Ep 132 | How Critical Race Theorists Justify Racist Discrimination | James Lindsay | The Glenn Beck Podcast

Packages by Expedia.

You were made to occasionally take the hard route to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

We were made to easily bundle your trip.

Expedia made to travel.

Flight-inclusive packages are at all protected.

Like every other form of Marxism, critical race theory is a weapon, and it is a tool that leftists use in order to convert violence and whining into power.

It is driven by a contradiction: acceleration, and annihilation.

As faithful Marxists, critical racists want to destroy the world as we know it, and it is not hyperbole.

They want to do it as quickly as possible, as part of what Lenin called accelerating the contradictions.

This is how Marxists start a revolution, and for them, revolution is violent by nature.

Despite what critical race Marxists will tell you, this is not a conspiracy theory.

It is literally written out in books and articles written by them.

And today's guest has read just about every single one of them.

In the words of Dr.

Phil, yes, Dr.

Phil, today's guest has read so much CRT that he must read through his ears.

He comes from academia, and he realized early on that the so-called radicals, the self-appointed critics of society, are pathologically narrow-minded and they are dangerous.

We are all starting to feel the effects of all of this.

My book is about the Great Reset.

It goes hand in hand with CRT.

Today, perhaps for the first time,

you will understand

how the noose is closing around the neck of freedom all over the world.

And we must pay attention quickly.

Today's guest fights back.

You can find him going toe-to-toe with anonymous radicals on Twitter and he

he's got a few Molotov cocktails himself.

More importantly, he fights back using the secrets of academia against academia.

He first made his name for himself by submitting ridiculous articles to peer-reviewed publications.

If you don't know about the

Grievance Studies Affair, you have to look it up.

It's hilarious and illuminating.

He takes the fight to a whole new level in this new book, Race Marxism, the truth about critical race theory and praxis.

Back for his third appearance on this podcast, probably the most important podcast perhaps that we've ever done.

Please welcome James Lindsay.

If the last two years have taught us anything, it is that you have to do your own homework and you have to take control of your own life and your own health.

It is clear that you can't simply rely on government, big pharma, even your doctors, or they'll lose their license if they're just trying to protect you and your family.

I'm sorry, but I had COVID and I was not going to sit around and take some aspirin and call them if I felt I had to go to the hospital.

That's ridiculous.

This is where I learned about ZStack.

ZStack is a specially formulated

immune-boosting supplement that includes zinc, cucetin, vitamin C, vitamin D.

I take it every day.

And it was formulated by the doctor who helped me get through COVID, Vladimir Zelenko.

He is the world-renowned doctor that everybody on CNN hates.

President Trump credited him with the successful early treatment protocol and his decision to take hydroxychloroquine.

Now, Z-Stack has been scientifically formulated.

It is kosher and GMP certified.

It is produced right here in America.

Again, I take it every day.

Now, more than ever, we need preventative medicine.

We have to take control of our own health and our families' health.

ZStack is formulated to help combat any and all variants as well as the flu.

So stay ahead.

Just go to zstacklife.com/slash back.

Enter the promo code back, and you'll get a discount.

Again, zstacklife.com/slash back, promo code back.

James, welcome back.

Hey, it's always good to see you.

Yeah, for sure.

Yeah.

You are, you're very busy.

You're very busy.

I am very busy.

You wrote a book called Race Marxism, which I find fascinating and really important.

May I just quote here:

you want to offer analysis humbly to the world and free citizens as a means of understanding and resisting this terrible ideology at a crucial moment in history where it threatens us all in a way far bigger than most of us realize.

Quoting, all existing deep entanglements with critical race theory are almost totally useless.

They either come from biased cheerleaders who present it in an unrealistically positive light, or from naive scholars who can't see the ideological forest for the philosophical trees that compose it.

This book is the first comprehensive attempt at a remedy to this civilization-threatening problem, and it has been written perhaps only just in time.

Yeah.

I don't think there's truer words spoken.

Yeah, I realized that this book needed to be written last summer, and I sat down and wrote the bulk of the first draft in 10 days.

I was so convinced that it needs to be said.

It needs to be said now.

How close to the edge are we?

Because some people would say, come on, it's not that bad.

It's that bad.

We are very close to the edge, but I'm actually at a point of being somewhat cautiously optimistic now.

Right.

So.

If we would have had this conversation a couple of months ago, it would have been a little bit of a darker meeting.

It's like, how close are we to the edge?

We're falling off of it.

But no,

we're kind of dancing near the edge of it right now.

And a lot of people are starting to stand up and go, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

I don't know if there's enough and if they really understand what they're up against, but they're beginning to at least sense it.

A lot of people are starting to go, wait, I think we're going in the wrong direction.

Right.

And especially with critical race theory, particularly, I've noticed a dramatic shift.

You know, I've been speaking publicly about it for a while

and dramatic shift in the past six months where people are very confident and even informed enough to say, you know, roughly what the thesis of the book is.

It's Marxism.

This is Marxism using race.

It's and when people understand, it's Marxism.

I want you to do this podcast and talk to a parent like me who

honestly gets so tax.

Marxism is gobbledygook.

It is.

And you read and you're like, how does this make sense to anyone?

And so when you're explaining it, sometimes people are using that and you get completely lost.

So talk to me as a parent.

Tell me the difference between Marxism and critical race theory or why critical race theory was as it is now.

Why is it being put into our school?

Okay, so The only real difference between Marxism and critical race theory is that Marxism focuses on centers, is their word for it, economic class, as that which generates inequality.

That's how you're going to understand inequality.

Who's in which economic class?

Critical race theory does it with racial social class instead.

And

Marx,

when he did this, it was because of the class he thought the underclass would rise up.

But America showed that no, no, no, the underclass can rise with the rising ships as well.

Right.

And so it kind of fell apart.

So when did they switch to, instead of those classes, when did they switch to race?

The 1960s is the beginning.

By the end of the 1970s, it was kind of a done deal.

So in the 1960s, kind of the preeminent Marxist thinker of the time would have been Herbert Marcuse.

Herbert Marcuse famously wrote Repressive Tolerance, an essay that says that we should tolerate everything from the left, but we should tolerate nothing from the right.

We should censor the right, pre-censor the right.

Don't even let them have the idea in their head.

Boy, are we living that right there?

We live in that essay.

But he also wrote exactly what you just said, is that in a country like America, the working class ends up stabilized.

The working class ends up building a better life for itself.

It can work.

It can get a job.

You know, you put some basic worker protections and monopoly protections in place so that they can't be too exploitative.

You don't get the crony problems.

And capitalism works.

And the working class gets stable and he says they become a counter-revolutionary force and that's a big problem.

And so he said, what we need to do is we need to look elsewhere.

We need a new working class.

He says this specifically, especially in a 1969 essay called Essay on Liberation.

He says, we need a new working class.

That new working class, he says, we're going to look where?

To the ghetto population.

That's his words for it.

He says the energy and the black ghetto population, the black nationalists, black liberation movements, that won't be easily stabilized.

That's where we're going to find it.

And so he ends up with a student, Angela Davis, very famous woman,

radical from the 70s, total communist.

And she ends up kind of inspiring a generation of Marxist black feminism that has gone to take over everything.

And critical race theory comes out of that.

So the shift was in the decade following that 1964 book or 1969 essay, depending on which very influential thing of Marcuse's you want to to point at, in the decade that followed that through the 1970s, you have this rising black feminism that kind of

starts taking over everything.

