The Phileas Club 82 – Emergency Conservative Views


On this episode we talk about:

  • The wall
  • The ban
  • The press
  • The future
  • … and everything else!

Remember you can support a show at

More info on the show:

You can also download the MP3, or subscribe via iTunes or RSS.


  1. Thank you so much Patrick !! Thank you so much for your patience and hard work going with the questionning, pushing the questions. It kind of replicated the kind of conversation I have with my in-laws in America (I am French), and i usually throw the towels, shake my fist and fume for days alone. (My wife, leaving with me here in France, saying : “don’t want to know !”) :). Communication is about, to quote Albert Jacquard, putting things we have in commun. And here we have reached a limit. Don’t you feel ?

  2. Long time listener Patrick and love the show! This episode, while extremely interesting was a little tough to listen to without cringing, especially at the prude who thinks global warming denial is the standard conservative position #onlyinamerica.
    Little disappointed in Patrick reaching for the Hitler thing but certainly there are comparisons, no matter how superficial. The episode was also a very insightful look into weird religious uncles everywhere that bemoan university safe spaces but require trigger warnings for toques that if you squint look like a vagina. I really like Brian, because all of his appearances he adds another point of view, even if I disagree with it; he seem’s rational!
    BUT OH LAWD! I creeped Tony’s twitter only to see “Christian, Daddy, Husband.” As creepy as that sweater is ‘Daddy’ is worse. It makes me hope his twitter is some sort of Tim and Eric style joke as opposed to a complete lack of self awareness. Overall though I liked his presence on the show since his point of view is rarely espoused by the more metropolitan guests you have.
    Thanks for the 2 back to back episodes, keep it up.

  3. Sill listening but enjoying this one so far. On the car all the way home I found myself wanting to interject so that’s usually the mark of an engaging discussion (or in the least a topic I’m engaged with). The other thing I like to hear is a guest(s) who pauses and sometimes sounds unsure before answering. It’s a sign that somebody is capable of at least understanding that they should question their position and that’s a healthy attitude. Even if I don’t agree with your views I can move towards you if I see that you have/are considering your position rather than parroting dogma.

  4. Hi,

    thanks again for the very good show, with the republican point of view this time. i think as you mentioned couple of time, it is important to present the different angles. and it is with discussions and debates that you can convince people, not by forbidding them to talk, right?

    After, it is a little bit a pity that you fall in the godwin point so quickly honestly (and you mentioned it actually, that’s the funny thing 🙂 ). let’s be careful when we do comparison with Hitler and Co please. It is too easy to do this type of comparison.

    An other remark is that you did a mistake about the ban. Please, stop saying this is muslim ban. The ban is linked to country nationality, not religion! Yes, the targeted countries have a majority of muslims but, for instance:
    – christian syrians are banned too,
    – muslim egyptians can still enter in USA (just an example!)
    Indonesia, that counts the highest muslim population is not concerned, right?
    So, let’s avoid the shortcuts in this sensitive topic 🙂

    oh, and last but not least, an interesting information that only few media mention: 6 of these 7 banned countries forbid israelian citizens in their countries…

    and no, personnally i disagree with this Trump order, but let’s try to be precise in this hot topic!

    • Hey Thierry, and thanks for the comment!
      About the Godwin point, I agree in principle, but the issue is that if you can never bring up national socialism, then you run the risk of not being able to denounce things that are veering in that direction. We might not be there yet with the Trump administration, but there will be a point somewhere at some point that will. And if we can’t denounce it “because Godwin”, that’s a dangerous principle as well. I agree though that this derailed the conversation, as I noted in the show. But I do think we should be able to bring it up when it’s relevant (and when discussing the autocratic nature of a nationalistic regime, it is, more than ever, relevant).
      As to the muslim ban… I’m sorry, but it is. As I suggested on the show, there is an exception for “non majority religions” when they claim religious persecution, which, let’s be honest, there’s plenty of in those countries, but of which “normal” Muslims (as in, not crazy ass terrorists) are suffering even more from. And those are forbidden to enter. Imagine a crazy cult who starts killing everyone in Detroit and takes over the city, claiming they’re doing it in the name of Christ. Of course people would try to run away… And then the neighbouring cities would say “fuck y’all, we’ll take the muslims and jews and sikhs, but y’all Christian, we don’t trust, you can stay in there”, as they’re being massacred. This is LITERALLY what is happening in those countries, and the immense majority of Muslims in there are entirely peaceful and just want to get away from the crazy assholes who are murdering them for listening to music.
      Oh, and yes, of course they’re not barring every single muslim from every country on earth. If they did that, I think even you would rightfully start talking about Hitler in your comments here. But that doesn’t mean it’s not effectively, in practice, a muslim ban for those seven countries… 🙂

      • I’d also like to make the point that requiring the phrase “muslim ban” to only be able to be applied when coverage is 100% is disingenuous. The vetting is already very stringent, and there have been no incidents at all in the US from an citizen of those countries. The purpose of the ban is to prevent muslims from entering the US. Full stop.

