The Joe Rogan Experience - #1767 - James Lindsay

Episode Date: January 20, 2022

James Lindsay is an author, mathematician, podcaster, and founder of New Discourses: an online resource for educating the public on the dangers of the "Critical Social Justice" movement. His latest book, co-authored with Charles Pincourt, is "Counter Wokecraft: A Field Manual for Combatting the Woke in the University and Beyond."

The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day. Hello, Joe. Hello, Joe. Good to see you. You heterodox individual, you. I am very heterodox. I like to use that word because I never use that word.

Well, you used it properly. I just did. I think it's the first time I've ever used it on the podcast. Yeah, definitely used it properly. I just did. I think it's the first time I've ever used it on the podcast. Yeah, definitely not orthodox. So tell me what you were just telling me about a conference. We were having a conversation where I was saying I wonder how many undercover feds have either gotten on the podcast or tried to get on the podcast. Yeah, it's like I've had a couple places. One, I had this guy come up to me.

We were like just in the crowd, right? It wasn't like I just got off stage or anything like that. And he comes up to me and he's like, you know, if we had to narrow it down to like, you know, the top 10, 12 individuals pulling all this crazy stuff that's going on in the world, could you name who they are? Like who are they? And the question is, you know, what are we going to do about them? You know, are we going to have to take them out? You know, are we going to have to go off? When do we get to go off?

It was like the statement, when do we get to go off on them? Like that violence. Are we going to have to take them out you know we're gonna have to go off when do we get to go off it was like the statement when do we get to go off on them like that violence are we gonna have to take them out gonna have to take them out like i'm looking at this guy thinking you're not taking anybody out but uh but what are you doing like what is this yeah yeah like why are you asking me this question i had another guy i did a talk and this was totally awesome uh event like there's a mechanical bull in the venue like it was nuts. And I'm doing this professional talk and everything. It was nuts. And this guy's drunk afterwards. I don't know. Probably he's just drunk. Maybe he's not. And he's like, I wanted to ask you one question, man. And I was like, what is it?

After I talked. And he was like, when do we get to start shooting them? And I was like, holy shit, dude, no. We don't. That's the trap, if anything. You don't. Do you think that guy was just crazy?'t do you think that guy was just crazy or do you think that guy was a fed and how do you know the difference that's the question i don't know i actually suspect that guy was just drunk and shooting off at the mouth and frustrated but

i don't know and then the weirdo guy that was like if we could narrow it down to who are the because that guy wouldn't leave me alone this the guy told you about first like yeah he wouldn't leave me alone it's like he just kept kept asking questions and trying to talk to me. And I was like, huh. That EPS guy that everyone has decided was an agent provocateur that was at the January 6th thing, they still haven't found that guy. Yeah. Excuse me. They still haven't charged that guy.

They still haven't charged that guy. Very suspicious circumstances around that. The weirdest, right? Right. Like let's just, you know, we'll have him on the list of people we're interested in. And then people are going to say, you know, we were all screaming, he's a fed, he's a fed. And then there's all this video of him doing weird stuff and people saying fed, fed, fed. And then all of a sudden they're like off the list. He's not on the wanted list anymore. Yeah. Not wanted, not being charged. It's so odd.

While other people are rotting in jail. Yeah. Yeah. Well, then when Ted Cruz grills the FBI lady and she's like, I can't answer that. I can't answer that. The answer to those questions is very simple. No, no, no. And she's like, I can't answer that question. It's like, did you, did the FBI or any agents incite violence? I can't answer that. What? I mean, I understand the Fifth Amendment. Nobody can be compelled to incriminate themselves. But, man. Does the Fifth Amendment even apply when you're a representative of an organization? Because it's a different scenario. She's a representative of the FBI. It's not like she's incriminating herself. Right. Yeah. I don't even

know in that case, but that looked bad. It looked strange. It's like, what are you doing? Like all those questions, did they incite violence? Like you should never be inciting violence. You're the FBI. You're the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You shouldn't be inciting violence ever. That should be, we didn't never do that. Yeah, that's something, you know, no, that's the opposite of what we do, right? That's literally the opposite of what we exist to do. We're completely not interested in that.

Yeah, but no, that's not the answers. No, I'm sorry. I can't answer that question. I can't answer that question either. I'm just going to give that answer to all of your hard questions. I can't answer that. I've been trying really hard not to go down a Klaus Schwab

rabbit hole. Oh, buddy, we're probably going to do that. Oh, my God. Someone sent me a video of Klaus Schwab introducing Xi Jinping the other day. Have you seen that? Yeah. Jamie, pull that up, because Klaus Schwab, now I do not know, I know very little about Klaus Schwab.

I've read his book. But he seems like a bad guy in a Batman movie. He came straight out of Central Casting or something. It's not even James Bond, though. It's like a spoof. It's so over the top. And he's wearing a space suit when he's not wearing his business suit or whatever. It's like, what is this guy? He wears a space suit? Have you not seen the space suit?

No. Oh, man. It's like this leather thing with a a triangle. Oh, it's really? Yeah, it's freaky. Now, what does he do? He is the, I guess, chairman, CEO of this thing called the World Economic Forum, which is like a billionaire's club where fancy pants people like, you know, titans of industry, officials ngo people all the big philanthropists can show up and like rub elbows at davos and chill out and basically it's like it's like a big country club for like the biggest players in in government and it's what space suit what the fuck what is that he's so weird he wears that all the time no i well i

mean he's got a suit and tie at other times. I don't know how often he wears it. I don't know the guy, but look at that. What is that? Like, I wouldn't even wear that on Halloween. What does the caption say there? It's just someone's tweet. See if you can find the video of him introducing Xi Jinping, because he gives

this bizarrely glowing introduction. Oh, yeah. to the leader of the Chinese Communist Party look at it it's Bond villain yeah human destiny give it to me from the beginning I want to hear the whole thing human destiny okay in the last five years the world has become more interconnected than ever. But in many ways, it's becoming even more fragmented and polarized. China has made significant economic and social achievements

under your leadership. In the first three quarters of 2021, China's economy grew by over 9%. You have achieved a historic goal to become a moderately prosperous society Mr. President, I strongly echo your remarks in 2017 that mankind has made progress by surmounting difficulties and when encountering difficulties, we should join hands and rise to the challenge.我相信这是最好的时候让领导们一起合作 并一起努力 让世界变得更加隆重 更加充满和更加丰富 我们现在欢迎

他的太太习近平 中国人民共和国总统尊敬的施瓦布主席 Excellency Xi Jinping, President of the People's Republic of China. Professor Klaus Schwab, ladies and gentlemen, friends, greetings. Is that not so weird? And you know who spoke like right after that, right? Who? Fauci. No.

Yeah. Really? Yeah. Whoa. And if you listen, actually, I don't think we should try to deal with listening to all of what Xi says, but he's like, you know, he goes into this whole thing. It's like a paraphrase of Lenin. He's all like, you know, there's an old Chinese saying that everything contains its contradictions. That's actually an old Marxist saying is that everything contains its contradictions.

The Taoists don't. I mean, they have that with the yin-yang thing, but they don't really have everything contains its own contradiction. They say things contain their opposites, which is different. And so Marx was like, everything contains its own contradiction, which, you know, capitalism makes a lot of wealth, but then it makes a lot of poor people. So it's got its own contradiction. And he says, we got to lean into the, she said, you know, paraphrasing, we got to lean into the, she said, to paraphrase him, we got to lean into the contradictions. What Lenin said when people were starving, like he's like literally starving people and killing people. He's like, accelerate the contradictions. Because if you make them see how terrible life is by showing them the contradictions, oh, we're

supposed to have this great society and look, you're suffering, you're starving, then they'll want to have a revolution. And so it's like, that's the thing that Schwab there just introduced was a speech about that. He also says we can't think of ourselves anymore as like 190 little boats, like the different countries of the world to solve problems like climate change, or I guess COVID, like that went real well. And we got to think of ourselves as one big boat, like one world government or something. And then she is the guy that's the model for this. And then we see Mr. Spacesuit there saying, I strongly echo your comments. Prosperous. Prosperous. The guy's weird. I read his book. He's got a book called

COVID-19, The Great Reset. He's got a few books, actually. I've read some of his other ones, but I read all of that one. And it's just corporate gobbledygook. But what he says is that COVID-19 is the ideal window of opportunity, a very narrow window of opportunity to reset the whole world's economy. And he wants to create this whole new world economy he calls stakeholder capitalism through what he calls a public-private partnership, where he gets these government guys to sign up with his corporate dudes at Davos and make a partnership. The UN is actually usually the public thing. And then he's the corporate guy bringing them together in a world economic form to make public-private partnership. But if we go back to Mussolini, what was his definition

of fascism? It's corporatism. It is a fusion of the state and corporation. And you're like, huh, what's going on here? Well, this Great Reset thing is the big tinfoil hat conspiracy theory conversation. Yeah. That we're experiencing the Great Reset and that they crashed the economy on purpose. You know, I don't think that's true in terms of what they did to Los Angeles. I think it's incompetence. And I think there's a bunch of people that wanted to do something that showed that they were trying to enact measures to protect people. And in doing that, they crippled a lot of

these restaurants and bars and small businesses. And they did it because it didn't affect them at all financially. Like, if it had any effect on them financially, like if- But it did in a lot of cases. Like, look at how the billionaires are all way richer now. Right, but that's what I'm saying. I'm seeing the politicians. Oh, gotcha. If it affected the politicians financially, then they would have never enacted those measures.

Like, if the politicians got paid based on how well the economy did in their city. Right. Say if you're a mayor and if your economy crashes, you lose all your money. You would never see lockdowns. You would never see, like, I have a friend, she lives in Mexico. And she was telling me that in Mexico, nothing's shutting down because the cartels won't allow it. Right, right. Because the cartels make a percentage of the money that these businesses get.

So they get paid. So if the businesses go under, the cartels don't make any money. Jamie, you have COVID. Do you got the fucking... Do you want to breathe? It's everything. Can't be coughing?

Can't be coughing in front of you? It's dangerous times to just be out and out coughing. It's almost attempted murder. She was telling me that when they are in Mexico that nothing shut down. Everything's wide open. All the restaurants,

all the bars, nothing ever shut down and the reason why she said we're free is because of the cartel. She was like LOLing when she said this. Right.

Well, I mean, what that tells you then is that, you know, there's either absolute disconnect with the politicians or that they're, you know, there's either absolute disconnect with politicians or that they're, you know, being taken care of some other way. And that's the conspiratorial side, that there's money coming in some other way. So their paycheck is not dependent upon the economy

locally, but it's dependent on some other factor. Well, in local government, it's dependent upon taxes. Like my friend, his brother works for the whatever COVID response thing in California. And there was a conversation when they were shutting down outdoor dining at one point in time. And he protested and he said, there is no evidence that there's any spread that's because of outdoor dining or any outdoor activities. And she said, it's about optics. Oh, yeah. Well. So this was a conversation he had with a real public official who's in charge of making

these decisions. So this idea that it's all motivated by some conspiracy to reset the economy, I don't think that's the case. I think what's going on is that there's a lot of incompetence and a lot of really dumb people, a lot of foolish people that are running some aspects of government. Then you have people that are taking advantage of that. And the billionaires are

most certainly getting richer. And just by definition, if you close mom and pop stores, where are people going to buy their stuff? Well, they're going to have to go to Target. They're going to have to go to the big places. And then if you're, you make, you can loot it, you can loot Targets and you can shoplift at Walgreens or whatever, where are they going to go online? Amazon. And, you know, you can kind of see how all of these, you know, really crooked business practices can kind

of multiply in this kind of an environment. So do you think that like places like San Francisco and areas of California where they've enacted these really fucking stupid laws where you can steal up to 900 and something dollars worth of stuff and they don't arrest you at all. So people just grab stuff, they throw it in a bag and they walk right out the door and no one does anything to stop it. Do you think that those laws are enacted knowing that they're going to kill these businesses, knowing that this is going to prop up online businesses like Amazon and larger places that have the ability to do that, to protect? You know, I'm in my 40s, which means that I never underestimate any longer the depths of

human stupidity. So it is possible that they're just stupid and don't realize the extraordinarily obvious thing that literally everybody yells at them. But no, I actually, I'm inclined to believe that they know to some degree what they're doing. And I wouldn't even be surprised to find out that there's some kind of weird backroom deals. And that's what this new economy is supposed to be. It's like, we go back to Schwab, his thing is he calls it stakeholder capitalism. You don't care about the shareholder anymore because a profit is too dangerous of a motive. You care about these people that are called stakeholders. They're going to tell you they're experts in environmental policy. They're experts in health policy. They're experts in, trust the experts, in social policy. You know how I feel about that,

these critical theories or whatever. They're experts in best practices and governance. And they've created these whole investment metrics called ESG metrics, environmental social governance metrics. And they score your company based on how high up and down you are. But it's only really big companies that get to play in that game. And so the people who are the experts get to be the stakeholders who are going to speak on behalf of everybody else and say, well, that's bad environmental policy. So your company is going to get a bad score. So maybe we won't carry you in our mutual fund or whatever else. We're not going to trade your stock. We're not going to manage your assets, whether it's BlackRock or Vanguard or any of

these huge entities or the World Economic Forum. And we're not going to give you the favors anymore. And so there's this perverse scoring system that's worked its way in, and the goal is to shift out of that. Now, what are the politicians doing? Well, I mean, we see obviously there's corruption somewhere. We got insider trading happening in Washington. That's, like, coming out all over the place. No, no, no, no, that's fine.

That should be allowed. They're participating in the economy. Yeah. Yeah, it's like we should start letting the MMA're participating in the economy. Yeah. Yeah. It's like we should start letting the MMA guys, the UFC guys, bet on their own fights. Why not? You know, they used to have pool was something that you could bet on at casinos. They did it once.

And when they did it, the guy who was the lowest seed won the tournament. And it was embarrassing. Like guys were like missing balls, dead in the hole. They were doing it on purpose because they bet against themselves. Yeah. And they bet on this one guy. Right. And they all chopped up the money. How about that? How crazy. How wild. Yeah. That they might game a bad incentive structure. Who's 15 to 1? Interesting. Hmm. Mm-hmm. What do you think would happen if he won? Yeah. Ka-ching. So they stopped. Because pool players are like kind of notoriously shady folks.

A little bit. Yeah, well. So they stopped doing that. But, yeah, that would definitely happen if fighters were allowed to bet on themselves. But fighters do bet on themselves because there's more money for them if they win. Right, right. In the long term of their career. Correct, correct.

But there's not a whole lot of incentive. Like, you don't have some bookie over here who's going to make it up to you if you get your face messed up kind of on purpose. People are worried about that, though. There is concern. Like, I'm sure the FBI has investigated boxing matches and stuff along those lines. I guarantee they have. Well, you know, they investigate a lot of things.

The Department of Justice is investigating moms and dads, you know, for showing up to school boards. And they're also investigating maybe some real crime, but not the guy that came here to Texas from Britain who shouldn't have been able to even get in. What's that? That guy that just shot, that took the hostages at the synagogue. Right. Yeah. I forgot about that because there's so many of these goddamn things happening. Yeah. This is really recent, right? A million things. It was like last week.

Yeah. Just like the other day. So where did he come from? He's British, but he's got a name that would indicate that he's Islamic. But he's got a British accent as well. And he came in from the UK and he was like eyeballs on him from MI5 or something like this. You know, they knew he was a problem. And he comes over to the US somehow and manages to get a firearm. Next thing you know, he's at a synagogue taking hostages,

doing whatever they do. They deal with the situation and the FBI president come out and they're like, well, we don't know the motive. The guy's screaming his motive while he's doing it. And, you know, we have no idea why this happened. And, you know, we have to do an investigation. It's just the weirdest farcical thing. And then meanwhile, you know, the big joke that was going on the Internet with it was, well, they didn't have time to catch this guy coming into the country because they were too busy, you know, investigating parents at school board meetings, who are showing up because of that, you know, what that letter, right? Which letter?

So somewhere in the Bible, it's now been shown, like actual journalists, Azar Namani, for example, I think it was leading on this dug up proof that the somebody in the Biden administration, maybe the Department of Education, maybe it was Cardona himself, gets this letter, this memo, and it goes to the National School Board Association, NSBA. And so they actually just send it back to the Biden administration and say, parents are showing up at school boards, there's all this violence and danger. But it came from inside the house, sent it to the School Board Association, which most of its members didn't even know that this was happening, and a lot of them have disavowed it. And then they send it back to

the DOJ, and then Merrick Garland comes out and says that they're going to start watching parents at school board meetings like they're domestic terrorists, and they have. Now, I did hear about that, but is it because they're worried that there's going to come a time where a parent crosses a line and shows up armed and does something insane i mean it's they that's the perpetual you know justification for that kind of thing but at the same time it's you know they literally sent out a memo to treat parents showing up at school board meetings as though they are uh domestic not not all parents i mean they can't think i mean obviously they want some parents parents showing up at school board meetings as though they are domestic threats. Not all parents.

I mean, they can't think – I mean, obviously, they want some parents to show up at school board meetings because they want to be active in – I'm not sure that's the case anymore. You don't think they want any parents showing up at school board meetings? You think they think that it's all negative and that – I mean, they is too big to say, you know, everybody everywhere. But you actually saw that attitude, you know, in the governor's race in Virginia last year when, you know, Yunkin beat McAuliffe. And did he beat McAuliffe? I forget how it works out. Terry McAuliffe, yeah. And so, because Northam was the previous governor, because Virginia has this weird rule where you

can't be governor twice in a row. Oh, really? Yeah. So they have to have two people each time. And so anyway, McAuliffe came out and he said that they don't want – that parents shouldn't have a role in shaping curriculum and that they don't want that going on amid these huge scandals. They have this – exactly what people said would happen a number of years ago, this kid claiming to be – that's clearly disturbed, claiming to be non-binary, wearing a skirt, goes in and rapes a ninth-grade girl in the bathroom. Exactly what people said. You remember back in like 2015, people were like, if we do the trans bathroom thing that way, we're going to see sexual assaults. Well, that's exactly what happened.

And then the schools – like the school district covers it up. They tried to tell the parents to keep their mouth shut about it. Yeah, and all these activists showed up when the dad of the girl comes to this meeting or whatever and they provoke him and he like flipped out. I don't know if he hit somebody or if he just started screaming at him. He might have hit somebody. And then he becomes like the worst thing ever. becomes like, you know, the worst thing ever. And then, I mean, there's a lot of stuff right now going on where they don't actually want parents involved. They want to control the kids. They think that the school is the professionals, the experts, and that they know the best policies for masks. They know the best policies for curriculum. That's where they're getting all this social,

emotional learning and critical race theory and the queer theory, gender theory stuff rammed into the schools. And they're like, no, you know, parents, if you don't like this, you're not the experts. You don't understand. And you're seeing school boards where, you know, they're not taking public comments or they're limiting those rather significantly now because I don't think they do want parents speaking up. I don't think they want parents involved. The thing about it is if you look at it reasonably, like if there was any other time in history, you know, in the history of like my life and you thought of parents coming in to tell teachers how the kids should be taught, you're like, well, what do the parents know?

But then when you see some of the ridiculous shit that kids are getting taught in school today, and then if you follow like libs of TikTok, and you see some of these crazy groomer teachers. Groomer teachers, yeah. It's so bizarre. It's so bizarre to see these people making these videos because they're doing it like out in the open.

They're like, we are gonna teach your kids the right things we are going to teach your kids to respect us we are going to teach your kids yeah to you know like whatever theories that they want like and it's they're doing it in this weird arrogant assertion that they're going to indoctrinate these children into their ideology and they're literally like mocking or taunting the parents that we're going to do this to your kids yeah and it's i don't understand the motivation I don't understand why they would make those videos I don't understand why anybody would hire those people to be teachers and why they wouldn't fire them immediately upon seeing those videos I know they did fire that one teacher She was I think she's a professor who was talking about

People who are attracted to underage people that we shouldn't call them pedophiles. Yeah, that was a professor. That's right. Right. Yeah, I'd forgotten about that. She said we shouldn't call them pedophiles. Yeah. We should call them minor attracted.

Minor attracted persons. Yeah. Which the M-A-P, but the P in M-A-P should just stand for pedophile because that's a minor attracted means. Well, this idea that like you can be a pedophile but not act on it, which I guess is true. I guess for some reason you could be attracted to children and not act on it. The question is like, how does that happen? Like, what is it about a human that would have that sick inclination to want to have a sexual interaction with a child? Like what is that? Yeah, I have no idea.

