 So, but I do want to start with admitting that I was probably wrong on Saturday. So it's been pointed out to me that I am wrong about cancel culture. And then maybe some of you on the chat were actually right about it and that I was wrong about it. So, you know, you don't see many people willing to admit that they're wrong, but on this show we do this periodically. And so, so I'm gonna, I'm gonna say it. Culture is used. I think the point being made on the chat and the point made to me outside of the chat is that cancel culture assumes that people have power over you. But as it assumes people have power to have a dramatic impact on your life. So when I throw somebody out of my house because they're an arty or communist, in a sense I'm cancelling them. But not really. If I got them fired from their job because I didn't like their politics or I didn't like their philosophy, that would be more like it. If I had cultural influence where the people I was opposed to were being kicked out, then I would be cancelling them. So I probably misused cancel. I think somebody said you're shunning them, you're maybe, I'm not, and I still like the word cancel, but I get what you're saying. So when everybody gangs up, I mean this is the challenge, right? So when everybody gangs up on JK Rawlings, because the argument is she's transphobic or she's what called a feminist who hates men so much that she hates women who become men because they're becoming men, and she hates men. Now that's the theory, I'm not sure I buy it. I don't get that from reading her essays. But the point is when they try to cancel, they're trying to stop people from buying her books, they're trying to destroy her, and of course they can't. So they're trying to cancel her, but in the case of JK Rawlings they actually can't cancel her. In the case of New York Times commentator reporters who say the wrong thing, tweet the wrong image, or something like that, they're very successful at cancelling them in a sense that they get their jobs, they get fired from their jobs, they get within the culture that they live in, they get shunned, they get ignored, they get people behave really badly towards them. So I accept that, I think you're right, I think there's a difference. And so I withdraw my use of the term cancer culture like I did on Saturday. And we refer to cancer culture as, now, but this can go both ways, right? It's not associated with any one political side. This could be conservative cancelling a leftist if they get them, or another conservative, you know, the Trump mob cancelling a never Trump or something like that, if they actually have the cultural power to actually cancel them, to actually inflict the pain, I'm sure they try more often than they're successful. And of course, most of the cancelling is being done today. I don't think the show is starting and stopping, I think it's fine. I think the left has all the momentum because the left has the cultural high ground, but also because the left, I'd say two things, the left cares, the left is engaged, the left uses social media. And the left is going after its own, the left is cleaning house. The left is primarily going after, not exclusively, but Jackie Wallen's leftist. The guy at the New York Times who had to leave leftist, I mean, that Scott Alexander that I talked about the other day, Vodaflop Elizabeth Warren. So the leftist cleaning house, they're getting rid of anybody who's not the political correctness is like an old term, but is not fully committed to the latest, latest bulletin from the critical race theory police. They're not completely aligned. They don't have exactly the right language. They say the wrong words and what? They are fired. They are attacked on Twitter. They are denounced in front of their friends. They are crushed. And of course, this is a good opportunity to talk about Gina Carano. Because as you know, Gina Carano who is a actress, I'm not familiar with her because I don't watch the Mandalorians. I guess I should. I've heard that she's either very good or very bad in the Mandalorians. I got those opinions from two objectivists. So she was fired by Disney because of a, I mean, she was like on warning before because she had tweeted stuff about transgender and other, and I'll say something about transgenres in a minute. And she was ultimately fired because of a tweet she put out a week ago or a few weeks ago, whenever it was, there's a date here, but I can't really see it. Here's the tweet. I'm going to read it to you. Well, maybe I can show, well, can I show it to you? I can probably show it to you. If you wait a second, I will, I will show you the tweet. Let me see. Yeah, this is the tweet. I don't know if you can see that. There's the tweet. Now I'll move it up to show you the image in a minute. Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers, but by their neighbors, even by children. She quotes, because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their neighbors hate, hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views? And you know, I don't think it's a good idea to become the Nazis when you're talking about these things, because I don't think you gain many points and you immediately antagonize people. But the point she's making is a point that says we should stop hating people because of their political views. And it goes, by the way, both sides. But then she puts this image here, and this is where I find the tweet objectionable. I don't think she should be fired for this, but I find the tweet objectionable. This is the image, right? It's not just an image of hatred. It's not just an image of hatred. This is an image of a horrific attack, brutal, physical attack. This is not even cancel culture, where you've got the power culturally, but it's still basically influenced within a voluntary system. This is kids with clubs beating up a woman, ripping her clothes off. Who knows what they're doing to her afterwards? This is not appropriate in this context. So I think if just the tweet stood, you could say, okay, I mean, she's making a point. You might disagree with the