Our first speaker today is a gentleman who has appeared on Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch, if any of you are familiar with that program. He recently testified on Capitol Hill in Ron Paul's subcommittee meeting and had a fairly spirited sparring match with the brightest of minds in Washington. He is a senior faculty member for the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He's been doing work for us for two to three decades. He's been around for a long time. Holds a PhD from Virginia Tech. He's written a number of books. If you don't know the real story behind Lincoln, he tells it in The Real Lincoln. Lincoln Unmask. He has a book, I think, on Hamilton, you know, that great guy, Hamilton. And so he pretty much rips the facade off these old, all these old guys that sent America the wrong way. So he's a wonderful speaker, a wonderful friend of the Institute, author of two essays in reassessing the presidency. He's going to talk about the Agricultural University Complex, Destroying Agriculture for 80 Years, Tom DeLorenzo. Thank you all for coming and thanks to the Weaver family for supporting us in this event. I'm glad to see the 14 of those students here. And when I was asked to participate in this, I haven't written that much about agriculture, as far as that goes. But the first thing that came into my mind was the work of someone who was probably the best free market economist who was writing, who has written over the past several decades on agriculture and agricultural economics. His name is E.C. Passore. Those were his initials, E.C. If you look them up on the web, P-A-S-O-U-R is how he spells his name. And I've never met E.C. I've read a lot of his writings. Some people call him Eddie. Some people call him Zeke. I don't know how they get Zeke out of E and a C, but that's sort of a nickname. And so I thought, since I'd read a lot of his writings, I thought the topic I would give would be the relationship between sort of the academic support system for the government's farm programs and the effect of that academic support system for the government's farm programs. But the first thing I want to do, though, is give you a little historical perspective from my perspective. Does anyone here happen to know which president, which American president, started the U.S. Department of Agriculture? I know a few people I talked to last night knew. What did I guess? FDR now? I don't know. It was Abe Lincoln. If you look up the USDA on the Internet, you'll find out during the Lincoln administration that the Department of Agriculture was created. Those were the land-grant universities. It was a politician from Vermont named Moral, who was also the author of the Moral Tariff, M-O-R-R-I-L-L, Tariff, around the same time, who started the business of the government giving hundreds of acres of land to the states for state universities, like one of my alma modders, Virginia Tech, to be an agricultural college. And so that was the beginning of it. From the very beginning, my interpretation of this was sort of an interventionist scam because look at Mr. Moral, Justin Moral, he was responsible, the sponsor of the Moral Tariff Act, which more than doubled tariff rates in the United States. And high tariffs had always been disproportionately harmful to farmers, especially because American farmers have always exported a lot. And at this particular time, the Southern farmers were exporting about three-fourths of everything they grew to Europe mostly, and Midwestern farmers were exporting a lot, too. So there's always been a discriminatory effect on farmers. And let me try to explain the economics of it to you, of how high tariffs discriminate against farmers by quoting the late Milton Friedman. A lot of you probably know who Milton Friedman was, you've heard of Milton Friedman. He wrote this famous book with his wife called Free to Choose in 1980. And the students in the class, I would recommend that you read this book sometime, there's students in the room. And so here's a short passage on how people who export things are disproportionately harmed by tariffs, which are taxes on imports. And of course, farmers would be included in there. They wrote this, if tariffs are imposed on, say, textiles, and there's a tax on textile goods coming into America, that will add to output and employment in the textile industry. However, foreign producers who can no longer sell their textiles in the United States earn fewer dollars. They will have less to spend in the United States. Exports will go down to balance the decreased imports. And so one of the laws of economics is that tax on imports ends up being a tax on exports as well. So if you're in the exporting business, a tariff on the stuff coming into the country will eventually hurt you, or hurt your business. And farmers understood this in the 19th century. Another book that I would highly recommend, I don't think we have it here today because we have sort of a truncated sales list of books here. But it's called The Income Tax, Rude of All Evil by Frank Chaturow. It's one of the great titles of an economics book. And there's a passage in there where Chaturow is talking about the plight of Midwestern farmers during this time of the late 19th century with the high tariff policy that was put in beginning with the moral tariff. Here's what he said. The plight of these farmers, Midwestern farmers, was made worse by the protective tariff policy of the government. The best they could get for their products was the competitive world price while manufacturers they bought from the east were loaded down with duties. The populists clamored, therefore, for lower tariffs. So the Midwestern farmers understood that they were being ripped off by this high tariff policy. And so when the USDA was founded during the Lincoln administration, at the same time, tariffs were doubled, I look at it as Uncle Sam walking up to a farmer and handing him a penny and saying, here, this is from your government, aren't you lucky? Here's a penny. And while he's handing him the penny, he's reaching around into his back pocket and pulling out his wallet with $10,000 in it. And then the farmer walks away saying, thank you, Uncle Sam, for the penny. And that's how I view the creation of the US Department of Agriculture and the land grant system during the 1860s because the harm done to farmers by the high tariff policy was lasted until 1913, until the income tax came in. I think far exceeded any conceivable benefit from government bureaucrats talking to farmers about which kind of seeds to plant, which is pretty much what the USDA did for a long time, as though they needed that. And so that was the beginning of interventionism. And the farmers seemed to understand economics pretty well back then. They were businessmen, after all. But there was sort of a change in the type of interventionism, as far as I can tell, beginning with Herbert Hoover. And it wasn't just sort of technical assistance, subsidizing university research and so forth. There was pretty dramatic interventionism in agriculture. And it was Herbert Hoover who started the federal farm boards that established what were called stabilization corporations that were supposed to control farm surpluses and to prop up farm prices to make farm prices go higher. In other words, it was illegal cartel. You know, the antitrust laws, the first federal antitrust law, was passed in 1890, which outlawed what the government called conspiracies and restraint of trade. But by the time you get to the 1920s, the late 1920s, here's the president organizing illegal cartel to help farmers. And look at who was on the federal farm board. The federal farm board, the whole purpose was to push up prices of food. Here are some of the people who are on this board who controlled food production and prices. Let's see, there's James Stone of the Tobacco Growers Association, Carl Williams of the Cotton Farmers Cooperative Association, C.B. Denman of the National Livestock Producers Association, C.C. Teague of the Fruit Growers Exchange, William F. Shilling of the National Dairy Association, and Samuel McKelvie, a lobbyist for grain farmers. And so this is similar to what happened with the railroad industry in the late 1800s, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was created. The first supposedly to protect consumers from railroad monopolies, the first head of that was a railroad industry president. And so of course, the thing benefited the railroad corporations, not the consumer. And the same sort of model was used by Herbert Hoover to form a legal government-run cartel for the benefit of farmers. And so this was the business where farmers were paid for not growing crops and for not raising livestock. My old friend, Walter Williams, the syndicated columnist who sometimes guest host the Rust Limbaugh shows. I've been reading his columns for 30 years and one of my all-time favorites was when Walter read in a newspaper that Sam Donaldson, the former ABC Newsman, used to cover the White House during the Reagan administration. He owns a sheep ranch in New Mexico and he received a check for $200,000 for not raising sheep on a sheep ranch. And Walter, in his column, wrote the column in the form of a deer IRS letter. And it said, deer IRS, I also do not raise sheep on my property, where's my $200,000? And that's one of Walter's most memorable columns ever, I think. And so here's Herbert Hoover condemning wheat farmers for profiteering, how awful profiteering and harshly criticized the evils of overproduction. This was sort of something that was going on in the academic world in these days. There were a lot of economists and others who were condemning what they called excessive duplication, which is just another word for competition. And so they use the euphemisms for competition like overproduction and excessive duplication. I suppose you could say, since we have Toyota and Volvo and Dodge and Chevrolet and all this, there's excessive duplication of cars. But who would think that that's a bad thing, that we have competition in the car industry? But they were saying this about agriculture. Here's something that Murray Rothbard concluded in one of his books where he wrote about Herbert Hoover. This is his book, America's Great Depression, summarizing Herbert Hoover's efforts. He said, the grandiose stabilization effort of the federal farm board failed ignominiously. Its loans encouraged greater production, adding to its farm surpluses. So it created farm surpluses, which overhung the market, driving prices down, even though its policy was to drive prices up. The FFB thus aggravated the very farm depression that it was supposed to solve. With the FFB generally acknowledged failure, President Hoover began to pursue the inexorable logic of government intervention to the next step, where that is recommending that productive land be withdrawn from cultivation, that crops be plowed under, and that immature farm animals be slaughtered, all to reduce the very surpluses that the government itself had brought into being. And so from the very beginning, government intervention in agriculture has been one big Rube Goldberg machine, not too dissimilar from the Soviet style central planning in agriculture, which Yuri Maltsev is gonna talk to us about. In fact, Roosevelt's top, when you get the Roosevelt, his top economic advisor for the duration of his administration was a man named Rexford Tugwell from Columbia University. And he wrote a book in 1930 on the American economy, in which he praised the Soviet central planners to the treetops. And he thought it was the wave of the future, and he boasted that we Americans will show these sloths how to do it. We'll show them how central planning works. And I have to think that his advice had something to do with what FDR eventually did. And so speaking of FDR, if you look up on the web, there's all sorts of information on FDR on the web. And if you wanna search around and find his role in agriculture, he pretty much continued what Hoover started. And here's one description of what FDR did. I think it's pretty accurate. It says, when FDR was elected as president, he appointed Henry Wallace as his Secretary of Agriculture. In 1933, Wallace drafted the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the AAA. The AAA paid farmers not to grow crops and not to