Interview from 4/19/2018


0:00:14.7 Peter Leyva: Good evening everyone and welcome to the fifth and long overdue installments of the Chat It Up podcast. I'm your host, Peter Leyva, and with me is the Chairman of the American Black Shirts Party. His name is Mr. Joshua... Do I pronounce your last name Noyer?


0:03:14 Joshua Noyer: That's correct.


0:03:16 Peter Leyva: So, Mr. Joshua Noyer of the American Black Shirts Party. Mr. Noyer, how are you doing?


0:03:21.9 Joshua Noyer: Good, thank you for having me on today.


0:03:25.8 Peter Leyva: Tell us a bit about yourself, your life, how you grew up, the things you did before the American Black Shirts Party, and how you ended up becoming the Chairman of said organization.


0:03:37.9 Joshua Noyer: San Diego born and a raised. Pretty typical life, at least younger and into high school. I played sports, basketball and baseball. I would say politically speaking, I've always had a passionate interest in politics and in history, ever since I was young. That kind of manifested itself into sort of a conservatism/liberal, classical liberal ideology. I was a member of the John Birch Society in my high school and college days.


0:4:07 Peter Leyva: Hmm... Paleoconservative


0:4:08 Joshua Noyer: It's not something too proud of now because I've gone 180 degrees different than that, but I also supported Pat Buchanan in his campaigns. I remember coming down, watching him speak in San Diego in ‘92, when he was running. It really was an awesome sight to see. Then that started to change. I got married and had kids, and I realized that this classical liberalism kind of libertarian ideology was not one that was suited to fixing the social problems that we come across on a daily basis here. So I started to look for alternatives, and that's when I came across an anthology of writings by Antonio Primo de Rivera, Spanish Fascist. I was blown away. It was unlike anything I had ever read. It took from the left and it took from the right, and it created a brand-new synthesis, which I had never really thought of before. It was from that point on that I began looking around for an organization here in the United States which was into these ideals, and I couldn't find one. All I saw was national socialists and racially oriented groups, and so the American Blackshirts Party came about because of that. It came about as an alternative. Something for people who believed in the ideals of Mussolini, Gentile, and Rivera. Something to give them a voice and give them an outlet for any kind of political activism they were desiring that wasn't there at the time.


0:05:44.0 Peter Leyva: That's interesting. So you went from Pat Buchanan style paleocon to civic fascist?


0:05:52.3 Joshua Noyer: I think that's a pretty accurate description.


0:05:57.2 Peter Leyva: What exactly does fascism mean to you? In your opinion, what does it mean historically? How is it relevant today and what are your thoughts on the modern progressive left, or, just for that matter, the generally politically non-inclined, throwing it around willy-nilly? Is it just the fact that people thought around as a sort of snarl word? You know, vaguely authoritarian, vaguely traditionalist, bully, meany-face.


0:06:29.8 Joshua Noyer: What it means to me, it means a second chance, mostly for the United States of America and the American people. Who, I think, despite the political deficiencies and the political problems that have really beset this country, the American people are good people overall. I think they deserve better and fascism provides that. It's a chance to overcome the mistakes the founders made, and over 200 years of political mistakes through classical liberalism. I think Mussolini and those original Fascists, they were men before their time. What I mean by that is the problems that we face today, the social atomization, the weakness of the State, the decaying unity you see in the United States, and especially Western Europe was all present in 1920s Italy and Europe, but it was not nearly as bad as it was. Mussolini predicted that what you see today was going to happen. To a large extent, those men were prophets before their own time. As far as the progressive left goes, the use of the word “fascism,” the pejorative it's become- it's almost really laughable when you think about it. Basically every President since maybe JFK has been considered, in one sense or another, a fascist. I think it's become a joke. What you see nowadays, there's a lot of people exploring this ideology and getting more into it because they sense that something isn't right with how the word is used. I think it's starting to backfire on the left and even on the right to a certain extent. You have people like Jonah Goldberg and Dinesh D’Souza who are using “fascism” as kind of a punching bag and trying to smear the left as being fascist. I think it's probably done us some good. Now in the long run, we're going have to fix that definition; but yeah, it's become basically a joke.


0:08:44.3 Peter Leyva: It kind of has. Then you get people who are a little more politically inclined, who mislabel dictators like Pinochet or Franco as fascist, when neither of them were. Pinochet was a neoliberal. You could actually call Pinochet far-right, because he was very much for free markets, privatizing everything. Then Francisco Franco, it's been debated just how much corporatism existed in his state; but from what I've read of him, he's often mislabeled as a fascist. Rather than a Catholic, pro-monarchist reactionary who basically held on to the reigns of power until he died in 75. It is really irritating to me. I noticed it, increasingly, that people are just throwing it out willy-nilly at every single person who they consider a bully. That's basically what fascist means nowadays, a political bully or someone I don't agree with, and who I think for some reason would want to murder me if they have their way.


0:09:53.9 Joshua Noyer: That's certainly true, especially in the case of Pinochet. Pinochet is basically a classical liberal who established a dictatorship in Chile. He's not even really close to being a fascist. Franco, you can have more of an argument, but I agree with your basic overall description of him. He's more of a monarchist kind of old-line conservative. Everybody you disagree with nowadays is called a fascist. From biker gangs to bullies are called a fascist. We go out and do a lot of activist work, and when I confront people, sometimes tell them that I'm a fascist. They have a look of horror on their face. It's not something I'll probably ever get used to. I know it's part of what I do now, but it's weird how the term has sort of a mystical appeal to a lot of people.


0:10:57.0 Peter Leyva: It kind of does. Like when people think of the word fascism, I was certainly no exception. They conjure up these mental images of genocide, of sexism, of racism, of oppression, homophobia, yada yada yada. The more I looked into, I'm like, “Okay, yeah, fascists may not have liked degenerates and may have been socially traditionalist, however it's just absolutely ridiculous, this whole idea that all fascists were the same.” Now, granted, fascism didn't get as many tries as communism. Is it fair to say you can blame Hitler for that? That because of Hitler, nobody's ever really wanted to seriously try fascism on any large scale ever again.


0:11:44.9 Joshua Noyer: Yes and no. When people think of the description you gave of fascism, there's an ounce of truth when they combine national socialism and fascism together, because national socialism was responsible for the euthanasia program, which killed up to 100,000 people. It had the camps, which killed millions of people during the war and the forced sterilization programs, so that description accurately describes national socialism. It does not describe fascism. One thing that we've tried really hard to achieve with the American Blackshirts Party is to delineate why these two are not the same and why, in 1938, Mussolini engaged in a pathetic attempt at anti-semitism and what were some of the reasons behind the alliance. One thing I've always tried to ask people, and they never can give me a straight answer, is if the alliance between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany was the reason why they're considered the same by a lot of people, then wouldn’t democracy and communism be considered the same because the Soviet Union and the United States were allied during World War II? I can't get a logical explanation from them out of that.


0:13:05.9 Peter Leyva: It seems like guilt by association. Which, let's be honest, the modern left are addicted to.


0:13:13.3 Joshua Noyer: The problem is, a lot of people don't have the patience or the time to really go through some of these historical works and figure out why certain things happen and what were the differences here. Especially with the modern mentality, it's very convenient for them to watch maybe a half-hour documentary on the History Channel and get all of their information from that instead of thinking critically.


0:13:35.9 Peter Leyva: It's really interesting because, ironically, it was the Dinesh D’Souza’s book (I haven't read it, I did get it from my grandpa, but I haven't read it) upon hearing the coming out of the book striking up more conversation about fascism. That's what got me interested in researching it. Then a conservative YouTuber, RazorFist (he’s like a metal-head sort of libertarian-conservative hybrid, I guess, almost paleocon) did a really interesting video where he talked about the life of Mussolini. It's because of him that I bought and have started reading through Mussolini's two autobiographies compiled in this ‘98 book called My Rise and Fall.


0:14:20 Joshua Noyer: Excellent book. Excellent.


0:14:21 Peter Leyva: It's really interesting. I'm on chapter 6. What's already happened is he's already sort of splintered away from the socialists because of World War I and what have you, and the fact that they're all a bunch of filthy globalists who didn't care about Italian culture.


0:14:41.5 Joshua Noyer: It was an evolution. He didn't come to the sort of nationalism that later characterized fascism. Even in the early 1920s, the ideology was still evolving to a large extent. Dinesh D’Souza, I haven't read the book either, but I have read excerpts from it. I'll tell you, the one positive thing about that book is that he does go into detail on Giovanni Gentile. Really, a fascinating philosopher who's been ignored ever since the end of World War II. He was absolutely brilliant. Even if D’Souza doesn't portray him in a positive light, people being introduced to his ideas and his philosophy, I think in the long run it is a good thing.


