Sean Fitzgerald, a libertarian YouTuber, critiques progressive media narratives on criminal justice cases like Michael Brown and George Floyd, calling Arizona’s $500-per-student "race camp" divisive indoctrination. He dismisses Vox’s meritocracy critique as flawed, citing immigrant groups outperforming white students despite systemic disparities, and accuses Hassan Piker of hypocrisy over his $2.7M LA home while attacking wealth. Fitzgerald also condemns Drag Queen Story Hour in schools, warning of psychological risks like "transgender clusters," and blames conservative politicians for avoiding legal pushback against perceived left-wing bias. His argument ties ideological surrender to broader cultural erosion, urging Canadian audiences to resist vaccine mandates before authorities solidify control. [Automatically generated summary]
I've done stories about Drag Queen Story Hour in public schools right here in the United States of America.
That's a program that started in San Francisco and it made its way from public libraries to public school classrooms.
So your tax dollars are paying for these people in a lot of places in this country to come and read to your kids in outrageous outfits.
Maybe not that outrageous, not yet.
Five years from now, conservatives will be in favor of those monkey dildo outfits in our public schools.
But it's happening across the country.
Like I have documented cases of it.
And people are like, oh, no, it's fine.
It's fine.
I remember I was part of an organization that wanted to not have Drag Queen Story Hour.
And I would get feedback from conservatives because, you know, they come up with a list of things of what we don't want in the classroom.
And they're like, that's a little extreme.
You're really trying to ideologically police the classroom.
It's like, do you not see what's happening here?
Like, this is this, they're so far beyond.
It's to your point earlier.
They've accepted such high levels of extremism in our everyday lives that you can't even say, don't have drag queens read stories about transitioning genders to our five-year-olds.
Sean Fitzgerald is a YouTuber and political commentator who focuses on social issues, media analysis, and current events.
He's been featured on Blaze TV and Timpool's Timcast.
We even started our YouTube channels a mere two months apart from each other.
Sean, thanks for joining me.
How are you doing today, good sir?
I'm doing good and I'm glad to be here.
I didn't know that about the two months apart thing.
Yeah, I checked that when I was going through some of your videos and I was like, I know I started watching him way back in the day.
And yeah, it was two months apart in 2016 that we started our YouTube channels.
Sean, I wanted to give people an idea of where you are, where you started.
Why did you start your whole channel and how did you get to this point?
Well, the way I started the channel was basically due to bad criminal justice coverage, since that's what I studied when I was in school.
Parental Indoctrination Camp00:15:55
Those are issues that I'm concerned about.
So a huge portion of my channel is dedicated to law-based videos or like the case of the day, like a Michael Brown or George Floyd or any of these familiar cases.
So I like to break those down and determine what's actually true versus what's being put forward by the media.
And in terms of where I am on the political spectrum, I would be considered like a right-leaning libertarian.
Now, a lot of the commentary on your channel is culture topics.
Like you said, there's the stuff about the cases of the day, but a lot of it is culture stuff.
And I think that's what drew me in the most way back in the day.
I want to show this video you had, which shows a vice piece about a race camp.
And I want to get you to explain it.
So let's go ahead and play that.
Ridiculous, absurd, insane.
And this is just the first 15 seconds of the video.
So this is what they call a privilege line.
They ask a series of questions about how you may be privileged in life.
And if you can see towards the front, it's mostly white male.
The vice guy explains the premise.
The point of the questions is not to determine anything objective.
It's not actually to determine privilege.
It's an exercise in ignorance, but the whole goal is to get white males to the front and black women to the back, which by the way, you could skip all these stupid steps and say, white males go to the front, black women go to the back.
Look at all this oppression that we've created artificially with our stupid ass questions.
If you do not have to think about race and racism every day, take a step forward.
So what exactly is the purpose of this camp, do you think?
It's really weird.
It is really strange.
Like, I think the purpose of the camp, if we're going to cut through all the nonsense, is for the guy who's running the camp to make $500 per student for five days' worth of courses.
But it's really an indoctrination camp.
Like, these kids are being taught about white privilege.
They're being taught to like hate their ancestry.
If they're not white, they're being taught to love their ancestry and that they're being oppressed by white people.
It's like the same shtick that we've heard about being taught in our schools.
And this camp is actually being run by a school teacher in the state of Arizona.
