Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 11, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:03

20200611_Thu_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The British are coming!
	The British are coming!
	You are about to be on the train today.
	A foreign foreign prayer.
	America first.
	Yeah, you're not.
	What's your husband?
	Oh!
	Welcome to American Countdown, Thursday, July 11th, 2020.
	Tonight we're going to be breaking down my oral argument this morning in front of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Covington kids against Senator Warren and Congresswoman Hallett.
	Also breaking down the General Flynn appeal that will be heard tomorrow morning before the D.C.
	Circuit Court of Appeals.
	As well as the rise of Antifa-stan in the city of Seattle, where Antifa has carved out part of the city, even named it Chazz, even has a potential warlord who doesn't want to go necessarily by the name warlord.
	Uh, politically correct times apparently even apply to Antifa stand in the modern and contemporary world, as well as additional updates on COVID-19, which all of a sudden the press has a new interest in.
	Now that the protests are starting to fade and the riots starting to disappear, the media suddenly believes that COVID-19 means President Trump surely shouldn't be having the rallies that have been the key and the core to his political campaign success in the past.
	But first to the oral arguments this morning before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Covington kids.
	The background of the suit, many people know, arose when just some kids from Covington, Kentucky went up to march in the March for Life on behalf of the most vulnerable, innocent life in the world in the city of Washington, D.C., which kids join from high schools all across the nation and have every year for decades.
	My own family has participated in that march, when they were high school students.
	So in that same context, what happened was, of course, they were there, they enjoyed the march, then they went to Lincoln Memorial to wait for their bus, where they were harassed by the infamous black Hebrew Israelites, the trolls of all trolls, if you have had any experience with them.
	They likely had never seen anything like it before in their lives.
	In order to overcome the various taunts that were being leveled against them by the black Hebrew Israelites, accusing them of being school shooters and rapists and attacking minority members of their group, they decided to start doing cheers, their school cheers.
	One of their school cheers is named after the Mori tribe of New Zealand, which is made famous by the great New Zealand rugby team, which has been one of the world's great rugby teams for many times.
	It's one of the greatest sports chants ever known, and basically it involves their old tribal traditions, and you get down and you scream and you do a whole bunch of other interesting stuff that I won't try to replicate here live.
	But you can look it up for yourself.
	The kids were doing that, and right after they were doing that, a Native American man came up along with some other people, beating his drum, which appeared to be joining in the festivities.
	That's what they thought was happening.
	So they're cheering along with him.
	Then he walks away, and that's it.
	They go home on their bus.
	When they get home to Covington, Kentucky, they discover they've been subject overnight to a social media lynch mob.
	And not just any social media lynch mob, one led by some of the most prominent people with some of the biggest platforms in the world, including would-be presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren, as well as Congresswoman Halland and others, including Kathy Griffin and a wide range of celebrities and media personalities.
	I happen to be on vacation in Mexico at the time, happened to see the tweet before I boarded the plane, and just put out that I didn't think it was true.
	While on vacation, I saw that Maggie Haberman of the New York Times had basically called for these kids' dismissal from school.
	I was outraged by the reaction, recognizing that this was a bogus fake news story from the inception and the get-go, and said that if anybody wanted to sewer, I'd be happy to help them for free.
	That ended up blowing up overnight, so by the time I came back to the United States, I had literally thousands of inquiries from all over the world about this and other matters related to it.
	So eight families, actually about a dozen families retained me.
	Eight ended up filing suit and sticking with the suit.
	Some more may join it over time.
	But wanted me to bring suit to stop this from happening to anyone else.
	They didn't bring the suit for fame.
	They didn't bring the suit for fortune.
	They've had enough fame just by what's happened out of this incident.
	Their lives were threatened.
	They were doxxed.
	There were calls for dismissal with real threats of dismissal from their school.
	Calls to deny them admission to college.
	Death threats to them personally, threats to cause bodily injury, threats to actually have arson of the school and of their homes.
	They had to resort to extraordinary security measures just to have a basic level of safety and sanity.
	We were able to fight back and get an independent investigative team to further document what should have been known from the inception, but was by that point completely determined and established, which was that these kids had done nothing wrong.
	What they were accused of doing was interfering with an indigenous people's march, blocking it, trespassing upon it for the purposes of what's called statutory harassment, a crime in the state of Kentucky and in many states, doing racial taunts against the Native American.
	They deliberately misinterpreted and misconstrued what was taking place.
	Previously, there were a few people doing a tomahawk chop and the rest as part of their traditional cheers, as happens every year at a Florida State game, at a Kansas City Chiefs game, or at an Atlanta Braves game.
	It was a very common tradition in cheer, and they thought they were participating with someone, not trying to harm anyone.
	They didn't block anybody.
	They didn't trespass on anybody.
	They didn't harass anybody.
	They didn't interfere with any march.
	In fact, no march was actually occurring in any petitioned permission reality.
	And so, we brought suit.
	The suit was going to bring some novel claims.
	Not just that of defamation, because many of these people had been careful about how they couched their phraseology in order to create the defamatory effect, while trying to stay outside the limits of liability for their defamation.
	They used social media to do so, so they tried to claim that there was no authority of the Kentucky courts over them, even though they sent their defamatory information to Kentucky about Kentuckians to cause injury in Kentucky to those Kentuckians, and at the same time claimed that they couldn't be sued for other claims such as doxing.
	Doxing has not been established yet as what kind of tort it is.
	We brought it as an invasion of privacy, as an intrusion upon seclusion and casting one's name in a false light, to establish that you do in fact have a legal right to seek remedy when somebody doxes you in a way that invades your privacy.
	Those claims were brought initially in state court in Kentucky.
	Senator Warren and Congresswoman Halland removed the case to federal court because they thought the federal court would be more sympathetic to them.
	At that time, the separate suit brought by separate lawyers on behalf of Nicholas Sandman, all of my clients wanted to remain anonymous and wanted to establish the right that you could sue for doxing without doxing yourself in the process.
	I thought that was an important right and remedy to seek.
	So they have stayed anonymous and are simply known as the John Doe's in the case.
	We have continued to protect their privacy despite wide-ranging efforts to intrude upon it over the past year.
	When we brought the suit, Senator Warren and Congresswoman Hallin brought it to the federal court because the federal court had recently dismissed the claims against CNN brought on behalf of Nicholas Salmon by separate counsel.
	That probably was a strategic and tactical error on the behalf of CNN and on the behalf of both Senator Warren and Congresswoman Hallin's team, who, by the way, appear to be being paid by your taxpayer dollars, their legal defense, by all apparent evidence, because it gave us the opportunity to directly argue the same issues that Sandman was arguing to the same judge.
	At the same time, a motion for reconsideration was pending by Mr. Sandman.
	We were able to expand upon the arguments that were made.
	And the effect was we, during that time period, the judge reversed himself on the Sandman case after hearing and listening and reading our arguments.
	However, the judge did not want to deal with the substantive matter of our case.
	He decided, according to Senator Warren, an election to Congress is a license to lie and libel.
	She claims while she's currently seeking to remove Qualified immunity from police officers.
	She herself, to this day, including in the court this morning, was arguing through her counsel that she has complete immunity from any libel suit of any kind.
	From any invasion of privacy tort of any kind.
	Because she, after all, is a United States Senator.
	And as long as a United States Senator lies, then somehow it's magically okay.
	The speech and debate clause of the United States Constitution has long established that that is in fact not permissible.
	That it is only statements made that have a nexus to the legislative purpose, the official duties of a Senator or Congresswoman, that can establish immunity.
	Uh, and that in fact it cannot go past that.
	That the rights of private citizens and private individuals, also protected under the Constitution, could not be so invaded so easily.
	Indeed, the Speech and Debate Clause was originally intended to prevent the King from arresting members of the Parliament.
	So the idea that somehow this was meant or intended to provide broad-scale wholesale immunity was rejected in two decisions of the United States Supreme Court.
	First, the Gravel decision of 1972, and then the Hutchison v. Proxmire decision of 1978.
	A later D.C.
	circuit established the same rule in the case of Chastain v. Sundquist in 1987.
	Well, around that same time period, the Supreme Court made a decision in a case called Westfall that limited immunity of federal officers to those duties that were discretionary in nature.
	That led Congress to be concerned, so they overrode that decision, and the Supreme Court would later say, in 1995, that all the Westfall Act did was restore the same degree of immunity that existed prior to the statute.
	But apparently the politicians had ulterior motives in mind.
	Senator Kennedy, not long after that, would argue that his libel of Operation Rescue was now protected under the Westfall Act.
	The First Circuit, Court of Appeals, many of those judges likely having connections to Senator Kennedy, the reason why they had their job, probably in large part due to Senator Kennedy, decided that in fact Senator Kennedy was immune under the Westfall Act, which they interpreted as expanding the definition of immunity for defamation and libel.
	Right now in America, the Federal Tort Claims Act does not allow suits for defamation and libel.
	So if this principle was expanded in the way Senator Warren was seeking, it would mean no liability at all, ever, for any senator or congressman.
	There were many people, there were several, there was even a lawyer that appeared on Tucker Carlson's show that said, I just couldn't simply bring the suit.
	There was no chance.
	My view is you don't change the law by failing to change the law, by failing to challenge the law.
	The only way to make good law is to contest it in the courts.
	To me, those prior decisions did not mean what Senator Warren claimed they meant.
	Indeed, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which presides over Kentucky Federal District Courts, has never said anything like that.
	In addition, the very few decisions that exist had not addressed many of the arguments I believed were pertinent, and had facts different than the facts present in this case.
	So that is why I decided to file suit, knowing that there was a chance that we would not be able to succeed at this level, but it was worth the fight to see whether we could.
	And if, in fact, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals were to rule against us, we'll go up to the United States Supreme Court.
