The central theme is the analysis of a political tactic used by the left, where they strategically invoke conservative principles and institutions, such as the Constitution, to constrain conservative actions, only to discard them when in power. This is likened to a manipulative strategy of deception.
Mind Map
클릭해서 펼치기
클릭해서 인터랙티브 마인드맵 전체 보기
All right. Hello, ladies and gentlemen.
I am actually in beautiful Santa Barbara
right now with Young America's
Foundation. But of course, we have to do
an episode. Sorry it could not be live.
Had to pre-record this one. But today,
we got an interesting one for you
because our very own Christian Hines,
the Oracle of Virginia, has his own show
on YouTube now. And he's just published
his first video. And he's actually
talking about something I think is very
timely and important to understand
because there is a particular tactic
that the left just loves to use that we
fall for just about every single time.
And Christian has a very unique way of
discussing it. So, we're going to watch
his video, promote his channel, and uh
see what we think. I have not seen this
yet, so I'm watching it for the first
time with all of you. and I promised him
I would critique it like the big brother
or maybe perhaps uncle figure that that
I am for him. So, let's go ahead and
jump right in and check it out.
>> Over the last year, something really
strange has happened. The same political
movement that spent a decade telling us
that the founding fathers were villains,
our constitution was structurally racist
and America itself was an illegitimate
white settler colonial state built on
genocide and slavery has now suddenly
rediscovered a deep reverence for pretty
much all of these things. The left has
gone allin on embracing this aesthetic.
They dress themselves up as patriots and
cosplay as the founding fathers while
attending protests under the tagline no kings.
kings.
And many on the right are just staring
at this completely dumbfounded.
Didn't we just spend the last 10 years
watching these same people essentially
declared total war on the American mythos?
mythos?
All of us remember the cultural
revolution that was the Great Awakening.
We all lived through the 1619 project.
the tearing down of statues and
monuments, the incessant lecturing that
America was never great to begin with,
the very public character assassination
attempts, and several of them were quite
successful, against everyone from
astrophysicists to CEOs,
the relentless, personal, and ruthless
attacks on white men for being the root
of all evil in the world, the explicit
attempt to shut them out of all
institutions and elite career path. ways.
ways.
>> I I really like what he's doing here. I
like the intro. I wish some of the stuff
was a little bit smaller or it had a
text wall that was readable. Um, but I
don't know. This is a tactic what all
what what if all the hist also uses and
his stuff like just really does well. I
just wish we had some of the charts to
actually capture what he's saying
because he's making a lot of good points
here. And if you actually pause and read
some of it, it it yeah, it's it's really good.
good.
We were told there was nothing to
celebrate about this country and that
its only hope for salvation would be to
hand everything over to the very people
who framed their hatred for us as a
universal moral imperative.
So what exactly are we supposed to
believe? That the founding fathers were
irredeemably evil in 2020, but now
they're sacred guardians of liberty to
invoke against the current occupant in
the White House. Why does it seem like
there's a sizable chunk of the political
divide who expects us to accept their
appeal to things they themselves were
trying to tear down just a few years ago?
ago?
I think you know where I'm going with
this. You've already seen the title of
this video. At the same time, there's
been this huge blow up over to what
degree the American founding can be used
as a political football by one side who
openly hates this country. There's been
a similar cultural battle over an anime
that came out just a few years ago
called Frian, Beyond Journeys End. A
handful of left-wing anime fans have
argued that like every other cultural
icon of the last decade, FN obviously
belongs to them. But there's just one
problem. FN is as close to being
explicitly right-wing as any anime. I I
want to say something in defense here
real quick because like Matt Walsh
especially hates anime and there there
are some really bad stuff out there. It
it was interesting. I I never watched
anime growing up. Uh my kids like
certain ones and one of the reasons why
they liked certain animes was because a
lot of it was it was the only cartoons
that were devoid of wokeness um that
that weren't like some of the explicitly
Christian ones that you get on like
Angel Guild or stuff like that. So there
there were some good cartoons out there.
Tuttle Twins is a good one, but when it
came to just kind of watching kind of
cool cartoons with storylines, they
thought like most of the Western ones
were garbage, but a lot of the anime
ones were a lot more hardcore. And and
they're they're not wrong. There's a lot
of ones out there. So, yeah.
