Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein dissect coordinated tech censorship targeting Alex Jones and Stefan Molyneux, questioning if private platforms act as publishers or dangerous monopolies. They critique the "Nazi" label as a censorship tool while analyzing the St. Louis incident where homeowners defended their property against a mob, contrasting media narratives with libertarian self-defense principles. Ultimately, the episode argues that demonizing dissenters and suppressing conservative voices during an election year represents a consolidation of power that threatens free speech and encourages authoritarian overreach. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Welcome to Part of the Problem00:02:15
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gas Digital Network.
Hey guys, today's show is brought to you by the Death to Tyrants podcast.
It's a hardcore libertarian and cat podcast out of Austin, Texas, hosted by longtime musician and libertarian Buck Johnson.
Buck played drums with the great Jimmy Vaughan at many of the Ron Paul rallies back in 2008 and 2012, and he's been a libertarian for two decades.
Buck comes from the Rothbardian, Mississian wing of the liberty movement, just like us.
He's interviewed many of the top voices in this world, including Lou Rockwell, Tom Woods, Jeff Dice, Scott Horton, Mark Thornton, a lot of other great ones.
He gets red-pilled guests from other perspectives, like the great paleoconservative Paul Gottfried, feminist Megan Murphy, InfoWars reporter Joe Biggs, and journalist Peter von Brun.
He's really got a terrific podcast.
He's a huge proponent of secession and decentralization and regularly discusses these topics as well as foreign policy, the police state, leftist authoritarianism, many other interesting podcasts.
If you're looking for another great libertarian podcast out there, look no further than the Death to Tyrants podcast.
The podcast drops every Monday and can be found on any of the podcast platforms out there.
Go check it out, deathtotyrants.libson.com.
We're going to play a quick clip from the show at the end of today's podcast.
So make sure you stick around to listen to that.
All right, let's start the show.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to more of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
Hey, what's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new, brand spanking new episode of Part of the Problem.
I, of course, am the most consistent motherfucker you know, Dave Smith, and I'm joined not only by audio, but also by video, which really brings it all together.
You're a video medium type of guy, Rob.
I got to see that beautiful put him.
Robbie the Fire Bernstein, the king of the cocks.
Roll Back The State Now00:15:42
What's up, my brother?
People have always said that about me.
They're like, you know, video is what's going to get you to pop.
Here's what I like about you, Rob.
You're back on video.
Now we see you again.
You don't even try to make your bed.
You don't even pretend.
You don't even like throw it over in a way that doesn't obviously look like you just rolled out of it.
Towels on the door.
Who gives a shit?
We're living in the lockdown.
I mean, this is pretty clean for me.
I'm like showing it off.
Like, hey, guys, look at this.
It's not that shitty.
It looks your bookshelf looks like you were just raided by the FBI and they were looking for information.
They're just tossing your fucking books all over the place.
Where is it?
It's got to be in here somewhere.
I don't know what you're talking about.
That's an organized bookshelf.
It's all on there.
They're in sections.
You have a room that, like, after you kill a bunch of people and write a manuscript, that's what I'd expect to come back.
Like, not manuscript.
What's the word I'm looking for?
You know, you're, I don't know the word either.
You know, but that letter with all your big ideas.
Yes, that's that's what I'm going for.
God.
We're stupid in the morning.
We're recording a little bit earlier than earlier than manifesto is the word I was looking for.
Okay.
So what I wanted to talk about to start off today's show was there has been a big wave of tech censorship that's happened just really in the last 24 hours.
And it's one of these things that's kind of one of the more eerie aspects to tech censorship is when they seemingly happen in coordination.
So it's not just like, you know, if there was just, if we just existed in a world where, okay, there are these rules.
If you get caught breaking the rules, you get kicked off a platform.
I wouldn't even necessarily be completely against that if I thought the rules were within reason and were applied equally or, you know, something like that.
But it's a little bit weird when you see multiple different channels getting kicked off and then this new development of subreddit groups getting scrubbed.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe it's not a new development, but I haven't heard of that before.
And certainly not of like huge subreddit groups like the Donald got scrubbed.
And there, you know, I know, as we've been talking about for a long time, I know that this is in many ways a difficult area for libertarians.
I've been disappointed in how a lot of libertarians have responded to these type of occurrences.
But I think that most people, you know, like when you go back to the Alex Jones example, most people, you know, if you get kicked off of Facebook, but you're on Twitter, YouTube, iTunes, all these other things, kind of like, eh, all right, Facebook didn't want to have you anymore.
But with the Alex Jones thing, what was really remarkable and terrifying about it was that he, in a matter of days, got kicked off of Twitter, Facebook, PayPal, Patreon, iTunes, you know, like everything kicked him off.
And it's very clear, you know, Alex Jones is, sure, he says some crazy shit, but he's been saying crazy shit for years.
They didn't all just decide to kick him off independently within a few days.
Like I, you know, I'm not great with math, but like statistically, the odds of that would be like one in a billion that they all just happened to decide in these few days to kick him off for something that he did five years ago, supposedly.
And that, I think no matter what your ideology is, you have to admit that gets a little bit creepy when all of these companies can get together and decide we're having a purge, we're kicking people off.
That's a dangerous situation.
And I know, I know, I think you're more or less in agreement with me that there's something pretty creepy about tech censorship.
Yeah, it's almost like getting fired from the office on a Friday.
They seem to do it in tandem so that, you know, how much complaining can you do?
You're off of all the platforms and then like no one can go after any one of them, you know, as a singular entity.
But it really does feel like someone's getting orders from above when they all do it in coordination.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
And I just, you know, like I was talking about this with Michael Malice the other day on his show, but it's like you'll get some of these responses and the responses range from libertarians.
I would say it ranges from people who are like, well, these companies shouldn't be treated as, or they should be treated as publishers.
If they want to go in and start, you know, being editors, then they shouldn't get the protection that they have.
And people who, you know, are more or less where I'm at, where they're just kind of like outraged by it.
And they're like, this sucks and we should complain about it.
Then there's a whole bunch of people who take the like, it's a private business.
They can do whatever they want to.
And then on the kind of left libertarian end of the spectrum, there's people who are cheering it on.
Like, this is the market solving, you know, the problem of racism or whatever.
I'll say that, you know, what Malice said, which was I thought was a good point, was that the idea that they're a private business, they can do whatever they want to.
I mean, even if you legally believe that, that certainly doesn't mean that we can't harshly criticize them for what they're doing and try to put pressure on them.
And what Malice said, which was a pretty entertaining example, was he said it'd be like if you went out to dinner and your food was like freezing cold and your friend turned to you and went, well, they're a private business.
I mean, they can do whatever they want to.
And you're like, well, I could still be upset if I ordered hot food and it came out cold, right?