produce dairy produce, such as milk and butter. It also paid them not to raise pigs and lambs. The money to pay the farmers for cutting back production above about 30% was raised by attacks on companies that bought the farm products and processed them into food and clothing. So the consumers were hit twice, once with higher prices caused by the 30% supply reduction. And then a second time, when a lot of these taxes were passed on to the customers of the companies that distributed the food. And so that was FDR's start in this whole business. And so what was going on here is similar to what was going on in the late 19th, early 20th century in a lot of industries in America. The Americans were basically adopting a European-style fascism as their economy. The Europeans, the Germans and the Italians especially, had intentionally created cartels of various sorts and run them under the sharp control of government bureaucrats. When the businesses, they were ostensibly private, would fail, they would be bailed out. The big bailouts were an essential ingredient of European fascism from an economic perspective. And we were essentially doing something very similar here in the United States with agriculture and manufacturing, especially during Roosevelt's era. The National Recovery Act was pretty much the same thing, government organized cartel system. And there are two good books that talk about this. One of them is called, In Restraint of Trade by Butler Schaefer. And the other is The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Colco, KOLKO, to talk about how big business in particular was very active in seeking government intervention. Because the bigger businesses understood that they could work the system, but this interventionism would probably be very harmful to their smaller competitors, but good for them. And what was going on in farming seemed to be similar to this. And so the main effects of all this, in the name of stabilizing farm incomes, I think has not been so much to stabilize incomes, but to create greater inequality because the government farm programs benefit primarily larger agricultural corporations because of the way this program is set up. And so it pretty much guarantees that the larger corporations involved in agriculture will do very well. And then there's, I have in my notes here, the price support ripoff. The government for a long time had price supports on a lot of farm products, but this is politically risky because every once in a while the public would get wind of the fact that the reason why certain food items have gone up is that the government has forced them up. And so if you're a politician and you get caught having voted to raise the price of food, that's not a good thing for you. And so they've tried all sorts of subterfusions to try to hide essentially the same kind of thing. In fact, one of the reasons for price supports in the first place is that it's even worse to a politician if you're getting caught just literally giving cash to farmers or to anybody. Taxpayers are gonna say, why are you giving my money to this multi-billion dollar corporation, that's a food distributor or something like that. But if you can manipulate the system in terms of making the price higher of the thing that they sell, the average consumer is not gonna really know about that. But sometimes the consumers do even catch on with that. And one example is an article I read several years ago on Mises.org called Farm Derobbery. And there was an article in USA Today that caught my eye as a good example of this. It was about the cotton business. And there was a picture of a cotton farmer from Texas on the front page of USTA Today, USA Today.   So this guy, he looked just awfully happy. And it sort of caught my eye. I looked at his USA Today and it was this guy with big bales of cotton and a big smile on his face. And so I picked my interest enough to read what he was smiling about. And he was participating in a government program that said this. It said that the government would guarantee cotton farmers a price of 52 cents per pound, I guess. Let's see what it's, 52 cents. That year, in that particular year, it was a banner year for cotton farming. And so the huge supply drove down the price to 35 cents. So the world price of cotton was 35 cents. And the US government had a program that says, we, the government, that is attach-pairs, will pay you the difference between 35 cents and 52 cents if the price goes below 52 cents, which it did. And so this guy's name was Bednard's. He was a cotton farmer in Texas. So the reason he was smiling is that he had just cast a check for $340,000 because he had produced so much cotton, the volume of cotton that his farm produced multiplied by the difference between 52 cents and 35 cents ended up being $340,000. And so he got $340,000 in return. The consumers got absolutely nothing at all. Just the same cotton. Whoever bought the cotton gets nothing. And so that's another type of program that we have. And it turns out this type of program was recommended years and years ago, it's just a plain old rip-off. It's as legal plunder as what Friedrich Blasdiot called it. It's sort of like, I'm a college professor. We college professors make a lot of money, at least a million a year. And so it's as though we had a law saying that I can never make less than $2 million a year if my salary ever did. Say we have open borders immigration policy and 500,000 economists from India come here and drive the price of economists down to a very low level. I'm guaranteed the difference between $2 million a year and whatever low level the price is. That would be a pretty good scam. That's what they have in cotton farming. But this was recommended. There was a well-known agricultural economist named D. Gail Johnson who recommended this way back right after World War II. He was the president of the American Farm Economic Association and the American Economic Association. He was a pretty well-known economist of the last generation. And he recommended this. He recommended, quote, forward prices for agriculture. Now what is this? Here's a description of it. The government would determine and announce the right price for each commodity for the upcoming crop year. No markets would determine the price. The government would declare the correct price for the next year. Setting the price at the level that the government thinks would clear anticipated supply and demand. Good luck with that. If market prices fell sufficiently far below the forward price level, farmers would receive government payments. I think this was 1947 that this was being recommended. And the government has this policy for cotton at least in the last several years. I think this was the last farm bill that changed that went from price supports to this sort of tricky program of paying the difference between the world price and the government's arbitrary price. And so the first 15 minutes of my talk here, I briefly describe some forms of interventionism that the government has always been involved in and has always created instability. It creates agricultural surpluses and then it tries to do things to get rid of the surpluses. FDR was famous for carrying forward Hoover's policy of getting a slaughtering farm animals and destroying crops to try to drive up the price. But it was a public relations disaster for FDR because the Great Depression was on and there were long food lines, people nearly starving to death. And here's the government destroying food. And so he wised up and did more to pay farmers to not raise crops or grow livestock in the first place rather than allowing them to raise the crops and so forth or grow the crops and then destroying them. That's foolish, shouldn't do that. And so they had the other program. Now the role of the agricultural university complex beginning roughly the New Deal era, there was a big surge in a number of economists especially who became agricultural economists. And here's what ES Passour says in one of his articles. The New Deal farm programs markedly increased the demand for agricultural economists. From 1929 to 1939, the total number of agricultural economists increased about four times in the United States and by about two thirds in land grant universities. A prominent agricultural economist at the time concluded that after 1933, almost every agricultural economist was engaged directly or indirectly in the development administration or appraisal of government farm programs. So you're paid at least in part by the government and your job is to appraise the government's farm programs. That's like being employed by Coca-Cola and they're asking you, tell us what you think of Coca-Cola compared to Pepsi. You're an outside observer, you're at a university, which do you think is a better product? And so the government set up the system of paying all these academics to assess the government's programs and of course their pay and the continuation of their pay is always contingent on giving the right answers to these programs. If you start telling the government, you're creating a disaster for the farm economy, you're not gonna have a long career in agricultural economics. And so the economic livelihood of these agricultural economists is closely tied to the government's role in agriculture, the government's policies. And so this, that's why these land grants that occurred during the Lincoln administration was really the camel's nose under the tent, as they say, of political correctness. It was the first intervention of the federal government into higher education, the university system in a big way. And of course, when you take the king's money, you always become the king's man to some extent, as the old saying goes, the paraphrase that. And so they began corrupting academics from the 1860s. Here's one example of this, of the type of corruption. This is from Eddie Passore, one of his articles. In 1943, an agricultural economist at Iowa State College wrote a pamphlet on dairy policy. The study concluded that margarine compared favorably with butter and nutrition and palatability and argued for federal changes in federal and state legislation that impeded the consumption of margarine. Following attacks on the pamphlet by groups of dairy farmers and the subsequent recommendation by review committee that the pamphlet be retracted and revised, the professor and several other agricultural economists resigned from Iowa State College. And the top professor, his name was Theodore Schultz, who later won the Nobel Prize in Economics. And so he dared to actually say the truth about this one program, and he was forced to leave his job. That was 1943. And I have a few other examples of the role of agricultural economists. A lot of them, in economics of the students in the room, if you go and take an economics course, you'll learn all about market failure, there's theories of market failure. And I categorize all of these theories and there are hundreds of them into something that an economist named Harold Demseths called the Nirvana Fallacy. They create an unrealistic theory of a competitive economy that the Austrians never bought into. It's called perfect competition. And it's a contrived theory. And then they compare the real world to that. And of course the real world is never perfect. Nothing on earth is perfect. And they'll say, aha, the market fails because it's not perfect. Well, nothing succeeds compared to perfection or Nirvana. And so there are many economists who have made careers, 40 or 50 year careers, writing paper after paper after paper just with applications of this silly Nirvana fallacy comparing actual markets to some sort of unachievable ideal that could never be achieved in the real world. And a lot of that is in agricultural economics too. And it's even worse in agricultural economics because the agricultural markets have been so perverted and changed around by government intervention that it's hardly realistic to call them free markets. And so when bad things happen, blaming it on the market system is very dubious indeed because there's so much interventionism in agriculture and has been for such a long time. But here are some examples of how the game is played. There's an agricultural economist named Daryl Ray who has the Blasing Game Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy and is director of the