Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Are you shocked at the fact that you're donating a
substantial amount of money to facilitate Trump selection? Is that
something you would have believed in the realm of possibility,
say five years ago.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
So what's been reported in the media is simply not true. Okay,
I'm not donating forty five.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Million dollars amount to Trump.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
And now what I have done is I've I have
created a pack or super pack.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
What do you want to call it? Yeah, which I
simply call it the America Pack.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
And you want to tell everybody who's listening what a
pack is.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Because people, it's a political action committee. Yeah, it's an organization.
It's a legal endy that can receive funding. That funding
can then be used to help with political campaigns.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Yep. And how does that differ from a direct donation?
There are specific limits on direct donations to candidates, and
the pack system is the way of putting a political
structure in place that sort of runs parallel with the
political with the formal political system.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yeah, you can donate money directly to candidates, that amount
is fairly small. Yeah, then and you can cate a
lot more money to political action committee or super pac.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
There are various.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Rules that govern the operation of packs and super facts.
But that's it certainly allows for a lot more money
in the system.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Than would otherwise be possible.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
And these are used clear on the Democrat and Republican side, Yes,
and I actually think that.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
So it's an open playing field on the pack side.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
What are you hoping to accomplish with this? And what's
the pack called?
Speaker 3 (01:24):
It's called the America Back America Pack. Remember, it's very
easy to remember.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
And it's actually it's not meant to be sort of
a hyperpotesan pact. It's actually the core principles of this
America pac are. The intent is to promote the principles
that made America great in the post place. So I
wouldn't say that I'm, for example, maga of make America
great again.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
I think America is great. I'm more a make America greater.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
And there's some core pillars, core values that have I think.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Made America great.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Could you elucidate y?
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
So one of them is being a meritocracy as much
of yes, as much of a meritocracy as possible, such
that you get ahead as a function of your hard
work and your skill and nothing else, which is why
I have your posted.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
For example, things like Dei.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Adrian Wooldridge documented the fact that the alternative to meritocracy
historically is nepotism and dynasty.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Absolutely, it's not equity, it's not equity.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
It's nepotism and dynasty exactly. So that's very much worth knowing.
Meritocracy has its price because it's a severe judge. But
the alternative is nepotism and aristocracy or dynasty.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Okay, So meritocracy clearly America.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
It's not like America has been purely a meritocracy, but
it has been more of a meritocracy than any other place.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Which is good. That's good.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
That's good, which I regard as good.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Promoting meritocracy, promoting freedom, freedom to operate, meaning the least
amount of government intervention possible we want. And this is
I think important to fight as because the national tendency
over time, almost entropy, is that the hand of government
gets heavier every year. Ye, the laws and regulations accumulate
every year, and these laws and regulations are immortal.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
That's the evil uncle of the king. A very old story,
very old story. The Egyptians were wrestling with that problem
four thousand years ago.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Yeah, so you have to have some You have to
really to take an active role in reducing the number
of laws and regulations. Otherwise, as more and more those
regulations are passed, eventually everything becomes legal and you start
getting into these oil and situations where.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
And everyone's poor and miserable.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Where action A is illegal and action B is legal,
and there isn't anything you can do that is legal.
Take an example of to give an exact example of
some larfare that was leveled against SpaceX. For example, we
were told for many years that we could not hire
anyone who was.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Not a permanent right they had to.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
So SpaceX develops advanced rocket technology, which is considered an
advanced weapons technology because a core part of incontinental.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Ballistic missiles yep.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
So there are only a handful of things in the
sort of highest level of weapon technology, and rocket technology
is one of those, because we could deliver a payload
and basically bomb anywhere on Earth from anywhere on Earth.
So I was sold to know in certain terms by
the government that if we hired anyone who is not
a permanent resident of the United States, you have either
green card or a citizen, that I would go to prison. Oh,
(04:25):
because the presumption if somebody is not a permanent resident
is that they will leave the United States and take
the rocket technology for SpaceX to potentially to countries that
would cause harm to the United States.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
It's pretty solid reasoning, I think.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
And then a few years ago the Biden administration decided
to sue SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Right right, Yeah, I remember that. I remember that.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
We're told on the one side that if we hire
anyone who's not a permanent residence, we go to prison.
