Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / Elon Musk, RFK, Jordan Peterson, Tulsi Gabbard, Bret Weinstein discuss Trump 2024 Election

Transcript

Elon Musk, RFK, Jordan Peterson, Tulsi Gabbard, Bret Weinstein discuss Trump 2024 Election · Brett Keane and Eve Show

• 0:00
  It'd be very exciting for me to contemplate a department of
• 0:03
  efficiency headed by Elon Musk, because Musk has demonstrated
• 0:06
  repeatedly that he can take dysfunctional organizations and
• 0:10
  do the necessary things to reconstitute them and make them
• 0:13
  run properly. Elon has talked about an
• 0:16
  assassination attempt and it's one of the first things he said
• 0:19
  when he came on Myspace the first time or the second time
• 0:22
  and was his concern for his life.
• 0:25
  A lot has changed since we last spoke.
• 0:28
  I think it was in Austin. Obviously you got a lot more
• 0:30
  security. Thankfully the former president
• 0:32
  was almost assassinated and you've obviously endorsed him
• 0:36
  afterwards and hopefully will join his cabinet, so it's it's
• 0:39
  good to have you back. Thank you for having me.
• 0:41
  And just a little correction. I did have Secret Service
• 0:44
  briefly, but the day that I endorsed President Trump, they
• 0:47
  took it away. Is that part of the procedure?
• 0:49
  I don't know what the rules are. You're still a candidate, so
• 0:52
  they shouldn't be taking away because you're still a candidate
• 0:54
  as far as I'm aware. Yes.
• 0:55
  Yeah, I'm still a candidate. I have suspended the campaign,
• 1:00
  I've terminated it, but they gave me a particular kind of
• 1:04
  Secret Service protection. They gave it to me under
• 1:06
  Executive Warrior. So instead of giving me what
• 1:09
  anybody else would have gotten, which is the statutory Secret
• 1:12
  Service protection, they gave me a kind that they could limit the
• 1:17
  protection I got and then terminate it anytime they
• 1:20
  wanted. And as soon as I gave them the
• 1:23
  opportunity, they took it. I tell you, Mario, I am going to
• 1:26
  be with the president if you and.
• 1:28
  And I have. Been around service presidents
• 1:30
  for many years. I have never seen the Secret
• 1:34
  Service do what they're doing for the president today at the
• 1:38
  event. I'm about to attend.
• 1:39
  It is locked down and I think Kennedy.
• 1:43
  Should have that kind of security, especially when he
• 1:47
  has, according to them, betrayed them and started to support the
• 1:52
  unthinkable evil of Donald. Trump, I think.
• 1:56
  Robert F Kennedy is in more danger today.
• 1:59
  Than he was when he was running on his own.
• 2:01
  And just because he's a Kennedy, he was already in.
• 2:05
  One thing that shocks me in like just seeing the concentrated
• 2:08
  efforts from the Democrats, instead of trying to reach out
• 2:11
  to you and get you on their side, they've done the complete
• 2:14
  opposite. You know, the way they've
• 2:15
  censored you, the way they've tried to assassinate your
• 2:18
  character, something we talked about last time.
• 2:20
  I remember listening to your speech endorsing President Trump
• 2:23
  and CNN just cut through in the middle when it started getting
• 2:26
  interesting, when he started criticizing the Kamala
• 2:28
  presidency. That to me is very surprising.
• 2:31
  Like from a strategic perspective, what is going on
• 2:34
  through their head if they want Kamala to be president, the way
• 2:38
  they've treated you does not make any strategic sense.
• 2:41
  Yeah. I don't think they're strategic
• 2:44
  in anything that they do. I mean, I'm looking at what
• 2:46
  they're doing. Can you hear me?
• 2:47
  Yes, that's Rosanne. Roseanne was reacting to you.
• 2:50
  She can hear you. We can all hear you.
• 2:52
  Yeah. Look what they're doing with the
• 2:53
  Ukraine war right now, which is to allow Ukraine to shoot
• 2:58
  missiles into Russia and to encourage them to invade Russia.
• 3:01
  What is the strategic goal in that?
• 3:04
  Is it to create World War Three? Because the Ukraine is not going
• 3:08
  to eat Russia. They're losing all of their
• 3:11
  strategic things that they've done in the campaign outside the
• 3:14
  campaign. It's all about one level or
• 3:17
  another, command and control. And that's what's happened to
• 3:19
  the Democratic Party. So now what we're seeing, not
• 3:22
  sure if you can hear Mr. Kennedy, Sarah or David or just
• 3:24
  cut out. But one thing that that if you
• 3:26
  can hear him, David or Sarah, let me know.
• 3:28
  Can you hear Mr. Kennedy, or just.
• 3:29
  Cut out. No, he's cut out.
• 3:31
  Yeah, yeah, I've cut out, Mr. Kennedy.
• 3:32
  You've just cut out. I'll just send you an invite
• 3:33
  again. Oh, you're back.
• 3:34
  You're back now, Mr. Kennedy, But I want you to focus a bit
• 3:36
  more on the news we're seeing in Russia.
• 3:37
  I think this is barely anyone's talking about.
• 3:40
  Everyone's talking about the news, what's happening in Ohio,
• 3:42
  etcetera, all the the the migrant crisis, which is
• 3:44
  obviously extremely important. But one thing that's happening
• 3:47
  that no one's talking about is now we've got NATO weapons that
• 3:51
  will potentially be used to strike deep into Russian
• 3:53
  territory. That was unimaginable less than
• 3:56
  a year ago. How are we heading there?
• 3:59
  And what would happen if we do get a Camel administration?
• 4:02
  Where is that warheading in your opinion?
• 4:04
  Well, I don't think that President Trump did really right
• 4:07
  during the debate as he pointed out something that didn't get
• 4:09
  any attention, which is the role that Kamala Harris has played in
• 4:14
  the Ukraine war from the beginning, Her state and, you
• 4:16
  know, she went over to Germany and he told this story and
• 4:19
  announced that NATO was going into Ukraine no matter what.
• 4:23
  And that is the red line that the Russians said that it's not
• 4:27
  just Putin. Since Gorbachev, since 1992, the
• 4:31
  Russians have said you can't do that.
• 4:33
  This is a critical national security red line for us.
• 4:36
  We've been invaded three times through Ukraine.
• 4:39
  The last time we were invaded by Hitler, Hitler killed one out of
• 4:42
  every seven Russians. We're not going to allow you to
• 4:45
  put missile systems, Tomahawk missiles in Ukraine. 3 1/2
• 4:49
  minutes from delivering a nuclear warhead to Moscow and
• 4:53
  decapitating the entire Korean leadership in 3 1/2 minutes.
• 4:57
  Ukraine for territorial ambition because the beginning of its
• 5:00
  takeover of Europe. It's complete baloney.
• 5:03
  He invaded for security reasons and he was clear about that from
• 5:07
  the beginning that he could not tolerate an adversary army with
• 5:12
  a country that shares a 2100 mile border and that is 3 1/2
• 5:16
  minutes by rocket from Moscow. And we wouldn't either when my
• 5:20
  uncle saw the missiles going to Cuba.
• 5:23
  And I think we would have invaded Cuba and had a war in
• 5:27
  order to make sure that's not going to what didn't happen.
• 5:30
  And with the in the end the my uncle realized something he said
• 5:34
  the Russians did not put this in here as an unprovoked
• 5:37
  aggression. They didn't put the missiles in
• 5:39
  Cuba, the missiles in Cuba out of unprovoked aggression.
• 5:43
  They put them in there because we had Jupiter missiles on the
• 5:47
  border of Russia with Turkey and he made a secret deal with
• 5:50
  Khrushchev. All removed the American
• 5:53
  missiles from your border. You would remove the Russian
• 5:56
  missiles from my border. And I want to ask him a a
• 5:59
  question, you know, he's talking about his his uncle.
• 6:02
  And there's. Pretty.
• 6:04
  Good speculation that the military industrial complex was,
• 6:08
  you know, wanting him to die. JFK because of his stance on de
• 6:15
  escalation. And I see the same thing
• 6:17
  happening now. I see the military industrial
• 6:21
  complex cause so many conservatives have at least
• 6:24
  learned the lesson of these endless wars don't do anything
• 6:29
  but make more enemies. And so the conservatives and the
• 6:33
  constitutionalists are now saying, I'm not interested in
• 6:37
  any of that. And now the military industrial
• 6:39
  complex has moved over to the Democratic Party.
• 6:42
  They sound like war mongers. And I think they are going to
• 6:46
  start this War One way or another, whether Donald Trump is
• 6:50
  elected or not. It may happen in days, if not
• 6:54
  weeks or months. And I'm wondering if he sees the
• 6:57
  parallel between his uncle and Donald Trump in these days.
• 7:03
  It it feels the same. Yeah.
• 7:05
  Can you hear me? Yes, we can.
• 7:07
  Yes, yes. All right, I don't know if you
• 7:09
  heard what I was saying, but the same thing happened in 1963
• 7:12
  during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We Powell that that.
• 7:15
  Role for all of these years. Now we're putting missiles on
• 7:19
  the Russian border. We're in.
• 7:20
  We promised in 62 when the Russians took down the walls
• 7:23
  that allowed us to reunite Germany under a NATO army.
• 7:26
  They moved out 450 Russian troops from their base and NATO
• 7:30
  troops moved in. So it was this extraordinary
• 7:33
  historic concession. And one thing Gorbachev said is
• 7:36
  I'm going to allow this, but I need a promise from John Major,
• 7:40
  from George Bush, from the European leader.
• 7:41
  She will never move NATO further to the east.
• 7:44
  James Baker, the Secretary of State, famously promised
• 7:48
  Gorbachev we will not move NATO one inch to the east.
• 7:51
  Well, since then we've moved in 1000 miles to the east.
• 7:55
  We've taken over 14 countries. And of course the Russians feel
• 7:59
  threatened. This is a security issue and
• 8:01
  this is not what we're being told it.
• 8:03
  And I don't think the Russians will use an I think the the
• 8:07
  reason they wouldn't. They've got better nuclear
• 8:09
  weapons than us. They've got 1200 more warheads
• 8:12
  and missiles than us. Their electronic warfare is a
• 8:15
  generation of headquarters, which means their capacity to
• 8:19
  bend themselves against US missiles is much better than
• 8:22
  what we have. I think they're more restrained
• 8:25
  and they're the adults in the rain at this point.
• 8:28
  Gorbachev or Putin has said if we get hit with a NATO missile,
• 8:32
  it is an act of war and we are now at war with NATO.
• 8:36
  So this isn't been fake. There's 100 things that he can
• 8:39
  do now in non conventional warfare that will absolutely
• 8:44
  devastate our country. They have these extraordinary
• 8:47
  electronic warfare capability which will bring our country and
• 8:50
  our economy to a halt. It can do what essentially what
• 8:53
  we did to them with the North Stream pipeline.
• 8:55
  We cut up their energy exports and blowing up North Stream.
• 8:58
  They could cut the Atlantic cable and shut down the banking
• 9:01
  system in Europe and the United States, rash it lose all the
• 9:05
  accounts destroy the whole credit system and they're
• 9:08
  they're not vulnerable because the sanctions that we put
• 9:11
  against them have forced them to create a parallel economy.
• 9:15
  They've gone is putting us more popular to have earth volunteer
• 9:19
  enlistments in the Russian army are skyrocketing.
• 9:23
  And we, you know, Lloyd Austin famously said in April 2022 as
• 9:27
  their Secretary of Defense when he was asked, why are we in
• 9:29
  Ukraine? Ukraine has no strategic value
• 9:32
  of the United States, none. We have no treaty with them.
• 9:35
  What the hell are we doing there?
• 9:37
  He said. We're there to degrade the
• 9:39
  Russian army and exhaust its capacity to function anywhere
• 9:43
  else in the world. We've done exactly the opposite.
• 9:45
  We've made Russia stronger than ever.
• 9:47
  We've taught them how to counter all of our missile systems, all
• 9:51
  of our attack missiles, all of the missiles that we've deployed
• 9:55
  against them. They know how to dismantle.
• 9:57
  It takes them six weeks, they say.
• 10:00
  Figure out how to counter a new American offensive system and
• 10:06
  everything. Mr. Kennedy, I've got 2
• 10:08
  questions for you. Doctor Peterson, it's a pleasure
• 10:09
  to have you. I think it's the first time on
• 10:11
  our stage. I've got a lot of questions for
• 10:13
  you, and feel free to jump in at any time.
• 10:15
  Mr. Kennedy, I've just got one question for you, and then I've
• 10:17
  got a similar question to Doctor Peterson.
• 10:19
  Two questions. First, what is the end game for
• 10:22
  the current administration when it comes to the war in Ukraine?
• 10:25
  Because it feels like constant escalation.
• 10:26
  If they're not willing to meet halfway with Russia, then I
• 10:30
  don't know what the end result would be.
• 10:32
  And the second part of the question is if Trump is
• 10:34
  president, he did say he'll end the war in 24 hours.
• 10:37
  I think that was more of a symbolic statement.
• 10:38
  I just don't find it possible within 24 hours, but within
• 10:40
  days. Makes sense being optimistic.
• 10:43
  How do you think President or have you spoken to President
• 10:45
  Trump on how he would end the war?
• 10:46
  Well, you know like how you will end or moving target because a
• 10:50
  year and a half ago you could have ended the war very easily.
• 10:53
  In fact, they signed a treaty. He signed a treaty with someone
• 10:57
  that was negotiated in Istanbul is not Taliban.
• 11:00
  And as referee Putin wanted to think he wanted to a guarantee
• 11:06
  of neutrality for Ukraine forever so NATO would never go
• 11:09
  into Ukraine. He also wanted to protect the
• 11:12
  ethnic Russians and the bars and Lucas who were when we overthrew
• 11:16
  the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 28 when
• 11:19
  the CIA and USAID overthrew them and installed a Western friendly
• 11:24
  government. That new government launched a
• 11:27
  war in February of 2022, February of 2018 against the
• 11:32
  ethnic Russians into Basu and Lukansa killed 14,000 of them
• 11:36
  wanted to end that slaughter. He didn't want the Basu and
• 11:40
  Lukansas part of Russia. In fact they voted 9 to one to
• 11:44
  join Russia and he said no you should be part of Ukraine but
• 11:47
  protect them. Make them a semi autonomous
• 11:49
  region of Ukraine just like Quebec is in Canada where
• 11:53
  they'll be able to have their own language and culture and
• 11:56
  that Ukraine will remain neutral.
• 11:58
  Zelensky signed agreement, Putin signed it, and Putin began
• 12:02
  withdrawing his troops from around Kiev and then Joe Biden
• 12:07
  then ulvert Boris Johnson and forced Zelensky to tear up that
• 12:10
  agreement. They wanted a war.
• 12:12
  Why do they want a war? Ukraine.
• 12:14
  No intelligent person ever believed that Ukraine could win
• 12:18
  that war. That would would be like Cuba
• 12:20
  winning a war against the United States.
• 12:22
  It is never going to happen. They're lying to the American
• 12:25
  people. They're lying about the
• 12:26
  casualties. What is the purpose?
• 12:29
  When Biden was asked, he said it's to destabilize Russia, to
• 12:33
  have regime change in Russia. And this is the dream of the
• 12:37
  neocons. This is the last gasp of the
• 12:39
  color revolution that Hillary Clinton and cons launched.
• 12:43
  And every one of them had failed in Libya, Syria, in Egypt,
• 12:47
  They've all failed. It's the last one left.
• 12:49
  And this is their legacy project and it is to overthrow Russia.
• 12:54
  And it, it's completely insane. There is no definition of
• 12:57
  victory. Every strategic choice they're
• 13:00
  making is bad. They've, they've essentially
• 13:03
  validated. It's worry, which he said, we're
• 13:06
  scared that Ukraine is going to be a platform for another
• 13:11
  invasion of Russia. And guess what?
• 13:13
  That's exactly what they did. They had paid for Russia.
• 13:16
  They came into Kirks and now they're and now they're going to
• 13:19
  launch missiles into Russia. So everything that he said, all
• 13:22
  the reasons that he told the rest of the world, This is why
• 13:25
  we need to be there, are now verified and validated as the
• 13:29
  world is listening to him. We've been discredited.
• 13:32
  We forced Russia into this very dangerous lines with China and
• 13:36
  Iran. We have created bricks, which is
• 13:39
  now threatening they the status of the dollar is the world
• 13:42
  reserve currency, the World Trade currency, the world safe
• 13:45
  haven currency. And that's going to be like a
• 13:47
  nuclear bomb on our economy. And it's an absolute.
• 13:51
  There are a bunch of big baby children running US foreign
• 13:55
  policy and they're dangerous and we need to get them out of
• 13:59
  there. Doctor Peterson, that question
• 14:01
  goes to you and and Mr. Kennedy, you'd be perfectly aligned to
• 14:04
  answer that question. Peterson.
• 14:05
  The question is the Trump we're seeing today is very different
• 14:07
  to the President Trump in a few years ago when he was a
• 14:10
  candidate initially in 2016. So looking at it at President
• 14:14
  Trump today with the endorsement of RFK, with the endorsement of
• 14:18
  Tulsi, with the endorsement of Congressman Gabbard, with the
• 14:21
  endorsement of Elon as well, how would you describe, because I've
• 14:25
  seen you also be critical of some aspects of Donald Trump.
• 14:28
  How would you look at Donald Trump's administration if he
• 14:31
  used to become president, and how do you think it will impact
• 14:33
  the world? One of the things I was
• 14:34
  surprised about in the debate was Trump's, what would you say,
• 14:38
  failure to talk about his team. And it it seems to me that the
• 14:44
  one of the biggest selling points that Trump has at the
• 14:47
  moment is the fact that he's gathered these remarkable people
• 14:50
  around him whose behavior is, to say the least, somewhat
• 14:54
  unpredictable, and that's a danger, but whose competence is
• 14:58
  remarkable and creative beyond anything we've seen in the
• 15:02
  political domain, certainly in my lifetime.
• 15:05
  And so it seems to me that it would be in Trump's best
• 15:08
  interest to start making this about the Trump team because
• 15:13
  that goes such a long ways to addressing concerns about, let's
• 15:16
  say, how his first administration was constituted,
• 15:19
  but also about the general competence of a potential Trump
• 15:22
  administration. And I guess I'm somewhat radical
• 15:25
  in this regard. It'd be very exciting for me to
• 15:27
  contemplate a Department of efficiency headed by Elon Musk,
• 15:31
  because Musk has demonstrated repeatedly that he can take
• 15:34
  dysfunctional organizations and do the necessary things to
• 15:38
  reconstitute them and make them run properly.
• 15:40
  And Kennedy is obviously as radical in his way as Trump.
• 15:44
  And Ramaswamy is like that. And Tulsi Gabbard is like that.
• 15:47
  If you're a regular conservative, you might be
• 15:51
  afraid of a group of entrepreneurial people like the
• 15:55
  ones Trump has gathered around him, including himself, taking
• 15:58
  the reins of the government. Because generally what you want
• 16:01
  for government leaders in a modern state are people who are
• 16:03
  more managerial or administrative in their ethos
• 16:07
  and interests. Someone like the governor of
• 16:10
  Florida is a a very good example of that.
• 16:13
  He's a very competent administrator.
• 16:15
  Trump has gathered around the cadre of entrepreneurs, and they
• 16:19
  took more in the creative direction.
• 16:20
  And maybe the time has come that we need political leaders who
• 16:23
  are doing that, who would take those radical moves.
• 16:26
  But it seems to me also that Trump could capitalize on what
• 16:29
  he's accomplished with regards to this remarkable team in a
• 16:32
  manner that certainly wasn't evident at all in the debate.
• 16:36
  So it's exciting to me to see that I thought that.
• 16:39
  Debate was fantastic in, I think what Trump's work has been since
• 16:44
  he announced in 2015. Was it his work?
• 16:47
  To me, the way I see it is he's unmasking everything.
• 16:51
  He's taking the veil away from what's hidden and what we're
• 16:56
  being lied to about. And so that even for the most
• 17:00
  common people in this country, the wide middle Main St. they
• 17:05
  see, oh wow, the entire media conglomerate.
• 17:10
  We say media industrial complex is compromised has nothing to do
• 17:15
  with telling us the truth. In fact, they're invested in
• 17:18
  just the opposite. And we all saw it before our
• 17:21
  eyes. We saw a woman, what they
• 17:23
  treated in the debate, like they cheat in every election and it's
• 17:28
  glaringly apparent every time. Can you hear me?
• 17:32
  Yeah, we can't. We can't.
• 17:33
  Roseanne. One thing though, is, and, and
• 17:34
  I'll get your thoughts. Doctor Peterson talked about how
• 17:37
  Trump had an incredible opportunity.
• 17:38
  Doctor Peterson, he had an incredible opportunity to
• 17:41
  display the team that he has. Elon's endorsement, you've got
• 17:46
  obviously our Mr. Kennedy's endorsement as well.
• 17:49
  It's no longer in my view at least.
• 17:51
  And Brett, good to have you. I was listening to your
• 17:53
  interview just before the space. And by the way, treat the space
• 17:55
  as if it's yours. The mic is yours as much as it's
• 17:58
  mine. So feel free to go back and
• 17:59
  forth with the panel. But Brett, one thing you talked
• 18:02
  about is it's no longer because you're obviously a big
• 18:04
  supporter, a big advocate of Mr. Kennedy.
