The Chris Cuomo Project - Jackson Hinkle’s MAGA Communist Manifesto

Episode Date: February 27, 2024

Controversial political commentator Jackson Hinkle (host, “The Dive with Jackson Hinkle”) joins Chris Cuomo to dig into a broad range of pressing political topics, from “MAGA communism” to the weaponization of media. Jackson’s viewpoint, which aligns with MAGA principles yet embraces anti-imperialist stance and communist ideology, offers a unique perspective on diverse issues including the Israel-Hamas conflict, the US border standoff, and the significance of free speech in media and politics. Join Chris Ad-Free On Substack: http://thechriscuomoproject.substack.com Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jackson Hinkle, automatically, you've got a whole idea in your mind about what kind of animal he is and what he represents in terms of your feelings. You could be wrong. I'm Chris Cuomo. How you doing and welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. This is all about disagreement with decency, conversation in good faith, not about just pushing agendas and demonizing. We got enough of that. So thank you for subscribing and following. Thank you for checking me out on News Nation. Thank you very much for checking out the Substack if you care about long COVID. And that's the chrisquamoproject.substack.com.

And you get these episodes ad-free when you subscribe. If that matters to you, there you go. Jackson Hinkle, some of you are saying, why would you give him a platform? He's a fill in the blank because I don't operate that way. Look, if you're a Nazi or you're a hater, want to eradicate people, anti-Semites, something like that, then you have no value. Then I don't have you on the show. But if you have ideas that are controversial, if you're somebody who outrages people because of what you say you want for this country or others that aren't about destroying or hurting people, they're just different, then that's about

conversation. Now, why do you think this kid, and I know he's 24 years old, he's a young man, I'm old, right? I could be his dad. So to me, everybody's young. But why have his ideas made him so resonant, let's say, right? Millions of followers on different platforms. He describes himself in a way I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe themselves who's considered a MAGA guy or a Trump guy. In fact, some of the things he says about himself would make Trump crazy. But let's have a conversation and let's give you an opportunity to learn something about somebody that you've heard a lot about, but you may feel differently once you listen to them directly in the context of this conversation. It's got to be about that. You don't have to agree, but you can't just shut things out

if they don't line up with where you are right now. You never get better that way. Never get better. So Jackson Hinkle, he's young. He's relevant. He's got a lot to say about politics at home and abroad. Let's get after it. Jackson Hinkle, thank you very much. It's good to have you here. It's nice to talk to somebody who's at the head of the next generation of a lot of social media and political thought in the country. Thanks for taking time

with the old guy. Thanks for having me on. So first, I want to introduce the audience to who you are. Obviously, I'll do an introduction, but what do you believe you're about in terms of where you're headed and what you want to make of yourself within the media environment? I think to put it as briefly as possible, I'm an American patriot. I'm a communist and a strong anti-imperialist. And today with the issues we're facing in America, I think if we want to free America and get a country that's on the right track again, we really need to stop these foreign wars. So that's the focus for me. MAGA communism. Explain. MAGA communism is basically the idea that

the MAGA movement, you know, we always say that we don't like Trump for Trump. We like him for the movement and the people that make it up. That this MAGA movement represents political consciousness that we really haven't had in the United States in decades, a certain level of class consciousness that is upset with the way our country is headed. They're upset with the fact that we have big banks that are deciding which way policy is headed in the United States. They're upset with the fact that we have big banks that are deciding which way policy is headed in the United States. They're upset with the fact that we have big tech deciding what they can and cannot say and that people like Bill Gates can buy up land throughout the country, but they're left straddled with debt. And I think that too many people write off the MAGA movement as being racist or misogynistic,

and I think we need to take a closer look at it. Socialism will get you the stink eye, let alone communism. Other than the color of most MAGA hats, how do you expect communism to become popular with that group or any group in America? Well, I think it already is. People just don't like the label. I think if, well, I know I've been to a number of Trump events and my friends and colleagues who are big proponents of MAGA communism have been as well. And we talked to average MAGA voters and they sign off on all of the basics, the basic tenets of what communism is. And when you tell them that that's communism, they kind of have a perplexed look, but they're like, okay, you know, they're very open-minded. Again, I think too many people

write them off. And, you know, you look at the way that this country's oriented, you've brought it up before, that the two-party system is a dead end, that if we want to progress as a nation, we need to have different options, different parties. And I think you're right about that. And I think MAGA voters kind of understand that because a lot of them were apolitical prior to the 2016 election. They viewed Donald Trump as an outsider, which is up for question, I think, but he's definitely not within the DC establishment crowd. That's why they're trying to keep him out of power again. So I think that they're probably the most open-minded group of people in America when it comes to any sort of ideology, even communism. You're right about labels. They have such power because they're so necessary in a binary system. And especially if what you're

trying to do is divide and creating an us and them, because there's power in that, especially if it's binary, right? If it's just Hinkle versus Cuomo, all you need to do to win is not prove that you're better. You just have to prove I'm worse. You know what I mean? If you can make me trip and fall during the race, you don't have to run that fast. make me trip and fall during the race. You don't have to run that fast, you know. And that's where we are with a lot of our political thought. I do think, though, that part of Trump's appeal, part of a lot of Republican appeal over the years have been free markets, the idea of no centralized control, of making your own dreams. Of course, this is capitalized within capitalism. And do you think that this is a fight you can win? Or do you think you may modify to the extent that you want this to spread to make it more palatable to people's experience? I think crazier things have happened. And I also think it's a misnomer to say that what we're living in is capitalism or

that capitalism is the equivalent of free markets. I mean, think about what they always say about communism. They say that communism is a planned economy. And that is true. It is a planned economy. You can look at China today. It's a perfect example of a planned economy. But I think America is a planned economy as well. But it's just perfect example of a planned economy. But I think America is a planned economy as well. But it's just planned for different people and different interests. America is planned for the richest of the rich, for the financial elite, for multinational corporations. And I think you look at China or you look at countries that we've targeted unjustly. You've brought up the unjustly targeting of Venezuela, for example,

