Dr. James Lindsay exposes Cultural Marxism—how Critical Race Theory (CRT) and identity politics, rooted in the Frankfurt School’s rebranded Marxist ideology, mirror class warfare by targeting "whiteness" as bourgeois property. His Race Marxism argues ESG metrics, pushed by BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, and the SEC, function like China’s social credit system, censoring dissent (e.g., suspending accounts for "deadnaming") while enforcing ideological compliance. Vaccine mandates, like Siobhan Branman’s lost job at NYC’s Department of Education, further erode liberties, uniting global coalitions—from teachers to first responders in Australia, Belgium, and Germany—against government overreach, yet media frames resistance as fringe or "alt-right," ignoring systemic bias. The debate reveals Marxism’s religious, authoritarian core, now weaponized to reshape corporate governance and public discourse. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, a feature-length interview with Dr. James Lindsay, PhD, the author of Race Marxism, and one of the few public intellectuals on the right.
Really smart cookie.
Let me invite you to watch it, but to watch it in video form too, not just to listen to it.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
You get my daily show in video form, plus four other weekly shows that we're making here at Rebel.
So there's a lot there.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
Tonight, a feature interview with Dr. James Lindsay on what he calls cultural Marxism.
It's March 22nd, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
There are not a lot of public intellectuals on the right.
I'm not sure why.
I think it's the same reason there's not a lot of comedians on the right or movie stars on the right.
I think the culture of the industry is against it.
And you either choose to go somewhere where you're liked or you're crushed and converted to be a leftist.
I also think that a lot of public intellectuals speak in a form of gobbledygook on purpose.
They use jargon.
They look to hide meaning, not make it plain.
We can think of conservative public intellectuals.
Jordan Peterson, I think, is the most profound example in recent years.
And the fact that he's a Canadian makes it all the more remarkable.
I think that conservatives generally are skeptical of public intellectuals, but when we find one who's conservative, we really value them because they're so rare.
It's sort of how I feel about conservative journalists and conservative lawyers.
They're a rarity and we need them on our side.
Our next guest is a public intellectual in every meaning of that word.
He is a PhD, though it's in math, one of the hard sciences.
He's demonized by every other public intellectual out there on the left because he's effective.
He's a good communicator.
When we had him on a couple months ago, it was a very popular show.
So we've invited him back and we're delighted to have him.
He's been in a lot of places since we met him last, including a stint on the Joe Rogan experience, the most popular podcast in America.
So his ideas are certainly getting out there.
There's so much to choose over.
What a pleasure to welcome back to the show Dr. James Lindsay, author of Race Marxism, a book about critical race theory and the boss of the new discourses.com website.
Well, Dr. Lindsay, I'm going to call you James just because I feel a sort of affection for you.
Give us an update on your travels.
I mean, you're taking a hardline stance.
People are trying to censor you and deplatform you, but from what I can tell, you've actually never had a bigger platform.
Tell me a little bit about your life over the past couple months since we talked to you.
Oh, man, I get everywhere.
Thanks for having me.
I just got back from Arizona State University where I spoke to their history and politics department.
And I, previous to that, spent a week in Oklahoma, a lot of time in the Oklahoma State House.
If you're looking at the map behind me and you see all the lines drawn on it, actually, those lines I've drawn on my world map on my wall are all the flights that I've taken since I've taken this project up.
And so you can see that I've been getting around.
There were very productive meetings in Oklahoma.
We're seeing a lot of activity and fire happening there.
So I'm going to be all over the U.S. coming soon.
And like you said, I appeared on Joe Rogan.
I went to Dallas and showed up with Glenn Beck.
I went to D.C. and talked to Sebastian Gorka.
So we're trying to get these ideas out there, get people to understand things about how critical race theory, for example, that's the book, really is race Marxism and how that ties into everything else that's happening around them.
It's one very small component of everything else that's happening around that everybody perceives now that something's very wrong.
So that's where I've been up, what I've been up to and where I'm going.
Yeah, so the book is called Race Marxism.
We'll have a shot of it on the screen.
I think race Marxism is plainer language.
I mentioned before one of the pitfalls of intellectuals and academics is that they use a 10-letter word where sometimes a five-letter rule will do.
And I'm guilty of that myself.
Critical race theory is hard to understand.
I think for most people, those words just don't really make sense.
They know what each of those words means separately, but you put them together.
What's that?
Whereas race Marxism, I think people sort of click pretty quickly there that you're transposing the Marxist, you know, the communist philosophy, which was about economics.
You're transposing it onto race.
Is that the meaning there, pretty much?
Yeah, that's literally all that it is.
It comes down, it's very simple.
We hear mysterious words like critical race theory, and then you can trace them backwards.
And like you said, they hide the language, but we hear other mysterious words within it, like whiteness.
And if you do enough digging and reading, you'll figure out that what they mean by whiteness is what Marx called bourgeois property.
Marx said that the essence of communism can be summarized in a single sentence.
This is in the Communist Manifesto, the abolition of private or bourgeois property.
And so what do we see within critical race theory?
Calls to abolish whiteness, calls to be less white, and so on.
And what was Marx trying to do?
Awaken class consciousness, not just in the proletariat, which would be tantamount to people of color to rebel against the system, but also within the bourgeoisie itself to try to divest of their own advantage.
And that's where you see critical whiteness studies trying to awaken what they call a white awareness of their so-called white fragility and every other thing.
It's just a complete remake of the Marxist picture, the Marxist program in a completely different non-economic domain.
It's now in a kind of identity-based cultural domain.
You know, it's really a brilliant idea.
I mean, communism, though it doesn't actually work as an economic system, it works as an ideology for power.
And so why not apply it to other things?
As you were showing how it transposes Marxism onto race, I was thinking of feminism because I think certain forms of feminism could be called gender Marxism.
All the oppressors are male.
All the, you know, the proletariat, the analogy here for the working class would be women.
And, you know, you have to be a male feminist.
You have to renounce your toxic masculinity.
So all the language, you just transpose it and it just really clicks over because I think it would be hard to appeal to wide swaths of the Western world on communist economics because so many people have such material comfort these days.
But if you can get them agitated over gender or race or these days, transgenderism, I guess you can motivate them, pit them against each other, and use it to destroy the establishment.
That's really the purpose, isn't it?
Yeah, you're exactly right.
Your analysis there of feminism or gender studies, whoever, whichever one you want to pick, there's race Marxism and critical race theory, gender and sex Marxism and feminism and gender studies, queer theory, sexuality Marxism.
We just don't use those terms because they've hidden them.
I mean, even the term critical race theory, just to kind of drag back for one second, critical race theory is, according to Kimberly Crenshaw, who wrote it, this is an example of how they hide what they're doing in different words, is a critical theory of race.
She says we were critical theorists who were interested in racial justice and racial justice advocates who were doing critical theory, so the name was natural.
That's how she came up with the name critical race theory.
But the name critical theory is actually a packaging up of something that other scholars have referred to as critical Marxism or Western Marxism.