And it's right-wing in a way that
explains virtually everything that's
happening to American politics at the
moment. In this world, demons exist and
they've evolved a very specific survival
strategy. They look almost exactly like
humans. They have the same bodies. They
have the same faces. They even speak
with the same voices.
The only thing that really gives them
away are the small horns on their head.
And you've got to remember, these things
have spent centuries studying human
beings and learning how to blend into
society. They've picked up human speech
and behavioral patterns, but none of
it's real. The whole thing is a
performance. It's a manipulative play
with one purpose and one purpose only.
To weasle their way into a position
close enough to do what they actually
came to do, which is to eat the humans themselves.
themselves.
And in one of the most memorable scenes
of the first season, Firin's party
encounters a demon that has taken the
form of a young girl.
Now, I want you to pay close attention
to what happens next.
The human hero of this party, Himmel,
simply can't bring himself to strike
this demon down. Even after it had just
murdered and eaten another child. From
Himl's perspective, all that he sees is
a small and frightened girl, not a
monster with no compassion for its
victims. And so, he just can't do it. He
can't swing his sword and strike this
demon down because it goes against his
own principles, his own moral compass,
really his entire worldview.
What happens next is that the village
chieftain steps forward and offers to
take the demon in as one of his own. He
basically promises to raise it as a
human and to show it love and compassion,
compassion,
but in doing so, he's playing right into
the demon's hands. It has no interest in
integrating into human society or
reforming itself along humanity's moral
order. All it's interested in is
manipulating the emotions and principles
of the humans around it in order to
continue killing.
And so tragically, the same principles
that drove this family to open up their
home ultimately result in the village
chieftain being killed, his homestead
burned to the ground, and his daughter
nearly suffering the same fate as the
first child that him failed to avenge.
Finally, Frier steps forward to do what
Himl couldn't. And in this moment, we
learn everything we need to know about
the world of Fyan. The demon cries out
yet again for a mother it doesn't even
have. And when Frier presses it on it,
it finally admits that it's simply a
magic word that keeps people from
the point here is that demons use human
empathy, immorality to their own. For
those of you that are listening to this
on audio, let me uh what she said was to
them words are merely a means to deceive humans
is that demons use human empathy and
morality to their own advantage. Despite
never adhering to those moral principles
themselves, the entire thing is a trick
designed to cause what would otherwise
be the demon's enemies from recognizing
themselves as such. This is why I said
earlier that Fryin is deeply right-wing.
So much so that there's an entire
collection of memes pointing this fact
out. And this one scene from a Japanese
anime perfectly explains the current
state of American politics today. I've
summarized the phenomenon here in a
tweet that ultimately inspired this
entire video.
>> So I'll go and read this off for you for
those early. It says, "Conservatives win
an election. Leftists appeal to the
Constitution, the rule of law,
Christianity, and the founding fathers
to ensure that conservatives never act
against them. Leftists win the next
election. They immediately discard all
of these principles and begin ruthlessly
imposing their will on society.
They go way too far, lose the following
election, and instantly go back to
appealing to the Constitution.
Conservatives, the Constitution, huh?
Why do you keep using that word leftist?
Because it stops you from killing us.
That was Christian's tweet.
This has been the story of American
politics for years, arguably decades
even. The Constitution, the rule of law,
separation of powers, checks and
balances, federalism, the founders's
vision for this entire country. All of
these things are generational
commitments on the right. We see them as
essential elements to who we are as
Americans. They have to be honored and
defended even when doing so is painful
and even when honoring them means
sometimes losing.
But this is exactly why the left appeals
to these things even if they don't fully
understand the reason why they do
understand that these things carry an
almost mythic power in the minds of conservatives.
conservatives.
and it's a mythic power they're all too
happy to exploit when it suits them.
Perhaps there's no better recent example
of this than this year's Democrat State
of the Union rebuttal. Virginia Governor
Abigail Spanberger deliberately chose to
deliver it from the chamber of North
America's oldest legislative body in
Williamsburg, just a few miles from the
site of the first English colony at
Jamestown and the birth of America's
independence at Yorktown.
And in this speech, what did we see?
Explicit references to the Declaration
of Independence, our Constitution, and
the Bill of Rights, invoking the story
of America's independence from tyranny.