the very harsh sanctions that we've imposed on Venezuela. Why did we do that? There's many reasons, but one of the main reasons is Venezuela decided one day that they wanted to nationalize their oil and what we have as public utilities in this country. And that made a lot of very wealthy people in the United States very upset. So I think if we had a planned economy that worked for the bread and butter of America, that would be in the interest of most people. Jordan Peterson likes to discuss communism as an evil and that it has never succeeded. It's only led to authoritarianism. It's only led, in his explanation, the only thing worse than

the two party system would be a single party system. And that's where you get with communism. If you look at China, if you look at Russia, this is not who we want to be. What is Peterson missing? I think that I think that Peterson misses a lot. You know, I've talked with him and we have some points of agreement about the Malthusian worldview and pushing for a country that will promote growth and development rather than degrowth and isolation. But I think for anyone who says that communism brings about a one party system, all you have to do is look at China today. I was just in China, first of all. And, you know, it's about one in 10 people in China are actually members of the Communist Party of China. And then you look at the actual party breakdown. There's probably about 15, 16 different parties

within the party itself that all have competing interests. And then outside of the Communist Party of China, there's different sort of interest groups that make up their own parties, like professional managerial groups, like doctors or teachers, professors, those sorts of things. So I think you look at America, America is a one party system. America, it doesn't matter if you vote for Joe Biden or Nikki Haley, you're still going to get a war with Iran or Russia or whoever it is next time around. And that's the unfortunate truth of the matter. And again, it's why, as you stated, regardless of what it looks like, we do need to have other options in this country besides Democrat and Republican. Why is Trump the proper agent for the change that you want to see?

I don't think he's the proper end-all agent for what I want to see. But I think that, again, for a lot of people, he represents a formidable opponent to the establishment class right now. I mean, obviously, you have to have someone who has a lot of wealth, class right now. I mean, obviously, you have to have someone who has a lot of wealth, a Julius Caesar type figure, if you will, that comes out of the nobility of the country to pierce a hole in the chain of imperialism. And I think that Donald Trump, for better or worse, he's had a lot of failures. He put a lot of people in his administration that I think are abhorrent. I think he was a bad butcher with regard to getting rid of those people as slowly as he did. And I also think that he just frankly holds a lot of policy views that I would disagree with. But

he has risen this new political class in America that, again, we haven't seen in a long time. There's a lot of reasons for that. In his initial campaign, I think he just reached out to a lot of disaffected voters and started talking about bread and butter issues again. But I think also you see what he's saying this time around. He's floating very interesting ideas. He's talking about building America first cities or patriot cities, I think he called them, which is kind of reminds me of what China is doing right now, focusing on development, on, you know, accelerating the productive forces, on't trust any politicians, but I can only hope that he actually takes this campaign. And if he is elected, this presidency and a more meaningful and tangible routes that he did in 2016. Is it fair to you to describe you as a righty far right?

I mean, you don't agree with a lot of the things, and I don't believe in the big tent idea of parties, by the way. That's not really true. We just only have two. So we have to say that they're big tents, but they really aren't, and they become very focused and small

in their pursuits, right? But do you agree with that labeling to the extent that we need to have them, that you're on the right? You don't agree with a lot of the extent that we need to have them, that you're on the right? You don't agree with a lot of the things that people on the right say. And you're certainly not there when it comes to foreign engagements, even the Middle East conflict. I mean, you're saying things and promoting social justice for Palestine in a way you don't hear on the right by pretty much anybody. I think that communists draw their own lines.

And I think that's what was unique about the Soviet Union. And that's what was unique today, what is unique about China. And it's why you have so many people on the left and right that are very worried about China and why there was such a dedicated bipartisan effort to squash the Soviet Union and the success that it had. I mean, there's been no level of success that we've seen in the acceleration of a country's productive forces like we saw in the Soviet Union in the lead up to World War II. And during it, we've seen nothing like that since what we're witnessing with China. I mean, if you had told anyone that China would be where it's at today, 100, 150 years ago, people would have laughed in your face. But it's because of communism that they've been able to achieve that.

In America, people, I think, inappropriately label people based on their views of race or LGBT issues. And it's fine to have those views. And I do think it might be fine to say that socially I'm conservative or socially one person is this, that, or the other. But I always come back to the fact that regardless of what social views you have, capitalists at the end of the day made it their total mission, their life's journey to destroy communism and the Soviet Union. And it seems like they're hellbent on doing that again towards China. I don't think they're going to be as successful, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. China is a difficult thing for America. You're so wrapped up with it from a production standpoint.

They hold so much of our paper. They don't have to deal with the pressures that the American democracy and its leadership does, right? I mean, the CCP, and by the way, I had no idea that when I named my podcast, I would become known as a Chinese agent. The Chris Cuomo project, I did not see that coming, become known as a Chinese agent. The Chris Cuomo project, I did not see that coming, which is unusual for me. I usually see the punch coming, but they don't have to play by the same rules that we do. And now there's a new flush of China's coming after us and hacking and going after our infrastructure. And people are so disillusioned about who and what to believe that we have our own problems within that are probably bigger than anybody who's threatening us from without right now. How do you see the domestic situation and the division? Why do you think America is how it is?

I think it's exactly what you just said at the end of the question when you said that we have so many problems within our own country. It pales in comparison to what other minor issues other countries may be imposing upon us. And it's also true to say that we bring about far more pain, misery, suffering, and destabilization to any other country than they would bring to us as well, I think, for most countries. For China, yes. I mean, we're talking about starting a war with them over semiconductor chip production in Taiwan. Maybe that's a concern for billionaires in this country, but I don't think any American wants to send their sons and daughters even to go die in a war over that. You look at Russia, same thing. You can hate Putin, but at the end of the day,

this is an issue that is very near and dear to the Russian people, securing the Donbass and liberating it. And the idea that we would start World War III nuclear warfare over a tiny stretch of land in Eastern Europe seems a little bit insane to me. So I think the priorities are just way out of step when it comes to those issues. But also with what we're actually doing here, I mean, the American economy is a Byzantine labyrinth of speculation, stock buybacks, debt traps, you name it. And going to China, as I just mentioned, and I really can't say as much the same about Russia. I mean, Russia is also doing incredible things with the nature of the sanctioned warfare that they've been faced with. And now they are developing a lot of their own national resources.