So you call it critical theory as the thing that drives it, and people don't detect that it's Marxist.
And that arose out of a thing that's called the Institute for Social Research from Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany, the so-called Frankfurt School.
But the original name of that was the Institute for Marxism, but its funders, Felix Weil in particular, said, well, that would be a little too on the nose.
So let's not call it the Institute for Marxism.
Let's call it something else and hide the ball.
And this actually goes all the way back to Karl Marx.
You know, you talk about this as an ideology.
It's actually more of a religion.
And the original title of the Communist Manifesto, most people don't know this, and Engels is the one, Friedrich Engels is the one who said, don't do that, Carl, was the Confession of Communist Faith by Karl Marx.
And so this hiding the nature of what they're actually creating is the essence of how they are able to get it to be insinuated into institutions and into society and to agitate a society to its own downfall and for their own ability to seize power.
I got to imagine it's tough to talk about these things.
I mean, you're trying to defog things.
You're trying to bring clarity.
And you're right.
Even the word theory, theory is such a, it could mean anything, but Marxism is very specific.
Better get rid of the word Marxism and put in a generic neutral word.
But if you're a male taking on gender Marxism, it's tough.
You'll be called a misogynist.
If you're white taking on critical race theory or race Marxism, you'll probably be called racist.
I can imagine it's tough because you're taking on the blueprints.
You're taking on the Rosetta Stone, like the universal translator to understand what's going on.
Not only do they hate you because you're against them, but they hate you because you're exposing them and teaching people how to think critically about them.
I would imagine they would regard you as a threat.
What kind of pushback have you received for your book, Race Marxism?
Well, I mean, Jacobin Magazine just published a review of it, if we want to use the word review pretty loosely.
They say that I don't say anything at all and that I don't understand what I'm talking about, and that it's a very strange and very bad book.
That was the summary.
It's kind of an interesting thing because I tweeted a few weeks ago, I put on Twitter that one of my operational goals right now is to shift the conversation to where it's no longer an argument about is critical race theory Marxist or not, to shift it to is Marxism bad or why is Marxism bad?
And that's actually what the review that this guy in Jacobin magazine wrote, his name's Matt McManus, if you want to look him up.
He actually wrote that I never give an argument for why critical race theory is bad.
I just call it Marxism.
And so I'm trying to move the conversation in that direction because I think we understand.
But the kind of pushback that I get is still mostly academic.
I occasionally have protesters show up.
I did a talk in Delaware last November and a young man showed up and burned an American flag.
And I went out to talk to him and he said, well, there's a Nazi in there named James Lindsay.
And I said, okay, who's that?
I've never heard of him.
And then he said he's a Nazi.
He doesn't want to teach history.
He doesn't want to teach about slavery.
He hates critical race theory.
And I said, well, what's critical race theory?
And he said, it's teaching history.
It's obviously very misinformed.
Young man, I asked him, and he's 17 years old, so I didn't want to mess with him too much.
But, you know, so he burns a flag outside.
I've had Antifa showed up to one of my talks in Wisconsin.
The police kept them duly at bay.
I've had protesters show up to a few things.
Mostly, though, it's been okay and just kind of the online harassment one comes to expect these days.
But when I speak at universities so far, more or less universally, there's been a couple of small exceptions, have to speak off campus because it's too risky to bring a voice from my perspective or conservative in general on campus in many cases.
You said so many things.
I want to take on a few.
The first is I myself have had that experience of meeting a protester and being told, I'm here to protest Ezra Levant.
And I had to keep my face, like I had a camera with me.
I'm going to see if I can dig up that clip and we'll add it to the interview because I managed not to giggle or to give anything away.
And then I started talking about what she thought about Ezra Levant and what she would say to Ezra Levant if she ever met him.
I did enjoy that, but she was certainly sure that she didn't like that Ezra Levant character.
No, thank you.
You don't want to talk at a rally?
Not to the sun.
How come you don't want to talk to the sun?
Well, because you know why.
Why?
No, thank you.
Are we more critical than other media?
No, thank you.
Will you talk to other reporters?
Yeah.
Is there any other reporter you won't talk to besides the sun?
No.
Is it because I'm critical of the Line 9 protesters?
It's because Ezra.
You know?
And what do you think of Ezra?
Well, he's connected with ethical, ethical oil, unethical oil.
And if he had one message to say to Ezra, what would it be?
No comment.
Do you think Ezra's going to show up today?
I have no idea.
No idea.
What do you think Ezra looks like?
Do you think he's ugly?
Does that matter what his appearance looks like?
He thinks he's ugly.
Well, then.
He's got a low body self-image.
Well, that's his issue.
Any last messages for Ezra if I see him?
No.
No?
Okay, nice to meet you.
It's like the protester.
It's like the protester equivalent of can you find Ukraine on a map that they're going around doing right now?
Exactly.
That's exactly right.
I want to disagree with you on something because you say that you're, it sounds like you didn't really like that review in Jacobin magazine, but I'm going to disagree with you.
It is remarkable that your book was even reviewed.
Oh, I'm very excited about it.
Actually, I'm giddy that they decided to elevate, that I clearly have struck close enough to the core that they felt the need to write something and publish it.
Oh, yeah.
Well, I mean, even if every word they say is false and unfair, the fact that they treated it and responded to it in their own way, my experience, probably for close to 10 years now, is that the other side, I mean, Vladimir Lenin and Chairman Mao Zedong did not engage in debates.
They rounded up the other side and sent them to prison.
And Cambodia, anyone with glasses, was obviously a reader.
So they were just sent away.
Marxist Math Lessons00:13:36
They didn't have debates.
In fact, if you could debate, you were an enemy.
So the fact that your work, some parts of the left in America still engage, is remarkable.
I mean, we've published seven or eight best-selling books here at Rebel News.
Not a single one of them has been reviewed, even a hate review, even though I think six or seven of them have gone to number one on the Canadian bestseller charts.
They simply will not dignify us.
They call it deplatforming.
I'm sure you have it down there.
I want to come back then in a second.
I just want to say one more thing.
The fact that they're saying, well, he says Marxism is bad, but we don't think so, I think that shows you how deep you've got to go foundationally to respond.
I think that's, I'm now very curious.
I want to read that criticism of your book because it sounds like a good faith criticism.
You've got to go one level deeper to explain why Marxism is bad.
They're giving you their best response in that, James.
Yes, I fully agree.
And I really do want to drag the conversation in that direction to where now we are discussing not is it Marxism, but it's bad because it's Marxism and why is Marxism bad?
Let's reinvigorate that conversation.
Because like I said at the very beginning, critical race theory is a very small part of a much larger thing that's being pushed.
We've mentioned gender Marxism.
We've mentioned, we could say sexual Marxism with queer theory.
There's fat Marxism.
We see all these fat studies kinds of things coming around now where it's okay to be obese, obese is healthy, blah, blah, blah.
You know, all of this stuff.
Your doctor can't tell you you're obese because that's oppressing you or something like that.
And so these things are happening in multiple domains of identity at once.
