All Episodes
Previous Next
April 23, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
01:03:32
🔴 Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, & The 'Woke Right': What is the Truth Behind it All?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ooooooh! Keep
you guessing.
Keep you guessing.
Keep you guessing.
Glad to have you.
Welcome to the lineup here live on Rumble.
All the way from morning, you guys can tune in 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern.
You don't need to change that dial if you use a 1960s television set.
Or just leave the stream on.
You can put it in dark mode, ambient mode, where you can listen to it.
And it's been number one in their time slots, all of these shows, for several weeks running.
We appreciate it.
We know that you have many choices, though most are crap.
Welcome, Bongino Army, Vince viewers.
We appreciate you guys coming in.
After me, of course, we'll have Tim Pool.
Today we are talking about transparency and the truth.
Transparency and the truth.
Jordan Peterson, Doc Peterson, was on Joe Rogan's show yesterday and talked about what's sort of being coined as the woke right.
There's a little bit of, I should say, some civil disenfranchisement amongst the right.
We're going to explain what that means and what the solution is going forward.
There are people who are bad actors.
There are people who are grifters.
That's true.
There are people who are extremists taking advantage.
The answer is never censorship.
And it's not that hard to navigate.
We'll get to that.
Birth rates.
Why do we have a problem with birth rates?
Why is Donald Trump offering a bonus?
It's Showcase B. If you decide to start making some babies, I support it.
And why is the left coming after Pete Hegseth?
We have the ins and outs on that.
Also, notice they're not going after Pam Bondi.
Enjoy the show.
We'll get to it now.
So, how can I help you?
Doctor, my husband and I have tried everything to try and get pregnant.
Do you have any suggestions?
I do have something that's worked in the past.
Okay. Oh.
Oh. Okay.
Oh, I think I feel something.
Wow. Thank you, doctor.
You're very welcome.
Every time.
Paid for by the greatest president in the history of the world.
Side effects may include, frankly, winning, being fantastic.
Click Rumble Premium and join now for $99 annually or $9.99 a month to get the entirely ad-free experience and an ever-expanding roster of content, creators, and free speech.
back.
Glad to be with you.
And yes, by the way, today on the Rumble Premium segment to the OG Mug Clubbers, you will be roasting my facial hair, my mutton chops, and my Fu Manchu.
I'm surprised that this is a surprise to you.
You guys know there's something being filmed behind the scenes, right?
Like, we do the show and then afterwards we have to go tape a bunch of sketches.
There's a reason for this, but I'm going to tell you something.
I like it.
That was a personal choice.
You're changing your name to Rick.
Don't lie to everybody.
I will take accountability.
I will take accountability.
It's always a personal choice.
But, you know, you wouldn't want to meet this in a dark alley.
So, what's your take?
We will read the best roasts later on.
The best roasts later on in the show, Rumble Premium.
Pull no punches, so long as you can deal with this.
Alright. Captain Morgan, CEO, how are you?
Excellent, you?
I'm doing better now that I have the power of this wonderful food mansion.
Should I do mine?
I don't have enough hair, but, you know.
Well, you can do it on your back.
And Friday and Saturday, May 23rd, 24th, at Goodnight's Comedy Club in Raleigh, North Carolina, not underscore Fierstein on X. Josh Firestein, how are you?
I'm good.
You look like you lost a regional wrestling match.
A regional wrestling match.
I look like I wasn't good enough to wrestle, but I'm good enough to coach.
Not real wrestling either.
I meant like the scripted stuff.
That's what I meant.
If you combine my brain with your body, the sky's the limit.
I couldn't do what you could do, but I had a work ethic.
Eat creatine three times a day.
Yep, yep.
You don't want to be in a car with me without a cracked window.
Everything about it is creepy, and it's fine.
I need an oil change if you could help me out later.
I can.
For those of you who don't know, it's the dirtiest move in wrestling.
All right, hey, I don't know if you know this, but...
Yes, that's exactly what I was talking about.
Or as I refer to it, my favorite.
Let me see your dipstick.
Your engine's got polymer on it.
One of them new fag cars.
By the way, another question.
Can you change your oil anymore?
I can't.
I changed my oil on my Datsun, on my old Taurus.
The whole engine is covered.
Is that why your car broke down all the time?
No, it broke down because it's a piece of crap American car.
Let's move on.
Mine's a 2015.
I can.
I choose not to.
I mean, it's 40 bucks.
I let someone else do it.
Wow, must be nice, Josh.
Yeah, I got 40 bucks.
Don't worry about it.
I won the regional wrestling match.
Got a $60 gift card to Chili's.
I tell you, he speaks the truth because he's got one hell of an oral check.
All right.
Because everything's a thing nowadays.
And body positivity has gotten to the point of...
It hasn't gotten to the point.
It's always been stupid.
So now, the civil rights issue of our...
I know what you're thinking, like interracial marriage?
No. I know you're thinking even, like, same-sex marriage, which is also...
No. I know you're thinking the right to vote.
No. It's the right to seatbelt extenders for your fat-ass and driverless cars.
My wife and I took our first spin in the self-driving rideshare service.
I had concerns, but was cautiously optimistic about the experience.
I had concerns for your wife.
After loading up our suitcases and getting comfortable, I buckled my seatbelt.
No way I was riding in a futuristic self-driving machine without it.
And built-in airbags.
Oh, pause.
If it's futuristic self-driving with AI, it will kill itself.
Continue. You just get in and it goes...
Why? Why?
I am not an animal!
Continue. Okay, it happens.
Let me try again.
Removing my seatbelt instantly made the car scream at me.
But, you know, I had to.
The seatbelt locked yet in almost instantly.
And it never stopped.
Hold on, pause.
Rewind a little bit.
Before you think I'm the problem, to be clear, we do think that.
We do think it.
And there's no follow-up.
Let's continue.
And almost instantly.
Damn it.
And before you think I'm the problem, we're just too damn fat for this car.
The seatbelt locked on my smaller one.
Fat people deserve a safe, comfortable ride just like anyone else.
Waymo, you need to provide seatbelt extenders.
It's as simple as that.
They're relatively inexpensive and should simply be in the car for customers to use when they're needed.
And while we're on the subject of seatbelt extenders, being an ally to the fat people in your life First off,
I'm not an ally.
I'm an enemy.
Yeah, this is always whenever someone says you should apologize.
You should provide seatbelt extenders.
I'm going to tell you, I've heard.
Your argument.
I've heard your case.
I'm probably not gonna, because I wouldn't allow you in my car.
And here's the thing.
I do, however, as a businessman, I do see an opportunity, which is why I've now launched Crowder's Seatbelt Extender Ubershare.
