James Lindsay reveals bizarre encounters with individuals fixated on "globalist" conspiracy theories, including violent rhetoric toward alleged controllers like Klaus Schwab, WEF chairman pushing "stakeholder capitalism"—a fascist-leaning model—while billionaires thrived post-pandemic. He critiques media suppression of dissent, comparing it to Maoist Cultural Revolution tactics, and highlights critical race theory’s Marxist roots, including absurd policies like a Department of Anti-Racism and edited debates weaponizing outrage. Skepticism about mask efficacy, from 1918 flu data to political hypocrisy, ties into broader systemic distrust, with Lindsay predicting media collapse as transparency erodes their control. Both warn of authoritarian overreach—digital passports, medical apartheid—urging resistance through primaries and school reforms before freedoms vanish entirely. [Automatically generated summary]
It wasn't like I just got off stage or anything like that.
And he comes up to me and he's like, you know, if we had to narrow it down to like, you know, the top 10, 12 individuals pulling all this crazy stuff that's going on in the world, could you name who they are?
Like, who are they?
And the question is, you know, what are we going to do about them?
You know, are we going to have to take them out?
You know, are we going to have to go off?
When do we get to go off?
It was like the statement, when do we get to go off on them?
He is the, I guess, chairman, CEO of this thing called the World Economic Forum, which is like a billionaire's club where fancy pants people like, you know, titans of industry, government officials, NGO people, all the big philanthropists can show up and like rub elbows at Davos and chill out.
And basically, it's like a big country club for like the biggest players in government.
See if you can find the video of him introducing Xi Jinping because he gives this bizarrely glowing introduction to the leader of the Chinese Communist Party.
China has made significant economic and social achievements under your leadership.
In the first three quarters of 2021, China's economy grew by over 9%.
You have achieved a historic goal to become a moderately prosperous society in all respects.
Mr. President, I strongly echo your remarks in 2017, that mankind has made progress by surmounting difficulties and when encountering difficulties, we should join hands and rise to the challenge.
I believe this is the best time for leaders to come together and work jointly for the world to become more inclusive, more sustainable, and more prosperous.
We now welcome His Excellency Xi Xinping, President of the People's Republic of China.
unidentified
Professor Klaus Schwab, ladies and gentlemen, friends.
And if you listen, actually, I don't think we should try to deal with listening to all of what Xi says, but he's like, he's like, you know, he goes into this whole thing.
It's like a paraphrase of Lenin.
He's all like, you know, there's an old Chinese saying that everything contains its contradictions.
That's actually an old Marxist saying, is that everything contains its contradictions?
The Taoists don't, I mean, they have that with the yin yang thing, but they don't really have everything contains its own contradiction.
They say things contain their opposites, which is different.
And so Marx was like, everything contains its own contradiction, which, you know, capitalism makes a lot of wealth, but then it makes a lot of poor people, so it's got its own contradiction.
And he says we got to lean into the, she says, you know, to paraphrase him, but we got to lean into the contradictions.
What Lenin said when people were starving, like he's like literally starving people and killing people, he's like, accelerate the contradictions, because if you make them see how terrible life is by showing them the contradictions, oh, we're supposed to have this great society and look, you're suffering, you're starving, then they'll want to have a revolution.
And so it's like, that's the thing that Schwab there just introduced was his speech about that.
He also says we can't think of ourselves anymore as like 190 little boats, like the different countries of the world, to solve problems like climate change or, I guess, COVID.
That went real well.
And we got to think of ourselves as one big boat, like one world government or something.
And then she is the guy that's the model for this.
And then we see, you know, Mr. Spacesuit there saying, I strongly echo your comments.
I've read some of his other ones, but I read all of that one.
And it's just corporate gobbledygook.
But what he says is that COVID-19 is the ideal window of opportunity, a very narrow window of opportunity to reset the whole world's economy.
And he wants to create this whole new world economy he calls stakeholder capitalism through what he calls a public-private partnership where he gets these government guys to sign up with his corporate dudes at Davos and make a partnership.
The UN is actually usually the public thing.
And then he's the corporate guy bringing them together in a World Economic Forum to make public-private partnership.
But if we go back to Mussolini, you know, what was his definition of fascism?
Well, this great reset thing is the big tinfoil hat conspiracy theory conversation that we're experiencing the great reset and that they crashed the economy on purpose.
I don't think that's true in terms of what they did to Los Angeles.
I think it's incompetence.
And I think there's a bunch of people that wanted to do something that showed that they were trying to enact measures to protect people.
And in doing that, they crippled a lot of these restaurants and bars and small businesses.
And they did it because it didn't affect them at all financially.
Like if it had any effect on them financially, like if but it did in a lot of cases.
If it affected the politicians financially, then they would have never enacted those measures.
Like if the politicians got paid based on how well the economy did in their city.
Let's say if you're a mayor and if your economy crashes, you lose all your money.
You would never see lockdowns.
You would never see, like, I have a friend, she lives in Mexico, and she was telling me that in Mexico, nothing's shutting down because the cartels won't allow it.
Well, I mean, what that tells you then is that, you know, there's either absolute disconnect with the politicians or that they're, you know, being taken care of some other way.
And that's the conspiratorial side, that there's money coming in some other way.
So their paycheck is not dependent upon the economy locally, but it's dependent on some other factor.
So this was a conversation he had with a real public official who's in charge of making these decisions.
So this is like this idea that it's all like motivated by some conspiracy to reset the economy.
I don't think that's the case.
I think what's going on is that there's a lot of incompetence and a lot of really dumb people, a lot of foolish people that are running some aspects of government.
Then you have people that are taking advantage of that.
So do you think that places like San Francisco and areas of California where they've enacted these really fucking stupid laws where you can steal up to $900 and something dollars worth of stuff and they don't arrest you at all?
So people just grab stuff, they throw it in a bag and they walk right out the door and no one does anything to stop it.
Do you think that those laws are enacted knowing that they're going to kill these businesses, knowing that this is going to prop up online businesses like Amazon and larger places that have the ability to do that?
You know, I'm in my 40s, which means that I never underestimate any longer the depths of human stupidity.
So it is possible that they're just stupid and don't realize the extraordinarily obvious thing that literally everybody yells at them.
But no, I actually, I'm inclined to believe that they know to some degree what they're doing.
And I wouldn't even be surprised to find out that there's some kind of weird backroom deals.
And that's what this new economy is supposed to be.
It's like we go back to Schwab.
His thing is he calls it stakeholder capitalism.
You don't care about the shareholder anymore because profit is too dangerous of a motive.
You care about these people that are called stakeholders.
They're going to tell you, you know, they're experts in environmental policy.
They're experts in health policy.
They're experts in, trust the experts, in social policy.
You know how I feel about that, these critical theories or whatever.
They're experts in best practices and governance.
And they've created these whole investment metrics called ESG metrics, environmental social governance metrics.
And they score your company based on how high up and down you are.
But it's only really big companies that get to play in that.
game.
And so the people who are the experts get to be the stakeholders who are going to speak on behalf of everybody else and say, well, that's bad environmental policy.
So your company is going to get a bad score.
So maybe we won't carry you in our mutual fund or whatever else.
We're not going to trade your stock.
We're not going to manage your assets, whether it's BlackRock or Vanguard or any of these huge entities or the World Economic Forum.
And we're not going to give you the favors anymore.
And so there's this perverse scoring system that's worked its way in.
And the goal is to shift out of that.
Now, what are the politicians doing?
Well, I mean, we see obviously there's corruption somewhere.
We got insider trading happening in Washington that's like coming out all over the place.
The Department of Justice is investigating moms and dads for showing up to school boards.
And they're also investigating maybe some real crime, but not the guy that came here to Texas from Britain who shouldn't have been able to even get in.
He's British, but he's got a name that would indicate that he's Islamic.
But he's got a British accent as well.
And he came in from the UK and he was like eyeballs on him from MI5 or something like this.
You know, they knew he was a problem.
And he comes over to the U.S., somehow it manages to get a firearm.
Next thing you know, he's at a synagogue taking hostages, doing whatever they do.
They deal with the situation and the FBI and the president come out and they're like, well, we don't know the motive.
The guy's screaming his motive while he's doing it.
And we have no idea why this happened.
And we have to do an investigation.
It's just the weirdest farcical thing.
And then meanwhile, the big joke that was going on on the internet with it was, well, they didn't have time to catch this guy coming into the country because they were too busy investigating parents at school board meetings who are showing up because of that.
Like actual journalists, Azer Namani, for example, I think it was leading on this, dug up proof that somebody in the Biden administration, maybe the Department of Education, maybe it was Cardona himself, gets this letter, this memo, and it goes to the National School Board Association and SBA.
And so they actually just send it back to the Biden administration and say parents are showing up at school boards.
There's all this violence in danger.
But it came from inside the house.
Send it to the school board association, which most of its members didn't even know that this was happening.
And a lot of them have disavowed it.
And then they send it back to the DOJ.
And then Merrick Garland comes out and says that they're going to start watching parents at school board meetings like their domestic terrorists.
And so anyway, McAuliffe came out and he said that they don't want that parents shouldn't have a role in shaping curriculum and that they don't want that going on amid these huge scandals.
You know, they have this exactly what people said would happen a number of years ago, this kid claiming to be clearly disturbed, claiming to be non-binary, wearing a skirt, goes in and rapes a ninth grade girl in the bathroom.
Exactly what people said.
You remember back in like 2015, people were like, if you do the trans bathroom thing that way, we're going to see sexual assaults.
Well, that's exactly what happened.
And then the schools cut, like, the school district covers it up.
Yeah, and all these activists showed up when the dad of the girl comes to this meeting or whatever, and they provoke him, and he like flipped out.
I don't remember if he hit somebody or if he just started screaming at him.
He might have hit somebody.
And then he becomes like, you know, the worst thing ever.
And then, I mean, there's a lot of stuff right now going on where they don't actually want parents involved.
They want to control the kids.
They think that the school is the professionals, the experts, and that they know the best policies for masks.
They know the best policies for curriculum.
That's where they're getting all this social-emotional learning and critical race theory and the queer theory, gender theory stuff rammed into the schools.
And they're like, no, you know, parents, if you don't like this, you're not the experts.
You don't understand.
And you're seeing school boards where, you know, they're not taking public comments or they're limiting those rather significantly now because I don't think they do want parents speaking up.
