← The Tom Woods Show
Loading summary
Transcript59 lines
- [00:02]
A
Get ready to take a flamethrower to the official narrative and learn what the elites don't want you to know.
- [00:09]
B
You're listening to the Tom Woods Show.
- [00:19]
A
Hey, everybody, Tom woods here. It's episode 2751 of the Tom Woods Show. The great Darrell Cooper is with us. You know him as host of the Martyr Maid podcast and co host with Scott Horton of the Provoked Podcast, which, if you're not listening to that, you should do that after you have exhausted the library of Tom Wood show episodes. Needless to say, Darrell has a tremendous substack, of which I am one of many, many, many paid subscribers. So, you know, I can talk to Darryl about anything in the world, you know, so just before we started talking, it went into Western and Eastern Easter, because I'm Latin, right? Catholic, and he's, I guess, Armenian Orthodox technically, but going to Greek Orthodox. And so the Easter date is a week apart. We started talking about that. All right. But I gave you a few topics, Mr. Darrell Cooper, and I said we can cover any of these. And so you chose this topic for yourself. We could sit here and talk about the Middle east all day. That's easily done. But let me tell you something. I have done an awful lot of that. I've been doing a lot of that lately. So let's talk about another thing that is affecting the United States very, very greatly and which is, you know, like the situation in Iran, not necessarily quite so easily unwound. And that is the matter of immigration, particularly mass immigration of the kind that's happened really in just recent years, obviously since 1965, because of that federal law, we've seen a shift in the composition of immigration, but it just went absolutely, completely bonkers under Joe Biden. So we want to talk a bit about that. And as with the Middle east, it's hard to talk about issues like this. I don't care. But some people probably do, because you talk about immigration, you get called names, you talk about the Middle east, you get called names, you talk about anything of significance, you get called names. After a while, you just stop caring. You know, sticks and stones may break my bones, you know, but names can never hurt me, since you and I work for ourselves. And I don't care what any boss says about me. It doesn't matter. The names don't matter. You and I can just talk about important things. How about that?
- [02:26]
B
Yeah, it's a rare privilege and one that really only has existed in the world for a few years now. So I'm very grateful for that.
- [02:34]
A
Yeah, it's amazing to be a part of it.
- [02:35]
B
Once you've been called all the names, then you know, anything new that they come up with or try to come up with doesn't sting as much.
- [02:41]
A
So, yeah, that's the thing. Like, okay, you've already done it, so now what's the next thing? What's the next. Now you might actually have to do the unthinkable and address what I'm saying. I don't know if they'd ever go to quite that extreme, Darryl, but. All right, so let's dig into this. There are a lot of different perspectives on this question. Obviously there's the completely open borders position. There is a brand of libertarianism that would argue you have no right to your culture. You don't own it. You don't own it the way you own a toothbrush or a house. You know, you haven't mixed your labor with it. So it's not true that you have any real say over it. And if it were to vanish tomorrow, we, well, you know, so much the worse. But you had no claim on it because you don't own it. In a, in a Lockean sense. There's that perspective. There's obviously the perspective of people who would say America has to be for Americans and the word American has to mean something other than somebody who arrived yesterday and filled out some forms. There's that there are still others who might be pragmatists who would say we cannot on this kind of scale be bringing in such enormous numbers of people of any background whose language skills in English are poor to non existent, who take up enormous space in schools and emergency rooms and inconvenience the native population whose interests at some point need to be acknowledged. So there are a variety of different ways you could look at it. You could be an environmentalist and say from an environmentalist standpoint, it's not good for the United States to take in quite so many people. What's your 1 minute elevator pitch position on the question?
- [04:15]
B
The first thing that you have to take note of is that when you're talking about the immigration issue in America, it's a very, very different conversation than if you're having it for say a European country or China or Japan or something. We are very unique in the sense that other than for a brief period from 1924 to 1965, maybe mid-70s, is when it really got going. Other than that brief period, we've experienced just constant demographic churn. You know, we had 13 colonies and a gigantic continent that we wanted to fill. Up and there were not enough people in England to bring over here to do it. And so we started bringing in from the very, very beginning people who back in Europe would have been considered pretty radically different from each other, very often hostile to each other, you know, bringing Irish and English over here to live together, you know, in the same cities when, when that was a real problem back in, you know, in the old country. And so, you know, we do have a, have a unique discussion to have when we're talking about America, you know, because there's not this idea of like there's this seed culture, the Anglo Saxon culture of the British Isles or the French, you know, that is like this seed, this core must like be preserved like in. And there's like a blood element to that. There's a historical element, cultural, linguistic, all of these things. You know, one of the things that, you know me well enough to know that when you ask for a one minute pitch, it's not going to happen.
- [05:40]
A
So yeah, no, I just wanted to get us started.
- [05:43]
B
You know, one of the things I, I point out to people, you'll see every so often sort of the white identitarian types bring up the, the first naturalization law. And I think it was 1793 or 1798, you know, and it says that all free Christian, free white Christians or free white persons.
- [06:04]
A
Free white persons.
