The David Pakman Show - 1/4/23: Republicans Fail on Speaker Vote, Greene vs Boebert Getting Ugly

Episode Date: January 4, 2023

-- On the Show: -- Rachel Bernstein, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, educator, author, and host of the podcast IndoctriNation, joins David to discuss how to help cult members, victims of narcissists, former supremacists, conspiracy theorists, and others, which she has done for 30 years in her practice -- Republicans humiliate themselves after failing to elect a Speaker of the House in three consecutive votes -- Failed former President Donald Trump delivers a deranged lie-riddled endorsement of Republican Congressman Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the House after McCarthy loses three consecutive votes in the House -- Republicans Lauren Boebert and Scott Perry liken radical Republican Congressman Jim Jordan to the first US President George Washington -- Fox News propagandists Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity appear to possibly be abandoning Kevin McCarthy for House Speaker -- Lying Republican Congressman George Santos has quite a first day at the office, sitting alone in the House, running away from reporters, getting stuck in a dead-end hallway, and picking his nose on camera -- The civil war between Republican Congresswomen Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert is getting increasingly heated -- House Republicans are set to spend the next two years investigating Joe and Hunter Biden -- Voicemail caller Total Control, a conspiracy theorist, shows what happens when you fall down the rabbit hole -- On the Bonus Show: House Republicans remove metal detectors after taking control, tobacco companies to be billed for cleaning up cigarette butts in Spain, 3000+ young children accidentally ate cannabis edibles in 2021, much more... 🧻 Reel Paper: Code PAKMAN for 30% OFF + free shipping at https://reelpaper.com/pakman 👍 Get 10% off the Füm Journey Pack with code PAKMAN at https://tryfum.com 🥄 Use code PAKMAN for $5 off Magic Spoon at https://magicspoon.com/pakman 💻 Stay protected! Try Aura FREE for 2 weeks: https://aura.com/pakman 💪 Athletic Greens is offering FREE year-supply of Vitamin D at https://athleticgreens.com/pakman -- Become a Supporter: http://www.davidpakman.com/membership -- Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/thedavidpakmanshow -- Subscribe to Pakman Live: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanlive -- Subscribe to Pakman Finance: https://www.youtube.com/pakmanfinance -- Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/davidpakmanshow -- Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/davidpakmanshow -- Leave us a message at The David Pakman Show Voicemail Line (219)-2DAVIDP

Speaker 1 I was assuming we would start today's show by talking about the new Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, because after all, Republicans took over, even though it was by a small margin, the control of the House based on their wins in the 2022 midterm election, November 8th. And it was time yesterday for them to select a new speaker of the House. But no, they have not done it. And Republicans are in the midst of what is one of the biggest, humiliating, self-inflicted embarrassments in recent American political history. Republicans have suffered a true humiliation, failing to elect a speaker of the House after

three rounds of voting. The House ultimately adjourning yesterday without speaker and they will start again today and they're likely already going right now as you listen to today's program. Most Republicans voting for Kevin McCarthy, but not all. There is a faction that has opted not to support Kevin McCarthy. And this actually led to Hakeem Jeffries on the Democratic side, with Democrats united behind Jeffries actually coming closer to the 218 votes that are needed than McCarthy in some of the votes. CNBC has a good, nice, concise article about it by Christina Wilkie. The House of Representatives

adjourned for the day Tuesday without a speaker after Republican leader Kevin McCarthy failed three consecutive votes to secure enough support to be selected to the post. This is a historic situation. It's an historic situation. Some are even saying it's the first time in 100 years that the majority party failed to coalesce around a candidate to speaker in this number of votes. And we don't know what the step is. The next step is at this point in time. We will get to that. After the first ballot resulted in votes for several Republicans, the next two rounds saw McCarthy's opponents coalesce around a new contender, Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, a longtime McCarthy ally. Jim Jordan says he doesn't want it. And Lauren Boebert and Scott Perry are saying Jim Jordan is sort of like George Washington. George Washington didn't

want to be president, but he did it. And they are talking about Jim Jordan in the same delusional terms, which we will get to a little bit later. What does this mean for the long term of the Republican Party's ability to I was going to say govern, but it's like they don't really plan to govern. They govern. They plan to govern the government. They plan to investigate Hunter Biden, which we will also get to a little bit later. But this is embarrassing. And Tucker Carlson is saying it's becoming a joke. Sean Hannity is saying that it is becoming a joke.

And we don't exactly know the direction this will ultimately go. The CNBC article also pointing out during each of the three voice votes, every Democrat rallied unanimously around incoming minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, a former guest on this program, by the way, but a sect of conservative Republicans split from their party to back other candidates, including Jim Jordan. As I mentioned in an unexpected twist, McCarthy lost support as the voting continued, which is just hilarious to see when in the third round, Florida Republican Congressman Byron Donald's announced his support for Jordan after voting twice for McCarthy. As a result of Donald's defection, McCarthy got 202 of the 218 votes needed. Jeffrey's got 212 getting quite close, in fact. Now, is it likely that Hakeem Jeffries is going

to be the speaker of the House of Representatives? It is not likely. And there are headlines saying, could Democrats end up with the speakership? I don't believe that it is likely. I believe a more likely scenario is if Republicans don't move to someone else, that some Democrats end up joining the majority of Republicans. But AOC is saying that's not going to happen and that Democrats are going to remain united. So I think the least likely scenario is Hakeem Jeffries becomes the speaker of the House, but it's not a zero chance. And man, that would be unbelievable. So that's what happened yesterday. I have no news for you about the next speaker of the House. Maybe we will later today. But of course,

everyone on the Republican side weighing in about this, one of those people, the failed former President Donald Trump. Let's talk about that because it's quite interesting. Failed former President Donald Trump delivered a lie riddled all capital letters endorsement of sorts of Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the House. Now, before we look at Trump's post to Truth Social, I should tell you kind of the backstory of what was going on. Kevin McCarthy yesterday failed, as I told you, in three votes to secure the 218 votes he needs to become the speaker of the House.

