Will Cain Country - The Unprotected Class, Plus Reaction To The David Pakman Debate

Episode Date: May 22, 2024

Story #1: Your reaction to Will's debate with liberal YouTuber David Pakman of The David Packman Show. Story #2: A conversation with the author of The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart and Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute , Jeremy Carl. Story #3: Will’s critique of his performance, where he failed and where he succeeded in the debate with David Pakman.   Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail]   Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show!   Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On July 18th, get excited. This is big! For the summer's biggest adventure. I think I just smurf my pants. That's a little too excited. Sorry. Smurfs. Only dinner's July 18th.

One, your reaction, your reaction to our debate with liberal YouTuber show. Two, the author of The Unprotected Class, How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart, Jeremy Carle. And three, my critique of my performance, where I failed, where I succeeded in our debate with David Packman. It is the Will Kane show, streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel, the Fox News Facebook page,

and always on demand by subscribing on Apple or on Spotify. You can listen to The Will Kane Show whenever and however it fits into your life. You can also subscribe on YouTube and dive into the Will Kane Show by watching us. Some feedback we got yesterday, kind of fascinating, when it comes to our debate with David Packman. A lot of people figure this is something we need to see more of in this world. Manit Contrarian said on Twitter, Will Kane and David Packman did a show together. I'm just going to say, I'm enjoying seeing more of this. People have pointing out, Bill Maher, appearing on both Gutfeld and Megan Kelly.

Matt Walsh, appearing with somebody named Florida guy. Manit Contrarian said, this is good. This is what the country needs. The country needs left and right talking to each other, obviously. but even arguing with each other, not attacking each other, not degrading each other, not belittling each other, not ignoring each other, but engaging with one another. Folks, we have a country to preserve, we have a nation to sustain, we have a society to empower and move forward in a time when we have dark forces scheming against us.

Let's fight it out, and may the better arguments prevail. My sentiments exactly manate contrarian, so we're going to revisit that conversation today. We're going to try to be self-aware. We're going to see where I may have been wrong and where David may have failed in that debate yesterday with David Packman of the David Packman show. You know, I'm going to be out next week, but the Will Cane show will march on. Two days, Dan, young establishment, James, tinfoil pat. Who do we have coming in next week? Who's going to be hanging out?

Because this show will be still putting out episodes, hanging out every day live at 12 Eastern time on Fox News.com, YouTube, and Facebook. Two days. Who's coming in next week? So we have Tyrus from Fox News will be coming in for one of the days. That would be good. Yep. We'll have Bobby Burrack, a regular on the Will Cane Show.

And then we have Sean Duffy, the spouse of your co-host. Well, those three dudes that I think should fit right into the kind of vibe here of the Will Cane show. Tyrus will be interesting. Bobby, I think, is an undiscovered talent that deserves more of a voice. And Sean is my buddy and is already big time hosting a show on Fox business. I'm going to be out, as I said, taking a week with the family, just middle of the week, going to France. And I'm really excited. So we've done this like once every year where we tried to take not a, you know, let's just relax type of vacation, but let's explore the world type of vacation.

And we did Italy a couple years ago. Last year we did Spain. I tried to work in a sporting event. So unfortunately, international soccer is over right now. Soccer, of course, is the passion of my sons. And it's eating up entirely too much time of my life. Right now is tryout season. It's when everybody tries out in the club soccer world for better teams.

And it's going well for my boys. They're both on really good teams. But it's stressful, man. It's so stressful. Like, you know, you just hate to, is my son make it? Does he not make it? I mean, it's the way of the world. And by way, there's a new book out.

It's called, it's by Tim Carney. He was recently on the Kitchen Table podcast with Rachel Campos Duffy and Sean Duffy. It's called Family Unfriendly. And it's about the way that travel sports has totally taken over family life, dinner time, church on Sundays. And I know he's, I know there's truth to this. But on the other hand, there's a lot of positives. I mean, I'm not holding on to some idea, oh, they're going to be pros, or I don't even really care about college.

I just want them to be the best versions of themselves and be resilient and try hard. And I actually love going to practices and the ride back and forth. But I do get how it totally eats up entirely too much of your life. But anyway, that's been my life so far. But next week we'll go to France. And because there's no soccer, we're going to go to the French Open. So I bought tickets to go to one day. The French, U.S. Open New York is always fun.

And I like the outer courts, you know, like I don't care about the big matches. Just walk around, take it all in. But here's the important part. We're shoehorning this in. I'm going to Normandy, a week before the 80th anniversary of D-Day, the D-Day invasion, June 6th. We'll be there a week before, but we had to get it in. I've never seen Normandy. I want my sons to see Normandy.

You know, I made them watch Dunkirk, sort of, the beginning of the war, the beginning of the German takeover of Europe, pushing the Europeans, pushing the Brits off of the continent. And then we watched Saving Private Ryan, you know, gaining a foothold back into Europe. Hopefully gives them some sense of what happened there as we're going to this incredible place. But I'm excited. But you will be in good hands with Sean Duffy, Bobby Burrack, and Tyrus next week here on the Will Kane show. But we've got a big show today. You're going to want to hang around. This is going to be a fascinating. interview, the unprotected class, how anti-white racism is tearing America apart, the one

form of racism that's now acceptable in America, anti-white racism. But first, let's revisit and react to, break down our debate yesterday with David Pakman of the David Pakman show. Story number one. A lot of feedback. You jumped into the comments on Twitter, on Instagram, You are in the comments on YouTube. You might be right now. I'd love your feedback. You're in the comments on Facebook. I don't know what's happening on Facebook, but we are blowing up on Facebook.

I mean, over $100,000 per episode on that platform alone. So if you're watching on Facebook, hit share. That's the way we keep growing this audience. And I want this to be, as I've always said, a community. You're right there in the comments hanging out with it. And here are some of the comments from yesterday. Now, David Packman is a liberal YouTuber. He's successful.

