Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Seventy Six: The Zigs Heart Barbie

Transcript

Episode Seventy Six: The Zigs Heart Barbie · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome. The episode number is seventy six of the Death of Journalism podcast.
• 0:03
  My name is John Ziggler. I am your host on today's show. The
• 0:07
  Trump Indictment Watch continues, the COVID vaccines returned to the news cycle, The
• 0:13
  Ziggler family sees the Barbie movie and more evidence of total insanity at elite colleges.
• 0:20
  I'm known as the Dutch Digital marketing Man. I'm a digital advertising SEO
• 0:25
  and EMMO marketing specialist that also happens to be a big fan of John Ziggler
• 0:30
  and the Death of journalisten. Do you need help preaching your target audience?
• 0:35
  Let me help you develop the right messaging and confaded message and the best channels
• 0:39
  for your business. Please visit my website, the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot
• 0:44
  com and let me help you tell your story. The website is the Dutch
• 0:49
  Digital marketing Man dot com. If you want to grow your business, Peter
• 0:54
  can help. That's the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com. And hey,
• 0:59
  thanks response in the show, well stop me if you've heard this before.
• 1:03
  We are waiting with bated breath at any moment as of this taping for we
• 1:07
  get another indictment of Donald Trump this one federally. On the subject of the
• 1:15
  January sixth Riot insurrection, whatever you want to call it, Trump has been
• 1:21
  almost bragging to his email list that he is about to be indicted yet again.
• 1:26
  Presumably he is expecting that once again the Republican base will rally around him
• 1:32
  if and when this occurs. There've been media reports that this is imminent and
• 1:37
  could be happening any hour of any day. Now, who knows what the
• 1:42
  reality is. But since it is possible that by the time you are listening
• 1:46
  to this in the twenty four hours or so that it takes us to get
• 1:49
  the podcast from taping into the public, that this may have occurred, I
• 1:55
  feel an obligation to at least acknowledge this possibility. Trump himself is not only
• 2:01
  bragging and preparing his followers for this reality. He is also blaming Ron de
• 2:07
  Santis in bar for it. Believe it or not, he sent out an
• 2:12
  email yesterday to his cult members with the headline Unholy Alliance De Santis campaign colluding
• 2:21
  with Biden's weaponized DOJ Department of Justice to stop President Trump and the MAGA movement.
• 2:29
  Of course, this is all full of lies, which is what Trump
• 2:31
  does most often, especially when it comes to Ron De Santis. The only
• 2:38
  semblance of a colonel of truth may have been that somebody in the De Santist
• 2:43
  campaign referenced that there was a hope that these legal matters may take a toll
• 2:49
  on Donald Trump, which is obviously not an inappropriate thing or irrational thing to
• 2:53
  say. I mean, in the irrational world, if you were preparing a
• 2:58
  campaign against somebody who was likely to be indicted on multiple subjects by multiple agencies,
• 3:05
  both locally and federally, that would be something that would put in be
• 3:08
  put into the campaign equation. But we're not living in Kansas anymore. We're
• 3:14
  in oz and the world makes no sense and everything is opposite world. And
• 3:20
  in keeping with opposite world, Trump is blaming Ronda Santis for his problems legally
• 3:27
  because there is an alliance in his mind, or at least what he's claiming,
• 3:31
  between the Santis and Biden's doj. In the bigger picture, it is
• 3:37
  becoming more and more clear that maybe the most frustrating thing about this disastrous Republican
• 3:45
  primary process. And here we are only in late July, allegedly with a
• 3:50
  lot of time still to go before voting real voting begins. But it is
• 3:54
  clear, and this was put out by a Twitter account that the tracks polling,
• 4:00
  and they cited three separate major polls of Ron De Santis' approval rating among
• 4:08
  just Republicans, and they each of the three polls took that reading in February,
• 4:15
  and they took that reading in July. Of course, July is well
• 4:18
  after De Santis is actually announced as a candidate, And in each of those
• 4:23
  three polls, DeSantis lost about a third of support when it came to approval
• 4:30
  among Republican voters about a third, So about a third of the party has
• 4:36
  gone from approving of Rohn De Santis well before he was a candidate to now
• 4:44
  when he is a candidate for president. Now there are those who will claim
• 4:46
  it's because the candidacy the campaign has been so awful. Even as a critic
• 4:51
  of the campaign, I will disagree with that. I think it's very clear
• 4:55
  what happened, because it was in February that Donald Trump really started to attack
• 5:00
  Ron De Santis in a big way, well before De Santis was an official
• 5:05
  candidate. And it's most remarkable to me that effectively, I think Trump is
• 5:13
  ninety percent the attacks by Trump are ninety percent of the reason why this has
• 5:16
  happened to De Santis. And Trump didn't even need to go back on Twitter
• 5:20
  to do this. He didn't even need to make, you know, major
• 5:25
  appearances on Fox News Channel attacking Rohn de Santis. All he needed to do
• 5:30
  was continually attack him via truth Social and via his email list. That was
• 5:34
  a cential, you know, a few a few public appearances where he would
• 5:40
  continue the same theme. But he didn't have to do anything extraordinary. I
• 5:44
  mean that to me is amazing that he didn't even have to go back on
• 5:47
  Twitter. All he had to do was communicate with his cult directly via email
• 5:54
  and mostly truth Social, and he was able to poison the well with about
• 6:00
  a solid third of the Republican Party, to turn the most productive and the
• 6:05
  most impactful Republican governor in the modern history of the United States, to turn
• 6:11
  Republican voters against that person, rond Santis, going from approval to disapproval.
• 6:18
  It's extraordinary that Trump was able to do this, and to me, it's
• 6:20
  the ultimate evidence that the Republican Party is largely a cult and that Trump that's
• 6:28
  a pretty good indication of the number of people who are true cult members in
• 6:31
  the Republican Party for Donald Trump, it's about a third. I've always estimated
• 6:36
  it's about a third, but this is really strong, databased evidence that it's
• 6:43
  a third, because you would have to be a cult member to based upon
• 6:47
  the lies of a lifelong Democrat who shipped the bed during COVID, to go
• 6:51
  from approving of Ronda Santis, who saved the country during COVID, and and
• 6:57
  by the way, all of this happened during the most productive legislative session certainly
• 7:03
  in the history of Florida from a conservative perspective, and maybe of any major
• 7:08
  state certainly in the modern history of the United States, all led by Rhonda
• 7:12
  Santas. So that's another issue, is the Santa's actually suffering because he's in
• 7:16
  power. I think that there's an argument to be made for that, which
• 7:20
  he'll get to momentarily and is completely contrary to everything even I thought would be
• 7:27
  the reality in this case. But it is very, very obvious that these
• 7:31
  cult members, about a third of the party, will do whatever Trump says,
• 7:36
  no matter how absurd, no matter how based in a fantasy. It
• 7:42
  is, no matter how many lives are told, doesn't matter what the truth
• 7:45
  is, and that is an incredibly powerful force to have on your side in
• 7:53
  a campaign with seven or eight candidates. I mean, it's almost impossible to
• 7:59
  lose under the circumstances supposed to when because of that cult, those cult members
• 8:03
  being the most ardent customers of the conservative media, the conservative media is not
• 8:09
  going to do anything to piss those customers off because they're the base customer.
• 8:13
  And that's always been my greatest fear in this race, is that the conservative
• 8:18
  media is at best not going to take Trump out, and worst may be
• 8:24
  incentivized to prop Trump up and actually attacked the Santis. And I think we've
• 8:28
  seen some of that, and it's insane, it's absurd, but it is
• 8:33
  what it is, and it's clearly happening, and Trump is benefiting from it.
• 8:37
  Now. Is there going to be a miracle on this particular indictment when
• 8:41
  and if it happens. I doubt it based upon past history, and I
• 8:46
  doubt it based upon the subject matter because the subject matter is no longer toxic.
• 8:50
  January sixth is no longer toxic within the Republican Party. It's partially because
• 8:56
  Democrats way overplay their hand on it. Partially because the fact pattern didn't back
• 9:01
  up what the initial allegations were by Democrats. But also because of what Tucker
• 9:07
  Carlson did in revising the history of January sixth, and so all those things
• 9:13
  I think have have pretty much inoculated Trump from any major negative impact of this
• 9:20
  next indictment. Could there again be some erosion because of three indictments for indictments,
• 9:26
  whatever it ends up being, I guess so. But there's it's certainly
• 9:31
  now in a situation where the Santis isn't in a position to take advantage of
• 9:35
  that, and with so many candidates in the race, if Trump goes from
• 9:39
  you know, by the way, he's over fifty percent in most of the
• 9:43
  national polls. Now on a consistent basis in the state polls, he's more
• 9:48
  in the low forties, mid forties in the key state poles. But you
• 9:52
  know, even if he's in the low forties, even if he's at forty,
• 9:56
  he's almost unbeatable given the crowded made year of the race. Now,
• 10:01
  I mentioned this idea that the Santist is actually suffering because he's in power.
• 10:07
  And if I've made a mistake in my analysis, I've made may But if
• 10:13
  I've made a mistake in my analysis of this campaign, it was probably in
• 10:18
  this area because I honestly thought that in an advantage that DeSantis would have in
• 10:24
  this battle to be the alpha male was that he is the governor of Florida.
• 10:28
  And it's pretty clear to me that desantists thought the same thing, because
• 10:33
  he decided to wait to run for president until he had this remarkable legislative session
• 10:41
  in Florida coming off of this huge twenty point win in November of last year
• 10:46
  in the midterms, where he used that political capital for all sorts of things
• 10:52
  that you would think conservatives would be very excited about. And you know,
• 10:56
  no one he's running, no one he's running against, has any power.
• 11:00
  Trump doesn't have any power. Trumps out of power. Nicki Haley is no
• 11:03
  longer governor Vice Mike Pence is no longer Vice president. But Bake Ramaswami's never
• 11:09
  held elect of an office of any sort. I mean, so you know,
• 11:13
  Chris Christie is no longer in power. So there's all these people are
• 11:20
  basically unemployed. And you know, I used to think that that had at
• 11:24
  least some semblance of a stigma attached to it in a presidential race, and
• 11:30
  that if the battle is to be the alpha male, you know, being
• 11:33
  the governor, the very very productive governor of Florida, you would think would
• 11:39
  have a lot of benefits associated with it. Well, I have been very
• 11:43
  wrong about that element of this, and it's beingcoming more and more clear because
• 11:50
  effectively De Santis is at a disadvantage because he's in power. And there's maybe
• 11:56
  no better example of that than this controversy, which we referenced in episode seventy
• 12:03
  five, where Florida and Desandis are being attacked for allegedly creating a public school
• 12:11
  curriculum by the Education Department that teaches that slavery was actually good in some ways.
• 12:16
  I mean, this is insane on so many levels. It's just flat
• 12:20
  out inaccurate, and the most absurd element of this whole narrative that the media
• 12:28
  has really jumped all over is that the curriculum itself was created by African American
• 12:37
  scholars and in no way, shape or form diminishes slavery, rationalizes slavery.
• 12:45
  It doesn't do what Kamala Harris claimed that it does, and it certainly doesn't
• 12:52
  do anything that the media decided to pretend that it does when they latched onto
• 12:58
  Kamala Harris's attacks. And this is not just one or two media outlets.
• 13:01
  I mean CBS in their morning show just didn't might as well have been a
• 13:07
  commercial against Rhonda Santis. ABC Good Morning America did similarly. The worst though,
• 13:15
  is the morons from ABC's The View, which isn't really even a news
• 13:20
  show anymore, but I mean it still somehow has enough viewers to stay on
• 13:24
  the air and it does help shape the narrative on the left. And here
• 13:28
  is a clip of Whoopee Goldberg. And you know, Whoopee Goldberg is obviously
• 13:35
  a black female. In my experience many many years ago going on The View,
• 13:39
  I actually liked Whoopee. I thought she was one of the better cast
• 13:43
  members. She treated me very nicely. I thought she was pretty smart.
• 13:46
  But here she's just a flat out idiot where she is completely unaware that the
• 13:54
  people who came up with this curriculum are black. In fact, she says
• 13:58
  exactly the is it before propping up these lies by Kamala Harris. And here's
• 14:05
  what that sounded like on ABC's The View. Trying to get through everything that's
• 14:09
  happened over the weekend, and what's all the insanity going on in the world.
• 14:13
  Like Wednesday, Florida's Board of Education approved what they're calling standards for African
• 14:24
  American history. I feel like they didn't talk to any African Americans because we
• 14:28
  could have told them about the history. And nor have anyone seemingly gone to
• 14:35
  the Smithsonian to find out anything. You know, they're all of these former
• 14:41
  slaves who have given their testimony. You can go to the Smithsonian and hear
• 14:46
  them, so apparently they all think it's a lie. But the board defended
• 14:50
  the standards. I'm sorry for laughing because it's so shocking. Vice President Kamala
• 14:56
  Harris went to Jacksonville to give her thoughts that, look, they want to
• 15:01
  replace history with lies. Middle school students in Florida to be told that enslaved
• 15:11
  people benefited from slavery. High schoolers may be taught that victims of violence of
• 15:22
  massacres were also perpetrators. I said it yesterday. They insult us in an
• 15:30
  attempt to gaslight us, and we will not have it. This is a
• 15:39
  complete media creation. There is no reality here, and this is something that
• 15:46
  would not be happening if Roder Sanders was not running for president, and obviously
• 15:52
  if he was not governor of Florida. I mean, in fact, in
• 15:56
  Republican circles, this is something he should be getting credit for that he is
• 16:02
  revising these woke rules for education in the state of Florida. But in doing
• 16:08
  so, you know, one little thing has been taken out of complete context
• 16:14
  and has been used as a weapon against him. And the media is not
• 16:18
  just complicit here, they're driving the bus. There's a conservative commentator, podcaster,
• 16:25
  writer by the name of Stephen Miller who has a real good edge to
• 16:29
  him, and he tweeted, I want to give him credit because he nails
• 16:32
  this. He tweeted the following about how this goes down. This particular story
• 16:37
  went down from the media perspective. Number one, the media lies about the
• 16:41
  curriculum yep. Check number two. The White House reacts to the media lie
• 16:48
  and they run with it. They even send Kamala Harris down to Florida to
• 16:52
  get media coverage for her attacks on something that's not real. Check number three.
