Welcome to Keith's night. Don't try it on anyone and the
libertarian be Institute today. I am honored to be joined by
David Cole. You might know him as the
Republican party animal. He is a columnist at talkies
magazine. He works there with Pat
Buchanan, my hero and Ann Coulter, and a number of other
columnists. Mr. Cole.
Thank you so much for your time. Oh, it's a pleasure.
Keith. Glad to be here.
Very glad to be here. Thank you for having me on.
Well. I am so honored that I got a
copy of this book before it was taken off Amazon.
Where can people get this. I don't even know where to link
people to. Yeah.
That's the thing, two things happened, pretty much in a row,
my publisher and impart free passed away in 2018.
And his sister took over the company.
And in 2019, she decided to take the company woke.
So they got rid of several titles that they Considered to
be too dangerous for their blood.
So they took the book out of print, but then we're still a
lot of copies floating around in the world.
So you could sell them on Amazon and that was always a books and
Amazon there would always be copies, but then last year 2021
the sitcom star Debra Messing decided to Lobby Amazon to not
allow. The sale of my book at all even
in used editions and she was successful in that so you can't
sell any version of it. On Amazon occasionally, a
version will pop up on eBay and they started about five hundred
dollars there. That's the I try to remember a
time when you could get the book on Amazon for 19 bucks.
And now the rare copies you come across started 500.
I An actively looking for a new publisher, but it's an arduous
process because it's got to be somebody if the Amazon band
continues and it ended likely will that it's got to be a
publisher. Could move the book without
having to rely on Amazon because a very difficult Proposition E
days because Amazon kind of hasn't bit of a Stranglehold on
the publishing industry. Unbelievable stuff.
Well, I was watching a speech you gave with Ann Coulter where
you would said, there are two books that you recommend to
people that they need to read. I want to go over both of those
relatively briefly. The first one is titled, the
Soviet impact on society. My favorite quote was from page
186. He says, more or less.
These acts of open violence temporary expropriation of
private property and destruction of Machinery.
Such as the ripping out. Gears and Transmissions belt are
perpetrated by the Communists wing of the labor unions.
Not in order to obtain better working conditions for the
worker but to create a definite Schism between employer and
employee. Why is the left constantly
creating these chisholm's employer versus employee black
versus white man versus woman Rich versus poor.
Well, you have to put the things in what you just mentioned, of
course, is eternal. I mean, it's going on now the
same as it went on a hundred years ago, but But in terms of
the book, these Soviet impact on society by date of birth groans.
It was a book that was concentrating solely on the post
World War 1. The concerted effort by by
leftists, by Marxist by Communists, to disrupt the order
in in Europe and ruins Goes Country bike.
Entry and region by region. Like the Bavaria, the
short-lived Bavarian Communist dictatorship.
And he goes into other parts of Europe where either these
attempt to disruption, where either successful or
unsuccessful. We talked about hungry, talked
about Romania and Poland and the importance of that particular
book. Apart from as you pointed out
showing you that the stuff that's going on.
Now is going on 100 years ago, is as well.
But the greater historical importance of that book is.
You can't understand the 1930s. You can't understand the rise of
Nazism and what everything that would eventually lead to the
second world war. You can't understand any of that
without understand understanding what the European mindset.
I was following all of these attempts to disruption, all
throughout Europe, all throughout what used to be the
austro-hungarian Empire, and the countries surrounding it.
Coupled with one Stalin took power coupled with very ruthless
expansionism. Attempted expansionism.
All over the place is as Soviet Union began collecting more and
more territory. So the Importance of the of that
particular book as annexed. Oracle artifact is when you
finish reading it and then you realize, you put yourself in the
position of the German having to choose between different,
political parties, in the 1930s. It and there were many of them
did not see it's for all or just one of many.
The Communists were just one of many that were all kinds of
political parties. In 1932 that, ran the gamut from
far left to the far, right and establishment everything in
between. So we have to put yourself in
the position of a German facing some of these Ballot Box choices
in 1932 being aware that the Communists have already tried to
take over Bavaria and they were briefly successful.
They were run out on a rail but They certainly created a lot of
misery during the brief time. They were there and the
Communists have been trying all these other countries
surrounding Germany to destabilize and to create
communist dictatorships there. And at that point Germans had
seen what Stalin was doing in his backyard and doing in
Ukraine, so there is a misconception.
The people in Germany, especially the ones who
supported the Nazi party that they were paranoid.
It is not in any way to endorse supporting the Nazi party back
then, but it wasn't paranoia. That was a genuine and quite
legitimate fear of what the Soviets were doing and what they
wanted to do. If there was not a strong enough
will on the part. Art of Germany to push back
against it. So a lot of it was was not at
all paranoid and you know that old saying just because you're
paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you and the even
some of the people who made the really did come across a very
paranoid, but there was still a legitimate threat, there was
still legitimate threat from the Soviet.
And of course if you mentioned the beginning, a lot of this
show, Attacked it carried on by leftists today is to drive
wedges between worker and management and between races and
back in the 1930s between religions.
It's not such a big thing anymore.
Today. Everybody's concerned these days
about race. You know, that's one of the
things I like to point out not to get off on at Edge.
One of the things I like to point out to people, the left,
the left big stick right now for the Last year 20 years or so.
But especially ramped up with in the last ten years.
We have to Stamp Out racism. We have to Stamp Out white
supremacy, any white person who maybe thinks that they might be
smarter or less criminal that a black.
Well, we have to crush me, even if they're not doing anything,
even if it just thinking these thoughts to themselves privately
among different, we have to crush them.
It's an interesting twist because that's how it used to be
about religion. There used to be in the western
world and there still is in other parts of the world and
it's concentrated right now in the west.
It used to be. We have to crush the people who
think that we're going to hell that we're not going to heaven.
And if you really break it down, which is more insulting.
Somebody who says, because of your race.
I think I'm a couple of IQ points smarter than you versus
someone who says, because of your religion, your grandma's
burning in Hell, your father is burning in hell and you're gonna
burn in hell right. Now.
Your beloved grandma is happen. Pop cold shoved up her ass and
feared by pitchforks. Okay, that's insulting to We
learned to live with it. We kind of learned to get along
at some point. The post-world war two era, the
West made a very intelligent decision where after centuries
of fighting over this who's going to healthy people like you
know, what? Okay, you say I'm going to hell
and maybe I say you're going to hell, but we can still go to
work. Every day and work side by side.
I'm not going to burn your house down and you're not gonna burn
my house down. Down and we can agree to
disagree about who's grandma is currently burning in hell.
It was a good move for society because after so many centuries
of people slaughtering each other.
Over this thing of who's going to hell.
We just sort of agreed to disagree but now the left has
brought it right back with the race thing because now we're
told that we have to wage holy war and Against anyone who might
have racially improper views or, or who might they be think that
perhaps black people don't do as well.