He's got 2 million subscribers. on YouTube. And we invited him on to have a conversation, a debate. And here's some of what you guys had to say. Rolf Botcher said, the headline of this YouTube video is obviously misleading. The headline read something like Trump falling apart. It was kind of a contention of David Pacman because he'd focused on this 35 second freeze of Trump at the NRA convention during a speech we debated it i think i effectively proved david that wasn't a he didn't freeze it didn't glitch it wasn't mitch mcconnell he was pausing for dramatic effect as he was he had music underlaying what he was saying and doing but uh again ralph botcher says the headline of this

youtube video is obviously misleading but your conversation is great it's something that should be a normalcy in america an american discourse like in almost every other western Democratic Society, unfortunately is not. On the Western Democratic Society thing, you know what I think is fascinating? I've always loved, like, videos of British Parliament. I mean, they get after it. They go back and forth, and we have a, granted, a not very dignified back and forth between Jasmine Crockett and Marjorie Taylor Green and AOC.

But I'm not, I mean, I'm not into etiquette. I'm into, like, let's have the messy fight. Now, it has to be done with the spirit of good faith and goodwill, and what I've happened with Crockett and Marjorie Taylor Green and AOC, that was all performance art. It wasn't actually a substantive back and forth. But we definitely need more of this. Here is Crispy, I can't go on to read the rest of that name. We'll say Crispy 962.

You can read it out if you're watching on YouTube or Facebook. Not really a fan of either of these guys, meaning me or David Packman. But I enjoyed Will's conversation with Destiny, another liberal YouTuber we did a few weeks back. He seems like a genuine dude who wants to have real conversations. Meanwhile, David came off as super combative and cringe here. Match the energy man. There's time to go hard on people in times where it's inappropriate. This was not the time to go hard.

The second hand in embarrassment made this hard to watch. And then at the bottom, Jordan Van Nortwick said, I'm a longtime David Pacman subscriber. I appreciate you to take in the time to speak with him. So, Willisha, Two a Days Day and Tenfoil, but I mean, David did come in hot, right? I mean, he came in, and you guys' estimation, I think what you said is tinfoil, you said, you figure he thought this was going to be like any other Fox News appearance or Fox News debate, like a three-minute slap fest, and he came in sort of with his guns ready to go, right, two a days?

Yeah, that's true. I mean, he came off really fast, and he was kind of just trying to set the tone to you first. And, I mean, it's your show, and I understand he hosts a show just like this, but he was trying to set the tone real fast, and you handle it a little well. I mean, it's hard. But then you kind of ramp up yourself, which was the best part, and then you get into that. Well, let me, I want to talk about that. But first, I'm going to read you what Gray Sin 1320 said on YouTube, said, great seeing David on. I personally align with David and guys like Destiny, but I think David kind of fumbled here. he came in really hot you can put this up for the audience pretty much claiming to be the judge on whether will is a bad fake actor or not even if you say it was a joke it's really condescending david also came in ready to attack views and statements made by other fox news hosts not made by will so okay a couple of things here so first you know david posted this video on his feed as well

And I'll tell you this. On his feed, the comments are pretty much 100 to zero. David wiped the floor with Will. David smoked Will. Under our audience, which, by the way, is interesting to some David Pacman fans, it's much more evenly split. Here's what's interesting. And I'm being honest with you on this.

I didn't come in to win this debate, okay? If David came in hot and he wanted to, like, you know, have these very pointed moments of wins and losses, well, he's going to get them because I'm not coming in with that. Now, let me just tell you why. First of all, forgive the lack of humility. I have debated my entire life. For five years, I debated among the best of them, certainly in performance with Stephen A. Smith on first take. And then every other person that came in, Max Kellerman, Marcus Spears. you name it. Okay, also in politics. This was not a real debate, if we're being honest. A real

debate has a prompt, a specific item that you are debating. And in first take, I've said this on numerous occasions. That is vetted out in the morning meeting. We have a morning meeting at seven, and there's topics on the board. Pacer's Celtics. Did Rick Carlisle fail the Pacers last night by not taking a timeout and drawing up an inbounding play for the Patriots, I mean for the Pacers to win a game they had in hand. One guy says no, one guy says yes. You have a question, you have a prompt, and you have two sides coming out from opposite directions.

That's not what 20 minutes with a guest of a different point of view is to me. It can be, but that almost has to be produced. There are people that do this. There are some of these organizations, and they're escaping my name, where you'll have like Chris Rufo and Jordan Peterson versus, you know, I don't know, Sam Harris and somebody else. And there's a specific question. And here's the way it's done. You know, a neutral audience votes before and after to take out their own biases.

So they say what they think about the prompt. Then they listen to the arguments and they vote again afterwards. I think it's the purest form. And it shows who persuaded. The point is if David came in hot and he wanted this to be a win and loss situation, he's going to make it a win for his audience. And I understand that. Tone, approach, everything.

