Conversation with a Lefty: "Pastor Ben" Talking Daniel Perry, MAGA & Much More! Viva Frei Live
|
Time
Text
You want me scared.
You want me weak.
You want me brain dead in a sleep.
You want us trapped while you are left behind the scenes.
You want us sick.
You think we're dumb.
You want us blind and you want us drug.
You want us poor while you get more of everything.
But you don't get to tell me what to think and what to do.
You don't get to tell me what is true.
You're just liars, cheats and cooks.
Change the rules and you burn the books.
And so I don't believe a single word you say.
You're all liars, sakes and cons.
Watch out when you watch you gone.
So don't believe this time you'll get away.
You want us tricked.
You want us numb.
You want us scared and you want us stung.
You want us shot and you want us fought in every way.
You want our minds.
You want our time.
You want us friends up in your crime.
I hope you know that it's time to go and we're taking names.
Cause you don't get to tell us what to think and what to do.
No, you don't get to tell us what is true.
You're just liars, geeks and crooks.
Change the rules and you burn the books.
And so we don't believe a single word to say.
You're all liars, fakes and cons.
Watch out when you watch you gone.
So don't believe this time you'll get away.
Cause we see la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la.
All your lies.
La, la, la, la, la, la, la.
All your lies.
You don't get to tell us what to think and what.
To... Mic
check one, two?
I can see the chat at least now.
That's why.
I said Pastor Ben is in the back and he's not smiling because he wasn't hearing my beautiful hearing.
Hold on.
UNC. Mic check one, two?
Let me just see.
Let me start again, people.
Hold on.
Okay, now can you hear me?
Let me go see if I can hear me over in Locals.
Now you hear me?
How about now?
Because I got the good mic.
It's my computer, guys.
No, it's just...
We've eliminated some weak links in the chain.
The computer was one.
Now it seems to be the adapter that goes from the mic into the thing.
Alright, as I was saying when I was muted, is that I have lined up a bunch of stories because I wasn't sure if Pastor Ben was actually going to come.
I see Pastor Ben in the backdrop, and now he's smiling a little bit now.
This is going to be fun, people!
Sorry, I'm shouting.
Because some of you are saying, why even platform these people?
I don't like that term.
And lefties.
I have a bit of a philosophy.
Like, if I can needle people online, then I should be able to, on the one hand, take the needling.
And also, if they want to talk, I still think he's a parody.
I still think he's sort of a Sacha Baron Cohen type character.
But before I bring him in, because I've got to do the sponsor of our day, by the way.
Speaking of Sacha Baron Cohen.
And people who can break your jaw with one kick.
I'm sponsored by Chuck Norris, people.
And you got to do Chuck Norris respect by reading the Chuck Norris, watching the Chuck Norris video, people, on chuckdefense.com forward slash Viva.
Many of you already know this, but some of you don't.
Have you wondered what happened to the legendary Chuck Norris?
I saw a video.
He's 84 years old, people.
And when you compare Chuck Norris at 84 to, not to compare, but Demented Joe at 82, not everybody ages equally.
What is shocking is that Chuck Norris is stronger, can work out longer, and has plenty of energy left over for his grandkids.
He did this by making one change.
He still feels like he's in his 50s, and he really looks like he's in his 50s, too.
His wife even started doing it, and she's never felt better.
She says she feels 10 years younger, her body looks leaner, and she has energy all day.
Chuck made a special video.
Are we watching the video right now?
We should be.
Yeah, we're watching the bit of the video with SoundOff on purpose, not because I'm an idiot.
Go to chuckdefense.com forward slash viva or by clicking the link in the description.
It'll change the way you look at your health.
Once again, chuckdefense with an S because we're in America, people.com forward slash viva.
Click on the link and watch it.
You won't believe how simple it is.
Just a reminder, he's 84 years young and has more energy than 99% of Americans out there and is leaner than everyone on The View.
That's because...
Whoopi Goldberg made a stupid joke about fat-shaming people.
One person's shame is another person's motivation.
He discovered he could make these changes to his health by making one simple change that sabotages our body.
Three simple things that sabotage our body as we age.
Go to chuckdefense.com forward slash diva or Chuck Norris shall appear and roundhouse kick you to the back of the head.
Okay. I should give some context to this.
I've got...
Pastor Ben is watching.
First question is, is he a pastor?
But second question is...
I've got a bunch of tweets, a bunch of videos lined up.
Do I have to start with one?
I think I have to start with one.
I have to start with one.
Mr. Ben, not to make fun of you, but to make fun of you just a little bit, because we're going to watch this, and we're going to see.
I'm not going to play the whole thing.
I think it's parody, and if it's not, it is one heck of an attempt to get attention in the wrong ways, but we're going to have a discussion, and I'm abusing of my monopoly of the mic right now.
To lay it on thick to Ben here.
The jury in the case of Daniel Penny, who was charged with second-degree manslaughter for the killing of Jordan Neely, a homeless black man on the subway in New York City, has been unable to come to a unanimous decision, and they have informed the judge in the case.
Now, it's very possible that this will still go back to further deliberations.
We've seen it with Daniel Penny.
They've made him a hero.
They said that Jordan Neely, who was a homeless man who was starving, who was frail, who needed help, who needed all kinds of help, he did not need to be killed.
Okay, I'm going to pause it there.
I'm just going to read the caption.
I'm going to bring, because I don't want to be unfair.
A whole lot of MAGA on Twitter and in America want to get away with murdering black people so they can taste it.
So bad they can taste it.
All right, that's the intro.
Now I will not abuse my monopoly.
Ben, get ready to come on in.
Three, two, one.
Sir, how goes the battle?
It goes.
How are you?
Good. I'm going to...
I don't know where to start.
I have to start with a few intro questions.
Okay. May I ask how old you are?
I am...
You know, I feel like I'm 80 years old, but I'm in my 40s.
Okay. And you look actually younger than that, but you're in your 40s.
May I ask, are you in fact...
To become a pastor, you have to study divinity school, theology, you have to get a degree, you have to do some training, correct?
You have to do some training.
Not all pastors have to go through divinity school, but I have been in divinity school.
I did not complete divinity school.
My higher education is in international relations and economics.
Okay. I look too pale.
I'm going to have to maybe slide my floodlighting to the side.
Ben, okay, so if I may, I just need to understand you as a human.
You are going to come on here and tell me now that you're not a parody account and you're not testing the limits to see some sort of performative art.
How absurd you can get on Twitter and be believed on the one hand and be supported on the other.
That is not at all what you're trying to do sincerely.
No, no.
I am a pastor.
I was ordained at 21 years old.
I took some time off from the pastorate for the last, I would say, 10 years.
These last two years have been my entry back into pastoring.
But since I was 21 years old, I was ordained minister.
And I've pastored two different churches.
And right now I'm pastoring.
It's a different type of church that I'm pastoring right now.
We had to no longer use a physical location because of death threats.
But I mean, that's just kind of the lay of the land, though.
You know, I'm sure you get your own supply of death threats from our side.
So right now we are primarily worshiping virtually because I couldn't stay in one location because of the nature of the work that I do.
May I delve into a bit of childhood?
Like, where are you born?
Where are you raised?
What was your family situation like growing up?
Yeah, no, I was born in Selma, Alabama, and I grew up primarily in the South, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia.
We moved around a lot.
My father was a pastor as well.
He was a pastor for 41 years, Reverend Dr. Percy McKenna Sticks, and I always give him a shout-out.
He is a...
He was faithful even unto death.
He died in the sanctuary after giving Bible study to a group of homeless people.
And so I always regard him in the highest regard for that sacrifice.
So yeah, I mean, I've been in this for a while.
Your dad was a pastor.
Your parents remained married?
Yeah, yeah, up until the time he died.
41 years of marriage, 41 years of ministry.
All right, and how many siblings do you have?
There's six of us total.
Three boys, three girls.
We were the Brady Bunch.
Okay, very cool.
And are they, I mean, where are they about, or roughly are they, actually, that's unnecessarily invasive.
Do you still talk to your siblings?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
I talked with some of them this morning, matter of fact.
Okay, so you then, high school, university, what do you study?
International relations, that's a university degree, or is that?
Yeah, no, state school.
You know, we were in the ministry.
Not in the mega ministry, mega church ministry.
We were in the, you know, the ministry that requires you to go to state school.
If you go to state school, you're doing pretty good financially.
And so I got my bachelor's in economics, my master's in political science, and I'm all but dissertation in international relations and international security.
And then so when do you get into, you said you took 10 years off.
What were you doing?
Yeah, those 10 years I took off because I really do.
You know, I was doing politics, political commentary for 10 years since 2014.
Well, actually, a little sooner than that, earlier than that.
I can't really place the year I started.
I have to go back and look into the catalog.
But I did political commentary for quite a few years.
And during that time, I was not in the pulpit.
But, you know, I was always in somebody's choir.
You know, always on somebody's praise team.
We were living in Boston at the time that I did most of my political work and working in corporate America using my skills there.
So I wasn't actively pastoring then.
But, you know, once you're a minister, you're, you know, you're always a minister.
You don't really walk away from the calling.
Now, I want to be sure, though, there's plenty of content out there of me using some pretty harsh profanity.
Right. So that's one of the other reasons I stepped away from the pulpit, because the political work is a work of passion for me.
And sometimes I, you know, let's say I'm more related to Peter than I am Paul.
So I have a tendency and I work on that, you know, try not to cuss people out so much.
Will profanity slurs?
Or, I mean, because I pulled up a bunch of...
Oh, just F-bombs, man.
I have a problem with that.
Like, you know, God help me with that.
That's one thing I have in common with Kamala.
If I don't have anything else common with Kamala is the MF-er was my favorite word of choice.
Well, I don't care about the MF-ers.
I care about the addition of three Ks to cracker when you're...
Oh, yeah.
Which, by the way, I sincerely don't care, especially the irony of you...
You know, referring to me as a cracker with three K's.
Did my great cracker campaign of 2024, it got around to you?
Let me see if I can find one here.
Before I even get there, because I've got a slew of them and you've got to go through these substantively at some point.
So, hold on.
Politics. Who were you politicking for?
Nobody. For the Lord.
Kingdom of God.
Politics. Don't get me wrong.
I am a leftist.
I'm a progressive, right?
Definitely not a liberal.
I am not loved in the Democratic Party by any measure.
I'm more of an outcast.
I was on the side of Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020.
Not a fan of Joe Biden, but I did vote for him because I do see MAGA and Donald Trump as an existential threat to democracy.
I was going to say, it's very funny.
I asked in my local screen if I looked too pale, and then we're talking about whether or not I'm a...
Okay, so hold on.
I try to understand the modus operandi, because it's one thing to be obnoxious, and I'm not saying that you're not obnoxious.
I think you're beyond obnoxious.
It's one thing to be annoying obnoxious, which I can consider myself to be on Twitter, and dropping F-bombs is one thing.
To espouse not just...
It's important to understand somebody.
You're born in the South and grew up in the South.
Let me ask you concrete examples.
For all the cries of racism and racial division that have been exacerbated, ironically enough, since Obama came to be president, what's your life?
Not a judgmental question, not an insincere question.
Experiences with racism that you've had growing up?
Meaningful, meaningful experiences.
I mean, I can go back to the first time I was called the N-word at about eight years old.
By whom?
Go back to when my wife and I, I can skip around, right?
My wife and I were riding bikes.
Somebody drove by and threw a beer can at us, calling us the N-word.
That was in Florida.
I was, I mean, how many times have I been called that?
That's the norm kind of in the South.
And I want to be fair to the South because I absolutely love the South.
Some of the coldest and I think the deadliest encounters of racism were in Boston, to be honest with you.
I actually like playing Texas Hold'em poker, which is not really becoming of a pastor.
I like poker.
I like the odds.
I like the intellectual part of it.
And one night, I really was approached by two guys who, you know, I don't know if I stepped on their shoes or whatever, but in the midst of them being angry at me, they, of course, riddled everything with profanity, with N-words.
There have been opportunities.
There have been situations where you, I would call them more microaggressions.
Those are really hard to...
Even describe in a way that's meaningful here for our conversation.
I think the way people most recognize racism is, you know, usage of the N-word and an aggression with it.
And that I faced multiple times in the South.
I mean, and of course, the most pointed one was in Boston.
But that's where I might disagree with you, is that random idiots shouting random slurs is not what I would at all perceive to be or take to be any form of meaningful.
What they call institutionalized racism.
Well, you didn't say institutionalized.
If we're talking about structural racism, I mean, there's plenty of examples of structural racism, but I will say this in terms of me personally.
I've never really cared about The structural racism that was presented to me, I always worked around it as best as I possibly could.
I always outperformed in education, especially when I finally got my education, myself together.
So I can't really complain about that.
I can complain about it when I was in high school and the many opportunities that were just simply not given to me that I found out were given to some of my classmates.
Information, opportunities for scholarships, all those types of things were just completely not given to me at all.
And how many times I've had to have my father come up to the school just so that I can get the same exact opportunity that everyone else was given.
But those type of, I've always seen those as, if you're going to put a hurdle in front of me, I'll overcome it.
I'm going to bring this up not as the actual question.
Ask about the juicy tax breaks of being a pastor.
If I may, and not to be crass, it's a question of whether or not when people throw the accusation around of being a grifter, and I don't care how much, but your livelihood is what now?
Do you make a living off content creation monetization or a subscription from being a pastor, like memberships?
Yeah, actually, no.
We spend more money on the ministry than we do make from the ministry.
Right now, we're probably still in the negative in terms of what we make from the ministry.
I'm still literally supported by my patrons, many of whom are atheists, which is...
The greatest thing.
It's the greatest irony, but I also love it.
Who supported me for the past 10 years as a political commentator.
They are our stronghold.
They saw the transition.
They saw the things that I was going through, and they have stuck with me.
Many of them now, if you go to the comment section on YouTube, there are a lot of people who are coming to Christ.
They appreciate the ministry.
They appreciate what we do.
Tax write-offs, we don't get those.
Matter of fact, I mean, we just, this version of our ministry, I was pastoring, like I said, a physical church, but I had to leave that physical church because of the death threats.
And even then, they were paying me like $500 a month or something like that.
So the ministry has never been a profitable thing for our family, like, ever.
Give me one second.
It's driving me crazy.
I'm going to turn my lights here.
A little bit like this.
And... That might be a little better.
No, it's not even better.
It doesn't matter.
One thing to be called a cracker.
I just don't want to look like Casper.
It's a little better.
It's the lighting.
It's the glow of the lighting.
It's definitely the lighting because I actually got a bit of a tan yesterday.
I want to get to a bunch of things.
You say the things you've been going through in your transition.
Flesh that out.
Do you have kids?
Yeah, man.
Love my kids.
Honestly, that's my primary Descriptive, right?
I'm a dad.
I have three kids, two boys and a girl.
And it's this future that a lot of MAGA, I can't say all of MAGA, but too many of MAGA, their intentions for women, that's really one of the reasons I fight as hard as I do, because I have to leave a little girl here.
And it's not a favorable future for women in this society.
Not with what MAGA is promoting.
We're going to get to that.
I have to take notes of this.
Death threats.
Okay. I'm not to tempt the beast.
I don't leave my DMs open, so I don't invite.
But I like to think that I get a few every now and again, take them seriously and report the ones that are very serious.
But a lot of people say it and use it as a cudgel and a shield at the same time.
What sort of death threats have you gotten?
Have you taken legal action against them to substantiate what some might say are untrue?
The primary one was when somebody got my address, then published it on Twitter, and then deleted it real quick, but still the fact that they had it, and then with pictures of me with a bullet going through my head, things like that, it got a little too, you know, if someone has your address, you have to take it.
Yeah, for sure.
You take it seriously.
I say this, but, and not but, everyone's address is, I mean, I was a lawyer for 13 years.
You can find anyone's address probably in three clicks.
And back in the old day, we're old enough to, well, you're 40, I'm 40. I'm going to be 46. We have the white pages.
You can go find anyone's address, post a code name.
But no, meaningful death threats for which there was any prosecution, criminal complaints?
Well, no, I haven't taken it to the point of, I don't let it get to that point, right?
As soon as you publish my address with...
A bullet going through my head.
That person deleted their account very quickly.
And, you know, for me, that was just one example.
The other reason we left the church was because of people just randomly showing up at the church that weren't there for church service.
So I was like, you know, this is not safe for me, my kids.
I have my kids there, you know, churches.
Should, and we do have an open door policy, but considering the work that I was doing and the kind of attention that it was drawing, I had to back away from the physical location.
But, you know, through the years, I mean, I can't really go through all the type of times that I've had people, you know, say, well, actually, I just published one the other day on my YouTube channel, guys, you know, who...
Threaten me with a shotgun to the head because I'm too aggressive for him.
Some foolishness like that.
I haven't had anything that I've said I need to take this to the FBI except for the time that my email, my address was published online.
But no prosecutions, no.
Okay, because I'm not calling you a liar and there's no but to that.
I notice a tendency and it tends to be more...
On the left than on the right, and then when the right does it, people sort of accuse them of being babies.
That the left tends to weaponize accusations of death threats as if to portray them to be the victims, but especially when they're busy victimizing others, like Taylor Lorenz, for example.
Well, yeah, because I'm not really sure.
I know Taylor Lorenz, but I'm not really sure the example that you're giving with her.
But for me, the only reason I mention the death threats is...
The reason why we're not in a physical location for a church.
A physical location for a church is a place where publicly people know where you are at the time that you are at.
In terms of being a victim or anything, no, I don't really care about that.
It's a dog-eat-dog world out there.
That's why I said I'm sure you get your share of them.
All of us get somebody in our DMs.
I do leave my DMs open for reasons.
I love to see what people have to say.
And every now and then someone jumps in there with it.
The only one, again, the only one that really disturbed me was when somebody said, here's your address and I'm around the corner.
Now, I didn't believe that they were around the corner because they're obviously probably somewhere else in the country.
But still, that was too close to home, especially when they know they can now know I'm here at this location at 11 o'clock at this physical church in that given city.
