctors, labour, its teachers, etc. So

people came from British colonial countries in Africa and elsewhere and lived in the UK. And it's anecdotally understood and to somewhat academically supported that early Windrush migrants integrated very well into the working class white cultures that they were living amidst. And like, for example, Scar

music came out of that that there was a cohesion that the idea that there was a subsequent politicization in this instance from what would have been called then the right that kind of mobilized and polarized those communities and led to sort of like you know the race riots that happened

10, 20, 30 years later, along with, I'm sure, other contributory factors, the increasing migration, other things I'm sure that we could discuss. Then more so personally, I was thinking about my own feelings around racial identity growing up in a blue-collar community. And when I'm growing up, like at the beginning, a gangster rap and that. And my feelings about

racial difference and forms of cultural identity that come out of black, say black forms of identity. It was really cool. Like I loved NWA. And of course the character of Ali G, a precursor to Borat, to whom perhaps your films owe at least a technical debt in terms of the

the idea of this savant entering into sort of territories where they might create, you know, the sort of provocateur dynamic. I feel like that idea that there are cultural differences, there are racial differences, but they might align rather nicely if there aren't external agents used to motivate it. And I think those agents can come from the right or left. You can have nationalist movements, right?

that galvanized disdain. I'm talking more about the 70s and 80s here rather than what's happening currently that seems perhaps more complex. That galvanized disdain or dislike or agitation against migrant communities. And indeed, you can have from inverted commas, the left movements of provocation entering into the community.

what I feel like it will be interesting is to work like you must have a sense of who the audience for your film to be, because I know daily wire is excellent at understanding those things. Um, and I wonder, uh, I wonder, I wonder, uh,

indeed given the spiritual aspect of the answer to the last question what you consider might be a point of reconciliation and reunion that might come from the areas that your films are examining and highlighting I think uh well and I was listening to what you said about the external agents that come in and create a lot of this interracial strife and all that and I and I firmly believe that that

is what's happening. And without that, well, we certainly wouldn't live in a utopia. That's not going to happen in this life anyway. And you're always going to have an element of tribalism with human beings that's natural for humans. But I do think that

at least in the West, racially speaking, things could be okay. Things could be basically fine if you didn't have these people that were invested in making sure that it's not fine. I mean, I think back even, I can't speak to the UK, but at least in the US in the 90s, now the 90s, we know we had, you know, we had some race riots. We had OJ. We had, you know, racial strife in the 90s. By no means was it perfect, but

At least I can talk about being a kid going to public school in a liberal area in the 90s, very racially diverse, we would say now. A lot of diversity and inclusion. We didn't use those terms, but there was a lot of it.

But we didn't spend, it was basically fine. We didn't spend a lot of time talking about the fact that we were different. We didn't spend a lot of time talking about racism anyway. Now you might, you acknowledge race, but we don't need to focus on and talk about racism incessantly. I think about, it's a famous clip. I believe it was Morgan Freeman, a pretty famous clip from a 60 Minutes interview he did maybe 25 years ago.

where he was asked about Black History Month and he said that he doesn't like it because let's just talk about American history and black history is American history, white history is American history. And then he was asked, well, what do we do about racism? He said, stop talking about it. And now, I don't know, if you ask Morgan Freeman that same question today, would he give the same answer? I hope so. I'm not sure. But I think that is

sort of the answer that we just, if you don't focus on it incessantly and talk about racism and tell everybody all the time to look back, that's so much of these diversity, equity and inclusion grifters. This is all of their game is like,

They're always telling you, "Well, look back within yourself. What are you thinking about race? What do you really feel? Oh, you think you're not feeling any racism. You only think that, but look deeper because it's really in there. It's always there." And it's like they have to constantly convince you that you're actually racist and you're insisting to them, "But I'm not. I don't hate people of other races.

but no, but you are, you really are. So it's, they're very blatantly and I think plainly invested in making sure that people either are racist and if they're not racist, at least perceive themselves to be racist so that they can keep the grift going. Did you see that moment when Tucker got our, you know, when I'm talking about replacement theory to Tucker in Australia and

And the woman said, you know, you say that migrant workers are costing white jobs. And he said, I didn't say white jobs. It's black and white jobs. So like there are subtle, either unconscious or deliberate assumptions that are made that presume a more pejorative perspective.

perspective on the subject of race. I feel that one of the driving ideas is that the professional liberal class hates working class people. I think that came to the forefront in Brexit in my country, the beginning of the MAGA movement in yours. Culturally, I'm a person that sort of... My background, you would be of the left and...

sort of because of the axis that might exist between the trade union movement, where you'd think like that men that had working class jobs in sort of manufacturing industries say, and although those jobs have largely disappeared from countries like yours and mine, and then what the culture would have regarded as maybe champagne socialism, but the kind of socialism that comes out of civil rights of like great figures like Luther King and Malcolm

But with my more recent analysis, such as it is of those times, I point out that those are generally religious figures as much as they are social or political figures and indeed owe their debt and legacy to religious figures, e.g. Gandhi. I wonder, Matt, how you...

