July 9, 2025 • 23 mins
We look at some of the news events in the last week or so in light of the herd mentality permeating the US. Victor Davis Hanson describes the situation as a problem with the Trump derangement syndrome. He warns not to follow the experts because their analysis is flawed by group bias. We discuss how herd mentality and groupthink threaten our rational thinking.
Follow Us:
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Clip Used from:
Victor Davis Hanson: The Trump Deranged “Experts” Were Wrong. Again.
By: The Daily Signal
Follow Us:
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Follow Us:
YouTube
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Clip Used from:
Victor Davis Hanson: The Trump Deranged “Experts” Were Wrong. Again.
By: The Daily Signal
Follow Us:
YouTube
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Got it.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
You're listening to the podcast Coffee with Mike and Juliet
Libertarians Talk Psychology. This is current commentary from an NBA
businessman and a PhD psychologist.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
There's a lot of news going on and a lot
of good things for those of us that are in
favor of Trump and the agenda. But given all of this,
especially looking at the legislative process going on, it reminds
me that psychologically, the most important deficiency in the country
(00:41):
is this group think this herd mentality. Terrible example of
herd mentality, not a good example of the terrible issue
of herd mentality. Is that while you can disagree or
agree with this bill that Trump's putting forward, there's not
a single Democrat it's going to vote for it at
(01:01):
all under any conditions.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Because if they care about budget, as if.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
They care about yeah, as if they care about budget,
as if they care about tax relief, apparently that's the
big deal, is that if the tax relief goes by
the wayside, it'll be tremendous impact on people. But you'd
think out of like two hundred and eleven or however
many Democrats there are in the House of Representatives, it'd
(01:29):
be one person who's like, well, it's not so bad,
I'm gonna vote for it. Not a single one. So
that is a sign. And I talked about this when
I talked about the Civil War Framework or the United States.
The Democrats look sillier and sillier in their positions. I mean,
we are moving the middle, The middle is waking up
(01:50):
the independence, but the extreme left and the left in
general doesn't seem to be waking up yet. And maybe
they're not going to wake up. But anyway, I want
to talk about herd mentality.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Well, I just want to agree with you that how
crazy things seem and the losing party, Normally you'd think
they'd kind of recognize what they've been doing wrong, but
instead they seem to be doubling down on the things
they've had wrong. So it's kind of amazing to watch.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
It is kind of amazing to watch, and they do
seem to be doubling down on it.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Now. Trump is doubling down on his stuff even when
he isn't completely correct. It kind of breaks my heart
that he's broken up with Elon Musk, and from what
I can tell, Elon Musk is telling the complete truth
about what he objects to, and so is Thomas Massey,
and so is Rand Paul.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Well, that gets into the nuances of they's okay to
have arguments looking at the concept of Herd mentality, when
you have conflicts, you don't have Herd mentality. You really
do want conflict. You want people like Elon Musk to
sayf this is crazy, I hate it. You want that
(03:00):
free speech, conflict and disagreement. That means you don't have
herd mean town, Well, good point. But when everybody gets along,
when harmony is valued above logic and analysis and good
decision making. You know, Trump is a master persuader. I
mean he causes us to not see his eras. When
(03:21):
he makes an era, it goes away pretty fast.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Over it.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
He's a magician and making it not an era, we
forget about it, you know.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
So, and he is a bully, but he is a
bully that has a sense of humor, which is a
rare combination.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Well, I'm not saying he's a bully. He is dominating.
He's a dominant person. He likes to get his way.
I'd say he's having a hard time with Putin, well
because Putin launts Ukraine. But anyway, just to go back
to the issue. There are a couple of good examples
this week in the news of the chaining frame. One
(04:01):
of the things about herd mentality, the main thing about
group thinking. Herd mentality is the human tendency to follow
the leader, the human tendency to agree with the group,
follow the leader, do what you're told to do. The
Milgrim studies pointed that out beautifully about a compliance with authority.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
That's the one where they pretended they were shocking the guy.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
I pretended they were shocking the guy, and they were
telling a person to throw the.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Lever, So follow my instruction and give him another shock,
which I would have done. And when I was talked
to about his twenty.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Two well, that's very honest of you people.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
I would have done.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Most people say I wouldn't have done it, but they
would have done it.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Oh, no, I would have done it. Now, when I
got into my twenties, I started objecting to what some
of my leaders were telling me. Up until twenty twenty one,
I would have done whatever they told me to do.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Yeah, that's why they use eighteen year olds to fight
their worms.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Have been great.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
I don't know if I would have done it, but
there were plenty of times in my life when I said,
hell with this, screw you, I'm not doing it. I
mean I've done that. I've been the disobedient person.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Yeah, but I would have probably gone along with it
because the statistics tell me that most people go along
with it.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Yeah. No, to your credit. I mean, you are known
in your community as the one who will object when
things aren't right.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
I was known as a rebel, one of the rebel forces.