And I say black feminism, and it means this is a Marxist ideology that's using race and sex as their main tools at the same time to overcome capitalism, but also racism and also sexism, on this new idea that all oppression is united.

It's all kind of the same thing.

You can't talk about class without looking at race, without looking at sex, and they all intersect with one another.

And so that's where this really shifted.

Was there anybody good at that time period that was putting this together that was not using this as a way to

splinter America or capitalism?

Was there anybody who said, no,

this will be good for all of us in the end?

This will be...

Do you know what I mean?

I mean, it was so niche at the time.

I don't think so.

I mean, Herbert Marcuse certainly wanted to splinter America.

He said that these societies that deliver the goods, he says what they do ultimately is they prevent people from realizing that we could have a utopia.

And so you really got to splinter all of that thing.

So I don't think so early on.

I mean, it's certainly the civil rights movement, there were certain people doing things.

Yeah, yeah.

Of course.

But as far as what was the kind of genesis of this new identity-based Marxism or identity politics-based Marxism, no, I don't think so.

I think the goal was always to, whether it was splintering or not, but to gain power, to gain power for themselves.

Do people, I mean, leaders, do they really think that the utopia is going to happen this time?

I know a lot of useful idiots do, but over and over and over again, it leads to massive death and destruction and starvation and you name it.

Do they actually believe or do, or do they know they're only positioning themselves for power?

You know, I look at people like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum, and I think that they're probably true believers

in very significant ways, especially Klaus.

I think they believe that what's hindered, if you read the Marxism through the 60s, you get this sense that what hindered the Soviet Union was that it lacked the technology necessary to meet the production levels necessary to have a thriving society.

Capitalist society found production, but they have all this exploitation.

And that was the big question that they were wrestling with.

And so now with the advent of AI and with all of these new machines and robots and self-driving vehicles they want to unleash, I think they actually think we can pull it off now.

That the AI can predict distribution to get around

the information problem that von Mises pointed out and said, this is why communism and socialism don't work.

Planned economies don't work because there's information being exchanged between the people engaging in a market.

And without that information, you don't know what goods and services are needed.

So you have huge excesses of, say, steel or huge deficiencies of, say, bread, and it doesn't get worked out.

But with super advanced AI, well, they can predict what you want and give you an advertisement for it before you even know you wanted it.

So I think that there are people, these kind of highly technologist types, who genuinely believe that they're going to pull it off this time, that we now have the necessary technology to make it work, not understanding that human beings are still human beings at the bottom unless the full Marxist program is brought to bear, which is to remake humans to need different things.

Well, they are doing that.

That's the goal.

They are doing that.

Transhumanism

is the end of that, but it's frightening.

Okay.

So

when did critical,

because people are always like, you're talking about critical race theory.

That's just something that was developed in Harvard for law and it's not.

Tell me.

Tell me the truth and how to argue.

What do we say when we're talking to somebody who's saying that to us?

I mean, they say in their own words that that's not the truth.

I mean, you pick up, for example, there's a book called Critical Race Theory, an Introduction.

Okay.

So this book was written in 2001 on the high school level, has classroom exercises in it.

Okay.

And in the second paragraph of the book, they explain this critical race theory started in law and rapidly spread beyond that discipline into education, into politics, into voting strategies.

People didn't know Stacey Abrams gets mentioned right there in the book.

So it very rapidly,

by the 90s at least, had completely metastasized into virtually every field it can colonize.

It had made its way into virtually everything.

So, yes, it's true that the earliest books that we would consider in the critical race theory pantheon were from Harvard Law.

Derek Bell's Race, Racism, and American Law, 1970

is really considered the first book in the subject.

And he's trying to get, he's trying to critique, you know,

desegregation of schools, Brown versus Board of Education.

He's trying to make more room for not just keeping affirmative action, but to increase affirmative action.

But at that point, it was very legal and very material, and it hadn't blown out into this kind of huge cultural phenomenon.

By the 80s, it was already going in that direction.

Kimberly Crenshaw completely,

Derek Bell's student, Kimberly Crenshaw, completely supplanted him.

When you read his writing now, most of it even seems quaint and very formal and just not indicative of what you see in any of the rest of the literature.

But even that's not enough because we can go to a woman named Patricia Beidahl.

You've heard the racism is prejudice plus power definition.

This comes from a woman named Patricia Beidall who also published her book about white racism in 1970.

And it is literally the same thing that Robin DiAngelo published as White Fragility in 2018.

Wow.

She says that whiteness is a form of schizophrenia and should be treated psychologically.

She says you're either racist or anti-racist.

She says you're either with us or you're against us.

So there was an entire wing of what was called whiteness studies at the time that's ultimately part of critical race theory that was developing in parallel from the same years

as this very formal legal theory.

It just happened that it exploded out of the legal theory, the legal architecture, because that was the movement that the critical race theorists were able to conquer most effectively first.

They took over, they called the critical legal studies movement, which was Marxist law studies coming out of the 60s and 70s.

They called it racist in the 80s at their big conference they had in 85 or 6.

Called it racist, huge fight, whole thing collapses, everybody's calling each other racist, the same kind of fights people see now in their workplaces after diversity training.

And in 1989, Kimberly Crenshaw names this new idea critical race theory at a meeting outside of the University of Wisconsin at Madison in a convent where they said that a bunch of Marxists gathered under this austere room with crucifixes here and there.

What an odd setting for a bunch of Marxists as they reminisce about it.

And so

it's just incorrect.

It was thoroughly in education by the 90s.

It was thoroughly into politics by the 90s.

How did we miss it this long?

It's so weird.

And I don't mean it's weird that we missed it.

I mean, the subject itself is weird.

You read it and it's like, this doesn't make sense.

Nobody could possibly take this seriously.

The only places it was being taken seriously was in like public administration, as it turns out, which is not a great place for people to allow academic theories to run amok or in

eventually in education because the Marxists took over education.

quite a long time ago and had wormed their way in.

And they do this very secretly, very insidiously, using words like anti-racist that sound good and normal.

Right.

Very tricky uses of language, very kind of hidden.

Why is anti-racist so bad?

Because it has nothing to do with

racism whatsoever

at all.

The definition of anti-racist is somebody who agrees with critical race theory.

That's what it actually is.

It's somebody who is a formally trained expert, according to the critical race theory definition of formally trained and expert in understanding the structural reality of so-called racism instead of racism as it really exists, which is, you know, whether individual or institutional prejudice against people based on their skin color.

It's all hidden in these weird linguistic manipulations.

So let me just ask you a few questions.

Just as

I'm a teacher, you know, I mean, I'm sorry, I'm a parent, and I'm asking questions, and I don't know.

I don't know what the answer is.

You just said anti-racist.

They would respond, well, what's wrong with being anti-race?

It's just, it's just you're you're either a racist or you're an anti-racist.

And this is just working towards getting rid of racism.

That's, I mean, sounds great, right?

But you have to understand what they mean by race.

You have to understand what they mean by racism.

I could show you on the Brandeis University website, they have a social justice glossary.

They have a definition of race.

It says, I can paraphrase it pretty closely from memory.

I don't have it perfectly memorized, but it's a surprisingly seductive, they say, designation

created by white people originally from Europe that holds up white people, the white race, as the archetype of humanity for the purpose of oppression and maintaining their own privilege.