It's got to be like some cycle of abuse. Like abuse generates abuse generates abuse. Right. Like that's not a healthy thing. Like that's not good. I mean I wonder if there's like in the literature if there's ever any instances of that happening without abuse. Yeah, I don't know. I do know how it got into schools.

Yeah. I've researched. Well, please tell me how. Well, I mean, a lot of people don't know that the radicals of the 60s, there's this book. It's called The Critical Turn in Education. And I've been doing a podcast series on this book. It's written by a guy named Isaac Gotsman. He's a Marxist education theorist from Iowa State. And at the very beginning, it's like literally the first sentence of the book, he says, you know, well, where went to the classroom. And so a lot of those radicals, those violent radicals, 68, 69, early 70s, you know, we can name Angela Davis, for example, as a key figure, literally went to K through 12 activism. And through the 70s, they kind of

prepared the ground. By about 1985, though, what this so-called critical turn in education, which means critical theory, or as this Gotsman says, he says, we shouldn't call it critical theory. We should call it what it is. We call it critical Marxism. By about 85, these guys had basically become dominant in terms of setting teacher college training. So if you're going to go to teacher college somewhere, Marxists are teaching you how. And they bring in this guy from Brazil, his name's Paulo Freire, straight up Marxist educator. I've read his books. He quotes Marx. He quotes Lenin. He's like, this is how it should be.

He's got this total weird idea like teachers and students, kids shouldn't have, adults and children shouldn't have like a differential in power. They should be like equals with one another, which is a terrible idea because kids need structure and boundaries, especially in a learning environment. Why would anybody, what's the motivation behind the goal is to train them in what he calls conscientization i didn't say that right it's a hard word to say and here we are but to raise in them what's called a critical consciousness which is a marxist consciousness of oppression in society basically he's looking around and he says people are going to realize that they're dependent based on the

society that they live in and rather than saying saying, OK, maybe you are, you know, maybe you're working a shit job, maybe you're stuck. Let's teach you responsibility, how to take control of your own life and, you know, raise yourself up and work hard and put your head down or whatever. He says, no, we're going to go the collective route instead of the individual route. We're going to we're going to try to have a revolution. Freire famously says in this book from 85, which brought him into the US, a book called The Politics of Education. He says that the revolution, meaning communist revolution, has to be perpetual. He says if a revolution ceases to be a revolutionary, it becomes a status quo. to be a revolutionary, it becomes a status quo. And so he says, as you awaken to this critical consciousness, this conscientization, which I still can't say, well, I've even got it stuck

in Portuguese in my head because I don't read Portuguese, but it's usually not translated. And I can say that worse. Like that's way bad if I try that one, conscientize-te-chow or something like that. And anyway, it means to awaken to consciousness. And so their goal by the mid-80s in education was to start turning education more and more and more along this erase all power differentials, awaken a consciousness. And this queer theory stuff fits right within that. So you're doing that at the identity level by breaking down the barriers between gay and straight, male and female, et cetera.

So it latches right into that. In fact, the communists have been using techniques in sexual liberation, et cetera, back to the 1920s. This dude, George Lukacs, that overthrew Hungary or helped overthrow Hungary in their communist revolution in 1919 was – he became like their deputy commissar of education. And his whole thing was like let's sexualize the kids because it will break them away from their religion. It will break them away from their parents. They will hate their parents because they won't understand. And so he's like let's sexualize the kids. This has been a thing that they've done throughout a lot of communist attempts whether in the 20s and 30s and then again in the 60s with Herbert Marcuse

leading like the sexual liberation kind of side of Marxism through the 60s. And they're doing it again. And so these people are Marxists. They started to take over education schools and they're not going to say no to this stuff when it comes knocking on the door. So this book, again, Critical Turn in Education, says it went in three door. So this book, again, Critical Turn in Education, says it went in three stages. First, there was Marxist critiques in education. Then, by the mid-80s and early 90s, the post-structuralist feminists took over the critique of education, and that's where they brought the queer stuff in. And I mean queer with, like, official queer theory. I'm not doing the—let's be clear for the people who hate us.

Look at the queer stuff. Yeah, the queer stuff. Yeah. And which, by the way, the definition of that is an identity without an essence. I did this podcast about this paper by Hannah Dyer. She wrote a paper in 2016 about queer futurity in education, something, something, early childhood education. And she says in there explicitly that the point of queer theory is not to create a stable LGBTQ identity.

It's in fact to not have stable identities at all because those become the status quo. And that would be the problem. So you have to be constantly overturning that. I don't know if you know who Dan Savage is. Yeah. It gets better, that guy. The whole last third of the paper is criticizing it gets better, saying, well, that means he's just admitting that it's bad for kids. Like it's this message of hope that was super effective at curbing and it's good but

it gets better means reaching out to young gay kids to tell them that there's gonna come a point in time where it's gonna feel okay yeah like it's gonna be better you'll find your community yeah it's awkward now like life's weird it's hard it's maybe it's harder for you because of some stuff you didn't sign up for. And it gets better, man. Don't give up. It gets better. And he even has this messaging in there, like, it's going to make you stronger.

You know, it's super positive, actually. And so she just takes him to task for this. So this is the post-structural feminists turned into the queer theorists. They got eaten up by Judith Butler coming along and saying, well, if gender is a social construct, well, maybe sex is a social construct too. Have you heard Douglas Murray talk about this? A little bit, yeah. He talks about the end of civilization. Yeah.

Yeah, and when civilizations start to crumble, they become obsessed with gender. Yeah, androgyny and, yeah, the whole thing. And homonormativity over heteronormativity, he's got a whole thing about that. Like they're trying to normalize that which is abnormal. And that's really the definition of queer theory. But what's funny, it's fascinating that, see, Douglas has a free pass because he's gay and he's brilliant. So when he talks about these things, they don't know what to do. Like when he starts talking about these considerable issues when it comes like trying to figure out what's what you know he can kind of get away with stuff and when when he explains that at the end of all these

civilizations with the roman civilization the the greek empire they they all started falling into this thing where they wanted to redefine gender they do yeah you can actually see it in like the statues and stuff yeah it's really interesting. They go from being these super buff dudes and sexy babes, and then all of a sudden they all look like an anime character. I don't know. They look like NPCs eventually is what they look like. It's such a weird time because everything has happened so rapidly. If you go back, and it really is from the onset of social media if you go back to pre social media to what the world was like

to today the change has been so radical oh yeah it's crazy how fast it is I mean think about it we're totally connected to one another yeah we can form our alliances now worldwide based on what we think, what we agree with, what we think is funny, what we don't, rather than, oh, yeah, we all happen to be in Texas, so we've got to get along. Also, the amount of people that are interacting on social media is not like, you know, I did a bit about it last night. It's not the large percentage of the population. I did a bit about it last night. It's not the large percentage of the population. It's a small percentage of the population that's shaping the way the culture thinks about things because they're the ones that are talking the most.

Right. So these are people that are obsessed people. Obsessive. That's right. Obsessives. Yeah. And socially awkward ones too. Yeah, a lot of them. Yeah.

You know, we don't – I know I'm going to sound like Jordan Peterson with the whole, you know, we don't know the effects that this will bring. But, you know, but really we don't. We suddenly went from – with the advent of social media, we went from an era where extroverts by kind of definition kind of ruled the public sphere. Introverts did a lot of important work. We're not – to discount that. But once you get them online, now introverts have this hugely expanded voice while extroverts are out doing cool stuff and they're not on the internet. And then you add in people with like social anxiety issues. Well, they're not out hanging out and like

going to the bar because they have social anxiety. What are they doing? They're on the internet yelling at people. And then you get certain ones of these people who are absolute obsessives. And I'll tell you about this fanatic thing, this obsessives. So the military, it turns out Eisenhower after World War II was like, all right, these black soldiers fought like hell for us. We're going to desegregate the military. This is way before like the schools or any other thing. You're like, we're going to do this. And so they're like, how do we integrate the units, right? How do we do this? And so they started this thing with these different approaches to diversity training, what we would recognize as so-called diversity training now and the first program they had they called it putting them on the hot seat and what they would do is they would

basically do what diversity training in workplaces does now you know they'd put like some guy down there and make him confess all of his different racist ideas and you know then have like a lesson about it and like everybody would have to confess their racist stuff and they put the black people there and like, oh, I've always thought this bad stuff about you. And what they found out was that for a small percentage of the group, it worked. It made them more aware of these attitudes and biases and what a jerk they're being. And it worked. And then for most of the people, they actually had way less of a problem with race than anybody was assuming. And it didn't really do anything. Plus, it's all just kind of a waste of time and nobody likes administrative bs anyway they just want to do the stuff but then for another small segment maybe about i don't know what percentage

so i don't want to make some number up but some small percentage they literally became fanatics that's the word in in the report they became fanatics who wouldn't do anything except go around and call everybody racist all the time for everything. Twitter. Yeah, it was so bad that they had to cancel the program. And that's right. That's exactly right. It's Twitter. And so, you know, these obsessives, I just mentioned, you know, post-structural feminism working into the critical turn in education or whatever. Critical race theory, by the way, is the third step, Gotsman says, is the turn to education. But, is that turned education but um you know i just mentioned that but they were the bloggers man back in like 08 09 it was like every blog in the universe was

some feminist woman bitching about something and like bitching about somebody and bitching about you know can we why can't we grow out our armpit hair why can't we stink why do we have why can't we wear you know whatever clothes we want why can't we do this why can't we wear whatever clothes we want? Why can't we do this? Why can't we do that? And if it's patriarchy, patriarchy. These people, there's your obsessives, right? Yeah. And they totally dominated that blog sphere when before, there was like pre-social media or barely social media time. And that's where everybody was sharing these ideas. And so these obsessives gained an extraordinarily

outsized voice. Now, have you heard of renormalization? No. Okay. This is a big idea because it's the idea that a very small group of extremely intolerant people can change a very large number of normal people. So three or 4% being just absolutely intolerant can move the entire needle. And the way it works, the example – I saw this video on YouTube, so I'm stealing this. The way it works though is like you can imagine like a family of four and you got like the daughter or whatever decides she's vegan. The teenage daughter, she's like, I'm vegan now. Like whoever's cooking, the parents are like, well, I can cook two meals or I can, you know, get in a fight every night at dinner or I can just cook some vegan stuff. Right.

And all of your options are basically unless you're going to go kind of like hard nosed. All of your options are kind of bad except just keep the peace. And that's it. Be soft. Be nice. Keep the peace. No struggle. No. Be soft, be nice, keep the peace, no struggle, don't offend anybody, right? And so now your whole family's cooking vegan meals. So now the neighborhood has a barbecue. You got one girl who's actually vegan, whole family's eating vegan, and they're like, well, we need vegan options. And so now the barbecue of the neighborhood's like,

well, we got to do something for the Johnsons down the street. They're vegans now. And so what can happen is the whole neighborhood now has to accommodate vegans, but there's one vegan. Right. And you can just see how this expands out. This process is called renormalization. So when you have this small contingent of obsessives, which these people who are in these Marxist ideologies, woke Marxism is what I don't even call it woke anymore. I call it woke Marxism. Woke Marxists are completely obsessives and they're completely intolerant. Anything but their way is, you know,

sexist, racist, probably capitalist, patriarchal. And you are the worst kind of person and the dumbest person and probably crazy for not going along with them. And they can renormalize an entire, say, social media platform, at which point they have this massive amount of dominance over the national discourse. Well, especially if that kind of ideology gets into the administration of that social media platform, which it has. Oh, yeah. Basically all of them. Yeah. My friend Giannis Pappas just got a strike against his account on YouTube.

And I'm going to read you the transcript of what they, they struck. Cause this is wild shit because it's, it's gotten to the point where it doesn't have to have anything to do with, there's not, it has nothing to do with bullying, nothing to do with hate, nothing to do with anything. Like he's just joking around about stuff. And he makes a point or he makes a joke that is, it's essentially, you know, I mean he's just being silly about the gay pride parade. And he said, I support gay rights, but can we move the gay parade tonight so I can explain gay rights to my daughter without having to see your asshole before noon. That's a joke. It's just a joke. They gave him a strike on his account for that.

I mean, this is wild shit. And then there was another one that he had that was about, there was another one that he had about, I think it was about Justin Bieber or something like that, which was even more. Yeah, here it is. Bieber's old N-word. Yeah, this is what he posted. Yeah, that's it. But look, go down below. Look here.

Yeah, that's it. It's the top one. Jared, I like to hum myself. I like melodies. I like to sing. That's my thing, son. But I don't discriminate against any music. You know, play Hootie, play Lynyrd Skynyrd, play whatever.

I'm down for it. What the fuck is that? How is that in any way? How is that the thing that they highlighted as something that that youtube is gonna ban like that doesn't even make any sense that's nuts i mean i thought i had a hoodie play leonard skinner play whatever i'm down for it what the fuck is that how could anybody think that that is offensive i mean but that doesn't make that makes no sense that does that makes no sense i thought my example was like crazy i got dinged for saying that onion rings cure COVID.

Blah. That should be so obviously parody. But Giannis, the thing is, is he's a male comedian. Yeah. And, you know, he jokes around about shit. He's a very open-minded guy. He's very progressive. He's very intelligent.

shit he's a very open-minded guy he's very progressive he's very intelligent and there's somehow or another lumping him in with like a bad person or with alt-right or whatever that's a game man that is the game I mean it's like it happens I mean it happens with fucking smart people right smart people make that just they use that pejorative they took you know he's alt-right people Mike stop you're talking about people that aren't even remotely alt-right. Like, don't do that. Yeah, yeah, exactly. I mean, that was a whole thing.

Like, you know, we had just the other day here on the show, you had the, you know, Tim Poole's alt-right or whatever. Josh Sepps. It wasn't quite that. He said that to try to diminish what Josh Sepps has been saying about Australia because he works for Australian media and he's trying to be nice, nice over there. No, I hear you. Australia is scaring the shit out of me, though, I'll tell you that. It should. And it didn't to Josh, and he lives there.

And I think sometimes people, when they work for an organization that is going along with the government's rules and guidelines, and they think everything's good and fine, and you don't live in Australia, so you don't know. We're all vaccinated, so we're free, and you're wrong, and this is right. You're not convincing me by telling me that people like Majid Nawaz are alt-right. That is fucking nonsense. Right, totally. That's so dumb. It's so crazy to call him alt-right, and to call Tim Poole alt-right as well.

Tim is, if anything, he's a centrist. He's just a guy who, he was like a, he was like an on the boot, a boots on the ground journalist for Vice. Yeah. Yeah. He was like all up in Occupy. Yeah. He was an Occupy Wall Street guy. Yeah.

He was like right there. I know Tim very well. He's not alt-right at all. No. But he'll entertain a conversation with anybody. He will. Like he had, okay, he had O'Keefe from Project Veritas on the other day. Yeah.

And that's like, that guy's the boogeyman to the left. Oh, no, yeah. You can't, like, even if what he's saying is a fucking threat, he's exposing threats to democracy. Yeah. He's exposing real live corruption. He's exposing real live conspiracies. Yeah. And they're like, oh, no, but it's Veritas.

But it's Veritas, yeah. They've somehow or another decided that an individual can be like, you could, it's almost like a cure to the reality of whatever he's exposing. Like you could say, oh, it doesn't matter because it's James O'Keefe. And you can put that on top of the thing and it all goes away. Yeah, exactly. It's wild. It's it's extremely wild i mean that's the i mean that's again your show blew open mass formation psychosis well that's the right thing don't you know that's not even well yeah i saw this it's not even a real i mean there's books like back to the 1800s about it but it's not a thing but it's not real it's not real it's not real it's

well i've talked there's a certain psychologist that went to a college and he told me a style thing so there's that yeah Yeah. You know. It's for sure whatever you want to call it. Like something's going on where people get to feel morally superior, whether they're execs at Instagram who are going to knock down or interns or whoever knocks down that account. Yeah. And they get to be morally superior or, you know, look at this drop Veritas just did.

Like I don't know if that thing that they just did with the COVID is like panned out or not. But if it did, that's like somebody should probably be looking into that. You know, what's fascinating is how it is completely 100 percent ignored by the left wing media. It's like it does. Fox is the only people covering it. And how much is Fox covering it quite a bit? I don't watch TV, so I don't know. Tucker's talked about it. Tucker's talked about it. But if you look on left wing media, Rachel Maddow and it doesn't exist. It's not you. Even if you think it's a lie, you have to cover it. It's a significant issue. We need to get to the bottom of it. Are these documents true? Are they correct?

Yeah, exactly. Is it true that this leaked, according to the document, that this leaked COVID-19? It leaked actually not in November, December, whatever it was, but in August. Is it true that it was created and there's these patents? Is it true that they knew that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and the other things you're not allowed to say anywhere could work as curatives? Because that's in – I don't know all the facts. I don't even claim to, but I know that's in the document. I read the document. Not only that, this concerted effort by a group of these people, Francis Collins and Fauci and all these people, to try to demonize these distinguished intellectuals. The great Brangerton. Yeah.

Yeah. Oxford, Harvard. Lots of lunatic extremists there, right? Guys who are experts in their field. Total fringe guys. Oxford. Who's ever heard of that crap hole? It's so strange.

And meanwhile, left-wing media ignores, ignore, ignore. Ignore, ignore. Didn't happen. Didn't happen. It didn't happen. Absolutely didn't happen. The only people that you can trust that are left-wing are the independent people. And that's why it's so strange. It's the strangest time ever.

It really is. It's wonderful for independent people. Because for people like Crystal and Sagar from Breaking Points, it's opening the door. For people like The Hill, like Kim Iverson, It's opening the door for people to expose these things. So you get a chance to see these independent people rise. And then more people go, hey, you've got to listen to this lady talk about this. She explains it in very rational, factual terms. And now people will pay attention to Kim Iverson. Now people pay attention to Krystal and Sagar. I watched Kim this morning. As a matter of fact, she did a thing. I don't know when she did it because it's on the internet, so who the hell knows when the actual video was.

A YouTube video got sent to me, and it's Kim Iverson. And they were like, what's on your mind, Kim? She has a little segment on her show. And she was like, The Great Reset. And she's like, here's some key things to know about it. And it has bullet points on the screen, and it's like, number one, it's real. It's like, okay. Just to kind of tie that knot a little bit tighter though we're

talking about cnn the media won't talk about this these things just vanishes so do you know klaus schwab has a new book after covid19 a great reset you know what it's called what i shit you not it's called the great narrative oh yeah right i haven't read that yet what is where's his background like i never heard of him until like a month ago. It's very hard to find out about his background, actually. If you look him up, it's all shadowy. I was born in a cave. Something like that.

I've heard stories about his parentage that probably shouldn't be repeated on air because we don't know what they are. Somewhere in the middle of the earth is a secret laboratory where I was born. Yeah. But he's been doing this since the 70s. Like he started – it wasn't called the World Economic Forum in 71, but that's when he wrote his first thing to try to come up with this stakeholder capitalism scam that he's worked out and tried to foist on the world. And so the Great Reset, obviously people are like, wait, what is this bullshit? It's like it's not going well for them. So now he comes out with the book The Great Narrative. And then you look at like what CNN's doing. You look at like all the left

wing media, MSNBC, you're like, and that's been the hot word of a year, right? The narrative, the narrative. What is it? January 6th has a narrative. Everything has a narrative. What do you think the people that are on the talking heads that are on these networks, how do you think that works? Do you think they get informed as to what the narrative is, what they're allowed to and not allowed to discuss? I know they're getting lists of things they're not allowed to discuss. How do you know this? Because I know somebody went on TV and got yelled at for it.

I can't verify it. The guy told me in person. What did he say he got yelled at for? I'll even tell you who the guy is. We're going to name one of those names you're not allowed to name. Mike Lindell. The MyPillow guy. Oh.

I met him at Mar-a-Lago last year. He's a little silly. He is. But he said that what got him... He is, in fact. He's quite a bit silly. Yeah. Apparently, if you get the pillows, you have to put them in the dryer to activate them.

I don't know what that's about. Activate them? I don't know what this is about. Wait a minute. What are you saying? I've heard that the pillows... I'm not supposed to like... I don't know what that's about. Activate them? I don't know what this is about. Wait a minute. What are you saying? I've heard that the pillows, I'm not supposed to like, I don't want to like piss on the guy's business,

but I heard the pillows suck. And then if you put them in the dryer, they're really good. What are you talking about? Like what? They're just a pillow? Is there anything? It's just a pillow.

No, it's just a, just. How could it change when you put it in a dryer? Who knows? Probably gets hot and like, I don't know. I don't have one. Like a hot pillow?