0:15:32.2 Peter Leyva: Wasn't it technically him, not Mussolini, who created the Doctrine of Fascism?


0:15:41.6 Joshua Noyer: It’s generally considered that Gentile wrote the first part of it and Mussolini wrote the second. Which I agree with because the first part is heavy on idealism, and the second part is more historical in nature. I think that's pretty much what happened with that, even though Mussolini is credited with writing the whole thing.


0:16:02.5 Peter Leyva: That's interesting. I did not know that. That's why I'm here, though. I've also been curious, what exactly is the symbolism of the fasces? The image of the axe reinforced by a faggot. I notice that your insignia also incorporates it.


0:16:24.5 Joshua Noyer: It's supposed to symbolize that each and every one of those sticks, if they're separate, they can break very easily, but united into a compact whole, they're almost indestructible. I think it's a brilliant symbol. Especially for the American situation, where we have so many different races, cultures, and religions. That if you take each one individually, they're nothing but united into a nation they could be basically indestructible. The way we incorporate this into our symbol, we have the fasces stuck in a tree stump and this tree is supposed to symbolize the tree of liberty. When that tree grows to a certain extent beyond the stump, it spreads out and the branches go everywhere. This is supposed to symbolize the disunity inherent in democracy. When that's cut down and all you have left is the stump, you have the unity that the nation was founded on. That's what we're aiming at, and the fasces is the instrument that cut down the tree.


0:17:33.4 Peter Leyva: That’s interesting. That being said, the fasces being the symbol of strength and unity, what are the principles of a good fascist? What moral principles would come from that symbolism?


0:17:53.3 Joshua Noyer: Honor, loyalty, dedication. Especially with something like fascism. This isn't your typical political ideology. It's one that you're going to have a lot of hatred thrown at you. You're going to have a lot of friends and family who are going to cut off contact, too. You really need to have a special aptitude. You really need to be strong to promote this and stick with it because this isn't something that's going to take place in the next four to eight years. This is going to basically be a lifetime of work. What people are forgetting is that while Mussolini brought the ideology to Italy while he formulated it, the roots of that ideology go back to the early 19th century with Friedrich Hegel. It was developed along the way by other philosophers so that foundation was already ready for Mussolini. It just needed the right leader and the right man to formulate it and articulate it. The problem is in the United States that never happened. The classical liberal ideology that dominates us, that characterizes both the left and the right, has had no serious competitors since the founding. People who want to be a fascist, they need all those qualities. They need to be patient and, most of all, dedicated.


0:19:15.0 Peter Leyva: That’s how the Marxist infiltrated the West. Patiently and slowly.


0:19:20.8 Joshua Noyer: That's true, but I think even with Marxists, a Marxist today in the United States or Western Europe, it's not like the Marxist you had even pre-World War II or post-World War II. They have been corrupted by this system also. You see this to a large extent with fascists. You have a lot of groups out there today who consider themselves fascist and use the label but are nowhere near what a fascist should be, and they're getting corrupted by the same system. What's so insidious about the ideology that we live under is that people don't see it for what it is. It's right in front of them, and it changes the way you think and the way you act, and you don't even realize it. That's what happened to a lot of communists because communist, post-World War II, what would they care about something like gay rights or transgender rights, or all the silly stuff you see in modern American politics?


0:20:15.4 Peter Leyva: That probably had more to do with the Frankfurt School and the post-modernists, to be honest, because a lot of your really old-school Marxists, your Stalins of the world, your Che Guevaras of the world, they hated them. They consider them all degenerates, and I find it hilarious to see people walking around in Che Guevara t-shirts unironicly, and not realizing that if he were alive today, every single one of them wearing it would be shot.


0:20:42.0 Joshua Noyer: That's an excellent point, and I don't downplay the influence of the Frankfurt School or post-modernism at all. I think also a lot of it has to do with the failure of communism in the Soviet Union and trying to adapt the ideology to fit modern circumstances. Even Marxist ideology, much of it has proven a failure. His dialectical materialism and scientific communism haven't come about, so they've had to adapt a lot of those ideals to try to stay relevant. That, along with what you said, the Frankfurt School and some of the postmodernist philosophers have had a huge impact.


0:21:22.1 Peter Leyva: They're the ones who really twisted that same dichotomy of oppressor versus oppressed, but applied it to social groups, to demographic groups, etcetera. It's really interesting, because there are still old-school Marxists who don't give a shit about any of these pathetic wedge issues and some of them are even still kind of socially traditionalist.


0:21:47.1 Joshua Noyer: I've never seen it or come across any myself. I'd like to talk to them and see where they're coming from more, because I think what you're describing is basically a dying breed of leftist.


0:21:57.9 Peter Leyva: Yeah, probably to be honest. There was one that... Sargon of Akkad. You know who Sargon of Akkad is, right? YouTuber, classical liberal?


0:22:07.9 Joshua Noyer: I've heard of him through hearsay.


0:22:12.4 Peter Leyva: He's a British guy. He's one of the biggest political YouTubers out there. He was recently talking about one of them. He's an older man, like you said, sort of dying breed, old-school, Soviet-style communist, who can't stand the fact that Marxism has been co-opted by the social-justice left.


0:22:39.2 Joshua Noyer: If you go to the Soviet Union today, the Communist Party, which I think is still fairly influential, won't resemble the Communists you see here in the United States, or Great Britain and Western Europe at all. It's still pretty much the old-school Stalinist ideology playing out. Even in some places in Eastern Europe, it still hangs on. They're hard to find here in the United States and other places in Western Europe.


0:23:05.7 Peter Leyva: You guys present yourselves as a third option to counter the mainstream Republican and Democrat parties, which you just mentioned earlier. What, in your opinion, are there excesses and their shortcomings?


0:23:24.0 Joshua Noyer: I think with the right, we share a lot in common with the right as far as foundational ideas. We revere the family, traditional values, religion, and the nation. The problem with the right is that they have this ideology, which says that the State needs to withdraw from society. The State needs to keep a hands-off approach. When that happens, what you have left is supply and demand. You have the marketplace: something that's not moral, something that's not ethical. What they're basically doing is saying that through greed, through self-interest- which the marketplace works through- that will lead to a more unified, more moral society. With the ABP, we reject that completely. Now with the left, on the other hand, we really don't share many values at all, but I think they have a more realistic view of the State and society and how the State can be used to influence people’s ideals and values. On a bigger issue, when we're talking about both the left and right, a lot of people wonder why things don't seem to change. Sometimes you have conservative administrations, you have liberal administrations, and the United States seems to be evolving on one course. You have an issue like abortion and gay rights, and the problem with those two issues, and why conservatives are going to fail on those, is that when you have an ideology derived from John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, Montesquieu, which says that the State is a necessary evil, that it's something imposed upon people, then that State doesn't have any legitimacy or any moral authority to engage in moral issues like abortion, like gay rights, like criminalization of drugs. That's why, whether you have the left or the right in power, little change seems to happen. It seems the country is evolving in a straight line towards some end down the road. There's not a whole lot that can be done with it because these foundational beliefs, these philosophical ideals held by left and the right, when you get down to the metaphysics to the basics of it, they're both pretty much the same.


0:25:50.5 Peter Leyva: In many regards they are, honestly.


0:25:55.8 Joshua Noyer: They both take from John Locke, Montesquieu and branch out after that, but the problem is that when you come back down to the basics, to the foundation, it’s the same and that colors everything else. The left might like somebody like Rousseau a little bit more than the right and the right I might prefer somebody like Edmund Burke also a little bit, but it's still basically the same classical liberal ideology on both sides.


0:26:27.2 Peter Leyva: That does seem to be fracturing a bit, though, because both parties seem to be in turmoil as to deciding what they want to be for their future. The Democrats seem to be fracturing between their Bill Clinton, centrist, neoliberal, versus progressives like Bernie Sanders, actual socialists. Then, on the right, there is also a fracture between the more populist, more resembling paleocon ideals, more nativist, nationalistic versus establishment Republican neoconservatives who haven't done jack shit during their entire existence in office. It's kind of funny. I'm kind of ashamed of the fact that I used to be such a neocon, so obsessed over foreign wars.


0:27:21.3 Joshua Noyer: I think we were all there at one point. It's part of growing up being an American. It's hard to escape because it's in our subconscious.


