Will Cain Country - America Last! The Uniparty Puts Ukraine & Israel Over The Border

Episode Date: February 5, 2024

Story #1: America Last! Ukraine, Israel, and then maybe, but probably not, our southern border Story #2: Dr. Drew Pinsky joins The Will Cain Show to discuss the potential effects and dangers of products like Neuralink, the growing levels of narcissism in America and the similarities to pre-revolution France, and much more.  Story #3: It's Super Bowl week! We may not rally around Taylor Swift, but we might unite around Tracy Chapman and Luke Combs.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One, America last. Ukraine, Israel, and then maybe, possibly, but probably not, the American southern border. America, always last. Two, Dr. Drew Pinsky, today, joins the will. Kane Show. And three, it's Super Bowl Week. I don't know if we will rally and unify around Taylor Swift, but we might for one night rally and Unify around Luke Combs and Tracy Chapman and Fast Car. It is the Will Kane Show streaming live at Fox News.com and on the Fox News YouTube, always on demand, on video, on YouTube at the Will Kane Show page. Find it, subscribe.

You can go back and watch exclusive interviews with Stephen A. Smith with Jordan Pee. Peterson with The Rock and more big interviews scheduled coming up right here on the Will Cane Show. And as always, as it has always been, you can catch us in audio format wherever you get your audio entertainment. Subscribe at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News podcast. This thing is to the moon. Our numbers climbing. We want you to join here this community on the Will Cane Show by subscribing at Will Cane Show on

YouTube or to any of those podcast platforms. the revolution will not begin at TSA this weekend on Fox and Friends. We talked about the growing use of facial recognition technology at the airport. I fully recognize not everyone is on an airplane as often as I am, but there's something about an airport that distills humanity and distills the interface we have with government bureaucracy, whether or not it's figuring out how to properly board a plane or to get through the increasingly stupid checks of TSA. My co-host, Pete Heggseth and Rachel Campos Duffy, seem to have found their alamo.

They seem to have found the line in the sand. They were William Barrett Travis. They drug their sword across the sand and said, over this line, I will not cross. That line is the facial recognition software at TSA checks at American airports. You've probably encountered it. You know, the normal standard operating procedure is you hand over your government-issued ID. They usually, sometimes, I can never figure out the protocol on when or when they do not want to see your boarding pass.

Seems like everything they need to know now is filtered through your government ID. But that even seems to be taking a back seat now to please stand in front of the camera. And they take a picture of your face. It's odd when you step back and think about it. Why do you need my face? what database is that being stored? What's it being compared against? And it feels unnecessarily intrusive as it would to a free man. And for my co-host, Rachel Campos Delphian, Pete Hegseth, again, this was the line in the stand. This is where they would begin the revolution.

It's usually the case that on Sunday mornings, Hegseth and I meet and have a little breakfast at the airport before we both board our respective planes back across. the country back to middle america he made a pact he thought i signed on that today we would opt out apparently that's a possibility you can say no i don't want to use facial recognition software and then tsa will accommodate they will call over a manager but they will not force you to have your picture taken he said let's do it let's see how it works well as is often the case on the weekends i'm not operating on a full night's sleep i'm a little bit tired and the last thing i want to do is somehow belabor the bureaucratic process of getting onto an airplane.

So when I got up there, I dutifully, like the sheep that we all are, bleated a little bit, but then had my picture taken by TSA. When we got to the lounge, the American Express lounge, to enjoy our regularly scheduled French toast, he asked me if I opted out. I said, no, man, I'm too tired. I need to get on with my life. And of course, he was appalled that I didn't partake in the revolution. He called Rachel Campos Duffy.

They called me Chinese will and said that Patriot Pete always will be the Paul Revere of the American Revolution. I said, that's awesome. That's great. Yeah. Just count me among the lemmings that jump off the cliff first. But we had to at least point out that right after you opted out of having your picture taken, you handed over your government ID, which has a picture right there on the front, which they scan inside of a little machine, which, you're going to be able to take, which you. I imagine goes, I don't know, somewhere inside the same database is taking your updated current picture.

Maybe they know now if you did or didn't grow a beard or if you're working on a mullet. But either way, the way I see it, they're getting your face. But hey, I get it. This is your revolution. And it's a bold stand, I told Duffy and Hegg Seth. Yes, the revolution can begin with you, and it can begin at TSA. But it was a sad moment as we sat there over our French toast to realize that the revolution fizzled the minute you entered the american express de i cbdc central bank digital currency

dei woke lounge of american express revolutions fragile creatures they draw their line at the sand at the tsa and they fizzle out at the amex lounge defeated by french toast i always want the will cane show to be a place of positivity i think all too often what we do in media, and I don't think it's just media on the right. I think it's media on the left, is we either instinctually or maybe all too often cynically, we lurched towards negativity, we lurched towards outrage. Anger is the easiest emotion to access. But ever since I was a kid and I was faced with tragedy, I didn't ever find it cathartic. It didn't work. I need action. When confronted with something bad, I don't find it helpful to wallow.

I don't even find it helpful to complain. And, of course, we need to highlight. But it's got to move to action. It's got to move to positivity. And I want this to be a place that focuses on action, that focuses on positivity without ignoring the problems that can be motivated by anger. I tell you this all because today, that's a struggle. So today, I'm a bit outraged. I'm a bit outraged that whenever there is a problem, it seems to be today in the United States,

that our guiding philosophy is all too often, America last. Let's start there. Story number one. The United States Senate has worked on a bipartisan bill entitled the Border Emergency Authorization Act, and has both Republican and Democrat support. It's $118 billion that ties together some changes in the policy at our southern border with foreign aid to Ukraine and to Israel, along with several other pieces of aid in there, for example, to the people of Gaza. As it stands, it's $60 billion to Ukraine, $14 to $17 billion to Israel. and $20 billion to border security.

All told now, how much money we have committed to Ukraine exceeds well over $100 billion. We are far and away the biggest contributor. No European country comes close, not Germany, not the United Kingdom, to addressing Ukraine. No one comes as close as the United States. Entitled the Border Security Bill, the Border Emergency Authorization Act, It, in effect, allows for 5,000 encounters per day before new provisions kick in that are supposed to raise the bar for the asylum process and speed up the deportation, the detention, and processing of illegal immigrants claiming asylum. David Sachs, tech entrepreneur behind one of the men behind PayPal, point out that whenever Congress passes a bill, you can almost, you don't want to be reactionary, but you can almost be assured that the effect of the bill is the opposite of the title.