	And if the United States Supreme Court were to go against this, then we have the ammunition we need to go to Congress, and Congressman Massey's office from Covington, Kentucky has expressed some interest in this, in clarifying the law that members of Congress are not immune for libel made in their private capacity, in their personal capacity.
	We did not sue Senator Warren for something she said at the Senate, in the Senate, or to the Senate, or concerning the Senate.
	We sued her for something she said in her private, personal capacity, intended to increase her personal popularity when she was seeking the presidency, about constituents she did not know who were not even her constituents, about kids, minor children she had never met, about an event she didn't witness.
	It was the most egregious form of personal liability for defamation or libel that could exist for a politician to commit.
	If she's immune, then everybody's immune, and then politicians have a degree of power over their citizens.
	You as a citizen could not say anything defamatory about them.
	They could sue you, but somehow they could be immune from anything they say about you.
	How could that make any sense constitutionally?
	So we fought the case up to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the oral argument was heard this morning.
	The oral argument will be available online at the Sixth Circuit site tomorrow.
	But I will give you a review of what happened and so you'll have the inside information before anyone else does.
	There were three judges sitting on the panel.
	That is a normal appellate panel.
	And there were two primary questions before them.
	The big one was, is election to Congress a license to libel?
	It was my contention that in fact the statute was never intended to go past the limits of the Speech and Debate Clause, and that even if it was, it should be restricted to press inquiries concerning the Congressman's constituents or the Congressman personally.
	Those are the only prior cases to allow any degree of expansion or extension from the Westfall Act of the Speech and Debate Clause immunity.
	Well, I believe the Speech and Debate Clause provides the foundation that they should reinterpret the statute as consistent with, given the United States Supreme Court said basically the same thing about the statute in 1995.
	Even if the court were to expand it, it cannot be limitless.
	A politician cannot just have a license to lie as soon as they get elected to Congress.
	Imagine, as soon as you get elected to Congress, all of a sudden that business competitor you don't like, you can start defaming them left and right.
	In fact, your neighbor you don't like, you can start defaming them left and right.
	Anyone else you don't like, you can just use it as a platform to libel anyone, anyplace, anytime, anywhere.
	The provisions that were provided by the District Court did not provide any limits on what the degree of immunity could be.
	Now the doctrine of sovereign immunity itself has always been a dubious one.
	After all, it comes from the idea that the king can do no wrong.
	That somehow our courts have let it creep in and infect our jurisprudence.
	But be that as it may, that did not afford immunity here.
	If there was any case that said there needed to be limits on the scope of immunity, that the Westfall Act could not be limitless in its application, that it had to be limited to a nexus to legislative tasks, and that had to be a meaningful nexus.
	Not the kind of nexus they were talking about on the other side today in the Court of Appeals.
	They conceded there needed to be a nexus today, which was a critical concession that I think was the product of our appellate briefing.
	We filed an original brief and a reply brief to their brief.
	Where we went through all of the legal history, the table of authorities, the table of contents, details, the structure of the argument and the precedents we cite, but also the common sense public policy application, which is that election to Congress cannot be a license to libel.
	And by framing the issue that way, we properly structured it for the court to see it clearly and cleanly.
	And the opponent side, the only position was they conceded there needed to be a nexus to legislative duties, but their new argument was that if it possibly could conceivably, indirectly, kind of maybe relate to something that maybe someday will come up before Congress, then magically it is now subject to immunity.
	Well, that's going to immunize everything.
	If something like race relations writ large, and any commentary that concerns it, including false accusations of racism against someone, are now suddenly immune because, hey, Congress sometimes deals with race relations, then functionally they're immune in every way, shape, or form.
	You can lie about your ex-wife suddenly if you're elected to Congress because, hey, it relates to public policy on taxes and marital deductions that sometimes may somehow correlate to your duties.
	The proper nexus has to be an actual nexus.
	In other words, it has to be a statement made inside the halls of Congress or concerning pending legislation, concerning pending hearings.
	And even then, as one judge asked, and there were questions by all three judges to both sides, To give you a sneak preview about how Courts of Appeals generally operate, is that normally Courts of Appeals have already come to their decision before the oral argument even occurs.
	And so usually if you see disparate number of questions to one side versus the other, whoever got more questions usually loses.
	In this context, it was clear the Court of Appeals had not yet made up its mind.
	That only happens in maybe about 1 of 10 cases, 1 out of 20 cases.
	It did because this case is unique, this case is novel, and this case presents critical questions of public policy that have broad impact across the entire country.
	Because of it, the court took it very seriously and very dutifully and asked about an equal number of questions to both sides, posing the problems with going one direction or the other.
	As one justice pointed out at the beginning, don't politicians write themselves immunity all the time?
	As we pointed out, yes, but there are constitutional constraints to doing so, and they should have political responsibility if they're going to do so.
	In this context, they did not say that's what they were doing, so the public was never given a chance to either ratify or reject their decision at election time, because the politicians never said, by the way, we just voted ourselves complete immunity, and we just made an election to Congress a licensed libel.
	They never admitted that on the record, because it's not reflected in either the plain language of the law by necessity, Or by legislative history when reviewed, or by Supreme Court construction of the law later on.
	In the same capacity, the same judge asked the same kind of question to the other side, saying, what are the limits?
	I mean, we have to have governable, definable, meaningful limits.
	And they couldn't quite articulate exactly what those limits are.
	They wanted the limits vague and obscure because they want to be able to use those, they want there to be no functional limits while conceding such limits have to apply if common sense public policy and constitutionally conforming statutory construction is to exist.
	So we went through the, there are multiple questions on both sides.
	As one justice pointed, if any tweet about any matter of public interest is suddenly immune, what does that mean?
	And as I explained to the court, that would be too broad.
	Because if it's me in this case, we're claiming that many of these interests were private interests.
	These were not public officials.
	These were not public individuals.
	And it really was not a matter of public controversy, except the actions of others, not the actions of their own.
	Sometimes there's something called an involuntary public figure, but this doesn't really constitute that sufficiently for constitutional construction.
	But even if it were, the problem is if merely it being a public matter means a politician can now go out and lie and libel the world, then they can use any public matter anywhere to libel anyone they like, or anyone they don't like, or anyone they want to see harm come to.
	That cannot be the scope of what the statute means, particularly given the Speech and Immunities Clause, construction has always been construed in a limited manner to protect the public's right against being defamed.
	Indeed, that right has been established as a constitutional right explicitly in some states by implication under the U.S.
	Constitution.
	Do you really have a right to free speech if someone can libel you for the exercise of it, particularly when they're a public official?
	Of note here, the Attorney General had not greenlit this defense by either Senator Warren or Congressman Hallin, even though the statute called for it.
	It called for the Attorney General to certify that their conduct was within the scope of their official duties as members of Congress.
	They did not even seek that, knowing they were unlikely to obtain it from Attorney General Barr.
	That is likely because they knew that their actions were not really within the scope of their congressional duties.
	No aspect of their legislative past required them to libel a bunch of kids from Covington, Kentucky.
	And that was the argument made by me today before the Court of Appeals and in contradiction to the other side.
	The other argument they made is that they believe the courts of Kentucky have no personal jurisdiction over either Senator Warren or Congresswoman Halland.
	Their argument is that even though they made statements to Kentuckians, about Kentuckians, intending and knowing they would be causing harm and seeking the causing of that harm in Kentucky, That's what the suit alleges and all those facts have to be assumed true at this stage of the case.
	They claim that no Kentucky court could ever have power over them.
	The argument that we had is that that's not the defamation law.
	Personal jurisdiction in the context of defamation has generally been reflected on your intentional conduct.
	If you know you're reaching into another state and causing harm in that state and speaking to people in that state, then you're responsible and liable, both under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, makes that conforming to personal jurisdiction standards, and Kentucky's long-arm statute provides that if you commit the tort in Kentucky, you can be held responsible and Kentucky's long-arm statute provides that if you commit the tort in Kentucky, you can be held responsible in Kentucky, and you commit defamation in Kentucky when you use a global microphone to communicate into Kentucky to cause harm in Kentucky
	Then that tort was committed in Kentucky.
	The fact that that tort was also committed in other states around the world Doesn't mean you're suddenly immune, under the theory that Senator Warren and Congresswoman Halland advanced.
	Basically, as long as you lie and libel everyone everywhere, suddenly you can't be held responsible by anyone anywhere.
	Indeed, one of the justices asked that question to the other side, saying about, well, where could they sue?
	And could they sue in New Mexico?
	And of course, right away, he sort of gave up the ghost.
	He was like, well, maybe not there either.
	It depends on where she was.
	And we're not saying where she was.
	So in essence, we would have to play sort of a game of whack-a-mole, suing the Congresswoman every place possible to figure out which place she was at.
	That's not the point and purpose of personal jurisdiction law.
	So what might the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals do?
	We anticipate a decision will come down sometime in the next month to six months on average.
	Sometimes it goes longer when there's a deep divide within the circuit.
	They could decide to skip the issue of whether an election to Congress is a license to libel by saying no personal jurisdiction.
	If that happens, we're taking it up to the U.S.
	Supreme Court.
	If, on the other hand, they could decide on the defendant's side by saying there is personal jurisdiction, but we find that there is a license to libel by election to Congress, or of course, and if that case happens, we're taking it up to the U.S.
	Supreme Court, and they could rule in our favor.
	My honest view is that it's probably about a 50-50 proposition.
	Because given the nature of the questions, given the answers we were able to provide, given the way in which the briefs were developed, we've given the best argument possible.
	And to merely be in that position is something many lawyers said wasn't even conceivable.
	Even lawyers that went on Tucker Carlson to declare that about a year ago.
	So we have a case that's probably, if they lose, I think they will take it up to the United States Supreme Court.
	So we have a case probably heading for the United States Supreme Court.
	And while the U.S. Supreme Court only takes one in 100 cases at best, depending on an individual year, this is the kind of case, given both the high-profile nature of the case and given the core constitutional and statutory questions that have broad-based public impact moving forward of a novel and unprecedented character given both the high-profile nature of the case and given the core constitutional and statutory questions that have broad-based public So there's a fair chance that, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately weigh in on this.