It's stem or perhaps Asian people do better in stem.
And now we've got a crush those people.
What, what I wish we could come around to is that sense of that
same sense. If they taunt that we got about
the going to hell thing, where we're like, you might think this
about My race, I might think there's about your race.
But you know what? We don't have to crush each
other. That would be a good thing.
But right now, race is, what is being used by the left?
As a wedge issue, is a divisive thing and also, as a it's a
crusade whipping people into a kind of frenzy where they have
tremendous hostility against the neighbors and against a random
people. They see online who they don't
even know, except they know that they hate them.
So, The long way of saying that, yes, these wedge issues in this
driving. This wedge between groups of
people went on back, then it goes on now, the specific
adjectives can change, but the basic Dynamics remain the same,
and how are they? Extracting power?
Once this wedge is created because you could see a
competing Theory, they want everyone unified, so they could
be more or less the monarch of this Society.
If everyone supports It's one policy.
Well, and they represent that policy then they'd have a lot of
power. How are they gaining Power by
creating division? Well, a lot of it has to do with
trying to dismantle the whole notion of Merit to be the entire
notion of Reward for a better job than the other guy is doing.
Because that's also something that Communists took always
wanted to try to do and succeed in many cases.
But if you stop looking at a person and individual success at
a job, or at a skill and instead you simply start classifying
them as your you're automatically worse.
Yes, because this is your skin color.
You don't get the job because this is your skin color.
Once, once you stop, looking at who's doing a good job and stop
rewarding them for doing a good job and instead start penalizing
them more rewarding than based on genetic features to thing.
Born with that's a way of taking down.
Any, what Jefferson would have called that the natural
aristocracy, the people who just wise to With a to a task and do
it. Well societies, always depended.
On those people, you can go back to.
I'm sure this goes back before. Even the first records were
recorded the first. The first language was ever put
to parchment or carved into stone.
There's always that person who just figured out how to do
something and could do it a little better.
Maybe put a little more thought into it.
Maybe they have a little more whether we're talking about
construction, or agriculture, or Hunting or anything.
There's always that. That one more several people who
just start doing it better other people learn from them.
And but there's also going to be those people who are going to be
somewhat jealous. You can imagine in caveman
times. That look at fag, all the ladies
like fag because he built that new spear.
Oh he invented that damn Spear and now he's killing all the
animals. Fashioning, all these ladies in.
Fur coats. I hate that bag.
You know what? Fags got a big nose and I think
people would take no shit. They're, they're up to something
that there's a we have to start to.
We can't let the big nose people have say over us and they
immediately, you get this tiered Society because some people are
jealous of the people who do it. Who do it better.
That's a that's a part of human nature.
Is one of the things. Is that communism was always
good at doing was harnessing the most base and ugly parts of
human nature that we all have inside of us somewhere.
We've all had moments of jealousy and envy.
We've all had moments of self-pity where we don't get
something that we think we deserved.
And so we want to lash out at someone, want to blame someone.
So the leftist is very good at harnessing that And again, in a
roundabout way to answer your question, when you start to pull
down the people at the top who are doing well, and who are
skilled at doing things, then skill loses.
Its meaning. It's like the whole racial whop
nonsense that you see if they put into the math and science
these days. We're no longer about solving
the equation. It's no longer about coming up
with a solid study, that could be peer reviewed.
You'd instead it simply about equity and giving an equal voice
to everybody. I mean the story Harrison
Bergeron went into this how many decades ago?
I mean, there there were, there were prescient authors, who
foresaw? Exactly something like this
happening, and as in Harrison Bergeron, once skill no longer
matters, there's no difference between a skilled ballet dancer.
For a fat guy gets flopping, around on stage.
It becomes easier to control Society, because the what we
have normally gone by in the past, which is who can do
something. Well, no longer means anything.
And once you can stock cabinet, your company, whatever ones, who
can stop them with weak-minded people who are not being judged
on unskilled people who basically couldn't get that job
on their own. They were Lying on you, you gave
it to them. You can take it away as well,
because they're not getting anything on skill.
A skilled worker always has a bargaining chip.
The skilled worker can always say to their boss.
Okay, I think I deserve a raise and if you feel you don't want
to give me a raise. Well, there are a hundred other
companies that would pay to have me in their employee.
So skilled workers, always have that back door that exits.
Don't like where they are at present, but if you're just
bringing in unskilled People based on their race based on
gender based on whatever they're relying on, you like a baby to
its Mama because they are baby can survive without Mommy.
Can't put a baby out in the street and tell us
six-month-old. Go feed yourself.
Do the same with workers who are or politicians cabinet members.
I guess they can't members of administration when they're
brought on for reasons other than Than skill, they become
especially reliant on the person who brought them in and
therefore, they're more pliable and easier to use and
manipulate. I love that term, natural
aristocracy. That was first introduced to me
as the iron law of oligarchy James.
Burnham writes about this where he says, okay.
Imagine you're not the bhujbal Z, but you're the workers and
you form a union. Well, not everyone wants to go
to the You'd meeting only some people do, who does the talking
at that. Union meeting people who are
good speakers, who gets their, who gets their point, across in
such an effective way that they get to pick the rules that the
union goes by well like 0.001 percent of people in the union.
So this iron law of oligarchy always exists.
So, this means that under any society, communism fascism,
socialism primitivism, anything that the left will be able to
point at this in equality, because it always exists, and
they never run out of these excuses because it really is an
iron law. I love that term, natural
aristocracy. Yeah.
Absolutely. The other book you recommend is
treason by Ann Coulter. There is so much in this book.
I think we're going to have to just stick to the first page.
She says, liberals have a gift for striking, a position on the
side of trees and you could be talking about Scrabble and they
would instantly leap to the anti-American position.
She goes on to talk about the Obsession with the crimes of the
West and their Russo. Ian respect for Savages, all
flow from this subversive goal, liberals invented, the myth of
McCarthyism to delegitimize questions about their own
patriotism. There are so much in there.
Why is the left? So obsessed with the crimes of
the West which while bad are in no way unique to the West.
Well, there was a reason that at that event that an and I did
together. There's a reason that I
mentioned the Soviet impact on society book and treason side by
side. Because in a way what I like
about them both is very similar the same way that the Soviet
impact on society. All right.
It's a good primer for why? A lot of Germans were not
paranoid about Soviet expansionism.
Well, treason is a great book to read to learn that.
The people concerned about Soviet infiltration in the
post-world war, two era. We're also not being paranoid
McCarthy, but specifically the house on American Activities
Committee whether one approves of their methods for not.
But, It is a simple truth that and presents tons of facts for
it's a simple truth of the Soviets.
Absolutely did have people crawling in our institutions and
they had been doing that since the twenties and so it's become
a myth. That there were no Soviet agents
in American society that then it was always just some dumb.
