Outlaw Conservatives, stage 1, episode 1, don't look. Hi there, my name's Christopher Cantwell and welcome to Outlaw Conservative. What you are about to listen to is not a live airing of Outlaw Conservative proper, but rather an edited version of a different live show which I produce. That programming is uncensored and gets into controversial subject matter and is thus unsuited for listening to Edward or Around Children. I have provided you here with a heavily redacted version of that audio for you vulgarity or controversial subject matter for your listening enjoyment. With the exception of the material edited out of this recording, these two shows are a very similar format, so from time to time I will release edited episodes of the uncensored content here as episodes of Outlaw Conservative. At some point in the near future I will be introducing paid memberships and premium content for Outlaw Conservative.com. Please note that even behind the paywall, all content at OutlawConservative.com will always be clean. If you want the uncensored content, just do some searching for Christopher Cantwell and you will surely manage to find it. That content is freely available to the public and requires no membership subscription. Outlaw conservative airs every Wednesday from 5-7 PM, USE at OutlawConservative.com. And you can call in at 808-4-Outlaw. The first live airing will occur on Wednesday, January 16th, 2019 at 5 PM USE and I certainly hope you will join us. So please enjoy this heavily redacted episode of Outlaw Conservative. I used to think conservatives are like backwards religious fanatics who willfully ignore the evidence before their very eyes just to maintain their outdated and superstitious ideology. It wasn't just a coincidence either. Back then I thought this was the defining characteristic of conservatism. What I thought they were conserving was just an obsolete world view. Leftists I thought during this time was smarter but misguided. They were entirely too open-minded and overconfident in their perceived ability to repair the world the thinking went. Their myriad intellectual pursuits led them down diverse paths of thought, many of which contained bad economic ideas, but at least their hearts were in the right place and they were open to new ways of thinking. Lucky for me, I thought I was above all of these foolish mistakes. I was a libertarian, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, eventually giving way to the non-aggression principle and truly enlighten political thought. Luckily for the country, I wasn't empowered during this time. It turns out I was completely wrong as has so often turned out to be the case. One of the things which has stunned me the most of it all last four years is the distribution of intellectual thought across a political spectrum. Today, leftists in their libertarian counterparts have sought only to protect their position, silence their critics, distract from issues, and even resort to violence. Their advocacy went from tolerating differences to imposing gray uniformity and crushing dissent. Non-leftist libertarians, what few of them remained, were happy to condemn this demagoguery, but offered no meaningful resistance to it. To them, open borders was a misguided interpretation of the non-aggression principle because in a private property society there would be no common spaces for immigrants to freely travel across, a fine theory, but absent the abolition of the state did nothing to address the immigration problems currently impowering the left. Likewise, they saw eight speech and anti-discrimination laws as misguided, but offered no meaningful resistance for fear of being seen as intolerant. Putting aside for a moment some meaningful distinctions between conservatism and the right, this is where the intellectual power has emerged. Concerns over immigration were well-founded in reality supported by facts and evidence and aimed at the preservation of far more important things in an outdated superstition. We're no longer about the will of God, but rather the maintenance of society through the cohesion of its constituent parts of families and the individuals within them. Try though the left and their allies might to make this seem like ignorance xenophobia and bigotry, the most cursory examination proved that this is where the cognitive capacity of our political discourse had become concentrated. Lacking any stubs and tiff response to this phenomenon, the left has devolved into something worse than the caricature they made of Christian fundamentalists, incapable of defeating the message they have resorted to attacking the messengers, meritlessly gulaxing censorship, character assassination, smear campaigns, and even physical violence have become the norm. Yesterday, we saw what I suspect is a new level of anti-intellectualism coming from the left, as President Trump prepared to deliver an address to the nation from the Oval Office, those who hate the truth scrambled to deal with the inevitable fallout. There was at first some debate as to whether the TV networks would even carry the address. The three major broadcast networks, NBC, ABC and CBS all took time to deliberate the subject on Monday. Many on Twitter call for the networks to opt against daring a speech, arguing from a president set in 2014 when they passed on a speech made on immigration by then President Barack Obama that was considered to be too partisan for national broadcast. These users suggested that the president was not entitled to free air time for his racist propaganda. Charlie Sykes, an MSNBC contributor and never Trump Republican floated the idea of airing a speech on a 10 minute delay, giving it a network's time to mind the address for newsy nuggets and fact check some of the president's claims. Since Trump has rewritten the rules, the network should too, he said the president isn't entitled to free air time, he needs to earn it, and since he's abused it so many times, he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. The networks all eventually gave in and delivered the message to the public without delay or edits, but went into overdrive, pissing into the information pool before and after. Leading up to the address, one talking head after another, a short note said there was no crisis at the southern border. Forget the constant stream of propaganda in the weeks and months prior of dead children, tear gas, human rights abuses and family separations and all the rest, everything was fine and only racist thought the caravans of thousands of Hondurans and others massing at our border and doing battle with border patrol was a thing worthy of consideration. After the president spoke, they dutifully delivered us the thoughts of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, the Senate minority leader and newly elected Speaker to House assured us that contrary to prevailing notions of physics, walls are incapable of stopping human movement, not to mention sinful. Outside the White House, protesters held up brightly lit and colored signs, which tread fake crisis, no wall before a cooperative media apparatus anxious to agree with the falsehood. Others simply determined to discourage the populace from hearing the president's words. In other ways, hashtag boycott trump primetime trended on Twitter with users providing an abundance of suggestions on how to cope with the eight minutes their favorite communist propagandophides will be occupied by the fascist regime. A mental health advocate going by the name Manda posthumously said quote, I would rather saw off my own watch trump addressed the nation tonight. That's fun. Glad posted some alternative suggestions for people to watch, which quote, lift up the voices of marginalized people. And quote, the list included 10 different options, either airing at the same time or available on demand, stormy Daniels, who recently was ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for filing a bogus lawsuit against the president told her followers that she would quote, be folding laundry for eight minutes on Instagram line. Oh, Rashida Tali, one of the first two Muslim women recently elected to the US House of Representatives, who recently said of the president, quote, we're going to impeach opted to pick up a book on quote, the revolutionary power of women's anger. That's right. Women's anger is revolutionary. Yeah. This list could get kind of long, but you get the idea to strategy to left these days is to simply avoid exposure to views, which contradict their own. They literally cannot even make an argument anymore because they have dedicated such tremendous effort to ignorance of the subject matter and dispute. This is not entirely new come to think about it. In 2015, the Huffington Post decided Trump's campaign was a side show and opted to exclude it from their political coverage as a result. Instead putting it in their entertainment section next to stories quote, on the Kardashians in the Bachelorette, they were at some point compelled to reconsider no later of course than when he became president of the United States. One hopes a similar reckoning will be forthcoming on the immigration issue, perhaps as more reasonable voters see that the people who hope to govern them are busyly cramming fingers in their ears and going, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Their television sets they'll realize that people who fear the words of an elected president are unsuitable to serve as his replacement. Here's a fun one. So campus reform, this is Cabot Phillips, you probably might recognize that name. He's, he pops up from time to time. He went on campus and started asking students about what they thought of Trump's messages on immigration to the border. The only catch is he wasn't using Trump's word. Border wall, the Democrat saying, we're not gonna give as much fun. Stop, stop. Students about President Trump's proposed border wall. And we're gonna be reading them a few quotes from President Trump in defense of his wall, but the thing is they're not actually President Trump quotes. They're actually quotes from Democrat leaders defending stricter border security. What will students say when they find out? Let's go have a look. There's a government shutdown going on right now. President Trump saying he wants funding for his border wall, the Democrat saying, we're not gonna give as much funding as you want. What's your thought on his push for this wall? I am not a fan. Everyone has a shared reaction to this. It's absolutely horrendous. I really don't see a need for it. I don't think there should be a wall. The wall is a really unrealistic solution. I mean, there have been like many videos that have shown people easily crossing the wall that is supposed to like keep people out or whatever. Doesn't make any sense. Okay, isn't there pretty much already fencing? Gonna read a few quotes here. President Trump talking about the need for the southern border wall. First quote, we should spend money to build a barrier to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. Another quote, we simply cannot allow people to pour into the US undetected, undocumented, and unchecked quote, illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. Until the American people are convinced we will stop future flows of illegal immigration will make no progress. When you hear quotes like that, what's your reaction to them? It's divisive. I think America is a land of opportunity placed for inclusion. I just really think it's a kind of hateful speech in general. It's a negative message. Like all he, when he talks about like illegal immigrants, it's just one rude like to talk about people like that. It kind of underlies a lot of things about discrimination and people when their prejudice is and things like that. So I feel like that stuff is touchy to talk about. If there are racial biases, kind of sort of deep embedded in there, in a word I'd say it's more jingoist. Well, I think it's a minute over all. It's just unacceptable. I think just the way that he's referring to people across the wall is very dehumanizing. So rhetoric like that, it's not helpful. No, not at all. What have I told you these were from Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton? How about that? Really? Really? Really? Really? Oh. Oh, wow. I mean, yeah, Democrats and Republicans have said things about border control. That's interesting. I didn't think that that's interesting. Now, what surprised me? It's true. Hello, like