The thing about it is, if you look at it reasonably, like if there was any other time in history, you know, in the history of like my life, and you thought of parents coming in to tell teachers how their kids should be taught, you're like, well, what do the parents know?
But then when you see some of the ridiculous shit that kids are getting taught in school today, and then if you follow like libs of TikTok, and you see some of these crazy groomer teachers.
Well, I mean, a lot of people don't know that the radicals of the 60s.
There's this book.
It's called The Critical Turn in Education.
And I've been doing a podcast series on this book.
It's written by a guy named Isaac Gotzman.
He's a Marxist education theorist from Iowa State.
And at the very beginning, it's like literally the first sentence of the book.
He says, you know, well, where did all the radicals from the 60s go?
Well, they didn't go to yuppedom.
They didn't go to, I forget what he lists a couple of things.
He says, no, they went to the classroom.
And so a lot of those radicals, those violent radicals, 68, 69, early 70s, you know, we could name Angela Davis, for example, as a key figure, literally went to K-12 activism.
And through the 70s, they kind of prepared the ground.
By about 1985, though, this so-called critical turn in education, which means critical theory, or as this Gotzman says, he says, we shouldn't call it critical theory.
We should call it what it is.
We call it critical Marxism.
By about 85, these guys had basically become dominant in terms of setting teacher college training.
So if you're going to go to teacher college somewhere, Marxists are teaching you how.
And they bring in this guy from Brazil.
His name is Paulo Freire, straight up Marxist educator.
I've read his books.
He's like quotes Marx.
He quotes Lenin.
He's like, this is how it should be.
He's got this total weird idea, like teachers and students, kids shouldn't have, adults and children shouldn't have like a differential in power.
They should be like equals with one another, which is a terrible idea because kids need structure and boundaries, especially in a learning environment.
The goal is to train them in what he calls conscientization.
I didn't say that right.
It's a hard word to say.
And here we are.
But to raise in them what's called a critical consciousness, which is a Marxist consciousness of oppression in society.
Basically, he's looking around and he says people are going to realize that they're dependent based on the society that they live in.
And rather than saying, okay, maybe you are, you know, maybe you're working a shit job.
Maybe you're stuck.
Let's teach you responsibility, how to take control of your own life and, you know, raise yourself up and work hard and put your head down or whatever.
He says, no, we're going to go the collective route instead of the individual route.
We're going to try to have a revolution.
Freire famously says in this book from 85, which brought him into the U.S., a book called The Politics of Education.
He says that the revolution, meaning the communist revolution, has to be perpetual.
He says if a revolution ceases to be a revolutionary, it becomes a status quo.
And so he says, as you awaken to this critical consciousness, this conscientization, which I still can't say, well, I've even got it stuck in Portuguese in my head.
I don't read Portuguese, but it's usually not translated.
And I can say that worse.
Like, that's way bad if I try that one.
Conscientate to Chow or something like that.
And anyway, it means to awaken to consciousness.
And so their goal by the mid-80s in education was to start turning education more and more and more along this erase all power differentials, awaken a consciousness.
And this queer theory stuff fits right within that.
So you're doing that at the identity level by breaking down the barriers between gay and straight, male and female, et cetera.
So it latches right into that.
In fact, the communists have been using techniques in sexual liberation, et cetera, back to the 1920s.
This dude, George Lukac, that overthrew Hungary or helped overthrow Hungary in their communist revolution in 1919.
He became like their deputy commissar of education.
And his whole thing was like, let's sexualize the kids because it'll break them away from their religion.
It'll break them away from their parents.
They'll hate their parents because they won't understand, you know?
And so he's like, let's sexualize the kids.
This has been a thing that they've done throughout a lot of communist attempts, whether in the 20s and 30s and then again in the 60s with Herbert Marcuse leading the sexual liberation kind of side of Marxism through the 60s.
And they're doing it again.
And so these people are Marxists.
They started to take over education schools and they're not going to say no to this stuff when it comes knocking on the door.
So this book, again, Critical Turn in Education, says it went in three stages.
First, there was Marxist critiques in education.
Then by the mid-80s and early 90s, the post-structuralist feminists took over the critique of education.
And that's where they brought the queer stuff in.
And I mean queer with like official queer theory.
I'm not doing the, just be clear for the people who hate us.
See, Douglas has a free pass because he's gay and he's brilliant.
So when he talks about these things, they don't know what to do.
Like when he starts talking about these considerable issues when it comes to trying to figure out what's what, you know, he can kind of get away with stuff.
And when he explains that at the end of all these civilizations, with the Roman civilization, the Greek empire, they all started falling into this thing where they wanted to redefine gender.
We can form our alliances now worldwide based on what we think, what we agree with, what we think is funny, what we don't, rather than, oh, yeah, we all happen to be in Texas, so we've got to get along.
You know, we don't, I know I'm going to sound like Jordan Peterson with the whole, you know, we don't know the effects that this will bring.
But really, we don't.
We suddenly went from, with the advent of social media, we went from an era where extroverts, by kind of definition, kind of ruled the public sphere.
Introverts did a lot of important work.
We're not to discount that.
But once you get them online, now introverts have this hugely expanded voice while extroverts are out doing cool stuff and they're not on the internet.
And then you add in people with like social anxiety issues.
Well, they're not out hanging out and like going to the bar because they have social anxiety.
What are they doing?
They're on the internet yelling at people.
And then you get certain ones, these people who are absolute obsessives.
And I'll tell you about this fanatic thing, this obsessives.
So the military, it turns out Eisenhower after World War II was like, all right, these black soldiers fought like hell for us.
We're going to desegregate the military.
This is way before like the schools or any other thing.
Like, we're going to do this.
And so they're like, how do we integrate the units, right?
How do we do this?
And so they started this thing with these different approaches to diversity training, what we would recognize as so-called diversity training now.
And the first program they had, they called it putting them on the hot seat.
And what they would do is they would basically do what diversity training in workplaces does now.
You know, they'd put like some guy down there and make him confess all of his different racist ideas and then have like a lesson about it.
And like everybody would have to confess their racist stuff.
And they'd put the black people there and like, oh, I've always thought this bad stuff about you.
And what they found out was that for a small percentage of the group, it worked.
It made them more aware of these attitudes and biases and what a jerk they're being.
And it worked.
And then for most of the people, they actually had way less of a problem with race than anybody was assuming, and it didn't really do anything.
Plus, it's all just kind of a waste of time, and nobody likes administrative BS anyway.
They just want to do the stuff.
But then for another small segment, maybe about, I don't know what percentage, so I don't want to make some number up, but some small percentage, they literally became fanatics.
That's the word in the report.
They became fanatics who wouldn't do anything except go around and call everybody racist all the time for everything.
Yeah, it was so bad that they had to cancel the program.
And that's right.
That's exactly right.
It's Twitter.
And so, you know, these obsessives, I just mentioned, you know, post-structural feminism working into the critical turn in education or whatever.
Critical race theory, by the way, is the third step, Gotzman says, is the turn to education.
But, you know, I just mentioned that, but they were the bloggers, man.
Back in like 08, 09, it was like every blog in the universe was some feminist woman bitching about something and like bitching about somebody and bitching about, you know, why can't we grow out our armpit hair?
Why can't we stink?
Why do we have, why can't we wear, you know, whatever clothes we want?
Why can't we do this?
Why can't we do that?
And it's a patriarchy-patriarchy.
These people, there's your obsessives, right?
Yeah.
And they totally dominated that blog sphere when before, like, even like that was like pre-social media or barely social media time.
And that's where everybody was like sharing these ideas.
And so these obsessives gained an extraordinarily outsized voice.
Okay, this is a big idea because it's the idea that a very small group of extremely intolerant people can change a very large number of normal people.
So 3 or 4% being just absolutely intolerant can move the entire needle.
And the way it works, the example, I saw this video on YouTube, so I'm stealing this.
The way it works, though, is like you can imagine like a family of four and you got like, you know, the daughter or whatever decides she's vegan, the teenage daughter.
She's like, I'm vegan now.
And so like whoever's cooking, the parents are like, well, I can cook two meals or I can, you know, get in a fight every night at dinner or I can just cook some vegan stuff.
Right.
And all of your options are basically, unless you're going to go kind of like hard-nosed, all of your options are kind of bad except just keep the peace.
And that's it.
Be soft, be nice, keep the peace, no struggle, no, no, don't offend anybody, right?
And so now your whole family is cooking vegan meals.
So now the neighborhood has a barbecue.
You got one girl who's actually vegan, whole family's eating vegan, and they're like, well, we need vegan options.
And so now the barbecue of the neighborhood's like, well, we got to do something for the Johnsons down the street.
You know, they're vegans now.
And so what can happen is like the whole neighborhood now has to accommodate vegans, but there's one vegan, right?
And you can just see how this expands out.
This process is called renormalization.
So when you have this small contingent of obsessives, which these people who are in these Marxist ideologies, woke Marxism is what I don't even call it woke anymore.
I call it woke Marxism.
Woke Marxists are completely obsessives and they're completely intolerant.
Anything but their way is, you know, sexist, racist, probably capitalist, patriarchal.
And you are the worst kind of person and the dumbest person and probably crazy for not going along with them.
And they can renormalize an entire, say, social media platform, at which point they have this massive amount of dominance over the national discourse.
My friend Giannis Pappas just got a strike against his account on YouTube.
And I'm going to read you the transcript of what they struck because this is wild shit.
Because it's gotten to the point where it doesn't have to have anything to do with it has nothing to do with bullying, nothing to do with hate, nothing to do with anything.
Like he's just joking around about stuff.
And he makes a point or he makes a joke that is essentially, you know, I mean, he's just being silly about the gay pride parade.
And he said, I support gay rights, but can we move the gay parade tonight so I can explain gay rights to my daughter without having to see your asshole before noon?
That's a joke.
It's just a joke.
They gave him a strike on his account for that.
I mean, this is wild shit.
And then there was another one that he had that was about, there was another one that he had about, I think it was about Justin Bieber or something like that.
He said that to try to diminish what Josh Zepp's been saying about Australia because he works for Australian media and he's trying to be nice, nice over there.
And I think, you know, sometimes people, when they work for an organization that is going along with the government's rules and guidelines, and they think everything's good and fine, and you don't live in Australia, so you don't know.
Like, something's going on where people get to feel morally superior, whether they're their executam who are going to knock down or interns or whoever knocks down that account.
