0:00

Coming up, I'll examine the

0:02

significance of Mark Zuckerberg's decision to

0:04

roll to the censorship and get

0:06

rid of the the fact checkers. I want

0:08

to I want to consider some

0:10

of Trump's unexpected recent statements

0:12

about Greenland, Canada and the Panama

0:14

Canal. Canal and commentator Oran Oron joins

0:16

me. We're going to talk

0:18

about what is meant by the

0:20

term term Woke right. Hey, if Hey, if

0:22

you're watching on YouTube on or

0:24

listening on Apple, Google or

0:26

Spotify, or please subscribe to my

0:28

channel. This is the Dinesh or Spotify,

0:30

please subscribe to my

0:32

channel. This is the

0:35

Denesha Sousa podcast. America

0:37

needs this voice. The

0:39

times are crazy and a

0:41

this voice. The times

0:43

are crazy, and a time of confusion,

0:45

division, a and lies. We

0:47

need a brave voice of reason, understanding,

0:50

and truth. This is

0:52

the Denes de Sousa podcast.

0:55

I want to talk

0:57

about Mark I

0:59

want to talk

1:02

about important important

1:04

announcement that he is

1:06

going to to

1:08

get rid of of. checkers

1:11

and cut back on

1:14

the Cut back on

1:16

the up Open up. political

1:18

discussion, allow. allow...

1:20

more open open exchange

1:22

on the border, even on

1:24

issues of gender, I which he

1:26

think he knows means for

1:28

the most part, part transgender. These

1:31

topics in particular were

1:33

heavily censored. by

1:35

the the army of of

1:37

and so -called so-called fact-checkers

1:39

that Zuckerberg has employed

1:41

over the past several

1:43

years. years. Nick Clegg,

1:45

who is the chief censorship

1:48

officer of meta. or or Facebook

1:50

has resigned. Joel Kaplan,

1:52

a conservative and a Republican who

1:54

has been calling has

1:56

been calling for on

1:59

back on the

2:01

censorship replaced Tim Dana White,

2:03

clearly a Trumpster has been added

2:05

to the meta board of directors.

2:07

And wow, this is a big

2:10

change. Regardless of what you think

2:12

of Zuckaburg, this is a signal.

2:14

And you can see the importance

2:16

of it if you just flash

2:19

your mind back four years ago,

2:21

think about it. Four years ago

2:23

today, Trump had been kicked

2:25

off or restricted on Facebook.

2:27

Twitter, Google, Spotify, Snapchat, Instagram,

2:29

Redit, Twitch, YouTube, TikTok, Pinterest.

2:31

Trump was essentially gone from

2:33

social media and I suppose

2:35

part of this was the

2:37

impetus for starting truth. Social

2:39

Trump's, in a sense, own,

2:41

a channel, his own channel,

2:43

his own platform. And so

2:45

we are in a new

2:47

environment, an environment that could

2:49

end up being very significant

2:51

because now what you have

2:53

is you have two major

2:55

platforms now that are anti-censorship

2:57

and one that remains pro-censorship.

2:59

So the one that remains

3:01

pro-censorship of course is YouTube

3:03

run by Google and that

3:05

is a nest of vipers.

3:07

And but... I think there's

3:09

going to be very strong

3:11

pressure on YouTube and Google

3:13

to go the way of

3:15

Facebook and X. By the

3:17

way, remember that Zuckaburg was

3:19

very candid that he's going

3:21

to be following the model

3:23

on X of Community Notes,

3:25

which is you can offer

3:27

a commentary and say, I

3:29

want to put this in

3:31

context. uh... or even dispute

3:33

something on a factual basis

3:35

but that doesn't mean it

3:38

gets taken down it just

3:40

means readers get to see

3:42

what the person posted and

3:44

then they get to see

3:46

what the community notes says

3:48

and make up their make

3:50

up their own mind so

3:52

the the market itself not

3:54

to mention the trumpet administration,

3:56

I think we'll exercise some

3:58

leverage or wait on YouTube

4:00

to follow suit to reduce

4:02

if not eliminate its censorship

4:04

regime. Now all of this

4:06

has many people including Brian

4:08

Stelter at CNN. Very unhappy.

4:10

Here's Brian Stelter. Mark Zuckaburg's

4:12

mega makeover will reshape the

4:14

entire internet. I certainly hope

4:16

so. But this is what

4:18

Stelter is worried about. I'm

4:20

going to read you a

4:22

line which gives you an

4:24

idea of his thinking. He's

4:26

quoting Zuckaburg. Governments and legacy

4:28

media have pushed a sensor

4:30

more and more. Zuckaburg said,

4:32

repeating a right-wing talking point

4:34

used to undermine fact-checking. So

4:36

you can see for Stelter.

4:38

Stelter is basically a spokesman

4:40

for... the low IQ people

4:42

in the media. He's very

4:44

low IQ himself so he

4:46

fits right in with this

4:48

group. And something that we

4:50

ought to know is that

4:52

these fact checkers are not

4:54

like for the most part

4:56

academic researchers. Who are they

4:58

really? Answer? They're journalists and

5:00

they're journalists who sit very

5:02

often at flailing... going bankrupt

5:04

loser media organizations organizations that

5:06

can't sustain themselves and would

5:08

go under if not for

5:10

the revenue that they get

5:12

from quote fact-checking so really

5:14

what's happened over the last

5:16

several years is that traditional

5:18

media outlets left-wing media outlets

5:20

which were sinking under the

5:22

ocean figured out that they

5:24

could run a scam and

5:26

the scam was they bullied

5:28

YouTube and Facebook into hiring

5:30

a bunch of them and

5:32

I'll tell you how many

5:34

in a minute. An army

5:36

of fact checkers and that

5:38

basically meant lots of money

5:40

and paychecks flowing from Facebook

5:42

and YouTube to an army

5:44

of journalists who otherwise might

5:46

find that their own journalistic...

