The Prepper Broadcasting Network - Matter of Facts: Rules for Radicals

Episode Date: October 6, 2025

http://www.mofpodcast.com/http://www.pbnfamily.comhttps://www.facebook.com/matteroffactspodcast/https://www.facebook.com/groups/mofpodcastgroup/https://rumble.com/user/Mofpodcastwww.youtube.com/user/philrabhttps://www.instagram.com/mofpodcasthttps://twitter.com/themofpodcasthttps://www.cypresssurvivalist.org/Support the showMerch at: https://southerngalscrafts.myshopify.com/Shop at Amazon: http://amzn.to/2ora9riPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/mofpodcastPurchase American Insurgent by Phil Rabalais: https://amzn.to/2FvSLMLShop at MantisX: http://www.mantisx.com/ref?id=173*The views and opinions of guests do not reflect the opinions of Phil Rabalais, Andrew Bobo, Nic Emricson, or the Matter of Facts Podcast*Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky is often sited as the de facto war plan for the revolutionary Left. Tonight, Phil and Nic sit down to discuss as much of the book as time and attention span permit, to understand the information provided, and to be better counter-revolutionaries.Matter of Facts is now live-streaming our podcast on our YouTube channel, Facebook page, and Rumble at 7:30 PM Central on Thursdays . See the links above, join in the live chat, and see the faces behind the voices. Intro and Outro Music by Phil Rabalais All rights reserved, no commercial or non-commercial use without permission of creator prepper, prep, preparedness, prepared, emergency, survival, survive, self defense, 2nd amendment, 2a, gun rights, constitution, individual rights, train like you fight, firearms training, medical training, matter of facts podcast, mof podcast, reloading, handloading, ammo, ammunition, bullets, magazines, ar-15, ak-47, cz 75, cz, cz scorpion, bugout, bugout bag, get home bag, military, tactical Get Prepared with Our Incredible Sponsors! Survival Bags, kits, gear www.limatangosurvival.comEMP Proof Shipping Containers www.fardaycontainers.comThe Prepper's Medical Handbook Build Your Medical Cache – Welcome PBN FamilyPack Fresh USA www.packfreshusa.comSupport PBN with a Donation https://bit.ly/3SICxEq

Welcome back to the Matterfax podcast on the Prepper Broadcasting Network. We talk prepping guns and politics every week on iTunes, Stitcher, and Spotify. Go check out our content at MOFpodcast.com on Facebook or Instagram. You can support us via Patreon or by checking out our affiliate partners. I'm your host Phil Ravley, Andrew and Nick are on the other side of the mic, and here's your show. And welcome back to Matter of Facts Podcasts on the Prepper Broadcasting Network. It just occurred to me that since we had to shorten up the roll in on account of the freaking cucks at vid YouTube shutting out our feet all the time, that all that good information at the very top of the show isn't there anymore. So I guess I'll have to just speak it.

Oh, Dill. So the admin work got longer. Yeah, the admin work got longer. But we're going to do it short and quick. This is a Matter of Fax podcast. I'm Phil. That's Nick. Andrew is not here.

Andrew is cyberbullying Congress into a net. to initiating McCarthyism 2.0. And if you don't know what McCarthyism is, you should Google it. Sounds like a good time to me. And if you do know what McCarthyism is and you don't like it, you can send an email to F-U-C-O-F-F-M-F podcast.com. Do we have that email?

That would be a great one. It would be, but we don't. It was just my way of telling commies to, you know, screw off. I'm just saying if we can get that email, and we can throw that on there, that'd be great. So we can get all of our hate mail directed to one location.

Or I could just direct it to one location that it's never going to reach me because I'm never going to read it anyway. That's fair. I don't care. I'm having fun and none of you idiots can ruin it for me. Except for the patrons. The patrons can ruin my fun anytime they please. They have a direct line to me. They harass me and bully me constantly.

They are responsible for a couple of emotionally and financially crippling decisions I've made over the years and um probably going to be responsible for playing more in the future so if you like money and you're afraid of autistic adults you should not join the matter of facts patrons but if that sounds like a good time to you you should yeah at the very least you'll learn something at least once a week yeah even if it's just about like you know feet picks and weird stuff because true they get a little weird sometimes but they're we we have a patron group therapist he makes it worse. He's usually the one that makes everyone need therapy.

Yeah. Well, you know, the man's got to drive his business. I mean, he just started to practice. It's just good capitalism. Creating his own customers. Speaking of customers, if you like T-shirts and coosies and merch, merch is of the Southern Gals, and Lincoln is in the show description. If you want to

meet me, my wife, my brother-in-law, and my sister, Cypressurvivalist. That link is in the show description. November. Our family, our first family camp trip is coming up. If you'd like to join the family on the camping trip, you've got to go to Cypress Survivalist and find the information there. And you're going to be asked to send us an email so that we can tell you privately what campside will be at. I mean, it's not like there's a sign-up list or anything. If you show up, you show up. But,

you know, we want a tiny little bit of control over which weirdos we're going to be able to find this easily. Wow. And since Nick has been encouraging me to do capital, Capitalism better code M.O.F. A disaster coffee. It'll save you 5%. I hate to say prices did just go up literally yesterday. But the Q4 price sheet came out and, you know, escalating coffee prices, Trump Terra, so on and so forth. We had to come upon the prices a bit. Just keep in business. It's not a charity. No, it's not. That's the way it's got to be. I mean, it has to at least pay for itself. Funny you mentioned it. It kind of is a charity. because we do give a portion of our profits away to disaster relief efforts in the U.S. So it's kind of a charity, sort of. It's kind of a charity, and we all work basically for free. I mean, the only compensation I get is I get to order my coffee at cost. Ooh.

That's a compensation for a coffee snob like you. Well, I mean, considering there's like 35 pounds of coffee beans on that back shelf, I wouldn't say I take advantage, but I definitely take advantage. Anyway, do we have any miscreant? or troublemakers in the chat. Looks like we got Jeff, Jim, and Raggle in the chat this evening already. Excellent. You all want to talk about rules for radicals.

So, the reason we're talking about rules for radicals by Saul Olensky today is because at the end of the last episode, after two freaking hours streaming, Rebel and I talked for another half a freaking hour. Until my wife is sending me. we text message saying get your butt in bed and it wasn't even like get your butt in bed for fun it was like get your butt in bed so you don't die tomorrow at work because you know i have to wake up at 4 a.m the dawn comes early oh brother i get all the way to work and get like halfway through my first cup of coffee before the sun rises it's a thing but um we as we were talking through things and you were around for a little bit of it before you left i was i also get up at 4 in the

morning and I need sleep younger than I am you want to be fine on just you know dude I'm a hard like 930 bedtime even on Friday nights I am the old man you say this to the other old man in the room right but anyway one of the things we were talking about was like rules for rinse rules for radicals color revolutions um the bullish higg revolution um the malice revolution Malice Revolution. And I figure it, I'm like, okay, well, that's a couple of topics. I'll mark down for later. But I thought we'd start with rules for radicals because this has kind of been, this

has kind of always been handed to me as the left's playbook. And I'm ashamed to say, I'd skimmed through it several times. I never really took the time to dig deep into it. I have read Niccolo Machiavelli's the Prince, which would probably be another fun book to dissect in an hour ago. That's one I haven't read. I should read it. You should read it.

and I will wait until you tell me you have read it. So, Niccolo Machiavelli is the Prince and Rules for Radicals to me are like dark twins. Rules for Radicals is how do I usurp power from the group that has power? Niccolo Machiavelli's the Prince is, how do I keep power at any means at all cost? Follow me? So Nicola Machiavelli is, I have the power. I'm not giving it back. That makes sense.

