Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 31, 2024 - Conspirituality

01:26:08

230: How Did We Get Here?

With days left before the most consequential US election in our lifetime, we reflect on the last 4.5 years of this podcast while expressing our hopes–and our own reporting goals—for the future. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	I'd recommend our listeners check out his Skeptical Sunday episode on hydrotherapy, as well as Jordan's episode about Tarina Shaquille, where he interviews an ISIS recruit's journey and escape.
	There's an episode for everyone, though, no matter what you're into.
	The show covers stories like how a professional art forger somehow made millions of dollars while being chased by the feds and the mafia.
	Jordan's also done an episode all about birth control and how it can alter the partners we pick and how going on or off of the pill can change elements in our personalities.
	The podcast covers a lot, but one constant is his ability to pull useful pieces of advice from his guests.
	I promise you, you'll find something useful that you can apply to your own life, whether that's an actionable routine change that boosts your productivity or just a slight mindset tweak that changes how you see the world.
	We really enjoy the show.
	We think you will as well.
	There's just so much there.
	Check out jordanharbinger.com slash start for some episode recommendations or search for The Jordan Harbinger Show.
	That's H-A-R-B as in boy, I-N as in Nancy, G-E-R on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
	Music Hey everyone, welcome to Conspirituality, where we investigate the intersections of conspiracy theories and spiritual influence to uncover cults, pseudoscience, and authoritarian extremism.
	I'm Derek Barris.
	I'm Matthew Remsky.
	I'm Julian Walker.
	You can find us on Instagram and threads at ConspiritualityPod.
	You can also access all of our episodes ad-free plus our Monday bonus episodes on Patreon.
	You can also access our bonus episodes only via Apple subscriptions if that is your platform.
	As independent media creators, we really appreciate your support.
	Conspirituality 230.
	How did we get here?
	With days to go before the election, we are in a deja vu nightmare.
	On this show, we spent most of 2020 anticipating that year's election.
	As the intensity of COVID and QAnon and Trump's campaign strategy all ramped up synergistically, We watched the conspirituality phenomenon jump from fringe message boards to social media to mainstream cable news.
	In concert with that, we stopped debating whether or not the conspiracism we were seeing had a right-wing directionality.
	QAnon's prophecies and cosmic New Age timelines converged.
	We tracked longtime crunchy wellness icons, yogis and spiritual influencers who rode New Age-flavored COVID conspiracism all By January 6th, Trump lost, and all 60-plus specious court cases were thrown out, mostly by Republican-appointed judges.
	And speaking of court cases, he's liable for hundreds of millions from fraud, rape, and defamation cases.
	He's been convicted on an additional 34 counts in the Hush Money case.
	He still has the other classified documents and 2020 election charges pending.
	So, In any plausible work of fiction, this tawdry sociopath would now be the object of universal public shame.
	But somehow, here we are, with a candidate who announced his campaign in Waco, Texas, as the January 6 choir sang the national anthem from prison.
	But polls say the race is a coin flip, and Trump could retake the White House.
	How the hell did we get here?
	Based on our work over the last four years, We have some ideas and some thoughts about moving forward, whatever Tuesday's results turn out to be.
	Yeah, so four and a half years, two elections, 230 episodes.
	There's 580 posts on Patreon.
	We put out a book.
	There's been dozens of guest slots on podcasts.
	I also looked and saw that we have 2,250 Instagram posts, Derek and Julian.
	That's a lot.
	2,000 by Derek.
	Probably, yeah.
	Yeah.
	And then the TikTok ratio is creeping up there in that 2000.
	So anyway, we thought a really good idea would be to take stock of what we each are most concerned about, what we've been thinking about.
	So Julian, you're really going to focus on the communications, the media technology issues, yeah?
	Yep, absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, and then Derek, you've got wellness grifting and how it's going mainstream, but also upscale with new business stylings, right?
	Right, and I have some very pertinent information about dogs and cats because I'm going to be doing a brief on this holistic veterinary movement soon, so I thought I'd slip some in now.
	Yeah, awesome.
	Yeah, and then I've got three themes.
	One is about the speed of fascism and how we respond to it.
	One is about cults and capitalism.
	And then one is about how do conspiracy theories or paranoia or anxiety arise on the left in relation to the liberal orthodoxy?
	And how do we keep that in mind through all of this, no matter what happens coming up on Tuesday?
	Music Here's one strong thread of what the consideration of these last four years has shown me personally so far.
	More information and more sources of commentary on that information does not, as it turns out, equate to more truth.
	It doesn't create more balance.
	It's not a liberating overthrow of arbitrary and corrupt gatekeeping that results in Julian, did you believe at some point that that could have been the outcome?
	I certainly did.
	I mean, I was as bullish as many people were about the internet.
	As a free speech absolutist, I was excited about the internet representing a democratization of information flow.
	I really thought this would be overwhelmingly positive, or that's what I hoped, because the truth would rise to the surface, and the undeniable human drive for freedom and equality would just be amplified, because it's sui generis.
	Yeah, I guess I came at it from a small press background, because in the early 90s, if you had a typewriter and a Kinko's copy is on the corner, you could produce anything that you wanted, kind of like the pre-internet.
	And not just on a small scale, like you could do a print run of 3,000 copies and then sell them for cash.
	And so there was this DIY experience that for me merged into blogging, but actually I started to make less money doing that, right?
	Writing essays, thousands of words.
	And I had this feeling that I was just producing this ocean of content.
	And then I had this feeling that people who gave me feedback were not known to me.
	They were completely free to treat me like shit.
	We didn't know each other.
	So I wasn't anxious about free speech.
	Like I wasn't sort of bullish on this new sort of environment because it was obvious to me that you could say what you wanted.
	I was anxious about the advent of this machine that like dwarfs us all.
	And that's still kind of where I'm at, you know?
	Yeah.
	Well, your experience may have given you some insight that mine didn't at the time, because now looking at it, I see that the internet and social media have created such radically divergent representations of reality for left and right leaning consumers.
	That we, in a certain way, we no longer inhabit the same reality.
	Of course, this is not a unique observation.
	Everyone is saying this right now.
	But the extent of it and the ramifications of it can be hard to fathom because we're swimming in it.
	And what we've been tracking here on the podcast is in some ways a subset of this phenomenon.
	And to be clear, there is an identifiable and demonstrable reality out there, but it has been bifurcated and obfuscated to an unprecedented degree.
	So my thesis so far is that this is because of the unintentional consequences of algorithmic content sorting and its layered financial incentives.
	So that's the first point.
	The second, opportunistic influencers who are more than willing to engage in a digital gold rush that exploits those algorithmic patterns and hooks the vulnerabilities of an audience to emotional persuasion, sensationalism, and the manipulations of charisma.
	We've talked about that quite a bit on the pod.
	And then some of these influencers, it turns out, are being heavily bankrolled to produce blatant propaganda and disinformation while claiming to be the independent alternatives to a supposedly corrupt mainstream media.
	Yeah, I like those points.
	I think also we have a solid sense of good versus not good journalism.
	But this notion of the identifiable and demonstrable reality you're talking about, it's always So how do you see that reality as being accessible?
	I mean, everything is mediated.
	I'm not going to the philosophical tutorial version of whether or not we can know reality directly, but more saying that we're witnessing a sea change.
	And of course, all media has had biases and at times has made mistakes or been manipulated for propaganda purposes.
	But there are demonstrably better and worse maps of reality, even if we can't get to an absolute truth in that philosophical sense.
	And whatever legitimate criticisms existed before, now the whole institutional commitment to a free press that seeks to investigate and report on the facts, that has editorial oversight and reputational accountability, that's all been upended.
	And blurred.
	The phenomenon of a general center of gravity, not everyone agreed with it, but I feel like there was a larger group of people who had a kind of consensus on the facts, regardless of political spin, and that more and more seems to be disappearing.
	Speaking of spin, we know there are people who are paid to push propaganda.
	But besides that, one of my biggest challenges in this entire project and in life has been discerning between people who are just trying to monetize their brand by gaming the algorithm, which you mentioned, and they capture their core audience and try to extend it.
	And those people who truly believe what they're saying or what they're selling.
	And those two categories can definitely overlap.