I'm looking to have a conversation with someone who has disagreements with me. Now, I'm not above a debate. And when David started making statements, I definitely came back at him on a pointed level. And I'm going to analyze that coming up in just a minute here on the Will Cane show because I want to show you where I succeeded and where I failed. But the point is, you know, what happens is in these situations, when you're looking for the win, you're playing to people that already agree with you largely in that kind of situation. I mean, I understand if some of the Fox News audience is also like, you know, Will didn't win this

debate. That's probably true because I'm not doing a three minutes slap them around segment. And I don't have a pointed prompt to say, now there are moments when that happened and we'll revisit those. But I think it's just in a way came at this two different sort of approaches. And look, you know, destiny, I think came at this the way that I do. did. Destiny came into this. Like, let's explore our disagreements. Let's not try to do some MSNBC versus Fox partisan slap fight. And if that's what David wants to do, that's what he wants to do, you know. I do think he was generally in good spirit. And he's welcome to come back. But I think that's what happened. And a lot of people that are commenting on his tone versus mine in a favorable way to me, I think are picking up on, we kind of came at it with two different spirits, two different purposes. Rich P.3744 says, please we'll continue to have David or someone like him on so that we can continue to have conversations with different perspectives. We all become stronger when our views are tested. I intend to. I intend to, Rich. And then Paul A. G. says, I generally agree with Pacman more just because I'm a liberal. But Kane was fair and civil here. If all conservatives were this reasonable progress cooperation would be very popular. I mean, I think people are reasonable. That's the thing. Left, right. It's a matter of like, so what is your purpose in a particular given event or conversation? Are you trying to win? And I don't, there's nothing wrong with that. You're just going to come at something, come out of something with something different. And you know, we'll have debates. We've produced debates. Ben Dominic versus Tommy Laren on abortion. We've had others. We'll produce debates where we create the prompt and I'm the moderator.

But, you know, that's generally what it's his. Also, by the way, here's this. So Vivi Simone says, under Paula, sorry to say, Pacman really took Kane to task in this debate. See, now that's what I'm talking about. You can come out of this with that belief. And that's fine. Certainly David's audience is going to believe that. Like this, Rachel Pusoteri says, David brought the facts, Will brought the feelings. Well, okay, Rachel, I'm not. so sure about that. In fact, I want to dive into that. Like, David brought the facts. We're going to substantively analyze this debate after our conversation with Jeremy Carl. We're going to break down what facts did David bring? Were they facts or were they declarative statements? And where did I fail in that debate? But I will tell you, I don't, in this format, in this month, I don't care about winning and losing. I don't. I want to just keep having these conversations. I'm 100% confident of in what I believe. And more importantly, why I believe it, that I am willing to explore that with anyone that disagrees with me. I'm never going to quote unquote win with the audience of

David Packman. But I am going to sign up to have these conversations because, A, I think think they're interesting and entertaining. B, I think they're really good for the country. And C, I'm really confident that we have explored why we believe what we believe and that what we believe can stand the test of a debate or a conversation here on the Will Cain show. All right, coming up, this is going to be a provocative and fascinating conversation. The author of a new book, The Unprotected Class, How Anti-White Racism is Tearing America Apart. Jeremy Carl, next on The Will Cain Show.

Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Trey Gowdy 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. Listen and follow now at Fox Newspodcast.com. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery.

All right, this is going to be a fascinating conversation. By the way, stick around here to the Will Cain Show, streaming live at foxnews.com, the Fox News YouTube channel, and the Fox News Facebook page. Hit share on Facebook. Hit subscribe on YouTube. join our community i don't care left right far left far right jump right in here this is a place where we're going to have it out right here together so you jump in subscribe on youtube jump into the comment section hit like hit share on facebook hit subscribe on apple or spotify and i promise you this will be a venue that's going to be different than what everyone else is trying to be here in

media um and by the way i did see one comment i don't know if two a days dan pulled this out i think it was on Pacman's reposting the video said, is this guy referring to me wearing handcuffs? God, that's exactly what I look like with my hands. I'm like my wrists are tied together. My fingers are doing weird things. Like I'm turning into a

imprisoned wizard. What is going on with me and my Ricky Bobby hands when I'm on television? All right. This is we'll break down that debate in more substantive detail like I don't know. I think it's just kind of fascinating. Where did I, where did I lose?

You know, where did I win in that debate against David Packman? Jeremy Carl, he is the author of The Unprotected Class, how anti-white racism is tearing America apart. And he joins us now from Montana on The Wheel Cane Show. What's up, Jeremy? It's a pleasure to be on, Will. I was having fun listening to you. Just go into it before.

I really love the energy of what you're trying to do. Oh, thanks, man. Not only do we share Montana, you were messaging me asking it, yeah, I lived in Montana for a year. A little bit different part of the state outside of Missoula by about a half hour. Rock Creek, if you're familiar, Jeremy, you're over by Bozeman. But I think we also share, I don't know if those are Montana maps on your wall, but I'm a big map guy, old maps of places that I've lived. I've got several good Montana maps. This is the map room.

I actually have a Soviet military map of Bozeman is one of the maps behind. me. So in case the Russians want to bomb, they'll be lacking that map, I guess. Why were the Soviets interested in mapping out Bozeman, Montana? I think they've just mapped everywhere in the U.S. They, you know, they kind of put this comprehensive thing for if they had to red dot us at some point. And I just went on eBay at some point and got the Soviet military map of Bosman for a reasonable price. And it's a good conversation piece. they have no red don us everybody our age is prepared for the original not the remake we're prepared for the the red don moment here in america um all right man you've written a book that i mean you know by its title he's interesting how controversial this whole this is another one of those things that like everybody understands that this is going on and every understands this can go on like philosophically of course there can be racism against any particular group

right but for some reason you're not allowed to talk about this i mean we even wondered like can we put this in the title of our show we get flagged on this platform or that platform you know i mean it is the verboten forbidden topic to say hey is there such thing as anti-white racism yeah absolutely and i've had just totally normal conversations with normal hosts flagged on youtube because you know a word or a phrase got picked up by the algorithm so i think you're your right to think about it. But that's exactly why I decided to write the book and why I felt it was really important to write the book

because this is something that a lot of people are talking about in hush whispers, but it really needs a full airing. And it needs a full airing, honestly, not just because I believe in obviously the subject of the book and wrote it, but because it deserves the best possible criticism. And you can't have that criticism when the only sort of public debate on this is actually not a public debate at all,

but it's just people whispering to each other and kind of having the conversation that way. So that was really why I wrote the book to really make sure that we were having that discussion, that honest discussion. And I think I've put out my case in a pretty persuasive way. It's so fascinating that it is a conversation that would be dismissed, Jeremy, not just dismissed, censored. Like, why? Why is this not a conversation that you can have? Like my belief, Jeremy, and I think that my beliefs now are counter to the prevailing view of society.

