James Lindsay and Joe Rogan expose how the Biden administration, UN, and Soros Foundation may exploit mass migration—like China’s "Cloud Pivot" strategy—to collapse U.S. systems and justify digital surveillance akin to social credit models. Lindsay ties this to Marxist-inspired "equity" policies, citing Fox News’ "burn the country" remark and trauma-bonding tactics in woke education, while Rogan highlights ESG’s weaponization against American industries like Boeing. A 2022 Wall Street Journal-cited study reveals EVs produce more toxic emissions than gas cars due to weight and brake wear, yet green mandates ignore this. Lindsay warns of ideological extremism—whether from radicalized Christians, Islamists, or woke elites—eroding democracy, with China’s "communism 2.0" thriving as a result. The episode ends with Rogan praising Lindsay’s sharp critique of systemic manipulation and foreign influence reshaping Western governance. [Automatically generated summary]
No, you just kind of walk across and I mean, there's even memes that are like, I'm going to go to Honduras and give up my American citizenship and come back across so everything will be paid for for me.
You know, it's like, no, it's not sneaking across.
It's like, as they are saying, full-scale invasion.
The idea is that you take advantage of a system and the way that it's set up so that you overwhelm it.
In particular, in this case, you're going to overwhelm social services.
You're going to overwhelm border enforcement.
You're going to overwhelm whatever they're doing in this city.
It's like tens of thousands of dollars per taxpayer or whatever per year going to dealing with they're calling the migrant crisis.
So you try to overwhelm the system in order to basically collapse it so that you can create a crisis and the crisis creates the excuse to bring in new policies.
Oh, well, maybe what we need is, what do they call it, e-verify or something?
So we need a digital system where we can track who everybody is, but then they get their digital system and then you're off to the races.
Well, it's not possible to deny that the Biden administration is implementing it because, look, they went to, they tried to fight Texas on securing its own border to protect its own citizens.
We know historically that the Open Society Foundation or the Soros Foundation, which is Open Society, has been funding that and has been helping out.
We know that the UN is involved now.
Like these aren't mysteries.
The UN is coming and doing aid and coaching them.
And somebody's organizing not just, it's like it's not just a bunch of people from South America and China or wherever else or Mexicans wandering up to the border and like just, hey, I'm here.
There's like routes.
It's caravans.
There's help.
It's coordinated with a lot of money behind it.
And we know that those organizations, the United Nations particularly, is helping this.
The strategy is to implement some sort of a worldwide verification system.
And the way to get these freedom-loving shitheads in America on board is to turn America into a crime-ridden place of immigrants coming from very hostile places where their life has been very hard.
And they've been in prison or whatever.
And they're escaping that and they're coming to America.
But we don't want a system, you know, tying us like the Chinese social credit system is real, right?
This isn't some conspiracy out in the world.
Whether or not it's coming to the United States is a question, whether Americans would want it is a question, but it's in China.
It's real in China.
It's been there for a decade.
I've been to China.
I've experienced life there.
And the fact of the matter is that this would, that worldwide verification system would set something like that up.
You can also overwhelm the U.S. system so that all of a sudden, you know, it has to start taking some kind of an emergency measure to deal with whatever problems.
You know, we can talk about the crisis here in the United States, but holy crap, look at what's going on in the U.K. I was over there right after right at the end of October.
So on October 7th, we all know what happened in Israel.
And then all these huge protests broke out, like pro-Palestine.
So I had some places to go.
I don't really give a shit about my surroundings all that much.
I'm going to do what I want to do as long as I'm not like cosmetic.
So I'm walking against the grain up this, whatever they say, like 150,000 or something like that, people waving the Palestinian flag, walking down the street the other way on their march in London because I had to get where I was going.
London's in trouble, right?
Like the UK is in trouble.
When we start talking about this overwhelming the system, we're looking at these kind of, you know, much more generous social democracies.
Sweden, Germany's hosed.
I mean, their economy's possibly in free fall, the UK.
And what are the, what, at that point, what does the solution look like, right?
How could they fix that problem now?
Belgium's a big one.
I was riding with this guy.
I went to spoke at the EU parliament this time last year.
So I'm riding with this dude, and it turns out he's like the European James Bond.
He's like driving me from the airport and he's like, oh yeah, you know, we've got to deal with this problem.
I do all the security stuff or whatever.
And he's talking to me about how you can get arrested if one of them starts a fight with you and you do anything about it.
It's racism and you'll end up hauled before a tribunal.
And it's happened to him.
And it's like, we've got to start figuring out a way to get him out.
But it's like, how do you get him out?
And I don't mean everybody.
I mean the people who are causing criminal problems, the people who aren't trying to follow Belgian law or UK law or whatever else.
And they're going on TV saying this.
Like, you know, there's that Imam or whatever the other day that famously went on and was like in London.
It was like, you know, we're going to take this country.
Like, we're not going to follow your rules.
We're not going to follow your law.
I don't remember what he said.
So that's not exactly right.
A lot of information passes between these ears these days.
But fact of the matter is, the question becomes when you have a crisis at that scale, what are your options for fixing it?
And I think that that's part of the Cloud Pivot strategy is how do you end up fixing a problem that's at that scale?
I think they're doing the same thing.
To be honest with you, it sounds all crazy conspiratorial, but I think this is why I've been peddled to the metal with the transition stuff, the trans stuff.
If you end up with a million kids, you've got a million kids.
Like, that really are on the medical system.
What do you do with them?
What do you do with a million kids?
And then their parents and their aunts and uncles.
Everybody, the whole system has to start bending around a reality that was kind of manufactured.
Do you think it could be that it's the federal government putting power over state governments to make sure that state governments don't say, we can do what we want?
Well, I mean, that's the fight between Texas and the federal government.
So for sure, that's part of it.
But I think there's the United Nations that's kicking this too, that's pushing this.
I mean, so a lot of people don't understand.
And I'm skipping around.
The United Nations sees itself as a kind of global entity, 193 member states, blah, blah, blah, 17 sustainable development goals to transform our world, all that.
But I'm going to skip over and talk about like Soros for a second, because we know that the Open Society Foundation has pushed a lot of this kind of stuff too.
And it's a lot of people don't understand Soros or what and what is the open society that he's talking about?
Well, it's all based off of, a lot of people don't know Soros' mentor was the famous Karl Popper.
And Karl Popper wrote a book in 1945 called Open Society and Its Enemies.
And so the open society is what we've been taking for granted, basically, in the post-World War II era.
And it's what we want.
That's where it's a free society.
It's a high trust society.
It's a, you know, people can do what they want.
They don't have to worry about, you know, whether they're going to get carjacked all the time or whatever else.
And Soros is like, well, you could have that in the nation or you could have that where there's kind of one open society in the globe.
So a lot of people start thinking that he's working with China, but he doesn't like China because China doesn't have an open society.
That's not what he wants.
But the idea that there's this line that comes across the south of Texas and New Mexico and Arizona and California, where arbitrarily, so to speak, the United States says this is our land and Mexicans have to stay out.
He would be against that.
That's not an this should be like an open Pan-American kind of mega continent kind of in his mind with one society.
So what do you have to do?
Well, you have to dissolve a border.
And how can you dissolve a border?
Well, make so many people be able to cross that border through changes legally and through flooding the system so that the border doesn't really mean anything anymore because borders are simple, right?
What is a border?
It's a line we draw on a map and we say laws on this side of this border mean this and laws on the other side of this border are different, right?
U.S. has law, Mexico has law, and this line is where we have U.S. law versus Mexican law on either, you know, one step across and now you're in another set of laws.
That's what they mean.
That's what borders are as a political entity.
But if you can water that down so it's like, yeah, well, there's so many people coming across.
Like, is there really a border?
Are these that's the idea?
Because Soros' idea is a global open society.
Everything in the whole globe, you know, maybe, I don't know if it's that extreme, but maybe you don't need passports.
It means politics of earth things like waterways, oceans, dams.
Interesting.
And so it's like I go totally like autistic every time I say the word now.
And I'm like, damn it, I know it means something different because we all use it wrong, but we're going to use it wrong anyway.
There's a geopolitical move from China right now called the Belt and Road Initiative.
And the Belt and Road Initiative, that's tied to the BRICS.
The idea is that the entire global south with China as its head is going to become the new epicenter, the superpower of the world.
And it's going to be not just trade.
I mean, China doesn't exactly trade on fair terms.
They're going to go and basically exploit places.
We'll build you a nice airport.
We'll build you a nice port.
We'll build you some highways.
By the way, they all go straight to the mine, and we're taking all of your lithium when we come in.
That's your deal.
And now you're economically dependent on us.
Pretty standard game that they're playing.
And that Belt and Road Initiative actually is a competing interest to spreading democracy around the world.
So I know Vivek Ramaswamy really hit this out of the park where he said, we went over to China and said, let's spread democracy to China.
So in a sense, we bit off way more than we could chew, if you want to think of it that way.
Let's spread democracy to China.
And China was like, ha ha ha, yeah, let's see.
And they flipped the table on us and made it so that if you want to get in the Chinese market, so first they become the manufacturing base of the world.
But then if you want to play in the Chinese market, what do you have to do?
Well, the CCP puts up a firewall.
And if you don't play by the Chinese rules, you don't get into China.
So now Nike and all these big corporations and all these other, NBA, I named Nike because it just keeps coming to mind.
But there's a huge consumer market over there that's buying up stuff like crazy.
That's one of the things I witnessed in China.
Everybody's starting to have money.
So they're buying up brand name stuff everywhere that they can all the time to show that they have some money now.
And huge market.
So they want into the market.
The market's gigantic.
It's a manufacturing base.
So it's, you know, relationships are built.
But if you want to play, you play by Chinese rules.
So spreading democracy partly didn't work because we have to play by China's rules.
And that's their Belt and Road Initiative is meant to create a global South network.
So we're the global north.
That's, you know, South America, parts of Africa, a lot of like Indonesia, India, and then China.
Of course, BRICS just throws Russia into that mix, but otherwise that's who you're talking about.
And China is setting itself up to be the kind of global superpower or hegemon of that entire project.
And we're talking about the flow of trillions of dollars of goods and oil and energy and whatever every year.