	One figure we identified, and this is speculation, but Christiane Northope really seems to believe in what she says, and she's also selling things.
	But how do you navigate this question of intention when watching all this content we have to look over for this podcast?
	Well, again, I think it's impossible to have perfect insight into it.
	And as you say, I think there's tons of overlap.
	There's a kind of sweet spot in there that I think has emerged more and more where certain influencers are either dumb enough not to know better or they're dumb enough to think that their contrarian takes are brilliant and edgy and they're getting the kind of feedback that validates that.
	And at the same time, they're willing to take the incredible money that becomes available via riding the wave of audience capture, so talking here about clicks and getting a big profile and all of the revenue that comes with that, or getting on the conservative think tank payroll, which even though they love to play the little guy who has no money and no influence, that's actually a sizable, very heavily networked phenomenon.
	Or even, as with the Tenet Media case that we reported about a few weeks ago, taking the money from Russia and going, I don't know who this mystery investor is, but I'll take it, sure, because I'm all about free speech.
	So again, we can't have perfect knowledge about who actually knows they're lying.
	But to me, the main point is that digital media positions itself as independent and unbiased.
	But what we're really seeing is a Wild West gold rush.
	And independent media is much less beholden to facts and evidence than legacy media ever was and much more vulnerable to corruption.
	So attempts to address this, attempts to responsibly tame this dangerously out-of-control parasitic organism are then framed by those who benefit from the derangement it spawns as censorship, tyranny, and attacks on free speech by A supposed left-wing authoritarianism.
	And the conflict of this dynamic, the whole thing kind of folds in on itself again and again.
	It becomes part of the exact algorithmic phenomenon that responsible lawmakers, platform executives, and academics have tried to address and manage, but then they become the targets of the same disinformation and smear campaign.
	Those real-world figures end up dealing with that not only on social media, But it crosses over into legislation.
	And you have someone like Renee DiResta being called up before Congress to testify on this claim that she's the center of the censorship industrial complex.
	So all of this dovetailed in terms of our work.
	Observation that spiritual and natural living entrepreneurs were actually already networked digitally via affiliate marketing, cultivating large social media followings, utilizing email sales funnels, running online events.
	And so they were also very comfortable presenting their ideas convincingly on camera before the pandemic hit.
	So for them, it was really easy to just slip conspiracy theories.
	And then, as we see now with the election approaching, right wing politics into those well oil delivery systems and even to blend them with the hypnotic assurances of divine revelation and privacy and what they've been channeling.
	The thing about this is that none of it is new.
	Human beings have always been susceptible to charisma, to claims of supernatural authority, to snake oil, con artists, slippery politicians, cult leaders, information distortions and conspiracy theories.
	This is really part of human culture.
	It's just that each new information technology not only accelerates the reach and the impact of such campaigns, it also makes it more immersive and more convincing.
	There's more and more of a sense of entering a virtual reality in which this becomes the new normal.
	And that presents us with forms of information consumption that are beguilingly compelling.
	They're entertaining as well, and they're very convincing.
	They're relying on actually hooking something beyond our rational decision-making and thought processes.
	Social media, quick and easy, high-definition video production, millions of hours of podcast content that we contribute to as well, available on your phone, wherever you are, algorithms that Intentionally or not at first, but now undeniably create pipelines of increasing radicalization.
	Opportunistic authoritarian politicians and religious extremists who believe the ends justify the means, and so who cares about the facts?
	Disinformation peddlers, foreign chaos agents, and everyday aspiring pundits, coaches, and influencers chasing the biggest view counts or downloads and the big money ad revenue they generate all contribute to this.
	This is the sea we're swimming in.
	This has unrecognizably deranged our discourse.
	It brings us to the day we're facing downhill.
	Very soon, with days to go, of course, before the election, Trump appears on the Joe Rogan experience.
	And that was viewed 34 million times on YouTube in its first 48 hours after it was released.
	And to me, the most telling aspect of that Rogan appearance was the follow-up breakdown video, like a day later from Rogan.
	Much like a news network would do, right?
	So you have a panel of pundits analyzing the interview, talking about what happened.
	But this featured his MMA fighter and second-rate comedian buddies getting wasted together, praising Trump, really wanting to talk about the conspiracy theories like the JFK assassination that Joe tried to get Trump to confirm.
	and misogynist joke after another about Kamala.
	Is that sort of debrief panel odd for Rogan?
	I don't think I've heard of that before.
	Yeah, it's not the kind of thing I've seen very much.
	It's the kind of thing they might do after a big MMA event.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Just this morning, we're recording on Tuesday, so two days ago, Rogan has said that he would not interview Kamala because he had to go to her and he only had an hour to go.
	But if she would come to him for three hours, he would actually do it.
	Which is more than three hours.
	That's like two-thirds of a day to get to Austin from wherever she is.
	His sense of self-importance is kind of stunning in that sense.
	But Julian, a moment ago, you said none of this is new.
	You've reiterated that.
	I do believe it's different.
	And I also feel it's definitely accelerated in many ways.
	What are your thoughts on that?
	Yeah, I mean, the case I've been making so far, I think, links to the observation that it's a familiar phenomenon that's been with us Probably for as long as there's been human culture and some form of information distribution, but it's just massively amplified by this new technology.
	And things can reach far more people and go viral and be more convincingly communicated using actually very familiar tropes, right?
	Like we know this as we're staring down potential authoritarianism or even fascism.
	We're like, oh, these are actually very familiar tropes that are being used.
	You think about the Madison Square Garden rally that just happened and how easy it is to tie that back to the 30s.
	But the way in which these ideas circulate and convince people and become exciting and create a sense of unified purpose, that I think is a product of this digital apparatus.
	So in terms of solutions here, not that we necessarily have the silver bullet, but I do think we have excellent thinkers in the public sphere who are working on these problems and have very much influenced how I think about them.
	Top of the list would be Renee DiResta.
	She published her excellent book, Invisible Rulers, this year.
	I interviewed her about that book for a second time for episode 209 after having had a book.
	having had her on episode 154.
	And for me, she's really the top academic in the field of understanding and mitigating digital propaganda.
	And she's also the best public communicator we have on that topic.
	There has been some criticism of the next person I'll mention, Imran Ahmed at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, partially because of their more recent quick turnaround research on social media, which tries to grab headlines, perhaps utilizing some of the very same things that they're criticizing, But overall, I see their work and his leadership as incredibly valuable.
	And we talked to him on episodes 10 and 100, for anyone who missed those.
	There's a book that I know, Derek, you love as well called The Persuaders by Anand Girardas.
	It's really stayed with me since reading it and then interviewing him for episode 135.
	His calls to activism and staying engaged in the conversation with your friends and family and colleagues and alliance building in the face of anti-democratic disinformation is really eloquent and inspiring.
	I know I've mentioned this previously, but he was on Morning Joe last week, and he just made a comment that actually fits really well with what you're presenting here, Julian.
	That's the fact that many countries, and specifically he cited European countries, are obsessed with their past and so have a really firm understanding of historical forces.
	But America is always becoming itself in a way, and so therefore it's always looking into the future.
	And what that produces is...
	An entire citizenship that is unaware of historical forces, both of its own and global forces.
	And he'd think that's partly what's playing in to why you can have something like you referenced the Madison Square Garden rally, which a lot of people have rightfully linked to the 1939 Nazi rally that took place there.
	And the right can deny that any of those links are out.
	But that's only if you haven't actually understood both your own history and historical forces.
	And Anand is really good speaker at pointing those links out.
	It's a great observation, especially in light of how much backlash there is when people try to teach the history of the country to kids or bring it up in the public sphere in any of these conversations.
	I want to give an honorable mention here, too, not that he needs it from us, but Tristan Harris, still, I think, very cogent with the film that ended up being made about his work called The Social Dilemma.
	He's been sounding the alarm since early 2020 on all of this regarding the big tech profit motives behind keeping the algorithmic aspects of this in play.
	And at this point, you can only say that it's incredibly cynical and they probably have deprioritized the dire consequences in favor of the profit motive.
	I think you should call him out because I don't think enough people actually know his work because he's not really on social media.
	He was on the Jon Stewart podcast two weeks ago with Ezra Klein and that was a really good episode.
