Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 722 | The Death of Democracy & the Birth of Twitter 2.0 | Guest: Auron MacIntyre

Episode Date: December 12, 2022

Today we're joined by Auron MacIntyre, Blaze News columnist and BlazeTV host, to discuss the fall of democracy, the Twitter Files, and Brittney Griner. First, we ask where the line is between voting based on our Christian worldview and theocratic rule and explain why our values cannot be separated from what they inform. We talk about how the elites are always going to try to shape our politics. Then, we look at the Twitter Files, which were released periodically over the past week and revealed inside information on how pre-Elon Twitter colluded with the government to hide information during the election and also shadow-banned conservative accounts they deemed threatening. We also discuss Yoel Roth, Twitter's former global head of trust and safety, who seems to have a quite disturbing pattern of beliefs. We look at the Brittney Griner prisoner swap and explain why descriptors put you at the front of the line for special treatment and ultimately why this was such a big virtue signal direct from the White House. --- Timecodes: (02:16) Interview with Auron begins (19:30) The Twitter Files (30:38) Yoel Roth (45:50) Culture and immigration (1:02:10) Brittney Griner swap (1:06:43) Auron’s groomer meme --- Today's Sponsors: ExpressVPN — have more anonymity online. Go to ExpressVPN.com/ALLIE and get three extra months FREE. Good Ranchers — change the way you shop for meat today by visiting GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE and use promo code 'ALLIE' for a discount! Carly Jean Los Angeles — use promo code 'ALLIEB' to save 20% off your first order at CarlyJeanLosAngeles.com! Covenant Eyes — protect you and your family from the things you shouldn't be looking at online. Go to coveyes.com/ALLIE to try it FREE for 30 days! --- Links: Daily Wire: "WNBA Star Brittney Griner Freed From Russian Prison In Swap For Arms Dealer" https://www.dailywire.com/news/wnba-star-brittney-griner-freed-from-russian-prison-in-swap-for-arms-dealer Daily Wire: "NBC Issues Correction, Changing Story To Match White House Spin On Griner Swap" https://www.dailywire.com/news/nbc-issues-correction-changing-story-to-match-white-house-spin-on-griner-swap --- Relevant Episodes: Ep 675 | Want to Topple the Elites? Mock Them | Guest: Seth Dillon https://apple.co/3VTr1WL Ep 467 | Twitter Bans Biology and Why The Gender Stuff Matters https://apple.co/3FnWCIR Ep 652 | The Left’s ‘Don’t Say Groomer’ Policy https://apple.co/3UTl5eO --- Christmas Merch: Use code ALLIE20 for 20% off the whole shop! Full collection: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey?sort_by=created-descending#MainContent --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed.

You can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Is democracy a good thing? What about immigration? What about small government? These are things that you might, as a conservative, think you already have the answer to. But our guest today, Orrin McIntyre, is going to make us think a little bit more deeply about them.

We will also be talking about the Twitter files and Brittany, Griner and why he thinks that at the end of the day, a lot of people empower simply want to prey upon children. We have a very fascinating conversation for you today. I learned a lot. I think that you will too. Also, before we get into it, let me just say today, today, Monday is the last day to order a merch to guarantee it by the 24th. So Related Bro. If you are buying relatable merch for the Relatable Bell in your life, and you want to make sure that she has it on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, you need to order today.

Now, if you don't care when it gets here, you can continue to order it anytime you want to. But if you want it here on time by Christmas, make sure that you order it today. Go to shopblazmedia.com slash Allie. You can use code Alley 20 at checkout. Make sure you do that. Save 20% when you do.

great gift. And also, you'll probably get it before then anyway. You'll probably get it before Christmas Eve. So you still have time to purchase some of the Christmas merch. But we have lots of non-Christmas merch there too that I know that all of you, the relatable fan friends in your life, family members, all of that will absolutely love. So make sure you check it out. We'll link it in the description of this episode. Also, if you love this podcast, please leave us a five-star review wherever you listen and subscribe on YouTube. If you haven't done it, done that already. All right, I won't make you wait for this absolutely mind-blowing conversation any longer. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers.

Go to go to goodraunchers.com slash alley. That's good ranchers.com slash alley. Now, here is our new friend, Orrin McIntyre. Orrin, thanks so much for joining. Can you tell everyone who you are and what you do, those who might not know? Oh, absolutely. No, thank you for having me. My name is Orrin McIntyre. I just got added to the blaze. I'm going to be writing articles for the website and doing a podcast show and everything like that. You know, a couple of years ago with everything that was happening with COVID, I really started asking myself what was going on with politics, why the Constitution and different things that were supposed to protect my rights weren't

working. And so the more I wanted to learn about it, I wanted to kind of tell people about it as I was looking into it, reading different thinkers, that kind of thing. And I started making a YouTube channel about it, started a Twitter account, things kind of built up from there and here I am. Okay, so that's how you got involved in political commentating.

It was just a couple years ago during COVID. Yeah, I mean, I had, you know, studied politics in college and I worked in politics for a little bit. And I was a local political journalist. I covered crime in politics for a local newspaper. So I'd been around the subject for a long time. But when I saw everything that was happening with the COVID lockdowns, you know, I just had that very standard talk radio. a Republican mentality. You know, the Constitution is going to protect my rights. You know, the government's got checks and balances. All this stuff is, you know, kind of set in stone for me, you know, and then

see everything that's going on. I said, okay, none of this works the way I was taught. Yeah. Okay. So you do you consider yourself or did you consider yourself then a conservative? Is that how you would have described yourself? Yeah, absolutely. It would have been just a standard issue conservative, you know, listening to Rush, listening to Dennis Prager, listening to all these people I think a lot of people grew up listening to if they're kind of Republican. And then, like I said, the more I learned about it, the more I said, okay, we're not really conserving things anymore. We've kind of lost a lot of the stuff and we need to look in a different direction because

we really need to reestablish in many ways a lot of these principles that are no longer kind of governing our society. I did not know that as recently as a couple years ago, you kind of described yourself as just a kind of typical Rushland ball conservative Republican because that's not how I would describe you today. Is that how you would describe yourself? Yeah, no, today it definitely would not be the case. Like he said, now that I've kind of better understood and looked into the nature of politics, political power, exploring political theory, applying it to what we see now, I don't think that kind of that model works. I still have many of those values, of course, right? The question is not,

you know, I still think that it's very important for America. to have a Christian background in its laws and in its culture. I think it's very important for us to maybe look at things, though, that conservatives wouldn't normally think of. If we are serious about having a family culture, about caring for children, passing his out of the next generation, maybe we need to take steps that wouldn't be thought of as traditionally small government conservative to kind of support those things.

