#959: August 27, 2024—Dan Friesen and Jordan Holmes dissect Alex Jones’ chaotic claims, from mispronouncing callers to peddling Tucker Carlson’s edited "psychic" video as proof of his influence, despite unsold tickets. Jones amplifies baseless conspiracy theories like migrant attacks in Sweden (a domestic violence case) and Trump supporters seizing infrastructure, while Jordan mocks Carlson’s self-serving framing of Durov’s arrest as a U.S.-led free speech crackdown. Carlson’s selective guest choices and performative Musk praise reveal exploitation over conviction, exposing his brand’s hollow resistance narrative. Ultimately, the episode underscores how fear-mongering thrives on misdirection, even when evidence crumbles. [Automatically generated summary]
It's completely different to the way that I normally play these types of games because I'm usually like a stealth and then I have to like go and get each individual thing and do the whole thing and then I have to be gone with nobody ever seeing me.
Biden spoke that day and again the day after, the day after the shooting, the Secret Service, FBI, and Milwaukee law enforcement held a joint press conference to address the shooting as well as security concerns for the RNC.
You can find all these videos really easily.
All of them are on C-SPAN.
Alex is just pretending none of this exists because lying about it is much easier as a way to make this narrative work.
Yeah, it feels like if anybody is covering it up or at least not playing it hard enough, it is Trump.
Like, because if it was me doing this, I'm running the campaign and I'm just like, buddy, somebody tried to kill you because you're so dangerous, et cetera.
We're playing everything is also a result of them trying to kill me.
Zuckerberg comes out yesterday and says, okay, you caught me because members of the administration have been lying.
And Biden's been lying.
And Kamala's been lying.
And Maorkas has been lying.
And the Attorney General's been lying.
This year and last year in those weaponization hearings, weaponization of the censorship hearings.
Weaponization of the media hearings.
And so Zuckerberg, though, I guess, doesn't want to perjure himself.
So he wrote a letter yesterday saying, okay, yes, I was pressured.
I did censor for the election.
I election meddled.
He also spent $450-something million to categorize all the names of dead people or folks that have moved out of district and gave them the illegal aliens and others to vote and stuff the ballot boxes in the drop boxes.
So he just said that the Biden administration pressured them to remove content that would be dangerous around COVID and that he would resist those kinds of pressures in the future.
This raises an interesting point because legitimately nothing in the letter that Zuckerberg wrote is news.
But I think it's the first time that we have this big CEO expressing personally that he felt pressured by the requests made by the government.
And this is where things are kind of murky.
Like, is it okay for a government entity to make requests that you can feel pressured to acquiesce to if you're the head of a big company?
I would reframe this question and ask, is it even possible for a government entity to make a request of a big CEO that can never be experienced as applying pressure?
That is to say, is implied or subtle pressure always a part of government communication?
And I think the answer to that question is yes, which is why it's important as an individual to know your rights when you're dealing with law enforcement.
In the same way, by communicating with the government, Zuckerberg has put himself in a position where there's just going to be a feeling of pressure, and it's his responsibility to navigate that.
Once the government is mandating what he must do, then it's far closer to coercion, and that's a totally different conversation.
But if requests are understood to be pressure, I think that might be a natural and unavoidable part of communication between government and business.
And in his letter, Zuckerberg even says, quote, ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure.
He felt pressure, but there's no indication from his letter that the government acted in any coercive way.
If I were Zuckerberg, I think I would feel constantly a little worried about pressure coming from the government, considering all the accusations of antitrust type activity and monopolistic practices that's mind-blowing.
I can understand why you would have an approach of some hubris, but I would also think that the only thing that is like potentially stopping you from being able to exercise your business exactly how you want to is theoretical government oversight.
He's written this letter to Jim Jordan, too, which is a little bit of a talent.
So, Alex is really going to have to lie to make this letter fit his narratives because it's a bit of an uncomfortable crossroad.
Before that letter was published, Zuckerberg was the evilest of evil globalists who wanted to fist fight Elon Musk and who spent his own money to make databases to steal the election for Trump.
In order for this letter to actually work the way Alex wants it to, he's got to make so many more confessions than he actually does in the letter.
As it stands, it just kind of is saying that Zuckerberg's like, I'm a weak leader for a media platform.