So the fact that they're a private business or whether you think laws should be written or what can be done to help the situation isn't the end of the discussion.
It's also an interesting question.
I don't have any expertise on this one, but to what extent these really are just private public companies.
Well, that's a good, that's a very good point.
Yeah.
How much government monopoly power has either been given to them or how much government funds were given to these companies at the origin so that they could even invest in themselves and grow the way that they did, which becomes more of a question of, is this some sort of a government thing that's really just censoring thought?
Yeah.
And personally, I'm not against libertarians or anyone for that matter, but particularly just speaking about libertarians, I'm not against libertarians having, how do I describe this?
So if you go like, okay, we're against this whole system, but given this system exists, this is better than this.
Like, I'm not against having that.
I think you should keep clear that we're against the whole system.
You know what I mean?
Like, we might be against public schools and think that the government shouldn't be in the business of indoctrinating children and that you don't want to give a monopoly, you know, a violent monopoly, the power over forcing your children into their education camps.
I'm against public schools with every fiber of my being.
That being said, if someone goes, public schools are now teaching two plus two equals five, I would go, I prefer them teaching two plus two equals four.
Does that make sense?
So I can prefer one thing, even though I'm against the whole system.
And the cheerleader should be good looking.
None of this fat cheerleader thing.
That new liberal movement that doesn't do any cheerleader.
It doesn't do anything for anyone.
It doesn't help the kids, doesn't help that fat girl, doesn't help the boys, certainly doesn't help that hot girl who was supposed to be a cheerleader.
Come on.
You got to set those standards early.
I'm talking about schools with 18 and up people anyway.
I don't know.
I'm shook over this Crystalia thing.
I was not in any way suggesting young.
Anyway, my point is, it's okay to say even within this bad system, we can have a preference to one way of running it versus the other.
And I think it is on libertarians to not then fall into the trap of just being like, public schools should be teaching two plus two equals four.
It's like, well, no, our actual position is that we should abolish public schools.
But while we're here, we can talk about that.
And certainly there is something to be said for like, okay, so let's say we took the example, which I like to use the example because it's the most potent one and it is something that's really happened.
But let's say we're talking about financial companies discriminating against people, you know, and there's lots of people out there like Alex Jones and other types of people like that who, you know, can't get Visa or MasterCard to process their payments, can't get, you know, like whatever.
Okay, so let's say you have big banks who are like, we're not going to let you open a checking account if you are, I don't know, a gun rights activist.
Let's just say.
I mean, I don't know an example of that happening, but it's really not that much of a stretch from what we've already seen.
But let's say you had that situation where, you know, Bank of America, Chase, TD Bank, like big banks are like, you cannot open an account and bank with us if you support the Second Amendment on your Twitter page.
Okay.
Now, obviously, if you're looking to the ultimate libertarian answer, like abolish public schools, well, the answer here is that we should abolish the Federal Reserve and all of the regulations and all of these different government rules that create a situation where there's only a few big banks.
And this is very obvious.
I mean, even after Dodd-Frank was passed, there were consolidations in the banking industry.
Because when you, you know, this is basic libertarian stuff, but when you make the rules so incredibly difficult to, you know, comply with, only the big guys can handle the costs of compliance.
And so you don't have a bunch of competition.
There's no question to me that in a libertarian society, we'd have many more companies in the banking industry.
And so that would probably solve this problem.
You also have giant licensing laws in the banking industry, the biggest being that if you're not a giant bank, you're not getting FDIC.
So it goes, I mean, I guess that might fall into your category of compliance, but yeah.
Yeah, more or less.
I'm speaking very broadly in terms of regulation and compliance.
And also the fact that you're not in bed with the Federal Reserve, you're not going to get their free money.
That's pretty hard to compete.
Like if you're in the business of actually savings and loans and I'm in the business of getting free money and loaning it out, probably I'm going to out-compete you.
And if I don't, I'm really bad.
But so even though, so that might be the correct answer.
And in fact, I'm convinced it is the correct answer.
However, much like saying we think public schools should teach two plus two equals four, not five.
Is it reasonable to say that while these banking companies are essentially, I mean, they may not be technically state, you know, state-run companies or state-chartered companies, but they're basically, right?
Like they're completely in bed with the Federal Reserve, with the FDIC, with all of these, like the big regulatory state.
I don't think it's unreasonable for a libertarian to say, okay, our ideal goal is abolish public schools.
Our ideal goal is abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish the FDC, the FDIC, abolish all these regulations.
But if you're going to have what is essentially a state-chartered bank, you can't discriminate.
I don't think that's unreasonable to say, no, you know what?
As long as this is part of the government in some pretty direct way, then no, you can't not bank with someone because you don't like their politics.
You don't have a right to discriminate off political grounds.
I don't think that's crazy unreasonable.
It's, to me, falls in the range of public schools should teach the truth, like public schools should teach real math.
I don't think there's some like contradiction.
I think it's just prioritizing values and going, okay, well, this is our top value.
But as long as we can't have that, it is reasonable to expect them to do that.
And likewise, I don't know, with these, you know, social media companies, who, as you kind of alluded to, all of them are in bed to one degree or another with the government.
You know, we don't all know exactly how extensively it is, but like they all work with our government and other governments.
I understand people not wanting them to be allowed to just kick people off because they have wrongthink.
And then aside from that, even if you can't get there, go ahead.
Going off that, because I think that that's probably the best idea I've heard so far.
It's basically saying that politics should be protected speech.
And so, you know, the same way I can't, I have to hire, you know, African Americans in my business, or I can't get rid of you because you believe in abortion rights or gay rights, which by the way, a lot of these things were political views at one point.
Now it might be accepted thought.
But if I was a conservative business, I might not want the person.
Like, imagine if I was a conservative Christian business and there's a lady who spends every weekend advocating for abortions.
That I can't not hire that person because of her views on abortions.
I'm not allowed to do that.
What's interesting is that I guess in like the larger framework of society, conservatives or even more extreme ideas, we've lost the battle on free speech that people think that some of these ideas are dangerous.
So that even if you conceded, hey, government should be able to protect these things as free speech, you're not all of a sudden going to have, like, that extends to straight up racist points of view.
Like, that's what free speech means.
It means everyone gets a voice and you're not allowed to get rid of people.
But that's already been lost because there's this idea of like that some ideas are toxic or that some ideas are dangerous and that they'll lead to violence.
And so therefore, that's why we need the censorship.
That's why we need the censorship.
But that already concedes that there's a need for censorship over free speech.
You kind of can't have both.
Sure.
And look, I understand where, like, and there's a reason why I kind of built my argument on those levels, like going from public schools to the big banks and then to social media companies.
And I understand where there's some libertarians who can't get on board with the last leg of that.