Earlier when you mentioned that people will all feel a degree of guilt because of our fallen condition of sin, do you wonder ever how, as a Christian, we...

tackle these subjects and how we would apply that commonly used idea of how Christ might or how Christ would address these ideas. When you were talking a minute ago, I know how explicitly the letters of Paul are open to all, Paul being sort of primarily entrusted with taking Christianity from being a sort of a Jewish sect to

to at least providing the liturgy infrastructure and writing that afforded Christianity to become a global or universal phenomenon. I wonder, it's clear in Christianity that race is irrelevant

everything is irrelevant. Christ died for you. Christ don't care about any of that. I've asked people, you know, Christians specifically about what do you reckon Christ would think about homosexuality? What would Christ think about trans issues? And I've had some great answers, including like, there ain't no separate compartments in hell. All of us are sinners. It doesn't matter what the type

of your sin is if you're a sinner, you're a sinner. Non-judgment is a sort of an important facet is for all of us to individually find our relationship with Christ and to invite him into our life through personal relationship.

I wonder how much your Christianity affects your perspective when it comes to filmmaking and whether or not like me, you find it hard not to get sucked into the polemicism that defines the political space that you work in as a journalist and as a presenter. Um,

when it comes to having a Christian perspective also? Are they at odds? Because we sort of know that Christianity would always demand non-judgment, forgiveness, open-heartedness, love, etc. I wonder what you face in that area. Yeah, I think, well, there's two things on that. In terms of being difficult as a kind of polemicist, normally a pundit,

And then even doing films like this where it's not as simple as just looking at the camera and giving my opinion. That can be a challenge. I mean, that's one of the, in making both of the films, people often ask me, well, how do you, when you're in these rooms making films like this with these kinds of people, how do you stop yourself from laughing? And for me, it's not really a problem of stopping myself from laughing. It's actually more stopping myself from screaming at them and telling them that they're wrong and that they're full of it. And then just turning to the camera and saying, here's the real lesson, folks.

Because that's what I do every day on a podcast. That's the business that we're in. We look at a camera, we give our opinion. And there's a place for that. I certainly hope there's a value in that because it's what I do every day. But I think it can also be powerful to expose these ideas in ways where it's not me just explaining to the audience, here's what these people think, here's why they're wrong.

And I think that entertainment, filmmaking can be a great tool for exposing the fallaciousness of a lot of their ideas in, I think, kind of a deeper way. In terms of the faith aspect of it, I think, you know, as you kind of pointed out, as Christians, we have a really elegant and beautiful answer to all the racial strife, which is that

which is that we're all human beings and we're all descended from Adam and Eve and we are all part of that same fallen human condition. We all need Christ in exactly the same degree. Now, I think that you pointed out that there are some Christians who will say that, hey, all sin is the same. I don't actually believe that. I think that

All sin is sin, but there are degrees of sin and there are some sin that is worse than others. There's some sin that separates you from the light of God more than other sin does. For example, telling a white lie, a child saying, "I didn't take a cookie from the cookie jar."

is not as severe a sin as first-degree murder, but to use extreme examples, but even so, we are all still sinners. And if we're all committing sin that takes us farther and farther away from God, the answer for all of us is exactly the same. And it does not matter what your race is. And there's a real true unity in that. It's a real unity too. It's not

Because when you start talking about this, I always feel there's always the risk of lapsing into cliche where you say, hey, we're all, it's all one race. We're the human race. And, you know, race is just a social construct that doesn't matter. I wouldn't go that far. I mean, race is a real thing. It does. It's part of your identity. It matters. It's like, just like I'm a man. It doesn't not matter that I'm a man. But from a spiritual perspective,

whether you, whatever your race is, whatever your sex is, we're all children of God. And whatever guilt we're feeling, the answer for all of us is the same. And I think that's quite a beautiful thought and that really is the answer. And maybe it's why I feel, I'm not going to say impervious, but I've never felt even tempted to fall into this pit of white guilt that so many white liberals seem to fall into in the West.

