#2119 - James Lindsay

How are you, sir? I'm good, Joe. Is your American masculine, are you sure? We both, we didn't even coordinate, but we're both wearing American flags. Yeah, well, I.

Well, how's your Mandarin? Yeah. It might be a good.

Well, they're probably, you know, it's just like a young man thing. Yeah. I mean, I've heard more specifically,

. Well, I wouldn't... It's not even really sneaking in anymore, is it?

There's always you land, they check out your stuff, they look at your paperwork, they go through your passport, they ask you questions, why are you in this country? You know, and it's always been that way. Like I was watching this video with Deadmau5, the musician, the DJ, he was trying to come into the country to visit his friend. And they said, no, you're coming into work. He's like, no, no, I'm coming because he's famous.

He works. He's like, no, I get paperwork. And they kicked him out of the country for like.

Yeah, well, that's good news. And his excuse was, he said that because all of the platforms are now allowing my disinformation, so let's just go back on Spotify too. Oh, yeah. Great to know you've got some ethics. Yeah, well, everybody's doing it these.

But yeah, I mean, there's a strategy. The reason the border is the way that it is, well, there's a strategy. I don't know who's playing the strategy, for sure. But the Cloward-Piven strategy, I'm sure you've heard of that. Somebody's got to have talked to you about the Cloward-Piven.

Can you explain it? Yeah, it's pretty simple. The idea is that you take advantage of a system and the way that it's set up so that you overwhelm it. In particular, in this case, you're going to overwhelm social services. You're going to overwhelm border enforcement.

You're going to overwhelm whatever they're doing in the cities. It's like tens of thousands of dollars per taxpayer or whatever per year, going to dealing what they're calling the migrant crisis. So you try to overwhelm the system in order to basically collapse it so that you can create a crisis, and the crisis creates the excuse to bring in new policies. Oh, well, maybe what we need is, what do they call it, e-verify or something. So we need a digital system where we can track who everybody is, but then they get their digital system and then you're off to the races.

But yeah, this is an old strategy, well-documented. Who do you think?

The UN is coming and doing aid and coaching them and somebody's organizing. It's not just a bunch of people from South America and China or wherever else, or Mexicans wandering up to the border and just, hey, I'm here. There's roots. It's caravans. There's help.

It's coordinated with a lot of money behind it. And we know that those organizations, the United Nations particularly, is helping this. So big players.

But no, I really am. I'm still. at the end of the day. I just kind of want to be left alone to live my life. You do your thing.

I'll do my thing. If you understand, there are two lines. Let's be real, clear. Before I say do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anybody, it's not clear enough. There are two lines.

Do you understand the difference between public and private? and do you understand the difference between adult and child? If you understand those two lines and you're on the right side of those, I don't care what you do in private, as long as it's with adults. I don't care what you do. Leave me alone.

I'll leave you alone. You're cool. I'm cool. Let's not interfere with one.

. The Chinese social credit system is real, right? This isn't some conspiracy out in the world. Whether or not it's coming to the United States is a question. Whether Americans would want it is a question, but it's in China.

It's real in China. It's been there for a decade. I've been to China. I've experienced life there. The fact of the matter is that worldwide verification system would set something like that up.

You can also overwhelm the US system so that all of a sudden it has to start taking some kind of an emergency measure to deal with whatever problems. We can talk about the crisis here in the United States, but, holy crap, look at what's going on in the UK. I was over there right at the end of October. So on October 7th, we all know what happened in Israel. And then all these huge protests broke out pro-Palestine.

So I had some places to go. I don't really give a shit about my surroundings all that much. I'm going to do what I want to do, as long as I'm not... So I'm walking against the grain up this, whatever they say, 150,000 or something like that people waving the Palestinian flag, walking down the street the other way on their march in London because I had to get where I was going. London's in trouble, right?

The UK is in trouble. When we start talking about this overwhelming the system, we're looking at these kind of much more generous social democracies, Sweden, Germany's hosed. I mean, their economy's, possibly in free fall, the UK. And at that point, what does the solution look like, right? How could they fix that problem?

now? Belgium's a big one. I was riding with this guy. I spoke at the EU Parliament this time last year. So I'm riding with this dude and it turns out he's like the European James Bond.

He's driving me from the airport and he's like, oh yeah, we've got to deal with this problem. I do all the security stuff or whatever. And he's talking to me about how you can get arrested if one of them starts a fight with you and you do anything about it, it's racism and you'll end up hauled before a tribunal. and it's happened to him. And it's like, we've got to start figuring out a way to get them out.

