One American - Chase Geiser·April 27, 2022·How Will Elon Musk Change Twitter & Why Do So Many Leftists Hate That He Bought It? | Corey Kilpack & Chase Geiser·
Corey Kilpack and Chase Geiser analyze Elon Musk's Twitter acquisition as a challenge to media censorship, linking it to a broader populist shift against globalist victimhood. They contrast capitalist self-actualization with collectivist demands for sacrifice, warning that historical patterns of humiliation could trigger unjustified backlash similar to the Nazi rise or January 6th. Ultimately, they argue that true empowerment requires rejecting state-induced "pussification" in favor of self-care, objective truth, and disciplined restraint to avoid repeating past mistakes while dismantling institutional control. [Automatically generated summary]
And I wonder what his strategy is, because I do believe that he's an advocate for free speech.
But I don't, I have, I find it hard to believe that that is the only reason that he wanted to pay, you know, $45 billion for a company, right?
Oh, you know, free speech is a problem.
So like, that's enough incentive for me to spend, you know, a sixth of all that I'm worth.
Right.
So I wonder what else he is he is thinking he is going to be able to do as the owner of Twitter, other than just like give people their old accounts back, right?
Like how is he planning to use the platform to further his other goals, whether it's with SpaceX or Tesla or something else?
And I think the real conversation is what can he do?
And, you know, there's another conversation happening out there.
What should he do?
What must he do?
What are the moral ethics of what he should do?
And what does he owe the democracy?
And what does he owe me?
What does he owe the previous regime?
And what does he owe the people that have been running these algorithms and providing the censorship up to this point?
And so you could have this conversation of what he should do, what he can do.
We don't always know, but this is what he can do, in my opinion, is if he brought transparency to the equation, if he only brings transparency to the algorithms that are running the shadow bands,
even if he didn't change the fucking shadow bands, if he didn't change any of it, if all he did was say, this is how it's done, this is the transparency that's there, that would be a huge change and a huge improvement.
And it would give people the opportunity to engage or disengage, connect or disconnect, like do whatever you're going to do.
But I don't think that he is doing this just because he's benevolent.
I think he's going to make money.
But there's a lot of ways that he can do it and also be beneficial.
There's a lot of rumors that I've seen that a lot of people are speculating that Twitter's been cleaning house the last couple of weeks and continues to do so before he officially gets his hands on the wheel.
I wonder if they're going in and sort of reversing any of these algorithms or any evidence of foul play that might be in place.
But you look at stupid stuff, like really stupid things.
Like these random people, whether it's Jack or Ian or whoever you look at, like people that you're familiar with, like in one day, they go up 100,000 followers.
Because they did a purge of like, I don't know, what was it like 70,000 people or something like that that were associated with QAnon and just like dedicated election fraud accounts?
And I think I could be wrong about this, and I'm sure the data is out there.
So maybe I'm just, this is just me like intuitively answering.
So take it with a grain of salt.
But I think that when Trump was banned, there was a significant number of Trump supporters who said, fuck this, and deleted their Twitter account.
And I bet you a substantial number of them are coming back now that it's not owned by the board.
Like, well, and it goes, it goes to show, like, Trump, Trump really drilled this old cliche home that there's, there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?
He got elected despite just being berated constantly in 2016, right?
So my point is that Twitter has been just getting so much press coverage in traditional media outlets for the last couple of weeks since Elon made his initial bid that there could just be an increase in users just from the constant drilling home of, hey, this guy that we know is successful somehow sees value in Twitter and Twitter is just everywhere.
Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter, Twitter on other platforms and outlets.
And it could just be sort of inadvertently an advertising thing where more people are joining the platform.
And so big, big accounts are getting a boost in followers, you know?
But I think it's funny how you see the people on the left, they're outraged about like freedom of speech on Twitter and they're acting as if it's going to be the end of the world.
But it's like, how did they forget that everything was fine 10 years ago before all these bullshit rules ever came into effect?
Like there never was a problem.
Fixed, you know, the only problem that was fixed was that the left was being, you know, vocally opposed.
That was the problem that they fixed with censorship.
It wasn't disinformation.
And so it's not like there's going to be any danger or inciting of violence if freedom of speech comes back to the internet.
I have a different take on this whole censorship model and specifically what happened with the election and what happened with Facebook and what happened with Twitter.
And I think what I was describing it and have been for a long time is that these big groups, Facebook and Twitter specifically, but in cahoots with the mainstream media, they basically went to the voting public, to Americans, to their consumers and said, these are the conditions.
Like we are declaring ourselves right now the victim of your misinformation.
We're declaring ourselves the victim of Trump.
We're declaring all of these extreme conditions right here, right now.
And if you want to participate, you got to accept these conditions.
Like if you wanted to play on Twitter, you acknowledge like they're in control and they control the dialogue that Trump is fucking America and the disinformation is destroying you and the country.
And unless you accept our terms and conditions, you're out.
And, you know, it's almost like this, that horrible centipede thing on South Park.
Like, hey, you signed it.
Now they're going to show you into a human centipede.
Like you signed the terms of agreement.
You just didn't read it.
And it's like, all right, you want to be on Twitter.
You agreed to these terms.
And that's kind of where we are, like this fake, but it's also real and threatening set of conditions to participate in the game.
And sadly, there's people think that this is divided among political lines.
It's not.
It's divided a bunch among just the people who want to give up and the elites who benefit from it.
Like, I don't know where you stand on all this, but I look at Mitch McConnell and that whole crowd, the old school guard, the neocons, I think they're pieces of shit.
And I know that a lot of it is framed in negative context because of Trump or they associate it with the 2016 election and divide it among the deplorables that are on one side.
I don't buy into the notion that it's just hateful.
I don't buy into the notion that it's just right versus left.
I don't buy into the notion that it's just, you know, old guard Americans or white Americans or all of the ways that it's been framed as this stereotype that fits into MAGA or fits into Trump or anything else.
I think that the concept of people pushing up against their limits and the expectations is not unique to that group.
I think that it's been oversold and used as propaganda to say that populism exists just in this stereotype or this socioeconomic group.
It's not just the poor against the elite rich.
It's way beyond that.
And I look at this stuff that's going on with Twitter and the reactions how, you know, the same people that were buying Teslas because it was going to keep the oceans from rising are now bitching that the guy that they made rich used the money to buy Tesla, right?
It's like people are going to find like the irony, the people are going to find a reason to bitch and moan.
But I think that there's a good and a core and a real group of people who are looking at whether it's censorship, whether it's inflation, whether it was the vaccine, like all of these different things and realizing like, God damn it.
Like, when is enough enough?
And when are these groups going to get together and realize, you know what, we may have a champion in Musk.
We might have a champion in Trump.
We might not, but realize like, you know, we got a hell of a lot more in common here than we have not in common and start to rally.
And I think that that populist situation, like things like this, trigger this Twitter thing are triggering a different conversation going forward.
And I have been giving this a tremendous amount of thought lately because I'm going to do a series of short podcast episodes like the one that I did yesterday of just me.
And I'm going to write up a blurb five times a week and do it.
And then by the end of a year, I'll have like a book kind of in that and I can edit it and put it together.
My first question when I considered populism was like, all right, what's the difference between populism and nationalism?
Because when you hear the word nationalism, you can't help but think of national socialists, Nazi, right?
They were nationalists.
And I've sort of come to the position that a populist is someone who loves their country and their people, whereas a nationalist is someone who loves the state, right?
And when the state perfectly represents the people, which is never, then populism and nationalism are the same thing.
You take out the closest it got to that was Nazi Germany when there were such a number of people within the country that were like all about it, right?
Like fanboying over the state at the time, right?
But it's, yeah, but it's never, it's never really true that there's a one-to-one ratio between populism and nationalism.