It was time for me to say, okay, we need to readjust and to be smart about it.
I don't know what state you're in.
I don't know if you mentioned it or not.
It's not relevant, but I presume you're a firearm owner?
Well, the reason no is because I have small kids in the house, right?
As soon as my six-year-old gets a little bit older and I can feel a little more comfortable with that, I'm not comfortable with having firearms in the home.
However, I am very pro-Second Amendment and I have plenty of neighbors that I network with.
I know where the guns are in the neighborhood.
Well, Elise, I'm going to add one checkmark to the pro-maga side of your ideology.
And now when you say that, I've known you only for the last year, and I thought you were parody, like literally, in terms of the level of, I don't want to say absurdity, but in terms of the level of...
Apparent parody, like if it were the bee, or if it were someone trying to be a troll, they wouldn't do anything different than what you're doing.
Were you more or less, you were more provocative is what I understand, you know, a few years ago when you were- Oh no, no.
So here's the definitive shift.
And it's crazy because even in my political work, I tried to be as reasonable- As possible in my engagement.
And I think that anyone who can track my Twitter timeline, for that matter, over the last 12 years or however many years, you'll see a definitive shift, right?
And here's the shift of Viva.
And forgive me, I want to pronounce your name right.
Well, it's Viva Frye, but my real name is David.
So that's...
David? Yeah.
But you can call me either, Viva or Dave.
Okay. So, David, here's the truth of the matter is, is God...
In my meditation and time with God, God told me to reflect back to MAGA what you all reflect to us.
And as I started to do that, I was like, two things happened.
Wow. What MAGA does on Twitter and on social media is extremely effective.
Because look, as I do the tactics that MAGA has demonstrated to me.
It's extremely effective.
Second thing is, holy cow, this is kind of fun.
I have to resist that temptation.
That's why you see me.
I come and I go.
I come and I go.
I don't stay in the fight because I'm like, okay, this is in type of engagement.
I see why they do it.
It's a fun type of engagement.
It gets a lot of attention and it is extremely triggering to the people who are on the receiving end of it.
The definitive shift over the last two years has been, I have been given instructions to reflect the exact energy back to MAGA that you all reflect to us.
And in terms of the Great Cracker campaign of 2024, it was directly connected to the fact that the usage of the N-word on Twitter increased by 500%.
And I literally started it with, there's a tweet on my timeline asking Elon Musk, can I possibly say Cracker as many times as...
Twitter has, well, X, has used the N-word.
And he throttled that tweet right away.
He limited that tweet right away.
It was like, that's interesting.
Because it took him forever to decide to finally, whatever it is, when they tweet limit and this tweet has violated our terms and then so you can't share it and retweet it.
He did that with me immediately, which is why I started putting the KKK in it.
But how long did it take him to finally decide to do that for the N-word when it increased by 500%?
So this entire season of engagement is not parody.
It's not even my style, to be honest with you.
I'm a mellow guy.
But this is why I'm convinced I might actually be able to claim that I'm still right now.
I won't say the defense, but if your rationale justification is I'm just...
I will not...
I know some people in the chat are taking offense to the idea that God, and I'll put that in quotes, told you to do what you think MAGA is doing to you.
I think some people are going to find that.
Reflect. The words were to reflect the same energy back.
Well, basically what you've done is I found an excuse to justify my wrong behavior because I'm reflecting what I perceive to be their wrong behavior, but I'll just go right back to point one.
Who on earth, on MAGA, has ever used the N-word?
A prominent person on MAGA.
See, if we have to qualify with prominence, then of course we need to go and dig and say, okay, did Elon Musk say it?
Did Donald Trump Jr. say it?
But a 500% increase in the usage of the N-word just since Elon Musk took over, it doesn't have to be attributed to someone prominent.
It is an increase in the use of the word.
But you attributed it to MAGA, so where's your evidence?
Oh, most certainly.
Well, who else do you think?
Come on now.
Come on, David.
Let's be reasonable.
We'll be reasonable.
Let's be reasonable.
A 500% increase.
You think these are Democrats out here saying this?
Do you think these are progressives out here saying this?
Yeah. In fact, I would say that you are probably...
Wildly naive and historically illiterate if you wouldn't think someone would throw a brick through their own window and then cry racism in order to try to get Elon in trouble.
Here's the other thing that I really enjoy about MAGA.
The bad faith arguments, man.
Come on.
Forget the ad hominem, but forget the intention.
Did you reflect that it could be?
How do you define MAGA then?
Tell me what MAGA is.
Well, I won't.
You tell me because you're the one who's using it.
Matt, make America great again.
I use it as the full realm, the full spectrum of people who fall on the side of Donald Trump and the conservative movement as it exists right now.
I define it as an evolution away from the traditional GOP, right?
It is a complete usurpation of the old GOP, which I don't have any love for, for them by any measure, right?
But it is the evolution.
of the GOP into the life and style of Donald Trump.
That is a very broad spectrum, and it goes from Donald Trump all the way over to the Groypers, to Nick Fuentes, all the way over to international people.
Joel, what is Joel?
I can't think of Joel's name, so let me take that one back off.
But internationally, people who identify with MAGA, and they identify a little bit further than just MAGA, right?
It's not just...
It's not just those people who can vote for Donald Trump, right?
MAGA's bigger than that.
And you have to see that it's like an international movement of people who reject, not holistically.
Civility, though, the rejection of civility is a key cornerstone in the methodology of MAGA, and it has been since Donald Trump.
Donald Trump literally set the stage for that.
The rejection of civility.
Absolutely. I mean, just because we're going to degenerate into what happened with Pisco, but is it civil to spy on the incoming president?
I mean, the funny thing is you mistake civility with disguised aggression.
Because mean tweets are uncivil, but spying on the incoming president is civil.
No, no, no.
It goes beyond mean tweets.
It goes to policy.
The cruelty is the point.
I mean, I've literally sat in debates with people in person in Boston where they were a prominent Republican.
Circa of 2016, Donald Trump had just won.
In Boston, Massachusetts, he stated literally, and this is an anecdote, but I think it's reflective of so many of MAGA, that he enjoyed the manner in which Donald Trump used racial slurs, calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas, right? He enjoyed that, and he said that's why he supported it.
You think calling someone a liar for having lied about her ethnicity is the racial slur?
I said Pocahontas.
Pocahontas. It's a white woman lying in the way that he used it.
Come on, the way Donald Trump won, let's be real.
The way Donald Trump won was that he was able to come through in 2016 and completely usurp the GOP because they had never seen someone as class, someone as belligerent, someone who would break all norms of...
Their standardized civility, and I will give you this, I don't think the GOP was truly ever civil, especially in their policies, right?
But the ability to usurp a conversation and the dialogue and the discourse by injecting the type of vulgarity that Donald Trump injected, come on, it's part and parcel of what MAGA is.
Okay, but to this point, we have to stick to one thing.
You think when he was calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas, you think that was racial and insulting to natives?
That was the purpose.
Listen, out of the mouth of witnesses, right?
They enjoy, come on, how many people in your audience don't enjoy the very manner in which Donald Trump does that?
The dog whistle.
We're not talking about the same thing, though.
David, let's, and I don't, I guess I shouldn't expect us to agree on this, right?
And maybe we should get to some other stuff, but I firmly, there's plenty of evidence, and there's really no question in terms of the historical precedent that Donald Trump set.
Donald Trump absolutely mastered the art of the racial dog whistle.
He mastered the art of the Southern strategy.
He mastered all of those things.
Why do you think that we have a...
Matter of fact, if you don't mind, I'll drop the clip in the chat and you can look at it.
If there's a break or something, you can screen it.
But there were literally white nationalists who are on Twitter.
And I don't even care about the usage of the N-word so much, but literally planning violence against Black people, and they're doing it publicly and open.
That does not just happen because of the time changes.
It's happened because the Overton window in the United States of America broadened so much because of Donald Trump that now racial discourse and violence can be entered into the conversation.
But it isn't.
None of that has anything to do with MAGA.
But it isn't.
And it hasn't.
And when he says, when he says with Pocahontas, he's not making fun of natives.
He's making fun of lying white women who lie about being native to procure advantages in life.
You're outraged.
The individual who I, and the reason I brought this up specifically, right, was because I was in Boston and this was the example that this individual gave.
The individual said it out of his own mouth that he enjoyed.
I don't care what that individual's assessment of the intention of Donald Trump when he uses a word that's fundamentally not racial.
Yes, but he was a prominent Republican in the Republican Party who was actively a part of MAGA right now.
I don't care about that anecdote.
You believe that when Donald Trump calls Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas, it's to denigrate Native Americans.
Oh, I believe that's just one of the many simple examples.
No, I don't want many.
I don't want many.
I want that one now.
I don't think that's even the crown jewel example.
Give me the crown jewel example.
Give me the crown jewel example.
Oh, no, I'm not going to give you.
I'm actually going to upload it to our...
I'm going to upload it right now.
And let me go back.
Let me go back to the original question.
You've defined MAGA, and that's fine.
I may or may not agree with your definition of MAGA.
MAGA is MAGA by definition.
What's your evidence to suggest that the whatever 100%, 300%, 500%?
Well, first of all, I know which articles you're referencing for that stat.
What's your evidence that it came from bonafide MAGA?
Forget prominence.
Actual MAGA.
Bonafide MAGA, you get into the no true Scotsman fallacy, right?
No, you're in that.
But you're in that, Scott.
You're in that fallacy, though.
That's the problem.
You're the one who's saying any use of the N-word comes from MAGA, but you haven't even...
No, I didn't say any use of the N-word.
I'm saying that there has been a definitive shift in the discourse on Twitter since Elon Musk took over an increase of...
And you know what we else can tie this into is this idea of free speech, right?
This idea that free speech includes Elon Musk's definition of free speech, which is to include...
Racial language like that and to give people the room and the scope and the breadth to be able to engage in discourse that is destructive, and not only discourse that's destructive, but also disinformation and misinformation.
It's more analogous to that.
Ben, Ben, hold on.
You've got to appreciate it.
I might have to refresh my screen in a second because something seems to be frozen.
Not the computer, it's the keypad.
You appreciate, like, this is what we call the shotgun argument, the throwing a bunch of shit against the wall without actually addressing any one element yet.
You said the use of the word and the N-word had spiked.
By the way, it's subsequently gone down to less than it was before.
It spiked when Elon took over, and you have come to the conclusion in the absence of any evidence that it was MAGA doing that, and not potentially people who might have been angry at Elon Musk taking over Twitter.
To sabotage it.
You're adding something contrived on top of it.
I don't need to add it.
I gotta talk about your framing right here.
Because what you're doing right here is to say that, oh, this wasn't really just an increase of people.
This wasn't like the Groypers that...
That Elon Musk let back on Twitter, right?
This wasn't the very people from like 4chan that had been suspended before and came back to Twitter, right?
Which all of them I do include in MAGA, right?
Do you not believe that like Nick Fuentes and his coalition are a part of MAGA?
I actually don't.
I believe that Nick Fuentes is probably closer to a Fed to sabotage MAGA than MAGA itself, but that's my personal opinion, which I can substantiate with actual, you know.
Meaningful evidence.
I think the Nick Fuentes types are specifically saboteurs to allow the other players on the other side to say, look at how bad MAGA is.
They go around and harass everybody.
But setting that aside, I actually have to go back and see when Fuentes was let back on Twitter because I think one of the issues was that he actually wasn't let back on Twitter initially.
He was let back on by Elon Musk.
No, he was eventually, but I don't think it was right away.
I think there were a few holdouts that Elon took some flack for and I got to see if I can refresh those.
Let's just say, who reported that remarket increase on the use of the N-word on Twitter?
Do you remember who did that?
I'd have to find the article, but I can find it in two shakes.
It was one of those organizations that goes around and manufactures evidence to show Nazi content with ads running next to it, so they could then embark upon their advertising boycotts on the campaign to get them to, on the platform, to get them to either shut down, go out of business, or bend the knee.
And a great many lawsuits have been filed that illustrated that, and much evidence has been revealed.
You're going through a whole lot to try to excuse away the injuries.
I hear two different things now.
You're saying the two things that you've given me right now has been, well, Ben, you don't think that this was, you know, saboteurs who just used the N-word to make...
Twitter look bad, I guess, or make MAGA look bad.
That was the first one.
And then the second one, now you're saying, well, this is an organization that's actually just kind of manufacturing data.
I'm not saying that.
Those are two.
Well, first of all, to make someone look bad is my theory.
That it's from an organization that embarked on campaigns to boycott ads is a fact.
Versus the flood of people who were let back in after Elon Musk took over Twitter, who literally came back in on the wind and on the energy of, oh, I have the free speech to say these things.
Let me do one thing.
If I refresh and I get booted and you get booted, I'm going to come right back.
Not a problem.
I need to find a video for you anyway.
Okay, I'm going to reload.
Oh, I'm here by myself.
I'll be kind.
I won't act out.
Oh, there you are.
You left me up here by myself.
I was getting ready to...
Now I can click here.
Because it's 2022.
I want to see when a racial epithet used to attack black people was found more than 26,000 times.
Three times the average for 2022.
Use of that slur increased 53% while...
Oh, by the way, I remember the crux.
It actually started before Elon took over.
But that's a separate issue.
Let me see when it started.
It actually started before Elon took over.
But set that aside.
Who was the campaign that actually...
I'll get the links for this afterwards.
The bottom line...
When did Fuentes get back on Twitter?
After Elon Musk took over.
And it took a lot of prodding.
It took a lot of prodding from generally who I call MAGA.
Right? To say, hey, if you're going to be about free speech, let Nick Fuentes back on.
And Elon Musk relented and said, and he let him back on.
Yeah, he let him back on in 2023, from what I'm seeing here.
It was reinstated January 2023.
The reports of the N-word being used excessively after Elon's takeover was well before Fuentes was even back on.
And do you have any evidence that it, do you even know who was using it, the accounts?
I love that question, right?
Evidence is a very important question.
Evidence is a very important question.
What is the evidence upon which you basically believe?
What you're doing, though, and it's a standard tactic that you guys use, is you attack the source.
So my question to you would be, let's go to the source, and if you're going to attack, let's attack the source then, right?
Because I'm citing articles just like you're citing articles.
Do I have the list of the accounts?
I have the list of accounts that have been calling me the N-word, but that's neither here nor there because I'm, you know, I'm...
I'm in the thick of it.
So I'm not going to say, oh, you called me the N-word.
Absolutely don't care about that, right?
But a systematic increase by 500%.
I've heard you give three excuses so far.
Number one, saying that, oh, these could be provocateurs who are just trying to make folks look bad.
Number two, you're saying that, oh, this was a company that was, you know, I guess messing with the evidence to make someone look bad.
And now number three is saying if I don't have the specific list of the accounts, then we can't take that article at face value.
No, no, no.
First of all.
What you're doing is the classic tactic, which is strawmanning and strawmanning so much.
No, I presented you with evidence.
I think it's called a gish gallop.
I asked for evidence.
I didn't attack the source.
What is your evidence?
The evidence is the same article that you know about.
Now, if we're going to attack the article and we're going to attack the evidence of the article, that's one thing.
But I'm presenting you with data that was gathered and data that has been regurgitated and recycled.
This isn't something that I'm making up or pulling out of thin air, right?
There has been a mark.
And again, I'm going to say this, but if you choose to attack the source, that's not an unfair technique, right?
Maybe the source needs to be attacked.
But come on, man.
I don't know if you even, like, do you read your own replies?
Well, do I read my own replies?
Yeah, I probably shouldn't, but I do.
Do you know what the Center for Countering Digital Hate is?
Tell me your interpretation of the Center for...
I guess then you also probably reject the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Gosh darn, I won't use the Lord's name in vain.
You're damn right I do these.
So let me ask you this.
Let me ask you this.
Because if we're on this train of rejecting sources, do you accept the 97% of scientists who say that climate change is real?
Or do you reject them too?
I question it.
And I question everything.
And I question everything, especially since we have seen how, if you don't, Ben, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to everyone out there.
If anyone doesn't, they're idiots.
If you now understand you've been lied to by the medical experts for the last four years and don't question them, you're an idiot.
That was going to be my next question.
I'm so glad you did that.
If you now understand that these organizations, the Center for...
Countering digital hate, the ADL, have embarked on allegedly unlawful embargoes to bankrupt companies.
If you ignore that and then trust them when they come out and say, it's been a 500% increase and we blame it on the right, you're learning nothing.
You reject the ADL, Anti-Defamation League.
I have some problems with some of their data, but I don't reject an entire source.
I look at the specific agenda of that.
I hear you reject the Southern Poverty Law Center.
You now reject the same organization that put out the 500% increase in the use of the N-word.
The one that put me on a list.
The 90% scientific consensus about climate change.
Do you also reject...
What do you think about the VAERS, the Vaccine Averse Reaction Reporting Site?
Do you accept that information?
I accept it for what it is.
Instead of just moving on very quickly here.
Do you believe the vaccine is safe and effective?
Yes. Very much so.
My entire family, everybody I know who's taken not a single complication, everybody's good.
Matter of fact, I'm so glad we got it.
When we caught COVID, we had barely any side effects.
It was very effective for my family.
I don't know how it did for yours.
I wouldn't base it on my own anecdotal experience.
Do you believe that the Pfizer trials were properly conducted and the results accurate and true?
I can't make that as a statement of belief, right?
What I've had to do is trust the scientists.
And in my trust of the scientists, it worked perfectly fine for my family.
It actually saved some of my family's life.
Did you read?
I won't undermine that because I can't undermine it any more than you can affirm it.
Did you read the subselect committee on the pandemic response that just was published a week or two ago?
By the House Republicans?
Well, it was a bipartisan, and a legit bipartisan, not bipartisan like January 6th.
Did you read that?
No, I have not had the chance to read that.
Tell me about it.
Well, no, it just confirms that some of these very same scientists that you now rely on lied about everything, like gain-of-function research.
Abusing government grants, promoting propaganda, censoring accurate information, and these are the same people that you trust.
Each of those sentences that you just gave have extremely loaded backstories, right?