So that's a huge thing to play with.
And it turns out, I don't think if we take Vivek's line, we got out foxed in the deal.
So spreading democracy, you know, there are lots of these cultural reasons.
Oh, they're not ready for democracy.
I don't know.
Maybe, maybe some places, maybe not some places, but there are other pressures too that we've been asleep to.
We have not been paying attention as a country.
Maybe some of our State Department people have been to China for the way that we should have been.
We should have been in the 80s and 90s, like, oh, no, China, right?
I beat this drum, and I get called crazy all the time because what I'm trying to tell people is that communism is what's happening to this country, okay?
But it doesn't look like communism because it's like, how is Nike communist?
And so it's like at least 10 figure numbers of money.
Like Elon kind of rolls in that department, but nobody else does.
So anyways, where was I going with this?
Because this is huge.
Oh, the communist.
How in the world are these huge things communist, right?
So communism didn't work, right?
Soviet Union sucked.
North Korea sucked.
Cuba sucks.
Like, I'm sure it's like geographically beautiful, but we know those places are dysfunctional as hell.
We can go to the Eastern Bloc.
They're still devastated in a lot of ways.
They're still not all the way together.
Like, communism didn't work.
But if we think of like what Marx did leading up to, say, 1917, when Lenin kind of took over, as communism 1.0, that never really even got off the ground.
Then Lenin got it off the ground, and you get the Soviet model, which is Soviet just means committee, by the way, if you didn't know that.
It's like a ruling council or committee.
So Soviet model takes over with what they called Marxism-Leninism.
And that worked, kind of.
It worked.
They still had it in China till Mao died.
They had it in the Soviet Union until, what, 89, 90, 91, something like that when it fell.
But what happened was when Mao died, like the Soviet Union wasn't doing great.
It was starting to fall apart.
A new model got picked up.
And nobody's, we talk about Mao Zedong sometimes, and I would love to talk to you all day about Mao.
That's my new research project.
But we don't talk about his successor.
His successor was Deng Xiaoping.
And this is where I actually disagree with Vivek about what I was just saying.
Deng Xiaoping had a saying that was, I don't care if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.
And what he was talking about is, I don't care if we use markets or we use a Soviet-style central committee to organize our society as long as China's economy comes back.
That's what he really meant.
And so Deng didn't come up with this new model to open the markets on his own.
We didn't go to China necessarily just to spread democracy.
We went to build China.
And who's we?
Well, let's name the names.
Who was in the meeting?
And there's a movie about some of these meetings were in China, and there's not a movie, but there's a movie called Mr. Deng Goes to Washington that took place in Washington, D.C. So you can go watch the movie.
I'm not making this up.
Deng Xiaoping was the leader of China.
He's already networking with Klaus Schwab from the World Economic Forum in his spacesuit, but he meets with, and the list of people were Henry Kissinger, Jibenu Brzezinski, allegedly T.H. Chan, David Rockefeller, and the sitting new emperor or whatever, CCP chairman of China, Deng Xiaoping.
And they cook up this plan to open Chinese markets.
And the plan was to maybe to spread democracy into America, but I suspect it was mostly to get really rich.
We open those markets, huge amount of money, giant multinational corporations are not tied to any geographical place, and they can get rich off their balls.
Now, some of these guys, I think, were also ideologically motivated.
The Rockefellers have funded communist crap all over the world for a very long time.
China was communist.
Deng Xiaoping said, I'm not opening the market for the market.
I'm opening the market for socialism to make socialism productive.
And so they had a, I think there was more of a plan there than we take into account, which means Vivek gives.
I need a tinfoil hat.
Vivek sees that our motivations in building China were necessarily good.
I think the motivations for building China were to create the pincher of a trap that's called Thucydides' trap in ancient kind of military strategy that the only escape from would be to facilitate China's rise and decimate the West in order to avoid a nuclear-tipped World War III.
Well, I mean, that's the whole thing with Soros, though.
You know, Soros was Jewish, and his uncle took him around as a young boy when they confiscated property from the Jews, and he had to pretend that he was a Christian.
Well, I'll just be clear, since you have the Tim Foyle hat right now, Joe, that my source for his mentor being Kissinger is a book called that was published by the World Economic Forum called The World Economic Forum the First 40 Years, which was published in 2011 to brag about how cool they've been.
He also brags that in 78, he started making connections to Deng Xiaoping and trying to bring the stakeholder, as he called it, capitalism model into China, which is what China actually installed.
It's this dirty fusion of neoliberalism, which is basically how do you get huge corporations to basically suck off of the government?
And that's the thing the left has been mad about for 50 years.
How do you fuse that to communism?
And China's the answer.
And what I think is all this ESG stuff was constructed around it to make the West have it too.
So it is to create the create a metric, a measurement tool to assess the likely long-term viability of a corporation based on its environmental, social, and internal corporate governance policy.
Because here's what's going on: ESG was created at the United Nations in 2003 by a guy named James Gifford.
And the point was, he said, well, there's at that point about $6 trillion of money that's sitting out there.
It's people's pensions.
It's like passive, right?
Mutual funds, index funds, mutual funds, particularly, 401ks.
There's state pension funds in particular.
$6 trillion in the world sitting out there that's just people's retirement funds gaining interest, playing in the market through this, you know, money management.
And the question James Gifford asked was: he was a forest guy.
He was like, how do we apply that to saving the forests, save the trees, right?
And so he came up with this idea that if we had environmental assessments, anytime you have a metric, you can use that metric in some way or another.
In other words, or you can game that metric.
If we had metrics to say, well, how environmentally compliant are companies?
Like kind of an extension of corporate social responsibility, they used to call it.
If we can measure that, then what we can do is we can start directing.
We can say, well, companies that have a long-term or that have good environmental policy have a better long-term portfolio.
But these are 30-year investments because they're people's pensions.
So that's long-term success that we're interested in, not boom and bust cycles in the market.
So the stated ambition, not just to do what I said, but is specifically to do that, to bring that passively invested money into what they call impact investing.
In other words, to do activism with investor money by investing in green energy companies or green other environmental companies or socially just companies or companies with good governance.
And in principle, at least the good governance thing should work.
But the thing is, is corruption exists.
I don't know how they neglected to account for that if we give them all the credit in the world.
So like right now, it's super corrupt.
I just did a podcast about this where I had this document.
It's not like some mysterious document.
It's on the Harvard website where they're talking about corporate bonuses, right?
So it's a Harvard corporate law website document.
And they're talking about corporate bonuses and the corporate bonus structure and that your governance score, your E, your SG score, so the G part will go up if you give corporate bonuses to yourself for implementing ESG.
That's just naked corruption, right?
And so that, so they can come in and say, well, you want to go to ESG score, and they can make that important or whatever.
I guess they have made that very important because everybody's doing it.
And they say, well, if you want a good ESG score, you need to put an activist on your board or 30% women on your board or DEI requirements on your Boeing board.
Or you have to have a good corporate equality index score, which is published by the Human Rights Campaign, which means that you're not just having a non-discriminatory workplace for LGBT, but you're also promoting LGBT agendas.
You're lobbying on behalf of bills one way or the other in the legislature.
We'll tell you which ones.
A couple of years ago, they told the airlines they needed to fly around activists to the Pride Parade so they'd have more people at them for released prices.
Oh, yeah.
Why do you think Dylan Mulvaney's face was on a beer can?
The whole fallout of the Dylan Mulvaney explosion at Bud Light, all of it was about the CEI score because then the human rights campaign came out and said, well, you didn't stand up for Dylan, so we're going to lower your score anyway.
And they were like, oh no.
And then everything got all tossed up.
These numbers mean a lot to people.
So the stated goal was to take to create a set of measurements that they could use to justify taking trillions of dollars of other people's money and doing activist investing with it.
And that all turned into the S is now DEI.
It's woke.
It's woke social justice.
It's not social responsibility.
It's whatever they want.
Elon Musk bought Twitter and his social score for Tesla went through the floor.
Like, what did that have to do?
And then all of a sudden, Tesla's a racist company they accused him of.
Like, what are you talking about, right?
They didn't like that he bought Twitter.
Weapons manufacturers like Dick Cheney's Halliburton were, you know, social, bad, bad, bad, bad.
And then all of a sudden, the conflict in Ukraine breaks out and they're like, oh, we need missiles.
And they changed the score basically overnight.
That's because the social environment of the world changed.
These are real things.
Like, this is all verifiable.
So I think it's an instrument.
Maybe it wasn't meant to be in 2003.
Maybe the guy just wanted to save the trees.
But it's become an instrument of control and effectively a social credit system for corporations to force corporations.
And that's what Larry Fink said about it on TV.
He said, you could pull up the, I'm sure we can find the video and pull it up where he says that we're interested in forcing behaviors and that's what we're doing.
Yeah, this is where like there's like there's no proof, but it also just says it's not definitive, but there's no actual like it says Hitler's father, on the other hand, was the managing director of a subsidiary of Zurich-based engineering firm Eisch Weiss.
The history of Eugen's relationship with Nazism in general is complex, but there's no substantive substantive evidence of ties to high-ranking German leadership, particularly Hitler.
No evidence.
A fact check published by accredited German journalist DPA used denazification records to uncover that Eugen Schwab was a member, Schwab, was a member of some national socialist organizations, but that alone does not prove any relationship to German high command or a belief in Nazi ideology.
But wait a minute, but the German national socialist organizations back then essentially were Nazis.
While the Escher Weiss branch in Ravensburg, Germany, which Eugen managed, used prisoners of war and forced laborers, it's not clear whether the company was forced to do so by the Nazis or because of a lack of workers.
Wait a minute.
You just admitted 100% that he's a Nazi because that's what Nazis did.
That would be like, you'd think that they would write the article about me because I've said like make America great again before, but I've never met Trump.
So like, would they write the article like James has never met Trump?
No, I got an SPLC profile that's sort of the other way around.
Did you know I'm an extremist now, by the way, Joe?
Jokes are on your, well, did you see about that Flemish guy who was a part of the government who's just got sentenced to one year in jail for sharing racist memes in a private chat?
