Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 15, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:43:45

Sidebar with Talkshow Host Garland Nixon! Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I think this is important.
	I think this is a historic event.
	The ruling class, traditionally, they use social issues to divide us.
	They use ideological issues to divide everyday working class people who have so much in common.
	And this was, if nothing else, this was an opportunity for people of various ideologies to come, to associate with people who have different beliefs than them and some issues, and to realize we've been had.
	To realize, you know what?
	They're just regular people.
	I was told that these people were crazy, that they were evil, that they wanted to eat me, you know?
	But there's people from the Communist Party here.
	There's people from the Libertarian Institute.
	There's MAGA people.
	There's everybody.
	Lefties like me, you can think of, who are lefties but don't have some distinct...
	I think it's important that people come together and associate it.
	Also, there's leaders.
	We got Ron Paul here.
	We got Tulsi Gabbard here.
	We got Dennis Kucinich here.
	So we have people who are leaders of some of these ideological paradigms, as it were, who are highly respected.
	People who weren't here will look at them and they'll say, well, if they were there, you know, I like these people.
	It must be okay.
	And I think leaving after this, you'll have people not just...
	Okay, sorry about that.
	I nearly, my dog nearly pulled over the lighting.
	Oh!
	Those flipping dogs.
	Okay.
	Oh, they ruined the lighting.
	Yeah, Pudge.
	Okay, that's a little better.
	Pudge just nearly took down our lighting people.
	Holy cows, that was close.
	All right, I was going to commentate on that intro to say that I wasn't going to play the entire four and a half minute interview.
	And I forget on what channel that was.
	Garland Nixon, everybody.
	It's funny, like, I've known people by face but not by name.
	And not to get my parents in trouble, but my parents watch Fox News a lot.
	And I know that I've seen Garland on Fox News.
	So I knew more about him than I thought I knew, except I spent the better part of the day doing my homework to look up any controversies, any scandals in which Garland may have been a part.
	I found one.
	We'll get to it in a bit.
	But all that to say, we're going to talk to Garland about a lot of stuff.
	We're going to start with childhood, get to where he is now, and then we're going to break down this thing as to what being a lefty means.
	In the mind of someone who thinks that they are a lefty in today's era of politics, I thoroughly believe there's no such thing as lefty or righty anymore, and I thoroughly believe it's red pill, blue pill.
	Blue pill, red pill.
	People who think the government does good is...
	People who think the government can be trusted and does good, and those who know that they can't.
	So, Garland Nixon...
	I'm going to bring him in just to...
	I mean, he'll do the 30,000-foot overview.
	Barnes might not make it, so I'm waiting for confirmation from Barnes, but Barnes or no Barnes, I got my questions, and this is going to be great.
	Standard disclaimers, you know the drill.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fornication advice.
	We're on Rumble.
	We're on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	And that's it.
	Without further adieu.
	Oh, someone wants to say hi.
	What do you have to say?
	I am Winston, your overlord.
	Okay, good.
	Get out of here.
	You go down, and we're going to bring in Garland coming in in 3, 2, 1, now.
	Garland, sir, how goes the battle?
	Absolutely fantastic.
	Great to finally meet you.
	Well, I've seen you on TV more than I knew.
	I put names to faces, and now I won't forget it.
	Garland, before we get into the subject matter of the evening, and we're going to talk about the drone behind you.
	I don't know if you're familiar with my repertoire of drone feats and accomplishments, but we'll get into that in a bit.
	For those who may not know who you are, 30,000-foot overview, elevator pitch.
	Before we get into things.
	Okay, I'm trying to give you the short version, but it's a consequence.
	I was born a very poor kid.
	I was born in abject poverty.
	My mom started a company.
	My dad became a longshoreman.
	They did quite well.
	So I went from abject third-world poverty to living better than most of my friends and living quite comfortably, right?
	So I know...
	And have quite an understanding.
	You know, if you've never been real poor, you'd understand what it is.
	So I think that was really beneficial to me as far as experience.
	I was a law enforcement officer.
	And for many, many years, I became a law enforcement officer.
	I actually became a law enforcement official.
	I rose up pretty high.
	I was a law enforcement official, worked under the governor's office in the state of Maryland.
	I worked with the American Civil Liberties Union for years.
	I actually worked for the ACLU at one time.
	I rose up to the National Board of Directors for the ACLU, and I was on the National Board of Directors for years.
	I did, and I left over something we probably can't talk about here.
	Well, we're not on YouTube.
	Hold on.
	Let me stop you here.
	I want to get into all of this.
	I want a 30,000-foot overview, like radio host on the network now.
	I want to know.
	I'm getting into your childhood, Garland, because I know...
	Sure.
	Minimal.
	You know, we'll just do it right now.
	Sure.
	Born in abject poverty, where were you born?
	Where are your parents from?
	How many generations American?
	How many siblings?
	First of all, where were you born?
	I was born in Maryland in a little country area.
	Well, it's just actually a suburb of Baltimore in Arundel County near the water, close to the Chesapeake Bay.
	Grew up playing around the water a lot.
	Grew up with my mom.
	My parents weren't married at the time.
	And they eventually got married later on.
	But my mother, so I was very poor.
	Four sisters and a mother and very, very poor.
	And my mom, when I was about eight or nine, started a business.
	And it was quite successful.
	She did very, very well.
	Well, and married my dad who had married, you know, they weren't married.
	He had married someone else and his wife died.
	And then my parents, oddly enough, when I'm 14 or 15, they get married.
	So, you know, we were middle class at least.
	At least we were doing okay.
	From as poor as I was, I felt like a billionaire, you know, and I had four sisters.
	My sisters were very sharp, very smart, smart, did very well in school.
	Let me ask, hold on.
	So are you the youngest of five?
	I'm the youngest of five with four sisters.
	Four girls and a boy.
	And your dad, who married your mom after his wife died, is that your biological father?
	Yes, my biological father, yeah.
	Okay, so this is kind of odd.
	So your parents have intercourse and have children, but don't get married.
	Then break up while your dad goes to get married.
	He goes marry somewhere else.
	Then that woman dies.
	Then he marries my mother when I'm a young teenager.
	That's amazing.
	Can I ask, if you know from your mother's perspective, did she always love him?
	I don't know.
	Was there a period where she hated him?
	And did she never know any resentment?
	Never know.
	My mom was a very zen kind of person, so I don't think there was any resentment.
	Extremely independent.
	Extremely independent.
	So, nah.
	She was a bulldozer.
	So, no.
	No.
	No, absolutely not.
	Are your parents still alive?
	No.
	Both of my parents are alive.
	So the youngest of five, that's kind of, I mean, your dad becomes a widow and then marries your mom, which is your biological mother, and then you're a reunited family.
	How weird is that?
	I mean, that's not the ordinary order of things.
	My four sisters were from my mother's first marriage, and then she got a divorce, so they're all really technically my half-sisters.
	We don't have the same father.
	And then she got divorced and had a baby out of wedlock that was me, so kind of weird stuff.
	Okay, that's very cool.
	Born in Baltimore.
	We know what Baltimore is like today.
	Has it always been?
	Was it always?
	No, no.
	Because back then, you had a big steel plant.
	Sparrows Point.
	It was working class America.
	But the black, white, people could work at the steel plant.
	And when people got out of high school, they could get a job at the steel plant.
	My dad worked at the waterfront.
	They made good money.
	The men, you know, black, white.
	No, my dad was a black man.
	It was more segregated then.
	But all of his friends had homes and nice cars because they worked at the steel plant or the waterfront.
	So we were at a time when a person could get out of high school, go down to the steel plant, get a job, benefits, union, all of that stuff, feed their family.
	Wife didn't have to work.
	You know what I mean?
	It was a much better economy back then.
	It was a working class industrial economy.
	When does the steel plant go under or close down?
	Ooh, late 70s, early 80s.
	Something like that.
	You're 54 years old?
	No, I'm 61. Shut the front door.
	Well done, sir.
	No, I only said 54. That's the only age I could find for a Garland Nixon online, but I didn't have a picture with it.
	So 61, which means that you're born in...
	61. 61. And so the plant closes down when you're a kid.
	What happens to the town?
	I mean, do you see it overnight?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	You saw the difference.
	You saw the deindustrialization of America.
	Let me give you an example.
	So when I was in law enforcement for many, many years, I was in Marine Division.
	So I worked on a police boat, right?
	I remember the early 80s.
	That's when I started.
	You go out there.
	There was working class America.
	There was...
	Boats everywhere.
	Working class, middle class people could afford boats.
	There was lots and lots and lots of boats.
	That's one of the things I saw.
	You know, small runabouts, things like that.
	Medium sized boats, right?
	I saw America change.
	And one of the ways I saw it was on the bay.
	Less and less and less boats.
	It went from lots of people with boats running around having fun to only a select few people.
	You know what I mean?
	Now, when you go out on the bay on a Saturday, man, they were everywhere.
	Now you go out on the bay, Not that much.
	People are just trying to struggle.
	That's a luxury that people can't afford.
	It was a luxury that everybody had.
	Lots of people had it.
	When I grew up, my dad had a boat.
	And it's not as though...
	I mean, the funny thing is you'd think boats would have gotten cheaper now to be more accessible.
	Back in the day, I presume, relatively speaking, they were quite expensive.
	So it's not like...
	It's not that people had...
	It's not that it was cheaper back then and people had less money, but it was cheaper.
	It was expensive and people could afford it.
	And now they're just...
	People had better jobs, yes.
	They weren't working at the Shake Shack then.
	They actually had an industrial job.
	I knew a guy, my dad had one friend that worked at a sausage, Park Sausages.
	It was a sausage.
	He had a nice middle-class home.
	His wife didn't work.
	He worked at a Franken-stuffing sausages at Park Sausages or something and got a retirement and retired.
	He used to go fishing with my dad all the time, lived a decent middle-class life.
	That was industrial America.
	I guess the question is, what happened to that?
	But we're going to come full circle in terms of what happened to that by the end of this.
	So you're brought up there.
	What kind of schools do you go to?
	Public schools?
	Public schools.
	I know public schools.
	Good experience or bad experience?
	There were decent schools.
	There were some issues back then because America was still coming out of segregation, so there was racial issues there.
	But the schools that I went were about 95% to 99% white.
	Overall, I enjoyed school.
	Wasn't terrible.
	Okay, so high school, your sisters, what do you do after high school?
	You go to university?
	I go to community college.
	Then when I go to community college, I'm in community college, I decide I want to look around.
	First, I wanted to be a fireman.
	Then I decided to go to law enforcement.
	At that time, law enforcement said, hey, you come here and we'll still pay for you to go to school.
	They had all kinds of opportunity then.
	And I decided to go into a law enforcement career, and I really enjoyed it.
	And I got to work on a police boat a lot.
	Eventually became a hovercraft pilot.
	I loved the water.
	I got to be on a police boat, do what I wanted, be in the Marine Division.
	So it was great.
	Okay, that's fantastic.
	Now, so one thing I was able to figure out online is you were in law enforcement for 20 years.
	You rose to the rank of major.
	I don't know what that means, major.
