Latest / V / Gen Z Men: The Most Based Demo in America - Early Edition With Evita (Ep.166)

Transcript

Gen Z Men: The Most Based Demo in America - Early Edition With Evita (Ep.166) · V

0:00
Speaker 1: Good morning and welcome to Bongino Report. Early edition, Vanity
0:04
Speaker 1: Fair publishes a completely ahistorical smear piece targeting MAGA, but
0:10
Speaker 1: also the Puritans, a New York City woman face plants
0:14
Speaker 1: while attempting to steal a MAGA hat. FBI agents are
0:18
Speaker 1: working tirelessly around the clock to redact Epstein files. Right-wing
0:24
Speaker 1: influencers betray their followers for big soda payouts. Polls reveal
0:29
Speaker 1: men under 25 despise Democrats more than men over 75.
0:35
Speaker 1: And Rachel Zegler, a.k.a. Disney's new Snow White, lands a
0:40
Speaker 1: role that is actually perfect for her. All this on
0:44
Speaker 1: Bunching to Report, early edition. What comes to mind when
0:58
Speaker 1: you hear the word Puritan? Fanaticism, isolation, disease, intolerance, racism, maybe?
1:08
Speaker 1: And perhaps you're listening and you haven't been brainwashed. Maybe
1:12
Speaker 1: you're old enough to have not grown up during this
1:15
Speaker 1: time where school children are saturated by a self-hating American
1:20
Speaker 1: school system and American culture. But it's undeniable that today
1:25
Speaker 1: the term Puritan is colloquially synonymous with moral rigidity and
1:31
Speaker 1: outdated severity. Killjoy. Prude. Control freak. Tyrant. But who were
1:40
Speaker 1: the Pilgrims and the Puritans, really? I was reading through
1:44
Speaker 1: left-wing publications over the weekend, as I do so that
1:47
Speaker 1: you all don't have to, and I came across this
1:50
Speaker 1: article in Vanity Fair. It's titled, Donald Trump's America Echoes
1:56
Speaker 1: Our Puritan History. past. And in this article, author Jane
2:01
Speaker 1: Borden argues that the United States was founded by Puritans
2:05
Speaker 1: who she describes as cult-like. And according to this author,
2:11
Speaker 1: the Puritans' apocalyptic ideology is a reoccurring narrative in American society,
2:18
Speaker 1: a threatened community rescued by a vigilante outsider through righteous violence.
2:24
Speaker 1: And it became, according to the author, an American mythos
2:28
Speaker 1: that reoccurs in Western genres, comic books, superhero films, and
2:33
Speaker 1: even in real life. She writes that this doomsday thinking is,
2:37
Speaker 1: this is a quote, you guys, flaring now in Donald
2:42
Speaker 1: Trump's America among a populace that craves an autocratic punisher,
2:47
Speaker 1: openly worships the wealthy, and easily succumbs to us versus
2:51
Speaker 1: them thinking just as the Puritans and pilgrims did, end quote. Well,
2:57
Speaker 1: Borden characterizes the Puritan legacy as that of in-group versus
3:03
Speaker 1: out-group thinking that continues to fuel division and violence apparently today.
3:08
Speaker 1: And she thinks that the Puritan experiment, like the American experiment,
3:17
Speaker 1: will soon end in chaos and violence. That's her prediction,
3:21
Speaker 1: that this is all spiraling into a very dark place.
3:27
Speaker 1: So who were the Puritans and who were the pilgrims?
3:30
Speaker 1: That's what I want to answer this morning. The Vanity
3:33
Speaker 1: Fair author articulates no distinction between the two, but the
3:37
Speaker 1: pilgrims who landed on the Mayflower in 1620, with the
3:40
Speaker 1: Mayflower in 1620 here in the Americas, were heavily influenced
3:43
Speaker 1: by centuries of Christian and Western thought, And they, in turn,
3:53
Speaker 1: heavily influenced our founding documents. They have much more of
3:55
Speaker 1: an impact on American culture than Puritans more generally. And
4:00
Speaker 1: the Pilgrims weren't violent. They weren't fire and brimstone fanatics
4:05
Speaker 1: who were just lunatics. They were separatists who were fleeing
4:09
Speaker 1: persecution in their home country of England, driven by a
4:14
Speaker 1: vision of self-government and a Christian nation blessed by God,
4:18
Speaker 1: not some kind of doomsday obsession. And they actually were
4:21
Speaker 1: leaving well, first they went to Holland, but they were
4:26
Speaker 1: also in England, and they left the old world for
4:29
Speaker 1: the new world because they opposed the more Catholic elements
4:33
Speaker 1: they claimed in Protestantism in England. So as a Catholic myself,
4:39
Speaker 1: I'm going to actually look at the Puritans and the
4:44
Speaker 1: pilgrims in an objective way. I can say I don't
4:46
Speaker 1: agree with them ideologically, religiously, But these smear campaigns that
4:51
Speaker 1: are coming from Vanity Fair and just the culture more
4:54
Speaker 1: broadly has to come to an end because the pilgrims
4:57
Speaker 1: are part of our legacy. The Mayflower Compact was a
5:01
Speaker 1: pioneering act of democratic consent, not a blueprint for high
5:07
Speaker 1: control tyranny. It's completely ahistorical to claim such a thing.
5:12
Speaker 1: And instead of being us versus them lunatics, the pilgrims
5:15
Speaker 1: actually forged a peace treaty with the Wampanoag Indians. celebrated
5:19
Speaker 1: the first Thanksgiving with them. It was a sign of peace, cooperation.
5:25
Speaker 1: America's history isn't the ugly Puritan hangover that Borden conjures.
5:30
Speaker 1: It's a beautiful, unique tapestry woven by people escaping oppression,
5:35
Speaker 1: not imposing it. I don't know how this is a hard,
5:38
Speaker 1: this is like so basic history. It's really kind of
5:43
Speaker 1: astounding to me that this is even being conjured up
5:47
Speaker 1: and created and construed in such a way. The pilgrims
5:51
Speaker 1: and subsequent settlers carved a nation out of wilderness with
5:56
Speaker 1: grit and faith, not fear and punishment. Vanity Fair is
6:00
Speaker 1: ironically the mouthpiece of coastal elites, democratic left-wing establishment types
6:06
Speaker 1: who cheer on speech censorship and open borders and moral decay.
6:11
Speaker 1: Borden paints a grim caricature of the American mythos while
6:15
Speaker 1: she's pushing for, and Vanity Fair more generally, pushing for
6:18
Speaker 1: pluralism and moral relativism, which is actually unraveling the very
6:24
Speaker 1: principles of liberty and virtue that early settlers died to
6:28
Speaker 1: establish in the New World. And they did die. This
6:31
Speaker 1: was a crazy experiment in self-government and Christian nation-building that
6:37
Speaker 1: resulted in the death of countless Puritans, but especially the pilgrims.
6:44
Speaker 1: I believe most of them died. Most of them didn't
6:47
Speaker 1: survive the first year. What a sacrifice they made. How
6:51
Speaker 1: brave they were to have so much conviction that they'd
6:55
Speaker 1: step into this new world and risk utter destruction for
7:00
Speaker 1: the sake of their values as they fled persecution in
7:03
Speaker 1: the old world. Vanity Fair is torching the nation, not
7:09
Speaker 1: the ghosts of Plymouth Rock. Borden's vision of America is
7:14
Speaker 1: As a Puritan-spawned dystopia fueled by us-versus-them violence is a
7:18
Speaker 1: slander on its real story. It's one of courage, resilience,
7:22
Speaker 1: and moral clarity. The Pilgrims' faith and toil laid a
7:25
Speaker 1: foundation for a nation that's been a beacon, a shining
7:29
Speaker 1: city upon a hill, as John Winthrop said. Not a curse.
7:34
Speaker 1: The Pilgrims and even the Puritans more generally don't deserve
7:37
Speaker 1: to be described as cultish, fanatical, doomsday nuts. They deserve
7:42
Speaker 1: words that reflect their true impact. Faithful, trusting in divine providence. Industrious,
7:49
Speaker 1: turning raw land into thriving communities. Principled, holding to convictions
7:54
Speaker 1: in a brutal world. Pioneering, daring to govern themselves. Hopeful,
8:00
Speaker 1: believing in a better future. And Vanity Fair doesn't get
8:05
Speaker 1: to rewrite all of that into some sort of horror
8:09
Speaker 1: show because the publication says, suffers from Trump derangement. And
8:13
Speaker 1: that's what this is really about, to demonize President Trump
8:16
Speaker 1: because we hate him. And we have to demonize our
8:18
Speaker 1: founding history at the same time because we hate that too.