Well, that was like when Tucker went to, Tucker Carlson went to Russia, which I'm kind of like, I don't know what that's about for sure, but Tucker Carlson went to Russia and he finds out while he's there that the NSA is reading his encrypted signal chat.
But that's, that was, there's many times they've tried to push things like that.
You're like, what is the motivation behind this?
Is this just for clicks and outrage?
It could be.
Is there like someone who's actually saying that it would be a good idea if we connected health and fitness to right-wing extremism so that you would be scared to be fit and healthy?
Like that's the full, you want to go full tinfoil hat.
Who do you want to have a war with?
Do you want to have a war with Trump supporters or do you want to have a war with the people who wear pink hats and are mad?
And I think that we've gone through it with everything.
In fact, I think it's all they do.
It's the same thing over and over again, right?
Whether it's COVID, whether it's MAGAs as deplorables, which worked kind of backfired big time, right?
And then whether it's all the identity politics, whether it's the environmental stuff, even with this, though, what they do, and this is the politics of compliance.
I just did this for Robert Maloney.
He had me come speak at his International Crisis Summit, and I'm sitting there and I'm about to talk.
It's like nine in the morning.
I'm not awake yet.
I'm not a morning person.
I'm like, what the hell am I going to talk about?
And so I get this idea comes in my head, a politics of compliance.
So what it is, is that you start off by saying, look, we're going to have this glorious better world, but there are people who are keeping us from getting there, right?
So there are the people who want to move forward into the glorious, better world, but then there's the enemies of the people who are dragging their feet, the deplorables, the climate deniers.
It doesn't matter if the climate change thing is true or not, because there's a label now, right?
The Christian nationalists, there's a label now, the racists, the transphobes.
So we could have unity, but we can't have unity.
You were making the sacrifice.
You got the shot in your arm.
You did what you were supposed to, but we can't open up our society yet because these other people are dragging their feet or resisting.
So you have to have ways then.
Why the fitness thing, right?
You have to have ways to identify who the people are that aren't going along with the program.
So it's like you, you got blown up for this.
You're like, well, I got COVID.
I feel like shit.
I feel really, really bad.
Did you know, by the way, last time I was here, I went home with COVID, even though we did the test.
And they can't have that if they're trying to create this dynamic that all the people who are staying home and wearing a mask and, you know, cowering in fear primarily or later getting pharmaceutical.
And that's a huge problem for that group of compliant people.
And if you can whip them up or create conditions with misuses of power, like many of our state governments and national or federal government did, Canada really did, and say, well, we have to keep everything closed down for your safety, and we could open it back up, except disinformation right-wing extremists like Joe Rogan are out there pushing the wrong ideas.
Well, in that case, you can get people to hate the person who's not going along with the program.
I mean, that's one of the things that the SPLC accuses me of, though, is that I promoted the white genocide theory, which that is not true, but what are you going to do about these things?
I think there's also a problem with, you know, when you tell people that a group of people are responsible for things or a group of people, like just completely composed of individuals with completely different lives, and everyone's got different experiences.
And we say that that group of people is either bad or that group of people was responsible for everything.
I'm not going to defend whatever, but this dude, like the counter reaction eventually to relentless identity politics is for the other side to start saying, okay, identity politics.
Any arbitrary power, especially when it's applied corporately to groups, we should oppose it.
In Tennessee, it's in our state constitution.
The second article or whatever, section one, article one, or I got that backwards.
No, Article 1, Section 2 is that the non-resistance, I think I can almost do it from memory, the non-resistance against arbitrary power is to be considered slavish, absurd, and against the good and happiness of mankind or something like that.
So we should resist racism's arbitrary power.
You don't know that guy.
His skin color doesn't tell.
It's arbitrary to dislike him or to exclude him or whatever.
Some percentage, I would guess it's probably three or four, not very big, of the population, just to throw a guess out there, because that's roughly where you start.
What's the total number of psychopaths, borderline personality, and so on?
It's about 3% or 4% of the population.
They're going to be like, oh, I can get away with this.
Oh, we have to, I'm not going to get in trouble if I bust some other kids' head at school.
I just have to sit in a talk circle and say, oh, I'm sorry.
Okay, whatever.
And then it's all over and we've healed.
Like, they're going to game.
There are people who will game a system.
And it's like this kind of like empathy-driven, airy fairy, if we just gave everybody money, there would be no crime nonsense is driving us off of a cliff.
And it's causing these fights in our schools through terrible policies like restorative justice policies.
A lot of it's in criminals.
I remember all these articles back, you know, a year or two ago.
I don't know if they're still publishing them.
It's like, if we just paid people not to commit crime, they wouldn't commit crime.
And the root of it, it's like if you don't have, everyone wants a meritocracy.
We all agree to that.
We want a meritocracy.
We want the best people, and we want competition, which is what allows people to get better and it allows us to have the best products and the best thing and the best music and the best art.
Like, the reason why all these social justice people are like so excited about pumping billions of dollars into Ukraine and billions of dollars into whatever's happening with Israel and Palestine, but zero talk about doing that to Baltimore, zero talk about doing that to Detroit.
But if you don't, if no, if we never get, not in 10 or 20 years, never get to equality of opportunity.
You're always going to have a certain amount of disenfranchised people.
You have a portion of your population for sure that's going to be in trouble.
They're going to have problems.
Then you always got solutions.
You've always got opportunities.
You've got like this little moving game.
If everything is even and then it's just competition and then America thrives to be the greatest utopian idea of what we had hoped it would be.
Well, then it's really difficult to control people because they recognize that freedom is one of the most important aspects of having this kind of amazing opportunity to do whatever the fuck you want.
But if they played it out this much, have they thought about it and said, you know what, we want more crime, we want more illegal issues, and if we keep the chaos, if you read the Marxist literature, which is unfortunately my damn job, you can derive a number of different conclusions.
One of these conclusions that you can derive absolutely is, do you know what repels a revolution in a country better than anything?
Stability.
Social stability.
So if you can destabilize a population, then you can get them to crave a revolution, or you can, like with the Patriot Act, you can get them to assent to sacrificing their liberties for security.
So if you can destabilize an area, then you can cause them to want to have radical political change.
We just saw this.
This woman is in the Fox News this morning, so I have to double check.
But she's talking about, was she from Maryland?
She's in the government.
She says that she wants to, she wants to burn the country to the ground so her ideology can rise out of it, out of the ashes.
She's the equity coordinator in one of these cities.
If you can find it, Jamie, you can pull it up.
I don't know.
It was on Fox News.
Equity coordinator, Burn City, Rise from the Ashes.
You'll probably find it.
So this, we know who's causing these crime problems.
It's those DAs.
We know who ran the DAs, who paid the money to run them is the Open Society Foundation.
They call them Soros DAs.
We finally broke the spell that saying that this very, very rich man and now his very, very rich son are using their very large amounts of money to do things that aren't necessarily great politically.
You're going to be forced to have a imagine that person who said that.
Imagine if that person had to design electric cars, had to put together a manufacturing plant, had to figure out, imagine, imagine some fucking person who says, I don't want to work.
And this is a person that's in charge of, this is a thought person, a person who's in charge of ideas, and a person who's in charge of implementing some sort of a better system for society for real?
Yeah, no, an ideology is a word people don't understand.
I had to read in this.
That's the word I was going for.
Thank you.
It is.
It's a cult.
It's a cult.
Okay.
So what it is, ideology is a fancy word for a mythology that the society buys into that has a direction and it has activity.
It's a cult.
What we're looking at is the dynamics of a cult.
Everything will work out if everybody believes it.
We know how it'll work.
Nobody else knows how it'll work.
Put us in charge.
Obviously, when it doesn't work, somebody else is at fault.
That's actually, do you know that that's actually, you can talk to people who still believe that the Soviet Union could have worked out and they say the reason the communist countries failed, because obviously, you know, there are catastrophes, hundreds of millions dead, nothing works, they collapse.
They say that it was because there are capitalist countries pressuring them from the outside that prevent them from working.
So you can say, I've had this conversation.
So it can only work if every country is communist?
And they're like, that's right.
That's a global cult, is what that is.
That's not real.
That's fantasy land.
And that's the, I think, because equity means socialism, as I just told you, I think that that redistributes shares to make participants equal.
I think that that actually kind of shows that this is cult mentality that we're dealing with.
The genius aspect of it is that they've managed to cast such a wide net over what it means to be progressive that they've included all these radical Marxist ideas that everybody dismissed forever.
And they threw them all in with this gender stuff and LBGTQ stuff where, and then they threw that all in with race.
And then they threw that all in with immigration and then somehow attached it to funding international conflicts.
We're seeing this weird leftist, progressive ideology with a super wide net that covers so many things, including all these industries that are set up to make it look like they want a better world, where really they just want to dominate a sector of the market, whether it's green energy or agriculture or food or plant-based meat or any of this fucking psycho shit that they're trying to push all the time.
They're doing it for profit and they're doing it this super wide net of being a good person, being a progressive.
And I say that that Deng Xiaoping character we were talking about earlier is like he's the guy that nobody knows about, except, I mean, the Chinese do, obviously.
But we really need to pay attention to what he cooked up and how what they have, whether it's World Economic Forum or UN or the WHO with their god-awful treaty to, you know, the health sovereignty thing.
It's neoliberalism, which is how do you get huge corporations to be able to basically get tons of money and have monopoly power and make it off of the government?
That's why the Rockefeller guy would have been interested in all this.
And how do you do it with a communist ideology at the same time?
China is the model.
We're seeing it build out in the West.
This stuff, like we now are seeing proof, it just came out the other day that the Chinese are like funding the trans stuff.
They're like pushing it, right?
I just wrote a book.
I didn't even know that to put it in the book.
I wrote a book about the trans stuff.
It just came out on the 29th called The Queering of the American Child to talk about how schools have been turned into like indoctrination centers.
It all goes back to not just Marxist, but Maoist strategy to make the world conform, that politics of compliance, to make the world conform to this new ideological vision that they have.
And it's got to be like, like we were saying, it's got to be religious, like to the people who believe it.
We've all seen children that grow up in religious cults.
We've all seen the horror stories of children that come from these radical religious cults and they escape when they get older and they tell the story of the indoctrination and what all they believed.