I should have been more. I should have burned the
place down. Now that I'm out of the group, think
of being a psychologist. Yeah, but you should have blown
them up with a stick of dynam.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Pretty much did all you could do. I mean, how
were you going to blow them up any worse than
you did? And by the way, this is because you
had a newspaper that reported on the psychology community, specifically
in Louisiana, and you were exposing the hell out of
those people.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
What a bunch of trash. I mean, I've gone from
thinking highly of psychologists being ashamed of being one. They're
good psychologists, but you know the good psychologists, they remain silent.
They're cowards. Well, the ones that know better are cowardly.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
Well, they would probably say they're wives because they they
would say that they know that if they spoke up,
they'd get squashed on the community.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Well, you really, they do have everybody by the balls,
by the board. You know, the board is governing, association
is captured by the board. The licensing board makes the rules.
You get on the wrong side of the board, you
can lose your livelihood, which you've worked for twenty years
to develop. I mean, so that kind of risk, pretty
(06:40):
big risk. God, do understand it?
Speaker 3 (06:43):
And for what purpose? I mean, an individual psychologist is thinking,
you know, the community of people is kind of infected anyway.
I can't fix the problem. Yeah, you couldn't fix it,
and you put a lot of energy.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Oh my god, I couldn't fix it, and couldn't fix
the outright discrimination they have going on with their licensing guests.
Racial discrimination. They're committing racial discrimination, one.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Of the very issues that they pride themselves. When you
expose them from being guilty of that, they couldn't even
accept that.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
It's ironic to the point of being ludicrous that the
very people that are supposed to be fixing the problem
and understanding it and claimed to be so holier than
thou are so mucked up in being racially wrong.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
And I mean what it's worth. I admire you.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
It's not worth much. In fact, I don't know that
it's worth anything.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Well, I don't know that it's worth anything between the
two of us.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Yeah, well, so Victor Hanson is I'm going to play
a rather long clip by him because he summarizes the
current news and summarize this. You know, an element of
group think and herd mentality is the Trump derangement syndrome.
I mean that is a form of group thing. It's
(08:07):
just an extreme form. You know. You get Robert de
Niro cursing and spitting salava at Trump. He's so mad
at him. He didn't even know him, you know, he
doesn't have any personal interaction with him, and he's foaming
at the mouth about how mad he is about that.
He wants to hit him in the face. That is
(08:28):
so that is so bizarre.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Well, these actors, they don't know that they need to
keep their mouths.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
Oh god, I was thinking about watching Raging Bull and
I thought, no, I'm not watching de Niro.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
I agree with you, it's hard to watch after these
people open their mouths. But we know that They are
experts at expressing what some writer told them to express.
That's what they're experts are.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Yeah, I mean who thinks they should be in a
leadership position? What gives them the right to be? I mean,
Joe the plumber is more probably qualified to be in
a leadership position.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
We did elect Ronald Reagan, and we elected Ronald Schwartzmegger.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Well that's okay, So I want to play this clip.
This is from Victor Hanson Davis the Trump deranged experts
were wrong.
Speaker 4 (09:19):
Hello, this is Victor Davis Hansen for the Daily Signal.
I want to talk about our so called experts. We
know they've been wrong when they signed these collective letters
fifty one intelligence authorities as shirt as Hunter's laptop was
pretty much made up in Russia. But recently in some
of the marquee newspapers sites Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, of
(09:43):
course in the New York Times, they've made a series
of statements by so called experts that are absolutely confounded
by reality. Let's take around. We get all of these
stories that the combined Israel, Israel and the later United
States strikes on the three key sites of uranium enrichment
(10:04):
and Iran may not have done very much. We had
a leak from the Pentagon, of course, that the media
picked up that there was marginal damage. Anybody who looked
at the post operational photographs could see that there was
substantial damage. And so we had David Albright, one of
the most prestigious an analyst of nuclear proliferation, he said
(10:29):
there was serious damage. We had the head of the
International AEC, mister Grossi, serious damage. We had Israel serious damage.
Israel intelligence and our intelligence agencies said serious damage. Except
for this outlying one from the Pentagon that the left
wing media picked up. So there is serious damage. I
(10:51):
don't know why the left especially tried to suggest there
wasn't we remember this is very, very ironic and paradoxical.