Yeah. Oh, very nice.
I love it.
It's the Fu Manchu, too.
It makes it so much more sinister.
I would be an ally to the fat, but I can't be a better ally than their greatest ally, Napkins.
I try as hard as I can.
You want an ally?
Might I suggest buddying up with a Fitbit?
By the way, she's taking something called Waymo.
Is that what she's taking or is that her?
She Waymoed in a car?
You Waymoed and I can handle.
You ordered Waymo fries.
She's going to have to take a semi-truck and get on the freaking weight thing.
It's going to take Waymo time to get there, bitch.
It's the Waymo Jenny Craig.
We're going to need Waymo seatbelt for this fat bitch.
It's just, look, look.
If you are overweight, if you are...
These people are demanding that you praise and accommodate.
Now just take that and take seatbelt extenders.
That's mildly irritating.
It's funny because she's very fat.
But apply healthcare costs.
Yes. Everything is a human right.
When do we marry rights with responsibilities, with duties?
Hold on.
It's your right to have free healthcare.
I don't know if you know this.
In every socialized country where they have socialized health, they expect you to be within the parameters of health.
It's not just free for everybody at any point.
And by the way, all bodies are beautiful.
That's one area where we have politicized this in the United States.
It's also why we cannot have socialized everything, certainly not healthcare, when you have land whales like this roaming our pastures.
Yes. By the way, I think we should get rid of seatbelt extenders on every single possible thing, and I think the problem will take care of itself.
It's where the Waymo things are.
She said it's as simple as that.
You know what's even simpler?
Jogging. I'm not a small man.
I'm aware of what I look like, but also I'm aware that...
I could jog more.
I'm not asking anybody else to make an exception for me.
Maybe I could put the pork chop down and go for a walk.
First off, you're making us uncomfortable because you're being self-deprecating.
But you've done...
What? Say it again!
Say it again!
Why is Merrick tattooed on your chest?
First off...
There are levels to this game.
You are nowhere near them.
But you know what?
Yeah, okay.
Look, you could stand to lose a couple.
A lot of us could.
Here's the difference.
If I stood more, I would lose a couple.
Yeah, her step tracker doesn't say you need more steps.
It just says, you're dying.
You are dying.
But here's the thing.
It is entirely feminist ideology and movement.
Do you know what happens if you tell a fat guy?
If you tell a guy who's really fat, you go like, hey man, you could probably lose some weight.
Every guy goes, yeah.
Yeah, I probably could.
They don't say, hey, I should be the cover model.
Women go, what?
What? Are you telling me I need to lose weight?
Who are you to say?
Guys accept it.
Hey, you know what?
You're being a little bit of a dick back there.
Yeah, I guess I kind of was.
This whole idea that men won't apologize, feminists are telling on themselves.
Guys apologize all the time because we hold each other accountable.
The only way you get to that point where her simplest solution is that you have to purchase a contraption to put in a rideshare vehicle.
That that's simpler than a sidewalk is because she's never taken accountability.
You know what's simple?
Running shoes.
Yes, exactly.
I don't know if you know this, PF Flyers figured this out in the last century.
You notice they don't complain about how bicycles don't support the weight?
Yes. They have a fucking bitch.
There's no way they could be on a bicycle.
They would consume it.
The seat would be swallowed by their big fat back.
If it was an AI cycle like that car, it would just be self-driving away.
It would be a bicycle-shaped hole through the wall.
It's going off a cliff.
There'd be a smoke cloud, a dust cloud, where that bicycle used to be.
It's not about being fat.
It's about demanding that everyone thinks you're beautiful and pay for you being fat.
Do you guys understand this?
We've never once just gone, fat.
That's not what we do.
This is a problem, and it's a problem that you have to pay for.
Hundreds of billions of dollars a year in fraud.
We can't cut Coca-Cola from Snap!
This is how it ends.
Let's go to the next topic.
I get so mad at fat bitches.
Title fat bitches.
Alright. So, I want to set up this next...
Dr. Jordan Peterson was on Joe Rogan's show yesterday.
Now, of course, full disclosure, I have either hosted, well, no, I have hosted, and have been hosted by all involved.
And I really like Jordan Peterson.
He's been a good friend, and Joe Rogan was very gracious in hosting me on his show multiple times.
There's kind of a civil, I should say, civil war happening amongst the right.
You've heard this term now, woke right.
Here's the problem.
It's a little convoluted, because it's kind of like fake news.
You have people who you may refer to as extreme right accusing one side of being woke right, you know, whether it's the Douglas Murray or Jordan Peterson because they say, oh, we have a whiff of censorship there where there's this appeal to authority fallacy and they want to get rid of people who they view as fringe extremists.
Okay. Then you have people on one side saying, hey, this is the woke right because it's entirely identity politics, largely white, largely Gentile, and you're basically doing what the left has done.
So they're throwing it out there and so sometimes it's hard if you search woke right to get an idea.
As to what it is people are discussing.
Let me lay some groundwork here.
First, if you followed me going back to 2008 here on YouTube, censorship is never the answer.
Okay, let me lay that down.
Barring crimes, we've discussed that, like a call to actual violence or actually committing a crime.
It's not a crime to say, I hate this person and I hope they die in a fiery car crash.
Waymo. That's not illegal.
Illegal is saying, I would like someone to kill this person and I'll offer a reward.
So censorship is never the answer.
And I will say that definitively.
It's very rare that I speak in those kinds of absolutes.
Let's contrast that with my position on the statement, violence is never the answer.
That's not true.
Sometimes it is the answer.
Matter of fact, often throughout human history, it's the answer.
Censorship... Is never the answer.
The solution that we will get to here, because Jordan Peterson points out some problems, for sure, with psychopaths, narcissists, grifters, maybe the term that you use, on the right, people capitalizing on an audience, on a market share, while maybe being disingenuous.
That does happen.
The solution is not to have some kind of a board or some kind of a committee to determine which views are permissible.
The solution is transparency.
And we'll give you an outline.
Three key things to look for to at least have a litmus test and determine if someone is being authentic, if someone is at least being honest with you.
It won't work all the time, but I understand in the era of clickbait, I understand in the era of anyone can put out any misinformation, that you also need tools to figure out what is true.
I will say this, too, before we get to it.
The fundamental landscape...
Of online media has changed.
So, when I started doing content on YouTube, when I was doing stand-up, I had done some acting, and I'd been dropped by managers for points of view, or agents for points of view.
It was an opportunity for people like Joe Rogan, or people who maybe, or people like Nick DiPaolo, people who were maybe edgy, but were hopefully talented, to bypass media gatekeepers.