• 18:07
  It's no longer about a Trump candidacy anymore.
• 18:10
  It's a Trump Kennedy candidacy. And that is one thing that was
• 18:14
  not mentioned enough in the debate.
• 18:15
  And Mr. Weinstein, I'd love to get your thoughts on a
• 18:17
  particular comic. And then I'd love to get Doctor
• 18:19
  Peterson's and Mr. Kennedy's thoughts on this specific point,
• 18:23
  and of course, Trump's performance in the debate and
• 18:25
  how much of an impact it will have.
• 18:26
  Sure, I. Think people are joining up with
• 18:29
  Trump because Trump's genius is being.
• 18:32
  I think that's really what's at play.
• 18:35
  His 5D chess moves are becoming apparent.
• 18:39
  What do you think? I think it's clear that we have
• 18:43
  a unity movement coalescing and that President Trump has skills
• 18:49
  that no one else has. He has a political capacity that
• 18:53
  is unmatched, but that what is gathering around him is much
• 18:57
  larger than the MAGA movement. This is a large collection of
• 19:04
  patriotic elements that are concerned about the direction
• 19:07
  that the country is headed, and I hope that President Trump will
• 19:12
  recognize the size of the opportunity that he has that has
• 19:15
  arrived at his doorstep. This is the time to join
• 19:18
  together, to put aside small ideological differences and to
• 19:22
  partner based on the principles that all patriotic Americans
• 19:27
  share. This is really the do or die
• 19:29
  election and we're holding the Rescue the Republic rally on the
• 19:34
  Capitol Mall on September 29th. And I really hope that people
• 19:38
  will come in large numbers, and for those who can't, I hope they
• 19:41
  will spread the word because that unity movement really is
• 19:45
  the best hope for the Republic going.
• 19:47
  Forward they're doing a fundraiser forum and I have to
• 19:50
  introduce him. But thank you for all of this.
• 19:53
  I I can't agree with Brett Moore then he's absolutely right.
• 19:59
  Everybody who loves the country. Country has got to put our
• 20:02
  differences aside and we've got to come together.
• 20:05
  This may be the last constitutional election and it
• 20:09
  will only be. It'll only work if people come
• 20:13
  out in droves. And I would, I'm here today to
• 20:17
  help the president raise money here in Utah.
• 20:21
  But I, I have to tell you, please get out, do something,
• 20:26
  get involved. And if you can donate Donald J
• 20:29
  Trump. Thank you for for coming in,
• 20:31
  Glenn and Mr. Kennedy, obviously you've been critical of a lot of
• 20:35
  President Trump's policies. So question to you and, and, and
• 20:38
  a question to Doctor Peterson as well.
• 20:40
  It's for anyone who who was not a supporter of Trump previously.
• 20:43
  But I'm also concerned about the, the camera administration,
• 20:46
  a lot of what the, the, the Democratic Party has done over
• 20:48
  the last few years. What would you say to them when
• 20:51
  they've got similar concerns to what you had over the last few
• 20:53
  months, Mr. Kennedy? I'll go to Doctor Peterson with
• 20:56
  that same question because again, Doctor Peterson, I was
• 20:57
  listening to your interview prior to this space as well.
• 21:00
  I've been ambivalent in my appreciation for Trump arson.
• 21:04
  It was my sense to begin with. And I don't think this is unique
• 21:07
  to me that his initial campaign was something approximating a
• 21:11
  publicity campaign, which was brilliantly managed.
• 21:14
  And it always struck me as unlikely that he believed he
• 21:16
  would win. And then he did.
• 21:18
  And then he didn't know what he was doing.
• 21:19
  And that's not surprising because who does?
• 21:21
  But he has. But I've been very impressed by
• 21:24
  the Trump presidency in one fundamental regard, I would say,
• 21:29
  although there were others that are relevant, there were no wars
• 21:32
  with Donald Trump. And the wars that we have right
• 21:34
  now is Mr. Kennedy referred to? They're insane and insanely
• 21:39
  dangerous. And I've talked to a number of
• 21:41
  people who were pro Ukraine, let's say, and I pressed all of
• 21:45
  them, some of them conservative, some of them more liberal, and I
• 21:49
  pressed all of them on the nature of the end game.
• 21:51
  It's OK. What?
• 21:52
  What's your view of victory here?
• 21:54
  We're going to destabilize Russia.
• 21:56
  That seems to me to be a relatively bad idea, given that
• 21:58
  Russia has a massive nuclear arsenal.
• 22:01
  You want the country to fragment?
• 22:02
  Is that the idea? So then we have 10 nuclear
• 22:05
  players instead of one. That might be 1 outcome or maybe
• 22:08
  do you think the Russians are going to magically come up with
• 22:10
  a leader who is less pathological than Putin?
• 22:13
  If you look at rush Russian history for 15 seconds you
• 22:17
  understand that that was highly unlikely.
• 22:19
  So I don't understand what victory looks like now put into
• 22:23
  Ukraine war. If the consequences, that is the
• 22:27
  undermining of Russia's military capability for some prolonged
• 22:30
  period of time, then it was worth the investment.
• 22:33
  And I think maybe. But that assumes that Russia is
• 22:36
  actually intrinsically an enemy, which is not a story I buy.
• 22:39
  Especially not when we're faced with power like China, let's
• 22:43
  say, or even Iran for that matter.
• 22:45
  We might want to get our enemies rank ordered to some degree.
• 22:49
  I don't think it's necessary for Russia to be an enemy.
• 22:52
  And I think we blew a massive opportunity after the war came
• 22:55
  down in the late 1980s to bring Russia a lot more firmly into
• 22:58
  the Western orbit. Even though, and we failed to do
• 23:02
  that, even though Europe is unbelievably dependent on
• 23:04
  Russian energy and we're all dependent on Russian food and
• 23:08
  fertilizer, Kennedy said about the Russian war strikes me as
• 23:12
  highly credible. I think maybe Trump's having a
• 23:14
  difficult time with the Musk, Gabbard, Kennedy line up in part
• 23:20
  is because the manner in which the political discussion has to
• 23:24
  be reconstituted, given the players, is really quite
• 23:26
  radical. Kennedy himself has made the
• 23:30
  general public health of the American citizenry a crucial
• 23:34
  issue, and that's new. There's a epidemic of obesity
• 23:37
  and diabetes that's catastrophic beyond belief.
• 23:39
  It's absolutely appalling. And Kennedy has made that now a
• 23:43
  major political issue. And that in itself is a radical
• 23:46
  transformation of the political landscape.
• 23:48
  It's a difficult thing to digest.
• 23:50
  And it's no bloody wonder that Trump hasn't yet figured out how
• 23:53
  to capitalize on that, or the American people for that matter,
• 23:56
  let alone the latest of media, how to construe it.
• 23:59
  And then the same thing applies to Musk's tromping with his
• 24:03
  Seven League boots into the political landscape.
• 24:05
  Like, who's wrapped their head around what it would mean for
• 24:09
  someone like Elon Musk to be in charge of making government much
• 24:13
  more efficient in its operations.
• 24:15
  And so it's not surprising Trump hasn't figured out how to
• 24:17
  message that. But man, it's a glorious
• 24:20
  opportunity. And he's got other people around
• 24:22
  him who are equally stellar. And I'll close with this.
• 24:24
  It's also the case, and this also hasn't been propagated
• 24:28
  properly to the American public is that this entire
• 24:31
  administration is reformed Democrats.
• 24:34
  Trump was a Democrat before he became a Republican.
• 24:37
  And it's the same with Kennedy. It's the same with Musk and it's
• 24:40
  the same at least to some degree with Vivek.
• 24:43
  These people aren't classic Republicans, right?
• 24:46
  And Tulsi, of course. Exactly.
• 24:48
  And so I don't understand why that isn't being pushed harder
• 24:52
  as a narrative, especially in the face of the emergence of
• 24:55
  Kamala Harris, because should be at least as an option on the,
• 25:00
  let's say, optimistic Democrats front as Harris.
• 25:03
  Just on the face of it, I think she's 10 times the woman that
• 25:07
  Harris is, but she has at least all of her advantages, you would
• 25:10
  think, to the Democrats themselves.
• 25:12
  And I think that's been radically underplayed.
• 25:15
  And I saw all of that is a flaw in the debate.
• 25:17
  Like Trump didn't do a good job of defending himself or his
• 25:20
  presidency. I mean, his performance wasn't
• 25:23
  catastrophic, but Harris only had to be decent.
• 25:26
  And I'm afraid she overshot that mark.
• 25:29
  And that was disheartening because there was much more that
• 25:32
  Trump could have said that would have put him in a much and his
• 25:35
  team. And he could have also
• 25:37
  demonstrated that he was a team player in a way that he hasn't
• 25:39
  had an opportunity to do before. Talking about everyone being a
• 25:42
  reformed Democrat. Mr. Kennedy, if your mic is
• 25:44
  working, I'm going to go to you. But also our Co host Brett
• 25:46
  Weinstein was and I think Brett Wesley still identifies the
• 25:49
  Democrat, if I'm correct me, if I'm wrong, but obviously you
• 25:53
  don't endorse the camera administration.
• 25:55
  Mr. Kennedy, your mic working. If not, I'll go to Mr.
• 25:57
  Weinstein. Mr. Kennedy.
• 25:59
  So my question to you is had. So this is a fascinating point
• 26:01
  made by Doctor Peterson. Essentially the entire
• 26:03
  administration is is just reformed Democrats.
• 26:05
  How did we get here? Can you hear me?
• 26:07
  We can hear you now. Yes, Sir.
• 26:08
  All right, let me respond to a couple of things that Jordan
• 26:12
  said #1 your question. I, I endorse Trump very simply
• 26:16
  because he agreed through after comprehensive and lengthy
• 26:21
  discussions that we, we're going to fight, we're going to create
• 26:25
  a unity party that would fight as a spiritual on three major
• 26:29
  issues. The the public health crisis,
• 26:32
  this, this dramatic explosion of chronic disease that is
• 26:35
  destroying our country, the censorship and surveillance
• 26:38
  state and the wars and our addiction to war.
• 26:41
  Now one of the interesting things that happened during the
• 26:43
  debate is that Kamala Harris touted the influence by John
• 26:47
  Bolton and Dick Cheney. And in 2004, it was basically a
• 26:53
  rite of passage in the Democratic Party.
• 26:55
  In order to define yourself as Democrat, you had to believe
• 26:59
  that Dick Cheney was like Darth Vader, one of the worst figures
• 27:03
  in American history. He's the guy who brought us the
• 27:05
  Patriot Act, the beginning of the security state.
• 27:08
  That and security state in our country, extraordinary
• 27:13
  renditions. He revived.
• 27:15
  He brought in torture for the first time in American history.
• 27:18
  He gave us the war in Iraq, which was the most cataclysmic
• 27:22
  debacle in US foreign policy history.
• 27:25
  Though these are people who have not changed.
• 27:28
  Dick Cheney has not apologized. He has not changed his opinion.
• 27:33
  He defends all of those decisions vociferously.
• 27:38
  And when he endorsed the Democrats, it's not because he's
• 27:42
  changed or anything. It's because the Democratic
• 27:44
  Party has now become the party of war.
• 27:46
  It's become the party of censorship.
• 27:48
  It's become the party of surveillance.
• 27:50
  It is not the party my father would recognize.
• 27:53
  My uncle would not recognize this party.
• 27:55
  It is the opposite of if now the party, the wealthy.
• 27:58
  By the way, I grew up in a Democratic Party that was
• 28:01
  representing cops and firefighters and labor and the
• 28:04
  working poor. Honey, the 50% of the country
• 28:09
  voted for Trump, 50% voted for Biden.
• 28:12
  But the 50% who voted for Biden own 70% of the wealth and 50%
• 28:17
  who voted for Trump own 30% of the wealth.
• 28:19
  So the Republican Party, you've had this tremendous inversion
• 28:22
  where the Republican Party has become the party of the poor,
• 28:26
  the working class, Main Street, small business and labour.
• 28:30
  You had JD Vance the other night talking about the importance of
• 28:34
  collective bargaining. So this is there's a been a
• 28:37
  complete inversion of the Republican and the Democratic
• 28:40
  Party in our country. I want to say one other
• 28:43
  important point, addressing the strategic interests and the
• 28:47
  strategic choice in Ukraine. This idea that we are going into
• 28:51
  Ukraine to exhaust Russia, to fragment Russia, to weak in
• 28:55
  Russia. Why would we do that?
• 28:57
  Russia has more natural resources than any country in
• 29:00
  the world, has more nuclear weapons than any country in the
• 29:02
  world. And why did we make them an
• 29:04
  enemy after 1992 when everybody, George Cannon, Bill Perry, all
• 29:08
  of them, the mavens of our foreign policy, we're saying we
• 29:12
  need to invite them into the Western community nations.
• 29:15
  And we didn't. We weaponized NATO against some.
• 29:18
  We made them the enemy. And now what's happened as this
• 29:21
  weekend we've been told we're going to kill 600,000 Ukrainian
• 29:25
  kids in order to degrade Russia. Has it degraded Russia?
• 29:28
  No, it has built. Russia has rebuilt.
• 29:32
  It's an industrial base. It has made an alliance with
• 29:35
  China, which has the biggest industrial base in the world.
• 29:37
  the US no longer has an industrial base.
• 29:40
  It exported the entire. We could not fight a war, a
• 29:43
  conventional war, with either of these countries.
• 29:46
  And now we've deindustrialized Europe by destroying the
• 29:49
  Nordstrom pipeline. We have taken away the economic
• 29:53
  advantage that Europe had, and they're paying out.
• 29:55
  Instead of paying $6 for natural gas and energy, they're paying
• 29:59
  $12.10 to $12.00. It's shut down the entire
• 30:03
  chemical industry, a heavy industry in the rural valley,
• 30:06
  and Germany is all closing down. Germany is no longer an
• 30:10
  industrial nation. It is how U.S. military pays.
• 30:13
  And a nation's power, a nation's influence comes from a shark
• 30:19
  economy. And we have destroyed the
• 30:21
  economy of Europe. We've actually weakened Europe
• 30:23
  because it is no longer a bulwark against Russian
• 30:26
  expansion. It has AUS military base.
• 30:29
  And we can no longer. We're not the United States that
• 30:33
  we were before World War 2. Before World War 2, we were the
• 30:36
  industrial giant. We were the arsenal of
• 30:39
  democracy. We made all the steel plate, we
• 30:43
  made the ball bearings, we made the automobiles, we made the
• 30:46
  watches that could be turned into those factories were turned
• 30:49
  into fuse factories. We build a ship a day, 56,000
• 30:53
  planes. And today, we're threatening the
• 30:56
  dollar for a war that is unnecessary.
• 30:58
  We're threatening the economy for short term gain, just
• 31:00
  putting the debt for future generations.
• 31:02
  Mr. Kennedy, a question for you and Mr. Weinstein and Dr.
• 31:06
  Peterson as well. And by the way, Matt Taibbi is
• 31:08
  with us on stage as well. Matt, we got to know each other
• 31:10
  during the Twitter Files, which we're going to get into
• 31:12
  censorship as well, something that's not talked about enough.
• 31:14
  But Mr. Weinstein, a quote that you said in one of your
• 31:17
  interviews that I think I would love everyone to comment on, You
• 31:19
  said I'm a lifelong Democrat, but the Democratic Party today
• 31:22
  is the inverse of what is what I signed up for.
• 31:25
  It's the party of war, racism, censorship.
• 31:28
  I don't recognize this party anymore.
• 31:30
  We'd love you to elaborate on this, Mr. Weinstein.
• 31:32
  And and more importantly, how is it, despite you and many others
• 31:37
  echoing this sentiment, how is it that Kamala's still doing
• 31:40
  this? I think that's actually a fairly
• 31:42
  easy question to answer, which is there is an incredible degree
• 31:46
  of information control. Not only are they able to create
• 31:50
  the impression that she's impressive in a way that she is
• 31:53
  not, but we really have no idea how well she's doing because all
• 31:56
  of the information is compromised.
• 31:58
  Buckle up. This is going to be a rough
• 32:00
  ride, but let me address your first point about me being a
• 32:04
  Democrat, another one who finds himself aligned with the other
• 32:08
  side at the moment. I've been a Democrat my whole
• 32:10
  adult life. I usually say that if you don't
• 32:14
  have a candidate that matches your values in the election, you
• 32:18
  should vote as if you're voting in a future election.
• 32:21
  I voted for Tulsi Gabbard in the last presidential election.
• 32:24
  I would tell you, don't take that advice in this election.
• 32:27
  It's too important. What's happening at the moment
• 32:30
  is a direct threat to our form of governance.
• 32:34
  And if you don't believe me, ask yourself the question, who is
• 32:38
  president today? The answer, of course, is that
• 32:40
  we don't really know. Under normal circumstances, that
• 32:44
  would be a a terribly shocking realization.
• 32:47
  But it is even more shocking at a moment when we are actually in
• 32:50
  the midst of a confrontation with our Cold War nuclear enemy.
• 32:54
  And not only are we in the midst of a conflict, a proxy war, but
• 32:59
  we are actually acting in a provocative way that may lead us
• 33:03
  into a nuclear exchange. This is not a kind of power that
• 33:07
  any human being should have. But if somebody is going to have
• 33:10
  it, we need to know who they are.
• 33:13
  They need to be responsible to us.
• 33:14
  And the fact that some cabal in the executive branch behind the
• 33:18
  scenes that we cannot call in front of Congress is creating
• 33:22
  tension between two nuclear superpowers is beyond
• 33:27
  imagination. So the reason that I have stayed
• 33:30
  in the Democratic Party, though it has departed from all of the
• 33:33
  values that brought me there in the 1st place, is so that it
• 33:36
  would mean something when I challenged it.
• 33:38
  And I'm telling you, this is my party.
• 33:41
  But it's like having a dog that has contracted rabies.
• 33:45
  This party has become so toxic and so dangerous that we
• 33:48
  absolutely have to put it down for everyone's benefit.
• 33:51
  The future depends on us doing it, and this is the election in
• 33:55
  which we're going to have to make that happen.
• 33:57
  So this giant coalition that you find is a powerful force in my
• 34:03
  belief is it's like none that has ever formed before.
• 34:07
  So it is an opportunity to do something we've never done.
• 34:10
  And I'm actually going to take the opportunity to push back on
• 34:14
  something that Robert Kennedy said and something that you
• 34:17
  quoted me as saying. This is actually not even an
• 34:21
  inversion between the two parties.
• 34:22
  Yes, the Democratic Party has now become, strangely, the party
• 34:26
  of racism and the party of war and the party of Big Pharma.
• 34:30
  But what is taking place over on the other side is not that it
• 34:36
  has adopted the traditional democratic values.
• 34:38
  In fact, it has simply taken over as a refuge for people who
• 34:42
  hold any version of American values.
• 34:45
  You have liberals who are taking shelter with conservatives and
• 34:50
  libertarians, all under the same banner.
• 34:52
  That is a marvelous sign of hope at a moment that is otherwise
• 34:58
  terribly bleak. But this is an unparalleled
• 35:03
  opportunity to pull ourselves out of this nosedive.
• 35:07
  It is unlikely that it will come again.
• 35:11
  They are targeting the freedoms that are necessary for us to
• 35:14
  pull out of this nosedive in any sort of normal fashion.
• 35:17
  They are targeting our speech rights.
• 35:19
  And that ought to frighten us, because if those speech rights
• 35:22
  disappear in the next 4 years under Kamala Harris, then what
• 35:26
  tools we'll use to build a resistance then it's almost
• 35:31
  inconceivable that it would happen by normal constitutional
• 35:33
  means. These are not people who are
• 35:35
  uninterested. These are people who are so fed
• 35:37
  up with our system that they've stopped voting.
• 35:39
  And the irony is that there are enough of them to turn any
• 35:43
  election. If they were to come off the
• 35:45
  bench right now, they could save us all on their own.
• 35:49
  And So what we have to do is convince them that this is the
• 35:53
  moment for them to return to the electorate and deliver their
• 35:57
  message that this constitutional Republic has to stand, It has to
• 36:01
  be returned to the course that it was set on by its founders,
• 36:04
  and that we're not going to wait in another election cycle for
• 36:07
  that to happen. Doctor Peterson, it's it's an
• 36:09
  interesting observation and the contract referred to again is
• 36:13
  that the leading figures in a possible Trump administration
• 36:16
  are all reform Democrats. It's just hard to call it even a
• 36:18
  Republican Party. It's just a Republican Party.
• 36:21
  Plus, Democrats are no longer aligned with the current
• 36:24
  Democratic Party. My question to you is, we're
• 36:28
  seeing censorship around the world by both the left and the
• 36:30
  right, but mainly the left now. I've covered it.
• 36:32
  We've both covered it when it comes to the UKI just
• 36:35
  interviewed earlier today the son of President Bolsonaro.
• 36:39
  He's also been on my show a few months ago, Eduardo Bolsonaro
• 36:42
  was he personally with me discussing this exact issue.