It's just the level of lying when you think they can't turn up the lies anymore, when the lies backfire on them, when the lies don't work anymore, their answer is just get even crazier.
And they've caught all these millions of illegal aliens signed up and dead people to vote.
Just in Texas alone, a bunch of other states found the same thing and just expunged them off the rolls.
And the Democrats are going into total conniption fits, filing lawsuits to keep the illegal aliens and dead people on the voter rolls.
I mean, you can't make that up.
Just in Texas alone, Governor Greg Abbott removes over 1 million ineligible voters, including nearly 500,000 dead people and illegal aliens.
So recently, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced that they had removed approximately a million ineligible voters from the Texas rolls.
In the real world, this is something that happens kind of regularly.
Every state has a process in place to routinely trim the rolls, but it's obviously not a perfect system.
And generally, folks that care about civil liberties agree that it's best to err on the side of not restricting voting access.
Making sure that everyone's on the roll who is a fully qualified voter, that's a process that would take an almost comical amount of time and organization.
And the funding and infrastructure doesn't really exist to handle that on the state level.
So in the case of Texas, they have processes like sending notices to potentially dead voters or voters who have moved and not updated their registration location.
It takes multiple times not hearing back to justify kicking someone off the rolls, which is good, but it's also kind of inefficient.
The Democrats aren't suing Abbott.
He's being sued by civil liberties groups that argue that his purge of the rolls is illegal because it's unclear what standards his office used to make the cuts and because it's a federal crime to remove voters from the rolls within 90 days of an election.
This is a provision that's important because if it weren't there, it would be super easy for a state to widely disenfranchise particular groups of people by erroneously kicking them off voter rolls close to an election so they wouldn't have the time to sort it out before it was time to vote.
Or more simply, you could just create more administrative hurdles to suppress voter turnout this way.
For instance, in this case, over 6,500 alleged non-citizens were kicked off the voter rolls, but no basis was given for determining these non-citizens.
It's very possible that some of these people are people who like they have a right to vote and they've been misidentified, so they're having their votes deprived by this.
Texas did this in 2019 when their Secretary of State's office flagged 95,000 registered voters as being ineligible.
As that number was examined closer, it was discovered that these people were almost all mistakenly flagged.
In one county, the elections administrator had been sent a list of 8,035 people who, quote-unquote, shouldn't be on the rolls.
And the Texas Tribune reported that he ended up finding two non-citizens in the bunch, both of whom marked that they were not citizens on their registrations, but who had accidentally been added to the rolls by the office side of the country.
This was a big scandal, and Secretary of State David Whitley had to resign when it all came to light because of how glaring this was.
This kind of action is generally not motivated by a need to clean up the voter rolls, this kind of push to get people off the voter rolls.
It's a political move to push illegal voting narratives, and it's also a voter intimidation tactic primarily aimed at naturalized citizens who can vote but couldn't at some point when they lived in the country.
So like they may have answered, I'm not a citizen, to a past time they filled out a form.
It's very easy to get a lot of these people sort of swept up when you're not careful.
If I was going to make a bet, I would say that if they made it so everybody could vote, no registration required, and you could vote as many times as you wanted, nobody was going to ask any questions.
95% of the people in this country would do the exact same thing they're doing right now.
We'd have about 45% show up to vote, but there would be a weird 2% that voted like 7,000 times.
If you understand what Alex is talking about in the correct context, the story he's covering is about how he supports voter suppression efforts and wants to demonize civil liberty groups who are trying to protect access to voting, which is nuts.
So that clip, I think, really sums up Alex's relationship with Trump.
He doesn't like what he actually says a lot of the time because Trump's positions on a bunch of shit should be deal breakers for him.
When Trump talks, you run the risk of him saying things like, we need to move away from coal and use nuclear power to fuel the AI arms race with China, which Alex should oppose on so many levels.
On the flip side, Alex really loves edited packages of Trump over swelling music where someone with a knack for marketing has spliced together Trump saying exciting things about free speech.
This is the Trump that Alex supports.
Whereas the real person is just kind of a frustration.
This is absolutely huge at Ivan Reiklin on X, Reikland.com.
He's a former Greenberry Lieutenant Colonel, recovering lawyer, ultra-marathoner, operating at the intersection between national security, startups, politics, and law.
And they've got a big conference coming up that's not just a congressional hearing to focus on the folks that are at the hearings.