That's the intersectional model, the identity Marxist model, as I call it.
And if we can get this back to people recognizing, okay, it's Marxist.
Well, why is Marxism bad?
Then we can go back to having the core conversation.
And even the biggest things that are happening, the sustainability goals that the UN is putting out, this is Marxism as well.
And when people start to recognize that and we start to talk about why Marxism is bad again, maybe we can actually stick our sword into the heartwood of this tree and kill it this time.
You know what?
We're going to go there because I've been following your Twitter feed, and I recommend everybody does the Twitter feed.
Your name online is Conceptual James.
We'll have that in the text under this video if people want to fly.
I find a very interesting compendium of the news of the day.
I think one of the reasons why people don't know why Marxism is bad is because I don't think we have a historical literacy.
I think the generation that fought Nazi totalitarianism is gone.
They've died.
And a lot of the generation that fought the Cold War or that held the line during the Cold War, you know, I mean, the Berlin Wall fell, what, I mean, more than 30 years ago.
A lot of that generation is gone or just, oh, that's old stuff, Grandpa.
I'm not bored.
That's boring.
Like, we're just too far removed.
You know, we've done streeters, as we call them.
We just go downtown Toronto, ask the most basic questions, like who fought.
Yeah, you ask, who fought in the Second World War?
People don't know basic historical elements.
So if they don't know what Marxism really was in real life, the only thing they've ever heard about it was from the college professors, if Bernie Sanders is what they think Marxism is, a friendly grandpa who wants to give them free everything.
It's not surprising that they like Marxism.
Marxism is what their cool professor taught them, what the hot girl in college was talking about, and what that friendly grandpa Bernie Sanders was talking about.
What's not to like about Marxism?
I like all those three things because I'm a 20-year-old kid.
Yeah, exactly.
And that's why I want that debate to come back up to the fore.
I want people to understand that we do need to be paying attention to Marxism and that Marxism is alive and well.
It's clothed itself in new terms.
It's reinvented itself and it's had a few twists and turns.
Like, for example, that it's now embedded in the corporate structure as opposed to being allegedly against the corporate structure.
So I want that debate to come up to the front so that especially younger people like you're pointing out will realize that this is what's happening and it is the catastrophe of our lives if we don't awaken to that fact and fight back against it and stop it from being implemented.
You know, I was watching the movie Apocalypse Now again, and it's a fascinating movie.
It's based on Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, but it was also a deep psychological critique of the Vietnam War, obviously.
And how many movies, in fact, you could say all of them, the TV show MASH, even though it was set in Korea, was a criticism of Vietnam.
Schindler's List, an extremely powerful movie.
I guess what I'm saying is there are movies that taught us what to think about Vietnam.
Schindler's List and countless movies taught us what to think about German Nazis.
But I could probably name on one hand's fingers the movies that have and the cultural TV shows that have shown us how horrific communism was.
There was The Lives of Others, a film set in East Germany.
I guess you could say The Death of Stalin is a dark comedy that sort of shows how appalling it was under Stalinism.
But the fact that I've named two and I'm almost running out of ones to name, we have not properly, the same way the West de-Nazified after the Second World War, we never de-Marxified after the fall of the Soviet Union.
We just didn't do it.
Yeah, it's a fundamental irony.
You know, we hear the critical race theorists tell us we have whitewashed education, that white supremacy has geared education so that it makes white people look good and glorifies white people and elevates white people and their role in history, etc.
But the fact of the matter is we have redwashed education.
We have had Marxists embedded in our education system since in the United States at least, since its public education inception with John Dewey, who modeled the public education system, his thoughts on it, and he was extremely influential in that, on what he witnessed when he visited the USSR in the early 1920s and thought it was the ideal model.
And then we have incorporated more and more Marxist theory into education, particularly through Paulo Ferreri in the 1970s and 80s or 80s in particular.
And so now our model of education is almost wholly that.
So a couple more films, you know, just in case people want to see them, there is a good film that came out a couple of years ago called Mr. Jones that documents the scandal around the story of the Ukrainian holodomor under Stalin.
And so it chases Gareth Jones, the reporter that broke the story that a democide was happening there.
And then the cover-up by Walter Duranti, who wrote famously Russians Hungry, Not Starving for the New York Times and got a Pulitzer.
The Chinese context, there's the red violin, which is a bit, if you've never seen it, it's a bit abstract.
It's hard to kind of figure out what you're seeing the first couple times you watch it.
But it's a chronicle of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
But there are very few films really, I mean, since kind of the old red dawn and all of that kind of thing, there are very few films really showing us the horrors and evils of communism.
And I think that the horrors and evils of communism, I don't even think that they are on a level with the horrors and evils of Nazism, which are terrible.
They're actually in excess of it.
They're larger.
And it is one of the biggest scandals of the last hundred years that there is not robust anti-communist education and media throughout all of the Western and free world.
You know, I remember that movie, The Red Violin, and I'm really glad you reminded me of it.
Yeah, I think They know the old saying, and it's been ascribed to everyone from the Jesuits to Hitler.
You know, give me a child for a few years and I have the man.
Or, you know, give me the child, I'll give you the man.
Or give me a child for one year.
I mean, there's variations on the theme.
If you get them young, and that's why government schools are so dangerous.
And that's why the teachers' colleges are so weaponized.
And that's why the secrecy of what goes on in the classroom, it was broken, I think, when a lot of parents saw their kids doing school by Zoom from home and they heard things that they had never imagined they would ever hear.
How would they hear them?
Because they're not in the class.
I think the phenomenon of parents overhearing what was going on in their classes is one of the reasons why there was a parents' uprising.
And in Virginia, it was enough of a tidal wave to sweep up the Democrats and sweep in the governor.
I think the number one issue in that race last November was schools and critical race theory and other Marxist ideas.
Absolutely.
And that's going to be across the country as well.
The parents' revolt is on and it's hot.
They're seeing what's happening in the schools.
A lot of that had to do, like you said, with the pandemic, giving us a direct window into that.
I've talked to parents all over the country who have been telling me, they say, James, you have to hear me.
You cannot get in as a parent into the schools to see what the teachers are doing.
They don't let you in.
It used to be if you wanted to go observe a class, I remember my parents doing it occasionally, it wasn't that hard.
You scheduled it, you showed up, you did it, and the parents are telling me they don't let you come in and see what's happening.
And the reason is because they didn't want it seen.
And then they started to see it over Zoom, and the assignments had to be done at home.
I just saw an example I shared on my Twitter feed a couple of hours ago from, and I put it in context of how it's extraordinarily Marxist, where there's an example of a mathematics lesson in a Pennsylvania high school.
I think it's a sophomore junior level or thereabouts.
And what they're doing is basic statistics.
But the statistics they're having the kids calculate are essentially like, if you're this race, what's the probability that you're going to live in poverty?
And so they're doing exactly like what the Chinese under the CCP and the Soviets under the USSR did, is they're shuttling the ideology into the shape of the question.
So the word problem is phrased in a paragraph that has political relevance.