	If we do not get remedy in the courts and the courts determine that the Westfall Act does indeed provide a license to libel, then we have our members of Congress lined up to introduce legislation to make it clear the Westfall Act never meant that at all.
	To make it clear and to put people on public record, do you think in the next campaign, if it becomes necessary, do you believe your election to Congress gives you a license to lie and libel?
	How can Senator Warren argue for removing immunity from police officers completely while she herself is demanding she get an even broader immunity than members of police forces could have ever or ever have had?
	It is a degree of hypocrisy and contradiction that reveals the political motivation behind some of her course of conduct and behavior.
	So we'll see what happens in the end.
	The other thing that's up tomorrow morning is going to be General Flynn's case.
	It's going to be heard on his writ of mandamus before the D.C.
	Circuit Court of Appeals.
	They are going to be deciding whether or not the judge has to dismiss the case, and they're going to issue a writ, whether they will, to order him to dismiss the case against General Flynn immediately.
	The U.S.
	government wrote its own reply brief yesterday and was filed, and it's a very good and well-done brief.
	It explains the reasons why the judge has no choice and no discretion.
	If you watch someone like Legal Legal on YouTube, you would have got fake news legal information.
	But they identify, in fact, how the court has no such power or authority.
	Indeed, they note that under Article 2, the power to drop pending criminal charges belongs exclusively to the executive, not to the judiciary.
	In addition, under Article 3, a federal court has no basis for exercising judicial power once the parties no longer have any live controversy, and that happens the moment the government seeks dismissal.
	So the Constitution compels the dismissal that Judge Sullivan is trying to get around and try to hide and try to refuse to do.
	In the same capacity, they note that a case does not end upon the acceptance of a guilty plea.
	It is simply an intermediary procedural stage for which there are statutory remedies to withdraw your guilty plea for which you cannot be punished later with perjury charges.
	Not only that, they also pointed out something that got missed by a wide range of legal commentators initially.
	They noted that, in fact, aside from there being no valid reason to second-guess the government in this context, that perjury in itself is not criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C.
	401.
	Indeed, there has to be actual obstruction, intents to obstruct.
	You can't simply use perjury under the criminal contempt power.
	The reason for that is they wanted to avoid particularly situations just like these.
	You don't get to use any statement that occurs in the course of trial and call that perjury and have inherent criminal contempt power to prosecute.
	Judge Sullivan does not have that inherent power.
	Judge, he does not have that statutory power.
	He was stripped of that power by the statute, which only allows obstructive perjury to be charged.
	Not anything else.
	Otherwise, nobody could ever withdraw their plea.
	It would completely negate the point and purpose of having a plea withdrawal provision in the law under federal rules of criminal procedure, and it would effectively hinder meaningful investigations of people who may have been innocent, who were coerced into confessions falsely, and it would also hinder investigations into government misconduct.
	In this particular instance, the government recognizes both were present.
	Not only was General Flynn coerced into a guilty plea of a crime he did not commit, according to the United States government, but on top of that, there was hiding of that evidence that proved it from General Flynn at the time he entered his plea, aside from the material conflict of interest issues that exist with his prior and pre-existing counsel.
	So when we come back, we'll be talking with Jack Murphy, who's had personal first-hand experience with Antifa protests, with Antifa doxing, with dealing with all of the extraordinary aspects of the new Maoist culture consuming large parts of the left and in the country today.
	Indeed, there's Disney stars out trying to dox high school students as we speak.
	So we'll be talking to him and more when we come back after the break.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	Up next, we'll be live with our guest, Jack Murphy, who has the best beard since ZZ Top.
	The author of the book, Democrat to Deplorable, also the co-founder of the Liminal Order, and a new creator of an excellent podcast.
	You can follow him on Twitter, at JackMurphyLive.
	Jack, how are you?
	Hi, I'm doing great, man.
	Happy to be here with you.
	So you've been out filming some of the protests in D.C.
	What have you seen and witnessed?
	Well, you know, the first night that I went out, it was really quite chill.
	It was just a long march through the city and everything seemed pretty relaxed aside from them taking over, like, the interstate in the middle of the city.
	No big deal.
	But the second night, the second night, things really got crazy.
	It was really focused on Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C.
	at 16th and H, right in front of the White House.
	And the police, you know, it was Park Police and Secret Service.
	Instead of having like a barrier, a physical barrier or a big fence, the police were actually the barrier that was protecting the White House and Lafayette Park from the rioters and protesters.
	Well, the protesters that turned into rioters.
	And so it provided a very intense flashpoint where the protesters could get right up in the face of the park police and the Secret Service.
	They could scream at them, yell at them.
	I watched people pull bricks up out of the street and throw bricks at the police and the park police there.
	And they would pull the barriers away.
	And whenever they pulled the barriers away, the law enforcement had no choice but to Defend the perimeter.
	And so they would spray mace, they would drop tear gas and other things, fire rubber bullets and pepper balls into the crowd.
	I got hit right in the throat live on stream with something right in my throat.
	Thank God this quarantine beard protected me.
	But, you know, that was just the protests, OK?
	What happened after that is where everything got really dismal.
	There were guys setting fires to buildings at 888 16th Street Northwest.
	Uh, they were taking dumpsters, filling them with flaming debris and running them into the police lines.
	And then from there, things just degraded even further.
	They started to set fire to buildings, fire to trees.
	And I watched firsthand live on Periscope.
	I had hundreds of thousands of people watching where I was literally 10, 15, 20 feet away from just hordes of people smashing windows, looting stores, stealing property, stealing merchandise, setting buildings on fire, openly disregarding all the instructions of the police.
	And when they finally decided, the police that is, to clear people out, that's when the flashbangs started.
	That's when the concussive grenades started coming.
	You know, those are really loud, forceful explosions.
	And they started just marching down the street and pushing us back.
	But what happened after that was that there was no law enforcement behind where they pushed us out.
	And so there was just a stream of destruction leading down H Street, westward towards Pennsylvania Avenue.
	And they were just destroying everything that they could, smashing windows, picking up rocks, picking up bricks, setting fires inside buildings that they had looted.
	Luckily, the fire department and the DCPD were sort of close behind, and so the fires didn't get too out of control.
	But had they not, these people were intent on actually destroying the property, breaking in, stealing stuff, and setting the buildings on fire.
	It was a chaotic scene.
	It was nothing like I'd ever seen in D.C.
	And I've covered other Antifa protests.
	I've covered other, you know, conflicts in Lafayette Square before.
	I've seen Antifa and Richard Spencer and those guys go head to head in the park.
	But this was nothing like I'd ever seen in D.C.
	And things only degraded and got worse that night.
	And the next day was the day that Trump made his way to the church.
	And that was the day that, you know, there was allegations of tear gas being shot into the crowd.
	But from a guy who lives in Washington, D.C., I know one thing is for sure, and everybody who's listening who lives in D.C.
	knows this is true.
	The president and the vice president move around the city at all times.
	And if there is an instance in which the president's convoy is coming by, those cops do not play around.
	And everyone in DC knows you get out of the way of the police when the president is coming.
	So the idea that these were just peaceful protesters sitting there calm and just chill and singing songs is absolutely absurd.
	And if there was any chance that there was going to be a conflict between the protesters and rioters, the Secret Service and Park Police and the president, You know, they weren't going to take any chances.
	People get out of the way.
	Everyone here knows that.
	That's what you do.
	You get out of the way of the president when he wants to come through.
	And when he wanted to come through to the church, that was his right.
	And I think it was the right thing to do.
	The rest of it was absolutely appalling.
	I feared for my city.
	I saw the destruction.
	It was like nothing I've ever seen before living here almost 30 years in DC.
	And I'm just glad that I was able to be upfront.
	Get the video and broadcast it live, which got signal boosted by all kinds of people, yourself included.
	And I know that hundreds of thousands of people saw exactly what happened that night.
	How much has the media coverage compared to what you personally witnessed been accurate or inaccurate?
	It's completely inaccurate.
	You know, everybody wants to just the mainstream media just wants to call it, you know, peaceful protesters being harassed by the police.
	But what I saw was exactly the opposite.
	I saw Protesters and rioters antagonizing the police.
	I saw them trying to bust through the perimeter of the White House.
	This is the freaking White House, guys.
	You are not allowed to break through a perimeter of the White House.
	I saw them pulling away the fences.
	I saw them throwing bricks, lighting buildings on fire nearby, lighting trees on fire nearby.
	And I noticed that the PD, MPD, and the Park Police and Secret Service, these guys are well-trained, okay?
	And every time the crowd would swell in its energy, The Park Police and MPD would swell in their response.
	And most importantly, every time there was a conflict at the barrier, they had to make space.
	And the way you make space in a conflict like this is through weapon fire or for crowd control.
	And you do that to make space and buy time.
	And the only time I ever saw them do that was to repair and defend the perimeter.
	Now, the next night and the next few days, The law enforcement and Trump's team made a great decision.
	Instead of using actual personnel to man the barrier, they erected a giant fence.
	They bolted it together.
	They locked it together with chains.
	And there was just no way that people were going to be able to break through that barrier.
	And so the police were able to just step back and step back and step back.
	And when there was no point of conflict, where there was no close quarter antagonism, And nothing for the rioters to attack as far as law enforcement.
	There was very limited conflict at all.
	So I think that the display of force that was shown actually brought a semblance of peace.
	And it also was a great adaptation and a new tactic and new strategy implemented by the Trump and team to reduce points of conflict and to take away the option for the rioters.
	Now, what they did throughout the rest of the city was also impressive.
	They showed an extreme show of force at all local monuments, important commercial retail districts.
	I saw every agency I could think of.
	I saw DEA, DHS, FBI.
	There was Park Police, National Guard, Military Police, and DCMPD.
