Socialism Rising Among Youth & Britain’s Free Speech Crackdown — In the Tank Podcast #509 - In The Tank

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jim Lakely (00:00):
Well,

Linnea Lueken (00:36):
Okay. We are now live. Welcome to the show,
everyone. Well, the whole Westseems to have lost its mind
slowly, slowly over the pastseveral decades. One of the
places that this is most clearis across the pond of The United
Kingdom in general, GreatBritain in particular.
A comedian was just arrested oranother comedian was just
arrested in London for makingthree rather mild tweets.

(01:00):
Furthering the war on speechover there is also a bizarre
bill meant to stop offensivebanter in pubs, restaurants,
soccer fields. Alright. Evenworse, there has been a renewed
push for digital ID in Britain,but that stuff can't happen
here. Right?
Well, a new Rasmussen andHeartland Institute poll cast
some doubt on that. We are goingto talk about all of this in

(01:22):
episode 509 of the In the Tankpodcast. Welcome to the

(02:04):
InnerTank podcast. I am LyneaLuecken, your host, and we have
a full house today, which I amso stoked about. All right.
So we have Jim Lakeley, vicepresident and director of
communications at the HeartlandInstitute. We also have Sam
Karnik, senior fellow at theHeartland Institute, and Chris
Talgo, editorial director andsocialism research fellow at the
Heartland Institute in his newoffice. So we were going to be

(02:29):
joined today by another specialguest, but she wasn't able to
make it, unfortunately. So boy,it's almost like a staff
meeting. Welcome, everybody.

Jim Lakely (02:39):
Yeah. Staff meeting that at that, the whole world
gets to watch if they feel likeit. Thousands of people every
week, which is pretty cool. Youknow, you you joke. That is a
that is joke, Lynea, butliterally, that was kind of the
the the thinking of the in thetank pocket.
That's why it's called in thetank. It was intended to give,
fans of the Heartless Institute,fans of Liberty, just kind of a,

(02:59):
you know, an inside or a windowinto what we talk about all the
time anyway, as a think tank. Wetalk about big ideas. We talk
about what's going on and howthe principles of liberty and
and, you know, smallergovernment and individual
liberty apply to those things.So, you know, welcome.
This is really in the tanktoday.

Absolutely. So before we get started here, you
guys, as always, if you want tosupport the show, you can go
over to heartland.org/inthetankand donate there. You can also
click the thumbs up to like thisvideo and remember that sharing
it helps to break through someof YouTube suppression. Even
just leaving a comment herehelps us too. If you're an audio
listener, you can help us out byleaving a nice review.

(03:37):
Alrighty, guys. Chris, thank youso much for joining us today,
Louise. I started to thank you,and then we got cut off by the
intro starting. So I'm sorryabout that.

Chris Talgo (03:47):
Well, I'm glad to be back. And, you know, it's
good good to be home and lookingforward to a great episode here.

Absolutely. Alright, guys. So we're gonna
get right into it with Unhinged.Do we have a drop for that today
or no?

Jim Lakely (04:01):
Oh, we do.

Awesome. Okay. So yet another this keeps
happening. Another comedian hasbeen arrested for making jokes
in The UK, and I think this isactually this particular
comedian's second time beingarrested for jokes. This just
keeps happening.
So this time it was comedianGraham Linehan, creator of the
IT crowd and father Ted, andhe's been arrested for cracking

(04:38):
some highly offensive anddangerous jokes about
transgenders, especiallytransgender men in women's
bathrooms. So here's whatNewsweek says about it. The
Metropolitan Police did notidentify Linehan by name, but a
spokesperson said on Monday,first September, at 1PM,
officers arrested a man atHeathrow Airport after he
arrived on an inbound AmericanAirlines flight. The man in his

(05:01):
fifties was arrested onsuspicion of inciting violence.
This is in relation to posts onX.
After being taken to policecustody, officers became
concerned for his health, and hewas taken to a hospital. His
blood pressure was spiking a bitof being arrested over this,
understandably. His condition isneither life threatening nor
life changing, and he has beenbailed pending further

(05:22):
investigation. So Graham himselfwrote about all of this on his
substack. It's quite a funnyread actually for how depressing
it is.
And he included screenshots ofthe posts that police found so
dangerous. So he wrote in hissubstack, the moment I stepped
off the plane at Heathrow, fivearmed police officers were

(05:42):
waiting. Not one, not two, five.They escorted me to a private
area and told me I was underarrest for three tweets. In a
country where pedophiles escapesentencing, where knife crime is
out of control, where women areassaulted and harassed every
time they gather to speak, thestate had mobilized five armed
officers to arrest a comedywriter for this tweet.

(06:03):
And so here are the tweets if wescroll down a little bit in the
sub stack, which I will read forthe audio listeners. He said in
the first, if a trans identifiedmale is in a female only space,
he is committing a violentabusive act. Make a scene, call
the cops, and if all else fails,punch him in the balls. The
second is he tweeted a photo youcan smell accompanied by the

(06:25):
picture of a trans protest ofsome kind. And then I hate them.
Misogynist and homophobes. Allright. So we were going to try
to have Lois Perry on here toask her about how careful she
has to be on X and otherplatforms. She couldn't make it.
But, guys, this seems reallymild.
These couple of tweets, I'veseen far more vile and

(06:47):
threatening messages withexplicit calls to violence
directed towards like JKRowling, for example, from, you
know, the activist class. Andand you never hear about those
people being arrested for thatsort of thing. So what's going
on here?

S.T. Karnick (07:03):
Is a good impulse on the part of Graham Linehan
Linehan. And it's it'sinteresting because the the laws
and enforcement in Britainseemed calculated to stop people
from doing good things, fromfrom following their best
impulses. Linnae Linnaehengeclearly wants to protect women.

(07:28):
And in fact, in an in anotherpost, he cites dozens and dozens
of cases where women have beenassaulted in these invasions of
their space by people claimingto be women. So this is this is
a terrible thing, obviously, butit's it is interesting that it's

(07:52):
as if they're trying to create anew culture where your best
impulses are suppressed and yourworst impulses are allowed to
to, go free, and use yourimagination to to do anything
you like out there.
And then it's creating certainfavored groups and certain

(08:12):
disfavored groups. And thedisfavored groups get lit
literally get arrested andjailed and imprisoned for
complaining about these things,not for doing evil, but just for
exposing these evils that arebeing done. It is a it's a sick
situation. And, boy, am I gladthat we have dodged the bullet

(08:37):
here in The United States, andand I sure hope that Britain
will change their mind aboutthese things.

Yeah, we've got quite a few, you know, listeners
in The UK. So I'd like to see inthe, you know, the audience
comments there, what you guysthink about all of this and
yeah, hi, Ian. And so do youguys have to and this is a
question for the for our Britishaudience. But do you guys have
to, like, watch what you say onx and other places? Are you

(09:04):
worried that, you know, the thecoppers are gonna come busting
your door in in the night if yousay something spicy on Instagram
or something?
Like, let us know because Iwanna know how bad it is.