	So the three of them had some really good differing angles in which they came into these topics, some of which we're discussing today.
	Yeah, great point.
	Yeah.
	And then we have Jonathan Haidt, whose work in general is often criticized from the left increasingly over the years.
	But I still appreciate a lot of it, especially his early work.
	His most recent high profile book about the dangers of social media and smartphones to the mental health of kids specifically has been roundly critiqued as lacking in rigor and even stoking a moral panic.
	But he's getting at something that a lot of people wonder about, which is if social media has had this kind of impact on adults, what might it be doing to kids who've grown up on it?
	Given that my child is still too young for this to be a thing, I've yet to go deeply into looking at the current research.
	I do see that there are groups that seem to have a better research reputation than Haidt, like Child Mind Institute and Social Awakening.
	And they recommend things like waiting until eighth grade on smartphones.
	Yeah, I think it's important to point out that the criticism with regard to rigor and method has come from actual specialists in the field.
	Yeah.
	Who point out that he conflates a lot of, he does bad data research.
	I would say in general that the moral panic issue is really pressing with regard to the generalized picture that he paints of the looming disaster of the effects of social media upon young people.
	And if you've got preteens, if you're around a lot of young people, you really just can't generalize.
	And when you do, you give anxious, generally middle-class parents good reasons to invoke their kind of restrictive, repressive, or even authoritarian instincts, right?
	Like you're not going to have a social media account until you're 16 years old.
	And that, I don't think that really works.
	And most of the actual discipline experts agree.
	Yeah, well, we'll see.
	I wish there was better research on this.
	I think it's also new and it's really hard to simultaneously have good quality longitudinal research on a topic that at the same time is incredibly new.
	To Haidt's credit, I've seen him...
	Not actually in a debate style, but in a conversation style, take a lot of those criticisms and respond to them.
	He does still think he's right, but he does give it a good hearing.
	And some of those people who are criticizing him, I've actually found very convincing.
	And to your point, Matthew, they have been specialists in the field in which he is kind of dabbling.
	I'll point to Hard Fork had him on about a month ago, and they actually, more than any other guest I've ever heard, they pushed back on him hard.
	And they didn't always come to points of agreement, but it was a very good conversation where you actually heard pushback, reflection, and then discussion, which is so rare in these spaces.
	So the reason I bring that up is I think education is a key component of how we might be able to recover from this crisis and adapt.
	The bottom line for me is that we need to take the establishment of a stronger culture of media literacy really seriously, support people in being able to identify good journalistic sources and the differences between science and pseudoscience, and then studying how propaganda has thrived in the internet age is really crucial, as well as educating as many people as we can about that.
	Yeah, the only thing that I would add with regard to the educational piece is that in the midst of all of this chaos and the anxiety that it produces, which I share in, it would be easy for there to be a sort of reactionary reestablishment of notions of centralized media authority.
	And while I agree with you that there's better and worse journalism, I think we have to remember that every—I think you used the phrase center of gravity based on a consensus on the facts.
	Like, every center of gravity has always been challenged by the voices that it excludes.
	Like, it's, you know, women writers or black people or people who start writing about decolonization.
	So— There's a paradox where I agree with you that it's really difficult to be confident of a shared epistemology at this point, but for that same reason...
	There are communities that have found more visibility in this landscape.
	And unfortunately, one of those outsider communities is the community of conspiracy theorists, right?
	Yeah, and that's the thing, is that the conspiracists and the contrarians in the name of some kind of heterodoxy end up stealing the valor of marginalized groups who had previously been suppressed.
	And knowing to tell the difference between those things is crucial as well.
	Last week, I wrote a review of Good Energy, which is the metabolic disease causes nearly all ailments book by Casey and Callie Means.
	Sounds very specific, very good, very accurate.
	They say 90% of diseases are caused by metabolic issues, and neither one of them are trained in endocrinology, I should point out.
	That's awesome.
	While reading and reviewing it, two disturbing things jumped out at me.
	I've been covering them both a lot lately because they really exemplify the worst aspects of health misinformation, especially now that they've been given such a big platform in recent months.
	So on the Maha stage, alongside RFK Jr., they were on Tucker Carlson's and Joe Rogan's podcasts.
	And unlike so many of the figures we've covered over the years, they're not yoga instructors or health coaches spouting pseudoscience.
	Kaylee graduated from Harvard Business School in Stanford while Casey graduated from Stanford Medical School, though she'd never completed her residency.
	And so they represent a more educated, more polished version of so much of the misinformation peddlers that we've covered over the years, and with even more troubling caveats for the future of public health, healthcare, and general health.
	You know, we've talked about Casey a number of times, and I'm just realizing that graduated from Stanford Medical School but did not complete residency.
	Does that actually equate to dropped out of medical school?
	Is that what that actually means?
	Well, she got her degree for four years of medical school, then she had a five-year residency.
	She quit in year five.
	So she made it very far along in the process.
	Okay, but does that mean that she was never licensed as a doctor?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	But she would have seen patients as an intern or during residency?
	Yeah, right here at OSHA, which is my neighborhood hospital system, which is a very good system, in fact.
	But that's where she did her residency.
	So she definitely interacted with a lot of patients.
	Yeah, but the main thing that you're underlining is that wellness is getting this professionalized, non-clinical, MBA-style upgrade, right?
	Yeah, I was just talking about this with someone else, too, because Marty Macquarie was on Dr.
	Mike's podcast, unfortunately, earlier this week.
	He's another misinformation peddler, but man, he is smooth.
	He talks very well.
	He's disciplined.
	He has a little Leonard Leo energy about him.
	Joey and I covered Leo this past weekend.
	And yeah, that is what's happening.
	We're no longer seeing the yoga people with the singing bowls saying these things.
	We're actually seeing it with people who are super polished and really good in debates and circumstances.
	And I would definitely put both of the meanses in that category.
	So back to the two things that jumped out at me.
	The first one, as I was reading the book, there were certain sentences that kept popping out.
	So there's this whole section where they're talking about how wild animals don't suffer diseases like humans do.
	Yeah.
	And so they write here, I'm going to read three things.
	They wrote, Outdoor cats exposed to harsher environments have significantly less obesity than indoor cats.
	Of course they do.
	They're less obedient too.
	Oh my gosh.
	50% of domesticated dogs over age 10 develop cancer, yet this rarely happens to dogs or wolves in the wild.
	And depression afflicts 75% of domesticated dogs, but is rare in wild animals.
	Oh.
	Who are going in for wellness checks on a regular basis?
	So, okay.
	There are no footnotes in this book.
	I want to point this out.
	This is a science book with no footnotes.
	They don't cite any of the research.
	So I had to take these sentences and then go out and try to figure them out myself.
	Because I couldn't find the source material where they found all of this.
	So first off, as you flagged, Matthew, domesticated cats live four times longer than feral cats.
	And yeah, you know what?
	People, sorry, but if you're home and if you're free feeding your cat's dry food, that's really bad for their health.
	You should never free feed and you should not rely predominantly on dry food.
	But that's a stark difference between having food handed to you and having to hunt it.
	Of course, feral cats are not obese.
	And same thing goes with dogs.
	They live a lot longer under our care, and cancer is generally, generally a disease of the aging.
	So the average lifespan of wolves is four to seven years in the wild.
	And only 19% of feral dogs, wild dogs, make it past puberty.
	Oh, wow.
	So when they say that domesticated dogs over 10 suffer from cancer, yeah, duh, because wild dogs never live that long.
	It's very rare.
	And then they have this 75% number about depression.
	I found one small study.
	It was limited to dogs in the UK. And all other studies don't support any of this.
	Plus, trying to measure the agency of an animal that is not human that we can't communicate is really challenging.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, and this is another version of the autism rates have skyrocketed and vaccines are the obvious cause kind of fallacy, right?
	It's like now we're able to recognize autism and diagnose it, and so that means that there's more cases.
	Also, kids have survived because they've been on vaccines that mean they didn't die of rubella or smallpox or something like that.
	Obviously, it must be really bad.
	It's crazy.
	This idea that somehow you can use vibes to detect whether or not wolves in the wild get depression.
	You also just can't draw conclusions about dog depression from dogs only in the UK. Come on!
	I've lived there.
