The Majority Report with Sam Seder - Best Of 2025 We Refuse A Forceful History Of Black Resistance W Kellie Carter Jackson

Episode Date: January 11, 2026

On today's Best of 2025, Sam and Emma speak with Kellie Carter Jackson, associate professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College, to discuss her recent book We Refuse: A Forceful History of Black Resistance.   The Congress switchboard number is [phone]. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Check out IceRRT.com to find an ICE rapid response team nearest to you. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: SUNSET LAKE: Use coupon code "Left Is Best" (all one word) for 20% on their full lineup of CBD products to support your New Year wellness goals and Dry January aspirations at SunsetLakeCBD.com  Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com

With Sam Cedar The destiny of America is always safer in the hands of the people than in the conference rooms of any elite. Sam Cedar. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex.

The majority report with Sam Cedar. And I get to think. You're being cheated. It is Wednesday. December 31st, 2025. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live to tape steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA.

It is the final show of 2025. and we are doing our best of series. Yes, we've actually taken vacation. It's really the only week, the only six or seven days the entire year where we're all on vacation. Today on the program, we are going to play an interview we did in February of 2025.

Kelly Carter Jackson, Associate Professor at Wellesley, in the Department of Africana Studies. And on her book, we refuse a forceful history of black resistance. Then later in the program, Matt will do his Matt Picks, where he has picked some amusing stuff

a few to enjoy as well. It is the final day of 2025. We're on vacation. We've managed to go through Christmas. In fact, I probably got back yesterday. Not literally yesterday, but as people are hearing this for the

first time, yesterday, from my girlfriend's place. I was there for an entire like six or seven days with her family. For the holidays,

I'm hoping it went well. It probably did. They're very nice. I like them. much the whole family I like and it's a big family my kids were there for a part of it i mean if assuming everything goes right i mean it could have been last time i did this i had a emergency route canal um and so maybe i had another emergency route canal that'd be convenient yeah it would be interesting it would create a pattern i think it would definitely create a pattern and but it's the final day of 2025 folks we made it

We made it through, it's not a full year of the Trump administration, but we made it through 2025. And for all I know, he hasn't. Right. I mean, it's not inconceivable. You take five or six days off like this. Yeah, everything changes. I mean, who knows? We could be in a full on war with Venezuela at this point.

We could be Donald Trump, you know, something could have gone wrong when he was plugged up to the IV. and J.D. Vance could be president now. What other predictions could you make at this point? Because we've been off for enough days where we've been off for like six or seven days. Six days is about what, 20 years in regular time administration? Exactly. So what other predictions could you make at this point? There could be a war we don't.

We could be at war with Iran. Yeah. Could be storming Bondi Beach. know that's yeah we could be a war with australia too you're saying yeah you're really basically just it's like uh one of those uh twitter twitter uh uh handles where somebody's just like january 31st is gonna be a crazy day yeah yeah i wrote that no last a week so broken clock yeah situation exactly uh but who knows but folks uh we've made it through the year and um i i you know i don't know and we'll make it through the next one how's

that one thing i appreciate about trump though is as i get older time goes by fast but he has a way of making time last where i felt like almost every minute of this year there there's there's something that like parents say to each other you new parents it's like every day is like a year and every year is like a day yeah that's how you feel about trump no i feel like every year is like like 10 years yeah i feel like i am 10 years older than i was a year ago Usually the president ages 10 years in advance, but he's aging the population. He's aging everybody else. 10 years? Yeah. It's nuts.

But folks, you're going to make some New Year's resolutions tonight. It's going to be like, I got to work out more. I'm going to lose some weight. I'm going to be, you know, nicer to people. Or I'm going to learn a new language, right? And why do people want to learn a new language? well, it's probably not about like grammar or I'm very interested in the pluperfect tense. It is because you want to speak it.

You want to communicate to people. Out in the real world with real people. Well, Babel gets you there and fast. Learning a language with Babel is all about small steps. Big wins in progress you can actually track and feel. Their bite-sized lessons fit easily into your daily routine. They are also easy to remember. Just 10 minutes a day is enough to start seeing real results. Babel recognizes that real world connections are at the heart of language learning.

Their courses are designed by real human beings and teach you relevant words and phrases you're going to actually use. So you can start speaking with confidence in as little as three weeks. Babel lets you practice real life conversation without the stress. You'll build the confidence to speak up when it matters. For me, like, I can do babble. I'll throw a lesson on when I'm walking down to work. I'll do it when like, oh, I got to go pick up Saul at drum practice or something like that. And I get 10 minutes to kill and bingo bang go.

I can do a lesson. It is, it is really like, and I am old and I am not good at languages. And I feel like I'm getting good at like here. hearing Spanish, like occasionally, like I'll turn on and I can, I can pick up words and I can, you know, I sometimes have a decent accent. All right. Geopence okay. So what did you say?

I think so. Oh. All right. Babel adapts to your learning style and keeps you motivated with personalized learning plans, real-time feedback and progress checking. Babel has over 25 million subscriptions sold worldwide. with 14 languages to choose from, every course comes with a 20-day money-back guarantee. And here's a special, a special, I should say, limited time deal for you.

Right now, get up to 55% off your Babel subscription. Make your New Year's resolution work at babble.com slash majority. Get 55% off at babble.com slash majority, spelled B-A-B-B-B-B-E-L-L-com slash majority. Rules and restrictions may apply. All right, we're going to take quick break. And when we come back, Emma and I interviewing Kelly Carter Jackson on her book, We Refuse a Forceful History of Black Resistance.

We did that interview back in February of 2025. Folks, have a great and happy New Year. We will see you tomorrow. We're going to have another best of tomorrow. Yes, even on New Year's Day. So you're going to wake up, maybe some people, People wake up early. They have their black eyed peas and their collard greens.

And what? You don't know about that? No. The southern tradition. Is that right? Yeah, it's supposed to bring you good luck. Dude, I grew up in Worcester Mass. I grew up in Maine.

I know it. Well, Maine is actually not, is like there's, it's, it's a lot more like the South than Worcester is. Yeah, yeah. Same flannels. They just keep the sleeves on. Yeah, I just don't, I don't know exactly what we would do in New Year's in Worcester. It was just like, oh, whatever.

Yeah, just getting to a fist fight. Yeah, exactly. I'm sorry, are you looking at me? Is there a problem? You think you're better than me? Is there a problem? Do you got a problem with me? Hey, four eyes.

What are you looking at? All right. I'm sorry. So enjoy this interview and enjoy Matt's picks. And then we'll be back tomorrow. And for sure, we're going to be live Monday the 5th. We may, Emma and I may come on. Maybe we'll put a little, yeah, we may do.

an AMA type of thing. But if we do, get the app at majority app.com. You can get it for iOS or Android. It doesn't cost anything. Put your notifications on. We'll send out a notification and then you'll know that we're doing it. Also, just coffee. You want some coffee for the new year? Justcoffee. Dot co-op, fair trade coffee. Use a coupon code. Majority get 10% off. Become a member of the majority report. Join the majority report.com. He'll help support the show. into 2026 as we bring you all of the ups and downs of next year and hope springs eternal big election year but we'll talk more about that as the year goes on and don't forget the a m quickie amcicki am quickie dot com three days a week you can get some emails in your um your email box at nine a m

with the day's top stories okay here is um kelly carter jackson we are back Sam Cedar, Emma Viglin, on the majority report. Joining us now, Kelly Carter Jackson, Associate Professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College, author of We Refuse, A Forceful History of Black Resistance. Welcome to the program, Kelly. Hey, happy Black History Fund. Thank you, you too.

Let's start with, well, let me ask you why this book for you and in terms of like, the timing context. Oh, man. So this book has been ruminating for years, really since 2020 is when I started writing it. And I tell everybody I wrote it because I was mad. I was angry. And I was frustrated at the way that the protests of 2020 had materialized and had not really led to like structural or systemic change. I'm frustrated with protests writ large and sort of like hashtag activism. And I wanted to also get outside of the bubble of, like, violence and nonviolence. I think we have these, like, really limiting ideas of what we think nonviolence is and what we think violence is.

And I wanted to push back on that and kind of expand it and say, like, we have more than two tools, just, you know, a hashtag or a protest or a Molotop cocktail. Like, there's got to be more tools in our tool belt than just those two ideas. And so this book, Weber Fruse, really is about looking at all the plays, all the ways. that black people have resisted from the Haitian Revolution until this present moment. Why do you think, and I know this is a little bit, a little tangential to the book, and we'll get into that at a second, but why do you think that we did see, why do you think that those protests did not have the traction that in the moment, it felt like they could have?

Yeah, I felt like there was a lot of groundswell. It felt like there were a lot of vibes, if you will. And just in sheer numbers. I mean, you know, I'd see anything like that since, you know, maybe the Iraq war. But in the number of protests, I don't think even existed during Iraq at that time. Even though, you know, like occupied, there was nothing really to rival that. It was close. But why do you think none of that?

I think part of that, well, part of the fact that we had so much attention, I think I get credit to the pandemic. I mean, people had paused globally. And so when something like George Floyd's murder goes viral, you have way more eyeballs on this event than you probably would have had there not been the pandemic, had we not been sort of forced to shut down and lock in. And I think people are paying attention and people were upset and people realized just how much racism is also a public health crisis. And there were so many things colliding in that moment that I think made sort of the nation's

come to a standstill. But I also think that in this country, we have a very difficult time, one, having conversations about race. We have an even more difficult time when it comes to doing systemic or structural change. If it costs us something, if we have to relinquish power or control, we have a hard time accomplishing that. And I think that for a lot of reasons, we didn't see the change that we wanted. You know, we saw like street names change or statues come down or And Jamima got like a remix. And I'm like, this is not what we asked for. This is actually not what people petition for.

People were talking about true police reform, like actually abolishing their police. People had revolutionary ideas. And those things never really got tackled in ways that I felt like were structural. We got more symbols. We got more trinkets because it's cheaper. But I just one more question. But why? I mean, because I hear you say like, yeah,

It's true. Power is not going to relinquish. Nobody's going to relinquish power. Yeah. But where what short-circuited where the taking of that power did not happen? I think that when it comes down to it, the hard truth is we have been unwilling to recognize our deep allegiance to white supremacy, our deep allegiance to power and position and privilege as white Americans, that people don't really want to let go all. all of the advantages that that that fortifies them to have. And so you get a deep pushback.