When I see a woman and she's got three trans kids, that is what I think of.
I think of someone who is a full adherent and ideologically captured by this cult to the point where they see value in having their child be a part of the LBGTQ movement because it looks good for them socially.
It's like they have a flag on their fucking porch.
There's a path, and I mean, I don't know how many legislators pay attention to the show, but they should take it seriously.
Missouri has kind of tread the way.
A lot of these states, there's 26 states that have tried to ban transgender care so far.
And they're getting sued.
Of course they're getting sued, right?
Of course they're getting sued.
Some plaintiff comes in, the ACLU shows up with an army of lawyers, and they're like, no, it's civil rights.
It's medically necessary, blah, blah, blah.
And then it's a battle in the court, and it depends on who the judge is.
There's another way.
Missouri actually more or less stopped this stuff with one simple change to the law.
They changed the statute of limitations for medical harm.
So my thought is if you're under 20 and you undergo some of this medical treatment, you have a 20-year statute of limitations.
Anybody who gets the surgery done under, you know, surgeries, hormones, whatever, under 20 years old, they have till their 40th birthday if they decide they regret it to file a malpractice suit.
Not to win the malpractice suit, but to file one.
The statute of limitations in Missouri previous to that was either two or three years and they extended it.
And I don't know exactly how long.
And it basically shut it down.
We could shut a lot of this down by, because America, like you said, works differently.
We don't have socialized medicine.
We could shut this down through litigation.
And that litigation, all you have to do is open what do they call rights to action.
So, you know, let's say I'm in my 40s, so it's not like that.
But if I'm a 19-year-old or 17-year-old or 15-year-old, like Chloe Cole was, and I go and I get surgery, say I get my breasts removed or my, you know, genitals cut up or whatever.
And then come my 27th, 28th birthday, I'm like, woof, I got talked into that.
I shouldn't have done it.
I feel like I was misled by my doctors.
I want to file a lawsuit.
Right now, usually you cannot.
I mean, some of these detransition teenagers are suing.
You know, Chloe was and some of the, you know, Chloe, right, Chloe Cole?
Like I was completely convinced I had other problems.
This would solve all my problems.
I was affirmed at every step.
It's love bombing.
So in this, so there's this queer educator, which is a fucking weird thing to even say, right?
His name's Kevin Kumishiro.
And Kevin Kumashiro wrote this paper back in 2002 titled Against Repetition.
And in this paper, he actually says that the point of social justice and specifically queer education is to lead children into personal crisis and then structure their environment so they resolve the crisis toward social justice.
That's trauma bonding.
That's cult recruitment.
That should be a prison sentence.
And they know they're doing it.
They're leading them.
They're leading them into personal crisis.
It's like hard to even say the sentencing and you get mad.
You're 100% right, but they're after childhood innocence.
They say that too.
There are papers against childhood innocence saying that it's a social construct meant to protect some kids and not others and meant to preserve normalcy and white heteronormativity and all of this other crap.
ones if you want to talk about men like men being toxic the most toxic yeah you're you're empowering the 0.01 ones the ones infected by demons yeah they want them to go kids you're empowering them by telling them that it's a an identity yeah and i'll tell you queer theory has it is actually it doesn't not have limiting principles it's opposed to limiting principles on principle let me give you another definition this is a book called saint foucault naming the michelle foucault the postmodern
guy we made fun of back in the Grievance Studies papers.
And so Michel Foucault is lionized in this book.
And this is the book where queer and queer theory gets defined.
David Halperin wrote it.
95 is the date.
And it's right there in the paragraph that he writes, defining queer.
It starts with these three words, unlike gay identity, has virtually nothing to do with gay people.
Why?
He says because that's rooted in a positive truth.
You're gay, right?
That's a truth.
You're gay.
He says queer need not be grounded.
He says in any positive truth or any stable reality, it is whatever is opposed to the normal, the legitimate and the dominant.
So first, we're not talking about sitting down and having the, hey, buddy talk with your kid who just did a jerk thing.
We're talking about drag queens in a classroom, which is a little bit more, which they call, in fact, a generative introduction to queer worldmaking in the paper, which is pretty insane.
But secondly, in the paper, the immediate section before the conclusion, the last section before the conclusion, so right before what I just told you, there's a section titled, From Empathy to Embodied Kinship.
That's their title for it.
That's the title of the thing.
And they explain that this empathy route is a marketing strategy.
They use that for marketing to justify its inclusion, but its real purpose is to lead children to discover queer aspects of themselves.
So that's not what they're doing it for.
That's not the purpose.
So there must be another purpose.
And what's the other purpose?
I think it's a cult initiation ritual.
I think the point of the drag queen is to get the kids, exactly what they say in the paper, start asking questions.
Why is that man dressed as a woman?
Do we always have to follow rules?
Can we do whatever we want?
Isn't this more fun?
And they start asking the questions and having the conversation.
And then the kids who show interest end up going off into the club after school where they get affirmed.
And I think that's where the cult initiation is going on.
And I'm dead serious.
I think the Drag Queen Story Hour was a cult initiation ritual for queer activism for our kids.
But then let's do the medical approach.
And I'm not talking about the doctor, you know, I got a PhD in math.
That was my background.
And so one of the things that I was shocked when I was learning math back in the, you know, 20 years ago was, here's a question for you.
Just ask.
Do you know why we don't do universal cancer screenings?
Why everybody doesn't go to the doctor every year?
Because of course they'd be able to make buku bucks off this, right?
So wouldn't it be good if we did universal cancer screenings?
Everybody goes, they get the check, whatever it is, universal mammograms, whatever it happens to be.
There's a reason, there are a few reasons we don't do that.
It's the same reason, sort of, that we don't just give everybody, say, Riddle in because some kids have ADHD.
But what it is, is that if we tested everybody for cancer, that test has a false positive and a true positive and a false negative and a true negative rate.
Those are called the specificity and sensitivity of the test.
And if we screen everybody, what happens is you actually end up with way more false positives because there are way more healthy people than sick people.
And some percentage of them turns out to be a far larger number.
So that if you do that, what you end up doing is telling thousands of people per year that they have cancer when they don't.
Freaking them out, causing them to rearrange their lives.
Plus, it's expensive.
And then some of them will have a false positive twice.
And then depending on the specificity and sensitivity of the test, it can be almost three times before you hit 50-50 as to whether you got a positive test.
So imagine you go and you get tested for cancer, screened for cancer, and it says you have cancer.
And then you get tested for cancer again and it says you have cancer.
And you go a third time and you have, but you only have a 50-50 shot of actually having cancer because of the way the populations break down.
You're going to be shitting your pants.
You're going to rearrange your life.
You're going to make some bad decisions.
This is, so what don't you do in the schools?
You don't assume that a large population of the children are gay kids who are getting bullied and treat the entire population of school kids like they're gay kids who are being bullied.
You figure out when somebody's being bullied and you deal with the person individually and you figure out when somebody's doing the bullying and you deal with the people individually.
And we've known this since time immemorial until, in my opinion, we've reinvented our policies in the schools to do this broad cult initiation.
We treat everybody like they're sick, which is exactly the opposite.
So there's the paper itself lying about it.
There's the logical understanding of it.
But then there's also, you don't broadcast or universally screen to deal with low propensity sicknesses.
Yeah, because that was when I was getting, you know, I was getting prepped to teach statistics.
And it's like, these are the things you want to teach people in a statistics class so they don't go make dumbass decisions because they don't understand how numbers work.
There's also this issue with the influence that people have on kids, just in general.
We're so flippant about who teaches kids.
And it should be a really difficult job to get and it should pay really well.
And it's almost if you wanted to go full tinfoil hat again, you would think by design, you would want the least motivated, weirdest fucking shitheads to be teaching your kids.
Because you would ensure that their education would suck.
And especially if those kids, if those people, if you push the type of people to teach that were a part of this ideology that you're trying to push, then, you know, what's the best, well, these people aren't, they aren't doing well anyway, for the most part.
They're not like super financially successful if they're looking to push these agendas.
In general, they're not like really excellent capitalists.
So you could probably pay them less.
You know, and you can get these people, they want that job because they think they're a part of a movement.
And so this has been something that's been going on for a very long time.
There's a couple of explanations.
One thing to say is even without the tinfoil hat, right?
Queer theory in its own, imagine that you have the hiring body, the administration at the school gets infected with queer theory.
Oh, well, I don't want to, you know, that guy might like kids, but I don't want to like assume, right?
You know, I don't want to judge him.
It lowers the potential to say, wait a minute, bringing in this weirdo who's throwing off red flags everywhere might be a bad idea.
Or in this case, I guess rainbow flags with a triangle cut out of it.
That might be a bad idea, right?
Queer theory overrides your common sense.
So it lowers the screening potential.
It just makes the whole, like it's like the fence is like wider open.
So good people will make more mistakes when queer theory has come in.
But then there's the fact that this actually was that a lot of people don't understand.
We don't need a tinfoil hat to understand that the universities are fucked up.
Nobody does.
Look at them.
Holy shit.
Harvard, you know, let's name some more universities.
They're all messed up.
And the fact is, I know I keep throwing out sources, but there's this book I read.
It's called The Critical Turn in Education.
It was published by a Marxist at Iowa State University named Isaac Gottesman in 2016, 15, one or the other.
And right from the beginning, one of the things he's explaining is that people with their ideology of education, which is called critical pedagogy, actually had captured our schools of education virtually entirely by 1992.
That's the date the Marxists themselves say, this is when we got the schools of education.
So I tried to explain this in this documentary that I've got coming out in May called Beneath Sheep's Clothing.
And it's very simple.
If you get the colleges of education, then you're going to get the teachers.
And if you get the teachers, then you get the kids.
And if you get the kids in a generational strategy, you get the future.
And that was, they own the schools.
Like, they own the manufacturing plant where we build teachers and administrators.
They're called colleges of education.
They have a virtual monopoly on producing them.
And they have said in their own words that their ideology has run the schools since 1992.
That's, you know, if we're keeping track on our fingers, 32 years ago.
Yeah, that's why it's like, I say what I just said, and then Yuri and the trailer to that film, which is at the top of my Twitter, if anybody wants to see it.
