Matt Parrott on the Political Cesspool

I, Matt Parrott, will be interviewed on the Political Cesspool, this Saturday at 8:30PM EST.

Political Cesspool

Some potential topics of discussion will be:

Please support our movement’s flagship radio show by listening in tonight. You might also consider making a donation to help support this excellent program.
The interview is now available for download from the archives. My interview is on the 2nd hour at 23:00.
[1 | 2 | 3]
About Matt Parrott 98 Articles
Matt Parrott is a low IQ wignat LARPing costume clown.


  1. Robert,

    While I reserve the right to record audio in the future, I’ve decided that my talents are probably best applied elsewhere. I don’t believe my voice is well-suited for radio, or public speaking in general. My goal is to reduce my “ayum…” and “uhh…” noises to less than 50% of my speaking time during tonight’s performance.

  2. Stop it! These intrusive selfcritical thoughts only show that you should speak in public more often, listen to your own recorded voice more often, and — most importantly — wear the fedora MORE OFTEN.

  3. Soren,
    I would wear the fedora to sleep if it wouldn’t mess up the brim!

    I do believe I am getting better at these interviews. I’m glad I covered all the bases I wanted to cover.

    You’re probably right about the self-criticism. I’ve been trying to be honest and humble, but the enemies will probably just smell blood in the water.

  4. Very nicely done Matt. Agreed with everything you said. Don’t worry about the “ayum” and the “uhh”, very few people are perfectly at ease publicly apart from a few professional broadcasters/politicians. Like Soren said the more you practice your oratory skill to it the better you’ll get.

    Looking forward to hearing you again.

  5. That’s a very interesting fact you brought up about Indiana’s role in the Civil War. There were also riots against the war in New York, of all places.

  6. Matt, you did well and will improve over time.

    Explain a bit more in the future. Too many radio hosts like James and Jim have a habit of monopolizing conversation. Assert your message while still in a friendly environment.

    You have a knack for humor and inspiration in your writing. It would be very effective if you could bring more of that into your public speaking.

  7. Alex,
    Thanks. I haven’t had an opportunity to listen, yet. But I think I’ve improved a bit.

    Yup. It’s funny how objective reality is the first casualty of war. Shrinkwrapping events into a convenient historiography is part of the healing process, I reckon. It’s kind of like with France during WWII. They were so easy to conquer because they were largely sympathetic with the Axis. After the war, it was all about those Invincible Nazis and La Resistance. But that’s what they could live with in the postwar aftermath.

    After we win, everybody will be all like “Yeah, I was totally a White Patriot all the way, man!” When I’m old, trying to tell my kids I attended an AmRen conference in ’08 will be like boomers claiming they went to Woodstock. Nobody will believe me.

    I tried to be a little more relaxed in this interview. I know what you’re talking about with the rambling hosts talking over the guest. But I really feel like James helped keep things structured and on track in this interview. Fortunately for me, he didn’t decide to “change gears” in the middle of it.

  8. I apologize for intruding Matt, but I need to respond to something MGLS said on another thread:

    “New York City is not representative of America. New York City has not been an American city for well over a century. The percentage of Northern European descended people in New York City is very small.”


    If we are only talking about Northern Europeans, you are correct that New York City isn’t the right place to look for evidence on this question.

    Instead I’ll look at all of America, a place with far more Northern Europeans than New York City, and confine myself to a time (1965) before the Immigration Act led to Northern Europeans becoming a far smaller percentage of the American population than they once were.

    “In a 1965 poll 73% of men, but only 59% of women, said the United States should continue its ‘present efforts’ in Vietnam.”

    That means Men, even in that time when FAR more Men were White and FAR more of Northern European descent, favored the pointless Vietnam War by an incredible 14 Points more than Women did.

    That’s very nearly THREE TIMES the Gender Gap found in the 2008 election.

    So if White Women who were 5 points more likely to support Obama shouldn’t be allowed to vote, I think it also follows that White Men who where 14 points more likely to support the ruinous Vietnam War shouldn’t be able to vote either.

    The Vietnam War killed far more White People than Obama has. The Vietnam War did far more damage to the American Economy than Obama has.

    The Vietnam War did far more to damage White American Culture and alienated far more Young Whites from Conservatism than Obama has or ever will.

    “Tut-tut, Reginald. We don’t want to engage in personal attacks and insults now, do we?”

    It wasn’t really a personal attack because I didn’t say anything about you as a person, but rather attacked you as someone who does shoddy scholarship that reveals his ignorance of statistics.

    A personal attack would be if I said you were a hypocrite, if I said you were driven to write what you did for unattractive personal reasons I would presume to diagnose, if I said you were a Dominatrix and/or someone who’s never had any success with the opposite sex in his life.

    I attacked you on something that was relevant to what you were arguing. It was relevant for me to point out that you failed to understand a basic tenet of statistical analysis.

    However I should’ve made this point more tactfully. I should’ve said you were writing in such as way as to make me suspect you misunderstand the basic tenets of Statistics, but that I don’t assume to know the general state of your knowledge based on this one incident.

    But as to your error:

    What you fail to understand is that two thing are not associated in a meaningful way unless the timing of A and B correspond to each other.

    If you punch a man in the face and then he dies later that day, there’s a good chance you played a key role in his death.

    In the same way, the fact that Pornography being legalized was followed so quickly by an accelerated decline in the Birthrate means there’s a good chance Pornography played a key role in the collapse in the Birthrate.

    However if you punch someone in the face and then he dies decades later, there’s no good reason to suppose cause and effect between your punch and the death.

    In the same way there’s no reason to think the granting of the vote to Women led to a collapse in the birthrate that only occurred MORE THAN HALF A HUMAN LIFETIME later.

    Also, following the American Revolution, women were allowed to vote in New Jersey, but no other state, from 1790 until 1807.

    There is absolutely no evidence that this caused a decline in the birthrate of people in New Jersey as compared to the rest of America.

    Furthermore, there is NO evidence that having Women’s Sufferage for longer in a State is correlated with a lower White Birthrate or greater degeneracy:

    “The first territorial legislature of the Wyoming Territory granted women suffrage in 1869.[28] In the following year, the Utah Territory followed suit. However, in 1887, the United States Congress disenfranchised Utah women with the Edmunds–Tucker Act. In 1890, Wyoming was admitted to the Union as the first state that allowed women to vote. In 1893, voters of Colorado made that state the second of the woman suffrage states and the first state where the men voted to give women the right to vote.[29] In 1895, Utah adopted a constitution restoring the right of woman suffrage. In 1896 Idaho approved a constitutional amendment in statewide vote giving women the right to vote.”

    As you can see, the States that have given Women the vote for the longest, the only ones where they actually had the vote back in the 19th Century, are on average actually LESS Liberal and LESS low birthrate than the Country as a whole.

    So clearly we can’t say there’s some kind of Time Release effect to giving Women the Vote so that it took the 40 years from 1920 to 1960 for it to start making the birthrate go down.

  9. Reginald, the other thread was closed for a reason. Please don’t drag it into this one. I’ll let your comment stand because it’s obvious you put some effort into it. Fair enough?

Comments are closed.