So I think orienting ourselves on where we want to be and where we want our culture to be will bring us to maybe different conclusions than kind of the, standard issue conservative talking points that we've kind of had over the years. Yeah. And I do want to get into some of this news, the Twitter files, Britney Greiner and things like that. But I do want to dig deeper into this. And I think this is why I kind of started following you because you talk differently. I would say than most conservatives do. Using power in a way that I think conservatives are traditionally uncomfortable with, all of the power that is available to you to kind of enact the policies that.

bring on the ends that you want. Can you give me some examples of that? Like, what do you mean by steps that conservatives should take that historically we haven't been willing to? Well, conservatism has generally been the party of small government in theory, at least, right? Like, that's what we always hear. You have to, you shouldn't pursue power. You want to shrink the size of the government. You don't want to wield that because at some point it's going to be wielded against you. These are kind of the constant things we're told that are going to keep the government in check and keep it from kind of infringing on our rights. But I think what we can see time and time again is as conservatives with kind of this quasi-libertarian backing, you know, have this approach to power. The left steps into that void, right?

And they're constantly advancing their agenda. And then when Republicans enter power, they're at best kind of freezing the agenda in place until liberal step back in and start, you know, moving the ratchet that direction one more time. And so I think one thing that conservatives really have to understand is you, there's always going to be an authority. There's always going to be a government. And if you do not take active steps to make sure that your values are the ones governing the decisions being made in that government, then someone else's values will fill that void. And I think a lot of people recognize that now, right? The idea that wokeness is religion has really kind of grabbed a lot of people because it's got a lot of explanatory power. It shows us that that void that is left when kind of Christian values are removed from the marketplace,

something feels. It doesn't, we don't just get this neutral marketplace of ideas. Right. I notice that especially a lot of Christians kind of buy into the emotional manipulation that they hear on the left, that, you know, it's okay for you to believe what you believe, but just don't bring it into the public square. Don't allow it to influence how you teach or how you vote. or if you are in any position of power, how you legislate, but they don't treat their own worldview that way. It's only Christian conservatives who have to check their worldview at the door

before we engage publicly, before we sell a cake or, you know, design a website. And I've seen a lot of Christians kind of buy into that, that they have started to kind of separate their values, or maybe just conservatives, separate their moral values from how they vote or how they think about policy, which is why I think you've got Republicans that may even say that they are for traditional marriage voting for the so-called respect for marriage act. Why do you think that tactic has kind of been so successful on people on the right? The manipulation to say you and you alone have to separate your moral worldview from how you engage publicly. As you just said, the left doesn't do that at all. They allow their pseudo religion to infiltrate everything that they do.

Well, I think it's because in many ways, progressivism is kind of a super predator religion when it comes to kind of our classically liberal society. So one of the things that we're inculcated with is this idea of separation of church and state, right? And there's a value of telling the state that they can't tell the church what to teach and we don't want church officials to be directly and, you know, governing us, perhaps. Yeah. have expounded that to and perverted it to a level saying that no religious morals, no religious ideas, no religious values can any way inform your political positions. And then what we do is we say, but Christianity is, you know, or Judaism or Islam or whatever is a religion, but progressivism is not. And so because progressivism isn't, it has a competitive advantage in the

marketplace because you can't teach Christianity in the school, but you can't teach progressivism because it doesn't trigger the separation of church and state issue, right? And so progressivism is always able to be pushed in a school. It's be able to push in your workplace. It's able to be pushed through different government agencies and policies because technically it's not a religion and your values are. And so I think a lot of Christians want to have this fair play mentality, right? Like, well, we all agree to this.

And I understand this is how the system operates. And so I'm, you know, I'll still be a good Christian at home, but I don't want to enforce. I don't want to, you know, I want people to be. be won through good arguments or love for, you know, going, you know, hearing good servant or reading the Bible. I don't want them to be forced by the government, which again, is perfectly reasonable, but we don't, that's not the same thing as having your values and or inform your political positions because, again, the government will make decisions. They will enforce policies. And if it's not your values informing the way that they do that, it's going to

be something else. And we know exactly what it is now. It's this progressivism that is, you know, seeped into everything. Yeah. And where do you think the line is between Christians allowing their worldview to influence how we vote, what kind of laws we like, things like that, and some kind of theocratic rule, because I do want my worldview, my view about marriage, my view about kids, my view about when life begins. All of these things, I think, have a lot of practical benefit, too. But for me, they are rooted in my faith. I do want those things. to influence policy. But I don't want all of my values to influence policy. I don't want a law to force people to go to church or to force people to read the Bible. So where do you think kind of the

line is on that? Obviously, I don't want all of ancient Israel's laws to be enacted in America today. Well, I think all politics is ultimately theological in nature. Yes, totally agree. And so that means that there's really no way to separate your values from what they inform. But what I do think there can be as a limitation is respect for social spheres, right? So the government, there are certain things that it should talk about, certain things, policies, things that it will set, right? But there should also be places where the government doesn't invade. The government shouldn't tell my church what it's preaching. And the government shouldn't tell parents that they have to raise their children to, you know,

have puberty blockers or something like that, right? Like, there should be limits to the government's ability to step into different social skills and they should be respected by the government. So I don't think you can, you can really draw a limit between where your faith is going to morally inform the government, but I think you can't have a practical understanding. You know, it used to be that these things were kind of natural because the government didn't have the power necessary to do this stuff, right? When the government, when you didn't have the level of complicated and vast bureaucracy that allowed people to reach into every aspect of your life, the government can only make so many decisions in those spheres. But today, with the power of, you know, things like social media, the ability

to just blast things through propaganda through things like television, internet, news sources, media, all this kind of thing, and the level of infiltration that the government has through, say, corporations in HR departments or schools, because of all that stuff, the government has the ability and the infrastructure to reach in. And once it has, has that ability, it will, right? Yeah. So now that the government has that ability, what are some ways that you think that Republicans should use that ability to shift things for the better?

Well, and that's the really difficult questions. Can the Leviathan be turned to good? Right? And this is a very difficult question to answer. Because I think in some ways the answer is yes, you can inform your decisions in a way that is pro-family, that is, you know, that, that communicates Christian values that carries those forward. There are decisions you can make to change that. You don't have to allow children to be taught certain things in school. You don't have, you don't have to treat these

things as equally valuable ideas because they aren't. But at the same time, there is a certain level of danger, again, in letting the government seek that power constantly, right? Because again, And I don't want to say that limited government is the answer in the sense that like you should never use the power of government to, you know, to further your values. But I do think there's a certain amount of healthy localism and a respect for the standards and the culture and the tradition of communities that needs to come back into place, right? So that this isn't constantly a battle where whoever holds the control over the central apparatus immediately gets to shove their world. worldview down and there's just this basically like cold civil war over who controls this mind control device that just rules over everybody in the country right like that infrastructure is very dangerous in a way but we also at the same time have to have a realistic understanding

of that it is going to be there for the moment and while it is you can't just ignore it and say well we won't use it and the other teams allowed to use it because we're principled hey this is steve days if you're listening to alley you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos.