Well, Lynea, this does not apply only to British
citizens because this this manis an Irish citizen. So he
happened to fly from The UnitedStates to Heathrow Airport. He
was then arrested by the Britishauthorities. Nigel Farage, one
of my personal heroes and afriend of the Harlan Institute.
He's the leader of the, UKreform party.
He, was in front of congressyesterday and I watched some of

(09:37):
the hearing and he was goingback and forth with people like
Jamie Raskin who was sayingthat, oh my gosh, you know, what
you are, what you're doing hereis you are trying to perpetuate
hate speech and all this kind ofstuff, and that's what this
really boils down to. I mean,you know, Nigel Farage, he,

(09:57):
evoked, Voltaire and he said,wait a second, one person's hate
speech is not necessarilyanother person's hate speech,
and, know, there's a fine linebetween that, and that's where I
think really boils down to. AndNigel did a very good job of,
going through the history of howThe United Kingdom, since it,
joined the European Union andnow it's obviously no longer

(10:18):
part of it. But, during theperiod, it was in the European
Union from 1973 to 2020, how it,Europeanized, a lot of its, free
speech laws, and he thinks thatthis was a huge mistake. And,
you know, I'm gonna take a veryoptimistic tone here because I'm
gonna be the optimist on thispodcast from now on.
And, according to the polls,the, you know, Nigel Nigel

(10:40):
Farage's reform party is,definitely in the lead. It looks
like they will win the election.I think it's slated to be in
2029. It's not exactly like, youknow, elections here in The
United States. But if the youknow, if Nigel does come into
power and becomes the nextleader of The United Kingdom, he
said he is gonna make a hugeeffort to try to get rid of all

(11:01):
these laws.
So these laws like the OnlineSafety Act, I mean, there's a
ton of them that can be usedagainst not only British
citizens, but an American whosaid something on X and then
goes to London, they can bearrested for that. So that's a
really scary thing. And I wannamake sure that people understand
this is not just being appliedto British citizens. This

(11:21):
applies to everyone in theworld. Yeah.

Jim Lakely (11:26):
You guys might recall back in February, JD
Vance, gave an address over inEurope. I forget exactly what,
you know, confab of bureaucratshe was talking to, but the the,
you know, he warned about this.He talked about this. And, you
know, Donald Trump has actuallyeven hinted, I think, on

(11:47):
occasion that, you know, look,if we're gonna be allies, I
mean, I I thought the, you know,the West shared values of things
like free speech and freedom ofassociation and, apparently, we
don't share those values at all.The United States doesn't with
The United Kingdom, you know,which is used to be called the

(12:09):
special relationship between ourtwo countries.
Now that relationship is thefact and and Chris rightly
points it out. Grant Linehan isnot a citizen of The United
Kingdom. He's an Irish citizen.So the idea that that that, five
armed members of the MetroPolice Department arrest him as

(12:30):
he gets off a plane in Heathrowat at the London Heathrow's
airport as Nigel Farage pointedout testifying, you know,
perfect timing in front ofcongress yesterday. If they can
arrest him, they can arrest me.
They can arrest you if they lookat your tweets and don't like
them. To and Chris, as you asyou observed and described, the

(12:54):
repulsive member of congress,Jamie Raskin from Maryland,
talking about, well, this ishate speech. I'm sorry guys.
There's really no such thing ashate speech. This whole idea
that that we have to qualifysome sort of speech as hate
speech and that that now we haveto have legislation to prevent
people from engaging in hatespeech is exactly where people

(13:18):
like us, civil libertarianswarned this was going a long
time ago.
I I was in journalism foreighteen years before coming to
the Heartland Institute. I spenthalf that time as a as an
editorial writer and columnistand I and this is back in the in
the late nineties and early twothousands and at that time, if
you're you might be old enoughto remember is when we started

(13:38):
to see laws hate crime laws andI wrote again, I wrote against
those sorts of things becauseyou were legislating the
motivation of the killer or orbasically, you were committing a
thought crime that wasconsidered just as bad as
killing somebody. You know, Imean, if you if you murder

(14:00):
someone, that's by definition anact of hate. That is and and so
but we had these enhancedsentences for so called hate
crimes for certain protectedclasses of human beings but not
other sorts of human beings andhere we are now where we're
talking about so called hatespeech where a comedian for

(14:24):
making a joke on an Americansocial American based social
media platform can be arrestedby a country in which he is not
even a citizen and brought up oncharges, charges of what?
I guess offending people. Look,too bad. You know, we we have to

(14:44):
get away from this idea that ifyou are if you take offense at
something that there must bepunishment by law including
fines or jail time to the personthat you point your finger at
and say this person offended me.What I what's so so amazing,
we've talked about this on thisin this context on this podcast

(15:06):
before is JK Rowling who Idisagree with probably on 99% of
the of the principles she holds.But she holds one principle or
maybe two that are important andshould be shared by everybody no
matter what political party youbelong to, what country you live
in if you live in a free countryor even what know ideological
outlook you have on the worldis.

(15:28):
And that is the idea of freespeech and also the idea that a
biological male is not an actualbiological female and should not
be invading female spaces whichare separate from men for a
whole host of very very goodreasons. Safety being among
them. And just stating this noweven in in a joke and even

(15:49):
stating in a way that you mightnot because you think it would
be mean or uncouth or perhapseven a little cruel. Too bad.
You know?
Get on with your life. No. Welive now in a in a well, at
least our listeners and viewersfrom The United Kingdom live in
a country in which if thegovernment and the government's
protected classes disagree withthe way you think about

(16:12):
something, they can put you injail. Now look, I wouldn't use
that kind of language, butthat's just me. But everybody on
principle should be together onthe idea that this is wrong and
actually very, very dangerousbecause if you do not have the
freedom to speak your mind, youdon't really have any freedom at
all.
And the reason why, GrahamLinehan was arrested is the same

(16:35):
reason why under the Bidenadministration, we saw
censorship of of conservatives.We saw censorship of people
being having their YouTubechannels taken away. People make
a living on YouTube, not us,unfortunately, but a lot of
people make a living on YouTubeand they were having their their
channels demonetized, sometimeseven taken down altogether
because of government pressureand it's the idea is to make an

(16:58):
example of these so called badactors to make sure that nobody
else speaks to. This is like,you know, putting a head on a
pike out out in front of thecastle. That's a warning And
these sorts of arrests and thissort of attitude is a warning to
others to not speak their mindswhether it be on trans rights or
any of that stuff, whether it beon immigration or in the past

(17:20):
whether it was on COVID orvaccines or heck, we talk about
it a lot on this channel.
Climate change because that wasthe next one in the queue. This
needs to be talked about a lot.I know I've I've seen a lot of
podcasts already talk aboutthis. This is a big
international story and itshould be and I'm not as
optimist optimistic as Chris butI will express hope that this

(17:42):
could be a turning pointespecially in The UK where we
thought that they protected andappreciated free speech the way
Americans do. I know they don'thave a First Amendment but in
principle, the idea that youshould be able to speak your
mind is a universal westernideal and it needs to be
protected and this is a greatcase to make people pay

(18:04):
attention because this is verydangerous.

And Jim, can I just add on to that? So, you brought
up the immigration thing. So,Nigel in his testimony yesterday
also brought up the case of awoman who is a British citizen,
and this was in 2024. She hadthe audacity to tweet mass
deportation now. Guess what?
She was sentenced to thirty onemonths in prison. That just

(18:27):
blows my mind. I mean, I cannotbelieve that. It was actually
and that was upheld by anappellate court in, in Britain.
And, you know, it's interestingbecause I did a lot of research
for this.
I wrote an article about thisthis morning. So I just found
this so, you know, intriguing.And there are a lot of people in
Britain who do not agree withthis. I mean, this is, you know,
some, you know, just justhearing and reading, you know,

(18:50):
things from British citizens whowere aghast at this, but it also
is, you know, coming up at the,you know, police officers are
saying, hey, wait a second, wedon't want to be doing this. And
even Kiera Sturmer said, maybewe have better and bigger things
that we need to be worryingabout.
So, you know, I hope that thisis one of those cases in which

(19:12):
there's such a backlash, youknow, against it that they do
decide to, you know, change theappeal. Said he would repeal the
Online Safety Act first thingwhen he comes into office. So
that's why I am somewhatoptimistic. It just seems like
they they went way overboardhere. And it looks like, you
know, at least to me thatordinary British people are
saying, wait a second, this is,you know, too much.

(19:36):
And police officers don't wantto be involved in this. They
know that there's, you know,much bigger problems for them to
be dealing with. So, you know,it's it's a very, scary
situation. So I hope this justbrings a lot of attention to the
situation, especially thislatest arrest. I mean, this is
just insane.