The Inflation Reduction Act ends up in a trillions dollar spending bill. And it seems on the surface that the Border Emergency Authorization Act, in effect, does the same, the opposite, allowing for 5,000 encounters. I, on an instinctual level, on the face of this bill, find it outrageous. that in order to secure our southern border, we have to tie funding to foreign aid to Israel and Ukraine. But I want to steal man this process. I want to try to understand Oklahoma Senator James Langford, who has helped draft and guide this bill. Republican, Oklahoma Senator James Langford. The arguments are such that we can more readily hold illegal immigrants in detention. We, as I said, can speed up the process for asylum claims. But we're speeding up the

process from years to six months. And of course, if you claim asylum and you're given a notice to appear, you're given a court date six months down the road, an illegal immigrant. The term then is changed to migrant in the process of an asylum claim can disappear into America. And as such, they, by the way, as part of this bill, get an expedited work permit in America. Langford has taken to defending the bill. I'm going to share with you some of the things that he said. He said, all the 9-11 attackers on X were present in the U.S. illegally. We shouldn't wait until the next horrific terror attack to realize that our wide open southern borders and national security risk, suggesting action is needed. Not all of that is true, by the way. The 9-11 hijackers

entered this country legally, and four of them were beyond their visa expiration date, which, by the way, is not grounds for removal, but effectively makes you an illegal immigrant. The point is, when you release someone into the country under a pending court date, under a claim of amnesty, all too often, the line between legal and illegal is quickly crossed. Langford also defends the bill saying, you've got to make a deal. I understand the necessity to make a deal. I understand that there's a Democrat president. I understand that there's a Democrat Senate. I understand that the nature of government is compromise.

But tell me how this compromise, and I ask this of Senator Mark Wayne Mullen, who's scheduled to appear on this program in the coming week. I asked this of Senator James Langford. How is this allowing for 5,000 encounters? Many people are pointing out that's not an admission, that's an encounters when they're encountered at the border. But the point we're making is an encounter turns into an admission when you're released into society with an asylum date, an asylum court date. you know the percentages that return for those court dates it's paltry it's tiny because the point isn't necessarily the legitimacy of the asylum claim the point when you see trains of people when you see encampments at the southern border when you see people coming from africa when

you see people coming from iran when you see people coming from south america when you see people coming from venezuela is less asylum and is more illegal immigration I'm struck by the people that respond to this, and I don't want to get angry at random individuals on social media. I want to use them as what I think is an insight into maybe an all too common mindset. There was an individual on ex-Sinade O. Rebellion. I'm sure that's his government name, his Christian name, responds to me when I said this bill represents America last.

what are you missing from your life as a result of this legislation will what am i missing from my life i find it very fascinating that everything that seems to affect americans is always dismissed as not a big deal a crisis at the southern border where we've seen numbers explode into the millions. By the way, 5,000 encounters a day would add up to 1.5 million in a year. A crisis at the southern border is dismissed as manufactured outrage. You know, a fentanyl and drug crisis that accompanies that illegal immigration is dismissed as a demand problem in the United States and what we're dealing with is an intentional poisoning. Our crime crisis is described on the streets of New York, from the streets of Chicago, in the streets of Los Angeles is described

as overblown. Trans athletes in sports. I told you last week I got a text from a friend from the left who said, I'll just focus on Leah Thomas. It's minuscule. The effect of trans athletes, it's minuscule. Yeah, because it doesn't affect you. You don't have a daughter competing against a man.

The racialization of our society is hand-waved away as modern-day justice. Gender ideology and education is a freak-out and a book-banning. It seems like the only thing that really is really. registers. The only thing that we're allowed to think is a big deal are foreign wars again and again and again. War or the climate. That's a big deal. Presuming with all of our arrogance that we can control the world's thermostat, that's a big deal. Oh, the threat to democracy. Donald Trump, that's a big deal. Everything that deals actually in the power dynamics of politics is what we're told is actually a big deal.

But the things that affect Americans, your job, crime, your family, your national security, no. The lives of Americans, no. That's not a big deal. I think it's about time that we can come to grips that we are placing Americans last and that a unifying ideology for this country, left, right, Republican, Democrat, should be morally America first

Story number two He is the host of Ask Dr. Drew formerly of Loveline of international fame he is Dr. Drew Penske and I'm excited to have him joining us

once again here on the Will Kane show. Dr. Drew Will? Great to have you here on the Will Cain Show. Pleasure. Hey, Dr. Drew, I want to start today talking to you about these videos coming out of people walking up and down our streets wearing the new Apple virtual reality goggles. I've seen videos of people driving their cars while tapping in the air while they augment their reality.

I've seen people walking down the street and even crossing crosswalks, you know, seemingly. pounding out some tweets or some emails while they commute, in that case, walking in their life. It occurs to me, and I know you know this, Dr. Drew, that you can look at charts of the rising rates of depression, especially among young women, and it correlates to essentially the introduction of the smartphone and social media, those two things happening roughly around the same time. Direct correlation of living life virtually and comparatively as opposed to reality, and the rising rates of problems in mental health. What do you think about now augmenting our reality

with these Apple VR goggles? Well, I doubt it's going to move things in the right direction, right? Obviously, this is concerned to everyone. You know, underlying all of it is the fundamental issue of disconnect. Humans have evolved to require bodies in space, people next to each other, in connection,

in order to develop a sense of self, in order to develop a landscape of emotional regulation, in order to find meaning, in order to live a good life, which is something that people have lost track of completely in this country. But we are certainly devoted to our addictive substances and our addictive sort of visual and auditory experiences. And this is, you know, it's going to make things.

You know, it's funny. Scott Adams was talking this morning. I said, you know, if this were a pill that was having some untoward effect, the FDA would immediately cancel it, would set it back for lots more study, but because it's merely a technological instrument and having, God knows what impact on the brain, we just move right on. Here we go. Yeah, and we, I don't want to be. I don't think you want to be. We don't want to be dinosaurs. I mean, I don't know. Sometimes I toy with the idea of anti-technology,

but it's all part of our life. It's unavoidable, I think, unless you're ready to be Ted Kaczynski in Montana. Well, the point is the impact you brought up earlier on young girls, and the impact on the developing brain is different than on the adult brain, right? The developing brain is highly plastic, and we should be limiting contact the way we should deal with all this screen, whether it's, you know, something you wear in your face or something you're holding your hand, the way we dealt with tobacco. It really should be considered that dangerous for adolescents and dealt with accordingly.

