The David Pakman Show - 2/27/24: Dr. Phil on the show, the latest left fracture

Episode Date: February 27, 2024

-- On the Show: -- Phil McGraw, known as "Doctor Phil," joins David to discuss his new book "We've Got Issues: How You Can Stand Strong for America's Soul and Sanity." Get the book: https://amzn.to/48r2bTu -- Two left wing ideologies conflict directly, the anti-capitalist left and the woke identity politics left, and we explore the differences and divisions -- Failed former President Donald Trump struggles to speak at the National Association for Christian Communicators conference, starting his speech late while slurring, appearing confused numerous times, and quickly ending his speech early -- Psychiatrist Dr. John Gartner says Donald Trump is showing signs of "gross dementia" -- House Republicans have a new "witness" in the Biden "crimes" story, and it's a guy who is in prison -- 2024 Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley is asked whether there is a single state she can win during a press conference -- Voicemail caller attacks David's entire audience with untruths, and then appears to be involved in a car accident while leaving the voicemail -- On the Bonus Show: US airman dies after setting himself on fire outside Israeli embassy, GOP budget chair says new revenue should be on the table to reduce deficit, tourists have returned to North Korea for the first time since the pandemic, much more... 🌱 Ounce of Hope: Get a THC Seltzer for just $5 at https://ounceofhope.com 🍷 Naked Wines: Use code PAKMAN to get 6 bottles for $39.99 at https://nakedwines.com/pakman 🧘 Attend the PHD Weight Loss workshop for FREE on Feb 29: https://davidpakman.com/phd 👍 Use code PAKMAN for 10% off the Füm Journey Pack at https://tryfum.com/PAKMAN 🛌 Use code HELIXPARTNER20 for 20% off + free bedroom set at https://helixsleep.com/pakman 💻 Stay protected! Try our sponsor Aura FREE for 2 weeks at https://aura.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 -- 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

. Let's start with something different today. We're going to talk about the conflict or the tension or the hypocrisy or the double standard that exists between two sides of the left wing. Tell me if this is interesting. Tell me if you're interested in more segments like this. Now, here are the two wings of the left that I want to compare today. You have your anti-capitalist left and then you have your woke left. And I'm not using any of these terms pejoratively by the anti-capitalist left. We mean

the anti-capitalists, the Marxists, the communists, the socialists that exist in that space. And by the woke side, I mean the critical postmodern identity based left. I'm going to tell you what each subscribes to and then we will talk about this. Now, there are many on the left who casually believe themselves to be both anti-capitalists and woke or, you know, maybe we call it a postmodern critical identity part of the left. What I want to argue today is that these are two fundamentally different ideologies that actually conflict significantly with each other. And many of the people on the left who at least believe that they are both anti-capitalist and woke, as defined by critical postmodern, are maybe I don't want to say confused, but

maybe just unaware of what these ideologies are. So let's start first with the anti-capitalist left. Sometimes they are Marxists or communists or socialists. The core idea here is we are against capitalism at its core. Now, they aren't exactly the same. Marxism, based on the theories of Karl Marx, criticizes capitalism's inherent inequality. It foresees a class struggle that will eventually lead to a classless society. Communism is a political and economic ideology. It wants a society where property is publicly owned. Everybody works and is paid according to their abilities and their needs.

And then socialism may be the least extreme of these, for lack of a better term. And socialism wants to socialize the means of production and distribution and exchange. It should be regulated by the community as a whole, not by the government, as communism might say, but by the community as a whole. So that's our anti capitalist side. We then have the woke, critical postmodern identity side. And this has its roots in becoming awakened to social injustice, especially as related to race and other identities. It now has kind of broadened and it means

we are most concerned with social inequality. And that includes inequality based on gender, inequality based on sexuality, race, ethnicity and other forms of identity. And the critical postmodern identity based ideas really come out of critical theory and postmodernism. It's a very different origin than the anti-capitalist ideology. And the critical side of this focuses on power dynamics, social construction of identity, critiquing universal narratives, emphasizing the lived experience of the individual. That's where identity politics come from

and recognizing the inequalities that come from identity. So the tension between these two sets of ideas is not trivial. If we think about economic ideas versus identity focus on the anti-capitalist side. The focus is we have a class struggle based around economic inequality. We want to redistribute wealth to achieve a classless society on the woke critical postmodern side. The priority is identity and cultural dimension of inequality. So the emphasis is we recognize and we validate identity and experience. There's much more of a focus on race and other identity factors. That's a significant difference in approach. And we'll get back to that. If we talk about universalism versus particularism, Marxism and anti-capitalism is far more universal in its approach to societal change.

We have shared economic conditions. We need class solidarity. It's much more reductionist economically. On the other hand, when we talk about woke and critical identity, it's about the particulars of this group has this experience based on race, gender and sexuality. This other group has a very different experience. And even all middle class people have very different experiences. And thus the approach should be different based on race, sexuality, gender, et cetera. One other element of difference, materialism and culturalism. The Marxist anti-capitalist critique is materialist. It focuses on the economic structure, the relationships between classes. The woke critical identity perspective, on the other hand, is way more culturalist. It wants to examine

language and, you know, Latin X. Latin X is something that exists on the woke critical side. Latin X is not something you would find on the anti-capitalist Marxist side, cultural practices and how they perpetuate inequality, et cetera. OK, now let's be thorough. Can you synthesize both of these ideologies into something that kind of encompasses both? You can certainly do it, right? I mean, you can basically say I'm both anti-capitalist and woke. My critique in general is an anti-capitalist critique, but then you layer identity on top of it. And I want to kind of deal with both. You can do that. The problem is that it's a little bit low effort to find what are actually two