I don't have, like all these other people I know have these like coupon codes to like go get through my pillow. People like a hot pillow? I don't have, like all these other people I know have these like coupon codes to like go get through MyPillow. Hold, what is this? The patented fill will lock into place when laying on your back, bunch MyPillow registered under the curve of your neck to get the right amount of support for you as an individual.

What does that mean? As opposed to what, you as a group? Yeah. Before first use, place in a dryer for 10 to 15 minutes with a damp washcloth to activate the patented interlocking fill. I have no idea how it works. What is in there? All I know is that he got, I saw him at Mar-a-Lago.

Let me see a picture of one of these fucking things. What is the deal? Is it just a foam pillow? Holy shit, it's like in a little bag. It comes in a bag? It's like all the air sucked out of it. Look at this. Place pillow in a dryer for 15 minutes before first use.

It says it in the bag? Yeah. Have you ever seen one of these, Jamie? I have not purchased a MyPillow. I've gone another route. He has the slippers. What do you got? Other pillows.

I don't fucking know. I got one of these groovy foam ones. It's like a hold for your head and your head sits in there yeah locks it in place mine's like memory foam on one side and like soft shit on top oh i love it yeah mine's like some kind of memory foam too but it's memory foam but it's like contoured to your head yeah it's gotta be contoured to ruin your life i fucked my neck up i got a really stiff thick pillow and I was sleeping on it for like a couple of weeks, but I was sleeping with my head kind of bent

because it's so thick. Yeah. And I got a kink on the left side of my neck and I've been fucking rubbing it out every day. I'll work that out for you later. What are you, a massage therapist? I was for 10 years, yeah. Wait, really? I just retired my license this year, yeah. No shit. Or last year. Yeah. Okay. Because what I've been doing is I use like,

we have this company that was a sponsor, Hyperice, and they have this ball. It's called the Hypersphere. It's the shit. You press a button, it goes, and then press another button, and press it again, it goes, and another button, it goes, like the same button, just keep pressing over and over again. That was like, that was exactly that Spaceballs thing, by the way, that scene with the radar. Oh, really?

Yeah, you did. It sounds good. Thank you. So anyway, I get this vibrating ball, and I put it under my neck, and then I bridge on it. So I get on there and really dig into it. I'm an intense kind of guy. You can be.

Yes. You're pretty chill, too, though. Most of the time. Most of the time. I have a Switch. I like to keep it under wraps. I think most people do. Yes, most people do, too. So speaking of the Switch, of the time i have a switch don't like to keep it under wraps i think most people do yes most people do do so speaking of the switch though so my pillow guy my pillow guy was flipping out like he's just like i tried to just go up like i thought okay let's go meet

the guy say hi we're we're like right trump's over there like let's talk and uh like he's just mad and he's like ranting about his experience on the media and i don don't know if it's on like Hannity or one of these guys. He went on one of these Fox guys and they literally on their desk had a list of stuff that if the guest goes there, take it away. And he went like just this is about the election fraud stuff that he got all. He went like balls to the wall into it and they like took his microphone from him and everything. So there is a list of stuff they're not supposed to talk about yeah but that actually kind of makes sense because like if you're running around saying the election was a fraud that donald trump is the true president like they can get in trouble for that like that's that's a real problem because you're promoting

propaganda you're you like if you have that person on your network and you're putting it out on the airwaves there's a faction of our country that really does believe that their true president is Donald Trump and that JFK Jr. is alive and he's going to meet Donald Trump in the middle of fucking Dealey Plaza. It's a bit thick there. Yeah. But you know what I mean? A lot of those QAnon dorks, they believe that stuff. Right. So if you go and start spouting out that kind of shit on TV, on Fox, that's bad for business.

Because people have this thing about Fox already. Right, of course. It's the home for less than, sorry Fox, it's the home for less educated, loony people that are more inclined to believe in Pizzagate. Yeah. Right? Yeah, like Texans. Yeah.

What? No, I'm just kidding. Hey. Hey. Son of a bitch. They'll teach you to move. to believe in Pizzagate. Yeah. Right? Yeah, like Texans. Yeah. What? No, I'm just kidding. Hey. Hey. Son of a bitch. They'll teach you to move. So when a guy like Mike Lindell, is that his name?

Yeah. So when he goes on a network and he says a lot of wacky shit, he said some wacky shit before, right? Right. He has. He has. But so has, I said last night, our friend, but I haven't met him yet, Alex Jones has said a lot of wacky shit. You haven't met Alex yet?

No. Oh, you need to meet Alex. Yeah, we yeah we got to get together yeah we need to make that happen yeah it'll be fun um so so you anyway i think that we i actually believe that we should be having and this is what the internet's causing is a lot of open dialogue about things some of which is going to be wacky i actually no longer worry about misinformation i actually don't worry about it anymore i worry about propaganda but i don't worry about misinformation and the I actually don't worry about it anymore. I worry about propaganda, but I don't worry about misinformation. And the reason I don't worry about misinformation is because if the ideas are out there and people are discussing them, one thing you find out is that stupid stuff gets shot down fast. How do you know? Look at the official narratives that got spun around COVID and look how fast internet sleuths

were like, nope. Like what? Well, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin being things that you can take that might help. Like people were figuring that out in like March of 2020 before it was even like a thing. Right. But there are a lot of people that don't believe it, including doctors. There's a lot of doctors. My doctor prescribed it. I have several friends who have doctors that prescribe it.

But now they're having a really hard time finding it. Yeah. it. But now they're having a really hard time finding it. Even though it's an incredibly common medication, they're trying to actively stop people from taking it. And there's certain doctors that they won't prescribe it for you. You ask for it, they'll say, would you pay attention to Joe Rogan or something? They literally get upset about it. But there's a long history of use of that stuff. Yeah. But there's a large chunk of our country that believes that it's horse medication and that it's dangerous. Yeah, I know.

And that there was a line of people waiting to get into an emergency room in Oklahoma for gunshot wounds because there were so many people there that were overdosing on ivermectin. Rolling Stone said it. Rachel Maddow said it. It's 100% full of shit. It never happened. By the way, how many people are getting shot in Oklahoma? What is this, the Wild West? You got a line of people with gunshot wounds in their hands?

What the fuck are you talking about? It doesn't even make sense. I've been to Oklahoma City. It's nice. It's a great place. That's what I'm saying, though. They've got the official narratives that they can put out. And then I think that I'm not worried about misinformation. In fact, you know, the danger is the ones that are more sticky or salient or interesting or that they get people's emotions going or whatever. There are processes, though.

The selection process is to let ideas rise up to the top. If they're not censored. That's what I'm saying, right? So that's what I'm saying is I don't think that we should be censoring these things. Like if Mike Lindell, for example example is doing this gigantic thing maybe it's all complete horse shit but he's got like the statistics and he's done all this thing and the voting machines and the dominion and he's he's done like he's got all this shit and like he's put millions like this maybe is a newsworthy thing if for no other reason so that it gets more

eyeballs on it so people can say this is where it's bullshit this is where that falls apart if it's kind of like it's where this stuff gets caught up in these little corners where it can fester that I worry more about bad info. I want to see it as open as possible. I'm not saying that Fox has to like do whatever with its programming, but I'm saying that it's, you know, better that we're having kind of a free information economy, if you will, than one that's – we've got the official gatekeepers of that, whether they're stupid – I almost said the F word, professors. I'm really mad at professors, by the way.

These fucking professors. Yeah. The other day I gave this talk. I said it for you. For these like very nice people and some of them are quite religious and they were like, just don't say the F word during your talk. And I was like, okay, but what if it's like fucking commies? And they're like, well, you can say fucking communist, your talk. And I was like, OK, but what if it's like fucking commies? And they're like, well, you can say fucking communist, but no other way. And what?

Yeah. If you say these communists, you can't say fuck you. You can say, well, I mean, I could have said it. It's like free speech. But they they were like, don't swear. But if communist is the next word. So I'm like that with professors right now and in many regards, but also these media heads, I don't need an aristocracy telling me how ideas, which ideas are going to be true and false.

Now, as you know, we talked about postmodernism last time I was here with you. I'm not exactly a postmodernist, but I listened. I read that shit, right? And I didn't just read it to like, oh, this is why these guys are wrong. I read it, right? I read Michel Foucault, for example, and he talks about how power works. And he's got a lot of crazy shit in there because he's ultimately at the bottom of Marxist. And so capitalism has to be the problem of everything. But he's got a lot of stuff that

we should be listening to right now. What he's saying is if you have the official power, he's saying it's always this, but I don't think that's true. But if you have the official power of like the state and the media or whatever, and they get to decide what's true, they impose like a narrative of truth. Like there's these aristocrats, professors, media personalities, et cetera. They get to decide what's true for everybody and that's what we all have to nod our heads and go along with. I don't like that. I think that the aristocracy that we had in the 19th century was not a great thing. In 17th century, 18th century, I don't think that was a great thing.

The serfs, you know, getting abused and whatever else. I think we've got the exact same scenario going on in the information world right now. And the internet's breaking it free. So guys like Alex Jones breaking it free. And what do they do? Turns out he was like right about 93.5% of everything he said, except for maybe the Satan stuff. I don't know. But then, right.

Interdimensional child molesters. Interdimensional. So, but he was right about an uncanny amount of stuff. An uncanny amount of stuff. And what did they do? He was the first guy. They sliced him off everything. They shut him down off of all of the social media. That was the beginning of this. He was the beginning of this. And that was a guy that they felt they could justify because of Sandy Hook. Yeah, exactly. And so they used that and then they used that to silence him and then they moved forward from there and just started silencing all kinds of different people. Right. And so like, I look at that and I think, no, I want the opposite of that. So I'd rather have, you know, occasionally you end up with Mike Lindell on Fox News talking, like if Hannity wants or whoever it was, I don't know, wants to have him on the show,

Fox News talking like if Hannity wants or whoever it was I don't know wants to have him on the show like let it freewheel let his idea get out there and then like let's say it's 100% bullshit let all these geniuses on the internet because they're everywhere and they don't have anything else to do start crunching the numbers and be like here's where he made his mistake the problem is that it dismisses the credibility of Fox News it diminishes the credibility of Fox News I don't think that they have any they do to people that like Fox News. I know, but that's the problem. You don't think the Tucker Carlson show has credibility? No, it does actually. But what I'm saying is that in general, I don't like this. He's got a huge platform. You also have a huge platform. I'm getting a platform.

You're platformed. No, but it's like I feel like like we don't are in fact dangerous to democracy because he's saying that our elections are invalid. They're rigged. They're fake. Donald Trump should be the president. And that allows all these other people that are doing, whether it's the people that are censoring folks on YouTube, the people that are censoring folks on Twitter, they look at this and go, see, this is why we have to do this. No, I get that. Because this kind of shit can get out,

and we have to stop this shit from getting out. So if Hannity or whatever these guys, they can stop the most egregiously silly ideas or the provably untrue ideas. Yeah, but so can we. They can stop that. But we don't want like Rachel Maddow deciding that you can't take horse to warmer or that Joe Rogan's gray on CNN and-

No, I'm not saying we do, but I'm saying that the reason why they feel like they have to do this- No, you're right. Is because of the fact that it's so easy to dismiss them right now. Also, if you look at it from a perspective like strategy, there's one versus many. Like they're kind of surrounded yeah if you looked at fox news and i'm not saying like it's not a value judgment like one's wrong or once i'm just saying if you looked at like the way their perspective on the right is represented in the

news there's fucking no one left oh what oan that that wacky news network yeah they just got kicked off a direct tv yeah they just got kicked off tv DirecTV. Yeah, they just got kicked off TV. Yeah. Well, they're still on Verizon and a few other of those cable. But DirecTV is huge. Right. Well, speaking, we mentioned speaking of kicking people off, Mike Lindell just got like his ability to bank shut down. Tell me what you were saying earlier because you glossed over it, but then you stopped. You said he spent millions of dollars on this shit.

Oh, he was trying he's utterly convinced and we'll come this is actually important about the democracy point you raised um he's utterly convinced that there was you know misfeasance with regard to malfeasance is that what it is well it's probably mal actually instead of miss both are words but i never heard miss it's less bad so we'll say malfeasasance. It's really bad. So he thinks that they used the Dominion machines that had shady programming, et cetera. And I don't know the details of his hypothesis, but that they were changing the numbers in a particular way to move votes from one guy from Trump to Biden, et cetera. And so he spent millions of dollars on some kind of a

statistical analysis to dig into this. Right. And really. Yeah. And so that's like he had his whole conference like in South Dakota or something about it over like the summer last year. Like this is a whole thing. And so he's trying to make this point. upon millions of Americans who are looking at the 2020 election and they're kind of squinting one eye and they're like, okay, maybe something like, I mean, like maybe as many as 50 or 80 million Americans are like, I think something shady went on there. And so he's got this hypothesis, right? So the distrust in the democratic process in the country is already shaken. So when my view is when somebody is bringing up a point like this, it, the only way, like if something happens where people are suspicious enough, or there's a guy that this, the only way – like if something happens where people are suspicious enough or there's a guy that's going to devote millions of dollars to something like that, you've really – of course, you could just have a crazy guy with a lot of money.

That's always possible. But the way that you recover what's dangerous to democracy is not tying off those loose ends, right? So if you leave that open, like the trust is already shattered. Right. And so what you want is this. So he comes up with this hypothesis and OK, and he spent all his money and he presents his evidence. And then people, you know, as ideally transparently as possible, analyze the evidence that he presents and says, this is oh, my God, this is an emergency or there might be something here or, you know, this is total bullshit. You're a crazy person and we're never going to hear from you again in any significant

way. Go home. That is what's missing is that transparency. So what's dangerous for me to democracy is the idea that there are going to be people, whether it's Sean Hannity on Fox, whether it's Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, whether it's Don Lemon on CNN, whether it's, you know, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, whether it's Don Lemon on CNN, whether it's, you know, Anthony Fauci, whatever the hell he is, whether it's Joe Biden, you know, back in 1989, because he doesn't know where he is, whatever it happens to be, I don't think it's good for anything if those people get to delimit what we're going to see as officially true. And that's what we have to go with, because that's the mess that we're in with why you got attacked for taking horse medicine, even though you took the human version, obviously, and you took a Nobel Prize winning medicine with decades of, you know,

human use and science and success behind it. And that was a decision made between yourself to take it and your doctor as the consultant who recommended and was able to get you the prescription to get it. That wasn't, Anthony Fauci didn't need to intervene in that discussion. You could have taken these pills, which have a long time of human use, and it could have done nothing. It could have just given you diarrhea or it could have made you sick or whatever. And then your doctor could have reacted accordingly to try to create a treatment protocol for you tailored to what's actually going on in your individual body as you dealt with the coup. You don't need a bureaucrat, I think, deciding, no, no, no, these are the official things that we're going to say work and don't work because

that's where you get yourself in these really dangerous positions. I agree with everything you said. Have you ever listened to what Mike Lindell says? And did you ever look at his evidence? Oh, I think he's a bit nutty. But did you ever look at his evidence about the stolen election? I did not. I did not. What do you think he's nutty about? I mean, I think he's nutty too, but I don't have, like, if you cornered me and go, why is he nutty? I'm like, ah, I saw him in an interview once. He looked wacky. Well, I mean, yeah, there's that. It's like- Because probably people have that opinion of me.

I mean, when I met him, he actually, what did he say? He said something really funny because he used to be on crack, right? Really? Yeah. He used to be like a crackhead. For real? I'm not making that up. Yeah, totally. And so he made some joke about how he said something and he was like, I didn't even have to smoke crack to say that or whatever. Some kind of a joke like that. And it's like-

Okay. crack to say that or whatever, you know, some kind of a joke like that. And it's like, okay. Anyway, I, I don't have the skill in fact to parse his evidence, but such people do, or certain people do. And I, how this entrepreneur went from a crack addict to self-made millionaire. Yeah. So this is before he was nutty. This is 2017. He was like just a self-made millionaire. It's like he wasn't a nut back then. 2017, he was allowed to be nutty. So I don't... He's been sober for over eight years. Yeah. Oh, so 2011, smoking that

rock. Maybe he's got a really good idea. Yeah, a really good idea where he's cracked out. Yeah. When did he start the company? Let's find out when the company got started. I bet 2012. I mean, are these fucking pillows worth buying? I'm very curious. I don't have one. I feel like I'm

very curious. I mean... 2004. 2004. Wow. So, he started the company, cracked out. Cracked out, yeah. Cracked out making pillows. Yeah. You know. Did better than the kid from harvard that was trying to make pillows to compete with him that didn't go so good was there a kid from harvard

david hogg we oh that kid yeah he made pillows yeah he called him i think he called him like our pillow or something oh communist shit silly no oh my god that's so silly now his does anybody analyze his stuff yeah well and say theillow guy's got a point? I don't know, but people could. And I would rather it be out there and have that transparency to the maximum degree with people who are weighing in on this and saying, no, actually, he's totally nuts. I agree. I think there should be platforms in terms of, you know, whether it's like a YouTube or a Twitter and Facebook and all these fall into this thing that are accessible to all Americans. Yeah.

Because I think they're a basic human right. Because the right to express yourself when we live in this very strange time of misinformation, disinformation, the counter to that should be more communication. I think so. And like I said, I think we're actually I think truth, I actually do this sort of spiritual sounding, but I think of truth like a flame. Like it burns its way out of boxes of lies that it gets put into. That sounds like a Bette Midler song.

Is it? Some say love Oh no. It is a river. No, that's something else, Joe. According to the headlines, when I Google what the evidence he has for voter fraud, from last week he has claims that he has evidence that will put up to 300 million Americans in jail. That's us.

We're going to jail. That's a lot of people. For life? That's nutty. That's as whack as he gets. These are the headlines. There are only 330 million. Well, maybe he was doing a Biden thing.

He's old. He fucked his brain up on crack. And you remember when Biden said, like, Sue, over 1 billion Americans have been vaccinated. Get vaccinated. Remember when he did that? 300 million people belong in jail for voter fraud. That's unlikely to be true unless he's talking globally,

in which case it's still unlikely to be true. He's an entrepreneur. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. This guy is a genius. But... Yeah, that's wacky. I would love to see that shot down through robust public debate.

I would too, but if you're Hannity and you get a seven-minute segment with this fucking loon, you don't want this guy spouting this kind of crazy shit on your show because it could diminish the accuracy of your show. I don't know. Maybe there's something else to talk about well it's maybe there's something else he's on a bit of a quest you know to prove that the voter fraud was yeah yeah so and again maybe it's hannity's not the place for it i don't know but i would rather fox though

does it make sense to you that you wouldn't want someone saying that on your network? Possibly. It depends on its general public salience. Like, is this a huge discussion point that Fox has been dancing around a little bit here and there, but they won't? So in that case, it's like, let's bring this guy in, hear what his evidence is, and then start bringing up counterpoints if you want to bring up counterpoints. I just don't want any, I think that where we're trapped the most is that people like whoever it is that Instagram gets to strike down your buddy and my onion ring joke and whoever it is, like you were saying, the social media platform should be free for everybody. I don't think that we want people that we don't even necessarily know who they are in a lot of cases getting to make the decisions of what is and is not going to be considered true, especially when they're putting flags on stuff like Lynyrd Skynyrd and Hootie.

They're doing something that is without a doubt suppressing certain views and perspectives. And imagine a world where Milo Yiannopoulos is never banned from Twitter. Gavin McGinnis, never banned from Twitter. Alex Jones, never banned from Twitter. Donald Trump, never banned from Twitter. People go, well, those are terrible people. Well, guess who's not banned from Twitter? The head of the fucking Taliban. Okay. Guess who's not banned from Twitter? Cardinal Ratzinger, a man who is wanted for crimes against humanity, who moved priests who molested children. The former Pope, the Ratzinger guy, moved priests that molested children to new places where they can molest children. Where they molested thousands.

Like there's, they don't, there was at one point in time one priest that he moved that molested a hundred deaf kids. Yeah. I mean this is horrible, evil shit. That guy's on Twitter. That's amazing. So just explain to me why that makes any fucking sense at all. Look around at what is actually on Twitter and who's allowed to talk on Twitter.

And you find yourself in a very weird situation where you're trying to justify this. Yeah. And so there's a bias with that as well. This bias has a name. It's called repressive tolerance. Repressive tolerance is the name of an essay from a Marxist in the 60s.