They are doing a lot of trade with the BRICS partners. But China was just incredible. I've never seen a country that is so invested in actually leveraging innovation rapidly to develop emerging technologies and do ample trade with the rest of the world. Haven't seen a country like that since the United States, maybe 80 years ago. And I think that's the direction we need to get back on. What do you think about that? I think it's complicated. And I think that there are aspects of their innovation and their cultural grit and determination and focus, not to generalize, because not all Chinese are the same, but what we've come to identify with people who come here, and then that puts you into a completely different echelon, right?

Because very few Chinese actually come here and they've come for different reasons and different waves, but there are limitations also, right? Everything is layered. So they have a lot of innovation, but they don't have a lot of participation. They don't have the same kinds of freedoms that we enjoy and suffer for and from, right? There is a price to being able to have a Jackson, a Chris who can run their mouth and say things that the people in power don't want to say and don't want to be said. It's nice to be able to shut that down. If you see yourself as always being right,

we suffer through the rigor of allowing people equal access in a way that China does not. It doesn't mean necessarily that therefore they are bad and we are good. It's about degree and difference and intentions. And I really stay away from judgments as much as I can because there's always something to pick up from another place or another people. I think what's happening here domestically could never happen in China. The state authority is way too strong. Now, I don't know that that's a virtue or a vice, but I do believe that you are on the

popular side of opinion about America's disposition towards the rest of the world, that it's time to pull back. You mentioned earlier, I don't think they want to send their son or daughter. I don't think people want to send their son or daughter. I don't think people want to send their son or daughter anywhere for anything like that. They're exhausted. They have compassion fatigue and they want to stay home and take care of what's happening here. The question is, what do we do? Yeah. I want to touch on one thing you mentioned as well.

As much as you like. The point regarding free speech and our freedoms here, we do have a lot of freedoms that no other country has. You know, guns being one of the biggest, I think, and that's very important. But when it comes to free speech, there's no country that's perfect. And I think America has the best vision for what free speech should look like. what free speech should look like. But unfortunately, as you're well aware, in America, if you call out the ruling establishment, especially for their wars, you will meet some level of censorship. I've met it on social media. I don't need to drone on about all the places I've been banned or that I've been placed on a Ukrainian government's kill list and we're

sending them hundreds of billions of dollars. And I don't want to get into the details of this. I understand it's private, but you did speak a lot of truth when you were at your previous employer about the Saudi blockade in Yemen, about the sanctions in Venezuela, as I just mentioned. Have you ever met a certain level of censorship from the state or from its proxies for saying those sorts of things? I would say no, not the way you do, because I've always been with organizations. Although recently, with the changes in how

they're using software and AI to flag things on social media, I had two, as far as I know, clips that aired on my show on national cable television censored by Meta, which I found hilarious. And it didn't make sense. Why would you flag something that was good enough for television. You know what I mean? And it was with an American veteran who was an expert in hostage taking and hostage retrieval about why Hamas had taken hostages and what it means and what can you do and how are they probably treating them? You know, all the things that go into that very horrible dynamic and they got flagged. And it had to be that it was just a collection of words in the description or what he said, or I said that flagged it. And I find it highly problematic because it's not just a technical issue.

If people don't like what you say, the right answer is not to give you the ability or place to say it. And people also don't understand our freedom, I think, as thoroughly as they need to. Like if someone comes up to you and says, Jackson Hinkle, I don't like anything about you. You shouldn't have an American flag after your name. And if you start yelling at them or whatever, and they, well, hold on, it's my freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with anything except the government's ability to limit it and to prescribe it for its own purposes has nothing to do with how we treat

one another it has nothing to do with what private corporations uh can do and there is an increase of what you're talking about jackson i don't have to agree with what you say. You don't have to agree with what I say. We should, for the sake of conversation and any intellectual honesty, try to disagree with decency. But if I don't like your idea by saying, don't listen to Jackson Hinkle, I won't have him on the show and he shouldn't be allowed on this platform. That is going to only guarantee that you go from two and a half million to five million people following you because people don't like being told what to think or who to listen to. And I think that's a part of Trump's appeal, by the way. And in America, we're doing too much of it.

I have people say to me all the time, like they'll say when I, when we put this out, even though the podcast audience is certainly more open. Okay. Let's say then the traditional cable viewing audience, although at NewsNation, we're trying some things there. I'm really pitching it to independence, but I like NewsNation to be honest. I do like it. I think it's, I think they're doing the right thing. And how they'll do it is all about each person, right? If you have a show there after me, it's not fair for people to come to you and say, I don't know, I heard on Cuomo's show this thing. Hey, you don't control Cuomo's show.

And people don't, they forget that. But here's what I'm seeing is that increasingly, we are criticizing people for giving voice to any ideas unless they like them, right? And that is very dangerous in a marketplace of ideas in a democracy. If you don't like Hinkle's ideas, expose them, oppose them, counter them, and let the best idea win. Not saying that they can't listen to you. You're dangerous. It's only going to make you more powerful. So it's counterproductive. It's also anti-American.

And I want to talk to you. I did my research on it. I listened to you with Carlson. And I think you got to engage ideas. I also think you're a weird mix and I like seeing people put you in a box. And it's so funny how Bernie Sanders was getting chased all over the place for being a socialist by the right. And you have a lot of people on the right embrace you. And you are a communist. You believe in communism as a system uh and a political theory and you're unapologetic

about it and it just shows you what makes people you know what triggers people and what doesn't i find it all fascinating but i do share your concern when it comes to limiting voices that we don't like yeah yeah i think you're a hundred percent it's the KKK. If you're a KKK or you are determined to eradicate a people, you have no value. You have no value to the conversation. And as you mentioned, there's obvious limits. So if someone defames violent threats, that's out the window. But there's protected speech, unprotected speech. I agree with you.

So yeah, I think that we should be able to have that dialogue. And it is going in a scary direction. And I don't think, yeah, people are very, you know, reactionary online. But I think that overall, they'd prefer to have open and free dialogue rather than just, you know, Mark Zuckerberg coming in and shutting something down, you know? Yeah, I agree. You know, I don't like Section 230, but I understand what went into it. The idea of relieving them of liability for what happens on the platform, it's kind of novel.