So much of the resistance that we have...
And I just want to just be sure that people understand that you and I know we're both on the same conversation, right?
We're talking about the trust of resources, of sources, not resources, but the trust of sources.
And what I'm saying in the context of science is that, yeah, I am going to, when there's a 97% consensus of scientists, right?
I am going to go with the scientific consensus and not the 3% who also have their motivations from the same type of...
Sketchy sources that you're talking about coming from the vaccine.
If we apply that same thinking to climate change, we look at the funding that is behind that 3% that is telling everyone, that's giving you guys the evidence that you need to say, oh, look, this scientist says that climate change is not really happening and it's not really man-made.
So I think that it is in our human best interest to...
Always vet.
Listen, I don't trust anyone blindly unless I simply do not have the capacity or the bandwidth.
When it came to the vaccine, I had to trust that we have had hundreds of years of vaccine science that has saved so many lives from polio to measles, mumps, and rubella to all of the different diseases that we've been able to stave off.
And now, not to mention, I'm going off a tangent here, but the recurrence of certain diseases that we had eradicated.
Right? I do trust scientists.
Why don't you trust the scientists?
Well, I mean, I could tell you that there was consensus that there was going to be global cooling in the 70s.
And back then, every sheep like you would have been saying, well, it's the science, so we've got to trust them.
But here's why.
You remind me of asking, do you have kids?
I got three kids, yeah.
Oh, very similar.
And we probably were in high school at the same time, right?
So, Dave, what if you're absolutely wrong on climate change?
What kind of world are you going to be living for your children?
Well, considering it should have already been over because we've reached the 12-year mark, I can tell you one thing.
Pollution is bad, and we should do everything we're able to to eliminate it.
It's an amazing thing because you say pollution is bad, and yet let's do everything we can to facilitate China and India to pollute exponentially more.
Not yet.
I'll get it out of you eventually, at least through policy.
But back it up, because I'll tell you this.
It's not just healthy skepticism.
This is the strawmanning on the other side.
First, I just actually can't get over the fact that you will trust the people who have systematically lied to you.
That makes...
Like I always say...
Your framing of systematically lying to me, really, we have to unpack that before I can accept that framing.
Where's the systematic lie that is not consistent with its own self-deception?
Okay, hold on.
You are aware that they changed the definition of vaccine shortly before implementing what now they are admitting was a therapeutic?
What was the nuance of the change, Dave?
The nuance was no longer inoculated.
It could be used to reduce symptoms, which is also known as a therapeutic.
Do you remember when they were calling people anti-vaxxers for referring to the COVID jab as a therapeutic?
Do you remember when they were doing that?
Do you acknowledge that they did it?
I want to say No, I'm not going to...
The reason I'm not going to acknowledge it is because I don't have that information, right?
So I'm listening to you in real time, but I hear that nuance that you're giving, right?
The therapeutic versus inoculation.
And to be sure, yeah, let's be sure.
It did not inoculate us from catching it, if that's the discussion that we're talking about, right?
And that was a very disappointing...
Let's be real, right?
Generally, when you think of a vaccine, it means you can prevent you...
From getting it and catching it.
You know, but I'm going to be, let's keep it 100 here, Dave.
I'm grateful that the symptoms when my whole household got COVID were dramatically reduced, especially for me personally being somewhat disabled already with some pre-existing conditions.
It could have killed me, right?
And so I will gladly take a vaccine or...
Or therapeutic, if that's the definition that we're going to go with, I would gladly accept that, especially when it is highly effective and can save lives.
I don't understand what the problem is, even if there is a change in nomenclature, right?
Even if there are structural problems that need to be addressed.
Are you suggesting that, and to be sure, there are far greater people who can argue this in terms of the vaccine, right?
I'm talking about scientific consistency.
Consensus. More so than this specific vaccine.
I do err on the side of scientific consensus.
I do believe that we need to review that scientific consensus, which is why I am a strong proponent of academic peer review, right?
I'm definitely big on that.
I don't just accept something because the scientists put it out.
But if it's peer reviewed, if it is tested and there have been trials and we have a body of data that shows that billions of vaccines have been given and the adverse effects are in what percentage?
Do you believe the VAERS?
Do you believe the actual stats that they're actually...
I know VAERS quite well, and I'm glad that's why you brought it up.
That's why I mentioned it.
It's because it's a volunteer system.
It's not peer-reviewed.
This is where we can avoid the scientific aspect of the discussion because I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be.
I don't need to be a scientist to know that they called people who referred to the COVID shot as a therapeutic, they called them anti-vaxxers.
Only to, four years later, literally...
There's doctors and the COVID report from the subcommittee saying it's more therapeutic.
It's the same people who didn't want to wear a mask, man.
And you are familiar with the number of papers peer-reviewed that have been retracted is astonishing.
Once you understand the level of corruption in terms of what gets peer-reviewed in the first place.
They called people anti-vaxxers for suggesting that the shots...
It caused myocarditis.
And then when they said it was, then they initially said, okay, fine, one in 15,000, one in 10,000.
Then three years later, they say it causes it in one in 5,000.
So they go from calling you something to admitting it, calling you a liar, and even worse for believing it, to admitting it.
And these are the people you trust.
Myocarditis is and what is inflammation of the heart, right?
Yes, inflammation of the heart.
One in 5,000 in young adults.
So I'm glad no one in your family got it and touch wood.
But the whole point of this is it's not to rehash the debate.
It's to...
The scientific bit.
It's you're relying on people who have lied to you.
Does that not make you an idiot?
Listen, listen, let's be real.
Let's be real here.
American empire and governments, period, are not without a catalog of lies.
Yeah, the Tuskegee experiments should be a good one that you might want to remember.
Well, you took the words out of my mouth, right?
The Tuskegee experiment is a clear example, right?
Not infecting them, but withholding the actual treatment.
I think they actually infected some, but I might be wrong about that.
But the primary cause of the primary Tuskegee experiment, in fact, is the withholding of actual treatment.
But at some point...
This is what this empowers, right?
It's the rejection of scientific consensus as if the alternative is better.
The alternative says, I'm going to go look at VAERS and I don't even really understand that VAERS is self-reported.
And I'm going to scare myself based on, let's talk about the number of people who were organized in a farm-like fashion to flood VAERS with reports.
Some fake, but none of them.
Some of them were real.
I'm not going to doubt some of them were real, right?
But none of it is verified and vetted information.
It is a self-reporting system.
And you take a system like that and use that to scare all of society away from...
Do you understand, by the way, what you're arguing right now is diametrically opposed to the very same theory I proposed about flooding Twitter with false flag N-words back when Elon took over?
You understand, like, it's not exactly the same thing because you have to...
I was hoping you would catch that new one.
It's different.
Because one is filed under penalty of perjury, typically filed by a doctor, takes an exceedingly long amount of time to file, and it was never intended, VAERS, was never intended to be, oh, we've got a lot of reports, pull it from the market.
It was supposed to be a signal program.
That's why it was set up, only so that the signals could then be disregarded.
So if you want a comparison by comparison, the difference is a tweet is anonymous, unverified, takes a nanosecond.
A VAERS report is under penalty of perjury.
Done by a doctor, typically, is exceedingly difficult and painstaking.
And yeah, you can pull up a couple of funny ones over the course of a decade where someone said they turned into the Hulk.
Those are the three big differences.
And Varys was intended, designed to be the marker to signal a problem.
Which it's systematically ignored.
Because the doctors who lied to you about everything else over the last four years are now telling you Varus is useless, even though it was set up specifically for the purposes for which it's being ignored.
But it goes back to, you are relying on the people who you acknowledge have lied to you in the past.
The very same ones.
Who are you?
Let's be sure, right?
Again, we set this up, this part of our conversation, and we're discussing the fact that there's no government that is without lies.
Would you agree with that?
I agree with that.
Right. Do you believe that Donald Trump has been telling you the absolute truth all this time?
I do not believe he has told us the absolute truth.
Okay, so you're relying on an entire system to be erected in the name of Donald Trump, and he has lied to you many times.
So I, you know...
Well, I can answer that.
We're vulnerable out here is what I'm saying.
But I can answer this.
I've also lied to my children when I say the restaurant's closed or we can't go to Chuck E. Cheese tonight.
There are lies which...
Innocuous, but if we were better people, we wouldn't.
You can't rationalize with an eight-year-old.
There are disqualifying lies, such as, we did not fund gain-of-function research.
Disqualifying. Not just disqualifying, I would say criminal, but set that aside.
You are...
And when someone disqualifyingly lies, they are never to be trusted again.
So I would say that, although I'm sure Trump has lied, because he's no...
I've lied, and I'm...
Whatever. They have not been the disqualifying lies, like the, I will not pardon Hunter Biden, and then go to do it.
Like, there was no gain of function research.
I've got plenty of issues with Joe Biden.
No, but I know, but I'm telling you, there are levels of lies.
There are gradients of lies.
And I believe everybody lies, so every politician has lied.
Therefore, every government has lied.
But there's a difference between lying about infecting, for the course of three decades, an entire...
Not an entire race, but rather a group of a specific race and lying about it over and over again.
Are you talking about Tuskegee here?
Tuskegee. And again, to be sure, it was the withholding of treatment versus the infection.
Understood. It was systematic lying and abuse.
No doubt.
Listen, Black people have no reason to trust the United States of America, period.
But it's amazing.
What choice does one have when one lives in a system?
But here's who I'm saying.
Hold on.
What choice?
This is a really important point.
Look, I want you to look at what you're doing, though.
You're saying, let's look at the lies of, let's say, bureaucracy, the CDC, right?
That's what I'm hearing you saying.
The lies around changing the term of the vaccine to an inoculant, not inoculant, but therapeutic.
I hear you.
Look at how you're applying it, Dave.
Because the way I introduced it was scientific consensus.
I don't say because there are people in bureaucracy and government who lie that we should ignore scientific consensus.
Holy shit.
Great. You got a consensus of liars.
Good for you.
You got 51 intelligence officers.
You're saying 97...
Let's use climate change again.
97% of scientists are lying?
I would say 97% of the industry is captured.
And therefore what's coming out, whether or not it's a lie, whether or not it's coerced, whether or not it's manipulated, is wildly inaccurate.
I mean, once you understand the industry is captured, you don't listen to the industry.
And when you talk about, like, the doctors, here's doctors I will never trust, again, because they belong in jail.
Do you see where this goes?
Do you see where this leads to?
God forbid it leads to thinking on your own and actually understanding things before you take an opinion on them.
Did you see that clip from Candace Owens when she said, I just don't trust scientists, so, you know, maybe the earth is flat.
Like, literally.
Well, I didn't see, first of all...
That's where that train of thought goes.
I didn't see that clip, so I don't know if she actually said the Earth is flat.
She said maybe.
I just don't trust scientists.
Maybe we didn't go to the moon.
Maybe the Earth is.
Come on, we get to all kinds of absurdities if we're going to reject, holistically reject.
I'm not saying don't question.
You're saying reject.
I'm not saying maybe we could believe that the Earth is flat.
I say maybe, question if the Earth is flat.
I had on Mark Sargent a long time ago, and we talked about it.
And I was like, I understand him.
I understand where his rationale fails.
So it's good.
I don't believe the Earth is flat because their own arguments don't make sense.
Why would every other celestial body be round and the Earth be flat?
That makes sense.
Okay, set that aside.
I got no problem with saying, how do I know the Earth isn't flat?
Well, we can have that argument.
But when you're talking about, I mean, it's so bloody disingenuous to say that the Earth being round is, An analogous argument to an experimental mRNA jab that had never been administered in the history of humankind, and yet somehow within six months, you get a scientific consensus?
If you can't identify fraud, Ben, then you've got to have your freaking heads up.
Brought to us at warp speed by Donald John Trump.
Oh, I got my problems with that too.
But it was never intended to be administered to your children.
And bottom line, if you think you get consensus on anything where they've been wrong 20 years ago...
You've got to have your freaking head examined.
You're talking about 20 years ago.
Climate change.
In the 70s, I might be a little older than you.
They were talking about global cooling being the end of the world.
Then it became global warming.
But then that didn't really come about.
Then they had to change it to climate change.
And now they've got a consensus?
This is the same scientific community that came to you and said there's a consensus that it's safe and effective.
For something that they just rammed through the process and lied about the results, covered up the incidence of injury, and you buy it.
I tell you what, because I'm sure your audience is bored with us at this point, because I don't think either one of us are experts enough on either one of those.
I'm not dismissing you, and I'm not dismissing myself.
But I will simply say this.
Yeah, I will err if I'm going to make a mistake.
I will err on the side of scientifically peer-reviewed consensus.
And I will do it every day of the week, twice a week.
Even when you know that it's coming from liars, confirmed liars.
You, and here, and see, listen, I don't know the exact name of the fallacy that you're using right now.
Let me be fair, not liars.
You're applying the, first of all, you're putting a framework that itself needs to be deconstructed.
The certified liars, fine.
But those are bureaucrats.
Even if I seed you that, that's the bureaucracy.
I'm talking about the actual science of vaccines.
Are you rejecting hundreds of years of vaccine science generally?
No. In fact, I'm using the hundreds of years of vaccine science generally to question the mRNA.
Oh, there are arguments.
I understand the arguments for people saying polio was already on its way out because of hygiene, because of sewage, because of a whole slew of other things, because of pasteurization, because, you know, what's the word I'm looking for?
Pasteurization, because they're definitely trying to bring back raw milk.
I got no problem with that, which allowed us to be where we are today in life.
But hold on.
So it's an interesting thing because I don't think it doesn't bother me.
I'm surprised you don't see the error here.
I do rely on the hundreds of years of vaccine science, which was a wholly different actual vaccine than the experimental gene therapy.
Do you remember when people were called anti-vaxxers for calling it an experimental gene therapy?
Yeah, well, no, yes, but also anti-vaxxers because they were a part of the same coalition that rejects vaccines holistically.
Listen, we are certainly in, well, not anymore because we have enough data, right?
But at the beginning of the pandemic, we were certainly in new territory, right?
And let's be sure, in that new territory, we're...
Huge mistakes made?
Yes, both in terms of how they describe what this was and what it was going to do, and that if you get the vaccine, that you won't get infected.
That was a mistake, but this was new territory.
And with new territory, you're going to make mistakes, even if you are a scientist.
With new territory comes 97% consensus within six months.
Right, but also comes the fact that if you want to talk about trusting someone, if there was any amount of trust that had to be given, it was, holy cow, am I really going to take a vaccine?
That was booked and backed by Donald Trump, right?
And I don't say that to be a political ploy.
I say that to say, I literally had to pause and say, do I really trust the vaccine that's coming to us at Operation Warp Speed that's coming faster than any other vaccine has ever come?
I'm really going to trust.
I took about six months to see how everyone else fared before I decided to go take my family to go get it.
So I was suspicious, but I started getting enough evidence to say, okay, you know what?
The risk is...
Is here, but the risk of dying from COVID is here.
And so I took that risk and it worked out good for us.
Well, by the way, your hands were way off in terms of the actual stats of the risk from one versus the risk from the other.
Come on, man.
I'm doing...
You know about the...
It's a side issue about the experimentation of vaccines on the African population, using them as guinea pigs.
Separate issue.
But bottom line, this is where...
It's a deeper issue now.
It's ideological.
If we get there, then we have to talk about a whole lot of other stuff.
No, we're not going to because it's too complicated.
You would rather die at the hand of the experts having made a mistake than die at the hands of yourself having thoughtfully considered your options and made your own life decision.
It is literally what some people call the difference between a sheep and a wolf.
We're talking about a pandemic that unless you have access to and the knowledge of this science, you have either one or two options.
Either you're going to trust them or you're not.
And there's a lot of people who are dead right now.
And I don't use their names in vain, but Phil Valentine, a political commentator who trusted MAGA's instinct, right?
This rejection.
And it was very interesting.
What's his name?
What's his name?
Phil Valentine.
He was a huge conservative commentator, right?
I can give you Herman Cain.
I'll stick with one.
Right. Well, actually, I'm painting the picture for you, right?
So it's applicable not just to Phil Valentine and Herman Cain, but to several people who trusted the MAGA instinct to reject, number one, masks, as well as a vaccine, even if you want to call it a therapeutic, who would be alive today had they...
Gotten this therapeutic.
It's interesting.
I'll look into Phil Valentine because my initial reaction, and you'll call it being contrarian, I wonder if he was killed by the treatment in hospital as opposed to anything.
And by the way, just that people died from COVID.
I don't deny that either, but I'm not going to take a position on that, but I think...
I guarantee you there's more to that story, especially if it's CNN running the headline that Valentine dies from COVID after his battle with COVID.
But it is the issue that you would rather just have someone else make a mistake for you.
Trust scientists?
Yes. I would trust scientists.
Peer-reviewed science?
Yes. Do you know how many publications The Lancet had to retract or how the funding works for this?
Are you familiar with the level of corruption in terms of the funding for research?
Pharmaceutical corruption?
Oh my goodness.
Yes, we're familiar with pharmaceutical corruption.
But yet you trust the doctors as though they have no relation to the pharmaceutical corruption.
I'm not asking you to actually tell me, but anyone who is on a prescription drug, you literally have to trust.
You have to trust the doctor who prescribed it.
You have to trust the manufacturers who made it.
You have to trust the pharmaceutical company that distributed it.
You could ask me the question because I went to a doctor and they said you maybe want to take this.
You're 45 years old and you can do it.
It's like, why?
And then you might find out also that they get kickbacks for prescribing it.
You're so close to making the connection that, oh, holy shit, my brain might actually work well enough to filter out the bullshit.
You're so close, but you just...
Raise your hands and say, I'll trust in doctors like I trust in God.
I said I will trust in scientists, scientific research, scientific consensus every day of the week.
Yeah, you're not going to get me to budge on that.
Am I going to trust scientific research over QAnon conspiracies?
Yeah. You can straw man all day long, but it's easier.
And that's not even what the consensus is.
I normally rant about Biltong, says King of Biltong.
You should get some Biltong, Ben.