Agricultural Policy Center of the University of Tennessee. He says this in one of his articles, there is no recognition that when crop prices capsize, market demand does not provide a rigging to raise them back up again. There is also no recognition that market response on the supply side is no help in the search for a cure for low prices. While belief in the market self-correction via supply and demand response to depressed prices may have been a reason to embrace the 1996 legislation. He's talking about the Farm Bill. Why would we want to take that dog out to hunt again this time around? So he's saying markets don't work. He's proclaiming markets don't work. Another example is Neil Harrell. He was the Charles F. Curtis Professor of Agriculture. These guys all have huge job titles. Also Professor of Economics at Iowa State University, former president of the American Agricultural Economics Association. He supports a worldwide central planning of agriculture by the United Nations. How do you think that would work out? He says, here's what he says. Farm policy debate in the United States in the 1920s was largely about whether it was appropriate to have a national food and agricultural policy to a considerable extent. The decision was in the negative until 1933, Roosevelt. In many respects, farm policy today poses a similar question. Should efforts be directed toward a global food and agriculture policy? In the opinion of this commentator, the answer is yes. So we should have worldwide, since this was 2003, when did communism fail? About 1990, something like that. So you see a lot of this in academe. When, I can recall, right in the middle of the collapse of communism, I happened to be at the University of Tennessee at the time and there was a Marxist on the economics faculty. His name was John. And I remember running into him on the parking lot. You know, the Soviet Union had fallen apart and all of Eastern and Central Europe had left. And I said, well, John, now what are you gonna do? Carpenter, bricklayer, what? And he said, oh no, no, we're no longer tainted by all these bad guys like Stalin and all that, you know. And now we can really have a socialist paradise. And apparently the agricultural economists are of the same mind, at least some of them, some of the top ones. There are some good ones, I'm not saying they're all like this, but these are some big shots that I'm quoting. Another one named Robert Taylor. He's the, I'm thinking this might be a typo in this article I'm reading here. He's the Alpha Eminence Scholar. I thought it might be Alpha Alpha Eminence Scholar, but it's the Alpha Eminence Scholar and Professor of Agricultural Economics at Auburn University to look him up. He says this, the permissive attitude behind the approval of recent mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures among agricultural corporations, appears to be based on the single-minded pursuit of economic efficiency. Imagine that, isn't that horrible? Legislation, including GATT, NAFTA and Freedom to Farm also reflect pursuit of economic efficiency as does the teaching of many present-day professional economists. And he's complaining about this. He's complaining that people want to make the most efficient use of resources in farming. This is a bad thing. We shouldn't allow that. Labor unions usually say the same thing. They're always complaining about economic efficiency, which is pretty bizarre in a competitive world economy. One more, there's Richard Rogers, Professor of Resource Economics at the University of Massachusetts and his co-author, Richard Sexton, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California Davis. They say that markets for raw agricultural products are likely to be structural oligopsies and that monopsony slash oligopsiny issues deserve strong consideration in food policy debates. These are these models of market failure that I was referring to. And these are people that like once again are making models saying that first of all, it's a false that there's free markets in most agricultural products because there's so much intervention. And then second, they're saying we need to model these free markets as somehow being insidious because there's not enough competition in them. Okay, and so I guess you get the message of what I'm saying here is that there's always a whole industry of economists that they look at agricultural policy which started out as one big system of creating cartels and it has ended up being continuing to try to do that, to transfer income to farmers from the rest of the population with massive intervention with the credit programs and the regulations and the EPA regulations that affect all farmers and everything else. And they call this, they tend to refer to this as free market and they condemn the free market. They don't condemn the agricultural programs and when they do, they sometimes get fired for condemning the programs. And so we really need more people like Eddie Passore on our side of the thing. And I recommend to any of you who want to follow up on this to look him up on the web and read some of his articles on agricultural economics because he really is the one free market Austrian oriented economist that I know of who has spent a career writing and researching on agricultural economics and has written a lot of good stuff but I can't think of another one. I don't know of another one that's out there other than we have Rich Wilkie in the audience. He's sort of a close, where's Rich at? He's, is he here? There he is. And he's probably the closest we can get. But he's not been as prolific as Eddie Passore. I've been reading his articles for 25 years and he's a publishing dynamo. And so one final comment I'll make about this is one of the things I found out and digging into some of this literature is that the agricultural economists, like a lot of economists that aren't in agriculture that research other areas, they claim to be positive economists. That is they'll write things and they'll explain how a policy works, for example. Even if they do take the big step and explain how one of these cartel policies works, they'll never make a judgment saying that it's good or bad. They'll say it's not my role to say it's good or bad. And so that's one big difference between the Austrians, most Austrians anyway, and the mainstream is that if we see a policy that is sort of an immoral ripoff of the consumer we call it an immoral ripoff of the consumer. We're not afraid to, but we're not paid by the USDA. But if you're paid by the USDA, you can't say that. And so I don't know how many times in my career I've had letters or emails from people responding to my articles saying something like by academics or comment or personal comments saying something to the fact, gee, why don't you tell us what you think, De La Renzo, what am I supposed to tell them what I don't think? And that's sort of the attitude. What do you mean sarcastically tell us what you think?  It should be, but these people are so cowed into not wanting to disturb their financial benefactors, the government, that they never ever make a statement on good or bad, they're scared to death. They might lose their funding of it. And again, it's not everybody who's in this business, but I think that's true of some of the big shots that I've looked up to prepare this talk, some of the highlights in the agricultural economics business. And I went to school with some of these people. I went to Virginia Tech, and I can remember taking a statistics class with one of the smartest and most brilliant statisticians I could ever imagine is employed in the United States. Guy was great, but the one thing that impeded my learning in that class was that I was in that class with all the Ag Econ people, and they would all come into class every day with chewing tobacco, being spit out into a Coke can, and horse manure on their boots, and the professor smoked a cigar.  I didn't learn nearly as much statistic. Maybe that's why I'm so critical today of these people. But I think my time is about up. Thank you very much.


Kicking off this pink edition of the SportsMagZone with football, Draminka's top flight competition, the Real Nephew Premier League returns on Sunday and fans got a taste of what to expect with a boomer classical on Wednesday night. The much anticipated contest is a pre-season fixture featuring two of the country's fiercest inner city rivals, Arnett Gardens and Waterhouse and for the second consecutive year Arnett prevailed winning 2-0 in Drusland. Both goals were scored from the penalty spot, Shai Smith in the sixth and substitute Rashiki Kelsen in the sixth to third, giving Xavier Gilbert his first not-of-a-victory as Arnett head coach. Good just yourself for what is to come, I mean in the night, in the evening, at school, atmosphere, good for football, good rivalry again, also some bragging rights, you know, so it was good, I mean, some new players too, so it's good to get this out of the way, so I mean in preparation for the season, I'm happy for them and for those and for the fans, you know, it's unfortunate that we couldn't have a game on Sunday and a lot of them travel here today and this is for them. Yeah, Lance and Mariah, this boomer classical contest was set for earlier this week, it was to be in the community of Arnett Gardens but unfortunately because of a violent incident, the game was postponed and then moved to Drusland but it's good to see these inner-city teams going head-to-head, ahead of the start of the season and I'm even happier to see Arnett Gardens coming out on top with the 2-0 victory but Xavier Gilbert now getting a pretty good start to his life in the jungle. Yeah, it's exactly what Xavier Gilbert would need, Ricardo, you know, new coaching set-up, new team, so for him it's what he would expect and want from his team. What I will say though is, you know, I spoke to Kamani, he's one of our producers here at SportsMax and he went to the match, he was able to file the report for us and I was asking him about the turnout, the atmosphere, so he told me that, you know, the crowd was there because of the new location and a lot of people came out to support, very, very happy to get football back up and running, so where the turnout is concerned, he felt as if the crowd was there and of course the team got the required support that they wanted. The quality of football though, he said it was not top, top class football that you would expect but I think it's understandable because, you know, you're just getting ready for the season, you're not in the season as yet, it's a pretty much rivalry so I think it's exactly what we would expect, Waterhouse would walk away, feeling a bit hard-done that, you know, they didn't even get a goal on the score sheet but it's good fun as coach Xavier Gilbert said, it's for bragging rights and it walks away with this one. Yeah and Waterhouse would be a little bit unsettled even though I take your point Mariah, that, you know, they are in pre-season so they aren't really peaking yet but they had a bad season last year, Waterhouse were below par last year so starting off this season or ahead of the season with a loss won't be, you know, a good result on their part. Having said that, both teams have a lot of work to do because there are other teams in the league like Cavalier, Harbourview and Dunbar Holden who have been playing Concacaf, Caribbean Cup Championship football who are already in gear and ready to start the season in reasonably good match competitive shape so I think this is a good result for Arnett Garnes with their new coach. Arnett is not a very easy place to coach at and we still don't know the reasons why Paul Tegert Davis and Eric Radimacher's were not retained for this season having done so well last season. Well as regular season champions but disappointed in the playoffs so Arnett turning over a new leaf here with a new coach and he'll be out of the microscope because Arnett Garnes fans are not pleased at the please. Yeah that is a fact Lance. You just made a point relating to the fact that Cavalier, Dunbar Holden, Harbourview have been active playing Caribbean Cup football. Do you think that is something that could hurt them at the back end of this Premier League season and when teams maybe like Arnett Gardens and so on would be still relatively fresh they would have started