Dec. 31, 2023 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec
01:24:42
THOUGHTCRIME Ep. 26 — CalendarGate Catastrophe? Who Wins a Civil War? YouTube Families?
In today's year-end edition of THOUGHTCRIME featuring Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec, Tyler Bowyer, and Blake Neff, the group answers the year's final questions, like:-Is the "Real Women of America" calendar immoral, or merely embarrassing?-People love talking about a civil war, but who would WIN a civil war?-Is it immoral to turn one's entire family life into YouTube content?THOUGHTCRIME streams LIVE exclusively on Rumble, every Thursday night at 8pm ET.Go to http://preparewiththoughtcrime.com ...
The NSA specifically targets the communications of everyone.
They're collecting your communications.
OK, everybody.
Happy Thursday.
It is the last ThoughtCrime of the year.
We have Tyler Boyer with his hat that was supposed to be at AmericaFest.
It's our precinct sheriff hat.
And you're not a precinct sheriff of your precinct unless you have this hat.
So, Charlie, here's your hat.
Oh, I gotta wear one.
No, you don't have to wear it.
And Blake, I got one for you guys, too.
Blake, I think your vitamin D level is negative now, Blake.
Well, yeah, basically.
We're in the Dakotas.
We're called the Sunshine States.
I think you have negative five vitamin D level.
It's actually, you blended into the wall.
Congrats.
You live in Arizona, though.
Yeah, but you can't actually go outside in Arizona because the sun is a laser beam that will kill you.
I did.
I did the entire time I was there.
You enjoyed it too, didn't you, Jack?
Arizona's the best state in the country.
Jack got a tan in like the five minutes he was outside.
Jack, did you go down to St.
Croix or something to see Joe Bida?
Look, Charlie, how I spent my Christmas vacation, that's between me, the Lord, and my family, alright?
That's all, yes, I would tell him.
I have this incredible urge to bobble.
Like Ron DeSantis.
You got it, yeah, you got it.
We could get you like a bouncy ball for the office.
I have this just irresistible urge to just bobble the whole time.
How does DeSantis do this without, like, getting a headache?
If he was a precinct sheriff, he'd be in better shape in the polls.
Well, he could be a precinct sheriff.
I mean, he'll need something to do next year.
He could be the precinct committeeman in Tallahassee.
I wouldn't trust the governor as the precinct committeeman.
So, let's get into it.
We're going to cover some controversial stuff.
I can't get over these hats.
We're doing the breaking news first, though, right?
Yeah, I know.
But everyone wants us to cover Calendar Gate, so we will get to that.
But first, let's get to the breaking news.
Jack, what's going on in Maine?
Uh, actually, let's throw that to Blake, because I think he's got it set up already.
Alrighty, alrighty.
I'll take care of it.
So, just breaking in the last, about an hour ago, the Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, unilaterally kicked Donald Trump off the ballot in Maine, declaring him an insurrectionist who is not allowed under the 14th Amendment.
This was not a state a lot of people were watching.
Obviously, there's been legal challenges in a lot of states.
Colorado already took Trump off.
The Michigan Supreme Court, which is Democrat-controlled, declined to kick Trump off.
They kept him on it.
And then you have a few lawsuits in other places, but there was not a lot of attention on Maine.
But apparently just a few days ago, they had just a hearing about it because some people brought a complaint.
And then the Secretary of State, who was appointed by the legislature there to, so this woman was just appointed by the Democrat-controlled legislature, and she just unilaterally announced that Donald Trump is an insurrectionist, so he's not allowed on the main ballot.
Yeah, so this is breaking literally in the last couple of minutes.
I think we might be the only show live right now, Jack, that is covering this.
And everyone else is off.
So, Jack, this is now a pattern.
We have Colorado, we have Maine, but... Well, Colorado we're good on right now.
Well, yeah, sore.
I mean, it depends on what the U.S.
Supreme Court does.
Yeah, but here's the deal.
This is where we talked about all this.
They can throw him off the primary ballot.
And then they're just going to host all of these things in caucus format, right?
Which then, it doesn't matter.
What the RNC then has to do is they have to honor, by their rules, the winner of whatever the Republican Party decides.
So that's a good point, Tyler.
I haven't heard anyone pack, and you're equipped to do this.
How should the RNC be responding to these volleys, these salvos?
It's the second stage.
So the fact that the RNC isn't more vocal about this, I mean, you would think that this would be like a slam dunk for the RNC chair to be out every single day and just be like, this is stupid.
This is stupid.
I'll tell you why it's stupid because you'll just hold caucuses.
And then the RNC is going to nominate our presidential candidate.
And then what are you going to do?
You're going to keep them off the ballot and the Supreme Court's going to be like, no, this is a tradition, an age-old tradition that we've done since the beginning of time where each of the parties nominates a candidate and then they'll go.
Now, the fact that the RNC isn't coming out and talking about this more vocally is exactly why people are losing their minds going, oh my gosh, the RNC's in on it to try to keep Trump off the ballot.
Yeah, they're suspiciously quiet.
The fact that you guys are having a serious discussion in those hats... No, it's amazing.
We couldn't have planned it.
What do you mean?
This is a serious thing.
The bigger your hat, the bigger the sheriff.
Are you not a precinct committee sheriff?
By the way, I'm so... I am so angry.
Where's my hat?
I thought, I thought Jess... No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
The company that did this, I don't want to say their name.
Our vision... I thought you should give me one.
Our vision was at AmericaFest to have thousands of people with these hats on that have signed up to be precinct committeemen.
Could you imagine?
It would have been amazing.
Just people walking around with these things.
We're gonna make this the uniform in Trump's second term.
Everyone in the White House will have to wear these hats.
That was the vision at all times.
This was our team's vision to a turning point.
Action was no more MAGA hats.
We need big foam cowboy hats.
No, bigger MAGA hats.
Bigger MAGA hats than ever.
Big hat.
And actually bigger and better than ever.
Turning Point's original pitch was actually to just get these hats for everyone in America.
It wasn't even about politics initially.
Yeah, it's what Foster originally funded.
This is before Big Gov sucks.
Before Socialism sucks.
Actually, he would love these hats.
Foster would totally be wearing these hats.
Oh yeah, we would have a custom one that said Foster on the side.
Foster would have been wearing this around.
Alright, so Jack...
You know, for those of us that don't do this for a living, well, I guess we do, but in the audience where they have, you know, nice, purposeful, deep lives that don't involve following politics for 18 hours a day, walk us through Colorado, Michigan, Maine, what are the facts?
Okay, so here's some of the facts on this.
So Colorado, this one, it's kind of in abeyance right now.
So Colorado, we know, unilaterally stripped Trump off the ballot by their Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court, a whole bunch of Democrats up there.
I think it later came out that it was a, Blake, correct me if I'm wrong, 7-2 decision.
In Colorado?
Colorado.
In Colorado, it was 4-3, despite it being an all-Democrat court.
Right, 4-3, gotcha.
I'm thinking Supreme Court.
But you're right, 4-3 decision, all Democrats, where some people were stridently against it, a lot of people were for it, so they stripped Trump from the ballot by the Democrat Supreme Court of Colorado.
However, this has been appealed to the Supreme Court and because they are taking it up currently, as it stands, as we are live today is December 28th, 2023.
I know, Dominique, that the Colorado Secretary of State has stated that Trump will remain on the ballot until the Supreme Court decision comes out.
The big issue here, right, the big issue that's coming in with all of this is that these primary elections are beginning to come up.
The calendar is coming.
Now, Charlie, you and I chatted about this before, but we just need to have a spreadsheet.
We just need to have a spreadsheet of like each.
Now, first it's the court cases, and then it's going to be Trump status on the ballot state by state.
So everyone knows Iowa, which is two weeks away.
Okay.
So the 2024 election is not 10 months away.
It's two weeks away.
Or when the first Yeah, we're not going to.
We're going to be here.
I've done the caucus thing before.
You'll be there.
No, I'm going to be here in Arizona.
Let me be very clear.
That's what I'm saying.
You'll be in Arizona.
I will not be in Iowa.
I've done that before.
I did it in 16.
You know, you do it once.
That's fine.
But no, keep going, Jack.
The timeline's important.
So the main primary is coming up, though.
Yeah, it's not that simple.
primary is very close the main primary is may is march so you're talking about only a couple of months now where the trump campaign and and look i i hate to say it guys but you need it's not you it is it's no you you need to start to have a legal strategy you need to start to have a legal strategy to put forward in terms of just basically every state you need to have a spread
you need a spreadsheet up of when when the primary is um and what the status of the ballot is and then also cross-reference out legal challenges so charlie and as you're saying they are just going to keep doing this throughout the entire year and what they're going to try to do is time it so that you will have trump stripped from the ballot without enough time for him to fight it in court in terms of when the primary date actually takes place
Guys, you're talking about this as if this was a democracy, okay?