Herbert Marcuse was the guy's name. Most influential guy in the 60s in the Marxist scene, probably. His book from 1964, the year before the essay, was called One-Dimensional Man, sold 300,000 copies. So that's in the 60s, right? It's pretty big time. And he writes this essay in 65 called Repressive Tolerance. And he says, and I shit you not, I mean, we could pull up the quote. It says that repressive tolerance means, or actually he calls it liberating tolerance.

means, or actually he calls it liberating tolerance. Liberating tolerance means tolerating movements from the left and being intolerant against movements from the right. And so the whole tilted playing field is visible there. And his justification, he says, is that we could have stopped World War II, we could have stopped Auschwitz, if we would have withdrawn democratic tolerance, that's his words, from Hitler when he was making the speeches. And he says, so this only, this is censorship. He says, this is even pre-censorship. He's like, it obviously can only make sense under a circumstance. It's like emergency powers, right? He says under a circumstance of clear and present danger. And then he literally goes on, totally mental, to say, I maintain that our society is in that situation all the time. Thus, we always have to censor the right, pre-censor the right.

He says we have to stop the idea from ever entering their head. So this is where this kind of suppression of, say, Mike Lindell's views, maybe totally batshit, or Alex Jones's views. We have to stop the thought from ever entering the head. Why? So that we can avoid Ausstrips in a world war. I don't think it's actually how it works. We've got this Marxist telling us that we need to tilt the playing field so that the left is always advantaged. He even says in the essay that you have to tolerate even when they're violent because revolutionary violence is different than reactionary violence. So violence that serves causes for the left is actually breaking up an oppressive order.

Whereas even intolerance from the right is maintaining an oppressive order. So they're not on a moral level. So we have to, even if there's violence involved, we have to tolerate whatever the left does. And if there's, you know, even to the point of not allowing the thought to enter the head of people on the right, we have to censor, and he says pre-censor, and repress, repressive tolerance. We have to repress the right wing. And that's the game that we all have to live in right now. Yeah, sure, you know, Ratzinger's not exactly this liberal dude, right? But there are occasionally these cases where something doesn't quite fit that mold. But for the most part, that's what we're seeing. Like everybody else you named is a right wing dude. Yeah. And the suppression is absolutely not. I mean, we you and I know right now that if we were going to go on Twitter,

we pull out our phones right now, we're going to get on Twitter. And it's like, all right, let's do a contest to see who can get banned from Twitter first. Like, you, you know, exactly what types of opinions are going to get you banned. Yeah. And they're not left-wing opinions. Right. Right. You could come out and say like the most – like those videos, you could say the most wacky

stuff like I'm going to groom children or whatever and you're probably going to be okay. You'll be okay. As long as you couch it in theory or something first. Exactly. You sound intelligent and whatever. Minor attracted persons. Minor attracted persons.

Yeah. Those accounts are all still there. Yeah attracted persons. Minor attracted persons. Yeah. Those accounts are all still there. They're literally groomers. Yeah. And they're bringing those books like with literal depictions of graphic sex acts into schools. Now, is that real? Because is that something that they're actually bringing into school or is that something – like what is that? That's – yes, it's real.

And not only are they – they're not even just bringing in schools. They're doing it in an underhanded way because a lot of people have forgotten this. But the state turns out does not have free speech. Citizens have free speech. So it's already this is long government precedent. It's obvious. First Amendment law. The state like the teachers, the curriculum can't do – they can't just say anything. Free speech is not a defense available to them if they're saying something that's like unprofessional out of their job description or whatever or bringing pornography into the – even if it's fairly soft pornography into the classroom. But the library works differently. And so they're actually bringing it in through the library.

So these aren't like books like the teacher necessarily is reading through in class. They're available in the library and they can be – kids will be told the books are in the library. And they do. They depict this one. It's called Genderqueer. I mean this is like crazy. I got in trouble on YouTube for even saying what's in this book. But I've seen the picture from the book.

even saying what's in this book. But I've seen the picture from the book. It's actually, it shows, you know, a, appears to be some kind of lesbian type relationship, or maybe it's non-binary. And there's a strap-on dildo on a minor and another one performing oral sex on the strap-on dildo. A minor? They're children. There's a child with a strap-on and another child performing oral. Okay. And that, this is a book that's in the library? Yeah. There's another child with a strap on and another child performing orals. Okay. And this is a book that's in the library? Yeah. There's another one I saw yesterday, and I apologize because I don't know what the title of it is because I only just saw it, where it actually shows people going down on each other like cunnilingus. And this is in – like, you want to make a graphic novel of that and publish it.

Like, yeehaw. For adults. Right. For adults. Is this available online? Like, can I see these images? Yeah, I bet you can. Let me take my pants off.

No. Okay. Just kidding. Look it up. Genderqueer. Terrible joke. Genderqueer. Show me this online.

This is scandalous. I don't know what to look up. If I just type those words in, you end up on the wrong website. No, genderqueer. You end up on a bad list. Genderqueer schools books. That's what I would type in. Think of that.

Or schools book. Why don't you go to DuckDuckGo. Gender Queer Schools Books. That's what I would type in. Think of that. Or Schools Book or whatever. Why don't you go to DuckDuckGo? Yeah. Stop using Google. It keeps fucking you. Yeah. All right. For this one, I will.

Google gives you bad info. Have you ever done the side-by-side? It's nuts sometimes. It's wild. It's really wild sometimes. Mass Formation Psychosis is a good example of that. It is? If you looked.

They did the thing right after your show. And they were like, we're still updating the quality of our search results or something like that for like a day and then it's like not there well what was there was mocking robert malone that's right critiques of robert malone wasn't there like some poor guy's video like and he got like totally bombed or whatever because it like prioritized just some random video of some kid saying like it doesn't exist or whatever? I do not know. But I do know that when you looked at mass formation psychosis in DuckDuckGo, you got all the relative information.

All the stuff. Rather information. Yeah, it's shocking. I do that all the time. Whenever there's any kind of weird controversial story, I immediately go to DuckDuckGo. I don't fuck with Google. I know.

This is, again, it's just another example I'm talking about. It's curated. Is this it? That's the right know. This is, again, it's just another example I'm talking about. It's curated. Is this it? That's the right colors. This is all cartoon stuff. It's a graphic novel. It's not. Okay, so there's blood all over that kid's legs?

It's a boy who had his period. Oh, the boy had his period. Okay. So the boy's on a date with a girl and he has his period? What's happening? I was looking for the pictures like he said and i didn't see them i quickly scrolled through these are other pictures that are in the book just so these are have you ever shaved your pubic hair they're holding hands nope that's so brave yeah right there brave i thought that's the picture i'm talking about oh yeah right there whoa okay so that is

a supposedly a strap-on that looks like a penis like how do we know that oh there you go so that okay that is so insane so this but i can't feel anything this was much hotter when it was only my imagination that's why can't you anything? Because it's a rubber dick. Let's try something else. Of course, heart. So this is, they're literally showing in a book that's in a library, a kid sucking on a rubber dick that's strapped onto this.

And the articles, when I was Googling for it, it said they got pulled from the libraries, though, too. And there's this huge fight to get it put back in everywhere. And a lot of schools are standing up saying, no, we're going to keep this because we have to protect LGBT kids, et cetera. The thing is, like, if you wanted to make this and sell it to people over 18, that makes sense. Yeah. Like, why not?

Of course. Like, why not? But if you want to put this in libraries and schools. School libraries. Yeah. And so it seems like you're. So we wheel back to not just queer theory, but all these critical theories, right? Critical race theory, whatever.

And they actually openly say, I mentioned that paper by Hannah Dyer earlier. They openly say that one of the targets that they have is childhood innocence. They say childhood innocence is a narrative that's created by people who have privilege and advantage, like you're a rich white guy or whatever. So your kids can grow up innocent. But if you're a queer kid or if you're a black kid in the city or whatever, you can't grow up innocent. You can't grow up racially innocent. So they literally say that their target is to unmake childhood innocence. So what do they do? They expose them to adult sexual themes. They expose them in pre-K even to like racism themes. And a lot of parents, of course, are like, I don't think that's appropriate.

And what is the, why, what's the, what are they trying to accomplish with the goal of eliminating childhood innocence? Well, depends on who's doing it. Those minor attracted persons, of course, they might have their own, if we will, minor attracted pedophiles would have their own agenda, right? Groomers. They're groomers. And if there is no childhood innocence, then the childhood doesn't have innocence. And we can even do away with maybe age and consent laws or we can da-da-da. So there's that whole sick side of it.

But from the Marxist perspective, having studied the history of Marxism to the 20th century, I'm telling you, this guy, George Lukács in Hungary laid this plan out because you get these kids like you break down their innocence sexually, especially what you can do is then you're going to they're going to go home and they're going to tell their parents that there's some like lithromantic, you know, demisexual, you know, tree, tree self gender, some, you know, pronouns, tree, tree self or something that some and their parents are gonna be like, what, you know, and they're gonna be like, Mom, you just don't understand, you know, so that you separate the the younger generation from the older generations, you get them to break away and think that they're old fogies that they're repressive,

you don't want me to be my true self, etc. The goal is actually to destabilize the kids identity so that they're groomable. That's identity without an essence in queer theory. And then they're groomable, then you groom them into the stuff. And then they look at their parents' culture, they look at their parents themselves, they look at their parents' generation, they look at the parents' religion, and they say, that doesn't represent me. We need something completely different. So it's to, just like in Mao's Cultural Revolution, and I mean that much more literally than you might suspect, it's to cut the tie between the continuity of culture up to that point, including the family, and to start a whole new culture afterwards. And Pol Pot called it year zero. I guess Klaus Schwab calls it the Great Reset.

But the goal is to separate the new generation from the traditions and views of the old generation. goal is to separate the new generation from the traditions and views of the old generation for Mao it was to destroy the so-called four olds old culture old habits old customs and old ways of thinking sojo and and mandarin and um these kids would get like hopped up on this crap became the red guard and like would go into temples and like rip down all the statuary and tear things down and destroy all the old all the old kung fu masters got their asses beat by mobs to get rid of like old Chinese culture because it's embarrassing or whatever. You know, there's all Chinese medicine, of course. And you can say, well, that stuff was bullshit. It probably needed – but it doesn't matter.

It was like destroy the old culture and they would go home and they eventually got to where they're beating their parents. They're beating their teachers that were considered revolutionaries – or were considered reactionaries instead of being in favor of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. And Mao had a whole program he used in schools. And I see something so similar to that in our schools now that I'm freaking out. And what he did was he separated, listen to this, you'll see it immediately. He created 10 classes of people. Five of them were black, were labeled black classes. They're bad. And five of them, because of communism, are red, and they're good.

And I can't remember them all off the top of my head, but, like, the black classes were, like, landlord or child of landlord, right? What else would you have? Yeah, landlords, counterrevolutionaries, bad influences was one of the, so like, that's us because we're spreading, you know, more bad influences. And so he had these categories of people who had lots of money, basically, people who are capitalists, especially landlords. And so those people are bad. And if you're like the son of one of those people or connected to one of those people, they're going to tell you at school you're like the worst kind of person. Your dad's a landlord.

Your family does this. You guys are landholders or rich farmer was one of them. Rich farmer. It was one of them. And then they give you these red identities. Well, you can be a revolutionary. You know, you can peasant classes, day laborers. That's one or two of the red classes because it's communism.

But then, you know, you can become a revolutionary. You can join the Red Guard. peasant classes, day laborers, that's one or two of the red classes because it's communism. But then you can become a revolutionary. You can join the Red Guard. You can take up these – you can be a good communist. And now we'll call you – we'll give you like a red jacket or whatever, a red feather, I don't know, something. And you're like one of the cool kids whereas we're going to constantly tell you how bad you are over here. Now take out those classes like, you know, landowner or whatever, and switch it out. White, straight, male, thin, fit, attractive, conventionally attractive, whatever, right? There's your black classes. So you start telling all these kids, for example, it's critical race theory stuff, or like I have this here, race Marxism. You start showing them, you start telling them, you start telling

them that they are part of the racist superstructure of society, basically, that they're part of the systemic racism problem. And so their whole identity, generationally, your parents are white, you didn't do it, it's not your fault, but you have all this privilege, blah, blah, blah. You have these kids who are like, well, how can I have a positive identity? What do those look like? Well, you could be black or some other racial minority. You could be queer. And all of a sudden, you have a pathway, a funnel into a positive identity. Not gay, because that's not enough. You have to actually be queer. It's not meant to be a stable, like, oh, well, I'm a guy who likes guys. The end. No. I was born this way. No. Queer theorists don't get on with it. They didn't support gay marriage. The queer theorists don't like any of that stuff. They don't want to normalize anything.

Well, what is queer then? Queer is an identity without an essence. It's a constantly fluid identity. It can be whatever you want, as long as it's politically active against anything that's considered normal or normative. So you can be queer and have a heterosexual relationship? I mean, if you wanted to yell about things the right way. But mostly you're going to have to adopt something, one of these like made up genders, sexual orientations.

Yeah. They even have romantic orientations, like who you're romantically attracted to instead of sexually attracted. They're obsessives. We've said that word earlier. Yeah. But you give people a pathway. And where do you see the vast majority of these young people transitioning and seeking non-binary and bisexual and whatever else? Young girls, who are the most social status concerned. And white man is probably not going to get anything

anyway. And so these young white girls are all becoming some kind of weird gender thing. Why? Because they're getting constantly barraged by critical race theory that says white is bad. White is complicit in racism. You're a racist. You can become an ally. That's a red identity, ally, racial ally. But you also have these pathways to where you get social status, and it's not enough that you're going to say, oh, I'm bi or I'm pansexual or I'm demisexual or I'm whatever. It's not enough to do that. You now have to politically be active in that regard or you're not authentically that.

That's where we heard so many people, Ayanna Pressley most famously. You know, she's – I put on Twitter the other day, Ayanna Pressley, and I couldn't remember where she's from. I put on Twitter the other day, Ayanna Pressley, and I couldn't remember where she's from. So I put, you know, it's always like D and then like the state, like DMI if it's from like Michigan or whatever, or D Michigan. I put D hell because I don't remember where she's from. But Ayanna Pressley came out and had this speech during the St. Floyd riots. And she was like, we don't need any more black faces who don't want to be black voices. We don't need any more brown faces who don't want to be brown voices. What does that mean? It means you have to be politically active.

Nicole Hannah-Jones from the New York Times, the 1619 Project said the same thing. There's a difference between being racially black and politically black. So then in your former home state of California, or not home state, I guess, but resident state of California, Larry Elder runs for governor, was the LA Times run. Black face of white supremacy because he's not politically black. So you have to be politically active. You have to be a revolutionary in that ideology. It's the exact same thing. But it wasn't even about politically black. He wasn't politically left. Well, that's what it really means. Right. He's from Compton. He wasn't, he's not a Marxist. Right. You only count if you're acting out one of these identity-based Marxist political views, whether that's, you can't just be a black kid. You only count if you're acting out one of these identity-based Marxist political views,

whether that's, you can't just be a black kid, you have to be a politically black kid. You have to spout critical race theory, or they say that black voices thing. One of the pillars of critical race theory is called a unique voice of color. They actually believe that you are morally determined, structurally determined, they call it, but it means morally determined. If you happen to be black and you live in a white supremacist society as they define it, then your character is shaped. So we listen to Martin Luther King, you know, that's this week. His birthday was just the other day. We listen to Martin Luther King when we say, you know, contents of character, not color of skin. But according to the critical race theory view,

your content of your character is determined by the color of your skin. So that doesn't work. And you have to take on the politics that is being a critical race theory advocate or whatever for your blackness to count. Where the fuck does all this go? This is what's so disturbing about it. It seems like it's uprooting civil discourse in this country and between that and whatever's going on politically between the left and the right in terms of like the people that want to make sure that trump never gets into office again and make sure that everyone whose right wing is demonized and discussed as the worst aspects of society, like when leaving one choice and the only, like if you're an intellectual, if you're a person with the

college, if you're a person who is a white collar person, like you're not allowed to be anything other than left wing. Yeah, exactly. If you want to be respected and taken seriously. Like where does this go? Where, I mean, you can look at what happened with the cultural revolution because we're playing out the exact same logic. And I mean, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, not the American one that we're in the middle of right now. The logic is the same. So it goes to a situation in which we

don't have a Mao Zedong character that's going to lead this and use the chaos that it creates to seize an iron grip of communist power. What we have instead are people like this Klaus Schwab introducing Xi Jinping and saying, what does he say? I echo everything that you just said or that you said in 2017. I don't want to misquote him. But then you have him, Xi, talking about how we have the many boats and we're all going to be one boat now, right? So what you actually end up having is it's not old school communism. Communism has evolved. It's like we're not going to have Stalin sending people to Siberia with this. What you're going to have is this new thing where the corporate, those ESG scores are going to come down ultimately to control people at the level of

social credit for themselves. Like if you want to be able to bank, if you want to be able to go to the grocery store, maybe if you want to go like in Australia, more than five kilometers from your house, you have to have a justified reason. That was a whole thing in their COVID. Like whatever the state of affairs there is, that's true. Like they during their hard lockdown, you couldn't be a certain distance away from your house. Well, they can track you on your phone. You know, you've got a GPS in it if they needed to. And especially if we go all the way into like these digital ID apps or whatever. And so the goal is to install something that they have total social control run by the goons who think that this is a

good idea so that we can become this one. It's not communism. It's a mixture of communism and fascism into one thing what was the one thing that the that they were recently talking about about labeling people um that are dissenting against government opinions people that are rabble rousers dves yeah with domestic violent extremists yeah yeah it's exactly that we can say that in terms of repressive how do they define it because they were defining it in a very repressive tolerance. How do they define it? Because they were defining it in a very weird way. Yeah. We'd have to pull it up. It's really vague. It's weirdly vague. It's disturbing. It's disturbingly vague. Because the way they

were describing it, you could easily say us, like people who are podcasters. Yeah. People who, what was the terms that they used? They used a term, I was like, wow, that's not very clear. It's really vague and concerning. Yeah. Very concerning. What did they say? They didn't say misinformation. They said someone who was against the government.

It was like government authority or something like that. Someone who was questioning the government authority. Questioning government authority. Maybe not exact quote. Something along those lines. But it's close to it. Who released this? Where was this from?

It was from the DOJ. That's crazy. See, the problem with this kind of shit, folks, is they don't even give it back to you. No. This is like when COVID's over and it's endemic and it becomes like the seasonal flu, you don't get those rights back. No, you're going to have to, and I don't mean this like by violence. Here it is. It's from the FBI's paper I downloaded.

Okay, the FBI and the DHS are both charged with preventing terrorist attacks in the United States, including those conducted by domestic violent extremists. And that three is right here. The goal drives the FBI's mission to proactively lead law enforcement and domestic intelligence efforts to defeat terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests through an integrated strategy to detect, penetrate, and then how are they describing it? This thing here. Okay, here it is. The FBI and DHS define a domestic violent extremist as an individual based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence. The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric,

or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may constitute extremism. May not constitute. May not. Excuse me. My microphone's in the way. And may be constitutionally protected. What does that mean, though? So that last part is not as bad as it sounds.

No. It doesn't sound bad at all. Because this isn't, I mean, I saw this graphic thing that had very vague words on it. But this last part is very clear that they're saying, you know, you may have constitutionally protected free speech. And so mere advocacy might not, of these things, may not be sufficient to qualify you as an extremist. Right. The scary part is the word may, of course, because that's a squishy word. Right. May not constitute extremism doesn't make me feel very happy.

Keep going. Scroll down. What does it say? Disrupt and dismantle criminal DT plots in the FBI and DHS mission to provide strategic analysis of the DVE landscape. I hate when they use those little acronyms. Oh, I know. It makes it hard to keep up with. DT, it's not an acronym, right?

It's an acronym if you say it. I assume that, yeah, DVE. What's the difference? An acronym is one where you... No, it's an acronym. What's the one when you say the word? Like NASA? Right.

Fuck. It's a different word like NASA. Right. Fuck. It's a different word. God damn it. I fucking hate that. We'll have to look that up too. Okay. The DT for the FBI's purpose is referenced in the U.S. Code, as defined as activities involving acts dangerous to human life

that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any other state, or any state, appearing to be intended to intimidate or coerce civilian population. Here's one. Influence the policy of government by intimidation, coercion, or affect conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and occurring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Well, all that makes sense.

Yeah, that all makes sense, except that's like, isn't that what they did with the governor of Michigan? They kidnapped him. Well, that's the thing. Yeah. I was going to bring that up to you about um january 6th like what do you think they were trying to do and why would they why were they trying to do that if who are the they that you're fbi okay so if the fbi is involved or the feds if they are involved and that's why that woman was not able to answer

those questions to ted cruz and said i can't answer that i can't answer that and things that you should be able to answer like were you involved Cruz who said, I can't answer that, I can't answer that, and things that you should be able to answer, like were you involved in inciting violence? Yeah. Were you involved in violent activities? Yeah. So what do you think they were trying to do and why were they trying to do that? Do you think it's because it's no secret that Donald Trump had a terrible relationship

with the intelligence community? Right. He disparaged them, dismissed them, called them incompetent, fired Comey, the whole deal, right? And they were out to get him. Sure. Supposedly, right? Do you think that what they were trying to do by inciting that EPS guy,

saying, we need to go in there. I might get arrested for saying this. Yeah. We need to go into the Capitol. And everyone's like, who's fucking Fed? Who's the goddamn Fed? After you guys noticed that, I saw this news came out that he is going to be doing an interview with the FBI to transcribe what he was doing there that day, I guess. Informally.