Embarrassing, humiliating, actually losing support as the votes went on. Yesterday, Donald Trump told NBC News or rather didn't tell NBC News whether he still supported Kevin McCarthy. But Trump took a little bit of time, I guess, to think about it or more likely to be told what it is that he should say. And this morning he did come out with a three post tirade on truth central where, again, we're interpreting Trump's bizarre language and syntax. I guess he's saying he supports Kevin McCarthy. Trump posting, quote, Some really good conversations took place last night. I think that means someone told him what to do. But OK, some really good conversations

took place last night. And it's now time for all of our great Republican House members. And here he goes, caps lock to vote for Kevin. Close the deal. Take the victory and watch crazy Nancy Pelosi fly back home to a very broken California, the only speaker in U.S. history to have lost the House twice. Republicans do not turn a great triumph into a giant, embarrassing defeat. It's time to celebrate. You deserve it. Kevin McCarthy will do a good job, maybe even a great job. Just watch. Now, it's important to mention this has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi. Trump is obsessed with Pelosi. Pelosi said she is stepping down from leadership. Democrats don't control the House. She's not asking to be minority leader. This has nothing to do with Pelosi. But Trump is obsessed with Pelosi. And

by the way, it's funny. He says McCarthy will do a good job. Maybe it'll even be great. I don't know. Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Trump then adding also on Truth Central, quote, if Republicans are going to fight, we ought to be fighting Mitch McConnell and his domineering China loving boss. I mean, wife Coco Chow, Trump continuing with the racial epithets or as some wrongly call them epitaphs, which is a completely different thing. The harm they have done to the Republican Party is incalculable. Today, he couldn't be elected dog catcher in Kentucky. Sadly, he only won because of my endorsement, went up 21 points. Sorry. And then lastly, Trump going back to caps lock, take the victory and run,

says Donald Trump. Trump waited to decide, does he stick with Kevin McCarthy or not? Apparently, he decided, yes, he sticks with him, but falling a little bit short of a full throated ringing endorsement. We saw others last night seemingly taking baby steps away from Kevin McCarthy. This includes propagandist Tucker Carlson. This includes propagandist Sean Hannity and others that we will get to after this short break. Remember, next Wednesday, January 11th, 6 p.m. Eastern, 3 p.m. Pacific, we will be doing the first viewer town hall of 2023. I hope that you will join us live. Everyone is invited to call in. Our members will get priority access to talk to me. You can sign up at join Pacman dot com. is us get to two million. There is something you use at home every day that is significantly

harming the planet, and it is your toilet paper. Thirty million trees are destroyed every year for toilet paper in the US alone. Deforestation is a contributor to climate change. And I think moving away from tree based toilet paper is something we can all do. And that's why I asked real paper to be our sponsor. Real paper is a toilet paper made 100 percent from bamboo stocks which grow forever. So no cutting down trees and all of real paper's packaging is plastic free. Think of all those big plastic bags you've thrown out over the years. Real paper is a B Corp certified by the Forest Stewardship Council and real paper plants one tree with every purchase you make. And the best part is you can do a part to fight climate change without making any sacrifice because real paper is soft

and fluffy and durable, just like traditional toilet paper. You're used to guys. This is a no brainer for anyone who cares about the issue of deforestation. Give real paper a try. Go to real paper dot com slash Pacman and use the code Pacman for 30 percent off your first order plus free shipping. That's R.E.E.L. Paper dot com slash Pacman coupon code Pacman for 30 percent off and free shipping. One of our sponsors today is Fume. Fume is on a mission to accelerate humanity's breakup from the bad habits that consume far too many of us, including ones that harm our health. Fume is a natural diffusive device that uses plants and behavioral science

to trade out your negative habit for a positive one. Fume is not a vape. It's a non-electronic device designed to transform your negative habits instead of pods filled with potentially harmful chemicals like a vape. Fume uses cores infused with plants like peppermint and cinnamon for delicious natural flavors. Fume's new version 2 model is snappy and tactile with an adjustable airflow dial and a magnetic end cap that's fun to fidget with. It's Fume's goal to make switching easy or even enjoyable. Thank you. off today when you get the journey pack, which comes with three unique flavors and the new version to fume. That's T.R.Y. F.U.M.

Dot com code Pacman saves you 10 percent on the journey pack. The info is in the podcast notes. All right, let's continue looking and listening to the sights and sounds yesterday at the House of Representatives surrounding this humiliating embarrassment for Republicans, wherein they failed after three votes to elect a speaker of the House. So many interesting things going on. And I want to start with multiple Republicans likening Jim Jordan to George Washington. And I'm not talking about, you know, maybe you think, oh, is that like my neighbor, George?

No, we're talking about the first president of the United States. They're comparing Jim Jordan to George Washington and acting as if there is a similarity. I can assure you, George Washington would not have looked the other way about alleged wrongdoing in the wrestling locker room the way Jim Jordan is accused of doing. But let's put that aside for a moment. Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is one of the folks who is defecting seemingly from supporting Kevin McCarthy for speaker of the House. She appeared on where is this Sean Spicer's show on Newsmax? And she said, you know, George Washington did not want to be president, but he did it because it was right.

And it's similar to Jim Jordan. Listen to this. There's many people who we could propose. I am a big proponent of Lee's Eldon, who actually won us the majority. Jim Banks is wonderful. Kevin Hearn. It would be an amazing speaker, an amazing leader. Mike Johnson could be another option. But also going back to Jim Jordan, George Washington did not want to be president of the

United States, but he did what was right for his country. You know, another similarity, George Washington never told the lie and neither did Jim Jordan, except when he lied four times about did you speak to Trump on the day of the riots or not? Hard to imagine a more different individual than George Washington, then Republican Congressman Jim Jordan. And this is the result, quite frankly, like I know it's just nonsense that just funnels right out, spews out of Lauren Boebert's mouth. And we could say, David, the analysis can stop there. We don't need to go any further. But to some degree, this sort of stuff is the result of teaching whatever version of history these Republicans want to be teaching in school.