competing ideologies based on very different scholarship and say, I kind of subscribe to both where they overlap. And especially it can be difficult to do because you come up against really specific conflicts when you look at particular issues. So, like, for example, if we look at free speech and cancel culture, there is a tension between advocating for free speech. And in general, you see free speech as a value upheld by traditional leftists. There is a difference between saying we are going to uphold free speech, period, as essential to democratic society and to class struggle versus on the other hand,

the view that is more common on the woke critical postmodern side, which is sometimes you've got a deplatform. Sometimes you've got to cancel. We need to consider that as a tool. And what that can lead to is a conflict in terms of what's the acceptable discourse. When we talk about criticisms of capitalism or discussions about identity, if you have this conflict as to the speech is part of the class struggle, the proletariat has it and we need to maintain it for everybody versus actually sometimes you've got to de-platform, sometimes you've got to cancel, sometimes you've got to limit. You might have a speaker advocating for radical economic reforms and they get invited to a

university. But if they don't consider that race, gender and sexuality are a part of that, you may see the woke critical side say this is not someone who should be allowed to speak because their view reduces to class and doesn't include those identity elements. OK, that's an example. I'll give you another example. Intersectionality versus class reductionism. This is a tension between the anti capitalists and the woke postmoderns. Intersectionality is a key component of the woke ideology. It says overlapping social identities are complex race, gender, sexuality, and sure, we include class in that as well.

When you try to combine that with the anti capitalist view, you can be accused on the anti capitalist side of just being a class reductionist. And it is absolutely the case that on the anti-capitalist side, as envisioned by Marx and others, you don't really deal in the same way with, well, if you're a black lesbian, lower middle class, that is very different than white, lower middle class. The approach is different. The solutions, the critique, it's all different. That doesn't exist historically on the anti-capitalist side. So again, it's easy to say, well, I believe in both. It doesn't strike me as the most serious thing to take two ideologies that conflict and say, I believe in both. I find it to be sort of low effort. Now,

I'll tell you how my ideology interlocks with this. I'm a social Democrat. Social democracy diverges from both anti-capitalist and woke critical identity based ideology. Social democracy, which is what I subscribe to, advocates for democracy within a capitalist framework with significant regulation, significant state intervention to ensure social welfare, equitable distribution of resources, equality of opportunity. And it wants to balance efficiency, innovation within the market with the need for social justice and protecting people against economic and social insecurity. So social Democrats usually would support a strong welfare state, progressive taxation,

comprehensive public services. Democrats usually would support a strong welfare state, progressive taxation, comprehensive public services. We want a high standard of living for all citizens, regardless of economic contribution and regardless of identity factors. So the social democracy has capitalism as a base. Marxism, communism and socialism want to overhaul or abolish capitalism. Social democracy accepts the capitalist system and we want to humanize it by managing the excesses instead of dismantling it entirely. Reform over

revolution is a big difference as well. Social Democrats want to reform through democratic means the problems that we have. There is a more revolutionary view from the anti-capitalist group often. And we can kind of go through the list. I think most people in my audience understand social democracy. So I'm curious to hear from those in the audience. What do you make of this conflict and why hasn't this tension come to the forefront to the degree that it should based on the ideologies that these movements come from? Even when you look at pragmatism over purity, when you look at the woke critical side, social democracy is far more pragmatic and doesn't tend to fall into these purity tests and litmus tests, whether whereas

the woke critical postmodern side often does. So let me know your thoughts. Let me know if these sorts of discussions are interesting. Where do you hear yourself falling within this spectrum of the left? And remember, this is all on the left. Every movement I just mentioned are movements on the left. Let me know your thoughts and we can follow up the discussion. So many people in our audience have become fans of our sponsor, Ounce of Hope. Ounce of Hope is a cannabis farm that ships CBD and psychoactive THC products to your door anywhere in the US. This is federally legal. THC, a THC Delta eight and nine.

They have edibles. And now you can check out the brand new drink from Ounce of Hope for twenty twenty four. The very high five milligram THC seltzer. It's the only 16 ounce THC seltzer on the market. It's only five bucks, a price no one can beat at their cannabis farm in Memphis. Ounce of Hope sustainably raises fish to feed local homeless people. I've always thought it's a really cool operation. Besides the delicious seltzer, they have gummies, chocolate, rice, crispy treats, caramels, topicals, oils, soft gels, you name it. Ounce of Hope grows, extracts and formulates all of these world class products in-house

so that you can trust the safety and quality of every product that arrives at your door. So whether you're looking for a little help sleeping at night, something for aches and pains, a way to unwind on the weekend, Ounce of Hope can help you out if you are over 21. And right now you can pick up their very high five milligram THC seltzers for five bucks each at ounce of hope dot com. No one can beat that price. And aside from their drinks, you'll get 20 percent off everything else when you use the

code Pacman. That's ounce of hope dot com. Pick up one of their THC seltzers for just five bucks. Use the code Pacman to get 20 percent off everything else. The info is in the podcast notes. As many of you have heard me say before, when I go to a wine shop, I have no idea what I'm doing and I'm Argentinian and I still know almost nothing about wine. So if you're like me, you might be able to use some help. Our sponsor, Naked Wines, has you covered. Naked

Wines is a subscription service that will connect you to the finest independent winemakers on the planet. You pay a fraction of the price you'd normally pay in stores because they cut out the retail middlemen. You get exclusive access to hundreds of top quality award winning wines. They get delivered however often you want. Perfect for any type of wine drinker. You'll get background information on the bottle. You have friends over. You can seem like you know

something by telling them something about the wine. My girlfriend likes white wine. I'm more of a red guy by necessity just because I'm Argentinian, even though I know absolutely nothing. So we get like a split box that has a few bottles of each. Every bottle is a passion project from some independent winemakers. So you're literally making an independent winemakers dream come true. You'll get your first six bottles for thirty nine ninety nine. Go to naked wines dot com slash Pacman and click enter voucher at the top and type in Pacman as the code and as the password.

