The Culture War #67 Anti-White Racism On The Rise In The West, DEI & The Cult
Host:
Tim Pool
Guests:
Jeremy Carl
Jeremy Tedesco | ADFLegal.org
Producers:
Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X)
Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X)
Connect with TENET Media:
https://twitter.com/watchTENETnow
https://www.facebook.com/watchTENET
https://www.instagram.com/watchtenet/
https://www.tiktok.com/@watchtenet
https://www.youtube.com/@watchTENET
https://rumble.com/c/c-5080150
https://www.tenetmedia.com/
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
You know, it's kind of shocking how long this has been going on.
It's probably 15, 16 years since the wokeness, intersectional feminism, culture war battles have been expanding rapidly into the mainstream.
Gamergate, many say, was the beginning of the culture war, but a huge component of this has been an attack on white people.
The idea that white history or things related to white cultures and white indigenous nations are wrong, racist, otherwise a really great example of the hypocrisy in wokeness as it pertains to white people.
Is that, if you were to hold up a big sign saying that I support indigenous people, they'd all clap and cheer, and then if the bottom folded out and it said, of Europe, they would all lose their minds.
The idea that the people who are indigenous to Europe are not the same as indigenous to Native America, clearly the component here is not whether or not someone's indigenous, it's whether or not they're white.
So we're going to talk about that today.
We've got a couple Jeremy's hanging out.
First, Jeremy, would you like to introduce yourself?
unidentified
Yeah, I'm Jeremy Karl, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, and I have just written a book called The Unprotected Class about anti-white racism and its rise in America.
I'm a 20-year First Amendment litigator at Alliance Defending Freedom.
We're probably the best-kept secret if you're a fan of free speech and religious freedom.
We've won 15 cases at the Supreme Court since 2011, 74 over the course of our 30-year history, and we're advocating for First Amendment freedoms all day long and trying to stop the Biden administration from weaponizing the federal government and private corporations against our First Amendment rights.
I do also feel that it's not Just about white people, but also it's like, if you're a white Christian, it's fair game.
They can say whatever they want.
They can discriminate.
And if you're a white Christian man, I mean, then it's just good luck, right?
But who wants to, how about, do you want to, you wrote a book, do you want to introduce us to what exactly is going on with this in the United States?
unidentified
Yeah, well, it's really become an epidemic, and I didn't really want to write the book, quite honestly, for many years, because I'm not an idiot, right?
And when you write a book like this, you get a lot of people very angry with you, because, as you noted at your introductory remarks, you're not really allowed to say anything about white people that Might be construed as nice, but it just it got to the point where particularly you saw this what's been called the Great Awakening in 2013.
Obama's inaugurated and you see the kind of real radicalization of the left on these issues.
And I just felt that it was really important to kind of document that.
So I try to do that in the book.
I sort of talk about everything from immigration to health care to entertainment.
I kind of just show how anti-whiteness has become epidemic throughout All of America in 2024.
in 2024. - So it's really getting crazy out there.
And then you other Jeremy, I don't know if it's fair to call you other Jeremy, but-- - I'll take it. - Yeah.
You guys are dealing with lawsuits pertaining to this stuff now.
What's going on on that front?
unidentified
Sure.
I mean, we're worried about the weaponization of the federal government and even of private corporations against people's First Amendment rights.
The DEI is a part of this and, you know, all the demands of diversity, equity, inclusion related to race, related to, you know, Labeling people oppressors and oppressed based on their race, their sex, their religious convictions.
I mean, we have lawsuits where we've challenged that.
We're starting to be adopted and pushed in schools.
But we're also concerned about the broader weaponization of the legal system and even these private corporations take away people's First Amendment rights.
It's a huge problem.
And I think it's kind of all part of the same package of problems.
There's an aggressive push by kind of the political left How is it happening?
elements of it to weaponize our legal system, to try to take private corporations and regulate us through them and censor us through them.
I mean, the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, yet we now have institutions that are putting in tests, you know, like the Harvard lawsuits restricting white people.
And oftentimes they're explicit in why they're doing it.
They're outright saying, too many white people.
Too many Asians.
So we're gonna change the structure so that we get rid of them.
And then you've got corporations that flat-out tell people, oh, you're white?
Sorry, we're not interested.
I'll tell you a quick story.
We had a pro skateboarder on this show a few months ago.
He was a gay man, and he's like, it's not really a big deal, it's like, I don't go around telling everybody, but he got approached by a friend who said, hey, they're doing a commercial for, I think it was a shoe company, and it's like Pride Month or whatever, would you want to be in it skateboarding?
And he was like, oh wow, that'd be cool.
And when they submitted his reel, the people in the commercial said, why did you send us a white guy?
So here is a gay man for their diversity commercial, and they said white person.
And then we played the commercial, no white people in it.
unidentified
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, I think actually, you've actually hit on a really important insight that a lot of people miss.
And in fact, even people who've written on this issue miss.
And an area where I differ a little bit from other folks who've written very good books in slightly similar areas—guys like Christopher Caldwell and Richard Denania have kind of written books about this—is that I don't think the Civil Rights Act, in and of itself, is the totalizing thing that gets us to where we are now.
In that, as you point out, these laws are on the books, and they're just getting ignored.
It's in the culture, this type of discrimination.
And it really helps when we have folks like Alliance, who will actually call this out on lawsuits.
But right now, a lot of this discrimination is illegal, and it's been happening in plain sight.
Yeah, I think that's totally right.
How did this happen?
I'm not sure.
It all happened kind of under the radar.
There was a lot of push for years, and then DEI, I think, put it on steroids as far as this kind of racialized view of the world and a zero-sum game where, you know, my racial group has to win and yours has to lose.
But a lot of big businesses, institutions, and college and university setting as well, Adopted these things and nobody challenged them legally, but that's it is starting to change Some of the the Harvard decision from the Supreme Court was kind of the first real shot across the bow But that's not a limited decision I think it's going to result in a lot of these programs which really are patently illegal and ultimately undermine the core promise of
The US experiment, which is we're all equal before the law regardless of our race, regardless of our sex, regardless of our religious convictions.
And so I think in the end, we're going to be—the arc is going to be long.
But we're going to prevail against this because it's absolutely contrary to our founding principles, Constitution protections, and some existing laws and statutes as well.
Well, I see two paths on this road we're on, and I'm hoping we win.
I think a strong component of it would require a Donald Trump victory and a Republican victory in November, considering the stakes of this election.
But I feel that if I would predict If we were to see a Democrat victory, you're likely going to see the expansion of this as what is written down in law is completely meaningless.
You know, people point out, oh, Donald Trump, he just got convicted in a court of law.
It's a jury.
They agreed.
And it's like, well, yes, in the Soviet Union, they trial us as well.
No one takes them seriously.
When we're looking at corporations that are outright telling people, we won't hire you based on race.
This happened to me, actually.
Sort of.
So I was, I worked for a company called Fusion.
They were hosting a big event with presidential candidates, I was one of their top paid correspondents, I am also a mixed race person, and news went out about the event they were doing and the hosts they had brought on to do it, and it was their top correspondents plus one outside contractor who was black.
And so I'm like, hey man, look, you don't gotta come and ask me to do anything, let me do my thing, pay me my money.
But I did ask the president of the company, I was like, couldn't help but notice you brought in all of the top paid correspondents, and then a contractor, and then I'm not invited, and he said, you look too white.
Just straight up, he said, you look too white.
And I was like, well, I'm a mixed race person.
And he was like, yeah, but you know, that doesn't matter.
And I was like, all right, well, at least he was straight up with me.
And they paid me a lot of money, so I was like, honestly, if it was something I was pursuing, like I had applied for it, I probably would have lost my mind.
unidentified
Well, it's interesting, Tim, and I think your experience is really similar.
One of the first interviews I did about this book was with Charlie Kirk, and Charlie, I thought, had something really interesting to say anecdotally because he talks to such a broad swath of people in the conservative movement.
He says, when I talk with my older donors and folks like that, And they say, you know, I start talking about anti-white racism, they kind of freak out.
They're like, oh, you know, can we even say that?
Is that bad?
Does that make us racist?
Whereas when I go on college campuses and I talk to young people about this, like young white people, they're like, yeah, this is the biggest issue we're facing.
You know, thank you so much for raising it.
So I think there's also a generation gap here where a lot of old people or older people, um, Yeah, even people like me or middle-aged, my generation, don't understand how bad it's gotten for younger people trying to make their way in the world right now on some of this stuff.
I mean, are you guys seeing more and more lawsuits or more and more requests for lawsuits?
unidentified
There are more lawsuits being filed on the overreach of DEI now than there ever has been.
I think the floodgates really opened with the Harvard decision from the Supreme Court a couple And so, you know, I was just looking at a opinion the other day coming out of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where a program that has race preferences built into financial awards, you know, the court said this violates federal law against race-based contracting decisions.
Another decision came out recently that struck down a federal program and the racial preferences they have for minority-owned businesses.
And so basically, if you fell into certain racial categories or ethnic categories, you got favored preferential treatment under the program.
And they said that just violates the fundamental principle of equal protection for the law.
So I do think that a lot of this stuff exists.
It's pervasive.
But I also think the legal decisions are going to go the right way.
They're going to stack.
Pretty quickly.
You were saying before, Tim, about the things that are written are ignored in many ways, but what we're worried about is what's happening behind the scenes, what's shrouded.
One of the things we're working on is the way in which the federal government is taking the secrecy that's allowed within the banking system and using it in weaponizing that against people, totally legal businesses, Weaponizing it against people for their constitutionally protected activities like speech and religion.
There's a lot coming out on this.
I testified at a Congress on this a few months ago where we were actually caught up in it as well, ADF, where I work, Alliance Defending Freedom, because the FinCEN, part of the counterterrorism kind of ecosystem at the federal level, shared a document with big banks saying, look, around the January 6th, shared a document with big banks saying, look, around the January 6th, you know, activities, we want you to look for people who could be domestic And they said, here's a list of hate groups, so-called hate groups, which is put out by all these far-left activists.
We're on it.
Lots of other Christian organizations are as well.
And they're like, you know, these organizations are, you know, domestic violent extremists, or at least could be, and people who donate to them could be.
And they're asking big banks to scour their records for people who give donations to groups like us, who, you know, use terms like MAGA or Trump or shop at Dick's Sporting Goods or Cabela's.
Like, these are—this is really alarming stuff.
It's a whole government problem, and there's a lot of manipulation of the kind of legal apparatus, especially the counterterrorism and criminal divisions in the federal government, to harm people's First Amendment rights.
And so that's a real concern, and I think it's all part of the same package.
Yeah, and I think maybe part of the reason I'm a little less optimistic, and I mean, if I were totally pessimistic, I wouldn't have written the book because I think there are things we can do.
But I'm a little less optimistic because I think a lot of these things that we're doing to challenge the law are only as good as the people we have who are enforcing them.
And so by that, what do I mean?
You just touched on the Harvard Supreme Court decision which says affirmative action is illegal in universities.
So Missouri has a really excellent forward-looking attorney general.
As soon as that happens, he cancels $16 million worth of race-based scholarships in the state.