He met informally, Jamie. No, he did already. He's going to meet formally now. Look at this. Figure the Senator pro-Trump January 6th theories to speak with select committee on Friday. Ray Epps met informally with the panel in November and told them he had no relationship with the FBI. No, he's with the NSA. What the fuck he's with?

He's with somebody. Or he's a nut. It could be he's a nut. But if he was a nut, they would have arrested him. Don't you think? Yeah, I think so. Because they arrested normal people. Well, he didn nut, they would have arrested him. Don't you think? I think so. Because they arrested normal people. Well, he didn't go in, though.

Did he go in? I don't think so. No. I think they're trying to arrest people that didn't go in, too. I think they got it out for Alex Jones. Yeah. They're trying to. And Alex Jones is telling people, don't go inside.

Don't go in there. Don't let them talk into it. Yeah. There's video of Alex. Like Mr. False Flag, right? On a horn, telling people don't go inside there of course but then when the when the cops opened up the gates yeah and let people in like isn't that weird so what do you think they were trying to accomplish this is my point

so they tell you so they're trying of course they turn it into like a holiday or something weird right so they're trying to it's really important to them that this was a very significant event right and what are they doing with it? Well, they immediately, literally like the next day, which is oddly fast, you know, had legislation that they wanted to put to control domestic extremists. Then they have this extremism stand down that they do throughout the military all year last year where they're there. And, you know, they're talking to him about white supremacy and they're talking about all this. They put up a green zone around the Capitol. Yeah. Yeah, they're talking to him about white supremacy and they're talking about all this leftist BS. I thought they put up a green zone around the Capitol. Yeah.

Yeah. They did. And so then – and I don't know if you saw this. The New York Times on January 1st – so first of all, there's all this kind of like Patriot Act 2.0 looking shit coming out of this to label people who are, we'll say, at least further to the right as potential domestic terror threats or whatever to our democracy, which is its own thing. But on January 1st, the New York Times published an article titled Every Day is January 6th Now. Is that not like the stupidest thing you've ever heard? But I just told you about the essay from 1965 called Repressive Tolerance. So what does this mean?

If every day is January 6th, we always have to be aware that there's this one side that supported Trump. Obviously, one of the things they wanted out of it, though, speaking of Trump, they wanted to make sure that Trump would never be able to hold office again. How do we know that? Because they kick that political football every chance they get. They try to use something to justify that he can never hold office again. So only their dudes can hold office. We got you. And then this article, though, is the idea of repressive tolerance. It is every day is January 6th. And what did Marcuse say? The clear and present danger is the constant state of our society. It's a normal state of affairs.

What does that justify? Repression of movements from the right, intolerance of movements from the left. It's exactly what they were – if the FBI constructed the bulk of the bad stuff that went down on J6, they were trying to construct their excuse to have a political biasing of the playing field that represses rightward and opens the gate leftward even further. And to add like Department of Justice, FBI, et cetera, teeth to this otherwise kind of cultural movement. So it's the kind of, again, having studied the Chinese Cultural Revolution, it's the kind of thing that I start to get really nervous about. The idea that if you read Mao, he's always talking about counterrevolutionaries. He's always talking about conservatives and rightists and that those people have to be suppressed. They have to be stopped.

They're a constant threat to the people's movement or to the revolution or whatever it is, however he phrases it, is often the people's movement is how he phrases it. And you see this, again, same kind of Maoist and Marxist maneuver to consolidate and lock up power in the, I don't even want to say the Democrats, to be honest with you. It's not the Democrats. It's bigger than the Democrats. It's in the, what often got referred to either as the deep state or the swamp or whatever, this kind of political class that wants to hold itself up above everybody else. And make no mistake, there are lots of Republicans involved as well. The Democrats are virtually completely beholden to this ideology at this point. But there's a lot of Republicans who are in on the show as well that say the right things sometimes that are mostly ineffectual.

And so there's this thing that some people call it, I call it on Twitter, the regime with a capital R, that wants to create conditions under which it can persecute or at least intimidate its political enemies, including with this Department of Justice letter. It's not connected to January 6th. For parents showing up to school boards, pissed off that there's books in the school library, which we already saw what's in those books in the school library. They want to create the ability to repress those people so they can create the conditions of repressive tolerance, which is a – it's basically like taking the whole political football field and tilting it to the left. So everything naturally runs that way and it's really hard to go rightward on anything. So that's, I mean, I seriously think that that's what the point was. That's why you have guys like Epps, whatever he's doing, like telling guys, make this worse than it is. And we're going to use it. I remember on January 6th,

20, was it 21, I guess, I was tweeting. I was like, you do not know what's happening at the Capitol. And I wasn't doing some like false flag conspiracy thing. I was like, you just don't have enough information. Like stop jumping to conclusions, like hold up, wait. And like, it's just media spin. I wasn't doing some like, you know, Alex Jones false flag thing. I was like tweeting that and I'm watching how people are reacting. And then if you follow the thread where I have that, I even say, you know, this is like the biggest gift in the world to the potential regime that wants to clamp down on its enemies. It wants to censor people who might be encouraging insurrection in the future, who might be giving people information that makes them, you know, doubt the authority of the CDC or the government or, you know, whatever it happens to be, or the school board or Department of Education or whoever. And it just makes it that much easier for whatever agendas that they might have, which clearly they have some, Build Back Better is the name of one of

the agendas that they're pushing. It makes it that much easier for them to try to slide that stuff through if you can't criticize it to whatever reason they have. Like, okay, so with COVID, we had a lot of different paths. So this thing gets out in the world. Let's take the most dumbass naive view. Like, oh, it just escaped. No bad actors. It was a natural thing. They were totally stupid and naive.

It comes out. It's in the world at some point, say beginning of 2020. We have a million different paths we can follow. We can start sending everybody vitamin D and ivermectin like Mexico just did, right? Like they're sending people packets of this. If you get sick, this is what you do. There are lots of different paths we could have taken. We could have done a lot of different... Instead, we all lock down, we all do these other things. And in fact, we have this book come out in June by Klaus saying that we're doing the great reset

using COVID-19 as the pretext. Who did he write that book for? Probably – I mean it's really badly written. So I'm assuming it's for his little Davos like club members because it's really – Is it published with a legitimate publisher or is it self-published? It's a good question. I don't know. I read the book but I didn't look at that page.

That's a good question. It's kind of a joke of a book. It's just like a bunch of corporate jargon words. Even I'm trained to see through jargon, and it's just a bunch of corporate gobbledygook. So when it comes to false flags and it comes to some orchestrated agent provocateur tactics, like when Governor Whitmer, when they were planning to kidnap her, how many different FBI agents were involved in that? It was like-

Like six or something, right? Something crazy. Yeah. It was more than half of the people- It was more than half of them, yeah. In the kidnap. That's like that funny Spider-Man meme. Yeah.

Where it's like feds pointing at each other. You remember they had the thing over the summer, they had something to do like, there's supposed to be this conservative thing about the J6, like free the prisoners or something. And like nobody showed up. And then there's that famous picture of the feds all standing there in their like sunglasses and whatever. And it's like you read the story of what happened there. And the only person who got arrested at that event, whatever it was, was a fed by another fed. And it's like, oh, my God.

You guys. It's funny. It's funny. But it's like, what are they trying to do and why is it allowed? This is what Kennedy talked about when he talked about like secret societies. Yeah. Well, it's allowed because there's no accountability. And anybody who calls for accountability can be labeled under, like with a serious call for it, can be labeled under somebody who's a threat to democracy.

They can be labeled under somebody who's a potential insurrectionist or instigating an insurrection or inciting. But the federal officers that are involved in this, what do you think they think they're doing? I think the majority of them think they're just doing their job. Right. But do they know what the end game is? Like, what do they think their job is? I mean, if you're pretending to be- I don't know how you do that. I mean, if you're pretending to be an insurrectionist and you're, you know, plotting some, you know, kidnapping of a governor or whatever you're trying to do, like what the fuck? So there is an answer to that.

And, you know, what it is, is they think that some dude say whatever Michigan, is this lunatic who wants to kidnap the governor, but he's not going to act until he gets kind of like ginned up, right? And so they want to just kind of, A, be in the vicinity so that if something goes down, they can interact or intervene immediately, and B, like, give him that little extra push over the edge. Right. Make him active. Yeah. So, but like, the law enforcement should not be doing that. No. That shouldn't be encouraging crime. Yeah.

And so why on earth? I mean, maybe they just think that they're like hot shit or something. I don't know. Is that like a firefighter starting fires thing? It could be. I know a dude who did that. Well, I didn't know him. He was a guy in my town where I grew up when I was a little kid.

Like there was literally a crazy guy that did that there. It's more common than it should be, but it does happen. And this has happened before in terms of like people that were supposedly informants, people that were working with the FBI that wound up doing something. Like the Boston Bombers. Yeah. Weren't the Boston Bombers some – they were informants? Yeah, something like that. Something like that.

And then who's on the scene? I don't know if you ever saw this. The one that they interviewed, the medical professional in Boston. Yes. Leanna Nguyen. Yes. Who's like, I call her Minnie Mouse. Well, Mouse, yeah.

And she was in front of a green screen, wasn't she? Something like that. And she said the weird. It looks super fake. So it's like super fake. She's like, and then it's like camera turn on and her face turns on. And then she says this thing and it's like, oh yeah She's like, and then it's like camera turn on and her face turns on and then she says this thing and it's like, oh yeah, there was

way less carnage and damage than we were expecting. It's like, then you were expecting? Like, what are you talking about? But also if you do hear a bomb went off, you expect a lot of carnage. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There's ambiguity there. She's an odd duck. She's weird. Well, what's weird too is that she's the one who's now

the message of CNN that masks don't work. Like, she's now cloth masks are nothing more than facial decorations. And everyone's like, wait, what? Yeah. The fuck did she just say? Well, you know what that means? They're not going to stop Omicron or Delta. Yeah, P.S., if they're facial decorations, you know what they are?

What? Speech. Which means the First Amendment, they can't compel you to wear a facial decoration. Have you ever seen the video where they're discussing't compel you to wear a facial decoration. Have you ever seen the video where they're discussing this? This is pre-pandemic. I'm going to send this to you, Jamie, because it's pretty interesting. They were discussing the mask thing that was going on during the 1918 pandemic. And they were talking about the ineffectiveness of mass. It's really kind of wild when you watch it because it's one of those things where you see it

and you're like, holy shit, this is kind of, I mean, it's essentially the same thing that we're dealing with now, but this was, you know, a hundred fucking years ago. Let me try to find it here. Somebody sent it to me. It's going to take a few minutes. I got, by the way, while you look, I got dinged off of a Facebook or something at one point. All I did was I took a video of Fauci saying, don't wear a mask from the very beginning of the pandemic. And I put it on there and all the only words were Fauci. And then whatever

month it was like March, 2020 or April, 2020, that was the only thing I said with it. And they, they locked me out for, and put a strike on my account for, um, sharing misinformation. It was literally just a video of Fauci saying it. And I just put the time, like, I was just saying, this is what the man said at the time. So had that very same uh video yeah well i put it up on instagram minutes or something yeah well he's like the facial mask they're not gonna work you're gonna smudge some you're gonna yeah yeah they're not enough to stop a virus something about nanometers yeah he's uh he's an odd cat you know, I'm in the middle of this thing that's talking about his response to the AIDS epidemic. Yeah, right.

The way he handled that, which is very similar in the fact that they suppressed alternative treatments and early treatment options in favor of AZT. And they stopped all other studies in favor of AZT and they stopped all other studies in favor of AZT. And it turns out that AZT was actually killing people even quicker. And that's the parallel to remdesivir or whatever it's called. Yes. Yeah. It's like super shady. Yeah.

I'm trying to find this motherfucker. There's so, I get so many goddamn messages. I'm not going to find it. But see if you can find it, Jamie. See if you can find a video of them discussing masks in 1918. Sorry, this is

very boring to everybody, but I think it's kind of important. I'm trying to find it. I can take my pants off. No! What'd you do? I kind of important. I'm trying to find it. Here's the search if you want to. I can take my pants off. No! Oh, sorry. What did you do? I searched for it. I don't know what it looks like. There's a Black and White video.

Maybe that? Of them talking about it. Yeah, let's try that. Variety? Try that. April 3rd, 2020 is the date on that. Yeah, I don't know. It looks like an article.

Is there a video? No video. Hmm. that yeah i don't know it looks like an article is there no video fuck i hate when i don't save things yeah no tell me i have too many i have too many dude it's like i'll find it i'll find it later yeah so yeah the thing is though is like you are right this was all kind of played out. They knew, you know, they have seen the papers before COVID broke out that they knew that masks were at best very limited utility. But is limited utility better than nothing? I mean, this is my perspective on it is like if it just stops a little bit of transmission, if it stops a little bit of viral load, if people people get less sick than they would have gotten if people were just openly breathing and coughing all over each other. Is that better? Maybe. Because here's the thing, and this is, I'm so, I'm actually really

glad you said this because I actually wanted to bring this up if we got a chance. The problem we're seeing with so much of this, especially with the masks and kids, is this collapsing of everything to one damn variable. Transmission. That's the only variable that counts now. Like, we don't have to, we don't have to ask questions of like, well, what's it doing to like kids' ability to speak and understand language? What is it doing to their like rates of pneumonia from breathing back in or facial like acne or eye infections from breathing their own mouth bacteria back onto their face and being trapped in that. What's it doing? Like, what is it?

How many, some absurd number of billions of masks floating in the ocean. Yes, it's crazy. There's a million other things going on. And if we just pay attention to one single variable, does it stop transmission? We're missing, like, it's not even like you missed the forest for the tree. It's like you're looking at like a freaking bit of moss on the bark and not even like you miss the forest for the tree it's like you're you're looking at like a freaking bit of moss on the bark and not even knowing what's going on there you can't collapse a very you know multi-dimensional problem that has lots of trade-offs there are billions of masks floating in the ocean is a fucking problem it is and it's funny because

you know they're getting and if we go back to ESG thing, they're getting points on their G for good governance by forcing people to wear the masks. But they should be losing points in the environmental category. Right. But they're not because it's all like stakeholder bullshit. They want to prioritize COVID is more important, just like all of a sudden COVID didn't matter when Black Lives Matter became more important. That's the S score goes up. And you can see that this is, that's where you've got to worry about this small number of people who are largely unaccountable being able to make these kinds of decisions for people because they can make it arbitrary. And in fact, it is arbitrary. And in fact, it's usually not only arbitrary, but political or politicized, as we're seeing kind of tie a lot of the things we've been talking about together. But that collapsing of everything to one variable, there's a million things going on with kids and childhood development and

everything. Is it worth wearing, everybody wearing masks at the cost, the environmental outlay, the side effects of wearing masks? Everybody's like, oh, I can't breathe in a hypoxia. Like, there is a bit of like suck it up buttercup to that. But there's not suck it up buttercup to like you're breathing back in your gross mouth stuff and getting pneumonia if you're, say, six years old. Right. And like everybody that's dealt with a six-year-old knows how that works. They're like little snot machines.

Yeah. I mean, that's like a running commentary throughout all of comedy, of parents' comedy for all of history is that they generate snot. And they're breathing that back in. They're touching their face all the time because they got the mask on and it's uncomfortable. They're not, apparently all this stuff's coming out. They're not learning to speak. There's so many other variables that have to be considered. And we see that in all of these things. Okay. I found it. Sorry. No, it's cool here. Um, I got, uh, I'm going to send it to you, Jamie. It's on YouTube. I'm sorry about

that. No, I filled the space the space you did you did it very well here i'll say i've heard i got a radio voice you do have a radio voice that should be on radio but then they would suppress you uh i just texted to you jamie yeah so you know that's the question is it worth it but you can't if you're only looking at one thing you don't know if it's worth it right you're just like oh it reduces this one thing that's bad. There's like a million things that are bad. But it did in some ways calm people that everyone around you that has masks on is doing the right thing. Masks, formation, psychosis.

But maybe, but also like for folks, let's listen to this. It's a 50-minute video. Dude, that's like an hour. Is it really? Yeah. It's like a wholeminute video. Dude, that's like an hour. Is it really? Yeah. It's like a whole special on PBS about Spanish flu. Oh, but I think I sent, I thought it was, wasn't it time stamped? Hold on a second.

Oh, that's the link to the full documentary. I'm sorry. That was not a good flu. Yeah, I'm sorry, Jeremy. Here, I'll send you a link to the, documentary. I'm sorry. That was not a good flu. Yeah, I'm sorry, Jamie. Here, I'll send you a link to the – oh, that's what it is because someone sent me a video. Save to camera roll. Okay, here.

Sorry. Here's the actual video. I'll text it to you right now. Sorry. So here's – I sent it to you. You should get it to me any second now. Yeah, I legit think that, like, we've spent too much time caring about what makes lots of other people feel better. And we've put ourselves in a bad position as a result.

So I don't personally find that. There's some of that for sure. I mean, the suck it up buttercup thing, you know, there's some of that. But, okay, let's play this real quick. The epidemic was now a national crisis. Something had to be done. In many places, officials rushed through laws requiring people to wear masks in public. All of America, it seemed, put on masks. At last, many thought

they were safe. We're seeing these images. Masks didn't help. They were thin and porous. No serious restraint to tiny microbes. It was like trying to keep out dust with chicken wire. So this was obviously made before. What happened there?

Something else I sent you? Oh, it's another text I sent you. What happened there? Something else I sent you? Oh, it's another text I sent you. The video, this documentary was made, obviously, before the pandemic. Right. You wouldn't make that video now.

No one would put that in a documentary. They'd be like, edit that out. Yeah, it would be totally considered misinformation. Right, because even though it's factual, I'm sure you've seen that doctor who blows vape smoke. My favorite one that I've seen, I have seen the smoke one. My favorite one that I've seen was a dude that put on like five of them and he went out and it was like ass cold with snow everywhere. And you know your breath. And it's just like clouds of it all around his head as he breathes,

coming through the mask, going out the sides. And it's like five of them. Yeah, like five masks. He puts on one and breathes and it's everywhere. He puts on another one and it just like kind of gets worse the more he puts on. If you can breathe, you breathe out. If you breathe in, you breathe out. If you breathe out, air is coming out.

And then those tiny little aerosol particles, they're going to go out with it. It's just like how much of it is being captured by the mask? And is it enough where it justifies it? The apparent answer is mostly probably not, but... But there have been studies, supposedly. Supposedly. Like they're always talking about studies have shown that masks and social distancing work. I think social distancing works if you're like 50 feet apart.

Yeah. I think that works. But I mean, the six foot thing, really? Like you and I right now are about, what is this? How wide is this? About five. Five. So, okay, so this is six feet.

Yeah. Would you be comfortable with someone that had fucking the plague and they were this close to you breathing? That's crazy. In a closed room. Yeah, like, no. That's crazy. Absolutely not.

The fact that we were told, like, have you ever seen that guy in Germany that walks around at these protests with a pole? With a pole! That's a six foot pole. Make sure that people are apart from each other by a pole. With a pole. That's a six-foot pole. Make sure that people are apart from each other by six feet. It's measuring. It's so lame. It's like I keep wanting to like – I want to see somebody take it like a bo staff and just like go full Jackie Chan on the guy or whatever.

It's just – well, it's one of the things where people are looking for something to comfort them. And the mask in some ways comforts people. See – I would put it on – I put it on in the beginning of the pandemic gladly because whether it works or not, I was like, at least people know you're not an asshole. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I got that. I did the same thing. I kind of look back at it and kind of wish I didn't now. I think we needed a little bit more reasonable asshole as opposed to unreasonable asshole. The thing is like there's too many people who are falling in line. You would just be attacked. Exactly. Well,

I mean, I was in Tennessee, so not so much. If I had been in L.A. hanging out with you, we might have had a different story. Because, like, Tennessee, by, like, April, May, we were just like, yeah, screw this. And then our governor came on TV. He's like, we recommend you wear masks. And we're like, recommend, huh? Okay. You know, we're done.