0:27:30 Peter Leyva: I guess we were all war hawks to one extent or another.


0:27:36 Joshua Noyer: I was too at one point. I plead guilty to that.


0:27:40.7 Peter Leyva: Coat-tailing off that previous question, what are the excesses and shortcomings of libertarians and then socialists?


0:27:53.8 Joshua Noyer: I think with libertarians, they take that classical liberalism and they take it to an absolute extreme, which I find difficult to comprehend. A lot of them would legalize things like child pornography and child abuse. Looking at it as a contract between two people. Most of them would legalize some of these hard drugs, like cocaine and heroin. Basically, they define society as being just one big marketplace where free consenting adults can do whatever they want without harming anybody else. It's just a very dangerous way of looking at the world because we're not in an agricultural society anymore, where your nearest neighbor is a mile down the road. You live in an urban environment and your nearest neighbor is a few feet from you, or if you live in an apartment complex, you live right on top of each other. The line between public and private is constantly becoming more blurry and thinner because your neighbors do affect the way you live sometimes. You have to have some kind of values and standards when it comes to law. With libertarianism, it's just a lot of weird things that I hope doesn't get too popular. It’s hard to tell, because with somebody like Trump, he has some of Pat Buchanan’s attributes, but then when it comes to the economy, with maybe the exception of trade, he can be very libertarian at times. We'll see which way that goes. Socialism, on the other hand, what I don't like about socialism is the class envy and the hatred that goes along with it can be very ugly at times. It doesn't work itself out very well. I think corporatism is a lot better economic system because it brings people together and it concentrates more on class unity than class warfare.


0:29:59.3 Peter Leyva: That is an interesting observation. It's funny how socialists can't stop running their countries into the ground because they pit the rich versus the poor against each other. You almost have to applaud him, but I also think of how stupid it is. What was Pol Pot’s solution to preventing starvation? Oh, let's just make everyone farmers. Yeah, that totally won’t backfire. Who needs doctors? Who needs engineers? Who needs- Nah, that's just all optional. Let's just make everyone farmers. Let's get everyone out of the cities. I'm like, “ughh!” If there's one thing I really have to give fascists credit for, it is that they seem to value all positions in society, all careers, and they don't make things a matter of jealousy between white people.


0:30:48.4 Joshua Noyer: I think fascists respect the diversity within society, but they prize even more unity which encompasses all that diversity. I think it's a lot more realistic and a lot more grounded than the utopian ideology of socialism.


0:31:06.8 Peter Leyva: Certainly a lot of it. I always say that if there is one thing I really admire about fascists, is the fact that they acknowledge that there is a natural order to the universe, which I, as a conservative, have to really appreciate. This whole idea that everyone is inherently the same in terms of any metric of aptitude is just absolutely ridiculous.


0:31:28.9 Joshua Noyer: That's what the corporate state is founded on, too. It recognizes the different aptitudes of the population, and it aims at encompassing them with everything within the State.


0:31:45.6 Peter Leyva: What were the differences between Hitler and Mussolini in terms of how they implemented a fascist philosophy, and why is Hitler the more remembered of the two?


0:32:00 Joshua Noyer: I think as far as remembrance goes, it has to do with military power and performance. If the battle of Berlin in 1945 had taken place in Rome, and we had the battle of Rome in 1945, with the Arditi and the Bersaglieri divisions fighting to the last man, then Mussolini would have this otherworldly place that Hitler now occupies. It's the military performance of the Germans on the Eastern Front, on the Western Front, and how they were the best army in the world at the time. It took a hell of a lot from the Allies just to conquer them. As a result, Hitler and the Nazi leadership and the whole society during that time has taken on a mythic proportion, kind of an other-worldly persona. They're compared to the empire in Star Wars and things like that.


0:32:56 Peter Leyva: The empire was based off of the Nazis.


0:32:59.0 Joshua Noyer: Exactly, so that's basically why that's happened. Again, if Mussolini’s armies would have performed better and overshadow the Germans, then that would be a different story. As far as the differences in implementing fascism, and I know, we covered a little bit of it earlier, but you have things like the euthanasia program, which killed up to 100,000 people in Germany. People that the Nazis considered unfit, people they considered mentally ill, autistic people, things like that. Something that was never even considered in Fascist Italy. Then you have the sterilization programs, which aimed at sterilizing groups of people, again, that were considered to be producing unfit offspring. Now the Italians, on the other hand, when it comes to eugenics, they had a positive eugenics program. They thought they could improve the Italian race by concentrating on health, nutrition, getting rid of diseases, moral education. They felt all of these combined could produce a more solid people. So a couple of those ideas is just a very different way of looking at the world. Things like the racial laws. Germany did that a lot earlier than the Italians, and they restricted Jews’ professions, their citizenship status. Not based on any cultural dynamic, but the amount of Jewish blood they had in them. If you look back at fascist literature in Italy from the early ‘20s up to about 1938, ideas like this were completely absent; they had no force at all. When the Italians tried it shortly before World War II, it backfired, it was unpopular with the population, and it caused a lot of contradictions within the ideology.


0:34:52.4 Peter Leyva: It's funny because I think somewhere in the forward of the book here, it mentions the 1938 anti-Semitic acts, which were really unpopular. I had no idea. Any reason why he did that? Was that sort of like an appeasement to Hitler or something?


0:35:11.1 Joshua Noyer: Yes and no. I think a lot of it has to do with the changing international situation in the 1930s. We can't forget that Italy and Germany almost went to war in 1934 over Austria. These two countries were not on good terms for quite some time, but when Mussolini participated in the Spanish Civil War, when he invaded Ethiopia, he found himself isolated on the continent. France and Great Britain were his biggest critics at the time because of that. Which is ironic because Great Britain and France became powerful and wealthy because of their invading other lands and colonizing them. I think Mussolini realized and recognized the hypocrisy that the western democracies were using against him, and he felt isolated, and the only country that really gave any kind of support at all during these was Nazi Germany. I think he felt that he had no option. Nazi Germany was the bigger military power. It had more potential, as far as that's concerned. So I think he did it to align himself with them, because you have to picture what would happen. If the Italian Fascist met with the Nazis and the Italian Fascists had Jews sitting across the table from Goring and Goebbels and Hitler, it would not have gone down. I don't think it would have functioned at all. I think that's the biggest reason, is because the structure of international relations was changing and he felt he couldn't be isolated. He had to make a decision for one side or the other, and he felt he was making an alliance with the lesser of two evils. Now we know after the war that he made a mistake, but I understand his reasoning at the time.


0:36:57.6 Peter Leyva: So it was basically an alliance out of convenience? His association with Hitler?


0:37:02.6 Joshua Noyer: Yes. He tried to make it work through the racial laws and the anti-Semitic laws, and it was not a pretty attempt. Even their relations during the war wasn't great, I'm convinced that it was more out of necessity than any kind of ideological alliance.


0:37:28.0 Peter Leyva: That's interesting. I swear it's funny. They never really teach you a whole lot about Mussolini elementary and middle school. In fact, I barely heard of him for the first time in high school. We didn't touch on them too much, and I'm like, “Wait, there was another fascist?” Just to hear stuff this, I'm like, “Wow! Mussolini was quite the complex historical figure.”


0:37:51.6 Joshua Noyer: It's sad because you watch some of these documentaries that they show on TV and they may discuss Mussolini for two or three minutes, and the other 57 minutes is dedicated to Hitler. He's really pushed off to the side, but he was really a scholar in a lot of ways. Familiar with the literature at the time and he could write very well, and he influenced a lot of people around the world, and nobody really knows a lot about him. You really have to dig through the sources just to get a good grasp of him. It's sad, but I think that's changing to a large extent. We dedicate a lot of our time to putting in articles on the site and discussing Mussolini and using his quotes. We'll see how it goes, but I think more and more people are becoming more familiar with his work.


0:38:38.5 Peter Leyva: Certainly. Your organization, and we've mentioned this before as well can be accurately described as promoting civic fascism rather than ethnocentric fascism like your Nazi types. The way I first got introduced to you guys was through one of the newer members of the UTEP College Republicans. He doesn’t attend meetings as often. Black guy, no less. He was military. He used to be like an Antifa type of commie before the military kicked him in the ass and straightened him out. He showed me this- I think it might be one of your guys' memes where it showed little caricatures of people with different skin tones. It said something to the effect of it was a top and bottom row, and the top row said “In progressive America: African-American, Mexican-American, Asian-American, yada, yada, yada. In future Fascist America: American, American, American, American.” That caught me by surprise, because I had never known of any civic fascist groups since Mussolini.