- [06:05]
B
I think, yeah, free white persons of, of good moral character can come to the United States and become citizens. And when people hear that today, well that sounds incredibly exclusivist. You know, it's like we're excluding like a huge chunk of the. That is absolutely not what that law was at the time. That was a revolutionary, like radically inclusive law back then. Because I mean they just weren't even thinking that like, oh, we're going to bring in people from sub Saharan Africa and China and the Middle East. It just wasn't in there. The idea of mass immigration from those places was not in their even mentality. And so to them the world was Europe. And this is what they were like making a law about. What they were saying is if you live in Europe and you're willing to put aside all the old, you know, animosities, all the old hang ups, you can come over here and be a citizen. I mean you can like imagine Germany or France or Great Britain putting out a law in the 1700s saying, anybody in Europe, Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Orthodox, come on over here and you can become a citizen. Radically inclusive law. And the only reason even that the white part is in there as far As I understand it, at least from what I've read, is that, you know, again, they weren't thinking about the third War, the Global South. What they were thinking of is they didn't want individual states gaming the system by bringing their citizen slaves and citizen Native American populations in order to get more power in the federal government representation without really giving those, you know what I mean? So they didn't want people gaming the system like that. That's really the only reason that was even in there. Like they weren't even thinking on a global perspective. And so from the very beginning, we've been radically open. And by the time you get up to the mass Irish migration of the 30s and 40s when the famine occurred, you've already got by the 1850s, major cities on the east coast that are non majority English, which is like this is one generation, this is basically, there's still people who were alive during the American Revolution in their cities that are not majority English anymore. Like, that's already happening. And so this is a remarkable situation and one that is unique really anywhere in the world. Especially when, when you factor in the, you know, you bring the factor of the frontier in, you know, a lot of immigrants coming in and pushing out to the frontier and sort of forming the new culture as they go. And so the real question, I think, and here I'll, I'll try to do my one minute thing here, I, I think when we discuss it today, the question that everybody kind of has to answer, or I guess like I would say the, you know, the thing that people should take into consideration is that we don't have a giant continent to fill anymore. Like it's filled, okay, We've got our polity here, we've got our 50 states. You know, we're probably not going to split them up and have any more or less than that. This is what we got. Giant cities from coast to coast, interlinked transportation and communications networks. The country is built. It doesn't mean that like the population can't grow and we can't find room for other people or anything, but we don't have this like huge need to just bring in labor because, you know, the Industrial revolution is going crazy and we have this huge frontier. We just need bodies. We just need warm bodies to like throw into the factories and send out to the frontier. Those historical circumstances were extremely unique and they're never coming gonna come back again. Just a very unique set of historical circumstances that, to take our immigration policy from that period of time, you know, which again is most of our history. You know, if you think about. If you go all the way back to the first English settlements, it's most of our history, 300 years, basically, of just more or less completely open immigration because of those unique circumstances. And so people will rightly say we're a nation of immigrants. They'll say that, you know, this is what America has always been. And to a certain extent, that's true. Three quarters of our existence basically, was like that. But again, the circumstances that that policy was addressing and helping us overcome aren't going to exist ever again. And to transpose those policies onto our modern, mature economy and mature political system and just society really is. It's illogical. It's sort of a, you know, it's a.
- [10:27]
A
It's a.
- [10:28]
B
It's a dogmatic appeal to traditional, you know, of the type that, you know, even people who. Who call themselves traditionalists sort of look at as being a little too rigid, you know. And so I think that when you're talking about European countries, again, very, very different situation for Poland or Hungary to say, we want to be Polish Catholic country, we want to be a Hungarian Catholic country, We're not going to bring in a bunch of migrants from the Middle east or whatever it happens to be that year, decades. But those are different conversations, you know, than here in the United States, where our identity as a people has been renegotiated sort of every generation. You know, the English had to figure out how to. How to fit the Irish and the Germans into their sort of idea of the collective American identity. And then once they kind of did that, the Irish and the Germans were like shoulder to shoulder with a lot of the English being the nativists. Now, when the Jews and Italians started showing up, and then we had to figure out how to knead them into the dough. And so that's something that we've just sort of always done. And honestly, even the break we took from 1924 to 1965, if you think about it, was like it was a break from overseas immigration. But that is the period of time where the great migration took place. And you had 6 or 7 million African Americans leaving the rural south up into the northern industrial cities. And so that's a mass migration, not, you know, necessarily from, you know, another country, but somebody moving from Toronto to Detroit is much less of a. Of an immigrant in a way than, you know, somebody from rural Alabama. Black sharecropper in rural Alabama moving out to San Francisco, you know. And so even during that period, we had that demographic churn and People just having to get used to new neighbors and, and new people in the neighborhood next door. And that's part of what being an American has always been. And this is why it's so challenging to get people like, you know, even people who are conservative or libertarian minded, you know, the real anarchic libertarian types who just like you were kind of describing, like you don't have a right to a culture, you know, borders or a form of whatever theft or something, put that aside. But the people who really come at it from a standpoint of, you know, American tradition and what we've always been as a country can very often have trouble sort of morally justifying to themselves how they can possibly tell anybody that they can't come in when their ancestors are Irish who got here in 1840 and whatever polish they got here in 1910. And it's just the real need is to have a. Is to get ourselves to the point where we can have adult conversations about these things, which we're just not at that point with anything to do with race or demographics or immigration or anything like that, and understand that there are people out there who are like, I'm a. If you can't tell, like, I'm. I'm a pretty severe restrictionist. Like, I. And that doesn't even necessarily mean for all time, but that, you know, I think we need a breather. And I even tell this to leftists and libertarians who, you know, who are very in favor of mass immigration or open borders. I'll say, look, you don't like Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, like, going on about, you know, immigration, how we need to get these illegals out and sending ice around. You don't like any of that stuff. But the fact that that's happening should show you that there's a level of stress in our society that we should take into account. Like, that's a political problem that we need to address and sort of give, you know, just we have to account for. And so, you know, if you really think about it, like, if there was one time in American history, like more modern American history, say beyond the Revolution, where you could really say, like, we had something like a real collective national identity, you know, because if you go back, this is one thing a lot of people really don't understand today, because for most of history, like, you go to the south and you had two identity groups. You had whites and blacks and mostly immigrants who were coming in from Europe were not going to the south, they were going to the north to the big cities to work in the factories and, you know, move into parish communities, like neighborhoods that, you know, were more or less homogeneous. And so you had your cities like New York, say, that was, you know, you had your Jewish neighborhoods, and you had your Irish neighborhoods and Italian neighborhoods and your sort of your Anglo WASP kind of Germanic neighborhoods, because the Germans kind of, you know, assimilated on the east coast really quickly. And up until really, like, I mean, the 30s, 20s, and 30s, none of those big cities in the north, like, people find this hard to believe now, but up until then, like, Detroit was like 4% African American. Chicago was like 3% African American. I mean, all the blacks lived in the south. And so up in the north, the white black thing just didn't. Nobody thought that way. It just didn't have anything to do with their daily experience or anything like that. So they didn't have this, like, concept of collective white identity that was really like an operative politically organizing sort of social, you know, identity that people had. It was, I'm Irish Catholic and he's Italian, you know, Catholic and he's Jewish. And that's how these cities were run. If you look at New York City, for example, it was like a soft version of what you see in the government in Lebanon. You know, where in Lebanon, it's like, it's understood that one group gets the presidency, one group gets the prime ministership, one group get, you know, like. And it's always that way. And it's a power sharing agreement that is formal in Lebanon. It was informal in New York City, but it held for a long time. It was understood that, like, the transportation authority was handled by the Irish. The waste disposal was handled by the Italians. You know, if there was a Jewish mayor, then there would be a, you know, an Italian comptroller or something like that. Like, they had the same kind of things going on, like, on an informal basis. And so it wasn't until the 20th century that people really in the north again, in the south, it was always this way. It was in the 20th century with the pressure of the great migration and the move of the white ethnics out of the cities to the suburbs, where you're no longer an Irish Catholic who is in an Irish Catholic parish neighborhood, that you're around people every day that you're going to know for the rest of your life. Now you're in the suburbs, and you're an Irish dude with a vaguely Italian neighbor over here and a Jewish neighbor over here. And then you start to melt together into the white population that we have today. And you have more of a racial differentiation. But that's a pretty new thing in the north and west. Again, not so much in the South. It was always like that.