point, actually, because you might say it's fine to hate my political enemies. But to compare canceling, which is, I think, vaguely what she's trying to do with this, that's where she loses me. That's just wrong. That's importaste. It's completely, it's not anti-semitic. I don't think that's the issue. I think it's that it's just detached from reality. It's not connected to what is really going on. Oops, sorry. This is physical violence that she's illustrating with. I mean, it's fine to hate your neighbor. Nothing against hate. And of course, hating someone for their political views goes both directions. I mean, God, you've been on the chat here. If I say, leftist, I mean, they all come out flowing and they get apoplectic and they go nuts. I say I'm pro-abortion. There'll be a bunch of people in the chat who are going to go nuts, right? And start hating me. But hating is not the same as physical violence. Even cancelling as much of a negative phenomena that it is is not the same as that photograph, is not the same as that picture. So Anna writes, I'll just take this because it's on topic, why are you only defining cancer culture now? Lots of us were trying to say last year that we didn't want Biden only because it would boast the culture. I talked about cancer culture most of last year and I admitted earlier that I had defined it wrongly. But I spent all summer talking about BLM, talking about riots, talking about Antifa, talking about racism on the left, talking about white, what was it, fragility. I did whole shows about these topics. To argue that I have not addressed these issues on the left is evasion or being lazy. And I think, so give me a break, Ann. I've been talking about it constantly. Now the idea that I don't know how evil the left is is bizarre and again evasive and wrong. I've been arguing that the left is evil all along. I've always been anti-left in everything. Now I view politically in terms of the long-term political sanity of this country, I believe that Trump was a bigger threat than Biden. That has nothing to do with my view of Biden and my view of cancer culture. I think the only chance we have at defeating cancer culture, at working at this, at changing the culture, at actually creating an opposition to Biden and cancer culture was to defeat Donald Trump. That as long as Donald Trump was in power, there was no way to fight against cancer culture because he symbolized the fight and discredited it completely because he has the same mentality as they do among many things. And I'm not going to get here into why I think Trump is as bad and as evil as he is. But before you go accusing me of not talking about cancer culture or not supporting Biden because I love the left or whatever, do your homework in terms of what I've actually said. I hate the left. I want to defeat the left. The only way to defeat the left long-term was to defeat Trump. I want to Trump out of the White House in order so that we can together defeat the left. With Trump, we would never defeat him. That's my argument. You don't have to agree with me. Very few people agree with me. That's fine. I'm used to it. I'm also used to being right, but I'm used to people not agreeing with me, right? I don't care. I don't think cancer culture is a new thing. McCarthyism was cancer culture. I mean, in a sense, wasn't that cancer culture worse because it was instituted by government? I think that cancer culture has always been around in a variety of different guises, on a variety of different political fronts. I think it takes on a particular visible and a particularly obnoxious guys because we can see it on social media because we're all involved because it's visible. It's much more visible because of social media. I do think cancer culture has been around. I think that the intellectuals in charge, they're being phasers where they have gone after people and cleansed institutions from people they didn't like. That is the argument Hollywood makes about McCarthyism, that the communists were kept out of Hollywood. But the truth is, for decades and to some extent of this day, it is conservatives and libertarians who are being kept out of Hollywood. They used to be a group of conservative and libertarian filmmakers in Hollywood that used to get together on a regular basis until they were outed and canceled. That is, the group had to dissolve itself because now it was a secret group and it was infiltrated and the list of names, the fear was that it would be distributed and therefore they got rid of the group. That was cancer culture and that's been many years now. You can ask Mark Pellegrino about this. Friends of Abe from Abe Lincoln, friends of Abe it was called. I went to an event with thousands of people, a lot of actors and directors and producers that you would recognize who at the event came out as conservative and libertarian. It was a secret and they tried to keep it a secret after the event and a lot of people who were camera men and all the rest. That idea of destroying people, destroying their careers, not giving it an opportunity. Here's another example, this is a very direct one. What did William F. Buckley do to Iron Rand if not cancel her and have the power to do it? He canceled her from the entire conservative movement. Yes, Corey is absolutely right. He says, wasn't Iron Rand a victim of this? Yes, she was. That's the kind of canceling with power, with the ability to destroy. Now, she wasn't completely canceled because she had something to fall back on. But so have a lot of these people. You could say Barry Weiss was canceled for the New York Times but she fell back on, she's got a sub-stack now and she's probably doing very well. So no, all I wanted to do today was clarify that I probably misspoke, yes, two days ago when I said, like, I cancel people, everybody cancel, canceling is all over the place. No, canceling has to have some power behind it. It has to have some ability to impact what happens to you in a significant way in your life. And I acknowledge that I was wrong. But to say that this is the first time I've talked about it or to say that I haven't