This isn't a democracy.
How this works... By the way, in Michigan, just because you asked, it was rejected.
So the Michigan court rejected the appeal to disqualify Trump from the ballot.
But guys, let me walk you through this very consistently, okay?
If they try to keep him off the primary ballot, the state party of that state will hold a caucus.
The caucus is how they determine how delegates are sent to the RNC Convention.
The RNC Convention is how we nominate a president.
Once the president is nominated, you're not electing a president in the general ballot.
You're electing whom?
Electors.
Electors.
And electors are the ones that go to Congress to say they cast their ballot for this person for president.
Right?
So that's who gets put in front of Congress.
So the crisis that will exist will not be... So this is where it comes back to Mike Pence, right?
Mike Pence.
This is what their hope is.
You want to talk about, you know, radicalism and throwing people in jail?
Imagine this.
They would have to put in front of Kamala, right?
So all the screaming and all the bat crap, crazy stuff that they've been screaming about, about Trump trying to overturn an election, it would have to go to the vice president.
That would identify whether or not to accept the election from the state.
But did she still have that power?
I think they got rid of it.
Didn't they, Blake?
Blake, didn't they strip it in the voting tabulation?
Right?
I think their new bill makes it more explicit that the vice president's role is like a ceremonial role.
They're not making judgment calls.
So they just did themselves in.
So that option is technically off the table by their own admission, right?
So at this point, then it would be a Republican... Probably unconstitutional.
Yeah, I mean, they could decide not to print Trump's name on the ballot, but you still have to print the name of the electors on the ballot who they're technically voting for to send to Congress.
So it's much more complicated.
I think we might be getting ahead of things because I think the most likely outcome is just that this will go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will smack it down.
And then once the Supreme Court smacks it down, they can't really just ignore it without nakedly inviting a serious civil disruption, which Well, that is our second topic if we want to get into it.
Blake, before we, well, before we go there, let me ask you this just to follow up.
So if the Supreme Court does rule, and I think it's, I think it's a given the Supreme Court's going to rule in one of these quickly.
The question is, will that be a blanket summary judgment or will they try to continue to find other ways to keep bringing this up?
That we'll have to wait and see.
I feel like the first pass, it's pretty likely the Supreme Court might pretty quickly say, Uh, no, and they'll find some way to dismiss it.
But if this is getting, you know, if it's clearly taking over the whole election, I think there'll be more pressure on the Supreme Court to issue a relatively firm ruling on it, which I think, you know, the Supreme Court always under John Roberts likes to mostly do what's safe.
And I feel like the safe thing for Roberts to do is to say, no, you can't say someone is an insurrectionist unless they're Literally convicted of the crime of insurrection or some set of offenses.
And here's the surprise, guys.
What if Jack Smith slaps on an insurrection conviction in the next 10 to 15 days?
Right?
And conviction, not indictment.
I mean, indictment, not conviction.
Indictment, not conviction.
I'm sorry.
But if he slaps that on, which, by the way, what's her face from Chicago?
Kelly.
Julie Kelly thinks it's in the works.
What do you think, Tyler?
Well, I think that the entire game plan here, what they're trying to goad us into, was for a Republican Party to accept this.
Because once the Republican Party accepts this, then what it does is then it puts pressure on the RNC to accept it.
And once the RNC accepts it, then the RNC has to try to make it.
They're trying to force a move before the RNC convention, right?
And so I think ultimately what is not going to happen is that they're not going to fall for this.
I can tell you that like Ron is like shaking in her boots right now.
She's not going to be like playing games here of like going along with removing Trump.
And I can tell you this on the RNC.
I've seen I'm in all the chats.
I see all the back and forth.
There is not one state party that's going to go along with kicking Trump off the primary ballot.
There's just not.
And I think that that's what that was their hope, though.
I think their hope was like, oh, let's try to dabble in some of these states where Trump may not be super popular and see if we can go to state party into kicking him off the ballot.
And they'll go along with it because then if there's three or four or five states that do it, now you have a real problem on your hands if you're the RNC.
Because the RNC has basically an insurrection vis-a-vis an insurrection, right?
So that was, I think, what we tried to... We didn't take the bait.
We clearly haven't taken the bait.
He's up way, way more than they ever expect him to be, and that's where we're at.
Yeah, and I will say, if the Democrats thought this out more, they would have tried to bribe everyone in the GOP with a giant foam hat before attempting this.
Totally!
I would probably give in if they offered me an even bigger hat.
To throw out there, and obviously, you know, when I want all the Trump lawyers, Alina Haba and everyone, to be wearing hats like this in court, particularly before the Supreme Court when this goes up.
But Blake, isn't there an argument to be made that, I've seen some people circulating this already, that the 14th Amendment doesn't even apply to the president because they're talking about specific offices and obviously that the president is covered under impeachment.
It's an argument.
So the literal text of the 14th Amendment says, uh, let's bring it up here real quick just so I can make sure it's exactly right.
In my Turning Point USA constitution.
Because that's an easy out.
Would you like me to read it?
That's an easy out.
Go for it.
Section 3 or 4.
I think it's section 3, right?
Yeah.
No person shall be senator or representative in Congress or elector of president and vice president or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States or under any state who have previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States
or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, but Congress may by a two-third vote of each House remove such disability. but Congress may by a two-third vote of each House Okay, so the idea is...
The idea is...
Real quick, was that they held, right, the court in Colorado at the trial court level, which was a Democrat appointed justice held that based on what you just read, Charlie, this does not apply to the president.
That's what the court held at the lowest level there.
The argument is essentially that officer of the United States means like a created position within the executive branch.
Yeah.
Uh, whereas the president is not an officer of, it is a literal constitutional position and not actually called an officer.
I think you can kind of go either way on that.
Uh, I know that I glanced at the ruling and they dig into the argument that the president is considered an officer of the United States.
Uh, I don't think as far as terrible reasoning in that ruling goes, I don't, that didn't stand out to me as something that just seemed incredibly dumb.
I think you could make the argument.
I do think, like, at a minimum, politically, Trump getting away with it by just saying, I did insurrection, but I wasn't actually an officer of the United States, so it's okay, is not a strong position to be in.
It's not the argument you want to carry the day.
What you want us to say, this is BS because, you know, there's a million reasons it's BS.
And you want to focus on that.
Rather than it's, you know, it's kind of an angle shooting on a technicality to say he's not.
But you don't, you don't, but, but that's the point though, is if it doesn't apply to the president, then you don't even need to necessarily get into the insurrection side.
And that's why I say that for the Supreme Court, this could just be an easy out for them to say, well, we don't want to get into the insurrection question, but we can just get simply get into the textual question of whether or not it applies to the president.
And they can say, no, it's possible.
you might get the Supreme Court willing to do that.
I don't think it would be politically ideal for Trump because it would be accurate then to say that he got off on a technicality and that wouldn't be good for us, I don't think. - I mean, I think if he's off, he's off.
- Well, first of all, - It's possible. - It all makes sense.
And this is why what we were accused of as nitpicking on words, Jack and I, especially Jack, it actually has legal significance.
We were always taken back by the fixation on the word insurrection.
It was to set the narrative war, set the op-ed industry, so that a Secretary of State says, well, I've been hearing about insurrection for the last couple years, and here we are.
Even though, Jack, how many people have been even indicted for insurrection?
Uh, what, currently?
Since January 6th?
Zero.
Zero.
Seditious conspiracy is it.
And even that was a huge reach.
That was a huge reach.
Yes, it's not at all clear whether or not there was a seditious conspiracy, especially when most of the people that were convicted of that were not actually in the Capitol on January 6th.
So I suppose, you know, kind of to put a cap on this, guys, and then we can kind of get into the next couple topics, can we anticipate more states to follow suit California before the Supreme Court comes in?
And here's the question, Blake, what if the Supreme Court is indifferent?
What if the Supreme Court says, states, you guys decide yourself?
It would definitely, I think, just be disastrous for the country because I think what you would immediately get is, well, obviously you'd just get retaliation by red states.
We would just start kicking Biden off the ballot.
And at that point, I mean, why even have an election?
You're really just, you're just totally throwing it into chaos.
You would never be able to hold a presidential vote that anyone would regard seriously.
You can't have an accurate popular vote in any measure at all.
It would be functionally impossible to have a real election.
No one would accept the final result.
It would be a huge abdication of the Supreme Court to allow that to hold.
They basically either have to say Trump did insurrection and he's off, or Trump did not do insurrection and you can't do this.