Yeah. I mean, we thought we hit kind of peak
clown world years ago when MarkMeekin, Count Dankula was
arrested and eventually finedfor just like making a funny
video where he taught his dog toraise its paw to Sig Isle. So

(20:14):
and he was a Scottish citizen, Ibelieve. So that's, you know,
it's only gotten worse fromthere.

And I know this is not a perfect analogy, but I do
remember that someone was put injail in The United States for a
meme that he made about HillaryClinton. Oh,

yeah. Yep.

Jim Lakely (20:30):
So, I

mean, I I know that that that's not the exact same
thing, but it to me, it's it'sin the same vein

Speaker 5 (20:35):
Yeah.

Where it's like, guys, come on. There is room for
comedy. There is room even forsome crass offensive language in
this world. And, you know, maybethis is a little bit of the, you
know, the snowflake mentalityand all that kind of stuff where
it's like, woah, you know, Iremember a time sticks and
stones can hurt your, sticks andstones will break your bones,
but names never hurt you.Whatever happened to that?

(20:57):
Whatever happened to people justkinda like, you know, it's like
sliding this off the back andsaying, yeah, it's just that's
your opinion. You know? Yeah. Idon't know. It's just to me to
me, it is just so stunning.

Well, bills are rolling on. Our second topic
here today is that there is acontinuing war on speech in
Britain. We have a reallyremarkable story here. There's a
new bill coming up. And so thefree press talks about it a bit
in this article.
On the night of Wednesday, July16, the labor government's
employment rights bill passedits second reading in the House

(21:30):
of Lords. If the bill goes intolaw in current form, and there's
not much to stop it now, Britonscan be prosecuted for a remark
that a worker in a public spaceoverhears and finds insulting.
The war or the law will apply topubs, clubs, restaurants, soccer
grounds, and all the otherplaces where the country gathers
and all too frequently ridiculesone another. The bill has been

(21:53):
dubbed the banter bill in a laststand flourish of native wit,
but it's no joke. It is furtherproof of the state sponsored
decline of free speech inBritain or decline rightly
criticized by vice president J.
D. Vance, who despite thedemands of his day job, still
finds time for forthright banteron x. Alright. According to the
parliament bill's website, it'scurrently in the final stages of

(22:14):
being passed. So, yeah, I mean,Vance got scorched in the media
over there for accusing Europeand especially The UK and
Germany for tearing apart theirfree speech rights.
But he was right then, And he'seven more right now. How to
borrow a line from Greta? Howdare they? How dare they, you

(22:36):
know, accuse Vance of hyperbolewhen they go and do this. Right?
Jim, sorry.

Jim Lakely (22:45):
Yeah. I mean, we have a video we can play that's
related to the story that I cameacross. It was from Britain's
GBN News Channel, which is, Isuppose, their version of Fox
News, it's certainly necessaryif you don't wanna be programmed
by the BBC. Maybe we could playthat as a bit of a launching

(23:07):
point for some more commentary.

Absolutely.

Speaker 5 (23:11):
Right. Can we talk about this free speech in pubs
for What's going on here? Well,

Speaker 6 (23:18):
just madness, I think. Just more of this madness
employment bill from AngelaRayna, which really needs to be
scrapped. Because if we'regetting to the point where
people are not able to talkabout anything they wanna talk
about in the pub, which is whereyou talk about anything you
wanna talk about.

Jim Lakely (23:32):
Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 6 (23:32):
It's over. Pubs are over. You know, free speech is
over. This whole bill is adisaster for employers and needs
to be scrapped.

Speaker 5 (23:41):
And because the Quality Human Rights Commission
is saying that if the way thisbill could be interpreted, if
you start giving your view onthe transgender issue, for
instance, someone can say,that's out of order.
Conversation over. Your wordsoffend me in my workplace, and
therefore And the publicum thenmay be required to end the
conversation. Hate throw themout the pub.

Speaker 6 (24:02):
I mean, really is 1984. We are living it now,
isn't it? It's news speak. Thisis what you're allowed to say.
Nothing else.

Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 7 (24:09):
'19 I I think that that when it comes to the pub's
bit, common sense would probablyprevail, and I I think it'd be
very unlikely there would be anyaction taken at a pub. It could
happen, but I think it's it'sunlikely.

Speaker 5 (24:21):
But the fact it could makes it wrong.

Speaker 7 (24:23):
But the the intention of the intention of this is is
to stop harassment in theworkplace. Yes. So that's that's
the idea.

See The road to hell is paved with good
intentions. Sorry, Jim. Goahead.

Jim Lakely (24:32):
No. No. 100%. And I wanted to play that clip
especially for the thing at thevery end. So, apparently, one
person on that panel was not a aright thinking person and is
just, oh, well, you know, well,probably wouldn't happen that
they would throw you out of apub for speaking wrong speak for
a thought crime.
But, you know, the intention isto protect from harassment in
the workplace. The idea that wedon't have enough laws,

(24:55):
especially in Britain for forthis sort of thing. There's
already employment laws here inThe United States that if you
have a legitimate case forharassment by your employer, you
have action you could haveactionable it it could be
actionable and you can getredressed for that in many
different ways. But see, this isthe again, as you said, Chris,
the road to hell is paved withgood intentions. It should a a

(25:17):
bill like this should not as asas Andy, producer Andy put up on
the screen.
It passed the House of Commons.It got it just yesterday was on
its third reading in the Houseof Lords and now it's it's
basically on its way to passage.It's in the amendment stage
right now. If one of thoseamendments isn't every word in
this bill is null and void, andif that doesn't pass, then The

(25:39):
United Kingdom is in very bigtrouble. I mean, the pubs, as
the woman pointed out, you know,British pub culture is like the
the the American revolutionbegan in pubs here in The United
in the in the colonies forcrying out loud.

The Well, that may well be kind of the point,
isn't it, Jim?

Jim Lakely (25:59):
I I I think that is exactly the point. And and the
the the idea that this wouldeven get introduced in a free
country, let alone this faralong, to passage in The UK, is
is very, very scary. And it's,you know, it's and actually, as
you just said, Lynette, thepoint the guy is, like, playing
playing dumb. You know? Well,you know, it probably wouldn't

(26:22):
be enforced in pubs.
No. The purpose of this is tohave make sure it's enforced in
pubs. Don't let don't don't letthere be any illusions about
that. The purpose of this law isto is to stop people from
speaking their mind if theyoppose government policy,
period. That's what this is allabout.
And if you are not able to dothat, you do not live in in a

(26:43):
remotely free country. And sothis is very, very, very sad to
see in The UK. It was nice tosee these people on this panel
push back at it, and I'm surethat majority of the of the
British people are not insupport of this. But you need to
take to the streets then andmake sure this stuff doesn't
happen while you still can.

See, that's the exact kind of dangerous call to
violence, Jim, that they'retrying to stop in this.