That's naked wines dot com slash Pacman. Enter Pacman as the code and password. The info is in the podcast notes. Failed former President Donald Trump spoke to the National Association of Christian Communicators the other day. This is the worst we have seen him slurring ending the speech quickly and getting off the stage rather than doing the normal wind down and Even showing up late for unexplained reasons and starting off very slurry

This speech has now led to psychiatrist John Gartner saying Trump seems to be suffering from gross dementia. We'll get to that a little bit later. Here is the start. And I have to say, this is as disoriented and slurry as we have seen Trump. There was no way I was going to miss this. The plane was coming in. That plane was coming in.

I said, are we OK to the pilot? He said, I think so. I didn't like that answer. I think we're OK, sir. I think we should be OK. I'm saying, should we turn back? He said, I wouldn't mind if we did. I said, I don't have the courage to turn back from these people. Just land the sucker. So Trump, very slurry and a number of cognitive gaffes. Trump saying that thanks to him, Israel has become the capital of Israel. Weird thing to say, isn't it? Nothing happened, but I did it. And Israel therefore became the capital. Then it was a big thing. And on Monday, I'd call back the biggest leaders in the whole world. And of course, what Trump means is he moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He doesn't even remember what he did.

Instead, saying thanks to him, Israel became the capital of Israel. Trump with that glitch that often happens on the word evangelical. And we're not going to play all of these, but there were a bunch of these during this speech of Christ, the stories of the Holy Bible and voices of famed evangelical people and evangelists, evangelists like the late great Pat Robertson, who was. And that's that glitch. We've seen it before. Trump's shoulder goes up and he seems to sort of be unable to get the word out that he's trying to get out. We still don't really know what that is. Trump ranting unintelligibly in numerous parts of this speech talking here about God content

and context and just kind of going in circles. It's not syntactically coherent. It's sick. I will protect the content that is pro God. We're going to protect pro God. Context and content to that end at the request of the NRB, I will do my part to protect AM radio in our cars. You know, we like to listen to AM radio. Yeah, not really making any sense. At one point, the speech ground to a halt and it is silence. You could hear

you could hear a pin drop in this audience getting killed. They end up getting shot, bugged. Terrible things happen and can't be that way. Can you imagine foreign leaders coming in from other lands? They hear all about Washington, the United States, and they're driving in dirty roads. There is a room full of people. I know it's hard to tell from the dead silence holes all over the place. Medians that are falling down into the road and crime and graffiti, graffiti all over those beautiful marble columns, swastikas, swats. It's like a pot sticker, a swastika. Don't know what it's stuffed with. Can you imagine what they must think about our country? And I worked hard on that. You know, when I was when any any time I drive, when I saw like one or two tents starting

to form, I said, go out there immediately and take down those tents. So anyway, the crowd, it's almost like there's no crowd, but there is a crowd. Trump at one point making the really interesting declaration that you've got men, you've got women and you've got religion. Those are your three categories. They have to have a political voice. You know, if you think about it, you have men, you have women and you have religion. If you look at it, you have more than the men.

You have more than the women. Right. You know, I have to admit, that's not something I've ever really considered. Maybe the most rambly moment in the speech was this word salad. And I challenge you to parse the syntax on this one. We'll never allow the big media or left wing pressure groups to silence you, censor you, discriminate against you or in any way tell you what you have to say. They want you to say what they want you, what they want to have you say.

And we're not going to let that happen. You're going to say as you want and you're going to believe and you're going to believe in God. You're going to believe in God because God is here and God is watching. Right. As you can tell, a deeply spiritual Donald Trump really, really struggling to read this nonsense off of the teleprompter. And then lastly, and this was the biggest sign

that something was up. Trump showing up late and slurring five, six, seven disoriented and confused bits of speech and then abruptly wrapping the speech and getting off the stage, cutting it very short. And every indication Trump was just not something was up and he was trying to get out of here. Revival. So, again, I want to thank you and I want to thank the national religious broadcasters. I cannot state strongly enough what an incredible job you do. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you. And there it is.