Not only that, this concerted effort by a group of these people, Francis Collins and Fauci and all these people, to try to demonize these distinguished intellectuals.
Yeah, he's, but he's been doing this since the 70s.
Like, he started, it wasn't called the World Economic Forum in 71, but that's when he wrote his first thing to try to come up with this stakeholder capitalism scam that he's worked out and tried to foist on the world.
And so the Great Reset, obviously, people are like, wait, what is this bullshit?
It's like, it's not going well for them.
So now he comes out with a book, The Great Narrative.
And then you look at what CNN's doing.
You look at all the left-wing media, MSNBC, you're like, and that's been the hot word of a year, right?
The patented fill will lock into place when laying on your back, bunch my pillow registered under the curve of your neck to get the right amount of support for you as an individual.
I got a really stiff, thick pillow, and I was sleeping on it for like a couple of weeks, but I was sleeping with my head kind of bent because it's so thick.
Yeah, but that actually kind of makes sense because like if you're running around saying the election was a fraud that Donald Trump is the true president and like they can get in trouble for that like that's that's a real problem because you're promoting propaganda you're you like if you have that person on your network and you're putting it out on the airwaves there's a faction of our country that really does believe the the that their true president is donald trump and that jfk jr is alive and he's gonna meet donald trump in the middle of fucking
Dealey Plaza.
It's a bit thick there.
Yeah, but you know what I mean?
A lot of those QAnon dorks, they believe that stuff.
Right.
So if you go and start spouting out that kind of shit on TV, on Fox, that's bad for business.
Because people have this thing about Fox already.
Right, of course.
It's that it's the home for less than...
Sorry, Fox.
It's the home for less educated, loony people that are more inclined to believe in Pizzagate.
This is what the internet's causing is a lot of open dialogue about things, some of which is gonna be wacky.
I actually no longer worry about misinformation.
I actually don't worry about it anymore.
I worry about propaganda, but I don't worry about misinformation.
And the reason I don't worry about misinformation is because if the ideas are out there and people are discussing them, one thing you find out is that stupid stuff gets shot down fast.
How do you know?
Look at the official narratives that got spun around COVID and look how fast internet sleuths were like, nope.
There's a large chunk of our country that believes that it's horse medication and that it's dangerous.
There was a line of people waiting to get into an emergency room in Oklahoma for gunshot wounds because there was so many people in there that were overdosing on Ivermectin.
Rolling Stone said it.
Rachel Madow said it.
It's 100% full shit.
It never happened.
By the way, how many people are getting shot in Oklahoma?
So they've got the official narratives that they can put out.
And then I think that I'm not worried about misinformation.
In fact, I think that more information is generally better.
And then we have this ability for these ideas to compete and for ones, not necessarily that are better, but often ones that are better, but also ones that are, you know, the danger is the ones that are more sticky or salient or interesting or that they get people's emotions going or whatever.
There are processes, though, there are the selection processes that let ideas rise up to the top.
So that's what I'm saying is I don't think that we should be censoring these things.
Like if Mike Lindell, for example, is doing this gigantic thing, and maybe it's all complete horseshit, but he's got like the statistics and he's done all this thing and the voting machines and the dominion and he's done like he's got all this shit.
He's put millions like this maybe is a newsworthy thing if for no other reason so that it gets more eyeballs on it so people can say this is where it's bullshit.
This is where that falls apart.
If it's kind of like it's where this stuff gets caught up in these little corners where it confessed that I worry more about bad info.
I want to see it as open as possible.
I'm not saying that Fox has to like do whatever with its programming, but I'm saying that it's better that we're having kind of a free information economy, if you will, than one that's we've got the official gatekeepers of that, whether they're stupid, I almost said the F word, professors.
Yeah, the other day I gave this talk with these like very nice people and some of them are quite religious and they were like, just don't say the F word during your talk.
And I was like, okay, but what if it's like fucking commies?
And they're like, well, you can say fucking communist, but no other way.
It's like free speech, but they were like, don't swear.
But if communist is the next word.
So I'm like that with professors right now in many regards, but also these media heads.
Like, I don't need an aristocracy telling me how ideas, which ideas are going to be true and false.
Now, as you know, we talked about postmodernism last time I was here with you.
I'm not exactly a postmodernist, but I listened.
I read that shit, right?
And I didn't just read it to like, oh, this is why these guys are wrong.
I read it, right?
I read Michelle Foucault, for example, and he talks about how power works.
And he's got a lot of crazy shit in there because he's ultimately at the bottom a Marxist.
And so capitalism has to be the problem of everything.
But he's got a lot of stuff that we should be listening to right now.
What he's saying is if you have the official power, he's saying it's always this, but I don't think that's true.
But if you have the official power of like the state and the media or whatever, and they get to decide what's true, they impose like a narrative of truth.
Like there's these aristocrats, professors, media personalities, et cetera, they get to decide what's true for everybody.
And that's what we all have to nod our heads and go along with.
Uh-uh.
I don't like that.
I think that the aristocracy that we had in the 19th century was not a great thing.
In the 17th century, 18th century, I don't think that was a great thing.
The serfs, you know, getting abused and whatever else.
I think we've got the exact same scenario going on in the information world right now.
And the internet's breaking it free.
So guys like Alex Jones breaking it free.
What do they do?
Turns out he was like right about 93.5% of everything he said, except for maybe the Satan stuff.
And so I look at that and I think, no, I want the opposite of that.
So I'd rather have, you know, occasionally you end up with Mike Lindell on Fox News talking.
Like if Hannity wants, or whoever it was, I don't know, wants to have him on the show, like let it freewheel.
Let his idea get out there.
And then like, let's say it's 100% bullshit.
Let all these geniuses on the internet, because they're everywhere and they don't have anything else to do, start crunching the numbers and be like, here's where he made his mistake.
No, but it's like, I feel like we don't want to have a very relatively small number of characters that head these things up getting to determine what is going to be credible.
However, when you're a person who's looking at this from the outside, you say this guy is on TV in front of millions of people and he's saying things that are absolutely not true that are in fact dangerous to democracy because he's saying that our elections are invalid.
They're rigged.
They're fake.
Donald Trump should be the president.
And that allows all these other people that are doing, whether it's the people that are censoring folks on YouTube, the people that are censoring folks on Twitter, they look at this and go, see, this is why we have to do this.
No, I'm not saying we do, but I'm saying that the reason why they feel like they have to is because of the fact that it's so easy to dismiss them right now.
Also, if you look at it from a perspective like strategy, there's one versus many.
Like they're kind of surrounded.
If you looked at Fox News, and I'm not saying like, it's not a value judgment, like one's wrong or one's, I'm just saying if you looked at like the way their perspective on the right is represented in the news, there's fucking no one left.
OAN, that wacky news network, they just got kicked off of direct TV.
So he thinks that they used the Dominion machines that had shady programming, et cetera.
And I don't know the details of his hypothesis, but that they were changing the numbers in a particular way to move votes from one guy from Trump to Biden, et cetera.
And so he spent millions of dollars on some kind of statistical analysis to dig into this, right?
And so that's like he had this whole conference in South Dakota or something about it over the summer last year.
Like this is a whole thing.
And so he's trying to make this point.
And what there are, like it or not, millions upon millions of Americans who are looking at the 2020 election and they're kind of squinting one eye and they're like, okay, maybe something, I mean, like maybe as many as 50 or 80 million Americans are like, I think something shady went on there.
And so he's got this hypothesis, right?
So the distrust in the democratic process in the country is already shaken.
So my view is when somebody's bringing up a point like this, the only way, like if something happens where people are suspicious enough where there's a guy that's going to devote millions of dollars to something like that, you've really, of course, you could just have a crazy guy with a lot of money.
That's always possible.
But the way that you recover what's dangerous to democracy is not tying off those loose ends, Right?
So, if you leave that open, like the trust is already shattered.
And, okay, and he spent all this money and he presents his evidence, and then people, you know, as ideally transparently as possible, analyze the evidence that he presents and says, This is, oh my God, this is an emergency, or there might be something here, or, you know, this is total bullshit.
You're a crazy person, and we're never going to hear from you again in any significant way.
Go home.
That is what's missing, is that transparency.
So, what's dangerous for me to democracy is the idea that there are going to be people, whether it's Sean Hannity and Fox, whether it's Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, whether it's Don Lemon on CNN, whether it's Anthony Fauci, whatever the hell he is, whether it's Joe Biden, you know, back in 1989 because he doesn't know where he is, whatever it happens to be.
I don't think it's good for anything if those people get to delimit what we're going to see as officially true, and that's what we have to go with.
Because that's the mess that we're in with why you got attacked for taking horse medicine, even though you took the human version, obviously, and you took a Nobel Prize-winning medicine with decades of human use and science and success behind it.
And that was a decision made between yourself to take it and your doctor as the consultant who recommended and was able to get you the prescription to get it.
That wasn't, Anthony Fauci didn't need to intervene in that discussion.
You could have taken these pills, which have a long time of human use, and it could have done nothing.
It could have just given you diarrhea, or it could have made you sick or whatever.
And then your doctor could have reacted accordingly to try to create a treatment protocol for you tailored to what's actually going on in your individual body as you dealt with the couf.
You don't need a bureaucrat, I think, deciding, no, no, no, these are the official things that we're going to say work and don't work because that's where you get yourself in these really dangerous positions.
And I would rather it be out there and have that transparency to the maximum degree with people who are weighing in on this and saying, no, actually, he's totally nuts.
I think there should be platforms in terms of, you know, whether it's like a YouTube or a Twitter and Facebook and all these fall into this thing that are accessible to all Americans.
Because the right to express yourself when we live in this very strange time of misinformation, disinformation, the counter that should be more communication.
According to the headlines, when I Google the evidence he has for voter fraud from last week, he has claims that he has evidence that will put up to 300 million Americans in jail for up to jail.
I would too, but if you're Hannity and you've got a seven-minute segment with this fucking loon, you don't want this guy spouting this kind of crazy shit on your show.
Like, is this a huge discussion point that Fox has been dancing around a little bit here and there?
so in that case it's like let's bring this guy in hear what his evidence is and then start bringing up counterpoints if you want to bring up counterpoints i i just don't want any i think that where we're trapped the most is that people like whoever it is that instagram gets to strike down your buddy and my onion ring joke and whoever it is like you were saying the social media platform
I don't think that we want people that we don't even necessarily know who they are in a lot of cases getting to make the decisions of what is and is not going to be considered true, especially when they're putting flags on stuff like Leonard Skynyrd and Hootie.
