Transcript for #1767 - James Lindsay

Good to see you. I'm very heterodox.

Yeah. Definitely not orthodox.

Yeah, it's like, I've had a couple places. One, at this guy come up to me, we're like just in the crowd, right? It wasn't like I just got off stage during time like that. And he comes up to me and he's like, you know, if we had to narrow it down to like, you know, the top 10, 12 individuals pulling all this crazy stuff going on in the world, could you name who they are? Like who are they? And the question is, you know, what are we going to do about them? You know, we're going to have to take them out, you know, we're going to have to go off. When do we get to go off? It was like the statement, when do we get to go off on them? Like that violence. We're going to have to take them out. We're going to have to take them out. Like I'm looking at this guy thinking, you're not taking anybody out, but

Yeah, it's like, why are you asking me this question? Another guy I did a talk, and this was totally awesome event. Like, there's a mechanical bowl in the venue. Like, it was nuts, and I'm doing this like professional talk and everything is nuts. And this guy's drunk afterwards. I don't know. Probably he's just drunk. Maybe he's not. And he's like, I wanted to ask you one question, man, and I was like, what is it after I talked? And he was like, when do we get to start shooting them? And I was like, holy shit, dude, no, you know. we don't like that's the trap if anything like you don't do you think that guy was just crazy or do you think that guy was a fed and how do you know the difference that's the question I don't know I actually suspect that guy was just drunk and shooting off at the mouth and frustrated but I don't know and then the weirdo guy that was like if we could narrow it down to who are the because that guy wouldn't leave me alone this the first the guy totally about first like he wouldn't leave me alone it's like he just kept asking questions and like trying to talk to me and I was like huh

Having charged that guy, I have very suspicious circumstances around that. The weirdest, right? Right, like, let's just, you know, we'll have him on the list of people were interested in and then people are gonna say, you know, we were all screaming. He's a fad. He's a fad and then there's all this video of him doing weird stuff and people saying fad fad fad. Yeah. And then all of a sudden they're like, off the list. He's not on the wanted list anymore.

While other people are rotting in jail.

The answer to those questions is very simple. No. No. No. And she's like, I can't answer that question. Yes.

What? I mean, I understand the Fifth Amendment. Nobody can, you know, be compelled to incriminate themselves.

Right, yeah. I don't even know in that case, but that looked bad.

Yeah, there's something, you know, let's the opposite of what we do, right? That's literally the opposite of what we exist to do.

Yeah, but no, that's not the answer. No, I'm sorry. I can answer that question either. I'm just going to give that answer to all of your hard questions.

Oh, buddy, we're probably going to do that.

It came straight out of the central casting or something. It's like it's not even James Bond though. It's like a spoof. It's so over the top. It's like it's wearing like a space suit when he's not wearing like his, you know, business suit or whatever. It's like, what is this guy? Who wears a space suit? Have you not seen the space suit? Oh man, it's like this leather thing like a triangle. Oh, it's really? Yeah, it's freaky. Now what does he do? He is the, I guess chairman CEO of this thing called the world economic forum, which is like a billionaires club where fancy pants, people like, you know, titans of industry, government officials, NGO people, all the big philanthropists can show up and like rub elbows at Davos and chill out. And basically it's like, It's like a big country club for like the biggest players in government. What? Space suit.

No, well, I mean, he's got a suit and tie. I don't know how often he wears. I don't know the guy, but look at that. Why is that? Like, I wouldn't even wear that on Halloween.

It's bond villain.

That's not so weird. And you know who spoke like right after that, right? Who? Fauci. No.

Wow. And if you listen, actually, I don't think we should try to deal with the listening to all of what she says, but he's like, you know, he goes into this whole thing. It's like a paraphrase of Lenin. He's all like, you know, there's an old Chinese saying that the everything contains its contradictions. So that's actually an old Marxist saying that is that everything contains its contradictions, the Dallas don't. I mean, they have that with a young thing, but they don't really have everything contains its own contradiction. They say things contain their opposites, which is different. And so Marx was like everything contains its own contradiction, which, you know, capitalism makes a lot of wealth, but then it makes a lot of poor people. So it's got its own contradiction. And he says, we got a lean into the, she said, you know, paraphrase. And we got a lean into the contradictions. What Lenin said when people were starving, like he's like literally starving people and killing people. He's like accelerate the contradictions because if you make them see how terrible life is by showing them the contradictions. Oh, we're supposed to have this great society and look you're suffering you're starving. Then they'll want to have a revolution. And so it's like that's the thing that Shwap there just introduced was this speech about that he also says we can't think of ourselves anymore as like a hundred and ninety little boats like the different countries of the world to solve problems like climate change or I guess COVID I think that went real well and we got to think of ourselves as one big boat like one world government or something and then She is the guy that's the model for this, like, and then we see, you know, Mr. Space suit there. I think I strongly echo your comments. You know, Ross Bliss. Yeah, and it's Ross Bliss. The guy's weird. I read his book. He's got a book called COVID-19, The Great Reset. He's got a few books actually. I've read some of some of his other ones, but I read all of that one. And it's just corporate gobbledygook. But what he says is that COVID-19 is the ideal window of opportunity, a very narrow window of opportunity to reset the whole world's economy. And he wants to create this whole new world economy called stakeholder capitalism. through what he calls a public private partnership where he gets these government guys to sign up with his corporate dudes at Davos and make a partnership. The UN is actually usually the public thing and then he's the corporate guy bringing them together in a world of kind of a form to make public private partnership. But if we go back to Mussolini, what was his definition of fascism? It's corporatism. It is a fusion of the state. Yeah. Corporation. And you're like, what's going on here?

Like if what it did in a lot of cases, like look at the billionaires are all way richer now.

Cool for the breeze.

Right. Well, I mean, what that tells you then is that, you know, there's either absolute disconnect with the politicians or that they're, you know, being taken care of some other way. That's the conspiratorial side that there's money coming in some other way. So their paycheck is not dependent upon the economy locally, but it's dependent on some other factor.

They're going to have to go to the big place. And then if you're, you make you can loot targets and you can shoplift at Walgreens or whatever, where are they going to go online? Amazon? And you know, you can kind of see how all of these you know, really crooked business practices can kind of multiply in this kind of environment.

Well, and to protect, you know, I'm in my forties, which means that I never underestimate any longer the depths of human stupidity. So it is possible that they're just stupid and don't realize the extraordinarily obvious thing that literally everybody yells at them. But no, I actually, I'm inclined to believe that they know to some degree what they're doing and I wouldn't even be surprised to find out that there's some kind of weird backroom deals. And that's what this new economy supposed to be. It's like we go back to Schwab, his thing is he calls it stakeholder. Capitalism. You don't care about the shareholder anymore because the profit is a two-dangerous of a motive. You care about these people that are called stakeholders. You're going to tell you, you know, their experts in environmental policy, their experts in health policy, their experts in trusty experts in social policy, you know, how I feel about that. These critical theories or whatever. They're experts in best practices and governance, and they've created these whole investment metrics called ESG metrics, environmental social governance. metrics and they score your company based on how high up and down you are, but it's only really big companies that get to play in that game. And so the people who are the experts get to be the stakeholders who are going to speak on behalf of everybody else and say, well, that's bad environmental policy. So your company is going to get a bad score. So maybe we won't carry you in our mutual fund or whatever else. We're not going to trade your stock, we're not going to manage your assets, whether it's BlackRock or Vanguard or any of these huge entities or the World Economic Forum. And we're not going to give you the favors anymore. And so there's this perverse scoring system that's worked its way in. And the goal is to shift out of that. Now, what are the politicians doing? Well, I mean, we see obviously there's corruption somewhere. We got insider trading happening in Washington that's coming out all over the place.

Yeah, it's like we should start letting, like we should start letting the MMA guys like the UFC guys bet on their own fights.

How about that? How crazy how wild they might game a bad incentive structure?

But there's not a whole lot of incentive. Like, you know, have some booky over here who's going to make it up to you if you, you know, get your face messed up on purpose.

So guarantee that. Well, you know, they investigate a lot of things that the Department of Justice is investigating moms and dads, you know, for children to school boards and Yeah, they're also investigating maybe some real crime, but not the guy that came here to Texas from Britain who shouldn't have been able to even get in. What's that? That guy that just shot, that took the hostages at the synagogue.

Yeah, this is really what you're saying. It was like last week.

So where did he come from? He was British but he's got a name that would indicate that he's Islamic but he's got a British accent as well and he came in from the UK and he was like eyeballs on him from MI5 or something like this. You know they knew he was a problem. And he comes over to the U.S., somehow it manages to get a firearm next thing, you know, he's at a synagogue taking hostages, doing whatever they do. They deal with the situation in the FBI and the president come out and they're like, well, we don't know the mode of the guy screaming as mode of while he's doing it. And, you know, we have no idea why this happened and, you know, we have to do an investigate. It's just that the weirdest, farsical thing And then meanwhile, you know, the big joke that was going on the internet, whether it was, well, they didn't have time to catch this guy coming into the country because they were too busy, you know, investigating parents at school board meetings who were showing up because of that, you know what that letter, right? Which letter? So somewhere in the, it's now been shown, like actual journalists, Osiron Amani, for example, I think it was leading on this dug up proof that the somebody in the Biden administration, maybe the Department of Education, maybe it was Cardona himself, gets this letter, this memo, and it goes to the National School Board Association and SBA. And so they actually just send it back to the Biden administration and say, parents are showing up at school boards, there's all this violence in danger, but it came from inside the house, sent it to the school board association, which most of its members didn't even know that this was happening and a lot of them have disavowed it. And then they send it back to the DOJ, and then Merrick Garland comes out and says that they're going to start watching parents at school board meetings like their domestic terrorists, and they have.

I mean, that's the perpetual justification for that kind of thing. But at the same time, they literally sent out a memo to treat parents showing up at school board meetings. as though they are, uh, domestic.

I mean, the day is too big to say, you know, everybody everywhere, but you actually saw that attitude, you know, in the governor's race in Virginia last year when, you know, young can be McCollough and the D.B. McCollough for Africa, how it works out. Terry McCollough, yeah. And so, because Northam is the previous governor, because Virginia has this weird rule where you can't be governor twice in a row.

Yeah, so they have to have two people each time. And so, anyway, McCullough came out and he said that they don't want, that parents shouldn't have a role in shaping curriculum and that they don't want that going on. I mean, these huge scandals, you know, they have this, exactly what people said would happen a number of years ago this kid claiming to be that it's clearly disturbed claiming to be non-binary wearing a skirt goes in and rapes a nine ninth grade girl in the bathroom exactly what people said you're in the back like 2015 people like if you do the trans bathroom thing that way we're gonna see sexual assault well that's exactly what happened and then the schools cut like the school district covers it up you know they tried to tell the parents to keep their mouth shut about it yeah and they they they they All these activists showed up when the dad of the girl comes to this meeting or whatever and they provoke him and he like flipped out on Murphy hit somebody or if he just started screaming on me might have hit somebody and then he becomes like you know the worst thing ever and then I mean there's a lot of stuff right now going on where they don't actually want parents involved. They want to control the kids. They think that the school is the professionals, the experts, and that they know the best policies for masks, and the best policies for curriculum. That's where they're getting all this social, emotional learning, and critical race theory, and the queer theory, gender theory, stuff rammed into the schools. And they're like, no, parents, if you don't like this, you're not the experts, you don't understand. And you're seeing school boards where they're not taking public comments, or they're limiting those rather significantly now, because I don't think they do want parents speaking up. I don't think they want parents involved.

Yeah. Which the MAP with the P and MAP should just infer pedophile because that's minor attracted means.

Yeah, I have no idea. It's got to be like some cycle of abuse. Like, abuse generates abuse, generates abuse. Right. Like, that's not a healthy thing. Like, that's not good.

Yeah, I don't know. I do know how I got into schools. Yeah, I've researched.

Well, I mean, a lot of people don't know that the radicals are the 60s. This is book. It's called the Critical Turn and Education. And I've been doing a podcast series on this book. It's written by a guy named Isaac Gotsman. He's a Marxist education theorist from Iowa State. And at the very beginning, it's like literally the first sentence of the book. He says, you know, well, where did all the radicals from the 60s go? Well, it's, they didn't go to Yuppi Dumb. They didn't go to, I forget what he list a couple of things. He says, no, they went to the classroom. And so a lot of those radicals was violent radicals, 68, 69, early 70s. We could name Angela Davis, for example, as a key figure, literally went to K through 12 activism. And to the 70s, they kind of prepared the ground by about 1985, though, what this so-called critical turn in the education, which means critical theory, or as this gottsman says, he says, we shouldn't call it critical theory, what it is. We call it critical Marxism. By about 85, These guys had basically become dominant in terms of setting teacher college training. So if you're going to go to teacher college somewhere, Marxists are teaching you how. And they bring in this guy from Brazil, his name's Paula Freire, straight up Marxist educator, ever. It is books. He's like, quote, Marx, he quotes Lenin. He's like, this is how it should be. He's got this total weird idea. teachers and students, the kids shouldn't have adults and children shouldn't have like a differential and power. They should be like equals with one another, which is a terrible idea, because kids need structure and boundaries, and especially in a learning environment.