They go, eh, these aren't, they're not government companies in the same way that the big banks are and certainly not in the same way that public schools are.
And you could make a coherent argument that says, I think people have a right to discriminate.
I think that conservative business has a right to discriminate against the pro-abortion activists and Twitter has a right to discriminate against people.
They don't allow it.
Yes.
Well, right.
Well, I'm just saying.
So, but if you were to take the libertarian purist position that they all should be allowed to, I can respect that.
But I think you would at least have to acknowledge strategically, this is not good.
And wouldn't you at least think that you could speak out and say, I actually, like, like what you were just kind of getting at, I can't believe that this isn't such an easy argument to win.
Like, I can't believe that people have given up on the idea of free speech.
That it's like, look, I don't know.
There are lots of ideas out there that I find abhorrent, like just horrible ideas, whether they're political or non-political.
There's, you know, but if we're just sticking within the political, I mean, you know, whatever.
Reading Against Your Bottom Line00:15:08
There's obviously me and you, there could be some like tanky who's supporting Bernie Sanders and criticizing him for not being, you know, communist enough.
And they're fucking, you know, like this hardcore, we should have this revolution.
But I would never even dream of having some desire to get their YouTube channel shut down or to get a publishing company to not publish their book or because even, you know,
like where you could see some short-term strategic benefit to that, wouldn't you go, well, like, first of all, I don't think there's a long-term strategic benefit to that because now we've set this precedent that we can ban books or ban speech that we don't like.
And then on top of that, you're like, I just don't want to live in that society.
I want to live in the society where everybody can make their argument and we can hear lots of interesting different voices and let the best argument win.
All right, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our awesome sponsor for today's show, which is I Trust Capital.
With iTrust Capital, you can buy cryptocurrency and physical metals in an IRA, which means you can start trading your crypto tax-free.
I know a lot of people who listen to this show are really into crypto.
I'm a big fan of owning physical gold and we all know how much money the Fed has been printing lately.
The possibility of inflation and the need to preserve your wealth is very real.
Now, if you're playing the crypto game and Bitcoin goes through the roof with iTrust Capital, you can trade tax-free and actually keep all of your gains.
And if thus far you haven't been investing in crypto, iTrust Capital makes investing in crypto safe and easy.
You can log into your account 24-7 and trade crypto at the push of a button.
No keys or confusion.
Crypto can be traded the same as any other asset.
Same thing for trading physical metals.
ITRUST Capital is IRS compliant and has worked out all the legal complexities of trading your crypto tax-free.
And the best part: iTrust Capital is 90% cheaper than their competitors.
Check it out.
Their fees are incredibly low.
They're fans of investing in crypto and physical metals and wanted to build a platform that would be accessible to everyone with transparent pricing.
So if you're looking for an IRA to trade crypto or gold tax-free, go to itrustcapital.com.
If you use the promo code P-O-T-P, your first month is absolutely free.
One more time, iTrustcapital.com, promo code P-O-T-P for your first month free.
All right, let's get back into the show.
To go off your book example, though, and then I want to tie it into the social media.
Maybe just give kind of the opposite side argument on this because I see it from both sides.
But let's say that you take the book example.
Like, let's say someone was writing some like super anti-Semitic book that said, you know, really came out and said, it should be out next year.
So I can understand if Jews were to go to Simon Schuster and go, hey, like, if you guys publish, like, we're not buying your textbooks anymore.
Now, for government to say, hey, no company can publish this book, I don't think that should exist.
But for you to go to a publisher and say, hey, I really think it's not appropriate for you to publish it, I think that's fair.
And then it would be fair of the publisher not to publish it.
Now, what's interesting, what's going on in the social media landscape is you have companies that are starting to pull advertising dollars off of these platforms because they say they're not doing enough to make sure that it's not a climate for racists or whatever the hell they're saying.
So now, as to why in hell companies like Procter Gamble are inserting themselves into the political landscape and they're starting to have political opinions is really scary.
And we can address that in a second because I think conservatives should be fighting back and going, fine, you guys want to step in and start having political opinions that are against mine, like, you know, because you're shutting down really, it's free speech.
It's not that conservatives are pro being racist, but that's the bullshit by which they frame this stuff.
Anyways, I understand that you go, hey, I'm Facebook.
I want to make advertising dollars here.
And now all of a sudden, I got companies that say they don't want to be on this platform because they've taken the liberal bullshit hook line and sinker.
And these are the people that complain and these are the people that are willing to listen.
So we want to make this a you know fucking friendlier environment for advertisers to participate in.
So I understand it's like their business.
You're trying to run your Facebook business where everyone can hang out and you want to make as much money there off of advertisers.
And if all of a sudden letting groups with alternative opinions exist on your platform is going to affect your bottom line.
I get it, fucking throw them out.
But we can all take a look like a look back and go, no, no, no, this is a platform for fucking censorship.
And what's even going on with these big companies that your giant companies are starting to step in on this?
Like, I don't believe for one second with the amount of government money that's just floating around and you see the relationship between private company.
Like I think even what we're looking at as being a free market and going, hey, this is being influenced by bullshit.
Fucking bull.
Like, no, no, no.
There's some big top, you know, coming down the line agenda of, like, look at it.
Federal, fucking, the Fed is buying bonds right now.
They're fucking propping up Philip Morris.
They're making sure that they're going to be that cigarette companies can continue to finance their debt.
You don't believe that.
After a war on vaping for the last two years.
Yeah, it's as simple as some like some senator who's top of whatever policy.
I think that's this coordinate can call someone up and go, like, listen, you think you're getting that financing project?
You got to do Blank Book to make sure that they're selling me their data.
That's what's really going on here, you know?
So it's a really tough, like to be bigger picture about what the fuck is going on here.
It's hard to really evaluate what might be fair and how the free market might be interacting because there's so much Fed money in the game, like and just government money in the game.
It's hard to know what, like, I don't think fucking companies would be getting involved in this whatsoever.
I think even Facebook would rather not be.
Yeah, I mean, I guess, you know, I think the bigger picture is that the state poisons everything.
And I think that you're right, that it's, it's almost like there's there isn't any true free market at all.
So we don't really know how companies would be acting if it wasn't for all of the different, you know, political, cultural pressures that come along.
And of course, all of these things happening right now to the examples we were talking about, you can't remove it from the fact that this is a presidential election year.
I mean, it's very obvious that people who, you know, like might be on what the media class considers the wrong side of this election are the ones who are being censored.
And they're censoring Trump.
I mean, you got to take a step back and realize how insane that is.
You have the president, the most powerful person.
He has not even able to, right?
He's not even able to express his point of views.
So what hope is there for the rest of us?
That guy should have more power, more power than anyone to kick these fucking companies around.