So, this guy in his off time is working in the public schools, but it's basically an indoctrination camp.
And one of the most interesting things about it is before they had this camp and they would teach like a colorblind approach.
And the guy is critical of that.
So, they've totally revamped it.
And now they're teaching racism of the gaps and all these other things that we've come to associate with the modern left.
Why would somebody really go to this camp?
Or if it's for children, why would they send their children there?
What do you think causes a person to be in this mindset?
Whereas they feel that they should be going to a camp where basically I'd imagine they used the terms deconstruct their whiteness.
I can't speak to what parents are thinking when they're doing that.
All I can hope for is that these aren't parents being tricked into sending their kids there.
One of the things that I found very troubling about the camp is you actually get community service credit, which is needed to graduate high school, from attending this thing.
And this is not community service.
This isn't anything of educational value, in my opinion.
But I would hope that it's just crummy parents that are going to teach their kids this crap anyway that are sending their students to this camp.
But overall, like it's a mixture of that, a mixture of we got to send our kids somewhere because we don't want them around during the summer, and a mixture of the school is actually giving them credit for attending this thing, which is ridiculous.
So, why do you think Vice has come a long way?
Why do you think they want to perpetuate something like this?
I don't see a lot of actual interaction with Vice as much as I used to because I think everybody knows what they're doing.
But why do you think Vice puts, what's the word, puts fuel to this fire?
Why do you think they present these types of topics?
I mean, it's interesting because Vice is known for going where people wouldn't normally go.
Like, North Korea is the big one, if you remember that segment, they go into war zones and all this.
If you see the intro for their old HBO show, you're like, oh, this is like a serious on-the-ground young guys doing news organization.
But these segments, they just all about promoting an ideology.
And we know where journalists tend to lead on the political spectrum in the United States of America.
I think this dates back to the university where journalists are taught not about finding truth, but they're taught about like being agents of social change, which is incompatible with being an objective reporter if you're literally promoting your agenda for social change.
So, I think that there's a belief among the people at Vice that this is an objective good for the world, and that's why they're sending their reporters out to these camps.
And interestingly enough, if you watch the segment carefully, they actually say that they're not allowed to film certain exercises at the camp.
So, they're going there, they're doing this propaganda piece for this camp, but they're not allowed to film the actual exercises.
So, they're being constrained by the camp.
They can only film what they're told to film, which is like the antithesis of what you expect from Vice, which again is known for going to places like North Korea.
Yeah, it used to be that you're not supposed to inject your feeling of this is what's right, and I must get it across because who are you to decide what people should or should not believe?
But now it's more of a, I have to do this, it's for the greater good to show, you know, that white people are advantaged in some way.
And not to say that they can't be, it's just that teaching children that they're inherently, you know, privileged or inherently disprivileged is a thing that I think everyone can agree hasn't worked out so far, or at least anyone that I'd respect and listen to.
Another wonderful publication called Vox, you did a video on, and they talked about meritocracy basically being one of the worst things in the world.
You covered this on your channel, and I felt like it was mainly having to do with meritocracy and academics was not the best way to progress and it was not a good thing for it to get into good schools or to advance in your social life through academics.
Let's just show a clip of what I'm talking about.
Did you think that there was meritocracy in the United States of America?
Well, let me just tell you, Vox is going to prove you wrong because it's not a meritocracy.
It's racist, sexist, and all these things combined together.
Let's get into the video.
This is my high school.
Murray Bertram High School for Business Careers.
As you can see, we're directly next to the tombs.
Yeah.
Surrounded by one police plaza.
So Bertram is viewed as one of the worst schools in the city.
Like I had to kind of join an elite group within this high school to stay afloat.
So we are less than 30 seconds into the video and the host of Glad You Asked, this lady right here, has already completely undercut the premise.
She talked about how she went to one of the worst high schools in New York City, but because she stuck with a good crowd, she was able to power through.
And now she's a successful race grifter on Vox getting funded by YouTube, our corporate overlords.
What a great show.
Totally appreciated.
Please, corporate overlords, be nice to me because I'm responding to the thing that you paid for.
Our meritocracy because it's based on competition.
Worship superiority rather than excellence.
Again, this is a weird framing of the United States of America that we worship superiority.
If you can't figure out where this is going, if you can't kind of gleam where this is heading, then you haven't been paying attention to this channel.
Maybe this is your first video.