5:48

is worth exactly $0 in

5:50

the market. It also gave

5:52

these journalists the power of

5:54

being. gatekeepers not gatekeepers directly

5:56

because you can't be a

5:58

gatekeeper at like the Washington

6:00

Post you can the only

6:02

power you have is over

6:04

your own newspaper but they

6:06

realize that these digital mobiles

6:08

have power over entire platforms

6:10

they can throw millions of

6:12

people off of block them

6:14

or silence them and so

6:16

these people were able to

6:18

exercise a very malevolent leverage

6:20

this way and now they're

6:22

all freaking out here's an

6:24

article in wired meta's fact-checking

6:26

partners say they were blindsided

6:28

by decision to axe them.

6:30

Apparently many of them say

6:32

that, I'm now quoting them,

6:34

that funding means survival. They're

6:37

worried like, where's my paycheck

6:39

going to come from? How

6:41

am I going to pay

6:43

my mortgage? And this is

6:45

something interesting. Well, I have

6:47

a solution for them, by

6:49

the way. There are lots

6:51

of tyrannical and dictatorial regimes

6:53

around the world. There's China,

6:55

there's North Korea, there's Cuba,

6:57

Venezuela. I guess it's too

6:59

bad for them, the old

7:01

Soviet Union is out of

7:03

business. So go offer your

7:05

services to these totalitarian regimes.

7:07

You already have the totalitarian

7:09

mindset and maybe you can

7:11

find some employment over there.

7:13

Maybe you can get, you

7:15

know, paid in Chinese yen

7:17

or in Venezuela and what

7:19

is it, the boulevard, even

7:21

though the believer is worth

7:23

basically nothing, but then you're

7:25

worth nothing also. So it's

7:27

kind of a good match.

7:29

Meta, it turns out, believe

7:31

it or not, employed. And

7:33

I had to sort of

7:35

read this number twice. 40,000

7:37

fact checkers. I repeat, Meta

7:39

employed 40,000 fact checkers, 40,000

7:41

bums and losers were getting

7:43

checks from Mark Zuckerberg to

7:45

do this fact checking. No

7:47

wonder this was being conducted

7:49

on such a massive scale.

7:51

You basically have the population

7:53

of a small town. in

7:55

this fact-checking enterprise. Now there

7:57

are a lot of people

7:59

who are pushing back against

8:01

the Zuckerberg announcement and I

8:03

can kind of see where

8:05

they're coming from. They're basically

8:07

saying look this guy is

8:09

such an opportunist. It's not

8:11

that he's had some change

8:13

of heart really. Frankly if

8:15

Kamala Harris had won the

8:17

election he would not be

8:19

doing any of this. He

8:21

might even be doubling down

8:23

on the censorship. This is

8:25

a way of saying that

8:27

Zuckerberg is not really any

8:29

kind of a leader. He's

8:31

sort of a follower. He

8:33

watches to see which way

8:35

the wind is blowing. And

8:37

then he runs in that

8:39

direction. So he can be

8:41

counted on not to do

8:43

the right thing, but to

8:45

do the convenient thing. And

8:47

a lot of conservatives have

8:49

highlighted Zuckerberg's long litany of

8:51

past offenses and crimes. First

8:53

of all, he banned any

8:55

discussion of the lab leak

8:57

theory regarding COVID. Just

13:09

like all of you, I had problem sleeping.

13:11

I had tried every pillow out there

13:13

and nothing worked. I'd I'd flip all all

13:15

night, my arm my arm for support and

13:18

fall asleep or I'd wake up with a

13:20

sore neck or maybe a headache. a headache. Well

13:22

quality sleep comes from keeping your neck

13:24

straight at night. at You have to

13:26

fill in that space between your head

13:28

and your head and That's why I invented I

13:30

pillow. my My pillow is patented fill, fill,

13:33

adjust your exact individual needs and it

13:35

doesn't matter if you sleep on your

13:37

back, you stomach, side, or any combination or any

13:39

When I got my pillow,

13:41

When I got my asleep almost

13:43

immediately. I stay asleep at night and

13:45

I wake up more well rested in the

13:47

morning. in go to mypillow.com

13:50

or call the number

13:52

on your screen. Use your

13:54

promo code to get Use

13:56

your for only $19 get classic

13:59

king my pill $18 .98. Standard size

14:01

MyPillows only $14 .98. my

14:03

That's right, only $14 .98.

14:05

Plus all Plus all orders 75 more,

14:07

or more ship free. free. This

20:12

past year has been one of

20:14

the hardest in my pillows history.