See, England today dropped everything. They dropped it, yeah. But Boris got rid of it all because he knows he's politically screwed now. Well, he got caught partying while he's locking everybody down and 10 Downing and all this stuff. He's been real weird ever since all that. Where was he partying? In 10 Downing Street. Like, during the height of the lockdown.

Like, last Christmas. Not last year, but the year before. So many of them. I know. Mayor of San Francisco. She got busted. And then, all of a sudden sudden she's hard on crime now yeah right she's like we got to do something about this crime like what what are you saying

all of a sudden you locked the fucking city down and you're responsible for a lot of that shit the tolerance of that shit see i worry though not only like we talk about mass formation psychosis or whatever but i worry even about just the idea of giving somebody the idea that they're safe when they're not if safety is the thing you're appealing to right because that's a good point i mean you know martial arts we all have the the old thing like you teach somebody a kata and then they think they know how to fight and then they're just they're more confident so they go and get their ass beat right and it's you know it's a joke if it's some dude you teach him like his yellow belt and he goes and gets beat up it's like haha but because we're guys and we don't care about guys getting beat up.

And it's funny. Like, dude, you try to do a jump kick. Like, really? But when it's like women's self-defense. Right. And you teach her just enough to get confident enough to get her ass beat. Like, that's not good. Yeah.

Right. And so it's literally part of the Dunning-Kruger effect where, you know where you get overconfident in how good you are and then you make bad decisions or whatever. I used to teach martial arts and I went to one of those women's self-defense courses where they put someone in a giant foam outfit. Yeah, a red man suit. Yeah. And then the guy would try to attack a woman and then the woman would say no and she'd like punch him in the face and no and kick him in the nuts and no yeah and everybody's like yeah yeah yeah i'm sitting there going man you are you're setting these people up to get

really fucking hurt because a woman that's like especially a tiny woman yeah that i mean some women who fuck you up that can punch really hard. True story. It's real. Some women can knock you the fuck out, but a lot of them can't. Right. And there's nothing you're going to be able to do. They have these little tiny hands. There's not a damn thing you're going to be able to do. Hold up, Joe.

Are you one of those extremists that believes that men and women are not the same? That's what I do. Yes. Man, woman, boy, girl, we're all the same. You know where I saw that? Where? On a mural in Chinese in Beijing. Oh, woman, boy, girl, we're all the same. You know where I saw that? Where? On a mural in Chinese in Beijing. Oh, Jesus.

Well, not in a fight. Not in a fight. Turns out those bell curves of upper body strength don't overlap very much. There's a hilarious article that was in, might have been like Pink News or one of those things, about Michael Phelps. And Michael Phelps unironically saying that it's not fair if this Penn State transgender woman competes against that. Michael Phelps ironically says it's not an even playing field. Unironically.

Unironically. Because it's not an even playing field because he's gifted like that's the idea it's like that they're making a parallel between michael phelps being physically gifted because he is physically gifted a bit of a yeah kind of a physical freak yeah but you know so is lebron james yeah right exactly also are, in any sport at this point, all the hyper. The elite of the elite. Yeah. Yeah, hyper athletes. But you can't compare that to a transgender woman competing against females that's beating people by 38 seconds. Yeah, it's like the entire length of the pool or something. It's so crazy.

Like something so absurd. It's so absurd. Did you see that she got beat by another transgender? I did. I did. I laughed in my heart. It's like, what is happening? What is this?

Well, then I also, it's like that, you know, you laugh and then you cry. Well, women should be crying. Exactly. Women's sports are getting destroyed by transgender women in that regard. Because social constructivism doesn't have any breaks is the problem. It turns out all that gender construct shit, it doesn't have any breaks. Here it says, none of Thomas' teammates have spoken on the record about their opinion on the matter. Of course, they don't want to get attacked.

Though some have chosen to do so anonymously to voice their concern. She compares herself to Jackie Robinson. She said this is like the Jackie Robinson of trans sports. One of Thomas' teammates told the Washington Examiner last week. She laughs about it and mocks the situation. Instead of caring or showing that she cares about what she's doing or what she's doing to her teammates, she's not sympathetic or empathetic at all because she's acting like a guy.

Yeah, and a narcissistic guy at that. Yeah. Can you imagine comparing yourself to Jackie Robinson? Scroll up, though, so you can see the headline because it's kind of crazy. Michael Phelps. No, this is – that's great that he said that because it does need to be a level playing field. Biological females should be competing against biological females, and you are going to have outliers. Yeah, of course.

When you have biological females, you're going to have, like, super athletes that are going to dominate. The Michael Jordans of female athletes. Yeah, of course. But that is biological females, you're going to have super athletes that are going to dominate. The Michael Jordans of female athletes. Yeah, of course. But that is not what I was talking about. No. What I was talking about was, I'll find it here, what they were saying is that he's silly for saying that. Yeah, of course they are. He doesn't understand anything or whatever.

Yeah, it's in Pink News. Oh, jeez. It says, here, I'll send you this, Jamie. You can see it. You got it? No, I'm using it. Here, I just sent you the image of it. It's just like, there's a difference, kids.

There's a difference. There's a big difference between an outlier who's also biologically male and a person who is in a completely different category. There's a reason why we separate male sports versus female sports. Even just within each. Then we separate by weight, and we separate by, in some sports, not like the top top, but by years of experience. We used to sport fight some.

Brown belt class, black belt class. Yeah, and certainly weight classes. Yeah, and certainly weight classes, because it turns out it matters. Oh, fuck, man, it matters a lot. It matters a lot. Yeah, whenever he says, no, technique matters. Okay, well, how about you get a Gordon Ryan who's also giant and with great technique? Yeah, exactly.

You're fucked. Yeah, here it is. I can't make it look better. Oh, sorry. Michael Forbes, without a hint of irony, Michael Forbes says sports should be even playing field. Without a hint of irony. Yeah,elps says sports should be even playing field without a hint of irony. Yeah, so they're making fun of him. He's so silly.

He's so silly. He's so dumb. What a fool. He's so dumb. Embrace the future. Yeah. And then probably everyone's a Fed. Yeah, right.

They're all Feds. Transgender Feds. It's like these guys that are the ones that are showing up at that rally, and then there was only Fs showing up wearing glasses like do they think like what what did i sign up for or do they just do their job you know the ones that i wondered about were the ones who were like the fake tiki torch guys outside of yunkin's bus in virginia i was like what's that parody though wasn't that a joke i don't think so i don't know i think not i thought they were like seriously trying to you you know, stage some shit.

Oh, I thought that that was a parody. It was like people on the other guy's campaign were like tied to it. Like people, this is again what I was talking about earlier with the internet, like sleuthing out within 15 minutes. It's like, oh, here's this chick's, you know, Facebook page. Here's who she is. Oh, she works for this blah, blah, blah Democrat, this and that. And it's like, crap right and it could you imagine standing there dressed like with the button down white shirt holding a trump hat and holding a tiki torch like it just a putz knowing you're

a putz lincoln project says it's behind the group with tiki torches by yunkin campaign buster oh yeah lincoln project threw themselves well they said they did they threw themselves under the bus probably to protect the campaign in my opinion, because their name's already mud. Like, they got all that pedophile stuff going on with them. What? Oh, yeah. The Lincoln Project has all kinds of, like, they have their own, like, pedo scandal around them. And what are you talking about?

99% sure. I didn't know that. Yeah. I've not heard that at all. Yeah, it's not good. We'd have to look it up. But they got in a hell of a lot of trouble for it. So there was someone on the campaign or the Lincoln Project that was involved in this?

With the Tiki Torch thing? No, the pedophile stuff that you're talking about. Yeah, I think it's one of the guys that was near the top was doing some weird crap. We'd have to look it up. I don't want to get the details wrong, but I have a pretty decent memory. Here it goes. Lincoln Project founders try to deny they knew co-founder who sexually harassed boys. Oh, great.

Oh, great. How about that? How about that? There's a lot of that going on in the swamp. How many fucking creeps there are out there? Dude, I know. You know? It's, yeah yeah it's it's

freaking crazy what do you i mean how many are there like that that's the thing that leads people to think that like pizzagate is real exactly that's exactly right right that's exactly because there's so many of these like breadcrumbs. Right. And it's so easy to like follow, follow, follow. And then the next thing you know, you're in some ditch. Right. Right. Like you're showing up to a pizza place with a rifle. Right.

Right. To save the kids who aren't there. And it's like this is, I mean, so many of the things we talked about today all come back to that. It's like this is why, you know, why don't you guys do this really crazy thing like called come clean? Like just start telling us some truth, you know, instead and get your credibility back. And that's what's going to- Who would do that? You mean journalists? Is that what you're saying? Well, I mean, yeah, journalists, like they're even doing it. Like CNN and the CDC both are all of a sudden like, you know, well, there were a lot of deaths with COVID that weren't deaths of COVID.

Isn't that wild when you hear that? Like, what are you saying? Yeah, right? Like when Fauci's talking about children, there's a lot of children who are in the hospital with COVID. Yeah. Not because of COVID. All of a sudden, yeah. Well, I mean, if we're going to stick in Fedland, we're going to talk about this concept called a limited hangout.

Do you know what a limited hangout is? You explained to me last night. Yeah, it's a Watergate. Watergate. So a limited hangout is like instead of letting it all hang out, you're going to do a limited amount of hanging it out. So you're going to tell some of the truth to regain your credibility. But then you're going to retain the key bad stuff and not give those details away. the key bad stuff and not give those details away.

And so all of a sudden, you know, basically their narrative has, what we're watching right now is a very exciting time, weird time, but exciting time to be alive. We're watching the narrative collapse. Right. And so they're trying to regain their credibility because they, CNN's viewership is in the toilet. They've lost 90%. Yeah. Yeah. 90% of their viewers.

Yeah. Do you know how insane that is? And they like own the airports and stuff Not anymore No it's Fox or something now No I think I don't know if they're even doing news at the airport Actually

Probably just have cartoons Yeah I have no idea Yeah right Everybody should be happy Yeah like Sesame Street You know you're seeing that in such So doom and gloom That's the last thing you want to see

Before you get on a fucking metal tube That flies through the air That was the other thing we talked about last night Was the The guy who came up with the word microaggression. Yes. So I looked this dude up. Chester Pierce is his name. Okay.

So Chester Pierce came up with microaggressions in 1970. And what I told you was that he was somehow involved with MKUltra. Yes. Which is exciting, right? Turns out he also was one of the chief consultants. I looked him up and read about him this morning, for Sesame Street when it started. So do you know the story where, what's his name, Jolly? Yeah, Jolly West.

Yeah, Jolly West. With the elephant, with the LSD and the elephant? Yes. So Chester Pierce was part of the elephant thing. Explain the story. Okay, so they have this elephant, Tuska or something like that. It was an elephant's name. Literally, I read this this morning.

And they were trying to figure out something about how LSD does things and controllability and all this. And for some reason, they're really interested in elephants and don't know what it is. They have no idea what dose LSD to give an elephant. So they shoot it with a dart that has like, you know, just the human dose, like scaled up some, you know, LSD people will get it like some number of milligrams, like maybe hundreds of milligrams of, of LSD into the elephant's ass. And it goes nuts. It's like rampaging around and laying on his side and his tongue turns blue and it's like seizures. And I try to give it like antipsychotics and the elephant dies right not that long later and then they find out turns out the elephants are super super super sensitive to lsd and so they killed this elephant like

screwing around with it and this part of like so jolly west was like the mk ultra guy doing all the mind control well charles pierce was like this guy and he was kind of in charge of i don't know what his deal with elephants was but he was in charge of this thing that was a coalition of black psychiatrists. And he was a Harvard psychiatry guy, but he was tied up with West, Jolly West. And he talked about how the black man really loves Jolly West because all this, he had all these things with Jolly West. He did the elephant thing with Jolly West. I don't know how involved in MKL tree he was, but he was very interested in the way that TV in particular brainwashes black kids to feel inferior. That was like a huge thing for him. And so he wanted to try to combat that. And as far as I can tell, the Sesame Street stuff's not all that nefarious, but it's a little

weird that Snuffleupagus is on there now that they killed an elephant and then he makes Sesame Street with a woolly mammoth or whatever as one of the characters but a little weird but this guy who was literally like a black radical in the 60s who was also a harvard psychiatrist and was tied up with all this like police and fbi and and like cia garbage with lsd and all the experiments he was doing and he was a longtime friend and collaboratedator with West, Jolly West, this guy is also the guy who names microaggressions, which is this weird little idea that if you get, like, if I say, like, hey, where are you from? And you happen to be from, like, Mexico or something,

that you have to be insulted now. Yesterday, it turns out, was Tuesday. And I went, we're in Austin, so I got tacos on Taco Tuesday. That's a microaggression, right? Can you believe I did that? Tacos on Taco Tuesday is a microaggression? Yeah, because that's like stealing Mexican culture of tacos. What if you buy them from Mexicans?

Well, that might be okay. I don't know. No, it's probably – no, I have no idea. It's all made up. So this concept, though, comes from this guy who also is like a consultant for Sesame Street and wants to use like psychological techniques to like do diversity on TV to what looks like good reasons. Like I'm not even going to crap on Sesame Street. I'm not going to say that Sesame Street was a CIA plot to like tear America apart.

It's nothing like that. But this guy is an interesting character. But he's the guy who comes up with microaggressions and he worked on MKUltra. So it's like – How did he define microaggressions? So small slights that over time build up. Like, if you hear, like, a little thing about, you know, or kind of racially tinged comment or whatever, it doesn't really bug you. You can brush it off. But if you hear them again and again and again

and again and again. So, it's a microaggression, like, if you told an Asian, like, you sure are good at math. Yes. That's a microaggression. That would be one. That would definitely be one. Because you're playing on a stereotype. Stereotype. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Or even saying long time no see, because it's a direct. What about if you take, ask if a black guy is a big dick?

Well, you know, he's probably not going to complain. Everybody's happy to have a big dick. That's like one of those stereotypes to people like, yeah, we like that one. Yeah.

Do all the positive stereotypes. Like, right. Maybe the ones with the small dicks, they're going to be mad like why you always assume right like and those guys have got like some little man syndrome going on like probably extra right imagine the expectations right yeah it's just the patriarchy or something yeah it's definitely something patriarchal cisgender something is that some some bad some

ism is going on yeah there's a lot of wrongs a lot of wrong's a lot of wrongs. A lot of wrongs. A lot of wrongs. Domestic violent extremists. Let me ask you this, because this is I mean, I know you think about this probably more than anybody with your understanding of critical theory and your analysis of what's happening. Where does this all go? Like, do you think we can pull out of this? Yeah.

Are we in a doubt? You do? I do. I do. But we actually have to kind of culturally wake the fuck up. Like we have to realize that it's not just guaranteed here, right? It's not just, you know, the old saying is, you know, people think it couldn't happen here. No, it could. And it turns out that the critical theories, as it happens, are stupid. They're like transparently dumb.

Everybody reads about, you know, critical race theory. Like it's so complicated. I can't understand it. I'm telling you it's as broad as a great lake, but like an inch deep. There's actually, I put this as the first thing. It's book isn't real, by the way, the book is, but this copy's not. But I do have, it's not real. Well, I don't have it typeset fully yet. So what's going on in that book? The first chapter over and over and over again. Come on. No, really. Cause I haven't have it typeset fully yet. So what's going on in that book? The first chapter over and over and over again. Come on. No, really, because I haven't finished the typesetting yet.

I have to do it. It's in stages. It comes out like in the 15th of February. But that's like a mock book? It's a mock book so that I could show that I have a book. But I'm painfully honest, so I can't like pretend. That's good. But no.

That's a good quality. This really is the first chapter, though. And the first thing I have is defining critical race theory, chapter one. And I say critical race theory noun, calling everything one wants to control racist until you control it. That's all it comes down to, calling everything racist, sexist, or whatever until you control it. But let me be the opposite of this. Because the thing that people argue against is that what people are trying to do by denying critical race theory, they're denying the conversation about the wrongs of the past. And they want to pretend that nothing

happened. They want to pretend that red line laws didn't happen. Jim Crow didn't happen. Slavery didn't happen. Or if it did, it's not worth discussing today because what's going on today, we're on an even playing field, we had a black president, and everything's fine. And they're saying, no, that's not the case. What critical race theory is to them is discussing the wrongs of the past. That's what they want you to believe. But what it is, is it's discussing the wrongs of the past in a particular way. And what is wrong with the way that they're discussing it? Their assumption fundamentally is that they're discussing it in a Marxist way is what's the problem.

In the Marxist view, there's a system that the entire society operates under a system that dictates how the society operates. It's in fact that you have the base for Marx. Let me just do a little Marxism for you. You have the base, the productive workers, right, the proletariat. They make all the stuff. And so they're the rightful inheritors to society because they make all the stuff. Then you have these other people like lawyers and priests and governors and, you know, businessmen, like all these people. And they don't produce anything real.

They don't actually make stuff. And they are in what Marx called the superstructure of society, which is what orders how society actually operates. And it turns out that that thing, the superstructure, produces a bunch of justifications for why it should exist and not be overthrown. Like, no, people need religion, so they need somebody who understands God, so we need a minister, so I should have a job as a priest and you should come to church and tithe to me and pay me. Or people need, you know, the law needs to be worked out, so we need lawyers who are going to be able to help people settle disputes and keep it within the realm of the law. And we need law in the first place.

So now we need lawyers. So there's these claims about why those jobs should exist and then why people like them should have them. Well, I went to law school and worked really hard. So my merit got me there. I worked so hard. And what the Marxists say is it's all fake. It's all a mythology created by the people in power to keep their power. And the belief is that until that is completely overthrown

in revolution and the people on the bottom seize power through a period of dictatorship, literally he called it the dictatorship of the proletariat, that the system doesn't change. So all these – in critical race theory, the ideology is white supremacy and the country was founded in white supremacy. So it doesn't matter that Thomas Jefferson wrote All Men Are Created Equals. He held slaves and therefore he didn't believe it. Even if you – but if of course you read Thomas Jefferson, you see him struggling with this. Like he doesn't know what to do about it and he laments kicking it down the generations to some later time, they landed on Lincoln.

But no, he created a system rooted in white supremacy that's for white benefit, et cetera. And of course, that is in the 18th century, right? And for the Marxist, that never changes. All the thing on top, that ideology, the whiteness that you have access to, all the white supremacists ever do is figure out how to hide the fact that they're justifying their illegitimate position better. So you need a critical theory that can see – it's critical so it can see through those lies. It understands that there's a structural nature to society that's produced by the interaction of the lower and the upper in what's called dialectical opposition. And so it generates the structure of society. This is literally a

description of the theory in Marxism called structuralism. And that structure determines how society goes. That's called structural determinism, literally. And so with critical race theory, they want to bring up the past. What they want to do is invoke and say, nothing has changed, except that the people who benefit from white supremacy have figured out ways to hide it better by, say, letting some racial minorities succeed or by desegregating schools. That was Derrick Bell, first critical race theorist, formally speaking. His big thing was that desegregating schools was actually white people trying to protect American interests against communists at the expense of black people who are now going to have to go to integrated schools where they're going to suffer racism and so on. It's very pessimistic and cynical analysis, but nothing, not abolition of slavery through the Civil War and all that blood and everything, which was in

a sense a revolution, not the civil rights movement. None of that actually changed racism except in how it manifests. The ideology from the white supremacists just took a different form. And in fact, there's a book, I can't remember the title of the book. Race, Class, and Nation. Race, Nation, Class, something like this. It's a French Marxist book I was reading a couple of weeks ago. They actually say that – they say explicitly that racism has gotten worse as it's gone out of the biological and out of the institutional and into the culture where it's super diffuse and you can't find it. It's all hidden.

So – Like it's gotten worse because it's gotten better? Yes. Exactly. They say it hasn't gotten better. It's exactly the same, but it's more intense and it's invisible, except to people like them who have the special goggles that can see it. So it's not whether or not we want to have conversations about the past. It's how those conversations are going to proceed.

