All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 27, 2025 - Stew Peters Show
57:32
Millstone Report w Paul Harrell: Cromwell Maxing with Special Guest Charles Haywood
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thanks so much for being with us.
Another great day.
Another great day full of news.
Everyone is anticipating the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files or a portion of them.
I'm going to be researching that through the course of the show to bring you the latest.
Yesterday, though, I got...
By the way, I did get kind of stumped.
I got stumped.
I posted a tweet, or I remarked about a tweet that was a joke.
I thought it was real.
There was a random report saying the Epstein files were going to be released on February 29th.
And it's not a leap here.
So I thought it was real.
So point of clarification, a listener pointed that out to me.
But yesterday I finally got to sit down with Mr. Charles Haywood.
We talked about a lot of things.
Oliver Cromwell, Trump.
As well as hate crime laws.
It was a fantastic...
It was up early yesterday if you subscribe to my Substack, PaulTalkShow.Substack.com But here it is.
It was a privilege to get to talk to Charles and I think you'll enjoy the conversation and you'll understand why I wanted to have him on.
All right, folks.
So this interview has been a long time coming.
Charles Haywood was on the program a few weeks ago.
We had some technical problems.
Then we rescheduled.
We had a snowstorm.
We had to reschedule again.
And Charles Haywood joins us now.
Finally, it's an honor to meet you, sir.
Thank you so much.
And welcome to the Millstone Report.
I am very pleased to be here, finally.
Yes, sir.
So you have a website.
Well, first of all, you've done a lot of things.
Right now you have great content over at The Worthy House, theworthyhouse.com.
It's fantastic stuff.
I want to get to that here in just a moment.
But before that, I first found out about you, Charles, because it was back when Tucker was on Fox.
And I watched the interview that you did with Tucker, and that's when I first found out about you.
And I don't know about originally, originally, but your past has to do with soap or shampoo.
Is that correct?
Well, my distant past, I was a mergers and acquisitions lawyer.
So that was a distant past.
I'm old enough to have a distant past, I guess.
But in the more recent past, for 15 years, I ran a contract manufacturing business.
I say the shampoo business, but basically hair care manufacturer.
So I have a bunch of manufacturing background.
I sold that business.
Four years ago, 2020. And so I don't actually currently actively engage in hair care manufacturing.
But hey, my non-competes up in a couple months.
So maybe I'll get back into it.
Hey, maybe.
You know, there's a huge market on that right now, especially from, I call them suburban essential oil moms that were all in on the RFK deal.
By the way, I would consider my wife to be one of those.
So there's a huge market for that sort of stuff.
All right, well, so, first of all, when I originally had you on and we had the technical problems, I wanted to talk about Oliver Cromwell briefly.
You had had a post up a few weeks ago.
You also had tweeted something about Cromwell maxing.
Can you give us briefly, I mean, that's the lower third as well.
We are Cromwell maxing with Charles Haywood today.
Can you tell us, what do you mean by that?
Should we know a lot more about the English Civil War than we do here in this country?
Well, yes, working backwards, the English Civil War is actually an interesting war, I think, or rather the English Civil Wars.
The English Civil War that we think of is actually part of a series of wars known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the Three Kingdoms being Ireland, Scotland, and England.
But everyone's kind of vaguely familiar with Oliver Cromwell and the execution of Charles I, which resulted from the war between Parliament, in essence, and Parliament.
The king, which Charles I lost, and ultimately he got executed largely at the instigation of Oliver Cromwell.
So it's an interesting war for a variety of reasons, among them that English history is kind of by definition the most important set of history for Americans other than American history itself.
And Oliver Cromwell is instructive, I think, for a variety of...
But the primary one being that he faced a kind of tumultuous situation where the old systems had broken down entirely, and he was forced to make up new systems as he went along in cooperation with other people.
Yeah, for a couple of years, he was functionally the dictator of England.
Lord Protector, as he styled himself, and his son briefly held that same position as well.
But Cromwell is a fascinating character, both because of his personality and because of the problems he had to deal with and how he dealt with them.
Well, you mentioned how a lot of people know about it.
I'm not one of these.
I was born in 1984, and I remember in history class, whichever grade that was, we got to Cromwell, and it was maybe half a page, maybe a quarter of a page.
And it was just like, Oliver Cromwell, England's only dictator, really bad guy, next page, moving on to something else.
And so it wasn't until I was much older that I was like, wait a second.
The beheading of King Charles certainly influenced King George, you know, 100 years later and how he was going to deal with Parliament versus, you know, our little mini-Parliaments and essentially abdicates his responsibility to the colonies because he doesn't want the British Parliament to chop off his our little mini-Parliaments and essentially abdicates his responsibility to the colonies I mean, and so there's a lot of history there that we don't know, and I think Cromwell gets a terrible rap, actually.
Well, part of the reason Cromwell gets a terrible rap is because among the wars of the Three Kingdoms was a suppression of the Irish.
And who were, not just the Catholic Irish, but the Protestant Irish who had been imported in the 100 or 150 years before that, who were still loyal to the crown, because Charles is...
Charles I's son, later Charles II, was still alive and still actively involved in trying to come back to power.
