0:07

up everybody welcome to a brand

0:09

new episode of part of the problem

0:11

very quickly before we get started just

0:13

a reminder i will be in boston

0:15

massachusetts at laugh boston with roby the

0:18

fire burnstein that's coming up in a

0:20

couple weeks comic Dave smith.com for ticket

0:22

links very excited to get back to

0:24

boston one of my favorite comedy towns

0:26

in the world and then of course

0:29

a reminder there are still some seats

0:31

left i will be debating Alex Nora

0:33

Tesh at the Soho Forum. The Soho

0:35

forum.org is the website. That's the debate

0:38

series run by the great Gene Epstein.

0:40

If you're in the New York City

0:42

area, make sure you come by. It's

0:44

going to be a lot of fun.

0:46

All right. Always a good day when

0:48

I'm joined by the great Keith Knight.

0:50

He is the managing director of the

0:52

Libertarian Institute. Also, he is the author

0:54

of domestic imperialism, phenomenal book. I highly,

0:56

highly recommend it. And of course, you

0:58

guys over at the Libertarian Institute. We

1:00

mentioned this when Scott was on last

1:02

week, but you guys are in the

1:04

middle of your fund drive. So why

1:06

don't you, real quickly, before we get

1:08

into the show, tell people about the Institute

1:10

and the fundraiser and how they can help.

1:13

Well, as much as we love

1:15

complaining about the corporate press and

1:17

the state education system and how

1:19

horrible the universities are, we actually

1:22

want to create an alternative for

1:24

people to go to at Libertarian

1:27

institute.org, use our search engine to

1:29

type in any historical issue, any

1:31

economic issue, any philosophical issue,

1:33

and get the proper. idea

1:35

of how society should be organized

1:38

through social cooperation as opposed to

1:40

coercion by the state. So that's

1:42

what we're trying to do at

1:44

the Libertarian Institute, create a free

1:46

online educational archive for everyone. You can

1:48

write off any donations on your taxes

1:51

and if you pay 50 bucks you

1:53

can actually get a physical book in

1:55

exchange for a donation. So check

1:58

it out at Libertarian institute.org. Yeah,

2:00

dude, I mean I've been saying this at this

2:02

point because me and you both like we've

2:04

we've known each other for years now and

2:06

I've known Scott for years and I knew

2:08

I remember when Scott was first starting up

2:10

the Libertarian Institute when it was just an

2:12

idea and then kind of watching it get

2:14

bigger over the years and at this point

2:16

it really is like people will ask me

2:18

like, oh, what's a good reading list to

2:20

get started? and i've been more and more

2:22

finding myself going just go look at the

2:24

books the libertarian institute is published i mean

2:26

they really are like like i i your

2:28

book domestic imperialism was phenomenal the the best

2:31

book on Ukraine, the best book on

2:33

COVID, I mean like literally like I'm not

2:35

exaggerating if there was one book to read

2:37

about the Ukraine war it's provoked if there

2:39

was one book to read about the COVID

2:42

crisis it's diary of a psychosis by the

2:44

great Tom Woods and that's just those are

2:46

just three of the list of books which

2:49

is up there's got to be 20 books

2:51

something like that at this point that the

2:53

institutes put out and there are just every

2:55

last one of them is phenomenal so. The

2:58

best organization you can support if you are

3:00

in a position to do it. Please go

3:02

please go help those guys that so we

3:04

can keep doing all this cool stuff.

3:06

All right. So me and you had talked

3:09

the other day about doing this show. and

3:11

we were talking about like maybe doing an

3:13

episode on kind of the woke left and

3:15

then this argument now over the woke right

3:17

and it just weirdly we plan this I

3:19

promise you have to take my word for

3:21

it but we were planning this before I

3:23

got in a little bit of a twitter

3:25

back and forth with constant and consent last

3:27

night and it was just maybe part that

3:29

kind of informed me because that was in

3:31

my mind too but it really was we'll

3:33

get back to that part but it really

3:36

was just like I just it was one of

3:38

those moments where I just found myself

3:40

being But how can you, the same guy who

3:42

said this, now be saying this and not

3:44

have any type of like, you're not

3:46

feeling like that, that cognitive dissidents

3:48

vibe in your mind? Like it's

3:50

not vibrating right now and you're going,

3:53

huh, well I can't, I can't really

3:55

say this because my entire identity was

3:57

that. And so anyway, this is, this

3:59

is why. to me, it's been an

4:01

interesting kind of online debate. I'm

4:03

not sure if the term woke

4:05

right can be, you know, revitalized

4:07

or if it can be appropriately

4:10

applied, but I think it's an

4:12

interesting conversation to have nonetheless. So

4:14

you want to start with the

4:16

woke left maybe and then we'll

4:18

get into the woke right divide

4:20

or how do you how do

4:22

you want to do it? Sounds good.

4:25

Let's give the OG wokest their

4:27

respect before moving on to the

4:29

new term. Yes, by the way we

4:31

could we could argue this at a

4:33

second, but I'm not sure they're the

4:35

OGs, but yes, what everyone thinks of

4:37

as the OG, uh, wokists. the ones

4:39

who popularize the term in my

4:42

generation at least. So when it

4:44

comes to the woke left, this

4:46

would be anyone who assumes that

4:49

disparities in wealth are proof of

4:51

exploitation in the economic realm, and

4:53

anyone who sees disparities in outcomes

4:56

between groups as proof of discrimination.

4:58

So when it comes to the economic side

5:01

of things, if they see some people

5:03

with wealth in a certain country, and

5:05

other people in another country that have

5:07

less wealth, this must be the

5:10

result of colonialism or imperialism.

5:12

It doesn't occur to them that what

5:14

happens first is countries get wealthy

5:16

and then engage in imperialist

5:19

or colonialist actions. When it

5:21

comes to wealth between individuals

5:23

in a society, they assume the very

5:26

wealthy exist and the very poor exist.

5:28

The wealthy must have taken that wealth

5:30

from the poor who also work there

5:32

who also work there. who work at factories

5:34

employed by the wealthy. It doesn't

5:37

occur to them, I guess, that there is also

5:39

a disparity in productivity levels

5:41

between these individuals. So we

5:43

should always assume that because

5:45

there are so few Jeff

5:47

Basos and Steve Jobses and

5:49

LeBron Jameses, that those people

5:51

will, one, get a disproportionate

5:53

amount of attention among the population,

5:56

and that will correlate to a

5:58

very high level of income. because

6:00

they're just so much more productive, they

6:02

can acquire such a higher social status,

6:05

as opposed to everyone getting access to

6:07

things equally. They don't account for the

6:09

fact that entrepreneurs take the initial risk

6:12

in investing in a startup business. The

6:14

entrepreneur comes up with the idea of

6:16

what to sell. which is extraordinarily difficult.

6:19

They start the business with investments, which

6:21

may or may not pay off. They

6:23

have to find out where to market

6:26

their product. They have to engage in

6:28

web design. All of these extraordinarily difficult

6:30

things, the average person doesn't have the

6:33

time for it doesn't want to take

6:35

the risk. So you have a very

6:37

small number of people who are willing

6:40

to engage in those activities. Most of

6:42

those people do not succeed. The ones

6:44

who end up with a disproportionate amount

6:46

of wealth. Leftists in the economic realm

6:49

has to ask themselves why we don't

6:51

see 100% of people getting paid the

6:53

minimum wage. Because that's legally all you

6:56

have to pay. Everyone could just earn

6:58

the minimum wage. Immediately, you see that

7:00

as a causal result of capital investment,

7:03

which makes workers more productive once they

7:05

get access to telephones. computers machinery as

7:07

far as agriculture goes. Each worker becomes

7:10

more productive and they're competing with other

7:12

employers for the best employees. This is

7:14

what raises wages. So it's capital investment

7:17

along with competition which increases the likelihood

7:19

that people will acquire wealth. It is

7:21

not the result of exploitation. Exactly right.

7:24

So it strikes me. to get a

7:26

little bit psychological with this in a

7:28

way because there is something that I

7:31

think it's kind of hard if you

7:33

look at like say the young generation

7:35

today this is true of my generation

7:38

when we were young too but it's

7:40

it's hard not to see at least

7:42

compare to previous generations how strikingly immature

7:45

young people are you know like just

7:47

I'm just saying objectively when you look

7:49

at it you know my In my

7:52

grandfather's day, by the time you turned

7:54

18, you had already been considered a

7:56

man for quite a bit. And you

7:59

were going to, I mean, go fight

8:01

in a war. You were certainly, if

8:03

you had finished high school or even

8:06

if you hadn't finished high school, you

8:08

were going to move out of your

8:10

parents' house. You were going to buy

8:13

a house. You were going to start

8:15

a family. You were going to do

8:17

what are considered adult things to do.

8:20

Today, we see, and I'm guilty of

8:22

this too, I mean, I'm a 40,

8:24

I'm about to be 42, I'm in

8:27

a hoodie right now, like it's just

8:29

kind of ridiculous, like what, we all

8:31

are very young, we're very slow to

8:34

mature, and it does strike me now

8:36

being, you know, a father, that even

8:38

as you say this, the only thing

8:40

that comes into my mind is it

8:43

such a childish way of looking at

8:45

the world, like young for a child,

8:47

like a... 12-year-old should be above that.

8:50

But the idea that I like I

8:52

have a three-year-old and a six-year-old and

8:54

if you know One of them gets

8:57

a bigger cookie than the other one.

8:59

They have an instinct in them to

9:01

be like not fair. It's not fair

9:04

that someone gets more than the other.

