Thaddeus Russell and Joe Rogan critique U.S. higher education’s accreditation "mafia," where federal agencies like the Department of Education enforce rigid standards—minimum buildings, professors, and library books—that stifle alternative institutions like Renegade University, rendering degrees from non-accredited schools useless. Russell argues this monopoly enforces ideological conformity, from sexual assault due process failures (e.g., Occidental College lawsuits) to mandatory gender pronoun policies, while Rogan highlights biological distinctions in sports debates, like testosterone advantages in MMA. They clash over race and gender as social constructs versus innate traits, with Russell citing WWII-era Jewish reclassification and Kinsey studies, while Rogan defends observable differences tied to autonomy. Russell’s push for open borders and drug decriminalization mirrors historical parallels like 1933’s prohibition end, but warns of racial licensing disparities, framing academia’s control as a modern civil war over ideas. [Automatically generated summary]
I was just listening to a podcast about this family that owns a ranch in Texas and they had these small caves that these kids would explore in.
And then they allowed some cavers, some local cave explorers, to go and check it out.
And they crawled through this really small three-foot diameter hole, literally crawled through it, and found two football field-sized caves inside, and then found out that there's literally miles of cave systems inside.
I think somewhere along the line, Portland became a place that pretentious people gravitated to because they wanted to identify, like, I'm white and I have dreadlocks.
I keep waiting to come across the cage where they keep them in one corner of the city, because then it's amazing, especially in the core of Portland, the main part.
But the main one was that they were attracted to him because during the campaign, at least, he was saying things that sounded like he was a non interventionist in foreign policy.
Right.
And that's why I was at least interested in him.
I thought there was a possibility there.
Of course, he would like, you know, for 30 minutes, he would talk like Ron Paul about foreign policy.
And then the last 30 minutes of his speech, he would sound like an old Republican about how he wanted to bomb the shit out of people.
So, who knows?
But now, of course, I think what's happened is that the generals have taken over.
Re-enlisted because he believes that the UFC, or the UFC, he believes that the military now has the backing and the support from the president and that this is going to be great and they can do their job now.
Yes, he wants to kill ISIS. He's about ISIS. Oh, dude, he gives his address out to ISIS. Puts his address on the internet and says, fuck ISIS. Come get me.
I mean, so you go kind of, you're always going in and out of people's personal histories and their psychology and then into their ideas and into big abstract stuff and then history and philosophy and science, right?
You're going in and always back and forth and in and out, connecting those things, weaving them together.
I love that.
I think it's the only way to go.
You get the deepest understanding of people.
And it sort of makes it impossible to do what most people do, which is just put people in a little box and throw them away.
But I actually think the overall effect is just the opposite.
I actually think that we have much deeper understandings of people who are not like us because of things like this, right?
I mean...
Because of the podcasts and because there's just much more exposure to people's ideas and personalities.
And there's more people talking in public, by the way.
I mean, just imagine that, right?
Like in the 1970s and 1980s, when you and I were growing up, there were three broadcast networks that all said the same thing on the news shows.
There were three that all said the same thing because the FCC wouldn't allow any competitors to come into the market.
I mean, they just wouldn't allow it.
And Rupert Murdoch broke that open, right?
And then since then, it's just been flooded.
So now we have how many channels, how many networks, and now podcasts.
So when I was coming up as an academic in the 90s, if your book didn't get reviewed in the New York Times, or if you were an author of any kind, and your book didn't get reviewed in the New York Times, you were not going to make a living as a writer.
That was it.
You had to get reviewed in the New York Times, and it had to be a positive review.
That was the only gatekeeper to success as an author.
Now, the New York Times is one of, you know, a hundred different places or a thousand different places that matter when you're writing books.
My book, Renegade History of the United States, was ignored entirely by the New York Times, and I know why, but it didn't really matter.
Like Martin Luther King was a conservative and hated black culture.
Did he really?
Yeah.
Yeah, he was a very conservative person culturally, and he was basically an opponent of black culture.
He was opposed to rock and roll.
He didn't even mention jazz until late into his career, and only once he thought black people should sing classical music, European classical music, or gospel.
You know, very respectable, very Christian, very good citizen kind of stuff.
And he hated the flamboyant black preachers who were Whooping and hollering in their churches and speaking in black dialect.
He wanted all black people to speak correct American English.
He was opposed to a lot of dancing that was going on.
Just all the stuff that we love in black culture, Martin Luther King was opposed to.
It wasn't because he was just an uptight puritanical prick.
It was because of his strategy and his objective, which was to seek full citizenship, right?
And he understood, right?
In a way, it wasn't his fault entirely.
You have to prove yourself always in this country, historically, that you are just like white people to get all the good stuff, to get the vote, to get equal protection under the law.
So that's what his mission was.
Assimilation.
Assimilation has always been the ticket to full citizenship.
It sucks that that's even a thought, that the only way to achieve quote-unquote full citizenship is to ignore all the things that make black culture special, like comedy, like jazz, like rap, like just slang, just all the cool shit that black people have figured out, like the things to say that white people have ruined, like bro.
Bro used to be like a cool thing that black people say to each other, and now it's like an insult for a dummy, like a frat dummy's a bro now.
That's African-American history, actually, is ordinary black people Who aren't interested in being just like white people and doing their thing, you know, since slavery, just doing their thing and being called niggers by whites.
And also, and this is what people don't know, civil rights leaders since slavery, like black political leaders who wanted citizenship, attacking them for their culture just as harshly as the Ku Klux Klan did.
And I'm not exaggerating.
If you look at what Frederick Douglass said about slave culture If you look at what W.E.B. Du Bois sometimes said about slave culture and black culture, then Martin Luther King, A. Philip Randolph, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, all the way through, they are saying the harshest, nastiest things about black, working class, popular culture.
You could imagine.
But again, it was for this reason.
They wanted to convince whites that we are just like them.
So they'll let us in.
They'll let us sit at the table of America.
They'll give us the vote.
We can then become president.
And so, guess what happened?
They finally...
A guy came along who was black-looking.
But who lived in this perfect nuclear Christian family, wife, two kids, didn't drink, didn't do drugs.
He smoked, but he stopped smoking pretty quickly, right?
Very dignified, spoke perfect English, right?
And guess what happened?
He became our first black president.
So Obama is absolutely...
The apotheosis is a good academic word.
He's the pinnacle.
He's the full achievement of that long attempt by civil rights leaders, black political leaders, to assimilate blacks.