The goal is to train them in what he calls conscientiation. I didn't say that right. It's a hard word to say. And here we are. But to reason them, what's called a critical consciousness, which is a Marxist consciousness of oppression in society. Basically, he's looking around and he says, people are going to realize that they're dependent based on the society that they live in. And rather than saying, OK, maybe you are, you know, maybe you're working a shit job, maybe you're stuck. Let's teach you responsibility how to take control of your own life and, you know, raise yourself up and work hard and put your head down or whatever. He says, no, we're going to go with the collective route instead of the individual route. We're going to try to have a revolution for air. He famously says in this book, from 85, which brought him into the US, a book called the Politics of Education. He says that the revolution meaning communist revolution has to be perpetual. He says if a revolution ceases to be a revolutionary, that becomes a status quo.

And so he says, as you awaken to this critical consciousness, this conscientization, which I still can't say. Well, I've even got it stuck in Portuguese in my head because I don't read Portuguese, but it's usually not translated. And I can say that worse. That's way bad if I try that one. Conceince it to chow or something like that. And anyway, it means to awaken to consciousness. And so they're goal by the mid-80s and education was to start turning education more and more and more along this erase all power differentials awake in a consciousness, and this queer theory stuff fits right within that. So you're doing that at the identity level by breaking down the barriers between gay and straight, male and female, et cetera. So it latches right into that. In fact, the Communists have been using techniques in sexual liberation, et cetera, back to the 1920s. This dude, George Lukach, over through Hungary, helped overthrow Hungary, and their Communist Revolution in 1919. was he became like their deputy commissar of education and his whole thing was like let's sexualize the kids because it'll break them away from their religion and it'll break them away from their parents they'll hate their parents because they won't understand you know and so he's like sexualize the kids this has been a thing that they've done throughout a lot of communist attempts, whether in the 20s and 30s, and then again, in the 60s, with Herbert Markus alluding like the sexual liberation kind of side of Marxism through the 60s, and they're doing it again. And so these people, or Marxists, they started to take over education schools, and they're not going to say no to this stuff when it comes knocking on the door. So this book, again, Critical turning education says it went in three stages. First there was Marxist critiques in education then by the mid 80s and early 90s the post structuralist feminists took over the critique of education and that's where they brought the queer stuff in and I mean queer with like official queer theory I'm not doing the speed clear for the people who hate us yeah the queer stuff yeah Yeah, and which, by the way, the definition of that is an identity without an essence. I did this podcast about this paper by Hannah Dyer. She wrote a paper in 2016 about queer futurity and education, something, early childhood education. And she says in there explicitly that the point of queer theory is not to create a stable LGBTQ identity. It's in fact to not have stable identities at all because those become status quo. And that would be the problem. So you have to be constantly overturning that. I don't know if you know who Dan savages. Yeah. Yeah, it gets better that guy. The whole last third of the papers criticizing it gets better saying, well, that means he's just admitting that it's bad for kids. Like it's just message of hope that was super effective at curbing

Like life's weird. It's hard. It's maybe it's harder for you because of some stuff you didn't sign up for and it gets better, man. Don't give up. It gets better. And he even has this messaging and they're like, it's going to make you stronger, you know, it's super positive actually. And so she just takes into task for this. So this is the post structural feminists turned into the queer theorists. They got eaten up by Judith Butler coming along and saying, well, if gender is a social construct, well, maybe sex is a social construct, too.

Yeah. And yeah, in tragedy and yeah, the whole thing. And in homo normativity over heteronormativity, he's got a whole thing about that. Like they're trying to normalize that, which is abnormal. And that's really the definition of queer theory.

Yeah, it's really interesting. They go from being like these super buff dudes and like, yeah, sexy babes. And then, you know, all of a sudden they all look like, you know, anime characters. I don't know, they look like NPCs eventually, so they look like.

Oh yeah, it's crazy how fast it is. I mean, think about it. We're totally connected to one another. We can form our alliance as now worldwide. based on what we think, what we agree with, what we think is funny, what we don't rather than, oh, yeah, we are all having to be in Texas, so we've got to get along.

Obsessive. Yeah. And socially awkward ones, too. Yeah, a lot of them. Yeah. You know, we don't, I know I'm going to sound like Jordan Peterson with the whole, you know, we don't know the effects of this all right. You know, but really we don't. We suddenly went from with the advent of social media. We went from an era where extroverts by kind of definition, kind of ruled the public sphere. Introverts did a lot of important work. We're not to discount that. But once you get them online, Now, introverts have this hugely expanded voice while extroverts are out doing cool stuff and they're not on the internet. And then you add in people with like social anxiety issues. Well, they're not out hanging out and like going to the bar because they have social anxiety. What are they doing? They're on the internet yelling at people. Yeah. And then you get certain ones of these people who are absolute obsessors and I'll tell you about this fanatic thing, this obsessive. So the military, it turns out Eisenhower after World War II was like, all right, these black soldiers fought like hell for us. We're going to deseguate the military. This is way before like the schools or any other thing. We're going to do this. And so they're like, how do we integrate the units, right? How do we do this? And so they started this thing with these different approaches to diversity training. What we would recognize is so called diversity training now. And the first program they had, they called it putting them on the hot seat. And what they would do is they would basically do a diversity training and workplaces does now. You know, they'd put like some guy down there and make him confess all of his different racist ideas and, you know, then have like a lesson about it and like everybody would have to confess their racist stuff and they'd put the black people there and like, oh, I've always saw this bad stuff about you. And what they found out was that for a small percentage of the group, it worked. It made them more aware of these attitudes and biases and what a jerk they're being and it worked and then for most of the people they actually had way less of a problem with race than anybody was assuming and it didn't really do anything plus it's all just kind of a waste of time and nobody likes administrative BS anyway they just want to do the stuff But then for another small segment, maybe I don't know what percentage, so I don't want to make some number up. But some small percentage, they literally became fanatics. That's the word in the report. They became fanatics who wouldn't do anything except go around and call everybody racist all the time for everything. And it was so bad that they had to cancel the program. And that's right. It's exactly right. It's Twitter. And so, you know, these obsessives, I just mentioned post structural feminism working into the critical turn in education or whatever, critical race theory, by the way, is the third step. Godson says is the turned education. You know, I just mentioned that with they were the bloggers, man, back in like, oh, eight, oh, nine, it was like every blog in the universe with some feminist woman bitching about something and like bitching about somebody and bitching about, you know, can we, why can't we grow our armpit hair? Why can't we stink? Why do we have, why can't we wear, you know, whatever clothes we want? Why can't we do this? Why can't we do that? And if it's patriarchy, patriarchy. These people, there's your obsessives, right? Yeah. And they totally dominated that blog sphere when before, like, like, there was like pre-social media or barely social media time. And that's where everybody was like sharing these ideas. And so these obsessives gained an extraordinarily outsized voice. Now, if you heard of renormalization, no. Okay, this is a big idea. Because it's the idea that a very small group of extremely intolerant people can change a very large number of normal people. So three or four percent being just absolutely intolerant can move the entire needle. And the way it works, the example I saw this video on YouTube, so I'm stealing this. The way it works though is like you can imagine like a family of four and you got like You know, the daughter or whatever decides she's vegan and teenage daughter she's like I'm vegan now and so like whoever's cooking appearance or like I can cook two meals or I can You know getting a fight every night at dinner or I can just cook some vegan stuff And all of your options are basically, unless you're going to go kind of like hard-nosed, all of your options are kind of bad, except just keep the piece. And that's it. Be soft, be nice, keep the piece, no struggle, no, no, don't offend anybody, right? So now your whole family's cooking vegan meals. So now the neighborhood has a barbecue. You got one girl who's actually vegan, whole family's eating vegan, and they're like, well, we need vegan options. And so now the barbecue of the neighborhood's like, well, we've got to do something for the Johnson's down the street, and now they're vegan. And so what can happen is like the whole neighborhood now has to accommodate vegans, but there's one vegan, right? And you can just see how this explains that this process is called renormalization. So when you have this small contingent of obsessives, which these people who are in these Marxist ideologies, woke Marxism is what I don't even call it, woke any mark, woke Marxism, woke Marxists are completely obsessive and they're completely intolerant. Anything but their way is, you know, sexist racist, probably capitalist patriarchal and you are the worst kind of person and the dumbest person and probably crazy for not going along with them. And they can renormalize an entire state social media platform at which point they have this massive amount of dominance over the national discourse.

That makes no sense. I thought my example was like crazy. I got a dinged for saying that onion rings cure COVID.

Yeah. Yeah, exactly. I mean, that was a whole thing. Like, you know, we had just the other day here on the show. You had the, you know, Tim Pools all right or whatever. Well, he said he said that.

Australia's scaring the shit out of me though. I'll tell you that.

Yeah. Yeah, he was like all up in occupied.

Yeah. It was like right there.

It's wild. It's extremely wild. I mean, that's the, I mean, that's again, your show blew open mass formation psychosis.

I mean, there's books like back to the 1800s about it, but it's not a thing.

Yeah, I, you know, It's for sure whatever you want to call it like something's going on where people get to feel morally superior whether they're they're execs it Instagram who are gonna knock down or do interns or whoever knocks down that account Yeah, and they get to be more morally spirit or yeah, look at this drop veritas just did like I don't know if that thing that they just did with the COVID is like, paned out or not. But if it did, that's like somebody should probably be looking into that, you know?

I don't watch TV. So I don't know. Tucker's talked about it.

Yeah, exactly. Is it true that this leak, according to the document, that this leaked? COVID-19 leaked actually not in November, December, whatever it was. But in August, is it true that it was created? And there's these patents. Is it true that they knew that hydroxychloroquine and I've remixed in the other things, you're not allowed to say anywhere could work as curatives. Because that's it. I don't know all the facts. I don't even claim to, but I know that's in the document. I read the document.

Yeah, Oxford. Harvard. Lots of lots of lunatic extremists there, right?

Total fringe guys, Oxford, who's ever heard of that crap?

I watched Kim this morning as a matter of fact she did a thing. I don't know when she did it because it's on the internet, so if it almost went into actual video was a YouTube video get sent to me and it's Kim I was in and they were like what's in your mind? Kim she has a little segment on her show and she was like the great reset and she's like here's some key things to know about it and it's like has like bullet points on the screen and it's like number one. It's real. It's like Okay, just to kind of like tie that, not a little bit tighter though. We're talking about CNN, the media won't talk about these things, just vanishes. So do you know Clash Rob has a new book after COVID-19 a great reset? You know what it's called? I shit you not. It's called the Great Narrative. Yeah, right?

It's very hard to find out about his background actually if you look him up. It's all shadowy. I was born in a cave. Yeah, something like that. I've heard stories about his parents. They probably shouldn't be repeated on air because you know what they're somewhere.

Yeah, but he's been doing this since the 70s. Like he started, it wasn't called the World Economic Forum in 71, but that's when he wrote his first thing to try to come up with his stakeholder capitalism scam that he's worked out and tried to foist on the world. And so the great reset, obviously, people are like, wait, what is this bullshit? It's like it's not going well for them. So now he comes out with the book, The Great Narrative. And then you look at like what CNN's doing, you look at like all the leftening media. You're messing with me, so you're like, And that's been the hot word of a year, right? The narrative, the narrative, what is it? January 6th has a narrative. Everything has a narrative.

I know they're getting lists of things they're not allowed to discuss. How do you know this? Because I know somebody went on TV and got yelled at for it. And he, well, I don't, I can't verify it. He'd the guy told me in person. So did he say got yelled at? I'll even tell you who the guy is. So we're going to name one of those names. I don't know how to name Mike Lindell. The Mike pillow guy. Oh, I met him at Marlato last year. He's a little silly. He is. But he said that what got hit he is. In fact, and it's quite a bit silly. Yeah. Um, apparently if you get the pillows, you have to put them in the dryer to activate them.

Wait a minute. What are you saying? I've heard that the pillows, if I'm not supposed to like, I don't want to like piss on the guy's business, but I heard the pillows suck. And then if you put them in the dryer, they're really good.

I have no idea how it works. What is in there? All I know is that he got, I saw him and I'm not sure what these fucking things.

Oh, shit.

It comes in a bag. It's like it. It's like it's like it's like all the air sucked out of it.

Mine's like memory foam on the outside and like soft shit on top.

I'll work that out for you later. What do you a massage therapist? I was for 10 years. Wait really? I've just retired my license this year. Yeah, no last year.