Repressive tolerance is the name of an essay from a Marxist in the 60s.
Herbert Marcusa was the guy's name.
Most influential guy in the 60s in the Marxist team, probably.
His book from 1964, the year before the essay, was called One Dimensional Man, sold 300,000 copies.
So that's in the 60s, right?
It's pretty big time.
And he writes this essay in 65 called Repressive Tolerance, and he says, and I shit you not.
I mean, we could pull up the quote.
It says that repressive tolerance means, or actually he calls it liberating tolerance.
Liberating tolerance means tolerating movements from the left and being intolerant against movements from the right.
And so the whole tilted playing field is visible there.
And his justification, he says, is that we could have stopped World War II.
We could have stopped Auschwitz if we would have withdrawn democratic tolerance, that's his words, from Hitler when he was making his speeches.
And he says, so this only, this is censorship.
He says this is even pre-censorship.
He's like, this obviously can only make sense under a circumstance.
It's like emergency powers, right?
He says, under a circumstance, there's clear and present danger.
And then he literally goes on, totally mental, to say, I maintain that our society is in that situation all the time.
Thus, we always have to censor the right, pre-censor the right.
He says we have to stop the idea from ever entering their head.
So this is where, you know, this kind of suppression of, say, Mike Lindell's views may be totally batshit or Alex Jones' views.
We have to stop the thought from ever entering the head.
Why?
So that we can avoid Auschwitz in a world war.
I don't think it's actually how it works.
We've got this Marxist telling us that we need to tilt the playing field so that the left is always advantaged.
He even says in the essay that you have to tolerate even when they're violent because revolutionary violence is different than reactionary violence.
So violence that serves causes for the left is actually breaking up an oppressive order, whereas even intolerance from the right is maintaining an oppressive order.
So they're not on a moral level.
So we have to, even if there's violence involved, we have to tolerate whatever the left does.
And if there's, you know, even to the point of not allowing the thought to enter the head of people on the right, we have to censor, and he says pre-censor, and repress, repressive tolerance.
We have to repress the right wing.
And that's the game that we all have to live in right now.
Yeah, sure, you know, Ratzinger's not exactly this liberal dude, right?
But there are occasionally these cases where something doesn't quite fit that mold.
But for the most part, that's what we're seeing.
Like everybody else you named is a right-wing dude.
I mean, you and I know right now that if we were going to go on Twitter, we pull out our phones right now, we're going to get on Twitter, and it's like, all right, let's do a contest to see who can get banned from Twitter first.
Like you know exactly what types of opinions are going to get you banned.
And not only are they, they're not even just bringing it into schools, they're doing it in an underhanded way because a lot of people have forgotten this, but the state, turns out, does not have free speech.
Citizens have free speech.
So it's already, this is long government precedent.
It's obvious First Amendment law.
The state, like the teachers, the curriculum, can't do, they can't just say anything.
Free speech is not a defense available to them if they're saying something that's like unprofessional out of their job description or whatever, or bringing pornography into the, even if it's fairly soft pornography, into the classroom.
But the library works differently.
And so they're actually bringing it in through the library.
So these aren't like books like the teacher necessarily is reading through in class.
They're available in the library and they can be, you know, kids will be told the books are in the library.
And they do.
They depict this one.
It's called Genderqueer.
I mean, this is like crazy.
I got in trouble on YouTube for even saying what's in this book.
But I've seen the picture from the book.
It's actually, it shows, you know, a appears to be some kind of lesbian type relationship, or maybe it's non-binary.
And there's a strap-on dildo on a minor and another one performing oral sex on the strap-on dildo.
Yeah, there's another one I saw yesterday, and I apologize because I don't know what the title of it is because I only just saw it where it actually shows people going down on each other like cunnelingus.
And this is in, like, you want to make a graphic novel of that and publish it for adults.
Like when they did the thing, like right after your show, and they were like, we're still updating the quality of our search results or something like that for like a day.
Wasn't there like some poor guy's video, like and he got like totally bombed or whatever because it like prioritized just some random video of a kid saying like it doesn't exist or whatever.
And if there is no childhood innocence, then the childhood doesn't have innocence.
And we can even do away with maybe age of consent laws or we can da-da-da.
So there's that whole sick side of it.
But from the Marxist perspective, having studied the history of Marxism to the 20th century, I'm telling you, this guy, George Lukac in Hungary, laid this plan out.
Because if you get these kids, like, you break down their innocence sexually, especially, what you can do is then they're going to go home and they're going to tell their parents that they're some like lithromantic, you know, demisexual, you know, tree self gender, some, you know, pronouns, tree, tree self, or something.
And their parents are going to be like, what?
You know?
And they're going to be like, mom, you just don't understand.
You know, so you separate the younger generation from the older generations.
You get them to break away and think that they're old fogies, that they're repressive.
You don't want me to be my true self, etc.
The goal is actually to destabilize the kids' identity so that they're groomable.
That's identity without an essence in queer theory.
And then they're groomable.
Then you groom them into this stuff.
And then they look at their parents' culture.
They look at their parents themselves.
They look at their parents' generation.
They look at the parents' religion.
And they say, that doesn't represent me.
We need something completely different.
So it's to set, it's to, just like in Mao's Cultural Revolution, and I mean that much more literally than you might suspect.
It's to cut the tie between the continuity of culture up to that point, including the family, and to start a whole new culture afterwards.
Pol Pot called it year zero.
I guess Klaus Rob calls it a great reset.
But the goal is to separate the new generation from the traditions and views of the old generation.
For Mao, it was to destroy the so-called four olds, old culture, old habits, old customs, and old ways of thinking, sojio and Mandarin.
And these kids would get hopped up on this crap and became the red guard and would go into temples and rip down all the statuary and tear things down and destroy All the old kung fu masters got their asses beat by mobs to get rid of like old Chinese culture because it's embarrassing or whatever.
You know, there's all Chinese medicine, of course, and you can say, well, that stuff was bullshit.
I probably need it.
Well, it doesn't matter.
It was like destroy the old culture.
And they would go home and they eventually got to where they're beating their parents.
They were beating their teachers that were considered revolutionaries, or sorry, reactionaries instead of being in favor of the Chinese cultural revolution.
And Mao had a whole program he used in schools.
And I see something so similar to that in our schools now that I'm freaking out.
And what he did was he separated.
Listen to this.
You'll see it immediately.
He created 10 classes of people.
Five of them were black, were labeled black classes.
They're bad.
And five of them, because communism, are red and they're good.
And I can't remember them all off the top of my head, but like the black classes were like landlord or child of landlord, right?
What else would you have?
Yeah, landlords, counter-revolutionaries, bad influences was one of the bad influences.
And so he had these categories, people who had lots of money, basically, people who are capitalists, especially landlords.
And so those people are bad.
And if you're like the son of one of those people or connected to one of those people, they're going to tell you at school, you're like the worst kind of person.
Your dad's a landlord.
Your family does this.
You guys are landholders.
Or rich farmer was one of them.
Rich farmer.
It was one of them.
And then they give you these red identities.
Well, you can be a revolutionary.
You know, you can peasant classes, day laborers, that's one, or two of the red classes because it's communism.
But then, you know, you can become a revolutionary.
You can join the Red Guard.
You can take up these, you know, you can be a good communist.
And now we'll call you, we'll give you like a red jacket or whatever, a red feather.
I don't know, something.
And you're like one of the cool kids.
Whereas we're going to constantly tell you how bad you are over here.
Now, take out those classes like, you know, landowner or whatever and switch it out.
So you start telling all these kids, for example, it's critical race theory stuff, or like I have this here, race Marxism.
You start showing them, you start telling them that they are part of the racist superstructure of society, basically, that they're part of the systemic racism problem.
And so their whole identity, generationally, like your parents are white, you didn't do it, it's not your fault, but you have all this privilege, blah, blah, blah.
You have these kids who are like, well, how can I have a positive identity?
What do those look like?
Well, you could be black, or some other racial minority, you could be queer.
And all of a sudden, you have a pathway, a funnel into a positive identity, not gay, because that's not enough.
You have to actually be queer.
Like, it's not meant to be a stable, like, oh, well, I'm a guy who likes guys.
I mean, if you wanted to yell about things the right way, but mostly you're going to have to adopt something, one of these made-up genders, sexual orientations.
They even have romantic orientations, like who you're romantically attracted to instead of sexually attracted.
They got this.
They're obsessives.
We've said that word earlier.
But you give people a pathway.
And where do you see the vast majority of these young people transitioning and seeking non-binary and bisexual and whatever else?
Young girls who are the most social status concerned.
And white man is probably not going to get anything anyway.
And so these young white girls are all becoming some kind of weird gender thing.
Why?
Because they're getting constantly barraged by critical race theory that says white is bad.
White is complicit in racism.
You're a racist.
You can become an ally.
That's a red identity, ally, racial ally.
But you also have these pathways to where you get social status.
And it's not enough that you're going to say, oh, I'm bi or I'm pansexual or I'm demisexual or I'm whatever.
It's not enough to do that.
You now have to politically be active in that regard or you're not authentically that.
That's where we heard so many people, Ayana Presley most famously, you know, she's, I put on Twitter the other day, Ayana Presley, and I couldn't remember where she's from.
So I put, you know, it's always like D and then like the state, like D M I if it's from like Michigan or whatever, or D Michigan, I put D hell because I don't remember where she's from.
But Ayanna Presley came out and had this speech during the St. Floyd riots and she was like, we don't need any more black faces who don't want to be black voices.
We don't need any more brown faces who don't want to be brown voices.
What does that mean?
It means you have to be politically active.
Nicole Hannah Jones from the New York Times, the 1619 Project, said the same thing.
There's a difference between being racially black and politically black.
So then in your former home state of California, or not home state, I guess, but resident state of California, Larry Elder runs for governor.
It seems like it's uprooting civil discourse in this country.
And between that and whatever is going on politically between the left and the right in terms of like the people that want to make sure that Trump never gets in office again and make sure that everyone who's right wing is demonized and discussed as the worst aspects of society.
Like leaving one choice.
And the only, like if you're an intellectual, if you're a person who went to college, if you're a person who is a white collar person, like you're not allowed to be anything other than left-wing.
I mean, you can look at what happened with the Cultural Revolution because we're playing out the exact same logic.