0:39:57.8 Joshua Noyer: I think we're unique. I think we're one of a kind to that extent. It's frustrating because a lot of these other groups- I know American Vanguard, TWP- they claim to be fascist and they use the label. Yet their ethnocentrism and their racism could be awfully ugly at times. Here's what I don't get about ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism posits that a racially homogenous society is more unified and more stable. Yet we have a huge problem, especially in Europe when it comes to immigration, with some of these countries accepting millions of millions of immigrants that don't share a common culture or religion or anything else, and it's destabilizing a lot of these countries. Well, you have to ask yourself, “Why does this happen?” You have countries like Sweden, Great Britain, Germany, who are very racially homogenous before this happened starting in the 60s. So if racial homogeneity is that important to a unified society, then why would they let this happen? What I'm positing is that there was no identity here. Liberal-democracy, capitalism destroyed any kind of identity in these countries before they accepted these huge numbers of immigrants. Whereas you have in Southern Europe and Eastern Europe, before this happened you had more racial genetic diversity, you had more heterogeneous populations with different groups of people, and yet they withstood what we would call a cultural Marxism or this immigration, long before Northern Europeans did. So using the logic of ethnocentrists, then more racial diversity, more genetic diversity, would lead to a more unified country. Now, obviously, I don't believe that's true either way, but even a country like Russia, which is 10% Muslim, you have only a fraction of the number of problems over there than you have even here or in Western Europe. Now if you look at that, you have to think, “Is it race that's an issue, or is it the State?”


0:42:17.2 Peter Leyva: Someone from the alt-right, would point to somewhere like Japan though and say that they're fairly monoracial and monocultural.


0:42:27.3 Joshua Noyer: That's true and they have a declining population and they're having trouble filling occupations in that country because they don't have the people anymore. Some of the worst degeneracy you will see around the world takes place in Japan. It's possibly just a matter of time before they start accepting immigrants, too, but we'll see. Again, I don't think when we're talking about unification, racial homogeneity plays a huge role because you could take examples of it working and you could take examples of it not working.


0:43:09.9 Peter Leyva: You could say it's situational, but your argument would be that there have been multiracial and multicultural societies that have indeed long endured.


0:43:33.3 Joshua Noyer: Let's take a look at Russia for a second, because I know the alt-right loves to bring up Russia, Russia has a heavy concentration of Asians in their country. They have a lot of genetic mixture between the Asians and the white population. They have a lot of Muslims. Yet this is the most nationalist country that you'll find in that part of the world. So using the logic of the alt-right, then, the genetic diversity within Russia is the reason why they're strong. Again, I don't believe that. I believe it's more of a State issue and how strong your government is and the policies that it enacts that could tell whether you're united or not.


0:44:16.6 Peter Leyva: I have to look more into that because that’s not a perspective I hear most people talking about. Even a lot of civic nationalists have some limits to how multiracial society must be. Unless, of course, we're talking to progressive left, they're generally the only purveyors of the idea that race doesn't matter and doesn't affect social cohesion. So that's something I'd have to look more into.


0:44:49.0 Joshua Noyer: Don’t get me wrong, we don't favor unlimited amounts of immigration to the United States. One of the fundamentals of any nation is that people who have a shared history and an outlook on life, a shared culture, and the more immigrants you accept anywhere in the world that starts to break down. So one thing we favor prohibiting immigration from anywhere. A zero-immigration policy, because we need to start in this country, forming it back into a nation where people share that history, they share that outlook on life. So a lot of people have that mistaken assumption on us that we favor anything goes, that the demographics aren't important at all. Well, it does have some importance because not really in itself, but it correlates with other issues, like a shared history and culture, that are important and help form the nation.


0:45:46.4 Peter Leyva: So as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, maybe I'm using some very normie terms to describe this, but the way I had come to understand fascism is that it was basically created by tweaking socialism to have a different collective and not try to go full-blown commie. We mentioned instead of pitting economic classes against each other, it's the nation-state versus outsiders- strength in unity, and that by stirring up national pride. That's how you can get mass cooperation going. And when I say socialism, I'm basically thinking like 1960s-1970s, like European State socialism. Is that a fairly accurate description?


0:46:32.7 Joshua Noyer: I think there’s an element of truth to that, but I wouldn’t go the whole way because while nationalist rhetoric and populism did play a role with Mussolini and fascism, if you read some of the works by people like Rocco and Gentile, what was much more important in revolutionizing these countries was law and institutions itself. Something like the Corporate State, which affected productive relations throughout the whole country. So they were talking about millions of interactions on a daily basis. Things like the youth camps for children, the Dopolavoro program, which was a leisure program for people, and all of these affected everybody's daily lives in a number of ways. Fascist ideology attributes a lot more of the change that comes about in people, a lot more revolutionizing material, to these institutions, to these laws, and not so much the rhetoric. I mean, the rhetoric played a role, but it was always secondary to the institutions.


0:47:36.7 Peter Leyva: So the nationalism might have been a little over-played.


0:47:42.9 Joshua Noyer: It looked good on TV, Mussolini with his arms at the hips, chest stuck out. It played well with the people, but it was always secondary to the laws.


0:47:56.2 Peter Leyva: Was I accurate in describing the economic system as being somewhat socialistic? Given how corporatism necessitates the State appropriating some entire companies, if not some entire industries.


0:48:13.4 Joshua Noyer: It's not ideal. Typically, corporatism is a cooperative framework where workers and owners manage the company cooperatively and the State acts as an arbitrator or it gives guidance and a role to what’s called corporations, these occupational groups. Actual state ownership was not something that was preferred, but what happened from time to time. There's different kinds of socialism, too. There’s some similarity there.


0:48:50.3 Peter Leyva: I ask that because I have interviewed a national socialist before. It was, interestingly enough, one of Isaacs friends. Imagine that. A national socialist being friends with a brown person, somehow that works. He was the full nine yards, he admired Hitler, distrusted the Jews full-on 1488, doesn't like race mixing. I had talked to him prior in that interview once before, and I had asked him, “National socialists don't like communists, they don't like Marxists. Then how could they be socialist?” I'm no expert on socialism, like non-Marxist versions of socialism, but I do know that they exist. It is a really weird conundrum because when you think socialism, you think Karl Marx. You don't think Nazis, you don't think Mussolini; you think Stalin, you think Mao Tse-tung, you think Che Guevara, you think Pol Pot and so forth. Are there economic differences? I know in your manifesto you did distinguish between national socialist and fascist. Economically, are there any particular differences between the two?


0:50:14.3 Joshua Noyer: The corporatism is central to fascism. I don't think you can call yourself a fascist unless you believe in corporatism. That's how important it was and it dominated the literature for a long time. National socialists, from what I know, they don't have a set economic philosophy. Whatever works for the race, for the nation, is whatever ideology they'll adapt. It's one thing that turns me off about them, because economics does play a role. Economics affects everything else. You just can't have a haphazard economic philosophy and say whatever is good for the nation is good for everything else because laws are intricate. They effect everybody's daily lives on so many levels, so you have to have an articulated, elaborate economic philosophy to use. National Socialism really didn't have that. They adopted certain parts of corporatism into their State structure, but it was always secondary. It never had the role that was played in Fascist Italy.


0:51:22.8 Peter Leyva: To veer away from economics a bit. This one I found really interesting going through the manifesto that you guys wanted to make Christianity the official religion of the State. That caught my eye. I'm a Christian myself. I'm not a fan of theocracy or religion playing to huge role in government, but I'm interested to hear you go into more depth about that. Why Christianity and how much of an influence will the church have in politics in any sort of direct sense if your movement achieve its goals?


0:51:58.4 Joshua Noyer: This is a tricky issue because when you tell people that you favor breaking down the wall separating church and State, they get the wrong idea. They're picturing a Christian version of Iran or a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. That's not the direction we want to go at all, because, just like fascism, we want people to accept Christianity on their own accord. If you use force, if you use fear to get anybody to believe, then as soon as that force, as soon as that fear is gone, then so is any adherence to the ideology or religion. What we want to do is acknowledge that Christianity is traditional in America and in the West, and it's one of the more positive aspects of American history and culture. We want to recognize those ideals inherent in Christianity, which are shared between the major faiths, the Protestant sects, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and take those ideas which they hold in common and lay those out as the foundation of our laws and our institutions, and bring them back into the public sphere. Get people talking about them again and make it part of who we are. I think we've seen what happens when we take religion out of the public sphere here in the United States and go with a secular government. A lot of the degeneracy we see a lot of the decay we see on a national scale, I think is due to that. What we want to do is integrate those ideals back into the government and make them public again.