And so they're subtly using a mathematics lesson about probability and statistics to indoctrinate.
And, you know, somebody immediately replied to me on Twitter and they said, oh, I don't see that.
This just seems like a great way to learn, you know, to connect to the relevance of the topic of probability and statistics because that's a socially relevant issue.
But imagine if the question, imagine what would happen.
Imagine how the left would react if the worksheet said, you know, an Asian woman is attacked in the city of New York or Toronto.
What's the probability, given these statistics, that her attacker was a black man?
People would go berserk, right?
And so they see it when it's the political ideology that they don't want supported, and they can't see it when it's a political ideology they think should be supported.
And that political blindness is where this is getting undue support.
But parents are getting wise to this.
And like you said, it's becoming the key issue.
Like I said, I just spent a week in Oklahoma in the State House and spoke with people from the governor on down through the House and Senate there all week.
And the issue is very close to the leading issue in that state right now, the issue of education, and parents being very concerned.
School choice is now becoming a leading issue across the United States.
I don't know how it works in Canada, but it's certainly becoming a key electoral issue across the United States right now.
So it is kind of the centerpiece.
Parents are realizing that their children are cannon fodder for a communist revolution slowly but surely, and they do not want their children to have that or to lose their freedom going forward.
I think one of the moments that I would say I grew up a bit was when I learned that millionaires, billionaires, Wall Street, high finance guys, they were capitalist, But that didn't mean they were conservative.
In fact, in many cases, they were anti-capitalist in their ideology, even though they—I mean, George Soros is a perfect example of that.
One of the richest men in the world, absolutely amoral in how he makes his money, and yet he funds anti-capitalism.
He could never have thrived or survived in another system.
But it was a realization to me when that's all of Wall Street.
And I don't know if that's just the mob, and if you disagree, you have to be quiet, or if there's some sort of rent-seeking or some, I don't know what it is, but it's astonishing how pro-left Wall Street is, just like Silicon Valley, which used to be about freedom, but it's incredibly pro-left.
Funds Fueling Wokeism00:12:39
And eventually that works its way through the rules and the regs.
I want to show this clip on how what is called ESG, which you remind me stands for environmentalism.
Social governance.
So this is basically wokeism in companies is now going to be something that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will demand filings from companies about.
They used to file, you know, management discussions of risks to the company and their financial statements and if there's any material news.
And now they have to go through this woke checklist.
Here's a clip of the SEC getting ready to deploy this, I'm going to call it critical theory.
Take a look.
As you've heard, today the Commission is considering proposing rules to enhance and standardize climate disclosure.
These proposals would require public companies to provide in their registration statements and annual reports certain information on risks that climate poses to short, medium, and long-term financial performance and on steps the company plans to take to mitigate this risk, such as an internal carbon price if there is one, scenario analysis if the company does it, transition plans if the company has them, or targets if the company has set them.
Public companies would also disclose governance around climate issues.
Besides the disclosures on risk and on the company's response, the proposed rules would require disclosure on current financial impacts and on financial expenditures due to climate-related events and transition activities.
Finally, the rule would require disclosure about the carbon footprint through scopes one and two, GHG emissions, and scope three, if scope three emissions are material or used as part of a climate-related target or goal.
So what exactly was that?
I mean, who are those people?
How would this come in?
All of a sudden, now companies would have to hire all these, quote, experts in ESG.
So that would create an industry for these otherwise unemployable wokists.
They'd obviously be six-figure jobs.
And their chief recommendation would be to hire them more, I would imagine, and to make payments Al Sharpton style or Jesse Jackson style to pressure groups.
It's basically to ratchet, sorry, to clamp on like a barnacle to the side of a ship and just sail through the seas on these big companies.
And I bet there's not a single CEO who's against it.
Well, I mean, if you want to you can compare it to the mob, you can compare it to the capital P Party, the Soviet party or whatever you want.
But this is what it is.
And so what we're actually witnessing there is the final stage, where what we have is this ESG measurement statistic or set of measurement statistics has been being used by large asset management firms like Vanguard, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, et cetera, for a while, a decade maybe.
And it is effectively a social credit system for corporations.
They've created this nonsense claim that if people are environmentally responsible according to their dictates, if they are socially just according to their measurements of that, and if they have good corporate governance practices according to their definitions of those things, then those companies are more sustainable long-term and they're a better long-term investment.
So that was the scam that they started with, investment capital, asset management, pension fund management, et cetera, and ensnared banks, institutions, and the vast majority of large corporations by creating a fraudulent social credit system that ranks companies in terms of this vague thing called their long-term sustainability,
long-term profitability that was going to be able to be determined by stakeholders who are experts in environmental policy, social justice, and best practices in corporate governance.
But we see that these things are actually quite arbitrary.
Environmental policy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with actual environmental policy.
We made billions and billions of masks that are now floating around in the ocean, for example.
Environmental policy has to do with pushing their green energy revolution, which allows them to control the entire business world, the entire manufacturing and industry world, according to their dictates of what is good environmental policy and what isn't.
And of course, that's not applied equally.
It's applied equitably so that countries like China get exemptions, whereas companies like the United States and Great Britain and Canada get smashed with their policies.
Social justice is just a gigantic communist scam anyway.
Corporate governance scores primarily go up by, like you said, installing these political officers, these ESG officers or diversity, equity, and inclusion consultants or EDI, DEI, depending on how they order the letters, consultants and officers in institutions and companies.
Why are the universities creating such gigantic bureaucratic apparatuses filled with hundreds sometimes of deans of diversity, equity, and inclusion in every department?
Well, because their ESG score goes up.
And why would an institution like a university care about its ESG score?
Because its ESG score is linked to how its pension funds are managed.
That's how.
That's why.
All the big money is tied up with that.
And every corporation, whether they agree, you said you don't know about CEOs agreeing with it or not.
It doesn't matter if they agree with it or not.
It's like the ring, it's like the bull on Wall Street has a ring through its nose, and that ring is called ESG, and it's getting jerked around.
So any corporate executive that's not an idiot is going to go along with it, whether he thinks it's fake or not.
And I happen to know that lots and lots of them do think it's bad and fake and damaging and a catastrophe in the making, but they don't have an exit ramp from it because they've got this.
And so what we see in that clip is the SEC is now, the government is now adopting this and making it into policy.
So now we actually have what the World Economic Forum and International Monetary Fund, for example, have been referring to for a long time as a stakeholder capitalist model, the public-private partnership coming into full fruition.
The public and the private sectors are now fusing by the SEC taking the step of Also, using this ESG-based metric to jerk around companies and to regulate companies.
And of course, the biggest corporations that are all kind of in this cartel can survive this and can mutually benefit from for a while anyway by keeping it up.
And all competition is going to be absolutely squashed out because it's too expensive to hire all these six-figure commissars.
It's too expensive to implement these policies.
It's too expensive to rely wholly on green energy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So they can enter into our new sustainable future that is the new completely administered economy that will eventually work out perfectly.