• 36:45
  And we've seen this in Pakistan, India, the list goes on
• 36:48
  Australia and of course the US Why so, so first, is this an
• 36:52
  issue of the left that is censoring or is that a systemic
• 36:55
  issue that none because again, I'm I'm apolitical.
• 36:58
  Let someone. Go ahead.
• 37:01
  We're actually analysing that problem in in improperly,
• 37:04
  because it's not fundamentally a political problem.
• 37:08
  What's happened, as far as I can tell, is that our the
• 37:11
  technological revolution that's produced these remarkable means
• 37:15
  of communication, especially the social media networks, have run
• 37:19
  afoul of their own success in a manner that's extraordinarily
• 37:23
  fundamental. And it's a constant across the
• 37:26
  entire domain of human history that about 3 to 5% of the
• 37:30
  population is psychopathic. And we understand more and more
• 37:33
  about how those people conduct themselves.
• 37:36
  So the dark tetrad types are Machiavellian, so they use
• 37:40
  language only to manipulate. They're narcissistic, so they
• 37:44
  want unearned social credit and reputation.
• 37:47
  They're psychopathic, which makes them predatory parasites.
• 37:51
  And because that's all not enough, they're sadistic, which
• 37:54
  means they tend to take delight to the unnecessary suffering of
• 37:57
  others. We've evolved mechanisms in our
• 38:00
  normal discourse, our normal patterns of discourse, to keep
• 38:03
  them in check. Most of that has to do with
• 38:05
  reputation tracking, in that we live in networks that are
• 38:09
  connected to one another. So you, my friends, tend to know
• 38:12
  the rest of my friends and keep track of each other.
• 38:15
  And if anybody in that network starts playing psychopathic
• 38:19
  games after three episodes, the word gets around and their
• 38:23
  effectiveness radically declines.
• 38:25
  This is why the psychopathic types are archetypal Wanderers,
• 38:30
  vagabonds, because they have to invade new social networks now.
• 38:34
  They're always there and they're not good people.
• 38:37
  Now what's happened now with the rise of social media is the
• 38:40
  psychopaths shelter behind the moral proclamations of the
• 38:46
  political actors. So that could be on the right
• 38:48
  where they stand as defenders of free speech, or on the left
• 38:51
  where they're compassionate beyond belief.
• 38:53
  That's camouflage. And what they do behind the
• 38:56
  scenes is continue their psychopathic games since we see
• 38:59
  the psychopathic narcissists have hijacked the political
• 39:02
  discourse in the extremes and the new social media networks
• 39:07
  are defenseless against that. They, in fact, they amplify it
• 39:10
  because the negative messaging that these people rely on to
• 39:14
  accrue attention to themselves is more psychologically
• 39:18
  impactful than positive emotion. And we can't track the
• 39:21
  reputation. And so I think this is
• 39:24
  chemically, this is a cataclysm, and it's not diagnosed properly
• 39:28
  because it isn't the left against the right, even though I
• 39:31
  think at the moment that there are certain elements of the
• 39:34
  left, partly because they've been in power in the US for so
• 39:36
  long, that pose a more proximal danger.
• 39:39
  It's the psychopathic manipulators at the edges of the
• 39:43
  political spectrum against everyone else.
• 39:45
  And that really started to become a problem in about 2014
• 39:49
  when these new forms of technology, which are radical
• 39:52
  beyond belief, right? Every new social media
• 39:55
  enterprise is this radical technological, maybe as the
• 39:58
  invention of the printing press, or more so.
• 40:02
  And no one has any idea how to police them or even to identify
• 40:05
  the bad actors without falling of, of of of the censorship
• 40:10
  problem. Let's say first of all, we have
• 40:13
  to understand that this is not fundamentally a political
• 40:15
  problem. It's a psychological problem.
• 40:18
  It's the manipulative, narcissistic psychopaths against
• 40:21
  everyone else. And that's happened many times
• 40:24
  in human history. The French Revolution was
• 40:26
  hijacked by the psychopath. The Russian Revolution was
• 40:29
  hijacked by the psychopath. This happens all the time.
• 40:32
  And one of the most classic forms of defense of such people
• 40:35
  is their camouflage and moral virtue.
• 40:37
  Like the clinical psychopaths are unbelievably good at
• 40:40
  portraying themselves as victims.
• 40:42
  And so we're very naive about this and we're, we're discussing
• 40:45
  it at the wrong level of analysis.
• 40:46
  I watch acts all the time. I'm watching the bad actors on
• 40:50
  the left and on the right. And I, I can, I see the
• 40:53
  personality patterns. There's a burgeoning literature
• 40:55
  on this, but it's not something that we don't know how to police
• 40:59
  discourse on the social media platforms.
• 41:01
  We don't have the mechanisms evolved.
• 41:03
  And all I add to that, 30% of Internet traffic is
• 41:07
  pornographic. At least another 20% is outright
• 41:10
  criminal. And then around that, there's a
• 41:12
  penumbra of troll demon bad actors who live to produce the
• 41:18
  kind of chaos that they think they could drive in, and that
• 41:21
  accrues undeserved benefit to them.
• 41:24
  These are very powerful technologies, and bad actors
• 41:27
  wield disproportionate influence on them.
• 41:29
  Mr. Kennedy We've got a record number of listeners today.
• 41:32
  It's been months since the last Elon space, so it's going to be
• 41:34
  a tough question to put you on the spot.
• 41:36
  Doctor Peterson explained how complex the issue is.
• 41:38
  So my question to you as someone who's been very vocal supporting
• 41:41
  free speech and I've been doing the same as the toughest
• 41:44
  question to answer is how would you fix the problem that we
• 41:48
  have? Where would you start?
• 41:49
  It's a global problem now, but I would fix it in the United
• 41:52
  States. And we have good laws and we
• 41:55
  have constitutional rights. And if the president can
• 41:58
  actually fix them, like president can get in on day one
• 42:01
  and he can issue an executive order or bidding any official,
• 42:06
  the United States, any employee of the United States government
• 42:09
  pressuring social media companies or media companies to
• 42:13
  censor the speech. They issue another executive
• 42:16
  order or bidding This the going back to the basically this
• 42:20
  missed Monk act. And for betting the CIA from
• 42:24
  spying on the American public or propagandizing the American
• 42:27
  public for he can start dismantling the CISA and the
• 42:32
  censorship industrial complex, which is centered on CISA and
• 42:37
  reaches into all the other intelligence agencies.
• 42:40
  They operate the modern iteration Operation Mockingbird,
• 42:44
  the penetration by the CIA of so many of our particularly liberal
• 42:48
  media news sites. And Dick Russell and David
• 42:52
  Talbot do really wonderful CIA historians have done separate
• 42:57
  articles on excessive research on which of our media companies.
• 43:02
  The big media companies place like Daily Beast and Daily Cause
• 43:07
  and Rolling Stone have now been infiltrated by the security
• 43:11
  apparatus and many others including some of the major
• 43:15
  network media company. But we need to also use the
• 43:19
  bully pulpit of the White House to explain to Americans that
• 43:23
  censorship is always wrong, that the president should do a speech
• 43:28
  on this to say the American public.
• 43:30
  We grew up in a generation where censorship, where we all
• 43:34
  understood from reading Aldous Hockley, reading Orwell, reading
• 43:38
  Robert Heinlein, reading Arthur Kessler and Alexander's all the
• 43:43
  required a reading part of the sort of classic called bedrock
• 43:46
  of of Western civilization, that totalitarian, all totalitarian
• 43:52
  systems always emerge. The first step is always
• 43:55
  censorship that you have already stepped out the slippery slope.
• 44:01
  Brazil is the perfect example of that.
• 44:03
  But Mr. Kennedy, a question that I've asked you previously and I
• 44:05
  asked you again because it's becoming more and more relevant.
• 44:08
  I've interviewed Prime Minister Imran Khan.
• 44:10
  Many people have interviewed that are trying to shake up the
• 44:12
  status quo or laws in power, whatever you want to call them.
• 44:15
  Prime Minister Imran Khan was almost he's had multiple
• 44:17
  assassination attempts. President Bolsonaro, President
• 44:20
  Trump, I've never interviewed him, but we're working on
• 44:22
  getting him on. Elon has talked about an
• 44:24
  assassination attempt and it's one of the first things he said
• 44:27
  when he came on Myspace the first time or the second time
• 44:30
  and was his concern for his life, and the list goes on.
• 44:34
  So big of a risk is it when you come into an existing system and
• 44:40
  try to remove the unelected officials that are in power that
• 44:43
  are making those decisions? When it comes towards
• 44:46
  censorship, the medical complex in the US, what could be the
• 44:51
  impact from a risk? I'm going to go as extreme as a
• 44:55
  potential assassination attempt on anyone that's trying to
• 44:58
  achieve that. And right now we're focusing on
• 45:00
  the US. And is that something you've
• 45:01
  actually discussed with President Trump or anyone else
• 45:04
  in his administration, especially after the
• 45:06
  assassination attempt? Because I know you had a call
• 45:08
  with him and not long afterwards.
• 45:10
  I did not. I discussed the assassination
• 45:13
  with him on several occasions. I have not discussed the
• 45:17
  assassination in terms of saying that, first of all, of
• 45:22
  quantifying the risk, which I would not be able to do.
• 45:25
  But I think anybody knows that there is a risk for me.
• 45:30
  It's not something I think about.
• 45:31
  I take appropriate precautions, but I would say that I have not
• 45:35
  spent even one microsecond of my life living in fear of that.
• 45:41
  And I think it's just that's part of life.
• 45:43
  We have lost 250,000 and during World War 2, we lost 20,000
• 45:48
  during the revolution. And these were people who gave
• 45:51
  their lives so that we could continue to have a constitution
• 45:55
  with a Bill of Rights in this country.
• 45:57
  And every generation has to be willing to take risks in order
• 46:01
  to preserve as as experiment that America is making in self
• 46:06
  governance. And there are risks to it, but
• 46:09
  I'll listen. I lost 2 of my uncles in World
• 46:11
  War 2, so I lost the cousin if he had.
• 46:13
  All of my uncles deserved either in Korea or World War 2.
• 46:17
  All of them were willing to give their lives in order to preserve
• 46:21
  our constitution. And I think we need that.
• 46:24
  In August of 2020, I went to Berlin and to speak to a a group
• 46:30
  of people who were gathering to protest the mandate.
• 46:33
  And they were from every country in Europe.
• 46:35
  There was 1.3 million people there.
• 46:37
  And it was like Woodstock and it was an incredible crowd.
• 46:41
  And none of them were wearing masks at a time when masks were
• 46:44
  mandated. And I was out wearing a mask and
• 46:46
  I was in the crowd shaking hands and having contact, taking
• 46:50
  selfies. And an NBC film crew came up to
• 46:52
  me that we're all fully masked. And they said, why are you
• 46:55
  wearing masks? And they said, aren't you scared
• 46:57
  of dying? And I said, there's a lot of
• 46:59
  things that I'm a lot more scared of than dying.
• 47:02
  They said, what? And I said living like a slave,
• 47:05
  like my kids growing up in a country that did not have my
• 47:08
  constitutional rights. All of us have to.
• 47:11
  All of us. Ultimately have to make that
• 47:13
  decision. But one thing that fascinated me
• 47:16
  is that the topic, the assassination attempt, was not
• 47:18
  even mentioned in the debates, barely being mentioned by the
• 47:21
  media. Again, that's a former president
• 47:24
  almost assassinated, many unanswered questions and
• 47:27
  everyone's just moved on. That's very alarming for me the
• 47:31
  the short attention span of people with today's social media
• 47:35
  and the algorithms putting in the the latest story instead of
• 47:38
  focusing on what's important. It just makes it seem like if
• 47:41
  anyone was behind it, either the last one or any future
• 47:43
  assassination attempts, it feels like they can get away with it,
• 47:46
  similar to what happened with your uncle.
• 47:49
  Is that a question? It's more of an opinion to get
• 47:52
  it, get your response to it if it's a fair opinion, and more
• 47:55
  importantly, why is no one talking about it anymore?
• 47:57
  I would say that President Trump, when he introduced me in
• 48:01
  Scenic, that also introduced the idea of creating a Commission
• 48:05
  that would investigate not only my reopen investigation, my
• 48:10
  uncle's and and father's assassination, but also
• 48:13
  specifically to and I think that's probably a good idea.
• 48:17
  I think it's always good to have more information and
• 48:20
  transparency. And the more we know about it,
• 48:23
  the better. I think it's something we should
• 48:25
  pay attention to. I now have to go.
• 48:27
  So I'm going to say goodbye to everybody and thank you so much
• 48:30
  for doing this. It's been an incredible group of
• 48:33
  people and it's really been a privilege and honored to be with
• 48:36
  all of you. And good to speak to you again,
• 48:38
  Mr. Kennedy. And we'll let everyone know when
• 48:40
  Charlie Kirk and Tulsi Gabbard, Congresswoman Gabbard, joins us
• 48:44
  in a bit. Sarah, I know you had a
• 48:45
  question. Yes, thank you so much, Mario.
• 48:48
  My question was to you, Doctor Peterson, During a recent X
• 48:53
  space between President Trump and Elon Musk, President Trump
• 48:57
  alluded to a possible position in his cabinet with Elon Musk to
• 49:03
  potentially curb government spending.
• 49:06
  Would you support Elon Musk joining President Trump's
• 49:09
  administration in any capacity? I think that if he was willing
• 49:13
  to take the time to turn his obvious genius to such a complex
• 49:17
  problem that the rest of us should be pretty damn thrilled.
• 49:20
  That's a possibility. Look that man, 5 impossible
• 49:23
  things at the same time. And he has a track record of
• 49:25
  doing that now over decades. And so the fact that he is
• 49:30
  willing to put aside the concerns that he has and offer
• 49:34
  himself to attempt to do something that really has no
• 49:37
  direct personal benefit for him except in the more abstract way
• 49:42
  that Mister Kennedy referred to. I like daring people, and I like
• 49:46
  daring people who are geniuses. It's not obvious to me that they
• 49:49
  necessarily make the best political leaders because in
• 49:52
  times of quiescence and stability, managerial
• 49:55
  administrative types are probably more appropriate.
• 49:57
  Politics shouldn't be our central concern, and the
• 50:00
  charisma associated with that centrality of concern is
• 50:03
  dangerous. Dangerous.
• 50:04
  It becomes monarchical. But it doesn't appear to me that
• 50:06
  these are ordinary times, with the rapid proliferation of the
• 50:10
  administrative state than with the threat of war that besets us
• 50:14
  at the moment in a terrible manner, much underappreciated,
• 50:18
  as far as I'm concerned. I think it's time for a little
• 50:20
  more daring on the political front than might be called 400
• 50:23
  normal times. And how could you possibly ask
• 50:26
  for someone who's more confident in terms of administrative
• 50:29
  organization than Musk? He's a track record, and it's
• 50:33
  lengthy, incredibly intensive, and also multidimensional.
• 50:36
  He's made a spectacular success not only of a series of
• 50:41
  improbable ventures, but also a diverse set of improbable
• 50:46
  ventures. And, well, that's rare enough.
• 50:48
  I would say he's virtually singular in that regard.
• 50:50
  So it's an amazing opportunity. And I think the same thing to a
• 50:54
  somewhat a degree of the other people that Trump has gathered
• 50:57
  around them. They're remarkable people.
• 50:58
  Tulsi Gabbard fits into that category, and so does Ramaswamy
• 51:02
  and and Kennedy. And so that's an exciting
• 51:05
  possibility as far as I'm concerned.
• 51:07
  And more power to Elon Musk if he can manage this.
• 51:10
  I wish Trump would capitalize on it more.
• 51:12
  It's just I couldn't agree. That was that lacuna in the
• 51:15
  debate. It's like, you have great people
• 51:18
  with you and it's so shocking that they've agreed to join you.
• 51:21
  Who would have guessed? Do you see more people that are
• 51:24
  much more innovative wanting to sign up for the Trump
• 51:28
  administration than we are seeing with Democrats currently?
• 51:31
  Me, me personally, I think that the the team that Trump has
• 51:35
  gathered around himself speaks directly to that.
• 51:38
  There isn't anyone on the Democrat side who has the
• 51:41
  independently generated public face that any of the main
• 51:45
  players around Trump have. I think the disruptors, the
• 51:48
  disruptors of the status quo seem to be lining up.
• 51:50
  Doesn't matter whether they're left or right.
• 51:52
  They're lining up behind Trump, Tulsi and Kennedy.
• 51:55
  Yeah, it's people who are apprehensive about, who feel in
• 51:59
  their bones that something is going on at a deep level in the
• 52:02
  West that is extraordinarily dangerous.
• 52:04
  And I see that all the time, that sentiment in the tours that
• 52:07
  I've been doing. And I've spoken to thousands of
• 52:10
  people around the world and sampled the emotions of hundreds
• 52:13
  of thousands of people, and everyone knows something's up.
• 52:16
  I do think that at the moment, Trump, stunningly enough, is
• 52:19
  best positioned to deal with that.
• 52:21
  And I guess one of the things that convinced me about that was
• 52:24
  the miraculous success that his administration had formulating
• 52:29
  the Abraham Accords, which have held even after October 7th.
• 52:33
  That was a complete impossibility.
• 52:34
  And in the world that was run by non corrupt institutions, the
• 52:38
  Trump administration, people who were involved in the Abraham
• 52:40
  Accords clearly should have won the Nobel Peace.
• 52:43
  Clearly, obviously, yet they didn't.
• 52:45
  And Trump also hasn't capitalized on that.
• 52:48
  The Iranians are conspiring madly to divide the West on the
• 52:53
  issue of Israel, and they're doing that extremely
• 52:55
  effectively, especially through the manipulation of platforms
• 52:59
  like TikTok, despite the huge advantage in some ways to Iran
• 53:03
  in turning the entire Muslim community against Israel in the
• 53:06
  United States, which is their clear goal.
• 53:08
  And they have every reason to do it.
• 53:10
  They know how to do it. It's been their plan since 19
• 53:13
  Abraham Accords have still held. And that's another miracle,
• 53:16
  miracle that Trump managed to pull off, apart from not
• 53:19
  embroiling us in a series of pathological and highly
• 53:22
  dangerous wars. And I don't think his team has
• 53:25
  done a good job of capitalizing on that.
• 53:27
  Who would have thought that it's Trump for peace.
• 53:30
  You know, it's, it's it's just an indication of how upside down
• 53:34
  the world is. But he has a track record that
• 53:35
  demonstrates that clearly. Some of the personal
• 53:38
  characteristics of Trump that I might have found concerning in a
• 53:42
  political leader is bluster and his unpredictable, his
• 53:47
  disagreeableness. For that matter.
• 53:49
  It's very difficult also to estimate just exactly how useful
• 53:52
  that is on the international front, because it wasn't fluke
• 53:55
  that under Trump there was peace with Russia and that there was
• 53:59
  relative stability in our relationships with China and
• 54:02
  even with North Korea. Trump's got that monstrous edge
• 54:05
  that might be highly necessary for dealing effectively with the
• 54:09
  mad bullies of the world. And I don't know exactly to what
• 54:12
  degree foreign policy constitutes a primary concern of
• 54:16
  the American, American electorate, but the fact that
• 54:18
  there are two incredibly dangerous wars raging out of
• 54:23
  control at the moment to me is I think people are whistling in
• 54:27
  the dark about that because it's just too terrifying to look.
• 54:30
  I have been traveling very extensively for many years now
• 54:33
  and I've been to many countries. And recently I was in Europe and
• 54:37
  also in Uzbekistan. And I was talking to people who
• 54:40
  had extensive connections within Russia, industrial and
• 54:43
  otherwise. And I found out I got got the
• 54:46
  same story from 2 independent sources, let's say radically
• 54:50
  independent sources, different countries and very different
• 54:53
  people, that the sanctions on Russia have not only not worked,
• 54:58
  but they've backfired and made Russia stronger.
• 55:01
  And so first of all, they've increased fossil fuel prices.
• 55:04
  And so that's to Russia's huge advantage.
• 55:06
  And 2nd, it turns out that in the modern world, a relatively
• 55:11
  powerful state can industrialize over a period of about four
• 55:13
  years. So in Uzbekistan, which trades
• 55:16
  extensively with Russia, I saw a repurposed Russian factories
• 55:20
  manufacturing at a very high quality everything you could
• 55:24
  possibly imagine, from basic construction piles and
• 55:28
  construction equipment to high tech implements and consumer
• 55:33
  goods. And Uzbekistan has
• 55:35
  industrialized in five years. The gentleman that I was
• 55:39
  speaking with who showed me his factories, his enterprises are
• 55:42
  responsible for 15% of Uzbekistan's GDP.
• 55:48
  And his sense was that the sanctions have bolstered
• 55:52
  Russia's economic security and allowed the Russian enterprise
• 55:55
  to industrialize at the cost of the West.
• 55:57
  And so not only are we risking nuclear war with the Russians,
• 56:00
  which is not a very wise thing to do, we're also sabotaging our
• 56:05
  own economies by pushing this strange D gross that's killing
• 56:08
  Germany and the UK, for example. And we're producing a parallel
• 56:12
  economy could within a few years easily have the strength of the
• 56:15
  Western industrial economy and sabotaging ourselves in
• 56:19
  relationship to China. Well, we're doing so sunny and I
• 56:22
  can't see that's going to reverse under a Democrat
• 56:26
  administration. I just don't see that at all.