Direct appeals to
>> what our founders envisioned.
>> Spamberger even went so far as to quote
George Washington and regurgitate the
old conservative adage about law and
order, yet somehow twist it into an
attack on ICE. even after an illegal
migrant from Sierra Leon with 30 prior
arrests stabbed a woman at a bus stop in
Northern Virginia. Keep in mind, all of
this was happening at the same time the
Democratic Party in the state she
governs is advancing bills to terminate
Virginia's cooperation agreements with
ICE, limit the ability of law
enforcement to share information with
federal immigration agents, ban
immigration arrests near courouses, and
turn schools into ICE-free zones. and
the same illegal alien who stabbed a
woman to death at a bus stop in Northern
Virginia. That all happened literally
the day before her speech. And a week
later, Spamberger refused to hand him
over to ICE for deportation.
Does she believe this is what the
founders would have wanted? Illegal
migrants from another continent coming
here and killing Americans.
How do you stand there in the birthplace
of America, quote the founding fathers,
and then go home and do everything in
your power to govern in a way that would
horrify them?
The answer, of course, is that she isn't
confused, and she's not being
inconsistent. She knows exactly what
she's doing. She's invoking the things
she knows conservatives hold sacred
because invoking them constrains
conservative action. The moment her
party is back in power and the
Constitution becomes an obstacle rather
than a shield, it will stop being a
sacred document and go back to being a
relic of white supremacy, just like it
did before.
And this gets to the fundamental problem
at the heart of American politics right
now. To conservatives, the Constitution
is a civic bible. It's the cornerstone
of America's identity. It's the
guarantor of liberty for its people and
the crowning achievement of our
country's contribution to political philosophy.
philosophy.
But to the left, the Constitution is
something else entirely. They don't
appeal to the Constitution because they
believe in it. They appeal to the
Constitution because you do. To the
left, the Constitution is at best just a
procedural tool to invoke when it gets
you what you want. And at worst, it's a
founding document of white supremacy
written by white patriarchal slave
owners to protect a system of oppression
the progressives are determined to tear
down, sometimes quite literally.
It's the political equivalent of that
same survival mechanism that demons have
in the world of Ferin, which might
conveniently explain why a subset of the
left openly identifies with them in
online discourse.
But of course, these two views are not
compatible. There's no political system
on earth, no matter how well-ritten or
long-lasting it may be, that can survive
a dynamic where one side treats its
founding principles as a bedrock of
civilization and the other treats them
as a means to deceive their enemies.
So, what does this all teach us?
Well, for years now, I would argue that
almost everyone on the right has been
able to feel this, even if they've
struggled to put it into words. The left
has spent a long time essentially
abusing deeply held conservative
principles in order to force them into situations
situations
that actively harms them. And they've
just expected to keep getting away with
this as long as they can string together
the right magic words. That's precisely
what the demon does in Finan. It doesn't
need to overpower him. It just needs him
to hesitate and to doubt whether he's
looking at an enemy at all. But this
spell only has power over someone who
believes in it. And this is what the
right has been painfully slow to come to
terms with. The Constitution, the rule
of law, separation of powers, checks and
balances, federalism, the founders
vision for America. None of these things
came first. the revolution did. The
rules and procedures only came after the
question was settled as to who this
country belonged to and what overarching
vision would govern it. Right now,
there's a new battle being waged over
those first order questions. And
recognizing this isn't an act of
cynicism or an abandonment of principle.
To go back to the Ferrerin analogy for
just a moment, when she strikes the
demon down, does she somehow stop
protecting the humans she cares about?
Does she become the demon herself? No.
She just stops pretending that extending
mercy to something that will use that
mercy to keep killing is synonymous with
being merciful itself.
Ultimately, the right doesn't need to
stop believing in the Constitution or
the rule of law. It just needs to stop
extending these principles in a
universal, automatic, and goodfaith
manner to the very forces that have made
it clear that they'll invoke them when
convenient and discard them when they're not.
not.
>> See, this is probably what we're going
to end up talking a lot about is this
whole idea of how do you actually
execute this,
>> but the founders built or stood for.
It's actually the only way any of it can
possibly survive.