You end up thinking a sketchy wrestling coach turned congressman who yells at every interview is in any way like the first president of the United States, George Washington. Now, it's also possible that Bo Bear is mentioning George Washington because she doesn't know any other historical figures. Always a possibility with someone as ignorant as Bo Burt. But Bo Burt is not the only one who is making this George Washington comparison. Scott Perry, who is Republican elect congressman elect from Pennsylvania. He went on Fox News and he also said, you know, George Washington, Jim Jordan, there's really something there.

Well, if you listen to watch the speech to Jim Jordan gave. Yeah, quite honestly, most Republicans sat there and said, oh, my goodness, why isn't this guy running for speaker? And while I know Jim would be reluctant to remind everybody, George Washington was reluctant to win his country called so a reluctant hero, maybe not the hero they wanted to be, but the hero that their country demanded that they be. That's very stupid, extremely, extremely stupid. And here is Lauren Boebert later appearing on Fox News. Brett Baier mentions, you know, I think it's possible Jim Jordan not only isn't running for the job, but doesn't want the job. And Boebert goes,

he may have to do it. He may have to do it. And if you heard from him that he does not want it in any way, shape or form, what do you say? I have heard that from him. And if we have the numbers, then sorry, Jim Jordan, we're going to make you do what's right for the country. We love you. Now, of course, it would be very wrong if Jim Jordan being speaker of the House is right, then I don't know right and wrong anymore. And I know many in my audience already believe that. And they write to me all the time saying I have no moral compass, but I'm not really addressing that. I do not believe Jim Jordan is going to be the speaker of the House. And in fact, if we pull up and I apologize, I wanted to find this earlier and I forgot Speaker of the House.

If we look at the betting markets on Speaker of the House and let's see, there's actually two different ones here that we can look at. OK, if you look at oh, this is old, actually, I don't have the numbers. OK, folks, I apologize. We if they don't resolve who the speaker is after today's votes, one of the elements that I will prepare for you tomorrow, my lack of professionalism is showing I will prepare for you tomorrow the betting markets on who will ultimately be the speaker of the House. Let's now talk about the Fox propaganda machine and their reaction to this Republican humiliation. How did Tucker Carlson respond to the failure yesterday by Republicans to select a speaker of the House? How did Sean Hannity react

to that very same failure? Well, let's take a look. Tucker Carlson weighed in last night and his suggestion was McCarthy is not really conservative anyway, maybe suggesting he's not really the right guy for the job. Let's take a listen. McCarthy is not conservative enough to represent a party that's just taken back the House from Nancy Pelosi. And they are definitely right about that. McCarthy is not especially conservative. He's, in fact, ideologically agnostic. He's flexible. His real constituency is the lobbying community in Washington. Now, Tucker Carlson is not wrong, but he also is wrong, as is often the case with people

like Tucker Carlson. It's absolutely true that when I think of Kevin McCarthy, I don't think small government conservative who cherishes and prioritizes and puts on a pedestal the values that we would think of 30 years ago of Republican conservatism. He's nothing like Reagan, for example. And believe me, I don't agree with any of those ideas, but he's not even in that mold. McCarthy is a scheming opportunist with delusions of grandeur and a sick addiction to being adjacent to power. That's what I think of when I think of McCarthy. And that's the way he operated during the Trump administration until it became untenable. And that's the way that he is operating now. So in that sense, Tucker is correct.

On the other hand, it's also not really true that he is the epitome of the I'll just do whatever the lobbyists want me to do. I mean, to some degree, that's true. But in the sense that it's true of most of the members of Congress, He is a guy who saw an opportunity here to maybe slide in to be speaker of the House. It may work at the end of the day, but it's going to depend on the direction of this group of 15 to 20 anti McCarthyites in the Republican Party, which we will see. So a little bit Tucker is right, but he's also misstating the big picture of Kevin McCarthy, which is he's just thirsty for power and wants to be adjacent to whoever is most powerful at the time. That's what got him to sort of go with Trump for a while

until he got caught making anti-Trump comments. Then we go to Hannity. Hannity straight up says Republicans are about to make themselves a total clown show. Listen to this new year with the Fox News alert. It is day one of the one hundred and eighty eight Congress and House Republicans now are on the verge of becoming a total clown show. They're not careful. But despite the cheering and the elation from Democrats and the mob and the media, it's not a dire situation yet. Yeah. So Hannity isn't necessarily abandoning McCarthy, but he is sounding the alarm. And he's done this before. Remember sounding the alarm that this might end up with Republicans looking really stupid or I guess more stupid than they already do.

Hannity's instinct is protecting the image of the Republican Party. And you might remember that in the text messages that we obtained from Hannity in the immediate aftermath and as the Trump riots were going on, he recognized the way that it looked. He recognized how terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible it looked for Republicans and for Trump. What was going on on January 6th? And he was texting, I think it was Meadows and maybe Kayleigh McEnany and some others. And he certainly had a more or less on this planet assessment of how terrible it looked. And aside from whether he likes Kevin McCarthy or not, and I think he's probably fine with McCarthy one way or the other, he is saying this could end up making us look really, really bad. Let's see what happens today. By the time you listen to today's show, we may know who the speaker is

or it may go another day, which would be truly incredible. We'll follow up. George Santos, maybe one of the biggest liars in the twenty twenty four twenty twenty three republic. Did I say twenty twenty five? I'm now thinking I might have earlier in the show said it was twenty twenty four. Did I do that? I don't know why I just had a flashback. Twenty twenty three Congress that is now taking power. George Santos had a really wacky, wacky day yesterday on Capitol Hill. As a reminder, George Santos is the Republican elect congressman elect becoming congressman now, presumably from representing New York, who lied about his employment history. Santos is the Republican elect congressman elect becoming congressman now, presumably from representing New York, who lied about his employment history. He lied about his educational history.