The J13 Forum, 8-26-24, 12 p.m. Eastern live stream.
So as Alex has been hyping up Reiklin being on the show, he's been saying that he's involved with congressional hearings.
As it turns out, this actually is about a live stream about Trump's attempted assassination that was held on the 26th by the Heritage Foundation, featuring Eric Prince, Dan Bongino, and Matt Gates.
It showcased to the American public and to inform the Republican conference that Speaker Johnson had appointed these other rhino individuals to perform the official investigation of July 13th.
Meanwhile, none of those people, practically none of those people on that committee, have any experience in looking into this.
And they were selected by design.
I'm of the opinion, Alex, that they were appointed by Mike Johnson at the direction of Paul Ryan so that they wouldn't identify and implicate Paul Ryan's potential involvement in this op, if you will.
So apparently he is applying undue pressure on Mike Johnson to make a fake investigation into the assassination attempt because they don't want those threads to be pulled that would implicate Paul Ryan.
When he came out with that comment yesterday, he's basically begging for mercy.
He's begging for amnesty.
And now I did a call out saying that September 3rd is your last day for amnesty if you're going to come out as a whistleblower.
It doesn't apply to the principles on my deep state target list.
Mark Zuckerbuck is the principal on that list, which means even though he is apologizing for his genocidal participation with the censorship, he's not going to get amnesty.
If I have anything to do it, which I will as long as I'm alive, I am going to guarantee maximum consequences for Zuckerberg's involvement in censoring speech that ended up killing and murdering tens of thousands at a minimum.
No, I saw that you broke it, and I'm glad that you did because it'll give me a little bit more time to kind of analyze this.
If you look at the timeline from last weekend to Monday or over the weekend, on Friday is when the endorsement took place, and you saw the crowd in Arizona.
They went absolutely nuts.
I've never seen or heard such an ovation of support when RFK came on stage, other than obviously for President Trump.
But it's happening in the historic homeland of Christianity from Scandinavia really all the way to Hungary and Central Europe is kind of the border.
They held the line.
But everywhere else, Ireland?
What did Ireland do to deserve this?
But the same thing is happening everywhere.
And you think, well, is this a conspiracy?
Is it a manifestation of spiritual war?
That's my conclusion.
You know, I have no real evidence, but I don't see another explanation that makes sense.
I don't know, but it's all happening at once.
As you said, exactly the same thing.
It's much bigger than just, you know, the refugee agencies pushing people in because they're liberal and the media is supporting them because they're liberal too.
And then we'll have governors and attorney generals and the president on our side, and we will just simply go into the power plants and go into the corporate facilities that the globalists have seized, and we will just remove them legally and lawfully.
unidentified
God's going to move his mighty hand here shortly, Alex.
I think we all know that.
All of us believers are going to be able to do it.
So, Alex, Tucker, I think he is late or something.
At one point, Alex is taking a call and he just completely ignores the person and is like, oh, sorry, someone came into the studio and was stabbing me.
I think they were saying that Tucker was running a little late or something because he ends up just playing a bunch of clips about how Muslims are stabbing people.
So this video that Alex plays is from last May 2023.
And the attacker in this case has already been charged and sentenced to two years in prison for stabbing one man.
Once he's served his prison time, he'll be deported and barred from ever re-entering Sweden.
Alex is presenting this video as a migrant just randomly climbing in someone's window and attacking them, but there's more context here.
This man was using a ladder to try to climb into his ex-girlfriend's home and attack her.
The guy who got stabbed was a friend of hers who was trying to talk him down.
This attacker was a danger to the people around him, but his status as a migrant has nothing to do with that.
The issue here was one of domestic violence, but Alex is using this to depict some kind of random migrant crime wave, even though it's over a year old as a video and doesn't relate really.
This is a dude who's trying to incite hatred on racial and xenophobic lines.
Yeah, you know, I mean, if you really want to just let down, let all of our labels go, let all of our stuff go, all of our things that we get, you know, excited about go.
I think a lot of our problems really just are domestic violence.
The point of doing this whole tour revolves around you, and that's not flattery.
It's sincere.
By the way, being called the most powerful journalist in America, it really is like being the best caterer in the Central African Republic.
I mean, it's such a disgusting business.
I'm embarrassed even to be called a journalist.