And they won in that way.
They got a president, but what else did they win?
Right?
In doing that, not much.
I mean, race relations now, are they better now?
Not really.
Do black people still say stuff in their hip-hop songs that is not respectable, even more than ever?
People who actually are from those neighborhoods, where there really aren't any white people, if they're from the projects or they're from...
You know, these poor black neighborhoods that are famous, right?
I mean, by and large, and we know this from what they say in their art, you know, don't give a shit about what white people think about them, right?
They're not interested in citizenship.
They're not interested in being good Americans.
They're doing their thing, as you just said.
I mean, they're interested in representing, seems to me, they're interested in representing their aspirations.
And they're interested in having a good time, which sounds trivial to a lot of people, but it's actually revolutionary, right?
If you're interested only in having a good time and pleasure and succeeding and achieving things for yourself, that's actually not American because you're not interested in America.
You're interested in yourself.
So that's a person who's very unlikely to volunteer like Tim Kennedy to go serve in the military, right?
Well, certainly young white suburban kids that grow up in these safe sheltered environments always adopt that sort of radical, badass, black rapper sort of listening to their music, wearing their pants low, like sagging, doing all that stuff, co-opting various aspects of black culture that seem to be dangerous.
That was my first gym, and I walked in the first day, and I had never done anything like that.
And I walked in, and there was Joe, and I was like, okay, if people like that are going to be doing this, I'm not having any part of this, because he was just terrifying.
He's on such another level with his footwork and movement.
I just can't come up with a comparable...
I mean, there's been some amazing boxers way back to Sugar Ray Robinson and Willie Pep and all those guys paved the way, but I feel like every Everything evolves, right?
Every combat sport, even art and music evolves to the current state it's at now, which you get the best of the best right now and you go, wow, they've learned from Ali and Sugary Leonard and Roy Jones and Bernard Hopkins.
And Lomachenko is, in my eyes, is the best.
The way he moves is insane.
And he's super aggressive.
He's not like...
Floyd Mayweather, who is arguably the best ever, you know, multiple-time world champion in multiple divisions, 49-0, only been like hit solid maybe seven, eight times his whole career.
So let me just say, so here's my history with Lomachenko.
So, like, I forget, it was like four or five years ago, I thought Gary Russell Jr. was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I still think he's just phenomenal.
He's a very good fighter.
Incredibly fast.
The fastest hand since Roy Jones, easily.
And maybe even faster.
Just, and technically just perfect.
I thought he was unbeatable.
I thought he was the next thing.
And he's still a great, great, great fighter.
I love him.
He fought Lomachenko, and I was like, who's this Russian dude?
So I've been hopping around gyms lately, boxing gyms.
Look at that!
He did it like three times in a row.
Genius.
And here's how I know.
Here's why I think that he is the next Ali, which is that just in the last year, every boxing gym I've gone to, people have taught Lomachenko's moves, like as a standard part of classes.
Customato was teaching this way back in the fucking 50s.
But his style was...
Mike Tyson's style was so much different because he was throwing howitzers at you.
Lomachenko is not knocking anybody out with one punch.
He's hitting you with multiple barrage of punches.
They dropped him with a liver shot.
But the thing about what Lomachenko is doing with this steady barrage is very similar to what I've always said about Jiu Jitsu.
If you want to really learn Jiu Jitsu, learn Jiu Jitsu from a small man.
Because small men can't use strength and weight and all the physical advantages.
They have to use perfect technique.
So if you deal with guys like Eddie Bravo or Hoyler Gracie or Barrett Yoshida, like the really little guys are the guys who have this stellar technique.
Because they don't have the physical strength.
With Lomachenko, you've seen the same thing.
He's not a one-punch guy.
He doesn't have some Tommy Hearns knockout ability or Mike Tyson-type power.
So he's forced to have this brilliant movement and footwork, which is complete next level.
I think the first time I was on here a couple of years ago, I said at the end that I wanted to be a surfer deep down, you know, like I love what I do and being a historian and all this stuff.
Well, a lot of people that are intellectuals, a lot of people that live almost like a sedentary lifestyle because you're constantly in front of books or computer screens, they long for this sense of adventure.
Most academics, and maybe this is one of the reasons I had to leave that profession, or I'm trying to leave that profession, is that I've always been a physical person, too.
I've always been just in touch with my body in various ways.
I've always been into sports, playing them.
Doing stuff.
Most academics, I'd say, or at least a lot of them, seem to be completely cut off from their bodies.
They just don't care what's below the neck.
They don't care what they wear.
They don't care how they feel.
They certainly don't care how they look, many of them.
Like this conversation right now we had about boxing, if you just took that clip that last 10 minutes and you put that in front of, and you sent that to every historian in the country, I mean, my reputation would be done.
So when you teach jujitsu, what you're doing is, and this goes for anything if you're teaching how to fix a bike, you're taking all these complex ideas, and this is what you're a master at, You take all these really complex ideas and you package them.
You break them down into little bite-sized components and then hand them over to the person.
You give them so that they can consume it and understand it instead of just saying, oh, that's a Japanese necktie.
I mean, a lot of jujitsu instructors do this too, of course, but like, you know, the elbow goes right here, an inch down there, and then the knees here, and then the right.
And so it's, but it's just like what I do.
I mean, you take these really complex, abstract concepts, you know, that, and you give them back to people who are completely new to them.
You have to like bring the essential components down and get rid of all the extraneous stuff and then just hand it over to them in this very clear, simple way.
And then you can give them the next part and then you connect that and then you connect that and next thing you know, they have this new radical concept of Martin Luther King or they can do a Japanese necktie.
So you don't – and that was the first thing I learned when I started teaching was that I thought I knew Plato really well, you know, until I started – until I knew that I had to teach him the next day.
And I was like, oh, wait a minute.
I didn't quite actually get that connection there between those two ideas in his book, you know.
Yeah, you have to.
I tell my students this all the time.
I said, you need to be so comfortable with this text that you can teach it to your roommate who's never read it before.
What that means is you have to think all the way through the ideas.
You have to go with your mind all the way through the ideas and then come back.
It's like martial arts or anything else.
You have to actually do the Japanese necktie all the way through and come back all the way through it, and then you can teach it.
And I didn't realize how much it helped me until I started doing jujitsu and I watched other people who started teaching jujitsu just jump ahead by leaps and bounds from where they were.
A good example is my friend Brent.