Now we're told if we don't hire asylum seekers who
not asylum not people who have been granted asylum seekers
they asked fires to asilum, they're therefore not opponent resident.
But if you don't hire it, then we also go
to present.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
The purpose of being damned if you do and damned
if you don't is to make damn sure that you're damned.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
So that's the kind of away that seemed to be
insane and unfair. And why did divide administration because they
can only process they can only do so many big
cases per year.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
There's a finite number they can. Yeah, why would the.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Justice Department of all the injustices that occur picked this
as one of their biggest cases.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Why why do you think I think.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
They probably had a I don't know, there was some
law fe I think it was a I think it
was political.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
I think it's a relationship to you.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
I don't know all the things. But this is before
supporting Trump or anything like that. Yeah, in fact, i'd
supported Biden and before that Hillary, before that Obama.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
So that's why I was asking if this comes as
a shot.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
I don't know if it could just be random.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
It could be I didn't.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Tell us what why pick us? Why do such a
crazy lawsuit?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Random's are bad. If it is random, that's still bad.
That's just a marker of incompetence. But if it's not random,
it seems too highly unlikely to be.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Yes, And also why I attack SpaceX and not say
Boeing Lackey.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
I think part of it might be that sex.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Is not unionized, and the Democratic Party in the US
is fundamentally controlled by the unions, so that I'm speculating here.
But since we're not unionized, we're I think, a very
happy workforce. And I'm out there on the out there
on the factory floor, I don't see a few people
are happy.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
It's a good vibe.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
They're engaged in something ridiculously exciting. It's at minimum, that's
not nothing. People can go a long ways if they're
part of a project that's aiming at Mars. Let's say
that's definitely aiming up. That's really exciting. That's a real
opportunity for people. What do you think of Trump?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
I'm not gonna I don't subscribe to culture personality, So
for me, it's really just got a choice of administrations
and we have to pick one. And I think both
that there are flaws on both sides.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
What do you think his flaws are. He's a complicated person,
and I've been trying to sess him out and figure
him out because some of the things that look like
flaws might be advantages in disguise. He seems to me
to be pretty good at standing up to psychopathic bullies,
for example. Sure, and that's a useful skill, and it's
not easy. You have to be a bit of a
monster to manage that. And it isn't obvious to me
(07:22):
how many of the even the divisive idiosyncrasies of Trump
are the mirror image of his capacity to stand up
to bullies. That's a tough call, man. So you've obviously
decided to lay your what lay your efforts down on
the side of the Trump administration in the forthcoming election.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
And so yeah, it's really I think we need a
change of administration. I think many years ago, I think
probably the Democratic Party was the party of meritocracy and
of personal freedom. They used to be the free speech party. Yeah,
and these days that they seem to be the censorship
party under the guys who hates speech. So weirdly, in
(08:02):
my view of the Republican Party is actually the party
of that's the meritocracy party. Because the Democrats also promoting dei,
which is really just another form of racism and sexism.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
It's the most pernicious form I think.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
So it's anti memocratic, fundamentally anti marriage.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
It insists on dividing people by groups right as a
primary what would you say, conceptual distinction between individuals.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Yes, race, ethnicity. I think Democratic Party is stoking division.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
I think the evidence for that's clear. All of this
group identity nonsense has made things much more I can
see it in Toronto. When my kids grew up in
Toronto downtown, I would say they were race, they were race,
ethnicity and gender blind. Yeah, they had an unbelievably diverse
range of friends and no one cared. And even in
Toronto that started to shift around with this emphasis on
(08:52):
group division. It's a really ugly thing to see. So yeah,
not good, not good.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
So my view and is that at this point in
the United States, the Republican Party is more in line
with a meritocracy and with personal freedom.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
So I've never had a conservative many times with my
left wing friends that say they'd refuse to talk to
someone me included definitely, because I've invited prominent Democrats to
come on my podcast in great numbers for a very
long time, and I've got like absolutely nowhere with that.