9:06

And reasonably so. It is the expectation

9:08

for little children that things will be

9:11

provided to them in a fair manner.

9:13

And it does seem to me that

9:15

this is almost what you see with

9:18

like woke left as college students. Like

9:20

the idea is that everybody should get

9:22

an equal amount, but this just doesn't

9:25

jive with. adulthood because the truth is

9:27

that as we all know in the

9:29

same way that everyone shouldn't get the

9:32

same grades at school it's like well

9:34

someone worked harder someone was smarter someone

9:36

was better at memorizing information maybe not

9:39

even smarter but just better at memorizing

9:41

information out of a textbook and so

9:43

of course First of all, when it

9:46

comes to wealth creation, no one is

9:48

the grown-up in this equation. No, you're

9:50

the grown-up. No one is just giving

9:53

you the wealth. It's not as if

9:55

it was just, it is created by

9:57

us adults. And so, of course, the

10:00

expectation that it would fall, you know,

10:02

like, into completely evenly. divided categories just

10:04

makes no sense. And so it's just

10:07

very interesting to me like it does,

10:09

I think it says something about how

10:11

immature we are as a society that

10:14

these ideas would ever even gain traction

10:16

amongst adults. And even if you give

10:18

the socialist everything they ask for, there's

10:21

still massive inequality that's that which they

10:23

promise to resolve. You automatically see inequality

10:25

between all the democratic socialists, AOC, Pocahontas,

10:27

Bernie Sanders, Those people are very disproportionate

10:30

in their wealth power and influence to

10:32

all of their constituents. Of course, it's

10:34

ridiculous to mention, but obviously Chairman Mao

10:37

was not equal to the average person

10:39

in China. Even in ancient Greece, the

10:41

average person was not equal in power

10:44

and social status too. Aristotle. Fidel Castro.

10:46

very unequal to anyone else in Cuba.

10:48

So the equality lie seems to just

10:51

be something that they play on your

10:53

emotions to create this sort of tension

10:55

among the masses to see the state

10:58

as the ultimate Savior. Lou Rockwell famously

11:00

said that the reason that they push

11:02

this lie is because it's unachievable. We

11:05

know in every society there's some elites

11:07

and there's people with a lot less.

11:09

power. So they push this lie because

11:12

it forever and always will be a

11:14

justification to expand the state power. All

11:16

right, we've done a bunch of things.

11:19

Well, everyone's still not equal. Guess we

11:21

need more money in power for the

11:23

state. So because it's an impossible goal

11:26

to reach, that goalpost is always going

11:28

to be a justification for the state

11:30

to grow. As far as being immature.

11:33

This is referred to as the Santa

11:35

Claus principle. So you have the scarcity

11:37

principle, which the Austrian economists embrace. Every

11:40

second you spend doing something, that's one

11:42

second you're not spending doing other things.

11:44

Every dollar you spend on this, every

11:47

cubic ounce of concrete you spend on

11:49

this project, you can't spend on a

11:51

different resource. The Santa Claus. principle is,

11:54

well everyone can have everything. We could

11:56

just increase the money supply and that's

11:58

not going to have an effect on

12:01

the value of any other dollars in

12:03

circulation. The Santa Claus principle is literally

12:05

the child who believes in the North

12:08

Pole, a guy makes stuff, gets it

12:10

around the world at no opportunity cost.

12:12

It's that ridiculous. So when they say,

12:14

well I think everyone should have health

12:17

care and it should be free. As

12:19

if getting the state to coercively fund

12:21

something makes it free, it's as ridiculous

12:24

as saying, well the military is free,

12:26

government, I've never gotten a bill from

12:28

the Pentagon, so it must be free.

12:31

Obviously it's not free. Then if you

12:33

take the case of health care, housing,

12:35

or education, the state... as producers, answering

12:38

to the state for whether or not

12:40

their products meet consumer demand instead of

12:42

the consumer being empowered to determine whether

12:45

or not to associate with certain companies

12:47

and buy their products. Kodak went out

12:49

of business because they didn't meet consumer

12:52

demand. Blockbuster went out of business. Sears

12:54

and ANP grocers, all of these places

12:56

did because they were answering to consumers.

12:59

But once they start answering to the

13:01

state. he who pays the piper calls

13:03

the tune, then they worry about what

13:06

the state has as far as what

13:08

metrics are sufficient for them to produce

13:10

products and services, and they ignore customers.

13:13

That's why everything the state creates is

13:15

absolutely very low in quality and extraordinarily

13:17

high in price. So the Santa Claus

13:20

principle that the woke leftists on the

13:22

economic realm embrace is primarily the cause

13:24

of much lower quality and much higher

13:27

prices than we otherwise would have. Yeah,

13:29

it just seems like a lot of

13:31

this stuff is not even, it's not

13:34

even like the true divide ought to

13:36

be left and right, it's just fiction

13:38

verse reality. It's just, this is what,

13:41

you know, I remember there was this

13:43

article, I believe it was in the

13:45

New York Times magazine, there's like a

13:48

few years ago, it might have been

13:50

like five or six years ago, but

13:52

there was this one from like a

13:55

feminist, and she wrote some article, it

13:57

was like, like, can we really? have

13:59

it all. And the title was

14:01

something like that. And she was actually

14:03

being somewhat reasonable in the article. Like

14:05

she was basically like, look, feminist made

14:08

this promise of we can have it

14:10

all. You can be a working mom

14:12

and have all the benefits of being

14:14

a full-time mom and blah. And she's

14:16

like, yeah, you know, we have to

14:18

kind of request you. So like the

14:20

article wasn't even unreasonable. It's just like... How

14:22

are we even having a conversation

14:24

amongst adults about whether or not

14:26

you can have it all? Like

14:29

what, who gets past the point

14:31

of like 10 and doesn't

14:33

realize that like, yeah, no, that's

14:35

not life. And that, as the great

14:37

Thomasole put it, like, right, all of

14:40

life is tradeoffs. You know, I say

14:42

this is somebody who's like. a big

14:44

believer in marriage and having kids, but

14:46

they are trade-offs. You are, like, by,

14:49

listen, kids give you a lot of

14:51

joy and a lot of meaning and

14:53

you get to, like, you know, feel

14:55

like you have the next generation to

14:58

pass things down to, but you're going

15:00

to have less disposable time, you're going

15:02

to have more responsibility. You know, like,

15:04

there's just, there's nothing in life where

15:07

there isn't some degree of a trade-off,

15:09

and a lot of that is because

15:11

we... the number one scarce resources you pointed out

15:13

is time. You can't do everything. You can't,

15:15

you know, you only have one life that

15:18

you can live and in that life you

15:20

could either have, you know, if we had

15:22

infinite lives, I guess we could have it

15:24

all, but we don't. And it does seem,

15:26

there's, again, there's a striking immaturity about this

15:28

view, and it does, when you really think

15:31

about it, I think a lot of times

15:33

when people see the woke left.

15:35

They just focus on the kind

15:37

of crazy social stuff, understandably. But

15:40

there are these these kind of

15:42

deeper priors that they have,

15:44

which is why they get everything

15:47

wrong. This is why their conclusions

15:49

are so ridiculous. Yeah, the foundations

15:51

are all completely backwards. If

15:53

you just look at the feminist

15:56

issue in the case of having

15:58

it all, the sitting... president

16:00

of America actually came out and said,

16:03

this would have been, I want to

16:05

say in like 2015 or something, Obama

16:07

came out and said, the wage gap

16:09

is not myth, it's math. Apparently

16:12

a Harvard graduate believes in the

16:14

gender wage gap, but as you

16:16

said, you can't have it all. The reason

16:19

men make more is one. They work

16:21

different jobs and have different skills.

16:23

The same reason 20 year olds

16:25

make a hell of a lot less than

16:27

40 year olds. Not because we

16:29

need equal age or anti

16:31

age discrimination because they have

16:33

different jobs. They have different

16:35

skills. Men are much more likely

16:37

to die at the workplace. Men are

16:40

much more likely to move to get

16:42

work. The most dangerous jobs, the lumberjacks,

16:44

those are all men. That's why I

16:46

want to say OSHA says about 91

16:48

percent of work. deaths are male. This

16:51

is because men are willing to take

16:53

more risk and the vast amount of

16:55

homeless people are also men. This

16:57

gets into the woke aspect

16:59

of disparities between groups or

17:02

proof of discrimination. They never

17:04

mention the inconvenient disparities that

17:06

only one gender has had

17:09

to register for selective service,

17:11

slavery, the draft in American

17:13

history. They don't mention the fact

17:16

that it's totally legal to genetically

17:18

mutilate a baby boy, whereas to

17:20

do so for a girl is

17:22

justly illegal and a crime that you

17:24

would be in jail for. They assume

17:27

that if there's more men represented at

17:29

a place of work, that's

17:31

discrimination against women. Even

17:33

though something like 89% of elementary

17:35

teachers are female, the vast majority

17:38

of nurses are female, the

17:40

vast majority of babysitters are female,

17:42

not because men are being discriminated

17:44

against, because women work better with

17:46

people and men tend to work

17:48

better with things. Men are higher

17:51

risk takers. The reason 95.5% of

17:53

people killed by the police are men

17:55

is not because of a huge sexist

17:57

issue against men when it comes to

17:59

the police. men are much more violent,

18:01

younger people are more likely to

18:03

get killed by the police than

18:05

older people because younger men have

18:07

higher levels of testosterone and are

18:09

much more apt to commit violence.

18:11

So we see these disparities everywhere.