0:53:31.9 Peter Leyva: Is it fair to make the comparison that Hitler didn't like Jews, but he didn't quite like Christians either? What Hitler did to try to fill the moral vacuum, didn’t he try some sort of weird Neo-paganism or something?


0:53:50.9 Joshua Noyer: They started the Reich Church, I think it is, which was kind of a combination between pagan ideals and Christian ideals, which would be more suited to national socialist philosophy. I don't know a whole lot about it, but I have come across it in a couple of writings. I don't think he was a Christian. I think he was hostile to the religion. There's some quotes going around that he says he was. Well, maybe he was to the extent that Bill Clinton was or Barack Obama. It was politically something you had to do, but I don't think he was at all. I think if the Axis would have won the war, Christianity would have probably disappeared in Germany within a couple of generations.


0:54:45.6 Peter Leyva: It would have been next on the chopping block. I did a report on pre-Nazi Germany, pre-World War II Germany, the rise of the Nazis. One thing I have found is that apparently something Hitler did to outright destabilize the churches, namely the conflicting Protestant and Catholic factions, is that he would do little sinister things, like appoint Protestant teachers at Catholic schools, or Catholic teachers at Protestant schools and get things to go into total disarray. I haven't looked into that in years- I just remember that was one big thing I found in my research. I'm like, “Wow!” Not only did he not like Jews, but he didn't like Christians either.


0:55:34.0 Joshua Noyer: That's interesting. I should look into that because I'm not too familiar with that at all, but that wouldn't surprise me.


0:55:43 Peter Leyva: Since Christianity is what you would center, at least the morals that the government would advocate for, I take it you'd be discouraging of things like homosexuality, premarital sex, drug use, etcetera.


0:56:00 Joshua Noyer: As far as homosexuality is concerned, yeah, because we hold the traditional family as being essential, being a foundational unit of the Nation and the State. So for us to allow homosexual marriage and give it support through State sanction and say that this alternative is acceptable, we're undermining our support for the traditional family. We wouldn't allow a homosexual marriage under any circumstances. If they want to live their life in private and do what they do, that's fine, but as a public issue, it would be discouraged. Things like premarital sex, that's a tough one. I don't think you can create a law prohibiting that.


0:56:53.2 Peter Leyva: Maybe not law, but socially discouraged, social shame because it's amazing how powerful social shame can be.


0:56:59.8 Joshua Noyer: Of course, that would be essential. Drug abuse too. We favor recriminalizing marijuana in a lot of states, I know it's legal, even out here. There's no public rationale for having it legal at all. It's a dangerous, mind-affecting drug. We'll see. That one, it's going to be tough because so many people now engage in marijuana use. Again, it's part of classical liberal ideology that says the State can only engage in protecting property, life, and contract. Where does it come in when you want to criminalize drugs? That’s the problem we’re seeing in society today. People have a hard time living with these conflicting ideals in their head. I feel with drugs, it's probably going to get worse. We’re probably going to see legalization of even harder drugs within the next 10 to 20 years because it's not consistent outlawing drugs when you hold a view of politics, which says that the State is only there to protect liberty and people basically should be free to do whatever they want.


0:58:16.0 Peter Leyva: One thing that people might take objection to, with applying Christianity to fascism, is that, especially nowadays people attribute the rise of capitalism to Protestant Christianity and the fact that it was revolutionary in defying centralized church authority, and that it ultimately culminated in the American Revolution, which was the final defiance against monarchy. To say that, “Hey, we answer to God for ourselves only by the work of our hands, shall we eat, shall we be safe, shall we enjoy life.” Might this be a bit of a snag? I could see this potentially working with Catholics and Orthodox and what have you, but a Protestant question. Have you ever given that much thought?


0:59:09.7 Joshua Noyer: I have, I wrote an article about this a few months ago. First of all, Catholics and Orthodox, we do very well with. We have a lot of members from the Catholic Church. Protestants, it’s going to be difficult, but I think even Protestants, they have to realize that they have to have a different political ideology. Look what happened in states like Indiana and North Carolina when they try to implement some pro-family laws dealing with transgenderism and homosexuality. Who were the first to threaten them to pull money out of state? Corporations, businesses. Yet Protestants hold this fixation with capitalism and classical liberal ideology, and it doesn't make any sense. They care about things like abortion, gay rights, the family, yet they think that those are going to become stronger with the government staying out of those issues, with supply and demand, with the market dictating those values. I think they'll come around eventually; it's just that they have to recognize that things aren't working the way they are, and an alternative is needed, and the State can actually be used for useful purposes. It can be used to buttress the family- take a lot of this smut and degeneracy we see on television and the media off the air. They're going to realize, because a lot of the decline in religion and church attendance we see here in the United States, it's connected to our overall social context and social conditions. You can't separate the two, and they're going to have to come to a decision one day. Do we let things keep getting this bad, or are we going to go a different direction?


1:00:58.4 Peter Leyva: That's interesting. Being a Protestant myself would retort that with, “Okay, we've allowed ourselves to grow complacent. We as the Protestant church used to be big on socially shaming people, so the government wasn't required to get people to stop doing things.” Is that founded in any sort of reality in your book? Is it fair to say that the church has merely grown complacent and become too scared of offending anyone?


1:01:38.5 Joshua Noyer: I don't think that's the issue. Even if it goes back to shaming people and trying to take a more public role like that, how are they going to get things like Family Guy off the air or some of the smut we see on television? There's a market there. That's why the shows like that thrive and that undermines the church's message on a constant daily basis, and no amount of shaming is going to take care of that. What you need is the State to come in and regulate what you have on the air waves, or else we're going to continue seeing everything go down to the lowest common denominator like we have now.


1:02:15.5 Peter Leyva: The last one pertaining specifically to Christianity here is, since fascists are advocates of the Corporatist State, I'm guessing there's some provision for welfare or a social safety nets present. Am I wrong in assuming that?


1:02:40.7 Joshua Noyer: It would be there. I don't think it would be as needed as it is today because a lot of the problems you see in today's economy is wages. For the longest time haven't been keeping pace with inflation, and living standards have continuously gone down. A lot of people I know, the mother would like to stay at home and raise the kids, but financially, in a lot of places in the country, that's just not doable anymore. The good thing about the Corporate State is the shared management of these companies, so you won't have all the excess of wealth and profits go just into ownership. It would be more evenly distributed between ownership and employees, so you wouldn't have this problem with wages not keeping pace with inflation. You'd have wages going up. That's the secret to any economy is the demand side, to have consumers that are able to purchase the goods that are made in the country. There would always be provisions for welfare and social insurance and things like that, but I don't think they'd have a very big place.


1:03:45.3 Peter Leyva: The protestant work ethic, I guess, classically liberal response to that would be that shouldn't the aiding of the poor and downtrodden of society be a matter of more private charity out of the goodness people's hearts instead of forcing someone else to pay for the function of the State doing that with their tax dollars. Hasn't it been shown time and time again that the federal government is absolutely inept at putting money, time, and effort into things properly, efficiently, and in any sort of timely manner? I use the example of the post office or that whole Solyndra fiasco under Obama.


1:04:23.9 Joshua Noyer: I think it works good when you have public and private cooperating. I'll take the Medicaid program, for instance. I think it works fairly well when you have private doctors who accept Medicaid and take care of a lot of those patients. It helps a lot of people with medical procedures that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. Especially with the economy, how it is today, like I just said, inflation and wages not keeping up, I don't think private resources can cover all the social welfare and insurance needs that a society needs. As far as describing a redistribution of wealth as forcible taking of wages, that's questioning the basis of society. Any kind of society that you have, you're going to have the wealthy paying, at least to a certain extent, more than you will have middle-class or lower-class people. You won't have enough money for roads, transportation, public education if we have some kind of tax system which taxes everybody equally. If we do that, then a lot of the infrastructure that the rich need to support their wealth or get more wealthy is going to disappear, and they're not going to have that wealth anymore. They have a lot more to lose in this society if things crumble and things get destroyed.


1:05:52.9 Peter Leyva: The best way I heard the flat tax put forward is that basically, if you make below a certain amount, you don't have to pay any that way it doesn't cause undue financial burden.