	I mean, the food is so bad and the weather's terrible, any animal would be depressed.
	Anyway, I'm not even quite joking here, but Derek, this sounds like it could become a covert rationalization for not dealing with unhoused humans, like it's healthier to live outdoors or something like that.
	That's a really astute observation.
	Normally I would say, no, of course not.
	As we found out preparing for this Leo episode, Kaylee Means has relationships with the Heritage Foundation and Teneo Network.
	And so here you have this person who's positioning themselves as a health leader out there when he's basically using pre-tax dollars for supplements.
	And what other talking points from Heritage and Federalist Society and Teneo is he trying to get across?
	So actually, Matthew, who knows?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I'm also picturing an evolving version of what the wellness retreat looks like, where that's increasingly like just being out on the street and cold plunging in whatever water supply you can find.
	I already flagged the second, which is that it has no footnotes.
	And again, this is a best-selling science book that purports to be about metabolic health without any sort of citation.
	No science professional would do that.
	But yet, in all of their media appearances, they're lambasting experts and they're positioning themselves as truth crusaders.
	And they're only gaining credibility with a segment of the American population because, like their Maha partner now, the Food Babe, they can passionately share misinformation and not get checked on it.
	It kills me about the lack of footnotes, and it really reminds me of all of the yoga and alt-med books that we all used to read also having no footnotes.
	It seems like some final degradation of pseudoscience literature in which, I mean, it used to be that pseudoscience is defined by the appearance of being scientific, but now they don't even feel like they have to pretend like they're doing that?
	What's going on?
	Yeah, I honestly don't understand it because when I downloaded the book, I fully expected there to be footnotes because it's a science book.
	And then I even went and I checked it against the physical copy because I was just like, am I missing something?
	Is there a webpage that they point to?
	Like I just read Tanahishi Coates' book and at the very end it says, four footnotes, see this webpage.
	I looked the entire book for that.
	It does not exist.
	Right.
	And it does remind me of that because I just recently, this past weekend, I took a yoga class.
	Very lovely teacher, great studio.
	But she just slipped in.
	Twisting poses are detoxifying.
	And I posted on threads about it just saying, I can't believe I'm still taking classes where this is said.
	And wouldn't you know, I get a bunch of yoga teachers saying, no, it is science-based.
	And of course, that comes probably from Iyengar in the 60s who did not, as you've pointed out, Matthew, did not consult any medical professionals.
	Yeah.
	He consulted himself.
	He consulted the devas.
	And that's still what's happening.
	So it is another crossover here we're seeing where the supposed science is moving into the wellness speak.
	And all of this leads me to a second aspect I want to bring up about this work.
	As a As I mentioned, I found this June 2023 video that Kaylee made for PragerU.
	And PragerU is a conservative, pro-capitalist project that has been publishing misleading videos about slavery and racism, immigration, and LGBTQ plus issues for years now.
	Are you understating by using this term pro-capitalist here?
	I'm trying to be speedy and as efficacious as possible with as few words as possible, I can say.
	Gotcha.
	Do you have any thoughts on that, Julian?
	Well, I mean, it seems to me that really it's anti-regulatory, right?
	It's like they're in favor of completely unregulated, exploitive, not environmentally sound capitalist practices, you know, the profit motive and everything else be damned.
	Yes.
	Okay, better put.
	Yeah.
	So in the video, Kayleigh specifically says not to trust experts and he implores people to do their own research.
	He specifically pins food and pharma lobbying relationships to the left, which isn't totally wrong, but it's also laughable given how much money they give to the right as well.
	But...
	In his PragerU bio, I noticed something.
	I flagged it already.
	He is active in groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Teneo, and Stand Together.
	So I want to point this out, that Stand Together is the Heritage Foundation's left-leaning philanthropic arm.
	And yeah, they do actually fund left-leaning nonprofits.
	But those nonprofits have to use Heritage's not-so-coded business-first language, so they have to say things like school choice and no more top-down solutions.
	It's a very slick way that the right actually says, hey, look, we're doing a public good with these left-leaning organizations, but they have to use our language because we're still trying to get to the same place.
	And these nonprofits do really good work, but they're presented within this deregulatory framework.
	And then you have Taneo, which Julian has covered a bit.
	We talked about him this last Saturday because Leonard Leo is their chairman.
	And this is the network that helped place conservative justices onto the Supreme Court under Trump.
	And they want to, as you flagged, Julian, want to deregulate nearly every federal agency.
	So think about this.
	You have Kayleigh here who's constantly talking about the necessity of banning certain chemicals in food and putting the onus of health on the individual, which has been a right-wing agenda item since Reagan.
	He's working with the very organizations responsible for overturning Roe v.
	Wade, and behind legislation that wants to make food stamps and affordable housing harder to secure.
	He runs a company, as I mentioned, that lets people use pre-tax dollars to buy untested supplements, ice baths, red lights, saunas.
	Now, this is money that could go to the government to strengthen the agencies he's constantly criticizing, but instead it flows into the pockets of all med companies and to his company, which is called TrueMed.
	And so this is what we're looking at four plus years into this project.
	Yes, yoga instructors continue to share discount codes, but the language of wellness has been adopted and co-opted by the same right-wing organizations that they are hell-bent on making healthcare less accessible to the poor that deny women the right to bodily autonomy, and which is really rich given how much personal freedom and autonomy is part of their brand.
	And as always, those ideals are only for the people who can afford them.
	So to return once again to the question of what affects wellness people spreading anti-vax talking points can be, we've just now seen the third consecutive year of reduced vaccinations in kindergartners in America.
	We're seeing very low adoption rates of the new COVID shots, and we're continually increasing, we're seeing continually increasing hesitancy of basic interventions like the flu shot.
	And we're even seeing more erosion of trust in actual experts because charismatic charlatans have figured out how to exploit the very real fears people rightly have in order to sell them on ideas and products that are at best benign, But sometimes they can be deadly.
	And the biggest difference is now that they've reached the highest level of government, they're wearing suits and pantsuits instead of Lululemon.
	You know, it feels like the vaccination declines might have their own R0 value, right?
	Can a 3% decline in compliance just multiply to 6 and then 12 year over year?
	Is that how it's going to go?
	I don't know.
	I'm not a statistician, so I don't know actually what the tip-over point would be.
	Herd immunity is a real thing, and if you reach a certain threshold, it can cascade.
	So we'll see.
	Hearing you lay this all out, Derek, I'm realizing it reminds me of the rise of oligarchs after the fall of the Soviet Union, where essentially you have people who are opportunistically waiting for certain aspects of What gets provided to the public by the government becoming privatized and then they can seize upon their own way of exploiting that for profit.
	So when I hear about, like Kaylee Means, having access to insurance companies writing prescriptions for the types of products, the types of untested wellness products that he wants to sell and devices as a kind of loophole that gets around something that should really be Yeah, and he went to business school.
	He knows how those mechanisms work.
	But not that everyone who goes to business school will learn that, but some people will.
	And when you can understand how to game the system and you see opportunities, which we're constantly seeing, I mean, Maha, whatever your feelings on America's health, Maha is an opportunistic grift within the larger umbrella of MAGA. And I don't see how you can treat it as anything other than that.
	Even when they say good things, even when RFK says, we should ban pharma advertising in America, there are two countries in the world that allow direct-to-consumer pharma advertising, America and New Zealand.
	I agree with him.
	There are points of agreement throughout that congressional panel that I'm like, yes, I agree with that.
	But look at the larger context in which it's being presented, and people like Kaylee know that.
	Yeah, and they're not calling for reform.
	They're saying, well, We should actually take this over.
	I'm realizing the subtext.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So when I think about solutions in the broader context of this episode, they all lead back to public health, which unfortunately for the time we live in and the mediums that we use to communicate is ill-suited to compete against these charismatic people.
	Though in some ways it's always been that case.
	So I've been writing about this a lot lately in my own substack in different places.
	Lori Garrett predicted how the next pandemic would affect us in her 1994 book, The Coming Plague.
	And she didn't exactly predict COVID, but the thing is, public health officials are always working on disease prevention and mitigation, so they don't have to reinvent the wheel each time.
	They're always preparing for pandemics.
	And then you have...
	Organizations like the wellness company say, oh, they're planning for the next one.