But I don't think any other state AG did it, right?
Because nobody actually stepped forward and said, aha, I'm going to go use this.
And then the kind of real black pill, if you will, is to look at California.
So California has now twice at the ballot box outlawed affirmative action by race in its universities.
If you look at the statistics for admission, if you really squint, you can maybe see a little bit of effect that that outlawing has had.
So you're referring to, I think this was, what, four or five years ago?
They had an attempt to amend the Constitution of California to allow them to discriminate on the basis of race in public contracting and education.
Yeah.
I remember I had a conversation with a friend of mine who was like, excuse me, like a woke L.A. actress.
And I saw that she had posted in favor of it.
And so I immediately texted her and then ended up with a phone call and I was like, so why do you think people should be allowed to discriminate against people based on their race?
And she was like, well, no, this is to help, you know, minorities.
And I said, what's the, what's like the population breakdown of California?
I asked her, I was like, do you think that in these towns in California that are predominantly white, do you think they're going to choose to be more or less racist?
And she was like, well, I would assume more racist.
And I was like, why would you want to give them the legal right to do so?
And she didn't have an answer.
I feel like a lot of these activists just want to be racist.
For real, I mean, that's it.
I mean, like, the outcome of amending the Constitution in the way they did, certainly at the state level could have some impact, but there are counties that are predominantly white in California, there's the East, certain farming areas, and I'm like, the reality is...
I think if California changed the amendment, these overwhelmingly white areas would not implement racial laws to protect white people.
The other counties that aren't predominantly white would absolutely pass laws to harm white people.
unidentified
Right.
Well, the interesting thing on that ballot initiative in California was every politician in the state endorsed, at least all the Democrats, which is everybody who has office.
They outspent the proponents about 30 to 1 or something preposterous, and everybody thought that they were going to win.
Um, and they lost 56-44 while Biden was carrying the state was 63%.
So I think the good news is that actually racially discriminating is sort of unpopular in America.
Um, at least when you sort of expose it to light, but the bad news is there's a lot of this stuff.
And as you point out, a lot of this is coming out behind the scenes.
And so, um, you know, I think part of, part of what I'm trying to do in the unprotected class is just to, to shine a light on it, to say, Hey, this is going on.
Like, the origin, I suppose, of DEI and anti-white racism?
unidentified
Yeah, I mean, I think you can't tell the story without telling the story of the Civil Rights Act, and again, where I get a little bit less autistic than some people is, I think, some of them like to be super intellectually purist and say, ah, you know, it was just the Civil Rights Act, it was really horrible.
My view is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a response to real problems that were existing.
I mean, there was segregation, there was racism, things had been improving, but it was not an unreasonable, it was a blunt instrument to solve a very real problem.
And I think it turned out to be too blunt, it took away too many freedoms over the long term, and even more importantly, the deep state slash administrative state and future really dubious Supreme Court rulings and other things Built on this and took it way away from what I think everybody would have wanted it to be in 1964.
But having said that, I don't think you can tell this story without discussing the act.
I don't think a lot of this happens without the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
And I think without seriously amending our civil rights laws, I don't think we can fix fully some of these problems.
I also think that the left has made a calculated decision that they can, at least for right now, the best way to drive their agenda is through a lens of discrimination.
So they have co-opted a lot of good laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other state and local laws that are really meant to be shields to protect people from discrimination based on immutable characteristics that they have no control over and they shouldn't be deprived of jobs or other things because of.
And they've decided to drive, you know, an agenda through that and essentially say there's a point of view or perspective that you need to bend the knee to.
And if you don't, we're going to use this as a sword instead to harm you, to run you out of business, to litigate and make vexatiously and make your life miserable.
Our clients deal with this all the time.
We represented Jack Phillips from Masterpiece Cake Shop at the U.S.
Supreme Court.
We won that decision 7-2 back in 2017.
He's still been sued today because other folks in Colorado didn't like the outcome of that decision and just took the non-discrimination law and decided to attack him rather through sexual orientation discrimination through gender identity discrimination and say well you have to bake a cake that celebrates my gender transition so like this is this is part of the problem is it's a calculated political strategy.
Where's the white Christian going to a gay bakery and asking for a cake with Leviticus saying, if you shall lay with a man as a man lays with a woman?
unidentified
That actually happened in Jack Phillips' case.
I mean, that was actually one of the most interesting parts of that case.
Some guy did exactly what you said, showed up at a bake shop in Colorado that, you know, was clearly gay-affirming, and asked him for a cake that celebrated, you know, Marriage between a man and a woman, and had a few verses from scripture that, you know, made it clear that marriage between a man and a woman.
And the cake shop owner said, no, I'm not going to do that.
Well, then he filed a civil rights complaint, same one that was filed against our client alleging discrimination, and Colorado kicked that and said, no, there's no discrimination here.
While they continue to prosecute Jack Phillips.
Part of the reason we won is the selective enforcement.
And they have got a lot of attorneys, and I wish they had 10 times as many.
But I think what he's also showing is the problem of scale, right, which is So they stepped in, right?
But not everybody who does this can get media attention or can have things put in, and so it's not really the law that ends up deciding most of this, unfortunately.
It's these woke bureaucracies and these woke politicians.
So would you say, in your—I don't know if you're allowed to give legal advice in this context, though—but just in your expert opinion, outside of it, if a person were to go to a bakery and requested scripture on a cake and they refuse, is that religious discrimination?
unidentified
So is it religious discrimination?
Well, a jurisdiction might find that it is, but my view is that person should be able to object.
I will order 10,000 cakes tomorrow with Leviticus written on it to prove a point, if that is the actual...
Maybe we should just do it.
unidentified
If the bake shop owner in that situation says, I have an objection to that message, I disagree with it, I don't want to write on a cake, then they should be afforded the same treatment that our clients are, to not be forced to coerce to promote messages they disagree with.
I mean, this is, the problem with the law is they're being used as a tool to force speech that people don't want to engage with.
The rule needs to apply equally to everybody.
Even more provocatively, imagine a racially provocative thing.
Your listeners can use their imagination here, right?
I just order a cake and be like, I'd like to have a cake made.
And we can do a variety.
So I'm curious, if you went to a bakery and said, I want a Blackfist and I want to say Black Power, they'd probably all agree to do it.
unidentified
Yeah, but if somebody objected and they had a speech-based objection to that, and they were being forced to create something through their own artistic skills, writing that message on a cake, designing it, then they can't be coerced to do it.
I mean, this is the problem with the nondiscrimination laws.
Activists are using them to force people to say messages they disagree with.
So that's the line.
And the First Amendment protects written speech, graphic art, and a much more capacious form of expression than that.
Do you think if someone asked a bakery to make a white power cake and they refused to do it, would that be considered discriminatory based on race?
unidentified
Sure.
Really?
I mean, I imagine the jurisdictions would find that, and then you'd have to decide whether there was, you know, First Amendment right involved.
But I mean, these things all play out, right, in the broader cultural context, and the power equation, I think, is very imbalanced.
That's why it's really important for us to be able to come in on behalf of people like Jack Phillips, who have religious objections to same-sex marriage, and say, you can't coerce people to create art that violates their core religious convictions related to marriage, or a host of other issues.
And lots of times these things, you know, sadly, as a litigator, I can say, you know, these things aren't resolved once and for all, even when you win a great Supreme Court case.
Yeah.
And we won Masterpiece Cakeshop 72.
That was on religious freedom grounds, not free speech grounds.
Then just last term, we won 303 Creative, which was another Colorado business owner who created websites, designed websites, all the content, all the imagery, all the graphics.
She did wedding websites as well, and she didn't want to be treated the same way Jack Phillips was, so she preemptively sued Colorado and said, I need an order telling Colorado I can never be forced to promote same-sex weddings through my design work.
We had to go all the way up to the Supreme Court.
It took eight years to get a win in that case.
Now, you know, that didn't, it should once and for all solve the issue.
But the problem is you've got, you know, all these different actors in the private sector and in the governmental sector who don't like the ruling and are doing everything they can to get around it.
So, you know, this is part of the lesson of Reagan's quote.
You know, we all are part of the process of passing along our freedoms to the next generation.
What if you asked a bakery in Colorado to make a cake that said white people suck?
They probably do it.
Is that discrimination, though, if they were to make that message as a business?
So I'm curious because it's one thing to deny someone a public accommodation, a service, based on their belief or whatever.
I'm wondering if there is also a claim, or is it actually just evidence of bias, if a bakery is willing to make a racist statement on a cake?
unidentified
Yeah.
Well, I mean, obviously I agree with Jeremy that we should just be able to, that these bakeries should not be compelled to have any message that they don't want to have.
But I think the reality is, and I would love for you to test it, if you did a white power cake and a black power cake and called around to a hundred bakeries, we'd get a very, very different answer.
And that's just the reality.
And so that's the way the law is played out in practice.
You call an area that's predominantly conservative, they're going to say, we're not going to make a Black Power or a White Power cake.
You call an urban liberal center and they're going to say, how many Black Power cakes did you want?
How about you do a BOGO?
We love the message, can we give you another one for free?
unidentified
Steven Crowder going to Dearborn bakeries and saying, will you do this?
And them saying, no, and nobody, you know, it really is very much.
It was like, I mean, Lauren Southern, I think was banned from England for, you know, Allah is a gay God, right?
She did the, you know, sign years ago, right?
It's the same thing, which, which of course you could see leftists basically making that same point with those, almost those same words, but it's perceived differently, right?
I think the issue is, Man, it really comes down to, I suppose white Christian men are weak.
They're weak.
There's a lot of strong ones.
You know, the United States is a nation that was a predominantly white Christian country and through their tolerance and acceptance have allowed evil and degeneracy to expand rapidly to the point where we are now.
I'm not saying this country should have stayed the way it was.
I have no problem whatsoever.
My family come from different racial backgrounds.
So the issue, however, is a lack of, I suppose, discipline and strength in protecting the institutions while Actually allowing and being like, if you're going to be tolerant, you still have to say, hey, there's a line.
And so my greater point is the only reason we are seeing what we're seeing is because white people actually split on the issue and no other racial group is.
unidentified
Tim, I'm so glad you mentioned this because this is actually something I try, I both try to stress it in the book and I try to stress it when it comes up in interviews, which is, I am not whining, writing this to say, oh, like white people should be victims and you know, we need to whine.
It's not about whining the rest.
It's about saying, Like, we need to have more self-respect than to be treated as second-class citizens, period.
And it's like, white people are not some 1%, 2% minority in this country.
If we simply stand up and say, we're not going to allow ourselves to be treated this way, it will stop.
But as you point out, there's a split.
And not only that, we have a split within the white community.
Some of them are some of the actively worse people on that.
And I think there's a variety of interesting reasons why that's going on.
But really, this is not about kind of creating a new victim class.
It's just to say, White people shouldn't be putting up with it.
Obviously, everybody else should be helping us not put up with it too, but we're kind of our own worst enemies here on a lot of this stuff.
Yeah, and I think the message... No, go ahead.
I mean, I just think our message should be we shouldn't put up with race discrimination at all.
Yeah, of course.