I look at it and like I said, I can't even, it's hard for me to even relate to it. I don't understand how you could fall into this. And maybe it's because I have a spiritual grounding and I kind of, I know where to put that guilt. I know where it's coming from. And they're more confused on that point. Our partners are absolutely vital. Here's a message from Home Title Lock.

House stealing, a modern day crime where cyber scammers get their hands on your home's title and leverage your equity. Savvy homeowners like us can make it really difficult for these scoundrels by teaming up with Home Title Lock. Their triple lock protection monitors your property, sends you alerts,

And if fraud is detected, it works endlessly to correct it. There was a family in Sarasota. A criminal from New York managed to change their home's title and tried to sell it online. Home title lock was on the case. They detected the fraud and worked with the homeowners and put the title back in their name where it belongs. Don't be an unsuspecting victim.

Use promo code brand, that's B-R-A-N-D, for a free home title scan and your first 30 days of triple lock protection absolutely free. So don't wait. Head over to hometitlelock.com, that's hometitlelock.com today and secure what's yours because our homes deserve to be protected.

One time I was at Pesach when I was 16 with my friends who were Jews, obviously, and during the various incantations and ceremonies that accompanied the event, I had this idea that had I been in Germany in the 30s as a non-Jew, I would presumably have been a participant in the

circumstances and social obligations that drove some, most Germans to either tolerate or participate in the active persecution of Jews and I did cross

cry a bit but I will say I was only 16 and I had taken LSD and was trying to hold myself together at a family dinner with my friend Matt Hirsch and his family while also dealing with the sort of incantations and stuff that was going on at the only pacer that I've ever attended so perhaps you

you know, if I was to think a lot about racial dynamics and the history of slavery, I could conjure a kind of, but like what I would also probably feel is something that's founded to a degree on George Orwell's famous quote, the British, you know, when asked about the problems of the British working class, he said the British working class is in India.

Taking that as a starting point, I think that first, most imperial powers conquer the serf class around them. And then subsequently, they might go off and dominate other territories. I'm talking mostly, I suppose, about European history. So it's not like every single white person was a benefactor of slavery, although white people would have benefited.

participated in slavery and the various forms of racism that have followed it. And as has been pointed out in America, there's not a very long time ago that those things happened. But the idea that there is individual culpability becomes complicated. In our country, for example, Matt, after the George Floyd murder and the subsequent BLM movement took place,

on ceremonial demonstrations, say, at sporting events, which continues, like, you know, footballers in my country take the knee still before football matches. But say a final, like an FA Cup final or a European final, a major final, you may have the...

event of young footballers taking the knee and one of my friends said, yeah, but think of like young black footballers. It's obviously going to be meaningful to them and to their white teammates is going to be important to show solidarity. And I can understand that. But when they're doing it in front of the royal family, then you have to acknowledge that colonialism and imperialism has it is as its ultimate Zenith, the aristocratic and exploitative oligarchical class that has as its living symbol oligarchy.

royalty. And I felt at the beginning of the statue pulling down time, oh, how are you going to pursue this? Because in the end, you'll have to pull down everything. In the end, you won't be able to have a nation. Now, I'm not, particularly now as a committed Christian, I'm not...

I don't have a view on that, whether or not there has to always be a United Kingdom. There has to always be an America. Perhaps these, as there was something that preceded the UK and preceded America, perhaps there was something that...

There will be something that follows it. Certainly if Christ returns and there is a rapture, there certainly will be. But maybe even socially it's possible to evolve beyond these states. I wonder if you see the, obviously I'm imagining you do, the complexity of choosing to pursue some of the narrative assumptions that emerge from exploitation and the presumption of white supremacy and not all,

all of them and where it leaves the idea of a nation full stop if you start to pull those threads too hard. Yeah, I think you're right. Well, once you start pulling it, then you might as well pull it all down. And some of us pointed that out even before George Floyd.

In the US, a few years before that, there was kind of a mini movement that cropped up to start pulling down, particularly in the South, the monuments to Confederate generals or mentions of Confederate generals, Confederate flags and that sort of thing. And the reason that was given is that these were white racists, slave owners, or at least people who supported slavery.