Jim Lakely (27:11):
I don't have any trips to London planned, but,
actually our president to theprison at Heartland Institute
does. Uh-oh. He's gonna be introuble. I'll have to send him
Yeah. A

Careful. Well yeah. No. It's just it's
terrible to see the way thateverything is going over there.
It's frightening, especially,we're kind of moving along quick
here, but our main topic todayis probably going to take a good
amount of time.
So this is good. But, you know,especially now that they're
starting to bring up the digitalID issue again. So the Daily

(27:43):
Mail is reporting on this sayinglabor's big idea is ID cards for
all. Blair wanted them yearsago. And now as Macron demands
action, Starmer takes interest.
Every person in Britain could beforced to sign up for a digital
ID card after Emmanuel Macrondemanded action to tackle the
scourge of illegal working. Gotcomments about that, but let's

(28:05):
go. Sir Kier Starmer told thecabinet he would be exploring
options around the concept aspart of a wider package of
reforms designed to make itharder for illegal migrants to
live and work here. DowningStreet confirmed ministers are
examining proposals for adigital ID scheme fifteen years
after the idea was abandonedfollowing following an outcry
about the impact of civilliberties. Under one option,

(28:29):
anyone applying for a new jobwould be required to produce
their digital ID to demonstratethat they have the right to live
and work in The UK.
Similar provisions could also beintroduced for those moving to
new accommodation, making abenefit claim or accessing
public services. Labor ruled outID cards as recently as July
with Business Secretary JonathanReynolds saying the idea was not

(28:50):
our approach. But Keir has beentold by Mr. Macron to address
pull factors attracting migrantsto Britain in return for French
help and stopping the boats.Allies of the French president
have warned The UK's lax rulesmake it in El Dorado for
migrants.
Question about the civilliberties row that ended the
last bid to introduce compulsoryID cards, the spokesman said

(29:12):
ministers believe the debate haschanged since the last time we
had this discussion with peoplemore relaxed about the idea of
having to prove their identityonline. Alright. So I have a
couple of things to say aboutthis one. So, one, it always
goes this way, doesn't it? Thisis what people mean when they
give the example of boiling afrog in a pot, you know, turning

(29:32):
the temperature up slowly sothat he doesn't notice he's been
cooked.
So and and then again, you know,they're claiming that this is
because of the immigrationissue. But wouldn't there be a
better solution here, like, justarresting and deporting illegal
immigrants? And aren't all theimmigrants coming from like,

(29:53):
between like using France as astopover before they go to The
UK. So what does Macron meanthat The UK needs to handle
this? They're in his country.
So I'll pitch it to you guys,Sam. What if they just, like,
arrested and deported peopleinstead? Would that be better?

Yes. It would be better. It's interesting when
you're getting pushed around byEmmanuel Macron, you are really
weak. But it's not that he'sweak. It's really that this is
what he wants.
The the the reality is behindall of this is that, yes, it
certainly is all about makingsure that the that any

(30:35):
government approved, policiesreceive only positive, notice,
through the media, includingsocial media. And so the the but
the means to do that is, ofcourse, to destroy those who
step out of line. And what whatthat does is it's intended to

(30:58):
demoralize the population,especially the normies, normal
people who, just wanna live livenormal lives and and work and
have some relaxation and maybego to the pub and and have a
chat. And when you when you'rein the pub, then if someone

(31:19):
overhears you, they they can,they can call you out for
offending them. But how doesthis actually work in reality?
And how is it intended to work?In my view, it is intended to
work the same way that thesocial media rules are working,

(31:39):
which is that people who, thatactivists who are working to
follow people who might speakout will then complain to the
authorities and have thesepeople arrested, thrown in
prison. And this is exactly whathappened to Graham Linehan.

(32:01):
There's a particular individualwho is very well connected, who,
has continuously, complained tothe government about things,
about Linehan's tweets. So whatthis will do is it will be just
like in The United States duringthe Biden administration where

(32:22):
the government uses individuals,uses, people among the public to
rat out other people and and anduse the government to destroy
their lives, which destroys allopposition.
The way it was done during theBiden administration was that

(32:42):
they went to the the socialmedia directly and said, if you
don't want more rules on you andif you don't want us doing
everything we can to shut youdown, then you will censor these
particular, ideas. And you canand you better get your, what do
you call it? Your your yoursystems set up so that those

(33:05):
ideas don't get through. Andthat is exactly what the social
media did. So this is all aboutthe government using people
within the society to destroyother people so that it will do
two things.
One, it will shut downopposition voices. But two, and
perhaps the more important,element is that it will

(33:30):
demoralize the people, thepublic, and make them more
pliable because they believethat there is no way out and
there is no alternative. Whatthey're going to find though is
that there is an alternative. Itis already happening in Britain,
and I believe that it is goingto continue to rise in force.

(33:52):
And that alternative issomething that we may come to
discuss, but it is actualreaction against the government
that will ratchet up.
There are very plausible papersand and studies that show that
Britain is heading toward acivil war, and I believe that

(34:17):
those are accurate.

Okay. I got a couple questions here. So first
of all, where's Bridget McCronewhen you really need her to slap
some sense into Emmanuel?Because, I mean, this is a great
situation where, you know, shecould pull a, Will Smith and, I
mean, you know, be better off.So there's that.
Second of all, this is likekilling a mosquito with a
sledgehammer. And third of all,it really is. Like you said, I

(34:39):
mean, this is so backwards.We've got a problem with, like,
with, you know, a smallpopulation of illegal
immigrants. Therefore, all theBritish citizens, they're gonna
have to have a digital ID.
Wait. That makes no sense. Butthis also, I think, does go to
show that, you know, slipperyslope is true. Slippery slope
does exist. You know, RahmEmanuel said, in 02/2008, I'll

(35:01):
never forget these words, neverlet a crisis go to waste.
And here is a government createdcrisis in which The United,
United Kingdom said, oh, we'regonna just allow all these, you
know, migrants from NorthernAfrica and wherever else to just
come and and and and and, youknow, come into our country. Oh,
whoops. It's actually creating abig problem. They don't speak
the language. They don't sharethe culture.

(35:23):
They they can't maybe, you know,work whatever whatever it is.
The British people should not bepunished for that. You know?
That's that's just where I justI can't believe what's going on
in Britain.

It's it's crazy.

Please, please, Nigel, win.

Yeah. Oh, and and Donnie made this point in the
comments here. Hello, Donnie. Inthe chat, he said, Mark my
words, a digital ID is thefoundation on which a future
social credit score program willbe built. And I think that's
obviously the ultimate goalhere.
Right? Like, I don't thinkanybody actually believes
considering they keep pushingthe digital ID issue for, like,

(36:02):
every subject under the sun.Right? Our friend in New
Zealand, Chris Nisbet, says thatthe line they're pushing in New
Zealand is that a digital IDwill keep the kids safe,
probably because we don't have abig illegal immigration problem.
So they're just they just keepmaking up, you know, new ways
that the digital ID is thesolution.

(36:23):
But really, the point is theywant the digital ID so that they
can cut you off from differentthings depending on your social
media posts and all of Yeah,it's bad.

Jim Lakely (36:36):
They're not legitimate reasons. They are
pretext for a a for for anexercise of of government power.
I mean, in in in the case ofthis idea in in in Britain, it's
like, alright. Step one, allowmass, third world migration for
years and years, at levels thatno one can even comprehend. Step
two, call anybody that noticesthe sudden change in cultural

(36:58):
norms due to that, third worldmigration.
Call them all races. And thenstep three is require a
government ID of those lifelongnative citizens to address the,
the mass migration problem thatyou created. And then step four,
of course, is monitoring yourevery move with this ID and then
establishing a social creditsystem so that we actually live

(37:18):
in Black Mirror. The great showBlack well, it used to be great.
Now it's just kinda good.
Black Mirror was was a creationof The United Kingdom's
creative, you know, pop culture.And, we are certainly living it
and getting very close to livingin it. There was a one of the
best episodes they had was onestarring, Bryce Dallas Howard
that involved a, social creditsystem that everybody was doing

(37:41):
on their phones, and it itruined her life because she got
downvoted a couple times. We arevery and that that exists in
China. Donnie Kendall, who is inthe audience today and was the
former full time host of thisshow and and now is hosting
other things.
He's been on this topic foryears and years and years and we
will continue to be on thistopic for years and years
because of all the things thatneed to be resisted, a, you

(38:03):
know, a national digital ID isbasically the last step, then
you really are living in in in ain an Orwell novel, and it's a
dystopian nightmare. So.

Just one of the one of the just quick thing to kind
of tie this all together. So ourfriend from New Zealand
mentioned that the digital IDsthere are supposed to protect
the children. As Nigel pointedout again and again during his
congressional testimonyyesterday, the Online Safety Act
was supposed to protect thechildren from harmful content.
Wait a second. You know what?