	Yeah, that's their fucking job.
	That's part of what they do.
	But public health protocols aren't going to be monetizable in the same way supplements are, and so we shouldn't expect to hear those solutions coming from wellness influencers or from business school graduates.
	As I've been pointing out, they take population health statistics that predominantly affect minority and poor communities, and they use those statistics to sell individualized solutions that most of the worst afflicted can't actually afford.
	And that, to me, is what's so disingenuous about what they're doing.
	But we do have some guidelines that could actually help public health, and so I'm just repeating some ideas that Lori Garrett laid out in her 2000 book on public health.
	They include reestablishing a sense of community, reasserting the role of government and public infrastructure through things like prioritizing funding for that infrastructure, resisting the urge to privatize core public health functions, promoting and prioritizing preventative medicine, and responding effectively to emerging health threats.
	She also writes about strengthening the public health workforce and then timely and accurate information dissemination, which she thinks is crucial, and to acknowledge mistakes and limitations.
	and you need government for all of these things.
	So we actually need to put our money where our mouth is and strengthen those agencies, not take agency away from them.
	Okay, guys, so I've got three themes that I've been sort of obsessing over and then thinking about so I've got three themes that I've been sort of obsessing over and then thinking about the future of with regard to this project and how we got here and what's about to happen next week and how
	And the first one is really, I've got the subtitle here of You Can't Debunk or Even Debate Fascism Because Fascism Isn't About Ideas.
	This is not a new thing that I've said, but I've thought a lot about it more recently, especially as we hear Trump on stage yelling, they're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats, and Harris is standing there incredulous but validated.
	And, you know, I think a lot of people are thinking 12 years ago, that's it, he's done, but that's not what happens.
	And that's because in the echo chamber of entrancement, claims are not claims.
	Words are not even words.
	Absurd statements are not even absurd statements.
	Really, the only thing that has meaning is a feeling of force.
	And when we started, I tried to understand this by going back to the books on fascism to re-familiarize myself with the main points.
	And Jason Stanley's list was really helpful.
	The MAGA movement invokes a mythic past, it traffics in propaganda, it's anti-intellectual, it attacks truth, hierarchy, it's a major fascination, and it also perceives itself through this victimhood lens.
	It's obsessed with law and order, it's obsessed with homophobia, transphobia, and reproductive fetishes, and it appeals to the heartland whenever it can.
	And it also features a collapsing together of corporate and state power in this kind of orgiastic dream of punishment and pleasure.
	And if we needed a better example from that, we couldn't have got it except from Tucker Carlson openly fantasizing last week about Trump as daddy coming home to vigorously spank the bums of all the very bad liberal girls.
	And I want to point out for listeners that your Patreon bonus from this week is On this moment, Derek, was just so, so good and it's so worth listening to because you really offer a bare bones account of what father coming home meant for you personally and then how your father was eventually able to explain himself and apologize and I just thought that was fantastic.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, I've never talked about it publicly.
	But I have to say, people sometimes ask doing this sort of work, like how it affects my mental health.
	And I'm not always great, of course, but I'm generally able to sort of distance myself from it.
	But hearing that particular clip...
	I could not distance myself from it, given how pertinent it is to my being and my upbringing.
	So thank you for that.
	You mentioned a moment ago the very bad liberal girls.
	I didn't actually get that sense.
	It seemed like he was more talking about squashing any sense of rebelliousness than any particular political slant.
	Yeah, I mean, I think there's a general message there, but I think it was also pretty clear he was infantilizing Democrats, specifically as girls and boys, that Trump would spank for being rebellious.
	But the undertone, too, was that, you know, they're too woke.
	But I think to get to that, you'd have to be really tuned into the rest of his rhetoric, which I think a lot of the people at Turning Point and then Madison Square Garden would be.
	Yeah, and the preamble to that climactic moment was him saying, well, you can't let the kids smear poop on the walls, and you can't let the kids light a joint at the table.
	You're going to get more of the same.
	Eventually, at some point, Daddy has to come home and lay down the law.
	And it did feel like it was more generalized, but then for me...
	What broke through that sense of it being generalized to it being more about the left is the fact that we have a female candidate.
	And it then turned into, you've been a very bad girl.
	Yeah, which is so many levels of creepy.
	Yeah, at that point he's not talking about spanking girls in prairie dresses or on the way to church.
	Yeah.
	One of the things that made your episode so strong, Derek, was that you kept it focused on your slice of experience as a child younger than 10, and how when you were finally able to ask your dad about it, he said, well, I just didn't know how to talk to children, and that's the bottom line.
	But Carlson is doing a lot more here.
	He's referring to spanking a 15-year-old teenage woman.
	And you can tell he's clearly aroused.
	And so is the crowd.
	And then we have Madison Square Garden on Sunday night.
	You know, this was Tuesday.
	This is three days ago now.
	And what can we even say?
	Puerto Rico is a floating island of garbage.
	Giuliani is yelling that Palestinians are trained to kill Americans when they're two years old.
	Stephen Miller is echoing Hitler directly, literally directly, with America is for Americans and Americans alone.
	And just to flag here that there's overlap with the Rogan sphere because the floating garbage guy, you may not know, is Tony Hinchcliffe.
	And he's from that comedian inner circle who moved from L.A. to Austin to stay close to the cash cow of Joe Rogan.
	Well, did you see the clip of a previous show in which Rogan is...
	Hogan is talking to some other guy about how it would be a great idea if Trump actually hired Hinchcliffe on as a joke writer for his campaign rallies.
	Like there it's those circles are are are pretty much overlapped now.
	And I wonder actually if that will be a defining moment in this election because Ricky Martin goes and posts the clip to 19 million followers on Instagram and he says in Spanish, this is what they think of us.
	And then Mark Anthony, JLo, there's 500,000 Puerto Rican people in Pennsylvania.
	So after all of our discussion...
	That might just flip it in some bizarre way.
	But I think Hinchcliffe proves the point that fascism isn't ideas.
	It's an extended tantrum.
	And Stanley and others are clear that the ideas are delivery devices for power and contempt.
	And that power just has this crushing insomniac speed.
	It's designed to forbid dialogue or discussion or negotiation.
	And it's a speed and recklessness that makes the politics in the sense of decision-making just pretty much disappear.
	And I think we did a good job of sounding the alarm in the early days on these fascist impulses, especially as they were aided and abetted by the New Age and wellness subcultures we were following, because I think that showed how promiscuous fascism is,
	how catchy it is, how it reaches out over political lines with this diagonalist energy and And I do think we avoided some of the well-documented mistakes made by the German and American liberal presses as Hitler rose, even as the Washington Post now and the LA Times and other papers are standing down.
	So just for new listeners, can you briefly define diagonalist energy?
	Yeah, yeah.
	We had Quinn Slobodian and William Callison on.
	They're political scientists who coined the term diagonalism to describe a kind of out-of-the-box thinking that's newly popular in tech and finance circles that merges contradictory beliefs like, you can be a monarchist but also a fierce libertarian.
	Yeah.
	Bound together by shared grievances over traditional power structures, leaning toward far-right ideologies while simultaneously contesting established political norms and institutions and even voting rights and stuff like that.
	So...
	In the light of all of this speed and in really realizing that fascism isn't a politics, it's an anti-politics.
	It's actually like the end of politics in a way, in the sense that it's not about decision making, it's about force.
	It didn't really take long for me to see the extent to which one side is bringing kitchen knives to a gunfight.
	That the leftish response of debunking, of advocating for critical thinking, of advising people to follow the science was paradoxically necessary, but also limited in a way and could be perceived as smug, like a brain in a jar trying to talk to a hurricane of emotions.
	And so it was going to speak to a small part of the issue, but it wasn't going to be enough.
	Yeah, it's so interesting how we maybe think our way through some of this.
	Yeah.
	Do you disagree with the general idea that if more people were science literate and we had better science communication, this would be helpful?
	Obviously, it's more of a long-term project.
	Even if we were better at responding to the hurricane of emotions effectively, which I think we've really tried to do on this podcast, that would still have to be in service of then creating an opening to communicate the facts and the evidence, because whether it's COVID or climate or election integrity, ultimately the sane society embraces what the facts and evidence show, right?
	Absolutely.