The left told us before there was no need to
strike Iran because they were months or years away from
developing a bomb. There was no real existential danger. Now
as soon as we did hit, they said, oh my gosh,
(11:11):
there might be uranium that could be quickly enriched. Think
of that. They were hyping up the threat after this
complete obliteration of many sites than they were before. The
same thing, the same inexactitude is true of the reaction
to the around war people on the right. The Magabase
(11:32):
said there would be thirty thousand people killed, could cause
World War IIE. We were told by the American and
European left that we were going to mix up a
caledon of hatred. We were in Iranian airspace for about
twenty five minutes. No Americans were killed, probably very few,
if any, Iranians were killed. Immediately, Donald Trump was able
(11:57):
to enact the ceasefire. When Ran retaliated and hit our
base in gutter with some ballistic missiles. We had twenty
two year old, twenty three year old skeleton crews manning
those Patriot batteries. They knocked them down. Trump did not reply.
End of story, No World War three, no thirty thousand killed,
(12:19):
no endless wars. Then we get to the border and
we were told that there's only one solution for the border,
and that was comprehensive immigration. Before we heard that for years.
In fact, all we needed was a new president to
enforce existing laws. We were said, even Donald Trump, should
(12:39):
he come in and get everything he wants, there's no
way you can reduce ten thousand people a day to zero.
He did that. He did that. We were told that
self deportation was a myth. That was myth. Met Romney's
idea in the twenty twelve election. He kept saying, we
can self deport a lot of people, they will leave,
(13:00):
but he had no plan how to do it. Donald
Trump's Ice and Border Patrol and DOJ came up with
a tripartite system. If you'd self deport and you go back,
and you ever want to come back, you can legally,
you can reapply. But if you're apprehended in the United
States illegally, you can't come back at least for ten years.
(13:22):
And we will give you one thousand dollars to go back,
and we will pay your air ticket deep into your country.
And you know what, almost a million people have self deported.
And the immigration is now exclusively a problem of how
to round up the people who came under Biden's administration,
not to prevent new people. They're not coming because of
(13:45):
these deterrens. Finding The Wall Street Journal told us that
the tariffs in March and April they were going to
crash the stock market. They were going to raise prices,
we would have a hyperinflation, we were going to have
a recession. We were going to lose jobs, when coupled
with deportation of you know, a million people leaving in
another three or four hundred thousand deported. And yet here
(14:06):
we are in June and the stock market is at
a record high. The Japanese, the Chinese, their prices for
their products despite the tariffs that they are paying, are
the same, if not lower. Job creation is good. What
am I getting at, Donald Trump is pretty common sensical.
(14:28):
If you take a million people away that we're working
in the shadows at cheaper wages and hurting American job opportunities,
and you make countries that had asymmetrical tariffs and were
responsible for a one point one trillion dollar trade deficit,
and you can stop that and they still want entry
(14:50):
into the American market, then you can have an economic renaissance.
So just to conclude on nuclear proliferation, wrong on a
forever war following the bombing of the uranium enrichment plants
in around, Wrong on the border that couldn't be defended,
(15:10):
that you couldn't stop illegal immigration, you couldn't self deport people.
Wrong on tariffs, wrong on the so called trade war.
No recession, no inflation, no sudden loss of jobs. What
is the analysis that binds all of us together. Whether
it's the Wall Street Journal, as I said, or Bloomberg
(15:30):
or any of these so called economic gurus who write
on those pages. You should try to shed your Trump
derangement syndrome because it's really affecting your powers of judgment
and analysis, and you're going to lose readers.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Okay, that's a long clip, but usually I like that
we have so much evidence of the group thing going on.
The experts in the media and the Democrats all speak
and they say expert, which is not a logical analysis.
Being an expert does not give you any.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
It means less and less to me.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
The more often it really does mean less and less.
The more and more we go into this civil war
of thought and reason, the more the experts on both
sides probably you know, the overboundary groups. It must just
by definition it has to include the right as well
as the left. You know, both sides are into the
(16:31):
group think, which is devastating to our country. I think
maybe coming out of it are There are a couple other
things I want to say.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Well, I do want to comment on some of these
things he talked about. Is that these people who love
to stoke fear who love to fan the flames of fear.
They make predictions when really what they should be saying
is if you do this activity, you are risking a
certain outcome. But that isn't what they say. They claim
(17:00):
this is going to happen. You know, they should know
better than that, And of course, yeah, it's they don't care.