They'll talk to me in private, they will not talk
to me in public, and so that's never happened.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
They're afraid of being shunned.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
Absolutely one percent. That's what they're afraid of. Sure, definitely,
and they've told me that it's not a secret. But
that's never happened. On the Republican side, I found it
much easier because I've talked to a lot of Democrats
and a lot of Republicans, and I found it much
much easier to talk to the Republicans. And that is
somewhat of a shock. I wouldn't have necessarily expected that.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Yeah, And I should be clear that it's not like
I think the Republican Party is flawless. It certainly isn't
got its issues. There are extremists within the Republican Party
I don't agree with, but one has. It's a two
party system. Essentially, you got to pick one or the other,
and so you weigh the good and the bad. And
my opinion is that the coin we need that the
(10:18):
country would be better off with the Republican administration than
a Democrat.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Trump was pretty good at not having wars. Yeah, yeah,
which is actually quite a big thing. It's really a
big thing. And what he did with the Abraham Accords
that was a miracle. I think price for that.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
I think this is something to be said that America
needs a strong leader and with that we have the
perception of strength. Now you have to admire Trump after
getting shot with blood streaming down his face, he could
have been a second shooter, who knows. Nonetheless, with fist pumping, fight, fight,
actually being shot and this is not it's funny too. Yes,
(10:57):
and he's brave. He has courage. This is instinctual courage.
It's not calculated some arranged event. It's in the moment.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
You can see that then, because that was not of
time when you're.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Too true Courage in the moment.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Absolutely, And if you want a leader who's going to
deal with some very tough cookies out there, who's going
to deal with with a food kimsong on or China, Yeah, China,
and they will be, they will be. I'll think twice
about messing with prompt yep. And poor Biden can't make
it up the stairs. And obviously he's stepped out of
the race. But it's nobody's going to be intimidated by Biden.
(11:33):
It's it's impossible, but I think they will be intimidated
by a guy who was first pumping after getting shot.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
We saw that, I think in his administration because it
was pace did rain and that was quite That's a
bit of empirical evidence. Can I ask you a little
bit about one of the things that you've been relatively
vocal about, and I understand that there's a personal connection
to this as well. I am for what it's worth.
I'm particularly unhappy with what my colleagues in the psychological
(12:00):
field have done with regards to gender affirming care. I
think they are a pack of contemptible cowards. Yes, and
I think that everyone who's been involved in this in
relationship to minors should go to prison.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Okay, Why do you agree? What's your or in the
water in this particular This is the worst medical and
psychological malpractice I've ever seen anywhere, including what I've done,
what I've studied. In reference to historical atrocity, eugenics, what
do you call those prefrontal lobotomy even the sorts of
things that were going on in Nazi Germany, at least
(12:33):
the bloody Nazis knew it was wrong and tried to
hide it. Yes, okay, So what's your Why are you
engaged in this particular battle? You said you're going to
move a couple of your company headquarters out of California
because of the last legislative move that Gavin Newsom pode
with regards to the transisue.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
So, yes, Reclaire was there were many things leading up
to that point. Yes, And I feel it's not that
it's the one stroll, it's just the final stroll.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yeah, Okay, cumulative issue.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Fair it's a cumulative issue.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
So it's not dramatic grandstanding. It's no.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
And moreover, I have had conversations with GAMNUSM before where
I said, if you passed legislation like this, if you
sign legislation like this, in my view, puts children in danger,
I will move my companies out of California.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
He knew that ahead of time.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
Okay, you've talked to them directly about this. What the
hell is he doing? I cannot understand. I really cannot
understand the.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Democrats pandering's the far left.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Why did the Democrat moderates constantly pander to the far left.
I worked with the Democrats in California for five years
trying to get them to separate themselves from the far left.