their campaigns significantly earlier. Potentially it can. The fact is it depends on how deep their squads are and the coach would have to rotate players and ensure that they they last the season. Having said that if they go on to do well in the Concacaf Caribbean Cup it will boost their confidence and their their the aura of being champions of Caribbean Cup football or even if they get to the final it would be something that would boost them as a as from the image standpoint and certainly personally as players. So I would suspect that if they go on to go really deep into the Caribbean Club Championship which will Harbourview and Cavalier into the semis. So if either of them go on to the final and win I would think that it would give them the sort of boost you know confidence wise to to to last the season. And I think that the owners would be on the coaching staff to ensure that they use their players in a way that will allow them to to you know do well throughout the rest of the entire season because we know that based on the format the regular season is important but not that important. Yeah it makes sense in the regular season and then you go to the playoffs and flop as Arnett Garnes did last season. So I want to say they flopped but they disappointed because based on their regular season performance a lot of Arnett Garnes fans were expected that they would win the Premier League and they didn't even get to the final so that would be disappointing. I think with all of these things we've been in sports we've been watching a strategy like with every advantage we could find two disadvantages for that advantage. So for me it really comes down to how the coach decides to strategize everything who does he use who does he rest because at the end of the day we could still say that a team play in Ricardo is in form versus a team that's rusty and then that would be an advantage for playing football all the time before. So it's really how coach decides to create his strategy. And you know when I think about it from a track and field standpoint right Lanson Mariah there is a science to getting athletes to peak at particular points of a season. I don't know if it is the same with football and I wonder if that's the reason why right across the world what you see more often than not are league competitions rather than the US system where you have a regular season and then you have the post season which more often than not ends up in a knockout situation. Now for football I have said this a number of times I'm not a massive fan of the format that is utilized in the Jamaica Premier League. I understand why the organizers would want it that way because you want this big grand finish to the tournament and you want to build excitement and that was done last season and even seasons before but for me the drawback for that is that you have teams who have performed at a high level for six months and they may have one bad match. They may not even have a bad match because you could play two quality matches end up in a draw and losing penalties and all your seasons work goes down the drain like that. So I'm not a fan of it and but at the end of the day you have to get it done. Everyone understands what the situation is going into the season and so I guess as a coach you have to figure out now how do we strategize so that we can peak at the back end but I don't suspect it's as easy for football a team sport as it might be for individual sports. Having said that I agree with you because I don't like the format myself. I prefer a season rewarding a team that is the best most consistent all around based on the weight of the performance throughout the entire season but I would suggest as well that a lot of times that teams do well in the regular season and then don't go all the way to win through the playoffs. Quite often for my reading it's not so much tired legs or peaking too early. There is something about playoff sport that requires a certain mental toughness and clinical efficiency desire and hunger. Some of the factors that decide who wins playoff matches. So sometimes for me it's not so much that a team has lost its form or peak too early and don't deliver in the playoffs but there are some teams that just rise to playoff situations. And I think as well there is something about the pressure that you are under when you end the regular season as the number one team the team that know every other team is going for. It's different handling that pressure than when you finish fifth and sixth there's no pressure on you going through the playoffs and that can sometimes play a part. Both coaches that's the Arnett Gardens coach and the Waterhouse coach along with CEO of professional football Jamaica Limited Owen Hill shared their sentiments about the recently announced monthly grants of one hundred fifty thousand Jamaican dollars to each of the 14 clubs in the league by Minister of Sport Olivia Grange. It's good and the support every support is important and that will of course do something good for the players and for the club. So I mean we must say I'm applauded and show appreciation for that and I mean all the clubs will benefit in some way shape or form you know so very good. To the Minister we really appreciate that it's gonna go a far away I mean a nutrition nutrition to help us on nutrition I mean another field these players put in a lot of work day in and day out and I mean that would have go. So it has cooled us to the to the ministry for the contribution and we are grateful for it. The government has always been a partner with us so I mean they continue to do that through the ministry and the SDF. I think the clubs are very happy because again it helps them to offset a couple operational expenses that they may have still you know not necessarily where we'd want it to be but we give many thanks so you know thank the minister thank the ministry thank the SDF and any other partner that we have on board we thank you because without you again it wouldn't be possible. Yeah well said Owen Hill I think 150,000 Jamaican dollars Lansen Mariah just over nine hundred and sixty US dollars that's what each club will be getting monthly and as Owen Hill says what did I say nine hundred we're nine thousand it would it know nine thousand yeah no with nine hundred I think you've got your Wilma's math off it's a hundred fifty thousand Jamaican dollars that's right to each club okay you almost got me there lands so yeah so completely agree with Owen Hill though yes not exactly where you would want it to be but at the same time I think you have to applaud the government for this initiative because it is an opportunity as Marcel Gale said to offset some operational costs that the the clubs will have and you're always going to want more but you have to start somewhere and I think you have to applaud the government for stepping in in this instance. Yeah what's for sure is running any club taking part in any sport is expensive and as you said Ricardo you always want more because there are always areas to develop and playing sport is very expensive I mean we all know that so for me I think it's a good initiative for the government it's a good look and then you know now that they've allotted this amount of cost the players will be looking forward to a couple years hopefully they can get a raise. I don't know if it's enough to get them a raise but it's it's definitely a good start Lance. Yeah not a lot of money to be quite honest but as the coaches just mentioned Marcel Gale from Waterhouse and Xavier Gilbert from Arnett Gardens and Owen Hill suggesting it will help because the the clubs need the clubs need the funding because it's it takes a lot to run these clubs and these clubs quite often run in deficit financially so any amount would be would be appreciated so they don't want to be ungrateful. Yeah for sure and it's also understanding that you get a hundred and fifty thousand Jamaican dollars per month for this year but when you go back to the negotiation table if there is such a thing with the government then you can ask for a little bit more next year so you welcome what you get this year but you get ready to request even more the next time around. That's the plan. Hopefully. Alright let's take a break on the Sportsmax zone when we return Lance Whitaker will be talking about his favorite sports. No it's second. He'll probably have a box off.


Hudson CEO and founder of 21 studios and the 21 convention. Today joining me on this episode is Steve Brulay from studio Brulay on YouTube, a big channel and studio Brulay.com on his channel. He focuses on men's issues, men's rights and criticizing things like feminism. I've been on there once myself and he does a lot of good shows with Janice F. Mango, Paul Elum and many more. Steve, welcome to the show. Thank you very much, Anthony. It's a pleasure to be here. Yeah, it's a pleasure to have you on. Like I said before, I've really been enjoying your tweets lately. It's been very, very nice to see and very, very sharp tweets, very fiery. Well, there's no point in saying something kind of noncommittal. So might as well say it as strongly as you can. I think even if it includes a little bit of rhetoric, I think it's best to make your point as strongly as you can and argue your point as strongly as you can. Yeah, at the end of the day, too, I think the truth only offends liars and people who are willfully dishonest. Well, I really appreciate you speaking up and speaking the truth. I did it. You get to see a criticism. I've been there myself. So yeah, there's some heat. So the title of this episode is the truth about white privilege. I want to go beyond that and discuss kind of feminism, Marxism, things like that.  What was your first response or initial response to Black Lives Matter pre-2020? We saw it, you know, a couple of years ago in 2016 when it first sprang up. Yeah. At well, at very, very first, I didn't give it much attention at all. But then as as you know, you couldn't ignore it, the movement, it became kind of apparent to me that this was it an offshoot of feminism. Yeah. And, you know, that much of what they say, it's a lot of it is boiler point, boiler boilerplate feminist kind of rhetoric. And their claims are all lifted out of ideological feminism and their, you know, that's actually right on their website, too, of course. I'm sure you've seen this. But what we believe when they talk about dismantling the patriarchy, opposing the Western nuclear family, all kinds of very, very explicitly feminist ideas, we would see boilerplate out of a tumbler for feminism or something. Yeah. And they are feminists. The three women, three Black women who started it, they're all avowed feminists before they got into starting the Black Lives Matter group. Yeah. Yeah, it shows. I mean, looking at the website and things like that. Yeah. So my next question would be, you know, what was your response when you saw take off more recently? Because, you know, all of two months ago in America, at least, in probably Canada, if you were critical Black Lives Matter, you could say something like all lives matter as politicians and even other people did. But now we see people getting banned, people getting fired for saying any kind of disagreement with BLM. So what was your response kind of now with the BLM that took off with the riots and things like that? Because you're not an American, you're Canadian and you're living. I'm Canadian, yeah. But this is global. I mean, the incident with Floyd may have started, obviously, in the US, but the response is global. And the response, most of the responders are going at it from a very simplistic point of view. They're looking at it as a racist white cop who killed a unarmed Black man in cold blood. And they're taking that rhetoric even further. And they're claiming that this is an example of white supremacy throughout the police force and throughout the culture. So that's obviously a grotesque distortion of the situation. But it's deliberately grotesque and it's encouraged by the leaders of groups like Black Lives Matter specifically for their own purposes, which is fundraising and power. Yeah, what else is new? A more specific question, have you seen any evidence that what happened with George Floyd was racially motivated? Because I've looked around and I haven't seen any. It just happened to me that he was a white cop, as far as I can tell, and then George Floyd was Black. Yeah, that's the appearance of it. Now, I have not seen evidence that Chauvin himself personally was a racist guy. Not saying that that evidence isn't out there. I don't know. I never looked to see whether Chauvin himself as an individual was racist. But he was working with a Hispanic cop and an Asian cop. So the three of them were standing there in an initial situation. I think from the beginning of the incident, the three of them were involved. So yeah, I don't see evidence of racism in this. But then there wasn't evidence of racism in Trayvon Martin's example either. And yet the three Black women, feminists, used that specific incident to claim they needed a Black Lives Matter movement because of white supremacy. They're just pulling claims out of thin air. And the weird thing is that their claims fly right through mainstream media, right through the entire culture. Yeah, those claims are really extreme too. Like I was going to ask you, what are your thoughts on the claim that America is a white supremacist country? And these are the really extreme accusations. Or is a racist country systemically in all that nonsense? It's absolute nonsense, of course. And we're getting the same claims in Canada. And even worse in Canada, our Prime Minister knelt in solidarity with Black Lives Matter.  