But no, the point is, and I'm always amazed to be on your show because the FBI has been trying to shut you down for so long and you're still here.
So that just shows the power of one man's determination to defeat the machine.
God bless you for that.
But you can't censor a live event.
And I'll be honest without getting into details.
Obviously, you were like the first person I wanted to have on in one of these stadium shows.
And finding a venue for that for, you know, the disgrace, the dangerous, the terrifying Alex Jones, you know, whose main crime was predicting 9-11 in detail, can have him.
But generally, it's like what you do is you have the kernel of the truth and you just kind of wrap it around and oomph, you know, and you get it through, you get it across the line.
I do not know how to bald face say shit to Alex the way Tucker does.
I have no evidence of this, but this is just what I believe to be true.
If you're willing to be that upfront about how little evidence you require of anything, then maybe you did just see this stupid edited video of Alex and you're like, oh my God.
It's just he has a true, like, I think, but I mean, I've known that from so many rich people that I've met throughout my life is their ability to lie is unparalleled.
Tucker's not allowing his audience to see Alex and decide for themselves.
He's selling them on him and promoting Alex as a prophet.
Tucker wants to pretend that Alex is this entity that's so challenging to the system and it's a revolutionary act for him to have him on the tour stop because that plays into Tucker's own self-image.
He can pretend that the goal is to let the audience decide for themselves about Alex, but Tucker hasn't even looked any deeper than an edited clip to decide that Alex can see the future.
Why doesn't Tucker look a little deeper and see for himself why people might not like Alex?
Probably because to do so would jeopardize their ability to make a shitload of money playing this false iconoclast role.
Like, that's why I immediately went to the hearing aids because the hearing aid people, they're the people who are trying to like, oh, you have a hearing loss, so let's try and help you.
And then they're the salesmen who are just like, I met so many people who are like, these hearing aids aren't working.
And then I find out that the guy hadn't even turned them on.
And it's like, how could you be such a psychopath to sit there across from another human being and lie to their face for money?
There's no one to twist the words into a storyline that's been pre-approved by NSA and the Department of Homeland Security.
It's just like you and the person.
And I just love that.
I love the idea, the immediacy of it and the unfiltered nature of it.
So, yeah, I mean, I literally can't wait.
And I bet you, and again, this is not flattery, but sincere, not one person will come away from that event in Reading, Pennsylvania at the end of next month thinking, oh, Alex Jones is as insane and dangerous as I was told.
They're going to come away saying, actually, I agree with all of that.
Why is this guy so bad?
And then they're going to realize, oh, he's so bad because he's telling me things I kind of suspected were true.
I mean, I was doing an interview yesterday with Bobby Kennedy.
Really, an amazing interview.
And right in the middle of it, he's like, you know, atrazine, you know, it can change the sex of frogs.
And he was on a roll, so I didn't want to interrupt him.
And I was like, I think Alex Jones made that point like 15 years ago and was mocked.
So when Tucker says that people will probably leave the show thinking that Alex isn't so bad and maybe the man just hates him because he speaks the truth, that's not because there's no mediator.
It's because Tucker's the mediator and that's the message he wants them to leave the show with.
This is all just such a transparent charade and you almost feel embarrassed for him trying to sell this shit.
Also, just because it's fun.
In 2020, Trump's administration cut regulations around atrazine, making monitoring pollution of public waterways much more difficult.
In 2021, when Biden got into office, his EPA put new rules in place to limit the amount of atrazine that can be used, including prohibiting its use aerially.
And when rain is likely to cause runoff, when that's forecast within 48 hours, you weren't allowed.
There was a regulation against that.
If you're a they're turning the frogs gay voter, then Biden is your guy and Trump shouldn't be.
Now, the right-wing Supreme Court that Trump put in place and Alex loves so much ruled overturning Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that regulatory agencies like the EPA have way less authority to make rules and protect public shit like common waterways or the air from people who can make a few extra bucks by polluting.
The net result of that is going to be much more atrazine that is spilled into public waters.
Well, you're too kind, but already very successful.
Already very successful events, selling out quickly.
People go to tuckercarlson.com forward slash events.
They can find everything right there.
And it really is an act of resistance to do this and to get out there en masse.
And it's really overall about the campaign, I think, for free speech.
Speaking of Elon Musk, we have, I know you talked about this last few days, the arrest of the head of Telegraph, which is even bigger globally right now than X, though X is growing, already bigger than Facebook and Instagram.