So people who had the talent, who had the ability, who rightfully would grow an audience but couldn't because of gatekeepers, they could go online and sort of circumvent that.
It's now changed a little bit, unfortunately, where it now has, I should say, sort of platformed or it has helped talentless people with no dog in the fight to use AI and generate clickbait content in order to turn a profit.
Try and search on YouTube.
Once upon a time, you could search on YouTube, for example, a review of a product that you maybe wanted to purchase, or a how-to.
Now you will get listicle videos from AI, which, oddly enough, often still has an Indian voice.
Like, I don't know why they still use the Indian voice.
Like, make it white.
AI just saying, this is good, this is good vacuum cleaner for those who want cleaner house.
That's most of it.
And shorts, it's not what it used to be, and so it's tough to navigate.
So, let's go to, I think we kind of have a montage here.
I want to be fair, be as transparent as possible, and let Jordan Peterson make his case.
He's right on some.
And I would disagree or sort of, I guess, part ways on some other views.
Here he is discussing the woke right, establishing guardrails, and some of the problems that we face in new online media.
Imagine this.
I've been working on a new...
Theory of political psychopathology, and I like it quite a lot.
Is this where the term"the woke right" comes in?
Yeah, well, Lindsay is pointing at that, but he hasn't got the diagnosis exactly right.
So, it isn't woke, that's not the issue.
That argument is predicated on the claim that the ideas are the problem, like the woke ideas.
For example, on the right or the left, but that's not the problem.
The problem is that...
Four to five percent of the population, something like that, is cluster B, that's the DSM-5 terms, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, psychopathic, and they have dark tetrad traits,
they're Machiavellian, they're sadistic.
That's about four percent.
Okay, so the question is, how do these people maneuver?
And the answer is, they go to where the power is.
And they adopt those ideas, and they put themselves even on the forefront of that.
But the ideas are completely irrelevant.
All they're doing is...
That's true, to be clear.
What he's talking about are opportunists.
What he's talking about here are people.
So we're not talking about points of view up to this point, points of view that are impermissible because they're offensive.
We are talking about people who are presenting information, or they are presenting, for example, opinions loosely based on facts that they know to be untrue.
That's not everyone who has an opinion that you may find offensive, but that is a problem.
So that part is correct.
The Pharisees, they're the modern version of the Pharisees.
They're the people who use God's name in vain, right?
As they proclaim moral virtue, doesn't matter whether it's right or left or Christian or Jewish or Islam, they invade the idea space, and then they use those ideas as false weapons to advance their narcissistic advantage.
How do you identify the psychopathic pretenders?
And it's even worse now.
And then make a barrier, right?
Now, the right was calling for the left to do that for decades.
Right. And they didn't.
And they couldn't.
And the left is not good.
I don't agree with the verbiage here.
I don't know that the right was ever calling for the left.
It sounds almost like he's saying the right was calling for the left to determine which views could be expressed.
I think what he means to say is the left to police their own as far as fringe lunatics taking over the party.
And I know there's been some disagreement over that, but I believe that's what he meant to articulate.
Let's continue.
But it's drawing barriers, partly temperamentally.
The right is somewhat better, but there's no shortage of monstrosity there.
Because I've been watching these right-wing, they're not right-wing, these psychopathic types.
They manipulate the edge of the conservative movement for their own gain.
And a lot of that's cloaked in anti-Semitic guise.
There's plenty of anti-Semitism on the left, too, by the way.
So it's not unique to the right.
Well, particularly now.
Yes, particularly now.
Okay, I want to put aside here for a second the anti-Semitism thing, because I know that that's a loaded issue, and you're just going to have people make up their mind no matter what.
The Christ is King.
I don't think there's anything wrong with saying Christ is king.
I don't think there's anything wrong with, of course, being an unabashed Christian, but I also understand what people are pointing out if it's used as some kind of a cudgel.
Let's not talk about that right now.
We'll get back to it.
I do want to address the fundamental point because this can happen on the right or on the left, and it can happen on a multitude of issues, and I'll prove it.
We're talking about the psychopaths, we're talking about the grifters, we're talking about the opportunists.
I've been here a long time.
I've been here the longest.
And I don't say that To pat ourselves on the back, I say it because it's true.
And so I've seen the evolution.
I've seen the rise and fall of a lot of people.
And I've seen some, certainly, people with psychopathic or narcissistic tendencies.
And by the way, that term is overused.
Everyone is narcissistic to some degree.
If you look in a mirror, you're narcissistic.
Okay. I mean in the clinical sense.
I mean people who will use other folks.
Or seize opportunities for personal gain at the cost of others when they don't even have to.
That's more of a pathology.
So let's address psychopaths, grifters, opportunists.
It is a problem.
They exist on the left.
They exist on the right.
He talks about we need to have a solution to identifying these.
I agree.
I propose one.
You, when you are looking for information, or you are looking...
For someone to trust, or asking yourself, is this someone I can trust?
Is this piece of content something I can trust?
I think there are three important things that you can look for that weed out the frauds 90% of the time, or the bad actors.
Number one, look for transparency.
So, is this person, or does this source, do they gatekeep?
Do they make their references publicly available?
And by the way, I mean that across the board.
Now, I've been doing this for years, and I've done it because we've witnessed this problem for many years with those in the right.
Now, I don't just mean someone saying, by the way, this is true, you can Google it.
I mean consistently the totality.
Do they make all of their information, when they are presenting facts, do they make them referenceable so that you can consistently do your own research, and do they encourage it?
If they don't, well, not only do you have questions, you have questions and you can't get answers.
So look for transparency.
Very few people do that.
It doesn't mean that if someone doesn't do it that they're being dishonest.
That's why I have two more sort of qualifiers.
It's a lot of work.
It takes many hours for us to make the references available.
Link in the description as we do every day.
Number two, look for a track record.
Now, I understand that people have perspectives that change.
For example, you can go back.
You can see me in 2009.
I was, there was a point where I went through a more libertarian phase where I thought, ah, you know what, okay, the drug war is a failure, and so you can even see me sort of entertaining the idea of legalizing everything.
I now realize that that's absurd.
I think the state should be able to do what they want with marijuana.
Don't misconstrue what I'm saying here.
But I have been around for a long time, and you can go back and see my track record.
You can see if it's consistent.
So you ask yourself, all right, how long has this person been around?
How long have they been doing this?
And how long have they been presenting this perspective with some level of consistency?
Meaning, did they only change their perspective when there was something to gain?
If someone has a consistent track record for a long enough period of time, you are going to go back in time and find them espousing these views and presenting this information when they were doing so at great cost to them.