He lied about his Jewish background, which seems to be imaginary. He's under U.S. criminal investigation. Brazil is criminally investigating him, et cetera, et cetera. He had quite a day in Washington, D.C. You've got to see this stuff first in an effort to avoid having to talk to any media. He just kind of did this thing where he walks quickly and tries to get away from reporters. He ended up walking into the dead end of a basement hallway in the Longworth House office building while

trying to get away from reporters. You've got to see this stuff. Yes, I am. Mr. Santos, do you intend to serve both years of your term? Not taking any questions, by the way. Tell us if you plan to serve both years of your term, Mr. Santos. Will you answer any question besides, will you support Leader McCarthy to be Speaker?

Will you speak to any of the concerns about your biography, about what you've told folks about your background? Oh, my God. Republican leadership told you anything, Mr. Santos? Is there anything that you would like to clear up or explain All right. So hitting a dead end there and having to turn around and then it gets even more awkward. Lely Ibsa tried asking him some questions when he first showed up yesterday. He also didn't want to answer those constituents.

Do you feel like you're qualified to serve in this Congress right now? By the way, the backpack, I know. How do you hope your constituents can trust you, even though that you've misrepresented your biography to them? What's your response to calls for a house investigation? Yeah, this guy's do you have any statements about your campaign and how you hope to govern? No. The mere I I love the question. This guy's not going to govern. Are you nuts? That it's a funny question in that he's obviously not going to do any governing to carry out your full term. What can you say to reassure your constituents that you'll do what you said you were going

to do on the campaign trail? All right. You get the point. Walking miles, seemingly avoiding questions from reporters. I don't know how tenable it's going to be for him to just never answer questions. Then we get to him sitting in the House chamber and you almost start to feel bad for him, except that you don't. As proceedings were going on, just sitting by himself on his phone and we have talking to him. You let me know whether you feel bad. I mean, listen, he he lied about everything. You know, this guy really, really did lie about everything. And now I mean, listen, it's not like Republicans are honest. It's not like I have a delusion that the reason Republicans are shunning him is because they're honest and this guy is dishonest. Obviously, that's not the

case. But it is just funny and kind of like weird to see. There he is picking his nose. And we'll actually look at that moment a little more closely. That was a much scrutinized moment, almost like the Zapruder film. you will see here that he does an interesting move as he sits there where he goes in for the pick and then very casually does a sort of rolling motion, does a kind of a rolling motion. And he does seem to be able to dislodge the mucus that he was able to obtain there. And then lastly, when this was all said and done, George Santos attempting to leave the Capitol again, sort of disoriented and not taking any

questions from Caitlin Way Burns from CBS News. Can you tell us how your first day was? Congressman Santos. He really does look like a lost kid on the first day of camp with the backpack and everything. And just it's bizarre imagery. Speaker 2 It's like, how the hell do I get out of here? Speaker 3 Can you tell us how your first day was? No. Speaker 1 Well, nobody talked to me and the

kids were mean. Do you have anything to say about all of the allegations against you? Are you confident that you'll be sworn in? Yes. And off he goes into the dark night, ultimately finding an elevator that would eventually take him outside. This doesn't seem at all sustainable. And one would imagine at some point if George Santos is actually going to serve, he's going to have to answer questions from someone and they're going to have to be real questions, not like those softball interviews that we looked at last week. So a tough first day at school at work. Sorry for George Santos. Unclear whether he had those Capri Sun juice pouches in his backpack or what, but not going well. And we will see what happens today. Nothing definitive, by the way,

as to whether there was any kind of quid pro quo between Santos and Kevin McCarthy. The, of course, speculated quid pro quo would be McCarthy supports Santos not resigning and being sworn in. Santos pledges to vote for McCarthy for speaker of the House. And all day amidst all those questions, the one thing that McCarthy rather that Santos did answer is that, yes, he will be supporting Kevin McCarthy for speaker. If you've just been listening today and you're curious about the visual component for these things that I've played, check them out on our Instagram, which you can find at David Pakman show. And of course, we'll also have all of these clips on our YouTube channel. Make sure you were subscribed to the big, very big YouTube channel, youtube.com slash

the David Pakman show. One of our sponsors today is magicoon, the breakfast cereal with the crunchy, sweet goodness you love, but with high quality ingredients, less sugar and more protein. Magic Spoon has zero grams of sugar. It's packed with 13 to 14 grams of protein and just four to five net carbs. So it's great if you're doing keto or low carb, or if just like me, you're trying to limit your sugar intake. They have many unique flavors, so you'll never get bored. My personal favorite is maple waffle, but I grew up in New England, so maybe that's why maple, you know. They also have cocoa, fruity, frosted peanut butter, blueberry muffin, honey nut cookies and cream cinnamon roll. Sometimes there's really just no substitute for sitting down with a nice bowl of cereal. Who doesn't love that? When the

mood strikes, go for something more wholesome with plenty of protein and without all the sugar. If you don't love magic spoon as much as I do and our team does, magic spoon will refund all of your You may remember that a few years ago, the show got hacked and many thousands of dollars were stolen. We never got it back. It's a terrible feeling. It can happen to anyone. But a couple of years ago, we got aura, which really gives us significantly more peace of mind. And our sponsor, Aura, is the app that protects you from scammers by alerting you anytime your info like email, password, social security number are found in data breaches. Aura also automatically requests removal of your info from search engines and it can reduce spam calls. Aura alerts you quickly about suspicious credit inquiries, like if someone

tries to take a loan out in your name and or as password manager makes it easy to keep your account secure to begin with. Aura also has parental controls for your kids devices. You can restrict apps or manage screen time, set focus time, make sure they're doing homework instead of binging on YouTube. You can try Aura free for 14 days at aura.com slash Pacman. Use the free trial to see if your in the podcast notes. Today I'm going to be speaking with Rachel Bernstein, who's an educator, therapist, author, media and government consultant and also host of the weekly podcast Indoctrination and for over 30 years has been treating former cult members and their families, victims of malignant narcissists, former supremacists, conspiracy theorists.