And as we have dealt with, some certain very intolerant people are going to say that every other possible way to discuss the past and the present of this country is racist. Only critical race theory is anti-racist. Everything else is racist. That's literally their model, right? And so it's not about whether we're going to discuss. Yeah, there are some assholes who don't want to talk about it, who don't want to look at it. I very rarely hear from messages like that. I always hear and talk about our history, warts and all like people. I think there's a lot to learn from all of that. So we don't do that shit again. Right. And so, no, it's a question of how we're going to do it. And we have this intolerant ideology that sees only one way to do it. to do it. And we have this intolerant ideology that sees only one way to do it. But what was the definition I just read to you that I give as the first thing in my new book is that critical

race theory is calling everything you want to control racist until you control it. So now you want to have a conversation about race. Every version except theirs is racist because they want to control the conversation about race. And that's the problem. It's not whether or not we're going to have these conversations. It's not that there were issues and that there are probably things – there are definitely things that still hang over from those issues, redlining, et cetera. The wealth gap is significant. What happened following the civil rights with the Great Society and the decimation of the black family, that's freaking real. It has serious consequences today in terms of all the things you're talking about. terms of all the things you're talking about. It's all real, right? But it's how that conversation has to proceed. And if they're going to say every single way but our way is racist, all they're trying to do is use that label racist to control the conversation, put it on their terms. But their terms are this crackpot Marxist thing that it keeps getting worse until when? Until they're

totally in power. I feel like there's also an aspect to it where social media has illuminated these pathways for people to take where they can become famous and prominent by addressing these concerns that people have about racism and calling everyone racist and deciding that things are right and looking at things in the most uncharitable light. Yeah. Because they then get attention from that. And then these arguments and these discussions and they make YouTube videos or they're on television shows or whatever they're doing. And then it becomes their avenue to success by calling everything racist. Yeah, that's right.

And so it creates really bad incentives. Right. Those incentives are totally perverse. And what you'll notice, by the way, what you just pointed out is, yeah, these people who are actually like Marxist types can manipulate that. No, grifter city. And you call like the idea that master bedrooms sounds like slave quarters versus master. Turns out that's not it. That was from Sears in like 1929. How funny was it when that one dude said that so many white people are pretending that they're people of color in order to get into universities? Ibram Kendi. Yeah, he torpedoed himself a bit there, didn't he? Explain that. Yeah, so Ibram Kendi is like one of the patron saints of this stuff. He wrote two really kind of influential books.

One is Stamped from the Beginning, which is what I was just saying. America was stamped from the beginning in racism. So it doesn't get out until they have all the power. And I'll come back to Kendi on the power and the proletariat and the dictatorship thing. That's super important. But then he's going over all his colleges and there's this problem and he wants to like crap on white people. He's got his other book, sorry, is How to Be an Anti-Racist. I forgot to say that. And that's where he says the only – page 19.

The only way – the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination and the only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. So he's advocating for discrimination. So then he looks at the colleges and you have this problem going on. There are a lot of white kids that are pretending all of a sudden to be people of color, right? They're pretending to be some other race and they've got their sad story or whatever. And he's like wanting to say, well, this is just, you know, white people trying to cash in on, you know, they're trying to exploit, you know, the system or the situations of people of color to their own advantage yet again. That's like his analysis of everything. He's called everything racist until you control it. And it kind of blew up on him because what he's actually pointing out

is there is a strong incentive structure to pretend that you're not white because the advantage lies somewhere else now under this ideology. And so he ends up torpedoing his own thing. Now, people screw up on Twitter all the time. Believe you me, I'm all about screwing up on Twitter. I know about this. However, there are certain things you don't do when you screw up on Twitter. And the first thing you don't do is just freaking delete that shit. Because then everybody's like, oh, he knew he was wrong. So Kendi deletes it. And then he starts, comes back the next day and like decides to do these tweet threads and just like blow everybody up. And so this guy, Jack Posobiec, like calls him out on all of this

and then he starts going after Jack and that's a mistake. Jack is really good at Twitter. You don't go after people who are really good at Twitter and have like 1.3 million followers. And so he ends up just torpedoing himself and he actually like vanished from the limelight for a little while until they brought him back out for Martin Luther King Critical Race Theory Day. And he did his thing there where it's like, we're going to interpret Martin Luther King in a particular way and white people shouldn't be

invoking him, especially as, you know, most famous, I have a dream speech. But he vanished for a while because he torpedoed himself because he admitted that under the regime that they've created, that the advantage doesn't flow automatically to white people. White privilege is no longer material in the systems they've created. Because white people pretending to be of a person of color, they get in college is easier. Yeah. Why else would you do it unless there was some incentive? Right. If your race literally didn't matter. So by saying that, what he's done, where the fuck up is. He's undercut his own theory. Right.

Yeah. He's like, no, you know, white people have permanent privilege. And then he's describing how white people have to pretend to be people of color to gain access to privileged locations in society. It's like, whoops. And poor guy. He's not the brightest, Dr. Kendi. But I want to talk about him for a second because I mentioned his books. But in 2019, he got asked by Politico. They have this series, How To, how to do whatever, right? And so how do you fix inequality? I kid you not. It's one paragraph. And he says the way we fix inequality is by instituting a anti-racist constitutional amendment. And what will it do? He says it's going to be based on two principles that all the races are equal and in equity. So differences in outcome on average by racial group over a certain threshold will be by definition racist, be chalked up to racism. Racism was the cause of any outcomes that are different by group on average. And so then he says, what's this thing, this constitutional amendment that enshrines those principles, which by the way, he misspelled the word principles. I could even show

you. He literally misspelled principles in his little one paragraph write-up. He says, what's it going to do? It's going to establish this thing called the Department of Anti-Racism, DOA. Not making that up either. Come on, dude. DOA, dead on arrival, like, all right. What's that going to do? It's going to be able to, it's going to be first of all composed of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees, he tells us. And if we ended up pulling this thing up, I'm telling you, I'm like quoting this thing from memory. I've read it so many times like to public audiences. And it's no – yeah, right here. Look. The amendment would make unconstitutional racial equity over a certain threshold as well as racist ideas by public officials. It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-Racism, comprise of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. Like, seriously, I'm like doing it word for word almost from memory.

The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state, and federal public policies. That's a fucking dictatorship. Pre-clearing? What does that even mean? Pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure that they won't yield racial inequity. Pre-clearing. Yeah. So if you want to have a local law in your Austin City Council or whatever, or Texas state policy or federal government policy, the Department of Anti-Racism at the federal government run by people like Ibram Kendi, who are formally trained experts on racism, which is code for critical race theorists, are going to decide, is that going to be an

anti-racist thing to do or might it somehow create racism? And so they're going to have absolute jurisdiction over all local, state, and federal public policies. And then we're going to put them into action if they get cleared, pre-cleared, I guess, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces. So that now you're Google, it's not even a public policy. And now your corporate policy is going to be subjected to this as well. And to monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas. That's a dictatorship led by the anti-racist, as he calls them, who are formally trained experts

on racism, which means critical race theorists. That's Marxism 101, that you're going to have the proletariat, no political appointees, because those would be the bourgeois people, and you're going to have the proletariat, no political appointees because those would be the bourgeois people, and they're going to seize the means of production, establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that's now going to be in charge of clearing all policies on all levels to make sure that it yields economic equity. But see, you got to unpack this because if you looked at it on the surface, who the hell would be against stopping racism? Because that's what it's not about, right? Like he even says in his book that it directly says that the remedy is discrimination. So it depends on how you want to define racism, which means we're playing this weird game. And the way that they want to define racism is this weird structural thing that the white people set up society for their own benefit. It excludes everybody else. And because they've done that, their benefit is basically perpetual. They never

actually investigate it. They need a critical theorist to tell them where they're actually being racist. And so, of course, people don't want there to be racism. But what they mean by racism is actually how society works, because they believe it was created in white supremacy. And therefore, the entire, like I said before, Marxist structure of society – Marxist theory structure of society, the organizing principle of society is actually racism. So racism is – this is quoting from another book, which is Critical Race Theory, an introduction in case we wonder if it's about critical race theory. Racism is the ordinary state of affairs in society, not an aberration from them.

It's so-called normal science. That's from Richard Delgado from 2001. He wrote that book. Same book where he actually says that critical race theorists find another liberal mainstay. This is page 23. To be – they call into question another liberal mainstay or highly suspicious. Sorry. I want to get the wording right.

Critical race theorists are highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely rights. So they're highly suspicious of rights. Highly suspicious of rights. What does that mean? Well, they say rights are said to be alienating because I could say a racial slur to you, and then you could say, hey, you can't say that hate speech. And I say free speech. But what about rights like the right to bear arms? Same thing. Second Amendment is racist?

They would say definitely so because more white people than black people own guns. And if black people go to own guns, you say, oh, no, angry black person with a gun. He's probably a criminal, blah, blah, blah. So, yeah, definitely. Everything for them. The entire structure of society has racism baked into it. If I put it in their terms, what critical race theory says is that racism was baked into the law from the beginning, stamped from the beginning being the title of Kendi's other book. And it doesn't come out without a revolution that installs this kind of guy in power. That's the only solution.

Therefore, they are the only solution. They are the only people who have what's called a critical consciousness of race who therefore understand race to actually work this way. Have you debated anybody on this? Kind of. It's hard to debate them. They don't like to debate. I did a small debate in Fort Worth at the beginning of November. With who? Some YouTube guy. I'm almost embarrassed to say his name. His real name's Justin. He goes by Jangles. Jangles? Like Mr. Bo Jangles?

Without the Bo part. Like, just Jangles. It's really strange. That's his YouTube handle? Yeah. I had very short patience with this guy. So it's fun to watch. Like I was pretty mad. So I encourage people to watch it. I went on Dr. Phil and we kind of had a debate. They had a professor, Sean Harper from USC. He's a critical race theory guy. I looked up his CV. He's got all this, like he's not just like got some of the credentials for the academic stuff but he's got like he lists all of the grants that he's worked under and it's like you know critical race and education this blah blah

blah Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation $750,000 he's got millions from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others to push this critical race theory and so this guy's like I guess he's kind of somehow in connection with Dr. Phil too. He's like – they know each other.

He's been on the show before or something because at the beginning of the show, he's like, oh, it's good to see you again or whatever. He's like, oh, it's good to be here. So they know each other somehow. But they brought him out first and then he dumps on a bunch of parents. Like this is a story, man. I'm still kind of pissed about this. And I'm a pretty even-keeled guy. So I got told I was going to go on Dr. Phil, have a debate, and there's going to be this professor, and so he's their domain expert.

I'm the opposing side's anti-CRT domain expert. So they bring the CRT guy out, and he, like, is by himself. This is no debate. He's just framing the whole thing. And then they start bringing out dad. They bring out this dad, Derek Wilburn. He's just this guy from Colorado, three kids, whatever, conservative black dad. And he's like, no, this is critical race theory. And he's saying all this stuff. And then the

professor just starts making fun of him. Like, you don't know what you're talking about. It's not even in schools. That's not critical race theory. Like just belittling him, everything he says. And I'm sitting in the back watching this because I'm not allowed out there yet. Like he's lying. Oh my God. Or he doesn't know one or the other. This is shameful. And then they bring out some moms. They bring out another expert on the CRT side first, and then they double up on poor Derek. And then they start bringing out some moms and it's like professors and professionals versus regular moms and dads. And it's obviously, you know, stacked. And they brought me out in like the last two minutes, like literally. And I was so pissed off. Like Dr. Phil asked me some question and I was like, I didn't even answer it. I just

started saying like, you guys are lying. You know, I just kind of went nuts. It was super fun. So I sort of, I mean, that kind of is a debate, but they didn't let me actually debate the guy. Well, two minutes is certainly not a debate. See, it would have been- Did they respond to what you said?

No. They didn't? No. So you said they were liars? One person said, well, it's not taught in schools, like right at the very end. Actually, that's not how it ended. That's how they edited it to end.

The way it really ended was I had gone off about this one specific thing that the professor had laughed at Derek for. So Derek had said, blah, blah, blah, started in 1989. And the professor was like, 1989? How silly. It's books from the 1970s. And he was referring to Derek Bell's Race, Racism, and American Law from 1970. But it turns out the founding conference of critical race theory was in Madison, Wisconsin, in a convent off the campus of University of Wisconsin at Madison

in 1989. And that's where Kimberly Crenshaw, who's one of the chief critical racers, named it critical race theory because it's critical theory using race and racial justice that employs critical theory. That's what she said. So is it semantics? Like why is he defining it as a previous book? I mean – As occurring from a previous book. You could say that it actually – that the first real book of critical race theory was in the 1970s.

But he brings up 89. This guy has to be aware of the relevance of 1989. But he like – it's one thing to say, you know, actually it goes back a little further than that. But yeah, that's a significant date. But no, he made fun of the guy. So anyway, the way the show – the recording really ended was I had went off and I was like, you know it was 1989. You know about the conference. And I just did kind of the whole thing.

And I even added that Richard Delgado, who wrote the critical race here introduction, was at that meeting. And he had this interview in like 97 or something. And he describes it. And he says, you know, we're in a convent. He says there's an austere room with crucifixes here and there on the wall. And then he puts in, you know, he dashes off. He adds a kind of parenthetical comment. He says, there's an odd setting for a bunch of Marxists.

And, like, that's the founding conference. That's one of the guys at the founding conference of Critical Race Theory describing the founding conference of Critical Race Theory. So I go through this whole thing. Hold on. But did you ask why they only brought you out in the last two minutes and why they wasted all this time? That was definitely, like, the opportunity to ask such a question maybe of the producer afterwards could have come up. But he seemed really happy. He was happy in what way?

He was like – I kept getting told by the people who worked there. I probably ended up getting half of them fired now. I got told by a bunch of people there, I'm so glad you got to come out and actually say something about this. We love what you have to say about it. And the producer was all like, yeah, so great. What you did was so great. It's going to be great TV. So they liked that you did that or did they like that there was an argument?

I don't know. They were happy. The problem is when they have those television shows, what they really like is conflict. Yeah, of course. They don't necessarily like that you had a poignant... Well, they came back into my dressing room kind of one by one and told me, you know, secretly I listen to your podcast and agree with most of what you say. So I think there's a little bit of both. Secretly is not good. What? Los Angeles? I know, but it's fucking

dumb. I'm sick of it. But why do they have these kinds of conversations where they have a bunch of people who are professionals at discussing these topics gang up on someone who's a parent? Well, you know why? Because it sets the narrative control. They get to frame the narrative in a certain way. These parents- Why would Dr. Phil want to do that? That doesn't even make sense. I mean, I don't know why Dr. Phil, I don't know his motivations. I didn't even speak with the guy. It's probably his producers.

Yeah, or, I mean, he's under the Oprah umbrella, so, you know, and Oprah's promoted stuff like critical race theory ideas for the last little while. And when she's done that, why do you think she's doing that? She's probably thinking that this is a good thing because we're addressing racism. Yeah, because a lot of people have been totally plausible that she just thinks this is a good thing and gets swept up. And I don't know that Oprah Winfrey is a Marxist or anything like that. I'm not saying anything like that. I don't know. But the framing was clear. Just to finish the story, the last word, though, I bust this guy from 1989 and Derek is actually being a funny dude, turns to Dr. Phil and he points and he's like, I told you it was

1989. You know, it's a ha ha a haha everybody laughs but they edited it to where the last word apparently came from one of them saying but that's not even taught in schools which is false it's they're not teaching why would they do that why would they edit it that way I don't know probably they try to make me look crazy I like Dr. Phil he's a great guy he's been on my podcast before he squeezed my shoulder he's alright because he stuck me in the audience so he squeezed your I like Dr. Phil. He's a great guy. He's been on my podcast before. He squeezed my shoulder. He's all right. Because he stuck me in the audience. He squeezed your shoulder so he's all right? So as he walked by, he put his hand on my shoulder and squeezed it or whatever.

That makes him all right? Well, he's nice enough for the circumstance. I don't know. He might not be all right. He's a good guy. He was a guest on the show, and I'm very good friends with his son. So there you go. I'm right off of your-

It's just I think shows like that are terrible. I do too. Not that they're terrible always, but they're terrible for discussing any complex issue that you need to have people say. Like it needs to be a volley, like a tennis game. Like a formal debate even. Well, at least a conversation. Yeah. So it would have been cool. The time constraints of those formats, they don't lend themselves to discussing complex issues.

Correct. Correct. If they would have brought me and him out, like him first, fine, whatever, and then me afterwards to kind of discuss and respond and then start bringing parents out, it would have been a very different structure to the show. Very different mood for me. I don't know why they did it the way they did it because it incites conflict. Yeah. And that's what gets ratings. Well, I got some ratings. To have parents there and – well, I mean, if you did it the way they did it because it incites conflict. Yeah. And that's what gets ratings. Well, I got them some ratings.

To have parents there and, well, I mean, if you were at the last two minutes, you probably didn't, honestly. Well, I don't know. Because most people don't make it to the last two minutes. That's true. Those kind of shows, they're very top heavy, just like podcasts are. It's because if you watch them, it's like. Well, any shows.

Most people aren't there to the very end. If you watch any show whether it's the tonight show or fucking jimmy kimmel the vast majority of people are watching in the beginning and they they tail off they tail off people get bored this when we have developed an entire culture that has a short attention span yeah no tell me about it so you have a complex issue like discussing curriculums in schools that do or don't promote certain theories right you need people to fucking sit down and discuss it yeah long form yeah long form and if you got one of those guys on your podcast then it would be interesting that would be interesting yeah what

have you reached out to any of those people i don't interview people on mine so i haven't reached out to anybody i'd be willing to. Yeah, you certainly should. Yeah, I've seen lots of people try to get these things set up. I had some friends who concocted this scheme where people would give money and then like, you'd build up a pot

and get donated either to the person participating or to charity, whatever. If they participated, it kind of like leveraged debates. Does that work? For normal people, but when they've tried to get like leverage debates and does that work uh for normal people but when they've tried to get like robin d'angelo white fragility lady or ibram kendi or whatever

no they they just won't come even if you like exceed the amount that their normal well it seems like they've got a thing going on and they don't want to fuck up this thing that they've got going on i think that's correct they've got it completely locked in where they're generating a lot of income by speaking. And they have a justification in-house inside their theory that says that, you know, if they sat down to talk to you, you're already on like the bad list, right? You're already- I'm on the bad list? Well, you're on some bad lists, right?

You're a right-wing extremist now, according to everybody. Never voted right-wing in my life. I know, right? I didn't until the last election. Did you vote for Trump? Yeah. Yeah? Yeah. I said I was going to, and I had to go on TV in multiple countries to explain myself. And why did you decide to vote for Trump?

A variety of reasons. One was, I don't perceive Biden as being a radical. I perceive Biden as being corrupt. And so I figured he was going to get pushed around by his radical party and other forces like possibly weird stuff with China, weird stuff with Ukraine or Russia or whoever might be involved, but China certainly. And what makes you think that Biden is corrupt? That he's always been corrupt? That's crazy. Don't people change? Well, he's changed a little in the last few years. Well, he's lost his ability to count.

Yeah. And he doesn't speak very well anymore. Yeah. Actually, when I got picked up from the airport on my way to the hotel when you flew me in here, the guy that drove me, the driver, was like, yeah, I drove Joe Biden around here a few years ago. We got talking about that somehow. And he's like, he kept asking me. Come on, man. He kept, he's like, what city are we in? What city are we in? That was like four or five years ago. Whoa. Yeah. And it's like Austin, Texas or Austin. Yeah, it could not be true. That guy could be a just a fucking crazy Trump supporter. You never know.

They're all nuts, you know. But so I figured he was corrupt. I figured the media, which was holding Trump to account for everything he did and millions of things he didn't even do or say, was not going to treat Biden similarly. I figured they were going to run cover for him. And I fundamentally believe that it's crucial to a democracy that the, or a republic really, that the press is holding power to account. The press shouldn't be the megaphone of the administration. The press should be asking them tough questions. And I just perceived that's not going to happen. And then they were writing articles, which have not come true yet, but it told me what direction they were thinking that said things like, if we don't get our way with the Supreme Court,

we should start ignoring the Supreme Court. Maybe we shouldn't actually have a Supreme Court. Maybe we should pack the Supreme Court. Maybe we don't need a constitution anymore. These were in like, you know, New Republic level leftist magazines. This isn't like Joe Biden came out and said that. But I watched Kamala support bailing out the Black Lives Matter rioters. I saw the rhetoric around all the racial equity stuff. And knowing how critical race theory works to the degree that I do is like, I can't support people who are openly supporting critical race theory and its initiatives. Like, that's too scary. So I was like, I'm going to have to bite the bullet. And Trump's like the last kind of like, you know, rock on the train track that might derail this thing before it goes over.

Well, people hated Trump so bad. Oh, my bad that they pretended that Biden was a good candidate. Yeah, right. Exactly. Intelligent people, they developed this cognitive dissonance where they were allowed to pretend openly and publicly that Biden was a good candidate. And now that you're seeing who he is and how compromised he is, not just compromised mentally, but compromised in terms of like his ties to businesses and the way they're running things. Whatever's going on with his son. I mean, that was another ingredient too, right? The Biden laptop, Hunter Biden laptop disappearing, like the media deciding this is something we're not going to talk about.