Yeah, that was a vibration that space balls thing. By the way, that scene with the radar. Oh, really? Yeah, you did the sounds good.

Yeah, you can be.

So speaking of the switch though, my pillow guy was flipping out like he's just like I tried to just go up like I thought okay, let's go meet the guy. I say hi. We're we're like Trump's over there like let's talk and Like he's just mad and he's like Ranting about his experience on the media and I don't know if it's like Hannity or one of these guys. He went on one of these fox guys and they literally on the desk had a list of stuff that if the guest goes there take it away and he went like just this is about the election fraud stuff that he got all. He went like balls to the wall into it and they like took his microphone from him and everything so there's a list of stuff they're not supposed to talk about

Right. Yeah. But so I said last night, our friend, but I haven't met him yet. Alex Jones has said a lot of wacky men out yet. No, you need to meet him.

So so anyway, I think that we I actually believe that we should be having and this is what the internet's causing is a lot of open dialogue about things some of which is going to be wacky. I actually no longer worry about misinformation. I actually don't worry about it anymore. I worry about propaganda, but I don't worry about misinformation and the reason I don't worry about misinformation is because if the ideas are out there and people are discussing them One thing you find out is that stupid stuff gets shot down fast. How do you know? Look at the official narratives, like a spun around COVID, and look how fast Internet sleuths were like, nope. Like what? Well, like hydroxychloroquine and I've remacked in being things that you can take that might help. Like people were figuring that out in like March of 2020 before it was even like a thing.

Doesn't even make sense. I've been to Oklahoma City. It's nice.

Yeah. No, but that's what I'm saying though. It's like so they've got the official narratives that they can put out and then I think that I'm not worried about misinformation. In fact, I think that more information is generally better, but then we have this ability for these ideas to compete and for ones not necessarily that are better, but often ones that are better, but also ones that are, you know, the danger is the ones that are more sticky or salient or interesting or that they get people's emotions going or whatever. There are processes though. The selection processes is like ideas rise up to the top. And if they're not censored, that's what I'm saying. Right. So that's what I'm saying is I don't think that we should be censoring these things. Like if Mike Lindell, for example, is doing this gigantic thing, and maybe it's all complete horseshit. But he's got this statistics, and he's done all this thing, and the voting machines, and the dominion, and he's done all this shit. He's put millions. Maybe it's a newsworthy thing, if for no other reason, so that it gets more eyeballs on it, so people can say, this is where it's bullshit. This is where that falls apart. If it's kind of like, it's where this stuff gets caught up in these little corners where it can fester, that I worry more about bad info. I want to see it as open as possible. I'm not saying that Fox has to do whatever with its programming, but I'm saying that it's, you know, better that we're having kind of a free information economy, if you will, then one that's, we've got the official gatekeepers of that, whether they're stupid, or I almost said the F word, professors, I'm really mad at professors, by the way. Yeah, the other day I gave this I said it for you. Very nice people, and some of them are quite religious, and they were like, just don't say the F word during your talk. And I was like, okay, but what if it's like fucking commies? And they're like, well, you can say fucking communist, but no other way. And what?

Well, I mean, I could have said it. It's like free speech, but they, they are not swear. Don't swear. But if communist is the next word. So I'm like that with professors right now, and many regards, but also these media heads. I don't need an aristocracy telling me how ideas which ideas are going to be true in false. Now, as you know, we talked about postmodernism last time I was here with you. I'm not exactly a postmodernist, but I listened. I read that shit, right? And I didn't just read it to like, oh, this is why these guys are wrong. I read it, right? I read Michelle Foucaux, for example. And he talks about how power works. And he's got a lot of crazy shit in there because he's ultimately at the bottom of Marxist. And so capitalism has to be the problem with everything, but he's got a lot of stuff that we should be listening to right now. What he's saying is, if you have the official power, he's saying it's always this, but I don't think it's true. But if you have the official power of like the state and the media or whatever, and they get to decide what's true, they impose like a narrative of truth, like these are aristocrats, professors, media, personalities, etc., they get to decide what's true for everybody, and that's what we all have to nod their heads and go along with. I don't like that. I think that the aristocracy that we had in the 19th century was not a great thing in 17th century. That was a great thing. The surf's getting abused and whatever else. I think we've got the exact same scenario going on in the information world right now. The internet is breaking your free. So guys like Alex Jones, breaking your free and what do they do? Turns out he was like right about 93.5% of everything he said except for maybe a Satan stuff. I don't know, but then right interdimensional child molesters interdimensional. So, but he's right about on candy amount of stuff and what do they do? He was the first guy. They sliced him off everything. They shut him down off of all of the social media.

Right. And so like I look at that and I think no, I want the opposite of that. So I'd rather have, you know, occasionally you end up with Mike Lindell on Fox News talking, like, if Hannity wants or whoever it was, I don't know, wants to have them on the show, like, let it free wheel, let his idea get out there. And then, like, let's say it's 100% bullshit, let all these geniuses on the internet because they're everywhere and they don't have anything else to do. Start crunching the numbers and be like, here's where he made his mistake.

No, it does actually, but what I'm saying is an in general. I don't like this. He's got a huge, you also have a huge platform. I'm getting a platform. Your platform right now. I am, thank you for platforming me. I feel so platformed. Now, but it's like I feel like like we don't want to have a very relatively small number of characters that head these things up, getting to determine what is going to be credible.

But so if they can stop that. But we don't want like Rachel Maddo deciding that you can't take horse to warmer or Joe Rogan's gray on CNN.

Right. Well, speaking when we mentioned speaking and kicking people off, Mike Lindell just got like his ability to bank shut down.

Oh, he was trying he's utterly convinced and this is actually important about the democracy point you raised. He's utterly convinced that there was You know, misfeasants with regard to pieces. Well, it's probably male actually said a miss, both are words, but it's less bad. So we'll say, Maleficent. It's really bad. So he thinks that he thinks that they use the dominion machines that had shady programming, et cetera. And I don't know the details of his hypothesis, but that they were changing the numbers in a particular way to move votes from one guy from Trump to Biden, et cetera. And so he spent millions of dollars on some kind of a statistical analysis to dig into this, right? And really. Yeah. And so that's like he had his whole conference like in South Dakota or something about it over like the summer last year, like this is a whole thing. And so he's trying to make this point and what there are like it or not millions upon millions of Americans. who are looking at the 2020 election and they're kind of squinting one eye and they're like okay maybe something like I mean like maybe as many as 50 or 80 million Americans are like I think something shady went on there and so he's got this hypothesis right so the distrust in the democratic process in the country is already shaken So when my view is when somebody's bringing up a point like this, it the only way, like if something happens where people are suspicious enough or there's a guy that's going to devote millions of dollars to something like that, you really, and of course you could just have a crazy guy with a lot of money. That's always possible. But the way that you recover, what's dangerous to democracy is not tying off those loose ends. right so if you leave that open like the trust is already shattered right and so what you want is this so he comes up with this hypothesis and okay and he's spent all its money and he presents his evidence and then people you know it's ideally transparently as possible analyze the evidence that he presents and says this is oh my god this is an emergency or there might be something here or you know this is total bullshit your crazy person and we're never gonna hear from you again in any significant way go go home that is what's missing is that transparency. So what's dangerous for me to democracy is the idea that there are going to be people whether it's Sean Hannity and Fox, whether it's Rachel Madel on MSNBC, whether it's Don Lemon on CNN, whether it's Anthony Fauci, whatever he is, whether it's Joe Biden, you know, back in 1989, because he doesn't know where he is, whatever it happens to be, I don't think it's good for anything. If those people get to limit what we're going to see as officially true, and that's what we have to go with. Because that's the mess that we're in with why you got attacked for taking horse medicine, even though you took the human version, obviously, and you took a Nobel Prize winning medicine with decades of you know science you use in science and success behind it and that was a decision made between yourself to take it and your doctor as the consultant who recommended and was able to get you the prescription to get it that wasn't you Anthony Fauci didn't need to intervene in that discussion. You could have taken these pills which have a long time of human use and it could have done nothing. It could have just given you diarrhea or you know, it could have made you sick or whatever. And then your doctor could have reacted accordingly to try to create a treatment protocol for you tailored to what's actually going on in your individual body as you dealt with the coup. You don't need a bureaucrat. I think deciding, no, no, no. These are the official things that we're going to say work and don't work because that's where you get yourself in these really dangerous positions. I agree with everything you said.

Well, I mean, yeah, there's that.

I mean, when I met him, he actually, what did he say? He said something really funny because he used to be on crack, right? Really? Yeah, he used to be like a crackhead for real. I'm not making that up. Yeah, totally. And so he made some joke about how, you know, he said something and he was like, I didn't even have to smoke crack to say that or whatever, you know, some kind of a joke like that. And it's like, Okay. Anyway, I don't have the skill in fact to parse his evidence. But such people do, or certain people do.

Yeah, you know did better than the kid from Harvard that was trying to make pillows to compete with him. That didn't go so good.

Oh, that kid. Yeah. He made pillows. Yeah, he called him when I think he called him like our pillow or something communist shit silly.

I don't know But people could and I would rather it be out there and have that transparency to the maximum degree with people who are waiting in on this and saying no actually he's totally nuts. I agree.

And like I said, I think we're actually, I think like truth, I actually do this sort of spiritual sounding, but I think of truth like a flame. Like it burns its way out of boxes of lies that it gets put into.

That's unlikely to be true unless that's talking globally and this is still unlikely to be true.

I would love to see that shot down through robust public debate.

He's on a bit of a quest, you know. To prove that the voter fraud was... Yeah, yeah. And again, maybe it's the Hannity's not the place for it.

possibly it depends on its general public salience like is this a huge discussion point that Fox has been dancing around a little bit here and there but yes so in that case it's like let's bring this guy in here what is evidence is and then start bringing up counterpoints if you want to bring up counterpoints I just don't want any, I think that where we are trapped the most is that people like whoever it is that Instagram gets to strike down your buddy and my onion ring joke and whoever it is like you were saying the social media platform should be free for everybody. I don't think that we want people that we don't even necessarily know who they are in a lot of cases, getting to make the decisions of what is and is not going to be considered true, especially when they're putting flags on stuff like lineage, scendered and hoody.

Yeah. And so there's a bias with that as well. The bias has a name. It's called repressive tolerance. Repressive tolerance is an even essay from a Marxist in the 60s. Herbert Marcusa was a guy's name. Most influential guy in the 60s in the Marxist scene probably. his book from 1964, the year before the essay was called One dimensional Man, sold 300,000 copies. So that's in the 60s, right? It's pretty big time. And he writes his essay in 65, called Repressive Tolerance, and he says, and I should, you know, I mean, we could pull up the quote. It says that Repressive Tolerance means, or actually calls it liberating tolerance. Liberating tolerance means tolerating movements from the left and being intolerant against movements from the right. And so the whole tilted playing field is visible there. And his justification, he says, is that we could have stopped World War II. We could have stopped Auschwitz if we would have withdrawn Democratic tolerance. That's his words from Hitler when he was making his speeches. And he says, so this only, this is censorship. He says this is even presensorship. And he's like, it this obviously can only make sense. under a circumstance, it's like emergency powers, right? He says under a circumstances where it's clear and present danger. And then he literally goes on, totally mental, to say, I maintain that our society is in that situation all the time. Thus, we always have to censor the right, pre censor the right. He says, we have to stop the idea from ever entering their head. So this is where, you know, this kind of suppression of, say, Mike Lindell's views, maybe totally bad share, or Alex Jones's views. Do we have to stop the thought from ever entering the head? Why? So that we can avoid Auschwitz in a World War. I don't think it's actually how it works. We've got this Marxist telling us that we need to tilt the playing field so that the left is always advantaged. He even says in the essay that you have to tolerate even when they're violent. because revolutionary violence is different than reactionary violence. So the violence that serves causes for the left is actually breaking up an oppressive order, whereas even intolerance from the right is maintaining an oppressive order. So they're not on a moral level. So we have to, even if there's violence involved, we have to tolerate whatever the left does. And if there's, you know, even to the point of not allowing the thought to enter the head of people on the right, we have to censor, and he says pre-sensor. And repress, repressive tolerance, we have to repress the right wing. And that's the game that we all have to live in right now. Yeah, sure, you know, Ratsinger's not exactly this liberal dude, right? But there are occasionally these cases where something doesn't quite fit that mold, but for the most part that's what we're seeing. Like everybody else you named is a right-wing dude. Yeah. And the suppression is absolutely not. I mean, you and I know right now that if we were going to go on Twitter, we pull out our phones right now, we're going to get on Twitter. And it's like, all right, let's do a contest to see who can get banned from Twitter first. Like you know exactly what types of opinions are going to get you banned and they're not left-wing opinions right right you could come out and say like the most like those videos you could say the most wacky stuff like I'm going to groom children or whatever and you're probably going to be okay you'll be okay as long as you couch it in theory or something first you sound intelligent and whatever minor attracted persons yeah those accounts are all still yeah they're literally groomers like yeah and they're bringing those books like with literal depictions of graphic sex acts into schools no is that real because is that something that they're actually bringing into school or is that something like what is that that's yes it's real and not only are that they're not they're not even just bringing in schools they're doing it in an underhanded way because A lot of people have forgotten this, but the state turns out does not have free speech. Citizens have free speech. So it's already, this is a long government precedent. It's obvious first amendment law. The state, like the teachers, the curriculum can't do, they can't just say anything. Free speech is not a defense available to them if they're saying something that's like unprofessional out of their job description or whatever, or bringing pornography into the, even if it's fairly soft pornography into the classroom. But the library works differently. And so they're actually bringing it in through the library. So these aren't like books like the teacher necessarily is reading through in class. They're available in the library and they can be, you know, kids will be told the books are in the library. And they do. They depict this one. It's called Gender Queer. I mean, this is like crazy. I got in trouble on YouTube for even saying what's in this book. But you can, I've seen the picture from the book. it's actually it shows, you know, a appears to be some kind of lesbian type relationship, or maybe it's non-binary. And there's a strap on Dildo on a minor and another one performing oral sex on the strap on Dildo.