20:16

It's because of you that we're

20:19

making it through My employees I

20:21

want to thank you for your

20:24

continued support by extending our wholesale

20:26

prices on classic my pillows get

20:28

standard classic my pillows only 1498

20:31

I can't believe I'm even saying

20:33

that only 1498 but it gets

20:35

even better upgrade to a queen-sized

20:38

my pillow for just 1898 King

20:40

size only a dollar more get

20:42

my body pillows 29 and multi-use

20:45

my pills for only $9.98. So

20:47

go to my pillow.com or call

20:49

the number on your screen. Use

20:52

your promo code to take advantage

20:54

of these wholesale prices, including my

20:57

standard-sized my pillow, originally $49.8, not

20:59

only $14.8, Queens, 18's only a

21:01

dollar more. Not only that, order

21:04

$75 or more ship, absolutely free.

21:06

From all of us here at

21:08

my pillow. Guys,

21:14

I'm delighted to welcome back to

21:16

the podcast our friend Oran McIntyre.

21:18

He's a columnist a lecturer He's

21:20

an author and a political theorist.

21:22

He's the host of the Oran

21:24

McIntyre show the podcast on the

21:26

blaze and he lives with his

21:28

wife and son in Florida Hey

21:31

Oran, thanks for joining me. I

21:33

really appreciate it I've been talking

21:35

on the podcast about this announcement

21:37

by Mark Zuckaburg that he's going

21:39

to get rid of the fact

21:41

checkers. And apparently there's a rather

21:43

large legion of them. I had

21:45

no idea there were so many

21:47

of them. Apparently they number in

21:49

the thousands. So he says he's

21:51

doing that and also that he

21:53

is going to roll back on

21:55

the censorship. And he said specifically

21:57

on issues dealing with the border

21:59

and gender issues. Now, I suppose

22:01

that the first glance, all of

22:03

this is welcome news, but also

22:05

at the same time, we're all

22:08

very suspicious, given Mark Zuckerberg's track

22:10

record. What do you make of

22:12

this latest announcement? Is it a

22:14

genuine change of heart? What do

22:16

you think we can expect? I

22:18

think a lot of people are

22:20

right to be skeptical. When you

22:22

win a mandate like Trump did,

22:24

people sit up and take notice.

22:26

And Mark Zuckerberg is somebody who

22:28

wants to be on the right

22:30

side of power. He runs a

22:32

massive company. He doesn't want to

22:34

be regulated. He doesn't want to

22:36

be on the wrong side of

22:38

the people in charge. So when

22:40

the woke were in charge, when

22:42

the left were in charge, when

22:45

the left were in charge, when

22:47

it was clear that the Democrats

22:49

were running everything. censored even donating

22:51

his own money to change the

22:53

outcome of the election. and ultimately

22:55

creating a jobs program for a

22:57

bunch of leftists through the fact-checking

22:59

industry as you just pointed out.

23:01

The left is really good at

23:03

that. Everything is actually a patronage

23:05

network. But now he sees the

23:07

winds of change coming and so

23:09

he says, well, if the right

23:11

is going to be in charge

23:13

for a while, if it looks

23:15

like Trump didn't just get across

23:17

the finish line, but he really

23:19

truly did win a big election

23:22

and that seems to offer some

23:24

kind of shift in the mentality.

23:26

of the American people, well, he

23:28

wants to be on that side

23:30

too. I doubt that Zuckenberg is

23:32

a deeply ideological creature. Ultimately, he

23:34

wants to run his company, do

23:36

it efficiently, and do it without

23:38

the government getting involved as much

23:40

as possible. And so he's going

23:42

to kind of bend whichever way

23:44

is convenient for him and his

23:46

company. There are people who are

23:48

idealogues up in kind of the

23:50

Fortune 500. There surely are businessmen

23:52

who are deeply bought into the

23:54

leftist ideology, but, you know, Zuckenbergberg,

23:56

the joke is he's he's he's

23:59

he's he's he's he's he's he's

24:01

barely. human most of the time

24:03

and I think you can kind

24:05

of see that here. I mean

24:07

I guess we get an inside

24:09

here into a broader point about

24:11

society, don't we? Which is that

24:13

when we saw all these businesses

24:15

buying into DEA and woke culture

24:17

and were tempted to think, wow,

24:19

this is the product of the

24:21

university system, all these CEOs are

24:23

coming out of Ivy League schools

24:25

where they've been indoctrinated. And as

24:27

you say, that may be true

24:29

in some cases, but most people

24:31

are cowards and B. profit maximizers

24:33

and so they're not doing anything

24:36

that is all that political in

24:38

their view they're just trying to

24:40

stay on the right side of

24:42

the people who could do them

24:44

a lot of harm and they

24:46

also want to look cool so

24:48

that when the political wind shifts

24:50

I guess what we're learning is

24:52

that you're going to have a

24:54

bunch of opportunities to come over

24:56

to our side and maybe that's

24:58

not an entirely bad thing. In

25:00

fact, that is actually one of

25:02

the indices that your side is

25:04

winning. Yeah, they like you when

25:06

you win. That's really all there

25:08

is too. A lot of Eastern

25:11

bloc countries in Europe went from

25:13

being fascist to communist to liberal

25:15

democracies and in each iteration, the

25:17

elites of those countries... really did

25:19

believe somewhat in that ideology. Ideology

25:21

is something that people do change

25:23

on a relatively regular basis. It

25:25

doesn't mean that they didn't have

25:27

some level of sincere belief, but

25:29

when the incentives change, when the

25:31

winds of power change, when social

25:33

consensus... changes, you get what's called

25:35

a preference cascade. And I'm somebody

25:37

who believes deeply in elite theory.

