 So what the heck is the 4th of July holiday all about? What are we celebrating on the 4th of July and So this is also known as independence day So it goes back to the Declaration of Independence Back to July 4 1776 a declaration of independence that established the United States of America the founding fathers Signed off on this document and by so doing they were putting their lives on the line Right if they had lost the war everyone who signed off on this declaration of independence in all likelihood would have lost their heads so They were really risking something by signing off on this document and perhaps the most famous part of the Declaration of Independence is Right near the top we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain an Alienable rights that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men so What the heck does it mean all men are created equal? It just sounds like absolute nonsense So the historian Peter Novak wrote in 1988 rarely have so many ambiguous terms and dubious Propositions being compressed into such a brief passage and this illustrates an important point that I use in my life When you really want to understand something you grant To to the speaker or to the writer that there is there is reality to what they're saying and then you rack your mind to try To think how could this possibly true so under what circumstances could we possibly believe that all men are created equal Now on the face of it, right this declaration is Nonsense, but Peter Novak says it's salutary nonsense Like belief in the self-evident truths has for more than 200 years provided one the strongest bullwarks of liberty and equality in the United States I'm dubious about that. I believe it's more the demographic Composition of the United States. It's shared history and heritage shared race and religion that has provided stability to the United States rather than the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution But you can find reasons why in virtually any context to accept that some Seemingly false statement is possibly true. You just have to want it bad enough So if you really want to understand what someone's saying you have to Accept provisionally that what they are saying is true and then just start racking your mind for all the ways that it can possibly be true Now we have limited time we have limited energy so we frequently tend to dismiss people and Ideas that sound crazy to us so that we can concentrate our very limited resources on the few people and the few ideas that do matter To us, but if you want to know, how could this possibly be true that all men are created equal Here's an explanation from a Stanford historian. So when Thomas Jefferson wrote all men are created equal in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence He's not talking about individual equality All right, but he really means is the American colonists as a people at the same rights of self-government as other peoples and Hence they too could declare independence Create a new government and assume their separate and equal station among other nations now after the American Revolution Succeeded Americans began reading the famous phrase another way now became a statement of individual equality But everyone and every member of a deprived group could claim for himself and with each passing generation our notion of who that statement covers has expanded So it's now that promise of individual equality that has come to define our constitutional creed But that's not how things started out Right, we started out with a very different understanding of all men are created equal It was a collective understanding not all individuals are created equal the collective understanding that all peoples have a right to assert themselves and To seek to create their own government All right, one of my favorite popular historians is Brian McLean a hand Just released a video on Joe Biden's strange understanding of American history I love being proven right all the time with all these people really aren't committed to any of these things They only love the Supreme Court when it does what they want to do They don't love the Supreme Court when it doesn't do what they want to do They only love the Constitution when it does what it wants them to do And they don't love it when it's not doing what they want to do So in reality what you have is just what Calhoun predicted in the 1850s, right? When he posthumously published both of his works on the Constitution But of course he was writing those when he was still alive before that point and that came out of his experiences in the 1830s and 40s so you have essentially a Situation in America today that was just like it was before the war and why why do we have all these problems? This is the real question. Why do we keep having all of these issues? The Supreme Court does this need to ignore the Supreme Court the Constitution, etc Because we have two different constitutions working at all times We have the unwritten Constitution, which is the incorrect Constitution and we have the written Constitution Which is one we should be following But of course if we had that Constitution in place the United States government wouldn't do most of what it does So this is the issue. This is what Calhoun was talking about Of course he was saying what we need to do is have some teeth in the 10th Amendment because if we don't have any teeth in the 10th Amendment We'll keep having all of these issues Now let's talk about the Supreme Court I'm actually gonna focus on a piece that Jonathan Turley wrote because after the Supreme Court issued its most recent decision on affirmative action Left went ballistic They went ballistic because in their mind, this is the only way That we can have a diverse college environment and that's really what it was about But we're gonna see this now. I think extended out to other areas There's affirmative action legal in any of these other areas. This was very narrow ruling It was focused primarily on colleges universities and admission requirements And it does still give colleges universities wiggle room that we've seen that with heart of the issue of statements saying that Of course you can talk about how if race was So they did away with affirmative action in California and I what's interesting to me is how so many people are on the right They're just willing to declare defeat. All right There's a major victory by the US Supreme Court declaring affirmative action on the basis of race illegal for college admissions But so much the right ready to declare defeat saying oh, it's useless the various educational bureaucracies We'll just find a way around it and they will find ways around it But it's still a significant ruling in California They forbade the use of affirmative action by race and it has significantly reduced the number of Low achieving blacks and Latinos getting admittance to our top universities public universities in California now have the educational bureaucracies at UCLA and Berkeley found partial ways around this bank Yes, partially, but we don't have nearly as many affirmative action by race students in the California public university system now as We would have without that Referendum declaring affirmative action by race illegal and Affirmative action like much of the rest of the civil rights agenda. It's it's interesting how it's become progressively less popular as the years have gone by So even minority groups by and large do not care for affirmative action Support for affirmative action is largely limited to an elite like regular people don't like it and When the Supreme Court rules against it when California rules against it in a referendum that has a significant effect on the real world But I noticed with many conservatives. They're just so quick to say. Oh, it's hopeless Right the those darn elites. They're just so smart They're gonna figure out, you know a way around this and there's absolutely nothing we can do to now overcome those gosh darn elites All right, they've absolutely got us licked What can what can we possibly do and Another way that many on the right are very quick to declare despair is Saying, oh, it's just inevitable that we're gonna be swamped by people from other Regions of the world who are hostile to the historic American nation and this is just baked into the demographics There's nothing we can do about it. America's finished America's over Well, not true right this this thinking is based on a census bureau era that leads Democrats and Republicans to assume that Democrats are simply on the right side been extroval demographic trends and yet you see Republican massive successes in 2010 2014 2016 and Even in 2020 Republicans did pretty well in 2022 Republic It's got the majority of the vote So this whole majority minority of narrative is wrong says sociologist Richard Alba Burying to the idea that non-white Americans will outnumber whites by 2050 So Richard Alba published a book the great demographic illusion So he notes that how many quote-unquote non-whites are assimilating into the American mainstream There's as many white ethnic groups did before them and government statistics fail to account for this complex Reality so what the heck is going on here? So Richard Alba accepted these US Census Bureau statistics and predictions at first but Back in about 2016. He spotted a key error in how the Census Bureau classifies people by race and ethnicity So the data Understating the degree to which people are coming from mixed family backgrounds often overwhelmingly white but because they indicate on a Census Bureau form that They are part black or part Asian or part Latino They accounted by the US Census Bureau is 100% black 100% Asian 100% Latino even if they may be majority white So the office of management and budget has decided who carries out the US Census Decided that Americans who designate themselves as white and something else on the census form are classified as non-white So if I put in my census form that I was white and Chinese, right, I would be designated 100% as Asian. So if you're changing white to non-white, right that Bollocks is up the statistics, right? Plenty of Americans have mixed Asian white descent We'll have more contact with white relatives than with Asian ones because there are far more whites in America than Asians So 62% of Asian whites feel very accepted by whites compared with 47% To say they feel the same thing from Asians when they marry 72% of Asian white women Is 64% of Asian white men take white spouses yet the government counts them and their progeny as non-white so People who are willing to stake their lives their activism Their career their predictions their understanding of reality They're on statistics that are distorted and that they don't really understand how that they are formulated Let me get a little bit more here from Brian McLean ahead A block or some type of obstacle in your time as a young person and how how you overcame that to achieve success So other words I can just write that in their essay And of course that would still be part of their college admissions and other schools have already been doing this So it hasn't eliminated race entirely from a decision concerning college enrollment or admission But it has made it to where you can't just say all right, we're gonna do x y and z We're gonna have seen somebody of this group or that group, but we're gonna use races as a deciding factor Now quotas has supposedly been illegal for years. In fact in the Nixon administration, this was brought up Now we're gonna have quotas when it comes to hiring more business practices or education. Those have been illegal for years Now we also know in many states they've tried to restrict affirmative action make it to where it's illegal in college admissions But I think you're gonna see more states go out and try to do this now at least eliminate it as a part of a process for admissions Palligan might ask me if I was still skeptical about the the sweeping decisions of the spring quarter At least it was going to do what it said was gonna do I had said from beginning that I'm not so certain This court is gonna do much. I was a little surprised by the Dobb's decision These were kind of soft balls in some ways and I said they're kind of trimming around the edges because if you look at what's happening They're still relying on a 14th amendment interpretation Of the constitution. They're still relying on that second constitution now the the constitution that was created in 1868 To and to come up with these decisions and until they get rid of that you haven't really Has 40 run out of madaphnil way bro. I got like six months supply of madaphnil and I've had two cups of coffee this morning. So That's very rare for me. So I'm all fired up to do this live stream. I think I've had One morning in the past Six weeks that I can remember where I was able to sleep in past 5 a.m. So I can remember one one morning where I woke up at 5 10 a.m. Pretty much every other morning. I am wide awake by 3 a.m So I'm Ready to go ready to rock and roll Now another thing I notice in in discourse how conservatives love to talk about how americas are republic And democrats love to talk about how the united states of america is a democracy in reality in the real world There's very little functional real world difference between living in a republic and living in a democracy so I put in republic versus democracy into google the first result is from a firefighter Who posts republic as a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter or a constitution Democracy is a government that's ruled according to the will of the majority. Yes, but there are no functioning democracies according to this definition That the main difference between a republic and a democracy is that the constitution limits power in a republic Often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority And yet any right you believe you have can be taken away in a state of emergency or by a decision of five u.s. Supreme court justices So another website different D iff en.com key difference between a democracy in a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law Both forms of government use a representational system citizens vote to elect Politicians to represent their interests and to form a government The republic a constitution protects certain alienable rights that supposedly cannot be taken away by the government, but This is more in theory than in fact So most modern nations are democratic republics with a constitution Not sure that's true. I'm not sure that most Foundations are democratic republics There are no pure democracies in the world today So democracy and republic are frequently used to mean the same thing a government in which the people vote for their leaders But yeah republicans love to talk about we're a republic not a democracy Not much functional difference Right, so republic is a government of laws not of men driving its authority not by a divine right of inheritance or strength of arms But by reason and by adherence to the mechanisms of the