So Cromwell went to Ireland and he killed a bunch of people.
He attacked a bunch of cities and then he slaughtered a bunch of the people in those cities.
So Catholics and Irish in particular regard Cromwell as a very bad guy.
You can take different views of Cromwell's exploits or deeds in Ireland.
But those are really secondary to the question of his function in the English, the structure of the English state.
I mean, he may or may not have been a bad guy.
He certainly wasn't Hitler and wasn't like that.
But he wasn't a, he was a man of his time.
And so to a certain extent, you just have to not get too hung up on what he did in Ireland and how bad it was and focus on his structural implications of his rule.
I'm glad that you said that.
You brought something to mind.
So, Colonel Douglas McGregor, who I interviewed once last year.
We're trying to get him back on the program.
But he tweeted out, I think this was right before the election.
Speaking of the dysfunction, the system's just kind of collapsing.
We're part of this cascading failure of confidence, at least, in every system of government, specifically before the election.
He said that America was on the verge of a French-style revolution.
Or a Cromwellian-style revolution?
And of those two, I know which one is more preferable to me, and it's certainly not the French.
So what are your thoughts on that?
How do you see things right now as Trump is, you know, 30 days into his first start?
We did a couple hours to really go over this in the appropriate level of detail.
And it is kind of weird because prior to the election, I think people were kind of right-thinking.
The future and Trump and his ascension and his deeds since his inauguration have made people think that maybe the Golden Age can, in fact, be captured.
History doesn't give a lot of support for that, I think, but certainly I'm enjoying the feels.
I think the French Revolution option, where the left basically takes over, or at least attempts to take over through violence...
Contrary to my earlier predictions has not materialized, nor does it show any signs of materializing either in its kind of street-level violence or in kind of its deep state coup attempts to overthrow Trump.
And every day that passes, those things seem to be harder to accomplish and less likely to happen.
At the same time...
America's not in the position that Cromwell is in.
What Cromwell was facing was, in essence, a divided country with a ruling body, Parliament, and it had a body called the Council of State, which was in function of the executive, who basically was unable to do anything that was necessary for the country.
That is, they were basically either passive or paralyzed or unable to move forward in Figuring out what to do next.
After they had executed the king, the question was, how should you organize the country?
And the big question then was also, how should you organize religious practice and the church?
So what made Cromwell dictator isn't that he gathered a large army and killed a bunch of people.
What made Cromwell dictator is he marched into parliament with a couple of soldiers and kicked everyone out and announced that he was now going to be in charge.
There wasn't any actual fighting at that point.
So the Cromwellian solution, if you can call it a solution, is for a country that desperately needs authoritarian leadership.
We're not at the point, I don't think, that America needs authoritarian leadership.
Because Trump won and because Trump is taking a series of necessary actions.
Whether those will be enough and what the future will hold with respect to America moving forward I think is hard to tell.
The Cromwell maxing I was particularly referring to was the judiciary.
That is right now we have the judiciary is to a large part in the position Of Cromwell's opponents who are attempting to prevent any necessary action for the health of the state from being taken.
So we have these lower court judges that are using this illegitimate idea of judicial supremacy and worse, judicial supremacy over the entire nation of two-bit district court federal judges, the lowest level of federal judge.
And so a Cromwellian solution would be to ignore those people or to arrest them or what have you.
I mean, there's different things you can do.
Whether or not we're going to need that is not clear to me.
We're still kind of in early days.
I generally favor the idea that the executive should reject certain forms of authority of the federal judges.
On the other hand, being precipitous about these things isn't necessarily beneficial.
Cromwell waited quite a long time before he decided that he was going to be in charge, and obviously 17th century England is significantly different from 21st century America.
But the idea that That we need bold executive action, whether that's kind of current Trump on steroids or something even more aggressive, I don't think is hugely controversial because America has an enormous amount of problems.
Originally in the American system, Congress was supposed to be the body that was in essence supreme or rather...
Engaged in most of the action with respect to running and forming the country.
Congress has long since abdicated that role in part by creating this monstrous so-called fourth branch of government, the administrative state, and you're left in the position that the only entity that is able to take everything in hand now is the executive.
So we seem to have ended up in America with a system where the executive power is much greater and needs to be much greater because of the structural changes that have been made by Congress.
The executive has to take the necessary actions to kind of move the country forward.
Wow, that's very well said and fascinating.
I don't necessarily want Trump to imitate Cromwell in the sense that he's going around sniffing out Christmas dinners, right?
I don't want that.
I'll interject here.
Cromwell was actually of the...
What he did not approve of Catholics was what was called an independent.
That is, he was in favor of individual liberty of conscience and generally liberty of religious practice within a very broad Protestant frame.
It was actually his opponents who wanted to have people to have a very specific set of Protestant worship and not to allow independence of conscience.
To the extent that Americans think that independence of conscience is important, which is, I think, a bedrock principle of a lot of America.
Cromwell actually is a proto-American in that sense.
And in fairness, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Cromwell was regarded as a kind of proto-Republican, not Republican Party, but proto-Democrat in many ways for some of those reasons.
Wow.
Can you talk a little bit about, you know, as I see things, I see the world kind of reverting back to maybe some of its just historical norms.