Either of those choices would be better than just abdicating, to be honest.
So we should look at Super Tuesday.
I would say Super Tuesday, I have it here.
Alabama, Alaska, Samoa, Arkansas, California is part of Super Tuesday.
Even though Gavin Newsom did publicly say he'd be against it.
Because he's running for president.
Yeah, and California's significant.
That would be logistically hard, Tyler, to get to a caucus in California.
It's massive, it's huge.
Logistically, that would be tough.
Yeah, but... And expensive.
I mean, I think deep down, with Newsom and all, I think a lot of Democrats realize this has excellent possibility to really backfire on them.
Because, one, it's not a great look to have any, you know, a Democrat official unilaterally kicking Trump off the ballot.
That's not good.
And then on top of that, again, this is likely to just be resolved by the Supreme Court in Trump's favor.
And I think a lot of them realize it.
A lot of them probably think we can do this as a defiant F you to Trump because the Supreme Court will throw it out.
And so we don't have to be held accountable for the insane things we're doing.
I think this is a real thing.
It's three-dimensional too, Blake, because they also, they know the Supreme Court is likely to overturn them, but they want to also deteriorate trust in the Supreme Court, of which is what- That's also true, also true.
Which they want to hack and everything else.
Exactly.
What I really think about is- They're gonna say, look guys, the Trump court saved him.
Have you seen, have you seen the YouTube ads that they're running on the Supreme Court?
No, we don't live in D.C.
It's like, okay, yeah, so in D.C.
You're micro-targeted for that, yeah.
Yeah, you're micro-targeted, so I see all of it.
And it's all, Supreme Court is about to strip, the Supreme Court has stripped women of their rights.
The Supreme Court has, you know, allowed, or they're basically telling you that the Supreme Court has illegalized, criminalized abortion in the United States, that the Supreme Court's out of control.
And I'm telling you, it is like every other YouTube ad in D.C., which means the liberals of the liberals are getting this.
I think that it's clearly going to be a huge part of the Democrat playbook going into 24.
We know there's a lot of initiatives that are already coming up for this.
We talked about it.
But I got to say, you know, when I look at, it's kind of like what we talked about last week, about how Blake was telling that story about, you know, when they put up the pro-life crosses and some lib just came and ran it over with their car.
You know, the Democrats are willing to do this in this country.
They'll just unilaterally strip you from the ballot.
They say, yeah, you're right.
You're done.
And Republicans will meanwhile sit, sitting back in vapor lock going like, Oh no, what if we ever do something?
Oh no.
And that, that gets us into top, like we were actually going to talk about this even before the, the main news broke, but it makes it far more, uh, it stands out more.
So, There's a lot of articles, just in the last couple weeks even, like, is America headed towards a civil war?
Is America going to just permanently break apart?
And obviously there's that movie that's coming out in the spring, which we talked about last time.
So, setting aside whether a civil war will happen, the topic we wanted to have to close the year is, which side would win a civil war?
And I kind of wonder if we're even going to disagree on this one.
So let's define the parameters of the Civil War.
So Blake, just throw out the scenario that you're talking about here.
Because in the movie, it's like only two states versus the government.
It's like not really clear what's going on in this new movie that's coming out.
The new movie is dumb because it has to be like anti-Trump, but they can't say Trump.
So it's, yeah, California and Texas are united, and there's a Florida alliance, and it's like a three or four way Civil War.
It's all very dumb.
Uh, and they just are kind of making it up as they go.
I think, you know, if we want the most reasonable one, let's actually, let's imagine the one where the Supreme Court, uh, you know, abdicates itself from the results.
So we have this kind of bogus election where Biden isn't on the ballot in 15 States and Trump isn't on the ballot in 15 States.
And there's a bunch of shady crap that goes on even in the States where they're both on the ballot.
And let's say, Giant pile of dust.
And you can't even really tell who won, but somehow, you know, the powers that be say, Oh, actually Joe Biden got, got reelected and you have to deal with it and accept it or even vice versa.
Let's say Trump gets elected again.
And a lot of blue States just flip out and say like, Nope, we're, we're literally not accepting this.
And they convene, you know, a convention of a convention to secede actually, which they talked about doing in 2020.
So let's just say they did that again.
Um, and then you'd kind of have, you'd have a situation where there's a disputed presidency and where you would go from there, uh, is difficult to imagine, to be honest.
Uh, people will talk willy nilly about a civil war, but I think the first thing you have to grasp is it's so difficult to envision what the battle lines would be.
You know, in 1860, a civil war is South Carolina secedes, Virginia secedes.
And, you know, 80 plus percent of the state's population basically goes along with it and is even willing to fight over it.
But the number of states where you even get over 70 percent for one presidential candidate is not very high, let alone people who are literally willing to, like, shoot anyone over a political question in the U.S.
And, you know, I don't think you could assume every military unit would go a certain way or even every police department.
It just seems incredibly chaotic.
Well, what you're saying is that it's not as clean or, you know, as it was in the most people when we think when we mention civil war, people want to go back to 1860 and talk about the situation at the time.
But in 1860, you had state militias that were that were organized.
You had National Guard units that were directly targeted to the state.
And we still have that, obviously.
But you even had full on military units that were the state they were domiciled in was the state where everybody was from.
And so you had this clean split on.
Oh, yeah, we should get into the Nikki Haley bit, right?
You know, was it about slavery?
Right?
You know, obviously there was a state rights argument on the issue of slavery, clearly, and what should be done with it, and so today it's not like that.
Just to summarize, everything is mixed up.
Yeah, it's super mixed up.
And so what that would lead into, in my opinion, is if you imagine any sort of violent civil conflict in America, what's going to immediately stand out as important is literally who gets organized more quickly.
So who is able to figure out who is on our side?
Where do we need to go?
What do we need to do to assert ourselves?
And I'll be honest, I feel like the obvious answer to that is There's going to be way more institutions in America that can just assume they are 95 to 100% aligned with what the left wants, and then they can muster those institutions to do things that they want.
Every university in America, most big city local governments are going to be like this.
Entire departments of the federal government will be like this.
And then on top of that, they still have, you know, relatively experienced, you know, street agitators like Antifa and all of that.
And when you compare this to, you know, if you've ever been at some barbecue with conservatives where they'll just think like, yeah, you know, they'll, they'll try to pick a fight, but we own all the guns.
And I would just say owning all of the guns is not that useful against owning all of the organization for lack of a better term.
Well, and you also, I mean, you have this question of which side is more willing to use violence.
And I mentioned this on the space that I was on last night, which went totally nuts.
But, you know, Blake, you and I were co-hosting the Chronicles of the Revolution, which has been just racing up the charts this whole week.
We did we did France on Monday.
We did Russia yesterday today is Franco Thursday.
We're you know all about Franco tomorrow We're doing the 1960s in the United States and one of the key sides of this is that you see the left is like almost always the first one that's willing to use violence and We also what did we see over the weekend the left was able to shut down elements of the left were able to shut down for a time and Both JFK and LAX this weekend, Christmas weekend.
So one of the most traveled weekends of the entire year.
The two largest by far airports and traffic hubs, transportation hubs of the entire country were shut down by leftists.
And I mean, look at the strategy they used.
of hitting the expressway going into JFK.
So again, looking at those critical choke points, these were paramilitary style operations, which I would argue are being used as testing or, testing situation stress tests on our systems going into 2024.
And you see the left doing this with impunity in various parts of the country, and it's clearly organized.
There's I'm sure they'll say, oh, this is in the name of Palestine, just like it was in the name of George Floyd, just like it was in the name of whatever before that.
You know, Ferguson, Michael Brown, or Freddie Gray in Baltimore.
The cause doesn't matter.
The fact of the matter is, they are organized and they're willing to use violence, whereas the right is always kind of, like I just said before, in vapor lock on a lot of this stuff.
Yeah, and I just, a couple things.
How many people actually showed up in Kenosha?
Yeah, I mean just a couple things.
First, what would it look, I mean, what I think people mean by Civil War, Blake, I just think they mean pockets of mass chaos.
I don't think there would be In our lifetime, some sort of unified resistance or sort of army that would come together.
And, I mean, we're having trouble getting people to knock on doors.
I mean, you think all of a sudden we're going to get people to take up arms?
Like, okay.
I mean, theoretically, if this actually were to happen.
So, but secondly, who would win in this scenario, Blake?
I mean, yeah, they have drones.
And by the way, I love when people say, The military would never fire upon Americans.
Of course they would.
Yeah, they would.
They absolutely would.
100%.
And by the way, do you guys know that... Did you not watch January 6th?
Well, yeah, obviously.
It's almost disturbing how eager they are to do it.
They're chomping at the bits to do this.