8:22
Speaker 1: And by the way, you want to talk about violent history?
8:24
Speaker 1: What's a violent legacy? Matt Walsh tweeted this yesterday. Matt
8:29
Speaker 1: Walsh is on point a lot, you guys. He really is.
8:32
Speaker 1: He wrote, the Aztecs brutally conquered and subjugated surrounding tribes
8:37
Speaker 1: and required them to furnish a constant supply of human sacrifices.
8:42
Speaker 1: The victims, thousands upon thousands every year, were laid on
8:45
Speaker 1: a stone slab and their hearts were cut out of
8:47
Speaker 1: their chests while they were still alive. Often their limbs
8:50
Speaker 1: would be amputated and eaten by the Aztec priests. In
8:53
Speaker 1: at least one case, upwards of 80,000 men, women, and
8:56
Speaker 1: children were slaughtered and delimbed in the course of just
8:58
Speaker 1: a few days to consecrate a new temple. That's a
9:04
Speaker 1: violent legacy. That's a violent, evil, destructive death cult that
9:12
Speaker 1: he just accurately 100% described. They also would, to sanctify
9:19
Speaker 1: the temple as they were sacrificing for the rain god,
9:24
Speaker 1: would rip out the fingernails of children so that their
9:27
Speaker 1: tears would wet the floors of the temple. This is
9:33
Speaker 1: a demonic legacy. that the Aztecs and the Maya have.
9:40
Speaker 1: But we're going to call Christian Puritans a death cult?
9:46
Speaker 1: You know, Mexicans, I'm of Mexican descent. My great-grandfather and
9:52
Speaker 1: great-grandmother came to this country from Mexico. And I have
9:57
Speaker 1: indigenous blood. I have Spanish blood. As a woman of
10:01
Speaker 1: Mexican descent, I can say I'm so grateful that the
10:05
Speaker 1: Spaniards came and put an end to the bloodshed and
10:08
Speaker 1: the death cult that is the Maya and Aztec empire.
10:11
Speaker 1: I mean, the Aztec empire, but Maya before. But it's
10:15
Speaker 1: just astounding to me that we're going to label the
10:20
Speaker 1: Christian Puritans who have a beautiful legacy in this country
10:24
Speaker 1: that's one of moral clarity and generally peace as somehow
10:30
Speaker 1: degenerate and evil and awful. And we're not going to
10:34
Speaker 1: touch the horrendous, horrifying legacy of natives in Central and
10:40
Speaker 1: South America. And actually, we're probably going to applaud it.
10:46
Speaker 1: That's what they do, right? We celebrate Indigenous Peoples' Day
10:48
Speaker 1: and talk about how oppressed everyone is, and we denigrate
10:52
Speaker 1: our own culture and our own legacy. I'm going to
10:56
Speaker 1: talk a little bit more about what's really underpinning all
11:01
Speaker 1: of the historical revisionism that I just laid out from
11:05
Speaker 1: Vanity Fair. What's it coming from? What's driving it? What's
11:09
Speaker 1: driving the permissiveness of a death cult in the Aztec
11:14
Speaker 1: Empire to but the denigration of the morally sound, peaceful
11:21
Speaker 1: Puritans who came to this country and heavily influenced our
11:25
Speaker 1: founding documents that have survived for centuries. We're going to
11:30
Speaker 1: take a quick break, but when we come back, we're
11:32
Speaker 1: going to get into all of that. Don't go anywhere.
11:34
Speaker 1: Let's come back to MAGA for a second. I covered
11:36
Speaker 1: the Puritans. We covered the Aztecs. We covered the legacy
11:39
Speaker 1: of this country. We refuted the ahistorical narrative coming from
11:43
Speaker 1: Vanity Fair, but let's talk about MAGA for a second
11:48
Speaker 1: isn't really the political right that's inheriting and living out
11:51
Speaker 1: a Puritan-rooted death cult. Leftists are currently torturing and defecating
11:58
Speaker 1: on Teslas because they hate President Trump and so therefore
12:01
Speaker 1: they hate Elon Musk as well. Meanwhile, did you guys
12:06
Speaker 1: see this? Here's a woman, really it went viral, trying
12:10
Speaker 1: to steal a MAGA hat off of a man's head
12:14
Speaker 1: in New York City because she hates Trump that much.
12:40
Speaker 2: He's a racist.
12:41
Speaker 3: How can I be racist?
12:43
Speaker 4: No, leave him alone.
12:44
Speaker 5: Just watch the news. You will watch the news.
12:46
Speaker 2: I'm highly educated.
12:48
Speaker 1: Oh, are you?
12:49
Speaker 5: Why are you wearing that hat?
12:51
Speaker 2: I don't know how long the Democrats have been running
12:55
Speaker 2: with that.
12:56
Speaker 5: Who knows how long my damn tongue comes in.
12:58
Speaker 6: This is my stuff.
12:59
Speaker 5: I hope you enjoy the hat.
13:01
Speaker 1: Oh, she tried to attack him.
13:02
Speaker 7: Oh, shit.
13:03
Speaker 5: Oh, shit.
13:12
Speaker 1: I mean, you see, she's harassing him. She's calling him
13:14
Speaker 1: a racist. Like, how could you wear this hat? He
13:18
Speaker 1: runs away from her as she's trying to literally take
13:21
Speaker 1: it off of his head. She face plants because she does.
13:26
Speaker 1: Liberals can't run, I guess. What does this say to you?
13:30
Speaker 1: What does this look like to you? And if you
13:32
Speaker 1: asked me, I'd say reckless hubris. You can tell from
13:37
Speaker 1: that video that she doesn't believe there'll be any consequences whatsoever.
13:41
Speaker 1: for her actions. Why should she? What else happened in
13:46
Speaker 1: New York not long ago? The political persecution of Daniel Penny.
13:52
Speaker 1: Daniel Penny, a former military veteran, defended people on a
14:00
Speaker 1: train who were being terrorized by a schizophrenic drug addict
14:04
Speaker 1: named Jordan Neely. He put him in a chokehold. The
14:06
Speaker 1: young man unfortunately died. And Daniel Penny had the book
14:10
Speaker 1: thrown at him What does that do to everybody else
14:14
Speaker 1: in New York? It has a chilling effect on people
14:17
Speaker 1: who do the right thing. And it emboldens those who
14:21
Speaker 1: are considered part of protected classes. Criminals, racial minorities, female feminists,
14:30
Speaker 1: I guess. There's a confidence that leftists seem to have
14:35
Speaker 1: that conservatives, for good reason, do not. Specifically, right-wing conservatives.
14:42
Speaker 1: White males do not have this confidence. Let's revisit the
14:49
Speaker 1: summer of love. American cities torched, billions of dollars in damage,
14:54
Speaker 1: lives lost. Kamala Harris tried to bail those people out
14:58
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis. Kyle Rittenhouse was demonized and prosecuted for acting
15:03
Speaker 1: in self-defense. Fortunately, he was let off the hook because
15:06
Speaker 1: Wisconsin's just that beast. But they tried. to throw him
15:10
Speaker 1: behind bars for a very long time. What this is
15:14
Speaker 1: is anarcho-tyranny, and it's not new. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, author of
15:20
Speaker 1: Gulag Archipelago, once said, for him to have a knife
15:25
Speaker 1: was mere misbehavior, tradition. He didn't know any better. But
15:29
Speaker 1: for you to have one was terrorism. Here's an example
15:34
Speaker 1: of what Alexander is talking about. This is from Gulag Archipelago.
15:39
Speaker 1: In the Criminal Code of 1926, there was a most
15:43
Speaker 1: stupid article, 139, quote, on the limits of necessary self-defense,
15:49
Speaker 1: according to which you had the right to unsheathe your
15:51
Speaker 1: knife only after the criminal's knife was hovering over you,
15:55
Speaker 1: and you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. Otherwise,
15:59
Speaker 1: you would be the one put on trial. And there
16:02
Speaker 1: was no article in our legislation saying that the greater
16:06
Speaker 1: criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.
16:11
Speaker 1: This is a reoccurring theme. This is a pattern that
16:15
Speaker 1: leftists have. Go back to the Soviet Union, to any
16:18
Speaker 1: time that there's been a collectivist Marxist government. If you're
16:23
Speaker 1: in a protected class, which includes illegal migrants, criminals from
16:27
Speaker 1: bad backgrounds, racial minorities, women, political leftists, if you're just
16:31
Speaker 1: a leftist in general, then the violence is justified. Violence
16:36
Speaker 1: is really at the core of this movement, of this ideology.
16:39
Speaker 1: Collectivist revolutions always end in bloodshed because violence isn't a
16:44
Speaker 1: flaw in their system. It is the engine that drives it.