It is the global bid for communism coming in through the corporations, coming in through the asset managers under the brand name of ESG.
You know, I think your comparison of the Chinese social credit score is apt.
You know, you made me think of something I hadn't thought of in years.
In my book, Ethical Oil, The Case for Canada's Oil Sands, you take ethical and oil, you put those two words together, a lot of people are sort of startled, but you make the case: look, Canadian oil, American oil is made more ethically than oil in OPEC dictatorships or Russia.
It's a pretty easy argument, actually, whether it's environmental, peace, how you pay the workers, civil rights, whatever.
When I was doing that book, I looked at investment firms, investment funds that said we will never invest in the oil sands.
They were divesting from the oil sands or even indeed from all fossil fuels.
And when I looked, I just went online and I looked at what these funds held.
And these so-called ethical funds, almost all of them had big investments in China and not just general investments.
I remember there was one that invested in that railway into Tibet, which has been universally regarded as a not only the building of that railway as a human rights violation, but the purpose was to import millions of ethnically hand Chinese people to dilute and really destroy Tibet in the same way that the Soviet Union would Russify the ethnic republics.
I mean, you can have your opinions on those things one way or the other, but the fact is, these were ethical funds saying we will never invest in Canadian oil, but we're going to invest in the Chinese Communist Party railway.
And when you contact these folks, and I contacted some of them, like, why are you in there?
And they would say, well, you see, by being at the table, we can bring a shareholder's resolution to chide the companies and ask them to do that.
Now, they do bring those shareholders' resolutions, but they never carry the day.
So so-called ethical funds are actually unethical funds.
They're in all the bad companies.
They're loving it.
They just give themselves an excuse by saying they're passing resolutions once a year that they're introducing resolutions at annual shareholders' meetings that are ignored every time.
And I think that's what this ESG business is.
And in fact, diversity inclusion and DIE.
I think these things are just a preemptive attack on the other guy and an excusology for yourself.
That's right.
They're a shield of virtue and a sword of conquer in each hand.
So you're holding up the shield of I care about the environment, I care about social issues, I have responsible government.
You shield yourself from criticism.
You're the virtuous side.
Meanwhile, you're literally wielding a sword that will destroy all of your competition or that it will divide and conquer a population.
And so it's a sword and a shield at the same time.
And they are also instruments, though, and it's very important to understand this, of arbitrary power.
So the best one that recent events have brought to bear is this S score, this social score.
So you don't normally associate the left with being big fans of, say, Halliburton or the military-industrial complex or maybe Dick Cheney or something like this.
But, given the conflict in Ukraine and the way that Russia has been framed with this and the way that there have been these requests from Zelensky for weapons and fighter jets and all of these things, there's now a push at the level of these big asset managers and everybody else that makes these decisions at those tables to talk about the idea of arms manufacturing, raising your S-score under ESG, because creating the weapons can create the ability to fight the war the way they want to fight it and therefore be.
a long-term social good to fight the tyranny of the Russians that try to throw out this narrative.
And so your S score, your social justice score that's supposed to be about helping people and equitable this and that is now able to be raised by building bombs that you're going to go drop on Russians specifically.
So your S score goes up by contributing to the war effort against, let's say, East Asia, with whom we've always been at war, if we want to reference Orwell here.
And so whoever the regime, whoever decides what ESG means, can decide that arms manufacturing or drug manufacturing or whatever it happens to be to achieve whatever goal, to target whoever their enemies are, raises your social score because that's a social good.
Well, what that is, is a direct clear window into the fact that this is the application of arbitrary power by people who want to impose their vision on the world.
And they have, like I said, a ring through the nose of the Bull of Wall Street and can pull around all of the power that the entire finance industry commands, including what that does within other companies.
For example, the tech companies are then going to be pulled around by this same ring in the nose.
And so they're going to do the bidding as well.
And you can kind of start to see how the cartel was formed that made this global tyranny or bid at global tyranny actually possible.
And yes, the Chinese social credit system, the Chinese surveillance system is the practice.
It's the beta test for can this work globally.
Censorship's Reach00:14:04
You know, I enjoy our conversation and thank you.
I jotted down a few notes I wanted to run by you.
We talked about race Marxism and gender Marxism.
We briefly mentioned fat studies.
That's if I ever go back to college and need an easy PhD, I'm already a bit of an expert on the subject.
But I've never seen censorship as fast and as vicious.
And we talk about controversial things here, whether it's radical Islam or we're skeptics of the big pharma response to the pandemic.
There's a lot of things we're very skeptical about, and we sometimes get our knuckles wrapped by censors.
But it is my observation that there is nothing that gets a faster or harsher censorship in 2022 than criticizing transgenderism.
On Twitter, if you, quote, misgender someone, that is, call a trans woman a man, or if you dead name someone, that is, mention the name their mama gave them, so it would be like calling Muhammad Ali cassius clay, you are instantly and irrevocably suspended.
And the Babylon B, which I think is the most successful satire site on the right, one of the very few, was just suspended for calling this admiral in the Biden administration who's a transgender woman, calling her or him man of the year is really quite funny, suspended.
And when an editor of the Babylon B said, oh, I guess all we have to do is kill some Uyghurs and we'll be fine, Uyghurs being the Muslim ethnic group in China, the allusion being to the fact that China's dictatorship is fine on Twitter, but not the Babylon B.
Well, he was suspended, too.
I've never seen such a hair-trigger censorship as on the transgender issue.
What do you make of that?
I mean, you see this censorship across the board.
It's easy to pick out big examples like the satirical Babel and B. You could also point out to smaller examples.
Several of my friends were also knocked off of Twitter briefly or permanently for similar issues.
Dr. Rollergator, who many people appreciate, for example, it's a funny little satire account.
Wocal Distance, he's one of your people in Canada who exposes the woke ideology, also mentioned the mail thing and got knocked out.
There are two reasons.
And one is the superficial, practical reason.
They do this bidding and their social score stays high.
They don't do this bidding and they're going to get docked on their social score.
ESG goes up or down.
They're playing on a different playground than everybody thinks they're playing on.
The playground they're playing on is how do I keep my ESG score high?
Which how do I play in this high capital framework that's got a cartel running it now?
And the deeper reason is actually because the people who run this cartel believe, just like Marx, that essentially the limits of what you can think or imagine are what dictates society.
And what dictates society is what dictates who you are or who people can be and what the range of mankind and society and its goals can be.
You shape society by affecting the range of somebody's subjective experience.
And so if we read, for example, the Marxist Herbert Marcuse from the 1960s, 1965, he writes repressive tolerance.
He says right-wingers, reactionaries, have to be prevented not just from acting on their reactionary interests, and reactionary for him means everybody who's not a socialist or a communist.
They have to not just be prevented from acting on their ideas.
They have to be prevented from having the idea ever enter their mind.
He actually says that explicitly.
He says, of course, this would be censorship and even pre-censorship.
But it's necessary to deal with the fact of the already damaging and proto-fascistic society that we automatically live in.