You know, let me just tell YouTube what I think about that.
I hope we do.
I hope we can put it on YouTube, and I hope we get demonetized, and we'll put up a YouTube edit where we literally just put up the YouTube emblem over the scenes they don't want shown and do the Charlie Brown won't want, won't, won't, want, want voice to the part people they don't want to hear.
We'll put up a YouTube edit with a link to send to people to the real thing.
Like to hell with them.
Like we can get around this censorship and turn it to our advantage these days.
It's very bizarre that they would choose to demonetize something that someone's legitimate opinion about a very worrisome trend.
I mean, this is something that people should discuss.
And to be able to discuss these things, especially in this wonderful world of open communication that we find ourselves in, you should be able to have both perspectives.
You should have the perspective of the queer theorists.
And if you don't do that, then you limit information.
And some of that information, especially the stuff that you're talking about that seems to be absolutely true and provable, you're letting that stuff go through because it opposes your ideology.
So the cult, and I don't know if you know who Robert Lifton is.
Robert Lifton, he's kind of weird now.
He's still alive, but he was like a, you talk about gangsters doing infiltration.
This dude was in Hong Kong in the 1950s.
And he started interviewing guys that were going through Mao Zedong's brainwashing prisons.
And then when they would get thrown out of China after they'd get out of the prison after three, four years of getting brainwashed, started interviewing them.
Like, what did Mao do?
How did he like, literally, the title of his book that he wrote off of this is called Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China, which is Xi I know a little Mandarin.
And so, the idea is that they were doing what Mao called ideological transformation or ideological remolding in these prisons.
And he wanted to know how it worked.
What's the psychological dynamic?
And he said there are eight primary characteristics, and God only knows if I could rattle off eight things from memory.
But the first one is melu control.
In other words, you have to completely control the environment of the people that are within it.
And so, you can't let them have outside information.
You can't let them get near people who are raising uncomfortable questions.
You have to say that those people are a danger to what Mao called democratic centralism, or we would say it's a Joe Rogan's a danger to our democracy.
I think they said when you took Ivermectin or something like that, right?
And so, you have to control the environment people are in, and then there's other things like mystical manipulation into a sacred science and all this other.
There's eight of them he has, which is finally at the end, which it's got doctrine over person, but he calls it like the expiration.
It's not that's not the right word, but it's the dispensing of the person.
So, the people who go along with it, who are in the cult, are treated as people, and the people who don't go along with it have to be treated as non-people.
And that's based Mao Zedong gave a famous speech in 1957 where he actually said to not have a correct political orientation is like not having a soul.
So, you're no better than a capitalist running dogs, you're no better than the dogs.
Well, I mean, we like dogs, but you know what I mean, how he would have meant it.
And so, it's like you're no better than an animal if you don't go along with this.
So, they find it in their social circumstances, politics, economics.
And it always goes demonic when they do that.
I've been spending a lot of time, thanks to Charlie, primarily, Charlie Kirk, I've been spending a lot of time paying attention to the tenets of Christianity and studying it.
And it's got a lot of good advice in there.
But you're 100% right that if you try to lack a religion, and the primary thing with the religion, why so if you if you lack a religion, then it'll get filled in with other things for very many people.
I think there's a small percentage of people for maybe that doesn't apply, but there's a spot in your brain for it.
But the uh, the thing that why do they go after Christians and Jews so hard everywhere they go?
And the reason is because they are completely committed to they're not when you say you know, they already have their thing for Christians and Jews, that's not how they think about God, it's not their thing.
Well, there's always been people that when they see these well-uniformed people walking around with Nazi flags, their face covered, they're like, they're feds.
Always think that, which is a terrible thing to think, that your own federal government is involved in doing something to stir racial hatred, or at least give the image that racial hatred is being stirred, and then connect that racial hatred with people that just don't believe what you believe and believe in God.
And that's what, I mean, that's why this Christian nationalist thing, you know, it's a leap that's not very far in most minds from Christian nationalists to white Christian nationalist.
Right.
And it's so easy for them to say then that independent conservative churches, and I would say those in particular, are a hot house for domestic extremism.
And then they start cracking down on that.
Maybe it's the FBI agents are going to church every week and they're writing down every single thing you say or every single thing you do.
Maybe it's that, you know, they start messing with the IRS status.
Maybe it's that they create other pressures with zoning or whatever else to make it so that independent churches are very difficult to do.
Because what they had in the Soviet Union, and I learned it, I actually didn't know it until the Timothy guy, the Russian guy in the film, was telling us they had what's called a registered church in the Soviet Union.
So the Soviets didn't get rid of the churches.
The Soviets created a fake church that was like, you know, Lenin, Stalin, Jesus.
They have a church in China.
It's called the Three Selfs Church right now, where it's like, if you see pictures of it, it's super weird.
It's like there's a cross and there's like Mao and it's like President Xi.
So they also do like slave labor and they like making examples of people to keep things under control.
So if we just take it at face value that the C and the CCP stands for communist, this is perfectly in line with the way communists behave.
That's what they would do with the Christian dissidents in the Soviet Union.
They send them to gulags where their job would be like to, you know, carve a canal out of bedrock, working themselves to death in freezing conditions, and then only for not only the canal to not actually be deep enough or wide enough to do what it had to do.
So it's, you know, demoralizing that failed, but then it drains whichever, I forget which lake it was, RLC or whatever gets drained because they're idiots and they don't know how things work.
They think that they can be the masters of nature.
But that's what they would do.
They would round up these dissidents and send them off to Gulag.
Gulag wasn't a concentration camp like the Nazis had.
It was a re-education camp where they were trying to re-educate you through doctrine combined with hard labor.
So here's what you want to, you know who I feel bad for, and they get real mad.
I did this at Northwestern.
I told them this to their faces.
I did a talk at Northwestern University last year.
And they let a bunch of woke protesters in, and they carried on and yelled at me and were like mocking me, doing the loser sign on their faces while I was talking.
It's hard to keep your train of thought while that's going on.
And they started cheering when I started talking about Mao, so they know what it is.
And I was like, cheer for your dictator.
And they started clapping, and it was like really creepy.
But then, so I did this at Northwestern, and I told them something, and they laughed at me.
Okay.
So Mao created in the mid-1960s a thing called the Red Guard.
People all know about this.
It was young people.
It was mostly college and high school students, but it went down to little kids.
She Van Fleet was in China during the Red Guard, for example, and she's got that book, Mao's America, out talking about what that was like, surviving that.
And the Red Guard went around, destroyed property, harassed, turned in people.
They ended up rounding up the sitting president of the CCP, Liu Xiaoqi, pulled him out, humiliated him, kicked him out to the countryside to die, right?
He came out.
He said, he's the chairman of the CCP.
He comes out.
He says, am I not a citizen?
Can I not speak?
And these teenagers by the thousands were out there protesting him and said, no, you're not a citizen.
You're not a person.
You cannot speak.
And they ended up carting him off to die in the countryside.
Mao takes his power back.
So that's the end of 1967.
Took about a year and a half.
So as soon as Mao gets back on the throne, we turn around in 1968.
What does he do with that Red Guard that was so loyal that got him in?
Did he give him trophies?
Does he give him a spot in the party?
No.
He said the Red Guard has become too radical and too left.
So he rounded him up and sent them off to the gulag to die.
And some of them were so brainwashed, they said shit like, going to work with the peasants in the fields will make my brain even more red as they got on the trains.
So I told these kids at Northwestern, I said, listen, you woke kids, cheer all you want for Mao.
This is your future.
Stability is what repels revolutions.
So if they need destabilizing forces now, that's you.
But once they destabilize things enough to take power, as Mao phrased it, that's a new phase of the revolution.
That's called building socialism.
They don't need destabilizers anymore.
They got to get rid of you.
And I'm like, if you win, you get your revolution, you lose.
And I feel bad.
I honestly, I mean, I talk big, but I feel bad for these kids that got caught up in this because if I'm not, if I'm right, that's their future.
It's probably a digital gulag, not our physical gulag.
Maybe they're going to have to go farm corn or something, but probably they're going to have to sit in their apartment.
It's like 200 square feet with their oculus on, pretending that they're going nice places, as long as they fill out enough surveys to give data so that whatever the data machine is can collect the data that justifies that and sell their, by participating zero in real life, they build up carbon credits that the rich people can buy because this whole fake carbon economy or sustainable economy that they're trying to build around it.
I think that's really, I legit think that that's these kids' future.
They go woke, they break themselves, they go in service of the revolution, and then the revolution turns around and eats them too.
Enough people are going to hear what you're saying that it's going to cause a stir, and then more people are going to share it and be aware of it.
And that'll help some.
But the problem is there's not many people like you out there that are saying this in an articulate and very well-informed way where it resonates with people.
I had this one young lady at one point reach out to me and say something I said made her so mad that she went and she like blocked me on social media and then she went and spent months trying to prove that I was wrong and then ended up concluding that I was right and it de-radicalized her.
Well, but the problem is people are so married to their ideas that it's almost impossible for them to look at something that is opposed to it without being angry at it or trying to pick holes at it.
Instead of just like objectively trying to analyze, like, is this possible that this is true?
And isn't it something that governments and dictators and kings have done throughout history?
Haven't they done things in order to initiate more power?
Haven't they had false flags?
Haven't they created conflict that wasn't real in order for them to gain more power or start wars?
Yeah, they have.
What makes us think they don't do that anymore?
And if you're doing it in this digital battlefield that we're all currently involved in, that's what you would use.
You would use social media platforms and you would control them like the FBI was trying to control Twitter.
They were infiltrating social media organizations to suppress legitimate opinions and thoughts of actual experts.
Like, let's look at three populations and say, maybe this will wake somebody up.
How are they going to treat you?
So the three populations are the revolutionaries themselves, the communists.
We'll just look historically and then say American classical liberals, right?
And then Christians.
So what's going to happen?
So you go woke, right?
And you're in this and then the revolution succeeds.
What have communists always historically done?
They always eat their own.
Yuri Beznimov says that too, right?
He says, don't deal with those political prostitutes.
They know too much.
We'll line them up against the wall and shoot them.
That's what he says.