I put his name on a piece of paper in 1931 and didn't even
know what it was about. Oh, I joined the Communist
party. Oh my gosh.
I, I was just trying to impress it check.
But in fact, we know, for example, that the Soviets tried
to take over the Writers Guild of America in the 30s.
They attempted to infiltrate quite a few unions.
They were in our intelligence apparatus the soul.
VX. Put a lot of stock in
infiltration and we know where, after the fall of the Soviet
Union and the release of records and information.
We know that that the Alger Hiss wants indeed as Phi.
We know that the rosenbergs were certainly guilty, the husband
especially there. There's always going to be a
certain debate about to what extent Ethel.
Rosenberg was the second in command, or whether there were,
there were someone Or some kind of sold out Ethel to save their
own skin, but all the same we do the rosenbergs were guilty.
We know that I was counter, hits was guilty.
We know that Whittaker Chambers, a massive a man, but he was
right. Sometimes you can be a fat
drunken drunkard smoking mess of a man and you can still be
right. So that's the Brilliance of
Anne's book there and that's why it complements the Soviet impact
on society because it both books are kind of about how what
deliver roll establishment with the left is Two Steps From the
media. What they tell us about how all
these people were paranoid. Hitler was paranoid about
communism and McCarthy and who act they were paranoid about
infiltration. Again, it's not a not to
support. Hitler's methods.
Certainly and it's not necessarily to support who
Akram? The car.
These method. But they were not paranoid.
There was absolutely stuff going on with Soviet infiltration and
they decided to take it on again their method good or bad, but
they, at least decided to take it on and which is kind of
inevitable, especially considering the devastation that
some of this infiltration almost caused.
One of the best examples being the morgenthau plan for post-war
Germany, which was influenced and to some extent ghosts,
authored to a great extent by a guy named Harry, Dexter white,
who was a proven, who be a Soviet agent, and it's largely
thought. That white manipulated Morgan's
a more concise hated the Germans.
It was a pathological, hatred. I don't want to judge Man Too
harshly. He was Jewish, of course, and
many Jews had a hatred of the Nazis.
That is not undeserved, but it's generally believed that Harry
Dexter white used Morgan saws, emotional visceral, hatred.
Eight of the Germans to help construct a post-war plan.
So brutal. So horrific in the way it was
going to treat the German that the idea was that would
eventually drive all the Germans in the western Zone to accept
Soviet rule as a, as a relief from what the morgenthau plan
was doing to them, thankfully Truman and That ending the
morgenthau plan before could ever come to that and replacing
it with the Marshall Plan, but that's just one example of how
Soviet infiltrators in that era were really trying to create a
tremendous amount of misery for their own benefit.
And these are all things that I recommend both books, of course,
treason, you can buy on Amazon easily because it's still in
print and you can get it very recent.
He tries to copy the other books, a little harder to find,
but I recommend your viewers to try to hunt down both books.
When you talk about differences between right and left, I was
always raised to believe the left cares about the poor, the
right cares about the rich and then as I got older it was well
the right cares about foreign policy, the left cares about
domestic policy. It would so difficult to really
nail down the actual difference between these two between these
two groups. What would you say is the
defining characteristic that separates left from right?
What we seeing a little bit of I don't want to Realignment these
days, but what we're seeing there are still old school, FDR
leftists. They're older.
Some of them are much older. Some of them are hippies, if
people of the hippie generation who are still trying to hold
fast to those old views, helping the worker, helping the Working,
Man, but But to get back to what you were saying about wedge
issues. As a prime example of that.
The left was always always presented itself as the place
for women for feminism. The, these we are the people who
fight for the rights of women equal pay the ER, a pro-choice.
We are there for you women. We're against the Key work in
the chauvinists. Well, now, Feminism is actually
starting to drift a bit right word because the left has become
obsessed with transgenderism. The left has become obsessed
with the notion that biological women, don't exist that that
none of its biological that the women at woman is a social
construct and that ain't a transgender man.
It's the same as a woman that is driving some feminists away from
the left. And the right is kind of
starting to welcome them in saying, well, we have our, we
certainly have our disagreements.
But we, if we agree on the reality of biological sex and
that men can't get pregnant in the men can't menstruate.
And then, I mean, I I personally believe in every human beings,
right? To live any way.
They wanted a somebody wants to put on a wig and and wear a bra.
And a man wants to put on a wig and wear a bra and call himself.
Elf anything. God bless it.
Consenting adults, should be able to do anything.
They want to, but there are attacks against basic biology
that we're all. Now, being expected to agree
with whether we agree with them or not.
It's a matter of Consciousness point, because people who
genuinely Shibley don't, don't believe that a guy in a way gets
an actual woman are being told, you can't think that anymore.
So, We're seeing a witch right there between the that the left
and feminism. That's an old old Coalition
there that's being broken up and it's being broken up, pretty
recently. I mean, this is stuff that's
only come up in the last decade. In any major way.
The left used to be the first ones fighting for women's sports
for equality, for women, sports, for, for women, on College.
College campuses and high schools being able to have their
own sport that get the exact same.
Funding, the exact same support from the administration and the
exacting facilities. And now that very left.
They're the ones who are advocating, biological males
competing against women and women's sports.
So that's a realignment Racine. We're another realignment we're
seeing Is the left always used to Pride itself on being anti
Corporation? We are anti Corporate America.
We're for unions, and we're for workers and corporations are bad
and and that goes far, far back. Again.
That's a long-standing thing. But now that the left has turned
so strongly against Free Speech. The left has realized that their
salvation. As sensors is in the private
sector private sector where the First Amendment doesn't really
apply and where Viewpoint discrimination is completely
legal. So you now have this weird
Specter of DieHard leftist supporting the corporations in
the Billionaire's supporting Jeff Bezos running the
Washington Post and supporting Jack Dorsey when he was running.
Twitter and supporting Zuckerberg, because it is
certain point when the left turned against Free Speech.
The left also realized that government has to work under
certain constraints, it government cannot violate First
Amendment rights and the government cannot engage in
blank Viewpoint discrimination. Where is the private sector can.
So that's a no. Another realignment where the
left now more and more on the side of corporate America.
And especially because Corporate America has been playing to the
left about the transgender issue about race about, things like
that. And then you have the right kind
of some people on the right, trying to revive the populism of
old the including the economic populist of the anti-corporate
crucified, don't crucify man on a cross of gold, kind of, kind
of, The populism fire and brimstone type of stuff.
So we're seeing these realignment.
That really have only been in hyperdrive for the last ten
years. I don't know where it's all
going, but it certainly is very it's certainly very interesting.
You're also seeing it in terms of race when I was in elementary
school, the 1970s. I was in high school in the
early 1980s. The left's message.
Was uniform. It was always don't see race be
non-racing. Don't look at that man.
As a black man. Don't look at that.
And as a nation, don't look at that, man.
It's a white pen. Don't see race.