And rules for radicals is you have the power. power and i'm taking it interesting i yeah i mean and that that is like that is smoothing over these two books into some serious generalities but i think if you read the prints you'll kind of see where i'm coming from with that general assessment and i should probably reread it because god it's been high school since i read it i had a history teacher who was a real who was a bit of an odd bird but really really nice really cool and he made us read niccolo Valleys the prince and the communist manifesto by carl marks the communist manifesto is an interesting read it's you can if you've read through it as a critical exercise and then you attempt to

listen to any modern communist or socialist discuss it you can really separate out who's actually read it and who has not because my god most of them didn't even hit the cliff notes yeah i i kind to think they might have read like the back of the book and that was it and then tried to implement it. But that being the case. So what I did, I guess let's start from this perspective. Like, how long has it been since you cracked rules for radicals? Has it been recent or high school? No, I read it when I was in college, actually. Believe it or not, I had some, there were some folks that attempted to sway me into leftism when I was at an engineering school. How did that end? It didn't work.

Well, I ended up having better arguments for why their systems of government are retarded, but... I was about to say, it seems to have turned you into an unrepentant capitalist. I mean, I've been an unrepentant capitalist since I was about 13 when I realized how much of my wages the government was taking in taxes. I sure shit thought 6.25 an hour meant 6.25 an hour take home. Huh. Boy, was 13-year-old me mad. Oh, you sweet summer child. Well, because before that, I'd been doing jobs for cash.

And when you tell a guy, oh, yeah, I did for about 100 bucks, you walk away with 100 bucks. So in other words, you lived in a fun little libertarian fantasy world for about the first, I did, what, third of your life? And you were like, oh, oh, this sucks. Oh, yeah. Yeah, realizing how the government takes most of my paycheck and I'm, or takes a good chunk of my paycheck.

And I'm probably never going to see those. Social Security benefits really feels great at 13. It takes a lot of cash shoveled into the maw of government to keep the social services turned on. But it doesn't, though, because they pay for it all on debt anyway. None of our tax money is this is the thing that bothers me. Before we get into rules and radicals, we have to have a customary screeching bloody murder about libertarianism and fiat currency. Well, not libertarianism. bureaucracy, yes.

I mean, I'll keep it, I'll keep it limited, but none of your tax money that you pay to the federal government is actually used for anything. That money is just evaporated out of existence to help control inflation that they create artificially through printing more currency that has no backing except for the U.S. military. Granted, it's a hell of a stick for a backer. Well, the thing that I usually say at moments like this

is I just shrugging the shores and I say you know as long as the government can print as much money as they want and none of it is real yep it's it's not it's all fake it's pieces of paper with dead people's faces on it that means

what we say it means because we will shoot you if you disagree correct that's what happened to Saddam now I'm not saying that's not a good reason to play along for the time being I'm just saying it's a hell of a motivator Yeah, well, in the same breath, I usually tell people, I'm like, oh, and by the way, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

It is. And that's, yeah, well, that's when I get the, uh, I find usually it's like my parents' generation, maybe like the very, very beginning of the Gen Xers, but mostly the boomers, who get super, super indignant about that point. Because they're like, no, it's my money and I paid it in and I'm going to get it back. And I'm like, no, no, no. The money you paid in never doesn't exist. Yeah, your money was like taken out of the front yard and wheelbarrow put into a wheel, barrel and lit on fire for everyone's amusement the minute you paid into the system but i digress if we have another i swear to god if y'all coax another hour long screaming bloody murder ran out of me about

social security i'm just going to quit for a week to recuperate that's fair anyway the actual topic the actual topic so i decided unless nick diverts me i'm in a center on two particular chapters and rules for radicals, because it's 200 pages, and we're not going to get through all that in an hour. It is, but I kind of zeroed in on the two chapters. I'm going to clear my throat and muted it, so y'all are welcome. I zeroed in on two chapters in particular, because these two kind of like, I wouldn't say they spoke to me, but I could definitely see them in practice in our modern left, and I thought it'd be instructional. They're definitely the most visible effects of this way of thinking.

And really, Rules for Radicals is not so much a instruction manual as it claims to be. It is more of a way of thinking about conflict, a fifth generational conflict. So I would hedge what you say with just this. It's not, it's not an instruction manual, like do A, then be, then install column. Correct. It is an instruction manual to instruct a person in a mindset. Yes. This like in the preparedness world, if you had a whole book, 200 pages that talked about like the preparedness mindset and, um, shorting yourself today. So you have more for tomorrow and like defer gratification. And like if you had a book of like the philosophy that underpins preparedness, this is the philosophy that underpins leftism. Well, it's an activist. It's an activist tactic that could be used for any ideology realistically. I mean,

I mean, there are some twists that you'd have to do to it to get it to work for other ones. But yes, it applies most heavily to leftist ideologies, or at least they're the ones using it the most currently. Yeah. I mean, and you and I would talk right before the show, and I'm sure we'll get into this in just a minute. But like, I don't know how far to the right you would have to go before this would make sense to people on the right. like some of these some of these things just like at a base level don't make sense to someone with my mindset you know what I'm saying like I just I reject it out of hand but let's get into it and then we'll yeah we'll loop that back in so the first chapter I wanted to talk about was means and ends and it's exactly what it sounds like it is an instructive look at things you have available to you to enact change or to accomplish your goals and what those are goals are, and it doesn't talk about the goals in, like, specifics so much as it talks about the goals and the means in terms of, like, concepts, what the relationship between the two is

and when is this juice worth the squeeze and, you know, those sorts of things. So I picked out four of the rules it gave out, out of, I think, six or seven that it listed out. First one being one's concern varies inversely with one's interest in the issue. So, if you are holy crap do you ever have one of those moments where you just blank out yeah yeah I have that every once in a lot

it's okay leftist theology and ideas will do that to you yeah the way I read this really was more of a function of like if I am extremely interested in an issue then my concern over what means are used decreases drastically

in other words like if this is a if this is an end point that i place a lot of emphasis on i am much less discriminated against what means are used which that i can kind of understand because like if you apply that to really i mean really almost any means and ends discussion whether it be right left center military preparedness any kind of world like that tends to that tends to ring pretty true i think yeah it's the what wouldn't you do to feed your children argument well like the argument you and I've had before about like what would you do if someone was trying to hurt your wife you would you paint the front lawn with their entrails because like absolutely there there is

the the the things you won't do are a very very short list true because you're white you're very interested in your wife and therefore you are going to be very indiscriminating about the means necessary and used to protect her so like that I kind of understand that makes sense to me. I can understand where your aspiring lefty comes from when he says what means we use is going to, is not going to

be, you know, weighed that heavily if the interest or if the end is extremely desired. And this is exactly how you end up with gulags every time. Yes. If your goal is the perfect society and that is what the claimed goal is of most leftist

political theory, it doesn't end that well. There is no means that is not justified by the ends of a perfect society. That's one of the big reasons I have a problem with leftism and with postmodern philosophy. We really should do another one of these where we talk about postmodern philosophy. It's just not something I'm like super well versed in, so I'd have to read up. Essentially, it breaks down to a couple of things. we'll talk about a different day but it breaks under there is no truth but power

number one and number two that you should analyze everything to its base fundamentals and you can talk your way into all kinds of crazy things yeah Jeff Jaggs and the right has been so worried about the means they've lost the ends for 50 years

that's the problem with being a moral actor immoral actors can take advantage of your morality what did you and I talk about right before we started rolling My greatest weakness is because I am rational. I expect the rest of the world to also be rational. Yep. And because I argue in good faith, I expect others to. I was naive as a child.

I'm 42 now. Now I expect people to be dirtbags. Yeah, at least you know it's coming. Yeah. And I'm never disappointed. I'm either pleasantly surprised or you are exactly where I expect you to be. Yeah. Anyway.