At very minimum, parents as a group have to understand they need to limit contact because, of Of course, if you're the only parenting, limiting contact, your kids' buddies are going to show them, look at this, when you do the lunchtime at school. Of course, it's all going to come raining in anyway. But limiting contact and then focusing really just spiritually and philosophically on what is important. What is important is so much more nourishing that it will naturally pull people away from these screens. The problem is they have a significant pull and the opportunity for the kinds of things that are meaningful, either are, unknown to people or certainly are not emphasized. You said at a minimum, by the way, parents should be the regulatory mechanism, but I heard

you as at a minimum. Do you think the government should step in and start, you compare to tobacco? Do you think technology, social media, augmented reality should be regulated? Less government. Leave me alone. That's my general. That's the headline over my head. Leave me alone. But at a minimum, I was saying, at a minimum, at a minimum limited to two hours. Obviously, the reason I framed it as such is you're not going to limit tobacco to two hours a day, right? If at minimum limit to RSA, but eliminate it entirely if you as a parent group decide that's the appropriate thing, fine, do so. But at minimum, limit it to a very narrow period of time. But you don't think it should be the subject of regulation for children?

You know, it's, I have not really thought it, I might, you know, my general position is stop. No, no, no. The government, that's going to, government is never going to. to fix, make things better on anything. I just, I can't think of anything that the government makes better. So I'm not imagining they would come up with some magical solution here that will make things better. So I'm generally, no, stop. It's on us. It's parent. Oh, here he goes. Will's on his phone. Watch out. Well, I wanted to pull up a tweet. Can you hear me when I talk to you? I wanted to fill of a tweet that I, uh, that I, um, saw about something you had said recently.

It ties into what you were just saying. I do have the capability. I'm, I'm very special in this way of of listening and also preparing a way to your ring gets older it's it's a that curiosity based follow up to what you're talking about no you were talking to dave reuben and you were talking about your you know you talking about your philosophy basically of more or less government is always better um you were talking to dave reuben about i hate to these terms all get so loaded as we move along and they make away into the zeit guys but basically okay of you becoming red-pilled in an essence that you do not trust anything from the legacy media anyway. Is this a new place for you, this like skepticism of government and media?

Yeah, I mean, it took a while to get me there. I mean, to the degree, like, I mean, I've had such varied experiences. Like, for instance, you know, I was on CNN, HLN for years, almost a decade. And no one ever told me what I needed to say at HLN. I did, me and my producer, we did our thing. We produced stuff and we thought we were doing the right thing. And, you know, when the audience respond, we certainly went in that direction. We ended up doing a lot of Casey Anthony and Jody Arias and things like that back in the day.

But no one was ever telling us what to do. Then I had an experience where I used to John Lemmestre almost every night. And I was talking about Trump and his personality and some of his hypomania and talking. Then I started talking about other presidents that have the same thing. And I was saying, you know, be very careful when you pass judgment using all these slogans and psychiatric terminology because some of our greatest presidents have had some serious liabilities psychiatrically. but they've been great leaders and great presidents. And the next morning, my radio produced,

mayor of director says, hey, that was great, could you do 30 seconds on that for our radio show? And I did it for our website. And he goes, you know, we have to balance, you know, could you do 30 seconds on Hillary? I go, yeah, the fact is, they released her medical records this morning, and her medical care is atrocious. There's really some serious problems.

So I addressed each of the problems with her medical care. Next day, Drudge Report reports, finally a physician says she's not suitable for office, which is not what I said. Of course, things that go viral are never what you said. That's one of the lessons about social media. It's never what you say. It's always what somebody said you said. So that was one of my, you know, experiences with that.

And two months before, I had met with the CNN brass, wonderful people. I mean, really, I would go to the mat for most of those guys, Ken Johns, guys like that. They were great managers, great professional. and he told me that the show would be canceled two months before that episode but they kept it going and the cancel date was a week later after this whole dust up on Hillary so now for eternity it goes down as Drew was canceled because he said something about Hillary which a what I said about Hillary was not what I said about Hillary and the cancellation had nothing to do with that whole thing this is this is media so you know when and God forbid will you must have had

this somebody in print writes a story about you how often do they get half of it right? Never, never. It's always outer space what they report. And so you have enough of those experiences, and you start thinking, oh, maybe they're just always like that on everything. And that's the fact. That's the truth. Well, you know, my experiences is similar to yours.

And I have spent a great amount of my career in quote unquote mainstream media. I need to own that with the audience. I mean, I had worked at CNN as a contributor. I was at ESPN. I'm now at Fox. And I'll tell you, Dr. Drew, the number of times that I have been told not to talk about something is very rare. And I will say most of the time, it revolves around something to do with a potential defamation case. Or just generally some active legal case that the attorney is not the network says, hey, tell these guys just to leave that alone while we're working on the case. Correct. Litigation and the potential for litigation is maybe one of the

biggest emphasis is for self-censorship that exists. But that doesn't mean there's not bias. Don't get me wrong at all. I mean, there's huge individual bias. There's institutional bias. I'll just give you this example. Cultural bias. Right?

Cultural bias. I have fond memories of my time at ESPN, but if I talked about a trans issue, I would need to balance it out. And I was happy to balance it out because I enjoyed debate and interacting with people that disagree. But if I said, if I had an opinion, that was somehow in the more group think deemed acceptable lane. I didn't have to balance that out.

I never had to have somebody tell me, I can't think of an example off the top of my head. You've got to pull this guy in from the right to tell you where you're wrong on this, Will. It was always, you need to pull this person in from the left if my opinion was outside the lane of acceptability. That's where manipulation came in, but it was very rarely, hey, do not talk about this. Yeah, yeah. No, I'm with you. And yet, and yet the reporting, I wonder, I always wondered how it got so distorted, so wrong. Like, in other words, is it at the producer level? I mean, where, because you know, as you and I both know, a lot of the producers are like 25-year-olds just out of school and smart, eager beavers,

but they're sort of selecting the stories and they have their own sort of world they live in. And I remember once I went to a opioid summit at the White House. It was a great day. I mean, it was incredible. All these cabinet-level officials came in and presented what they were going to do. This was during the pharmaceutical disaster, and I've been fighting it for years and years. And Jeff Sessions, God bless him, came in and said, you know, I see what's going on here. I can fix this.