Of course, by the way, go to Coronado.
They fantasize about this.
If you go to Coronado, go to any military base, they're all gay and lesbian and trans, and if you mispronounce them, you get kicked off a flight simulator.
It's not a joke.
I get whistleblowers all the time.
I know people right now, Coronado, in San Diego, that said, I'm on two-week disciplinary action because I misgendered some freak that was on a flight simulator.
And this guy, like, dreams about being on a drone, you know, terrorizing MAGA Republicans.
By the way, they fantasize talking about killing white people.
So, that's the second thing.
False.
And then other people say, well, the police will be on our side.
Is that on the SEAL side, or on North Island?
All of it.
Across the board.
It's across the board.
Across the board.
No, I mean in Coronado.
Well Coronado has a conventional naval base and then there's also a SEAL base.
It is on the conventional naval base, not on any... I think police would be more viable as like an ally than the military would be.
I mean the military is very bureaucratic, it's very centralized, it's very top-down.
I think police departments in general do lean in our favor and You can tell just a lot of them were very disaffected by 2020, for example.
And again, you know, there's lots of small towns that have their own police departments.
So you can kind of imagine those being on our side, but that, you know, that makes the most sense in the sort of decentralized chaos sort of situation where you would just have, you know, thousands and thousands of rural police officers announcing that they're not going to enforce this or that law or this or that decree from the central government.
That might really be what any form of civil conflict would look like.
It might just take the form of, you know, Biden wins a super disputed election.
And then what if 10 red states just announced, you know, we don't regard Biden as a legitimate president and we are just going to ignore anything that comes out of Washington for the time being.
And then what are you going to do?
Now what is conceivable is if, very theoretical, if whatever the American right or conservative world had a pocket of actual resistance, if a foreign adversary or like Russia came in and started to actually help that pocket of resistance, then all of a sudden it would be That would be interesting.
But, I mean, would you want to accept that?
I mean, I don't know.
Again, we're talking so hypothetically and theoretically.
But honestly, I'm with Blake.
I just roll my eyes when people are like, we're going to a civil war and, you know, we have guns and arm up.
I'm like, I don't think you have any comprehension of what that even means.
How sad that would be.
How dark that would be.
How irreversible that would be.
And in some ways, the bad guys want us to talk like that.
For some sort of massive power grab.
But also on the police side, excuse me when I say I love some police.
They were enforcing vaccine mandates.
They were arresting pastors.
They were arresting girls for not having vaccine passports.
Did you not see Minnesota two summers ago?
Yeah, exactly.
By the way, they just watch when people are looting and burning, and we're supposed to believe?
I mean, again, I love our police, but a lot of them follow orders.
Well, I have a pension, man.
I got a pension.
I don't want to, you know, I don't want to resist.
And so, look, I don't want to be too dark about it, but if your, let's say, solution is that somehow this is going to get into civil conflict and right-wing America is going to rise up, Yeah, I think you gotta check your premise a little.
It's magical thinking.
It's magical thinking.
Well, it's not magical, but let's just be honest.
What would the best case scenario be?
The best case scenario would be like a million dead people, and an irreconcilable schism of a country where every third person you know is dead, and every male under 30 is destroyed, and the country is permanently ruined.
Like Ukraine.
Why would we even entertain this idea?
Exactly.
I would say a very common impulse on the right is I feel like a lot of conservatives would rather stand on a pile of ashes screaming, I told you so, than actually win, unfortunately.
Otherwise, I completely agree.
I think we should do everything we can to avoid it.
I think the people in charge are inviting it through what they're doing.
It's almost like they say, we control the electricity, we control the water, we control the internet, we control the drones, we control the nuclear power plants, we control the military.
They're very wretched people.
I think it was all well who just bragged, like if you resist, we'll just drop a nuclear bomb on you.
There's a lot of people who are- - By the way, Biden has said that.
He's like, what is an AR-15 gonna do against a drone?
Biden has said that before. - Yeah, and then it's funny 'cause we lose wars to a bunch of tribesmen with AK-47s, so. - Well, Blake, Blake, actually, hold on, I wanna ask Blake with this.
Blake, you talked a lot yesterday on the show about the Russian Revolution and how the whites were just like totally disorganized and they were all over the place.
And when I look at the situation we're talking about, we're like, OK, you might have like a couple of like FOPs here and there, maybe a few National Guard units, this and that thing.
But there's no central organizing force.
It just reminds me of the Russian loyalists going up against the Red Army.
Yeah.
I mean, just think of how much power and importance is just concentrated in Washington, D.C.
Okay, who controls Washington, D.C.?
Well, you can look at an electoral map and it'll tell you that.
And now take that for every major nerve center of the country.
And it's like, you know, politically, it is relevant that You know, we do better in places that are further from the rungs of power that, you know, that's kind of what makes us a populist movement.
It makes us kind of a dissident movement, but it definitely is not great if you want to win any sort of irregular conflict because winning an irregular conflict is based heavily on control of institutions, proximity to sources of power, proximity to sources of legitimacy.
And we're massively deficient in all those things.
And you just, again, you have boomer cons.
who cope with this by just like say you know owning a hundred guns that they have in their attic and then yeah but i mean it sounds so bizarre like i support it so blake here's the chat but i want to say this though because the one thing i would point out jack is that the russian revolution happened in a vacuum while world war one was going on so you had a situation where you didn't the men weren't there
you know the the white army wasn't there you had all the the loyalists essentially were not there and it happened in a vacuum the whole world didn't really even know what was going on at the time Charlie has a really great point, which is that there's a likelihood that It wouldn't happen in a vacuum.
There would be a number of different interests that would show up.
Someone in the chat just put, look at what's going on in Ukraine right now, between Russia and Ukraine.
This would not be a simple Yeah.
You know, run through the country.
You have literally millions of people with guns and divide that's happening in every state, including including the deep blue states, the you know, the people that would be loyal to that, to the DCites.
So I don't know.
I think it'd be really interesting.
I think a lot of outside forces.
I think a lot of outside forces would come in, but I don't know if it would be as simple as, although I do think there's a lot of, a ton of analogies to the Russian Revolution where we are at in American history.
I think there is a ton.
I completely agree with you.
We've talked about this a number of different times.
I think if I think that's part of the reason why they want to send us to war, to be honest with you, is because, again, it would be easier to do this, right, to dominate a civil war if all our men are gone.
And that, to me, is the scariest part of the Ukraine conflict, to be honest Because they know that the people who would get sent to a major conflict if one of these did kick off, whether it be China, whether it be Russia, whether it be Iran, whatever sort of the war of the week is, Venezuela I think is probably on the list, that would be sort of, and I'm not going to necessarily say Trump supporters, I did say that in a tweet once and it went super viral and all the neocons were really mad at me.
And I said, don't put it past them to start a war so they could send all the Trump supporter males off to fight and die so Trump can't win.
But what I'm saying is essentially, to your point, that the military age males who are likely to go and conduct that combat are the same type of people who would participate in a reactionary backstop here in the United States should something like this kick off.
And to Charlie's point, and your point as well, those are the exact type of people that they'd want to get rid of.
Yeah, and I mean just finally, it would be so... I'm afraid that there's a little bit too much of a romantic quality to how people think about this, and...
Again, I haven't actually ever been to a country at war.
Jack, you visited Ukraine at war.
I visited countries that have been in post-war mode, and it's the worst thing.
It is the worst thing people do.
We shouldn't invite it.
We should actually actively reject it.
It's not fun.
It's not lighthearted.
And once you cross that delta, there really is no going back.
Now, while I say that, I will simultaneously agree, I don't know how we coexist with these 50 million people, or let's just say 20 million people of insane radicals.
I don't know.
Other than there needs to be a live and let live, I'm not gonna get into your business.
I don't even think there's that many radicals, though.
Okay, so five million.
I mean... I know, it would suck, but I think they would end up congregating.
Yeah, I'm just, the people, the people... You know what I'm talking about, Tyler.
The people that are forcing me to do pronouns and, like, that are trying to, you know, swat Jack's home.
You know, right?
And that... I don't know how we... My parents twice this week, over Christmas.
One, one... So crazy.
Yeah, I don't know how I coexist with these people.
And I mean that these are U.S.
passport holders.
I don't know how I co-exist with the Secretary of State of Maine.
Or the people who are trying to run over the malls.
Or the person that they're shutting down highways at JFK or the Secretary of State of Maine.
I don't know how I can...
You know, call them my fellow countrymen.
If you want to talk about a civil war, this was a right-wing civil war online yesterday, mostly between women.
Very few men weighed in on this, which actually, I think that's probably a good thing, because it's just overly cringe to have men comment on hyper-female topics.