	But how do you decide to get into law enforcement?
	And what positions did you hold along the way?
	And what was that experience like?
	And where were you enforcing the law?
	Okay, so in the state of Maryland, we had, it was...
	In some states, it's called fish and wildlife, stuff like that.
	You know, some places they call them game wardens, things like that.
	In the state of Maryland, they decided to take our fish and wildlife and game warden and marine police and park service and all that kind of stuff and make it natural resources police.
	Under the Department of Natural Resources, make it the same as Maryland State Police, same uniform, same salary, same everything.
	So we had the same.
	We were effectively Maryland State Police.
	Our main charge was...
	I was in Marine Division, so I did boating and all that kind of stuff.
	Everything from boat accidents, recovering bodies.
	But we also did regular traditional law enforcement because we had full law enforcement powers, too.
	I mean, I had a ticket book.
	I could write tickets on the road, whatever.
	I had a police cruiser, same as state police.
	Everybody thought I was state police unless they looked at the patch.
	I mean, regular state troopers.
	And we had the same authorities.
	And then, of course, I did everything there.
	I was commander of the, you know, I went up the ranks and I became the commander of the training division, commander of investigations, aviation, all those kinds of things, communication.
	So I know law enforcement very, very well.
	And then when I retired, I taught at Anne Arundel Community College and I taught law enforcement, investigations, criminal justice, things of that nature.
	So I have a big, long background in that stuff and I really enjoyed it.
	Oh, and organized crime.
	That was my favorite thing to teach, was organized crime.
	As an acting law enforcement officer, if you have one or two of the most striking memories from your experience, would you be able to tell them offhand?
	You know, interesting, one of the most striking experiences, I'll give it to you, and it may sound crazy, but this is one that always sticks in my mind.
	At the time, weed was completely illegal, right?
	Marijuana is completely illegal.
	So I walked down this hill in this park, and there's a couple guys sitting there.
	And we'd walk around, and we'd check fishermen, or we had regular crimes and stuff.
	So I walked down.
	There's a couple guys sitting there fishing.
	This is maybe in the 80s.
	They had their stuff sitting there, and they had a big bag of weed sitting right on their cooler.
	And they turn around.
	And I mean...
	I'm decked out, full law enforcement, you know, regalia, right?
	They probably figured it's state police.
	Everybody thought we were state police.
	We looked exactly the same.
	And as I said, we're the same state police.
	The guys turned around and they were scared to death.
	They knew they were done.
	They knew they were going to jail.
	They knew it was game, set, and match, right?
	And they turned around and they looked at me and I'm like, afternoon, gentlemen.
	And they're like, eh.
	You know, they're scared to death.
	And I talked to them.
	I'm like, you got your fishing license?
	Yes.
	They showed me their fishing licenses.
	All right, guys, you catching anything?
	Yeah.
	And I said, let me take a look in your cooler.
	And they just like to look at each other.
	I was just kind of screwing with them, tell you the truth.
	They took the weed off and they set it there and they opened the cooler and I looked.
	I'm like, okay, you're doing really good.
	And then I just like pretended like I didn't see the weed.
	They knew they were gone to jail, done, finished.
	Right.
	And I said, all right, guys, have a nice day.
	Turn around and walk back up the hill.
	And they just kind of looked at each other like, did that really just happen?
	Did a cop just really walk up and we had a bag of weed and he didn't say a word?
	And I walked back up the hill and laughed, actually.
	I thought, that's hilarious.
	The cop, they're done.
	They're going to jail.
	But 27 years, I never arrested anyone for law enforcement.
	I mean, for weed.
	Never did it once.
	That is actually probably a defining...
	You might remember it because it's defining to you as it should be defining for everybody who's now going to get to know you.
	You're a law enforcement officer.
	In theory, you have a duty to uphold the law, but in a more meaningful sense, you have the duty to uphold justice.
	And you see two people who have a bag of weed.
	You could ruin their lives for the rest of their lives for something which...
	Whether or not you're into it, it's now been legalized recreationally in Canada, elsewhere as well, and you decide just to ignore it.
	Do you think that they thought you were a total nincompoop or they knew damn well what you were doing?
	They knew.
	I saw it.
	It was right in front of them.
	I don't think they knew what the hell happened.
	I guess it was obvious to them that I decided to ignore it.
	It was obvious to them.
	They had no idea why.
	But see, you just said the word that even now with politics and geopolitics and international politics, which I focus on, right?
	You just hit the nail on the head, buddy.
	The word is justice.
	I believe in justice.
	That's one of my principles.
	Justice.
	Fairness.
	Does every single person have the same expectation of rights?
	And am I acting in a way that's just?
	People say, I believe in law and order.
	I don't believe in law and order.
	Laws can be extremely unjust.
	Our government, you know, makes terrible unjust.
	And we look and we say, why the hell?
	Well, that's not just.
	And so I, as a human being, I was not going to be, I was a law enforcement, but I'm a human being first.
	And I was not going to be unjust to a fellow person.
	And that's the way I feel.
	And people get mad at me when it comes to international, by evaluating international politics.
	It's about justice to me.
	And that, I think, that's why that always sticks in my mind.
	Because there was never a thought in my mind of arresting those guys or doing anything to them.
	Because it would have been unjust.
	And I never, ever.
	Ever.
	I had instance after instance.
	I never locked anybody up or took any action against anybody for weed in all those years.
	Well, I mean, let me ask you this.
	At the time, this is your philosophy.
	Do you think that your philosophy was more prevalent in the force then than it is now?
	Or were you the exception to the rule?
	I was the exception to the rule.
	Could you have gotten into trouble, hypothetically?
	No, because, remember, there's something in law enforcement called officer's discretion.
	And I could make the argument in the same way that if I walked up and saw somebody who spit on the sidewalk, which is technically illegal, because I taught in the academy, so I taught this stuff.
	Technically, it's illegal to spit on the sidewalk.
	So the question is, do I have a duty to write someone a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk?
	No.
	We have what's called officer's discretion.
	There are certain things that you don't have discretion on, such as felonies and things of that nature.
	But for misdemeanors and things like that, if I arrested everybody for misdemeanors all day long, I'd never be out there to answer calls of service.
	Somebody calls help, there's a murder in progress.
	Sorry, can't do it.
	I'm writing somebody a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk.
	So I could easily make the argument based on the principle of officer's discretion that I was making a decision because I wanted to remain on patrol.
	For crimes against people, crimes against persons and property and things of that nature.
	I'm going to bring this one up because I actually didn't ask it.
	Do you believe in God?
	It's a personal question, but I didn't ask if you were brought up religious.
	I was brought up religious.
	I was brought up, my mother was a very devout, you know, Christian, Southern Baptist, things of that nature, right?
	And so I don't believe in God.
	I do not believe in God.
	I study Zen.
	So, you know, I study the principle of Zen.
	So to me, that's a question that doesn't need to be answered to me.
	And, you know, because when you say God, what do you mean?
	What kind of God?
	Do you mean an old guy that sits on a throne and has a beard?
	Is that what you mean?
	Do you mean the kind of God that the Hindus, when they say he's non-dual, he's not non-dual, meaning not one and not many?
	What do you mean when you say God?
	You know, if Jesus was in India and he said, hey, look, you know what?
	I'm the son of God.
	They'd say, great to meet you.
	So am I. I'm glad you finally realized that.
	So the question, do I believe in God, is a broad question.
	You know what I mean?
	Unless, if you are a particular religion, if you are of a particular religion, and even a particular branch of a particular religion, do you believe in God has a specific meaning to it?
	So, it's such a broad question.
	I don't believe in God.
	I don't not believe in God.
	That's a question that I don't need answered.
	Well, that's one of my...
	Classic retorts is it doesn't matter if God exists, and it doesn't matter if I don't believe in him, and if he doesn't exist, it doesn't matter if I do.
	And then it does depend on what your definition is, because some people would say God is not the euphemism, but rather the synonym for original creator, which could be the Big Bang.
	Okay, hold on, Garland.
	Before we go on, people, we're going to go over to Rumble right now, and it's not for freer discussion.
	It's just because we're going to go to Rumble, and then I'm going to post this entire interview.
	On YouTube tomorrow, but Garland doesn't change anything from our perspective.
	We continue going on and I'm just going to end on YouTube.
	Go to Rumble, people.
	I will see you there.
	Should see a thousand more faces there in a second.
	Right now.
	Just let me say this.
	This is great.
	This is a different kind of interview.
	Nobody ever asked me about me.
	They always ask me about the, you know, oh, what is, you know, what is your thoughts on black mood or something like that?
	Nobody ever says, hey, tell me something about yourself, Garland.
	So this is definitely a different kind of interview.
	Garland, in the early days, I would start, I mean, it's essential to understand the person to understand what they believe later in life.
	And I remember the early stages when I was...
	I would interview people and spend an hour on their intros.
	And then people are like, get onto this.
	I was like, no, we need to understand the person.
	But especially, people are not just the two-dimensional images that you see on TV.
	They are histories which craft who they are in the present.
	Okay, 20 years in the force.
	And we hear a lot.
	I'm reluctant to get into any discussion about the institutionalized racism aspect, but now I think I have to just because it fits in with this.
	You're in the police force for 20 years, and you're talking about officer discretion.
	And it's nice when officers like you exercise that discretion in a forgiving manner.
	Not so nice when the officers exercise that discretion in a punitive manner.
	In your experience in the police force over the 20 years.
	Some people would say, I have no doubt officers exercise that discretion punitively based on race or other circumstances.
	I may be in my naive, ignorant Canadian perspective say, I have no doubt some officers exercise it in a punitive manner, but maybe not on an institutionalized racial basis, but rather just on who they didn't like on any given day, which might have more to do with class than race.
	But what was your experience in your two decades in law enforcement as to how you viewed other officers exercising their discretion?
	Keep in mind something.
	You've got two things to think about.
	Internally and externally, right?
	Externally.
	I'll put it like this.
	I didn't see it much because when officers with me, I guess they probably wouldn't do or say anything.
	You know what I mean?
	Let's face it.
	I'm with some white officer that might have done something.
	I think he's going to be a little jumpier when he's around me than otherwise.
	But I'll say this.
	There was a lot of issues internally.
	Because keep in mind something, that was early in the integration of law enforcement.
	So there was, I saw a lot of stuff and there was lawsuits in police departments throughout the 80s and 90s everywhere, all that kind of stuff going on.
	I'll tell you something I remember.
	Let me give you, you know, again, a defining thing in my life that I learned.
	So there was an officer and I was assigned to work with the officer.
	And what I was told is, this guy, you're not, that ain't going to work out, Garland.
	He's a racist.
	He doesn't like black people and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
	And I'm like, eh, well, you got to know me.
	But it's no wonder that I ended up, you know, studying sin because, man, I just do whatever, right?
	So I went to work with him.
	I was like, whatever.
	I worked with the guy and I was just myself.
	And he was himself.
	And we worked together and we had fun and we were friends, right?
	And we became friends.
	We worked together and we just, it just had a real...
	I never saw any inclination, any indication of what I was told.
	That this guy doesn't like black people, he was a racist.