>> So, that was called Furian and the
politics of deception. and we can
actually have the uh the link available
for you there in the uh in the comments
or in in the um in the info for the
episode. I think um the the tricky part
has always been this idea of how do you
actually combat that without losing
yourself in the process. Um, but he said
something interesting early on where he
talked about this has been going on for
years if not decades. And and I want to
show another uh quote here because I
think it's relevant
and it actually has to do with a comment
that um Senator Fulbright made and it
was referenced by Ronald Reagan um in
his 1964 a time for choosing speech
which if you haven't listened to it is
is one of the best ever. But here here's
what he says. Uh he says, "Senator
Fulbright has said at Stanford
University that the constitution is
outmoded. He referred to the president,
this was FDR, as our moral teacher and
our leader. And he says he is hobbled in
his task or excuse I think it might have
been Johnson. He is hobbled in his task
by the reactions restrictions of power
imposed on him by this antiquated
document. So, if you had any confusion
on whether or not this was something
that was, you know, brand new uh to the
Democratic party or whether or not it's
been going on for a while, it's
important to understand this has been
kind of a a feature
um a feature of progressivism
specifically. If you look at sometimes
they call Teddy Roosevelt the first
progressive president or the first
progressive in the progressive era, but
he still had a a pretty dedicated um
commitment to the constitution. Woodro
Wilson was was really the first
president who I would say really
enshrined kind of what we consider to be
modern progressive ideals from the sense
of having like a massive bureaucratic
state and that the constitution was
standing in the way of him achieving the
things that he wanted. um FDR with with
the New Deal. I mean, just threatened to
stack the court. Again, stacking the
court's not new. When they wanted to
deal with a crisis and they thought the
way to deal with it was with more
government programs, the more expansion
of government power, they all saw the
Constitution as standing in their way of
doing it. Uh Lyndon Johnson did the same
thing with respect to a lot of a lot of
the the federal programs that he put
into play. A lot of those federal
programs became possible because of the
16th amendment to the constitution.
Because it's important to understand
that in a lot of these areas, it's not
so much that the federal government is
um directly imposing uh like a
particular program on states because one
of the things that's important to
understand about the constitution is the
nth and tth amendments. And if you look
at how the constitution was written, it
has enumerated specific and enumerated
powers. This was made very clear in the
federalist papers when they were trying
to address the anti-federalist concern
that the u that essentially the federal
government would expand its powers
rapidly and and without end. And people
like James Madison and Alexander
Hamilton and and Jay Jones said no
that's not possible because the powers
within the constitution are limited and enumerated.
enumerated.
Well, lo and behold, Democrats and and
some Republicans as well, but Democrats
especially have always found ways to use
things like a misinterpretation of the
general welfare clause or a
misinterpretation of the necessary and
proper clause or a misinterpretation of
the commerce clause to give to extend
the federal government authorities that
it never should have had. But those were
all still limited before the 16th
amendment. The moment the federal
government was allowed to individually
tax Americans no matter where they lived
in the country,
all of a sudden they had this this new
capability to amass funds at the federal
level. And then they can come forward
and say, "Well, we're going to do this.
We're going to do this. We're going to
do this." And as soon as the states
said, "Well, wait a second. That doesn't
fall within the enumerated powers of the
federal government." The federal
government could say, "No, no, no. We're
not forcing you to do this. We're not
forcing you to participate. Instead,
what we're doing is we're setting up a
massive program with the taxes we've
collected, and if you don't participate,
you don't get your money back. So, the
federal government under the progressive
era was essentially allowed to extort us
with our own money. And it's been
growing ever since. And so from from as
early as from as early as the early 20th
century, so over a hundred years, uh,
Democrats have been trying to find
creative ways to get around the United
the limitations uh, placed on the
federal government by the United States
Constitution and they've been quite
successful because the moment you start
handing out money and the moment people
start to get dependent on that money or
they have expectations toward that
money, they want to keep it. Um when FDR
was first setting up social security,
there were some Democrats that said,
"Well, we want to make this a program
that's, you know, only for the extremely
poor or the extremely elderly." And FDR
insisted that everyone was going to have
to pay into it. And his logic was is
that everyone have to if everyone has to
pay into it, they'll fight to keep it.