He was like a purple belt, and he was always at like a certain level, kind of a static level.
And then, not static, but you know, improving, but nothing crazy.
He was like everybody else, right?
Jiu-Jitsu's hard, takes a long time to get better.
And you're around other people that are also getting better, so it's hard to really measure.
But then, he started teaching.
And like teaching full-time and then all of a sudden I would roll with him and I'd be in great danger.
I'd be like Jesus and I had a conversation with him once after training with him like dude I don't know what the fuck you're doing but your game has jumped like four or five steps ahead.
I feel like I'm the same as I was six, seven months ago, and he was like years ahead.
Because all of us have 500 books that everyone else has read, that you should have read, that we haven't read.
Right.
And I came from this little dipshit college in Ohio, and I was a C student in high school, so I had extra insecurity, but...
Once I started teaching it and forcing myself to, as you said, learn the thing all the way through it and master it, and then teaching it, that's when I felt, oh, yeah, I belong here.
I get it.
I really do have some solid understanding of Plato now, and I really can do this thing.
You know, it's interesting that you're saying that, because that's a big issue with comedians, too.
And, like, as they're becoming successful, especially, they feel like frauds.
Like, everybody I know says that.
I've said it.
Everybody I know that sort of, like, started to make it, like, as they're, like, starting to headline and go on the road places and do television sets and things along those lines, you feel like a fraud.
Yeah, okay, but here's the, so that stuff, that really sort of loony stuff, you know, that you hear coming out or protest, you know, people saying that they are gonna die because you said a word, that happens.
It does.
It's all true.
It's all there.
I've seen it, but I've seen it maybe at most one time a year in the colleges where I've been, maybe, not even, less than that, okay?
And if it were just that, that's not actually a big deal.
It's much worse than that.
What's worse is that there is a self-censorship going on that's universal and profound, constant, omnipresent.
Like, for instance, I never talk about my love for boxing around academics, or I'm very careful if I do, but it's not even that.
It's that we know that there are certain things that can't be said on a college campus.
And so we just don't say them.
Therefore, there's no need to police us.
There's no need to yell at us and scream at us and protest.
If you are an adjunct like me with no job security, or if you're an assistant professor up for tenure, and if you don't get tenure, you have no career, I don't blame them.
I get it.
That's what I've done, too.
I've policed myself, because you have to to stay in the game.
If you have tenure, lifetime appointment, you're a senior professor, you make the decisions there on curriculum, hiring, and firing, and tenure.
The faculty make those decisions.
And you don't challenge these crazy ideas in any way.
Or if you police yourself, you stop yourself from saying things that you think are right, that you believe in.
I should say I heard your conversation with him, and I could see, and this was interesting to me, it was exciting, because I could actually see you moving in a direction that I found to be much more interesting than his, which is closer to mine, which is, yeah, that it's fluid.
In fact, here we go, merging all these topics together, one of the top Muay Thai fighters recently, I don't know if she's still fighting, is a ladyboy in Thailand, you know?
I mean, I don't know if she's taken anything in her entire career.
It would just be pure speculation.
She doesn't look like she has, but that doesn't mean anything either.
But she's so fucking badass and so technical and so tough that she's fought men, but she knew they were a man going in, she made a decision, just like I think you should be allowed to skydive, just like I think you should be allowed to ride bulls.
I don't think it's smart, but you should be able to do whatever the fuck you want to do.
I'm all for freedom of expression, of participation in any sort of dangerous activity.
My issue, 100%, was that people are trying to pretend that there's no advantage whatsoever.
And I think a lot of it is people worried about being called transphobic or homophobic or in any way prejudiced, where they're allowing certain people to compete.
Like this woman in Australia, the trans woman in Australia that just broke all these world records in weightlifting because she was a fucking man her whole life.
Pull that up because I'm pretty sure that that woman actually has been tested, and then there was a real issue behind it, and she felt terrible about it because it was just the way she was born.
It's like I would want rules established defining the physical characteristics of any of my potential opponents, right?
So it could be whatever, bone density, muscle mass, you know, testosterone levels, you name it.
You could probably speak to this better than I could, but I'm sure there's all sorts of ways you could actually define that pretty precisely.
And you can test those things, and you can say, okay, you get to be in this.
It's like weight classes in fighting.
It's no different, really, right?
I mean, you're not allowed to fight someone who's 30 pounds lighter than you are.
And so you could do that in any sport.
You could say, right, if you're above a certain height or above a certain weight or have this much muscle or that much testosterone, you're not allowed in this category.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
There's nothing sexist about that.
There's nothing anti-trans about that.
It's just a different category.
But that's all that matters, right?
The problem was that Fallon Fox had, as you said, more muscle, more testosterone, all these physical characteristics that were fundamentally different than all of the other women fighting in that category in that particular game.
But there's also a type of thinking that's involved in discussing this where you have to follow a line of thinking.
And if you don't follow a line of thinking, you're transphobic, you're a hateful person, you're a bigot.
And that line of thinking is not science-based.
It's just not.
When you talk to board-certified endocrinologists, when they talk about trans people, One of the things that they talk about is the fact that when you take estrogen, it actually maintains bone density.
It's the reason why they give estrogen to women who have osteoporosis.
So this idea that your bone density decreases when you go from being a man to a woman, it's bullshit.
You're taking testosterone, your bone density is going to stay the same or get thicker.
But if you're taking estrogen, your bone density is also going to maintain.
It's going to help you maintain.
So when you remove the body's ability to produce testosterone There was a whole article in Bloody Elbow, MMA, by this board-certified endocrinologist, Dr. Ramona Krutzik, and what she did different than everything else, all these other articles, is she's not a gender reassignment surgeon, okay?
All these other people that are commenting on this have a vested interest in it being completely neutral.
There's all these people that are trans people that are commenting on it, and they're doing it from a very biased perspective.
Because we're not talking about mountain biking, which there was a woman who used to be a man who dominated mountain biking, and it became a giant issue with people.
They first supported her, and then she was winning by such enormous margins.
They were like, well, what the fuck?
Same as the woman in Australia that's the weightlifter.
The woman would have to take testosterone and balance it out, and then you'd have to find out how would you balance out 30 years of your body naturally producing testosterone, increasing your ligament strength, increasing your tendon strength.
The mechanical advantages of male hips are very different when it comes to kicking, when it comes to certain types of movement.
Women's hips go out and then their legs kind of come in at an angle, and it's not the best for kicking.