25:39

Once you see the change at

25:41

the top happen, then you see

25:43

it cascade down through the ranks

25:45

and to the common people. And

25:48

what we saw was that slowly

25:50

but surely, the average person was

25:52

pretty fed up with what the

25:54

left was doing. Trump embodied that

25:56

energy. And once he won that

25:58

mandate, a lot of people at

26:00

the top are saying, oh, well,

26:02

this seems to be what's going

26:04

to be happening for a lot

26:06

of years. This is where power

26:08

is going to reside. This is

26:10

the zeitgeist that I need to

26:12

kind of be with. And even

26:14

if they didn't have some kind

26:16

of deep spiritual change over the

26:18

issues, they realize that, well, maybe

26:20

I wasn't so big under the

26:22

censoring and maybe mutilating kids for

26:25

political progress. Maybe that isn't the

26:27

best thing. And they can easily

26:29

shift themselves into a different direction.

26:31

what you say is quite right

26:33

and runs counter to what a

26:35

lot of conservatives believe because I

26:37

remember even years ago I went

26:39

to a talk by the renowned

26:41

Christian Chuck Colson who had worked

26:43

in the Nixon administration and Chuck

26:45

Colson was the theme of his

26:47

talk was basically real change comes

26:49

from the ground up. And I

26:51

remember just my mind rebelling throughout

26:53

the talk and saying to myself,

26:55

actually no, it looks like change

26:57

by and large comes from elites

26:59

and then, you know, filters down

27:02

or trickles down if you will

27:04

to the society at large. But

27:06

the lesson I draw from that

27:08

is that our side needs elites

27:10

as well. In other words, the

27:12

very fact that we now have

27:14

a constellation of very powerful people

27:16

from Elon Musk to, you know,

27:18

all the billionaires in the Trump

27:20

cabinet, powerful people and media, this

27:22

is an elite to take on

27:24

the elite on the other side.

27:26

And some people, there are some

27:28

mega people who think you can

27:30

do without that. I think you

27:32

believe and I believe also that

27:34

you can't. Yeah, the political

27:37

theorist Valfredo Paredo said that change always

27:39

comes through the ruling elite class and

27:41

whenever you have men of ambition like

27:43

Elon Musk who are limited by the

27:45

current regime or you have very bright

27:47

people who are pushed out of any

27:49

of these influential positions like we see

27:51

through the DEA I regime which you

27:53

get is built up as a counter

27:55

elite a group of people who are

27:57

outside, they have elite skills, they have

28:00

elite resources, but they are outside the

28:02

ruling coalition because for so, you know,

28:04

whatever, however it's constructed, they are excluded,

28:06

they can't be a part of what's

28:08

going on. And when you get enough

28:10

talented people built up outside of the

28:12

ruling class, the ruling class becomes weak,

28:14

and those counter elites become stronger. And

28:16

I think what we saw is what

28:18

Paredo would call a rotation of elites,

28:21

where not all of them suddenly disappear,

28:23

but there's a fundamental shift in the

28:25

balance of power inside the elite coalition.

28:27

Those that were in power are waning,

28:29

those that were pushing the DEA regime

28:31

are waning, and those that want America

28:33

to be able to achieve. People who

28:35

want to go to Mars, who want

28:37

to build things, they are the ones

28:39

who are on the ascent. And so

28:41

we are starting to see guys like

28:44

Elon Musk and David Sachs and others

28:46

who were more left wing, see the

28:48

opportunity. through Trump to throw away some

28:50

of the worst parts of what the

28:52

left has been doing and put America

28:54

back in a place where guys like

28:56

that can achieve again. And so I

28:58

think that's why we're seeing a big

29:00

move now. Those elites are moving in

29:02

and that's signaling to everybody else. Okay,

29:05

there is a real movement here now.

29:07

It's not just a scragly bunch of

29:09

people fighting against power. They have really

29:11

backing and now this is something we

29:13

want to be a part of. almost

29:15

a kind of alternation between the age

29:17

of the bureaucrat and the age of

29:19

the entrepreneur because if we if we

29:21

go back to the 1960s you remember

29:23

John F. Kennedy basically saying you know

29:25

in effect if you're young if you're

29:28

idealistic if you care, you know, don't

29:30

go into business, join the Peace Corps.

29:32

In other words, join the government. This

29:34

is the true avenue of American idealism

29:36

and that defined the era of the

29:38

60s and 70s. Then Reagan came along

29:40

and basically said, no, you know, the

29:42

bureaucrat is kind of a do-nothing guy.

29:44

Reagan made all kinds of jokes about

29:46

these bureaucrats who sat up. their desk

29:49

all day with nothing to do. And

29:51

Reagan celebrates the entrepreneur. And then we

29:53

see in the 80s and 90s this

29:55

massive technological boom that defines the Reagan

29:57

era. Then along comes Obama. And he

29:59

restores, if you will, the prestige of

30:01

the bureaucracy. Once again, we're back to

30:03

sort of the idea that the government

30:05

is the solution. And it could well

30:07

be. that we are now seeing a

30:10

second boost of the technological entrepreneurial age,

30:12

but this time associated not so much

30:14

with Reagan as with Trump. It's interesting

30:16

that with Trump, it didn't happen so

30:18

much, I don't think, in 2016, even

30:20

though we had a good economy under

30:22

Trump, the level of entrepreneurial energy that

30:24

seems ready to burst out just seems

30:26

to me right now of a completely

30:28

different magnitude and dimension. Do you agree?