And then Trump just leaving. So the warning signs continue to grow. I mean, this is not I'll be the first to tell you. Biden sometimes says things that don't make a whole lot of sense. But this is just as bad as any of it and extended. And while reading the speech, Trump seems confused by the words and gets lost in his own head. We now are again starting to see medical professionals say something is wrong here. And I want to talk about that next. Dr. John Gartner has been a guest on

this program before, and he is now weighing in on the difference between what is going on with President Joe Biden and what is going on with failed former President Donald Trump. Now, to be clear, Gartner has not examined either of these individuals. Some will write off what any mental health professional says based on the Goldwater rule. As we have spoken about with Dr. John Gartner, the Goldwater rule was put in place for very specific reasons. They are not necessarily medically relevant here. This is just the opinion of one guy. And what Dr. John Gartner now says is that Joe Biden's brain is aging while Trump's brain is dementing and that there is a

quote fundamental breakdown in the ability to use language. There's an article in Salon, which we will link to from a couple of days ago, written by Chauncey DeVega. And it quotes Dr. John Gartner, who has been on this program before. And what the article says is President Biden is old, is an easy, lazy, familiar and comfortable narrative. It's sensational and gossipy, maintains false balance, fairness, both sides, ism and objectivity. And it allows the mainstream news media as an institution, a measure of protection against retaliation by Trump if he takes power in 2025. The idea is if you focus on Joe Biden's mental health and age, you both normalize what's going on with Trump. And you also can argue that these are not

politically motivated claims being made about Donald Trump. In comes Dr. John Gartner and Dr. Dr. John Gartner. Let me actually find the critical element of here. he says, I had to speak out now because the 2024 election might turn on this issue of who is cognitively capable, Biden or Trump. It's a major issue that will affect some people's votes. Not enough people are sounding the alarm based on his behavior. In my opinion, Donald Trump is dangerously demented. In fact, we are seeing the opposite among too many in the news media, the political leaders and among the public. There is also this focus on Biden's gaffes or other things that are well within the normal

limits of aging. By comparison, Trump appears to be showing gross signs of dementia. Dr. Gartner says this is a tale of two brains. Biden's brain is aging. Trump's brain is dementing. Examples that John Gartner gives, and I encourage you to read this whole article. He talks about phonemic paraphasias, which is the substitution of non words for words that sound similar. We've seen Trump say beneficious rather than beneficiaries. Renoverse instead of renovations, pivotal instead of pivotal. Obama became famously missiles became missions. Christmas became Chris's bipartisan, became by pars. The argument here is that this is a sign of cognitive decline. Dr. John Gartner also points out what we call tangential speech, incomprehensible free association and word salads. We've seen that many, many times. So here's the bottom line.

I am completely open to the suggestion that Joe Biden is experiencing age related decline of some kind. But we have to be honest and acknowledge whatever Trump is suffering from is just as bad. And Trump's the one with the dangerous authoritarian ideas who would put dangerous yes people around him. Biden's not. So if they're both demented and by the way, cognitive decline and dementia are two different things. If they're both demented or in cognitive

decline, Biden's the obvious choice. If Biden's the only one in cognitive decline, Biden's still the obvious choice because of how lunatic authoritarian Trump's ideas are. And so there's really very little to think about. Now, we're going to try to have Dr. Gartner on the show soon to expand on these ideas. We will link to the article. Take a look at it. Let me know what you think. It is not the most settling stuff. Weight loss is often not easy, especially if you're in your 30s or later. There is no miracle cure, right? The magic diet or the pill or the injection. It's just about healthy eating, not beating yourself up and having a plan.

And that's what our sponsor, Ph.D. Weight Loss understands. Ph.D. Weight Loss helps real people see real results at losing weight. It's lifestyle modification. It's using protocols from successful clinical trials. It's evidence based and it's very reasonable. The founder of PhD weight loss is licensed registered dietitian Dr. Ashley Lucas. She has spent decades developing this program. You can check out their website and the amazing results that many people have had. There's no severe calorie restrictions, no medications or supplements,

no crazy unsustainable exercise routines. It's healthy eating, customized meal plan and weekly one on one coaching for a truly personal touch experience. health. Sign up for the free workshop at David Pakman dot com slash Ph.D.. They've helped over seventy five hundred people drop weight. You could be next. That's David Pakman dot com slash Ph.D.. The link is in the podcast notes. Breaking a deeply ingrained habit is one of the toughest things to do. Our sponsor fume can make it easier. Not everything in a bad

habit is wrong. So instead of a drastic, uncomfortable change, remove the bad from the habit. And that's, quite frankly, what Fume helps you do. Fume is an innovative, award winning device that delivers flavored air. That's it. There's no vapor. There's no nicotine, no electronics. It's just delicious flavored air delivered by the cylindrical fume device that fits in the palm of your hand. It comes in tasty, refillable flavors like raspberry, lemon, orange, vanilla, grapefruit, crisp mint. The fume device goes in your pocket. You can carry it The David Pakman Show David Pakman dot com. that many people love. Don't judge fume until you've tried it. They have helped countless people make positive changes and you could be next. Head over to try fume dot com and use code Pacman to save 10 percent when you get the journey pack, which comes with the device

and several flavors to try. That's try f um dot com slash Pacman. Use the code Pacman for 10 percent off the journey pack. The info is in the podcast notes. Today, we'll be speaking with Phil McGraw, also known as Dr. Phil, host of Dr. Phil Primetime on Merritt Street Media and author of the new book, We've Got Issues, How You Can Stand Strong for America's Soul and Sanity. You know, I'm very interested to speak to you today because in preparation for our interview, I've been watching some of the Fox News appearances, looking at the book, et cetera. I never really saw you as a guy who delved into political issues, per se. You seem more willing, interested, and I must say, maybe more conservative than I thought you were. Is that a fair assessment? Not at all. OK, because I am I am so not political, you can't even believe

it. And I'll tell you why. I know nothing about politics. And I know why you say that. It sounds like it. Right. I talk about these things as cultural issues from a psychological, psychosocial standpoint, how they affect families and people. And they do overlap with some of the things that politicians talk about, but they talk about it from a political standpoint, funding standpoint, how they can get this bill or that bill through, couldn't care less. But I am interested in those issues in terms of how they impact families in their day to day pursuit of life and peace and being able to raise their family in a healthy environment.