Yeah, there's another one I saw yesterday and I apologize because I don't know what the title of it is because I only just saw it where it actually shows people going down on each other like, kind of linguists. And this is in, like, you want to make a graphic novel of that, you'll probably shit, like, for adults.

Look it up.

Gender Quarible. School's books. That's what I would type in.

It doesn't look like... They did the thing right after your show. And they were like, we're still updating the quality of our search results or something like that for like a day. And then it's like not there.

Well, there's like four guys video like and he got like totally bombed or whatever because it like prioritize just some random video. I don't know kids saying like it doesn't exist or whatever.

This is, again, it's just another example in Falkmount. If you're just, it's curated. Is this it?

It's all, it's all, it's a graphic novel. It's not.

And there's just huge fight to get it put back in everywhere. And a lot of schools are standing up saying, no, we're going to keep this because we have to protect LGBT.

So we wheel back to not just queer theory, but all these critical theories, right? Critical race theory, whatever. And they actually openly say, I mentioned that paper by Hannah Dyer earlier, they openly say that one of the targets that they have is childhood innocence. They say childhood innocence is a narrative that's created by people who have privilege and advantage, like your rich white guy or whatever, so your kids can grow up innocent. But if you're a queer kid or if you're a black kid in the city or whatever, you can't grow up innocent. You can't grow up racially innocent. So they literally say that their target is to unmake childhood innocence. So what do they do? They expose them to adult sexual themes. They expose them in pre-K even to racism themes. And a lot of parents, of course, are like, I don't think that's appropriate.

Well, depends on who's doing it. Those minor attracted persons, of course, they might have their own, if we will, minor attracted pedophiles, would have their own agenda, right? Gromers. They're groomers. And if, if there is no childhood innocence, then the childhood doesn't have innocence. And we can even do away with maybe age you consent laws or we can doubt it out. So there's a, that whole six side of it. But from the Marxist perspective, having studied the history of Marxism to the 20th century, I'm telling you, this guy, George Lukach, in Hungary, laid this plan out, because if you get these kids like, you break down their innocence sexually, especially what you can do is then they're going to go home. And they're going to tell their parents that there's something like Lyth romantic, you know, Demi sexual, you know, tree, tree self-gender, some, you know, pronouns tree, tree self or something. And the parents are going to be like, what? And they're going to be like, mom, you just don't understand. So that you separate the younger generation from the older generations. You get them to break away and think that they're old folkies, that they're repressive. You don't want me to be my true self, et cetera. The goal is actually to destabilize the kids' identity, so that they're groomable. That's identity without an essence and queer theory. And then they're groomable, and you groom them into the stuff. And then they look at their parents' culture, they look at their parents themselves, they look at their parents' generation, they look at the parents' religion, and they say, that doesn't represent me. We need something completely different. So it's to just like in Mao's culture revolution, and I mean that much more literally than you might suspect. It's to cut the tie between the continuity of culture up to that point, including the family, and to start a whole new culture afterwards. Paul Pock called it year zero. I guess Clash Rob calls it a great reset. But the goal is to separate the new generation from the traditions and views of the old generation. For Mao, it was to destroy the so-called four old, old culture, old habits, old customs, and old ways of thinking, Sergio, and Mandarin. These kids would get like hopped up on this crap, became the red guard and like would go into temples and like rip down all the statutory and tear things down and destroy all the old, all the old kung fu masters got their asses beat by mobs to get rid of like old Chinese culture because it's embarrassing or whatever, you know, there's all Chinese medicine, of course, and you can say, well, that stuff was bullshit, it probably doesn't matter. There's like destroy the old culture and they would go home and eventually get to where they're beating their parents, they're beating their teachers that were considered revolutionaries. or sorry, reactionaries instead of being in favor of the Chinese culture revolution. And Mao had a whole program, he used in schools, and I see something so similar to that in our schools now that I'm freaking out. And what he did was he separated, listen to this, you'll see it immediately. He created 10 classes of people. Five of them were black, were labeled black classes, they're bad. And five of them, because the communism are red, and they're good. And I can't remember them all off top of my head, but the black classes were like, landlord or child of landlord, right? What else would you have? Yeah, landlords, counter-revolutionaries, bad influences was one of the, the, still like that's us, because we're spreading, you know, more bad influences. And so he had these categories, people who had lots of money, basically. people who are capitalists especially landlords and so those people are bad and if you're like the son of one of those people are connected to one of those people they're gonna tell you at school you're like the worst kind of person your dad's a landlord your family does this you guys are landholders or rich farmer was one of them rich farmer it was one of them And then they give you these red identities. Well, you can be a revolutionary. You know, you can, it peasant classes, day laborers, that's one or two of the red classes, because it's communism. But then, you know, you can become a revolutionary. You can join the red guard. You can take up these, you know, you can be a good communist. And now we'll call you, we'll give you like a red jacket or whatever, a red feather. I don't know, something. And you're like one of the cool kids, whereas we're going to constantly tell you how bad you are over here. Now, take out those classes like, You know, land owner or whatever and switch it out white, straight, male, thin, fit, attractive, conventionally attractive, whatever, right? There's your black classes. So you start telling all these kids, for example, it's a critical race theory stuff, or like I have this here, race Marxism. You start showing them, you start telling them that they are part of the racist superstructure of society, basically, that they're part of the systemic racism problem. And so their whole identity, generationally, your parents are white, you didn't do it, it's not your fault. But you have all this privilege, blah, blah, blah. You have these kids who are like, well, how can I have a positive identity? What do those look like? Well, you could be black, you could, or some of the racial minority, you could be queer. and all of a sudden you have a pathway, a funnel into a positive identity, not gay, because that's not enough. You have to actually be queer, like it's not meant to be a stable, like, oh, well, I'm a guy who likes guys. The end. No, I was born this way. No, queer theaters don't get on with it. They didn't support gay marriage. The queer theaters don't like any of that stuff. They don't want to normalize anything. Well, what is queer then? Queer is an identity without an essence. It's a constantly fluid identity. It can be whatever you want, as long as it's politically active against anything that's considered normal or normative.

I mean, if you want to yell about things the right way, but mostly you're going to have to adopt something. One of these like made up genders sexual sexuality. Yeah, they even have romantic orientations, like how you're romantically attracted to instead of sexually attracted. They're obsessives, which is said that word earlier. Yeah. But you give people a pathway and where do you see the vast majority of these young people transitioning and seeking non-binary and bisexual and whatever else? Young girls. who are the most social status concerned and white man is probably not going to get anything anyway. So these young white girls are all becoming some kind of weird gender thing. Why? Because they're getting constantly baraged by a critical race theory. It says white is bad. White is complicit in racism. You're a racist. You can become an ally. That's a red identity ally racial ally. But you also have these pathways to where you get social status. And it's not enough that you're going to say, oh, I'm by or I'm pansexual or I'm demysexual or I'm whatever. It's not enough to do that. You now have to politically be active in that regard or you're not authentically that. That's where we heard so many people. I honestly, most famously, you know. She's I put on Twitter the other day. I don't impressly, and I couldn't remember where she's from. So I put, you know, as I always like D and then like the state like DMI, if it's from like Michigan or whatever, or D Michigan, I put D hell because I don't remember where she's from. But I don't impressly came out and had this speech during the St. Floyd riots. And she was like, we don't need any more black faces who don't want to be black voices. We don't need any more brown faces who don't want to be brown voices. What does that mean? I mean, you have to be politically active. Nicole Hannah Jones from the New York Times, the 1619 projects. That's the same thing. There's a difference between being racially black and politically black. So then in your former home state of California, not home state, I guess. But you know, resident state of California, Larry Elder runs for governor, was the LA Times run. Black face of white supremacy. Yeah, because he's not politically black. So you have to be politically active. You have to be a revolutionary in that ideal.

But well, that's what it really means. Right. He's from he wasn't and he's not a Marxist. Right. You only count if you're acting out one of these identity based Marxist. political views. Whether that's, you can't just be a black kid. You have to be a politically black kid. You have to spell critical race theory or they say that black voices thing. One of the pillars of critical race theory is called a unique voice of color. They actually believe that you are morally determined, structurally determined, they call it, but it means morally determined. If you happen to be black and you live in a white supremacist society as they define it, then your character is shaped. So we listen to Martin Luther King, you know, that's this week. His birthday was just the other day. We listen to Martin Luther King when we say, you know, contents of character are not color of skin. But according to the critical race theory view, your content of your character is determined by the color of your skin. So that doesn't work. and you have to take on the politics that is being a critical race theory advocate or whatever for your blackness to count.

Where, I mean, you can look at what happened with the cultural revolution, because we're playing at the exact same logic. And I mean, the Chinese culture revolution, not the American one that we're in the middle of right now. The logic is the same. So it goes to a situation in which we don't have a mouset on character. that's going to, you know, lead this and use the chaos that it creates to seize an iron group of communist power. What we have instead are people like this. Cloud Schwab introducing Xi Jinping and saying, you know, I, you know, what does he say? I echo everything that you just said. or that you said in 2017, I don't want to miss quote him. But then you have him, she talking about how we have the many boats and we're all going to be one boat now, right? So what you actually end up having is it's not old school communism. Communism has evolved. It's like we're not going to have like Stalin, like sending people to Siberia with this. What you're going to have is this new thing where the corporate Those ESG scores are going to come down ultimately to control people at the level of social credit for themselves. If you want to be able to bank, if you want to be able to go to the grocery store, maybe if you want to go like an Australian, more than five kilometers from your house, you have to have a justified reason. That was a whole thing in their COVID. Whatever the state of affairs there is, that's true. During their hard lockdown, you couldn't be a certain distance away from your house, where they can track you on your phone. You know, we've got a GPS, and if they needed to, and especially if we go all the way into like these digital ID apps or whatever, and so the goal is to install something that they have total social control, run by the goons you think that this is a good idea, so that we can become this one. It's not communism, it's a mixture of communism and fascism into one thing.

Yeah. With domestic violent extremists. Yeah. Yeah. We can say that in terms of repressive.

Yeah, we'd have to pull it up. It's really vague.

It's really vague and, you know, concerning. Yeah, very concerning.

It was like government authority or something.

No, you're gonna have to. And I don't mean this like my vibe is from FBI's paper I downloaded.

So that last part is not as bad as it sounds.

Because this isn't, I mean, I saw this graphic thing that had very vague words on it. This last part is very clear that they're saying, you know, you may have constitutionally protected free speech. And so mere advocacy might not of these things may not be sufficient to qualify you as an extremist. But scary part is the word may, of course, because that's a squishy word.

Oh no, it makes it hard to keep up.

I assume that you had the dv.

Is that what's one when you say the word like NASA?

Yeah, that only makes sense, except that's like, and that what they did with the governor. Michigan.

But you think I think so. Because I arrested normal people. Well, he didn't go in though.

My point so they tell you So they're trying of course they turn it like a holiday or something weird right? So they're trying to it's really important to them that this was a very significant event Right. And what are they doing with it? Well, they immediately literally like the next day, which is oddly fast, you know, had legislation that they wanted to put to control domestic extremists. Then they have this extremism stand down that they do throughout the military all year last year where they're, and, you know, they're talking to about white supremacy and they're talking about all this stuff.