How is that possible that that guy gets censored and labeled with all these bullshit nonsense terms, which are just vehicles for censorship?
Like that, I mean, there's your proof right there that these are not like open platforms.
Yeah.
No, look, I also, just responding to what you said, and I get your point.
Like, look, truthfully speaking, the system that I would want to live under would be a pure free market.
And if somebody's offended by somebody's book, they can put pressure on the publisher and say, well, we won't buy any of your books if you publish this book.
You know, okay.
I do think, however, that that would be a weapon, for lack of a better term, that should be used, wielded very responsibly, very responsibly.
You should not just go out there for any book that's a little bit controversial.
Like I just really wouldn't, I don't know.
And to me, my personal preference would be even if it was something like, let's say there was somebody who was writing a book on Holocaust denial or something here.
This is my evidence why I don't think the Holocaust happened.
You'd be like, okay, let me get 10 copies and start distributing them.
No, kidding.
But my response would be like, okay, so write a book debunking this and take it apart.
Since we have the truth on our side, take it apart piece by piece.
Show why all their evidence is wrong.
That's just more my personal preference than let's get this book shut down.
I just like, I'm a free speech guy, but I believe in property rights above all else and self-ownership and all that stuff.
So, okay, fine.
But at least strategically, can people not see a problem?
Like libertarians talking to you, can you not see a problem where that tool, if you will, is being wielded so recklessly that it's just the accusation of racist, which can be applied to basically anyone in today's day and age.
And then that's going to be the justification for why you get taken down or hate speech.
And what I wanted to talk about a little bit is, you know, look, again, there were people who I'm not big fans of who were taken down in this in this recent purge.
But I do stand by saying like, yeah, I think even those guys, I don't really want to see their YouTube pages taken down.
Who are some of the ones that Richard Spencer got taken down?
And so, you know, like, I think Richard Spencer's, you know, I mean, I don't know that much about him.
And I hate to do the thing where I'm like speaking about somebody who, you know, I'm kind of going off of how they're characterized in the mainstream.
And I know how unfairly some people are characterized.
But I've had a conversation.
I've had a couple conversations with Richard Spencer.
I've seen some of his stuff.
I do, you know, like strongly disagree with his politics.
And I think that they're, you know, it's pretty racist and pretty kind of shitty.
But again, using that word racist is so overused, but I do think it kind of applies to him.
That being said, I still don't want to see his YouTube channel taken down.
I don't know.
I would just rather, again, just my preference.
I would rather live in a society where we can all have our voices out there.
We can all make our arguments and let the best argument win.
That's my view.
However, the person that's closer to me and someone who I do think really put a tremendous amount of valuable work out there is Stefan Molyneux, whose show I've been on many times.
And, you know, I'm a fan of Stefan Molyneux.
And it just really, it made me sad to see that his stuff was taken down.
You got to understand, Stephan Molyneux has 14 years he's been on YouTube and his output is legendary.
Like he had like thousands of videos up there.
He had around a million subscribers, just a ton of stuff up there.
And, you know, even if there are, you know, libertarians or anybody out there who found some of his content objectionable, I guarantee almost all of you would have to admit that there was a lot of content that he put out there that was really, really great stuff, like really, really powerful.
I know that a lot of people, a lot of people in the libertarian world felt like Stefan Molyneux had like, you know, changed and that he was no longer as pure a libertarian as he used to be.
A lot of people were very upset when he got into discussions on race and IQ and things like that.
And fine, feel however you want to feel about that.
But this was a guy, and libertarians, pay attention to this.
This was a guy who spread the ideology of libertarianism to more people than just about anybody in modern times.
I mean, it's a very short list of people who have introduced libertarian philosophy to more people.
It's like Ron Paul and maybe one or two other people in the last 30, 40 years have done as good a job as he has in introducing people to these ideas, which we think are pretty important.
Like we think that's a pretty important thing to do.
He's also been a relentless advocate of peaceful parenting and has opposed all of the wars.
And to me, like that's a really big deal.
That's like, you know, even if there are areas where I go like, hey, I didn't really agree with him here, or I think he shouldn't have said this.
That doesn't just eliminate all of that other good stuff that I just named.
And I think people who act like it does are that shit crazy.
Like, I'm sorry.
Like, those are really, really important things.
And, you know, it's almost like this thing where if I defend him at all or compliment him for all that he has accomplished, people start going to this like place where they're like, yeah, but he said like this one time or this one time.
How can you defend him saying this?
This.
And it's like, dude, what world do you want to live in where you want a thinker who you agree with 1000% of the time?
What a boring existence you have.
You're also probably not challenging yourself intellectually at all.
If that, like, me and you run a podcast together, we don't agree all the time.
We have issues that we're kind of like, yeah, I think you're wrong about that, or you think I'm wrong about this.
Like, what, who, why is that the standard that you would be expected to agree with every single thing?
And I just personally, I've always liked controversial thinkers and interesting thinkers.
I like reading things that I don't completely agree with.
I particularly like things that challenge some of my like previously held beliefs or currently held beliefs.
And I just like, it really bums me out that as a society, those people are so demonized.
And now, if you have one of these thinkers who, you know, like, I don't know, trying to think of examples, but I always really, you know, I've enjoyed reading Noam Chomsky and Paglia and like all these other like thinkers who, yeah, I don't agree with them all the time, but they're interesting thinkers.
And they're, you know, like, even if you don't agree with them, it's like, okay, that's an interesting thought experiment.
I like reading that guy, Mensis Mulbuck.
I've been reading more of his stuff recently.
All these guys, like, they're, I just would rather live in a world where you can like, like nowadays, if there is an interesting thinker like that, like, let's say there's somebody who makes 10 points and like six of them are really well thought out arguments that you completely agree with.
You know, two of them are like, you know, well thought out arguments that you disagree with.
And then two of them are like batshit crazy, you know, and that's your thing.
Never Trust Ad Dollars Again00:03:45
Well, nowadays, people will just lint, like, like, you know, lock on to the two bad things and be like, see, this person is evil.
We have to deplatform them.
And then you lose like the six really good things that they said.
And I hate that.
Like, I just, I want to be in a world where I can listen to interesting people.
And for someone like Stefan Molyneux, it's like, you know, okay, that people will make the argument like, oh, okay, well, it's the free market and they can do whatever they want to.
But you're like, well, but isn't the million subscribers that he had also the free market?
Like, what he put ideas out there and like a million people wanted to subscribe to his channel and listen to it.
It just sucks to me that those people aren't driving.
You know, like the way a market is supposed to work, I would think, is that, oh, well, this guy has got like a huge audience.
So there'll be a place for him.
But that's not the way it's working right now with this top-down corporate censorship.
And it's disturbing to me.