18:13

You would also think in the dating

18:16

market that if men just had all

18:18

the power that women would be constantly

18:20

going up to guys asking, can I

18:22

please have sex with you? And if

18:24

I have sex with you a few

18:27

times, maybe I could convince you to

18:29

take me out to dinner. It's the

18:31

opposite. It's the guy begging for the woman's

18:33

attention saying, I'll take you out a bunch

18:35

of times and maybe in exchange we

18:38

could get intimate together. Just every

18:40

aspect of life. This is not

18:42

even close to a resembling reality

18:44

where the men have all the power

18:46

and the women just have no institutional

18:48

power at all. Yeah, no, 100%. And

18:50

of course, it does seem

18:53

that we've in the moment

18:55

we're living in now, it

18:57

does seem like a lot

18:59

of this stuff is being

19:02

rejected. And I don't know,

19:04

you know, I'm very pleased

19:06

with that development. It's really

19:08

hard to overstate how much just

19:11

a few years ago. It seemed

19:13

like this was just the dominant

19:15

trend and we were never going

19:17

to get away from this. You

19:19

know, I remember thinking, I was

19:22

very wrong. This is one of

19:24

the predictions I was very mistaken

19:26

about. But I remember thinking when

19:28

COVID first hit, I was like, this is

19:31

going to be the end of wokism.

19:33

Because now we got like real shit.

19:35

that we got to deal with. Like

19:37

people aren't gonna, you know what I

19:39

mean? Like all this like me too

19:41

stuff that dominated the previous two years.

19:43

I go that's not, we're in the

19:45

middle of lockdowns now, people are scared

19:47

of the virus, the government's going totally

19:49

totalitarian, all this, I was wrong, the

19:51

wokism continued somehow past that. It does

19:53

seem like now, there's just, and I

19:56

don't know exactly, I mean, I think

19:58

part of this is like exhaustion. on

20:00

the woke left itself. It is

20:02

hard to maintain. We're living in the,

20:04

you know, early 30s rise of

20:06

the Nazis forever, when there's just nothing

20:08

to back that up around you.

20:10

I also do think it's part of

20:13

the dynamic at least, is that

20:15

the anti-woke Crusaders, be those kind of

20:17

right-wingers, libertarians, the people like us, who

20:19

have been, you know, talking about

20:21

this stuff for a long time. they

20:24

just came with such better arguments

20:26

over and over again that eventually the

20:28

woke were just destroyed. I mean,

20:30

look, it's kind of, it's a joke

20:33

when Matt Walsh can destroy your entire

20:35

worldview by asking you what a

20:37

woman is. You know, how long can

20:39

you keep going? And in some

20:41

sense, there is something encouraging about that

20:44

where I'm not saying it's the

20:46

entire, uh, the entire reason that we're

20:48

where we are, but there is

20:50

something I think to the fact that

20:52

Logic still has some power, the truth

20:55

still has some power, and this

20:57

group of people who were just armed

20:59

with zero arguments just could not

21:01

survive. It definitely happened in the academic

21:03

realm. In 2017, a gentleman named

21:05

Roland Fryer at Harvard University happens to

21:08

be a black economist, published a paper

21:10

titled An Empirical Difference in... Oh

21:12

gosh, what was the title? An empirical

21:14

analysis of racial differences in police

21:16

use of force. He studied a number

21:19

of cities across America to say,

21:21

look, a lot of times when BLM

21:23

makes their claims, they use anecdotal evidence.

21:25

In a country of 350 million

21:27

people, they refer to. one person or

21:30

a second or a third, one

21:32

of which happened to be Trayvon Martin,

21:34

who was not killed by an

21:36

actual officer, but there's just a number

21:38

of anecdotes. So he goes, what we

21:41

at Harvard need to do is

21:43

come up with empirical evidence to support

21:45

these anecdotes, to which his conclusions

21:47

were there was no different. in police

21:49

use of force when it comes

21:51

to shootings, when contextual factors were taken

21:54

into account. So just as I mentioned,

21:56

yes, men are more likely to

21:58

get killed, but men are also more

22:01

likely to resist the police or

22:03

initiate violent encounters with the police. In

22:05

the academic world, this was a

22:07

very big thing which drastically increased the

22:09

amount of insecurity among academics who were

22:12

much less likely to start... indoctrinating

22:14

their kids and their students with all

22:16

of this nonsense because they knew

22:18

this guy was going around so they

22:20

ended up getting him fired over

22:22

a completely fraudulent sexual harassment lawsuit all

22:25

of the text messages since he's been

22:27

fired have been released this guy

22:29

is totally innocent so I almost know

22:31

that it was happening in the

22:33

background but you have other academics like

22:36

Dr. Wilford Riley at Kentucky State

22:38

University who said You know, lynchings, absolutely

22:40

terrible. A quarter of people lynched in

22:42

American history were white. In 23

22:44

states, more whites were lynched than blacks.

22:47

The biggest white lynching in American

22:49

history after the Civil War was the

22:51

1891 New Orleans lynchings where all

22:53

the victims were white. So something that

22:55

was actually a result of mob

22:57

violence was later seen through the lens

23:00

of only something racial. Just like slavery,

23:02

if you think the problem is

23:04

the skin color, well, what's your objection

23:06

to the slavery mentioned in ancient

23:08

Mesopotamia, in the coat of Urnamu, or

23:11

the coat of Hamarabi, or Vladimir

23:13

Zalinsky, enslaving people to fight a war

23:15

against their will, kidnapping and conscripting soldiers

23:17

to go die on the front

23:19

lines, when the average life expectancy, in

23:22

places like the Battle of Bakmut,

23:24

or four hours, they have so little

23:26

that when all you focus on...

23:28

are arbitrary differences, you can never really

23:31

get to the root of the issue.

23:33

Not to mention the fact that

23:35

Larry Coger, another academic, came out with

23:37

a book titled Black Slave Owners

23:39

in America, 17... to 1860. This caused

23:42

another uproar. So it seems like

23:44

the academics had a significant amount of

23:46

insecurity created in them. They stopped pushing

23:48

it, even when I was at

23:50

Arizona State. I could see it actually

23:53

dying down a little. So yeah,

23:55

hopefully it is gone for good, but

23:57

you never know. A lot of

23:59

times when they're always pushing this racism

24:01

nonsense, though, they'll always use the anecdotes.

24:04

They never mentioned Justine Damon getting

24:06

killed by a black Somali officer. in

24:08

Minnesota, after she called 911 to

24:10

report an assault. They don't mention Ashley

24:12

Babbitt, unarmed woman getting killed by

24:14

a black officer. Tony Timpa was actually

24:17

getting suffocated to death on camera by

24:19

the Dallas police for, I believe,

24:21

14 minutes. Same thing as George Floyd.

24:23

It's all on camera. And they

24:25

were never prosecuted. You have white men

24:28

like Kelly Thomas getting beaten to

24:30

death by the police. And this is

24:32

never taken seriously. Yes, they have so

24:34

little ground to stand on. I

24:36

think it might be dying down, but

24:39

they have poured so much gasoline

24:41

in the minds of so many people

24:43

throughout the last 20 years that

24:45

I think like the right political arsonist

24:47

could still come around and inflame the

24:50

passions like Jasmine Crockets always trying

24:52

to do. Yeah, there's still, there's some

24:54

of them out there who are

24:56

still trying. And you know, one of

24:59

the things to me when I

25:01

always, I remember, It's interesting to think

25:03

about how much like different a

25:05

mood the countries in right now like

25:07

I your point is well taken you

25:10

never know what's going to happen

25:12

in the future and there are the

25:14

foundation has been laid for this

25:16

stuff it could make a comeback but

25:18

I just remember like even in

25:20

our kind of like libertarian world first

25:23

of all if you take like say

25:25

Chase Oliver or someone like that

25:27

who or you know Kamala Harris is

25:29

the same way but you just

25:31

know like if they were running in

25:34

2017 their message would have been

25:36

so much woker than it was in

25:38

2024 it was almost like they were

25:40

walking away from that stuff like

25:42

they didn't exactly want to throw it

25:45

under the bus because they don't

25:47

want to piss off their own base

25:49

either but they're not like running

25:51

on this stuff as aggressively as they

25:53

would have. I remember getting a lot

25:56

of flack from libertarians in the

25:58

summer of 2020 because I was so

26:00

outspoken against the the riots which

26:02

I just you know again it was

26:04

like stunning to me it was

26:06

like we're libertarians because we believe in

26:09

private property rights and voluntary peaceful interactions

26:11

and I see a mob destroying

26:13

private property What about that is supposed

26:15

to at all jive with my

26:17

worldview? But I remember making the point

26:20

and really taking some heat for

26:22

this. But I was like, look, of

26:24

all of these, the Black Lives Matters

26:26

kind of like poster boys, all

26:29

of their cases that they love to

26:31

talk about. many of which I'm

26:33

pretty much on the side of this

26:35

was messed up like it doesn't

26:37

give you permission to go burn down

26:40

to Wendy's but like I do you

26:42

know like I don't I don't

26:44

think that cop should have sat on

26:46

George Floyd's neck for nine minutes

26:48

and I certainly think the Brianna Taylor

26:51

case was an outrage but there

26:53

was just not one shred of evidence

26:55

that either of them were racial issues.

26:57

There was never even like a

26:59

case presented as to why we think

27:02

this happened because the officer was

27:04

white. I mean, even though all the

27:06

guys around Derek Chauvin were like

27:08

an Asian and a black guy and

27:10

all that, but it's not as

27:12

if he said something. It's not like

27:15

while he was doing it, he was

27:17

like, yeah, you take that you

27:19

black motherfucker. You know what I mean?