If so, definitely subscribe.
Support me on Patreon, whatever.
It doesn't matter.
Support the sponsor.
I feel like for so much of my education and childhood, it was just like studying hard for tests specifically to prove that I'm good enough through tests.
So we hear everything is white supremacy these days.
What do you think?
And I always try to do this.
I was doing this on a show yesterday.
I want to try to find the best case scenario or give the biggest benefit of the doubt to the counter argument so that we can tackle it honestly.
What do you think is the best possible characterization of the argument presented in this meritocracy is a lie argument?
Well, I think there is, I think there is like some kernels of truth in this segment.
It's a terrible segment.
If you watch my video, you know that's how I feel about it.
But the idea that we have equal opportunity is just not something that is real.
Like we don't, and we shouldn't strive for it either, because in order to create a scenario for us to have equal opportunity, we would essentially have to kidnap children through the state when they're age four and put them through a government-run institution in order for them to all have the same exact shot.
Like we understand that when you have certain levels of freedom in a society, that your parents are going to succeed.
And it's human nature to want to protect and leave something for your children.
So obviously, current opportunities are skewed and altered by meritocratic decisions of the past.
And even the Vox segment recognizes this, that the former meritocrats are doing everything in their power to make sure their kids have an advantage.
Now, the disagreement that I would have with an organization like Vox is they'll look at the highest end private schools, say that they spend $70 something thousand dollars on their kids in those private schools.
And the American population's public schools are only spending like $12,500.
And they'll say, look, this is horrible.
We have to do something about it.
I point out in the video that the American government spends more on public education than any other school across the world.
So, any other school system.
So, like, we should try to increase the number of opportunities rather than striving toward this like fabled equal opportunity.
And one of the things that they do that is a huge problem, and you can see it throughout their segment, is they'll measure outcomes and work their way back to assume that there is no equal opportunity.
And that's also just not true.
You'll see certain kids performing in these failed schools, like the school featured with the host that she went to a failed school, and they have the same setup, the same opportunities as these other kids.
They're just outperforming them.
So, they downplay the individual choices.
They obviously target like the super high end of private schools and they use outcomes to measure lack of opportunity.
And it's just to me, it's nonsensical.
Again, equal opportunity is a fable.
We shouldn't strive for it.
We should strive for increasing the overall number of opportunities.
And every time we've done that, marginalized people throughout history have done better in our systems.
That's like the point of the SATs.
What would you say if I told you, like, as a socialist argument and counter to that, that if we had all the schools being exactly the same, there was no private, it was all only public schools, would it not then have still the best students outperforming each other?
And then, at the very least, they're all coming from the level playing field.
We'd still have a sort of meritocracy where the best performers would come out on top?
I mean, there's only so much you can do in the school system.
So, a lot of the decisions for children are made by the parents before those children are born.
So, we've seen throughout our history, Jewish kids, Italian kids, Asian kids outperform other kids and other demographics sitting right next to them in the classroom.
And that's because a lot of this comes from what's going on at home.
This is why, like, you can spend more money on the schools.
We've been trying this policy for decades in New Jersey.
It's actually unconstitutional for schools to not have equal funding in their public school system.
And it hasn't solved the problem because a lot of these problems stem from people's home lives.
Like, the government can't make your parents be together before they're born.
And Thomas Sowell refers to this as a cosmic injustice.
Like, sure, you are disadvantaged if you come from a single parent household.
That's a cosmic injustice.
But what do we do in response to that?
Do we try to give you the most amount of opportunities in your life going through the system and try to improve your chances of improving?
Or do we restrict the rights and freedoms of other people who weren't born with that cosmic injustice, punish them for mistakes made in the past?
And I don't think we punish current students and current parents who made good choices for the mistakes of other people in the name of some kind of equality.
That doesn't make sense.
That's not something I value.
I've spoken to a few guests, Sam Sorbo being one of them.
She's the wife of Kevin Sorbro, TV's Hercules in Canada.
She's all for abolishing public schools altogether, if I'm not misquoting her, would refer to it as an indoctrination center for the state.
How far would you be willing to go on that idea?
I mean, I would be in favor of massively expanding school choice because there are some people who can't afford to send their kids to school.
This is like the great bargain.
And, you know, schools are run on the local level, so there's a better constitutional case since the states can do things that the federal government can't hear.