Bob. Well, then, do you tell me which ones they were respectively? That's a very good surprise, by the way. If this were a Trump quote, I believe it would be a lot more, maybe a lot less calculated. I don't know. They just say, say that. I feel like they're demeanor is the way they come off. It's like, I don't even know what to say. I'm not surprised. Why is that? Well, because I mean, I guess I'm a little older than most of the college. I'm 20. I'm a graduate student. I'm 26. And so I remember, you know, Clinton's administration and what they did with immigration, and what the Democrats stands was then. So I think it's kind of interesting. Indeed it is. Ain't it, though? But I mean, these kids on a college campus, you know what I mean? Let's give them a helicopter. OK? Oh, shut the fuck up. Hey, Chris, my agenda is that it didn't do nothing yet again, and not to ever be friends with the enemy ever. All right. Well, let's start with didn't do enough. And what are you talking about? Well, first of all, I'm really glad to hear the news. Thank you so much. I was dumb enough last night to listen to a little too much free talk live, which I don't normally do. And not to talk your former companions and associates. But basically, they had this guy on. It was Mark and Ian's show. And I had this guy on Adam Kuresh or something. Adam Kokesh, OK. And the standard. Oh, OK, yeah. Oh, you know, the guy. Yeah. I was, so it was a standard libertarian cops or some blah, blah, blah. And I agreed with very, very little of it, but it was like whatever. But then he was talking about he got arrested recently in New Orleans or something for hanging up, freedom signs, promoting his book. Anyway, he started going full SJW. And I actually called in, but my audio was messed up. So they couldn't early hear me. Well, hopefully it's fine now. Anyway, and he was basically saying stuff like, it was just so sad to see the scene there. You know, mistreating blacks and them all in jail for rich men. This guy actually said that, dude. Well, you know, it's Adam Kokesh is a funny thing. I've got a long history with Adam. He's actually been on the show before. I went down to Miami in, I think it was in 2017. I went down there at some point last year. I think it was actually to have a live on stage debate with Adam about immigration, which was a real blast. If you search chrisfercantwell.com for Kokesh, you'll find that. Excuse me, sorry. And you know, this was the thing. With Adam was a funny story. When I was coming up in a libertarian space, you know, Adam had like this reputation. He ran for Congress in the same year that I did. And he had the endorsement of Ron Paul when he got infinitely more attention than I did and was at the time in much better physical shape, et cetera, et cetera. And I was, I envied Adam in a lot of ways. He was making his living as a content producer and I was all like, I want to do that so bad, you know. And I actually want to contest when he was still on RT, which was still called Russia today at the time. He had like, he was promoting some event and he was like, he had a contest like make this video promoting the event. And my video got more views than any other video. And he invited me to come down to Washington DC and like come, come be on the show. And my bus was late and then I missed it. I ended up hanging around with him for a few days and I actually ended up co-hosting the show with him in one of his co-hosts quit. And then when Adam got locked up for the, for the, for the gun thing in DC, I actually ended up going in and filling in for him for a period of time. And so it, long story short, there's a long history between Adam and I. And like, it was awkward to me because he took, he took a pretty dramatic shift, right? Like at first, he see, I think he kind of like had his finger in the air, waiting to see which way the social justice warrior thing was going to go in the libertarian movement. And as all of the people who didn't like social justice nonsense, I guess Adam Cokesh figured that his interests were best served by being a leftist and thus we have the Adam Cokesh of the current year. And I was actually, I got it, I'm still on his email list. And I saw that email that he had gotten arrested for, for whatever it was, which is a habit for Adam, those of you who don't know, he's constantly in some kind of a legal problem in asking all of you to bail him out. And so I'm not surprised that it went down that way on, on free talk live because they are of course prone to, you know, that, that line of thinking. And it's, it's, you know, if you can watch it for five minutes and get a laugh out of it, it's good, but I feel bad for people who are like, yes, this is the way the truth and the light. Oh. Yeah. No, I, you know, I watched a lot of your old stuff. I guess I got to watch more because I maybe I'd saw the Adam guy. I just, I didn't know he was such like a big staple in the libertarian world up there. But, you know, and the Chris, it wasn't like, you know, he was given different perspectives, but he just, of course, so happened to lean left. No, this guy literally said what I told you. And of course the other guy, and Arya was on there too and like, you know, he, she wasn't going to say much, I understand. But it's like, you know, dude, it wasn't even like, yeah, you know, it was straight up, like I feel so bad for those, and it's like, did you ever think that most of these, but yeah, dude, I had to shut it off. I just couldn't do anymore. And you know, I listen time to time. I mostly just listen to Arya and Will show, which is ironic, because you know, they're minorities and they're better at criticism and the conservative viewpoint and some of the borderline pro, you know, that I say. Oh yeah. Anyway, it was funny. It was funny in that, you know, I talked about Arya before. Well, he's still down in Virginia. I was going over like the sort of the pork fest line up for 2017. And it was something that made me laugh that like I found her YouTube channel. Oh my god, I just called him her. Sorry. And so I found, I found this YouTube channel. And there was this, and Arya has this persona calls himself the anarchist and like goes up on this stage of what they call the soapbox idol there at pork fest and goes into like this rant about the use of language. It was what made me laugh was the closest thing you're going to get to right wing commentary at pork fest this year is and so that's like when I had Arya in the studio not so long ago, that's actually my number. I think that's the most watched episode of that's on bit shoot right now. And it was, it was a fun conversation. I mean, you know, I wasn't particularly happy about his, uh, uh, some of the cultural stuff was actually pretty interesting to talk to him about. And so I'm not surprised that you appreciate that more than some of free talk live, you know. Yeah. Yeah. And actually, there's a funny video you might even want to watch it on there of Arya making fun of the big hideous monster. Like, is that a game stop? And for Chris? Yeah, yeah, you should pull it up. I'll just save the second topic for another time because I think I've taken a little much time. But let me just close with that. Um, dude, it's like, look, I'm not going to sit here and then knock those people for like what they do. Because even you admitted that, you know, they're good at what they do overall. But, but it's just such it feels so neutered. It feels so castrated. Like, I think a year or so ago when I was still kind of an SJW, I might have really grabbed it like, you know, I'm the less leaning libertarian. But dude, even that's callers, like I was listening to old, you know, O and A stuff because I know you're a fiend for that too. And it's like, dude, even if the trolls and you get some of them, but even some of them are funny, but even your worst trolling calls are better than their like best calls. It's like, oh, we're talking to Brian here in Minneapolis. Hello, Brian. And the guy was, oh, there are guards. How do you calculate the air pressure of a blimp? Like, these are the kind of some groups that call these and they're the most boring. You're right. And it's more diversity with, you know, some of us, you know, that listen to you, man, it's all just old, you'll see people like, yes, yes, I agree. Yeah, exactly. It's a lot of privilege checking going on at the, at the, at the, at the, at free talk live there. And, and it is not doing anything to endear them to the people they're so concerned about offending, which is kind of funny. And I'm not surprised in that, in that sense, that, you know, Will and Arya are managing to put on a better show because they don't have any fear of that, right? They're not going to be accused of being oppressors and so they can, they can sort of afford to take it. And they're also not on broadcast. It's worth adding. And so they can, yeah, they can afford to take a few more chances in that sense. And off like, like, you know, the little breaks when, when I'm talking to them in a sunset, I'm told, Will, like, you know, this, and made some jokes and he even laughed like, so anyway, but yeah, I bought another block recently and it made me think of you because you're a glass guy. So I got this drawing. I got to get it to you. I got to shut up and finish. I think you're really going to like it. But that's it. I'll probably call back later in the week and give you the other one because it kind of, but yeah, man, it's just the most milk toast. Like, here we are talking about freedom. Thanks a lot, pal. I should have mentioned at the outset of the call. For those of you who don't know, I used to be on broadcast radio. And I was on a production called Free Talk Live, which, which was nationally syndicated on 160 broadcast stations across the country. I think they're up to like 170 now. And, you know, for insensitive social media commentary, I was fired from the production, which led me to sink all of my effort, bring us to this point. It was really something. It's been quite a ride. Corey, what's your agenda? Hey, Chris, it's Danny. Hope you're doing all right today. Dylan, very good, Danny. Thanks for chiming in. Pal, what's up? Well, I got a couple things on my mind. I know you're talking about staying sober this month. How's that going for you? Feel far so good, my friend, not a drop. All right. Good. I'm glad to hear that. Jack Corbin was going off about this one on Gab recently. And it is indeed an interesting site. What is this? What is this? We're far not to answer. Go off. Okay. The daily progress is desperate for revenue, apparently. Daily progress is a communist newspaper in Charlottesville. And I got this story here from then. I was a guy by the name of Don Gathers. He was about to run for city council. He was on a police civilian review board over there, which might recalls we talked about Charlottesville shedding cops, like, like, like, wait off your humble car, respond, and after a stent of sobriety. That like police civilian review board thing that they were working on. Not popular with the police department. You might have gathered a bunch of communist going to come for the cops. But this guy Don Gathers, he was thinking about running for city council. And the reason that Jack Corbin was going nuts, you might recall Jack Corbin, if you don't already know, is a very talented guy who is very good at tracking people down. They call him the aunt of the hunter. And he's been the subject of some media attention. And he put together a list of all these communists, particularly the violent ones who were rioting in Charlottesville during the United Right rally and shockingly enough, the FBI is really uninterested in the information sampling. But one of the violent people that Jack had documented was this guy by the name of Don Gathers. As a matter of fact, Don Gathers attacked Michael Micellus, whose name might ring a bell to you if you've been following the Ram case. Michael Micellus, I think he was actually the first one arrested for the rise above movement guys who charged with interstate travel to participate in a riot for what went on in Charlottesville. Don Gathers attacked Michael Micellus with a weapon. And then he thought, you know, that went over so well, I should run for city council. I'll be on a police civilian review board, et cetera, et cetera. Well, once, once Jack got to alerting the media about this, it seems that Mr. Gathers had his second thoughts, though he gives