They're not publishers, although I think they kind of are publishers because I think they have a much better understanding of the content that's coming across and how to monetize it for their own purposes. And then they kind of feign incapacity, you know, when it comes to serving anybody else's agenda other than their own. So I'm a little, little suspicious. I also like, you know, the idea with the kids thing, they're all yelling at the at the AI guy at the Zuckerberg this time about what he's doing to our kids. Well, first of all, I don't know that you're in the baby game yet, but you've got to be a parent to your own kid. OK, and it's really anathema to the right, especially to say, hey, government, can you help me raise my kid? So that's weird, right? And it's also weird that they, at the same time, in many states, want to create laws to not let people on social media

until a certain age, which, again, is a real nanny state thing that I wouldn't think the right would embrace. And it's very confusing. And I find all of our politics increasingly confusing. Where do you think we go? Not like political profit, but like, where do you see America headed? I think we need to really shift our priorities in America. And I think that I agree with you about the point about the, you know, the nanny state with the 16-year-olds. I mean, we're living in a new war field with information. It's not pamphlets and newspapers anymore. It's the internet.

So to deprive a 15-year-old of being able to see important information, I think, has been insane. But I think that we do need to have a complete shifting of our focus. I just think that our focus needs to, it's kind of like combining of the two main strains of political thought we see in the Democratic and Republican parties today. Republicans always talk about how, as China's doing, as I mentioned,

we need to develop our forces of production. We need to leverage innovation, rapid innovation. And then you have the more progressive strain, the Bernies, the AOCs that talk about having an economy that is based in the public good that will actually benefit people. So I think if you have those two things together, nothing's perfect, right? But that would be a big step in the right direction if we could develop our country and focus on bringing back good paying jobs while also having a you know management of the public good where people are actually benefiting from those jobs from those industries i think that's what we need to have

and it's easier said than done of course but it's um that that's that's a basic one of course we need to to end these foreign wars. And that's the only way you can truly free America, given how much we spend on those foreign wars each and every year, let alone all the countries that we anger in the process. And they don't want to do trade with us. They don't want to have good relations with us. They're trying to undercut us globally, whether it be with BRICS or new currencies they're going to develop or undercutting oil production, those sorts of things. So I think we just need to be

a respectful nation amongst nations. We can, of course, gloat and cheer when we win the gold medals at the Olympics and when we have the biggest economy. But that doesn't mean that we have to hurt other people across the world. The Chris Cuomo Project is supported by Cozy Earth. Why? Because I like their sheets. That's why. A lot of people don't get a good night's sleep for a lot of reasons. One of the ones that you can control is bedding. One out of three of us report being sleep deprived. Okay, well, what is it? Well, it stresses all kinds of things. But the wrong sheets can make you hot, can make you cold. I'm telling you, I don't even believe it either.

But Cozy Earth sheets breathe. And here's what I love about them. Cozy Earth's best-selling sheet is a bamboo set, okay? Temperature regulating. Gets softer with every wash. I'm not kidding you, all right? Now, so if you go to CozyEarth.com and you enter the code,

enter the code CHRIS, and you can get up to 35% off your first order. CozyEarth.com, and the code is CHRIS. We don't fake the funk here, and here's the real talk. Over 40 years of age, 52% of us experience some kind of ED between the ages of 40 and 70. I know it's taboo. It's embarrassing.

But it shouldn't be. Thankfully, we now have HIMS. And it's changing the vibe by providing affordable access to ED treatment. And it's all online. HIMS is changing men's health care. Why? Because it's giving you access to affordable and discreet sexual health treatments. And you do it right from your couch.

HIMS provides access to clinically proven generic alternatives to Viagra or Cialis or whatever. And it's up to like 95% cheaper. And there are options as low as two bucks a dose. HIMS has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers. So if ED is getting you down, it's time to pick it up. Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash CCP. H-I-M-S.com slash CCP. H-I-M-S

dot com slash CCP. And you will get personalized ED treatment options. HIMS.com slash CCP. Prescriptions? You need an online consultation with a healthcare provider, and they will determine if appropriate. Restrictions apply.

You see the website, you'll get details and important safety information. You're going to need a subscription. It's required. Plus, the price is going to vary based on product and subscription plan. Let's talk one practical thing, and then I want to give you an opportunity to kind of go go through how you see what i do because i know you have a lot of issues about the media uh and the group of society that you refer to as propagandists and i i don't know that they're uh i don't know who doesn't fit under that umbrella one way or the other uh with the way that we are practice our politics these days. But one foreign issue that you are very vocal on, okay? So you have been very, very strong in your advocacy

for Israel getting out of Palestine, for Israel being the ultimate aggressor and in the wrong. And that is a completely legitimate argument and position to have. Selling cups of Zionist tears is asking for trouble, but I get it. I get what you're doing. How do you stop the war between Gaza now, but soon, I believe, everything south and north of Israel?

I believe everything south and north of Israel. How do you end it in a way where Israel can be safe? And let's just stick with Gaza and Palestine for now and not go through the whole Hezbollah piece in Lebanon. How do you do it? How do you stop what's happening now and create safety on both sides? Well, I don't think it should be up to a 24-year-old American living in Miami to decide something like that. I'm not putting you in charge, brother. I'm just asking your ideas. Or to even have an opinion about it. I mean, what does some random American have to say about

their opinions on this? It doesn't really matter. I think it's good to be able to say, call balls and strikes and say that killing 26,000 people, give or take, is a bad thing. But I think that the most sound voices I've heard from within the region on this matter, the most sound voices I've heard at the UN Security Council, for whatever that's worth, are the voices who are calling for, say, you know, full establishment of a Palestinian state. Some of those people have said calling for it along the 1967 borders. And I think this is an impossibility. But I think if you had America cease all funding to Israel and all armed shipments and logistics, then you'd be in a more peaceful world. Obviously, I know that's insane pie in the sky lunacy. But that is where I think you kind of have to go and then do the simple

next step in the equation. What happens if you stop funding Israel? What happens if you cease all military aid for Israel? You're going to have Israel collapse as a country, and then you would have one country where hopefully people can get along like they have for generations and generations prior to 1948. And, you know, these people are not, I don't think, I don't think that they hate Jewish people, the vast majority of them. I think that they simply want to stop this, what they view as an occupation and a genocide. I was just in Morocco and there's like full communities of Jewish people in Morocco. It's a Muslim majority country, but they have no problems there. So I don't really understand why there needs to be this occupation. My dream would

be if there was one state, whoever in Israel, whoever in Gaza and the West Bank wanted to stay in that one state, participate in democratic referendum, building a new government. I think that would be the end goal. Again, it sounds crazy to think about, but crazier things have happened. Everybody would love to live together in peace. The problem is if you allow the region to exercise its druthers, you have an emerging culture of extremism within Islam that you can easily argue is a perversion of Islam, is not what Islam. But all major faiths, one of the nice things about communism is you don't have to deal with organized religion the same way is how you practice it and what you make it about so the likelihood that you would have the region try to eradicate jews and israel is too big a risk for the world to allow let alone the united states and i i think it comes down to you and I will never stop trying to hurt you. If I know as soon as I stop, you're going to try to hurt me.