30:30

Yeah, there's definitely kind of this. haggered

30:33

moment that a lot of the businessmen

30:35

the entrepreneurs were going through throughout the

30:37

Biden administration the way that they had

30:39

been constrained the things that they wanted

30:41

to do the way that different social

30:43

pressures had made them choose people for

30:45

their political or their ideological or their

30:47

racial or sexual characteristics rather than for

30:49

their ability and now they see an

30:51

opportunity to free themselves from those shackles

30:54

and you're right to see it as

30:56

a cycle right we get the we

30:58

get this burst of creativity money is

31:00

made inventions are created and then we

31:02

start to get the structures that are

31:04

built around it as this everything scales

31:06

up the complexity increases we get more

31:08

and more managers more more bureaucrats and

31:10

they start pulling different resources away from

31:12

the entrepreneurs and into those systems of

31:14

bureaucracy. I talk about this a lot

31:17

in my book, The Total State. And

31:19

so it's really important to recognize that

31:21

we are always going to see kind

31:23

of that shift towards the bureaucracy after

31:25

one of those big explosions because people

31:27

want to pull those resources into their

31:29

own structures, their own political networks, instead

31:31

of allowing these people to continue to

31:33

do what they're doing. And like I

31:35

said, they're very sick of it at

31:38

this point. back to work. They're ready

31:40

to go back to creating, growing, doing

31:42

things that are important. That's really what

31:44

many of these people came to America

31:46

to do or really see as the

31:48

American spirit. Or let's talk about a

31:50

skirmish that you have gotten involved in

31:52

recently but I want to have you

31:54

common and just to illuminate the underlying

31:56

issues. We all know about DEA. We

31:58

all know about the phenomenon of the

32:01

woke and we identify wokism if you

32:03

will with... political correctness with the left

32:05

with the attempt to kind of impose

32:07

an ideology of identity politics but of

32:09

late we have seen this term sort

32:11

of percolate up and and to be

32:13

honest I can't say I followed it

32:15

really closely but it's the woke right

32:17

and can you clarify what this is

32:19

all about? What is the issue here

32:22

and what is the term woke right

32:24

even mean? Yeah, it's difficult to clarify

32:26

because the people who use it don't

32:28

even know. Guys like James Lindsay and

32:30

Constantine Kissen, who have it regularly in

32:32

kind of their rotation of what they're

32:34

saying, when they've been asked, what does

32:36

it mean? They'll say, well, it's actually

32:38

not a great term and it's not

32:40

really precise. So I can't really define

32:42

it for them. What I can say

32:45

is that a lot of these guys

32:47

are people from the left. I'm sure

32:49

you guys remember, you know, kind of

32:51

the intellectual dark web and Barry Weiss's

32:53

story about, you know, Sam Harris and

32:55

Joe Rogan and all these guys who

32:57

used to be on the left, but

32:59

then they kind of didn't get the

33:01

next update when it came to progressivism.

33:03

They weren't, they were ready to redefine

33:06

marriage, but not gender, you know, that

33:08

kind of, And so a lot of

33:10

these guys, you know, some like Sam

33:12

Harris, you know, went back to the

33:14

left, some like Jordan Peterson became more

33:16

right wing, but a lot of them,

33:18

like James Lindsay, were basically still leftist,

33:20

but they have a lot of the

33:22

beliefs that they had beforehand, but they

33:24

find themselves working. with the right

33:27

the right agree they

33:29

agree on free speech

33:31

and not mutilating

33:33

children. that's great. I'm

33:35

glad that they agree

33:37

with those things.

33:39

But the problem was

33:41

that we're never right

33:43

and And so kind

33:45

we kind of got

33:47

past those issues, we

33:50

all okay, we all

33:52

agree that we

33:54

are for free speech

33:56

Elon's helping us get

33:58

more free speech. we're

34:00

we're all against these

34:02

child so we So

34:04

we should pass laws

34:06

against that. We

34:08

agree with that. that okay

34:11

But then it

34:13

turns out, you know,

34:15

when when, say, Christians

34:17

want to be governed

34:19

in a way

34:21

that is in accordance

34:23

with the Bible,

34:25

they want their Christian

34:27

faith to have to

34:29

have an the laws of their land and

34:31

the things that their children are taught. their

34:34

All taught. All sudden, a lot of these guys

34:36

are like, a lot these that's a bunch of fascism.

