This is Rob Johnson, president of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Yesterday, I made a podcast with Paul Jay on an analysis.news. Paul and I talked about Bernie Sanders becoming the new chair of the Senate Budget Committee and all kinds of possibilities and policies both domestic and foreign as the Biden administration takes power. I hope you enjoy the conversation here on Inauguration Day. Hi, I'm Paul Jay and welcome to the analysis.news podcast. Please don't forget there's a donate button at the top of the webpage. If we lose Georgia, Bernie Sanders is the budget chairman. If we lose the Senate, do you know who becomes the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee? In 2016, Paul Ryan said Republicans should be scared of Democrats controlling the Senate because Bernie Sanders would be the budget chair. A guy named Bernie Sanders, you ever heard of him? Bernie's budget Bernie Sanders speaking out on spending priorities. The Senate Budget Committee is really one of the most powerful in Congress because it controls the money. Sanders has been creating a new stimulus package that could include an emergency universal health care program so that anyone can get medical treatment during the pandemic whether they currently have insurance or not. Bernie Sanders, who will become the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee on January 12th, tweeted this. In the past, Republicans used budget reconciliation to pass massive tax breaks for the rich and large corporations with a simple majority vote. As the incoming chairman of the Budget Committee, I will fight to use the same process to boldly address the needs of working families." So just what can Sanders do as chairman of the Budget Committee? And how will Sanders deal with conservatives in his own party who want to slow down the pace of economic reform? What would a progressive economic program for the Biden administration look like? Now joining us is Rob Johnson. He's the president of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, INET, and host of a new podcast, Economics and Beyond. Previously, Johnson was a managing director at Soros Fund Management, where he managed a global currency bond and equity portfolio specializing in emerging markets, particularly in Asia. He was a senior economist on the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee from 1984 to 1987. That's the same committee that Sanders is about to become the chair of. He was also chief economist of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee from 1987 to 1989. Thanks for joining us again, Rob. Oh, it's my pleasure. So let's start with just what is this Budget Committee and how powerful is this job Sanders has as chair of it? Well, there are a lot of dimensions to it. First of all, you have the different components of spending related to the defense budget, housing, education, et cetera, that come energy. All these things come from different places and are aggregated after appropriations into a budget. But it's kind of a chicken and egg thing because you formulate a budget, which you might say is the top-down targets for deficit or lack thereof. And then you adapt the spending to that. You allocate spending across areas and you've got to come up with what your tax profile is going to look like as well. Is it powerful? Very definitely because very often what happens is those specialized bills all get caught in conflict. And when you get to the end of the season, what they call the Christmas Tree Bill, where the budget is embedded and everybody gets to put their ornaments on, all their little special things for their home state or home district. And that usually gets pushed through. So the budget chairman in the last act in the creation of the budget has a great deal of leverage. He also holds hearings throughout the year, he or she, depending on who's the chair. And those hearings set a tone for what is right and wrong in the eyes of that budget committee and that chairman. They're on C-SPAN. They're all quoted in the news. I think that President-elect Biden in putting Bernie Sanders on as the chair does something which you might call gives voice to a broader part of the spectrum than has traditionally been the case. But that wasn't up to Biden, was it?  He was the senior Democrat on the committee. Yes. I mean, Biden doesn't get to decide the job, right? It's not decided, but it was encouraged and congratulated. So he affirmed that role. And so he's giving voice to Bernie Sanders' contribution, not running away from it or not remaining silent. Sanders, who obviously was quite a vigorous and outspoken opponent of Biden's in the primaries, is now sitting at the table in a leadership position being affirmed by the President-elect. And I think that's the beginning of a potential, what it might call a healing gesture, which should encourage people in the progressive wing of the party relative to other types of response. I think that Biden understands that there's a lot of healing to do right now, both within the party and vis-a-vis the public more broadly. Now in the progressive wing, there's a lot of voices, including some of those progressive House members. I just interviewed Rashid at Philippe. And they're talking about, you know, now that Biden's been elected, the fight continues in terms of the progressive wing versus the more centrist and a right wing of the party. And a lot of focus will be on Sanders. So for example, let's take this issue of Medicare for All. There's some suggestion in this video that we played at the top that Sanders might even try to push through using his committee, a kind of Medicare for All during the pandemic, something specific as a pandemic measure.  