I mean, you know, race... Organizing a society around, you know, like racializing everything becomes a zero-sum game where you're, you know...
Your people must win and others must lose.
And so if you look back in American history, the most, you know, the advances for equality and justice have always been about people like Frederick Douglass or Martin Luther King Jr.
calling for accountability to America's founding principles, to its promise of equal protection before the law, to the idea expressed in the Declaration that we're all created equal.
In the image of God, that we all have inalienable rights given to us by God.
And that equality before the law is the most important thing.
I think we're in a battle of ideas, and I think people in the kind of conservative ecosystem feel like they're on the losing side of it, and I think that's to some extent true.
But the ideas that formed this country and that we believe in are the ideas that can save us from this trajectory of DEI racializing society in this way.
I think the problem, though, that you're both going to have to accept if you want to figure things out is that white people are the most racist racial demographic in the country.
This proves that white people are the most racist.
Against white people.
So if you take a look, what we have pulled up is mean in-group bias by race and ethnicity.
Black people have a mean 15.58% in-group racial preference.
Hispanics is 12.83, which is weird because Hispanic means Spanish-speaking person.
Asian is 13.94, perhaps they mean Latino.
White liberal is negative 13.17.
And non-white liberal is 11.62.
If you were to break this down, what do you see?
Of the racial groups with an in-group preference.
Non-white liberals are still lower than all of the other groups.
There is a lower preference for white people among non-liberal white people.
And among liberal white people, there is an out-group preference.
Add these numbers up, liberals are the most racist.
Now it's predominantly against, I should say white people, if you were to add it all together, will be the most racist.
But it's against white people.
unidentified
Tim, I'm so thrilled.
I talk about this graph a lot.
I've never had anybody actually show it.
I'm thrilled that you know about it because it's so important.
And I should add, this graph that Tim is showing is not from some, you know, right-wing push-pull that was trying to get a particular result.
This is standard social science survey data.
It's taken from a very large data set.
And it's really fascinating, right?
Because everybody, I mean, Yes, it is interesting that even non-liberal whites have less in-group preference than these other groups, but at least those other bars are a little bit similar, and you can kind of wave your hands and say, it's kind of the same thing going on.
You sort of expect people are going to have an in-group preference.
As long as that's not out of control, it's not really something I would call a big problem, right?
Like you prefer your mother to some random woman on the street.
But what's really pathological here is the white liberal, right?
Which is this massive thing where they think white people are dumber, more criminal, you go out, and I really, my next book is going to really probably be to put these guys on the couch.
White liberals believe that white people are the supreme race.
And they're guilty about it.
We call them white supremacists with guilty conscience.
But it's true.
I've encountered this quite a bit.
For those that have listened to any one of my shows, I have a story that some of you may have heard, but for the sake of the gentleman before me, I will tell you guys.
I was in North Dakota at the North Dakota Access Pipeline protest.
No, Dakota Pipeline protest is what it was called.
And ice-cold Native Americans saying, don't build this pipeline!
I was only able to be there for a few days because I had a business meeting in California, which meant I had to drive from New York to North Dakota to California.
It was a heck of a trip.
Wide out conditions, driving through Montana, a whole lot of fun.
Wyoming roads were pure ice.
And so we're sitting down to dinner or lunch or whatever.
And someone asked me how long I was sticking around for.
These are all leftists.
And I said, I got to leave in the morning because I got a business meeting in California in three days.
And this guy smirks and says, business meeting?
And I was like, yeah.
And he was like, that's colonial thinking.
And I was like, what does that mean, colonial thinking?
He's like, scheduling your meetings is colonial thinking.
Native Americans don't do that.
They wake up when they need to wake up, when it makes sense.
They do the work when the work needs to be done.
It's white Europeans who brought this idea of scheduling and meetings to the world and to America.
And I was like, What?
I was like, Asians have time too, bro.
Like, we have clocks and he goes, no.
He's like, no, these are ideas that were spread by white Europeans.
And I was like, my guy, China invented the compass, he's a white guy too, I'm like, China invented the compass 1,000 years before you, 1,000 years before you did.
And he's like, But don't you think that really it's just white people brought all that stuff to Asia?
And I was like, I actually snapped on the guy and I was like, I'm not gonna sit here and have some white supremacist tell me that my culture is derivative of his when we did this stuff thousands of years before you, you white supremacist piece of trash, and they were all like...
It's remarkable that they genuinely believe this stuff.
unidentified
You can see this in some other interesting studies they've done.
For example, when white conservatives talk to African-Americans in particular, the language that they use is effectively the same as when they talk to white people.
They're not sort of talking down to them, and they have ways of measuring this.
Scientists, ah, there you go, right?
You're like, you're teeing it up.
Right?
White conservatives treat minorities as the same, but when white liberals get in front of African-Americans, they talk down to them.
White liberals present themselves as less competent in interactions with African-Americans.
That's wild.
It's so weird.
For me, I suppose, growing up in an area, in a major city that's very mixed, you don't do this.
The fastest way to get punched in the mouth is to treat someone like they're dumb.
But I feel like a lot of these white liberals, they're probably wealthier, higher income, and they come from white enclaves.
You know what's interesting?
Being from Chicago, and now everyone can say, oh Tim said he's from Chicago again, it's Democrat-controlled for 100 years.
No Republicans.
I have no feeling whatsoever most of my life on the Republican Party because they don't exist.
Where I grew up, everything I experienced was just Democrats.
I hate Democrats.
And I wonder if this is the same thing for those white liberals.
They grew up surrounded by white people.
It's not that white people are bad, it's that they only ever experience good or bad coming from white people.
And so then you get a media that romanticizes these other races, or what do they call it, the myth of the noble savage is this racist idea that they all must be pure and good.
These liberals grow up hearing these things and then they, this is the worldview they build.
unidentified
Yeah, I mean, I grew up in North Carolina in a highly integrated public school system, grew up around a lot of African Americans, got to Yale, and I dealt with a lot of these, like, white guys from New England who'd gone to prep schools and maybe hadn't had very much exposure outside of that, and it was really clear to me how uncomfortable they were regardless of their professed opinions on anything with like actually dealing with a normal African-American person right
and so I mean it was really striking to me at that time and I'm sure it's the same type of thing that you're talking about same type of dynamic you know I think that you're talking about enclaves and things like that I think the problem though is that this politicization of everything, this racialization of everything, even whether you keep a schedule, it's colonial or whatever.
I mean, it's bizarre, but I think the problem is it's pervasive in the sense that DEI is at the root of the education system right now.
And I think as a society, We're going to be reaping the whirlwind of that for some period of time until it gets rooted out.
Because that idea around, you know, everything has to be seen through the lens of this power relationship and the oppressor-oppressor classes.
And then everything, even like whether you keep a schedule and set, you know, whatever, a clock to get up in the morning, becomes some kind of indicator of whether you're from a privileged class.
I mean, this is really toxic.
But they're teaching it to all of our kids in all the public schools and in a lot of private schools too.
So I think the problem is how pervasive it is.
We're challenging this in a couple school districts.
In Albemarle School District in Virginia, we represent parents and also some school officials because the school adopted this anti-racist program and started pushing it as curriculum in the schools.
And parents of kids that were multiracial would come, the kids would come home and they'd be talking in ways about their own racial makeup that they'd had never done before, you know, all the years they've been raising their kids in this kind of multiracial family.
So, you know, it is very toxic and, you know, it just, it kind of creeps in where people aren't, They don't fully I don't think are aware yet just how pervasive it is and how it creeps into the you know the most innocent settings at your school so you know I think it's imperative that we root it out and even I think you mentioned this Jeremy I saw you in an interview talk about how down in Florida they just eliminated their DEI departments.
We need just the pure, the complete elimination of DEI departments, positions at colleges and universities, and that needs to trickle all the way down to the, you know, K-12 schools, too.
You know, the reality is, you know, when you mention people should have their free speech, we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of race, these are the Traditional liberal positions, and that literally was social liberalism as it was referred to, that led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
There are a lot of post-liberals that say, this is what has, you know...
It brought us to the point of communism, Marxism, race communism, whatever you want to call it.
I agree and disagree.
I think the issue is when we create something like the 1964 Civil Rights Act and all the titles within it, we're basically saying, guys, we're not going to do this thing anymore.
But just because bad people are using it to do bad things doesn't mean it was bad.
You build a bank to hold your money, and then you walk away and someone robs it.
The idea is someone goes, well that was dumb, why'd we put our money in the same place?
It's like, well no, the problem was you weren't protecting it.
You weren't saying, stop, you can't take the money.
So what we need is, we need to reaffirm you can't discriminate on the basis of race.
That includes white people or otherwise.
The problem now is the left is, quite literally, Discriminating on the basis of race, and the courts and the systems are all agreeing with him because it's never about what's written down on law.
I'll give a shout out to Wade Stotz again.
He made a video about the Constitution is dead.
You saw this video?
unidentified
I literally was in an interview in Idaho yesterday with Wade.
Well, I mean, just one thing about DEI that I want to make sure I bring out is that it's not just about all the race issues.
It certainly isn't.
That's, I think, a very pivotal piece of what's going on with DEI.
But it's also critical gender theory.
There's a host of bad cultural things that are happening that are being driven through Essentially critical gender theory, it demands for pronoun usage, demands for, you know, puberty blockers for youth, even medical, surgical interventions for youth, for kids who are struggling with, you know, gender dysphoria and things like that.
In the corporate world, where I do a lot of work trying to push back on corporations being weaponized to push these agendas on the American people by bypassing democratic accountability, DEI is really the tool that's used to push these things on corporations too.
And so, like, organizations like the Human Rights Campaign scores corporations on their Corporate Equality Index.
This year to get 100%, which all the corporations want, on the Corporate Equality Index, the corporations have to provide insurance coverage for puberty blockers and surgeries for youth.
And so, like, 70% of the American public Why do they care about the HRC?
Well, our score is the Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index.
So we rate all these corporations on their respect for free speech and religious freedom.
And then we have a shareholder coalition that essentially uses the same tools that the left uses to drive all these corporations down this very toxic path of ESG and DEI, all the critical gender stuff and everything else.
As a counterweight to it.
And we're actually seeing successes.
We had Chase drop a policy, like a hate group policy that allowed them to debank people for political or religious reasons just this year.
They dropped a policy that we had made up kind of a key part of our advocacy with Chase.
Shouldn't have policies on the books that allow you to debank people for their political or religious beliefs or because they're involved in ESG, you know, disfavored industries, and they drop that policy.
So, you know, we are trying very hard to push back on this stuff.
You know, I feel like you're taking the approach of the ship is sinking, everyone needs to bail the water out to try and save the ship.
I'm kind of partial to the make the ship sink faster idea and destroy DEI through its own error.
So, you know, what I've told people is, in New York City, for instance, gender identity, have you, you're a lawyer, have you looked at New York City's human rights law?
It is illegal, it's a violation of human rights in New York City, the city specifically, to discriminate against a person based on the clothing they wear, the names they choose to use.
And so when this was, I don't remember when it was passed, but I do remember when it became an issue, this was probably around 2017 or 18.