They don't.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
It's human nature to want to play the little psychiatrist
and predict the future. Yes, you know what I think
is so odd about the Democrats. They're feeling types. So
they do this more than the thinking types. They tell
you what someone else is feeling. They claim to know
people's motivation. Knowing people's motivation is really, really difficult.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Some of these generals who talk about Ukraine and Russia
and won't even talk facts. They go straight into what
Putin is really thinking. Yeah, what is he really thinks?
Is this? And I'm thinking, would you quit telling me
what you think Putin is thinking?
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Yeah? Quit telling me about his personality?
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Right?
Speaker 1 (17:50):
So the two examples of this group think on my mind,
which I mentioned one of them already is that there's
not a single Democrat voting for this bill, the big,
beautyutiful bill. Are your pundits calling it the big Beautiful.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Bill No, because they don't like it. My pundits don't
like it.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Well, I'm not sure I like it. Tell you what
I am sure of. I have no idea. Who's right?
You hear both sides of the story that it's going
to help the deficit and then it's going to blow
up the deficit. I don't know who to believe. It's
got some stuff in it I certainly don't like, but
it's got some stuff in it I do like.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Apparently overall it increased suspending, which is what my pundits
object to.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Well, the argument there, and I have no idea if
this is correct. The argument there is it's supposed to
also increase revenues by a lot.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
Well, that's what they always say.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
That's what they always say. I'm willing to let them
do it this time and then next time. Anyway. Another
example I want to bring up while we get ready
to close out about the group think is the University
of Pennsylvania's reversal on transgender This was the week where
University of penncil rescinded Leah Thomas's wins over the females,
(19:05):
sent a letter of apology to the females, apparently that
they had screwed out of their titles and reshuffled all
the people. And apparently they did this in part, if
not in total, to comply with the Trump administration's threat
to take away their money.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Right, that's a beautiful thing.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
It is beautiful to see.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Of course, I don't think the government should be giving
money the universities in the first place, exactly.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
I mean, there's one thing we're learning is how much
the government is in the trough. The government trough is
part of the university. I mean, I knew it through
the research funding, but it is nasty business. I wanted
to say something about the group think though. According to Fox,
University of Pennsylvania went back to biological definitions of male
(19:58):
and female. Well, that sounds like going back to saying
the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
But you've got to do that to change group think,
because we're in a country where thirty I think it's
thirty percent of the people actually believe that you can
be a female by calling yourself a female, even if
(20:18):
you're born male. And that kind of belief is a
group think. Believe you think it because everybody else says
it's true. It's like Solomon Ashes study where the person
the stooge in the room is judging the line, the
length of the line, and you get nine or ten.
We've covered this. This's that really funny YouTube video on
(20:41):
it where everybody's standing up in a waiting room and
so the new person starts standing up with him. Then
everybody leaves and the new person still stands up, and
the new person comes in and says, why are you
standing up? Says, I don't know, It's just everybody was
standing up before me. The informity research is just fascinating.
(21:03):
But Solomon Ash got someone to say, judging a line
was four inches when it was really three inches, you
begin to believe that the line is four inches instead
of three inches.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Just to conform to the crowd.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Well, it's a mental trick. Social conformity is an evolutionary
mental trick that helps you survive. So it's a trick
of the mind in a certain way that evolved when
we needed it, and it's there when you need it.
Like if everybody's turning off the interstate, you think maybe
(21:38):
I better get off the interstate, or.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
If you're in a building and everyone's running out of
the building.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
I better run out of the building, That's right.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
I do when I ask something. I want to go
back to the male female. I saw a one being
in front of Congress and she was stating definitively that
a male can conceit, and these people did not confront her.
I mean, have you heard anything like that. Is it
possible with some sort of surgery or something, a male
could conceive to have a baby.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Not that I'm aware of. I'm sure you can frankenstein
something together. Yeah, so that you could probably say that. Okay,
but all right, but you know, men aren't built for
conceiving babies. They don't have the apparatus. Okay, but this
is the limit we get to. My conclusion though, with
the University of Pennsylvania saying we're going to go back
(22:32):
to biological definitions, that is going to reframe the problem
and begin to allow people to step out of their
group thing and think maybe this was wrong. I mean,
some people that believe in transgender being real are going
to begin to believe that maybe it is not real.
So there's hope.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
But everybody ought to be seen that this is a
complete invasion of women's rights. You'd think women's right that
we had to realize it as a society. You know,
women are different. Let's go ahead and give them the
right to vote, and give them a separate category to
compete athletically because women are different. And then this totally
(23:17):
invades that whole thing about women.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
Yeah, it would appear that it's obvious on the surface
that it's wrong, but it's not to a lot of people.