- [17:23]
A
Dear listeners, I feel sure you're like me and you like the idea of getting paid for doing things you're going to do anyway. Well, I have a way for you to do exactly that and it involves gold. As you know, we're living through historic deficits, persistent inflation, and a Federal Reserve that can't unwind what it's created. That's why gold is back in the spotlight, not as a trade, but as real money. Here's the problem. Most gold just sits in a vault. It protects purchasing power, sure, but it doesn't generate income. Monetary metals changes that. They let you earn a yield on gold paid in gold. So I lease my gold through monetary metals and earn a return of about 4% annually paid in physical ounces. So I keep my gold and I get more gold over time. So that means I benefit from rising gold prices and I grow my holdings in ounces. No paper promises, no fiat payouts. Gold becomes a productive yield bearing asset again. The Fed can print dollars, they can't print gold. Learn more@monical medals.com woods and see how you can start earning a gold income. That's monetary-metals.com woods well, let me pull you into more controversial territory then, which I think you're little by little working yourself toward. We're not dealing here exclusively with a problem of scale like this is just the numbers are too great to deal with this many people at once. I mean that could be an argument, but that's not the entirety of the argument. It's not simply that there are so many people coming in. There's also the question of who's coming in, what kinds of people are these? And I want to know, is there something that we can say about them? We're not allowed to say it, but we do have to reckon with the issue of is it possible that there could be peoples who find it difficult to live with one another for whatever the reasons are, they have completely different conceptions of what life is about, or radically different religious views or worldviews, or different customs and practices, or even different things that are unspoken, that are just taken for granted by people can no longer be taken for granted. How do you go down that road?
- [19:32]
B
What's that quote from Thomas Jefferson, or I think it was Jefferson, he says something about like house guests, like fish, like start to stink after three days or something? Something like that. And you know, everybody has Kind of had this experience, right, where you have somebody who comes to visit you for an extended period of time, you know, more than a weekend or something. And it could be your very best friend in the whole world. I mean, somebody that you just absolutely love your could be your mom, could be your grandparents. Doesn't matter who it is, how close and how loving your relationship is. There's this. There's this sort of sigh of relief once they leave, no matter what. And it's not a. You know. And what that feeling is, is the people who live together in that house. There are so many just small, unspoken behavioral signals and just little things that don't have to be talked about or made conscious in any way because everybody knows it's just. There's a dynamic in the house and a rhythm to the life in the house. And when you bring even the most loved, you know, stranger into that environment, all of a sudden, like, these things do become conscious and you have to be more aware of them and kind of on point like that. And that gets difficult. And so, you know, when you take that and then amplify it to the point of, I mean, the most sort of, I guess, relevant one that, you know, would come up today is just Muslim immigration to the United States. Now, I'm personally of the belief that scale, it really does matter a lot if you take a single family and bring them into any environment where they're, you know, the only ones, or a very small percentage, they tend to accept, like, that this is somebody else's culture. And I have to conform to that.
- [21:15]
A
Absolutely. I completely agree with that. Yes.
- [21:18]
B
And it's when you reach a point where they're able to sort of form enclaves that are sort of autarkic, you know, in a way, at least culturally autarkic. So that if you go down to, like, South LA and Orange county, right, go through neighborhoods where, like, a ton of Saudis live, a lot of them, like, you'll see just. You'll drive down certain streets in certain neighborhoods in Los Angeles, and the women are all in burkas. And you. And you look up and you see on all of the rooftops, they all have these satellite dishes, or they used to. I don't know if they have to do this anymore, you know, Internet streaming and. And it was because all their TV was all stuff from the Middle east they didn't watch. They just didn't participate in the culture. You know, it was a very cloistered thing. When you add to that the fact that continuing that inflow puts the generation that's here in the position of constantly being surrounded by people who just got here, then there's like. It really inhibits the assimilation process. Yeah. You know, and here's the other thing I'll say about that too. Like, I know a lot of Somalis from my time working for the DoD. When I'd be in East Africa a lot, there'd be translators and cultural advisors that I would just get to know because we'd be in the same place working together for months at a time and became friends with a lot of them. And these guys, man, like, they hate terrorists more than Jocko Willink does. I mean, they just, they love nothing more than helping America kill terrorists. And if you talk to them, like, other than the fact that they won't go have a beer with you, they're just Americans. You know, they talk about, they listen to the same music, they're into the same stuff, they're just Americans. But this is something that, you know, a lot of the more thoughtful ones will tell you, and I have had this conversation with, with several of my friends, is that they are Americans, but they'll never really be Minnesotans because that's a separate thing. Like they're Americanized by the mass culture, you know. And so you see, like when you see people come in from parts of the world that, that are truly foreign, they tend to get assimilated to the mass culture. So that no matter where they are, they're sort of a New York, Louisiana mix, you know, or something like that. And, and you really. It really accelerates that process of like, of regional and just, you know, smaller scale, like some cultures. Which is another thing that, you know, I think is, you know, just like I, I think that it's a, that we lose something vital. If I go to, you know, the United States and I go to France and I go to Japan and they all kind of feel vaguely the same, which they don't yet, thankfully. But if they did, we would, like most of us would feel like we really lost something there. I feel the same way, like within our country, you know, this is a continent sized country and like, the loss of regional cultures is the know, a tragedy, I think, for us. And it's also bad for us culturally because the interaction of those different regional cultures and the negotiation of our politics, you know, from their different perspectives is really one of the main things that like, keeps us vital. If you look at, in Soviet Union, for example, right. One of the reasons the Soviet Union is so useful as a model is they were Doing things in a really accelerated, brutal fashion that we also did here, except it was in a more sort of piecemeal volunteerist kind of way, right. And so Stalin, he went and collectivized all the farms and drove all the peasants into the cities and made them work in the factories. In the Great Depression, we were, we had millions of farmers who had to move into the cities because a guy with a gun called the sheriff showed up and said, here's your eviction notice. And it was, you know, there