I feel like kind of what we've been experiencing in the 20th century, you know, as many people talk about, is kind of a blip on the radar.
We're not acting, like, for example, you know, there's supposedly going to be some sort of peace treaty with Ukraine.
And there are people on the left and even neocons on the right that want, there's this idea, new idea, novel idea, that when a country like Russia fights and spends soldiers' lives to gain territory in a war, that they're somehow, they just need to, you know, they've got to give that back, right?
And I don't think that's going to happen.
I think they're going to keep some of their land.
Likewise, it seems like instead of...
The United States just outright, you know, maybe, I'm sorry, instead of the United States in maybe more of an esoteric way influencing these other countries with our currency or our financial system, Donald Trump's like, I'll just make Canada the 51st state.
Let's just make this official.
Or I'm just going to take Greenland.
This is what countries used to do, right?
And so it feels like there's, instead of people just kind of...
Lying or trying to be, I don't know, some sort of a form of geopolitical manners.
We're going back to the way things were.
That's what happens.
Countries take over other countries sometimes, and they don't try to hide it.
Yeah, until they simply don't take over other countries, they have a sphere of influence, which other great powers recognize.
A couple hours ago, Trump was saying something to the effect of, everybody knows the European Union was created to screw America.
Wow.
I mean, yeah, that wasn't his exact words, but that was what he said.
In essence, it was pretty close to his exact words.
And we're at that point where people are simply recognizing the realities that are real.
One of those is, as you say, that countries have interests and they act to defend those interests and to further those interests.
And what relates to that is that America's interests, there's no particular reason why America in this day and age...
Has any interests in Europe, given the ruling classes in Europe who are actively against America and actively attempting to destroy their own countries through importing infinity migrants?
While, of course, engaging in behavior that Americans think is identified correctly with totalitarian dictatorships.
I mean, there are more political prisoners.
In Europe now, Western Europe, as we used to call it, than there were in Eastern Europe at the fall of communism.
I mean, late communist regimes didn't arrest people nearly as frequently for disagreeing with the state as the English or the German governments do at this very day.
So it's kind of obvious, and J.D. Vance has been running around saying variations on this too, we don't have any necessary alignment of interest whatsoever with Europe.
Why would we?
I mean, the idea, of course, that Putin wants to conquer Russia and conquer Europe is stupid.
But if he did, who cares?
I mean, whatever.
I mean, it'd probably be an improvement for a lot of those countries.
But regardless, America has executive leadership now and a growing percentage of the ruling class as people defect.
To join the new winners who look at America's needs through the prism, bizarrely, of what America's needs are, which is kind of obvious that you would think that everyone would do that, but the American ruling class for decades has viewed America's needs through the prism of both left ideology and the needs of the ruling class, and has to leave ideology aside entirely, things like destroying America's industrial base and outsourcing.
Inviting infinity migrants to America.
Those things are things that no previous ruling class would have considered to be normal.
They would have said that's completely insane.
Now we're getting to the point where maybe we're going back.
It's not like a left-right thing in the sense that Equal, one thing, the thing we're seeing with Trump is what benefits America.
The thing we had before was not what benefits America.
So, you know, I think we can all agree that we went to go with the things that benefit America.
Yeah, I mean, and that's essentially, right, you know, the end of globalism, the idea that borders are racist, you know, it's, again, back to this idea of, yeah, the nation state is actually a good thing.
We're going to quit pretending that it is.
You kind of mentioned, or you said something that made me think about the...
The collapsing narratives of the left.
This idea that people are getting on board the winning team.
I've had other people on that talk about how, look, this was an exchange of elites.
Some people call it the Wall Street elites versus the Silicon Valley elites that are tired of not being able to innovate and that that was part of the battle.
Certainly new political coalitions, some people saying this is the first real transfer of power since the 60s.
What do you think about that?
At some point, I've got to quit covering what the mainstream media says about Trump.
I mean, it's easy to do.
It's low-hanging fruit.
But at this point, what are they even doing?
So much of what they're doing is irrelevant now.
Well, it's the first real transfer of power we've had in America since the 20s, probably.
I mean, the 60s did not involve...
I mean, Eisenhower, for example, was an early fan of giving more and more power to the left and stabbing Republicans in the back.
So, I mean, it's not...
20s, maybe earlier, but probably 20s, this is the first real transfer of power.
And it's very tentative.
That is, these things...
Absent some kind of mass catastrophe or disastrous war, a circulation of elites takes a long time to accomplish because both these people are entrenched and these people take their time about joining the winning side.
I've always said that, historically it's inevitably the case, that when a new set of elites and people in power come to power, 90% of the people who are on the other side will join up simply out of self-interest.
In the modern world, that is since the 18th century, you have the ideological overlay of left-right, and the left almost never gives up power without a fight.
So I thought that the left would not give up power without violence.
That does not seem to have been the case.
So we actually seem to be getting gradually an abandonment of left ideology by the 80 or 90 percent of the people who believed in left ideology yesterday.
But we'll be perfectly happy to believe in a new ideology today or tomorrow because they want to be on the winning team.