So there's a lot of overlap, but I don't talk about it from a political standpoint because I frankly don't know enough about the politics of it all. I'm just willing to admit that. I'm just willing to admit it. I don't think a lot of other people know either. I'm just willing to admit it. I don't want to make this like, you know, famously there's a story of, um, uh, literary literary critics were talking about the symbolism in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, and he would tell them, that's not at all what I meant. And so I don't want to make this where I tell you about how political all the stuff you say is.

But the reason why I say it is a lot of the language in the book. And when you talk about issues like immigration and culture and others, it seems as though it alludes to going back to the good old days, individual decisions in the style that many Republicans now talk about with regard to schooling and parenting, et cetera. But you're saying it's just not the case. No, and that doesn't mean that there aren't politicians on both sides of the aisle that talk about these issues. But if you really think about raising a family in America, whether it's now or 50 years ago or 20 years down the road, we still have to keep our eye on what I think are core issues

in America. And I think the backbone of America is the family unit. I really think that if we have strong families, if we have strong family values, and I think that our families in America, as you've heard me say and read me say, are under attack. And I think some of those attacks are unintended consequences of technology,

for example. But these are things that whether politicians talked about them or not, if they tried to legislate about them or not, I would still be talking about. So talk about, give some examples of that. What are some of the attacks facing families? Well, I think about 08, 09, we had what I think has been the biggest change to human life since the industrial revolution. I think before the industrial revolution, we were a very agricultural civilization, right? People worked on the farms. We grew what we needed. But then we became mechanized. And I think back then we were 95% agricultural.

Now we're 1% agricultural. Why? Because everything is so mechanized and people move to the cities and all. Well, the biggest thing that's happened since then, in my opinion, was the advent of the smartphone. The internet became so prolific. And I mean, think about it. We're walking around in 08, 09 with as much computing power in our hands with smartphones, laptops, iPads that we had when we did the moonshot. When we put a man on the moon,

we didn't have as much computing power as we can hold in our hands as of 08, 09. And it changed everything. And people stopped being so involved with the reality of life and started getting involved in virtual life. And it's only gone more and more in that direction since that time. And also at that time, we started seeing the highest levels of anxiety, depression, and loneliness in young people since records were kept. I'm with you on this one. I'm with you on this one.

Jonathan Haidt has studied and written about this extensively. You and I are aligned on this one. What about the ones that fall under what you call the tyranny of the fringe? Because I don't think the smartphone example falls under that category, right? No, that's why I say some of this is the unintended consequences of like technology. But then we've got some where we've got people that are just trying to change some of the core values in America, core values of family, trying to rewrite history. And we've got people that are coming in saying, well, we want to change history, want to change what kids are being taught in

history, want to change biology. We want to change all of the things that we have for a hundred years had empirical data to support. But tell me more. I don't want to gloss over this. I want really want to understand this changing history. OK, what what was the history that used to be taught that now has been changed by the tyranny of the French? Well, you know, pick an area we can talk about biology where we have always had two sexes. But what about history? Just to pick history, not by all, because you said history, biology. What about history? Well there's a lot of history to biology and you would be missing a big point to pretend

that there's not historical biology. Uh, but if you want to talk about history, we can, uh, not in biology, but just talk about the history of mankind. We've got areas where they don't want to talk about slavery. We had one group of people that wanted to start describing slavery in history books as involuntary relocation. This was not involuntary relocation. This was slavery. And we've got people that are wanting to rename schools because people that were doing what were the mores and folkways of the times now would clearly be doing things against the law, certainly against mores and folkways, because they were slave owners at the time, are saying, well, now we have to tear down these

statues. We have to rename these schools, and we don't want to teach about them. We have to learn from our mistakes as a society. We can't pretend those things didn't happen. They did happen. They were dark and ugly times in American history. We don't want to pretend those things weren't there. So let me see if I understand because there's a bunch of stuff. So if I hear you correctly, you're not in agreement with those who want to minimize the tragedy and brutality of slavery, but you also want to keep the school names. If a school is named after a slave owner, you're also OK with that because it will remind us and we will learn from it.

Am I understanding that correctly? I think you're oversimplifying what I'm saying. What I'm saying is if you're wanting to change American history to pretend that these people did not exist and you want to measure them by today's yardstick rather than the yardstick at the time, that's what is referred to as presentism. And that's like saying, okay, you're going to drive through a neighborhood and the speed limit is 20. And you drive through that neighborhood doing 20. And then they come along and say, you know what, we're going to change the speed limit to 10 and we're going to give you a ticket for speeding when the speed limit was 20. It's now 10, but you weren't speeding when you were doing 20,

but now it's 10. We're going to give you a retroactive ticket for doing what was acceptable at the time. That's called presentism. We're going to take what was done back at the time, pull it up into the current time and condemn you for not knowing what was going to be acceptable 200 years later than when you did it. And I think that is really narcissistic and arrogant and rewriting history instead of letting people learn from the mistakes that were made in America and that we need to learn from so we don't make those mistakes again. Because some of those people also did some really good things at the time. We don't need to endorse everything they did, but we need to acknowledge the good and the bad. When it comes to cancel culture, something you've also written and spoken about,

what do you think is the prototypical or emblematic example of someone who was unfairly canceled over the last few years? Well, I think the idea of cancel culture is more than one person, and I'm not going to say is you've got people that want their speech instead of free speech. And so they will come in and talk about in a university certain things that can't be shared, can't be talked about. We've got universities that have put out language that they highly recommend their professors to not use. One of them that jumps out at me from the University of California is they were encouraged to no longer say