constitution Yeah, that's in theory in practice people people in functioning democracies vote for their leaders and then their leaders and leaders in The judicial system such as the supreme court then effectively decide what rights we get to enjoy Don't anything substantial to change the way we're going to we're going to interpret the constitution the way we're going to look at the Constitution That faulty understanding of the 14th amendment still is working in both directions So we've got to get rid of that So in my mind, they're still kind of trimming around the edges. He said they're not they're really doing things fundamental And I would say that this is of course a a court that's been more active In then recent decades But we know that as he also pointed out that other courts have been much more active This court is not even as active as the renquist court of burglar court of the warren court I mean those courts were much more active than this court, but of course they were doing things at the left light Now at the top of the show I talked about how the left has a new foil a new enemy It's not the court even though they are critical of the court and they're going to they're going to run on this Right, this is going to be a big campaign issue moving into 2024. We've got to do something about the court What we have a new foil though, and it's actually jefferson davis in the confederacy You see because everything that happens now is because of jefferson davis in the confederacy I don't care if you're on the left or the right. This is how stupid american politics are We have Our american hitler and it's jefferson davis for a long time It was john c calhoun now we're going to jefferson davis the confederacy mean everything that happens It doesn't matter again if you're on the left or the right is because of jefferson davis now How do I how do I say that? Well you look at victor davis handsome? Okay, so a lot of Conservatives like denise preger love to boast about how america unlike other nations Right, this is america is an idea Right, it's a place that no anyone can come and belong regardless of background Unlike other nations that are based on shared Heritage shared history shared race and religious ties right data states is an idea Now there's a reason most countries are not multi ethnic Countries right and why most of those that have tried to become multi ethnic countries have failed This is from christopher cordwell's great book the age of entitlement Where a shared heritage is absent or unrecognized as it is in the contemporary united states or the eggs of national cohesion A place in the basket of the constitution Which is not a strong enough basket to maintain Social cohesion and with the dawn of the civil rights era the u.s. Constitution the very thing that supposedly made it possible for an ethnically varied nation to live together Not just came under stress, but was replaced by a new Constitution right the the civil rights constitution So To whatever extent the united states today is a free country and I find with that is a very different sense of freedom Than it was between the administration of george washington and that of john f kennedy Right so brown versus the board of education of topeka 1954 supreme court ruling unanimous supreme court decision That ordered the desegregation of all of america's schools Not just a landmark decision, but it was an unusual one It was brief to the point of curtness shawna footnotes and case references each of its two parts ran about the length of a newspaper column It was less a judicial argument than a judicial order is essentially An emotional expression just like the overfell Decision that made gay marriage the rule of the land right you can't find strong case for legislating same-sex marriage in the u.s. Constitution But justices had to make up a ruling and they couldn't find precedent. So they just emoted So with brown versus board of education u.s. Supreme court justices ignored ignored the subject which they devoted most of their deliberations Whether the 14th amendment Right drafted in the wake of the civil war to guarantee equal protection of the law Was intended to permit segregated schools and said they asked whether doctrine of separate but equal Used to justify school segregation was possible in practice. Of course it is possible in practice so the justices believed it was possible And they did note findings that uh black and white schools had been equalized They nonetheless repudiated the separate but equal doctrine for primary schools on the grounds that because of Intangible considerations right considerations that did not actually exist in reality, but that they imagined existed And qualities which are incapable of objective measurement. Okay qualities which are incapable of objective measurement and not a sound basis for revoking the united states constitution and replacing it with a new civil rights constitution And the most ardent opponents of segregation Were troubled by this u.s supreme court decision to essentially rewrite the u.s constitution On the authority of vague pronouncement about the way things are usually interpreted So one Harvard law professor described brown as an opinion, which is often read with less fidelity by those who praise it Then by those by whom it is condemned, right? Which is the most obstruous way of saying that uh the supreme court decision was quite wrongly decided So brown would have been impossible under any faithful reading of what the drafters of the 14th amendment had meant by equality Just like uh roe v wade Right was decided on the basis of supposedly a constitutional right to privacy But this constitutional right to privacy Underpinning roe v wade has not been found in any other subsequent important supreme court decisions All right, it was just made up to fit the case of roe v wade so The heart of the matter with segregation was not equality But the complex it created with the first amendment right of freedom of association these complex are not easily solved we have diminished freedom of association and freedom of private property To enact this vast, you know civil rights industrial complex So if freedom of association is denied by segregation Integration forces an association upon those for whom it is unpleasant or repugnant So we have a situation where the state must choose between denying the association to those who wish it And imposing it on those who would avoid it all on the basis of these made up principles That supposedly the constitution demands so in constitutional terms The brown versus border education decision was arbitrary and open-ended It essentially gave the US government the authority to put all sorts of public bodies under surveillance for racism The damage it aimed to amend consists of intangible consideration So there's no limit to this government surveillance And that's the civil rights industrial complex that we live under today At once the civil rights act was introduced into the private sector This assumption that all separation was Prima facia evidence of inequality and racism This battle against desegregation implied a revocation of the old freedom of association So it would then a decade of brown versus border education philosophy that Leo Strauss was warning That attempts to rid out discrimination could backfire points out the difficulties under which minorities operate You know liberal society stands or for by the distinction between the political and society by the distinction between the public and the private And now you have the civil rights industrial complex regulating the most private of interactions So prohibiting every type of discrimination essentially means the abolition of privacy, right? You want to fight for privacy? You're concerned about privacy and you should be appalled by civil rights legislation Right it is meant the destruction of liberal Society is meant the destruction of privacy. It's meant the destruction of freedom of association It's meant this considerable diminishment of the right to private property So one university of chicago first amendment scholar tried to disguise his own misgivings about this ruling as praise So he says one of the most distinctive features of the black revolution has been its military assault on the constitution Be it the strategy of systematic litigation, right? We have destroyed the old constitution via this strategy of systematic litigation Right, there's there's no waiting for the random and mysterious processes by which Controversies are finally brought to the u.s. Supreme court now There is a marshaling of cases a creation of cases a timing of litigation a force feeding of legal growth Right, you could say this is a brilliant use of democratic legal processes. Its successes are spectacular But It's also a strategy to trap democracy in its own decencies so Civil rights era has been a constitutional catastrophe has been a military assault on the constitution like how could you Say that as praise Now what upstanding political actor takes advantage of another's decencies to entrap him, but that is what happened So many u.s. Supreme court cases that have paved the way for the civil rights industrial complex have not arisen naturally Out of our country's ordinary social frictions, but they are created by interested activist parties So the whole tradition of judicial review seems to lose its legitimacy So we have the staging of court cases and that's become a standard strategy for activist litigators In a way that until the 1960s was considered judicial corruption So take the n double acp national association for the advancement of colored people They not only stage events. They script them It hand picks their plaintiffs such as rosa parks So we're taught in black history month the rosa parks There's some tired seamstress who just needed to rest to weary legs in the white section of a montgomery alabama city bus And it was just all a spontaneous protest, but it was considerably more than that So five months before montgomery bus boycott began. She attended the school in training social active agitators Right. She was an organizer of considerable sophistication one of the intellectual leaders of the montgomery n double acp And you look at the american right, so to speak particularly the west coast ralseans the clarinet people Everything bad is because of the south jefferson davis john c calhoun the confederacy whatever it is That's the bad guys and those were all democrats. This is mark levin Those were all democrats. You see all these guys all this jefferson davis old democrats Republicans were always the good guys. Then if you're on the left Then if you're on the left, well the glp is just a party of neoconfederates, right? It's just jefferson davis We're just resurrecting jefferson davis and the confederacy and i talked about that last week There's two pieces one saying the same thing So when both agree on this and both have come up with the position that the bad guys are the same thing And the good guys, abraham lincoln, we're doomed. This is where i'm pointed out with Myles smith and his piece that we need to keep link honi and nationalism around This is what we have now it's not doing anything but creating more and more division Why because we're we have a fundamental misunderstanding about what his united states was and is If you have a link honi and nationalism link honi in america you get what we have You get exactly what we have today in american politics and it's awful A real american a real understanding of the american tradition would include a heavy dose of federalism where the states would do this Anyway, the dob's decision simply returned the issue to the states where it belonged And we've seen states make up their own mind on these things now and generally the whole thing is quieted down Why because in many states everything stayed the same and the states have then reflected the political culture of the people in those states That's how things have worked And you know what? I don't hear a whole lot of rumbling about this anymore It's gone. The issue is gone. Now. I know on the left. They're going to try to say we need to have some type of legislation Uh, you know codifying roby way to the national level and the same thing on the right that people have talked about that But that was defeated republicans could never get that through the left might try but I think it would also be Knocked down there as well. I think that they wouldn't have enough the house in the center You'd be too closely divided right now for this But regardless That's gone now if some of these if we get democrats in the executive office for the next 12 years And some of these supreme court justices retire or die and they start swinging the court back the other way You'll see a challenge somebody will challenge a state that you know has restrictive abortion requirements I'm gonna go to the supreme court again, and maybe they'll overturn dobs. Maybe we'll say no No, there's a so this is the sad thing about all of this the 14th amendment is the issue until we can wrestle With that and come up with a way to get rid of that We're gonna be in this non-stop You know this this perpetual angst over the supreme court doing x y and z It's been a nightmare. This this is the nightmare that the jeffersonians worried about with the supreme court It's the nightmare that calhoun worried about so let me get into this Jonathan Turley piece because he says some things here that are rather interesting Now the title is biden's normal the president's constitutional takes are becoming more unhinged from history Well, I agree. I mean they've never really been hinged in history at all. They've ever been grounded in history at all None of it has He says the decision of the supreme court to end the use of race and college emissions was not unexpected Indeed the rulings in cases involving harvard in the u.r.c. North carolina ended the decades of muddled five to four decisions Yet president joe biden seemed to go into full attack mode and actually claimed that the court Gunned the constitutional guarantee that all men and women are created equal And playing that this court was not normal biden further insisted that these emissions decisions of the dobs abortion decision reversed the gains We fought a war over in 1860 secure. So again see People ask why the war is still important because we're still fighting the war The war is ongoing Because we're in a third reconstruction and people are open about it Right. This is eric boners point, but the second american revolution with him and you have the convenient foil everything that is the confederacy Listen, I mean look you bite So when I listen to liberal centrist Conventional conservatives They often talk about increasing rights as though it just moves in one direction But whatever you increase rights for one group you are taking away rights for another group So adding civil rights for all americans Significantly reduced rights to freedom of association and freedom of use of your private property For the majority and christopher cordwell makes