16:48
Speaker 1: And this pattern of behavior from the left, whether it's
16:51
Speaker 1: the brazen attempted theft of a MAGA hat, the gleeful
16:55
Speaker 1: destruction of Teslas, or the fiery chaos of the summer
16:59
Speaker 1: of love, reveals a deeper thread that ties these incidents together.
17:03
Speaker 1: A sense of impunity. fueled by an ideology that excuses
17:07
Speaker 1: violence when it serves the right cause. It's not just
17:12
Speaker 1: reckless hubris, it's a worldview that echoes the anarcho-tyranny Solzhenitsyn described,
17:19
Speaker 1: where the rules bend to favor the aggressor if they
17:23
Speaker 1: belong to a sanctified group. And while the right is
17:27
Speaker 1: often accused of clinging to outdated traditions or a supposed
17:31
Speaker 1: Puritan cult, The left's actions suggest a different kind of fervor,
17:38
Speaker 1: one that thrives on destruction and justifies it as liberation.
17:43
Speaker 1: From torching cities to intimidating individuals, this isn't mere defiance.
17:48
Speaker 1: It's the predictable outcome of a collectivist mindset that sees
17:52
Speaker 1: violence not as a last resort, but as a righteous tool. History,
17:58
Speaker 1: as Solzhenitsyn warned, shows this engine of bloodshed powers itself
18:02
Speaker 1: until it runs out of fuel or consumes everything in
18:05
Speaker 1: its path. We're going to talk about Elon Musk for
18:10
Speaker 1: a second, guys, because he's somebody who's been a real
18:14
Speaker 1: object of the left's wrath, the left's violent wrath. You
18:19
Speaker 1: guys know how Elon Musk recently did the Roman salute?
18:23
Speaker 1: Do we have a picture of that, Mikey? We might
18:24
Speaker 1: not have one, but maybe you can pull it up.
18:26
Speaker 1: I don't know. People can see what it looks like.
18:29
Speaker 1: Everyone said that this Roman salute that he did was Nazi.
18:31
Speaker 1: He was doing a Hitler salute. And this narrative on
18:35
Speaker 1: the left that Elon Musk is a Nazi really took hold.
18:37
Speaker 1: They kind of do this with anybody that they dislike.
18:39
Speaker 1: Anybody who the left opposes is therefore a Nazi. And
18:44
Speaker 1: it's funny how we're always just like fixated on Nazism.
18:49
Speaker 1: We don't talk about the millions upon millions of people
18:53
Speaker 1: who died due to Marxist regimes in the previous century.
18:57
Speaker 1: But we do talk a lot about Nazism, and it
19:00
Speaker 1: really diminishes the impact of Hitler, I think, to continue
19:04
Speaker 1: to compare everyone that you dislike to Nazis, everyone you
19:08
Speaker 1: dislike to Hitler. Trump's a Nazi. Trump is Hitler. Elon
19:12
Speaker 1: Musk is Hitler. Anybody that we don't like, anybody that's
19:15
Speaker 1: to the left of Barack Obama or to the right
19:16
Speaker 1: of Barack Obama is therefore Hitler and a crazy fascist.
19:21
Speaker 1: It really starts to lose its touch after a while.
19:24
Speaker 1: We're just like, okay, whatever. Another person's Hitler. And then
19:28
Speaker 1: you start to diminish the role that Hitler played. How
19:31
Speaker 1: bad was Hitler really if everybody's Hitler? So Jamal Bowman
19:35
Speaker 1: parroted this talking point a while ago. And he's not
19:39
Speaker 1: the smartest guy. He's not the sharpest tool in the
19:41
Speaker 1: shed because he just squared up and defamed the richest
19:44
Speaker 1: man on earth. Take a listen.
19:47
Speaker 8: That's not true. And this shows again the American people
19:51
Speaker 8: do not trust Elon Musk and Elon Musk is incompetent
19:54
Speaker 8: in his position. And how do we know? Because they
19:57
Speaker 8: fired tens of thousands of people. It was challenged in court.
20:01
Speaker 8: The court said the people have to go back and
20:03
Speaker 8: now the people.
20:03
Speaker 9: Are coming back.
20:04
Speaker 8: He's incompetent.
20:06
Speaker 1: He's a thief.
20:07
Speaker 8: He's a Nazi, and people don't trust him.
20:11
Speaker 9: Period.
20:12
Speaker 1: Okay, so he calls him a Nazi. He calls him
20:14
Speaker 1: a Nazi, and then Elon Musk tweets this. I've had enough.
20:19
Speaker 1: Lawsuit inbound. So he's planning to sue Jamal Bowman, which
20:26
Speaker 1: is interesting. I wonder if these Nazi allegations, these Hitler
20:29
Speaker 1: allegations are finally going to go away when the richest
20:33
Speaker 1: man on earth says, if you continue to defame me,
20:36
Speaker 1: I will sue the crap out of you. Anybody remember
20:39
Speaker 1: back in 2022, actress and political activist Alyssa Milano tweeted this?
20:44
Speaker 1: She said, I gave back my Tesla. I bought the
20:48
Speaker 1: Volkswagen EV. I love it. I'm not sure how advertisers
20:53
Speaker 1: can buy space on Twitter. Publicly traded companies' products being
20:57
Speaker 1: pushed in alignment with hate and white supremacy doesn't seem
21:00
Speaker 1: to be a winning business model. So she's saying Tesla
21:03
Speaker 1: and Elon Musk associated with white supremacy and hatred. So therefore,
21:06
Speaker 1: I'm going to buy a Volkswagen EV. Chat, can you
21:09
Speaker 1: tell me what's the problem with this little game plan
21:13
Speaker 1: of Alyssa's? What's the issue here? Anybody know? Volkswagen was
21:20
Speaker 1: engineered and built during Nazi Germany in the 1930s during
21:24
Speaker 1: the rule of Adolf Hitler. Yeah. Thank you, Michael. People
21:29
Speaker 1: are joking online right now. They're bringing this meme back
21:32
Speaker 1: and saying, why don't you all trade in your Teslas
21:34
Speaker 1: for Volkswagens? It's just, it's so funny. It's like, These people, again,
21:39
Speaker 1: completely ahistorical. So I say, fine, go ahead, guys. Buy
21:44
Speaker 1: a Volkswagen instead for the company that was actually created
21:49
Speaker 1: by Nazis. You guys go ahead and get ready for
21:53
Speaker 1: Teslas because Elon Musk did a Roman salute and he
21:56
Speaker 1: likes President Trump. Okay, guys. All right, let's talk about
22:00
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. My father-in-law was talking about Jeffrey Epstein last
22:04
Speaker 1: night and Pam Bondi, and I just said, you know what?
22:06
Speaker 1: We have to come back to Jeffrey Epstein. We have
22:08
Speaker 1: to cover him again. I really care about this issue.
22:11
Speaker 1: You all know that. So according to a report from
22:13
Speaker 1: CNN on Saturday, many FBI agents are currently working around
22:19
Speaker 1: the clock in 12-hour shifts to speed up the process
22:23
Speaker 1: of redacting files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Here was Pam Bondi.
22:28
Speaker 7: And as to Epstein, yes, you're absolutely right, Maria. You know,
22:32
Speaker 7: tens of thousands of pages of documents and hundreds and
22:35
Speaker 7: hundreds of victims of Jeffrey Epstein. So the FBI, they
22:41
Speaker 7: have been working round the clock at my directive, at
22:44
Speaker 7: Kash Patel's directive. Now Dan Bongino's there, who is a
22:48
Speaker 7: great asset for all of us at the FBI as well.
22:52
Speaker 7: But yeah, we have to protect their identity, their personal information.
22:56
Speaker 7: to make sure they're safe. But other than that, we
22:59
Speaker 7: are releasing all of these documents as soon as we
23:02
Speaker 7: can get them redacted to protect the victims of him.
23:08
Speaker 1: Something weird happened as I was reading up on this.
23:10
Speaker 1: I was like, okay, what's the update on Jeffrey Epstein?
23:12
Speaker 1: And then I saw Pam Bondi said this, and I
23:14
Speaker 1: saw that the CNN article reported that they are working
23:18
Speaker 1: around the clock to redact the information that needs to
23:21
Speaker 1: be redacted because they want to get these files out
23:23
Speaker 1: to the public. The media reaction to this was very strange.
23:30
Speaker 1: It was really weird, you guys. The Wall Street Journal
23:35
Speaker 1: reported on this development and suggested that it would jeopardize
23:40
Speaker 1: victims of Jeffrey Epstein, alleging that according to anonymous sources
23:44
Speaker 1: within the FBI, so not named, some agents working on
23:48
Speaker 1: the redactions have no experience redacting sensitive information. And so therefore,
23:52
Speaker 1: this is a big risk that the FBI is taking.