That leaves, of course, a hard core of ideological leftists, which is a continual problem in many countries.
And you see this in Europe as well.
The leftism as an ideology is far more dominant there.
Whether or not it's as fragile as the left...
Dominance seems to have been in America.
It's not clear.
It's not clear what the left's going to do.
You touched on this earlier.
It would seem odd if the left just basically went back to being a bunch of dirty hippies living on a commune and abandoned any kind of attempt to actually impose their ideology through power.
We'll see, I guess.
Yes.
We will see.
They are planning some sort of march.
Or March 4th.
On March the 4th.
See what they've done there?
March 4th.
Really?
March 4th?
What's the...
I don't know.
I heard a report about it yesterday.
Mark Mitchell from Rasmussen.
He likes to lurk on Reddit and kind of...
I think out of some sort of morbid...
Curiosity.
Yeah, they're planning an armed, some people say even an armed March 4th.
And then I read that there's supposed to be a joint session of Congress maybe on March 4th as well that Trump wants to halt.
Anyway, but we'll see.
I definitely think we have to look out for another George Floyd-type moment to kind of spark off.
But I will say, people are saying this, Charles.
And I don't know if it's true, because I don't live in a major city.
I live in Arkansas.
But they're saying a lot of these protests that are planned, they're not showing up to them because of that USAID money has been cut off.
And so a lot of these leftists were just astroturfed anyway.
Yeah, that appears to be the case.
We always knew that the Floyd riots, for example, were organized and funded.
I just didn't realize I was funded by government money, as well as private money.
I think a lot of the private donors, for a variety of reasons, have backed off funding these things.
Yeah, if they have a March 4th thing, I don't think anyone's going to show up.
And nor do I think you're unable to gin up a George Floyd kind of thing again either.
I mean, I like to analogize the current position of the left.
Which is not what I would have predicted, as I say, but to that of an infantry line in battle being broken by a cavalry charge, which historically is an extremely bad position for the infantry because the infantry scatter and flee and try to run for the wood line, and the cavalry runs around spearing them in the back because the infantry have to stay together to form any kind of credible defense to the cavalry.
So the left basically seems completely unable.
Also because they've lost the ability to control the narrative for a variety of reasons, the most important one of which is Musk.
They can't control the narrative anymore.
They can't get a coherent plan out.
They can't coordinate.
They're all attacking each other.
There's just no way to run an insurgence.
And it's great.
I'm all for it.
But you wonder whether they'll be able to pull it together.
Yeah, that's a good point.
Winnow our enemies.
Speaking of that, Christian nationalism, or Christendom, or whatever the appropriate term is, it's something that I am fascinated in.
Obviously, I read Stephen Wolf's book.
I'm friends with Stephen.
I've had him on the program a few times.
The absolute, I don't know, I guess the argument over on Christian X that has been going back and forth.
I don't know what the Venn diagram looks like, Charles, but I mean, it's...
It's a wild one, you know, which circles and who, you know.
So what are your thoughts on this?
Because I just got through watching a clip before we sat down to do this interview.
I got done watching a clip of Donald Trump having his first cabinet meeting.
He's flanked by Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio.
And a Southern Baptist pastor gets up and prays a really good prayer.
It was so much better than a Paula White prayer, if you know what I mean.
And people among the Christian nationalists on X are talking about how, wow, this is so good.
A lot of people are thinking, man, we had no idea something like this could happen so quickly.
And obviously, we're not at any sort of zenith or perfection or anything like that.
But certainly, the Christians that are allowed to work in the Trump administration are a blessing, hopefully a blessing to this country, versus Kamala Harris, which would have just essentially put Christians in boxcars or put us really on the path to that.
What are your thoughts on...
How all of that looks right now and where we've been versus where we're going.
Well, I mean, I'm friendly with the Christian nationalist guys.
I like to joke about Christian nationalism that's like Reese's peanut butter cups, you know, peanut butter and chocolate, two great tastes that go great together.
But I don't actually have an opinion about Christian nationalism.
As a movement, I'm all for Christianity and I'm all for nationalism.
So if people want to combine those, it's certainly fine by me.
I think the important thing is you kind of touched on, which is that Christians, well, the most persecuted group in America over the past, say, 20 years has been Christians, and more specifically white male, normal, that is non-homosexual Christians, the most persecuted group.
And all of a sudden, they're not the most persecuted group.
They may still be persecuted to some extent, but you saw things like Trump release the people who had been imprisoned for protesting at abortion clinics and what have you.
So I do think, though, that the question of religion Christianity and religion more broadly in America is a crucial one simply because America still has an enormous amount of structural and spiritual problems.
Historically, the only way to have any chance of getting out of the deep pit of a decayed society Decayed in virtue is to have some kind of religious reawakening.
So I think that there's no real sign of that happening in America.
And I think it's great that Christianity is no longer persecuted.
But Christianity wasn't particularly persecuted in the 1980s either.
And I liked the 1980s.
I was alive in the 1980s.
But you can see the seeds of the problems we have today starting then.
So for example, until...
Abortion is rigorously criminalized and divorce is forbidden, except for no-fault divorce is entirely forbidden.