There's a lot of conservative Democrats that are not for Medicare for All. No, I think that he has a difficult challenge in that regard. On the other hand, there is a sense among progressives in the context of the pandemic and other dysfunctions in society that we would be better off, not what you might call acquiescing to practicality, but to forcing votes and bringing out to the surface the people who are opposed because public opinion polls show more than 70 percent of the population is in favor of Medicare for All. It's not the population that doesn't want it. And they're the ultimate voters. It's vested interests and the struggle that has to do with the relationship between money raising, campaign war chests and the probability of re-election and what you might call the refractory influence of the mainstream media where pharmaceutical companies in particular and insurance companies as well are very big advertisers. So there's a sort of shining a light on the controversy that the progressives, I think, both in House and Senate aspire to. What's of another dimension, though, is that Sanders is really about bread and butter economic issues. And some of the other progressives are addressing another agenda, which is also important, which is what you might call the breadth and quality of representation across gender and race and sexual preference. And so they may have different ways of being progressives where Sanders is saying, let's alleviate the material distress and fear of health and so forth to show that we represent people in this democracy, whereas the others are focused on what you might call broadening inclusiveness in the process. Let's go back to the Medicare thing. So as chair of the committee, let's say he wants to propose of some form of Medicare for All as a pandemic measure. And now, of course, he'll be accused of using this as a way to push it further than the pandemic. But I'm sure he's not going to be shy about hoping for that. But as chair, he can do what? He can force this to have hearings on this. He can force. Yes. He can examine. It's not enough just to force a vote. You can raise the attention, put the stage lights on. What would this imply for the American people and invite witnesses and some how they say there'll be some yin and yang. Some people will talk about the ramifications of costs and oppose him. But by raising the issue and putting it on the table, he gives it voice. And as I mentioned, it may be the case that if he can generate the popularity when the Christmas Tree Bill comes along, it could be an amendment that people at that time would fear to oppose, provided, how would I say, if the pandemic's consequences are quite prolonged and severe. Yeah, there's been a lot of conversation on the left about this force to vote in the House. There were some people suggesting that there should be the progressives in the House should withhold their vote for Nancy Pelosi when she was about had to be voted in as the Speaker of the House and so on. I personally have never been for or against that tactic in the sense I don't know enough about how the House works. I didn't like some of the name calling that was going on, which is what I objected to. But it seems to me this is in some ways more significant what Sanders can do here because he's chair of the Budget Committee, so he can really steer a conversation on this issue of Medicare. But he can do it on other issues, too. Now, Sanders has talked a lot about cutting the military budget. So he could do the same thing. Could he not, like, you know, have hearings, force of vote on some significant cuts to the military budget? Well, I know your friend and my recent acquaintance, Daniel Ellsberg, has some very interesting ways to achieve savings in the military budget. I watched a presentation the other day in a conversation between former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Joseph Stiglitz. And Rubin said, look at American health care. It costs about 40 to 50 percent more than the other countries. And yet its performance is very much at the bottom of the advanced countries, the so-called OECD countries. So there may be opportunity to improve the performance of health care at the same time as reducing the cost and creating budget savings that could be used for something like a Green New Deal or Medicare for All. Now, Bernie doesn't actually have that great a record when it comes to cutting the military budget. He's advocated it. But, you know, when he was in Vermont, he was he kind of supported the idea. I think it was the F-35, was it? Would be having a certain amount of production in Vermont. It's a touchy subject for all of these people in Congress, but seems to be a critical one. The the the there'll be a lot of pressure on him from the progressive wing of the party to really force a real conversation about the Pentagon budget. Yes, I think what you might say after 40 years since the time that Ronald Reagan was elected, there are a lot of fault lines and a lot of stresses that are emerging. Some of the tax cuts for the wealthy, particularly the tax cut that Donald Trump initiated in 2017 could be rescinded. Changes in the composition of the military budget, reflecting the fact that since the time Reagan came into power, the Cold War has ended. Questions related to the the cost of pharmaceuticals in America relative to other places in the world. So there are many places in which to try to readjust things. But you do face the fact that this is not just something that's up to the voters. The role of money in American politics is very, very enormous with lobbying, campaign contributions, appointments, provision, you know, what laws are proposed, what regulations are enforced. All of these things are influenced very heavily by money and with a very increasing concentration of wealth and income, those, how do you say, those who are represented are fewer and fewer, unless you believe in something that the conservatives used to call trickle down, which is if you give all the money and all the freedom to the people atop, they'll create through investment a structure that raises productivity and makes everybody better off. But after 40 years, people are questioning the validity of that hypothesis because it's a promise that's not been fulfilled. Yeah, I think the trickle down turned out to be more like excuse the language pissing down because it