And now you look at Republicans running
for office, it's like, "We're going to
save Social Security." Is it because
Social Security is an incredibly
well-run program and would perform much
better than if the government just said,
"Hey, you're going to have a private
retirement account?" Absolutely not. But
that wasn't the point. If you look at a
lot of the influence um on New Deal
programs, you can look look no further
than fascist Italy or even elements of
Nazi Germany. And that always surprises
people when you actually read out the
various points of Italian fascism that
it mirrors so closely elements within
the progressive era. But there it is.
And the key to achieving those
objectives within the progressive era
was more government power. You had to
have more government power and more
government control. So, so why is all
that relevant to what Christian is
talking about here?
Well, every time every time Democrats
get a a certain amount of power,
especially when they have the
presidency, the House, and the Senate,
it's always always an effort to expand
government power as much as they
possibly can in just about every area of
our lives. And the moment we we hold up
the Constitution
as an example of why they can't or
shouldn't do that, we we get the we get
the Senator Fulbright comment, right? We
get the, you know, the the president is
our moral teacher and our leader and he
is hobbled in his task by the
restrictions of power imposed on him by
this antiquated document. That's what
they say when they're in power. But the
moment we're in power, all of a sudden
that antiquated document, you know, made
by by rich white slave owners who didn't
want to pay their taxes becomes the
supreme law of the land as Christian
described it. A kind of civic scripture
that that we're supposed to appeal to
and abide by. And that works on us,
right? And it works on us because we
give it value. Tina said something
really profound in a in a podcast that
the three of us were doing at once and
she goes, you know, she goes, "Democrats
invoke the Constitution like atheists
invoke the Bible, not because there's
any genuine passion for what the
document says, but because they know it
has authority with us." And that begs
the question and and Christian Christian
contends that there is a way to uphold
and preserve the Constitution of the
United States while at the same time
protecting it and and really protecting
ourselves from people that will invoke
it uh but then never apply it to limit
but never use it to limit their own
power. And the question is is how how do
you do that?
Do you suspend habius corpus but only
for the left? Do you do you deny freedom
of speech but only for the left? Do you
um you know deny right to trial but only
for the left? Like how do you how do you
do that? And I I think that the safest
the safest way to do it is to understand
something. the Democratic Party and and
their electoral survival
depends on something other than just
either getting married, having kids, or,
you know, raising their own kids to be
liberal progressives. They can't survive
based off of that alone. Why? They don't
have enough kids. They abort too many children.
children.
And even when they do have kids, they
tend to have smaller families than what
you might consider Christian
conservatives. So why do we keep losing?
Well, we hand our kids over to the
government for their education.
Um we we allow Democrats to control to
compete for and control culturally
shaping institutions which give them
over um outweighted influence with
respect to the way that we view the
world. We uh Democrats allow things like
the mass importation of people from
countries with diametrically opposed
worldviews. I I got into a discussion
with a student who was a German
immigrant to the United States. seemed
seemed relatively patriotic, but he he
took a lot of issue with this idea that
being an American was anything other
than adopting the ideals of of being an
American of the Declaration of the and
the Constitution. And it's fascinating
because he's advocating for presidents
and he was advocating for political
positions that bear no resemblance to
the philosophy that was enshrined in the
Declaration of Penins Constitution.
These are just things that are said
because I would say, yeah, it's true
that a big part of being an American is
actually loving what this country was
founded on and what it has stood for.
Which means that you you could be
someone that has generations of
Americans in your lineage but still hate
the country and be anti-American. You
could be someone that just arrived off
the boat yesterday who came here
illegally who desperately wants to be an
American and loves this country and what
it stands for. I can make that
distinction. But then we also make the
distinction that if you massimp import
people from cultures with diametrically
opposed worldviews when it comes to
economics, philosophy, social policy,
economic policy, religion, well, that's
not a recipe for social cohesion. But
the moment you say that, you're a
xenophobic instead of somebody that's
capable of basic linear thinking and
pattern analysis.
And the the part that I totally agree
with Christian on here is we need to
stop believing the left when they invoke
the constitution. We need to understand
that they don't really care about it.
They don't really like it. They just
know it works on us. But we still need
to ask the important question of okay,
when they invoke it, do they have a point?
point?
So if they have a point, we're going to
have to contend with that
philosophically, but we shouldn't have
to contend with it in such a way that
gives them more power.