But further, further, when you think about populism, just because the nature of the word, because the communists have hijacked the phrase, like the people, right?
Because their whole platform is about the people, the people, the people, right?
Like the basic man.
Same with the socialists.
When you think about populism, it's easy to just initially have the impression of collectivism.
But my philosophy on populism is that it's actually when properly managed an individualist philosophy.
Because in order for a country to reach self-actualization, as in accomplish its potential, in order for a people to accomplish their greatest potential, every individual within that society has to reach self-actualization, like Massachusetts, full potential, right?
And so what I think that we're approaching, and if we have the right leadership to frame it, I think we might be approaching a system where it's not a conflict between the left versus the right, just like you said, but it's a conflict between those who believe in individuals and those who are globalists, because the opposite of individualism is globalism.
There's nothing more macro than globalism, right?
And there's nothing more micro than the individual.
And so if we can brand populism as an individual rights, an individualist philosophy and political movement, but resting in the love of the people and your culture,
then we can really take the best of what populism was able to do in terms of rallying people in the 20th century, but we can shed the worst that it brought out in those nations, which of course, you know, we see we saw from both the right and the left with Nazi versus communist.
Yeah, and we talked a little bit about this in a previous podcast where I said, hey, if you want to put this party together and keep it intact, you have to have room for Tim Poole and Tulsi Gabbard in the same group.
Like if you can't have a seat at the table for both of these people, you really don't have a party and you certainly don't have a movement.
And the point I really want to make when I say that is: one, I would vote for Tulsi Gabbard in a second.
Like there's a lot of things I wish she would do differently, but I look at her as a leader and think, yeah, that's someone I could vote for.
And the things that Tim is bringing up need to be part of the dialogue.
I don't think he'd be a good leader necessarily, but I think he represents the conversation that could and should be happening.
And I look at populism now and think, hey, do we need to really unite and make one of these parties better than the other?
Like that's the last thing we need, right?
We need them to the populace to organize and decide, hey, we can be fair to ourselves and to each other.
Like there's an element of self-care within our own families or our churches or whatever we organize around our companies, all our friends that work with us at Twitter, whatever.
But it can't be just at everyone else's expense.
Of course.
And I, right?
You, you have to join it up.
Now, to do that around the flag or one party, I don't think is necessary.
One of the things that people like really slam about populism as a failed concept is that you just isolate this concept that it's the populace or the people against the elites.
And they describe it as like the elite is your leader.
So if the populace organize and they create a leader, all of a sudden that leader is the enemy of the people that put him there.
And to which I say, this is horseshit.
Like I don't buy into that at all.
I think all groups will have someone that they want to get on their ride and they may benefit.
And that's the beauty of what's happening with Elon Musk right now is like he's really given a larger population a reason to say, oh, fuck yeah, we should stand up and not have our shit censored and different things.
Like he really is kind of stepping into this in a way where like, hey, you don't have to knock me down because I'm the leader.
Like, yeah, like I'm really speaking for what I think is valuable for this movement.
And this victim class can only be saved by the leaders that represent that victim class.
And that shit, I think, is going to change.
And this is where I think the tipping point in populism is going to happen when people like Barrington and like Adam Coleman and other guys like that are becoming greater leaders.
They're bold.
And there's a lot of guys out there who are willing to say, all right, those terms and conditions, we're saying no to.
And what they're really saying is your story and your conditions on your terms don't apply to me.
And I was talking about this on another podcast the other day where I was like, you know, like if you look at the 20th century, second half of the 20th century in the United States, we had such great leaders, like even the ones I disagreed with, right?
Like JFK was an outstanding leader, right?
Martin Luther King, outstanding leader.
Malcolm X, outstanding leader.
Like we had like sort of informal authorities.
Like MLK and Malcolm X didn't have any formal leadership position.
They weren't elected.
They just rose to the occasion and then became informal authorities that people look to, right?
And I'm like, where are our leaders today?
Like we don't really have people that are rallying and inspiring from like a civilian standpoint.
We have people that run for office, but that's not the same thing as being like an actual leader, right?
And I think that the reason I wanted to bring that up in conjunction with what you said about Adam and Barrington is one of the challenges that we have that I see from guys like me and you and us, just like this movement, for lack of a better term, there should be a better term, but that's get off the top of my head,
is that with the advent of the internet, we, I think as a culture, have been so distracted by winning arguments and being right because we have so much access to knowledge.
Where it's like, oh, I can pull this up off Wikipedia, or oh, I can pull this article up right now and tell you why you're wrong, or oh, I can go to this fact checker.
So it's always about being right and winning the argument.
Whereas before we had access to all these tools to argument, leaders had to win by putting their ear to the heart of what was happening in the culture, what was resonating, and then responding to that like emotional zeitgeist with leadership and rallying people because of it, right?
And I hope that in America, someone will realize that truth and realize that being right isn't enough.
I mean, everybody remembers the kid in third grade that raised their hand to answer every question, and nobody fucking likes that kid.
Okay.
You're not going to win hearts and minds by being, oh, I know, I know, right?
Like Hermione Granger and Sorcerer's little bitch until the second half of the book, right?
So, so the point I'm trying to make is we can't just focus on what the right thing to do is or being right or humiliating the opposition with pointing out how they are.
We have to actually understand how they feel and then ride the wave, man.
You know, there's my grandmother was, she was a leader.
I'm not in a grand scale.
People wouldn't know her name.
She was appointed to run a savings bonds division when JFK was around.
She led campaigns with Hubert Humphrey.
She stayed on with JFK through everything.
And, you know, I grew up like watching her in this Democrat circles.
And, you know, she was friends with amazing people.
Like Senator Ted Moss came to her funeral and or to my grandpa's funeral, I believe.
And, you know, some just great people along the way.
And she would speak very highly of Republicans, you know, and I would hear stories from her about the gores and about Bob Dole.
And, you know, I didn't even appreciate it until I was much older.
I had no idea.
I would check in with her.
But I look at that era and think of someone like Tip O'Neill.
And have we had anyone like Tip O'Neill in 30 years in the House or the Senate?
Like we don't have that kind of presence in Moxie.
We have bitching and moaning and just calamity all the time.
Like Tip O'Neill would have sent this shit going on in the House.
He would have sent it sideways and not put up with that.
He had a country to run.
And I think about that kind of leadership and that kind of dialogue.
And you're right.
It's changed because of Twitter.
But I think there's a bigger change.
Like it is not just that people can be right and proving that you're right all the time.
Because being right takes effort and content.
Even if you're Googling it or whatever you have to do, if you want to actually be right, you have to commit.
You have to stand for something to be right.
And what we've done is flip this shit around and rewarded the sorry little shithead who all he has to do is troll and put himself in a position to say you're wrong.
And you look at how Twitter was moderated and Facebook is moderated through that election cycle and other things and compare it to small subgroups.
And I belong to some that have moderators in these forums and where you reward the behavior that just asks questions.
Like, I'm never going to stand for something.
My only job here is to make you look stupid.
And if I can't do that, I'm going to kick you off.
Like, I'm never going to, I'm never going to stand for something.
I'm just going to prove you're a son of a bitch or you're dumb.
And then I get to my wit's end.
Ooh, you're out of here.
And this became the model for Facebook and Twitter.
Like, we're going to just decide in our back algorithms and rooms and wherever we go and drop acid, micro-dose, of course, because it's San Francisco and silicon micro-dosing.
We're going to micro-dose until we come up with a solution for why we can censor every goddamn thing we don't like because we've only decided that it's wrong.
And they don't take a position to really defend either the algorithms or what's right because they're fucking trolls and cowards.
This is the new model.
