Best of The Program | Guests: Ben Shapiro & Michael Rectenwald | 6/16/20

Welcome to the podcast.

Today, we talk about the Shakeshack attack.

Was it an attack at all?

We find out a pretty big update on that as we start the program.

We hear the latest from Chaz as they compare themselves to the French Revolution, which is not something you typically would want to do in any circumstance.

Ben Shapiro joins us to go over what happened in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Michael Rechtenwald on his new book, Beyond Woke, which is what you need to be to not be canceled today.

And we talk about

how

Chaz, this is the

autonomous zone in Seattle, is absolutely not a street festival under any circumstances.

It's all coming up on the podcast today.

Make sure you subscribe, rate, and review the podcast.

Get five stars as the appropriate amount of stars.

Also, check out Stu DoesAmerica.

You can subscribe right now there and get all these shows on YouTube.

Just go to YouTube, go to our channels there, and subscribe as well.

Make sure to go to Blazetv.com/slash Glenn and use the promo code Glenn for $10 off your Blaze TV subscription.

Here's the podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Blenbeck program.

So, yesterday, this was issued by

the police union.

I am writing to alert you to another serious safety issue.

This evening, several police officers assigned to a protest detail in lower Manhattan took a meal at the Shake Shack location on Broadway and Fulton Street.

At some point during their meal period, they discovered that a toxic substance

believed to be bleach had been placed in their beverages.

The contamination was not discovered until they had already ingested a portion of their beverages.

They're currently at a hospital receiving treatment and expected to recover.

All police union members are advised to carefully inspect any prepared food item that they purchase while on duty for possible contamination.

Now, this is the second time in Washington, D.C., the National Guard, they were delivered pizzas with glass in the pizzas.

It is a sad day when our police

can't even trust the food that they're eating.

Now, there is an update on this story.

Shake Shack is one of my favorite fast food restaurants.

There's nothing better than Shake Shack.

Their burgers are incredible.

Their shakes are unbelievable.

And in New York City, we literally would stand in line for 20 or 30 minutes to get it.

Now, in New York City, you stand in line for a stupid cupcake and, you know, and ballet shoes, too.

So, you know, it's different.

But it's such a great, great restaurant.

When I heard this, I was outraged, just outraged.

And I want to know what happened.

Because if Shake Shack has employees that are doing things like this, I'll never eat at a Shake Shack again.

And I'll encourage all my friends not to eat at a Shake Shack.

Now, here's the update.

New York PD finds no wrongdoing by Shake Shack employees after officers get

sick from milkshakes.

Three New York City Department officers have been released from the hospital after getting sick when they drank milkshakes from Shake Shack Monday night.

The shakes may have been tainted with bleach, according to the New York City Police Department.

They launched an investigation after the officers fell ill and determined early Tuesday morning that there was no criminality by employees.

This is according to an NYPD detective.

Investigators believe a cleaning solution used to clean the milkshake machines wasn't fully cleared and may have gotten into the officers' drinks.

So it just happened to the officers or did it happen to other people?

And what a wild coincidence that is.

I'd like to talk to the New York City police detectives and find out.

That story is from CNN, and I don't believe a damn word CNN says because CNN and MSNBC, all of the mainstream media, they're covering for all of these radicals.

Now, I'm not saying that's happening in the Shake Shack thing.

I believe that this story is most likely true, that there was just an accident that happened.

But I'm not taking anything at face value anymore.

Police officers, wherever you're eating, make sure it's a friendly place

and please check your food.

I can't believe these guys are still on the job.

I really cannot believe that our police officer is on the job.

Thank you for that.

We appreciate you.

Know that the silent majority of this country stands with you.

But I have to say something to the silent majority.

Where the hell are you?

Where are you?

These guys are out risking their lives for us.

And what are we doing?

Many of us are too afraid or too cowardly to even post online that you stand with the cops.

I understand it's a scary world, but it's a scarier world without the cops.

A much scarier world.

As I said, they did this in Washington, D.C.

as well

with

pizzas.

They put glass in pizzas for our National Guard.