It's fantastic.
Science is not conducted by consensus.
It's conducted by results.
Ben should read about Galileo.
I was going to go there.
But it's so absurd because the consensus...
Is based on the limitations of our own knowledge or corruption of the time.
That's why it's called a practice in the first place, right?
But you're talking about medical field.
Consensus is not about practice.
No, no, we're talking about the medical field and we're talking, because we're crossing over so many different fields, right?
The scientific consensus that I trust the most is peer-reviewed academic research that builds consensus, yes, but then also gets results.
And I think that's what you were getting ready to say, right?
What results does it yield?
But does this mean, listen, does that mean...
That there's not a part of this entire system that is corrupt and bureaucratic, as well as kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies.
Of course, you and I are going to agree on the problem of the big pharma, right?
Of course, we're going to agree with the problem of over-medicating people, as well as the problem of the foods that we eat and all those sorts of things.
Yes. But does that cause me to turn around and say, I will reject everything that comes from science and instead take what somebody tells me on the internet?
First of all, no one's asking you to do that, so good for the straw man.
That's the framing that you're setting up.
If you're not going to trust the science, who are you going to trust?
That's your framing.
And my framing is, I'm not going to trust doctors on the long-term effects of something that hasn't been around for long enough for them to make that determination.
We all took a big risk here.
I will concur on this regard.
There's two huge risks that we took during the pandemic.
Number one...
What are the long-term impacts of the vaccine?
Number one.
Two, what are the long-term impacts of COVID?
Right? And you just have to take your pick.
Which one do I want to take a risk with?
And we chose to take a risk with the vaccine.
Of course, because you would rather be able to blame someone else for their bad advice than take responsibility for your own actions.
And that's fine.
Well, you know, maybe my perch from the religious world actually, you know, kind of shook me a little bit when I saw the backlog of funerals at the funeral home.
Right. People were dropping dead by the thousand.
You know, one and a half million people died.
Or do you reject that number from the United States of America?
Finish the sentence.
One and a half million.
And we stopped counting, which was really kind of disgusting.
In the Biden administration, we stopped counting how many people were dying.
Not a fan of Biden for that.
But finish the sentence.
One and a half million people died.
And my question to you was- No, whoa, whoa.
Died from what?
COVID. They died from COVID?
Yes. Okay.
Ben, do you understand that the chief medical officers two years later were saying it's about time now that we distinguish between hospitalized with COVID versus hospitalized from COVID?
Do you understand that they weren't distinguishing between death from versus death with?
Death died with?
You forgot that part also.
Do you still have me?
Yeah, I'm still here.
Do you see me?
Okay, no, ask that question one more time.
I had something popped up and threw me out.
You're going to give me a heart attack, more so than the COVID jab.
You do appreciate that it was two years out of the pandemic when doctors and governors were saying it's time we start distinguishing between hospitalized with COVID versus hospitalized from COVID?
And then you shifted that to saying dying from...
I do recognize that distinction was entered into the discourse, yes.
Do you agree then that that meant that they were intermingling died with versus died from COVID?
Okay, so what percentage...
Let me ask it this way, since this is where we're headed.
How many people do you think died from COVID?
This is a Weasley debate tactic.
I don't know.
That's where it's hitting, right?
That's the inevitable conclusion of your logic.
Again, we're going back to like 500% increase you attributed to MAGA in terms of tweets, and 1.5 million died, and you don't even know if they died with or from COVID because you can't know.
Who can know anything?
What can be known about this wondrous universe in which we live?
Well, it's funny.
Ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies.
And ask no questions, you'll never learn anything.
Who could have known?
People who asked.
People who were saying from the beginning, are they dying with or dying from?
And when they were trying to inflate the numbers, both for hospitalizations and for death because there was a financial incentive, you are relying on a number that you simply not only do not know that it was accurate, you don't understand that it was inaccurate.
I mean, it's fascinating what you...
Believe I understand what I don't understand.
Here's my question to you.
What was the excess deaths, right?
So if we're going to dismiss, if we're going to say dismiss the 1.5 million number, right?
And we're going to say because it was, and you sound like those folks who said it wasn't COVID that killed them.
It was the preexisting conditions that killed them.
That's what you're going to say too?
No, we'll get there when we get there, but keep going where you're going.
Okay. Excess deaths.
People die all the time, right?
And so what you're saying is that some of them just died.
They just happened to die because, not because of COVID, but they had COVID and they were going to die anyway.
That's what I'm hearing.
Well, you've said that 1.5 million people died from COVID.
And I asked you if you knew that because you don't seem to even know that.
The reason I can, you know, I do some reverse thinking here, right?
The count was cut off.
When Joe Biden came in.
And to me, that was a very political decision, one that I very much disagreed with.
I understand the distinction that you're drawing here, but I won't cede that territory to you.
I will just say I understand the distinction.
It's an easy distinction that's already drawn off to whether or not they died with COVID or from COVID, as well as they died from their pre-existing conditions or they died because of COVID.
Those are all the distinctions that you all made, which is why I said that we should look at the excess deaths.
If we can agree on anything, can we agree on the excess deaths?
Yeah, we can agree that the excess deaths were actually greater in the years after COVID, after the pandemic, and during the rollout of the vaccine, than during COVID itself, which is unheard of that the excess death after the pandemic is greater than during the pandemic.
There was, I can't really find it.
Well, I mean, my chat knows what the excess death was for 2020.
The excess deaths were estimated, 2020 and 2021, the excess deaths were estimated at 14.9 million worldwide, right?
I don't have it right here for the United States.
And you're saying afterwards, I want to, you say after the pandemic.
When do you mark the end of the pandemic?
I would say, well, the fact that people, let's say 2022, 2023, 2024.
And I mean, I know what the excess deaths are in different demographics now.
There's got to be more interesting stuff that you want to ask.
I'm getting to understand your reasoning, which is, on the one hand, it's deferential to authority, which is, I guess...
To scientific research and academic research?
Yes. I want to be sure now.
I say this with a full disdain for a lot of academia.
Yeah, I know, because you have cognitive dissonance is the issue.
That's not a sign of honesty.
What is wrong with cognitive dissonance?
It means you're not thinking properly.
Oh my goodness, it means you're holding, contradicting ideas in your head at the same time, trying to resolve the tension.
That is the highest level of thinking.
Here we go.
What are we talking about here?
Over 300 peer-reviewed papers on COVID-19 have been retracted.
Out of 319 have been retracted?
That's what Grok gave me.
I know that the number was high, but it says over 300 on COVID-19 have been retracted.
Okay, so what percentage is that?
But the bottom line is it's selective piecing of evidence here because you say, yeah, I trust the consensus, but I ignore the fact that there's wild corruption.
I trust peer-reviewed papers.
Who says I ignore it?
When you are faced with...
A level of uncertainty, global uncertainty.
You... We have to accept that there's going to be risk on both sides.
I already told you that my own personal instinct was, let's wait at least six months to see if this Donald Trump vaccine is going to start killing people and people start dropping dead, right?
I'm not getting there, but I know what the stats are showing for that.
But the bottom line is, what you're basically saying is, I trust corrupt institutions.
I trust people who have consistently, if not lied, misled.
And because it's scientific consensus, even though...
Where did I say those things?
It's called cross-examining, where I can piece together two admissions.
You say you acknowledge the systemic corruption of the institutions, but then rely on the consensus of that institution.
Yes. You know why?
Because... You just said you didn't say it.
Now you said you said it, but here's why.
No, no, I'm going to tell you...
I'm going to say yes.
And you know why here is because of the adversarial nature of academic peer review.
It is one, you know, kind of a really a dog eat dog world competition there.
And if they have an opportunity to debunk somebody, I've never seen scientists or academics miss an opportunity to tear down another scientist.
So it is a very market based academic.
Free-for-all blood sport in terms of peer review.
I know you're an attorney, so I'm not dismissing any.
I applaud your academic achievements.
But in just terms of academia, in terms of research, it is very much a dog-eat-dog world out there.
Do I trust an individual scientist?
I have to know that individual science.
I have to read their individual paper.
Would I trust the consensus of 97% of scientists?
I'd have to ask, why on earth would you not?
Well, I mean, if you ask that question after having been provided with the evidence that they have been lying to you for financial and political profit...
Then I have to ask who provided you that evidence.
Are you denying that that's the case?
I'm asking you who provided that evidence because I have to vet that evidence as much as you want to vet the science.
At this point in time, it's not a theory.
They're acknowledging that they were lying about gain-of-function research.
They were lying about funding it.
They were lying about the origins of the virus.
They were falsifying their results by excluding adverse events.
They were concealing these stats.
Adverse events?
Are you talking about VAERS?
No, I'm talking about during the trials.
They would kick out the people who got sick to say that nobody got sick.
If you question whether or not they actually lied, that's fine.
I'm not going to send you links.
Again, I want to say this.
I don't doubt the fact that there are malevolent actors at every single level of our system, even in academia, even in scientific research.
What I count on It's scientific consensus.
And the reason I count on them is not out of naivete.
It's out of the fact that I understand what happens when you submit a paper for peer review.
People don't want to acknowledge that you're right.
If they acknowledge that you're correct, it's only because they can't prove that you're wrong.
They reluctantly do it because they would rather be the person that...
Who makes this breakthrough?
Who makes this discovery?
And so because I trust the adversarial nature of peer review, I am most certainly going to, I would rather err on the side of scientific peer review and consensus than just whatever sources you, which you haven't given me yet, but that you're standing on.
No, what I'm standing on is hard evidence that the very same people you're relying on, in fact, lied.
But you have to give me, like, who are, where is that evidence?
Because if you're going to say Senator Rand Paul, right, who is a primary source on a lot of this, Senator Rand Paul himself is...
I'm not getting it.
I'm going, like, we're not going to start from scratch here, but it's like, you know, prove to me that they were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
If you don't know that...
That's, then there's no discussion, you know, have a discussion later.
But see, that was forethought.
Like, I knew they were wrong before they went into that.
Okay, but that's very good.
And just the irony is you talk about the adversarial process of science and yet then rely on the consensus, which is the antithesis to the adversarial process.
No, no, no, no, no.
How? No.
Well, I know you don't because you're relying on it, but the bottom line is...
No, no, but if you're going to apply that to me, then we got to unpack it.
You're saying the consensus following an adversarial process, which is on the one and I disagree with it because it's 97% consensus after a corrupt financially incentivized process.
And if you're not familiar with that, then you're not familiar with regulatory capture, period.
But it's consensus among an institution that also said that at one point masks were not useful versus masks mandatory.
That there's no risk of myocarditis among young kids or interfering with women's menstrual cycles too.
Of course there is.
There's always risks.
So they have lied and it's black and white and you can go to the articles in the New York Times to demonstrably show those lies from one year to the next.
And then you'll say, well, they didn't have that information back in the day, which exactly goes back to how the hell did they lie or make statements when they didn't have the information that they then said, oh, we were wrong, but only because we didn't have the information.
Because, and again, I don't know the specific examples that you mentioned in the New York Times, the first source that you've mentioned in this entire conversation, but I'll check that out.
But, Dave, David, or was it Dave?
I apologize.
The beginning of a novel virus where we're going from no information to the production of a...
To the production of a vaccine at Operation Warp Speed.
To 97% consensus.
It's amazing.
How did it happen?
Because it was fucking broken from the beginning, Ben.
The 97% consensus I'm referring to is climate change.
You're right.
I think it was 100% consensus on the vaccines because anybody who said it was not safe...
I don't know what consensus was.
All I know is that Donald Trump got it to us at Operation Warp Speed, got those jabs in the arms of millions of Americans at Operation Warp Speed.
And because I didn't trust Donald Trump, I said, let me sit back a couple of extra months.
Now, I did that.
I wasn't going to take something from Donald Trump right away.
That's when he was telling us to inject ourselves with bleach.
That's a lie, but that's good.
He said that!
Okay. Add to the checkmark.
You've got two things now you like, Trump, for the vaccine and Second Amendment stuff.
Let me ask you this.
What was the first one?
Oh, the Second Amendment.
The vaccine was vaccine and the other one was the Second Amendment.
But let me ask you this.
You rely on consensus.
Scientific consensus, yes.
How about jury consensus?
That's a good segue.
Wonderful segue.
Let's go.
Yeah. You still call Daniel.
I accept.
I accept.
I mean, we don't have any choice, right?
It doesn't matter whether I accept it or not.
I believe O.J. Simpson died, right?
Yeah, yeah.
He's dead.
Okay, fine.
I can say that.
I believe he murdered him.
I believe.
And I know there's people out there who don't think he did.
I believe he got away with murder.
Yeah, he was still busy bragging on it later.
He wrote a whole book on it.
Well, some people say that's what a narcissist would do if he didn't actually do it because he wanted to pretend that he did do it.
Now I understand, and I say this tongue-in-cheek or humorously, I understand where your brain is broken as far as I'm concerned, so I understand what you're going to say for Daniel Penny.
How do you look at that situation and actually have the balls to call Daniel Penny a murderer?
Because he...
Took actions that took a man's life.
But first of all, that's not the definition of murder.
Like, what's the definition of murder?
I'm a lawyer, so it kind of makes...
What's the definition of murder?
Yeah, so this is where you will excel.
Sure, there's a difference between murder and killing and manslaughter and all those things.
Yes. He took...
This is what...
This is my definition.
You took actions that took someone's life.
It's a minimum...
Let's call it a homicide.
Mm-hmm.
Can we call it that?
No, I mean, I think technically it is homicide.
Okay, so then technically I found a word that you can concur with.
He homicided Jordan Neely.
Let me just make sure.
The definition of homicide is the killing of a person with another.
It doesn't mean unlawful.
Let's even just set aside the fact that I don't think Neely died as a result of what...
I bet you also think that George Floyd didn't die because of the knee on the neck.
Oh, I definitely know that there was reasonable doubt there, and I definitely know that George Floyd had drugs in his system that would do damage to a normal person.
That has nothing to do with neck compressions for nine minutes as a man is...
Yeah, but we can have this argument, because you can go read the initial autopsy, which actually showed no trauma from neck compression.
But the bottom line is, when you're talking criminal, and if you're talking reasonable doubt, I think having had COVID, by the way...
Which George Floyd did have.
And dying within a proximity of that COVID, some people were written down as COVID deaths.
This one was more politically profitable by calling it murder.
I think there's reasonable doubt that George Floyd died as a result of the neck compression.
And I watched the trial and I should change my mind.
One thing you guys will certainly do is go...
You guys?
Yes, you guys.
MAGA. MAGA.
You mean the Jews.
I know what you mean.
Oh, MAGA.
I mean the who?
The Jews.
I know what you mean.
Yeah, I'm joking, Ben.
I know you are.
That's a good one.
And I also, like, I said at one point, you people, and I'm like, someone's going to say, oh, my God, Viva West.
No. Yeah, no, no, no, no.
I think we're on solid enough ground for us not to be triggered by any...
I couldn't care.
I mean, first of all...
There's a little bit of truth to some of the jokes, but okay.
Sorry. Go ahead.
I see.
I'm not going to go anywhere near that.
But yes, MAGA, you folks will go through any hurdle possible to excuse and justify the actions that were literally caused by an individual's choices.
Derek Chauvin chose to kneel on that man's neck for nine minutes when he simply did not have to.
Would you at least agree there?
Well, first of all, I initially was of the opinion that Floyd, Chauvin, I'm sorry, was guilty.
Like, when I first saw the video, and not just, like, an initial, like, Nicholas Salmon reflex.
I looked into it.
I was like, yeah, that looks terrible.
There's no excuse for it.
And then I actually watched the trial, and I watched the evidence.
And when the evidence as to why he was in that position for nine minutes came out, I was like, it kind of makes sense right now.
You trust the experts that get on stage?
No, no.
Of course you do.
Of course you do.
You're an attorney.
No, no.
In fact, you're the one who's trusting the experts.
I trust my own good sense.
I saw all of the evidence.
I heard the explanations.
And I say, which one makes more sense here?
Whether or not it caused the death, was there a reason to maintain that position on his back for such an extended period of time?
And after watching the trial, with no sympathy for Chauvin, I was like, okay, now I understand the rationale.
What's the rationale for an officer?
We have four other officers there, and you have handcuffs at your disposal.
You have taser at your disposal.
What's the justification for applying that kind of pressure?
What was the explanation that was given to rationalize it was that there was an issue of crowd control and safety and that it was required in order to secure the situation and that the guy was still pepped up on whatever the hell he was pepped up on.
I can understand that.
First of all, you think that that guy wouldn't be able to cause problems?
Oh man, you believe in the superpower of black people on drugs, don't you?
No, I believe in the power of anyone on drugs.
It's not just black people who do drugs, and it's not the black people who I saw eating people's faces because they were hot on drugs.
By the way, Ben, the fact that you think race has anything to play with it, it shows a massive...
We were on good ground.
We weren't going to get triggered.
I'm going to tell you.
The funny thing is this.
I asked you about examples of racism that you felt that you got growing up.
Do you know how many times I've been called a dirty Jew growing up?
By the same people that you are currently in league with, I'm sure.
Actually, I can guarantee they were probably closer to you than to others if I want to generalize.
I don't consider that to be any form of...
I don't say that that's...
I don't even say that's meaningful.
No, I don't, yeah.
I agree with you there.
The use of slurs is not institutional racism.
And not just that.
Whereas other people say, like, they stopped me because I was black.
And I usually...
First of all, I got pulled over a couple times.
I got stopped coming out of my own house for no better reason.
And if I were black...
A person with a chip on my shoulder, I would say, it's because I'm black.
I mean, luckily, I don't think anyone says, hey, there's a Jew leaving the house, let's go get him.
But this is where you are systematically arguing from conclusions and not towards them.
And so you look at George Floyd, I don't give a shit if the guy was Asian.
In fact, there's jokes to say I might be more scared if he were Asian.
The fact that anyone thought race had anything to do with that, except for perhaps the underlying social circumstances that led to George Floyd selling drugs and being, you know, maybe.