(38:35):
I think that the parents shouldprotect the children from, quote
unquote, harmful content, notthe government.

Yeah, it's, you know, they'll use anything to
get what they want. I hadsomething and I lost it. It was
at the tip of my tongue, and Iforgotten what I was going to
say. So we can just move on tothe main topic here. I had
something to close this out, butyour great points overshadowed
my great point in my own mind.
And now I cannot remember whatit was anyway. So all of this is

(39:06):
not just meant to be justbashing on the Brits today. We
love our British audience. Wehave the best British and United
Kingdom audience. But it couldhappen here is the point of
this.
Right. We don't think that ourleadership is so much more you

(39:28):
know, virtuous or whatever thatthat we could never slowly slide
into the same kind ofradicalism. It exists here, too,
though it's not secured as fullof a foothold maybe in our
government, you know, laws theway that it has in The UK. And
in our culture, I think we tendto be a bit more unruly. But
still, some people seem to bemore and more interested in far

(39:50):
left politics.
I'm going to read from aprerelease press release that
Jim so kindly shared last night.But there is a little bit of
cold water out here, and that isa new poll by
stoppingsocialism.com, a projectof the Heartland Institute. And
Rasmussen reports found thatsupport for radical socialist
policies and candidates appearshigh among likely voters under

(40:11):
the age of 40. According to theresults of the survey, more than
half of young American voterssay that they want a socialist
candidate to win the twentytwenty eight presidential
election, including a shocking35% of respondents who said they
voted for Trump in 2024.Additionally, 76% of respondents
said that they strongly agree orsomewhat agree that major

(40:34):
industries like health care,energy, and big tech should be
nationalized to give morecontrol and equity to the
people, suggesting thatincreasingly more young American
voters favor radical socialistpolicies.
The survey included a 201 votersaged 18 to 39. And so that's
kinda wild, guys. Chris, youworked on this issue a lot. You

(40:55):
wrote an op ed about it. Whywould these young people be
growing increasingly enamoredwith socialism of all things?
I mean, like nationalization ofindustry major industries is
pretty extreme. That's not just,you know, I'd like the usual
standard boilerplate Americandemocratic socialist, you know,

(41:17):
kind of wishy washy stuff. Thisis like hardcore. So what are
your what's your where do yousee this going or where did this
come from?

Okay. Well, I've got two things that I think are
leading up to this. So numberone, as most of the viewers
know, I was a high school socialstudies teacher for five plus
years. I started my, career herein the Northern Suburbs of
Chicago at the high school thatI actually went to, which shall
be unnamed. And then I moveddown to South Carolina and

(41:46):
taught five full school yearsthere.
I was shocked, literally justlike blown away when during my
student teaching, I was teachingworld history and it got and I
talk about this in an op ed Ijust wrote, when it came time to
the Russian revolution, my quoteunquote mentor teacher who
really just kind of threw me inthere was like, you're just you

(42:08):
figure it out. He So didn'treally do much mentoring.
However, when it came time tothe Russian revolution, I showed
a, a documentary about it. And Iremember he specifically told me
to stop and that he wanted to goin and give the other side,
which was basically a proBolshevism, pro Marxism. The
cool acts were actually theykinda deserved.
I mean and I'm just sittingthere going, I can't believe

(42:30):
this is happening right now.Okay. Fast forward to, South
Carolina. It was the same thing.It was the same thing in the
government classes, you know,oh, socialism collectivism.
It's it just hasn't been doneproperly. And I was just like,
oh my gosh, this is so crazy.So, Linea, what I'm trying to
say is it doesn't reallysurprise me that so many young
people, you know, 18 to 39 nowhave a misguided, view of

(42:56):
socialism. They have been givena whitewashed version of it. And
it's been happening for a verylong time.
It's been happening at the, in,you know, at, universities and
colleges across this country foreven longer, but it has seeped
into middle school and highschool in recent years. And

(43:16):
that's a very dangerousprecedent. So there's that.
Okay. I also think and somepeople might disagree with me on
this, and that's good.
And, you know, debate is alwaysgood. Free speech, everybody.
Good. Good. You know, goodstuff.
That several I shouldn't say.Well, a large portion of the 18

(43:37):
to 39 cohort, which I am alittle bit older than, okay,
grew up in a economy post 2008in particular, that is not a
really robust free marketeconomy. And I think that that's
a big, big problem because whenthey have grown up in a crony

(43:57):
capitalist, you know, biggovernment, you know, intrusive
economy, that's not really afree market economy, it makes
them have a bad taste in theirmouth towards free market
capitalism. And I've tried to,you know, make that point to a
lot of my friends and people whoargue that, well, free market
capitalism is terrible. Look atThe United States in the past
ten years.

(44:18):
Well, that's actually not reallyfree market capitalism. You
know, we've got Obamacare, we'vegot so many interventions, so
much, you know, governmentspending, blah, blah, blah,
blah, it really has createddisincentives and it has skewed,
you know, the job market, thehousing market, the health care
market, all this kind of stuff.So I understand how they can be

(44:41):
frustrated with the status quo.However, their solutions to the
problems that we definitely doface would make things 10 times
worse, not better. And that'sreally what kind of troubles me
is there doesn't seem to be manypeople, on a democratic

(45:02):
socialist, you know, side ofthings that are saying, wait,
just so you know, here is the,you know, here's the problem.
Here's why our free marketeconomy is not working properly.
And here are some ways to dothat. They're just saying, take
the whole thing, throw it in thegarbage, and let's go, Soviet
Union, two point o. So that's arecipe for disaster, obviously.

Absolutely. And I wanna read off, some of the
results from this thing. I'mgonna go through some of the
questions here. So there was a,like, a surprisingly large, as I
said earlier, chunk that saidthat they'd like to see a
democratic socialist candidatewin in 2028. And they were the
people who answered yes to thatquestion were also asked among
the following options, whichbest describes the biggest

(45:49):
reason you would like to see ademocratic socialist candidate
win the twenty twenty eightelection.
The respondents were thenprovided with eight options. So
those the one that was selectedthe most for them was that
housing costs were too high. Andthat's something we talked about
last week, Sam. So I want to getyour commentary on this. And
that was followed by the economyunfairly benefits older,

(46:11):
wealthier Americans, followed bythe economy unfairly benefits
large corporations.
And, you know, you can see whythey would say that. Right. But
based on the way the things are.But the problem is, as Chris
said, that they're attributingit to the wrong the wrong
problem here. So, Sam, I want tohear your commentary on this.
It's that whole, you know, theyoung people are being locked

(46:33):
out of the American dream issuethat we had last week. So let's
go.

Yeah. Certainly, they're feeling it that they
that they are locked out of ofthe dream. Now you have to
remember that younger peoplejust have less money than people
who are older. They've had lesstime to save, less time to earn.
So they're going to have lessmoney, and you're always going
to have a an an arc of wealthwhere the older people are

(47:02):
wealthier than younger people.
That's a perfectly legitimate,situation, but it can be very
annoying when you have a systemthat does not, provide the
things that people want andneed, above all, housing. And
this is really more an effect ofthe overall structure of our

(47:26):
system and in particular, thethe the our our money. The US
dollar has been devaluedregularly over the years, off
time and and usuallydeliberately where they say,
okay. Well, we'll have 2%inflation. That'll be our goal.
And then two two point five or2.7 is okay. But what that does

(47:48):
is it devaluate that devaluesthe dollar over time, and that
tends to go to the advantage ofpeople who are lenders and not
borrowers. And so, over time,the the value of housing has
increased ridiculously. It's soexpensive to buy a house now,

(48:09):
and it's because the the houseis a real thing. The house is a
real thing.
Your dollar isn't.