Yeah. Yeah. They did. And so Then, I don't know if you saw this, in New York Times, on January 1st. So first of all, there's all this kind of like Patriotic 2.0 can shit coming out of this. To label people who are, we'll say at least, further to the right as potential domestic terror threats or whatever, to our democracy, which is its own thing. But on January 1st, the New York Times published an article. titled, every day is January 6th now. Does that not like the stupidest thing you've ever heard? But I just told you about the essay from 1965 called Repressive Tolerance. So what does this mean? If every day is January 6th, we always have to be aware that there's this one side that's supported Trump. Obviously one of the things they wanted out of it though, speaking of Trump. They wanted to make sure that Trump would never be able to hold office again. How do we know that? Because they kick that political football every chance they get. They try to use something to justify that he can never hold office again. So only their dudes can hold office. We got you. And then this article, though, is the idea of repressive tolerance. It is, every day is January 6th. And what did Mark Ruse say? The clear and present danger is the constant state of our society. It's a normal state of affairs. What does that justify? Repression of movements from the right intolerance of movements from the left. It's exactly what they were. If they were, if the FBI constructed the bulk of the bad stuff that went down on J6, they were trying to construct their excuse to have a political biasing of the playing field that represses right word and opens the gate left word even further. And so, and to add, like, Department of Justice, FBI, et cetera, teeth to, you know, this otherwise kind of cultural movement. So it's the kind of, again, having studied the Chinese culture revolution, it's the kind of thing that I started to get really nervous about. The idea that if you read Mao, he's always talking about counter-revolutionaries, he's always talking about conservatives and rightists. And that those people have to be suppressed. They have to be stopped. They're a constant threat to the people's movement or to the revolution or whatever it is that how it refrazes. It is often the people's movement is how it frises it. And you see this again, same kind of Maoist and Marxist maneuver to consolidate and lock up power I don't even want to say the Democrats to be honest with you. It's not Democrats. It's bigger than the Democrats. It's often got referred to either as the deep state or the swamp or whatever. This kind of political class that wants to hold itself up above everybody else and make no mistake. There are lots of Republicans involved as well. The Democrats are virtually completely beholden to this ideology at this point. But there's a lot of Republicans who are You know, in on the show as well, say the right things sometimes that are mostly ineffectual. And so there's this thing that some people call it, I call it on Twitter the regime with a capital R that wants to create conditions under which it can persecute or at least intimidate its political enemies, including with this Department of Justice letter. It's not connected to January 6 for parents. showing up to school boards pissed off that there's books in the school library which we already saw what's in those books in the school library. They want to create the ability to repressively to repress those people so they can create the conditions of repressive tolerance which is a it's basically they take in the whole political football field and tilting it to the left so everything naturally runs that way and it's really hard to go right word on anything so that's I mean I seriously think that that's what the point was that's why you have guys like apps whatever he's doing like telling guys make this worse than it is And we're going to use it. I remember on January 6th, 20 was it 21, I guess. I was tweeting. I was like, you do not know what's happening at the Capitol. And I wasn't doing some false fly conspiracy thing. I was like, you just don't have enough information. Stop jumping into conclusions like hold up weight. And like it's just media spin. I wasn't doing some like, you know, Alex Jones false fly. I think I was like tweeting that and I'm watching how people are reacting. And then if you follow the thread where I have that, I even say, you know, this is like the biggest gift in the world to the potential regime that wants to clamp down on its enemies. It wants to censor people who might be encouraging insurrection in the future, who might be giving people information that makes them, you know, doubt the authority of the CDC or the government or, you know, whatever happens to be or the school board or department of education or whoever. And it just makes it that much easier for whatever agendas that they might have which clearly they have some build back better is the name of one of the agendas that they're pushing. It makes it that much easier for them to try to slide that stuff through if you can't criticize it to whatever whatever reason they have like okay so with COVID. We had a lot of different paths so this thing gets out in the world let's take the most dumbass naive. view. Like, oh, just escaped. No bad actors. It was a natural thing. They were totally stupid and naive. It comes out. It's in the world at some point. Say, beginning of 2020, we have a million different paths we can follow. We can start sending everybody vitamin D and I vermeckton like Mexico just did. Right? Like they're sending people packets. This is, if you get sick, this is what you do. There are lots of different paths we could have taken. We could have done a lot of different, but instead, we all lock down, we all do these other things. And in fact, we have this book come out in June by Klaus saying that we're doing the great reset using COVID-19 as the pretext. Who did he write that book for? Probably, I mean, it's really badly written, so I'm assuming it's for his little Davos, like club members, because it's really, it's... Is it published with a legitimate publisher? Or is it self-published? It's a good question. I don't know. I've read the book, but I didn't look at that page. That's a good question. It's kind of a joke of a book. It's just a bunch of like corporate jargon words, even though I'm trained to see, see through jargon, and it's just a bunch of corporate gobbledygook.

Yeah, what you saw with that each other you remember they had the thing over the summer they had something like there's supposed to be this conservative thing about the J6 like free the prisoners or something and like nobody showed up and then like there's that famous picture of the feds all stand in there and they're like sunglasses and whatever and it's like you read the story what happened there and the only person who got arrested at that event whatever it was was a fed by another fed and it's like oh my god

Yeah, well, it's allowed because there's no accountability. And anybody who calls for accountability can be labeled under, like with a serious call for it can be labeled under somebody who's a threat to democracy, they can be labeled under somebody who's, you know, a potential insurrectionist or instigating an insurrection or the fighting officers that are involved in this.

I think the majority of them think they're just doing their job.

So there is an answer to that. And you know, what it is is they think that some dude say in whatever Michigan is this lunatic who wants to kidnap the governor. But he's not going to act until he gets kind of like ginned up, right? And so they want to just kind of A, B in the vicinity so that if something goes down, they can interact or intervene immediately and B, like given that little extra push over the edge. Right. So, yeah. So, but like the law enforcement should not be doing that. They should not, that should be encouraging crime. Yeah. And so why on earth? I mean, maybe they just think that they're like hot shit or something. I don't know. Is that like a firefighter starting fires thing? It could be. I know a dude who did that. Well, I didn't know him. He was a guy in my town where I grew up in his little kid.

Yeah, something like that. And then who's on the scene? I don't know if you ever saw this. The one that they they interviewed the medical professional in Boston. Yes, Leanna win. Yes. Who's like I call her Minnie Mouse. Well, Mouse.

And she said, we're so it's like super fake. She's like. and then it's like camera turn on and her face turns on and then she says this thing and it's like oh yeah there was way less carnage and damaged than we were expecting it's like then you were expecting like what are you talking about but but also if you do hear a bomb went off you expect there's there's ambiguity there she's not duck she's weird

Yeah, PS, if they're facial decorations, you know what they are? Well, speech, which means first amendment, they can't compel you to wear a facial decoration.

I got, by the way, well, you look, I got dinged off of Facebook or something at one point. All I did was I took a video of Fauci saying, don't wear a mask from the very beginning of the pandemic.

And the only words were Fauci, and then whatever a month it was like March 2020 or April 2020. There was the only thing I said with it, and they locked me out for and put a strike on my account for sharing misinformation. It was literally just a video of Fauci saying it. It was just saying this is what the man said at the time.

And that's the parallel to Remdesivir or whatever it's called.

Try that April 3rd, 2020 is the date on that. I don't know. It looks like an article. Is there any? No video.

I have too many.

The thing as though is you are right. This was all kind of played out. They've seen the papers before COVID broke out that they knew that

The problem we're seeing with so much of this, especially with the masks and kids, is this collapsing of everything to one damn variable. Transmission. That's the only variable that counts now. We don't have to ask questions of like, well, what's it doing to like kids ability to speak and understand language? What is it doing to their rates of pneumonia from breathing back in or facial acne or eye infections from breathing their own mouth bacteria back onto their face and being trapped in that? What is it? How many absurd number of billions of masks floating in the ocean? There's a million other things going on. If we just pay attention to one single variable, Does it stop transmission? Right. We're missing like it's like it's not even like you missed the forest for the tree. It's like you're you're looking at like a freaking bit of moss on the bark and not even knowing what's going on there. You can't collapse a very you know multi-dimensional problem that has lots of trade-offs. Lot there are billions of masks floating in the ocean is a fucking problem. it is and it's funny because you know they're getting and if we go back to the ESG thing they're getting points on their G for good governance by forcing people to wear the masks but they should be losing points in the environmental category right but they're not because it's all like stakeholder bullshit they want to prioritize covid is more important just like all of a sudden covid didn't matter when black lives matter became more important that's escore goes up and you can see that this is that's where you've got to worry about this small number of people who are largely unaccountable being able to make these kinds of decisions for people because they can make it arbitrary. And in fact, it is arbitrary. And in fact, it's usually not only arbitrary but political or politicized as we're seeing kind of tie a lot of the things we've been talking about together. But that collapsing of everything to one variable. There's a million things going on with kids and childhood development and everything. Is it worth wearing everybody wearing masks at the cost, the environmental outlay, the side effects of wearing masks. Everybody's like, oh, I can't breathe in it. Hi, Poxy. There is a bit of like suck it up buttercup to that. But there's not suck it up buttercup to like you're breathing back in your gross mouth stuff and getting pneumonia if you're say six years old. Right, and like everybody's dealt with six-year-old knows how that works. They're like little not machines.

I mean, that's like a running commentary through all of comedy of parents' comedy for all of histories that they generate. It's not. And they're breathing that back in. They're touching their face all the time because they got the mask on and it's uncomfortable. They're not apparently all this stuff's coming out. They're not learning to speak. There's so many other variables that we considered. And we see that in all of these things.

I heard I got a radio voice.

Yeah. So, you know, that's the question. Is it worth it? But if you're only looking at one thing, you don't know if it's worth it. Right. You're just like, oh, it reduces this one thing that's bad. There's like a million things that are bad.

She got any second now. Yeah, I legit think that like we've spent too much time caring about what makes lots of other people feel better. And we've put ourselves in a bad position as a result.

The epidemic was now a national crisis. Something had to be done. In many places officials rushed through laws requiring people to wear masks in public. All of America, it seemed, put on masks. At last, many thought they were safe. I mean, just didn't help. They were thin and porous. No serious restraint to tiny microbes. It was like trying to keep out dust with chicken wire.

It would be a totally considered misinformation.

My famous favorite one that I've seen. I haven't seen the smoke one. My favorite one that I've seen was a dude that put on like five of them. And he went out and was like, ask cold with snow everywhere. And you know, your breath. And it's just like clouds of it all around his head as he breathes, coming through the mask, going out the side. And it's like five of them. Yeah, like five masks. He puts on one in breathes and it's everywhere. He puts on another one. And it's just like kind of gets worse the more he puts on.

The apparent answer is mostly probably not.

It's measuring. It's like, I keep wanting to like, I want to say somebody take it like a bow staff and just like, and go full Jackie Chan on the guy or whatever.

I did the same thing. I kind of looked back at it and kind of wish I didn't now. I think we needed a little bit more reasonable asshole as opposed to unreasonable asshole.

Well, I mean, I was in Tennessee. So, yeah, not so much. If I'd been in LA hanging out with you, we might have had a different story. Because like, Tennessee, by like, April May, we're just like, yeah, screw this. And then their governor came on TV, he's like, we recommend you wear masks and we're like, recommend, huh? Okay. You know, we're done. See England today, dropped it. They dropped it. Yeah. But Boris got rid of it all because he knows he's politically screwed. Yeah. Well, he got caught partying while he's locking everybody down and 10 downing and all this stuff. He's been weird ever since all that. Where was he partying? In 10 downing street, like during the height of the lockdown, like last Christmas, not last year, but the year before it. Like Christmas.

What are you saying?

The tolerance of that shit. See, I worry though, not only like we talked about mass formations likeosis or whatever, but I worry. Even about just the idea of giving somebody the idea that they're safe when they're not, if safety's the thing you're appealing to.

Because that's what I mean. You know, martial arts, we all have the little thing. Like you teach somebody at Katta and then they think they know how to fight. And then they're more confident so they go and get their ass beat. Right. And that's, you know, it's a joke if it's some dude you teach him like his yellow belt and he goes and gets beat up like ha ha. But because we're guys and we don't care about guys getting beat up. And it's funny like dude you try to do a jump kick like really. when it's like women's self-defense, right? And you teach her just enough to get confident enough to get, get her ass beat, like that's not good, right? And so the part of the, it's literally part of the Dunning Kruger, the fact where you get over confident and how good you are and then you make bad decisions or whatever.

Hold up, Joe. Are you one of those extremists that believes it meant in women or not the same? That's what I do. Man, woman boy girl, we're all the same. You know where I saw that? We're on a mural in Chinese and Beijing.

not in a fight. Turns out those those bell curves of upper body strength don't overlap very much.

Exactly. Also, or basically, in any sport, at this point, all the other hyper athletes.

Yeah. It's like the entire length of the pool or something like something so absurd.

Well, then I also, it's like that, you know, you laugh in the new cry.

Well, it's because because the social constructivism doesn't have any breaks is the problem. It turns out all that gender construct shit. It doesn't have any breaks.

Yeah, of course they are. He doesn't understand anything or whatever.