The left has completely reversed itself on that.
Very specifically, they say now, you must see raise.
If you don't see race, you're a racist, you have to respond to
that. Black man.
And as a black man, you have to respond to that white man.
As a white man. You can't get respond to them as
human beings. You have to acknowledge race in
all things that's allowed the right, especially the mainstream
right of the bench. Pierrot, right?
Dennis Prager, right? The GOP establishment, right?
And to allow them to start to co-opt but don't see race
things. So now you have mainstream
conservatives or the one saying I don't Don't see race.
I see American waved the flag and you have left is saying no
racism, most important thing that any of us have.
So you've got to see it. You've got to respond to it and
everything in your life, for the books.
You read the music. You listen to Jeff to filter
through the prism of race. Again, a realignment, something,
all of these things would have been very If you were to go back
to the 70s, when the left was still empty Corporation,
pro-worker pro-feminist and Pro free speech, and and don't see
race. So I think a hippie, dude, a
pluck, a hippie from a college campus in 1969 and 1970.
Just bring them here to this present without them seeing any
a of the lead up to it. They wouldn't know what the
hell's going on. It would be the test of
character is would be completely different and I don't think
they'd be unable to understand a damn thing.
It's the complete realignment and I think in the future it
will be difficult to nail down for people in the future will be
difficult to nail down who was left in, who was right.
Exactly an example. I give sometimes I'll encounter
people who try to put today's labels on the founding fathers.
Well, that's a difficult thing to do because like, what is,
what is John Adams on the one hand, John Adams was very anti
slavery. On the other hand.
He was very much in New England Puritan in terms of a lot of his
views and his views on monarchy and his views on.
If you can't put a modern day. A left-wing or right-wing label
on a man, like John Adams because situation in the
specifics were so different back then.
I think that's how it's going to be some years from now decades.
From now people going to look back on where we are right now
and they're not going to know what would we who's left is
right. That guy saying this, but that
sounds more like a left-wing point, but he's right wing.
This guy who says he's left wing, you saying this thing, but
it sounds like more something like right wing the room saying
I think Think very scrambled right now.
And it, that's one of the reasons you're seeing some very
abrupt changes in certain well-known figures of one.
Example, comes Mike Bill Maher. Bill Maher, all during the
President Bush George w--. Bush years.
Bill Maher was very predictable. I mean, you knew where he stood
on everything and through the Obama years, Mar remained
predictable. It started out as kind of a semi
right-leaning libertarian. I mean, in his early days in the
days of my kids Politically Incorrect show, but then after
9/11, he had pretty much got over to the left quite a bit.
And, and now he's sort of coming back to the right.
He's responding to what he sees as the left going nuts.
And the left is Getting to alienate him more and more.
And you see it more and more every week and the left has
become so unforgiving of Heretics.
They're only making it worse for themselves because the more they
push the guy like Bill Maher away.
The more he's going to kind of go back to the sort of
right-leaning libertarian. He was when he first started
doing political comedy. So the realignment is not just
among groups, but also, So individuals who are in their own
way, beginning to respond, to traditional roles of what is
left in. What?
It's right. Become in switch it up with each
other and becoming things that you couldn't recognize.
I don't know where it's all heading.
I try not to Gnostic Aid because you do that.
You could look like a fool if you're wrong, so I don't know
where it's all happening, but I do know this.
Bendis amount of confusion right now.
And I do think people in the future 20 years, 30 years from.
Now, we'll look back and say this was a very confusing time
to try to figure out who fits where on the Spectrum.
Do you have a general theory as to why they push the privilege
narrative saying some people are in a privileged class.
They almost just declare it and then move on.
It's like there's not even a follow-up.
When I feel like the follow-up is hey where the Occupy Wall
Street people you have privilege and we're here to take stuff.
We're just going to push this privilege a little longer once
everyone's recognizes it then we'll be justified in doing the
Looting. We've always planned on doing.
You have a general theory as to why they push the privilege now.
That's why I think it's it's necessary for them in order to
make white people. Especially feel like they they
owe like there by virtue of their skin color, that they've
been given all of this stuff. I think as a strategy it's
failing. I think it's exactly that white
privilege strategy. That is pushing the Rust Belt
states. Well, I think it's one of the
reasons the Rust Belt states went for Trump in 2016.
And I don't think it's a good long-term strategy for the left
to use in in those States. But it I think it's important
that the privilege thing was you so often race-based whites are
accused of being privileged but then dark-skinned blacks accused
light-skinned black. Of being privileged Black's
often accuse, Hispanics of being privileged because they say,
well, Hispanic can be white if they want to.
So the privilege thing is just a way another way to To going back
to what I said a while ago. Did you Short Circuit the whole
notion of Merit and skill? Because if you're made to feel
like you have what you have, not because of what you did, how
smart you are, how capable you are, but because of some inborn
privilege and the government can use that, of course, look at,
you know, at Obama Which kind of well known for never apologizing
to one of the few things. He ever apologize for because
generally he's the kind of man who would never admit a mistake,
but he did apologize for the you didn't build that.
Comment. I don't know if you recall that
but Obama was talking about how if you're a small businessman,
you build a visit Even build that the roads built Ed.
And it did the government, the taxpayer money being spent by
the government building that backfired so badly on Obama.
That's for one of the very few times in his presidency.
He actually said, I regret saying that Elizabeth Warren
though, picked that up and kind of ran on that.
In 2020, that that she loves that way of speaking.
But again, it's a way of making people who have accomplished
something feel like they didn't actually accomplish it today,
either. Oh, their skin color or they owe
the government for their success.
They owe everything except themselves in their, their mind,
and their stick-to-itiveness, and their abilities.
They Well, everything but that so it's just another way of
making trying to wear down the skilled people into feeling that
they owe everybody for their success, but I do think that
it's a losing strategy in the long run.
I mean, I if it was a bad enough strategy to make Obama
apologize. Which is a once in a neon kind
of thing. Then I think it generally is a
flawed strategy that and we're going to see what happens next
year. In terms of the Democratic
primary. We're going to see, there are a
lot of people are unhappy with Kamala Harris.
There's a small chance, maybe Biden might, not run.
I'm not making any, I'm not calling that at all.
But you say it's can't Elizabeth Warren.
Really wants to be there in the mix.
And so Going to see if, if she wants to bring back that whole
you didn't build that thing. Like she tried to three years
ago. We'll see if that works.
But I think it's a poor strategy.
The left is a little too in love these days with poor strategy
there. There.
It's very funny to me, that it's only been less than two years
since the defund. The police thing became the rage
on the left, and now you Not find a single Democrat
politician who admits they ever said.
They there on tape saying it a hundred times over and they will
deny it now for the rest of their lives.