But here we go, four white men to comment on the most controversial topic of the week.
Jack, set the table.
What is Calendar Gate?
Okay, so Calendar Gate, which is something that I really didn't want to get into this week or talk about in any way, shape, or form.
And then I was doing a Twitter Spaces, again, to promote Blake and I's excellent docuseries this week, Chronicles of the Revolution, the history, the secret history of leftist uprising around the world.
My brother kind of like commandeered the space and turned out that he was in a Twitter war with Seth Weathers all over Callender Gate.
And then everybody involved in Callender Gate joined the space and basically it just became a two hour, as you say, full on civil war over the pinup calendar.
Oh, look, here it is.
So what is Callender Gate?
So, and I do think that we kept it pretty civil, if I have to say so myself, and since it was MySpace, I'm gonna say that.
And again, I'm the one on the microphone right now.
So, Seth Weathers runs Ultra Right, and your, you know, number one dad's conservative beer.
People have seen it on Fox News, people have seen it in other places, and they've gotten a lot of press in it.
I see him on Daily Mail, like, all the time.
For their, you know, December 2024, they decided, or December of 2023 going into 2024, they decided to put out a yearly calendar.
Beer companies do this all the time, but because this is the conservative ultra-right beer, what they decided to then do was get out a calendar of some of the number one conservative female influencers.
Um, many of whom, I think all of whom have been on our various, uh, shows other than this one, because there are no girls on Dark Crime.
And, um, I think, you know, I don't, I don't have the list right in front of me.
Um, Riley Gaines, uh, was on the cover of this.
I've got, I've got some names.
We've got.
Oh, you've got the names.
We've got Riley Gaines.
We have Dana Lash, uh, Kim Klasek.
I don't remember how you say her name.
Ashley St. Clair, Sarah Gonzalez, Josie the Red-Headed Libertarian, that is how it is listed on the page, Catalina Lauch, Brittany Jean, Bethany Bartlett, and Peyton Drew are the 10 names. Bethany Bartlett, and Peyton Drew are the 10 names.
I don't know if there's two others or if some of them double up or maybe they only have 10 months on their list.
I think some of them double up.
I want to be clear.
Most of these people at one point or another currently are Turning Point ambassadors or were involved and come to our events and have been really great at promoting conservative principles and what we do at Turning Point.
So that's, yeah, that's kind of going short of it.
Putting that into the space.
And so the calendar had been out for a little bit.
And, you know, really Bryson Gray was one of the guys that kind of started this iteration of it.
People coming in and saying, you know, he came out and said this never should have been done.
He said it was unchristian, specifically calling it demonic.
I had him on the space, and he, you know, Charlie, you would have appreciated, he was going chapter and verse, Old Testament and New Testament, against this thing, and he was asking for anyone, he was challenging, could anyone come in here and say that I'm biblically incorrect and none of you conservatives will.
This was sort of the thing he kept going back on.
And other people came in and had a more libertarian type of attitude towards it saying, look, you know, these are, these are girls.
They're girls who are good looking.
Why shouldn't we have good looking girls in a calendar?
My brother came in and this kind of what started us on the whole, on the whole path was he actually had said, and this is a bit more nuanced, I think, he had said that he wasn't against the calendar in and of itself, but he was against the inclusion of a crucifix in the calendar, which is Josie's photo, but he was against the inclusion of a crucifix in the calendar, which is Josie's Now,
Josie eventually comes on there and Kevin and her, before it really got out of control, kind of had a conversation about this and she said, look, you know, this was just, you know, that's just a crucifix that's up in her kitchen.
I have one up in my kitchen.
Um, and you know, she didn't even think anything of it.
Also, the photo of her is just her, she's just like in the kitchen.
Yeah, hers is not a bikini photo.
I don't think there's anything necessarily.
I mean, it's a short skirt.
That's probably if you want to really go modest.
I mean, honestly, in the kitchen is probably the most appropriate.
I mean, it's like opposite of all the other stuff that we were seeing.
Yeah, she's clearly trying to do like a 1950s style.
Of course, she was trying to like kind of double troll the whole kind of feminist thing.
So I want to emphasize one part of it.
Well, let me just let me just finish the piece on the crucifix was Kevin Josie had just said, look, you know, and she agreed.
She said, look, you know, we could have taken it out.
She said it was I think it was an oversight.
And Kevin said, fine, you take it out.
I have no issue with it whatsoever.
And that's where that's where we had left it.
I just want to make sure that everyone's clear on the name of the thing.
It's Conservative Dads Real Women of America 2024.
It was amazing.
So I want to just, I just want to make sure that everyone's clear on the name of the thing.
It's conservative dads, real women of America, 2024.
They're trying to show women without penises.
Right?
That was the goal.
I mean, harder and harder to find in America today.
That was the original goal.
And then it says this, but hold on.
I want to go through the facts here, okay?
So, some of these pictures are rather innocent.
I mean, look at Brittany Jean.
I find nothing wrong.
Totally innocent.
Right?
Nothing wrong with this picture.
Like, literally could just be walking up to him.
She's a sweet person.
Some of these other pictures are not so pious.
I mean, Sarah's Gonzalez's picture, I have nothing.
I think most of these women are married, too.
Dana Lash, yeah.
Most of these women are married.
It's fine.
Some of these pictures, I just say this subjectively, some of these pictures are awfully provocative.
And you obviously are an adult, you have a right to do this, but hold on a sec, there's a couple questions.
Number one.
If you're a leader in the conservative movement trying to be a role model for young ladies, is this the best look?
I think that was a question that people had.
Number two, some people say, oh they didn't know what they were signing up for, you know, Riley Gaines, who I really respect and like.
You know, she's there awfully provocatively there, and she's a swimmer, so you could argue it both ways, but a lot of people, a lot of young ladies look up to her.
But also, it says on the website, 10% of the sales will be donated to the Riley Gaines Center to protect women's sports from extremist ideologies.
So the Leadership Institute is raising money off of this.
I didn't know that, did you?
But I didn't realize LI was part of this.
Oh no, yeah, the Leadership Institute is getting 10% of all swimsuit calendar sales, so that's interesting.
Good for Morgan!
Good for Morton.
I'm stating facts.
I'm not moralizing here.
That's a fact.
I'm just reading what it says.
I think this is silly.
I would never buy a calendar like this.
People like calling it demonic.
I don't know.
Hold on.
I'm not even getting there.
I'm asking some questions.
So the question is role models of what is a conservative female?
And I think that there's this tension where some of the females say, well, we're not men, so let's own our bodies.
But isn't that kind of feminine mystique 1960s liberalism?
In some ways, I look at more kind of like Ally B. Stuckey or Lila Rose, who are very successful mothers who are in the movement, that both verbally and vocally, I think, embrace much more of a piety to themselves, which is certainly missing in this calendar.
And you can make your own argument with it, and this is incredible.
A lot of people are very fired up about it.
I just... I mean, if you want to...
Yeah, go ahead.
If you want to be traditional, like, there are cultures that have held, you know, women have to cover their heads.
They have to really cover their bodies.
Yeah, go to Latin Mass.
I mean, where Jack goes to Mass, women cover their heads.
Even that's, like, fake news version.
Like, they do this as, like, a very nominal compliant, and it's, like, a little tiny thing.
But no, like, you have Orthodox Jewish women who cannot show They shave it and wear wigs because they do their, you know, Talmudic reasoning, but there are other groups where they just, you know, they do that straight up.
I mean, Islamic cultures, of course, they'll have women aggressively cover themselves.
And I think it, it feels a little weird for the right, which the American right, which generally doesn't embrace those principles.
Like we're basically okay with women, like, frankly, Dressing to look good in public for people.
Uh, maybe, you know, maybe not like getting naked, maybe not wearing really revealing stuff, but we're basically okay with the idea of them looking good in public.
And then we're kind of trying to say, well, this really, this calendar, which has no nudity in it and not really even any like salacious content.
Like there's nothing like that you'd see in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue where like, they'll be in a swimsuit, but it's falling off and they're covering themselves.
You know, we've all seen that sort of thing.
And this is not that, it's just sort of, it's just sort of dumb.
Like, it's dumb that they did this, but I don't think it's evil that they did this.
Is it cringe?
I'd say it's cringe.
It's cringe because it has elements of... I don't think it's cringey at all.
Tyler, why do you think it's cringe?
I didn't think it was cringey at all.
I literally didn't even give this two thoughts.
I thought it was crazy that people were even talking about this beyond a sentence.
I actually think that part of the reason I thought that the most provocative photo in all these photos that I saw was actually in the bathtub.
I thought that was a little over the top.