• 56:28
  Whereas I think that Trump and his strange collection of, what
• 56:31
  would you say, improbable geniuses, both on the moral and
• 56:35
  the intellectual front that he's doubted around him.
• 56:37
  Who knows, maybe they could do something about it.
• 56:40
  Yeah, I wanted to respond to a number of things that we've
• 56:43
  talked about. One was the question of safety,
• 56:45
  which I don't think is a small issue at all.
• 56:47
  I spent a lot, lot of time thinking about it in many
• 56:49
  different contexts, but I would point out that the fear that has
• 56:53
  been cultivated is the primary tool that is being used to
• 56:59
  control us, and we're going to have to face that fear if we're
• 57:03
  to find our way out of this. So I would encourage people to
• 57:08
  follow Bobby Kennedy's lead and recognize that there is a
• 57:12
  danger, that there's probably not much you can do about it.
• 57:15
  And the one thing you certainly can't do is protect yourself in
• 57:18
  the long term by hiding from it. Yes, you could probably make
• 57:22
  yourself safer in the short term.
• 57:24
  I'm glad Brett's back here 'cause I want to ask him.
• 57:26
  Because what's interesting is there a need for a third party,
• 57:30
  when really I think what we have is one really large unified
• 57:34
  party with a very fringe left party and some people that are
• 57:40
  more conservative on the right. But it seems like the Republican
• 57:42
  Party is the big tent party. The media is what keeps us from
• 57:46
  realizing that there's a chunk of us that actually agree with
• 57:50
  one another. And I want to get Brett's take
• 57:52
  on it because I know we have Republicans and Democrats and we
• 57:55
  have these different critical political parties.
• 57:57
  But it seems to me it's becoming.
• 57:59
  Apparent that we have a giant American party.
• 58:01
  It's just we're not allowed to talk about it.
• 58:03
  Is that what you're seeing? The fact is, this isn't even
• 58:06
  new. I don't know if you've ever
• 58:08
  looked at the Hidden Tribes report.
• 58:10
  Sometime a report came out that found that we had essentially 2
• 58:16
  small fringes and a vast exhausted middle of people who
• 58:20
  agree on most of the important stuff, even the stuff that we're
• 58:23
  told we can't agree on, like reproductive rights.
• 58:27
  It turns out that most of us are in basic agreement about them.
• 58:30
  So yes, the control is maintained by leading us to
• 58:33
  fight each other, when in fact what unites us far exceeds what
• 58:38
  divides us. But I would encourage you to
• 58:41
  rethink your sense of the parties.
• 58:44
  Something has happened. The Blue team has been taken
• 58:47
  over by something utterly unholy.
• 58:51
  We've just seen what I think is provably a coup right in front
• 58:56
  of our eyes. We don't know who the president
• 58:58
  is, and the person on the blue team who's running for president
• 59:02
  is complicit, forced the president out of the race by
• 59:05
  invoking the 25th Amendment, but leaves him in the office and
• 59:09
  does not invoke the 25th Amendment.
• 59:10
  What exactly is going on here? This is this has nothing to do
• 59:13
  with the system that was outlined by our founders.
• 59:16
  So the blue team isn't really a political party in the
• 59:19
  traditional sense. It's some kind of cabal that has
• 59:22
  taken control. And then what's happening over
• 59:25
  on the red side? It doesn't look like any
• 59:28
  Republican Party that I'm familiar with.
• 59:30
  Over the course of the last five decades, it looks totally
• 59:35
  different. And it has accumulated a
• 59:38
  absolutely huge and radically diverse coalition of people.
• 59:43
  That's a brand new feature on this political landscape.
• 59:47
  And I would encourage you in thinking about what the
• 59:50
  Republican Party is, although it contains elements that are
• 59:53
  holdovers from the Republican Party of 10 years ago, it is
• 59:58
  more different than it is similar.
• 59:59
  That much is clear. I'm in fact encouraged that
• 1:00:03
  maybe we should be thinking of it as the grand new party.
• 1:00:06
  And you're absolutely right. What it?
• 1:00:08
  Is it's a very big tent that we're pitching and it happens to
• 1:00:12
  be under a color that we all have connotations with, but it's
• 1:00:15
  a new phenomenon. What we really need, I think, as
• 1:00:18
  your comment alluded to, is a second party.
• 1:00:22
  In that vein, I would point out that we have with us my good
• 1:00:25
  friend Angela McArdle, who many of you will know and some of you
• 1:00:30
  will not be familiar, is the head of the National Libertarian
• 1:00:35
  Party. She has been, I don't want to
• 1:00:38
  say Co conspirator, that would obviously be a joke, but you
• 1:00:42
  never know who's listening and how they're going to portray
• 1:00:44
  this. Anyway, I want Angela to talk to
• 1:00:48
  us about not only how this looks from the point of view of
• 1:00:50
  liberals and conservatives, but from her very different, very
• 1:00:53
  important faction. Is the Libertarian Party the
• 1:00:56
  next second party? And Angela, I'd love your take
• 1:00:58
  on this. And and as I give you the mic as
• 1:01:00
  well, I do want to give a massive welcome as well to Matt
• 1:01:02
  Taibbi. We're going to go to shortly.
• 1:01:04
  Matt, one of my favorite journalists since the Twitter
• 1:01:06
  Files. I'd love to get your perspective
• 1:01:08
  on the discussion now since we're getting into the control
• 1:01:10
  of free speech. Angela, pleasure to have you.
• 1:01:13
  I think it's the first time on stage.
• 1:01:14
  Please do go ahead. Thank you.
• 1:01:16
  Thank you for having me back. Maybe I can tee this question up
• 1:01:20
  for Matt, who is graciously speaking at our event and and
• 1:01:23
  has been helping us out with our quote UN quote conspiring.
• 1:01:27
  You know, as chair of a national political party, I've taken a
• 1:01:29
  great risk and, and quite a bit of heat in organizing this
• 1:01:32
  movement. But I really do think we have to
• 1:01:35
  take a leap of faith and trust each other.
• 1:01:37
  And, you know, also hope one of us doesn't turn out to be a
• 1:01:39
  snake, right? Because it's it's difficult,
• 1:01:42
  unifying. And I say that kind of tongue in
• 1:01:44
  cheek. It's difficult because we don't
• 1:01:46
  align perfectly. But I really think we have to
• 1:01:48
  work together where we can in order to preserve individual
• 1:01:51
  rights and Western values like free speech, property rights,
• 1:01:56
  upward economic mobility, the things that make people want to
• 1:01:59
  come to America. And it's a risk to trust each
• 1:02:03
  other. But at this point in time, I
• 1:02:04
  think it's a greater risk to not trust each other and to end up
• 1:02:08
  being devoured by the snakes and deep state operatives that are
• 1:02:11
  out there trying to tank the country.
• 1:02:13
  And that's essentially why I've worked with Brett to organize
• 1:02:17
  Rescue the Republic. Because we, the people who are
• 1:02:20
  not cheering on assassination attempts, who don't want to live
• 1:02:23
  in a pod and eat bugs, I think we need to band together and
• 1:02:26
  push back against this murderous regime and the murderous
• 1:02:30
  ideology that's behind it. And Brett and I struggled to
• 1:02:33
  articulate perfectly what we are pushing back against.
• 1:02:37
  We talked about all these different industrial complexes,
• 1:02:40
  which I feel like is the best way that we we could really
• 1:02:42
  articulate it. But even more so than
• 1:02:46
  articulating and describing our enemy, I wonder, is there
• 1:02:49
  something more fitting or precise, a more precise way to
• 1:02:53
  describe this movement besides unity?
• 1:02:56
  Because I think what we're putting together right now is
• 1:02:59
  really powerful. And Matt, pleasure to have you.
• 1:03:02
  Thanks, Mario. I really appreciate it.
• 1:03:03
  And thank you, Angela for the the question and thank you also
• 1:03:07
  for the event. I'm really looking forward to
• 1:03:09
  it. Put a lot of thought into it.
• 1:03:10
  As to that question. How do you describe it?
• 1:03:13
  It's been interesting listening to everyone tonight, Brett
• 1:03:16
  talking about the the great exhausted middle, Mr. Kennedy
• 1:03:20
  talking about how he doesn't recognize Democratic Party and
• 1:03:25
  the rite of passage that everybody thought that Dick
• 1:03:28
  Cheney was Darth Vader and suddenly everybody believing the
• 1:03:31
  inverse. It's amazing.
• 1:03:33
  And the the question is what happened?
• 1:03:35
  And I think the issue, the particular lens that I had to
• 1:03:38
  look at this through in the last few years as a reporter has been
• 1:03:41
  clarifying in this respect, censorship is probably the one
• 1:03:46
  issue that helps explain the transformation of American
• 1:03:51
  partisan politics. When we first started working on
• 1:03:54
  the Twitter Files in the first couple of days, the first things
• 1:03:58
  that we saw were these emails that were said, things like
• 1:04:01
  flagged by DHS and flagged by FBI.
• 1:04:04
  And when we started looking at it, very quickly we discovered
• 1:04:08
  there was this elaborate funded series of government
• 1:04:11
  bureaucracies that, watch the Internet, were very interested
• 1:04:14
  in controlling information. So the immediate question was,
• 1:04:18
  what are these bureaucracies but their origin?
• 1:04:21
  And we found that a lot of them had begun right after 911 and
• 1:04:26
  had the roots were as counter terrorist operations overseas.
• 1:04:30
  So a good example is the Global Engagement Center at the State
• 1:04:34
  Department, which is also called GEK, that used to be called the
• 1:04:37
  Center for Strategic Counter Communications.
• 1:04:40
  It was originally designed to counter the message of groups
• 1:04:43
  like ISIS and al Qaeda. They were funded to solve the
• 1:04:46
  problem of foreign Islamists recruiting middle and upper
• 1:04:50
  class kids in the suburbs of London and New York.
• 1:04:52
  But over time, and then especially after Brexit and then
• 1:04:56
  Donald Trump's election, these organizations morphed into
• 1:05:01
  inward and they acquired a new mission.
• 1:05:05
  First head of GECK was the former editor of TIME, Rick
• 1:05:08
  Stengel. And in his book he wrote about
• 1:05:10
  how they were. He had this light bulb moment
• 1:05:13
  when he realized that, and this is a quote, Trump employed the
• 1:05:16
  same techniques of disinformation as the Russians
• 1:05:19
  in the same scare tax to tax ISIS.
• 1:05:22
  So basically at that point, a lot of these organizations, they
• 1:05:27
  began to look at their own domestic populations in the same
• 1:05:32
  light that they had looked at the terrorist enemy previously.
• 1:05:35
  And once first described the the change to me as CT to CP, which
• 1:05:40
  is counterterrorism to counter populism.
• 1:05:42
  Everybody's trying to give a name to what this new coalition
• 1:05:46
  is. And I just think the coalition
• 1:05:48
  is everybody. These groups basically this very
• 1:05:51
  small number of people who are managing these very powerful
• 1:05:57
  military and surveillance bureaucracies, among other
• 1:06:00
  things. They now see the domestic
• 1:06:03
  population and voting people who are prone to thinking about
• 1:06:07
  removing them from office as threats.
• 1:06:11
  It's like the Terminator, right? It's like it's basically the
• 1:06:13
  same story and so. How do they deal and, and this
• 1:06:17
  question I asked Doctor Peterson, I think earlier, but
• 1:06:19
  how do they deal in your opinion with these threats?
• 1:06:21
  Like you've covered it extensively when it comes to
• 1:06:23
  free speech, censoring them, controlling the narrative,
• 1:06:25
  That's one way of dealing with it.
• 1:06:26
  Maybe I can pivot to asking you about the the assassination
• 1:06:30
  attempted assassination on President Trump.
• 1:06:31
  What are your personal thoughts on these events and why no one's
• 1:06:34
  talking about it today? I don't know that we have a ton
• 1:06:37
  of information to go on that would suggest any kind of
• 1:06:41
  government involvement beyond maybe the possibility of
• 1:06:44
  intentionally bad security. What I will say though, is that
• 1:06:48
  it's very conspicuous the kind of law fair efforts leading up
• 1:06:52
  to the assassination, the lack of coverage of the
• 1:06:55
  assassination, all those things, the attempts to prosecute what
• 1:07:00
  your political enemies. We had an extraordinary run of
• 1:07:03
  things happened just in the last few weeks.
• 1:07:05
  We had raids on the houses of people like Scott Ritter.
• 1:07:10
  And then there was an ex Soviet analyst named Dimitri Saenz, who
• 1:07:14
  used to be considered the middle of the road conservative
• 1:07:17
  analyst. And the FBI goes into his house,
• 1:07:20
  phrases, his accounts, because they don't like what he says.
• 1:07:22
  About the war in Ukraine. There's just this comprehensive
• 1:07:27
  holistic effort with from speech to the weaponization of the
• 1:07:31
  Justice Ministry to think about we've been in this 9 post 9/11
• 1:07:37
  War on Terror environment where we've steadily lost, had our
• 1:07:40
  rights chipped away at, from the 8th Amendment to the Fifth
• 1:07:44
  Amendment to the 4th Amendment to the First Amendment now.
• 1:07:46
  And we've. Been like frogs in boiling
• 1:07:48
  water, and they're just. Going to keep hacking.
• 1:07:50
  Away. It's like a dangerous path to a
• 1:07:52
  dystopia. Dr. Peterson, what would you say
• 1:07:55
  is your biggest concern? Out of I'd say the three main
• 1:07:57
  weapons that whoever's in power in any country really, we're
• 1:08:01
  focusing on the US would be censorship or controlling the
• 1:08:03
  speech lofi and maybe a weaker weapon to have is just character
• 1:08:08
  assassination, as we've seen with with with Mr. Kennedy.
• 1:08:11
  Which of these and is there any other weapons that you put into
• 1:08:14
  the arsenal? Which one do you think is the
• 1:08:16
  most concerning as we, as in society, slowly boils like a
• 1:08:21
  frog? I've been the personal recipient
• 1:08:23
  of all three of those in Canada and and that's happened in a
• 1:08:27
  manner that I wouldn't have really thought possible in my
• 1:08:29
  home country. My license to practice as a
• 1:08:32
  clinical psychologist is under serious threat and has been for
• 1:08:35
  10 years. And in some ways the pressure on
• 1:08:37
  that front just continues to mount.
• 1:08:39
  And it's what is that? Is that exactly coming from the
• 1:08:42
  government down? It is to some degree, but I
• 1:08:45
  actually think that it's the corruption of the universities
• 1:08:48
  that's behind it, since they're upstream from almost all
• 1:08:51
  positions of authority and power.
• 1:08:52
  And we've seen a pronounced shift in the manner in which the
• 1:08:56
  universities conduct themselves, especially in the humanities and
• 1:09:00
  social science space. And that's been accelerating
• 1:09:03
  over a 30 year period. And it it hits something like
• 1:09:07
  critical volume in the mid 2000 and 10s and has polluted the
• 1:09:12
  space of public discourse in a terrible way ever since.
• 1:09:16
  I still think about it in some ways as the biggest danger
• 1:09:19
  because while the source is polluted and so everything that
• 1:09:21
  runs downstream from it is becoming increasingly corrupt,
• 1:09:25
  that the bureaucrats in Canada, for example, who are threatening
• 1:09:28
  my license, my livelihood, my reputation and my finances are
• 1:09:33
  mid level bureaucrats who are quasi educated.
• 1:09:37
  And they don't seem to have any concern whatsoever for classic
• 1:09:41
  Western freedoms and certainly very little concern for classic
• 1:09:44
  Western civilization as such. And it's not surprising because
• 1:09:48
  they've been educated in that belief or anti belief their
• 1:09:52
  entire life. You know it, We didn't, we
• 1:09:54
  didn't necessarily expect that the next wave of tyranny would
• 1:09:58
  be a consequence of action at the mid level bureaucracy.
• 1:10:01
  But that seems to be what's happening.
• 1:10:03
  But I think it, like I said, a huge part of that's attributable
• 1:10:06
  to the universities. Of course, Brett was the unhappy
• 1:10:09
  recipient of the same kind of treatment in the United States.
• 1:10:12
  Seems like a lifetime ago we are.
• 1:10:15
  Jordan got most of the way there in his last comment.
• 1:10:19
  But at some level, we are dancing around a frightening
• 1:10:23
  recognition that something which is hostile to all of the values
• 1:10:29
  and protections that allow the West to function has gotten
• 1:10:34
  control over not just one of the governments of Western
• 1:10:39
  countries, but seemingly all of them simultaneously.
• 1:10:44
  And that is a much bigger threat than even the failure of any one
• 1:10:47
  nation, no matter how important. So that's really what we're
• 1:10:51
  looking at. And frankly, the evidence isn't
• 1:10:53
  even all that hard to put together.
• 1:10:55
  It's not some remote concept. It's plainly obvious if you just
• 1:10:59
  simply look at the fact that speech rights are failing across
• 1:11:03
  Western Europe and they're failing at the same time in the
• 1:11:06
  US, that Europe has an immigration crisis that just so
• 1:11:09
  happens to be mirrored by 1 here in North America.
• 1:11:12
  This is something that has taken control of our system and has
• 1:11:16
  turned all of the institutions that would ordinarily protect it
• 1:11:20
  against the interests of the public.
• 1:11:23
  Give you some figures, because you're talking about how this is
• 1:11:25
  becoming a global problem. The five biggest democracies by
• 1:11:28
  population size. India's number one.
• 1:11:30
  I, I think we all, you know, know what's going on with the
• 1:11:33
  Modi government and the issues they've had with X, who's trying
• 1:11:37
  to resist a lot of censorship requests. the United States is
• 1:11:40
  number 2, which we've talked about extensively #3's
• 1:11:42
  Indonesia, which they've got their own problems there.
• 1:11:45
  We haven't dug into it enough, so I won't comment there.
• 1:11:48
  Pakistan's number 4, the military pretty much controls
• 1:11:51
  everything in that country and X has been banned in that country.
• 1:11:55
  Brazil is number 5. And we obviously I've had
• 1:11:57
  Eduardo Bolsonaro on my show earlier today and, and we all
• 1:12:00
  know what happened in Brazil and X is still banned in Brazil.
• 1:12:03
  The bank accounts have been unfrozen, but the platform is
• 1:12:06
  still banned. So it is becoming a global
• 1:12:08
  problem. But then Brett, Doctor Peterson
• 1:12:10
  and obviously Angela and and Matt, I'll go with you, Brett
• 1:12:14
  1st and then Dr. Peterson is do you, you think a Trump
• 1:12:17
  administration is enough to reverse what I would call like a
• 1:12:20
  slow and dangerous path towards controlled speech immigration
• 1:12:24
  issues? All these problems are always
• 1:12:27
  dominating headlines, but no one talks about the dangers of
• 1:12:30
  controlled speech, controlled narrative, or where that could
• 1:12:32
  lead the world, especially with everyone having their identity
• 1:12:36
  online now. So essentially being cancelled
• 1:12:38
  on all these social media platforms, you no longer have a
• 1:12:41
  voice. It's almost like you lost your
• 1:12:42
  passport and your phone and any sort of communication with the
• 1:12:45
  outside world. But the question is, Doctor
• 1:12:47
  Peterson, is do you think a Trump administration with Tulsi
• 1:12:50
  Gabbard, with RSK, with Elon, is that enough?
• 1:12:54
  The answer to your question is it damn well better be, and I
• 1:12:57
  think there's reason to hope that it might be.
• 1:12:59
  But we don't have a better alternatives.
• 1:13:02
  And I would also just turn the question on its head.
• 1:13:06
  The people who have targeted our speech rights are focused on
• 1:13:10
  this issue for exactly the same reason that we should be.
• 1:13:14
  This is the essential tool necessary to repel their
• 1:13:17
  advance, and if we lose it, we are in a whole different world.
• 1:13:21
  This is the sign that we are not imagining an attack on all
• 1:13:25
  Western values. This is the last piece that
• 1:13:28
  remains for us to defend them. Here's the crucial part of the
• 1:13:31
  answer to your question. Why might a Trump administration
• 1:13:35
  be in a position to repel this advance?
• 1:13:38
  And the answer is what we are up against, Whatever its nature
• 1:13:41
  might be, that seems to be housed over in the DNC, that
• 1:13:45
  thing has tormented and driven from all of our institutions,
• 1:13:51
  all of the competent, patriotic, insightful people.
• 1:13:56
  Those people are now gathering together around Donald Trump, as
• 1:14:01
  unlikely as that would have seemed to many of us even just a
• 1:14:04
  few years ago. But the fact that group is
• 1:14:08
  gathering in one place gives us the best shot that we have to
• 1:14:12
  repel this advance. We are now dealing with a need
• 1:14:15
  to triage the problem. It's all well and good to ask,
• 1:14:19
  what are you going to do about this problem and what are you
• 1:14:21
  going to do about that problem should you find that your
• 1:14:24
  administration is elected. But really the question isn't
• 1:14:27
  what is going to be done, it's who is going to be put in a
• 1:14:31
  position to sort out how to address the problem.