1:06:05.4 Joshua Noyer: That's true. Part of the effectiveness of the flat tax or ineffectiveness, would be the specifics and how many people get taxed and at what rate they get taxed. I’ve heard all kinds of ideas on what kind of rate. I think how the system that we have now of a graduated income tax, is probably more effective. The one problem with it is that there's too many holes in it, and a lot of people don't pay anything at all.


1:06:33.1 Peter Leyva: It's what the progressives love to call the loopholes, which are written into the actual page, hence why the rich hire professional lawyers who know what the hell all these thousands of pages worth of regulations actually mean.


1:06:49.9 Joshua Noyer: The present system is completely corrupt as it is. I don't doubt that. I think a graduated income tax would work pretty well, but you have to have safeguards against the abuses that we see now. These safeguards, just at the moment, don't exist. So you have a lot of wealthy people paying 13%-14% rate, which is a lot lower than you have the middle class paying. It's ridiculous. It's part of the problem with the democratic State that we have now. It allows interest groups too much influence and control of policy.


1:07:25.2 Peter Leyva: I guess that also ties in with why fascists don't like workers unions either. At least, not particularly from what I've read and from what I've heard, fascists also don't particularly like workers unions.


1:07:40 Joshua Noyer: If it's part of an evolution towards corporatism, I can see that. I don't mind workers unions. The one problem I have with workers unions, especially how they manifest nowadays, is they're not really concerned with the industry as a whole. They'll defend workers who are lazy, who steal and shouldn't have a job at all. Workers unions, their main concern should be the welfare of whatever industry they're working in, because, in the long run, that's the life blood. That's what's going to give them employment and support. When you talk about the origination of unions, I think they were a need at the time when they originated, probably 19th century, because there was a lot of abuses connected with capitalism that needed to be addressed. That's one reason why corporatism came about as a popular alternative at the time, and unions were viewed as possibly a stepping stone to corporatism. I think they have a use, but like everything else in this society have become corrupt over time.


1:08:49.2 Peter Leyva: I very much agree that I think unions, pretty much they had their place for the most part in history, but nowadays, are almost entirely useless. Especially with their functionality. I distinctly remember a couple of summers ago we were on vacation in Los Angeles. We were at a grocery store or something, and the bathroom was in the back where the employee's stuff was, where all the inventory was, too. We had to use the employee bathrooms. I remember looking at five bulletin boards worth of paper after paper talking about the union meetings next week. Know your worker's rights. You deserve this. You deserve that. I'm like, “This is a part-time job at a damn grocery store. Why in the hell would any worker here have this much paperwork to have to worry about?” I love living in Texas.


1:09:49 Joshua Noyer: California is a hot mess too.


1:09:53 Peter Leyva: As a gross understatement. We don’t call it Commiefornia for nothing.


1:09:59 Joshua Noyer: It's becoming that. It's getting pretty bad.


1:10:02 Peter Leyva: A couple of months ago, they struck down a regulation that had been in place since the ‘50s, preventing people from the Communist Party running for office. I don't know how many commies that did stop, but just symbolically that's got a signal that yet another death knell for Cali.


1:10:23.1 Joshua Noyer: I assume quite a few state office holders out here are either members or have been in the past, or are sympathetic with them. The symbolism behind that is pretty scary.


1:10:35.9 Peter Leyva: This one is going to be an interesting subject here. Your movement, being a civic fascist movement, rejects what you call scientific racism there as being nothing more than a divisive force that drives people apart. This is mainly on YouTube. It has yet to bleed out in a lot of popular culture because of how tiny the Overton window is. What are your thoughts on the fact that a lot of center-left and center-right YouTubers and journalists, culture warriors, I guess you could say, are gradually accepting race realism, with books like The Bell Curve being cited as proof. I ask this as a recently converted race realist myself. Yes, I'm Hispanic. Yes, if we alt-right got power, I could very well go bye-bye real fast, but as somebody has studied biology and has an appreciation for it, hearing the debate take place online, I just had to ultimately follow with their conclusion that things like intelligence, similar to immunology, biochemistry, and general strength, etcetera, is largely, if not entirely genetic. What are your thoughts on race realism?


1:12:03.6 Joshua Noyer: I think when we’re talking about the gene or environment argument, genes do play a role. I'm not going to completely deny that. I don't think they play a large role, and I'll give you a few examples. We have a country like Great Britain, who has a lot of immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean. Those immigrants do almost as well as the natives in Great Britain when you have an IQ test and standardized testing. That really doesn't follow from the model because what The Bell Curve is saying is that race is largely something inherited. That there's a difference there between whites and blacks that can't be overcome because of genetics. The fact that these immigrants that come to the United States from Africa and the Caribbean do better on standardized testing and IQ tests than black people who were from the United States.


1:13:03 Peter Leyva: Nigerians especially.


1:13:04 Joshua Noyer: It doesn't make any sense. That shouldn't exist because you have most black people here in the United States that we're born here have a 10 - 25% white admixture, so that white admixture, if the geneticists are correct, should lead to higher testing scores from black Americans. You also have evidence in 1995, the mean IQ score for blacks was equal to the white mean IQ score in 1945. When we're talking about race and genetics, race is not an immutable concept; it’s not something that stays the same over time. It’s constantly evolving. It's constantly changing. These IQ test scores among demographic groups evolved and changed throughout time, so it's not something that stays static, so there is an environmental role there. You look at something like, you mentioned sports. Well, black Americans do a lot better in sports and strength activities than black Africans do. I think a lot of that has to do with the institution of slavery and how a lot of the blacks who were weaker and could not work in the fields died off, and the strong one survived and had children. So they became strong, too. That just proves that this idea of race is something that constantly changes and something that constantly evolved. I don't deny that there's a role for genetics, I just don't think you can attribute as much as a lot of people want to.


1:14:45.0 Peter Leyva: That is very much my view because when people hear race realism, they often mistake what it means in that they think it means biological determinism. Now you will get your people in the alt-right who are actual biological determinists. Which is absolutely idiotic. This idea that genes build cultures and civilizations and the environment has zero impact. I don't believe in people as a tabula rasa, blank slate. I do think people have inherent strengths and weaknesses that genetics does play a large role in, but I'm not a determinist. Yes, you are absolutely correct that IQ and intelligence does change over time. Go look at the times of Plato and Socrates. The reputation of British people, the Britains, the Celts, whatever the hell you call them back then, was that they were absolute idiots. Whereas now, they have significantly higher IQs on average. The Bell Curve is not proposing biological determinism; it simply proposes the average. When you really think about it, a lot of the immigrants who do come over here and find themselves successful, they do tend to be of higher IQ. So what does that say about all the people left behind back home in their home countries? That maybe it's only that the smart ones came here. It's not saying that there can ever be black super geniuses like Neil deGrasse Tyson, etcetera. It's just proposing that you could expect to see them less often.


1:16:24.6 Joshua Noyer: But I also think the fact that so many immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean do well on an IQ test deconstructs that view that IQ is largely racial and immutable. I'm just curious with people who advocate this, why? What's the end view? Are they looking to segregate people based upon race because they feel some groups have a higher genetic threshold than others? That's what I don't get about this debate. Let me play devil's advocate, even if it's true that IQ is largely genetically based. Okay, so what? Are we not going to educate people of other races?


1:17:12.4 Peter Leyva: That is the problem with the alt-right. They don't seem to know what to do with this information, either. There are plenty of people who try to use it to argue for segregation, if not outright eugenics or massacres. But the thing they don't understand is, first of all, anyone who's honest with themselves would say “No, whites are not the highest average IQ. Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians are the highest average IQ.” So it would protect them anyway if they were looking for supremacy of any sort. Two, information is just that, it's raw power. It can be used for good things and it can be used for bad things. Let's say you got Marxists on board with race realism- what would they try to do? They'd be like, “Oh, okay. So some people have higher IQs than others. It's largely genetic that might be explained why this X group oppresses Y group. Let's engage in a process of watering down their gene pool.” This whole idea that race realism is some silver bullet, it's like you said, it's absolutely ridiculous. It's just plain, straight-up facts. The way I've thought about it is, what could be done with this information is to stop trying to standardize education as much as people have tried it for years, because some people just have different learning patterns completely than others. Especially regionally, racially, sometimes culturally. It's one of those things that education is not something that can be standardized very well. No matter how hard we try. We can teach kids concepts, but the way we do it has to be dynamic. You know what I mean?