• 17:00
  The media then says there's backlash. In other words, the truth comes
• 17:04
  out and Rhda Santis did go on Jesse Waters Show and lamb based did Kamala
• 17:11
  Harris for her lies. I have no idea how much impact that'll have.
• 17:15
  But in a national basis forgetting about the Republican primary process for a second,
• 17:21
  there's no way that the Santis can compete with this kind of megaphone when it's
• 17:26
  being Once it becomes a media narrative, and I would suggest that you know,
• 17:30
  Miller's number three here is maybe underplaying it because I think it's worse than
• 17:36
  the media saying there's a backlash. Here's what they do. They go to
• 17:42
  a stable of black liberal quote unquote experts who probably know nothing, They know
• 17:48
  as little as Whoopie Goldberg does, but they know what opinion they're going to
• 17:52
  give. They're literally invested, their entire careers and livelihoods and reputation are invested
• 18:00
  in everything being racist if it's from the conservative Republican perspective. So they go
• 18:06
  to them as experts, they quote them, and that gives the story some
• 18:11
  semblance of credibility. And wait, and then after they go to the liberal
• 18:18
  quote unquote experts, they then go to find somebody on the right who will
• 18:23
  further substantiate the bogus narrative. And in this case, they went to Chris
• 18:29
  Christie, and Chris Christie to me showed what he's really doing here, what
• 18:34
  his true motivation is with regard to running for president. He gave the media
• 18:38
  exactly what they wanted on this. He completely took a statement from Ron De
• 18:44
  Santis out of context where the Santis said this he was not directly involved in
• 18:48
  this, as if De Santis was trying to duck blame for a mistake.
• 18:52
  And Christy attacked his leadership on this, and of course the media immediately ran
• 18:57
  with that. And so we learned from Chris Christie, which is not a
• 19:00
  surprise, because Chris Kistie is a narcissistic asshole, and he's not in this
• 19:06
  to try to stop Trump. He's in this for himself. Under the guise
• 19:10
  of doing this, you know, great signaling of virtue that he's going to
• 19:14
  try to stop Trump. Well, no, this is to try to revive
• 19:18
  his media career so that when this is over, in Trump's the nominee,
• 19:22
  he's in a good position to go back to the media as a commentator,
• 19:26
  as a former presidential candidate who has street cred for having attacked Trump during the
• 19:30
  campaign, and he's somehow still relevant. That's what this is all about.
• 19:33
  It's all about perverse fucking incentives. And Chris Christie is just another asshole in
• 19:40
  this whole field of assholes who don't give a shit about the country and only
• 19:44
  care about themselves. But that was number three in Stephen Miller's list, and
• 19:48
  then number four. The media calls the thing that they created a controversy.
• 19:53
  Oh, there's a controversy. We you know, it's a legitimate controversy.
• 19:57
  Well, how did it become much a controversy? See, you lied about
• 20:00
  it. Then you got people to back up your life because they wanted to
• 20:03
  be on television and in the media and to promote their own agendas, whether
• 20:08
  they're on the left or the right. And then, of course, because
• 20:12
  they're getting attacked, the Santists and others have to respond, including, by
• 20:17
  the way, the African Americans who were involved in writing this have tried to
• 20:19
  push back to very limited success because the media is not interested in that their
• 20:26
  role in all of this, because it's you know, the facts getting the
• 20:29
  way of a good story. And so you know this is the cycle.
• 20:33
  Oh it's a controversy. Well, of course you created the controversy, and
• 20:38
  you know what it really is, it's a bullshit story. Now what impact
• 20:42
  it has I don't know. I mean, you know, I think it
• 20:45
  probably does hurt the scientists further when it comes to national polling against Joe Biden.
• 20:52
  Does it hurt him in a Republican primary. I would hope not.
• 20:55
  But at this point it seems like everything sticks to the Santists and nothing sticks
• 21:00
  to Donald Trump. And and it really is remarkable and telling and depressing to
• 21:06
  see that the Santis and the campaign is suffering because he's actually in power.
• 21:11
  I mean, I did contemplate this as a problem. I thought it would
• 21:17
  come in the form of hurricanes. I really did. I thought this year,
• 21:21
  you know that if DeSantis was running strong, that any hurricane that hit
• 21:26
  Florida this fall was going to turn into Hurricane Katrina, if the media could
• 21:30
  do it at all, because I mean, it's very easy to turn.
• 21:34
  You know, there's always going to be disasters within a hurricane, and then
• 21:37
  you just blame the Santis for everything, and and you know that that would
• 21:41
  be something the media would jump all over. And if and if DeSantis was
• 21:45
  ever the nominee in twenty twenty four, with the election in November, any
• 21:48
  you know, right in the middle of hurricane season, any hurricane was going
• 21:52
  to become Hurricane Katrina in the media's minds. But I did not think that
• 21:56
  it would happen in this way to to negatively impact him in a Republican primary.
• 22:03
  And it really does provide a disincentive for people actually do anything. I
• 22:10
  mean, you know, from a policy standpoint, I think you can argue
• 22:14
  that the six week abortion ban has not helped the Santists at all when this
• 22:19
  is something that, especially in places like Iowa and South Carolina, Republican voters
• 22:25
  should be rejoicing about. Now, I personally, from a political standpoint,
• 22:27
  thought it was a mistake, but it was it was based in principle,
• 22:32
  and you know, it was a law passed by the legislature and the Santis
• 22:37
  championed it and signed it. And okay, I mean, if your pro
• 22:40
  life, you should be rewarding that. But there will be no reward apparently
• 22:44
  for RHND to Santis. There will only only be a tax because of things
• 22:48
  that he has actually done. And there's another example of the media going after
• 22:53
  De Santis very transparently on an issue where he should be getting praise, and
• 23:00
  that is the issue of COVID, and specifically with regard to the COVID vaccines.
• 23:07
  Now, just to basically review, I did get vaccinated. I didn't
• 23:12
  take the mr mRNA vaccine. I took to Johnson and Johnson one time and
• 23:18
  never got anything after that. And I only really did it because there were
• 23:22
  some things that you're in California that my life was easier by getting the stupid
• 23:27
  shot. I unfortunately convinced my wife to get the Johnson and Johnson because of
• 23:34
  similar reasons. She reminds me of this constantly. But our kids are not
• 23:40
  vaccinated, and luckily, you know, we've never had any major issues with
• 23:45
  COVID or with the vaccine. And but I've always been vehemently against the mandates,
• 23:52
  vehemently against the mandates, and I've all i've on the efficacy of the
• 23:56
  vaccines themselves. I was one of those who bought in, like this antist
• 24:02
  did for the first couple of months, saying, Wow, these things appear,
• 24:06
  based upon the data, to be incredibly effective, especially when it comes
• 24:10
  to curtailing deaths. And I bought in that, Wow, this is great,
• 24:14
  this is going to end the pandemic. And then after about two months,
• 24:21
  the data shifted dramatically, and now that we have a couple of years
• 24:25
  of data on this. I am not convinced at all that the vaccines did
• 24:30
  that much of anything. Did they help certain demographics cut down on deaths,
• 24:37
  It seems maybe possible. I'm still on the fence about side effects or adverse
• 24:45
  effects. We'll get to that with a couple of stories that have happened in
• 24:48
  the last couple of days momentarily because that's back in the news. But I
• 24:53
  am very much, i would say a skeptic of these claims that the LAFT
• 25:00
  has still promoted that the vaccines were great. I don't see a lot of
• 25:06
  evidence of that. And the media, though they are still very very very
• 25:11
  very very invested in the idea that the vaccines were awesome. Yeah, we
• 25:17
  were wrong about them stopping death, we were wrong about them stopping transmission,
• 25:22
  and yeah, those vaccines, the vaccine mandates may have gone a little too
• 25:26
  far, although we're not going to really acknowledge we're not going to really fully
• 25:30
  acknowledge that. So to me, this idea that the media is still very
• 25:36
  very invested in the vaccines being awesome, even though they don't, you know,
• 25:41
  fully buy into everything that they said at the beginning. Let's never ever,
• 25:45
  let's never ever forget just how much the media demonized those who were not
• 25:52
  vaccinized vaccinated. I mean it was off the charts, it was unprecedented,
• 25:57
  it was outrageous. The unvaccinated were blamed for everything, literally everything, and
• 26:04
  they were attacked and they were demeaned, and they were called all sorts of
• 26:10
  names by major media figures on major media outlets. And so the media is
• 26:15
  invested in never ever changing their basic view of the vaccines, which where they
• 26:22
  were necessary, they were generally awesome. No vaccine is perfect, and you
• 26:27
  know, we made no major mistakes in promoting the vaccines. That's the narrative
• 26:33
  that the media is deeply, deeply invested in. And to that end,
• 26:37
  science knows this right what passes for science in this day and age. Science
• 26:42
  knows what kind of story is going to get media play. And you know,
• 26:48
  I've seen this thousands of times. These people aren't completely stupid. They
• 26:52
  know when they're creating a study, what would the media be interested in about
• 27:00
  a study where we try to prove that Republicans died more than Democrats after the
• 27:08
  vaccines were available because Republicans didn't want to take the vaccine and Republican leaders didn't
• 27:18
  force it down their throats. Let's do that study, because man, we'll
• 27:22
  get lots of media coverage for that. Well, shockingly, we have a
• 27:27
  new study that tries to do exactly that, which got enormous media coverage,
• 27:33
  highlighted mostly by the New York Times. This is from The Hill and they're
• 27:37
  reporting on this study. The politicization of COVID nineteen vaccines may have led to
• 27:45
  a higher excess death rate among Republicans in Ohio and Florida during the coronavirus pandemic,
• 27:52
  a new study found. According to the study published this week in jama
• 27:57
  Internal Medicine, registered Republicans had a higher rate of excess deaths than Democrats after
• 28:06
  COVID nineteen vaccines became widely available in May of twenty twenty one. The study
• 28:12
  from Yale researchers looked at over five hundred thousand deaths for individuals aged twenty five
• 28:19
  years and older in Florida and Ohio between January of twenty eighteen, way before
• 28:29
  the pandemic by the way, and December of twenty twenty one, linked to
• 28:34
  their twenty seventeen voter registration. Now, there are a lot of problems with
• 28:41
  this study. First of all, I would argue that it's there's an obvious
• 28:45
  bias in just studying this. I mean, it's clear they are looking for
• 28:49
  a result, and they're looking for a result that the media is going to
• 28:55
  play up because that's what you want. You want publicity for your sudy.
• 29:00
  And so everyone's on the same team here. It's a lot like climate change,
• 29:03
  where these people know what result they need to get the media coverage to
• 29:07
  be able to justify their funding, and everyone can pat themselves on the back,
• 29:11
  and everyone's on the same team with regard to the agenda. And if
• 29:15
  we add in not just Republicans, but Republicans from Florida, now we're cooking
• 29:21
  with oil here because now we've got something the media is really going to be
• 29:25
  interested in. And I don't want to go too deeply into it here with
• 29:27
  the basic problems with the study. First of all, why is it that
• 29:32
  the study was interested in excess deaths? Now? I get, excess deaths
• 29:38
  are very important. Excess deaths are how many more deaths in any given time
• 29:45
  period that occurred than would have been expected based upon historical norms. But that
• 29:49
  includes at the time COVID deaths plus everything else that may have happened because of
• 29:56
  the pandemic or just because of life being up bended where drug use, suicides,
• 30:02
  lack of medical care, all sorts of other things. So, but
• 30:06
  why are they using excess deaths now? I get that if you're going to
• 30:10
  start in January of twenty eighteen, well before COVID, then you're trying to
• 30:15
  compare excess deaths, you know, as a control mechanism. I understand that
• 30:21
  that makes some sense, but I'm very suspicious as to if you're really focused
• 30:26
  on the COVID vaccine and whether or not more Republicans than Democrats in Ohio and
• 30:33
  Florida died because they didn't take the vaccine, wouldn't you be more focused on
• 30:38
  COVID deaths. Wouldn't that make more sense to be focused on COVID deaths?
• 30:45
  Of course, implicit in this, inheriting this is that they're acknowledging that there's
• 30:49
  a problem. At the very least, they're acknowledging that there's a problem with
• 30:53
  the definition of COVID death, because if we had a good definition of COVID
• 30:56
  death, they wouldn't even bother with excess deaths. They would be absurd.
• 31:03
  If we really knew who died of COVID as opposed to with COVID, then
• 31:08
  that's all they would need to be able to try to do this kind of
• 31:11
  study. So that's number one. That's a huge red flag y excess deaths.