So this is very similar to the argument that you get. as far as like the eco-terrorism from the 60s and 70s that you used to see the bombings of construction sites and things like that. And the iron spikes hammered into trees to break the chainsaws and maim the people that were cutting them down. Yep. Same argument. Yeah.

Well, the next bullet point was, I had to. There's dark. Evil will always win because good is stupid. I don't know that I was false. And it's good is dumb. sir. I understand where Dark Helm was coming from. I don't know that I'd say good is dumb. I would say good is naive. Yeah. Like when you are when you are a moral person, you just naturally expect everyone else to be moral, even though you understand intellectually, not everyone is, but you just kind of expect it. Well, yeah, part of part of being a moral individual is you treat other people as moral actors as well. Until proven otherwise. Yeah, you have to. Yeah, you have to start from the assumption that they are people, too, because if you don't treat them like people, that kind of throws all morality out the window.

Don't beat me to the punchline. That bullet points coming up next or in a couple of bullet points. Anyway, we'll get there. Judgment of means depends on political positions, which this is where this whole chapter really kind of started to go off the rails for me. Because remember how you and I were talking about moral relativism? Like there is, there is no objective right or wrong. it's right from my perspective wrong from my perspective and not even right or not even right or wrong or moral it's just purely a very it's a very ugly perspective on the world of like you know it's

purely utilitarian yes that's what the word I'm looking for it's it's instructing it's instructing the people that would read this book as a how to guide of look you're going to judge all means according to which side you're on. And so is the other side, by the way. And that one thing automatically makes everyone that's on one side of the line or the other moral, amoral, right, wrong, bad. And it's not based on the way they act anymore, the way they behave, or the things they do. It's purely based on, are you a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary? It's like Tim Poole says, I like good thing.

You're against good thing. you must like bad thing you are a bad person which if you look i mean if you spend 15 milliseconds on reddit it's re or even x or any any social media platform it's very easy to see that perspective in play where people say people judge you based on one single statement about one single issue and immediately say you're in favor or opposed to this therefore all these other things apply because they've immediately figured out You're a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary? Obama's detention centers are a perfect example of this in U.S. politics.

Oh, you mean the fact that they were totally cool when Obama was in charge and then they were the devil when Trump was in charge? Same attention centers. We still have not hit the deportation rates of Obama. And perfectly fine back then because it's different. Do you remember when Clinton's DOJ frigging like sent a SWAT team to extract a young illegal immigrant and deport him forcefully to his home country? What was his name?

I don't because I was probably like nine. Oh, Jesus Christ, Nick. Damn you for being too young to remember these. So, okay, listen. I remember Clinton existing from my childhood. That is, that is it. Raggle, Jeff, one of you two, get on the Google. Find this for me.

I cannot remember. Find me this deported illegal. I cannot, no, and I remember it because it was all over the friggin' news. I want to say, like, that was under Janet Reno's watch. but like it was crazy at the time that it was so widely televised and known and like I look and then I compare that to like modern times where like you know we have half the country freak alien Gonzalez thank you Pete partisan comms group nice job man good pull perfect see I knew I wasn't nuts I'm just old right and I wasn't politically conscious at the time because nine yeah Nick Just Google that when we get done with the show. And it's going in my list along with the prints. Okay, have you seen, you've seen like the meme where like the SWAT team is like

busing in through the ceiling and kicking in the door and that at least I'd always thought is supposed to be a satire of this event. Oh, did they actually do that? They didn't literally bust a hole in the ceiling. But a literal SWAT team extracted this like 8. nine-year-old kid from a house and then deported him back to his home country. All right.

Clinton administration. Like, couldn't have done that with like a sheriff's deputy and a teddy bear? Because probably would have been all you would need. Yeah, but anyway, moral relative to justify the SWAT team somehow. Well, I mean, you know,

same, I believe this was about the same time period as Ruby Ridge and Waco, so, you know. Oh. Well, so at least they didn't burn the kid live, I guess. We can say that. Good job, SWAT. Or shoot his mother in the back of the head.

You know, thank God for small favors. But anyway, this is going to be like, I should just rename this whole episode tangents because that's what it's going to be. That's every episode. Calm down. In war, N justifies almost any means. Now, coming on the heels of the previous two bullet points, I kind of wonder about the word almost, because it kind of seems to me like there's.

setting this whole thing up as any means is we're worth using if it gets you to the end you want to remember the time period this book was written in though phil this book was written in the 60s late 50s early 60s i think it was published in this in the 60s um so we're we're coming off very recent living memory of the holocaust and the holladomor and a few other fairly nasty war crimes committed by the Japanese that were largely swept under the rug. I think that almost there is doing a lot of heavy lifting because if he would have said justifies any means, he probably would have got McCarthyed. I mean, if he didn't get McCarthyed after all this, I don't know what McCarthyism was.

Yeah. But anyway, last one for means and ends. And this is this really like this, this, this, this. stood up and sung to me any effective means is automatically judged unethical by the opposition now this one really really spoke to me because if you can think of if you can think of which you're probably assuming your head is like typical traditional lefty behavior doesn't this kind of sound like you know something that they would have like nailed above their freaking bed for god sakes because it's they're literally saying that if it works the opposition is going to say it's

unethical out of hand which means if we think anything is unethical they assume it is effective and it also and Jeff brings up a perfect example Charlie Kirk yep we think it is unethical to assassinate your political opponents therefore to the left according to Solinsky Sol Olensky, it is an effective means for change. And the inverse that I feel like is also true, that by making the charge of a means being unethical, strictly linked, not partially, but strictly linked to the fact that this is your opposition, you get to discount it out of hand. You do.

Like, you go into the argument when they say, well, that's unethical, saying, well, of course you would say that, because it works and you don't like it. All four of these bullet points sum up to me as There is no morality There is no ethics There is no right There is no wrong There is no good

There's no too far There's only what gets us what we want There is no truth but power It's postmodernism in a nutshell Yes We could just made this like a five minute episode So postmodernism Bye guys

Well you could But the problem is that makes that that it's too reductive showing showing all these examples i think is a little bit more powerful than saying well it's just postmodernism because like you you're not studied up on postmodernism very well i had to take a class on postmodernism even though i was an engineering major thankfully i skipped the philosophy class and studied psychology instead which by the way psychology especially aberrant psychology that's a cool course if any of you poor bastards are in college and you need an elective, study aberrant psychology and group psychology.

It is at the very least fascinating. I'll tell you what? Group psychology is probably one of my favorite courses I took for my business degree. I don't believe it. Which most people would think why would you take psychology for business degree, but I'm like, okay, let's think about like this. Managing is like 60% psychology, 40% timelines. Thank you. but seriously it's group psychology is learning how groups of people act like a coherent organism

your job as a manager is to manage a group of people so they behave like a coherent organism that's the gig but i digress it's it's like a therapist studying psychology braggle makes a great point uh use of force eventually leads to the accumulation of power which enables more force and the cycle begins. That's exactly it. So, the other chapter in here that I thought was like really instructive. And I would like us to be able to bring some examples to the table for some of this. And I don't think you'll have to dig too far in the brain box to find any.

But the other chapter is called tactics. Now, there are, I believe it was five other chapters in the book. I read over them quickly. these were the ones I picked out because I feel like these are the ones that resonate the most with the listeners and if you want to read if you want to learn more like go get a copy

of the book it's not hard to find and it's not a it's not a long read it's not you'll throw open your mouth a little bit here and there but you know it's not a dense read either I was about to make a really ugly comment about tankies it couldn't be a very dense read but you know that's punching down

in so many cases I suppose anyway power is what you have and what your enemy thinks you have now this is one of those rare that's that's very good this is one of those rare things in the book i not only agree with i think is actually like a very succinct way of putting it because like if you think back to times in history like in world war two we built like we built airfields in the desert and populated them with fake wooden aircraft to make the germans think we had a bomber base someplace we didn't I mean, like, being able to make the enemy think you have things, whether it's forces or enemy or whatever, where you don't really, is just as useful as hiding what you have from them. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, look at Operation Mincemeat. Remind me which one that is.