I was like, oh shit, the media is not going to play this right if he's president. No, they didn't play it at all it's it was really creepy because it's a real issue and they had decided that the game had gone further and far enough where you couldn't have an additional Democratic candidate that was the only one right and so because of that they were willing to ignore truth yeah exactly that's scary it's scary because that's how, I mean, once you get people to accept that, now we're in a cult. Right.

And so that's why I voted for Trump. Yeah. I was like, no, I'm not going along with that. And like, if I have to bite the bullet to vote for Trump, now I kind of think the guy's hilarious. So I'm like, all right. I think he's pretty funny. Did you hang out with him?

I have not hung out with him. Did you go somewhere where he was? I was in Mar-a-Lago. It was like 35, 40 feet away. No, it was a fundraiser. What's it like to be? Oh, I met him. What am I saying?

I met him at the UFC. Yeah, I met him at the UFC. I was actually working. I was sitting there, and he came over and shook my hand. By the way, regular size hands. Regular size hands. And I have big hands, so it's nuts. It's a myth.

It's one of those weird things where they're just trying to pretend. Yeah, of course. That he's got these little T-Rex arms and little tiny hands. No, normal hands. But I think he just wears a big suit because he's overweight. And when you look at his hands and this guy. Well, he's trimming down now. Is he?

Yeah, he's apparently trimmed down quite a bit. Let me see some video. There's some picture. I don't know. Are you a Trump supporter? What's going on? Is this propaganda? Yeah, he's apparently trimmed down quite a bit. Let me see some video. Like there's some picture. I just, I don't know. Are you a Trump supporter? What's going on? Is this propaganda? Yeah, MAGA.

You went to Mar-a-Lago. I did go to Mar-a-Lago. Yeah, you were hanging out with them. I get it. You know, my deep old school left sensibilities, right? This is the only place on earth I've ever walked into and looked around. And the first thing I thought was this place shouldn't exist. Really?

It's so opulent. It's gorgeous. Like if there's five stars, five star, you know, it's like seven stars. Is it? Crazy, crazy nice. Can anybody go there? What is Mar-a-Lago? I don't even know what it is. It's like his house, but it's also an event. Yeah. Club event place. So I don't know. It's his house? I mean, he has quarters there. Yeah. Quarters. Right. But isn't it like a country club or something? Like, what is it? I don't know. It's like a thing that I've never questioned. I went there once. It's like Mar-a-Lago, Trump's place. Yeah. But then I'm like, well, why are so many people there? Like, what is that? It's the Winter White House, he said, remember?

Right. And so you went to the Winter White House. Yeah, it was fun. So he's got his own little spot. Yeah. It was a fundraiser for Ken Paxton. He's got his own little spot. Yeah. It was a fundraiser for Ken Paxton. And so- Who's that? Near Texas. He is your attorney general.

Texas attorney general? Yeah. Here we go. Trump's viral pic showing remarkable weight loss slammed as fake as hell. So that's the pic on the right. Is it fake? Who knows? Who knows? Who knows?

Maybe he lost some weight. I mean, he was a good 30, 40 feet away from me. What are you reading this from? I'm looking at why they're saying it's fake. No, I know. Fake news. What is the website? I just typed in weight loss.

There were some pictures. This is an older story from like September. There were 15 pounds is what maybe it was and he's really orange there Both of them is orange. Yeah, but one the one on the left is ridiculous a little ridiculously orange Is that makeup like what is that? I don't know I don't know him that well So is the idea that they do that just to make him look healthier because if he was like super pale and looked like that He would look like shit

Maybe I have no idea the one one on the right, if that is real, boy, not only does he look like he lost weight, like his skin developed elasticity that it didn't possess. Yeah, maybe a little fake then. It looks fake as fuck because... I saw some other pictures, like body shots. He looked like he lost some weight, like in his golf clothes or whatever.

Let me see this. But this is like many months ago. Yeah, I just typed in Trump losing weight and wasn't getting a ton of recent, like October 11th. It's because he got banned from Twitter. He doesn't sit on his phone all damn day. It's about the guy who was making money being an impersonator, lost 45 pounds after he stopped doing it. Oh, wow. Okay.

So, M-E-A-double-double-W-W-dot-com. What is that? I don't know. Is that some weird way? Sure. So let's go over images. Trump losing weight. This is going to be wild. But you saw him at Mar-a-Lago. Did he look thin? I mean, it was a bit of a diss. It was beginning of December.

But he was doing, there was a video of him talking just like a couple of days ago. Where he was talking about Biden and making fun of Biden. He looked like exactly the same. Do the right different search. Maybe he's not losing weight. Trump recent speech. Just Google that. Trump recent speech.

Because I looked at him, he looked exactly the same. When I met him, he was not thin. No. He certainly wasn't. That was quite a few months ago. He was not thin when he was in office by any means. No, but I mean when I saw him, again, that was quite a few months ago. He came over, said hello, did a tremendous job.

You both did a tremendous, tremendous job. Tremendous, tremendous job. Daniel Cormier, former UFC light heavyweight and heavyweight champion. He's like, I would not want to fight this man. That's not looking thin. That is not thin at all. That was recently. Three days ago, it said.

Three days ago. He's got to do some jumping jacks. That's not working. That's fat. So that photo was fake. Well, I mean. It's hilarious that he put all those blacks for Trump behind him with white shirts. That is hilarious.

Fat is a new thing. It's blacks for Trump. Come on. Is that set up or was that set up? I mean, this is wild shit, man. You saw that picture that was going around the other day, right? With the fat, the fat woman. And it's supposed to be like the new face of fitness or something. Yes. That kills me. I hate that. Fat studies, body positivity. Oh my God. It's so dumb. It's

so bad for people. And in the middle of COVID where we know. Yes. Like it does something with your fat cells and makes you die or whatever. Right. It's one of the comorbidities. It's like, come on. It's one of the biggest comorbidities. Yeah, seriously. It's so strange that people are just accepting that. But no, I didn't meet Trump yet, so it might be coming. I got another one.

I got another image that's hilarious. It's another one of those fat things where some woman was saying that in order to dismantle fat phobia, we have to destroy Western civilization. That's what I'm telling you, dude. Same thing. It's like call everything fat phobic that you want to control until you control it. It's the same thing. And the only remedy is to destroy the existing civilization. And then you've got Klaus Schwab over here saying, yes, destroy it,

and we're going to move in our new freaking reset system. I'm telling you, that's what's going on. So I'll just send it to you, Jamie. So do you think that this is – but here's my thing. I'm always hesitant to believe that there's some sort of a grand plan because the government is so incompetent and so inept. Look at this. To end fat phobia, we need to dismantle Western civilization, says Philadelphia therapist.

No. What? She's just wrong. Well, she's just sad. Remember that fake paper we wrote about fat bodybuilding Philadelphia therapist. No. What? She's just wrong. Well, she's just sad. Remember that fake paper we wrote about fat bodybuilding? Yes. Yes. Well, for folks that don't know, you with Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian had written a bunch of these fake grievance papers.

Yeah, fake papers and grievance studies, fat studies, gender studies. And these studies were unfortunately accepted, lauded, and praised, and you guys even won awards for these parody studies. Yeah, seven of them were accepted. One got an award for excellence. That was about dog sex. Please explain that one because that's my favorite one. What's it called again? that one because that's my favorite one. Yeah. So what's it called again? Human reactions to queer performativity and something else in urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon. Rape culture, queer performativity and rape culture in urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon. So we claim that

we spend a thousand hours as one person, feminist, watching dogs hump each other and fight each other in dog parks. A thousand hours is so long. In a year. It's like five hours a day. And then across like a work week or whatever. So they didn't even investigate that. Go wait a minute.

And we said never in the heavy rain, which in Portland, right? It's like, come on. That's not even possible then. Yeah. And so, and then we said we, there were over 10,000 dogs that we interacted with, which is so many. There's only like, you know, know 20 30 dogs to go to any given park probably it's just like the neighborhood park and uh what we we inspected their genitals when they and then we would see how their owners reacted you know did they in particular did they praise like male on like, male-on-female dog rape while being upset about male-on-male dog rape.

And so the gay dog rape, if they were bothered by that, and we claim that that's what they did. And this won an award? Yeah, this won an award for excellence in psychology. And we said that dog parks are canine rape culture. They're petri dishes of canine rape culture, actually. And they are rape-condoning, just like nightclubs. Here's the problem with, like, it's so hard. People are so

nuts right now. It's hard to tell parody. Jamie, pull up this article that I posted on my Instagram from the San Francisco Chronicle. Oh, yeah. I don't even know for sure if that one's parody or not. I don't think it can be. I read people saying it was parody.

Is it parody? Because it starts with a modest proposal or whatever. Like the state should own all of your children or whatever. But isn't it in a newspaper? It's fine. Yeah, you can do satire in a newspaper. That's so confusing. But what I said is like in A World Gone Mad.

Yeah, force parents to give away their children. Yeah. I think it starts with a modest proposal, blah, blah, blah, which means it would be satire. I looked at it. I was like, what is this? So I said the world got mad. It's harder and harder to spot parity. That's the thing.

Yeah. That's why when I looked at this. But this is – San Francisco Chronicle, it says opinion. Want true equity? California should force parents to give away their children. Like, is that? Okay, if that's clear parody, and it seems like it is to me. When I read that, I was like, okay, this is, what's crazy is that the world is so nuts, it's hard to spot parody.

Exactly. Exactly. And it's so hard. I'll tell you, this is an update to the grievance studies papers, that fat bodybuilding I just brought up. Yes. There is a neuroscientist. In fact, do you remember that thing with like the phobia of holes in things? Yes. Like the trypophobia or whatever they called it.

Like something that looks like a honeycomb and you're like, you know, something. The guy, Jeff Cole is his name, the neuroscientist who identified that phobia wrote a paper saying that there's nowhere that you could stand to say that fat bodybuilding is actually ridiculous. I'm not kidding. He was like, you could not possibly, there's no ability to have like genuine consensus about what's ridiculous and what's not ridiculous. And I was like, what? What the fuck does that mean? That's opinion. People could think, people could think your suit is ridiculous. Anything goes.

Yeah. Anything goes, right? But there's no grounds to stand on. We would say fat bodybuilding is ridiculous. Yeah. And this is a neuroscientist. This isn't some, like, fat feminist that wants to justify being allowed to be fat and not have her feelings hurt. So, like, yeah, dude.

It's like you can't tell. It's clown world. It's like literally like satire and reality. Look how many times a Babylon Bee has been like fact-checked or, you know, they got fact-checked. This is my favorite one to bring up. They got fact-checked for saying that CNN buys giant washing machines so they can spin the news before they air it.

And they got fact-checked on that. Like they did not actually buy washing machines so they can spin the news before they air it. And they got fact-checked on that. Like, they did not actually buy washing machines. Like, can you imagine how stupid you are being the straight man on that? Are they fact-checked by AI? Like, what are they fact-checked by? They're fact-checked by millennials, probably. Do you think so? I don't know.

Like, how could they be fact-checked for something that dumb? Giant washing machines. Like, that's almost like I'm wondering if this is farmed out to AI. I mean, it might be. They've been fact-checked a number of times, though, on things that are very obviously fake. is that they said that CNN was going to switch their format to an objective news format, and they were going to get rid of all their opinion-based editorial staff, like Don Lemon, like those knuckleheads. They were going to get rid of them.

You know, that would be, if it's genuine, a positive step. Well, they have to know that they've destroyed their business. They have no credibility left. And they have to think that, you know, the thing about the 90% drop in their ratings last year, they want to say that it's because of scandals. That's like what it is, you know, Cuomo. Those don't help.

They don't help. The two guys, again, two more people that got busted being pedophiles, right? Yeah. That were on their staff, which is fucking wild. Producers. Totally nuts. Right. A producer for Jake Tapperapper and there's a producer for

who else was the other producer? Was it Cuomo? Yes. I think so. Because he got all no yeah maybe. I don't know.

I can't remember. Two high level producers though. But that's most people don't know that though. Most people aren't even aware of that because they never even covered it. Right. It's that their programming sucks.

It's not just that it sucks, but it's preposterous. Preposterous. Yeah. It's preposterous. It's like Solzhenitsyn says, you know, we know they're lying. They know they're lying. We know they know, you know, the whole thing. It's also the smugness in which they disseminate propaganda.

People know that they're full of shit and they're doing it with a smugness and it's just, it turns people off. Turns them way off. It would turn people off even if they were accurate. Yeah, yeah that attitude sucks. It sucks. It's like I remember when I was a kid,

like my mom being like, you know, what you're saying might be right but your attitude sucks or whatever, you know, if I smarten off. It's also an extreme lack of understanding of human nature the way the way they discuss things like one of the things they were talking about shaming people like whether or not we should start shaming you know people for not following the public health guidelines that have changed over and over again and proven over

and over again to be wrong right like. Like, what are you fucking saying? See, this is- You're on the news, and you're talking about shaming people? Shaming people, yeah. This is what I'm telling you, dude. This is why I actually am hopeful. I am cautiously optimistic.

It's not gonna fix itself. But because of the drop-off of their- Well, not specifically the drop-off. It's that they are so arrogant that they think they can just get away with anything. And what that causes is people to see through it. Yeah. And when enough people see through it, I mean, their ratings are going to drop 90 percent and then other forces are going to come into play or, you know, protests are going to start coming up or whatever else. or protests are going to start coming up, or whatever else.

One of my favorite ones was when Brian Stelter was talking about what a shame it was that there were programs on YouTube that get more ratings than CNN in prime time. And I remember thinking, do you think you guys, that people owe you ratings? Do you think you deserve ratings? They're so arrogant. What do you think ratings are coming from? Do you think like this concept that CNN is a respectable news source? Like, bro, this is 2022 or 2021 when that was happening. Like this is not 2005. That ship

has sailed, kid. You don't know that? That entitlement. I'm cautiously optimistic because I think they're just going to keep making mistakes. But it's so wild that that's the big one. I mean, that's the one controversial. Like, CNN used to be rock fucking solid. Yeah. That used to be the place that I would go for everything. Yeah, of course.

I would go to CNN.com, like, first thing in the morning, see what's happening in the world. Now I look at them, like, what kind of spin are they putting on this? Yeah, what nonsense is this? How little have you investigated into this story to spread it this way? Right. How is this racism or racism is a public health threat now or whatever else it is. There's a little spin on this story too. Yeah?

It's 90% down from where it was from this week last year, which was the week that the riots happened, which would have been everyone fucking watching the news. Yeah, that's a spin. That's a little dodgy. I went back to 2019 when they were going up, and they were getting just over a million viewers a day-ish. At the best. Yeah. That was before the elections. It was like the middle of Trump.

The Trump thing, for sure they lost 50% because that was like an objective analysis of all of their ratings and they were talking about it across the board. That's a giant number, man. That's a lot of people. Because that means you're dependent upon conflict. So that sets up what you're doing that you have to find some

outrage. And that's the other thing. People get outrage fatigue. No one wants to listen to that crap all the time. People just want some normal life. Also, you can't force outrage. Nope. Like when it's not really that outrageous. Like J6. Yeah. Like we have to be all really mad about this thing a year later. And they polled a bunch of Democrats and they were like, it's not really on my list of concerns. My favorite is when they ask Kamala Harris questions. And then she gives like a kid in seventh grade essay, like when they're trying to fill the 150 words

that you have to use or whatever the fuck it is. It is crazy to hear her talk about it when she was talking about Pearl Harbor and she was talking, what were the other? Pearl Harbor, Civil War, and then 9-11. Pearl Harbor, Civil War, 9-11. And War and 9-11. Pearl Harbor, Civil War, 9-11. And then January 6th. January 6th.

Where, you know, a bunch of fucking morons went to the Capitol and probably were instigated by the feds to do so. Right. And what did Norm MacDonald say about it? You know, he said, you know, how great it was that they respected the velvet ropes in Statuary Hall. God, what a genius. Oh, I miss him. Oh, man. Well, listen, man, let's wrap this up.

Let's bring it home. There's no happy ending to this show, folks. We're in a weird time. I guess the happy ending is what you're saying, that people are kind of aware. Yeah. No, I think there is a happy ending. I think we're going through a bumpy time, but, man, are they stupid. And it's like they can't understand why people don't like them.

And that's always a good sign that they're probably not going to win. Well, it's also they really hate independence, like independent media that's successful. And they want to demonize independent media also that's bipartisan, like or that is least objective and is willing to talk to people on all sides. And they want to regain control, but they want to do it through the old methods. And that's not going to work in this day and age. That's right. That's right. So this is what I'm saying. It's like, I think we're going through, you know, we talked about the enlightenment. I think we're going through the second enlightenment. I think we're, I talked earlier

about like an aristocracy of ideas and the media figureheads and the professors and the experts get to decide what is and isn't true for people. I think the internet is allowing people to do their own research as it were, and is burning that down. And we're going to have a real marketplace of ideas and we're going to have more freedom if we don't let them, I think they're like, they see their freedom slipping away and they're like grasping for it and their their power i should say is slipping away and they're grasping for it and i think we're for a while i wasn't sure but i'm pretty confident now like we're going to get through this and we're going to have a more free smarter society on the other side it's

not to say it's going to be smooth for the next little while and it's not to say that we can go to sleep and it'll just work itself out how How much time do you think we got before that works itself out? 10, 15 years with the working out. But for the— Bro, basically it'd be dead by then. Well, I mean— The fuck, man. 15 years.

In 15 years, it'll be like 70. How long will it be before we can get back to some semblance of normal life, though? Right. Like, that literally could be this year you think so well i mean i'm not do you think i don't think it will be but it could be like with england when they when they're having this you know completely dropping all of their covid mandates you know i think we're gonna have to i think everywhere i think the the covid narrative has fallen apart and it just looks like heavy-handed government authority abusing power

to keep trying to voice this crap on people. They've kind of hid information, though. Like one of the things they're doing now is they're hiding the death count now because it's so low with Omicron. But the fact that we know that is proof that that information is getting out. And it's going to keep getting out. These alternative sources that they don't want you listening to, that CNN thinks they should be getting the ratings instead. This is escaping their grasp. And if people actually stand up and say, no, we're not going to do this,

well, it's going to have to happen though. If you want the positive path, it doesn't really matter too much if it's Republican or Democrat, but you're going to have more space on the Republican side of the aisle. The place where America is going to be put to the political test is going to be in the primaries this year. year because they're going to try to run a bunch of establishment stooges because they now know the Democrats have no prospects. So they're going to try to run a bunch of establishment stooges in the Republican people to kind of just keep the pot on simmer. We have to fix the schools, though, because the schools are their next best hope. have to fix the schools, though, because the schools are their next best hope. If they can screw up the kids, then they're going to be able to just try again in a few years and to, you know, throw another, you know, cultural bomb and we're having...

As more people become 18 years old, their pool of talent grows larger. Exactly. And so if we're willing to, you know, do everything in our power to rescue the schools and to avoid going into this kind of like digital passport mentality, then we can throw off their plans. And I think what's going to happen, I think what they're reaching for so desperately, so many of these people are being exposed as either frauds or maybe even criminals. And they don't want that to happen because they're going to lose all their power and maybe go to jail. And so they're trying to like clamp down and make sure you can't listen to different voices that might call them rightfully

those things. Right? They don't want to hear people like Dr. Malone come on here and say a bunch of stuff about COVID that makes them look like a bunch of either, you know, incompetent people or assholes or criminals. And so they've got to try it. But they can't put the cork back in the bottle. There's too many holes or whatever.

It's a bad metaphor, but it's a broken bottle, I guess. I hope you're right. You know, you asked me last time I came on here if I was optimistic, and I said, well, I have to be because I have no use for pessimism. I'm actually optimistic now. It's cautious, but I'm genuinely optimistic. But we all have to be willing. This is the most important thing. We have to be willing to stand up, and we have to be willing to speak up. We have to be willing to say, no, we're going to put people in office who are going to start safeguarding our freedom from big tech, safeguarding our freedom from these stupid medical tyranny attempts. We're not going to go down freaking climate change passports next, guys – we need to put in safeguards for people like at the Bill of Rights level that you can't take people out of society based on these stupid things like whether it's big tech squeezing people out, whether it's out of the space to speak or whether it's this medical apartheid or whatever they're doing.

medical apartheid or whatever they're doing. If we can put those, if we can get the right people and get enough momentum behind it and get those people to say these things, to start figuring out the legalities of these things to protect citizens again, we can actually get out of this. I hope you're right. James Lindsay, thank you very much. Appreciate you. Conceptual James, follow him on Twitter. It's an awesome follow. You tweet all day long. You got a real problem with that. I do. Wake up. Stop doing that. Go outside. All right. Touch grass. Love you guys. Bye.