• 31:15
  And my suspicion is because when they did it with COVID deaths, it
• 31:19
  didn't get the result that they wanted. And then there's the timing. The
• 31:23
  timing here is really key because the reality is that with guard to COVID it
• 31:32
  obviously went in cycles. And when something when goes in cycles, when you
• 31:37
  start and when you end a study is everything. We saw this with masks
• 31:41
  continually, where they desperately tried to come up with a way to make it
• 31:45
  look like masks might work a little bit, and all you had to do
• 31:49
  was just cherry pick when you started and when you ended the study, because
• 31:55
  if you wanted masks to work, you know, in places where there were
• 32:00
  mask mandates, you just start when it had a high number and you end
• 32:04
  when it gets a low number, or vice versa. And places that didn't
• 32:07
  have a mask mandate and had nothing to do with the mask. It's just
• 32:12
  based on cycles. And so what's up with the timing here, well,
• 32:16
  the ending of the study in December of twenty twenty one is quite telling because
• 32:22
  what happens just after December of twenty twenty one, all of a sudden,
• 32:29
  both in the United States as well as throughout the world, there is a
• 32:34
  massive spike in COVID deaths, well well after everyone has been vaccinated. The
• 32:43
  media will not tell you this, but the second largest spike in deaths throughout
• 32:49
  the entire pandemic, both in the United States as well as the world as
• 32:54
  a whole, occurred in January and February of twenty twenty two, just after
• 33:00
  the study ends. Now, to me, that's the smoking gun that will
• 33:07
  wait a minute. The entire premise of this is flawed because the entire premise
• 33:12
  is the vaccines inherently save lives, and more vaccinated people will be safer from
• 33:19
  dying with or of COVID than the unvaccinated. That's the entire premise. But
• 33:24
  that premise fails when you look at the basic numbers. How do you possibly
• 33:31
  rationalize that we had the second largest spike in deaths both in the United States
• 33:37
  and worldwide well act or everybody was vaccinated by early twenty twenty two, the
• 33:45
  media just pretends that never happened. By way, not just death. We
• 33:47
  had by far the largest spike of cases in January and February of twenty twenty
• 33:54
  two in the United States. No one wants to ever talk about that because
• 33:59
  it doesn't fit the narrative. So that's red flag number two in this study.
• 34:06
  But maybe the most obvious absurdity in this study, other than the clear
• 34:10
  bias of the motivation and where it's coming from, is that they chose Florida.
• 34:16
  I get that because they're going after DeSantis. But Ohio. Okay,
• 34:23
  now here's where the people are either dumb or they just presume that the media
• 34:28
  is much of morons. Maybe that's maybe both is the case. I don't
• 34:31
  know, but it doesn't take you know, I mean, anybody would be
• 34:36
  able to figure out the problem with adding Ohio into this, and that is,
• 34:42
  I know, it's perceived like Florida as a red state because it is
• 34:45
  now. I mean, both Florida and Ohio used to be the ultimate swing
• 34:49
  states in presidential elections. Now they are clearly red states. Trump has won
• 34:54
  them both times, and DeSantis won big in Florida and for governor reelection and
• 35:00
  twenty twenty two and by the largest margin by a Republican probably ever, certainly
• 35:04
  in the modern history of the state. But here's the problem with Ohio.
• 35:07
  Ohio's governor is Republican Mike DeWine. Mike DeWine was literally the worst Republican in
• 35:15
  the country when it came to COVID. He was the most pro lockdown,
• 35:22
  most pro vaccine, most pro mask governor there was so right there, the
• 35:29
  entire premise collapses that somehow this was because of Republican leadership that Republicans died more
• 35:38
  post vaccine, not even of COVID, just in general, because we're adding
• 35:45
  an excess DATS as opposed to COVID deaths. The whole thing just falls apart.
• 35:50
  And so that's longer than this study probably warranted me to go into the
• 35:54
  details on. But the reality is it's a joke. But what is it
• 36:00
  about. It's about trying to discredit Rhanda Santis and Florida's reaction to COVID,
• 36:07
  and it's also an attempt to try to prop up the vaccines because they are
• 36:14
  The media is very, very very still to this day invested in the vaccines,
• 36:19
  maybe more than in any other realm of the COVID response. They're invested
• 36:24
  on masks, but deep down they all know masters or bullshit. They're willing
• 36:29
  to accept that school closings were probably a mistake, but we had to air
• 36:32
  on the side of safety. That's generally the media's mindset. But in my
• 36:37
  own experience, having been a senior columnist at Mediaite during most of the pandemic,
• 36:45
  and maybe it's changed a little bit since I left there, but when
• 36:49
  I was still there, this was the biggest problem. I mean, I
• 36:53
  fought tooth and nail on masks and occasionally would win a few battles and be
• 36:58
  able to write something most to what I really believed about masks, but no
• 37:02
  chance on vaccines. Vaccines was the holiest of holy grails, you know,
• 37:07
  the most third rail topic that there was. You just could not possibly express
• 37:14
  any dissension, any contrarian opinion on vaccines at all. And I tried,
• 37:21
  and I was very, very frustrated about it. And that was before we
• 37:24
  know what we know now, and that was well before we have all of
• 37:30
  these anecdotal situations that ought to an irrational world at least get the media asking
• 37:36
  questions about the issue of adverse impacts of the vaccines, And in the last
• 37:42
  few days we have had at least three major episodes that have made news that
• 37:49
  should have at least gotten the media asking questions, but that doesn't happen.
• 37:55
  You know, normally, if something is not a subject on which they are
• 38:01
  invested in a particular narrative, if it's a juicy topic, if the media
• 38:07
  sees three data points, that's more than enough for a trend to make a
• 38:12
  news story. In fact, if they if it fits their agenda, it
• 38:15
  only only takes two data points and the media will now run with it.
• 38:19
  But three has always been the magic number. Well, in the last few
• 38:22
  days, we've had the Cleveland Browns wide receiver Marquis Goodwin. He's now out
• 38:30
  indefinitely with blood clots that he's never had before in his legs and his lungs
• 38:37
  that he himself has intimated comes from a mysterious source. In other words,
• 38:43
  he's completely mystified as to how the hell this has happened. He's obviously very
• 38:47
  young person, in fantastic shape, and his career is now in jeopardy because
• 38:52
  of blood clots. I've never heard of this. I mean, watching professional
• 38:59
  football my whole life, I don't ever remember that happening, because it possible
• 39:04
  that's occurred before, and it never hit my radar because no one was looking
• 39:07
  for it, I guess. But it certainly is a very strange set of
• 39:12
  circumstances that is consistent with things that we've seen previously in the sports world.
• 39:17
  I mean, this didn't happen recently, but Nellie Quarta was the number two
• 39:23
  ranked golfer in women's golf in the world, and she had to take off
• 39:29
  several months because of blood clots in her arm, which I had never heard
• 39:32
  of in the history of golf, especially for a young, healthy person.
• 39:37
  And no one asked any questions about how weird that was. That was just
• 39:40
  accept Oh, it's wow, really too bad what happened with Nellie Quarta,
• 39:45
  you know, prime of her careers. He has to miss several months with
• 39:47
  these horrible blood clots. You know, this is just stuff that happens.
• 39:52
  What are you talking about, It's never happened before. And then there's this
• 39:58
  singer Tori Kelly. You had to go to the hospital and there's similar circumstances,
• 40:04
  and she's young and very healthy. And then you have Bronni James who
• 40:09
  is going into his college basketball career. He is the son of Lebron James,
• 40:15
  obviously the most famous current athlete in the United States of America. And
• 40:21
  Bronnie James had a cardiac arrest apparently at practice at USC here in Los Angeles,
• 40:28
  and he apparently is going to be okay, thankfully. But this is
• 40:32
  an eighteen year old kid in prime physical condition and he just has a cardiac
• 40:37
  arrest and there's no apparent history at all. There's was as far as we
• 40:45
  know, there's no genetic abnormalities. Oh that's what's being speculated about by people
• 40:50
  who know nothing. Well, I mean, I have no idea whether or
• 40:53
  not there are any genetic abnormalities, but Lebron clearly doesn't have any. And
• 40:59
  you would, given Lebron's resources and the amount of scrutiny on Brownie's career,
• 41:06
  that he would have already been checked out very, very significantly for these types
• 41:12
  of things. These are things that can be known by medical intervention. So
• 41:17
  there's no evidence of that. We do know for the record that Lebron James
• 41:22
  has said publicly that he and his family are vaccinated. And again, does
• 41:30
  this prove that the vaccination directly or indirectly was related to the cardiac arrest.
• 41:37
  No, but we have evidence within the data from the vaccine companies themselves,
• 41:43
  Maderna and Fiser, that they acknowledged that these were side effects that occurred because
• 41:50
  of these vaccines, and that blood clotting was a large part of this.
• 41:57
  I mean, this has been This has been documented by the pharmaceutical companies themselves.
• 42:01
  You would think that'd be more than enough the meeting for the media to
• 42:04
  start at least asking some damn questions. But as we saw with the DeMar
• 42:10
  Hamlin situation, the Buffalo Bill who died and then was revived on the field
• 42:15
  during Monday night football the end of last football season, the media has no
• 42:21
  interest at all. I mean they are Sergeant Schultz on steroids from Hogan's Heroes.
• 42:28
  They see nothing, they hear nothing, they know nothing. They are
• 42:32
  not going to ask any questions at all. And the DeMar Hamlin situation,
• 42:37
  I will till I die unless there is new information contradicting this. I will
• 42:44
  say that that circumstance is by far the most obviously suspect of any of these
• 42:53
  that we have seen publicly. And I am somebody I want to make this
• 42:57
  clear. I am very, very skeptical of antidotal evidence, one because it's
• 43:04
  not data or science driven, but two also because once it becomes a narrative,
• 43:08
  people start looking for it. And when if you look for it,
• 43:12
  then all of a sudden, you're going to see things that may have been
• 43:15
  ignored in the past, and that's not real evidence. That's something that might
• 43:20
  be a lead, might have you asked questions, but that's not real evidence.
• 43:24
  So I come from this subject matter, I think from a pretty solid
• 43:29
  place when it comes to science. It takes a lot for me to be
• 43:34
  convinced by antidotal quote unquote evidence. But that DeMar Hamlin circumstance, where you
• 43:40
  know, they didn't tell us what it was, they didn't come up with
• 43:44
  any explanations. There was this narrative of commodio cordis, which is the impact
• 43:49
  to the heart, which is usually for teenagers playing baseball, never made any
• 43:53
  damn sense to me. The interview that Damar Hamlin did with Michael Strahan over
• 43:58
  Super Bowl weekend could not have been more suspicious. Yeah, I mean,
• 44:02
  if you said, John Ziegler, I want you to create a script for
• 44:07
  the Damar Hamlin Michael Strahan interview, and I want you to make it as
• 44:12
  suspect and as consistent with something being hidden as you possibly can. If that
• 44:16
  had been my task, I could not I could not have done better than
• 44:22
  the reality of that interview. If you've forgotten we talked about him on the
• 44:25
  podcast, Hamlin literally says he doesn't want to get into what happened, and
• 44:31
  it makes it very clear that after pausing that there's a reason why he doesn't
• 44:37
  want to get into it, and it's one hundred percent consistent with this being
• 44:40
  a subject that's not good for me or good for anybody, and I'm just
• 44:45
  not going to touch it. I mean the whole again. You could not
• 44:47
  have created a script that was more consistent with Hamlin having been told or at
• 44:53
  least having suspicions that this was vaccine related. And then when they announced Hamlin's
• 45:00
  coming back all of a sudden months later, out of the blue, with
• 45:05
  no testimony from actual doctors, Hamlin says, oh, yeah, by the
• 45:08
  way, it was Commodio Cortis. Yeah, nothing to see here. We
• 45:12
  now know it was Commodio Cortis, which is complete bullshit. There's no chance
• 45:16
  that was Commodiochortus. It's not what Commodio coortis is. Nothing was about this
• 45:21
  was consistent with commodiocordis. And the fact that that narrative is something that the
• 45:25
  media would latch onto and that doctor Fauci would latch onto, and then the
• 45:30
  bills would latch onto and then Hamlin would be forced to latch onto is consistent
• 45:35
  with a cover up. That's what this is. And I'm mister anti conspiracy,
• 45:39
  but this is as obvious as it can possibly get. I mean,
• 45:45
  there's mainly because commodio cordis. If you studied commodio chorus. I never knew
• 45:50
  anything about this before the Hamlin situation, but of course I then became rather
• 45:54
  well educated on it. There's nothing about what happened with Themar Hamlin that is
• 46:00
  consistent with commodioccortis. Yet that's still the media narrative and will now forever be
• 46:04
  the media narrative, even though to my knowledge, and I'm pretty sure I
• 46:07
  would have seen this that it had occurred. Not one doctor who actually treated
• 46:10
  Damar Hamlin has ever publicly stated that it was because of Commodia accortis that he
• 46:15
  had a cardiac arrest in the middle of the football field on Monday night.
• 46:19
  Football not one, which shouldn't be difficult. If that actually had occurred,
• 46:24
  you'd have doctors saying that because there's nothing controversial about it, there's no one
• 46:30
  to blame. If it's commodioccortis, then, by the way, the part
• 46:34
  about commodioccortis that is frankly hilarious to me. And maybe the ultimate smoking gun
• 46:39
  that this has to be part of a cover up is if it was commodioccortis,
• 46:44
  which it was, if it was given the problems that pro football and
• 46:51
  football in general has currently with parents allowing their kids to play football because it's
• 46:57
  now being seen as too dangerous. My god, if commodial courts can happen
• 47:01
  on a tackle like that, then why the hell is anybody letting their kids
• 47:06
  play football? I mean, this should be, to use a really bad
• 47:08
  metaphor, a steak through the heart of football in general. If commodio courts
• 47:14
  can happen that easily with a breastplate that is specifically designed to prevent anything like
• 47:20
  that happening, I mean, in football, players are as protected in the
• 47:23
  heart as any athletes could possibly be, and there was no blunt force there
• 47:30
  and directly onto the heart and his reaction wasn't consistent with it, but that's
• 47:35
  that was what was accepted by the media because that was the safest h that
• 47:39
  was that was the safest narrative and it fit their agenda and no one,
• 47:45
  you know, suffered. There was no rocking the boat. The NFL,
• 47:47
  I guess, decided if they, you know, if they just let Hamlin
• 47:52
  release this and then let it go away, that somehow the media would not
• 47:55
  pick this up because because again, if there's a commodioc courtis, where's the
• 47:59
  media in there? Well? Gee, wow, this is a new danger
• 48:04
  for football players. This has never happened before, so, you know,
• 48:07
  should your kids be playing football? There were no stories like that. It
• 48:09
  was almost like there was a quid pro quel. Again, this is conspiratorial,
• 48:15
  but it's almost like there was a quid pro quel that, Hey,
• 48:17
  the NFL said to the media, we're gonna claim this is a commodia accordis
• 48:22
  which will protect all of us on the vaccines. But you're not gonna then
• 48:25
  take commodia accordis and try to make that into a narrative about how dangerous foot
• 48:30
  Paul is got it right. Sure, we'll make that deal. Again,
• 48:34
  I don't think that ever actually happened, but for all the tendsive purposes,
• 48:37
  that's effectively what occurred here. And just to prove you how deeply embedded the
• 48:43
  Damar Hamlin situation is in the media narrative, here's doctor Sanjay Gupta on CNN
• 48:50
  talking about the Brownie James situation and of course the issue of what caused it,
• 48:55
  and he references Damar Hamlin almost to me, and of course he has
• 49:00
  to do it. In the he pronounces commodio cordus differently and he reverses the
• 49:04
  words. I guess he's trying to use the fancy Latin version to show how
• 49:08
  educated he is. It doesn't change the fact that it was not commodial cordus
• 49:12
  that caused the cardiac arrest for Damar Hamlin. But of course they have no
• 49:16
  idea why this would happen to Bronnie James, eighteen years old and imperfect health.