27:21

Like it wasn't like there was

27:23

like a racial aspect to it. It

27:26

was just like, oh, well, the

27:28

victims are black. And therefore, this must

27:30

be a racial issue. And that just

27:32

doesn't make any sense. It's just

27:34

like on a very simple common sense

27:37

test. Like if you, if there

27:39

was a bar fight down the street

27:41

and it was a white guy

27:43

got in a fight with a black

27:45

guy, you wouldn't just immediately go, well,

27:48

it must have been racism. It's

27:50

like, well, maybe they were fighting over

27:52

a girl. Maybe one of them

27:54

bumped into the other. Maybe like there's

27:56

a million different reasons why in

27:59

the fact and it's it's something was

28:01

crazy that the official movement it seemed

28:03

like never even had to present

28:05

an argument as to like well this

28:08

is why it's a racial issue.

28:10

All right, guys, let's take a moment

28:12

and thank our sponsor for today's

28:14

show, which is Sheath Underware. I've been

28:16

telling you guys about them for years

28:19

now. And I will tell you,

28:21

Sheath Underware came on. It was almost

28:23

four years ago when they came

28:25

on as a sponsor. And they sent

28:27

me a couple pairs of months

28:29

as a sponsor. And they sent me

28:31

a couple pairs of their box. And

28:34

they sent me a couple pairs of

28:36

their box. And they sent me a

28:38

couple of my box of briefs. I

28:40

ordered. I ordered. They still feel like

28:42

new. Do you love this show? Support

28:45

our long-time sponsor Sheath Underware. And while

28:47

you're at it, get yourself the most

28:49

comfortable pair of boxer briefs you will

28:51

ever put on your body. Go check

28:53

them out right now at sheathunderware.com and

28:55

make sure to use the promo code

28:58

problem for 20% off your order. They

29:00

ship anywhere in the world. Sheath

29:02

underwear.com, promo code problem for 20%

29:04

off. All right, let's get back into

29:06

the show. Yeah, you would think that you

29:08

look at the police and you say

29:11

all right. They have the right

29:13

to arrest citizens. Citizens don't have

29:15

the right to walk up to

29:17

cops and arrest them. They can

29:19

stop and see if you're suspicious

29:21

and maybe search through your car.

29:23

You don't have the right to

29:26

do that to them. They have

29:28

the right to put you in jail

29:30

if you violate one of their

29:32

rules, but you don't have the

29:34

right to do that to them.

29:36

They have a monopoly on violence.

29:39

They're like... there's got to be

29:41

a racial aspect to this. It's

29:43

like, do you think that's same?

29:45

There's a much more plausible explanation

29:47

for these things. What Wilford Riley

29:49

did at Kentucky State University is

29:52

commit the ultimate thought crime. And

29:54

he basically says, he has to

29:56

sort of gradually introduce his students

29:58

to this. He goes, look, men. are much

30:00

more likely to commit violence against

30:02

a person than a woman is.

30:04

This is not me hating men,

30:07

but statistically that's true. Whether it's

30:09

murder, rape, kidnapping, the perpetrator tends

30:11

to be male. As things are

30:13

now, it roughly is about a

30:15

13 to 1 ratio when it

30:18

comes to black on white violence.

30:20

When it comes to rape, murder,

30:22

assault, burglary, robbery. 13 times every

30:24

13 times a black person does

30:26

it to a white person a

30:29

white person statistically will do it

30:31

one time to a black person

30:33

this 13 to one ratio is

30:35

what got him a lot of

30:37

heat this was in a book

30:40

titled lies my liberal teacher told

30:42

me but this is a reality

30:44

that people need to know about

30:46

so when they see disparities in

30:48

prison they don't flip out imagine

30:51

you have mentioned that you have

30:53

a son on your show would

30:55

you want your son to be

30:57

raised to just say 95% of

30:59

people killed by the police are

31:02

male. You are just discriminated against

31:04

because you're a boy. So don't

31:06

bother working hard. Don't bother showing

31:08

up on time. Don't go to

31:10

a job and ask for on-the-job

31:13

training. That's all buying into the

31:15

system. You need to start a

31:17

male lives matter movement. Anytime a

31:19

man is hurt, you need to

31:21

start organizing with your friends, rioting,

31:23

looting, focus on protesting a lot.

31:26

Everything else is just buying into

31:28

the system. You would be hurting

31:30

your own son doing that. That

31:32

is how Democrats are trying to

31:34

raise black America today, even when

31:37

all of these statistics, not to

31:39

mention competing anecdotes, are completely against

31:41

their narrative. That's the reality that

31:43

they're just unwilling to address. And

31:45

that's why I'm really hoping to

31:48

see an end to wokism when

31:50

it comes to disparities between groups,

31:52

our proof of discrimination. I'm really

31:54

hoping that this goes away. Yeah,

31:56

and of course, because it really

31:59

is. Well, first of all, it's

32:01

incoherent, obviously, as you've kind of

32:03

very beautifully laid it out. But

32:05

it's also, as you mentioned, it's

32:07

an, as Lou Rockwell was getting

32:10

at, it's an attack on liberty.

32:12

It's an attack on a free

32:14

society. Because the, even though the

32:16

government doesn't actually bring any more

32:18

equality, in fact, you could argue

32:21

that they bring a more drastic

32:23

inequality, because they have a higher

32:25

authority than anybody else. They have

32:27

more power, so inherently it's more

32:29

unequal, at least the balance of

32:31

power is. The solution is always

32:34

more government intervention. The solution is

32:36

always some type of government problem.

32:38

And as we know, with any

32:40

degree of freedom, it brings disparate

32:42

outcomes. Like that's the very nature

32:45

of freedom is that we can

32:47

choose different paths and then we're

32:49

going to end up in different

32:51

places. And there's no like why

32:53

we would ever have the expectation

32:56

of... equality in outcomes makes absolutely

32:58

no sense or equality of opportunity

33:00

for that matter. It just makes

33:02

no sense. It's like the truth

33:04

is that, you know, we have

33:07

lots of Irish people go into

33:09

being firefighters and lots of Asian

33:11

people go into engineering and lots

33:13

of Jewish people go into like...

33:15

the literary works or banking or

33:18

whatever. It's like these are just

33:20

that we see all around us

33:22

that there are these different groups

33:24

of people that tend to go

33:26

into different areas and it just

33:29

seems like why would we, there's

33:31

something really anti-human. about all of

33:33

it because it's like oh so

33:35

you want to extinguish our differences

33:37

but that's the beauty of life

33:40

is in differences the beauty of

33:42

life is that you are not

33:44

just a carbon copy of me

33:46

like even two guys like me

33:48

and you who have very similar

33:50

political views what would the point

33:53

of me having you on my

33:55

show be if you didn't have

33:57

a different mind than me and

33:59

kind of add something else and

34:01

have some other information in your

34:04

head that I didn't have in

34:06

mind and then we like it's

34:08

to try It's so anti-human to

34:10

oppose, it's essentially a war on

34:12

uniqueness. And it doesn't even properly

34:15

reward the ambition which any sane

34:17

society would like to reward. In

34:19

civil rights rhetoric or reality, Thomas

34:21

Oll uses the example of Japanese

34:23

Americans who came to America. didn't

34:26

speak English and by 1945 they

34:28

are in Franklin Roosevelt's internment camps

34:30

from his executive order. By 1959

34:32

they had incomes that equaled white

34:34

incomes and by 1969 they were

34:37

earning 33% more. than the average

34:39

American family because they are extraordinarily

34:41

ambitious even today. Whites do not

34:43

earn more than all the other

34:45

groups. You have Vietnamese Americans, Pakistani

34:48

Americans, even Nigerian Americans, Filipino Americans,

34:50

Chinese Americans, Taiwanese Americans, Taiwanese Americans.

34:52

I believe according to the 2018

34:54

U.S. Census where I last looked

34:56

at these numbers, whites are like

34:59

11th or 12th on the list

35:01

of ethnicities when it comes to

35:03

income. So you're not even rewarding

35:05

the very minorities who've engaged in

35:07

very ambitious. activities in the first

35:09

place. So it's so detrimental. It's

35:12

not just like this homicidal of,

35:14

I hate these people, I want

35:16

to push them down. It's even

35:18

like suicidal. I don't even want

35:20

to be part of a society

35:23

that rewards good behavior. Those people

35:25

can go somewhere else. We don't

35:27

have meritocracy here. You're even hurting

35:29

yourself in the long run. So

35:31

that is what I see has

35:34

the ultimate case against the woke

35:36

economic left. Yeah, I couldn't agree

35:38

more. All right. So let's let's

35:40

move over now to this term

35:42

the woke right now I I

35:45

will say I've mentioned this on

35:47

the show before I do think

35:49

I was an early adopter of

35:51

this term I started using this

35:53

like you know I had made

35:56

the point I think substantially before

35:58

October 7th. I think you know

36:00

the first I remember saying this

36:02

with friends, but I think I

36:04

I definitely remember at least there

36:07

was one Rhonda Santas press conference

36:09

that we covered on the show.

36:11

There's got to be at least

36:13

a couple years ago where he

36:15

was just going off about. anti-Semitism

36:18

and protecting Jewish students and Jewish

36:20

kids from dealing with anti-Semitism. And

36:22

I was like, man, this was

36:24

my first kind of like thing

36:26

where I was like, isn't it

36:28

interesting when the topic of Israel

36:31

or Jews comes up that these

36:33

these Crusaders against Wokism almost immediately?