All right, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Yo Kratom.
This is for listeners who are over the age of 21 and already use Kratom.
Okay.
The rest of you guys, don't worry about this.
But if you are in that category, go check out yokratom.com.
It's the home of the $60 kilo.
That's right.
If you're currently a fan of Kratom, you can be getting it from our newest sponsor, Yokratom, for just $60 a kilo.
If you use Kratom and you're going out there searching for the stuff, trying to find a gas station that's open, don't worry about any of that.
Just go to yokratom.com.
They'll ship it right to you guys.
They're one of the biggest Kratom wholesalers and they've created yokratom.com so you can buy directly from them at incredible prices.
One more time, yokratom.com, home of the $60 kilo.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Yeah, it's also interesting on that side because I also that advertising inventory, I can't speak for Steven, but if like you were booked that through YouTube, they actually do have their tiers of uh which which changes pricing.
Like they've got their tier of like, let's just say totally 100% clean, and then hey, might be kind of objectionable.
And since less advertisers want to be in the hey, this might be objectionable category, obviously the rates that you pay are less.
Um, and I'm going to guess because some of our channels like aren't even uh, you can't even dip into the YouTube advertising at all because it's just totally like, hey, this, we're not selling the advertisers.
But then you got to realize how much money both YouTube and advertisers are leaving on the table that they're walking away from like a guy like Stephen.
He's got a million followers that probably he probably makes a real impact with those people, and they probably would be willing to support brands that would advertise there.
And then YouTube won't even sell that advertising inventory because, and I'm talking about like the YouTube ads that you see with like the skip ad.
I'm not talking about, I'm not too familiar with this content of him if he's doing ad reasonably.
He didn't do ads.
He never, he never, he never did ads at all.
He didn't do any type of advertising.
His model was just like, I'll like give me a, like, you can give donations and he'll ask for donations like frequently, but he doesn't take you any advertising.
Just speaking to what you were saying of like this not being a free market, just you got to think about how crazy that is that there's both advertising dollars for the host website, there's money to be made by the ads.
There's an audience of a million people.
And even at a discount, they're just like, nah, we're not, we're no, no interest.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, it's a real creepy kind of culture that's been born out of this kind of crony capitalist system.
Of course, capitalism gets blamed for it.
Reddit Ruined By Leftist Hate00:08:49
And I, you know, it's not completely off the hook.
Like there's, there's something to that point, but there's a little bit more to it.
And look, the other thing with the Reddit pages getting taken down.
That's weird as hell, dude.
I didn't even know that that was a thing.
I thought the whole point of Reddit was you get to, it's like being in the corner lunchroom.
You get to say horrible shit.
Well, what's interesting about Reddit, and I don't really use Reddit very much, but what's interesting about Reddit is that there will be Reddit groups or subreddits, as they're called, that are like completely sophisticated, clean.
Like, you know, there'll be ones that are conversations about economics.
There'll be some that are conversations about like gluten-free diets.
There'll be some that are conversations.
You know what I mean?
Like there's every topic.
And then there are the ones that are just fucking like cesspools of, you know, just like horrific shit.
But it's kind of like, I don't know, don't go there if you don't want to go there.
It's like there's one room here that's like, you know, porn and there's one room here that's a library.
I don't know.
Go where you want to go.
And I just, that, I like that.
I like that kind of like freedom of like, okay, no one's forcing you in here, but go there.
Now, again, this is just in the realm of like my preference.
I'm not saying like what should be done about it, but I think that there's, there's several problems.
Like one of the major problems, and I don't know that I have a great answer to how we deal with this, but one of the major problems, right, is that the big corporations and particularly these tech companies, they fear the left in a way that they don't fear the right.
And for good reason.
And part of it, like even me sitting here being like, you know, it's my preference that we live in a society where people can have controversial views and put them out there, right?
That's about the extent of what I'm going to do.
I'm not calling you a fucking Nazi, calling you a white supremacist.
I'm not going to show up fucking protesting.
I'm not boycotting.
I'm not going down and throwing things at you and assaulting people in the parking lot.
And that is what the left is willing to do.
And so, of course, you're more afraid of that.
I mean, look, like even when fucking, what was it, Alabama passed that abortion law, the Heartbeat Act, and there were like these huge protests and all these companies were threatening to pull out.
The right isn't doing anything like that when New York passed a law that said you could have an abortion up till the last day of the pregnancy.
They just don't have that in them.
And it sucks because I don't know what the answer to that is.
What are you saying?
The right has to act like these unhinged leftists in order to get the culture back to where we need to be.
Because then it seems like you've already lost.
You know what I mean?
Like you're even by entering the fight, you've already lost the fight.
And so really, the answer is you just want the left to stop, but how do you get that?
So I don't have a good answer for that, but that's definitely part of the issue that we're dealing with here.
And then the other thing that's the major problem is that if you zoom out a little bit, like this isn't random.
I mean, it's not like completely random that in an election year, all of these voices are being silenced right now.
This is obviously, this is, you know, there are people up at the top of this, probably orchestrating it to one degree or another, as you alluded to before, who are like, oh yeah, we're trying to get Joe Biden elected.
That's the goal here.
The Donald Reddit group is not being pulled down for no reason.
You know what I mean?
It's like, okay, they don't want people to be able to communicate with each other who are Trump supporters, and they don't want these huge platforms or these big voices who are going to call out the left and Biden and all of this shit.
That's how it is.
I don't know how to coordinate it, but I'm dead serious about this.
Conservatives need to start boycotting brands.
Like Phillips, when they did that thing, the best a man can get.
I mean, I don't know how maybe it's affected their profit margins now, but that is a brand.
Like, we should know, hey, that brand hates us.
Not only do they hate us, they won't like they won't advertise on content that we want to see.
They like, you know what I mean?
We should, none of us should ever purchase another razor from that company again.
Whatever brands are now trying to force Facebook not like they don't like they're suppressing our free speech.
And I don't know, like there should be a coordinated like, hey, fuck that brand.
I'm done with them.
Because like, that's how they're trying to win business from the left, because no one on the right really thinks this way.
But I think we have to start doing it.
Otherwise, I'm telling you, like the content that like you want to see, it's just not going to exist.
Even Fox at some point, I mean, it hasn't happened yet, but imagine if every advertiser, even though they had all their ratings, was like, we're not going to be here anymore.
You'd start seeing Fox presenting different opinions.
Yeah.
No, it's a, you know, it's a scary, you know, situation.
And I'm sure we're going to face it at some point.
You know what I mean?
And like everybody who's a dissident voice of any type that's like a content creator, you exist knowing that this is kind of like a threat that's out there.
And again, I just think it's an interesting situation and a real predicament for libertarians who do believe in companies' rights to discriminate and do what they want with their own private businesses.