• 49:22
  And all they're gonna do is come up with some speculations about genetic abnormalities,
• 49:28
  which my guess is we're never going to have any evidence of that either.
• 49:30
  And here's what it sounded like on CNN the cardiac arrest. What exactly
• 49:36
  triggered that, What caused that that's what the doctors are going to be sort
• 49:39
  of investigating over the next several days. This is rare. We know that
• 49:45
  a few thousand people who are who are young athletes do suffer certain sudden cardiac
• 49:51
  arrests every year. There's all sorts of different reasons that can happen. Electrical
• 49:54
  abnormalities of the heart. We know, for example, with themar Hamlin it
• 50:00
  was related to something known as courteous commocio, which is a blow to the
• 50:04
  chest wall. We don't know what happens specifically with Bronnie James, but in
• 50:09
  any given year this does happen thousands of times. Sometimes it can be a
• 50:14
  structural abnormality of the heart that was never really recognized until now, wasn't recognized
• 50:21
  until someone actually first has a problem with it. It could be an electrical
• 50:24
  problem with the heart again that was unrecognized till now. So we'll get more
• 50:30
  of those details. But again the most important thing, thankfully, is that
• 50:34
  he appears to have been resuscitated successfully and in terms of how doctors are looking
• 50:40
  at him now, they think that he is stable enough to not need intensive
• 50:44
  care at this point, which is also good news. Now, once again
• 50:47
  I have no idea whether or not Bronnie James's cardiac arrest was caused by the
• 50:54
  vaccine, or that Tory Kelly's blood clot situation or her medical situation was impacted
• 51:04
  by this or the Mark Queeze Goodwin. I have no idea. I don't
• 51:08
  know for sure. I have grave suspicions about the more Hamlin because of the
• 51:13
  way the media and the NFL reacted to it. That to me is the
• 51:17
  greatest evidence and the bogus explanation of commodiac cordis those are the pieces of evidence
• 51:24
  that I used to go this has got to be the vaccine, because that's
• 51:27
  the only way to explain the behavior of Hamlin and the people around him,
• 51:32
  and the NFL and the media. But I don't know. But here's what
• 51:37
  I do know. I do know that I do not trust anybody in the
• 51:42
  media to ask the right questions, or anyone in the scientific community that is
• 51:46
  given credibility by the media to be honest about what actually has occurred here.
• 51:53
  The media won't ask the questions, and the science community, the medical community
• 51:58
  will not be honest about answering any questions that may occur. And because they're
• 52:05
  deeply invested. They're on the same team, and they're literally on the same
• 52:07
  team largely because of the money. And that's part of this equation that cannot
• 52:13
  be forgotten. Obviously, the media gets paid tens and tens of millions of
• 52:19
  dollars by the pharmaceutical companies. Doctors do not directly, as on an individual
• 52:24
  basis, but they get paid as well. And nobody has any interest who
• 52:31
  is in the club of the accepted elite experts to lose their position in the
• 52:37
  club by saying, you know what, I think we now have enough evidence
• 52:42
  to conclude that these adverse effects that we're seeing publicly that seem to be anecdotal
• 52:46
  are actually related to the vaccine, and it's something very dangerous and very strange
• 52:53
  is happening here, and we need to ask questions about it. To me,
• 52:57
  I would like to believe that someone who was a doctor but well respected,
• 53:01
  I mean, we do there are some doctors in this realm, but
• 53:04
  they've all been discredited by the mainstream news media. I would like to believe
• 53:07
  that somebody It's not gonna be Sanjay Gupta, but somebody would say, you
• 53:13
  know, it's time to ask some more serious questions about this, and that's
• 53:16
  really all I'm asking for. That's the job of the media before journalism died,
• 53:22
  is to at least ask questions. I don't know what the answers are,
• 53:27
  but we are well past the point where we ought to be asking very
• 53:30
  serious questions because these were vaccines that were not needed by the same people who
• 53:37
  seem to be suffering very serious adverse effects from them, and sometimes very close
• 53:43
  to death or maybe even death. There have been obviously Died suddenly was at
• 53:47
  one point, you know, a very significant narrative even on Twitter, after
• 53:52
  Elon Musk took over, and it was acceptable to discuss these kinds of things
• 53:58
  publicly. By the way, it's interesting to me that the whole vaccine side
• 54:02
  effect issue has now come back up because of these three data points. I
• 54:08
  actually to point to this moment. I think that this is yet another situation
• 54:14
  that has played right into Trump's hands and has has played against the santist campaign
• 54:21
  because back you know, if you remember at the beginning of this year,
• 54:25
  especially Postamar Hamlin, the whole died suddenly thing was a really big deal.
• 54:31
  And I think that that would have if that had continued, that if the
• 54:36
  data had continued in the same direction that it was, especially with regard to
• 54:40
  these mysterious excess deaths that we were experiencing in the United States at the end
• 54:45
  of twenty twenty two. Had that continued, I think that would have been
• 54:49
  big trouble for the Trump campaign because it's on this issue that the Santist campaign
• 54:53
  is much better positioned than Trump. Trump obviously to this day touts and brags
• 55:00
  about Operation Warp Speed and still thinks that the vaccine saved millions of people.
• 55:07
  And it's the Santist that is the only one doing anything that's trying to come
• 55:10
  up with answers to these questions and potentially accountability for these vaccine companies for pushing
• 55:17
  vaccines that have had adverse impacts. Not that reality really matters anymore, but
• 55:23
  that potentially would have been an issue that really would have played towards the Decantis
• 55:29
  campaign, and instead the vaccine issue has faded up until this week and RFKA
• 55:37
  Junior has actually gotten so much traction on the right. I mean, you
• 55:39
  just had a town hall meeting with Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel that I
• 55:45
  have always believed that people who should be voting for Descantists specifically in New Hampshire,
• 55:51
  are actually going to vote for RFK Junior over the vaccine issue. So
• 55:55
  like everything that happens in the campaign, you know, Trump's luck continue use
• 56:00
  what should be hurting him is actually helping him. I don't know whether that
• 56:02
  we're going to see a rebirth of this contrarian narrative on vaccines, but certainly
• 56:10
  there ought to be questions being asked, and they won't be asked because the
• 56:14
  media is completely broken and journalism is dead. I mentioned in episode seventy five
• 56:22
  of the podcast that my family and I were planning to go see the Barbie
• 56:27
  movie, which has exploded at the box office. Is of this taping,
• 56:34
  the movie has made almost four hundred million dollars internationally almost two hundred million dollars
• 56:39
  domestically. It's kind of amazing to me that the movie has made as much
• 56:45
  money internationally as it has domestically because if you think of Barbie, I mean,
• 56:50
  Barbie is pretty much an American icon, but it just I think shows
• 56:55
  the power of American icons, especially from a certain era. And I've always
• 57:02
  talked about how when you think of celebrities, and let's think of Barbie as
• 57:07
  a celebrity, right, because obviously she is that there's nothing more powerful in
• 57:13
  this country than seventies or eighties celebrity because there just weren't that many celebrities in
• 57:21
  the seventies and eighties, because the media landscape was completely different, and for
• 57:27
  a doll to be that iconic as Barbie wasn't. A Barbie obviously already existed
• 57:31
  before the seventies, but it kind of people are still alive who lived in
• 57:37
  the seventies and remember the seventies and their childhoods a little bit to the sixties
• 57:42
  as well. But the reality is that Barbie is super famous and that's I
• 57:49
  think a worldwide phenomenon, and we're seeing the success at the box office largely
• 57:54
  because how famous Barbie is and how much interest there is because most girls,
• 58:00
  especially we have had at least some experience with the Barbie doll, including my
• 58:07
  two children and my wife, who was big into barbies as a kid,
• 58:12
  and I have eleven year old daughter Grace, She's been very big into barbies.
• 58:15
  I talked about that in episode seventy five. My other daughter, Diana,
• 58:21
  who's six, has not been as big into barbies, but she's still
• 58:23
  at at the age where she's interested, and she'll do pretty much anything that
• 58:28
  her bigger sister is interested in, at least to some level. So we
• 58:31
  were going to go see the movie. I was very, very hesitant to
• 58:37
  see the movie, especially after so many conservatives had attacked the movie, most
• 58:44
  prominently Ben Shapiro, who did a video that went viral where he attacked the
• 58:50
  movie at virtually every possible level. And it wasn't just Ben Shapiro. There
• 58:53
  were other conservatives who said this thing is super woke and it's a bad movie
• 58:59
  and it's done them and don't go see it. And you know, I
• 59:05
  didn't. I wanted my kids to have a good experience. I don't want
• 59:08
  Barbie to be um, you know, smirched. In the minds of my
• 59:14
  daughters. Uh, you know, this has been a positive experience in their
• 59:19
  life. And if Barbie was going to be shit on or it was going
• 59:22
  to be used as a political prop for a woke agenda, that was something
• 59:27
  that I was not in favor of and didn't want to be part of.
• 59:30
  On the other hand, I knew that my wife wanted to see the movie.
• 59:34
  I knew that my kids wanted to see the movie, and so I
• 59:37
  was kind of in a tough spot. At one point, I said to
• 59:39
  my wife, you know, I don't think I should go because I'm just
• 59:43
  going to be a problem. And and then I decided, you know what,
• 59:46
  why don't I do this? Why don't I go? And then if
• 59:50
  it if it becomes a situation where I'm too agitated, I'll just leave and
• 59:53
  go to the golf course and I won't say anything. And that way I
• 59:58
  won't ruin the experience for you or the kids. And she was fine with
• 1:00:01
  that, and so that was the plan, and my concerns were further heightened
• 1:00:09
  when before we went to go see the movie, I saw a clip on
• 1:00:14
  TikTok. By the way, I spent a lot of time on TikTok these
• 1:00:16
  days, because I find TikTok to be fascinating. I mean, I learned
• 1:00:21
  way more if if you do it properly. I learned way more about what's
• 1:00:25
  going on in the world through TikTok than I do even via Twitter these days.
• 1:00:32
  Some of it's very intellectual and substances, some of it's incredibly stupid,
• 1:00:37
  but both of those things are a large part of life. But I happen
• 1:00:40
  to stumble upon this clip from Will Farrell at the premier of The Barbie Movie.
• 1:00:45
  Now, Will Farrell, the comedian, plays the CEO of Mattel.
• 1:00:50
  Now Mattel is the company that obviously created Barbie. What I did not know
• 1:00:57
  is that Mattel not only had to sign off on this, Mattel produced the
• 1:01:00
  damn movie. And so you would think that this whole, if it was
• 1:01:06
  a production of Mattel, that it would basically be very pro Mattel, and
• 1:01:10
  it would be basically a whitewashing of what they are, and it would put
• 1:01:15
  everybody in a positive light. And Will Farrell, who again plays the CEO,
• 1:01:23
  talks about how he was shocked at reading the script, not because he
• 1:01:30
  thought the script was bad, but because he couldn't believe that Mattel had signed
• 1:01:34
  off on it. And this sounds like a very sincere story. I'm pretty
• 1:01:38
  good, I think, being able to tell what's a bullshit story and what
• 1:01:42
  actually happened. This sounds very real to me that Will Farrell was going like,
• 1:01:47
  really, you got you got approval from Mattel, And I think this
• 1:01:52
  is maybe one of the keys to understanding what's really going on with the Barbie
• 1:01:55
  movie and all the controversy that it has created. So here's Will Farrell on
• 1:02:00
  reading the Barbie script before he realized that it had already been approved. I
• 1:02:06
  didn't think the studio had or I didn't think Mattel had read the script yet
• 1:02:10
  when I read it, because it was so satirical. It was so strange
• 1:02:17
  and funny and making fun of the Barbie universe, and I was like,
• 1:02:25
  are you sure they're okay with you making this movie? And they said,
• 1:02:30
  oh no, they're totally into it. I was like, wow, this
• 1:02:31
  is incredible. So I just was afraid that they had written this wonderful movie
• 1:02:38
  that not only was going to be funny and different, but also say a
• 1:02:43
  lot about society. And I was afraid that maybe they hadn't gotten the sign
• 1:02:49
  off on it. But but once I knew it was all set up,
• 1:02:51
  I was like, oh my gosh, I'll do it a heartbeat. So
• 1:02:58
  when I saw that, I'm like, what is going on here? Why
• 1:03:00
  would Mattell do this? I mean, it's clearly from everything I'm i'm hearing,
• 1:03:07
  it's not a commercial or for Barbie or defense of Barbie. It seems
• 1:03:12
  like it's actually attacking Barbie in some ways. And I didn't know what to
• 1:03:20
  make of this. So I went to the movie with my wife and two
• 1:03:22
  kids, and I had to say I was expecting the worst. I was
• 1:03:28
  expecting that this was going to be horrible in so many ways, and I
• 1:03:30
  was also dreading what the movie might do to, specifically my older daughter,
• 1:03:37
  Grace's perception of Barbie. Now, to be clear, I don't have any
• 1:03:40
  investment in Barbie other than you know, she's representative of an ideal of female
• 1:03:47
  beauty in America, and I'm all in favor of that. I actually think
• 1:03:52
  we've gone too far in the other direction where we're now you know, it's
• 1:03:54
  one thing to tell girls it's okay not to be Barbie beautiful, but now
• 1:04:00
  gone in the other direction where we're telling them it's fantastic to be obese,
• 1:04:03
  which I don't think is good from a health perspective. But that's another story
• 1:04:08
  for another day. So I'm not invested in Barbie. I'm just invested in
• 1:04:12
  my daughter's experience and what she has seen as a positive in her life,
• 1:04:17
  and I don't want it to be, as I've said previously, tarnished.