You know, as long as that is true, the threat, I'm always going to try. I don't care what anybody says. You know, no, no, it's over now. You've done enough. No, I see Jackson's getting ready to hit me with that microphone. It's not going to happen. All he does is say he's going to hurt me as soon as I stop. We have to find a way to ensure peace. You can't have a terror organization running negotiations on one side.

It's not fair to the Palestinian people. And yet, I don't know the solution either. I don't know the answer to how, and I've been covering this for over 25 years. I do know that this is the first time I've ever seen that region receive the kind of energy it's getting from America. I just wish it hadn't been filtered to bring us back home through the same lens as everything else, Jackson. It is no coincidence that people on the left and far left, leaving you out of it, are much more into being pro-Palestine and understanding the suffering and advocating for their interests, even to the detriment of the idea of Zionism. And on the right, they're the completely opposite. It can't just be coincidence. We have to find us and them

positions on everything, even Taylor Swift. And I don't know how we stop doing that. What do you think? Well, to your first point, I'd say that you look at the way that things are going right now there. I mean, obviously, this didn't happen in a vacuum. But putting aside that subject for one moment, like, let's take a look at Iran, for example. I mean, Iran is a country, and this whole region really, but Iran in particular, I mean, they never had any real interest in harming American interests until we started meddling in their business. You could look at any of these countries.

The only reason why they want to hurt us, and by us, I mean the state and our interests abroad, is because we're screwing around over there, and we have for quite some time. So you bring that back to the microcosm of the Israel-Gaza conflict, not the whole region. of people in Hamas and in the PLO and the PFLP, all these groups, I think that they would much rather prefer to govern than have to pursue warfare each and every day and see their brothers, sisters, mothers, daughters die. So yeah, it's up in the air. Who knows how it would play out if we push for some sort of a normalization on the people-to-people level, but I think it's in the best interest of everyone to do so because the status quo isn't working. No question it's not working as it is. No question. The more we can get people, I had an artist the other day tell me that he believes that the hope for us is in humanity, that if people can just regard humanity as all the same

and how to help one another. Now, is that a false ideal? Is it pie in the sky? Is it utopian? I don't know, but it would certainly simplify everything. But then you look at our history as human beings and there's almost always been war and conflict and along the same kinds of lines. So let's bring it back here. Because look, again, you and I disagree in terms of, do I believe the Palestinian people would rather just rule their own fate than be occupied in any way or under any control other than their own?

Of course. Is Hamas interested in that? Not in my experience. You talk about being on people's kill lists. That's something I understand in that part of the world personally. But that is their form of Islam and how they believe they can treat infidels,

which I do not think certainly all Muslims should be painted with. Now, back here, we don't have the same excuses of perverse ignorance and incredible poverty and desperation that make people do desperate things on a regular basis. And yet we're finding ourselves in a similar position

where Jackson, everybody needs an enemy right now. And the people who are mad at me for what I said most recently on the show about the two-party system are saying, but not Trump, you have to vote for Biden because otherwise you're going to get Trump and he's going to destroy the democracy. Now, I don't believe that. Not because I like Trump, okay, or whatever that means. It's because I believe in our institutions. I believe in the American people. I don't think that Trump has the inclination. People can disagree. I don't think he has the know-how and I don't think he has the support to take down the democracy. And I believe in the democracy more. So that is not a legitimate fear for me. election since way before you were born has been too important and generation-defining

so that nothing can change. But we both know nothing changes if nothing ever changes. And all the people in power are invested in this system, in my opinion, more than they are in the American people. This is what gives them their power. Truly, it's the American people, right? But through the proxy of their power system. I just don't know how we change it. People keep telling me, you can't say that the two-party system has to go if you don't know how to fix it. And I don't know that that's fair. But what do you think? Well, Stalin said that imperialism brings about the revolution, and we're definitely living in the throes of imperialism right now. And in some ways, obviously, we're not living in a feudal society, but in some ways, I think it almost mirrors what was going on right before the Russian Revolution.

and i think that uh to to assume that any of this you know whether it's it's joe schmoe's revolution or a communist revolution happens and that the end goal is trying to get our country back and stopping these foreign wars i think it would be very uh foolish to assume that that would be done easily i mean in my worldview i don't see how something like this is done without, you know, France and Germany sending their Navy over and trying to stop what's happening in the United States, like a NATO encroachment on the eastern coast of the United States. in human history has always been, as you mentioned, filled with unfortunate and costly warfare. And I'm not advocating for anything violent here, but I'm just saying that's how history has kind of unfolded. And we're living in a time where our wars are more bloody than ever before with the technology that we have. So for those reasons, it's a very precarious moment we're living in. It's a dangerous period. I mean, even the stuff happening in Texas right now, who knows where that could go? It could go anywhere. Today, I think DeSantis announced he's sending a thousand

Florida, maybe National Guard troops to Texas, something to that effect. I mean, who knows? It's crazy. What do you make of that situation with the border standoff there? That issue may bother me more than any other, not because I think it's necessarily the most important, Although I do believe, I don't know who to thank or what to knock on or what to pray to that will make this so. But I can't believe we haven't gotten hit by a lone wolf or some kind of terror attack, given how little we know about who's in the country on a regular basis. And that is absolutely a concern. But, you know, there's a big plus minus on the regular basis. And that is absolutely a concern. But there's a big plus minus on the Southern border. We have open jobs that Americans don't want to do or don't know how to do.