And my point was that simply being that I think the Democrats
are pursuing a whole bunch of strategies that are not good for
them in the long run. I think they're, they a lot of
these things. They're getting very Add
internal advice. They were obviously people in
June 2020 who were telling them. Oh, you got a support to fund
the police. This is the wave of the future.
This is absolutely the wave of the future.
And a lot of times, people get bad advice and they don't get
rid of the people who gave them the bad advice.
Now, that's just true in the entertainment industry as it is
in politics. A lot of times our advisors.
Let us down. And yet we find it difficult to
part ways with them and it's true for the GOP as well.
Obviously, and I right about that, a lot of my comment.
A lot of my column is actually dedicated critiquing the right
in part because I If the right is not functioning in a healthy
way, we're really do. We have to have some some
opposing Force against the left. So I do find myself sometimes
critiquing the right even more than the left.
But but the left especially is following the whole bunch of
policies that in time. They themselves are going to
realize. They're not necessarily its Mark
things to be doing. Not only are they no longer
mentioning. The defund the police, but when
ALC and the squad had a chance to vote to lessen police
funding, they voted to increase it because of the January 6th
protest that took place. So they had a chance to vote
against an increase in funding. They voted for it.
They use their leverage. And when asked about this ALC
pulled that the classic move, I'm really glad you asked me
about this. That's how you know that they're
terrified. She wasn't.
Yeah, that's you go. I'm really glad you asked me.
Because it's actually had to deal with a lot of Pensions that
were promised to police officer. So it's really complicated.
So they voted to increase the funding once they got the shot.
It's just unbelievable. When it comes to the concept of
narratives, prevailing interpretations of past events.
This is where the left holds a lot of power.
The New Deal is why we need a big government domestically when
it comes to the Civil War and the Second world war, we do have
to have interventionist policies, the left supports
going into Syria. They supported a lot of arms
transfers into Ukraine. So when it comes to the concept
of historical, narratives, do you think those really do hold a
lot of power or are they more or less?
Just things that some academics discuss that don't really affect
the modern day. Well, I think the I think they
certainly do have an effect and I Will kind of water go out on a
little bit of a limb here. Slightly risky to say this, but
I think one of the reasons that the left is stronger when it
comes to defining or redefining a historical narrative or even
depressed. Day narrative is the presence of
Jewish, folks both so heavily on the left and so heavily in the
entertainment industry. I'm saying this, of course as a
you who have been both in politics and the entertainment.
He's so I'm not saying this as an outsider, but use are the
absolute best storytellers that any society has it.
Is why use created Hollywood? And I do this day are still the
dominant force in Hollywood. We are a story telling people
not just to ourselves and that's the big difference because you
can say, well at that. African bush man over there.
Look at how he forms that drum circle every night and they tell
stories. Yeah to themselves with their
clicking noises and they're, they're banging their great
storytellers and everyone like Alice Walker and and Toni
Morrison. And the only thought that the
great African Storyteller. Yeah, great storytellers to
their own tribe user great storytellers to the other
tribes. We like to come up with stories
that You guys are interested in and that's one of the one of the
good things about having Hughes on your team because they really
can spin a great yarn and they through this meeting of
political needs and entertainment they can.
Make it least the Young Generation.
They can give the Young Generation a whole different
understanding of History. Even recent history and
certainly history long time ago. And I think it does stick.
I'm concerned for the current Young Generation because I think
they have been exposed to an inordinate amount of of
propaganda and slanted and Biased information about
America's history, even about world history and some of these
people they're going to learn on their own.
They're going to learn other other points.
If you would lot of them. A lot of them won't.
And it seems like the left has since Trump got into office.
The left has really been very strong in this message to their
young people like you're supposed to be Greet your
parents at Thanksgiving dinner. Like, oh, it's Thanksgiving
time. Time to go home to your Racist,
uncle and your transphobic dad, and your Confederate grandma.
And, you know, just you hate these people and you don't have
to like him. And that's, yet again.
I wedge issue wedge between this young person and their parents
or grandparents, but the young people are being Being said a
great deal of of propaganda that they get from both fiction and
nonfiction media. And I do believe it in the long
run. It can make a definite
difference in how people use are formed.
I mean, especially When when you look at some of what's being
taught in public schools, these days that certainly colors young
people's views of race relations in this country and it whether
you're black or white or whatever.
In between. A lot of kids are coming out at
elementary school. These these days with an idea
that America is hopeless and racist and I and I get nothing
but genocide. A history of genocide and
brutality, of course, that's going to have a long-term impact
on that generation. But Public Schools, not my
favorite thing in the world anyway, and I would always be
the first one to recommend homeschooling or the very least
Charter Schools or something like that, but I didn't, I went
to the LA Public Schools. Up here, my whole my whole time
in school within the l.a. Public schools had one, good
teacher, 12 years. I had one good teacher.
That's probably the only time I ever learned anything.
Most of the time, I was just screwing around whenever I
learned, I learned here at home on my own.
So but, you know, obviously, people are always going to,
there's always going to be people sitting there kids to
public school and I do think it poses a threat.
The Integrity, the cohesiveness of the country because the
propaganda is very, very strong. I'm in favor people in school
learning about everything. But learning about everything,
especially history, learning it from a non propagandistic.
Point if you learn about saving, learn, all the evils about
slavery. Learn why slavery was happening.
Look at all sides of the issue, which doesn't mean advocating
all sides of these two very big misunderstanding.
A lot of people have these days when you say you've got it in
order to learn about something, you have to look at all sides of
it. Sometimes people fishing on the
left mistake that for meaning. Oh, so you're going to say the
slave owners were, right. I'm not saying that anyone's
right? But if you're going to
understand why anything happen, you have to understand the why
it was happening. Why the people doing it?
We're doing it. The city, same thing teaching
about World War, Two history, and teaching about the history
of the entire history. The third rank.
To go into why it was happening, which is not the same as saying
you agree with it that it was happening.
But you don't you agree with what people are doing, but you
still have to understand basic human motivation.
Otherwise history simply becomes the kind of simple-minded
propaganda that we're being taught that our kids are being
taught today, which is this man bad, this man, good good versus
evil and it's an insult to the field and I say that it is It's
refill. The very long time and it's a
tremendous in itself until to the field to leave out all of
the nuances. Excellent point and not only is
it immoral but it does end up backfiring.
For example, when I went to Hebrew school till I was 13.
I was always told that May 15th, 1948 was the day that the UN
voted for a bunch of Jews in this place called Israel to just
have a government. I wasn't told about nakba day.
The violent removal of 750,000 Palestinians and the mass
murdering that took place. Years afterwards, I wasn't told
about the Six-Day War wasn't told about, you know, the
economy massacre at the UN building.
So I felt so tricked after all this time after thinking America
or invented poverty, in the 1800's with the Industrial
Revolution. Jefferson's generation invented
slavery. I literally took those as more
or less truth statements because they were just said to me in
such a confident way and I was a progressive for so long.
