Russell Brand has been accused of sexual harassment and even rape, but no charges have been filed and no one has been brought against him. What does this say about the credibility of the comedian and what does it mean for the rest of us?
00:20:19.400Now, of course, the left says, oh, they're fleeing it because they're poor and there's minorities and they just don't want to be there.
00:20:26.020But, of course, they're fleeing it because of the real world implications of the policies being applied here.
00:20:32.400Look, if there's consistently crime in an area, if there's consistently high levels of shoplifting and the liberal progressive politicians have decided that they cannot police that specifically because of the minority percentage inside a given neighborhood and because that'll look bad on the news, because that'll look bad on their statistics, because they're worried about the implications of policing that particular community.
00:20:56.720Well, that is a situation that is manufactured by the city, by the politics, by the decisions around what they see as demographics in that area has nothing to do with the choices of the grocery store itself.
00:21:10.120And so the only solution, of course, is not to increase policing.
00:21:15.200It's not to get honest about the kind of situation inside the community.
00:21:20.640It's not about enforcing kind of that broken windows policing of small things like shoplifting that seem small, but eventually grow into much more dangerous and difficult things.
00:21:31.440No, we're not going to address any of that.
00:21:34.380We're going to create government stores, right?
00:21:36.000We're just going to do communism, basically.
00:21:37.640We're going to create bread lines, but let's be honest, like, who knows if even if these stores will work?
00:21:42.600OK, so the government goes in, they open up these stores.
00:21:45.320But if these areas were already high in crime, if they are already having shoplifting problems, are these government stores, are they going to be, what, protected by the police, by the National Guard?
00:21:55.380Why are these going to be any more resilient to those issues?
00:21:58.780OK, maybe they could have fresher food, a lower price.
00:22:01.700You're hoping to subsidize all of that.
00:22:04.860But again, if you have a persistent problem of crime in the area that you refuse to address, then this is eventually just doomed to failure.
00:22:12.180And that's kind of where we are as a society right now.
00:22:15.160We would rather embrace the known failed solutions of previous communist regime than we would actually like to look at the real understandable issues that are happening inside these communities.
00:22:29.000There's a crime problem for many different reasons.
00:22:31.680But if you're not willing to address it because you're worried about how it will look, if you're worried about how what demographics might be reflected inside and arrest inside that community, then you are just dooming yourself to continued failed policies.
00:22:44.180And all you have left to do is continue to blame the government or to continue to blame corporations instead of getting honest about what's really going on.
00:22:53.900All right. I wanted to go ahead and take a look at another celebrity here.
00:22:57.520Let me go ahead and bring up the video of Louis C.K.
00:23:01.760So Louis C.K. was on the Joe Rogan show here recently.
00:23:06.220I'm going to make this a little larger so you can actually see what's going on here.
00:23:09.960Louis C.K. was on the Joe Rogan show here recently.
00:23:13.240And he had this to say about how America should be interacting with immigrants.
00:23:18.880But my feeling is they should open it.
00:23:22.100The border is let them pour it, let everybody pour in.
00:23:25.120And and then the answer, which is, well, then there will be all these problems.
00:25:07.940You'll always end up here because there is no justification in liberalism at the end of the day for inequality.
00:25:15.540There is no explanation for inequality.
00:25:17.920Therefore, there is no justification for inequality.
00:25:20.960And so the logical conclusion of liberalism is always this version of, you know, radical progressivism, you know, neo-Marxism, kind of whatever you want to call this, communism, whatever you want to call this.
00:25:32.340It's always this in-state where we are not allowed to have borders.
00:25:37.580We are not allowed to have a division of kind of how, you know, our world is ordered because it will prefer some groups and it will always be, you know, deleterious to other groups.
00:25:50.800And so that's what he's saying, right?
00:26:11.120And it forces people to do cruel things to other people.
00:26:14.740There's a lot of people that die so Americans can be safe.