But I would be in favor of expanding charter schools so parents can send their kids to schools.
Like one of the things that was featured in this video was the host talking about how she tried to apply into better schools, didn't get into them, and then she had to choose in the second round.
They criticize the idea that you would test into certain schools in the public school system.
But the alternative is you go to a zip code school.
And what we find in a lot of these zip code schools is that they're perpetual failures and they never face the consequences of those failures because they always have a supply of students.
So I would be for greatly expanding school choice.
We see people waiting online for lotteries.
Like it's one of the most frustrating things as somebody who watches the Republican Party fail in all these major cities to win over votes that you have people lining up for Republican policy, a charter school lottery, and they can't convert those people into voters.
So it's good politics in my mind.
And it's good for the parents to be able to have a more active role in the schools that they send their children to.
Because unlike a public school, unlike a zip code school, which always has a supply of students, if you feel like the charter school is failing your kids, you can take them out of the charter school and go to another one.
This little girl in this video, what do you think it says that instead of, you know, maybe she could work, I don't know how old she is, but maybe she could work a part-time job.
Maybe she'd work at a summer camp, hopefully not the one from the other video.
Maybe she could put more effort into her studies.
But what do you think it says that instead she's chosen to spend her time, you know, trying to prove that the meritocracy of the system she's in doesn't work?
Do you think there's a deeper lesson there?
Yeah, I think a lot of it is guilt because in the video she points out, and this happens a lot.
There's a lot of like rich kid communists who feel like their parents took care of everything for them.
Therefore, daddy government should take care of everything for everybody else.
But for her, this is somebody, and it's not just her and her sister who succeeded in the current public school system.
Since they were high-scoring kids, they were able to get scholarships and recommended programs and SAT prep.
And this is all in the video.
And she talks about how she feels bad for it because of it.
But like, those are opportunities that she earned as a child.
Even going to the bad school that she referenced, she talked about how she got through it because she hung out with an elite class of students within her school.
So a lot of that is guilt.
A lot of progressives have issues with cause and effect.
Like the reason she's successful is because she made choices to become successful.
Why Progressives Misattribute Success00:08:55
And I make the joke in the video that she got all these opportunities and now she's a race grifter at Vox.
So it's proof that meritocracy does work.
But even if we don't like what you end up becoming at the end of it.
Yeah, I think a lot of it is guilt.
And the words that were coming to my mind were: the victimization carries a lot of meritocracy in that environment, whereas you push a big victim narrative and you're going to get on Vox and have a good time there, probably making 60 grand a year until they close.
One of their officers like Huffington Post or something did here.
Oh, and that's a series put together by YouTube.
I feel like I have to emphasize this.
And every time I cover a part of it, it's a YouTube original.
So not only is she getting funded by the huge machine that is Vox, but also by YouTube to produce this content.
And there's one thing in that video that really bothered me.
And that was when they talked about the specialized high schools in New York City, which Bill de Blasio is actually pushing to get rid of.
And they were really upset because out of all the students that test into this school, and this is like a top of the line science school, 4% are black, 4% are Hispanic, about 20% are white, and 70% are Asian.
So they're trying to actually restrict opportunities for Asian kids who, again, we put them in the same classrooms as these black kids, as these Hispanic kids, as these white kids, and they continually outperform them on the test.
And we know that this is in part because they have a culture that emphasizes education.
They spend twice as much time on their homework as white kids, four times as much time as black kids.
And we're seeing the results of that meritocracy, but she looks in the face of that and calls it discrimination, as if the system was set up for Asian and Indian kids in this country.
It makes no sense.
Yes, I was going to mention Indian immigrants as well.
You have Koreans on the list.
You have Bangladeshi, I believe, Indians, a lot of immigrant groups of people outperforming white people.
And somehow that always gets overlooked.
Nigerians as well.
Nigerians.
There you go.
I wanted to transition into, I think, what your favorite topic is, the Young Turks.
I think, I'm pretty sure that's the first.
You mentioned Hassan Piker off air.
I think that's the first video of yours that I saw now thinking about it, him at Politicon versus Charlie Kirk.
I think that's how I got introduced to your channel.
Now, it's very entertaining to talk with the Young Turks.
I used to do it a lot on my own channel too.
They have a lot of pull on YouTube, so I think it's worthy to deconstruct their ideas because they're sort of propped up or were as the here's the independent news that's just bootstrapping it and they're getting by even though they're funded massively.