• 1:14:34
  I've never met anybody who knows more about the problem, and if
• 1:14:38
  there is a way to address it, he's the guy to find it.
• 1:14:41
  So what we want is to see that same logic applied across all of
• 1:14:45
  the critical failures of Western civilization.
• 1:14:47
  Who are we going to put on the job?
• 1:14:49
  Should Elon Musk be the guy to figure out where government is a
• 1:14:53
  wasteful disposal engine for our wealth?
• 1:14:56
  Yeah, I think he's a great person for it.
• 1:14:58
  If he'll take the job, let's put him on it.
• 1:15:00
  And if Trump will simply see his job as managing this large
• 1:15:05
  coalition and figuring out who among all of those highly
• 1:15:09
  capable people is best positioned for each of the
• 1:15:11
  problems we faced, I think we got a pretty good shot.
• 1:15:14
  Have you endorsed President Trump or not I.
• 1:15:16
  Haven't formally endorsed him, but I will tell you right now, I
• 1:15:19
  certainly intend to vote for him.
• 1:15:22
  Now, the reason I haven't formally endorsed him is that
• 1:15:26
  there is a lot of them to go, but there's no part of me that
• 1:15:28
  is holding out for a, a better alternative.
• 1:15:32
  I think we've got our alternative and it is that
• 1:15:34
  coalition, and Donald Trump is the guy at the head of it, and I
• 1:15:38
  will vote for him unflinchingly. I guess that's a little
• 1:15:41
  different than a formal endorsement, but it's not
• 1:15:44
  substantially different. That's a a pretty direct answer.
• 1:15:47
  I appreciate it. Doctor Peterson, as going back
• 1:15:49
  to the question, unless you have other comments, but mainly the
• 1:15:50
  question of a Trump administration and that includes
• 1:15:53
  everyone that we've talked about.
• 1:15:54
  Would that be enough to counter that path that we're heading
• 1:15:57
  down, mainly focusing on controlling speech And do you
• 1:16:00
  think it will have much impact because only you cover and me
• 1:16:02
  too, but we cover sensitive around the world for our global
• 1:16:05
  audience. Do you think in your Trump
• 1:16:06
  administration, with Elon, with Kennedy, with Gabbard, do you
• 1:16:10
  think that'll be enough to counter that, that shift to
• 1:16:13
  censorship around the world, including Brazil, Pakistan,
• 1:16:15
  Europe, which is a major problem, Canada?
• 1:16:17
  Or I don't think it, I don't think it has to be enough in
• 1:16:20
  some ways, because I think the situation is in some ways like
• 1:16:23
  it's crucial but critical, but it's not as dire as it might be.
• 1:16:26
  Because, well, for example, there's every bit of evidence in
• 1:16:30
  Canada that the Trudeau government, which was on the
• 1:16:33
  forefront of some of this woke nonsense that we've been
• 1:16:35
  commenting about today, this globalist, utopian totalitarian
• 1:16:39
  danger, Trudeau's, he'll be lucky in the next election if
• 1:16:43
  his party maintains viable party status.
• 1:16:46
  He's going to get decimated. And the person who's going to
• 1:16:49
  replace him, Pierre Polio, is reliable conservative type of
• 1:16:53
  the populist conservative type that now seems to be emerging.
• 1:16:56
  And there's every sign of that sort of thing happening in
• 1:16:58
  Europe too. It's not like the Scandinavian
• 1:17:01
  countries have got off their rocker and Italy has a pretty
• 1:17:03
  competent government and the Eastern Europeans are firmly
• 1:17:06
  aligned with the US and their staunch free speech advocates,
• 1:17:10
  having had 70 years of Soviet totalitarianism to contend with.
• 1:17:14
  It is the case that the American popular public itself agrees on
• 1:17:18
  with a kind of 90% plurality on almost all major issues,
• 1:17:22
  including the ones that hypothetically divide us so
• 1:17:25
  badly. And so I, I think the problem
• 1:17:28
  we're facing is actually tied into the psychological issues
• 1:17:31
  that I described earlier is that these new communication
• 1:17:35
  technologies have made the public discourse space much more
• 1:17:38
  amenable to take over by bad actors.
• 1:17:41
  And they're the psychopathic narcissist types.
• 1:17:43
  And what they're essentially using is a victim, victimizer
• 1:17:47
  narrative to obtain control. And that's a very old story.
• 1:17:50
  Societies are always threatened by the resentful, envious,
• 1:17:54
  bitter types whose who are enraged and shaped their pist at
• 1:17:59
  the sky because their pathway through life hasn't garnered to
• 1:18:03
  them the same benefits that might have come to the more
• 1:18:05
  deserving. And it's always a catastrophe
• 1:18:07
  when they get the upper hand. And that's that is what's
• 1:18:10
  happening. But that doesn't mean that the
• 1:18:12
  rot, it's not fluke, that it's the average American citizen
• 1:18:17
  that sees through this and can tell that whatever it is that's
• 1:18:21
  good in Trump is the antidote to it.
• 1:18:25
  I think that's right. And I think that is the majority
• 1:18:27
  sentiment and not only in the United States.
• 1:18:30
  Now, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of work to do, but I
• 1:18:32
  don't see the situation as hopeless by any stretch of the
• 1:18:35
  imagination. And I also think in many ways,
• 1:18:37
  even though we're coming to a kind of crisis because of this
• 1:18:40
  election, I think in some ways the window of what you can now
• 1:18:45
  say without being entirely trampled upon by the censorious
• 1:18:51
  mob is actually widened to some degree in the last two or three
• 1:18:55
  years. When I started talking about the
• 1:18:57
  trans butchery problem, that was the first podcast I did after I
• 1:19:01
  was ill for a couple of years. I was terrified to even bring it
• 1:19:05
  up. And now that's it's not even
• 1:19:08
  controversial to criticize the idea that cutting the breasts
• 1:19:11
  off young women is a bad idea. And so that seems to be a
• 1:19:15
  substantive improvement. And I would say the same thing
• 1:19:18
  has occurred on the climate apocalypse front.
• 1:19:21
  I think that battle in some ways is over, is that people now
• 1:19:24
  understand that whatever might be going on in the environmental
• 1:19:28
  realm, it's being hijacked by bad actors and used to foment
• 1:19:33
  the kind of idiot tyrannical policies that have, well,
• 1:19:37
  demolished Germany, for example, and put the UK at tremendous
• 1:19:40
  risk. So I think we have a reason to
• 1:19:43
  be optimistic now. Obviously this election is a
• 1:19:46
  crucial point and it's going to be a hard struggle forward if
• 1:19:50
  whoever the hell is running the show in the United States now
• 1:19:53
  manages to continue with their grip.
• 1:19:55
  But I don't think Trump is alone, and I don't think he's
• 1:19:58
  alone around the world. Even in Great Britain they just
• 1:20:01
  elected Labour government. They're sensorial to the
• 1:20:04
  extreme, but it's not like they're popular.
• 1:20:07
  And half the reason they got elected was because it was time
• 1:20:09
  to throw the Conservatives out. And they richly deserved it,
• 1:20:12
  having swallowed all that net 0 idiocy and tank the British
• 1:20:16
  economy. They needed to be turfed out.
• 1:20:18
  But didn't mean the Labour Party was popular.
• 1:20:20
  Doesn't mean that they're idiot globalist.
• 1:20:22
  So I don't think the situation is dire, even though we're
• 1:20:27
  facing a crucial election. I think things could be turned
• 1:20:29
  around in relatively short order.
• 1:20:31
  That happened in the 1990s. At the beginning of the 1990s,
• 1:20:35
  things weren't exactly positive in the US and your country
• 1:20:39
  underwent a boom of unparalleled proportions for about 15 years.
• 1:20:43
  And the US certainly has the capacity to do that again.
• 1:20:46
  It's done it many times in the past.
• 1:20:48
  The things could be set right in comparatively short order if we
• 1:20:52
  were fortunate. And I think the Trump team at
• 1:20:54
  the moment is composed of arguably composed of the
• 1:20:57
  remarkable people who could pull that off.
• 1:20:59
  And would be good for Trump to come out as a clear team player.
• 1:21:05
  And also to show everybody that because he's also elderly, that
• 1:21:09
  there are a myriad of competent people around him who can take
• 1:21:12
  some of the weight off his shoulders, which would be a good
• 1:21:14
  thing, but who could also chart a course for the future.
• 1:21:17
  And so there's a lot of truthful communication that Trump
• 1:21:21
  enterprise could engage him highlighting this new
• 1:21:23
  transformation in his team, which like I said, I don't think
• 1:21:27
  he's fully come to terms with yet.
• 1:21:29
  That could be greatly reassuring to the American populace.
• 1:21:33
  And maybe turn the look, look, look at it this way.
• 1:21:35
  His performance, Kamala Harris's performance in the last debate
• 1:21:40
  exceeded expectations. And so in consequence,
• 1:21:43
  technically she won. I didn't think Trump's
• 1:21:46
  performance was what would you say?
• 1:21:48
  It wasn't bad, but it could have been much better and you've
• 1:21:51
  mentioned that, for example, talking a lot about the team he
• 1:21:54
  has around him as one main. Example exactly.
• 1:21:57
  But that pathway is open to him. He could do that.
• 1:21:59
  He could say, look, I've gathered some remarkable people
• 1:22:03
  around me in a very surprising manner.
• 1:22:05
  And he could be pushing that in a manner that made it clear that
• 1:22:09
  this wasn't Trump versus the Democrats or Trump versus
• 1:22:13
  Harris, but a team of competent and committed people who are
• 1:22:17
  with a proven revolutionary track record who could in
• 1:22:21
  principle set things right even by asking the right questions.
• 1:22:24
  Like, it's such a miracle to see Kennedy enter the scene.
• 1:22:28
  The Trump slogan even morphed into make America healthy again.
• 1:22:31
  Make. Who the hell thought that was on
• 1:22:33
  the table? No one and half of genius is
• 1:22:36
  asking the right questions, and Trump's already got that going
• 1:22:39
  for him right now. It's really exciting to see and
• 1:22:42
  he can really capitalize on that in the last what we got about 50
• 1:22:45
  days until the election. Like that could be the theme.
• 1:22:48
  He needs to rely a lot more on his team.
• 1:22:50
  And it feels a lot like elected, like what we're going to see if
• 1:22:53
  we do get a Trump administration.
• 1:22:55
  It's going to be a battle between elected and unelected
• 1:22:58
  officials. And, bro, I know you're trying
• 1:22:59
  to jump in just before before you do.
• 1:23:01
  So. Tulsi Gabbard will be joining us
• 1:23:03
  within minutes. We're not sure about Charlie
• 1:23:05
  Cook exactly when he is joining. And I'm getting messages in the
• 1:23:07
  back channels that Vivek could join.
• 1:23:09
  He can pop in and out. Apparently.
• 1:23:11
  We're just going to get an update on that.
• 1:23:12
  But we do have Tulsi Gabbard, who's one of the special guests
• 1:23:14
  coming in a few minutes. Brett, go ahead.
• 1:23:16
  I just want to reemphasize this because in every conversation
• 1:23:20
  where I see American politics at the presidential level
• 1:23:23
  discussed, this gets lost. We have a huge number of people
• 1:23:29
  eligible to vote who are tuned in and fed up.
• 1:23:32
  All they've got to do is come off the bench in order for Trump
• 1:23:36
  to win in a landslide. So I echo Peterson's point about
• 1:23:42
  Trump's team, that if Trump can recognize where he is and that
• 1:23:47
  this is not a rerun of any past election, that he is now not
• 1:23:52
  Trump against this vile enemy. But he is a huge and diverse
• 1:23:57
  team of people that he can call upon and he can point to.
• 1:24:00
  And that will neutralize people's concerns about him
• 1:24:05
  because he's partnered with people who hold a different
• 1:24:08
  perspective on issues that they worry about.
• 1:24:10
  That's tremendously powerful. And I hope it's not a lot of
• 1:24:15
  time before the election happens.
• 1:24:17
  And in the US voting doesn't even happen all on one day
• 1:24:19
  anymore. Just simply recognizing where he
• 1:24:23
  is on the chess board and other people recognizing that this is
• 1:24:26
  not a moment for high minded arguments about why you're too
• 1:24:31
  disgusted to vote or why you're going to vote for something that
• 1:24:34
  doesn't have a chance of winning.
• 1:24:36
  This is the moment to cut that out, to vote for the one thing
• 1:24:40
  that is hopeful. And I guess I would add to what
• 1:24:43
  Jordan said, the degree to which this moment is hopeful or
• 1:24:47
  terrifying is it has become strangely binary.
• 1:24:50
  If we lose this election, we're in big trouble.
• 1:24:52
  If we win this election, there's a tremendous possibility that
• 1:24:55
  it's the dawn of a new era. And Doctor Peterson, you
• 1:24:58
  mentioned something earlier, Elon, we posted your clip where
• 1:25:00
  you said it'd be very exciting for me to contemplate a
• 1:25:03
  department of efficiency headed by Elon, as Musk has repeatedly
• 1:25:07
  demonstrated his ability to take dysfunctional organizations and
• 1:25:11
  reconstitute them, much like Steve Jobs did for Apple.
• 1:25:14
  So we'll put that whole clip there.
• 1:25:15
  And Elon did like it a few minutes ago.
• 1:25:17
  Well, this is probably the the most historic space we've done
• 1:25:19
  in a few months now, I think since the one we had with Elon
• 1:25:22
  Tucker, Alex Jones, Andrew Tate and Vivek and a few others.
• 1:25:25
  It's been an incredible discussion.
• 1:25:26
  I do want to go to Doctor Peterson.
• 1:25:28
  I see you unmute. Then we'll go to the hands,
• 1:25:30
  Doctor Peterson. And, and just for the audience,
• 1:25:32
  we do have Tulsi Gabbard, potentially Vivek and Charlie
• 1:25:35
  Kirk joining us within a few minutes.
• 1:25:37
  Go ahead, Doctor Peterson. I don't know if I have much read
• 1:25:39
  at the moment to add to what Brett said.
• 1:25:41
  I guess the daring part of me is what's optimistic about what's
• 1:25:45
  happening around Trump. As I said before, my sense as a
• 1:25:49
  psychologist, because I've studied people's capability to
• 1:25:52
  perform in different endeavors, is that under normal conditions,
• 1:25:56
  you don't necessarily want people of the sort that have
• 1:25:59
  gathered themselves around Trump at the moment to run the show.
• 1:26:02
  You want administrative, managerial types who tend to
• 1:26:05
  work in the background and to implement.
• 1:26:07
  But now and then you need the entrepreneurial types to come
• 1:26:10
  up, make a radical change. And it looks to me, because
• 1:26:13
  things have tilted so badly in many ways across the world in
• 1:26:17
  the West, that it's time for some medicine that the
• 1:26:20
  entrepreneurial types are perfectly capable of
• 1:26:23
  administering. And I know perfectly well from
• 1:26:26
  my work as a psychologist that Gabbard Kennedy, Quebec.
• 1:26:31
  Musk and Trump himself, they're all into entrepreneurial types,
• 1:26:35
  they're all creative types. And generally they would find a
• 1:26:38
  more welcoming home on the more liberal end of the political
• 1:26:41
  spectrum. But that's not the case now.
• 1:26:43
  And that's also marks the fact that that the issue that Brett
• 1:26:46
  pointed to, which is that we're not in ordinary times.
• 1:26:49
  And Kennedy said the same thing. The political landscape has
• 1:26:51
  shifted in a very strange way, and no one's really figured that
• 1:26:54
  out at the moment. But what we do see is that all
• 1:26:56
  the entrepreneurial types, the more revolutionary thinkers and
• 1:27:00
  the and these are highly competent people as well, which
• 1:27:02
  is also something to note. They've lined up behind Trump
• 1:27:05
  because you've got to ask yourself, it's like, why the
• 1:27:07
  hell Art Kennedy and Gabbard and Musk with Camelot?
• 1:27:11
  Jesus, you could even ask the same thing about Trump himself,
• 1:27:14
  right? What's going on?
• 1:27:15
  Why are they with the Republicans?
• 1:27:16
  That makes no sense. Not under normal times.
• 1:27:19
  I. Want to go back to the debate
• 1:27:20
  that we saw, Jordan, You've talked about Trump's lost
• 1:27:23
  opportunity to talk about the team around him.
• 1:27:25
  But what are your general thoughts on Trump's performance
• 1:27:29
  that day? Why do you think he got
• 1:27:31
  triggered by Kamala? What do you think of Kamala's
• 1:27:32
  performance and how big of an impact do you think it will have
• 1:27:34
  on the elections? Because we saw on Polymarket,
• 1:27:36
  which is a betting platform, before the debate, Trump was
• 1:27:39
  winning by 8 percentage points. And then throughout the debate,
• 1:27:42
  they both went back to 5050. And now Kamala's at 50.
• 1:27:45
  Trump is at 49, which is pretty much the same.
• 1:27:47
  Look, it's not like Harris showed herself as competent.
• 1:27:51
  She showed herself as much less competent than her, much less
• 1:27:55
  incompetent than her worst detractors had claimed.
• 1:27:58
  And that was sufficient at that point to constitute something of
• 1:28:02
  a victory. Now, I think one of the things
• 1:28:05
  that debate highlighted that no one's really commented on is
• 1:28:08
  that I think it humanized Trump to some degree because he's
• 1:28:12
  generally in a debate, he's a swaggery sort of character, and
• 1:28:14
  he dominates the landscape. And Harris did get under his
• 1:28:19
  skin and she did show a vulnerable side of Trump that I
• 1:28:22
  actually think he needs to show some more of.
• 1:28:24
  It's important to remember, I think that Mister Donald Trump
• 1:28:29
  is a 78 year old man who's been under more stress in the last 10
• 1:28:32
  years than anybody can possibly imagine.
• 1:28:35
  He's had the most powerful Cabela's in the world organized
• 1:28:38
  against him to do nothing but harass him and take him out on
• 1:28:42
  every possible front. And I watched a man who was
• 1:28:46
  somewhat defensive in his posture towards Harris, who is a
• 1:28:49
  bag of tricks in many ways and some of them quite effective,
• 1:28:53
  her derisive hand crossing grin at his what, at his attempts to
• 1:28:58
  defend himself and his administration.
• 1:29:00
  She did that very effectively. But I saw a part of Trump too,
• 1:29:03
  that aroused a certain amount of sympathy for from me, for him.
• 1:29:08
  And I also think that sympathy, what would you say it?
• 1:29:11
  It jives well with the observation that he's now
• 1:29:15
  surrounded himself with a team. One of the things that you can
• 1:29:18
  say that's a risk about Trump is that he's elderly.
• 1:29:20
  When we saw what happened with Biden, that didn't turn out so
• 1:29:24
  well. And so one of the things we
• 1:29:25
  might be really concerned about is that is this man who's been
• 1:29:29
  through so much, who's he got around him to make sure that the
• 1:29:32
  job doesn't kill him or make them deteriorate to the point
• 1:29:35
  where we have a situation like the one that we have right now.
• 1:29:39
  And now he's going all these great people around him.
• 1:29:41
  And so people should be able to rest assured that he's also
• 1:29:44
  obviously not afraid to surround himself with A grade players.
• 1:29:49
  Trump is arguably, by some measures, the most famous person
• 1:29:53
  in the world, but he's certainly rivaled in that regard by Musk.
• 1:29:57
  And yet he seems perfectly willing to ally himself with
• 1:30:00
  Musk. And if it was just Musk, you
• 1:30:02
  might be skeptical about that. But think about that as a
• 1:30:04
  narcissistic move. But he's also done the same
• 1:30:07
  thing with Kennedy, who's no slouch on the public in the
• 1:30:11
  public eye, and also with Gabbard and with Vivek.
• 1:30:14
  And so this looks good to me. It's put to rest many of the
• 1:30:18
  concerns I had about Trump as a as an individual.
• 1:30:22
  And I've dug around behind the scenes too, with regards to
• 1:30:25
  Trump. I know many people who've known
• 1:30:27
  him and worked with him. I can tell you one of the things
• 1:30:29
  they all say is that for them, Trump was a pleasure to work
• 1:30:33
  with. Like I talked to somebody this
• 1:30:34
  week who I won't name, who works with a very liberal organization
• 1:30:38
  who also worked with Trump, and he said that Trump was a delight
• 1:30:40
  to work with. And that isn't what I've heard
• 1:30:42
  about Kamala Harris. And one of the things I've
• 1:30:44
  learned about managing people is that you can tell a lot from
• 1:30:47
  someone by how they treat the people around them, especially
• 1:30:50
  when they're in a position of authority.
• 1:30:52
  And I've heard nothing but good things about Donald Trump, which
• 1:30:56
  belies the idea that he's fundamentally narcissistic
• 1:30:59
  because he is a swaggering guy. But I've heard nothing but
• 1:31:03
  terrible things about Harris with regards to the manner that
• 1:31:06
  she treats people who are in her immediate orbit.
• 1:31:09
  And that's not a that's not a positive thing, that's for sure.
• 1:31:13
  And I also think that Trump did a relatively poor job of
• 1:31:16
  highlighting the degree to which Harris is absolutely uncommitted
• 1:31:20
  to her political platform. I mean, he did point to the fact
• 1:31:23
  that she flip flops and wobbles, but that isn't what she does.