weren't millions of corpses strewn about the Great Plains or anything, but the same. The end result was the same. We collectivized all the farms into these big industrial concerns and sent those farmers into the cities to work in industry. The result was the same. Well, from like a sociopolitical level, one of the things that you looked at what happened in the Soviet Union and one of the reasons that a lot of the post Soviet states struggled, and many of them are still struggling so much, is that, you know, they really worked hard and did this in, again, in a very brutal and direct way. They worked hard to eliminate regional cultures, to eliminate differences between, you know, just anything really. Because the idea was you need to have a mass society and then the state and the individuals in that mass society relate to the state, and everything kind of works through the state. The idea that like, you know, you have like smaller level institutions at the community level that then sort of coalesce into larger institutional formations and that the national government is sort of a, it's a manifestation of all of that, you know, building from the ground up of like ground level institutions. That's something that's been really wiped out, I mean, over the last, really just the last probably 60 years or so in the United States. And you know what happens when you do that is you, you, you develop a completely different political culture. You know, it's not the negotiation between, you know, it reminds me of like when a lot of the early Zionists were trying to push, you know, the, the idea of Zionism, convince Jews around the world of it, you know, when it was still very much minority opinion in the early 20th century. One of the things that a lot of the right wings are actually, that's not even true. Even the, the Labor Zionists would talk. Yeah, probably more than anybody actually is they would talk about how, you know, one of the problems that they had to resolve was being in exile, being in Europe, in other people's lands all these years, usually like under feudal systems where the land is all owned by, you know, you have lords and serfs, and they sort of existed on the margins as merchants and money lenders and so forth. That they had done that for so long that they had become like an entirely urban people, which has its virtues, has its usefulness, for sure, but it's not. That's not a nation. You can't make a nation out of just entirely urban people. You need sort of all the elements of society, from the people who work the land up to the people who run the banks. And that a nation is something that's made vital and is informed by the interaction between. In the negotiation between those various classes of people. And so they, you know, is one of the things when fewer. An early Zionist, you showed up like you were spending a year or two, like putting your hands in the dirt and working in agriculture or working like a trade or something. Regardless, you didn't matter. You were an accountant back in, you know, in Germany for the first two years, you know, you're going to be working on a farm. And there was a lot of wisdom to that, I think, because they understood that, you know, a nation is not just a. It's a living organism, you know, that needs feet, just like it needs a head, just like it needs arms and hands. And so as we homogenize into just a mass culture and again, mass immigration, it really accelerates that process, you know, in the same way that the mass migration of blacks out of the south caused the Italians and the Jews and the Greeks and the Poles and everybody to look at each other and go, oh, I guess we're white guys now. Mass immigration from other parts of the world does that on a totalizing scale, you know, and it's very interesting, right, because even as it pulls us apart and sort of balkanizes us in various ways, it's homogenizing the culture at the same time. You know, it just sounds sort of like an oxymoron. But in the same way that it sounds like an oxymoron to say like, that a mass culture is one that is highly individualistic. Those two things sound like opposites, but they actually go together. So, yeah, I think immigration, we have to look at it as a question of, like, it's not a political policy question. It's a question of whether and how we can conduct politics at all. You know, it really gets down to that. That fundamental level of, like, how, like, your immigration policy is going to determine how people conduct politics. It's not just sort of one policy among many that you can sort of debate.
- [29:38]
A
I think it's probably the Case that if we look at 20th century fascism, which, for all its vaunted devotion to the people, like the people as a unit, as a living, organic thing, we're also all about this, that. Well, when we say the people, obviously we don't mean the Piedmontese and the folks in Sicily and whatever. We mean the one people. So that means we're all going to talk the same way. It means we're going to discourage local variations. So, yeah, on the one hand, they can sound appealing. Well, you know, we're. We're trying to appeal to the, the people and do what's best for the people and encourage the people, but the people turns out to be again, once again, given the. The homogenization that took place in the 20th century, we shouldn't be surprised that the people they have in mind is also homogenized people. And I rather like all those little places and all the little variations and there, there seems to be not much of a place for me in the world because of that.
- [30:37]
B
When you have a culture like that, and especially one that is just experiencing constant demographic churn so that, you know, look like people will notice, right, that a South Korean immigrant family who got here in the early 80s or an Indian American family that got here in the 90s that, you know, they just don't really seem to care about, like George Washington's cherry tree and stuff. And whatever. And it's like, well, yeah, look, if I move to Russia, like, I might be so grateful that Russia took me in. I might love Russia. I love Dostoevsky and Tolstoy because I like to read them. But, like, it would be crazy to expect me to have, like, the same feeling toward Catherine the Great that like, a native Russian does. That's just. This is not how it works, you
- [31:21]
A
know, but that's part of the argument against mass immigration, as I'm sure you know it is.
- [31:25]
B
Right, right, right. Because what ends up happening is it really cancels out the possibility of having a common culture. Like, the common culture is that you don't have one. Like, that's basically what it comes down to, because every generation, look, I mean, you got to think of it like this. If things just keep going like this, give it another 40 or 50 years, and nobody's going to care about Martin Luther King Jr. Anymore. They weren't here. They had nothing to do with that or nothing to do with them. And, like, the fact that, like, this is very important to white and black Americans, you know, that that's going to become a minority issue and nobody's going to care, you know, in 50 years if this continues on. And so even the ones that are like the real, like untouchable, like cultural kind of icons now, like Martin Luther King or something, like the, the memory of the Holocaust or something, if you have that constant demographic churn, it makes it so that you're always sort of living in this eternal present, you know, and you have no sort of common collective memory, collective experience to draw on. The one thing that people sort of hold on to is, you know, as I say, diversity is our strength. It's a, it's a mantra and it's, that is the one thing that we can all sort of call a culture when you're having just this constant turn in this just permanent state of forgetting, you know.