And so they've got a politicized definition.

So when they're talking about race, they're talking about something very different.

When they say this is just about ending racism, they think of racism not in terms of somebody having, hateful or ignorant views based on skin color or ethnicity.

They are thinking instead about a structure that they believe that white people organize society for themselves, to their own benefit, in the same way that the Marxists believe that capitalists organize society unjustly for their own benefit to be able to dominate everybody else.

And they created this system that's self-perpetuating and in fact self itself hides or hiding.

It disguises itself so that people can't see it unless they're specially trained to do so.

So when you you say that you're anti-racist, what that actually means is that you are actually disposed against the entire existing system.

Everything from all men are created equal is to,

you know, you have certain rights endowed by your creator that are inalienable is on the chopping block.

In fact, critical race theory in introduction on page 23, I happen to remember that, says, it says specifically, critical race theorists are highly suspicious of another liberal mainstay, namely rights.

They are suspicious of rights in general.

They don't believe people are created equally.

They believe that

kind of is a fundamental blank slate picture of people we are, but that society is not equal.

So society is automatically structurally conditioning everybody to be privileged or oppressed in whatever relationship you have to this structure.

And so what they're talking about is something completely different.

So you ask, how did we miss it?

Because I just had to spend four minutes explaining to you what they mean by a word you think you already know that you'll never ask about.

Of course, I want to be anti-racist.

Next, nobody's going to say, what do you mean by that?

Playing devil's advocate.

Yeah, but that's not what I mean by that.

And that's not what we're talking about.

That's, you know, critical race theory.

Fine.

But that's not what I mean by that.

What's the danger of me being anti-racist?

Well, the only danger, because it depends on what you mean by it, right?

So So the only danger is that when you use that word and you think you mean one thing by it, the activists who are writing the policy, who have wormed their way into positions of power, mean something very different.

Yeah, but I'm just recognizing my privilege.

What's wrong?

You don't think you have privilege because you were white?

You don't think that gave you special privilege?

Well, yeah, so what's privilege then?

You have to, again, it's these very subtle terms.

What is privilege?

Privilege is your golden ticket to owning bourgeois racial property or bourgeois property of any other kind, to use the Marxist words for it.

Whiteness as property is a paper from 1993.

They consider whiteness as a form of property.

White people and the people that they designate are the only people who have access to it.

It's like a form of private property.

What is

it is?

Whiteness as property is by Cheryl Harris.

What does that mean, whiteness as property?

Cultural property that in particular includes, she goes through this whole 60-something page legal argument about what property rights are and says that whiteness functions that way, giving yourself access to the, you know, say before

the 13th Amendment or the 14th Amendment, no, 13th Amendment, you know, white people had certain access to society, right?

And 15th Amendment

gave everybody the right to vote.

So

having the whiteness card gave you the ability to vote before the 15th Amendment,

to not be a slave before the 13th Amendment, etc.

Later, you know, whites-only train cars, whites-only classrooms, whites-only, you know, facilities, whatever it happens to be.

Being white gave you special access.

And then after the civil rights movement, they believed that, well, there are people who don't have to think about their race all the time.

Their society's not reminding them of race all the time.

They get to just be default people.

And then there are all of the racial minorities who have race put on them all the time.

You can't just be a man, you have to be a black man.

You can't just be a man, you have to be a Latino man, or whatever else.

So, the race is being imposed upon them.

And so, what they think is that whiteness is like this golden ticket.

You're not going to be discriminated against.

You're going to get to go out with the guys.

You're going to get the, you know, the promotions at work.

All of the best stuff in culture is reserved for you, not for other people.

And whiteness operates like a form of property in that you own it and you can exclude other people from it.

That's the key provision that Harris brings up: the fundamental right to exclude as being a property right.

If I own

this book and you're like, I'm going to have, give me your book, you know, I'm saying, well, give me my book back because it's my book.

I can exclude you from owning the book because it's my property.

Well, it's the same thing here.

I can exclude you from the good parts of society.

And they point to where the Irish and the Germans were made to be in Critical Race theory introduction.

They say, well, Irish and Germans weren't white until the Democratic Party came along and said you can be white if you vote Democrat.

That's in their book.

It's kind of funny.

I don't recall that portion of history.

But they said that the whiteness was expanded to certain people, but not others, because of the politics that they were going to embrace.

So here's where it gets confusing to me.

Let's say I buy into that.

Yeah.

In this theory, two wrongs make a right?

Because they're doing

to solve, to be an anti-racist, you have to be racist.

Right.

You have to be race conscious and you have to intentionally discriminate.

Their justification for this,

you are correct, but they wouldn't see it as two wrongs making a right.

What they would see it as, is you can imagine societies like this table, they think the table's tilted.

White people get all the advantage, they're uphill, and everybody else, you know, all the bad stuff runs down.

So the table's actually tilted.

So what they think they're doing is putting

putting levelers under the other side to bring it up to where it's flat.

But in fact, fact, that's not what is happening.

But they actually believe, and that's their phrase for it, that they're leveling an unlevel playing field.

But there are ways to level affirmative action was one way I disagree, at least today,

may not have in the 60s, early 70s.

But

that was leveling the playing field and say, let's correct this.

We've been in a corrective mode for a long time.

And in fact,

at least I felt like we were getting better as a nation.

And this generation now that only sees race, they didn't see race.

You know, my generation, we saw things as race.

Later, that was all just disappearing.

And now they've come in and reinforced everything

is only about race.

Yeah, I think that you are correct.

I totally agree with everything you said.

And I will point out that this legalistic side of critical race theory that we were talking about previously, actually, if you read their writing, they're very clear.

They wanted to not just keep affirmative action going.

It was turning out they tried it.

They were saying it was less necessary.

People were walking it back through the 70s.

They wanted not only to keep it going, but they wanted to increase it.

They wanted it on an increasing trajectory.

There were arguments about, well, we can do affirmative action and it should run out after, say, 20, 25 years or whatever.

And they said, well, that's white supremacy.

And what it was is they found a tool that allowed them to keep banging for an entitlement.

And they just kept banging at it and banging at it and banging at it.

Meanwhile, the Marxists are coming up with all this cultural theory, cultural Marxist theory using identity politics that's kind of fusing into all of that.

And that's where the real Marxism side comes from.

And it's no longer about leveling the playing field.

except in their own kind of fever dreams about how society works.

And this is again, this is because they're Marxist.

They believe that systems are created and unless there's a revolution, the system is permanent.

There must be a revolution.

We haven't had a revolution.

So the system that enslaves

them all the time.

Is that why they're calling people names and just kicking them down?

Because they want a revolution.

A hot revolution?

They will take a cultural revolution.

I mean, Marx said that violence is the midwife of revolution, but if they don't have to fire a shot and they could do it in a velvet style, I'm sure they would.

So they want a complete handing over of the reins of power to people who think like them to establish a dictatorship of the anti-racists that will enforce equity until it becomes spontaneous, at which point we will have justice.

All right.

So

before I move on from this kind of, because I need to take a next step with this, let's just park here for a second with Martin Luther King.

Uh-huh.

Everything Martin Luther King said and did is now

nonsense if you're into critical race theory.

Yeah.

They claim to love him, but...

Well, they like his radical stuff that he said where he blamed the white liberals for dragging their feet.

They like the extortion racket when his most frustrated moments from Birmingham jail or whatever.

They like that stuff.

They don't like I have a dream.