We're not really making any progress towards implementing I read something like 80 million men in America pay for OnlyFans.
That's not a religious society or a strong society.
And just because Trump is having based SBC pastors give prayers, I mean, that's great.
But we have a long way to go for Christian renewal.
Yeah, so this is kind of a good segue, I think.
I'm going to throw up one of your latest articles against gross domestic product.
I think this is a good segue because we see this ziggurat here, and your comments on abortion always remind me that we're really not, we don't have these evolved sensibilities, right?
We're just inventing new ways to kill people.
We're really no different from the human sacrifices on top of ziggurats.
But I really like this graphic.
I think this is very creative.
We have this line, the GDP line.
This is what we want.
This even goes back to history.
I was taught the reason that the American Revolution took place was because of taxation with no representation.
So it was purely economic.
It was a purely economic, we want to keep our money versus, you know, that in the grievances of the declaration.
It's on the list, but it's not at the top of the list, right?
But here we go.
I mean, this would be the idea of like, you know, what's the point of having a great gross domestic product if we are calling wicked, evil things good and fantastic and ideal?
But feel free to expand on the point of this article against gross domestic product.
Well, I will say the graphic, I can claim no credit for the graphic.
This article, occasionally I publish articles in other publications.
So this was originally published, though I cross-posted it to my site at the American Mind, which is a Claremont Institute publication.
And they did the original artwork for it, and I just lifted it.
So whichever artist they had do it gets the credit.
I probably should put a credit there.
So, my point about gross domestic product, I mean, you made one of the important points, but just more narrowly, as an objective measure, gross domestic product, A, doesn't measure our flourishing, and both of these doesn't capture the negative things, as you say, and it also doesn't capture the positive things.
But even, and I go through this in the article in some detail, most of what goes into GDP calculation just is BS. It doesn't make a lot of sense, the way it's calculated, and it's manipulable in a variety of ways.
So therefore, using it as people do, politicians and society at large, as a measure of how we are doing, how healthy our society is, is both stupid and bad because it prevents us from focusing on things that are, if not as...
It's objective in the sense of like you can put a number to it.
It prevents us from talking about the real problems in our country and how to solve those rather than because everyone finds it easy to say, well, look at this number and this number is going up and that must be good.
My fundamental claim about gross domestic product is it's the golden calf, right?
It's an idol that we've created.
And as we all know, idols are bad for everybody involved.
Wow.
Yeah, and when you attack the idols, you get some pretty visceral reactions.
Speaking of idols, one of the things that I talk about on the show a lot is I think...
I think one of our main idols, aside from the economic idol in this country, or, you know, seeing America as an economic zone and not a place for actual people.
But I think, obviously, women.
I think, and feel free to respond to this, but this is kind of my argument a lot of times, especially if you look at how, you know, now we have the mainline Protestant denominations, you know, most all of them or all of them adopt, you know, women as clergy, and then they...
You know, then now open homosexuals and that sort of thing can be clergy.
And it's like, well, from a practical standpoint, if you've got a society that in 73 legalized the murder of children, telling that whole class of people, oh, you can't preach a sermon.
I mean, it's like, what do you mean I can't preach a sermon?
I can murder my children, and I can't preach and talk in public?
You know, likewise, if aliens, you know, were to look down, well, who's running this society?
Well, there's one group of people that can murder and get away with it.
There's nothing that can be done.
And then there's the rest of us.
So I think that that's certainly an idol.
And then, you know, fast forward, the patriarchy has to exist for feminism to exist.
But then the devil, you know, the devil's in the details.
You know, psych, there is no such thing as a woman.
There is no such thing as a man.
We're just these androgynous, you know, like, and that was the whole goal the whole time.
We're just going to destroy humanity as image bearers of God.
Feel free to respond to that.
Well, I mean, certainly everything you say is correct.
I think just more broadly, one of the, might even be the major structural problem with America and more broadly the West is hyperfeminization.
Leaving aside the androgyny and so on.
People sometimes ask me, "So you're opposed to third wave feminism?" You know, I'm opposed to every wave feminism, including first wave feminism.
You know, that doesn't necessarily mean that women shouldn't have the right to vote.
As I like to joke, I don't think anyone should have the right to vote, or rather, I think the right to vote should be sharply restricted.
But the allowing the, and you see this, it's even worse in Europe, allowing The vices of women to be the vices that are common to women to be things that are celebrated as virtues and allowed to dominate political action is a fatal error of our society.
And it's weird because no other society has ever made this error or would ever have even comprehended this error.
The Romans said, we've got a lot of problems, but at least our society isn't hyper-feminized.
Yeah, a bunch of our ruling classes are kind of a feat, but that's not the same thing.
And so it's unbelievably destructive to society to have it run through the prism of women's feelings.
And that's functionally how much of politics is run today.
And obviously why a lot of people on the left don't like Trump, the overlap between feminism and leftism is...
Almost complete.
But it's not even the policies of Trump that they look at him and they say, well, there's a guy who doesn't care about feelings and he's taking actions and he's not building through consensus and he's saying rude things that I don't want to hear.
So the pushback on the feminine way of doing things in a political sense is extremely important, whether or not...
What the long-term effect for that will be is it's hard to say again.