It's not the best for a lot of different activities.
So I would just say that a trans woman is absolutely, in my view, a woman.
Fine.
That's their identity, and I respect that, however they want to identify.
Because the category of woman, as you said, is so fluid.
I'm not going to say there's any absolute about that either, that it can change, and it comes from her ideas, but still, I respect that, and I'll call you a woman, I'll treat you like a woman.
But that means we have to change the sports, right?
And we have to have just different categories.
Instead of woman sports and man sports, we need to have, and woman and man categories in those sports, we need to have different categories that are about people's physical composition.
What you're made up of, right?
So just like weight classes and PEDs, there's no difference to me.
Yeah, so that means I would just say there should be a category in the sport for people who are made up of that composition, and that could be people that the society identifies as men or who identify as women or whatever.
It's saying a female with hypo-androgynism who is recognized as a female in law shall be eligible to compete in women's competition in athletics provided that she has androgen levels below the male range.
Like, all you have to do is just be like a couple notches below the male range, which is...
And then he had a really good way of slipping the jab and moving constantly until he was inside on you and then he would crush you with his huge left hook.
But once he's there, he doesn't have an advantage on you.
But you don't think it's harder for a guy with long-ass spider arms to punch a guy who is in tight on you with short arms and is throwing shots to the body like Tyson would do?
I think there's advantages, as long as you're physically competent, there's advantages in particular movements and positions to all sorts of different body styles.
It's very true in jiu-jitsu.
Guys with long arms and long legs in jiu-jitsu have massive advantages with chokes.
You guys can get darses and guillotines and triangles easier, but you can also get armbar easier.
There's mechanical advantages in arm barring you.
There's some weird advantages to being like a Husamar Paul Harris, stocky, short guy.
This is very common because most people are under six feet tall, right?
So who could never play in the NBA, even though they're amazing basketball players, but they just don't have the arm length and they don't have the height and all that.
There's a big difference, I think, between team sports where you could have an advantage of having a Spud Webb or a Muggsy Bogues, a very mobile, agile kind of guy who can set plays up versus a guy like Shaq, big giant guy who can get in the way of things.
I think there's all sorts of advantages and disadvantages of size.
When you're talking about individuals against individuals, that's where things get weird.
And then when you're talking about combat sports, that's where people have just...
There's some people that just have these tremendous advantages.
I think we are literally one generation away from being able to use CRISPR and all these new genetic engineering tools to make people whatever style of person you want.
I think you're gonna be able to develop six foot four super athletes that look like Anthony Joshua or Vitaly Klitschko or Vladimir Klitschko.
And hopefully, this is really promising, they're going to be able to do that with brain tissue.
So people that have had brain injuries, people that have had CTE, they're hopefully going to be able to use some of these therapies to regenerate brain tissue.
I'm just a complete idiot when it comes to math and science, but man, just go for it.
And by the way, as far as universities, I am the harshest critics of universities generally, but mostly what I'm talking about is actually the humanities and social sciences when I do that.
What goes on in the biology building, the chemistry building, the physics building?
I don't know, but I know that what comes out of them is a better life for me and all of us.
They're making the stuff that you're talking about, and so go for it.
Renegade universities, we're not going to do no science.
We're going to let Harvard and MIT keep going.
Have at it, guys, because you're doing great stuff.
I have no critique of that.
As far as I know, there's nothing going on there that's wrong.
It's just the humanities and social sciences that are utterly corrupt.
What we were talking about initially was Jordan Peterson, what you disagree with him when it comes to gender and what you agree with him when it comes to the suppression of expression of professors and people worried about being called racist and sexist and anything else stifling free speech.
So what he's facing is even worse than what goes on in the United States in a sense in that it's now legal persecution.
He is actually, you know, it's against the law to not use these gender pronouns in your class, which is, that's suppression of speech, that's suppression of academic freedom.
It's a complete violation of those things, in fact, and that's totalitarian.
I mean, there's nothing...
No two ways around it.
My uncle, Canada has these laws, right?
They have a Human Rights Commission, I think it's called, or Human Something Commission?
Council, and it's like this body of people who sit there and decide who should have a website or not.
And my uncle, this actually happened to him about 10 years ago, he was accused of being a Holocaust denier.
Because, and I don't even know exactly what he was saying on there, but he's a Ukrainian, and I think he was sort of just defending these Ukrainians who were accused of being Nazis during the World War II. I don't know.
Doesn't matter.
Even if he were a Holocaust denier, he should have his website, right?
The Canadian, you go to that URL, it's shut down, and in fact, they put a banner now.
It says, this is now, like, controlled by the Canadian government or something.
There was an article that Vice published that someone linked to me today about this that I did not read yet because I announced that Jordan is going to be returning to the podcast and someone was saying that his interpretation of these laws is greatly exaggerated.
I'm saying that in court, I would bet you anything, he would say that showed that she wasn't listening to me.
She wasn't obeying my orders.
I think he told her to put her hands on the car or something, and she had the cigarette in her hand.
So she had to take the cigarette out of her hand to do what he was asking...
In other words, I'm saying that's all worthy of disrespect.
I'm not defending it at all, right?
The other thing, though, about this, and this is something I've been working on lately, and I've been doing some work with some people at Freethink Media about this, but is, I think, and I've changed my mind about this.
This has been a new thing for me.
I've thought about race my whole life, basically, really, really hard, and this is I've changed my mind about this.
When things like that happen, Sandra Bland, Mike Brown, Eric Garner, even Walter Scott, the guy who was shot in the back in South Carolina...
So I, like everyone in the country pretty much, saw those things and thought, A, that's horrific.
And B, that's racist.
And what people do, overwhelmingly, is they focus on what they believe is the racism of the cop, the individual.
That that's what caused those cops to shoot those guns in those moments.
I think that's a mistake.
For one thing, we will never know why they chose to pull the trigger in that moment.
We will never know that it was racist.
There's no way to prove that.
There's no way to demonstrate it.
And there's nothing we can do about it.
What can you do to change people's ideas about race or black people?
You can't.
Certainly not anytime soon.
What all those cops were doing in all those instances, and this is why they got off, they were following the law, and they were following police procedure, which actually obligated them to do those things.
So Walter Scott, and believe me, I was convinced that was a racist cop, that that was clearly a bad killing.
And it was a bad killing, but not for the reasons that people are talking about.
I have no way to know whether that cop was racist, and that's why he did that.