Hassan Piker, who I don't think he believes, or I don't think he works for them anymore.
Is that correct?
Yeah, he left the Young Turks.
He is Chank Uger, the founder's nephew, however, and he's a big Champaign socialist streamer.
He gets a lot of donations from streaming on Twitch.
And he recently received backlash for a large purchase of a $2.7 million home.
Someone called him out on it, some commentator I'm not familiar with.
And I want to read you his quote of his reply.
He says, quote, I live in LA.
The housing market here is effed.
Why is the argument that I should keep renting or that I should go gentrify somewhere else?
Will this solve the problems?
No.
A lot of spelling mistakes in this, producer Efron.
And I don't mean, I mean, they had to add all these different letters to make it make sense.
No, people are mad because lefty with a house.
That's it.
End quote.
Sorry for all my mid-commentary there, but do you have any opinion on his defense as to whether or not it's valid?
Or is it more of a do as I say, not as I do motif from a socialist?
How do you feel about that response?
Well, like, first of all, I have no problem with somebody becoming successful on Twitch and buying a home.
And I'm sure you don't have an issue with that either.
But where it gets entertaining is this is a guy who thinks that we should decommodify housing, as he said in a debate with Larry Elder on somebody else's show.
This is a guy who makes videos, and you can find them on his YouTube channel, from his Twitch channel, where he criticizes people showing off their homes, saying that they don't need that much of a home.
There's no social utility in that.
So, and also these people all were bagging on Dave Rubin for building his own house, which costs less than the house that Jenks' nephew bought.
And they were attacking Jimmy Dore like two months ago for spending $2 million on a house.
And Jimmy Dore is a married guy.
He has a family.
So like he's actually needs more space than somebody who's like a single guy living in LA.
So his point about like the arguments in defense of him or the that people are making is that he's just the victim of a capitalist system, that he's just trying to survive and all that.
I would love to try to survive in a $3 million home with a nice swimming pool, five bedrooms, five and a half bathrooms.
I thought these people were concerned about climate change.
Just think about how specs of his house.
Huh?
Oh, it was all in the original article.
Okay.
So that is what his house is then.
Yeah.
Five and a half bathrooms.
Yeah.
Five and a half bathrooms.
So think about the power usage.
Think about the water usage in this kind of place.
And these people complain about the evil capitalist, you know, starting up the climate change and all that.
So yeah, he has no defense for it.
He is a hypocrite in this.
And it really is a do-as-I-say, not-as-I-Do situation.
And this guy has a long history of that.
He got into a whole scandal when he was pulling in about $45,000 a month on Twitch where he wasn't paying his editor.
And his editor only asked for $1,000 for doing the editing for all the videos on his YouTube channel.
And he was pleading poverty.
He's like, I don't have that kind of money.
Now, if I was taking in $45,000 a month, I would damn sure have $1,000 left over if I needed to spend it on hiring somebody to do a job.
But again, these people are the ultimate hypocrites.
And it's another instance of somebody who doesn't feel like they earned it, turning to socialism, promoting it on the internet, because he has that feeling.
If he didn't earn it, then nobody else did.
This guy got his start from his uncle.
He used that to parlay it.
Congratulations to him into a Twitch career.
But it's always nagging at him that he didn't earn it.
So that's why he's promoting all these leftist values that he himself can't even live up to.
And his, I think the interpretation that I'm getting from that of he would go and gentrify another area.
I don't understand how going and buying a home, is he saying he should be going and buying a large condo around some poor people?
I don't understand that comparison where he's just going to automatically gentrify a place if he goes and purchases a house in a nice neighborhood or something.
Should he be redistributing his wealth?
Should he be living below the means that he's at now?
I mean, to be consistent, I think he should be doing that.
But that's not something I would ask of him because, like you said, he came from, he used to boast about making, I think, $50,000 a year on the Young Turks.
Now $4.55 million or $450,000 a year is a huge jump.
And maybe you're right.
Maybe he just can't handle living in this upper echelon and he's got to justify it somehow.
How do you think he squares it to himself?
He just rationalizes it.
It's like Bernie Sanders when he used to say millionaires and billionaires.
And after presidents, after his first presidential run, he wrote a book and it was a bestseller.
And somebody asked him, they're like, well, now that you're a millionaire, do you think that you were too critical of them?