And some of us pointed out back then, this was back in, I don't know, 2016, 17, that, and even Trump made this point back at the time, that, well, okay, but you do realize that our founding fathers were white and racist by our standards today, and they owned slaves. So if that's the reason for tearing down a monument, then I guess theirs are going to come down soon too. And at the time we were told, oh, that's ridiculous. We're not going to do that. And then what do you know, fast forward a few years and they're tearing down

the Founding Fathers too, but it goes beyond that because the truth is, I mean, you brought up slavery. One of my many problems with this idea that I as a white person carry guilt for slavery or that there should be reparations for it, you touched on one of the reasons, which is like, that doesn't mean that I have individual culpability for things that mistakes that were made, or I won't say mistakes, that's evil that was committed,

by people who are not me generations ago, the fact that I have individual culpability for that is absurd. But one of the reasons why it's absurd is that slavery in particular, if we're going back in time and we're assessing the terrible things that were done by our ancestors, well, slavery is a great example of the kind of thing that

Actually, if anyone carries guilt for that, we all carry guilt for it. If you can inherit guilt for slavery, we all have that inherited guilt because slavery was a universal global institution for literally thousands and thousands of years. It's kind of, I think it's a shame that the discussion about slavery has turned into this ridiculous like white versus black thing because if we could be more intelligent about it, there's an actually interesting question here, which is that I think about often.

which is how could it be that for thousands of years, everyone in the world either practiced slavery or was okay with it, and it never occurred to anyone, even the greatest minds of history. It seemed to never even occur to them that there might be something just inherently wrong with owning a person. And I think that the history of the world shows us that, again, for thousands of years, that really didn't occur to anyone. Now, there were some people that were a little bit more

progressive for their time. And so they said things like, well, treat your slaves well, or there should be rules for when you're allowed to take slaves and that sort of thing. There really wasn't anyone who said that, hey, look, all humans have inherent human rights and dignity because they're human beings and you cannot own anyone ever under any circumstances. Nobody said that for thousands of years anywhere in the world.

And certainly nobody said it in Africa, which was a willing and eager participant in the slave trade and held on to it. In Africa, they held on to the slave trade for longer than the white Western European powers did. And then in what is now the United States, in the Americas, in this entire hemisphere,

Slavery was an institution for hundreds of years before any white man stepped foot on its shores. You had the Mesoamerican tribes, the Aztecs and the Incans and the Mayans,

that were ransacking the tribes all around them, taking slaves both for labor and also to rip their hearts out of their chests as human sacrifices. And the same thing was happening in tribes to the north, less advanced tribes, but still the same thing of sending war parties in, killing almost everybody, taking slaves, taking children and women as sex slaves, taking men as slaves. So the point is, this is just everybody was doing it. That doesn't make it okay

That does mean that it's absurd to point to one particular group who engaged in slavery and put all the guilt on them and then act as though everybody else in the world was more enlightened than that when they clearly weren't. And it also means finally, and I'll stop babbling, but it means that really we can't, it's incoherent to hold our ancestors to these modern standards and to condemn, at a certain point, it's sort of incoherent to condemn them

for owning slaves because apparently it just never occurred to anyone in the world for thousands of years. And so we can sit here now in the year 2024 and say, well, they were ignorant and stupid and foolish. All of humanity was ignorant, stupid and foolish for thousands of years. We can say that. That strikes me as really arrogant. And at the least, it's not a productive use of our time. And look,

It's not like you and I or anyone else in this country or in the world today, we didn't have the epiphany that slavery is bad. We didn't earn that knowledge, right? That was given to us. We happened to be born into a time when it was already understood that slavery was wrong. We were told that from birth.

So we don't know, I guess is the point, that if you or I was, if we happen to be born in the year 1300 anywhere in the world, we would almost certainly either own slaves or think that owning slaves is okay because that's what everybody around us thought.

And I think it's just the height of arrogance to not admit that. Yes, it's a kind of giddy hubris that assumes that you might be a person that realized back then the very apex of moral thought. Now, it's an absurd part

of the narcissism that seems to, curiously and paradoxically, be spread across populations these days. One of the things I've noticed in a very general way, Matt, is it appears that there's a project of bewilderment that benefits centralised power.

to create a sort of a nihilism and uncertainty about ways of categorizing, ways of behaving, what history is, what correct behavior is. And the only certainty appears to be posited in the hands, oddly, of the state. And when I first heard people on the right talk about

kind of communism. I thought, no, it's not communism because it's so sort of corporatized. You know, how can Jordan Peterson say, oh, well, this is Marxist, you know, but when, of what he observed in academia, when from my perspective, at least, what's happening in terms of global power is plainly built upon an alliance between communism

global corporate interest and state power, state power that's becoming increasingly globalised and transcendent of a national purview, whether that's French or British or American. It seems that there is a kind of a top-down ideology being planted on whole nations and their populations. And the visible, one of the visible symptoms of that

That will be the homogenisation of each nation, the appearance of every high street or main street in your language, looking the same, having the same shops, having the same favourable tax arrangements, having the same sort of sense of dislocation everywhere in the world. And I have this curious sense that the...