I mean, I've seen this throughout history. Every time you get black history, even if that history is somewhat progressive, is even symbolically progressive, you get widespread backlash, political backlash, economic backlash, social backlash. You've seen it in Reconstruction. You've seen it in the 1920s and 30s. You've seen it in the civil rights movement. And what we saw right after the summer of 2020,

with deep political backlash. I mean, it's not a coincidence that January 6 happens right after that there's anti-DEI backlash that sweeps across the country. People do not want to let go of their power and privilege and position. And I also think that we have seen that nonviolence, and in some cases when it comes down to protest and petitions and hashtags, it doesn't work. It's ineffective. And we need new tools.

We need new ideas. we need to be creative about pushing ideas that really will work. And how much of it is what you talk about? I guess the history of, there's two things I feel like that work together here is like the individualization of racism as opposed to making it a systemic thing where people feel like it has to do with their own work internally as opposed to deep structural change, which I think benefits white supremacy. But really also that the other piece is the sanitization of violence in history in terms of black resistance is really important here.

Because, you know, there's a reason that's not in this country, but how long was Nelson Mandela on the U.S. terror watch list? What, until 2007, 2008? Can you speak about, like, where did that begin? And where did, maybe it's Reagan with MLK Day. Where did? I mean, I think you're on to something. I mean, when we think about MLK, he was hated. He was despised.

If he had poll numbers in the 1960s, they would have been in the low, low numbers. I mean, people did not like MLK, especially when he started speaking out against the Vietnam more, especially when he started talking about capitalism and basically saying like, this is, this is going to cost you. You've gotten civil rights on the cheap. You need to pay up. You know, we need to move into human rights and reparations. People didn't want to hear from King.

And then after he got assassinated, and then decades later, we get this sanitized, very diluted version of King that's very much, you know, nostalgic and romanticized. But that's not really what King was standing up for. I think we have amnesia when it comes to, like, our leaders. You know, when we think about Malcolm X and the idea that he was pushing this by any means necessary and really building global coalitions across people of color, the things that he was doing put a target on his back. And we forget those things.

We forget the things that made people sort of unsavory. Even early in Nelson Mandela's career, he also had championed using force and using violence, and we forget that. And so I think history for me is the greatest weapon. It's one of the greatest tools that I have in sort of correcting the record and letting people know, hey, we have been here before.

We have done this before. Here's what's worked. Here's what hasn't worked. And using history as a blueprint, if you will. Let's start as we address these. And I think you just touched a little bit on chapter three, force. You've divided the book into basically five, I guess, elements of, you know, within the spectrum of what.

you know, arrows in the quiver, I guess, of resistance. But let's start with your great-grandmother's resistance, because this is one where, I mean, she paid a price individually, but also she was faced with an individual price to pay otherwise. Yeah, I mean, when I think about my grandmother, this is my grandmother, Rita, my father's mother, when she passed away, we were cleaning out her apartment and me realized that she had a gun in her nightstand.

And we were like, what? Grandma's got a gun. And, you know, we were kind of shocked by that because I had, you know, these, again, memories of my grandmother being the sweet lady that made like Blumen Marine High. You know, I didn't think of her as someone who would be gun-toting.

And yet, when I think about how she grew up, you know, my grandmother may have died in Detroit, but she was a southerner. She was born in Louisiana. And she told me stories about how her brothers and her uncles would have to go to jail on the weekends. And I was like, what do you mean they had to go to jail on the weekends? And she would say, well, yeah, you know, back then all the white men would get drunk and they would lynch any black man in town. So if you were already in jail, that was your alibi. And I just could not fathom prison being a safe space for black men, prison being a space that would be a refuge on the weekends when white men are getting drunk and lynching anyone. And you didn't want someone to say that you had sexually assaulted or raped a white woman. And so you went to jail. And then on Sunday morning, you went to jail. And then on Sunday morning, you went. went out and you went to church. And that to me showed me that my grandmother was growing up an

environment where white terrorism was very real and it was heightened on the weekends. It was weak. It was weekly. And she had to protect herself. She had to arm herself. And I talk all in that chapter of force about black women in particular that have used their Second Amendment rights to defend themselves, particularly from the Ku Klux plan, particularly from white supremacists that would try to firebomb their houses, that would try to destroy their communities. You know, people like Rosa Parks talked about how her kitchen table was covered with guns. I'd be Wells talked about the importance of having guns in her home and protecting herself from the clan. So these are the lived experiences that black people face that we often don't talk about.

Even MLK talked about his home being in arsenal. He had a friend who came over to his house and he was like, whoa, don't sit there. There's a whole bunch guns and pistols underneath that seat. Like, he might have believed in nonviolence, but he also believed in self-defense, and he did not see them as in opposition. What about Arnesta? I guess I'm thinking of, too. Oh, Arnesta. So Arnesta was my great-grandmother who I opened the book with her. I talk about how when she was nine years old, she stepped on a rusty nail and likely got tetanus, a serious bacterial infection, and she could have died.

And my great-great-grandmother took her, really to the only white doctor she knew, this white, man who lived in a big house. When was this? What year? About what year? This is 1915. This is rural Alabama in 1915, so 50 years out from slavery. And this white doctor offers to help her. But in exchange, she says that Ernesta has to live with him and work for his family for the rest of her life. She is nine years old. It is 1915. She is a girl. You know, this is a position in which she could be susceptible or vulnerable to sexual exploitation, to all kinds of physical violence, let alone it's like we have been abolished. And what I'm so grateful for is my great, great, great grandmother, whose name I just found out was Martha.

Martha intervened and refused the doctor's proposal. She said absolutely not, no way, in fact, never. And she picks up her ailing granddaughter, Ernesto, finds every concoction she can think of in her household. And she saves Arnesta's life. And for the rest of her life, Arnesta walked with a limp. And I talk about how that experience is very akin to the black experience, that oftentimes

the choices you are given are to live life in bondage or to refuse and limp. That racism and white supremacy handicaps you. And we don't talk about all the full ways that it has a detrimental effect on black people's lives, that black people spend most of their lives. lives responding to addressing or avoiding the violence of white supremacy. All right.

Well, you, and so in going through the sort of different elements of a response to oppression, the first is revolution. And you talk about the Haitian Revolution. Yeah. We've covered the Haitian Revolution a decent amount here over the years. it was the maybe the only first like

maybe just the first but the maybe the only complete sort of revolution decolonizing and slave uprising certainly in that era and one which the Haitian people

to ultimately get the French to stop embargoing them had to pay the value that France lost in the loss of their slaves, the free labor. Yes. Yes. And that-

separation to slaveholders. To slaveholders. And that represented something like 25% of its GDP up until not that long ago. And so when we look at Haiti as a country that has all sorts of problems, they contemplate the idea of. of this country having to pay 40% of its GDP over the course of 150 years or something, it's just absurd. But go ahead.

Talk about the Haitian Revolution. Yeah, the Haitian Revolution, I mean, I feel like we don't do it justice. You know, we make it a footnote in history, and I feel like it's a feature. You know, in the age of revolutions, when we think of the American Revolution and the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution is the only revolution that actually abolishes the institution of slavery. United States, you have slavery for another 100 years. So you're talking about liberty and equality and independence. And black people are still enslaved. Like, black people are actually serving Thomas Jefferson while he's drafting the Declaration of Independence. Like George Washington

is sending out slave catchers while he's also fighting the British, while he has enslaved people running away from him. Like the hypocrisy knows no bounds. But when we think about Haiti, you know, it's an all-black republic. It overthrows a European empire. It defeats Napoleon's empire. And it basically says, and we will be a free nation. We will be a free black nation.

And they paid heavily for that. They paid heavily for that, not just in the tax that came in terms of reparations for slaveholders, but in the way that we talk about the Haitian revolution, the way that we have dealt with Haitians, it took until the Civil War for Haiti to actually get diplomatic recognition

from the United States. It took a long time for Haiti to get back on its feet. And even then, the United States invades in 1915 and occupies it for another 20, 30 years. And we've seen all these different puppet dictators that pop up. I think part of that is because, again, our unwillingness to acknowledge like what black empowerment could look like, what it could be, what it could do, its full capacity. And I often say that the hardest part of a revolution is actually not achieving it. It's sustaining it. It's making it lasting.

And even when we look at the American Revolution, you know, I say that America was like conceived of in 1776, but it's not really born until 1863, until 1865, until you get the Emancipation Proclamation, until you get, you know, the 13th Amendment that abolishes slavery. The United States really isn't the United States it could be until it reconstruct itself. And I see that as a revolution. I see that as its birthplace, really. Let's talk about the concept of protection as we're looking at the sort of like the different, I guess, responses to in some way, an unjust system. You write about Margaret Garner.

Oh, yeah. About just before the Civil War, I guess. This would be in the 1850s. Yeah, 1853. She's an enslaved woman who is running away with her family, with her husband, and with her in-laws, and their four children. And they lived in the slave state of Kentucky, which is a border state to Ohio. And during the winter, they decide to steal a horse and a sled, and they are going to make their way to the free state of Ohio. And they cross the river, which is frozen solid at the time.

And they make their way to Ohio. and they're only there for a few hours before slave catchers, you know, inevitably follow their tracks through the snow, follow them to Ohio to wear a family member's house that they were staying in. And Margaret Garner makes this horrific decision where she decides, I cannot go back to slavery. I will not send my children back to slavery. It is a fate worse than death. And so she decides to kill her children, that she would rather have them die than have them go back. into slavery. And so she lines up slating the throat of her youngest child. It's horrific. She's telling her mother, help me, mother, help me kill the children. It is terrible. It is blood everywhere. There's

banging outside the door. The U.S. Marshals are there. They're trying to ram in the door. And when they finally get the door open, they see this bloodbath. They see her youngest child, Silla that has been slain. They see her attempting to try to kill another child. It is an awful, awful, unimaginable moment. And it's one of two things happens. One, the South uses it as a way to say, see, black women are unfit to be mothers. They're not good mothers. And she should be punished for this. It's another way for the abolitionist movement to see. See, slavery is so horrible. It is so violent. It would drive someone to kill their children. And really, Margaret Garner is left in the middle of that, trying to reconcile what is the best decision that she could make for her children.

And, you know, as a mother of three kids, you know, I have a 10-year-old, a 7-year-old, a 4-year-old. I cannot imagine being in that predicament. But it does shed light just on how violent slavery was and how much parents did not want their children to experience it. You know, the coroner's report talked about how Silla was very fair skin, how she had, you know, like blonde hair and blue eyes, which to me says that she was probably a child of sexual assault, that rape was rampant in slavery. And this was something she did not want her daughter to experience. Later, Margaret Garner winds up dying in the institution of slavery. And her husband lives and on her deathbed, she says, promise me, promise me that you will

marry a free woman next. Promise me that you will not have any more children in slavery. And it's a, it's a heroin, harrowing story. But it's one that I wanted to talk about in terms of the chapter of protection because I felt like protection is such a radical act, that what she did feels so extreme to us. But at its heart, she was trying to express the greatest form of care and love and protection that she could give for her children, which was to keep them from the institution of slavery. You also talk about the Underground Railroad under that rubric. I mean, I think it's somewhat self-evident, but it is, the idea, I guess, is really just sort of like what constitutes a very practical, pragmatic response. Maybe not necessarily pragmatic.