He says it's only justifiable in a state of clear and present danger, but that's the permanent state of the existing society because it's not going communist fast enough.
And so this is the mindset of the people who are wielding the arbitrary power of the ESG metric, is that if you shape what people are able to think, then you shape the limits of their subjective range and their communicative range.
Then you shape the movements that can form and flourish and the movements that cannot form and flourish.
And so they are absolutely desperate to control the narrative at every level and to control the very idea that misinformation or disinformation, which means things they don't want you to think or know, that the idea can ever even get into the head of somebody who might oppose them.
And so that's why they're so quick and so strong to do it.
And the reason that it gets applied is because they've created a cartel system measured in ESG scores that rewards companies that play along like Twitter or Facebook and that punishes severely companies that don't.
Not to mention the fact that people like Mark Zuckerberg are probably in on the game.
Certainly the new CEO of Twitter is pretty highly invested in this concept of social justice and sustainability.
It's quite public that he is.
So they are true believers to some degree as well.
But they are also pulled along by those currents.
I don't want to put all the blame just on the ESG portfolios because these people are actually instrumental in having created them and believe this themselves.
But these are the reasons.
The ideology believes that they must control what people are able to think.
In other words, they don't care as much about your free speech as they do about your freedom to think, your cognitive liberty.
They don't want the idea to enter your mind.
And then, secondly, they've created a cartel system to enforce that, and the scoring is very straightforward and very easy to manipulate companies that have this kind of censorship power directly with.
We're talking with Dr. James Lindsay, author of Race, Marxism, and the boss of newdiscourses.com.
You know, when you were talking about how you erase the words, soon you erase the thoughts.
And I've thought that the book 1984 by Orwell, who you've referenced a couple times now, one of the important parts of it is the new language they were inventing called NewSpeak.
And it reminds me a little bit of George Soros's original.
George Soros was born George Schwartz, obviously.
Soros is sort of a made-up name.
And he was one of the few native Esperanto speakers.
I don't know if you know that about George Soros.
His father was a deep believer in a human-engineered artificial language for people called Esperanto that was supposed to be easier and sort of like the metric system compared to the imperial weights and measures.
It all made sense.
Everything like a centimeter is one-tenth of a decimeter and a meter.
It's just so much more sense than shillings and pounds and bushels.
Esperanto never caught on, but it was a human engineering attempt.
And I think that Newspeak in 1984 was the same thing.
And there's this wonderful passage where Orwell talks about the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
If you slowly eliminate words, like reduce the vocabulary fewer and fewer and fewer and fewer words, and then just have un, like good and ungood, and double plus ungood.
Like you take 100 words out of the vocabulary, it's just good, and then yes, no, and degrees.
And that was NewSpeak.
They were trying to engineer new ways of speaking.
And the idea was to remove the possibility of having those thoughts at all.
Because I think it's true that a lot of people think with words.
I don't know if it's even possible to think without language.
I'm sure it is, but I think that's what they're doing here.
And I think they always want you on the back foot.
They always want you on the defensive.
That's why certain terms, I think, are like in Canada, we used to say Indian, then we said First Nations.
Now it's Indigenous people.
If you say Aboriginal, well, that was official 20 years ago, but now that's a sign that you're intolerant.
I think it's to reduce what you can think of and always put you on the defensive.
What do you think of that?
I agree.
It's a funny little sidebar since we like to pick George Soros.
Soros is Esperanto and is an Esperanto word.
I forgot what it means, but it's a pun in Hungarian.
It sounds very similar to the word for dog poop in Hungarian.
And of course, Soros is a Hungarian guy, so the Hungarians kind of make fun of this, or so a Hungarian person told me anyway.
Maybe that's not quite right, but it's an amusing fact-ish, effectoid, I guess, fact-shaped thing.
Anyway, you are correct.
The goals are, as you said, it is to limit the range in which you can think and to limit the way that you're going to think about things.
It's to morally color the way that you're going to think about everything, good and ungood, for example.
So we're going to now also contour the language and we're going to change the range of acceptable language, as you said, so everybody stays on the defensive.
Because if they can tell you, you know, you can't call them, say, Indians anymore.
You have to call them Aboriginal.
And then you say, okay, and you catch up and you start calling, they badger you every time you get it wrong and you finally catch on.
And then as soon as you're kind of comfortable calling them Aboriginal, they say, no, it's First Nations now.
And then you say, you go through the whole process again.
And then, no, now it's indigenous peoples or whatever it happens to be, whatever order they happen to do it in.
If they're kind of keeping you unable to be secure and being able to communicate what you mean and constantly able to badger you, they can keep you on the defensive.
They can keep you, this is kind of a cult grooming technique.
And they can also, they're also cowing you.
You're following their orders to play this game repeatedly.
They are dictating the way that you're going to speak about things, the way that you are going to think about things.
And they think that the way that you speak and think and the way that society is structured are much more deeply intertwined than they probably are in reality.
This is actually the school of structuralism that arose out of the Marxist linguistic theory that arose in France.
They really think that these things are deeply intertwined for the reasons that I just explained from Marxist philosophy.
And so these are the kind of magic spells that they're trying to use with language.
There are other deeper ones as well.
They'll use these language changes to enact political policies.
I don't know what the direction was, but the example you gave.
But when you get to, I've seen in the United States that we've transferred, not got to the point, I should say, of calling Native Americans.
We no longer call them that.
We call them First Americans.
But this is calling them First Americans, of course, on the surface, just okay, they were here first.
But what that also includes is a political claim that can be eventually enacted, which is they're first.
They have the legitimate right to having been here.
And so all of a sudden, you can get people conditioned one step after another to adopt a politically activist stance that doesn't feel activist in the moment.
And then you get called crazy for saying there's an activist dimension to it until they have enough power to spring the activism on you.
And so, you know, this is the same with land acknowledgements.
In our country, we have a Fourth Amendment prohibition on the seizure of property, but it doesn't apply to stolen property.
So if you say we do our work on stolen land over and over again, and it was stolen from the first Americans, then what you're slowly doing is setting up a legal argument to have your assets seized later when they decide that they want to take that up.
You know, the use of language, I mean, I don't think the phrase cisgender, CIS hyphen gender, has been in the popular lingo for more than five years, but I see it everywhere.
And people putting their pronouns in their email signature files and their Twitter biographies.
The law societies in Canada are now talking about compelling lawyers to put he, him, they, them, g, jur, like compelling people to do this.
There's a madness there.
And I think that, like, I mean, I say he, her, but to force me to describe myself as a gender or as a race is forcing me into one of these structures of Marxism.
Like, I demand that you see me as part of this identity group or that identity group.
And by the way, if I say something unusual like g and jur, I'm putting a little booby trap for you there that you better not step in it because otherwise you've created a little microaggression ready to happen.
Like it's, it's, it's truly madness, this compelling people to use these strange new words.
Let me tell you something that's going to sound positively insane.
And so do what you want.