It's utter nonsense. I mean, clearly there is supremacist movements in the world. But there are supremacist movements of all shapes, sizes, and varieties, and colors. There is a very strong, but small, but a very vocal and aggressive Black supremacist movement in the US. I saw a video of that where they have a white woman sequentially kiss the feet of each of the Black leaders. And that group, I kind of remember the name of it, but I talked about it in one of my coffee break sessions. That group is literally, openly, on the street preaching the supremacy of Black people, and that white people will all be kneeling down and licking the boots of Black people. And that doesn't stop there. This is the issue that I talked about in one of the shows is that this is part of in-group bias. It is fundamentally, deeply part of every human being on the planet, from Asians to Africans to Russians to to white people, Black people. It doesn't matter. And Native Americans, there's a built-in in-group bias, a tendency, a tendency. It's a tendency that urges people along that direction. And that's where racism gets its support by this tendency within human beings to prefer their own in-group. Yeah, I have a tweet that I pulled up from you the other day here about this too. Oh, okay. Okay, great. Yeah, it's universal. I think in order to address racism, we have to accept the fact and face the fact and investigate this kind of in-group bias and its universal nature. It's something that we have to be aware of, that we have to be vigilant about in every group that no one has accepted as an exception to this. If we don't, if we're not aware of it, that's when it becomes buried unconscious and breaks out into these violent movements. Yeah, I agree. So my next question is, why should men care about identity politics like this? Like, obviously, men should care about men's issues, especially within the manuscripts is kind of a given. They should care about maybe men's rights, divorce law, family law. Why should men care about something like Black Lives Matter? Why it should be important for them to understand it and to criticize it if they feel necessary? Well, everybody should be concerned about this. Man, woman, child of every race, because it's not restricted to borders. And the thing is that the reason it has so much power and influence today, and I've experienced two incidents of racism here in the Dominican Republic on the strength of the videos that are being shown and used as proof of white supremacy in the US. So this is because of the nature of social media today, we will see this racism spread globally and fast. So and we're seeing it in the UK. There's been violent incidents already in the UK. Yeah, pretty bad. Yeah, very bad. And the reason I get back to feminism is that feminists have spent over 50 years preparing the culture, preparing the culture to be justify rising up in hatred against white people. They have identified white privilege and white guilt. And these are sins due to the color of your skin. You've been born white and there is no way to rectify the sin of being born white other than dying, being killed. Yeah, genocide basically. Look, if you have a sin or a crime, let's say a sin is a kind of an old term for mistake, really, which is a kind of a crime that a person makes.   You can say right away at any minute of any second of every day, you can say, I am not a feminist. And then you are no longer a feminist. But there is no possible way other than your death to say, I'm not a white man. You cannot escape the kind of sin that they are trying to pin upon you. And it's bigotry. It's hatred. It's racist. It's bigotry. And feminism is hugely successful. There are thousands, thousands of feminist organizations right around the world.  And they are highly, highly funded. Black Lives Matter is untold millions of dollars right now. And they are a feminist group and they are actually undermining the welfare of the very black men who are most troubled in this country, in your country. The black men are troubled by fatherlessness, by high incarceration rates, participation in gang warfare. And I'm coming out with a video on this hopefully tomorrow. If you look at the Black Lives Matter website, they explicitly exclude those very black men from the center of their consideration. The very black men who are suffering the most in your country are excluded from the concerns of Black Lives Matter. It's really ridiculous. Yeah, I agree. Paul Elam posted a great comment about this exact issue you're looking at with the Black Lives Matter website. Black fathers on here don't even exist. Black men are basically not mentioned and fathers are explicitly, or it looks like intentionally excluded. There's mothers and parents and there's just no fathers. They don't even exist. Yeah, it's shy. It's disturbing. Can you draw some more? Can I go ahead? Oh, I was going to say, can you draw some more connections for the audience between Black Lives Matter and what would we consider modern-day woke feminism? Some of the parallels. For example, we see feminists scream about male privilege, and now Black Lives Matter is screaming about white privilege. Yeah, and feminists, sure. Feminists scream about white privilege, too. Black Lives Matter is a feminist group, first and foremost. That is what it is. It is just another feminist group. You know, you have feminist groups. We have equal feminists, for instance. You know? And they put all of their hatred about men and patriarchy into ecological language. Black Lives Matter is a feminist group through and through. That is their one top, top focus. So everything that you can say about feminism, you can say about Black Lives Matter. Look at their website. It's just littered in feminist terminology. You know, intersectionalism, patriarchy, centering the women's voices. It's all feminist. Can you talk to me more? I was just going to say, I wouldn't say, like, what do you really focus in on when they are boilerplate? They just lifted everything straight out of feminism because they are feminists, first and foremost. But they saw, I think, those Black women saw who started Black Lives Matter saw an opening within the feminist fundraising market by leveraging Black issues. But it's just a feminist movement. That's what it is. It's almost like feminists wearing a Black face, like Justin Trudeau and these other people. They just, like, they're covering themselves up and, you know, these racial issues, and it's just more and more feminism. Yeah. It's feminism, first and foremost, you know. Can you talk to me a little bit more about white privilege? Is this a, you know, this is a monthly devil's advocate. Is this a legitimate accusation of white people? Is this just explicit racism?  Aren't you just white-splanning to me right now into the audience? I reject all of that crap, of course. White, white privilege is, it doesn't exist. I mean, it's a feminist creation. You know, they need to, and they're constantly doing this. This gets into another point. I mean, I could go into a million directions on this conversation.  They throw out accusation after accusation, and that you can never have enough time and energy to counter any of their accusations. But getting to white privilege, there's privilege in the world, and I tweeted about this. I mean, clearly, there's a privilege that comes along with being wealthy, particularly if you're born into a wealthy family. There's a privilege associated with that. But that wealth can be taken away. And you've lost your privilege, okay? There's a privilege about being beautiful, for instance. That can be taken away, too. You can hit the wall. You can get a car accident. You can get a car accident. But there are some legitimate sources of privilege, but that's just the way life is. And I'll give you another example. Tall men, men are over six feet. And these are studies that have demonstrated both these things. The main privilege that comes with for men is if they're tall. Tall men of every description are more likely to get a job, more likely to be promoted, more likely to be rewarded for unconsciously, simply because they are tall, they appear dominant. And the same thing happens with women, beautiful women. A beautiful woman is more likely to get a job, more likely to be promoted, more likely to be lathered in praise and gifts than a woman who's not so beautiful. Those are privileges that you are born with. But there's no privilege of being born white. The other privileges that I talked about is being wealthy and or being politically powerful. But those are transient. Although, if you have an enormous amount of wealth, you're very unlikely to lose it all just from the sheer enormity of it. But political power, for instance, is a privilege, but it's power that can come and disappear. There's no white, there's no privilege that comes from being white. Well said, stated very simply and very clearly. Let's talk about this tweet a little bit. This one came out on June 15th from you. I've received quite a few hate messages for criticizing BLM and identifying it as a domestic terror group. All the hate messages come from white people and their Facebook friend list contain only white people. I find this revealing. Yeah, I found that a bit surprising too. I got the idea to look into this because it was coming from a filmmaking community groups. And I was involved with quite a number on Facebook, independent filmmaking communities. A group who are really a lot of them, not all of them, but a lot of membership in those groups are far left. You'll even say that some of them are Antifa. Antifa, by the way, is a child of feminism as well. BLM is a child of feminism. But the hate messages coming from those people, I started to think, well, because I said that I would not going to kneel to Black Lives Matter. That Black Lives Matter and Antifa are both domestic terrorist groups.  It's not identified as such because feminism is the dominant religion of the West today. I said the exact same thing in my speech about the 21 convention. Yeah, especially for women. It dominates how they think and believe and act throughout their whole life. It dominates everything. It's way beyond that. Way beyond that. I mean, look at Canada, our Prime Minister is a feminist. Okay.  