Oh, quite, quite a list. Rachel, I appreciate you joining me today. Oh, it's my pleasure. Thanks for asking me to be on. So I mean, before we get into some of the nitty gritty, how did it happen that you started? I don't know if you would necessarily call it a focus, but that you started working in this particular space with these types of folks. Right.

Yeah, it is most definitely a focus and it has remained so. There was someone in my family who got ensnared in a particular cultic group. So it was kind of dinner table conversation. And then when I went off to college, I had already learned about some cults that use front names on college campuses to get people off of college campuses and kind of just take them away. And I saw them with my own eyes. And, you know, first, when you hear about cults, you're thinking someone's being a little paranoid and maybe they're exaggerating. And there it was. And then when I went on to become a therapist, I was noticing that there were a lot of people who just didn't think they existed. And

I thought, I need to be a resource. I need to be able to be out there to help people when they have had this issue, because it's very specific. When we talk about cults, for example, to start with, there are dramatically different scenarios when someone has already left the cult and the support that they might need at that point versus if someone is in the cult and loved ones may be thinking more of what is sometimes colloquially known as an intervention. Can you talk about whether you deal with both or more the after the fact only? Right. So most of what I deal with is the after the fact, although I am involved in some

interventions. These are non-forcible conversational style interventions. It's important that people know that so that they don't get afraid of them, that it's not at all that you're pulling up in a van and putting someone in something that's windowless and taking them away. It really is helping to educate them about what they are involved in because people involved in cults actually know the least about them. They have the least amount of access to the information. So all you're doing is informing them about what's true. But I'd say about 70 percent of the people I work with have been out sometimes for a few days. I mean, I've had people show up in my office as they left that day and others who have been out for years and realize that they need help because there are so many triggers that have been implanted that they didn't

realize until they need help because there are so many triggers that have been implanted that they didn't realize until they got triggered. When I've interviewed former white supremacists, for example, one of the trends is that when they reflect on how they were originally sucked in, they they all tell a very similar story. And it doesn't mean it's the only story, but at least the ones I've spoken to have a similar story, which is sort of opportunity caused by usually problems at home, often with absent parents or abusive parents, a sort of search for meaning and inclusion from some kind of group. So sometimes there was bullying at school. It's sort of circumstantial in terms of the environment that they're in that makes them vulnerable to the recruitment of some of these supremacists. Is that your experience? And also, is it similar with the people that get

sucked into cults that may not be extremist in that same way? Right. So that has been my experience as well. In addition to there is a timing factor. So when people ask me what kind of person gets involved in a cult, sometimes it is exactly that, that they're looking for something, they're looking for meaning, they're looking for connection, community, for having a purpose. They're trying to find some space for them in the world, maybe in kind of a parallel universe because they haven't found their way in mainstream society. But for a lot of people, it's a timing issue. They are away from home for the first time, or they just went through a trauma, or they were just diagnosed with something, or they were just abused for the first time, and they're looking to escape that. So I think a lot of factors actually play into it. You've worked with the FBI on some cases

that maybe some in our audience are familiar with. One such case is the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, and the negotiations that took place there. Can you talk a little bit about what is such a negotiation process like? What are the what are the principles that are at play in such negotiations in those situations? You know, those are interesting times, certainly, because there is something very incendiary about the moment. And so you're kind of trying to beat the clock. What you find when you're dealing with the FBI or really any kind of government agency is that you're trying to educate them about what's different about this and how they need to interact in a different way than they might be thinking. That doesn't always happen. They don't always listen, unfortunately.

But you can give your idea about how to make sure that they don't make people afraid of leaving by doing what they're doing to get them to come out. I've been involved in a number of raids, not planning them necessarily, but helping with the aftermath and helping with people who have been taken off compounds. With the Branch Davidians, I used the information that I knew about what would make people scared of leaving and to, and I think to really make them feel scared of the world, which is what unfortunately the ATF did, um, by playing very loud music and making them really feel overwhelmed. Um, and by kind of proving the cult leader right about the world, unfortunately, um, that Then they stayed in. But the other information I used was from people who had escaped before the fire. Some of the families, the parents, the children

who had been able to get out, who were also guiding me about what they thought would be the best sort of course of action for the people still in it. Sometimes they listen again and sometimes not so much. So you mentioned you mentioned the the leaders, depending on which of which cult one is talking about or extremist group. Oftentimes the followers allow or maybe accept is the better word that their leaders play by a different set of rules. There's rules for the followers and the leaders often don't follow those very same rules. Now, in cases like maybe a Jim Jones and the People's Temple, it's he's seen sort of like as a deity almost. And so that makes it really easy to understand. Well, like if you're God or God, like, of course, you have a different set of rules that you play by than we, the

followers play by. But not all of these cults have leaders that necessarily frame themselves in this kind of deified way in the non overtly deifying cults. What are the explanations or justifications that the followers have for why the rules they have to follow aren't the rules that the leader has to follow? It's a great question. It happens time and time again. And to make this very relatable, this is something that also happens in relationships with controllers and with malignant narcissists where they can do whatever they want and you can't question them and they can have access to your information or your passwords or your, you know, ATM and they, they can gain everything