Not opportunity.
So if someone is a Johnny-come-lately only when there is opportunity, for example, there are a lot of turncoats, right?
You see it on CNN.
I used to be a Republican, but the SC Cups, the Anna Navaros of the world, people who were liberal up until, let's say, 2016, who were part of anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-conservative movements who all of a sudden, maga, maga, maga, those people exist.
Pretty easy to root them out.
Which brings me to qualifier number three.
That's profit motive and or source.
So we have transparency.
Look for a track record.
And ask yourself, what's the profit motive here?
What is the profit source?
Everyone needs to make a living.
I understand that, okay?
So I'm not saying you're a shill if you make a living.
Is this person, is this source, this website, this publication, are they beholden to a profit source or a motive?
In other words, are they required to present this point of view?
Who is that?
And if they presented an opposing point of view, Or if they split with the people who are controlling the purse strings, would the purse strings be snipped?
Like a giant non-profit?
Like a giant umbrella, perhaps, website or network that clearly polices what they say?
Everyone serves somebody, to be clear.
Now, who do we serve?
I'd much rather serve you.
We're literally funded by mugs.
One sponsor or show.
That's not enough to keep the lights on, not even 10%.
It's you.
You've chosen with your dollar to tune in here.
So I am beholden to someone.
That's you.
That's creating value for you.
Transparency. Do they make it public?
Track record.
How long have they had this perspective?
When did it change?
What was their flash of genius moment?
And then number three, what is the profit motive and what is the source of their funding?
If someone, for example, provides no references or rarely provides references, let me just walk through an example.
Okay, someone presents this new exclusive scoop, a new story that seems compelling.
You don't have references to check.
This person was not only not a conservative, but was a liberal up until the last five, six, seven years, and flipped.
And the moment they flipped, they were being paid to espouse the views that they have now.
That's someone I'd be leery of.
And there are a lot of those.
Does that help?
Let me move on to something else, too.
And this is a problem that we run into, we have for quite a bit, is clickbait.
Identifying good content versus bad content.
Clickbait, the atmosphere of clickbait, unfortunately allows dishonest bad actors not only to survive but to flourish.
And it is an exercise in frustration.
Here's why.
Clickbait, often people doing it, they are beholden to, I don't know, YouTube ad dollars.
Or they are beholden to, often, Google ad dollars, if it's a website.
The only way to sort of circumvent that is to be directly beholden to a subscribership, to you, the person.
Perhaps some good sponsors, of course.
But if it's generic ads, okay, we all know what happens there.
You're demonetized.
So clickbait.
There's an incentive to simply feed the beast.
Click, click, click, click, click, click, click.
That doesn't take into account honesty.
Now, I'm not saying that censorship is the answer because the way you combat this is with better information.
Let me give you some examples as to what is frustrating.
For example, there's a right and there's a fictional way.
To cover a story.
And often, the right way to cover it, if you weren't having to compete with the fiction and the wrong way and the clickbait, it would be enough.
And you could change minds.
You may still see people out there right now, for example, saying that George Floyd pistol whipped a pregnant woman.
Let me go through history.
The right way to cover it.
The truth.
He committed armed robbery with a three-year-old toddler present in the woman's house.
That happened.
That's shocking.
That's enough.
But when that is right next to"George Floyd pistol-whipped a pregnant woman," which isn't true, the true story is not going to be clicked.
In other words, if this existed...
On a platform of truth.
Hey, you know, George Floyd not only had a lethal amount of fentanyl in his system, not only is there a video out there that's been publicly available for a long time, where for 12 minutes they turned on the air conditioning and they were very nice with him, not only does this guy have a lengthy track record of criminality, but he was violent.
He was involved in an armed robbery, in a home invasion, where there was a woman who I believe was held hostage, or was held at gunpoint, and her toddler was in the house.
Holy crap, that's enough.
But now that has to compete with, he pistol whipped a pregnant woman.
Here's the problem with that.
If you go out there and you use that, the left will dispute, they will immediately dismiss you.
Oh, well you're simply parroting fake news.
That was disproven a long time ago.
Wouldn't you be better off going forward with the true information?
The grifters, the frauds don't care.
Because they want your clicks, they don't care how it ends up ten years down the line, five years down the line.
Let's move on to another one.
Example. Israel.
There's a right way, and there's a fictional way.
So, for example, AIPAC, valid argument would be, has undue influence in government, and AIPAC gives a huge amount to Democrats regardless of their political views or their level of moral fiber, so long as they support Israel.
That is a problem.
For example, Hakeem Jeffries.
Fiction is Jews control every aspect of your life up until and including Jewish space lasers.
Did you guys bring up that over?
Yeah. So, one is informative.
Hey! Maybe you guys have a problem with, and maybe AIPAC is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and not only them, but a lot of foreign lobbying groups.
I think that would be enough.
I think you would want to have that discussion.
That discussion doesn't take place because someone who has a profit incentive to simply lie to you or embellish, saying, the Jews are the only foreign lobbying group in government, and it's because of tiny hats.
Well, that's not true, and now you can't have an honest conversation as to the problems with AIPAC.
And by the way, there are many!
Ukraine. Let's use this as an example.
There's a right way and there's a fictional way.
The right way would be, hey, the U.S. has provided enormous amounts of support to Ukraine, more than all of Europe combined, and they spend more on Russian energy than they do on supporting Ukraine.
Okay, that's a legitimate conversation to have.
The fictional way is Zelensky bought a bunch of luxurious yachts and mansions with your money.
So let's put that side by side, right?
Which one are you going to click?
The psychopaths, the narcissists, the grifters, they know.
They don't care that it's not true.
But what do you think happens when you go out into the real world and you deal with some kind of a political opponent who is even moderately prepared?
If you say, hey, Zelensky bought a bunch of yachts and bought a bunch of mansions, they're going to go, okay, fake news, it's not true.
And they'd be right.
They'd be right.
You lose.
You've now lost all credibility.
But if you said, you know what, the United States has provided more aid than any other country, than pretty much all of Europe combined, not to mention the NATO spending, they're not meeting their fair share, and they're buying Russian energy, I think that this whole thing is a giant racket.
Guess what?
This person has something to answer for.
So how do you identify them?
Transparency? Track record?
Profit motive and or source?
And do they consistently provide you with the right information, or do they opt for embellishment?
Do they opt to be dishonest?
Do they opt for razzle-dazzle when it's not necessary and the truth is enough?
One more qualifier.
Do they continue with that lie years down the line?
In other words, now it is not in dispute that George Floyd did not pistol whip a pregnant woman.
We know that.
Are people still parroting it?