But the logical conclusion of that behavior, in fact, this is a kind of symbolic beginning to the famous situation where, say, when Stalin would come up to speak, everyone would clap and famously for 10, 12, 15, 20 minutes, everybody standing and clapping, giving an ovation because they know whoever stops clapping first is going to get shot.
That's what's being replicated here in microcosm with the compelling of putting people's pronouns.
As for the word cis as in cis gender, this is a misappropriation of something that occurs in chemistry.
It is, in fact, nonsense.
The meaning of the word trans versus cis in chemistry does not homomorphically transform over into the realm of gender.
It is a completely manufactured synthetic term.
And I use the term synthetic there very intentionally.
Synthetic Terms Debate00:02:48
People will know what I'm talking about.
The synthetic process of Marxism being dialectical.
And this is exactly what we're staring at in the face.
This is what we are being compelled gently and increasingly coercively and forcefully into.
And like I said, it sounds positively crazy, but I'm telling you, the logical conclusion of this under the brand name today of belonging, we just want a university where everybody belongs, is that whoever the party apparachiks are, you had better clap for them and clap for them and clap for them and clap for them because whoever stops first is going to the gulag or is going to be shot.
Well, listen, James, I've got five more subjects here on my piece of paper we haven't even touched, but I know we've gone on for an hour.
I'm really grateful to you for how much time you've given us.
And I know that you can hold court for much longer.
You were on the Joe Rogan experience.
Give me just 30 seconds on how that came about and what that was like, and then we'll let you go because I'd love to talk to you for three hours, but I don't know if you've got the time.
And don't worry, I won't trap you.
Just give me one minute on going on Joe Rogan, the most influential podcast, perhaps in the world.
Well, I mean, this is going to make me sound a whole lot cooler than I am.
But how did that come about?
Joe texted me and said, your Twitter is awesome.
Do you want to come back on the show?
And I said, yes.
And that's really what happened.
And so that, I mean, I could show people the text.
They got him on December 16th.
And so I remember.
And so we set it up.
We went on the show.
People ask me all the time, what's it like to go on Joe Rogan?
What's Joe Rogan like in person?
I'll tell you, Joe Rogan on the show is Joe Rogan in real life.
I got to actually, we actually, even cooler, went and hung out the night before the show.
And so the Joe Rogan you see on the episode of his podcast is literally him.
He's a very authentic guy.
I think it's a great conversation to have.
He's wonderful.
He's one of the most accepting and interested interviewers I've ever spoken with.
He talks to people all over the place.
He wants to understand.
He wants to know things.
He doesn't want to get things wrong.
He's very fastidious about, you know, hey, Jamie, pull that up.
Let's double check it.
So it's a great experience.
And it's, you know, really kind of cool that, you know, he had my phone number and he texted me and said, you know, do you want to come on the show?
And I said, yeah, sure, let's do it.
Well, that's an amazing exposure.
And I have no doubt that it's helped spread your ideas.
And I'm glad for that.
Well, listen, it's great to catch up with you.
We'll have to do it again in a few months.
You're doing so many things.
I'll keep following you on Twitter and encourage my friends to do so.
The Twitter account is ConceptualJames.
The man is Dr. James Lindsay, PhD, author of the book Race Marxism, and the boss of the website, newdiscourses.com.
Mandates and Restrictions Fear00:13:54
Thanks so much.
Great to catch up with you.
Talk to you again.
Yeah, for sure.
Thank you.
Right on.
Stay with us.
Your letters to me next.
Well, what did you think of that?
Dr. James Lindsay, pretty smart cookie.
I didn't understand every single reference.
I didn't know all of the authors and philosophers he refers to.
He's obviously done a lot of historical reading, which is why he understands the deep roots of certain kinds of feminism and other isms, including cultural and racial Marxism.
I'm glad he's out there fighting the good fight, and it sounds like he's having fun doing it, and he's getting a good audience, whether it's speaking at schools or the media or even with politicians.
I'm glad he took an hour to catch up with us.
Here is a letter.
Belmont family says in reference to Rachel Emmanuel, she might make a good rebel.
You know, I had the exact same thought when I spoke to her, but I don't want to steal her away from Western standard.
I'm glad she's there.
Someone nicknamed Angels and Dragons says they didn't want it to be called a racist banner for legal reasons.
Racist scarfs are different.
You know what?
I'm not sure how different they are.
I suppose a banner suggests that it was like a political decision to begin with, whereas a scarf is more like a fashion accessory.
I don't know.
I don't think a lot turns on it.
What does turn on it is that Christia Freeland undoubtedly knew exactly what she was doing when she was wearing a bandara, call it a banner or a scarf.
I think that Christia Freeland is not as far away from her Nazi grandfather as she should be.
And the fact that she and the Canadian government specifically are supporting the Azov Battalion, which is an overtly neo-Nazi group, I think that's troubling, and I think more people should ask about it.
I don't think that that necessarily makes Putin the good guy, but I'm saying that a Nazi is a Nazi, and these guys really do, you know, give the Hitler salute and talk about Nazism.
Not all Ukrainians, of course, not even a small fraction of them, but there is that Azov Battalion, which is a true Nazi paramilitary group.
It's just a fact.
Anyways, thanks for your feedback.
Let me leave you with our video of the day.
One of our newest rebels who's working for us at this point on a freelance basis, but maybe it'll grow into something more.
Siobhan Branman in New York City goes to the Worldwide Rally for Freedom.
I like this video, and it's fun to have boots on the ground in the States.
I'll say goodbye to you now.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters to you at home, good night and keep fighting for freedom.
Hello, my name is Siobhan Branman.
It is March 19, 2022, and I'm in Times Square at the Worldwide Freedom Rally where people are gathering to protest for the right to freedom of speech, movement, choice, assembly, and health.
So how have the COVID policies affected you?
Well, foremost, they've affected me by taking my job away.
Even though I worked at the Department of Education for 15 years working with special education children.
So, throughout the height of COVID, we did our jobs.
And now, as things are tapering off, we're firefighters, first responders are being fired over this.
And people need to understand that's putting people's lives at risk.
For me personally, I'm a teacher in Jersey City.
I work with a lot of kids that are in really tough situations.
Early on, I did get the shot.
I haven't been boosted or anything, but I see it every day with my colleagues, the way it's to fracture people, the way it's fractured traditional political alliances.
I mean, I don't want to just sound conspiratorial, but it's about as psyopy as it seems.
I'm personally facing a April 1st deadline to get vaxx, bullshots.
Otherwise, I'm not sure what they're going to do.
They might just can the lot of us in the middle of a semester, which is going to create chaos.
Are there a lot of teachers in CUNY who are also fighting the mandates or not?
I can't say that there's a lot.
There's a few.
Right now, nine firefighters have been fired.
And I believe over 20 EMS workers have been fired.
And there are 600 right now pending religious exemptions.
And a couple of hundred have been put on leave without pay.
And I'm one of them.
And my husband is one of them.
I was one of those that was affected due to the mandates that went in effect back in September 2021.
And I'm just demanding we all need to have equal rights vaccine at our own backs.
Why do you think it's important to push back against mandates?