	They were stationed at key points throughout the city, and they didn't even harass the protesters or rioters at all one bit after that.
	They let us, I mean I say us, I was just following the crowd, They let us walk right through military checkpoints.
	They let us walk through the city.
	They didn't do or say anything.
	The only conflict I saw was direct response to either a breach of the perimeter or destruction of property or otherwise, you know, violent felonies that were being conducted.
	And once the Trump team decided to change their strategy a little bit like that, it reduced the conflict at the main zone there at Lafayette Square, which Where Mayor Bowser eventually wrote Black Lives Matter and defund the police in big letters that you can see from outer space.
	And then what happened with the rioters that were still left in town was they adapted.
	So they adapted their tactics.
	And instead of staying focused on Lafayette Square, there were a number of explosions throughout Upper Northwest Washington, D.C.
	the next night.
	I reported on them.
	Others reported on them.
	And then the rioters moved out into residential neighborhoods.
	They terrorized A local market where I used to live.
	Tucker Carlson talked about it on his show.
	It's called Mack Market.
	It was the center of community.
	Everybody loved the guys that owns it, the Kim family.
	They lost a son years ago and the community rallied behind them.
	But guess what?
	The rioters moved down the street.
	They destroyed the store.
	They looted it.
	They smashed windows everywhere.
	Every commercial district from the city center all the way out to Bethesda has been completely boarded up.
	Every retail center, every major store, every restaurant, everything's been boarded up out of sheer fear and terror that these people are going to be coming into your neighborhood and blowing up things.
	There were car explosions at 11th and M, which is nearby the White House.
	There were fire cars on fire all over the place.
	So while the Trump team did a fantastic job of diffusing the tensions at the main center there, Lafayette Square, the rioters reacted and then he moved out into other parts of the city.
	And there's only one, one thing I can think of their goal is just to terrorize the local population.
	But what's interesting about Washington, D.C., is that it is the bluest, most liberal city in all of America.
	And the people that live in those neighborhoods are willing to endure elementary schools being broken into and glass shattered, their local markets and retail places being shattered, broken into, violence.
	They're willing to endure it.
	Because they believe that they're on the right side of justice by supporting this kind of crap.
	And for me, I wonder, what is going to be the breaking point for these folks?
	When are they going to realize that no matter how much supplication, no matter how prone they lay on the ground, that the violence is going to continue?
	And it's going to come to them eventually.
	But they haven't broke.
	I call them the race Karens of Bethesda.
	They haven't broke yet.
	And we'll see.
	They're enabling most of this stuff.
	The white, liberal, upper middle class female of America is basically enabling this violence because they're the ones reading White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo.
	They're the ones taking the reading list from the American Defamation League and sending it out to the PTA and telling their parents that they need to read these books to their children.
	This is how you talk about race.
	We're experiencing a fourth generation war.
	It's on all fronts.
	It's physical.
	It's mental.
	It's moral.
	It's information.
	It comes through the schools.
	It comes through the culture.
	It comes through the freaking video games.
	My son turns on when he sees right there, boots up his Xbox and it says, you know, Black Lives Matter.
	So this is everywhere at all times and it may have subsided right now, but I am not looking forward to the rest of this summer because I think that this is only going to escalate.
	And in that capacity, who was it doing it?
	Was it just, like, I noticed there was a vice of you that did a study of Minneapolis, and they were filming it.
	And it was clear to me that there were criminal gangs, part of the operation, who had been mapped out.
	They knew in advance where the protesters were going to go.
	They even had all their equipment ready to rob a particular Wells Fargo.
	So it showed to me that there was Antifa involvement, there were criminal gangs involvement, and then I have what I'd call opportunistic crimes.
	And that was where you'd sort of, like, the old broken windows.
	When somebody sees a green light to commit a crime, they figure, why don't I just elude a little bit of Louis Vuitton?
	What combination was it there in D.C.?
	That is exactly right.
	So on the second night of the protest, before they erected the barrier, it was very clear to me that there were clearly Antifa members down there.
	You can tell because they're all wearing the same clothes.
	They all bought the same gas mask that they distributed through their Amazon links to their boys.
	They had like the pink respirators.
	You can tell they're carrying skateboards and you know that they're organized.
	You can see that there would be a guy in the front line using a fire extinguisher to cover them and create a smoke barrier.
	And then from like 20 feet back, they would throw M80s and rocks and bricks and stuff at the police.
	It was clearly organized and they had a strategy.
	Now, that was one group.
	Now, there was definitely also opportunistic thugs operating, right?
	Washington, D.C.
	is known for its crime, although it's been going down over the years.
	It was once known as the murder capital of the world, so it's not unusual for there to be opportunistic thugs operating in the city.
	And the next night, you know, we could hear the explosions going off in Northwest, and You know, it's sad to say, but in Northwest D.C., we know two sounds.
	We know fireworks because people light up fireworks all year.
	We know gunshots because people like to fire their guns.
	Yeah, that's the pink respirator right there.
	And this was not the sound of fireworks or gunshots.
	This was the sound of explosions and people maybe perhaps breaking into ATMs, people blowing up cars to terrorize folks, maybe just taking opportunity to, you know, indulge the weaknesses of the MPD who had their attention focused elsewhere.
	So it's important to realize that this is a decentralized war.
	And these are networks that don't necessarily line up and have the same members in each group.
	But what they are is they're opportunistic and they're taking advantage of this moment in time where they have an aligned goal.
	And that aligned goal is to erode the power of the establishment.
	And they believe that they need to erode the power of the establishment because Established power is white supremacy.
	White supremacy has always been oppressive, and there's only one way to free the black folks of America, and that is to end the white supremacy that rules our land.
	And so that's their theory, and that's how they're coalescing, and they're just taking advantage of this moment of chaos in order to enact their agenda as they overlap at this moment in time.
	And how have the DC politicians either suppressed or facilitated this behavior?
	That is such an interesting question because D.C.' 's mayor Muriel Bowser, I remember when Muriel Bowser was a candidate for Ward 4 in Washington D.C.
	and she stepped in behind Adrian Fenty.
	She had no qualifications, no reason being a council member, no reason to become a mayor.
	So she's mayor of D.C.
	now, sort of by default, rating on Adrian Fenty's coattails.
	And she herself has done.
	Don't forget, Muriel Bowser was the co-chair of Mike Bloomberg's campaign.
	She had eyes on the VP position, right?
	She is basically Mrs. Stop and Frisk.
	That's what I like to call her.
	She has increased the budgets for the police in Washington, D.C.
	She has hired people who think that we should be cracking down on crime.
	And then when Black Lives Matter comes to town, there's a word for it.
	I'm not going to use it, but she, you know, gives in to Black Lives Matter.
	And she basically throws herself on the ground and says, hey, we're going to paint Black Lives Matter on the street.
	And we're going to say that we're a part of this and we support you.
	But then Black Lives Matter, they know better.
	They know that Bowser, she has been increasing funding for the police department.
	She's not going to defund the police by any means whatsoever.
	And they're calling her out on it.
	Black Lives Matter Twitter accounts I see have been calling Muriel Bowser out.
	I'm calling Muriel Bowser out from the other side.
	I watch protests go from the White House all the way down to the Executive Building, the Wilson Building on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., where they protested right on the streets.
	So no matter what Bowser's doing, she's still losing because she is Mrs. Stop and Frisk.
	She is Mike Bloomberg's lapdog.
	She wanted to be vice president with a guy who policed New York in a way that had never been policed before, and that is what she's all about.
	She's learning from him, from Bloomberg.
	And now she's trying to play like she's Black Lives Matter.
	And guess what?
	I don't buy it.
	The people don't buy it.
	Black Lives Matter doesn't even buy it.
	And to me, that's one of the more hysterical parts.
	Well, maybe the only funny part of all this is watching her try to, you know, give in, not going to use that C word, give in to Black Lives Matter, but still take it right up, right up the rear because she is just not genuine in any way whatsoever.
	In that capacity, I mean, you've had personal experience with Antifa.
	You had spent a long time and part of your career dedicated to improving educational opportunities, particularly for African-American children in the District of Columbia, and then got, effectively, a dox campaign targeted at you, trying to destroy your job.
	We're seeing that run rampant right now.
	There's an ex-Disney actress that's running around trying to dox little high school kids for any bad thing they ever said.
	Can you tell people that story of what happened to you?
	Yeah, so you're absolutely right.
	For 10 years, I was Executive Director of Charter Schools in Washington, D.C., and I was a turnaround expert.
	It was my job to go into the lowest, worst-performing schools in the District of Columbia, virtually 100% African American, and turn those schools around and help those kids get better education outcomes.
	But despite all that work, Just because I had written an article or two questioning radical feminism, an article or two questioning sanctuary cities, sanctuary counties in Montgomery County in Maryland.
	And just because I happen to be in the same location as Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler, I was there videoing and recording in a journalistic capacity, just like I was the other night.
	They saw me in this picture.
	They decided to figure out who I was.
	I watched them distribute my photo across their networks.
	They put a question mark over my head.
	Who is this guy?
	Figure out who this guy is.
	And then they decided to go after me.
	They went to my employer.
	They told them that I was a racist and a Nazi, and they began a campaign to get me fired.
	And once they did that, my employer at the time was the District of Columbia Public Charter School Charter Board.
	And they are completely staffed 110% with social justice warriors and critical race theory people who buy into the implicit association test, etc.
	And despite the fact that they are functioning in an extreme right-wing radical public policy experiment like charter schools, none of them understood what they were doing and they're completely SJWs.
	So when they found out that there were accusations of me being a Nazi, which I am not, And I have disavowed the alt-right for many years.
	I've had personal conflict with Richard Spencer after the Polar Ball.
	This is not me.
	But they decided to call me a Nazi.
	They teamed up.
	They did a network attack.
	They got me fired.
	They got me fired from my job.
	Not only did they do that, But they contacted my local Little League board where I had coached my son for almost 12 seasons in Little League.