But it's like, how do you get them out? And I don't mean everybody. I mean, the people who are causing criminal problems, the people who aren't trying to follow Belgian law or UK law or whatever else. And they're going on TV saying this. There's that imam or whatever.

the other day that famously went on in London and it was like, we're going to take this country. We're not going to follow your rules. We're not going to follow your law. I don't remember what he said. So that's not exactly right.

A lot of information passes between these ears these days. But the fact of the matter is, the question becomes when you have a crisis at that scale, what are your options for fixing it? And I think that that's part of the Cloward-Piven strategies. How do you end up fixing a problem that's at that scale? I think they're doing the same thing.

To be honest with you, it sounds all crazy conspiratorial, but I think this is why I've been peddled to the metal with the transition stuff, the trans stuff. If you end up with a million kids, you've got a million kids. That really are on the medical system. What do you do with them? What do you do with a million kids?

And then their parents and their aunts and uncles. The whole system has to start bending around a reality that was manufactured and you can get some major changes. But it seems like this...

Whoever's funding it, at some point, had to sit down at a table, probably not exactly like this. It might not have as much cool stuff on it, but they sat down and they signed some contracts and said,

But I'm going to skip over and talk about Soros for a second, because we know that the Open Society Foundation has pushed a lot of this kind of stuff too. And it's a lot of people don't understand Soros. or what is the open society that he's talking about? Well, it's based off of, a lot of people don't know, Soros' mentor was the famous Karl Popper. And Karl Popper wrote a book in 1945 called Open Society and Its Enemies.

And so the open society is what we've been taking for granted, basically, in the post World War II era. And it's what we want. That's where it's a free society, it's a high trust society, people can do what they want, they don't have to worry about whether they're going to get carjacked all the time or whatever else. And Soros is like, well, you could have that in the nation, or you could have that, where there's kind of one open society in the globe. So a lot of people start thinking that he's working with China, but he doesn't like China, because China doesn't have an open society, that's not what he wants.

But the idea that there's this line that comes across the south of Texas and New Mexico and Arizona and California, where arbitrarily, so to speak, the United States says, this is our land and Mexicans have to stay out, he'd be against that. This should be like an open, Pan-American kind of mega continent, kind of in his mind, with one society. So what do you have to do? Well, you have to dissolve a border. And how can you dissolve a border?

Well, make so many people be able to cross that border through changes legally and through flooding the system, so that the border doesn't really mean anything anymore. Because borders are simple, right? What is a border? It's a line. we draw on a map, and we say laws on this side of this border mean this, and laws on the other side of this border are different, right?

U.

S. has law, Mexico has law, and this line is where we have U.S. law versus Mexican law on one step across, and now you're in another set of laws. That's what they mean. That's what borders are, as a political entity.

But if you can water that down, so it's like, well, there's so many people coming across, is there really a border?

That's the idea, because Soros' idea is a global, open society. Everything in the whole globe, maybe, I don't know if it's that extreme, but maybe you don't need passports, you don't cross... It's like the EU, but for the.

Wouldn't a better option be America, but for the whole world? I would say so, because

You ever watched that show? No. That lady is a gangster. Oh, man. She goes to the craziest place.

She goes to Colombia and watches them make cocaine, and then goes through the jungle with them when they have it on their backs. So she did one in Los Angeles, where it turns out that cops, dirty cops in LA, are confiscating weapons and then selling them to the cartel. And they just drive into Mexico with them, because nobody checks you when you go into Mexico. So these guys have trunkfuls of AKs, and they're just driving into Mexico, and she goes with them. Holy crap.

The whole episode is documenting this. And we'll see, we're not sneaking into there. No. You could just go right into there. Yeah.

They're sneaking into here. With the best case scenario, is it even possible to have this everywhere? Well, that's what we wanted, right? And that was the whole idea of spreading democracy, but it doesn't.

Power is a big one. And the fact is, when you start getting divorced too far away from... Mexican issues, being ruled over in, say, Ottawa is a little bit difficult, right? Right. So there's that kind of stuff.

But there's also a huge geopolitical.

. I hate misusing that word. I learned what the word geopolitical really means. It means politics of earth, things, like waterways, oceans, dams. Oh, interesting.

And it's going to be not just trade. I mean, China doesn't exactly trade on fair terms. They're going to go and basically exploit places. We'll build you a nice airport. We'll build you a nice port.

We'll build you some highways. By the way, they all go straight to the mine and we're taking all of your lithium when we come in. That's your deal. And now you're economically dependent on us. Pretty standard game that they're playing.

And that Belt and Road Initiative actually is a competing interest to spreading democracy around the world. So I know Vivek Ramaswamy really hit this out of the park, where he said, we went over to China and said, let's spread democracy to China. So in a sense, we bit off way more than we could chew, if you want to think of it that way. Let's spread democracy to China. And China was like, ha, ha, ha, yeah, let's see.