and you have nothing, you have no power, you can't get any of their information, but they can get all of yours. So it happens in these sort of one-on-one, these sort of dyad cults too, within these relationships. But going back to the idea of cults and why permission is given, permission is given for everything when it comes to the leader within a cult. And that's actually why some people start cults because they love that. They love having the freedom to do or say whatever they want. And they love knowing that the rules only apply to the followers. I mean, it's sort of, you know, the sociopaths or the narcissistic playground. And, you know, they couldn't enjoy

it more, unfortunately. What happens when you get involved in a system like this, is that there's kind of what I see as a dual track of influence. One is overt and one is covert. And the overt is here are the teachings. Here's what we believe in. And here's what you need to do to be a good follower. The covert one is if you question how things are run, you will not receive the benefit of this. All of your sacrifice will be for naught, right? Your time is going to be wasted. If you are questioning the fact that I have 44 Rolls Royces, like with Rajneesh, and you get nothing and you sleep on the floor, then that negativity is going to get in the way of you receiving what I'm trying to give you. And you need to question yourself.

People learn how to turn the focus inward within a cult, and they question themselves for doubting. And doubting and being negative, being angry about anything or resenting anything in a cult is considered really, really awful. And it's going to be counterproductive to what you're trying to get by being there. So you think you're working against yourself by having critical thinking. It's a fascinating kind of way of getting into gaslighting. When I've spoken to experts on conspiracy theories, sometimes the idea comes up of like more destructive or dangerous conspiracy theories versus one ones that are sort of like more benign. And sometimes there will be this contrast where it's like, you know, some of the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that lead people to seek out and do violence against Jewish people.

Very dangerous. On the other hand, believing the earth is flat, not so dangerous. And to some degree, every conspiracy theory expert that I talk to says, yes, in the overt sense, it's true that one is much more dangerous than the other. At the same time, rarely is there only one conspiratorial belief. These things open doors to more and more extreme beliefs. And so we should be careful to say this one is totally benign. We don't need to worry about it.

When we think about that as applied to cults, are there what we might call not very dangerous cults? Like, for example, I read an article not long ago about how CrossFit or like Peloton or SoulCycle, they have a lot of the elements on paper of a cult, but it's not really dangerous in the way that a lot of these others are. Can you talk a little bit about that and kind of categorizing these? Right. So, yeah, there are some cultic groups that are more dangerous than others, undoubtedly,

and it all depends upon the leader. It depends where the leader wants to take it and what the leader needs in terms of ego aggrandizement. If they want to just test you to see what you're willing to do for them because it makes them feel powerful, then they will sometimes push you to the brink. They'll push you to the point where it's not healthy for you. It's actually dangerous for you just because they want to see you struggling because they told you to. And I think that when you're dealing with cults that are dangerous, you're dealing with cults where they will tell you, for example, like a lot of the ones that deal with pseudoscience, where here we have the cure for you. So people bypass actual cures, things that could really help them in order to get what the cult leader or that person is telling them they need, and they end up not doing well, or they end up not living. But they've already signed their rights away. And so there's nothing that they can do about it. And so yes, when you're engaging in anything that feels like someone's giving you the cure, it can be

potentially very, very dangerous. And there can be a lot of medical neglect, actually, in those situations. The other is when people are finding themselves getting more militaristic, and they're talking about the end times, they're talking about survival. That's when you get into a lot more of the stockpiling of weapons, of also needing to see the world and the people in it as less than as not human anymore and that you're above them. When you have that polarization, then you have a lot of danger. Last thing generally that I want to talk about, and there's a lot here, is getting people out.

Right. We know when it comes to false beliefs generally, beating people over the head with facts doesn't really work very well. You know, we've had dozens of guests where we talk about that in one way, shape or form. Empathy is good. Understanding is good. Communicating that the person is not going to be shamed if they decide, oh, you know what? I was wrong about this thing. I want to get out. Making clear that they're going to have, you know, the resources with Scientologists. That's the big thing where they have nothing. And so part of staying in is I'm going to have literally nothing if I get out of here. In terms of the getting out,

you mentioned sometimes the people in the cult know the least about the cult. I don't necessarily need to. One thing I sometimes think about is in conversations with Mormons and there's different opinions about whether Mormonism is a cult. But let's at least consider the possibility it might be cult like many Mormons don't know that Joseph Smith, each time he read the gold tablets or whatever they are, it was a different reading and he had a history of being a con man and all these different things. They just don't know that. And simply telling them that that's a reality is not going to be convincing if you just kind of give them that information. So what are the right ways to communicate the information that they might be lacking? Because we know just like, hey,

here's a bunch of stuff about your beliefs doesn't really work. Right. I'm so glad you asked this question because this is most of the work that I do, helping to have the conversation that's difficult to have with someone who might not be ready to look at the fact that they were involved in a cult and also helping guide families and friends and spouses to know how to have these conversations. So it's not to kind of, you know, push them farther back in and make them feel alienated, judged, et cetera. Right. So one of the things you want to be able to do is you want to engage them in a conversation about what they liked about it. Let them know that you're going to be fair minded about this, that there must have been a reason that they got involved. What was the promise? What did they think they could get? And maybe

who did they meet, who get? And maybe who did they meet, who they liked, et cetera. So that you're not just going in for the kill. You're not just going in to talk about what was bad, because if you do, then they're going to feel foolish. They're going to feel like if it was all bad, why did I get involved? Why did I stay? Yeah. So talk about what they got or really talk about what they were promised that they probably still didn't get because there's always the carrot that's dangled. So you get a sense of sort of what they were searching for, what is part of their value system, what they wanted to cure in the world, what they wanted to cure about themselves. And then let them know that you have information and let them know that they can listen to it or not.