this point in his excellent book the age of entitlement, right Rights cannot simply be added to a social contract without changing it to establish new liberties is always to extinguish other liberties So back in 1963 long before the passage of the 64 civil rights act Those who are skeptical of civil rights legislation hinted that you know some Hypothetical old widow who rented out a home a room in her house, right might be You know bearing the brunt of federal surveillance and law enforcement if she's too picky about who she accepts as a border Now civil rights legislations backers treated the question as ridiculous, but the skeptics of civil rights were absolutely true And people who are pushing civil rights eventually admitted that real freedom requires many changes in the nation's political and social philosophy And institutions We must destroy the notion that mrs. Murphy's property rights include the right to humiliate me because of the color of my skin so A border or a prospective customer is free to reject a landlord or a business on the basis of anything including race and religion but operators of a Rental property or operators of a business Are no longer free to reject prospective customers for any reason so the sanctity of private property has come to take Second place to the sanctity of the human personality. That's how the pro civil rights people put it So after the civil rights act of 1964 property simply does not enjoy the same constitutional protection it had before Nor does freedom of association So florida's segregationist governor of the 1960s farris bryan Described us brilliantly says we would all agree that the traveler is and should be free not to buy He can pass the hotel because he does not like the town Because he does not like the color. He does not like the name He can stop and go in and when he sees the owner he can decide he doesn't like him because he doesn't like his Moustache or his accent or his prices or his race or his other customers He can turn around and he can walk out for any reason or no reason at all Why not? He's a free man Well, so too should the owner of a property be free if the traveler is free not to buy Because he doesn't like the owner's moustache accent prices race other customers or for any reason The owner of the property ought to have the same freedom. That's simple justice So what exactly did the majority population think they were getting With civil rights, right the majority population in america thought that they were being generous But for black americans, they essentially saw Civil rights legislation as blacks as white people pleading guilty in the court of history Of being just perfidious and racist and awful and so too when the majority population talks about extending reparations to black americans. That's not going to increase Comity goodwill between blacks and whites or just give Large numbers of black americans even more reason to believe that the whites are pleading guilty And that they deserve to be dispoiled So what's going on in our big cities? We're having a massive upsurge in violence over the past couple of years They're erupting out of philadelphia claiming the lives of five people and injuring two children But it's just the latest violence plaguing cities this july 4th weekend. We'll have a live report on that next Okay, I'll keep an eye here on talks If anything interesting comes up Let me catch my breath Victor davis hansen could have said this stuff Well, what we're doing now is fighting a war over what we fought a war over in 1860 Mark Levin what we're doing is fighting a war and we fought a war over this in 1860. This is how stupid all this stuff is When you have the same common hero And your same foil doesn't matter if you're on the left or the right is the confederacy. Well, what does that say? There's no difference between the two Just in degrees In an interview with msnbc's deadline white house president biden accused the court of ignoring quote What the constitution says we hold these truths to be self-evident all men and women are created equal and down by the creator Now that's funny. That's really funny. So that's what the constitution says We hold these truths to be something that all men and women now can see first of all that comes from the declaration But there's no women in the declaration either What biden has done here is conveniently list the proposition nation myth Who else does this the west coast trialsians? The mark levin's they all do it The proposition nation myth is at the core of what's going on with america in terms of how we Problematically view american government. You see for one group when we ended slavery And uh, we had plesi v. Ferguson. We stopped there Right we undid undid plesi first. Excuse me when we have brown v. Board of Education undid plesi v. Ferguson We stopped there. That's it the revolution is complete. We had the war Uh, that ended slavery and then we did our job with brown v. Board of Education Stop full stop That's just part of it. That's that didn't do enough Okay, this guy doesn't go far back enough by accepting brown versus the board of education He completely overturned the american constitution So no, we shouldn't accept brown versus the board of education people should Have the right to freedom of association That has become this really popular idea over the past 50 years that america is primarily an idea And that is not how america was founded was founded as the product of People fleeing the united kingdom to set up a nation Created for their own benefit and the benefit of their progeny. So about 80 85 percent of america's white population The time of the revolutionary war towards the end of the 18th century came from united kingdom So it was kind of the united states was created as an extension of the freedom of the rights of englishmen The shifted westward into the new world. So to me america is not primarily an idea It's where I live america is exceptional to me because this is where I live quote steve sailor It's a nation state founded by people Who formed it in their own interests and in the interests of their progeny america is not primarily a product of the constitution Just like the jewish people are not primarily a product of the torah All right, the constitution is primarily the product of a particular people operating under selection pressure in a particular environment So even if you subscribe to the traditional notion that god gave every word of the torah to the jewish people at mount sinai about 3200 years ago Right That did not create the jewish people as we know it because if god had given every letter of the torah to another people The torah tradition and the nation Associated with that would have developed very differently from the one that we have like jews brought their own proclivities Their own gifts to god's torah just as africans and the japanese and norwegians have brought their own proclivities and their own gifts to God's christianity if you believe that christianity came from god and they have transformed christianity From the version that developed in the middle east nearly 2000 years ago So what counts as christianity in africa today is completely different From christianity is its practice in england or australia or island or peru or mexico And if you want to just take a naturalistic understanding religion emerges out of culture and culture emerges out of the Interaction between genes and environment operating under diawinian selection pressure So the west coast strausians are saying well, we finished it. We completed this drive from the proposition nation We we we solved the problem No, you didn't left say no you didn't you didn't go far enough. Well, yes, we did no We didn't to see this is the issue We've got the we've got the giron dens and the san culotte, right? I mean we we've got to that point in this american and french revolution The west coast rousians Are the denton easts, right? They're just saying we've the revolution's gotten far enough And then the the committee of public safety is saying off with your head Suspect and the victims Conservatives That would be the foil that would be jefferson davis and john c calvary. They're left behind You see and it wasn't about race with these people That's a convenient thing But in reality what what calhoun and davis and south and of course there are many of these people in the north too In fact, the real key to understanding the war is the northern democrats all these conservatives in the united states in the 1860s We're pointing out that what we're going to get is this nonsense if we keep this lincolnian process going That's what we're fighting against. We're fighting to keep the federal republic. We're fighting against centralization extreme nationalization all of that That's what we're fighting against So russon charkelford says in the chat Even if I what i'm i'm saying is true what is going to change the thoughts of the elites Well, let's take the thoughts of the elites in germany Right prior to russia's invasion of ukraine The thoughts of the elites in germany were overwhelmingly fascist pacifist That's a combination of fascism and pacifism They're overwhelmingly pacifist and very pro-green pro-environmentalist Then once russia invades ukraine The greens who were the most left-wing major party in germany They became the most militarist party in germany They were willing to trash all sorts of environmental protections to pursue more energy independence for germany And for germany to take a leading role in fighting back against russia in ukraine. So Why did elite thinking change in germany? Well, the situation changed So too in the united states when the situation changes elite thinking will change So that which cannot continue will not right? So we're on an unsustainable path in many ways Such as in our rollback of policing and sentencing of bad guys Right due to the surging crime many, you know people on the left are unhappy with the massive surging crime And so there is going to be blowback Towards more law enforcement and towards longer prison sentences as situations change So too elite thinking will change just as we witnessed in germany Question from the chat 40. Did you ever consider studying law when you were young? Not really? I guess a little bit when I was age 11, but uh from about age 17 or 18 On I wanted to study economics when I got to university So truly says this is actually a reference to the declaration of independence But it was the substance of the point that was so baffling Interlocutor says germany is completely subordinate to the u.s. Yes, that is true But it's also true that german elites change their thinking How did german elites so radically changed their thinking in the course of a month Right in the course of the first month of the russian invasion of ukraine They changed this thinking because the situation changed So too american elites will change their thinking when the situation changes When say crime rates become unbearable to them Or america is in much greater peril. So the more peril united states is in particularly from uh outside forces The more people will tend towards an anti outgroup attitude Which will tend to redown to the benefit of republicans The more safe the more secure Americans feel the more likely they will be to vote for the party of social welfare the democrats So whoever wins the election in 2024 that will largely depend upon the situation if americans primary concerns Threats from outgroups Then republicans should be in a good position to win if americans primary concern is increasing social welfare spending then democrats will be a better place to win The constitution says now Again, biden confused how can we expect these idiots on twitter and facebook or wherever social media to really know This is like the hillard bill the berlin wall the constitution says this I mean, this is how stupid these people really are But how can we expect anyone to know when the president united states just bumbles on about this kind of stuff? And uh lootcraft says the germans still did not change their energy policy. They're still anti nuclear nutcases Well, they did change their energy policy in many ways. They shifted towards much more use of natural gas a chat says Germans are still occupied by the u.s. Military. So that helped change their elites minds. Well Germany and europe right have not been willing to pay the price for developing their own military independence, right? They have taken the bargain of essentially outsourcing Their military protection needs to the united states so that they could afford massive amounts of social welfare spending And of course what he did here was conveniently insert the seneca falls declaration of sentiments into the declaration So he's confused the constitution the declaration in the seneca falls convention Three different historical documents all confused now. We've got this hybrid thing is working now and biden's an idiot And russon schackelford says there's something unique to the u.s. Elites will easily isolate themselves from situations that would change minds Really so think about how support for the invasion of afghanistan in 2001 and for iraq in 2003 it was overwhelming Right, that was because a change of situation after 9 11 So the very few people were willing to stand up and oppose these invasions even though they proved to be absolutely disastrous for the united states So elite opinion did change Right prior to 9 11 There's much more skepticism about nation building and getting more deeply involved in the middle east after 9 11 That became a foreign policy establishment consensus became a media elite consensus It became a talking heads consensus that yeah going into afghanistan and iraq is the right thing to do It was absolutely wrong But you did see a massive change in elite consensus So elites still want to lead We still want to have influence. They don't want to seem out of touch And as the situation changed in america after 9 11, you know, elite opinions changed Get for all this stuff, but the left believes this stuff do I guarantee you if you pulled a bunch of these leftist dopes walking around who vote And have children that uh, they would uh, they would say that biden actually cited the declaration I really used to be some all men and women there's nothing in there About that, but they would maybe think that So turley says in barring the use of race admissions, the court believed that it was protecting that very guarantee The race with the court viewed as a glaring anomaly in this in its cases in the treatment of racial discrimination and education as opposed to employment It was like the capstone opinion of four chief justice john roberts who in 2017 declared the way to stop discrimination on the basis of Races to stop discrimination on the basis of race in 2006 roberts added it as a sort of business just giving us up by race So this was I mean turley's pointing out. This is a long time coming. This is going to happen They were going to go and overturn this So what did uh, white people think they were getting when