They don't really, we don't really know what Zuckerberg stands for, except we know that he decided what's wrong and he's going to get that shit off his site.
Yeah, I think honestly, what's going on is we just have everybody who's in control of these platforms has a very similar worldview.
There are all these tech guys and they go to these tech cities.
And it's just like the same.
It's a culture.
It's a, it's their sort of leftist mentality.
And I think that what happened was they just really hated Trump.
And they're using all of this oral grandstanding as cover for what they really want to do, which is just not allow those who they disagree with to gain any political power in the country.
If I slam my desk, it would make this big boom and people would give up on your live stream.
But yes.
And it's not Trump that they hate.
They may say they hate him or feel like they hate him, but it's everybody else.
But there's something about themselves.
Like it's really a relationship, a collective relationship.
And I think the true animosity is really toward the person who either has disregard, no interest, or disdain for their feelings that they think are so important or their positions that they think are so important.
I think that the real disdain is directed at the guy who fixes their goddamn flushing toilets and the guys who fix their cars and the people who are not like them and don't solve the news.
I'm telling you, he represents something bigger than just a billionaire or almost trillionaire or whatever.
He represents something much, much bigger.
He is a champion for something bigger than just a guy who made a ton of money off Tesla, SpaceX, boring and Dogecoin or whatever.
He represents something bigger.
And the populace don't need him, but they see value here and they respect what he's doing.
They're not asking him to run for president.
They don't need him to win something to validate what they're seeing or thinking or believing.
And he represents something and this all represents something bigger.
And this terms of separating it, I mean, it's clear.
As long as they keep the populace divided, especially if they can keep the black community at 90% loyalty on one side, and another group of people in West Virginia stays loyal to one side, and they split these up and they even call it racism, call it whatever they are.
I don't think it's always that, even though that exists in the world.
They control these smaller subgroups, which, you know, they can just keep running around patting each other on the back.
But I think there's a time when Candace Owens and other groups, they all get together and just like, fuck this.
So, when you said that Elon represents something much bigger, that was absolutely fascinating.
Simple as that statement was, it totally sent me down a rabbit hole while you were talking.
I was listening to you too.
But let me put it, let me put it to you what I'm thinking.
Let me put it to you this way: Elon Musk is somebody who was born in South Africa.
His father and mother divorced when he was like eight or nine years old.
And even though his dad was rich, I don't think they got any money.
He lived in Canada for a while, paid his own way through college, I believe, on student loans.
And of course, now he's in the United States.
And he founded a company which was later acquired and became PayPal, right?
Which is how he made his first tens of millions of dollars.
Then he bought, I can't remember the electric company that he bought turned into Tesla, but then he then started Tesla and then he started with Tesla.
He was able to accomplish building an electric car, which is almost as affordable as a traditional internal combustion if you factor gasoline over time, right?
Which is impossible.
Then he created a rocket company in the private sector, right?
And which is impossible.
And he was able to shoot one of those cars.
And I'm paraphrasing Jordan Peterson, who's told the same story kind of this way.
He was able to shoot the rocket into space and let one of us go, right?
And he was able to do it at 10% the cost of NASA, which is impossible.
And then now he's acquired one of the largest social moves privately, which was impossible.
I don't think there's ever been a reversal from an IPO for a big tech company in the history of capitalism, right?
And the reason I mention that is because it goes to show that Musk, totally regardless of whatever his political positions are on any issue, is someone who, when he is presented with objective reality, he responds in a very efficient way that allows him to continually be successful and everything.
He's almost like he's like, it's almost like he's like a savat.
He's almost like the eye, right?
Only with a cooler personality.
And the reason I wanted to mention all that, man, is because when you said he represents something bigger than just being a billionaire elite, maybe what they are afraid of, and in conjunction with the context of the censorship, maybe what the leftists are really afraid of is capital T truth, reality, objective reality, right?
Because we have this whole postmodern thing where your truth is your truth.
And, you know, you live your story and I live my story.
And, you know, are you living your truth?
Like, you can make it if you think it's true or if you feel it, it's real.
And maybe the fact that he has totally embraced the fact that reality exists and I'm playing in this universe to win.
Maybe that is what is terrifying to them.
Because if reality exists and objective truth and objective falsehoods, then eventually you have to arrive at the conclusion that you are the person that you are because of the decisions that you've made.
And your failures are no one's fault except for yours.
A very hard cross to bear for someone who is shame averse.
Yes, if you are conscientious and not shameless and you absorb that in a brutal way, yes, it can be crippling.
And but the system has used everything you're describing to their advantage.
And I have, we've talked about this.
Like, I feel like we're repeating ourselves.
So stop me if we've gone over this.
The difference between surrendering and being submissive, it's a fine line.
The motivations between surrendering and being submissive are the same.
You are giving something up.
You are making a selfless move for somebody else in many cases, like you not being the greatest priority.
Yourself is not the biggest priority.
And you are aware of the choice that you're about to make.
But when you submit to something, this is a fatal or fantastic way out there extreme.
And the difference between surrendering is: hey, these are the facts.
You know, I got to wake up tomorrow and I'm going to have to put in a 16-hour day for 100 days just to get out of this mess I'm in or to make it to the next level.
Like you can surrender to the facts or you just submit and give up.
Like that's the difference.
And what this whole censorship model was and the whole campaign that we saw going way back to 2016 and even beyond, but certainly at hyper level since then is taking using censorship to take away the facts and force the people to submit.
And it doesn't even give them the choice to have the experience hard or not that you're describing.
Like you've yanked it away.
You just fucked them.
You said, we'll decide for you.
You don't get to decide on the facts.
You just submit to the way we're doing it, the process, the information we give you.
Fuck you.
You submit.
That's it.
And now you have a guy who, whether he's successful or not, is creating for people illusion or real that, hey, maybe we get to choose for ourselves.
Maybe we get to speak for ourselves.
Maybe we get to choose, make a wrong choice.
Who knows?
But he's giving people this hope in this transaction and others that, yeah, you can make a better decision.
What if you want to give up on life and you don't want to commit suicide?
So the point I'm trying to make is, if a Rubik's Cube is easier than life and people are giving up on the Rubik's Cube, then they must be living a life that they've given up on.
Because I think that what this boils down to is there are people in this world, in our country specifically, who won't give up.
They haven't given up.
And I think there are people on the right and the left, right?
Tulsi would be like somebody on the left like that, right?
And there's a whole, like even maybe a majority of people or half the population, even though they're living, they've given up.
And I think that maybe the conflict that we're having here is when you continue to fail at something and you give up on it, it's painful to know that there was a way to win.
And so I think that when they're presented with someone like Elon Musk, who hasn't given up and is successful, and they see that it's possible, I think deep down that they just, they feel so discomforted and off-put by it because it makes them feel like they failed because they have to admit to themselves that the reason they're in the situation they're in in their life is
not because the game was unwinnable, but because they stopped playing.
And we have one that we ordered in 11 by 11 back when it was contraband because of the patent violations.
We had it shipped from an attorney's office in Beijing to an attorney in LA and had it driven up to San Francisco back when it was a patent violation to have and get them on eBay.
So yeah, I raised my kids doing those.
So yeah, I get your point.
Elon is pissing people off and he's also inspiring people.
And that's what you're, the metaphor that you're giving, just he fits both sides of this.
The example of the Rubik's Cube is once you had the algorithms and it was just algorithms.
Like it was just a process of doing things and putting them in a place based on a few facts, right?
Once you had that, you could succeed at that puzzle.
And Elon has done that for people.
And he said, hey, here's pieces of the puzzle that we can solve.
And I'll show you the way.
I'll show you how to beat NASA's margins.
I'll show you how to launch internet satellites into the sky that become useful in rural areas.
I'll show you how to put this car on the road.