Do you think they're looking out for you?
Or do you think they're looking to profit off of you?
We now know that Zelensky didn't buy a whole bunch of yachts and a whole bunch of mansions.
We know that the guy is flush with cash.
Are people still parroting that?
Are you tuning into shows or reading articles that still use that talking point that is verifiably false?
We now know, for example, that the Metcalf, not Metcalf family, the Anthony family, they didn't buy a new Escalade with the Give, Send, Go.
GoFundMe, I think it's Give, Send, Go.
Yeah, they didn't.
That's not true.
Now, people make mistakes.
Did they correct it?
Watch two years down the line.
Are they still going to use that talking point?
That means that they don't care.
The people providing you this information consistently, they don't care that you're going to embarrass yourself out there in the real world because they've made their money off of you.
And so the answer to me is certainly not censorship.
When we're talking about guardrails, it's certainly not only scientists can have a perspective or only political experts because we saw how that turned out with COVID.
We've seen how that's turned out with Ukraine, with most, by the way.
We saw how it turned out with Donald Trump.
The experts said there was no chance.
They've been wrong every step of the way.
It doesn't mean that someone who simply says the experts are wrong while they present lies to you is automatically right.
Does that help?
Comment below.
Those three.
Transparency, track record, profit motive, and or source.
And what to look for.
Please. Because it's a problem that we need to solve.
Absolutely. We have to solve it.
And the answer, like you said, it's not even about canceling people.
It's not about shunning.
Not at all.
It's basically saying, look, these ideas.
This is wrong.
This is a problem in biblical times too.
Jordan referenced this about the Pharisees, but really it goes back even further.
False messiahs, false prophets.
How do you understand who's really on your team?
They're wearing your team jersey, they're saying your stuff, but they're not really on your team.
And that's Acts 17, 11. Receive it, but be willing to go do your own research.
We're making sure that you have the ability to do your own research by putting the sources online so that you can go and see them.
It's very clear.
We have to do this because people still parrot the...
Very fine people on both sides.
Right. It still comes up on the media.
And we hated that.
We have to do the same thing on our site.
Make sure we don't fall victim to what the left has done.
Right. And by the way, it's not just fringe right-wing extremists.
It's also false moderates, to be clear, who will present you with information that is incorrect.
So I don't believe it's just...
I'm just talking not even about ideas at this point.
We're going to discuss that another day.
But I'm always uncomfortable getting into any type of territory where we're...
Even entertaining the idea that some points of view are impermissible.
I don't believe that.
I believe all points of view, provided they're not criminal, are permissible no matter how offensive they are.
We're talking about the method and we are talking about metrics and the ability for you as a viewer, as a listener, to be discerning.
I get it.
It's easy to react and be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
I know someone who was a liberal, okay, who was a liberal and opened their eyes and said, I can't believe the government is...
has been lying to me about this.
The Department of Education, Socialized Healthcare, of course COVID happened.
And then they said, so everything I knew must be false and now they believe not only did we not land on the moon, not only is space fake, not only is the earth flat, but there are no stars, dinosaurs have never existed, like everything.
Everything because all of a sudden their truth came unglued.
And that's not a good thing either.
We do have to be centered by the truth.
And by the way, I'm a right-wing extremist.
Full disclosure.
To the left and to the moderates, I would be considered a right-wing extremist.
But I also think honesty matters.
It's important to be honest.
It's important to be right.
And for as many times as former President George W. Bush was wrong, there were some times, for example, where he was correct.
Not often.
Like on feminism.
Here's some advice.
Now let's talk about your largest opposition.
I'm speaking, of course, of feminists.
But it's important to remember, angry feminists want the same thing we all want.
Love, affection, and to be held down, sometimes choked.
But don't spit in their mouth.
You gotta ask them first.
Anyway, give him a good pipe and it'll sort itself out.
See, two things can be true.
He was wrong about a lot, but that is good advice.
I love those.
By the way, download the app.
You're watching Unrumble.
We are no longer on YouTube.
You're watching the Rumble lineup live.
And download that app, follow us, you will know when we are live.
That's when you get notifications, you don't have to worry about the algorithms, and we're not going to be in the business of clickbait, clickbait, clickbait.
You know that if we cover a topic, we are doing our best to cover it right.
If you see a title, you will get what is in that title.
Not just a thumbnail with breasts, which does work, it piques curiosity, but it's frustrating.
That's not nice.
When I was looking for more information on the Carmelo Anthony scenario, and I searched on YouTube, I couldn't find anything valid.
Really? It was very, very difficult.
It was people parroting points, parroting points that either weren't true or were just points when this was breaking that we found out were maybe less than accurate, and then no follow-up.
It's become very difficult.
Like it was a sunny day.
Like, I can't believe people said it was a sunny day.
Yeah. Let's spend more time on that, Gerald.
Let's move on to another one.
We're discussing sort of the big lie, dishonesty, and why we are where we are as a society today.
You guys are aware of the birth rate problem, right?
I don't know if you remember this, but I've been around YouTube long enough where I went to the Cancun Climate Summit and saw Ted Turner propose the one-child policy from Communist China.
I know, this sounds crazy to you if you're below the age of 25. At one point, people here believed that overpopulation was the problem.
And it was a moral imperative for you to not have children.
Yeah, that was literally the talking point up until 2014.
How times have changed, because now we're below replacement numbers as far as birth rates.
President Trump is trying to do something about it.
Floated the idea of a baby bonus to encourage the ladies to have more kiddos.
The New York Times reports the White House is now assessing ways to convince American women to have more children, including a $5,000 baby bonus and federally funded menstrual cycle classes.
He even went one step further presenting his new mascot for this campaign, perpetually pregnant Penelope.
So that seems to be...
Okay. Wow.
Now, let me explain to you.
So the birth rate has been steadily falling.
I'm just going to talk about the United States because birth rates have been declining across the world in a lot of different areas.
And you have some people who argue economics, but it's also hard to compare, for example, a place like China that had a one-child policy and the United States or a war-torn country like Uganda.
So let's look at why we are facing this problem in the United States now, today, in the year 2025.
Our birth rate has been going down for a while, consistently since the 1960s.
So to give you an idea, it's about 1.6 right now.
What was the rate there before that?
I believe it was three.
It was around three point something.
About three in 1950.
Yeah, about three.
Now we're at 1.62 births per month.
That's below replacement.
Meaning we won't be able to sustain a country or have a nation if we don't have enough people.
It's also, you know, the left, it's a brilliant ploy, by the way.
It's a brilliant ploy by the left to import a bunch of third world labor and immigrants who will have children while encouraging Americans to not have children.