	I think the general idea is sound and necessary and also incomplete and therefore runs the risk of loading the burden onto the individual in a way that almost throws the do-your-own-research axiom back in their faces.
	I get a little bit nervous when I realize that sometimes we're asking people to read scientific papers better, right?
	You know, like, it's hard.
	Yeah, no, no.
	You can't say that.
	You can't say to someone, you need to think critically now.
	Or you need to learn how to read a science paper before you can have an opinion on this.
	That's not the point ever, right?
	Yeah, and the disinformation experts...
	Don't generally mean that, but in a social media context, often the posts read that way.
	It's like, you gotta do this, right?
	So I think many strategies are needed.
	I'm not arguing against the disinfo pathway.
	I'm saying that for a population that is already rebelling against perceived smugness or elitism, there are risks if emotional intelligence is not front and center.
	I'm still a little bit haunted by this unique, perhaps ill-advised episode that I did in the first year, in which I interviewed the friends of this local Toronto yoga person, Stephanie Sibio, who had become a somewhat famous anti-vax, anti-lockdown influencer here in Toronto.
	And it was clear to me that her nascent ideas about natural health were not only earnest, but after I did this interview with this panel of her friends, they were also fueled and impassioned and exacerbated by the resistance that she encountered from within her friend group.
	These are women who loved their friend, they loved hanging out with her, their friendship went back to high school, and they really couldn't understand what was happening.
	And as the situation escalated, It made it seem like Stephanie's adherence to her health ideas carried this energy of a grudge, not only against the medical system, and then eventually the federal government because she became a convoy supporter, but against this feeling of betrayal from her friend group.
	And that's about the closest I got to seeing that dynamic unfold in real time where Sort of information and emotional realities were disconnected.
	And given that Stephanie had a lot of influence, it's made me think a lot about how much care really has to be taken with those interventions and how many complicated levels they take place on.
	Like, do they happen on social media?
	Probably not.
	Do they happen in person?
	Probably better.
	How?
	Well, I don't know.
	We'll have to learn about it.
	So, for me, the critical project really has to somehow encounter the emotional onslaught of fascism And I think debunking is only part of that.
	I think there have to be emotional outlets and gathering places.
	I think there have to be emotional, perhaps even spiritual answers, for lack of a better word.
	And that's one of the reasons that I've started programming according to the principle that the answer to the bad religion that we cover all the time might be no religion for some people, but for a lot more people it's going to be better religion, better forms of spirituality.
	First, I think that's really unfortunate.
	I know I rely on my friend groups for calling me out, and that's very helpful.
	So that's unfortunate.
	It makes me question how tight the friendships were if you couldn't provide that.
	But of course, I don't know this particular one, but that's my immediate reaction.
	But in terms of your solution here, I sometimes hear the term better religion, but I really don't have a grasp of what that actually means.
	I've talked to three Catholic nuns.
	This is an example who have started up a new order because their ordaining order didn't stand up for them in a sexual harassment case involving this priest who came to give confession and spiritual counseling.
	They still have their vows of poverty and chastity.
	They have no permanent home, but they're out there raising money, distributing medical kits to unhoused people.
	They're making plans to form an organization to support victims of clerical sexual abuse.
	They're out there doing it because that's their social gospel.
	Like they understand the message of Jesus that is compelling their charity.
	Now, I'm assuming that I'm in disagreement with them on abortion now.
	But I don't even know because they largely keep that to themselves.
	It's not really their focus.
	But that would be better religion than the Catholicism that we find in Opus Dei inspiring J.D. Vance.
	And that's great.
	That's a wonderful story.
	I've often argued that the communities and the charitable aspects that religion bring to people are wonderful.
	To me, the term religion doesn't even necessarily need to be in there.
	These are just good people doing good things.
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	I guess because I start this segment with what counters the speed of fascism, and my answer is it's got to be more than critical thinking.
	It's got to be more than on-the-spot education.
	There's going to be the opposing emotional sort of gravitas of...
	Religious community is the thing that I think about.
	And to me, anyone who uses the passion, morality, and material assets like the real estate, the meeting houses, the infrastructure, the bonds of a religious tradition to challenge capitalism or promote justice or end war, to help advance public health and environmental repair, like...
	That's really good.
	That seems to be the organized, non-chaotic, sort of emotionally rich and community-connected answer or one answer.
	to this emotionally overwhelming chaos that we see coming out of the MAGA movement.
	That all makes a lot of sense, Matthew.
	I guess part of me flinches a little because I often hear this false choice, right, between reason and faith, that somehow when you transition over into talking about people's emotional needs, that the default kind of go-to is going to be, well, we need religion, right?
	And you hear this actually a lot on the right.
	A lot of the current right-wing sort of anti-woke stuff is saying, well, you know, it's because of new atheism and people lost their faith and they lost the meaning that they were getting from the old religious structures.
	And that's why they turned to this, you know, what they see as this terrible religiosity of extreme woke politics.
	So it's this idea that somehow it's because we have the wrong kind of religion that there are these socialills.
	And then the other part, which is that there are all these needs that are absent from like a rational and science-informed worldview that only religion can satisfy.
	And I just don't really agree with that.
	Yeah, I don't think, you know, organized religions are the only answer, I guess.
	I just think...
	I find that the discourse of our particular sort of sector of the media sphere doesn't pay a lot of attention to them.
	And I don't really see there being a choice between, you know, reason and faith.
	I'm just saying that for people embroiled in intense psychosocial spiritual contexts like MAGA people, the critical thinking primer is not going to be enough.
	Like Richard Dawkins is going to be thin gruel.
	Yeah.
	And people can be religious or faithful and reasonable at the same time.
	And that's why we talked to Brad Onishi about him being a secular person of faith.
	So yeah, definitely not the only solution, but something not to be excluded.
	Yeah, and I agree with Derek that the story that you shared and people like that who are doing that kind of work in the world because their religiosity inspires it, I think that's wonderful too.
	Alright, second theme is cults and capitalism.
	Now, there are a lot of Democratic-aligned pundits on Twitter who just smugly say, yep, Trumpism is a cult.
	And my answer to that is, okay, so now what?
	Do we really think that using the cult word is effective?
	Or is it going to prompt you to contemplate how you actually talk to and about MAGA-identified people?
	I don't really think it's effective.
	And I think there are two drawbacks.
	There can be an empathy failure in relation to those who are caught up.
	And secondly, you know, cult language can promote the illusion that the dynamics are aberrant rather than standard, that, you know, people come to believe that things like Trumpism are unique or that the exploitation of cults is different from the exploitation of capitalism.
	I think cult can quarantine off the irrational other to protect the status quo, but Like, did Keith Raniere encourage women to brand each other?
	Yes.
	Do the policies of Jeff Bezos force his drivers to shit in plastic bags in their trucks?
	Yes.
	Did he just pull the plug on the WAPO editorial board, all set to endorse Harris?
	Like, who harms more people?
	Whose behavior do we find outrageous versus normal?
	Yeah.
	You know, ideally, everybody would have literacy and cultic dynamics starting in junior high school.
	But for me, the caveat is it's not because they're super scary, cults are hiding under every rock or something like that, ready to steal the children off to the ashram.
	It's because the dynamics are common, identifiable from structural abuse to domestic abuse.
	Yeah.
	I mean, one thing I then wonder is coming from this angle of how people are using the word cult right now in a way that we've not seen before because everything about the MAGA phenomenon is so different to what we've had in American politics for so long.
	like the loyalty he demands and he gets from his followers regardless of his crimes and his lies and his incompetence, the norms that he shredded.
	The whole point is that whatever critiques we may have otherwise had of American politics in the past, this really is not politics as usual.
	It looks more like a cult.
	Yeah, maybe so.
	I do hope that, and the DNC has started doing this, more people start opting for fascism instead because I think that's a lot more accurate to the form of the thing.
	It's a lot more flexible.
	With the idea of the Trump cult, for instance, you have this immediate problem of succession.
	I was just thinking about this today.
	In the kind of cult that Steve Hassan made his career describing, when the leader dies, that's usually the end of things.
	It's really hard for a group to recover.
	But who is even the leader when we're talking about MAGA? Like, they're eminently set up to win this election and switch Trump's ass out for J.D. Vance as soon as they can.