23:54
Speaker 1: So a negative framing of this story about the FBI
23:58
Speaker 1: working to redact certain information and get the information to
24:01
Speaker 1: the public. So the Wall Street Journal has a strange
24:03
Speaker 1: negative view on this putting forth Epstein files. And Vanity
24:09
Speaker 1: Fair had a similar negative framing. Here's a quote from
24:16
Speaker 1: Vanity Fair. The New York field office is an epicenter
24:19
Speaker 1: for FBI counterintelligence, counterterrorism, public corruption, international drug trafficking, and
24:23
Speaker 1: financial crime investigations. The redeployment of agents to comb over
24:28
Speaker 1: the files of the notorious sex trafficker Epstein, who died
24:31
Speaker 1: nearly six years ago, is an indictment of the Justice
24:34
Speaker 1: Department's priorities in the second Trump administration. One FBI veteran
24:38
Speaker 1: calls it a ludicrous situation. So what's Vanity Fair saying? Well,
24:42
Speaker 1: they're saying there's so many more important things for the
24:45
Speaker 1: FBI to be worried about. Why are they working on
24:48
Speaker 1: combing through documents related to Jeffrey Epstein when they should
24:52
Speaker 1: be working on counterterrorism? counterterrorism operations and real sex trafficking
24:58
Speaker 1: that's happening right now, international drug trafficking, financial crimes. Why
25:02
Speaker 1: are they working on Jeffrey Epstein? It's just not important
25:04
Speaker 1: right now. It's a waste of their time. That's Vanity
25:07
Speaker 1: Fair's take. And then you have CNN. The problem remains, however,
25:12
Speaker 1: that justice and FBI officials don't believe the new documents
25:15
Speaker 1: set to be released in the coming days will contain
25:17
Speaker 1: any new bombshells. Official experts say Officials expect, sorry you guys,
25:25
Speaker 1: that even after the release of the latest documents, people
25:27
Speaker 1: who believe there are secrets being covered up will likely
25:30
Speaker 1: continue to believe there is a cover-up, much like how
25:33
Speaker 1: cottage industry of conspiracies have continued to flourish over President
25:37
Speaker 1: John F. Kennedy's assassination. So they're saying, well, the nothing
25:41
Speaker 1: new is going to come out. This is a waste
25:42
Speaker 1: of their time. And also, what does it matter? Just
25:47
Speaker 1: like Jeffrey Epstein. Why be worried about this? Why fuel
25:52
Speaker 1: the conspiracy theorists? Why are all of these journalists, CNN,
25:59
Speaker 1: Vanity Fair, the Wall Street Journal, saying it shouldn't matter,
26:02
Speaker 1: the FBI shouldn't be wasting their time redacting information and
26:05
Speaker 1: getting the Epstein files to the public? Why are they
26:08
Speaker 1: reporting like that? Why aren't they doing their job and
26:11
Speaker 1: demanding these files come out because they want transparency because
26:15
Speaker 1: they're good journalists? But they're not doing that. I'm sorry,
26:19
Speaker 1: as an American citizen, I want transparency. It's part of
26:22
Speaker 1: why I voted for President Trump, because he promised transparency.
26:25
Speaker 1: And anyone saying that this isn't worth the FBI's time
26:30
Speaker 1: is suspect, in my opinion. Anyone saying that the official
26:35
Speaker 1: narrative on how Jeffrey Epstein was killed is the correct narrative,
26:41
Speaker 1: I think, is suspect. They're saying, isn't it bad that
26:45
Speaker 1: we're looking into the files? They should be worried about
26:47
Speaker 1: more important things. Jeffrey Epstein's guards failed to check his cell.
26:51
Speaker 1: The cameras malfunctioned. The breaks in his neck were not
26:55
Speaker 1: typical of strangulation, of hanging, but were typical of strangulation.
27:01
Speaker 1: That's weird. Let's talk about JFK, the magic bullet, magic
27:05
Speaker 1: bullet theory, the official theory which posits that a single
27:09
Speaker 1: bullet caused all the wounds in President Kennedy and Governor
27:14
Speaker 1: Connolly's during the assassination of the president, but the bullet
27:17
Speaker 1: had an impossible trajectory, timing, and pristine condition despite the
27:21
Speaker 1: extensive damage that it allegedly caused. There are more to
27:27
Speaker 1: these stories. And for some reason, people don't want to
27:31
Speaker 1: ask the question of what. What and why? Where is
27:36
Speaker 1: this going? I don't understand why anyone would be so
27:41
Speaker 1: disinterested and seemingly against disclosure on Jeffrey Epstein or JFK.
27:47
Speaker 1: Here was Ben Shapiro last week.
27:49
Speaker 6: Some conspiracy theorizing that's become incredibly popular on the right
27:53
Speaker 6: these days. It was popular on the left, and now
27:55
Speaker 6: it's become increasingly popular on the right.
27:58
Speaker 1: Let's just ask questions. Who really killed JFK?
28:01
Speaker 2: Wink, wink, nod, nod.
28:03
Speaker 6: And then you're like, well, do you have any evidence
28:04
Speaker 6: of the thing that you are presupposing?
28:06
Speaker 1: Well, no, I'm not.
28:06
Speaker 6: I'm not making any accusations.
28:08
Speaker 1: I just know I don't.
28:08
Speaker 6: Believe the story that I'm being told. I know not
28:11
Speaker 6: to trust the authorities. Well, that's fine. But do you
28:14
Speaker 6: have like any evidence, like evidence, not just supposition as well?
28:17
Speaker 6: You're part of it, aren't you?
28:19
Speaker 1: You.
28:19
Speaker 7: Yes, you.
28:20
Speaker 6: You're part of it. The reason that you're that you're
28:21
Speaker 6: so defensive about all this is I don't care to
28:24
Speaker 6: kill JFK.
28:24
Speaker 1: I mean, I do because it's really interesting, but.
28:27
Speaker 6: I noticed that the calendar says 2025 and he was
28:30
Speaker 6: killed in 1963. And so my opinion about who killed
28:32
Speaker 6: JFK has about as much relevance as who killed William McKinley,
28:35
Speaker 6: which is, or James Garfield, which is to say not
28:38
Speaker 6: an enormous amount.
28:40
Speaker 1: This is very strange. I'm sorry.
28:42
Speaker 5: I care.
28:43
Speaker 1: I care how the president of the United States was killed.
28:47
Speaker 1: We all do. Why doesn't Vanity Fair, CNN, The Wall
28:51
Speaker 1: Street Journal, or Ben Shapiro? And I'm seeing in the chat,
28:56
Speaker 1: this is what you guys always do.
28:57
Speaker 7: Jews, Jews, Jews, Jews, Jews.
29:00
Speaker 1: Like Ben Shapiro was trying to cover up for Israel.
29:02
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know what the deal is.
29:05
Speaker 1: And in that clip, he's suggesting that all the people
29:09
Speaker 1: who are blaming Israel for killing JFK are doing so
29:13
Speaker 1: with a nefarious intent. The allegation is that JFK opposed
29:18
Speaker 1: Israel's nuclear weapon program and pushed pro-Israel lobbying groups to
29:23
Speaker 1: register as foreign agents. And so therefore, Israel wanted him killed.
29:26
Speaker 1: That's the theory. And here's what I think. I don't know.
29:30
Speaker 1: I don't know the truth. I'll tell you what, in
29:33
Speaker 1: those files that were released about JFK, Russia was mentioned
29:36
Speaker 1: a lot. The KGB was mentioned many times. The CIA
29:40
Speaker 1: was mentioned even more times. What I know is that
29:44
Speaker 1: I care about what happened to JFK. I care. I
29:47
Speaker 1: care whether it was the Mossad, whether it was the CIA,
29:50
Speaker 1: whether it was the KGB, whether it was organized crime.
29:54
Speaker 1: rogue organized crime in the United States, whether it was
29:56
Speaker 1: a combination of multiple intelligence organizations or organized crime. I
30:00
Speaker 1: don't know what it is. It could just be a
30:03
Speaker 1: second crazy person that we don't know about for some reason.
30:05
Speaker 1: I don't know. Although I will say that here's Ana
30:09
Speaker 1: Polina Luna, head of the Declassification Task Force. Here's what
30:12
Speaker 1: she had to say about JFK. Makes you take a pause.
30:15
Speaker 1: Take a listen.
30:16
Speaker 2: What's your priority list? Is it Epstein 9-11?
30:19
Speaker 4: Our first investigation will be announced, but it's going to
30:22
Speaker 4: be covering on a thorough investigation into the John F.
30:25
Speaker 1: Kennedy assassination.