And now what?
We have competitors doing it.
We have even Porsche is putting out a fucking electric car now, for God's sake.
It's like pretty soon we're going to have electric cars in the Indy 500s and everything.
But Joe Rogan, I will tell you this, he's made a great audience out of the populace on all sides, like whether, whether it's majority Republican or not, he's basically said, he's basically said, hey, let's fucking do this.
Let's put on our goddamn t-shirts and sit in this room and we're just going to go.
And so, but that is, you look at that is the, that is the spirit of what Musk is doing.
And it stands in brutal contrast to what you're getting from other forms of leadership right now.
And that scares the ever-loving fuck out of a lot of people.
Well, and one of my, one of my sentiments about this whole macro political dynamic, you know, as the brilliant audio engineering major I was is I asked myself like, all right, if you talk about like Kim Jong, Kim Jong-un's the guy in North Korea, right?
Not Kim Jong-il.
I always mix him up.
Kim Jong-un's the guy now that's the president of North Korea, I think.
And I asked my, I was asking my buddy Andrew, I was like, do you think that guy likes his job?
I don't know if we talked about this on our last podcast, but it's like, can you imagine being the dictator of North Korea?
Like, wouldn't that suck?
You're always looking over your shoulder, whatever, right?
And I guess, you know, he gets whatever he wants in terms of like material objects and stuff, but it must be a high stress thing.
And the reason I bring it up is because I asked myself, all right, then why is it that these people so desperately seek power all the time, right?
Because it's like when you actually get in these positions of power, it sort of sucks unless you have like everything buttoned up so you know that it's locked in.
And I think what the reason it sucks is because the more power you get, the more anxiety you get about whether or not you're going to be able to keep the power, right?
You get more anxious about keeping it or you don't want to lose it.
And my philosophy on the whole globalist thing that we're seeing now is that the leadership and the conglomeration of power and wealth on a global level has to such a point that there's a tremendous amount of anxiety among the leadership class about losing power.
And I come to Berkshire Hathaway was never disruptive.
Gates was never disruptive.
Right, exactly.
I want to get to the Last Romans question before you go to your next podcast.
I'm not going to look at these things because no, but keep going.
There is something really unusual about Elon's presence, and he is disruptive.
And he has a history of it.
PayPal was disruptive.
Like you look at what he's done, and then you look at how he did it and why he did it and his motivations.
And I think, and this is why I want to get to the last Romans question, is Musk could have gotten just been rich and gone away and stayed rich and made cool shit.
And he always went in it all in.
Like he pulled nothing back.
He sold his houses recently.
Like he went all in.
And that's different when you're the richest man in the world.
Like it can appear to be a different way.
When he started these companies, he was all in.
And, you know, Vox is asking if we think he, I haven't read the Vox Day report about Musk being a gatekeeper, but I do want to get to it.
He, a gatekeeper in this context, and I don't know what the report said, but it kind of gives you the image that he's just passing the shit on or passing it through or letting some stuff in and some stuff out.
Like you, you're basically, you know, the people come, they go, you let them in, you let them out, that kind of thing.
And I don't think that that's what Musk is doing here.
And one of the reasons I don't think that is that's never been what he's doing.
And I don't necessarily think Tesla is worth what it's worth.
Like I can't make that argument.
And I've spent a career on Wall Street.
But I look at what he's built.
He has been a builder.
He's found a problem and he fixed it.
He brought a solution to the problem.
He saw the transaction problems and he found a solution and made it work and made it profitable.
He saw the issues with cars, the possibility of bringing electric cars to the market.
He brought a solution.
He proved it, brought it to the market.
It worked.
He's not in the business of just painting pretty pictures and telling cool stories and asking for a handout and losing.
He fixes shit.
That's what he does.
And I think that if he bought Twitter, he will make money on it, but he is going to fix some things, even if it's small things.
But I did want to finish my thought on the globalist thing, too, because thinking about the nature of power and that the more you have, the more anxious you are to lose it.
If we see a continued conglomeration of power, which we have seen globally, international organizations, World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwabs, people like that.
If we see continued growth there, then we know that there's going to be continued anxiety about losing the power.
And I honestly believe that this is the real incentive behind the World Economic Forum and their notion that by 2029, you'll own nothing and be happy.
Because the only way that the globalists, as they accrue power, can reduce their anxiety over losing it is to ensure that the people are as powerless as possible, own nothing, be happy, right?
And that's what's terrifying to me is this idea that we will lose our national and individual identity to the will of globalists in order to satiate their comfort with their power, knowing that there is no threat to it anymore because we've entered this fiefdom.
Because what's really going on is these people in power, what they want is exactly what they take.
They want total freedom.
They want to be able to do what they want and go to the island, whatever.
They want to figure out how to become a mortal.
They want to totally liberate themselves from any anxiety or pain in the world.
Just enter this almost godlike state, this deistic state.
And the only way they can do that is by fucking you.
Because as long as you can vote them out, they can't reach total bliss.
I want people to look at their real experience and realize how much they're getting played.
And, you know, I talked about this with Barrington too.
You know, they take this emotional experience, especially in little subgroups, right?
They do it particularly among the black population.
We saw everything from riots, everything else.
They take this huge emotional experience and they play on it as a way to placate and soothe their big leadership, emotional, left-wing conspiracy, like left-wing victimization and ideology.
And they never return back to the people that they're exploiting and the emotions that they're drawing on or advertising.
They just return complete 100%, go back to redoing the same cycles over and over, deja vu.
And they don't ever actually address the reality, the real experience, what's really going on.
It's sort of like the you can run, but you can't hide thing, right?
That's the problem with postmodernism is you can ignore a problem, whether it's like an overdue mortgage, you know, for a period or if climate change is real, which I don't know if it is or not, but you can ignore that for a while.
Right.
But eventually, no matter what you believe or how much consensus there is among a community, like none of the dinosaurs believed that a meteor was going to hit the planet, dude.
And yeah, I think that what we have to do is we have to, as a culture, value truth again.
And I think that's one of the main things that allowed Western culture to become the greatest culture in the history of written and in written human history is that regardless of whether you're a Christian now today, Christianity did.
We have a huge and it was partially Plato's philosophy as well as heavily embedded in Christianity, but it had a huge shift in West because all of a sudden capital T truth became incredibly important culturally.
Jesus is I am the way I'm the truth.
I am the light.
And there's this note.
Do you believe the truth?
Have you heard the good news?
Like this is real.
God is real.
He just did come back from the dead.
That's what really happened.
And so there's like this whole idea of truth, truth, truth.
And religiously, we pursued truth.
And honestly, that value in truth, that we cared about what the truth was and were curious about for it and died for it in the Crusades or whatever.
Like this truth was huge.
And it's the reason that we invented science because we needed a method.
Like I was just going to say that because I don't know, like I don't understand this as much as you.
But if we didn't have the passion for truth around our mythologies or religion, could we have nurtured the same passion towards the science and the shape of the globe?
Nietzsche said that the reason this was going to happen was because people were going to stop believing in God.
And that's why he said God is dead.
And he predicted a lot of the calamities in the 20th century, because if God is dead in the in the minds and the hearts of the people, then they'll look to the state to replace, you know, the need that they previously rely.
And so I don't know if if if that's it, but it seems to me that there's there's something.
The solution is is for us to get back to a place.
I don't know how to do it.
I wish I did.
God.
But where where we actually believe in and respect the truth, because if we if if we can if we can have the strength of character required to to to pursue truth and truly respond to it, if we can just have that character, then so many of our problems would evaporate.
And honestly, I think that I think that people are averse to the truth because the truth not only shines a light in the darkness, but it shines a light on your soul and people are terrified.
Yes, you are terrified that they will be discovered for who they are.