	Never saw it, right?
	Okay, so I worked with him.
	Ah, whatever, a year, a couple years.
	I then left.
	Then another black officer who I know went to work with this guy.
	They became the best of friends.
	They bowled together on Thursday night.
	Their families were best of friends.
	They were friends when they retired.
	One of them passed away for years.
	They became like brothers.
	They literally said, we're like brothers.
	After they retired, they traveled.
	They went fishing together.
	You name it, right?
	And it taught me something because I'm sure that the white officers that said to me, this guy's a racist, Garland.
	Watch out for him.
	Truly believed in their heart that they were warning me and they were probably right.
	Here is my suspicion.
	The guy had never really been around Black people much, and he had these things that he believed about Black people and what he'd learned.
	He worked around me for a couple years, and he's like, he's just a regular guy, right?
	And then when the other guy that came to work with him, they were very similar people.
	They liked the Baltimore Orioles.
	You know what I mean?
	They were baseball fans.
	They both loved to bowl.
	They both liked pickup trucks.
	They both liked to fish.
	They were the same guy.
	They were the exact same guy, but one of them was black and one of them was white.
	And it made sense that they'd become the best of friends, right?
	It was, I think, a defining thing for me because one of the things that taught me is a lot of times people who have animosity towards people of other groups, it's because they've never been around them.
	And the only thing they really know is what they told, what they were grown up with.
	I remember I had a girl in school tell me, yeah, well, if I had a Black neighbor, and I was like in the eighth or ninth grade, if I had a Black neighbor, somebody, a Black person moved into my neighborhood, I probably wouldn't associate with them.
	And I said, why?
	She says, well...
	I guess because my brothers probably would and my fathers wouldn't, so I wouldn't either.
	It wasn't something.
	It was learned behavior.
	And learned behavior can change and you can learn different behaviors and we can grow.
	And that's one of the reasons I made the points that I made at the Rage Against the War rally.
	And why I thought it was so important for people who are libertarians and socialists, because if you're a libertarian, you're told, oh my God, a socialist, they're the most evil person in the world, and vice versa.
	And there were people that, oh no, a Trump-supporting MAGA person, my God, they're going to kill me for sure, right?
	But what you find is, when a bunch of people who are just plain old working class people who work for a living get together, they all start to realize, hey, I like...
	Soccer or football or something.
	I like to go fishing.
	Hey, you know, I can change the brake pads on my car and this guy changes the brake.
	I can fix my lawnmower.
	You start to realize how much we have in common and that we may have some ideological differences, but you start to realize that most regular working class people can get along, but that the people who are at the top making these decisions that hurt us all.
	They don't have anything with commas.
	They went to vine-covered universities, they learned a bunch of crap, and they can't stand us.
	And that if we get to associate with each other, we get past the myth that they use to keep us divided.
	And so that's what I learned from that interaction, and that's what I brought with me in my work for justice and fairness overall in the world.
	Did you say a vine-covered university?
	Yeah, you know.
	That's a word for like a fancy...
	I never heard it and I like it.
	I mean, when you speak those words, I channel Jimmy Dore.
	I channel a lot of the people who I think are...
	I call them populists more than any specific political group if populism or populists are not a specific group, although some people think it is.
	Okay, but so look, you do qualify yourself.
	You call yourself a lefty.
	I mean, I've seen it on a couple of interviews.
	The internet calls you that, among other things.
	We're going to get into the other name that they call you.
	Well, not you per se, but a station you used to work for apparently had to register as an agent for Russia.
	Still do.
	Yeah, I'm on Radio Sputnik, yes.
	And by the way, I'll show you, I Harbor.
	That people make an issue of that still blows my mind.
	Like, I go on RT to do interviews because they do a better job covering Canadian politics than some of the Canadian captured media does.
	But, okay, how does one consider themselves a lefty and then go into law enforcement?
	Or does that sort of distinguish your MO as a law enforcement from what some might say would be a righty in the law enforcement, which might be more?
	Now, again, this becomes the question.
	Particularly in today's society, when one says I'm a lefty, what do they mean?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Because what has happened, the neoliberals have redefined left.
	Traditional left.
	My dad was a longshoreman.
	He was in the ILA, International Longshoremen's Association.
	He was in the union, which is the left, left, left of the left unions, right?
	What was that about?
	It was about economic class, union, stuff like that.
	That was about left.
	Was about economic class, right?
	Okay.
	I've been to South America, Venezuela, traveled around South America, and they're left, socialism, Marxist, you name it, right?
	But when it comes to social issues, pretty conservative.
	You know, abortion, they're Catholic, not real big.
	You know, when you go to South America, a number of social issues that they are down with would be aligned with a lot of conservatives here, right?
	So, are they lefties?
	They're Marxists, Leninists.
	They're socialists to the bone, and we are socialists.
	That's about that.
	So, when you say the left, right?
	I'm lefty.
	Why?
	I view politics through the lens of economic class.
	That's why, when I went to the Rage Against the War Machine, and I looked out there, I saw a bunch of people that maybe would have a chainsaw.
	Maybe could change the brakes on their car.
	You know what I mean?
	Maybe actually could fix a lawnmower.
	Maybe just everyday working class people, right?
	So I aligned with those people because you're a libertarian.
	You're a MAGA person.
	But you know what?
	You like fishing.
	I like fishing.
	We can talk.
	You know, you like old cars.
	Hey, what is that?
	That's a 1970 Duster.
	It's got a 440 with a six-pack on it.
	It's got glass pack and headers.
	Oh, we can talk turkey, right?
	I'm aligned with this person a lot of ways, socially, economically, on the day-to-day.
	We can talk about stuff, right?
	But some schmuck that went to Yale and Harvard and all that, he doesn't talk my language.
	I'm not aligned with him.
	Now, what did the neoliberals do?
	They redefined left.
	So now here's what you hear.
	Well, that person's into the whole, oh, they're in favor of the drag queen reading the kids, and they're in favor of the whole...
	Rainbow flags or things of that nature.
	Cultural issues.
	And I'm not saying being in favor or not in favor.
	That's a whole other story, right?
	There's a difference between saying, I believe that all human beings should have the same expectations of rights.
	Everybody should have the same expectation of rights.
	Then saying, we're going to promote this social issue and pretend because of that we're the left.
	So now I can hate unions.
	Traditional left is very suspicious of corporate power.
	The traditional lefties support unions, extremely suspicious of corporate power and oligarchies, anti-war.
	That's traditional left.
	These people have redefined it now where they despise unions.
	None of their issues, they align themselves with people who despise the working class.
	Forget the viewing politics through the issue of economic class.
	They have teams.
	You're on my team or you're on the other team.
	So they have redefined the left away from looking at politics through the lens of economic class.
	I can say I'm a lefty.
	That's the traditional lefty.
	Anti-war, suspicious of corporate power, suspicious of concentrated power, and viewing politics through the lens of economic class.
	And now it just makes me sick.
	They're like, yeah, they're for the drag queens reading the kids.
	They're the left.
	And I'm like, well, you've redefined that as the left, but that's the new redefinition of something that was not any way, shape, or form associated with it.
	And as I said, you go to a lot of parts of the world and go to the left, the left, and they're much more socially conservative.
	You know what I mean?
	I did an interview with the grandson of a former president of Brazil, and he's explaining it in South America.
	The left are anti-abortion.
	They are not...
	They espouse what are traditionally conservative beliefs, which is why I don't understand the distinction anymore.
	But from the perspective of American politics, when did it happen that the left went from being...
	And I had some in my family.
	They went from being anti-vaccine, left, not trusting pharma, left, not trusting government, left, anti-war, you know, hair, 1970s, opposing Vietnam.
	And now the, who call themselves the left, want censorship, you know, pro-immunity for vaccine manufacturers, forget your individual rights.
	When did it happen?
	Has it been hijacked?
	And how do you, as someone who upholds these traditional leftist values, leftist values, reconcile Your memory of the left with the current reality of the left.
	Well, here's what I have to say.
	It is this, the neoliberal, neoconservative and the beast that must not be named.
	Here's what I mean.
	Think about this.
	Think about this.
	And here's the way I put it.
	There's this monster, this invisible monster, this ideology, whatever it is, we won't give it a name, but it's sitting there and there's that elephant in the room, right?
	Economically, it expresses itself as neoliberalism.
	Okay?
	Foreign policy, it expresses itself as neoconservatism.
	Culturally, it expresses itself as wokeism.
	It's the same beast.
	There's three expressions of it.
	So when you hear the EU, the EU, right, is the economic slash cultural expression of this monster.
	NATO...
	Is the militaristic foreign policy expression of this monster.
	All they've done is, rather than, so with the EU, they use both the cultural and the economic version expression of the monster.
	They don't have to have three.
	The EU does both of them in Europe.
	And then NATO is the militaristic expansionist foreign policy expression of the monster.
	It's the same invisible globalist monster there.
	It's just how it expresses itself.
	So it was neoliberalism as it took over economics and created, you know, became from an industrial, it turned the West from industrial power to a financialized economy.
	And then it inculcated itself into this expansionist, aggressive foreign policy that they call neoconservatism.
	But it's this same monster.
	And so wokeism is a way, I believe, To integrate foreign policy with culture.
	So now what happens is this.
	Wokeism says we're the good guys because we believe in X, women's rights, whatever, right?
	And now they say we've got to take over Afghanistan.
	What?
	Women's rights, gay rights, whatever.
	And now you've got to go around the world and do all the terrible things that they want to do.
	And you have a ready-made excuse.
	And the way you drag these people along is, why are we going to overthrow country X?
	Well, they may have lithium and oil, but that has nothing to do with it.
	Really, it's because they're not down with gay rights or whatever.
	They're not down with women's rights, whatever.
	And you got this whole group of schmucks that are dragged along by the nose because they're like, oh yeah, that's it.
	We've got a rainbow flag on our embassy now in that country.
	Eh, we're down with it.
	It's just another way to bamboozle the weak-minded into going along with something that if they really knew the truth, they wouldn't.
	I agree.
	What's amazing is the more I have discussions with people on all ends of the spectrum, I think we all fundamentally agree, and it just seems to be called a uniparty with two different hats.
	That seems to be driving the wedge between these two groups.
	And the funny thing is, now that you mentioned it out loud, we haven't really heard about the women's rights in Afghanistan since the U.S. pulled out.
	It's like that's taken a back burner of priorities.
	A little bit.
	You know what we heard?
	Those who were angry because we left said, we shouldn't have left.
	We can't leave.
	Why?
	Because of women's rights.
	And then we took all of their money and held all of their money, wouldn't give it back.
	They don't need food.
	They need apparently some kind of women's rights or something.
	But food is not apparently one of the things they need.
	And then that just drowned out.
	It was like, we got to stay.
	We need to go back for women's rights.
	And they're like, okay, never mind.
	Let's go to Ukraine now.
	Okay, we're going to get to Ukraine, actually.
	But before, we have to finish your life.
	20 years in law enforcement.
	Why do you decide?
	Was it a retirement?
	Did you decide to move on?
	Yeah, I retired.
	And did you get bored of retirement?