And they flipped the table on us and made it so that if you want to get in the Chinese market, so first they become the manufacturing base of the world. But then, if you want to play in the market, what do you have to do? Well, the CCP puts up a firewall. And if you don't play by the Chinese rules, you don't get into China. So now Nike and all these big corporations and all these other...

NBA, I named Nike because it just keeps coming to mind. But there's a huge consumer market over there that's buying up stuff like crazy. That's one of the things I witnessed in China. Everybody's starting to have money. So they're buying up brand name stuff everywhere that they can, all the time to show that they have some money now.

And huge market. So they want into the market. The market's gigantic. It's a manufacturing base. So relationships are built.

But if you want to play, you play by Chinese rules. So spreading democracy partly didn't work, because we have to play by China's rules. And their Belt and Road Initiative is meant to create a global south network. So we're the global north. That's South America, parts of Africa, a lot of Indonesia, India, and then China.

Of course, BRICS just throws Russia into that mix, but otherwise, that's who you're talking about. And China's setting itself up to be the kind of global superpower or hegemon of that entire project. And we're talking about the flow of trillions of dollars of goods and oil and energy and whatever every year. So that's a huge thing to play with. And it turns out, I don't think...

If we take Vivek's line, we got outfoxed in the deal. So spreading democracy, there are lots of these cultural reasons. Oh, they're not ready for democracy. I don't know. Maybe some places, maybe not some places, but there are other pressures too that we've been asleep to.

We have not been paying attention as a country. Maybe some of our state department people have been to China for the way that we should have been. We should have been in the 80s and 90s like, oh no, China. But we were like, oh yeah, China. Okay, cool.

Make all of our cheap stuff for us. Well, they've done an amazing.

And I'm picking on Nike. How's Boeing? Let's pick on Boeing instead. How is Boeing communist? How is Disney communist, right?

They're huge mega corporations. What did Google just lose over? stupid AI? $90 billion or something. It's something insane.

I didn't even know they had that much money to lose. And it's like, holy crap. And stockholder value or whatever, or shareholder value. I think it was only $9 billion. Was it?

I thought that was Bud Light. that was 9.. No, no. Bud Light was 27.. Look at what we're haggling over.

Insane amounts of money. 11, 12 figure. I know, right? Yeah. And so it's at least 10 figure numbers of money.

Elon kind of rolls in that department, but nobody else does. So anyways,

where was I going with this? Because this is huge. Oh, the communists. Why? How in the world are these huge things communist, right?

So communism didn't work, right? Soviet Union sucked. North Korea sucked. Cuba sucks. I'm sure it's geographically beautiful, but we know those places are dysfunctional as hell.

We can go to the Eastern Bloc. They're still devastated in a lot of ways. They're still not all the way together. Communism didn't work. But if we think of what Marx did leading up to say 1917, when Lenin kind of took over as communism 1.0, that never really even got off the ground.

Then Lenin got it off the ground and you get the Soviet model, which is.

. Soviet just means committee, by the way, if you didn't know that. It's like a ruling council or committee. So the Soviet model takes over with what they called Marxism-Leninism, and that worked, kind of. It worked.

They still had it in China until Mao died. They had it in Soviet Union until what, 89,, 90, 91, something like that when it fell. But what happened was when Mao died, the Soviet Union wasn't doing great. It was starting to fall apart. A new model got picked up and nobody's...

We talk about Mao Zedong sometimes, and I would love to talk to you all day about Mao. That's my new research project. But we don't talk about his successor. His successor was Deng Xiaoping. And this is where I actually disagree with Vivek about what I was just saying.

Deng Xiaoping had a saying that was, I don't care if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice. And what he was talking about is I don't care if we use markets or we use a Soviet-style central committee to organize our society as long as China's economy comes back. That's what he really meant. And so Deng didn't come up with this new model to open the markets on his own. We didn't go to China necessarily just to spread democracy.

We went to build China. And who's we? Well, let's name the names. Who was in the meeting? And there's a movie about...

Some of these meetings were in China and there's not a movie, but there's a movie called Mr. Deng Goes to Washington. that took place in Washington, D.C. So you can go watch the movie. I'm not making this up.

Deng Xiaoping was the leader of China. He's already networking with Klaus Schwab from the World Economic Forum in a spacesuit, but he meets with... And the list of people were Henry Kissinger, Zhibinu Brzezinski, allegedly T.H. Chan, David Rockefeller, and the sitting new emperor or whatever, CCP chairman of China, Deng Xiaoping. And they cook up this plan to open Chinese markets.