So I actually called around to a few different human rights lawyers, and I was like, I'm trying to understand this law, help me out.
You can't discriminate against a person based on the clothing they wear, the name they use, gender identity is protected as self-expression.
They all say, yes, absolutely.
These are New York City-based human rights.
And I said, okay, so that means, like, obviously, if you're biologically male, but you want to be called Janet and wear a dress, they can't fire you.
And they're like, right.
And I said, OK.
And then there's a little bit more nuance, like if there's a standard uniform, then you're expected to wear the uniform.
You can't just wear whatever you want.
That's interpreted by the judge.
We all understand what this means.
If there is a male and female version of the uniform, you can choose whichever one you want to wear.
And I said, OK, how about for a business with no dress code, if I showed up If I showed up for an interview wearing normal clothes, and they said, we're hiring you, and let's say it's like a barista position, and then the next day I show up in a full fur suit, with like a cartoon wolf head, and I told them from now on my name is Vulciferon, Herald of the Winter Mists, and I expect to be dressed that way as it's my full name, can they discriminate?
All the lawyers said yes.
And I said, why?
They said, because that's ridiculous.
And I said, says who?
And they were like, any judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.
And I said, does that then mean a judge could laugh at a man dressed like a woman?
And they were like, well, that's different.
And I said, I don't understand the legal pretext for why a judge can laugh at a man's clothing when the law says you can't, but not another man's clothing.
unidentified
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I think it's beautiful logic, but I think they're probably right, that it's not going to matter.
I mean, this is what comes down to the fact that the Civil Rights Act gives us certain protections right now, but they're not actually being enforced.
Well, so what do you think would happen if someone went to Starbucks With a, let's not say a fursuit, but they had cat ears, a tail, whiskers stuck to their fake teeth, and they kept talking like this, and they said their name was Muford, and they expect to be called Muford by everybody.
It literally... So, going... I went through the law and the definitions.
I don't know how you can draw a distinction between... So, they have 31 legally recognized genders.
I don't know...
Obviously, the judges exist to interpret and bring the human element into the law, to find that limit.
But wouldn't this, in essence, create a fracture in the legal framework itself that a man who wears a dress... Okay, so what if you really test limits?
A guy wears a dress, but he also wears fruit on his head.
Like those dancers, you know, the women who had the fruit on their heads and they would dance?
Yeah, and what if they said, no, you can't do that?
But that's something women have done.
That's clothing women wear.
Is that not protected?
unidentified
I mean, the problem with this is what you're kind of pointing out here is that public accommodation laws are being abused, I think, by adding a whole host of protected characteristics that shouldn't be included, and therefore it's limiting even more and more people's freedom.
You know, and the other thing that they do is they result in coercion of speech and coercion of people's, you know, punishing of people for exercising their religious beliefs.
I mean, that's where we intersect with the great, you know, increase in protected classes and in the kind of aggressiveness of enforcement.
So in New York City, one of the lawsuits we filed was on behalf of a Jewish counselor who didn't want to have to provide gender-affirming care.
And was actually prohibited from providing care to people who were struggling with gender dysphoria if the care was designed to help them embrace their natural sex, their born sex.
Isn't that weird?
This is all over the country.
There are laws, these kind of public accommodations laws, or laws that are essentially Born of the same, you know, kind of prescriptions, where they're saying, you know, the only kind of care you can provide to people who are struggling with gender dysphoria is gender-affirming care, which essentially, you know, you have to provide them care that results in them embracing something other than their natural sex.
So this is a huge problem for Christians and other people of faith who are counselors who want to be able to help people embrace their biological sex, and it's coercive and it violates the First Amendment.
But the general belief is that this teacher was... So all we know, based on the news reports, is that one day, this teacher had massive, like... Prosthetic breasts.
Yeah, just like, massive, ridiculous, over-the-top, cartoonish breasts.
And that was, it was like, story goes viral, student's film teacher, who is dressed this way, Everyone got mad, they said, how could this be happening?
And I agree with many conservatives on this one, that regardless of the reason, doing this around children is inappropriate.
But the rumor was, this teacher was actually a moderate dude, didn't like all this weird DEI stuff, got threatened by the school to protect himself, said, okay, let's play, baby, and then straddled the line between wearing a fur costume and just being transgender.
That is, he was doing trans clothing, but it was cartoonishly absurd.
And they defended him.
Now he's relocated, got rid of the whole thing.
It was funny when he was saying to the press that they were real boobs and he suffered from gigantomastia, which is enlarged breasts that grow too big.
But the idea was that he was basically trying to attack the system.
I don't know that it worked.
I don't know that it forced them to reconcile anything.
unidentified
Yeah, I just think that this is the problem of, I mean, you're making these very principled arguments in line with the law, and I agree with them, and I think they're obviously correct, but that the left is just post-law.
And we see this in so many ways, right?
And it's just, they're going to do what they want, and they're not going to be held back by principles of consistency.
And we see this with respect to race all the time.
But I would say, like, if it were me, and I wasn't doing a show like this or any of the other work, and I was just... If I worked at a company, and they started doing this stuff, I would just go nuts with it.
Like, instead of bailing the water out, I'd be dumping the water in.
I'd be the one, like, fire hose, right?
And I'd show up dressed like Godzilla, and then I'd be like, I got nothing but time if you want to figure this one out and have the courts litigate.
These companies don't want to go through lawsuits.
No company does.
Every lawyer is going to go to your company and say the cost of the lawsuit will outweigh the cost of the settlement.
So I'd imagine for anybody, if you showed up to work dressed like Big Boob's teacher, and this is not legal advice, the company would try and stop you.
And then you'd be like, you know, if it were me, and a boss came up to me and they're like, you can't dress this way in front of customers, I'd say, Do you want to pay me the settlement now?
Do you want to settle?
I'll quit.
You give me five grand, we'll call it a settlement.
Otherwise, I will sue you.
I will win.
And even if I don't, it's going to cost you a hundred grand.
They're going to be like, here's your check, get the F out.
unidentified
Well, and this is what's happened with so-called disparate impact, which I talk about a lot in the book that comes out in 1971 Supreme Court case.
That basically what it effectively does is if you have any sort of hiring process and it can be shown or promotion process or whatever, that there is a substantially different outcome by race than kind of the population coming in.
You can say it has a disparate impact on this group and you can sue.
Now, the reality is, and you're laughing appropriately, and it's a horrible, horrible ruling.
And in fact, the Supreme Court tried to fix it in 1989 and then the Bush Civil Rights Division stupidly got rid of it and put it back.
But what happens often is it's not that there are 10 million actual lawsuits that go because of this, because what happens is it all starts before then.
They get threatened or they just set their policy So they can't be sued.
And so to do that, you've got to end up discriminating a lot against white people, right?
So you don't see it a lot because somebody like you comes up and says, hey, I'm going to sue you.
And they're like, oh, let's just, you know, I'll give you some money.
You know, like, what if somebody—and this may be a little crass, but honest question in your legal experience.
What if somebody showed up to work with, like, just a massive prosthetic male part in their pants, clearly visible going on the side of their leg— Could they take legal action against that person?
Like, could they do anything to that person based on the existing law?
Well, whether or not you think you have a right, do you think... Like, so in New York, if a trans man stuffed their pants, I don't think the business would do anything about it.
This is Canada, but they defended Big Boop's teacher.
unidentified
I mean, this is the problem with these laws and the way in which they're being enforced and the kind of demands that people believe are associated with them because of the way government officials talk about them and enforce them in courts, is that they chill expression.
They chill people's willingness to Object to them.
They also chill people's, you know, willingness to exercise their actual constitutional rights in response to them.
So, you know, this is the problem with the way in which the nondiscrimination laws have been wielded by the left to drive their political agenda.
It's about bending the knee, and if you don't bend the knee, you're going to be silenced, you're going to be chased out of business, you're going to be punished in different ways.
And, you know, I think that's why it's so important for us to continue To push back against these things and try to get the laws, as you said, Tim, earlier, which are actually good laws, important laws that express basic principles like everyone's equal before the law, race doesn't matter, you know, and access to school or anything else, and restore them to those hallowed grounds rather than allow them to be manipulated for, you know, political gain.
History based on Northern European immigrants' experience in the U.S.
Heavy focus on the British Empire, the primacy of Western Greek and Roman and Judeo-Christian tradition.
Protestant work ethic.
Hard work is the key to success.
I'm sorry, that's a scientific fact, but anyway.
Work before play.
If you didn't meet your goals, you didn't work hard enough.
Christianity is the norm.
Anything other than Judeo-Christian tradition is foreign.
No tolerance for deviation from single God.
Concept.
Wealth equals worth.
Your job is who you are.
Respect and authority.
Blah, blah, blah.
Justice.
Based on English common law.
Protect property, entitlements, intent.
What else?
Communication.
The King's English rules.
Written tradition.
Avoid conflict and intimacy.
Don't show emotion.
Don't discuss personal life.
Be polite.
You know, it's really, like, this is...
One of the most shockingly racist and offensive things, but also the stupidest.
Because you could apply almost all of these things, except for the obvious like Northern European history, you could apply a lot of these things to Asians.
Outside of religion and history, A lot of the same ethics, work, worth, job, all of these things apply.
In fact, even more so to many Asian cultures.
unidentified
Yeah.
I mean, this is from the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History, and it's a white supremacist document, right?
And that's one of the things that always cracks me up, I guess, but also disgusts me about DEI and its proponents, is they are the worst stereotypers of all.
Of course.
It's like the Supreme Court said in the Harvard decision, you know, one of the things that our law simply doesn't accept as a first principle is the way you, the color of your skin determines what you've, how you think.
Yeah, that's like the primary kind of philosophy, I think, of proponents of DEA.
But again, we're looking, and right now we have a good Supreme Court, and so at least much better than it has been.
And so that's great.
But I look at Biden's judges, and this is something I wrote about, and Tucker picked it up and other people ran with it.
Of the first 97 federal judges he appointed in his first two years, There were 22 African-American women and five white men.
Now, if you look by any objective measures of qualifications, which maybe I'm just showing my white supremacy by putting that up there, you will not get anything like that ratio.
I mean, absurd.
And so we're having now judges put in the system who basically are going to buy into that logic you're showing up there in some way.
There's a guy who said that he shorts companies that prioritize ideology over meritocracy, because any company that decides the person for the job is appropriate based on their skin color instead of the capability to do the job, then they're going to sink.
Their numbers are going to go down, and you're going to make money off shorting them.
unidentified
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's really, really interesting on that point is that one of the studies that has driven a lot of the kind of racial quotas and even just kind of like sexual minority quotas and things at the board level of these big corporations are McKinsey studies that basically came out in 2015 and then they repeated them several times and said that firm performance is better.
You're going to have a better, more valuable company.
You're going to have better performance across the board if you have Diversity, as defined by the left, you know, the box-checking experience based on intersectionality representing your boardroom.
Well, a study just came out looking at all of McKinsey's studies, and McKinsey is, you know, basically gospel for these boards of major corporations.
and said they couldn't replicate any of their conclusions.
It's not true, basically.