That was the one where they dropped a dead body in, I believe it was the Mediterranean and to convince the Germans that the Normandy landing wasn't going to be at Normandy. That was going to be at Calais. Okay, well, I don't know if it was part of Operation Mids me, but I'd know that also there was a massive buildup. Matter of fact, they literally- Oh, Patton's Ghost Army? Yeah. They literally put Patton. Not the same project, but same goal.

But yeah, they literally, where they had Patton for the, you know, prior to the battle of Normandy, was because the Germans knew, I would say they suspected, but I think he was. But they knew he was the greatest tank general of World War II. Oh, absolutely. I mean, you could argue Irwin Rommel, but he read Rommel's book and beat him in his own game. I mean, Patton was a freaking, Patton was an armored genius. Every time Patton and Rommel fought, Patton usually came out ahead. So, well, I mean.

And that was with arguably inferior tanks. Arguable, my ass. I mean, a friggin Sherman against anything above, I think a, what was it, a Panzer 4 or 5 was just a, it wasn't even a lopsided fight. It was a fight that should have only ever. gone one way. I mean, it took what? Like seven Sherman's to take down one tiger? So there was a quote from a German tank

officer that went along the lines of a tiger tank can destroy five Sherman's easily. The problem is the Americans always bring 10. Yes. There are comments. Raggle fraggle. If you're talking about the movie Patton, George

C. Scott, I believe, played George Patton. A phenomenal movie. Absolutely awesome. George C. Scott, I mean, he must have, he must have channeled. He had to have had a Ouija board in his trailer or something because he channeled Patton. It was, well, the nice thing was we had a lot of film of Patton for him to review and get the mannerisms down perfectly. And he nailed it. He did.

He really did. Also, don't forget about the inflatable tanks and jeeps they placed. The Dead Spy with all the plans to invade continental Europe. Yep. Operation Mincemeat. Yep. So I mean, you know, like let's bear that in mind that like there's this has truth to it because. Oh, oh, it absolutely does. I mean, look at the look at the trans agenda that has been being pushed lately. They've used social media to artificially inflate public opinion in one direction or another to make them think that let's be honest. The trans issue is a very minor amount of people for the amount of press it has gained. But that amount of press makes it look like they have more support than they really do. You could also argue that there's a term for it that is going to escape me and hopefully one of you all remind me.

But basically it's the psychological term of like confirmation bias. You see something over and over and over and over and over and over and over. And the more often you see it, the more often your brain thinks it's happening because you're being repeatedly exposed to it. even if you're getting repeal exposed to repetitions of the exact same instance. In other words, it only happened once, but you've heard it a thousand times. So now it feels like it's happened more than once.

You know, we saw that really, really commonly in the early social media years with the police brutality videos. Sometimes it was the same video over and over and over again from different angles, the same event. Yeah. And we see it now as people try to try to race bait and hate with different things. We see it every time there's any instance that even remotely,

you know, swings towards like homophobia or bigotry and it gets broadcast 10,000 times and we see the opposite where when somebody gets shanked in public because they don't look like the person that shanked them that story disappears almost immediately. So power is what you have

and what your enemy thinks you have. By overinflating people's public perception of an issue or of a group you can change how people view it. Absolutely. Now, never go outside the experience of your people. this had me thinking because you remember how for like for quite a number of years

the left air quotes sure very much anti-firearm oh yeah they were not they were they were they would they would trumpet the old car marks you know like you know the worker shall not be his arm blah blah blah blah but you didn't see a lot of actual we're getting guns we're training we're doing this and the other we're focused on her fitness like you didn't see a lot of that They stayed within their little bubble, which was mostly like, I almost want to call like intellectual communism, but not communism in practice. Academia is a good one for that. Yeah. Well, it was a great incubator for those ideas.

Academia, environmentalism, that sort of thing. But I feel like what has happened is that as the left has pulled more and more military veterans, we've had this conversation a lot recently about the number of global war on terror vets. who are of that political stripe and they have you can you can only send that many soldiers out that many times so many times before you end up getting them of every political ideology and stripe i mean it's it's somewhat miraculous that we haven't had a street gang start employing u.s marine corps tactics on a large scale um funny you mentioned that oh wait look at that i remember i remember reading accounts of um i don't remember were the specifics, because obviously this is right off

the cuff, but I do remember some reports that there were several, I think primarily West Coast Latin ethnic gangs. They were recruiting young men 16, 17 years old, with clean criminal records, and they were protecting these kids to make sure they didn't get pinched for anything until they were old

enough to enlist. And then they would enlist in combat arms. Army 11 Bravo and Marine Corps 311 Infantry. They do their stint. They come back and then they come back with all those skills, all that training. And then they would act as they would be basically reintegrated into the gang as the trainers for the gang. So that has happened.

But it's also happening on the left because as they recruit these people very, very heavily, they're bringing in people that do have combat experience, do have small arms experience. They are not shy about firearms. They are very adamant about the fact that they are not, oh, we need to have like, you know, a lever action because AR-15 scare me. They're like, no, no, no, we need AR-15s. We need a bunch of AR-15s. We need a bunch of 30-round magazines because the frickin' fascists have them,

so we have to have them too. And they are, they have changed the temperature in the room because they couldn't seem to make any inroads without going outside the temperature of the room. But this was kind of the way they went about things for a long time. They didn't want to go outside of their people's experience. And if you remember right, um do you remember trump's first term what was it um

was it f was it uh f around of find out or it was some some group that i remember that like they made a royal ass of themselves or freaking like having not having proud boys no no this was a left wing group oh um don't recall the name of them but there was a few yeah i i i this one sticks out of my mind because like they they were very notorious They had a couple of negligent discharges while protesting because very obviously they had a whole bunch of guys that were armed, but none of them had a lot of firearms experience. Was that the leftist version of the Boogaloo Boys or whatever it was? I don't remember specifically. They had a couple desks pops at one of their stands or something.

Desk pops. I don't know. I don't remember. I'll have to look into it. I do not. Oh, not fuck around coalition. That's it. My God, man, you're an encyclopedia.

I appreciate that. We should just have him in our back pocket, like the whole show, to help me remember the stupid shit that I kind of remember, but I don't have my facts in front of me, because this is what happens when you don't script a show. Jeff is saying it's a black nationalist group. That could be. I don't know.

Yes, but tell me how thin of a line it is between black nationalists and leftist. That's a serious trial. It is a black nationalist militia group, But I repeat, how it bends the line between black nationalist and leftist? I don't know, you know, I don't know that much about black nationalist groups other than their goals side by side and tell me how different they are. Yeah, they're, yeah, it doesn't seem to me to be that different. But again, I really only know the history of like the Black Panthers movement and all that.

I don't know much about the modern black nationalist movements. So don't want to comment on it. Not dramatically different from what I recall. Thanks. Thanks, ragel. Thanks, ragel. Ancient history. That was Trump's first time.

That wasn't that long ago. I mean, listen, you bunch of say this. I was born in 1982. It's not like I was born in the freaking 50s or something. You predate CDs, Phil. Anyway. I do, too, by like a month. Ass.