00:26:17.940They're just dying, you know, weddings that are drone bombed in Yemen because the guy said something that might have resulted in American insecurity.
00:26:30.880Not even like definite American deaths, but like just so we can breathe a little easier.
00:26:35.760Folks die and folks do labor in unsafe places.
00:26:40.060So, Louis C.K. here is having a problem with the idea that you would have any national defense at all.
00:26:47.220Now, look, there's plenty to say about the errors, the egregious nature of overreach, the expansion of mission of the U.S. empire when it came to the war on terror.
00:26:58.760There are very fair points to be made about kind of the unnecessarity of many, many actions that have been taken by the U.S. when it comes to that.
00:27:10.580But it's very clear that for Louis C.K., the idea that you would prefer your country and its safety over anyone anywhere in the world is a problem.
00:27:20.020And this is a really big issue for all kinds of people, even people on the right in general.
00:27:25.820Because, again, many people on the right who see themselves as classically liberal or even many Christians have a hard time explaining why it's legitimate for a nation or a people to prefer its own well-being over the well-being of others.
00:27:42.580And that's what Louis C.K. can't do here, right?
00:27:45.400James Burnham called liberalism the suicide – he said it would be the suicidal ideology of the West, right?
00:27:53.800And the reason he said that was that liberalism strips out any allowance for particularity, any allowance that something might not be universal, any allowance for why you might prefer one thing over another, which makes it impossible for you to defend anything.
00:28:10.400Because everything's up for debate, everything's up for discussion, everything is always vulnerable to critique and being broken down.
00:28:39.520And because it has no ability to do that, it has no ability to defend itself because there's no reason why you should prefer the liberal principles of openness and discussion and universality over any other principles.
00:28:56.940There's no specific people it's tied to.
00:28:59.080There's no specific land it's tied to.
00:29:00.760It's all just, it could just, you know, it's this universal acid that destroys all bonds, all preferences, all moral, you know, kind of connection.
00:29:11.240And so because of that, there's no reason for Louis C.K. to understand, like, why you would be able to prefer your own nation over someone else.
00:29:19.040Why you would prefer that the quality of life for people in America would be better and you would prioritize that over just letting anyone from India or China or Mexico or Venezuela or Haiti or wherever into your nation and bringing down that.
00:29:36.160Because that's what he's going to say here in a second.
00:29:37.680He's going to realize the end point of this.
00:30:59.820Like, if you have a open border, you have no clue who's coming over it, obviously.
00:31:04.740Like, that's the whole thing of what an open border means.
00:31:07.460Now, will most of the people who come over not be violent?
00:31:11.300Yeah, because, like, most people aren't deeply criminal.
00:31:14.680But you will have no control over whether you have gang members coming over, whether you will have drug traffickers coming over, whether you'll have human traffickers coming over.
00:31:23.820And, you know, there's all these terrible things that, you know, happen on the border right now.
00:31:28.580You've been with all this restriction and policing or whatever level we have, but we don't have that much, to be honest.
00:31:34.380When it comes to bringing people in here, you know, so all that will still occur, but it will happen at an even higher level.
00:31:43.500But very specifically, if nothing else, the very terrorists, you know, that came over on something like 9-11, I mean, they came over with passports, right?
00:31:51.100They came over with visas in many ways.
00:31:53.260That's how they were able to circumvent this thing.
00:31:55.040But that kind of thing obviously will be more common.
00:31:57.640It will be more open because there'll be no barrier.
00:32:00.060So, yes, the very thing you're talking about will happen.
00:32:02.700But on top of that, he kind of talks about how everything will just, you know, the tide will come in and then it'll go out and then everything will just kind of level off.
00:33:40.300But if you just let anyone into the nation, then you can't organize anymore because you're adding more than the organization can bear.
00:33:49.160You're adding people who are unfamiliar with the organization, who don't share the same goals as the organization, who are unwilling to work towards, you know, don't have the capacity to do the things required by the organization.
00:33:58.900You are adding all kinds of variables that will eventually destroy what the organization has built.
