Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. He joins me for a broad discussion on his work, the history of CIS, and Trump’s second-term immigration track record.

To begin, Krikorian outlines his origin story. He then provides a brief history of the Center for Immigration Studies. I then ask Krikorian to make the case against legal immigration, which leads to a consideration of whether the problem is immigrants themselves or immigration as a phenomenon. Krikorian argues that it is the latter, although he states that immigrants from some parts of the world are more assimilable than others. We then talk about the forces driving mass immigration. Who’s to blame? Krikorian provides a nuanced explanation.

In the second half of the show, we switch gears to discuss Trump’s immigration record. Krikorian argues that Trump is doing a good job overall. But is there more that can be done? We cover Trump’s border policies, including the wall. I ask Krikorian if he believes Trump has abandoned mass deportations, as some have claimed. I also ask about self-deportations. How do we know that millions have left the country? We then discuss Trump’s efforts to lower legal immigration, which have come as a pleasant surprise. What are the policies that have led to the lowering of legal immigration? Tune in to find out.

Follow Mark Krikorian on Twitter

Follow the Center for Immigration Studies on Twitter

Support the Center for Immigration Studies

If you are reading this as a free subscriber, you should really do the right thing and subscribe! I’m putting out more content on Substack than ever. There’s never been a better time to join the club.

Read more

To begin, I take a look at CATO’s new report. What has Trump done to reduce legal immigration? I talk for a bit about how the retard right influencers know their audiences are stupid—and how this shapes their commentary. Later, I discuss the new DHS secretary, Markwayne Mullin. Is he going to deliver?

In the second half of the show, I switch gears to talk about the latest with Iran. I argue that, even if this ceasefire doesn’t hold, it’s evidence that Trump is averse to starting another “forever war.” I then consider the U.S. blockade on Iran and outline why I’m cautiously optimistic. Toward the end of the show, I examine Trump’s ongoing spat with Pope Leo. Is the Pope more right-wing than every Republican, as some have claimed? Or is he really just a liberal at heart? Tune in to find out.

Read more

To begin, I remind the audience that there is an ongoing effort to demoralize Trump supporters. Don’t fall for it. I then outline why Trump’s refugee policies are a huge win. Next, I read Trump’s brutal Truth Social post, in which he excoriates Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Alex Jones. I react to the video in which Tucker implies Trump is the anti-Christ and ponder whether convincing your supporters to wear a hat that reads “low IQ” is a wise move.

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers), I read Tucker’s response to Trump. I argue that conspiracy theories about Trump being blackmailed by Israel cause people to lose sight of the real dynamics at play. I then take a look at a few polls that suggest that Tucker is becoming less popular among Republicans. What does that mean, given that his audience is bigger than ever? Later, I examine what Candace, Megyn, and Alex were saying about Trump before he admonished them. Toward the end of the show, I consider JD Vance’s future. He wants these big names to support his 2028 run, but he needs to be able to say Trump 47 was a success. How should Vance navigate this schism? Tune in to find out.

Read more

(Weekday matinees are great, by the way. You usually have the theater to yourself. And if anyone else is there, they’re usually nice old white people. Not the kind of people who are going to talk loudly during the movie.)

I didn’t know anything about the movie, other than that it garnered positive reviews (8.4/10 on IMDB, 94% on Rotten Tomatoes), starred Ryan Gosling, and might have aliens in it. Had I looked up the directors (Phil Lord and Christopher Miller), I would have seen that their filmography features stuff like The Lego Movie and 21 Jump Street – not exactly my cup of tea. (The latter gets credit for curing Kanye West of his anti-Semitism.)

Project Hail Mary begins with a particularly unkempt man named Ryland Grace (Ryan Gosling) waking up in a spaceship. He’s confused. His memory is foggy – he asks, “How do I know this?” regarding something scientific, but not foggy enough to prevent him from knowing where to find his crewmates’ beds. Some are empty, others are filled with dead people. Something went amiss during his hibernatory sleep, leaving him the sole survivor.

Then come the flashbacks. Grace was a school teacher before finding himself in space. During a classroom scene, he tiptoes around questions from his inquisitive students regarding the fate of the solar system. We learn that the sun is dying, and that the future of humanity isn’t looking great. When a stern woman representing an international task force arrives to speak to Grace, we learn that before he was a school teacher, he was a respected scientist – until he tanked his credibility by autisticly lashing out at someone important. (He would fit in well on right-wing Twitter.)

