 My brain is still in recovery mode from taking in so many high-level important ideas. I have to admit, Marianne Williamson, she keeps continuing to impress me. I was not feeling her at first, but she went on the debate stage and she certainly left, you know, an impression on me. I don't know if it was positive or negative, but I mean she said things that I think were endearing. She then decided to fundraise for Mike Ravel in order to help him meet the debate threshold and she just keeps going up in my book. And now she went up even higher in my book because she went on the Rubin Report and proceeded to completely dismantle his right-wing worldview. And it was absolutely glorious because I don't know if she was familiar with the Rubin Report, but it was clear that she was honestly dumbfounded by some of the idiotic things that he was saying, like she was able to call out right-wing talking points like that. And you could tell she was speechless at certain points based on the things that he said and how stupid that they were. So I've got a couple of clips for you and there's a lot here, but first I want to show you a clip where she responded to something that he said that was obviously pretty weird. So they were talking about reparations for American descendants of slavery and she was talking about how healthy it's been for German society to atone for the crimes that were committed against German Jews during the Holocaust. And she thoroughly lays out all the crimes that the United States government committed against black Americans, from slavery to Jim Crow to redlining. But Dave Rubin then tries to challenge her on that point and he posits that, you know, maybe it's not acceptable for us to compare, you know, the Holocaust to slavery. Watch her response here because I think it's going to speak for pretty much everyone who knows what Dave Rubin is about. I mean, a couple of times you're referencing the genocide of the Jews to slavery seems like a little bit of a slippery slope there, no? I don't even know how we can say that actually and I say that as a Jew. If you read up much on slavery, we're talking abject slavery, Dave. I mean, nobody's in a contest, nobody has a monopoly on human suffering. This was abject slavery. And also if you started slavery in 1619 and you had two and a half years, two and a half centuries and then at the end there were four to five million enslaved people, do you realize generation after generation how many millions of people were talking about? She was genuinely baffled by his ignorance, baffled by it. Like he is probably of the mind that, look, we abolished slavery, we freed the slaves and now they're free, spread your wings and fly, but life isn't that simple. Life isn't that simple, discrimination doesn't just go away, it still exists. There was still very explicit discriminatory policies against black and brown people in this country. This shouldn't have to be explained to someone who's a political commentator, you should just know it. But the fact that he doesn't know it and he clearly did not read up on the history of slavery, I mean, that speaks to Marianne's response there. She was weirded out. I don't really have anything to add because her reaction there said everything that I wanted to say. But moving on, there was a point where he straw manned members of the Democratic Party who are running for president and this is a straw man of the left in general. Whenever the issue of immigration comes up, the right straw man says, oh, will you support open borders? When I mean, you can never find an example of a lefty talking about open borders. So she acknowledges that and then shuts it down immediately. It seems like everyone's kind of veering to some version of open borders, that that's somehow something kind of. No, Dave, no. You say you're a Democrat. Where do you get this? Well, I don't consider. You say I'm a Democrat. No, I don't consider myself a Democrat anymore. No, I have not heard. I don't consider myself a Republican, but I'm definitely not a Democrat. I have not heard. I have not heard. One candidate. Well, they won't say it. But the policies seem to be. So, oh, you don't say it. But you really, I mean, is that, is that healthy, honorable debate? You say it. If you believe it. I don't believe it. You can have healthy. No, I take them at their word. And it seems to me that the policies ultimately are. Why? Why? If you say we should have proper security at the border, but that is going to take, remember the president has closed a lot of the ports of entry. That is what has created so much of the squeeze here, because he's closed so many of the of the border entry points. Of course we need, we need border enforcement. Now, right before they got to that part of the conversation, Dave Rubin was talking about how healthy it is to have this debate, you know, from people who have different opinions on things. And then she took it and threw it right back in his face when he proceeded to straw man members of the left. She said, is that healthy and honorable debate, Dave? That was absolutely brilliant. And then Dave Rubin tried to justify his claim that Democrats support open borders by saying, look, I take them at their word. And