So the point being is you have to have a
period of time where your beliefs fade and you begin
to reframe the whole issue. And University of Pennsylvania is
(23:39):
reframing the issue, going back to biological definitions were good
for them.
Got it.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
You're listening to the podcast Coffee with Mike and Juliet
Libertarians Talk Psychology. This is current commentary from an NBA
businessman and a PhD psychologist.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
There's a lot of news going on and a lot
of good things for those of us that are in
favor of Trump and the agenda. But given all of this,
especially looking at the legislative process going on, it reminds
me that psychologically, the most important deficiency in the country
(00:41):
is this group think this herd mentality. Terrible example of
herd mentality, not a good example of the terrible issue
of herd mentality. Is that while you can disagree or
agree with this bill that Trump's putting forward, there's not
a single Democrat it's going to vote for it at
(01:01):
all under any conditions.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Because if they care about budget, as if.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
They care about yeah, as if they care about budget,
as if they care about tax relief, apparently that's the
big deal, is that if the tax relief goes by
the wayside, it'll be tremendous impact on people. But you'd
think out of like two hundred and eleven or however
many Democrats there are in the House of Representatives, it'd
(01:29):
be one person who's like, well, it's not so bad,
I'm gonna vote for it. Not a single one. So
that is a sign. And I talked about this when
I talked about the Civil War Framework or the United States.
The Democrats look sillier and sillier in their positions. I mean,
we are moving the middle, The middle is waking up
(01:50):
the independence, but the extreme left and the left in
general doesn't seem to be waking up yet. And maybe
they're not going to wake up. But anyway, I want
to talk about herd mentality.
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Well, I just want to agree with you that how
crazy things seem and the losing party, Normally you'd think
they'd kind of recognize what they've been doing wrong, but
instead they seem to be doubling down on the things
they've had wrong. So it's kind of amazing to watch.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
It is kind of amazing to watch, and they do
seem to be doubling down on it.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Now. Trump is doubling down on his stuff even when
he isn't completely correct. It kind of breaks my heart
that he's broken up with Elon Musk, and from what
I can tell, Elon Musk is telling the complete truth
about what he objects to, and so is Thomas Massey,
and so is Rand Paul.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Well, that gets into the nuances of they's okay to
have arguments looking at the concept of Herd mentality, when
you have conflicts, you don't have Herd mentality. You really
do want conflict. You want people like Elon Musk to
sayf this is crazy, I hate it. You want that
(03:00):
free speech, conflict and disagreement. That means you don't have
herd mean town, Well, good point. But when everybody gets along,
when harmony is valued above logic and analysis and good
decision making. You know, Trump is a master persuader. I
mean he causes us to not see his eras. When
(03:21):
he makes an era, it goes away pretty fast.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Over it.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
He's a magician and making it not an era, we
forget about it, you know.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
So, and he is a bully, but he is a
bully that has a sense of humor, which is a
rare combination.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Well, I'm not saying he's a bully. He is dominating.
He's a dominant person. He likes to get his way.
I'd say he's having a hard time with Putin, well
because Putin launts Ukraine. But anyway, just to go back
to the issue. There are a couple of good examples
this week in the news of the chaining frame. One
(04:01):
of the things about herd mentality, the main thing about
group thinking. Herd mentality is the human tendency to follow
the leader, the human tendency to agree with the group,
follow the leader, do what you're told to do. The
Milgrim studies pointed that out beautifully about a compliance with authority.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
That's the one where they pretended they were shocking the guy.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
I pretended they were shocking the guy, and they were
telling a person to throw the.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Lever, So follow my instruction and give him another shock,
which I would have done. And when I was talked
to about his twenty.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Two well, that's very honest of you people.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
I would have done.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
Most people say I wouldn't have done it, but they
would have done it.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
Oh, no, I would have done it. Now, when I
got into my twenties, I started objecting to what some
of my leaders were telling me. Up until twenty twenty one,
I would have done whatever they told me to do.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Yeah, that's why they use eighteen year olds to fight
their worms.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
Have been great.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
I don't know if I would have done it, but
there were plenty of times in my life when I said,
hell with this, screw you, I'm not doing it. I
mean I've done that. I've been the disobedient person.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Yeah, but I would have probably gone along with it
because the statistics tell me that most people go along
with it.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
Yeah. No, to your credit. I mean, you are known
in your community as the one who will object when
things aren't right.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
I was known as a rebel, one of the rebel forces.