addressed it or to say that I haven't been attacking the left and I've suddenly discovered the left is evil is to ignore the work that I've done over the last 20 plus years, including the work I did last summer, where I week after week after week went after the left. Anyway, let's see, we've got some high priced, let me just, are people who want destruction not consciously aware that that's what they really want? How could a group of people equally unconsciously aware of their own evil organize in such an efficient way like the Nazis in the New York Times? Well, they're conscious of particular goals. They're not conscious necessarily of the ultimate goal. They think, they convince themselves, they convince themselves. And I haven't, I haven't finished talking about Toronto. So I'll have to get back to that. They convince themselves that they're doing it for Germany, of the Aryan people, of the greater good, the greater good of society, the well-being of the human race. They're getting rid of rats. That's what they associated Jews with the Nazis did. If you've seen the propaganda movies of the Nazis, there's one famous propaganda movie where the whole movie just shows rats. But the commentator over it is talking about the Jews. They think they're ridding society of a pest. They don't think of it in terms of, I hate mankind. I hate reality. I hate life. I want to destroy all. They think of it in terms of, I'm a good person. And I am trying to rid the world of evil. They create a story from themselves to hide their true motivation. And think about it. Tens of millions of people were probably not all in most and accepting of a philosophy of nihilism. But what they were accepting of a philosophy of collectivism, they were accepting of the philosophy of nationalism, they were accepting a philosophy that they could not make up their own mind, that they needed a leader to tell them what was right and what was wrong. They needed to follow orders. They needed to do their duty. That's what they were convinced of. And the fact that they duty involved destruction, but it was for a higher good, for something better. Now, the leadership deep down when nihilistic and hateful and they capitalized on the awful philosophy that the people had. And they used, they didn't say, let's go destroy. They said, let's go fight for Germany. Let's go fight for the Aryan race. Let's go maximize social well-being. Let's do this for the common good and the social well-being of people. That's what they preached. And that's why anybody who argues for sacrifice in the common good is to be feared, you need to run away from them. All right, Gina Carano, back to Gina Carano. Anyway, so as you know, she put out this tweet. I think it was a, I think it was an awful tweet. I think the picture, I mean, the content is not that bad, but the picture with it. Now, she works for Disney. Disney is this squeaky clean, doesn't like controversy, left of center company that has a reputation. She knew who she was working for. Now, I don't think the tweet justified firing anybody, but Disney's not my company. Disney has their own considerations. And if you work for Disney, all of you listeners who either work for Disney now or will work for it in the future, beware, Disney is known to be, you know, very sensitive about these things. It's image and it's image is soft left, not too far left, but soft left. So if you're gonna be controversial, you're taking a risk with Disney. That's just the reality. It's who you gotta work for. If you, you know, when you choose an employer and hopefully you're in a position in life where you get to choose your employer, I don't think Disney is woke. I don't think they're all the way there, but they're certainly further along in that direction than many other companies. And you just have to be careful. I mean, Scott says start your own global media company, Empire, I guess he's making fun of my claim that they're a private company, but yes. Yes, because the alternative is that the government should tell Disney who they can and cannot fire. And I guess you lovers of capitalism and freedom would prefer that, right? That's the solution. Let the government tell Twitter who they can include and who they can include on their platform. The government should tell Disney who they can and cannot have as employees what movies they can and cannot make maybe. I mean, we should replace the, we should replace management of Disney with the government. Really? Is that what we want? In the name of capitalism, we wanna give government more power. I tried to define cancer culture at the beginning of the show. It's not a formal definition. I haven't figured out a formal definition, but cancer culture is a culture in which those who have power use that power to destroy the lives of those that they disagree with, those that offend their sensibilities. Not just say, I don't like you go away, but actually actively engage in the destruction of people. And in some cases, I don't think they're wrong. I do not weep for Alex Jones being kicked off of YouTube. But it's a question of what kind of culture do you wanna live in? We talked about this in Saturday. Do you want a culture that has a very narrow, only this is permitted culturally, not legally, culturally? Or do you want a very wide? And I think you want a pretty wide, you want a pretty wide definition of what is acceptable. Again, not legally, legally, it's free speech. But culturally, there should be some views that are just unacceptable. But most views should be fine. And let the marketplace of ideas play out. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes, that should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show, maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, I wanna see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I wanna see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at youronbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or Subscribestar or locals and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support, there you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.