30:26
Speaker 4: And I can tell you, based on what I've been
30:28
Speaker 4: seeing so far, the initial hearing that was actually held
30:32
Speaker 4: here in Congress was actually faulty in the single bullet theory.
30:35
Speaker 1: I believe that there were two shooters.
30:37
Speaker 4: And we should be finding more information as we are
30:40
Speaker 4: able to gain access into the SCIF, hopefully before the
30:43
Speaker 4: files are actually.
30:43
Speaker 1: Released to the public. So why is this a big deal?
30:45
Speaker 1: If the magic bullet theory is fake and there were
30:48
Speaker 1: two shooters, that suggests a conspiracy. If previous congressional investigations
30:53
Speaker 1: knew this and lied, that suggests a cover-up. That's a
30:58
Speaker 1: huge allegation from a member of Congress who's leading a
31:01
Speaker 1: task force into investigating the JFK assassination. I think it's
31:06
Speaker 1: pretty clear we don't have the full truth on what happened.
31:12
Speaker 1: The truth matters. The pursuit of truth, especially about an
31:18
Speaker 1: event as pivotal as the murder of a president, shapes
31:21
Speaker 1: how we understand power, accountability, and trust in our institutions.
31:27
Speaker 1: And this isn't about being anti-Semitic. This isn't about being
31:31
Speaker 1: anti-American because you think the CIA did it. It's just
31:34
Speaker 1: we want the truth. It doesn't really matter who did it.
31:38
Speaker 1: There's not an agenda behind it. The people just want
31:42
Speaker 1: the truth. And it's very strange when members of alternative
31:48
Speaker 1: and corporate media aren't interested in the truth. It's a
31:51
Speaker 1: very odd thing. If we shrug off the need to
31:55
Speaker 1: know what really happened on November 22nd, 1963, we're not
32:01
Speaker 1: just ignoring historical puzzle. We are surrendering to a creeping
32:05
Speaker 1: apathy that undermines the country's ability to confront its past
32:08
Speaker 1: and learn from it. A nation that stops caring about
32:11
Speaker 1: the uncovering about uncovering the reality of such a defining moment,
32:16
Speaker 1: risks losing its grip on the principles of justice and
32:19
Speaker 1: transparency that hold this whole thing together, leaving us vulnerable
32:23
Speaker 1: to manipulation and detached from any shared sense of integrity.
32:28
Speaker 1: Truth isn't just a luxury for historians. It is the
32:30
Speaker 1: bedrock of a functioning democracy, democratic republic, and brushing it
32:35
Speaker 1: aside as irrelevant is a step toward unraveling this whole experiment.
32:39
Speaker 1: This whole experiment that the pilgrims initiated in 1620. Something strange,
32:46
Speaker 1: there's something strange about there not being much in the
32:52
Speaker 1: JFK files that have been released. And I say there's
32:55
Speaker 1: something strange because of rumors that President Trump kept them
33:00
Speaker 1: secret for a reason in his first administration. This is
33:06
Speaker 1: Judge Andrew Napolitano in 2023, telling the public why President
33:15
Speaker 1: Trump told him in private he could not release the
33:18
Speaker 1: JFK files in his last administration. Take a listen.
33:22
Speaker 2: I was listening to Trump when he was in the
33:23
Speaker 2: White House. So he called me about two or three
33:28
Speaker 2: weeks before he left office to ask my opinion on
33:32
Speaker 2: some of the people he was about to pardon. And
33:35
Speaker 2: then I said, Mr. President, after giving him my opinion
33:38
Speaker 2: on the pardons, and I won't mention any of those names,
33:42
Speaker 2: but Mr. President, do you remember promising me personally and
33:47
Speaker 2: the American public that you would, before you leave the
33:50
Speaker 2: White House, open up the JFK assassination files? Yes, I
33:55
Speaker 2: do remember promising that. Well, you only have two weeks left.
33:58
Speaker 2: And he said to me, Judge, if you saw what
34:04
Speaker 2: I saw, you wouldn't open up those files either. And
34:08
Speaker 2: I said, what do you mean? He said, someday when
34:10
Speaker 2: we're talking together and there aren't 15 people listening, as
34:14
Speaker 2: he was calling me from the White House switchboard, I
34:16
Speaker 2: will tell you what I saw.
34:18
Speaker 1: And somebody said in the chat, oh, we can't trust
34:21
Speaker 1: this guy. And here's the thing. It's a private conversation
34:24
Speaker 1: that he's recounting and we can't verify it. So that's
34:29
Speaker 1: a fair thing to say. But it's an interesting allegation.
34:32
Speaker 1: If true, why did President Trump wait in his first term,
34:35
Speaker 1: to release all the information. There had to have been
34:37
Speaker 1: a reason. And if all the information that's come out
34:39
Speaker 1: now is not exactly explosive, well then why did we
34:42
Speaker 1: wait the last time? Why didn't we release everything in
34:46
Speaker 1: 2017 when it was required by law to do so?
34:48
Speaker 1: It's very strange. Back to Epstein. Pam Bondi has promised
34:54
Speaker 1: for weeks that more Epstein files will be released. And
34:58
Speaker 1: we don't know when it will be, Last week, she
35:00
Speaker 1: said that she received a truckload of new documents related
35:03
Speaker 1: to Jeffrey Epstein. And hopefully the release is imminent. You know,
35:06
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be a black-pilled, you know, angry
35:10
Speaker 1: and on account who says that nothing good is going
35:12
Speaker 1: to happen from this admin. I have confidence. I have faith.
35:15
Speaker 1: There are powerful voices dismissing disclosure on all these issues.
35:21
Speaker 1: And to me, that just is a sign that we
35:23
Speaker 1: have to keep pushing. We have to keep saying, we
35:25
Speaker 1: want this. We want, yeah, you can focus on counterterrorism
35:29
Speaker 1: and the illegal drug trade. And we can also release
35:32
Speaker 1: the Jeffrey Epstein and JFK and MLK and RFK files.
35:35
Speaker 1: We can do that too. The people deserve to know
35:37
Speaker 1: the truth. They deserve to know the truth. And you
35:40
Speaker 1: know how I know that all of these allegations from,
35:44
Speaker 1: or all of these narratives from the corporate media and
35:46
Speaker 1: even alternative media from Ben Shapiro, that it doesn't really
35:50
Speaker 1: matter what happened to JFK is very silly. It's because
35:53
Speaker 1: I know the American people care about it. When we
35:56
Speaker 1: were promised by Pam Bondi that we were going to
35:57
Speaker 1: get the Epstein files and there was a problem with
36:02
Speaker 1: the New York office not releasing everything to her, the
36:05
Speaker 1: American people felt betrayed. There was a massive scandal on
36:08
Speaker 1: both the political right and the political left to say,
36:11
Speaker 1: we need disclosure. When Pam Bondi invited influencers to the
36:16
Speaker 1: White House and there was that disastrous PR stunt, where
36:21
Speaker 1: she gave them a binder that had information that had
36:24
Speaker 1: already been released, and everybody was confused, and nobody knew
36:28
Speaker 1: what was happening, and we just were told we were
36:31
Speaker 1: going to get files, and we didn't. People were upset.
36:34
Speaker 1: People were furious at this, and for good reason, because
36:36
Speaker 1: we care. We care about disclosure. We care about the truth.
36:40
Speaker 1: And to suggest that the American people don't care, that
36:45
Speaker 1: this doesn't matter, or that maybe it only matters to
36:48
Speaker 1: a group of fringe conspiracy theorists, is a ridiculous thing
36:51
Speaker 1: to assert. And again, like I said, I'm suspect of
36:54
Speaker 1: you if you say that because it's just so out
36:56
Speaker 1: of step with the rest of America. Let's talk about
37:00
Speaker 1: the corporate media again for a second. Because I harp
37:03
Speaker 1: on them a lot. And they've proven themselves to be propagandists.
37:06
Speaker 1: Look at Russia Collusion, Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, Jussie Smollett hoax,
37:10
Speaker 1: the lab leak theory suppression. But it's not just corporate media.
