Political Violence and Pointless Protest

Seg 1 – Politicians Getting a Pass on Violent Rhetoric
Seg 2 – The Rhetoric Trap
Seg 3 – An Unoriginal Protest
Seg 4 – Corporate America Embraces the Woke

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
No, that's what was free. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.

Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.

Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello, welcome to Liberty Nation radio head Coast to Coast
on the Radio America Network. I'm your host, Mark Antadas.
Today we are talking political discourse and the No Kings Rally,
what it means and how corporate America is cashing In
Libutination radios fonds by libutination dot com, you can access podcasts,
breaking news analysis and range of fighting and brilliant shows
to what your aptuch freedom and your fundus for the
Great American Constitution. Hello, welcome to Liutination radio head Coast

(00:58):
to Coast on the Radio America Network. I'm here long
suffering host mister Mark Angelis, and we're joined today by
Liberty Nations chief political correspondent, mister Graham J. Noble, thanks
for being here, Graham.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
Nice to be here.

Speaker 3 (01:09):
Mark so Graham, you wrote a fantastic article. Now this
just to give some context here to our listeners. This
is in the wake of the no Kings protest that
took place last weekend, but it's also in the wake
of several well that's called what they are high profile
political scandals that have failed to scandalize at least fifty

(01:32):
percent of America. Talking about Jay Jones and Graham Platner,
two candidates who are hoping to win election to office,
and they've been well, it turns out that they've had
some pretty rough things to say. And you wrote a
fantastic article on there, call the shadow of political violence,

(01:53):
still dogging Democrats that there's something quite dark about Jjo
Jay Jones. He's running for I believe it's Attorney General
of Virginia the elections November fourth, and he's apologized for
his remarks, and his colleagues in the Democratic Party are

(02:15):
still backing into the hilt and not calling him to
step aside. But he said some pretty rough things in
messages about his well, let's call him that our political
opposition back in twenty twenty two, didn't.

Speaker 4 (02:28):
He, Yes, he did, And basically he was in a conversation,
and I believe the full story is that this began
as a phone conversation. And then the person he was
speaking to and her name is Carry Coiner, and she
was at the time a delegate to the Virginia House.

(02:52):
I don't know if she still is, but she was
at that time. And Jay Jones himself was also a delegate,
but he had just resigned, and he was speaking to
him the telephone, as I understand it, and then she
hung up on him. But then he was texting her,
and he was speaking about the then speaker of the

(03:17):
Virginia House who was a Republican.

Speaker 2 (03:20):
His name was Todd Gilbert.

Speaker 4 (03:23):
And basically Jones texted Coiner and said, this is exactly
his words. So I'm quoting directly here to what he
wrote in the text. Three people, two bullets, Gilbert Hitler
and Paul Pott and pop part was a really nice
chap of course, as we all know, you know, wiped

(03:44):
out almost a third of his people. Gilbert gets two
bullets to the head. Spoiler put Gilbert in the crew
with the two worst people you know, and he receives
both bullets every time, so you know, again the context
here he's comparing saying that Gilbert is a much worse

(04:05):
human being than both Adolf Hitler and pol Pot.

Speaker 3 (04:09):
Yeah, I'm sure they all like dogs though, right? Is
that the standard? And it actually it went further, that
didn't it.

Speaker 4 (04:16):
And for me, I think hitting the light dogs and
Poulpott ate them.

Speaker 3 (04:19):
Yes, that's that's absolutely possible. It actually went further. And
this is the part that really you know a lot
of people in the media that they talk about how
distressing and how shocking they find things, and they don't
really they're just using it for you know, parks and
ammunition really and they don't really find it shocking. But

(04:40):
I actually was shocked by the follow on to that
where he described that he was raising the former speaker,
was raising little fascists and he hoped that they died
in their mother's arms. And these are two young, young children,
and that I found. I really did actually find that

(05:01):
beyond the pale, which is rare for me because most
most of these alleged scandals, I think there's more more
heat than fire, there more smoke than fire. But this
was this is pretty disgusting, you know too. I mean,
you know, say all you want about your opponent, but
the young children, these were kit like kindergarten aged children.