And he's like, oh, well, I'm a millionaire.
But like the thing is, is I wrote a best-selling book.
And it's like, yeah, everybody who becomes wealthy for the most part, like it's only like 20% of people who inherit their wealth.
Everybody who becomes wealthy for the most part earned it through something.
And so they feel like, oh, wait, I earned it because I know the work that I put in.
But everybody else in all these different industries that I can't understand, that I can't quantify, they didn't earn it somehow.
It's a really weird juxtaposition.
And Bernie's even worse because Bernie's wife inherited money and that's how he bought one of his vacation homes.
And Bernie's always pushing to basically get rid of the, get rid of inheritance, raise the tax so high that nobody can inherit those sums of money.
So like, yeah, they all do this.
They all think that they're exempt.
They have their own rationalizations.
And again, it would be fine if he wasn't advocating for an authoritarian system that restricts people's rights to do what he's doing.
But yeah, it's just ridiculous.
It's the 0.01% of the 1%.
That reminds me, are the Young Turks still all about Bernie?
Battle Over Gender Norms00:07:55
Have they moved on to AOC or anything like that?
Because the last time I checked in with them a few months ago, it almost seemed like Chenk was the most sane one on the channel now.
I don't know where they're at now, though.
Yeah, I like that.
It's like an old strategy of the Young Turks where Jenk will have a bunch of goofballs on and then he'll say, actually, there's some nuance in there.
And then he'll make like a moderate version of that.
And you're like, oh, that sounds reasonable.
Jenkins is Mr. Reasonable.
He literally calls himself the most reasonable man in America.
And it's because he surrounds himself with clowns that he takes a little, he moves a little bit to the right on, and then he lectures them.
But they're still big Bernie people, but obviously, Bernie's age is going to prevent him from being able to run.
Biden has won the election.
So, like, they've moved on to AOC, who they helped get elect, by the way.
They founded Justice Democrats, or Jank did with Kyle Kalinsky.
So, that's somebody that they drafted to run for Congress.
So, they're still like pushing her.
You can go on their channel and you just search, they have like AOC destroyed this person, AOC owned this person.
It's like she says the dumbest things, and they'll cut it together and be like, She's like, owning everybody and destroying everyone.
It's pretty amusing.
Have you ever debated Kyle Kalinsky or Hadlock?
I've not debated Kyle Kalinsky.
I'd like to see that.
I'm not a fan of that at all.
The last thing I want to get to is you had a video where you were commenting on slightly offensive you were on their show.
Of course, we love them here.
Everybody on Blaze, I try to speak to very good people.
You're commenting on what I think is described as a slippery slope about Drag Queen Storytime.
And this hit me close to home, not because I'm a drag queen on my off time, but because it happens a lot here, the drag queen story times.
They did a whole tour a few months ago of our local libraries from where I'm from.
And I think this is what you're defining here is the slippery slope.
So let's watch that.
I've done stories about drag queen story hour in public schools right here in the United States of America.
That's a program that started in San Francisco and it made its way from public libraries to public school classrooms.
So your tax dollars are paying for these people in a lot of places in this country to come and read to your kids in outrageous outfits.
Maybe not that outrageous, not yet.
Five years from now, conservatives will be in favor of those monkey dildo outfits in our public schools, but it's happening across the country.
Like I have documented cases of it.
And people are like, oh, no, it's fine.
It's fine.
I remember I was part of an organization that wanted to not have drag queen story hour.
And I would get feedback from conservatives because, you know, they come up with a list of things of what we don't want in the classroom.
And they're like, that's a little extreme.
You're really trying to ideologically police the classroom.
It's like, do you not see what's happening here?
Like, this is this, they're so far beyond.
It's to your point earlier.
They've accepted such high levels of extremism in our everyday lives that you can't even say, don't have drag queens read stories about transitioning genders to our five-year-olds.
So do you think this idea that conservatives slowly shift their Overton window to the left, why do you think that happens?
Is it just party movement?
Is it, I mean, I'm sure people would argue that it's just progression.
What do you make of that?
Do you think it's a realistic thing?
I think there's like a fear, especially on the social issues.
Like everybody hears that left-wing propaganda of wrong side of history, wrong side of history.
And to say it doesn't affect conservatives is just absurd.
So like, that's why you'll see them abandon the gay marriage issue just, you know, like a year after it was a ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court and they don't talk about it anymore.