If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. And it's not even really a battle between small government and big government right now. It is, as you said, theoretically, as Republicans have said, oh, we want small government, but they're not actually fighting that battle. Republicans aren't necessarily voting for small government, but not in a good way, not in the way that you're talking about, using the power that's available to them to enact good. What I mean by that is that they are voting for things that typically the left likes to, like sending billions of dollars to Ukraine

and things like that. And so like libertarians can talk all they want to. No, no, no, no. Like we can't use power. It's small government versus big government. But who do we really have on our side who is fighting, really, for totally small or limited government? It's not even happening. So as you said, while the power is there, while this is the system that we have, we should use the system to enact good things, right? Because you have talked about, I've seen you tweet, however things change, if things ever changed for the better, it's going to have to be top down, not ground up. Do you still believe that? Yeah. So I think what a lot of people have difficulty with is we want, because kind of in America, we have the idea of popular sovereignty

and the people are going to inform what the government's going to do and how it's going to change things. We kind of have this idea of this populist mindset, that we're going to change, like enough people. And once we just, you know, tip the scales a little bit with popular opinion, then everything's going to kind of, the dominoes will fall and everything will go back to the 1990s or the 1950s or kind of whatever period you want to look at. But what we need to understand is that every society, even one that kind of that has this democratic aspect is always run by elites. And elites are always going to shape your culture and therefore they are going to shape your voting patterns. This is guided popular sovereignty. People on the left like Walter Lippman were talking about

the importance of it back in 1922. So this is not some new idea. This is something that since the beginning of mass communication has been understood as a valuable tool for politicians to kind of manipulate public opinion. And so that's why, for instance, the capture of something like Twitter by Elon Musk is so important. Because the left has been used to having this hegemonic control over kind of our consensus manufacturing apparatus in the United States. And the loss of kind of one of those key nodes of that network that kind of guides popular opinion is really devastating for them. And Twitter isn't that big compared to other social media platforms. But what it, you know, loses in size, it makes up for an influence. It's where all the narrative crafters are plugged

in. It's the dopamine delivery system for your average left-wing blue check journalist. And so the fact that they no longer have complete domination of the narrative forming in that space means that they lose the ability to constantly push that story down on the average person, the people that they were planning on always being able to guide to the correct conclusion. Yeah. Let me pause and explain a little bit about the Twitter files because I haven't talked about it very much on my show. And so for those who don't know, the Twitter files, they're basically a series of tweets, tweet threads by different journalists that I guess we're tap. by Elon Musk to reveal what has been going on behind the scenes at Twitter, especially for the past few years. They're very long Twitter threads. So like a TLDR was basically that Tibi, which was one of the journalists, that he basically revealed that the government and Twitter were kind of colluding to decide which tweets were they were going to suppress, especially surrounding the 2020 election and COVID.

there was a lot of interaction between the FBI and the DOJ and Twitter. Barry Weiss was also one of these journalists. And then you've also got Michael Schellenberger, another one of these journalists, who basically just revealed that the people behind the scenes at Twitter were working with mostly, not entirely, but mostly the Democratic Party to suppress information that they didn't like that they called dangerous or called misinformation or called inciting violence. or something like that. And they also revealed that what they call is,

I think it's visibility filtering is how they refer to it. What we typically talk about as shadow banning is something that is going on behind the scenes. Even though they have denied it many times over the years, Jack himself said, oh no, we have never shadow banned someone, especially not based on political ideology. But they are. They prevent people from being able to show up on the train. trending tab, they suppress the circulation of a tweet. And these are typically from what we've seen conservative accounts, Republican accounts or simply not left wing accounts that are getting slapped

with this kind of censorship. And then as you said, the average blue check journalist is saying, oh my goodness, these other journalists are doing PR for the richest white nationalist or whatever in the world. This is so terrible. Or they'll say, you know, this is a nothing burger who cares. This is no big deal. But you talked about turning the Leviathan around by using the tools available to do that. This to me seems like a perfect example of doing that. Using the tools and the power that he has to kind of reveal something really big and really bad. Yeah. And that's the thing that is really striking about Elon Musk and this interaction, right? As conservatives, we've been told it's about winning elections, right? It's about

You got to get the Congress and the Senate and you know, you just get that one more Supreme Court justice and then finally everything will turn around. And I think a lot of people are frustrated because they realize that, you know, you had, you know, Trump and you had control of the entire legislative process and you had, you know, victories in the Supreme Court and you don't have a whole lot to show for it, right? But what we're learning is that power isn't necessarily just in the formal arms of the government, right? we understand that the formal arms of the government interact with places like Twitter and collude to guide them in a particular direction, to use the power of that media apparatus to, again, change the way that people literally view the world. And if you have a system where popular sovereignty is the guide, controlling what people think and see is the key to control it to staying in power. And so what Elon Musk has done has really, again, broken that monopoly wide open. and allowed people to see something that I think most people, if you've, if you've ever interacted with Twitter and you've had a decent size account, you can feel when those bands are on. You can see that interaction plummet.

You can totally understand throwing. So a lot of people knew this was happening. But we had these constant denials. And they said this, I believe under, I don't want to misspeak, but I believe like Jack Dorsey said this specifically to Congress. We do not shadow ban. You know, and Vajagati, like one of the heads over at Twitter as well, repeat. repeatedly told people met with different people, I believe like Charlie Kirk said he met with them and was told point blank, we do not shadow ban. And now we have the smoking gun. We have the evidence for, you know, Elon Musk has divulged all these documents, all these screenshots, all these things showing the tags, showing the process, showing what happens here. And we can see very clearly that there's an intentional effort on a regular basis to completely shape the narrative, to ban certain accounts, to throttle certain accounts, to boost certain accounts. And we can see very clearly that there's an intentional effort on a regular basis to completely shape the narrative to ban certain accounts, to to remove things on behalf of political parties, to interact with the federal government and

decide what can and cannot be disseminated. And that, again, it's something that I think most people who are paying attention suspected, but having those cold, hard facts, having that, you know, those receipts is really essential. And just so people know, we're not talking about accounts that are going out there and saying, you know, I'm going to shoot up this building or like, you know, exposing people's addresses actually sometimes in those cases, people who were doxing or harassing people, as long as they were on the left, were actually not getting banned or shadow band at all. We are talking about people who are saying things that were factually true, or at least they were, you know, their own opinion, a completely valid opinion.