1:19:01.0 Joshua Noyer: I don't disagree with that at all. It's one of the downfalls of our education system- a one-size-fits-all when that doesn't really reflect reality. I know what you mean. Even something like sports. I got a question. They largely bring up the fact that black athletes are better genetically and so... Okay, so what's your point? Are you going to prevent people like Larry Byrd from ever playing in the NBA. It's a weird debate, it has to be addressed because like you said, it's gaining steam in certain circles. I just don't want to see it get too much play, because the problem with race, if race is immutable, if, like you said, biological determinism is a thing that doesn't leave any place for the will. That doesn't leave any place for passion. It leaves all of that stuff out, which is so essential to who we are as human beings.


1:20:00 Peter Leyva: Exactly, it's funny because the alt-right in trying to be anti-Marxists end up doing the exact same thing that Stalin did. I guess mirror image of what Stalin did. Which is to say, to just de-humanize everyone. Say that no one really has any sort of free will, any sort of agency. Whereas Stalin said, everything is socially constructed and can therefore be deconstructed and reconstructed. The alt-right says, no, people are irredeemable in their current state, not because of society, but because of biology. It's ironic- I know it's ‘muh horseshoe theory’ and whatnot, but it is interesting to see mirror-image behavior over something that's supposed to be the silver bullet against egalitarianism and in favor of meritocracy.


1:20:57 Joshua Noyer: The alt-right is a complete mess. I liked them when they first came out because they introduced me to people like Alain de Benoist and some of these European philosophers, but it's become basically a more articulate version of the Klan and some of these old-line white nationalist groups. It's really lost any effectiveness it might have had before.


1:21:21.2 Peter Leyva: It's effectiveness might be debatable because whereas it may not be gaining too much traction here in America, it does seem to be gaining quite a bit in Europe where they've seen the policies of the progressive left much more hard hitting, much more radical. It's to the point where you have neo-fascist groups like Golden Dawn rising in Greece as a response to the insane Marxism that’s ruined Greece.


1:21:53.1 Joshua Noyer: That's true, but a lot of these European groups are a lot more articulate and they form their ideology a lot better than the alt-right groups here in the United States. It's really a different animal over there than it is here.


1:22:05.8 Peter Leyva: It is certainly more articulate over there, and whereas in America, most of the alt-right seem to be fascist, national socialists, in Europe is where you get your monarchists or your religious authoritarian and even neo-bolsheviks.


1:22:22.2 Joshua Noyer: That's true. It's an actual thing over there, unlike the few isolated individuals here who pretend to take after them.


1:22:32.6 Peter Leyva: Do you have any thoughts on the Jewish question at all?


1:22:41.8 Joshua Noyer: In general, I think by itself, it's a waste because it shouldn't be an issue, but I've seen it seep up from the underground and become more of a thing lately. We have the Republican politician in Wisconsin, Paul Nalin, who is really trying to play this angle, and I just don't get it, because when you look back at a lot of the problems with the modern world, a lot of the enlightenment philosophers who gave us the issues that we face today, like John Locke, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Grotius, none of these people were Jews. None and the greatest bastion of liberal democracy the world has ever seen is the United States. How many of our founding fathers were Jews? None. I realized that Jews are over-represented in certain industries like entertainment and banking and things like that, but the idea that if they somehow disappeared or left, we'd all be hunky-dory and not have any problems doesn't really address reality at all because we have a system, we have a governing ideology which allows abuses of power and wealth to have an influence on how we live our lives. If the Jews aren't doing it, then another group will, so I've never really understood the Jewish question at all, because it doesn't make a lot of sense. But unfortunately, it's something that's becoming more popular with certain people, so we have to address it, and we have started doing that on a more consistent basis.


1:24:28.4 Peter Leyva: I'm not a conspiratorial person by any means, but I have pieced together a few things concerning it, and I can say, as far as I'm concerned, there is some truth to it, but I call it largely circumstantial. A lot of it is the fact that Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQs in the world, hence the fact that they're all crazy rich and successful, for the most part. Culturally, yes, they have an extremely good work ethic. I have never met a single Jewish person in my life who wasn't insanely smart and insanely disciplined and because of those things, they're really good at things like the arts and finances. I'm no psychology expert, but I know that there's different kinds of intelligences, too. And that there's a certain kind of intelligence more common to the Jewish community than, say, the East Asians, because notice that you see the East Asians a lot more in STEM subjects, science, technology, engineering, math. Whereas you see Jewish people more often in media and arts.


1:25:43.7 Joshua Noyer: That's true, but the whole Jewish question is the idea that the problems we face in the modern world are the result of Jewish subversion of our political and economic system. That's a very simplistic idea because it assumes that the abuses inherent in the system are because Jews are over-represented in it, and I don't believe it because it doesn't fit.


1:26:11.5 Peter Leyva: Yeah, so it's which came first chicken or the egg basically. It just so happens that, in your view, the system was already ripe for abuse and that the people who happen to rise to the top are possibly abusing it, if any at all. It is a very hard thing to pin down because, again, I'm a Christian, I'm pro-Israel, I love Jews, I see them as God's people. One thing that really got me thinking was, ironically, one of Ben Shapiro’s videos where he was talking about why are Jews so monolithically leftist, and it has to do with the fact that, at least in America, they're the least “religious” religious group of all. Most of them abandoned Judaism or don't practice at any serious regard, but then add the atheism, plus the intelligence, plus the work ethic that leads to materialism and you wonder why so many of the great historical commies were all Jewish. Karl Marx was a Jew, Lennon was a Jew, Trotsky was a Jew, George Soros is a Jew, so on and so forth. I see it more as a perfect storm of things colliding with each other by happenstance, but not nearly as prevalent or nefarious as a lot of your white nationalists try to make it out to be.


1:27:42.9 Joshua Noyer: Not all the communists were Jews, a lot of them were. That is certainly true. But also, in a country like Italy, up to a third of the Jewish population were members of the Fascist Party, so there's no uniformity to this idea at all. Yeah, Karl Marx was a Jew, Trotsky was a Jew. A lot of them were. But that's assuming that if they weren't there to organize the communist parties and to go through these revolutions, that they wouldn't have happened. I don't believe that because I believe ideologies influence human behavior and how events unfurl more than the conspiracy theory about the Jews.


1:28:33.7 Peter Leyva: That's interesting, you heard it here folks a fascist who doesn't believe in the Jewish question. Isn't that revolutionary?


1:28:39.3 Joshua Noyer: We get a lot of flack for that. We're probably the only fascist organization that takes that view.


1:28:46.8 Peter Leyva: That's why I wanted to talk to you guys so badly. I thought that basically all fascists post-World War II were Hitler style, not Mussolini style. So, that being said, how does your movement seek to unite the disparate conservative and progressive factions in working towards a common goal? I guess this is a marketing question more than anything to the broader public.


1:29:14.4 Joshua Noyer: By appealing to their better natures. I think whether you're on the left or the right, you want the same thing. You want to get married, you want to have children, you want a better life for your kids. I think most people across the political spectrum realize that a lot of times it's subconscious, but they realize that there's something wrong with the society that we live in. There's something wrong with politics and they can't pinpoint it. So what we have to do is to better articulate our message and get it out there. I think we have aspects of our message that can appeal to both left and right, with corporatism especially, and the social issues, and the role of the State. It's just a matter of getting the message out to people. That's very difficult because we're not some of the more racially-oriented groups that get a lot of press coverage and a lot of attention, but we're growing at hundreds of members nationwide. Our movement's getting stronger, and I have no doubt eventually we'll make that breakthrough.


1:30:20.7 Peter Leyva: There you go. It's certainly fairly optimistic. Something a lot of people don't seem to know is that people who are not socially traditionalist don't have as many children as conservatives. Take the social justice left, they buy cats, they don't have children. They let their ovaries dry up. They are literally creating a version of humanity that cannot sustain itself and that will not breed or succeed into the future. Even fairly normal leftists don't have as many kids as conservatives. I think it's no small thing to bring up the fact that Generation Z- anyone born between ‘95 and 2010 is the most conservative generation since the ‘30s. These are kids who have grown up in divorced households, in day care; their parents give them a tablet, and they're sick of it. They're sick of the nihilism and they're turning back towards social traditionalism.


1:31:26.5 Joshua Noyer: You bring up a good point. When a lot of the people on the left do have children, the theory goes that they've become more conservative.


1:31:38 Peter Leyva: Some do, but even if they don’t the left is having less children anyway.