And we have a need for people. We have a need to grow. We have a need to expand, of course, in the right ways. And you have to do it with order. What bothers me about the issue is that everything that just came out of my pie hole is known by everyone in power and they know exactly how to fix it. And even Trump and his guys knew that we were not a wall away. And I have no problem with physical borders. Everything's got to be politicized. Put up physical borders. Put them where you need to put them. That's not what makes a boundary. The boundary is about the law and the processing speed and the processing capability and getting rid of catch and release. And everybody knows these things. What drives me crazy, Jackson, is that when these people all of a sudden decide to do something about it and get a deal together in the Senate that is bipartisan appeal, Mitch McConnell comes out and says the quiet part out loud. The politics have changed. We're worried about compromising the presumptive nominee. So doesn't look like we're going to get this done.

so it doesn't look like we're going to get this done. So you would rather not fix a problem so that it remains a problem so you can campaign on the need to fix the problem. That's the party with the two-party system. That's the problem right there. The Democrats don't want to mess with the border because the ability, well, one, because the right's telling them to fix it.

So now they can't, right? Biden came in in got rid of all of these really important agreements that i know a lot about with host countries and home countries and they got rid of them and that was really really a mistake those were really important to slowing down flow other people have to do the job we can't police the whole southern hemisphere so he did that. Why? Because that's what you do. When Hinkle comes in after Cuomo, he gets rid of all Cuomo's ideas because the mandate these days is just Cuomo bad, Hinkle good. And then the next wave is, well,

but Hinkle turned out to be bad, so Cuomo good. And that happened. Then the right says, fix it. So the left says, I can't do what you want. So I'm not fixing it. Now the Democrats own it. But my frustration is that each side knows how to fix it. But the problem works better than the solution because advantage in the party system is about the other side being worse. And as long as you can do that, I mean, look at our election. Trump came out the other night in New Hampshire and said, we're picking up momentum. The campaign's doing well. We had some showing here. We've won three times in a row. We've had two record showings in a row. And then the next thing he says is, and do you know why? I'm like, here it comes. I'm getting ready to kick up my feet and, you know, listen to the whole glory tour. And he says, because they are the worst people we have ever had in power.

Biden is the worst. This party, they are the worst. This party, they are the worst. He explains his own success, not as his greatness, which he's usually good at, but because the other side is so terrible. And the Biden people, Democrats, whoever you want to call them, will say, look, you're right. Biden's not the best. The system's not the best, but we can't have Trump. And look,

Trump is a little unique as characters go, but it's not a unique proposition, Jackson. I remember this during the Clinton administration. I remember this in the second George W. Bush thing. Well, now you're at the war on terror. And then after him, it's Obama. Well, if you don't like Obama again, you're going to reinforce that diversity can't have a future in America. And then, you know, it's, well, look what having a black guy did, how scary it is for white people. You know, this is the most important. Everyone is the most important because they are forcing us to stay within their game. And the Bolshevik revolution, the idea of Marx and Engels' theory of communism as a pure empowerment principle for the masses does have a concept of proletariat revolt.

And as you were quick to do, not saying violence, violence never gets you to a better place not for you know not not to stay there for a long time but the workers are divided unions aren't what they were that when my father was a democrat by the way some people thought he was a communist um he did the job for the people who are now Republicans. And a lot of them are MAGA people. And that's only because it's binary. And that's why every shift we have is so pendular and how someone like a Taylor Swift can become a political football with no basis in reality, because all of it is just advantage and the media plays into it too and i never felt that i was someone trying to promote this game and promote these pendular movements but i get blamed for it all the time all the time and you know people can criticize you i mean this is what you signed up for by putting the microphone in front of your face. But I've never understood it.

I've always just seen myself as being weaponized by whoever wanted advantage in the moment. I mean, obviously we have our disagreements. I guess my problem with the mass media today, why I label them as propagandists, and as you pointed out, everyone's kind of a propagandist. I think there's truth in that. And I get things wrong all the time. I mean, you can look at my Twitter. You can probably find some tweets that I have where it's community noted, oh, Jackson, this is an

old photo, whatever. I try my best to delete those and fix what I get wrong. But I think there's a difference between that and me saying, shoot, that's old video, whatever. And a difference between that and a difference between saying, Ukraine is a sovereign government. They weren't couped in 2014, and they're fighting for their sovereignty right now. NATO didn't violate any promises, and we're not provoking Russia. When I see stuff like that in the media today, or just apparent lies about COVID or a jab or Russiagate, I think it just pisses off so many people and causes them to not trust anything anymore. I used to believe a lot of that stuff. I used to believe a lot of that stuff and even more like crazy radical views that I guess perceived by people that I hold now. There was times when I mean, I supported Bernie Sanders.

I was much more on the progressive left, as you put it earlier. and the number one thing that caused me to change my views or prompt me to start investigating other ideologies, other theories that then form the basis of my views is how much the media lied. And the first thing for me was everything that happened in Syria.

We were told that Assad, you know, gasses on people in Douma and Ghouta. And then it's a bit more murky of a story than just that. So that kind of, when you have five, six years that go by where every major story, there's a lot more to it than is presented at the surface on these major networks. I think that's when you have the problems

that you have in America, where no one can really trust anything or anyone anymore. Well, they're being told not to trust. And sometimes people get a piece of video wrong. Sometimes they bet nobody will catch them because they're trying to advance a certain understanding or feeling about something. And there's a difference between getting something wrong, which happens, right? To err is human. Intentionally getting something wrong and intentionally driving an agenda and outright lying. And I think those are losing their distinction. And I think they're distinctions that matter.

We don't fake the funk here. And here's the real talk. Over 40 years of age, 52% of us experience some kind of ED between the ages of 40 and 70. I know it's taboo, it's embarrassing, but it shouldn't be. Thankfully, we now have HIMS,

and it's changing the vibe by providing affordable access to ED treatment, and it's all online. HIMS is changing men's health care. Why? Because it's giving you access to affordable and discreet sexual health treatments, and you do it right from your couch. HIMS provides access to clinically proven generic alternatives to Viagra or Cialis or whatever. And it's up to like 95% cheaper. And there are options as low as two bucks a dose. HIMS has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers. So if ED is getting you down, you down, it's time to pick it up. Start your free online visit today at hymns.com slash ccp. H-I-M-S dot com slash ccp. And you will get personalized ED treatment options. hymns.com slash ccp. Prescriptions, you need an online consultation with a healthcare provider,

and they will determine if appropriate. Restrictions apply. You see the website. You'll get details and important safety information. You're going to need a subscription. It's required. Plus, price is going to vary based on product and subscription plan. Let's go through a quick basket of issues, okay, of things that pissed you off.