McKinsey foisted that on corporate America, but so many companies followed suit and now are essentially imposing racial quotas, sexual minority quotas, you know, sex-based quotas, and that's just not the right—you got to have people with a diversity of thought experience, background, who I'm somewhat, in a sense, okay with it.
fill experience or know how or knowledge gaps on your board so you have the best possible picture of how to run your business successfully.
The problem I see is, I'll give you a more real world example of this.
There was a transgender anarchist satanist in New Hampshire who ran for the Republican sheriff primary and won.
And then once the Republicans found out who they voted for, they lost their minds.
Now, this was the primary the Democrat ended up winning.
But my attitude is shame on you to the people who voted and then were shocked to realize they voted for a transgender anarchist satanist and were upset about it.
You didn't actually look into who you were voting for?
You just checked a box next to an R and assumed you'd be good?
So the issue is with these big corporations, they have become lifeless, bland entities with no leadership anymore.
Rife for manipulation.
It's bad what's happening in the big picture, but part of it makes me laugh that these corporations are now comprised of individuals who don't care about the system they work for.
They don't care about the company, the betterment of the American people.
You've got someone in the HR department And they're hearing, hey look, diversity because of the law.
And they go... Then they go to the boss and the boss says, I don't want to get sued, just do whatever we're legally required to do.
So instead of actually caring about this country and caring about their company, they say, just we'll do whatever they tell us.
We don't care.
And then it all ends up burning down around them.
Vice is a really great example of this.
So there was a viral tweet, I think it was Wesley Yang pointing out, Washington Post is bleeding viewers.
It's apocalyptic for the Washington Post.
Half their viewership is gone, their audience.
And so the editor comes in and he's like, look, this has got to change.
We've got to bring in new people.
No one is reading what you write.
No joke.
The response from the staff was, have you considered hiring more black women?
And the editor was just like, are you insane?
So he brought in some guys, some white guys, and they complained, saying like, we couldn't help but notice you just brought in some white guys.
And he said, no, I brought in the people with experience in the industry that know how to turn this around.
This is a wake-up call.
Vice and BuzzFeed and these other companies, but Vice is a great example, are, they're really great examples of the, there are no great men anymore.
There are no captains who will go down with the ship.
What happened at Vice?
Multi-billion dollar evaluation.
Young people, overly woke, made demands of the company, and the leadership of the company dropped to their knees and said, we will do anything you say.
Because they were more concerned about what would be reflected on them as individuals, than what would make the company work and people, and now what happened?
Everybody loses their jobs, company's valuation is zero, they're bankrupt, on the verge of collapse.
Owners don't care.
They got paid, they left.
They stripped the copper out of the walls and then jumped ship.
unidentified
Yeah, the irony, of course, is Gavin McInnes was the founder of Vice, who became kind of this figure who was getting banned from X and YouTube and everything else for his right-wingness.
And then, as often these institutions do, they just get taken over by the woke left, and they go crazy on race issues, and you get the sort of results we're talking about.
You know, you could have predicted this for Vice, I'd imagine.
You get Saru Shalvi, Shane Smith, Gavin McInnes, the original founders of Vice magazine, it was called Voice of Montreal, they moved to the United States, becomes Vice, skyrockets in popularity as they expand rapidly.
And then I don't know the full history or whatever, but I know around, I think like 2007, 2008, conflict emerged between Shane and Gavin.
Gavin, originally, Gavin McInnes was originally, and Gavin, I'd love to talk to him about this because he can probably break it down better, if he wants to, I don't know, it might be water under the bridge, it's an old story, but he was the content guy, he's like, I do the content, and it was edgy, it was sex, drugs, and rock and roll, that's what Gavin is.
Shane did marketing to promote and push the brand, and Saroosh, I believe, was the one who originally started it.
Sarush said, look, whatever, I'm with Shane.
Shane says, we want to make money, so we can't do things like this anymore.
Gavin says, screw you, you don't have the right to tell me I can't make this content.
They bought him out.
Gavin leaves, says, fine, whatever.
That right there shows you.
The bigger concern for the remaining founders' advice was maximizing profit based on what the machine has asked us to do.
The founders probably extracted whatever they could, and now it's just, I don't know, gum stuck to the bottom of the table.
unidentified
Yeah.
Remarkable.
I want to go back to something you said, too, about the corporations.
And, you know, I don't think it's that, you know, the leadership is saying, go tell us what the law says and we'll do what the law says.
Because if they were doing that, The attorneys would come back to him and say, Title VII doesn't allow you to do most of this stuff.
It's illegal for you to do a lot of the things that the DEI program department is telling you to do.
I think part of it is what you mentioned, which is there's a lot of, well, we've trained young people in DEI.
These activists show up at the companies.
And they demand these kinds of programs and things from corporate leaders, and corporate leaders are caving.
But the other part of the story that I think people need to understand is the role the big asset managers and the proxy advisors play in the ecosystem of big corporate America.
BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, they demand things that the law doesn't
Demand in in fact that are you know contrary to law of these corporations related to DEI related to ESG And so do the proxy advisory services ISS and Glass-Lewis who recommend how millions and millions of Americans Proxies are voted every year on shareholder proposals at these corporations and what happens is these five big companies basically tell the corporations we want you to go further and further down the path of
ESG, whether it's the climate stuff or the S of ESG, which is DEI, and they go further and further down the path every year because there's no real counterweight to that.
So that's a huge part of the story that why these corporations are captured and do so many bad things like debanking, like deplatforming and censorship.
I mean, these things are all rooted in this worldview that's represented by ESG and DEI.
Taking advice from their lawyers and doing what they have to do.
More nuanced, I suppose.
I would say to the letter of the law, I'd agree with you, but in my experience, dealing with lawyers is, they don't, you know, the lawyers I've dealt with on numerous occasions, and you are a lawyer, so you can tell me what it's like in your experience actually having done the work, I don't get lawyers who come to me and say, here's the law, here's how it should be applied.
They say, here's the law, here's what'll happen in court.
So, when they come and they say, you know, I'm in a lawsuit.
And they go, okay, based on everything you've presented, you are 100% correct, in the right, and you'll win.
Based on how the courts actually work, you've lost, pay them their money.
And I'm like, whoa, how does that make sense?
And they're like, because they're going to use manipulative tactics, they're going to request continuances, they're going to make weird demands of you that strain you, you're not going to win the actual legal fight.
You can cite the law all you want, you're not gonna win.
What?
We had one lawsuit we were approaching, and the first question we get from the lawyer was not, is the law on your side?
He goes, I see the law is on your side.
Which jurisdiction do you want to file this in?
Because that'll determine whether you win or not.
So these corporations are probably looking at it like, Okay, do we operate in California and New York?
We do?
Okay, then we have to base everything off of the standard of the court and the judges of California and New York, and not what the law says.
So their lawyers, I would imagine, are going to them and saying, if you engage in DEI, which is blatantly illegal, You're good.
California, New York, despite the law, will still protect you, and that's where your biggest pain vectors are going to be.
Anybody who files any claim will, if we can, move it to those venues so that we win, and we'll take that path.
unidentified
Yeah, I think this is actually really important because the left is expert at this.
I mean, I saw, I ran for a little while, a pretty large bureaucracy in the Trump administration, and I saw from that how terrible conservatives are at running large bureaucracies and manipulating them from my own painful experience.
And the left is expert at doing these procedural rules, and just what you said, you know, they'll get a big outlying state, or it can even be a small outlying state, and they will Take those advantageous rules and make sure to apply maximum pain and pressure to you to make you run with them so that you will be taking the most left-wing view, and it could be race, it could be the environment, it could be any number of things.
Yeah, but is that something that you deal with in law, that you've got different venues, different jurisdictions?
unidentified
Yeah, you're always looking at where, you know, where you're more likely to win or lose.
You know, especially when you're looking at the circuit courts and kind of litigation we do with First Amendment litigation, you know, you know that there's some circuits that are going to probably be more favorable to your claims.
You got a better chance at getting three judges at a circuit court, you know, that'll rule for you.
I mean, it used to be for years that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it's not like this anymore.
I think Trump has put a lot of really good judges on the Ninth Circuit.
You knew you'd lose!
But it used to be for years, if we wanted to get a case to the Supreme Court, we probably needed to file something, one of those kinds of cases in the Ninth Circuit, because we knew we might win at the lower courts.
When we got in the Ninth Circuit, we'd lose, and then we could appeal to the Supreme Court.
And sometimes, you know, well, sometimes you have to lose to win.
Like, if you lose at the Court of Appeals, then you can file a cert petition, ask the Supreme Court to hear it, and lots of times, two-thirds of the time, they're going to reverse on appeal.
So, if you're in a losing position on appeal at the Court of Appeals, then, you know, at least you're going into it, you're thinking, well, I've got a 66% chance of winning.
I've been in lawsuits, this one was a couple years ago, this was a bigger, you know, free speech one, and the judges, the lawyers are like, this is what we're doing, this is what we've got, the evidence is on our side, the law is on our side, and then a month later they were like, guys, sorry, we were assigned judge so-and-so, so we're gonna drop it.
That's it, we've lost.
And I was like, really?
Like, this judge doesn't matter what the law says.
And they were like, our best opportunity is to try and drop it, refile something different, and try and get a different venue.
unidentified
And that's what's terrifying.
And I know, I'm not going to out any particular people, but let me just say, I know from earlier times in my life, some of these new judges Obama is putting on the court.
Actually, and I know one or two of them are actually okay.
But I also know some folks that I'm like, it wouldn't matter what the merits of my case were on race.
If I put them before that judge, they're going to rule against me.
That judge blatantly, I mean, you had Alan Dershowitz saying, I have never seen anything like this.
The judge screaming at a witness.
unidentified
Yeah.
So something I think is really important to understand, though, is that from my perspective, you can run all the traps, you can look at the composition of the chords, you can try to figure out where am I going to go and where am I going to lose.
In the end, the way I look at it is you've got to follow what's right, what's good.
You've got to stand for truth.
And trust, from my perspective, trust God with the outcome.
So I'll give you an example.
I filed a case in Arizona—I don't know when, it was a long time ago—on behalf of this small little church, 14 people met in a little school.
All they wanted to do was put up temporary signs to tell people where the church was.
And the town of Gilbert said, no, we're not going to let you do that, even though they let all these other signs proliferate—political signs and signs of all different shades and colors and views.
Church signs, no.
I lost that case—my team lost that case—four times.
Twice to the District Court, twice to the Court of Appeals, and ten years later, you know, we're at the Supreme Court.
We didn't know.
We thought we would win, but we didn't know.
We ended up getting a just fantastic, unanimous decision from the Supreme Court saying that that violated the First Amendment free speech rights of the Church, and now it's essentially a seminal First Amendment case.
So, um, I think it's risky to spend too much time trying to figure out, where should I file this?
Where can I win?
Where am I gonna win or lose?
I mean, if your cause is just, you have to trust the process.
And I think the process still can deliver the right result.
I would like to see 10,000 people request of their bakeries some It's Okay To Be White cakes and some Leviticus cakes.
Because, you know, I think the issue is, The challenge, I suppose, people on the right, whatever the right means these days, people who believe in free speech, don't want to compel bakeries to do these things.