	Because you certainly don't seem retired now.
	Well, you know, it's funny because when I was in law enforcement, I started doing a little bit of radio.
	I was working with the ACLU and doing volunteer stuff with the ACLU.
	And then I said, I just decided, I said, look, if you need somebody to...
	If you need somebody to go out and speak for things, I'd like to go.
	And a radio station, extremely conservative radio station, asked me to come talk with them, to debate them on the death penalty.
	And I came out and I debated them on the death penalty.
	And they really liked me.
	And they said, hey, can you come back every week from now on?
	And I said, I'd love to.
	And I started doing radio.
	That's how I started.
	A very conservative radio station.
	And of all things, I debated them on the death penalty.
	And they just said, well, you got a pretty good argument there.
	I presume you're anti-death penalty?
	Yes.
	Still are?
	Yeah.
	It's funny.
	I think there's two subjects where I've changed my perspective a little bit.
	One is the death penalty, where I, as a young, arrogant, pompous kid, said, yeah, sure, I'm pro-death penalty.
	And then once you realize how thoroughly corrupt the institutions are, even if you believe in it in principle, it becomes impossible to believe in it in practice.
	And abortion is another one where I sort of...
	I've attenuated my position on that a little bit because even though, you know, ideally, again, no one should want it.
	No one should appreciate it.
	No one should like it.
	It might be a necessity under certain circumstances within certain parameters.
	So you debate on a conservative radio show while you're still in law enforcement office.
	And then I started doing a show every week on, like, a big radio station in Baltimore, and I was still in law enforcement at the time.
	And so then you decide to retire from law enforcement and go into teaching.
	Yes.
	You seem like a natural...
	Well, I did sales.
	I did sales for a while.
	I sold security stuff, network security cameras, a lot of network stuff, a lot of security stuff.
	I've always played around with computers and building computers and stuff like that, hobbies.
	And so I was really into computers and stuff like that.
	Then I got a job selling, you know...
	To like businesses, things like that, cameras that could be networked early when you could first see them through your phones and all that kinds of stuff.
	And so I did that for a while.
	I really enjoyed it.
	And then I decided to start teaching.
	I knew someone at the local community college and I said, hey, I'd like to teach.
	And he's like, hey, man, with your background, we'd love to have you.
	Because they had a criminal justice department and he knew my background.
	He'd seen me speaking on various different criminal justice subjects at different places.
	You know, and then I taught for a couple of years and that was fun.
	The ACLU.
	I almost forgot to delve into this.
	Now, I don't want to ask you questions that would provoke you having to badmouth the ACLU.
	And there's no but to that.
	I'll just start off by saying my view of the ACLU has radically changed over the years.
	And tell me if I'm wrong.
	The ACLU went from defending Nazis, actual Nazis' right to protest.
	In what I now understood as a largely Jewish community, which is why they chose that community to protest in.
	They've gone from that level of support of freedom of speech to the current iteration morphing of the ACLU, which supports compelled speech.
	Obviously, again, under the guise of protecting the feelings of the trans community.
	They post some stuff.
	At least it's ACLU Virginia posted these...
	Trans supportive tweets, you know, don't attack trans youth if they say it five times and think it makes a more impactful tweet.
	Has there been an evolution in the essence of the ACLU over the years?
	And if so, why?
	I absolutely agree.
	And I resigned in protest.
	When I resigned a couple years ago from the National Board of Directors, I resigned in protest.
	I was a member of the board for the state of Maryland and the National Board of Directors.
	And what happened was, to me, the ACLU has become...
	Just an outgrowth of the woke movement.
	It's become the Democratic Party in the United States.
	To me, it's just another branch of the Democratic Party.
	And I didn't believe that the ACLU stood for their roots anymore.
	It was at one time, you know, I remember this as an example.
	The KKK had So the KKK did it, and the local government said you can't do it.
	And the ACLU, we argued and said, hey, that's constitutionally protected speech.
	You have two choices.
	You can either let them put up a sign, or you can shut the program, shut it down, but you can't tell them no based on their views, because if you'd start that, Then you can do it to others.
	And that's the principles we talk about, the KKK.
	I'm not the kind of guy that loves the KKK and vice versa, but it was an issue of principle, right?
	First Amendment, it is what it is.
	First Amendment in the United States is meant to, ideally, to protect unpopular speech.
	Okay.
	I went on all the TV channels all around and explained to it, and some people were mad and some people weren't, but it was a principle.
	It was a principle, and that was the ACLU.
	Great.
	And when I left, they wrote this article in the New York Times where they said that they were in favor of the mandates, the JAB mandates.
	And at that point, I said, I'm out.
	Come out.
	No.
	You know, this is not what the ACLU was.
	We are the opposite.
	We were radicals.
	You know, we were the first people that would scream at the top of our lungs, no, no, no, no, no.
	We're filing lawsuits.
	We're doing everything.
	And now you guys are writing an article?
	With things that were wrong in the article?
	I showed them, this is what you said.
	This is what it says on Pfizer's website.
	Those two things don't match.
	You guys are...
	I'm out, right?
	And I was gone, and I saw...
	Look, let me ask you this.
	How much money do you think the American Civil Liberty Union...
	Just get a guess from you.
	On a given year, how much do you think they bring in?
	Okay, so I'll go with something.
	Now that I know that, for example...
	Oh, Tom Fitton from Judicial Watch.
	Now that I know that, I think they bring in like $100 million a year.
	ACLU, I'll say $100 million.
	When I left two years ago, it was $300 million.
	Shut the front door.
	Hey, let me ask you this, Carlin.
	The CEO or the president of the ACLU, do you know what their salary is?
	No, I don't.
	I don't know.
	But I'll tell you this.
	I remember the last meeting I went to and they went over what we had in reserves and stocks and savings and all that.
	It was over $900 million.
	Well, hey, it's a very lucrative...
	So they ain't broke.
	Trust me when I tell you this.
	Well, and the thing is, I don't say it judgmentally as in it's a not-for-profit.
	I presume it's a registered charity, right?
	I mean...
	It's fine that they make that money.
	Sure, it's great if you use it for the right thing.
	If you use it for the right thing.
	The last time I saw the ACLU do something that I had to give them credit for, I think it was when they defended Willie Nash, the prisoner who got 12 years for having a cell phone.
	He got 12 years for having a cell phone in jail.
	And I was like, finally, ACLU's fighting for some legitimate injustices.
	So you left the ACLU recently.
	Yeah, about two years.
	Yeah, during the mandates.
	When the mandates came out, I was out of there because I was so strong.
	And they didn't want me to leave.
	They said, yeah, we all have some disagreements.
	I said, this is not even the organization.
	I'm out.
	I left.
	See, the thing about it is now, look on their tweet, and all you see is the woke stuff.
	Yeah.
	You know what I mean?
	Let me pull up another one.
	Go to the ACLU, because keep in mind something now.
	Let me defend him for a second.
	You are on native land.
	I don't understand.
	Now, keep in mind something.
	Defend him for one second.
	You've got each state is independent.
	The ACLU of Virginia, ACLU of Maryland, ACLU of Southern California.
	So, each ACLU...
	Affiliate can say things that the national ACLU doesn't agree with.
	I think in fairness, you would go to the ACLU, the overall ACLU, and see what they're doing.
	And that would represent the national office.
	You know what I mean?
	Because as any organization, one group out there could say something that the rest doesn't agree with.
	So, but I'm just saying, overall, all you're going to see is the woke stuff.
	I'm not going to tell them who, but I'm just saying, As far as I see it, when I left, they were just the Democratic Party extended.
	That's what they were.
	And I may not be able to find anything fast enough.
	And yeah, fair distinction, I would presume.
	Well, I'll do my homework afterwards and pull up some news.
	It's the Democratic Party extended.
	That's all it is to me.
	And as a person who, I don't belong to either one, either of the, I call them not parties, but brainwashed cults.
	Since I don't belong and I despise both cults.
	If you're a member of either of these cults extended like this organization, I don't want anything to do with you.
	They're terrible.
	When do you start getting demonized by the left the most?
	Has it been years in the making, or was this the straw that broke the camel's back resigning from the ACLU?
	I don't know, because I don't really pay any attention to it.
	So I don't know.
	As far as me getting demonized anyway, I do a show in Los Angeles on KPFK Radio.
	And there's a guy there that I was just told the other day.
	He spent an entire hour railing against me.
	Like, his entire show was railing against me as an evil Putin Russian, you know how it is now.
	Right?
	Of the evil Putin Russian bot stuff, right?
	And they asked me about it, and I said, I don't have a problem with it.
	I said, it just means I got two shows now.
	Mine and his.
	Good.
	He's doing exactly what he should do.
	And I said, I wouldn't be mad if every single show on KPFK, they said, we'll talk about Garland Nixon.
	Because all of the listeners would say, I got to listen to this guy, Garland Nixon.
	My God, what's going on with him?
	So I'm not, I don't have a problem with people raking me over the coals, attacking me.
	Wonderful.
	Well, I mean, they might actually go listen to and then say, not only is he not as bad as that guy said he was.
	I actually like what he has to say.
	And now I'm going to view every other accusation of being a Russian, you know, whatever, with a little bit more circumspection.
	I was told that he opened the phones and the callers all raked him over the coals and said, we love Garland.
	You're wrong.
	He's great.
	There was only two callers.
	The rest of them gave him a hard time and said, you're terrible.
	That's wrong.
	He's my favorite show.
	That's got to make you feel very good.
	And not from a superficial perspective, but from you're doing the right thing perspective.
	I almost forgot to ask you this.
	Married kids?
	Here's what I always do.
	Everybody knows me.
	I don't really get into my personal life because I would never want any of my family to get targeted or anything like that.
	So, like, I don't get into my, keep my personal life very, very, very separate.
	Fair enough, and my apologies.
	No, no, no.
	I don't blame you for asking.
	But I truly believe, and when I first got into radio, somebody, believe it or not, I was on Fox News for years.
	I was on Fox News all the time.
	And someone there, very early.
	I'm not going to mention his name because everybody would know who he is, said to me, Garland, let me give you a piece of advice.
	Always any family members, things like that, keep them out of it.
	And you see how it is.
	People going to the Supreme Court, some poor schmuck is in, you know, you disagree with them ideologically, they're chasing him and his family out of a restaurant, things of that nature.
	So it was good advice.
	That's all I can say.
	For me, it was not too late, but my progression has been totally the other way around.
	I didn't go from being political to wanting to go, you know, Casey Neistat family stuff.
	I started off as Casey Neistat family stuff and then started doing law and then the world fell off the cliff.
	So, you know, what's done can't be undone.
	But also, you know, in today's day and age, depending on the age of your children and your family, everybody's got their own social media accounts in any event.
	So tough to live a life of secrecy in an age of...
	And I don't have anything to hide.
	It's not like I got some weird secret life.
	It's just that I don't talk about...
	That's not a discussion that I have because I would never want to put any member of my family in a position, especially with my positions.
	And people are angry at me because I don't go along with the whole Western woke crap or with the pro-war crowd and all of that.
	Absolutely.