So your chances are bad at best under the revolution.
What are American, you know, good old Americans going to do if you come out of being woke?
So we don't have to talk about the revolution.
What are other woke people going to do to you if you stop being woke?
They're going to treat you like a traitor.
They're going to hate you.
They're going to destroy your social life, maybe your professional life.
What are normal Americans going to do?
Like, cool, you do you, right?
Live your life.
Glad that you got that sorted out.
And what are Christians going to do?
I forgive you.
That's literally their religion.
I forgive you.
If you repent, come join our church if you want to.
If you don't, I understand.
You're welcome.
No big deal.
Like, if they're Christians who are Christians, I mean, I know that there's these Christian fascist dudes who are thinking they can pound their chest and like be big tough guys.
But even the other Christians are like, that's not biblically sound.
Like, Jesus didn't do that.
Right.
So it's like the woke are going to treat you like crap if you leave.
So you're locked in.
If you come over and be an American, again, just a normal American dude, we're going to be like, cool, welcome back.
And the Christians are, if you go and like repent of your errors or whatever and you decide to convert, are going to be like, they're going to celebrate you.
They're going to be like, praise God.
It's night and day different.
So revolutionaries destroy their own.
And everybody else, like you're saying, like just normal people who value, like, what productive thing can you do?
The problem is if that ideology gets manipulated by the people in power as well.
It's all dangerous.
It's all dangerous because it's just what human beings do when they get into power.
And if there was a radical right-wing religious sect that was in control of this country, we'd be just as scared as if there's a radical left-wing progressive, woke organization like there is currently.
You know, my friend Duncan Trussell, when the George Floyd riots were happening in California, he was like, dude, we're going to get a radical right-wing president.
When Christians, the really crazy ones that you're talking about that don't represent the actual teachings of Christ, when those people think that there's like a holy war that they're a part of and that, you know, they have to oppose all the other people and they're the ones who get to enforce the rules and they're the ones who get to enforce what people say and can and can't do.
And if you say, God damn it, you go to jail for a year.
Well, I mean, legitimately ones, not George Soros' weird fantasy about it.
So it's like that's so important for people to understand because the line, you know, Solchenichin said the line of good and evil cuts through every human heart, but so does the line of tyranny.
Then people who are afraid or they're angry or they feel like they've been robbed or cheated or oppressed can be radicalized really easily and become very angry.
And what a lot of people need to understand is that if we put our tinfoil hat back on and we believe that there are people pulling strings, I promise you, they do not care whether a radical left or a radical right breaks the Constitution as long as the Constitution gets broken.
Well, especially if you can get the radical left to behave in a way that was completely opposed to what the radical left was like 20 years ago.
The full trust of the pharmaceutical drug companies, support of the military-industrial complex, support of international wars as long as they're being supported by the Democrats.
The real danger of ESG isn't that it's stupid and that it's control.
It's that it's arbitrary.
Somebody in some room, maybe it's Larry Fink, maybe he's got a little committee, I don't know, gets to decide that today Elon Musk is okay with ESG and then tomorrow he bought Twitter and is for free speech and now he's not okay with ESG.
Or that Halliburton is bad and now it's good.
Like overnight, somebody gets to decide.
So maybe what, you know, the WHO Treaty, we stop talking about the WHO and I should talk about that.
They're in May, at the end of May, they are, the WHO is meeting.
It's some kind of an assembly.
And they are deciding upon whether or not the WHO will have total, they just screwed up one pandemic, and then they say that they need to have total control of pandemic preparedness and public health.
But the thing is, is they, it's not even just about diseases, right?
Because we know about like they screwed up COVID.
It was total global tyranny.
Imagine if they had the power where there is no Florida.
There's no free state of, there's no difference between Texas and California.
It's all whatever the World Health Organization says.
There's no difference between Florida and Canada, or there's no Sweden, which did something different.
Everything has to be on the same page.
But then they go further and they declare other things, matters of public health, like gun violence as a public health threat, racial injustice, inadequate food systems.
It's literally a recipe for them to be able to declare total total tyranny, but particularly over matters, anything that they can skew as a public health.
And so one of the things that they consider to be another kind of pandemic that's a public health risk is misinformation and disinformation.
So it explicitly calls for censorship of what would be misinformation and disinformation.
So now all of these 100 and whatever, 93 or whatever it is, countries are supposed to sign over to the World Health Organization the ability through a treaty that's not being ratified in the Senate like a treaty.
Probably Joe Biden will do it as an executive agreement rather than as passing two-thirds majority in the Senate.
So we have this treaty now that hands over the control of the states and of the United States as a federal entity to the World Health Organization, which is led by, I mean, Ted Ross is openly a Marxist.
So like, what the hell's going on with that?
Where they have this total blanket control over anything they can declare public health, including misinformation and disinformation.
One of the things they say, and I don't know if it's in the proposal or if it's in the documentation around it, is that we have a pandemic of too much information.
We have to limit how much information that people actually are getting.
I think Canada's already gung-ho on it, but I think the meet, I don't know exactly how it works, but I think the meeting is at the end of May, and there is no full signing off until the meeting at the end of May.
So we got like 11 weeks to, for example, if we could just make it through, you know, whatever Congress or whatever apparatus is where it has to be ratified in the United States as a treaty according to the Constitution, it's dead in the water for the U.S. because the United States, two-thirds of the senators are not going to go for this unless we're in a lot bigger trouble than I think we are.
It's one of my favorite, you know, Trump, whatever else, he's funny.
One of the favorite things, no, maybe not, but top five favorite things he ever said was he was in an interview and they said, well, what do you think Joe Biden thinks?
And he said, Joe Biden doesn't know he's alive on TV.
I actually hear, like, I fly a lot, so I'm on planes a lot, and sometimes people talk, and they like, I've heard several times people are like, well, I'm a Democrat, but I don't, like, why does this keep happening?
Well, did you see when that guy from Shark Tank, Kevin O'Leary, when he was discussing this whole thing, is like, you're going to ruin real estate development in New York.
People are not going to want to do real estate deals there because this is how they do it.
When they say my building is worth $400 million, you're supposed to say, no, it's worth $300 million.
Here's a loan on $300 million.
Like to say that that's fraud when he paid the loans back.
But don't you want the absolute best people, regardless of their sexual orientation, their gender, their color, their race, the very best people that you can get to fly the fucking planes.
We just see this guy that committed suicide that whistleblower against Boeing, who was saying some deep stuff, like that they were intentionally fitting bogus parts.
I don't know if this is true, but this way he was alleging, and then all of a sudden he, you know, decided it was a good day to kill himself right before his deposition he was supposed to go to.
And so, I mean, it's weird timing.
But what's going?
He's saying that Boeing could be construed, let's suggest, as though it's deliberately committing suicide as an organization.
It's cutting corners.
It's locked in by this ESG, DEI stuff.
That's the easy question: why is DEI?
Because ESG.
It's the S and ESG.
But little do most Americans realize, in addition to scaring the hell out of people and getting people to fly less, China just released a new jet like two years ago called the Comac C919 that is a direct competitor to the Boeing 737.
So maybe you kill Boeing and you allow American manufacturing of high-quality aircraft to fall and then the Chinese competitor is now the thing on the market that doesn't have this bad rap sheet and this risk factor.
Maybe it's big, dirty international business that's actually happening.
Nobody knows about the COMAC because how much do we pay attention to Chinese stuff?
They literally, it launched last year for commercial production.
Oh, but we're exiting shareholder capitalism for stakeholder capitalism now.
In other words, to answer to the ESG cartel, they are, I mean, the Harvard document, this Harvard corporate law document that I was talking about earlier explicitly says that your governance score can go up for giving yourself corporate bonuses for installing ESG.
So you're the CEO, you're the C-suite of Boeing, and you're like, well, my business is going to get attacked on the market.
It's going to be hard to get lines of capital through these banks unless I'm ESG compliant.
And I get a gigantic bonus if I'm ESG compliant.
Well, let's just be ESG compliant.
ESG compliant starts telling you you have all of these expensive regulations that you have to go through and you have all of these DEI social justice things you have to install.
All these administrators you have to hire, commissars you have to hire, DEI officers, ESG officers.
Those are like six, seven-figure jobs.
So you have all this stuff.
So what is it to cut corners on the cost a little bit to pull a broken piece out of the scrap and screw it onto the back of an airplane or to hire people who are not really like they don't know what an impact wrench is, but they'll figure it out on the, you know, the tail portion of a 737 in a moment.
So you hear the left saying it's corporate corner cutting, it's corporate corner cutting, that's profits over everything.
Well, what if the market that they're running in is actually controlled in this ESG sense to where they have very few options and they get to reward themselves for installing it and are punished if they don't.
And I will wear this.
I will put the biggest, let's fold a tricorn Revolutionary War tinfoil hat and go, Joe.
But that would mean they're intentionally destroying a company by sabotage and by a slow infiltration of these ideas to the point where you can get them to fit inferior parts on an aircraft.
That doesn't, it seems like there's got to be inspectors, right?
So the inspectors are part of the scandal is that that's what this guy that's suicide.
That's what he was saying is that they were not inspecting correctly.
And then part of the video that went viral of him talking was that him and his team went out there and they inspected and they found all these violations.
And my first initial thought was this man was so embarrassed by the fact that he incorrectly said that Boeing was an evil corporation that he decided to take his own life because he knew that Boeing was amazing and that he had generally, genuinely done a terrible thing.
The dark story is that they killed him because if he's dead, then they make billions of dollars.
And if he's alive, he could fuck them up and cause the stock to crash and all kinds of other problems to happen and a lot of investigations and all kinds of other stuff, if he's right.
And I know the FAA's gone in and they've done due diligence and inspections to assure that the door plugs of the 737 are installed properly and the fasteners are torn properly.
But my concern is, what's the rest of the airplane?
What's the rest of the condition of the airplane?
And the reason my concern for that is back in 2012, Boeing started removing inspection operations off their jobs.
So it left the mechanics to buy off their own work.
So what we're seeing with the door plug blowout is what I've seen with the rest of the airplane as far as jobs not being completed properly, inspection steps being removed, issues being ignored.