It's very, very difficult. That's how, and if you blaspheme against feminism, you're very likely to be kicked out of your job. And of course, the reason is that the entire culture considers feminism to be sacred, even though it is an entire lie. And if you look into the birth of feminism on Studio Brilay, you'll see details of how the lie, the beginnings of feminism in 1848 at Seneca Falls is the beginning of the lies. It is constructed almost entirely out of lies. But those lies have been effectively accepted throughout the Western world through the reaches of power. There's other reasons for that because it does suit those wealthy and the powerful as well. Feminism serves as a high heel on the throat of every working man, making sure he stays at his job, doesn't complain, and doesn't threaten the power of the wealthy. Some other reasons would include though, like the woman are wonderful effect and some biological things like that, as well as like that. Yeah, okay. There's some of that. I mean, I've never investigated too deeply into the women are wonderful effect, you know. But there's certainly, there's those effects. And Karen Straughn has talked quite eloquently about neotony and how that plays into female power as well. It's a very interesting angle to look at. Talk to me a little bit about white guilt, more specific accusation. You know, the white people should be guilty about the sins of our ancestors as if other demographics of people haven't committed horrible atrocities and things like that. So should white people feel guilty about what someone did 200 years ago that they never met or never knew?  Well, the short answer is it's a ridiculous claim. But the more important answer is that every human being is has ancestors who are guilty of atrocities against other human beings. The reason that we focus, of course, on white people today is that feminists have spent, like I said, over 50 years acclimating the culture to see white guilt, to see white privilege, to see white men as oppressing women, you know. And they've built an entire religious structure, an entire creed around all of that. And that's one of the reasons they're such into this gish-gallup stuff, which I'm saying, which is a logical or rather a strategy of overwhelming your ideological opponent with a never-ending flood of accusations from which they can never have the time to refute. Feminism uses gish-gallup in order to dominate our culture. Yeah. You know, would you say as well that it sounds like a way to articulate what you're saying, is feminism the ultimate establishment that we see in the West today? Ultimate? Yeah, I don't think ultimate. I think the wealthy are the ones who truly have power.  Feminists are useful to them.  Yeah, but very effective. Yeah, no doubt. I mean, I've grown up with, you know, I was born in 1988. So my whole life has just been dominated by feminism, you know, the second, third wave, all this stuff. I've never known in America without feminism. I have no memory of it. Yeah, yeah. Would you say though what we're going through, some people on Twitter, some people I follow, you know, big accounts, maybe James Woods, things like that. But a lot of people are saying that what we're going through is, you know, very similar to a Marxist revolution, a Mao style revolution, with Black Lives Matter, with, you know, the other components of feminism, things like that. Is that something you would agree with, or do you have some comments on that? Well, these people all come from that background. You know, as Aaron Pizzi pointed out that feminism in the late 60s basically adopted Marxist theory and just rewrote men as the enemy, or patriarchy as the enemy, and everything else kind of follows Marxism. So it's a socialist kind of movement. Socialism is throughout all of these uprisings right now, whether you call it Antifa, the revolutionary student movement, the Black Lives Matter. All of these movements share that core Marxist kind of approach to culture and society. Yeah, I've even seen some, you know, I saw in 2016, I saw an NBC news article, you know, mainstream media, and they were demands by the Black Lives Matter movement. I think some of the leaders at the time, things like that. And a lot of it was this explicit Marxist, absolute communism. They wanted basically a Black ethno-state, like a segregation for Black people. And why people, they wanted collective ownership, they called it of, you know, businesses and stuff.   Yeah, there's plenty of people analyzing that on the non-mainstream media, as you know, amongst community people that we follow. The analysis is actually pretty good in cases, in many cases. So there's tons and tons of material. I haven't focused into the Marxist connection that joins all of those groups so much. Let's talk a little bit about statues. So we've been seeing history be erased, which is very Orwellian in my opinion, very alarming. But we're seeing statues get pulled down all over America, maybe Canada, but also the UK for sure, there's been some. I think Winston Churchill right now, of course, I think is boarded up hidden by the mayor of London so that it doesn't get, you know, whatever, which is this ridiculous. But talk to me a little bit about how you feel about that, how you feel about statues being pulled down in history being erased or rewritten. I mean, is this alarming to you? Yeah, I don't like it. It's not the biggest issue that alarms me, but it's certainly a sign that there is mob mentality out there that's a very ignorant mob mentality.  I don't think that it's going to do anything other than inflame warfare, inflame mobs and riots and further. It's not going to help anybody with anything. And it is, it's like, it is an Orwellian thing. It's a desire to crush and rewrite history. The quote that you flashed up there, I particularly liked because that was written by that guy who wrote The Art of War. And I can't remember where it's coming. Yeah, yeah. And something like that. I think that's where that quote comes from.   As he points out, it gives the first reason for the next war to destroy a people's cultural heritage of your enemy. It's bad military practice because it gives the first reason for the next war. You're justifying your enemy's retaliation by doing this. It's inspiring. No, I agree.  A lot of stupidity, a lot of ignorance. I saw a woman yesterday, I tweeted it today. I retweeted it. She was on channel four, I think, in London with that woman who interviewed Jordan Peterson. That one famous? Well, I don't know what her name was. I saw a couple of interviews of Jordan. I don't know which one you're referring to exactly. It was the big one where she kept trying to read, she kept trying to manipulate what he said. She said, she was saying, she's famous for, she's got a meme now.  I think her name is Suzanne Reed, maybe? Or no, that may be the other woman I interviewed. I don't know. One of these British women. Anyway, she was interviewing another woman in London, a black woman for Black Lives Matter or something. And the channel four interviewer, this is a major mainstream media thing there, she asked her what she thought about Winston Churchill being boarded up and all that. And the woman actually, she was asking about the statue. And the black woman for representing Black Lives Matter said that she didn't really know about it. She was kind of playing iffy with it. And she's like, yeah, I never met Winston. I've never met him. And it's like, no, no kidding, you have it. And this is a woman who was British. It looks like black British. I think she had an accent. So I assume raised there.  That's pretty outstanding. But you know, the education system, I hate to say it, I do believe that the education system has been degraded and degraded all of my life. Since the early 1980s, the quality of education has been on a steady decline, especially pre-university education. Hmm. Yeah, I can't even imagine, you know, even universities now, though, they're just, I know in Florida now they're trying to get some of the major universities to mandate critical right theory type classes. First year freshman college students. Yeah. Feminists dominate the university system throughout Canada and the U.S. Probably throughout the world, but I'm not sure. Yeah, at least in Western nations, I would imagine. I can't, it's hard to find one that wouldn't be. Yeah, it's truly a global religion right now. And it's enormously powerful, enormously well-funded. Look, feminists took over the university system, entered the university system in 1970. And they started the first, at the time it was called, I think, feminist studies. But they keep changing the name to make it more broadly apparently appealing, you know. Gender studies and things like that. Gender studies and then women and gender studies. And then they even have subsidiary groups called stuff like international studies to hide the fact that it's really feminist theory underpinning at all. But once it got in there, they started to dominate the universities. After they got the affirmative action bills put in place in Canada, that was 1984. And I think it was around the same time in the U.S. They did some similar groups like that. The feminists on campuses started to absolutely dictate who could and what policies had to be applied for hiring professors. And so 20, 30, 40 years later, we have the university system we have now where you cannot even criticize ideological feminism, you know, without losing your job. There was a, and this is a funny one in Edmonton, Ontario, Edmonton, the University of Edmonton in Alberta. This feminist, and she calls herself a, I think, gender-critical feminist. And she, in one of her courses, she teaches an anthropology course on human sexuality. And she made the scientific statement that biological sex is real. And she lost her job for that. Wow. It's, that is how absolutely insane it is. And there's another professor who lost their job. I think this might be the same one. They, they can now, a student can make an anonymous complaint, not even, not even have to register the complaint as an official complaint. It can just walk into the, I forget what they call the office of safety, student safety or something. And they can just claim that a student, that a professor made them unsafe and that professor will be punished. Made them feel unsafe. And they don't even have to write the complaint down at this point. It is, it is anonymous and it is not recorded and yet the professor is punished. That's unreal. It's insane. There's no, I don't see any way to walk this stuff back anymore. I think we're past the point of no return on, on most of this stuff. That's where I was going to take the interview next and ask you, but go ahead. Well, in terms of the university system, they, it's so dominated by the feminists that they have the power and they will use it to eliminate anybody who even in a minor way questions their ideological purity. So they'll be eliminated. How do you walk that away from that? I mean, how do you walk that back? I think what you, the only thing you can do is start up organizations that explicitly reject feminists outright from the start because they poison everything. They poison everything they touch. I'm a fan of that idea myself. I am too. Yeah. I think we're both doing good work, putting out video content and discussing these ideas for the web to the extent that we still have free speech, right? Which is of course under attack as well. Yeah. Yeah. Another option might be just, you know, maybe colleges start going bankrupt as the world technology continues to increase or, you know, advance forward and things like that. Maybe a lot of them will just lose funding. Yeah. That's a big, a big part of it. That can happen.  Who knows what the economy of Canada and the US is going to be like five years from now? I don't know. You know, and if the students stop coming or, or if there could be riots from the other side on campuses saying, you know what, I'm sick of being silenced. I'm going to speak up and you can fire me. You can, that could happen too. So I tend to be a little pessimistic because I've seen this go in the same direction since 1984 when I sat in, I was working for Dow Chemical in the research department and the vice president of research came in to and traveled all the way around Dow Chemical world giving the same lecture, the same speech to everybody and came in and said that women would be preferentially hired and promoted women and minorities as a result of this affirmative action stuff. And most of us just sat there and said, oh, it's another, another corporate program. These things can come in fashion and leave within six months to a year. I thought maybe a couple of years of this and then, you know, they'll move on.  