And I honestly I think this all comes back to self-esteem and the people and the bitching and the divisiveness that we have.
It all comes back to the point that people feel like shit about themselves and they're too big of a pussy to do something about it, to make themselves worthy of their own self-respect.
They would rather the world be in denial about their imperfection than that their imperfection be corrected.
So I don't know a lot about esteem, but I agree with your point.
And I think it comes down to, I understand esteem is important.
I just can't speak to it.
I need to look at it more.
But there's no question that our dedication to self-care is a factor.
If we make a choice, a conscious choice that we're not going to take care of ourselves, we're going to take care of someone else or we're not going to take care of ourselves.
Someone's going to take care of us, whether it's the government or our mom or whatever.
We go through phases where we can't take care of ourselves and we cycle through it.
There's periods in our lives, even as adults, we can't.
We need help.
But that relationship to self-care and your confidence in being able to do that, if that's your esteem and your ability to succeed at that is going to determine your destiny in many ways.
That is exactly like we keep getting back to this.
This is what is getting exploited all the fucking time.
And this is what's being exploited to keep the division in groups and to keep people down and to reward those groups at the top that are trying to hold on to their power.
They're trying to convince us that we're not responsible for our own choices, behavior, or even our own experience.
They're trying to just take away the concept of self-care and sell us this bullshit that they're going to do it for us.
And at least they're going to do it for the 48, 90 million people they need to win an election or to get paid, right?
So, or to consume their shit or sign up for Facebook, whatever the hell it is.
But this is a core part of marketing now: is to say, hey, one of two things are going to happen when you buy this or participate or sign up for this.
It will let us take care of you.
It's going to close, fill the gap, or it will make you cool.
It will make you more of a dick or more of a douchebag.
And one of the two, right?
But it's everywhere.
It's everywhere where we just basically say you're not responsible for your own care.
Well, and let's go back to that self-esteem to self-care because I really, really appreciate the value and emphasis that you put on self-care.
I loved your book.
It was some.
I think you're right on the money.
But I'll just give the example of my wife, right?
So we have some crystal that we either inherited or got from our wedding, right?
A lot of people have crystal and they bring it out on special occasions like Easter or Christmas, whatever.
They bring it out on special occasions and they'll have champagne out of it.
And I don't know if your wife is this way, but if I go to the cupboard and all of the shitty glasses are in the dishwasher because we're lazy asses or make a mistake, right?
And if I go to reach for a crystal to pour a sprite into, she flips out, right?
Right.
And it's because she has esteem for the crystal, but not for the shit glass.
So my point that I'm trying to make is I find it hard to bet self-care is possible without self-esteem.
Because if you don't, could be, if you don't see the value in yourself, then why the fuck would you take care of yourself?
Right.
And so that's, I think I'm like a notch more fundamental in the principles.
Like, I think you're totally right about, but I don't think there's anything contradictory about self-esteem.
I think it's like, I think it's more like a pyramid.
And the self-respect has to come from within, because if it comes from without, then you've built that foundation on sand because it's totally unpredictable what the people will think of you.
One day you're a hero.
The next day you're a villain.
One day you're at the Oscars.
The next day you're banned for 10 years.
Right.
So if you build your self-esteem, I'm serious.
I know it's funny, but I'm serious.
If you build your self-esteem upon how other people view you, you are in for an emotional roller coaster shit show of a life.
And the only relief that you will get short term is to deny and not introspect and just ignore the problem.
And ultimately, the chicken comes home to roost, right?
Or the rooster comes home to, I don't know, whatever.
So the point that I'm trying to make here is if you can find a way to summon the self-esteem regardless of the external environment, if you can find a way to psychologically get to a place where you realize that you as a human being, as an individual are valuable and there's nothing inherently wrong with you because of any immutable quality about you, then you have laid the perfect foundation to begin self-care.
And once you have once you have done self-care, then you can become a productive person in society.
And once you become a productive person in society, you have better your community, yourself, your family, and your country, as long as you do it without harming others, right?
And so the point that I'm trying to make is that self-care is populist because the only best thing that you can do for your country is make your fucking bed.
The populist movement is saying, hey, we're moving back to thewards the center.
Like we can take care of ourselves and we can be inspired by someone like Musk or whoever it is they like or choose and read and take care of ourselves without having them do it for us.
So I agree with that.
You know, I just did a bunch of podcasts and I was like the only guy on there who's got like tattoos running up his arm and long hair and a beard.
And everyone else on there is like life coaches and psychotherapists.
And it's fascinating and fun.
I wouldn't change it for the world.
But, you know, all of these things we're talking about, these therapists and coaches all bring up all the time.
And you talk like the guy who I co-wrote the book with, who I'll do a podcast with you one day.
We'll get him on here and beat him and make him talk about the populist movement.
It's not even scratching the surface for how bad it can be.
And it doesn't even scratch the surface for how common it is.
Like, this is everywhere we go.
Everything you're describing, these psychotherapists and coaches, people that I've been talking to in the course of writing this book will be like, not only is it more common than you can imagine, it's worse and more severe than you can imagine.
And the progress out of it is slower and worse and improbable in many cases.
I believe that the pussification of our country has been an assault on the individual by the state.
I honestly think that the state has done this to us.
And the reason I want to bring, the reason I want to argue against that, the reason I'm not arguing against it, I have no idea.
If we think about these globalists in their path toward power, their desire for power, and you will own nothing and you will be happy, what is power but owning everything, right?
Infinite wealth, unlimited resources, right?
They don't want you to have property.
If you look at the collective, the collectivist philosophies, right?
Mao, all the way back to Marx.
It's all about self-sacrifice, right?
Give yourself to the people, to your country, to the community.
Sacrifice yourself to the state, right?
And a people is more compliant and readily willing to do that if they don't have self-esteem.
Because if you value who you are and you value yourself and you have self-respect, then you are not readily someone who's just going to give that up, right?
Like you might to charity because you care about something.
But I mean, you're not going to allow like some state to just arbitrarily take it from you because it's yours and you respect that.
And the reason that we were so racist against black people in this country, we did not enslave black people because we were, we were racist because we enslaved them.
Because when you beat down a slave and you call them a racial slur and you divide up their family and you don't allow them to read and you make them feel pathetic about themselves, they get more work done for you during the day because they're not thinking about anything because they are no one, because you've conditioned them to be like that.
And so honestly, that was the state eliminating the self-esteem of a race, right?
For the purpose of a more subservient and submissive labor force.
And the racism that we saw after the slaves were freed, I think, was just an echo of an actual intentional conditioning that was done.
We saw that were vulnerable and we took them and we treated them in such a way that they would be more productive.
And so what this doing to us now has little to do with race, right?
Because the race actually doesn't matter.
The race was just the excuse that we had to make people feel like shit about themselves.
What they're doing to us now is the same fucking thing that we did to the slaves.
And that's why there's toxic masculinity and they want you to be, you know, they don't want you to claim yourself.
They want you to be afraid and they want you to be constant second guess whether or not she wants to kiss you or whether or not you have consent.
They're making everything weird and everyone self-conscious and they're making people afraid of shame of an alternative outcome where before they would stomach the risk of shame because they had enough self-esteem that it wouldn't bother them to be rejected.
You know, there's the next layer of all this is also fascinating.
And which you, you take what they're doing at the level of the consumer and the citizens, the pussification, make turning them into submissive and victimized or fakers, like the imitators.
They're just constantly pushing people out into this perimeter where you don't live authentically and you don't surrender to facts.
You submit to what they tell you to and you don't have self-care.
You're a victim.
Like they keep pushing you out.
And it's like, well, what about the other side of that?
And that's where they're saying, yeah, we got that.
Like, we're like, they're like, that's fine for us.