My concerns are with the 737 and the 787 because those programs have really embraced the theory that quality is overhead and non-value added.
So those two programs have really put a strong effort into removing quality from the process.
When I first started working at Charleston, I was in charge with pushing back defects to our suppliers.
And what that meant was I'd take a group of inspectors and actually go to the supplier and inspect their product before they sent it in.
Well, I'd taken a team of four inspectors to Spirit Aero Systems to inspect the 41 section before they sent it to Charleston.
And we found 300 defects.
Some of them were significant that needed engineering intervention.
When I returned to Charleston, my senior manager told me that we had found too many defects and he was going to take the next trip.
So the next trip he went on, he took two of my inspectors.
And when they got back, they were given accolades for only finding 50 defects.
So I pulled that inspector aside and I said, did Spirit really clean up their act that quick?
That don't sound right.
And she was mad.
She said no.
Said the two inspectors were given two hours to inspect the whole 41 section and they were kicked off the airplane.
Yeah, he was doing like a deposition or something the other day when he was found dead in his car in the parking lot of a hotel.
So what you said, the profit thing there.
So I mentioned the Comac C919, and that's the direct competitor, Chinese manufacturer, new Chinese manufacturer to the 737.
Well, there's a Comac 929 as well, which is a direct competitor to the 777 and 787.
And the 787 is the other one that he just mentioned.
And so if we, like I said, I don't know if you've heard of degrowth.
And degrowth is actually a model that kind of can avoid being communist.
But I read this book called Marx and the Anthropocene by this Japanese Marxist named Kohei Saito.
And it's called Toward the Idea of a Degrowth Communism.
And it talks about how what we need to do is, as matches the Marxists of the 60s, by the way, is that what capitalists need to do, Americans, capitalism needs to shrink.
We produce too much stuff that nobody really needs.
So what we need to do, well, I'll just tell you what Herbert Marcuse said in the 60s was socialism has the right ideology, but it can't produce.
So we have to figure out how to make a productive socialism.
And I'm arguing that's what happened in China.
They figured out the code.
Well, how?
By opening up a kind of Potemkin market that the government really controls.
Well, then on the other hand, he said, well, capitalism produces.
His own words were it delivers the goods.
However, it's not sustainable.
It makes too much stuff, too much junk.
And so what we need is a reduction in our standard of living, a reduction in our amount of stuff, a reduction in energy and everything in the West.
And if you could somehow figure out how to make a more sustainable capitalism, then you have, then you're off to the races.
So what I was saying earlier is that when Kissinger and Brzezinski and Deng and Chan and Rockefeller were meeting, they were erecting the idea of this productive socialism for China, for China to take off with a Potemkin contained market.
Meanwhile, eventually the West would have to degrow so that we could have a system that's not going to outstrip the world's resources.
This is at a time when limits to growth from the Club of Rome was really big and really hot.
Klaus Schwab put that, platformed it at the World Economic Forum in 73.
These guys are still around that Paul Ehrlich and his population bomb was like a big thing.
And so these guys were thinking along these terms, and it was how do we degrow the West?
And so what I think we're looking at is, well, there's a Chinese manufacturer that can rise while the American manufacturer shrinks.
America might not be able to make its own jets, but we can buy them from China.
And China becomes more and more secure as the manufacturer from the world.
Meanwhile, the Degrowth Initiative, there's this program, this research project that was called UK FIRES, F-I-R-E-S, like fire, right?
And this was Oxford University, Cambridge, the government, the British government.
Like, this is serious.
And so this thing that came out, published in 2019, was called Absolute Zero.
It's not called net zero.
It's absolute zero.
And it says that net zero is not enough.
We are not going to save the climate change problem if we only go for net zero carbon emissions.
We have to go to absolute zero carbon emissions.
And so it openly says, what are the initiatives?
No new concrete production, no new steel manufacturing, no container shipping.
I mean, you can actually look on the document and see.
It's like zero by 2050.
But it also says no fossil fuels and no air travel by 2050.
Zero.
Absolutely zero air travel by 2050.
And so how do you get to zero air travel by 2050?
How do you create a massive reduction?
Well, what else is going on besides the Chinese market go up?
Boeing look bad.
Media, of course, is amplifying stories that are pretty routine.
Little things go wrong with aircraft all the time.
I've taken off a few times, you know, a flapper or something gets stuck.
We have to turn around and land and they have to fix it.
This is national news when it happens.
So they're creating this image that is really scary.
So the UK fire thing actually says no domestic flights whatsoever, but international travel will be reserved.
Well, turns out the boom supersonic is a Concorde replacement.
It's really, really fuel efficient.
It's really well designed.
I'm not going to throw shade at it.
So its operating costs are approximately similar to like a 777 or a 747, right, for the same distance.
The Concorde was a disaster in terms of how inefficient it was.
So now you have by 2029, 140-something, 150 or something like that orders for the boom supersonic.
So they're planning on flying boom supersonics internationally, but they see the bigger one seats 60 and the smaller one seats 45.
Well, a 747 or a 767 might seat 360.
So that's either six or eight times as many people flying at roughly the same operation cost.
So you do the math and the tickets are going to go up by six to eight times over.
That's not a difficult calculation to figure out if they want to make the same profit, which means who's flying?
People who can pay eight times as much for a plane ticket or as who's flying.
Nobody else is flying.
So what you end up doing is for the sake of the climate, you degrow commercial travel that's going to kill off a ton of business, but you don't need that.
You can do it by Zoom.
Wouldn't this podcast be so much more engaging if we were on Zoom screens?
Wouldn't we be having a great time and great relationships?
Have you ever watched Zoom?
Like they're doing an interview.
I do a ton of them.
So I watch these interviews on Zoom.
It's like five minutes in and I'm having like suicidal ideation.
Like nobody's going to kill themselves because a movie went 45 minutes too long.
But no, I think this degrowth thing is serious.
What's it called?
The monthly, is it monthly review, monthly standard?
One of these.
It's a socialist magazine.
Published this article about degrowth.
And they have their drawing of what it's supposed to look like.
And it's supposed to go down to this thing that Klaus Schwab talks about called a circular economy.
Bill Gates talks about a circular economy.
But literally their drawing is a spiral down to this little circle in the middle.
It looks like your society going down the drain.
And it's like, how do you not make fun of this?
But I think that they're very serious to try to shrink the economy.
And I have my tinfoil hat, but I can tell you why that's the strategy also.
And it's to avoid the war.
It's to avoid China rising.
This is that Thucydides trap.
We've kind of started there.
Thucydides' trap was the idea that when you have a rising power, in that case, from Thucydides, it was Sparta, going up against an existing power, which would be Athens.
In our day, though, it's China and the United States.
If the thing rises, eventually it's going to try to get regional, or in this case, global dominance.
China is going to try to become, when it becomes strong enough, the global superpower.
Well, if you want access to that market, which they did, you have to open that up and China's going to rise.
So you get trapped into the threat of a power struggle between two very wealthy superpowers eventually.
Well, how do you avoid the war?
Simple.
You take the existing power and sunset it while the other one rises.
So the sun is no longer rising in the West.
It's now setting over America and it gets to rise over the East.
We have a century of Asia.
So we build up Chinese markets.
We diminish American markets.
And I think that the whole ESG program, which by the way, China is exempt from, is designed to do that.
Well, imagine what would happen if you told them no.
They are the manufacturing base for the world.
What if you said you have to like, you know, start following, you know, decent human rights protocols?
You can't not pay people for their labor.
Maybe don't kill people.
Don't disappear people anymore.
And at the same time, you know, instead of building something like 300 new coal plants, which is, I think, what they're doing, they're building a couple of coal plants a week in China.
They're building 57 nuclear power plants.
The U.S. is taking some offline, but we're building one in Georgia right now.
So you're creating the state of energy dominance for China because you've released them from all these expensive protocols.
And all you hear is when people try to start a big company that could compete in the U.S., well, let's get the manufacturing for X, Y, or Z, take it out of the hands of China, bring it back to America.
Let's un-offshore some stuff, bring some American manufacturing back.
They're like, whoops, too expensive.
DEI, ESG makes it too complicated, too expensive.
Everybody complains about it in the business world.
I can't think of a cleaner explanation that this is deliberate.
I've tried really hard to think of an explanation other than that this is on purpose.
And they all start like spinning wheels.
It's like really weird.
But the tools are there.
ESG, social credit in China, the whole thing.
But I think the Boeing thing is just another piece of this same puzzle.
It's destroy the manufacturing base and the wealth of the West and hand it off to what they call the Global South in China through its Belt and Road Initiative.
I thought that they were setting up, and I'm going to totally give myself an escape hatch for this, but I thought that there was for sure going to be a clash, a violent clash between probably conservative Christians and the LGBT thing somewhere around Pride last year.
I was talking about that leading up to, you know, through the spring of 23.
And there was obviously no incident of violence.
I was particularly concerned when all those Christians went to LA to Dodger Stadium and they protested the weird, what were they, the sisters of perpetual indulgence or whatever they called themselves, the drag queens that looked like nuns.
And I thought, well, this is going to be it, right?
So I was wrong.
I overcooked there.
They did not.
Now, here's my escape hatch.
I think that when that shooter who was trans in Nashville, was it Covington?
And there were six people were shot, three kids, three teachers.
But the one where they haven't released the manifesto yet, but Stephen Crowder ended up leaking allegedly three pages of it.
When that happened, I think the entire country had like a take-a-breath moment because you had this very disturbed young person who was in the transgender universe who went on a rampage.
And you very infrequently see she was biologically female, young women going on rampages.
So why in the world is it?
Was she hopped up on testosterone?
Was she, you know, was the test converting to estradiol through, you know, aromatase or whatever and driving her into like, you know, rage?
Some of those other ones, though, like we had the one that was called In Through the Back Door, where we said that straight men would become more feminist and more sensitive and less transphobic if they practice putting things up their own asses.
Well, there's I don't think that that merits a scientific paper, but if you wanted to do that and people wanted to see it, I would have no problem with it.
Like if you, if you decided that we're going to go back to like the days of, you know, when you see these Rubin-esque women in these paintings that are obese, eating grapes, that this was considered hot because it was really difficult to get fat back then.