They do not like the idea that we're going to judge by contents of character rather than color of skin.

And they would say that he is, I don't know that they would be so bold as to come out and say Martin Luther King was naive, but the theory certainly would believe that Martin Luther King was naive because he didn't understand that the imposition of race by the white supremacy ideology, upholding the whiteness superstructure of society.

What that actually does is they have a term for this.

They call it structural determinism.

The structure of society, which they think is a fundamental organizing principle of society, is that racism that benefits white people.

And so that exists.

That's the system.

And we could get very Marxist theory with it if you want to go deep.

If it's up to you.

But that conditions the limits of who you are, who your character, what your character can be.

And so if you're white, you're brought up in a condition of privilege.

And so your character is stained by the impacts of living in racial privilege.

If you are not white, then you are put to the constantly reminded of of your race, and your character is actually shaped by this racism that you don't want that's being imposed upon you by a racist structure of society.

This is, like I said, called structural determinism.

You are morally determined by the structural reality, as they would call it, of the world, which is conditioned by the fact that there's a racial upper class and a racial lower class and dialectical opposition.

I told you, we can go deep.

And therefore, you can't judge somebody by the contents of their character without taking into account the fact that society is shaping their character for them through the structural determinism, because this is how Marxists think about the world.

Everything's a structure, and the structure is permanent until revolution.

And so Clarence Thomas is bad.

Why?

Because he doesn't...

So Ianna Presley famously said a year or so ago that we don't want any more black faces who don't want to be black voices.

We don't want any more brown faces who don't want to be brown voices.

So, structural determinism shapes your character.

And if you have your shaped character, this is a term in their own books.

It says it gives rise to a unique voice of color.

The critical race theorists have figured out what the authentic expression of what it means to be every single race in this structural racist situation that they think characterizes the world.

And if you aren't spouting critical race theory, then you are somehow selling out.

You either have false consciousness of some kind, you have internalized your racism, you've accepted that this is just how it is, you're trying to curry white favor, you act white.

They accused Obama of acting white to get the presidency.

You have to act white so that the white supremacist society will accept you.

It's always some cynical, self-serving, or willfully ignorant, blind

reason why if you aren't a black face being a black voice, in other words, if you're not a critical race theorist speaking authentically according to what they say your voice should be, then you are actually reproducing the system.

Just like you have, you know, people who are within the working class, the petite bourgeoisie, the kulaks, who were reproducing the bourgeois ideology, even though they were technically farmers or technically machinists or whatever else.

It's the exact same mentality.

Clarence Thomas or Larry Elder, who's now the black face of white supremacy, they're not saying critical race theory things.

Therefore, they are not authentically representing their experience and the structural reality of white supremacy.

Therefore, they are actually upholding white supremacy, keeping the system in place, and then that makes them the enemy.

This is just evil.

I can't think of something more evil, really, except the

transhumanist stuff.

Yeah.

And that will hopefully get to a little bit of that.

The

this is, I mean, how, how,

you know, everybody likes a happy warrior.

Yeah.

How does this

continue on

person after person, year after year, when it is all about vengeance and

hatred?

And

how does that happen?

Well, two main features.

One is that it uses the language in a manipulative way where you don't realize that you're using specialist language because you're using words that you know, like diversity or whatever.

You know that word.

Like

you're going to be in a meeting and they say, well, I think we should put a line in there that says, you know, let's honor diversity.

Everybody says, okay, you know, why?

But they don't know what diversity means.

Diversity means that you have a bunch of people who look different who have their authentic voices of color.

And so that they're actually commissars.

And so it defines

a commissar is somebody who is there to apply the ideology, to make sure that the institution is made increasingly compliant or the individuals connected to an institution are made increasingly compliant with the ideology.

In this case, race Marxism.

So one way is that linguistic manipulation.

The other is that these are very subtle, emotional,

I hate to use a big word, but epistemological, knowledge-based, and even psychological manipulations.

The ability to accuse somebody of being racist, right,

immediately puts them on a back foot, if that's seen as credible by other people.

So you accuse somebody being racist.

Maybe they doubt themselves.

Maybe other people doubt them as somebody credible.

They say, you know, well, he's just motivated by this terrible moral failure.

So your moral authority gets diminished.

Shelby Steele was very good in white guilt talking about how that has worked.

And

maybe you get past that.

Maybe people are like, no, I can speak for Glenn.

He's a good guy.

And they say, well, he doesn't even understand how racism works.

He doesn't even understand that it's a system that transcends what individuals do.

He doesn't even understand it.

So now you're too dumb.

They're the sophisticated, smart professor types who are smarter than everybody else.

And so now you lack epistemic authority.

Other people will think, well, Glenn's got his heart in the right place.

He's just simple, right?

Or they tell you, we're not teaching critical race theory in the schools.

It's just teaching honest history.

You're crazy if you think we're going to teach a law school theory in schools.

And they try to make people feel or appear insane, like conspiracy theorists or something like that.

And so they drain people of the authority needed in especially institutional settings where people have to be polite and professional and interact with one another.

How much did Saul Linsky play into this?

Because it's a lot of this stuff that we're seeing, which is really CRT.

A lot of this, the isolation, the shutting down, the bullying, all of that stuff is Saul Linsky.

Yes.

In particular, he was very influential in the way that the media dogpiles over these issues.

They have a little bit more abstruse approach to radical activism, but rather a lot.

You know, the idea, for example, was it 13, rule number 13, if I remember correctly, is the one where you're supposed to freeze the target and isolate them.

And what is it?

Individuals fold faster than institutions.

And so what do they do with the diversity training?

They put people kind of on a hot seat, right?

They make people go around the room and they confess.

Everybody has to confess the racism that they've felt like in front of people.

Didn't China do this in their cultural revolution?

Yeah, actually, you know, you bring up Alinsky.

I would much prefer to bring up Mao.

This is a complete reproduction in a slightly different cultural context and with more Americanized tools of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

We all know how that ended, and we know that it ended in a lot of bloodshed.

Let me actually tell you how profound that is.

So Mao separated the people into 10 classes, right?

Five of them were categorized as black, and those were bad.

Those were people like landlords, rich farmers,

counter-revolutionaries, just bad elements, I think, or bad influences.

So that's us, I guess.

And then the red categories were things like, you know, peasants and laborers and revolutionaries,

communists, you know, things like this.

And he creates these 10 categories of people.

And so if you're a kid coming to school and your dad owns

some property, oh, you're the son of a landlord, black identity.

But if you become a revolutionary, you can become a red identity.

What do we do now?

Straight white male, black, black, black identity.

Bad privilege.

You have these privileged identities.

But imagine if you were bisexual.

or imagine if you transitioned.

Now you have a white, a red, a red identity.

Imagine if you became an ally.

You must become an ally.

Allyship is key.

Red identity.

It is a perfect reproduction of Mao's cultural revolution.

They bully people based on identity categories.

They're straight, white, male, etc.

Fit.

You know, they've got the whole pantheon of identity categories, mentally healthy.

And then they tell you, you have different pathways out of that bullying.

We're going to bully you.

We're going to tell you how you're privileged, how you're bad.

You need to check your privilege.

But over here, you have all kinds of things that you can adopt.

You can become an ally.

You can show up to all the meetings.

You can become an activist.

You can adopt a trans identity.

And you just see this incredible pressure into the revolutionary identities.

It's not enough for you to be trans, though.