	They sent them all kinds of information from the SPLC and from the ADL and telling everybody that I was a Nazi and they demanded I be banned from coaching Little League and they did.
	And what's terrible about that is my son, he and I don't get to see each other as often as we'd like because his mom and I are divorced.
	And we had that time that was special to us and they took that away.
	They went after me.
	They tried to hurt me as best as they could.
	It was an information attack and it's important to understand that this, this war, this civil war, this fourth generation war that's happening, it happens on a mental level, physical level, moral level, information level, a kinetic level.
	And one of the things they do is they burn down buildings and they take over cities in Seattle and Portland.
	And something else that they do is that they isolate people and they attack them and they try to destroy their lives.
	And as we've seen with cancel culture, People getting fired from their jobs, people being prohibited from using financial services like PayPal or other things.
	This is a very serious way of harming somebody.
	And in our information age, your reputation is all that you've got.
	You Google my name and the first thing that comes up is that I'm a Nazi and a racist.
	How was I ever going to get another job?
	In this education field that I loved, where I helped African American students attain better education outcomes.
	I was a social justice advocate.
	I want equity for education.
	Who doesn't want to help children?
	You know, that's what I was doing.
	And they decided to destroy my life, destroy my career, take away my income, ruin my reputation, dox me, swap me.
	They sent the cops to my house in the middle of the night over tweets.
	I had the police show up at my door.
	With a tweet of mine blown up on an eight and a half by 11 piece of paper.
	And they said, we're here about the tweets, man.
	We're here about the tweets.
	And I just couldn't believe it.
	It was at that point in time where all the things that I had been reading about and writing about and thinking about for years, they all just became real.
	And in a way that hurt me, hurt my kids, made my kids cry, made them scared, ruined my reputation and my career.
	But I decided I wasn't going to let them get me down.
	And that was the year that I started the liminal order in 2019.
	And I decided to fight back.
	And that's what we've been doing.
	And I've been able to jujitsu all that negative energy into something positive.
	We're now the liminal order is up to 300 guys across the country, even worldwide.
	And we're all coming together with a similar worldview where we hold common values.
	And our goal is to build strong men, strong families, strong communities, and hopefully one day a strong nation.
	And where can people find out more information about the liminal order?
	The liminal order, that would be at liminal-order.com.
	You can also find me on Twitter at JackMurphyLive, on YouTube at JackMurphyLive, on Periscope at JackMurphyLive, JackMurphyLive all over the internet.
	Find me, I will reach out back to you and we can connect.
	This is a personal project for me.
	It's something I'm very, very passionate about.
	And this is the way that we've chosen to fight back.
	To build strong men, strong families, strong communities, and a strong nation in turn.
	And if, you know, you wrote the book From Democrat to Deplorable, I think there's a lot more and more people that I would have called old-school Democratic, almost populist, you know, inclinations, sort of believe in true democracy across the board, but have been pushed away from Democratic Party and the left by these would-be Red Guards of this new cultural totalitarian order.
	Do you think more people will go in your direction come election time?
	What do you think their response will be to all of the insanity we've been witnessing?
	Well, you know, in 2016, there were 9 million Democrat to deplorable voters, or otherwise known as Obama-Trump voters, okay?
	And in 2016, I laid out all of the issues that led me to making that decision.
	A lifelong Democrat, I would call myself like Dave Rubin, a classic liberal, borderline libertarian, you do you, I'll do me.
	I'm all in favor of, you know, gay marriage and smoking weed and doing whatever, as long as it doesn't impact my ability to live my life.
	But all the trends that I identified in that book, critical theory, critical social theory, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, the infiltration in our universities, the corruption of Title IX legislation, the war on men, All these issues have only gotten worse since 2016.
	In fact, my book sold really well in 2017 or 2018 when I released it, but it's going up every month.
	There are more and more people reading the book.
	There are more and more people waking up every day.
	There are more and more Democrats who are waking up and saying, enough is enough.
	This is not the Democratic Party that I remember.
	They don't hold the values that I hold.
	And I'm looking at you fence sitters.
	It is time for you to get off the fence and stop free riding on people like me.
	It is time to support Donald Trump and forget about Joe Biden and the Democrats.
	If you believe in Western civilization and America, it is time to take action.
	Thanks for being with us, Jack.
	You are very welcome.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We continue to urge you to support our sponsor that makes this platform possible.
	The show will be going into a podcast format for the rest of the summer and then we'll be back for election season after Labor Day.
	The staff and the team of the studio has done extraordinary work, humans labor, almost like they've been worked like Chinese kids in a Nike factory.
	Doing double duty and triple duty to help bring this broadcast to you over the last several months.
	We're going to be going to a podcast format for the rest of the summer.
	Then hope to be back live on video with you come election season as the countdown gets closer to election day.
	But what makes this show possible at all is InfoWarsStore.com.
	That is where you can get healthier, wealthier, and wiser by simply purchasing the products at the store.
	You can get products that are healthy for you, a wide range of products from chill force to brain force to knockout, products that are good for energy, products that are good for sleeping, products that are good for dealing with stress and anxiety, especially in this day and age where we're experiencing something in 2020.
	That even Tim Pool called the most extraordinary year in the history of American politics.
	And it doesn't stop.
	Remember, not just a few months ago, we started out with an unprecedented impeachment given the cause of action that was brought against President Trump, the first-ever first-term president ever impeached since Andrew Johnson on completely questionable and bogus grounds.
	That was followed by the pandemic and now record-setting race riots across the country.
	So, in this context, the important information that's independent of the institutional narrative, shaped by the press and the parties alike, is critical to being able to break through the gated institutional narrative so that you can get independent information.
	The news you choose to have the views you want.
	In that capacity, what makes it possible is InfoWarsStore.com.
	That's where you can get a wide range of products.
	It also has t-shirts.
	You can get CNN's fake news and other items.
	You can get masks if you have to wear them at your local place or simply choose to.
	You can get a wide range of products that make you healthier.
	You can get wealthier because these are products that you purchase anyway, somewhere else on the marketplace.
	But if you go to Infowarsstore.com, you can get them at a severe discount, especially as many of the products are currently selling at a substantially discounted rate.
	On top of that, you can get wiser because Infowarsstore.com provides the most critical infrastructure and support for the most important and broadest independent press in the world, and continues to do so, and is critical that it do so, in this time of fake news about pandemics, fake news that leads to impeachments, fake news that leads to race riots.
	Nothing is more important than staying independently self-educated and acting on that independent information.
	Information that is both accessible and actionable in a way that can bring democratic change to the world in a way that keeps the American Republic and the light of liberty still alive for all of us and for our posterity.
	In that capacity, In terms of the craziness that is consuming the world, if we look at a recent liberal who was simply trying to argue that this is insane logic that has been consuming the left.
	In an article entitled, The Still Vital Case for Liberalism in a Radical Age by Jonathan Chait, who has often commented on safe space culture run amok, he goes through about how the left's quote, illiberal style is doing severe damage to the cause that they purport to believe in.
	Noting that translating speech to being a threat is itself an actionable problematic component.
	And he goes through all of the dynamics of how black lives matter and critical theory of the kind that Jack Murphy was just talking about undermines, not enables, a more tolerant democratic society.
	But he is a for simply voicing that there has been widespread outrage by the left that he's even been willing to challenge or contest the institutional narrative from a well-established liberal mind.
	In the same capacity, there has been encouragement on the COVID-19 front as more and more of the press has had to admit and acknowledge that the COVID-19 was one of the greatest cover ups of an exaggerated threat that we have ever had in the history of public health issues and that the COVID-19 was one of the greatest cover ups of an exaggerated threat that we have ever had in the history of public health issues.
	As The Telegraph reports, school-aged children are more likely to be hit by lightning than die of the coronavirus.
	This was information that we were reporting to you more than several months ago.
	In that same capacity, the people that have decided to use this as an opportunity to seize power, in Seattle they've created their own little zone.
	The police, in fact, acknowledge that what's happening in this quote-unquote autonomous zone, called CHAZ by Antifa, is that they're also now engaging in intimidation and extortion.
	It was the three E's that the Black Panthers devolved to in the 1970s.
	Embezzlement, which led to the death of David Horowitz's bookkeeper who was doing work because he thought he helped raise a quarter of a million dollars for the Black Panthers to have a school in Oakland.
	Had his own bookkeeper go over there to manage the books to make sure that the government couldn't falsely accuse them of anything wrong.
	They ended up fishing her out of a lake.
	Ended up being dead.
	Because what she found was, of course, embezzlement and invasion.
	But that didn't stop them from other crimes like extortion and enforcer in the local Oakland community.
	Indeed, Huey Newton's goal and objective, as even Bobby Seale would later report, was to become the drug lord of Oakland.
	Uh, that, and it turns out that Antifa only took a couple of days for them to figure that out.
	So they started doing intimidation and extortion as soon as they obtained control over the city streets, which the mayor pretended wasn't happening, and the governor claimed he didn't even have any notice or knowledge of.
	In this same capacity, they had an exclusive interview at the Post Millennial with the so-called Warlord of Seattle's Autonomous Zone, where he gave his description of what he was doing and how he was up to.
	His name is Raz Simone.
	He's been called the Warlord of Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, hence CHAZ.
	That's where the CHAZ phrase comes from.
	Apparently, they're even trying to set up their own local farm, but not doing so well at it.
	Apparently, they've already run out of food.
	So we'll see how that disaster zone looks like.
	We'll see what Antifa in practice, when it actually governs any part of a community, what that actually embraces in terms of its logic and approach.
	In the same capacity, they actually decided, we can look at image number three, they decided to go after and attack a statute in Philadelphia, and the statute that they attacked was the statute of a major abolitionist.
	So they decided to deface a statute of an actual abolitionist.
	This is the nature of people who do not know their history.
	Image number two shows you some of the would-be warriors from Antifastan, as you see some of their outfits and creating their own little carved out part of the city.