So I have not seen any evidence that this gigantic oil tanker of a sick hateful movement is showing any signs of slowing down or turning around. It is huge and there are billions untold, maybe trillions of dollars at stake for people to make sure that this continues. The the incomes, think about just that Black Lives Matter is a tiny, tiny fraction of this issue, but they are rolling in money. You know, they're just rolling in money. And do you think that those three women at the top of Black Lives Matter are going to, I don't know what salaries they make, but I'm going to guess it's a pretty, they're skimming a hefty amount off the top of those donations to run Black Lives Matter. You know, do you think they're going to just let that hefty, cushy lifestyle of millions of dollars slip away from them, not without the fight of their lives? It's a bureaucracy like feminism. They wanted to keep going indefinitely. At any time you put that kind of money at somebody's disposal, they're not going to let it out of their hands without a big fight. And there this is repeated at thousands and thousands of organizations around the world going to the right up to the UN. You know, the UN is saturated in feminism at, you know, there. I had a brief look into some of the extent of these organizations some weeks ago. It's, it's staggering the lists of organizations that are, that are rolling in money and donations that are all pushing the same feminist ideology. It's mind boggling. It's a cult, but it's enormously profitable. It's, they're rolling in money.  A lot of people, a lot of people seem to fall for that, I guess.  Jesse Lee Peterson, those other guys, it's, it's disturbing and disgusting and bizarre. It's symbolic. You know, I've talked about it in this terms, in these terms, for instance, if you kneel before the, before someone like this, an enemy, let's call it an enemy. If you kneel before your enemy, what's the purpose of having your enemy kneel before you? Well, imagine five guys who meet on the street, each knowing that the other has kneeled, knelt before the enemy, the person who wants to, to eliminate them. How is it that any one of them will trust any of the others enough to form a resistance? They will be, suspicion has been cast in each of their minds about each other, even though they may have been forced at gunpoint to kneel. Or they've been forced at gunpoint to repeat the lies of white privilege and stuff like this. They've done it and, and they, they're recorded. They've been recorded doing it. Now when they, when that a group of people like that, or say they get together with some that haven't knelt, what are the chances that the ones that haven't knelt are going to trust the ones that do, that have knelt and repeated the nonsense? That they have sown, this is a very effective psychological strategy. They have sown the seeds of suspicion and doubt in the minds of their entire, those who would resist them. Yep. I was reading the other day on Twitter, a whole thread about this exact phenomena that as a Psyop kind of thing, that the Chinese military was doing this during the Korean War. I guess, I guess when Americans were captured by, you know, during the war, some of the camps are run by Chinese and this is exactly what they did. And it was very slow and very subtle the way they did it. Because if they went too hard, too fast, people, the Americans would resist it. They wouldn't do it. They were trained to resist the kind of manipulation. But this slaughter, this slower, more subtle, you know, kind of manipulation was very effective. And yeah, it sows, you know, seeds of distrust and doubt. Even, even within yourself, because now you're caught doing it.  And getting, the shame, the shame in yourself. And how can you, with a straight face, then vigorously resist and fight alongside of others after having knelt and submitting, repeating their prayer of, you know, their creed, their credo? Yeah. You can't. It s very, very difficult. And it s a psychological damage is done when you do that. Yep. Going back to what you were talking about just a couple of minutes ago with feminism, what are your thoughts on, you probably saw the J.K. Rowling author, Harry Potter. She got just blasted for discussing, I think, for basically saying that only women, only women menstruate, basically, to paraphrase what she said. And basically she was affirming biological sex and that by not doing that, by failing to do that, women s issues and women s rights would be harmed. Which I think, I think she s correct. Obviously.  My question to you, though, is what do you think about feminists kind of turning on each other? And the combative nature that sometimes springs up in there, eating each other alive, basically, cannibalizing their own movement? Yeah. These kinds of very, very authoritarian dictatorial movements tend to eventually cannibalize on themselves. But because they are movements of fear and terror, for instance, and they re showing themselves to be that by attacking anyone who appears to be not sufficiently indoctrinated. These movements persist a very, very long time before they can crumble to the ground. Because fear is an enormous force of control. And in a sense, JK Rowling s, although you and I would say, oh my God, they re eating themselves, you know, great. But what the message it sends is to any other would be JK Rowling s to shut up and tow the line. That s what they get by sacrificing JK Rowling s to the mob. The rest of the mob says, oh my God, JK Rowling s got taken down for saying something as simple as that.  Well, that is definitely some, I agree that that s definitely the way some people will respond to it. Other people, though, might be alarmed.  But maybe I m being too optimistic.  But those people already weren t sold to feminism. Their rank and file will see this as a warning shot to them. And they will, I think, go deeper into demonstrating their loyalty to the feminist ideologues. But of course, JK Rowling s has every right to say that.  I think what she said was something like, isn t there a word for menstruators? Help me with this. I saw a tweet something along the line. It was kind of actually kind of humorous tweet. You know, you would have thought that it would have garnered a chuckle or two and then died away. But no, this is a sign of the incredibly intolerant demanding indoctrination, indoctrineaters of feminism. Yeah, I ve read an article a year ago about communism and Marxism and things. And it was, the article was actually focused on humor and comedy and how totalitarian, totalitarian nations, dictators, communists, Marxists, they hate humor.   And that would be, I think that s why memes, I don t know if you have any thoughts on that, but I think it s why memes have been so effective in the past couple of years at getting points across because they re funny.  They poke fun at the toxicity, you know. I ve been, I don t know if you ve seen lately, but I m making some memes about feminists and things like that. And they tend to do pretty well. People like them. One was like a Karen meme for the Karens. It was released the Karen, like the Kraken. Yeah, yeah, released the Karen. I like it. Yeah. Well, comedy is an enormously powerful tool, you know. And comedy is, as you probably heard before, it s funny because of the truth that it reveals, the truth that you re not in public, in polite company, you re not allowed to say. This is what makes things funny, is that everybody knows this thing is true, everybody knows you re not allowed to say it, but there is this comic that puts up the juxtaposition of the truth with what you re actually seeing in society and you can t help it laugh at it.  I ve been thinking it forever, but I couldn t say it, you know, I wouldn t say it. That s comedy and it s a genius to level the two. You have to be very smart to be a good comic and you have to be very, very attentive or attuned to your culture to recognize those elements of your culture which are suppressed and repressed for sometimes hypocritical reasons. Yeah. And then convey them in a way that s going to pop off the joke and inspire them to laugh at it. To be a good comic, you have to be pretty darn smart and courageous actually today. You have to be very courageous to be a comic today. Definitely. I was a huge fan of George Carlin myself growing up. He was funny, yeah. I like Dave Chappelle a lot too, although lately he s been shitting all over Candace Owens which is really sad.  If a comic starts to think, I think, this is my view anyways, if a comic starts to self edit themselves based on their political view alone, they will cease to be funny pretty fast. Yeah. Oh, here s a comment we should dig into. So, I think this is a logical fallacy, but I like to see what your take is. Kev H in the chat says, if you disagree with the phrase Black Lives Matter, you are saying that Black Lives don t matter. We don t want more than others, we just want the same opportunities. What do you think of this statement? Well, first off, I ll say Black Lives Matter is not a statement, it s a movement. It s a group of people whose real beliefs are displayed on their website and in their actions. For instance, I can create a group and call it the devil is God. That group could be into painting cars. It has nothing to do with the devil or God. We just paint cars and we like to be known as kind of hip. So, we call ourselves the devil is God, but it doesn t mean you even believe that the devil is God. It doesn t mean that it has anything to do with devil or God. Black Lives Matter is a phrase which is really and only the name of a group. So, to say that you don t agree with the phrase Black Lives Matter, okay, you could be saying that Black Lives don t matter, but that s not what people mean when they say the words Black Lives Matter. They don t mean the phrase. They re referring to the movement and the movement is defined by the leaders and the leaders are feminists and they don t care about the suffering of Black men. That s their behavior. I see some circular reasoning in this too. It s like if you disagree with that, I mean, what you re saying is really good too. You re breaking down the phrase from the actual movement and organization, but also the circular reasoning. It s like if you disagree with the political ideology or what we see now is like an emerging race cult, that means you think that Black Lives don t matter, which is ridiculous. Black human life definitely matters, of course, because all lives matter. I ve every life is precious, every individual life. Yeah. And since we re talking about phrases, remember that the very same people who say, oh, you re disagreeing with the Black Lives Matter phrase, they will attack you for saying all lives matter. Another phrase, which is in fact, if you treat it just as a phrase, is even more important than the phrase Black Lives Matter. So the people who are using in these arguments and who are saying things like that, they re not being honest. Yeah. When they say Black Lives Matter, they don t really mean Black Lives Matter. The movement itself, the founders of the movement don t even mean Black Lives Matter as a phrase. They started this movement as a feminist movement, and they re not addressing the biggest cohort that are suffering in the Black community, which is the Black men, adult Black men and boys. They re going to prison. They re being pressured into joining gangs and becoming thugs. They re excluded from the lives of their own children by the mothers of the own children often. There s huge, huge, huge problems there, and Black Lives Matter, the group, is not willing to look at it honestly. That tells you everything you need to know. Well, there s more, and you ll see it in my video coming out tomorrow or the day after, where the video will be called Get to Know Black Lives Matter. I m looking forward to it. Link, by the way, everybody is in the video description to his channel, where you can see that video coming out in a day or two. Thank you. Before we wrap up, I wanted to get one or two more tweets in here from you. So this is a tweet you put out on June 11. We must remember these businesses. They are siding with the terrorists. It s a civil war, and we should remember who did what, and you re quote 288 tweeting Tom Fitton, the founder, I think, of Judicial Watch, and he was referring to these major Fortune 500 companies, which we ve all seen in our inboxes lately, Disney, Papa John s, T-Mobile. All these companies are just virtue signaling how much they care about the black community. All of a sudden, like a month ago, Folder s Coffee, apparently. They didn t care about black people, and now they do.  