I should have been more. I should have burned the
place down. Now that I'm out of the group, think
of being a psychologist. Yeah, but you should have blown
them up with a stick of dynam.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Pretty much did all you could do. I mean, how
were you going to blow them up any worse than
you did? And by the way, this is because you
had a newspaper that reported on the psychology community, specifically
in Louisiana, and you were exposing the hell out of
those people.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
What a bunch of trash. I mean, I've gone from
thinking highly of psychologists being ashamed of being one. They're
good psychologists, but you know the good psychologists, they remain silent.
They're cowards. Well, the ones that know better are cowardly.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
Well, they would probably say they're wives because they they
would say that they know that if they spoke up,
they'd get squashed on the community.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
Well, you really, they do have everybody by the balls,
by the board. You know, the board is governing, association
is captured by the board. The licensing board makes the rules.
You get on the wrong side of the board, you
can lose your livelihood, which you've worked for twenty years
to develop. I mean, so that kind of risk, pretty
(06:40):
big risk. God, do understand it?
Speaker 3 (06:43):
And for what purpose? I mean, an individual psychologist is thinking,
you know, the community of people is kind of infected anyway.
I can't fix the problem. Yeah, you couldn't fix it,
and you put a lot of energy.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Oh my god, I couldn't fix it, and couldn't fix
the outright discrimination they have going on with their licensing guests.
Racial discrimination. They're committing racial discrimination, one.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Of the very issues that they pride themselves. When you
expose them from being guilty of that, they couldn't even
accept that.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
It's ironic to the point of being ludicrous that the
very people that are supposed to be fixing the problem
and understanding it and claimed to be so holier than
thou are so mucked up in being racially wrong.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
And I mean what it's worth. I admire you.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
It's not worth much. In fact, I don't know that
it's worth anything.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Well, I don't know that it's worth anything between the
two of us.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
Yeah, well, so Victor Hanson is I'm going to play
a rather long clip by him because he summarizes the
current news and summarize this. You know, an element of
group think and herd mentality is the Trump derangement syndrome.
I mean that is a form of group thing. It's
(08:07):
just an extreme form. You know. You get Robert de
Niro cursing and spitting salava at Trump. He's so mad
at him. He didn't even know him, you know, he
doesn't have any personal interaction with him, and he's foaming
at the mouth about how mad he is about that.
He wants to hit him in the face. That is
(08:28):
so that is so bizarre.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
Well, these actors, they don't know that they need to
keep their mouths.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
Oh god, I was thinking about watching Raging Bull and
I thought, no, I'm not watching de Niro.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
I agree with you, it's hard to watch after these
people open their mouths. But we know that They are
experts at expressing what some writer told them to express.
That's what they're experts are.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
Yeah, I mean who thinks they should be in a
leadership position? What gives them the right to be? I mean,
Joe the plumber is more probably qualified to be in
a leadership position.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
We did elect Ronald Reagan, and we elected Ronald Schwartzmegger.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Well that's okay, So I want to play this clip.
This is from Victor Hanson Davis the Trump deranged experts
were wrong.
Speaker 4 (09:19):
Hello, this is Victor Davis Hansen for the Daily Signal.
I want to talk about our so called experts. We
know they've been wrong when they signed these collective letters
fifty one intelligence authorities as shirt as Hunter's laptop was
pretty much made up in Russia. But recently in some
of the marquee newspapers sites Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, of
(09:43):
course in the New York Times, they've made a series
of statements by so called experts that are absolutely confounded
by reality. Let's take around. We get all of these
stories that the combined Israel, Israel and the later United
States strikes on the three key sites of uranium enrichment
(10:04):
and Iran may not have done very much. We had
a leak from the Pentagon, of course, that the media
picked up that there was marginal damage. Anybody who looked
at the post operational photographs could see that there was
substantial damage. And so we had David Albright, one of
the most prestigious an analyst of nuclear proliferation, he said
(10:29):
there was serious damage. We had the head of the
International AEC, mister Grossi, serious damage. We had Israel serious damage.
Israel intelligence and our intelligence agencies said serious damage. Except
for this outlying one from the Pentagon that the left
wing media picked up. So there is serious damage. I
(10:51):
don't know why the left especially tried to suggest there
wasn't we remember this is very, very ironic and paradoxical.