34:38

a That's a bunch I didn't sign up for

34:40

for They were only here for the free

34:42

speech. They were only here for for maybe you

34:44

know, the issue. issue. But when it came to

34:46

going back to actual conservative beliefs, Christian beliefs,

34:48

a lot of these guys are atheists. A

34:51

lot of them, you know, were left their

34:53

most of their life and they're just not

34:55

willing to go there. So I think the

34:57

you're seeing is really between of of. the new crop

34:59

of the the people who got

35:01

pushed out the left me and left me and

35:03

they went too far and I'm going to

35:05

be conservative and the the people who are actually

35:08

conservative, the people who actually had right wing had

35:10

the entire time and said, said, okay, I actually

35:12

want to implement those when we're governing. It's

35:14

not just some theoretical thing that I was

35:16

keeping in a corner. So now that we're

35:18

in power, we would like that to be

35:20

something that we are doing. And I think

35:22

that's why you see this reaction, them calling

35:25

people calling right, because it's just, I think,

35:27

a it's just, I the end of the day. turn

35:30

at what the issue what the issue

35:32

is. In just just trying to

35:34

think of what you just

35:36

said that that a certain type

35:38

of procedural classical liberalism that envisions

35:40

a neutral state. that envisions

35:43

kind you know, of you know you

35:45

have economic freedom you have freedom of

35:47

speech and these these are of of but

35:49

they are open but they are open

35:51

procedures, they They take sides, they don't say

35:53

that this speech is better than that speech,

35:56

they just say that speech should be

35:58

permitted. permitted. So freedom of assembly

36:00

freedom of speech, right to vote,

36:02

economic liberalism. But modern American

36:04

conservatism includes that, but it's

36:06

not restricted to that. It

36:08

includes a kind of positive

36:10

vision of what a good

36:12

society looks like. In other

36:15

words, it says something like,

36:17

you know, when the founders

36:19

talk about the pursuit of

36:21

happiness and the American dream,

36:23

they're not neutral about what

36:25

that dream is. If 350

36:27

million Americans all decided freely.

36:29

to become pornographers, the American

36:31

founders wouldn't go, what an

36:33

amazing republic we've created. Not

36:35

at all. So could it

36:37

be that this is the

36:39

breaking point that the old

36:41

leftists want this procedural liberalism,

36:43

but the moment you say

36:45

to them, this is our

36:47

positive vision of a good

36:50

society, they go, whoa, that's

36:52

the woke, right speaking. Is

36:54

that an accurate summary of

36:56

what's going on? I think

36:58

that's exactly correct. And you

37:00

know, the thing about this

37:02

vision of classical liberalism is

37:04

as you're just pointing out,

37:06

it never existed. John Locke

37:08

didn't believe that atheists should

37:10

be allowed to hold office

37:12

or influence public opinion. The

37:14

founders... had state churches in

37:16

most of their states when

37:18

the Constitution was written. Our

37:20

understanding of the neutral state

37:22

today in modern America has

37:25

very little resemblance with what

37:27

the founders themselves believed or

37:29

what the original philosophers who

37:31

came up with classical liberalism

37:33

believe. What we're really saying

37:35

is relatively modern liberalism. This

37:37

idea that states could be

37:39

entirely neutral have no values

37:41

that institutions are completely free

37:43

from bias. And what that

37:45

belief does is blinds us

37:47

to abuses of the system.

37:49

So we just went through

37:51

this pandemic lockdown. Everyone believed

37:53

that our medical institutions were

37:55

liberal and neutral and unbiased.

37:57

And then it turns out,

38:00

actually, no, guys like Fauci

38:02

are deeply political. They have

38:04

deep beliefs that they want

38:06

to foist upon you and

38:08

they will use their position

38:10

from inside these neutral institutions

38:12

to force that view on

38:14

you just like we see

38:16

with our universities just like

38:18

we see with so many

38:20

of our government institutions and

38:22

ultimately the truth is every

38:24

institution has a world view

38:26

every institution has a belief

38:28

system everybody has a political

38:30

theology at the end of

38:32

the day and that is

38:35

going to inform the things

38:37

that they do with power.

38:39

Now, recognizing that is what

38:41

many people who use the

38:43

term woke right, that's what

38:45

they have a problem with.

38:47

You're noticing how power works

38:49

and that power has a

38:51

opinion. It has a position.

38:53

It's not neutral and it

38:55

never will be. That is

38:57

scary for a lot of

38:59

people because that means we

39:01

have to positively affirm a

39:03

vision. We have to actually

39:05

have a positive vision for

39:08

who we are and what

39:10

we want to be. There's

39:12

a tillos to our society.

39:14

We are moving towards it.

39:16

These are things that scare

39:18

people who wanted to be

39:20

in this live and let

39:22

live society for the rest

39:24

of their lives. But history

39:26

didn't stop in the 1990s.

39:28

We aren't going back to

39:30

Bill Clinton liberalism. That is

39:32

just not what's going to

39:34

happen. When you sit there

39:36

and let that happen, what

39:38

you get is the woke

39:40

takeover institutions because institutions are

39:43

never neutral. will come in

39:45

and ultimately inform the decisions

39:47

that they make. Yeah, great

39:49

stuff. Very interesting. Guys, I've

39:51

been talking to Oran McIntire.

39:53

Follow him on X at

39:55

Oran, A-U-R-O-N-M-A-C-I-N-T-Y-R-E. Oran, as always,

39:57

thank you very much for

39:59

joining me. Great talking to

40:01

you. parallels between the left

40:03

in America, the progressive left

40:05

in the Democratic Party on

40:07

the one hand, and the

40:09

emerging fascist and Nazi movements

40:11

in Italy and Germany. respectively.

40:13

And I described last time

40:15

how the Nazis patterned the

40:18

Nuremberg laws, which turned Jews

40:20

into second-class citizens, on the

40:22

racist codes of the democratic

40:24

South. The Nuremberg law was

40:26

officially called the Law for

40:28

the Protection of German Blood

40:30

and the Reich Citizenship Law.

40:32

It is well known that

40:34

these laws, which were a

40:36

kind of, some people have

40:38

called them a dress rehearsal

40:40

for the Holocaust, and it

40:42

is not well known in

40:44

this country and it's certainly

40:46

not taught and it's rarely

40:48

promulgated in documentaries or movies

40:50

of the media that the

40:53

Nazis lifted this. from the

40:55

democratic policies of the American

40:57

South. Now there's one very

40:59

interesting modification. The Nazis made

41:01

a modification so interesting it

41:03

is virtually, well it's almost

41:05

humorous. And that is that

41:07

the Nazis in trying to

41:09

outlaw interracial marriage and also

41:11

to do segregation, you do

41:13

have to answer the question,

41:15

who is a Jew. And

41:17

so the Nazis were like...