(05:24):
And yet all is apparently forgiven for mister Jones by
his party, which, considering this is his elected brethren. And cistern.
I don't know if that's a word, cistern. Well, we'll
call it. We'll call it a word.

Speaker 2 (05:40):
Sounds good.

Speaker 3 (05:41):
Yeah, I like it. Say that words are violence, and
they use the term words are violent to justify retaliation
in a violent form, physical violence. Because they say words
are violence, and yet they seem to be backing him
to the hilt in And the only reason I can
I can think of there is because they want a

(06:03):
Democrat in office rather than a Republican and therefore willing
to overlook any sin whatsoever.

Speaker 4 (06:10):
Yeah, oh yeah, I mean, and definitely you know that
particular office. I mean, look, Virginia is always a kind
of a if you like, a pivotal state. Really, it's
kind of it's it's gotten commonwealth. Indeed were the commonwealth, yes,
and it's and it's gotten kind.

Speaker 2 (06:27):
Of more blue.

Speaker 4 (06:28):
But it's still a you know, I guess you could
still describe it as a swing state almost and you know,
we're talking about state level control here, and to have
a Democrat obviously, they got Abigail Spamberger, who's the Democrat
running to be governor, and of course they would love

(06:49):
to have nothing more than a Democrat governor and a
Democrat state attorney general, which of course is what Jones
is running for. So yeah, that's a that's kind of
a crucial political host. And in order to secure that
post for the Democratic Party, they apparently are willing to
overlook anything the kind of things that you know, just

(07:11):
even maybe I would say, ten fifteen years ago, if
any politician, Republican or Democrat were to say those kind
of things in a statement or a text message or
an email or whatever and it came out everybody, probably
on both sides, people would be calling for that person to,
you know, to back out of the race, and would

(07:33):
you know, their party would disown them.

Speaker 2 (07:35):
But that's not the case anymore.

Speaker 3 (07:37):
No, Apparently we're in the new world. And I know
a lot of Jones defenders have been saying I have
been trying a bit of what aboutism and a bit
of deflection in terms of saying, have you heard the
things that Donald Trump says, And in all honesty, yes,
I have heard the Donald. I have heard things Donald
Trump says, and I've never heard him say that he

(07:59):
wished somebody's kindergarten aged children would die in their mother's arms.
I've not heard him say that.

Speaker 2 (08:06):
But he did say fight like hell once.

Speaker 3 (08:09):
Really, you know, along with every other politician who's ever
run for office. But apparently those are quite bad. Now.
I wonder if there's a secondary aspect of this. So
clearly his supporters want him to win because they'd rather
a Democrat than a Republican. And I mean that's in
many ways that's fair enough, right. You kind of want

(08:29):
whichever team you're on. You kind of want your team
to win. But I wonder if the full throated defense
comes not because of Jay Jones, but because they're they're
hoping it won't impact any other ballot. So you mentioned
running for governor Abigail Spanberger against literally lieutenant governor wins

(08:53):
are seers currently. Actually this is a great time to
promote liberty Nations Public bublic Square poll tracker, which has
some amazing graphics. It's up to date. It's an aggregate
of all of the polling on all the top races
that you might want to pay attention to, including approval ratings, elections,

(09:16):
direction of country, congressional baths, that kind of thing. But
according to our aggregate over the aggregate over there on
libertin Nation Public Square, she is. Spamberg is currently seven
point one points ahead of Winter Morlse Sears the Republican
And I wonder if miss Spamberger believes that if she

(09:38):
were to abandon ship on Jay Jones, that it would
impact her with both with Republicans, because then they'd have
a or independence so more likely because then they'd have
aread and say, well, you see there is something rotten
in the state of the Virginia Democrat Party. But also
she might lose people from her own side, from the

(10:00):
Democrats who have a vociferous belief that, you know, defend
our own no matter what, by what win, by whatever
means necessary. What do you what do you make of that?