They were getting shadow banned or they were getting taken off Twitter entirely. One of the examples that was given, I think, by Barry Weiss was Dr. J. Batachariah. He has a Stanford epidemiologist. He's been on this podcast before who raised a question about the effectiveness and the ethics of lockdowns in the beginning. And so he was one of the people who was being punished. And so we're not talking about, and obviously it would still be problematic in a sense if we were. But we're not talking about these like kooky out there accounts that are going out there and actually trying to get people to inflict violence or something like that. We are talking about totally legitimate takes and legitimate opinions or legitimate.

facts that were being suppressed. And of course, humor, the Babylon B is a part of this, who joked about Rachel Levine being a man, which is not even really a joke. It's just true. And again, they got taken down for that. And we found out that President Trump, he was actually being suppressed and shadow banned in a way even before his 2020 election. And so if that's not like election interference and anti-democracy, the very thing that the left always says that they are trying to defend, I don't know what is. But as you often say, it's not really hypocrisy. It's just hierarchy, right? Yeah, these people believe, and you can see this from the journalists who are defending what's happening here. And let's just stop for a moment and talk about how wild that is,

right? That journalists, like they are supposed to be there to uncover the facts. They're supposed to be there to hold the powerful accountable, right? This is all we hear is what we see. seeing movies. This is how these people are portrayed, you know, the, the, the press and their heroic actions to control power. I love journalist movies, but they're not like that in real life. Not at all, right? We turns out these people are complete hacks who are willing to follow power wherever it goes. Has it always been like that? Yes, yes. We can get into that if you want to. But, but yeah, there was never this golden age of journalism that people like to think about, like, that's a Hollywood creation. You'll learn about yellow journalism in the Spanish American War

in high school, right? And then everyone just acts like, just acts like that just kind of disappear. It just solved itself. Some magical wand was waved over the press and they turned into valorous defenders of freedom, right? But these people are, are berating, you know, Elon Musk for revealing basic facts. Oh, you gave access to information to journalists so they could do a story. You must be a white nationalist, right? Like, this is the refrain we're seeing from these people. They hate having this stuff exposed. And you can see how blatant that bias was. I mean, you look at someone like libs of TikTok, right? That account, specifically they say multiple times in the Twitter files they say okay it doesn't it doesn't really

violate the rules but we're going to change the rules to say it does and they do that several times over and over again and then you like you said when the information doxing the owner of that account is made present and it's reported they reject it and say oh that we don't see this as a violation of our rules so you see direct cases where they say we're going to completely ignore direct violations of our rules because we don't like your politics. And we are going to ban you entirely, even though you clearly did not violate our policies. Because, again, we just, you're not even making commentary.

You're simply showing what people are saying. Right. But we're going to interpret that as hate speech because that allows us to do what we want. It's the constant manipulation of procedure, right? Twitter wants to pretend that it has rules and regulations and algorithms and policies that are all very, you know, they make sense. And because, you know, they're there in place, all the bureaucracy, you know, none of them are, it's none of, it's not their fault.

They're just following the rules, right? So no one can be held accountable. But what we see, what this lets us peer behind the curtain and see is that actually at every step, decisions were being being made, exceptions were being made, the thumb was being put on the scales. All these policies were for show. And the truth is that these people were more than willing to work with the federal government and to work with the Democratic Party and just on their own become soldiers again,

in a political war against people that they hate. And the person who was kind of the head of this is Yol Roth. And a lot of his old tweets are resurfacing right now. And he has said a few very strange things over the years back in 2010. He tweeted, can high school students ever meaningfully consent to sex with their teachers? Apparently, that was something that he wanted to explore. He said, I'm persistently freaked out by the youth-centric direction my research interests are headed in given I, you know, hate children. He also posted,

I guess, was supposed to be like a humorous tweet saying, do you think that the staff at the American Airlines lounge would euthanize these loud children next to me if I ask politely? Not tranquilize. Like, okay, maybe that would be a joke. He said, euthanize the children that were bothering him. He also said something weird. He said, I can't tell if the neighbors. next door have a really loud infant or listening to really loud porn. And then he also posted a tweet about how his PhD thesis was about whether or not kids should be on adult sex or hookup apps like Grindr, which is, I guess, a gay hookup, I don't know, app. And it seems from the excerpt that we have that he lands on the side of, yeah, they should have access to that. So this is

the health or was the head of trust and safety for Twitter who was making a lot of these decisions, who is meeting with the FBI. Another component of this that Elon Musk says that he has taken on is the child exploitation that was just rampant on Twitter. You've got employees and previous employees saying we weren't like the people who were supposed to be in charge of taking this down were barely even funded, we would be told that we could take down the material sometimes, but we couldn't ban the accounts. And Elon Musk says that he is, you know, he is heading the charge and trying to change that. So, I don't know. It's all, it's all very strange. I guess just tell me what you think about Yol Roth and why, why there is always like child sex stuff in the center of

the corruption in these bureaucratic entities. Tell us why. I mean, it's a, it's a really amazing situation. Like you said, you hate to pull like random tweets out of someone's past because who knows what the context is, but there does seem to a very odd pattern of behavior here, right? And I think when it comes to like, for instance, the, the PhD thesis that you're talking about, right? I think one of the things, and you have to ask how a guy like this ends up being in charge of this, right? Like, how does his previous work qualify him to decide whether or not present? of the United States should be able to speak on social media. But I think there's this constant need to be transgressive, right?

And one thing that we constantly hear is that, well, people are doing something anyway. And so the space has to be made safe. And that's his argument in this PhD thesis. It's like, well, there's already teenagers on the site, right? And so there's nothing we can do about. For abortion, for any form of immorality. Well, it's already happening. So let's just make it easier and safer.

The question is always safe for who? Yeah, well, the thing is the slippery slope is just the undefeated champion, right? It was entirely correct. We were all shamed into noticing a pattern that is very prevalent and told that, well, that's low class, right? You must be foolish. You must be some crazy 80 Southern Baptist grandma. Well, turns out your 80s Southern Baptist grandma was absolutely correct, right? No, she was actually incorrect because she underestimated things.

And I think that's, you know, that's a point that she. you've made. Even my, you know, 80 Southern Baptist grandma, if I tried to explain to her what a drag queen's story hour is. Right. I mean, she wouldn't have believed it. None of us would have believed it five to 10 years ago. I remember when we, it was probably 2012, having a conversation with some of my Christian friends in college and someone bringing up like, because it was looking like, okay, gay marriage is going to be something that is going to be legalized, whatever. And they were bringing out the fall of Rome and the immorality ramp in there. And of course, other people were like, what are you talking about? How does this affect you? How is this going to

change anything? Again, a gross underestimate. Yeah, it really is amazing. If you talked to most people, like even like the most hysterical gay marriage opponent back when this was a big debate. And you told them, okay, this is going to get past or this is not going to get past. It's going to get handed down, top down from the Supreme Court, because that's how changes actually happen. But this is going to get forced down onto the country. And within, you know, 10, 15 years, you're going to have children getting, you know, puberty blockers at 8 and getting, you know, their bodies completely physically altered at 13 to try to change their gender.