00:34:04.420But, of course, Louis Suquet, again, he's just temporarily embarrassed liberal, right?
00:34:09.260He's just, you know, I have these massive advantages.
00:34:44.320That's how all these border situations work, right?
00:34:46.720That's why the New York mayor is now, you know, trying to rescind his sanctuary city statements.
00:34:52.420Because it became clear that actually once the consequences of that stuff showed up, you know, it was fine when they were all sitting at the red states.
00:34:59.800When they're sitting in, you know, Texas or Florida, it was fine to let as many immigrants come in as you want.
00:35:31.220So, Donald Trump, obviously, was stifled by many of his attempts to kind of get policy enacted.
00:35:41.580He had a large amount of problems trying to bring in personnel, trying to change the way that the government worked, trying to make policies happen.
00:35:50.040This is something he ran to over and over and over again.
00:35:52.460Now, I think a lot of people who have been looking at the government always knew that this was an issue, right?
00:35:58.260That the federal bureaucracy, that the deeply entrenched kind of apparatchiks all throughout these different parts of the executive branch, the civil service, these things, they were not interested in just following the direction of whatever president happened to get elected.
00:36:15.460Instead, they had a very specific agenda of what they wanted to do and how they thought the government should run.
00:36:51.800Curtis Yarvin called this the cathedral.
00:36:54.620Whatever terminology you want to use for it, the left has been kind of doing this thing where it denies the existence of this but also celebrates the existence of this.
00:37:05.780So, they're constantly saying, oh, the deep state, that's a conspiracy theory.
00:37:14.080But at the same time, they constantly write stories like this where they basically acknowledge the existence of the deep state and its importance and its power.
00:37:22.440And so, I want to read a little bit of this New York Times piece because it kind of reveals the way that two sides can look at the same issue.
00:37:31.500The right looks at the deep state and says, this is terrible.
00:37:45.540And so, they're denying the existence of this bureaucratic monopoly.
00:37:50.040They're denying the existence of this deep state while actively taking steps to protect it and kind of, you know, boasting about it in the New York Times.
00:37:58.860So, let's go ahead and take a look at this piece real quick.
00:38:01.280Quick, it's called, Biden administration aims to Trump-proof the federal workforce.
00:38:07.380If Donald Trump wins a second term, he and his allies want to revive a plan to allow the president to fire civil service workers who are supposed to be hired on merit.
00:38:17.200The Biden administration is trying to thwart it.
00:38:19.900So, this piece took three people to write, which is kind of a joke, but journalism.
00:38:24.460So, when President Biden took office, he swiftly canceled an executive order his predecessor, Donald Trump, had issued that could have enabled Trump to fire tens of thousands of federal workers and replace them with loyalists.
00:38:38.980But Democrats never succeeded in enacting legislation to strengthen protections for the civil service system as a matter of law.
00:38:46.320So, if you've been listening to my channel for a while, you know that I've talked about this a lot.
00:38:50.540I've actually had Andrew Kloster on, who is somebody who is part of the Trump administration.
00:38:54.720He was involved in staffing of the Trump administration.
00:38:57.940They've been looking at this for a long time.
00:38:59.880They started to understand, you know, as they went through, you wish they would have figured this out beforehand, but I understand no one thought Trump was going to win.
00:39:07.100Trump didn't think Trump was going to win, let's be honest.
00:39:09.500And so, they didn't have a plan in place.
00:39:11.520But as kind of the administration wore on, they realized that it's not just policy, but personnel is policy, right?
00:39:17.720In these positions, you can write all the white papers you want.
00:39:20.980You can give all the instructions you can want.
00:39:24.500You can set up all these standard operating procedures that you want.
00:39:27.740But at the end of the day, if you don't have personnel that are interested in implementing the policy that you want to enact, then it simply won't happen.
00:39:36.300And so, near the end of the administration, they start to figure out, okay, we need to figure out how to get rid of these entrenched people who are constantly blocking our ability to advance our policy goals.