They wouldn't admit that they existed even and they certainly
would never separate them. They wouldn't admit, for example, that
Antifa even existed. Sure, there's this unbelievable blind spot with
(13:51):
regards to the far left. Radicals and the modern Democrats
are I think they're useful idiots fundamentally so.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
Going back to the so called gender affirming care, which
is a terrible euphemism.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
That's for sure, it's it's.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Really a child's sterilization is what it should be.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
No, there's mutilation too, Yeah, we want to make sure
that amalga is.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
It's child mutilation.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
It's sterilization under the guise of gender affirming care and compact,
right right, I.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Can't it's evil.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Literally, can't imagine anything worse than that.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Yes, it's evil. I mean you're taking kids who are
obviously often far below the age of consent.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Fused, miserable.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
The reality is that almost every child goes through some
kind of identity crisis part of puberty exactly, it's just
part of growing up. If so, it's very possible for
minif for adults, to manipulate children into who are having
a natural identity crisis, into believing that they are the
wrong gender, and especially and that they need to be
(14:55):
the other gender or they need to avoid r who
needs scoop you a goal and that the and then.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
That will solve all their problems, and that will solve
their problems.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
And then they give them sterilizing drugs which are called
also a misnomer, pure puberty blocker. These are sterilization drugs,
so they can never have children again. Yep, they can
have double messed ectomies, have.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Their forearms stripped to build non functioning penises.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Yeah, it's macab And we have an age of consent
for a reason. That the reason you can't get say tattoos,
blow age eight, or drink or drive. There are ages
I wish you could do things because if we allow
children to take permanent actions when they're ten, twelve, fourteen
years old, they will do things that they subsequently greatly regret.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Yes, I've interviewed a couple of people who's done exactly
that and it's right damn painful. So I think you
doing Why are you willing to make this an issue?
Do you think.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
It happened to one of my older boys?
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Where I was, I was essentially tricked into signing documents
for one of my elder boys, Zayre. This is before
I had really any understanding what was going on and
that we had COVID gone on, and there was a
lot of confusion, and I THOUGHTOW might commit suicide.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
That was a lie right from the outset. No reliable
clinician ever believed that. There was never any evidence for that.
And also if there's a higher suicide rate, the reason
is because of the underlying depression and anxiety and not
because of the gender dysphoria. And every goddamn clinician knows
that too, and they're too cowardly to come out and
say it, and so that, and then we end up
in exactly when I saw that lies start to propagate.
(16:34):
It just made the hair on the back of my
next stand ups. I see. So you're telling parents that
unless they agree to this radical transformation that their children
are going to die. And you think that's moral, and
you think that's true. That is so pathological that it's
almost incomprehensible. I can't imagine anything worse. I can't imagine
the therapist doing anything worse than that, or sitting by
(16:55):
idly and remaining silent. Well, his colleagues are doing it.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
It's incredibly evil, And I agree with you that people
that have been promoting this should go to president.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
It won't stop till that happens. Yeah, it'll just go underground.
There's all puberty blockers are being accessed online by kids
all the time through non medical channels. Yeah, it's not
going to stop. Okay, So I see.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
So that's so I was into doing this, and it
wasn't explained to me that puberty blockers are actually just
sterilization drugs anyway, and I lost my son essentially. They
they call it dead naming for a reason. Yeah, all right,
And so the reason it's called dead naming is because
your son is dead. So my son is Zavier is dead,
killed by the work mind virus.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
I'm sorry to hear that. Yeah, I can't imagine what
that would be like.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Yeah, And there's lots of people in that situation now,
it's not pretty, and lots of demolished kids. Yes, yeah,
that's good. That's a good reason to be the final.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Straw, right, So let's I about to destroy the work
mind virus after that, and we're making some progress.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Join the club, yeah,
Are you shocked at the fact that you're donating a
substantial amount of money to facilitate Trump selection? Is that
something you would have believed in the realm of possibility,
say five years ago.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
So what's been reported in the media is simply not true. Okay,
I'm not donating forty five.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Million dollars amount to Trump.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
And now what I have done is I've I have
created a pack or super pack.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
What do you want to call it? Yeah, which I
simply call it the America Pack.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
And you want to tell everybody who's listening what a
pack is.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Because people, it's a political action committee. Yeah, it's an organization.