There are two reasons.
And I would say this covers 90 plus percent of why today in 2025, from 1960 to 2025, We have a replacement rate problem as far as birth rates.
Two reasons are feminism and neo-environmentalism.
Here's why.
Feminism is inherently anti-natalist.
Right? The birth rate decline, it's right in line with second wave feminism.
And what happened?
This was the breakdown of gender roles.
This was the breakdown of gender norms.
It was, you can be just as good as men at what men do.
And by the way, post-industrial revolution...
Those corporate overlords were thrilled to now have double the workforce so that they could pay people lower wages because there was more supply.
So, with feminism, encouraging women to go into the workplace.
By the way, women always worked before that, but they would often work jobs that were flexible where they could also be raising their own children as opposed to a nanny, as opposed to daycare.
Then, they were sort of thrust into or at least told to prioritize the corporate world.
You can have it all.
It's your choice.
Okay? Sure.
So now, you have two people working, keeping up with the Joneses.
Women are empowered, and they're going through the life cycle of going to college, getting a job, and then thinking of settling down in their 30s, at which point the biological window begins to close.
And this actually brings us to, I mean, for example, Megyn Kelly, we were discussing this the other day, where she said, you know, women need more, I think that people would like to have more Megyn Kelly's out there.
Women need role models.
Well, one second, if we want to fix the birth rate, do we need more, and this is not to say that she's not great at what she does, or that there aren't many women who are great at what they do in commentary.
If we want to fix the fundamental problem in this country, the birth rate, do we want more female commentators?
Or do we want more mothers?
Do we want more people raising their own kids having more kids?
Because the only way we get there is if we sort of recognize that there need to be roles of a primary provider and someone who takes care of children.
What we're doing is not working.
Feminism has been a huge lie and saying that you can have it all.
And then there's been, unfortunately, the reaction from conservative feminism saying, well, actually, you know, yeah, you can't have it all, but it's a choice.
Well, let me tell you something.
Men have not had a choice.
Must be nice.
To have a choice.
Oh, I can go and work and not have children, or I can be home.
And unfortunately, we've denigrated the role of motherhood, and we've placed so much value on income, on nice stuff.
We'll get to environmentalism, but think about this for a second.
People go, well, now in the new economy, women have so many more options than before.
That's a lie.
When you're saying, I am foregoing, and we see this in the birth rate, I am foregoing family, motherhood.
Because there are more options.
Okay. One hand, your option is family.
Mama. Seeing your child, that miracle of life.
Or, of course, if you've adopted, someone who will go forward, not only continue your lineage, but someone who you get to see learn, grow, you mold their mind, you help them become an upstanding citizen who also helps the next generation.
That. Family?
More options?
What are the...
Family? Mercedes?
A nicer house?
What can compare?
More income?
No, there's nothing.
More vacations?
So we said, now we have more options.
And you're foregoing the most important one.
No woman on their deathbed says, I wish I went on more trips and I wish I didn't have kids.
Right. The opposite is true.
Almost always.
And we've told each other this as men, and I'm sure women as well, when you get to the end of your life, men, you won't look back and wish that you spent more time at the office.
There's a line to that, right, where you have to work hard to be able to kind of achieve whatever you're trying to go for.
But at the end of the day, we all understand that family, that's the thing, man.
Like, being able to raise your children at home and not send them to daycare from 8 o'clock until 5 o'clock?
Being able to help shape their lives and spend some of the most amazing years with them possible.
Yep. That's the biggest gift ever and you've traded it in for the daily grind?
Right. Why?
Well, it's not made women happier.
No. And so we've put this all on the same plane.
The choices of family and stuff.
And then you add another wrinkle into it, right?
The environmentalism, which is, by the way, we have overpopulations.
It's your moral imperative to not have children.
Yeah. Think about that for a second.
But again, this is the cultural shift that we have seen.
Feminism has promoted the idea of, you know what?
Be a boss, babe.
This is a day in the life of a childless woman.
I wake up at 6am.
I remember that I have no kids to take to school, so I take an edible, masturbate, and go back to sleep.
I wake up at 12.30pm and get ready for a busy day of doing whatever the f*** I feel like.
We're dinks.
We can go to Florida on a whim.
We're dinks.
We're already planning our European vacation next year.
We get a full eight hours of sleep and sometimes more.
I often hear my married friends say marriage is hard work.
Children are exhausting.
And call me crazy if you want, but I don't want to work hard and I don't want to be exhausted.
You're crazy.
Like I said earlier, everyone serves a master, right?
If you're creating content, you have to make a living.
Who are you serving?
You're going to be exhausted.
Do you want to be exhausted because you are expending your energy?
Into your children and family or exhausted because you are serving a boss.
And by the way, there are many great bosses and work is incredibly fulfilling for a lot of people.
Mostly men.
Just to be clear.
Mostly men.
The division of labor, if you just take away technology, goes back to men's work and women's work really freaking quickly.
Just to be clear, as far as hunting, gathering, war, building.
Versus the things that women are very good at.
Better than men.
We're both good at different things.
Add to that environmentalism.
So, look, you have all this choice.
Who really wants to be a mom?
You want to be exhausted and locked down?
Also, you should take this into consideration.
Having children is wrong because something, something, something, global warming, I mean climate change.
Here's a headline from NBC.
Science proves kids are bad for Earth.
Morality suggests we stop having them.
Morality? What the hell is that?
This is from the Scientific American.
Eight billion people in the world is a crisis, not an achievement.
Oh, come on.
Okay? Yeah, go talk to India.
Morality suggests we should stop having them.
Children suggest you should keep doing it.
Yes, exactly.
Yeah, it's just, this is what they've been pumping.
And I was told this growing up.
Remember in school?
We have peak oil.
Peak oil.
Overpopulation. It's a problem.
The earth can't sustain this.
We're running out of resources.
Turns out that's not true.
And turns out the more people you have, the more effective you can be.
Certainly in the first world with resources because of technological advancements.
Just think of how many, just think of how much more we can get done with fewer people now as well.
Not to mention, from a Christian perspective, at least in this country, be fruitful and multiply.
But, This is something that kids have been bombarded with for a very long time.
Hey, go out and be a boss babe.
Why don't men want to marry a boss babe at 35 and start having a family?
Why are they picking 25-year-olds who chose to display a skill set that would sort of display capability and motherhood and nurture?
Ah, crap.
Because 25 is an easier time to have kids than 35?
Yeah. You got more energy?
Trust me.
I'm with you at 45 with 305.
You have a window that men don't.
And that means you have a choice and you have less time to make it.
Do you understand that?