My beliefs are that racism is an individual sin. It can aggregate in a culture, but it's an individual sin. Do you look at another human being through the lens of prejudice through their superficial characteristics? And race being their skin color, you know, at least in part. And because it's an individual sin, anyone is capable of racism, anyone. You know, a black person's capable of racism against a white person, a white person capable of racism against a Latino person, Asian, a Japanese person capable of racism against a Korean.

And by the way, that's not just my belief. We know it to be truth. I mean, it's the only way you don't believe that's the definition of racism is to only live in a place where you define the world according to black and white. And they wave away the way that I view racism here, Jeremy, by saying it's not, I think this is what they do. It's not an individual sin. It's a societal sin.

and because white people are now the majority minority or their majority, they're incapable of being the victims of racism. Yeah. I mean, this is actually a really subtle point that you've raised. I've done a lot of interviews on this book, and nobody has raised it. And I do kind of mention this a little bit, particularly in my chapter because you use the word sin about the church in the book. There's a pastor of Bodhi Bakum, who wrote a really terrific book that I reference a lot

in my chapter on the church. He's an African-American pastor. He's actually currently the head of a Christian university in Zambia, but he wrote a book called Fault Lines, and he makes actually the same point that you're making, which is even the entire debate about structural racism is slightly misnamed, because really racism is an individual sin. It's a sin of the human heart, and structures can't do that. And structures, by the way, also can't repent. So in many ways, even our way, our whole language, I use terms like, you know, I kind of toss around this term racism here, because that's just the language that everybody kind of understands when you speak. But honestly, if we're kind of being more precise, and I do kind of try to be this precise within the book,

I mean, racism is ultimately an individual sin of the human heart. But aggregated, of course, we can have discrimination or structural discrimination going on in society. And what I argue right now is not that this is, of course, the only type of discrimination we have going on or the only type of racism, but it is the most politically salient in 2024. So, so to the argument, let me explore the aggregate thing for just a moment. So the modern day definition of racism is, you know, that they would wave away, and they even censor this conversation based upon the idea, well, white people have been the beneficiaries of structural racism throughout America's history. So it's impossible, I guess, then now to be the victim. of either individual or structural racism,

and I'm so reluctant to use the word structural racism, but we have to get into that at some point because we're going to talk about, like, laws, right? And things like that. So because of America's history, it's impossible for the reverse racism to be in play today in America. Right, and that is the argument,

and a lot of my book is kind of demolishing that argument. And it just, even in sort of trivia, levels, it's demolishing the argument in that what you actually see, what you actually observe, if you look at census data, if you look at job applications and what people are doing, is if you can claim to be anything other than white today in America, at least in an official context, that's what you do. And there's a lot of data that kind of shows this. I mean, we've had almost a doubling of the Native American population, according to the census since 2010. This is not because of Native American fertility explosion, but because more people, more white people

with some Native American ancestry or finding it advantageous to identify in that way. And you can do the same thing with Hispanics or other groups. We kind of see this, a kind of similar way that you can just sort of show this in a way that isn't even an argument. It's just kind of you point to the thing. I originally kind of impishly wanted to title this book, It's Okay to Be White. And I actually got that past the editorial staff. And we were all good to go for two months.

And finally, the sales staff came. back and they just said, hey, we can't sell a book with that title into Walmart and Costco, which is not going to happen. And I thought, well, you know, it would be if I wrote it was okay to be Asian or okay to be Hispanic or okay to be black, nobody would bat an eyelash. But if I say it's okay to be white, I might as well put on my KKK. And I think that really just illustrates the reality of where the public debate really is right now and not kind of the left's fantasy of what that debate is. but see now that that is so fascinating to me because okay the the phrase it's okay to be white is on its

face benign right like that is on its face benign as applied to any race it's not the same thing as you know um whatever being i'll say it this way being pro white right or white pride it's not the same thing and um what's fascinating but but see if we do that In reverse, it's not just okay to be black, it's morally righteous to be pro-black. Do you see what I'm saying? So there's a, it's like we can't hit neutral. We can't just say, hey, it's okay to be black. It's okay to be white.

We can't have neutral here. We have to have, no, it's not okay to say that. And on the other side of the scale, when it comes to a minority, no, it's good to say you're pro. So like what we've enabled is exactly what you're laying out. Like this is the see-saw of racism. If you say it's good to be pro one race and good to be anti the other race, isn't that racism? Yeah, well, absolutely.

And this is the point I try to make in the book. And I think it's actually interesting. I mean, I think legally, I'm not one of these people who's kind of naive enough to say, oh, we just have to a thousand percent look past color because I think that its reality is human beings see color. So I'm not trying to wish that away and say that that can't happen. But what I am saying is that from a legal standpoint, and from the standpoint of at least how we try to treat each other in the culture, we should try to look past color, even while we acknowledge that that's there, and that we're really failing to do that. And it's interesting in various fields because some people would say, oh, well, this is just a recent product of the woke revolution. One of the things I kind of documented my chapter on Hollywood is that white people have actually been portrayed on average.

Obviously, there are ethnic stereotypes and other things going on more negatively than minority. in the average Hollywood film since the 1960s. And it's not me saying that. It was the liberal scholars of media who actually kind of cataloged this stuff who were observing that. So, you know, this problem has actually been building for quite some time.

It's interesting you bring up Hollywood. So you've got a chapter, you got a section of the book where you talk about the civil rights movement and this shift that happened. Just it is coincidentally, I didn't do this because you were coming on the show. It just caught my attention.