it seems to me that the policies ultimately are dot, dot, dot. What? What are the policies that suggest they support open borders? Because there's no policy from anyone running for president or anyone in Congress, I'd argue that supports open borders. So name a policy that you think would facilitate open borders. Name one, name a single policy, Dave. You can't do it. And he says, I'm going to take them at their word and then admits that he's not taking them at their word because he looks at their policies and the policies are really telling you that they support open borders. So do you take them at their word or do you look at the policies? Which one? Because what you're saying is contradictory, but he doesn't even realize it. And I think that this just speaks to the stupidity of Dave Rubin. Now, I haven't seen like a long form discussion with Dave Rubin, I think, since the David Pakman interview. But I mean, listening to him speak, and I watched the whole thing. It really is insufferable. He clearly doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. And it's not just that he's uneducated and ignorant about the issues that he's supposed to know about, given that he's a political commentator. But he also asked just downright weird questions to Mary Ann. Case in point. Do you want to be president or do you want to be sort of like a, like that there should almost be like a side thing next to president, sort of. Like we're we're in the, you know, in many other countries, there's a president and a prime minister where there's sort of. We have a constitution. I'm fine with the constitution. So I'm not suggesting we alter the constitution. No, I mean that I actually mean that more spiritually, where a lot of the things you're talking about may be a person who's running for president. Do you actually want to be president or would you rather be, you know, sort of a side thing? What's a side thing? And then he gives the example of countries that have presidents and prime ministers. So I think that the word he was looking for when he said side thing was head of state. And yes, it is true that there are countries with presidents and prime ministers, but Dave, those are parliamentary systems where the president oftentimes will serve as the role of head of state. That's how Turkey was for a long time until it was reformed by Erdogan. So like he literally doesn't know what a head of state is. Like, how are you a political commentator? How do you have a million subscribers when you don't know basic things? Why would she be running to be a side thing when if you are elected president, part of the job is that you also serve as head of state, which just means you are a glorified representative of the United States. I mean, what a weird question of all the questions that you can ask a presidential candidate, that's what he comes up with. What? That's so stupid, Dave. Do you not understand how you sound? That's so stupid. What the fuck? I mean, it's bizarre, but that's not the only time where he said something that was completely bizarre. You know, I know billionaires who say sounds right to me. I know a billionaire who said to me living in this town who once said to me, my taxes are so low, it's obscene. And what's why why does he need the government to do something with his money? Correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems like you're asking Mary Ann Williamson why the government does stuff. Is that literally what you're asking her? Why does the government have to do something with the money from billionaires? Because they're not just going to voluntarily give up their wealth. So you have to take it from them and then redistribute that. But in his ideal libertarian scenario, you know, they would just willy nilly voluntarily give up their wealth. But what he doesn't realize is that even if billionaires were not greedy and they chose to subvert government and distribute their money back to their communities, that would be an incredibly complex, complicated process, which would require them to form some sort of organization and determine, you know, what's the best way to redistribute their wealth, which would require some type of structure, which then requires a type of leadership situation and a hierarchy. But then how do you determine who gets what? But wait, doesn't that sound familiar? Doesn't it seem like we've come full circle? And now, even if in your ideal scenario, that sounds a lot like governance. I mean, yes, governments do stuff, Dave. That's what they do. Their goal is governance. That's what governments do. Like he doesn't even seem to have an elementary understanding of the way that things work. And it's just it's perplexing that you can have that big of a platform and be that ignorant to basic details about political systems. Like he doesn't know what a head of state is, presumably. He's literally asking a presidential candidate, hey, why does government does stuff? What? He then goes on to challenge this idea that, you know, maybe governments shouldn't compel businesses to raise the minimum wage. And then Marianne Williamson again, proceeds to give him a rhetorical beatdown. So if I wanted to hire somebody here, just a PA or somebody to