America is the land of opportunity or the job should go to the most qualified person. You can't say those things anymore because they are considered to be oppressive. And if you have university faculty, even tenured faculty, that talk about those things or ask their students to take positions that are contrary to what they believe, what the students believe, they get grieved against, they get suspended, they get disciplined, and in a sense canceled at that. You know, that's interesting. Let me weigh in on that a little bit, because that's very interesting. You know, in preparation for the interview, I looked at the academic setting because a lot of times when we talk

about cancellation, we talk about, oh, a comedian who said or did something and then for a while they didn't have shows or something like that. You know, Louis C.K., for example, etc. I looked for the revocation of tenure for professors in a lot of these schools that you talk about or allude to. And really, it seems that when tenure is being stripped, it's for real wrongdoing. Plagiarism is uncovered, sexual harassment of students, etc. I really struggle to find evidence in a country of 330 million people of tenure being stripped just because of using the wrong language. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't wacky memos that go out or I'm with you that this stuff exists anecdotally. But if we think about what is happening big picture, I actually struggle to really find examples of this as an epidemic. Tell me where I may be missing something.

Well, I don't know what you mean by epidemic. Well, that it's happening that that professors are being stripped of tenure, not for serious violations of their, you know, like I said, sexual harassment, plagiarism, being involved in criminality. But just because they said something that is maybe not politically correct. I'm just not seeing that tenure is being stripped from professors for that. Do you have any examples of professors that have lost tenure in that way? I do, and I'll provide it to you. How's that?

I'll get you a list and send it to you. That would be I would love to do that, because if that is happening, I want to expose that and I want to talk about that. Couple other things that I wanted to ask you about when it comes to what you see happening in the political space right now, approaching it from a cultural perspective, as you say that you do. Do you agree that a decline in religiosity is a problem in the United States or is that not a concern to you? It is a concern to me. I think we've seen church membership drop below the 50% mark for the first time in our country's history. And I think that that's a problem for a variety of reasons. And one of them being that that's one of the times that families tend to spend quality time together.

It's time that they put their phones down. It's time that they usually got together. It's time that they put their phones down. It's time that they usually got together and would go do something as a unit and focus on values that were constructive to the family. There was often meditation time involved. There was often discussions about what was discussed in church that day. They often had Sunday dinner together afterwards and spent quality time like they did no other time during the day. And I think it also is a product of our lessened birth rate, which has dropped because a lot of people join church when they have children because they want their child to be baptized or christened or whatever.

And the fact that we've seen our birth rate drop to around 1.6 from 2.1, which is necessary to sustain our infrastructure right now, is a problem. And it seems that that's one of the main reasons that church membership has dropped off. There's fewer kids to go get baptized, christened, or whatever, so people have less reason to go to church. And that's a byproduct of the of this of the lesser birth rate. What do you make of the correlation anyway, that as church attendance has declined, which you rightly point out, the rate of violent crime and murder in the United States has also been declining. Do you think there's anything? Because a lot of times the claim is made that as you remove God, whether it's from school or whatever,

bad things happen, crime rates go up, et cetera. But we continue to see violent crime rates decline in the United States, correlating with decreased church attendance. What do you make of that? Well, I think that that is a correlation. And I think some crime is declining in some areas and it's going up in others. to consecrate crime, put some measure of consequence that goes with the crimes that are happening, and give these people some result for what they do and give them some opportunity to turn their life around, learn how to do things differently than what they're doing, then we'll see it continue to decline in the areas where we've got good trends and turn it around in areas where we don't. But what I think is most important, particularly among our young people, is that we make sure that our parents are involved in our kids' lives so they don't get started in even misdemeanor crime right now. Shoplifting is up,

and these are misdemeanors, a lot of which don't get prosecuted. And you wonder, a lot of this is happening with young kids, and I fear they're getting exploited by gangs. And you wonder, a lot of this is happening with young kids, and I fear they're getting exploited by gangs. And you wonder, where are their parents? If they are vulnerable to gangs using them to go do shoplifting, which annually is over $100 billion a year in terms of overall loss and shrinkage from corporations, then somebody's doing that

and a lot of it is organized crime and they're exploiting young people to do it because they know there's not a lot of consequence for it. And you gotta wonder, where are their parents? Do they know what they're doing? Are they talking to them about this? Are they discussing it with them so that they don't get caught up in that? And that's not a violent crime most of the time, but it's still a crime and it speaks to the values that they're holding or not holding. I know that we're at the end of our time and I don't want to

keep you over. I'll remind the audience the new book is We've Got Issues, How You Can Stand Strong for America's Soul and Sanity. I really appreciate your time and insights and being totally transparent, having never spoken to you before. A lot of what you're saying sounds very conservative to me, which doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. I happen not to be a conservative.

Some in our audience are. That's my read of it all. And I think it's very interesting to see you wading into some of these topics. And don't forget that I said I was going to send you a list of yes, professors that have had consequences. And I expect you to share that with your listeners when I do. We will include it in the YouTube description. You have my promise, sir. All right. And you have my promise. I'll send it to you.