	And it's nuts, by the way, because you say, you take the slightest attenuated position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and you're a Putin apologist who's worse than Hitler himself, because you're defending a Hitler.
	Okay, so 20 years in law enforcement, you retire.
	You get into teaching, you do that for, what did you say, seven years?
	That's three or four years.
	Three or four years.
	And then, at the same time, you start getting into radio, but when does...
	Public life, radio life, Fox News appearances.
	When does that really take off?
	Oh, my gosh.
	2011, 12. I was doing a radio in Washington, D.C., and I got a call one week, one day from New York.
	And they said, hey, you know, we've got some people that recommended you.
	We've been listening to you on the radio.
	We need a liberal.
	That's what they called me, a liberal.
	I thought to myself, I ain't going to argue with that, but you got the wrong guy.
	But at any rate, we need a liberal to come up and argue, are you willing to do it?
	And I said, sure, why not?
	Great.
	And I said, when?
	They said, today.
	I'm like, okay.
	So they said, well, have a car pick you up, give us your address, we'll have you, we'll put you on the radio, I mean, on TV this afternoon.
	And they brought me, and they brought me up there, and I sat on a show with a bunch of people on Fox News in New York, and I debated, and I left, and I joked, and I was just me.
	And they had a good time.
	They said, can you come back next week?
	I said, sure.
	And from then on, I started being regular.
	And then that show shut down.
	And I thought, well, I guess my stint on Fox News is over.
	And they called me.
	Now, back then, that was Fox Business Channel.
	And they had online.
	And they said, we want you to come on The Big Fox, which meant regular Fox News.
	And I said, sure.
	And then I started going on there all the time.
	And then I got an offer for a television show.
	And that I was doing weekly.
	And that was in Trenton, New Jersey.
	Every week I go up there.
	And this is an interesting story.
	And it was called Chasing News.
	And I'd be on the show every week.
	And it was in New York.
	It was in Philadelphia.
	It was all over kind of New England area.
	And it was a news show that was on.
	And so I'm on Chasing News.
	And then before COVID, they said, you know, Garland, would you like to host the show sometime?
	And I said, sure.
	And whenever the guy who was the host was off, they'd give me the opportunity to host the show.
	And I'm like, holy moly, I'm hosting a show, right?
	And it was weird because I'd go to Manhattan or something, and people would be like, hey, aren't you that guy from the radio show?
	And I'm like, this is really weird.
	People know who the hell I am.
	That's a weird feeling, right?
	And then when I started hosting the show, I started reading from a teleprompter.
	I'd never done that before, right?
	I did that for about a month, and I'm hosting the show this week, and I'm hosting a couple days in, and I'm hosting, I'm hosting, I'm hosting, and I'm reading a teleprompter, and I'm like, uh-uh, I'm out.
	And then I just called them and I sent an email.
	I said, look, as of January 1st, I'm done.
	I'm not doing it.
	Because I was reading from a teleprompter.
	I didn't write that.
	And it's interesting because everybody wants to get on TV.
	You want to get paid, you're making money, all these kinds of things.
	And, you know, it's what people want to be on TV and be a TV host, right?
	The glamour of it all, right?
	And as soon as I started reading from a teleprompter, I said, oh, no, this is not Garland Nixon.
	I quit.
	That's it.
	That's the last time.
	And then I used to go for then.
	I would still go on Laura Ingraham a little while.
	I used to go on there and Tucker Carlson and things like that.
	And then I just stopped.
	This is a question I've always asked or I've always asked myself.
	When you're reading from a teleprompter, it's not because you wrote it.
	So someone is literally writing the words that you are expected to sit there and repeat like an empty vassal, basically.
	I mean, I don't know what that must make someone feel like.
	Do you feel like a fraud, sort of, where you're just sitting there repeating someone else's words?
	Well, and here's what's interesting.
	It wasn't what I was saying because it was like I had to do the advertisements coming, you know, for like at 7.30 and 8 and 9 today on Chasing News.
	A man in...
	Brooklyn is beaten by a whatever, right?
	A homeless man.
	More at 11. So you do all those little clips like that.
	And then you do...
	And it was regular news.
	It was 11 o 'clock news, but it was a kind of variety of it.
	So you do stuff like, well, a tornado went through so-and-so community today and blah, blah, blah.
	On the scene, we've got our own Monica so-and-so, so-and-so.
	Monica, what do you have in whatever?
	Sheboygan.
	And then Monica comes on.
	So it was pretty...
	Benign stuff, right?
	You know, it was news, right?
	But I think that was even part of it.
	That ain't who I am.
	I got stuff to say.
	I don't want to read.
	And now let's go to Monica where a homeless man was beaten and attacked by a bulldog, right?
	Boom.
	And we go to Monica.
	That's not who I am.
	I'm a person and I have stuff to say.
	I'm not just going to read stuff like some cardboard puppet.
	And now that you mention it.
	What's your primary source?
	What's your method for informing yourself on a subject in order to have an opinion to express on it?
	I read everything I can.
	I love to read.
	And so I read books, books, books.
	Look at that behind me.
	Book after book after book, right?
	I read lots of books and I've read a lot of books over the course of the years on a lot of subjects.
	And every day I read, you know, I'll look Washington Post, New York Times, things of that nature, the propaganda.
	But I also read RT.
	I read press TV.
	I read...
	Pan-Africa News.
	I read Syrian Arab News Agency.
	I read the Greenville Post.
	I could go on and on and on and on.
	I read all kinds of stuff.
	I watch YouTube shows a lot.
	So I bring in a lot of different stuff, a lot of different angles, a lot of different information.
	The more information that you bring in, the better.
	So that's what I do.
	I bring in as much information as I can.
	You read RT, and if you tell people that, and as I do, I read Al Jazeera.
	Oh, yeah!
	Well, here's where we are.
	Because the narratives of the mainstream are so weak, They must, and brittle.
	They must be protected.
	So they created, one of my favorite books is called, by John Rosten Saul, called Voltaire's Bastards.
	And he talks about these technocrats.
	And here's what I've come to believe.
	Basically, there are different kinds of realities.
	What is your reality?
	Where does your realities come from?
	Okay, these technocrats, these neoliberals, they have a consensus reality.
	This is true.
	Because we all believe it's true, and the people that we respect and that are in our circles believe it's true, therefore that is reality.
	Doesn't matter if it's true or not.
	Doesn't matter if it can be proven through empirical data and through, you know, the lens of the context of history and all these things that we can bring.
	You know, if you and I are going to decide if something's true, what data do we have?
	What about the context of history?
	Bring that in.
	All these are intuition.
	All these factors I can bring in to decide if I believe something, right?
	With them, it's a consensus, right?
	So we've all decided safe and effective, whatever it is, right?
	It doesn't matter if it's true.
	We've got a consensus, and we've all gone with this consensus.
	Anything outside of that consensus is misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and must be stopped.
	So what they did was they created an environment where they're forcing a consensus reality on everyone.
	This is true.
	And how do you know it?
	We've got this guy, Fauci, whoever, this guy, the president says it's true, the people in Harvard say it's true, the New York Times, we all say it's true.
	Now, when you stand up and say, but I've got empirical evidence here that shows it's not true, that's misinformation.
	But it's true.
	It's disinformation.
	But it's true.
	It doesn't matter.
	The definition of misinformation or disinformation is something that goes against the consensus reality.
	It comes to my reality is based on...
	The data and information and, like I said, intuition, historical context, all of these things have to come together to create a reality that I can substantiate.
	The only thing they need is for all of the people who they feel are important in part of their class to have a consensus and say, this is true.
	That's why.
	That freaked so many people out during COVID because they didn't understand them because they'd say, this is true.
	And everybody would go, well, we got data to show otherwise.
	Well, your data is misinformation.
	And then six months later, they'd say, Okay, that's been proven.
	We'll accept that data in.
	Okay, that's true now.
	And you'll be like, but six months ago you said it was false.
	It was.
	Because the consensus at that time said something different.
	We have a new consensus.
	Now anything outside of this consensus is misinformation.
	Something, the old consensus doesn't matter anymore.
	And that's what they are.
	It's a consensus reality.
	Anything outside of the consensus is misinformation, regardless of whether it's true.
	I'm not a religious person.
	But I think I genuinely understand now the need for religion because it's a quasi-religious philosophy that people have adopted because they have abandoned religion in the first place.
	I have a number of siblings.
	I got three brothers and one sister, and I'm the youngest of five also.
	And a few of them are very religious.
	And the belief is that people fundamentally need religion, and some people who lack religion will find something religious-like.
	But it will not be as productive and value-added and principled as religion.
	And that's where I think a ton of these people have found the government.
	And when you talk of the consensus, and as you verbalize it like that, I think consensus on masks, consensus on jabs, consensus on environment.
	And it's true.
	It can get disproven six months later, and the consensus just shifts as though there was never the other consensus in the first place.
	And now I had a question that I was leading into, but I think I'd forgotten it.
	It'll come back to you.
	Yes, we've got a new consensus reality.
	We shed the old one and forget about that one.
	And you're being logical in the same way that you came to your conclusions about what was true or false in the first place was a logical, deductive reasoning.
	What do I have?
	What information?
	So you come to a reality.
	This is what I believe.
	And then when they change, you're like, no, I'm in the same reality.
	Mine doesn't change like yours because mine was based on substantive information in the first place.
	But theirs keeps changing.
	And you're like, you're freaking me out here.
	What's misinformation changes from month to month and week to week?
	And they're like, we don't care.
	We got a reality.
	And if it changes, we'll just switch to the new one and we'll go with that now.
	I remembered what I was going to say.
	You're right.
	It came back to me.
	It was on the issue of disinformation and misinformation.
	This was the scandal I found on you, Garland.
	As I brought up, as I looked into the past, I came across an article from the mainstream legacy media.
	Yes.
	Is this one NBC or CBS?
	This is NBC.
	DC radio station is a Russian agent.
	Federal judge rules WZHFAM is a Russian state-owned media enterprise created by Vladimir Putin to advance Russian interests abroad.
	The Justice Department contended.
	Why is this relevant to you?
	Because this is...
	I'm not sure if you still work for this station, but it's...
	Yes, I still do a show on Sputnik.
	Love it.
	Enjoy it.
	Tell the world...
	I mean, Sputnik...
	This goes back to the...
	Let me just close this down.
	This goes back to the Rachel Maddow literally paid Russian propaganda statement that she made a while back about...
	I forget the name of the journalist.
	And I think...
	Was it One American News?
	It was about a journalist.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	And she got sued.
	She got sued.
	And I said her best defense at the time was that one of the journalists at one point worked for Sputnik, and Sputnik was state-funded media.
	Her best defense was, it's true enough because one of the journalists was at one point paid by Sputnik, so therefore he has quite literally paid Russian propaganda.
	I've had articles in Sputnik written about me.
	I've done interviews for Sputnik.
	I do interviews for RT.
	I have no problem with them because when it comes to foreign news, and we'll touch on the Canadian trucker protests in a bit, they're actually more independent than NBC, for example.
	CBS.
	I should say CBC.
	But you work for a station that is owned by Sputnik, or you work for Sputnik itself, and now you have been branded a Russian agent because it's owned by...