wasn't it wasn't wealth to trickle down, something trickled down, but it wasn't wealth. That's right. So what do you want me to add one other thing? It used to be that taking your money and keeping it off shore. It was called tax evasion and it was a crime. But we've now lobbied successfully on the part of the wealthy and powerful so that it is now called tax avoidance, not tax evasion. And all of that keeping money offshore, whether it's companies like Apple and Amazon or whoever, or whether it's wealthy individuals, makes it look as though the tax base is always smaller. Now, there may be promise that it will be deferred until such time things come home. But we do not see what you might call the uniform international floor on taxes and people can thrust their money to the lowest rate area and act as though that's where their activity takes place. And that starves the American government for budget. We've been talking about the spending side, but on the revenue side, how would I say those things add up to be what we might call the deficit or the balance of the budget. If we brought more revenue home and tax more, some talk about a global wealth tax. This could redistribute things and allow us to achieve many of the social structures like health care, like education, like repaired infrastructure, like making a public good of broad based internet structure so that everybody doing remote learning has access to broadband. All of those things would improve the quality of life and the hope for the future for many, many people. So there are a lot of there are a lot of variables in play, all of which in a practical sense have a lot of resistance to reform, given the structure of money politics. My understanding is even today, the Supreme Court is about to take on a new case to reaffirm that the so-called super PACs do not have to disclose who their donors are when their their quote money is freedom. The Bernie were to propose, for example, a wealth tax or frankly, any of the other reforms that he's talking about that are serious, including significantly higher taxes on the wealthy, which he's also talked about. In spite of these warm and fuzzy words that president elect almost president and might be by the time we run this interview, you will be president. I don't know. Biden has for Sanders. He's appointed some people around him that represent some of the most powerful interests of Wall Street. Two of his top advisors on economics used to work for BlackRock, which is the largest asset manager in the world. He's got some other people that are former Goldman people. And it seems now listening to the way some of these advisors talk that BlackRock and others on Wall Street are for a big stimulus package. And I guess partly because the past stimulus packages, a lot of the money is gone to protect assets on the stock market, which has greatly benefited BlackRock and others. Do you get? I don't know if you have a handle on what this new Biden plan is going to be because is it going to be another big chunk of money to prop up the stock market or is significantly more going to be actually direct subsidy into people's pockets? Because I saw I think his name is Brian Deese, I think he's the head of the Economic Advisors National Economic Council. Right. And and he was on Sunday morning TV and he was talking very positively about an almost two trillion dollar plan. But again, is the plan really going to go into working families or is another chunk going to go to prop up stock markets, which help BlackRock? Well, that's to be determined. And I don't know the details yet. But I do think people have recognized, as you alluded to, that the first round protected assets, not people. And so I think we're not in a juncture where a different distributional plan is essential to the credibility of this new administration. So what would that look like? It would be much more direct support to individuals who have been laid off when you look at the different sectors in the economy. The sectors like hospitality and leisure, hotels, restaurants and so forth, have had to lay off a lot of workers, particularly in the second phase lockdown that we're in right now. And so giving support to those people, meaning to the extent that their spending would be constrained in the absence of a wage, but in the long run, these people will be coming back on stream. They're professionally capable. They're not laid off because they're incapable. They're laid off because those sectors have to be locked down. It's a collective responsibility. Paying those people directly allows them to continue to be consumers, provide for their children, eat well and things of that nature. The the appointments like these and some of the others who have just either just came from Wall Street or have been going back and forth between Wall Street and government, but clearly represent Black Rocks and others. Did that concern you that Biden could have gone a less Wall Street direction than he did? Yeah, I guess I would say, yes, everyone should be concerned. But there there's kind of a yin and yang in this, in my view. On the one hand, some of the people who operate in finance and so forth have a lot of knowledge and sophistication about how you would create a healthy impact. On the other side, they may have that knowledge, but they may be so what you might call woven into their crony club of their sector that what they do is reward people with the proceeds for that. We I guess you have to say that in embarking on as powerful an episode as we have right now after the turmoil of January 6th, after the recognition that Trump came to power because of some of the neglect and failings of the previous Democratic administration administration where Joe Biden was the vice president, we've got to do something different. And, you know, FDR was viewed as a kind of silver spoon rich kid that he rose to the occasion of the new deal after the depression and then on to World War Two. So I guess one is perhaps purifying your identity by remaining cynical and caustic. But the I