The left told us before there was no need to
strike Iran because they were months or years away from
developing a bomb. There was no real existential danger. Now
as soon as we did hit, they said, oh my gosh,
(11:11):
there might be uranium that could be quickly enriched. Think
of that. They were hyping up the threat after this
complete obliteration of many sites than they were before. The
same thing, the same inexactitude is true of the reaction
to the around war people on the right. The Magabase
(11:32):
said there would be thirty thousand people killed, could cause
World War IIE. We were told by the American and
European left that we were going to mix up a
caledon of hatred. We were in Iranian airspace for about
twenty five minutes. No Americans were killed, probably very few,
if any, Iranians were killed. Immediately, Donald Trump was able
(11:57):
to enact the ceasefire. When Ran retaliated and hit our
base in gutter with some ballistic missiles. We had twenty
two year old, twenty three year old skeleton crews manning
those Patriot batteries. They knocked them down. Trump did not reply.
End of story, No World War three, no thirty thousand killed,
(12:19):
no endless wars. Then we get to the border and
we were told that there's only one solution for the border,
and that was comprehensive immigration. Before we heard that for years.
In fact, all we needed was a new president to
enforce existing laws. We were said, even Donald Trump, should
(12:39):
he come in and get everything he wants, there's no
way you can reduce ten thousand people a day to zero.
He did that. He did that. We were told that
self deportation was a myth. That was myth. Met Romney's
idea in the twenty twelve election. He kept saying, we
can self deport a lot of people, they will leave,
(13:00):
but he had no plan how to do it. Donald
Trump's Ice and Border Patrol and DOJ came up with
a tripartite system. If you'd self deport and you go back,
and you ever want to come back, you can legally,
you can reapply. But if you're apprehended in the United
States illegally, you can't come back at least for ten years.
(13:22):
And we will give you one thousand dollars to go back,
and we will pay your air ticket deep into your country.
And you know what, almost a million people have self deported.
And the immigration is now exclusively a problem of how
to round up the people who came under Biden's administration,
not to prevent new people. They're not coming because of
(13:45):
these deterrens. Finding The Wall Street Journal told us that
the tariffs in March and April they were going to
crash the stock market. They were going to raise prices,
we would have a hyperinflation, we were going to have
a recession. We were going to lose jobs, when coupled
with deportation of you know, a million people leaving in
another three or four hundred thousand deported. And yet here
(14:06):
we are in June and the stock market is at
a record high. The Japanese, the Chinese, their prices for
their products despite the tariffs that they are paying, are
the same, if not lower. Job creation is good. What
am I getting at, Donald Trump is pretty common sensical.
(14:28):
If you take a million people away that we're working
in the shadows at cheaper wages and hurting American job opportunities,
and you make countries that had asymmetrical tariffs and were
responsible for a one point one trillion dollar trade deficit,
and you can stop that and they still want entry
(14:50):
into the American market, then you can have an economic renaissance.
So just to conclude on nuclear proliferation, wrong on a
forever war following the bombing of the uranium enrichment plants
in around, Wrong on the border that couldn't be defended,
(15:10):
that you couldn't stop illegal immigration, you couldn't self deport people.
Wrong on tariffs, wrong on the so called trade war.
No recession, no inflation, no sudden loss of jobs. What
is the analysis that binds all of us together. Whether
it's the Wall Street Journal, as I said, or Bloomberg
(15:30):
or any of these so called economic gurus who write
on those pages. You should try to shed your Trump
derangement syndrome because it's really affecting your powers of judgment
and analysis, and you're going to lose readers.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
Okay, that's a long clip, but usually I like that
we have so much evidence of the group thing going on.
The experts in the media and the Democrats all speak
and they say expert, which is not a logical analysis.
Being an expert does not give you any.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
It means less and less to me.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
The more often it really does mean less and less.
The more and more we go into this civil war
of thought and reason, the more the experts on both
sides probably you know, the overboundary groups. It must just
by definition it has to include the right as well
as the left. You know, both sides are into the
(16:31):
group think, which is devastating to our country. I think
maybe coming out of it are There are a couple other
things I want to say.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
Well, I do want to comment on some of these
things he talked about. Is that these people who love
to stoke fear who love to fan the flames of fear.
They make predictions when really what they should be saying
is if you do this activity, you are risking a
certain outcome. But that isn't what they say. They claim
(17:00):
this is going to happen. You know, they should know
better than that, And of course, yeah, it's they don't care.
They don't.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
It's human nature to want to play the little psychiatrist
and predict the future. Yes, you know what I think
is so odd about the Democrats. They're feeling types. So
they do this more than the thinking types. They tell
you what someone else is feeling. They claim to know
people's motivation. Knowing people's motivation is really, really difficult.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Some of these generals who talk about Ukraine and Russia
and won't even talk facts. They go straight into what
Putin is really thinking. Yeah, what is he really thinks?