It turns out that the sun is being killed by astrophage, a lifeform that consumes energy from stars. (It’s in the name: star eater.) Scientists observe a lengthy span of astrophage extending from the sun to Venus known as the Petrova Line. During the flashbacks, Grace works tirelessly to discover the nature of astrophage and prepare an expedition to Tau Ceti, one of the few stars unaffected by astrophage.

Grace was not originally intended to be part of the expedition, on account of not being an astronaut. But from the beginning of the film, you’re aware that he somehow makes it to space. You only learn how toward the end of the film. This small twist was well executed, and it did a good job of linking the flashbacks to the present timeline.

Back to space. Grace recovers his memories, perhaps a bit too quickly, and does his best to complete the mission. While in space, he encounters a massive, mysterious object. Is it an asteroid? A ship? A weapon? Something else? We learn the truth soon enough. Without giving it away, Grace’s solitude comes to an end.

The scene where Grace discovers the mysterious object serves as a microcosm of Project Hail Mary as a whole. It captures what the movie does well and what it does wrong. Grace’s first encounter with the colossal object is awe-inspiring, with great music and impressive visuals. But that feeling of awe immediately ends with Grace awkwardly bouncing around the ship. (You’re supposed to laugh, it’s funny!)

Project Hail Mary, despite being a well-made film, ultimately fails the vibe check – at least for me. From the very beginning, the dialogue is intentionally awkward and quirky. It felt like every few seconds there was some cringeworthy attempt at humor. Like it’s a children’s movie or something. But I wanted a serious movie about space and aliens.

One example: After joining the task force, Grace asks Carl, the black guy who I guess is a secret agent with the task force, if their project has an expense account. The black guy looks at him calmly and says no. Grace is dejected. But then the camera pans back to Carl, who says, “But I do.” Wow, you really got me there.

What follows is a completely retarded scene in which Grace and Carl go shopping at a hardware store (Grace wishes to reconstruct Venus’s climate to discover why the astrophage is heading there). Feel-good music plays while the two grown men joke around, go bowling with duct tape, and throw a bunch of Skittles into the shopping cart. It’s like they’re on a date. Carl says something to the confused cashier about being with the government. She asks which one. “All of them,” he replies. (This is really funny.) It was hard to watch. But that type of humor – that quirky, silly mood – defines the entire film, even the tenser moments.

It just isn’t for me. And I’m honest enough to admit that this is pretty subjective. Of course, all media criticism is subjective, but only to a point. I’m capable of recognizing a masterpiece even if I’m not the target audience. Once I accepted that, I warmed up to the movie a little more. But then I found myself thinking, “Well, who is this movie for then?” The answer: women, children, dads who want to take their kids to something that isn’t totally juvenile, and redditors. It has a strong “I fucking LOVE science vibe” – not because it’s science fiction, of course, but because of its quirky vibe.

Read more

In this rare RESTORING ORDER VIDEO GAME REVIEW I talk about the new Marathon game, explaining its origins and lore. I cover its aesthetic dimension, gameplay, shell (class) system, maps, quests, weapons, items, and factions. I compare Marathon to other extraction shooters, such as Escape from Tarkov and Arc Raiders, and ponder why this reasonably good game hasn’t had a big impact on the gaming world.

Read more

First, we start with ancient Persia. We discuss the Achaemenid Empire, which eventually fell to Alexander the Great. After came the Parthian Empire—and after that, the Sasanids. We then discuss the Arab conquest of Persia, which replaced Zoroastrianism with Islam. Next, we cover the Mongol invasions. Toward the end of the first half, we discuss the Safavid Empire and the Qajar Dynasty.

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers), we switch gears to discuss the Pahlavi dynasty. What kind of man was Reza Shah Pahlavi? How was he deposed? We then discuss his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Were his reforms successful? This brings us to the Iranian revolution. Nemets and I detail the numerous factors that led to the revolution. We explore how it evolved over the course of 1979. Toward the end of the show, we talk about Operation Epic Fury and the future of Iran. After taking such a beating, will the Islamic Republic moderate? Tune in to find out.