• 1:31:27
  She radically reverses her position at any point in the
• 1:31:30
  process where it appears that doing so will redound to her
• 1:31:34
  political immediate political credit.
• 1:31:36
  And she has supported absolutely absurd things like trans surgery
• 1:31:40
  for inmates. Jesus, really?
• 1:31:43
  That's a priority? Or even something that you think
• 1:31:45
  is reasonable in any universe? Possibly don't to humanity.
• 1:31:50
  So he didn't attack her as effectively as he might have
• 1:31:52
  been. He didn't defend himself as well
• 1:31:54
  as he should have. He didn't make reference to his
• 1:31:57
  team, which was a major mistake. But I don't think that Harris
• 1:32:02
  performed well during the debate, and she won't be able to
• 1:32:05
  garner the same degree of support for merely not being
• 1:32:08
  staggeringly incompetent the second time around.
• 1:32:11
  This isn't over and I don't think what she did will redound
• 1:32:14
  to her credit over the medium to long run.
• 1:32:16
  Can I ask a question? Of course, Jordan, you just said
• 1:32:19
  something that I think is tremendously important.
• 1:32:22
  Many people have, of course, argued that Donald Trump appears
• 1:32:25
  to be narcissistic. And I think I have at least
• 1:32:29
  thought that's not good, but it's not the worst thing in the
• 1:32:33
  world. Somebody who wants to be loved
• 1:32:35
  could find their way to being loved by saving a Republic that
• 1:32:39
  was full of people ready to be grateful for it.
• 1:32:42
  But it sounds to me like you, I know that you can't diagnose
• 1:32:45
  somebody who hasn't come into your office and gone through
• 1:32:48
  whatever the screening process would be.
• 1:32:50
  But informally speaking, you as somebody who knows as much about
• 1:32:54
  narcissism as you could because you have your profession, this
• 1:32:59
  does not feel like a narcissistic person to you from
• 1:33:01
  what you've heard, read and seen.
• 1:33:03
  Is that right? You muted Dr. Pearson, just cut
• 1:33:05
  your mic. Wasn't your mic was better
• 1:33:07
  before? By the way, not sure if you've
• 1:33:08
  changed the mic but it was better before.
• 1:33:10
  We can still hear you fine though.
• 1:33:12
  Okay, I'm back. I'm back.
• 1:33:14
  Look, I tried to digit hole Trump from a personality
• 1:33:17
  perspective and so I'm going to say some things that are pretty
• 1:33:20
  obvious, but they're worth I think they're worth highlighting
• 1:33:22
  anyways. He's very extroverted, like 99th
• 1:33:25
  percentile level. And that's actually one of the
• 1:33:27
  elements of narcissism. To be narcissistic, you have to
• 1:33:30
  be very extroverted and very disagreeable.
• 1:33:33
  Those are two of the five cardinal personality traits.
• 1:33:35
  Now is Trump disagreeable? Did fragments into two facets 2
• 1:33:40
  aspects 1 is compassion and the other is politeness and liberals
• 1:33:46
  tend to be higher in compassion and conservatives hired
• 1:33:49
  politeness. My sense with Trump and I, I
• 1:33:51
  know people like him is that he's high in compassion and low
• 1:33:54
  in politeness and that gives him that kind of attack dog element
• 1:33:57
  in in keeping with his extroversion.
• 1:33:59
  But it also accounts for the fact that he does care for
• 1:34:02
  people, and the working class in particular can see that.
• 1:34:05
  So he's mouthy and funny and bitter and sardonic and cynical
• 1:34:09
  and insanely humorous. And that's well predicted, I
• 1:34:12
  would say, by extroversion and low politeness.
• 1:34:16
  But he's also compassionate, and that mitigates against the more
• 1:34:19
  toxic forms of narcissism. Politics attracts people who
• 1:34:23
  have more narcissistic personality traits because you
• 1:34:26
  have to be extroverted to be a politician under most
• 1:34:29
  circumstances, and you have to be disagreeable enough to enjoy
• 1:34:33
  a certain amount of combat. OK, so then you might ask what
• 1:34:37
  mitigates against the more pathological elements of
• 1:34:40
  narcissism? And I would say high
• 1:34:42
  conscientiousness is one. If the conscientious people are
• 1:34:45
  dutiful and industrious and they can keep their word, they can
• 1:34:48
  keep contracts over a long period of time.
• 1:34:51
  Now, you have to remember that Trump has been successful in a
• 1:34:54
  multitude of different endeavors across his life, including,
• 1:34:58
  let's say, the construction business, which is a very
• 1:35:02
  difficult business and also one in which you have to get your
• 1:35:05
  hands dirty in the negotiating process.
• 1:35:08
  And I've spoken to people for whom Trump has built buildings
• 1:35:11
  in major cities like Chicago, 100 hundreds of millions of
• 1:35:15
  dollars projects and finished them on time and and under
• 1:35:18
  budget. And that's very difficult.
• 1:35:20
  And then he wasn't just successful as a builder, he was
• 1:35:23
  successful as a builder and ATV personality and then as a
• 1:35:26
  candidate for president, a very unlikely one and then as
• 1:35:29
  president. So he also has a track record
• 1:35:32
  and plus he hasn't been taken out of the game regardless of
• 1:35:35
  all the stress. And that indicates another
• 1:35:38
  personality trait, which is he's low in neuroticism.
• 1:35:41
  He really has high stress tolerance.
• 1:35:42
  And I'm not concerned about Trump from the personality
• 1:35:46
  perspective, certainly not nearly as much as I was the
• 1:35:49
  first time that he made a run for the brass ring.
• 1:35:52
  And the fact that he's gathered this circle of people around him
• 1:35:56
  a very diverse views and has obviously been able to negotiate
• 1:36:00
  with them successfully and to pull them into something
• 1:36:03
  approximating a coalition and to listen to them also mitigates
• 1:36:07
  any concern I might have stemming from his.
• 1:36:10
  He's quite the bull in the China shop on X or, or on Twitter.
• 1:36:14
  He was and he's got that vicious sense of humor and he's
• 1:36:17
  definitely got that capability to bully him.
• 1:36:19
  He nicknames and he demeans his opponents, especially if they go
• 1:36:23
  after him. And those are things to watch
• 1:36:26
  out for. But my concerns in that regard
• 1:36:29
  have been fundamentally allied by the fact that his presidency
• 1:36:34
  was peaceful, which was a complete bloody miracle, by the
• 1:36:37
  fact that he negotiated an extraordinarily important peace
• 1:36:40
  treaty even though the State Department said that was
• 1:36:42
  impossible, and by the fact that he's gathered this remarkable
• 1:36:45
  team around him. Fantastic.
• 1:36:47
  Good enough, man, good enough. And another member of that team,
• 1:36:50
  by the way, Brett, not sure if you can see the stage, but we do
• 1:36:52
  have Congresswoman Gabbard on stage as well, which is a
• 1:36:55
  perfect time because Doctor Peterson, you're just referring
• 1:36:58
  to the piece that we had under Trump, considering to relative
• 1:37:01
  to what we have today. And I know, Congresswoman, you
• 1:37:03
  were critical of Trump's foreign policy and then your stance has
• 1:37:07
  shifted over time. Angela, before we go to
• 1:37:09
  Congresswoman, Gary, I do want to go to you and I'd love you to
• 1:37:12
  introduce Congresswoman as well. Thank you.
• 1:37:14
  Yeah, Welcome, Tulsi Gabbard. We're so excited to have you as
• 1:37:18
  part of our team and helping us rescue the Republic.
• 1:37:22
  The question that was asked earlier that we've been batting
• 1:37:25
  around was, is the Trump administration essentially going
• 1:37:28
  to save us? And my perspective on it, this
• 1:37:31
  is this is the leap of faith I was talking about earlier.
• 1:37:34
  You have to hope it's enough and use that hope to propel you into
• 1:37:38
  action. And then we all work together.
• 1:37:40
  We end up pulling ourselves out of trouble.
• 1:37:43
  That's like team unity from my perspective.
• 1:37:45
  I really worry that the American Dream is at stake right now.
• 1:37:49
  And if it fails, then we essentially cease to be the
• 1:37:52
  world power that we've been and fully descend into desperation
• 1:37:55
  and malevolence as we clamp down with more tyrannical actions in
• 1:37:59
  an attempt to hold on to our place, the people who want to
• 1:38:02
  hurt us. I think like the assassination
• 1:38:05
  attempt, like whatever is propping up whoever is in charge
• 1:38:09
  in the White House right now, I think they're evil on a truly
• 1:38:11
  profound level. And maybe we can kick it back to
• 1:38:16
  Doctor Peterson after Tulsi talks of talks on shares with us
• 1:38:20
  some stuff. But I think about when you wish
• 1:38:22
  upon A star, and I think a lot about Doctor Peterson's analysis
• 1:38:26
  of Pinocchio. I really feel like the regime
• 1:38:29
  that struggling for power wants to kill the star and they want
• 1:38:33
  to kill our ability to wish upon A star.
• 1:38:36
  And that's really why we're uniting with Tulsi Gabbard, with
• 1:38:40
  Robert F Kennedy Junior, with all these amazing people at
• 1:38:43
  Rescue the Republic at the event, and just broadly across
• 1:38:47
  the nation and the Western world.
• 1:38:49
  So I want to thank you guys so much for supporting this effort
• 1:38:52
  that Brett and I are doing. And also please visit Join the
• 1:38:57
  Resistance org. And Telsey, it's a pleasure to
• 1:39:00
  have you. My question to you continuing
• 1:39:02
  what Angela was saying is when you talk about rescuing the
• 1:39:04
  Republic, we talked about it earlier, can you expand further
• 1:39:07
  on exactly what we're rescuing? What are the existential issues
• 1:39:12
  that are being faced right now in the US and and the rest of
• 1:39:15
  all other democracies, to be honest?
• 1:39:17
  Thank you. It's great to join all of you.
• 1:39:19
  Gosh, but both of you have touched on some really important
• 1:39:22
  things. And Angela, thanks.
• 1:39:23
  Thanks for really painting such a beautiful picture about what
• 1:39:27
  is at stake and what when you talk about wishing upon A star
• 1:39:30
  and how they want to destroy the star.
• 1:39:32
  I think really when we look at the choice that we have before
• 1:39:37
  us as voters, it is a choice between freedom versus tyranny,
• 1:39:41
  peace versus war. And when I look at many of my
• 1:39:45
  former party leaders, where we look at permanent Washington, we
• 1:39:48
  look at the military industrial complex, we look at all of their
• 1:39:51
  allies and puppeteers. They're they're not even,
• 1:39:55
  they're not so much trying to destroy the stars.
• 1:39:57
  They want to be the sole authority and arbiters of
• 1:40:01
  freedom. They want us to bow to their
• 1:40:05
  desires and their greed for more power, and they want total
• 1:40:10
  control. Ultimately that's that is what.
• 1:40:12
  It's about how they're doing that.
• 1:40:14
  Congresswoman, how would you break it down?
• 1:40:15
  Free speech, Lawfare. Could you break down exactly
• 1:40:19
  all? Of them are connected, of course
• 1:40:21
  this is something that I think there, there are a number of us
• 1:40:24
  here who are on this call and I think there'll be a number of us
• 1:40:27
  speaking at the Rescue the Republic events in Washington DC
• 1:40:30
  on September 29th who've had very direct personal experience
• 1:40:34
  this way in this area. Yes, the censorship of our free
• 1:40:38
  speech is now something that thanks to the expose of the
• 1:40:42
  Twitter Files and many other. And the quiet skies, I'd love
• 1:40:46
  you to expand on the quiet skies.
• 1:40:47
  Secret domestic terrorist as well you were talking about.
• 1:40:49
  Yes, the level of political retaliation and weaponization of
• 1:40:55
  various government agencies in the Department of Justice.
• 1:40:58
  The weaponization of or the use of propaganda, panda media and
• 1:41:03
  big tech in this effort to squash free speech is happening
• 1:41:08
  in many ways, shapes and forms. Most recently, and I am not the
• 1:41:12
  only target of this, obviously there are many, Donald Trump has
• 1:41:15
  been enemy number one in this area for the power elite in
• 1:41:20
  Washington that crosses over both parties.
• 1:41:22
  But for me, most recently, the very next day after I criticized
• 1:41:26
  Kamala Harris specifically about how dangerous she would be as
• 1:41:29
  commander in chief if she were elected, I was placed on this
• 1:41:33
  secret domestic terror watch list called Quiet Skies.
• 1:41:36
  It's administered by the Department of Homeland Security
• 1:41:39
  and TSA, One that many people have never even heard of, one
• 1:41:42
  that members of Congress, at least thus far to my knowledge,
• 1:41:45
  have not been able to gain access to.
• 1:41:47
  They've requested, hey, we want to see who is on this list and
• 1:41:50
  why various leaks and whistle blowers have come forward
• 1:41:53
  saying, hey, you have 6 month old babies on this list.
• 1:41:56
  How does that make sense in any world?
• 1:41:58
  And in my case, whistle blowers came forward, air marshals,
• 1:42:01
  federal air marshals who were disgusted by the fact that they
• 1:42:06
  are being used as pawns to conduct this act that was very
• 1:42:11
  obviously one of political retaliation.
• 1:42:14
  And they've come forward with evidence and they've presented
• 1:42:17
  it to Congress. And it's something that that is
• 1:42:19
  under investigation right now. But what is the reason for doing
• 1:42:22
  this? And it's not only to say, OK,
• 1:42:24
  we're going to bully Tulsi Gabbard or try to harass her out
• 1:42:27
  of this desire for retaliation, but it is to send a message, to
• 1:42:31
  send a message to the American people that this is who we are.
• 1:42:35
  This is the power we have. And you better think twice
• 1:42:38
  before you criticize us. Because if we're coming after
• 1:42:41
  Tulsi Gabbard today, we've come after Bobby Kennedy, we're going
• 1:42:45
  after Elon Musk, you will be next.
• 1:42:48
  And so they're hoping to have this chilling effect on our
• 1:42:51
  country. And quite frankly, in some
• 1:42:52
  cases, it's working. I want to talk about the issue
• 1:42:55
  that you raised with regard to war and peace.
• 1:43:00
  This is very directly connected to the issue of freedom and
• 1:43:04
  liberty. We have seen time and time again
• 1:43:07
  during a state of war. Very often there is this power
• 1:43:11
  grab attempt to take away our freedom and our liberty.
• 1:43:14
  You go back to World War 2 in the Japanese internment camps.
• 1:43:19
  This hits close to home for us in Hawaii, where people were
• 1:43:23
  literally yanked out of their beds or pulled out from their
• 1:43:26
  jobs or their schools, Americans, and put into these
• 1:43:29
  internment camps, all of their freedoms and liberties taken
• 1:43:32
  away simply because of their ethnicity.
• 1:43:35
  Not a single one of them by the end of the war were found to
• 1:43:38
  have been suspect or spies in any way, shape or form for the
• 1:43:42
  enemy. We saw this with the Patriot Act
• 1:43:44
  after 911. That's continuing to be used in
• 1:43:47
  this most recent reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
• 1:43:50
  More and more power grabs. They increase the power of the
• 1:43:53
  federal government to further encroach upon our civil
• 1:43:56
  liberties, our 4th Amendment rights, their ability to surveil
• 1:43:59
  us without any warrant or any due process on our part.
• 1:44:05
  But the list that I'm on is a perfect example that I have no
• 1:44:08
  way to say, hey, you are surveilling me.
• 1:44:12
  Provide the evidence, provide the justification by law.
• 1:44:15
  Under this current law, they have no requirement to do that.
• 1:44:19
  So when we talk about freedom and the fundamental core issues
• 1:44:23
  that are on the line here, we're talking about freedom, we're
• 1:44:26
  talking about peace, we're talking about prosperity, we're
• 1:44:29
  talking about our ability as Americans to truly live and
• 1:44:33
  thrive in a free and peaceful and prosperous society.
• 1:44:37
  I want to go back and just clarify a a comment that's about
• 1:44:41
  President Trump's foreign policy and how my views may have
• 1:44:44
  evolved or changed on that. That's actually that's not quite
• 1:44:46
  accurate. I met with President Trump.
• 1:44:49
  I was the first Democrat to do this back in 2016.
• 1:44:52
  About two weeks after he won the election, I was asked to go and
• 1:44:55
  speak with him in Trump Tower in in New York City about the
• 1:44:59
  Middle East, about the threat of Islamist terrorist groups like
• 1:45:02
  Al Qaeda and ISIS. And to share my thoughts about
• 1:45:05
  how best we should take action to defeat this threat.
• 1:45:09
  And how best we should take action to stop waging regime
• 1:45:13
  change wars that have time and time again turned out to be
• 1:45:17
  quite counterproductive to our own security, both in the sense
• 1:45:21
  of our physical safety and security, but also securing our
• 1:45:25
  liberties and freedoms. President Trump's instincts when
• 1:45:28
  it comes to war has always been and continues to be to stay out
• 1:45:33
  of war as much as possible. I think he recognizes that some
• 1:45:36
  sometimes, unfortunately, war is necessary, but his instinct is
• 1:45:40
  to try to avoid that. Which is why he went out and did
• 1:45:43
  something that President Obama refused to do and something that
• 1:45:46
  President Biden refused to do and that Kamala Harris would
• 1:45:49
  refuse to do. Which is to go out and meet with
• 1:45:51
  a dictator like Kim Jong Un in North Korea with the goal of
• 1:45:55
  trying to de escalate tensions. And the goal of trying to to de
• 1:45:58
  escalate and reduce and minimize the threat of nuclear, a nuclear
• 1:46:03
  attack coming from North Korea. Again, something that hits close
• 1:46:06
  to home for us who live in the Indo Pacific region.
• 1:46:09
  So while of course, I've had some disagreements with
• 1:46:12
  president on certain decisions he's made, as we look to the
• 1:46:16
  kind of change that's possible. And I think this really gets to
• 1:46:18
  the core of your comments and this conversation about our
• 1:46:21
  future that both you and Angela touched on.
• 1:46:25
  There are no guarantees of anything in life, but in this
• 1:46:28
  election, there is a very clear choice.
• 1:46:32
  And I endorsed president and I will do all that I can to help
• 1:46:36
  him get elected because in this election, he is our best hope to
• 1:46:42
  bring about this change. To root out the corruption that
• 1:46:45
  exists within our government and to truly defend our freedom
• 1:46:50
  against those who are constantly assaulting it and trying to take
• 1:46:54
  that freedom away. And to walk us back from the
• 1:46:58
  brink of the many wars that we are embroiled in currently
• 1:47:02
  because of the Harris Biden administration.
• 1:47:04
  Walk us back from the brink of the likelihood of World War 3
• 1:47:09
  and nuclear Armageddon, which is where we sit today, now closer
• 1:47:13
  to the prospect of nuclear war than we ever have been before in
• 1:47:19
  history. According to the Bulletin of
• 1:47:21
  Atomic Scientists, it. It takes more than one person to
• 1:47:24
  do this. It's going to take all of us as
• 1:47:26
  Americans making sure that we lift our voices about how
• 1:47:29
  essential these things are to us as Americans, regardless of
• 1:47:35
  political party or persuasion, or how we may agree or disagree
• 1:47:38
  on other issues. Fundamentally, if we do not have
• 1:47:42
  the freedom to criticize our own government without fear of
• 1:47:45
  political retaliation, if we don't have the freedom to have
• 1:47:48
  debates about different issues in the public square, whether
• 1:47:52
  that be in person or a virtual public square like this, then
• 1:47:57
  then nothing else matters. If we are, if we find ourselves
• 1:48:02
  in the in a state of nuclear war and nuclear Armageddon, we will
• 1:48:07
  have no life, we will have no environment to protect, We will
• 1:48:11
  have no freedom. We will face the annihilation of
• 1:48:15
  of humanity. Again, looking at the core and
• 1:48:18
  fundamental issues where we all should be able to agree upon
• 1:48:23
  which of again, the promise that our founders, the hope that our
• 1:48:26
  founders had for us that we may they have the, that we do have
• 1:48:30
  the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• 1:48:33
  That's a very practical application.
• 1:48:35
  That's not a lofty dream. There's a practical application
• 1:48:39
  that exists behind those words. And in this election, uniquely,
• 1:48:44
  we've got an opportunity to get back on track as we strive
• 1:48:49
  towards those. Goals.
• 1:48:51
  Congressman, I've just got a question.
• 1:48:52
  I've got too many comments to make, but one important one here
• 1:48:56
  just talking about the war in Ukraine.
• 1:48:57
  I posted something today about Russia threatening to cut the
• 1:49:01
  Internet cables, the undersea Internet cables that will impact
• 1:49:04
  pretty much all of the West. And what's fascinating is that
• 1:49:06
  someone is going to potentially be on Trump's administration.
• 1:49:09
  Elon replies to that tweet saying star link will still
• 1:49:13
  work. So essentially, you've got
• 1:49:14
  someone who's not even part of the government that's done that
• 1:49:17
  will be offering a solution to a problem one could argue is being
• 1:49:20
  caused by the current administration, which is the
• 1:49:22
  escalation of the war and potentially Ukraine's tracking
• 1:49:25
  deep into Russian territory with NATO weapons.