36:35

Borrow not just like they're talking

36:37

points their entire set of analytical

36:39

tools if you can even call

36:42

it that but it's like the

36:44

way we are going to talk

36:46

about this is you know This

36:48

this constant concept creep between legitimate

36:50

criticism bigotry and violence they all

36:53

kind of get mixed together in

36:55

one bag, then we are going

36:57

to, you know, pretend that a

36:59

group of people who are not

37:01

marginalized or victimized in society are

37:04

under this constant threat. We're going

37:06

to invoke... you know, injustices in

37:08

history to explain why the current

37:10

we're going to have speech laws,

37:12

we're going to have our own

37:15

set of political correctness. I was

37:17

like everything about this just seems

37:19

to be like the exact same

37:21

thing. And then after October 7th,

37:23

it was just like obvious to

37:26

me. This is their entire argument.

37:28

You know, it's all wokism. And

37:30

then a different group of people.

37:32

you know, I guess notably Constantine

37:34

Cassin who I was just arguing

37:37

with on Twitter, James Lindsay who,

37:39

you know, full disclosure, I don't

37:41

get along with very well. And

37:43

some of these guys, they started

37:45

using the term woke right to

37:47

attack Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens

37:50

and Darryl Cooper and myself and

37:52

some others. So what do we,

37:54

at this point, I almost feel

37:56

like the waters have been muddy

37:58

to little bit. But what are

38:01

your thoughts on the woke right?

38:03

Who fits into that category? And

38:05

how would you assess it? So I

38:07

want to start with James Lindsay's

38:10

definition on trigonometry,

38:12

which he gave to Constantine

38:14

Kissen, which Kissen appeared to

38:17

agree with. Here's what Lindsay

38:19

says. There's the philosophical

38:21

deeper aspect. Why woke? What

38:23

does it mean? Woke up to a structural

38:25

politics that marginalizes people like me

38:27

and we need to band together

38:29

in solidarity. No enemies to the

38:32

right in order to be able

38:34

to create a powerful enough oppressed

38:36

coalition to flip over the power

38:38

structure by putting ourselves at the

38:40

center and claiming power for ourselves.

38:43

This is explicitly woke having a

38:45

critical consciousness about the way the

38:48

world is organized. The reason that this

38:50

is such a horrible definition, even though I do

38:52

like James Lindsay to a very high degree,

38:54

he's been on my show twice and him

38:56

and I got along, but after reading

38:58

this... This actually applies to quite

39:00

literally every single political movement that

39:02

I have come across, even researching

39:05

books like The Origins of War,

39:07

where there were people in these

39:09

primitive societies who felt like they

39:11

were getting a raw deal, they

39:13

resisted, there's chapters of the Bible

39:15

where it's like these people thought

39:17

that they were getting mistreated by

39:19

this pharaoh and they did, you

39:21

know, thus and so, they were

39:23

trying to increase the amount of

39:25

power they had in opposition to

39:27

people. over them. So I just

39:29

don't see that this is a

39:31

definition. It's like, well, people on

39:33

the woke right believe that the

39:35

sun is really hot. Okay, yes,

39:37

they do, but that applies to

39:39

everyone else. So it's not a

39:42

unique definition. What I'm looking for

39:44

when it comes to the woke

39:46

right is the woke concept of

39:48

ignoring very plausible explanations and primarily

39:50

focusing on the potential

39:52

motives of the person

39:54

presenting any evidence. So when

39:56

I say The Jewish Chronicle released

39:58

a document. published by

40:01

the Hamas media office called

40:03

Operation Alaksa Flood, our narrative,

40:05

and it basically says we

40:08

are opposing the Israeli government,

40:10

the Zionist crime organization, I

40:12

believe they call it, because of...

40:15

the blockade they've had on

40:17

us since 2004, the crimes going

40:19

back to the Urgan, Stern,

40:21

and Haganah, which have killed not

40:23

only Palestinians, but if you

40:25

look at the SS Patriot,

40:28

even the original Zionist organizations

40:30

were targeting Jews trying to

40:32

flee Palestine because they wanted to say,

40:34

the world is unsafe except for Israel,

40:36

so everyone has to come here. This

40:39

was a guy named Ziviyabatinsky's plan in

40:41

a... paper called the Iron Wall written

40:43

I want to say in the 1920s

40:45

he wanted to say the one thing

40:48

we want is the one thing the

40:50

Arabs don't want Jewish immigration that's what

40:52

we got to focus on so these

40:55

groups were trying to do that so

40:57

this document from Hamas mentions that they

40:59

also mentioned the number of mowing

41:01

of the lawn operations they mentioned

41:03

things like operation cast lead operation

41:05

pillar of defense where a number

41:07

of Palestinians have been killed they

41:09

say well we're not subject to

41:11

fair trials if you look at the

41:14

entire list it's nothing about they don't

41:16

obey the Quran we hate the

41:18

Talmud you know we hate Hollywood which

41:20

is run by the it's none of

41:22

that it's all criticisms of

41:24

what the Zionist government has done

41:27

to them, and all of these

41:29

explanations are things we would obviously

41:31

see as illegitimate if done to

41:33

us, or even if they were

41:35

done to another country. Israel gets

41:37

a 20-year blockade on Gaza, but

41:39

we say that even if China

41:41

potentially threatens a blockade on Taiwan, we

41:43

might have to go to nuclear war.

41:46

There are very plausible

41:48

explanations for things, but the

41:50

woke right, the Constantine Kissens, the

41:52

Douglas Murray's, the Ben Shapiro's, completely

41:54

ignore that and say, well, you must

41:56

be an anti-Semite. We're saying, you know,

41:59

this issue in... Ukraine, this war, according

42:01

to the former US ambassador to Russia,

42:03

William Burns, is more or less taking

42:05

place as a cause of result of

42:08

NATO expansion, just as we wouldn't allow

42:10

Soviet missiles in Cuba. They're not going

42:12

to allow NATO on their border. You,

42:14

wow, I can't believe you like Putin.

42:16

Wow, you're against democracy. This is just

42:19

the typical emotional response. Even some time

42:21

ago. If you said, you know, this

42:23

mass murder campaign in Vietnam is unjustified

42:25

and we shouldn't be conscripting soldiers to

42:28

fight into it, well, you must be

42:30

a servant of the communists. It's like,

42:32

not necessarily at all. In fact, this

42:34

could empower the communists because it makes

42:37

the capitalist West look totally evil. Or

42:39

if you say, you know, Bin Laden

42:41

said in a Harvard publication titled Al-Qaeda

42:43

in its own words, Bin Laden said

42:46

that... 9-11 was happened as a result

42:48

of sanctions on Iraq in the 90s,

42:50

support for Israel, especially in Lebanon and

42:52

against the Palestinians, and occupation of the

42:55

land of the two sanctuaries in Mecca

42:57

and Medina. And to which the woke

42:59

right will say things like, well, you're

43:01

saying we deserve 9-11? You're saying you

43:04

hate America. Anytime you criticize a law,

43:06

they say, oh, you must hate the

43:08

cops. You must hate the country that

43:10

you live in. So it's all boring

43:13

and predictable. And this is what I'm

43:15

saying is the key to wokeness, ignoring

43:17

very plausible explanations and replacing them with

43:19

questioning the motives. And we can get

43:21

into the kiss and issue specifically later

43:24

if you want to specify that. Well,

43:26

well, I just want to, you know,

43:28

it's funny because I've talked about this

43:30

issue before and I think you've honed

43:33

in on something that I wasn't exactly

43:35

precisely maybe as focused on as I

43:37

should be. But even as focused on

43:39

as I should be, but even as

43:42

focused on as I should be, but

43:44

even as you're saying it to me,

43:46

you know, it's like. I don't really

43:48

care. It's just. Look, objectively, I'm looking

43:51

at the argument, and his definition, like

43:53

you said, it fits every political grit,

43:55

it's like, awoke into a structure that

43:57

was unfair to us, and so we

44:00

want to get together and put ourselves

44:02

in power. Like, what? That's politics. That's

44:04

literally what all of it is. It's,

44:06

you might be like, well, you see

44:09

what makes them the woke right, is

44:11

that they want to run candidates for

44:13

office, and their plan is to raise

44:15

money and garner votes in order to

44:18

put themselves in a position of power.

44:20

where they can implement policies that they

44:22

deem as preferable. Like, yeah, that's all.

44:24

And then I see this just like

44:26

the way the tactics are used, it's

44:29

like you have this very broad definition.

44:31

You say the players are Tucker Carlson

44:33

and Candace Owens and Darryl Cooper, and

44:35

then all of a sudden you see

44:38

them start bringing up like. Nick Fuentes

44:40

or someone else and then using that

44:42

as proof that these other guys are

44:44

woke right even though like there's a

44:47

huge gap between the views of this

44:49

group and the views of that group

44:51

and it's just it's all incoherent to

44:53

me and I will say much like

44:56

when you're dealing with the woke left

44:58

it's like look the claim is not

45:00

that bigotry doesn't exist or that bigotry

45:02

couldn't possibly be the reason for something

45:05

happening like it is not impossible that

45:07

Derek Chauvin could have just been looking

45:09

for a black guy to kneel on

45:11

his neck and happened to find George

45:14

Floyd. But the argument we're making is

45:16

like, you have to present some type

45:18

of evidence for that before I'm just

45:20

going to believe it for no reason.