So other than never go outside the experience of your, your people when possible go outside the experience of your enemy so this is the um the trust the experts argument for things demand everyone comply because the expert whoever that expert is that agrees with your political opinion says this is what we need to do also have you ever watched a gen z person tried to explain to like an older gen xx or a boomer, the difference between gender and sex. Mm-hmm. Make up nonsense, just to confuse the opposition.

Go outside the experience of your anime. Mm-hmm. I'm trying to think there's got to be another really good example of there, but I feel like there's a bunch. Climate change. Fair point. But I feel like that already kind of fell apart when, you know, know, the climates started getting cooler than hotter than cooler than hotter, and they couldn't say,

they couldn't say global warming anymore. Well, that's why they say global climate change, because now, no matter what the climate does, they can say that people are, are the problem. Now, that's not to say that I think, I don't think the climate is changing. It does. Hell, geologists can show that it does. And if only we would pay enough tax money, the government could fix it. Exactly. But so this one, this one got me. Mm-hmm. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules, aka invoking the Bible against Christians.

Yeah, you see this one a lot online. Dude, I've seen this one in person. Mm-hmm. I've seen this one in person. Although I am, I am one to say that when you, when you turn this around on somebody or on a lefty, they do not know how to handle it. I was, I was embroiled in a debate about abortion, which you have to understand. Like, I have my views on abortion. Everybody has their views.

I can agree. I can say this is how I feel about things. You can feel differently. We can walk away, you know, like peacefully. As an intellectual exercise, I like to debate things. Yeah. I clicked a button. Not effing around coalition.

But yeah, as an intellectual exercise, I like to debate things. It's fun. Like, until people get their feelings hurt, which happens. It's not fun anymore. But I was having a debate with several friends of mine at work about abortion. And one of them trotted out the age old, well, I don't know why you as a man should have an opinion in this matter. And I just looked at him. I'm like, I was a child that was born.

Well, actually, it's kind of all right. Actually, I looked at her and I'm like, you know, there's a word for insinuating or saying out loud that an opinion's per a person's. opinion is worth less than another's based on their gender. Do you know what that word is? And I swear to God, I saw the color run out of her face. Because she realized. That's exactly what it is. Yeah. Well, she realized what hand grenade she had jumped on in front of like a bunch of friends.

I said, that's called sexism. I don't think if you're wrong because you're a woman, I think you're wrong because your argument doesn't make any sense. And now that was because that was a friend of mine at work and I wasn't trying to be a complete ass. I was trying to teach them something that I don't think they understood. Oh, God, no. But in normal context, when somebody pulls that out of me, I'm like, did you just assume my gender, which causes instant meltdowns? Yeah, it does. They tend to get really upset about that because they also know that you don't believe in their gender bullshit either. There's

something about a grown-ass man with a foot long beard saying, I identify as a woman. Therefore, or my opinion matters more. And then they trot back out, you don't have a uterus. I identify as having a uterus. I mean, the absurdity of the arguments I will trot out to point out the absurdity of another person's argument

would make a comedy special because I will go there. And I will do it with a smile. Because I know the argument is stupid, but it's your stupid argument. I'm giving back to you. Mm-hmm. And the wildest part of it is when they start, to agree with you because you're just because you're using their terminology it's very weird

raggle fraggle or the constitution against conservatives yes exact same flaw exact same principle in play it is trouble is they often misquote the constitution and the bible either they misquote it or they take it so freaking crazily out of context that it just it it is stupid yeah it's yeah but not to mention And trying to use the Bible to justify socialism to me is freaking stupid because the Bible is like, what, 15 times longer in terms of page and word count than the communist manifesto was. Like, Nick, have you read the Bible? Yes. Okay. I've also read the catechism.

I've read the Buddhist texts. I've read the Islamic texts as well. I've read a lot of them. Would it be fair to say that if you guys. go through the Bible page by page by page, you can find quite a number of conflicting statements and stories in them. You can. And the reason for that is a lot like a lot of religious texts. There are moral lessons told in parable. Yep. So there is always going to be a line or two of text in any parable that is showing you the bad thing to teach you the lesson to avoid that thing.

But I guess it kind of to my point, when a person finds this one little quote in the Bible says, ha, this justified socialism, I'm like, did you read the chapter around this tiny little quote you just pulled out? And that is why whenever you bring up context, the left says, well, there's no context that makes it not racist. Or there's no context that makes it not bigoted. or there's no context that improves the a yada yada yada yada yada yeah because there absolutely is context that can ameliorate just about everything especially because that context could be condemning the statement that you are also condemning never go outside the experience of your people lefties don't like context because context makes things more complicated it does i mean look complications make arguments more difficult well complication make it to where you have to actually like argue in good faith to get your point across. You can't

just throw out a sound bite and get your word in and then wham, I scored the points from my side. It doesn't work that way. When you have to have a discussion, a back and forth, a battle of words, context is anathema. But, you know, to raggle...

It's one of the reasons why in debate you try to avoid allowing your opponents to add more context. Would this also be why lefties tend to start screaming and shouting down people rather than allowing them to speak and arguing back with them. Yeah. Because by allowing the opposition to have a voice, you provide the context where you could be proven wrong. And you can't be wrong because you're on my side. So you have to shout down the opposition. Yeah. And using the Constitution against conservatives, like I have

personally witnessed that a handful of times. It's been attempted against. me i just sorry you have to get up a little earlier than i do to try to whip that one out on me but like you know a person i've the age old arguments about the second amendment which i argue i scream about at least once a month on the show i won't i won't this time raggle was trying to get a ran out of me you know i could get it this time i'm nice and calm i've been caffeinated i'm in a peaceful mood i don't want to harm my fellow man today i don't want to lock them in gul I'm in a good mood today. Y'all cannot ruin this for me.

Nick, don't ruin it for me. You're smiling. Stop. I was the mind to say I take that as a challenge. But it's like a person that tries to trot out the Second Amendment and say, well, only the militia is supposed to have guns. And then I'm like, yeah, but have you read literally anything else published at the time? The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the Militialist Papers, the Militia Act, the personal writings, and journals of all the founding fathers.

There wasn't a single one of them. Not a single one that believed only the government should have guns. There were definitely some that believed that certain people shouldn't have guns. But that is still a far cry from only the government, only the state should have guns, because they just dealt with that problem. Although I guess they wouldn't have considered them people at that point. Yes, yes, yes. But then we were following.

Hey, look, there are, there's problematic history in every country and ours is included. You know, a sidebar. I actually, I was talking to my daughter the other day. I was actually ridiculing some, some idiot college students who pursued a degree in a decolonization. And it was 80 grand in student debt as a result. Fantastic. That's a wonderful choice. Let me know how that goes from the unemployment line or Starbucks.

Yeah, I use that as my teaching moment to my daughter. to tell her like, you know, she's 13. We'll suspend that conversation for the time being, but before she leaves my house, we have to have a very lengthy discussion about finances and interest and compounding interest and debt and all those things because I just refuse to allow my daughter to go off to school to get a fucking degree in decolonialization and get 80 grand to student debt. She'll be paying the shit back until my grandkids die. Anyway, that's as close as you get to a rant. I'm in a good mood. It's not happening today. I tried, guys. You could have tried harder, but thank you, Nick, for not. I'm in a good mood.

Let me have it for once. All right. I'll let you have this one. But the point is that I had to explain to my daughter what decolonization was, because it was a term she hadn't heard. And I explained to her, and then I was like, oh, and by the way, even though a lot of people will kind of gloss over this point, the United States of America, was one of the first.

developed nations to decolonialize. Like, I don't, I don't think England gave up the last of its colonies until after World War II. I believe that's correct. France as well. No, England still hasn't given up all of them. Really? Which one are they still clinging to?