37:15
Speaker 1: Just because a media source isn't corporate doesn't mean that
37:18
Speaker 1: it's trustworthy. And we were all reminded of this over
37:22
Speaker 1: the weekend. Over the last few days, numerous conservative influencers
37:27
Speaker 1: posted strangely similar tweets arguing against proposed restrictions on Americans
37:36
Speaker 1: using SNAP to buy soda. What is SNAP? SNAP, or
37:41
Speaker 1: the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, provides low-income individuals and families
37:46
Speaker 1: with groceries. Now, these right-wing influencers were arguing the Trump
37:51
Speaker 1: admin's plan. Actually, it's introduced into law, but I think
37:54
Speaker 1: the Trump admin is also planning to do this. The
37:57
Speaker 1: Republicans' plan to prevent people from using Snap to buy
38:00
Speaker 1: soda amounts to an infringement on consumer freedom. This is
38:05
Speaker 1: the argument here. And here is the verbiage from these
38:08
Speaker 1: major accounts. It's oddly similar. And they all did it
38:11
Speaker 1: on the same day or within 48 hours of each other,
38:15
Speaker 1: which was very suspect. Somebody tweets, remember when New York
38:19
Speaker 1: City tried this and it completely backfired? And then, remember
38:23
Speaker 1: when New York City Democrats tried to prevent people from
38:25
Speaker 1: buying and consuming soda? It backfired big time. The last
38:29
Speaker 1: time the U.S. government dove deep into dietary guidance, the
38:32
Speaker 1: whole world ended up with a questionable food pyramid. So
38:35
Speaker 1: really similar verbiage about it backfiring and it being tried
38:39
Speaker 1: before by Democrats and it not working. And then we
38:41
Speaker 1: have them invoking President Trump. President Trump proudly had a
38:46
Speaker 1: Diet Coke button in the Oval Office. Even President Trump
38:50
Speaker 1: likes to drink his Diet Coke on a daily basis.
38:54
Speaker 1: The president literally has a Diet Coke button in his office.
38:57
Speaker 1: Do you see how the phrasing is all very similar
39:00
Speaker 1: and they're all using the same talking points? It's a
39:03
Speaker 1: little bit changed, but not by much. The big point
39:07
Speaker 1: is that among all of them, Big Soda is coming
39:14
Speaker 1: in and saying, well, the point is that it's apparently
39:18
Speaker 1: an infringement on individual liberty to use SNAP funds to
39:20
Speaker 1: buy soda. That's the overarching argument that they're making. But
39:24
Speaker 1: what everybody on social media has realized, which is very apparent,
39:27
Speaker 1: and some have even admitted to this, is that Big
39:30
Speaker 1: Soda was paying influencers to sell out their massive audiences
39:33
Speaker 1: in opposition to Maha and President Trump. And this idea
39:37
Speaker 1: that it's somehow against the free will of consumers to
39:41
Speaker 1: restrict snap funding for junk food is an insane position
39:44
Speaker 1: to have. Insane. Why should taxpayers pay for junk food? empty,
39:49
Speaker 1: nutritionless calories. That makes people sick. Junk food is a luxury,
39:54
Speaker 1: not a necessity. Snap should be for necessities. Why should
39:59
Speaker 1: the taxpayers pay for treats for people who can't afford
40:04
Speaker 1: real food, allegedly? This is not a free will issue.
40:08
Speaker 1: Nobody is limiting what you can buy with your own money.
40:12
Speaker 1: If I want to go to the store with my
40:14
Speaker 1: $ 5 worth And by Dr. Pepper, I am free to
40:21
Speaker 1: do so. You're just not free to do so if
40:24
Speaker 1: you're using the taxpayers' money. You can do whatever you
40:31
Speaker 1: want with your own money, but you can't just do
40:33
Speaker 1: that with the taxpayers. And honestly, it doesn't help society
40:37
Speaker 1: if the people who are on welfare are poisoning themselves.
40:40
Speaker 1: How are they going to get back up on their
40:41
Speaker 1: feet if they are actively consuming poison? And the bigger
40:47
Speaker 1: point here that I want to make to you guys
40:49
Speaker 1: is alternative media doesn't mean truthful. And I'm saying this
40:53
Speaker 1: as somebody who's talking to you from an alternative media platform.
40:56
Speaker 1: I'm here on Rumble. I'm a podcaster. No one tells
40:59
Speaker 1: me what to talk about every day. It's just me.
41:01
Speaker 1: And I love that. And that's wonderful. But alternative media
41:05
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that it's necessarily more trustworthy than corporate media.
41:10
Speaker 1: It doesn't. And by the way, I'll just tell you guys,
41:14
Speaker 1: I promise you as an individual that I will never
41:16
Speaker 1: sell you out. My ads are distinct in this show.
41:19
Speaker 1: We just played them. It's a separate video. It's very
41:22
Speaker 1: obvious that I'm doing an ad read to provide for
41:25
Speaker 1: this show, to pay for this show so that I
41:27
Speaker 1: can keep doing it. But never would I consider inserting
41:34
Speaker 1: an undisclosed ad into my show to subliminally try to
41:39
Speaker 1: influence you. That would be a terrible thing to do.
41:42
Speaker 1: That'd be wildly dishonest. but you can't trust everyone not
41:46
Speaker 1: to do that. I'm not up for sale. My opinions
41:51
Speaker 1: aren't up for sale, but that's not the case with everybody.
41:54
Speaker 1: And it's kind of like, it reminded me of a
41:59
Speaker 1: feudal Japan, like the Samurais or the Wild West, like
42:04
Speaker 1: this moment that we're living in. And I say that
42:05
Speaker 1: because in the Wild West, your word was everything because
42:09
Speaker 1: in a lawless high stakes frontier, Trust and reputation determined survival, alliances,
42:16
Speaker 1: retribution when formal systems couldn't. That's what the age of
42:21
Speaker 1: social media following the death of corporate media is all about.
42:25
Speaker 1: It's your word. It's the trust of individuals. It's personal, again,
42:31
Speaker 1: in the way that it was in the Wild West.
42:33
Speaker 1: And there's actually something kind of great about that. You
42:35
Speaker 1: saw the people who were paid to do these snap ads.
42:41
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, these big soda ads that were not disclosed
42:44
Speaker 1: to the public and were really selling out their audiences
42:46
Speaker 1: who trusted them. Don't trust those people. Trusting people over
42:51
Speaker 1: institutions is actually always more reliable, in my opinion. And
42:56
Speaker 1: so this is a moment to really think critically about
42:59
Speaker 1: the media that you consume. We don't trust corporate media.
43:02
Speaker 1: We know that they're untrustworthy. They've proven it time and
43:04
Speaker 1: time again. They continue to prove themselves to be untrustworthy. Now,
43:08
Speaker 1: the challenge with alternative media is to find people that
43:11
Speaker 1: you can really put your trust in, people who are
43:13
Speaker 1: not bought and sold or who you know will not
43:15
Speaker 1: buy and sell their audiences. And that's going to be
43:19
Speaker 1: on the consumers of information to determine. And I think
43:22
Speaker 1: there's something really wonderful about that, actually. I think the
43:24
Speaker 1: corporate media and the government will say that that's a
43:26
Speaker 1: bad thing for you to discern who you want to
43:28
Speaker 1: trust as an individual. I say it's a good thing.
43:31
Speaker 1: I say we are returning to an older time, like
43:34
Speaker 1: the Wild West, where your word means everything. And it's
43:37
Speaker 1: kind of a beautiful thing. It puts some more pressure
43:39
Speaker 1: on you guys. It puts some more pressure on you.
43:43
Speaker 1: But in the end, I think it's going to be
43:45
Speaker 1: a very positive thing. Don't trust the guys who sold
43:48
Speaker 1: us out. All right. You guys remember when Nick Sandman
43:52
Speaker 1: from Covington Catholic High School was destroyed by everyone in
43:58
Speaker 1: the media, in the political apparatus? He wasn't even defended, really,
44:02
Speaker 1: by those in the political right until way too late.
44:05
Speaker 1: This kid stood up. stoically outside the Lincoln Memorial during
44:08
Speaker 1: the March for Life rally. And he was wearing a
44:12
Speaker 1: red Make America Great Again hat. And he was filmed
44:17
Speaker 1: standing face-to-face with a Native American man named Nathan Phillips. Michael,
44:21
Speaker 1: if we could throw that picture up there, that'd be great.
44:24
Speaker 1: So people can know what we're talking about. He was
44:26
Speaker 1: standing face-to-face with a man named Nathan Phillips, who was
44:29
Speaker 1: beating a drum in his face. And at the same time,
44:32
Speaker 1: a group of black Hebrew Israelites were taunting Sandman and
44:36
Speaker 1: his classmates. So the initial media reports accused Sandman of
44:40
Speaker 1: smirking and therefore smeared him as apparently a racist. And
44:45
Speaker 1: the incident led to death threats against Sandman, school closures.
44:49
Speaker 1: It was this whole disaster. This poor kid had his
44:52
Speaker 1: life nearly destroyed. And I remember when it happened and
44:56
Speaker 1: I just, my heart went out to this boy because
44:59
Speaker 1: it seemed like one of my classmates. You know, I
45:02
Speaker 1: was in high school at the time. I was his age.