It's a legal endy that can receive funding. That funding
can then be used to help with political campaigns.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Yep. And how does that differ from a direct donation?
There are specific limits on direct donations to candidates, and
the pack system is the way of putting a political
structure in place that sort of runs parallel with the
political with the formal political system.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yeah, you can donate money directly to candidates, that amount
is fairly small. Yeah, then and you can cate a
lot more money to political action committee or super pac.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
There are various.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Rules that govern the operation of packs and super facts.
But that's it certainly allows for a lot more money
in the system.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Than would otherwise be possible.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
And these are used clear on the Democrat and Republican side, Yes,
and I actually think that.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
So it's an open playing field on the pack side.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
What are you hoping to accomplish with this? And what's
the pack called?
Speaker 3 (01:24):
It's called the America Back America Pack. Remember, it's very
easy to remember.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
And it's actually it's not meant to be sort of
a hyperpotesan pact. It's actually the core principles of this
America pac are. The intent is to promote the principles
that made America great in the post place. So I
wouldn't say that I'm, for example, maga of make America
great again.
Speaker 3 (01:47):
I think America is great. I'm more a make America greater.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
And there's some core pillars, core values that have I think.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Made America great.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Could you elucidate y?
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
So one of them is being a meritocracy as much
of yes, as much of a meritocracy as possible, such
that you get ahead as a function of your hard
work and your skill and nothing else, which is why
I have your posted.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
For example, things like Dei.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Adrian Wooldridge documented the fact that the alternative to meritocracy
historically is nepotism and dynasty.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Absolutely, it's not equity, it's not equity.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
It's nepotism and dynasty exactly. So that's very much worth knowing.
Meritocracy has its price because it's a severe judge. But
the alternative is nepotism and aristocracy or dynasty.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Okay, So meritocracy clearly America.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
It's not like America has been purely a meritocracy, but
it has been more of a meritocracy than any other place.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Which is good. That's good.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
That's good, which I regard as good.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
Promoting meritocracy, promoting freedom, freedom to operate, meaning the least
amount of government intervention possible we want. And this is
I think important to fight as because the national tendency
over time, almost entropy, is that the hand of government
gets heavier every year. Ye, the laws and regulations accumulate
every year, and these laws and regulations are immortal.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
That's the evil uncle of the king. A very old story,
very old story. The Egyptians were wrestling with that problem
four thousand years ago.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Yeah, so you have to have some You have to
really to take an active role in reducing the number
of laws and regulations. Otherwise, as more and more those
regulations are passed, eventually everything becomes legal and you start
getting into these oil and situations where.
Speaker 1 (03:37):
And everyone's poor and miserable.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
Where action A is illegal and action B is legal,
and there isn't anything you can do that is legal.
Take an example of to give an exact example of
some larfare that was leveled against SpaceX. For example, we
were told for many years that we could not hire
anyone who was.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
Not a permanent right they had to.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
So SpaceX develops advanced rocket technology, which is considered an
advanced weapons technology because a core part of incontinental.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
Ballistic missiles yep.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
So there are only a handful of things in the
sort of highest level of weapon technology, and rocket technology
is one of those, because we could deliver a payload
and basically bomb anywhere on Earth from anywhere on Earth.
So I was sold to know in certain terms by
the government that if we hired anyone who is not
a permanent resident of the United States, you have either
green card or a citizen, that I would go to prison. Oh,
(04:25):
because the presumption if somebody is not a permanent resident
is that they will leave the United States and take
the rocket technology for SpaceX to potentially to countries that
would cause harm to the United States.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
It's pretty solid reasoning, I think.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
And then a few years ago the Biden administration decided
to sue SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
Right right, Yeah, I remember that. I remember that.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
We're told on the one side that if we hire
anyone who's not a permanent residence, we go to prison.