• 1:49:27
  And you've got a neighbour to the US.
• 1:49:30
  You've got Brazil where free speech is being attacked by
• 1:49:34
  Morais, Justice Morais. And the person that stood up to
• 1:49:37
  this is not the Biden administration, Elon fighting
• 1:49:41
  that that those censorship requests with the ex and
• 1:49:43
  Starlink offering everyone Internet.
• 1:49:45
  So you've got someone who's not even in the administration yet,
• 1:49:48
  in my opinion, doing more to fight for peace, doing more to
• 1:49:51
  fight for free speech than the current administration.
• 1:49:54
  But my question to you, Congresswoman, is Trump's
• 1:49:57
  comments about ending the war in Ukraine in 24 hours.
• 1:49:59
  Now ignore the 24 hours that could mean days.
• 1:50:01
  But have you spoken to Trump about details President Trump on
• 1:50:04
  how he would end the war? I know it's a very difficult
• 1:50:07
  question, but have you got an idea, rough idea of how he would
• 1:50:09
  achieve? I think it would be, first of
• 1:50:12
  all, I, I can't speak for him, but he has shown through his
• 1:50:15
  approach and he's talked about this just in, during this
• 1:50:19
  campaign. How has every war, just about
• 1:50:23
  every war come to an end? You have to bring the parties to
• 1:50:26
  the table and you have to negotiate some form of a
• 1:50:30
  settlement or treaty or an end to the war.
• 1:50:34
  That's what President Trump has said that he'll do.
• 1:50:36
  And I, he may have talked about this in the debate.
• 1:50:38
  If not, it was in another venue recently where he will speak
• 1:50:42
  with Zelensky, he will speak with Putin, he will speak with
• 1:50:44
  other parties who are concerned and negotiate a settlement in
• 1:50:49
  order to bring about an end to this war as quickly as possible.
• 1:50:51
  That is truly what is in the best interest of the people of
• 1:50:54
  Ukraine and in the interest of peace and in the interest of we,
• 1:50:58
  the American people and people everywhere in the world to begin
• 1:51:02
  that process to walk us back from the brink of World War
• 1:51:05
  Three and nuclear war. And the next question is talking
• 1:51:08
  about the debate between Trump, President Trump and Vice
• 1:51:10
  President Harris. I would love to get your general
• 1:51:12
  thoughts on the debate. Doctor Peterson, who's on stage
• 1:51:15
  with us, made a very interesting observation that Trump could
• 1:51:17
  have focused more on the team around including yourself, Mr.
• 1:51:21
  Kennedy, Elon. That was a very strong argument.
• 1:51:25
  Many of all of them, actually everyone mentioned and were
• 1:51:27
  formerly Democrats. Would love to get your thoughts
• 1:51:30
  on how the debate went and how big of an impact do you think it
• 1:51:33
  will have on the election. First of all, the these debates
• 1:51:37
  that you when you talk about impact having been on that stage
• 1:51:41
  a number of times, it's become just political theater and a
• 1:51:45
  game that's created by the propaganda media for their
• 1:51:49
  ratings and and it's been something that takes a
• 1:51:52
  presidential election, which is very serious thing for us as
• 1:51:56
  voters to decide. Who we I just shopped out and I
• 1:51:59
  do want to go to Brett in the meantime, that same question
• 1:52:02
  because I haven't gotten your thoughts much, Brett, until
• 1:52:04
  Congresswoman is back on on the her mic is back or connection is
• 1:52:07
  back. Congresswoman, your mic isn't
• 1:52:09
  working. But that same question to you,
• 1:52:10
  Brett, just the performance of the debate and how big of an
• 1:52:13
  impact do you think we'll have on the election?
• 1:52:14
  It's a really strange question. I obviously wish the debate had
• 1:52:18
  gone differently than it did. I have talked on the Dark Horse
• 1:52:23
  podcast about what I suspect went in to Kamala Harris's, I
• 1:52:28
  think very surprising performance.
• 1:52:31
  But at some level, I'll I'll return to the same point I made
• 1:52:34
  earlier. Most of the electorate that we
• 1:52:37
  think of are people who are already committed one way or the
• 1:52:41
  other. And it would be lovely if we
• 1:52:43
  could win some people over from the blue team, if we could wake
• 1:52:46
  them up to what their team has become and alert them to the
• 1:52:50
  fact that what exists over on the red team is not what they
• 1:52:53
  have led been led to believe. But even failing that, there is
• 1:52:57
  this huge collection of voters who simply need to return to the
• 1:53:03
  electorate in order to make this a decisive victory for this
• 1:53:08
  clear unity movement that is collecting around Donald Trump.
• 1:53:14
  There's no reason not to do it. If it turned out that it didn't
• 1:53:17
  work, it would be cheap from the perspective of those voters.
• 1:53:21
  But if it turns out to function as I think, it would be a
• 1:53:25
  moment. It would be a historical sea
• 1:53:27
  change, and one that, if you listen to what Tulsi just told
• 1:53:32
  us, we are facing a moment of nuclear peril that exceeds any
• 1:53:37
  in our past. I have reached the same
• 1:53:40
  conclusion. And not only that, but we do not
• 1:53:44
  have towering patriotic figure at the helm to navigate through
• 1:53:49
  those dangerous waters. We don't even know who's in
• 1:53:52
  charge. We know that the president was
• 1:53:55
  forced out of the race by a vice president who is now vying for
• 1:53:58
  the position. She threatened the president
• 1:54:01
  with the 25th Amendment and then did not invoke it in order to
• 1:54:04
  protect the Republic from a president who is no longer
• 1:54:08
  capable of managing the responsibilities of the office.
• 1:54:11
  How much clearer does it have to be that the blue team is not
• 1:54:15
  serious about governance? They are serious about gaining
• 1:54:19
  power and maintaining it, and we have a patriotic obligation to
• 1:54:23
  drive them from office at the point we've done that.
• 1:54:27
  The question about what we do to put the Republic back together
• 1:54:30
  is an interesting question. But until we do, I just see this
• 1:54:33
  as maybe unfortunately, very simple.
• 1:54:36
  We have to win and we have to win by a decisive margin so that
• 1:54:40
  no level of cheating is capable of overcoming it.
• 1:54:42
  Sarah, you've got a question for Congresswoman.
• 1:54:44
  Yes, Congresswoman, are you? Is your mic working at this
• 1:54:47
  time? Just bottom left corner,
• 1:54:50
  congresswoman. You can unmute it.
• 1:54:51
  I think a question I'm fascinated by, I know you've
• 1:54:53
  answered the congresswoman, is why did you leave the Democratic
• 1:54:56
  Party and how would you compare the Democratic Party today to
• 1:54:59
  the Democratic Party you supported previously?
• 1:55:03
  But let's see if congresswoman's mic is working until your mic is
• 1:55:07
  working, Congresswoman's bottom left corner.
• 1:55:09
  If it doesn't work, you can drop down and bring you back up.
• 1:55:11
  Doctor Peterson, I know David's got a question for you.
• 1:55:14
  David, Go ahead. Oh yeah.
• 1:55:15
  It was. You're there, Congressman,
• 1:55:17
  You're there. Can you hear me?
• 1:55:18
  Hi, can you hear me? Yes, Sarah, you've got a
• 1:55:20
  question for Congresswoman. Sorry guys, I've been talking
• 1:55:23
  for the last five minutes. I didn't realize I was on me.
• 1:55:26
  What did my? No.
• 1:55:28
  What? What did we miss?
• 1:55:29
  What, what? What did we miss?
• 1:55:30
  What did we miss? What did we miss?
• 1:55:34
  What did we miss though? Essentially, I'll, I'll just,
• 1:55:37
  I'll sum it up. I'll sum it up as to say Kamala
• 1:55:40
  Harris, the Washington elite, the propaganda media create
• 1:55:44
  these debates as political theater with a false premise for
• 1:55:48
  the American people that we should somehow believe when a
• 1:55:51
  candidate wins a debate that automatically qualifies them to
• 1:55:55
  be president. That's what they, that's what
• 1:55:57
  they want us to believe, which is pretty insulting to us as
• 1:56:01
  voters. And when you look at how Kamala
• 1:56:03
  Harris prepared, she rehearsed her scripted lines very well.
• 1:56:07
  The whole thing should ABC, the moderators, they did their part
• 1:56:11
  to, to try to help create the scenario where Kamala Harris
• 1:56:14
  would win, would win this debate, would get her headlines.
• 1:56:17
  And the thing that I think is very telling is that voters are
• 1:56:21
  not not as stupid as they think they are Because even as the
• 1:56:25
  quick polls that came out in the wake of the debate showed that
• 1:56:28
  even voters who felt Kamala Harris won the debate, it did
• 1:56:32
  not translate into a correlation to voters now being convinced
• 1:56:36
  that they would vote for her. In fact, President Trump is
• 1:56:39
  leading in every single battleground states in the
• 1:56:43
  country, according to the most recent polls there.
• 1:56:45
  There's hope in this election. And this is where it's not just
• 1:56:49
  a call to action and in what we are trying to do, but really to
• 1:56:52
  all of us as Americans is to remind voters about the obvious
• 1:56:57
  choice. This is not about Democrats
• 1:56:59
  versus Republicans. And this kind of goes to your
• 1:57:01
  point, Mario, and and Jordan Jordan's point earlier, that
• 1:57:04
  this is not the binary choice between which team are you on
• 1:57:08
  and team loyalty. It's about our country.
• 1:57:11
  It's about the American people. It's about the choice between
• 1:57:15
  freedom, peace and prosperity or tyranny, war and economic
• 1:57:20
  hardship, and the fact that President Trump has very
• 1:57:23
  independent minded people around him, the support of people like
• 1:57:27
  myself and Bobby Kennedy and others who we are not in
• 1:57:30
  lockstep on every issue. We have very different ideas on
• 1:57:34
  how we should tackle different problems, but none of that
• 1:57:36
  matters because we we are coming together around the most
• 1:57:39
  important things in those issues that I've raised and the need to
• 1:57:43
  bring about a government that that actually upholds the
• 1:57:46
  Constitution and is centered around how do we best serve the
• 1:57:49
  interests of the American people in our country.
• 1:57:52
  First, contrast that with the other choice.
• 1:57:55
  Again, President Trump and Kamala Harris both have very
• 1:57:58
  clear records. You don't have to guess about
• 1:58:00
  what they will do as leaders given they've both served in the
• 1:58:03
  White House in different roles over the last over 4 / 2
• 1:58:07
  different four year terms. But again, on the issue of war
• 1:58:10
  and peace, you look at the fact that Kamala Harris and the
• 1:58:12
  Democrats are celebrating Dick Cheney's support and endorsement
• 1:58:18
  of Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney's support, Adam Kinzinger's
• 1:58:21
  support. What's the thing that they all
• 1:58:22
  have in common? These are the the war mongers of
• 1:58:25
  Washington, Dick Cheney, of course, being the leader among
• 1:58:29
  them and the architect of not only the wars in the Middle East
• 1:58:32
  that have destroyed the Middle East, but also these wars that
• 1:58:34
  we're seeing around the world through his decades and decades
• 1:58:38
  of time and politics in Washington.
• 1:58:41
  And so it's a clear choice. We have the opportunity to bring
• 1:58:45
  about historic change in this election, not for one party or
• 1:58:48
  another party or one person or another person, but for us, for
• 1:58:52
  the people. And I sincerely hope that that
• 1:58:55
  we're able to get this message to voters and we make this
• 1:58:58
  happen. Sarah.
• 1:58:59
  Thank you so much, Congresswoman Gabbard.
• 1:59:02
  My question to you is, since leaving the Democratic Party,
• 1:59:06
  what fundamental changes would the Democrats have to make
• 1:59:09
  within their party for you to ever consider coming back, if
• 1:59:13
  ever? That's a good question that I
• 1:59:16
  haven't spent a lot of time thinking about, primarily
• 1:59:19
  because I tried for years to bring about the kind of change
• 1:59:24
  that I think would be necessary, that I know was necessary and
• 1:59:27
  continues to be necessary in the Democratic Party.
• 1:59:30
  And was confronted with not only a lack of interest in bringing
• 1:59:36
  about change that would make it so that today's Democrat Party
• 1:59:40
  was is more like the party of JFK is more like the party of
• 1:59:45
  Martin Luther King Junior, the party that I joined over 20
• 1:59:48
  years ago. So what are those things, Sarah?
• 1:59:51
  Specifically it it is a a party that once again stands up for
• 1:59:55
  free speech and is willing to not only welcome people with
• 1:59:59
  different views and ideas, but stand up and defend those the
• 2:00:03
  right to free speech for those who may have very different
• 2:00:06
  ideas. The Democratic Party is not, not
• 2:00:09
  only not willing to do that, they are doing.
• 2:00:12
  The exact opposite. You can see how, and this really
• 2:00:16
  makes me sad, how there are some of my former colleagues in the
• 2:00:19
  Democratic Party who even when I was there would join me in
• 2:00:23
  standing up on the issues of related to peace and civil
• 2:00:26
  liberties. Who largely are now completely
• 2:00:29
  conforming to the war mongering elite who are leading the
• 2:00:33
  Democratic Party of today, who don't care about peace and who
• 2:00:36
  don't care about civil, civil liberties and are willing to
• 2:00:39
  sacrifice those things in their pursuit of power.
• 2:00:42
  There's a whole list of things. I, I This is why I wrote my book
• 2:00:45
  For Love of Country. Leave the Democrat Party behind.
• 2:00:49
  It's not a laundry list of issues per SE.
• 2:00:52
  It's a it is each chapter dedicated to what I saw as the
• 2:00:57
  biggest problems with today's Democrat Party, how harmful
• 2:01:01
  their actions and their yeah, their actions are and continue
• 2:01:05
  to be for us in society and for the American people.
• 2:01:09
  And that ultimately drove me to leave the Democratic Party.
• 2:01:13
  I I encourage you to read the book for those who are
• 2:01:15
  interested or those who have friends who don't quite know
• 2:01:18
  what to do. Maybe they're still in the
• 2:01:19
  Democratic Party or thinking about leaving.
• 2:01:22
  If they're Democratic Party would have to go back to its
• 2:01:27
  root where it once was, of being the party that actually stood up
• 2:01:32
  for what is in the Constitution rather than going against it.
• 2:01:36
  It would need to become a party that it once was in standing up
• 2:01:40
  for peace. Unfortunately, it it's become a
• 2:01:43
  party that has rejected all of those things, rejects objective
• 2:01:47
  truths about biological facts and differences between men and
• 2:01:51
  women and a whole host of other things.
• 2:01:54
  Unfortunately, given the leadership of today's Democrat
• 2:01:57
  Party, given the fact that they don't even believe in democracy,
• 2:02:01
  We looked at the Democratic, the so-called Democratic primary in
• 2:02:04
  this presidential election where you know, they wouldn't let
• 2:02:08
  Bobby Kennedy or or any of the other candidates, quite frankly,
• 2:02:11
  they wouldn't allow any debates to happen.
• 2:02:13
  They wouldn't even allow them on the ballot in many of these
• 2:02:15
  things. They wouldn't even hold primary
• 2:02:17
  elections. The Democrat Party of today
• 2:02:19
  would have to go a very long way to be able to regain the trust
• 2:02:24
  of people like me. And I meet people almost every
• 2:02:27
  single day who I was at a rally with President Trump last night
• 2:02:30
  in Las Vegas. And I, I lost track of how many
• 2:02:33
  people who were there at the rally to support Trump,
• 2:02:36
  including elected officials, Nevada elected officials who
• 2:02:40
  came up to me and said, I, I have walked the same path as
• 2:02:42
  you. I used to be a Democrat.
• 2:02:44
  Some left the Democrat Party a long time ago.
• 2:02:46
  Others have left more recently. But there are a lot of people
• 2:02:49
  who are really quite disgusted by the insanity, unfortunately,
• 2:02:53
  of today's Democrat Party and don't see any hope because they
• 2:02:56
  don't allow anyone to speak up. They don't allow any counter
• 2:02:59
  narrative. They don't allow anyone to come
• 2:03:01
  in and say, hey, the Democrat Party is headed in the wrong
• 2:03:03
  direction. Here is how I want to change it.
• 2:03:06
  They will, as they did to me and Bobby Kennedy at their first
• 2:03:10
  opportunity. The Hillary Clintons of the
• 2:03:12
  Democrat Party will do all that they can to smear and destroy
• 2:03:17
  and censor and silence anyone who dares to do that.
• 2:03:21
  So you, I know that when you, I've got probably one time for
• 2:03:24
  one last question. I just wanted to follow up very
• 2:03:27
  quickly on that. I know that when you left the
• 2:03:29
  party that you did face a lot of criticism, likely from your
• 2:03:33
  colleagues in Congress. Did that same criticism come
• 2:03:37
  from family and friends? As we have seen with many
• 2:03:40
  Democrats that have left the party, it has torn them apart.
• 2:03:44
  Start with family, with friends and with colleagues.
• 2:03:47
  Did you experience that same, sort of, did you experience that
• 2:03:51
  same thing that others have experienced as well?
• 2:03:54
  Yeah, Sarah, I have. And it's it's really quite sad
• 2:03:58
  that this is the state of, I was going to say the state of
• 2:04:02
  politics, but it's really not that broad.
• 2:04:06
  It is largely what I experienced coming from people in Democratic
• 2:04:10
  Party and people. Who?
• 2:04:13
  Are people who are bought into what the Democrat Party is
• 2:04:16
  selling today, where people who I had disagreements with, for
• 2:04:21
  example, friends of mine, family members of mine about different
• 2:04:24
  policies who are also fellow Democrats at the time.
• 2:04:28
  We could have those conversations and share our
• 2:04:31
  thoughts and views and how they differed and why we disagreed.
• 2:04:35
  And then we could go out and have dinner or we could continue
• 2:04:37
  to have a conversation. Or we could maintain that
• 2:04:40
  respect and care and friendship. Or for me, in the case of some
• 2:04:43
  friends and and family members that love for each other, even
• 2:04:45
  though we disagreed because we knew that our intent came from a
• 2:04:50
  place of actually caring for others, caring for the people,
• 2:04:54
  caring for our country. And unfortunately that that has
• 2:04:58
  just completely changed. And the first time that I
• 2:05:00
  experienced it was actually not when I left the Democratic
• 2:05:02
  Party, but it was in, it was in 2016 when I went and met with
• 2:05:08
  President Trump. And I did not expect to get the
• 2:05:12
  kind of response that I got from some family members, from some
• 2:05:16
  close friends, from some of my former colleagues, where quite
• 2:05:21
  literally in the time that it took me to walk from Trump Tower
• 2:05:25
  after meeting with him, where we had a great, very substantive
• 2:05:29
  foreign policy conversation for about an hour, just he and I was
• 2:05:32
  sitting across the desk from him in his office.
• 2:05:35
  From the time it took me to walk from Trump Tower to get to my
• 2:05:39
  hotel room, less than 5 minutes, my phone was blowing up with
• 2:05:43
  hate mail and hate messages from people who, quite frankly, it
• 2:05:47
  surprised me to hear from. And the central thread that that
• 2:05:53
  seemed to be consistent through many of these attacks and very
• 2:05:58
  emotional messages that I got that were angry and hateful and
• 2:06:04
  hurtful was how dare you meet with Donald Trump.
• 2:06:09
  How dare you humanize him. And that's what really struck me
• 2:06:12
  about a lot of things, how dangerous that mindset is and
• 2:06:17
  how people could for me. When I was asked to go and meet
• 2:06:20
  with him, I said, of course, I'm going to take the opportunity to
• 2:06:23
  meet with this person who was just elected by the American
• 2:06:26
  people and who would very soon be our president and commander
• 2:06:30
  in chief. What it would be a dereliction
• 2:06:32
  of duty on my part, both as a member of Congress, as a
• 2:06:35
  soldier, as a citizen of this country, if I were asked to meet
• 2:06:39
  with any president, any person who had just been elected.
• 2:06:43
  Of course, I'm going to take the opportunity to share my thoughts
• 2:06:46
  and views about the issues that are most concerning to me and
• 2:06:49
  the fact that people who were close to me at that time or
• 2:06:53
  people who I worked with or people who knew, like why I ran
• 2:06:56
  for Congress in the 1st place. Which is largely because of my
• 2:07:00
  experiences and seeing and experiencing first hand the cost
• 2:07:03
  of war and how important these decisions are that are being
• 2:07:06
  made by the leaders of our country, foremost among them our
• 2:07:09
  present commander in chief. All of that was they were blind
• 2:07:14
  or somehow had amnesia. Do all of that and instead were
• 2:07:19
  in full attack mode. And yes, I, there were some
• 2:07:23
  family members of mine who stopped talking to me and
• 2:07:26
  friends who cut off friendships, all because I met with Donald
• 2:07:30
  Trump. And this is unfortunate, it's
• 2:07:33
  very sad. But this is what has the
• 2:07:36
  Democrat Party of today has become the party that to me used
• 2:07:40
  to be rooted in some very important principles and values.