As well as the pre-existing relationship that Derek Chauvin had with George Floyd, the ongoing relationship and frustrations that he had that's documented that he had with George Floyd.
What were those?
Everything that you're saying, even if I seeded everything, and I don't agree with everything you're saying, but let's say I did.
You still cannot justify the nine-minute knee compression on the man's neck.
Well, you could if you are amenable to the argument.
If crowd control and you're also amenable to the argument that the compression didn't kill him.
Three other officers there.
What do you want to do?
You wanted to shoot him and escalate the situation?
It's about de-escalating and de-escalating with the crowd.
De-escalating would have been the request that was being made on video was, get off his neck.
That was the request.
De-escalation would have been, let me put this man in handcuffs, put him in the car and get off his neck.
I'm not convinced they could even do that.
And I would argue, by the way, that the racializing of all of this is also a contributing factor because the crowd that surrounded there and immediately racialized this and made it much less secure for the cause.
Do you think that he would have put, now, I want to be sure, one of, and I want to start here, not to take us, but I always have to mention Daniel Shaver.
Yep, I saw that video.
It's a horrifying, it's the worst video I've ever seen.
Among. Okay, so I want to make sure that you know that I know that there is a problem holistically.
Yeah, I might be inclined to agree with that.
Yes. Daniel Shaver is the number one example, the most horrific thing I've ever seen.
If people don't know it.
That was a psychopathic cop, or I don't know what they would call him, a SWAT cop, who wanted to kill somebody that day.
But he got off as well.
I know.
That is here.
I was going to say that's neither here nor there, but it is.
But what I'm asking you now...
In that context, recognizing that stuff does happen to white folk too, right?
Are you suggesting that there is no stop and frisk that was overwhelmingly experienced by black men in New York?
Yeah, it led to a wild reduction in crime as well.
Who would have thunk?
Yes. But yeah, if you're simply going around and stopping everyone, whether they have...
Weapons or not, whether they have cause or not, you're just simply stopping and frisking.
You don't see how that, number one, is a violation of people's constitutional rights.
I agree with it.
It lends to a police state.
Exactly. Thank you.
The police state was my main point, right?
By the way, I need to point this out.
They tried to put him in the car.
He said he couldn't.
He was medically distressed already and would not stay in the car.
I remember that.
It doesn't matter.
But it does lead right to Daniel Penny, though, which is the same question in terms of the need to extend the chokehold after everyone who was under threat.
Let's say your boy Jordan Neely got on the train and was a clear and present threat to everyone on the train without any weapon, sure, but you don't have to have a weapon to be a threat.
Or you can have a nice little knife and slide.
I don't know if you've ever seen videos of people getting stabbed in the neck.
Oh, no, no.
I know the risk.
Hell, I tried to intervene on a train one time, my small self, and the person said, you know, it was so funny and very chilling.
They said, this is why people...
Are called innocent bystanders, right?
You know, victims are innocent bystanders.
They were letting me know that they would have killed me.
So I definitely get...
And then, of course, the train incident where the man slit the throats of two guys who intervened.
So no doubt.
I'm not arguing from that perspective.
Let me just stop you.
If we're starting from the ground up, start from the ground up.
Where in any part of the Daniel Penny incident was race even a discernible element?
Well, most certainly.
We can find it from the bottom up in terms of what happened on the train.
What about that incident lends you any right or legitimacy to suggest it was racially motivated?
My interpretation of the racially motivated, I want to be sure here where you're applying it, because where I said it and where I mean it, two things.
You don't mean you've got bigger problems, Pastor.
No, no, hey, I didn't hear what you said there, but let me finish my thought.
When I said it versus when I meant it, it sounded like you were making a distinction.
No, no, no, where I said race specifically was on Twitter in the video that you shared.
That's what, let me finish.
No, I mean, you said it so many times I couldn't narrow it down.
Yeah, yeah.
You believe it?
Where I apply race here?
Is 100% the MO of MAGA going through leaps and hurdles to exonerate, in all circumstances, a person, a white person, who kills a black person?
This is a trend, whether you want to admit it or not.
George Zimmerman, when he was told to stand down and let the police handle it, he insisted on going to be a big white team.
What does MAGA do?
Say, oh, well, Trayvon Martin had some weed in his system from two days before.
Right? The justification of actions taken that kills a black person by a white person, MAGA is consistent.
Ben, you know that Zimmerman's not white, right?
I know that Zimmerman is not exactly not white either, though, right?
I mean, he has whiteness in him.
Zimmerman, his last name, his family name.
He also benefits from the fact that his father had a relationship with the police state in and of itself, right?
Structurally. Let's be real.
But he was Latino.
How does it code in the mind?
You have a black man who is killed by someone who's, let's say, racially ambiguous, leaning towards white, and of course he has some Hispanic in him.
I get that, right?
But let's keep going with the consistent theme that happens here.
You guys did it with Trayvon Martin.
You did it with Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old at a park.
You justified the killing of a 12-year-old at a park with a toy gun by saying that the police officer couldn't possibly know that that was a toy gun, even though it was colorful.
Not only with him, we've done it now with any number of people that we can...
Philando Castile, who was a legal...
He legally owned a firearm in Minnesota.
Man, I don't want to call you a liar in real time.
I'm just going to double-check things.
Is this the gun that Tamir Rice was holding that was colorful and clearly a toy?
I mean, this is why you throw so much shit out if I have to even stop and get one.
Okay. Two seconds.
Two seconds.
You know who I'm mistaking him for?
John Crawford.
I'm mistaking him for John Crawford.
Any number of other people.
But here it is.
I have plenty more details on Tamir Rice.
Within two seconds of coming on the scene, the car had not even stopped yet.
The police officer shot him.
But the first thing that I would argue is I don't remember what the consensus was with Tamir Rice.
But this is why it's a big problem to throw too much shit at the wall.
Forgive me.
I'm not going to trust you on the consensus of anything now.
A material mistake.
Because I misspoke and said that his gun...
But it was, number one, a toy gun.
It wasn't colorful.
My mistake.
I can own that mistake.
But look up this fact.
The officer did not even stop the car good.
Within two seconds of pulling up to the scene, he shot a 12-year-old boy.
First of all...
I'm going to Google what Tamir looks like because I guarantee he's not going to...
I might look more like a 12-year-old boy than Tamir, but the bottom line is I can't trust your reasoning when you say like, oh, I just got a wildly new element that's not going to change the conclusion based upon which I came to.
But get back to Dan, because I've just got to say this.
Yes, let's get back to Daniel Penney.
My apologies to the audience for getting that detail wrong.
No, but your conclusion was based on a faulty crime.
No, my conclusion was based on the two seconds, the two-second window that the officer did not even get a chance to say to, did not even stop the car good.
Who's that cop, Mohammed Noor, a black cop?
I guess he's...
He shot the Australian white woman.
I mean, I don't immediately jump to race.
Yeah, he's in jail, though.
Didn't he get found guilty?
No, actually, I have to double-check that.
Yeah, no, he got found guilty.
I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter.
Gene Botham, in his own apartment, killed by a police officer in his own apartment.
Oh, but there was no consensus.
Ahmaud Arbery.
Well, Ahmaud Arbery, hold on a second, Mohammed Noor convicted?
Yeah, he's in jail for sure.
I believe he was found guilty.
Hold on a second.
He was released, but what was he convicted of?
Minneapolis? He's released from prison.
He's released?
From custody after over three years behind bars.
But the issue is, the question is, what's the issue here?
The acquittal or the act?
So you think that whites get acquitted after killing blacks at a statistically higher rate?
One of the examples of the white was a Latina, but set that aside.
Do you concede that blacks are killed?
Are there no white Latinos?
Let's get to the difference of ethnicity and race.
I would not call a Latino person white.
I'd call them Latino.
Unless you want to jack up the stats on white on black crime.
You do also concede that the number one killer of black men is other black men when it comes to violence?
Yes, but this is consistent in every category, right?
The number one killer of white men are white people.
People kill their neighbors.
Yeah, but when you come to the hyperbolic, and I think it's more performative, and I still think I'm coming back to my conclusion that it's performative or maybe attention-seeking.
That MAGA's looking to murder black men.
I mean, on the one hand, I don't think you believe it.
But the real question is, do you not appreciate what that can create by way of your listeners saying, holy shit, these white devils want to kill us, and so now it's self-defense.
Would you do me, and you have no reason to do it, but I uploaded a clip in stream.
Number two.
This one here.
White men are being convinced that something must be done about the Black community.
Listen to this audio of white nationalists on Twitter publicly planning to do something about Black people who they have concluded are all murderers and rapists.
I mean, they did it in the 60s.
They did it, I mean, every race riot ever, everyone capitulates to them because they were just burning, killing, looting, and raping.
Everything. Can I pause it?
You can't pause it?
Can I?
Stop. I can.
Look at that.
Yeah, you have control.
Let me just see how long this is.
You don't have to play the whole thing.
Tell me, what are we looking at?
Because I don't think I...
Yeah, no, you didn't introduce it.
This is a clip that I'm sharing, and your concern is how someone can take my rhetoric and become alarmed enough, and maybe you're saying that there can become a feedback loop and I can cause some harm, right?
Am I hearing you right?
I'm not going to put it in a way that brings out this juju into the universe.
If anyone believes your words, they can go out and preemptively do what was just done to the CEO.
And see, this is why I don't want you to believe my words.
I want you to listen to this clip.
These are who I call white nationalists on Twitter in a public Twitter space.
And I want you to listen to how they are.
Not only describing the totality of the black community, but their desire to carry out actions against the black community.
And whether or not you think I'm being a troll or whatnot, these are very real people making very real plans very publicly that I want to get your opinion on.
Warning number two, white men are being convinced that something must be done about the black community.
Listen to this audio of white nationalists on Twitter publicly planning to do something about black people who they have concluded are all murderers and rapists.
I mean, they did it in the 60s.
They did it, I mean, every race riot ever, everyone capitulates to them because they were just burning, killing, looting, and raping everything.
And the only way to make them stop was to give them what they wanted.
Excellent points.
And you said there's no way to stop the Blacks when they're burning and raping and everything except to give them what they want.
There is a way to stop the Blackists.
It's called defeat them.
Get them out.
Kick them out.
Total Negro deportation.
There's also that avenue.
Yes! Yes!
Yes. Yes.
Now we're...
Did you bleep anything out?
I bleeped it out.
What were they saying?
No, no, no.
They're not done yet.
Getting somewhere, yes.
If white people behaved like n***ers, I mean, they would have to give us everything we want because we're just so much more proficient in everything we do.
I'm not gonna say too much, but...
Let me pause because I'm just looking up a couple of these characters as you tweet.
They have like...
A couple hundred followers in a space that was shared 21 times that may or may not be up on Twitter anymore because it...
That's 21 posts, 21 comments at the time of...
Was this taken down for violation of community standards?
No, no.
That's how we were able to get it.
It stayed up.
I don't know if it's currently up now, but it stayed up for quite some time.
But this is on Twitter.
After Elon Musk took over, which goes back to the increase of the use of the N-word, it's not just in print, it's in their spaces.
And it's the collaboration and the organizing and convincing themselves that Black people as a community are murderers and rapists.
But look, if the point is that there are idiots out there who are arguably committing crimes, there's going to be no doubt to that.
What does this prove?
Look, I'm not going to get suspicious as to who these players are.
Are you going to dismiss them as provocateurs?
No. All this is one of any number of things, even if they're sincere idiots who have 300 followers who are doing some Twitter space that probably gets taken down afterwards because it does objectively violate the guidelines.
What does that mean?
Because you said, I don't want to distinguish between prominent.
Well, then maybe you would like to hear from deputized police officers who literally said the same thing in the next couple seconds.
Okay, I'll bring it back up.
Allegedly, debutizes these.
You have the Civil War.
They can wipe them all the f***ing mouth.
That'll put them back about four or five generations.
Because, and then you know what?
The good ones can go live in their little communities and they can do what the f*** they want to do to stay f***ing.
That's former Wilmington police officer Kevin Piner talking with another former officer, Jesse Moore.
The conversation was recorded on a police cruiser camera, which was accidentally activated.
But if we do not get a handle on this, we are not gonna have a country for our kids to be raised in.
You told me tonight, you said, all right, tomorrow's a purge day, get as many as you want.
Dude, I go down there.
I go down there and slaughter them mother am sick and tired of a loud black.
Uh...
Did the guy get fired, I presume?
Yes, he got fired.
What's the broad conclusion that one racist asshole of a police force is indicative of MAGA, which represents 50% of America wanting to kill black people?
Of which MAGA is 27% black?
If you pay attention to the conversation on Twitter...
But I'll grant you, there's a bunch of fucking assholes doing what assholes do, talking stupid shit and being assholes.
But Dave, it's so much more than that because it has become the talking points.
It becomes the framework of people thinking as they take their actions.
And I, with caution, with a lot of caution, because I know this is going to drive you crazy as well as your audience, but I don't just think...
There's a connection with how you perceive Black people and the actions you're willing to take on Black people.
And the threat that you perceive them to be, including that of George Zimmerman, including that of the police officer that killed Tamir Rice, including that of Derek Chauvin, including that of Daniel Penny, the perception of a Black threat as it is given to you, and then to have this consensus growing.
I am not applying in that video that I'm saying there.
I say literally that this is a subset, but this is a growing subset.
And let me ask you this.
You could say anything.
If you've heard the exact same thing directed towards Jewish people, what would be your response?
On the one hand, I might report it, and then I might just continue on with my day, depending on what I think to be the level of seriousness or progress of that discussion.
And to think that it doesn't, I mean, you go to any one of these...
Especially now, given what's going on in Israel, they happen all the time.
And I believe it's a group of people being idiots, maybe talking tough, but I won't minimize it, because I feel that's clearly violative of rules.
And that's about it.
And if you think that there's not a group of BLM having a meeting talking about killing white people, I mean, you're living in a delusional fantasy land.
So great, you prove that there's idiots on the internet.
I've been around a whole lot of BLM.
A lot.
A lot of the private meetings and all.
Not all of them.
Not all of them, so maybe there are some that exist, but never not once have I ever heard somebody say, we need to do something about the white population because they're all murderers and rapists.
First of all, you might not have heard what BLM fraudster there was saying right before Daniel Penny got acquitted, that they're going to, do they need violence?
I know Hulk.
I actually know Hulk.
Hulk is a stand-up dude.
No, I'm talking about the woman, but I can get to what the man said also, which I said is arguably incitement, if not worse.
So yeah, it's amazing what we can hear versus what was actually said.
But in a way, though, you have completely...
I gave you an example of people publicly saying and planning this on Twitter, right?
Not the only one.
There's a regular broadcast for people like this.
Who use the same exact language.
The guy's name is Joel.
He's a very famous Nazi from Australia, but he's one of the forerunners on social media, on Twitter right now doing this on a daily basis.
This is not a one-off, but then I gave you an example of a police officer.
Had it not been for some miracle for this opening, you know, the body cam cutting on and recording.
Hold on, the guy you know from BLM, I don't know his name.
Is he the one who said on Friday?
Yeah, we need some black vigilantes.
Yeah, he said if there are going to be white vigilantes killing us, then we need black vigilantes.
Look, there's levels of lying that I'll put up with.
He's qualifying it as an if based on a predicate that you are saying is a matter of fact.
And so now it makes you even more culpable.
If you're saying as a matter of fact, MAG is looking for an excuse to kill white people, then the if has been satisfied.
Congratulations. You misspoke there, but I know what you mean.
I am saying that the justification, the links that you all go through to justify clear examples, man.
Clear examples of black people being killed in scenarios that if the white individual in it had just done the right thing, if George Zimmerman had simply did what the dispatcher has said.
We're talking about Daniel Penny.
Daniel Penny, which we didn't even get to finish fleshing that out.
You do know that after just the first 30 seconds of the chokehold, the train, all but the, I think, four guys who stayed on, everyone else on the train got off.
30 seconds into the chokehold.
Are you aware of that?
ABC.com.
I can give you the link right now.
I know you can't.
That's not my understanding, period.
But it's irrelevant.
No, it's very relevant.
Because even if Daniel Penny saw and perceived Jordan Neely to be a threat, which I don't...
Again, I've gotten involved when I probably shouldn't considering how small I am.
So I don't doubt...
How tall are you, by the way?
Short enough, you see how big this chair is.
No, no, but hold on one second.
I bet you're still taller than me.
Are you 5'6"?
5'7".
Motherfucker, he's an inch and a half taller than me.
Two short kings arguing on.
30 seconds.
Even if you perceive him as a threat.
30 seconds.
And here's the link.
Don't take my word for it because I misspoke.
I did misspeak in terms of the color of the gun.
You didn't misspeak.
You were wrong on the fact.
Don't minimize it.
But let's go.
Let's go.
So after 30 seconds, who's left on the train?
30 seconds into the chokehold.
Yeah. The majority of the train, with the exception of those few men that you see in the pictures at the end.
And the guy holding him down, restraining a drugged up crazy man.
Yeah. Other than him.
Everyone that he could have been defending.
He's defending himself, Ben.
He's defending himself.
They got off of the train.
I'll concede the point for the purpose of argument, even if it's coming from ABC and it's not my understanding.
For another four and a half minutes, he continues to chokehold someone who was no longer a threat to the people on the train.
Is he a person on the train?
Who? Daniel Penny?
He's a person on the train with power.
Just out of curiosity, I don't want to analogize it to trying to capture animals, but it's a pretty decent example.
If you get a lasso around a rabid dog and everyone else leaves the room, do you think the dog catcher releases the dog because the other people are no longer in danger?
I know you didn't mean any...
I know you didn't mean any harm with referring to this using a lasso and a dog, but just give me a second to breathe on that one.
No, no, don't be dramatic because we've used this.
No, no, no, because you know what, Daniel, you know what Jordan Neely was?
And this has, and I promise you, this has less to do with race than the fact that we have an abundance of people who are homeless, who are hungry, and who are mentally unwell.
You can blame your progressives.
Blame your progressives for that.
But when you've got one who is psychotic on drugs and threatening to kill people, and you expect Daniel Penny to release him because of the people he was protecting?