Speaker 2 (10:12):
Yeah, I mean, I think that's a good point.

Speaker 3 (10:13):
Mark.

Speaker 4 (10:14):
I mean, because yeah, this, you know, this late in
the game, as it were, you're suddenly going to you know,
you as the Spamberger.

Speaker 2 (10:21):
As the as the Democrat gubernatorial candidate.

Speaker 4 (10:26):
You know, at this late hour you're going to suddenly
abandon what you could almost describe as a running mate,
you know, the man who's running for the.

Speaker 5 (10:34):
Attorneys on the same placards that they are on. Those
angels are in the same absolutely and you can't turn them.
So yeah, right, you're going to have to get a
whole new placards made up. And yeah, so it's it's
it's a bit of a disaster.

Speaker 2 (10:50):
So they're just.

Speaker 4 (10:51):
Hoping, I think, to gloss over it, and I guess
they think it's you know, it's this late in the
day anyway, so you know, let's just let's just grin
and bear it, so to speak, and let's just pretend
that it's not a it's not a really big gilt,
you know, it's like, okay, apologize and and so you know,
let's move on. But when it's convenient.

Speaker 3 (11:13):
This is the new move on dot org. We'll be
back with Graham J. Noble after this shortbreak. Don't go Anywhere.

Speaker 1 (11:26):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelidis.

Speaker 3 (11:31):
Andrew back on Limited Nation Radio Head Ghost Coast on
the Radio America Network. I remain Mark Angeladie's and we're
continuing our conversation with Graham. J. Noble, thanks for sticking
around Graham Now earlier earlier in the show, we're talking
about Jay Jones and his rather atrocious messages regarding regarding
a political opponent's children. And I guess that brings on

(11:54):
to a point here about the level of political discourse
in the country. Now. I would say that for most
people in America, they would regards of which side of
the other, they would say that Donald Trump, donald Trump's
as sendency to the presidency back in twenty sixteen, what

(12:16):
twenty seventeen, taking me on, changed discourse because he was brash,
he was rude, he was insulting, and he was right.
He was and yes still is and still made allies
out of many of those on his own in the
Republican Party of the insulted. And so a lot of

(12:36):
people would point the finger at Donald Trump changed the
political discourse. However, I would argue something slightly different than that, that, yes,
he's made political talk more realistic, because people do. I mean,
and anybody who's ever been male and has grown up

(12:58):
with other men or boys knows that insults, insults are
that they're part of the common course of dialogue. In
every group, and this is something that spans time and geography.
You know, I've sat on the floor having meals with
Iraqi's in Iraq, and you know what they talk about.

(13:22):
They insult each other. It's what they do for fun.
It's the same as what everybody does. So it's quite
it's made it more realistic. So it's taken this veneer off.
Politicians should always be above the fray and their tone
and tenor, and it's just really dis exposed to what
people talk about. But there's also an element that's come

(13:43):
in and I don't think Donald Trump has the blame
for this of normalizing let's call it violent rhetoric or
wishing particular ills on people because of their political beliefs.
Where do you think this come from?

Speaker 4 (14:01):
Yeah, no, I think it's I think you're right about
making the distinction between Trump and the and the kind
of violent rhetoric we're hearing now, because yeah, I'm sure,
I mean Trump insults people, and yeah, that's just what
he does. But there's a big difference between you know,
making fun of somebody. Okay, it's not you know, it's

(14:24):
not not I guess nobody. Well, like I said, us
guys we don't mind it, as you've talked about, and
especially especially you know, if you if you've served in
the military at all, then then you know, insulting each
other is just part of everyday life.

Speaker 3 (14:40):
It's another form of it's another begins of it.