think being critical is important. But being supportive of finding a direction in which to take leadership that will address the problems and perhaps working with the you might call ability to persuade people who are knowledge about the structure and the plumbing of finance and economy. May may withhold some or say may contain within it some potential. We got to see if these people rise to the occasion. I don't think they can go back to what you might call playing lobbying games and filling their own pockets. The public is too attentive now and too outraged. I hope you're right. It was so. A lot of a lot of outrage. The thing is a lot of that outrage was quote unquote against government, you know, which is the old Reagan thing. The government's not the solution. Government's the problem. The outrage, certainly amongst Trump supporters, really wasn't against the actual one percent that are the ownership class or less than one percent who are really, you know, the power here. It's all against government or it's against ethnic minorities. You know, it's a lot of that outrage is not very conscious of where the real problem is. Somebody once said to me, I was doing a conference for Inet in Detroit. Said, why don't you was talking about racial animosity?  Have a nice vacation. He was being, you know, facetious, but but the idea of where we need to focus. And by the way, I'm I'm somewhat averse to making it about personality. You know, you see on the right, AOC is this, you see on the left. Mitch McConnell is that all of these people live in a system. Which is refracted by the power of money and the relationship of money to survival. Someone as smart as Kamala Harris, who I've met on a couple of occasions and she's very smart, she knows the difference between right and wrong. And she also knows the difference between what would get her put out of office and what allows her to continue to struggle from a position of power. And hopefully with people like her in the administration and this higher intensity on the part of the public. She can she and people like her can bend the ear of the president. To move in a constructive direction, because I think the danger is if we don't do that, if we allow the despair to continue to be fomented and elevate, there will be a degree of fear where many people will acquiesce to another authoritarian leader. And I think that is a bigger danger for democracy and for the health of our republic. And for that matter, if you've got a good business and you go into what I'll call wild authoritarianism, your business may get choked. If you think you know what you're doing in the private sector, you ought to be in the game of giving up a little right now to stabilize our social sustainability and to correct our environmental problems so that 20 years from now, you're still making money. Well, these family led authoritarian governments are usually family led kleptocracies. They usually go hand in hand or almost always do. Well, I was going to say, in the beginning, there were a number of people who supported Adolf Hitler. But at the end, it was a wreckage. That that game didn't play out well for a lot of those families that started off getting richer. When something is not sustainable, you can't foresee how it will emerge. It's it's not known. It's known that it's coming apart, but it's not knowing how it'll be reassembled. And to pretend those who made money this year or last year can continue in that new environment is pretending to know something that you don't know. You're right, that being wealthy gives you, which you might call leverage in the design and architecture, but it's not sufficient in a period of outrage. Yeah, I mean, I think what happened here with Trump is he was a very useful megalomaniac for most of the four years, but institutionally, when he didn't want to transition power peacefully, then it starts becoming a one man kleptocracy, one man show. And the elites decided it was really time to get rid of them. Yes. And the McConnell, as I've said on air before, I think McConnell played a role working with Dick Cheney and some others to dump Trump by actually allowing chaos in Congress and using that to sink Trump's boat. But I think it's important that this Trump, the substance of what Trump stood for, not the craziness, not the megalomania, but the real core values of Trump. I don't think are all that different than Reagan.  The dog whistle stuff appealing to racism and so on. That this is part of how the right wing and the right wing of the elites mobilized their power. And so, yeah, what you're saying is if the Biden administration doesn't do something really seriously to make people's lives better, yeah, in 2024 or whenever, we're gonna find a less maniac Trump, a less more controllable Trump, perhaps, because I think in the end, the elites didn't like they couldn't control Trump. And they showed where the real power was too, because as much as Trump tried to use the power of the presidency, when push came to shove, the elites had a lot more power than he did. Yes. Now, given the chaos and civil war in the Republican Party, do you think this makes the possibility for some really progressive reform out of this administration more or less likely? Well, I do think, how would I put it? One of those Dr. Seuss things had a thing called the push me poll you. It was one of the little cartoon characters in a child's fantasy episode. The push me poll you kind of went in both directions at once, there's a temptation to try to bring the center right back from the time when I worked with Pete Domenici, who once said to me, he thought he was. Who was a Republican? He was a Republican, he was my boss. Years later, he said to me, I think I was a little further left than Barack Obama or John Kerry. But by the time I had left, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and everybody were in power and the party was going to the right. But that centrist, what I'll call stewardship type Republican has been absent for quite a long time. And so you could say the schism