And the plan was to maybe to spread democracy into America, but I suspect it was mostly to get really rich. We open those markets, huge amount of money, giant multinational corporations are not tied to any geographical place, and they can get rich off their balls. Now, some of these guys, I think, were also ideologically motivated. The Rockefellers have funded communist crap all over the world for a very long time. China was communist.

Deng Xiaoping said, I'm not opening the market for the market, I'm opening the market for socialism, to make socialism productive. And so I think there was more of a plan there than we take into account, which means Vivek gives... I need a tinfoil hat. Vivek sees that our motivations in building China were necessarily good. I think the motivations for building China were to create the pincher of a trap that's called Thucydides trap in ancient kind of military strategy, that the only escape from would be to facilitate China's rise and decimate the West in order to avoid a nuclear-tipped World War III.

And I think they knew what they were doing,

. If there are conspiracies, the James Bond villain, kind of not quite out of central casting.

. I can't vet that for positive, sure, but that's what I have heard.

. He has an interview he gave. where he's in his office and behind him, up on the bookshelf, is a bust of Lenin. How the hell did that get there? Other than Jordan Peterson, who puts one of those up?

Communists. Jordan's studying them, and that's why he puts them up as a reminder. No shade at Jordan, obviously, but Klaus has got some big ambitions, I think, and his mentor is Kissinger.

And his father did what?

Okay. So who is this gentleman?

Claim. George Soros worked for Hitler. Okay. But what did his dad do? This book that I read was about elite power structures, and they go into the World Economic Forum.

I wish I could remember exactly what they were saying, but it was something to the tune of who his dad worked with.

my source for his mentor being Kissinger is a book that was published by the World Economic Forum, called The World Economic Forum, The First 40 Years, which was published in 2011, to brag about how cool they've been. He also brags that in 78, he started making connections and trying to bring the stakeholder, as he called it, capitalism model into China, which is what China actually installed. It's this dirty fusion of neoliberalism, which is basically how do you get huge corporations to basically suck off of the government? That's the thing the left has been mad about for 50 years. How do you fuse that to communism?

And China's the answer. And what I think is all this ESG stuff was constructed around it to make the West have it too.

. What is it? Environmental Social Governance?

. What is the goal of ESG?

It's like passive, right? Mutual funds, index fund, all this, mutual funds, particularly 401ks. There's state pension funds in particular, $6 trillion in the world sitting out there. That's just people's retirement funds, gaining interest, playing in the market through this money management. And the question James Gifford asked was how...

He was a forest guy. He was like, how do we apply that to saving the forest? Save the trees, right? And so he came up with this idea that if we had environmental assessments, anytime, you have a metric, you can use that metric in some way or another, in other words, or you can game that metric. If we had metrics to say, well, how environmentally compliant are companies?

Like kind of an extension of corporate social responsibility, they used to call it. If we can measure that, then what we can do is we can start directing... We can say, well, companies that have good environmental policy have a better long-term portfolio, but these are 30-year investments because they're people's pensions. So that's long-term success that we're interested in, not boom and bust cycles in the market. So the stated ambition, not just to do what I said, but it's specifically to do that, to bring that passively invested money into what they call impact investing.

In other words, to do activism with investor money by investing in green energy companies or green other environmental companies or socially just companies or companies with good governance. And in principle, at least the good governance thing should work. But the thing is, is corruption exists. I don't know how they neglected to account for that if we'd give them all the credit in the world. So, like right now, it's super corrupt.

I just did a podcast about this where I had this document. It's not like some mysterious document. It's on the Harvard website where they're talking about corporate bonuses, right? So it's Harvard corporate law website document. And they're talking about corporate bonuses and the corporate bonus structure and that your governance score, your ESG score, so the G part will go up if you give corporate bonuses to yourself for implementing ESG.

That's just naked corruption, right? And so they can come in and say, well, you want to go to ESG score and they can make that important or whatever. I guess they have made that very important because everybody's doing it. And they say, well, if you want a good ESG score, you need to put an activist on your board, or 30% women on your board, or DEI requirements on your Boeing board. Or you have to have a good corporate equality index score, which is published by the Human Rights Campaign, which means that you're not just having a non-discriminatory workplace for LGBT, but you're also promoting LGBT agendas.

You're lobbying on behalf of bills one way or the other. And the legislature will tell you which ones. A couple of years ago, they told the airlines they needed to fly around activists to the pride parade, so they'd have more people at them for reduced prices. Oh, yeah. Why do you think Dylan Mulvaney's face was on a beer?

can? The whole fallout of the Dylan Mulvaney explosion at Bud Light, all of it was about the CEI score, because then the Human Rights Campaign came out and said, well, you didn't stand up for Dylan, so we're going to lower your score anyway. And they were like, oh, no. And then everything got all tossed up. These numbers mean a lot to people.