But we do know, and people have done work on this, that it is very reasonable to assume that he was doing in that moment what he was obligated to do by law, which is, if you look at the video carefully, He very well could have thought that Scott was still holding his taser because Scott grabbed the taser and then dropped it immediately.
But if you look at where the cop is looking, he may not have seen that.
Pulled the taser out of his holster and had it for a second and then started to run and as he's like turning to run he drops it immediately and he's running away and he gets you know a good whatever 10-20 yards away and the cop shoots him in the back.
So according to South Carolina police procedure and according to Supreme Court decisions The cop not only had the right, but the obligation to use lethal force because he could have believed in that moment that Scott still held the taser in his hand.
If a person takes a police officer's weapon, police are obligated to use lethal force to stop them.
So if you look, there's a documentary about this.
It's called Frame.
I forget the number.
I think it's 394. You might be able to find it, Jamie.
And it's plausible.
It's not definite that this is what happened, but it is plausible.
The way the cop was looking, he may not have seen that the taser was on the ground.
So Scott's running away, 20 yards, shoots him in the back.
Then the cop walks over to him.
During that time, he does see that the taser's on the ground next to him, next to the cop.
He picks up the taser, the cop does, walks over and drops it on the ground next to Scott momentarily and then picks it back up.
So who knows what was going on there.
He may have been, and sure he may have been trying to cover himself in that moment, but actually he didn't need to.
That cop, you know what happened with that trial?
It's a hung jury.
He's free.
Because of this.
Because, I'm sure, we don't know for sure, but I know this was the argument made by the cop's lawyer, was that it is totally reasonable to assume that That he believed he had reason to shoot him legally.
So that's one part of that story, which is that the law is the problem, not the cop.
Stop focusing on that cop.
You'll never find out.
You'll never be able to prove that he did it because he's a racist.
And even if we did, what's that going to get us?
That's not going to save anybody the next time this happens, right?
But what will save people is if we change those laws.
Here's the worst law that really made the whole thing happen in the first place that no one's talking about.
The whole thing started when Scott was driving through North Charleston, right?
The cop, I think it was a suspended license plate or something, or a taillight, taillight, I think it was a taillight, something trivial, pulls him over.
At that time, Scott was in arrears on child support payments.
Here we go.
You go to prison if you get behind on your child support payments.
And he had been, I think, put in jail a few times in his life for this.
You get put in prison, and there's a whole bunch of men right now as we speak in prison for that very reason.
And these child support payments, by the way, are set by judges often in a system that massively favors the women, the mothers.
That whole system, you've never been divorced, right?
I have.
You know, as soon as you enter it, you see right away that the whole thing is stacked against us.
And this is, you know, it's just, look into it if you don't believe me.
Well, listen, if you're supporting a woman never having to work again because she married a guy for a certain amount of time, like, relationships come and go.
People get tired of each other.
People have the right to change.
You shouldn't be financially obligated to take care of someone for the rest of their life just because you were married at one point in time.
There's a woman in Florida who is a bit in my act that I'm doing now.
It's a true story.
There's a woman in Florida who was a cop.
She was 25 years old.
She pretended to be a high school student.
And she's an attractive woman, made friends with his boy.
He thought it was his girlfriend.
And she talked him into selling her pot and then she arrested him.
That only works when you have a 17-year-old boy and a 25-year-old woman.
If you had a 25-year-old man throwing dick at your 17-year-old daughter and then he gets her to sell him pot and then he arrests her, there would be people lining the fucking street with torches to kill that guy.
But people are sexist against boys.
They feel that boy should just keep it in his pants.
That boy should know better.
And you know, as well as I know, when you're 17 years old, you are a baffled bag of hormones with a boner, just running through the world, trying to figure out what the fuck's going on, and you're 12 months away from being an adult.
It's chaos.
It's craziness.
And to think that this young boy You should be able to think clearly in that moment while this 25-year-old woman is manipulating him.
It's insane.
But they allowed it, and this kid has a felony on his fucking record right now.
And I think actually I talked about this the first time I was here, which is that, you know, this is what's to me at the heart of...
This is the...
Appalling irony at the heart of contemporary feminism as practiced by self-defined feminists.
Many, not all, guys, I'm not saying all feminists are like this, but I'd say certainly it's the dominant strain right now, which is that it is at its heart patriarchal.
Which it treats women as vulnerable, weak, powerless, incapable of making their own way in this world.
And it treats men as the, not just, forget about the men.
Forget about how they treat men.
It's how they treat women that's sexist.
It says that they need protection from the state, which is run by, usually, men.
But it's also this other institution.
Or, you know, college presidents.
We need to protect these women from 19-year-old boys who want to have sex with them.
Same thing.
They're constantly calling for women to be protected by these institutions, the state, by men.
It is patriarchal and sexist, right?
At the heart of it.
And same thing with family court and divorce law and all that stuff.
That's how they get treated.
They get treated like they're the ones who need to be taken care of by a man.
Well, I disagree when you're talking about child rearing, because I think that Child support should be absolutely mandatory, and it's very important.
And if a woman is the only one raising the kids on her own, not only does she need the money for food and housing, but also probably for someone to babysit her kids.
There's a lot of factors involved.
I totally agree.
If the man's not in the scene, he owes money, for sure.
He has a responsibility.
And as a father, at the very least, that's what you should be doing, is contributing financially.
Well, it's I don't think it's a bad thing if someone like say how about this say Let's turn around say you had a wife who's wealthy and She was taking care of you while you're going through school and she promised that she was going to fund you all the way through your PhD program She was gonna give you money.
So you didn't have to worry about anything but your education and And then once you got out, then you guys could share income.
But somewhere along the way, she decided she was done with you, and then you're fucked, but you're in the middle of this program that you have to pay for.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that she should give you until you could figure your own system out.
So you don't have to quit your PhD program and go get a job somewhere and get an apartment and a car.
I don't think that's unreasonable.
What's unreasonable is saying that because you guys were together for a certain amount of time, she has to pay you for the rest of your life.
And they have been loud and clear about this for a long, long time, and I love them, and they're my heroes, and I've learned from them.
I've learned these things from them, okay?
But the ones who really are powerful and dominant in the media, the ones we hear from, the public intellectuals, the academics, government leaders, The people who end up in the White House, you know, Obama's staff in HHS, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, became very clear to me that all these sexual assault laws and rules that came out of there, they were coming right out of colleges.
And they were really of that.