And I mean, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, not the American one that we're in the middle of right now.
The logic is the same.
So it goes to a situation in which we don't have a Mao Zedong character that's going to lead this and use the chaos that it creates to seize an iron grip of communist power.
What we have instead are people like this Klaus Schwab introducing Xi Jinping and saying, you know, I, you know, what does he say?
I echo everything that you just said or that you said in 2017.
I don't want to misquote him.
But then you have him, Xi, talking about how we have the many boats and we're all going to be one boat now, right?
So what you actually end up having is it's not old school communism.
Communism has evolved.
It's like we're not going to have like Stalin like sending people to Siberia with this.
What you're going to have is this new thing where the corporate, those ESG scores are going to come down ultimately to control people at the level of social credit for themselves.
Like if you want to be able to bank, if you want to be able to go to the grocery store, maybe if you want to go like in Australia more than five kilometers from your house, you have to have a justified reason.
That was a whole thing in their COVID.
Like whatever the state of affairs there is, that's true.
Like they, during their hard lockdown, you couldn't be a certain distance away from your house.
Well, they can track you on your phone.
You know, if you've got a GPS in it, if they needed to, and especially if we go all the way into like these digital ID apps or whatever.
And so the goal is to install something that they have total social control run by the goons who think that this is a good idea so that we can become this one.
It's not communism.
It's a mixture of communism and fascism into one thing.
What was the one thing that they were recently talking about about labeling people that are dissenting against government opinions, people that are rabble-rousing?
Okay, the FBI and the DHS are both charged with preventing terrorist attacks in the United States, including those conducted by domestic violent extremists.
The goal drives the FBI's mission to proactively lead law enforcement and domestic intelligence efforts to defeat terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests through an integrated strategy to detect, penetrate, and then how are they describing it?
The FBI and DHS define a domestic violent extremist as an individual based and operating primarily within the United States or its territories without direction or inspiration from a foreign terrorist group or other foreign power who seeks to further political or social goals wholly or in part through unlawful acts of force or violence.
The mere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may constitute extremism.
Because this isn't the, I mean, I saw this graphic thing that had very vague words on it, but this last part is very clear that they're saying, you know, you may have constitutionally protected free speech, and so mere advocacy might not, of these things, may not be sufficient to qualify you as an extremist.
The scary part is the word may, of course, because that's a squishy word.
The DT for the FBI's purpose is referenced in the U.S. Code, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, as defined as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any other state or any state appearing to be intended to intimidate or coerce civilian population.
Here's one.
Influence the policy of government by intimidation, coercion, or affect conduct of government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occurring primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
So if the FBI is involved, or the feds, if they are involved, and that's why that woman was not able to answer those questions to Ted Cruz and said, I can't answer that.
I can't answer that.
And things that you should be able to answer, like, were you involved in inciting violence?
Were you involved in violent activities?
So what do you think they were trying to do?
And why were they trying to do that?
Do you think it's because it's no secret that Donald Trump had a terrible relationship with the intelligence community?
He disparaged them, dismissed them, called them incompetent, fired Comey, the whole deal, right?
And they were out to get him.
Sure.
Supposedly, right?
Do you think that what they were trying to do by inciting that EPS guy saying, we need to go in there?
After you guys noticed that, I saw this news came out that he is going to be doing an interview with the FBI to transcribe what he was doing there that day, I guess.
So they're trying, of course, they turn it into like a holiday or something weird, right?
So they're trying to, it's really important to them that this was a very significant event.
Right.
And what are they doing with it?
Well, they immediately, literally like the next day, which is oddly fast, you know, had legislation that they wanted to put to control domestic extremists.
Then they have this extremism stand down that they do throughout the military all year last year where they're, and, you know, they're talking to him about white supremacy and they're talking about all the collapse of the.
And so then, and I don't know if you saw this, the New York Times on January 1st.
So first of all, there's all this like kind of like Patriot Act 2.0 looking shit coming out of this to label people who are, we'll say, at least further to the right as potential domestic terror threats or whatever to our democracy, which is its own thing.
But on January 1st, the New York Times published an article titled, Every Day is January 6th now.
Is that not like the stupidest thing you've ever heard?
But I just told you about the essay from 1965 called Repressive Tolerance.
So what does this mean?
If every day is January 6th, we always have to be aware that there's this one side that supported Trump.
Obviously, one of the things they wanted out of it, though, speaking of Trump, they wanted to make sure that Trump would never be able to hold office again.
How do we know that?
Because they kick that political football every chance they get.
They try to use something to justify that he can never hold office again.
So only their dudes can hold office.
We got you.
And then this article, though, is the idea of repressive tolerance.
It is every day is January 6th.
And what did Marcuse say?
The clear and present danger is the constant state of our society.
It's the normal state of affairs.
What does that justify?
Repression of movements from the right, intolerance of movements from the left.
It's exactly what they were, what they were, if they were the, if the FBI constructed the bulk of the bad stuff that went down on J6, they were trying to construct their excuse to have a political biasing of the playing field that represses rightward and opens the gate leftward even further.
And so, and to add like Department of Justice, FBI, et cetera, teeth to this otherwise kind of cultural movement.
So it's the kind of, again, having studied the Chinese Cultural Revolution, it's the kind of thing that I start to get really nervous about.
The idea that if you read Mao, he's always talking about counter-revolutionaries.
He's always talking about conservatives and rightists, and that those people have to be suppressed.
They have to be stopped.
They're a constant threat to the people's movement or to the revolution or whatever it is, however he phrases it, is often the people's movement, is how he phrases it.
And you see this, again, same kind of Maoist and Marxist maneuver to consolidate and lock up power in the, I don't even want to say the Democrats, to be honest with you.
It's not the Democrats.
It's bigger than the Democrats.
It's in the, what often got referred to either as the deep state or the swamp or, you know, whatever, this kind of political class that wants to hold itself up above everybody else.
And make no mistake, there are lots of Republicans involved as well.
The Democrats are virtually completely beholden to this ideology at this point.
But there's a lot of Republicans who are in on the show as well that say the right things sometimes that are mostly ineffectual.
And so there's this thing that some people call it, I call it on Twitter, the regime with a capital R, that wants to create conditions under which it can persecute or at least intimidate its political enemies, including with this Department of Justice letter, it's not connected to January 6th for parents showing up to school boards, pissed off that there's books in the school library, which we already saw what's in those books in the school library.
They want to create the ability to repressively to repress those people so they can create the conditions of repressive tolerance, which is a it's basically like taking the whole political football field and tilting it to the left so everything naturally runs that way and it's really hard to go rightward on anything.
So that's I mean, I seriously think that that's what the point was.
That's why you have guys like Apps Whatever He's doing like telling guys, make this worse than it is and we're going to use it.
I remember on January 6th, 20, was it 21, I guess, I was tweeting.
I was like, you do not know what's happening at the Capitol.
And I wasn't doing some like false flag conspiracy thing.
I was like, you just don't have enough information.
Like stop jumping to conclusions.
Like hold up, wait.
And like, it's just media spin.
I wasn't doing some like, you know, Alex Jones false flag thing.
I was like tweeting that and I'm watching how people are reacting.
And then if you follow the thread where I have that, I even say, you know, this is like the biggest gift in the world to the potential regime that wants to clamp down on its enemies.
It wants to censor people who might be encouraging insurrection in the future, who might be giving people information that makes them, you know, doubt the authority of the CDC or the government or, you know, whatever it happens to be, or the school board or Department of Education or whoever.
And it just makes it that much easier for whatever agendas that they might have, which clearly they have some.
Build Back Better is the name of one of the agendas that they're pushing.
It makes it that much easier for them to try to slide that stuff through if you can't criticize it.
Whatever reason they have, like, okay, so with COVID, we had a lot of different paths.
So this thing gets out in the world.
Let's take the most dumbass naive view.
Like, oh, it just escaped.
No bad actors.
It was a natural thing they were studying, like totally stupid and naive.
It comes out.
It's in the world at some point, say beginning of 2020.
We have a million different paths we can follow.
We can start sending everybody vitamin D and Ivermectin like Mexico just did, right?
Like they're sending people packets of this.
This is, if you get sick, this is what you do.
There are lots of different paths we could have taken.
We could have done a lot of different, but instead, we all locked down.
We all do these other things.
And in fact, we have this book come out in June by Klaus saying that we're doing the great reset using COVID-19 as the pretext.
So when it comes to false flags and it comes to some orchestrated agent provocateur tactics, like when Governor Whitmer, when they were planning to kidnap her, how many different FBI agents were involved in that?
You remember they had the thing over the summer that had something to do, like there's supposed to be this conservative thing about the J6, like free the prisoners or something, and like nobody showed up.
And then there's that famous picture of the feds all standing there in their sunglasses and whatever.
And it's like you read the story of what happened there, and the only person who got arrested at that event, whatever it was, was a Fed by another Fed.
Yeah, well, it's allowed because there's no accountability.
And anybody who calls for accountability can be labeled under, like with a serious call for it, can be labeled under somebody who's a threat to democracy.
They can be labeled under somebody who's, you know, a potential insurrectionist or instigating an insurrection or the federal officers that are involved in this.
If you're pretending to be able to do that, I don't know how you do that.
I mean, if you're pretending to be an insurrectionist and you're plotting some kidnapping of a governor or whatever you're trying to do, like, what the fuck?
It's more common than it should be, but it does happen.
And this has happened before in terms of people that were supposedly informants, people that were working with the FBI that wound up doing something like the Boston bombers.
Have you ever seen the video where they're discussing this?
This is pre-pandemic.
I'm going to send this to you, Jamie, because it's pretty interesting.
They were discussing the mask thing that was going on during the 1918 pandemic.
And they were talking about the ineffectiveness of masks.
It's really kind of wild when you watch it because it's one of those things where you see it and you're like, holy shit, this is kind of, I mean, it's essentially the same thing that we're dealing with now, but this was, you know, 100 fucking years ago.
And the way he handled that, which is very similar in the fact that they suppressed alternative treatments and early treatment options in favor of AZT.
And they stopped all other studies in favor of AZT.
And it turns out that AZT was actually killing people even quicker.
It's like, if it just stops a little bit of transmission, if it stops a little bit of the viral load, if people get less sick than they would have gotten if people were just openly breathing and coughing all over each other, is that better?
And this is that I'm so, I'm actually really glad you said this because I actually wanted to bring this up if we got a chance.