Like, we'll go ahead and we'll fill that role for you.
And that's normal.
Like, your leadership is generally a more assertive group.
And they're saying, yeah, we'll go ahead.
We're going to be the ones and tell you that your aggression, your assertiveness is offensive, but our aggression as your leader and our assertiveness is benevolent.
Well, and that was something that was so cool about just the founding of this country and what happened with the sort of Renaissance movement is that throughout human history, traditionally, things have operated on a dominant, submissive, you know, oppressor-oppressed for contemporary terms model where you have strong mans that you have a strong man that's chief.
You know, the strongest guy in the club gets to call the shots about what happens in these small tribal communities.
Like there was a very dominant, submissive dynamic going on, just sort of in a human psychology in primitive sort of patient times, right?
And what was so cool about, honestly, about capitalism, and I know that it's got a negative connotation today, but honestly, when people talk about capitalism today, they're not talking about capitalism.
They're talking about cronyism, which is the same thing as fascism.
They just rebranded it.
But the point I'm trying to make is capitalism was a way that you could get a group of people to engage in productive work without any one of them being submissive, right?
So you might have an just because you're someone's employee doesn't mean that you're submissive.
Deal.
You could be an equal to your employer.
You exchange your labor for their money.
Right.
And that was what was, it was the first thing that happened.
You didn't have to have a king and subjects, right?
Or a lord in a fiefdom, right?
With this, this model that we had of the open market and free trade, all you had to do was let the invisible hand do its thing and have incentive structures in place.
And so I think that was where we had the burgeoning of self-esteem.
And that's why we've had such astounding technological advancements over the last 300 years compared to the last 3,000 years combined before that is because we found a way to set people on a path at least towards self-actualization.
Maybe they wouldn't reach it, but you inched closer.
And that was way more productive than just making it, you know, a group of people being the bitch of a small group of people, right?
Yeah, this is a simplistic view, but there's an important concept here.
I don't know if it caused the backlash.
I know that there was a backlash.
And I know that there was a massive upset of the social norms and that most likely, and I'm pretty certain they needed to be upset.
Like there's probably some things that were working, but a lot of shit needed a break.
And that's okay.
But the concept in that point is one that we keep talking about here with the populace, with Censorship, the communities that are talking and the information that we have.
When the North humiliated the South and beat their ass, it established a new set of conditions, and people had to accept and agree to these conditions to participate, or they were in for a massive fight, or they were going to be disconnected in some way.
This is just the same principle that applies in a family, in a relationship.
It's the same things, Chase, that you apply when you coach and teach and train and parent your daughter.
Like you're basically saying, here are the terms for engagement.
If you get way outside the line, you might be sitting in your car seat a little bit longer, or you might have to leave the store and go sit in the hood of the car a little bit longer to reorganize and we back on equal and acceptable terms.
So, so, but, whatever it is, my point is, we establish, we establish our own limits, whether they're extreme or whether they're reasonable, and we allow other people to engage us on those terms.
And everything we're talking about here with the person, this is my just, man, I have a passion for this.
I'm even thinking about writing another book about it.
When we institutionalize these extremes, we fuck with entire populations with indiscrimination.
And it is brutal.
It is ugly.
And we're telling people you're not rich enough to participate.
You're not politically aligned correctly to participate.
You have a different opinion about Ivory Mechanism to participate.
Whatever it is, we're not going to let you participate.
Or if we do, it's on these new terms.
And it's something that's as American as the Civil War, where we've been subjecting people and changes, you know, conditions on people all the time.
And that's what's happening now.
We're subjecting changes, conditions, all this stuff on people.
And I think we're about to watch the people say, fuck you, I'm done.
I don't even know how to pull up the chat over here.
Usually I don't look at the comments until after because then I can't pay whoever I'm talking to.
But last Roman.
Gotcha.
Yep.
I see.
A lot of people in the chat tonight.
Thanks for coming through and joining back.
We are talking about the populist movement that is probably about to take hold.
So, Corey, I got to ask you.
I got to ask you, man.
So what I was saying is my concern is, is it's historically based, right?
So if you look at what happened in Germany between 1918 and 1945, there was a populist nationalist uprising as a unemployment that approached 30%.
And, you know, the raw deal that the Germans got at the end of World War I, right?
They really got fucked by their leaders at the end of World War I, and they were humiliated.
And ultimately, what happened was there was a real grievance that the Germans, the Germans were justified in having a grievance about the condition that they were put in by their leaders.
And the mistake that they made is they took the racial route and they thought it was just like this huge conspiracy of the Jews, which, you know, I don't, of course, it wasn't.
And they way overreacted to an injustice that had been done to them by doing a far greater injustice than had really ever previously been seen, right?
But the point that I'm trying to make is I do think that there's people are waking up and there's going to be a populist response to this bullshit.
And I think the populists are going to win because historically they always do for a while.
And my concern is that we're going to lose our heads when it's our turn to make shit happen.
And we are going to respond in an unjust way to those who we perceive for better or worse as having been responsible for the injustices that were done to this.
So, you know, our businesses were shut down because of COVID, right?
There's a pain point there.
We're forced to get vaccines.
So there's a pain point there.
People didn't like that.
People, their buying power is way lower than it was.
People hate that.
Unemployment might skyrocket.
People are going to hate that.
So that's going to add up.
And it's going to fuel this.
And when we have the power, who are the enraged going to blame for creating that suffering and that injustice?
And how will they respond?
You know, like, are we going to fuck it up when we win?
You know, my response to that is it's highly probable that the reaction is worse than we expected.
And isn't that the concept of triggers and reactions?
Like people are creating a trigger often deliberately and they're trying to get a reaction.
Sometimes they get a reaction that they didn't really want.
So do I think that collectively, if we institutionalize such bad behaviors and trigger these people for so long and so hard that we end up with a reaction that we don't like?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I think what could those triggers be and that would generate a reaction that would lead us to fuck it up or the populace to fuck it up.
And I think the most likely is not the military and it's not Elon Musk and it's not, you know, all this bullshit.
It would, it would come from an organization associated with the Fed and something that would basically people wake up one day and they thought they had something that's not there.
They thought they had a security that's not there.
They thought they knew something was going to be there every day and now it's gone.
But hey, the bankers, the feds and everyone else is doing just fine.
I mean, that kind of reaction, and I'm not predicting that that would be the case, but could you get a reaction you didn't like that you would look back at and say that was a fuck up?
Yeah, yeah, you could.
You could.
And that's why I think it's so important to have these conversations too.
And people to know, like, you're getting played.
Like, honestly, if you were on Twitter and it's a minor goddamn thing, if you were on Twitter and you thought seriously that you were getting unfiltered truth, you're crazy for one.
Like you were entering a silo of information, of filtered information.
But if you, if you thought, all right, I know what I'm getting into, but it's not that big a deal.
And then you find out later that the extent of it was extreme and actually changed the economic model that you thought was secure, that might piss you off.
Like that might get the reaction that you're saying, hey, is outside the fucking lines.
Like there's possibilities that are not improbable here that would get people reacting bad.
It's interesting to me how many similarities there are between the United States today and Germany in the 20s.
So not a lot of people realize people think that like the Nazi Party, and I don't mean to be the guy that just always brings up Hitler, sorry, But it's so useful today because it just is.
It's such a wanting.
I know, man.
My father-in-law's like, dude, you're bringing up Hitler again.
So, the point I'm trying to make is we have to study that stuff because it's telling it's a prop.
History is a prophecy.
And just as the 20s were roaring, then I don't know that we're going to have roaring 20s again, but a lot of people think that the Third Reich came to power.