And that's been the problem that I see
going on right now. It's my biggest
concern going into the midterm elections
is that I'm watching a lot of
conservatives that are understandably
frustrated with what's going on right
now. Sometimes they're frustrated with
Republicans in Congress. Sometimes
they're frustrated with the Trump
administration. I totally understand the
frustration over Iran. I do. I do. I
I've really been trying to hold out hope
that there was sufficient um
sufficient strength among the Iranian
people to overthrow the Ayatollah if we
provided some space for them to operate.
But so far that hasn't materialized. And
and I don't say that with any joy. It's
just a fact. And the bottom line is if
we if we deploy a bunch of ground troops
over there, I'm sorry, there's no way he
wins the midterms. There's no way
Republicans win the midterms under those
conditions because it's not what the
vast majority of Americans signed up for
with the Trump administration. By the
same token, if you look at all the there
have been a lot of beneficial things
we've done with the border with
deportation. Uh there's been beneficial
things with cutting government programs.
There's been a big cutting government
federal bureaucracy. That's all been
positive. But you have a lot of
conservatives that essentially take the
position of either a I didn't get what I
want and so now I'm going to punish or I
along with the things I did want I got
some things that I didn't so I'm going
to punish. Or you get those you get
those people on the right, the center right,
right,
who when they see uh liberals talking
about due process or when they see
liberals suggesting there's been a
violation of the constitution, they
don't really dig in to figure out what
was going on, they just know that
violations of the constitution are bad
and so they can't support that. And I
think what this really comes down to is
Christian understanding and and an
understanding I came to, especially
after I watched the reaction of Charlie
Kirk getting murdered, is that this is
no longer just a civil disagreement
between Americans that fundamentally
love their country, fundamentally agree
with the principles of the Declaration
of Independence, fundamentally agree
with the construction and application of
the Constitution. You have a significant
portion of America that truly believes
in those things, loves them, and thinks
they're essential while disagreeing on
some other things. And then you have
certain people that think those are
things are fundamentally evil and bad
and mistakes and need to be uh changed
to a degree where you would never
recognize them from in their original
form. And those people don't want to be
an Americans. That's what this comes
down to. They they may like the
geography. They may like the weather
where they live. They may even like some
of their politicians that agree with
them, but they don't love America.
Because America is more than a piece of
geography. It is a piece of geography,
right? But but it's it is also a sense
of ideas. It is a a culture, a sense of
economic, social, political, and for the
most part, religious norms. And they
don't like those norms. They want to
change them. And so I I think when the
left refers to the constitution, we need
to understand something.
First of all, they they have no idea of
letting the same constitution that they
want to limit us to limit them when
they're in power. They will only allow
it to limit them to the degree that they
can't get away with it. That's it.
But if the Constitution does have
meaning, then we have to start asking
some hard questions on are there times
are are there ever times in a moment of
crisis where you have to suspend rules?
And that's the part that makes everybody
scared and and understandably so. they
should be concerned about it because
once you start suspending the rules in a
time of crisis, you end up getting more crisises.
crisises.
But by the same token,
just understand that the left will be
happy to commit c or or to uh create a
crisis if one doesn't exist.
So, I'm going to bring up an example of
this, the filibuster.
I know people who I I love and respect,
who are just great thinkers and
incredibly strong patriots who honestly
believe that if the filibuster goes
away, we're we're doomed. And and I I
would have said that. I would have I
would have defended the filibuster at
all costs. And and now I'm just not so
sure anymore. And the reason I say that
is because I know the filibuster is
going anyway. And by the way, it's not
an institution of the Constitution. It's
an institution of the Senate. It's a
Senate rule. It is something the Senate
can decide not to do.
But the the real question lies with,
okay, if we don't get rid of the
filibuster and we can't pass important
legislation, unless we have a 60
majority vote, a 60 senator vote, then
are we going to be able to get anything
done, period? Even if we come out of the
midterms and and we hang on to the House
and the Senate, what are we going to be
able to get done if the if the left can
just invoke the filibuster? And then if
they invoke the filibuster to stay our
hand and then the moment they get power
they immediately get rid of it and then
they stack the court and they do other
things that they can get away with then
what are we going to go back and what
are we going to do? We going to tell
them that that's outside of the norms
and traditions of American culture. They
know they don't care.