41:19

How do we do that?

41:21

What is the parallel for

41:23

that? What did the Democrats

41:25

do basically in the United

41:28

States? And one of the

41:30

Nazis who had studied in

41:32

Arkansas explained that the Democrats

41:34

have this policy on desegregation

41:36

that is called the one-drop

41:38

rule. Now, the one-drop rule

41:40

did not exist under slavery.

41:42

There are a lot of

41:44

people, in fact, there are

41:46

even some slavery scholars who

41:48

think that the one-drop rule

41:50

was there under slavery and

41:52

then was simply extended through

41:54

segregation, but that is not

41:56

true. I document this by

41:58

the way in an earlier

42:00

book of mine called The

42:03

End of Racism. Under slavery

42:05

there was no one-drop rule.

42:07

The status of being a

42:09

slave passed through the mother.

42:11

So the simple fact of

42:13

it is if your mom

42:15

was a slave, you're a

42:17

slave. And that's why by

42:19

the way some of these

42:21

mulatto kids who were born

42:23

on the plantation became slaves

42:25

because they inherited their slave

42:27

status through the mother. Now

42:29

under segregation it was different.

42:31

And the Democrats adopted a

42:33

very harsh rule, which is

42:35

essentially any discernible black ancestry

42:38

makes you black. It doesn't

42:40

matter if you've got your

42:42

one-eighth black or one-sixth black.

42:44

It doesn't matter. If you

42:46

sort of look blackish, you're

42:48

black. And that's where the

42:50

one-drop rule comes in. Obviously,

42:52

it's not literal because there's

42:54

no way of finding out

42:56

if you have one drop.

42:58

But the one drop rule

43:00

is that we have symbolizing

43:02

that any racial mixture or

43:04

admixture qualifies you to be

43:06

segregated basically with the black

43:08

race. Now the Nazis took

43:11

this up and very interestingly

43:13

in their discussion, and we

43:15

know about the discussion because

43:17

records were kept of it,

43:19

they felt this was too

43:21

harsh. They felt like you

43:23

can't, you know, you have

43:25

a guy who's got, let's

43:27

just say three... uh... white

43:29

or non-Jewish grandparents and is

43:31

any racial mixture or admixture

43:33

qualifies you to be segregated

43:35

basically with with the black

43:37

race now the Nazis took

43:39

this up and very interestingly

43:41

in their discussion we know

43:43

about the discussion because records

43:46

were kept of it they

43:48

felt this was too harsh

43:50

they felt like you can't

43:52

you know you have a

43:54

guy who's got let's just

43:56

say three white or non-Jewish

43:58

grandparents and is one for

44:00

the Jewish, are you going

44:02

to make that guy a

44:04

Jew just because he has

44:06

some Jewish ancestry? Even though,

44:08

let's just say, for example,

44:10

his family are practicing Christians,

44:12

does that make any sense?

44:14

Well, the Nazis were like,

44:16

we can't do that. That's

44:18

too extreme. In other words,

44:21

the Nazis found the racism

44:23

of the Democratic Party too

44:25

much, even for them. And

44:27

so they decided to build

44:29

their Nuremberg laws on a

44:31

much more limited principle. you

44:33

could call it the three-fourths

44:35

principle. In other words, in

44:37

order to qualify as Jewish,

44:39

you had to have three

44:41

Jewish grandparents. In other words,

44:43

it wasn't even enough to

44:45

be half Jewish. You had

44:47

to be three-fourths Jewish or

44:49

more, and anyone who was

44:51

less than that could not

44:53

be segregated under the Nurembog

44:56

laws. Now there were some

44:58

exceptions to that rule. But

45:00

in general, this was what

45:02

the Nazis decided. Now, I

45:04

mentioned that a lot of

45:06

this, a lot of what

45:08

I've been talking about is

45:10

described in a book by

45:12

the Yale scholar, his name

45:14

is James Whitman, and I

45:16

want to emphasize the point

45:18

that Whitman is always covering

45:20

for the Democratic Party. I

45:22

want to read a few

45:24

lines from his book. Hitler's

45:26

American model. The book really

45:28

should have been called Hitler's

45:31

Democratic model because Hitler was

45:33

looking to the policies of

45:35

the Democratic Party. But James

45:37

Whitman realized, listen, I can

45:39

please my progressive colleagues and

45:41

I won't get into any

45:43

hot water, not to mention

45:45

I won't embarrass myself since

45:47

I too am a Democrat.

45:49

I'll just take the things

45:51

that the Democratic Party didn't

45:53

blame them on America. And

45:55

he does this consistently throughout

45:57

his book. He says, for

45:59

example, that American law remained

46:01

a regular Nazi point of

46:03

reference. No, it wasn't American

46:06

law because these laws were

46:08

not applied across the United

46:10

States. There were no laws

46:12

in Oregon or California or

46:14

Chicago or Maine that the

46:16

Nazis drew on at all.