And I saw the video, the behind-the-scenes video that she posted, and I saw him scooping up the bubbles, and I was like, oh no, are they bottling the bubbles?
This is taking this to the next level.
Do I ask her about this?
But I got a little I got Jack, I got a little concerned for a second because I was like, oh, no, are they bottling Ashley's bubbles?
Because she's she's she's a gamer like what's that?
Bella Delphine, you know, like the bath of water.
What's her name?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I got a little bit concerned that this became a secondary play on top of the calendar sales.
And that Morton maybe was taking a percentage of the bathwater, too.
And and that was concerning.
But then I realized I continue watching the video.
They were just throwing the extra bubbles into the drain.
That was it.
Yeah.
And then I didn't give a second.
So I have another wrinkle here that no one's going to make.
I don't.
Here's the other thing.
I don't think we should glorify alcohol.
And that's my that's actually where I'm like super controversial.
But I'll just be honest.
Beer, too.
too it's probably again that's where i i know i sound you know byzantine but i don't think that conservative women should be posing for alcohol man okay then some other reference of sober people pick an ancient civilization that didn't have fermented wine guys alcohol is like a radical progressive position it is conservative doesn't really never Well, I am.
So, I'm going to give a shout-out to... And so is Jack, and so is Tucker, and so is Trump, and so are some of the more high-performing people in the movement.
I don't really want to take it this direction, but we have some friends over at Old Row, and there's some other places that have much more provocative things that are being posted every single day on the site.
There's just a niche community of Americans who find that acceptable and non-offensive.
Well, of course.
The question is though, is the person, this is an interesting question, is the person Let's take Riley, who we all respect and had a great... Should she have done it?
Yeah, who is kind of the current, one of the most popular females in the conservative movement.
Yeah, she's like the number one face of, certainly of 2023.
So I think that Riley is the one that received the most feedback here, because they say, Riley, you are kind of America's sweetheart, in some ways.
Should America's Sweetheart, who was terrorized by men in... Speedos.
In speedos, do this.
And that's, I think, really where a lot of this conversation was sparked.
Well, okay, but the problem with men in speedos isn't speedos, it's the men in speedos part.
Like, it's gross to have a guy, a man, in a woman's swimsuit, parading around pretending to be a woman.
Of course.
Is it gross to do a photoshoot for dads?
I mean, is it gross to have a beauty pageant?
Is it gross to go to the beach and wear that?
They tried to cancel the Victoria's Secret stuff and everybody was like, bring it back.
We make fun of the left when they do weirdo freak show stuff where they're like, this universe is going to be a dude and that's gross.
Gross.
Like, we don't.
Here's my, I haven't said anything yet.
So look, what I'll just say is this, is number one, I do think this is ultra cringe.
I don't think that this calendar should have been done.
And if it was done, it shouldn't have been done in this way because it's simple, right?
Conservative influencers, female and male, supposedly are, you know, being or have their positions and platforms because of their existence.
Ideas and their thoughts and their words and who they are, not what they are.
so you know I don't care if other people wanted to put out a you know a swimsuit edition calendar or whatever but the fact of the matter is that what you're doing is you're taking these conservative women who go around and their entire Twitter feeds or x feeds or wherever they put you know post their hang their thoughts are is about being conservative and being traditional
and then you go and do something like this which is the exact opposite of that and so it totally just tarnishes everything that you've been saying and then on and on the flip side it also it's very reductive it's very reductive because it is now reducing you to you know just your body or whatever so you know that's why when this thing first came out I wasn't planning on talking about I wasn't planning on getting into it.
I'm sure they're selling a lot of calendars off of it.
So, you know, yeah, I guess you guys got to make money and different organizations are making money off of it.
It's just, you know, it's honestly something that I wouldn't have wanted to participate in if, you know, and nobody had reached out to me about, you know, to participate in it.
But had they, I would have said no thanks.
And yeah, just the second thing is, we've been actually, I think, very fair in how we're covering this.
You know who's the most ferocious?
Conservative women on Twitter.
Like, aggressive towards this.
I mean, Peachy Keenan and many others, they're going like 10 out of 10.
I think some of it is vitriol towards some of the people.
What did she say?
What did she say?
I'm curious.
Ali Beth Stuckey also who you mentioned, Charlie, came out strongly.
What did she say?
What did she say?
I'm curious.
She probably wishes.
I can pull it up, but I know she was she was very.
No, no, no, she wasn't in it.
I bet she wishes that she had waited to that.
You can probably guess.
You can probably guess what I think about a calendar branded for conservative dads filled with pictures of women, many of them married and many of them very scantily clad.
Hate it.
This is Ali Bastaki.
I also find the discourse ridiculous, as if we're all supposed to pretend we don't understand the purpose of a calendar of posed, full-body pictures of women.
You can call me a prude, puritanical, or jealous of these women's beauty, whatever makes you feel better.
I just don't see the value in marketing what's basically, in some photos, soft porn to married or unmarried men.
Of course the women are gorgeous, and of course I'm all for celebrating true femininity in an age that can't define woman.
In my view, this doesn't accomplish that at all.
Not trying to cause drama with the participants, some of whom I think are doing great, And I'm aware there will be bigger battles to fight, but I happen to know there are many Christian conservatives who share the same perspective behind the scenes.
I want to give them a voice.
The polarization between Christian and secular conservatism is only going to grow, my friends.
So buckle up.
And that's great answer.
That's great.
I like that line.
That's a huge fault line that's been revealed here.
The soft porn comment is a little over the top.
This is a boudoir calendar that they've already prepared that they didn't release yet.
They have that, too.
That's that soft porn.
Wait, I thought that was a joke.
Is that a real?
No, I'm just kidding.
It was a joke.
It was just it was a chat.
No.
OK.
Yeah.
No, that came up.
That came up on.
Yeah.
In my space yesterday.
And I was like, wait, is that real?
I mean, I believe there were there was a slippery slope down as well.
Yeah.
Jack, there is a slippery slope.
I mean, I just think so much of it's nutty.
It's like, well, OK.
Conservatives, do you not watch any television shows that contain content that lurid?
Because that's essentially every television show that exists today.
But that's more relativism.
That's still relativism.
Maybe a bit, but it just feels like, it gives me a sense of people being, there's a sense that, it's like virtue signaling on the right.
Like, we're gonna freak out about this thing that truthfully barely matters at all.
Yeah, but female influencers do all sorts of crap.
The issue is the cringe aspect.
Yeah, it's cringe.
I think it's cringe.
And yes, I'm against that too.
It's cringe, but it's kind of cringe in a... It's like male... There's a line I used in a Revolver piece once.
It's male-to-male transsexualism.
It's like, hey, conservative dads!
You want this masculine calendar of real women?
It's got women holding guns!
You know, it's like those Black Rifle coffee ads that are just all about, like, bacon and hot women and machine guns and more bacon.
And, like, it's sort of this, you know, what liberals would call, like, reactionary, like, threatened masculinity.
Like, we would say, like, conservative men feel threatened by trannies, and so they're gonna, like, push back by buying this calendar of conservative Twitter personalities in swimsuits.
Like, that is what's cringe about it.
I don't think it's...
There's so much cringe that, like, there's very tame photos of people in swimsuits.
So I have, yeah, and I have a question for everybody, because it's just, it kind of reminded me, it wasn't obviously done this nicely, but it had, like, kind of a throwback to, like, pin-up models of, like, the 30s and 40s.
And Jack, I know you're a big fan of, like, that era and the classiness of, like, that entire era.
And the traditional gender roles.
Yeah, traditional gender roles like, like Hollywood in the 30s and 40s, like you watch some of those movies and there's a lot to be like, if we could kind of harken back to societal norms back then, I think America would be a lot better.
But like, pinup girls were like very popular, right?
Like that was that was a thing in that in that era that was very, very big.
I would even argue that we probably got more conservative After that, for a hot second, before barreling down this road in the 80s and 90s to where we are today.
I mean, maybe politically, but the sexual revolution... This is a new stuff, is my point.
We're doing the whole thing on a tomorrow.
But they would paint these pinup girls up on the bombers that we sent into World War II.
These were on the planes.
Like, nobody was, like, offended by these pent-up girls being painted on bombers.
I don't think any of us are saying that we're against pent-up girls.
I don't think, except maybe Charlie.
but look at his face he's taking it But, but, but no, because you're right.
That is part of American history.
But again, it's cultural, though, like we're not like, again, I'm saying because it's conservative influencers and you can't take that out of it.
I'm sorry.
You just can't.
Because what you've done now is you've gone completely off brand with all of this and gone cross purposes.
So now it's like everything that you do after this is going to be, oh, Weren't you the one in the pinup calendar?
Aren't you just some pinup girl?