They can disagree with it or not, but that this is information you want to give to them out of respect for them, that this was something that was kept from them, but people should have access to information so they can make a fully informed decision. And you let them know that if they feel like they want to go back, they can go back. There have been plenty of times that I've done an intervention where the person has gone back, but because I said, listen, I'm

glad you're saying that you're not involved in a cult, just in case, let me just give you a rundown of what a cult is and what happens there. And they could disagree with me in the moment, but they went back. It's like I planted a seed. They went back and they saw these things for themselves so they could come out on their own terms. And so if the person doesn't feel judged, if they really are able to maintain the sense that you see them as capable, you see them as bright, you see them as people who are not just gullible people, then you are going to be able to have a much more successful conversation and then say, I have information. You can also share me and share information with me about your group.

And I will share information about it, too, that I've heard so that there really is a reciprocity to the conversation. Super interesting. We've been speaking with Rachel Bernstein, who is an educator, therapist and author. She also hosts the weekly podcast Indoctrination. Rachel, really a pleasure having you on. I appreciate your time. Thank you so much for having me on. Good to talk to you. Did you know that half of Americans are deficient in vitamin A, vitamin C and magnesium? Most Americans are deficient in vitamin D. I take vitamin D during the winter. It is sometimes difficult to eat exactly the right amount of each food to get exactly what you need. I just make my life simpler with AG1 by Athletic Greens. In the morning,

one scoop of AG1, I get the entire day's worth of 75 high quality vitamins, minerals, and whole food sourced ingredients. It's what I want. It's no more. It's no less. It's not making any outlandish claims. It's just an easy, sustainable routine. I've tried different ways of taking vitamins. AG1 is cheaper. It's quicker. It's tastier. I'm not fumbling around with different capsules. It tastes great to drink can do going into the new year, staying properly nourished. Athletic Greens is giving my audience a free year supply of vitamin D. I take that every day in winter. Plus, you'll get five free travel packs of AG1. Go to athletic greens dot com slash Pacman. That's athletic G.R.E.E.N.S. dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. All right. We've spoken a little bit before about the brewing war between MAGA suck ups, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert. Both are Republican members of the House of Representatives. Both were reelected in 2022. Marjorie Taylor Greene by an easy margin,

Lauren Boebert by the slimmest, slimmest, slimmest of margins. And increasingly, they are at odds with each other. We started seeing this a couple of weeks ago and I talked to you about it. And now they are increasingly going after each other in an ugly way, which I think we should support. Now, there are people online talking about, you know, catfight and sort of all this this sort of stuff that is really not interesting to me. The fact that they are both women to me is not part of why this is interesting. If Madison Cawthorn were still in Congress and he was the one at odds with Boebert or Green, we would be just as interested. The interesting part is

these cartoonish, vapid, ignorant, do nothing MAGA people arguing with each other is interesting because all they really have is their allegiance to MAGA. That's I mean, listen, if it weren't for Trump and if it weren't for MAGA as something that they could say we support. They never would have been elected in the first place. And so it's interesting as we see Trump's 2024 campaign get off to a shaky start, to say the least. And we see questions as to whether or not MAGA will eventually acquiesce and get Kevin McCarthy elected speaker of the House. It's particularly interesting to see MAGA subdivide. And I'm going to go to a video yesterday. We looked at some of this interview earlier. This is the interview during which Lauren Boebert on Fox News told Brett Baier, just like with George Washington,

if we decide Jim Jordan needs to be the speaker, then he will be the speaker. She was presented with some of the things that Marjorie Taylor Greene said about her. She then goes after Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's getting very ugly. And Maga seems to be subdividing. Let's take a look. Somebody's Marjorie Taylor Greene and then Dan Crenshaw. Take a listen, please. Lauren Boebert under two million dollars from Kevin McCarthy to get elected. Many more people have taken Kevin McCarthy's money to get elected. And then there's a few of them that don't want to support him as speaker. Some of the reasons that these people have for not voting for McCarthy are unbelievably petty, unbelievably petty.

This is about showmanship. This is about notoriety. It has nothing to do with the conservative. By the way, the irony of Dan Crenshaw saying others are being petty is not lost on me, but it's I don't want to get derailed because this is more about Lauren Boebert's response, which we're going to see here in a moment. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Congresswoman saying that, you know, you just won a very close election in Colorado and that went to a recount. And she's saying that Kevin McCarthy helped you get across the finish line, and that

you're just trying to make a point or make a splash. How do you respond to that? Well, there are laws in this building that prevent me from going too far into detail, but I can say that I did not receive any help in that election, and that was a very big deal. We paid dues as members to the NRCC, and they were nowhere to be found. And then as far as our requests being petty, I don't think a secure border is petty. I don't think a term limits bill being brought to the floor, not demanded to pass, but brought to the floor so we actually have an option to vote on that is petty. But Congresswoman, you're not saying that your other colleagues don't want a secure border or don't want a balanced budget, right? You're not saying your other colleagues don't want to secure a border or don't want to balance budgets, right?

You're not saying that about your Republican colleagues. We haven't seen that demonstrated from leadership. We asked for the RSC, the Republican Study Committee's budget. All right. You get the point. Lauren Boebert saying Marjorie Taylor Greene is straight up lying straight, just making it up whole cloth. The support that she received.