Is this? And I'm thinking, would you quit telling me
what you think Putin is thinking?
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Yeah? Quit telling me about his personality?
Speaker 3 (17:49):
Right?
Speaker 1 (17:50):
So the two examples of this group think on my mind,
which I mentioned one of them already is that there's
not a single Democrat voting for this bill, the big,
beautyutiful bill. Are your pundits calling it the big Beautiful.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
Bill No, because they don't like it. My pundits don't
like it.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Well, I'm not sure I like it. Tell you what
I am sure of. I have no idea. Who's right?
You hear both sides of the story that it's going
to help the deficit and then it's going to blow
up the deficit. I don't know who to believe. It's
got some stuff in it I certainly don't like, but
it's got some stuff in it I do like.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Apparently overall it increased suspending, which is what my pundits
object to.
Speaker 1 (18:30):
Well, the argument there, and I have no idea if
this is correct. The argument there is it's supposed to
also increase revenues by a lot.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
Well, that's what they always say.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
That's what they always say. I'm willing to let them
do it this time and then next time. Anyway. Another
example I want to bring up while we get ready
to close out about the group think is the University
of Pennsylvania's reversal on transgender This was the week where
University of penncil rescinded Leah Thomas's wins over the females,
(19:05):
sent a letter of apology to the females, apparently that
they had screwed out of their titles and reshuffled all
the people. And apparently they did this in part, if
not in total, to comply with the Trump administration's threat
to take away their money.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Right, that's a beautiful thing.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
It is beautiful to see.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Of course, I don't think the government should be giving
money the universities in the first place, exactly.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
I mean, there's one thing we're learning is how much
the government is in the trough. The government trough is
part of the university. I mean, I knew it through
the research funding, but it is nasty business. I wanted
to say something about the group think though. According to Fox,
University of Pennsylvania went back to biological definitions of male
(19:58):
and female. Well, that sounds like going back to saying
the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
But you've got to do that to change group think,
because we're in a country where thirty I think it's
thirty percent of the people actually believe that you can
be a female by calling yourself a female, even if
(20:18):
you're born male. And that kind of belief is a
group think. Believe you think it because everybody else says
it's true. It's like Solomon Ashes study where the person
the stooge in the room is judging the line, the
length of the line, and you get nine or ten.
We've covered this. This's that really funny YouTube video on
(20:41):
it where everybody's standing up in a waiting room and
so the new person starts standing up with him. Then
everybody leaves and the new person still stands up, and
the new person comes in and says, why are you
standing up? Says, I don't know, It's just everybody was
standing up before me. The informity research is just fascinating.
(21:03):
But Solomon Ash got someone to say, judging a line
was four inches when it was really three inches, you
begin to believe that the line is four inches instead
of three inches.
Speaker 3 (21:15):
Just to conform to the crowd.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
Well, it's a mental trick. Social conformity is an evolutionary
mental trick that helps you survive. So it's a trick
of the mind in a certain way that evolved when
we needed it, and it's there when you need it.
Like if everybody's turning off the interstate, you think maybe
(21:38):
I better get off the interstate, or.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
If you're in a building and everyone's running out of
the building.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
I better run out of the building, That's right.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
I do when I ask something. I want to go
back to the male female. I saw a one being
in front of Congress and she was stating definitively that
a male can conceit, and these people did not confront her.
I mean, have you heard anything like that. Is it
possible with some sort of surgery or something, a male
could conceive to have a baby.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Not that I'm aware of. I'm sure you can frankenstein
something together. Yeah, so that you could probably say that. Okay,
but all right, but you know, men aren't built for
conceiving babies. They don't have the apparatus. Okay, but this
is the limit we get to. My conclusion though, with
the University of Pennsylvania saying we're going to go back
(22:32):
to biological definitions, that is going to reframe the problem
and begin to allow people to step out of their
group thing and think maybe this was wrong. I mean,
some people that believe in transgender being real are going
to begin to believe that maybe it is not real.
So there's hope.
Speaker 3 (22:53):
But everybody ought to be seen that this is a
complete invasion of women's rights. You'd think women's right that
we had to realize it as a society. You know,
women are different. Let's go ahead and give them the
right to vote, and give them a separate category to
compete athletically because women are different. And then this totally
(23:17):
invades that whole thing about women.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
Yeah, it would appear that it's obvious on the surface
that it's wrong, but it's not to a lot of people.
So the point being is you have to have a
period of time where your beliefs fade and you begin
to reframe the whole issue. And University of Pennsylvania is
(23:39):
reframing the issue, going back to biological definitions were good
for them.
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.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
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