I mean, that really is another sign of major tyranny.
And I think a beta test for trying to arrest Elon Musk.
We know Australia, we know Brazil, we know the EU are all talking about wanting to arrest Elon Musk.
So these dudes are not dealing with this case, honestly.
And it's a shame because they have a leg to stand on here without lying.
They want to present the idea that Pavel Durov, the CEO of Telegram, was arrested because he wouldn't censor speech like other social media platforms.
They allowed anti-vax stuff and bigotry, so Macron had to take them down.
In the real world, Telegram refused to cooperate with, quote, multiple criminal cases in France tied to child sexual abuse, drug trafficking, and online hate crimes, according to reporting from the New York Times.
The issue is that these crimes were facilitated by the platform of Telegram, and it appears that Durov has a pattern of being uncooperative with investigations into these crimes.
This wouldn't be a huge issue if the communications on Telegram were all end-to-end encrypted, in which case, Telegram wouldn't have access to the stuff that these investigators want.
People think Telegram is all end-to-end encrypted, but it's not always.
So Durov and his company have access to many things that could be requested by investigators.
The question is whether or not this is something that you should be arrested for.
If you create a social network and profit off its operation and people use it to plan and do crimes, are you beholden to help authorities solve those crimes if you're asked?
At what point do you take on responsibility for enabling or covering up a crime by not providing requested information you have access to?
I think that sane people can argue both sides of that, but I resent someone like Tucker or Alex just creating this fake version of the story to make it fit the grievance narratives that they profit off of.
I don't think social networks should exist at all.
So, I mean, also, like, I get what you're saying, but how many people are in the position to be affected by this?
All of them that I can think of probably deserve to go to jail for any number of people.
You know, like Al Capone got a tax evasion thing.
Like, I get it.
I think tax evasion is wrong.
But if you wanted to send people to jail for tax evasion, I would have more of a leg to stand on arguing against that for Alcaf and Pwn than this asshole.
I see this issue as being something that I understand why law enforcement agencies could feel like you're not turning over stuff to us that is essential and you have access to.
The definition of a dictatorship is a government that arrests people for criticizing that government.
So I mean, keep in mind, Durov left Russia in 2014 because the Russian government demanded the IP addresses of people on the other side of the Ukrainian of the false flag, you know, overthrow the Ukrainian government that the State Department, the State Department affected over there, our State Department.
But the irony is 10 years later, he gets arrested by a so-called free country, France, at the behest of the Biden administration.
There's no chance they did that without checking with the U.S. State Department and the National Security Council, the White House.
They did that with the approval of the United States government, the Biden administration, and they arrest the guy for allowing ordinary people to say what they think.
See, but if that was true, that's fucking worrying.
If I was French and it was like, wait, wait, wait, wait, you're just arresting this guy because Biden and the State Department said that you should, and you're making up this bullshit to do it, that's concerning.
Here's what happens a lot of the times: people say things are complicated because if they were not complicated, then they would have to just do the thing, right?
So they complicate things that are not complicated.
That way, they can say things are complicated instead of just doing the thing.
Also, that's not the definition of a dictatorship.
I find it fascinating.
Also, Durav wasn't arrested for letting people post what they think.
Your boomer grandpa in France totally can get arrested for posting a sick anti-immigrant meme.
His company theoretically had information that would aid in the investigation into things like selling people, and they refused to cooperate with that investigation.
The only thing I think that explains Tucker's actions and the way that he's misrepresenting things is malice.
I think what is fascinating about Tucker, and I think part of what explains it, is that he is somehow incredibly wealthy, incredibly famous, and incredibly respected, or whatever it is, but he's never succeeded at anything.
And I think we misunderstand why people become partisan Democrats.
We know why they become conservatives.
I want to think for myself.
I believe in the autonomy of the individual up against the group.
And that's why I knew what I'm talking about.
Dignity created by God.
Can't be taken away.
Inalienable rights.
I mean, those are the core beliefs of people on our side.
The core beliefs of the people on the other side aren't really beliefs.
They're impulses that derive from fear.
And the core fear is I'm alone and powerless in this world.
I need protection from a group I'm going to join.
There is safety and numbers.
That's the reigning impulse on the Democratic side.
Let's all get together and together we are stronger than we are alone.