• 1:04:21
  I also have to acknowledge that, as she's eleven years old going into fifth
• 1:04:28
  grade as she's eleven years old and going into fifth grade. That we're both
• 1:04:34
  my wife and I and I've talked about this previously with Santa Claus. We're
• 1:04:39
  going through this, these growing pains of seeing our daughter grew up no longer
• 1:04:44
  being a little girl anymore, and so any piece of what was a big
• 1:04:48
  part of her life when she's a little girl, any piece of that going
• 1:04:53
  away, there's a sadness associated with that, and I think that's understandable,
• 1:04:58
  and I think that's important context both for my perception and my wife's perception of
• 1:05:03
  the movie, as well as the essence of the movie itself. And you
• 1:05:10
  know, expectations are everything in life, especially when it comes to movies.
• 1:05:14
  Right, If your total movie is going to suck, I think you're actually
• 1:05:17
  much more likely to think it's halfway decent. If your total movie is going
• 1:05:23
  to be the greatest thing you've ever seen, I think it actually reduces the
• 1:05:26
  chances that you're gonna think it was the greatest thing you've ever seen, just
• 1:05:30
  because of the way that humanity works with regard to expectations. So with all
• 1:05:34
  that being said, I was really conflicted during this movie, and I actually
• 1:05:42
  think that the movie works on multiple layers, or at least tries to work
• 1:05:47
  on multiple layers. A lot of people have said that the movie is stupid,
• 1:05:50
  and there are some stupid elements to it. I mean, it's a
• 1:05:54
  movie about about a plastic doll, so obviously you know some things are going
• 1:05:59
  to be stupid. But I actually don't think it attempts to be stupid.
• 1:06:03
  I actually think that it's a multi layered, fairly intellectual movie. My wife
• 1:06:09
  and I ended up talking about this. We're married for a long time,
• 1:06:13
  so we don't talk about very much, but we talked about this movie for
• 1:06:15
  probably an hour after it was all said and done, and the subjects were
• 1:06:23
  quite fascinating and multi layered, and at a certain point in the movie,
• 1:06:28
  I was almost to the point where I was about to conclude, this thing's
• 1:06:31
  actually really good about halfway through, because it was going into these themes of
• 1:06:39
  a mother and a daughter who is no longer a young kid and they're becoming
• 1:06:45
  a teenager and all of the challenges associated with that and their memories of childhood
• 1:06:51
  and the mom's memories of childhood, and this was clearly having a huge impact
• 1:06:56
  on my wife. She even cried during this movie. I mean it was
• 1:07:00
  my wife was crying. Now, you know, movies today are targeted at
• 1:07:05
  particular demographics. I think that's one of the problems with conservatives reaction to this
• 1:07:11
  movie is that they're not fully understanding that this movie was targeting women in general,
• 1:07:17
  and specifically women of a certain age who have had children, daughters who
• 1:07:25
  are either of a certain age or past that, and they've already experienced this
• 1:07:30
  phenomenon of what happens when your kid gets older, and especially if they've had
• 1:07:35
  experiences with Barbie, as my wife has and my two daughters have. So
• 1:07:41
  my wife and two kids are basically in the primo demographic that this movie was
• 1:07:46
  targeting. Now, and as I was watching and I was like, I
• 1:07:50
  can't believe I'm actually gonna end up liking this movie, or at least thinking
• 1:07:55
  that it's it's decent or good then in my opinion, And it starts to
• 1:08:00
  fall apart of it as it goes along, and there is a lot of
• 1:08:04
  anti mail stuff. There is some absurdities with regard to this issue of women
• 1:08:12
  being discriminated against, like for instance, and I don't even know why they
• 1:08:15
  did this. Part of me thought they were being satirical, and there are
• 1:08:18
  people who are now kind of contrarianto the conservative attacks on Barbie, or now
• 1:08:25
  it's just saying that secretly Barbie might actually be a conservative movie because they were
• 1:08:30
  mocking woke. Um. I wouldn't go that far. But one example that
• 1:08:34
  I didn't understand why they did this is that they were talking about the number
• 1:08:42
  of Supreme Court justices in Barbie world that ought to go to men, because
• 1:08:46
  the men were begging for a Supreme Court justice, and they said, no,
• 1:08:53
  there will be no man on the Supreme Court because you know, you
• 1:08:55
  guys didn't have any I'm paraphrasing, but you guys didn't have any women on
• 1:09:00
  your Supreme Court in the real world. And of course that's not true.
• 1:09:04
  There are four women on the Supreme Court currently out of nine, and you
• 1:09:10
  know, I wonder about John Roberts from time to time, so who knows
• 1:09:14
  whether it's actually five or four, But you know, statistically, other of
• 1:09:16
  course, we don't even know what the definition of a woman is anymore.
• 1:09:19
  But allegedly there are four women on the current US Supreme Court. So I
• 1:09:25
  didn't understand that. And then I also found it almost to the point of
• 1:09:30
  hilarity and again made me think, are they being satirical? Where the characters
• 1:09:35
  when they enter the real world. When Barbie and Ken enter the real world,
• 1:09:39
  they enter through Venice Beach, California. Now Venice Beach, California,
• 1:09:45
  it would literally be more different. It would be almost impossible to find a
• 1:09:49
  more woke place in the entire country than Venice Beach, California. That's not
• 1:09:57
  an exaggeration. I mean, it's weird that they picked it, and the
• 1:09:59
  fact that they did pick it made me think are they are they actually mocking
• 1:10:04
  woke them? Are they being satirical here? Because here's the funny part.
• 1:10:10
  Venice Beach, California was not depicted as being woke. It was depicted as
• 1:10:14
  almost being World Texas with regard to the treatment of women and the perception of
• 1:10:20
  Ken as gay, and these white, straight male construction workers oggling Barbie and
• 1:10:30
  the middle school. The junior high school was named Davy Crockett Junior High and
• 1:10:38
  their nickname was the Frontiersman, And I'm thinking, what the hell are they
• 1:10:42
  doing. There's no possible way there would ever be a school named for Davy
• 1:10:47
  Crockett in Venice Beach, California. So I get why conservatives have latched onto
• 1:10:55
  things like that and said this is classic Holly Hollywood woke them. But I
• 1:11:02
  think that that might be exaggerated, and it's possible, underlying possible that this
• 1:11:10
  was actually satirical and was not intended to be taken seriously, because obviously the
• 1:11:15
  whole movie is a fantasy. Again, it's about a plastic doll. So
• 1:11:20
  I was really honestly conflicted coming out of the movie, and I was shocked
• 1:11:26
  that I was conflicted because I thought this is something I'm gonna hate, because
• 1:11:30
  all these other conservatives hated as well. And so I was very curious what
• 1:11:34
  my wife and my two kids, what their reaction was going to be.
• 1:11:40
  So I immediately as soon as we got out of the theater, I took
• 1:11:43
  out my phone and I interviewed first Grace, my eleven year old going into
• 1:11:46
  fifth grade, who it's important to point out, is holding a Barbie and
• 1:11:50
  a Ken doll that she brought to the theater. Now, to be clear,
• 1:11:56
  I found this interesting. Grace doesn't really play with her Barbies anymore.
• 1:12:00
  She still likes them. She still has the Barbie dreamhouse that we built for
• 1:12:04
  her for Christmas a few years ago. Um, but this did feel as
• 1:12:12
  if she was almost kind of reverting back or celebrating her childhood, which I'm
• 1:12:15
  perfectly fine with. But she's holding the Barbie and the can in the interview,
• 1:12:20
  and I speak to her mostly, and then I also speak to my
• 1:12:25
  wife and then my littlest daughter, a six year old Diana, And uh,
• 1:12:30
  and here's what that sounded like. Right after we saw the Barbie movie.
• 1:12:34
  I think you'll find this pretty interesting, she raised, we just saw
• 1:12:39
  the Barbie movie. What do you think? I said it was really good.
• 1:12:43
  Why did you like her? Because obviously Barbie? Yeah, yeah,
• 1:12:49
  I liked it. That was it. Yeah. I don't like how she
• 1:12:56
  turns into a human and she doesn't like Ken anymore. You didn't like the
• 1:13:00
  end? Yeah? You think she should like Kenny? Yeah? Did you
• 1:13:06
  think that the movie was two tough on boys and Ken? Yeah, and
• 1:13:11
  all the other boys don't know? Did you or not? Yes? There
• 1:13:15
  are two te boys the girls. They aren't feel like we're still a Lanion
• 1:13:21
  where girls are just odd. Jack's born not it's dumb. So you thought
• 1:13:28
  it was kind of exaggerated as far as the play girls on treating, Yeah?
• 1:13:33
  Did But did you think the movie was good in general. Yeah,
• 1:13:36
  are you glad you saw it? Yeah? And it was really funny.
• 1:13:40
  It'd make you like Barbies more or less? Oh, I should play with
• 1:13:45
  my ken. Now you don't know how to play with your can anymore,
• 1:13:51
  so you're confused? Will you continue to play with your Barbie? All right?
• 1:13:58
  Mom? What did you think? Oh? I like that moment?
• 1:14:00
  Okay, any particular reason why? Because it wasn't a statement about Barbie.
• 1:14:06
  What was it a statement? A statement about little girls growing up? Okay,
• 1:14:11
  getting old? Not that perfect anymore? Okay, I like that?
• 1:14:15
  Diana? What did you think funny? It was funny? Yeah? Did
• 1:14:19
  you like it? Did it makes you like Barbie's more or less more?
• 1:14:24
  What did you think it was funny? Grace? Well, it's kind of
• 1:14:28
  a it's very starting, very very starting, was very start, was funny?
• 1:14:34
  Okay, all right, so thumbs up or thumbs down? Everybody thumbs
• 1:14:39
  up, thumbs up? I not a ten from Grace. Okay, I
• 1:14:44
  like the Ziggler girls like Barbie. All right, here we go. Take
• 1:14:47
  that Ben Shapiro. Now, the crack there at the end about Ben Shapiro
• 1:14:53
  is really because I generally like Ben Shapiro. I think he's right about a
• 1:14:59
  lot of things, but because he's become associated with the anti Barbie movement,
• 1:15:05
  and also because our producer Mike Agavino is a big fan of Ben Shapiro,
• 1:15:10
  and he and I battle from time to time about Ben, because it's my
• 1:15:15
  perception that in his mind, Ben can do no wrong. And I will
• 1:15:18
  never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever that I mentioned,
• 1:15:21
  ever, ever forgive Ben for how he handled the twenty sixteen election with regard
• 1:15:26
  to Donald Trump, because I think he was the most duplicitous of any of
• 1:15:30
  the conservative commentators by trying to play it down the middle. Now, he
• 1:15:34
  did a fantastic job from a financial standpoint, but it was not based in
• 1:15:40
  truth. It was not what was good for the country. It went against
• 1:15:45
  a lot of what he claims to be and so I will never forgive Ben
• 1:15:48
  Shapiro for that. I mean, to me, that is a mortal sin.
• 1:15:51
  I actually have more anger towards Ben Shapiro for what happened in twenty sixteen
• 1:15:56
  than I do for a lot of the overt Trump sellouts, Because if you
• 1:16:00
  were going to do it, just be overt about it, don't try to
• 1:16:01
  pretend. And that's what Ben Shapiro did, But I also think Ben Shapiro
• 1:16:05
  is generally wrong about this movie. Now, to be fair to Ben,
• 1:16:10
  I mean, he does acknowledge that the demographic, like my wife and my
• 1:16:15
  daughters might like the movie. But again, to be clear, these are
• 1:16:19
  not liberal women. My wife is not a liberal, my daughter Grace is
• 1:16:24
  very much not a liberal. I don't think Diana is going to be a
• 1:16:28
  liberal either, And so you know, these are very conservative women who just
• 1:16:33
  happened to be in the demographic this movie targets and they liked it. Now,
• 1:16:40
  would have I have given it the thumbs up? Probably not. I
• 1:16:43
  would have given it. You know, I wouldn't have given it thumbs down.
• 1:16:45
  I wouldn't have given thumbs up. I mean, looking at Margot Robbie
• 1:16:47
  for two hours isn't the worst thing you can do for yourself. And there
• 1:16:51
  are a few funny moments, and like I said, there are a few
• 1:16:55
  poignant moments. I wasn't as offended by the politics of it as obviously most
• 1:17:01
  conservatives have been, at least you know, the ones that I've mentioned,
• 1:17:04
  like Ben Shapiro, But I'm also confused by the whole Mettel thing. That's
• 1:17:09
  why I played the Will Farrell clip, and I'm I'm really fascinated as to
• 1:17:15
  what Mattel's strategy here was. Now it's clear that they have gotten, you
• 1:17:19
  know, via the marketing for the movie and then the movie box office itself,
• 1:17:24
  They've gotten hundreds of millions of dollars a worldwide, basically free publicity for
• 1:17:30
  a movie that they not only signed off on, but that they helped produce.