So every time, whether it's Riley or Josie or Ashley, who I'm friends with all of them, by the way, it's still going to be like the ultimate comeback, which, by the way, is what when what's the guy's name?
Brian Atlas from the whatever podcast came onto my space last night, and that's immediately how he started attacking Ashley.
That's immediately what he went in on, which body count, which body count, which body count.
Which I think is just like a creepy It might be, but what you've done is you've now made yourself vulnerable to that kind of attack for the rest of your career.
Yeah.
I mean, it's possible.
It's plausible, but maybe that's...
In general, conservators are always...
Anyone who's going to stand for a morally rigid position will always be vulnerable to accusations of hypocrisy.
Now, I do think that if you're taking the position of basically PG-rated calendars being bad, you're probably pushing a political position that is very far outside the mainstream of the US or basically any country.
Well, obviously my views are outside of the mainstream.
Well, yeah, for sure.
We're talking about conservative influencers.
Well, OK, the very idea of a conservative influencer is that there's someone who's more plugged into, you know, mainstream culture than conservatives of before.
Like, what will people even praise, like, turning point events for?
They'll praise them for having, like, actually attractive women at them.
And there will be people who are on stage You dressed up to be attractive, and I don't think that it's that insane that they would also have photos of them that are basically what can go on a calendar.
I think it's still lame they made the calendar presented in a lame way.
Let's ask Charlie about that.
Let's put it on the spot.
Charlie, if somebody showed up to, you know, we just had AmericaFest.
If somebody showed up dressed like that and was about to go on stage, would you say anything or not?
Well, first of all, we've kicked out a porn star before.
Just for the record.
But that was a success.
That was the student-focused event.
That's right.
Number two, the Chewbacca showed up without a shirt, and I told them to put a shirt on.
So, the QAnon shaman.
The American shaman.
I can tell you exactly what Charlie would say.
I was there for both of those.
No, but I wouldn't allow them on stage.
I've disinvited speakers for swearing.
Yeah, cat.
She's not allowed back in our event.
I was backstage for that too, I remember.
No, I said you're never coming back.
You're done.
You said there's 12 year olds, you're not gonna steal their innocence for your social media soundbite.
Yep.
And it was at the student event, too.
Actually, I was standing next to you when you verbatim did say exactly that.
No, so I mean, it's not a mystery that I would... Oh yeah, that would be done.
But again, you were saying it's cross-purposes, and I think that's the point that I'm trying to make here, is what are we trying to do as a conservative movement?
I mean, hold on, let's just ask a question.
Would Phil Schlafly have posed in this?
No, we would not.
Of course not.
Well, hold on.
Of course not.
Then that's the answer.
Signed, sealed, delivered.
Why don't we have more Phyllis Schlafly energy in our movement?
Well, they do at YAF events.
But this is where it comes down to.
It comes down to the fine line of walking between our events, right?
Where it's like people come.
Like we saw the article that was that was sent over today in the group chat, right?
Which talked about how turning points going to culture and bringing it to people.
And that's what makes it acceptable.
Where it's like we've got all these social media influencers.
We've got people.
And sometimes that pushes the envelope a little bit.
And I think we've done a really good job at walking that fine line where it's like we're not throwing things in people's faces, even though we've had tons of complaints.
Charlie knows this.
We've had tons of complaints from parents before saying, I went to your event.
There's a lot of girls that were underdressed.
And and our our challenge has always been is how do we make sure that people are properly dressed?
And over the years, I think, you know, things have kind of corrected.
And, you know, we have a lot more people who are a lot more responsible, a lot more conservative, a lot more modest events, especially student events, but still cool.
Right.
And like a good example, I think, though, I was thinking about this today was a conservative That is very, very famous, very, very popular, that always posts scantily clad, scantily dressed things, is Livvy Dunn.
So I don't know if you saw this, most recently Livvy Dunn was, took a picture with the now governor of Louisiana, and people were like totally just like going at her, like turning pistols at her online of, hey I can't believe it, I didn't know she was conservative, blah blah blah, she's a Republican, blah blah blah.
But she posts nothing but, you know, Underdress stuff.
If she showed up to the event, people would go crazy, right?
Like kind of like Danica Patrick thing, where if people knew they would go crazy and she would probably get more of a pass because that's how she presents herself.
So I think the the point that you guys have made, which is a really good one, which is like if you're OK with this being your brand, Then OK, this is your brand.
And people are going to expect it from you kind of moving forward.
If not, you've got to autocorrect.
You've got to kind of like recorrect, I guess, your whole career.
And if you do that, then great, too.
I think you can diversify your portfolio a little bit.
Look, I want to read some of these comments here.
This one says, I'm a Christian woman.
Charlie is correct.
The calendar is about sex.
They're portraying themselves in sexualized positions to be viewed by men.
It's very against Christianity.
Somebody else says, choose your battles.
This is a big nothing.
Berger did not allow it to divide.
Smoke and mirrors, nothing but a distraction.
So the comments are on both sides.
Guys, put your deal in here.
Also, you know, a couple years ago, four or five years ago, we did our event in Florida, and I was distracted by doing, literally, this is a true story, I was distracted in the other side, and one of our sponsors, big sponsors, Bang Energy, comes up with these scantily dressed women, and they start dancing and literally throwing money from stage, it was out of control.
And everyone accused me as if I, yeah, everyone, that I was like approving the whole thing, and everyone knows that I would not have approved that, or did approve that.
And, yeah, obviously we corrected it, we took responsibility for it, and, you know, that never happened again.
But I remember the backlash we received from that, and a lot of it was warranted, honestly.
Some of it was unfair, because no one actually asked the truth of the questions surrounding that.
But, here's the difference.
Those girls that were up on stage at the Turning Point USA event that were invited and not totally vetted, throwing money, they weren't conservative influencers that have Bible verses in their Twitter bios.
That's true.
So Charlie, I was the speaker immediately after that, and when you're at a Turning Point event, You know, when you're about to go up, you're backstage and you're, you know, so you're sort of in, you know, you're on deck.
And at the time, so I had my wife with me there, which usually backstage is where I go up.
And we had our oldest son with us there.
And we were just like, look.
So basically, all the Bang Energy girls come off of stage.
And now they're back there.
There's me.
There's Tanya Tay.
There's our kid.
And you know what?
We were fine with it.
We were totally.
And Tanya was fine with it.
She was like, oh, these girls are gorgeous.
They're great.
And again, that was their own.
They were just like, I don't know, cheerleaders.
Like the kind of cheerleaders you'd see at, you know, like Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders, right?
Fine with that.
And by the way, also fine with my son being there to see that.
You know why?
Because that's not grooming towards some kind of sexually degenerate position.
That's completely heteronormative.
The difference is, yes, Charlie, I was not also asking the Bang Energy girls to get up and give me a, you know, a soliloquy on modern monetary theory or something afterwards.
Yes, so you have to be the same person in your Twitter bio where you're quoting Jeremiah 29-7 while also not posing maybe in a scantily way.
You have to balance that.
We got a couple of super chats.
We'll go straight to Corey's second one.
I would buy a calendar with just Jack in it.
So Jack, you should consider.
My Pillow Calendar 2024.
By the way, if you do not listen to, and I've threatened this, if you do not listen, and we are checking your recent history, to every episode of Chronicles of the Revolution, Blake Neff and I will be releasing a 2024 calendar.
Whipped Cream will be involved.
Wow.
100% true.
Yeah, and so here's a comment.
They say, this is why the left fears us, stupid crap like this.
You're reinforcing a legit feeling.
That you want a hands-mailed tale future.
I don't even know what that means.
No one watches that show.
I have spoken with women and they feel this 100%.
So wait, so women, they actually enjoy 1960s liberation?
It's like they're happy?
Women are more miserable than they've ever been.
What about modernity is making women's lives better?
They're the saddest group of people in the history of this species.
Through or not, the perspective From women that, like, the right literally wants to go back to that, I do think is a political barrier that we have to deal with.
Okay, well, we're living in hell.
Well, we've never been in Handmaid's Tale territory.
Not yet, Tyler.
Give it time.
Give it time.
Charlie, even you talk about wanting to go back to, like, the 90s more than you talk about wanting to go back to, you know, like 1890.
Well, let's... You never specified which 90s, but nobody... I never specified the century.
But nobody said that we can't... That's right, 1790s.
The debate isn't whether or not this...
But the debate isn't whether or not this calendar sucks.
Everyone has said, like, this calendar is not that big of a deal.
What we're saying is, is that should people... I said it sucks.
Yeah, OK, other than Jack.
But the point is, like, should the people that participate in this, do they want to, like, basically make their entire persona this?
And that's a fair question.
And that's a conversation that we're getting into.