Now we're told if we don't hire asylum seekers who
not asylum not people who have been granted asylum seekers
they asked fires to asilum, they're therefore not opponent resident.
But if you don't hire it, then we also go
to present.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
The purpose of being damned if you do and damned
if you don't is to make damn sure that you're damned.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
So that's the kind of away that seemed to be
insane and unfair. And why did divide administration because they
can only process they can only do so many big
cases per year.
Speaker 3 (05:20):
There's a finite number they can. Yeah, why would the.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Justice Department of all the injustices that occur picked this
as one of their biggest cases.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Why why do you think I think.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
They probably had a I don't know, there was some
law fe I think it was a I think it
was political.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
I think it's a relationship to you.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
I don't know all the things. But this is before
supporting Trump or anything like that. Yeah, in fact, i'd
supported Biden and before that Hillary, before that Obama.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
So that's why I was asking if this comes as
a shot.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
I don't know if it could just be random.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
It could be I didn't.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Tell us what why pick us? Why do such a
crazy lawsuit?
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Random's are bad. If it is random, that's still bad.
That's just a marker of incompetence. But if it's not random,
it seems too highly unlikely to be.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Yes, And also why I attack SpaceX and not say
Boeing Lackey.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
I think part of it might be that sex.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
Is not unionized, and the Democratic Party in the US
is fundamentally controlled by the unions, so that I'm speculating here.
But since we're not unionized, we're I think, a very
happy workforce. And I'm out there on the out there
on the factory floor, I don't see a few people
are happy.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
It's a good vibe.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
They're engaged in something ridiculously exciting. It's at minimum, that's
not nothing. People can go a long ways if they're
part of a project that's aiming at Mars. Let's say
that's definitely aiming up. That's really exciting. That's a real
opportunity for people. What do you think of Trump?
Speaker 2 (06:45):
I'm not gonna I don't subscribe to culture personality, So
for me, it's really just got a choice of administrations
and we have to pick one. And I think both
that there are flaws on both sides.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
What do you think his flaws are. He's a complicated person,
and I've been trying to sess him out and figure
him out because some of the things that look like
flaws might be advantages in disguise. He seems to me
to be pretty good at standing up to psychopathic bullies,
for example. Sure, and that's a useful skill, and it's
not easy. You have to be a bit of a
monster to manage that. And it isn't obvious to me
(07:22):
how many of the even the divisive idiosyncrasies of Trump
are the mirror image of his capacity to stand up
to bullies. That's a tough call, man. So you've obviously
decided to lay your what lay your efforts down on
the side of the Trump administration in the forthcoming election.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
And so yeah, it's really I think we need a
change of administration. I think many years ago, I think
probably the Democratic Party was the party of meritocracy and
of personal freedom. They used to be the free speech party. Yeah,
and these days that they seem to be the censorship
party under the guys who hates speech. So weirdly, in
(08:02):
my view of the Republican Party is actually the party
of that's the meritocracy party. Because the Democrats also promoting dei,
which is really just another form of racism and sexism.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
It's the most pernicious form I think.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
So it's anti memocratic, fundamentally anti marriage.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
It insists on dividing people by groups right as a
primary what would you say, conceptual distinction between individuals.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
Yes, race, ethnicity. I think Democratic Party is stoking division.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
I think the evidence for that's clear. All of this
group identity nonsense has made things much more I can
see it in Toronto. When my kids grew up in
Toronto downtown, I would say they were race, they were race,
ethnicity and gender blind. Yeah, they had an unbelievably diverse
range of friends and no one cared. And even in
Toronto that started to shift around with this emphasis on
(08:52):
group division. It's a really ugly thing to see. So yeah,
not good, not good.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
So my view and is that at this point in
the United States, the Republican Party is more in line
with a meritocracy and with personal freedom.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
So I've never had a conservative many times with my
left wing friends that say they'd refuse to talk to
someone me included definitely, because I've invited prominent Democrats to
come on my podcast in great numbers for a very
long time, and I've got like absolutely nowhere with that.