45:04
Speaker 1: And I saw it and it was like, it could
45:06
Speaker 1: have been Michael. It could have been any number of
45:08
Speaker 1: my friends in my grade at my Catholic high school,
45:12
Speaker 1: I mean, who theoretically could have gone to the March
45:14
Speaker 1: for Life just like Nick Sandman did with his class.
45:17
Speaker 1: And he had such composure to just stand there stoically.
45:23
Speaker 1: I watched the video recently of when Today's Show host
45:27
Speaker 1: Savannah Guthrie interviewed Nick. It still makes my blood boil
45:31
Speaker 1: years later. Take a listen.
45:33
Speaker 5: The center of the firestorm what critics characterize as a
45:36
Speaker 5: smirk on Sandman space, some saying it was an attempt
45:39
Speaker 5: to stare down Phillips. What do you think that looks like.
45:44
Speaker 9: I see it as a smile saying that this is
45:47
Speaker 9: the best you're going to get out of me you
45:49
Speaker 9: won't get any further reaction of aggression. And I'm willing
45:54
Speaker 9: to stand here as long as you want to hit
45:56
Speaker 9: this strong in my face.
45:57
Speaker 5: What some people see is a young kid with a
46:01
Speaker 5: smirk on his face. What would you say for people
46:05
Speaker 5: who see that and are making a judgment about who
46:11
Speaker 5: you are?
46:11
Speaker 9: Well, people judge me based off one expression, which I
46:16
Speaker 9: wasn't smirking, but people have assumed that's what I have.
46:19
Speaker 9: And they've gone from there to titling me and labeling
46:23
Speaker 9: me as a racist person, someone that's disrespectful to adults,
46:28
Speaker 9: which they've had to assume so many things to get
46:31
Speaker 9: there without consulting me. anyone that can give them the
46:35
Speaker 9: opposite story.
46:36
Speaker 1: He had such composure even in that interview. I was
46:38
Speaker 1: so impressed by him. Still years later, I'm so impressed
46:42
Speaker 1: by what he did. But that kid was smeared and
46:44
Speaker 1: humiliated because he was a white male Trump supporter. He
46:47
Speaker 1: did nothing wrong. Just like the guy in the subway
46:51
Speaker 1: whose hat was almost stolen by that psychotic left-wing woman.
46:58
Speaker 1: We talked last week about young men being demonized by
47:00
Speaker 1: the media and by the culture. We discussed the currently
47:04
Speaker 1: number one Netflix miniseries, Adolescence, about a 13-year-old boy, working-class family,
47:12
Speaker 1: who murders one of his female classmates because he was
47:15
Speaker 1: radicalized by the manosphere, by online influencers. And the film
47:20
Speaker 1: was fawned over by Western elites because, and the ladies
47:24
Speaker 1: of The View, UK Prime Minister Keira Starmer, and you
47:30
Speaker 1: know why they demonize men like Nick Sandman. and all
47:33
Speaker 1: of young Western boys via this film Adolescence. It's because
47:39
Speaker 1: they fear them. It still infuriates me to watch that
47:43
Speaker 1: video of Nick Sandman out there. And there's so many
47:48
Speaker 1: young boys who are being red-pilled right now. And that
47:51
Speaker 1: is where this really comes from. It is a fear
47:55
Speaker 1: of the men who are actually taking agency back. I
47:59
Speaker 1: want you to look at this graph. 20-year-old white men
48:04
Speaker 1: are less supportive of the Democratic Party than any demo
48:09
Speaker 1: in America. 20-year-old white men dislike Democrats more than men
48:14
Speaker 1: over 75. You guys believe that? Actually, every demo under 25,
48:22
Speaker 1: meaning Gen Z, male, female, black, brown, white, is noticeably
48:27
Speaker 1: more conservative than their millennial counterparts. There is a shift happening,
48:30
Speaker 1: like a radical shift of the political right. And that
48:34
Speaker 1: is where all of this is stemming from. That is
48:35
Speaker 1: where all of the anger and the fear from the
48:38
Speaker 1: political left is stemming from. Not a single white male
48:43
Speaker 1: born after 1984 has published a work of fiction in
48:47
Speaker 1: the New Yorker, America's most famous literary magazine. What I'm
48:51
Speaker 1: telling you guys is there are structural structural forces in
48:56
Speaker 1: place to purposely discriminate against white men. Did all these
49:03
Speaker 1: white men forget how to write? The answer is of
49:05
Speaker 1: course not. They're being kept out because of their race
49:09
Speaker 1: and their sex. Jacob Savage wrote an essay in Compact
49:14
Speaker 1: detailing how the New York Times notable fiction list featured
49:18
Speaker 1: seven white American men under 43 in 2012, but by 2021,
49:21
Speaker 1: there were zero. Since then, only two of 72 millennials
49:23
Speaker 1: featured between 2021 and 2024 were white American men. Meanwhile,
49:28
Speaker 1: since 2020, not one white man has been nominated for
49:43
Speaker 1: the New York Public Library's Young Lions Prize, nor has
49:46
Speaker 1: a straight white American millennial man been a finalist for
49:49
Speaker 1: the Center for Fiction's first novel prize out of 70 finalists.
49:55
Speaker 1: Initiatives like the National Park Service 2023 pledge to ensure
49:59
Speaker 1: 30% of all law enforcement officers are female is part
50:03
Speaker 1: of a broader trend where hiring more women is prioritized.
50:08
Speaker 1: standards for traditionally male-dominated fields, such as police work, firefighting,
50:13
Speaker 1: the military, have been lowered to increase female participation. And
50:18
Speaker 1: that means it's structurally more difficult for men to get
50:21
Speaker 1: these jobs that are actually supposed to be for male,
50:25
Speaker 1: that are supposed to be male-dominated spaces. They're at a
50:31
Speaker 1: comparative disadvantage just for being male and especially just for
50:34
Speaker 1: being white because DEI applies to corporate America and college
50:38
Speaker 1: admissions just as much. And instead of addressing any of this,
50:42
Speaker 1: men are smeared as radicalized and dangerous. Immediately, right off
50:46
Speaker 1: the bat, Nick Salmon just stood there silently and stoically
50:49
Speaker 1: while he was being harassed. And the monsters pounced at
50:57
Speaker 1: him in the media and the cultural apparatus that exists
51:02
Speaker 1: against white men. And it's obvious what's going on. Gen
51:07
Speaker 1: Z is has shifted nearly 30 points to the political
51:10
Speaker 1: right from 2020 to 2024 for a reason. They've been marginalized.
51:17
Speaker 1: The left is then in response lashing out at a
51:21
Speaker 1: demographic that they can no longer control. People on the
51:24
Speaker 1: political right criticize the manosphere too. It's true. People like
51:27
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro, people like Lila Rose, people who I actually
51:30
Speaker 1: like and respect, for some reason they have a big
51:31
Speaker 1: problem with the manosphere. Manosphere is not perfect, But it's
51:37
Speaker 1: why we are gaining ground with men. The best thing
51:40
Speaker 1: isn't to add to this demonization of men. Men don't
51:44
Speaker 1: need more of that. Just push them away by saying
51:48
Speaker 1: people that they look up to are problematic. I think
51:50
Speaker 1: the better thing is to add to the conversation, to
51:53
Speaker 1: make things better. And yeah, like I said, you guys,
51:57
Speaker 1: Andrew Tate is not perfect. He's not a perfect representation
52:00
Speaker 1: of traditionalist values. I would never say that. he's speaking
52:04
Speaker 1: to disaffected young men. Let's also speak to disaffected young
52:08
Speaker 1: men in a positive way that's better than what Andrew
52:11
Speaker 1: Tate is doing. But let's not add to the demonization
52:16
Speaker 1: that they already feel by criticizing figures of the manosphere
52:20
Speaker 1: and saying that it's radicalizing and making young men violent
52:23
Speaker 1: in the same way that the left is. We're associating
52:26
Speaker 1: ourselves with the political left and the demonization of young
52:29
Speaker 1: men by doing that. And what's really happening, the reality
52:32
Speaker 1: of the situation is It's not that they're becoming violent
52:34
Speaker 1: or evil. It is that young men are taking back
52:37
Speaker 1: their agency. They're taking back their agency. All right, I
52:43
Speaker 1: want to get to, I was going to cover a
52:46
Speaker 1: Snow White story, but I have only a little bit
52:48
Speaker 1: of time left. So we're going to do that tomorrow.
52:50
Speaker 1: And I'm going to cover something else that, I don't know,
52:54
Speaker 1: I think you guys are going to like this story.
52:55
Speaker 1: So a bride has gone viral and she set the
52:59
Speaker 1: internet on fire after flashing a her husband's groomsmen and
53:05
Speaker 1: wedding guests and photographers on her wedding day. This whole
53:10
Speaker 1: thing is completely bizarre. Like I said, it's gone pretty viral.