I mean, but a practical response to you. I think that applies. I mean, when you think about the fugitive slave law of 1850, it basically said that if you ran away from your slave master, that you could be retrieved. And it didn't matter if you ran away five days ago, five years ago, five years. years ago, you could be living longer in freedom than you were in slavery. You could be returned to your master. It meant that the new Mason-Dixon line was Canada's border. So you really only had two options as a black person. You could flee, you could try to get to Canada, or you could stay and you could stand your ground. And that's what the abolitionist movement was and the underground railroad was. It was a collection of black people that said, we're going to protect you by any means necessary, even at the rest of our own lives. And so I tell all of these real. heroic stories of black people and their white comrades that came to the help of these fugitives and help them get to freedom and help them get either to the north or further north or get to Europe or Canada. And these are stories that I think about now in my own like 21st century mind.

I'm like, man, what I have had the gall? Could I hit someone? Could I have, you know, like right in the U.S. Marshall? You know, could I have put my own risk at life? I don't know. But during those times, People put everything on the line to protect, not just their family members, but strangers to help them get to freedom. You mentioned, you touched on a little bit of force and the idea of, you know, that people that we wouldn't have necessarily contemplated. Your grandmother, I don't. Yeah. But we're armed and that the idea of arming themselves. Talk a little bit.

Tell us who Carrie Johnson is. Oh, Carrie Johnson. These are all good stories. These are all in the book. Carrie Johnson is a 17-year-old black girl who's living in 1919 in Washington, D.C. And during 1919, historians know it as the summer of like Red Summer. It's when racial riots are taking place all across the country. And so in Chicago and Little Rock and Washington, D.C., you know, all across the country, there are these race riots really massacres where black communities are being under attack by the, by the and white supremacists. And in D.C., the mob is at bay, and they are going through the black neighborhood, and they are pulling black people out of their homes. They're beating them up. They're throwing rocks into their homes. They're shooting in black communities. They're dragging black folks off street cars to beat them up. They're lynching black people on the spot. It is incredible. You know, Carter G. Woodson, the father of Black History Month, is walking home from Howard University, and he sees a lynching take place right in front of him in D.C. And so,

Carrie is this 17-year-old girl who's armed. And her father tells her, hey, listen, get high ground, get to the roof or to the second floor. If you see someone coming, you know, you defend our household. And that's what she does. The mob comes marching down about a thousand strong of white people marching through her black neighborhood. And she starts to take watch shots at the mobbers that are coming down her block. And the crazy thing is that there are police officers that are there. and they're not stopping the mob. Matter of fact, they're encouraging the mob. And the mob says to them, hey, there's someone in that window.

There's someone taking shots at us. And so the police gather up and they go to Carrie's house. They don't knock on the door. They just knock the door down. They don't announce themselves. They go into this dark house. And Carrie and her father are hiding in her bedroom on the second floor. And as the officers creep up the door of this dark, the stairwell of this dark house,

house and they open up her bedroom and immediately Carrie starts shooting. You know, she is fearing for her life. She doesn't know who's on the other side of that door. And police officers are shooting at the walls. They don't know where the bullets are coming from. And within moments, you know, Carrie is shot in the shoulder. Her father is shot in the thigh. And Officer Harry Wilson is shot fatally. And he lay on the floor dying. And they drag carrying her father from under the bed. They marched them out to the street. They cannot believe the 17th. old black girl has fatally wounded this police officer. And the crowd and the mob is sort of standing there almost ready to like lynch, Carrie. And at that moment, it begins to like rain, like torrential

rain pour down. And that is what saves her life. That is what quails the mob. And everyone decides to go home because it's raining. It's pouring outside. And the crazy thing about Carrie is that there's a trial, she's convicted. They appeal and she's acquitted. They don't want to charge her anymore. They release her at 19 years old. She's free to go. And I'm like, what? It's 19.19. This black girl kills the cop is free to go. What in the world? I mean, these are different times for sure. But I think part of it was that there was a lot of shame in the white community that this white officer could be killed by a black teenage girl. And they didn't even want to put in the headline, they put in the headline, you know, a white officer killed by Negro. They wouldn't say that it was a girl. They wouldn't say that she was 17. You know, they did not want to point attention to who she was. And it was, thankfully, the black press that told her story over and over and kept it in the headlines so that she could get justice and for defending herself. And eventually, that's what the judge says. The judge drops the charges and says she treated herself. Do you think it was a shame or was it not wanting,

to reveal a potential vulnerability? I think it was both. I think it was absolutely both. I think this is the only riot in the summer of 1919 where the white casualties are higher than the black casualties, where there are 10 white people that are killed. And this sent a message that black people would defend themselves, that they would be armed,

that a lot of black people who participated in this riot, They were veterans. They were coming home from World War I, and they came home armed. And they were like, oh, here's what you're not going to do. You know, we just fought and died and bled for this country. You're not going to ramshackle our communities. And they did not want to send a message of what an empowered back populace could look like. And so a lot of these stories get buried. So a lot of my work as a historian is about trying to uncover these stories and to say, look at what happens when when black people fought back. These rebellions, these race, rights get quailed when white people realize that their lives could equally be at risk. And when you when you talk about that one, I mean, the invocation of the imagery, it reminds me of Brianna Taylor, but also, you know, it reminds me that about the historical either whitewashing or ignoring of groups like the Black Panthers, right? And they're both armed resistance and also usage of like basically kind of community solidarity to build a fortress against these factors because at the time, like, I guess the question is the role of the state

in violence like this, like, you know, when we're now beginning to explore the Malcolm X assassination and the police's role in that violence, can you talk about how that threat evolved of armed resistance, particularly in the civil rights movement? Yeah, there were, the police were not a friend to the black community. They were not about the business of protecting and serving black communities. And part of the reason the Black Panther Party started, it was initially the Black Panther Party for self-defense, was to protect black people and black communities from police assault, from police brutality. You know, they would do this thing called like cop watch, where basically if someone got pulled over by the cops, you know, the Black Panthers would show up

and they would watch. Kind of like the same way we do with our cell phones today where we have like, you know, an eyewitness to what is happening in this altercation. But what's interesting about the Black Panther Party. What I think a lot of people forget is that within the first year or so, they put down the guns. They put down the weapons. They were like, actually, this is kind of double-edged sword. This is making us more a target of violence than it is like a beneficiary of it. And they realized what was more important in their community was to make sure that their community was fed and healthy and literate. So they started free breakfast programs that spread all over the country. They had free health clinics. They had sickle cell testing. They had an

ambulance program. And I think Hoover realized as well, the director of the FBI, that what was more terrifying to an American populace was actually not armed black people. It was fed, literate, healthy black people. And that is why they came after the Black Panther Party. You know, we have the Black Panther Party to think for free breakfast today. My kids live in the Lily White suburbs and they have free breakfast and pre lunch at their school because of the groundwork that the Black Panther Party put in. I think they realized that protection is not always about a gun. Protection is about food. Protection is about literacy. Protection is about good health. Protection is about a safe community and access to resources. And that for me is like the biggest success story of the Black

Panther Party. But, you know, history has demonized them in such a way in which, you know, we see the berets. We see the black leather and we're like, oh, they're, you know, they're terrifying. And that's actually not the work that they were invested in. Let's jump to joy in terms of how that can be an expression as well, because I want to also be able to

sort of generalize this a little bit. But tell us about how joy as a tool to respond to injustice works. So this was the best and hardest chapter for me to write.

It's the last chapter. I really see joy as a weapon. I see joy as a bomb. I see joy as so many different things. And really sort of like the pinnacle of the black experience, it's actually not one of trauma and violence, but one of joy and humor. And I sort of encapsulate that in the Alabama brawl. When we think about August of 2023, when these black dock worker was attacked. And all of a sudden, all these black people came to his response on this dock in Alabama and people are swimming to the dock, a 16-year-old swimming to the dock, and you've got a man swinging a folding chair.

And what gave me so much joy in that moment is not just to see black people defending another black person. Absolutely, yes. But it was the memes and the gifts and the humor and the reenactment and the joy that came, like almost the celebration and mockery of whiteness in that moment where it was like, fun at white supremacy to sort of rob it of its legitimacy. Like that to me was everything. I saw people with merch.

They had like folding chair earrings and they had t-shirts and I was like, black people, only black people. We will make fun of something. We will poke fun. We will take something that could be really violence, like a white woman calling the police on black people barbecuing. And we will make it a hashtag or a punchline. We'll call you barbecue Becky and we'll make jokes about it.

that. And I think there are just ways in which black people are always trying to sort of laugh to keep from crying and sort of using joy to fortify them and to protect them doing really hard and difficult times. You know, I think about the joy that kind of came from the pandemic. I mean, you think about people dying and sickness all around you. And again, the gifts and the memes and sort of the mockery and humor that came from from that moment, I'll never forget that. And It just is a message to me that even when we see black people marching in the streets and sort of chanting, I can't breathe, and then, you know, two minutes later, somebody will break out into the electric slide and Frankie Beverly will start to play. And then all of a sudden, it's like a block party. And you're like, wait, how do we go from this to this? Because black people need joy. We need joy in order to survive. It is what affirms our humanity. And so I wanted to end with that because if we have nothing else, We have each other, and when we have each other, there is always joy and laughter to be found. I mean, this is obviously, you know, people understand it's, you know, it's a history of black resistance and the various forms that it takes.

And on some level, meant to be prescriptive in terms of a resource for future resistance. What about like, you know, we're in an era where the need for resistance could be a little bit wider than within the context of the black community and its allies. I mean, that, you know, I mean, we'll find out with immigrants, but also. Trans people, women, you name. But also, you know, people who want just broadly speaking maintain some semblance of at least the structure of a democracy as opposed to an oligarchy. What lessons can be taken here that are more, I guess, you know, that can be extrapolated that aren't necessarily a function of the history of oppression. of black people in the context of this country or endemic to, you know, cultural responses to this oppression. Like, what, what are there, are there lessons that you see that can be taken to a broader audience?

Absolutely. A broader, not audience per se, but broader, I guess, use. Yes, populace, sure. I mean, absolutely. I didn't just write this book for black people, even though I tell people all the time that this is my sort of love letter. to the black community. Refusal is collective and refusal is global. And you see that all of the world. You are seeing people refuse tyranny, refuse oligarchy, refuse, you know, these really oppressive systems. And I think now, more than anything, we need deep and wide coalitions.