Mandates are just a violation of the most basic civil rights over your own body.
Because I think what we're just seeing is the tip of the iceberg of the control mechanisms that they want to implement on us as citizens.
And we can't let that happen.
And when you look at history and any revolution that has ever been fought, it always starts off with what they call a fringe movement.
But it's really we're the voices that are bubbling over and people have had enough and people are scared to speak out.
And in that group of people, there has to be someone that finally says, enough.
We can't stand for this.
Yeah, it's extremely important to push back because there's government overreach that step on the rights of individuals.
And a lot of these are politicized ways of looking at public policy and public health where there's a whole diversity and spectrum of opinions by medical professionals.
And when there's a monolithic pattern that everyone has to be crushed into, undoubtedly there's going to be violence done to the conscience and rights of others.
The people coming together for one united thing, I don't think they planned on this, right?
They were planning on us rolling over, complying, and moving on to the next thing.
But look behind us.
We have an army.
And we have connected with all over the nation, with first responders all over the world.
We have seven different countries that we partner with, Australia, Belgium, Germany.
We're having conversations worldwide, connecting on one common goal.
That's the biggest fear that the government can have right now is the people standing up for one cause, not being segregated and divided anymore.
Well, because if they start with those kind of restrictions, the government can use any type of emergency to do more, to take more away from our freedoms.
And so regardless of whatever emergency that there might be, we still own it to ourselves to still have our individual rights.
The mandates aren't over.
This is simply what you can call this halftime of the halftime show, you know?
And people just like think like, I mean, it's an infringement of like liberties.
It's like, oh, it's just like the more restrictions, you know, like you can't get a job.
You can't send your kids to school.
Like, it's just like more and more restrictions.
And the more you comply, the more it's just like, it just, it's a total infringement of civil liberties.
Because it's going to infringe on our future liberties.
So if we let them take this much, they'll keep taking more and more and more.
And so we have to draw a line somewhere.
And there needs to be boundaries, especially when it comes to your body.
I feel like this, and this is my spiel all the time, and that's this.
We pay taxes, we stop at red lights, we pay insurance, we do all the things that we're supposed to do as citizens.
All right.
The only thing we have is our bodies.
So I think that's where the line needs to be drawn.
And to make the decision on your own is important.
Because it's our right to choose.
Bottom line.
Because whenever there's risk involved, there should be a choice.
What do you think about the media's lack of coverage or coverage of events like these?
Oh, I mean, it's like, I don't know which is worse, right?
A lack of coverage or just a total, like, just, you know, attack mode on everybody who's here, you know?
So, I mean, it's obviously terrible.
There's no space for debate.
This whole idea that like if you don't have expertise, right, you can't discuss things, right?
If you don't have, if you want to like have that clinical experience, right?
You shouldn't even be able to discuss things that affect your life and people's bodies and like society at large, too.
So I think it's terrible.
And we were bombarded every day with constant gaslighting and corporate media.
Well, most of the media is liberal.
So they prefer not to acknowledge us because they would have to acknowledge that people who aren't die-car conservatives aren't stereotypical conservatives who are like liberal unionists and teachers are also against these mandates.
It doesn't fall into this sort of like alt-right narrative that they have about the anti-mandate movement.
They either have the ideology of scientism, which is anything that comes out of the mouth of Dr. Anthony Fauci is good coin, no matter what kind of lack of evidence they have.
Well, because I believe that the media is suppressing information and I believe that they don't want to see opposition or to show opposition to other people because they're scared that other people, even if they're vaccinated, might wake up and realize that there's something going wrong.
Oh, I think it's definitely intentional.
The bias is there because there's a lot of money involved in all of this throughout the world.
I mean, you think about the billions and billions of masks, hand sanitizer, you know, protective gear.
And so, I mean, the people who run those organizations, they also, you know, advertise.
Plus, there's the political element, the strong political element.
And much of major media is owned by a small handful of people who are politically invested.
And so they don't want the voice, you know, of the typical American to be heard on this.
Because they want to instill fear on the public.
And if you just read news headlines and don't go outside and just like see what's actually going on, then you can't get a real perception of what is actually happening and make your own informed choices.
But a lot of people's beliefs are predicated on what has happened and what they've heard from the past year.
And to admit that they're wrong would kind of just like, it's a huge blow to like your confidence, your ego, your identity.
You know, people like have like, like everything is so fragile.
This is a very fragile house of cards and all it just takes, you can just like slip one and the whole thing will tumble over.
They're not covering these protests because it doesn't align with Peely.
They can't say, so they don't say.
So they just keep pushing what they're told to say.
Because they all have a narrative that they follow.
And it's state-run media and they are the left arm of the Democratic Party.
They're fake news because they don't they don't tell the whole story What do you think people who are pro restrictions are missing?
I think they're missing the fact that we cannot live in fear.
I think they're missing critical thinking skills.
And I think they're missing the fact that this is government overreach and they're being manipulated through fear and propaganda.
I believe they have good intentions.
Like they believe that the vaccine is 100% safe, which I don't know.
Everyone can make their own decisions about that and decide, make that decision for themselves.
But they believe that if we keep listening, if we keep complying, they believe that all the, like, like, they believe the road to recovery, like, they believe that people like us are like potholes in the road of recovery, you know, and that complacence and listening to the government's word is like, well, cover those potholes.
You know, it's like, if we just listen, if we just follow, if we just comply, then everything will be better.
And you guys are like selfish people that obviously don't care about humanity.
That's what they want to label anyone who goes against the media.
They're not, quote, saving lives by just like, you know, like constantly pushing this idea that like we just have to keep these restrictions in place.
And it's like, it is a laptop class type issue.
People that like are able to work from home are usually people that they're not out making things with their hands.
They're not actually physically doing stuff.
They're not in the world of whether it be construction or any kind of thing where you're physically engaged in your day-to-day life.
Their input-output, like, you know, data managers, you know, they're sort of like, you know, mid-level professionals that their jobs, I mean, for them, they make a lot of money, aren't essential, yeah.
But so there's a difference between like, I guess, the physicals and like, you know, the sort of the people that live sort of in that remote realm.
They're missing courage.
They're not courageous, and it's easier to fall in line than to see the reality of things.
So I don't think that they don't see it.
I don't think they're missing anything.
I just think it's too rough and it's too hard to be out the box like we are.
They're not really following the science at all because none of these mitigation strategies have been proven scientifically to be effective.
There are a lot of Americans coming from diverse backgrounds who agree on this, that it's not a politically conservative or progressive.
People come from all backgrounds and are standing up for freedom.
And I think the media really does not like this idea that America is, there's a cross-section of folks who are standing up for liberty.
They really don't want to see this.
They like painting it in a very, you know, with a very fine line so it can easily be dismissed.
but the reality is it's a broad-based coalition of people.
What I've seen today is this is not the left-right issue that the media is making it seem.
This is a workers' rights issue.
These people are firefighters, teachers, healthcare workers that just want to go back to work, have had their livelihoods stripped from them.