Speaker 4 (14:42):
It begins, it begins when you get up in the morning,
and it ends when you go to bed, and it's
a NonStop and it's and it's often meant as you know,
you're often calling each other the worst things, but it's
like a term of endearment in a weird way. But anyway,
but the differences, and we've this in other times in history,
is that when one particular group or one one political

(15:06):
group or ethnic group or whatever, if they want to
if they want to get to the point where they
can justify doing anything at all to another group of
people they don't like, they will begin by dehumanizing them,
demonizing them, you know, and making them out to be

(15:27):
just the worst human beings who ever lived. And then
they'll you know, and then they move from that. And
of course, when you when you make someone out to
be that bad, for instance, you're calling someone a fascist
or a Nazi, or a homophobe.

Speaker 2 (15:38):
Or a biggot or whatever.

Speaker 4 (15:39):
You know, you're you're you're basically set in the stage
you're saying, well, look, these people are so bad, our
opponents are so bad, they are so disgusting as human
beings that anything we do to them is actually justified
because they're that bad. And unfortunately, we've now, I believe
we've progressed from that stage. We've we've gone from the
due humanizing and demonizing stage to now kind of little

(16:04):
bits of sporadic violence is kicked off here and there,
and of course then we've had some major episodes of violence,
like obviously Charlie Kirk's murder, and it does unfortunately, because
let's face it, no reasonable rational human being, no matter
what your political beliefs, actually wants this to happen. We
don't want the country to descend into some kind of awful,

(16:25):
you know, violent, you know, widespread violent situation. But I
believe we're starting to see an uptick in this, and
unfortunately Democrats appear to have, or some of them have
anyway on the FRAE.

Speaker 3 (16:38):
Yeah, there's some fringe people who are alignment.

Speaker 4 (16:41):
They are starting to, if not normalize it, they're at
least starting to say, well, it's not a big deal.
This violent rhetoric is not really a big deal. We
shouldn't be making such a big deal out of it.
And I think that's it's kind of unsettling. And I
don't think it would take any effort at all for
more for more demos. And I'm pointing to the Democrats

(17:01):
because I think we have to be realistic and acknowledge
that most of the violent rhetoric is coming from the left,
not necessarily from elected Democrats, but from people on the left.
And I think it wouldn't take any effort for more
of them just to come out and say, look, and
a few of them have made these, you know, platitudes
about well, you know, political violence is unacceptable. But I

(17:22):
think I think they probably need to step it up
a bit and say, look, we can't we can't be
going down this road of normalizing violence towards our opponents
just because we don't like their opinions.

Speaker 3 (17:33):
You know. I think I think there's something to that,
And I'd say this applies to the right as well
to some degree, but perhaps not to the extent. Is
that if somebody has, you know, if somebody says we
should do violence to our political opponents rather than just
saying you know, you know, political violence is never right anybody,
regards of what side of you're on, and say, hey,

(17:54):
look you've got that kind of attitude, you say those
kind of things, I'm not associated with. You are. You're
not welcome in what I'm building. You're not welcome in
what the people I work with are building. You are
outside of the tent, and you're not getting in with
those kind of attitudes. And they need to you know,
I'd say both sides, they need to cut these Let's

(18:16):
be clear what they are. They're lunatics who are revel
in the idea of violence happening when they're not involved.
Because there's a cowardly streak in these people, and they
need to be kicked outside the tent, and they need
to be very clear. Look, you are not welcome in
our party. You're not welcome in our organization. And I
think until more people are willing to do that and

(18:37):
risk I'll lose this chunk of votes, that's fine, you know,
be gone. We don't want your vote, we don't want
you and I think unless people are willing to do that,
this stuff might just escalate. Graham General, Thank you ever,
so much for being with us.

Speaker 2 (18:50):
Welcome. There's a pleasure.

Speaker 3 (18:51):
Mark. No, that's what was free.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise, and
freedom is special and read.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeledes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.

Speaker 3 (19:24):
Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio her Ghost Coast on
the Radio America Network. I remain your host, Mark Antheleti's
we're containing today's conversation with Liberty Nations enterprise reporter, one
of the greatest minds in modern writing journalism, writing in
my opinion, mister Joe Schaefer, thanks for being here.