• 1:17:35
  And that's got to be helping the brand, right. I Mean,
• 1:17:39
  there's no question and there's no question that the Barbie brand has been fading for
• 1:17:43
  a lot of reasons. Barbie has been under attack for a long time politically
• 1:17:46
  because of what Barbie represents, because it makes liberals feel very bad about themselves,
• 1:17:50
  and we can't have that, uh, you know, liberal women feeling
• 1:17:55
  bad about themselves. And you know, obviously the lives of kids have changed,
• 1:18:00
  videos and video games and computers and the whole world is different now,
• 1:18:05
  so plastic dolls just don't cut it as much. So from a branding and
• 1:18:11
  marketing standpoint, this was kind of genius what Mattel did, where they essentially
• 1:18:16
  sold off a big piece of what they have in order to survive. I
• 1:18:24
  mean, it's We've seen this a lot in modern era, where these products
• 1:18:29
  or these industries are dying because of social trends and or new technologies, and
• 1:18:36
  you either have to change or you die. And one of the things you
• 1:18:41
  can do when you change is you can take the brand that you have and
• 1:18:44
  the power of that brand, and you can leverage it to create more publicity
• 1:18:51
  and more awareness and maybe change your brand in the process of doing that.
• 1:18:59
  Is not a great example, but it's just one that came to my head.
• 1:19:02
  I mean, because I have young kids, and because I had nieces
• 1:19:06
  and nephews, and also because I happened to have been friends with one of
• 1:19:12
  the main characters fathers, I was very much aware of the whole Hannah Montana
• 1:19:16
  Miley Cyrus phenomenon, and actually was friends with two people that were key on
• 1:19:21
  that show, and so I found it fascinating. I think one of the
• 1:19:26
  most successful transitions in entertainment ever was how Miley Cyrus killed Hannah Montana. I
• 1:19:32
  mean, she murdered Hannah Montana in a way that skyrocketed her a career as
• 1:19:39
  an adult, which she had to do because she had to go from the
• 1:19:42
  goody two shoes preteen to what she became as an adult, and I mean
• 1:19:48
  she went out of her way to kill, murder, de capitate, whatever
• 1:19:56
  you know, description you want to use Hannah Montana and it was extreme successful,
• 1:20:00
  and in a weird way, I see Mattel kind of doing the same
• 1:20:04
  thing with Barbie, where they realize that they need to move on from Barbie
• 1:20:10
  or at least change her in order to fit with this modern world that we're
• 1:20:15
  now living in. And so they leveraged the brand for this massive movie that's
• 1:20:24
  even bigger than anyone thought that it would be. And I think that's going
• 1:20:28
  to be successful. They'll probably sell a lot of product from people who are
• 1:20:31
  still into the Barbie brand, and they've even got product related to the movie
• 1:20:36
  itself. So this is going to be a win win win from Mattel in
• 1:20:42
  the short run. But in the long run. Part of what I was
• 1:20:45
  really confused by the whole Will Farrell thing. Will Farrell was mystified because Mattel
• 1:20:50
  is made to look like the bad guy in this whole movie. I mean,
• 1:20:54
  they're literally the villains are the executives from Mattel, which is also,
• 1:21:00
  by the way, bizarre because Mattel is is portrayed as having a board that's
• 1:21:03
  all white male except for one token black guy, which, again I thought,
• 1:21:10
  that's got to be satirical, right, I mean, it has to
• 1:21:13
  be. There's no one really believes that that's what the modern Mattel is like.
• 1:21:17
  Right. So this is this is the kind of stuff that the movie
• 1:21:21
  does where it makes you think, are they being for real or are they
• 1:21:26
  actually mocking what you think that they're promoting. I don't know. And maybe
• 1:21:31
  it was intended for you to be able to interpret it in whatever way you
• 1:21:35
  wanted to, and conservatives interpreted it one way. And clearly liberals are very
• 1:21:41
  much liking the movie because it's very much about liberal female empowerment. Once again,
• 1:21:46
  fine, it's not my cup of tea, but if you're into it,
• 1:21:48
  I don't think that there's anything inherently horrible about that, but it did
• 1:21:54
  feel and I don't want to you know, Look, I mean, it's
• 1:21:57
  not exactly a dramatic masterpiece, so giving away spoilers or whatever, I don't
• 1:22:02
  think is that big of a deal with regard to the movie. But for
• 1:22:04
  some reason you're into that, you know, you might want to fast forward
• 1:22:08
  a little bit. But basically, the end of the movie felt very much
• 1:22:13
  to me like Mattell was holding a funeral for Barbie, at least the Barbie
• 1:22:18
  that we know her to be. And I don't know what that's going to
• 1:22:24
  look like in the future, but I did find it rather fascinating and telling
• 1:22:28
  from a marketing standpoint, and I'll be very curious to see what happens because
• 1:22:32
  of that. But I do not believe that the predictions of Barbie's imminent box
• 1:22:40
  office dramatic demise are going to be found to be true. I mean,
• 1:22:45
  I don't think it's going to do anywhere near as well on the second weekend
• 1:22:46
  as it did in the first weekend. But I do think that this movie
• 1:22:50
  is going to have legs because I don't think it's nearly as bad as many
• 1:22:56
  conservatives like Ben Shapiro have claimed it to be. All Right, now,
• 1:23:01
  there's several issues with regard to colleges and the insanity going on, especially at
• 1:23:06
  elite colleges, that I want a reference. I talked a lot about the
• 1:23:13
  Supreme Court decision on affirmative Action, allegedly ending affirmative action a few weeks ago.
• 1:23:18
  When that Supreme Court decision came down, my basic opinion about it was
• 1:23:23
  that this was overblown, that the universities, especially elite universities, are going
• 1:23:28
  to find ways around it. And I also talked at the time about how
• 1:23:33
  the liberal reaction to this is Okay, you take one of ours, We're
• 1:23:38
  going to take one of yours. Basically that if you're going to take away
• 1:23:41
  affirmative action, or at least try to, then we're going to take away
• 1:23:45
  legacy admissions from universities. And I talked extensively about that in a way that
• 1:23:50
  I don't think anyone else has, partially because I have a pretty unique experience
• 1:23:56
  in this area of legacy admissions, having been a legacy at Georgetown University,
• 1:24:02
  where both my parents attended, and being the first of four children who went
• 1:24:06
  to Georgetown, and they're now two grandchildren of my father who have gone to
• 1:24:13
  Georgetown, and so you know, and I have a very strong opinion about
• 1:24:17
  this. I mean, I'm well aware I would not have gotten into Georgetown,
• 1:24:21
  especially in the years that I went, because it was a super hot
• 1:24:24
  school at that point, because of Patrick Ewing and the basketball program and the
• 1:24:29
  Saint Almost Fire movie and all sorts of other things that were going on surrounding
• 1:24:32
  Georgetown. It was my graduating class was the two hundredth year of the school.
• 1:24:35
  I mean, it was literally the toughest year to get in, and
• 1:24:39
  I'm sure I would not have gotten in without being a legacy. But I
• 1:24:43
  am actually someone who believes that legacies are very, very important from a financial
• 1:24:48
  standpoint for a university because legacies almost always pay full freight, and that they
• 1:24:55
  subsidize the tuitions for people who are lower as socioeconomic categories, which are often
• 1:25:03
  minorities, which you would think that this is something liberals would be in favor
• 1:25:08
  of, but the media never tells this part of the story. They also
• 1:25:12
  diminish the community impact that it has on a school to be able to have
• 1:25:18
  children and grandchildren or relatives of past alumni, because it does in fact create
• 1:25:25
  a connection to the school, and that automatter, and so to me,
• 1:25:31
  legacies of well, there's a lot of corruption when it comes to legacies.
• 1:25:34
  I'll be the first to acknowledge that the school benefits and the students who don't
• 1:25:43
  pay full tuition benefit, and there are other benefits to legacies as well.
• 1:25:46
  But the liberals now they want revenge, and the Biden administration wants revenge on
• 1:25:54
  legacies, and the Education Department of Joe Biden has now opened and invest instigation.
• 1:26:00
  This is just hilarious to me into Harvard's legacy admissions. Now, first
• 1:26:08
  of all, I mean Harvard obviously the most prestigious undergraduate school in the country,
• 1:26:13
  very very, very liberal. They just had a Supreme Court decision against
• 1:26:18
  them, saying that they were too aggressive in providing minority admissions to the detriment
• 1:26:28
  of Asians and whites. So, the Supreme Court of the United States just
• 1:26:31
  found that Harvard has been using affirmative action to allow people of color, generally
• 1:26:40
  black people, to get in at higher rates than their qualifications would warrant,
• 1:26:46
  which is something of course liberals should be applauding, right even though they don't
• 1:26:50
  like the decision. Harvard was basically found by the US Supreme Court to have
• 1:26:56
  been acting far too much illegally in the direction that liberals like. And so
• 1:27:04
  what's their reward for this? Now, liberals the Biden administration are going after
• 1:27:11
  Harvard on the other end, for they are so called legacy admissions. So
• 1:27:15
  they can't win for losing the most prestigious, very liberal school of the country.
• 1:27:20
  They're going to attack by the Supreme Court for affirmative action. Now they're
• 1:27:25
  being attacked by the liberal Biden administration for legacy admissions. Here's the story from
• 1:27:30
  the Associated Press, opening a new front in legal battles over college admissions.
• 1:27:36
  The US Department of Education has launched a civil rights investigation into Harvard's policies on
• 1:27:43
  legacy admissions. Top colleges preferential treatment of children of alumni who are often white.
• 1:27:49
  Oh, oh my god, isn't that horrible that they're often white has
• 1:27:56
  faced mounting scrutiny since the Supreme Court last month struck on the use of affirmative
• 1:28:00
  action as a tool to boost the presence of students of color. The Department
• 1:28:04
  notified lawyers for civil rights and nonprofit based in Boston on Monday that it was
• 1:28:09
  investigating the group's claim that the university quote discruminates on the basis of race by
• 1:28:15
  using donor and legacy preferences in its undergraduate admissions process unquote. The White House
• 1:28:24
  Press Secretary Karen Jean Pierre said, President Joe Biden has quote made clear that
• 1:28:30
  legacy admissions hold back our ability to build diverse student bodies. That's just bullshit.
• 1:28:38
  That's exactly the opposite of the truth. Which I've already stayed and I'll
• 1:28:43
  get to again momentarily. The complaint was filed earlier this month on behalf of
• 1:28:47
  Black and Latino community groups in New England. The group argued that students with
• 1:28:53
  legacy ties are up to seven times more likely to be admitted to Harvard,
• 1:28:58
  can make up nearly a third of a class, and that about seventy percent
• 1:29:02
  are white. Oh my god, wait a minute, hold on, nearly
• 1:29:06
  seventy percent are white. That's almost the same percentage as the entire country is
• 1:29:15
  white. So what's the big stinking deal that about seventy percent of legacies are
• 1:29:21
  white. Of course, in the media's mind, based upon you know,
• 1:29:27
  what we see on television and in the media, they think that barely half
• 1:29:30
  the country is white. So maybe that's why they're confused to why seventy percent
• 1:29:34
  of legacies would be white. For the class of twenty nineteen, about twenty
• 1:29:40
  eight percent of the Harvard class where legacies where the parent or other relative who
• 1:29:45
  went to Harvard. Now, this is this is hilarious to me. And
• 1:29:55
  you know, one of the things that is really telling is that the article
• 1:29:59
  goes on talk about how there are other schools that have stopped that have stopped
• 1:30:05
  now at least officially, using being a legacy as part of the emissions process.
• 1:30:14
  And that is a classic example of something that might sound good to a
• 1:30:18
  liberal, but that in reality causes all sorts of problems because in the real
• 1:30:25
  world, here's what happens, all right, So if legacy is not part
• 1:30:30
  of the emissions process, you're not allowed to give any advantage to being a
• 1:30:34
  legacy. Inherently, in the real world, being a legacy will now be
• 1:30:41
  a disadvantage, not just to what it used to be, but because in
• 1:30:46
  the real world, admissions officers are gonna know, especially if the if the
• 1:30:51
  alumni is prominent, whether or not an applicant is a quote unquote legacy.
• 1:31:00
  And because it's now been barred to be an advantage, especially using the liberal
• 1:31:05
  mindset, now that person is less likely to be admitted than they would be
• 1:31:13
  if they weren't a legacy at all. Now that's speculation on my part,
• 1:31:16
  but that's informed and logical speculation. So you're going to create further discrimination against
• 1:31:27
  people who are the children of alumni of your school, which is completely insane
• 1:31:32
  and shatters the whole sense of community. It's also going to shatter fundraising.