The advancing of the idea that somehow vulnerable groups are being served and protected is a veil by which the opposite is happening. Very, very powerful interests are accruing more power

while claiming to be protecting the most vulnerable. And indeed, that's precisely the paradigm we saw play out in the pandemic. Stay in your home, follow these measures because we have to protect the vulnerable. And during that period of time, there was an astonishing transfer of not only wealth, but also of power and a kind of restriction of civil freedom that will likely never return to its previous level. And indeed,

My assumption will be it awaits the next crisis when comparable measures will be asserted and that they will likely never be fully relinquished either. So I now do see that there's a tendency towards something that has...

similarities to communism even if it's not the same kind of economic communism espoused by early you know Marxists communists whatever you want to call them it's a kind of odd elitist oligarchical state that's already in your country and mine and does a

afford certain sets and groups incredible power and a professional class carries the water for them and carries the propaganda for them saying we have to help this maligned or vulnerable group or this maligned or vulnerable group in order that X, Y, Zed.

And it normally has the result of making the majority population, regardless of race, I would say, because it's more of an economic class or economic taxonomy that I would refer to here, feel bewildered and lost and uncertain. And whether it's sort of gender ideology or racial dynamics, it has the odd effect of...

offering instead of a all-powerful deity, an all-loving trinity at the center of all power, prescribing all knowledge, this state, this centralized globalist set of institutes. Do you see that? And if you do, how, what do you imagine might be part of the solution? Although I recognize that's a very big question.

I do see that. I think you're right to point to the kind of, well, I guess we call it class warfare, but it's not really warfare because it's a rather one-sided war being waged by the elites on all the classes below them. And I would think, I don't know if there's a solution to it or what it would be, but it does begin with kind of an awakening of people realizing what's actually happening. And the thing that

I guess the black pill here for me is that you pointed out the pandemic, and that was a perfect example of how this dynamic plays out, where...

They locked us all in our homes. They took, for many people, their livelihood away. And even while there's so many examples of the people that are imposing these restrictions on us, they would go out and they'd have their parties and they'd still be out living their lives and doing quite well while we had to stay home, muzzled in our masks and so on.

And you would hope that that experience would be an awakening moment for the public, that they would see this and see what's actually happening. And I think for a while, to the extent, you know, it's even worse than that. I mean, think about the fact that

Everyone locked in the home, you can't leave. And then of course, infamously, the BLM riots happened and the elites say, well, that's okay. Somehow the virus doesn't spread if you're rioting for racial justice. And they were okay with that. And why were they okay with it? Well, because these rioters were tearing down poor lower class neighborhoods and destroying the businesses, small businesses and destroying businesses where lower class people worked.

And then you had a riot at the Capitol and this is where the elites work. And all of a sudden now that is, this is not okay. We can't allow it. So again, it's that same dynamic, but it seems like tragically over the, in the, in the years since then, many people have forgotten those lessons. And it feels like, look, we're in a, in the U S we're in the middle of course of an election and the, the, our experiences during COVID are,

are apparently not politically relevant at all. It never comes up. It's not even polled. Nobody talks about it. I think a lot of us imagined back when we were going through this in 2020 and 2021 that the next election would be a real reckoning for all of this and everybody involved in it, they're going to pay the price politically. And that just hasn't happened. People have forgotten about it. We've moved on. And I think that there's a lot of reasons for that. The number one reason is just that we live in this

in this age of being bombarded with information, you know, a billion bits of information every day just constantly beaming at us. And the effect is that we can't focus on anything for very long. No matter how significant the event is, it is destined to be forgotten 30 seconds after it's over. I mean, Donald Trump was shot in the head

A presidential candidate was shot. We all saw it live on TV. He stood up, blood dripping down his face. He put his fist up. He said, fight, fight, fight. It's a historic moment. It's one of the most incredible things that's ever happened in the history of American politics. And that was a month ago. And it might as well have never happened anymore. It's not even talked about. It's not discussed. There's no interest in it. It's had no political impact at all in the polls.