I think even the most staunch anti-gay marriage person would have been like, okay. Like, come on, man. Like, really? Yeah, the Westboro Baptist person would be like, calm down. Let's not be ridiculous here, right? But this is exactly where we are, right? And the reason is that a consent-based morality is a disaster. It's a social acid that eats through everything.

Yes. And all the safety barriers that people don't, the thing about tradition and the thing about taboo is they're there for a reason. Their social knowledge that has been hard fought and hard won and transmitted down through your tradition and through your religion and through your religion and through. those lessons that are taught to you so that you don't have to relearn them every single time, right? And when we, you know, this is Chesterton's fence for people who aren't familiar with G.K. Chesterton, you know, you don't take the fence down until you understand why it was there in the first place. But we have just been in a fence demolishing spree, you know, for a very long time. People and every point people said, well, the consequences will never catch up with us.

But here we are. Yep. And it's named a destigmatizing. We need to destigmatize everything because stigma causes. shame and shame is always harmful and shame is not always harmful sometimes sometimes it can be but sometimes it's a useful tool and we talk about that on this podcast a lot that consent is not a sufficient standard for morality and this was back i think i first started talking about this some cardi be something or other where the argument from the other side is well if someone is consenting to if if it makes

them happy to twerk naked on a stage or whatever it is, then what's wrong with that? It is a form of empowerment because she is deciding that she wants to do something and she's doing it and she's making money from it. And my point was always, but objectification is still objectification whether you are doing it or not. And I think treating someone or seeing someone or treating yourself and seeing yourself as an object is not just damaging to you as an individual, but to society as a whole. I don't care if she is consenting to that. It's still wrong. But you see how consent-based morality is not just leading to all the things that we see,

but it absolutely will lead to and has already led to the normalization of pedophilia. Age is a lot more dynamic than gender. And they've already messed with that. They've already said that male and female isn't static. You think that they're not doing that with age as well, that they will eventually finagle their way into saying, you know, what does it really matter if consent is there? So anyway, totally agree with you. No, I think you'll also notice in that example you gave there that it's interesting that the left will pivot to free market, uh, uh, justifications

for a lot of this stuff, right? Yeah. As long as you can, uh, you can turn this into something that people are making money off of. It's a, it's a voluntary transaction that creates some kind of financial interaction, then it's fine, right? These people who are constantly talking about the dangers of capitalism and the dangers of the free market, all of a sudden they don't seem to care about that very much when it comes to degeneracy that allows people to kind of break down social barriers, right? And so we can kind of see that this is a consistent feature of the left-wing worldview. We're always going to be moving this direction. It doesn't really matter what ideological tools we need to switch to, what kind of justifications of pivot. And this is where I think, this is where I think

Sometimes the ideological strictness of conservatives can get caught up, right? Because you'll see a lot of people arguing on the right, saying, well, at the end of the day, we're for the free market, right? And if people are going to make these decisions, we can't ban this stuff, right? We're not, we're the party of small government. We can't step in and do this kind of thing. We saw this with Ron DeSantis, right? When he's taking what should be landmark action that every Republican governor should be following, right? when he's taking actions to ban the sexualization of children in public schools,

ban critical race theory teaching children that they're evil because they're white. Like that should be banned in schools from the top down, taking actions against companies like Disney, where, you know, they're supporting this kind of, you know, degeneracy. They're supporting pushing this ideology on children. And Ron DeSantis says,

okay, uh, we're getting rid of your tax breaks. We're getting rid of your special exemptions. Sorry, you're not going to get rich off the backs of, taxpayers while you're pushing this kind of junk in our state, right? Those are the kinds of things that conservatives need to say, yeah, actually, we're fine with using the power of government to stop

this kind of stuff. And we don't need to adhere to some kind of ideology that says that we have to allow corporations to attack children. Yeah. Because, oh, sorry, we're the small government guys. No. Yeah. And we've seen that it's actually effective. I mean, obviously he turned a very purple slash maybe light blue state into now a deep red state. So people liked it. People like someone taking the power that's available to them and pushing for something that's good in going against corporations. I think corporations being in bed with the Republican Party has just been so disastrous for the country and certainly disastrous for their constituents. And so I was thankful to see someone stand up against, you know, a Goliath that is Disney. And it's confusing to me why other Republicans don't look at that

and say, oh, that actually worked. People like someone fighting the culture war. And instead, they say, you know, I don't want to fight the culture war or I don't want to be divisive. We've got very few people in Washington willing to do that. We had very few people in Washington willing to even, you know, defend marriage when it came to a burgafel a few years ago. Something that I noticed that Republicans do is that even if they are making a defense,

very often they will go to like the most fringe part of their defense. So rather than saying. you know, the core of their argument against redefining marriage, which is you can't redefine marriage. You don't have the power to redefine marriage. Marriage is pre-civilizational and it's based on biological complementarianism and Congress can't change that. They go to religious liberty. And so they're already in like really almost like a non sequitur. They're already in like the fringe most part of it. And I think that is also one reason why we lose because we have very few people willing to defend the core of what it is that we believe?

Well, I think the truth is that the vast majority of the GOP isn't their constituency, isn't their voters. Their constituency is corporations and donors. I think the gulf between the donor class in the Republican Party and the will of the voters is very obvious. And I think Trump showed that to everybody, right? Like, no matter how you feel about what Donald Trump did with the power that he gained, when he stepped in and created the movement that he did, he did it because,

because he stepped in and said things that every person on the right. And many people on the left wanted to hear, but that Republicans refuse to say, sorry, immigration is done. Like, I want my country to be my country. And I want my family to be able to be raised. And when I pay taxes, I want people to, you know, I want those taxes to go to people in my community. And I want people to speak the same language and have the same culture and grow up as one nation.

Right. Like, and those are things that the GOP has skirted around. for a very long time and Donald Trump just came out and said it. Did he mean every bit of it? Was it the core of his values? Hard to know, right? It feels like a lot of times Donald Trump is saying what people want to hear, but the thing is he didn't have the limitations of normal politicians.

So he's willing to say things that the Republicans actually wanted, right? That GOP voters really wanted to hear from people. We want you to protect our jobs. And we don't really care if this isn't some kind of libertarian think tank, you know, a dream about how government should run. we want people to stop shipping our jobs overseas, right? And his ability to break through that, I think, is what organized a lot of, you know, and energized a lot of that base.