Even just within each, then we separate by weight and we separate by, in some sports, depending on how I'd like the top top, but by years of experience, we used to support fight some, brown belt, clasp, black pride. And certainly weight classes because it turns out it matters a lot.

Yeah, right. They're all fed swimming.

You know, the ones that I wondered about were the ones who were like the fake Tiki torch guys. That side of Yunkins bus and Virginia. I was like, what's got parody though? Wasn't that a joke? I don't think so. I don't know. I think not. I thought they were like seriously trying to, you know, stage some shit. Oh, I thought that that was it was like people on the other guys campaign or like we're like tied to it like people This is again when I was talking about earlier with the internet like sleuths and out within 15 minutes It's like, oh, here's this chicks, you know Facebook page here's who she is. Oh, she works for this blah blah blah demo right this and that and it's like holy crap Right. And it, well, could you imagine standing there dressed like with the button down white shirt holding a trump hat and holding a teaky torch like it just a puts.

Well, they said they did. They threw themselves under the bus probably to protect the campaign in my opinion, because their names already mud like they could all have pedophile stuff on with them. What? Oh, yeah, the Lincoln project has all kinds of like They have their own, like, pedo scandal around them. 99% sure they know that. Yeah, it's definitely not heard that at all. Yeah, it's not good. We'd have to look it up. But they got, they got a hell of a lot of trouble for it.

I think one of the guys that was like near the top was like doing some weird crap. We'd have to look it up. I don't want to get the details wrong, but I have a pretty decent memory.

Oh great. Oh great. How about that? How about that? There's a lot of that going on in the swamp.

You know? It's, yeah. It's, it's, it's freaking crazy. What do you, what?

Exactly. That's exactly right. Right. Because there's so many of these like bread crumbs. Right. And it's so easy to like follow, follow, follow, follow. And then the next thing you know, you're in some ditch. Right. Like you're just showing up to a pizza place with a rifle. Right. Right. To save the kids who aren't there. And it's like, I mean, so many of the things we talked about today, I'll come back to it. It's like, this is why, you know, why don't you guys do this really crazy thing like called come clean? Like just start telling us some truth, you know, instead and get your credibility back. And that's what's going to do that. I mean, journalists are saying, well, I mean, Yeah. Journalists, like, they're even doing it, like CNN and the CDC both are all of a sudden, like, you know, well, there are a lot of deaths with COVID that weren't deaths of.

Yeah. Not because of COVID. All of a sudden, yeah, well, I mean, if we're going to be, if we're going to stick in Fedland, we're going to talk about this concept called a limited hangout. They know what a limited hangout. Do you explain to me last night? Yeah, it's a watergate. Watergate. So a limited hangout is like instead of letting it all hang out, you're going to a limited amount of hanging out. So you're going to tell some of the truth to regain your credibility. But then you're going to retain the key bad stuff and not give those details away. And so all of a sudden, you know, basically their narrative has what we're watching right now is a very exciting time. Weird time about exciting time to be alive or watching the narrative. collapse right and so they're trying to regain their credibility because they don't see an end's viewership is in the toilet they've lost 90 percent yeah

You know, it's saying that in- And they like own the airports and stuff. Like all of the more.

That was the other thing we talked about last night was the guy who came up with the word microaggression. Yes. So I looked this dude up. Chester Pierce is his name. Okay, so Chester Pierce came up with microaggressions 1970 and when I told you was that he was somehow involved with MK Ultra, which is exciting, right? Turns out he also was one of the chief consultants I looked him up and right around this morning for Sesame Street when it started. So do you know the story where was his name, Jolly? Yeah, Jolly West. Yeah, Jolly West. Were the elephant with the LSD and the elephant? Yes. So Chester Pierce was part of the elephant thing. And then he made this story. Okay, so they had this elephant, Tuscca or something like that was an elephant's name, like a literally read this this morning. And they were trying to figure out something about how LSD does things and controllability and all of this in some reason. They're really interested in elephants and I don't know what it is. They have no idea what dose LSD to give an elephant. So they shoot it with a dart that has like, you know, just a human dose like scaled up. Some, you know, LSD people would get it like some number of milligrams like maybe hundreds of milligrams. of LSD into the elephant's ass and it goes nuts. It's like rampaging around and laying on its side and it's tongue turns blue and it's like seizures and they try to give it like anti-cycotics and the elephant dies, right? Not that long later and then they find out turns out the elephants are super super, super sensitive to LSD. And so they killed this elephant, like screwing around with it. And this part of like, so Jolly West was like the MK Ultra guy doing all the mine control. Well, Charles Pierce was like this guy and he was kind of in charge of, I don't know what it's deal with elephants was. But he was in charge of this thing that was like coalition of blacks like hiatrists. And he was a Harvard psychiatry guy, but he was tied up with West, Jolly West. And he talked about, you know, the black man like really loves Jolly West because all this, he had all these things with Jolly West. He did the elephant thing with Jolly West. I don't know how involved in MKL Tray was, but he was very interested in the way that TV, in particular, brainwashings, black kids to feel inferior. That was like a huge thing for him. And so he wanted to try to combat that. And as far as I can tell, the Sesame Street stuff's not all that nefarious, but it's a little weird that's enough of what he gets on there now, that they killed an elephant, and then he makes Sesame Street with a woolly mammoth or whatever as one of the characters, but a little weird. But this guy who was literally like a black radical, in the 60s who was also a Harvard psychiatrist and was tied up with all this like police and FBI and like CIA garbage with LSD and all the experiments he was doing and he was a longtime friend and collaborated with West. is also the guy who names microaggressions, which is this weird little idea that if you get like if I say like hey, where are you from and you happen to be from like Mexico or something that you have to be insulted now, right? Right. Yes, or yesterday, it turns out was Tuesday and I went and I get we're in Austin, so I got tacos on taco Tuesday. That's a microaggression, right?

Yeah, because that's like stealing Mexican culture of tacos. What if you buy them from Mexicans? Well, that might be okay. I don't know. No, it's probably no. I have no idea. It's all made up. So this concept though comes from this guy who also is like a consultant for Sesame Street and wants to use like psychological techniques to like do diversity on TV to what looks like good reasons. Like I'm not even going to crap on Sesame Street. I'm not going to say that Sesame Street was a CIA plot to like terror america where it's nothing like that, but this guy's an interesting character, but he's the guy who comes up with microaggressions and he works on MK Ultra, so it's like, how did he define microaggressions? So the small slights that over time build up like if you hear like a little thing about, you know, or kind of racially tinge to comment or whatever, It doesn't really buggy, you can brush it off, but if you hear it, I'm again and again and again and again.

Yeah, yeah, or even saying long time no see because that's a direction.

Well, you know, he's probably not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody's not going to complain. Everybody

Yeah, it's something something something something cisgender something something something some some someism is going on Yeah, yeah, there's a lot of wrongs a lot of wrongs domestic violent extremists Let me ask you this because this is I mean I know you think about this probably more than anybody

Yeah, we do. I do, but we actually have to kind of culturally wake the fuck up. Like we have to realize that it's not just guaranteed here, right? It's not just, you know, the old saying is, you know, people think it couldn't happen here and it could. And it turns out that the critical theories as it happens are stupid. They're like transparently dumb. Everybody reads about, you know, critical race theory. Like it's so complicated. Can't understand it. I'm telling you. It's as broad as a great lake, but like an inch deep. There's, actually, I put this as the first thing as book isn't real. By the way, the book is what this copy's not. But I do have some real. Well, I don't have, it typeset fully yet. So what's going on in that book? The first chapter over and over and over again. Come on. No, really, because I haven't finished the type setting yet. I have to do it since stages. It comes out like in the 15th February.

It's a mock book so that I could show that I have a book. But I'm painfully honest, so I can't like pretend. That's good. But no, that's a good quality. This really is the first chapter of it. The first thing I have is defining critical race theory, chapter one, and it's a critical race theory now, calling everything one wants to control a racist until you control it. That's all it comes down to. Calling everything racist, sexist, or whatever, until you control it.

That's what they want you to believe. But what it is is it's discussing the wrongs of the past in a particular way. and what is wrong with the way that they're discussing it. There are assumption fundamentally is that discussing it in a Marxist way is what's the problem. In the Marxist view, there's a system that the entire society operates under a system that dictates how the society operates. It's in fact that you have the base for Marx. Let me just do a little Marxism for you. You have the base, the productive workers, the proletariat. They make all the stuff. And so they're the rightful inheritors to society because they make all this stuff. Then you have these other people like lawyers and priests and governors and businessmen, like all these people, and they don't produce anything real. They don't actually make stuff. And they are what Marks called the superstructure of society, which is what orders how society actually operates. And it turns out that that thing, the superstructure, produces a bunch of justifications for why it should exist. and not be overthrown. Like, no, people need religion. So they need somebody who understands God. So we need a minister. So I should have a job as a priest and you should come to church and tithe to me and pay me. Or people need, you know, the law needs to be worked out. So we need lawyers who are going to be able to help people settle disputes and keep it within the realm of the law and we need law in the first place. So now we need lawyers. So there's these claims about why those jobs should exist. And then why people like them should have them. Well, I went to law school and worked really hard. So my merit got me there. I worked so hard. And what the Marxists say is it's all fake. It's all a mythology created by the people in power to keep their power. And the belief is that until that is completely overthrown in revolution, and the people on the bottom seize power through a period of dictatorship, literally he called it the dictatorship of the proletariat, the system doesn't change. So in critical race theory, the ideology is white supremacy. And the country was founded in white supremacy. So it doesn't matter that Thomas Jefferson wrote all men are created equals. He held slaves and therefore he didn't believe it. Even if you, but of course he read Thomas Jefferson, you see him struggling with this. Like he doesn't know what to do about it. And he lament kicking it down the generations to some later time they landed on Lincoln. But no, he created the system rooted in white supremacy that's for white benefit, et cetera. And of course that is in the 18th century. Right? And for the Marxists that never changes. All the thing on top, that ideology, the whiteness that you have access to, all the white supremacists ever do, is figure out how to hide the fact that they're justifying their illegitimate position better. So you need a critical theory that can see it's critical. So we can see through those lies, it understands that there's a structural nature to society that's produced by the interaction of the lower and the upper in what's called dialectical opposition. And so it generates this structure of society. This is literally a description of the theory and Marxism called structuralism. And that structure determines how society goes. That's called structural determinism, literally. And so with critical race theory, they want to bring up the past what they want to do is invoke and say nothing has changed. except that the people who benefit from white supremacy have figured out ways to hide it better by saying letting some racial minorities succeed or by desegregating schools that was Derek Bell first critical race theorist formally speaking his big thing was that desegregating schools was actually white people trying to Um, protect American interest against communists at the expense of black people who are now going to have to go to integrated schools where they're going to suffer racism and so on. It's very pessimistic and cynical analysis, but nothing, not abolition of slavery through the Civil War and all that blood and everything which was in a sense of revolution, not the civil rights movement, none of that actually changed racism except in how it manifests. The ideology from the white supremacist just took a different form. And in fact, there's a book, I can't remember the title of a race, class, and nation, race, nation, class, something like this. It's a French Marxist book, I was reading a couple of weeks ago. They actually say explicitly that racism has gotten worse as it's gone out of the biological and out of the institutional and into the culture where it's super diffuse and you can't find it. It's all hidden.

Yes. Exactly. They say it hasn't gotten better. It's exactly the same, but it's more intense and it's invisible, except to people like them who have the special goggles that can see it. So it's not whether or not we want to have conversations about the past. It's how those conversations are going to proceed. And as we have dealt with some certain very intolerant people are going to say that every other possible way to discuss the past and the president of this country is racist. Only critical race theory is anti-racist. Everything else is racist. That's literally their model. right and so it's not about whether we're going to discuss yeah there are some answers we don't want to talk about it we don't want to look at it I very rarely hear from messages like that I always hear and talk about our history works and all like people I think there's a lot to learn from all of that so we don't do that shit again right and so now it's it's a question of how we're going to do it and with this intolerant ideology that sees only one way to do it but what was the definition I just read to you that I give is the first thing in my my new book is that critical race series calling everything you want to control racism to control it so now you want to have a conversation about race every version except theirs is racist because they want to control the conversation of race. And that's the problem. It's not whether or not we're going to have these conversations. It's not that there were issues and that there are probably things that are definitely things that still hang over from those issues, redlining, et cetera. Like the wealth gap is significant. What happened following the civil rights with the great society and the decimation of the black family. That's freaking real. It says serious consequences today in terms of all the things you're talking about. That's all real. Right? But it's how that conversation has to proceed. And if they're going to say every single way, but our way is racist, all they're trying to do is use that label racist to control the conversation, put it on their terms. But their terms are this crack pot marks this thing that it keeps getting worse until when, until they're totally in power.