which is amazing in only terrible ways, frankly. And I think, again, it just shows that we can't stay focused on one thing for very long. And the elites that you're talking about, they take advantage of that. They're very happy about that because it means that nothing matters and they can always distract us

and there's always the shiny object that we're staring at. Given that a better measure for velocity might now be the rate with which we hit with information rather than any previously presumed metrics around calendar or clock time,

Do you feel that the Kamala campaign and the anointing of Kamala at the point that it happened was a pre-planned event in order for there to be a kind of honeymoon towards November? Or do you feel that the Biden debate performance was a genuine shock? And how do you see this new perception of time, this billion bits bombardment perspective now?

playing out up to November? Do you think that means it's impossible to predict? Do you have fears around the integrity of the election? And do you mostly do you think that these events are somehow orchestrated? I do have plenty of fears about the integrity of the election. And it but it also makes it very difficult to predict. And I am I myself, I readily admit that I'm a terrible political prognosticator myself.

So my predictions are always sure to come, to not come to fruition. So I'll admit that I really have no idea what's gonna happen in November. But as far as whether it was planned, there's a theory out there that the people really in charge of the Democrat party, the people pulling the strings, they asked for this debate before the convention. And as we all know, doing the earliest presidential debate I think that we've ever had, they never do them before the convention.

And so the kind of conspiracy theory is that the Democrats did this on purpose because they knew that Biden would fall apart on stage, which is what happened. And then they would have the ability to finally get rid of him, which is what they always wanted, and to install somebody else.

I don't know if that's the case. Sometimes I think that we, I don't know if these people are smart enough to think that far ahead and to do something like that. Because although that would be very dishonest and devious, it would be pretty brilliant strategically. And I'm not sure if they're that smart. I guess maybe I hope they're not that smart. So I kind of fall more on the side of

you know, they were going to ride with this guy. They were going to try to ride with him until the election, just wheel him through it, get him another four years. And then, you know, they knew that there's no way he would probably survive another four years. And that's fine with them because then they would take over and they'd be pulled. You know, they were really in charge the whole time anyway. So I'm not sure, but I do know that it has worked out. The timing has worked out tremendously well for Kamala because, you know,

Look, she's a total empty vessel. They don't trust her to speak off the script at all. She hasn't answered any questions. She hasn't done an interview. They've got this, they've generated this hype around her. They've turned her into this political phenomenon in the most fraudulent way we've ever seen.

Yeah, we've seen them do this before. They did this with Obama, but at least with Obama, number one, he actually was and is a talented orator.

I won't say a lot else good about him, but he is that at least. He's a talented speaker. And so you can see how somebody... I mean, all throughout history, there have been charismatic orators who have generated a lot of excitement and led political movements just on that alone. So that's not all that surprising. So the media had something to work with when they were kind of turning Obama into this messianic figure. Also, Obama didn't have much of a history before that.

right? He was a state senator. He wasn't in politics very long before. They came out of nowhere. And so they were able to just kind of like take this guy and make him into what they wanted him to be. With Kamala, it's just so fascinating because she's been on the political scene, even on the national scene for years. And she was vice president for almost four years and was roundly kind of dismissed as sort of a joke

and this bland nothing of a figure, and yet they've taken that person. We know who she is. We've seen her for years. She ran for the presidency in 2020. She was in the primary. She got like 1% of the vote. Nobody liked her. Nobody wanted her. And they've taken her and they've turned her into this person that is supposedly filling up arenas. And the way that they're able to do that is because, look, the media, it turns out, they can do that with anyone. They can take anyone and turn them into a star.

The trick though is that if they're doing that with someone who's a total empty vessel, they can make them into a star, but it won't last long. It'll burn hot and bright and quickly, and then it'll burn out. But they don't need for it to last long. They only need for it to last for three months. And that's the question. Will it last for three months? And I don't know.

Perhaps the phenomena of talent shows that began in the 1990s was an indicator that new media had the power to create figures from naught and generate a kind of hysteria and sustain it, certainly temporarily.

And it seems to some degree, at least in the Trump and, you know, sort of post-Trump or Trump era, however you see that, that the Democrats have campaigned, particularly, I suppose, after the failure of Hillary by having kind of ghost candidates keeping their candidate out

the way and allowing the sort of demonization or legitimate suspicion or disgust or disdain or however you want to call it for Trump to do the carrying of that water and do that work for him. On your point on Obama, I believe...