The Nazi Party came to power like sort of overnight, but it was really 15 years, and they actually lost a lot of momentum in the 20s because during the roaring 20s, the economy started to improve in Germany, and the Germans were less pissed off about World War I. And then, when it crashed in 29, sort of globally, then it like rekindled that whole populist fuck these guys kind of mentality.
Um, uh, especially since the Nazis had associated the Jewish community so heavily with the stock investors, um, the stock market crashed.
So, when it crashed, like, oh, it was them, you know, so it kind of like reinforced it and doubled it down, right?
And of course, they were wrong, and I'm not like condoning it, but that's the explanation of what the Germans thought, right?
And so, um, it's fascinating to me to see that in the United States, we could be experiencing like like Hitler went to prison for two years because he actually tried to participate in an insurrection.
And though I don't believe for a moment that January 6th was an insurrection, understand wholeheartedly that a lot of people that protested on January 6th would have been perfectly fine with one, right?
A lot of Americans, you know, were pissed off.
And the point that I'm trying to make is it's funny how there was like a little baby flare-up, it got tamped down, and then it came back with a vengeance.
And so, what happens to these 500 insurrectionists when they're released?
They're not going to go home to you know cold shoulders, they're going to go home to open arms.
Their community is going to be like, Hey, man, you took one for the team, you know, you were right.
This injustice.
And so, when things really get hard, what are Americans going to think back on?
They're going to think back on and the globalists and the enemies that have lied to us, and they are going to want justice, and there's not going to be checks and balances.
And so, that's what I'm concerned about because it's going to be incredibly damaging to our country and embarrassing to our movement if we don't begin this movement of populism with the end in mind.
If we don't decide today, okay, we are going to win and we are going to take no mercy and we are going to fight for our values and our culture, but we're going to do it on the high road.
We're not going to put people in camps, we're not going to set bombs off outside of buildings, we're not going to do black flag and burn down the Reichstag like Germans.
You know, we are going to keep our character and we're going to be good people and we're going to do this.
We're going to go about this without lies, but with truth, because that's the only way that we can win.
We, yeah, I think another way to say that is if we're not going to win by destroying, we're going to lead.
And I think that needs to be the motivation: is that we have to lead out of this.
We're not going to, we're not going to be aggressors coming out of this.
We're not going to just the same extreme.
We're not going to lay down and we're not going to assume that we're victims of everything and join that facade and that victimization role.
Like, someone has to make a move forward.
And it can't be aggressive, it cannot.
Aggression hurts people, it's meant to hurt people, and that is not what we want.
And it won't get anybody anywhere.
And whether that's institutionalized aggression or personal aggression, and whether it's reactions to what other people do, do it doesn't matter.
It's like you You go out and play football, you get aggressive outside the lines, you're going to get a flag thrown.
No matter what the fuck the other guy did, you're still going to get it.
So it doesn't matter if it's his fault if he did it first.
You're still going to get a flag.
And I would say to people in this movement, practice self-care, avoid aggression.
We're fighting against submission and show up and be real and bring your families to the show.
Like it doesn't have to be a facade and a fraud, but it can't hurt people.
That's it.
It will fail if it goes into that mode.
You have to lead your way out of it.
And I think that they can.
And I know we brought this up and we've had so many calls about Barrington and Adam, but I think that these are great men.
And not just for the books they write and the shows that they host, but the example that they give of how to describe the experience a different way and do it with a calm, sane, pleasant, thought-out, take-care-of-yourself approach.
Like the populist movement will just disintegrate if it were to look like January 6th every fucking day.
So basically, it was night out, and I think there was limited ammo.
And I believe that the American Patriots were like on the top of this hill and that the British were running up the hill to take it.
I think that's, I don't know.
But basically, the whole point was the general or the guy that was leading these revolutionaries was not wanting to waste any ammo.
And he said, don't fire until you can see the whites of their eyes, like until it's point blank.
And they like slaughtered the British because it was so point blank and they were in such a strategically strong position as defenders that even though they were outnumbered, they were able to fight off like an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of Brits.
And part of the reason that I think that story is so famous, there's a couple of reasons, but I think that it's actually a symbol of pality of the entire independence movement at the time, where we took a lot of shit from King George for a long time and a lot of shit from England for a long time.
And we didn't resort to violence until there was no other alternative.
We didn't resort to independence until it had to be done.
And I think that that's the metaphor here is don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
Like we don't need to be doing January 6th shit.
And we don't, and I don't think it was insurrection, but regardless, we don't need to be acting like that.
Right.
And I feel bad for the 500 people that are locked up.
Don't get me wrong.
They should, they absolutely deserve free trials and all that stuff.
And I think a lot of them didn't even do anything.
It's locked up.
But the point that I'm trying to make is I totally agree with they want to trigger us to do something wrong so they can justify a massive reaction.
They want like a 9-11 type thing so they can get their Patriot Act, right?
They want a domestic terrorist threat so they can round us up or render us, you know, basically non-threatening, right?
Like there's so many examples where it's been put into place like deliberately.
And the one that comes to mind that we just went through was the example up in Canada with the truckers.
Like you fuck with them and you fuck with them and you threaten them and you threaten them and you threaten them and you threaten them and then you get a reaction and then they act like they're a victim of this reaction that they got.
And do I think that the truckers had a great argument?
Yes, they absolutely did.
No one got hurt because of this.
They were a nuisance because of it.
But your point is, yeah, they're going to push, they're going to push, they're going to push until you got trucks parked on a bridge shutting down the commerce between two countries.
Like, yeah, it was against the law.
They can't do that.
But you got to, you got the reaction and that one was manageable.
But you're absolutely right.
If they'd have blown the fucking bridge up, that would have been like devastating for their cause and their argument, right?
There's going to be reactions, but they can't be so devastating and so extreme, or you're just like them.
And that's really what they want.
And you know what?
I'm going to start what I'm about to say and agree with you.
What happened on January 6th shouldn't have happened?
Like a lot of people took the bait.
A lot of people went crazy.
People got hurt.
There was bait.
Yes.
And I will say that.
That shouldn't have happened.
And even if Trump wants to go and have his give his speech in Washington, D.C. when all this is going down, like that still shouldn't have happened.
Knowing that it was a reaction that everyone would reverse if they could.
Every sane person would reverse it if they could.
It was a reaction that we got.
What triggered that reaction?
And for someone to say and believe that that reaction was triggered by one or two things or some things that Trump said or the stop the seal argument that was going on, that that was the trigger that led to that reaction.
That's a level of insanity that I can't take seriously.
It wasn't the weeks that happened from November 6th to January 6th.
It wasn't eight weeks.
And anyone who looks at what happened on January 6th and thinks, oh, it happened because of Stop the Steel or it happened because of Trump, I just have to laugh.
I'm like, you might as well walk up here and tell me that gravity is going to change its course.
Everything's going to start falling up and the earth is flat.
That's how nonsensical it is.
There were so many institutionalized things that led up to January 6th.
And part of that, like you look at what led to that, and we're just talking about triggers and trigger and reaction here and institutionalized triggers and an institutionalized reaction.
And we've been talking about the populace and how they overreact and blow their course.
Here you have the whole fucking thing in like a small little subsample.
All of that is happening where you condition these people for years and tell them that black is white and white is black.
You tell them that a protest where people are getting shot in the fucking head and businesses are burning to the fucking ground and people are scared and you stand and look them straight in the eyes and you say, this was a peaceful protest.
I mean, if you go back, I think that's a brilliant insight, Corey.
And I hadn't thought of it like that.
But if you go back to where this all started, right?
We had a slow recovery from the last collapse in 2006 under Obama.
It was steady, but it was slow and steady.
Right.
And what we had happen was there was really relatively little division in our country during the Hillary and Trump campaign, right?