different reasoning. Don Gathers has delayed the start to his campaign for city council while fellow Democrat Michael Payne kicked into kicked his run into gear on Tuesday. Gathers also resigned from the Charlottesville civilian police review board at its meeting earlier that evening. Gathers 59 said he had a heart attack a few months ago. And on Tuesday, learned of recurring issues with himself that need to be addressed before he can campaign. Hopefully you don't die before we have a government with some integrity to put you in prison. He said he isn't dropping out of the race. Just waiting to get started. Quote, I'm not going away. I just need to refocus, re-dedicate and take care of the temple. Lord bless me with you, son. Payne and Gathers on Tuesday hosted what was supposed to be a campaign launch party for both candidates at Cardinal Hall. After they announced their candidates, he's on Monday morning. Three seats on the five member city council are available in November election. Democrats Kathy Galvin, West Bellamy and Mike Signeur have not announced plans to seek reelection to four year terms. Payne 26 is an Album All County native who graduated from Album All High School. He moved to the city after graduating from the College of William and Mary in 2015 with a degree in government. He plans to focus on affordable housing, wealth inequality, transparency and climate change. That's good. What did I tell you about Charlottesville? You remember this? When the highest tax place is in Virginia, and they keep on panicking about affordable housing. Why? So that they can bring in more to vote Democrat and DSA. If we continue along with the status quo over the next 20 to 30 years, this area will be unaffordable for working families. Payne said it already is. It's why all your Republicans left. Payne said he decided to run after continuously seeking city council, seeing city council failed to come together to solve issues, particularly affordable housing. I haven't seen a visitor for solving that problem on city council. I'm sorry, I haven't seen a vision for solving that problem on city council. He said, Payne is represented habitat Virginia on statewide affordable housing issues and volunteers in the Charlottesville low income housing coalition. He said his work in the community, including on several Democratic campaigns with indivisible Charlottesville shows he can make the community connections and bring people together. Yeah, you'll make community connections, all right? You'll connect somebody where you psycho. We're at a very critical moment in the city where our decisions are going to have an effect for 30 or 40 years. He said, Payne also said he won't take campaign contributions from corporations or developers. I believe if you're taking money from people, you're making decisions about it can make people question your motives, he said. He also advocated for increased transparency and budget development and moving to city to 100% clean energy by 2030. Oh, isn't that interesting? That's the radical agenda of that's the radical agenda not to be confused with your humble correspondent of Alexandria, Casio Cortez and fossil fuels by 2030. Well, it's going to fork out fantastically for Charlottesville. I wish you guys all the best with it. No more you talk to less I have to. So please do. It gives it to me. Now, you guys have already heard this. Tucker Carlson issued quite the opening monologue to start the year off. Was that something or what? And I got to tell you like four different stories about this pulled up. All of which are fun to comment on. So I'm going to this is like, it's like 15 minutes long. It's longer than I usually play on a break. Apologize for the repetition since I'm sure that all of you are DVRing Tucker Carlson if not watching it live. But this was fantastic. So I'm just going to play it and we're going to talk about it. Newly elected Utah Senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington post that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response this morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for their public in nomination in 2020. We'll see. But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms and what we're reading. It's a window into how the people in charge in both parties see our country. Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slits, Romney has a policy critique of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Donald Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian Civil War. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear to consider that a relevant question. We're policing in the Middle East is always better. We know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees. Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington and Romney is strongly on board with those too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year ago. That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain Capital. Bain capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy. Romney's government existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt, extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions. Romney became fantastically rich doing this. Meanwhile a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the private equity model. A ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the country. Romney refers to unwavering support for a financed based economy and an internationalist foreign policy as the mainstream Republican view. He's right about that. For generations, Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those goals enthusiastically. There are signs, however, that most people do not support this agenda and not just here in America. In countries around the world, France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, many others, voters suddenly are backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting against leaders who refuse to improve their lives. Something like this has been happening in our country for the past three years. Donald Trump wrote a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. As he understands, the political revolution that he harnessed, can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are destroying America? Those are open questions. But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain. What kind of country will it be then? How do we want our grandchildren to live? Those are the only questions that matter. The answer to them used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Is anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff, and yet drug addiction and suicide are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be summed up in GDP is an idiot. The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness. There are a lot of ingredients in being happy. Dignity, purpose, self-control, independence, above all deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your children. They're what our leaders should want for us and would want if they cared. But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule. They're day traders, substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in this game, and it shows they can't solve our problems. They don't even bother to understand our problems. One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us is that you can separate economics from everything else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate, family and faith and culture, meanwhile those are personal matters. Both parties believe this. Members of our educated upper middle classes, now the backbone of the Democratic Party, usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate, in other words, functionally libertarian. You don't care how you live as long as the bills are paid and the markets function. Some of them don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the health of our economy, or for that matter the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as their concern, these are two totally separate categories. Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to debate from the opposite perspective, and yet reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem you'll hear them say is that the American family is collapsing. Everything can be fixed before we fix that. Yet like the libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct. The idea that families are being crushed by market forces never seems to occur to them. They refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy. Both sides in this miss the obvious point. Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined. Modern economic systems allow families to thrive, thriving families make market economies possible. You cannot separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this, but it's not anymore. The evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities. Thirty years ago conservatives looked at Detroit and Newark in many other places, and they were horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock, single mothers were the rule. Crime and drugs and disorder became universal. What caused this nightmare? Well liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were benefiting from the disaster in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives though had an explanation for inner city dysfunction and it made sense. Big government. Decades of badly designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives called a culture of poverty that trapped people in generational decline. Well, there was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Well, because virtually the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways rural America now looks a lot like Detroit. This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have very much in common with anyone from the inner city. The groups have different cultures, different traditions, different political beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives mostly. Yet the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown Baltimore in the 1980s. Stunning out of wetlock birth rates, high mail unemployment, a terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds similar outcomes. How did this happen? Well, you'd think a ruling class would be deeply interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of Native-born Americans who are slipping behind. But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. And here's a big part of the answer. Mail wages declined. Manufacturing and mail dominated industry all but disappeared over the course of a generation. Although it remained in many places where the schools and the hospitals and both of them are traditional employers of women. In many areas women suddenly made more than men. Now before you applaud that as a victory for feminism consider some of the effects. Study after study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them. Now maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations this causes a drop in marriage, a spike in out of wetlock births and all the familiar disasters that inevitably follow. More drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families form to the next generation. This is not speculation. It's not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science. We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they have kids. That model works. But increasingly marriage is a luxury only the affluent in America can afford. And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married people, the ones who make virtually all the decisions in our society are doing pretty much nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight malaria in Congo, but working to raise men's wages and date and their Detroit. That's crazy. This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961. And the biggest problem American families faces that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or Facebook executives. For our ruling class, more investment banking is almost always the answer. They teach us that it's more virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own kids. Cheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our first duty is to shareholders above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich. What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media celebrated Cheryl Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller. Lean in as if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. And Republicans should say so. They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay or charge them interest that impoverishes them? Pay-day loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect 400% annual interest. Are we okay with that? We should not be. The libertarians tell us that's how markets work. Consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. Okay. But it's also disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or in Wall Street. And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans as our leaders should, it would break your heart to see them high all the time, which they are. A huge number of our kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that because new technology has made it all but odorless, but it's everywhere. And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana, marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax hungry politicians have legalized or decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House, John Boehner, now lobbies for the marijuana industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. Oh, but it's better for you that alcohol they tell us. Maybe. Who cares? You're not saying the point. Driving dinner with a 19 year old who's been smoking weed, the life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the reason, because they don't care about us. When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even try. They head out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities, based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that. Our tax code does come close. Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half the rate. We tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance as many of our richest people do. In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million in investment income. He paid an effective federal tax rate of 14%. For normal, upper middle class wage earners, the federal tax rate is nearly 40%. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But for everyone else, it's infuriating. Our leaders really mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. And it worked well for those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, there was a big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids don't hate you. They hate each other. And that happens in countries, too. It's happening in our country, probably by design. Divided countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special treatment. Americans should oppose that with everything they have. So the question is, what kind of country do you want to live in? Well, a fair country, a decent country, a cohesive country, a country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old. A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewis and Maine seems almost as important as the West Side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up no place special can get married and have happy kids and repeat unto the generations. A country that actually cares about families, the building block of everything. What would take to get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point. But first Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society. Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn decades of bumper sticker talking points in corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are certain to call any deviation from market fundamentalism a form of socialism. That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It does not work. In fact, it's what we should be working desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get. And very soon, unless a group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that protects normal people. If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first. And that was like a shot-hard round the world, wasn't it? I get a Google News Alert for Tucker Carlson. Turn my headphones up in. There we go. All right. What? Turn this up. What's going on here? Is there something? Is there something going around here? Let me turn this down and this up. Is that better? That's too loud. OK. Fantastic. All right. There we go. All right. All right. Sorry about that. So that was like a shot-hard round the world. Everybody's talking about this. I get my Tucker Carlson, Google News Alerts, have been filled up with reviews of this thing. And as I heard, if you follow me on Gab, you might have seen me say, I'm like, oh, thank God Tucker's back. You know, you had taken off for Christmas and New Year's and whatnot. So this was his first opening monologue of 2019. And I was like, that is fire. And I don't even say that. And I don't even say that as just humor as a matter of fact. And as a matter of fact, we've got hadding on hold, which would be interesting to get his take on it. But I actually, in preparation for this today, I pulled up a segment. And in this, there's a lot of things it sort of feed into what he's talking about here. But this was one of the more relevant segments from it. If we look for the deeper grounds, which made it possible to foist on the people, this absurd notion of peacefully conquering the world through commercial penetration, and ask how it was possible to put forward the maintenance of world peace as a national aim, we shall find that these grounds lay in the general morbid condition of German political thought. The triumphant progress of technical science in Germany and the marvelous development of German industry and commerce led us to forget that a powerful state has been the necessary prerequisite of that success. On the contrary, certain circles even went so far as to give vent to the theory that the state owed its very existence to these phenomena. That it was above all an economic institution and should be constituted in accordance with economic interests. Therefore, it was held. The state was dependent on the economic structure. This condition of things was looked upon and glorified as the soundest and most normal. Now, the truth is that the state in itself has nothing whatsoever to do with a definite economic concept or a definite economic development. It does not arise from a compact bidnade between contracting parties within a certain delimited territory for the purpose of serving economic ends. The state is a community of living beings who have kindred physical and spiritual natures, organized for the purpose of ensuring the conservation of their own kind, and fulfilling those ends which providence has assigned therein and therein alone lie the purpose and meaning of a state. Economic activity is one of the many auxiliary means which are necessary for the attainment of those aims. But economic activity is never the original or pur- origin or purpose of a state, except where a state has from the outset been founded on a false and unnatural basis. This alone explains why a state, as such, does not necessarily need a certain delimited territory as a condition of its foundation. This condition becomes a necessary prerequisite only among those people who would not provide and assure subsistence for their own kind's folk through industry, which means they are ready, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, rewind that a little bit. This alone explains why a state, as such, does not necessarily need a certain delimited territory as a condition of its foundation. This condition becomes a necessary prerequisite only among those people who would provide and assure assistance for their kind's folk through their own industry, which means they are ready to carry on the struggle for existence by means of their own work. People who can sneak their way like parasites into the bosom of other nations and make others work for them on various pretenses can form a state without possessing any definite delimited territory. Date has never been delimited in space. It has been spread all over the world without any frontiers whatsoever and has always been constituted from a membership of one's exclusively. That is why it's have formed a state within a state, one of the most ingenious tricks ever devise. Has been that of sailing the ship of state under the flag of religion and thus securing that tolerance which are always ready to grant to different religious faiths. The Mosaic law is really nothing else than the doctrine of preservation of the end, therefore includes all spheres of sociological, political, and economic science which have a bearing on the main end in view. The instinct for the preservation of one's own species is the primary cause that leads to the formation of human communities, hence the state is a organism and not an economic organization. The difference between the two is so great as to be incomprehensible to our contemporary so-called statesmen. That is why they like to believe that the state can be built up on an economic basis. Whereas the truth is that it has always resulted from the exercise of those qualities which are part of the will to preserve the species. Moreover, right? Now, you know, Tucker Carlson knows better than to talk about in the preservation thereof on Fox News, that would not result in great longevity for the Tucker Carlson tonight program, but families of what carry on the communities of the nation and provide for the well-being of the individuals underneath them, right? It's incomprehensible. Hang on a second, where is that line? I'm sorry. Well, at some point he said in this thing, this way of looking at things is incomprehensible to the current statesmen, right? That's exactly what Tucker was just saying about Mitt Romney, right? They're looking at the world like the peaceful conquest of the world through commercial penetration. And they don't give it about families. They don't give it about what's happening in the rest of the country. They're just like, yeah, I'm a cosmopolitan elite and I want to just stuff as much stupid cash in my pocket as I possibly can, and if that destroys my nation, then so be it. Well, it doesn't go over so well with Tucker Carlson and he's received a lot of positive and negative feedback on this, and I've got some of those stories pulled up which we'll talk about, but first let's go to Hatting. Hatting your own, I hope that's your phone and not mine. I can't hear you. Oh, there you are. Okay, now I can hear you, buddy. Okay, yeah, I had my phone turned around backwards. Oh, well, we'll do it. I think that was different. That's a pretty hardcore boomer posting right there. Go ahead. I don't know what you think about that. Yeah, I like Tucker Carlson's speech very much. It was remarkable for the fact that it was a total repudiation of the liberal economic ideas that have been espoused by Republicans like Russian limbaugh since Reagan, right? It's basically a repudiation of Reaganism. A repudiation of Milton Friedman was a repudiation of the idea that if you just let people make money, it'll be good for everybody, completely, complete rejection of that. All right, he said, Tucker Carlson said that we have to not make economic criteria our highest value. We have to make deliberate policies that will promote morality and healthy families. Exactly. And it said questioning market feels like a positive. Basically saying the people have made the market into their God. Yeah. And you can't do that. Now, the national had policies like that. There was actually in national Germany, a tax on people who weren't married. You had to pay more taxes if you weren't married, right? And of course, they had programs to make sure that men had work. I don't think there were programs like that for women. I don't remember seeing, I mean, they probably had some kind of a, I'm sure they had some kind of arrangement. I don't recall the exact details, but I read about the economic policy was very family-centric. And so they had a very complex minimum wage law, for example, and it did not apply to women the same way it did to men, right? And there were certain disincentives to women working, but if they worked, then they were, and they were very good at what they did, and there were ways to reward them for performance and stuff like that. But the economic policy was very much centered around encouraging women to become mothers. Yeah, they considered that the family was the basis of their society. Now, the problem we have in the United States is under our liberal political tradition, we regard the individual as the fundamental unit. The problem is that individual