I saw a PBS documentary that was made before he was president and maybe even before his candidature as a president, you know, maybe while he was a senator, a senator, it was like some sort of 10 minute on X PBS clip. And it was really interesting to sort of see a appraisal of Obama prior to the subsequent hagiographies and sort of deification. And what,

what he came across as is a really interesting and unusual person with a really unusual past with his, an unusual ethnic history growing up in Hawaii, spending a lot of time in Indonesia and marrying Michelle and sort of perhaps understanding his identity through his educational and identity as an African American, a particular identity. And,

It was sort of encouraging him doing pro bono work as a lawyer. I thought, wow, this is an interesting character. And I wonder, perhaps, Matt, if any of us have a certain use to a kind that anyone can be used by a culture for as long as they're valuable. You know, the commonly understood idea that

Epstein's function in the culture was to have dirt on people that could be utilized whenever necessary. So that a person with a particular set of characteristics or traits could be put in a position of political power or of influence. And then should they ever become recalcitrant, the button gets pushed and they are told, Hey, comply or else, you know, and even if there's no need for that, you know, and, and no, uh,

no skeletons in the closet. Most people are pretty happy to take the material and worldly rewards that come with those sort of positions of privilege. Notably, both Vivek Ramaswamy and Dave Rubin did say Biden won't see a 2024 campaign. You know, I saw old video of Rubin saying that and, and,

Vivek will tell anyone who will listen, won't he, that, you know, that Biden weren't going to run. But I, like you, do sometimes wonder whether or not that level of ingenuity is going on behind the scenes. But it's going to be interesting to see how a figure like Kamala is managed. I look at a lot of the aesthetics of propaganda, the propaganda of the right. You know, I was at the RNC and I saw that you were at the DNC and their propaganda is

you know, like people coming out and talking about pro-life stories, bringing out a pop star or whatever, and some pop stars not showing up. And I'm wondering about what is substantive in the DNC now. I know they have announced some policies. I think it's mad that Kamala's talking about spending hundreds of millions on the wall now. And that too shows you that it makes you wonder what's really there. What do you feel about the

addition of both Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi to the Trump campaign. What kind of impact do you imagine that will have on sort of marginal swing voters? And what do you think that does to address and alter the flavor of what the Republican stroke MAGA Trump movement is about?

when quite popular and in the case of Tulsi Gabbard in particular, a very dignified traditional politician and in the case of Bobby, a very radical and quite brilliant politician are added into the fold of this movement. What kind of impact do you see that having?

I think it's obviously a positive development for Trump. What sort of the extent that there's any kind of real impact for him, I'm not sure. Now, if you had asked me this question, if this had happened a month and a half ago and you'd asked me, I would say, well, this is going to have a massive impact, particularly RFK Jr., because he does have a very devoted and large following, not large enough to actually win the presidency himself, obviously, but large enough, you would think, in a really tight election to

to put Trump over the top. And I would have said that a month and a half ago, Tulsi Gabbard's another one, doesn't have the same level of like devotion, but she's a very talented politician. She's also, you know, I think, you know, an honest person. There's not a lot of those in politics and does have crossover appeal. So I would say, yeah, this is going to have, this could be even decisive. Now, the only thing that gives me pause is what I said a few minutes ago, that

Also, if you had asked me a month and a half ago, would it have a major impact on the election if the presidential candidate gets shot in the head and survives it? Could that have a decisive impact? I would have also said yes, definitely. And that hasn't proved to be the case. So, you know, I guess the question is always when voting really starts, well, voting unfortunately starts like a month ahead of time, but let's just say on election day, will anything that happened

before 48, the 48 hours before that, like, does anything older than 48 hours matter at all when people are actually voting? That's kind of the fundamental question. And if the answer is no, that like the, nothing matters if it's more than 48 hours old. If that's the answer, then it's just,

You know, political campaigns, you can't even campaign anymore. Political campaigns basically don't exist because nothing matters if it's not front of mind when people go to vote. And so and so I guess, yeah, that's a long way of saying I don't know. But by all rights, it should have a decisive impact.

Do you think that something more epistemologically profound is happening then, Matt, if we can't rely on a cycle longer than 48 hours? Two things I think of are the famous Warholian edict about 15 minutes and then the writing of Martin Goury in his book The Revolt of the Public that I refer to a lot that talks about that tsunami of information that began in 2001.

Every year since 2001, the amount of available information has doubled and therefore we're kind of deluged in continual perpetual information without absorbing any knowledge. And if there is no ability to create sort of narratives with any mythic tenacity or any meaningful influence, don't that suggest we are existing in a kind of nihilistic fugue where almost any idea...

might take hold of us. And in that kind of environment, what sort of things matter? And does there need to be a more ardent return to what we've touched upon, but not explored in any great depth throughout this interview, Christianity and the importance of recognizing that actually we've just created little things here.