You have to be politically trans.

It's not enough for you to have black skin.

You have to be politically black for it to count.

You have to be a black voice.

And it is a perfect reproduction, a perfect reproduction of Mao Zedong's cultural revolution program.

That ended in a lot of bloodshed.

Nobody knows how many, but maybe 100 million or more.

How does this one not end in that?

If it keeps going,

one of a few ways or the only ways out, one of which is that the scary oligarchs swoop in and basically shut it down once they figure out that enough

chaos is happening that they can take over.

And do you think that the critical race theorists who are wholly disruptive are going to get their way?

No, they're going to get put in their pod with a low social credit score until they play along in a unity program that they

unroll or connect to their social credit system eventually.

That's one way with no bloodshed.

Another one is

that it gets pushed back.

But if it continues, people will die.

And people are dying.

This is already happening in medicine.

They're already prioritizing medical care based on race, using critical race theory as the logic.

Our medical journals, the New England Journal of Medicine is probably the worst.

The Atlanta is pretty well contaminated.

Boston medical journal is not as bad.

But these major medical journals are now, I mean, you remember the fake papers that I wrote a number of years ago.

I read the things that are in medical journals now, and I think, we couldn't have written that.

Like, that's so preposterous.

But these are medical journals.

And people not just will, but are dying.

People are being denied transplants.

The vaccine is not race, obviously, but it's the same.

You get a bad identity versus a good identity.

It's the exact same cultural revolution logic.

People, I think, honestly, in the United States and Canada at least alone,

I would predict that millions of people, if we stop the logic of this now, millions of people will unnecessarily die because of screwed up medical care or failed medical care because of the Lysenkoism.

that has taken over medicine through things like critical race theory and so on.

The Lysenkoism?

Lysenko.

Trofim Lysenko was the biologist that

the Soviets had.

And he believed in a crackpot theory of how plants grow.

He thought that if you put a whole bunch of plants close together, they'd cooperate better, they'd share resources, and in fact, you know, crappy things like corn would turn into good things like rye through the, you know, the Soviet cooperation.

And millions upon millions starved.

And if scientists tried to challenge him and said, this isn't how biology works, this isn't how agriculture works, they killed those people or threw them in a siberian gulag or something like this and so i think that you know how do this does this not end in in massive bloodshed well i don't know that they're going to pick up the gun i don't know that's not really their style but millions will die

well just with what they're doing and we can talk about this later that with the great reset millions will die millions millions will die many millions have probably have actually already

all right so let me

let me go back to critical race and

race Marxism

seems to be using a few things.

I'm not sure which one is using the other.

I thought for a long time it was Marxism that was running this and all these crazy Marxists.

I think they're useful idiots.

I think the

governments and the powers that be mainly the corporations, which I've always trusted.

Yeah.

You know, I've always hated it.

Oh,

I work for the corporation, a.k.a.

the government.

Those dystopian movies, I've never believed that.

There's no doubt about it now.

I know.

So,

how is this?

I mean, they're using, I guess, the Marxism to destroy capitalism, but then at some point, everybody's going to realize, oh my gosh, they've they've made themselves the Lord and the Lady of the Manor, and we're the serfs.

And so is that guy from Antifa, if he's still around.

So is the Marxist professor.

They're all in the digital gulag together.

So,

yes.

In fact, I now think there's a circle of useful idiots.

In fact, I don't think there's a lot of difference.

I did.

I thought...

I hit the point where I believed, I thought this was the Marxists.

Marxists have figured out how to use race to destabilize society.

And then I look at the World Economic Forum and look at the corporations and they're all, you know, Coca-Cola is telling us that we have to be less white, straight out of Robin DiAngelo.

But that's fascism, you know, public-private partnership.

That's fascism by definition.

So you've got the governments and the NGOs and the corporations doing, working together so that each can do what the others can't to exert control.

And now I'm going to maybe blow your mind because I understand this as a religion.

And if it's a religion, they obviously have high-level theological views, including about eschatology, about the end of the world, about how they're going to achieve their utopia ultimately.

By the way, the revolution is rapture, if you need a parallel.

And then there's a

tribulation, and then eventually you get to heaven, but the kingdom, I should say.

And so, anyways, I now think that what happened is that the Marxists figured out that they had to incorporate dialectically everything, dialectical materialism.

The dialectic is their program of taking opposites and incorporating them and pretending that they have been brought into one higher level concept.

They figured out that they had to incorporate fascism to make communism work.

And so how did they do this?

Well, Mao did his thing.

The CCP runs China into a disaster.

A couple of leaders later, you have Deng Xiaoping.

working with Kissinger and so on, and they open up the markets of China.

But it's all at the pleasure of the party.

It's all state capitalism, which is by definition fascism.

So what do you have there?

You have a communism with fascism inside of it.

Communo-fascism.

So what is the dialectical opposite of communo-fascism?

It's a fascism with communism inside of it, fascio-communism.

So you have East Asia.

We just don't have Oceania to always be at war with East Asia yet.

So if you make China into this behemoth, a communism with fascism running inside of it so that it solves a production problem of Soviet disaster of communism because it has now an open market that's running state capitalism, but still

very wealth generating market.

And then you can create the opposite of that in the West.

If you can create a fascist oligarchy that decides to, sure, the people in the top are going to be the lords and ladies of the new aristocracy, and we are all going to be the serfs mined for our data and our pod while we enjoy our mealworms and crickets.

But it'll be equitable.

So if you take that fascist structure and stick a communism inside of it, and then those are the two world powers, not exactly enemies, but frenemies.

A communism with fascism inside next to a fascism with communism inside.

And you let those things run next to each other.

The natural process of the dialectic will eventually fuse all of it.

And what you'll end up with is the kingdom.

You'll end up with communism that works this time.

And I think that that's the program.

And so they are definitely using the race Marxists because the Marxists are extraordinarily destabilizing.

But the people who are funding this, the people who are dumping millions upon millions of dollars, billions of dollars into critical race theory to drag it out of the university where it should have just kind of languished because it's stupid,

it got funded out of the university.

That's how.

It didn't spontaneously get out of the university.

Bags and bags and bags of cash got dumped into fueling these movements, especially around the Occupy Wall Street time.

Good heavens.

To protect the banks.

And so the fascist with the communist inside was born.

And that's the objective.

And they, because this is their magic, it's their faith.

They believe that if you put those two opposites next to each other, and they are the only two opposites, that eventually the dialectical process will average it all out but raise it up to a higher level.

The Marxist word for that is subleate.

The German word is Aufhaben, which is the word that Hegel and Marx use over and over.

Aufhaben, you're going to raise up to a higher level.

And we're going to end up with this perfectly kind of world hegemonic one government that is

fascistic in ways, communist in other ways, but everybody's going to be equitable, except there's going to be the top tier, of course, because only the, what do you call them now, stakeholders?

The word changes every few years.

You know, only the enlightened are going to be the ones who are going to administer it all and make sure that it stays on the tracks.

The creative class, I think, is another term for these people.

Of course, Marx thought that you come to see yourself as a creator through the process of socializing yourself into Marxism.

And so the creative class.

And so this is what I actually think is going on.

So it's almost like a circle of both fascists and communists using each other.

And in the end, one of them has to win.

Well, I mean, I.

They're the same.

They're the same thing.

The goal actually will be that there is no longer any need for corporate ownership.

There's no longer any need for government.