We need people coming together to push back, to refuse against the power structures that be. Because we're all getting our clock clean. We're all, we're all paying $12 for eggs. We are all, we are all having to navigate health care in a very unjust system. And so I want people to refuse, and I want people to sort of kind of take a letter from, from Gin Z. I mean, if there's one thing I've learned from my students, it's that binares do not serve as well. The idea that it's right, it's wrong, it's good, it's bad, it's black, it's white, you know, it's this, it's bad, you know, it's violence or it's nonviolence. I think we have, have an array of tools at our disposal that we can get creative, that we need everyone. We need

the engineer and the poet. We need the graffiti artist and the medical doctor. We need the teacher and the politician. This is an all-hands-on-deck moment. When we refuse, we have to stand up against all of these power structures. Now, I don't make it plain in the book. Like, if you want a three-point plan, if you want a formula, that is not this book. If you want me to solve reasons by 20-25, That's not going to happen. But I think if you want to talk about what's not working, we should talk about that and discard that. And we should start to get really creative about what could work. What possibilities do we have out there?

How can we gather all of our efforts and talents and abilities and chip away this problem? We're not going to swallow the ocean. You know, I can't do that. but I can do what I do best, which is write books and teach history and speak about this. And others will find their own talents and abilities to partner with others and to keep that work going. What, it seems to me that one of the biggest challenges. And again, yes, I don't know if anybody has a solution at this moment of any of this. But the, how do these sort of like,

like methodologies or perspectives of resistance get translated when you're talking about populations that do not, that have not been defined by their fate. So in other words, you know, solidarity across, amongst black people, you know, you didn't, it was sort of defined by the oppressor on some level. You guys are slaves, we're all slaves, or we're second-class citizens, or we're being discriminated against, you know, if you say, you know, a poet or a plumber, you know, well, you know, if we all do poetry together, we have at least some, some comment. Like, what, what becomes the, how do we create around what, that solidarity? The coalescing, you mean the coalescing factor.

Yeah. I think. And maybe. Particularly when there's a significant percentage. People can just say like, I can pass. Yeah. I can pay whatever, whatever that translates into. Like, I mean, listen, I think my tax is being cut.

So I think there are a lot of people, and that's why I jump as an office, that voted not just in their interests in terms of white supremacy, but in terms of the aspirations that whiteness provides. And I think that, I mean, you will find people all the times that are not white, but aspirationally seek to be or in close proximity to that kind of power structure. and that will sell out again and again to get some sort of power or to gain some sort of protection. But I think at the end of the day, and maybe this is the optimist of me, maybe I'm wearing most clothes glasses, but I think we all want healthy bodies.

We all want healthy communities. We all want to be safe. We all want to make a decent living. We all want to be able to afford the homes that we live in. We all want to be able to have access to education. We all want to be able to live our lives. You know, trans people want to be able to live their lives safely without harm. Most people who are undocumented workers, they want to be able to live their lives.

They want to be able to provide for their families. And I don't think what people want is sort of so far fetched. Now, is everyone going to be a millionaire? No. Should everyone be a millionaire? No. But should everyone have access to housing and to health care and to education? and to education and to job opportunities and to be represented when they turn on the TV

and when they see art performed for them, you know, I think those things matter. I actually think more people want that than not. And I think that we have a lot more in common than we think, you know, whiteness and white supremacy is a problem, but so is capitalism. And capitalism is cleaning a lot of our clocks. You know, so is patriarchy. Patriarchy is cleaning a lot of our clocks. clocks. And I think that when we galvanized against those power structures, when it's not just

about whiteness, when it's also about wealth and, I mean, uncontrollable, unsustainable kinds of wealth, when it's also about, you know, marginalizing a whole half of the population, those are things that have to be tackled. And I do think that there's more solidarity than there is opposition. And I tell people all the time that this is encouraging to them, because I started the abolitionist. My first book was on the abolitionist movement. The abolitionists were only one percent of the population. One percent. Like they were not all of the north. You know, they were a small, small sector. And I think all you need is a small group of committed people willing to make sacrifice, willing to find consensus, willing to find solidarity. And you can change the world over.

The abolitionists did it. And I don't think we necessarily need, you know, everyone to be in agreement in order to do this work. We need committed people. We need people willing to make sacrifice and people willing to work together. Kelly Carter Jackson, Associate Professor of Africana Studies at Wellesley College, author. The book is, we refuse a forceful history of black resistance. We put a link to that at Majority.fm. Thanks so much for your time today. Really interesting. Thank you. Thank you. Should we start with Jordan Peterson? I think so. Now, you will notice that the YouTube of this is titled Jordan Peterson versus 20 atheists. When it was first released, it was not titled that. It was titled Christian, one Christian versus 20 atheists. Now, I'm trying to think like,

what was mine called, like a progressive or something like that, right? Versus conservatives. Progressive versus conservative. That's the way they do it. That's accurate. Yeah. And they give you, as far as I remember, like latitude like I think I suggested that. The top comment says the way Jubilee changed the title from one Christian verse 20 atheists featured in Jordan Peterson to Jordan Peterson versus 20 atheists after four hours is so funny. Well part of the reason why they did this is because someone pointed out that Jordan Peterson

claimed that he's not Christian in the video. We're about to play that. He gets very defensive about it. This is not new for Jordan, who I suspect, does not believe in God like the people in your life who believe in God. And he's been lying and pretending about that and fudging that for years and years, even though it's been pretty obvious. As he said that he doesn't. He's always did this thing about what do you mean by believe in God and what do you mean by Christian and all that stuff. Oh, do I have some relationship to the infinite?

He's been doing this the entire time because he's lying about his actual beliefs. But I don't even understand like, I mean, it's honestly. like this whole thing feels like Jordan Peterson was kidnapped and dropped into this circle and made to debate these people. That's not how

it works. I've done one of these. You could decline this if you wanted to. Yeah, no, it was totally my option as to whether to do this. And in fact, not only wasn't my option to do this, I actually had to go somewhere to do it. They did not all show up. But you don't understand.

Stan, Jordan has no choice anymore because of what's been taken from him. You know, his respectability, his professional qualifications. Professional practice. So he has no choice. Like, he is in a prison of wokeness is making. And so he has to do these media appearances. I am forced into this. Also, Russell Brand is Christian now.

Joe Rogan looks like he's church curious. So it's getting a bit of a bit more crowded in the I kind of believe in God department. All right. basically prison labor. Here's Jordan Pearson, and this is, which one is this? Is this the... This is the first one, I guess. Yeah, this part, and then, yeah, we'll play two of these.

Sure. So do you believe in the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good notion of God? What do you mean by believe? Do you think it to be true? That's the circular definition. What do you mean... How is that circular? How is that circular?

Because you added no content to the answer by substituting the word true. and believe. I said you think it to be true. All right. So if you believe something, you stake your life on it. What do you mean about that? Do you live for it? Okay, can you pause it?

I'm sorry. So this is a really interesting rhetorical trick. I've heard some conservatives deploy in relation to Donald Trump, where it's like, actually I heard Anna Kasparian say this on TYT. If you are a, if you think Donald Trump as a fascist, then wouldn't that necessitate basically advocating for his assassination. Where did we get to that logical leap? Like, it's like when you're in this kind of trap where you can't necessarily get out of it,

so you have to straw man the opponent as basically being hysterical, right? Or make it, make the bar to entry. What do you mean by straw man? What do you mean by straw man? We've all heard of the Gish Gallup, which is rhetorical technique in which a person in debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments without regard for their accuracy strength. This is the sort of inverse of that. Whoa, whoa, whoa. What do you mean by inverse? So what's that what Sam is doing there is what I'm going to coin the pedantry prance.

Oh, oh. You just keep you just keep taking issue with out. Oh, by issue. What do you mean by issue? You can never have any actual discussion. You answer me. What do you mean by issue? You do agree on term. What do you mean by issue? I don't have to agree with anything. you say by issue this is not about you bullying me into agreeing with you you don't even know what the word issue means i just mean like you take exception too oh so issue means exception like then what does exception mean you know for instance the word belief is it an exception or is it an issue all you did was change the word is pedantry prance oh prance really what do you mean by prance.

Are we prancing right now? Dancing around. Don't dancing around. Dancing around. In a frivolous matter. So why is there two words? Why don't we just say prancing around? This is the problem.

You're dismissed. What do you mean by that? You live for it and you die for it. That's what I mean by that. It isn't something that you say. It isn't something that's associated with law. consistency. It's not declarative. It's not propositional. It's not a figment of your imagination. It's the presupposition of your attention and your action. And you're either fragmented, in which case you worship

multiple gods, or there's some unity at the bottom of it that makes you an unstoppable force. Okay. So you're saying that you don't believe something if you wouldn't die for it? Not really, no. Okay. So how would you define belief? Something you say? why I explain. I could believe it is the case that this pen exists, but if someone, like, threatened my life, right, I would lie in order to be able to save my life, right? Like, I think you would do that, too. You wouldn't lie to save your life? Don't be so sure. You wouldn't lie to save your life? Don't be so sure. Tell me about this pen exists. Tell me. Tell me if this pen exists and try,

shoot me now. Shoot me now. I'm, shoot me. Kill me. Shoot me now. Shoot me. Shoot me now dead. with the pen. He has no thought of where he's going. Look it into my eye. He's back to the corner where under no circumstances, can he utter an untrue. That's he so desperately didn't want to answer the question. Do you believe in an all power? Like, he couldn't even.

No, this is a gotcha question. What is belief? What is God? What is everything? What is pen? What do you mean? Penn? So he, yeah, right.

So he catches him here. And this is where Jordan has to get defensive. about, do you know anything about me? Oh, yes. Yes, this is a debate on ideas, but first, I hope you're familiar with my CV. He's doing a great job, but he should have been like, what do you mean by no? This pen exists, but if someone, like, threatened my life, right, I would lie in order to be able to save my life, right? Like, I think you would do that, too.

You wouldn't lie to save your life? Don't be so sure. You wouldn't lie to save your life? How much do you know about me? Oh, go, go back, go back, please. Go back. Go back. I want to hear that again. Don't be so sure. I think you would do that too. You wouldn't lie to save your life?