Follow Nemets on Twitter

Subscribe to Nemets on Substack

Read more

To start, Pat provides his origin story. We learn about his January 6 experience and how he got into relationship coaching. I ask Pat to tell us about what the average guy who seeks out his services is looking for. We then discuss some conventional right-wing wisdom about dating, including the claim that men should focus on making money before worrying about finding a wife. This leads to some discussion on whether women—even conservative women—are eager to marry a virgin. I’m forced to confront a difficult question: Was Future Moldovan Citizen Right? Toward the end of the first half, we consider the myriad of ways in which “trad” approaches to dating can cause problems.

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers), we shift gears to consider Trevor Sheatz's viral post, which garnered 35 million views. Why did people react so strongly? Was he merely encouraging promiscuous people to turn to Christ – or were his intentions less noble? I argue that, while it's great to see people turn their lives around, some things are perhaps best kept private. Next, we discuss a different hoe-turned-tradwife, who, despite being a former camgirl, had the gall to claim that men who shame previously promiscuous women are porn addicts. Pat argues that these types of women are guilty of pride and vanity above all else. Later, I ask Pat if we can ever return to the status quo of the 50s. He makes the case for that decade being somewhat of a historical anomaly. Toward the end of the show, we discuss how manophere stuff can be used for good or evil – and why it's important for younger guys to steer clear from third-world dating discourse.

Pat’s email list

Pat’s YouTube

Pat’s coaching service

Pat’s Twitter

Read more

I begin by providing some updates on the Trump administration’s investigations into left-wing groups. I argue that, while these things do take time, we will eventually need results. Next, I consider a recent report indicating that Trump is considering deploying ground troops to Iran. Should we be concerned? I then criticize Israel for attacking Iran’s South Pars gas field. This leads to a consideration of American and Israeli interests in the Middle East. I explain that there’s overlap, but that ultimately our interests aren’t identical. And what of Israel’s role in the outbreak of hostilities with Iran? Is the Jewish state the sole factor, or is there more to it?

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers), I review the Washington Post report that suggests JD Vance is considering sitting out the 2028 election. If true, what does this say about the post-Trump GOP? Next up, I talk about Roman Polanski’s Chinatown (1974), which I recently rewatched. I outline why it’s an incredible film, without spoiling anything. I argue that we need to reject the Chinatown mindset – the view that the world is so irreparably dark and dysfunctional that there’s no point in trying to fix it. I also argue that Roman Polanski, while a phenomenal director, is definitely a depraved guy. Toward the end of the show, I review Joe Kent’s resignation letter and a few clips from his appearance on Tucker. I also discuss the investigations into both men. Are they guilty? Tune in to find out.

Note: In the Joe Kent segment, I stated that Kent implied that Israel was behind the attempt on Trump’s life in Butler, PA. But upon rewatching the clip in question, the foreign entity he references in relation to Butler appears to be Iran, not Israel. Given that he does seem to float the possibility that Israel was responsible for Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and given Kent has also implied that Trump lives in fear of the “Epstein network”—I’m sure you can understand why I was mistaken.

Read more

To start, Blepps gives us his take on Operation Epic Fury. After realizing that his support for the offensive far surpasses my own, I’m forced to confront a difficult question: Is this Finnish monkey more of an American patriot than I am? We then talk about reflexive third worldism on the right and how it is often the product of demoralization. Next, we talk about Trump. I remind the audience that, regardless of your position on Epic Fury, Trump is the best thing to happen to the post-war American right. But does Blepps agree? Of course he agrees. We then talk about Russia briefly, with Blepps explaining how Ivan's threat to the East has shaped Finnish politics throughout history. Toward the end of the first half, I ask Blepps what he thinks about certain American right-wingers cozying up to Islam.

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers, link in reply), we continue our discussion of the threat Islam poses to the West. Blepps reminds us that Islam has been an enemy of Europe for millennia, and that Muslims immigrants, therefore, are far worse than other immigrant populations. We then talk about the connection between foreign wars and migration – a connection that many in the online right tend to exaggerate. Toward the end of the show, we discuss the European Union and NATO. Blepps, contrary to many European right-wingers, argues that America, at least these days, has a positive impact on Europe. Why is that? Tune in to find out.