You watch it. Six months, I'm going to turn this thing around. And damn it, he did. At the end of that day, a lot of interesting data was presented. A lot of interesting people spoke. At the end of the day, unexpectedly, Trump marched in and just started talking the way he does. And he goes, you know, and I noticed the room filled with reporters as he, as he walked in. There were maybe 10 times more than there were during the day.

And he said, and towards the end of his comedy, he goes, glad you guys are working on this. Keep going, you know. I don't know. You know, some countries, they make the dealers pay the ultimate price. I don't know if we should do that or not. But, you know, I'm glad you guys to think about everything. So next day, the entire day of extraordinary presentations, not one media outlet reported anything at all. all except a headline Trump says drug dealers should be killed that's it that was the entire day

and I thought oh I can't I can't believe anything that comes out of this this building this is ridiculous so again and again and again I just I see it that where it's coming from it you know there's no mustache twirling you know snidly whiplash in the background but there is something going on where the press has been so severely adulterated that we have to kind of look elsewhere because you can't rely on what they're what they're telling you. this. Hey, you said something fascinating. You talked about the 25-year-old producer or the corporate environment. I brought up the litigation thing. You know, and I think COVID was a big moment of revelation on this for me, and this is where I bring in your medical background. I used to

think, Dr. Drew, that at our base level, the motivation of human beings is usually somewhere in the vein of greed or ambition. People, when reduced to their base level instincts, will pursue their own self-interest. And that may be true, but I was wrong in that that means they will do what is best for them in terms of pursuing ambition or success. And that's probably because that's how I think, and my bias was personal. What COVID showed me, and what I think the corporate environment shows you as well, is most people don't go through the world actually trying to achieve success. Most people go through the world actively trying to avoid failure. And COVID showed me how fear is our base level motivation.

I think. When you boil us down to we're the little lab rats and how do we make the lab rats move in directions that we want them to move, or even if it's not, you know, as you said, the mustache twirling individual trying to make us move, the way that we do move is fear-based. COVID was shocking and how many people would do anything that was told to them because they're afraid. What do you think is our base level motivation? Is it fear? It's too hard for me to talk about single motivations. You know, I work in the world of broken. motivations, right? Addiction medicine is about brains that have been usurped by one motivation, which is due drugs. And it's interesting how all the other motivations shrink away and all the systems in the brain that come in to service the motivation. We're complicated beings. I don't like distilling us down to one thing. But fear, no doubt, is a very powerful, powerful motivator. But within fear, there are sort of subcategories, right? A lot of people, one of the great fears that evolved in our hunter-gather societies was ostracism, right? If you left the group, you would die. If you were

ostracized, you were sent out into the Savannah or whatever, and that's it. You're done. We need social context for our survival and for our thriving. And there are many other motivational systems along with attachment and love and all these things that they're positively affirming as well. And And let's not, let's also not forget, the brain has two powerful motivation systems on the positive side, which is wanting and liking. We have two different. We want certain stuff and we like certain stuff and sometimes they go together. And then we have a negative side. And fear certainly, you know, has particularly negative social input, which fear is quite attached to.

You know, you see, you're walking through the jungle and you see a leopard. You're going to have a much more powerful reaction to that than anything else. I mean, it has a prioritization to it. but it's not always a priority. And within that fear is fear of losing our social status, our social context, our tribal membership, all that stuff figured in with COVID. And man, did they take advantage of that? Wow, it was phenomenal.

I never imagined. I thought humans ended that in 1948 or in 45. I thought that was about the end of that. We'd done it on such a scale. We would not see that again. And now here we are at 1790 in this country. It's revolutionary France all over again, psychologically. What do you mean by that, revolutionary France?

I wrote a book on narcissism called The Mirror Effect, and I was documenting the narcissistic trends and turn and how personality structures had dramatically changed, really internationally. And I wanted to write a chapter on where else in history, because I wanted to know what the consequence with this. There's got to be other periods of history where this has happened. And the only thing I could find that was similar was pre-revolutionary France. And so I wanted to write a chapter about how, you know, narcissists tend to form mobs and scapegoat and that you would see guillot. And this was 20 years ago.

I didn't know cancellation was not a word. Social media was not a word. I didn't know that this would be the modern version of the guillotine. But here it came. It came. And the mobs and the mob action, it just all came. Now, what's interesting is how we dissipate all that. And it usually takes some firm muscle to do so if you look at history again.

It didn't stop in France until Napoleon stepped in and go, okay, that's it. And the thing that people forget about guillotine is if you put somebody on the guillotine, eventually you're going on the guillotine. It needs to stop. You know, I am fascinated, and I will admit, it's always been on my list to study. in more detail the French Revolution because, you know, it's a good side by side. Why the American Revolution was a success and why the French Revolution was a failure. I've never thought about it through the terms of narcissism. When you were talking about politicians of men to go, I also used to think, like, the commonality to all politicians is narcissism. I mean,

those that I've been around. But you're pointing out, it's not just politicians, though. We're a narcissistic society. Oh, yeah, absolutely. I, I was, I started working in a psychiatric, I'm an internist, but I was working in psychiatric hospital starting in 1985. And when I first got there, we had these diagnostic sheets on admission, and I was seeing, you know, personality disorders at the top of the list. And I would see all kinds of different personality descriptors and dependent personality, obsessive-compulsive personality, and all these different things. And somewhere in the late 80s, I noticed, oh, awful lot of borderline personality coming in. And then, Then by the 90s, by 92, it was all what's called Cluster B, which are the narcissistic

disorders. So it's borderline, narcissist, sociopath. 100% of the admissions, huh? Where did that come from? How do you explain that transition? Yeah, like, how do you go from a society where you're over-indexing bipolar to narcissism? Wait, say that again? No, no, it wasn't bipolar.