So we are going to have to make some
hard decisions with respect to what we
do. I don't I don't want to I don't want
to tear down the Constitution. I think
the constitution still has to be applied
because equal justice before the law is
something that we agree on in this
country. But can I point to one thing
that I think is absolutely critical at
this stage in the game. We have
demonstrated in in a in a minuscule
amount, but still an important one that
the left cannot win without using our
tax dollars against us.
Conservative organizations, conservative
groups, we we can do just fine. We don't
need tax dollars to subsidize our efforts.
efforts.
The left does.
One of the things we found with Doge was
how much of our money was not being lost
in fraud, waste, and abuse. It was being
strategically spent to advance left-wing
ideological objectives. And then as soon
as the money dried up, all of a sudden
they didn't have sufficient funds to
keep doing it. That that's why you see
Planned Parenthood lost federal funding
for one year. One year and they started
to have to close clinics,
right? We we've got leftist
billionaires, which we just did an
episode on that, that are spending all
kinds of money right now to try to
create the impression in America that
the right is totally in disarray. And
I'm not saying that there aren't
elements of the right that are in
disarray. I'm not saying that everyone
on the right is happy, golucky, and unified.
unified.
But it's it's about time that we
understand that we're not just dealing
with the Democrats we were 30, 40, or 50
years ago. They were bad enough, but
we're dealing with new ones. You know,
in in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan never had
control of Congress, and yet he could
still get big things done. Why? Because
there were Democrats that absolutely
there were elected Democrats that
absolutely fundamentally loved America
for what it was. They just disagreed on
certain things with tax policy, or they
disagreed with certain things on
regulatory policy, but they weren't like
Senator Fulbright here saying that the
Constitution is an antiquated document.
But that that is the majority opinion of
elected Democrats now. And you're not
going to convince me otherwise because
I've served with them. They will talk a
very very good game about rules and
process when it suits them and then they
will ignore them the moment it stands in
the way of them accumulating or
executing power over us.
So step one, real simple, you need,
especially in the states,
stop listening to Republicans that want
to send billions of your tax dollars to
higher educational institutions, which
become nothing more than liberal
ideological centers with a football
team. And by the way, conservatives,
wealthy conservatives who give millions
of dollars to your old alma modders to
get your name on the side of a building,
you're part of the problem. I'm sorry. I
don't care what your experience was when
you went through that university. If
you're not aware with what they're doing
right now, understand what you are doing
is you are paying for the privilege of
having your children indoctrinated to
hate you for creating the very wealth
that university is relying upon to do it.
it.
It's the same thing with our public
school system. Stop pretending that that
the same public school you went to 20,
30, or 40 years ago is what your kid is
going to because it isn't.
Start coming up with alternatives. We
need more states and more governors to
do what Idaho just did. Idaho just
passed a bill which opens up the firing
squad for people convicted of child rape.
rape.
You see, what's interesting is when you
start passing hardcore legislation like
that, you don't just get good results
from a public safety standpoint. you
actually drive away liberals. They hate
it when they're not allowed to abort or
to trans their children.
And that's the sort of thing that we
need to do. We need to wield power,
legitimate power, when we have it in the
ways that the left despises. That
doesn't require violating the Constitution.
Constitution.
It really doesn't. Like Christian said,
we don't have to abandon the
Constitution, but we better start using
legitimate power in order to achieve our objectives.
objectives.
And and a big part of that starts with
stop allowing our tax dollars to go and
shape culturally shaping institutions in
a way that we don't agree with.
Can you imagine if just in one
generation, if one generation we had a
critical mass of Americans, which would
be something like maybe 20 25% of the
country pulling their kids out of
indoctrination centers in the form of
our public schools or higher ed
universities that have decided to make
that their defining characteristic. If
we massively cut federal spending going
into these 501c3s, these NOS's which are
doing nothing but pushing liberal
ideology, if we drastically reduce the
size and influence of the federal
government in areas where it has no
business being because it's enumerated
power is given no such authority. If we
could do stuff like that, you would
watch so much of the woke progressive
infrastructure crumble before your eyes
because they don't have the ability to
sustain it on their own steam.
It requires us to help them prop it up.