Don't be so sure. You wouldn't lie to save your life? How much do you know about me? I didn't lie to save my career. I didn't lie to save my clinical practice. Oh, pause it. Pause it for a second. Posit for a second. His career? Like, which career has been more successful for him? Right. I mean, honestly. his practice or his media personality I mean honestly and he insisted on lies

that's why he lost his professional credentials in Canada he insisted on Colin Elliott Page's doctors criminal butchers which is just a what does butcher mean exactly what does criminal mean right it turns out none of the things that and uh what was it the royal

psychiatrists of Montreal whatever said we're going to give you every opportunity to go back on this and he said I'd rather just feed the hogs on right-wing media. Right, because of the cash associated with it. Oh, what does cash mean? Who knows? Listen, Bucco. Wait, you don't know my life.

I would die for my cash. That's how much I believe in it. I didn't lie to save my clinical practice. Would you lie to, like, save your children, your mom, your dad? I don't think lying would save them. Wait a second. The guy set up a hypothetical about, somebody coming in saying, is this a pen?

And if the guy says it's a pen, they're going to kill him. And now Peterson has now changed the hypothetical in such a way that lying wouldn't help that. But then why would he address the fact that he wouldn't lie in other circumstances? But this guy comes up with a good response to it, too, because he catches him and it gives him a scenario in which lying could save his family. A pretty famously obvious scenario to Europe. one in America, be like maybe escape slaves, would you, would you, or what about your money or your life? Yeah. Well, I'm not sure that you would take the money and then kill me.

So I've, in this hypothetical, I can see into your brain, into the brain of the person who's hypothetically there. That lying could save something. Yeah, and if you're steeped in sin, you're likely to live in circumstances like that. I'll give you an example. if you're like in like Nazi Germany and it is the case that there's like Jewish people in your attic and you're trying to protect them? Would you lie to like the Nazis?

I would have done everything I bloody well could so I wouldn't be in that situation. Would you lie? Whoa. You can't answer hypotheticals? Pause it. I'm sorry. Pretty crazy.

But that is a pretty insane thing that he just said. He said that he basically, you know, roundabout way blamed people who were captured by the Nazis for their own behavior. I wouldn't be in that situation. No, no. He blamed the people who didn't anticipate

that the people who tried to hide Anne Frank they didn't have enough forethought. And I'm sorry, I can't hide you or lie for you because we, this, the guy has been cast long ago. There's nothing we can do anymore.

No, the problem is that family did not emigrate to the United States beforehand and therefore when Dan Frank's family would show up

at the house no one would be there and they would be able to live in the attic without anybody there and so when the Nazis came in

they'd say who's here no one was there and they would go to the next house this kid's like 24 years old I like me I like me Stop tying me up in pretzels, you little shit.

I know the example. I'm bloody pissed. Oh, I know it. I know it. I believe me. Isn't this also? Tim Poole would really appreciate this deontological answer where it's so immoral to lie, right? But it's not, uh, you don't have to think it's only viewing the action as moral or immoral in and of itself and not the consequences of it.

Oh, what does consequence mean? Yeah. Yeah. answer a hypothetical like that because I've done everything I'd bloody well could so I wouldn't be in that situation to begin with. Yikes. It's a hypothetical and it's not answer. No, I can't answer a hypothetical like that because it's far. Look, don't play games.

I don't play games. Yes, more. If you present me with an intractable moral choice that's stripped of context and you back me into a corner, you're playing game. I just told you I would do everything that I could. to make sure that I'm never in that situation. By the time you've got there, you've made so many mistakes that there's nothing. I would just grind my way out of the war. First off, you should not have voted for Hitler.

Yeah. That's number one. I would transcend it. Number two, you should not make people think that you might be willing to hide. And Frank. that's why they come if you leave milk out for a kitty cat it's going to come back

and you can do that isn't a sin being born in Nazi Germany in trying to protect people that you care about like there could be a Jewish friend that you have and you want to protect them I think you should just give up on that line of question yes there's no way I would have a Jew as a friend I would never do that

because that is what I'm saying I would have done everything possible before that moment and by not having any Jewish friends by appearing somewhat hostile to the Jews and Frank's family would have never come. I rest my case. Move on. Bucco. Because you don't like, are you like uncomfortable with me asking this question? It's just a basic hypothetical. Like I could ask you. It's just a basic hypothetical where you're like you put Jews lives at stake in Nazi Germany. That's just a basic. Obviously you would lie in that scenario to save their life but you're like not trying to answer this question what's for some reason i just told you why are

you anti-fascist like so you're asking that i was just asking just clarifying but like again you're not answering this hypothetical because you know he asked that because you said you wouldn't do anything in nazi germany and you also seemingly round about no no i would have i would have if i was connection. Okay, there you go. If I lived at that time, I would have prevented Hitler's rise to power. That's what I'm saying. So I would have never had to hide and Frank, because I would have prevented all of World War II from happening.

You're asking that. I was just asking, just clarifying. But like, again, you're not answering this hypothetical because you know it shows that you clearly would lie to six. I'm answering it in a matter you don't find acceptable. Obviously, because I care about truth. I wouldn't be in that scenario. Obviously, right? Logically, because that's already happened.

Like, that's in the past. You don't have a time to travel device. We're bringing this logical hypothetical up to show you that in some circumstances that do happen within the real world, you would lie to save people's lives. So your definition of truth isn't actually how we're typically using it. So what you're trying to do is you're trying to muddy the waters when I ask you like, do you believe this? Do you think this to be true?

We could probably cut it there because he eventually is like, okay, fine. Well, they run out of time, basically. Should we get to that or we can just say that he knows that? What is what is what is what does he say fine to I believe in God? I would know he says that I would tell a lie and then they move on they don't they don't get back to the original point do you believe in God it's only like like 30 more seconds like I just don't understand how it got like who set this up did nobody tell honestly this whole thing is like wait a second one second I'm in I hop having a meal with my

daughter and all of a sudden there's 20 atheists surrounding me. All I asked for was the bill. And then all of a sudden everyone's peppering me with questions. What's going on here? So you don't actually have to answer the questions. And plenty of Christians don't like that because they clearly see that you don't really like want to be associated with Christian. I can imagine that I was in a situation where the best I could do as a consequence of my previous mistakes was to tell the least amount of lie I could manage. But that would likely indicate that I had made all sorts of catastrophic errors on my way there. So you would die to save someone's life.

So again, you do believe it to be true in that circumstance, even though you lied in that scenario. Not without the context that I put it in. You were not willing to die for it. You were not willing to let other people die for it. So that's not what you see to be true then, seemingly. You're doing exactly what I said you were doing at the beginning of the conversation. You're generating an impossible, restricted. hypothetical with no precursors to back me into a corner.

How is it possible? Is there something contradictory about it? Nice to meet you. Yeah, he's deceiving. It's not a hypothetical if it has happened in history, let alone in the past 100 years. But it's definitionally not hypothetical. I'm sorry. Like, if, uh, if something to qualify as something you believe in is,

something you would die for, has no one ever questioned Jordan Peterson's beliefs because he's still alive? Like, I don't understand. Are there no circumstances? Like, you would die for, why didn't you, why didn't he attempt to kill or be killed when he was fired? I believe this is the right thing to do and I'm going to kill myself if I have to, uh, if, I've, If I am beholden to completely made up rules about identifying people's pronouns, I'm going to kill myself. Because I disagree with it. Self-immolation? I don't believe in using the pronoun that people choose to have used.

And so I will die on that hill, literally. I mean, I just... But again, it's all because you can't just say, yes, I believe in God. He has to say, what do you mean? I believe. What do you mean by God? Okay. War saying, no, I don't believe in God. Why? And his, he stopped selling out tours. Wow. Oh, okay. Oh, that's why. But why would he stop selling out tours? Because the people that go are Christians. Oh, yes. But then why not go full, Russell Brown? I refuse to tell a lie, young lady. Because fundamentally he's caught, he condescends to

those. It's same thing as Ben Shapiro. Like they he'll feed the slop out, but he's not going to eat it himself. And I love like, it's just, it's a. It's a. really good hallmark of like what conservative morality is or like what their ethics are even if it's outside of religion where they claim it's all like their individual virtue as they perceive it and there's always holes in it but like he believe he he he really i shouldn't use the word belief because then i would have to die or do you mean by that would you kill somebody for right now right but it's always just like like my principles like my actions in and of themselves are moral and then when you get a little bit complicated about it they can't even apply their own

analysis to real life situations. That would be a hypothetical. This clip is the most bizarre one. Because it's clear that everyone there was under the impression they were going to debate a Christian.

Yes. Yes. For the first or hours that this video was up, it said Christian versus 20 atheists. Now, and also, I don't know when they recorded this. I know the lag time on mine was like five or six weeks

right i mean it was like the end of january and it came out like in like the first week or so of march and uh why would what is it about jordan peterson that he would have a debate with atheists about if he wasn't if you can't identify him as anything other than jordan peterson i guess you could just say um believer in god versus 20 atheists. But he would take exception of that. What do you mean by believe in God? Then why agree to this is the question.

That's why. And this poor kid who's debating him and Peterson like basically shows up and go, oh no, I've actually just been teleported here. I'm not. I mean, it's almost like, um, freaky Friday where, where, where, where Jordan Peterson shows up, but it's just his body. and it's actually some other person. I've been body swapped with somebody.

I didn't know about this. I didn't prepare for this at all. I'm only seven. Good. Danny, nice to meet you. What's your name? Danny. You're saying atheist worship things or people or whatever.

Can you just be very clear about your definition of worship again? Attend to, prioritize, and sacrifice for. Okay, that's it. That's your. understanding of worship well i can flesh it out but that'll do for the time we have okay do catholics attend to marry well yes okay so do they fit that description of worship yes so you would say catholics and other people that revere mary like in the eastern orthodox tradition worship mary well they might not put her in the highest but you would put it that way no you just said it now you're taking it back

there's still a hierarchy okay there's a hierarchy but in within there's something at the talk All right, you can worship things below. Mary is quite a ways up the hierarchy, but not at the top. Let's go for your definition of worship again. What's your definition of worship? Attend to. Attend to. Attend to.

Do Catholics? Do Catholics attend to? Do Catholics attend to? Do they prioritize Mary over all other human beings? No, I didn't say overall, did I? I didn't add that to my definition. I said there was a hierarchy as well. You attend to something trivially, or you can attend to it deeply.

I mean, now you're adding stuff the definition, but your original definition. I added the hierarchy part at the beginning. Are you familiar? Are you familiar with the immaculate conception? Why is that relevant? Because you go to a Catholic church, I'm sure you've attended recently. You're interested in Catholicism, aren't you? Sure.

All right. Are you familiar with their doctrines? Somewhat. Okay. Your, you're familiar. How do they regard, how do they regard Mary? Why are you asking me that? Because you're a Christian.