It wasn't really until the end that it got wonky with some of the email stuff and the WikiLeaks stuff, but it was looking like it was going to be like a traditional kind of campaign in the United States.
And what happened was when Trump was elected on November, whatever it was, 2016, all of a sudden, it was abundantly clear that the media had been lying about the polls for months.
And like, not just a little bit, like beyond the margin of error, lying, making shit up, right?
That's the first thing.
The second thing is the emails were real because Comey said they were real and she still never went to jail or got prosecuted, right?
Comey said they were still looking into them at least, right?
And Julian Renissance then is locked up for, I don't even know why, just because he's associated with WikiLeaks, it looks like, and the Clintons had him locked up.
That's my opinion.
I don't know if that's true or not.
And then Trump gets accused of colluding with Russia, which was proven to be false and proven that the documentation to justify the espionage on a private citizen's campaign for the president of the United States was falsified.
And they tried to impeach him for it.
And then they failed.
They lied about Kavanaugh to try to get him from, keep him from the Supreme Court.
And then they try to impeach Trump again over the Ukraine shit when Joe Biden is on video admitting that he did the same exact thing when he was the vice president of the United States, where he withheld aid to Ukraine in order to get the prosecution fired to protect Hunter's assets, right?
That happens.
And then COVID happens and they lie to you about whether or not there's effective therapeutics.
A, they lock you up.
They put us out of business.
They lied to us about the Hunter Biden laptop.
And then they lied to us about the origin of the virus, right?
And then everyone's losing their business.
They're losing their job.
We don't know what the hell is going to happen.
We're locked down.
All the voting laws changed.
They lied to us for five years straight.
They shamed us for five years straight.
They called us race bigots.
All this stuff, terrible shit.
Introduced wokeism.
And then when the election happened, they thought that we were stupid for not believing them.
Like, I don't know whether there was election fraud or not, but January 6th happened because they lied to us about everything else.
And so I'm not making a claim that it was stolen, but I am making the claim that it was reasonable to doubt what we were being told about anything, whether or not we landed on the moon or whether or not it was something immediately relevant.
And that's why January 6th happened.
January 6th happened because no one believed the government anymore because they lied to us and they abused us for six years straight.
Yeah, I'm not, and again, I will keep saying this because I know people are stealing snippets of everything everyone says.
I'm not defending what happened on January 6th.
So I keep saying that.
And, you know, I would say it a little bit differently, but the point you're making is true or something I agree with, I should say, that credibility played a factor in all of this.
And I would also agree that you go back to 2016 and I don't know how old you are.
I know you have a one-year-old probably a year younger than me.
I've got grandkids.
So if you go back that far and a little bit beyond that, you know, one of the things that kept happening in that era in Facebook and the campaigns is friendships and families started really splitting.
Like you started seeing like group animosity, like it became personal on where you were with Hillary.
And there was a little bit of that with Obama.
But Obama and when he was running against McCain and Palin, you had like Palin was lunatic.
And McCain was just part of the institution.
And it really was like, I voted for Obama.
And Obama gave you like, hey, here's a guy.
Yeah, he's a senator.
They're all senators.
Like, we don't get to choose outside of that body.
But it appeared and felt in a way like I've had enough of the bushes.
I've had enough of the neocons.
I've had enough of the old guard.
Here's something hopeful that's outside of that.
And that kind of carried off.
Then Romney came along and it was just hopeless.
It's like, all right, you guys seriously put this douchebag on the stage.
Like, this is a joke.
Like, no one really got that emotional or involved in it because what a clown.
Like, there was no, this guy was just a clown.
But when this happened with Hillary and Trump, then it became, oh, if you choose this, then you are X. You are immoral.
You hate women.
You hate blacks.
You're racist.
Like on and on and on.
And it just became, all right, now we have, we're going to use this Twitter and Facebook and everything else.
And we're going to start dividing you guys up.
Like declare your allegiance right here.
And it went to another extreme, which gets to what you are, you're pointing out, which, you know, starting in 2016, we had some of the most fucking egregious crisis of integrity and crisis of credibility that this country has ever seen.
And they make Watergate or anything else look like fucking nonsense.
Vietnam, like pick your fucking lies.
Like JFK, I don't give a shit what you come up with.
Up until 2016, we had never seen organized, uncredible, discredible crises like we had then.
And it is true, even if no matter what side you are on with the emails or what side you're on with the Russian hoax or what's like, it doesn't matter.
Like you were going to find a way that the other side was absolutely not credible at all.
And there was a media, there was a media campaign to support anything but the fucking facts.
All you were going to get out of it was you're on the right side or the wrong side of this fucking thing.
Like pick who you pick where you stand and assign credibility accordingly because we're going to filter the facts and fuck with you no matter what.
So everything you're saying is true.
Everything became a credibility issue.
unidentified
But it was can it was the currency of leadership is trust.
And but it was it was done in cahoots with these filters and these algorithms that were bringing you information to bring it right into your goddamn home.
Like right into Thanksgiving dinner and all and right into your friendships.
You know, family and friends I've talked to, been associated with forever, family forever, friends for a long time.
Like there were some serious factions or fractures in those in those groups.
But you're right.
It set up this credibility crisis.
But the campaign wasn't to give us the information about Russia and steal dossiers and files.
The campaign was about you are the victim and you are on this side.
Declare where you are.
They were taking away the possibility of caring for yourself, submitting and making your own fucking decisions.
You couldn't surrender to the facts.
You couldn't take care of yourself.
You were either a victim or you submit.
They were pushing everyone into these other extremes, right?
And so sooner or later, you get to this point with the 2020 election.
And yeah, it's a fucking Tinderbox.
Like you, you, you were creating this, you setting this up to the point where it could be staged.
We don't even know if it was, really, but you set this up.
There's so much bullshit.
It could be staged.
It could be just as fucking phony as the abduction of the governor in Detroit or Michigan, wherever the hell she was when they were going to kidnap her, like in that hoax.
Like it was all set up and primed where they were trying and trying and trying to get that extreme reaction and they got it.
That was what was so fucking brilliant about Martin Luther King.
And frankly, Jesus Christ, the whole turn your other cheek mentality, right?
And they knew that they were going to get hosed down by firemen.
And they knew that if they reacted violently, that it would totally sabotage the cause, right?
And honestly, I think they were getting hosed down is because I think that there were a lot of people, a lot of racist people in the establishment at the time that wanted to catalyze an overreaction so that they could justify their moral position.
Right.
And I think that, you know, but this reminds me of Jocko Willink.
He wrote a book called Extreme Ownership, which is basically about, even if it's not your, it's your fault.
Like, if you want to be a good leader, you have to own everything.
Right.
And so, you know, what happened on January 6th, just like we've been talking about, and my followers up that we've been saying because I think a lot of them really support the J. I support the January 6th prisoners, but the January 6th was the right reaction, just like we've been saying.
But what I'm trying to make, the point I'm trying to make is that I don't fault them, by the way.
The point I'm trying to make is even though the behavior of the protesters and extremists, extremists, but even though the behavior of the protesters on January 6th was inappropriate and they should own that it was inappropriate, the establishment has to own the behavior and the decisions that they made and the actions that they took leading up to it to cause it.
So if you're a leader, it is not your, if someone else loots a store, but if you created the lockdowns, which, you know, made them fear whether or not they were going to have food, then you have to own that, right?
And I think that what we have here in this culture is we have a political climate in which there is no ownership of fault or taking of responsibility.
We have gas hikes that are Putin's fault.
Right.
And right and left.
And we're always blaming other people, but we don't have leaders that come in and say, all right.
And it's because, you know, in a democracy, in a democratic republic, it's very risky to admit you did something wrong.
And I don't know what the solution is, but yeah, I just wish that we had a culture of ownership on this whole thing.