45:22

And so let's look at the evidence

45:25

and let's also consider what could be

45:27

alternative or more likely. You know answers

45:29

to this question as you mentioned like

45:31

okay these police have these enormous amount

45:34

of powers and they can wield them

45:36

with impunity That seems like a plot

45:38

and so I just I found myself

45:40

as I'm arguing this the other day

45:43

even as as you're saying it I'm

45:45

like thinking about this before even the

45:47

Constantine argument where there are these people

45:49

so Ian Carroll are you familiar with

45:52

Ian yeah so he just went on

45:54

Joe Rogan show a few days ago

45:56

this created quite a star and I'm

45:58

like arguing with people and they're like

46:01

well look clearly he hates Jews because

46:03

look he's got all these conspiracies where

46:05

at the top of the conspiracies are

46:07

the Israelis and by the way he's

46:10

put out some things that like I'm

46:12

not so I'm not at all sold

46:14

on Israel did 9-11 and it certainly

46:16

wouldn't like really conflict with my worldview

46:19

if that was the case it's not

46:21

like some I'm just I've seen the

46:23

evidence it's like actually I don't think

46:25

it's as strong as you guys think

46:27

you know the major pieces of evidence

46:30

I seem to say are what's what's

46:32

dubbed the dancing Israelis which aren't they

46:34

weren't actually dancing but that's what they've

46:36

come to be known I thought Max

46:39

Blumenthal's piece on that pretty much led

46:41

you know like ads it's just not

46:43

really that strong of an argument there's

46:45

a bit of a like huh there,

46:48

but not really, we don't really know

46:50

that this was any proof that, that

46:52

Silverstein got a big insurance policy on

46:54

the World Trade Center. You know, the

46:57

issue, Netanyahu said something about the World

46:59

Trade Center coming down. The problem is,

47:01

I think it might be an age

47:03

thing sometimes, you know, sometimes like I

47:06

think a 27-year-old looks at that and

47:08

goes, no one could have possibly known.

47:10

that the World Trade Center would have

47:12

been a terrorist target before 9-11. The

47:15

problem is that the same guys had

47:17

tried to knock down the trade center

47:19

in 93. It was the most high-profile

47:21

target for terrorism in the world. It

47:24

wasn't that crazy of a thought. to

47:26

mention the Twin Towers coming down when

47:28

it had already been attempted. And I'm

47:30

just saying, I look at it and

47:32

I objectively go, I don't actually think

47:35

you have as strong a case. Certainly

47:37

not a strong enough case that I

47:39

would be comfortable like I am with

47:41

other could being like this is what

47:44

happened here. Okay, like we can say

47:46

this definitively. I just don't feel that

47:48

way about it. Okay, but that being

47:50

said, so I could disagree with this

47:53

take and someone else could have the

47:55

theory that they think Israel was behind

47:57

9- Jewish people it's like well wait

47:59

a minute there's all these Other possible

48:02

reasons why you might think that. Number

48:04

one, maybe you were just more persuaded

48:06

by the evidence than I was. Maybe

48:08

you've seen some evidence that I haven't

48:11

seen yet. Maybe you've seen the same

48:13

evidence and you just weren't quite as

48:15

scrupulous as I was at being like,

48:17

no, I have a higher bar of

48:20

what meets the I believe this actually

48:22

happened test. Maybe the reason why so

48:24

many people are interested in conspiracy theories

48:26

these days is because there's been so

48:29

many real ones and the government lies

48:31

to you about everything. We just lived

48:33

through the country being shut down over

48:35

a bullshit conspiracy So maybe people are

48:37

more open to them and maybe the

48:40

reason why people are suspect a suspicious

48:42

of Israel is because, well, I don't

48:44

know, we're currently, you know, funding an

48:46

arming a war for them that is

48:49

not at all in our national interest.

48:51

We've fought, you know, like all of

48:53

these wars in this region of the

48:55

world, clearly taking out one enemy of

48:58

Israel after the other, and people start

49:00

to get... It's just, there are so

49:02

many other explanations that are so much

49:04

more likely, and then when you couple

49:07

that with the fact that this Ian

49:09

Carroll guy goes on Rogan, like 12

49:11

times disclaims, disclaims, I'm not... saying it's

49:13

the Jews. I got nothing against Jews.

49:16

Jews are regular people just like me

49:18

and you man and I'm cool with

49:20

you. I got no bro I'm saying

49:22

it's this small group of people I

49:25

think like when you couple it all

49:27

together it's the same it's literally the

49:29

same thing as going like well why

49:31

do you think Asian Americans are more

49:34

successful than Puerto Ricans? It must be

49:36

racism. It's like, no, there's like all

49:38

these other like possible. And by the

49:40

way, I'm not saying it's impossible that

49:42

someone could say they're not bigoted against

49:45

Jews, but they really are. I'm just

49:47

saying, why are we jumping to that

49:49

conclusion and pretending that you have a

49:51

certainty that this person is a bigot?

49:54

Hey guys, let's take a moment and

49:56

thank our sponsor for today's show, which

49:58

is my patriot supply. Such an important

50:00

sponsor. I love that they're on board

50:03

with us because they're the company that

50:05

I trust to keep my family prepared.

50:07

Look, we've all seen what can happen

50:09

when a crisis hits, and we've all

50:12

seen how quick those grocery store shelves

50:14

can empty. Don't be on the wrong

50:16

side of that. You want to always

50:18

know that your family is protected when

50:21

the next crisis emerges. That's why I

50:23

trust my Patriot Supply to help prepare

50:25

before the next crisis. Order their four-week

50:27

emergency food supplies today. and get four

50:30

72 hour food kits completely free. That's

50:32

almost two weeks of bonus meals at

50:34

no cost. Each of these kits offer

50:36

2,000 calories per day of delicious, easy

50:39

to prepare meals that last up to

50:41

25 years. That's real peace of mind.

50:43

No last minute panic, no empty shelves,

50:45

just knowing you're covered. Stock up today

50:47

before this deal disappears because when an

50:50

emergency hits, food will be the first

50:52

thing to go. Go to my website,

50:54

prepare with Smith. your kit plus an

50:56

extra 12 days of free food. That's

50:59

preparewithsmith.com. All right, let's get back into

51:01

the show. It just happened the other

51:03

day when Kisson had said, oh yeah,

51:05

well, Darryl Cooper, he's had the opportunity

51:08

to debate Andrew Roberts, someone I've been

51:10

begging to debate by the way, and

51:12

you know, he didn't take that and

51:14

Cooper has used David Irving as his

51:17

source. This is the ultimate attempt to

51:19

poison the well. This is a perfect

51:21

SJW woke tactic where they say, person

51:23

A, well, he's loosely correlated to person

51:26

B and person B can be dismissed.

51:28

So therefore, I've dismissed the argument of

51:30

person A. That is a totally woke

51:32

tactic. It says, you know what another

51:35

citation could be for someone you looked

51:37

into and said, well, this doesn't all

51:39

add up. You could read Neville Chamberlain's

51:41

Declaration of War on September 3rd of

51:44

1939. He says, we told the Germans

51:46

to get out of Danzig Poland by

51:48

this hour. They have not, therefore, on

51:50

behalf of Polish independence, we are going

51:52

to wage a war on Germany. But

51:55

then the Soviets invaded Poland two weeks

51:57

later on September 17th 1939 and they

51:59

didn't. declare war? Maybe that could raise

52:01

some eyebrows. Maybe the fact that the

52:04

war ended with seven million dead Poles

52:06

and Poland under Bolshevik occupation. Maybe that

52:08

could be a reason why someone

52:10

questions the validity of the Second

52:12

World War, Mr. Kissen, not just

52:14

because, well, there might be a connection

52:17

to David Irving who has said good

52:19

things about national socialism. That's much more

52:21

plausible. How about you could use Winston

52:23

Churchill as your source for being skeptical

52:25

of the Second World War. Churchill wrote

52:27

a book titled The World Crisis 1911

52:30

to 1918. So let's take it out

52:32

of the Second World War and just

52:34

look at Churchill when he's operating in

52:36

a war that today almost had very

52:38

few defenders. Barbara Tuckman will defend the

52:40

First World War, but everyone more or

52:42

less looks at it and says, well,

52:44

this was a mass death, which really

52:46

could, I mean, as bad as Kaiser

52:48

Wilhelm was, he was better than what

52:50

followed. So maybe we should have just

52:53

tolerated that. In Churchill's book, the world

52:55

crisis, he said that the world crisis.