I don't even know why. But I was like, well, I haven't watched Malcolm X in a while, you know, Denzel Washington. And I'm a big Denzel Washington fan. I mean, I think if he's in something, I want to watch it. I love the Equalizer. But so Denzel is playing Malcolm X. In the beginning, he's clearly doing a Malcolm X speech, right? And it is incredibly racist.

Like, it is so racist that I can go to the Wikipedia page for Malcolm X right now. And there's an admission of his. racism, right? Which you'd have to because it's stating an absolute fact. Like Malcolm X said things like, uh, you'll never be an American. You don't want to be an American. You reject America, right? And that the white man has always been violent. The white man has always been in slavery. The white man generalized, right? Always been this devil. And, um, the reason I'm thinking about that is not just because you brought up Hollywood, but it marks that, that was the internal civil rights fight of the 60s, right? It was Martin Luther King versus Malcolm X, right? Malcolm X rejected

the million man March, that kind of thing. As I look at the way we've evolved, you know, in DEI and the way a lot of this stuff is Malcolm X won. Like today, the modern day vision of race is Malcolm X, which again, Wikipedia would describe as racist, you know, that's what won in the race conversation in modern America. No, I think that's accurate. It just, so that I don't get a bunch of left wingers kind of jumping down my throat. I mean, we should, I think it's important to say that toward the end of his life, he moderated his views quite a bit. And in fact, that was a lot of the reason that he ended up getting gunned down by more radical people.

But the core of his early vision was just as you described. And I think it has won, at least in the public discourse. And I'm trying to get back much more to an older vision. But I think, again, there's a lot of people with skin in the game who don't want that to happen and to get, if you'll forgive me for being a little bit academic for just a second because I spent a lot of time in universities, I think a lot of what we have happening right now is kind of the classic political struggle, which is really about like who controls what resources. But to do that in 2024, you can't just go up to somebody and say, hey, I want your

stuff. That's kind of considered bad form. And so you have to do what the late sociologist, Searight Mills, were called, is you have to create a legitimating ideology. So you have to create an ideology that says, here's why I'm entitled to your stuff. So you start talking about white privilege and white supremacy and white fragility and all these things. And that's why you're really bad and I have the right to get your things. But of course, if we really actually lived under any of that, you wouldn't be able to talk about it, right? Just like if you lived under Kim Jong-un, you wouldn't talk about what a tyrant Kim Jong-un is. It's only when you're safely out of living under Kim Jong-un that maybe you could talk about it. So I think that's kind of the nature

of the debate and the conversation we're having right now. So let me see if I understand correctly. So what you're saying is underneath all this race stuff, it's a classic, civilizational, I don't even know if I want to call it a class struggle, maybe a tribal struggle, but even human nature struggle of I want what you have. And it's all this other stuff

is back engineering justifications for taking what you have. That's at the core of it. And I don't want to be that. I'm a Christian. I don't want to be like reduce all the spiritual elements out of it or the cultural elements out of it. But I think at the end of the day, it is ultimately just as you correctly described it. I mean, it's I want what you have and I need an ideology to justify that. And so much of the debate around reparations and all these other things, I think is really kind of backfilled around that. And so, yeah, I mean, that's essentially what I see in current America.

Well, so now, so, Jeremy, I think that the, the rebuttal, I don't even know if it would be an articulated rebuttal, but it would be an internal rebuttal would be two things. Well, what you have was gotten on, you know, sinful means, you know, you wanted labor, so you took it from black Africans. And then the argument would be, so if you're doing it in reverse today, you're, I guess, evening the historical playing field and because this is the part I'm not sure it would be articulated because what would be articulated would be like there's no anti-white racism but if it were articulate it'd be like so what would be the argument right it'd be like it rejects that individual it would it rejects that individualized racism to say oh poor white man like the world is so hard on you right what about

the actual incident of racism to an individual they would just generalize it to a broader societal population. Yeah, and I should just try to add, just to be clear, I mean, I'm not looking to create a new victim class for white people. I'm not looking to wind to the refs here to kind of use a sports analogy that you'd be familiar with in your previous life. I'm really trying to kind of rally the troops. I think a lot of this is happening because white people are allowing it to happen. They're allowing themselves to be treated like second-class citizens. They're allowing like blatant discrimination in academia in the job market to kind of happen.

And they're for various reasons that I want to be sympathetic because sometimes people are like, well, if I speak up, I may lose my job, right? But we're allowing this to happen. And we're not a one or two percent minority where we can't speak up for ourselves. If we spoke up and say, hey, you know what? We're going to demand equal treatment. We would get it. So I think that's kind of a meta point.

But beyond that, let's just talk about. the actual like situation of white people in America because I think there's been a lot of kind of misinformation that the left is pushed. First of all, a lot of these interracial debates completely erase Asian Americans for good reason. Because if you look at the actual status, Asian Americans have better health outcomes. They're wealthier. They're better educated. And in many cases, like quite a lot than the average white American. I mean, if you look at Indian American income, I think it's like double the average white. Americans. So, I mean, these are very large gaps. Secondly, when we talk about the actual status

of white people in America, there's a Nobel Prize winning economist at Princeton named Angus Deaton and he and his wife, Anne Case, have done a lot of research I talk about in the book about deaths of despair, essentially, as they call them. And they are growing uniquely among sort of middle-aged whites, much more than other groups. And these are alcohol deaths, drug deaths, suicides. And it's sort of an indication that, in fact, not all is well in any stretch in white America. And if that is what kind of being on the top of the heap looks like, I would hate to see what it being on the bottom of the heap looked like. Well, I want to ask you this. So I think for, this is one of those things where I say, like,

it's not talked about, like you said, but people understand it. You've seen individual instances. Look, and we should say for the record, I mean, I know obviously individual instances of racism across every racial dynamic, you know, white to black, black to white, white to Latino. I mean, that's the point of racism, back to my thing, it's an individual sim. But on a broader spectrum, you brought up academia. We know, like, for example, an example could be government hiring practices with contractors that prioritize certain races over others. what it