But we already see kind of the GOP trying to pivot way as quickly as possible. We see this with the red wave, right? Oh, the red wave didn't materialize. So we have to worry about candidate quality. Oh, these Trump Republicans, they're just not, they're not a high enough quality, even though Federman wins, right? Right. And Joe Biden.

Exactly. And so it's just insane that they're trying to do this, but they know like they need to wrestle control of party away from the actual voters. They need to get it back on. It needs to be Jeb Bush's and Mitt Romney's all the way down, right? Really safe people who are always going to make those corner case arguments that you're talking about that are destined to lose in the long run, which is why Mitt Romney's voting for this now, right? Because at the end of the day, these people are far more worried about donor money and glowing stories from the New York. and they are about actually fighting for a culture that they believe in. Okay, let me press into something that you said that I know is going to be deemed controversial

by some of the people that you just listed are some of the kind of people. If you haven't been written up by media matters, this might be your moment. You want your children to grow up in people who share your culture and your language. Tell me why that's important. And why some, why is that controversial for some people? I think it's really difficult for people because they have a hard time understanding what America is, right? Is America a set of ideas? Is America actually a group of people?

Is America an ideology? And so because of that, it's really difficult for people to understand like what they're fighting for. Because if America is just an ideology, then if someone says they no longer believe in the American ideology, they cease being American. I think most people would say no, right? So America has to be something else, right? Now, America has always been a mixture of many different people, right? That's always been the case. It's a nation of people who came and settled a different land.

And sometimes we had different waves that kind of changed and altered certain aspects of America. But I think at this point, we are at such open borders and insane, there is no immigration policy, right? It's whoever gets across is here and they're released into the country. We know this. Are illegal immigrants. I mean, actually someone trying to become a legal immigrant, there's plenty of policy and plenty of hurdles to jump over, which is part of the problem. Yeah.

But I mean, but the Democrats say this over and over again. They're not particularly coy about it when they aren't denouncing people. They say demographics are on our side, right? Eventually, they're going to be so. The great replacement theory. But they say it constantly, right? They cheer it on a regular basis. But then they call it a great replacement theory.

Tucker Carlson is, yeah, the end of the, right. But, you know, Tucker Carlson can also slam the montage up of all these politicians, all these journalists, saying eventually we're going to get enough people from other countries in here and they're going to vote for us and you'll never win another, you know, election again. They taunt Republicans constantly with this line. Now, what we're seeing is by leadership by people like DeSantis, actually maybe you can significantly change. You can flip a place like Miami-Dade, which is, was deep blue as I'll get out and turn it into something. So maybe there isn't that inevitability. But either way, the American people have a right to decide who's going to be in their country. And they have a right to decide who's going to be in their community.

They're the people who fund this stuff. They're the people who live here. They're the people who make this place who they are. And they have the if popular will means anything, if that's really something and we can talk about whether or not it does. But if it means anything, then I think it has to mean that people have the right to live in the kind of communities that they want. And if they don't, you know, if they don't want home prices driven up, if they don't want to have to teach seven different languages at their school, if they don't want to have to have a giant infrastructure to care for people who broke the law entering the nation and removing those resources from their children and their communities, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Yeah. And it used to be known as something that was perfectly reasonable.

Yeah. And for some reason, we've been gaslit into thinking that it's not. And I think, I mean, we see especially what's gone on in Europe that there is really no sense of cohesive national identity in a lot of these places that have allowed really a lot of these refugees, if you can even call them that, or a lot of these migrants, not only come in, all right, but also kind of create their own colonies. I mean, talk about colonialism that the left says that they hate, create their own colonies, which can operate in impunity. Like if you're looking at places like the UK, they have a huge problem with a lot of these Middle Eastern immigrants committing disproportionate rates of assault and rape and things like that. And they won't do anything about it. The government won't do anything about it. So it's not that, I mean, they talk about like this rich tapestry or this rich, like, mosaic.

All right. I mean, yes, but even a mosaic has glue that holds it together. And if you don't have that, you don't even have the rule of law that holds people together. I mean, what do you have? It's not a mosaic. It's more just, I don't know. Just a mess. It's a mess.

It's anarchy. And people don't operate in chaos well. Well, and you see how much progressives actually value diversity because the minute that Ron DeSantis landed some immigrants in Martha's Vineyard, all of a sudden, the military had them out of there. Oh, yeah. Inside of 48 hours, right? So it turns out diversity is your strength, you know, but not our strength. It's not Martha's Vineyard's strength at all. the vineyard. They don't really, they don't really hold to that. That's, that's for,

that's for the suckers out down the border states, right? Like, that's the thing. And I, I grew up in Florida, right? Like the, you know, most of my friends, Hispanic admixture of some kind, right? Like, we shared a culture in many ways. So it's not that these things can't work. Yes, of course. But it's the rate of change over time, right? It's that you cannot bring vast quantities of people into a nation who don't have an education, aren't familiar with the culture and just drop them into a neighborhood and say, oh, well, now it's your community's responsibility to, you know, fund this and, and, you know, that was the big thing from Martha Vineyard. It said, we're not a border state. We don't have the money for this. Like,

border states get some kind of special dispensation to care for the, you know, hundreds of thousands of people pouring over their borders. They don't. And they shouldn't have to live this way. Right. Some of my favorite people in my life are immigrants. I love this family so much. And we share a lot that I don't really share with some of the people that I share a country with who are on the other side of the spectrum. We share a faith. We share a language. I mean, they're very hardworking. And so we share a lot of values. And we do share a similar culture in a lot of ways and that we're raising our kids the same way. And so there is a cohesiveness there. There is like a bond there that I, and they're American citizens that I don't share with a lot of other American citizens.

So of course it's possible to have people from different backgrounds. But you have to have something that supersedes your skin color, your ethnicity, your country of origin. And we just don't have that. Multiculturalism doesn't even really allow that. I mean, we've specifically gone our way to dissolve it, right? Like that it's not just that we don't have it. It's that we actively worked to break down that shared culture in kind of the pursuit of this new progressive faith. And the people coming in here don't necessarily adhere to the progressive faith the way that other people do.

But either way, the point is that, you know, again, the people in the country now should be able to decide the rate of immigration. They should be able to say, we want to stop this for a while. We want to adjust this, right? We have a skyrocketing home prices where it's almost impossible for families to afford first homes, right? And importing large amounts of people who are going to make more demands on your housing is only going to make those kinds of things more difficult. We talk about how we want a wage that will allow one earner to earn for their family and allow someone to stay home and raise children so we can have functional families, right? But if you're constantly importing cheap labor, driving down the cost of labor, then they could be the greatest people in the world. You're still actively doing something to harm the people who live here now.