	Something tells me this is not going to end well.
	But if you wanted to know who they voted for, If we look at chart number four, and you look at the precincts that are under control, more of them voted for Jill Stein, who's a prior client of mine, than Donald Trump.
	It was, of course, an extremely Hillary Clinton district.
	And this is the world they would have us create.
	There's going to be a lot of Donald Trump ads coming out of the videos that have been filmed from those contexts.
	And in that same capacity, if we look at chart number one, In recent polling data, one of the most interesting trends that is being undetected by the press is the increasing support amongst Latino voters by President Trump.
	Indeed, while President Trump was estimated to have lost the Latino vote, Hispanic vote, by about 40 points in 2016, It appears that he has cut that by almost 15 points to about a 25 point lead for Biden in 2020.
	That means bye-bye Arizona for Biden, bye-bye Texas for Biden, bye-bye Florida for Texas for Biden.
	It means Biden is going to be completely dependent on a clean sweep of the upper Midwest and the Midwest and the industrial Midwest to have any chance.
	And we'll see how his longstanding ties to NAFTA, his longstanding friendly relations with China and the World Trade Organization, how all those lost jobs make it turn out for him there.
	The President's main duty and obligation, aside from quelling the chaos of these riots and reopening America from the exaggerated threat of the pandemic, Will in fact be to restore and reignite the American economy as he had before.
	At least be on the pace and the path to do so to such a degree that he can convince the Upper Michigan blue-collar voters that their best hope lies with him.
	Notably, today President Biden made it or would be President Biden made these comments.
	He said that if in fact he was elected, he was already accusing President Trump of cheating before the even election occurs, suggesting that he plans to debate and discount what happens in the election so that even if there's an election, Part of this fourth-generation warfare is we may see a return of the riots come even worse than what happened after 2016, but on a 2020 scale, like we have just witnessed, if the president is elected under the bogus grounds that he quote-unquote stole the election.
	And notably, Mr. Biden, ex-Vice President, former Senator Biden, who by the way is on tape saying positive things about the Confederate flag that he now denunciates and says no one should ever be associated or affiliated with.
	Is now saying that President Trump will, quote, be walked out of the White House by the military.
	Saying positive things about any military official who's questioned him or challenged him.
	Suggesting he's already planning the idea in the public mind, and in the military official's mind, that their goal and objective of the Biden team is to have the President frog-marched out of the White House by rogue military officials.
	That's the kind of idea he's planting already.
	Much as I told people in early 2017, even wrote it for places like Breitbart and Law and Crime.
	Dan Abrams is the editor of that, notoriously liberal, but he's now experiencing the rage of the left as they have removed Live PD from having any more shows, which was a show authored by him.
	Not only that, the show Cops, which famously gave birth to the three Bad Boys movies, prominently starring two prominent African-American actors, Will Smith And others have now been removed from the airwaves.
	Indeed, they're even talking about removing the Show Paws patrol, simply because one of the little animated dogs represents a police officer.
	This is the mindset and mentality that is consuming the country, the new cancel culture that they would have imposed on the rest of us, as you heard Jack Murphy personally experience.
	But we shouldn't continue on that path without any resistance.
	Indeed, in that respect, it's useful to remember the rise of totalitarianism in general.
	Let's take a look at clip number five to give us a little bit of a history reminder of where that kind of logic leads us.
	In Russian, Stalin means man of steel.
	The Soviet Union's communist leader, Joseph Stalin, certainly lived up to his name.
	During his rule, the Soviet Union achieved unprecedented power, but at the cost of freedom for its people.
	He launched a brutal transformation of Soviet agriculture through collectivization, forcibly taking over privately owned land, creating a system of state-owned farms.
	He also took control of manufacturing and production, creating huge government-controlled industries.
	Stalin created a police state in which anyone who disagreed with the government's policies could be arrested and sent to labor camps in Siberia.
	In 1930, Stalin began the Big Purge.
	So-called enemies of the people were arrested and executed.
	Historians estimate between 8 to 13 million people were killed.
	By 1939, Stalin had firmly established a totalitarian communist government with complete control over its citizens.
	All opposition was crushed.
	In Italy, similar events unfolded shortly after World War I.
	In 1919, dictator Benito Mussolini, il Duce, or the Chief as he was called, began his rise to power.
	Mussolini became popular because he promised Italians he would rebuild Italy and create a new Roman Empire.
	Mussolini created a political movement called fascism, and in 1921, he became a member of the Italian Parliament.
	In 1922, he and thousands of his fascist supporters, known as the Blackshirts, marched into Rome, demanding the Italian king give him power to lead the government.
	Not wanting to start a civil war, the king conceded.
	Mussolini was sworn in as Prime Minister in October.
	Like Stalin, Mussolini crushed any and all opposition to his totalitarian regime.
	At the end of World War I, Adolf Hitler was just another jobless soldier wandering around Germany.
	In 1919, he joined a small political party called the National Socialist German Worker, the Nazi Party.
	Like communists in the Soviet Union and fascists in Italy, the Nazis practiced an extreme form of nationalism, believing that the interests of their country were more important than any others, even more important than personal rights and freedoms.
	Hitler quickly rose to power to become the Nazi Party's leader or Führer.
	In his two-volume book, Mein Kampf, My Struggle in English, Hitler spelled out his Nazi beliefs.
	He sought to unite all German-speaking people into a national state.
	He also maintained that the German, or Aryan, race was superior to all others.
	Hitler thought his master race deserved more land, even if it meant taking it by force.
	Economic hardships in Germany in the early 1930s helped Hitler and the Nazi Party gain power.
	In 1932, roughly 6 million Germans were jobless, and Hitler's promise to restore German pride and stature in the world appealed to them.
	As head of the Nazi Party, Hitler was appointed German Chancellor in January 1933.
	He quickly put an end to the faltering Weimar democracy and established his third rank, a totalitarian regime with himself as dictator.
	Hitler capitalized on hate and racism, blaming Jews for the economic problems plaguing Germany.
	Jews were ousted from government positions and certain professions and barred from the use of public facilities.
	They were isolated and forced to wear a yellow Star of David.
	The discrimination escalated in November of 1938.
	Rampaging mobs attacked Jews in the street, in their homes, and at their places of work and worship.
	Nearly 100 Jews were killed, more than 1,000 synagogues burned, and over 7,000 Jewish businesses were destroyed.
	This came to be called Kristallnacht, or Night of Broken Glass.
	Jewish property was seized, and Jews, gypsies, and other groups considered unfit for Hitler's master race were sent to concentration camps.
	Over the course of the war, 6 million Jews and 5 million others were murdered by the Nazis.
	This became known as the Holocaust.
	The extent of the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps would not be fully realized until the war ended in 1945.
	Though the young Emperor Hirohito led Japan, the true power during the 1930s was in the hands of the Japanese military.
	The country was gripped in a frenzy of nationalism, and like Germany and Italy, desired more land and resources for its growing population.
	In a surprise attack in September 1931, Japan invaded the Chinese province of Manchuria.
	Japan saw Manchuria as the first step in its desire for domination of China.
	The League of Nations, established to help keep peace after World War I, condemned Japan's invasion, but did nothing to stop it.
	In turn, Japan simply quit the League.
	By 1936, the clouds of war encircled the globe.
	Germany and Italy formed an alliance they described as an Axis, around which Europe would revolve.
	Four years later, Japan would join the Axis powers, and together, the three countries pledged to aid each other in the event of attack.
	The extreme political philosophies that emerged during these troubled times appealed to many people, worn down by economic hardship.
	But the overly patriotic beliefs of nationalism, the acceptance of totalitarianism, the militant and racist fascist beliefs of the Nazis, and the communist doctrines of state-controlled property and government all contributed to a worldwide What united these very divergent ideological traditions, whether it was in Japan, whether it was Nazism in Germany, fascism in Italy, or fascismo as they originally called it,
	whether it's the emperor's beliefs in his superiority by the Japanese military or the communism of the Soviet Union, whether it's the emperor's beliefs in his superiority by the Japanese military or the A mindset that believed in eradicating the past.
	A mindset that considered control over information as essential to anything else.
	A mindset that did not believe in the individual, but celebrated the collective based on identity and involving blood libels.
	Stalin had various blood libels against certain groups or people associated or affiliated with those groups.
	Germany, of course, notoriously did so.
	Italy's Mussolini had a comparable measurement.
	The Japanese behavior in Korea and China show what they thought of people different than them.
	By using these blood libel ideologies, incorporating an ideology that did not respect the past or history, that created these sort of utopian visions of the future, and embracing the reign of terror tactics of the French Revolution, is what unites all four of these ideologically diverse, but in the end, ideologically uniform, dangerous sources of power.
	Which was about totalitarianism and collectivism as opposed to respect for the individual and true little d democracy.
	How this can come about was well documented by a Soviet Union escapee some years ago.
	Yuri Bezhmanov did a long version of lectures about the various stages of ideological subversion.
	See when you listen to this clip how you can recognize it happening even today in what is happening by the radical left in their fourth generation war.
	Let's play video clip number six.
	Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov.
	Mr. Bezmenov was born in 1939 in a suburb of Moscow.
	He was the son of a high-ranking Soviet army officer.
	He was educated in the elite schools inside the Soviet Union and became an expert in Indian culture and Indian languages.
	He had an outstanding career with Novosti, which was the, and still is, I should say, the press arm or the press agency of the Soviet Union.
	It turns out that this is also a front for the KGB.
	He escaped to the West in 1970 after becoming totally disgusted with the Soviet system, and he did this at great risk to his life.
	He certainly is one of the world's outstanding experts on the subject of Soviet propaganda and disinformation and active measures.
	Well, you spoke several times before about ideological subversion.
	That is a phrase that I'm afraid some Americans don't fully understand.
	When the Soviets use the phrase ideological subversion, what do they mean by it?