Ang and it just backfired. So I mean not only is it the
right thing to do? Do it for yourself, I mean,
another example of how stories can get so caught up with
people. Debra Messing said that you are
a holocaust denier. However on page 295 of your
book, you have appendix a what can people learn from appendix a
of Republican party animal. Well, there's Calling me denier,
which people still do not. Not as many these days, but they
still do. I mean the ignorant people, the
only people who call me a denier, the people who've never
actually read my book and Debra Messing ever read my book to
guess wanted to ban it. There.
It didn't it didn't either and there are there are Holocaust
deniers. And in fact, I had to bait them
in my videos all the time all the time.
The the appendix to my book is my historical thesis, which
really if you want to put it in the simplest terms, it's kind of
a little bit straight down the middle.
Both extremes are wrong. In terms of the tug-of-war
between the deniers and the ADL types, the ADL types who say it
was six million and on, and not a person less, and there were
gas chamber. In every building and there was
a complete genocide order. And then you have to deniers who
say there were no gas Chambers anywhere.
At most, it was two hundred thousand two hundred, eighty
thousand who died of typhus and they know use whatever targeted
for killing. Well.
History is not the same as principal.
What I mean by that is if you hold a principle like for
example, one of my principles is I'm a free speech absolutist.
I simply don't believe in. In speech, suppression, whether
you want to call it censorship or whatever.
I don't believe in it. I don't believe that there's
ever any reason to stop someone from speaking.
I don't believe that words kill and I think that a healthy
Society is wanting in which everybody gets to talk.
Okay, that's a principle. There is really for me.
There's no compromise on that because it is a principle and if
you hold the principal you shouldn't compromise on it
history. On the other hand is often times
compromised, in terms of both sides, tend to be a little
right? And a little wrong when you have
extremes about any historical topic.
Generally, both extremes, have certain things that they get
right in certain things that they don't because of their own
biases. They don't want to face those
things. They don't want to accept those
things. Most of the time, when you look
at any historical and any, especially any controversial or
divisive, historical topic when you look at it, rationally in
the cold light of day and you will see both extremes got a
little right now. The wrong you end up with
something that is generally. Down the middle now down the
middle doesn't, please anybody? And that's that's one of the
reasons that the deniers don't like me, but the ADL also still
really doesn't like me because the down the middle thing is not
pleasing. Anybody, my my general figure
for Jewish dead in terms of entirely both from murder and
everything else, during the war is about 3 to 3.5 million, one
has to be vague because we only have it.
It census up until April 1945, a sentence of dead Jews.
We know that it's available, 1943 decide, if I said 4543, we
know that it's an April 43. There were 2.4 million dead use.
So now we have two in terms of getting from April 43 to April.
25 lot of guesswork is it? So that's why I can put the
figure at no lower than 3 million in no higher than 3.5.
Well, that doesn't please anymore the ADL.
It's way too low for them deniers.
It's way too high for them, but it's factually based to the best
of my ability because you have a certain amount of guesswork
after that 2.4 million figure some camps like Auschwitz.
I've been wrongly called an extermination camp Auschwitz
with not an extermination camp. Doesn't mean people in die
there. People died there but it's the
difference between a camp that is purposely for killing.
That was a camp like Treblinka Treblinka wants a camp that was
purposely for killing Auschwitz with a labor and civilian
internment camp that was in 1942 summer 42 wracked by typhus.
Lots of people died and the commandant of Auschwitz began
euthanizing. If he Planted murder would be
another way to put it but began killing inmates.
It is to try to control the typhus epidemic, but the camp
was not designed, the extermination camp and the
renovations. It happened in Auschwitz 1943.
We're actually to make the camp more sanitary because it was a
major Center of labor for the Nazis.
And they didn't want everybody dying because they needed the
labor I-43. The war was not going their way
anymore. They absolutely badly needed
labor. So, again, you end up with a
thesis that wins, you know, friends to Debra Messing to the
ADL. I'm still a denier to deniers.
I'm an ADL plantain, a DLH, and a shell, a gatekeeper, whatever
they want to call me. All I can do, as I do in the
book as I do in the appendix credenza fact, present the
sources, the original document, as best I can.
And Let the cards shake out where they will and if they
shake out in the middle, then they shake out in the middle.
If they had shaken out at either of the extremes, I would say so.
But generally that's not the case of the Holocaust and
generally its justification in with history in general the
again, you take any divisive issue, Civil War.
Well, the Northerners are always going to say that everything
they did was perfect and they didn't do anything bad
Southerners. Going to say the same thing.
It's always going to just kind of come down to the metal.
When it comes to critiquing the national socialists of Germany,
you never shy away. In fact, you would said that
there was a gas chamber program in a place called, not spyler.
I think. Is that how it's pronounced?
Yes, and that's why there was a technically, French pows and
Nazi camp for French pows, and I'll sash Lorraine and the screw
have-nots. Wyler can had a gas chamber,
that was built because Was a adopter at the nearby.
Anatomical Institute wanted to collect.
Uh, skulls. He had about 90, something used
sent there from Auschwitz and they were gassed so that their
skulls would not be damaged from bullet wounds.
Well, this is all very document. It is he when the Nazis did
things, they document them and every single document covering
the knots Wyler. Guessing is there they be they
used an SS Pure Gas training room.
They like the kind of thing police today.
SWAT teams trained in where where you go in there.
They release to Rick tear gas. You got to learn how to put on
your gas mask and exit the room. So they took a room that was
already built for gas, had a ventilation system and they
changed it around so that you can introduce a lethal gas and
they have we have to Transportation or Ders.
The construction orders. We have these, the use arriving
from Auschwitz to the camp. We have them degassed.
We even have the bodies because this freaking Doctor wanted the
scone. Once he got those at 92 dead
use, he lost interest and by the time the war was over two years
later, some of those bodies were still in Cold Storage.
If the anatomical is he hadn't even be flushed but yet he
wanted his He didn't even play with it.
Sculpt typical. Yes, like, a kid.
He asked Rick toy begs for toy. The parents get in the toy and
he doesn't even take it out of the damn box.
That that is a with. Dr. August Hirt.
What a jerk. He was because all those Jewish
cells and doesn't do a damn thing with them.
And in fact, he killed himself as the Allies were approaching
his anatomical Institute, and he was like, I should have
defleshed those skulls. Al's because now I really don't
have any way to talk my way out of him.
So he shot himself ironically damaging his own skull in the
process and ironic and to a bad man, his own skull ended up
being the one that got damaged. One of my favorite Parts in the
book besides the appendix is hearing a what Michael Shermer
thought was a secret phone call between you two.
You actually recorded it. You've exposed him as a total
liar. I thought that was great.
I don't want to go into that because I want people to find
copies of the book or find a PDF and read it for themselves
because it's just so it's so enjoyable.
I really am hoping that maybe sometime this year.