• 1:31:39
  I mean, that's the part of this. It's not just about full freight
• 1:31:41
  tuition, it's about fundraising. Where the hell do you think these schools get
• 1:31:45
  all this money? And why do you think people give There are only three
• 1:31:50
  reasons to give big money to a school, right. Number one is ego,
• 1:31:56
  which is big and you know people love having their name on a building
• 1:32:00
  or whatever. Number two is the expectation that you're going to get some benefit
• 1:32:04
  with regard to either children or grandchildren, or relatives or close friends or children
• 1:32:13
  of close friends, that they're going to get some preference when it comes to
• 1:32:16
  admission into the school. And that absolutely positively, based upon my own experience,
• 1:32:21
  happens at least has been happening routinely, and the schools make big money
• 1:32:29
  from that, big money I have personally experienced and are very much aware of
• 1:32:36
  situations that we're basically quit pro quos where someone gives a couple million dollars to
• 1:32:43
  the school and la la their kids get into the school. And this is
• 1:32:48
  all done with a wink and a nod. And by the way, it
• 1:32:51
  should be pointed out, the kids are generally qualified. I want to make
• 1:32:57
  that clear. Very rarely have I seen a situation where somebody got in who
• 1:33:02
  was clearly not qualified. That only happens in sports, all right, That
• 1:33:06
  clearly happened to Georgetown during the eight day of our basketball program. Where this
• 1:33:13
  happens at every major sports institution, football, basketball, whatever, where that's
• 1:33:17
  an area where you're absolutely going to get kids in that have no business being
• 1:33:23
  in if they were not sports stars. But when it comes to legacies,
• 1:33:28
  legacies are not asking for kids to get into a school that have no business
• 1:33:32
  being in, that aren't qualified. Here's what they're asking for. They're asking
• 1:33:38
  for their kid who is qualified, to not be lost in this vast batch
• 1:33:45
  of people who are basically in the same boat of the same level of qualifications.
• 1:33:50
  And so that's what happens. So if you give money to the school,
• 1:33:55
  guess what's going to happen. Your application will get preferential treatment, it
• 1:34:00
  will not be overlooked, and your qualifications, if they meet a certain criteria,
• 1:34:05
  will be deemed worthy of admission. And everybody wins. Here, everybody
• 1:34:12
  wins. The school gets a lot of money. By the way, the
• 1:34:15
  school then gets a full freight tuition and they're able to subsidize the tuition of
• 1:34:20
  people with lesser means. That's the way this works. And but the liberals
• 1:34:28
  don't get this, and no one seems to be prepared for the ramifications of
• 1:34:32
  this, and it's not going to take much. It may have already happened
• 1:34:36
  by the way that scandal from a few years ago, you know, I'm
• 1:34:42
  getting some indications has radically altered the emissions process for legacies that a lot of
• 1:34:48
  these schools are at least for rich people at a lot of these schools because
• 1:34:53
  of all the backlash that occurred there. And I've said before that that whole
• 1:34:57
  scandal never made any damn sense to me, because if you just gave the
• 1:35:00
  money directly to the school and not to some coach to fate that your kid
• 1:35:05
  was an athlete, you would have gotten them in any way. But things
• 1:35:11
  are changing. It doesn't take much to create a chilling effect, especially when
• 1:35:15
  you're dealing with liberals on these admissions teams, that all of a sudden the
• 1:35:19
  rules are going to change. But the rules changing, and with the Biden
• 1:35:24
  administration leading the charge here, the people that are going to suffer. The
• 1:35:28
  people are going to suffer most are those poor kids because eventually they're not going
• 1:35:33
  to have as much money to subsidize their education. And this is the number
• 1:35:40
  one thing that people do not get in the media. Never reports regarding legacy
• 1:35:45
  admissions that it is very good for the entire process, especially from a financial
• 1:35:51
  standpoint, and I would argue that it's good culturally for the university as well.
• 1:35:56
  Now I want to be I am not being naive about this. You
• 1:36:00
  know, has there been corruption on this issue? One hundred percent? You
• 1:36:04
  know I I to this day this is a whole no story for another day.
• 1:36:09
  But what my freshman year at Georgetown. My my freshman floor was so
• 1:36:15
  rowdy, so insane, so destructive, um that I thought, oh my
• 1:36:21
  god, this is you know that college is like animal house every single night.
• 1:36:26
  And it wasn't until through the end of the first semester that the entire
• 1:36:30
  floor got called in by some dean to ream us out, telling us that
• 1:36:36
  there's never been a worse floor in the history of Georgetown than my floor.
• 1:36:42
  And I thought, oh my god, this is actually good. So now
• 1:36:44
  I realized this isn't normal, because I thought this is insane. My floor
• 1:36:48
  was nuts. Well, I also came to realize that almost everyone on my
• 1:36:54
  floor had some level of legacy related to their admission, and I thought,
• 1:37:00
  this can't be a coincidence. It's like they put all the legacies on the
• 1:37:03
  same floor. And you know, I think clearly that that created an atmosphere
• 1:37:09
  that was not conducive to a productive college environment. I doubt that that's the
• 1:37:14
  same way today. I mean, that was back in the in the mid
• 1:37:16
  eighties. But so I'm not naive about this. You know, the pendulum
• 1:37:23
  always swings back and forth. There's a proper place for this, and now,
• 1:37:27
  of course the especially if it's used properly, but the Biden administration,
• 1:37:31
  basically in political retribution, wants to attack rich people. And interestingly that there
• 1:37:39
  was a study out this week about elite college admissions data with regard to economic
• 1:37:46
  status, and this was also fascinating, and of course the liberal media completely
• 1:37:51
  distorted and manipulated these results because these results were exactly as I would have predicted
• 1:37:59
  them to be. One headline, elite colleges admit the highest income applicants at
• 1:38:03
  much higher rates due to legacies, athlete athlete preferences, private school advantages,
• 1:38:11
  and better non academic ratings. And again, whenever I go into these studies,
• 1:38:16
  you know how much time do I want to spend on and I don't
• 1:38:18
  want to get too much into the details. This story is actually pretty easy
• 1:38:23
  to summarize because there was a chart, and then the New York Times and
• 1:38:28
  Washington Post and other media outlets very prominently reported this, and in fact they
• 1:38:33
  use the chart because the chart is amazing. The chart basically has a red
• 1:38:39
  line that shows the admission levels for different economic statuses, and then the red
• 1:38:48
  line either goes above or below what would have been expected to be the admissions
• 1:38:57
  percentages for that group if everything was normal, And the bottom line is this
• 1:39:04
  that guess what if you are at sixty percent or below, If you were
• 1:39:11
  in the sixty percent tile or below when it comes to economics, in other
• 1:39:14
  words, you are either middle class or lower middle class or poor, you
• 1:39:18
  have a better chance to gain admission to an elite college than you would normally
• 1:39:26
  if it was average then the average person based upon your credentials. So being
• 1:39:32
  economically disadvantaged is an advantage to admission to elite to elite colleges up until about
• 1:39:42
  sixty sixty five percent tile when it comes to economics, and then that red
• 1:39:48
  line dips below average and these are the people that are really getting screwed.
• 1:39:54
  The people really getting screwed are those in the seventy to the ninety five percent
• 1:40:00
  tile when it comes to economics, being in the seventy percent to ninety five
• 1:40:05
  in other words, upper middle class or you could argue rich in many cases
• 1:40:12
  but not super rich. Those people get in less often than they would if
• 1:40:17
  everything else was equal. They're the ones getting screwed, and by the way,
• 1:40:23
  they're getting screwed in every possible way because those people are generally paying almost
• 1:40:29
  full freight for their tuition, if not full freight, and so they pay
• 1:40:33
  the most. It's the most difficult to get in, and they have They're
• 1:40:39
  actually being punished. Parents are being punished for their own achievement in life,
• 1:40:45
  and other kids are actually being rewarded because their parents have not done as well
• 1:40:53
  economically. And then at the end of the chart comes the top two percent,
• 1:40:58
  the ninety nine percent one hundred percent tile when it comes to wealth,
• 1:41:02
  the super rich, and then the red line skyrockets that your chances of getting
• 1:41:10
  into an elite university are much much better if you are in the super rich
• 1:41:15
  class. Well why would that be Well, because the super rich class has
• 1:41:19
  very likely given money to the school, either as an alumnus or as just
• 1:41:26
  a friend of the university, someone who has targeted that university is a place
• 1:41:30
  that their children might want to go, or they go to super elite prep
• 1:41:36
  schools that have pipelines for years and years and years into these elite schools,
• 1:41:43
  and that of course costs money. Obviously, rich people can can buy the
• 1:41:48
  best preparation for the applications. Maybe the most surprising part I did see some
• 1:41:54
  comment on Twitter about this would be the most surprising part of this is that
• 1:41:58
  they found that athlete preferences. I'm not sure I understand the nature of that
• 1:42:03
  phrasing, but you know, what they found was then in the non you
• 1:42:09
  know, money sports, non basketball, non football sports, that athletes tended
• 1:42:15
  to come at these elite schools from the super rich category, and that that
• 1:42:19
  also helped in admission at these elite schools. I don't know what to make
• 1:42:26
  of that. I'm a little bit surprised by that. It might be distorted
• 1:42:28
  because of sports like lacrosse or golf for tennis perceived as rich people's sports.
• 1:42:36
  But I think it's an important part of this because this is not based totally
• 1:42:42
  in money. Some of it's based in merit, and we're really in a
• 1:42:46
  very dangerous point now where we're punishing merit. And in the really big picture
• 1:42:51
  of this study, which was portrayed as almost scandalous by the New York Times
• 1:42:57
  that oh my god, can you see how the rich people have such a
• 1:43:01
  big advantage when it comes to admissions? Well, so are we gonna then
• 1:43:06
  eliminate the advantage that parents have created for their kids by presumably in most cases,
• 1:43:15
  in at least cases where they haven't inherited the money themselves, they've worked
• 1:43:18
  their asses off in large part so that their kids could have an advantage when
• 1:43:25
  it comes to their own educations. I mean, that's a big part of
• 1:43:29
  why parents do what they do. It's a big part of why people try
• 1:43:32
  to make money, is so that their kids can have an advantage, a
• 1:43:38
  leg up when it comes to things like college admissions. And so we're in
• 1:43:44
  really dangerous territory here. And I think the schools, if they go down
• 1:43:48
  this path as far as they're claiming they're gonna go, they're gonna rue the
• 1:43:53
  day, They're gonna rue the day financially. And also it's unfair and I
• 1:43:57
  also think that possibly, and this is the ultimate solution to this. I
• 1:44:00
  mean, I've been hoping that maybe the one good thing that came out of
• 1:44:04
  COVID is that people would start to realize what bullshit a lead education is.
• 1:44:10
  I mean, if you can just cancel it and go on zoom, then
• 1:44:13
  obviously what you're paying for isn't worth very much, and it doesn't mean very
• 1:44:16
  much that eventually the entire academic bubble is going to implode, because there is
• 1:44:21
  nothing that's more overpriced right now than a lead academia, nothing, especially when
• 1:44:29
  it comes to liberal arts, which is basically worthless in today's world when it
• 1:44:32
  comes to actually getting a job. So that's my hope. I hope they
• 1:44:38
  overplay their hand here, even though in the short run a lot of injustice
• 1:44:42
  will happen. But I hope they overplay their hand to the point where,
• 1:44:46
  you know, this ends up indirectly causing this implosion in academia that I've been
• 1:44:51
  predicting for quite a while, because, I mean, there is no bigger
• 1:44:56
  bubble than that one. It is obvious, but this this entire concept of
• 1:45:02
  demeaning the rich. You know, when you demean the rich, Yes,
• 1:45:06
  there are a few situations where people did nothing to become rich. But you're
• 1:45:11
  also demeaning achievement. You're in many cases, you're demeaning hard work. You're
• 1:45:15
  punishing hard work, and that's wrong. That's an American. It goes at
• 1:45:23
  the heart of what America has been and a large part of why people try
• 1:45:30
  to achieve is to help their kids. And if you take that away,
• 1:45:35
  then you're really playing with fire. And I think they're going to be many,
• 1:45:40
  many, very negative implications to that. But of course, another reason
• 1:45:44
  why elite colleges and elite academy auto implode is it it's a bastion for insanity.
• 1:45:50
  That's what it is. I mean, it was bad when I was
• 1:45:54
  there, but it's gotten ten times worse at elite schools. It's not just
• 1:45:59
  the wokeness. I mean, the ultimate proof of this is what's happened with
• 1:46:02
  their guard to the percentage of students at elite schools who call themselves LBGT.
• 1:46:10
  This is astonishing and it ought to be mocked. This is an article from
• 1:46:14
  The Blaze summarizing an article from The New York Post. The Blaze, with
• 1:46:18
  conservative media outlet, wrote that most Ivy League schools have LGBT rates that far
• 1:46:26
  surpass national averages according to the latest polling numbers by the educational institutions themselves.
• 1:46:32
  This is from data from the schools themselves. Brown University, an Ivy League
• 1:46:38
  school, made headlines in early July of twenty twenty three when it reported that
• 1:46:43
  thirty eight percent of its student body identified with a sexuality other than straight,
• 1:46:48
  thirty eight percent, doubling its numbers from twenty ten, far above the national
• 1:46:56
  numbers for Generation Z, which is nineteen nine two thousand and four, which
• 1:47:00
  Gallop determined to be almost twenty percent, which is still insanely high given historical
• 1:47:08
  averages. Ad to a review of five other Ivy League schools self reported numbers,
• 1:47:15
  Brown is not an anomaly by any stretch of the imagination, but is
• 1:47:19
  indeed a front runner. By the way, I do think this is a
• 1:47:23
  race there stus seem to be a race among the IVY League schools, elite
• 1:47:27
  schools when it comes to signaling one's virtue via what percentage of students are not
• 1:47:33
  straight? By the way, that's going to be the next battle when it
• 1:47:38
  comes to affirmative action, because you know, it seems like this is a
• 1:47:42
  point of pride. So if you can somehow get on your application that you're
• 1:47:45
  not straight, which sure isn't that difficult, that's probably going to be the
• 1:47:49
  next thing that's managed. So look out for that as we go into the
• 1:47:55
  future. That'll be a future a Supreme Court case, I'm sure to the
• 1:48:00
  article. As reported by The New York Post, numbers have soared at the
• 1:48:03
  once prestigious institutions, which now routinely published their gender and sexuality censuses as a
• 1:48:11
  point of pride. The Daily Princetonian from Princeton University reported shockingly high numbers similar
• 1:48:17
  to Brown University. The school's bisexual, quote unquote, queer, gay,
• 1:48:24
  asexual, lesbian, unsure, and pan sexual numbers represented more than thirty five
• 1:48:30
  percent of the school's respondents. According to Yale Daily News, Yale University,
• 1:48:38
  around twenty nine percent of its responding student body identified as something other than straight,
• 1:48:43
  as the school boasted that it quote welcomed the largest and most diverse class
• 1:48:47
  in university history. More specifically, fourteen percent said they were bisexual, six
• 1:48:54
  percent gay or lesbian, eight percent we're questioning, and one percent we're just
• 1:48:59
  asexual. They just had no interest at all insects politically seventy four percent characterized
• 1:49:05
  them selves as leaning left politically seventy four percent. Over At Harvard, the
• 1:49:13
  twenty twenty three class had about a twenty one percent non straight population, according
• 1:49:18
  to the Harvard Crimson, But the school was ready to outdo itself, as
• 1:49:23
  the class of twenty twenty five will increase that number to twenty nine percent.