they supported massive Civil rights legislation. What about serbian bosnia different side of the same coin? Well, the united states was able to intervene in the serbia bosnia conflict without losing a single american That was a time in the mid 1990s when united states was the the superpower in the world So now that there are two other superpowers aside from the united states russia and china The us has to be much more selective about its use of power But when you're the sole superpower, you can afford, you know, much more room for doing dump things and intervening in things Where there's no vital national security interests. So much of the reason the united states did so many stupid things between 1995 and Say 2010 is because we were the world's sole superpower, but now we live in a more dangerous world American power is not as dominant as it was during that time period And let's look at the chat You talk as if this was a choice on the part of european elites It was the outcome of world war two when europe was destroyed divided and occupied by the us and the soviet According to interlocutor 1067 europeans are just an occupied power. They have no agency that If the united states told the prime minister of germany to go suck off a dog He would go suck off a dog because hey an american told him to do so And if any american comes along and tells the european to go suck off a dog The european is absolutely helpless. He must go out and suck off dogs because that's what the american said that Europeans are just, you know, absolutely hopeless. They have no agency I'm not sure why so many people on the right is just so eager to believe in their lack of agency and that if Some american or some jew comes along and tells them something they're absolutely hopeless in the face of that instruction Yes, the german prime minister would germans are self-hating cowards. I don't believe they are they have created A fantastic economy that is now paying a huge price for the war in ukraine But uh, germany's You know created an economically dominant state over the past 70 years now. They're facing some very grim demographics. They've you know, always lived in a very dangerous part of the world Germany does not have naturally defensible borders I think germany by and large has done pretty much the best it could in a very difficult situation So what did uh, white people think they were getting? With the civil rights, right? I don't think they suspected they'd see the vast increase in government oversight that's become the sine qua non of civil rights So if you look at the congressional debate leading to the civil rights acts of 1964, it's just filled with outright mockery of those who warned that The two unimaginable federal government infringement infringement is going to take place Not just the regulation of mrs. Murphy's rooming house, but also mandatory school busing public and private hiring quotas and immigration quotas So you had this florida democratic senator Who was worried that attempts to equalize school enrollment might lead to busing his pennsylvania republican colleague just scoffed at him Does the senator not agree that there is nothing whatever in the bill which relates to school busing? But by the 1970s there was race based school busing nationwide not just in southern states So all sorts of constitutionalists and libertarian fears fears that were laughed at chockled out poo poo'd By pro civil rights legislators all came to pass those who opposed civil rights legislation Have proved why is it about its consequences than those who sponsored such legislation and overturn the use of race and college admissions at least Overtly right now. You can do it covertly. You can do it in an essay, but overtly you can't do it anymore The court was enforcing what it saw as the as the self-evident guarantee reference in the declaration and later protected in the 14th amendment You see this is where I told my colleague. They're trimming around the edges. They haven't substantive substantially excuse me Raked out what needs to be raked out and gutted in the interpretation. So it's still the 14th amendment It's still the declaration. We're still going on the proposition nation We're just basing all of these things on all these judges are west coast rousians When you start from that position you open the door to the left undo the position What needed to happen what Thomas points out is the is his concurring opinion and doves was that wait a second here We're going to say this about roadie way. What about all these other things that uses the 14th amendment? We can't do that The court reaffirmed that all men and women are created equal and will be treated equally in both education and employment So it reaffirms the proposition nation I mean you could say that that's this is what the left is saying the goal is too I would say affirmative action is treating everyone equal because these people have disadvantages and that these people have privileges And so those privileges this is not equality. It's all about this term equality. This is harry jaffa This is the harry jaffa nightmare equality is conservative. It's not They shouldn't have argued it in this direction They should have said well, this is not really a federal issue at all There's not a 14th amendment issue and you know what the states can decide to do this however they would like That would have been it But no they doubled out on the 14th amendment in the proposition nation myth nightmare So people who supported civil rights and white people in general who supported civil rights They thought that uh black americans would respond with nothing but gratitude They thought oh blacks they just want to be nothing more than to be full americans with the rights of all americans But that's not how it turned out Right so giving blacks access to the rights of all americans with civil rights legislation essentially meant redefining The rights that the majority of americans are taken for granted starting with freedom of association So united states was at its most united most cohesive prior to civil rights legislation But for black americans americans celebration of pluralism among europeans had become a mockery So pluralism you would think would mean a limitation of government power You'd think it'd mean a free hand for private and voluntary organizations to develop their own patterns of worship their own patterns of education of social life of neighborhood concentration and distinct economic activity all of these enhance the life of these groups But from the perspective of black americans all of these activities were exclusive and discriminatory So all strongly identifying in groups We're going to have suspicions and hostility to outsiders But strong in group identity gives you know everyone in a dignified place In the social order and it's way of keeping the ruthless machinery of the market competition at bay But the force of civil rights demands meant that No sub-community no in-group because it either protects privileges or creates inequalities has the right to exist But civil rights legislation was a war on freedom of association which was a war on in-group identity And now government said about destroying these sub-communities all in the name of diversity So the mainstream white assessment of the race problem in america in the 1960s You know proved to be Rock whites knew a lot less about black people than black people did about white people So blacks saw civil rights much more clearly than White people you know black people saw civil rights legislation meant that whites As a group had entered a guilty plea in the court of history And thus had to repudiate You know their good name the good name of america and the good conscience of their constitutional republic So did white people confer civil rights or did blacks ring them out of a reluctant political system? probably it was both But civil rights largely came from a revamped understanding of human rights Which became a left-wing cause in the 1960s and 70s Given that socialism and practical politics had you know failed to achieve Much of what the left wing desired So starting in the early 1960s along with civil rights You got this astonishing spike in crime in which blacks made up a disproportionate share of both perpetrators and victims So you had the looting episodes in memphis that preceded the assassination of martin luther king You had deadly riots following that you had the los angeles ronnie king riots rights after oj simpsons acquittal a little bit more here from bryan mclean ahead The president is not alone in such hyperbole figures like whoopee golberg who cares actually asked whether the decision means that we were heading to No women in college assumed who knows Oh, yeah, that's where it's going whoopee when women now make up. Uh, I think 60 of people in college College students in some cases is higher some places. It's more. Yeah, that's where we're head so American majority thought that civil rights would normalize american culture and cure The paranoia of the south's racial imagination, but instead wound up nationalizing Southerners obsession with race and violence and crime and whoopee when men are getting out of schools at high rates The colleges are going through going into and something else We actually do know charlie says an opinion rejecting the use of racial classification Determine who goes to college could not be read by anyone is endorsing the exclusion of other groups Well, that's true. I mean charlie's correct about this. This is about race not about sex But the fact is uh, this is just complete a complete joke when someone like that says that That's fear tactics. That's scare mongering. No, it's it's it's saying things that are never gonna happen In fact, because women now control so much of higher education, this isn't gonna happen The truly baffling statement was biden's claim of the civil war By leaving questions like abortion in the states, biden claimed the court was reversing what was gained in that war The criticism became in response to an opinion Insisting that the place there's no place for racial discrimination in higher education That would hardly seem an argument that would be embraced by the confederacy Oh also the north Because we know even after the 14th amendment was ratified that washington dc had segregated public schools So if it was aimed at Ending segregation that would have been news of the people that wrote the amendment or at least ratified it or put it Into effect. In fact, that's even said they've talked about on this show. It's had stevens Uh saying that well, I mean This doesn't do anything you think it's going to do it's very narrow 14th amendment It simply it simply codifies the civil rights act of 1866 Which was designed to ensure that former slaves had access to courts and could own property and that was it Very narrow interpret the very narrow agenda for the 14th amendment But we've expanded that out way out and that's because people like eric boner and others Randy Barnett have said the 14th amendment is expansive and Barnett's on the right. So when you've got eric boner randy barnett in agreement Now you're arguing over the how far you should take it. It's the issue So civil rights Advocates they never talked about the need for affirmative action, right? So when you got initially civil rights act of 1964 That was then followed to the surprise of much of the country By the decision that legal equality was now insufficient That uh civil rights movement did not disband once its sensible demands were met It grew into a permanent powerful lobby a political bloc Taking to remedy the problem of lack of jobs lack of money lack of housing And the federal government made it now a central part of its mission to procure those things for blacks and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars Was spent to try to secure these things for blacks and the results were disappointing on almost every front Because the united states people had never signed up for such a wide-ranging project Now it's not that americans were opposed to black advancement They were surprised that black advancement slowed after the passage of civil rights act All right, so black americans have been doing pretty well between the end of world war two and 1964 now after passage of civil rights legislation It slowed down So alan bloom wrote in his 1987 bestseller the closing of the american mind that blacks proved as indigestible In university systems as they had been in earlier generations So he was a professor at cornell university in upstate new york when black radicals bearing assault rifles rousted visiting parents out of bed on a Parents weekend in 1969 demanded concessions from the university administration Which were granted So bloom left for the university of toronto And he saw that the indes indigestibility and the radicalism were two sides of the same coin because cornell Had admitted a large number of students who were manifestly unqualified and unprepared to do serious university work Therefore faced inevitable choice fail most of them or pass them without they're having learned anything So black power which hit the university is like a tidal wave Provided a third wave So whites were looking for excuses for black underachievement And they said well, we must have you know imaginary systemic racism and to overcome that we now need affirmative action And the civil rights act allowed the government to compel Affirmative action to order the hiring of black people or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate And it became nothing neutral about the new system Right the judges who interpreted it explicitly repudiated race neutral solutions The american anti racist regime excluded the most obvious race blind solution to prejudice such as neutral civil service college admission and hiring exams So in griggs versus duke power company supreme court ruled that Objective tests if they disadvantaged blacks in any way They could not be used Good intent absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that are operated as built in headwinds for minority groups So if different groups have different gifts then you can no longer use objective tests which reflect those differences But of course the confederacy is that you know, this is the foil Right This is the foil But it also would be an argument that would hardly be embraced by the united states in 1865 or 1866 1867 or 1868 You don't need to foil the confederacy. Just you want to say it's What americans would have said in the 1860s overall, you know, that would have been a better argument President biden has long taken liberties with our constitutional history many of us have repeatedly objected to claims that he has made an Areas like the second amendment one of the most respected lines is repeated lines I'm sorry not respected but repeated lines is that the second amendment was passed with the understanding that certain guns would be banned And adding you can't couldn't buy a cannon when in fact the second when in fact the second amendment passed That happens to