	Ideological subversion is the slow process ...which we call either ideological subversion or active measures, or psychological warfare.
	What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions In the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country.
	It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and it's divided in four basic stages.
	The first one being demoralization.
	It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation.
	Why that many years?
	Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students In the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy.
	In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism.
	The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years.
	Actually, it's overfulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success.
	Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards.
	As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore.
	A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information.
	The facts tell nothing to him.
	Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, Even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom.
	When a military boot crashes his balls, then he will understand, but not before that.
	That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.
	The next stage is destabilization.
	This time, subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption.
	Whether you eat junk food and get fat and flabby doesn't matter anymore.
	This time, and it takes only from two to five years to destabilize a nation, what matters is essentials.
	Economy, foreign relations, defense systems.
	And you can see it quite clearly that in some areas, in such sensitive areas as defense and economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic.
	I could never believe it 14 years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process will go that fast.
	The next stage, of course, is crisis.
	It may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis.
	You can see it in Central America now.
	And after crisis, with a violent change of power, structure, and economy, you have so-called the period of normalization.
	It may last indefinitely.
	Normalization is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda.
	When the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in 1968, Comrade Brezhnev said, now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalized.
	This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all these schmucks to bring the country to crisis.
	To promise people all kinds of goodies and the paradise on earth, to destabilize your economy, to eliminate the principle of free market competition, and to put a big brother government in Washington D.C.
	with benevolent dictators like Walter Mondale, who will promise lots of things, never mind whether the promises are fulfillable or not.
	Your leftists in the United States, all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders, they are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize the nation.
	When their job is completed, they are not needed anymore.
	They know too much.
	Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist-Leninists come to power, obviously they get offended.
	They think that they will come to power.
	That will never happen, of course.
	They will be lined up against the wall and shot.
	But they may turn into the most bitter enemies.
	of Marxist Leninists when they come to power.
	And that's what happened in Nicaragua.
	You remember most of these former Marxist Leninists were either put to prison or one of them split and now he's working against Sandinistas.
	It happened in Grenada when Maurice Bichot was, he was already a Marxist.
	He was executed by a new Marxist who was more Marxist than this Marxist.
	Same happened in Afghanistan when first there was Taraki, he was killed by Amin, then Amin was killed by Babrak Karmal with the help of KGB.
	Same happened in Bangladesh when Mujibur Rahman, very pro-Soviet leftist, was assassinated by his own Marxist-Leninist military comrades.
	It's the same pattern everywhere.
	The time bomb is ticking.
	With every second, the disaster is coming closer and closer.
	Unlike myself, you will have nowhere to defect to.
	Indeed.
	It is a clock that keeps ticking and getting closer and closer and closer.
	The real axis of evil starts with the media, because that is doing the most subversion of American principles.
	Just think back.
	After President Trump was elected in 2016, up to his election they were not only predicting he would lose, but predicted that he would refuse to recognize the results of the election, when in fact it was them.
	After he was elected, they then would launch the Russia Collusion Delusion investigation that would harass all kinds of people, bring false prosecutions against Roger Stone, bring false prosecutions against General Flynn, put a wide range of innocent people under a macroscopic, microscopic review, deterring and discouraging people from even joining or participating in the administration or for sticking their head up on behalf of Trump,
	when in fact the collusion that was taking place was between rogue aspects of the FBI and law enforcement and intelligence agency at the highest ranks of political power under the Obama administration against President when in fact the collusion that was taking place was between rogue aspects of the FBI and law enforcement and intelligence agency Against President Trump to illicitly spy on him and to illicitly smear him thereafter.
	And then for what they did, they accused him of and used it as a additional excuse to not only cover up their malfeasance and misconduct, but even further to further cause trouble for the President of the United States.
	Then we got Ukrainegate, another fake investigation.
	Then we got an exaggerated pandemic.
	And now we have riots on the street.
	All meant to gaslight you into forgetting what is true and not noting and noticing what is real.
	That is why broadcasts like this one and support for InfoWarsStore.com is so critical so that you get truthful information.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	If you don't believe what Yuri Bejmanov was talking about isn't happening at all at any level in America, just take a look at this video clip from Project Veritas, which went undercover with Antifa.
	Play video clip number one.
	We did apply for a grant from Soros at one point, a lockdown.
	We actually did get a grant from them.
	There is going to be a meeting for thousands of people and millions to come into the streets.
	We're fighting it with Tom Steyer.
	We've been talking to his assistant.
	We're meeting with his main advisor on impeachment.
	He has political ambitions.
	That he may actually want to not be directly protected.
	In Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York.
	You have to, this is, this at a certain point dominates the national news.
	It's a very disruptive force.
	Last week, we released video of New York Antifa-like group Refuse Fa, short for Refuse Fascism, training people how to poke people's eyes out and reframing assault as self-defense.
	Yeah, so if that doesn't knock him out, then yeah, the nose, the eyes, hopefully the eyes would be up to it.
	So it's two hands up.
	We just kind of want to, in this space, reframe the idea of self-defense as not simply you're being acted upon by an arrestor, but it's kind of a decision you make to fight back In a lot of ways to say,
	I'm human and I occupy the space... Now today, we unmask undercover footage of their national organizer, the National Organizer for Refused Fascism, and we release footage that suggests who might even be funding their militant operation.
	My ultimate vision is for people to bring with their comfort and come into the streets day after day, night after night, in the hundreds of thousands until the millions, and not leave until they have a step down.
	The big thing about this is that we see that this is not going to happen with a normal channel.
	Because we are not, we are living in abnormal times.
	And the way we see this is that there is going to be a need for thousands of people, and then millions, to come into the streets and demand that the Trump cancer machine must go.
	We did apply for a grant from Soros at one point a long time ago when I was doing more abortion rights and defending clinics.
	We actually did get a grant from them around, we started a thing called the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion.
	Contributing money is a heat.
	Look, we are not going to reach millions without millions.
	That's just it.
	That's just straight up.
	We are not going to do it.
	You need millions of dollars to reach millions of people.
	You know, if you can get a meeting with either one of those, Samsara Taylor or Andy Z, we would be like, it would be, it would be a very important experience in your life.
	We're trying to meet with Tom Steyer.
	Right now, I don't know if he took the meeting today, but we're meeting with his main advisor on impeachment.
	I don't know who that is.
	That's kind of a big deal.
	We've been talking to his assistant.
	He first said he was going to meet, then he got busy, he made the announcement.
	Popstar has been retweeting some of our stuff.
	Yeah.
	And I wouldn't be surprised if he's going to want it.
	I think he has, this is only me speaking based on reading newspapers from the world, I think he has political ambitions.
	But yeah, there's always been the rumor he's going to run for governance.
	That he may actually want to not be directly connected.
	It's not just Soros and Steyer who may have interest in groups like Refuse Fa and Antifa.
	It's also our friends in Silicon Valley. - We're gonna be meeting with the person who donated.
	His money's not part of the 80,000, but he's donated over 50,000.
	We have other donated people who donated 10,000.
	So actually, you're not first. - Exactly. - But you're not first, but you are first.
	And that if we could have, right now, $15,000, which is not very much money, Excellent.
	This $15,000, what I've learned on this tour, is we should have three of these tours going on to campuses right now.
	I met with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
	You should be familiar with them.
	They're the main people for fighting net neutrality and all this stuff.
	The Frontier what?
	The Electronic Frontier Foundation.
	Okay.
	It's the main organization that fights for internet privacy, net neutrality.
	It's a major f***ing organization.
	I met with them.
	They're in San Francisco.
	They're going to help us get connected.
	Our cities are on fire.
	With riots in the streets and elections at stake, everything seems so organized.
	It's not a surprise that presidential campaigns might get involved.
	P. Z. Meyers, Cornel West, Arturo O'Farrell, these are major figures in the arts and sciences who are definitely not revolutionaries, okay?
	And you'll see, there's people, Hillary campaign people, working with these fascists, you know, because they see the danger.
	You have to create a kind of demand from below.
	For what?
	A kind of demand from below that the Trump-Pence regime must go.
	Yeah.
	Where there's... The abolition movement.
	Yeah, where there's the kind of situation that did exist in South Korea, where the society itself is both a serious crisis in that Just imagine, let's put millions aside for a second, that there was 10,000 to 50,000 people demonstrating in just those five cities, which if they were demonstrating there, I can tell you from history, it would be spreading like wildfire and storming.
	That number of people who were protesting, you know, at first maybe every week, and then every three days, and then every other day, where people were coming after work and the streets were flooded every night from 5 o'clock till 1 o'clock in the morning, and there was, probably among younger people, there'd be a few thousand who stayed overnight.
	And this was happening in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York.
	You attended.
	This, at a certain point, dominates the national news.
	Cities are, in a certain sense, non-violent demonstrations, but then still it's a very disruptive force.
	That has international repercussions.
	Look at what's happening in the U.S. The U.S.
	Some years ago, the good professor Jordan Peterson explained that the totalitarian mindset, something he had spent decades literally studying, was the critical thing to resist And he explained ways in which one could resist it oneself, the importance of truth, an importance that George Orwell had figured out some decades before.
	Well, let's take a little clip of Professor Peterson discussing that in video clip number four.
	I published a book in 1999 called Maps of Meaning.
	I wrote Maps of Meaning because I was absolutely obsessed with what had happened in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union.
	And I mean, I really truly mean obsessed.
	I spent virtually every waking second for 15 years thinking about nothing else than that.
	And read very, very, very widely.
	I read all of Carl Jung.
	I read Orwell and Huxley and Solzhenitsyn and a slew of books on neurobiology and all the great clinical psychologists and a huge chunk of political economy.
	I read a very, very vast amount of psychological and political literature.
	And I synthesized this over the course of 15,000 hours.
	That's how long it took me to write that book.
	And the reason I did it was because I was trying to understand the relationship between belief and emotion and motivation.