They were of the sort of college feminist movement.
They were the ones who set that letter in 2011 that made it basically mandatory for colleges to set up these kangaroo courts for sexual assault cases.
All the nonsense you and I talked about here a couple years ago.
There's hundreds or maybe even thousands of men who are suing in court, and many of them are winning right now for good reason, because there was no due process, because they weren't allowed to, you know, ask questions.
Do you think that's good that things like that happen so that you realize why it's important to have checks and balances and that people, it reaffirms this idea of real journalism is important to have your facts in order, to have checks and double check things and make sure you know what the fuck you're printing.
All the John Doe's out there, all those men who were accused and expelled and had their names ruined and their careers ruined, college careers destroyed and all that stuff, right?
And also, even if you're exonerated, the emotional turmoil that you go through, there's no way they can reward you for that or compensate you for that, rather.
Exactly, because the man's drunk too, but somehow or another it doesn't matter, even if they're both sending texts back and forth, do you have condoms, like the Occidental case.
But he, as I said, I could be wrong about this, but it sounded to me, and I've listened to him on your show, and I've listened to him elsewhere, and a lot of people have pointed him to me and vice versa because they think we agree on these things and we don't, which is that he thinks, seems to me, that gender is biologically determined.
That there are two genders, they're fixed in nature, and that's the end of that discussion.
Which is that, so historically, the differences between them have changed.
That we, people, human beings, have said different things, have created different categories, and filled those categories with different characteristics.
Over the centuries, those have changed constantly, right?
And my first time I was on here, we had a long discussion about what's in my book, Renegade History on Immigrants.
The Irish and the Italians and the Jews, when they got here to the United States, here and in Europe, they were largely considered to be Negroes.
But it's still a long time in terms of how we address it today.
But if you address it today, if you're looking at someone from China, or you're looking at a dark black man from Kenya, there's something different about them.
It is calling it out as a fiction, as a social construct, which is that these lines have been drawn all the time in all kinds of different ways over the centuries by human beings who just look at all the people in the world.
They line up the seven billion people, right, in their mind, and they draw lines.
They say, oh, these people over here, this side, those are the Negroes.
Well, an ethnic Kenyan, someone who lives in Kenya, who was born and raised multiple generations deep, and their parents are Kenyan, their grandparents are Kenyan, there's a very big difference between them and someone who lives in Shanghai, who was born in Shanghai, their parents are born in Shanghai, they go all the way back, you know, many, many generations of being pure Chinese.
I would say that, of course, there are genes that run in families, and I completely agree that genes determine, in large part, how we look fine.
So you can certainly say, this person is likely, because of their genes, connected to that person last generation, to that generation, to this family lineage.
Sure.
Well, what does that give you?
I don't know.
Nothing.
I mean, the thing is that people have taken that and they've said, oh, well, these particular characteristics, right?
Human beings, we were talking about complexity in human beings at the beginning of this, right?
Okay, so the thing is, what people have done historically is they've just picked certain characteristics among people and said, ah, that is what determines your race.
Is maybe the issue, like, there are obvious physical characteristics, the difference between, like, someone who is a Mongol versus someone who is Brazilian versus someone who is...
There's some pretty obvious physical characteristics for...
Geographic areas.
Would you agree?
Or common physical characteristics for some geographic areas?
I suppose you could say the width of their eyes is narrower or whatever on average.
Whatever, sure.
Okay, so what?
That's it.
I mean, what did we...
Okay, so they are likely to be in lineage from that part of the world?
Fine.
That's cool.
I got no problem with that.
But what else do you want to say?
The thing is, Joe, no one stops there.
They always go on to that.
They always go on from there and they start to make all these other claims.
Oh, well, that race is really good at math.
They can do the coding for Google better than other people can.
Whatever, right?
They are more scrupulous.
Smoke cigarettes more.
Whatever it is.
You know, they used to be accused of being more easily addicted to opium.
You name it, right?
Things change.
But that's the problem, is that once you start there, people have used those differences for other reasons almost always, which are nefarious and injurious and have done terrible things to people.
Your problem is recognizing those characteristics and those differences and calling it a race, and then attaching all sorts of other claims to this category.
Totally true and they are right that that is suppressed that we are not allowed to even talk about that data Which is there and it's I have no problem with that.
I'm sure that's true Here's the thing though How do we define african-american and how do we define white first?
That's the first problem those as you know Definitions have changed over time.
So, Jews used to be in the African-American group, and Italians used to be in the African-American group.
There was a book written, this is in my book, Renegade History.
In 1911, there was a book written by a scholar, and this was one of many, the title of which, his name was Arthur Abernethy, the title of which was, The Jew is a Negro.
This is all through the late 19th and early 20th centuries, from about the 1880s when the Jews started coming over in big numbers, from the 1880s into the 1940s.
I'm saying this is what was taught in college classrooms, that Jews were of a different race, and there was some difference of opinion about whether they were black or whether they were just some other kind of inferior race, but they certainly weren't white.
That was widely agreed upon until World War II, basically.
And then, and then, IQ. Well, I think it does measure something.
I think it's real.
I do.
I really do.
I think there is something called, this is a G factor, which it tests, it measures.
G factor is this thing that was invented, this concept.
It's a category, but it's a real category in the world we operate in, which is your ability to do rational thinking, reasoning, like math.
Like writing scholarly essays, you know?
I'm sure my G-factor is higher, sort of, than other people's, although I'm terrible at math, so that's yet another problematic wrinkle for these people.
But yeah, I believe that IQ measures that stuff, that kind of thing.
That's why you don't do well unless you're really, really, really good.
If you're just creative in the way we define that and not intelligent in the way IQ tests define it.
So it's all problematic.
And all it does is ask questions.
It just keeps raising new questions.
It never has answers.
And so the attempt to...
There's this thing that goes on where certain people just need to keep finding racial differences that are innate, biological, fixed, that can't be changed.
And it's like, first of all, you've never done this because it's so fluid and you're never really answering it.
I would say that people from Polynesia are more likely, men from Polynesia are more likely to be offensive linemen in the NFL. So your issue is calling it a race itself.
Well, it's a fascinating thing when you call people African Americans or call them Italian Americans, because Italy isn't actually a country, whereas Africa's a continent.
So if you think about it, look how the world has changed, and particularly in the United States since then, right?
We no longer generally have those ideas.
At least we don't operate as such.
So black people are allowed, mostly, into places they weren't before.