My favorite part of that actually is in the I mean the title, but in the way aftermath of that, this real neuroscientist wrote this paper like, no, there's no way that anybody could actually say that's absurd.
And so we wrote a paper back and we're like, no, it's really absurd.
And then he wrote another paper.
Like, there's no basis upon which anybody could say that fat bodybuilding is an absurdity.
His name is Jeffrey Cole.
He, do you remember that weird phobia that came out and it went viral like 10, 15 years ago where he was like, they discovered a new phobia of things with like little holes in it all over the place?
Trypsophobia.
I don't know, something like that.
No, there's like honeycombs or whatever, and it like weirds some people out.
If you were interested in doing that, like if you're interested in drinking yourself to death, like I don't think you should do it, but you're allowed to.
And if you decide to fat bodybuild yourself into a state of biological decay, I went off my diet and I'm like, like, because I'm doing that like meat thing now.
So I'm like three days of just, you know, okay, I'll eat breakfast.
So what I said when I went over there first time, so this is kind of relevant, is this whole like ESG model.
The first time I went over there, as I said, I came home and people were like, well, what's it like?
And I was like, well, I looked around and it's obviously communist because you can see weird shit where like people are like fake doing fake jobs.
Like it's obvious that they just are paid an income to look busy.
Like stuff like a dude like sitting on the, on his hands and knees hitting the ground with a hammer when the boss is around, like doing nothing.
Like I went to a bank one time when I was over there to change like $200 so I could have some cash.
And they were like, oh yeah, the bank doesn't change money on Tuesdays.
And I was like, what?
And then I got bumped into by this janitor.
And that's like, I guess, taboo or something because he was way too worried about having bumped into a customer than I thought he should have been.
Maybe I just don't know the culture.
So I was, he was like, he bumps into me and I know like 10 things in Chinese.
So it's like, Mei Wen Ti, which means like no problem.
And all of a sudden, you could see, you know, they all did the little like, you know, you're not supposed to do racial microaggressions, but they did the little face.
They're like, you know, because I did the whole like Asian surprise face because I spoke Chinese.
The rumors of Ireland's dairy cull landed in a media and online context primed by the Dutch case for outrage.
Case in point, Musk comment was in response to a tweet by a right-wing provocateur about a story in the obscure Wyoming publication called Cowboy State Daily that accused Ireland's government of bovine sidelintions.
That article, in turn, cited an op-ed from the British newspaper, The Telegraph, railing against Ireland's alleged mooded cow massacre and warned in apocalyptic terms of an eco-modernist agenda to do away with conventional meat altogether.
The Telegraph did not cite its sources, but it likely drew on an article published the previous day in the Irish newspaper The Independent.
That story reported on the internal government document discussed above, including the proposal that 195,000 cows be culled over three years at the government's expense to help achieve its ambitious climate goals.
But hold on a second.
goes on to continue about how it would be so hard to even do it but that story but hold up go back there that story reported on the internal government document it's yeah so what is the internal government document need to call 65 000 cows every year in order to meet the proposed so they're just saying that if we re there's no way to meet these goals The only way to meet these goals in terms of the impact agriculture would have, we'd have to kill 65,000 cows a year.
That's what I talked to these ranchers out in New Mexico not that long ago, and they were telling me that that's the way all the policies are.
It's that to meet whatever the new environmental standard is so that you don't get somebody breathing down your neck or maybe you don't get fines or whatever, that they're actually impossible.
He said that the only way you could meet some of these is to have no cows and no people on the land whatsoever.
And I don't know if they're actually going to move on that, but that's this is what I'm talking about with, because it's not in the UK fires absolute zero document.
It's 100% in there that this says no beef, no lamb at all.
So those have got to go.
By 20, I guess, 50, there will be zero consumption of beef and lamb under the ambitious net zero or absolute zero, I should say, climate.
I don't know, but they talk a lot about the emissions of those, but then they also say that when there was the massacre of the bisons, that that was really bad.
And bisons make a lot of emissions, but there was no like climate emergency from all the bison.
Like, does Bill Gates know more about all of this than everybody?
Like, I get it.
He built Microsoft.
Like, he can do something.
He knows something.
Like, I'm not going to take that away from him, but like, why is he like the god of vaccines and climate and like every other thing because he built fucking computer?
I actually get hopeful when I think that they are.
I'm much more afraid of it being just some random organic shit going off the rails than it is that there's some number of people who could be identified as criminals.
It's like not to get all like churchy, but I have been.
Seriously, when I said earlier that I've been looking at the Bible a lot, looking at the Gospels, not just particularly, but especially I was reading the Gospel of Matthew the other day, seventh chapter.
And I bet you never thought you were going to have this conversation with me.
But I was reading it and I'm reading about the, you know, the narrow, the way is narrow, the straight and narrow way, where he has that in Matthew 7.
He's like, you know, wide is the path that leads to destruction, but the way that leads to life is straight and narrow.
And it's like, well, what is that talking about?
It's like, you have to live well.
You have to treat each other well.
It's like you have to also repent when you mess up.
And people don't like to do that.
You can't just go along with the crowd because the crowd is going in some direction.
That's the wide path, and that leads to destruction of it.
The way is straight and narrow.
When he says straight, it's not like straight, like straight line.
It's straight like a waterway.
So that means that the edges are like right there.
And if you don't run the boat just right, you know, you're going to crash into the sides.
And it's a weird kind of pun or whatever in English, but it turns out that that's the word that he used for Greek is what it means is a narrow waterway.
And so it's like, you got to, it's very important that we, you know, we live like that.
And so what does religion do?
Well, religion teaches people to like at least contemplate this crap.
Like, why don't you stop for five minutes of your week and think maybe there are some like ways to be a good person.
I like to tell people, this is my little like bit, right?
So I'll waste one of my bits.
But I tell people it's like, here's how communism is.
This is how freaking seductive it is.
So in, again, Matthew chapter 10, Jesus is talking and he says that I send you out and you have to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
It's a very famous, Matthew 10, 16, it's a very famous verse.
So you have to be wise and wary like a snake, right?
Testing, the tongue testing, the air, knowing where you're going.
If I'm going to send you out into the world, you've got to be wise and judicious and discerning, but you also have to be gentle, right?
And so what do the communists do?
This is how subtle they are, Joe.
They come along and say, did you hear that?
Jesus said, be gentle.
And they leave out the other part.
And you're like, yeah, he did.
And then you got a bunch of like weak Namby-Pamby pastors who think it's about being winsome and being cool for their congregation and like not standing up for the truth any longer.
And that's bad.
And then what happens is stuff starts to go shitty.
And then you have Mussolini comes along.
The fascist guy comes along.
And he's like, the problem is being gentle.
But no, the problem was that you're not being discerning and wise anymore.
So what happens is the communists take away half the commandment to suck you in.
It marries a truth to a lie or whatever.
And then the fascists overreact by throwing the principle out entirely.
But if people were grounded in their faiths and taking it seriously, they would realize, no, no, no, no, I have to be kind and gentle, but I also have to be wise as a serpent.
When the serpent's in danger, it doesn't hesitate to strike, but it's only going to do that when it's in danger.
So it's like, that's crafty, man.
And then look at, like, that's crafty to an adult.
Now, imagine when they do that to like a five-year-old, like with the stuff in schools or whatever.
I just saw this thing that said that the environmental impact of electric cars is actually worse overall than the environmental impact of a traditional combustion engine.
Remember when they did that with Twitter with the Hunter Biden laptop?
How wild is that?
Electric vehicles release more toxic particles into the atmosphere and are worse for the environment than their gas-powered counterparts, according to a resurfaced study.
Study published by emissions data from emissions analytics was released in 2022, but has attracted a wave of attention this week by being cited in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Sunday.
It found brakes and tires on EVs release 1,850 times more particle pollution compared to modern tailpipes, which have efficient exhaust filters, bringing gas-powered vehicles' emissions to new lows.
Today, most vehicle-related pollution comes from tire wear.
Whoa.
As heavy cars drive on light-duty tires, most often made with synthetic rubber made from crude oil and other fillers and additives, they deteriorate and release harmful chemicals into the air, according to emission analytics.
Because EVs are an average of 30% heavier, brakes and tires in the battery-powered cars wear out faster than on standard cars.
Emission analytics found that tire wear emissions on half a metric ton of battery weight in an EV are more than 400 times as great as direct exhaust particulate emissions.
For reference, half a metric ton is equivalent to roughly 1,100 pounds.
That's something that someone had told me a long time ago about cities.
That the thing about the pollution is it's not just the emissions.
Yeah, but I mean if you think about all the other things that we do for the environment, if carbon ceramic brakes are a possibility, how much more expensive?
Does it make a car $500 more?
Like what is there a way that they can produce them in mass?
Is there a reason why they haven't done that?
I mean, that seems to be alone a solution, at least for electric cars.
If you'd say, you're spending the money to get a Tesla, they're fucking expensive already.
If someone's going to spend $120,000 on a car, you won't spend $122 and get carbon ceramic brakes that won't pollute the atmosphere nearly as much.
You saw what the Buddha judge said a year or two, two years ago, that their goal was by 2030 to get to net zero, that's the buzzword, automobile deaths.
No, I actually think like I see these guys bungling so much.
Like Joe Biden's bungal.
He's a bungler.
He is a bungle.
Yeah.
Like I got asked at this Christian event one time, this kind of person's like wailing and they're like, you know, if God is real, it was almost like if God is real, why did we have to have Joe Biden?
And like the only answer I could think of on the spot was because people have to be able to see.
Like dudes pulling the curtain back for an awful, like, what the hell is going on?
And when they expose it, like when Corine Jean-Pierre, however you say her name, when she tweeted accidentally from her own account as Joe Biden, it's like, oh, look.
James Lindsay, I'm very, very glad you're out there.
I'm glad that you know as much as you know and you can talk about these things and that you have a personality that seems to enjoy some of this conflict.
It's also kind of amazing when we know as much as we know about human nature.
You know, we know as much as we know about the benefits of hard work and work ethic and discipline and all these things that we've always praised people for in the past is now being dismissed as being racist or sexist or Islamophobic or whatever the fuck it is.