be a really false, which is true. You could buy cannons In fact, you can do whatever you wanted you could buy whatever kind of firearm you wanted up until really the middle of the 20th century You go back to mail over catalogs you could buy howlers You could buy whatever you wanted And even during the war the 1860s you had private citizens building naval vessels with cannons Yeah, even after the washington So after the civil rights legislation government now has the ability to disrupt and steer private interactions Interactions that are being considered private out of the sphere of government until now So being a businessman or a landlord or a member of a college admission Board all right your your freedom was completely reduced Right all sorts of matters of personal discretion But now matters for government intervention So this is all to fight racism But the government was now authorized to act against racism even if there's no evidence of any specific racist intent or racist behavior So this is an opening to arbitrary government power and once arbitrary power is conferred Doesn't matter much what it's conferred for and so you have growing skepticism about civil rights Spreading widely in the american public So commentary magazine commissioned harvard political scientist james q wilson a native californian to write a guide to reagan country in 1966 when ronald reagan was elected governor of california And wilson right i did not intend here to write an apology for reagan even if i thought like that which i don't I would never write it down anywhere my colleagues at harvard might read it read it So intellectual seldom wrote that honestly at the time After decade later his harvard colleague neithin glaser wrote members of white ethnic groups say we worked hard We suffered from discrimination. We made it. Why don't they blacks retort? You came after us We're nevertheless favored above us given all the breaks both when we were in slavery and ever since It's a question that cannot be asked without arousing emotions so strong one wonders Just how far scholarship will be allowed to go in this issue? And one of the first casualties in the affirmative action regime was truth Right at the simplest level affirmative action meant discarding prevailing notions of neutrality To instead redistribute educational employment opportunities on the basis of race The affirmative action requires the use of race as a socially significant category of perception representation Which is race consciousness, which isn't that racism. So half a decade into the civil rights revolution america had something it never before had at the federal level an explicit system of racial preferences Which is not how the civil rights movement was sold And post-eclaire's biden understanding of the second amendment to be false He has continued to make the same false assertion over and over again Yeah, of course because if you say a lie long enough and you say loud enough people will believe it Now biden has moved on to the civil war and his revisionism is about a subtle assurance scorched march to the sea The civil war did not end federalism or states rights and denied the right to say to succeed and ultimately fulfilled the pledge To equality first made of the declaration of independence. So there we have the proposition nation This is kind of you know miles missing. It didn't end federalism or states rights This is that Lincoln didn't end these things. Well, it did ultimately it did If you can't leave you don't really have federalism if you can't Use the mechanism of the constitution to protect the state You don't really have federalism anymore and it was just a matter of time You're saying that it didn't end federalism when the congress actually booted states out of the union created military districts So you can't do x y and z of course it ended federalism Oh, but whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, we had federalism after that We did until the court using this expansive understanding of the 14th amendment, which by the way came at the end of the war The states really don't have any powers anymore that we can overrule them We have a federal negative of state laws. What do you think happened? And of course this proposition nation That would have been news to the founding generation and how this would work One can have good faith disagreements on whether the use of racial criteria is constitutional term of action or unconstitutional racial discrimination However, biden is belittling our prior struggles for equality with these sweeping and erroneous claims And his interview the president also insisted that one has to look at how it's ruled on a number of issues that are have been precedent for 50 60 years sometimes and that's what I meant by not normal In reality, the court's decision on affirmative action and education has been muddled and inflicted for decades In 1977 in regions of the university of california b b bachy the court barred affirmative action and higher education However, it allowed some consideration of race as part of holistic holistic emissions process The decades that followed the court remained sharply invited by 2003 The court was ready to issue the very decision that it issued this week However, in grutter of the bolinger than just as santerdale connor supplied the fifth vote to uphold the use of race by the university of Missioning yellow connor wrote the court expects that 25 years from now Okay, let's get some bright with that a hand on the constitutional crisis of 1776 that is the key to all of this The american war for independence was a constitutional revolt And so let me get into that today because I think this is the key to understanding the entire situation leading up to independence in 1776 And not just that understanding the us constitutional structure Because we've had two constitutions for the general government. One is the articles of confederation The other is a constitution for the united states And it is the constitution for the united states and that's very important because that's what it says in the text We often say is the united states constitution. No, it's the constitution for the united states So we have these two constitutions for the general government Of course, we have all these state constitutions too, but the important thing to understand about the entire lead up to the war In the 10 years that precipit preceded the war and then the period after the war And of course putting the declaration within context as well And i'm going to talk about that in thursday's podcast and is the declaration the key to understanding american government I'm going to say yes and no, but i'm going to talk about a book that has to deal with that So it's the key to understanding all of these things this relationship between the british crown and the parliament the colonies Is the key to understanding our entire federal structure in america And there's a particular book that focuses on this issue and it's entitled the constitutional origins of the american revolution It's written by the eminent historian jack green He's a great colonial historian and this book was actually published by cambridge university press You can get in paperback form. Um, it's not very old. I can't remember the exact publication date. Let me look on it here It was published in 2011 So not that long ago about six years ago now, but it is an excellent book And I think one of the best for really getting to the heart of what was going on here in 1776 and 1775 and in the year Okay, there's a terrific new book out about the british origins Of the american constitution life liberty and the pursuit of happiness review america's british creed The declaration of independence marked america's rejection of england's hegemony Even while the new nation claimed ideals that were born in london by dominic green june 30th 2023 1141 a.m eastern time The use of the american republic is one of its oldest traditions Its unique origins will always make it younger than any other nation Yet the united states is also the world's oldest democracy Britain in the time of george the third was a liberal monarchy, but britain democratized only by degrees in the 19th century france was neither liberal nor democratic before the revolution of 1789 and the french are now on their fifth republic The american ideal of democratic self-governance looks ever more exceptional as it creaks toward its 250th birthday Britain has a kind of old-fashioned pseudo constitution and accumulation of legal precedent and patchwork legislation Standing on unwritten assumptions and topped by a hollow crown americans were the first to spell out their social contract and specify the rights of individuals in plain english But what did the magic words of the declaration of independence life liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean to their authors History is best written by the losers in life liberty and the pursuit of happiness Britain and the american dream peter more a historian who teaches at oxford shows how britain exported its highest ideals to the americans who rejected it mr. Moore breaks the american creed into three sections and examines each in context life explores how benjamin franklin embodied colonial intellectual potential in the 1740s and how he developed in london in the 1750s and 1760s liberty shows how the london rabblerser john wilkes catalyzed the politics of liberty in the 1760s and why he resonated so loudly in the colonies Happiness explains what the enlightenment blend of action and emotion meant in england in the early 1770s And how americans understood it on the cusp of their reinvention Bible reading made colonial americans perhaps the most literate population on the planet But the life of the american mind was rooted in london In 1740 philadelphia was the colony's leading city with a modern street grid and a handy location on the post road between boston and charleston But its population of 10 000 was half that of bristol in england london's coffeehouse culture and periodicals such as adison and steel short-lived spectator with the templates for benjamin franklin Self-improving junta book club his pennsylvania gizette and the almanac that he published under the pseudonym richard saunders All american roads led to london and back A london printer william stray hand supplied british news for the pennsylvania gizette Stray hands protégé gave it hall emigrated to philadelphia and worked in franklin's print shop In 1747 franklin retired from trade passed the shop to hall and commissioned his coming out portrait as a gentleman franklin scientific studies were not just an expression of practical polymathy england's aristocracy of the mind were fascinated by science When franklin went to london in the 1750s his electrical speculations were his calling card Meanwhile in london stray hand was printing samuel johnson's dictionary in installments johnson was writing his own one-man periodical the rambler franklin launched johnson in america Publishing excerpts in poor richards almanac though stray hand linked the leading minds of american and british letters franklin and johnson's division of perspectives anticipated the parting of imperial ways franklin presented himself carefully playing the gentleman in philadelphia for his london correspondence Just as he would later play the noble savage for peresian admirers during the american revolution johnson was a tick-ridden social bumbler franklin was irreligious but believed in progress johnson a prayerful anglican thought that all changes of itself in evil Mr. Moore describes their differences in the 1750s as liberalism against conservatism But neither of those terms existed in those happy days before everyone had an ideology The only word that made the king and his ministers sit up and think hard about america Mr. Moore writes was france and that made the colonists want more of britain than less of it The seven years war 1756 to 1763 brought london and the colonists together But the subsequent tax burden demonstrated how unequal the relationship was americans began to sour on the distant mother country especially after george the third and his ministers tried to ruin john wilkes Wilkes was a radical journalist a defender of free speech a well connected wig parliamentarian and possibly the ugliest man in england In 1763 george the third demanded his trial for libeling the prime minister Wilkes won his case raised the ante by issuing a pornographic and blasphemous poem and then skipped the country He returned won a seat in parliament and was imprisoned in 1768 The london mob cried wilkes and liberty and rioted the army in a prequel to the boston massacre fired into the crowd The wilkes saga helped convince the colonists that george the third wanted absolute tyranny The continuities with modern populism are obvious In 2016 just after the british had voted to leave the european union I asked nigel farage one of the architects of brexit to name his political hero His answer was not churchill or thatcher but wilkes likewise donald trump's rhetoric of deep state conspiracies echoes that of the sons of liberty No wonder the french see modern british and american politics as an anglo-saxon continuum Just as it was when franklin first set sail for london Liberty was the single word uniting freeborn britons including those in the americas Liberty like the british state was patriotic and protestant Wilkes invoked its origins in the magna carta the anglican church the glorious revolution of 1680 and the bill of rights passed by parliament in 1689 As voltaire saw when he fled to london in the 1720s liberty was simply the english way of life Freeborn britons knew liberty when they saw its enemy a monarchical despotism and religious obscurantism of potpourri exemplified by france londoners daniel defoe wrote were stout fellows that would spend their last drop of blood against potpourri That do not know whether it be a man or horse the same one in the colonies The apprentices of boston held an anti-caplic revel on november 5th every year Pope's day which british still celebrate as guy fox day when the quavek act of 1774 Legalized catholicism in canada the congress called this decision in politic unjust and cruel as well as unconstitutional As late as 1826 thomas jefferson dog whistled that the declaration had burst the chains of monkish ignorance and superstition Mr. More does not mention the religious origins of secular liberty the anti-catholic bigotry that was then considered progressive Or the british wigs distrust of protestant enthusiasm, which they considered a kind of democratic dynamite Without this context, we cannot understand what liberty meant to wilks and franklin. Why Okay, so as far as anti-catholic bigotry If anti-catholic bigotry enables you to have a more cohesive nation because you're united around a different religious approach Right, then you are more cohesive. You have higher social trust Life will be better for most people So sometimes bigotry is adaptive now. There are other times in a multicultural situation Where