in the Republican party might bring some people back to the center and make it easier to govern. On the other hand, the progressive flank appears to me, we'll call it the Bernie Sanders flank to appeal to an awful lot of those Trump voters in doing policies that are much broad based in terms of equity of distribution and repairing things that are in disrepair would very likely bring some of those people. What they call Trump's Democrats, John Shields and a woman whose name I don't recall right now wrote a wonderful book about field research all around the country of who were the long-term Democrats who voted for Trump. We should diagnose who those people are, what their concerns are and try to heal those concerns to bring things, I say both from the right and the left back to a more cohesive and sustainable society. And I don't know if you're gonna see the courts taking the more moderate role. I'm quite skeptical in that regard given recent appointments. And I'm also very concerned that the legislature itself would have a very hard time rescinding the tax cuts because powerful donors don't want to pay more in taxes. But there will be some fear among the very elites that the system is coming unbuckled unless they give up a little bit or contribute to things. And it won't be just through their charitable donations. It'd have to be structural in order to be of the scale in the hundreds of billions of dollars to repair the kind of psychological damage that's been done in the last 40 years. There seems to be some appetite for that on Wall Street. Like there was lots of articles in the business press that the finance sector and other elites are willing to accept some higher taxes because Trump's gone nuts and if that's what it takes to get some kind of stability, I guess for now, because they know later they can probably get it cut again. I guess as progressives, I think, I know that word gets thrown around so much it can mean almost anything. But I think we need to be realistic about what's possible in the United States. This is the most powerful empire in the history of the world. It is the wealthiest and certainly the most powerful military in the history of the world. And I think if it's possible to mitigate American foreign policy, so it's less aggressive, and if it's possible to have some reforms so the society is more equitable, at the same time, I think we need to talk about what a larger goal looks like. Like for me personally, I don't think any real solutions take place without significant public ownership. I just think private ownership has its, such has its limits, and it's so hard to even regulate these days because the law being powered. And as you were talking about the money in politics. And with globalization, you can evade the control of a nation state by redeploying capital and technology. Yeah, very much, which is really I think what led to the power of the forces that led to Reagan and then Trump and same with Clinton as well. I mean, it is globalization that's driven all of this to my mind. But there's something I think there is importance in the nuance. And I think this gets lost sometimes on the left. And the nuance for the Biden foreign policy that gives me some encouragement is two things. One is on Iran. Jake Sullivan was on Zacharia show and said that Biden is gonna go back into the Iran nuclear deal if Iran complies with the original deal, which they say they will. So it sounds like that deal will get going again. And that's at least some glimmer of rationality in US foreign policy, which I think is important. And then another one, Avril Haynes in her hearing which is just, we're recording this on Tuesday, it was Tuesday morning. While there's a lot of the same rhetoric about China that we've heard, she was asked a pointed question and I thought her answer was interesting and a good answer in the context of a lot of normal aggressive intelligence agency rhetoric. She was asked, is China an adversary or a competitor? And she said, President-elect Biden is globally positioning this question. He's framing it as China is a global competitor instead of the word adversary. Which I thought is a bloody also glimmer of light if that's really the inclination. Cause during the election campaign, there was a lot of inflammatory rhetoric from Biden trying to practically outflank Trump from the right. I couldn't agree more with the priority that you're attaching to China and the need I think for the intelligence community to focus on this issue. I think in the context of China, China is adversarial and an adversary on some issues. And in other issues, we try to cooperate with them, whether in the context of climate change or other things. And ultimately the frame that the president-elect has identified for thinking about this is as a global competitor. That's a glimmer of light. So talk about how some of that, let's talk foreign policy, I guess for a bit. Some of the small things matter. What are your expectations? Well, first of all, I wanna refer to what you said a few moments ago about the use of the American military. We're one day after Martin Luther King holiday. Martin Luther King's speech one year before he died at the Riverside Church in New York, beyond Vietnam, a time to break the silence, spoke about the coherence and the moral, how we say, magnetism or lack thereof of American foreign policy was something that had to be brought. As he said, militarism, racism, and extreme materialism are a triad, they're not separable. And so the question of what in a moral and ethical framework is the American military being devoted to achieving is very important to consider. The powers, the pressures in the trenches of the military industrial complex, lobbying and so forth, as again, Daniel Ellsberg in Doomsday Machine talks about it with great lucidity, will always be there. But given the priorities, we don't have a war against Mars. We have a war against climate, which is not a well-defined adversary in the tangible historic sense. But we have to embrace that with China, not as a