You say that. I haven't claimed that. Oh, what is this? Is this Christians versus atheist? I don't know. You don't know where you are right now. Don't be a smart ass. Well, either you're a Christian or you're not.

If you're a smart ass. Either you're a Christian or you're not. Which one is it? I could be either of them, but I don't have to tell you. You don't have to tell me. I was under the impression. I was invited to talk to a Christian. Am I not talking to a Christian?

No, you were invited to. I think everyone should look at the title of the YouTube channel. You're probably in the wrong YouTube video. You're really quite something you are. Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing. Right? You're not a Christian.

to Bravo on the quick wit on that kid to turn that phrase around on him. Oh my goodness. You're really quite nothing, aren't you? I just don't understand.

Like, what was it he didn't want to? I mean, to be honest with you, I'm not even sure I followed what the debate was about there. And it just seemed to get short-circuited. Because Mary is like the mother of Jesus as opposed to Jesus who's, or God who you're supposed to be worshipping at the top of the hierarchy, I think is maybe what he was alluded to?

But I think the point is that Peterson is making an argument that atheists are also a worship a God. It's just they don't refer to it as a God. Yeah. because they have some guiding principle. But it, I'm just guessing. I mean, I also think that's sort of like, what, if anything you worship is a god in that instance, it really has to do with what he said in terms of like what Peterson himself said about prioritizing and where they sit upon like their,

ability to impact the world. There's a difference between a God that you think is all knowing and all controlling or has set up. I mean, different people have different theologies. But if you call everything a God, then yes, nobody's an atheist. But Catholics would not say, they would not say that they worship Mary. Right. So that's why they may believe, Matt, you can talk about it. I don't know. But I mean, I did a little research before. Oh, I know. Is that you? Oh, it is next or you're gone. I think all he was doing was trying to get Jordan Peterson into the murky waters of the fantastical things about religion that Jordan Peterson definitely does not literally believe in the common sense of the word belief. And when he, Jordan Peterson could sense that.

And that's why he got really sort of leery about even being called a Christian. Because Jordan Peterson, like I said, does not believe the way that, you know, people, you might know who are religious. is that there's a God sitting there ready to pass your judgment on you, your soul when you die. He doesn't believe in that. Right. Worship in Catholicism is my understanding. It's supposed to just be for one God, for the father, son, the Holy Spirit, right? And that there are, there's Mary, there's, you know, John, there's saints and all that. But that you're not supposed to worship them or put them over God, which is part of what he's trying to say.

I mean, Cossacks definitely do love Mary. my grandma has a married statue on the hall. It freaks me out every time I, you know, was staying over there to get to go to the bathroom. Okay, but I'm, I'm just trying to clarify it just because the internet says that you're not supposed to worship Mary. So that's just at the very least. Well, I don't know about, I mean, I have no.

Well, is it worshipping her? If you put a small statue of her out of the hall in front of a mirror? What was the, what was his contention that, like, do we have his, like, what his claim was? I mean, the bizarre thing about it is, it feels like what happened is that, you know, they go, there was a little bit of back and forth in my instance.

I imagine this is the same process. Like at one point they said, do you want to debate libertarians? And I was like, well, I do that on my show. And they don't seem to be terribly relevant right now. I said, I would just rather debate conservatives. and they may have said like do you want a Democratic and Republicans and I'm like no I want to like just I want to talk more about specific sort of policies I suspect maybe what happened with Peterson is they couldn't come up with a thing that he was willing to argue and that they may have just deferred to this sort of like I'll talk to atheists because they're a wrong. They don't realize that they're actually godly worshipping. And there was no way for the Jubilee people to sort of say like, you know, pedantic guy, you know, debates atheists. I think they explicitly

told all those kids there that they were going to be debating a Christian. Oh, without a doubt. Yeah. And so Jordan Peterson, and that's what they labeled the video, like we said before it, and they had to change it because of this exact exchange where Jordan Pearson, out of fear of like being definite about anything, retreats from the label of Christian. I just wanted to come in and tell these kids, they didn't know what they were believing. I mean, because they weren't dying for it. But isn't that such a tell? Like, this is where I don't, like people's media literacy or like when people listen to a guy like Jordan Peterson, honestly, I felt this way during the Ezra Klein debate. When you're not like basically, you're, you're dancing around everything or you're not

specific when asked direct questions, shouldn't that set off alarm bells for anybody that, like, wants a coherent argument that's given to them? Because for me, I hear that guy go, either lunatic or complete snake oil salesman, one of the two. I'm sort of just a little bit floored by it, by how sort of, unprepared he was. Well, he, I think it honestly was just like, I'm going to come in there and atheists don't exist and therefore you're actually a religious believer me you can't say what i am but the strangest thing is is for him to set up this sort of like a belief is defined by whether you would die for something and not a single person in that room i would say if you had said to

him like do you believe in god and they would say no i do not um they're all alive and they're they're not, they're clearly alive because they don't believe in God. If they believed in God and said that they didn't, then they would have to fight to the death for it to actually be a belief. I mean, by his own definition in terms of what constitutes a belief, but I think his argument must be that if you really like something, that everybody has something that they treat as a God, but I just don't think that's, you know,

even remotely the case. If you can be impressed by that, the whole, like, oh, well, you have to have some relationship with a transcendent that comes after you. That means you believe in God. Like, that is just, again, that's pedantry and semantic, um, fudging. Whereas you talk to somebody who believes in God, uh, they think Jesus actually was put on the cross in my family was put on the cross, died for their sins. I don't believe any of this stuff.

Um, but, um, that stuff literally happened. Jordan Peterson, I'd be here is curious to hear him to talk about the historicity of Jesus and see where he agrees with that. I think he would probably give you an answer like this where he's not really, what do you mean by historicity? Why do you mean by this? Because he doesn't want to say that because he'll stop selling tickets. Well,

there is, I wonder if there isn't some parallel to between, and again, I'm, you know, who knows what Peterson was actually trying to argue here. But the idea that Ann Coulter had a book about this

at one point where liberals have a religion. It's just called civics. And they have made government a religion. And cool, civics is better than Christianity. Civics is my religion, actually. But the point is, is that civics are actually sort of mutable by some form of of shared, you know, understanding, you know, voting, referendum, representation, civic life can evolve in a way that is not locked off.

It's a social endeavor. Religion, as far as I can tell, is a function of a deity having the final say on some level. And, you know, different people have different interpretations of what that deity is, and there's rivalries within the context of that. But there is no sort of deity in the context of a civic religion. There are documents. There are charters and constitutions that may function similar to a Bible, but they can be amended by humans in a way that the Bible theoretically, you know, by I think believers don't believe

can be. I think that's the point. you can have commentary, but you can't change with the Bible. What you mean by commentary, Sam? I think this is a significant problem for Peterson. I think he's being eclipsed on the religious front by people like Russell Brand. I think his type of intellectual religiosityity, I don't think people have time for it anymore. I think the sun's setting on it.

I mean, even Ben Shapiro, it's not religiosity, but the kind of like conservative wonkishness thing or like whatever, this veneer of, um, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, a, intellectualism is completely out the window. Uh, and wasn't he a daily wire pickup, but also right, like like with their bankruptcy, how does that affect Jordan Peters or not bankruptcy with them losing that money, how does that affect Jordan Peterson's employment, right? I also think that in terms of like just where the, the zeitgeist is, you know, theoretically he won. Right.

Like we, he was able to defeat the trans agenda. Right. And you can say the R word now, so you no longer have to make your bed. Because boys have been saved. It's a boys world again. The making the bed thing is funny because ironically, the number one political streamer on the right is a guy who clearly does not make his bed and probably has a hoarding problem. Right, that guy Asmond Gold, who I don't know anything about except that, like, what, he shits himself or something. I don't know about that.

I've seen a picture of his, I've seen a picture of his room and it doesn't appear like he likes to. take out the garbage. Oh, the roach that came across his screen, yeah. Yeah, that's so, but anyway, that it's interesting that some, a guy like that would be appealing to the right in this way. I don't know. I don't understand this Twitch

streamer space anymore. Well, there's Jordan Peterson. I don't know if we'll get it. We're going to dig into more of it. You just got released yesterday, right? I got to say that, I watched the whole thing, and those are the two best moments. The rest is kind of kind of why I don't run

an atheist circles a little bit because a lot of the debates seem really pointless and abstruse. The only time that's fun is when they're accusing him of not actually believe in God, which is the right angle of attack. It's such a weird one to do. Because I don't associate him with, like,

being a big, like, Christian forward guy. I don't know. All of his lectures are, all on the Bible stuff. I think that's, he gained a big audience doing that. So these ancient truths, truths, right? Like, that's what he's always talking about. Oh, Adam and Eve. Oh, yes. You remember that guy, Milo Yaninopoulos? We haven't heard much from him.

He, uh, was drummed out of the conservative movement for a while because it turned out that he was gay and married to a man and they were looking for a way to get him out. And then he was like, he was basically sort of espousing that libertarian view that pedophilia is really just sort of a is a social construct.

I mean, it is. But it's not necessarily one that we should probably get rid of. But Yanonopolis is on with Tim Poole. And who's this guy?

This is Nick Ocks. He is the for the founder of the proud boys hawaii chapter oh oh nice excuse me formally known as the proud boys yes right the not so proud boys the naz proud boys hawaii not so proud boys go surf you lur loser yeah right um how could you be unhappy and like angry in hawaii many of you know the backstory of Tim Poole's recent scandal where it turned out he was getting millions upon millions of dollars

from a company known as tenant media, which was a front group for a cutout, I guess, as they say, for Russian intelligence. Which is not to say that Tim was told what to say, but rather that they enjoy his commentary enough to support it beyond a typical membership level.

And, but here is this exchange, which is pretty funny, because, you know, Tim wasn't the only person who got snowed by this. Dave Rubin did too. And that guy, Benny Johnson. Oh, right. They all made a ton of money. Like, just an enormous amount of money from the Russians unknowingly because they didn't do due diligence per se as to where they were getting all this money.

But this happened. And just a content warrant if you're listening at work, this is Milo, so you know the score. This direction. What we have is an indicator in USAID that establishes $38 billion, mostly being used for the most ridiculous things you've ever heard of. It's all transsexual theater in South America. No. That's not just one thing.

It's all that. Okay, cool. Not too surprising that this is connected to the U.S. and foreign influence. My question is how much money total of our entitlements is not just the classic welfare in the form of, say, food stamps, but grant money for just the most corrupt and ridiculous transsexual theater in regular America, not just South America, right? We need to find it what this final number is because it's everything. It's like USA, the National Park Service came out. I have a question. We have a pause for one second.