What is the future of this intra MAga spat or fight? I don't have the answer. But one of the things that I expect to happen is as Trump and if Trump and MAGA continue to look weaker and weaker. And part of how we know this is how are Trump's primary polls looking, including against people like Ron DeSantis, who haven't even declared that they're running for anything. If Trump looks injured irreparably, I think maybe is the term we would apply to it. I think you will see more MAGA infighting because they will realize the Trump train, the MAGA train on which we even came to power is no longer going to be the buoy that keeps us afloat. If the allegiance to MAGA is no longer the buoy that keeps us afloat, what else do we need to or can we do to separate and distinguish ourselves from the other people who came to power on the same nothing that we came

to power, which was Trump was popular enough at the time that by endorsing us and us saying we love Trump, we were able to win. If Trump surges in the polls and reestablishes himself as the clear guy who's on his path to win the 2024 Republican nomination, I believe you will see less of this infighting. It is a reflection of the shakiness and the crumbling nature of the Trump MAGA movement at this point in time. There is a very interesting article in Salon by Amanda Marcotte about what we are about to see Republicans do. Republicans that who are right as we speak, coming to power, taking control of the House and I guess selecting a speaker of the House, although it's been harder to actually get that done. The article is called The GOP is about to go wild with phony Biden investigations. The media must not take the bait. Republicans know how to manipulate the both sides' impulse of the press. Hunter Biden's laptop is not a story, writes Amanda Marcotte. This is an important admonishment that I hope is being made

in corporate media newsrooms around the country, although I fear that it is not. The both sides narrative is a toxic form of false equivalence that has unfortunately become really common in corporate media. And there's a couple of reasons why. And this is the idea that all political viewpoints are equally valid and deserve to be heard regardless of their factual basis, regardless of their connection to reality. It's intellectually lazy. It undermines critical thinking. It undermines rational discourse. And those are elements that are essential to a functioning democracy. Why does corporate media do this? Why does

corporate media have to use one example, one person who says here's the climate science and one person who just denies it? It's 50 50 on your screen. I mean, look, I see this talking head saying here's the climate science. And I see this talking head saying here's the climate science and I see this talking head saying you can't believe any of that stuff. They're getting 50 50 representation, even though in the empirical community, one side has more than 99 percent agreement of the scientific community behind them. Why does corporate media do that? There's two main reasons. Number one, they do it because they want to avoid being called biased to some degree. They say, well, listen, it's controversial. So let's represent these two things 50 50, even if in reality they are not 50 50. That's one reason.

The other is for ratings. It's much more interesting to do these debates where you actually foment the belief in things for which there is no factual basis. When the media fall for this trap, they give credibility to lies and misinformation and they perpetuate those ideas. They perpetuate also the idea that there's not really an objective truth. Listen, let's have a debate as to what the tax rate should be. OK, well, that's a debate. There are moral questions, economic questions, fairness questions, governance questions. Fine. Let's have a debate as to whether climate change is real. Totally different thing. Irresponsible.

And by the way, I'm fine with discussions among people who disagree about the climate science. I think that that's fine. The problem is that corporate media that does thirty nine minutes of content per hour or less, the rest is commercials and hosts four minute debates where half the debate is a climate science denier. That's a different thing that we're talking about. And it's especially dangerous in the current political climate where we see the rise in authoritarianism. We see a decline in trust in institutions. It's important

for the media to hold politicians accountable. It's important for the media to hold public figures and so-called experts accountable for their words and their actions. But you've got to do so in a way that at least somewhat aligns with reality. It doesn't mean you give equal weight and time to baseless conspiracy theories and propaganda. And that's where we get to Joe Biden, the Biden crime family, Hunter Sancho. I accidentally hit the truth central button because I'm so, so wound up. What we what we have to see here is a recognition that the Hunter Biden conspiracy theory is the prototypical example of how the both sides narrative can end up just being so destructive. It's been thoroughly debunked. It's been fact checked. They insist on baseless elements of

Hunter Biden's background. At some point, the media has a responsibility to report what the facts are, not to promote baseless conspiracy theories, to give equal weight to lies and propaganda, to host false debates, which is what they are at the end of the day. And to the extent that Republicans are going to be obsessing for two years about impeach Biden for these crimes, those crimes, Hunter Biden, this, that, the other thing. If corporate media is going to cover that, they should just be clear. There's no credible evidence to support the things that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene want to investigate about Joe and Hunter Biden. Will they do it? Probably not. We have a voicemail number.

That number is two one nine two. David P. Here's a voicemail from a conspiracy theorist who goes by the name Total Control. This is an exercise in caution. This is what can happen when your brain is on conspiracy theories. Hey, Dave, it's me. Total Control 871. I know it's been a while, right? I didn't want all of 2022 to slip by without you knowing that I'm still alive. I know, I know you're just killing yourself right now, right? But I still have the same question, I think, the last time I called and put on your voicemail. Why am I still alive?

I never take a single injection. I never use a face diaper. I never socially distance, and yet I keep on living just fine. Not even a head cold. Wow. And nobody around me is getting sick either. So, hey, Dave, I'm just calling to find out how come, well, I guess this will make the, will make the third prediction of severe winter of illness and death. And we're up to triple damage now. Right. First, it was twin damage. Now it's triple damage. You know, it's interesting. Just speak. It's sort of like, I don't know, they keep talking about car accidents, but I've been driving for 20 years and I'm alive. So there must really be nobody

dying in car accident. It's very, very dumb. What's it going to be next winter? Yeah. Quadruple damn it. I don't know. What can I say? Seems to me like nobody can ever keep it straight because, you know, it's evolving with the rolling of the eyes. But anyway, I'm still here. I'm still kicking. Speaker 1 All right. Well, total control hasn't died. And he wants us to know that despite despite not being vaccinated. And of course, that is the very, very scary mind of a conspiracy theorist, for lack of a better term. We've got a fantastic bonus show for you today. Speaker 4 Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Yeah, we're going to make money on the bonus show today with the following topics.

We are going to talk about House Republicans taking as one of their first actions yesterday, removing the metal detectors from the House floor. OK, we'll talk about what they're doing. Tobacco companies in Spain are being billed for the cleanup of cigarette butts. This is very interesting. And we will also talk about the number of children in the United States who accidentally ate cannabis edibles in 2021. And does this vindicate the claims of the anti-cannabis right wing. Hint, it does not. We will talk about all of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Get access instantly, not in an hour, not in a day. Get access instantly by signing up at join.