bigotry may prove to be maladaptive, all right? You don't want to walk around filled with rage against outgroups if you're working amongst outgroups if your neighbors are members of Outgroups you want to have the best possible relations you can with with people in general, but Entipathy towards outgroups is an inevitable part of in-group identity. You also don't want to lack an in-group identity. So it's kind of a Fine road that you need to walk to be effective in life But there certainly is a time and a place for bigotry, right? That increases your in-group identity and creates a more cohesive and trusting society Then you're being served by your, you know, bigotry against Catholics or your bigotry against, you know, whatever outgroup you name Now as far as the regime of king george the third being a tyranny The american president today has all the same foreign policy powers as king george the third had an american president today can Go to war with any nation you can send off nuclear weapons can assassinate anyone who's not american citizen So to be a functioning democracy you have to have considerable elements of dictatorship And the united states has considerable elements of dictatorship as we saw during Covid when all sorts of rights that we just took for granted were Just disappeared overnight Right back to this terrific book by christopher cordwell the age of entitlement Talks about the civil rights model of executive orders of litigation of court ordered redress Became the basis in american life for resolving every question Pitting, you know, some new idea of fairness and equity against old traditions, right? The persistence of different roles for men and women and different roles for different groups with different gifts The moral standing of homosexuality the welcome that is due to immigrants the considerations befitting the wheelchair bound So civil rights has turned into a license for the government to do what the constitution would not previously have permitted So civil rights moved beyond the context of jim crow laws almost immediately and became The dominant constitution and dispensation in america So this new political style Was very well designed for destroying traditional institutions not so much for building new ones So jamecan board and Harvard sociologist orlanda paterson enthused in the early 1970s That civil rights represents an awesome opportunity black americans can be the first group in the history of mankind to transcend The confines and grip of a cultural heritage. They can become the most modern of all peoples People who feel no need for a nation for a past for a particular culture The style of life will be a rational and continually changing adaptation to the exigencies of survival At the highest possible level of existence So the next great cultural advance of humanity will mean the rejection of tradition and particularism Well, that's not how civil rights was sold. It's not a life that most americans want That civil rights was sold as just a toolbox of reform measures to remedy one heinous constitutional exception of jim crow laws in the south So americans thought the civil rights would be limited to jim crow laws Right, they would not have consented to it otherwise But holando paterson was one of the few who understood there were no logical grounds for limiting civil rights to desegregation And yale university law professor robert bork Saw that immigrant rights children's rights gay rights the rights of the age were not explicitly in civil rights legislation But they could be easily induced from it So the civil rights movement became a template came a new system for overthrowing the traditions That hindered black people and it became the model for overthrowing every tradition in american life Starting but not ending with the different roles for Men and women there's preceding that 1764 to 1775 that 11 year crisis that took place In the american colonies and it wasn't just in the american colonies where this was going on It was also in places like bermuda and ireland. This was the way that that british colonists looked at the british imperial system So first and foremost, how did that system work or how was it supposed to work? Now you start seeing british colonies, of course in the americas with the founding of jamestown in 1607 And i talked about that on the last podcast of the the story of the c-venture and resupplying jamestown But jamestown was the first permanent english colony in british north america But they also had other colonial interests in the caribbean Of course you had ireland, which originally was a british colony and so this imperial structure is being formed in the 17th and then into the 18th century How did the central authority meaning the parliament in london and the king deal with the colonies and then how did the colonies view themselves in relation to the parliament and the king So when you look at jamestown and you look at plemit or any of the other 13 We'll just we'll just focus on british north america. We're not going to bring in the other colonies But they all they all viewed things this way So when you look at these 13 colonies and how they were established many of them were established as proprietary colonies meaning that The crown essentially gave a proprietary company a private enterprise Land or at least a charter for land in the new world and this company went out and they footed the entire bill And they also appointed the directors and the governors and these type of things Because that was that was how the system worked. These were proprietary colonies now You did have royal colonies royal colonies were the king would then appoint the governor And the way the system worked is that these proprietary colonies almost all of them would become royal colonies by the time we got to independence in 1776 So the king would have direct control of the colonies and essentially that's how the colonists looked at the structure They actually at one point The reason they appealed to the kings because they viewed themselves as part of the king's domain right This was the royal domain parliament had no control over it So that's one part of the american war for independence is often missed one of the reasons why the colonists believed That parliament was acting unjustly or unconstitutionally is because they thought parliament really had no control over the colonies because they weren't represented in Okay, so a dramatic expansion of civil rights was into the relations between men and women And traditional moray is Recognizing that you know men and women had different gifts and they should you know be afforded different indulgences That came under attack from civil rights legislation. So Christopher cordwell has great insight into this is just a paragraph. You can call sexual morality a mythology Constructed by life-hating prudes, but they too serve an erotic function Right without some kind of external source of sexual morality such as from god from religion from tradition People who would behave in a civilized way must produce their own prudery their own sexual discipline and restraint and carry it around inside of them So men must demasculinize women must de-feminize which is you know a resort of civil rights So ray davies of the kinks wrote in his 1970s song About the glut of sensual gratifications often to a rock star. I got so many women that I wished I wasn't a man So hyper sexualization becomes a mask worn by desexualized What is thrilling fulfilling and functional about sexuality might be wrapped up in the very complex is about sexuality that can Crusaders for sexual freedom and other reformers want to get rid of so The liberal left wants to get rid of these traditional hierarchies You know traditional differences in roles between men and women between, you know aristocrats and pros between different groups They want to get rid of hierarchies around Things like sexual purity work ethic religious affiliation family pedigree ethnic benefit days And they want a new status hierarchy of liberalism rooted in cognitive elitism and kind of centered around a morality That distinguishes between those who are aware those who are woke and those who are not Those who possess the psychic maturity to accede to liberalism and those who lack it and must be reformed must be educated and must be bullied so Even people on the left have a great desire to dismiss a vast majority of Humanity is absolute rubbish or trash just unenlightened people who need to be you know bullied into becoming fit for society So conservatives see this liberal perspective is just another elaborate facade for a status hierarchy that puts liberals on top The liberals think that hey thinking people, you know the educated the thoughtful the disciplined those who see themselves as having you know overcome traditional folk ways and outdated traditions who Have a particularly disciplined and reflexive understanding of themselves and their behavior Surely these are the people who should lead These are the badges of honor that are conferred on liberals and withheld from non liberals And because the liberal left has a near monopoly on the means of cultural reproduction Right, their own kind of identity politics just pass under the radar screen It's camouflaged in this aura of hard-nosed utilitarianism, right? This is runny goodman It's terrific work in progress conservative claims of cultural oppression on the nature and origins of conservophobia But conservatives believe that they can see through this camouflage and they can see through the threat represented by liberalism to denigrate not only conservative thought but conservatives themselves So perhaps by nature many conservatives are placid compliant and respectful Most conservatives see themselves as civil patriotic americans who simply want to be left alone with their families and with their guns and with their religion So conservatives are left speechless and stupefied By the never-ending onslaught of personal attacks lies the name calling that the left rains down on them So conservatives Are aware of this cultural oppression are united in a conviction that liberalism's rational facade Conceals what is a campaign of psychological warfare? This purpose is to undermine the self-confidence conservative culture and supplant it with a liberal culture So that's why you get this profound incongruity between the good-natured innocuousness of ordinary conservatives and the venomous vitriol Which liberals would subject them Let's get a little brian mclenahan here on the 1776 project Let's talk about the topic of the day, which is the 1776 project. So the 1619 project which I addressed In a previous episode has now spawned the 1776 project This is the quote-unquote conservative reaction to the 1619 project So it was bound to happen. I mean the 1619 project for all the bad things about it. I will say this It has been An important watershed at least popular history. I mean it started a discussion that I don't personally think needed to be had Um, but it has And so you can say at least positive for the people that were involved in that they've done what they what they Saw it out to do which is get people talking about their work. I did it one time I also wrote a piece for chronicles magazine for it Because I was asked but I think the project would just go away if people would ignore it now unfortunately It's also the goal. The project is also to get the the 1619 project to get the material into school curriculum So that's where it could be problematic um overall long term but of course the 1776 project has now been produced and The goal of it as it says in this piece i'm going to read about it is a non-partisan black led response To the 1619 project initiative. Excuse me. So this is a quote-unquote non-partisan Now you see here is the problem with all of this The 1619 project is partisan It's influenced by political ideas It's influenced by a reading of history. So is the 1776 project. It's also partisan and influenced by a particular reading of history There isn't any objective history. It's a myth and I've talked about that on this podcast as well There is no objective history. It does not exist The problem with history is that most people don't admit their biases up front. So By the 1776 project saying this is non-partisan. This is objective. No, it's not it's not at all You have an agenda. You're trying to refute the 1619 project It's based on your understanding of history and your reading of it, which is a Lincolnian reading of history So That's your perspective You are being colored by your understanding of history the same thing with the 1619 project these people have an agenda It's based on their understanding of what they've read in history their worldview, which is victimhood And so they're going to write a series of essays based on victimhood. It's simple as that The problem is we don't admit this stuff up front Now if you're a student enough you can read into it and say well, yeah, these are what these people are if you So if I had a role model, all right, it might be Andrew Ridgely of of wAM Right wAM. Do you remember wAM from the mid 1980s? It consisted of uh, George Michael and Andrew Ridgely and there's a new netflix documentary about wAM And I like what Andrew Ridgely did he recognized that George Michael was overwhelmingly the most talented and you recognize that if wAM wanted to have hits that they would They would come from George Michael. And so He's happy to let the pop star life go He's happy to recognize that you know being a pop star is not his fate. I mean, how many other artists or You know gurus or youtube personalities, right? being One half of one of the biggest bands in the world after achieving all sorts of worldwide number one hits selling more than 30 million records would just give up so willingly without bitterness or resentment So as far as pop star ego and do Andrew Ridgely never had it So early on he had some discomfort about handing or songwriting duties over to George Michael But he also accepts it logically if he wants hits the better songwriter writes And so by the end of wAM He's met with endless quips over his redundant role in the band from Interviewers like Terry Wogan and Paula Yates and he just laughs them off at his final farewell concert at Wembley in 1986 He walks off humbly. I was happy for my friend. He stood on the cusp of greatness, but I didn't know what being George Michael truly meant so Andrew Ridgely just walked away from stardom and recognizing that George Michael was truly the star of wAM and uh That shows a great deal of maturity Do you read enough history? It becomes very clear from the beginning what these people are and one of the things that I was always charged with doing when I was an undergraduate and graduate student by good professors was figuring out who these people were that were writing these books For example, if you know Eric Foner is a communist, which he is you're going to understand that everything he writes comes with a communist worldview There's only one book that he's ever produced that doesn't have