So the stated goal was to create a set of measurements that they could use to justify taking trillions of dollars, of other people's money and doing activist, investing with it.

And then all turned into. the S is now DEI. It's woke. It's woke. social justice.

It's not social responsibility. It's whatever they want. Elon Musk bought Twitter and his social score for Tesla went through the floor. What did that have to do? And now, all of a sudden, Tesla's a racist company.

they accused him of. What are you talking about, right? They didn't like that. he bought Twitter. Weapons.

manufacturers like Dick Cheney's Halliburton, were social. bad, bad, bad, bad. And then, all of a sudden, the conflict in Ukraine breaks out and they're like, oh, we need missiles. And they changed the score basically overnight, because the social environment of the world changed. These are real things.

This is all verifiable. So I think it's an instrument. Maybe it wasn't meant to be in 2003.. Maybe the guy just wanted to save the trees. But it's become an instrument of control and effectively a social credit system for corporations to force corporations.

And that's what Larry Fink said about it on TV. He said, I'm sure we can find the video and pull it up where he says that we're interested in forcing.

Because he had a crazy interview in 2004. nobody knows about, and I think.

I'll get down here. There's a post. Look at it. That's not him. That's not his dad.

So that's a fake photo. Right. That starts there. Okay. There is, he was, he worked at this company, Eicher Weiss.

Yeah. Yeah. This is where like, there's like, there's no proof, but it also says it's not definitive. But there's no actual like... It says Hitler's father, on the other hand, was the managing director of a subsidiary of Zurich-based engineering firm, Eicher Weiss.

The history of Eugen's relationship with Nazism in general is complex, but there's no substantive, substantive evidence of ties to high-ranking German leadership, particularly Hitler. No evidence. A fact check published by accredited German journalist DPA used denazification records to uncover that Eugen Schwab was a member, Schwab was a member of some national socialist organizations, but that alone does not prove any relationship to German high command or a belief in Nazi ideology. But wait a minute, but the German national socialist organizations back then essentially were Nazis. Yeah.

That is by definition Nazi. That's what it means. Like, that's what Nazi means, right? National socialist, yeah. So this is a weird sort of...

So they ran prison camps with probably Jews. So what does that mean? That's what the Nazis did. Are we arguing over semantics?

But what they're not discrediting is that he did exactly what was horrific about what the Nazis did in World War II.

I'm an extremist now, by the way, Joe?

Anyway, I'm funny.

So you're a comedian, you get it, right? I made a series of tweets mocking George Floyd on January 6th.

. Well, did you see about that Flemish guy who was a part of the government, who's just got sentenced to one year in jail for sharing racist memes in a private chat?

The Flemish guy? Yes. I'm reading it right now. I was trying to find out where they found those things. Tweets, what the memes were, if they're any good.

It says they were accused of using a chat group to exchange racist, anti-Semitic, and other extremist comments, but I'm not.

. Right, but is it... But they're saying memes. The problem with memes is it could just be funny. It could be like the Jews in the tunnel in New York City.

Yeah, right. And something crazy like they're encountering Gollum down there, and that's a racist meme.

You want to go full tinfoil hat. Who do you want to have a war with? Do you want to have a war with Trump supporters, or do you want to have a war with the people who wear pink hats and are mad?

It's the same thing over and over again, whether it's COVID, whether it's.

deplorables, which kind of backfired big time, right? And then whether it's all the identity politics, whether it's the environmental stuff, even with this, though, what they do, and this is the politics of compliance. I just did this for Robert Maloney had me come speak at his international crisis summit. And I'm sitting there and I have to talk. It's like nine in the morning.

I'm not awake yet. I'm not a morning person. I'm like, what the hell am I going to talk about? And so I get an idea comes to my head, politics of compliance. So what it is, is that you start off by saying, look, we're going to have this glorious, better world, but there are people who are keeping us from getting there, right?

So there are the people who want to move forward into the glorious, better world. But then there's the enemies of the people who are dragging their feet, the deplorables, the climate deniers. It doesn't matter if the climate change thing is true or not, because there's a label. now, right? The Christian nationalists, there's a label now, the racists, the transphobes.

So we could have unity, but we can't have unity. You are making the sacrifice. You got the shot in your arm. You did what you were supposed to, but we can't open up a society yet because these other people are dragging their feet or resisting. So you have to have ways, then, why the fitness thing, right?

You have to have ways to identify who the people are that aren't going along with the program. So it's like you, you got blown up for this. You're like, well, I got COVID. I feel like shit. I feel really, really bad.