I just, we have to address the level of ignorance that was in there. When he says regular America, he's talking to the United States of America. Regular America. That's honestly, like, I think, like... Says the Hawaiian proud book. Yeah. The punchline of a joke in the past. But he's saying now we need to look into entitlements, which traditionally people have

referred to as Social Security and Medicare. And he's now claiming that all... that money is actually going to transsexual dance parties in regular America. This is a person who honestly, I think, like, in any other context, people would alert this person's relatives and said, like, you've got to come and pick this guy. Somebody watching this guy? Just having an episode. I mean, by definition, Social Security and Medicare are in its own pool of money and can't go

to the kinds of things that he's talking about. This is just like basic understanding. Oh, supposedly. It's a rock. It's a hand on. Relatedly, from earlier this morning, Trump has signed an executive order pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids companies in the United States from bribing foreign officials. So, I don't know. I guess this is not really about rooting out corruption in the federal government.

I mean, I've- Well, it's rooting out corruption in the federal government and transferring it over to corruption in foreign government. Okay. All right. Just making sure I got this straight. The actual theater in regular America, not just South America, right? We need to find it what this final number is because it's everything. It's like USA, the National Park Service came out.

I have a question. We're never going to get there. I have, I have a billions a year. I have a question for you and for everybody's listening. Or I should say I have a tip, I suppose. We know for a fact there are many popular liberal podcasts that run nonprofits or have non-profits buying ads.

I don't think there are any popular liberal podcast. Whatever you want to call it. We're going to find out. There are. No, remember David Packman after the election. There's no. Popular. So let me, this point I'm making is that.

Let me just take this moment to say that our membership and our subscriber numbers did not go down after the election. But go ahead. Some's did. Add spots. There are any popular liberal pocket. Whatever you want to call it. We're going to find out. Oh, no.

I think there. Remember David Patman after the election? There's no popular. So let me, this point I'm making is that, who is funding these shows and how are they being propped up? One, obviously YouTube is propping them up, despite the fact they're clearly not popular as we just saw the results of the election. However, we do know that many of them sell ad space to powerful nonprofits. I believe that if you track the... I doubt that Tim is talking about us, even though I brought this up with him and he was completely embarrassed by it.

But you've heard our roster of ads today. One was an organization in Rhode Island. uh that um hires uh refugees uh to make granola and uh the other was um what was it a cleaning product i mean give is give directly what he's referring to or well i mean we also had that biden harris sponsorship where a secret one we had no well by a crusading journalist yeah okay as we just saw the results of the election However, we do know that many of them sell ad space to powerful nonprofits. I believe that if you track the government spending through these nonprofits, you will find it goes from government to NGO into the hands of liberal pundits.

David Packman. Now, he might not even know, and that's the important thing. No, no, no, this is important. You can accuse him of knowing, you can accuse him of intentionally. No, no. I would never. Pause it for a second. Right there.

Now, the reason why Tim Watts did have that clear. clarification is because sometimes people like Tim end up getting paid by the Russian government and don't realize it. So just so you know, again, I also want to reiterate, we don't sell any ad space to any not-for-profit that is sponsored by the U.S. government. The only one I think is Give Well, which is a charity navigator thing. But, and yes, we do not sell, that was fatious earlier, are any ad space for political campaigns, or take money secretly as Tim seemed to have done and not just publicly. Although I might take ads and run them free for that guy running against Nancy Pelosi in San Francisco.

Yes. That if you track the government spending through these nonprofits, you will find it goes from government to NGO into the hands of liberal pundits. David Packman. Now, he might not even know, and that's the, that's the important thing. Oh, yeah, well, no, no, let me, this is important. You can accuse him of knowing, you can accuse him of intentionally thinking. No, no, I would never, I would never accuse David Patman of knowing anything. Sure.

They're very well may be. That was coming. They're very well may be individuals. What happened with those guys? Did Pacman and me have Milo on recently and embarrassing? It's just Pacman's thing after the election that they're talking about. Knowing you can accuse him of intentionally thinking of money. No, no, I would never, I would never.

never accused David Packman of knowing anything. Sure. They're very well may be, that was coming. There very well may be individuals who their ad person comes to them and says, this NGO wants to spend $100,000,000 ads on your show and they say, you're doing that conservative thing, giving too much credit. No, I'm saying in general, big picture. No, you know exactly where the money's coming from. Dave Rubin knew where the money was coming from when it was coming from Russia. He used it to buy his children. That is 100% false. And you, and you know that roaps me into it. And I can, I can, I can verify it's 100% false. All right.

Completely untrue. And this is, this is important big picture stuff because USAID is funneling money into NGOs. Irresponsible in the extreme to the point of ludicrous negligence to not know where $100,000 are coming from. To not even ask. Oh, pause for one second. A pause for one second. Now, let me explain to what's going on here.

Milo does not realize that Tim Poole was roped into this. And when Tim says you're roping me into this, now, Milo still it doesn't register. Now, I just want to make this clear, just so that Tim has some cover in this conversation, Milo is saying it is the height of your responsibility to not know where hundreds of thousands of dollars are coming from. Just to be clear, Tim got over a several million dollars. So maybe once you cross the threshold, right, no responsibility left.

You have less responsibility because it's no longer several hundred thousand dollars. It's called the responsibility donut hole. Exactly. Responsible in the extreme to the point of ludicrous negligence to not know where hundreds of thousands of dollars are coming from. To not even ask. And that's not the story at all. So if you knew what you're talking about, maybe it sounds smarter. All right.

But clearly, as the story has already been reported, you haven't read any of it, which involves me, which I find particularly insulting, is that certainly Dave, I, as well as Benny, did ridiculous due diligence in trying to figure out what the source of the English. of the revenue was beyond your typical ad deal. So when I get an ad sale person who comes to me... Pause it for a second. This ridiculous due diligence involved demanding to see a colored PDF one-page

CV of Mr. Edward Gregorian. Yeah, we know it's ridiculous. It's why we're ridiculing you about it. Yeah, I think he made ridiculous the other way. So is he... It's ridicule. Is Milo trolling? Does he know? Milo doesn't know.

I don't know. Tim is getting offended. He's a troll. He's, he might, I mean, he's got those glasses on. He could be messing with him. I don't think so. I'm not ruling it out. I'm not ruling it out.

All right. All right. Let's go back a little bit because I want to watch Tim get very, very angry. Tim thinks that Milo knows, but I'm pretty sure that Milo doesn't know. I think you're probably right. I'm just saying it's possible. Dream to the point of ludicrous negligence to not know where hundreds of thousands of dollars are coming from. to not even ask.

And that's not the story at all. So if you knew what you're talking about, maybe it sounds smarter. All right. But clearly, as the story has already been reported, and you haven't read any of it, which involves me, which I find particularly insulting, is that certainly Dave, I, as well as Benny, did ridiculous due diligence in trying to figure out

what the source of the revenue was beyond your typical ad deal. So when I get an ad sale person who comes to me and says, this company wants... I didn't remember that you were involved in that. This company wants to sell... They want to buy 100,000,000 ad reads over this amount of time. No one, anywhere in media, says, tell me who their investors are. Get me on the phone with him.

And when this stuff went down, Dave, Benny, I, and many others said, we want to know what this is all about. Who is this involved with? And when you get a prominent conservative personality based on. We've actually had sponsors who we found out that they had production facilities in the West Bank. and cut them off. Right. Right. Now, maybe that's different from who the investors are.

And even then, didn't that go through a third-party person with ads, right? Oh, our broker came to us and said, we were selling ads for them, and then we found out that they were doing business in the West Bank, and I went back to the broker. I'm like, and it would be a little different if that company, which will go unnamed, was coming to us directly. via maybe, I don't know, Bradley, and saying, we're going to give you multiple millions of dollars and you don't necessarily need to do an ad read. This is just to subsidize your show because we love

it so much. Oh, I wouldn't be suspicious of that at all. People do that every day. Yeah, it's a normal thing. That's a total normal thing. A couple million dollars and, oh, you're just going to replay the show on your platform? Oh, okay. And when this stuff went down, Dave, Benny, I, and many others said, we want to know what this is all about, who is this involved with? And when you get a prominent conservative personality based on a national with an American company

and says, here's the investors, they're going to talk to you, explain it. Here's the proof. We go, okay, well, like a prominent conservative personality is running a company out of Nashville. Lauren Chen. Was she a prominent personnel? Certainly was.

Hundreds of thousands of followers on the blaze. Everybody knew she was. And she had a story. And so we did some digging. I've never heard of her before this. So this is, I didn't remember you. Pause it. This is the big remember you.

Keep them up there and go back a little bit because, you know, this is where Milo backs off, doesn't realize that Tim was going to be so sensitive about it. But we actually have a tape from Edward Gagorian who's talking to Tim. We just have the Gregorian side. Let's just roll that tape. Hello, is this team? Tim, it's Edward Gorgorian. I'm here.

Just wanted to call and tell you that the money is. Absolutely fine. Don't worry about the thing. I'm from Belgium, but if my accent sounds strange, it's because I've moved around a lot as a kid, Army Brat. I'm the kind of person who, when a blaze flunky tells me they have six hundred or six figure offers for me, I'm like, say no more, Lauren. But Tim, I commend you for all the great work you're doing in investigating me. But I have to go now. Bye. Bye. Great helps going voice message you have. go, okay, well, like a prominent conservative personality is running a company out of national. Lauren Chen.

Was she a prominent personality? Certainly was. Hundreds of thousands of followers on the blaze. Everybody knew she was. And she had a story. And so we did some big. I've never heard of her before this. And so this is the point.

I didn't remember you were a victim of that. So. The victim. For a casting expersions if that was your impression. So to imply, I didn't remember you were a victim of that. But I. Right. Now, my, now, let's.

Let's go to the big picture on USA and D. It's interesting because Miles just changed his whole tune. Literally 90 seconds ago, it was beyond the height of irresponsibility to not discover where hundreds of thousands of dollars came from. And now he's saying, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a victim of that. It's so funny. Tim just desperately wants to do all this dumb smearian of like, oh, look at all this political USAID money.

That's just like subscriptions of, you know, people who work for the political. Except for Tim has this big sort of monkey on his back. and Milo just basically Sim was sort of like tiptoeing along the knife's edge and I'm going to do this, I'm actually going to be able to deliver this and no one's going to remember that I am

actually the flunky. Yeah, I'm a genuine article. I am the genuine article of being bought and paid for and Milo brings it up. I was a victim. I apologize for accosting aspersions if that was your impression. So to imply, I didn't remember

you were a victim of that, but I Right. Now, let's go to the big picture on USAID and other NGO funding. Tim looks like he's fine. Now, certainly that affects us. When someone, I'll say it again, we right now have probably, I don't know, 30 advertisers who've come to us and wanted to buy ads and we said, we're in a holding pattern right now doing negotiations. They're offering us $50,000 sometimes for one ad read.