Speaker 6 (19:40):
Joe, Oh, thank you. I don't know about that, but
thanks for having me.

Speaker 3 (19:44):
Well, it's all about the appeal, isn't it. It's what
you kind of enjoy yourself. And that's where we come to.
Some people think Shakespeare is great. I do, but of
course there's a once again, there's the bi annual. Shakespeare
was racist and didn't represent, didn't represent the African diaspora
during his time of writing, which I think was like

(20:06):
zero point zero one percent or something like that. But
obviously you know that there's always representation. Now, speaking of representation,
let's talk about the the second No Kings protests that
America saw this last weekend. Joe, what's your take on
the No King's process. But we should point out, by

(20:27):
the way, congratulations to the estimated seven million people who
came out on Saturday, because on Sunday America had and
count them here, I'll just double check my mass. No
Kings so arguably the most successful movement in modern American history.

Speaker 6 (20:46):
On my thoughts on it, I don't know if this
is a discussion you were thinking of, Well, what mindstreet is?
Why do they always have to do it in the most,
the lamest, most unappealing way to what I would refer
to as just normal Americans or just to get by
and live their lives. It always comes across everything they
do with these anti Trump protests and like a maniacal

(21:08):
high school glee club or something, you know, just as
irritating as possible. So it's like just socially it's so unwelcoming.
But I don't think these people really are trying to
welcome people, you know, people from all stripes of life.
This is a close bubble. This is people who think
alike on everything.

Speaker 3 (21:30):
They don't.

Speaker 6 (21:31):
They don't really want to embrace people who don't think
like they do. Oh they say they do, like, oh,
come join. They don't want you to do this. This
is this is for them, this is their thing. It's
very clubby, it's very high school in the worst way.
In a glee club is a good way of putting.
It's like an artificial, like false sense of joy, you know,

(21:53):
while they're while they're expressing their misery. I don't know
how to say it better, but it's so off putting
to regular people in a way that they just do
not understand at all.

Speaker 3 (22:05):
I think what you're getting at there, Joe, and I'm
inclined to agree with you on this is that it's
so astro turfed that it lacks complete authenticity. And so
when people are protesting against something, at the very minimum,
what we expect is for them to believe in what
they're doing, and it doesn't seem to me that that's

(22:27):
what's happening here. What we're actually seeing in reality is
people are saying there's something that's anti Trump, therefore I
should be involved. Do they really think that Trump's going
to be going to try and make himself a king
in reality, I think not. Do they think that Trump
will successfully manage to get the other two branches of

(22:50):
government to go along with the executive Well, probably not right,
almost certainly not in fact, because much of Trump's first
term was taken up with court challenges and a lot
of time spent in Congress there defending the various impeachments,
and so they don't really think that's going to happen.
And do they think that he's going to be the
contender in twenty twenty eight when he will be how

(23:12):
old will he be then? Eighty three years old? I mean,
do they really believe that? I just don't find it
convincing that they believe that what they're protesting has a value.
They just believe that protesting Donald Trump is the thing
to do, and they'll join on any bandwagon, no matter
how astroturfs or authentic or as you say, maniacally glee

(23:37):
clubbish that it is.

Speaker 6 (23:39):
Yeah, I really I really think that that's it what
you just said there, it's a lockstep thing. And I
read this somewhere. I'm not going to have a lot
of Richard, but I read it came across some study
or poll or something. There is more diversity of opinion
on the right than the left, meaning you can have
different differing views on certain subjects on the right, but

(24:02):
overall there's kind of like a common thread. There's there
there is no room for that disagreement. On the left,
they'll they'll throw you out if you disagree with them
on on the core things, which basically is everything, so
you have to be in lockstep with them. There's kind
of an absence of thought in this uniformity, and so

(24:23):
you see these performative uniform gestures like the no Kings thing,
and it's just again, it's so unappealing to anybody who
just wants to be their own person, think for themselves,
just live their own lives.