All right. Appreciate your time. Thank you so much. I'm glad we were able to make this work. If you've been thinking about getting a new mattress, Helix Sleep is where I would start. I've been sleeping on Helix mattresses for years now. I recommend Helix to everyone, which is why I wanted them as a sponsor. If you don't want to take my word for it, Helix has been awarded number one mattress by both GQ and Wired magazine. And one of the

things that makes Helix unique is their sleep quiz. I didn't really know what kind of mattress would be best for me. But you do this short sleep quiz. You answer questions about your body type and your preferences, what position you like to sleep in. And Helix will match you with the perfect mattress for you. So, you know, you're actually getting something tailored to your needs instead of going in blind like most people do. I got my Helix mattress designed to stay cool at night since I hate getting hot while I sleep. Shipping is always free. You get 100 nights to decide whether you like it. My audience gets a huge 20 percent discount off of all orders, plus two free pillows. Go to Helix sleep dot com slash Pacman and enter code Helix partner 20 at checkout. You've heard me talk before about the show's financial accounts being hacked.

It is a horrible experience. It can happen to anyone. Look at the stats and our sponsor, Aura, gives you peace of mind. Aura is the all in one solution to keep your accounts safe. Aura scans the dark web for your personal info, emails, passwords, social security numbers, and alerts you if anything is found and helps you fix the problem fast. We'll be right back. devices with really easy to use parental controls. You can try Aura for free for two weeks at Aura dot com slash Pacman. Your usernames and passwords could already be floating around. It takes just seconds to find out using Aura's free trial so you can change your passwords

if you need to. That's a you are a dot com slash Pacman. The link is in the podcast notes. All right. A few other quick things today. Boy, what an interview with Dr. Phil, by the way. A couple other things. Number one, you might think that now with the complete failure and collapse of the so-called FBI informant, Alexander Smirnoff, it turns out that he lied about the supposed Biden crime elements and facts.

We now have found out that he's admitted to being tied to Russian intelligence. After that imploded, you might think the Biden crimes thing is over. You would be wrong. Here is James Comer on Fox News saying, hey, you know what? Our new concern is that Jim Biden, Joe Biden's brother, he seemed to say some things that were inconsistent. So now we're going after him with Jim Biden. He said some things that aren't consistent with other people who we've interviewed with

other amounts of evidence that we have in the form of text messages and emails. And right now, as we speak, Maria, our staff's going over reviewing all that to determine whether or not Jim Biden in fact told the truth in his transcribed interview. So now the focus is on Jim Biden over what at this point appear to be some kind of inconsistencies with what other witnesses said. Of course, it's extraordinarily common that two witnesses will recall an event differently. And now Comer brings up his new star impeachment witness, a guy who's in prison right now. Chairman Comer, your Democrat colleagues are mocking the investigation. You know that they say it's all and it is worthy of mockery.

That's for sure. Russian disinformation. So give us your take on Mr. Smirnoff now being indicted and saying that a Russian passed on the story. And I also want to get your take on this latest information that you have gotten from Mr. Galanis, who. Yes, Mr. Galanis is in prison. He's convicted. Still in prison.

Yeah. All we know you about Smirnoff was the 1023 allegation. We knew from FBI sources that the FBI had never investigated it. And all we knew was what Christopher Wray told us that this informant was one of their most trusted and highest paid in the bureau. And he had been in that position for over 10 years. So that's all we knew about him. He wasn't an important part of the case, but it was a tip that we should investigate. We are not going to leave any stone unturned. We're going to investigate. Anyway, you don't even need to hear the whole thing. It's there. Now they're shifting to a

guy who's in prison as their new star witness. They seem committed. They don't seem to care what the facts are. And we have to keep our eye on the ball. There is still no evidence linking Joe Biden to alleged wrongdoing by Hunter Biden. And there is still no evidence of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden. That's where we are. This stuff is getting increasingly less attention because just about everybody but Maria Bartiromo seems to have figured out there is simply nothing here. So we will follow it. They may indeed be committed to impeaching Joe Biden. But every element of this alleged story crumbling.

Nikki Haley was asked during a recent press conference, can you name a single state that you can win? And Nikki Haley could not. And there's some interesting stuff to discuss here. So let's watch the clip and then talk about whether it is here in Michigan or any of the upcoming states that you are campaigning in, today which state can you tell us that you can definitively win? We have 21 states and territories that are getting ready to happen.

Why don't we wait and see what happens? We don't have to have a crystal ball and say this is gonna happen or that's gonna happen. We don't live in Russia. We don't anoint kings. We have elections. Let people vote. But can you name a single state you can win? I can name that 70% of Americans don't want Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

That's a pretty big number. I can name that 40% of Republicans in all our early states don't want Donald Trump. That's a point that you need to talk about. Those things matter. 60% of Americans think Donald Trump and Joe Biden are too old. Talk about that instead of talking about what we think is going to happen. Let's talk about what the American people have told us. What about the ambassador? The Marquess poll that shows that Donald Trump can't beat Joe Biden and that I defeat Joe Biden by 18. All right. So a couple of different things. Nick, the answer is Nikki Haley doesn't have a

single state she can win. I mean, what I mean by that is there's no polling showing she's going to win a single state. We have Super Tuesday coming up next week. It doesn't appear that Nikki Haley will win even one state. And so there really are two sides of this. How on earth can you become the nominee without winning a single state on that basis? She can't win. On the other hand, it is absolutely the case that 40 percent of Republicans not wanting Donald Trump. She got roughly 40 percent of the vote in New Hampshire. She got roughly 40 percent of the vote in South Carolina, her home state. That is significant. That is meaningful. It should really make the Republican Party consider what to do, given that much of that 40 percent who supports Nikki Haley will not vote for Trump under any circumstances if he is the nominee rather than Nikki Haley.