They'll talk to me in private, they will not talk
to me in public, and so that's never happened.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
They're afraid of being shunned.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
Absolutely one percent. That's what they're afraid of. Sure, definitely,
and they've told me that it's not a secret. But
that's never happened. On the Republican side, I found it
much easier because I've talked to a lot of Democrats
and a lot of Republicans, and I found it much
much easier to talk to the Republicans. And that is
somewhat of a shock. I wouldn't have necessarily expected that.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Yeah, And I should be clear that it's not like
I think the Republican Party is flawless. It certainly isn't
got its issues. There are extremists within the Republican Party
I don't agree with, but one has. It's a two
party system. Essentially, you got to pick one or the other,
and so you weigh the good and the bad. And
my opinion is that the coin we need that the
(10:18):
country would be better off with the Republican administration than
a Democrat.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Trump was pretty good at not having wars. Yeah, yeah,
which is actually quite a big thing. It's really a
big thing. And what he did with the Abraham Accords
that was a miracle. I think price for that.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
I think this is something to be said that America
needs a strong leader and with that we have the
perception of strength. Now you have to admire Trump after
getting shot with blood streaming down his face, he could
have been a second shooter, who knows. Nonetheless, with fist pumping, fight, fight,
actually being shot and this is not it's funny too. Yes,
(10:57):
and he's brave. He has courage. This is instinctual courage.
It's not calculated some arranged event. It's in the moment.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
You can see that then, because that was not of
time when you're.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Too true Courage in the moment.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Absolutely, And if you want a leader who's going to
deal with some very tough cookies out there, who's going
to deal with with a food kimsong on or China, Yeah, China,
and they will be, they will be. I'll think twice
about messing with prompt yep. And poor Biden can't make
it up the stairs. And obviously he's stepped out of
the race. But it's nobody's going to be intimidated by Biden.
(11:33):
It's it's impossible, but I think they will be intimidated
by a guy who was first pumping after getting shot.
Speaker 1 (11:39):
We saw that, I think in his administration because it
was pace did rain and that was quite That's a
bit of empirical evidence. Can I ask you a little
bit about one of the things that you've been relatively
vocal about, and I understand that there's a personal connection
to this as well. I am for what it's worth.
I'm particularly unhappy with what my colleagues in the psychological
(12:00):
field have done with regards to gender affirming care. I
think they are a pack of contemptible cowards. Yes, and
I think that everyone who's been involved in this in
relationship to minors should go to prison.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (12:11):
Okay, Why do you agree? What's your or in the
water in this particular This is the worst medical and
psychological malpractice I've ever seen anywhere, including what I've done,
what I've studied. In reference to historical atrocity, eugenics, what
do you call those prefrontal lobotomy even the sorts of
things that were going on in Nazi Germany, at least
(12:33):
the bloody Nazis knew it was wrong and tried to
hide it. Yes, okay, So what's your Why are you
engaged in this particular battle? You said you're going to
move a couple of your company headquarters out of California
because of the last legislative move that Gavin Newsom pode
with regards to the transisue.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
So, yes, Reclaire was there were many things leading up
to that point. Yes, And I feel it's not that
it's the one stroll, it's just the final stroll.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Yeah, Okay, cumulative issue.
Speaker 3 (13:00):
Fair it's a cumulative issue.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
So it's not dramatic grandstanding. It's no.
Speaker 2 (13:05):
And moreover, I have had conversations with GAMNUSM before where
I said, if you passed legislation like this, if you
sign legislation like this, in my view, puts children in danger,
I will move my companies out of California.
Speaker 3 (13:18):
He knew that ahead of time.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
Okay, you've talked to them directly about this. What the
hell is he doing? I cannot understand. I really cannot
understand the.
Speaker 3 (13:27):
Democrats pandering's the far left.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Why did the Democrat moderates constantly pander to the far left.