	It's Russian.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Can you just give us the overview of that lawsuit that was the government going after you?
	Here's what happened.
	The government said that the Sputnik and RT has to register under the FARA Foreign Agent Registration Act, right?
	Keep in mind, AIPAC doesn't.
	AIPAC, the American...
	Israeli political action committee doesn't have to register.
	It's in the name, but they don't have to register.
	But Sputnik has to register.
	And Sputnik filed a lawsuit that said we shouldn't have to register because Deutsche Welle doesn't register and they're owned by, you know what I mean?
	The BBC doesn't and they're owned by, why is it that some countries, all of these other countries, have So they registered.
	And all of that means is they got to write who's paid how much and that kind of stuff.
	But here's the next thing.
	It's Radio Sputnik.
	It's not like they try to say, hey, we're just the All-American News Network.
	If you go to Radio Sputnik, you know it's in the same way if you go to BBC, if you go to Deutsche Welle, if you go to CGTN, if you go to...
	What is it?
	ABC, Australian Broadcast?
	You know the government of that country pays for it.
	It's up to you to determine whether or not you think it's reasonable or fair news or honest or whatever the case may be.
	The bottom line is, it's the government saying, I don't want you to be able to listen to whatever you want.
	And you make the determination whether or not you feel it's fair and honest news compared to other things or whatever.
	They're saying, we're going to try to label and brand it so we can deter people from listening to it.
	Did you guys face any repercussions from when RT was banned or minimized in Western media?
	We never have at Sputnik yet, but, you know, they're always going after you.
	They're always poke, poke, poke, poke, poke it.
	So you never know what could happen.
	But here's the thing about it.
	So I've been on Pacifica Radio since 2006 doing the show.
	I started on Sputnik in 2017, right?
	11 years.
	I don't do anything different.
	There's nothing I've ever done different.
	I don't cover anything different.
	I don't have something different to say.
	I've always done the same thing.
	You know, before I came to Sputnik, I was on, I fought on Sputnik with the, I mean, on Pacifica with people calling in.
	Why?
	Because there was a lot of Democrats and I did not believe in Russiagate.
	And I said, it's an absolute lie.
	It's a fraud.
	And I pushed back.
	I'd never even heard of Sputnik.
	Never heard of it.
	Didn't know what it was.
	And I was doing that for a couple of years before I even heard of Sputnik, before I came over there in 2017.
	So there was nothing that I did different.
	I didn't have anything else to offer.
	So my perspective is, and I have two shows, one in Washington, D.C. on WPFW Pacific, a 50,000-watt FM station, and another one in Los Angeles that I do right now.
	There ain't nothing I do different because there's nothing I have different to do, and the people love my shows.
	So, if I do a show on Sputnik, it's Russian evil propaganda.
	If I do it on Pacifica, with the exact same thing, a lot of times it's the same guest.
	These are people I know.
	You know, Ray McGovern, people like that, whoever.
	So, it's a bunch of crap.
	And I just do what I do.
	Here's the thing.
	You put a microphone in front of me, I'm going to say what I believe.
	I don't have something else to say.
	If people don't want to listen to it, that's up to them.
	And that was one of the arguments I think that was raised is that we might be owned by, but we're not agents in that.
	We're not acting on behalf of anybody.
	We're not being told what to say.
	And the judge said, tough noogies.
	It's the double standard that also creates a lot of animosity among Americans.
	Like, yeah, one entity does not have to register.
	Another one, they want to bankrupt because...
	Because of politics.
	And it creates a division, and that's what drives me nuts.
	And I can understand the division and the resentment that it does create.
	Why are they getting special treatment?
	And people are going to look for reasons as to why one group gets special treatment and another group gets special bad treatment.
	Garland, what's up?
	We talked about it briefly before we started, but why do you have a drone behind you?
	Just for fun.
	I got a couple of them.
	Just fun.
	That's all.
	You know, remember, I'm a Zen guy, right?
	I study Zen.
	And this is the way people always ask me, how do you decide what to do?
	I said, if it ain't fun, count me out.
	And that's life, you know?
	I mean, hey, we only got so much time in life.
	Have fun.
	Playing with drones and flying it around and looking in the drone.
	And it's just fun.
	And that particular drone, I got...
	A guy had it, and he's like, yeah, I'm not using this drone.
	I've had it sitting around for years.
	And I'm like, hey, I'll give you a cheap price for it.
	I've barely ever used.
	And I just had to buy a couple of batteries.
	So flying drones is just fun.
	That's all.
	The government ruins everything.
	It was fun flying drones in Canada.
	And then they enacted drone regulation that made it so onerous and so...
	It's such a liability that it's like gun ownership in Canada.
	It's meant to be punitive.
	They enacted the legislation that you have to get a license for a drone over 250 grams, which I got.
	I studied online and did the course.
	You've got to carry $1 million liability insurance to fly a drone.
	You can't fly it within 9 kilometers of an airport helipad.
	You can't fly it within 6 kilometers of a built-up area, which basically means any city.
	So I got...
	Geez!
	I got the Mavic, the Mini 2. 249 grand takeoff weight, so I can fly it in theory anywhere, but you can't do the fun things that I was able to do.
	I'll send you a video after this.
	I caught like a three-pound smallmouth bass with my drone.
	It'll blow your mind.
	Okay, so now, this was good.
	I think we've touched on some issues, and we've touched on some history.
	The stuff that's pressing in the media today, what are you talking about most these days?
	I mean, I know your position and your perspective on the Russia-Ukraine war, and I dare say it's one that a great many people maybe privately espouse but are maybe too shy to say publicly because of what we are told we have to believe and have to say.
	What's your take?
	On what's going on there?
	And what are your predictions as to what's going to happen?
	Well, there are a couple of things here.
	You know, we have to look at the grand, at the big picture.
	I really believe in that.
	And what is going on there?
	When did it start?
	Well, you could argue it started in 2014.
	You could argue it started in 2008.
	You know, you could argue it.
	It depends on when you want to start.
	You know what I mean?
	You can go back to the end of the Soviet Union.
	But here's the grand scheme of it.
	Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book called The Grand Chessboard.
	2019, the Pentagon, you might as well say, the Rand Corporation, wrote another paper in which they argued this is the bottom line.
	We can use Ukraine to take Russia apart.
	That's the plan, to go to Ukraine.
	They overthrew the government of Ukraine.
	That's pretty clear.
	They then armed Ukraine, prepared it for war with Russia so that they could use Ukraine as a proxy.
	It is a horrific crime against Ukraine by the neocons to use an entire country as a proxy to go after another country.
	That's all Ukraine is.
	It's a proxy to go after Russia.
	So the sad state of affairs is, and if you look historically, the United States went into Ukraine.
	The CIA has been in there for decades, nurturing a very questionable ideology that was very, very popular in Germany in the 1930s, shall we say, deliberately fostering that.
	Because it's anti-Russia.
	Deliberately, intentionally fostering that ideology because it's anti-Russia.
	And using that weapon, creating an anger and a rage against all things Russian in Ukraine, and then using that rage, weaponizing that rage against the people of Ukraine so that they would be tricked into doing something that was not in their best interest, and now they've been thrown into a meat grinder.
	We've brainwashed a lot of people in Ukraine by supporting an ideology that is a very, very extremist and violent version of a particular ideology that I think we all know what I'm talking about.
	Weaponized that against the people of Ukraine.
	I'm not sensitive, and you're talking about Nazism.
	Yes, exactly.
	Well, you know, I'm on YouTube a lot, so that's why I'm used to not being able to say everything.
	You know, I've given up and I still say it, and then, you know, worse comes to worse.
	I've been extremely fortunate, but I think it's because YouTube understands we play by the rules.
	But yeah, a Nazi ideology, which...
	Consensus today, Garland, is that the war started in 2022 when Russia breached the territorial boundaries between Ukraine and Russia.
	Consensus today is that...
	The Nazi problem is not a problem and has never been a problem despite all the reporting pre-2016.
	The consensus today is that there was no foreign interference in prior elections or coups or Maidan revolutions.
	Consensus today is Ukraine good, Russia bad.
	And ignoring the consensus five years ago, lots of corruption in Ukraine.
	Its primary export is human trafficking.
	We need to resolve these problems.
	And now they went from sinner to saint.
	Exactly.
	The narrative.
	With a narrative, they created a new consensus that ignores the context of history.
	The one thing they can't stand here, that they can't deal with, is viewing the Ukraine.
	And see, that's the thing about these neocons.
	That's the thing about these people.
	The one thing they're always at war with is history.
	And if you view this through the context of history...
	Kind of changes everything, doesn't it?
	You know, it really, when you start going into history, you have to get into the expansion of NATO up to the Russian border.
	And you start reading what Zbigniew Brzezinski said in the Grand Chessboard.
	And you start saying, well, wait a minute, you guys specifically said that you were going to weaponize Ukraine against Russia.
	And then pipelines start blowing up and you start reading this book, Ally vs.
	Ally.
	It was written in 1987 by Antony Blinken.
	And what it is about?
	It's about his problems and his issues with pipelines going from Russia to the United States.
	And he goes on to say, you know, there are a lot of people who feel like the pipeline should be stopped from Russia to the United States.
	Even if it hurts both the EU and the U.S. business community.
	And you read it and you're like, hey, that's kind of a confession.
	People don't even realize.
	Pick it up.
	Ally versus ally.
	America, Europe, and the Siberian Pipeline Crisis by Antony Blinken.
	Yes, sirree.
	It was six guys in a sailboat.
	So, again, you start looking through the context of history, and all of it becomes clear.
	I have to remember that what you just said, the neocons' biggest war is the war on history.
	That's true of a great many parties that need to change the present, or need to change the history to justify the present.
	So, the latest on the Nord Stream pipeline...
	By the way, I was watching an interview with you on...
	Primo Radical, which was a podcast you did.
	It was in late 2022, but a lot of your predictions have come...
	You've proven more accurate than a great many other people out there.
	At that time, we didn't have the Seymour Hersh article detailing how the pipeline was sabotaged, as if we needed it, because as you said, the confession part, when you hear Victoria Nuland, who had a hand in the Maidan revolution, among other things, say, we're going to end the pipeline.
	When you hear Joe Biden saying, if Russia invades, we're going to end the pipeline.
	How are you going to do that?
	It's in Germany.
	We'll make it happen.
	And then it happens, and then you have people saying, well, it must be Russia, or it must be some other group.
	From what I understand, there's going to be more coming from Seymour Hersh.
	Do you have any inkling as to what that's going to be?
	No, I just think it's going to be more information coming from him, probably some more details.
	You know, I think they made a mistake in pushing this absurd and preposterous story about a bunch of schmucks in a sailboat because they probably just pissed off the people that put out the story in the first place.
	And they're like, let's give Herschel a little bit more to put out there.
	So I think there'll be more.
	But the bottom line is this.
	I mean, as you said, you know, it's like this.
	I was in law enforcement, and that's one advantage I have.
	I was the commander of the investigations division.
	And I taught investigations, right?
	I mean, this is simple.