societally affirmative action in of itself is a form of racism and if what would you point to as examples of anti-white racism well you hit a few really beautiful ones right there

those are those are all formal elements or people like America First legal right now that came out of the Trump administration Stephen Miller's shop I mean informally that is basically just looking at blatantly, and frankly, illegal in many cases under current civil rights law, anti-white discrimination in employees, where they're saying, well, white people can't apply for

this job. And it's just, it's just been out there. It's not even embarrassed. It's just, it's there in, we just see it. There were even COVID treatments in many states that were prioritized based on race. That's the story that didn't get nearly enough attention. But even beyond those kind of formal things, and I kind of read those, I put those out in exhaustive detail in the book. So for those who are interested, they can read about it there. But there's a lot of informal things. Like, I think a really profound informal thing that I talk about in my chapter on crime is this notion of just how we talk about it, that there's this kind of notion of these racist police picking off African American men. But if you really look, it's less than 10 per year on

average of unarmed African-American who are being shot by police of any race. And if you look at kind of where interracial violence is happening in the United States, although most violence, I stress to say, and crime is within race. So it's not interracial at all. But to the extent that we do have it, whites are overwhelmingly the victim of that and not the perpetrators. But there's this entire narrative, and it frankly sees the entire country in the wake of George Floyd that the opposite is true. And so we, you know, it takes the country in these really, really dangerous and bad situations based on stuff that's just misinformation. So, you know, um, you started to say that this book is a call to action. Like, you know, if you want this to stop, you got a,

you got to demand that it stop this, this type of racism, right? What is the vision? Like, so I think this conversation is part of being real and honest. Let's let's, let's, let's, diagnose something that's happening in America, okay? I don't even understand why you would censor this conversation. Like, is the diagnosis inaccurate? You know, anything you're saying about crime or hiring practices or anything like that, is it inaccurate? Does it not matter?

Do you not care? You know, if one group is discriminated against because it's for the quote-unquote greater good? I don't know. But diagnosing reality is always a place to start. But then what do you do? Like, in part of your book, right, it's a call for equality. and unity.

Dedicated the old-fashioned principle of basic human equality and the ethnic melting product that brings ethnic entities into common citizenship and a shared national identity needs to be restored. So how do we move past? Like, I don't think you're calling. I think anybody wants, I agree with you, by the way, Jeremy, like colorblindness is kind of silly. Like, we all see it. So we need to not pretend the world is a way that it isn't.

but we aspire beyond it is the whole point. And what you, I think what you're saying here is we have to get back to that aspiration because we've lost the aspiration. It's like we're leaning in to our worst instincts. I think that's a very sobering and correct way to put it. We are leaning in right now to our worst instincts and we don't have to. You know, I think even, I mean, you and I are about the same age. I remember growing up in the 80s and the early 90s.

And it wasn't always this bad. I mean, we weren't perfect by any stretch on either end. And there was racism on all sides that was still going on. But it wasn't as toxic as the debate has become. And we at least had the right kind of aspiration as generally held. And again, I'm not saying there weren't all sorts of imperfections. But I think we all at least kind of were trying to row the boat in the same direction. And now we're not even trying to do that.

And in fact, a lot of people are telling white people just get out of the boat and go swim yourself, you know, you don't belong in this boat with the rest of us. And that is just not going to work. And I should add, I'm not just doing that as a case of special pleading for white people. This is going to be really bad for all Americans if we don't solve it. And the history, which is not just the U.S. history, of multi-ethnic democracies where you have spoil systems and racial discrimination going on, what happens to those democracies? It's not an encouraging story. And so we're heading into some very, very dangerous. dangerous territory here. And I wrote this book in many ways to avert us going into that dangerous

territory. I mean, I think you're absolutely. And by the way, just a couple more. What you're right is as well, it's not just about white people. You could have written this book about, as you said earlier, about Asians, like the open discrimination against Asians. You could have written that book for that. You could have written this book. Interestingly, I think Latinos have almost been the forgotten man in this entire conversation because the world has been defined according to white and black you know i mean i remember during the george floyd 2020 era having a radio show on espn and latino callers would call him being like where do we fit in this new like definition of america

that it's all black and white you know it's just and by the way when you do this you're going to breed more white racism like you know anti-white racism creates white racism and then this this world just spills apart into racial tribalism no absolutely and i'm really glad also that you brought up the point that there are other groups besides whites and blacks in America because I don't want to say inevitably, but in many of the interviews that I've done. And look, I understand it because A, that was the sort of historical groups. And B, I think it's kind of the most salient and intellectually and emotionally fraught kind of relationship. People just make it about white and black. And I really tried in this book to not just do that, to say, hey, there's a lot of different ethnic groups here.

the same sorts of dynamics apply, the same sort of things are going on, and we really want to make sure that we include them. In fact, as you kind of note about Hispanic, I mean, Hispanics are now almost 50% more than African Americans in this country. So this is a huge group that doesn't have the sort of visibility in some of these debates that we, it could. And I actually read a piece on my substack on San Antonio that actually was kind of a good vision of what I think, white and Hispanic relationships might look like in a Latino Hispanic majority city

but unfortunately that's not replicated enough throughout the United States Yeah Well listen I like the call to action at the end And the thing about it is like this idea that we can move beyond race While not ignoring that exists And also like we said

It's not a false kumbaya It's not this touchy-feely like, because we were kind of getting there. I think you're right. Like in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s, we were, yes, racism existed. And yes, we understood that there were racial differences, cultural differences, whatever. But I still think we retained the aspiration, you know. We retained the hope, individually, culturally, and nationally.