But, you know, I think that, you know, we just had a conversation about this.
Like, I, when we were talking about Taylor Swift, I miss the Britney Spears, you know, I'm a slave for you days when there was like some femininity in, uh, in Hollywood.
And there was like some, some pride in that where there was just like, it was just in your face.
Like, you know, that at least it was just in your face sexually.
It was like pinup girls territory.
Right.
Which is, this is what it is.
Now you have this whole like weird situation where it's like you can't hypersexualize stuff but you can if it's trans and like we're living in just some really weird times so I think that there's some relief that exists with just women being women and being okay with this and if they're okay with it then they're okay with it and that sucks you know if down the road sometimes like a bad tattoo but like that is what it is.
Tyler's got some really bad tattoos.
I have no tattoos.
Mormons don't do tattoos.
I think any tattoo is worse than appearing in this calendar.
Any tattoo?
Any tattoo.
Okay, if you're a sailor or a combat veteran.
Wait, Blake, you were like, the right shouldn't pick these fights, the right shouldn't pick these battles, and now you're like... I'm not saying we should ban tattoos.
I'm just saying that tattoos are hideous.
Blake, you're going to be... I got annihilated by the Taylor Swift people.
You're going to get annihilated for that comment.
Oh, man.
They're going to ink me to death.
So, we had some staff... What did he say?
We had some staff get some very special tattoos.
I was reading about Handmaid's Tale.
What?
We had some staff get some very special tattoos before the 2020 election.
I'm not going to say who it was, but they got an inner lip tattoo and they got MAGA tattooed on their inner lip one night when they went out.
It was me actually.
Do they still work for us?
That's disgusting.
It was like a blood oath.
Before that, that was how intense our team was.
We can still win in 24.
Door knocking.
We can still win in 24.
Oh, they still have the tattoos.
Because they, it takes like 10 years.
They go away.
Those, those tats.
So those inner lips that you have on like inner lip or your, or if you get like prison tats in general, in any extremity are the easiest ones to get rid of and are the ones that go away the fastest.
Yeah.
These go away over time.
They go away super fast.
But that's how committed they were.
And I think one of them showed President Trump.
Pretty cool.
No, I just think it's an interesting question of why are modern women so defensive of something making them miserable?
Interesting question.
Okay, so we have about five minutes remaining here.
Do we want to go to another topic, or do we want to- anyone else have something on calendar date?
Because that- did we cover this?
I feel like we should wrap up the year if we only have five minutes left.
Okay.
Blake, do you have a thought defending the calendar?
No, we've said enough on the calendar.
If we want to just do a different topic because we have five minutes left or it's spinning off from that, we were going to talk about, you know, we mentioned these are all influencers, so we were going to talk about YouTube families.
Is it in the world that you now have?
I feel like we don't have...
Okay.
I feel like I want to say that for a longer time.
That's a longer discussion.
Well, what is the thought crime of the year then?
That's what Andrew suggests we talk about.
So Jack, what's the thought crime of the year?
Of 2023?
So like of topics that we've covered?
Maybe one we didn't cover, I guess.
then we'd have to talk about it next year. - I think the thought crime of the year, honestly, we haven't really discussed it on here, but really is this, it's that for the right to fight back, the right has to learn that we need to go outside of our comfort zone. the right has to learn that we need to go And that me, and I'm not going to say like, oh, we need to go.
So yeah, today was Franco Thursday on all over my Twitter and Blake, you and I did the entire Franco episode.
It dropped today.
I don't know if you've seen, but in Spain, they're like going, they're going nuts that we did this.
They love it.
They're like translating all of our episode into Spanish.
And they're just like, oh, my gosh, you know, finally, U.S.
conservatives get it right.
And it's like sometimes that you do actually and then Trump, of course, has been kind of playing around with this idea of, you know, I'm not going to be a dictator, but maybe just for one day, Sean.
Right.
And just sort of normalizing this idea that sometimes we have to go outside the normal bounds of what is considered conservatism in order to save the republic or just in order to save the nation.
I think that's probably the biggest thought crime of the year.
And the fact that when Trump says that, people cheer and people are sick and fed up because, by the way, it isn't the right that started this, right?
It's like if the left is breaking all the rules, why can't the right break at one or two in order to set things back to the way it was?
The thought crime of the year that is no longer a thought crime is finally we could talk openly about the great replacement.
I think it's amazing.
We used to get in so much trouble for saying it.
Vivek deserves a lot of credit.
He moved the Overton window.
We now talk openly about it on the show, and I just think it's great.
You are being replaced.
They're trying to change the racial demographics of the country.
They're trying to change the religious demographics of the country.
Some people think that Tucker partially got Fired for the Great Replacement, and it's not a matter of theory, it's the Great Replacement reality.
So for me, that's the big thoughtcrime win of 2023.
A year ago, if we had this show, and we said it, it would be clipped up everywhere.
Now I look into the camera, I say, you're being replaced.
And the media says, oh, everyone says that now.
So that's a huge narrative win, large in part thanks to Elon.
That is my thoughtcrime that is no longer a thoughtcrime.
And I think that's a good thing.
I think the less things that can be in thoughtcrime world, and more into mainstream zeitgeist world, is a win for humanity.
I'll go more specific.
Also, I think a thought crime that has taken a few years to take root, but just in the last month, you're really seeing it take off, is people just saying, Derek Chauvin did nothing wrong.
He is a political prisoner who was railroaded.
That's a big one.
Tucker did a whole episode on that today.
That one's going to pick up steam, by the way.
It took three years.
Yep, that's right.
It took three years, but now you have Glenn Lowry saying it.
He's a black professor.
You have John McWhorter saying it.
You have Tucker Carlson saying it.
Lots of people are now just saying what really we had all the evidence we needed to say that three years ago, three and a half years ago.
And now, you know, people are standing up to say it.
And I think that evolution is very indicative of how the country overall as a whole has shifted.
I love that.
I still can't get over the Prager debate.
So that was... I saw him!
I saw him the other day and it was just in the back of my head.
That was... I can't... I will never... We can never go back.
I don't think, I don't think that will ever get resolved.
Not on this show, not ever.
That was rough.
If the child is an AI child.
No, I can't go back into it.
I'm sorry for even bringing it up.
No child is actually harmed.
I didn't even want to, but we like talked about it for like four days straight after that.
And it was like nonstop.
I couldn't stop thinking about it.
What if we have a chat GPT pretend to be the child?
Well, it's someone's into that, but by the way, I'm not explaining this.
I know.
Nope.
You have to go back and watch the episode if you want to like really get into it.
We're never touching it again, but that thought crime is never going away.
Yeah, that was one where we were just like, I think we all just sort of agreed.
We're like, yeah, we have a lot of respect for what Prager does, but yeah, we totally disagree on this.
100% disagree.
We can't get there.
We tried a lot of different angles.
So, I will say that of all the thought crimes that we did, the first ever episode, it's hard to get close to.
Do we have the sound?
Ah, the chirp.
The chirp.
No, we just won on the chirp.
I mean, we just, we just dominated with the chirp.
That was, that was the one where, so actually funny enough, um, I was over here at the studio the other day, um, getting some stuff ready and the, you know, we're in a building where the, uh, you know, we don't, we don't actually go around changing the, um, the, the, uh, smoke alarm batteries.
And of course the smoke alarm was going off and I'm like, like the one day I'm not filming and it's going off, like this would have been hilarious if that happened during a show.
That was back when we had you guys, your guys' face, like, smiling on the logo.
It was, you guys, like... We still have that in the corner.
Everybody, this has been a great year.
I want to thank you guys for watching.
We're going to keep, in 2024, this show is going to be taken off like a rocket.
So make sure you guys subscribe on Rumble every Thursday.
It's amazing.
We are able to really talk, and by the way, the more things we can retire from thought crime to mainstream, we're doing our job.
From all of us at ThoughtCrime, I hope you have a chirpy New Year.
Get your precinct sheriff hat.
And keep on committing thought crimes.
Blake, we need hats.
This is so messed up.
And whatever you do, don't buy that darn calendar.
In a year, we'll be here.
We'll all have the hats.
And Donald Trump will be getting inaugurated.
And Blake's vitamin D level will be above zero.
Will be lower than ever.
We will drag you outside.
I will wear this hat at an inauguration.
I will be the only person- No, show that again.
Show that again.
And what's Blake's name?
I will be the only one dying of fright.
I will be the one with the lowest height.
The number one thought crime at the end of next year will be that Blake Neff did what was necessary to his co-hosts and did nothing wrong.
Alright, have a great new year everybody.
Let's chirp our way out.
Change your batteries on your firefighter.
Something tells me not many people in this audience have that problem.