Yeah, that's right. And so it creates really bad incentives, right? Those incentives are totally perverse. And what you'll notice by the way, what you just point out is yeah, these people who are actually like Marxist types can manipulate that. No, grifter city. Do you know, easy it becomes to become or it is to become a race grifter in those conditions. All you have to do is say you have these feelings and nobody can question your feelings and you call like the idea that that master bedrooms sounds like slave quarters versus master turns out that's not it. That was from Sears in like 1929.

Yeah, he tore a Pito to himself a bit there, didn't he? Explain that. Yeah, so even candy is like one of the patron saints of this stuff. He wrote two really kind of influential books, one is stamped from the beginning, which is what I was just saying. America was stamped from the beginning and racism, so it doesn't get out until they have all the power. And I'll come back to candy on the power and the proletariat and the dictatorship thing. That's super important. But then he's going over all his colleges and there's this problem and he wants to like crap on white people. He's got his other books. Sorry, it's how it is how to be an anti-racist. I forgot to say that. And that's where he says the only in page 19 the only way the only remedy to pass discrimination is present discrimination and the only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. So he's advocating for discrimination. So then he looks at the colleges and you have this problem going on. There's a lot of white kids that are pretending all of a sudden to be people of color, right? They're pretending to be some other race and they've got their sad story or whatever. And he's like wanting to say, well, this is just, you know, white people trying to cash in on You know, they're trying to exploit, you know, the system or the situations of people color to their own advantage yet again. That's like his analysis of everything that he's called, everything racist until you control it. And it kind of blew up on him because what he's actually pointing out is there is in a strong incentive structure to pretend that you're not white because the advantage lies somewhere else now under this ideology. And so he ends up torpedoing his own thing. Now, the people screw up on Twitter all the time. Believe you me. I'm all about screwing up on Twitter. I know about this. However, there are certain things you don't do when you screw up on Twitter. First thing you don't do is just freaking delete that shit because then everybody's like, oh, he knew he was wrong. So candy deletes it and then he starts comes back the next day and like decides to do his tweet threats and just like blow everybody up. And so this guy jacked Pasovic like calls him out on all of this and then he starts going after Jack and that's a mistake. Jack's really good at Twitter. You don't go after people who are really good at Twitter and have like 1.3 million followers. And so he ends up just torpedoing himself and he actually like vanished from the limelight for a little while until they brought him back out from Martin Luther King, you know, critical race theory day. And he did his thing there where it's like we're going to interpret Martin Luther King in a particular way and white people shouldn't be invoking him, especially as, you know, most famous, I have a dream speech. But he vanished for a while because he torpedoed himself because he admitted that under the regime that they've created, that the advantage doesn't flow automatically to white people. White privilege is no longer material in the systems they've created.

Yeah, why else would you do it unless there was some incentive? Right. If your race literally didn't matter.

He's under cut his own theory. Right. Yeah. He's like, no, you know, white people have permanent privilege, and then he's describing how white people have to pretend to be people of color to gain access to privilege, locations, and society. It's like, whoops. And poor guy, he's not the brightest Dr. Candy. But I want to talk about him for a second, because I mentioned his books, but in 2019, he got asked by Politico. They have this series, how to, how to do whatever, right? And so how do you fix inequality? I kid you not. It's one paragraph. And he says the way we fix inequalities by instituting a anti-racist constitutional amendment. And what will it do? He says it's going to be based on two principles that all races are equal. And in equity, so differences and outcome on average by racial group, over a certain threshold will be By definition, racist, be chalked up to racism. Racism was the cause of any outcomes that are different by group on average. And so then he says, what's this thing? This constitutional amendment that enshrines those principles, which by the way, he mispelled the word principles. I could even show you. He literally mispelled principles in his little one paragraph right up. He says, what's it going to do? It's going to establish this thing called the Department of Anti-Racism, DOA. Not making that up either. Come on, dude. DOA. That on arrival. All right. Yeah. What's that going to do? It's going to be able to, it's going to be first of all composed of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. He tells us. And if we ended up pulling this thing up, I'm telling you, I'm like quoting this thing for memory of right at so many times, like to public audiences. And it's no, yeah, right here. Look, the amendment would make unconstitutional racial equity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public officials. It would establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-Racism, complying to formally train experts on racism in no political appointees like the series I'm like doing it word for word almost from memory. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local state and federal public policies. That's a fucking dictatorship.

Yeah, so if you want to have a local law and your, you know, Austin City Council or whatever, or Texas State, policy, or federal government policy, the Department of Anti-Racism at the federal government, run by people like even Kennedy who are formally trained experts on racism, which is code for critical racers, are going to decide is that going to be an anti-racist thing to do or might somehow create racism? And so they're going to have absolute jurisdiction over all local state and federal public policies. And then We're going to put them into action if they get cleared, pre-clear, I guess, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces. So now you're Google. It's not even public policy. And now your corporate policy is going to be subjected to this as well. And to monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas, the DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wheeled over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas. That's a dictatorship. led by the anti-racist, as he calls them, who are formally trained experts on racism, which means critical race theorists. That's Marxism 101 that you're going to have the proletariat. No political appointees, because those would be the bourgeois people, and they are going to seize the means of production to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat that's now going to be in charge of clearing all policies on all levels to make sure that it yields economic equity.

What's because that's what it's not about, right? Like even says in his book that it directly says that the remedy is discrimination. So it depends on how you want to define racism, which means we're playing this weird game. And the way that they want to define racism is this weird structural thing that the white people set up society for their own benefit. It excludes everybody else. And because they've done that, They're benefit is basically perpetual. They never actually investigate it. They need a critical theorist to tell them where they're actually being racist. And so, of course, people don't want there to be racism, but what they mean by racism is actually how society works. Because they believe it was created in white supremacy, and therefore the entire, like I said, before Marxist structure of society, Marxist theory, structure of society, the organizing principle of society is actually racism. So racism is the, and this is quoting from another book, which is critical race theory and introduction. In case we wonder if it's about critical race theory. Racism is the ordinary state of affairs and society. Not an aberration from them. It's so called normal science. It's from Richard Delgado from 2001. You wrote that book. Same book where he actually says they're critical race theorists find another liberal mainstay that's page 23 to be They call on a question another liberal mainstay or highly suspicious. I'm sorry. I want to get the wording right critical race theorists are highly suspicious of another liberal names mainstay namely rights So they're highly suspicious of rights highly suspicious of rights like what does that mean? Well, they say rights are said to be alienating because I could say a racial slur to you and then you could say hey, you can't say that hate speech and I say free speech But what about rights like the right to bear arms?

All that can amendment is racist. They would say definitely so because more white people and black people own guns. And if black people go to own guns, you say, oh no, angry black person will be gone. He's probably a criminal, blah, blah, blah. So yeah, definitely everything for them. The entire structure society has racism baked into it. If I put it in their terms, what critical race theory says is that racism was baked into the law from the beginning, stamped from the beginning being the title of Candies Other Book. and it doesn't come out without a revolution that installs this kind of guy.

They are the only people who have what's called a critical consciousness of race, who therefore understand race to actually work this way. Have you debated anybody on this? It's hard to debate them. They don't like to debate. I did a small debate in Fort Worth at the beginning of November, but I was who. Some YouTube guy, I'm almost embarrassed to say his name, his real name is Justin. He goes by jangles. jangles and mr. bow jangles without the bow part like just jangles this really strange um that's his youtube handle yeah i don't care i had very short patience with this guy so it's fun to watch like i was pretty mad uh so i encourage people to watch it uh i want a doctor fill and we kind of had a debate they had a professor Sean Harper from USC his critical race theory guy. I looked up as CV he's got all this like he's not just like got some of the credentials for the academic stuff, but he's got like he lists all of the grants that he's worked under and it's like, you know critical race and education this but we'll blow a bill in the Gates Foundation 750 thousand dollars he's got millions from the bill in the Gates Foundation and others to push this critical race theory and so this guy's like I guess he's kind of somehow in connection with Dr. Phil too. He's like, you know, they know each other. He's been on a show before or something. Because at the beginning of the show, he's like, oh, it's good to see you again or whatever. You know, it's good to be here. So they know each other somehow. But they brought him out first and then he dumps on a bunch of parents. Like, this is a story, man. I'm still kind of pissed about this. and I'm pretty even killed guy. So I got told I was gonna go on Dr. Phil, I have a debate and I'm gonna be this professor and so he's their domain expert. I'm the opposing sides anti CRT domain expert. So they bring the CRT guy out and he like is by himself. This is no debate. He's just framing the whole thing and then they start bringing out dad. They bring out this dad, Derek Wilburn. He's just this guy from Colorado. Three kids, whatever. Conservative black dad and he's like, no, this is critical race theory and he's saying all this stuff and then the professor just starts making fun of him. Like, you don't know what you're talking about. It's not even in schools. That's not critical race theory, like just belittling it. Everything he says. And I'm sitting in the back watching this because I'm not allowed out there yet. Like, he's lying. Oh my God. Or he doesn't know one of the other. This is shameful. And then they bring out some moms. They bring out another expert on the CRT side first. They double up on poor Derek and then they start bringing out some moms and it's like professors and professionals versus regular moms and dads and it's obviously you know stacked and they brought me out like the last two minutes like literally and I was so pissed off like a Dr. Phil asked me some question. I was like, I didn't even answer it. I just started saying, it's like, you guys are lying. You know, I just kind of went nuts. It was super fun. So I sort of, I mean, that kind of is a debate, but they didn't let me answer it.

One person said, well, it's not hunting schools, like right at the very end. Actually, that's not how it ended. That's how they edited it to end. The way it really ended was I had gone off about this one specific thing that the professor had laughed at Derek for. So, Derek had said blah, blah, blah. Started in 1989 and the professor was like, 1989 how silly is it's books from the 1970s and he was referring to Derek Bell's race racism in American law from 1970 and but it turns out the founding conference of critical race theory was in Madison, Wisconsin, in a convent off the campus of University of Wisconsin, in Madison, in 1989. And that's where Kimberly Crenshaw, who's one of the chief critic racers, named it critical race theory, because it's critical theory using race and racial justice that employs critical theory. That's what she said.

As a current from a pretty you could say that it actually at the first real book of critical history was in the 1970s, but he brings up 89 this guy has to be aware of the relevance of 1989, but he like it's one thing to say, you know, actually it goes back a little further than that, but yeah, this significant date, but no, he made fun of the guy. So anyway, the way the show, the recording really ended was I had went off and I was like, you know, it was 1989, you know, you know about the conference and I just did kind of a whole thing. And I even added the Richard Ogato who wrote the critical research introduction was at that meeting and he had this interview in like 97 or something and he describes it and he says, you know, we're in a convent He says there's an austere room with crucifixes here and there on the wall and then he puts in and you know dashes off he adds a kind of parenthesis is an odd setting for a bunch of Marxists And it like that's the founding conference. That's one of the guys at the founding conference of critical research, describing the founding conference, critical research.

That was definitely like the opportunity to ask such a question, maybe of the producer afterwards, could have come up. But he seemed really happy and was happy in what way. He was like, I kept getting told by the people who worked there and probably ended up getting at half of him fired now. I got told by I went through to there. I'm so glad you got to come out and actually say something about this. We love what you have to say about it. And the producer was all like, yeah, so great. What you do is so great. It's going to be great.

Yeah, if they don't necessarily like that you had a poignant well, they were coming like they came back into my dressing room kind of one by one and told me you know secretly I listened to your podcast and agree with most of what you say so I think there's a little bit of both secretly is not good.

Well, you know why because it sets the narrative control. They get to frame the narrative in a certain way.

That doesn't even make sense. I mean, I don't know why Dr. Phil. I don't know his motivations. I didn't even speak. It's probably his producers. Yeah, or I mean, he's under the Oprah umbrella. So, you know, an Oprah's promoted stuff like critical race theory ideas for the last little while.

Yeah, because a lot of governments totally plausible that she just thinks this is a good thing and I swept up and I don't know that Oprah Winfrey is a Marxist or anything like that. I'm not saying anything like that. I don't know, but the framing was clear. Just to finish the story, the last word though, I bust this guy for 1989 and Derek is actually being funny dude. Turns to Dr. Phil and he points and he's like, I told you it's 1989, you know, it's a ha ha, everybody laughs. But they edited it to where the last word apparently came from one of them saying, but that's not even taught in schools, which is false. It's, they're not teaching.

He's my shoulder. He's all right. because he stuck me in the audience so he's your shoulder so he walked by like put his hand on my shoulder and like squeeze it or whatever so that makes him alright well he's nice enough for the circumstance I don't know he might not be alright he was a gay guy he was a guest on the show and I'm very good friends with his son so there you go right off of your own

Well, at least a conversation.

Correct. Correct. If they would have brought me and him out like him first, fine, whatever. And then me afterwards to kind of discuss and respond and then start bringing parents out would have been a very different structure for the show very different.