fill water glasses and things, you would want the government to be able to tell me to tell my company, you know, because we're in Los Angeles and you can afford $15 an hour, theoretically. Well, right. But it's not about what I can theoretically afford. Yes, it is. How is that? So if I because I have tons of people that would love to work for me for free. We pay our interns. I don't have I don't want anyone. I pay 100 percent of all my employees health insurance. I don't want anyone to work for me for free. But the idea that the government could come in if I wanted to pay someone say $12 because I could have several people do it for free. The idea that the government could come in and tell me something like fast food restaurants. OK. Yeah. So 20 years ago, somebody worked at a fast food restaurant as a after school, you know, they were young people. Today, this is how people pay their bills and have to have two and three jobs. There are. But if you force those companies to pay those people, aren't they just going to replace those people with iPads? I mean, we see that happening now. This is mentally exhausting. If you force those companies to pay people more, aren't they just going to replace those workers with iPads? Dave, you're a capitalist. Do you not even understand how the system that you shill for works? I mean, to believe that you would suppose that, you know, these companies, if you make them pay their employees a higher wage, then they're going to retaliate and then they're just going to lay people off. They're going to say, you know what, I'm going to punish you by laying you off now, since I have to pay you more. And now I'm going to replace you with an iPad. Ha ha. Oh, what's that? You want to unionize and demand more? Well, I'm just going to automate away your job. If you do that peasant, I mean, that's not how capitalism works. The goal is to maximize profits. So they're going to replace workers. It's inevitable with iPads. If they believe that they can do that and it will be profitable for them, they're not going to do that as a means of protesting against a minimum wage increase, regardless, if government raises the minimum wage or not, they're going to automate away as much jobs as they possibly can because their behavior is driven by the desire to always increase profits. That's the way that capitalism has and always will work. It's why companies like Activision Blizzard, for example, they raked in record profits and then they still laid off 800 employees. It's because they wanted to make even more money after making a shit ton of money. I mean, this is what a capitalist system incentivizes. So to suggest, oh, well, you know, we don't want to do too much in terms of regulation because these companies might be spiteful and automate away these jobs. No, they're going to automate away the jobs, regardless of what government does and does not do. Because if they believe that they will make more money by automating away jobs, that's exactly what they are going to do, regardless of if we increase or decrease the minimum wage, which seems like is what you want. Now, he makes all these right wing libertarian arguments, but he still has the audacity to laughably say this. No, believe it or not, I actually consider myself a liberal. Sure, Jan. Oh, give it a rest already. I mean, nobody believes that you're a liberal. Functionally speaking, you are not liberal. You're not left wing. And I get it. This is a grift. You make more money and you cultivate more legitimacy if you say that you are left wing, but I'm criticizing the left. Like it makes it seem as if you're someone who's being introspective and cares about the left. But I mean, in order to maintain that facade, there has to be a certain line that you draw for yourself that you don't cross, meaning if I cross into this territory too much, people might suspect that I'm not actually a liberal. And not only did you cross that line, you veered way off to the opposite side. I mean, you're teaming up with Prager, you turning point USA. These are organizations that are funded by right wing billionaires. The Rubin report teamed up with Learn Liberty, which is funded by the Koch brothers. I mean, how can you possibly still with the straight face say I'm liberal after you have lived your life as a conservative for the past two, three years? I mean, give it a rest. Nobody believes you. Nobody believes you. The grift has to be believable in order to continue. But at this point, you just need to own that you're conservative because you are. But he still till this day gets triggered whenever somebody calls him conservative. And he said it twice during this interview. He said, no, I'm actually a liberal. OK, Dave, sure, Jan. Now, I want to get to the final part, which is probably my favorite clip here because he's going to promote this idea that small government is inherently superior. And Marianne Williamson, though, is going to come through and totally dismantle that naive idea in a matter of minutes. And what she did here was just artful. I give money to poor people when I can and I volunteer when I can and things that I do at sort of the personal level. But that it seems like a lot of the answers that are