Did you know, by the way, last time I was here, I went home with COVID, even though we did the test. You got COVID? Yeah. I went home. I had COVID.

How'd you get it, do you think? I think from when I went out to dinner after this, because I felt fine until I got home. So...

That it was like, the person, I would have gone out to dinner. I wouldn't have thought I was sick.

all happened to you. I don't remember exactly what happened, but you were the pariah, man. Why? Well, one of the things I remember you talking about was health and fitness. Like, I'm healthy, I'm fit.

I got this set of drugs. I took. it, seems to work. I felt way better, real quick. And they can't have that if they're trying to create this dynamic that all the people who are staying home and wearing a mask and cowering in fear, primarily, or later getting the shot...

And that's a huge problem for that group of compliant people. And if you can whip them up or create conditions with misuses of power, like many of our state governments and national federal government did, Canada really did, and say, well, we have to keep everything closed down for your safety. And we could open it back up, except disinformation, right-wing extremists like Joe Rogan are out there pushing the wrong ideas. Well, in that case, you can get people to hate the person who's not going along with the program. That's why I call it the politics of compliance.

So I'll sort of walk you through it. Okay. Okay.

This is the sentencing that happened.

Is that like depicting guns in a favorable way? Like, what is their law? It could be that... As if it's a meme. Isn't that wild?

Like gun law, like meme?

Is that what they're saying with gun law? Or is it just photographs of the guns? This is the report from the 2018 documentary that got made about them. Some guy got infiltrated and got into their Discord, I think is where they were sharing some of the stuff. So these are far-right, allegedly far-right people in Belgium.

Not showing the audience this, but this shows some of the memes, I guess.

Another obviously Nazi meme. Mm-hmm. So these are problematic. You can't be racist if there's only one race. Okay, that's like an anti-Hitler meme.

Something like that with the guns might have been the problem. Just holding the gun. So here's the thing, is that gun illegal there? I don't know which one. That didn't explain it.

Let's Google, just pause for a second and open up a new tab and Google Belgian gun laws. I want to know if they have laws similar to... There's some countries that have a high population of people having guns. Firearms are generally not allowed in Belgium, but goods such as switchblades and pepper spray are also considered a prohibitive weapon. Okay, so you can't carry a gun.

Click on that. Can citizens carry a gun in Belgium? See, if there's any, see where it says it right there? Just click on that. Whether an arm is legal or illegal mainly depends on who owns it, while most people are prohibited from owning or using automatic firearms, they are not illegal per se.

The armed forces and the police may use them. Traders may procure these arms for them and arms collectors can own them. So if these guys were an armed collector, they could own them, but that gun was an automatic weapon, I think. I'm not really a gun expert and I only got a quick glance at it, but it looked like an automatic weapon. At the very least, a semi-automatic weapon.

Could have been that. It had a large magazine. Go to the photo again of the gun. Let me take a look at it. So either way, it seems like unless you're a security person, yeah, that's an automatic weapon.

Unless you're a security person, it might not be. It could be an AR. It could be a semi-automatic weapon. I don't know. But at the end of the day, it seems like unless you're military or police, you're not supposed to own that.

Right. So that could be the gun law. They had a photo of it. That makes me feel a little bit better than if it's just a gun meme.

That's fucking ridiculous.

And this is what's going on in Gaza, in Israel, right now.

It's fucking horrible. We should abhor racism with everything.

We should just treat everyone as individuals.

The non-resistance against arbitrary power is to be considered slavish, absurd, and against the good and happiness of mankind or something like that. So we should resist racism's arbitrary power. You don't know that guy. His skin color doesn't tell. It's arbitrary to dislike him or to exclude him or whatever, whether he's white, whether he's black, whether he's Hispanic, it doesn't matter.

Same thing with sexism. You don't know what that woman's capable of. for sure. Let her try. It doesn't mean you change the standards, right?

And so this is the pattern that has been exploited. And this is where the double standards came from. You should give us access. And our sensibilities are like, hell. yeah, we should give people access.

Let them try. Let them in. Don't exclude people. Racism sucks. Homophobia sucks.

The sexism sucks. Misogyny is awful. Let them in. But then what happens is they say, well, you're not accommodating us. You're not accommodating.

So it's like firefighters. It's like, well, we got to lower the standard. Or military, we got to lower the standard so more women can pass the test. Well, now we've got a problem, right? And so after you make the accommodation, then you've changed the political structure.

And it's one thing if that's just about people. But it's like almost all this stuff seems to forget that manipulators and sociopaths and psychopaths exist.

You're like, how did I get here? But that's the thing. It's like. I'm all in this restorative justice thing in the school. So let's sit around and have a talk circle and talk it out.