Well, let's see, Australia still borrows the queen or king now, I guess. Canada still borrows their royal. So I would argue until they fully separate, I feel like that's not exactly what decolonization refers to, but I understand where they're they still pay homage to the royal family. Therefore you are still property of the crown. Does homage include like tax dollars and goods? I don't know, but PCG says Canada is still part of the Commonwealth. So they have never decolonized. So take it up with the UK instead of the U.S.

We gave up our shit. Except for Puerto Rico. We're keeping that one. Good baseball players come from there. Yeah, but Puerto Rico is an interesting case, though, because, like, we've offered to make them their own state several times. And as I recall, they keep saying no. They do because, well, it would cause a lot of changes to the power structure in Puerto Rico. And it would cause some interesting tax issues for the people of Puerto Rico that they're currently avoiding.

There are downsides to being a state. I mean, that's fair. But I guess what I'm saying is, is like to say that, well, we're still hanging on to Puerto Rico. I'm like, I mean, we've offered to give it back to the people. They keep saying no. So is that really we haven't decolonialized? Because the argument could be made is all I'm saying. The argument could be made.

That's like saying I have a pet. And I won't let them go, but I leave the front door open all the time. And they just won't leave. It's like, you're not here because I'm locking you in. You're here because you obviously want to be. True. I mean, there is some, there is some truth to that. Jeff Jaggs said, remember that teacher that was fired for having his students

spreadsheet their college major and employment? I don't, but that sounds like a fascinating way to make kids really upset. That sounds like a way to get colleges burnt to the ground. Yeah. I'm you know I'm just look all I'm saying is all ragel is correct India did kind of go to shit after the British left but that was largely the fault of the Indians this time I do mean the residents of India not Native Americans yes I mean that's that's what happens when a country doesn't rule itself for several hundred years and then you just leave like Iraq yep but that was only 20 years yeah but iraq has been ruled by like tribal warlords and strong men since ever name name a country in the middle east that hasn't been even the saudis yeah currently are currently strongmening just through economic means yes but but iraq kind of bears pointing out because we did depose the strong man that was the only thing keeping the country together

and then said deuces have fun y'all figure out life and it promptly went up in flames it turns out nation-built is really hard and blowing shit up is really easy i mean i would say nation building is stupid and we should stop doing it we should i mean unless we're going to play unless we're going to play empire if that's the game and the rules we're playing by then sees the oil sees sees the uh rare earth metals fine but at least make it pay for itself like the british empire did this seems fair I'm just saying, if we're going to run around the world laying king of the hill, we should benefit from it instead of having to pay for it. So before we get to this last bold point, you just reminded me. When I took Pollyci-101 in college, my teacher, Mr. DeLeo, love to do these thought experiments where like it was very free form.

It was like, hey, this is your thing. You figure it out and you present to the class. Sure. And we did not have a lot of time to figure this idea. He'd give us like five or ten minutes. So you had to come up with something very, very quickly and like hammer it out and then debate it with the class. Well, he gave everyone like carte blanche. How would you, I forget exactly what the prompt was.

It was something about like DOD and military spending and, you know, the huge strain that was on the nation's budget and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. and how do you balance the interest of reducing that budgetary expense and having a strong military? And I had a great idea, an insane idea, but a good one. I said, okay, what if we do this? We take the military, you know, your Army Reserves, your National Guard, your activity, take them all, and you divide them in half. The half on the left is funded as a line item of the, you know, the federal budget, and their job is to guard the United States. States. Like the National Guard is supposed to, right?

Sure. They don't go overseas and do nation building and they don't go overseas and help our allies. They stay here. And if you want to be in that military, you be in that military. Sure. And then we have another military. They can have their own pace structure. They can have their own equipment. They can have their own stuff. And they're an expeditionary force. They're freaking mercenaries.

If our allies would like to ask for our help, we'll send them over. And you have to. to pay for a fee. And you have to pay for them. And if you don't have money, we're taking your freaking oil and your precious metals and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We're taking something back to sell in the market to pay for that military. And they now become the modern day Hessians. Now, am I saying Merck work is a good thing? No. But I am saying that if the United States of America wishes to have an expeditionary force interjects their freaking nonsense into foreign nations at the drop of the hat all the motherfucking time if they want to constantly be

involved in nation building and deposing dictators and screwing around with our allies in foreign wars then we should at least divorce that portion of the military from the federal budget because they are not doing their job defending this country true that's fair yeah i i don't think i don't think it's an unreasonable solution i mean it's insane from the perspective of it's in it's insane from a little bit of a moral perspective because essentially we'd just become a club for the highest bidder, which would probably be the Saudis at this point. But here's the thing, bud. At least it would pay for itself.

Are you aware of the fact that there are mercenary companies all over the world? Oh, yeah. Tons of them. I know people that have worked for a couple. So I'm not saying the United States government would keep this bunch on our payroll. I am saying that if you want to be in the military, your job is to defend the the home front. And if you want to go overseas and do overseas stuff, do hood rat stuff, you join this

PMC. Yeah, the East India trading company. And I suspect there would be a not incidenting part of the activity military that would probably happily take that, especially given that the pay structure probably be more generous than like National Guard staying on the home front. And your idealistic sport like the benefits on the back end probably wouldn't be as good, though. Potentially.

But here's the thing, your idealistic types like me that said, no, I joined because I want to defend my own country and take care of my home, I don't want to be overseas. I don't want to be farting around somebody else's crap hole. I want to be taking care of my own country. I would join the National Guard like I did originally because that's what I want to do. Like, I didn't enlist to go to Iraq. They just kind of, you know, tap me in the shore, said, it's your term, but guess what? That check you signed. Yeah. But now Hurricane Katrina, that's literally the reason I enlisted. Yep. I enlisted so that if, if my state, if my home, if my country were screwed, I was going to be the first one to put my hand and be like, put me in

coach, let's go. So, Jeff Jagg, make the East American Trading Company great again. And raggle fraggle bring back spoils of war. I mean, that is, that, that is what people claim we were doing in the Middle East. Yeah, there's a little bit of that. That is true. with the poppy fields in Afghanistan. There was an awful lot of opiate derivative chemicals being sold in the U.S.

So why not just be open about it? After we seized Afghanistan. Why not just be open about it and just do it all above board? Because that's the way global politics works. Global politics is stupid. Yes. But that's the way that the elites that are actually in power have decided to play the game. So they're all playing by the rules they've set.

All right. Last but not least, ridicule is the most potent weapon. It is, which is why we should be bullying people harder. Bully your friends into training. But it is also the reason why the left employs ridicule so religiously and so often and so repeatedly. Why do you think their favorite phrase is you're a Nazi? Is it? Because you're a racist and you're a bigot and you're a homophobic and you're a sexist. all ran out of gas and now we have to have the new the new dehumanizing phrase to to put people off

that's very true Jeff makes a good point the reason why we're not honest about is because the CIA doesn't like to tell anyone anything that's fair that that that's very that's very much on the nose the CIA couldn't tell you the truth if they wanted to they don't know how but yeah I mean the only thing I will say is that this is one that cuts both directions. It absolutely does. Because I mean, for every like J.D. Vance baby face and orange Trump meme there is, we've all seen the meme of like the

350 pound tankie with the pink hair and the. And you remember the anti-work subreddit moderator that went on Fox News to try and advocate for like a 20 hour work week? Oh, Jesus Christ. The Fox host was having the hardest time maintaining a straight face. he just had the shittiest grin on his face the entire interview it was phenomenal if you guys have not seen it take a look uh it was the uh let me see if i can find when it was from but the anti work moderator jesus christ i i don't think i don't think that i've blue screened quite

that fast is when i the day i watched that uh doreen ford the longest current moderator of our anti work from January 28th, 2022. PCG is saying the left uses ridicule, but they can't handle mockery and memes. No, they can't because they've been the ones doing the ridiculing for 20 years, 30 years. The fact that the right is now starting to get good at ridiculing them back, because for a long time, we weren't. For a long time, there wasn't really a good place for the common right wing to do the ridiculing. Well, and I think there was two reasons for that.