But again, it's pretty easy to just kind of throw out these like thought experiments where you go like, okay, so libertarians are all for, you know, it's a private business.
They can do what they want.
Just hypothetically, all right, let's say Twitter, Facebook, Patreon, iTunes, YouTube, all of them get together and go, we're no longer allowing libertarians.
Libertarians are kicked off of all of our sites.
Just play that thought experiment out in your mind.
In a way, it's tragic in a way, but it's like, you know, death by your own sword.
Like you're going to sit here and say, okay, our principles confine us to not be allowed to criticize this, even though we know that would undeniably be the death of our movement.
I mean, if all libertarians were kicked off every single platform, that's obviously going to drastically, drastically hurt the prospects for liberty in our society.
So like you're in this kind of catch-22 where like, do you have to actually go along or even cheer on your own destruction?
That's something people have to grapple with because it's a very challenging situation.
Anyway, I did reach out to Stefan Molyneux.
I invited him on the show.
And so hopefully we'll do that sometime soon.
And, you know, anyway, it's just, it's kind of like, I don't know.
I mean, I know people get really into this like hatred of the other, quite ironically, as they're accusing people of being racists.
They're, you know, it's like there are views that I consider to be racist.
There are views that I consider to be abhorrent and things that I don't like.
But one of the things that's really dominant in today's culture is this kind of, it's like the same evil that was the problem with racism throughout history, where you kind of want to get all of your hate and anger out on the guy who you decided to demonize and decided is the bad guy.
You know, this is a big part of how a lot of evil has, you know, been able to proceed throughout history, is that it's not just like, oh, all of the Nazis were really scared of Hitler, so they had to do what he said.
It's that the Jews became the scapegoat.
They became the kind of like, yeah, fuck you.
You're the reason why fucking my life is sucks.
And, you know, you get all your evil out on them.
And I see a lot of this when people are labeled as Nazis or, you know, white supremacists.
Ironically, it's kind of the same human instinct that's now used against the people they label as the Nazis.
And so people have like no sympathy for people when their lives are ruined, their livelihood is ruined, they're slandered in the press and all this shit.
And I just don't, I don't know.
For libertarians, like even if you think Stefan Molyneux lost his way or something, or even if you think he covered topics he shouldn't have, or if you think he got them wrong, or if you think that deep down in his heart, he's a hateful person or something like that.
Don't you, I mean, it is digitally the basically the equivalent of someone storming into your library and burning 14 years of your work.
You know, do you not feel at all for that guy?
Like, oh man, that sucks.
Black Lives Matter Mob Chaos00:15:24
That's a lot to happen.
Like, and I'm not saying this is Molyneux, but even if it was a person who was a hateful racist, I still would hate to see that.
It's like, I don't know.
They don't just lose all of their humanity.
And if they do lose all of their humanity to you, maybe take a look in the mirror.
Maybe you've become exactly what you're claiming to hate so much.
Just a thought.
Anyway, this new world that we're living in, this brave new world is coming at us fast.
There was one with the time we have left, there was one other story that I wanted to talk about.
I know you told me that you had seen this.
I mean, I don't know, it'd be hard to miss because it was all over everything.
But there was an incident in St. Louis in a gated community where these two people came outside of their mansion with guns drawn on a mob that had entered.
I know you saw some of these pictures, right?
We should say up front, not that it's the most important thing, but They could use a gun safety class for sure.
These uh, these people did not look very prepared.
I am no uh firearms expert, but even I would have been like, Holy guys!
Like, you don't just wave around your gun with your finger on the trigger.
Uh, definitely don't point your gun at your wife with your finger on the trigger.
As like, that is, you know, this is really, really basic with guns.
I tweeted that um, you could recaption it: hey, get off my lawn or I'll shoot my wife.
And then the other, the other great part, like the lady's holding it like it's a wine glass that's too heavy.
She's been drinking margaritas all afternoon.
I don't think that lady's ever held a gun in her entire life.
Oh my God, she was really holding it.
She was holding it like it was like a fucking like one of those long cigarettes type things.
She was like, I'll shoot.
If you've ever seen a guy with an assault rifle who were like, I still think I could take him, it was that guy.
That was the moment where you know, you guys be like, fuck it.
Like, I almost for the challenge, the protesters walking by, they're like, we better leave this mansion alone.
And then you see them walk out and you're like, all right, it's fucking on.
Yeah.
Well, look, it was, yeah, there's no question.
I mean, look, it's like very, very basic.
Like, if you ever owned a gun or you were around guns or anything like that, it's the very basic first rule is like, you don't point this gun at somebody unless you're prepared to shoot that person.
Like, unless it's at that point where you're like, I have to kill this person because I, you know, I feel that threatened and you're about to pull the trigger.
And you don't put your finger on the trigger ever until you're ready to pull it.
This is, you know, like, this is just very, very basic shit.
And they weren't there yet.
They weren't ready to pull it.
And he definitely, unless he was trying to murder his wife, shouldn't have been pointing it at her.
Anyway, that being said, that's by the way, that might have been the perfect moment to get rid of her.
You know, I really might have been.
I was scared for my life.
I thought she was one of them.
She said Black Lives Matter.
But anyway, that's not really the important point of the story.
What's interesting about the story is much deeper than that.
And here's how it was presented in media outlets.
Okay.
Yeah.
Go ahead.
So the Daily Mirror has a title, Chilling Moment: White Couple Pulls Guns on Peaceful Black Lives Matter protests.
You can't make this shit up.
I mean, just look at the dishonesty and the race baiting.
White protesters pull guns on peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters.
Here's another one.
This one is from the Washington Post.
St. Louis couple points guns at peaceful crowds of protesters.
These are like media outlets, how they will report this.
Now, of course, this is the age of the internet, and there was video of all of this shit.
And I mean, if you want to say peaceful, I mean, we could get into splitting hairs.
Like, I suppose if I just like take your wallet from you, but don't punch you in the face, you could say I was peaceful.
But I wouldn't exactly consider it a peaceful act.
They broke down the gate to this gated community and started marching on these people's property.
Now, how exactly are you supposed to feel about a mob of people breaking down your front gate and marching on your property?
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, morally speaking, most people had every right to come out with weapons drawn, prepared to defend their home.
And of course, what happens, right, is that, and this is kind of the like, for lack of better word, you know, kind of cultural Marxist, you know, neoliberal order that we live in.
But these guys were wealthy, white, in a mansion.
And so, of course, they're the bad guys.
Like, that's just how it works.
They're the bad guys.
They're not oppressed.
And then here you have this group marching under the banner of Black Lives Matter, demanding the resignation of the mayor or whatever it was.
And so they're the good guys.
But I'm sorry.