The problem we're seeing with so much of this, especially with the masks and kids, is this collapsing of everything to one damn variable.
Transmission.
That's the only variable that counts now.
Like we don't have to, we don't have to ask questions of like, well, what's it doing to like kids' ability to speak and understand language?
What is it doing to their rates of pneumonia from breathing back in or facial acne or eye infections from breathing their own mouth bacteria back onto their face and being trapped in that?
What's it doing?
How many some absurd number of billions of masks floating in the ocean?
We're missing like it's like it's not even like you miss the forest for the tree.
It's like you're looking at like a freaking bit of moss on the bark and not even knowing what's going on there.
You can't collapse a very multi-dimensional problem that has lots of trade-offs.
There are billions of masks floating in the ocean is a fucking problem.
It is.
And it's funny because if we go back to that ESG thing, they're getting points on their G for good governance by forcing people to wear the masks.
But they should be losing points in the environmental category, right?
But they're not because it's all like stakeholder bullshit.
They want to prioritize COVID as more important, just like all of a sudden COVID didn't matter when Black Lives Matter became more important.
That's S score goes up.
And you can see that that's where you've got to worry about this small number of people who are largely unaccountable being able to make these kinds of decisions for people because they can make it arbitrary.
And in fact, it is arbitrary.
And in fact, it's usually not only arbitrary, but political or politicized, as we're seeing, kind of tie a lot of the things we've been talking about together.
But that collapsing of everything to one variable, there's a million things going on with kids and childhood development and everything.
Is it worth wearing everybody wearing masks at the cost, the environmental outlay, the side effects of wearing masks?
Everybody's like, oh, I can't breathe in at hypoxia.
There is a bit of suck it up buttercup to that.
But there's not suck it up buttercup to like you're breathing back in your gross mouth stuff and getting pneumonia if you're say six years old.
Right.
And like everybody that's dealt with a six-year-old knows how that works.
I mean that's like a running commentary throughout all of comedy of parents comedy for all of history is that they generate snot and they're breathing that back in.
They're touching their face all the time because they got the mask on and it's uncomfortable.
They're not apparently all this stuff's coming out.
They're not learning to speak.
There's so many other variables that have to consider.
Yeah, I legit think that like we've spent too much time caring about what makes lots of other people feel better, and we've put ourselves in a bad position as a result.
See, I worry, though, not only like we talk about mass formation psychosis or whatever, but I worry even about just the idea of giving somebody the idea that they're safe when they're not, if safety is the thing you're appealing to.
Right.
Because that's a good point.
I mean, you know, martial arts, we all have the old thing.
Like, you teach somebody a kata and then they think they know how to fight.
And then they're more confident.
So they go and get their ass beat, right?
And it's, you know, it's a joke if it's some dude and you teach him like his yellow belt and then he goes and gets beat up.
It's like, ha ha.
But because we're guys and we don't care about guys getting beat up and it's funny, like, dude, you tried to do a jump kick, like, really?
But when it's like women's self-defense, and you teach her just enough to get confident enough to get her ass beat, like, that's not good.
And so it's literally part of the Dunning-Krueger effect where, you know, you get overconfident in how good you are and then you make bad decisions or whatever.
That's, you know, I used to teach martial arts and I went to one of those women's self-defense courses where they would put someone in a giant foam outfit.
And then the guy would like try to attack a woman and then the woman would say, no, and she'd like punch him in the face and no and kick him in the nuts and no.
There's a hilarious article that was in, might have been like Pink News or one of those things about Michael Phelps and Michael Phelps unironically saying that it's not fair if this Penn State transgender woman competes against that Michael Phelps ironically says it's not an even playing field.
Like unironically because it's not an even playing field because he's gifted.
Like that's the idea.
It's like they're making a parallel between Michael Phelps being physically gifted because he is physically gifted.
Here it says, none of Thomas' teammates have spoken on the record about their opinion on the matter.
Of course, they don't want to get attacked.
Though some have chosen to do so anonymously to voice their concern.
She compares herself to Jackie Robinson.
She said this is like the Jackie Robinson of Transports.
One of Thomas' teammates told the Washington Examiner last week, she laughs about it and mocks the situation instead of caring or showing that she cares about what she's doing or what she's doing to her teammates.
She's not sympathetic or empathetic at all because she's acting like a guy.
Even like, even just within each, then we separate by weight and we separate by in some sports, depending, and not like the top top, but you know, by years of experience, you know, we used to sport fight some brown belt class, black belt.
And could you imagine standing there dressed like with the button-down white shirt and a Trump hat and holding a tiki torch like just a putz knowing you're a putz?
Oh, yeah, Lincoln Project threw themselves on the threw themselves under the bus, probably to protect the campaign, in my opinion, because their name's already mud.
Like they got all that pedophile stuff going on with them.
So a limited hangout is like instead of letting it all hang out, you're going to do a limited amount of hanging it out.
So you're going to tell some of the truth to regain your credibility, but then you're going to retain the key bad stuff and not give those details away.
And so all of a sudden, you know, basically their narrative has what we're watching right now is a very exciting time, weird time, but exciting time to be alive.
Okay, so they have this elephant, Tusca, or something like that.
It was an elephant's name.
Like, literally, I read this this morning.
And they were trying to figure out something about how LSD does things and controllability and all this.
And some reason they're really interested in elephants.
I don't know what it is.
They have no idea what dose LSD to give an elephant.
So they shoot it with a dart that has like, you know, just the human dose like scaled up.
Some, you know, LSD people will get it like some number of milligrams, like maybe hundreds of milligrams of LSD into the elephant's ass, and it goes nuts.
It's like rampaging around and laying on its side and his tongue turns blue and it's like seizures.
And they try to give it like antipsychotics and the elephant dies, right?
Not that long later.
And then they find out, turns out the elephants are super, super, super sensitive to LSD.
And so they killed this elephant, like screwing around with it.
And this part of like, so Jolly West was like the MKUltra guy doing all the mind control.
Well, Charles Pierce was like this guy and he was kind of in charge of, I don't know what his deal with elephants was, but he was in charge of this thing that was a like coalition of black psychiatrists.
And he was a Harvard psychiatry guy, but he was tied up with West, Jolly West.
And he talked about how, you know, the black man like really loves Jolly West because of all this.
He did all these things with Jolly West.
He did the elephant thing with Jolly West.
I don't know how involved in MKUltra he was, but he was very interested in the way that TV in particular brainwashes black kids to feel inferior.
That was like a huge thing for him.
And so he wanted to try to combat that.
And as far as I can tell, the Sesame Street stuff's not all that nefarious, but it's a little weird that Snuffleophagus is on there now that they killed an elephant and then he makes Sesame Street with a woolly mammoth or whatever as one of the characters.
But a little weird.
But this guy who was literally like a black radical in the 60s, who was also a Harvard psychiatrist and was tied up with all this like police and FBI and like CIA garbage with LSD and all the experiments that he was doing.
And he was a longtime friend and collaborator with West, Jolly West.
This guy is also the guy who names microaggressions, which is this weird little idea that if you get, like if I say like, hey, where are you from?
And you happen to be from like Mexico or something that you have to be insulted now.
Yesterday, it turns out it was Tuesday.
And I went and we were in Austin, so I got tacos on Taco Tuesday.
So this concept, though, comes from this guy who also is like a consultant for Sesame Street and wants to use psychological techniques to do diversity on TV to what looks like good reasons.
I'm not even going to crap on Sesame Street.
I'm not going to say that Sesame Street was a CIA plot to tear America apart.
It's nothing like that.
But this guy's an interesting character.
But he's the guy who comes up with microaggressions and he worked on MKUltra.
Let me ask you this because this is, I mean, I know you think about this probably more than anybody with your understanding of critical theory and your analysis of what's happening.
Let me, because the thing that people argue against is that what people are trying to do by denying critical race theory, they're denying the conversation about the wrongs of the past.
And they want to pretend that nothing happened.
They want to pretend that red line laws didn't happen, Jim Crow didn't happen, slavery didn't happen, or if it did, it's not worth discussing today.
Because what's going on today, we're on an even playing field.
We had a black president and everything's fine.
And they're saying, no, that's not the case.
What critical race theory is to them is discussing the wrongs of the past.
Their assumption fundamentally is that they're discussing it in a Marxist way is what's the problem.
In the Marxist view, there's a system that the entire society operates under a system that dictates how the society operates.
It's in fact that you have the base for Marx.
Let me just do a little Marxism for you.
You have the base, the productive workers, right?
The proletariat.
They make all the stuff.
And so they're the rightful inheritors to society because they make all the stuff.
Then you have these other people like lawyers and priests and governors and businessmen, like all these people, and they don't produce anything real.
They don't actually make stuff.
And they are in what Marx called the superstructure of society, which is what orders how society actually operates.
And it turns out that that thing, the superstructure, produces a bunch of justifications for why it should exist and not be overthrown.
Like, no, people need religion, so they need somebody who understands God.
So we need a minister.
So I should have a job as a priest and you should come to church and tithe to me and pay me.
Or people need, you know, the law needs to be worked out.
So we need lawyers who are going to be able to help people settle disputes and keep it within the realm of the law.
And we need law in the first place.
So now we need lawyers.
So there's these claims about why those jobs should exist and then why people like them should have them.
Well, I went to law school and worked really hard, so my merit got me there.
I worked so hard.
And what the Marxists say is it's all fake.
It's all a mythology created by the people in power to keep their power.
And the belief is that until that is completely overthrown in revolution and the people on the bottom seize power through a period of dictatorship, literally he called it the dictatorship of the proletariat, that the system doesn't change.
So all these, in critical race theory, the ideology is white supremacy.
And the country was founded in white supremacy.
So it doesn't matter that Thomas Jefferson wrote all men are created equals.
He held slaves and therefore he didn't believe it.
Even if you, but if, of course, you read Thomas Jefferson, you see him struggling with this.
Like he doesn't know what to do about it.
And he laments kicking it down the generations to some later time that landed on Lincoln.
But no, he created a system rooted in white supremacy that's for white benefit, et cetera.
And of course, that is in the 18th century, right?
And for the Marxists, that never changes.
All the thing on top, that ideology, the whiteness that you have access to, all the white supremacists ever do is figure out how to hide the fact that they're justifying their illegitimate position better.
So you need a critical theory that's critical, so it can see through those lies.