Women are allowed, very much so, into places they weren't allowed before.
The whole world has changed, and I think principally from that idea, So that doesn't mean...
Now, the problem is that these social justice warriors, so-called, on campuses have used some of that language and taken a shit on it.
So the trans movement, for instance, right, that started from postmodernism.
That whole idea, right, is that, you know, if you were born with a penis, you're a man and you should do X, Y, and Z with your life, right?
The trans movement needed that, needed postmodernism to make that intervention and say, no, that's not true, right?
You can actually be a woman because woman is an invention.
It's a social construct.
What much of the trans movement now is doing, which makes me so sad, is that they're saying that I am biologically, essentially, naturally, you know, in my core, a woman, right?
No.
No one is.
No one is.
You can't...
The whole point of this movement used to be that you get to choose your gender or choose not to be a gender.
You get to move around.
Your destiny is not determined for you.
What a lot of the trans movement now is doing, there's a good word, reifying.
They're making these ideas, these abstractions real again.
They're making these claims...
That are similar to Sam Harris's claims and to old racist claims and to old sexist claims that if you're born a particular way biologically, this is who you are.
Right?
Because you've heard a lot of trans people say this, right?
So with humans, you're making a distinction that there are certain feelings and the way you interface with the world that may be more or less masculine or feminine.
Because there are certain inventions, certain social constructs that do nothing but bad things, that do no good, and they're only social constructs, like race and gender.
Well, making a definition, like saying a guy who is born a guy who gravitates towards male activities, likes females, all those things, by saying that that's a man, that this is a born man, and you're saying, no, no one is.
Thailand, I think in India, and I think there's several Polynesian countries, there's several countries where there is a legal and cultural and social category that is neither man nor woman, nor male nor female.
If that's what you have to say about it, and you want to not get in the way of people doing those things and making those decisions for themselves and let them do what they want to do, I am totally with you.
Like, when someone's interacting with you like that, it's lacking all of the characteristics of human interaction.
You're not there with a person, you're not looking at them.
If someone was in front of you like that, oh, you're a fag, you'd be like, oh my god, I'm in danger.
This is a crazy person.
I might have to defend myself against this person, because if someone is treating me that way, insulting me, looking me in the eye, we are so close to violence.
It's a weird way of interacting with people that didn't exist.
I mean, there was never a time in our past where you could, with real time, instantaneously, send something to someone and then they read it right away and they could be rude and all they are is a Twitter egg with a bunch of numbers and letters and they call you a homo.
I feel like we are finding our way through this...
Inescapable new technology, this connection that we're sharing, which is just...
Well, it's one of the reasons why I think it's important to have one-on-one conversations with people.
And one of the things that I've noticed from doing this podcast is how many interesting people there are out there in the world, like yourself, that I could talk to, but also how bad most people are in the world with just talking to each other.
Yeah, comics kind of do the same thing, too, because they're used to being the one who's talking on stage, or if they do a podcast, they're used to being the one who's talking all the time.
I mean, you're dealing with people drinking alcohol in a social environment, and it's dark out, and it's nighttime, and they're having fun, and they're laughing.
And especially when you're talking about controversial opinions and subjects, people always chime in and stuff.
This is not everybody, but I did see this a lot, and I still do.
Yeah, there's some interactions, but again, it's mostly through, you know, you write a paper, and then you send it out to the journal, and then some other professor reviews it anonymously often and sends it back.
It's all very weird, passive-aggressive shit, too.
Like, that's the other thing about academia I can't stand, is that they are allergic to direct conflict.
Like the argument you and I just had, that's pretty much not allowed.
Except through writing.
They'll do it through writing, but they won't do it head-to-head.
See, when I went to college, I had this idea that it would be the really smart people, like professors, like more than one, would be in a room, and they would have, you know, one major issue, and they would debate it, that there would be argument, right?
There would be a conflict of ideas about an idea.
No.
It's not that.
It's never that.
I have been in and around college campuses for 32 years.
I have never really seen a head-to-head debate like you and I just had.
And one of the real tragedies with that is that, as I said, there's no real conflict of ideas, which is reinforced by the tenure system, the accreditation system.
It's this monolith where there's one...
And this is why you get these uniformity of ideas on campuses.
It's all this monolith that actually has its head at the federal government.
Do you know about the accreditation system?
It's the mafia.
People don't even know this.
To get accredited as a college or university in this country, you have to be accredited by an agency that is authorized by the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. The Secretary of Education has to authorize your existence as a legitimate, legal college or university.
That's it.
So Renegade University, people were asking me.
Some people wanted college credit, and I was like, oh, let me look into this.
And so I did.
And I quickly found out that it's the fucking mafia that I couldn't get accredited because they have all these standards.
You have to have a particular number of buildings, a particular number of professors.
You have to have a library with a particular number of books in it.
You have to have a gym.
You have to have dorm.
All these things.
And if you don't have those things, you're not in.
So there's two different systems that the Department of Education controls.
One is for the so-called elite prestigious schools.
Those are regional accreditation agencies, again, all authorized by the Department of Education.
And the for-profit colleges, there's a separate accreditation system called the National Accreditation System, and that's also controlled by the Department of Education.
But everybody knows within it that if you get accredited by one of the national accreditation systems, you're a bullshit for-profit.
So those credits, you can't transfer them to Harvard or Occidental or any of the elite, so-called elite schools.
The Department of Education, one person, federal government, decides who is in, who's out.
And then inside that system, there's tenure, lifetime appointment.
Those people control the curriculum, what is taught.
They also control who's hired and fired.
Faculty control all the hiring and firing of faculty and tenure.
They ultimately control that, basically.
Right?
And they're there forever, like dons in the mafia.
Seriously.
So you wonder why, when you walk into any college classroom in this country, you hear basically the same shit being said in sociology classes and history classes?
That's why.
It's astonishing.
And I didn't even know the full extent of it until I started Renegade University and people started asking me about this.
And Betsy DeVos, for whatever her problems are, seems to be the first Secretary of Education maybe we've ever had who could be willing to challenge this.
So you think there's just this inherent bottleneck that it's existed for so long and that these people have been in charge of saying what is true and what's not true, what should be taught and not taught?
Well, what's interesting is because of social media and because of coming on podcasts like mine and his YouTube presence, he's actually got a large movement of people that are interested in his ideas.
He had a disastrous fucking conversation with Sam Harris.
But again, I think there was a certain amount of heel digging on both sides.