How are you supposed to feel about a mob breaking into your property?
And how do you not have every right?
I mean, like, you know, like I'll see these people splitting legal hairs online and stuff.
And they're like, well, they were never in imminent danger or something.
It's like, what level are you supposed to wait to?
It's like if a guy pulls a knife on you and starts charging at you and you go, well, he hadn't stabbed you yet.
It's like, just let the tip of the blade pierce your skin and then you can defend yourself.
I'm sorry.
There's an unruly mob on your property.
I think it's completely reasonable to come out guns drawn.
I should do it in a little bit more of a, you know, prepared manner, but whatever.
You know, so I think it's just the idea of demonizing these people is fucking crazy.
And I don't buy into this fucking cultural Marxist bullshit.
Like, I don't think that because you're wealthy and white, that you must be the bad guys somehow.
I don't know anything about these people.
Evidently, from what I've heard, they're lawyers and they have a big house.
But I believe that people have a right to protect their homes.
So I just don't, I think it's crazy.
And to me, the bigger picture of all of this is like, you know, okay, so here's where we are now.
We've had violent mobs tearing apart cities all across the country.
Thankfully, it does seem like it's slowed down a little bit.
But we're in the wake of that.
You know, we've had violent mobs tearing apart cities all over the country.
The police have essentially stood down everywhere.
I mean, they've stood up to peaceful protesters, but stood down to the violent mobs.
I mean, like, this is not an exaggeration to the point of allowing areas of downtown Seattle to secede from the nation.
I mean, they're literally just handing this over, allowing Macy's to be looted.
I mean, you know, I drove through Soho the other day.
It's like unfucking believable how just destroyed that area is.
They've allowed America to turn into a place where every business is boarded up in major downtown areas.
And now, of course, as people are breaking onto private property, citizens are taking the law into their own hands.
Because of course, what else is going to happen?
I mean, like, I don't know.
If you have, if, you know, the cops are standing down while people are assaulted and killed and property is destroyed.
Well, what are normal people going to do?
At a certain point, they're going to be like, okay, well, I have a gun and I'm going to defend myself.
And now the next step is that the media is demonizing those people.
This same media that doesn't really demonize the fucking looters and the fucking criminals.
They bend over backward to apologize for them.
But now you're seeing the demonization of the citizens who are standing up for themselves.
Now, don't get it twisted.
These are not people who went down to a rally and tried to stand down the mob.
These aren't people who even went to try to protect a state statue from being torn down.
These aren't people who went to defend someone else's business from being looted and vandalized.
These are people who stood on their front porch and were like, you're like, I'm making sure you're not coming into my home.
They didn't start shooting at people.
They did point their gun at the crowd, but they didn't start shooting at people.
They weren't, they're there like you don't know.
You don't know what this mob's going to do, especially in the wake of all of this violence.
You don't know that they're not going to start coming through the windows.
So they're standing there on their lawn fucking defending their home, and the media is demonizing them.
I mean, there's something like profoundly disturbing about that.
Yeah, you know, I didn't even realize that they had taken down a gate, but you could just as easily be running with that story of, you know, Black Lives Matter invading residential neighborhoods.
That's a much more reasonable story.
Yeah.
Well, the reason you don't know about that is because it's not reported in any of these news outlets.
But then if you go like on Twitter, you look at the videos, they have video of it.
And then you can see video of the gate that's been fucking knocked down.
No, they march right on.
The first thing the guy says, he comes out of his home and he screams at them, you're on private property.
You need to leave.
Like he came out first and warned all of them, hey, you're not allowed to be here.
And there's also signs up that are like, no trespassing.
You're on private property.
No, like they are, they were the criminals in this instance.
No question about it.
And it's not like trespassing.
Like, you know, there's trespassing where it's like you could certainly see like, I don't know, some example of like if you were walking through like a field or something and someone was like, hey, you're on private property.
And there were no signs around or anything.
And you're like, oh, shit, I didn't realize this was private property.
I apologize.
And like kind of leaves.
And you're like, that was very non-violent, you know, non-threatening trespassing.
But no, this is knocking a gate down, coming in in a mob chanting.
That is an act of aggression.
I mean, like, I'm sorry.
I'm, you know, it's like, I'm somebody who has like a wife and a daughter.
I'm not taking any chances with that type of situation and going like, well, I hope they're peaceful.
What do you, what, in the wake of all this violence, a mob breaks into your property and is chanting crazy shit.
You, you got to assume this might be a dangerous situation.
And the guy said, I mean, who knows if he's right or not, but he's convinced that they would have broken into his house.
And he might be right.
I don't know.
But he's like, well, the reason like fucking all these people didn't break into my fucking house was because I was out there with a rifle.
That's why.
And also fairly listen, I got a nice ass house, which is why I live in a gated community.
And the idea of someone coming in through that gate is a signal to me of like, oh, shit, I got to protect my house now because like that was the first defense and they took down the first defense.
And the poisonous ideology that's like really permeates most of the mob is like almost that you have a right to do that.
I mean, look at this fucking mansion.
Look at this rich guy.
He doesn't fucking deserve all this shit.
I mean, you go in there.
I mean, look, I don't know what would have happened without those guns, but it's quite possible that those guns prevented a far more horrific situation from happening.
I can tell you because I've seen footage of it.
If that guy went out on his lawn without the gun to yell at them in some sort of a, hey, get the hell out of here, they would have lynched him.
I mean, I saw that happen to shop owners who stood in front of their stores without weapons.
It's quite possible that this guy would have been beaten to within an inch of his life, if not killed, if not something, just something really horrible might have happened.
Who knows?
Funny thought experiment here on them being like, dude, that guy's in a big old mansion, so he deserves us coming here.
Is they're both personal injury lawyers, and they must be unbelievably good personal injury lawyers.
Just, I mean, I couldn't see the whole house, but just based off those fucking tile and Roman, you know, beauty, whatever, those look like some fucking money people.
They look like they had a few bucks.
Yeah, if they're personal injury and on that magnitude, they probably won some really big cases for private individuals suing hospitals or large corporations for personal injury.
So you can take a look back and like probably pull up like all these little stories of little old lady who got blank back from her insurance company.
Or it's those are where the money cases are.
It's hospitals or it's big corporations that fuck shit up for people.
But the flip side of that is that it also drives up all of our insurance costs and isn't really doing us any favors.
But I'm just saying the people, the same people that are demonizing those two, I bet if you look through the court history of who they've gotten money to, they'd be like, oh, no, no, these guys are on our side.
They're getting money from the insurance companies and corporations to injured people.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, that's that is a fair point.
Anyway, I just think like moving into the next phase of all of this, where you know, like I said, one more thing about we need better just like, because I was thinking that with all these stores where basically they got looted.