doesn't produce children, and if you have your policies oriented toward the individual, you're going to tend to break up the families. It's implicitly that's what's going to tend to happen. You have to take into account that what you want are families headed by a man, and that the man is going to earn enough money to support a family. This is an idea that you find not only in fascists and national socialists thinking, but also in the kind of Catholic social doctrine espoused by E. Michael Jones. Well, yeah. And in fairness to the libertarians, I will say, Tucker had a, I forget her name escapes me, but I think it was even last night he had her on. This libertarian female talk show she came on, and she sort of made the case that, well, we don't have a free market, and therefore the libertarians are right or whatever like this. Well, what made me come around, was like, okay, well, the fact that we don't have a free market does not distract from the point at hand, right? I mean, you can fantasize all day about exactly what that would look like, but it's just not occurring at this point. So the libertarians would say the right libertarians anyway, not the mafia, they would say that, well, the economic incentives of a purely free market are such that it encourages good family structures and stuff like this. Okay, that may or may not be true, but the fact of the matter is that we have these economic systems in place, and people seek to handle those levers. And one of the things that I'm seeing seems to be that people with more liberal economic views are getting fed up with the democratic party's identity, politics, and conservatives seem to be coming around to the idea that a free market isn't coming, so what can we do to improve our station? And that seems to me a very, it is not a whole bunch, but that is a very national sort of phenomenon that seems to be occurring in our politics. Yeah, it's a convergence of the cultural right and the economic left, cultural right and economic left. It's the same thing as Tucker Carlson, that it's the same thing that you have happening in France where you have a Jean-Marie Le Pen, and also there is a social, so I remember his name, Mélan Shaw, I think his name, is a so French socialist, but we men both support the Yellow Vest movement. All right, Jean-Marie Le Pen and the Stocia's Mélan Shaw, we both support the Yellow Vest. It's a convergence of right and left populism, right? The right populist have to give up on bourgeois economic ideas, that's why economic ideas, and the left is have to start admitting that there's some importance, right? Yeah. That's the compromise that has to be made, and if we do that, then we can form a very strong movement and it won't have a chance in the wrong one against that. Yeah, I think you're right, and it's fascinating to watch your merge, right? I mean, especially in the case of Tucker Carlson, because as I'm kind of contemplating my own existence, it seems to me like he's coming more towards us, and I'm trying to find a way to be more palatable to a broader audience, and he seems to be getting, I don't know, more and more red-pilled by the day, if you will, and it'll be interesting to see where all that pans out, because it really does seem as though, the identity politics of the left is alienating Democrats, and the fright is like, well, well, let's come to terms with the fact that we don't have a free market, right? I mean, if that's gonna be the case, then let's just start figuring out how we're gonna organize our economic incentives. You know, one of the things that crossed my mind, and I'm not endorsing this mind, you, but all this talk about compromise over border wall funding, I'm not saying that I have to say this again, I'm not endorsing this per se, but it crossed my mind, well, okay, if Donald Trump is saying, you know, this is really important, let's come to a compromise. One of the things that crossed my mind was, all right, single payer for the wall, right? And go ahead and put Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in the awkward position of saying, no, we're not gonna give Americans healthcare, we care too much about illegal immigrants. Yeah, that would be an interesting idea, because I think eventually we're going to end up with that anyway. Yeah. We need more than just the wall, we need some radical reforms, we need to change legal immigration very much. We need to do so many things differently. You know, about the free market, it reminds me of a note, the note who stocks them in argument. I mean, I don't think there's realistically, there's not going to be a situation that libertarians are going to regard as ideal. We will move to Leny talked about this in a speech on archive.org called, I think it's called fascism and the corporate state. And he talked a little bit about the history of capitalism. He says that the classical period of capitalism, where it worked the way people think it's supposed to work, ended in 1870. This then you've had cartels and monopolees. The enterprises have reached such a size that they could exert a lot of influence over the government. And it's just the way people imagine. And you can't just risk that away. Yeah, it's one of these things. Look, if you ever argued with communists before, you know what they say, right? Well, communisms never been tried. That wasn't true communism. And it's like the libertarians are issuing the same stupid ridiculous statement. And at some point it's just like, we just have to like not take your argument seriously anymore. You know, like you are not fit for participation in the discussion. You're not talking about realistic ideas. And if you just want to have like this, you know, you know, mental in this purely intellectual pursuit that has no impact on the actual political discourse, then fine, you guys can go have you debating society at the bar, but like, you know, this is not, this is not what we're facing anymore. People have needs. Those needs are not being met. And whoever says they're going to meet those needs is the person who's going to end up running the government. Now, if the communists are the ones who are telling people that all their desires are going to be met, then that's who's going to go in there, right? I mean, that's what I was saying in the, in stage one episode zero for, was the line here. It does not matter in the slightest how right you are. If all you could deliver to the masses is fair and discuss, voters would soon have follow a soothing voice into bondage and destruction into trust a miserable person with their salvation. And if the libertarians are just going to keep on being about state intervention in the economy, while somebody is like, well, state intervention in the economy is going to make you live in a futopia where you have everything you want. Well, guess what? They're going to control the government. And this makes me realize, you know, that one of the things that libertarians always complain about, what I was actually looking for, as I pulled up that quote from today, and maybe you can elaborate on this, right? The libertarians, they view economics as the prime driver of all things, right? They're almost Marxists in that sense. In that, you know, everything, economics is everything and everything else is subordinate to that. And viewed it differently, right? I mean, he viewed it as like, okay, you know, politics absolutely has to come first in the sense that if we are not in control of the government and somebody else will be and everything else will be, and then everything will go to, the economy, well, the people are first, then there's the state and the economy is there to serve both institutions. Does that sound about accurate to you? Yeah, and I could also give you a nuance for that, which is that the libertarians, they support and they the survival and the health of the nation to abstract principles. Right. And the reality is when you're dealing with a living organism, if you apply an abstract principle to it consistently without regard for the needs under particular circumstances, you're going to kill it, right? Because living organisms have to do different things at different times, they require a happy medium, not rigorous conformity to some abstract concept. That's the problem with ideology. Precisely, yeah. And so, you know, these people are trying to stick to a dogma and it's like everything's going to, and they're, and they refuse to alter course. And what I've sort of come to the conclusion of, the old survival of the fittest law, and it's like it's not, it's not as some people misunderstand it to say the strong survive, it's those most capable of adapting. And a lot of these people just, they've proved completely incapable of it, and then they wonder why they've had, you know, I shouldn't say that they've had no political success because I mean, as much as the libertarians that their ideas are not being taken seriously, they really have managed to dominate the thoughts of the Republican Party in large part, right? They don't get their perfect orthodoxy, but there's enough of the strain of thought there as to render them impotent at least. It has made criticism of the rich very difficult. The rich tend to get whatever they want, you know? It's because the superstitious belief that this is going to be for the good of everybody. And if you're criticizing the rich, well, you're just envious of whatever. By the way, I want to point out to you that our commitment to you, you said that the communist state, that communism has never been tried and libertarians say the same thing. I said that to you in 2022. That's true. I see that coming out of your mouth. Yeah, that is absolutely the case. And I mean, look, you know, you've been on board for a while and I've long appreciated your input. And for those of you who haven't been listening that long, having used to do a segment on here called What Would Love Do. And I don't know if I disclose this at the beginning, but you know, a lot of the idea behind that initially was for me to try to disagree with having and try to inform all you ignorance. These are the virtues of free markets. And that's exactly what I thought I was going to do. It's going to be like, tell me about your socialist economic ideas so I can tone you, right? And, you know, not that I didn't have objections to raise or anything like that, but you know, for the most part, this stuff came across as pretty reasonable. And that was, you know, largely the story of my venture entity right at all. I mean, you know, I told listeners pretty early on that I was going to try to like venture into this whole thing, trying to like bring people into libertarianism or whatever and it just kind of turned out the other way. Ha, ha, ha. All right. Okay, well, let's see what somebody else has to say. Yeah, I appreciate it, pal. Thanks for my, I really appreciate your input on that one. I'm, you called it at the perfect time and I'm really glad. Call it on what you're agenda. You know, Chris, you dance with the key doesn't change. You do. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, true man. And I got three quick points I want to make. The first one is number one. It didn't look like Trump was in the oval office last night. It looked like he was, he had a green screen behind him. I don't know if anybody else noticed that, but it just, it looked off. You know, I didn't catch that. The only thing that I caught, you know, I said on gab, I was like, he's got to fire his audio guy because it's got to be a way to make sure that his nasal inhaling is not picked up just as loudly as his voice. You know, those of you who listen, I just especially on a podcast, you know, like when I, when I'm inhaling, I want to, I actually just ordered some new to try to fix this that like, when I inhale, you hear this on the recording and it, and I hate it when I, when I do stuff for pen and pronounce.com, I edit that out. And I was like, come on, he's the president of the United States. It's got to be a way to do this. And that, that just took me out of it. All I could focus on is like, stop with the nose guy, but go ahead. You know, you could use a noise gate or something like that. Or compressor. Well, it's, yeah, okay. Yeah, the other thing him. Go ahead. I was going to say that, okay, my second point is that, so these invaders that are coming in that, the Democrats are letting into our country is that they don't respect our national borders. Therefore, why would they respect any of our other laws like we've seen on California? That you know, they have all those gun laws, but the, for some reason, the illegals didn't get the memo. You know what I mean? Right. It doesn't seem to me that the people who are invading our country are particularly, you know, anxious to obey our laws, right? Yeah, no doubt. Or the ones that are in the country either, you know, Democrats, but, yeah. The third, the third point that I wanted to bring up is the ultimate issue. It's not the border security. I mean, that's, that's a side note. It's not the crime or anything. The ultimate issue is our national sovereignty and the preservation of that national sovereignty. And one of the primary means to do that is by securing our borders. And I think that should be a focus on, on the topics of discussion. And I don't hear it mentioned often enough. Well, I don't know. I mean, I feel like it almost goes about saying we in a folk, well, you know what? You're right. What I end up doing on the was focusing on these terrible people who are invading our country, right? And that's not, that really isn't the point. It's, you know, we have the right to self-determination. And when other people come in and say, no, it's mine now. That's, that's, you know, that's something that does not work out for the best interest of any of us, certainly. Yeah, all the other other other problems that we're having is a symptom or a side effect of the lack of respect for our national sovereignty. And just giving it away, wantonly, too, whomever will pull the levers in the voting booths. You know what I mean? Yeah, you know what's funny? I, I'm sorry, you said that's all you got. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you very much for to call my friend. You know, it was funny. I was thinking about something the other day. When I was, when I was involved with the libertarians down in Long Island, it's somebody from the John Birch Society come into our campaign for liberty meeting. And he was talking about immigration and he's saying that these, you know, illegal immigrants who get amnesty, they've stolen American citizenship. And, you know, he had Michael Badenaric on a show a little while back. And he was like, I've, I've credited him as being a guy who set me down the radical path. I've watched his introduction to the Constitution video. And he said in the course of that was it was a theme that's common amongst like the sovereign citizen types like that. You never say that you're a United States citizen, right? They said that makes you a 14th amendment citizen and you don't have rights. You have privileges then or something. And so I thought I was real smart. And I said, I don't think citizenship is that valuable thing. And who cares? But Tucker sort of talked about that. You know, what is the citizen? And that is a thing that again, uh, to the national socialist. Like I read mine confidant, I was in jail down in Charlottesville and nobody, nobody ever like explain that concept to me. Nobody had ever explained that concept. What is a citizen? What is it matter? Right? And laid this whole thing out, which was like, you know, there's, there are citizens and there are subjects. You know, some people, everybody in the territory is entitled to the protection of the right. But not everybody's a citizen. Not everybody has the right to participate in the politics, et cetera, et cetera. You have to, you have to, there has to be some exclusivity to the thing for it to have any value. And I just realized pretty recently that this thing that should be this like really great gift, American citizenship, it should be awesome to have. It should be something that you feel really privileged to have. They've just been deluding the value of it. They're like, who cares about this thing? It's not like we're providing you with anything. We just take your money anywhere you are in the world. And that's a terrible thing. Right? I mean, like, why would anybody have any loyalty to a country when there's no benefit to citizenship? When it's just a liability that like if you move to another country and don't renounce your citizenship, they're going to take 40% of your income, though you're earning it in another country. Like that's just this huge liability. Why would you, why would you value it? Fine, go ahead, open the borders. Do I care if you win the war? I'm just out for myself now. There should be value to it. We got to work on that. Call a younger with your agenda. Hey, Chris, I, uh, I listened to your shit on Friday. Did you find a partner for old Dave there? Any of them call you back? Interested in in our good friend Dave? No, nobody, nobody called me back interested in Dave for say I actually have some voicemails. I, I given one woman on there in a subsequent call. I gave her the number for my, for my Google voice. I actually have some lengthy voicemails from one of these women. That was kind of funny. And I'll, I have, I have more of those recordings that are going to be coming out at some point in the near future. But nobody, nobody call back looking for Dave sadly. The shame. I'm, I'm sure, I'm sure you can direct him the right way towards the, uh, towards the, you know, phone there pretty soon. But in the meantime, anyway, yeah. I didn't catch the beginning of the episode today, but, uh, you know, regarding the cover and everything. Do you think that, um, Trump's actually going to follow through on the shutdown and something's actually going to get done here? Because I think so long as he keeps playing, you know, talking to the heartstrings, bringing, uh, we're constantly, these conference that things will actually go our way. It, maybe, maybe not totally, but I don't know. So my friend, yeah. So here's what I'm going to do. My friend, I'm going to, I'm going to drop you. I'm going to ask you to pick up my answer to you off the air because your phone's, your, your cutting out. Okay. But I, I heard your question. I'm going to try and answer you. Um, I have my doubts that Trump's going to have the capacity to, um, to pull this off. Uh, because the Democrat, here's what you have to keep in mind about the Democrats. You can't play chicken with these people, right? You can't play chicken with them because they will destroy the country, you know, if the government shutdown actually started to threaten the stability and security of the country, the Democrats would still keep the government shut down because they do not care. They would love nothing more than for everything to fall apart during the Trump administration. This is all that they care about, right? They don't give a, about America. You know, if TSA agents alike, look, I haven't gotten paid in three weeks. I'm calling it quits and the voter patrol is like, look, we tried. Now we got to go work at McDonald's and just everything went to who's going to cave under those circumstances. Is it going to be the Democrats? Oh, wow. I guess we're going to have to give Donald Trump the border wall for the good of the country. No. Oh, oh, oh, you're a dumb. If you believe that they would love nothing more than for this entire country to go off if a foreign invasion were, were, were, if there was a legitimate military threat south of that border, they wouldn't allow him to secure it. They'd love nothing more than for some foreign government to come in here and start killing Americans and they just so they could blame it on Trump. They will destroy this country. Donald Trump, ISIS's spec, has a little bit more of a moral compass than that. And would put his campaign promises side in order to ensure the longevity of the Republic if he thought that was what he had to do. And so I have my doubts about how this is going to go. You know, if they keep it shut down, I mean, he's talking about months of years, you know, think about that for a second. There's certain government workers who are going to be like, yes, you still have to come to work, but we've already got before they even started missing paychecks. TSA agents are calling out sick, right? Before they even started missing paychecks, you isn't up there sick days. You think these bureaucrats are going to work for a year without a paycheck? They are not. They are not going to do it. Do you think that the country is going to proceed as normal once, you know, all of these, you know, so-called essential government personnel flee their posts? I don't think so. And I was contemplating this like maybe what Donald Trump needs to do is call for like a volunteer force, right? There's enough Trump supporters out there who would, who would absolutely put in a, you know, a few hours a week to fill some post and that might be, you know, some kind of national service that he could call people to volunteer for. Like, hey, look, do you want me to secure this country or not? Do you want me to secure our border? All right. Well, citizen, we need you to come in here and we need you to stand at this post. Here's, we're going to give you some bond to job training. It's going to be a crash course and then, you know, you do the job that these other people refuse to do. But I saw it out that that's going to happen and the Democrats will absolutely run this country right off the cliff before they will give in because as far as they're concerned, the worst things get the better off they are and they're absolutely correct, right? That's why they destroyed the economy when they're in control of it. You know, Barack Obama comes into office now. If you study economics at all, okay? I'm perfectly happy to accept that, you know, free market fundamentalism is not the answer to our problems, but there are laws in economics, okay? And one of those things is if you're in a fucking recession, if you're in a middle of a financial crisis, you do not raise taxes and pay people not to work. That's not the way that you solve this problem. And that's exactly what Barack Obama did. Why? Because he was trying to fix a financial crisis? No, he was trying to make it worse. That's the whole point. You know, Hansehapa has a thing, the economics of Nazi Germany or something like that. In fact, you go watch this talk. He gives one YouTube. He was one of my first, you know, endeavors to understand Nazi economics was actually to watch this thing. And, you know, not that he was like, hell, Hitler or anything like that, but he's like, hey, this guy was a lot smarter than Fin Roosevelt because that's what Roosevelt did. Roosevelt, there's an economic crisis. Roosevelt raised taxes, started redistributing income and like shockingly enough that distorts economic signals. It makes it difficult for people to get back on African feet, right? And not Hitler, not Hitler. Hitler had a much more rapid economic recovery than the United States. But that wasn't the point of what Roosevelt was trying to do. Roosevelt wanted to put in a leftist economic agenda. And the easiest way to do that is to make people can impoverished and have no opportunity. And so they're like, yes, please do whatever you want, government, just save me. And a government that Democrats would love nothing more. They'd be like, look at what happened under this fascist guy. Forget the fact that we took control of the House of Representatives two years ago. Forget the fact that we shut down the government over five billion dollars while we've just helicopter dropped cash all over foreign countries. No, no, no, it's all the president's fault for being a racist. They'd love nothing more. And so I have some serious doubts that the Democrats are going to play check it with Donald Trump and that Donald Trump ain't going to fault. What had more likely happened, even if even if let's just say Donald Trump has to to stand, stand steadfast, they'll manage to pull off enough Republicans in the Senate to override his, they'll manage to pull off enough Republicans to override his veto. They'll eventually pass something in the Senate. They'll put it on his desk. And if he's got to veto that bill, they'll override the veto eventually. They won't let, they won't let the Republicans will cave to the Democrats in order to save the country. And in so doing, they will have put the final nails in its conference, sadly. But it'd be interesting to see what happens. Hi, Chris, it's Ted. I just wanted to say great show last night on Stream May. Oh, that's really, really great, man. Ruth was, yeah, I mean, it is a great show. I'm watching Jared right now too on, you'll turn. I think a