Well, my focus of this tweet here though, as you said, is a civil war. Are you referring to a potential civil war in America? A cultural civil war? Can you kind of expand on that?  But what s going on is they re burning down buildings. They re attacking the cultural artifacts that represent American and Western history. They have burnt down a police station. They re attacking police in the street. They re targeting them.  This is not random. This is not random acts of anger about random things or even about the same thing. These acts of violence on the culture and on specific organizations and the police who are there to maintain the peace, these are coming from an identifiable group. At what point and how much do they have to do before you call it a civil war? I don t know. It seems to be widespread, it seems to be growing. To me, it already looks like a civil war. Just because your opponent hasn t won, or just because it s short, a short war, doesn t mean it s not a war. In a way, it s a civil war, I think. Why not call it a civil war? Yeah, I m leaning in that direction. I know about a year and a half ago I saw an article that was discussing a potential American civil war, what the next one would look like. Of course, they were saying it would be different than the last one we had in America, which is 155 years ago now in the 1860s. Actually, what they were describing, it wasn t the one article doing this. Now that we re seeing it, though, they were describing pretty similar to what we re seeing now. They described it in the article as basically there could be riots that break out similar to Rodney King back in 1992 in America and California, but they would be widespread and occurring at the same time. It would be all around Florida, New York, Texas, all around the country. Just looking back on the article, thinking about it, it s kind of crazy that that s quite literally what s happening. This was described as the next modern version of an American civil war. I agree with you that it s how much stuff has to happen before you call it that. Certainly, we re getting much closer to that distinction, I think. Well, they ve also been, for years, telling us that that s what they want to do. They destroy, smash the patriarchy.  All of these are coming from that same group of people. They are the leftists, and they have been saying, smash the patriarchy, destroy capitalism, down with western culture, get rid of all old white men. They say this in the university system as if that you shouldn t be teaching the intellectual fruits of old white men. Then we have the violence breaking out from that same group, attacking the people that they say they want to destroy in the streets, in the culture, in the police offices. It looks like, and in my opinion, they are following up on their threat. They have started war. We re listening on the other side saying it s just a skirmish. For them, it s the start of the war. It s the war they ve been warning, the war they ve been claiming, the war they have wanted and want to take on. At what point, the question becomes, do we call it a civil war or do we call it a breakout of skirmish? Well, a breakout, a skirmish or civil unrest can be a spontaneous thing or about a particular event. They can come from different groups of people, but these people are all connected through their ideological commitments. Their ideological commitments include the destruction of patriarchy, the destruction of capitalism, the destruction of the West. The destruction of the family, too. That s explicit on BLM. Yeah, it s unreal, man. In America, there s a lot of talk about this, where this escalates, where this goes. Most of the people I follow at this point, people that I know in real life, as well as just on the Internet, they re very concerned about it, that as a civil war at this point, an even more prevalent and more violent one, is that inevitable? I know as an American sitting here in Florida, I m looking at November 4th, the day after the presidential election, and it s hard to imagine that that day s peaceful if Trump wins. If Trump wins, and I think that s going to happen. There s a lot to that, but it s hard to imagine these people don t freak out and start flipping over cop cars, blowing things up, burning down buildings, destroying businesses of all races, you know, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, whatever. There s always so many videos now, these small business owners getting their businesses destroyed, that their whole lives have been brought into. I think you re right. If Trump wins, which I don t know. I m on the fence as to whether he s going to win or not. I didn t think he would win the last time. Yeah. So I was wrong in that in a big way. I didn t think Trudeau would win, but he won twice. Yeah. So I didn t think Trudeau.  That tells you a lot about Canadians. Yeah. And the electoral process. But I think you re right. If Trump wins, there will be riots for sure. But you know, somebody threw out a point. I forget who it was. It was somebody fairly famous. I said maybe we are at an impassable phase of the U.S. history. Maybe the country should be broken up. Let the communists, socialists, feminists take their land and let the freedom people, individual rights people, let the capitalists, if you will, democracy people take their land. Maybe not all marriages can last. And when a marriage is so dysfunctional, the healthy thing to do is divorce. And maybe what the Americans need right now is a divorce. I ve read this too. It does make some sense. I have concerns about it though that are pretty deep and that I don t think, you know, we re not dealing with intelligent, rational, level-headed opponents in culture and politics and all these things. So my concern would be that the divorce would not end the dispute and that eventually they would become aggressors. They would weaponize, the deep state, the U.N., other nations to vilify what you re talking about to make us, you know what I mean? Like they would look at this new nation.  And how many years are going to go by before all of a sudden they want to invade or do an economic embargo and block things off? So I m worried that if that happens it s not going to stop and it s going to actually result in genocide and a long enough timeline. Well, it may result in war and economic sanctions for sure. It wouldn t be an easy divorce. And in a divorce you ve got two sides, two families, and they often hate each other afterwards, but they re happier, often happier as a result of the divorce. Hello, Steve, are you there? Are you guys still watching? Can you hear me? Yeah, you re back now.  Okay, I m back now, yeah. I was going to say that on the issue, yeah, sometimes the divorce and the families on the two sides are at war with each other, but they re happy in their own camps. But in the issue of calling it genocide within one side or the other, the likely spot where you re going to find any genocide would be on the leftists because they are an intolerant group. And if the US did split up, I would wager that the majority of black people and Asians and other races are going to go with the Republican Democrat capitalist side. Most of them are smart enough to know. There s a sizable black community that are saying there s no way they ll vote for Democrats. They re for Trump because they recognize that the lies and the manipulation and the rhetoric of the Democrats and that they recognize they don t agree with the Democrats siding with these violent rioters. Yep.  Since the beginning, they were the slaveholders. They ve been manipulating blacks for votes. They helped set up feminism. As far as I understand, abortion massively affects black Americans more so than any other race. I ve heard that. Yeah, I ve heard that. Well, last thing I want to wrap up today is one more tweet you re referring to PragerU, video they put out. So do you have any quick thoughts, final thoughts on how blacks are treated by police in America? This video is saying that black people are not more likely to be shot by police than other races. And I m sure any BLM protester would scream at you for daring to suggest that. Oh yeah, of course. I mean, that s well researched. Heather McDonald put that video out and she researches this stuff basically full time. And she s not the only one to come to this conclusion. There is absolutely no evidence that the police are racist as a whole, as a group, as an organization. There s no evidence that the police treat black people or any race worse than another. There just isn t. And you analyze the data objectively. So I mean, what s there to say? If you want to take a look at it, go see the video itself and then research her sources. But I think it s a very consistent argument. Data and statistics are a tool of white supremacist patriarchy, though. Didn t you hear the news?  That s crazy. Well, this has been a great interview, man. I really appreciate your time. Thank you. Can you give us one more review or a tease about your video coming out? It gets into Black Lives Matter. It s the title, right? Yeah. I m going to talk about how the use of chaos and why they use chaos, how they create chaos and what they get out of it. All right. Looking forward to it. And how long is it? About 30-40 minutes? Longer? I don t know. I haven t recorded it yet. I basically got the first draft of the script written today. I sent it to Janice just to get some feedback on it. If she suggests that I make some changes here and there, I don t know. I ll give feedback to me tonight, probably. Hopefully, I can get it recorded in the morning and out in the afternoon. I don t know. All right. I m looking forward to it. I ll make sure to share it on my Twitter or Facebook when I get banned. I ve been banned for opposing the cult. What else is new? Yeah. Facebook has a whole other topic. All right, everybody. Thanks for tuning in to the special edition of 21 Live. I m Anthony Dream Johnson here with Steve Bralee. You can find him on YouTube, Ad Studio Bralee, and a link to his channel for that video and others. A lot of good videos on his channel. You can find that at the top link in the description and I ll put it in a card as well at the top right of the video. Thanks, everybody, and signing out. Thank you. Bye now.


from a small town in Louisiana located between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. I grew up surrounded by my grandparents and my great aunts and uncles. I am just inspired to tell their story and then telling their story. I didn't realize how I was preserving history and carrying on that legacy that they left me with. I really began to understand the historic value of African American-owned resources and telling that history. So my sister and I decided to start the descendants project because we came from a heritage tourism background where we saw that the narratives of many of the plantations that tour in our area were not including the experience of our ancestors. There is a story that our community has to tell. We have a history beyond the plantation and you know I realize why aren't our stories being told and our structures tell the story and tell the history. We are a multifaceted art organization and I think we lie at the intersection of environmental, historic, preservation and social and racial justice. We in in Cancer Alley are at the highest level of risk on the 95th percentile of cancer risk in the country. We organized and worked very hard in protecting our neighborhood from industrial encroachment in the form of a grain terminal and we advocated in addition and along with the plantations that are nearby not only for their protection and their value to us as a Black descendant community as you know sacred spaces but we also made sure that we as Black descendant communities deserve just as much protection and we found out that the judge had ruled that the zoning had to be returned back to residential. We're still all fighting and quite honestly we're gonna have to constantly fight to make sure that we are protecting our community from industrial encroachment. I call my community my the great love of my life my family's a great love of my life and I'm just honored to do this work and for the first time in my life feel like this was my purpose to be doing this kind of work.