It was all sorts of disorders, then borderline, which is a cluster B disorder, and then only Cluster B disorders. And we had a pandemic of destroyed families and severe childhood trauma in the 60s and 70s. You weren't around for this. But the 70s was perpetrated on children. Hey, man, do whatever you want to do, whatever your wishes.

Kids are just little sexual beings. If that's what you want to do, fine. It was horrific. And those people were now coming into their 20s and 30s in the 80s and 90s. And I was talking to them on the radio. Every night, every call was a consequence of that experience. And so that's kind of an eye out for it.

And that continued for 20 years. 20 years, that's all we heard. Childhood trauma, childhood trauma. And finally, my profession, you know, acknowledge, oh, it looks like, oh, adverse childhood experiences, the A scale. Oh, my goodness. It turns out adverse childhood experiences cause psychiatric illness and affect people's overall health. Huh, shocking. Oh, my God.

No kidding. Fascinating. So you point to the destruction. well, in part, the structure of the family, but just how we started to treat children as this transition that led to this epidemic of narcissism. I'm going to follow this curiosity. It's something I thought about asking you.

And Will, I want to shot you real quick. Real quick, you talked about the French. The French, during the pre-revolutionary period, brutal to kids. Like something like three out of five kids, there was arbitrary left at orphanages. Only one-fifth and one-twentieth of those kids survived. I mean, it was horrible what they did to kids.

any attractive young 14-year-old was sent into prostitution it was wild what was if you really and the French gloss it like oh just libertinism it's just what those guys were into and we do a little bit of that here too about the 60s and 70s so I'm sorry for interrupting you go ahead wow I would have to think Dr. Drew though we're even doing it at a greater scale now than the 60s or 70s I mean we're pretty libertine at this moment in in our in our country no it's different yeah having lived through both that that was different. People are much more disconnected and isolated. I think the screens may be preventing from some of that stuff. Who knows? But it's much, you know, you occasionally see people

say, I want to bring back the free love of the 70s. And I think, oh, no, you don't. By the way, that was all perpetrated by adults with no understanding that adolescents and young adults would follow suit. That's how I got involved with the radio. I was 24 years old, and it was considered bizarre to talk to a 17-year-old about AIDS, because why would they need to know about that? Think about that. That was 1984. What did Napoleon do? You said Napoleon comes in and puts a stop to this, well, at the moment of the French Revolution, military coup essentially. You're talking about, at the moment of the French Revolution, you're talking about a society. It's already gone through that Libertine moment. It's now got a population of narcissists, all coalescing into mobs and

guillotines. And then you said it stopped with Napoleon. Why? A military, military coup. And then, of course, he took all that unregulated. Narcissists have a lot of unregulated aggression. One place to focus it is in the military. You take them all into the military and then focus on a common enemy. Scapegoating is the mechanism. that narcissists use collectively to manage their aggression, their anger. Scapegoating is a terribly pathological thing. And when we are deep in it now. So Napoleon's military expansionism, his goals brought all of this, you're telling me,

brought all of this narcissistic society that was turning in on itself and focused it and channeled it outwards in a way that serviced Napoleon. It's a pretty bold statement. I've never really said it quite that clearly. It's pretty bold. You know, and it's weird to me. You can't remember Napoleon was Italian. It's Napoleone Bonaparte was his actual name.

He didn't speak French when he got to the military academies in France. He was Corsican, Italian. And I wonder that maybe he was able to perceive things differently because he came from outside that culture. It's kind of interesting to think about that. But stuff like that, it's worth, look, Will, it's worth your time to study these things. Because we are woefully absent on the historical, you know, those that failed to study history are doomed to repeat it. We just seem to ignore that.

And it is a true history does not repeat itself, but it certainly has echoes. It certainly kind of goes in some sort of, you can learn something from the past. That's for sure, because it's all about human beings after all. Here was the point of sort of personal curiosity that I wanted to follow with on this conversation.

Anyone who's interested, and look, I'm not going to belabor the personal sides of these things, but anyone who's interested in children, whatever it would be adoption or foster care, there is a conversation that has always had about, well, what trauma has this kid experienced and what can be fixed? I had an interesting conversation recently that I thought, I want to ask Dr. Drew about this. I had never heard of RAD. And are you familiar with RAD? Oh, I've seen it, treated it. dealt with it. It was, we had, back at the psych hospital, we had lots of that with the Romanian

orphans coming over. And if you remember, the Baccio Chescu had, tell me if I, boxes essentially, where, you know, being treated with machines essentially, where, you know, one nurse for 30 kids. And those kids were, oh, horrible. So tell me if I, um, characterize this correctly, but a child, a person can be fairly resilient and overcome trauma, provided that trauma happens at a stage of life where they can reconcile with it. And the theory is it's the first six months of life, actually, zero to six months where trauma or neglect or abuse becomes insurmountable. And that a child who has dealt with that in their first six months, and I hate to say it this way, but cannot be fixed. They can't form normal human empathetic relationships. Everything becomes

somewhat transactional. It's a lot of the characteristics of it sounds like to me, I'm no psychiatrist, of a sociopath, but it's sad to think whatever happens in those first six months, is accurate, and I turn to you, is not capable of being fixed. Well, you know, everything in medicine is not always and never, right? But that phenomenon of extreme deprivation, particularly the first six months, first five years, if it goes long enough, it doesn't, even the first six months are good. If you have it the rest of the way in the first five years, you can end up with the same thing. And I think the more gentle way of saying it is there's only so much you can do. And some of

them are really not retrievable. And it's closer to psychopathy and not sociopathy. In other words, other people don't really exist to them. At least their minds don't have contents in any meaningful way, certainly not emotionally. Sociopaths at least understand the minds have content, but you're there to, you know, to serve them, to be manipulated by them. But psychopaths, emotions don't really exist. And that's part of what gets lost in that attachment disorder. All right, back to your distrust, your growing distrust, or your developed distrust of mainstream media.

I know you also have said this as well, that a big part of that was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Well, I, people ask, you know, Michael Malice, I think was the first one to ask me, What was the moment? When people ask you on our interview show, you have to come up with a moment. It may not be exactly the moment, but it's the one that comes to mind. It's like a roar shock test. And what came to mind for me was this interview I had with RFK Jr., which a friend of mine set up,

Dr. Kelly Victory, set it up. And I really didn't know what his deal was. I'd heard all this, you know, oh, he's a vaccine, blah, blah. And I was not, how am I going to find any common ground with this guy? And by the way, I didn't like the way he. has his formulation on the AZT history. I was there. I was in the trenches.