And you just, I think that's what Donald Trump tapped into. It's okay to say that Americans, wherever they may have come from in the beginning, are now want to be a people who can care about their community and set standards and achieve goals to grow families and provide things for their, you know, for the next generation. going forward. And if that means they need to restrict immigration to do that, that's a perfectly reasonable desire for them. I saw a tweet the other day, and I think this person was earnest that said, I can't think of, or can someone tell me a genuine non-racist reason for someone to want to live in a suburb? So I almost think that the mentality that you're talking about is foreign. I don't even want to say just to people on the left, although I'm sure it's mostly people on the left,

this idea that you can care about your family first. You can care about your community first. You can care more about your family than other families. You can care more about your neighborhood than you care about other neighborhoods. You can care more and should care more actually about your country than other countries. That it's always lumped in with some kind of white supremacy or white nationalism or bigotry. And so I think some people are manipulated into saying, oh, no, I care about everyone the exact same, which is actually a lie.

No one really does. But why do they think that way? Because when you say that you care about humanity, you don't have to care about your neighbor anymore, right? If you get to abstract, I care about someone else over there. And I don't actually have to bring them into my home. I don't have to feed them. I don't have to give them the coat off my back.

Yeah, it's abstract virtue. Exactly. I can funnel the money through some organization, some NGO, some government somewhere, and probably not even my money, probably someone else's money. And I can feel very. virtuous for doing that without ever having to care about those people. Right. But if you want to really build communities, if you really want to build a social fabric that informs,

you know, a government that will do better things for the people, you have to care locally. You have to care about the people around you. You have to form communities that can provide the kinds of institutions and the things that pick people up when they're down and provide people opportunities and care for them in difficult times. Those are the kinds of things that enabled family formation, then enabled small businesses to grow to do all the things that we as Americans want to think of as kind of core to the American experience. But we've decided to disassemble all of those things in the pursuit of humanity. I'm for all humans, which means you're actually for no humans at all.

I wish I had more time. I've got nine more minutes. And so rapid fire, a few things that I want to ask you about. which one first. Okay, first, because you did kind of allude to this and you said we can talk about this. Does the voice of the people actually mean anything? You don't like democracy. I'm not a big fan of democracy.

And the reason, there's quite a few reasons. One is what most people mean by democracy now is not even approaching the actual like representative republic that the American founders would have talked about, right? the idea that the franchise can just go literally to illegal immigrants at this point, right? We have different cities and states that are saying, oh, well, you should, you know, you should allow completely undocumented to people. They live here too, so they deserve a vote, even though they have no actual citizenship, they have obtained no those rights. So even kind of, even if you like democracy, the thing we have now is just a complete, you know, it's a shambles, right? It doesn't even work.

But I think also, unfortunately, what democracy does is it incentivizes, the short term, right? Like, society is all about delayed gratification. It's about reducing your time preference and putting a value on things down the road. And what democracy does is it incentivizes to only think to the next election cycle, to only fight for kind of that stuff that's right in front of us. And so politicians say, basically, why not just give everything to my supporters right now because who cares what's going to be down the road?

I might not be here tomorrow, so I might as well eat everything now, right? And so we see this with, you know, for instance, giving away money to Ukraine while we're having an economic crisis, right? Like these people are just giving money away to their supporters, giving money away to weapons manufacturers, giving money away. And however you feel like Vladimir Putin, bad guy, absolutely. But how is this your problem, right? It's only your problem because it profits people in the American Congress and the American, you know, the American Senate. And so, you know, people are willing to make those short term, you know, they're willing to pay off voters now. Vote buying is just always the most effective thing in the short term.

It's really hard to sell those pro-civilizational things to people in the long term. People don't vote for civilization. They assume they take civilization for granted. And then they vote for the things that are convenient for them now, right? And that's a constant problem that democracy faces. It's constantly also, there's all. always power in disassembling. I'm sorry, I'm probably going too long for the things going to hit. But it also, constantly, there's always power in disassembling tradition and the current

hierarchy. And because there's, because the people who are out of power want to gain power. And so people who are in the representation want to gain power can always devolve some part of the hierarchy or promise some part of the pie to people who don't have it if they'll gain their support. And so that's one of the reasons. that we kind of always see American politics moving to the left because it's always about dismantling the system as it is now

so you can provide power and Gibbs to people who don't have them currently. There's a very long case to be made, but those would be what do you think is the best form of government? Well, that's a difficult thing. Joseph Demastra is a guy that I like a lot. He was a

political theorist in kind of the late 1700s, but one of the things he said is that the governments are the proper government form of government is always going to reflect the character of the people right so it's not that like for instance a representative republic couldn't be the right form of government but it has to reflect the nature of the people and our founding fathers knew this by the way they said specifically the constitution only exists for a moral people right it only exists for people who are going to have these religious traditions and so if you're going to have that type of government it has to reflect the people as they are now i think kind of the way we've let, you know, our civilization slide, I don't think that really maps onto the reality. It doesn't reflect today. I think that we're probably going to see eventually a move to some kind of, you know, strong man at the end of the day. I think a lot of people will see that because, you know, they're not going to have the ability to break through a lot of the things. People are going to look for solutions as

things kind of have a problem. But that's not, you know, I'm not advocating for that. I'm just saying that's a typically how history goes. Yes, we see that over and over again. they don't operate in chaos well. People don't like chaos. People don't like anarchy. Part of the reason why libertarianism doesn't work very well, which I know that you could take us on a journey about libertarianism too. But we don't have that much time. All right.

Just a couple more things. You mentioned Vladimir Putin. Brittany Greiner. What do you think about that swap? Was it a fair deal for the merchant? of death? It's really interesting because it turns out Vladimir Putin is the most dangerous human being in the world and he's planning world domination. We have to fight a proxy war through Ukraine and risk nuclear annihilation in order to keep him from spreading his power unless we have like

one of our aristocracy over there on like drug charges. And then we can trade him an arms dealer kind of whenever we want to, right? And then that's the thing, you know, that a lot of people pointed out that the Marine over there who was arrested for, yes, it was arrested for possible espionage, that kind of thing. Who knows what kind of truth there is behind that. But, but, you know, it's very obvious that the United States had its priority and it chose, you know, someone who ticked all the right progressive boxes and had the right politics and had the right social status before it chose somebody who, you know, served their country honorably. So. Yeah. I, my friend was asking me what I thought about this. And, you know, I,

call me nostalgic, but I always think it's good to get American citizens back. And I always wanted her to come back, even though she is kind of made known that she doesn't really appreciate the country in which she lives. And she believes people like her pressed in the United States. And I still thought, okay, she's an American citizen. We should do everything that we can to get her back, as well as all other American citizens. However, I also think that it is a bad deal. It's a great deal for Russia. It helps in so many ways. It makes Joe Biden look weak that he would get this kind of person for the kind of person that they wanted, this arms dealer that is responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths around the world, including Americans. And they also, I think, picked a person that they knew was going to stoke the culture war.