52:57

policy that he enacted

52:59

as First Lord of

53:01

the Admiralty was a

53:03

deliberate starvation of the population

53:06

of Germany to push

53:08

people into submission. He uses

53:10

the word submission. Men, women,

53:12

and children wounded and sound

53:15

into submission the whole population

53:17

of Germany. I don't remember the exact quote,

53:19

but I know it's on page 672 of

53:21

that book. He says this is

53:23

a policy among the civilian population

53:26

of Germany. A very pro-

53:28

Churchill historian Martin Gilbert said

53:30

that there were roughly 700,000 deaths

53:32

as a cause result of this

53:34

blockade. Meanwhile, Kaiser Wilhelm went to

53:36

the Netherlands to retire and live the

53:38

rest of his life. So it could be

53:40

that we feel bad. for the poor

53:43

German civilian population. That could be

53:45

an explanation. And then in the

53:47

Second World War, Churchill writes another

53:49

book titled The Gathering Storm, where

53:51

he says, The human tragedy reaches

53:53

its climax, that after all the

53:55

exertions and sacrifices of the righteous

53:57

cause, we have found neither peace nor

53:59

security. and we lie in the grip

54:01

of even worse perils than those

54:03

we have surmounted. Meaning, we fought the

54:06

war against national socialism and now the

54:08

Bolsheviks control East Germany to Blatabastock and

54:10

have a loose alliance with Mao in

54:13

China. and they have bases, you know,

54:15

very close to North Korea, later expanding

54:18

into Vietnam. So you could use Chamberlain

54:20

and Churchill as your sources, not David

54:22

Irving. There are people in Churchill's cabinet,

54:25

Charles Percy Snow, who was a science

54:27

advisor, who gave a series of lectures

54:29

at Harvard, titled Science and Government, where

54:32

he said, this was in 1961, he

54:34

said, the paper on bombing by Frederick

54:36

Lindemann, who was known as Viscount Sherwell,

54:39

went out to... Churchill's cabinet and we

54:41

found that we could use bombs to

54:43

make half of the German population homeless,

54:46

especially in cities with more than 50,000

54:48

inhabitants. So you could use him as

54:50

a source. J.M. Spake said we were

54:53

the ones who authorized the initial bombing

54:55

of civilians in German cities and We

54:57

knew that this would bring the war

55:00

into Britain, but it was necessary

55:02

because his book is titled Bombing Vindicated.

55:04

So he's saying that the sooner you

55:06

start bombing, the sooner you can get

55:09

them to wave the white flag and

55:11

surrender. So you have people, this was

55:13

the air principal secretary of the ministry

55:16

saying, yes, we started the bombing, we

55:18

should be proud of it. You have

55:20

Frederick Linda Mann himself giving a memorandum

55:23

to Winston Churchill in May of 1940.

55:25

where he explicitly says we're aiming at

55:27

the civilian population. That's a very plausible

55:30

explanation. Another source you could use is

55:32

Charles de Gaulle, who was, you know,

55:34

calling the shots for the French government

55:37

in exile. In his memoirs, Charles de

55:39

Gaulle says, you know, I asked Winston

55:41

Churchill why he was so interested in

55:44

having the Germans bomb Britain and Churchill

55:46

told me that once the American see

55:48

the... bombing of Oxford and Coventry, the

55:51

Americans will have to come into the

55:53

war. These are totally legitimate sources that

55:55

you could be using as opposed to

55:58

David Irving. And then there's another one,

56:00

Martin Gilbert, who was the Churchill historian

56:02

before Andrew Roberts became the Churchill historian.

56:05

And he said, Churchill told London Derry

56:07

in 1935 we're going to have to

56:09

go to war with Germany because they're

56:12

the biggest power in Europe. Just as

56:14

we would take on the Spanish if

56:17

they got too powerful, just as we've

56:19

taken on the French Empire or the

56:21

French monarchy, just as we would take

56:24

on any other nation, it looks like

56:26

Germany is the one we're going to

56:28

have to oppose now. But previously, Churchill

56:31

said in an article titled, Zionism versus

56:33

Bolshevism in the early 1920s that the

56:35

Bolsheviks were going to be the ones

56:38

they might have to go after, because

56:40

he saw them as the competitor, potentially

56:42

the encroaching competitor on the continent at

56:45

the time. All of these reasonable explanations

56:47

and all Kisson has to respond as,

56:49

you probably think the Holocaust didn't happen.

56:52

It is so pathetic. And then one

56:54

last one on the second World War.

56:56

Henry Stimson wrote a diary. This was

56:59

the Secretary of War. And in

57:01

1946, there was the Pearl Harbor investigation.

57:03

If you look at Stimson's diary entry

57:05

on November 25th of 1941, two weeks

57:08

before Pearl Harbor, he said, we met

57:10

with the president on Monday. We had

57:12

discussions that the Japanese were to... planning

57:15

to attack us as soon as next

57:17

Monday. The question was how we could

57:19

convince them to commit the first overt

57:22

act of war against us in order

57:24

to justify intervention. I mean, we're quoting

57:26

people who are in positions to know

57:29

these things. That is totally legitimate and

57:31

has nothing to do with us denying

57:33

the Holocaust, hating Jews or loving David

57:36

Irving. Yeah. Well, this is, I mean,

57:38

it's part of the reason why I

57:40

found Pat Buchanan's book so compelling. Churchill,

57:43

Churchill Hitler. in the unnecessary war. And

57:45

what's interesting about it is when there

57:47

is the response of like, oh, so

57:50

what are you saying the Holocaust didn't

57:52

happen? And I'm sure there are people

57:54

out there who are saying that. I

57:57

think they're wrong. But the whole point

57:59

that Pap Buchanan's making is like, no,

58:01

I'm saying it did happen. I'm saying

58:04

it happened in the middle of this

58:06

war. And it's just hard. I think

58:09

just like on almost the most common

58:11

sense. litmus test to go, okay, so

58:13

the results of the war were, first

58:16

of all, as you mentioned, British entry

58:18

into the war, the official justification was

58:20

to protect the independence of Poland, okay,

58:23

the results of the war were the

58:25

biggest bloodbath in human history, the Holocaust,

58:27

and Joseph Stalin taking over half of

58:30

Europe. And I mean, when those are

58:32

the results, it's just pretty easy for

58:34

someone to go like... Maybe an alternative

58:37

scenario would have been better. Like maybe

58:39

playing things a little bit differently could

58:41

have led to a preferable outcome. Now

58:44

I understand to some degree, and this

58:46

is partially because of how evil the

58:48

Nazis were and partially because of years

58:51

of years of indoctrination, but I understand

58:53

people immediately going like, well, if the

58:55

Nazis had survived, it would have been

58:58

a worse outcome. You know, like

59:00

if the Nazi regime was still standing

59:02

and Adolf Hitler was still alive, then

59:04

that's a worse outcome. It's just like...

59:07

That's not so self-evidently clear. And I'm

59:09

not saying it's a great outcome for

59:11

Adolf Hitler to still be alive and

59:14

the Nazi regime to have continued, but

59:16

like, let's say hypothetically, the 60 million

59:18

people didn't die who died in that

59:21

war. Let's say hypothetically, a deal could

59:23

have been worked out to get the

59:25

Jews out of there. Let's say hypothetically,

59:28

the Soviet Union didn't take over all

59:30

of Eastern Europe. it's not so obvious

59:32

you know it's not it's not so

59:35

obvious that there isn't a path that

59:37

could have been or there isn't policies

59:39

that could have been pursued that would

59:42

have led to a better path now

59:44

Wait, so with the Constantine thing, because

59:46

I want to just do this before

59:49

we wrap up. Like, the thing I

59:51

was arguing with him about was Darryl

59:53

Cooper also. You know, it started with

59:56

that, what's his name? Nile, the guy

59:58

Scott Horton debated, Furgis, Nile Ferguson called

1:00:00

Darryl Cooper, a Nazi apologist. I took

1:00:03

issue with that and insulted him a

1:00:05

little bit. I feel like, you know,

1:00:08

I'm sticking up for a friend who's

1:00:10

unfairly being smeared. And then Constantine was

1:00:12

like, no, he is a Nazi apologist.

1:00:15

And so me and him started arguing,

1:00:17

and I was like, yeah, but dude,

1:00:19

like, come on. I mean, he's just

1:00:22

not. Like, I don't know. Look at

1:00:24

the guy's work. He's not a Nazi

1:00:26

apologist. And so what Constantine's thrown at

1:00:29

me, again, it reminded me of kind

1:00:31

of, you know, a lot of this

1:00:33

stuff we've been talking about with the

1:00:36

woke on the left and the right,

1:00:38

assuming the motivations. And it was really

1:00:40

amazing to me, especially because I think

1:00:43

Constantine is still, well, trigonometry is a

1:00:45

pretty big podcast, but at least at

1:00:47

a point, what he was most known

1:00:50

for was this speech that he gave

1:00:52

eviscerating wokism, left wokism, and it was

1:00:54

beautiful. I mean, it was like one

1:00:57

of the most eloquent and devastating speeches

1:00:59

against wokism you'll ever see. If

1:01:01

you Google, Google Constantine Oxford woke, you'll

1:01:03

find it real quick. It's got millions

1:01:06

and millions and millions of views. Great

1:01:08

speech. And I'm like, hey, so how

1:01:10

are you that guy? And then we're

1:01:13

still having that. And his argument to

1:01:15

me is he's like, well, look, Darrell

1:01:17

Cooper posted a picture with a mug,

1:01:20

you know, like with Nazi imagery on

1:01:22

it. And he posted the thing about

1:01:24

a Nazi, you know, Hitler marching on

1:01:27

Paris being preferable to like fat trans

1:01:29

men in dresses or whatever. And then,

1:01:31

you know, he's got and then, and

1:01:34

so, and then he brings up the

1:01:36

fact that he goes, he said Churchill

1:01:38

Churchill was the true villain. of the

1:01:41

war. And I was like arguing with

1:01:43

him and I'm like, okay, well, first

1:01:45

of all, on your first point, what

1:01:48

he said was, okay, so I say

1:01:50

this to kind of to rib my

1:01:52

friends. And I'm saying this in jail,

1:01:55

I'm being hyperbolic, but I like to

1:01:57

say to him that Churchill was the

1:02:00

real villain of World War II. And

1:02:02

he goes now, I'm not saying he

1:02:04

committed the most atrocities or he had

1:02:07

the most blood on his hand necessarily,

1:02:09

but here's why I think he's really

1:02:11

the real villain. And it's like, okay,

1:02:14

well then, look, if we're being fair

1:02:16

here and we're not being woke zealots

1:02:18

about this, in your retelling of the

1:02:21

story. And then he responded to me,

1:02:23

and you could go look this up,

1:02:25

this is on Twitter, he goes, dude,

1:02:28

you're telling me that he said that

1:02:30

on Tucker Carlson in order to rib

1:02:32

a friend and that he was being

1:02:35

hyperbolic, well he still said it. And

1:02:37

I'm like, no, no, no, no, no.