Yeah.
No, you're right.
It has to go.
The gynocracy has got to diminish, and I completely agree with that.
So on X, I know we're winding things down here.
We're going to wrap it up, but I wanted to get your take back on 22nd of February.
Let me throw this up on the screen.
Where is it?
Here we go.
You posted this.
Oh, my God.
They save everything I say?
Just kidding.
Yes, and not only do they save it, we now know that the NSA, the only government agency that actually listens, but yeah, we know they're now staffed full of a bunch of trans, LGBTQ, RSTL, any would you like to buy a vowel?
So anyway, you said this.
I thought this was good because I haven't heard anybody talk about hate crimes in a long time.
Trump should declare that all so-called hate crimes are on their face unconstitutional, a flagrant violation of due process of law, and that the DOJ will no longer prosecute them and will prosecute under 18 U.S.C. 242 anyone trying to apply hate crimes on the state level.
This would be huge.
I mean, hate crimes are strange because it's like, you do something that's a crime, but we want to know what you were thinking while you were doing it.
That's so Orwellian.
Well, what were you thinking?
That's going to determine...
Whether or not you get a steeper punishment or not.
I mean, it's due process violation.
Traditionally, state of mind is only taken into account in sentencing, that is motive, and in certain kind of technical crimes or technical gradations of crimes, like premeditated murder versus spontaneous anger murder kind of things.
The idea that you would base the The central element of a crime around a person's state of mind.
That is, there is no crime unless you have a specific state of mind.
It just is, on its face, obviously a violation of due process of law.
And of course, more broadly, as applied, all hate crimes are a violation of due process of law because 99.999% of the time, they're only applied to white men.
I mean, they're specifically designed, and maybe occasionally to white women, but they're specifically designed in order to oppress white people.
And men as well, in order to allow non-white people to get away with things and attacking and expropriating and generally misbehaving with respect to white people.
That's their only function.
So both kind of in the abstract and, as they say, in constitutional law, as applied, hate crimes are obviously unconstitutional.
Now, you don't even have to have a court declare that.
The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that judges get to decide what's constitutional and what's not, which is also a broader current discussion.
That's why I proposed the mechanism I did, which is the federal government can say, we're no longer prosecuting, that is the executive branch, we're no longer prosecuting any so-called hate crimes, and any state-level person who does so will be charged with...
Crimes under 18 U.S.C. 242, which is deprivation of civil rights under law.
There's various statutes related to that.
Nowadays, only used against white people, of course, but that statute exists.
It was originally designed to be used against the Ku Klux Klan.
Way back in the day.
But it's been weaponized, of course, by Biden and Obama to attack people on the right.
But turnabout is fair play.
So they should just simply announce that any prosecutor who brings any so-called hate crimes charges under state law will immediately be indicted in federal court for violation of federal civil rights.
100%.
I completely agree.
Your website is The Worthy House.
Again, you've got great articles here.
I also saw that you also have the audio.
People can listen to your articles as well, so it comes in a podcast form.
And then I think there's the book review there on Oliver Cromwell right there.
I'd love it if we could end by you kind of explaining your motivation for starting this website and also the tagline, Towards a Politics of Future Past.
You see it right there, folks.
Towards a politics of future past.
What exactly do you mean by that, Charles Haywood?
Well, I'll try to keep it pithy, but I started it because many of them are book reviews or they masquerade as book reviews.
They have my own thoughts masquerading as book reviews.
I started it because I helped remember the stuff that I read, and I read quite a bit.
But towards a politics of future past, I'm opposed to the politics of nostalgia.
That is, we're not going to be able to return to desirable times like the 1950s or the 1920s.
We need to have a new politics informed by the wisdom of the past.
And so when I say future past, that's what I mean by that.
I really appreciate you coming on, Charles.
It's been a pleasure.
I appreciate you being patient.
I know we had to reschedule a few times.
I'd love to have you on again soon to talk about anything that's on your mind.
I really appreciate your presence online and people can follow you at The Worthy House over on X. God bless you, sir.
I really do appreciate it.
Thanks for having me.
All right, that was the interview with Charles.
I almost want to call him Charles Cromwell because we talked about Oliver Cromwell.
Charles Haywood, it was great.
I hope you enjoyed it.
Again, the interview was out early over on my Substack, paultalkshow.substack.com.
Before we go any further, though, I want to tell you about the healing power of light and the great folks over at Red Vive.
We're talking about redvivehealth.org.
That's the link you want to go to.
Look at those red light panels.
Folks, this is the way to improve your health.
It's a way to look better.
It's a way to perform better.
Look, the environments, you know, we're filled with all these, you know, poisons, toxins, you name it.
You know, part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, I guess, is also exposing just how sick and chronically ill this country is in many different ways.
Well, red light therapy is one way that you can combat.
What it is that we're fighting here.
Red Vive.
V-I-V-E. Red Vive devices emit red and near-infrared light designed to reduce muscle and joint inflammation and pain, stimulate energy at the cellular level.
Speed up recovery, boost skin collagen, strengthen your body, and boost your mind.
There's red and near-infrared light.
So two different spectrums, but they're both in these panels.