coming out from everybody on the Democratic side right now are just that the government should do these things. And I would me personally would always be leery of the government because the government is the people that put people in slavery. The government is the thing that that exterminated six million Jews, et cetera, et cetera. So my preference would always be that we're always taking power away from the government, we're giving the government less money so that it will spend less and do less things so that we can do all of those things in our personal lives. And I wish I heard more from the Democrats about that sort of thing. There is a healthy skepticism that anyone should feel, any American to feel left or right towards government overreach. And leftist feel just as much as you do. It just tends to be in different places. OK, stay out of our bedroom, et cetera. OK. So healthy skepticism about overreach by government. But let's not kid ourselves, Dave. The people we're talking about government doing less today aren't saying small government. They're saying, let's just give the money to corporate control. So whereas you're saying you don't want overreach by government, I'm saying what it has turned into in this country, it's code. Less overreach by government has turned into huge overreach by corporate forces. So all the money that you're saying, well, I don't want the government to do that. All that money just been marched over to short-term profit maximization for health insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies and gun manufacturers and chemical companies and fossil fuel companies and defense contractors. Their overreach, the overreach of this new matrix of corporate overlords is, to me, to be feared just as much as overreach by government. So you think that's something? And by the way, no amount. You talked about how you give no amount of private charity. And we always need private charity and government can't do everything nor should government do everything. But no amount of private charity can compensate for a basic lack of social justice. You know, you can give a million dollars and it's also wonderful. But basically, because of our tax structure, billions are going to the same situation that makes it so difficult for that person so that just dropping a million dollars into a charity. It helps, but it doesn't in any way change the fundamental pattern of injustice. I was thoroughly impressed by Mary Ann Williams in here. She said, quote, the people saying small government should do less today aren't saying small government. They're saying, let's just give the money to corporate control. Exactly. Because if you truly are arguing in favor of smaller government in a capitalist system, then you're not getting rid of tyranny. You're just trading it for a different type of tyranny. You're saying, I want large multinational corporations to handle the job of government, which is governance. And the problem with that is, see, government is at least accountable to people. You can vote and you can argue and debate about how powerful that makes you in a democratic society. But nonetheless, you can still exercise some level of power, which means that you have accountability over government. But when it comes to Nike or Amazon or Comcast, we don't elect members on their board. We have no say. So you're not getting rid of tyranny and authoritarianism if you reduce the size of government. You're just trading it for a different type of governance that I would argue is a lot more harmful. But see to him, he simplifies the view of the world like to him, good governance and crafting public policy isn't necessarily all of these complicated interrelated things. It's just a matter of determining how big government should be on any given political issue. You see, on this issue, I think that we should adjust the size of the government scale to a six. We'll make it that big. And on this other issue, let's reduce it to a two. Let's make it really small there. I mean, intelligent people realize that good public policy and making good public policy is a lot more complicated than that. But Dave Rubin doesn't get that. To him, big government versus small government is the entirety of the discussion when it comes to politics. You can reduce all of politics down to the size of government to Dave Rubin. He's like a twelve year old. He's so naive, but I'll end it there. You know, there were other things that I want to show you. He literally had the audacity to ask her if Trump deserves credit because he changed his mind about bombing Iran and she shut that down. And there was so much. It was difficult to single out just a couple of clips because I could talk about this entire interview and just do an entire humanist report episode on this alone. But we have to cut it off somewhere. This video is already way too long. And we'll leave that there. Marianne Williamson, completely and utterly dismantled Dave Rubin's libertarian worldview in less than two minutes. Brilliant. Well played, Marianne. Keep up the good work. Mike is a total loser, so don't hit the subscribe button, OK? And whatever you do, folks, do not hit the notification bell either. Mike treats me so unfairly.