Speaker 3 (24:38):
I mean, I don't want.

Speaker 6 (24:39):
To compare it to a cult because that's so overblown,
but it is people who are not thinking for themselves
and and letting other people think think for them, and
for some reason, they believe that it's important for them
to show up and say, yes, go ahead, please, it's
important for you to think for me, because you are

(25:00):
not seeing a lot of individual perspective in any of
these events. It's uniform, it's monolithic, and it's extraordinarily, extraordinarily dull.

Speaker 3 (25:12):
You know. I think part of that that two things occur.
One is that there is there's an ideological purity test,
and if you're not if you don't pass that purity test,
then you're literally not literally, of course, but in their terms,
you're literally killing people if you don't pass their ideological
purity test. And that does not make for a welcoming

(25:33):
tent by a long shot. And the other one is
you mentioned that it's like they don't think for themselves
in this and I mean, there are smart people there
that there are absolutely smart people, but they've it's not
that they can't think for themselves. To me, it seems
as though that they've what's the right way, they've outsourced

(25:54):
their thinking. And George Orwell wrote George Oewell, great author,
but read his essays. If you haven't read his essays,
that they're way above any of the books that he
put out. In my opinion, he did this great essay
on the English language. I think it was seventy three
or seventy seven, I can't remember the exact year, and

(26:17):
what he talked about was people when they're writing or
even when they're speaking, they use stock phrases. And these
stock phrases are becoming more and more commonplace. It's almost
like if you're writing an essay for college and you think, well,
I can get ten percent of my words just by
using the stock phrases. And if we consider the blah
blah blah, and what that does is it outsources actually

(26:39):
thinking for yourself because you're using pre made, easily digestible
soundbites of language. And this is no king's protest. That
to me, that seems exactly what it is. I mean,
it's a great slogan, right, no kings. America doesn't want kings.
You know, we had a king two hundred and fifty
years alier. We don't want another one. It's done. It's

(27:01):
no kings, and it sounds great. It's such a good
catchy slogan, no kings, but it's a stock phrase. It
doesn't mean anything in the actual context of the United States. Well,
of course you're not going to have a king in
the United States. It's just nonsensical. And so what they've
done is they've adopted something that sounds good, that sounds

(27:23):
like it should be a great pushback, a verbal pushback,
a protesting pushback against a present they disagree with, and
a political party that they disagree with as well to
some extent. But really it's just it's just a platitude
that doesn't mean anything. It sounds good and it makes
them feel good about being part of it, when in reality,

(27:44):
these are smart people who could think for themselves and
have chosen not to. And I think that kind of
ties in. They've chosen not to think for themselves because
if they think for themselves, they'll fail the ideological purity test.

Speaker 6 (27:57):
Yeah. I really believe that people on the right, or
people who are not on the hard left, not progressive,
will look at a situation and say, does this make
logical sense to me? And if it does not make
logical sense to you, you will struggle to accept it.
People on the ideological left, these no King's progressive types.
If my logic can't accept this, there's something wrong with

(28:20):
my logic. You know, I have to get that fixed
because I'm not going along with what I'm supposed to
go along with. So they will, I truly build, They
will suppress their own basic common sense that you know,
God gave us all a brain. God give us all
certain instincts to come, they will suppress those instincts to
go along with the ideological line. It explains so much

(28:43):
of the madness that we've seen in the twenty first century.
No sane person can accept the transgender agenda, at least
on logic alone. You have to suppress core basic instincts
that there are two genders to go along with something
that crazy. And if you can go along with something
that crazy, or you can suppress and any thought in

(29:03):
your mind to go along with the what you are
told is the proper accepted ideological line. And that is
what we were seeing all the way. These people will
never approach Donald Trump in a logical way because it
will go against their whole identity, the whole meaning, which
is to oppose him. So if he comes up with
anything good, you know, he solves the war in Ukraine,

(29:25):
he ends, he ends the gods or what, they will
not give him. They can't give him any credit because
he is the devil to them and logic has nothing
to do with it. These people are very very good
at suppressing logic and upping the emotion to get to
the ideological point that is so important to them.