And that's what you need, both of them.
You don't just want the red light.
A lot of...
There's other brands out there that are just offering you the red light.
They're not actually offering and putting the infrared light in their panels.
That's what you need.
You need both of it because the red light is absorbed by your skin, which leads to enhanced skin health, anti-aging properties, that sort of thing.
But then you have the near-infrared light, which penetrates deep into the body, which reaches your bones, your muscles, your tissues, and even your organs, and they stimulate your cells at the mitochondria level.
And so check this out.
I want you to do it.
If you do some research, go to the website, redvivehealth.org slash Paul, and unlock your body's true potential because we really have no idea, I think, just how sick we are.
As I've been using the panel, I realize just how much, what a lack of energy I have based on the energy boost that I get.
Just, I mean, like, how was I functioning?
How was I functioning before this?
So, Lighting Your Path to Wellness, redvivehealth.org.
That's redvivehealth.org.
And again, it's always great to partner with Red Vive.
Really appreciate everything that they do.
Okay, so a couple of things.
In the interview with Charles Haywood that we just watched that I recorded yesterday afternoon, one of the things that we talked about...
Was Donald Trump, what did he say?
He said that Europe was created, the EU, I'm sorry, the EU was created to screw the United States of America.
He referenced that, and so I pulled that clip.
Let's take a listen.
The European Union's been, it was formed in order to screw the United States.
I mean, look, let's be honest.
The European Union was formed in order to screw the United States.
That's the purpose of it.
And they've done a good job of it, but now I'm president.
What will happen if these countries or the EU retaliate?
They can't.
I mean, they can try, but they can't.
So the European Union was created to screw the United States.
Such clarity.
But now let's talk about the Epstein docs.
All right, we're still waiting.
Last night, Pam Bondi went on Jesse Waters and said that the documents would be released.
A lot of people are wondering, because you said last week that you have the Epstein files on your desk, is when can we see them and what's taking so long to release them?
I do.
Jesse, there are well over, this will make you sick, 200 victims.
200. Well, over 250, actually.
So we have to make sure that their identity is protected and their personal information.
But other than that, I think tomorrow, you know, the personal information of victims.
Other than that, I think tomorrow, Jesse, breaking news right now, you're going to see some Epstein information being released by my office.
Operative word there is some.
What kind?
Are we going to see who was on the flights?
Are we going to see any evidence?
From what he recorded because he had all of his homes wired with recording devices.
What you're going to see hopefully tomorrow is a lot of flight logs, a lot of names, a lot of information.
But it's pretty sick what that man did.
Okay.
Along with his co-defendant.
Absolutely.
And he had help.
I wonder how...
We're going to get some of the information.
Nick Sorter writing that Alina Habba says that she just met with Cash Patel and Pam Bondi and does expect the Epstein list to come out today.
While the interview was airing, I was trying to see if there was any updates.
Unless I've just missed it, from what I know right now, as of almost 1 o'clock.
Over on the East Coast, I haven't seen any documents.
Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna posting, although I have not seen Epstein documents yet, it is very likely, given nature of powerful individuals involved, that Pam Bondi is putting herself at great risk to disclose this to the American people.
Please keep that in mind.
We also understand victims' identities need to be protected with that exception.
The American people deserve 100% transparency, and we will continue to push for that.
Now, I don't know the extent of all the documents, but...
I don't know.
I feel like I could protect.
I feel like if I had them.
Maybe it's just me.
Maybe I'm speaking out of turn and I do not know what I'm talking about.
I feel like I could protect the victims in an afternoon.
I feel like we could redact their information in just a single afternoon.
Maybe an hour, a couple hours.
Again, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.
The American people have a healthy skepticism of this process, even with Trump's picks in office, because, I mean, let's just be honest.
I think this list is not just going to expose the Democrats.
It's going to expose the Uniparty.
It's going to expose Republicans or donors, Republican donors, potentially.
Now, I will say this.
Also, Hollywood.
Mark Mitchell says that Pam Bondi needs to delay the release of these documents until 7 p.m.
on Sunday.
And that's because the Oscars are this weekend.
That's kind of funny to me.
I don't want them delayed, but I will say how many people in Hollywood are nervous about what may come out here?
I don't know.
So yeah, we've got this stuff.
Okay, so let's talk about this.
I misspoke in the interview with Charles Haywood.
I said that the prayer...
The encouraging prayer that was given over the Cabinet meeting yesterday, the first Cabinet meeting, was a pastor.
I was wrong.
The person who delivered the prayer is Scott Turner, who's the 19th Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
So Scott Turner was asked to say grace before the meeting, or yeah, to say a prayer, before the first Cabinet meeting kicked off.
Let's take a listen.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Let's pray.
Father, we thank you for this awesome privilege, Father, to be in your presence.
God, thank you that you've allowed us to see this day.
The Bible says that your mercies are new every morning.
And, Father God, we give you the glory and the honor.
Thank you, God, for President Trump, Father, for appointing us.
Father God, thank you for anointing us to do this job.
Father, we pray you would give the president, the vice president, wisdom.
Father God, as they lead.
Father, I pray for all of my colleagues that are here around the table and in this room.