It's going to be a stateless, classless society.

It's perfectly equitable, except, of course, the stakeholders who are going to make sure that it all stays running smoothly.

And so it's not that either one will win.

They think that they're going to average out.

Wow.

All right.

So let's switch to the great reset.

That's how we get there.

Yeah.

The great reset.

Talk about Klaus Schwab a bit.

Oh, man.

I was hoping I didn't have to talk.

He's awful.

He's straight out of central casting, as you can tell.

Oh, my God.

I mean, you put him in a brown shirt and you've got him.

Yeah,

he looks like a bond villain.

He talks like a bond villain.

He acts like a bond villain.

But since the 70s, he's had this vision, he claims, 71 or something is when he started what became the World Economic Forum.

He's had this vision of a new form of capitalism, a sustainable form of capitalism, a circular economy.

If you think about that for a minute, you realize that's probably not going to work out.

And we're going to now have all these partnerships between government entities and corporate entities.

So everybody's now working hand in hand instead of competing with one another.

Which is fascism.

Which is fascism.

It doesn't seem like anyone on the left knows what fascism is.

Well, fascism, according to the Communist Dictionary, is not being a communist.

That's literally what they think of fascism.

If we go to the neo-Marxists, not to get too weird, but in the 60s, the neo-Marxists are where Schwab got a lot of his ideas.

And so if we look at, say, Marcuse

in the 60s,

what you have with Marxism kind of before that is this belief that history is grinding toward the kingdom, toward the utopia, toward communism.

It's going to unfold.

The dialectical materialism is going to get us there.

We just don't know how or how fast.

So there's a heaven in the Marxist religion, but there's no hell.

Marcuse comes along and says, in repressive tolerance, The whole of the post-fascist era is an era of clear and present danger.

Capitalism is still going to devolve, but it can go not, it doesn't just go to the utopia, to communism.

It has two possible trajectories.

It could either go to communism or it could go to fascism.

So, therefore, everything that's not moving it toward communism is moving it toward fascism.

If you read the dialectic of enlightenment, Horkheimer and Adorno from 47,

same theme.

The liberal system itself tends toward fascism, but there's an off-ramp into communism.

And so, now there's a heaven and a hell in their theology.

And so

when you look at it in that regard, you see that they think that everything that

goes with their goals is good, and everything that doesn't is fascism.

So even literal fascism is not fascism.

But truckers showing up in Ottawa to say, give us our freedom back is fascism.

So they...

Their logic.

So communists share your

vocabulary, but they don't share your dictionary.

Their words all contain agendas.

Their words all mean something different.

Fascism, even racism, what it just means is that you aren't going along with their program.

That's

in practice, all it means.

And all the rest is just...

Because

they call us fascists for saying

we should have freedom of speech.

You know, Joe Rogan should not be taken off the air.

Let it be heard.

Well, that's what Marcuse said.

He said that if we would have stopped, if we would have withdrawn democratic tolerance from Hitler, we would have avoided Auschwitz in a World War.

That's an exact quote from Repressive Tolerance from 65.

He then goes on and says, because we live in a permanent state of clear and present danger for fascism, the whole of the post-fascist era, he says, then we must, he says, withdraw tolerance from movements from the right.

Not just, he says, at the level of action and deed, but also at the level of the word.

He says that the idea can't even be allowed to enter the mind of the right-wing person.

He says, no, to be sure, this is censorship, even pre-censorship.

So they want to take away your cognitive liberty.

You can think whatever you want as long as you think what they say is okay.

You can say whatever you want if you can only think the approved things.

So we're going to prevent the dangerous idea from ever even entering the mind.

the dangerous idea being anything not their program because everything else goes to fascism, like the Nazis.

That's what they think.

And so he says, but it's justified because we live in this clear and present danger situation.

Everything that they will brand as right-wing must be censored, pre-censored.

It's not even that you shouldn't be allowed to say it.

You shouldn't be allowed to hear it.

And if they can prevent it, you shouldn't be allowed to think it.

And this is exactly their literature.

So I read

from criticism, I'm sorry, from the WEF, one of their scholars said

by 2030, everything I

say, everything I hear, everything I see, everything I think,

and even my dreams are monitored at all times.

That's the idea.

That's the idea.

And it's all going to be subject to their ESG-based social credit system that is going to, as Herbert Marcuse, just, I'm telling you, it's Marcuse's logic.

He writes this essay on liberation in 69.

The first chapter, it's in four chapters.

The first chapter is a biological foundation for socialism.

And how are we supposed to get this?

How are you supposed to get a biological foundation for socialism?

He says we have to bring the new morality and introject it into people until they don't know how to live without it.

And so you

condition everything that they can possibly consume.

Everything they read, everything that they see.

Every advertisement they get.

It's all determined by these algorithms.

It's constantly trying to condition you in a particular way.

Even your dreams, if they have the things and whatever, the devices that they want to hook up, the thing they want to implant in your head with a Neuralink.

You hook your brain straight to the internet.

And constantly, constantly, the objective becomes to introject the new world morality through

social credit, that you aren't able to participate in society.

unless you are going along with their program.

That's why I used the phrase digital gulag earlier.

We're not going to gulags unless we're really screw-ups.

We're going to be in digital gulags.

We're going to be under house arrest and forced to use our phone all the time if there's still phones or hooked to the Neuralink or Metaverse or whatever it is that they require.

Constantly to what was the gulag?

The gulag wasn't a concentration camp.

It was a re-education camp.

The goal to be constantly to re-educate, to introject the new morality until people don't know how to live without it.

And then you'll have a new man who's biologically suited for socialism.

And ESG is the name of the social credit system that they cooked up for corporations so they can do it in a multi-step program to get it from corporations eventually to individuals.

What's more dangerous, CRT

or the Great Reset, or are they hand-in-hand?

Well, I mean, the S, social, social justice, whichever one you want to have it, is fueled for the present by CRT.

So critical race theory is the logic, at least for the racial component of social dynamics and social

politics.

Critical race theory is the thing that's informing how they're going to determine who's behaving correctly and not correctly.

So without critical race theory, they would have to have a completely different social program with regard to race.

They've chosen critical race theory because it's fundamentally so arbitrary and it's fundamentally seems like it's oriented toward justice and very subtle and fools people.

But it's ultimately,

without that, they're going to need a completely different social program for the S score

to replace that, at least with regard to race.

But you have queer theory with regard to sex, sexuality, and gender.

You have fat studies and disability studies and da-da-da-da-da-da.

All of them with regard to all these social politics.

So these identity Marxist politics are the program that they've adopted for what good social behavior looks like.

Now, on the other side of them implementing a social credit system, I think critical race theory is too stupid and too poisonous and too divisive and too destabilizing.

I don't think they're going to continue to use it.

They will continue to use the justification of equity, though, and that's ultimately what leads them to use critical race theory.

So they're hand in glove in that sense.

But it's all, I mean, by the way, the word justice, we said social justice.

The word justice is the updated word for communism.

It is the updated word for communism.

Climate justice means climate communism.

Equity is the updated word for socialism.

I mean this totally literally.

Equity is a managed state of affairs in which equal outcomes are produced.

Justice is what happens when that becomes spontaneous.

This is exactly Marx's model of installing a dictatorship of the proletariat that ensures equal outcomes, socialism, until it becomes spontaneous.