Yeah. But, Sam, one of the big reasons that we have
such a shortage of housing,especially for, you know, people
who live in suburbs like BuffaloGrove where I live is because of
regulations. And that I think isthe real core of this. The core
of this is that the localgovernments have made it very
difficult for new housing to bebuilt. I I I read the Daily

(48:40):
Herald, you know, my localnewspaper on Sundays, and I
always read stuff about, oh, thethe the local, you know, zoning
board said no to this, said noto that, said this and that.
And that's what this is, Ithink, really about. It's core I
mean, you know, big housingcorporations like Pulte or
whomever, they wanna, of course,build houses. They wanna sell

(49:00):
houses to people. They're notbeing allowed to. So I think
this is a government createdshortage.
And if I really wanna getcynical here, I think that this
goes into the fact that thegovernment doesn't want us to
own homes. It want us to berenters. It want us to not, you
know, buy cars and own cars. Itwants us to use Uber. So I think
this is part of a much larger,you know, problem here.

(49:23):
I don't really think, I mean,the interest rates, sky high
rates, you know, recently arekind of playing a little bit
into this, but this is just alack of housing and it's because
the government is making itdifficult, if not impossible to
build housing.

There that's quite true. And there has been,
remember, a a very largeexpansion of The US population,
which was caused by immigration.Yeah. So what you're what you're
doing is you're but you'resuppressing the the the supply
and you're increasing thedemand. So that's really that's
going to jack up the prices.

(49:58):
But on top of that, when youhave inflation on top of all
that and it's regular inflation,you're going to make it very,
very difficult for youngerpeople to buy houses. Why?
Because they have less moneythan older people. So when
people don't have a stake intheir community and when they

(50:19):
don't have a stake in the thestate that they live in and the
and the nation that they livein, they don't have land of
their own. They don't have hardobjects that they can look at.
And and instead all they have isis social media and and, what do
you call subscriptions toNetflix. Those aren't things

(50:40):
where you say, oh, they canthey'll never take that away
from me. You know, it's like,who cares about that stuff? The
important things are your yourhouse, your land, your family.
And what happens is that thosethings have been wrenched away
from young people through all ofthese forces.
Whether it's deliberate or not,to as a big plan to impoverish

(51:05):
people and make them wantsocialism is actually immaterial
at this point. It has happened,and and it has raised the
support for socialism. The theteaching in the schools has done
that as well. And what doessocialism do? It simply gives
more power to the government andtakes it away from the people.

(51:30):
And this is what we're we'rehaving to fight right now is the
the the fact that you cannoteven show people what a real
free market economy looks likebecause no one in our time has
lived in. Even Jim and I havenot lived in a free market
economy, and we are old. So sothat is the that is a major

(51:55):
problem. They don't know whatthat would look like. And our
our work here at the HeartlandInstitute, please support us
people and tell all your friendsto support us because we are the
we are the, really unique thinend of the wedge there pointing
out to people that, no, we don'teven have a free market even
here in The United States.

(52:15):
And we can tell you what thatwould look like because we've
seen it in the past. We've hadit in the past. We know how it
works. And and things like, areal currency and real,
deregulation and real freedomwork for people, and they are
what will free young people tolive better lives. So, it's an

(52:39):
absolutely important point that,no, we have not even seen what a
free market would look like, solet's have one.

I'm a I'm a little bit younger than you and Jim,
Sam. But I do remember in thenineteen nineties when I was,
you know, growing up that it didseem like we had a much more
robust free market economy. Imean, my dad started a business
in the early nineteen nineties.It was successful. It just
seemed like there was much moreopportunities.
You know, I also wrote, when mydad graduated college, you know,

(53:08):
after working at the QuakerRoads company as a junior
marketing guy for a couple ofyears, guess what? He was able
to buy a car and start saving upfor a home. That is just not the
case for many college graduatesalso because, you know, they've
got so much debt. My dad, he wasable to work through college and
pay for it. He graduated with nodebt.
So there's a lot of factors Ithink that are making it very

(53:28):
difficult. And a lot of that isonce again because of the
government. The government gotinvolved in, you know, college
lending. The government gotinvolved in housing, obviously,
you know, big, big, you know,blow up there. So I feel that
the genesis of much of this iswhen the government comes in and
says, we're gonna make the, youknow, such and such marketplace

(53:49):
better.
What almost all what happensalmost guaranteed every single
time? The exact opposite. Forabout fifteen years after
Obamacare was supposed to make,health care more affordable and
lower premiums, lowerdeductibles. I'm gonna write
about this soon because we arecoming up close on the fifteen
year anniversary. The totalopposite has happened.
So that's what happens. Well,

and two, I want to, you know, call back to last
week's show again. The crimeissue is definitely part of it
as well because I actually don'tthink that it's that we don't
have housing. I think that partof it is an immigration issue
for sure, especially illegalimmigration. But immigration at
large has been I think it likequadrupled after 1945. It's

(54:33):
something insane like that.
But the the crime issue ismaking it so that entire, like,
sections of cities and and the,like, immediate suburbs around
cities are unlivable for peoplebecause of how much crime is
there. And there are tons oflike empty houses and, you know,

(54:54):
ramshackle places. All of thatcould be housing. And so I think
that's what people get annoyedabout when they see like there
was a debate a couple of monthsago about opening up some BLM
land for housing. And one, no, Ihate the idea of myself of
opening up BLM land just to putlike section eight on it.

(55:15):
That's awful. I can't think ofanything.

We mean we mean Bureau of Land Management.

Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry about that.
I forgot that we have therethere was another, BLM that is
apparently disappeared.

Lynne, even that's a government, like, sponsored
activity. This should be done atthe free market. If people are
moving to North Carolina indroves, North Carolina should be
having tons and tons of housingexpansion. People are leaving
the city of Chicago and they aremoving to the Northern suburbs,
but the northern suburbs are notadding, you know, upstart, you

(55:50):
know, like, you know, first kindof housing. So therefore, people
like me have to live inapartments and the rent keeps
going up and it just puts us ina situation where we can never
get ahead.

Yeah, absolutely. So all of these things, short of
this or what we're getting tohere is that like it's no
wonder, right, that kids, youknow, combined with the bad
education and everything, youcan't just look at these
millennials, basically, and GenZ who are, you know, becoming
enamored of the promises ofdemocratic socialists or

(56:22):
socialists in general that, youknow, we're gonna fix this
because it's capitalism's fault.The kids, one, don't have don't
have the education to know thatthis is not necessarily
capitalism's fault, but alsothat they they are facing
genuine, serious economichardship. And it's not like I
said last week, it's not avocadotoast. Not the cause of their

(56:44):
problems.
All right. I see it all thetime. And that's one of the
things that's turning youngpeople against older generations
is that, you know, being toldyour entire life, well, you just
have to pick yourself up by yourbootstraps. I did it in, you
know, the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s.So why can't you do it kind of
attitude that that young peopleget from older generations?

(57:05):
And it's not helpful. And we arein completely different economic
conditions than there werebefore. Like I said last week, I
have friends who have collegedegrees, have applied to
hundreds and hundreds of jobsfor, one interview. And it's not
because their resume isn't good.It's because it's that bad out
there.

(57:26):
It's very, very bad. All right.The so that housing costs are
too high is the number one mostselected option under why they
would support a democraticsocialist candidate. The second
one, the economy unfairlybenefiting older, wealthier
Americans. But we said, youknow, if you're older, you're

(57:47):
gonna be wealthier probably.
If you're doing things right,you are wealthier when you're
older. And then the economyunfairly benefits large
corporations, And that's anothergovernment caused issue. Right?
You know, basically just bailingout all these big companies
forever and ever, handing moreand more power over the economy
to large corporations. I thinkthere was a lot of rightful

(58:09):
bitterness that got generatedduring COVID when you saw places
like Walmart being allowed to beopen when mom and pop grocery
stores had to shut down, thatkind of thing.
So, yeah, it's we've just been,you know, piled and piled and
piled on. And so these kids aretrying to look around and find
something better. And so far, itseems to a certain extent, a lot

(58:36):
of the rights, evenlibertarians, have not been
overly compelling according toour polling here in their, you
know, alternative solutions. Sothis might be in part a
messaging problem. Let's seehere.