I mean, they got a black woman on drug charges. And so you're going to have a lot of people on the left say that it's because of racism, that this is the plight of black people around the world. then you're going to have people on the right and say, oh, you know, she didn't care about America. She didn't stand for the anthem. And so you've got that culture war going on, which is something that Russia, since it's Soviet days, has tried to stoke. They have pumped propaganda into the American system to try to create that division. So they accomplished that. They've got Russian media now saying, all this poor white heterosexual Marine committed the crime of not being intersectional enough.

and that's why he wasn't, you know, taken back. And so they are using this to stoke the flames of division in the United States. And, of course, then they get someone who is going to be very helpful to them in this war against Ukraine. And so it's losing on all sides for America. But the Biden administration doesn't see it that way. Let's play that clip from the press secretary. On a personal note, Brittany is more than an athlete, more than an Olympian. She is an important role model and inspiration to millions of Americans, particularly

the LGBTQI plus Americans and women of color. She should never have been detained by Russia. All right. So, I mean, they're just saying it. I mean, this is part of why I think she was chosen. This is also, it's not because she's an American citizen. And it's not because she's a human being made in the image of God. It's because she takes all of these identity boxes that apparently this is important.

And they're saying, you know, it was Griner or No One. That was, you know, the deal that we had. But MSNBC, they wrote a story saying it was Griner Whalen or No One. And then they changed it without saying that they changed it. And they said, actually, it was either Griner or no one. So I don't even know what was right. I would not be surprised at all. if they had the option to get Paul Wayland, but they knew that this was going to help with progressive activists getting this person.

So I don't know. Yeah, I mean, this is something we see constantly, right? This shouldn't be a surprise at all. This is a choice that our leaders make on a very regular basis. They announce it constantly having all of these different descriptors puts you to the front of the line. There's a reason I said aristocracy because that's exactly what it is. It's people who have specific privileges based on innate traits. And that's they're not hesitant.

to make a very clear from the podium of the White House press room, who gets those benefits and who doesn't. Yeah. Okay. Last thing that I meant to ask you during the Yol Roth conversation. So a meme that you post a lot is from the Simpsons and it's the bus driver saying, don't make me tap the sign. And then your meme says it's not, you know, it's not that complicated. I don't have it in front of me. It's not that complicated.

They just want to dittle kids. And basically, like, you're talking about all. of these real groomers, whether they're in school, whether they're politicians, like Scott Weiner out of California, you were referring to in this tweet, you'll Roth. And so now a lot of people think it's deeper than that, that it's not just them wanting to molest children. But your point has been, no, it's basically just because they want to molest children. So break it down for us. So it's not that people aren't right that those things exist. It's funny because there's a guy who did a thread on Twitter.

Josh Dawes, yes. And I'm a big fan of him. And I thought that he made a lot of good points. But I did see your kind of rub up. But it's funny that actually Josh specifically came back and later said, actually, I agree with you now. Yeah. Like he actually told me and actually met me and him and I talk now.

He's a great guy. He is. Yeah. And he specifically said, actually now I see your point. But all the points he made are correct. Right. These are, this is an ideology meant to separate children. from the authority of their parents to create an excuse for the state, to intervene in the

underworking of families, to create political foot soldiers by separating children from the values of their parents early on so they can be indoctrinated and put under the auspices of the party. All of this is true, right? That's all correct. But also, there is a very real and ugly part of this that no one wants to look at, and I don't blame it. This is not what I want to focus on. This is not something.

If you look at my YouTube channel, the things I've read, I've only done a couple of video, a couple, you know, an article or two on this stuff. But we can't lie about what's happening here, right? These people are constantly, again, that consent-based morality, right? If we can just lower the age of consent, right, for puberty blockers and for transition surgeries and for separating yourself from the authority of your parents, then guess what? There's no one around to protect you from what comes next, right? And there have been many people in the left that they don't talk about very much anymore who were core parts of their theorists, people like Michelle Foucault, who specifically went out of their way to advocate for the abolition of this prohibition, right? And so I don't think this is, I don't think the majority of the people pushing this stuff down have that goal. But I think a large percentage do, or I shouldn't say a large percentage.

I should a certain percentage do. And the grooming tag was so devastating because it was correct. It correctly described what was happening. Even if the people pushing the gender ideology do not have the intention of abusing a child. They are preparing that child for abuse because anybody who's looked into sex trafficking and any of this stuff knows. The first thing people who want to sex traffic minors do is expose them to sexuality too young. Right. And that's the program.

That's what this stuff does is it pushes the stuff down on kids who are not. psychologically or emotionally prepared for and should not ever have to be at this age. And it makes them easier victims for people who are interested in predation. Yep. And they call it comprehensive sex education and they say they're doing it for the protection of these children. And I've had someone who used to work for Planned Parenthood as a comprehensive sex educator on this podcast. And she basically said, look, we were telling nine-year-olds basically how to have sex and how to engage in sex. They weren't thinking about that before. We were telling us. telling ourselves that they're already thinking about it. They're already doing it, kind of like

what YOL Roth argued. Yeah. And, but they weren't. They actually weren't. In a lot of cases, they were looking for ways not to be involved sexually because they felt pressure from outside forces. And so it's just all a big constructed lie to, at the end of the day, make children pray. So I agree with you on that. Man, I could talk to you for a lot longer, but unfortunately, we're out of time. So let's end this, and you'll come back on and we'll talk about a lot more things, but let's end this telling everyone where they can find your

show, how they can follow you and read your writings and all that good stuff. Absolutely. So I obviously just joined up with the Blaze here. And so I'm writing on a weekly basis for the Blaze. You can see my op-eds there. And then I also now have a podcast with the Blaze. So

if you want to go over there, subscribe on Apple or Spotify or any of those major platforms. Is it the Orrin McIntyre show? Yes, Orrin McIntyre show and the old rate and subscribe and everything. You really appreciate that because getting started, a lot of people have already been excited about it. So it's been really great to see that support. And then I have my YouTube channel, which is where I kind of got started with all my video

essays and all that stuff will be still go up there. I'll still do my live streams and my video essays and everything I do there. And then, you know, we're talking about more here, what will be coming next. But those are the main places. And then, of course, the Twitter account, Warren McIntyre as well. Okay. Awesome. Thanks so much.

No, thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual,

and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty, over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you

about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this T-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.