No, see, the problem with Marxism is it goes against all of human nature yeah it's it's a complete inversion of human nature it's a catastrophe

so

you're not optimistic that this works at all right oh it doesn't work at all yeah it will not work if implemented it will not work and how long do you think i mean first of all do we beat this before it happens we should it would be far easier because the power of a social credit system is immense.

It's not impossible, I think, to throw one off until you start getting getting the head implants, at which point, are your thoughts even your own?

How do you know?

It's not impossible to throw it off, but it's way easier before they have that tool of social control than it is after they have that tool of social control.

So, how do you stop it?

Well, right now, there's not much of an individual social credit system, which means ultimately the individuals who run corporations can still make decisions.

And that I bring up corporations specifically because corporations are where the ESG is actually applied.

We have a corporate social credit system.

The way that it works is it gains you access to asset management, investment money, blah, blah, blah.

That's not set in stone.

There are other ways that that can be done, but it takes people with courage to stand up and say this is not the road that we need to be going down.

This is not actually best practices.

And we don't need to be governed by technocratic stakeholders who are going to decide what the correct corporate policy is for us, you know, from Davos or wherever.

And so throwing it off there

is a starting place.

Now, are we going to find people with courage?

Probably not.

They probably signed things, make the courage hard to find.

But that's where people who have access, say, you know, perhaps senators or something like this, start asking the kinds of questions that need to be asked.

What did you know about this?

And when did you know it?

Did you go into a huge mortgage with people knowing that financial instruments and ownership are going to be destroyed in five five years?

I think they do.

I mean, I think that's fraud.

And what was it?

Edward Dowdy worked for BlackRock, right?

He's recently did a podcast, I think, with Steve Bannon.

And so he's coming out and just saying a lot of these kinds of things.

Correct.

And he's, of course, saying that this is a terrible thing to do.

We don't want to go this way.

And ultimately, he said also, though, that fraud or corruption is the legal leveler.

All of the stuff that has legal authority behind it loses it if it's shown to have been done in fraud.

And so getting that exposure can break everything.

What did these bank lenders, what did the lenders know?

Car manufacturers, did they know that we're going to go to self-driving autonomous electric vehicles, but they sold you a car on a five-year lease anyway?

Did they know that?

If they did, they entered into a fraudulent contract with you.

You were not given the information that you should have been given.

Of course, we're going to see all kinds of fraud is going to bust out around these pharmaceutical companies.

But the big ones right now are going to be, of course, the major industries and the finance sector overwhelmingly.

And perhaps, I don't know what levels of fraud and collusion you have in big tech, but they're colluding straight with the government.

You know, I have a theory on this, that, you know.

The reason why we're talking about basic minimum income is not about communism or Marxism.

It's because tech knows what's coming.

The

fourth industrial revolution is happening right now.

And 2030, it will be turned inside out.

People won't know what to do.

How do I retrain?

40% of the jobs are going to be gone.

We'll have a loss of meaning, everything else.

And when that kind of stuff happens,

people look for somebody to blame.

And it will be tech that they blame because they'll see tech taking their jobs.

Right now, the politicians and the banks know we have screwed this up so badly that they're going to come for us.

So they go to tech and say, protect us now.

We'll work with you.

And you protect us now.

And you silence that stuff because after they're done with us, they'll come for you.

So let's just lock it all in place.

No, I think that this is correct as well.

I think this is why they've pulled the trigger kind of as clumsily as they have, actually.

It's so kind of glaring.

This could have been done much more smoothly and much more secretively.

Maybe Trump disrupted that for them and colleagues.

Oh, I think that's why Trump was

the corporations, they all said

they worked to get him out.

Absolutely.

I think they knew this is our plan and he won't do it.

See,

I completely agree with you, though.

They have screwed up the financial system.

It's probably going to collapse.

You know, did you hear the news from the Federal Reserve?

It came out last week.

No one is talking about it.

Oh, no.

The Federal Reserve has a two-year moratorium where they can't be FOIAed.

Uh-oh.

So in 2012, after 2008 to 2010, after they finished TARP and all that stuff, they came out in 2010 and said,

we just put on our own papers $5 trillion, and we gave the banks $5 trillion.

Well, I, for one, was like, did any of that money go overseas?

Where did you do that?

Who got that money?

So somebody,

an economic group, filed a FOIA in 2012.

Well, they took it all the way to the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court, the Fed was arguing for national security, this can't be released for at least 10 years.

Well, we're at 2022.

It's just been released.

Oh, wow.

They lied to us.

Oh, what a shock.

Yeah, I know.

$2.5 trillion went to Citibank alone.

That's, in effect, nationalizing Citibank.

Yeah.

They printed and put on their books, not $5 trillion.

They put $30 trillion, and it went all over the world.

And I believe they're still doing it.

And that's what all this inflation is coming.

We are way out of line.

The dollar is going to collapse.

That's why they're coming after Bitcoin.

They've got to have a Fed coin.

Fed coin, yeah.

And you can't do MMT without controlling you and every dollar.

That's right.

That's right.

I'm completely convinced that while I, you know, we talked about the aspirational side of the great reset, there's a more base side as well.

And that more base side is that these people are frauds and criminals, and it's all coming out.

And some of it's going to be collapse.

And they need a social control mechanism in place that's as tight as the Chinese one before the pitchforks come out.

Yes.

And I think.

That's why they're making, they're making, you know, they've got their, they've got the Democrats who are being, who are either in on it, and I think most Democrats now find them in a positive, themselves in a position like, wait, that wasn't, but it can't be because now

they were part of it.

You know what I mean?

So you don't want to admit that.

That's human nature.

Right.

So you have that.

That's why they're going after everyone who votes differently and making them into terrorists.

That's why we, if you don't take the vaccine, that's why we should consider cutting you off from medicine, let you die, maybe put you in a camp.

That's why.

Yeah.

Yeah.

They know.

I have this really bizarre belief, not to get too theoretical out of that.

I don't believe that we ever actually had a marketplace of ideas.

I don't think it actually arrived.

I think we ended up getting an aristocracy of ideas through these expert class, whether it's

big government, whether it's, you know, university.

I think it's a very progressive era.

Yeah, I think that we've had an aristocracy of ideas.

And what happened is that the internet has unleashed the flame of the Enlightenment a second time.

And I'm telling you, these people are frauds, and they're criminals, and they're jokes, and

it's coming for them.

They are going to lose all of their power.

They're going to be exposed for crimes the likes of which we've never seen in human history.

You are 100% right.

This, I believe, is the biggest crime in all of human history.

It's like five of the biggest crimes in human history mixed into one.

Yeah.

And

when it all hits, if they don't have us all in cages,

they're in trouble.

They're in a lot of trouble.

They're in a lot of trouble.

And if they do have us all in cages, we're in a lot of trouble because,

you know, I saw this.

I don't know if you saw this clip from the World Economic Forum.

One of the elites said, you know, we did this study, and the good news is the elites trust the other elites more than ever before yeah but the others don't trust us anywhere on earth yeah

you better have a rock solid prison everywhere yeah because

there will be a revolution yeah

it it that's exactly correct you know that i put that video on my my own twitter even and just my i guess i don't have a little account anymore but yeah it's getting there uh But it had something like way over a million, maybe over 2 million views on just from my account alone.

So people have seen this.

People know that

it resonated.

Why?

Because the elites think that they're better than everybody, and everybody realizes that now, and we don't like them.

We don't trust them at all.