They fear being alone.
These are people who sleep with the TV on.
These are people who are just terrified.
They're people who are on SSRIs and benzodiazepines.
I mean, this is all shown.
I mean, they're heavily medicated and neurotic because they're afraid.
They don't believe in God, so they're terrified of death.
They have no skills, so they're terrified of change.
I mean, they've created an entire fake economy to elevate and compensate people who can't do anything useful.
We live in a world where people who come to your house don't get paid anything relative to somebody who has no skills at all, who is working in the DEI department of a community college, right?
So the whole enterprise is designed to take fearful people who believe themselves to be powerless, who have no useful skills, and make them feel safe and appreciated.
That's the whole everyone gets a trophy thing that we used to make fun of, but it's actually very deep.
And if I can just recommend to your listeners, probably the only four listening who haven't already read it, but Ted Kaczynski's original manifesto.
He nailed what was going to happen with technology, but he also, more than anything, described the leftist worldview, this helpless, alone, afraid, you know, anxiety-ridden, terrified child in an adult body that is the average leftist.
Gosh, I mean, well, that would have been the national crisis.
I mean, keep in mind that took place at a moment where they were still planning on running Biden and the numbers were bad.
And so killing Trump was the national crisis I referred to that they will always resort to out of desperation if they think they're going to lose power.
And that would have been a crisis.
I mean, first of all, it would have resulted in the death of an innocent of a man, okay, which is always a tragedy no matter what happens.
But the trauma to the country was watching a man get shot.
I mean, the great thing about the Zapruder film is you really have to watch carefully to see the gore in it to watch the top of the president's head come off.
But Trump was being shot in HD.
Close up.
If he'd been shot in the face, that would have been the single ugliest, goriest, most horrifying thing, you know, 300 million people had ever seen.
And that's just bad.
That's just bad right there.
It's pornography on a moral level, okay?
It'd be a snuff film.
It would be a snuff film.
And watching that stuff is bad for you.
Actually, it damages you, in my opinion.
I know that.
So that.
But then this sort of subsequent effect, the ripples out from that, the chaos, the people realizing, wait a second, they just murdered the only hope of the disenfranchised half of the country.
I mean, in the 2020 election, Biden voters owned 70% of the wealth in the United States.
Tucker's using a misleading statistic there at the end.
He's taking this from a Brookings Institute study from 2020 that found the counties that ended up voting for Biden, quote, equal 70% of America's economy.
This is not the same thing as saying that Biden voters control 70% of the wealth in the country.
And Tucker knows damn well what the difference is.
He's been in this media game long enough.
Knowing he's misusing a fucking headline in a statistic.
I say less of this worrying about assassinations being aired on TV and more quoting the Unabomber.
The Biden administration in charge of his bodyguards allowed him to be shot.
You say, well, they didn't know that that was what is going to happen.
They weren't coordinating with the shooter.
Okay, I'm willing to believe that.
It doesn't change the fact that they allowed it.
And in other words, if I let my toddler play by my swimming pool and go to Walmart for an hour and he drowns, I didn't drown him, but I allowed him to be drowned.
I mean, what's even crazier about it to me is like the more you study these types of events, that kind of thing, honestly, if there are 100 people out there with the intent to assassinate the president and do not care if they live or die, that president is going to die.
It doesn't matter what this the Secret Service can only do so much.
They can only do so much.
It's more of a deterrent for people who don't want to then face the consequences of stuff.
Right.
For people, if you just walk people towards, I mean, it's just chaos.
A lot of the times, you don't hear about someone maybe getting arrested with a gun at some place they shouldn't be at where the president or former president was because that's not the kind of stuff that's great for the news.
No, but I think that he believes, and I hope erroneously, that he'll be allowed back if he burns this past in order to create whatever the next future is.
Yeah, I mean, this is not fine when there's demons.
You know what I mean?
You can't be like, hey, I have a cynical analysis of good enough whenever everything is based on truth, and everything is supposed to be so based on the importance of virtue.
And you can't have that, like, don't look a gift horse in the mouth kind of mentality.
Yeah, you know, like the more I think about this, the more I think Tucker's description of Democrats is oftentimes him telling on himself.
Oh, that kind of idea of like, these people just want safety and they just want to be part of a group is so much like, yes, that's why you do all of this shit is because you want this group of people to love you.