I was working on A's patient. I know exactly what happened. And he got it wrong. Not entirely wrong, by the way, but wrong, in my opinion. And he and I fought about that during this first interview. And then he started talking about, you know, what he wanted for vaccines and for vaccine research. And I thought, well, that's reasonable. That's not at all what I thought this was going to be.

So first, you know, first aha was like, oh, of course. The people were saying he said something he didn't say. There we go again. It's never what you actually say. It's always some cartoon version of who you actually are. So that was the first moment for me. But what really stayed with me was at the end of the interview, he goes, you know, you are really courageous to speak to me.

And I was like, great. To have a conversation with another adult professional in public requires courage. He goes, oh, you wait and see it. You're going to see it. This requires courage. I was so gobsmacked, met fury. meets furious about that. I thought, well, no one's going to tell me who I can talk to.

This is ridiculous. And then I got assailed by the, you're platforming, you're platforming people. That is McCarthyism writ loud. That is never going to be seen well in the light of history when the bright light of history is going to, it's never the good guys that prevent people from speaking. And my opinion is I don't have to agree with people,

but I'd like to talk to them and see what's up. And by the way, so I ended up, I ended up like really interviewing a lot of people that had peripheral opinions that I didn't necessarily agree with. And I learned something interesting from every single one of them. I didn't agree with everything they said, but I learned something that I wouldn't have learned any other way. You can't trust humans to listen to a conversation.

It's just, oh my God, it's just been so disgusting to be to see people go down that path of trying to silence people's points of views. It's just horrific. But what is it about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? For me, just that he said that to me. That was it. No, it was nothing special about him. And I've sort of become kind of friendly with him since,

and he's an interesting guy, he's a smart guy. He's done some interesting work. Oh, it's Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that told you about platforming, and I thought it was Michael. No, no, he was one that said, you know, he said you're courageous for interviewing me, meaning him. And that's what triggered all my thoughts about that. Oh, well, he has certainly experienced that.

I mean, talk about the fear of ostracization. And again, this isn't about, you were talking, forgive me, I thought you were talking about Michael Malice's opinion on AZT. You're talking about RFK Jr. RFK Jr., I've heard him talk about it. In terms of ostracization, he's lost almost everything, including his family. And by the way, again, for the promotion of an opinion, for being accused of promoting an opinion that is not his,

that is not his opinion. that's the part that's the part that people need to watch out for and and look this is this is i want you i know you're sort of fascinated by history i want you to think about this if if i were i'm not going to make you answer this because it's again it's people are just asking things on the spot in a podcast but who is the greatest the most severe disinformation promoter of all history of historical time who who was considered the most outlandish suffered the most consequences, had the most threatening opinion, and by the way, threatened the fabric of not just society, but the church and God. And so was put before the

Spanish Inquisition. His name was Galileo Galilei. He was accused his entire life of being a disinformation spreader. Really? You want to cancel the next Galileo? Is that your plan? man, give me a break. You should be disgusted. You should be disgusted. No, they're not all Galileo, but Galileo is going to be in the mix down the road there somewhere. Now, you see the headline. Dr. Drew compares RFK Jr. to Galileo. No, they're going to, I'm going to say compare myself to it or something. It has to go toward denigrating B. Oh, you're the Galileo. Don't wait, you'll get caught in the crossfire. Don't you dare silence me. I'm very well could be Galileo.

Back to narcissism. You know, let's bring this full circle now with the Apple VR, and, you know, Elon Musk is pioneering neuralink. So it's like the Apple VR and our detachment from reality, it's a subway stop on this train headed to who knows where. I mean, this thing's going to be implanted into our brains, and we have no – you know, it's interesting. You could argue what is shared reality. I have been a big believer in objectivism, you know, objective reality. I do increasingly understand people live through perception. People live in different realities.

So I don't know how big of a leap that it's going to be, but we are definitely going to crystallize this idea, Neurlink, apple goggles, that we all are in separate realities. So I would have been five years ago, if you said this, it may have gone, well, it's not being hysterical. Well, it's going to be good for people with neurological disorders. you're so fearful of time don't be so afraid and then COVID and all the the sort of realizations of how far our government can go and people can go and now I'm scared now I'm with you I don't know

where this is going to go I have concerns about it now I actually have two more serious concerns one is this is the part that people do not know and Elon Musk doesn't seem to understand and we'll see we'll see if this is true or not but in my experience if you do so much as put a hole in a skull, like put a burhole in it, you risk changing who the person is. There are personality changes, their mood changes. There are profound consequences. Forget putting a knife into the brain, just putting a burhole in the brain. And if you're now going to lay a piece of plastic on top of that, you're killing thousands

of cells that we have no idea what the full impact of that's going to be on who the person is. this this is the same thing with hallucinogenics and stuff too although i'm a fan of them therapeutics down the road but it's risking changing who somebody is and the ethics of changing the foundation of the person you know because you give them a chemical or put something on their head i mean there has to be a profound risk reward consideration in doing so and let's remind ourselves these plastic instruments in the brain they wear out have to be replaced every so often and that's going to kill another god knows how many cells so So the profound neurological consequence of this have yet to be worked out.

Now, if it's to make it so you don't have a neurodegenerative process or it somehow impacts ALS or, you know, spinal card injury or something, maybe it's worth it now. But for an average person, oh, no, no, this is, I really worry about this. I think it is a very wise, and I have come to appreciate that word, smart, less meaningful to me, wise, more meaningful as I grow older. I think it's very wise to say, well, we need to consider. We didn't, I don't think we talked enough, shockingly, about the effects of the legalization of marijuana, and you bring up hallucinogens.

Right now, there's a big push. Hey, they're good, they're good, they're good. I'm not sure I've heard anybody, really, to the extent you just brought up, like, bring up, well, whoa, what is the downside of toying around with this? Well, did you see that kid that cut his dad off? We've lost wisdom. The kid that died, the kid cut his head off? No doubt my mind, that was from heavy LSD exposure.

I've seen stuff like that from LSD. was a well-known, heavy, heavy hallucingen user. I've seen people get really wild psychoses. I've seen people's personality change. I've seen severe mood disturbances. How much for how long before that happens? We don't know yet. That's what scares me.