It is the left that does that.
I just wonder what the media would report on when you go from one story of a guy with a bakery who won't make a cake to all of a sudden there are 10,000 discrimination instances, not necessarily lawsuits.
Where national-level media is going to be like, a wave of right-wing activists are demanding that gay bakeries make Leviticus cakes and they're all refusing, completely undermining the position the left has on non-discrimination.
You bring home a Leviticus cake to your family, you bring it to church, everybody gets a piece, they all laugh together, and that's the end of it, and it's like you spent 30 bucks, everybody's laughing, or the bakery refuses, you go to local media, or you pursue a suit or whatever, and then there's 10,000 lawsuits for religious discrimination.
Yeah, I wonder about this.
I mean, if Christians, if white people really want to stop being discriminated against in the areas where they are, they're going to have to assert their right to, or that demand that you don't do this.
So, it is a rock and a hard place.
We don't want to compel people to speech.
That's the issue.
But they're actively discriminating in the process while attacking you for not wanting to speak.
unidentified
Yeah.
I completely agree.
I mean, it frustrates me to no end that we are not more aggressive in these areas.
I would love to see us do everything that you're just describing.
I gotta be honest, I feel like a lot of atheists would have no problem writing God is real on a cake.
It's the woke, overly woke one, so if you went to an overtly LGBTQ bakery is where you're going to start encountering more ideological You know, rigidity.
You go to a bakery and it's like some default lib atheist and they're like, sure, alright, God is real, I don't know, you can do whatever you want, you know what I mean?
They're not really paying attention, they vote Democrat but they don't care all that much.
However, they would definitely say no to a white is good or something cake.
unidentified
Right.
Yeah, I mean, it's not just cakes, right?
We could be doing this in a million different ways, and we should.
And we don't have the appetite for this.
I mean, it's just like, in my book, I talk a little bit about civil disobedience, I think, as something that we should get a little bit involved with.
But I also talk about, A, it doesn't work for us in the way that it often works for the left.
And B, it's just not constitutionally part of the way the right thinks about things.
Well, look what happened to the truckers in Canada.
They did civil disobedience.
And what did the government do?
They debanked them and their donors.
I do think the power imbalance is still real.
And we do need to try to fight on turf that we can win.
And I think the civil disobedience, they're going to come back and clap back on us in ways that we probably don't when the shoe is on the other foot.
I wonder what would happen if someone called a woke bakery and told them to make a cake that says black people are the superior race.
Would the bakery want to do that?
Because now you're really just pushing them as hard as possible in their own direction.
Because they might be like, well that goes a little too far.
unidentified
You know, but then they might be on the wrong side of history in their minds if they're not willing to... Right, well, and then the first thing you should also make it clear is, like, as soon as they bake that cake, you're gonna be taking a picture of it and putting it on iX, and, like, I'm gonna go on Timcast and, you know, blast that out to the whole world to make sure people know.
You know, this would actually—this is a really great campaign idea for science, and it's to, uh...
I would imagine you'd want to go to a polling, a company that is polling, because they have the map of demographics and they basically have their regional, national makeup, representative makeup, and then you would use that and order a cake in each area that represents certain swing, certain voter blocks, and then you could actually map out which voter blocks were willing to make which message.
But I suppose the I suppose the bigger question, though, is outside of any kind of silly prank campaign or something where we try and test the limits and see what they're willing to do, I suppose the question is, if we pursue the route of, let's just play it straight, let's say, hey, stop discriminating, what do you guys think the outcome becomes?
Are we winning this?
push back to this more standard non-discrimination, or does it just escalate and people become more and more divided?
unidentified
Well, I'll give you a political answer, and then maybe you can give a legal answer.
To me, this is just, like, what has happened over the last 60-plus years is the left has organized and made various racial demands, the right has made... The white!
Freudian slip there.
The right has made various broad, gauzy appeals to principle, and we've gotten steamrolled politically.
The way that this happens is the left has to understand that when they engage in anti-white racism or other discrimination, there is a painful political price that they pay immediately because we say, enough.
And then at that point, maybe when they've really gotten hit, You can begin to, the moderates come out on both sides and said, yeah, you know, let's, let's, we don't want to interject race into politics.
This is a bad idea, right?
It doesn't work for anybody.
Um, let's try to restore constitutional principles, content of character, not color of skin, et cetera, to this discourse and how we behave.
But I think just asking nicely pretty please has been shown not to work just empirically.
Right?
And so I think there has to be a pain point for the left or they're not going to stop.
Yeah, and I think, you know, it kind of comes down to the whole fight fire with fire.
I mean, so I resist the idea, I think, that's expressed in that phrase from the standpoint, if it just means whatever they do to us, we do to them.
I think we have to be principled about it.
But I always try to tell folks within the conservative circles that I kind of operate in is we have so many tools already on the books that we just don't use.
And their principled tools, their tools related to non-discrimination, you know, equal protection under the law, and all these things.
And we're seeing some of those lawsuits being filed.
I mean, there are organizations out there, including us, but others that are especially, I think there's some that are really leading on the race discrimination side of these DEI programs who are scoring wins.
And I think in the end, like you read these decisions, it's absolutely clear that you can't award contracts on the basis of race.
You can't make government, you know, grants Dependent on the race of the applicant.
I mean these are basic baseline principles of the Constitution and of a lot of relevant federal statutes and so I think For whatever reason, there was a period of time where this stuff crept up and nobody knew, or there was an unwillingness to use the available tools to push back.
But those things are happening now.
I think in the end, legally, there are going to be consequences.
There's probably going to be painful ones from a monetary reward and otherwise consequences.
But I think the real thing we have to win is the battle of ideas.
He wrote, more than a third of white students lied about their race on college applications, and about half of these people lied about being Native American.
More than three-fourths of these students who lied about their race were accepted.
Rufo says, behold the tweet that ended it all.
There has never been a self-debunking this spectacular, this glorious.
I just wonder how much of what we're seeing is people lying.
Like, when we see the in-group, out-group preference among white people, is it literally just scared white college kids being like, oh yeah, whatever you say, I'm not racist?
unidentified
Well, it's fascinating.
And again, I write about this in the book as just kind of one example of this that you could point to.
So Eric Kaufman, who is a race and ethnicity scholar himself of multi-ethnic background, did a really, really elegant kind of real world study where he basically looked at where Trump voters moved, white Trump voters versus where white Biden voters moved, or maybe it was Hillary Clinton voters, I can't remember what year he did it.
And he had a pretty large end on the study.
And it turned out that even though white, the liberal white Biden voters were trashing white people left and right, They move to just as white areas as the white Trump voters.
So that suggests there is a certain amount of preference falsification, as scholars would say, going on here.
I mean, this is a guy who says that the only cure to past discrimination is present discrimination.
So, I mean, he's completely, you know, in the can and, you know, a leader.
And this is my concern, is that we will chalk up some wins, just like you're saying.
I mean, there's blatant discrimination going on now that we seem to have finally woken up a little bit about that.
We're going to get some wins, and people are going to feel like Yeah, the system is working really well, and I think history shows, at least recent US history, that this is kind of a little bit of a ratchet.
So then they come back in a different guise, in a different way, and they're doing a lot of the same stuff.
Which isn't to say we should absolutely be doing these things, and it's great that we went on any of them, but I don't think that this is just going to be a long, happy march back to centrism or something sensible.
With, I mean, Steve Bannon ordered to prison the other day, Donald Trump being found guilty in a New York heavily Democrat court, and all the civil cases against him, Georgia, which has been frozen, and so for all the people who may watch this and are actually cheering for these convictions, my point is not on the surface whether you agree or disagree with Trump, the point is There is a conflict brewing.
Democrats and Democrat jurisdictions are trying, I shouldn't say trying, but are literally imprisoning their political rivals.
If this kind of bifurcation continues... Look, I'm very concerned about it.
unidentified
I live in Montana for a reason.
I want to be far away, I mean, A, just far away from the Borg, and B, I certainly want to be far away from Democratic jurisdiction power.
And I am concerned that the left is sleepwalking into Yeah, there are rockets.
We trained people to use them.
like Biden saying, "Ah, we're gonna go have our missiles "go hit Russia now from Ukraine.
"That's not a big deal." - Yeah, there are rockets.
We told them where to fire them, and then we asked them to press the button, Right.
unidentified
I mean, it's like, actually, that sounds like an escalation.
Maybe we should have a debate about whether that's the thing we want to do.
So I am very concerned.
I read about it in the book, my concern that I think that nobody should be wishing for any type of civil conflict, because even if you think Bro, we're going to crush them.
Like, no, you know, anybody who's actually been through a civil war will tell you that or anything like that, that it is nothing that we should be wanting to touch in the U.S.
And I'm really concerned that the left is leading us in that direction with some of the things they're doing, not just limited to race, but as you point out, the things with going on with Bannon and Trump and the whole bit.
Yeah, I think the whole red state, blue state thing that you hear people talk about and this idea that we're going to have kind of two Americas, the more we embed those things into the fabric of our country, the bigger problem we're going to have.
I mean, it's not healthy long-term for the country to do that.
And it's happening in the, you know, there's talk of that in business as well.
We need red companies, blue companies.
I mean, I don't think that's going to serve us well.
Across the board.
I think there's a need for alternative technologies and startups and disruption in the marketplace for actors who are doing the wrong thing, like banks and social media companies that are deplatforming and debanking people.
But if the end result that people want is, well, we need our own set of services for people who are red state and then the blue folks, the blue get their other set of services.
I think that that is going to create kind of fault lines that we're going to have to reckon with.
I mean, we passed legislation in Tennessee that bans debanking based on, through the help of the legislature there and other allies, that bans discrimination based on religion, based on politics, based on involvement in ESG, you know, disfavored industries.
I mean, we're trying to re-establish through law the principle of non-discrimination of financial services.
You can't stop a yogurt shop from putting up a bunch of pride flags.
And so you bring your child into the yogurt shop and there is a drag queen thrusting their genitals in the face of children, and then you say, time to pass another law, I guess, but it doesn't stop.
Or you say, we only want to go get frozen yogurt from a place that actually upholds our values.
So, you know, I look at what Public Square is doing, and I think it's tremendous and extremely important, because right now, what you have is, I mean, big teams like Disney, like, the big cultural forces, though they may be dying because they're insane... Right.
You're not going to mandate by law Disney stop creating content that indoctrinates children towards a crackpot communist ideology, because it's free speech.
But then all of the major institutions are pushing this message through their free speech, which we agree with.
The only alternative is to create a separate industry that pushes back on that.
unidentified
I think it's an important strategy.
But I do think we can redeem some of the existing institutions.
I don't know if that's true of Disney.
They seem pretty far gone.
But JPMorgan Chase, we've been pushing on JPMorgan Chase for the last three years.
They're starting to crack.
They're starting to do the right thing.
They're eliminating bad policies that lead to debanking.
They're affirmatively putting out in their policy statements that they, well not their policy statements yet, that's our ask now, but in some of their reports and different things, this commitment that they don't debank people for political, social, or religious views.