	You've got some guy that says, yes, sirree, you know, if Garland cuts his grass, I'm going to kill him.
	Yes, sirree, if he ever cuts his grass again, I'm killing him.
	He's a dead man.
	How are you going to do it?
	Don't worry about it.
	He's a dead man.
	I'm killing him.
	The second he cuts that grass, Garland comes out and cuts the grass, and there he lays on the grass dead.
	The first thing we're going to do, and we go say, hey, did you hear about Garland?
	Yeah, I'm sure glad he's dead.
	I hated him.
	Good thing he got what was coming to him.
	You're going to be the top suspect.
	I didn't do it, but I didn't do it.
	How did he die?
	He was stabbed with a machete.
	What's that in your hand?
	It's a machete.
	But I had nothing to do with it.
	Who else could have done it?
	Who else has the technological ability to do it other than the U.S.?
	It's preposterous.
	That's the thing that people don't appreciate.
	Those who did it, according to Seymour Hersh, were proud of having done it.
	They were proud of having touted the technology to have done it.
	And then you're going to have people come and say, no, it wasn't you nincompoops.
	It was some sailors with some scuba gear and a snorkel.
	So where do you think it goes, though?
	Because I did like what you had to say on Primo in that I'm sitting here saying, how in the name of God's green earth or God's blue earth...
	Is Germany not angry about this?
	If they didn't have a hand in it, which is why I'm inclined to believe they must have had advance notice or had some sort of passive or active hand in it.
	If they didn't, how are they not enraged?
	And does this just fizzle out into the ether what is arguably, but not arguably, an act of international terrorism?
	I think there's no way it fizzles out in the ether.
	There's no possibility.
	It's just too...
	I think, you know, fingers crossed, we all survived this whole disaster.
	10 years, 20 years, 50 years from now, people will be writing books about that and saying that was it.
	That was the end of the U.S. empire.
	That's what turned it all.
	That's what ended NATO.
	I think that will be, in the context of history, that will be the big one because it exposed the U.S. empire for who they are.
	Did something that, at some point, that has to be addressed.
	You know, no matter what the German government does, they can't just walk away and pretend that doesn't happen.
	It's not the elephant in the room.
	It's always going to be the blue whale in the phone booth in Germany.
	So they're walking around right now going, oh, geez, how do we pretend this is?
	And what happens?
	Here's the problem.
	What happens next winter?
	What happens as this gets worse?
	What happens as they're...
	The energy issue gets worse and worse and worse.
	The worse their energy issue gets, and it's going to get worse, the louder the cry is going to be, who did this to us?
	Wait a minute.
	Now, I had one of the biggest international incidents in a few months.
	Did you know about my international incident?
	With the Taiwan tweet?
	No, no, no, no.
	This is the biggest of them all.
	Well, hold on.
	Let me just go to Twitter here.
	Tell me about it.
	I'll Google it while you're talking.
	This was huge.
	Go and just search Garland Nixon Taiwan.
	You won't believe what happened.
	This is international news.
	Garland Nixon on Twitter.
	Prediction.
	China.
	Is this it?
	I see the tweet.
	China, get out of Taiwan.
	U.S., no.
	China.
	Taiwan, cut the shit.
	No, just search on a regular search bar.
	Search Garland Nixon Taiwan and then look in the news.
	So let me give you the story of what happened.
	This is unbelievable.
	This is a big one.
	I always do these tweets and I do satirical tweets.
	Breaking news.
	White House insiders leak that.
	And here's what I wrote.
	Leak that.
	When asked if there could possibly be a bigger disaster than the Ukraine neocon project, President Biden responded, wait until you see the plan for the destruction of Taiwan.
	Here we go.
	I got it.
	Yeah, breaking news.
	White House insider leaked that when asked if there could be any greater disaster than the Neocon Ukraine project, Pedersen Biden responded, wait until you see our plan for the destruction of Taiwan, Nixon wrote.
	That's from the Taiwan government.
	So what happened?
	I do this satirical tweet.
	The Taiwanese opposition then starts tweeting it everywhere.
	It hits like...
	150 million hits.
	This was a couple weeks later, and one day it had like 150 million hits, right?
	Think about those numbers.
	It goes viral in Taiwan.
	It goes viral in Chinese.
	The Chinese Foreign Ministry, Wang Yi, whatever his name is, whatever, he demands to the U.S. State Department, we want to know what the plan is for the destruction of Taiwan.
	The U.S. State Department's looking into it.
	Oh, my.
	Yes.
	It's so nuts because it's obviously satire parody, but that Joe Biden, I'm not saying this to be mean, but as senile and mentally, cognitively impaired that he is, it's still plausible he would say something this bad.
	Wait until you see our plan for the destruction of Taiwan.
	It's in China Daily.
	It's in Global Times.
	Yahoo!
	New argument.
	Yahoo!
	England.
	Article after article all over the world.
	This goes viral all over Asia.
	People are sending me videos of intellectuals in China and Taiwan discussing it, saying, well, you know.
	If Joe Biden has a plan, he's probably got explosive planted all over Taiwan.
	And you know what?
	The very people who are telling us he doesn't have a plan, they're probably the saboteurs that are working.
	This is what's going on.
	This freaking thing blew up beyond all belief, right?
	And so the bottom line is this.
	I'm interview after interview, right?
	I'll send you the latest one I did on CGTN.
	But what I said, one of the things I said is, yeah, it was satire.
	But when people looked at it, I said, in the context of what just happened in, again, in Germany, when you look at that and you say, okay, the plan for destruction of Taiwan, and you're in Taiwan, you're like, well, they did just kind of blow up one of their other allies, and, you know, maybe we get this.
	See, again, what was it?
	The bombing of Nord Stream planted the seed of distrust.
	In Taiwan.
	And all these, I had somebody contact me and say, yes, my relatives in Taiwan said, Garland Nixon did more to educate the people of Taiwan than anyone in history.
	I'm like, jeez, you know, I'm looking over my shoulder.
	I wasn't trying to do anything.
	I'm just making a joke tweet, for God's sake.
	So it was like this paradigm changing thing.
	And I think the opposition in Taiwan grabbed a hold of it because the opposition is saying, This government we have is going to get us all blown to smithereens, just like Ukraine.
	And so it was perfect for them to grab.
	And then when people read it, I guess it was so close to the truth.
	They actually believed it to the point where they're demanding.
	Think about this, though.
	This is important.
	What do you think happened when they went to the Secretary of State and Blinken and said, did Biden really say that?
	I guarantee you they didn't know.
	I will guarantee they had to go to Biden and ask him.
	Because just like you and I are like, well, he does kind of do some gas.
	And let's face it, they do pretty much have a plan for the destruction of Taiwan.
	You know, so they had to ask.
	And even if he said, no, I didn't say it, they probably like whispered amongst themselves.
	You know, if he said it, he probably forgot.
	So we may be at a fix here.
	Let's just try to get out from under this thing.
	How crazy is that?
	It's amazing because in as patently, not as absurd, in as patently Parody as it is.
	He did say out loud, as relates to Nord Stream, we'll make it happen.
	And so it makes your joke not just less absurd, but almost plausible, almost believable.
	The only problem, coming from a journalist, people are going to say, or someone with a talk show, do you consider yourself a journalist?
	Yes.
	Okay, so coming from a journalist, someone's going to say, that's a mean trick.
	You can't say breaking news if it's actually parody.
	But if you look at my, that all somebody had to do.
	Like, because the Taiwanese government went down, like, if you look at some of the latest article, they're like, well, look right here, it says purveyor of satire at the top, and right there, you know, and they went down, and they're like, when Garland was asked about it, he said, I do satire, what are you talking about?
	You know what I mean?
	I never tried to pretend it was true.
	Like, I got interviewed, I'm like, yeah, of course it was satire.
	What are you talking about?
	You know, so...
	And anybody who looks down my Twitter will look down it and see breaking news, breaking news, breaking news, and they're all fun and jokes, you know what I mean?
	And people are laughing and laughing emojis all over the place.
	But I do think this.
	I believe that the people in Taiwan and China, they knew it was satire.
	But it was very useful for...
	They knew it was satire, but it was very useful for them.
	And let's face it, that's what the U.S. government would do if it was...
	Right?
	You know, if the shoe was on the other foot, I'm sure.
	So I just was kind of an innocent guy that got caught up in something, joking around like I always do, because it was a little too...
	Sometimes a joke is a little too close to reality.
	Well, they shouldn't have blown up the damn pipeline, and people wouldn't believe them.
	The old expression, truth in jest, and it's only funny because there's an element of truth to it, but that's what makes good parody parody, and that's what makes bad parody just stupid.
	Nobody believes it.
	Are you allowed going to China?
	Are you allowed visiting China?
	I don't know.
	I've never had anybody tell me I couldn't visit China.
	Garland, I mean, first of all, okay, we can go on for...
	I can go on forever, but I won't because it's not fair to...
	It's not fair to you because I can talk forever, but...
	I ain't got nothing to do, so I got time if you want to go on.
	It doesn't matter to me.
	I'm going to see when my wife comes into that.
	Okay, there you go.
	Nudge me.
	Garland, what's your prediction?
	What do you think is going to happen for 2024?
	Who do you think it's going to be, both on the Republican side and on the Democrat side, if people are going to be watching this later on to see how accurate you are?
	Right now, keep in mind something.
	You know, a lot of these people are pretty old.
	So Donald Trump, to me right now, has an easy victory.
	To me, Donald Trump has an easy victory.
	That's over.
	In terms of the nomination of the Republican side?
	Yeah, the Republicans.
	Yeah, I think that's over.
	I think the bottom line is this.
	You've got a bunch of people who are very much alike.
	Either, you know, crazy neocons, they have no chance.
	DeSantis, not against Trump.
	I don't think he has a chance.
	Again, he's too mainstream.
	And Trump runs as the anti-politician.
	And with Trump saying, if I will end the Ukraine war, we got to stop World War III.
	We got to stop.
	Let me tell you something.
	That's always going to win.
	That's always going to win.
	Biden, you know, here are my thoughts.
	Will he even be around until 24?
	I look at this guy sometime.
	Tomorrow, I ain't going to bet, but so much.
	I don't think Biden's in a position to...
	Debate anybody?
	He's had it, buddy.
	Biden's in a world of deep and serious hurt.
	And what are they going to do?
	Kamala Harris?
	You know, I mean, Democrats, they're not exactly throwing their aces on the mound right now, as we say.
	They've got a pathetic group.
	It's a terrible thing that there's 360 million people out there, and some people are going to say, I know people love Trump, and I think Trump might not be the best, but he's certainly the only one who seems to have the stomach for it.
	to do it well.
	360 million people and the best they got on the left is Kamala Harris and maybe Gavin Newsom who- Well, here's what I'd say.
	That has nothing to do with it.
	This is what neoliberalism produces.
	Look around.
	Olaf Scholz?
	This guy's got the friggin' spine of a jellyfish.
	You know what I mean?
	This man is an amoeba.
	What was her name?
	The woman before Rishi Sunak.
	I'm not going to be able to get that.
	What's her name?
	I can't think.
	I can't even remember her name.