And like it's, it's a bit of a meme because people do exaggerate like what conservatives will accept next.
But this is a perfect example of this.
Like not very many people are talking about it.
And one of the points I was making on slightly offensive is that it's already in our public schools.
Like I've done videos.
I did a series or I do a series in conjunction with the David Horror Ritz Freedom Center where we talk about what's going on in the public schools.
So they're already doing drag queen story hour in our public schools and people don't want to fight.
They don't want to argue over these issues.
Like we put up when I was doing those videos for that organization, like they have a list of things that we could pass into law to prevent some of this stuff from happening.
And every time you bring it to conservative politicians, they're like, ah, I don't want to, I don't want to battle over that.
I don't want to put my ideology in the public schools.
And for some reason, they've taken the position that removing obvious left-wing bias ideology from the public schools is inserting their own ideology.
So, yeah, there's like a lack of will to fight.
There's this idea that, well, the left already has that.
So there's no need to battle over that because they're entrenched in that position.
And I find it ridiculous.
Like this Drag Queen Story Hour started at public libraries in San Francisco a few years ago.
And now it's in our public schools.
And in the UK, they have them walking around.
And I mean, I don't know if you could show the images on YouTube, but we were looking at them on slightly offensive.
They're walking around like with sex toys attached to them to read to our kids about gender transition.
Yeah, that was in the same episode.
And I feel like in terms of the slippery slope or the shifting window for conservatives, I feel like it's much closer here than it might even be.
You've got a lot of disappointing Republicans down there, don't get me wrong, some really good ones.
But up here, it's like, well, we don't necessarily, we're not for lockdowns, but we won't say that we're against them.
We're not for vaccine passports, but it's up to the provinces to decide.
So I think there's just that, you know, half of a, and to go metric on you, half of a centimeter difference between the two major parties here.
And it's only going to be a matter of time before we're like, you know, just let it go.
We'll, we'll find and we'll fight the next battle.
Do you want to just break down really simple for people who are viewing why you think drag queen speaking to young children is a harmful or bad idea?
Well, it's not just the idea that you're exposing kids because drag performers and people, if you talk to them honestly in the LGBT community, they'll be like, they show up at like gay clubs and they perform and their performances are sexual in nature.
And a lot of these drag queens have had issues where they're not supposed to be around children.
They're on a very special list in the United States of America due to previous crimes.
And you can look up the different instances of where they caught them on that.
But like these are adult-oriented performers and our schools, which is our taxpayer dollars, are paying them to come to our schools and read to children these like propaganda books about how you could change your sex and how there's not really any difference between men and women.
And we know that there's an impact on younger kids for a gender confusion.
We've seen things like these like transgender clusters where one kid in a friend group comes out as transgender and all of a sudden this weird like one in 10,000 thing appears across the friend group and you have eight or nine out of 10 people saying that they're some kind of like non-normal like gender or they have a different gender identity.
So it does have consequences.
And the whole point they state of reading these books and exposing children to this is to redefine and deconstruct what we consider to be sex and gender.
So they don't lie about what their intention is.
I'm just pointing out what they say that they're doing, that they're doing it, and that if you're a conservative, you should probably be opposed to it.
Wow, Sean, you sound like a bigot to me.
Actual Justice Warrior on YouTube.
Protests Against Lockdowns00:01:08
And I think, let's see if my memory serves me correct.
It's on the bottom of the screen.
I am Sean90 on Twitter.
Yeah.
Yeah, I read that today.
Steel trap of here, Sean.
Anything else you want to add to a Canadian audience?
Last words to you.
Yeah, I just want to say thank you guys for having me on.
I do appreciate it, Andrew.
But I will say these Canadians, I love the protests against the lockdowns.
I think you guys need to step it up a little bit.
You have to demand your freedoms.
Otherwise, you're not going to get them back.
We're already hearing about them extending the lockdowns potentially to 2022.
You have to fight back right now.
One of the best things that happened in this country was DeSantis and Greg Abbott saying, no, we're going to open up Texas now.
And it basically limits even what other areas can do in terms of these restrictions.
So individual provinces, if you can fight there, do it there, but you have to get out of this right now.
Like you can't afford to wait because they're just going to become more and more entrenched.
Okay, thanks a lot, Sean X. Actual Justice Wario on YouTube.