And I, and I, this is where I, I'll begin, I'll end where I began. This is where it's like, well, early Malcolm X. Early Malcolm X won. because now we don't share that aspiration. Now it's like, as you point out, the founders were concerned about factionalism. That's the one thing that can take down a diverse society. And we're like celebrating now racial factionalism.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you and I grew up at a world where I would say Michael Jordan was the biggest sports hero, Eddie Murphy was the biggest actor, Michael Jackson was the biggest musician, right? And that wasn't like nobody obsessed about their race person. I mean, of course it was talked about at times. But we've kind of moved away from, and that was a much more white world demographically than it is today.

We've moved away from that. We've moved much more toward factionalism. Factionalism has huge, huge dangers. I've tried to outline them in the unprotected class and say, hey, look, if we don't get a handle on this, it's going to be a real problem, not just for white people, but for everybody. And I've been really gratified that I've had folks like Charlie Kirk, like Tucker Late of Fox, you know, who, endorsed it. I've actually had an African-American, Peter Kierston, now, the longest serving member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, one of the books endorsers. So it's really been a diverse group of people who I think are understanding that this is a really important

message to get out, to talk about. And I really appreciate the opportunity to go speak with you about it to a Fox audience, because I think that a lot of folks in your audience are probably thinking a lot of these things, but don't necessarily know how to talk about them in a right way without kind of being worried they're going to inflame things and make them worse. And I've tried to do this in my book and make sure that we can have that conversation in a way that's sincere and does not pull punches, but is also responsible. Well, I'm really appreciative that you had that conversation here. It's real. It's a real thing. We might as well have a real conversation about what's happening in America. It is the unprotected class, how anti-white racism is

tearing America apart. Jeremy Carl, you can check it out. It's out there. It's on sale now. Jeremy Carl, thanks so much, man. It's good to have you on the Will Cain Show. Thanks so much. Well, I really appreciate the opportunity. You bet. All right, there you go. Check it out. Check out that book, the Unprotected Class. Okay, where did I lose? Yes, where did I win? Yes, it's good that we had that conversation with David Packman. But let's break down the mechanics of the debate next on the Will Cain 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 Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast. A little self-reflection. W's and L's, wins and losses, a debate analysis with David Packman. It is the Will Cain show here. Stream live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube.

channel and the Fox News Facebook page hit share on Facebook keep exploding that audience jump into the comment section hang out as you've seen throughout the show what you'll see now is we bring you into the show be part of the conversation hits like and subscribe on YouTube will appreciate it there's a little link under the text description of our live stream where you can subscribe to the will cane show on YouTube and on Spotify and on Apple hit subscribe all right yesterday conversation debate with David Pacman of the David Packman show. He's got about two million subscribers. He's a left. One of the fascinating things is the two worlds we live in, right? Like, David will post this video on his channel. David was destroyed. I'll show you comments

from ours. David was smug and condescending and, you know, David lost. Two completely different worlds. But I want to talk about sort of some things that happened in that debate and that conversation went. I'll first share these comments with you. Andrea does yoga says thoughtful discussion, appreciate it. The readable says, Pacman does this thing where he frames the narrative where you either agree with him or you're insane or stupid. Then he brings up professionals about mental wellness, but it's unprofessional to diagnose a mental state from just watching a subject on TV. Okay, I'd say there's two big moments that happen in our conversation that turned into a debate. First, we started talking about Joe Biden's cognitive decline and whether or not

it is real, whether or not he's taking performance-enhancing drugs to improve himself in moments like debates or big speeches like the State of the Union, and whether or not it matters to the voter. If you look at the many, many, many, many people that say I lost that debate, they'll say things like David brought up facts. Well, first of all, I want to talk about talk about facts for just a moment. David made declarative statements. Declarative statements are not the same thing as a fact. I'm going to give you an example. At the end of this discussion about Joe Biden's cognitive decline, he says, I say it's important. You know, it's obviously important in terms of leadership. You've got to have a president that wakes up and goes to bed at the top of his

game. But it's also important to the voters. And he dismisses it. He says, well, why doesn't it show up in any poll and I said well I don't remember what I said to his response he goes no polls it doesn't show up in any poll okay he stated what he is contending to be a fact that it's no one cares no one thinks this is a big deal and it's a declarative statement but it's not a fact I just did a quick search and we need to start integrating us into the show in real time I totally I totally want to start doing it I told the guys we need to have two of days bring up his computer in real time this is a quick Google search. Growing share of U.S. adults doubt Biden's mental capability. That's from PBS. New York Times. A poll reflecting worries about Biden's age. AP. More than six and ten

U.S. adults doubt Biden's mental capability. NBC News. Biden's age and fitness top the list of voter concerns. And you can go on and on and on. Let's look at some of them specifically. Some of these headlines. Take a look at this. The Hill. More people concerned about Biden's cognitive health than trumps. That's a poll where they say 52% were very concerned about Biden's cognitive abilities. Let's look at another one. This is ABC News. Overwhelming majority of Americans think Biden is too old for another term, colon, poll. It's just like, it's not even a close call. It wasn't a fact. It was a declarative statement that quite honestly was false made by Pacman. Poll, 68% of voters have worries.

This is NBC News. 68% of voters have worries about Biden's mental and physical health. I mean, there's more. Here's PBS. Growing share of U.S. adults doubt Biden's mental capability to serve as president, according to an AP poll, quoting the figure of 6 and 10, consider it to be very important to them.

You see, a declarative statement is not the same thing as a fact. Now, as that commenter pointed out, The other thing is this appeal to authority, like, oh, the experts say or this or that, talking about diagnosing Joe Biden from afar. Packman says, oh, well, everybody I've had, all these experts I've talked to say, there's no problem. And in real time, I said, well, what experts? I knew it was an appeal to authority. That's a direct debate technique. And look, to be real, Trump does it all the time.