Two kids get in a fight or whatever. Somebody's doing some antisocial something. Let's talk it out. They're the group. And let's heal.

All right. So it sounds a little hippie to me, but fine. Let's look at it.

Some percentage, I would guess it's probably three or four, not very big, of the population. Just to throw a guess out there, because that's roughly where you start. What's the total number of psychopaths, borderline personality, and so on? It's about 3% or 4% of the population. They're going to be like, oh, I can get away with this.

Oh, I'm not going to get in trouble if I bust some other kid's head at school. I just have to sit in a talk circle and say, oh, I'm sorry. OK, whatever. And then it's all over and we've healed. There are people who will game a system.

And it's like this kind of like empathy-driven airy fairy, if we just gave everybody money, there would be no crime. nonsense is driving us off of a cliff. And it's causing these fights in our schools through terrible policies, like restorative justice policies. A lot of it's in criminals. I remember all these articles back a year or two ago.

I don't know if they're still publishing them. It's like, if we just paid people not to commit crime, they wouldn't commit crime.

We want the best people to.

. And we want competition, which is what allows people to get better. And it allows us to have the best products and the best thing, and the best music and the best art. But what is this?

aims to decrease gun violence by paying high-risk individuals at least $300 a month to stay out of trouble.

That just means don't get caught. That just means don't get caught. And also, how do you make your money? 300 bucks is not going to cover...

But if you can keep it so, there's no equality of opportunity, if you can keep it that way, you're never going to really get a meritocracy. And that would be a better way to control it. Yeah, sure. I mean, this is full tinfoil hat. The reason why all these social justice people are so excited about pumping billions of dollars into Ukraine and billions of dollars into whatever's happening with Israel and Palestine, but zero talk about doing that to Baltimore, zero talk about doing that to Detroit, like...

. Well, Maui is... That's a different thing, but that is also another thing. But no, I feel you because of the crime. Yeah, the crime.

But like, hey, there's got to be a way to fix this. There's got to be some sort of a solution. But if you don't, if we never get, not in 10 or 20 years, never get to equality of opportunity, you're always going to have a certain amount of disenfranchised people. You have a portion of your population, for sure, that's going to be in trouble. They're going to have problems.

Then you always got solutions. You've always got opportunities. You've got like this little moving game. Yeah. If everything is even, and then it's just competition, and then America thrives to be the greatest utopian idea of what we'd hoped it would be, well, then it's really difficult to control people because they recognize that freedom is one of the most important aspects of having this kind of amazing opportunity to do whatever the fuck you want.

We just saw this. This woman was in the Fox News this morning, so I had to double check. But she's talking about, was she from Maryland? She's in the government. She says that she wants to burn the country to the ground, so her ideology can rise out of it, out of the ashes.

And she's the equity coordinator in one of these cities. If you can find it, Jamie, you can pull it up. I don't know. It was on Fox News. Equity coordinator, burn city, rise from the ashes.

You'll probably find it. So we know who's causing these crime problems. It's those DAs. We know who ran the DAs, who paid the money to run them, is the Open Society Foundation. They call them Soros DAs.

We finally broke the spell saying that this very, very rich man, and now his very, very rich son, are using their very large amounts of money to do things that aren't necessarily great politically.

It's real. He said that he thinks he's a god. He said that he always suspected that he might be a god. And he kind of controlled it for a long time. And then finally, finally, he just kind of realized he is.

And he kind of gave into it.

Right. Do you know the definition of equity? What is it? It is an administered system in which...

What's the word I'm looking for? It's an administered system in which shares are adjusted so that citizens or participants are made equal. So it's not equality of opportunity. It's shares are adjusted so people are made equal. So that's when you and I go to the range and I shoot the bow and I suck.

And you shoot the bow and you put it through the hole. Then Jamie goes over and pulls my arrow out, moves it over three inches and sticks it in. And, like, James, tied you. I can't beat you. I have to tie you.

Right. Or we pull your arrow out of the bullseye and we move it over and put it right below mine in the third or fourth ring out. Actually, I missed the target. But let's not brag about myself.

Do you need competition?

Party with my friends on this yacht. That's what he wants. So that's why he's willing to work so hard. If you fucking get free money, you're not going to work that hard. And you're not going to get the Samsung S24 Ultra.

No. You're not going to get that.

I want to burn it all down. I don't want to work.

Thank you. It is. It's a cult. It's a cult. Okay.

So what it is, ideology is a fancy word for a mythology that the society buys into, that has a direction and it has activity. It's a cult. What we're looking at is the dynamics of a cult. Everything will work out if everybody believes it. We know how it'll work.