I was gonna say just, Lynette, real quick that
the environmental regulationsare also killing

Oh, of course.

A lot of, you know, housing construction. Think
after World War two when, like,Levittown was built and all
these huge suburbs, they werebuilt so fast. And nowadays,
like I said earlier, I mean, ifthe zoning approval board
actually gives them the greenlight, it's like six years later
that they finally break groundand then they've got to make

(59:18):
sure that they only don't gothis high and they So there's a
lot of that stuff as well heretoo.

Yep, absolutely. Some of the other questions that
were in the poll that I foundpretty interesting. There was
one that asked asked for, like,who was if you were voting for
Trump or some other candidate ordid you not vote? Once again, it

(59:47):
was mostly women that voted forHarris according to the polling.
Trump was about 50% men.
50% of men voted for Trump,according to this poll. And a
significant amount of peoplewhen they were asked, you know,
if today if the DemocraticParty's presidential primaries
were held today and thecandidates were Kamala Harris,

(01:00:10):
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, BernieSanders, Gavin Newsom, and Zoran
Mamdani, who would you vote for?36% of the total people who
voted said Kamala Harris. So Iquite know what to make of that.

(01:00:32):
Ocasio Cortez got one of thelower scores at 9%, which
actually surprised me.
I feared that it would be muchhigher. Mamdani got the bottom
most rating. Some othercandidates, some people who are
like, I'll take anybody else. Idon't care.

Chris Talgo (01:00:51):
I do think some of that's based on name
recognition. Just want to No,

Linnea Lueken (01:00:55):
I believe so as well. I absolutely do believe
so. Newsome got only percent.Sanders pulled higher. So I do
believe that most of this is aname recognition issue.
But it is kind of funny. Itcracked me up that 11% said they
just wouldn't vote if they weregiven all of these choices. And
that was one of the highersegments of people. So that's

(01:01:16):
great.

Jim Lakely (01:01:17):
I'm able to vote for those people, I might not vote
either.

Yeah, that was a difficult one.

S.T. Karnick (01:01:24):
I think it's interesting that Ocasio Cortez,
who had been, sort of laid outas the the candidate of the
future, the democrat of thefuture, got so little support
from the voters of the futureand, very much of the present
time. I think that's veryinteresting because Ocasio

(01:01:45):
Cortez has been very front andcenter about being a socialist
and Mamdani has been very frontand center about it. And he got
4%. Newsom, very weak, veryweak, only 9%. I think it's
interesting because these arepeople who are self described
interested in socialism and yetthey're they they went for

(01:02:09):
overwhelmingly went for these socalled moderate.
But let's say the least overtlysocialist of that group, in
Harris. And so I think it it mayhave a certain amount to do with
name and reputation. It alwaysdoes. But it's not as if these
people have not heard of OcasioCortez or Bernie Sanders or
Gavin Newsom. They've heard ofthem.

(01:02:30):
They don't like them. And that'sthat's very interesting.

Speaker 5 (01:02:34):
Can I can I point out a couple

things on the crosstabs here on this poll that
I found I found prettyfascinating? Well, I mean, first
of all, I think it's it's worthreminding the audience that this
poll was taken of just youngervoters. So, just voters between
the ages of 18 and 39. So,Linea's generation and younger
and it should be also pointedout that these voters and it it

(01:02:57):
actually leaned more onDemocrats than it did
Republicans. These voters stillgave Donald Trump a 48% approval
rating, which is better than theapproval rating of Biden by
miles and even better thanObama's.
So it's this weird dichotomy ofpeople who you could say are at

(01:03:19):
least, you know, Trump friendly,if not, full throated supporters
still hold these, thesesocialistic views. And, one of
the one of the one of thequestions that really stuck out
to me and I'm really glad Ishould also say we we're gonna
we partner with Rasmussen,Heartland Institute does for

(01:03:42):
these polls. The pollsters atRasmussen at Rasmussen are
always not shocked but just likeamazed that we come up with
these questions that end up withthese results that really get
that can really dig down intowhat, what America is thinking
about, especially when it comesto socialism. But one of the
questions here was, do you,agree or disagree with this
statement? Major industries likehealthcare, energy, and big tech

(01:04:06):
should be nationalized and givemore control and equity to the
people.
And it was, 39% strongly agree,37% somewhat agree. So, what is
that? That's, 76%? Is that whatthat is? Did I have that right?
Yeah. Think that majorindustries like healthcare,

(01:04:29):
energy, and big tech should becontrolled and run by the
government. And something thatis really shocking to me is that
40% of Republicans stronglyagree with that socialistic
statement. There is a majoreducation problem in this
country. I'm blaming you, Chris,that these people have come up

(01:04:50):
through the system and don'teven if they are Republicans and
even if they support Trump,think basically we need to
nationalize industries likehealth care, energy, and big
tech.
All that would do is make well,it's already done. We we
basically have governmentcontrolled healthcare and it's
very expensive and and and youknow, it's not quite like Canada

(01:05:12):
but it's not great. The freemarket is real yeah. Sam and I
are are old enough, to rememberto we're not even old enough to
remember when the free marketworks in health care either
because we're all we're allyounger than Medicare, I think.
At least I am.
And but what do you think wouldhappen if government controlled
energy? We'd have very expensiveenergy and less of it, and we
almost got that under Biden as amatter of fact. And if they

(01:05:33):
control and what if thegovernment ran big tech? We'd
still be, I don't even know ifwe'd have any technology. We
certainly wouldn't have AI ifgovernment was running big tech.
And so to have these socialisticviews, again, you got I I was
not able to be on the podcastlast week, although I did
check-in on the road from theOhio turf pack. I really enjoyed
it. That discussion. But it isit's it's weird. I mean, it's

(01:05:57):
not weird, but it is no wonderthat that younger people in
America feel left out ofsociety, feel left out of this
economy, feel that, you know, ifthe economy ever gets better and
I think it's going to getbetter, that they will be left
behind.
It's not it's not surprisingthey have that attitude because
they've come up and they haven'tbeen able to you know, afford

(01:06:19):
things and things are expensiveand it's very, it's hard out
there. And it's, you know, andsaying again, my generation and
and older saying, hey, you know,tough it out. You know, I mean,
I didn't own a home until I was,in my late forties and you know,
that's that was in, that was inthe Trump economy, I suppose,
but, you know, that's just myexperience, but it it's for sure

(01:06:41):
that an entire generation, maybetwo generations of Americans
just don't feel optimistic aboutthe future, and they have really
been given very little reason tofeel optimistic. Yeah, you would
think, great, the governmentshould probably take it over
anyway. How could it be worsethan it is now?
I got news for you. It could bea lot worse than it is now.
Yeah.

But Jim, Jim, Jim, I I'd be willing to bet if you
ask them to really define whatnationalizing an industry means
that they would not be able tocomprehend that. I I I don't
think they really know what thatmeans. I think they just think,
oh, that just means like it'llbe more fair. It's like, no,
that's not what it means. So Ithink that that's another thing
that, you know, their theirignorance of how economics works

(01:07:26):
was very on display when I wasjust teaching really basic, you
know, like macroeconomic stuff.
I mean, like the most basic ofthe basic, supply and demand and
stuff like that. They justreally couldn't understand it or
just weren't willing tounderstand it or maybe just
didn't believe it. I don't know.