• 1:49:28
  How do they know that? Clearly it's affirmative action by sexuality, or at
• 1:49:33
  least self reported sexuality. That rate is more than eighteen percent of an increase
• 1:49:40
  from the class of twenty seventeen, which was represented by an eighty nine point
• 1:49:45
  nine percent straight STU student body. Imagine that in twenty seventeen, ninety percent
• 1:49:51
  of the Harvard class was straight, and now they think that that number will
• 1:49:58
  go down to about seventy in twenty twenty five. That's less than a decade.
• 1:50:04
  That can't be because of human evolution and somehow this becoming a thing From
• 1:50:11
  a science standpoint, this is a political contagion, proven by the fact that
• 1:50:16
  the overwhelming number of these students are liberal. By the way, if it
• 1:50:19
  becomes well known that this is a huge advantage in admissions, guess what's going
• 1:50:26
  to happen. Everyone's going to pretend to be gay or lesbian, or bisexual
• 1:50:31
  or whatever the hell they floats their boat when it comes to getting into Harvard,
• 1:50:35
  Yale or Princeton. I mean, you just can't make the stuff up
• 1:50:40
  and it should be mocked, and instead the media just goes along with it.
• 1:50:43
  Oh, nothing really to see here, That's just amazing thing. I
• 1:50:45
  guess these students just feel more comfortable now being who they really are. No,
• 1:50:50
  they're making this up. It's a social contagion. It's not based in
• 1:50:55
  reality. It's based mostly in mental illness. And that doesn't stop the State
• 1:51:00
  of California. This is amazing. The State of California has now increased the
• 1:51:05
  number of other states where where state funded travel is illegal. It's against the
• 1:51:15
  law for state funded travel to occur in states that California has deemed to be
• 1:51:21
  against the LGBTQ RS to UVWXYZ agenda. I'm not making this up. This
• 1:51:30
  is a statement from the Attorney General of California about this travel ban that was
• 1:51:36
  passed by the state legislature and signed by King Gavinussom. The recent passage of
• 1:51:44
  anti LBGTQ plus legislation is part of a concerning trend of discriminatory practices in states
• 1:51:51
  across the country, aiming to roll back hard won protections. Many of these
• 1:51:58
  laws specifically target and marginalize transgender youth by preventing them from participating in sports in
• 1:52:08
  accordance with their gender identity, as well as restricting access to critical gender affirming
• 1:52:15
  healthcare services. The travel restrictions announced are mandated by California Assembly Bill eighteen eighty
• 1:52:23
  seven. Now, that's astonishing what was just said there. In order to
• 1:52:28
  justify this travel band, the Attorney General California is claiming that it is discriminatory
• 1:52:34
  against LBGTQ plus people to prevent biological males from playing sports against biological females.
• 1:52:49
  That's discriminatory, which is insane. Order. In other words, somehow it's
• 1:52:58
  discriminatory to allow biological females to only have to compete against other biological females.
• 1:53:05
  That's not discriminatory. That is turning the world on its head on its axis
• 1:53:12
  to try to pretend that something is discriminatory when in fact you're just preventing an
• 1:53:19
  injustice from occurring. That's that's not a right, that would be a privilege
• 1:53:27
  to be able to compete in female sports, a privilege that you get by
• 1:53:30
  being born biologically as a female. And maybe even more insane than that is
• 1:53:36
  the idea that gender restricting access to critical gender affirming healthcare services is discriminatory.
• 1:53:48
  Wait a minute, let's talk about what we're really discussing here. That miners
• 1:53:54
  would be prevented by some of these states from engaging surgeries that mutilate their bodies
• 1:54:02
  permanently, That would is a situation where they may very likely regret it in
• 1:54:10
  the long run, where they're not old enough to be able to make that
• 1:54:14
  decision for themselves. And let's be clear, I mean they're not allowed to
• 1:54:17
  vote, they're not allowed to drink, they're not allowed to smoke. There's
• 1:54:20
  all sorts of things they're not allowed to do under the law. No one
• 1:54:24
  thinks that's discriminatory. Will getting their genitals ripped off? You know, It
• 1:54:31
  certainly is not a stretch to add to that list that you would have to
• 1:54:34
  be a certain age for that to happen. But somehow, in the distorted
• 1:54:39
  mind of the woke insanity of California, if you are a state that has
• 1:54:45
  passed a law protecting children from being manipulated into mutilating or having their their genitals
• 1:54:51
  mutilated by a doctor, or if you're in a state that has protected female
• 1:54:57
  athletes from having to compete against biological man you are discriminatory and to the point
• 1:55:03
  where we are not going to allow state funded travel to your state. And
• 1:55:09
  of course there's no plowbok back at all. Again, it's California for doing
• 1:55:13
  this, they get nothing but applause here in California. From a logistical standpoint,
• 1:55:17
  you know, I have not been able to figure out how this isn't
• 1:55:20
  going to impact sports like college sports like at UCLA, which is a state
• 1:55:28
  school. There are other state schools obviously they play outside of California, but
• 1:55:30
  UCLA is the most prominent. How the hell was UCLA going to be able
• 1:55:35
  to play against Arizona, which they still do because the Pac twelve still exists
• 1:55:40
  this year, or in Indiana once they joined the Big Ten next year,
• 1:55:45
  which is on the state list that are where travel is banned from California.
• 1:55:50
  How's that going to work? I mean there must be some exemption to this.
• 1:55:55
  Of course, the travel involving UCLA and another schools, to me,
• 1:56:00
  has always been a smoking gun to what bullshit even California government knows the entire
• 1:56:06
  carbon footprint issue to be because by UCLA and USC going into the Big Ten.
• 1:56:13
  I'm the only person I know of it's prominently mentioned this. I did
• 1:56:15
  so previously on the podcast when this happened, changing UCLA and USC to going
• 1:56:20
  into the Big Ten conference, which will happen next year, which is just
• 1:56:24
  insane from a sports history perspective, is the biggest smoking gun ever that the
• 1:56:30
  whole carbon neutrality issue is bullshit because the carbon footprint for UCLA and USC is
• 1:56:36
  going to explode as all these sports teams have to travel to New Jersey in
• 1:56:42
  Pennsylvania and Michigan and Ohio and back and forth. And by the way,
• 1:56:46
  all those schools have to travel to California and back and forth, We'll guess
• 1:56:49
  what's going to happen to their carbon footprint. It's going to explode. But
• 1:56:53
  no one even raised the issue because no one cares. Well. I don't
• 1:56:56
  know how the lbgt Q plus issue was going to relate to this, but
• 1:57:00
  it certainly would be hypocritical if they would be allowed to play sports in those
• 1:57:04
  states, as insane as it is. But I have not heard any clarification
• 1:57:11
  on that with regard to college sports, I do want to at least mention
• 1:57:14
  briefly what's going on at Northwestern and the football program and the football coach and
• 1:57:19
  the baseball coach who both got fired there over what seemed to me to be
• 1:57:24
  bogus PC media led firestorms Northwestern of very woke school just outside of college.
• 1:57:31
  It's part of the Big Ten. It's you know, from an academic standpoint,
• 1:57:35
  it's almost Ivy League. Pat Fitzgerald was a good guy who got railroaded
• 1:57:41
  over this hazing situation that then somehow turned into a racial circumstance, which is
• 1:57:45
  is completely insane and absurd. I mean, the idea that the sports media,
• 1:57:49
  led by ESPN, can pretend that a guy that they've known for thirty
• 1:57:53
  years, praised for thirty years, could possibly be elite football coach and a
• 1:58:01
  football player at a Big Ten school just outside of Chicago and could possibly be
• 1:58:08
  racist is just insane. It's absurd, it's asinine, it's not possible.
• 1:58:14
  And yet now we're pretending that because some former players saw the blood in the
• 1:58:19
  water and they see the chance of getting free money. And now there's been,
• 1:58:24
  just as I predicted, lawsuits all over the place. Former football players
• 1:58:29
  are suing Northwestern. They're even athletes from other sports that are now suing Northwestern
• 1:58:33
  because they see the blood in the water. They've see what happened at Penn
• 1:58:36
  State, they see what happened at Ohio State with wrestling. They saw what
• 1:58:41
  happened at Michigan with a bullshit story involving Boschem Beckler. They saw what happened
• 1:58:45
  at Michigan State with Larry Nasser, who was guilty as hell, but I
• 1:58:48
  don't think Michigan State had anything to do with that. And so these are
• 1:58:51
  all schools from the same conference and now they're getting theirs and the lawyers are
• 1:58:58
  involved. We've seen lawyers advertise rising online. Have you played sports at Northwestern?
• 1:59:02
  You come see me. We got free money for you. And this
• 1:59:06
  is how this works, and the sports media falls for it every single time.
• 1:59:11
  They never consider the idea that, you know what, this could be
• 1:59:14
  a money grab, that maybe we've seen a situation where previously money has been
• 1:59:19
  spent by other schools in the same conference, and that therefore, you know,
• 1:59:25
  maybe people are just going for the money here. Maybe this story doesn't
• 1:59:28
  make any sense, maybe there's no real evidence for it. No, no,
• 1:59:31
  there's none of that, nothing at all to push back against all this,
• 1:59:36
  and in fact, it seems to be getting worse to going out to
• 1:59:40
  the Northwestern athletic director. I mean, they're trying to bring everybody down over
• 1:59:45
  the allegation that began with one person who's unknown, who multiple people said had
• 1:59:51
  an agenda against Pat Fitzgerald to get revenge against them. And this is why
• 1:59:58
  I can't stand anonymous claims, which the media is because they think they're protecting
• 2:00:02
  alleged abuse victims. But your identity makes a huge difference in these kind of
• 2:00:08
  situations because we can see what your motivation is. We can see, for
• 2:00:12
  instance, were you perceived as being mistreated by the football coach, did you
• 2:00:15
  have a bad experience at Northwestern? Do you have a motivation for revenge?
• 2:00:20
  The media sees none of this because there are a bunch of morons or they're
• 2:00:24
  afraid to push back against the PC narrative, and Northwestern is getting fried because
• 2:00:29
  of it. And I'm sure that lots of money is going to be paid
• 2:00:30
  out to people who have absolutely no right to it whatsoever. Somewhat related to
• 2:00:38
  this, it should be pointed out that actor Kevin Spacey has now just been
• 2:00:43
  found not guilty on all counts with regarding sex abuse charges in the United Kingdom.
• 2:00:48
  Kevin Spacey, whose career was basically destroyed by allegations of sex abuse as
• 2:00:54
  a gay man, he very clumsily and I think stupidly, tried to use
• 2:00:59
  the gay card early on in those allegations to wrap himself in his homosexuality is
• 2:01:04
  somehow that would be a protection against allegations of sex abuse. But as it
• 2:01:11
  has now turned out, none of these have passed muster when it comes to
• 2:01:16
  the legal process, and it seems to me, at least legally, that
• 2:01:20
  Kevin Spacey has been vindicated. Now. I don't know the truth of what
• 2:01:25
  did or did not happen. I know that several of these episodes were very
• 2:01:30
  suspect to begin with. But this is a guy who is a very good
• 2:01:33
  actor, esteemed actor, had his career completely destroyed because of this. And
• 2:01:39
  now despite there being all this potential money on the table, all these investigations,
• 2:01:45
  all these charges, all these lawsuits, and to this day, nothing
• 2:01:49
  has stuck except for the destruction of his career. And this is the world
• 2:01:55
  we're now living in. And if it can happen to Kevin Spacey, who
• 2:01:59
  happens to be gay and was a media darling until all this. It can
• 2:02:02
  happen almost anybody, and you know they're going to try to do the same
• 2:02:06
  thing with Michael Jackson way after his death. It looks like we'll find out
• 2:02:11
  as of this taping, probably in the next few days, whether or not
• 2:02:15
  that ridiculous trial is going to go on with Wade Robson and James Safechuck who
• 2:02:18
  have completely bogus claims against Michael Jackson that are totally motivated by money, and
• 2:02:24
  you know, it's a billion dollar plus lawsuit that may now be going to
• 2:02:28
  trial here in the Los Angeles area, which I'll be very interested and I'm
• 2:02:31
  actually hoping for it because at a trial, I think these guys would be
• 2:02:34
  exposed for the frauds that they are in, the frauds that people who make
• 2:02:38
  these types of allegations so often are. That'll do it for this episode of
• 2:02:43
  the podcast, episode number seventy six, As is always the case, please
• 2:02:45
  remember to subscribe, rate and review and share it with others. Have you
• 2:02:48
  shared on social media, Please tag me and I'll share it as well with
• 2:02:51
  my followers on Twitter friends on Facebook. What have you until next time.
• 2:02:56
  Thanks so much for listening. My name is John Szigler. This is the
• 2:02:59
  death of Jurnalism podcasts.