I expect Daniel Penny to realize that he and as well as the other four men that were still on that train.
No, no, no.
Actually, I want to go back.
You'd like to go back to the first beginnings.
What was his request when he got on the train?
Whose request?
Jordan Neely.
I'm going to kill somebody and go to jail.
What was his request in there?
Give me food or I'm going to kill somebody or go to jail.
He didn't ask for somebody's wallet.
He didn't ask for somebody's money.
I'm not sure about that.
He asked for food.
This is where my Christian faith comes in more than anywhere else.
Because tell me what Jesus would have done.
Would Jesus have strangle held and choked out Jordan Neely?
First of all, I can tell you if the comparison is what Jesus would do versus what both you and I do, we might then not be in a position to answer that question in a way that makes us look good.
What would Jesus do?
I don't know.
I don't think Jesus would let himself get killed by a crazy person.
It took so much more energy for Daniel Penny to choke him for an additional four minutes and 30 seconds after all the people got off the train than it would have to say, here, here's $20.
Matter of fact, let me go get you some food.
The man's request was for drugs.
You've entered the realm of stupidity of AOC.
Call a social worker instead of the cops.
He's got the guy on the neck who's, oh, I don't give a shit if he said, first of all, I question whether or not it's for food.
When someone's psychotic, you think you're going to go, here's food, sir.
Oh, that's...
Thank you.
All of a sudden, his psychosis is gone.
Jordan nearly asked for food.
You can disingenuously or inaccurately reframe.
All he wanted was the man was crazy.
He was out of his gorge, on drugs.
He was in mental distress.
I don't doubt that the words that came out of his mouth were threatening.
No doubt.
Just throw him a Snickers.
Everything will be good after that.
Yes, but then to choke him for four minutes and 30 seconds longer, do you feel like Daniel Penny feared for his life?
For the additional four minutes and 30 seconds that he had the power.
I think that Daniel Penney actually feels fear for everybody's life.
Four minutes, but they got off the train 30 seconds in.
Well, but I would definitely be fearing for my life if I have just gone to the crazy person who's on drugs and totally psychotic breaking.
Ask him for food.
And hold him by the neck.
So, oh yeah, I'm sure he'll just turn around and say, thanks to that man.
Here, here's 20 bucks to go to McDonald's.
So then what would that, if Daniel Penney was so scared.
What would have stopped him from getting off the train himself when everyone else got off the train?
I think he actually stayed to administer first aid to him and to make sure that he was treated properly.
That is why he stayed there.
That's why they put him in a prone position and he was still alive when the EMTs got there.
After choking him for 4 minutes and 30 seconds longer?
I've been in a headlock from my brothers for that long.
Do you think your brothers put you in the headlock with the strength that Daniel Penny put Jordan Neely in?
Clearly not, but I also wasn't pepped up on whatever the hell he was on, psychotic breaking.
There's that superhuman strength that people get on drugs.
You don't need superhuman strength to assault three women unprovoked on a metro station.
It's a nice risk that you're willing to take with everyone else's life.
In what way?
Everyone else got off the train.
Give him food.
Give him food and that'll solve the problem.
Everyone else got off the train.
He asked for food.
That's very nice.
He could have asked for a number of things.
He also said he's going to kill someone on that bus.
He doesn't care if he goes to jail.
I'll take both of those at their face value.
He did both.
No, have you seen me dismiss the first 30 seconds of Daniel Penny's choke-No, but you wanna do his play like Monday morning quarterback and say, oh, he should've, if he just applied a bit less, By the way, maybe if progressive policies hadn't left Neely on the street for so long, he wouldn't have been in a psychotic state.
I mean, it's so crazy that the person you decide to blame in this and racialize it for is the guy who defended other black people on that metro.
I racialize this for MAGA, who is consistent, and I understand by this, you all are consistent at finding every excuse to justify the murder of a black person or the homicide.
Yeah, but you're repeating the same precise language.
The homiciding of a black individual, generally at the hands of white individuals.
There's some racial ambiguity in terms of...
But this is where we've gone full circle because that was the conclusion and then despite all of the evidence not supporting that, you come right back to it.
Daniel Penny, there was nothing racial about this.
If there's anything racial about it, it's the fact that progressive policies have neglected the black population of New York and the black population of America.
The racial here that I used in the video is the fact that MAGA, you...
And Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiec and all of the major influencers of MAGA have never missed an opportunity to justify no matter what you have to ignore.
Because you're ignoring, in this case, you're saying I'm being disingenuous, but you're ignoring the fact that all of the people that you all say, oh, there was a pregnant woman on the train.
You know what?
Thank you, Daniel Penny, for those first 30 seconds.
But that pregnant woman and her child got off the train 30 seconds after.
Well, you're ignoring the fact that you just say, oh, he'll just let him go.
He'll let the psychotic guy go who he just restrained.
And no risk there to Daniel Penny.
And no risk there to anyone else in the subway system.
I mean, it's so pathologically naive.
You know, that is something else to me, man.
That's something else.
Because here is, let's say both of us are short kings, right?
Someone who's bigger than us with training, with former Marine.
I believe I was corrected.
Always a Marine.
Right. That individual had the power.
To restrain the men and protect the people.
And he did.
The fact that he died after.
He did it for 4 minutes and 30 seconds longer than it required.
Says you in your infinite mixed martial arts career.
I would say he did it.
And the unfortunate consequences are what you can't predict under such circumstances of madness.
When he could have given...
He could have given him an EpiPen.
If they had defibrillators, he could have...
No, no, no.
He did anything wrong in what he did.
He could have given him food, like the man asked.
He could have restrained him for the first...
Fine, a minute.
Two minutes.
Three minutes.
Four minutes.
Wait a minute.
It's theatrical.
You restrain the person for as long as the person restraining deems them to be a threat.
And then afterwards, he put him in a prone position, he had a heartbeat, and whatever happened after that is up to God.
Quite literally.
And whether or not he died because he didn't get treatment, or whether or not he died...
Do you know what did he have in the system at the time?
K2... What's his name?
Jordan Neely.
How much did he have in his body?
I'm going to see how much K2 he had.
K2 in his body...
You do know some of the adverse reactions to the drug that he had in his body are cardiac issues?
It's so wild.
It's nice to be...
So forgiving on the criminals and so hard on the heroes.
In that scenario, it's the same thing you guys do consistently.
And we're not going to find any common ground on this.
But what you do is say, and it's so funny because it actually does mirror your belief as it pertains to COVID, right?
Did they die from COVID or did they die with COVID?
It's the same exact thing that you guys do.
Except we're in a criminal trial.
What'd you say?
Except we're in a criminal trial where it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he died from a chokehold.
You gotta accept the jury's decision.
Cool. But he still homicided a man that he could have just as easily even after the threat was gone.
Says you in your infinite wisdom of Monday morning quarterbacking.
Here's another problem.
You're a pastor.
Was he restraining someone that was bigger than him?
He was restraining someone who was a lethal threat.
Period. A lethal threat because of his words.
Well, you do know that he has a history.
Did Jordan Neely have a weapon?
I don't know.
You want to let one of your kids find out on the subway system?
Once the four minutes in, did Jordan Neely have a weapon?
First of all, you don't know.
And second of all, if you're saying the other people are out of risk now and Daniel Penny should take his chances with the cracked up homeless person who's threatening to kill people and go to jail.
He has more power than who he has easily.
Jordan, do you know how small Jordan Neely really was?
He was big enough to assault three women unprovoked.
He was big enough to assault three women unprovoked.
That's for Daniel.
That's a risk you're willing to take, Ben.
You're saying that Daniel Penny knew that?
At the time.
Well, you know what?
You don't need to know things in order to see things.
And the fact that he's seeing a crazy, violent person on a train, there's probably good...
It doesn't even matter that he knew.
It doesn't matter what you're asking for when you're threatening to kill people.
We can put that out there.
If a person is asking for food...
Threatening to kill people, you're not asking for food.
Don't be disingenuous.
You're not asking for food.
You're threatening.
Period. I know you're short.
Say again?
Say again?
No, what did you just say?
I said, I know that you're a short guy like me, but I was going to make a joke about us being short.
No, I might be stockier than you.
How much do you weigh?
Yeah, no, I'm skin and bones now.
I don't even know.
Last I checked, it was like 160 or something, 150, somewhere.
Oh, dude, not to be mean that's not skin and bones.
That's about me also.
I'm 158.
Oh, no, where I used to be, man, I used to be like 300 pounds.
Well, that's very good.
But no, man, if somebody's asking for food and it's accompanied with a threat, I'm not doubting the threat.
You see me say anything about Daniel Penny in that first 30 seconds?
My thought was, man, the people on the train, okay, he's defending them because I've been in the same scenario on the train and somebody threatened my life for trying to intervene.
So I am not doing what you say I'm doing.
What I'm saying is that the perceived threat...
For all the people that you all are using.
When I say you all, I'm talking about MAGA online.
They constantly say there were women, there were children.
They got off the train 30 seconds into the chokehold.
The fact that Daniel Penny was able to sit there and hold that man in the chokehold for five minutes with not enough resistance.
I mean, you see the pictures.
It was an easy thing for Daniel.
Daniel had the power to keep that man alive or to kill that man.
He tried to strangle him.
It took more energy to strangle him than it would have to strangle him for the first 30 seconds.
Okay, he's a threat.
You've subdued the threat.
At what point is the threat no longer subdued?
He had him under control.
Because he was in the choke, which is why I go back to the analogy of you lose control when you abandon the control hold.
Period. And the fact that other people were off the train, dude, if I've got him, I wouldn't do it because I'm not sure that I trust my skills to do that.
The point is, A, you don't do it unless you know how to do it, and God bless everyone on that metro train is lucky that someone knew how to do it.
And you don't let go of it.
Oh, well, I've got control now, so let me let go of the position that allows me to have control is, again, idiotic.
And the fact that he should take his own pieces.
When the threat passes.
The threat passed when he...
Let's be real.
What you absolutely have to ignore in this scenario, Dave, is power.
Who had the power and who didn't?
Daniel Penny had the absolute power in that scenario.
No questions asked.
He had the physical power.
He had the positional power.
He had the societal power.
As evidenced by now, he's getting invited to spend time with the vice president of the United States.
He had the power all the way through.
Who had no power?
Jordan Neely had no power in that scenario.
He couldn't even feed himself.
Well, first of all, if he couldn't feed himself, that is a systematic problem of the state in which he lives.
He certainly had the power to threaten people as he did.
He had the power to assault women as he did.
It's an amazing thing.
What's the word when you absolve an individual of responsibility altogether by basically treating them?
That's your logical leap.
I have not absolved from a single thing that he's done.
It's not necessary for me to absolve him for any other crime.
He might have been...
I would even venture...
I just want to be sure.
I have not absolved him of anything else.
No, you just say he had no power.
He had the power to threaten people's lives on the Metro, and he did.
And he used that power.
He used that power, right?
What was his request for that power?
I don't care what he asked for when he threatened to kill people.
I'll just straight up tell you.
I don't care.
He could have asked for a rose.
He could have asked me...
He had no power?
The man was clearly mentally unwell.
Hold on.
Sorry. Don't mistake power with legal responsibility, Ben.
He had a lot of power, and he could have very easily killed someone on that train, and he might not have been criminally liable for it.
But don't mistake in liability for power.
That dude and cracked up people who are 110 pounds wet can eat people's faces if they do the right drug.
Literally. He might not have had legal responsibility, but then go ahead and argue.
Oh, well, Tough Noogies Neely was having a psychotic break, and he's not legally responsible for having assaulted another woman.
Good. I know you're an attorney.
I know you're an attorney.
But you should also know that you can't put words in my mouth and just let it slide.
Which one?
Which one?
When did I say any of those things that you just said?
You just said that he had no power.
No, in the confrontation with Daniel Penny, who had the power?
They both had the power.
One had the power to get into it, and the other one had the power to subdue that threat.
In the exchange with Daniel Penny, Daniel Penny had the absolute power.
It was demonstrated.
It was there and we saw it.
We see the video.
We see the footage.
We see the pictures.
Again, I'm making a big mistake here.
The power to get into an octagon, both have the power.
The winner had more power, by definition.
Neely had the power.
He had the power.
He might not have had the legal ability.
He might have been whacked out of his legal gourd where he didn't know what he was doing and he wouldn't have been responsible for it.
He might have been found not responsible for issuing uttering threats.
But you're asking people to take impossible risks when you...
No. In whatever privileged position you're in are not the one who's going to be the victim of whatever...
I'm not asking anybody to take the risk, which is why I mark my decision point on this when everyone got off the train except the four other men that stayed...
Or was it three?
I don't want to mistake.
Did you know if I misspeed?
Well, it's a very important thing because I think it took three people or three other people.
It's either three or four that it took to restrain one guy.
And so you're saying now...
No, wait, wait.
There was a black guy that helped?
In all the photos, the other men were just standing around.
Well, but that's in the photo.
And he was on the ground doing the restraint by himself.
But it took more than...
But I guess I shouldn't even argue because I don't care.
It could have been Penny alone from the beginning.
No, there's stronger arguments if there's more people to subdue.
If you've ever known anybody who had a psychotic episode, you know that it takes like four orderlies sometimes at these institutions to tie people down.
Yeah. You don't have the luxury of orderlies dealing with people who they know are unarmed, and it still takes four people to lock down.
For Jordan Neely.
I think it took at least one, but it might have taken...
There were other people there.
One was filming.
The bottom line, whether or not you say he could have and should have and would have done things, you're talking about a situation where race is, as far as I'm concerned, a thousand percent irrelevant.
The guy could have been...
It could have been relevant when we're talking about the discourse afterwards without a question.
You're right, it is.
And the only one who made this a racial issue are the likes of, I won't say you because that's too accusatory, but you and AOC and every other, what people call race hustlers who want to racialize every tragedy.
You just sat here and dismissed, you dismissed the actual evidence that I've shown you and I have plenty more.
The evidence of what?
The racially specific threat that we've just played on this air that's directed towards all black people.
You show me assholes on the internet being assholes.
Congratulations. It's a Monday.
And then obviously the police officers, which is just one example of several examples.
First of all, to his credit, he wasn't so proud about it that he was doing it publicly, but he got fired for it, as he should.
How easy is it for you to dismiss?
The racial experiences that I have described to you and shown you evidence of, but you just dismiss it because it's nothing.
And I guarantee you, if this had been racially specific towards Jewish people, you would not dismiss it so readily.
I don't know what that means, but I got distracted by this.
This is for the Ridiculous Conversation, lowest chat to LOL.
People are growing up beyond this hate.
The reality, I forget, I don't know what the point was that you just said right there.
What did you just say?
It had to do with people...
You think that someone with 300 followers...
Your evidence is people saying stupid things on the internet.
That's your evidence.
A real threat.
Tell me what happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1921.
You have to tell me.
I'm not sure which incidents.
The Tulsa Race Massacre.
Do you know how that started?
I do know about that, but...
I've got to actually, my Robert Barnes, we've talked about the Tulsa, what was probably more of a land grab than anything else.
Yeah, because it's always capitalism tied in it as well.
No doubt about that.
What was the justification?
At the time, I don't...
It was the same thing that happened to Emmett Till.
What was the justification there?
Was a black man did something to a white person and they labeled them both as, they labeled the same narrative is the hulking threat.
Of a black person as they present a threat towards a white person, specifically Emmett Till and Tulsa race massacre.
It was white women, right?
But the general framework is this.
Here is a raving black man who is a threat to this white person.
And that has led to massacres.
Rosewood, I already gave you Tulsa.
There's another one in Georgia.
There's a whole map of them.
And I apologize that I can't name them all at the top of my head.
But time after time, this stuff that you just dismissed as nothing more than assholes on the Internet has led to actual violence against our communities.
It led to, I mean, no, these are, and actually, no, I can't even go past this one.
Mother Emanuel AME.
The exact same thinking is what drove Dylann Roof.
To go and kill nine people in worship service, man, in Bible study.
And so to dismiss it as just assholes on the internet when this is not assholes on 4chan.
These are people publicly free to do it on Twitter, on Elon Musk's Twitter.
And to galvanize a movement around that and to just dismiss that.
Galvanize a movement.
The people had hundreds of followers on a Twitter space that was viewed by God knows how few people that may or may not be on the internet.
Still today.
How many people does it take to actually enact violence?
It takes people to actually enact violence.
It doesn't take idiots on the internet.
You think anybody listen to that?
You know why?
Jacksonville Dollar General shooting.
The Topps Buffalo.
Buffalo, New York.
The Topps grocery store.
All it takes is one individual.
And each of those individuals, I'm going to go find, literally, go find the blackest district.
But then do the guy, I forget, the truck driver in Wisconsin.
Or was it Wisconsin?
Who was it?
The black guy that drove a truck into a bunch of white people.
If this is the tit for tat you want to see, and now goes, what do you think that a BLM leader...
Calling on their militant followers to be black vigilantes can possibly do.
We just talked about Hawk.
I know, you said he qualified with an in.
He gave his statement.
He didn't say to do it.
He said, if they're going to do it, then we should do it.
And I already believe they're doing it, so therefore.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
If you want to play this game, your evidence.
If there is a consistent threat against your community.
Okay, actually, no, I'll give you this then.
Jordan Neely just simply said he was hungry and he was going to kill people to get some food.
Right? So that was enough for Daniel Penney to move into action.
And so if we see as a regular occurrence on social media, individuals, no matter how big their audiences are or not, but growing subset, a growing group of individuals organizing around this idea.
Look at your...
I really...
What does organizing mean?
That black people are...
No, no, no, no.
What does the organizing part mean?
I mean, that's kind of where the criminal enterprise comes together.
The organizing of themselves on social media, the ability that they can coalesce and find each other and create their own echo chamber.
It does not take someone with a million followers, even though I would tell you that End Wokeness and their millions of followers help facilitate this from a high level.
But there's always, inside of every hierarchy, there are individuals who are willing to act on that violence.
And you know the number one talking point?