First of all, I think that there was a time. Remember how we started off saying that my greatest weakness is because I'm rational, I expect everybody else to be? Yeah, there was a moral high road taken for a long time. And there was a disinterest in academia for a long time. Yeah, I feel like the mainstream right really had a serious moral gripe with resorting to mockery and ridicule against their political opposites, even as they suffered it constantly.

And I also think is because the left was able to ridicule from the, from beneath the tender loving wings of academia and the institutions and the politicians and all the power brokers. There was always, there was always this complete control

by the media of the perception so that if somebody made a total ass of themselves, that disfeared never saw the light of day. And it was only the, It was only the upstanding, well-spoken lefties that made the way out into the public eye. And in the era of social media where everybody has a camera and everybody has social media account and these things go straight to the Internet that, you know, defense distributed has taught us the Internet is forever and you can't stop the signal. And that's just the way this works now. But in the modern era, all the rules about how the media and the institutions control the narrative have fallen apart completely.

Like, if COVID has taught us one thing, just one, it is that all of the power of the institutions cannot stand up against public perception when it is united. And that is why they want to control social media platforms. And in spite of that, I don't know that that would work. Because, like, I think, I think when I look at things like the left's attempt to control and strangle these platforms, I think of the stricent effect, man. it doesn't matter if it works they're going to try it because controlling the means of communication has worked for them in the past so they're going to continue to try that even though it's less and less effective i get it man the stricent effect you if you try to remove something from the internet people like me are just going to go yeah but what about this so keep throwing that same thing up there because we remember it a lot of us are data hoarders didn't i tell you about the time that um the liberator pistol plans went out on on the internet, and even though I still, to this day, don't own a 3D printer, I have that STL file. Mm-hmm.

You know why? Can't stop it. As long as I have it, it still exists. Because between, between you mean the walls, even though I don't own a 3D printer, and I don't know that I would trust that STL file to produce a firearm that didn't blow open my hand. It works. I'm sure it does in Minecraft.

But I grabbed that file because, I had every intention, if it went of getting scrubbed, of making sure that I had a copy of it because I knew that as long as one person anywhere in the world still had a copy of that file, it could never, ever truly go away. Whether it was torrented, trading around on bulletin boards, frigging, like, stick it on 10,000 thumb drives and mail them to random people all around the country, like there was no way to put the missile back in the silo as long as one person had it. So when that file hit the internet, I grabbed a copy. And then I stuck it on a thumb drive, labeled it, and stuck it on a shelf to make sure that it wasn't connected to a computer anymore longer. Because to me, it was never about the fact that I'm going to print a liberator. It was purely a call it a political protest of, I know the government is going to try like hell to get rid of this and I'm not going to let them. And as it turns out, my ineffectual attempt at politics was completely subverted by the rest of the autism spectrum on the internet that said, this is cool.

We're never letting this go away. We're never letting it go away. And because there's the proof of concept, now we have the 3D printed foul. Yes. And the 3D printed Uzi. if 3D print everything Jeff you absolutely do need a bigger 3D printer go for something CR 10 size there are better printers

than the CR 10 hit me up if you want some recommendations so is there anything else we can really chuck in here to talk about rules for radical I mean to me like the WTF is it I think people should read it I think it is an instructional read only because, okay, so as hippie, dipy and dumbs this is going to sound.

Like, I've read not all, not hardly all, but I read enough of the R. War of Sun Tzu that there are certain pieces of that that really stick out to me. And I firmly believe in knowing the ways of my enemy. Like,

when I put this episode out, in the show notes, I flat out say, you should read this so that you're, a better counter-revolutionary. Yep. I'm using those... It's easier to recognize the tactics being used against you if you understand the tactics.

Yeah. And I use that term counter-revolutionary very intentionally. And you could say antagonistically, and I'm okay with antagonizing lefties. Yep. I am a counter-revolutionary. Most people are counter-revolutionaries. I don't know many people who are going to, like, stand by with a smile on their face and watch a communist dictatorship get installed into the power.

of this country. It's not happening. I won't be alive to see it. A lot of people won't be alive to see it. And those of us who are will be in the gulag. Yeah. No, I won't be alive.

I won't see the inside of the gulags, put it that way. You can stick a corpse in there if you want one. Don't worry. Most of the concentration camps in this country have been created by Democrats. Japanese internment anyone? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Watanamo Bay. Mm-hmm.

But I digress. My point of view is like, I'm not saying everyone has to pick a side. You're either revolutionary or counter-revolutionary. I'm only going to say that the revolutionaries in this group are saying that there's only two sides. And if you are not on their side, you are automatically on the other side in their viewpoint. Yeah. You don't get to pick a side. You have either already chosen to be on the side of the revolution or you have been, you have chosen by your not making the choice to be placed in the counter-revolutionary camp. In which case, you will be reeducated or destroyed. Yep. Those are your, those are your options. So push back now while it's still mostly words. Yep. Jeff Jags, and if you don't pick a side, aside, we'll be. picked for you, but it's more than that. It's if you don't pick a side, you have picked a side. Yep. You are either with them or against them.

That is the way it works. And raggle-fraggle, I don't agree with you that this is a great what not to do for societies at large if the goal is self-governance. The point of this book, very simply, is supposed to be instructive in the methods and the viewpoints that would allow an antagonistic group to seize power. from the majority from the power brokers from the whatever it could be used for good it could i mean if you look at do you want to start pulling the bold points back up no no i'm not saying that what i'm saying is you can use a lot of tactics for good that are in this some of the tactics in here can be used for good. Yes, that one is you're not going to use for good.

What I'm saying is, I suppose that there are tactics in here that can be used morally, even though the majority of the book is arguing for an immoral use of these tactics. Yeah. I guess my thought process is like, you know, just, I think it's important for people to read this because your, whether you acknowledge them as your opponents, your opponents have read this and are studying this. Well, they claim to have read this at the very least. Well, okay, I believe that...

The organizers have read it. I was going to say the movers and the shakers, but yes, the leaders of this little revolution towards communism, have certainly read it, and they believe it. And that is enough reason that if you are not on that side, you should read it too, so that you know what's coming. And you could recognize it because, you know, I was listening to a Jack Spirico episode recently, and his point of view on the rules of radicals was very simple.

Every one of these rules can be used to counter the left or against the left. They're going to try to do it to you. You can turn around and do it right back to them. Every one of these things can work against them just as much as it works against us, whether or not your morals allow for it or not. Ridicule is a potent weapon. They can't handle it. They don't like it. Make the enemy limit to their own book of rules.

When they say, as a man, you shouldn't have an opinion about abortion. You can flip that around on them, say, how dare you assume my gender? Make them live up to their own rules. They can't do it because their whole world is built on double standards and it doesn't work in reality. Make your enemy go outside their own experience. That's not that damn difficult because their viewpoint is about this wide. And if you've managed to friggin' shake them the least a little bit outside of it, their argument falls apart. which is why they start the group chance every one of these every one of these rules can be

turned against them can yeah and some of them i would argue you should not whether or not whether or not you should or not is a moral argument i'm saying it absolutely is yeah yeah can absolutely should hmm right think on that one y'all do not want to listen to me read anything for 200 pages, you will all go to sleep. I don't know. You could probably read your book for 200 pages. That might be interesting. I've got how many pages your book is. I don't recall off top of my head. Jeff, Jack, fortunately the riot will continue to lose morally. Let's walk out on that as a debate. So here's where I think Jeff is wrong there. I don't know that you can lose. lose morally.