	She was like prime minister in England for like six weeks or something like that.
	She was a disaster.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Okay, the chat's going to get it in about...
	Exactly.
	You know what I'm talking about.
	But look at these people.
	This is what neoliberalism produces.
	Cacistocracy is the term where the most corrupt and inept people come to the top.
	So they just want someone who will do what...
	The stupider they are, the more incompetent they are, the more viable they are.
	As a neoliberal candidate.
	So, yeah, this is what neoliberalism produces.
	It's not going to allow a competent person might ask questions.
	A competent person might push back, might say, oh, well, that ain't right.
	No, we can't possibly do that.
	So they got to put people who are just climbers and who are kind of empty vessels, that's who they have to put in.
	Look at Schultz, man, that guy you talk about.
	Quizling?
	How ironic it is that Norway, where the country that gave us the term quizling, would be attacking the Olaf Scholz government.
	If Robert F. Kennedy were to hypothetically ever become the nominee for the Democrat Party, what do you think?
	You know, there's a couple of things.
	The name RFK is powerful.
	Powerful.
	Are you kidding me?
	But the system would lose its mind.
	As the system will lose its mind on Trump, the system will go berserk.
	I mean, I guess they'll pull out the Russiagate, the Russiagate will rear its ugly head again, but the system will go berserk on now anyone, RFK, Trump.
	Anyone outside of the acceptable group of idiot puppets that the system wants, the system will go bananas on them.
	So it's a dangerous time because the system's going to go bananas.
	You know what I mean?
	The intelligence community, the media, the think tanks, they're all going to work together.
	Tulsi Gabbard, she must be stopped, you know, on and on and on.
	I think if it gets bad enough, what the system will try to do in the United States is to run so many people.
	That no one gets 271 votes and then it goes to the House.
	And then the House can choose the puppet that they want.
	But they're going to have problems because if Trump is healthy, he can win it.
	And I'm no fan of Trump.
	I want somebody from the outside.
	You know what I mean?
	I'm no fan of Trump.
	There's a lot of things about Trump I don't like.
	Trump's like, hey, he's still kind of mouthing the anti-China stuff.
	And I want peace.
	I want to stop looking for enemies.
	I don't want Russia as an enemy.
	I don't want China as an enemy.
	Iran.
	We need to start fixing our own stinking country and stop looking for demons and enemies around the world.
	Let me end on this one.
	Are you optimistic for the future?
	Well, I'm doing my Zen thing.
	And I'm here and now and dealing with things in the present.
	So I don't know.
	You know, what the future is going to bring, whatever it's going to bring, it is the nature of our society to move in the direction that it does.
	So I don't know.
	I'm not optimistic and I'm not the optimistic.
	I'm kind of staying where I am right now in observing things.
	I'll put it like this.
	I can remember times when I was totally freaked out and thought, oh no, we're doomed.
	And I'm still here.
	So, you know.
	I don't know.
	I guess it's the zen thing.
	I kind of stay where I am and observe things and let things take their natural course.
	I do feel some kind of way.
	I do feel some level of optimism.
	And optimism now simply means we won't all die in a nuclear war.
	That's the best we can come up with.
	So I do feel some level of optimism that will make it.
	The economy.
	Things ain't looking real tight right now.
	Could we end up with the economic crash of all crashes?
	That's possible.
	So we're just monitoring things, but I feel that we will somehow make it and not all be, you know, torched.
	But so that's the best.
	I think that's the best outcome at this point we can hope for.
	I'm going to bring this up, Garland, just so we can see.
	Two Rumble rants on Rumble.
	One is from LibertyOrDeath9 says, I chose to be here over Glenn Greenwald's Live.
	I hope that's a big compliment.
	It is, and thank you.
	Although you can watch everybody's afterwards.
	It just won't be live.
	And Tropical Rocket, this is for you, Garland, says, what's your favorite fish in the Chesapeake?
	As far as catching of stripers, I love catching stripers.
	They're a lot of fun.
	They run, and they're a lot of fun.
	As far as eating...
	Man, that's hard.
	There's a lot of them.
	Eating, I like white perch.
	I like fresh flounder.
	There's a lot of stuff.
	A lot of good fish.
	Fresh flounder is really, really fresh flounder.
	Freshly caught filleted flounder on the same day that you catch it.
	Ooh, man, that's good eating.
	And ocean fish are all delicious.
	I mean, it's the exception that are not delicious.
	In freshwater, it's the exception that are delicious.
	If it's not trout, if it's not walleye, if it's not salmon, it's fishy bass.
	And it's not bad, but there's a reason why you've got to batter it up and then fry it in butter.
	And we have white perch, which is kind of a medium-sized panfish.
	Very good-eating fish.
	Their panfish is...
	I mean, white perch are a very good-eating fish.
	One of our better-eating fish.
	It's a brackish water fish.
	I've never caught a striper in my entire life, and I know how good they fight, and I've just...
	I've never had the luck, but it's spring break next week, and I might take the kids out and do some fish.
	Oh, well, I catch them all the time.
	Catch them all the time.
	Big, nice...
	You know, I can't do my hands big enough.
	You know what I mean?
	But I live near the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.
	I got a boat.
	I go out there.
	I can catch them every day.
	Do you do martial arts or anything for physical activity?
	Yes, I've studied martial arts.
	Shodokan and American Freestyle.
	Not a lot, but I've studied it, and I really enjoy it.
	I had a teacher that used to come to my house and teach me for quite a while, and I still practice all my stuff.
	You know what I mean?
	It's a lot of fun.
	So yes, I do practice self-defense martial arts.
	Not like I used to, though.
	Well, you do exude a Zen vibe, and I think that's the antithesis of my existence is Zen, and I'm working towards trying to be a little more Zen.
	You're hands off, and I sit here in the middle of the night imagining what it would feel like if a nuclear tsunami washes over the Florida peninsula.
	Garland, first of all, we'll leave something to talk about so we can do this again if you're amenable either to come back on here, because this has been amazing.
	Look, when someone has a brain and is well-read, their perspective on all things current and historical becomes even more important.
	And I think the world needs more of balanced, insightful, informed opinions that are not subject to the consensus, or at least not determined by the consensus.
	You're amazing, quite simply.
	Where can people find you on all platforms?
	Sure.
	Well, online.
	I'm on YouTube and Rockfin.
	And I've got a Rumble channel.
	I'm going to, within the next week or so, I'm going to start streaming to get and figuring out how to stream to my Rumble channel.
	But yeah, Rockfish.
	And I'm a Rockfit, Rockfit.
	And of course, at Garland Nixon on Twitter.
	I actually stream to Twitch.
	I never check anything.
	I don't think anybody ever watches me there.
	But yes, I should be on Rumble, hopefully by next week.
	But definitely Rockfit and YouTube.
	And of course, you know, Garland.Nixon on Instagram, which I'm never...
	Garland Nixon on Facebook, boo.
	But I'm mostly on Twitter, at Garland Nixon.
	Well, you've made enemies.
	When you start getting tweeted by Chinese authorities, I mean, that's...
	How crazy is that?
	Well, I would be terrified, but I'm a neurotic, fearful person.
	Like, I would be like, okay, I can't go to China anymore, and maybe they're going to send some of their operatives here to interrogate me.
	Actually, it's the opposite, if you think about it.
	The Chinese government loved it.
	They're, like, demanding, we want to know about the destruction plan for China.
	And they're, like, playing it all up.
	It's Taiwan I better stay a little clear of, because the Chinese, Taiwanese, well, the opposition loves me.
	So, actually, there's a love-hate relationship in the Asian, I guess, you know, part of the world for me.
	And I don't imagine the U.S. State Department is real thrilled with me.
	I got thrown off Twitter before for going after Tony Blinken, so by now, he probably hates my guts.
	Are you following the Douglas Mackey meme election interference trial?
	No.
	So it's this right-winger guy who used to have a Twitter handle called Ricky Vaughn from the baseball movie Major League.
	Charlie Sheen's character.
	And he put out a tweet in 2016 saying, avoid the lines, vote from home, text Hillary to blank.
	And he's going to trial now for election interference, because the argument is that he disenfranchised people out of their right to vote because 4,900 people texted in Hillary to the number, no evidence that any of them actually didn't go vote afterwards.
	I worry for everybody who's a political outcast or a dissident.
	They don't need to have anything to actually ruin your life or try to.
	And guess what?
	If that had said Trump, they wouldn't have touched him.
	They wouldn't have touched him.
	No question.
	He went after Democrats in New York and politics, you know, justice is blind, except its left eye is open.
	Garland, we're going to keep something to talk about.
	Thank you very much.
	I mean, it's been amazing.
	Everyone in the chat, you know where to find Garland.
	I'll put his links in the pinned comment and pin it and whatnot.
	Thank you very much, Garland.
	It's amazing and fascinating.
	Just a fascinating story, fascinating present.
	And I like what you say, and I shall subscribe to your...
	I've already subscribed to your Twitter feed, but you make good sense.
	You stick it to both sides in a nonpartisan way, which I guess maybe is the current left.
	So here's what I'll say, because you said something very, very, very, very powerful at the beginning, and that is, I think we're away from a both sides thing, and we're to a point where there are people who are pragmatic, people who believe that a government should represent the people.
	You know, things like that, that the government should represent the people.
	The government should be pragmatic.
	The government should be just.
	It should stick to the principles that we have written in there.
	We've got principles that are written down and we're not sticking to those.
	So I think it's a group of people who may not ideologically be aligned, but in principle, they're aligned because they believe the government should look out for the best interest of the people.
	Simple as that.
	We can agree there.
	And we may not agree how we get there, and we agree that the government should be honest with us.
	The government should listen to us.
	Things of that nature.
	And that's not left, right, or indifferent.
	That's just the person who believes, the word you started off with, we believe in a justice, justice in a just government.
	Yeah, I think that my black pill might be, I believe in that, and I also am firmly convinced that we will never get that from any government, and therefore the solution is to have as little As small of a government as possible because they cannot be trusted.
	They will never be able to be trusted.
	They need to be kept in check.
	And the biggest black pill is, in my mind, those who existed to keep the government in check have gone from being the government's watchdogs to being the government lapdogs, and that's the media that has now been captured.
	It seems to be one vicious black hole of a circle, and we've passed the event horizon.
	Hopefully we haven't, but that's...
	I don't want to end it on a down note, Garland.
	Well, look, it's reality about this government.
	Reality about this system.
	This system of government that we're in has gone full neoliberal and there's no way to fix this thing.
	It does have to be changed.
	And I think it's in the process of collapsing anyway.
	I think it's gotten so far away that...
	People are striving for something new.
	I think it's going to change.
	I think there's some new people.
	They can't keep doing this.
	They're just ostracizing so many groups and so many people that they're not going to have the votes left to be able to maintain this monster.
	All right.
	From your mouth to God's ears, Garland, stick around.
	We'll say our proper goodbyes afterwards.
	Everybody in the chat, thank you for being here.
	Snip, clip, and share away.
	And I will post all the links later on to Garland and share this again on all platforms.
	Garland, thank you very much.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you.
	See you all tomorrow.

▲