competitor, but as an ally with India as an ally, which will probably require some global support. So a moral and ethical deep dive into what American foreign policy is meant to achieve should, how would I say, progressive should be very attentive to that dimension of the challenge. And I know that there are some very experienced people, like Lawrence Wilkerson, who's been on your program and others who are capable of discriminating between dangers to us or to our allies on the one hand, and what you might call other forces that are propelling defense activity. In other words, not so much defense as offense or intimidation that we need to disaggregate, we need to change course. And I believe the military industries are comfortable staying on this course because they know how to build all the machines and so forth, but when you shift gears, they'll still be good at adapting to whatever the challenge is. But we got to make real challenges because in essence, they're getting paid with the money of the American people. So it's not so much acquiescing to them. It's defining where we have to go as, as you say, the most powerful military empire in history and how we characterize people like you described, like the Chinese. And interesting, how will China as a competitor in fostering the development of Africa relate to the very intense and brutal military presence of the United States in Africa? It may be that China as a competitor is gonna have to induce us to change strategy in order to have a win-win collaboration in Africa. Although mind you, China's been quite okay with collaborating with very brutal governments. That is true. China is the best. I'm not putting them on a pedestal. There's plenty of critique for the Chinese and of the Chinese that we should also be very clear about. What is driving this China phobia in both parties, this idea that, you know, whether China, if China's just a global competitor, well, so is Europe. And they're not talking about Europe the way they're talking about China. Even though there's some real competition with Europe, I remember in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, there was serious competition between Germany and the United States about who would have the upper hand in Eastern Europe. So, but this rivalry with China goes beyond that because China is now a global competitor at not the level of the United States yet. But not far away from being, you know, pretty much an equal, which amongst other things says to countries like anywhere from Pakistan, even to Brazil, to you name it, when they're negotiating with an American mining company or investment banks or whatever. Now these companies, countries can say what they used to say about the Soviet Union. They can say, well, actually, we got another door we can knock on where we don't just have to play with you Americans. I mean, is that what's really bothering the US here? I would refer to the economist Dean Baker a little bit here. He's been on my podcast recently and he also has written about this great deal. In the beginning, when China started its development program, it's a country that's population about four times the size of the United States. It's per capita income at the beginning. This in 1980s was one 40th of America. Integrating them into the United States through foreign direct investment where they had lower labor standards and lower environmental standards did compress the wages and reduce the number of jobs in the United States. So the adjustment process took place and it was very painful for very significant American, how do you say proportion of the American population. Now, what's happened more recently is that the anger against China has been coming from Silicon Valley, the entertainment industry and pharma industry or intellectual property rights, Wall Street about not getting enough market access and not having the currency, the renminbi be convertible. So all kinds of the powerful interests got upset and the original interests, whether the Walmart's or Nike's, whoever who had such a fantastic profitable run from doing foreign direct investment started seeing China improve its environmental standards and push for better labor conditions and higher wages compressing their profits. So almost every powerful vested interest in America saw the rate of change as negative and maybe even the absolute level as negative. Many American knowledge intensive industries would open a plant as a joint venture in China and shortly thereafter see a Chinese plant copying it being favored by the government so that their market share didn't blossom. All they did was transfer the knowledge of the production process and then be pushed aside. That was a basis for resentment. The Chinese do use the state more heavily than other places, state-owned enterprise, the subsidies, it gives them, which you might call resilience advantage in competing with companies of the West and it makes them afraid. People had hoped when they joined the WTO and joined this world system that they would converge what you might call with the American model. But that hasn't happened as of this point. And in the China 2025 plan, which came out a few years ago, made it look like they were gonna turn inward. They could see the scale of their own economy. The next big boost in demand would be Chinese internal demand from the development moving from the middle income trap up to a higher knowledge intensive economy. But they weren't talking about doing that by allowing the others in. So there was real basis, Democrat or Republican. People like Larry Summers went to the China Development Forum and were very critical. They sounded quite a bit like Donald Trump. So there is some, what you might call, adjustment or accommodation to being a member and a competitor in the world system that China has to make. Or is it gonna go the other way? Your colleague, Tom Ferguson, sent me an article a day or two ago how Deutsche Bank is actually suggesting that the German state government gets far more involved in a planned economy. Even