Every reply to me, look at all the replies.
Well, first of all, I'll disagree with that regardless.
And every one of these shooters, regardless?
Dylann Roof radicalized with the white replacement theory on social media.
At the time, it was 4chan.
It wasn't Twitter.
Now, it's Twitter.
It moved from 4chan to Twitter.
Look, there are a lot of shootings in America.
There's a lot of murder in America.
And if we're going to go by which race is committing it against the other race, and then we go to the...
Listen. Would you?
Okay, let me ask you this, because I'm making an estimate of how much of a fair actor that you actually are, right?
But do you not distinguish between crimes?
Murder is murder.
Let's agree there, right?
Murder is murder.
Murder because I feel like I need to do something about black people or white people, any group of people, right?
There is a Palestinian over there and I need to kill that person because their people are like this.
Versus murder of I'm going to rob a store, I'm going to rob somebody or somebody, a drug deal went bad, any number of crimes and justifications, whatever person does a murder for.
Do you not see?
The distinction between the motive and the underlying structural problem when you have a growing subset of white people who are comfortable with it.
As a matter of fact, you have some in your chat rooms.
You have some in your own replies.
I've seen the replies I've gotten from your followers who absolutely say these kind of things.
I don't know, and I will disagree, although to say the internet is still the internet, but do people respond like this after you call them crackers with three K's in it, or are you only doing that because they do that?
So now it's my fault for my freedom of speech, right?
Now it's my fault.
You're talking about freedom of speech.
I'm poking someone into calling black people murderers and rapists.
Well, first of all, I mean, black people murderers or rapists, or are you citing statistics which show statistical over-representations?
One can say that there's statistical representation of black crime without...
Here you are doing the exact thing.
Do you know the difference between causation and correlation?
Well, I'm not even doing either.
I'm just saying, you just said calling black people murderers and rapists.
I said, I don't think anybody's doing that.
When it comes to stats, there is statistical...
...
having to experience and have them directed to you.
The only way that you would see it is if you actively go and look at your own replies.
But this actively happens...
I look at my replies and I see a lot of things calling for a lot of Jew comments as well.
You know what I do?
Which is surprising.
It's always fascinating that, I mean...
It's almost like it's the internet and people go out and say stupid things.
And if you say that, oh, that motivates people.
Jordan nearly says something stupid on the train.
But that is so wildly disingenuous on the one hand.
We're going to say it's stupid things that are said.
We're talking proximate threat to an actual act of violence.
When someone says something on the internet, there's no proximate threat of actual violence.
Here's the real actual threat is that now these individuals who were relegated to 4chan are now free to discuss this.
Publicly on Twitter.
They're free to organize and find each other.
They're free to do this on any number of platforms in the name of free speech.
Cool. But you're asking me and you're asking black people to ignore the fact that they're...
Actively organizing.
I don't care how small that group is.
I don't care.
Based on what are you saying?
One person with their second right to act on that violence.
And we've seen it happen time and again.
Racially specific violence going after black people because they were convinced online that black people are a problem and something needs to be done about them.
And you're asking me to dismiss that?
Ben, I'm asking you to even supply the slightest bit of evidence for mobilization on the internet to carry out real-time acts of violence.
And if you're going to pick on the Dylann Roof shooting or the Buffalo one, while ignoring what some might say is equally motivated black-on-white violence as a result of being radicalized or black-on-Asian violence as a result of being radicalized, what you're basically saying is you are, in fact, potentially...
Confusing causation and correlation in that there is violence and there is online chatter of people being idiots.
But when you say they could go online freely and do it, and you cite, you talk about rumble, oddly enough, when the majority of planning for things of nefarious nature is on probably more along the lines of YouTube.
You say they do it with impunity.
They do get banned, censored, and the videos get taken down because they violate terms of service, or unless you're saying that Elon is tolerating it.
Yes, Elon certainly tolerates it, and he tolerates it in the name of free speech, right?
And so we are in a period of tension between free speech to organize violence, to create narratives that are dangerous, as well as to...
What's a dangerous narrative?
I'm curious.
What is a dangerous narrative?
The narrative that I just...
Matter of fact, but I think it's kind of irrelevant at this point because you've already dismissed Two audio examples.
The third one that you cut off, but that's fine.
Do you know how many of these idiotic things I can find from any group?
I mean, it doesn't prove anything other than people act like idiots on the internet.
And if it gets to a serious enough level of organization, above and beyond a Twitter space that nobody's listening to...
Then you call the authorities.
And it doesn't get tolerated on any platform that I know of.
And I can find you just as many examples of Palestinian rights talking about eradicating Jews, Black Lives Matter radicalists saying that, you know, we got to get our own vigilantes.
Every group does it when they get into their own...
It's funny, you're using the literal same example three different times.
I don't have the space where there was something of a BLM-ish space where they were talking about things and it leaked onto Twitter.
I can't remember it right now.
It's funny how that works, but I brought examples, though.
So you're suggesting that there's never been a BLM online meeting where they've said stupid things about white people.
Wait, wait, wait.
Let's be clear.
Talked about removing the black population from the United States of America.
Let me see if I'll find it.
And what's more is that...
Your stock is that Twitter space.
No, what it literally is is the evolution.
The evolution from 4chan to Twitter.
Not only from Twitter, but now also not in terms of that one example I gave you, but the consistent talking point that you can see in your replies, that you can see in Wokeness's replies, in Jack Posabeak's replies, the thought every time they put up a mugshot of a black person who robbed a bank, in the replies it's like, we've got to do something about black people.
Dr. Eagleman is one of the number one people who provokes it and says, when are we going to do something about this?
He has a million followers.
And every time that someone posts a mugshot of a black person who did something wrong, he says, when are we going to do something about this?
I'm not okay with the trolling that occurs on the internet on any polarizing subject.
And if you're going to sit here and say that it's somehow unique to blacks on Twitter and not ubiquitous to any race or ethnicity, depending on the silo in which it's made.
Then we'll agree to disagree on a basic matter of fact.
It's everywhere and anywhere.
And if it's a pro-Palestinian place, it'll be about Jews.
If it's a pro-Ukrainian place, it'll be about Russians.
If it's an anti-American place, it'll be about Americans.
To pretend that it's unique...
You're pro-Putin.
Come on, man.
I don't even know what that means, but it's another talking point from you.
But to pretend that it's somehow unique and that it's an actual real threat...
I mean, we will know where we disagree.
What point does something rise to a threat to you when it's only in your face?
Well, when it's substantially more advanced than some jackasses on a Twitter space with nobody watching, talking about something that probably got taken down.
How many data points do you require for a trend?
Well, when would it be a problem?
It would be a problem, for example, when it would be ratified or promoted by people higher up.
And that can be on both sides.
I'm not saying that it's never happened on...
Do you dismiss lone wolves?
No, I don't dismiss lone wolves.
I don't think that they're radicalized and organized and motivated by random Twitter spaces.
There's a lot more things going on there.
But the bottom line is, you take a lone wolf and then you attribute it, or you try to causally link it to a...
A tiny Twitter space that probably doesn't exist anymore.
You can do that for everything.
What are we going to do about this?
They might mean, in their minds, statistical representation of certain types of violent crime in America.
And it might mean a number.
I don't even know what you think it goes to.
And I might argue that, linguistically, that's a riskier way of saying, bring down the hammer of justice or figure this social issue out.
I would agree with that.
I think you have to weigh your words on Twitter, which is actually what got me to you in the first place.
When you call people murderers and you accuse people of looking to murder your people, you know damn well what you're doing by doing that.
Yeah. And you know what?
I have seen enough evidence beyond simply the audio that I gave you.
I think the audio that I gave you is the most crystallized version in a very succinct fashion so that you can hear it for yourselves, but easily dismissible by...
By you, which I'm picking up as a trend, is that you expect me as a father to completely dismiss, not only, watch this, you're asking me to dismiss the threat of white supremacy that is rearing its head by the tune of, dismiss the data of the 500% increase in the N-word.
It's no longer true, incidentally.
It was not unique, and there were incidents earlier on where it was also true before Elon took over.
Great. It only happened once.
It increased by 500%.
You're asking me to dismiss all of the evidence that is verifiable.
And you're not saying these things didn't happen.
What you're saying is I should just dismiss it as internet chatter.
Even though Dylann Roof radicalized online.
Tops Buffalo shooter radicalized online.
The Jacksonville Dollar General Store.
Radicalized online.
Those are just the first three that I can call off the top of my head.
Those are the...
Each one of those, I think, is not a dissertation, but to see motivation is a very...
Where they got radicalized.
Manifesto. Each of them.
And each of them had the white replacement theory.
Inside of their manifesto.
But this is where, again, you want to talk about confounding correlation and causation.
There's a great many people who believe in the great replacement because it's a legitimate criticism against government policy.
And so there's a difference between psychos killing and stifling legitimate criticism of immigration policy.
You've also asked me, though, Dave, you also have asked me to move and not...
And to dismiss, rather.
You've asked me to also dismiss the evolution of this being truly...
There was a period when these things were in the corners of the internet.
And you asked me to dismiss the evolution from it being in the corners of the internet to being on the number one platform.
But you've cited examples that are 100 years old of how it realized in real time, so clearly the internet is not the defining factor in all of this.
Give me that one more time.
You're citing examples to justify your current belief that are 100 years old.
And not to say that they didn't happen.
The Tulsa riots.
You're giving historical examples.
I gave you a very recent example.
No, but I understand that.
A year and a half ago.
I know, but you've given recent and old examples.
So clearly the internet and free speech of idiots who want to be idiots is not the determining factor here.
You can understand that.
Well, I definitely agree with you there, but you do realize the organizing power of the internet, the ability to create that echo chamber, the ability to have a frame that is high-fived.
Because you found someone else online who agrees with you, no matter how far they are away from you.
This is why the threat is more unique now than even with the Tulsa race.
Well, you say it's more unique, and I fundamentally disagree with it.
No, no, no.
The reason it's more unique is the ability to coalesce and find each other and to organize.
You can't dismiss that.
Has there been an uptick in racially motivated violence in your mind?
Given that the internet has been around for so long.
I mean, we should be seeing it every day.
They should be going crazy, like everywhere.
Or is racially motivated crime against Blacks actually at a relative low statistical average?
At what point does it become a concern for anyone?
Any violent rhetoric online...
Dave, no, seriously.
Here's the question.
You've dismissed every bit of evidence that I...
You say that, but I don't think I have.
In fact, I'll flip it around.
My father used to say, when we went golfing, when you're looking for the golf ball, because I used to hit it into the woods very often, anything that's white, you'll think is a golf ball.
You're looking for golf balls right now, and so you go, oh, there's something that's white.
Oh, there's an idiot.
It's true.
It's people out there.
You can sit there all day and find everything that you want to support the conclusion that you've already come to, that there is somehow mass mobilization for racial violence.
But you're speaking again from the luxury of being able to casually dismiss this, which is funny.
I would say this.
But you keep saying that.
I'm not casually dismissing anything.
You are dismissing it and telling me that this is not a concern that black people should be concerned.
We shouldn't be concerned with the fact that the consistent now talking point.
Here's the thing.
The consistent talking point that you can find in any number of replies is literally the same talking point that was just played in that Twitter space that you said we should dismiss.
Hang on, let me finish this one point and I'll be quiet.
This one point that black people.
Are a problem that need to have something done about them, that they're murderers and they're rapists.
Now, if it was only on that audio that I gave you and I never saw it again anywhere, then I would be like, okay, maybe Dave is on to something here.
But the fact of the matter is, is this has become a recurring talking point on Twitter.
Yeah, because you go look at people with 100 followers and then take and find it and then say, look at this evidence.
How many followers do you need to commit a mass shooting?
Well, first of all, no, the question is for...
Meaningful organizational mobilization.
You do need more than some jackass on the internet.
I'll concede something that the replies that I see, and I've said it also, you can find any video of a black...
No, but first of all...
But the bottom line is that you are trying to blame end wokeness for potentially...
I think the sharing handpicked videos is a stupid way to do it.
Just go straight to the stats.
You want to be concerned about violence against black people, then?
You'd want to look at the crime rate among the black, the disparate proportion of crimes committed by the black population against other black men, if you're genuinely concerned about black safety.
Give me the number, because you do realize that argument is reflective in every...
Yes, that roughly...
I know what's deemed to be a racist thing, the 1513, what is it?
No, it's the 5013, that 50% of violent crimes, rape and murder are committed by the black population, which accounts for 13% of American population.
And then I know the other argument that is, though, it's even worse than that, because it's committed by black men of a certain age demographic, and therefore it's actually like 54. And then I know that the FBI came out and said that it's rape.
You're flipping an argument here because the argument that we're talking about here is you brought up black on black crime.
You flipped it on black.
Aggregate murders.
Aggregate murders and who are statistically overrepresented in terms of murders.
But what's the answer?
Tell me why.
Well, but I can steel man the why, and it'll go back to historical inequities and poverty.
And I think it does go to poverty and not to race, which is why I say there's plenty of neighborhoods that I've driven through that are white as day that I didn't feel any more comfortable in than I felt driving through black neighborhoods.
Well, I will give you this much.
I will give you, if there was anything I can give you, is the fact that you actually are very accurate on that, right?
But there are so many individuals who draw that as a causal factor.
I'm glad that you recognize that that's a correlation, and the correlation is poverty.
Harvard study shows where there is poverty, there is crime.
Where there's poverty, there are murders.
Where there's poverty, there's all types of rapes and other types of crimes, right?
So I appreciate that much from you.
But this is not how the language is used by so many of your counterparts.
It is causal.
That's how they state it.
That's how they use it.
That's how they weaponize it on social media.
And it is working white folks into a frenzy.
And if you can't see it, I can't expect you to see it.
If I can't see it, it might be because it's not happening, Ben.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I didn't know you were omnipresent, my friend.
No, no.
It's whipping white people into a frenzy of violence against black people.
If you can't see it, that's your fault.
It's not happening is why I'm not seeing it.
It simply means it's not on your radar.
It's not something that you...
Oh, trust me.
Trust me.
Crime. When I talk about crime, I'm talking about the whipping into a frenzy of white individuals who are now using the same...
You did something that they don't do, and I appreciate what you did.
You see it as a correlation and a correlation with poverty.
That's what the data actually says.
They do not say that.
They do not imply that.
They say it as it's causal and they say something must be done about it.
And when I say they, I do mean Gunther Eagleman is one of the main people who gets in everyone's replies and says, oh, when are we going to do something about it?
You have individuals who state it as a matter of causal fact.
Black people are murderers and rapists.
And when that kind of language goes from the dregs of society, from the corners of society, into the mainstream of social media, of Twitter, right?
The number one platform on the planet, the biggest platform where everyone is the news.
When that language progresses from the dregs to the public, I'd be less than a dad if I wasn't concerned about that.
I'd be less than a father!
The chat is saying it's a lie from the devil, poor don't crime.
I do say that everybody crimes.
The only question is the type of crime based on economic...
Oh, maybe...
What you said?
No, this is just in the chat.
I'm reading some of the chat where they're saying...
Damn it, Viva...
Oh, no, no, that's not it.
Hold on, it was here.
No, no, no.
Viva no wrong.
There is high poverty in West Virginia, which is 98% white, but murder rate is the same low as white other states.
This is where, you know, I'm fairly certain we could find examples of both.
But I would say the...
I think it's...
We can argue over whether or not poverty correlates to criminality.
Not criminality, but crime.
I say rich people commit plenty of crimes.
I'm the one I can get away with it, and they might commit different types of crimes just because of the circumstances.
But do you see what they just did there, right?
Yeah, they said something you don't like.
Their own audience, their attempt was to reject the correlation and to suggest, even if it's subtext, right, that it's causal.
But Ben, Ben, Ben, there will be...
...
causal. They're suggesting some type of inherent problem with blackness and black people.
But Ben, you might, unfortunately, given the stats, have to either live with that or argue with that, but not claim that that is mobilization call to violence against black people, which is...
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Hang on, hang on.
Wait a minute.
When people take these talking points...
And literally say out of their mouths that we need to do something about it.
And they do it.
They don't say we need to address the correlation.
They don't say we need to address the underlying factors.
But what if what they mean by it, Ben?
What if what they mean by it is what Scott Adams said and just said, don't live among blacks?
What if that's what they mean by we have to do something about this?
Why do you actually hear that as a call to violence?
There literally are calls.
To violence.
There literally has been...
But you're doing something very intellectually dishonest.
Because you are saying there are calls to violence.
I'll just put my hand here.
Which I agree with.
And then you're saying this guy with a big account said we need to do something about it.
And then said, oh, that's a call to violence.
That's intellectually dishonest.
Wait a minute.
That's not intellectually dishonest.
That's reading subtext.
Are you going to...
If someone says...
Reading subtext is adding what you want.
If somebody says we need to do something about Dave, you are...
You would be...
Foolish not to read the entire subtext there.
First of all, if someone says, we need to do something about Dave, and I would read the subtext, and I might read into the subtext because I'm a neurotic individual, or I might say, oh, if it's in the context of a political campaign, I don't think they mean kill me.
They might mean take me, you know, do something politically motivated.
So we need to do something about it.
It could very well mean, which you might not like anymore, let's not live among them.
It might come down with a harder justice system.
That's not a problem of like or dislike, right?
No, but there's a difference between reading the context and reading into the context.
And what you're doing is very, very subtle because you're saying...
Some people issued bona fide threats.
This guy issued something which is not a bona fide threat, but I'm going to read it into the context of one another as though it's related to turn what is not a bona fide threat into a bona fide threat.
And that's not honest.
No, no, no, no.
What I'm saying is what you try, I think at the beginning of this conversation, what you pinned on me, which is the usage of my voice and my platform to say certain things that you feel like could be you said yourself.
You said yourself that my words can be taken by someone and acted upon.
Yeah, no, MAGA wants to murder us.
Yeah, yeah.
Justify and get away with it and be able to justify it.
That's even worse.
Why do you think Donald Trump is offering police officers 100% immunity?
It's bad enough that qualified immunity...