1:31:45 Joshua Noyer: Obviously, those that don't have children and families, probably a lot of them will never come over to our side. I think having children, I speak from personal experience, is something transformative in a person's life. It helps you to view the world in a much different way. It gives you a different perspective. That's what's telling. That's what's going to be our trump card. People are sick of the current system and how it plays out, and they're looking for alternatives. We just have to get our voice out there and get better known because the other groups that claim to be fascist are purely toxic. It does have an effect on our recruiting and how we do, but we have to be more effective at getting our message out.


1:32:35.7 Peter Leyva: Who knows, with the very traditionalist younger generation, you might have a little bit of luck there.


1:32:41.7 Joshua Noyer: Most of our members are in college, so we are doing pretty well with the younger generation.


1:32:51.2 Peter Leyva: Sounds about right. So I guess one of the second last of the serious questions, where do you see the modern West heading in its battle against the deadly forces of globalism and multiculturalism? As it stands now?


1:33:10.9 Joshua Noyer: I see a sliver of hope, but it's going to be tough because we're trying to overcome 400 years of liberal democracy and Enlightenment thought, and it's not something that could be done overnight. What's so toxic about the system we live in now is that people tend to embrace their chains. As long as they have their big-screen TV, their cars, their houses, they don't care about anything else that's going on. That's reflected in a lot of elections you have overseas. I know a few days ago we had elections in Italy, and you have Casa Pound out there, which I know a lot of people in Italy support, even though they may not publicly come out for it, get only 1% of the vote. While it’s a big improvement over past elections, it's still tough to fathom. People are going to embrace it, and even to the group like the Falange in Spain, which is Jose Antonio’s child, barely registers on any elections at all. So people who, even though they're so sick of this system, they still tend to embrace it. It's going to be tough to overcome.


1:34:26.3 Peter Leyva: It's one of those things where I've listened to a more, I guess, formerly alt-right, but sort of still associates with them, YouTuber [inaudible 1:34:38], he’s done really good videos on how dangerous hyper-individualism can be. This being the big reason that what does hyper-individualism lead to? It leads to this attitude of why should I care about anything if I can feel like it doesn't affect me.


1:34:59.4 Joshua Noyer: Is his theory that it's getting more prevalent?


1:35:03.4 Peter Leyva: His view is that it is insanely prevalent. You don't need to look much farther than, like you said, the low voting turnout. You think they're bad here in America or even worse in Europe.


1:35:18.3 Joshua Noyer: It's a whole cultural issue, it's a social problem, political problem that needs to be overcome, and it's structurally, it's in us, and we have to change the way people think and act. It's going to be hard because a lot of the problems exist in the mind. It's not something you could just dig out of there. It takes perseverance.


1:35:45.4 Peter Leyva: It very much does. I mean, there is a value to collectivism, even though I don't consider myself very collectivistic. I do believe that I am a Western chauvinist. I do believe that the West has a definitive culture that needs to be preserved. That a complacent populist is one of the worst things for that imaginable because it only allows for outsiders to subvert us or even traitors from within. I have a somewhat controversial opinion, I'm not going to lie, and this is more recent, that until cultural Marxism is destroyed, I very much feel, and breaks my heart being a Hispanic living here on the border and living around other Hispanics, I have this belief that I think America and Europe for the time being, should stay majority white, because I see the hatred in the eyes of these racial minorities. It's already hard enough for some people to assimilate into this country as is, but with the progressive left and Marxists constantly whipping these people up in a frenzy, saying you have to hate the white man. You have to hate all things Western, all things traditional, all things capitalistic, all things whatever. You must destroy and subvert these countries from within. You must topple them and make the white men pay. Only then will you be free. I've almost begun to lose faith in civic nationalism, I'm not going to lie.


1:37:30.5 Joshua Noyer: What would be your alternative? What would you do about it?


1:37:35.3 Peter Leyva: My big thing is enforce the borders first and foremost. We don't need to be taking anyone from anywhere. We have enough of our own people to worry about. Secondly, and this is something I don't know why the alt-right doesn't talk about more- why don’t people just have more babies if they're scared of white populations dipping? I don't get it. It's silly how they missed something that obvious, and that's coming from someone who's not alt-right. Myself, I could never get on board with any of their solutions. They're awful. Then my big thing is cultural shaming, that's my big thing. I think that we in the West have grown so obsessively terrified over not offending anyone that we don't dare to criticize people. That's no deadlier than people refusing to adopt an American way of life because, I'm sorry, living here, having a passport, and paying taxes, in my opinion, doesn't make someone in America. You have to live by our values, you have to salute our flag, hold our way of life as superior.


1:38:54.2 Joshua Noyer: Why don't you adopt fascism? Here's the problem, it's that liberal democracy accepts what you're talking about. It says that certain things are just a by-product of society, and that's something that we have to live with it. It probably says that you can have these different groups in conflict and you're going to have a certain degree of what you're talking about in these college campuses. As a fascist, we don't accept that because the community, the nation and the State are the expression of the individual. We don't accept that these abuses can happen. I hear what you're saying. A lot of the problem with white population decline, a lot of that is partly it's economic in nature, that people cannot afford anymore to have large families to a certain extent. The mother can't stay at home with the children because she has to work and you have to have a two-income family. A lot of it is just the general decline of morals and values that we see in society today. People want to go out and party, they want to get drunk, they want to have fun and they see having a family as being incompatible with that.


1:40:15.9 Peter Leyva: Not only that, but I'd argue that the sexual revolution was one of the worst things to ever happen because it absolutely destroyed the concept of the centrality of the family. The fact that it's no accident that when you have sex, you make babies. That is not a by-product. Even then getting married, if you really think about it, this is where a lot of my Christian perspective plays in, getting married isn't about you and your wife. How heartless of me I know. No, it's about you having children and creating the next decent generation of your country. There is a certain obligation to marriage. I'm not scared to step on anyone's toes about that anymore. My big thing is that patriotic Westerners in general just need to start having more kids. This is one of the ways in which I diverge from you is that rather than the State, my big thing is social shame, because, for one thing, it's free. Second of all, you can't make shaming someone illegal, so that means it's completely inescapable. Third, it doesn't have to necessitate any sort of force. Let's take obesity for example- the number one reason why people decide to start losing weight is because of social pressures. People can be guided and molded. This is a bit of a hyperbole, but without having to point the metaphorical gun at their head. You know what I mean?


1:41:56.7 Joshua Noyer: I do, I just think we’re too far down that road where, when we're talking about values and morals, public shaming would actually be effective. You'd have most people opposed to you. I don't see it happening without the force of the State, because the marketplace, supply and demand, those things, they don't work because they’re valueless, they're not moral, they're not ethical and the State is. Not the one we currently live under. The State as an institution in itself is. I think that's where we diverge, because I think as a society, we're past that point.


1:42:54.5 Peter Leyva: I have heard arguments from non-fascist, but are still conservative, that they prepose of sort of a weird middle ground of that. Which is that for the longest time, even if governments didn't outright legalize or illegalize behaviors, governments at the local, state, and federal levels would still encourage good behaviors. Would actually speak from their positions of power and say, “Hey, my fellow... inset the name of my city, name of my state, or insert my fellow countrymen here, let us be clean. Let us be decent.” That is something I could get behind because it wouldn’t involve policy or force, but rather someone using their position of influence for good.


1:43:49.1 Joshua Noyer: I think we tried that with Dan Quail and the rise of the religious right in the early and mid-90s. I think as a political force, the religious right doesn't have a lot of influence anymore. It pretty much failed.


1:44:01.7 Peter Leyva: No, it’s dead. It’s absolutely dead and it deserved to die.


1:44:04.8 Joshua Noyer: What we're talking about values and people not having children, a lot of that has to do with people looking upon themselves as just individuals, not part of something great or not part of a nation. Not part of the history and that part of something greater than themselves; and people don't want to contribute to a society where they feel that they're just an individual. fascist policy, when we're talking about something like corporatism and the corporate State, where people are grouped together and through their work, through their occupation, they learn to become greater than just an individual worker. They learn to become part of their society and their nation. Stuff like that can go a long way. Things like the youth camps, a lot of the government programs which affect us on a daily basis, and I think that more than anything else, more than telling people you can or you cannot do this will have such a great effect because it will instill meaning and give meaning back to people and families. That's the most important thing about fascism. Like we talked about earlier, it’s not the populism, it’s not the nationalism, it's not the rhetoric, it's the laws and the institutions which it aims to transform individuals and society into.


1:45:29.7 Peter Leyva: By turning people responsible and making them realize that they are part of a larger machine, hence the symbol of the fasces.