And you look at, especially in New York City, like, how did Macy's get looted?
To some extent, the cops had to have been like, we don't really want to engage here, especially in small towns.
I think it was even, I think cops even made statements along the lines of like, we're not, I don't know if it wasn't that we're not engaging, but it's very clear that the cops kind of stood down.
If you've got a small town, you got one strip of stores, the fact that you're not just putting cops out there, it's like, you know, okay.
So if you're now the store and you're paying all your rent, your real estate, your fucking your taxes year long, and the idea is that the cops are supposed to be there as the private security force basically for everybody and they don't step in and do their part, then I think it's fair for every store to be like, shit, we got to do our part and we're buying.
And now, but here's where the liability problem comes in.
If you get your private security force, like the idea of kind of the cops is like, all right, well, it's their liability.
You can imagine the liability of your private security force out with guns who are going to be shooting at potential looters.
So as the cops have now failed us, we're seeing that they're not offering the protection services that they're supposed to to the people that are paying the bills so that they should have this protection service.
There should be some new standards for like, hey, if you pull down the wood panel at a closed store, that is a you can be shot at situation.
And they can they can put snipers up on, you know what I mean?
It's like, if cops aren't going to step in and make sure 100% that this isn't happening, we should be able to start arming up and creating very clear-cut laws of if you do blink, this will be the consequence.
Well, right.
Cops Failed To Protect Homes00:06:16
And who the hell knows?
Look, there's been talk in within these mobs.
And, you know, I've seen like a whole lot of these fucking videos and where they're talking about we're going to the residential homes next.
Now, I pray that that's not the situation.
And I don't think it will be.
I'm hopeful it won't be.
But when you see them go through, okay, so they go through and they loot every store in town and the cops don't do anything.
So what's next?
Maybe they start taking it just to people's homes.
So of course people are going to start being prepared and thinking out these scenarios in their head.
I mean, I know I have.
I'm sure a lot of people are thinking about this shit.
And so there's something really, it's not only do you have this fucking violent, you know, uprising all around the country, then you have the entire political class, the media class, the Hollywood class all bending over backward to defend them.
I mean, telling everyone that they're peaceful as cities burn, telling everyone that this is peaceful activity or mostly peaceful, largely peaceful or whatever.
You got celebrities and activists bailing out anybody who was arrested, including people who are arrested for like viciously assaulting people.
The cops are standing down.
And now, of course, as people start to stand up to protect themselves, they're going to be demonized in the media.
That is a, you know, that's, that's a pretty dangerous situation.
And I can't believe it's like one of these things that's really hard to believe.
Can't believe that this is considered an even slightly controversial opinion for me to call this out to these tech companies that are trying to control the narrative.
I'm sure people that posted the pictures of people taking down the gate could fall into the category of race, not just racist, but look, you're stepping up like the racial tension.
You're pointing a bad finger at this marginalized community that's trying to advocate for their freedom within.
Like, you can spin it that even reporting actual facts is dangerous and propels racist behaviors.
Right, but they're not interested in that narrative, which is much closer to the truth.
Um, but it's like, look, it's the same thing as when you see that, like, uh, what was it, the uh, the Covington kid, and you just show the still shot of him smirking with the Native American in his face.
It's easy to paint a whole story from that picture, and it was very easy for them to see these two corny-looking, you know, fucking like uh white people in front of a mansion pointing guns at a group of largely minorities.
You know what I mean?
And if you just see that still image, it's very easy to like, well, let's just add a narrative.
Here's this privileged millionaire dickhead pointing a gun there.
But if you actually rewind the tape and like instead of looking at a picture, watch a video of it, it's like, well, listen, man, they're on their home, they're trying to protect their home against a mob, and they have no idea what this mob's intentions are.
And as we were both just pointing out, we still have no idea what that mob's intentions are or what could have happened.
Anyway, we're gonna wrap there.
Go check out Rob's podcast, Run Your Mouth.
Thank you for listening.
We will be back soon.
Peace.
Hey, guys, thanks for listening to the show.
Like I told you up top, we're gonna play a quick clip from the Death to Tyrants podcast.
Make sure you go check that out.
Buck Johnson is phenomenal, and the podcast drops every Monday.
Here it is.
Hey, what's up, you guys?
Welcome back once again to the Death to Tyrants podcast.
As always, I am your host and humble narrator, Buck Johnson, coming to you out of Austin, Texas.
Where, man, it's not here necessarily, but all over the states, it's a wild time right now.
And we're seeing police brutality up in Minnesota.
And we're seeing a lot of people pushing for police action in shutting down businesses and keeping people out of work and economies locked down.
And it's interesting that a lot of people don't see the similarities in those things.
And, you know, you see a lot of the left really upset by a man dying at the hands of a police officer.
And we agree.
I believe that, you know, most libertarians are horrified at what we saw with that cop up in Minnesota.
But it's interesting because a lot of the left are the ones pushing to keep things locked down.
And I think they don't understand that the end game of what they're pushing is the government boot on your neck.
And it's really interesting that once they see it on camera, when a cop's caught doing it, well, then they're horrified.
Yet, how do you think these lockdowns should be enforced?
I've seen leftist friends saying stuff like, why aren't the cops enforcing this lockdown?
There's no point having it if they don't go around and enforce it.
We should have drones flying over and see who's leaving their house.
Well, what's the end game when that happens?
Because what if I own a clothing boutique and I said, I'm not locking down?
The government can't tell me to do that.
This is my property.
It's my business.
And you can't tell me not to operate it.
Well, guess who comes to shut you down, guys?
It's the jackbooted thugs, like the one kneeling on the man's head in Minneapolis.
That's the end game of that political philosophy.
And you know now the left, they're the pro-war faction, along with the neocons, of course, which have basically moved back to the left where they started.
And then they're the ones that question you if you dare, dare speak out against the CIA or the security state, the deep state will call it.
Well, that's treason if you speak out against.
How could you not trust your own CIA?
And then all of a sudden, when a cop's caught doing something horrible, everyone just freaks out.
The left doesn't like that.
Well, look, guys, that's the authoritarian philosophy that you're pushing.
That's what it looks like in its purest form.
And, you know, as libertarians, we're consistently against anything like that, against the war, against the CIA, against the FBI.
I mean, we can narrow it down if you want against state police forces, against government police forces.
Clash With Cyanide And Die00:00:28
And, you know, once again, I feel like we're the only philosophy that sees this for what it is.
You clash with cyanide gas and die fast.
Rhythmical equivalent of solids, liquids, and gas.
We smash your sinus with the power of the fluentinas.
But I am the virus inside of the iris of sirens.
Subscribe to the Death to Tyrants podcast wherever you listen to podcasts and catch a new episode every Monday.