Nobody else knows how it'll work. It put us in charge. Obviously, when it doesn't work, somebody else is at fault. That's actually... Do you know that that's actually...

You can talk to people who still believe the Soviet Union could have worked out, and they say the reason the communist countries failed, because obviously, there are catastrophes, hundreds of millions dead, nothing works, they collapse. They say that it was because there are capitalist countries pressuring them from the outside that prevent them from working. So you can say, I've had this conversation. So it can only work if every country is communist, and they're like, that's right. That's a global cult, is what that is.

That's not real. That's fantasy land. And I think, because equity means socialism, as I just told you, I think that that redistribute shares to make participants equal. I think that that actually kind of shows that this is cult mentality that we're dealing with.

And then somehow attached it to funding international conflicts.

at the same time? China is the model. We're seeing it build out in the West. This stuff like we now are seeing proof, it just came out the other day that the Chinese are like funding the trans stuff. They're like pushing it, right?

I just wrote a book. I didn't even know that to put it in the book. I wrote a book about the trans stuff. It just came out on the 29th, called The Queering of the American Child, to talk about how schools have been turned into like indoctrination centers. It all goes back to the not just Marxist, but Maoist strategy to make the world conform, that politics of compliance, to make the world conform to this new ideological vision that they have.

And it's gotta be, like we were saying, it's gotta be religious to the people who believe it.

You can't rationalize values through the intellectual process alone. It requires faith.

It's like they have a flag on their fucking porch and they wave their kids around, and it's weird. And it's not everybody. No. It's not everybody. But it's not everybody that has trans kids, or a kid who thinks he's trans is probably gay.

And probably if you leave them alone and don't encourage them to castrate themselves.

Almost nothing. And so...

Of course they're getting sued, right? Of course they're getting sued. Some plaintiff comes in, the ACLU, shows up with an army of lawyers and they're like, it's civil rights, it's medically necessary, blah, blah, blah. And then it's a battle in the court and it depends on who the judge is. There's another way.

Missouri actually more or less stopped this stuff with one simple change to the law. They changed the statute of limitations for medical harm. So my thought is, if you're under 20 and you undergo some of this medical treatment, you have a 20-year statute of limitations. Anybody who gets the surgery done, surgeries, hormones, whatever, under 20 years old, they have until their 40th birthday. if they decide they regret it to file a malpractice suit.

Not to win the malpractice suit, but to file one. The statute of limitations in Missouri previous to that was either two or three years and they extended it. And I don't know exactly how long. And it basically shut it down. We could shut a lot of this down because America, like you said, works differently.

We don't have socialized medicine. We could shut this down through litigation. And that litigation, all you have to do is open what they call rights to action. So let's say I'm in my 40s, so it's not like that. But if I'm a 19-year-old or 17-year-old or 15-year-old, like Chloe Cole was, and I go and I get surgery, say I get my breasts removed or my genitals cut up or whatever, and then come my 27th, 28th birthday, I'm like, woof, I got talked into that.

I shouldn't have done it. I feel like I was misled by my doctors. I want to file a lawsuit. Right now, usually you cannot. I mean, some of these detransitioned teenagers are suing.

You know, Chloe was. And you know Chloe, right? Chloe Cole.

So there's this queer educator, which is a fucking weird thing to even say, right? His name's Kevin Kumashiro. And Kevin Kumashiro wrote his paper back in 2002, titled Against Repetition. And in this paper, he actually says that the point of social justice, and specifically queer education, is to lead children into personal crisis and then structure their environment so they resolve the crisis toward social justice. That's trauma bonding.

That's cult recruitment. That should be a prison sentence.

And they know they're doing it. They're leading them into personal crisis. It's like hard to even say the sentencing and you get mad. Because these are children.

They say that too. There are papers against childhood innocence, saying that it's a social construct meant to protect some kids and not others, and meant to preserve normalcy and white heteronormativity and all of this other crap.

And, by the way, it's almost always men. You are empowering the creepiest of creeps.

01%.

Let me give you another definition. This is a book called St. Foucault, naming the Michel Foucault, the postmodern guy we made fun of back in the grievance studies papers. And so Michel Foucault is lionized in this book. And this is the book where queer and queer theory gets defined.

David Halperin wrote it. 95 is the date. And it's right there. in the paragraph that he writes defining queer. It starts with these three words, unlike gay, identity.

Has virtually nothing to do with gay people. Why? He says, because that's rooted in a positive truth. You're gay, right? That's a truth.

You're gay. He says, queer need not be grounded. He says, in any positive truth or any stable reality, it is whatever is opposed to the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant.

. I hate using huge words on shows. It's homonormativity. is what they call that. If you consider being gay normal as a normal part of society, that's homonormativity.