So that's what do you do with that? That is if you're the Republican Party, how do you deal with that? Now, there's this also on the other hand, on the third hand, Nikki Haley says 70 percent of Americans total don't want Trump or Biden, but almost nobody wants Nikki Haley. And what I mean by that is she's getting 40 percent of the Republican primary vote, 40 percent of the Republican primary vote, and they are about 45 percent of the total voting base. So the people voting for Nikki Haley in the primary are around 18 percent of the electorate extrapolated. Now, of course, it's more complicated than that.

There are people voting Trump who would vote for Nikki Haley if she were the nominee. There are probably some people who would vote by Biden over Trump, but would vote Haley over Biden. I know a couple of them. I have a couple of friends in that category. So it's a little more complicated. But when she says 70 percent of the country doesn't want Trump or Biden, we only know that about 18 percent of the country wants her. So that's also not a winning scenario. But we have unique circumstances here. And as I've explained before, and people write in and they say I'm being sort of sort of glib or when I say she's sticking around in case Trump dies or is in prison. And that's the reality. I don't know how else to say it. She's pointed out Trump's significant decline. We know Trump's

not healthy. We know Trump is facing four different trials, some of which may be adjudicated before the election. Could Trump really be sentenced by then? Probably not. But maybe he maybe he could and he just wouldn't be reporting to prison. I mean, we just don't know. But we have these unique circumstances where she is incentivized to stick around, even if she has not a single state that she is likely to win because of the unique

circumstances here and because we've never seen anything like it. So she's right in some sense. She's distorting in another sense. You know, the poll where she says she beats Biden by 18, but Trump loses. That is a hell of an outlier poll, certainly not representative of most of the polling. But I want her to stay in her staying in helps Joe Biden in the long run, I think is pretty clear. It angers Trump. It forces Trump to continue spending at least some money that he increasingly doesn't have to try to keep Nikki Haley

from making a serious run against him. And so I hope she stays in. I see no path to victory for her. But that's her problem, not mine. We have a voicemail number. That number is two one nine two. David P. I don't think we've ever had a voicemail like this. You are going to hear a car accident in this voicemail. A guy calls up to wildly attack me. And then there seems to be a car accident in the background that I can't tell if this

guy is involved in. So let's start with the substantive, substantive elements of the voicemail and then we will get into the car accident. Hey, I'm David Pakman. I think I'm some big time hush, but really, I'm just pandering to a bunch of brainwashed, brain dead liberals. So the first funny thing here is obviously we are reaching more than just people on the left, as evidenced by the relentless number of right wing attacks that I receive on the

show. If this show were only watched by left wingers, I wouldn't be getting thousands of of messages, comments, tweets and all of it a day from right wingers about the show. So wrong on swing and a miss on the first one that are just going along with the same song and the same dance. So the idea that all of the leftists in my audience are of the same mind is obviously untrue. In fact, there are major conflicts among my audience. My audience has conflicts between the capitalist and anti-capitalist wings. Look at my subreddit. That's a big area of contention. My audience has conflicts with regard to views on the Israeli-Palest Israeli Palestinian conflict, major differences within

my audience, all on the left. My audience has differences on their issue, on their views, on transgender issues and what should and shouldn't be allowed. And these these are all at least nominally people on the left. So the idea that we have a monolithic left wing audience, just look at my subreddit and you'll see that's not the case. All right. So let's continue. And then we get to the car accident. Speaker 4 They're so damn seen out. They got a female president in office that damn near can't even speak. But guess what? It don't matter to them. They're being told what to do, what to think,

what to say, how to feel. And all this jerk's got is David Pakman jerk. All he cares about is enriching his pockets. He wouldn't be there talking about Trump every single day if he wasn't getting paid. He'd be one of those jerks in the office trying to talk shit about Trump and the business. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. Are you okay? Are you okay? Are you okay? Speaker 1 Oh, my God.

Speaker 2 Yeah, yeah. Speaker 1 Thank God. I'm so sorry, bro. Speaker 1 Wow. So I don't know what happened. Hopefully everybody's OK. Almost every claim made by the individual before the car accident was wrong. And I hope everybody is OK there.

That's pretty scary stuff to hear. On the bonus show today, we will talk about the U.S. airmen who died after setting himself on fire after the outside the Israeli embassy in Washington. And we will talk about some of the reaction to this incident. The Republican budget chair now says that new revenue, meaning raising taxes, new revenue should be on the table to reduce the deficit. You don't often hear Republicans say that. And tourists have gone back to North Korea for the first time since the pandemic.

What are they seeing? Our first glimpses of what is going on in the hermit kingdom, so-called since the pandemic. All of those stories and more on today's bonus show. Remember, the bonus show is every day. The bonus show where you want to make money. Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad. Alex Jones hates the bonus show. Viewers and listeners love the bonus show.

Sign up at join Pacman dot com. You'll get instant access and you can use the coupon code save democracy 24 to save about I think it's 40, 50 percent or something like that. We'll see you on the bonus show and I'll be back tomorrow with a new program.