that worldview And that's his free soil free labor free men and that's because Eugene Genovese had a heavy hand in that particular book Now Genovese was also a communist but Genovese When that book was produced but Genovese was um a bit different in that he was Certainly a communist in the 1970s, but he was interested more in a non ideological history He was honest in many ways and so that particular book is at least honest So and I will say Foner's the second founding is is honest of what happened during reconstruction I mean there are things about Eric Foner where he's right. Okay, but you know when you read Eric Foner what you're getting And that's the important thing, you know, for example, when you read force McDonald what you're getting He's a Hamiltonian But at least he was honest when he wrote his book on Jefferson I mean force McDonald is a conservative historian. You know what you're getting This is the where understanding who these historians are makes sense and for the 1776 project to say it's non-partisan. It's a joke That's a joke Uh, you don't have objective history. There's a book by a man named Novik entitled that noble dream Looking for a subtitle something like this Yeah, peter Novik about uh objectivity and history came book came out 1988 amazing book Probably saying 40 He designed how to say about France There have been a number of protests and a number of schools and police officers have been burned in the last couple of days The triggering event is the police killed a kid. Um, I want to say it was like 15 17 something like that And so there's been the spontaneous uprising of violence We haven't seen activity like this since 2005 back then similar cause Police killed a couple of kids that were hiding from the police and it triggered riots that lasted several weeks Too soon to know if this is I know I know you want a cartoon version of reality Well, I'm going to give you three minutes of a cartoon version of reality We're going to be one of those sort of explosive protracted events But it's worth considering because France is not like a lot of other places now here in the united states We obviously have a checkered pass uh at a checkered present when it comes to issues of race And it's part of the conversation all the time And there are members of a number of minorities that are represented in governments at all level especially the national level We've even had a black president. Uh, that is not the situation in France in france, uh, they so what did having a black president do for black americans? Right a black americans better off by having had a black president and if so how so Right, it's not like france's race problems are unique or america's race problems unique these problems reproduce everywhere You go in the world that have these racial combinations They made the decision back after the revolution that ethnic conflict was so extreme that they had to redefine what the term french means So it didn't matter if you were catalan or basque or from paris or marseille or al-sation didn't matter Everyone was french now and all of the very Yeah, just imagine if uh, france got an urban youth as president that would solve so many of these problems, right? Various groups that had been part of a series of civil wars and disturbances in france going back to millennium All of a sudden were considered all of the same family And in the modern age what that means it's it's illegal Unconstitutional even to collect ethnic data on the french population And if everyone was just basque or catalan or french or al-sation that might be okay But that is not the france of today as part of the colonial legacy a number of people from their former colonies have moved to The mainland france metropolitan france and even have french citizenship In fact in some cases their great great great grandparents had french citizenship So these are not people who arrived recently but because it's illegal unconstitutional to collect any sort of racial data They exist as a sort of second class that is from the american term almost undocumented because of the racism that exists in all societies So in the case of france, they don't even know how big the racial problem is It's probably about 15 of the population is non-ethnic french Gosh, I thought if you simply didn't collect racial statistics you wouldn't have racial problems But legally french and that has institutionalized the racism in a way that we have a really hard time processing here in the united states In many cases, it's more similar to what they've got in brazil You've got an urban center where the ethnic french live that is relatively well off And then you've got a ring of suburbs that is more akin to slums Where most of the non-ethnic french who are still french citizens live And because the french can't even do the first step of collecting data in order to get a good grip on What the size of the issue is it's really hard for the government to apportion resources Outside of law enforcement So in many ways parts of france even in their major cities resemble a little bit of armed camps And that makes it very easy for violence to erupt because it's it's not a Well, wait a second out there similar Armed camps wherever you have these racial combinations any way you go in the world You cannot have civilization without walls All right, either you have natural walls such as mountains or oceans or you have to put up Artificial walls to maintain civilization when roams walls fell and the barbarians plundered Right roman civilization came to an end big reach for people who are the subject of being living in the armed camps To rebel against the people who are supposedly providing law and order now for those of you who know my work You know that i'm very bullish on france in the long run They never bet their economic much less their political system on globalization And they never integrated their economy into the european union They've always seen themselves as a step apart and that means that they've sacrificed a lot of efficiencies And a lot of the reach they could have gotten under the globalized era in order to maintain a more Nationally oriented economic So france has about the highest percentage of government spending of any major first world country of which i'm aware And yet life in france for all its problems for most of its citizens is still pretty good Like many americans are amazed at the quality of life in france when they visit System that comes at a big cost But it does mean as globalization breaks down But the french don't have that far to fall because if the e were to dissolve tomorrow and freedom of the seas Would deceased to exist next week the french economic system is largely in house They're a massive producer and exporter of agricultural products. They've got energy nearby in both the north sea and in northwest africa There are several countries removed from the ukraine war and what's going on with the russians And their primary economic competitor is also their primary political partner in the current environment And that is germany and unlike the french the germans have gone whole hog on globalization to the point that We're already seeing massive problems there when it comes to exposure to the chinese systems or the russian systems Whatever the french have none of that and then finally the french demographic is strong because there's a Neonatal sort of policy set that encourages people to have kids in large numbers giving france the healthiest demographic structure in the world outside of new zealand and Mark live in as a new book and he's a really bad historian I'll talk about that on this episode of the bryan mclean handshow I think there is an american conservative tradition, but it's not what People think it is. It's certainly not abraham lincoln and we'll talk more about lincoln this week, too But it's not abraham lincoln No, if that's conservative what we're doing because all you're doing is conserving The revolution of the 1860s, which by the way is ongoing. I mentioned it yesterday I mean, this is what these people want and the email I said not yesterday if you're on the email issue I've gotten it There were two articles back to back two days apart actually one one day apart Two consecutive days from the daily beast one saying that june jeans should not be a national holiday One saying it's a national holiday because it's a day to talk about getting the confederacy I mean nobody even knows what this thing is, but remember it was republicans who are all on board for having june jean for your holiday Why well because this is champion republicans You see these people live in this very stupid r versus d world and again That's red meat for most people walking around thinking well if we just get the democrats everything's going to be all right What are you going to give them republicans the stupid party the morons that wouldn't vote to To maintain Traditional american society if they wanted to I mean We see it all the time. We are a few good republicans that will vote to do the right thing But for the most part when when the masses go out american people and the states go out and they vote republican Unless you're talking about state and local elections, you're voting for a bunch of establishment hacks And mark levin really is showcases the mental illness in some ways that is the establishment And i'll talk about the beginning I mean i've made fun of democrats for doing this exact same thing that mark levin talks about at the beginning of this monologue It's really stupid. So let me get into it. I'm just going to read you. I'm not going to read jeff pours Little introduction to it, but just read you what mark levin had to say about this He says I really believe in fate and I believe god gives us a path to follow And hopefully we can find that path and follow it and some people do okay Well, I mean there's nothing wrong with that statement. All right. I mean that's that's vanilla Some people are athletes. Some people are professors. Some people make sure we're fed. They're farmers. They're truck drivers. You name it Well, what deep insight live in me for me the path apparently is this what's this well ladies and gentlemen I spend my weekends and my nights and early mornings doing this getting these bags under my eyes I don't sleep a lot. I just don't things worry me things concern me now Yeah, if you're falling asleep because you can't sleep because of what's going on in the world There's something wrong with you because your ability to shape what goes on in the world is severely limited and so you have to You have to have vastly exaggerated sense of your own importance right to To lose sleep over the you know the fate of the nation Why would you lose sleep over something you can't control something that's far more complex than you can even possibly comprehend About what's going on here now So he's saying my job is to come out here and talk to you about things that worry me and things that concern me And of course if you watch the video behind live in you have abraham Lincoln Now you can put any democrat there and they'd have abraham Lincoln behind him do What's the difference? You see in fact, they would they love abraham Lincoln because abraham Lincoln began the revolution He began the left wing revolution we're seeing now Of course the republicans of the 1860s wouldn't have agreed with a lot of what the left does But they began the revolution they started the process It's why I said even before that you want to go back to someone who really began the revolution before that It will be alexander hamilton But those people the centralizers began the revolution we're seeing now and it opened the door to all the things that we are Experiencing in modern american society from the center now So brian mclanahan is a big believer in federalism like Devolve as much power as possible to the states Oh, this doesn't happen everywhere else, but when you start looking at extreme centralization, which is what all these people were Then you get the culture war on steroids because the states can't do anything about it The real conservative ball works in america with the states Now use this quote over and over again Yeah, so the reason that america doesn't have the level of social welfare spending That other first world nations have is largely because america's a federalist society in a racially divided society and americans by and large They want to vote for social welfare spending for groups who are not them john c calhoun i'm a conservative and because i'm a conservative i'm a states rights man Calhoun knew what was going on the centralizers those in new england who had a whole different agenda And it wasn't just about slavery had a whole different agenda and what they had in the rest of the united states Were trying to use nationalism as cover for real sectionalism So george washington talked about over and over again the next class in the clain hand academy In fact is going to be reading george washington. I'm really excited about this class because uh, washington is so important to understand but Washington talked about factionalism over and over again in subtle ways Lincoln was a factionalist from the beginning. He wasn't concerned about the union for all He was concerned about the union for his party for his faction That's not real nationalism and what all these people are doing whether it's labin talking about the riot or the democrats on The left or the republicans on the right whatever if they're really on the right They're interested in their own faction. They're not interested in union for all a union for all would be so limited in power That the states would control all the things that we often ring our hands over that mike labin stays up nights Or mark labin. I'm sorry stays up nights worrying about his wife will tell you that I have a pad next to my bed I take notes about certain things that are going on in the country. So what does that make you special? It actually makes you mentally insane to put a notepad next to your bed to write down things that worry you about the country I mean come on There are other things more important things to worry about than that and I think well I I do sleep within a few a few feet of a notepad I often do get up in the night And jot down notes of things I want to talk about on a show or as I go through the day I'll jot down notes and put them in my pocket of things I want to talk about Most americans don't leave a notepad by their bed by their bed worrying about what happens in california if they don't live there Or worrying about what happens in massachusetts so they don't wear frankly unless you're a yankee You don't worry about what happens anywhere else in your but except in your state in your community Now I could worry about those things but more importantly I worry about my family first What's happening there not all this other stuff people should write it They have a notepad to worry about things write down things that are important to you and your family And you know you take you are what you take in and consume and this is