I can announce having a new publisher because I want to
update the book. A lot happened and that book was
written in 2013, published in early 2014.
A lot has happened since then, and I'd love to add a chapter or
two to kind of bring everything up to date.
So I'm hoping that I can maybe be able to announce that before
Year's end at the front of the book.
You quote. Gary Sinise saying, God bless
you. See you at Dick Cheney's?
Did you ever meet Dick Cheney and you have any good stories
about him? Sure.
Oh, well, that was during my period when I was known.
Has David Stein for about 15 years that was during the
period. I helped run a group called
friends today, the Hollywood Hollywood Conservative
Republican group. That was founded by Gary Sinise.
And yeah, you name, the person Condi rice, Dick Cheney John
Boehner Karl Rove Neo cons for the most.
We were we were a very neocon organization and these guys,
especially Cheney and robe when they would come to hang out with
We'd only have a big banquet and they'd say a few words.
Then we would all hobnob it was very distasteful to me at least
because I was not that same level of neocon assume that most
of the other people in the room or if it was very distasteful
because Rove and Cheney would always bring along these
disfigured, amputee veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq and it
want the what made it? Distasteful it was Kind of like
these guys were saying because then they would chaining would
get up there. Rope would get up there and say,
give a give a big hand, give a standing ovation to private
first class, whatever, who lost three of his Limbs and there'd
be this guy in a wheelchair blinded from shrapnel and it was
like, showing off. But look what like Cheney say.
Look what I did to this guy. Aren't you happy, don't you love
me? No, I, my war of did I fought so
hard for now? These discs are eat every to
walk again. He's ever going to see you
again. But give them a hand.
He deserves a hand. Don't give me a hand to because
I brought this all about, it was very dark, the group, kind of
reflected. Gary sinise's.
Take on conservatism. Gary Sinise, is basically just a
military support the military guy.
Support the Foreign Wars guy. Gary Sinise, never took any
positions on domestic issues. You couldn't get him to say five
words about you, name it about gay rights abortion tax policy,
anything. He wouldn't talk about anything
domestic it all but if you got him started about Afghanistan or
Iraq, he would he would just keep going.
It's one of the reasons that it friends of Abe dissolved.
When Trump looked certain to get the nomination because the
hierarchy Your friends of Abe was very much against Trump's
focus on things, like immigration and bringing jobs
back and confronting the Chinese.
And also the fact that Trump didn't seem gung-ho about
Foreign Wars. So the group couldn't really get
behind Trump. However, the rank-and-file
members quite a few of the rank and file members were very Pro
trunk, so they be General solution to that was simply to
dissolve the group. And so the group is all at the
beginning of 2016 right around the time, that it seemed fairly
inevitable that Trump was going to get the nod.
I've always liked Larry Elder. Is he a nice guy off camera?
Well, I'm biased because he and I were friends very, very close
friends for several years, but then when the revelations about
me being David Cole came out, he just cut me off cold turkey.
Sadly, when he owed me money for some job site did for him.
So I like Larry Elder again. If you paid me 3,500 bucks that
has been owed. Now, since 2013.
In fact, I was Looking forward to if he had one during the
governor Gavin. Newsom recall, if Larry Elder
had one, I would have gone right up to Sacramento there, and I
would have demanded it check. It would have, I would have hung
out in the lobby there at the Rotunda and waited for Larry
Elder to come walking through. And I wanted to manned it a
thirty five hundred dollar check because I don't I don't like
being stiff for any money but $3500.
For a couple of commercials, I produced for him for his book.
$3500 is not small change. I don't let that stuff go.
I'm the kind of guy who, if I get, If They seized the smallest
problem with my Amazon Prime grocery order.
I am on the phone, not only getting a refund, but
browbeating the people into giving me like a ten dollar
credit for the next order. These rutabaga is starting to
Brown so Not only do I want the money back for the rutabaga that
I want $10 towards my next order because I feel that as a killed,
is the greatest anti-Semitism. I have ever experienced in my
life. This rutabaga.
It has in its this is a rutabaga.
They would have served the attempt Linka.
This is an insult and a soup itself and I'm not going to
stand for it. And before he before, you know
what, I've got like, twenty five dollar credit because they just
want to get rid of me. The point being, I'm not the
kind of guy who's gonna walk away for $3500.
I know about that mishandled, groceries, after all, we've been
through really, this. This is what I have to pay with
we escaped Europe for this. When it comes to someone like
Cheney, I was a big supporter of Iraq and Afghanistan, and then
to see the Taliban takeover. After a 20-year War.
They took over an 11 days to see Al Qaeda.
Take over Iraq, and so many deaths.
So many displaced, usually, when I do something.
Add. I will apologize when it comes
to people like Cheney you. It almost seems like well if
they were really well-meaning and just mistaken or they were
put in a tough position. I think we'd see a little more
humility. Would see some more apologies.
Maybe do you think people like Cheney and the Neo cons in this
case specifically are good guys who are put in tough positions
or more or less opportunists? Yeah, I don't think they're good
guys. I think they're they are people
with a very strong agenda. I do think that they went into
Iraq, thinking it would be a cakewalk.
In other words. I I don't think they believed
they were going to get into the mire that they got into but I
also don't think they thought things through.
They had an agenda that I see in their mind that there was it was
going to, they were going to successfully.
With form the rack. And then they were going to go
into a ran and they were going to go into a Syria.
They had all of these far-reaching plans that they
didn't really second guess and kind of going back to what we
talked about earlier about surrounding yourself, with bad
advice. Yes, Men.
I don't think they have any humility.
I met Chaney quite a few times and I don't believe he possesses
any Humility, I don't think that Karl Rove possesses any
humility. Sometimes, there's that line
from Richard, the third sin will pluck on sin.
Meaning, the more you dig yourself into a hole doing bad,
things that the less you could admit it and the more you just
have to keep digging morning, his have to keep going because
the bad things you've done. Start chasing it.
You got to run faster. Master is if you stop to be
introspective for even a moment, all those bad things will catch
up with you. So that that's that's why I
don't think they're they lever apologize.
I don't think they can. I don't think they can admit it.
I think they just have to keep going and going and going as
though they do. They've always been right?
And they have nothing that even rethink.
Excellent point. Yeah, Dean Acheson 0 is called
him situations of strength where you can more or less create an
issue just to display the amount of strength you have and I think
that's exactly what they wanted with Iraq.
Bill. Kristol went on C-Span,
confident as anyone's ever said anything.
This is not going to be some Vietnam.
This is a board that's going to last roughly about two months.
He said though, I mean, just just on unbelievable stuff there
the book. I think that they had when
you're in a bubble like that and everyone saying the same thing,
and everyone's bolstering each other.
I really do think they had they believed it, and that's, that's
even more dangerous than someone who is lying.
Because someone who really believes that kind of stuff is
not going to second-guess at all.