It understands that there's a structural nature to society that's produced by the interaction of the lower and the upper and what's called dialectical opposition.
And so it generates the structure of society.
This is literally a description of the theory in Marxism called structuralism.
And that structure determines how society goes.
That's called structural determinism, literally.
And so with critical race theory, they want to bring up the past.
What they want to do is invoke and say nothing has changed, except that the people who benefit from white supremacy have figured out ways to hide it better by, say, letting some racial minorities succeed or by desegregating schools.
That was Derek Bell, first critical race theorist, formally speaking.
His big thing was that desegregating schools was actually white people trying to protect American interests against communists at the expense of black people who are now going to have to go to integrated schools where they're going to suffer racism and so on.
It's very pessimistic and cynical analysis.
But nothing, not abolition of slavery through the Civil War and all that blood and everything, which was in a sense a revolution, not the civil rights movement, none of that actually changed racism except in how it manifests.
The ideology from the white supremacist just took a different form.
And in fact, there's a book, I can't remember the title of the book, Race, Class and Nation, Race, Nation, Class, something like this.
It's a French Marxist book I was reading a couple of weeks ago.
They actually say that they say explicitly that racism has gotten worse as it's gone out of the biological and out of the institutional and into the culture where it's super diffuse and you can't find it.
It's exactly the same, but it's more intense and it's invisible, except to people like them who have the special goggles that can see it.
So it's not whether or not we want to have conversations about the past.
It's how those conversations are going to proceed.
And as we have dealt with, some certain very intolerant people are going to say that every other possible way to discuss the past and the present of this country is racist.
Only critical race theory is anti-racist.
Everything else is racist.
That's literally their model, right?
And so it's not about whether we're going to discuss.
Yeah, there are some assholes who don't want to talk about it, who don't want to look at it.
I very rarely hear from messages like that.
I always hear, we're going to talk about our history, warts, and all.
Like, people, I think there's a lot to learn from all of that so we don't do that shit again, right?
And so, no, it's a question of how we're going to do it.
And we have this intolerant ideology that sees only one way to do it.
But what was the definition I just read to you that I give as the first thing in my new book is that critical race theory is calling everything you want to control racist until you control it.
So now you want to have a conversation about race.
Every version except theirs is racist because they want to control the conversation about race.
And that's the problem.
It's not whether or not we're going to have these conversations.
It's not that there were issues and that there are probably things, there are definitely things that still hang over from those issues, redlining, et cetera.
The wealth gap is significant.
What happened following the civil rights with the great society and the decimation of the black family, that's freaking real.
It has serious consequences today in terms of all the things you're talking about.
That's all real, right?
But it's how that conversation has to proceed.
And if they're going to say every single way but our way is racist, all they're trying to do is use that label racist to control the conversation, put it on their terms.
But their terms are this crackpot Marxist thing that it keeps getting worse until when?
I feel like there's also an aspect to it where social media has illuminated these pathways for people to take where they can become famous and prominent by addressing these concerns that people have about racism and calling everyone racist and deciding that things are and looking at things in the most uncharitable light.
Yeah.
Because they then get attention from that and then these arguments and these discussions and they make YouTube videos or they're on television shows or whatever they're doing.
And then it becomes their avenue to success by calling everything racist.
Yeah, so Ibram Kendi is like one of the patron saints of this stuff.
He wrote two really kind of influential books.
One is Stamped from the Beginning, which is what I was just saying.
America was stamped from the beginning in racism.
So it doesn't get out until they have all the power.
And I'll come back to Kendi on the power and the proletariat and the dictatorship thing.
That's super important.
But then he's going over all his colleges and there's this problem and he wants to like crap on white people.
He's got his other book.
Sorry, is How to Be an Anti-Racist?
I forgot to say that.
And that's where he says the only, page 19, the only way, the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.
And the only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.
So he's advocating for discrimination.
So then he looks at the colleges and you have this problem going on.
There's a lot of white kids that are pretending all of a sudden to be people of color, right?
They're pretending to be some other race and they've got their sad story or whatever.
And he's like wanting to say, well, this is just white people trying to cash in on, they're trying to exploit, you know, the system or the situations of people of color to their own advantage.
Yet again, that's like his analysis of everything.
He's called everything racist until you control it.
And it kind of blew up on him because what he's actually pointing out is there is a strong incentive structure to pretend that you're not white because the advantage lies somewhere else now under this ideology.
And so he ends up torpedoing his own thing.
Now, people screw up on Twitter all the time.
Believe you me, I'm all about screwing up on Twitter.
I know about this.
However, there are certain things you don't do when you screw up on Twitter.
And the first thing you don't do is just freaking delete that shit because then everybody's like, oh, he knew he was wrong.
So Kendi deletes it.
And then he starts, comes back the next day and like decides to do these tweet threads and just like blow everybody up.
And so this guy, Jack Pasovic, like calls him out on all of this.
And then he starts going after Jack.
And that's a mistake.
Jack's really good at Twitter.
You don't go after people who are really good at Twitter and have like 1.3 million followers.
And so he ends up just torpedoing himself.
And he actually vanished from the limelight for a little while until they brought him back out for Martin Luther King, you know, Critical Race Theory Day.
And he did his thing there where it's like, we're going to interpret Martin Luther King in a particular way and white people shouldn't be invoking him, especially as, you know, most famous I have a dream speech.
But he vanished for a while because he torpedoed himself because he admitted that under the regime that they've created, that the advantage doesn't flow automatically to white people.
White privilege is no longer material in the systems they've created.
He's like, no, you know, white people have permanent privilege.
And then he's describing how white people have to pretend to be people of color to gain access to privileged locations in society.
It's like, whoops.
And poor guy, he's not the brightest Dr. Kendi.
But I want to talk about him for a second because I mentioned his books, but in 2019, he got asked by Politico.
They have this series, How To, How to Do Whatever, right?
And so how do you fix inequality?
I kid you not.
It's one paragraph.
And he says the way we fix inequality is by instituting an anti-racist constitutional amendment.
And what will it do?
He says it's going to be based on two principles, that all the races are equal.
And inequity, so differences in outcome on average by racial group, over a certain threshold will be, by definition, racist, be chalked up to racism.
Racism was the cause of any outcomes that are different by group on average.
And so then he says, what's this thing, this constitutional amendment that enshrines those principles, which, by the way, he misspelled the word principles.
I could even show you.
He literally misspelled principles in his little one paragraph write-up.
He says, what's it going to do?
It's going to establish this thing called the Department of Anti-Racism, D-O-A.
So if you want to have a local law in your Austin City Council or whatever, or Texas state policy or federal government policy, the Department of Anti-Racism at the federal government, run by people like Ibram Kennedy, who are formally trained experts on racism, which is code for critical race theorists, are going to decide, is that going to be an anti-racist thing to do or might it somehow create racism?
And so they're going to have absolute jurisdiction over all local, state, and federal public policies.
And then we're going to put them into action if they get cleared, pre-cleared, I guess, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces.
So now your Google, it's not even a public policy, and now your corporate policy is going to be subjected to this as well.
And to monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas, the DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
That's a dictatorship led by the anti-racists, as he calls them, who are formally trained experts on racism, which means critical race theorists.
That's Marxism 101, that you're going to have the proletariat, no political appointees, because those would be the bourgeois people, and they're going to seize the means of production, establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that's now going to be in charge of clearing all policies on all levels to make sure that it yields economic equity.
Like he even says in his book that it directly says that the remedy is discrimination.
So it depends on how you want to define racism, which means we're playing this weird game.
And the way that they want to define racism is this weird structural thing that the white people set up society for their own benefit.
It excludes everybody else.
And because they've done that, their benefit is basically perpetual.
They never actually investigate it.
They need a critical theorist to tell them where they're actually being racist.
And so, of course, people don't want there to be racism.
But what they mean by racism is actually how society works because they believe it was created in white supremacy.
And therefore, the entire, like I said before, Marxist structure of society, and Marxist theory, structure of society, the organizing principle of society is actually racism.
So racism is the, and this is quoting from another book, which is critical race theory, an introduction, in case we wonder if it's about critical race theory.
Racism is the ordinary state of affairs in society, not an aberration from them.
It's so-called normal science.
That's from Richard Delgado from 2001.
He wrote that book.
Same book where he actually says that critical race theorists find another liberal mainstay, this is page 23, to be they call into question another liberal mainstay, or highly suspicious, sorry, I want to get the wording right.
Critical race theorists are highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely rights.
They would say definitely so because more white people than black people own guns.
And if black people go to own guns, you say, oh, no, angry black person with a gun, he's probably a criminal, blah, blah, blah.
So yeah, definitely.
Everything for them, the entire structure of society has racism baked into it.
If I put it in their terms, what critical race theory says is that racism was baked into the law from the beginning, stamped from the beginning, being the title of Kendi's other book.
And it doesn't come out without a revolution that installs this kind of guy in power.
I had very short patience with this guy, so it's fun to watch.
Like, I was pretty mad.
So I encourage people to watch it.
I went on Dr. Phil, and we kind of had a debate.
They had a professor, Sean Harper from USC.
He's a critical race theory guy.
I looked up his CV.
He's got all this, like he's not just like got some of the credentials for the academic stuff, but he's got like he lists all the grants that he's worked under.
And it's like, you know, critical race in education, this, blah, blah, blah.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $750,000.
He's got millions from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others to push this critical race theory.
And so this guy's like, I guess he's kind of somehow in connection with Dr. Phil too.
He's like, you know, they know each other.
He's been on the show before or something.
Because at the beginning of the show, he's like, oh, it's good to see you again or whatever.
And you're like, oh, it's good to be here.
So they know each other somehow.
But they brought him out first, and then he dumps on a bunch of parents.
Like, this is a story, man.
I'm still kind of pissed about this.
And I'm a pretty even-keeled guy.
So I got told I was going to go on Dr. Phil, have a debate, and there's going to be this professor.
And so he's their domain expert.
I'm the opposing sides, anti-CRT domain expert.
So they bring the CRT guy out, and he, like, is by himself.
This is no debate.
He's just framing the whole thing.
And then they start bringing out dad.
They bring out this dad, Derek Wilburn.
He's just this guy from Colorado, three kids, whatever.
Conservative black dad.
And he's like, no, this is critical race theory.
And he's saying all this stuff.
And then the professor just starts making fun of him.
Like, you don't know what you're talking about.
It's not even in schools.
That's not critical race theory, like just belittling him, everything he says.