something that you know People don't realize but when all you do is consume negativity. That's what you become People don't take the time to go around and see positive things in the world and there's a lot out there for it There's a lot of beautiful things in this world that people just don't pay attention to You want to have enough lifting time But a hummingbird feeder out your window and make your own hummingbird food if you live anywhere in your woods And you're gonna have hummingbirds and if you watch hummingbirds, it's beautiful or a bird feeder any kind of bird feeder plant some flowers Go see the ocean. These are things that are really relaxing and they ground you. There's beautiful things in this world And mark laban just rings his hands. Oh, no, what am I gonna worry about? I mean, I've talked about this before how the left does this This is it's this is shows you that mark laban really is in many ways just another form of the left They're two sides of the same coin It's okay to have an eye on what's happening and know what's going on But when you worry about things you can't control That's just ridiculous. That's mental illness when you worry about things you can't control But this is his job. He says to tell you all these things all the negativity And of course, it's the democrats that they root of all this he gets into that It's next so I know what you're thinking you're thinking 40 How did you produce such an amazing show yesterday the wet the wisdom the profundity Well, it came from these little post-it notes that I stuck in my pocket and carried around with me all day and then these notes just exploded Through the force of my personality around 6 10 p.m. Last night Line I am a voracious reader of his mostly history Well, I don't know what history he's reading but anyways, I'll get into that in a minute I'm trying to figure out what's taking place. Who's responsible for that for what and that's all well and good But I can't communicate that to you But I don't have a platform like this or radio or books and really it is all very interesting But what's the point now in some ways he's correct about that? But there is a point to this He's saying if he doesn't have a national quote unquote Radio program or television show or writing a book then what's the point in doing it? Well, there's lots of things see this is The inverse of how people should actually be thinking about these things if you read this stuff What's the point? You tell your family or if they don't want to hear it You go get involved in your school board and your in your county council or city council You go to your civics meetings go to your church you talk to people there You know how you change all this stuff you tell people about things there And as you do that more and more people will come around to what's really going on A friend of mine told me yesterday in fact we were talking about something he said, you know I was at he was given a talk to a group and he said he made a point about you know What you need to do is go out and and work in your school boards And he said these two little old ladies were sending on and she said well, you know Yeah, our local city is the one that's responsible for our textbooks. That's exactly right But mark Levin will tell you it has to happen from the republican party from the good old GOP at the center We need to get Joe Biden. It's all Joe Biden's fault Joe Biden doesn't tell you what textbooks to use in your local school At all. There's none of that. You see if you want to change things You need to make Joe Biden as irrelevant as possible. In reality, you need to make Mark Levin as irrelevant as possible Because he's a national voice. So I mean, I know people listen to this all over the All of the United States all over the world But the fact is What I try to tell you is go out and do things at the local and state level Even if you're in another country, you can still make change there if you don't have a federal system Or I know people listen to this in places. They don't have our american political system But you can still make changes And it doesn't have to be from the top down Just changing your your talent making the culture better there Living a better life being an example for people. That's a great thing And just starting to notice uh fox news puts a great deal of emphasis on the cumbly legs of its female panelists Okay, you're probably wondering what does david french have to say about christian nationalism And the uh the new right The right since 2016 And just kind of give an explainer On the differences between the old right and the new right and I think it's important because one of the things that I'm constantly shocked by Genuinely shocked is the extent to which when I talk to my progressive friends, I'm an academia So obviously the majority of my colleagues are very progressive. Um, they really have no like no clue what the new right is You know people my parents generation still think of conservatism as Reaganism So yeah old right versus new right a primer Yeah, so here's basically a very short history of like the last 10 years Because if we get too much into this you'll find out that the new right is actually the old right And the old right was the new right at a certain point. So We'll walk us through that. Yeah, so so we'll go back to about 10 years ago. So ago and when um mit romney was running for president there was a pretty You know, I would say a rigorously enforced consensus that there were three legs of the republican school That one of them was social conservatism republicans and conservatives are going to be pro-life They were going to be for pro-religious, you know, they're going to be for religious liberty The other school a leg of the school was going to be an not truly economic libertarianism in the way that kato institute would envision it Or the way reason magazine would envision it But more limited government less interference in government interference in the economy less central planning less command and control More deregulation and then the final leg of the school was going to be or was for years a strong national defense With an emphasis on international alliances and forward engagement And so that was reaganism in a nutshell and for a while Reaganism not only won The sort of internecine battles on the right it won in a route to such an extent that if you turn on fox news in say 2010-2011-2012 people like say shon hanity would be angry at any any deviation That was what a rhino was back then a rhino was if you knocked any one of those legs of this dual out And a lot of the suspicion about mit romney was that he really wasn't all on board with all three components that he Yes economic yes On the you know for deployed military and strong international alliances, but social conservatism He was suspect and so those three legs were the republican party and the conservative movement There was an enormous amount of unanimity and whenever you have a lot of unanimity you get Fossilization you get groupthink A movement that is deprived of any real intellectual diversity can become stagnant and so By 2015 or so there was actually a lot of discontent on the right That it just wasn't working that this this reaganism was not right for the time So here comes donald trump down the escalator a you know an intellectual of populace bent. No i'm kidding A man of singular personal ambition Okay, who didn't really necessarily have an ideology at all if you remember back to 2015 2016 I mean he threw a bunch of stuff against the wall. He floated single payer healthcare He said that planned parenthood did many good things He advocated ordering the military to commit war crimes And the way one of the ways that you would talk about trump and his interaction with his audience is They were drawn to him attitudinally They appreciated his combat combativeness But there was no there there as far as an ideology And so you kind of use his audience actually as a giant focus group his rally audience and what they would really cheer for He doubled down on that and what they didn't love so much. He'd leave that aside But you know, so trump was very very good quite obviously at capturing a crowd What he was not so good at was creating any kind of intellectual movement at all Well for a lot of people who had been discontent with the state of conservatism that was a giant opportunity you could Okay, this is how christopher codwell concludes his terrific 2020 book the age of entitlement In june 2015 with the presidential election heating up, right? He never mentions donald trump explicitly in this book But in june 2015 with the presidential election heating up talk show host bill marr invited a handful of journalists to discuss the future of american politics A dozen republicans well respected within the party was seeking the nomination bill marr asked one of his guests the conservative journalist and quarter Which candidate had the best chance of winning the general election? Her reply was surprising She didn't think any of them would get the nomination a self-promoting new york real estate developer However, it had announced his candidacy three days before Fearing in a manhattan office building he pretended to own Making a few off-the-cuff sounding remarks about mexican immigration How great america could be and eliciting the unanimous ridicule of the press corps Quarter stonely spoke his name Her fellow panellists seemed to think she was cracking a joke They twisted their faces into histrionic expressions of puzzlement to play along the studio audience roared with laughter That's the end of his book the age of entitlement Fill the empty vessel and so what a lot of people started to do was fill the empty vessel with actually something that was very much of the old Right the older right older than raganism. So this is going to be america first a not it's not fair to call it isolationism But a more isolationist foreign policy, which is an old strain of the right You're going to fill it with economic populism protectionism, etc Which is again an old strain of the right and then you're going to preserve the social conservatism But with more of an emphasis on state power than perhaps the old that the ragan social conservatism did So I grew up in the ragan social conservatism era Where the emphasis was on religious liberty in other words give churches freedom Give people of faith freedom and then with our words and with our actions and with the examples of our lives We can start to change the united states and we can sort of reintroduce or introduce or maintain Religious influence on the united states of america, but the social conservatism of the trump era became More authoritarian more centered around state power and but all of that's old all of that is what you would call paleo conservatism In a way, so what was what made it new wasn't so much the ideology as the temperament as the disposition So it was tying a lot of older conservative ideas To donald the personality and the character of donald trump so that the movement became to and again at no point did trump say I agree intellectually. This is the intellectually sounder approach They poured this into his movement and then imitated and began to adopt his disposition So the new rite if the old rite had an ideological axis and a temperamental axis It would be the ragan ideology the three stools and then a temperamental approach very much like that of ronald ragan of george h.w Bush of george w. Bush people who for lack of a better term could be hard-nosed political fighters But were also known as jello. I'm an colter welcome right and so what trump did is he said no to that No to that you don't need to be a good guy in fact being a good guy could be a real problem Because good guys are suckers and so what you began to see was a new rite that adopted an ideology of the paleo Right and the disposition of donald trump and so the new rite is characterized by the older rite ideology and the trump Is to disposition so that it is very very combative and pugilistic online. It is very very Okay, let's get a little here from and quarter talking with ryan cadet To you all day because well about many things all week Because we have desantis's new immigration plan or his campaign immigration. What do you think? I mean it was it was great. I mean it was everything. I thought it was going to be weirdly enough like It's strange. Remember when trump uncle like unveiled the white paper and it was so much better than I had ever expected because we never Seen something that good before um with desantis. I kind of always knew he was me so good So I read and I was like, okay good. He hit this party at this part and it was more of a did he miss anything? I was like, okay. He didn't miss anything. So that's great. Um, and I think that it was strong I think that it was a really really important. I think it was great for illegal immigration I want his legal immigration right paper now more than anything. That would be christmas in july on the Well, we know he's good on legal immigration. I was saying the same thing. What was so What was so revolutionary about trump's immigration plan is as you say No candidate had ever ever said it before that was the biggest thing Now we know it's popular Now a lot of republicans will pretend to run on many of those immigration policies And the other thing that was kind of stunning about about trump's immigration plan none of which he fulfilled We have to have a sober responsible smart adult to do that. Um, was was he He didn't really understand the issues So when he talked about it, it was just bs and bluster and then he comes out with his immigration plan that Obviously, he never read and never understood himself. But man, it was good, right? I love I mean my favorite thing right now that the campaign the trump campaign's responses because we built a wall Well, if that's true Where is it? Like where is this wall that somehow five million illegals just cross in the last two and a half years There is no wall. What are you talking? First of all, it's a fence. It's not a wall that you built Secondly, you upgraded the wall that was there and thirdly it was 56 miles 58 miles 60 miles Whatever the case says you didn't build a wall Yes, yes Yeah And and says he said on cnn and he said on two other interviews. He said I completed the wall You completed the what are you what is anyone seeing that I am not seeing and it's like that conversation You have with Pedro Gonzales last week where he said it's not like there wasn't a trump administration Ringing the arms republicans to get things done because they got the crime bill done They just never cared about this wall and they never cared immigration and that's the thing that's so frustrating So I really hope I mean just sannis really has to kick His campaign into the next year of the campaign and really start I think calling trump out by name For saying certain things I think that I think the sannis has to sit there and say donald trump did not complete a border wall point blank You could be right. I I I wanted to