53:13
Speaker 1: Everybody has different takes. Some people say that this is
53:17
Speaker 1: not a big deal, that she's just a free-spirited woman
53:20
Speaker 1: and this is totally normal. You guys decide for yourselves.
53:22
Speaker 1: You tell me, is this normal? Take a look. Okay,
53:29
Speaker 1: so that's crazy. That's insane. A lot of people are
53:34
Speaker 1: defending this woman. They're saying, somebody commented, I mean, it's
53:55
Speaker 1: no different than being in a bikini at a pool
53:57
Speaker 1: party or beach. Somebody says, she's funny in my opinion.
54:00
Speaker 1: Only jealous people will have negative things to say. She's
54:03
Speaker 1: a free spirit. What do you say, Mikey? Is this
54:08
Speaker 1: funny or in poor taste? Puts his thumbs down. He
54:11
Speaker 1: says in poor taste. She's not a free spirit, you guys.
54:14
Speaker 1: She just has zero self-respect for herself, let alone her husband.
54:19
Speaker 1: This is what happens when marriage is nothing but dating
54:22
Speaker 1: more seriously, dating with a celebration- attached to it. Marriage
54:26
Speaker 1: is a sacred sacrament. It's supposed to be a covenant
54:29
Speaker 1: between the couple and God. But obviously, this woman does
54:33
Speaker 1: not feel the same way. You're getting married, making a
54:36
Speaker 1: promise to each other, and then she's showing the world
54:39
Speaker 1: her underwear on her wedding day. And there was a
54:42
Speaker 1: woman a while back, Miss Universe, Olivia Colpo, who faced
54:47
Speaker 1: backlash for wearing this dress when she married American football
54:51
Speaker 1: star Christian McCaffrey. Can we throw up that picture, Mikey?
54:55
Speaker 1: Beautiful dress. I think it's beautiful. She looks lovely. She's
54:59
Speaker 1: a model, for crying out loud. She's Miss Universe. But
55:02
Speaker 1: not everybody thought that this dress was so great. They
55:06
Speaker 1: specifically didn't think it was so great because she said
55:08
Speaker 1: in an interview with Vogue that she didn't want to
55:10
Speaker 1: exude sex in any way, shape, or form. And this
55:13
Speaker 1: was problematic to people. Here is a designer criticizing her
55:18
Speaker 1: as a pick-me for choosing a modest wedding gown.
55:22
Speaker 3: But it's all the stuff surrounding the dress that leaves
55:25
Speaker 3: kind of a bitter aftertaste. She said two things. First
55:28
Speaker 3: of all, she says, I didn't want to exude sex
55:31
Speaker 3: in any way. The second thing she says is she
55:33
Speaker 3: wanted the dress to be as serious as she takes
55:36
Speaker 3: the covenant of marriage. Now, listen, there is nothing wrong
55:39
Speaker 3: with wanting a modest wedding dress or just modest attire
55:43
Speaker 3: in general. But the way that she was talking about
55:45
Speaker 3: this went beyond just wanting something modest for herself. and
55:49
Speaker 3: pushing this idea of what she thinks all brides should
55:52
Speaker 3: look like. She even says that her husband thinks she's
55:54
Speaker 3: the most beautiful when she's timeless, covered and elegant. I
55:58
Speaker 3: just think the usage of the word covered is so
56:01
Speaker 3: icky because you are not covered in day-to-day life. And
56:04
Speaker 3: also why is he thinking that you're the most beautiful
56:07
Speaker 3: when you're covered? That's such an odd, odd thing. All
56:10
Speaker 3: celebrity weddings will have a little bit of marketing sprinkled
56:13
Speaker 3: in there. I just think it's really odd that instead
56:15
Speaker 3: of marketing herself, She's like marketing and pushing this conservative agenda.
56:21
Speaker 3: And if you really wanted to push a conservative agenda,
56:23
Speaker 3: all you had to do was make it seem appealing.
56:26
Speaker 3: But instead you took this disingenuous pick-me route that honestly
56:30
Speaker 3: felt more like you were thinking about your narrative than
56:32
Speaker 3: you were about your actual marriage.
56:37
Speaker 1: What do you guys think of that? Drop a comment,
56:39
Speaker 1: tell me what you think of that. I don't know,
56:40
Speaker 1: you guys. I felt like that was a very jealous video.
56:44
Speaker 1: I feel like it kind of exuded jealousy. bizarre and
56:47
Speaker 1: kind of angry for no reason whatsoever. This is just
56:50
Speaker 1: this woman's personal choice. And she's saying she's pushing a
56:53
Speaker 1: conservative agenda and it's sort of nefarious. I don't know.
56:58
Speaker 1: Olivia said she wants to respect her and her husband
57:00
Speaker 1: and the covenant of marriage. And this is somehow viewed
57:02
Speaker 1: as an attack on other women. I thought Olivia looked stunning.
57:07
Speaker 1: I wore a modest wedding dress when I got married.
57:10
Speaker 1: That was just the look I was attracted to. And
57:13
Speaker 1: I thought that was really appropriate for the moment. I
57:15
Speaker 1: thought it was respectful. I don't know why you need
57:17
Speaker 1: to be sexy in your wedding dress. That's kind of
57:20
Speaker 1: what the honeymoon lingerie is for. The wedding dress is
57:22
Speaker 1: really a symbol, a statement, and a reflection of the
57:26
Speaker 1: promises being made. I think marriage is a sacred covenant,
57:29
Speaker 1: not just between two people, but also between a higher power.
57:33
Speaker 1: A wedding dress can embody this reverence, serving as a
57:36
Speaker 1: visual representation of the purity, devotion, and spiritual commitment that
57:40
Speaker 1: the day represents. And I'm not interested in burkas. I'm
57:44
Speaker 1: not interested in hijabs and covering women head to toe,
57:48
Speaker 1: forcing them to wear long skirts to their ankles and
57:50
Speaker 1: frumpy t-shirts because we can't show anything. But I think
57:54
Speaker 1: in a world that often equates beauty with exposure, a
57:57
Speaker 1: modest wedding dress reveals what matters most, the love, the commitment,
58:02
Speaker 1: and the joy of that day. I think it's a
58:05
Speaker 1: quiet kind of loveliness that lingers long after the day
58:10
Speaker 1: has passed. It's a perfect reflection of of love built
58:12
Speaker 1: to last. And anybody who's criticizing somebody who makes that
58:15
Speaker 1: choice seems to be, I think, very jealous, having some
58:19
Speaker 1: own insecurities of their own. But I think it's totally
58:23
Speaker 1: appropriate to have a modest dress. I think it's a
58:24
Speaker 1: beautiful thing to do. And I also think that if
58:28
Speaker 1: you are showing off your underwear on your wedding day,
58:31
Speaker 1: that is a sign that perhaps you are not emotionally
58:34
Speaker 1: mature enough to be getting married. And I feel very
58:37
Speaker 1: sorry for that woman's husband. All right. That's all I
58:40
Speaker 1: have for you guys. Today, Rumble Raid. I went a
58:43
Speaker 1: little over, but you guys should all listen to Vince,
58:45
Speaker 1: his new show. He's in the Rumble studio. Also, it
58:48
Speaker 1: is Steven Crowder's first day off of YouTube, so he's
58:52
Speaker 1: here officially. Rumble exclusive, part of our rating system. I'm
58:56
Speaker 1: really happy and excited to have him here and fully
59:00
Speaker 1: a part of this Rumble team, this Rumble mission that
59:04
Speaker 1: we're on. So thank you all for tuning in. As always,
59:07
Speaker 1: you can follow me, avida.com. on Instagram or X, and
59:13
Speaker 1: I will see you all tomorrow.
59:15
Speaker 2: The U.S.
59:16
Speaker 1: Soccer Podcast.
59:17
Speaker 3: I'm your host, Megan Klingenberg, and I am super stoked
59:20
Speaker 3: to be joined by Daryl Dike.
59:22
Speaker 1: Arguably, your most impressive quality cannot be measured.
59:25
Speaker 8: You're a guy who is the definition of grit.
59:28
Speaker 2: Injuries have ended plenty of careers, but instead you decided
59:31
Speaker 2: yours would only be a chapter instead of the ending.
59:33
Speaker 1: Welcome to the show, Daryl.
59:34
Speaker 9: Thank you so much.
59:35
Speaker 7: That's a good intro right there.
59:37
Speaker 8: That's good.
59:38
Speaker 1: The U.S.
59:38
Speaker 2: Soccer Podcast.
59:39
Speaker 1: Follow and listen on your favorite platforms.