Now, there's something else

that is happening that I think is

unfortunately something that I told you about probably in 2006.

I warned you about the Bubba effect.

And the Bubba effect is happening.

Now, if you remember right, if you're a long-time listener of this program, the Bubba effect is something that I've warned that the military had been training for.

I found out about it in around 2000,

maybe 2004, 2006, somewhere in that area.

And

because I asked the Special Forces Command, what are you most concerned about?

And they said, well, one of the things we're training for now is the Bubba effect.

And I said, I don't know what the Bubba effect is.

And they said, that is when the country is so divided and no one trusts the government.

And

they were looking at this at the time through the lens of

making excuses for Middle Eastern terrorists.

And they said,

We are afraid that at some point a major terrorist attack will happen

and

the people in that community in a community, it could be anywhere in the United States, will go in, a Bubba, will go into a convenience store and see

a Sikh

who's non-Muslim or a Muslim, who has nothing to do with anything.

And he'll go in and he'll say, you know, it's people like you, and he'll shoot them.

Well, the feds will come into town.

and when the feds arrive the people will block their entrance to their town for the feds because they'll say you are part of the problem we know what bubba did was wrong and we'll handle bubba get out of our town because you are the reason why people like bubba

are are rising up because you excused it.

You lied to us.

You

excused everybody but us.

You've been calling us terrorists.

You've been calling us bad guys.

Well, we know that what he did was wrong and bad.

But what you did was worse, so get the hell out of our town.

That's the Bubba effect.

When people start to say, you know what?

Law enforcement, the cities, they don't care.

The government doesn't care.

We got to take this on ourselves.

Well, let me give you this story.

A man was shot yesterday after gunfire erupted at a demonstration in New Mexico where protesters attempted to topple a bronze conquistador statue outside of an Albuquerque museum.

Museum!

The man was taken to a local hospital where he was listed in critical but stable condition.

The shooting tonight was tragic, outrageous, and unacceptable act of violence and it has no place in our city, said the Albuquerque mayor, Tim Keller.

The shooting occurred during a clash between protesters and the New Mexico Civil Guard, a heavily armed civilian group that attempted to protect the controversial sculpture, a monument that features Spanish conquistador

in Albuquerque.

Protesters reportedly wrapped a chain around the statue and started tugging on it in chance of tear it down.

At least one person swung a pickaxe at the statue of New Mexico's 16th century colonial governor.

Gunshots could be heard down the street just moments later, with several people yelling, Somebody's got shot.

Police used chemical irritants and flashbangs to protect the officers and detain those involved in the shooting.

We're receiving reports about vigilante groups possibly instigating this violence.

If it is true, we'll be holding them accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Well, let me ask the mayor this.

Where was the tear gas

as they were doing this to the statue?

Where were the police?

So they didn't tear this statue down from a museum.

This is exactly what

ISIS did in Iraq.

They tore down all of the historic landmarks.

Now those historic landmarks may or may not have anything to do with current Iraq,

but they tore them down.

They They tried to destroy the ancient cities,

wipe them off the face of the earth, and they do it time and time again.

Now, look what's happening in our own streets.

This isn't the act of ISIS.

This is exactly what they do.

They have no right to come onto, especially private property, and tear down statues.

They don't have a right to do that to public statues.

And that's why people band together in civilian groups.

Because they know a

well-regulated militia

has a right to keep and bear arms.

And they know that they are the last stand.

If the police won't do anything, if the mayor won't do anything, if the governor won't do anything, if the president won't do anything, then they have to.

They're not going to just stand around and have their their streets ripped up by mobs

we see what's happening in Seattle this is not a street fair in fact could we play the this is the interview from MSNBC mark my words I said this in 2010 I think

MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, they hate you just as much as they hate me and everybody else.

And you have been making excuses and you are helping them spread and grow.

You are excusing them today.

And if you think that they are not going to come in if they get control or the chance and come into your studio and drag you outside, anchor chair and all, and kill you in a mob,

you're crazy.

Here's MSNBC who's in love with the protesters, who's been saying this is a great thing, who's been defending them.

Listen to what happens when one of them's on the street in Seattle.

After more than a week of clashes between the demonstrators and the police, now you've seen essentially almost like a street festival-type atmosphere, a street festival-type aspect.

No, with a very

intentional purpose.

It is not a street festival.

It is not a street festival.

Do not say that.

Please.

Shame on you for saying that.

Learn right now.

It is not a street festival.

Do you know our voices sound like

a tear gas that police attacked us with?

You have to understand some traumatizing things happened here.

All of us are suffering from PTSD in our own country, from our home country.

That's a lot of fun.

It's not a street party for us.

Let her finish.

Let her finish.

Let her finish.

One thing to listen to.

It's not a street festival.

Yeah, they're happy with the press.

They like that.

They like that.

So the mayor of the city has excused it.

The governor, they're all calling it a street festival.

It's not.

It is a takeover of an American city, six blocks of one of our largest American cities.

It is destruction, mayhem, chaos, and violence at night.

Oh, and then the kiddies come out and draw chalk outlines on the uh oh, they're not outlines.

Oh, they're the full thing, and they do beautiful artwork on the sidewalks during the day.

Meanwhile, the residents are terrified, terrified, the businesses are terrified.

I warn you, do not fall into the trap of becoming a part of the Bubba effect.

This audience, I have said, for a long time, is going to be responsible for saving the country.

And I truly believe that.

I believe you have listened and we have found each other for a reason for a very long time.

And you are going to be responsible for saving this nation from civil war, from chaos and revolution.

But we have to be better than

all the rest of it.

You are part of a very select group.

You're here for a reason, and it is not for violence or chaos.

It is to find a way through all of this so our Constitution is preserved.

Although I don't know what part of it's being preserved, you want to talk about hanging by a thread.

Did you see what the Supreme Court did yesterday?

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Mr.

Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire, host of the Ben Shapiro program, and one guy that I someday want to work side by side with.

I think he is absolutely brilliant.

Welcome, Mr.

Ben Shapiro.

How are you, sir?

Hey, doing well.

We know hanging in there in today's America.

How are you doing?

Boy, Ben,

what's coming our way?

What's nothing like this?

Are we headed for revolution?

You know, I think that the idea of violent revolution is probably a fantasy because I don't think that that is something that most Americans are up for.

But the idea that the contrary is coming apart at the seams and that you're going to start to see greater divisions between states and then between states and the federal government is very real.

And I think the way that you could end up with actual violence is when the federal government is taken over by members of the left and they don't know what they don't know meaning that they actually believe that because they've been so ascendant in both the cultural and the political spheres that there is no breaking point that they're just going to be able to push for full-scale societal change on every on every level and that there will be no resistance to that and they're going to come up against some hard truths if they start to do things that for example if if you get into beta roar gun confiscation or if you get into shutting down religious schools like there's certain things that americans just won't stand for, which is why I hope that at some point it'll be everybody back away a little bit.

But with the left pushing this hard,

the real possibility of a countrywide division obviously is growing.

And the left is not shy about kind of wanting it.

I mean, as soon as trouble in places like California, we're talking about secession.

The problem is if California becomes the entire federal government, then it's going to be a lot of people on the right who are talking about, can we actually last as a unified country?

Ben, I want to go to what the Supreme Court did yesterday because they did a couple of things.

And I think a lot of people who are conservative are torn on what they did to Title VII

because,

you know, most people,

most normal people are, they don't have a problem with homosexuality as friends.

We work with people, we know people, we like them.

You know, it's not a problem.

I don't want to get into somebody else's business.

But

is this another jam down

of

and another

intrusion on businesses and religion?

Tell me what you think of Title VII and what they did yesterday.

So, I mean, to be frank, I've for a long time thought that Title VII probably is unconstitutional in its entirety.

The idea that the federal government was ever given the power to invade private businesses and tell them who and who not to employ seems to me incredibly problematic just from a constitutional originalist level.

Now, does that mean that I wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act in its entirety if I'm given the choice between voting for the thing or not voting for the thing?

I vote for the thing.

But Title VII has always been a real problem because, again, it intrudes into areas that the government ought not intrude.

Remember, the big problem with segregation in general was the governments of states that were cramming down segregation.

And that there are plenty of places in the United States that were desegregated by private businesses.

I mean, the Greensboro protests

over the lunch counters

in Bloomington, North Carolina,

those particular protests, in Greensboro, rather, those protests were private in nature and ended with the desegregation of lunch counters.

So the notion that you had to force private businesses to desegregate is not true.

What you actually had to do is stop the state from forcing them to segregate in the first place.

So put aside the general objection to Title VII.

The decision itself is nonsensical on the merits.

I mean, Samuel Alito's dissent is a masterpiece.

I mean, it goes for 100 pages, but it tears apart savagely the majority opinion.

There's a good case to be made that the reason that Roberts joined this opinion is specifically so he could get Gorsuch to write it.

And the reason that he wanted Gorsuch to write it, as opposed to Ginsburg, for example, is because if Gorsuch writes it, and not Ginsburg, if Ginsburg writes this thing, then religious liberty is in a lot more danger from this specific decision than if Gorsuch writes it.

So that really is the question right now.

Now, here's my view on a lot of Supreme Court jurisprudence in general.

The Supreme Court tries to, very often, settle questions that are still unsettled and that really ought not be settled by the Supreme Court.

And that is this particular case.

This is not within the Supreme Court's purview.

And so there are a lot of people today who are celebrating, oh, look, it's New America.

We're all unified now because there's a top-down rule.

Here's the thing.

America is as politically divided as it has been, certainly in my lifetime, and maybe in the lifetime of your listeners,

including the 60s.

And the idea that you're going to have anybody at the top of the federal government cramming down a one-size-fits-all rule is really a problem.

I mean, what the founders figured is is that in division lies unity so long as you have a diversity of thought and action that is allowed across the country.

If you have a unified rule that you crammed down by 51% on 49%, that's when you get into really divisive areas.

So, are you going to keep the country running?

Well, that's where by allowing people to live their lives,

are you going to keep the country running by cramming down one rule from the top?

This one crams down one rule from the top, and whether you like the rule or you don't like the rule, that's a dangerous thing.

So, you know, I think that's what the French Revolution was all about, and what separates us from the French Revolution is the French Revolution really was about

we're going to enforce morality.

We're going to enforce what we believe is right.

And if you don't like it, guillotine.

It doesn't work.

The question that I have, though, on this ruling,

how does this affect me?

And

I keep using, let's say I am, well, let me just use a real-life scenario.

I think it's Bergdorf-Goodman in New York that they hire, hire, quote, models, not salespeople.

I can't remember which store it is, but it may be Bergdorf.

And this allows them to be able to say when

a fat person like me comes in and says, I want to sell clothes here.

They can say, I'm sorry, you don't fit the look.

And they do it specifically to get around the law so they can make sure that everybody looks a certain way because that's important.

I don't want to go in and buy a suit where the guys around me can't even fit into the suit, or you know, they can look at me and I can look at them, and they're like, dude, there's nothing here for you to buy, Glenn.

You're just too fat to be here.

And so

it's important that they have a certain image.

If I have Bob at the front desk of my business and he comes in and he says, I'm Bob Bet

and he's wearing a dress, can I fire him because he doesn't fit into the

culture and the image that I'm trying to portray?

Or does that not matter anymore?

So you'll certainly get a lawsuit.

And this has been true in New York for a long time.

So New York is actually the wrong example because New York already has anti-discrimination laws, same thing as California, right?

21 of these states already have laws that are very much like what the Supreme Court did yesterday.

So in New York, it probably won't affect you, and you probably had to worry about legal liability if you did that in any case.

Now, if you do it in Texas, you have to worry about legal liability, right?

That's the real issue here.

And by the way, the best example here is actually the case of, if you're talking about things that are a problem, then we should worry less about the business that has the models and more about your third grade teacher.

You got a bunch of kids in your school, and the teacher comes in one day and says they are the opposite gender and starts teaching your child about transgender ideology.

You fire that person.

That could very well be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Now, now, this is nonsensical.

I mean, just on a legal level, it is completely bullcrap.

When I say that, I say it advisedly with respect toward Justice Gorsuch, who typically I think is a much better textualist than this.

But he admits in the decision, this has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act, he says in the decision that there's no way that the people who wrote the Civil Rights Act meant to encompass in this homosexuality or transgenderism.

And the Democrats know this, by the way.

Democrats have been trying to pass a separate bill called the Equality Act that would do exactly this without religious exemptions for years.

And so the idea that magically you can now read the Equality Act into the Civil Rights Act is insane.

I mean,

this is something that Alito mocks, and correctly so, because there is nothing textualist about the idea that you can take the word sex and then read into it sexual orientation or transgenderism.

In fact,

the only way, this is the hilarity of it, the only way that you can actually read transgenderism into the Civil Rights Act is to reject the claim of transgender people that they are members of the sex to which they claim membership.

So follow me here.

The basic idea is that if you fire somebody, Bob comes in one day and he says, I'm Janine and I'm a woman.

He has full beard.

He hasn't done any of the freaks, nothing, right?

He just comes in and he says, I'm a woman.

And you say, okay, well, you're fired, right?

You know, you're teaching my third graders.

No.

And

the idea is you have discriminated against him as a man, right?

You haven't discriminated against him as a woman.

You've discriminated against him as a man, which is a rejection of his claim to be a woman, right?

But you've discriminated against him as a man.

So what's the discrimination exactly?

You've said, you're a man

doing a thing I don't like.

But you have been discriminated against on the basis of sex.

But sex is biological sex.

So you actually haven't been discriminated against as a man.

You've been discriminated against, presumably, as a woman.

So none of this makes any sense.

The only way you can call it discrimination, again, on the basis of sex, is to say that he is actually a man, which is something that transgender people reject.

So you now have the bizarre situation in which it is discriminatory to perhaps say in the workplace, this is where really the rubber hits the road.

Let's say that you have a religious school.

You have a secular side of the religious school, which all religious schools do.

You have a person who comes in and says, I'm transgender now.

And you say, well, you know, here at the school,

you don't even fire the guy.

You say, you know what, you get to work here here because it's Title VII.

And then he's walking around the school and people are saying things like, you know, that's a dude.

That's not a lady.

That's a dude.

Is that a discriminatory work environment?

It very well may be.

It very

well may be in a work environment that provides legal liability.

So now you get into free speech issues, right?

You actually have free speech issues as to what you're allowed to say on this basis because you're not sexually harassing anybody.

You're just saying something that is actually true.

But that may very well be sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

It also provides serious problems for Title IX.

So Title VII is now in complete conflict with Title IX.

Title IX is designed in order to protect women, right?

So, Title IX says we're going to protect, for example, women's sports.

Well, once you say that you're not allowed to reject transgender people for anything on the basis of their transgenderism, how do you have separate women's sport clubs and how do you fund them?

How do you have separate women's bathrooms?

How do you have separate women's locker rooms?

Now, Gorsuch acknowledges that a lot of these things are undecided.

He says, well, we'll save those for the future.

Well, great.

Sounds fantastic.

So,

I mean, he says that he openly says.

Yeah.

Sorry to interrupt, but I know I have a short period of time with you, and I want to get to one other question on the Second Amendment.

But let me just end this segment with this question.

Does this, do you believe the protection for religious exceptions

is strong?

No one knows.

There's the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which basically grants you the ability, if you're a religious institution, to protect yourself, but that doesn't necessarily cover secular teachers in your employee.

It also doesn't necessarily cover insurance issues.

Gorsuch says that he hopes that the religious protections are strong, and he may have those leanings.

Now, they've taken up a couple cases on some of these specific issues that are supposed to come down the pike next year, including broadening the ministerial exemption.

And so, my friend David French, who's a legal analyst with Alliance Defending Freedom, among other groups, he has suggested that what the court may be going for here is so-called fairness for all, which is sort of what they have in Utah, which is very strong workplace protections for transgender and gay people, but also a lot of exemptions for religious people.

But who the hell knows?

And of course, that could basically change any time because as soon as the Democrats get into office, if God forbid in six months, they just passed the Equality Act.

They removed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and a lot of those protections are now gone.

You're listening to the best of the Glenbeck program.

Welcome back to the program, Dr.

Michael Rechtenwald.

He's got a new book out called Beyond Woke.

Michael, I think you were the first guy to say this is a cultural revolution.

This is a Maoist cultural revolution.

And when you said it last year, I don't think I really connected it.

But I just looked it up again this week.

I'm doing some research for a special we're doing on Wednesday.

And this is exactly the Maoist cultural revolution from the 1960s in China.

Absolutely.

Thank you for having me, Glenn.

It's great to be here.

Yeah, we're going through it.

I mean, mean,

we see everything that the Maoists did, the Red Guards.

They destroyed monuments.

They destroyed churches.

They destroyed small businesses.

They tried to wipe out the national heritage.

Cultural memory, historical memory, the renaming of streets, the attacks on the privileged and authority figures, scapegoating social groups, ritual shaming.

of self and others, like the people kneeling and those who are asked to kneel, all this self-abnegation, all this is out of the mouse playbook.

It is absolutely incredible when you say that,

because I think you said that, I think you said that a year ago, and now I see it happening.

And I went back to look it all up, and it's identical.

I mean, what are the odds that this is a coincidence?

I mean,

there are no coincidences here.

These people have studied this material, but they've also learned it through.

This material all came through France in 1968 when the French student uprising was going on.

They were reading Miles' little red book.

All of this stuff filtered into the Western left and has never left it.

It's always, it's been there percolating.

It's been there, you know, gestating, just under the surface.

And you saw it coming out through Twitter mobs, stuff like that.

And I said, this was really a cultural revolution on the way.

And we see it happening.

I mean, what we also see, similarly, we see the kind of funding from corporations who are unwittingly giving money to people.

Basically, as Lennon said,

the capitalists will sell us the rope to hang him with.

So do you think that they really are unwittingly doing this?

I mean, this is the Tides Foundation has been trying to turn the corporations towards Marxism, strangely,

since the 1980s, since Reagan went in.

They felt that they had totally lost and they needed to remount a new attack and they needed the

as they learned in the 60s, they needed the entire culture, but they also needed the corporations.

Well, they have the entire culture, and

now the corporations are in their pocket.

Is it really unwittingly?

I mean, how stupid do you have to be if you're Nike?

On the part of some of them, it's unwitting.

But like the Ford Foundation is a big contributor to the Movement for Black Lives.

The Movement for Black Lives is the umbrella group

under which Black Lives Matter operates.

Now, the Movement for Black Lives says straightforwardly on their about page that they are anti-capitalist, that capitalism must be overthrown for justice.

Therefore, they are giving money directly to communists.

And this is is very, very clear.

But not every corporation that's doing this understands what's going on.

I mean, you see small corporations here or there giving $300,000 to Black Lives Matter.

They think they're doing it for EPR.

Yeah, they think this is good PR and it's going to be good for business, but it's basically selling the rope with which they'll hang the capitalist.

Is it true, Mark said, and I was it Marx or Lenin

that said

America is the prize,

it's going to be the perfect communist society because it will go through capitalism, and in the end, it will be a

capitalism will be so corrupt, and the leader of America will be the ultimate capitalist, and it will be so grotesque that everyone will

run to Marxism and communism.

Is that true?

Have you ever read that?

That was Lenin, and it's true.

But it didn't happen as they had planned.

The working classes in the United States and much of Western Europe weren't down with it.

Then the cultural Marxist revolution started with the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, and they came over to the United States and seeded their ideas here.

They said, if we can't, what's wrong with these workers?

They're happy.

They're happy consumers.

They're imbibing the same material resources that the capitalist class is under is taking in.

There's something wrong here, so we have to attack what the real roots are.

And they started to go into matters like culture, like

the family,

like advertising.

They saw advertising as duping the working classes.

They saw ideology as the main function.

So they started an ideological war.

And that's what's been going on.

It's been going on in the universities for 50 years.

and it's finally taking some sort of roots and taking some the roots are finally, I should say, sprouting these weeds into the culture and into

the popular sphere and also into the political sphere, because we have many politicians from the Democratic Party buying into it and supporting it and, you know, giving it their full endorsement.

So, you know, it's been a long haul through the institutions, a long long march through the institutions, which was the idea that was floated by Antonio Gromsky, the Italian Marxist, would be to wage an ideological warfare, ideological hegemony, or over, you know, complete dominance.

And, you know, that's what they've been up to for 50 years.

So, Michael,

as I have studied revolutions, you need

education,

you need the universities, the academics, academics, you need people on the inside of the government,

you need the media, all these different things that you need.

They've always had all of them.

And they may even now looks like they may have members in the Pentagon as well.

Is there anything that you have seen in your studies?

We know that violence is part of it, and they want, they're begging for violence.

The left has been begging for the right to stand up and be violent so the press could make us into monsters.

What is the thing that, in retrospect, the people of China or people in revolutions could have done besides violence that we could still do to stop this?

Well, let's start with Trump.

How about

an anti-propaganda campaign?

How about exposing the true underlying intentions of these people?

I know he says Antifra is communist, but he doesn't prove it.

And not only Antifra, but the movement for Black Lives is communist.

How about an anti-propaganda campaign first?

And then how about the statement of principles, just why this is wrong, morally, economically, and otherwise?

This has to be explicated.

It has to be made perfectly clear that it's not happening.

It's not happening to the extent that it needs to, at least.

But wait a minute.

Hang on just a second, Michael.

I know you know who Edward Bernays is and the study of propaganda and

the study of crowds that he and his uncle really did a lot of work on, Sigmund Freud.

There is, I just read a bunch of stuff from him last night, and there is something to the psychology of a crowd that when they are going, they shut off all critical thinking.

So how does making the case that these guys are Marxist penetrate penetrate when we are so deeply divided into our groups?

Well, you have a you know a great number of people that don't know what's going on.

They are you know, you see the support for Black Lives Matter has has

dramatically risen despite all the all this violence, despite the the intentions being clear.

So, I mean, those people are a critical mass that have to be reached first.

And then you isolate the radicals from the rest.

That's the way to do it, because we have to get to the people who are unwittingly supporting communist revolutions.

And those people are just not educated as to what's happening.

And, you know, the bully pulpit is the best start.

It's not the end by any stretch.

I mean, there needs to be a national conversation where we go, listen, this is what's on the table.

Is this really where we want to go?

And, you know, get some of these people in the room and then start talking to them because

as it is, everybody's in an echo chamber here as they very well set up these echo chambers and there's no crosstalk going on at all

Michael you wrote in your book and I think this is absolutely brilliant you said first the left translated Marxism into identity politics now with the Black Lives Matter movement they're translating identity politics back into Marxism

Yes.

This was the big trick that was undertaken by Herbert Marcusa, the Frankfurt School theorist.

And he said, look, the working class in America is just not going to be that revolutionary agent that we'd hoped for.

So let's start cobbling together all these different identity groups, you know, blacks, environmentalists, other types of stray leftists, and let's put them under a common umbrella.

And we'll march forward under this rather than under the umbrella of anti-capitalism.

So it'll be identity politics.

And we've seen that identity politics has been rife for the last, what, 40 years.

That's really the way this has flown.

Now, subtly and ever so surreptitiously, they have realized that they've translated this, or they have translated this identity politics right back into Marxism where they wanted to be in the first place.

That's exactly what's happening because we see Black Lives Matter really has an anti-capitalist agenda.

We see the Antifa, of course, is anti-capitalist.

But all this identity politics and fighting against against the so-called Nazis, all this was a part of reintroducing Marxism

into the agenda.