S.T. Karnick (01:07:44):
It's interesting because Trump has been known to,
sort of badger industries andand go after particular even
particular companies and soforth. So a lot of people who
support Trump clearly must havevoted for strongly agree or
somewhat agree on on that issue.So there I don't think they are

(01:08:07):
thinking of of sort of the thethe what we know to nationalism
to be. I think they're thinkingof something different that that
you're sort of jawboning, whichis a very different thing, of
course. Although all the all thegovernment's intrusion in these
things is cumulative.
You don't get much, you don'tget much going back. You get you

(01:08:29):
get this ratchet, the socialistratchet as, Margaret Thatcher
put it. So it's cumulative, andand and it it becomes more and
more oppressive to the economy.And these young people are
reacting to the fact thatthey've grown up in an era where
the American economy has been sosuppressed that we can't be
Americans because, you know, youcan build things. Well, you

(01:08:53):
can't when the government won'tlet you.

Sam.

S.T. Karnick (01:08:56):
And that's that's our problem. You can't even you
can't even say things inBritain, so it could be worse.

Sam, you and I have talked about this over the
years, this idea that there'severything's a zero sum game.
And I remember when I was,teaching about the Gilded Age,
and it was the the the standardsfrom South Carolina where robber
barons are terrible. They tookadvantage of the work and all
this stuff. And it's like, well,that's not really the true story

(01:09:22):
of how that happened. So I thinkthat a lot of young people think
that everything is a zero sumgame.
Bill Gates gets rich off ofother people's like misery. No.
He doesn't. He gets rich becausehe provides software that people
wanted to buy or, you knowRight. Or Amazon.
Oh, you know, Jeff Bezos. Hejust, you know, is this super
greedy guy that just takeseveryone's money. No. He

(01:09:42):
doesn't. He offers a servicethat people want that makes
their lives better.
So that's, I think, another bigpart of this is the envy factor,
the zero sum game factor, theoppressors versus the oppressed
factor, all that kind of stuff.And I I tried to always tell my
students, guys, you know, if youwork hard, if you know, and you,

(01:10:04):
you know, get in a high schooleducation and you don't, you
know, have a child, before youget married, your odds of
attaining the American dream arelike almost guaranteed. It's
when you don't do those threethings or when you start to
blame others for your lack ofsuccess that things start to go

(01:10:25):
downhill. So I mean, Iunderstand that the current
economy is not as dynamic as itonce was. I think we are moving
in the right direction.
I'm very happy that we arereshoring some of those high
paying manufacturing jobs. Ithink that that's going to
really help. And I do think thatwe are on the cusp of this

(01:10:48):
golden age for the Americanworker, but we're not there yet.
And I, you know, I think in themeantime that we are going to
have this struggle between theleftist demagogues like, Mandami
who say there's a cost of livingcrisis in New York City. And the
only thing that we can do ishave city run grocery stores and
a UBI and free this and freethat when anyone would have a

(01:11:11):
brain knows, well, that's justgonna make everything 10 times
worse.
So I think it's incumbent uponus and that's why I love what I
do because we get to challengethat, you know, that false
narrative. Hopefully, we'rewe're you know, polls like this,
you know, open up people's eyesand, you know, that's that's all
we can hope for. So I'm gonnaI'm gonna be the most optimistic

(01:11:33):
person you've ever seen fromhere on out, guys.

S.T. Karnick (01:11:37):
Suppression of Wear glasses for me.

We're gonna yeah. We're gonna happen

S.T. Karnick (01:11:41):
economic freedom has has absolutely demoralized
young people is what this pollsays in my view. And it's the
same thing that's happenedhappening in Britain and
happening across Europe, And wecan change this. We have to.

Yeah. We're gonna make a new segment that's gonna
be Chris Talgo, like sunshinerising over Green Hills segment
drive. And he can take us tothat optimistic place. Thank
you, Chris. I do appreciate thata lot.
We can get kind of down in thedumps here. All right, guys.

(01:12:18):
Well, thank you so much to allof our great viewers here.
Sorry, I got distracted lookingat the comments of our great
viewers. We really enjoy havingyou guys watching us live and
commenting.
It's always really fun andlively. But that is all the time
that we have today, you guys,unfortunately. So thank you
everyone for your attention tothese matters. We are live every

(01:12:42):
single week on Thursdays at nooncentral on Rumble, Twitter,
YouTube, and Facebook. Chris,what do you have to pitch to to
us to, end the show?

Well, it's the start of the NFL season, so I
wanna say go bears. And I reallyhope I win the Heartland
Survivor League this yearbecause that would just make my
day.

Absolutely. Alright, Jim?

Yeah. Go to heartland.org. You can see all
of the results of this polling.And in fact, we have two more
polls that we're releasing nextweek. But if you go to
heartland.org all through theweekend, it'll be one of the
three featured items right thereon the front page.
It's fascinating and sometimeshorrifying reading, but I think
it's important to know thisinformation. And we'll see you
tomorrow at the same time, samechannel for the Climate Realism
Show.

Thank you, Jim. All right, Sam.

S.T. Karnick (01:13:29):
Yes. Please go to heartland.org and support the
Heartland Institute and send allyour friends there and have them
support this organizationbecause we're doing, as you can
see, very important work here.

Thank you very much. Alright. Guys, listen to
all of our great panelists anddo what they tell you to do.
Alright. Oh, before we totallyclose it out, Jim, did we have
an ad read today?

Oh my gosh. We do have an ad read today.

Just kidding. We have a couple more seconds here.

Oh, I but I don't I don't have it up. You're gonna
have to do a little puppet showor something while I

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Hello, audience. Let me
let me read audience commentsreal quick here.

Yeah. We'll do that.

Let's see. Yeah. Christine Laurel says, while
those youngsters believe asocialist government would lower
their cost of living, I'm surethey have no idea how low the
quality of their lifestyle wouldbecome. Education is badly
needed. Yes.
You are absolutely right,Christine. Thank you. Alright.

I'm ready now.

Thank you, Scott Clay. Alright. There you go,
Jim.

Yes. I how can we forget? We have a sponsor of
this great show and also of theClimate Realism Show, and that
is Advisor Metals. Now, if youlisten to lots of conservative
shows like we do, you hear lotsof pitches for buying gold and
silver and other preciousmetals, but there are so many
companies out there that dothat. But we wanna tell you why
you should trust our sponsor,Advisor Metals.

(01:14:53):
And it's the man who runs thecompany. His name is Ira
Brashatsky. He's the managingmember of Advisor Metals, and he
doesn't employ those highpressure tactics that you see
from other companies ordeceptive marketing ploys like
many in big gold. And he alsodoesn't deal in so called rare
coins. When you buy gold andother precious metals from
Advisor Metals, you're dealingin quality bullion, and that is

(01:15:15):
so much better when time comesto liquidate this valuable
physical asset.
And when you buy from AdvisorMetals, you will have your
investment discreetly sent toyour very home. And Ira, by the
way, is is advertising on ourprogram because he is an America
first patriot. He does notdonate to democrats. He refuses
to work with proxies of theChinese Communist Party. And he,

(01:15:35):
like us, abhor the machinationsand the schemes of the World
Economic Forum.
And we are very, very proud tohave him as a sponsor. So if you
wanna diversify your investmentportfolio and back up your IRA
with physical bullion ofprecious metals, go to
climaterealismshow.com/metals,and then you can leave your
information there. And Ira willmake this whole process very

(01:15:55):
easy for you. Again,climaterealismshow.com/metals,
and be sure to send tell themthat we sent you because that
helps us while you're helpingyourself.

I pull the gym. Alright. And so that was a good
way to end the show. Okay. Sothank you so much to our
audience who stuck around forthe ad read, and please use that
use adviser metals if you aregoing to be buying gold and
silver.
And I highly suggest you do.It's a great way to have a
little backup or just in casethings get as bad as they are in

(01:16:29):
Britain. Anyway, so thank youeveryone for watching. We will
see you again next week.

All Episodes

Socialism Rising Among Youth & Britain’s Free Speech Crackdown — In the Tank Podcast #509

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Socialism Rising Among Youth & Britain’s Free Speech Crackdown — In the Tank Podcast #509