Lord God, we pray that we would lead with a righteous clarity.
Father God, as we serve the people of this country in every prospective agency, every job that we have.
Father, we would humble ourselves before you.
And we would lead in the manner that you've called us to lead and to serve.
Father, the Bible says that blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.
Well, Father, we today honor you, and in your rightful place, Father, thank you for giving us this opportunity to restore faith in this country and be a blessing to the people of America.
And, Lord God, today in our meeting, we pray that you will be glorified in our conversation.
In Jesus' name, amen.
A prayer in the name of Jesus, a prayer using Scripture.
A prayer of humility, asking to be a blessing to the people, not a curse to the people.
You know, what's fascinating about this is the idea of praying for our leaders.
It's a prayer that I hear often.
A prayer that I hear often, once a week, goes something like this.
The people who are in positions of power in government, White House, state level, county level, city level, would you please save them?
Would you please transform their lives?
But if it's not your will to do that, would you please surround them with Christians?
Would you surround them with Christians who have wisdom from heaven that are able to give a godly counsel to the magistrate, to our leaders?
And as I saw this yesterday, I'm encouraged.
Again, no government is perfect.
Men are not perfect.
You're always going to be able to find some way to disagree.
But this is encouraging.
And I'll tell you what, I mean, to see Secretary Turner there, who's in the government and is a professing Christian, praying in the name of Jesus.
Marco Rubio, who I'm suspicious, you know, I don't fully trust.
I've been encouraged so far with his rhetoric, at least.
But a couple of weeks ago, he was firmly claiming, you know, that he was a Christian saved by Jesus Christ.
You've got Pete Hegseth.
He's got the Jerusalem cross tattoo and I believe attends, I don't know what his schedule is now, but before he got all of, you know, he attends a CREC church, which is in the Reformed Presbyterian vein.
And he's very outspoken about his faith and how Jesus saved him from his sins and his life, according to his pastor, is totally different than it used to be.
It's a white pill moment.
In my opinion, there's no way around it.
Let's all pray that that prayer is answered.
That our government would be a blessing to the people of this country.
This country.
And not a curse.
Have a government that actually does things that show that the government loves the people and doesn't hate the people.
And that is done by having a government that punishes evil and rewards good.
And we determine the good and the evil part based on the character of God that we find revealed to us in Scripture.
So, I don't know.
I mean, as the show winds down, I just wanted to make those points.
Because it is encouraging.
Gosh, it's happened so quickly.
We've got Larry Schweikart.
This is interesting.
Larry Schweikart is such a great follow, and I appreciate his take on a lot of stuff.
I really enjoy his theories about what's going on.
He's always a guy, especially in 2020, one of the reasons that I believe 2020 firmly was stolen is just because Larry Schweikart...
I was following him every day, and he was keeping up with these voter registrations and just how many gains that the Republicans were making on voter registration.
So this is an interesting thread.
It says that he's convinced that so far neither the GOP nor the Democrats realize what's about to happen to the Democrat Party.
Both really are business as usual.
He says...
As the data in Florida showed, there were 600,000 ballots mailed out under DeSantis Watch, by the way, that went to dead people, multiple people with the same Social Security numbers missing, moved, etc.
600,000.
Now, this won't affect much in Florida with its 1 million GOP advantage, voter registration advantage.
This is all Social Security data that is going to be scrubbed under DOGE. Let's make an assumption.
Almost all of these were Democrat voters.
That's 1.3% of the D 2025 total voters just vanished.
We aren't even talking about GOP voter registration net gains, which are extraordinary.
Pennsylvania now only a D negative 89,000 after in 2016 it being plus 1.1 million.
He writes, or let's talk about Arizona, them gaining 38,000 net Republicans since December, or even places like New Mexico gaining several hundred net Republicans since the election, a very small state.
When you factor in, on top of all of those disadvantages, another 1.3% drop in Ds, how about we throw in another?
Well, you got 2.3% drop in illegal aliens being deported or leaving.
I know many are saying 1%, so what?
But elections are won in the margins.
Two points in Michigan and Wisconsin would have given us two more senators.
Three points, three senators.
But now, drop the other shoe.
Because of the doge cuts in USAID, A massive trough of money for the Democrat piglets, their campaign financing just crashed.
That means, in reality of politics, you might be looking at more of a 4-5 impact or think New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire potentially becoming GOP states, becoming red states.
Gosh, Trump made New Jersey a swing state in the last election, if you look at those numbers, essentially.
I know it went blue, but it was a lot closer than people thought.
He says, I'm not even going to get into the impact of policies or economics.
If Trump does, as I expect him to do, by early 2026, inflation will be stopped and the economy will be in full recovery mode.
Conclusion, they are in a heap of big trouble.
So we may be witnessing, again, big political upheavals.
Tomorrow on the program, unless, well, I guess I'll say this.
Unless I'm providentially hindered.
I will see you here.
Wishing you a happy Friday.
We'll have a lot to talk about.
Hopefully we'll have some Epstein stuff to talk about.
I don't know.
Follow me on X at RealPaulHarrell.
Also follow XAmericanNews.
And God bless everybody out there watching.
Really appreciate it.
And we'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection