00:01:13.000So, all my friends, all my Latins friends, all my Muslim friends, Chinese friends, Jewish friends, we were all there learning about the Holocaust.
00:05:15.000If you're going to have a rally, if you've already made the decision you're going to have a rally or a protest or some kind of a demonstration, optics applies for that.
00:05:25.000So if you're going to have a public demonstration where you're going to say, we are the face of the movement, and this is like Richard Spencer's speech at Gainesville, where he went out there and he was with.
00:05:37.000Eli Mosley and Mike Enoch, and they are both overweight individuals.
00:05:43.000And in that setting, to have people who are out of shape, to have people who are not the best looking front and center, literally on the stage saying, We are the movement, this is our cause, that's no good.
00:05:54.000That said, the kind of activism we need to do moving forward is not that kind of activism in the sense that what we talk about on the show after post Charlottesville is getting involved in a campaign, getting involved with your local party, whether that's your county party, your state party, something like that.
00:06:12.000And if that's the case, you don't have to be a movie star to do that kind of a thing.
00:06:16.000We just need people who are in these positions, people who are influential in the party or they can pull some strings or, you know, professionals, whether you're a lawyer or you have some kind of special skill.
00:06:26.000These are the kinds of people who are going to contribute to the movement.
00:06:29.000So I would say that so long as you're not, you know, you're not on a stage, so long as you're not, you don't have your face in front of a video camera and you're not, you know, whatever, then I don't think it really matters so much.
00:06:42.000That said, we want to have, we want to practice what we preach.
00:06:46.000That we want to be, we want to make America great again, so we should make ourselves great again, right?
00:06:53.000And so I think that it's one of those things where it should be worked on, but I don't think it should keep anybody away from the kind of activism that we need to be doing.
00:08:55.000I don't even know if I wanted to call it a discussion, but just like in a group chat of my friends in a text group chat.
00:09:02.000We were discussing the Second Amendment, and they advocated, obviously, you know, my position is.
00:09:12.000Obviously, a Second Amendment absolutist.
00:09:14.000If I watch your show, that's probably everyone's opinion.
00:09:18.000But, you know, when I chimed in and said that, you know, we should be able to have an AR 15 per se, they said, why do you need a semi automatic rifle?
00:09:29.000And, you know, I would say, obviously, in case of like tyrannical government, they said that's like not realistic.
00:09:40.000Like, what do you honestly say to that?
00:09:42.000Because I was trying to like think of something in my head.
00:09:46.000My only thought was to say, like, it's not for just me, it's for like my grandkids or like my kids.
00:09:52.000So, say, like, my kids come into a tyrannical government.
00:09:55.000But what do you think a better defense of it is?
00:09:59.000Well, I think the first place, this is my favorite when people ask, why do you need that kind of weapon?
00:10:05.000And that's something that people ask whenever the rifle comes into play because people can see maybe the utility of a handgun or the utility of a shotgun or something like that.
00:10:19.000And I think, in the first place, to answer that question is already conceding the wrong framing on the issue in the sense that we have a right to own firearms, and that right comes from God.
00:10:30.000That right does not come from the asker of the question.
00:10:34.000That right does not come from the majority.
00:10:36.000That right does not come from the government.
00:10:38.000Our right to keep and bear arms comes from God.
00:10:40.000This is one of our inalienable rights.
00:10:42.000And the genesis of that right is in our right to property.
00:10:45.000I mean, if you really want to trace it back, people might say, and the left has said to me, And, oh, really?
00:10:54.000If you understand that we are given life by God, we are given our faculties by God, our talents, our senses, and our ability to make a living for ourselves, an ability to feed ourselves, to accumulate property, we understand that we have a right to property.
00:11:11.000If we have a body that was given to us by God, a life given to us by God, faculties given to us by God, and we use these God given faculties to create property, You know, to modify land or to modify resources and create something, and we have a right to the fruits of that.
00:11:28.000Well, then you understand that we have a right to our life, we have our faculties, we have our property, and then you have to be able to defend your property.
00:11:34.000So that's where the right to firearms comes from, in the sense that in no reasonable way can you have your God given rights to freedom, to self determination, and all the rest if you don't have property, if you don't have the means to defend your property.
00:11:48.000And so I would say that before you even engage in like what's the practical utility of a firearm, I think it's important to establish.
00:11:55.000And anytime somebody asks that, it's not really up to you.
00:11:59.000We don't really have to explain to you why we need it.
00:12:01.000We don't have to come up with a reason.
00:12:12.000If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with it, you know, and that kind of thing.
00:12:16.000So, but to move on to the practical question, if you do end up there, the semi automatic rifle is there to kill people.
00:12:24.000I mean, that's the function of a rifle.
00:12:25.000You can have it for hunting, but I mean, you look at some of these firearms and the magazine capacity and things like this, and those firearms are there to kill people.
00:12:34.000And it is a question of, We need to eventually, in some case, protect ourselves from the government or from some other adversary.
00:12:42.000I would refer, this is probably one of the finest arguments, one of the most irrefutable, which is that the biggest component that many regard, many foreign countries in our own country regards as one of the biggest components of our defense is the fact that we have 300 million rifles, in the sense that there could never be a sustained occupation of the United States by a foreign power, or even if there was an imperial government in our own government, when you have.
00:13:08.000So many guns in the hands of the people.
00:13:10.000This is a famous quote from, I think it was a Japanese defense minister, where they said that if they invaded the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.
00:13:20.000And so it would be ridiculous for them to try to invade when so many people, you would have militias everywhere.
00:13:25.000So that would be one is the national defense.
00:13:27.000But then further, you know, I think if you're arguing with the left and not the right, you could point to Donald Trump.
00:13:34.000Your fear is that Donald Trump is going to start rounding up Muslims and illegal immigrants and all the rest.
00:13:39.000And you're going to give his government all the firearms?
00:13:41.000You're going to give him the sole authority to discharge force?
00:13:47.000All the people who five years ago said tyrannical government will never happen, now they're talking about impeachment, Trump's a Russian puppet, and X, Y, and Z.
00:13:55.000And so I think that would be the practical argument.
00:15:16.000Before I get into my question, I want to address.
00:15:18.000I think it was either the previous caller or the one before that who said that one of his peers questioned him on why he'd need a weapon, and he brought up the reason of defense against tyranny and things like that.
00:15:30.000Well, there are far more realistic scenarios where you would need whatever weaponry you can get your hands on to defend yourself.
00:15:38.000The most poignant cases, ones that I myself have somewhat experienced, are natural disasters.
00:15:44.000In the case of the Gulf Coast region where I live, it's Usually affected by hurricanes.
00:15:51.000There are power outages, flood zones, people are cut off for weeks at a time.
00:16:11.000Those are all absolutely critical in a need for self defense in those scenarios.
00:16:17.000I mean, that happens on a regular basis.
00:16:20.000In the news the day before yesterday, there was a firearms instructor who, outside of his apartment, heard a neighbor being attacked by a knife wielding maniac.
00:17:12.000You've talked about potentially banning bump stocks.
00:17:15.000And I feel like I should bring this to your attention.
00:17:18.000All of the legislation that has been introduced in the House and the Senate and any regulations proposed by the ATF in the past few months since Vegas that would ban bump stock, they all have.
00:17:34.000Incredibly vague language, which usually something along the lines it calls for a ban on rate increasing devices.
00:17:42.000Now, that is incredibly vague language because, under that language, and we know this because we have former ATF agents telling us what's going on inside the ATF, tells us that almost anything could be considered a rate increasing device.
00:17:57.000If I take the trigger out of my AK 47 and I polish it and I loosen the trigger pull by a pound, That could technically be considered a rate-increasing device, and therefore, under any of these new legislations or regulations proposed, could technically make that illegal.
00:18:14.000So many semi-automatic firearms could be considered illegal with these incredibly vague proposals that they're putting forward.
00:18:22.000So I just wanted to give you some pushback on that, make sure you were aware of that.
00:18:27.000Well, yeah, I didn't say that I endorsed any particular bill.
00:18:30.000I didn't say I endorsed any particular regulation, but the point I was trying to make when I talked about President Trump's proposals to.
00:18:38.000To make some small concessions to the left, I think that, you know, if we were talking about bump stocks in particular, if we could get federal concealed carry for that, if we could get, you know, if we could get significant concessions on guns in the way of deterring school shooters by giving firearms to teachers, or if we could get concealed carry nationwide or some kind of national gun license or, you know, something like that, I think that that would be a small concession to make.
00:19:05.000And the reason being because a bump stock is not, you know, I see all kinds of people saying, Well, if you ban bump stocks, that won't really do anything because you could use a belt and that could accomplish the same thing.
00:19:16.000You could, I mean, there are a number of modifications you can make.
00:19:29.000There are a variety of ways you can do it.
00:19:31.000Well, and the point being, the point being that if you could increase, if you could do bump fire without a bump stock, that would be such a small concession to get a huge concession from the left, which would be.
00:19:44.000And that would be the only pretext under which I would support any kind of gun control.
00:19:48.000I like what you said when you said we could use it as a bargaining chip for, say, concealed carry reciprocity, which is concealed carry recognized across all state lines.
00:20:00.000Where people who are recognized as a concealed carry in one state won't be arrested when they cross state lines for trying to protect themselves.
00:20:07.000But the language of banning bump stocks would have to be absolutely clear.
00:20:15.000Everything that's been proposed from ATF regulations that they're trying to push.
00:20:20.000The bills pushed in the House and the Senate and Congress and whatnot, all of them have incredibly dangerous and vague language that would allow the ban.
00:20:29.000It really, the way it was described is a backdoor ban on semi automatic firearms because it's so vague that they could literally get away with that.
00:20:38.000Well, the good thing is there's not going to be a vote on that anytime soon.
00:20:42.000And the NRA had a meeting with President Trump, I believe it was either this afternoon or yesterday afternoon, and they said no bans can be made.
00:20:50.000It doesn't look like that will happen anytime soon, but I would be against it if it was that kind of language because it would have to be specifically, you know, the one thing.
00:20:59.000It would have to be just and not have the language to have a blanket gun ban or a semi automatic rifle ban because you do see that pretty often.
00:21:06.000You see that with everything immigration, gun control, where they take the language, especially in the federal departments, and when they're tasked with enforcing the regulations, they can take their liberties with how they want to interpret it.
00:21:18.000So I definitely understand where you're coming from.
00:21:23.000And something else that's been posited about is this protective order.
00:21:30.000Now, there are two ways you can do the protective order, and there's been a lot of talk about it in the news.
00:21:35.000There's one way, which is the California way, which is when, say, your girlfriend or your mother can go to the authorities, they can go to the judge and say, oh, this individual is a danger to himself or to others, at which point in California, Authorities will go to that individual's residence and forcibly remove all firearms.
00:21:59.000And then, for that individual to get those firearms back, they would have to go to court and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, which, in my opinion, doesn't matter because, and I've thought about this, it doesn't matter because there are activist judges who, if a judge has a stick up his ass about the Second Amendment, he will not care if you're not a danger to yourself.
00:22:19.000He will use this as his opportunity to disarm law abiding citizens, which brings me to the second proposal.
00:22:25.000Of these protective orders, which I think even Mike Pence was pushing forward the day before yesterday.
00:22:30.000Ben Shapiro's out there pushing it about.
00:22:33.000It sounds good in principle, and even I can agree with it in principle.
00:22:37.000But when you throw activist judges into the mix, it's not a good idea, and it involves that individual being notified that they have to go to court to maintain their Second Amendment rights.
00:22:48.000And if they fail, then their guns are taken away.
00:22:52.000It's very dangerous because, once again, with activist judges, that could be a serious threat.
00:22:59.000And that's why I think we are finally seeing the pushback coming from the NRA, a very significant and I think effective pushback, because we were, in my estimation, we were losing the gun debate in the week following the Parkland shooting.
00:23:15.000I think we were, I think we lost, I think we started losing it after Vegas, yes.
00:23:20.000So what was going to happen right before Vegas?
00:23:22.000The House had just passed concealed carry, no, it was the SHARE Act, which would have legalized suppressors and concealed carry reciprocity across the nation.
00:23:44.000They have completely, as far as I know, they've completely shelved the SHARE Act, which would have legalized suppressors with nothing more than a background check and recognized concealed carry reciprocity across the nation.
00:23:56.000And now with Parkland, that looks even less likely to happen.
00:23:59.000And I'm not really sure what's going to happen.
00:24:00.000It's all kind of up in the air right now.
00:24:02.000Well, fortunately, I don't think anything will pass.
00:24:04.000Like what was said this afternoon by Mitch McConnell, there's so much on the docket.
00:24:09.000I don't think there'll be any vote on gun control, but we have to be vigilant.
00:24:12.000We have to watch because that's how they get you.
00:24:15.000You know, it's just like, It's just like the 65 Immigration Act, you know, and they said it was one thing and it was another thing, and they'll do it with guns.
00:25:00.000About three or four years ago, Dianne Feinstein was pushing a ban on privately owned body armor.
00:25:07.000Now, we flooded the ATF's office with so many phone calls, so many emails that we actually broke their fax machine and they were forced to shell those proposals.
00:25:16.000So I just wanted to put that out there before I head out.
00:25:18.000But thanks, I really appreciate it, man.
00:25:42.000He's, you know, it's important that we have those people who are committed to watching the Second Amendment because, you know, I think there is this epidemic in the movement where we tend to pick the one or two issues.
00:27:23.000So, basically, what I want to ask is what sort of organization do you think we need in order to sort of convince Americans in the mainstream, you know, your working class and Americans overall, that we need to.
00:27:36.000Move back towards a finished goods production economy as opposed to the service economy or the exportation of natural raw materials economy that we're kind of in now.
00:27:49.000And we sort of transitioned to in the 90s and the 2000 era, basically.
00:27:56.000Well, that's not really an economic question.
00:27:58.000You're really asking an advocacy question, right?
00:28:27.000So for the past 25 years, there's been this free trade dogma in Washington, D.C., and really across the country that America doesn't need manufacturing, that America doesn't need industry.
00:28:39.000With, like the previous caller was saying, with raw materials, with service, with these other things.
00:28:44.000And now it is the job of East Asia and the developing world.
00:28:47.000They're just going to make all the stuff.
00:28:49.000They'll just have the manufacturing, they'll have the factories, they'll have the sweatshops, and we'll be able to all have high paying professional, you know, university degree jobs.
00:29:00.000I would probably say, you know, in keeping in mind that that's a good thing to convince people that we need to get away from that mentality and back towards having manufacturing, having industry.
00:29:10.000We've always had industry, we always will have.
00:29:13.00015 to 20 percent of the economy being industry.
00:29:16.000In terms of advocacy, I think that the Republican Party is poised to take labor as a voting block, as an issue from the Democrats.
00:29:26.000I mean, you saw in the Midwest, in the Rust Belt, it was white union workers, it was white working class voters in these different states who put Donald Trump into office, who put us at a majority in the Senate and in the House.
00:29:37.000And so I would think that to move forward and really capitalize on that issue, the plight of the working class, We would have to restructure maybe the message of the Republican Party, restructure the think tanks, and where we get our policy from in order to make it more appealing to those kinds of people.
00:29:54.000Because I'll tell you what, if we had gone along the same path that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio wanted us to go down, where it was Cato Institute, American Enterprise, free trade nonsense, we wouldn't have won the Midwest.
00:30:13.000And so we have to move and capitalize on those gains that we broke the blue wall in 2016 and secure them for.
00:30:19.000The next election, and even after Trump, this Republican Party has to become a party that is welcome and opening to labor.
00:30:26.000And we don't like the unions, but that would be a pretty significant disruption if we were able to turn a significant number of them.
00:30:34.000So I would say that that is what would have to happen at an institutional level, we would have to become more labor oriented, more working class oriented in the Republican Party.
00:30:50.000The fellow who asked that, I don't know what happened to him.
00:32:08.000And they themselves can't get their family to do it, or they can't get their friends to do it, or they can't get people they know to do it.
00:32:14.000And it's sort of this trouble of, well, you know, who do we expect to have that responsibility?
00:32:18.000I'm not saying that's you, but this is just something I see pretty often.
00:32:22.000And it really starts with you who is interested in getting people into church.
00:32:35.000But then more broadly, More broadly, I would say that you're really not going to see any significant rise in church attendance unless people see the church as an alternative to what's going on.
00:32:45.000We have to recreate this dichotomy, which I think has gone away, which is the secular gods, which are democracy, self improvement, like veganism, yoga, all this other stuff that's trying to fill the void, and the church.
00:33:00.000Because you have all these young people who are out there and they're searching, they're desperate, they want meaning in their lives, they want answers to these big questions, they have this hunger to be reunited.
00:33:12.000And all the media and anybody else can offer them are these phony substitutes.
00:33:17.000Even like the Mogapeds, even these ostensibly right wing new political people from the Trump election, all they have to offer is, well, work really hard.
00:33:44.000You know it, I know it, we all know it, and we have to say that that's the answer to that problem that's keeping them up at night, that is causing this all consuming hunger inside of them.
00:33:54.000So I would say that it starts with the individual, but more broadly, that has to happen in the zeitgeist.
00:35:13.000Out of a clear blue sky seems like, you know, suddenly you have.
00:35:17.000YouTube censorship coming in waves essentially, whereas demonetization and then these new rules.
00:35:22.000And now, this week, you had a number of them.
00:35:24.000And where this is coming from is what YouTube calls their trusted flagging program, where they have trusted partners, which are the SPLC, the ADL, these anti white hate organizations, and they bring them on.
00:35:38.000And if those organizations flag a video or a channel, it gets immediately suspended.
00:35:43.000It's like it's equivalent to a mass flag.
00:36:26.000Due process essentially, where you know maybe these videos are in violation of the guidelines, maybe they're unsavory, whatever.
00:36:33.000But with the trusted flagger program, from my understanding, it just goes straight into censorship territory, and then you have to get it you get an appeal, you have to get a moderator to then look at it.
00:36:46.000So, whereas before it was people get reported and then a moderator looks at it and then they judge should it get banned, should it not.
00:36:53.000Now, the SPLC can go on there and they think Ben Carson is an extremist, for example.
00:36:59.000You know, like regular conservatives are Nazis.
00:37:02.000And if they think, not, whatever, but if they see a video and they don't like it, they essentially get de facto power to get it removed, to get a strike on it, to get it banned.
00:37:12.000And then a moderator comes in and looks at it and says, well, did they break it or did they not?
00:37:17.000And that is not how a service like YouTube should work.
00:37:21.000People depend on their living for this.
00:37:23.000You look at Andy Worski, I'm sure that's how he makes his living, and for many other people.
00:37:27.000So that's just simply not in the cards for somebody to have to wait 30 days.
00:37:32.000Well, some apparatchik and YouTube decides, well, was this hate speech or was it not?
00:37:37.000Was the SPLC being, you know, was it Oy Ve time or was it actually legitimate?
00:39:07.000But I think there was something else I wanted to talk about because you were just talking about it with, I think, the second caller, and it's something you've talked about in general in that.
00:39:14.000I think the biggest problem with the alt right is that, sort of from the get go, everyone wanted to be the political pundit.
00:39:21.000That everybody wanted to have the infinite wisdom about what's going on in the political sphere.
00:39:29.000Yeah, I mean, and I think the biggest thing, and you were just talking about, is that, you know, we need our gum people.
00:39:34.000We need people who are passionate about the Second Amendment.
00:39:36.000We need people who are passionate about economics.
00:39:38.000And I think this is really what I think people should feel encouraged to do is that go out into these other realms.
00:39:43.000Like, I mean, if you want to stream for video games or stuff like that, and while bringing a conservative ethic to it, you don't have to be explicit or memeing all the time, but, you know, do something seriously and do it.
00:39:55.000To show the spirit of what America is and what it can be again.
00:40:01.000And I've encouraged that, in my opinion, the most productive thing most people can do is apolitical.
00:40:08.000The best thing that most individuals can contribute to the cause and to the movement and to our objectives is not to talk about our cause and our objectives and our movement on a podcast or among your friends on Twitter.
00:40:21.000It's to go out and do something completely apolitical.
00:40:24.000Most people live in the world of the apolitical.
00:40:27.000When you realize that most people, like, you look at Twitter, for example, and who has the most followers on Twitter?
00:41:06.000The most that a lot of people can do with their talents is to go and be a lawyer, you know, and they can provide legal counsel when they can, or to go and be a money person, and they can be a money person when they can.
00:41:16.000Or if they're AVI, if they can do audio and video, or if they have some kind of a talent, go in and make a short film or go and make a song on SoundCloud, something to that effect.
00:41:26.000But most of what people can do is apolitical, it's outside of the.
00:41:30.000It's a very specialized thing, and it's not something I don't think.
00:41:34.000I mean, it's really downstream from all the other stuff.
00:42:03.000And, you know, again, yeah, you don't have, I don't know, if you don't really want to do canvassing, you don't have to do that, but talk to people and get out in the world, I think is the biggest thing.
00:42:10.000You know, I mean, I'm trying to work on that myself.
00:42:12.000I've always been, I think I'm a guy who I like to talk to people and I like to go out, but I do have some antisocial tendencies.
00:43:21.000Well, what's on my mind is there's this tweet from the venerable Mr. Stryker.
00:43:27.000I'm a big fan of him, big fan of yours as well.
00:43:30.000But he says there needs to be a blood sport type of debate between the paleocon, red, white, and blue wing of the right versus the third positionist revolutionary wing.
00:43:43.000The whining, nihilism, and caddy behavior is officially out of control.
00:43:48.000This antagonism is a source of contradiction.
00:44:53.000Are two visions the star spangled electoral method versus the, like you said, the third positionist, you know, kind of revolutionary mentality.
00:45:04.000And he said that that wasn't a good dialectic, which I don't know.
00:45:29.000And I think we've seen time after time after time this revolutionary stuff, this weird foreign alien kind of stuff.
00:45:39.000Every time it doesn't seem to work out.
00:45:41.000Whether it was Charlottesville, whether it was Gainesville, the other Charlottesville, all the different demonstrations they've done.
00:45:48.000And it looks like it's going nowhere, it's leading to nowhere.
00:45:52.000And in the process, real people are getting hurt, real people are getting humiliated, embarrassed by the leaders.
00:45:58.000But, you know, that said, I think it would be an interesting debate to have.
00:46:01.000I think I would be, I don't know if I'd be open to it only because you engage with that kind of thing and it legitimizes it.
00:46:09.000So that would be a debate that the, you know, the Duganist would welcome because it would give legitimacy and it would taint my legitimacy.
00:46:17.000And I would not because to even engage with somebody who believes that there should be an overthrow of the government, you can understand that might put you on a couple of lists.
00:46:25.000So I think it's a debate that should be had, but I don't think it should be a debate that should be had.
00:46:29.000With people that are in the public eye trying to make it work as paleocons.
00:46:33.000I think Ricky Vaughn would be better to have that debate with.
00:47:49.000Push to ban circumcision in Iceland, which is now spreading to Denmark, Norway, possibly being revisited in Sweden, and with organizations pushing it in the UK as well?
00:48:00.000Well, you know, it's tough because I personally am against circumcision.
00:48:13.000I think a number of these barbaric, ancient practices, maybe by ancient tribes, should be banned.
00:48:20.000It just has no place in a civilized country.
00:48:23.000You know, female genital mutilation is totally that's evil, that's Muslim, and it's foreign, and it's bad, but apparently can mutilate the genitals of males.
00:48:33.000I mean, it's one thing if, you know, that's a medical procedure, but it's another thing if it's just one of these, you know, ancient sacrificial rites.
00:48:53.000Well, it started in this country in the late 1800s by people like John Harvey Kellogg and William Sayre, who were obsessed with moral hygiene, is what they were obsessed with.
00:49:06.000It was an anti masturbation crusade started by those people.
00:49:10.000William Sayre was the founder of the American Medical Association, so it has been medicalized from the beginning.
00:49:16.000It has only recently accrued the more disease preventing claims since then, as they They claw for last bits of legitimacy.
00:49:29.000This is the crisis of legitimacy for them.
00:51:48.000It's tough to do it, but that's why I do it.
00:51:51.000You know, it's not easy being mocked and laughed at as the person in the basement doing the show and cast out from all the major institutions of academia and media, but we do it because it counts, because it matters.
00:52:05.000So I really do appreciate that, my friend.
00:52:50.000I have seen that they've been cracking down a little bit on some of the servers on Discord.
00:52:55.000It's troubling because you really see an acceleration on the part of media and social media in particular, whether it's YouTube that's doing the strikes, Twitter with the bans and changing the rules, Facebook, it seems they've heightened their regulations, Medium's been kicking people off, and now Discord, now we can't even gather.
00:53:14.000You know, Discord's not even, I don't think, like other social media where it's public posts and that.
00:54:17.000It just goes to show this show reaches people from all walks of life, from all I was checking.
00:54:23.000Actually, it doesn't reach all kinds of people.
00:54:25.000The audience is only 5% women, if you look at the analytics, which is funny because the show is called America First, and 73% of the people that watch it are actually in the United States.
00:55:46.000I mean, this is one of the most difficult questions because, of course, we can all figure out the issues, but then the problem becomes how do we spread them?
00:55:54.000How do we promulgate our ideas effectively?
00:55:57.000So it's half the battle, you know, to be quite honest.
00:56:01.000And I would say, in my experience, the inquisitive approach is always the best approach.
00:56:07.000You have to read, here's a really good book recommendation for you.
00:56:11.000It's called How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie.
00:56:14.000And this is a classic book for people who have read it.
00:56:17.000I'm sure they're nodding their heads saying, yes, of course, this is the premier book on how to win friends and influence people, how to impart your beliefs or ideas in a way that is effective, that it comes across as diplomatic, and people really absorb it.
00:56:32.000And I would say that the inquisitive method is always the best approach.
00:56:35.000And this is just my personal opinion, my experience is that to come at somebody and say, well, the world is this way, things are like this.
00:56:54.000You're going up against the most resistance.
00:56:56.000You have to take the path of least resistance, which is to say that instead of telling people what's going on, you should ask them questions that will lead them to their own conclusions.
00:57:05.000Because I think it's pretty self evident what we talk about, whether it's demographics, whether it's the traditional stuff like interracial, like gay marriage, but just simply ask questions about these kinds of issues.
00:58:21.000Of course, if it's producing children, then the gay marriage thing is out.
00:58:25.000And if it's producing children, then think of rearing the children.
00:58:27.000Is it better that parents are on the same page with their values?
00:58:31.000Is it better that the marriage lasts longer?
00:58:32.000Is it better if the marriage lasts longer that the two people engaged in it are more compatible in terms of their values, in terms of their experiences?
00:58:40.000And can two people of different religions and races and customs and tribes be compatible for a long time?
00:58:47.000Who does that benefit, the children or the people engaged in it?
01:01:54.000I think the process is underway once we get appropriations, once we do get the money for it, in terms of we get the green light to spend the money on it.
01:02:02.000But I don't think that kind of engineering project, which is so vast and really never been done before in this country, I don't think it'll be completed.
01:02:26.000And to answer the second question, the 19th Amendment, you know, people joke about repealing the 19th Amendment, but I think there really has to be a conversation in the country about to what extent the citizenry should be enfranchised in the sense that when our government was established, it wasn't a democracy, nothing close to it.
01:02:47.000It wasn't even really a representative democracy in the sense that it wasn't universal suffrage, it was white men.
01:02:54.000With property and, you know, with connections and that kind of thing.
01:02:57.000It wasn't just every prisoners can vote and immigrants can vote and illegal immigrants can vote and children and men and women and, you know, everybody else.
01:03:05.000There were restrictions, there were requirements that were suited to who could exercise sound judgment in casting a vote.
01:03:13.000Not just anybody with an opinion, you know, who could be on drugs or could be psychotic or whatever.
01:03:18.000And so there has to be a question in this country of we look at how people vote, we look at voting patterns, and it becomes very clear this is the real red pill.
01:03:28.000When you look at voting patterns and you look that women vote in a particular way, men vote in a particular way, whites vote in a particular way, blacks, and on and on and on.
01:03:39.000Is that the very foundational premise of democracy is flawed?
01:03:42.000The idea is that, well, oh, we're all just equal, we're all the same, we're all just different, you know, different colors and shapes and sizes, but we're all just blank slate on the inside, as John Locke would have it.
01:03:55.000And when you look at voting patterns, you look at the outcomes of votes, and this is just empirically not true.
01:04:01.000Your gender does affect the way you vote, your race does affect the way you vote, and on and on and on, religion, age, all the rest.
01:04:09.000And so there has to be a conversation.