- [32:43]
A
Yeah, no kidding. Hey everybody, Tom woods here with a quick tip for small business owners. If your business isn't showing up online, your competitors are getting the leads and you're missing out. That's where persist SEO comes in. For over 15 years, they've been helping local businesses grow through SEO, paid ads and the latest in AI powered search optimization so you stay visible and competitive in the digital age. Whether you're in home services, legal or healthcare, Persist SEO delivers real results without locking you into long term contracts or overwhelming you with tech jargon. Visit Ineedseo Help or call 770-580-3736 to schedule your free consultation. That's Ineedseo Help. Easy to remember, powerful for your small business. Let me add to what you said, that, and I'm obligated from the libertarian standpoint to add this, the role of the state here only aggravates all these problems because if you had enclaves, well, all right, we could figure out a way to make that work, but it wouldn't be great for society, but we could maybe make it work. But it's not just enclaves now. It's all these different groups are urged to have a sense of entitlement. There are special privileges shown to them that are increasingly not shown to the native population. And you go on and on and on and on. And this makes things worse because where you might have been neutral to negative about some of these people don't now you become just flat out angry and resentful and then that gets repaid and back and forth. It becomes a kind of low intensity civil war just beneath the surface.
- [34:26]
B
Yeah, one of the problems that you run into, and this is just, I mean this seems like it's just an eternal problem in so many different Areas, right? Is that the people who make our policies, you know, these are people who went to Ivy League schools and have been in big cities living among a certain social class and so forth. And so when they think like of somebody from another race, another immigrant background or whatever, they're thinking about their classmate at Harvard and it's like, okay, that's one thing. When you get down to the ground level of like, you got two neighborhoods of like competing factory workers or something at the like lower working class level, it's a totally different experience for people. And this is something that, like, you know, during the great migration of African Americans, I mean, just like John Lindsay, the mayor of New York in the late 60s, he's just like, he's the just sort of the perfect emblematic, like, leader of that time of like this, you know, this Waspish guy. He wasn't like, actually he was somebody who was not like born into like big WASP money, but he was somebody like, you know, like Buckley, who just managed to completely put that costume on like to the T, right? And he was in charge of New York at a time when there was like a great, like all of the sort of the racial tension from the Great Migration was really coming to a head. And, you know, he could not understand that the people who were living in Brooklyn or East New York, that the conflicts that they were having, you know, between different groups, that that was anything other than, you know, again, if he was like, if he was at Harvard or you think he went to Yale, if he was at Yale and somebody came up and started talking in the same terms, that would be like an ideological thing that they're trying to put over, you know, they have a certain view of other races or whatever it is, and very much an ideology, whereas people that he was, you know, the people he was governing, they were dealing with day to day life and like real conflicts. You know, the fact that like their neighborhood was changing and very much for the worse. And nobody could really escape the fact that, you know, it was changing for the worse as the demographics were changing and that the reason it was changing for the worse was because of that. Everybody, everybody knew that John Lindsay, like, you know, he just. And this is again, the whole sort of like Eastern establishment class back during this period. They just couldn't or wouldn't understand that themselves. You know, it was just because it was foreign to their experience, you know, for the most part. And it's sort of similar to like, I always, I was just reading about the. A book about the Iranian revolution and it was the same during the Arab Spring. It was the same, like, right at the outbreak of the Ukraine wars. You read all of these think pieces in the Atlantic and New York Times and everything else, and, man, like, the people, wow, they hate Putin, and they sure want a liberal, nice government in Iran and in Egypt. Nobody wants the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And it's just everybody I talk to, it's like, well, yeah, you're a New York Times writer. Like, what kind of people do you know in Egypt? Like, it's a certain kind of person that you're going to be talking to, and it's gonna, you know, that you're gonna be communicating with. And people forget that, like, way too often, you know, that your conceptual horizon is gonna be limited by a lot of things. And so we're too frequently, like, surprised when it turns out other people also live in the world and have their own ideas.
- [37:55]
A
Where do you come down on this question of whether the United States is an idea unlike the other nations of the world?
- [38:02]
B
I'm somebody, again, just to put this out there, I am for a complete moratorium on immigration other than, like, maybe individual applications for specific, like, you know, cases for the foreseeable future, you know, for the next generation at least. And maybe. So that's where I'm at, like, on this issue. And yet you're not going to hear a lot of people who agree with me on that say that, yes, America is obviously a nation of immigrants. You know, that's obviously true. Anybody who's studied our history at all, like, nobody could deny that. The idea of America as an idea, though, it's something that would have been a lot easier to defend in the 19th century and maybe the early 20th century. At a certain point, though, once we closed down the frontier, once we sort of exhausted the immigration from Europe that was going to be coming over here organically, like, in mass numbers. You know, we had a population that was starting to coalesce in the early 20th century into something that you could call like, a people. Right? Which is, again, like, people like to tell themselves that it was, like, always like this until 1965 or something. It was not like the Jews and the Irish Catholics and the Protestants, you know, in New York City back In the late 1800s, they did not look at each other like they were just, you know, the most. That the most important kind of social and political identity that we have is that we're Americans. It was much more local than that. And they saw themselves as much more diversified at a local level. And if you Think about like you go to the Civil War after the Battle of Vicksburg, right? The city of Vicksburg didn't celebrate. I remember I was watching, I think it was Ken Burns documentary series a long time ago, maybe some documentary. And it said, you know, after Vicksburg was conquered, they didn't celebrate the 4th of July again for X number of years. And I thought, because it seemed like I was like, wait, it's kind of like, yeah. And so I calculated. I was like, oh, July 4th, 1944. Like, that's when they finally did. It was right after D Day during the Second World War and all that. And so it's like that period like after, you know, say in the 40s and up to about like the assassination of Kennedy, you had this period there where all of those groups that had all agreed that they were Americans but that were other things first, which is the environment that you really would have if America is an idea as opposed to a people. That's like that short period, that short 20 year period or so is when all of those different groups started to coalesce into something like a people. And that was, you know, unfortunately aborted