I think I put your book in the same category as mine as a Rosetta Stone.

Once it clicks,

it's, you know, red pill, whatever you want to call it, you're like, like,

oh my gosh.

And everything makes sense.

It all makes sense.

Everybody's walking around like they're taking crazy pills.

I actually think this book is going to be the last necessary word on critical race theory.

It's not an interesting subject.

As somebody who's read like virtually all of the major works in it, it's not a very interesting subject.

And once people understand that it's actually just Marxism and its point is to destroy society, and this book makes it very clear that's.

It's so clear if you read, if you would just read the goals of BLM.

I know, right?

I know.

Just read the goals.

Well, I'm not for all that.

I'm just...

Well, you're marching with them.

You're marching with them.

You're

empowering them.

The corruption alone is

sickening.

But their goals and the family.

That's right.

End the family.

And that's a Marxist goal from forever.

I mean, Marx himself railed on the idea of the family as a means by which the capitalism is reproduced.

And you're seeing it with the education,

you know, Department of Education and all of the teachers.

You don't have the skill to raise your child.

What do you mean you want to know what we're teaching?

I mean, end the family.

End the family and replace it with the government and the institution that they run, they control, they program your children to be that new man with the new introjected morals.

It's incredibly scary that it's got to this point and that people haven't sounded the alarm and people haven't stood up.

And also, I mean, the problem we face now is that people still don't name names.

You know,

you can't just say they, they, they.

Eventually, we name Klaus Schwab now.

I'm

talked.

George Soros, Joe Biden, John Kerry.

Yeah, but nobody talks about, for example, Gerald and Ronnie Chan.

You've heard of the Harvard T.H.

Chan School of Public Health, right?

Which published, by by the way, thanks to my trolling, an argument that 2 plus 2 can equal 5 sometimes during a pandemic where people thought they might be overcounting.

T.H.

Chan School of Public Health, there was an expose in the Harvard Crimson written by a young person there at Harvard pointing out that the entire entity was funded on a single like half billion dollar donation from Ronnie Chan and his

brother, I think, or cousin something, Gerald.

And it's named after the patriarch of that family.

Well, these guys are movers and shakers and olives.

Nobody talks about James Riotti and the Lippo group.

Nobody talks about these people.

These people are dumping rivers of money into it.

I just saw today, literally in the dressing room before I came out here with you, that the Chans, Gerald and Ronnie Chan, just bought another school of public health at UMass.

$125 million more dollars.

Why are they buying our schools of public health during a pandemic?

The question always comes back to, yeah, why would they?

They're making so much money.

Why would they do anything that would hurt the system that they're rich in?

Well, different beliefs for different people.

But ultimately, if we go back to what at least the Great Reset is, or represents, is to create a new economy that's perfectly stable and sustainable.

It won't have boom and bust cycles anymore.

Everything will be controlled

in 1913 with the Federal Reserve.

It's a complete crackpot.

It's a complete fabrication.

It's not going to work.

But that doesn't prevent the people who are pushing it from at least pretending that it'll work.

Maybe I said they were true believers earlier.

I think some of them are, or at least very hopeful.

Well, they also know that.

They also know there's nothing.

I mean,

they're out of ballets.

That's right.

They also know it's their only

hope.

Yeah.

I said the other day that

because if you've you looked into the Great Reset and what they're planning on, the

farming and the food distribution.

And I mean,

are you kidding me?

I mean, you're going to redesign everything from the soil to the plate on the table.

Yeah.

All of it's going to be redesigned and you have confidence that you're smart enough to figure all that out.

Right.

In a few years.

Oh my gosh.

Yeah.

Like by 2030.

While reorganizing fundamentally what it means to be human

at the same time, while forcing people to live in smart cities and very high population areas.

And put up with brownouts and everything else that is coming our way.

Yeah.

Because we can only use green energy.

It doesn't work.

Right.

I mean,

it might someday, but you don't just unplug everything else.

Where is this magic

outlet that's just got free power and plenty of it?

It's just crazy.

Anyway, totally crazy.

It's crazy.

I said that

we will see in my lifetime, if this goes through, a global holodomore.

Yep.

You agree?

Yeah, totally.

Absolutely.

This starvation is going to be out of control.

If you don't know what a holodomore is, you need to look it up.

But it happened in the Ukraine, under the Soviets, and they killed, what, nine million people?

Nine million, yeah.

In less than a year or a year.

Yeah.

And then Walter Duranty well, first, Gareth Jones exposes this, writing for something in the UK.

And then Walter Duranty, working under Stalin for the New York Times, writes the infamous article for the New York Times, Ukrainians Hungry, Not Starving, wins the Pulitzer Prize for it.

And our illustrious New York Times has never disclaimed that prize, just like they haven't disclaimed the 1619 Project Prize that they won.

9 million

million people.

Just for Ukraine.

Just Ukraine.

And nobody knows about it.

Nobody talks about it.

It's part of, you said, how has nobody noticed this?

You know, we hear from the, say, critical race theorists all the time that we have whitewashed education, right?

Yeah, we have.

We don't.

We have redwashed education.

Very good.

The communists have organized education.

We know more.

I mean, I had to read, not complaining, so many of the books about the Nazi regime.

We learned all about fascism and Nazism and National Socialism.

But nobody even knows the black book of communism.

Nobody.

Nobody.

Never heard about it.

All I knew is that communism is some kind of an economic system that we didn't learn much about coming out of high school.

Even well, I mean, granted, I majored in STEM, so different, but I didn't study it in college either.

I learned nothing about Holodomor.

I learned nothing about Trofim Lysenko.

I learned nothing about any of the antics that Mao pulled that killed millions, where he got rid of all the birds, for example.

You know,

just completely redwashed education where they don't teach the horrors.

I'm glad we learned the horrors of Nazism.

I am too.

We don't learn the the horrors of communism, and we should.

That I think a robust anti-communist education, you know, Trump came out with his patriotic education.

Okay, like whatever.

I understand that that triggered the crap out of the left, and they went berserk because the word patriotic has been stained by their redwashing of our country.

Patriotic education, fine, but

what must it include above all else in all countries in the world is anti-communist education.

People need to know what communism is, where it came from, what it believes, and what it has done, and why those things will happen every time it's tried.

If we had an actual free market, I would suggest to you that this podcast would be in the millions within a week.

But because we don't have a free market and we are throttled every step of the way,

we've said all of the wrong things

and used all of the key words.

We didn't say that the vaccines don't work yet.

Well, now you have.

I saw the data today, though, the lockdowns, a university study, I forget John Hopkins maybe showed 0.2% reduction in mortality for all of those lockdowns.

0.2% is the upper estimate for how many lives lockdowns that crushed the world might have actually saved.

0.2%.

Well, but it was the people with Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum and all of those players that gathered that gave the plan,

handed it to the president.

Here's, we just wargamed this.

Yeah.

What it's truly frightening is last month, they just, same people, just wargamed global economic collapse.

Yeah.

It was going to be triggered by a cyber attack.

Yeah.

How about that?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, they wargamed that one too.

Yeah.

Yeah.

James, thank you for what you're doing.

Thank you for, I mean, telling the truth.

I mean, and being here, I know the first time you were here,

you were a little like, I can't believe I'm in Clembeck's studio.

And I just, I just really love the honesty of you and the people around you, just willing to tell the truth.

You got to do it.

Have to.

Have to.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Just a reminder, I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.