Read more

To start, I review some recent immigration white-pills. I then review some Iran updates and explain why Trump hasn’t yet ruled out boots on the ground. I explain how Americans benefit from stability in the Middle East – and why Iran threatens that stability. Next, I review some of the online right’s reactions to Epic Fury. I argue that some criticisms are more valid than others, and I remind the audience that there are many grifters trying to black-pill them.

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers), I review BAP’s take on military action in Iran. I point out that, while I don’t fully agree with him, it is a reasonable position. This proves that you can disagree with Trump without trooning out, although many appear incapable of doing so. Next, I take a look at Dr. Gottfried’s position on Epic Fury, which, of all of the takes I’ve seen online, is the closest to my own. I argue that it’s more than justified to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time urging the administration not to overcommit. Toward the end of the show, I review some recent developments with Tucker, including his announcement that MAGA is dead, his odd clip implying that U.S. soldiers would rape Iranian women, and his now-refuted claim that Mossad agents were arrested in the Gulf.

Read more

What are the long-term consequences of this? Has Trump betrayed his campaign promises? Can airstrikes alone topple a regime? We explore these and other related questions.

Read more

I start with James Fishback, who’s running for governor of Florida. I examine Fishback’s positions on several key issues, including H-1Bs and Israel—positions that, curiously, changed after he decided to run for office. I also take a look at some of the sexual misconduct allegations against Fishback. Is there any substance to them?

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers), I talk about Fishback's professional and financial issues. Unbeknownst to many, he received a large judgment after his former employer successfully sued him. I then take a quick look at the polling to see what chance, if any, Fishback has of winning. Switching gears, I discuss Casey Putsch, who is "running" for governor of Ohio. I put running in quotations because I couldn't find much evidence of anything resembling a campaign, let alone a single poll mentioning his name. Toward the end of the show, I take a trip down memory lane by reminiscing on Patrick Little and Paul Nehlen, two notorious meme candidates from 2018. I argue that, while these guys were clearly more insane, that at least made it harder to take them seriously. I conclude by outlining how someone could hypothetically run a doomed campaign that nevertheless has a positive impact on the right. What would that look like? Tune in to find out.

Read more

But first, I review some immigration white-pills. I then discuss the black-piller vs plan-truster divide on the right. I explain why the panicans are wrong and often operating in bad faith. If you’re arguing that people defending Trump are being paid by Israel to do so, then you aren’t really interested in an honest debate. This leads to some reminiscing on the alt-right turning on Trump in 2017. It was more understandable then, but it still wasn’t the right move. I argue that turning on Trump is the path to political impotence, pointing out that many dissident right figures initially opposed Trump from the right, only to later find themselves opposing him from the left. Funny how that works out. I conclude the first half by articulating why criticizing the Trump administration doesn’t necessarily qualify as black-pilling.

In the second half of the show, I shift gears to cover the possibility of war with Iran. I argue that Iran should not get a nuclear weapon, reminding the audience that this is the position held by most countries, including many Muslim ones. I explain that while I trust Trump, I would nevertheless urge caution when it comes to regime change. Toward the end of the show, I wade into the white culture debate that has been playing out on Twitter. Is white culture a real thing? Should we use the term at all? Tune in to find out.

Read more

But first, I begin by once again rebuking the free subscribers. With that important business out of the way, I outline my nuanced position on the sportsball question. I then watch a bit of the halftime show, offering my thoughts on its aesthetic and political dimensions. I argue that it was far from anti-woke, as some have alleged, but instead was an attack on American identity. I then review some of the halftime show takes I saw on Twitter, including one in which someone claimed that Bad Bunny’s performance was effective propaganda.

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers), I read the English translation of one of the songs Bad Bunny performed last night – or at least I try to, because it’s pretty explicit. The Washington Post described the halftime show as “wholesome,” but I disagree. I then consider the TPUSA halftime show, which leads to a consideration of right-wing art. Can we turn liberals into conservatives by forcing them to listen to country? Toward the end of the show, I explore the various forms of nationalism – namely, ethnic/racial and civic. I define each and explain why none is entirely applicable to paleoconservatism. I instead advocate for a secret third thing. What might that be? Tune in to find out.