Like, I don't think we as, I don't think it's right for us or good for us to just say those institutions are dead to us and we're going to abandon them.
And so, you know, I think there is a redemptive work that can happen and some are going to opt into it and say, yeah, we see it.
And I think the public square efforts help that because they see, well, there's this vibrant community of people who want something different and it's in our best interest, JPMorgan Chase or otherwise, to serve everybody.
And get rid of a lot of these things that are telling people and sending signals that they're not going to serve everybody.
Yeah, I think there's an interesting cleavage here a little bit between maybe how you and I feel about kind of the institutions in the system.
And I think you're maybe a little more feeling like they can be redeemed.
And I actually think it's, even though I'm more skeptical, I think it's super important, the sort of work that you guys are doing, because you will push some of them.
And some of them who didn't really want to be doing the bad thing, we will get back to the center.
And that's really, really valuable.
But I think a lot of them are beyond redemption, and the sort of yogurt thing that you cite, it's like, yeah.
I mean, I want to go to my own yogurt company, I want to go to my own coffee company, because I don't necessarily think I'm going to convince X or Y to be non-woke.
When the Bud Light fiasco happened, I predicted it.
I said, You get the Dylan Mulvaney promotional thing where Dylan's got all the beer.
The media lied and they were like, it was one promotional can for Dylan Mulvaney.
Why are they mad?
No, it was Dylan Mulvaney did a promo for March Madness or something like that, selling Bud Light to children.
And so I said, I bet this is a millennial woman who recently got promoted.
She's, you know, in her thirties.
And she said, we're going to shake things up.
And that's exactly what happened.
It then came out like a month later.
Millennial Woman took over the marketing department and said, we adopt our ideology for marketing and it tanked the company and they've not recovered.
unidentified
Yeah, and this is an interesting thing, by the way, and you probably appreciate this because of the world that you're in, but I have talked to people who are very sophisticated people who have worked at the very, very top end of media companies, both on the right and in the center, and they have said actually the biggest villains who we're not going after are the kind of like woke millennial women in the ad-buying department who's like, oh, you know, Tim Cass, they're like doing stuff that's a little too edgy, and there's no actual
Basis to say empirically like that there's not a good audience for that that they wouldn't buy products that it's actually freaking out So many people that it will alienate them from their brand there There's no actual empirical basis they have for making these decisions Yeah, but they personally find iticky.
These are the random like millennial woman And so they shut down our ability to bring in ad dollars and we call them awful.
Yes, but I think that the concern that I have is the changes that we're seeing are not because one day a corporation said, look at the law.
The changes are not happening because the marketing departments, the legal departments, the HR departments all had some revelation and they went, heavens me, wokeness is the right choice.
What's happening is that millennials are already living in the worldview of wokeness.
And that worldview will not be changed to people who are now entering middle age.
That worldview is solidified.
That is the world to them.
They are now taking over the corporations and gaining more corporate, political, and legal power.
So, my view of this is, fighting to—referencing Wade Stott's video again about writing things down—fighting to win court battles on this doesn't change the fact that the law is immaterial to the culture.
Sure, if it's on the books, Often is enforced, but there are so many laws that never get enforced.
It'll never happen.
Like, for instance, in West Virginia, drag shows featuring children are felonies.
Explicitly.
Look up the law.
It doesn't literally say if you do drag.
It says, public lewd and lascivious behavior, behavior of a sexual nature, is a crime.
In the presence of children, it is upgraded.
There's no enforcement of it.
None whatsoever.
You might win all these legal battles, but when Millennials are in their 50s, Gen Xers are retired, Gen Z is relatively comparable to Millennial, bifurcated for sure, you are just going to see all of these things tenfold.
It's because it is the cultural body of the people, not what is written down that dictates what people will tolerate and accept.
unidentified
I just don't think it's that monolithic.
I mean, I agree we have a huge problem because the education system is instilling this in a lot of people who are coming into the corporations and the colleges are creating a bunch of activists who are now becoming marketing directors and things like that.
But it's so contrary to common sense and there are a lot of people, we know from polling, that there's still tons of people who reject most of the propositions.
I don't know, but I still think, well I'll just say, you know, I think that what's going on in corporations is The Bud Light example what happened with Target?
What happened to Disney?
They're losing billions of dollars in value Those aren't one-off things that aren't leaving a mark like the corporations that we talk to and we we meet with c-suite members We we when we do our shareholder proposals, they show up and talk to our shareholders and talk to us I sometimes lead those negotiations some of those corporations are saying we we agree with what you're What you're saying, like, we want to figure out how to work collaboratively, move back to political neutrality.
So what happens when a 30-year-old millennial who is either overly woke or anti-woke comes in?
Now, it's entirely possible those who are anti-woke and believe more in meritocracy are the ones who start to inherit these positions, but that's not actually what's happening right now.
So, we'll pull up this tweet here.
This is end-wokeness.
Let me play this clip for you.
unidentified
When people watch The Hate U Give, what do you want them to walk away with?
Because I know everyone has a slightly different feeling.
- Well, I mean, white people crying actually was the goal. - So this is, you know, causing a bunch of issues.
And she says making white people cry was the goal.
They also say that the actress and the show writer for Star Wars say it's the gayest ever.
Millennial woke people are taking over.
This is fascinating.
When polled, slightly more than 50% of the United States believe a civil war is coming.
But that doesn't matter.
That poll doesn't matter.
What matters is people over the age of 65, it's like 9% think a civil war is coming.
People between the ages of 50 to 69, 20%.
These aren't the exact numbers.
As you get younger and younger, the belief that a civil war is coming grows exponentially to where you get to millennials, and it's like 46% of millennials think a civil war is coming.
And it's because you go back to the 90s, and you look at political affiliation, And policy.
Democrats and Republicans overlapped almost completely, according to Pew Research.
They believed almost the exact same things, but there were a few minor issues that were wedge issues that would be used.
Tax should be a little higher or lower, or abortion should be easier or harder.
Now it's total abortion at any point, even after birth, in some circumstances.
The baby can be terminated.
This has literally happened with Northam in Virginia.
And then you have on the right, total bans of abortion.
There's no overlapping ideologies anymore.
I believe that when, so the Silent Generation and the Baby Boomers are retiring.
They're all starting to leave industry.
Gen Xers are now inheriting the crowns and the thrones of the biggest companies.
Millennials are now taking the mid-management positions that actually run the day-to-day operations.
When Millennials take over the top of these corporations and government, the bifurcation will be tremendous.
In court, it's gonna be absolutely balls to the walls.
Nuts.
Imagine that woman.
What was the woman's name from Bud Light?
I can't remember her name.
Do you remember what it was?
I'll look it up in a second.
Imagine she's a judge.
She's gonna sit there and say, I mean, a better example is Katonji Brown-Jackson.
Yeah, but you're talking about the older generation.
And I don't necessarily agree that colleges are—I think colleges are both a cause of—it's correlation and causation at the same time.
Colleges are not making activists—making woke activists, necessarily.
They are bolstering it.
Social media likely was the driving component of this psychotic ideology.
We saw this in the end of the 2000s when every country in the world saw a massive uptick in the same use of terminology in the same words.
And it was likely because Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube prioritized algorithmically, accidentally, certain words to generate more traffic to keep people on their platform.
So a kid who was born in 1998 is, you know, 10 in 2008.
They get their first Facebook profile.
What do they see?
Nothing but police brutality.
Why?
Police brutality made money.
So, there was a website that was in the top 400 websites in the world that only showed videos of cops beating black people.
And the people running the website were making millions of dollars.
Facebook didn't do this on purpose.
Facebook just told the algorithm, promote what people click on.
Well, racial justice generated a lot of attention.
Simultaneously, something else happened.
The rise of the alt-right.
When you have this endless attack on white people because of these videos that are going viral, you got an equal and opposite reaction.
The rise of white identitarianism also started to explode, go viral, and a bunch of white nationalists and white identitarians, not necessarily nationalists, started making a bunch of money.
Well, that was offensive to the sensibilities of most Americans, be it Silent Boomer, Gen X, Millennial, or otherwise, so they all got banned instantly.
What was left was leftist anti-white identitarianism, still to make all of its money, and this is the culture war.
These kids grow up being slammed by nothing but wokeness on social media because these companies were making money, enter college, and you see professors try to push back.
Famously, Nick Christakis, I think this was, I don't know where this was, Princeton, wasn't it?
Yale.
Right, yeah, Yale.
He said, hey, wear whatever costume you want.
The students yelled at him and said, this is not about education, it's about a safe family community or something like this.
Those kids didn't learn it at college, they learned it before college.
They're transforming the colleges because they're the customers for the college, and the colleges just want to keep their customer base happy.
Once Millennials are the CEOs, their worldview is not going to change.
So all of these, all this precedent, all this law is, in my opinion, mostly meaningless.
It is a culture that you have to win, and we have to absolutely crush and shut out woke culture.
This means either we infiltrate, destroy, and rebuild the likes of Disney and the Washington Post and Bud Light, or we build Alternatives that grow faster and become stronger and more resilient.
If Bud Light wants to blow itself up and go out of business, then we need, say, Conservative Dad's Ultra Right.
And they're expanding rapidly, they're launching new stuff.
Maybe that's the answer.
Either way, it can be a two-front battle where we try and get people to go into Bud Light, take it over, your lawsuits, forcing these corporations to realign, and then the woke millennials that are in these companies have no choice but to bend the knee.
But if If we just sit back and say, the only thing we're gonna do is try and win the lawsuits because it's illegal, we can already see they're abusing the law and doing whatever they want.
I imagine in 30 years...
It's not cut and dry, it's not 100%, but that's why I think civil conflict, because you are not going to have a country where one state says, we can kidnap your children and castrate them, which is literally what they've done already.
I believe it's Washington has stated, if a child is taken by force without the parent's permission from any other state and brought to Washington for a sex change, the state will not intervene in law enforcement operations to reunite the child with the parents.
Sooner or later, someone's kid gets kidnapped by a pedophile off TikTok, ends up in Washington for a castration, and some dad's gonna get a posse, and then you've got a nightmare scenario on your hand.
So I don't know how law can rectify this extreme cultural difference.
unidentified
Yeah, and it is generational.
And again, it's like when I talk to older people about my book, they're like, oh my God, you know, like, how could you even be so brave as to write this?
And then it's kind of like my generation is like, wow, this is really needed.
I'm glad you did it.
It's kind of brave.
And then, you know, I finally get down to some of these Gen Z guys who I'm mentoring and they're like, You know, cool book, bro.
Next time go even a little bit harder.
Right.
It's like, yeah, it's just it's a huge generation gap.
And I think we are just beginning to see the leading edge of what that's going to look like when those groups are running our institutions, because obviously the folks who I'm talking to are the minority who are in our camp on these, but they are reacting to the crazy wokesters who have and the anti white racists who've completely taken over in their generation.
I mean, probabilistically, I do think we are trending towards winning and shutting this stuff down, and hopefully we go back to a more classically liberal, just don't discriminate against people, leave everybody alone.
But I don't know.
unidentified
I mean, I don't think there's any single solution to it all.
I think you're right about that.