Well, I actually, but I just...
I disagree with that, in any event.
Why do I think, though?
Wait, you disagree with him giving them 100?
Yeah, I'm not a fan of immunity.
I appreciate that he wants to do it.
But you understand that- How does that give a person the right to do?
Get away with murder?
Or do their jobs without being afraid of being accused of murder and having their lives ruined like Kim Potter?
Kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes?
We disagree on these outlier cases, and I prefer my reasoning over yours.
You're not an outlier in the black community, man.
If the police state exists, and I think you saw it very clearly with Daniel Shaver, police state certainly exists.
Yes, and I fundamentally disagree that it is racially motivated in who it goes after, especially since in many of the examples you gave, a lot of the cops are black.
I don't think you can disagree with the fact that it was first perfected in the black community in the United States of America.
I will neither agree nor disagree, but just state it's absolutely irrelevant for where we're at right now.
Because I don't know.
I don't even know what it means.
I don't know how you prove it.
I don't know how you go about historically trying to justify it.
The bottom line today, why is Trump trying to give Trump's immunity?
No, but Ben, it's irrelevant for now.
There's so much, but you realize there's so much you have to dismiss to maintain your framework there.
I'm dismissing nothing.
I'm just, I'm not going to consider everything because then we'll just live in the universe.
In terms of immunity, there's a relevant reason for which Trump thinks it might be a policy requirement now because cops simply don't want to do the job.
And what's ended up happening is you're seeing murder rates explode, especially in black neighborhoods.
Wait, wait, wait.
If you care.
Where are the murder rates exploding?
Because some of the key cities you guys like to point out, like Chicago and New York, the murder rates are...
You might not have gotten the memo about the FBI adjusting the murder rate upwards.
Maybe you didn't get that memo.
Which year?
What year?
Just recently, just a couple of months ago, that all the stats saying crime had dropped under Biden was actual bullshit and it's actually gone up.
Right. Send me the link because I need to vet what you're saying.
I'll send you that afterwards.
They've exploded.
So you want to go with semantics?
No, no, no.
Because, I mean, I think that matters, right?
You and I, we're here in hour two.
I don't even know how many hours.
We obviously, like, care about semantics, right?
Crime is up.
So between being told that crime is down versus crime actually being up, yeah, that is a wildly here.
Is crime up or down?
Changes in FBI?
Oh, sorry, that's...
Oh, don't forget.
That's the actual...
No, that's not the right one.
That's not the right one.
That's not the one where they updated their numbers.
I'll get to the one where they updated their numbers.
Maybe someone in the chat will give it to me.
But yeah, let me see what's going on here.
Ben, it's not to end it because I think it's been fun.
I know, man.
We've been at this for hours.
No, I know.
It's two hours and 40 minutes.
And I'll tell you something.
I know the chat.
The internet's weird because when you're written word online, it's not a person.
And when you actually talk to someone...
They're a person.
I still have all of my...
I understand what you're doing, and I even understand, to some extent, my prediction that it's performative is right, because what you're trying to do is flip what you perceive to be the language on the people who you perceive to see the language coming from.
And I think you're fundamentally skewed by your blinders.
That's purposeful.
There's a difference between performative, trying to get attention, versus reflecting back to you all.
You're reflecting back.
Your justification is you are reflecting back what you think you see in the other.
And I'm telling you, what you think you see is wildly skewed.
Should I not believe my own lying eyes?
Should I not believe the literal examples that I've not only given you, but also we've documented in so many...
The lying...
If it were an epidemic, there would be more than...
The three shootings, which I can name you three on the other side that'll be black on whites.
I can give you a lot of black on white violence as well.
I mean, we can all do the...
You're doing exactly what it is doing.
Because they simply think white people are murderers and rapists?
I can tell you that some of them have been actually totally unprovoked, which leads me to believe that there might be some actual indoctrination.
The sucker punching out of New York.
The doubt, the nature of violence and murder and the randomness and the lust for money and wealth and getting the bag and all these things.
You're never going to get me to dismiss that from any community, especially the black community.
You're never going to get me to dismiss it.
When it's black on white, it's not racially motivated.
When it's white on black, you'll go...
When a person writes in their manifesto.
That it's racially motivated, it's racially motivated.
When that manifesto's language is now no longer on 4chan, but on Twitter, there is an escalation.
There's an escalation that you haven't seen in reality, is the bottom line.
Forgive me.
Well, the people who have died in these recent shootings would disagree, but that might be a low blow, right?
But you also would have to forgive me if I think it is unwise for anyone to ignore a trend as it is forming.
Should we simply wait until they have organized and actually are out there doing the harm?
Should we wait until the blood tribe?
The Nazis, that they actually have even more recruits because of the language that's free to be dispersed on Twitter.
It's one thing for an individual to have to go out and find and seek and find meetings.
It's another thing to just be able to log on and see an entire community of people who is agreeing with you that Black people are murderers.
An entire community of people.
Of 150, it wasn't even at 150.
How many people does it take to actually enact violence?
There are 350 million people in America.
You're going to find a lot of assholes of every race, religion, and creation.
And when you find them organizing themselves on Twitter, that's a problem.
If you consider that organizing, then we will have to disagree as to what is considered organizing versus idiots on Twitter being idiots on Twitter.
Finding one another, agreeing with one another, comparing notes and saying, this is what I believe, this is what I believe, backing each other, creating an echo chamber.
Whether or not it is...
First of all, if this is your idea of organizing is that they need to be in proximity to one another to actually get together and go...
Unfortunately, it has to be more than idiots acting like idiots in a Twitter space.
No. It actually organizes...
There's a show that I love and on it it says...
I forgot the name of the show, but on it it says evil is organizing.
When individuals find each other online and they have the ability and the capacity to talk...
Publicly about these things that...
Did that video I played for you, does that even move you in any way, kind of fashion?
Above and beyond maybe hitting report and then moving on with my day?
No. And they could have been talking about Jews because there are many more where they do that.
When you hear from a police officer.
The police officer got the sanction that there's other...
Do you think him getting fired changed his opinion on the matter?
No. Yeah.
But do you think he's the only police officer with that thinking?
No. All right.
Do you think those individuals on Twitter, however small their group is, do you think they're the only ones?
I can tell you that they're not because I've seen them in your own replies, right?
In your very own replies, on any given number of replies, they are emboldened to come out and to say these things.
Let me ask you this, and I'm sorry for taking us all over the place.
But do you not see the power in being able to espouse these things in a public forum without penalty, even if someone takes this Twitter space down later on?
But to be free to say this in a very public forum.
But they're not free to say it if they get taken down and subject to other penalties if they break the law.
And if it crosses the threshold of what a legal threshold is, then they should be subjected to that.
But to say it's they and they're organizing.
It's cherry-picking of an infinite sea of nonsense.
From your perspective, it's ignoring.
It's ignoring.
It's simply dismissing it.
And I'm going to be honest with you, man.
I often wonder, and no offense, and I hope this doesn't, but I really wonder how Jewish Americans can actually be in the same coalition with people when they...
Really talk about you all just as much, if not more.
And when I say they, I'm talking about the same group.
I've also saw what BLM had to say about the terrorist attacks in Gaza.
Would you consider that promoting violence?
What happened on October 7th?
Yes. But you saw BLM's response to that?
I believe they actually changed their avatar to the paraglider guy for a second.
Oh yeah, the morons from Chicago?
Oh, the morons.
They're morons.
Disregard them.
No, I disregard them.
Like, shut them.
I was one of the first ones to cuss them out.
I don't know whether or not you did, but you're only proving the point that it's certainly not one-sided and it is idiots being idiots.
And when it becomes more mobilized than that, then...
Let me ask you this.
For anyone who was planning October 7th, wouldn't your alarms have gone off as you see it publicly discussed?
I have no doubt there was meaningful planning, as there was now that we know, and my alarms do go off as to why that wasn't discovered.
But it wasn't a dude with a hundred followers on Twitter.
No, it was coming.
When they plan on doing it, they typically won't do it by way of public Twitter space.
Someone once told me, if someone's going to kill you, if someone's going to kill you, they're not going to post it.
Well, they might post a video to Twitter, but typically that's not how they're going to organize it.
Yes, however, but when you are free to discuss these things publicly, and yes, they are free because the conversation happened, the conversation remained, and then eventually somebody reported and took it down, that doesn't change the fact that they found one another and they are discussing the same talking points and those talking points that you said are correlation, and I appreciate you saying that.
They say it's causal, and they say that they need to do something about it.
That's not something that any decent human being should ignore on any day.
I'm sorry.
I see it too much.
I see it in your replies.
I see it in Gunther replies.
You're going to see it everywhere.
Influencer replies.
Hell, I see it in Donald Trump, whoever does that posting.
I don't even know if that's Donald Trump on Twitter.
It is Donald Trump, but Ben, you're going to see it everywhere because you are a hammer looking for a nail.
No, I'm going to see it everywhere because it is.
It's ubiquitous on Twitter.
The it's...
The it, which is ubiquitous on Twitter, is not racism.
It's a different it.
And it's aggregate stupidity, people being tough warriors, and they say a ton of shit.
And you're only picking on one element of the it that is ubiquitous on Twitter.
I don't care if it's ignorance or...
And I know it's rooted in racism, so you could dismiss that.
But ignorance or devout racism...
It's rooted in racism.
The result is the same.
The result is the same.
And it is more violence.
It is more violence, racially specific violence.
And no matter how many examples I give you, Dave, you're not going to accept them.
Ben, it has been fruitful.
What I'm going to do, I'm going to stay and just read the Super Chats after.
Yeah, I'm going to read some of the Super Chats and the Rumble Rants because I don't want to leave them.
Last an hour.
She's going to be so mad at me.
Thank you for coming on.
I still don't.
Tolerate. I still say whatever.
I wouldn't say on Twitter what I wouldn't say in real life.
I told you what I said on Twitter about your posts.
What did you say?
I didn't hear it.
The mocking that I make of your idiotic, what I believe to be absolutely insanely idiotic tweets.
But it is the diversity of thought that makes the world interesting.
The fact that you came on, thank you, because not everybody on the left, or however you want to call it, will even come for a discussion.
And some won't, because it exposes everybody, for good and for bad.
If I've come off as ignorant, the exposure's out there, and if your opinions did not...
I think we're at a place where your audience is going to think I'm ignorant and my audience is going to think you're ignorant, and they're going to both say, why do we even waste our time?
I'm going to go check your chat and see what they say about me.
It's on Twitter, so I'll check it out.
Ben, nice to meet you.
Hey, pleasure.
Have a good one.
How do I do this like that?
All right, peeps.
Let me see you.
Don't embarrass me in the chat.
As a minister myself, I have to say that if you support this Democrat party and what they support, if you are judged by your fruit, your fruit is rotten.
The dumbest NPCs in America are those who believe the CDC.
If you still take precautions even five years later, you're as smart as most.
Come all of us.
COVID is 100% done.
Dead horse.
Move on.
If these so-called scientists want to continue to receive their funding, of course their results will follow the voice of the government funding.
The real Hydro PX never argue with a fool.
Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Ask what the scientific method is called.
9 out of 10 doctors suggest that smooth Marlboro cigarettes can't argue with consensus.
Let me see what's going on here.
Fact-checkers determine this to be true.
It's the difference.
The pastor outsources his reasoning to foisted experts.
Viva Trust's ability to reason and logic first and foremost.
And we're going to skip over a bunch because...
Oh, Bob, Arizan, Arizan, we got this.
Which one was this one?
Garrett Foster only acted the way he did on the subway because of people like Pastor Ben and they were only working class in the cart.
Who's Garrett Foster?
Hold on a second.
Garrett Foster.
Murder of Garrett Foster, 2020.
Who's Garrett Foster?
I need an image of this.
Images? Okay, hold on one second.
I'm going to go here because I don't remember this offhand.
Let me see if I can bring this up.
Stop screen.
Bring this one out.
Present. Murder of Garrett Foster.
28-year-old man was murdered in Austin, Texas by 30-year-old Daniel Perry.
I get mixed up between Daniel Penny and Daniel Perry.
He had driven to the crowd of protests.
I remember this case.
Okay. Do we need to see that?
Foster, who had been legally open carrying an AK-47, approached Perry's vehicle.
Perry shot and killed him.
Perry claimed that he had acted in self-defense, but in April 2023, they found him guilty of murder.
So that's...
He was acquitted on aggravated assault charge.
He was sentenced to 25...
So he didn't get away with it.
Okay, so now I'm not sure what the point was of that, but that was a long time ago in the discussion.
And let's bring this up here on crumble.
There were a few.
What up, my goofball?
Says Korn Macabre.
Never understood the urge to prevent bad actors from announcing their intentions.
Never understood the urge to prevent bad actors from announcing their intentions.
Mark Grindel.
Fair enough.
Viva, did you call us golf balls?
LOL. And then we got Happy Friday from Vermont.
Absolutely love the content.
I look forward to watching this and other podcasts grow.
Cheers, says Ben Lovejoy.
Well... Three hours, people.
My butt is sore and I've gotta pee.
Locals, I'll start something up exclusive later this afternoon.
We'll do a martini recap.
Oh, there's tips in here.
For goodness sake, how dare I?
Thanks for coming on the show, sir, says Boopsie.
Boopsie says, are blacks racist?
It depends if you ask.
Racism is prejudice and power.
Boopsie says, how much crime has BLM inspired?
That's amazing.
I wish I had thought of the condoning of terrorism element of BLM.
In the proper time of that debate.
Boopsy says, who's 97% of scientists, 97% of scientists in this world or a poll?
Schnookums says, research shows that every 20 to 25 years since 1990, 1900, public articles about climate warning or cooling flip-flop, it did not start in the 70s.
Boopsy says, is he grateful to Trump for creating the COVID vaccine?
I think he answered that he was in an ironic way.
Has he heard of myocarditis?
Says Boopsie.
Neurodivergence says, I appreciate your ability to stay calm and reasoned while speaking with this guy, David.
Not sure I can do the same.
Coddlefish says, the racial discourse is the direct result of critical race theory.
It was established and manufactured by neo-Marxist left.
It has nothing to do with MAGA.
It's the cans.
He's shooting at the cans!
There must be cans over there!
Oh, that's funny, actually.
That's it.
It's a motivated reasoning.
Excuse me, which I sent him.
Boopsie says, ask him, What he thinks MAGA means.
Okay, we got that.
Schnookums. Give up Viva.
Once someone expresses belief in dog whistles, they justify everything through a personal filter.
I think that's been sufficiently fleshed out, if I can say so myself.
I criticize Trump all the time, but he's my favorite candidate, says Boopsy.
Bill Brown says he's an outsider telling MAGA folk what MAGA really is.
How effing arrogance can one be?
Boopsie says, don't let him jump around.
Jump around.
Get up.
Jump up and get down.
You're even more pale now.
I know.
I screwed up with the lights.
Schnookums says, for Pastor Ben, I think he meant, saying we're a democracy is like saying you're a Christian.
It's much more complex than one word can define.
Also, the F-bomb.
From My Life is purposely aggressive and confrontational and emotional and realizing it is an invitation to actual violence made it drop out of my vocabulary at 35. Poohead and Asshat are now my favorites.
Schnookums, you sound like my brother.
Schnookums says, forgive Viva's verbal pace.
I know it's like listening to a podcast at 1.5.
He's a little hyper, hyper, hyper when excited, kind of like candy at Halloween.
And then Encryptus says, I have missed a few days.
How is the new computer coming about?
It's good, but now I realize I got to go get a new converter thing.
Holy crap, that went three hours.
I can't believe I held in my pee that entire time.
Who's this text from?
Cripe. Okay, I got that.
Let me see here.
Let me see.
Text messages from some who are...
I'm still on YouTube.
Is that intentional?
Asks Steve Britton.
I don't know.
It's too late for that now.
Okay, and then we're going to go...
All right, and my wife says, okay, I got to go.
Oh, the dog!
Where is he?
It's a dog here.
Winston? Winston got a haircut.
I'm going to show you Winston's haircut, and then we're going to end at three hours on the nose.
Oh, Lordy.
Winston? Where's Winston?
Oh, look how beautiful I've got you.
Oh, look how beautiful I've got you.
Oh, look how beautiful.
Ooh, bring in the merch.
All right, people.
This is Winston.
Look how beautiful he looks.
Oh, God, look what I look like.
I look like a dog.
He's clean.
I asked him to trim the hair around the butt, which they didn't do sufficiently.
He's going to get poo knots.
That's Winston.
Behold. The cut is like a Maltese cut.
It smells good, though.
Oh, and I got some new merch.
All right, people.
Thank you for coming.
Thank you for being here.
I appreciate that some within the Viva Frye silo get frustrated with this.
I enjoy doing it.
And it's not everybody who's on the left that agrees to come on with MAGA, right?
Even though I'm...
Oh, a sweater!
Watch it.
We're going back to Canada.
Going back to Canada.
Let's see what we got.
Okay, we got...
It's all standard stuff.
Viva Frye.
Just kidding.
Smells like new stuff.
I've got to wash it.
Oh my gosh, look at this.
By the way, just so you all know, this is my...
This is my...
What's the word?
When you have a clothing...
Wardrobe. This is my wardrobe, people.
Merch, merch, merch, merch, and merch.
All right, thank you.
Okay, we're ending it.
Oh, I'll show you the merch before we go.
VivaFry.com.
Get some merch if you so want it.
My wife, she likes a sweatshirt.
They can't see you posing.
She's posing.
Friends don't let friends vote Democrat.
You have to scroll down for these ones, she says here.
Okay, we're ending at exactly three hours on the nose, so that's 45 seconds to end this.
People, I'm going to go get an energy drink.
Relieve the bladder.
I'm going to relieve the bladder and...
Oh, God.
I went for a jog this morning.
I did my push-ups.
Maybe I'll go fishing and do a car vlog on...
Oh yeah, the pardon.
The pardon.
The Joe Biden pardon of the Cash for Kids judge.
I tried to steelman it.
There is no steelmanning away that atrocity of a commutation, not a pardon.