lot of, you know, you could bring a lot of attention to this Lewis thing because I mean, this is just ridiculous when you think about it, you know. Yeah, I haven't followed that story nearly as closely as Jared has obviously, as a far more vested interest in it, but it's really going over there, right? Yeah. And like in Massachusetts, you know, like the reason you see it all this crime and Southern New Hampshire is because they call these, you know, these from the Merrimack Valley, you know, they're leaving in mass because they don't want to be around all the, the Selling Arrow and, you know, so they, their problems migrate with them. Yeah, and then they come here and, and then they come here and vote for the same policies they were fleeing, sadly. And they steal Chris can't roll the car radio. It's ridiculous. Yeah. I mean, it's is, you know, political migration, obviously, succession. I think he hit the nail on the head last night. I was listening. I mean, we got to do something because I mean, these conservatives not conserved. You know, and I'm pretty sure Trump is being held hostage. You know, he can't go too far off the reservation. You know, and it's like just imagine all the animus that Tucker has seen since, you know, can only imagine what they'll do to him next. But I mean, just imagine if, you know, Tucker became more explicit, you know, about just conserving, you know, saving the country because we need to do. Well, I'll tell you what, you know, there's currently this, I'm I'm going to let you go, buddy, but I thank you very much for the call. You know, there's currently this advertiser exodus. They're boycotting Tucker Carlson because, you know, he has to say that immigration, you know, diversity might or might not be our strength, right? Well, I'll tell you what, go ahead, you stupid. Go ahead, get Tucker Carlson fired from function. Go ahead and do that. And you watch what happened. You keep on calling everybody and not see what eventually you're going to be right, right? Put him in a position where he ain't got a whole lot to lose as a result and believe me when I tell you, I do not think that he will tone it down and I don't think that people are going to stop paying attention to Tucker, you know, when Bill O'Reilly got fired from Fox, right? He started up his own thing and, you know, he's doing just fine over there. And I'll tell you what, people are a lot more invested in Tucker than they were when Bill O'Reilly. I can almost guarantee you that. I certainly am. And I watched Bill O'Reilly nightly for years. You know, it's fun to watch. If you watch Fox News regularly, you probably know who I mean when I say Brett Bayer. He recently celebrated 10 years on Fox News. And maybe feel kind of old, if I'm honest with you. I remember when they switched off from Britt Hume to him and I was kind of doff at first. It's like I kind of got to liking Britt Hume. I felt like he was a really, you know, cogent, sober-minded guy who managed to deliver things without some of the bombass that we that are pundits do, right? He's a he's an actual newsman. Britt Hume. And when when Brett Bayer took over, it's kind of like, oh, that sucks. But I came to really appreciate that Brett Bayer, you know, Fox News, they tried to differentiate between who is news and who is opinion, you know, Tucker Carlson says, I'm an opinion show, huh? Hannity, Laura, and Grom etc. These are opinion shows, whereas Brett Bayer is an actual news guy. And, you know, he manages to do that really well. And they had all these video clips of people not only from Fox, but on other networks and stuff, heaping praise upon him. I don't know why I got into Brett Bayer. I don't know what that has to do with anything. Call you on what you're agenda. I just cryptogized. I just had a question like, I'm thinking about passports, like I haven't gotten my passport done. And I'm worried. Do you think that this government shutdown is maybe don't know the answer, but I'm thinking maybe now is the time to renew your passports guys. I mean, the post office is kind of a private public thing. It runs on its own funding, right? And that's where you get your passport. Well, I don't know who I think the department of state actually ends up approving your passport. The post office is your your liaison there too. So I don't I have no idea what the government shutdowns going to do to passports, but I'll tell you what I've kind of wish and I had figured that out probably because I went to go I went to go apply for my passport. Am I am my birth certificate? It was funny. They told me I needed my long form birth certificate. And I was like, what I what do I got some some Obama fake, you know? And so I had to like send away for a thing. And then by the time the full birth certificate came back, like I had other like financial priorities. And I put the thing off. And now you're saying this to me. I'm like, God, what do I passport? Don't shut up. Yeah. I'm just feeling a little anxiety about it. I mean, I kind of want to stay here and fight, but I just kind of want options, you know, and I wanted to just just take a trip or whatever. You know, I hadn't thought I hadn't really thought of this in your life at the state department. And I kind of wanted to call in about many aggressions. Like how's it going to say like, you know, how they have microaggressions? I've got some mini aggressions real quick. Like, uh, well, why don't we differentiate our terms here first? So microaggressions versus many many aggressions. What is the difference between these two concepts? Well, the mini aggressions greater than a microaggressions to it's like a real thing, man. Like I go to this laundromat and it just thinks of sweat and whatever. And when I come home, I've got to air out my clothes, take a shower. Fortunately, the clothes that I wash, they don't, they don't stink. But like while I'm there, I've got to sit in the truck because the place just stinks, you know, and then when you go and then a little kids, they just run right past you. And so what I did was I put like a trash can and the thing like they're to create a barrier. Like so they wouldn't run past me. But the little kid just goes right between my legs, dude. Well, and then the second time you think he got into the country. No. Exactly. It's hilarious, man. And the second time you haven't you been paying attention to speak of Pelosi? Well, he also don't work, did you? You got to slip right through those slats, man. So yeah, there's that. And then one time, well, check this out. One time I was there at the laundromat and I had this, I know these were now I can tell. And his kids came up to me and they're like, you know, they're talking to me and stuff. I'm like, okay, you know, and they're like, my daddy was in a war. And I'm like, holy the sky. Like looks like he escaped from the war. And he's out here in my city somewhere, you know, and you know, I hear about this thing and it's nothing like what they got up there and mean, but just right. That's the many aggressions like, wow, it's, you know, the smell, the behavior, the children, like little kids. And also like just my local eye hop, like I go on eye hop. And I want to flirt with the with the waitress there. Well, I can't do that anymore because the waitresses, those are mine. I mean, those are my media aggressions. Well, maybe, maybe, maybe they should run for Congress. And I thank you very much for the calls. M4, 0, I am 1488. We're going to, I'm not going to, I'm going to go a little late today because I want to get into these stories that I mentioned to you. Call a younger with your agenda. Hey, Chris, I just wanted to say that, you know, I started listening to you after you got out of jail. I mean, I heard you on Dave Smith's podcast. Okay. And I don't, I don't even listen to Dave Smith's podcast anymore. Dave's good guy for he is. I was wondering if he was ever going to really come out on the, but I didn't listen to him that long to see if he did or not. But, um, you know, I think that the new format is going to be good because honestly, I can't really listen to your show that much because it makes me too angry. Yeah. So I'd appreciate like a lot more positive content. I've been getting into MIGTAL since my, my atheist feminist wife left me and we're going through a divorce. So I think it's like really good to focus on positive stuff for white men because we're the only ones that are going to be able to fix this. Yeah. I'm going to, I'm going to warn you in advance. I'm going to find that to be a challenge, but I am going to make the effort to do it. You know, I mean, look, the, you know, I've said before and the lines on the get kind of blurry. Okay. I, I come in here in character. Okay. I'm, I'm coming here to, you know, convey things in a certain way and I'm doing it and I'm taking a lot of autistic license with what I do. Um, but of course, focusing on that character so much, it can impact my life. Uh, even more than it impacts the lies all you nut cases who are crazy enough to listen to me and, uh, I'm thinking of myself like, all right, maybe if I set myself to, uh, do this in a more uplifting manner, then maybe I can prevent these people from whacking themselves. Yeah. And I mean, hey, you know what, they are trying to send us to jail. They put you in jail. You know, you got out. I know you had to plead guilty to stuff, but it was smart because you're out. Oh, yeah. A lot of those other guys, they got, they got crucified, you know, as best the Democrats could down there. The Congress. Yeah. So I mean, there's real consequences for thinking the things we do and even talking to people about it. Indeed, especially talking to people about it. And, uh, you know, and I thank you very much for the calls. 740, I am 1488. So I mentioned to you that there was a big, big kerfuffle. Is that the kerfuffle kerfuffle? There's a big guy. There's a big stink. I guess I should say it's probably a little bit easier for my fourth grade reading level to say about this Tucker Carlson monologue that I played for you before. And here's a piece which I found a very enjoyable read. This is Matthew Walther over at the week. If anyone had suggested to me five years ago that the most incisive public critic of capitalism in the United States would be Tucker Carlson, I would have smiled, blandly, and mentioned an imaginary appointment I was late for. But that is exactly what the Fox News host revealed himself to be last week with an extraordinary monologue about the state of American conservative thinking in 15 minutes. He denounced the obsession with GDP, the tolerance of payday lending and other financial pathologies, the feticization of technology, the guru like worship of CEOs and the indifference to the anxieties and pathologies of the poor and the vulnerable characteristic of both our major political parties. It was a masterpiece of political rhetoric he ended it by calling upon the GOP to reexamine its attitudes toward the free market. Carlson's monologue is valuable because unlike so many progressive critics of our social and economic order, he has gone beyond the question of the inequitable distribution of wealth to the more important one about the nature of late capitalist consumer culture and the inherently degrading effects it has had on our society. The GOP's blinkered inability to see beyond the specifications of the new iPhone or the latest video game with the infinite variety of streaming entertainment and Chinese plastic to the spiritual poverty of and of suicide and drug abuse is shared with the democratic socialist of America whose vision of authentic human flourishing seems to be a boutique eco-friendly version of our present consumer society. This is lipstick on a pig. Just as insightful as Carlson's monologue itself were the responses from various right of center commentators. JD Vance, the author of Hillbilly Elligey, was a conservative who is known to hold somewhat heterodox views about the value of free markets, was given the space to praise Carlson in the national review. The movie critic Kyle Smith writing in the same publication called to mind what Odin said about the romantic lie of the brain of the sensual of the sensual man on the street. Elsewhere Ben Shapiro raved about the cheap price of various products and pretended not to know the difference between the lifetime of good wages capable of supporting a family enjoyed by factory workers of my grandfather's generation and the fraught horror of