by several things. I mean, just the fly in the ointment of that, obviously, was that we had 10% of the population. It was not really included in that. And that became an issue. And then the 1960s, the Cultural Revolution and everything, things kind of came apart. But it was that brief period. And I think that everybody today, all of your nationalists, all of your racialists, all of your people, like, who have this idea that what we're doing right now cannot just go on forever, that something has to change like that. There's some, there's some fundamental, like, core problem with our current direction where we've been going for the last few decades. What really, like all of them are trying are saying and all of them are seeking is they want to feel like they're a part of something, you know, and you can either form up identity groups within the country and then say that America is just an idea that all of our little identity groups sort of, you know, live by, or you can try to form up like a national people. But again, this is something that's extremely difficult, man. Like, ethnogenesis is not something that like really has ever been like, socially engineered. I mean, to a certain extent, like you said, like in the, in the 19th, in early 20th century in Europe, you know, there was a big push to like build telegraph lines everywhere, to put radio everywhere, to sort of homogenize the dialect and homogenize the culture to a degree, but they were still working off of a relatively homogenized population. Like to do that with, you know, to have a population as diverse as ours and to have a real ethnogenesis that sticks and holds, you know, that's something that has to form up over a long period of time, usually through shared suffering crises, you know, going actually going through things together and finding out that this other group over here, that maybe I don't hate them or anything, but I just don't know anything about them, they're just totally foreign to me. They're actually my neighbor. You know, you think about like, and this is obviously like a such a huge part of the problem today, right? Like if there's, you know, a Muslim terrorist attack in the United States, the first thing that you're going to see from CARE and all the Muslim organizations are going to go on TV and say that, you know, this is just whatever happens, this must not lead to any anti Muslim sentiment and blah, blah, like in a very sort of like thinking about themselves, like first. And I always think of the example of the Japanese back during World War II. We took everything these people had, we put them in camps and what did they do? They told their sons, go join the army and go kill Germans and show this country that you're Americans. And the 442nd went over to Europe and became the most decorated combat unit in the American military in second World War. And they came back and Japanese are just Americans now. They're just Americans. Everybody accepts that, you know, and so you really do have to like probably go through these periods of crisis. And that gives different people the opportunity to prove themselves to each other. You know, I was having a discussion, debate, can't remember with who, but somebody who was like, he was like a white identitarian type. He just thinks that, you know, the Balkanization of the culture has gone too far and the idea of knitting back together a national culture so far out of reach that like, we just need to like work with what we've got. Right? And so he wants to be like white Americans as like a people. He wants it to be a nation. Right. Which on a fundamental moral level I have no problem with, by the way. A lot of people are so horrified by something like that. Look, I don't care if Saudi Arabia wants to be a theocracy, I don't care if Hungary wants to be an ethno state. You know, one identity is. Race is as good a basis for identity as anything else. Put it that way, like, it's fine, like, on its face. But what I told him is like, look, man, if you get what you want. Well, first of all, like, the reason you're not going to get what you want is that you are not going to convince a white American Christian that you are his people more than that guy with slightly duskier skin sitting next to him in the pew singing the hymns at church. You're not going to convince that guy that. And if you do, you've ruined everything worth preserving about this. So, like, what's the point? You know? So, yeah, I mean, America as an idea is something that necessitates, like, cultural Balkanization. Because people want an identity. They need a collective identity, and they will go find one, whether or not there is one that's being put on offer by the institutions that are out there. They'll find one for themselves.
- [45:17]
A
Hey, gang. I am holding in my hand the answer to the problem being on a godforsaken screen 24 hours a day. This is the Tom Woods Elite Letter with fresh content not seen in my email newsletters and delivered to your physical mailbox. Remember that thing? In a world of screens and email newsletters and PDFs and eBooks and E readers, it's published on actual paper that you hold in your hand. Those of you above a certain age, like me, will remember when we used to hold paper in our hands and read words off it. Those were better times, my friends. Be proudly old school with me and make your stand for the simple pleasures of yesteryear. Physical reading material delivered to your physical mailbox. There is no PDF version and there's nothing virtual about it. Oh, and by the way, subscribing to the Tom Woods Elite Letter also entitles you to free entry and into any of my murder mystery dinner parties across the country. And that's just when you subscribe at the entry level. Even more fantastic goods await you at the higher level. So imagine it every month in your mailbox. Brand new woods material and you don't have to read it on a godforsaken screen. Make a stand against the digitalization of everything and bring back the days of reading something paper based in your recliner with the dog at your feet. Check it out@supportinglisteners.com that's supportinglisteners.com Let me push. Before we start wrapping up, I want to push back a little bit, even though I know it's not your point. If I weren't pedantic, what would my purpose on this world be? I Still can't. I just can't abide the nation of immigrants thing quite as easily as you can. And here's how I think about it. Most people who use that expression now, for them, immigration is not just some people come to the US and live here and make their living, and that's it. Immigration is like an ideology. It's like, you know, like it's an overarching way of viewing the world, which is not the way people looked at it in the 19th century. I would say from 1800 to 1850. Now, the problem is records are not very good. Like, especially the early 1800s, forget it. But roughly between 1800 and 1850, it looks like 10% of the population had come in through immigration since 1800. And the two. Who are the two biggest national groups, Irish and German, but they're concentrated in particular places. Most people go through their entire lives never seeing an Irishman. The Irish are living in eastern cities and the Germans are living in the Midwest. And almost nobody ever sees any of these people. So if the United States. And if you talk to, you know, at least some of the founders of the Republic, if you talk to George Washington, his attitude would be, yeah, sure, if people want to come here, I guess that's fine. But, you know, if we need useful people, that's fine. But there's no real need to encourage it. I mean, so it wasn't like today, where our moral worth comes from the fact that that poem on that statue encourages people to come here. And I think if in the. As the 19th century progressed, if suddenly huge numbers of people who had never before assimilated into a Western society suddenly showed up, I would say you'd better believe that that would have been stopped and all the nation of immigrant stuff would have come to a halt. That's my, my.