Russia game, okay? Here was my take on it all the way through. And obviously, everything's easy to discover, right? I mean, you know, you can take a little something and twist it. Like people said to me, I got beat up by Wikipedia for saying, hey, you got to be careful with these emails that they're coming out with right now. I forget who they were, like Podesta's or somebody's emails. WikiLeaks got a bunch of classified documents and they were putting them out. That's what WikiLeaks does, right? And I said, be careful. The law's a little murky on this. You'll probably wind up hearing about

this mostly from us. So they weaponized that to say, look at the media trying to control what you know. Now, was that fair? Absolutely not. I put out all the emails. Every one I got, I would put out. The Espionage Act is unclear about what can be done under that statute to people who cash CACHE classified documents.

Have they ever made a case? No, not really. But I wasn't saying they were going to make a case, but it became weaponized because it helped the WikiLeaks people say, listen to us, not the media. On Russiagate, I said the Trump campaign and people around him did things that anyone who understands politics and campaigns would never do. It was dumb. And Paul Manafort has agreed with as much that he didn't know what this meeting was. He didn't even know why he was in there. He was looking at Jared. He's like, what the hell are we doing in this place? You know, talking to even Stone and Caputo about the meeting that they took, that they didn't know that they were sitting down with a guy who was going to say, I'm a Russian agent. I can get to a Russian agent. But those are meetings you're not supposed to take. And

everybody who's been around campaigns knows it. So is that collusion? Collusion is not a crime except in securities law. It's a behavior. Were you encouraging people who said that they could get other states to get involved in our election to do it? Yeah, Trump said it out loud. So is it a crime? No, it's a bad behavior, political malpractice. Should he be impeached? Is it a high crime or misdemeanor? Well, I don't think so. But as President Ford taught us, a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever Congress votes it is. And I said, impeaching him is a waste of time. You will never remove him. And you will piss people off in the process because this is not about the pursuit of justice. It's advantage. And yet i'm seen as a russiagate guy you know what i mean so sometimes the analysis is not fair to the disposition but

it's all about weaponizing for advantage not necessarily you i should have been more specific but the mass like um oh no you're right i don't have to i don't have to name names but no no i'm not asking you to but you're right i'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying about me. Sometimes we squeeze people into it at a convenience that don't belong there. Of course, of course. And that's why, you know, started this conversation by stating and highlighting the things that I appreciated that, you know, are important to me that I think you got very right at your former employer. I think you got some of those issues and you probably stuck your neck out a little bit to say those things. I don't know. I just said the other day, I'm suffering from long COVID, but my case is pretty good. Even though this doctor that I just started with,

I'm going to put it all on my sub stack, show people my treatment protocol to try to deal with this long COVID thing. And the- What do you have? So look, I mean, it's such a huge, it's like autism. It's like, it's such a huge range of symptoms and things, but look, here's what we know. Okay. I'm not the same as I was before I had COVID. Yes. I'm in my fifties. Yes. I'm an aging athlete. Yes. I got plenty of stress and all these other things, but how I hold memory is not the same. How I deal with exertion is not the same. What they see in my blood is not the same. The upside to my always being a hypochondriac is that I've had plenty of blood tests that they can

look at. And I said the other day, okay, so here's what we understand now from the research. What's giving people extended illness, one way or another, one degree or another, and I'm way on the lucky side of how bad people can be. Some people can't even function, is the spike protein that comes with the virus and is also present in the vaccine. with the virus and is also present in the vaccine. I'm not saying the vaccine gives you long COVID. I'm saying, because long COVID existed before the vaccine, I'm saying the spike protein can cause long COVID complications and it is in the vaccine. And it's not a dispositive statement in terms of don't take the vax or do take the vax. It was never my place to say that. All I said was, you can't expect to go where everybody else goes if you don't get vaccinated because the government is telling you won't be able to.

That was my position. It was just common sense. If you don't want to get it, don't get it. But don't think your kids can go to public school. Don't think this is going to happen because they're making rules. Whether I like those rules or not was never part of the discussion so i have this long covet but i have these people beating me up for saying now i'm an anti-vaxxer i'm not an anti-vaxxer i anyone who's famous is going to get it on both sides you know you're

going to get the hate on both sides it's um and i do think that's interesting. You know, long COVID, we're the shot, whatever. And we're not saying that on YouTube. We're just hypothesizing here. But I think that, you know, there's, I can name countless instances of, you know, well, we really can't talk about this on YouTube. So I'm going to avoid it. I don't want to get your show shut down or anything first of all don't worry about that because to our earlier point if they do anything to this program because we're talking about concerns about how people talk

about covid or the vaccine all they're going to get from me is a fight. And remember, I have another platform. I'm not at their mercy. I'll go on TV that night and show what happened and expose it. It's part of the power of the platform that I'm lucky to have. But look, you got to be able to talk about these things. I lived the COVID, the pandemic nightmare. And I'll tell you what, there were two big components that really attributed to a lot of pain for people in your generation, my generation, and younger. One, everything's got to be a football. Everything's got to be one side or the other, even the pandemic. The second was trying to have science and politics in the same space. In politics, and you're a little bit different here, right? Because you changed your opinion,

you changed your disposition, right? Which is how you should live your life, by the way. But in politics, if I'm pro-death penalty, okay? I must always be pro-death penalty. It doesn't matter if two members of my family get put to death wrongly. I can't do that in politics and not be called a flip-flopper. These people never change positions, even though facts and circumstances change, they don't want to change their position. Science is the opposite science is today we think red wine is good for you tomorrow we think red wine is bad for you why well this test just showed us this and then this other test showed us this and that's how they do it and when you put white coats in charge of political messaging you're asking for a problem and that's what they did. Trump and then Biden wanted the white coats

to do political messaging for them for cover. And it was a mistake for Fauci and Birx and the others to accept that mantle. I know they think they were being responsible, but it was always ill-fated because they were always going to change their opinion on things, Jackson. As they learned more, they didn't know anything about this virus when it started. Trump was being told it will be gone in like a week. They were wrong. And he could never admit being wrong. So he had to blame someone because that's politics. Scientists have no problem with that. Yeah, I know. I said you get it from touching things. I did. I was wrong. It's aerosolized. I know. I said masks will probably make you sick because if you're getting it from touching things and you're touching the mask, you're sealing it into your face. Don't wear a mask. Oh, now it's aer you and I, we can we can apologize if we get something wrong. If we in earnest were thinking we were being fed certain or researching certain information that was correct and we got it wrong.