ownership positions in companies to take some of the risk. Kind of more of the Chinese model. And I'm wondering if you might not see that in the US too. We're to compete with China. They wanna have more state intervention in that way. Obviously state intervention on behalf of the monopolies. Yes. Well, we do not acknowledge in America the degree to which we do support, subsidize and benefit our powerful companies. The American military and the sea lanes and policing the Middle East is subsidizing oil companies, air profits as well as perhaps the price of gasoline for the consumer in the United States. But these are not unsubsidized industries. They're just organized in a slightly different manner. But I do think that the Chinese model poses a fundamental threat and the German response is not surprising. Yeah, Tom, I wrote back to Tom. I said, well, so the Germans want the Chinese model. And he wrote back and he said, yeah, but without the party. And I wrote back saying, well, that may come too. Cause they already had the party once. Yeah, well, what I say, that was a party we all had a hangover from in Europe. Anyway, my sense is vis-a-vis the foreign policy. The animosity towards China now. This is how I wanna synthesize the two piece we've been talking about. The pain was felt by the working class. They remained resentful. Trump, on behalf of these industries now, demonized the Chinese. And the people who had been injured in the past rounds, as Dean Baker points out, were on board. They wanted to give voice to that pain that they had suffered. And in the old days, when Wall Street still thought it was gonna get in, when Facebook and Google and Apple all thought they were gonna get in, when they thought they were gonna open the markets, everybody suppressed concern. The so-called, are they a currency manipulator? Keeping the rim and be undervalued was thwarted at the treasury through most of the Bush and the Obama years. When most indicators suggested their currency in terms of a trade purchasing power parity measure that economists use was undervalued and they had a competitive advantage. And the currency, given their surplus, should have appreciated more. But we didn't punish them because American lobbyists from the upper end of the spectrum of wealth and power supported that Chinese American interaction. But now they're fighting for themselves. And one, just to leave a little hopeful note again, seems to me now it doesn't matter what topic we're talking about. If we don't frame it within what does it mean in terms of climate change, we're kind of missing the boat, because it ain't gonna matter if we don't deal with the climate issue and carbon and such, then it kind of doesn't matter. You could have Medicare for all tomorrow, but if we don't have effective climate policy, you know, in a few decades, we're gonna be on a planet that's more or less unlivable. Not to say we don't need Medicare for all, of course. But climate is clearly the critical issue here. In this hearing, again, this with Avril Haines, when she's asked about is China an adversary or competitor, she kind of said, well, both when it comes to on the intelligence side, they're an adversary. But she said on an issue like climate, in fact, there should be cooperation. And I see, you know, looking at the history of how the Soviet Union and the United States communicated with each other, these hearings and these sort of things by these kinds of officials, it seems like they actually count for something, it is a way to communicate. And it sounds like Biden is trying to throw a few lines or whatever you would call it to the Chinese to say, there actually is room to talk here as collaborators and especially on climate. And if they're serious about that, that's a good thing. And as much as I think there's genuine concerns, certainly about repression inside China and such, that again, the climate issue certainly is the thing that's the most significant we're facing as humans. And if they're really gonna be cooperation. Now on the other hand, Biden better get some climate policy makes sense himself because if he thinks it's all gonna be about carbon capture, then they didn't go in anywhere either. Well, I think there are a lot of people, I know, Der Turner who was a senior fellow for many years with INET works on this, believe that the technological possibility, in other words, what has already been developed if implemented on scale is feasible to meet that challenge. And it's now very much about the politics of priorities and how you, which you might call restrict the political power of the fossil fuel industry from arresting the transformation that has to be done on large scale and rapidly. So I think that it's not so much, can we do it? It's will we do it? That's at issue here. And if I were a Biden inner circle person in the White House, I would say you wanna go down in history as a great, great president. The way you're gonna do it is being the guy that shifted gears and made the climate challenge. And by the way comes with that is the macroeconomic stimulus and jobs associated with the transformation process and digging out of this rut that we've been in since the pandemic started would be a tremendous, what you might call double hit, two for the price of one is if you will. And so I think he, I sense that the Biden people, they talk as though they understand the graveness of the challenge that we're in vis-a-vis social sustainability and climate slash resource sustainability at the same time. And I think that those smoke signals, those flares they're sending to China about collaboration are encouraging. That it tells me it's at the top of their consciousness because in the aftermath of Donald Trump, it may be a little bit risky to talk friendly and cooperative to China. He fomented very successfully a demonic image that needs to be greatly diminished and much more discriminated to make. And there's certainly voices in the Democratic party were just as vociferous as he was. Yes. Oh, yeah. Oh, it's not R versus D kind of thing. It's much broader based as you say. All right. Thanks very much for joining us, Rob. We should, we got to do this more often. My pleasure. Thank you and enjoy, how would I say? Enjoy the process of thinking about how to help because we got to get beyond the despair so that we are committing to our children's future.  Right. All right. Thanks and thank you for joining us on the analysis.newspodcast and please don't forget the donate button. And here's the music.