- [48:34]
B
I mean, when you think about it, the 1924 Immigration act, that really put the kibosh on it for a generation. A huge motivator behind that was the mass arrival of the first non Christian group into the US The Jews. You know, and it was not really so much because of Judaism, but because, you know, everybody was afraid they were communists and Bolsheviks and so forth. And like, that was a huge push behind it, like the second KKK, which is founded in 1915 in Atlanta, but it never really took root in the South. It took root up in the Midwest and Portland and, you know, a lot of the cities and primarily the Midwest. They never even really talked about blacks much because there weren't very many blacks, you know, at the Time, like, hardly any actually at all. They were focused on immigrants and, and Catholics, you know, these were like the problem people to them, but Catholics and Jews basically were the people they were focused on. And yeah, look, there's no question that like, that phrase is weaponized. And when I hear it from somebody who's trying to push an open borders ideology on me today, then I shut them down, you know. But, well, so two things, like, one, yet George Washington probably would have said that, no doubt. But the American system itself, even if, you know, George Washington wasn't saying, like, we need to just import as many people as possible, the American system kind of necessitated it, and the political and economic drives of the country, you know, to push west into industrialize and all of these things, it just, it required a mass inflow of people. We wouldn't have a country that stretches coast to coast right now unless we were bringing in just as many people as we could get from Europe to fill that place up. Like, we just wouldn't have been able to do it. You'd have probably. Mexico would be a lot bigger still and, you know, the French might still have, you know what I mean? Like, so we had to fill this place up and man the factories, you know. So, yeah, like, I think that when I say we're, we are a nation of immigrants, I just mean that each generation of Americans, regionally for sure, right? Because like, all this stuff we talk about the Irish and the, the Germans and the Jews and the Italian, that really has nothing to do with the South. Like, they have their own thing going on this whole time, but in various regions at different times and at different rates, like, each generation had to renegotiate their collective identity with, you know, with each other and sort of figure out how to fit new people into that. That's sort of part of the American experience in a way that it's not, say, in Poland. You know what I mean? And so that's what I mean when I say that. I don't necessarily have a problem with, with that phrase. You know, I think the difficulty is because I know we're getting close to the end. Like, the tough part is, you know, we're a Christian country. Even, even, you know, though we're like a degraded, secularized version of it. Like, Christian morality is still like the basis for good and evil in most people's hearts and minds, whether they call themselves Christian or not. And for a Christian, you know, it's very difficult if, say, you're sitting in a room and there's one door and A desk and a chair. And you're sitting in the chair at the desk, and there's one door, and in front of you, there's this immigrant family from wherever. El Salvador or something, Nicaragua, Vic, whatever you want. And they tell you their story, and they just want to come here and, like, their kids go to school and be Americans, and the dad wants to work hard and just. That's it. Most people are going to have a really, really hard time turning, saying, telling that family, get out of here. Go back to where you came from. And the only thing, especially Christian people, you know, it's just. It's very difficult to do. You have this needy family right in front of you. And the only thing that really pushes you over the edge and causes you to do that is when you open up that one door and you realize that there's a line of 150 million people who are going to come in after that guy, and at some point you're going to have to say no. And it's never going to be any easier than it is right now, you know, and that's like the. That's the only way you can really think about it, because it's, you know, look, it is one of our virtues that we're such an open people and that we do, you know, in general, like, work, want to take in. If you're somebody who does want to assimilate and be a part of our national project that we feel like, you know, we. We do want people to be able to do that. Like, that's a virtue. And yet, when you make it a religion, you know, in and of itself, where the essence of America is, you know, it's like, I read this. I can't remember the name of it, this science fiction book back in the day where there was this one planet that it was a. This was like a powerful empire, but it was one that was entirely made up of refugees. This is where all the refugees would go from all over the galaxy. And they had actually formed a. If that's what you think America should be, then, you know. Well, I disagree, you know, because, like, I would like to have a diverse world and a diverse country. Like, I actually. I do think diversity is a strength. I just don't think that diversity means making every city in America look like Jamaica Plains, New York, or Queens, New York. It's like, you know, I want to be able to go to different regions, in different countries, in different places and meet different people. And mass immigration is. I mean, look, yeah, there are economic and political imperatives that drive it and everything. But a huge push behind it is this desire to homogenize all the differences between cultures and peoples. You know, think about what a huge pain in the butt it is for McDonald's that 1.6 billion Indian people won't eat cows. It's just such a. Well, wouldn't it be just great if they all were no longer Hindus and that whole thing just stopped existing? From McDonald's standpoint, yeah, that actually would be great. It'd be much more efficient. People would be more interoperable, you know, and there'd be more streamlined flows of capital and information and whatever, like all these kind of ways of talking. And so that's like the big push that's kind of really behind this, especially in the modern age. But it doesn't serve families and people and communities at all. It just doesn't.
- [54:31]
A
Well, obviously we can't just say, well, thanks for coming on the show. Give me your, you know, as best you can do it. 1 min elevator pitch for supposing something like a Joe Biden comes back in and we get another flood. Is there any coming back from that?
- [54:48]
B
No. So, see, this is the really difficult part is Donald Trump right now credit where credit's due. I'm not happy with the man at the moment with the war going on in Iran, but credit where credit's due. The border has been pretty much locked down. Like, that's actually been pretty successful. Illegal immigration has dropped down to like a trickle, at least as far as the numbers say. But as you say, we get a Joe Biden in the next administration, he can make up for that times 10 in four years. I mean, Joe Biden was importing the equivalent of the population of Seattle to the United States every three months for four years. And when you take that into account, you have to ask, like, is this really something that we can win in a, in just a political way? And I don't think so. Like, I think you have to win the argument. You have to make it so that it's a liability for a Democrat or whoever to come in and to make the case and to loosen up on the border and do these. You have to make it a real political liability because there's consensus on this. One of the reasons, by the way, that I was so upset, I got in fights with a lot of my right wing friends because I was so upset with those two shootings in Minneapolis and just the overall kind of aggressive behavior of ice, like from my buddy's standpoint, my right wing friend's Standpoint, like they are like happy. Finally somebody's doing something. They're going in there and kicking ass and taking names and like, you know, dealing with this problem of, you know, illegal immigration, whatever, it's like, I get that that's emotionally satisfying, but we've got to, it took us generations to get to this point and it's going to take us a long time to crawl out of this hole. And to do that, we need like a consistent effort to bring people over to our side on this issue. Because that's the only way you can do it. I mean, because it's exactly as you said. I mean, like, what are you going to do? I mean, Joe Biden brought in like 15 million people or something. And so, okay, Donald Trump, you know, he locks down the border for four years, congratulations, it's not deporting 15 million people. And if the next guy wants to bring in another 15, like, you have to really just make it so that that is a political liability for anybody of any party to push.
- [56:53]
A
Yeah, I mean, what other answer is there?