And we are at a point where your moral imperative if you are a Christian conservative in this country is to ditch the boss babe shit and to have kids.
And you know what?
A lot of men are scared too.
That's also the byproduct of feminism.
A lot of men are scared.
Because of the laws in this country, because of the expectations where they're going, I don't want to be working all day and then also have to be Mr. Mom.
Because we didn't used to have that.
You had a division of labor.
So you add on top of that, by the way, young women, be a boss, babe.
And it's men's fault if they don't, if men don't like what you've become, guess what?
We'll change their perspective.
We'll tell them that they should want a 35-year-old CEO and we'll tell them that he shouldn't care if you're 350 pounds.
Get a seatbelt extender.
The rest will figure itself out.
Also, One final note.
Even if you do get married, don't have children because you'll destroy the earth.
That's the cultural messaging.
Basically, like, there's scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult.
And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question.
You know, should...
Is it okay to still have children?
They're always doing that s***.
You know, if everybody went vegan...
The error would be, if everybody drove an electric car, if everybody just had some snowshoes on, right?
They just won't come out and say it.
Nobody has the balls to come out and say it and just say, look, 85% of you have to go.
We basically say we just need to live long and die out.
We just need to feed, not breathe.
Is that what you say?
Feed them, don't breed them.
We're not taking care of the people who are already here.
My plan is for everyone to think before they procreate.
And if we all stop procreating, we'll co-extinct slowly.
We can clean up our messes as we go.
And the biosphere, what's left of it will have a chance to recover.
Climate anxiety.
They're concerned about their future in almost a doomsday fear.
They're concerned about whether they should have children, whether they should even try to buy a home, because what does the future hold for that prospect?
It's all fear, to be clear.
And again, to really be laser-focused on this...
Feminism is anti-natalist.
Environmentalism is anti-human.
Why would you take advice?
From any of these people on how to raise a family or how to preserve the human race.
Feminism and environmentalism has not made women any happier.
It's not made our society any stronger.
It certainly hasn't helped women who find themselves at 35 years old buying into the lie after a window has closed.
I know that there are miracles, and I'm not saying all women.
I get that some people can't conceive.
And then they wonder, hold on a second, where are the prospects?
Where did they go to?
The kind of man that I want, why are they not interested in me?
It hasn't made them any better off.
It's a crappy feeling, just like paying your taxes.
What does overpaying on your taxes feel like?
When it comes to four-year-old Kenaya, Billy, you are not so bad.
Yes! Oh, in your face!
Oh! It's a wee-ho!
This is a lot!
This is a lot!
Ha ha ha!
What? Oh, hell yeah!
Oh!
What? Oh!
Oh, this is a lot!
Oh! Oh, how cool!
About like that.
Don't let the IRS bust your balls.
Visit TNUSA.com slash Crowder or call 958-1000 for immediate relief and expert guidance.
On the next mark, can Anisha prove Charles is the dad right in front of Charles' own mom?
It's hard fun, not out!
I'm willing to bet she can.
Also, by the way, I wish that they were around when I did.
Remember I overpaid on those taxes years ago?
How long did it take to get that refund?
Was it like two years?
It was a little while, yeah.
It was more than a year.
Yeah, they're very slow at giving you your money back, but very quick to demand it.
Yes, exactly.
Rules for me is something something.
So the point here is, family?
One choice?
Or all the other options with the modern economy?
Hey! Hope the penthouse is worth it.
Hope the BMW is worth it.
It's not.
It's never worth it.
We've known this for so long.
I don't know why.
Women are kind of new to the game of being lied to on this within the last, say, 100 years.
It's obviously much more recent than that is really when it's picked up.
But this lie that this is where you're going to find happiness, it's just not there.
Especially when you give...
The option of, like, you have the ability to have the ultimate happiness.
Now, again, we'd said this when we talked about Megyn Kelly.
We're not talking about the can'ts.
Haven't found a man, can't make children.
Got it.
Understand that it's a very difficult situation.
It's not what we're addressing.
We're addressing, like, throwing away that opportunity.
My wife went and saw...
You remember the new Barbie movie?
Yeah. She went and saw it with some of the family members who wanted to go see it.
They didn't really have any understanding of, like, it's just Barbie.
They're going to go see it.
Whatever. Yeah.
And she immediately, like...
The opening scene is them, like, smashing the dolls, like the babies.
Yeah. And she was just like, I couldn't do it.
No. Because it's basically preaching, like, basically, give up that.
They're like, oh, you have kids?
Say goodbye to your life.
It's just not true.
And it's just because everyone wants to be a martyr.
There's a difference, too, between saying, yeah, it's okay for you to go out and have a career, and then saying, you shouldn't.
Stay at home.
You have to go have a career.
You shouldn't have any more babies.
Stop having babies.
There's a huge difference between encouraging the absence of babies and abortion, really, and just saying, you have a choice to go out and work and never have a family and never settle down.
No one's going to want you.
You can do that.
That is true, though.
Now, you'll find guys who will bed you.
You'll find guys who will bang you.
I'm not being correct.
MILF is a thing for a reason.
It's not the same as a guy.
Who wants to settle down and have a family?
Look, we talk about role models.
We talk about examples.
Okay, if we are below replacement rates with our birth rate, and you say we need role models for young men and young women, in what world would that role model be a barren boss babe?
Because that's been our role model.
Noodles. I was just going to say, speaking of the rules for thee, not for me, we go back to the whole transparency idea.
How many of these big environmentalists, the Ted Turners, the Bill Gates, don't have children?
Right. It's not about they don't want children.
They don't want you to have children.
Right. No, it's 100% true.
Oh, definitely.
Oh, yeah.
I was at a TED Talk, one of the remote locations where you could just watch it with a group of people, and they were talking and celebrating this chart where they're saying, like, we're getting people's birth rates down in these different regions of Africa and Asia and other places, and they were celebrating the family sizes shrinking.
As though that was a very positive thing.
That's sad.
That's so sad.
A pastor friend of ours was there with us, not the one you're thinking of, but another one who we like.
We have some pastor friends.
The problem is now I know exactly who you're talking about.
He was there with me, and we were shocked.
We were just like, what is this?
This is like propaganda, and everybody's just lapping it up.
Like, yeah, that's exactly right.
These people will be happier and better off if they have...
Fewer children.
And look, there is this idea that since...
You're such a prick.
I know.
Since 1850 to 1950, we've had a huge decrease, right?
Yes, but we got to a certain point and then something happened where we said, let's go to extinction level.
Not species.
Culture. That's the replacement rate we're talking about.
Your culture ceases to exist.
The way you do things ceases to exist if you don't have enough children.