• 2:07:44
  All of that's gone out the window now because they see
• 2:07:47
  Donald Trump is the greatest threat to their power because he
• 2:07:50
  doesn't kiss the ring of the Washington establishment and he
• 2:07:54
  doesn't play their game. All of this comes back to this
• 2:07:58
  again. We face serious challenges, more
• 2:08:01
  so than in any other election I've experienced in my life.
• 2:08:04
  But I am an optimist and I am hopeful.
• 2:08:07
  And so with these greatest challenges comes the greatest
• 2:08:10
  opportunity, perhaps the most historic one, to really bring
• 2:08:16
  together people who love our country and the American people
• 2:08:20
  and who are willing to fight in the trenches of politics and
• 2:08:24
  Washington in order to completely change the deep
• 2:08:29
  state, the military industrial complex, the the healthcare
• 2:08:33
  industrial complex. Across the board.
• 2:08:35
  We really have a great, this is our best opportunity and
• 2:08:39
  President Trump is our best hope to do that in this election.
• 2:08:42
  Thank you all for your time. I've got a Joe we're I'm going
• 2:08:45
  to see Bobby Kennedy here in a few minutes at the 1st event we
• 2:08:48
  are doing in a Reclaim America tour.
• 2:08:51
  We are in Glendale, AZ. We'll be in Las Vegas next
• 2:08:55
  Saturday and I believe Charlotte, NC the last Saturday
• 2:08:59
  of September. More dates to come in October.
• 2:09:02
  We're going to be doing a lot of events together.
• 2:09:04
  We'll be doing a lot of events separately, but stay tuned.
• 2:09:06
  Would love to to see you all. And I'm very much looking
• 2:09:09
  forward to the Rescue the Republic events in Washington.
• 2:09:12
  DCI. Hope everyone comes out and
• 2:09:13
  joins us there. Thank you to Angela and then all
• 2:09:16
  of the organizers who are Brett. Thank you for taking on, taking
• 2:09:20
  this on and for your leadership and bringing together all
• 2:09:24
  Americans who cherish peace and freedom and who love our
• 2:09:27
  country. Thanks everybody.
• 2:09:29
  Thank you. We'll.
• 2:09:29
  See you in Washington. Well, Brad, I'll give you the
• 2:09:32
  mic just quickly for the audience.
• 2:09:33
  We have more special guests that were coming in.
• 2:09:35
  Carl, I see your hand up as well, Kyle, more special guests
• 2:09:38
  coming in as well as Zach will try to jump in.
• 2:09:40
  Not sure what the what the latest update is there, but we
• 2:09:43
  have more special guests on this historic space.
• 2:09:45
  Brett, go ahead. I just wanted to follow on to
• 2:09:47
  what to, Gabbard said. This really is a extremely broad
• 2:09:53
  coalition. I know Angela has worked hard
• 2:09:56
  with President Trump and he has agreed to put a libertarian in
• 2:09:59
  his cabinet. So that tells you something also
• 2:10:02
  about the number of different factions and ideologies that are
• 2:10:06
  represented in this large coalition.
• 2:10:09
  And I, I guess I would just advise that people start with a
• 2:10:12
  fresh sheet of paper. If you think you've seen this
• 2:10:14
  movie before, I don't think so. I think this is a brand new
• 2:10:17
  political opportunity. And if you're sick and tired of
• 2:10:21
  living in a nightmare, adds new chapters every day where
• 2:10:26
  something else is out of control, some other institution
• 2:10:29
  is telling you lies. When you prefer to live in a
• 2:10:33
  movie where you don't know which member of the Dream Team is
• 2:10:37
  going to deliver some new insight or plan or approach to
• 2:10:41
  addressing these critical problems of Western
• 2:10:43
  civilization, I know that I can imagine living in that world.
• 2:10:47
  And I also know that it could be as close to January, as close to
• 2:10:51
  us as January. So I really hope people will see
• 2:10:55
  that this is not just another version of failure.
• 2:10:58
  This is a real opportunity. And the only thing it depends on
• 2:11:03
  is whether you motivate and you can get other people to see the
• 2:11:07
  opportunity and for them to motivate.
• 2:11:08
  It's really within our grasp. Thank you for that.
• 2:11:11
  Sorry, Angela, I think David. Had a question as well.
• 2:11:15
  I just want to encourage people, if you want to see our full line
• 2:11:18
  up to go to join the resistance.org where you can
• 2:11:21
  read all about the pillars, see all the other awesome speakers
• 2:11:24
  who we hope will come to one of Mario's spaces again before our
• 2:11:28
  event. And also please give it cost a
• 2:11:30
  ton to put together this event. Brett is is modest.
• 2:11:34
  He has worked his butt off to help us make this happen and we
• 2:11:38
  are on the phones non-stop getting people to donate and and
• 2:11:41
  help us. So please support us and thank
• 2:11:42
  you guys again for hosting us and giving us such an incredible
• 2:11:45
  boost. It's.
• 2:11:46
  A pleasure, Angela David. Yeah, I wanted to ask Doctor
• 2:11:48
  Peterson a question. And we've heard a lot from a lot
• 2:11:52
  of different voices. And we've been hearing in my
• 2:11:55
  mind, what I'm seeing is a is almost like a snowball.
• 2:11:58
  And I wanted to ask the congresswoman before she left,
• 2:12:00
  but it's still applicable. There was a lot of people upset
• 2:12:03
  about government overreach during COVID, about mass
• 2:12:06
  mandates and lockdowns, and there was a lot of people
• 2:12:09
  started going, wait a second, this is a little bit more
• 2:12:11
  government than I like, and it was a bipartisan sort of
• 2:12:13
  concern. Then going forward from COVID,
• 2:12:17
  we saw what a lot of people on the right would call an abuse of
• 2:12:20
  the Justice Department. Then we've seen censorship of
• 2:12:24
  speech, or at least the attempted censorship of speech.
• 2:12:26
  It seems like we're snowballing. From what we thought.
• 2:12:29
  Was bad with Covic to where we are now.
• 2:12:31
  Doctor Peterson, I'm. Wondering is this going to
• 2:12:33
  continue or is it my perception? But does it?
• 2:12:36
  Seem like it's getting. Worse.
• 2:12:38
  I think it's. I think whatever it's getting
• 2:12:41
  faster maybe rather than worse. The dynamic that we're seeing
• 2:12:45
  isn't new. There have been victim
• 2:12:48
  victimizer narrative since the beginning of time.
• 2:12:50
  And when everybody gets bitter and resentful about the
• 2:12:53
  successful, which is something, for example, underlying the
• 2:12:56
  flourishing of anti-Semitism. Now when everybody gets bitter
• 2:12:59
  and resentful about the successful and and capitalize on
• 2:13:03
  that narrative, then that's the pathway to perdition and it has
• 2:13:06
  been since the beginning of time.
• 2:13:08
  I think part of the reason it's intensifying right now is
• 2:13:11
  because of the rate of the battle is intensifying because
• 2:13:15
  our technological ability has transformed so dramatically.
• 2:13:18
  And so things that would happen over 10 years now happen in six
• 2:13:21
  months. And when five years it will be
• 2:13:23
  happening in three months. And, and we're not exactly
• 2:13:25
  prepared for that. We don't have the government
• 2:13:27
  structures in place yet to to deal with it.
• 2:13:30
  So I'm not as pessimistic as I indicated earlier as I might be
• 2:13:35
  because I've seen changes. Even the tenor of conversation
• 2:13:39
  that's occurring within this space, for example, is something
• 2:13:42
  that's unprecedented and that wouldn't have occurred a couple
• 2:13:44
  of years ago. We see a transformation of
• 2:13:47
  approach on the Republican side and a widespread appeal of that.
• 2:13:52
  And I'm, I see similar things happening all across the Western
• 2:13:56
  world. So that the situation is by no
• 2:13:59
  means hopeless. We're seeing a this this battle
• 2:14:02
  that we're seeing, though as I said earlier, it shouldn't be
• 2:14:05
  construed precisely in political terms.
• 2:14:07
  It's not exactly right versus left.
• 2:14:09
  It's capture of the communication networks by the
• 2:14:13
  psychopathic manipulators. And I think at the moment
• 2:14:15
  they're much more effective in manipulating the left.
• 2:14:18
  We've certainly seen that manifested in the outbreak of
• 2:14:21
  these insane campus protests that were so egregiously
• 2:14:25
  pathological that the leader of Iran himself congratulated the
• 2:14:30
  American universities on their participation in the Co opting
• 2:14:34
  battles. Not over yet.
• 2:14:36
  There are a lot of good things in front of us.
• 2:14:37
  Remember, we've lifted a substantial proportion of the
• 2:14:40
  world out of poverty in the last 20 years.
• 2:14:42
  That's a major accomplishment. And everywhere around the world,
• 2:14:46
  signs of industrialization and and a movement towards a much,
• 2:14:50
  much higher standard of living. We can educate people at a scale
• 2:14:53
  that was never before possible. There's a lot of reasons to be
• 2:14:56
  positive. That isn't to say that this is
• 2:14:59
  this is a crucial election and but the situation is by no means
• 2:15:02
  cut and dried. And I think it's actually better
• 2:15:04
  in some ways than it was two years ago.
• 2:15:06
  Doctor Peterson, what I enforce or something that concerns me a
• 2:15:09
  lot is the breakdown of trust in the systems that allow our
• 2:15:13
  democracy to function. That one is something that
• 2:15:16
  alarms me and that goes on both sides of the aisle.
• 2:15:18
  Oh yeah, no, that's a terrible thing.
• 2:15:20
  Because after lengthy consideration with regard to
• 2:15:24
  exactly that issue, I've more or less concluded that the only
• 2:15:28
  genuine natural resource is trust.
• 2:15:30
  Societies where people trust one another are rich.
• 2:15:33
  Japan's a good example. Japan is natural resource free,
• 2:15:37
  but it's a very high trust society.
• 2:15:39
  It's a very civilized place. And by civilized, I mean in this
• 2:15:43
  non relativistic manner is that you can trust that people aren't
• 2:15:47
  going to steal from you, for example, and generally that
• 2:15:50
  they're going to keep their word in any given negotiation.
• 2:15:53
  And that means that simplifies the transactions between people
• 2:15:56
  immensely and reduces their cost, reduces the risk to the
• 2:16:01
  point where true cooperation is possible.
• 2:16:03
  And I think that human beings are perfectly capable of making
• 2:16:06
  even the most most unproductive desert bloom if they can
• 2:16:10
  cooperate. Now what's breaking down trust?
• 2:16:13
  For me, the reason the reason that trust is breaking down is
• 2:16:17
  because the underlying sure of Western civilization has been
• 2:16:21
  under such a protracted assault that we're uncertain about our
• 2:16:25
  fundamental axioms. So the I think that's what's
• 2:16:28
  happening is not Even so much a culture war as something like a
• 2:16:31
  religious war and the dimensions of that or not.
• 2:16:34
  I've been trying to write about that.
• 2:16:35
  So I have a new book coming out in November that deals with
• 2:16:37
  that, specifically trying to drill down into the culture war
• 2:16:41
  to find out what the underlying say.
• 2:16:44
  What's the underlying dynamic? And I made some reference to
• 2:16:46
  that earlier. The victim victimizer narrative,
• 2:16:48
  which is as old as the story of Cain and Abel, plays a role.
• 2:16:52
  And that the psychopathic manipulators, as I said already
• 2:16:56
  capitalize on that. And so when they get the upper
• 2:16:58
  hand in the communication sphere, which is a technological
• 2:17:01
  problem now, that makes everything radically unstable
• 2:17:04
  and exactly the way that it has become.
• 2:17:06
  But I think this is a problem that we can solve for all the
• 2:17:09
  bad things that are for confronting us, not least
• 2:17:12
  because of our technological transformations.
• 2:17:14
  There are unbelievable opportunities that are resting
• 2:17:18
  at our fingertips, immense transformations and
• 2:17:21
  computational power. Everyone in the world virtually
• 2:17:25
  has or will have access to that computational technology that
• 2:17:29
  makes mass communication possible.
• 2:17:30
  That means we can spread pathologies like mad, but it
• 2:17:33
  also means we can educate people at a scale that was never before
• 2:17:36
  imagined. I hope that we can return to the
• 2:17:39
  fundamental axioms that made free Western civilization the
• 2:17:43
  immense force for good that it has been.
• 2:17:45
  And I also hope that we can come to some more profound
• 2:17:48
  understanding about just what those axiomatic presuppositions
• 2:17:52
  have to be. Brett talked earlier about the
• 2:17:55
  many people did about the necessity for free speech and
• 2:17:59
  political statement in the most profound sense, because there
• 2:18:02
  isn't any difference technically between free speech and thought.
• 2:18:07
  And so to be an enemy of free speech means that you're an
• 2:18:10
  enemy of thought. And to be an enemy of thought
• 2:18:13
  means either that you think your way of thinking is the right way
• 2:18:17
  and the only way, or you believe that thought itself isn't
• 2:18:20
  necessary for civilizations or individuals to progress in the
• 2:18:24
  face of an uncertain world. That's a preposterous claim.
• 2:18:27
  And what the West did in large part was to, what would you say,
• 2:18:31
  establish it as an axiom at certainty, the intrinsic value
• 2:18:35
  of each individual, and promote the notion that free
• 2:18:39
  communication was the best bet for everyone because everyone,
• 2:18:43
  given their indefinite intrinsic value, had something valid to
• 2:18:47
  bring to the table. And if you have that marketplace
• 2:18:50
  of ideas, then the bad ideas can emerge and be dispensed with and
• 2:18:54
  criticized out of shape, or what would you say, out of
• 2:18:57
  Commission, and the good ideas can rise to the top.
• 2:19:00
  And it's clearly the case, and maybe even more so now than
• 2:19:03
  ever, that the US has been better at that than any other
• 2:19:05
  place, which accounts for its continued economic supremacy.
• 2:19:10
  And the case that the Trump team needs to make and is making at
• 2:19:14
  least to some degree, is that we were on the right track with
• 2:19:17
  regards to all of that and we need to bolster it and continue
• 2:19:20
  it and not lose faith. Or you see that faith being
• 2:19:24
  sorely tried all around the world, Australia, Europe, the UK
• 2:19:29
  particularly. You see it faltering in Canada.
• 2:19:31
  That doesn't mean that the battle's over by any stretch of
• 2:19:34
  the imagination or that we were wrong in our initial
• 2:19:36
  supposition. Now, the universities have been
• 2:19:38
  a very destructive force in that regard with their idiot
• 2:19:40
  postmodernism and their turn towards a kind of neo Marxism.
• 2:19:44
  But I think that's also starting to sort itself out in the
• 2:19:47
  intellectual realm too, is that we started to technically
• 2:19:51
  understand exactly what the postmodernists got right and
• 2:19:53
  what they got wrong and how that might be rectified.
• 2:19:56
  And I see that the information that pertains to that
• 2:19:59
  philosophical sorting out also starting to become disseminated
• 2:20:04
  in a manner that's not only broad, but that's quite
• 2:20:06
  heartening to people. You know, let me let me tell you
• 2:20:09
  a quick story just. To drive this point home in a
• 2:20:12
  variety of ways, near the end of the Exodus saga, when Moses has
• 2:20:16
  led his people through the desert.
• 2:20:18
  So they're lost, right? They've escaped tyranny, they're
• 2:20:21
  lost in their direction. They're moving towards something
• 2:20:23
  better. They're almost, they've almost
• 2:20:25
  attained their goal. And Moses sends out scouts into
• 2:20:28
  the future, so into Canaan itself to determine the
• 2:20:32
  possibility of Israelite success in this new land.
• 2:20:35
  And the scouts are basically in two teams and one team comes
• 2:20:39
  back and says, Oh my God, it's hopeless.
• 2:20:41
  The future is populated by giants.
• 2:20:44
  The land of Canaan will never defeat them.
• 2:20:46
  They're completely beyond us. The entire desert enterprise was
• 2:20:50
  a a waste of time. We should have the leaders who
• 2:20:53
  brought us here were corrupt and power mad.
• 2:20:55
  We should have stuck with the tyranny and the other scouts
• 2:20:58
  come back and say, look, the future is a complicated place
• 2:21:01
  and there's going to be obstacles to overcome.
• 2:21:03
  But if we maintain our upward orientation and our covenant
• 2:21:07
  with the divine, if we speak words of truth and we trust each
• 2:21:10
  other, there's nothing that we can't manage.
• 2:21:13
  And the future is ours and it's the faithful scouts of the
• 2:21:18
  future who lead the Israelites into the promised land when on
• 2:21:22
  the renewal side. So let's speak about the
• 2:21:25
  Republican team. It's necessary for the faithful
• 2:21:29
  scouts of the future to maintain that courageous faith.
• 2:21:32
  It's another thing that Trump didn't do well in the debate.
• 2:21:36
  He didn't put forward this radically positive vision of
• 2:21:39
  possibility that he has at hand as a consequence of partnering
• 2:21:43
  with these remarkable people. Instead of savaging the
• 2:21:46
  Democrats, which they richly deserve, let's say, and which I
• 2:21:50
  can understand he would do because he's being demonized and
• 2:21:52
  attacked so viciously and badly. He could have outlined this
• 2:21:57
  shining city on the hill that his remarkable people have in
• 2:22:01
  fact built in their own lives and could bring could
• 2:22:04
  realistically bring to a much larger segment of the world.
• 2:22:08
  And so Trump needs to concentrate on his team and to
• 2:22:12
  show what that that formulation of that team means for his
• 2:22:15
  character. And he needs to elaborate out
• 2:22:16
  the kind of positive vision that that Kennedy what dreams of with
• 2:22:21
  regards to a much healthier population or that must dreams
• 2:22:24
  of in relationship to a technologically sophisticated
• 2:22:27
  civilization that's efficient in its and it's industrial acts and
• 2:22:32
  efficient daring and it's industrial actions.
• 2:22:34
  That's right there for the Trump team.
• 2:22:36
  He's got the pieces in place. And that way he could steal the
• 2:22:39
  Thunder from the Harris team that are concentrating so
• 2:22:43
  shallowly, although somewhat positively on joy.
• 2:22:46
  It's some positive emotion would be nice.
• 2:22:48
  But maybe we could ally that to policies that actually exist and
• 2:22:53
  to a team that could actually deliver something approximating
• 2:22:55
  a positive future. And Trump has that.
• 2:22:58
  So you give it a thumbs up and then we'll go to to the hands
• 2:23:01
  shake. I'll go to you first.
• 2:23:02
  I've got questions for Doctor Peterson and Brett as well.
• 2:23:05
  Brett, got any comments before we go to the hands Shake?
• 2:23:07
  Yeah, agree. Yeah, go ahead, Brett.
• 2:23:09
  I sure do. The first thing to say is I
• 2:23:12
  agree completely with you, Jordan, that this is their for
• 2:23:17
  the, I don't want to say taking, but for the wielding of Donald
• 2:23:21
  Trump, if he can see it. And maybe the point is that it
• 2:23:24
  is really up to us to make that plane so that he can see what is
• 2:23:29
  in front of him and use it to all of our advantage.
• 2:23:34
  I also want to echo the stark contrast between what is in fact
• 2:23:39
  an extremely bright future and some very dark possibilities if
• 2:23:44
  we don't succeed in the next, what is it, 5050 days?
• 2:23:50
  And then the final thing I'll say is that the sense that you
• 2:23:53
  were talking about, maybe things aren't getting worse, but
• 2:23:56
  they're getting bad faster. Whichever it is, what I believe
• 2:24:00
  is going on, as somebody who has spent his adult life thinking of
• 2:24:03
  and working on game theory is that we are in the end game.
• 2:24:08
  Whatever it is that is targeting our freedoms is making a break
• 2:24:13
  for it. And what that means is that
• 2:24:16
  either it's desperate or it only has a few pieces left to put
• 2:24:21
  into place. And it doesn't matter which of
• 2:24:23
  those possibilities it is or whether it's both of them.
• 2:24:26
  We have no choice but to repel that force at this point.
• 2:24:30
  And I guess I would say one more thing.
• 2:24:32
  I know I said that was the last. I am a secular minded person.
• 2:24:38
  I've spent my career studying Darwinism and nature.
• 2:24:43
  When I hear that we are in a spiritual battle, it resonates
• 2:24:47
  with me very profoundly. And I'm sure I could retell that
• 2:24:51
  in some way that would defend it from the point of view of a
• 2:24:55
  secular materialist, But I think there's no point in it.
• 2:24:58
  Even somebody with a secular mindset as mine knows that this
• 2:25:03
  is an existential spiritual battle and that is the tool kit
• 2:25:06
  that we need to be wielding in order to find our courage and
• 2:25:10
  confront this at the the force that will be necessary to win.
• 2:25:14
  Two things, and I'll be brief, Mr. Weinstein said earlier.
• 2:25:18
  We are gathering in defense, Ephesians says.
• 2:25:21
  We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
• 2:25:23
  principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness
• 2:25:28
  of this world, against spiritual witness in high places.
• 2:25:32
  I agree with Doctor Peterson. This is an unprecedented
• 2:25:36
  conversation that needs to be heard and needs to be had.
• 2:25:40
  And. There's something in the heart.
• 2:25:43
  And I know we're coming to the end of this conversation, but
• 2:25:46
  there's something that feels like we need to do better.