- [56:56]
B
And real quick, I know this is a one hour show and we're already over that, but you know, one of the ways you can do that, there are, there are arguments you can use even on people who are for, you know, relative or completely open borders. You know, point out to them that, like, look, there are certain parts of the world where we have people moving in like in large numbers, that we know from studies that the incoming migrants have a median IQ that is a standard deviation below the rest, like the average in the society. Nothing against those people, that's fine. Has nothing, you know, it isn't a judgmental thing. But we know that IQ correlates with success in a modern information economy. Right? And we also know that IQ is largely heritable. And so if you're bringing in a group of people who are physically distinguishable, who you're pretty much dooming to have an aggregate socioeconomic performance below average, you're creating like a revolutionary class, basically. You're creating a class of people who are going to, you know, be like a permanent underclass that's like physically identifiable. That's going to become a political problem in a democracy. Everybody, like on the left, if you're talking to a left wing person, they don't like outsourcing, offshoring, you know, MAGA people too. Same thing. You don't have to convince them on immigration. But yeah, I just point out to them like, look, man, mass immigration is just outsourcing for industries that are Location dependent. You know, you can't move an agricultural field overseas. You can't. You know, a hotel has to be where it is. That's the point of the hotel. Like, kids have to be taken care of where they live. Restaurants, you know, need to be clean, dishes done or whatever, like where the. And so it's just meat packing, you know, you gotta be close to where the animals are processed. And so it's just outsourcing for industries that are location dependent. Instead of sending the factory over there, you bring the people here. And people can kind of understand that because they can articulate an opposite, like an opposition to outsourcing, say, that doesn't feel morally offensive to themselves because, you know, this is the. Rick, the real thing. And I'll finish with this. You have to give people, especially in an environment where there are a lot of ideological and moral hangups that we have all sort of had inculcated into us from like a very early age through media and education. You have to give people, like, you have to give them permission to think certain things. You have to offer them ways to think about things that are not going to make them feel like they're a terrible person for thinking it or just that like, that they're agreeing with terrible people, you know, by thinking it. Like, it's like when, when Donald Trump in 2016 in South Carolina came out and said what he said about the Iraq War, what a disaster it was, and it was all based on lies. All the Republican pundits, they were all like, oh, this is the end of his campaign. You just can't say that as a Republican. He's going to get just butchered. And it turned out it was the exact opposite. And the reason, and I think anybody like, who was actually paying attention at ground level knew this right away, that, man, by the time you got up to 2016, Republican, just conservative voters were like, man, we are never getting out from under this freaking Iraq War thing. Like, we are never getting out from under this. But we can't come out and be like, oh, yeah, Nancy Pelosi was right about everything and Barack Obama's right about everything. And we were wrong about, like, we can't do that. But then to have Donald Trump, one of your guys, come out and say this, you know, on your behalf, you can say, yeah, yeah, I agree with Trump. You know, he gave them permission to think that. And so that's a lot of what you have to do, because what you'll find is, unless you're talking to like hardcore third World Ideologues on the left or like anarcho capitalist libertarian types on wherever you guys are, unless you're talking to those people. Most people, like your average person that you're going to be talking to is perfectly aware of a lot of this stuff on an intuitive level, that there are problems, that there are issues that, like, this is creating and causing. On some intuitive level, they're aware of that. And so your job is to sort of help them give shape to those intuitions and to help give them arguments and rhetoric that allows them to think those things without feeling like they're one of the terrible people they were told about, you know, their whole childhood.
- [61:14]
A
I guess that is what it has to be, because as the way I look at it is, it's been one of these things that as soon as you talk about it, you know the names they're going to be called. And I know there are some people who at this point don't care if they're called names anymore. But there are other people who still have jobs who don't want the boss to hear that they've been called a racist 117 times over Twitter over the weekend. So, yeah, the more we can broaden the Overton window, the better. Let me let you run. But first, Darrell Cooper, I want to tell people once again, the Martyr Maid podcast is where you can hear Daryl, but you can also hear him with Scott Horton. Once a week is once a week.
- [61:50]
B
Right.
- [61:50]
A
Fridays, you guys generally record it.
- [61:52]
B
Yep.
- [61:53]
A
For the podcast called Provoked. And of course, he has a substack. But he has a substack. I'm just going to tell you, unlike a lot of people, a lot of people read his substack. Huge number. And I'm not saying popularity dictates everything, but when I looked at the number of people reading that thing, I actually broke down and subscribed to it because I thought, well, I don't want to be the only one missing this. So all that stuff will be up@tomwoods.com 2751. Darrell, thanks again.
- [62:18]
B
Thanks, Tom.
- [62:19]
A
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
- [62:23]
B
Make yourself and those you love less
- [62:25]
A
vulnerable to the regime, both mentally and and physically.
- [62:28]
B
Get more forbidden information@tomsfreebooks.com and be sure
- [62:33]
A
to subscribe to the show wherever you listen.
- [62:35]
B
See you next time.
- [62:45]
A
Like the sound of the Tom Wood Show. My audio production is provided by Podsworth Media. Check them out@podsworth.com Happy Easter, by the way. Oh, same to you. Same to you.
- [62:56]
B
Well, mine's coming up, but.
- [62:58]
A
Oh, you're Orthodox? Yeah, we sometimes go to an Eastern Catholic church, and this year they wanted to know why didn't we do that? And I said, well, I. I would just feel too odd not celebrating Easter with the rest of the West.
- [63:11]
B
Yeah.
- [63:12]
A
So we didn't do it, but, well,
- [63:13]
B
technically we're Armenian Orthodox and they celebrate it the same as the rest of the West. But the church, we don't have one of those around here, so we go to a Greek Orthodox church.
- [63:23]
A
Okay. Well, my family is actually Armenian Orthodox, believe it or not. Oh, my grandfather, because, yeah, they're all Armenian. Bacoyan was the last name.
- [63:31]
B
So I. I told the. My Greek priest, I'm like, I don't even pretend to understand the Chalcedonian controversy. So if that's important to you, then you'll have to explain it to me.
- [63:43]
A
Yeah, no, and. And I mean, I'm sorry, I don't have the theological chops even to adjudicate the filioque matter. You know, it seems like the same thing to me.
- [63:54]
B
It's all, man, if there's one thing I'd love to see in my life more than anything else, I'd love to see the Oriental Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism just come back into communion together. We've really got to, like, create a united front here, you know?
- [64:12]
A
Yeah, but, you know, they need to negotiate like the Iranians and say, now, look, this can never happen again. And by this, we mean you're not going to do to our liturgy what you did to your own. That is absolutely not happening. We need some statement from you guys that that was a mistake and that you. You acknowledge the value of tradition, otherwise it's not happening. I think it's a very reasonable demand.
- [64:32]
B
Maybe an outside mediator will bring in, like, Ayatollah Sistani or something.
- [64:36]
A
Definitely has no dog in this hunt whatsoever. All right, anyway, we should have kept that in. We should have kept this part in.
- [64:44]
B
I don't know, maybe you're recording. Keep it in.
- [64:47]
A
Yeah, we'll put it in as an Easter egg at the end, so to speak. Right, so to speak.