I worked with the Democrats in California for five years
trying to get them to separate themselves from the far left.
They wouldn't admit that they existed even and they certainly
would never separate them. They wouldn't admit, for example, that
Antifa even existed. Sure, there's this unbelievable blind spot with
(13:51):
regards to the far left. Radicals and the modern Democrats
are I think they're useful idiots fundamentally so.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:59):
Going back to the so called gender affirming care, which
is a terrible euphemism.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
That's for sure, it's it's.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Really a child's sterilization is what it should be.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
No, there's mutilation too, Yeah, we want to make sure
that amalga is.
Speaker 3 (14:14):
It's child mutilation.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
It's sterilization under the guise of gender affirming care and compact,
right right, I.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Can't it's evil.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Literally, can't imagine anything worse than that.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Yes, it's evil. I mean you're taking kids who are
obviously often far below the age of consent.
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Fused, miserable.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
The reality is that almost every child goes through some
kind of identity crisis part of puberty exactly, it's just
part of growing up. If so, it's very possible for
minif for adults, to manipulate children into who are having
a natural identity crisis, into believing that they are the
wrong gender, and especially and that they need to be
(14:55):
the other gender or they need to avoid r who
needs scoop you a goal and that the and then.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
That will solve all their problems, and that will solve
their problems.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
And then they give them sterilizing drugs which are called
also a misnomer, pure puberty blocker. These are sterilization drugs,
so they can never have children again. Yep, they can
have double messed ectomies, have.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
Their forearms stripped to build non functioning penises.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Yeah, it's macab And we have an age of consent
for a reason. That the reason you can't get say tattoos,
blow age eight, or drink or drive. There are ages
I wish you could do things because if we allow
children to take permanent actions when they're ten, twelve, fourteen
years old, they will do things that they subsequently greatly regret.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
Yes, I've interviewed a couple of people who's done exactly
that and it's right damn painful. So I think you
doing Why are you willing to make this an issue?
Do you think.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
It happened to one of my older boys?
Speaker 2 (15:57):
Where I was, I was essentially tricked into signing documents
for one of my elder boys, Zayre. This is before
I had really any understanding what was going on and
that we had COVID gone on, and there was a
lot of confusion, and I THOUGHTOW might commit suicide.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
That was a lie right from the outset. No reliable
clinician ever believed that. There was never any evidence for that.
And also if there's a higher suicide rate, the reason
is because of the underlying depression and anxiety and not
because of the gender dysphoria. And every goddamn clinician knows
that too, and they're too cowardly to come out and
say it, and so that, and then we end up
in exactly when I saw that lies start to propagate.
(16:34):
It just made the hair on the back of my
next stand ups. I see. So you're telling parents that
unless they agree to this radical transformation that their children
are going to die. And you think that's moral, and
you think that's true. That is so pathological that it's
almost incomprehensible. I can't imagine anything worse. I can't imagine
the therapist doing anything worse than that, or sitting by
(16:55):
idly and remaining silent. Well, his colleagues are doing it.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
It's incredibly evil, And I agree with you that people
that have been promoting this should go to president.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
It won't stop till that happens. Yeah, it'll just go underground.
There's all puberty blockers are being accessed online by kids
all the time through non medical channels. Yeah, it's not
going to stop. Okay, So I see.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
So that's so I was into doing this, and it
wasn't explained to me that puberty blockers are actually just
sterilization drugs anyway, and I lost my son essentially. They
they call it dead naming for a reason. Yeah, all right,
And so the reason it's called dead naming is because
your son is dead. So my son is Zavier is dead,
killed by the work mind virus.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
I'm sorry to hear that. Yeah, I can't imagine what
that would be like.
Speaker 3 (17:39):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
Yeah, And there's lots of people in that situation now,
it's not pretty, and lots of demolished kids. Yes, yeah,
that's good. That's a good reason to be the final.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Straw, right, So let's I about to destroy the work
mind virus after that, and we're making some progress.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
Join the club, yeah,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!