Because I don't think morality is subjective. I think there are moral goods and moral evils. And I think the relativistic tendencies that a lot of people take with morality anymore is, is counter to reality. Unless he's meaning we will continue to lose because we are attempting to act morally. So I think that's what he's implying, and I would agree with him to, I would agree with him in the past and disagree with him today for this reason. In the past, I witnessed the conglomerate that is the right do far more pearl clutching than they ever spent time actually fighting against or trying to interject their own ideas in a culture or win the battle of political argument. And I saw lots of pearl clutching, lots of performative outrage, but I never saw like rubber meets the road, political power being accumulated.

I never saw. Which we are seeing. And that's my point. I never saw the right boycott on a large scale, institutions, businesses, you know, public figures. True. The bud light effect was pretty startling. The bud light effect, the target effect, so on, so forth. Target has removed their pride section from a lot of stores.

didn't happen because they had a change of heart. It happened because their stock price went through the freaking floor. It did. So in years past, I would agree with Jeff, the right was impotent. The right was more worried about being likable than they were about winning or being right. I think the GOP is still impotent. The GOP is not the right. The GOP is not the political party. It's like the Democrats are not the left. There are lefties in the DNC, but the DNC as a whole is not left. No, the DNC is mostly a kleptocracy, just like the RNC. Yeah, just like the RNC, the GOP.

So, you know, if you disagree, like, you're welcome to disagree, but like, that's just my viewpoint. The two, the two major political parties are anybody that says, like, the whole DNC is left and the whole RNC, the whole GOP is right, like, I just think you have a very two-dimensional viewpoint of politics, not meant to be pejorative, just, I just don't see it that way. They are two halves of the same person. Two wings, same bird. Mm-hmm. But here's where I disagree with Jeff, and we'll walk out on this.

I think the right now, call it the new right, call it the re-invigorated right, the whatever you want to call it. The right that I see today for the first time in my life is really and truly wanting this fight. Yeah. This isn't the right of our parents' generations. This isn't the right of the boomers or of the older generation. Xers or even the younger gen Xers, the millennials are finally becoming political. And the millennials, bear in mind, 1992, one of the oldest monies there is. Nick, you're a millennial.

I don't hold that. 1990. But the millennials for the, I'm seeing the millennials within the last handful of years, really becoming political. And while the millennials tend to trend more to left than the right, the millennial right is becoming very political and very switched on and very loud and very vociferous in a way I haven't seen before. I didn't see this in either of the two previous generations right. I would agree with that. And the right now wants to fight. We want to argue. We want to we want to counter protest. We

want to install our political candidates. We do want to impose our will upon the other side because we intrinsically understand that if we don't, they're going to impose their will upon us and we're not interested in that well we've watched the results of two of two generations worth of abdicants people abdicating their responsibility yeah pcg in the 90s conservatives did attempt to mark themselves as the moral majority thank you for the air quotes but the left pulled a page out of olensky's book and made them play by their own rules but see i questioned if they made them play by their own rules because to me no they absolutely did they absolutely did that's why there were all the scandals about the right wing guy about the right wing politicians and their mistresses yeah but this is what i was

going to say because this is this was the earth thing i'm so glad we had this thought before we signed off one of the things about that bullet point about make the irside play by their own rules is purity tests it is like you as a conservative if you if you if you have if you cheat on a math test in the seventh grade you're not you're not a moral person so you're not a conservative i can discount all your opinions well that works the opposite direction because if you can get a lot of lefty to out themselves on any one thing you destroy them as a lefty because they cannot tolerate any amount of incohesiveness and thought among that group. But I think this is why I disagree with Jeff. I think the right, I don't know if the right or the left is going to win, but I know the right

wants to win for the first time in my life. I think that the current iteration of the right is more grounded in reality and open, honest discourse, and that, I think, is what is going to cause the win. Because you can only lie so long before everybody stops believing you. It's the reason why trust in media is at the lowest it's ever been, according to a poll I saw that just came out yesterday or early this morning. lowest it's ever been so far it can go lower believe it or not and it will continue oh yeah they've been i i don't know that i can remember a story gosh in my adult life that the news

has really gotten right in their first pass they don't even try anymore it's not about who's right it's about who's first Correct. But if you're always first and you're always wrong, people are just going to stop listening eventually. Yeah, raggle-fraggle, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. So here's the way I feel about that. I feel like the old right, the, I hate to say the boomer cons, because that's such a pejorative, but it kind of fits. But it does fit that demographic. But they, they put themselves out there as because, because, We are morally superior. Our argument is superior. And then they, because they led with, we are with their purity, it was very easy to disrupt that.

Sure, especially because they were all cheating on their wives. Yeah. And the new right, I hate to say it, but the new right is a lot of people just like me. We curse. We drink. We smoke. We like girls. We like, look at a girl.

But naked as a matter of fact, it's kind of, kind of fucking cool. I don't look at one girl naked because my wife's going to watch. this but you know that's a different discussion but my point is like we are unapologetic we are crude and rude and we make jokes about butts and you know stuff that makes people cringe look at the fPC compared to the nRA of the 90s you know versus well that's not according to the constitution yeah and that is the reason why I disagree with I disagree with Jeff I think the right might win I don't know if we will but I know that for the for the time of my life, they really,

really, really want to fight. We're going to try or we're all going to get reeducated. Wait, go back to what you were saying about a naked girl. It sounds like she's expressing interest in this naked woman, Phil. I think you should take advantage of that. Babe, I'll talk to you about it in just a couple of minutes.

Anyway, if I'm not back next week, it's because she didn't buy my, she wasn't tolerate any of my BS and I've been shrunked. she can't she's never grounded me i always could though she's a teacher man she's certainly methods she certainly could but i'm very good at weaseling my way out of it that's fair but that's probably another episode you're talking about bribes of coffee and tacos yes

of course i mean it works it works keeps me out trouble but anyway let's go ahead and sign this one out it is 8.51 p.m. central time on a thursday afternoon I think the right might actually have a shot of winning because for the first time my lifetime, damn it, they actually want to fight this spite for a change instead of just pearl clutching and performing peacocking, peacocking. Great word for the old right. The new right, however, doesn't want to peacock. We want to fight. We want to argue. We want to make our political differers look like idiots in public, not that that's any great challenge. And I encourage you to read the things they read. I encourage you to learn about the things they learn about. I encourage you to the degree that you can tolerate it to learn what they're, pay attention to what they're saying and read the things they read. Because the more we understand their arguments, the more we can rip them apart right in front of them and scatter the pieces. Yep.

You cannot become a good debater without knowing the ideas of your enemy backwards and forwards. Yep. If you know their ideas better than they do, you can tear them apart all the easier. And you cannot be a good debater by, you know, just giggling away and shunning your opponent's ideas because that's what the left does. Better we make them look foolish with their own ideas. Matter of fact, podcast is going to go out the door. I don't know what we're going to talk about next week because I usually don't until I have, I feel like, you know, three more cups of coffee and do some thinking about it. But if you all have a suggestion, social media is a good place to drop it on us.

For those of you who caught or missed last week's episode, Rebels Raiders, I've been beating the reels on social media to death. He has assured me the pre-orders coming soon, and I'm going to harass him until it drops. I want one of everything in M-81. The bullying will continue until you take my money. The bullying will continue. And if you don't know who Rebels Raiders is,

you should go check out the last episode. It was a lot of fun. It was. All right. Matterfakes, going to have the door. by everybody, stay out of trouble, or get into trouble and get back out of it. And do not adopt or feed your local tankies. Most number two overweight already need to go on a diet.

Good night, everybody. Bye. We're going to be able to be. Thank you.