Read more

Does the entire right-wing influencer class need to go? Was Epstein chopping off people's feet with a scimitar? Can the right survive without important thought leader Sarah Stock? Tune in to the latest episode of Restoring Order to find out.

To begin, I review polling data indicating that the public is far less opposed to Trump’s immigration agenda than many have claimed. I then take a look at the EEOC’s investigation into Nike for being anti-white. Next, I review some excerpts from Mystery Grove’s latest essay. Does the entire right-wing influencer class need to be killed? Maybe. I then examine the Epstein files and explain why the masses are misinterpreting them.

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers), I review some ridiculous responses to the more grandiose accusations in the Epstein files. I talk about Chuck Johnson, the admitted federal informant in the Epstein files whose spurious claims are being presented as fact. I then provide my basic read on Epstein: what he did and what he didn’t do.

Next, I review my Twitter spat with Morgoth, a former Restoring Order guest who recently went off the deep end. I argue that he represents a common archetype in these spaces: aging, disgruntled, low info, and hysterical – the type of person to fire off edgy “might makes right” tweets but then cry about ICE shooting race communists. I explain how, without me and my circle of friends on Twitter, the online right would be irredeemable.

Toward the end of the show, I discuss Sarah Stock, whose affair with Elijah Schaffer recently came to light. I argue that, while it’s always sad to see people destroy their lives, the right is better off without these people. I talk about the hypocrisy inherent in much of the “trad” influencer scene. I close out the show by considering whether we need more stupid people misapplying red-pills they just discovered and clearly don’t understand.

Read more

I begin by addressing the elephant in the room: I have a new mic. I then review some recent scientific findings, which reveal that paid subscribers to my podcast enjoy better life outcomes than the benighted free subscribers. Moving on, I take a look at what transpired in Minneapolis today. I review footage of both the shooting itself and the rioting that broke out almost immediately afterward. I once again outline why the anti-ICE agitators are really no different from black people who die at the hands of the police and later become Black Lives Matter saints. This leads to a brief discussion of why Dr. Pepper Zero Sugar is better than Diet Coke. Toward the end of the first half, I examine Tim Walz’s pathetic response to the Border Patrol shooting.

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers), I examine some footage of the unrest that broke out in Minneapolis following the shooting. I then explain why it's important for both the administration and right-wing media to continue highlighting the heinous illegal scumbags anti-ICE activists are protecting. Moving along, I discuss the 5-year-old child hoax. I note that a few conservative commentators fell for it. I compare this to conservatives' response to the Covington Catholic incident, and explain why so many on the right keep failing these basic tests. Toward the end of the show, I discuss someone who was recently arrested for threatening ICE officers online. The individual in question, a Hispanic zoomer, is anti-MAGA and anti-ICE, yet pro-Hitler and anti-Semitic. I recount the multiyear influencer operation design to convince people that thinking in terms of right vs left was "Jewish." Why are people committed to such idiotic takes? Tune in to find out.

Read more

To begin, I ask Michael Tracey to tell us how he got started. After outlining his origin story, Michael tells us why most Epstein books and documentaries are, at best, unreliable. This leads to a discussion on Epstein 101: who he was, what he did, and how he got his money. Michael explains that it’s actually fairly easy to determine how Epstein got rich. We then discuss how influencers manipulate their audiences with stupid and dishonest questions.

In the second half of the show (available to subscribers, link in reply), we explain why picking apart the Epstein conspiracy theories doesn't constitute "defending Epstein." I then ask Michael what we know for certain that Epstein did wrong, and he takes us through the infamous 2005 Palm Beach case. We talk about how this case proves Epstein was a perverted criminal, but explain why this falls short of the Epstein conspiracy theories. We discuss Little Saint James. I ask Michael if there was a single documented instance of an underage girl visiting the island. This leads to a discussion on some of Epstein's most outspoken victims, whose claims are more than a little questionable. Toward the end, we consider the popular belief that Epstein "belonged to intelligence." Michael outlines the origins of this quote and argues that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Why is that? Tune in to find out.

Follow Michael Tracey on Twitter

Subscribe to Michael Tracey’s Substack

Follow my Kick channel to receive notifications when I’m live.

Read more

Read more