  5. Dmitry Cherednichenko says:

    What a show. Thanks for doing this, Patrick. A few blunt remarks from your barbaric Russian listener.

    My general impression:
    Patrick: “But this is all horrible and wrong, aren’t you worried already?!”
    Guests: “Well, I’m concerned. Somewhat. Maybe. We’ll see. Eh.”

    My guess is, they don’t really see much of Trump’s latest activity as “wrong”. Heavy-handed and badly implemented, sure, but not wrong. And I happen to agree with them. Unlike his many predecessors, Trump started to implement his campaign promises, exactly as he made them. What a shocker. We should never forget that he has the backing of his voters. Have a problem with Trump? Take it to them. The man is doing his job. This is what I actually like about Trump, he speaks his mind and does what was promised.

    The Wall. There is too much fuss about symbolics. Instead, speaking of substance, there ARE already walled parts of the southern US border, and Trump had nothing to do with them. “Build a wall” = “increase border security, hire more staff, build fences and other infrastructure”. It’s basically the same, but without the image of a terrible “wall”. Is it better that way? There is nothing wrong about wanting to protect your country’s borders.

    There is also nothing wrong about putting security and needs of your country’s people first. You would do that for your family. So does the president of the country he is sworn to protect. Trump isn’t the president of the world (thank god) .

    Inauguration crowd size. A ridiculous non-story, that was blown out of proportion, first by the media, then by Trump’s team inadequate response. Again, you and your liberal friends seem to put too much into what was simply an emotional and stupid response to an equally stupid “story”. As Brian said, who cares.

    After listening to your final speech, Patrick, and it was a great speech. I think I understand where your concerns come from, you are a citizen of the world, as much as you are French. But it seems, the world is not yet ready for that. In their pursuit for globalisation, leftist liberals pushed too much, and now there’s a backlash. The proper balance will be found in time, but now we are getting into turbulent times. Trump is just the messenger.

    • Hey Dmitry,

      I won’t respond to everything, but I will say… I guess I don’t like the message. The reason being that what brought us peace in the last 50 or 60 years was openness, as opposed to serving our own interests only. Sure, it doesn’t always work perfectly, but it prevents wars, and that’s what I’m worried about. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but this is a dangerous path to walk.

      Also, I really don’t think it’s fair to say that he’s “just the messenger”. He’s very much the messenger and the person actively doing the deed. I know you’re using an image to make a point, but it makes it sound like arguing against Trump is pointless. I obviously disagree; if we don’t think these policies are good, we should just say “oh, he’s the messenger, never mind, let’s not say anything”? Obviously not…

      • Dmitry Cherednichenko says:

        I would argue that 60 years of relative peace were ensured by the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation during the Cold War. After that, it was ensured by the absolute military and economic dominance of the US, who were sculpting the world’s political and economic structure as they saw fit. But it wasn’t all roses. Massive instability, chaos and bloodshed in the Middle East. Starting with US intervention in Iraq, I might add. Like them or not, authoritarian regimes kept the peace. When they fell, with the help of the West and to the applause of the liberals, millions died. It’s an awful choice, but I’d rather pick being alive under a dictator, than being free and dead.

        The EU project is a different story, and probably the strongest argument in favour of openness you are talking about. Common market, no internal borders, free movement, it’s great in theory. But the process was rushed. The EU ruling elite which ironically serves its own interests, started to push countries together, with little regard to their economic and cultural differences. You cannot force integration and globalisation, it will inevitably backfire, and it did. Soviet Union did that under the banner of communist ideology, and it fell apart. The EU did it under the banner of liberalism, and it’s struggling now.

      • Dmitry Cherednichenko says:

        Also, I never meant that one shouldn’t criticise Trump. What I tried to say… Trump is a consequence, not a cause. We see it all over the world now. Solve the problems caused by globalisation, and Trumps would dissipate over time.

  6. Rebecca Kauk Miller says:

    Thank you so much for this particular episode. The apathy of conservatives on these issues stuns me daily since Trump took his oath. I myself am an American immigrant, albeit from Canada so I would never be singled out as other immigrants are right now in this country (or will I…perhaps its only the start?). US immigration vetting is not a joke, you are put through FBI background checks at every stage of the game – I have been reviewed more, and have a cleaner background then many naturally born Americans probably do. There was a statement made that ”they’re not banning Muslims…’ when in fact recent news since this episode aired which has proven it was. Several instances have occurred where individuals from Canada (a naturally born Canadian in at least 1 case) who was turned back purely based on his religion.

    As always, I adore the Phileas Club for the opinions and views it exposes me to; I have to say this has been one of the more maddening episodes for me, a born liberal at heart, to hear some opinions which feel so ‘off ‘ to me.

Leave a Reply to Librecom Cancel reply