hourly benefit free employment at the Nissan plants in the deep south today. Ben Shapiro, you might recall, and I've got his piece up here too. But far and away the worst responses came from David French, a last also a national review. For French, the chief problem with Carlson's argument was that it was grounded in something called victim politics, which is post-T party boomer code for the feelings of people who are not as wealthy or as clever or as socially adept and culturally astute as I am. I wonder whether it occurs to French that victim could ever mean something other than a slur, where at what are mothers who sign away their minimum wage paychecks at 400% interest if not victims, and why should we excuse the grotesque behavior of their exploiters in the name of some windy nonsense about freedom? There is one would think a great deal of ideological space, which reasonable persons might inhabit between Lin Bai Yao and Ahin Ran, one where we can agree with the moralist of all ages and climbs that for example, usury is wicked. It is difficult for me to understand exactly why conservatives have become, have come around to their present uncritical attitude toward unbridled capitalism. It cannot be for electoral reasons. Survey after survey reveals that a vast majority of the American people hold views that would be described as socially conservative and economically moderate to progressive, a presidential candidate who spoke capable to both of these sets of concerns would be the greatest political force in three generations. What is considered a generation, is that 30 years? Is he going, is he talking about that's interesting? The answer is that for conservatives, the market has become a cult. No book better explains the appeal of classical liberal economics than the Golden Bo's Sir James Frazier's history of magic. Frazier identified certain immutable principles that have governed magical thinking throughout the ages. Among these is the imaginative principle according to which a favorable outcome is obtained by mimicry. The endless chance of entrepreneurship vague nonsense about charter schools calls for tax cuts for people who don't make enough to benefit from them. There is also a taboo. The primitive assumption that by not speaking the name of a thing, the thing itself will thereby be exercised. This is one reason that an attempt to criticize the current consensus is met with winging about socialism. This catch all talisman is meant to protect everything from the cultural revolution to the modest restrictions on overdraft fees imposed at the behest of consultants. Whatever their public image might suggest, not all conservative commentators are pampered elites. If it were simply a matter of a privileged class attempting to secure its privileges by telling falsehoods, the ubiquitousness of market worship would be easier to understand and to defeat. But the horrifying truth is many of the make arguments like payday lending is the best way to empower America's poorest people financially because they somehow believe these things to be true. This was not always the case. Attempting to discuss certain conservatism, I'm sorry, attempting to discuss conservatism as if it were a concrete historical phenomenon or an ideology is a mugs game. But it is clear that on the whole, those who find themselves in sympathy with someone like Carlson today have been at best indifferent to and more often hostile towards commerce and the Anglo-American philosophical tradition of liberalism. El Brent-Boselle, the brother-in-law of William F. Buckley, who helped found the national review and served as Barry Goldwater's ghostwriter, came to reject all the tenets of fusions conservatism because they appeared fundamentally at odds with all of those things he once believed they were meant to conserve. Russell Kirk, the author of the conservative mind, rejected the free market and indeed many elements of modern commercial and technological life albeit in an occasionally affected and glowing manner. Christopher Lash, the great cultural historian, was essentially a kind of Tory Marxist, a reactionary who agreed with the authors of the Communist Manifesto that capital would leave, quote, the bonds and gestures of civilization, quote, pushed to one side like an outdated combine harvester. Even Irving Crystal, the godfather of neo-conservatism himself, could only sum up two cheers for the capitalism and argued for the moral necessity of a broad and generous welfare state, not that we value the opinions of Irving Crystal here on the radical agenda that much, but it bears repeating. Going beyond the legacy of a validly conservative thinker's many opponents of capitalism such as theodore, or Dorne, or Roadno, and Eric Hobbeswam, recognized the fundamental incapacity, incapability, I should say, of endless creative destruction, not only with human dignity, but also with other more tangible things that intellectual conservatives claim to value such as classical music and literature. In the so-called global South, there is a thriving anti-capitalist discourse organized around the assumption that the Gates Foundation and the IMF, not fundamentalist Islam, posed the greatest threat to the survival of traditional values. Conservatives should engage with these writers and thinkers, and going further back with Keats and Beethoven and Dickens and Wagner and Heidegger, with all those who have valued what is fundamentally human for its own sake. Fortunately, there are already signs that the right-wing libertarian consensus is starting to come apart. In why liberalism failed a somewhat clunky book recently praised by Barack Obama of all people, Patrick Denean argued that American conservatives are wrong to look to the founding fathers in libertarian ideology for solutions to our present discontents. At American Affairs, a splendid magazine founded in 2016 by Julius Cree and Gladden Pappin, you can read conservative arguments for things like postal banking alongside articles by Marxist writers like Slavash Zizek. Andrew Willard Jones, a talented young historian, has launched a new journal called Post-Liberal Thought to examine the question of how religious people can look beyond political and philosophical legacy of liberalism. The conservative turn away from the market to question to the question of the human person and it's an eight-metaphysical dignity has begun. As with any revolution, there are obvious pitfalls to be avoided here. It's not a simple question of turning back the clock to 1966 or 1946, where some other remore remote date. A new political and social life founded upon the principle of solidarity and not upon the indulging of our acquisitive instincts or congratulating our fellow achievers on having performed the rituals of competence is one that will not be realized by role-playing characters from a preferred historical moment. Nor will it come about through modest reforms, however valuable some of these may be in the short term. Institutions will have to be altered, but so will hearts and minds. This is not an argument for quietism, but for radical and difficult change. Here in that word, radical a lot, aren't we lately? It seems to be all over the place. It seems everybody's like, you know, we're going to have to just drag this thing in my direction. Anybody doesn't like it, he's just going to have to be on the other side of the border, right? Here in that word, more and more. Let me see here. Of course, where is this? But I like this one. It is difficult for me to understand exactly why conservatives have come around to their present uncritical attitude toward as unbridled capitalism. It cannot be for electoral reasons. Survey after survey reveals that a vast majority of Americans hold views that would be described as socially conservative and economically moderate to progressive. A presidential candidate who spoke capable to both of these sets of concerns would be the greatest political force in three generations, which is why I'm so concerned about the shutdown, right? The Democrats see that, right? The Democrats see that in Donald Trump, and they are like, if we don't stop this guy, forget it, just forget about the demographics for a second. The attitude changed that Donald Trump has brought about is so from dangerous to their way of life. Their their hegemony is really, really put in jeopardy by this. And I think it's telling that he says three generations. That might that might well be a reference right there. And with that, I'm not going to go into Ben Shapiro's piece, but it's telling that Ben Shapiro took the most issue with it, right? Well, not not the most issue. Other people were more upset about it. Like I get another piece here that I was thinking about going into by Connor Feeder's door over at the Atlantic. He was going into the old marijuana segment. I don't want to talk about weed today because you know, you know, we just think and we don't give a looking about that. So we do this every Wednesday from five to seven PM Eastern times. If you're listening on some of the platform at some of the time, I wouldn't invite you to join us for the wipe. We take calls on the air. You might. Outlaw conservative will be here a week from today. Outlaw conservative is going to be the Wednesday show. I'm going to try to keep it clean. I'm going to ask at the outside of the production for you guys to try to keep your calls clean. You can talk about liberal elites. You can talk about problems in the inner cities, but I would ask you not to use explicit messaging. I would ask you to refrain from cursing and stuff like that. On the Wednesday shows for the next 10 weeks at least, we'll see what happens going forward. I'm going to do 10 episodes. I'm going to commit to 10 episodes of outlaw conservative. And we'll see what comes of that, all right? And when we do, I'm going to ask for your cooperation and trying to put on a valuable production. If you're somebody who wants to help me with this endeavor and you don't usually listen on a live show, try to make it a point to listen to the live show on Wednesdays and try to chime in with something valuable because this has a lot of potential. This has a lot of potential. We're going to do great things here. But we need to make money in order to do those things. Outlaw conservatives are going to open up some avenues for that, but I will remind you that there are other ways that I make money in the meantime. edggoodies.com. I want to do, look, if you haven't already ordered one of the Balfang UB5R radios for me at edggoodies.com. Do that today. Those things are fantastic. It'll be the last walkie talkie that you have to need to buy. Okay? Now, we might get better radios in the future than you might want to buy a better one, but you'll never need a better walkie talkie than that. It's got this huge wide range of frequencies. It's a four or five wide output depending on which frequencies you are on. It's durable. They don't break easily. I've dropped mine a whole bunch of times. I'm not going to tell you to go try to break the thing, but they're solid. I also have these flashlights which we've been calling the ultra-fire XMLT6. Yours might say striker fire or something like that. Some of them are branded differently, but it's the same exact flashlight. It takes two 18650 batteries. It comes with a charger, and we will get those out to you right away because we have them in stock. If you want to hire me to say something, you can do that pendinpernails.com 75 dollars per up to a thousand words. Somebody's contacted somebody put on Gabby. It cost me 148,000 dollars to get you to reach your, to get Rockwell. If you order before midnight, I'll give you 10 percent off. If you have a larger project or something like that, you want to talk to me about contact me and we'll discuss it. You can hire me to say things, and that'll be fantastic. It'll be a great idea. That's all the things that I contemplate. No, all the things I contemplate. I contemplate lots of things. That's silly and superficial, what I would say, something like that. Working on how we're going to make all this work out. I can't thank you enough for all of your continued attention support and love, frankly, because I know a lot of you love me, and I really appreciate that. Even if I don't know you, I love you too, fella. So I thank you so much for all of all that you've done to make this production possible, and we will be back. Have yourselves a wonderful evening and good night.