Now, I do believe there will be therapeutic value. I mean, there's no such things as a good chemical on a bad chemical. There's just chemicals, their effect on the human physiology and our relationship with them. That's it. Some good, some bad. Alcohol, some good, some bad. fentanyl. Good, good medicine if you're having surgery. Not so good if you're living on the street. So, or not so good if you're, think you're 14 of buying a Xanax tablet, then not good, but it depends on the context.

Well, to bring this together, you know, what we like and what we want sometimes gets in the way of pursuing that wisdom. This is the second time we've talked. I find it a, I find it useful in that pursuit of wisdom. Enjoy talking to you, Dr. Drew. Always. I hope we'll have you again here on the Will Cain Show. All right. I love it. There you goes. Dr. Drew Pinsky, check him out, by the way, the host of Ask Dr. Drew, Board Certified Internist Addiction Medicine Specialist. One thing I was going to ask Dr. Drew is considering all these hard cases, all these different things that he considers, including child trauma, like, what is the one for him? Maybe the one individual. I probably wouldn't give us the name,

but the one case that's just insurmountable. There's probably many. There's probably more than one. I wonder if there's any one commonality, you just can't. break through i've got more i'm not done i'm not done on america last that plus maybe we can all come together over fast car coming up in just a moment here on the will cane show hey i'm trey gouty host of the trade gouty podcast i hope you will join me every tuesday and thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com. It's a big deal what happens to Americans,

and that should mean America first. It's the Will Cain Show, streaming live at foxnews.com and on the Fox News YouTube channel. Subscribe to the Will Cain Show on YouTube. You'll be able to see that interview we just concluded with Dr. Drew Pinsky and many others, including other interviews. coming up this week, like Matt Taibi and my co-host of Fox and Friends Weekend, Rachel Campos

Duffy. Also subscribe at Apple, Spotify, or at Fox News Podcasts. It's a $118 billion bill, the Border Emergency Authorization Act, with $60 billion of it going to Ukraine. Another $14 to $17 billion going to Israel. Congressman Chip Roy, who was on our show just last week, in response to to that, tweeted out, I stand with Israel, and I support Israel's right and righteousness in destroying Hamas. But when we're running a $2 trillion deficit and there's no offsets in this bill, how can we literally afford not to deal with our problems while running in the red at $17 billion in foreign aid to Israel? Thomas Massey, for example, as well, Congressman, said, the Speaker just announced that next week, this is separate from the border bill, the Speaker just announced that next week, the House will vote on a clean bill to send $14.3 billion to Israel.

Massey says, Israel has a lower debt to GDP ratio than the United States. This spending package has no offsets, so it will increase our debt by 14.3 billion plus interest. Now, in response to Massey saying this, writer for commentary, editor for commentary, John Podhorrit said, Of course you're a no, you disingenuous piece of anti-Semitic filth. No substance. No response of worth. Just the ad-hemimatic of calling Massey an anti-Semite. Because he would dare to concern himself over the trillions of dollars in debt.

in deficit that this country has run run up that is quite simply unsustainable and a threat to our future a threat threat to our national security last week right here on the will cane show senator rampal marked it as the number one concern the number one potential for a black swan event that we're already bankrupt but that destroys the value of our currency running these types of deficits printing this kind of money issuing this kind of spending but if you ever prioritize Americans and our future. Oh, you're met with anti-Semite. You're met with isolationist. You're met with nationalist. You're not met with any semblance of a moral hierarchy and priority of, you know what we should think about? The government of the United States of America elected by

the citizens of the United States of America, that they should consider America first. You know, this week there was a story where the state of Washington, the state of Washington diverted $340 million in federal COVID funds to illegal immigrants. It's $1,000 checks they're issuing to illegal immigrants out of the COVID relief fund from the feds marked to the state of Washington. In New York, they're issuing $53 million worth of credit cards to illegal immigrants. This provoked a response from Rapper 50 Cent, saying, make it make sense, Mayor Eric Adams. In California, if you're an illegal immigrant, and this has long been the case now, you get free tuition to college.

Now, I just want to ask you, when you consider all of that, all of that, and who knows how many thousands of dollars in NGO money, which is a reapportionment of government spending as well. well is diverted to illegal immigrants. When you position all of that against $700 checks to the citizens of Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii, who had their city burned to the ground, nothing distraught, living in hotels, living in backhouses with family if they are so lucky. their cities still not smoldering but ashes quick update on that they've begun the cleanup process they have a dump for the toxic waste which is a necessary place to identify in order to begin the rebuilding process but this will drag out for years for years so you're talking about five

years easy that's an aggressive timeline before anybody can really begin maybe the rebuild starts a year or two earlier than that but before anybody lives again in Lahaina and in the meantime what happens to all of those people, essentially homeless, essentially scattered to the wind. They move away. You lose the local population in the Hina. And the government's response to that is $700 checks versus this, versus $1,000 checks to illegal immigrants in Washington, versus $53 million in credit cards to illegal immigrants in New York. Now, I ask you, is that a proper moral hierarchy? Is it a proper response to say, hey, you're focusing on illegal immigrants? Hey, you're focusing on foreign aid to Israel. Hey, you're focusing on Ukraine. Is it a proper response to say,

how dare you point that out? Anti-Semite? How dare you point that out, you xenophobic American? Why is it controversial? Why is it not a proper moral hierarchy to say the point of the United States government is to serve the interests of America? I do want this show to always be a place of bright light and I want to find solutions and positivity. But I find it outrageous how many times over and over. And I think once again, and I want to be fair, I want to steal man, not straw man, you know, I don't want to create the weakest opponent. I want to create the strongest opponents so that we can see where are the weaknesses and perhaps there are none. I want to give a fair shake to, well, this border bill, you know, 5,000 encounters, speed up the processing.