One ad read, one company says we'll give you $50,000 to promote our company. Do we say, I want the CEO on the phone? I want to know who funded them. I want to know where that funding can't. I just want to make something clear here. This was not an ad buying. When we do an ad, it's quite clear who's paying for it. Now, if, for whatever reason, Hello Tushy has a secret agenda of selling a different

bidet product from their rival, but they promote their own, but they have a secret, you know, or maybe Hello Tushy buys an ad from us, and they promote the bidet. but the reason why they're doing it is because they have a specific resentment against the toilet paper company and they don't want people to use toilet paper or whatever hidden agenda is that it's silly because it's laid out there the problem with what tim is talking about he's comparing apples and oranges it's one thing to have a sponsor that you think is problematic and decide we don't want it different you know people have different sort of like thresholds in which they you know we may not do any type of finance advertising we may not do, but we'll do a sabaday advertising. Okay, different people can't. This is funding that was completely hidden

from the listeners and viewers of his program. Yep. To the tune of millions upon millions of dollars. And you never, you know, like, you never reveal, like we're getting the, this show is subsidized by

blankety blank, blank, blank. It was completely unclear. Now, Milo seems to think it is completely irresponsible and doesn't believe that someone could actually be duped in that way. And I think that's a... Fair assessment. I think that's a fair imposition to have.

But Tim is arguing that's not. But the weird thing is that Tim keeps changing the category of which he's talking about. Nobody said anything about advertisers. But he's talking about USAID. And I guess this just really just a quick brief aside I sent this Bradley like the Barry Weiss tweet this is like the end goal of all of this

is to make more news like Tim Poole or to make more news like the free press that Barry Weiss's outfit where she's talking about NPR and PBS funding it's just 535 million she says and she's basically casting aspersions on the idea that NPR and PBS should get public funding from the government and she's they're using this veneer of corruption to make this argument where the free press was literally invested in by Mark and Drason and Drison Horowitz early on. What they want to do is create more and more incentive for private money to take over,

to take over our media institutions. When PBS has funded by viewers like you, instead they wanted to like said like, funded by, you know, Palantir or something like that. what's what's what's what's more corrupting tax like a set small amount relative to the federal government of tax dollars that are allocated towards this kind of media or private for profit venture capital money going towards these outfits which would you like to decide because the latter is when you get barry weiss or you get tim pool anyway very weiss is partnered with the descendant of henry weiss Henry Miller, the cattle king of California, one of the largest landowners of the United States. Also, financed by Harlan Crow, who, you know, he's the guy who owns Clarence Thomas. Anyway, they're all, like Rogan is in on this, too, with Brett Weinstein. This, all of our people who criticize us are fake because they know that they are all, uh,

they all have sugar daddies. Yep. One ad read. One ad read, one company says we'll give you $50,000 to promote our company. Do we say, I want the CEO on the phone? I want to know who funded them. I want to know where that funding came from. Nobody does that, but that wasn't quite...

And this is the point when I say about David Pack... Milo was about to say that. I'm saying, when we know those things happen, take a look at where USAID was giving their money and see how much of those NGOs were buying ad reads in media because you know they are. You're not going to like this, but I just... To take money from somebody so obviously

ludicrously and substantial is Lauren Chen and not ask more questions, seems stupid to me. Except there were questions asked. Well, I don't want to continue this because I'm not trying to attack you. I didn't remember that you were raped at you. The big picture is...

I didn't remember you were caught up in this. When we have 30 sponsors, do you think it's reasonable for any media company to say get their investors on the phone? Or do you only talk to their sales reps? I've been interviewed once by Lauren Chen. And I... Okay, we're beyond that.

I certainly... The point I'm making is no company, David Pakman, Kyle Kalinsky, Dave Rubin, me, or otherwise, is going beyond the sales rep and, and, and they're Kyle is fully, uh, funded by subscription and doesn't take any advertisers and says it like every second that he can. So it's a horrible example. So the NGOs haven't been able to get in to him. Yeah. He doesn't even do what we do with hell of Tushy. He doesn't do any adress.

Look at, look at Tim Poole, surrounding himself with other people to hide behind them when none of it applies. No. none of it applies and even mylo is like how do i how do i now navigate this thing where tim is obviously full of uh excrement but um i don't want to offend him and uh but i also have to maintain some personal integrity in this thing and we just change the subject that doesn't happen on podcast yeah we shouldn't talk about this anymore for your sake go ahead brother company, David Pakman, Kyle Kalinsky, Dave Rubin, me, or otherwise is going beyond the sales rep and, and, and, and, and, and their, their press kit to figure out that, that USAID or any other government

or any other country is funneling things into media to prop them up. At this size, no, that's true. At this size, that's true. But not a single company does. That's when I, so I'll say, that absolutely is. So, uh, I bought billboards through out front media. I've thought billboards. I've done times, I've done Times Square just like you have. Absolutely. And never once in any of the ads that we've bought, have they come to me and said, we want your P&L and we want to know if you have any investors. And we want you, we want your board of directors. Nobody does it. Nobody's, nobody's saying that. I think you have to make room for the possibility, however, although you may have been taken in by

a particular scheme that other people went, when, you know, went into it and, uh, we're very happy, not to look too deeply. Um, I don't. It's not the case for Dave Rubin. Why are we stopping here? This is... Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh, an ad.

They got the guy with the same accent. We're monetizing this. We can't really. Oh, this is secretly all by, like, a hearing company. Other people went into it and were very happy not to look too deeply. I don't...

It's not the case for Dave Rubin. Well, nor Benny, nor me. You can speak of anybody else, but I can say for those guys. I don't necessarily take the views of people who concoct franken babies for paying women to birth as high moral standard. Sure, but in this regard, I can tell you. No, I don't really take his word for anything. I don't take his word for anything for all kinds of reasons, particularly how he treated me. He's a liar. He's a liar. Sure. He's a slippery slime. I can say in this one regard that involves me, it's not the case. Oh my God, he's so defensive.

these other people don't know. But it's not a reasonable supposition. Pause. I have never ever contemplated. It has never occurred to me for a moment that I would like to have a conversation with Milo Yaninopoulos until today. At this time when I would love to go deeper into A, his understanding of Dave Rubin, and also whether he actually in this moment, genuinely

believes that Tim Poole didn't know or is just like I don't want to burn this bridge I'd be very interesting to hear about that go ahead one regard that involves me I don't know that you may know that because you know things

other people don't know but you know it's not an unreasonable supposition that they've remember I think we can move on from this but you know it's it's it is no secret that a lot of bad money has gone to people on the right and on the center right.

But it's typically the case that right-wing people will go and get investors, rather than do advertisers, fake it till they make it, and then they'll get, you know, sort of the big ticket advertise. So the way Ben Shapiro, the way Candice would get famous is they go, they get Wilkes Brothers or they get some other kind of billionaire money, and they buy engagement, they buy followers, and they sort of propel themselves to the top of the heap, and then eventually it's kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, right?

Everybody does that. Everybody does not do that. Well, we've never done anything like that. Everybody does not do that. Pause for a second. Interesting turn. Tim says, and we've been saying this about Ben Shapiro for a long time. They bought millions of dollars of Facebook ads several years ago, and it propelled them.

And then Tim says, everybody does that. And then says, but I didn't do it. Everybody does that and then realizes, like, whoa, wait, wait, wait, no, I didn't. That's fascinating. I will say right now definitively, we have never done that. We did one ad buy for $1,500. Now, I've been meeting to do a second one for six years, and we're going to. But we just haven't gotten around to it.

Two people who did that. Go back, go back. I want to see Tim's little turn. That's fascinating to me. Everybody does that. I didn't do it. do advertisers fake it till they make it and then they'll get you know sort of the big ticket advertise so the way ben Shapiro the way candace will get famous is they go they get uh wilkes

brothers or they get um uh some other kind of of of billionaire money and they buy um uh engagement they buy followers and they sort of propel themselves to the top of the heap and then it's fake it till they make it and then eventually it's kind of sort of self-fulfilling prophecy right now everybody does that everybody does not does that well we we just never done anything like everybody just not I said two people who did that, who are demonstrably did that, right? I didn't say everybody, I didn't ever do that. I never did that. When I was canceled, I had the same number of followers as Ben Shapiro and everything.

I was growing faster. He was growing more slowly, and 60% of his followers were fake. 100% of mine were organic. In fact, we ran things to get rid of the boss, right? So that's one of the reasons they took me out. So I didn't say everyone we did it, but those two did it. And so on the right, typically, people will take startup capital and they'll invest that way, and then they'll get the big advertisers that are safer, right?

On the left, people will take money from pretty much anywhere, and they won't ask too many questions. All the billionaires, I want to go. Right, yeah, all the billionaires, all the big billionaires. Hey, Mark Cuban, stop getting into my DMs and asking to give me money, please. Reed Hastings just keeps giving me a direct deposit, everything. That was awesome. That's great.

I mean, Milo has some tea to spill. wasn't he all across the Kanye and the... Milo blew the whistle on Kanye's dentist, basically addicting him to nitrous oxide and wanting to have him lead a campaign to legalize nitrous oxide so I could dose everybody else with it, too. Just so you know who the Wilkes brothers are,

turns out Dan and Farris Wilkes, their estimated net worth is between the two of them close to $4 billion. They sold a 70% stake in their fracking company, Fract Tech, for $3.5 billion in 2011. They were frackers. And they have acquired more than 670,000 acres of land in six different states. They are the nation's 12th largest landowners. There you go.

I wonder why guys who are so interested in fracking would be excited to pay Bench Piro so much money. They love to frack free speech, too. There you go. It's fascinating to see Milo just state what we've all been saying about these guys, though, that they are artificially subsidized by oligarchy into your friends and families' brains, these idiots. and it's it's it's it's a little bit different than fake it to you make it it's not just about self-confidence it's literally where you were propped up uh and it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that uh you have been uh paid to to have followers you were paid followers and then and you know what

they used to do this with book sales too um they would uh push right when they probably used to i mean these republican books yeah they push these right wing books up to the top of the charts by having institutional sales. The Heritage Foundation will come in and buy 10,000 books in a day, and bingo, it goes right up to the top of the charts. But that was fun.

I may even watch the rest of that. Well, you have to do it on Rumble because they had to pull it down because I think Milo did something extremely racist. That's why that episode's not available on YouTube. If you can believe it, yeah. What? Seriously. Turns out Milo did something bad.

Hmm. I've got the strength I got to get to where I want but I know that I just got called but see the truth and