1:02:39

I'm saying that on Tucker Carlson. He

1:02:42

said, like, I'm not saying he did

1:02:44

this to rib a friend being hyperbolic

1:02:46

and then just said this thing. It's

1:02:49

like, no, that's what he said on

1:02:51

Tucker Carlson, that to rib my friend,

1:02:53

I use hyperbole and I say this.

1:02:56

And so we're going back and forth

1:02:58

on this. And then I'm just

1:03:00

talking about, like, wait, he shit posted

1:03:02

like a time or two. Like, this

1:03:05

is, this just sounds like, like, what,

1:03:07

like, first of all, why do you

1:03:09

have to, this thing that's on tape,

1:03:12

that anyone can go back and watch.

1:03:14

Like, it really is strikingly similar to

1:03:16

me, to them saying Trump said, there's

1:03:19

very fine people on both sides. And

1:03:21

it's like, dude, it's on tape. You

1:03:23

can go back and listen to what

1:03:26

he said. Same with Darryl Cooper on

1:03:28

Tucker Carlson show. And I was like,

1:03:30

okay, so in your corner, you have

1:03:33

that he made some off-color jokes that

1:03:35

he shit posted a time or two.

1:03:37

And then I ultimately said to Constantinestantin.

1:03:40

And this is where we stopped the

1:03:42

interaction. is that I went fine. Look,

1:03:44

you're not convinced by me. Take my

1:03:47

non-woke challenge. Okay, and here's my non-woke

1:03:49

challenge. Listen to the first 30 minutes

1:03:51

of fear and loathing in the new

1:03:54

Jerusalem, and then listen to the 30

1:03:56

minutes that he did in the addendum

1:03:59

piece after it. about the suffering

1:04:01

of Jews during World War

1:04:03

II. Just listen to, it's an

1:04:05

hour combined, listen to those two

1:04:08

half hours, and you tell me,

1:04:10

is it possible, like is

1:04:12

it conceivably possible that

1:04:14

a Jew-hating Nazi apologist

1:04:16

could have possibly ever

1:04:18

made that content? Like

1:04:21

how can you square that circle together?

1:04:23

How is it possible that is the

1:04:25

one thing that you could you could

1:04:27

always count on any Jew-hating Nazi Apologists

1:04:29

would never tell you about the individual

1:04:31

suffering of Jewish people who had nothing

1:04:33

to do with this bigger cabal and

1:04:35

were just totally fucked over and just

1:04:37

like so and this is Darryl's superpower

1:04:40

really is that he's just like the

1:04:42

most intensely empathetic person So this is

1:04:44

what people love about his work. It's

1:04:46

all just like, oh my God, put

1:04:48

yourself in that guy's shoes. Imagine you're

1:04:50

here as this mob of people is ripping

1:04:52

your kids and your wife apart and beating

1:04:54

you to death and you just gotta watch

1:04:56

it all and you're powerless. And it's just,

1:04:59

and then he just responded with like, I've

1:05:01

seen it, I've listened to it and I

1:05:03

still convinced. And once he said that, I

1:05:05

was like, well, I mean, if you're, if

1:05:07

you could, if you could listen to listen

1:05:09

to that and not just be of any

1:05:11

feeling that like this is okay so in

1:05:13

my on my corner I have here is

1:05:15

this guy's work that he put out by

1:05:17

his own free will where he's deeply empathetic

1:05:19

to the suffering of Jews during the

1:05:21

Second World War and in your

1:05:24

corner you have he posted something

1:05:26

provocative on Twitter ones

1:05:29

what are we even like what it's

1:05:31

like arguing with the woke

1:05:33

leftist who's like that guy's a racist

1:05:35

because he told a joke and I

1:05:37

was like well you know he's got

1:05:39

a black wife and three black kids

1:05:42

right and you're like no told the

1:05:44

joke he's racist like what are you

1:05:46

what are you been saying here this

1:05:48

is just arguing with the

1:05:50

local leftist now they're so

1:05:52

obsessed with symbology they're like all

1:05:55

right racism is a huge issue

1:05:57

we got to take down statues on

1:05:59

the the butter and we can't have

1:06:01

any schools named Lee because that might

1:06:04

be Robert Lee. It's like, all right,

1:06:06

have any black kids learn to read

1:06:08

as a cause result of that? Have

1:06:11

any gotten on the job training skills?

1:06:13

No, no, okay. Well, then you're obviously

1:06:15

much more focused on symbology. And it's

1:06:18

still symbology for him to focus only

1:06:20

on Darrow Cooper. It's like, okay, your

1:06:22

criticism of the revisionist World War II

1:06:25

narrative is to focus on one person.

1:06:27

Why don't you take a different person?

1:06:29

President Herbert Hoover in 1953 wrote a

1:06:32

book titled Freedom Betrayed where he has

1:06:34

18 points very clear as to how

1:06:36

through diplomacy this world war could have

1:06:39

been avoided his cases basically that it

1:06:41

was almost inevitable for the national socialists

1:06:43

and the Bolsheviks to collide that in

1:06:46

no way means Britain or the US

1:06:48

has to make a regional dispute into

1:06:50

a world war. He says that Even

1:06:52

if we had to go to war

1:06:55

with Japan, he of course knows that

1:06:57

the Export Control Act of 1940 by

1:06:59

Roosevelt was intentionally done to provoke the

1:07:02

Japanese to attack America so the Americans

1:07:04

can take the side of the British.

1:07:06

Again, former president in 1953 was saying

1:07:09

this, Kisson can just respond to that.

1:07:11

Hoover goes on to say, if we

1:07:13

didn't demand absolute unconditional surrender of the

1:07:16

Japanese, they wouldn't have had to withdraw

1:07:18

their colonies, two of which were in

1:07:20

Korea and Vietnam. After pulling back their

1:07:23

colonies, the US had to go to

1:07:25

war in Korea for three years. We

1:07:27

then went to war in Vietnam, fighting

1:07:30

a proxy war against the Bolsheviks there.

1:07:32

So there are very reasonable explanations for

1:07:34

all these things, from a large number

1:07:36

of other people who are not Darryl

1:07:39

Cooper, and Kisson is still not addressing

1:07:41

these very obvious claims. and we just

1:07:43

know how pathetic it is when you

1:07:46

say well we can never allow independence

1:07:48

to be violated so that means all

1:07:50

citizens of all the 50 states need

1:07:53

to wage a war for independence against

1:07:55

the Washington DC regime, which claims the

1:07:57

right to rule them. This small group

1:08:00

of people claims the right to impose

1:08:02

taxes, claims the right to regulate their

1:08:04

lives in a large number of aspects.

1:08:07

That's a violation of independence. Surely, we're

1:08:09

going to have to go to war

1:08:11

over that. Or you could say the

1:08:14

people of the Donbas region felt that

1:08:16

their independence was being violated by the

1:08:18

2014 coup in Kiev, led by Arseniyatzenjek,

1:08:20

in his anti-terrorism operation. even the independence

1:08:23

thing. They clearly see the cost of

1:08:25

war are extraordinarily high and the outcomes

1:08:27

are extraordinarily uncertain. Whenever you take it

1:08:30

out of whatever individual frame they want

1:08:32

to put things in because they're always

1:08:34

they're primarily focusing on the potential motives

1:08:37

of the person presenting the evidence as

1:08:39

opposed to very plausible evidence. The walk

1:08:41

right is Constantine Kisson, Douglas Murray, Ben

1:08:44

Shapiro, and Dennis Prager. And Sean Hannity.

1:08:46

Yeah. 100% couldn't agree more. Keith, it

1:08:48

is really just always a pleasure, always

1:08:51

a pleasure talking to you. Let our

1:08:53

listeners and viewers know where they can

1:08:55

find your stuff if they want to

1:08:58

hear more from you. If you want

1:09:00

an introduction to my work, you can

1:09:02

check out a speech I gave titled

1:09:04

Three Social Justice Lies, Racism, Sexism, and

1:09:07

Homophobia, that can be found at the

1:09:09

Libertarian Institute. If you're more interested in

1:09:11

foreign policy, check out a book recently

1:09:14

published by our institute titled Provoked How

1:09:16

Washington Started the War. the new Cold

1:09:18

War with Russia and the catastrophe in

1:09:21

Ukraine. Long book and long title. It

1:09:23

reads so quick because it's so subdivided

1:09:25

in its sections. If you're interested in

1:09:28

economics, we have a new book at

1:09:30

the Libertarian Institute titled The National Debt

1:09:32

and You. This is by Joe Salas

1:09:35

Mullins. You can check out Libertarian institute.org/Donate.

1:09:37

Get a copy of one of our

1:09:39

books or just read the articles. Watch

1:09:42

one of the videos. Listen to one

1:09:44

of the podcast. That's where you can

1:09:46

find my work. All right, well, Keith,

1:09:48

thank you so much. and thanks

1:09:51

to everybody listening

1:09:53

go support the the

1:09:55

Institute if you can

1:09:58

people if better cause

1:10:00

No you could possibly

1:10:02

help out All

1:10:05

right out. All you guys

1:10:07

next time next time. Peace.