	Completely different leader.
	Totally different style of charisma.
	No real historical connection to the leader.
	But full immersion in a very broad, multifaceted movement.
	Like, a cult has a structure, but fascism is more like a...
	It's like a flu or something like that, right?
	It's a fever.
	Yeah, that makes sense, too.
	Although I really wonder, only time will tell...
	If whoever succeeds him can elicit the same level of passionate loyalty, no matter what.
	There's something about his particular pathology and how it plugs into the collective psyche that I think may be unique.
	So, my sort of solution or concluding thought to this theme is that there are two levels to reintegrating the Trump captured.
	So, there's the health of the immediate social network that the person is coming from or they can return to, and then the health of state welfare or how well does the society actually take care of its citizens.
	Okay.
	Theme three.
	This is called mirror world variation.
	And I want to preface this by dispelling any ambiguity on my personal vote.
	Okay, so I mailed in my straight Democrat ballot to Wisconsin three weeks ago.
	I said so on the pod.
	I said so on IG. My absolute preference is that Harris wins.
	There's no doubt that a second Trump term would be the accelerationist hell on display at Madison Square Gardens that we saw last Sunday.
	But on Instagram, I also said that for me, voting Democrat will always mean critical participation.
	So that's what this segment is about.
	And there are a couple of axioms on the left that are resonant for me that I keep in mind.
	And maybe they'll help clarify where I'm coming from.
	One is that, you know, you're voting for the train that you can organize on effectively.
	And secondly, is that you're choosing the opponent that you actually can go to war with.
	And as a lifelong Democrat, progressive and leftist, Harris is just a more worthy opponent.
	That said, the bottom line for this theme for me and for my work going forward is I want to be very careful about not letting my work on insane right-wingers distract me from the subtler, more banal and normalized cruelty of the liberal center.
	So I think we all have to look very squarely at the Trumpism of Madison Square Gardens, but I'm going to keep a mirror in my pocket and not lose perspective.
	And to do that, I'm going to bring up two items related to deception and cruelty within the liberal orthodoxy.
	These are two items related to Gaza, which I think is the moral Achilles heel of the Harris campaign.
	And I'm bringing them up because I think they provide the conditions for new waves of conspiracism.
	So the first is this incredible subtitle from a recent New York Times article, which is, quote, VP Kamala Harris' advisors say the empathy she has expressed for Palestinians as vice president should not be confused with any willingness to break from U.S. foreign policy toward Israel as a presidential candidate, unquote.
	Okay, second item.
	A woman named Hala Rawit served for 18 years for the State Department until resigning in April over Gaza policy.
	She was the Arabic language spokesperson for the State Department, and Democracy Now!
	had her in the studio to ask her about the leaked letter from Blinken and Austin to Netanyahu about 10 days ago.
	Threatening to cut off military assistance if Israel did not end its blockade on humanitarian aid to Gaza.
	And here's her answer.
	I can tell you as someone that worked within the State Department PR machine that this unfortunately is a public relations ploy.
	I'm sad to say it, but it's the truth.
	It is conveniently 30 days marking the time after the election.
	Also, it was conveniently leaked.
	It's not typical for a statement like this to be leaked to the press, but it was.
	The reality is that the State Department and the administration at this point is trying to give voters, especially those that are so concerned about the conflict in Gaza, some level of hope.
	As long as you vote for us, after this 30 days, we'll enforce the law, and we will make a change.
	This is absolutely a deception for the voters and for the American people.
	I would call these two examples of realpolitik here, which is, I believe, jeopardizing their chances at the polls because Arab Americans and basically everyone on the left can see right through it.
	Now, how that actually scans out in terms of numbers, I can't say for sure.
	At the heart of realpolitik is deception.
	That's nothing new.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And at the heart of political statements is exactly the kind of threading the needle that we hear Kamala Harris saying in your first example, right?
	Yeah, it's normal political stuff.
	Harris performs care while.
	Like, I remember us commenting on one of her first speeches after the convention, and I think you were pointing out this more positive and hopeful language that she was delivering from the stage.
	Um...
	But here's what I think is at stake for the liberal orthodoxy, besides perhaps losing Arab Americans and many on the left, perhaps for generations.
	Also at stake for me, in terms of the peril of mainly limiting the focus of conspirituality to right-wing aggression.
	Running a Black woman candidate familiar with non-profit speak of, like, I hear you and I see you, and using the passive voice of too many have died, but then holding the intention to not only not mitigate carnage, but to not even slow down its facilitation— When you have a law and order candidate who's arguably violating the Leahy Law, we are kind of getting into arguably Illuminati-grade contradiction and skullduggery.
	And I think that's a real problem.
	To be fair, and I agree with your broader contours here, but Harris did say in a town hall earlier this week that far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed.
	So it's not only non-profit speak.
	I think it's marginally better.
	I think that it's still a passive construction that leaves out who's doing the killing.
	I mean, the end of that sentence could be too many innocent Palestinians have been killed by tornadoes, right?
	Oh, she contextualized it.
	I mean, she was talking specifically about Israel at that moment.
	Okay, right.
	I mean, the active voice would be, just bear with me, the state of Israel, our ally, is indiscriminately slaughtering civilians with weapons we have provided.
	Okay.
	She can't say or won't say the truth of what's happening.
	And for a lot of people on the left, including me, that compromises the credibility in general.
	It's a contradiction to take seriously and to somehow fight with and resolve.
	So my question overall with regard to the growth of conspiracy theories due to institutional distrust, and in this case from the left, is what is the fallout from performing care about genocide while openly and visibly facilitating it?
	Because what she is presenting, I think, is the kind of image of the smiling cabal master who is pretending to be genteel while destroying the world.
	I don't—that's not the picture I have.
	I think that's a plausible— Representation and perception that people will be having out there.
	And here's my core worry.
	Showing this level of deception and even contempt to the point of welcoming the Cheneys with open arms, as if anyone really likes them and as if Dick doesn't have endless gallons of blood on his hands, towards the younger, more leftist, more diverse voters will give ample reason for cynicism to morph into paranoia and conspiracism over time.
	But I wonder here if there's a conflation and maybe an oversimplification, because if the immediate goal is to defeat Trump in a very tight race, because him winning would be extremely dangerous to everyone, including Palestinians, can't we then look at the unprecedented aisle crossing, especially of someone like Cheney, Can't we see that as adding legitimacy to how extreme Trump really is?
	And isn't that a good ally to have?
	If you want to win over Republicans who actually do kind of like Cheney and who aren't all in on Trump and then go, wow, look at this.
	This is a really big deal.
	Wouldn't it be...
	It's imprudent for Harris to say, I refuse Dick Cheney's endorsement because he's an awful human being, even though that would satisfy the small percentage of people that you're advocating for.
	Well, I don't know about percentages.
	I don't know that Dick Cheney is popular among anybody.
	That's what Tim Walz argued on The Daily Show.
	But I don't buy it because when Dick Cheney left office, we can look it up, he had an approval rating of 13%.
	And then one of his most infamous achievements, which was instigating the Iraq War, was criticized by Trump in 2016 from the debate stage when he said that shouldn't have happened.
	That marked his break from McCain and that whole wing of the party.
	So I don't buy that linking arms with Cheney gives Harris anything.
	I think it just doubles down on the fuck you to the left and Arab Americans.
	I don't agree with that.
	I mean, just looking at it from the perspective of Liz Cheney, as much as I don't agree with her, she lost skin in the game because she came out against Trump early.
	And to me, the dick was the dick.
	Yeah.
	It was sort of an add-on here because he just kind of jumped in.
	And I know Jon Stewart came out immediately against it.
	As someone on the left, I saw that exactly for what Julian points out.
	It's just adding to the more traditional conservative, like no one on the right is really into this guy.
	I haven't seen anyone on the left be like, oh, a Cheney endorsement.
	Yeah.
	Well, that's my point.
	You lose when you take that endorsement.
	You lose it when you prop them up.
	That's what I don't agree on.
	What is it losing except a small percentage of people?
	I can see it for what it is and not be that bothered by it in terms of just understanding that this is the political dynamic that exists and there needs to be coalitions, however weird they are.