How is it actually all we can accomplish in serving America first? It's Super Bowl Week. That means we're all going to rally around not the Kansas City Chiefs, not the San Francisco 49ers, but I guess Taylor Swift. But in music, last night, there was a moment in the face of cultural division, in the face of racialization of America, in the face of everything attempting to pull us apart, a moment actually at the Grammys,

where we all could, I think, unify around a fast group. car that's coming up next on the will cane show from the fox news podcasts network hey there it's me kennedy make sure to check out my podcast kennedy saves the world it is five days a week every week download and listen at foxnewspodcast dot com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast listen to the all new brett bear podcast featuring common ground in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle along with all your brett bear favorites like his all-star panel and much more. Available now at foxnewspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. It is Super Bowl Week, Kansas City Chiefs, San Francisco 49ers. It is also the Will Cain

show streaming live at Fox News.com and on the Fox News YouTube page. As soon as this show is over, head on over to the Will Cain Show on YouTube and hit subscribe and you get all the different segments and elements, the monologues, the interviews, the panels, the debates of the Will Kane show. Just hit subscribe. I'll be headed to Las Vegas a little bit later this week. I'll be hosting Fox and Friends from the Super Bowl on Sunday morning. We'll be hosting the Will Kane show right here next Monday from Las Vegas from the Super Bowl. I will also, by the way, I think I got this nailed down, be headed in April to WrestleMania. Never been to a WrestleMania. been to a Super Bowl, never been to a WrestleMania.

It's supposed to be a big event. I don't know if you saw the news, but MetLife Stadium in New Jersey has been awarded the final for the 2026 World Cup. In reading about MetLife's ability to host the World Cup final, people pointed out, well, they did a good job with a Taylor Swift era's tour stop, and they did a decent job. Well, there were some problems, I believe, with WrestleMania, which was held at MetLife. So, WrestleMania on the same par as Taylor Swift and the 2026 World Cup final. I'm excited to see the cultural event that is WrestleMania, especially now that our previous guest, The Rock, Dwayne the Rock Johnson, looks like he'll be fighting in the main event against current WWE champion Roman Raines. Now, I asked him about that, if you'll remember, will you fight Roman Raines? Here's what he said.

Are you going to fight Roman Raines? We're talking about that right now. I'd like to consider myself a long gamer and a builder. So the idea of going up against Roman reigns and creating if we were to do something like that quite possibly, and I mean this respectfully, of all the other WrestleMania's before us. And keep in mind, Will, as you know, I was born into the wrestling business with my grandfather and my dad. My grandfather, for your audience who liked this, wrestled for Vince McMahon Sr. Back when it was called the WWF, my dad came along in the 80s, Rocky Johnson.

And here I come along. So I think with all the success and the buildup of all the wrestlingas in the past, if we were to do something like that, we could possibly put on the biggest WrestleMania of all time. Now, remember, I'm telling you, I'm not a big wrestling guy. So if something is already big, it seems to be WrestleMania for the biggest of all time, because here comes the Rock, that's a big WrestleMania. But not everybody is excited about this.

But big backlash, because at least among hard. Hardcore WWE fans, the number one challengers, a guy named Cody Rhodes, and Rock just jumped him. You know, you can imagine this in boxing or in UFC if a famous fighter jumped in ahead of the line of who's sort of the pecking order. But it is, it's the entertainment business. Sports, it's the entertainment business. And the bottom line is the Rock, Roman Raines, that's going to go well beyond the hardcore WWE fan. I'm a big believer. Do not ostracize your hardcore fan. Big believer. We talked about that here recently on the Wilcane show with Ethan Strauss from ESPN writer.

You can go back and check out that episode. Don't try to be everything to everybody. That's my concern with Taylor Swift in the Super Bowl. Don't try to be everything to everybody in the process of ostracizing your core fans. You lose who you are. You lose your identity. You lose the base of your business. You know, in a way, I think that's probably what happened with Bud Light.

Like, they were trying to be everything to everybody and ostracize their core base. but this will be huge. I mean, this will bleed over beyond the core fan into mainstream. I mean, I would imagine, yeah, biggest buys, pay-per-view, attendance, biggest WrestleMania ever. Now, speaking to the Super Bowl and Taylor Swift, you guys, this will be a moment where everybody pays attention. What's it going to be?

There was a moment last night at the Grammys that I hope we all paid attention. So I didn't watch the Grammys, so I've seen it since. But you'll remember, Country Star Luke. Combs, covered Tracy Chapman's song Fast Car this past year. And that was a big song. When was Fast Car? From the 80s? Or was it from the 90s? It's, I mean, fair to say, Fast Car is one of the best songs, like Tracy Chapman's. But Luke Combs comes along and sends it to number one on the charts, country charts. And there was a backlash. Oh, you know, it was all the undercurrent, and it may have been on the surface as well was race, white country guy, you know, usurps, I guess, black artist

who creates and writes this song and makes it a decades-long hit, and then he comes along and turns it into, you know, pop culture of the moment country hit. But Tracy Chapman loved it. She said, she has said, hey, I never thought I'd be on the number one as a songwriter on the country charts. And Luke Combs' version is good. It's really good. I like Luke Combs. It's not as good as Tracy Chapman. That's fine. I usually like originals over covers. I like old crow medicine shows wagon wheel, which I actually think there's an older version of that. I like that more than Darius Ruckers. I sort of like originals. But amidst all that, they wrote articles about it in the New York Times and everything. Last night at the Grammys, Luke Combs and Tracy Chapman came out together.

and sang a duet of Fast Car. And it was awesome. The song's awesome. Tracy Chapman's part is awesome. Luke Combs part is awesome. Their faces, both of them smiling, Tracy Chapman happy. Luke Combs, almost reverent of Tracy Chapman. It was an awesome moment that just, to me, such a rebuke to those that would look to divide us

at every opportunity, on race, on culture, on everything. Look to divide. Talk about a cultural appropriation. Force everything into the prism of race when it is simply a song, a great song, and two great artists with an great moment at the Grammys. Go check out that duet of Fast Car from last night. That's going to do it for me today here on the Will Cane Show. Tomorrow we have Matt Taibi later this week, former NFL player and sports commentator. Marcellus Wiley. We've got Rachel Campos Duffy. Don't miss an episode of the Will Cain

show this week, 12 Eastern time. FoxNews.com, Fox YouTube at the Will Cain Show on YouTube, and Apple Spotify or at Fox News podcast. I'll see you again next time. Listen, ad-free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcast, and Amazon Prime members, you can listen to this show, ad-free on the Amazon music app. Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells a story, but some stories are left unfinished. Somebody knows. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow now at Fox Truecrime.com.

Thank you.