I like the idea of incentives sometimes for that.
I'm a little on the fence about this.
I know that Vance talked about tax credits.
It doesn't always work.
It doesn't always work.
That's my problem.
He's going to get that black woman vote.
Well, it's a little different.
You tell me I'm going to get five grand every time I have a kid.
Popping them out.
I can do this.
That's my problem with it.
It doesn't address the root cause of why we're heading that way as a society, and you need to fix that more than you need to just give out money for people.
But it is kind of a bat signal where it's saying, hey, look, guys, we have a problem, because for the longest time, at least as I was growing up, and you guys can comment below, Generation Z, you know, I'm a millennial right there, kind of in the middle.
If you grew up with, hey, peak oil, if you grew up with, oh, overpopulation, because when you grow up with that, it does, it's in your subconscious where you're going, well...
I guess, yeah, kids are really expensive.
I'll just let you know, kids are not that expensive.
Like, oh, kids are really hard.
They're not that hard.
Now, it's difficult.
It's an important job.
I would say this.
It's a selfless job.
The importance of raising children far exceeds its difficulty level.
So when people say it's the hardest job in the world to be a stay-at-home mom, it's not.
It's one of the most important jobs in the world.
You would certainly rather be home with some tykes than you would be building the Empire State Building.
We're like, you got eight months!
Get on it!
Bring your lunch pail up there!
So, let's just be clear about it in the messaging.
The cultural messaging has been a real problem, and it's also been dishonest.
Speaking of dishonest, we have to move on to this, by the way.
We're going to raid you guys over to Tim Pool if you're not a Rumble Premium member, which means you don't get to roast my...
I like the awesome facial hair.
So you can click that button.
Join. $99 a year.
Like we told you earlier, we serve you.
We are funded by viewers like you.
You get the wonderful new co-promoted hand-etched mug.
Or you can try for $9.99 a month.
You get the whole thing ad-free and an entire network and 100% more show.
But speaking of dishonest, let's go on to the left.
Why do you think the left is going so hard on Pete Hegseth?
Even Chucky hates excess.
Well, she's part of the left, that's fine.
Yeah, yeah.
Well... Poreshadowing.
And I also want you to...
Hey, who are they going after really hard, and who are they not?
Notice they're not really going after, for example, Pam Bondi all that hard.
And I don't dislike...
I don't hate Pam Bondi, but you know when we were covering the confirmations, I was like, I don't really want to cover it, because I'm not super enthusiastic.
I'm cautiously...
I'm conscious.
Yeah, I wouldn't even say cautiously.
Yeah, exactly.
I'm prepared for the disappointing but hoping for the best.
Pete Hegseth, they have been on like a dog on a bone.
The left is really going in hard on Pete Hegseth.
According to them, he's incompetent, he's a danger, a liability, and he, everything Pete Hegseth, must go, go, go.
It didn't take an investigative mind like Bob Woodward's to know that Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense might be slightly problematic.
Pete Hegseth finds himself under renewed scrutiny for his handling of sensitive information.
Before running the U.S. military, he was a weekend morning show host on Fox News with a reputation for going years without washing his hands, which, by the way, is his admission, just to make it even weaker.
And they now confirmed a second signal chat raising more than a few eyebrows in Washington about Hegseth's attitude and maturity.
When it comes to this job.
Making it look so cool.
It's not a job that exactly prepares you to run the Pentagon as your next step.
The defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, was involved in a second signal group chat.
There were also the countless allegations of Hegseth drinking on the job, both at veterans organizations and Fox News.
The New York Times has new reporting on the most unqualified and incompetent defense secretary in history.
The New Yorker reported he once got so drunk that he had to be restrained from getting on a stage at a Louisiana strip club.
But that just sounds like a fun guy.
You're making me like the guy more.
This just in New York, a report on something in Louisiana.
Yeah, exactly.
For the first time.
It's probably really true.
They got their ear to the ground there.
All these experts, they always used to say, I think it was James Carville who used to say, people vote on who they would most, as far as president, who they would most like to have a beer with.
So here, let me present to you the man you would clearly most like to have a beer with.
They hate him because he's unapologetically Christian.
Pro-Western civilization, pro-America, and above all else, the same reason they hate Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, as he made some missteps, sure, but he's following through on his promises, which is more than you can say for a lot of people, unfortunately, in this administration.
Not all of them.
Some have been great.
Some have been a disappointment.
Hegseth is top tier.
So let's go through the reasons they're really attacking him.
Reason number one, he has directly, I mean, in a measurable, in a quantifiable way, increased morale.
In the military.
So let's go back to Hegseth then, where he laid out the problems before he was in his position.
We had problems with recruiting, and he said, look, we have this problem that we have to identify, and we need to figure out a solution.
This is him then, then we'll get to the solution and results.
Whatever the combat standards were, say, in, I don't know, 1995, let's just make those standards.
And as far as recruiting, to hire the guy that, you know, did Top Gun Maverick and create some real ads that motivate people to want to serve.
There's lots of other ways in which you could identify who gets promoted and what, but there's an ethos change.
There's a reason people don't want to serve, because they don't trust that their senior leaders are going to have their best interest in mind in combat.
So, is there anything to show for it?
Made a promise?
Identified a problem?
Well... January 2025 was the Army's best recruiting month in 15 years.
And right now, to date, this year, the Army is 20% ahead of last year's recruiting goal, their pace.
That's a pretty significant number, year to year.
Promise fulfilled.
Yep. He's absolutely right.
In the first video, too.
Yeah. He's absolutely right.
People, when they join the military, they want to know that the person in charge of them knows what they're doing.
Right. Yeah.
They want to go, well, Lee, they got good woke policies.
They got good sense of money.
No, they want to know that their team leader knows how to operate at 50 cal.
Right. They want to know that their team leader can pull them out of the middle of a village when they get hit in the leg.
Right. Yeah, they're not going, hold on a second.
How many bipolar air traffic controllers do you have?
If he's gay, great.
If he's not, great.
Can you pull me out of a village?
Right. Fantastic.
It's all I give a shit about.
Who's leading this, would it be squad?
Squad, team.
Who's leading this squad?
Does she have two mommies?
Because that's...
A deal breaker.
That's me, Mr. Old Fashioned.
We're going to send you over to Tim Pool, people who are not Rumble Premier members, but continue with this.
Reason number two, Hegseth is destroying DEI, which has been a cancer in the military.
Let's go back to Pete Hegseth, then where he laid out the problem that DEI was crippling the United States military.
You guys end up fighting not just on the battlefield, but inside the military.
No doubt inside our ranks.
▲
Export Selection