Would you reach out to any of those people? I don't interview people in mind, so I haven't reached out to anybody. I'd be willing to. Yeah, I mean, I certainly should. Yeah, I've seen lots of people try to get these things set up at some friends who concocted this scheme where people would give money and then like it build up a pot and get donated to either to the person participating or to charity, whatever, if they participated, it kind of like leverage debates and does that work for normal people, but when they've tried to get like Robin DeAngelo white or even candy or whatever. No, they just won't come. Even if you like exceed the amount that they're normal.

And they have a justification in house inside their theory that says that, you know, if they sat down and talked to you, you're already on like the bad list, right? You're already on the bad list? Well, you're on some bad lists, right? You're the right wing extremist now, according to everybody. Never voted right wing in my life. I know, right? I didn't until the last election. Did you vote for Trump? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I said it was going to and I had to go on TV and like multiple countries to explain myself. And why did you decide to vote for Trump? A variety of reasons. One was, I don't perceive Biden as being a radical. I perceive Biden as being corrupt. And so I figured he was going to get pushed around by his radical party. And other forces like possibly, you know, weird stuff with China, weird stuff with Ukraine or Russia or whoever might be involved, but China certainly. And what makes you think that Biden is corrupt? Did he's always been corrupt?

The guy the drove me the driver was like yeah a drove boat Joe Biden around here a few years ago. We got talking to that somehow and he's like he kept asking me.

He kept saying he's like, what city are we in? What city are we? And that was like four or five years ago. Wow. Yeah, and it's like that's not extra awesome.

But so I figured he was corrupt. I figured the media, which was holding Trump to account for everything he did and millions of things he didn't even do or say, was not going to treat Biden similarly. I figured they're going to run cover form. And I fundamentally believe that it's crucial to democracy that the or Republic really, that the press is holding power to account. Like, the press shouldn't be the megaphone of the administration. The press should be asking them tough questions. And I just perceived that's not going to happen. And then they were writing articles, which have not come true yet. But it told me what direction they were thinking that said things like, we should, you know, if we don't get our way with a Supreme Court, we should start ignoring the Supreme Court. Maybe we shouldn't actually have a Supreme Court. Maybe we should pack the Supreme Court. Maybe we don't need a Constitution anymore. These were like, you know, new republic level leftist magazines. This isn't like Joe Biden came on said that. But I watched Kamala support bailing out the Black Lives Matter rioters. I saw the rhetoric around all the racial equity stuff and knowing how critical race theory works to the degree that I do is like I can't support people are openly supporting critical race theory and it's initiatives like that's too scary so I was like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and Trump's like the last kind of like You know, rock on the train track that might derail this thing before it goes over. Well, people hated Trump so bad.

That was another ingredient too, right? The Biden laptop, Hunter Biden laptop disappearing. Like the media deciding, this is something we're not going to talk about. I was like, oh shit, the media is not going to play this right if he's president.

Yeah, I was like, no, I'm not going along with that and like if I have to bite the bullet to vote for Trump now I kind of think the guy's hilarious so I'm like, all right, he's pretty funny. Did you hang out with him?

I wasn't more log-o. He was like, he didn't beat me.

Is he? Yeah, he's apparently trimmed down quite a bit. Let me see some video.

And you know, my deep old school left. sensibilities, right? This is the only place on Earth. I've ever walked into and looked around and the first thing I thought was this place shouldn't exist. Really? It's so opulent. It's gorgeous. Like if there's five stars, five star, you know? It's like seven stars. It's a crazy crazy

Yeah, club event place. So I don't know what house? I mean he has quarters there. Yeah, quarters.

Yeah, I make it. Is it a, it's a winter White House, he said, remember? Right.

He's got his own little spot. Yeah. I went to, it was a fundraiser for Ken Paxton. And so who's that? Your, your Texas. He is your attorney general.

Who knows? Who knows?

I mean, he was a good 30, 40 feet away from me. What are you reading this from?

Yeah, but the one on the left is ridiculously orange.

I don't know. I don't know.

Maybe. I have no idea.

Yeah, maybe a little fake then. It looks fake as fuck because- It's also some other pictures like body shots. He looks like he lost some weight, like in his golf clothes or whatever.

So he's sitting on his phone all day.

It was a bit of a dis, it was a beginning of December.

Well, I was quite a few months ago. He was not thin when he was an office by any means.

You saw that picture that was going around the other day right with the fat the fat woman and it's supposed to be like the new face of fitness or something. Yes, that kills me. I hate that fat studies body positivity.

It's so bad for pin in the middle of COVID where we know Yes. Like, it does something with your fat cells and makes you die or whatever. Right. It's one of the comorbidities. It's like, come on.

But now I didn't meet Trump yet, so I might be coming.

That's what I'm telling you do. Same thing. It's like if it's ever call everything fat-phobic that you want to control until you control it.

And the only remedy is to destroy the existing civilization. And then you got cloud swabed over here saying, yes, destroy it. And we're going to move in our new freaking recess system. I'm telling you that's what's going on.

She's just wrong. Well, she's just sad. Remember that tastes like fake paper. You wrote about fat bodybuilding.

Yeah, fake papers and grievance studies. Yeah, studies, gender studies.

Yeah. Yeah. We're seven of them were accepted. One gun award for excellence. That was about dog sex.

Yeah, so what's it called again Human reactions to queer performativity and Something else in urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon rape culture queer form activity in rape culture in in Urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon So we we claim that we we we we spend a thousand hours as one person feminist watching dogs hump each other and fight each other in dog parks 1,000 hours is so long in a year. It's like five hours a day. And then across like a work week or whatever. So they didn't even investigate that.

And we said never in the heavy rain, which in Portland, right?

Yeah. And so, and then we said we, there were over 10,000 dogs that we interact with, which is so many. There's only like, you know, 20, 30 dogs are going to even park probably. It's just like the neighborhood park. And what we inspected their genitals when they, and then we would see how their owners reacted, you know, did they, in particular, did they praise like male on female dog rape, while being upset about male on male dog rape. And so the gay dog rape, if they were bothered by that, and we claimed that that's what they did.

Yeah, this one in the ward for excellence in scholarship. And we said that dog parks are canine and rape culture. They're petri dishes of canine rape culture, actually. And they are rape condoning spaces just like nightclubs.

Oh, yeah. I don't even know for sure if that one's parody or not.

Yeah, it starts with like, okay, a modest proposal or whatever, like the state should have.

I think it starts with a modest proposal blah blah, which means it would be satire.

Exactly. Exactly. And it's so hard. I'll tell you this in update to the Grewen study's papers that fat body building and just brought up. Yes. There is a neuroscientist. In fact, you remember that thing we're like the getting like the phobia of holes in things like the tripophobia or whatever they called it. Like something that looks like a honeycomb, you know, something the guy Jeff Cole is his name. The neuroscientist who identified that phobia wrote a paper saying that there's nowhere that you could stand to say that fat body building is actually ridiculous. I'm not kidding. He was like, you could not post no, there's no ability to have like genuine consensus about what's ridiculous and what's not ridiculous. And I was like, what?

Anything goes. Yeah. Anything goes. Right.

And this is a neuroscientist. This is in some like fat feminist that wants to justify being allowed to be fat and not have her feelings hurt. So like, yeah, dude. It's like, you can't tell it's a clown world. It's like literally like satire and reality. Look how many times a battle on B has been like fact checked or you know, they got fact checked. This is my favorite one to bring up. They got fact checked for saying that CNN buys giant washing machines so they can spin the news before they air it. And they got fact check on that. Like, they did not actually buy washing machines. Like, can you imagine how stupid you are being the straight man on that? Like, are they fact check by AI? Like, what are they fact check by? They're fact check by millennials probably. Do you think so?

That's, I mean, it's, it might be like, they've been fact checked a number of times though and things that are very obviously fake.

You know, that would be if it's genuine as positive

Sultonition says, you know, we know they're lying. They know they're lying. We know they know, you know, the whole thing.

Yeah, yeah, that attitude sucks. It sucks. It's like I remember when I was a kid like my mom being like, you know, what you're saying might be right, but your attitude sucks or whatever, you know, it's also an extreme lack of understanding of human nature.

I actually am hopeful. I am cautiously optimistic. It's not going to fix itself. But because of the drop-off of their, well, not specifically the drop-off, it's that they are so arrogant that they think they can just get away with anything. And what that causes is people to see through it. Yeah. And when enough people see through it, I mean, their ratings are going to drop 90% and then other forces are going to come into play or, you know, protests are going to start coming up or whatever else.

Yeah. Yeah. No, it's there. No, that entitlement. I'm, I'm cautiously optimistic because I think they're just going to keep making mistakes.

Right. Yeah. How is this racism or racism is a public health threat now or whatever else it is?

And that's the other thing. People get outrage fatigue. No one wants to listen to that crap all the time. People just want some normal life.

Like J6. Yeah. Like we have to be all really mad about this thing a year later and they pulled a bunch of Democrats and they're like, it's not really on my list of concerns.

What did Norm McDonald say about it? You know, he said, you know, how great it was that they respected the velvet ropes and statutory hall. What a genius.

Yeah, no, I think there is a happy ending. I think we are going through a bumpy time, but man, are they stupid? And it's like they can't understand why people don't like them. And that's always a good sign that they're probably not going to win.

That's right. That's right. So this is what I'm saying. I think we're going through, you know, that we talked about the enlightenment. I think we're going through the second enlightenment. I think we're, I talked earlier about like an aristocracy of ideas and the media figure heads and the professors and the experts get to decide what isn't true for people. I think the internet is allowing people to do their own research as it were and is burning that down. And we're going to have a real marketplace of ideas and we're going to have more freedom if we don't let them. I think they're like, they see their freedom slipping away and they're like grasping for it. And their power I should say is slipping away and they're grasping for it. And I think for a while I wasn't sure, but I'm pretty confident now like we're going to get through this and we're going to have a more free smarter society on the other side. It's not to say it's going to be smooth. for the next little while, and it's not to say that we can go to sleep and it'll just work itself out.

Did 10, 15 years with the working out?

No, no, no, like 70. How long will it be before we can get back to some semblance of normal life though? Right. Like that literally could be this year. You think so? Well, I mean, I'm not.

You know, I think we're going to have to. I think everywhere, I think the COVID narrative has fallen apart and it just looks like heavy-handed government authority abusing power to keep trying to voice this crap on people.

But the fact that we know that is proof that that information's getting out and it's going to keep getting out. These alternative sources that they don't want you listening to that CNN thinks that they should be, you know, getting the ratings instead. This is this is escaping their grasp. And if people actually stand up and say, no, we're not going to do this, you know, and we what's going to have to happen though. Here's what if you want the positive path that doesn't really matter too much if it's Republican or Democrat, but you're going to have more space in the Republican side of the aisle. The place where America is going to be put to the political test is going to be in the primaries this year. And because they're going to try to run a bunch of establishment stuages, because they now know the Democrats have no prospects. So they're going to try to run a bunch of establishment stuages in the Republican people to kind of just keep the pot on simmer. We have to fix the schools, though, because the schools are their next best hope. If they can screw up the kids, then they're going to be able to just try again in a few years. And, you know, throw another, you know, cultural bomb and we're having this more people become 18 years old.

Exactly. And so, if we're willing to, you know, do everything in our power to rescue the schools and to avoid going into this kind of like digital passport mentality, Then we can throw off their plans. And I think what's going to happen, I think what they're reaching for. So that's where so many people are being exposed as either frauds or maybe even criminals. And they don't want that to happen because they're going to lose all their power and maybe go to jail. And so they're trying to like clamp down and make sure you can't listen to different voices that might call them rightfully those things, right? They don't want to hear people like Dr. Malone come on here and say a bunch of stuff about COVID that makes them look like a bunch of either incompetent people or assholes or criminals. And so they've got to try it, but they can't put the cork back in the bottle. There's too many holes or whatever. It's bad metaphor, but it's broken bottle.

You know, you asked me last time I came on here if I was optimistic and I said, well, I have to be because I have no use for pessimism. I'm actually optimistic now. I'm like genuine, it's cautious, but I'm genuinely optimistic. But we all have to be willing. This is the most important thing. We have to be willing to stand up and we have to be willing to speak up. We have to be willing to say no. We're going to put people in office who are going to start safeguarding our freedom from big tech, safeguarding our freedom from these stupid medical, tyranny attempts. We're not going to go down fricking climate change passports next guys. We're just not, you're not going to, we need to put in safeguards for people like, like the bill or rights level that you can't take people out of society based on these stupid things, like whether it's big tech, squeezing people out, whether it's out of the space to speak or whether it's, you know, this medical apartheid or whatever they're doing. If we can put those, if we get the right people and get enough momentum behind it, get those people to say these things, to start figuring out the legalities of these things, to protect citizens again. We can actually get out of this.