So, at the very least, demand more out
of your legislators. And the moment they
don't give it to you, especially at the
state level, the moment they don't get
it to you, go look for all the
legislators in a safe district that
refuse to do hard things in red states
and replace them. Do you know what
percentage do you know what percentage
of the population usually votes in these
state house or state senate primary
challenges? It might be might be on a
good day 7%. 7%.
7%.
Do you know how much heavier your your
vote goes in in a district where only 7%
of the population is voting?
And that's the crazy part is once you
get rid of them, it's like people forgot
they were ever there. They seem so
powerful until they're gone and then you
replace them with someone good. I've
seen it happen. It's happening right now
in different states where people are
taking it seriously. But that's got to
be the first step because I will tell
you this much. If we don't if we don't
do that through the typical electoral
electoral processes, if we don't do that
through legislation, if we can't get it
done, if the Senate is incapable of
doing anything because of the
filibuster, here's what's going to
happen next. Democrats are eventually
going to retake power. They're going to
throw these things out and we're going
to hit a point where you better hope you
live in a solid red state with a
governor that's willing to push back
against what President Nuome has decided
to do with his stacked Supreme Court.
So, I think Christian makes a really
good point. And look, I I'm not calling
my opposition I'm not calling people
that disagree with them. I'm not calling
progressives demons.
But the bottom line is I'm a Christian,
man. I do believe in spiritual warfare.
And we get we get taught as Christians
that your war is not ultimately against
flesh and blood. So I look at another
human created in the image of Christ and
I don't I don't ultimately see my enemy.
But if they're going to allow themselves
to be influenced in this way, if they're
going to allow themselves to walk around
parading themselves sometimes
half-dressed in front of children, if
they're going to allow themselves to
celebrate the destruction of innocent
human life in the womb, if they're going
to insist that I be forced to subsidize
their ideology and the indoctrination of
children with my tax dollars. If they're
going to do all of that, well then they
chose to be my enemy. I didn't choose to
be theirs. And and for too long, the
left has treated us like an enemy. And
the moment we stop disagreeing with
them, they play the victim. I got to
tell you, to to those of you on the
right that you know, you saw what was
going on in Minneapolis and said, "Oo,
this is this is more than I signed up
for." You need to start understanding
that they escalated to that they
escalated to that degree in order to get
that reaction out of you. They are
trying to manipulate you. And if you
allow it to work, you you might be able
to you might be able to get out of this
life reasonably comfortable. Uh your
children are going to grow up in
something that is going to be hellacious.
hellacious.
So, um go over and follow Christian on
his YouTube. Follow Christian on X. Um I
think he did some really good work on
here. I'm really excited about this
channel for Christian. Uh Christian's a
great thinker. Christian I don't always
agree. Uh but I always think he I think
he's an important thinker and I think
he's someone that's worth listening to.
So, let's go. Let's go show him some
support for this video. Uh, by the way,
uh, my book, The Man Book, uh, 52 52
lessons that every every man should know
and understand. It's actually coming out
April 14th, but you can pre-order it
now, right? And if you pre-order it,
that kind of kind of helps boost it a
little bit because, let's face it,
nothing would make the New York Times
more angry than have to declare my book
a New York Times bestseller. So, uh,
don't do it for me. Do it to piss off
the New York Times. Once again, thank
you very much for joining us. Christian,
thank you for the great job on this very
first video. We look forward to seeing
many more. Um, once again, really,
really appreciate you guys listening,
watching. Um, I I hope you see what we
do here is having some value. Um, again,
I I obviously come from a Christian
perspective, from a white right-wing
perspective, but I do try to be honest
in my analysis because that allows you
to also hold me accountable when I'm not
actually standing up for the things that
I believe in. But once again, thank you
텍스트나 타임스탬프를 클릭하면 동영상의 해당 장면으로 바로 이동합니다
공유:
대부분의 자막은 5초 이내에 준비됩니다
원클릭 복사125개 이상의 언어내용 검색타임스탬프로 이동
YouTube URL 붙여넣기
YouTube 동영상 링크를 입력하면 전체 자막을 가져옵니다
자막 추출 양식
대부분의 자막은 5초 이내에 준비됩니다
Chrome 확장 프로그램 설치
YouTube를 떠나지 않고 자막을 즉시 가져오세요. Chrome 확장 프로그램을 설치하면 동영상 시청 페이지에서 바로 자막에 원클릭으로 접근할 수 있습니다.