And I'm sitting in the back watching this because I'm not allowed out there yet.
Like, he's lying.
Oh, my God.
Or he doesn't know one or the other.
This is shameful.
And then they bring out some moms.
They bring out another expert on the CRT side first.
And then they double up on poor Derek.
And then they start bringing out some moms.
And it's like professors and professionals versus regular moms and dads.
And it's obviously, you know, stacked.
And they brought me out in like the last two minutes, like, literally.
And I was so pissed off.
Like, Dr. Phil asked me some question, and I was like, I didn't even answer it.
I just started saying like, you guys are lying.
You know, I just kind of went nuts.
It was super fun.
So I sort of, I mean, that kind of is a debate, but they didn't let me actually.
One person said, well, it's not taught in schools, like right at the very end.
Actually, that's not how it ended.
That's how they edited it to end.
The way it really ended was I had gone off about this one specific thing that the professor had laughed at Derek for.
So Derek had said, blah, blah, blah, started in 1989.
And the professor was like, 1989, how silly.
It is books from the 1970s.
And he was referring to Derek Bell's Race, Racism, and American Law from 1970.
But it turns out the founding conference of critical race theory was in Madison, Wisconsin in a convent off the campus of University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1989.
And that's where Kimberly Crenshaw, who's one of the chief critical racers, named it critical race theory because it's critical theory using race and racial justice that employs critical theory.
Well, they were coming, like, they came back into my dressing room kind of one by one and told me, you know, secretly, I listened to your podcast and agree with most of what you say.
But why do they have these kind of conversations where they have a bunch of people who are professionals at discussing these topics gang up on someone who's a parent?
Yeah, because a lot of people have been totally plausible that she just thinks this is a good thing and gets swept up.
And I don't know that Oprah Winfrey is a Marxist or anything like that.
I'm not saying anything like that.
I don't know, but the framing was clear.
Just to finish the story, the last word, though, I bust this guy for 1989, and Derek actually being a funny dude, turns to Dr. Phil and he points and he's like, I told you it was 1989.
You know, it's a haha, everybody laughs.
But they edited it to where the last word apparently came from one of them saying, but that's not even taught in schools, which is false.
Not that they're terrible always, but they're terrible for discussing any complex issue that you need to have people say, like, it needs to be a volley.
If they would have brought me and him out, like him first, fine, whatever, and then me afterwards to kind of discuss and respond and then start bringing parents out, it would have been a very different structure to the show, very different.
Like, if you watch any show, whether it's the Tonight Show or fucking Jimmy Kimmel, the vast majority of people are watching in the beginning and they tail off.
So if you have a complex issue like discussing curriculums in schools that do or don't promote certain theories, you need people to fucking sit down and discuss it.
Yeah, I've seen lots of people try to get these things set up.
I had some friends who concocted this scheme where people would give money and then it'd build up a pot and get donated either to the person participating or to charity, whatever, if they participated to kind of like leverage debates.
Does that work?
For normal people, but when they've tried to get like Robin DiAngelo, white fragility lady lady or Ibram Kendi or whatever, no, they just won't come.
Even if you like exceed the amount that their normal seems like they've got a thing going on and they don't want to fuck up this thing that they've got going on because they're correct.
They've got it completely locked in where they're generating a lot of income by speaking.
And they have a justification in-house inside their theory that says that, you know, if they sit down and talk to you, you're already on like the bad list, right?
One was I don't perceive Biden as being a radical.
I perceive Biden as being corrupt.
And so I figured he was going to get pushed around by his radical party and other forces, like possibly, you know, weird stuff with China, weird stuff with Ukraine or Russia or whoever might be involved, but China, certainly.
Yeah, actually, when I got picked up from the airport on my way to the hotel when you flew me in here, the guy that drove me, the driver, was like, Yeah, I drove Joe Biden around here a few years ago.
I figured the media, which was holding Trump to account for everything he did and millions of things he didn't even do or say, was not going to treat Biden similarly.
I figured they were going to run cover for him.
And I fundamentally believe that it's crucial to a democracy that the or a republic, really, that the press is holding power to account.
Like the press shouldn't be the megaphone of the administration.
The press should be asking them tough questions.
And I just perceived that's not going to happen.
And then they were writing articles, which have not come true yet, but it told me what direction they were thinking that said things like, we should, you know, if we don't get our way with the Supreme Court, we should start ignoring the Supreme Court.
Maybe we shouldn't actually have a Supreme Court.
Maybe we should pack the Supreme Court.
Maybe we don't need a Constitution anymore.
These were in like, you know, new Republic-level leftist magazines.
This isn't like Joe Biden came out and said that.
But I watched Kamala support bailing out the Black Lives Matter rioters.
I saw the rhetoric around all the racial equity stuff.
And knowing how critical race theory works to the degree that I do, it's like, I can't support people who are openly supporting critical race theory and its initiatives.
Like, that's too scary.
So I was like, I'm going to have to bite the bullet.
And Trump's like the last kind of like, you know, rock on the train track that might derail this thing before it goes over.
Like intelligent people, they developed this cognitive dissonance where they were allowed to pretend openly and publicly that Biden was a good candidate.
And now that you're seeing who he is and how compromised he is, not just compromised mentally, but compromised in terms of his ties to businesses and the way they're running things.
You saw that picture that was going around the other day, right, with the fat woman, and it's supposed to be like the new face of fitness or something.
In fact, you remember that thing with getting the phobia of holes in things?
Like the tripophobia or whatever they called it.
Like something that looks like a honeycomb and you're like, you know, something.
The guy, Jeff Cole is his name, the neuroscientist who identified that phobia wrote a paper saying that there's nowhere that you could stand to say that fat bodybuilding is actually ridiculous.
I'm not kidding.
He was like, you could not possibly, there's no ability to have like genuine consensus about what's ridiculous and what's not ridiculous.
You know, one of the things that I've read that gave me hope, and I don't know why I should have any hope, is that they said that CNN was going to switch their format to an objective news format, and they were going to get rid of all their opinion-based editorial staff, like Don Le La Le Monde.
It's like I remember when I was a kid, like my mom being like, you know, what you're saying might be right, but your attitude sucks or whatever, you know, if I was smart enough.
It's also an extreme lack of understanding of human nature.
The way they discuss things, like one of the things they were talking about shaming people, like whether or not we should start shaming, you know, people for not following the public health guidelines that have changed over and over again and proven over and over again to be wrong.
And when enough people see through it, I mean, their ratings are going to drop 90%, and then other forces are going to come into play, or, you know, protests are going to start coming up or whatever else.
And one of my favorite ones was when Brian Stelter was talking about how what a shame it was that there were programs on YouTube that get more ratings than CNN in prime time.
And I remember thinking, like, what?
Do you think you guys, that people owe you ratings?
It's 90% down from where it was from this week last year, which was the week that the riots happened, which would have been everyone fucking watching the news.
Like, we have to be all really mad about this thing a year later, and they polled a bunch of Democrats and they're like, it's not really on my list of concerns.
I think we're going through, you know, we talked about the Enlightenment.
I think we're going through the second Enlightenment.
I think we're, I talked earlier about like an aristocracy of ideas and the media figureheads and the professors and the experts get to decide what is and isn't true for people.
I think the internet is allowing people to do their own research, as it were, and is burning that down.
And we're going to have a real marketplace of ideas and we're going to have more freedom if we don't let them.
I think they're like, they see their freedom slipping away and they're like grasping for it.
And their power, I should say, is slipping away and they're grasping for it.
And I think for a while, I wasn't sure, but I'm pretty confident now, like we're going to get through this and we're going to have a more free, smarter society on the other side.
It's not to say it's going to be smooth for the next little while.
And it's not to say that we can go to sleep and it'll just work itself out.
I think everywhere, I think the COVID narrative has fallen apart, and it just looks like heavy-handed government authority abusing power to keep trying to foist this crap on people.
But the fact that we know that is proof that that information is getting out, and it's going to keep getting out.
These alternative sources that they don't want you listening to, that CNN thinks they should be, you know, getting the ratings instead.
This is escaping their grasp.
And if people actually stand up and say, no, we're not going to do this, you know, and we, what's going to have to happen, though, here's what if you want the positive path, it doesn't really matter too much if it's Republican or Democrat, but you're going to have more space on the Republican side of the aisle.
The place where America is going to be put to the political test is going to be in the primaries this year.
And because they're going to try to run a bunch of establishment stooges because they now know the Democrats have no prospects.
So they're going to try to run a bunch of establishment stooges in the Republican people to kind of just keep the pot on simmer.
We have to fix the schools, though, because the schools are their next best hope.
If they can screw up the kids, then they're going to be able to just try again in a few years to throw another cultural bomb and we're having a lot of things.
And so if we're willing to do everything in our power to rescue the schools and to avoid going into this kind of like digital passport mentality, then we can throw off their plans.
And I think what's going to happen, I think what they're reaching for so desperately, so many of these people are being exposed as either frauds or maybe even criminals.
And they don't want that to happen because they're going to lose all their power and maybe go to jail.
And so they're trying to clamp down and make sure you can't listen to different voices that might call them rightfully those things.
They don't want to hear people like Dr. Malone come on here and say a bunch of stuff about COVID that makes them look like a bunch of either incompetent people or assholes or criminals.
And so they've got to try, but they can't put the cork back in the bottle.
There's too many holes or whatever.
It's a bad metaphor, but it's a broken bottle, I guess.
I hope you're right.
You asked me last time I came on here if I was optimistic, and I said, well, I have to be because I have no use for pessimism.
I'm actually optimistic now.
I'm like genuinely, it's cautious, but I'm genuinely optimistic.
But we all have to be willing, this is the most important thing, we have to be willing to stand up and we have to be willing to speak up.
We have to be willing to say no.
We're going to put people in office who are going to start safeguarding our freedom from big tech, safeguarding our freedom from these stupid, you know, medical tyranny attempts.
We're not going to go down freaking climate change passports next, guys.
Like, we're just not, you're not going to, we need to put in safeguards for people like at, you know, like the Bill of Rights level, that you can't take people out of society based on these stupid things, like whether it's big tech squeezing people out, whether it's out of the space to speak, or whether it's, you know, this medical apartheid or whatever they're doing.
If we can put those, if we can get the right people and get enough momentum behind it and get those people to say these things, to start figuring out the legalities of these things to protect citizens again, we can actually get out of this.