You're not going to win this solely through the law.
I think the law is an essential tool in the toolkit, one that we use all the time to change the behavior of governments and even, you know, companies that, you know, get crosswise with the law.
But I do think it's kind of a multi-vector, multiple-discipline approach to trying to solve these problems.
But I do think that You know, we should have hope.
I do think we're on the winning side.
If you even look at Pride Month, like pull it back down to what's going on right now with Pride Month.
The Texas Rangers aren't even celebrating it.
Eleven, you know, NFL teams didn't even put out statements celebrating Pride Month.
So I view these things not as kind of like on some, you know, arc of inevitability.
I view them, these societal issues, as largely on a pendulum swing.
And what's going on in corporate America from kind of like my, it's not an insider seat, but we're dealing with a lot of the big corporations, we're scoring them on an index that rates them on their respect for free speech and religious freedom, on their political neutrality, other services they offer.
I'm seeing them pay attention in struggling with how do we deal with these cultural moments that are going on.
It's no longer, well, the Bud Light thing was just a one-off or, you know, the grassroots customer, you know, response to that backlash that it was survivable and just a blip.
No, it led to over a billion dollars in the loss of the value of their company.
And Bud Light's not the only one that's seeing that and recognizing and understanding that's a problem.
So a lot of these things kind of come together.
And there's a lawsuit against Target, a shareholder derivative lawsuit that's saying, you know, you knew that if you sold these ridiculous, you know, you know, swimsuit gear in your store, that it would actually alienate and undermine your value to us as shareholders.
So the law plays a role in all that.
I think, you know, in the end, a lot of these things come together to kind of push things back to what I think, you know, I hope you're right, Tim, is more of a classical liberal approach.
I think you're right with respect to things like gender ideology, but I'm concerned it's not going to work anywhere near like that for race and because it's a different America.
So the silence, you know, they're 85% white.
I'm making that up, but it's roughly correct.
The under 18s are minority white and going down.
And so you're pitching to a different America at that point.
And the sorts of things that are going to be acceptable as regards race among the younger generation will, in most cases, in my view, correctly appall older generations of what that's going to look like.
I think there's a very, very strong possibility that in, I don't know, say 35 years, there's a whole lot of elderly, single women with a lot of cats and no means to support themselves.
If we go in the direction of meritocracy, family, traditional values, and morality, I think they'll probably just starve to death.
The idea that You go back in time, how does survival work, right?
Pre-social security and all these things.
People have kids.
Their kids have kids.
Those people are older, and their families help take care of them until they're old age, and they die.
Then we moved into this modern industrialized era, and we ended up with social security.
Now, in general, young people pay taxes to pay a small amount of money to old people to support them.
If we move away from these ideas, Social Security is going to be insolvent by 2037, they're predicting.
They always move the timeline back because they're always printing money or engaging in some kind of weird Ponzi scheme to keep it afloat.
But they're saying that within, we're looking at nine years, is when we start to see the instability in Social Security.
Older people are going to be unable to start receiving their benefits.
Bad things are going to start happening.
Four years after that, they expect that based on the current timeline, there will be none.
If we move in the direction of, for a variety of reasons, conservatives are more likely to have kids, so conservatives are going to be less dependent upon this system.
They're also going to be more likely to have a controlling voting bloc.
Moving forward, especially now, because it was bad in the 2000s, for every four kids, I think every four kids born, three of them were conservative, and now we're starting to see in the research on the next generation, Gen Z, Gen Z is comparable to Millennials in politics, but they tick slightly rightward on some issues.
The first time in a hundred years we've seen a generational shift toward the right in any way.
It's likely going to be because of just child rearing, fertility, even though conservatives are down below replacement, liberals are way worse.
You give it 20 to 40 years, you are going to have more likely the cultural makeup of this country is going to be leaning conservative, traditionalist, and probably Christian.
You are going to see a lack of support for things like Social Security and the welfare state, and this will result in A small pocket of millennial women who are childless, single, owning lots of cats, like Chelsea Handler.
She's a millionaire, so she'll be fine for the rest of her life.
I'm assuming she's a millionaire.
She's probably well-off.
She's a wealthy personality.
But there's going to be a lot of women like her who bragged about, in their 30s, how they wake up, do drugs, you know, diddle themselves, as she described it, and then go to bed.
And then wake up again later to do drugs again.
Yeah, when they're 70, they're gonna say, I'm not making any money anymore and I can't work because I'm too old.
I need money from the state.
But they will be such a weak voting bloc that everyone's gonna say no.
And then what ends up happening?
Institutionalized?
We bring back mental institutions or whatever and we say, sure, we can't have you living and crapping in the street, so you're gonna go live in a box in a building that we pay the bare minimum for.
unidentified
It's sobering.
Certainly you see dramatic, in the last 15 years, differential fertility between secular white women and religious Christian women.
And that wasn't actually always the case, particularly by politics.
It's a more recent development.
I'm a white Christian with five kids, so I'm fine with that.
And then when you're old and struggling with a cane, there's gonna be a bunch of grad kids running around asking Grandpa to tell stories, and then there will come a time in your life when you are lying on a medical bed, and you're gonna have a hard time breathing, and you're gonna be surrounded by your children and your grandchildren crying, holding your hand, saying they love you, and they appreciate everything you've done for them, and no one will ever forget you, and their grandkids will hear the stories, and then you'll die.
And that will be the way to go, I suppose.
And there will be many of these women, like Chelsea Handler, who will be in a sterile hospital bed, surrounded by no one.
The doctor will walk in, sign the chart, stick it on the bed, walk out, and they'll be sitting there staring at a cold, dead wall.
That is something I hope they're prepared for.
But this is the world they choose to live in.
Maybe at that point, they'll plug their brains into Neuralink to overstimulate the dopamine so that they... Or at that point, You know, I'll be as dark as I can with it.
Of course they're pushing medical assistance in death.
You had, I think it was more like a 19 year old healthy girl, healthy woman, was put to death recently because she was sad.
However, I don't see medical assistance in dying being allowed to expand.
If trends in the culture war and fertility continue, within 20 to 40 years this simple math predicts a more conservative worldview that will not allow medical assistance in dying.
Should it, a lot of these women like Chelsea Handler will just choose to go to the doctor and say, I'm done with life.
End me.
But, assuming the current trends we're seeing, conservatives won't allow that, and so they will just sit in a chair staring at the wall, crying lonely, and said, Well, that's pretty dark.
And then several years later, her eggs all shattered and were unviable.
And she said she screamed like a wild animal, realizing she could never be a mother.
unidentified
Yeah.
Well, it's interesting because on these issues, particularly for race, You really see a dramatic difference, both formally and informally, between folks who have kids and folks who don't.
I mean, I dedicated my book to my kids for a reason, because it's sort of like, OK, I've navigated my way through this.
It hasn't always been perfect.
But at least when I was young, it wasn't as bad.
Um, but I'm looking, you know, it's very easy for particularly white liberals who are older, if they don't have kids, to just kind of pose with whatever is fashionable, uh, view on race, whatever they think is good.
There's no real stakes for them anymore, or nothing they can't navigate.
I'm looking at like, well, what are the opportunities my kids are going to have?
Um, that's like what motivated me to write this book at the end of the day is like, what, you know, it's not an abstract intellectual question for me.
It's just, you know, the night is always the darkest before the dawn, and every generation has their, you know, their great conflict of some sort or some cultural battle, and hopefully it's not World War III.
Hopefully it's just us complaining about what's on TV, you know?
De-banking is bad.
But I gotta be honest, in terms, if I had to choose between two fights, and one was I'm being sued over a cake, or I'm being shot at by Germans, I'd choose the cake.
So shout out to all the D-Day veterans and all the heroes and the veterans in general.
I gotta say, our battle certainly isn't the most difficult ever fought by any generation, but we have to win either way.
Do you guys see any—is there anything on the horizon, positively, any cases you're working on or anything you've seen that is indicative of a good way to end this rather bleak power competition?
unidentified
Well, for me, actually, it's just what you said.
Even two years ago when I started to write this book, I sort of sometimes felt like, wow, you know, I'm on this narrow tightrope and there's alligators stamping at me.
And now, you know, I'm going on Tucker.
I'm going on Charlie Kirk.
I'm here on Tim Cass.
Like, I'm talking about this book.
Major folks like you with really big audiences have said, hey, this is a legitimate issue.
We can talk about it.
It's really important that we talk about it.
And so I think even just in the last couple of years, let alone in the decade plus I've been writing seriously about this, The environment for speech around this has gotten much freer.
And the reception of my book has been way better, and the sales, way better than I would have possibly imagined.
And I think that is all a great sign for optimism on this issue, that maybe people have kind of had enough.
I'll say one thing that's kind of funny is when Chet GPT first came out, it was a big controversy because people would ask it to rank IQ in race and it would refuse outright.
And it wouldn't even tell you what the bell curve was and these stories.
Not that I think they're good or whatever, I'm just pointing out that Chet GPT was outright like, no.
You go on ChatGPT now, and it has no problem just saying all of these things.
Now, the issue I took with it, if there is a fact based on data that we have in science, I don't care if you're offended by it, let's analyze it.
And ChatGPT would say, no, for moral reasons.
It doesn't do that anymore.
It still does lie, it still has problems, but ChatGPT is much more willing now to actually present existing data to you, regardless of whether it offends somebody.
Like crime statistics and things like that.
unidentified
That's good.
I'll stay on my legal lane to answer your question and just say, there's two cases.
One just came down from the Supreme Court last week at National Rifle Association versus Voolo.
That is a debanking case and a case involving insurance companies too.
And essentially, the New York Department of Finance had put pressure on banks and insurance companies to deprive NRA of services because of their Second Amendment advocacy, and of other gun groups too.
And so the NRA had won at the lowest court, lost at the second court of appeals, and ultimately won at least the right to continue their case.
But it was a really great case.
Unanimous decision from the Supreme Court saying, I mean, in essence, the key holding in the case is government officials can't censor by proxy through private corporations, and through the kind of reputational risk, coercive power they have when it comes to regulating industries like banks and insurance companies.
That's a big win.
It's a flag, I think, you know, that we can plant to try to protect people's First Amendment rights from government regulators who try to abuse their power and use banking regulations to shut people out of the marketplace because of their constitutionally protected activity.
And then in just a couple weeks, I think we need to all be watching what happens in Murthy versus Biden.
Decided by the Fifth Circuit the right way, is ultimately coming up for a decision by the Supreme Court by the end of this term.
So by the end of June, we'll have a decision in the Murthy case And that case is about the Biden administration using their coercive power to shut down speech on COVID, on COVID vaccines, on masks, on the Hunter Biden laptop story, and a host of other issues, too.
And it's not just the feds who are doing that.
States have popped up their own kind of like election interference boards, and they put pressure on Twitter and these other companies to take down misinformation.
So this is, from our perspective, kind of the free speech problem of our age, is the way that government is using these concentrations of power in the private sectors, especially related to the digital public square, and trying to censor speech they don't like.
So really important to see how that case comes out.
I hope that Vulo came down in a way that is an indication that we might get a win in the Murthy case, too.