00:39:47.100And so, they came up with this idea called the Schedule F.
00:39:49.580And the Schedule F was this executive order that was going to make it way, way more easy to fire a large swath of the government bureaucracy and put your own people in.
00:40:01.740So, they're exactly right about, like, what the Trump administration wanted to do, right?
00:40:06.600They want to take out the people who are loyal to the Democrats, and they want to replace them with the people that are loyal to the Republicans.
00:40:13.340Now, the trick that they're going to keep trying to pull here is pretending that actually there's this thing called the civil service.
00:40:19.340Now, I know the civil service exists, but my point is they're going to pretend that the civil service is inherently neutral.
00:40:24.360And the people who are there are completely there based on merit, and not because they are, you know, diehard leftists who are loyal to the progressive ideology.
00:40:33.500And so, removing them is removing all of these really well-qualified, meritoriously hired experts, and you're just taking them out and putting in a bunch of Trump flunkies.
00:40:44.120But actually, what you're doing is you're just replacing one set of flunkies with another, because the truth is that anyone in these positions has an ideology, they're loyal to that ideology, and their willingness to do their job is going to be, you know, proportionate to kind of how loyal they are to their ideology and what, you know, kind of the ruling people, the people in charge are trying to push down.
00:41:05.620And so, if you want to get anything done, you have to have the ability to replace personnel who are not going to do their jobs.
00:41:12.100But, of course, they're going to portray that as some kind of sinister thing and something that has to be stopped, even though they would deny the existence of the deep state.
00:41:20.200So now, with Mr. Trump seemingly poised to win the GOP nomination again, the Biden administration is instead trying to effectively Trump-proof civil service with a new regulation.
00:41:30.920On Friday, the White House proposed a new rule that would make it more onerous to reinstate Trump's old executive order if Mr. Trump or a like-minded Republican wins in 2024.
00:41:41.960So, interesting here, they're still worried about Trump, right, which is kind of interesting.
00:41:47.460They've got him in this position where they're bringing all these charges against him.
00:41:52.400He's going to be going through all these legal issues.
00:41:55.020They're doing everything they can to make it as impossible as they can for Trump to actually become president of the United States again.
00:42:01.640And yet, still, they are worried about what could happen.
00:42:05.500Now, Ron DeSantis fans might say, oh, well, they're really worried about Ron DeSantis coming in.
00:42:19.280I think they're naming it Trump for a reason.
00:42:21.160I think they are more worried about Trump.
00:42:22.320But either way, maybe they are worried about DeSantis, and DeSantis would be more effective in this way.
00:42:26.920But that makes it all the more important for them to be able to lock this down.
00:42:30.840But, of course, the problem is that this is all just executive orders, right?
00:42:34.560Like I said, they were not able to secure in legislation the ability to basically protect these progressive jobs inside the deep state, inside the federal bureaucracy.
00:42:46.540And so because of that, all they really have is just layers of executive orders and regulations.
00:42:51.180But if anything can be done with the executive pin, then it can be undone with the executive pin as well, which means like the shifting possession of that pin is really all that matters.
00:43:01.340And they're going to kind of realize that as we go on this article.
00:43:04.380But Trump allies, who would most likely have senior roles in any second Trump administration, shrugged off the proposed Biden rule, saying that they could simply use the same rulemaking process, roll back the new regulation, and then proceed.
00:43:35.820You cannot have anything that is quasi-monarchical.
00:43:39.420You cannot have anything that smells of one man who's able to cut the Gordian knot, even if it's only inside the constitutional purview that was specifically laid out by Article 1 for the executive.
00:43:52.600You're still not allowed to have it even there.
00:43:55.380And so what they want to do is wrap the executive in layers of bureaucracy.
00:43:59.280They want to put the same restraints of, you know, kind of standard operating procedures and best practices and distributed power and managerialism around the president itself, even though the role is specifically designed to avoid that.