	I don't expect Harris to invite the Cheneys into the, well, who knows with Liz, but Dick isn't coming back to the administration.
	the, well, who knows with Liz, but Dick isn't coming back to the administration.
	So I'm not too concerned about that.
	So I'm not too concerned about that.
	I feel like it was just a red herring that some people held up as being like, oh, they're bringing Dick Cheney in.
	I feel like it was just a red herring that some people held up as being like, oh, they're bringing Dick Cheney in.
	And I just don't see that as reality.
	And I just don't see that as reality.
	Back to The Daily Show, there was this difficult moment in which Walls says, apologetically, you know, it's not like we're going to take on their foreign policy suggestions.
	Back to The Daily Show, there was this difficult moment in which Walls says, apologetically, you know, it's not like we're going to take on their foreign policy suggestions.
	And then he gives this big, broad laugh.
	And Jon Stewart says, do you promise?
	And like his clown voice and Walls says, of course not.
	But in actuality, they are continuing their unlimited support for Israel.
	And everyone's laughing and hoping it's going to turn out all right.
	And to me, that's kind of chilling.
	I would imagine he was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq in that specific instance, however.
	I think when it comes down to it, I find the whole thing haunting with regard to the future.
	of First Nations people here in Canada who thought that QAnon made perfect sense because they were kidnapped as children.
	They were forced into medical and educational systems without their consent.
	And then on a global level, just what kind of justified, reasonable, and likely radicalizing paranoia and conspiracism will we see provoked by this double reality, This, I hear you and see you, and I'm also signing the checks.
	Yeah.
	Most governments of the global north are sitting on their hands while everyone can see the carnage streaming on their phones.
	And so, I mean, one question for my work here is to what degree is this contradiction, you know, and a ton of others that on the left along with me are identifying in the Harris foreign policy stance, similar to the contradiction posed by the Maha movement, which pretends to want to save children while backing a nihilistic drive to dissolve all government agencies.
	So, I mean, for me, the call for critical thinking just can't stop at the edge of political expediency, whether the topic is medicine or fascism or genocide.
	That all makes sense.
	I think for me, I look at the election as its own kind of communication puzzle.
	And it sounds to me sometimes like you want the candidate who is opposing Trump to prevent an even starker choice than they are.
	Right now, regardless of a polling and research-based strategy to try and win the election.
	So my question is, would you respect and support a candidate more if they adopted the progressive stances that are only supported by a small minority of the country and so therefore lost to Trump Then one who tried to build a coalition based on the actual views of the persuadable portion of the electorate and thereby defeated him,
	saved democracy and got in and then got to do whatever they do once they're in using everything from having a really good cabinet and the input of experts and putting the best people in positions and maintaining our agency integrity, et cetera.
	I just want to reiterate that I already voted for her, right?
	So the hypothetical, we can kind of set aside.
	I mean, maybe you're asking, would I be less worried about...
	No, no, no, no.
	The hypothetical is not would you vote for someone, it's would you approve of the way in which they're communicating during the election campaign.
	Yeah, would I be less worried about Harris's credibility if her empathy matched her actions?
	Yes.
	Would I be less worried about the decades-long fallout?
	Wait, wait, what are the actions?
	Sending the weapons, continuing to send the weapons, along with the administration.
	Okay, so you're saying during the campaign, she made statements that said too many Palestinians have been killed.
	And during the campaign, she said, and that's why right now as vice president, I am taking this action to put a stop to America's support for Israel.
	I don't know what would have been possible, but I would be less worried about her credibility if there was coherence between those two things.
	I would be less worried about the decades-long fallout among Gen Z kids trying to process all of this hypocrisy on TikTok and spinning into grief-stricken paranoia.
	Would I be out knocking on doors if the message was more coherent, if there was more credibility?
	Maybe.
	So, of course, I would prefer that Harris wins.
	I really want you to understand that, for me, the criticism is actually a form of support because I don't think she can win without even attempting to resolve this contradiction.
	And that kind of leads me to two premises in your question that I question.
	One is that the Harris campaign is running on research.
	Which kind of makes it sound like it's the CDC instead of a pile of consultants playing Nate Silver who jump on their phones and try to figure out what Tim Walz is playing like when he says weird.
	There are people with more or less experience and success, but it's tarot card readers playing with four cards, like the price of eggs, law and order, reproductive rights, and housing costs.
	They keep the foreign policy card in the deck.
	You don't think they make They make calculations based on how big the different groups of people are that they're trying to get support from and who they feel they need to win over in order to win and who they think they maybe can piss off a little bit, but they're still going to vote for them anyway because the choice is Trump.
	For sure, but I wouldn't say that's research-based.
	I would say that that's a lot of inside baseball and vibes.
	Was the decision to exclude a Palestinian speaker from the convention stage research-based?
	I'm not saying everything is research-based, but I am saying we have really good data on demographics and political orientations and how big different groups are.
	Yeah, we also have really good data on the fact that it's not a small minority of Dems who favor an embargo.
	Because a YouGov poll in February, March 2024, this is this year, found 52 of Americans agreed that the U.S. should halt weapons shipments to Israel until it stops attacks on Gaza.
	In August, Chicago Council on Global Affairs found 53% of Americans believe the U.S. should restrict military aid to Israel.
	That's all Americans.
	And then when you get into Democrats, 70% of Democrats and 53% of swing voters supported withdrawing aid if Israel rejected a ceasefire.
	That's all really positive.
	And at the same time, and I'm on board with all of that, and at the same time, the data that sits alongside that put the Israel-Gaza issue at the bottom of a list of 15 possible issues in multiple polls of what people prioritize when it comes to the election. the data that sits alongside that put the Israel-Gaza issue We'll see.
	But I just want to make clear that it's a moral question for me, but I also think it's strategically important, you know.
	And I think if I go and I find that data, I think that it should be convincing that obviously I'm concerned about her winning because I think she's making a mistake.
	They're making a mistake by ignoring this.
	Just let me get clear on this.
	I don't want to get too in the weeds because I think we all agree on the basic contours and our disagreements have always come into just these very small contours.
	categories.
	But a moment ago, you said that you think it could be potentially more vibes-based and not as research-based.
	But then you said that you think that this issue is strategically important.
	I looked up an aggregate of the top 10 issues of Democrats for the election in October.
	So this is the most recent data.
	And as Julian flagged, this does not come up in the top 10.
	So it would seem to me like they are actually looking at what's most important because when I look at the top 10, all of them are on her platform, on her page.
	So again, I'm not trying to make the argument against the broader points that you're making about an embargo because I agree on that point.
	I'm specifically talking about I'm pretty sure that people are looking at what most voters are concerned with and they are addressing those concerns to Americans.
	Because they see this as such an existentially significant election, especially.
	But I want to say, Matthew, I agree with you that it is a moral issue.
	I also have the unfortunate perception, which I think is true, but it's not the way the world should be, that electoral politics is very often not about politics.
	What is the morally most important thing?
	It's about figuring out how to win, which is about taking the temperature of a massive group of people, many of whom you wouldn't want to have anything to do with if you met them in real life.
	Yeah, I mean, I guess when it comes down to it, it's hard for me to believe that it's not going to be significant.
	From everything that I follow on the left side of the ledger, The uncommitted movement, what everybody aligned with Arab Americans and the uncommitted movement is up to.
	It's hard for me to believe it's not going to be significant.
	It's going to be really weird if Tony Hinchcliffe making a joke about Puerto Rico ends up being more impactful than this war.
	Yeah.
	I just want to end this by saying the challenge that I set for myself going forward in the next year, however long we do this together, because I think we're good at it and I think we have a unique angle, is that I want to be able to cover all of it.
	it.
	We have fever dreams that are justified by God, and we have banal cruelties that are justified by just the general neoliberal capitalistic outlook on life that, you know, suggests that the disasters that we have to live with are just the way things must be.
	And yeah, I want to be able to hold those two things in balance.
	music Thank you for listening to another episode of Conspirituality.
	Given that we record on Tuesdays and next week is Election Day on Tuesday, we're going to feature an interview that Matthew recently did with novelist Sheila Hetty as the main feed episode.
	I'm sure the news cycle will be consumed with a lot during this time and I hope you have some self-care practices to help you through it.
	We will see you soon.

▲