Speaker 3 (29:43):
Saul Olynsky would be incredibly proud, I think, so just
to finish this area of conversation off the Jordan Peterson
Frus Jordan Pizson talks a lot about how you should
always say what you mean, and he doesn't mean you
should be a a blowhard, you know, just laying down
your version of reality on other people. But I think

(30:06):
the point that he really makes, and it's something that's
always resonates with me since I first heard it, is
if you're not speaking the truth as you understand it
after you've thought about it, whose words are you speaking
because they're not yours? And that's kind important. Now we're
going to be back with Joe Shaffer after this shortbreak,
and we're going to be talking about how this particular

(30:29):
mentality transfers to the corporate structure and it's going to
be quite fascinating. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (30:42):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark
Edge of Ladies, and.

Speaker 3 (30:48):
You're back on Liberty Nation Radio Head Coast Coast on
the Radio American Network. I remain your host, Mark Antonini,
and we're continuing our conversation with Liberty Nations Enterprise reporter
mister Joe Shaffer, thanks for sticking around. Joe. Now, earlier
in the show, we were talking about the No King's
protests and how that there's a certain cognitive dissonance that
must be adopted and adapted by the people involved because

(31:14):
there's really no logic in the various protests the astro
turf protest. I'm not saying all protests, of course, but
the AstroTurf very as you described it, the maniacal glee
club style protests. And I think that's a wonderful phrase.
But this also applies be in a slightly different way
to corporations, right, And you've written a great piece on

(31:36):
this in the pages of libutination dot com. I do
recommend everybody goes and checks this out. But do you
want to give us your overview of how companies have
navigated the cultural waters.

Speaker 6 (31:49):
Well, we'll use the example that's in the news now.
I wrote an article based on something that's in the news.
This organization called Consumers Research. It's a conservative sort of
consumer it's watchdog group is calling out Chub Insurance, one
of the largest insurers in America. Their CEO, Evan Greenberg,
is rapidly pro China insanely pro China, and they have.

(32:13):
They came out with two websites. One is called China
Chubb I believe dot com something like that, and the
other one is woke Chubb dot com. So you get
this seeming dichotomy. I'm gonna explain light it's not a
dichotomy seeming dichotomy where CHUB does not intentionally will say
value should not get in the way of doing business
with you know, the bloody Beijing regime, regime, Asian communist

(32:38):
superpowered China. But it'll say that values are important in
America when standing up to racism, standing up for you know,
transgender youth, et all, all the cultural rot that we
used to have the progressive left Chub supports. So this
has been exposed the article I wrote, I looked into
some of the things Evan Greenberg actually stands for, and

(32:59):
it's quite shocked, quite shocking to see how blunt he
is about it. He gave a speech to the Economic
Club of New York in twenty twenty two, and he
flat out said that national security and concerns about American
workers' rights should not are too often used brought up

(33:20):
in discussions about economic affears with China. He was saying, basically,
we shouldn't be discussing we shouldn't be worried about national
security and workers' rights so much when we're dealing with
economic affears. He said values. He said trade should never
be in competition with values, meaning value should not get
in a way of doing commercial trade. He said that

(33:43):
it is important that China has access to our most
sensitive technology because we want them to be dependent on us.
This is a very you know, a crazy thing to say,
you know, we should give them our most sensitive technology
which they're of it, which they're trying to steal, because yeah,
they'll be more dependent on us that way. So things

(34:04):
like that while pushing this progressive cultural agenda in America.
And my thesis is that this is not hypocrisy, this
is not naivity. They see it corporations, large corporations, globalist corporations,
see it in their interest to undermine the homogeneous unity

(34:28):
of Western nations, while while going out of their way
to saying values and issues don't matter with a tyranny
like China. And my question is why why is that
important that?

Speaker 3 (34:43):
Why do they feel.