Whereas someone who's just a devious, liar is at least going
to say, okay, are my lies working or do I have to moderate
them a little bit every liar thinks about Bout that.
At some point, they're always gauging the effectiveness of
their lives because you lie for a purpose.
And so you always have to keep saying our my life to keeping
that purpose, but true believers people who really sold
themselves on something. They're far more dangerous.
The book is Republican Party Animal by David Cole.
Best of luck. Finding it.
EBay. Maybe maybe Craigslist used
bookstores links to mr. Cole's column, as well as his
Twitter in the description. I did.
Can I ask you two more quick questions?
Course. Do you have any fun or just
interesting? Pat Buchanan stores?
Because he's one of my heroes. I want to say fun.
I new pet, and ironically, not from tacky mag.
I don't know him these days, but I knew him when he was making
his presidential run in the primary in the early 90s, and I
knew his sister, babe, you can. But I Pat is is a brilliant man
who has contributed greatly to the discourse in this country.
He's a true intellect. I'm honored to share a byline on
this on the same website as him, but the times I met in that was
always just variance, inspiring intellectual talk.
We would sometimes talk about strategy and one of the one of
the one of the few times, what a few things I remember is.
When he was trying to mount that the primary challenge to blush.
He was caught slightly off guard by a question from.
I don't think it was even like a credential reporter.
I think it was like a student reporter.
I think he might have been on campus somewhere.
You have to forgive me. This is a fuzzy memory.
It's going back 30 years, but I remember that I think it was a
student reporter who asked him a question about if you're so,
Whole life. How come you and your wife don't
have kids. And Buchanan snapped at the
reporter now. Yeah, it's a personal question.
Of course, it's personal question, but I was talking
with, with his sister and the cyst at you.
I was talking with Pat sister and paths strategist.
Pat wants therefore this particular conversation, but I
humbly suggest and I said that these are the kind of questions
Pat's going to get. And as insulting as it is to ask
something personal like that. It's never a good look to snap
too much. I mean, that that's, that's what
always used to think Bob Dole before, Bob Dole finally, got
his nod in 96, but when when Dole was trying to get the
nomination and election past, don't have a habit of snapping
at me. He would have the habit of the
Bears that time when he was. I think Dan Rather, I think it
was Dan Rather had both Dolan Bush on remote.
Two separate screens and Bush. Senior George h.w., Bush comes
on, and he's like, well nice to be with you Dan, and such a
beautiful day in this country and then Dole comes on and says,
he'll push to stop lying about my record.
Well one guy looks friendly and one guy looks like a snap you'll
man. So the only piece of advice I
ever gave Pat Buchanan but not to his face but his sister and
the strategist. Let's be ready for those
personal questions and you just don't want to look like The
media wants to paint you as a monster.
The media wants to paint his racist and the semi and
everything else. So they want to make you look
like a beast. So sometimes you just got to get
it. You get a personal question.
You don't like he's got a smile through it so that but that's
the closest. I have to a Buchanan story.
Most of the libertarian Institute audiences between mid
20s mid 30s. What advice would you give
yourself because he got a lot of stories in here.
What advice would you give your self if you could go back and
talk to yourself at 20, 30 years old.
Josh, this is I don't want this to sound conceited.
But generally I kind of always did when I felt was right at the
time. I don't think that there's
anything. If I could go back.
I really don't think there's anything.
I would second guess, especially, I mean, putting my
personal life aside because that made nothing but mistakes in my
personal life, but just looking in terms.
As of my professional life, everything I did.
I would probably do it the exact same way.
I would probably. I would probably try to, I would
have, I try to put out more content in the early 90s because
I feel like I never got a chance to really finish.
Some of the work I was doing back then.
Now I'm finishing it now, and it's finished in in the book,
but I think, if I had done it, put out more content in the
early 90s people would have had a better idea of my position.
But again, I can't blame myself for that because you go back to
91 92, 93, Three, there was no internet.
There were no personal blogs that.
There was no social media. You always have to have a
middleman. If you're going to publish
anything, released a video or a book always had to have someone
a producer. I mean, it's distributor and
editor of publishing company as a middleman.
So it was not really my call how much content I could put out.
But generally, I sort of did things the way I felt was right
way and I look back and I don't think I second-guess it.
Anything. Check out his column at Taki
mag, Link in the description below.
Find out why? Phil Donahue called this man,
the Antichrist. Very interesting stuff.
David Cole. Thank you so much for your time,
sir. It's been a pleasure.
Thank you, Keith. I've enjoyed every minute of it.
What are the? I can't tell.
If this is a combination of Keith nights question.
I'm going to continuation off it or new question.
Why? I didn't put the person's name.
The, what are the usual? Peace?
Of evidence historians referred to before declaring genocide
approve, an historical event. IE.
How would one prove Pol Pot Mao? Stalin?
Ottoman Empire, Japanese empire Etc.
Well, a lot of it, since you're never going to get millions of
bodies. It just never happens either.
The bodies are our burned or they're, they're conveniently
buried in places where they never dug up, but you're never
going to, it's an effort by counting dead bodies.
It's primarily Bye. Well, in the case of the Khmer
Rouge, the Khmer Rouge was only in power for a very brief time.
So when the Khmer Rouge left and every dictatorial, entity is
replaced by another and the new one needs to bad-mouth the old
ones. So within when the Khmer Rouge
was kicked out there was a an attempt made to just collect
names of people who were dead missing.
So a lot of it in that case. I mean, that we certainly bones,
there were bodies. There were a lot of Killing
Fields where skeletons and bodies existed, but a lot of it
in the case of the Khmer Rouge, because the Khmer Rouge lasted,
so briefly everybody who lost someone remembered it, you know,
it's not like decades have gone by and been new generations come
up. So a lot of it taking names of
people basic census of taking names of people or missing
disappeared. The case of the Soviet Union
Robert Conquest. Basically just had to do like
demographic comparisons, like how big a town should be, what
its population should be based on the natural reproduction
growth of a particular town, a particular City.
And so a lot of its demographic, guess work.
With. Now, it's even more difficult
because there's never been an end to the Chinese Communist
Empire. I mean, it's not like the Soviet
Union ever collapsed. So it's a lot more difficult.
If there are people of done, some very intense research
using, in some cases, internal Chinese documents to try to, try
to figure out, how many people died, both in terms of the
cultural revolution. Your people purposely killed and
people who died in the famine. It's very thick, not easy to
explain. And I would not be able to
really paraphrase other people's work correctly.
It is just difficult to it. That's why those ranges for
Mao's death. Toll is so wild.
They started like 20 million and they ended 80 million in people.
It's kind of pick the one they want.
You can't be it. Very hard to be specific about
that. But there's a sense.
There's a general consensus that even though we can't say, if
it's 20 40, 60, 80 million, but when there's a general consensus
that Millions have died, then it's declared a genocide.