46:18

They are drawing on laws

46:20

from a particular part of

46:22

America, the so-called solid South

46:24

dominated by one political party,

46:26

namely the Democratic Party. Again,

46:28

here's Whitman. The Nazis, quote,

46:30

repeatedly turned to the American

46:32

example. No, they didn't. They

46:34

repeatedly turned to the democratic

46:36

example. And finally, Whitman concludes,

46:39

quote, American white supremacy provided

46:41

to our collective shame some

46:43

of the working materials for

46:45

Nazism in the 1930s. No,

46:47

it wasn't American white supremacy.

46:49

It was the white supremacy

46:51

of the progressive left and

46:53

of the democratic party. So...

46:56

So what's you know what's really going

46:58

on here is there's an attempt to

47:00

Cover up for the racism of the

47:02

Democratic Party and of the left not

47:05

one time Does Whitman talk about Democrats?

47:07

Never does he point a finger of

47:09

blame at quote the progressives Not once

47:12

does he mention the left and this

47:14

I think is part of a strategy

47:16

Let's remember to repeat a point I've

47:19

made on the podcast before Every segregation

47:21

law in the South. was passed by

47:23

democratic legislatures. Every such law was signed

47:25

into power by a democratic governor, enforced

47:28

by democratic sheriffs, democratic city and state

47:30

officials. It was progressives who passed the

47:32

racist immigration laws of 1924. The Ku

47:35

Klux Klan was the military arm of

47:37

the Democratic Party. So when the Nazis

47:39

look across the pond and they go,

47:41

we like the Klan because it's enforcing

47:44

white supremacy. It's important to realize they

47:46

like an arm of the Democratic Party.

47:48

And that's what these American scholars like

47:51

Whitman are trying to hide. And we

47:53

see this attempt to hide also when

47:55

people generically blame the South, because the

47:58

South did this and the South did

48:00

that. But what they don't pay attention

48:02

to is the fact that this regional

48:04

divide of the Civil War between the

48:07

North and the South also had an

48:09

ideological divide between the Northern Republican Party.

48:11

and the southern Democratic Party. Let's remember,

48:14

for example, that the Republican Party really

48:16

didn't have any constituency in the South.

48:18

Lincoln's name did not even appear on

48:20

the ballot in most of the southern

48:23

states. And so the Republican Party was

48:25

to that degree a regional party. The

48:27

Democratic Party of course did exist in

48:30

the North, but its real power was

48:32

in the South. So that's the point

48:34

I'm trying to, trying to make here.

48:37

By the way, my AI, my former

48:39

colleague at AI Josh Maravchik, he's look,

48:41

he's reviewing this book by James Whitman,

48:43

Hitler's American model, and the point he

48:46

makes is he tries to refute the

48:48

book by saying, what's the big deal?

48:50

His argument is, he says, look, you

48:53

know, the Nazis are going to be

48:55

Nazis. The Nazis hate Jews. They're going

48:57

to kill Jews. So simply saying that

48:59

they looked at the American model is

49:02

insignificant because, as Moravshik puts it, and

49:04

Josh is a real smart guy, I'm

49:06

now quoting him, suppose for a moment

49:09

the Nazis found no inspiration in American

49:11

examples. Would there have been no American

49:13

model? Would one fewer Jew have died

49:16

at Hitler's hand? So here what, um...

49:18

What Marathjak seems to be saying is

49:20

that, you know, yeah, they might have

49:22

looked at the American example, but it

49:25

didn't really make a difference. And I

49:27

think this is wrong. It made a

49:29

difference. Why? Because obviously the Nazis didn't

49:32

get their... racial animus from from

49:34

the Democrats. They already

49:36

had it. But

49:38

what they did get

49:41

get. is they were, they did

49:43

they did get a

49:45

formula for institutionalizing

49:48

their got a They got

49:50

a formula, recipe made

49:52

recipe from the

49:55

Democrats it. how to

49:57

do it. They didn't

49:59

know how to

50:01

do it. They might

50:04

have done it

50:06

differently to answer Josh's

50:08

question. They wanted to

50:11

create the first racist society,

50:13

and then then they

50:15

found out that the

50:17

Democrats already had in

50:20

the the American South,

50:22

And so they went,

50:24

great, we're we're just

50:27

going to pirate their

50:29

example. And that

50:31

is in fact what

50:34

they did. So I

50:36

think unwittingly what what

50:38

Josh is doing doing is covering

50:40

up for the racism of the

50:42

Democratic of the He's making it sound

50:44

like it was no big deal

50:47

at all. He's letting the deal at

50:49

the hook. the left I think this

50:51

is the problem with problem conservatives

50:53

who try to just to just the

50:55

impact the impact of the volume of of racism

50:57

in America. They can can be called

50:59

race. racism, strategy. Racism wasn't that bad.

51:01

So what if Hitler got some

51:03

of it from here? Hitler know,

51:06

he of it kind of a racist

51:08

already. was kind of a racist I think a

51:10

much better approach, approach, which is

51:12

the approach I've taken certainly in in

51:14

my, not only in my books,

51:16

but also in the films the films,

51:18

Death of a Nation, like like America,

51:20

is that the racism was really

51:23

bad. But wasn't done by us.

51:25

by It wasn't done by done It

51:27

wasn't done by conservatives. It was

51:29

implemented by progressives. It was implemented

51:31

by Democrats. So It

51:33

it is shameful,

51:36

but all the

51:38

shame falls on

51:40

them. It was implemented by Democrats.

51:42

So yes, it is shameful, but

51:45

all the shame falls on them.