Speaker 6 (34:44):
It's important to do those two things? And you know,
it's something to do with globalism. It is in a
cold financial calculation, undermining Western nations helps them, helps their
bottom line in pursuit of this trans national financial transactions.

Speaker 3 (35:02):
Okay, So, I mean that's a really key question. And
just to just to reiterate it, why would a company
that the bottom line is the most important thing here?
Why would or how would undermining cultural norms within Western
societies improve their bottom line? Now? I think there's perhaps

(35:27):
a few answers to that. The first one that springs
to mind, and this might not be where you're going
with your thesis on this, is that there's a certain
political capital involved if they want friendly concessions from politicians
on a certain side. Because the civil service, as it were,

(35:49):
is predominantly left leaning, right, they've hired people who are
ideologically agreed with them, and these people are in the
position to say, our contracts go this way, contracts go
that way, approvals go this way, approvals go that way.
And so that's one aspect is very to deitarian aspect.
That would be the first thing that springs to my
mind on that. Why do you what do you think

(36:10):
The answer is?

Speaker 6 (36:11):
My answer is I I believe they see local localism
as an enemy. They see unique, unique peoples, uh you know,
in different areas of the world as a problem because
they want one universal market. So obviously doing business with China,
doing business everywhere in the world helps them get that market,
but also destroying the local identities helps step create that

(36:36):
universal market. So it's it's it's it's it's a two
flu with them. They want to expand overseas as much
as possible, and they want to destroy any any kind
of of local taste, culture, flavors, values, well, whatever you
call it, that would stand in the way of them
having a universal marketplace, which is their vision for everything.

(36:59):
It's not just a corporate vision. It's a vision for health,
it's a vision for science, it's a vision for everything.
So that's why these people, they they find themselves together
just naturally, you know. I think George Carlin said, you
don't have to have a conspiracy. These people understand what's
in their interests, so they come together perfectly for this universal,

(37:21):
one world that they want. And in big, large corporations
are one percent on board with this agenda, and it
frustrates me. I admit I'm a populist, and there are
a lot of conservatives who will tell you what's good
for business, it's good for America, and you know it's
just not true. You know, there's good and bad in everything.

(37:44):
You know. I think people see now that you know
after COVID that there's a lot of corruption in the
healthcare industry. Doesn't mean I'm against healthcare. Okay, So there's
a lot of corruption in big giant corporate interest right now,
does not mean I'm against business. So I wish conservatives
what you said, whatever I call you, you know, it's

(38:05):
not an assault on capitalism, is to assault on this
this bigness that really truly sees the American nation state
as an obstacle that needs to be overcome.

Speaker 3 (38:17):
So why is it uniquely America? I mean, I think
I have the answer to this is the America is
the issue. It's the stumbling block in the road to
globalism because people there are still cherished individual freedoms, whether
it's to their detriments or not, because they say it

(38:39):
long term, it's always better to be free. And they're
probably right in that last word on that, Joe, Well, it's.

Speaker 6 (38:45):
Not just America. I agree with you that America is
like their number one target. But we've seen it in
nation after nation in the West. We had that discussion
about Japan.

Speaker 3 (38:54):
The whole in.

Speaker 6 (38:55):
Stame playbook is being rolled out in Japan that they're
used in America. So it's not just happening to America.
And I will stress again large multinational corporations see this
as in their financial interests. And I would like our
listeners our readers to ask themselves why they don't have
to agree with my conclusions, but ask themselves why they

(39:17):
see that in their interest.

Speaker 3 (39:18):
Chu Schaefer, thanks so much for dealing with us. Thank you,
and that's all we have time for today. On this
week's nition of Liberty Nation Radio Herd Coast to Coast
on the Radio American Network. I've been your host, Mark
Anthelati's like to take them one to thank our guests today,
and of course thank you the listeners for tuning in
each and every week. You are appreciated. Please remember the
Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, nor legislation, and

(39:40):
this presentation is no endorsement.