They dug their heels in, they stood their ground on this one really preposterous issue, which was like, you know, you're listening to this, like, Jesus fucking Christ, guys, you're just talking about truth for an hour and a half.
I have major disagreements with Sam Jordan, but they're still heroic and I'm totally with them because they are doing this.
I mean, Sam's not doing it formally, but he's essentially part of this movement.
You're part of this movement.
You know what the election was about?
It was about a civil war in this country that's been going on for a long time that finally came to a head in November.
Which is a war between the people who went to college and the elite colleges in particular and who are of that culture that's created in those colleges and those who are not of that culture.
That's what that that's what that election was about.
I think there is this schism between those two groups in this country and that finally the people who are not of the elite college culture won something and it caused the elites to freak completely out.
So if you look at like I was looking at the top podcast because, you know, I just started a podcast and it did get ranked and so I'm excited, but I'm looking at it a lot and like you can really see it clearly.
Just look at the top 200 podcasts right now.
It's like 60 to 70% are like NPR. Cookie cutter, same shit.
Coastal, elite, liberal, bland, you know, you know what it is.
Tone of voice, what they say, who their guests are, all the same.
You know exactly what it is, right?
It's dominated by that, but then there's you in there.
You're not that.
There's Sam Harris, who's sort of that, but not really.
There's Dan Carlin.
There's another one, right?
He's part of this movement.
He doesn't have a school, but he's teaching people history.
That's my point, is that there's sort of two different cultures that's happening right now.
There's just that culture.
And this is kind of a problem my girlfriend and I have, because she's of that culture.
Most of the people I know are NPR types.
That's what they want to hear.
It's comforting, it's soothing, whatever.
It makes them feel good.
I don't know.
But they're really, that's who they are fundamentally.
It's like their identity.
And then, you know, when they hear your podcast or my podcast or anyone's, it's like punk rock to an 80-year-old.
It's just hard.
It's just a different culture.
It's like a different language, different way of behaving, different ideas are questioned, different questions are asked.
And there's this resentment, too, because the elites, the NPR types, I believe, have basically looked, not basically, they have looked down their noses at those who didn't go to college, who don't speak the way we speak, who don't talk about these ideas, who aren't aware of these ideas, right?
Working class people, like people in Salem, I know, right?
People who, oh, you know, Meryl Streep said it best, right, about MMA, right?
That was it right there.
They clearly see all those people outside this elite bi-coastal culture as doing bad stuff, inferior stuff, and they shouldn't be allowed to run things.
Well, what she said was so inherently ridiculous and also ignorant because she was also claiming that if you take out the immigrants, you're left with MMA. MMA is 80% immigrants.
What they want is the immigrant, who also very much exists, they want the undocumented mom with the kid who got stopped at the border and sent back, who breaks my heart too.
It's barbaric in the way that, like, it used to be that you had a tribe and then you invaded another tribe, or they invaded you, and you had to put up a fence and guard your border.
And then these things became like larger communities, these communities became cities, became countries, became And then, you know, go back a few thousand years, you're dealing with these countries invading other countries.
And so you have these immigration policies, especially now, where we have border patrols and this idea that you have to have your paperwork, you have to have passports and numbers, and otherwise you were born in the wrong patch of dirt, sir.
If you were just born 30 miles north, you could have been in Texas, but you're in Juarez, you fuck, so you stay over here.
Well, I met a guy in Chicago who was a cop, and he explained it to me in great detail.
And he said essentially what happened is they moved in and they arrested a lot of these drug lords, these local people that were in charge of whatever areas, and they were running whatever criminal organization.
They arrest them, and they created a power vacuum.
Trump is too goddamn dumb to make the full point, and he's also beholden to these asshole Republicans like Jeff Sessions, who thinks that marijuana is dangerous.
But because our government is just a fight between this moron, Trump, and these morons, the Democrats, who refuse to address this stuff, there's no discussion about it.
Like, say if the United States just decided we're going to decriminalize all drugs, and that's not good enough because someone's going to sell them, right?
You can't just decriminalize them.
But that just keeps people from getting arrested, which is a great step, a good move in the right direction.
There's some insane number of people in America that are in prison right now for nonviolent drug offenses.
There is now a debate among academics who study this stuff.
And a lot of academics who are actually more or less on the right side of this are arguing that the drug war and making drugs illegal is not the major cause of mass incarceration.
Because the number, the percentage of people, it is big, but it's something like 10% who are nonviolent drug offenders who are prosecuted and convicted of just drug offenses.
That is a relatively small number.
But what they're not taking into account is...
All of the other crimes that stem from drugs being illegal, right?
They have to get them on the black market, always raises prices.
So they're forced to steal because they're poor people.
Right?
So a huge percentage, and they don't track this because...
The convictions are, you know, if it's a junkie who steals from somebody to score, they don't count that as a drug crime.
They count it as just larceny.
So we don't know.
But I am sure, and this is what social scientists need to do right now, is start to make that, do that work and find out exactly how many people are in prison for some reason related to the fact that drugs are illegal.
And what that meant was an inspector from the state came to your bar or your restaurant or whatever, And looked around and asked you questions and checked on who you were hiring, who worked there, who your customers were, what kinds of customers.
And if you didn't fit all the rules of, you know, polite society, or, and this was true, great histories have been done about this, if you had the homosexuals coming into your bar.
The banking's weird, because the federal government still has it classified as a Schedule I substance, and it's illegal, so there's a huge issue with people having to accept cash only, so they hired a bunch of seals and mercs and all these fucking guys that would've probably worked for mercenary organizations.
Now they're fucking carrying around drug money from people selling pot, and then they have to take it to the bank and put it in safe deposit boxes and deposit it into these accounts.
I'm talking about history and theory and politics.
Oh, beautiful.
Okay.
I've already sold out the VIPs, but there's more.
The general admission is still on sale.
And then I'm doing that with a great group, which I meant to mention, School Sucks Project, who is actually one of the very first pioneers of this whole movement I was talking about to just overthrow the whole educational system and replace it with actual thought and ideas and debate.
And he's got this big following and he's had me on the show a lot.
So he and I are co-producing Renegade University and School Sucks Project are co-producing, presenting this weekend in Salem on August 4th through the 6th.
So you can go to School Sucks Project website or ThaddeusRussell.com website to get all the details and buy the tickets there.
And then I have a seminar actually in L.A. just with me, just 20 people for four weeks talking about Renegade History of the United States.