We're here to serve and follow some very particular instructions. And do you sense that that might return to the forefront? Yeah, I think, well, nihilistic fugue is a great way of putting it. And that's what I sense anyway. If I were to summarize culture, maybe I would use that term. And yeah, that's the problem. Campaigning is really...

a political campaign is really storytelling. It's at least traditionally, that's what it has been. Who has the more compelling story? Trump won in 2016 in large part because it was such a compelling, fascinating story that was just so remarkable, whether you hated him or loved him, it was a remarkable story. And the story was so powerful that it was just looking back on it now, it just seemed obvious. Like, of course, this guy is going to win. His story is so incredible. But

that storytelling requires people to follow it and get invested kind of in the narrative and to care about it for more than 48 hours. And if they don't, then it just becomes hard to do that anymore. Christianity is that. I mean, Christianity, it's easy for me because that's, in my opinion, the answer to all of our cultural problems ultimately. But it's, I think, obviously the answer here because you have to have a sense of, Christianity gives you a sense of a

you know, there's a sense of the eternal, that actually things do matter for a lot longer than 48 hours. In fact, what we're experiencing now and what we're living through, that all of this will matter in some way, even beyond the extent of our own physical lifetimes, and it'll matter, you know, into eternity.

And I think if you take away that sense of the eternal and replace it only with a sense of only with the idea that we are temporal beings, we came out of nothingness into nothingness, we will return. We're here for the blink of an eye. And then on top of that, there's this billions of bits of information every second beaming at us. You combine those two things and it's just there's no hope. There's no way for you to live a life where anything matters at all.

And the only antidote to that is, again, a sense of the eternal and also to the extent that's possible to quiet some of that noise in your own life and give yourself a sense of quiet and solitude in your life.

to focus on these things. Yeah, I'm trying to do that. Finally, I wondered what you thought of Zuckerberg's mea culpa around censorship. Again, I would have assumed like at the height of pandemic censorship that such a subsequent admission would amount to an acknowledgement of culpability so deep that

all of those institutions would face the reckoning that you referred to and imagined that the forthcoming election might be a referenda upon, though that is so far lost in the annals and mids, it's barely remarked upon. Do you think it is a significant moment when Zuckerberg says that? Does it to you indicate that he is picking sides politically? What do you glean from it, Matt?

Yeah, I think it's certainly a major admission, should be treated as such. It seems like Zuckerberg, I don't follow him that closely, but...

Based on what I've seen, it seems like he got into MMA and mixed martial arts. And ever since then, he seems to be becoming more right wing by the day. Still wouldn't call him right wing, but he's traveling closer and closer in that direction. I don't know if there's a connection there between those two things. There probably is. But...

And I would like to think that he's not, you know, alone in that, that maybe there'll be a general shift in big tech towards free speech and less censorship. But I don't think that's the case. But hey, if we get to a point where we know that Elon Musk is a proponent of free speech, and if Zuckerberg is at least traveling ever so gradually in that direction, even though we still won't have free speech on many of these other platforms, I think that's a

That's still a great development for us.

Well, Matt, thanks very much for this conversation. It's available first on Locals for our paid subscribers, and then we're going to stream it on Rumble and to a degree on YouTube in a couple of weeks, by which time you and I might as well have been discussing John Steinbeck and clogs and the music of Billie Holiday, because with the rapid news cycle spinning like a comet past our planet, probably our clothes will make us look like just...

Two Amish men discussing irrelevant events of yesteryear. Nevertheless, thank you, man. Thank you for your time and good luck with your movie. Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. We'll speak again soon, hopefully in Nashville when I'm over there. Awesome. Take care, man.

Majid Nawaz is on Locals right now. This conversation you will love and enjoy. If you find it interesting to see me talking to someone like Matt Walsh on the subject of race, you're going to love my conversation with Majid Nawaz. We talk about how Islam, migration, nationalism all fit together and how all of us are being exploited by globalism and turned against one another in ways that are, of course, extremely advantageous to the systems of power that

benefit from ongoing conflict among ordinary people of all cultures and races. Surely we must find a way to unify and oppose them. You can also see my Russell Brand stand-up breakdown on Locals right now. I'm talking about Billy Connolly, one of my favourite comedians. Thank you so much for joining us today. See you next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different. Until then, if you can, stay free.