His appeal to authority is people are saying, you know, a lot of people are saying. It's an easy thing to kind of wave your hand towards. And then he rattled off some names of people I've never heard of, but it totally undercuts. Hey, what kind of expert is diagnosing someone from afar? No professional medical professional is ethically comfortable doing that. So I don't know who these quote-unquote experts are that care nothing about their ethical obligations of diagnosing Joe Biden from afar to say, oh, he's perfectly fine. But I can assure you one thing. It doesn't carry much credibility or weight with me, and it isn't a fact.

Now, here's where I failed. I'm going to tell you a failing. This is a comment from Nobody Important 23. This is on YouTube. Say, how do you ask someone to prove a negative and then say the burden of proof is on them? So here's my, we began the show today, and I said, oh, yeah, a real debate has a prompt, and then you argue two sides of prompt. that didn't happen yesterday on on joe bide's cognitive decline because i didn't have an affirmative statement well here was my affirmative statement it's not crazy for someone to wonder what's joe

biden hopped up on if he performs in big moments vastly differently than we see him perform on a daily basis it's not crazy packman did a video and said it's crazy and you know it's it's it's irresponsible and this and that. And my contention is, it's not crazy. And why? Common sense. We all have our eyes and our ears, and we can all see what's going on with Joe Biden. And then Pacman starts going into Adderall and Pro Vigil and the limits of those specific medications and what they can do to improve someone's performance at the age of, what is Biden? Is he 80? 81. And I say to him, specifically well you're using specifics that was a mistake because obviously specifics are valuable in a debate and it gave obviously his audience all the ammunition they need david's bringing facts

will cares about feelings specifics are what you need and i get that i get that but the problem there was my word choice i shouldn't have said you're bringing specifics i should have said you're making me play whack a mole now i'll say i did make david to some extent prove a negative and that that's not fair either. But I didn't actually make him prove a negative because I didn't contend Joe Biden is on performance enhancers. What my contention was, and therefore what the prompt would have been, is it's not crazy to wonder if Joe Biden is on performance enhancers.

While the left or Pacman dismisses it as conspiracy crazy talk, no, it's not. Now, I can't prove the affirmative he's on performance enhancers, so I didn't say that. I said it's not crazy to wonder if he's on performance enhancers. And then he plays what I should have said instead of specifics was whack-a-mole. Adderall, boom, provigil, boom. He's knocking down straw men that I never made arguments on.

And by the way, I don't even know if he's right about the limits of provigil on a 81-year-old. He used provigil to say it doesn't work on somebody with dementia, which again is a straw man of an affirmative I didn't say. Does Joe Biden have dementia? I don't know. I just know I see one man common sense this way in this situation. the same man, a different way in a different situation. The failing in that particular part of our conversation is there's no clear prompt. I'm arguing that it's not crazy, and I'm right, by the way.

It's not crazy. He's arguing, I guess, that it is crazy because all of these specific drugs wouldn't do what you're contending to do. I don't know. Did he get 14 hours of sleep before the State of the Union? Did he sleep up until 5 p.m.? Which, by the way, is it? good for a president. We don't need a president that needs, you know, three-hour power naps

and 12 hours at night. We need a president on the job. Is he shot up with B-12? I don't know. Providual? I don't know. Adderall? I don't know. And I don't have to prove every single whack-a-mole in order to justify the common sense that we all see with our very own eyes. In the end, if you think David won, that's great. I don't care. I don't even care if you think I won. That's not the point. I won. wanted to have a conversation and I want I wanted to I'm getting the hiccups because I took a break for an on there's zen shortage in the country right now and I'm having to resort to on really slumming it um and it sometimes gives me hiccups the point is I'm also fighting a mosquito two a days dan um

tinfoil pat you're you're right over there bud I've got one mosquito in my in my um um in my studio here, and he is just destroying me during that interview with Jeremy Carl. And I can't go swatting at him is one mosquito flying around. I only see him in glimpses. And now I got the hiccups. But long and short of it, what did you guys think of the debate yesterday? We talked about it pre-show. There he was.

He just got me on my foot. What did you guys think about the debate yesterday? I thought it was great I mean we knew kind of what it was going in and you know like we said he came out hot and the points it was different than a destiny debate you know he had different he came in knowing what he wanted to get accomplished

and how he was going to accomplish it no matter what you were throwing back at him and what he was throwing back at you very different vibe than destiny there was a plan and it went on that way yeah I think and I'm okay with that go ahead james i think destiny came across as genuine and looking to have a conversation and pacman i think

came across as a little slimy very disingenuous and just kind of a little more gotcha young establishment coming in hot i didn't i didn't like the dude he sounds a lot like didn't like him at all he's come he's he sounds like c r s hov ride david is a propagandist not even worthy of an interview see i disagree um i think it is worthy of can show the audience that or I like this name mud blood prints good job will all the gentleman arguments were in bad faith he was using feelings over facts and frankly just wasn't smart enough to debate you I I actually think there were moments where Pacman did come in with good faith I think there were moments of that I think there were some tricks which I tried to like point out today

it sets him up for a win on a tilted playing field even though I'm playing home court because I'm not trying to get the win. And by the way, if David wants to do that in the future, I'm up for that. We can have a specific, prompt, a legitimate debate and come at it from opposite angles and try to have a win and a loss. Or I'm also open to conversations like Destiny where we can just explore it and understand why each other believe and push back where we think each other are wrong. In the end, I'm up for all of it. Let's do it. You're welcome back, David Packman. You're certainly well. Welcome back, Destiny, and we'll have more.

We'll have more of this here on the Will Cain Show. All right, I've got to go fight the hiccups in this mosquito. I've got a big battle ahead of me. So it's going to do it for us today. Subscribe, like, YouTube, share, Facebook. Subscribe, Spotify, Apple. I'll see you next time. Listen to 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. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at thequiz.com. Then come back here to see how you did.

Thank you for taking the quiz.