Right. The difference is, as you put it, when you have Rachel Maddow going out on on her show and saying that everyone needs to, or if you get the jab, you will not be able to contract or transmit COVID. I mean, to deal in such absolutes like that when you have such a powerful position, I think is ludicrous. And then it's very easy also to glaze over everything that occurred during the pandemic and say, oh, you know, we got some things wrong. It's like, no, we shut down the entire economy, forced businesses, like thousands of businesses to close. Thousands of people lost their jobs, never to return. You had now people in Canada who are dealing with their bank accounts being seized and they were unable to go across the border for shipping. I don't need to state the obvious here, but it's like we ruined a lot of people's lives. And the media now just wants to gloss right over it without so much as even apologizing.

They'll say, yeah, you know, maybe this is how we do it now, but they they won't even apologize for the things that they said. And same could be said about the jab as well. I mean, according to YouTube, the jab is safe and effective, but it can sometimes lead to certain negative impacts. That's what their community guidelines say. So we're going to go with that. But I know a lot of people, purely anecdotal, but who got, you know, like Jimmy Dore, for example, I don't know if you know him, he got it. And now he's got this, like, he's got the long COVID symptoms as well. And he's also got the pain in his neck. There are absolutely people who took the vaccine and got illness afterwards, whether it was COVID or something else. And I got it six times. I mean, look, there's,

I've, I've, I've had COVID a number of times. Now the tests, they say, maybe you tested negative, but you might've been positive to different variants. You know, look again, I don't get frustrated by that the same way, because I know they don't know. I talk to these men and women directly on a regular basis. And I know that they just don't know. I remember when the guy who was creating the antibodies was like Regeneron. I think, yeah, I think that this may be, but he didn't really know. And then next thing I know, they're giving it to the president of the United States and he's better in like a third of the time than I was, you know? So obviously it was working. And now my mother's had antibodies and it really took her at 90 years old, took her

through COVID. Thank God. My point is, it's one thing if you and I are listening to each other in good faith, we don't listen in good faith anymore, Jackson. I listened to you and I'm like, oops, he got it wrong. And now I'm going to call him a demon and I'm going to try to get his followers and I'm going to try and ruin him. And now it'll be me. And the media is all about that.

But so are all these other dynamics. We don't listen in good faith. You say apologize. You're a dead man if you apologize in society today. All it does, you know, it's like putting your head on a guillotine. Not to me. Not to me. I know.

If Rachel Maddow came out today and apologized, I'd say, thank you very much. That took a lot of guts, and I appreciate it. And sorry to interrupt, but I think it's the exact opposite. you so much as question the official narrative about any views today that Biden, MSNBC, whoever puts out, you're the one who's demonized. And I'm a perfect example of that. Look at my Wikipedia right now. I mean, we all know who probably wrote it, but it's just, they call me a white supremacist on my Wikipedia. My mom looked at it. She's like, what the hell is a white supremacist? This is insane. So it's like, I think the people, everyone gets demonized to a certain extent, right. But when you state it as an absolute fact, and then the media states it as an absolute fact without question, their job is to be a journalist and question those things. And then they also go along with enforcing policies that ruin lives or,

in the case of war, kills people. That's when I have a problem. Yeah, I think you're right. And you got to look at the outlet. You got to look at the person. You got to look at the situation. And you're, again, assuming good faith. And I think good faith is not always in great supply. I think I lived that in my own situation. that the media had an opportunity to take me out, was not happy about my relationship with my brother and all the shine that he got during the pandemic and him being on my show. And the consequence wound up being that they came after me, but it wasn't in good faith. Nobody could say I wasn't transparent

about helping my brother. I talked about it on the show. Now I'm not lamenting my own situation. I'm not lamenting it because I signed up for it. I signed up for it, Jackson. If you put this in front of your face, you're entering the game. And you can't say, oh, they're playing a little dirty

or I don't like the way the game goes. That's how it is. I signed up for it. But what I'm saying is what we need to get back to and why I wanted you on and why you have an open invitation here. And if you ever want me to come on any of your platforms, you just ask. We got to have an open chain of communication. If you say something that I don't agree with, I'll tell you. And I'll tell

you why. And maybe we don't get to a different place, but I'm not coming from a place of bad faith. I want to have the conversation. I want voices out there. People may like it. They may not. Great. As long as it advances their own understanding one way or the other. So I appreciate you coming on, Mr. Hinkle. And I look forward to talking to you again. Thanks so much for having me on. And I'd definitely love to chat again. Can't believe Cuomo was nice to Jackson Hinkle. Listen, I invite people on my show. I give the respect that they give, okay?

Do we disagree? Of course. Do we agree? Yeah, in some places. Most of all, don't censor ideas. Beat the ideas. Don't censor people. Don't demonize people.

Act in good faith. Don't censor people. Don't demonize people. Act in good faith. Don't jump everybody into the same situation. These are important things, and they're really basic. We teach them to our kids. They were taught to us, but we forget them in the public sphere, especially on social media. How do we expect to get a better place? How do we expect to get rid of this two-party system? How are we going to make any improvements?

Through conversation, through commitment to common concern. And that has to have conversation as a piece. It has to. So thank you very much for subscribing, for following, for checking me out on NewsNation every weekday night at 8 and 11 Eastern. And if you care about long COVID or you want the podcast without the ads, subscribe on the Substack, the chrisquomoproject.substack.com. There are already thousands of people there and they're exchanging a lot of ideas and information. And I think you can benefit from it. I know I am. All right. In fact, I'm about to start a new treatment protocol for my long COVID and I'm going to let you see every step of it. Let's get after it.