00:44:13.340Look, the framers knew that you didn't want everything to be democratic.
00:44:16.860You needed certain things like the military to be directly wielded by a single person, someone to cut through and have that executive power.
00:44:26.380But as the country has grown, the executive branch has gone from one person wielding most of the power to a large, large, large mass of all these different departments or organizations and bureaucracies, each operating different parts of what has become basically the largest employer in the United States.
00:44:44.500And because of that fact, the president has been more or less constrained in his executive power, even though technically under the Constitution, he should be able to wield it because we're really supposed to be run by experts, not people, right?
00:45:01.300That's the shift that we're really undergoing is that elected elected elected representatives are really a vestigial organ of our managerial state where where the where the experts are supposed to rule.
00:45:13.820And so Congress cedes all of its real power over to these experts.
00:45:18.840You know, the judicial branch more and more is conceding its power over to these experts.
00:45:22.580The executive branch is doing that inside these organizations.
00:45:26.260And so, you know, that's why they actually fear the judicial branch the most is it's the ones that is least captured by kind of all this distributed network.
00:45:35.440But the point is that all of these branches eventually have to work the same way, which is they just wait for the experts to come down from on high and tell them the way they're actually supposed to do their jobs.
00:45:47.280And so they want to find a way to constrain the power of the executive.
00:45:50.040But they are having a problem because, well, the executive branch was specifically designed to not allow people to do that.
00:45:55.960It was specifically designed for someone to have that prerogative and make those decisions.
00:46:01.180That was literally how it was built in the Constitution.
00:46:04.300And so that's really an issue for them.
00:46:06.600The proposed rule addresses the move that Mr. Trump tried to make late in his presidency by issuing an executive order known as for shorthand as Schedule F, which I already told you about.
00:46:16.860It would have empowered his administration to effectively transform any effectively transform many career federal employees who are supposed to be hired based on merit and cannot be arbitrarily fired into political appointees who can be hired and fired at will.
00:46:30.880So, again, they're pretending that all these people in the civil service were just hired on merit.
00:46:36.560You know, they're experts in their field.
00:47:41.560And so they're not political appointees.
00:47:43.540But of course, they're political appointees.
00:47:44.840You've just made that political appointment the norm.
00:47:48.420Career civil servants include professional staff across the government who stay on when the presidency changes hands.
00:47:53.800This is what they mean when they talk about the deep state, right?
00:47:55.980The president might come or go, but the guys deep in the bowels of the bureaucracy, they're going to be there for 30 years waiting for that pension check.
00:48:03.600And they're the ones who are going to drive the government forward.
00:48:06.020They vary widely, including law enforcement officers and technical experts at agencies that Congress created to make rules aimed at ensuring the air and water are clean, food, drugs, and consumer products are safe.
00:48:22.140So again, that authority that was vested in Congress is handed over to these agents.
00:48:27.060And so it's no longer elected officials making that, but all of that power that once used to exist inside the Congress and elected officials is now handed over to these experts who are unaccountable, who are not elected, who have no connection to the people, who can't get fired, you know, because, again, they're meritoriously hired, right?
00:48:47.120That's the whole point, civil service protection.
00:48:50.100And so they are safe to make their progressive policies with no real feedback or consequence from the voters.
00:48:58.120Mr. Trump and senior advisors on his team came to believe the career officials who raised objections to their policies on legal or practical grounds, including some of their disputed immigration plans, were deliberately sabotaging their agenda, which, of course, they were, right?
00:49:10.680These people were not just, oh, we'll just have practical concerns.
00:49:13.920Yeah, but your practical concerns are that this disagrees with your own personal political preference.
00:49:21.980Portraying federal employees as unaccountable bureaucrats, which they were.
00:49:25.360The Trump team has argued that removing job protections for those who have any influence over policymaking is justified because it's too difficult to fire them.
00:49:35.200Yes, if you have a employee who specifically won't do the job you ask them to because it goes against their political leanings,