	And more specifically, I'll tell you a story.
	Here's what I was trying to understand, all right?
	So, one of the tricks that the guards used to pull in Auschwitz Was that when the prisoners were or the detainees were dumped off the rail cars where they'd be packed in like sheep, worse than sheep, and where many of them died of suffocation and dehydration and overheating when they were dumped off at the camp.
	And they were ruined by then already because, you know, they'd been ripped away from their families and had their lives destroyed.
	But that wasn't good enough for the Auschwitz guards.
	And one of the tricks they used to pull on them was they'd have the inmates pick up a hundred pound sack of wet salt and carry it from one side of the compound to the other and then back.
	And so, it said on the Auschwitz Gates, work will make you free, which was a joke, a black, black joke, a joke from the depths of hell, that, like mutual assured destruction, the same kind of humor.
	And I was very interested in, I thought, hmm, okay.
	An Auschwitz guard could take someone who was already ruined, who lost their family, who was suffering dreadfully, and then make them do something effortful and terrible.
	Because these camps were big to carry the sack of salt from one side.
	That's a city.
	These were cities.
	These weren't like little prisons.
	And it was to demonstrate to the person their absolute, abject humiliation, and to deprive them of any sense of accomplishment whatsoever that they might extract from their labor.
	Okay, so I was interested in that, but I was interested in why a human being would do that to another human being.
	But I was interested in that in a very particular way, because you see, the people in Auschwitz who were the guards, they were ordinary people.
	And that meant that ordinary people can do that.
	And that meant I could do it.
	And so I wanted to figure out just exactly what that meant.
	And so I did figure out what that meant.
	You know, Jung said that the human shadow stretches all the way down to hell.
	And that's exactly right.
	It's really, directly true.
	And so I realized that when I was writing Maps of Meaning.
	After some experiences I had also working, I worked, visited is more the accurate term, but I worked for this strange psychologist in Edmonton who was the prison psychologist at the Edmonton Maximum Security Prison.
	And I went out there a few times and observed the convicts.
	Started thinking about what motivated them to and you know I had a revelation not long after that about About atrocity and the revelation was because I didn't think I was capable of doing such a thing But I thought about it a long time and I realized I was bloody fully capable of it.
	And so then I started to puzzle out Given the human capacity to do that and maybe even to revel in it.
	Maybe even to enjoy it What can possibly be done?
	And, you know, people often perform that sort of atrocity under the guise of ideological commitment.
	Well, I'm persecuting the Jews because I'm actually a really good guy.
	Here's what I want.
	Here's my good intentions.
	You know, here's my good intentions, and they just happen to be collateral damage.
	And so it's actually moral and ethical that I'm doing this.
	But really, they're just taking the opportunity to act out their deep, deep hatred of being and hatred of reality and contempt for humanity.
	Well, I wrote Maps of Meaning in an attempt to understand that motivation and to determine what people could do so that if the opportunity arose once again, each individual would not choose to be an Auschwitz camp guard.
	So what do you think, and I would welcome everyone, we'll put the link to the book.
	What do you think is the best way to extricate yourself from that type of thinking?
	What's the best way to insulate yourself so that when the day comes and you are faced with some horrific choice that you don't jump in with the collective and, you know, the Nazi guards, of course, the phrase that they always said was, well, I was just following orders.
	Orders allowed them to do, you know, absolutely horrific things.
	So what can we all do to make sure that as the choices come to us, whatever they may be, that we don't do the horrible thing?
	Well, a lot of people have thought through this.
	You know, Viktor Frankl, who wrote Man's Search for Meaning, he came to the To a particular conclusion, and so did Dostoyevsky, so did Alexander Solzhenitsyn, so did Vaclav Havel, who was the dissident, Czech dissident, who eventually became president.
	They all said the same thing.
	Those systems exist because people lie.
	And the way you fight them is you don't lie.
	You don't lie about anything, ever.
	And so that's what you do, and you think, well, how can that make a difference?
	Well, Solzhenitsyn said... Solzhenitsyn wrote the Gulag Archipelago in the 1970s, and he detailed the transformation of the Marxist philosophical doctrine into the murderous legislation that killed perhaps 50 million people in the Soviet Union between 1919 and 1959.
	He said the entire society was pervaded by lies.
	But one-third of the people were government informers.
	You could never say anything that That you believe to be true.
	And it starts by people... It doesn't start by people directly lying.
	It starts by people muffling themselves because there are certain things you can no longer say.
	And you demolish your character.
	You weaken your character through sins of omission.
	And you get weak.
	And as soon as you're weak, people can manipulate you like mad.
	And so the way you fight back against totalitarianism is that you tell the truth and you act out the truth.
	Your truth, you know, and you subject yourself to correction from other people.
	It says in the New Testament that man does not live by bread alone.
	And that's a technical commentary on the utility of the truth.
	The truth is, you could say, spiritual food.
	And I use that metaphor purposefully.
	You live on information.
	You're a cognitive apparatus.
	You live on information.
	And in information, you transform information into the tools you use to operate within the world.
	And if your tools are faulty, then your life will be terrible.
	If you're fed on a diet of deceit, then you'll be pathological in everything you do, and the world will kick back at you extraordinarily hard.
	The first thing it'll do is deprive you of any sense of meaning, and then it'll make you bitter, and then it'll make you resentful, and then it'll make you murderous, and then it'll make you genocidal.
	That's the developmental pathway.
	You know, and those kids, the people who shoot up the high schools, they've already hit murderous.
	They're like, they're nigh on the way to genocidal.
	And part of the reason is, is that a life that's characterized by nothing but deceit has no positive meaning in it, but plenty of suffering.
	Because you can lie to yourself and you can lie to other people, but the probability that you're going to be able to talk yourself out of your terror and pain is zero.
	And as far as I can tell, truth is the only genuine antidote to suffering.
	Because getting rid of suffering, that isn't going to happen.
	The only thing you can do is live in a manner that enables you to withstand suffering without becoming corrupt.
	And that means that you you live by the truth and no matter what and then there's a there's a coda that goes along with that which is something that took me decades to understand is that Kierkegaard talked about this a fair bit when he talked about the leap of faith necessary for true religious belief said Telling the truth is a it's a it's a it's a gamble on the benevolence of being So the idea is well
	You tell the truth, you don't manipulate the world to make it give you what you want.
	You just say what, you try to articulate yourself and articulate the manner of your being as clearly and comprehensively as possible.
	And then you see what happens.
	And you decide, this is the act of faith, you decide that no matter what happens, if you tell the truth, that that's the best possible outcome.
	Indeed, that sort of radical commitment to truth would animate George Orwell's entire literary career, where he would, through stories of fiction, tell a deeper factual truth than the newspapers or magazines or television or radio broadcast ever did during that time period, particularly in places like Mao's China, Ho Chi Minh's Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or, of course, the Soviet Union itself.
	But of course, the West itself often became capture to the CIA and other agencies in Operation Mockingbird who would distort the truth because the truth was their greatest threat.
	Just as the greatest answer to enslavement is freedom, the greatest answer to falsehood and fake news is more truth.
	Let's take a look at a clip from George Orwell as a reminder of a man who dedicated himself to it and tells us all how we can live that out ourselves.
	Clip number seven.
	Good evening, George Orwell.
	Perhaps we should start with you telling us a little about yourself.
	I like English cookery, English beer, French red wine, Spanish white wine, Indian tea, strong tobacco, coal fire, candlelight and comfortable candlelight and comfortable chairs.
	Go on.
	I dislike big towns, noise, the motor car, the radio, tinned food and central heating.
	Interestingly... And modern furniture.
	Quite.
	All writers are vain, selfish and lazy. - Okay.
	And at the bottom of their motives there lies a mystery.
	And so you have no control over what you write.
	Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle.
	Like a long bout with some painful illness.
	One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon one can neither resist nor fully comprehend.
	1984, with its Thought Police, Room 101 and Big Brother, has given us a language with which we can defy oppression.
	What demon drove you to dream up 1984?
	I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development.
	His subject matter will be determined by the age in which he lives.
	But before he ever begins to write, he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape.
	From a very early age, perhaps the age of five or six, I knew that when I grew up I should be a writer.
	Between the ages of about 17 and 24, in Burma, I tried to abandon this idea.
	But I did so in the consciousness that I was outraging my true nature, and that sooner or later I would have to settle down and write books.
	But at this stage, you were still Eric Blair, and the brand of literature that you first attempted was the polar opposite of 1984.
	At that time, I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages.
	I spent five years in an unsuitable profession, the Indian Imperial Police in Burma.
	I then underwent poverty and a sense of failure.
	This increased my natural hatred of authority.
	But these experiences were not enough to give me an accurate political orientation.
	Using the word political in the widest possible sense...
	Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society they should strive after.
	So you were, by your early thirties, a political writer?
	No book is completely free of political bias.
	The Spanish War turned the scale, and thereafter I knew where I stood.
	Every line of serious work that I've written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism.
	In a more peaceful age, I might have written ornate or merely descriptive books.
	As it is, I've been forced into becoming a sort of pamphleteer.
	Animal Farm was the first book in which I tried, with full consciousness of what I was doing, to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one hell.
	Some say politics has no place in art.
	The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.
	What I most wanted was to turn political writing into an art.
	I do not think that the kind of society I describe will arrive, but that something resembling it could arrive, and that totalitarianism, if not fought against, could triumph anywhere.
	I think that allowing for the book being, after all, a parody, something like 1984 could actually happen.
	This is the direction the world is going in at the present time.
	In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement.
	The sex instinct will be eradicated.
	We shall abolish the orgasm.
	There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the party.
	But always, there will be the intoxication of power.
	Always, at every moment, There will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.
	If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.
	The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one.
	Don't let it happen.
	It depends on you.
	Indeed.
	Don't let it happen.
	It depends on you.
	We are continually the last defense.
	We are the last riders on Revere's ride.
	So it's up to us.

▲