Welcome back to the 21 convention 2020 of Orlando, Florida being held for the first time ever at our very first and inaugural 21 summit event Our next speaker is a founder of strong strength camp CEO strength camp He has over 2 million YouTube subscribers And he's spoken twice previously at the 21 convention and the 21 convention first patriarch edition held last year in Orlando, Florida He's a proud patriarch before and I think one of the best speakers We've ever had this convention their entire 14-year history without further ado. Please let me welcome back to the 21 convention stage Elliot Hulse Thanks for joining us Anthony, thank you for being on this awesome event really excited to share with you guys today This is actually the first of three talks. I'll be giving this weekend Each talk builds on top of the previous talk This talk I lay the foundation for the next two talks and I got a lot of references So I'll be reading for a good portion of it next introduction Men today are weak The following is a transcript of supporting facts.  They spend less time playing video games They go to more prestigious colleges If you're an employer, you may have noticed that your female employees show up on time The young men don't Of course If you live in this country, you've seen a horrifying series of mass shootings Far more than we ever have Women didn't do that in every case the man the shooter was a man Something ominous is happening to men in america anyone who pays attention knows that But it's odd how rarely you hear It publicly acknowledged Our leaders pledge to create more opportunities for girls and women But men don't need help. They're the patriarchy. They're fine More than fine. Are they fine? Here are the numbers Let's start with the most basic life and death American men will die on average five years before average american women One of the reasons for this is addiction Men are more than twice as likely as women to become alcoholics They are also twice as likely to die of a drug overdose In new hampshire one of the state's hardest hit by the opioid crisis 73 of overdose deaths were men The saddest reason for shortness of life in men is suicide 77 of all suicides in america are committed by men And the overall rate is increasing at a dramatic rate Between 1997 and 2014 There was a 43 rise in suicide deaths amongst middle-aged american men The highest rates are among american indians and white men who kill themselves at about 10 times the rate of hispanic and black men You often hear about america's incarceration crisis That's almost exclusively a male problem too About 98 of inmates are men These problems are complex, but we do know that they start young Relative to girls boys are failing in school More girls graduate high school and from college In schools at every level boys account for the overwhelming and majority of discipline cases Fully one in five high school boys have been diagnosed with some form of hyperactivity disorder That's compared with just one in 11 girls Many of them are medicated for it The long-term health effects of these medications are not fully understood But they do appear to include depression later in life More women go to graduate school. They earn the majority of doctoral degrees There are also the majority of new enrollees in both law and medical school For men the consequences of failing in school are long term and profound Between 1979 And 2010 working age men with only a high school degree saw their real hourly wages drop about 20% Over the same period of time, high school educated women saw their wages rise The decline of the industrial economy disproportionately hurt men There are now 7 million working age men in america who do not work They dropped out of the labor force Nearly nearly half of them take pain medication on any given day That's the highest rate in the world by far Far fewer young men get married than just a few decades ago and far fewer stay married About one in five american children now live only with their mothers That's double the rate of 1970s Millions of boys are growing up without fathers Young adult men are more likely to live with a parent than they are to live with a spouse or a partner That is not the case for young women Single women buy their own homes at more than twice the rate of single men More women have drivers license Whenever gender differences come up in public debates, the wage gap comes up A woman makes 70 cents for every dollar a man earns That's the statistic you'll hear a lot Presidents have repeated it and many candidates. It's everywhere That number compares all american men to all american women across all professions No legitimate social scientists would consider that a valid or meaningful measure The number does not mean anything. It's intentionally misleading. It's a talking point Once you compare men and women with similar experience Working the same hours and similar jobs for the same period because that's the only way to measure it The gap disappears. In fact, it may invert One study using census data concludes that single women in their 20s living in metropolitan areas now earn 8% more on average than their male counterparts By the way, the majority of managers in the workplace are women Women on average are scoring Higher on their IQ tests than men Even physically men are falling behind A recent study found that half of young men fail the army's entry-level physical fitness exam during basic training Fully 70% of american men are now overweight or obese as compared to 59% of american women Perhaps most terrifying men are becoming less male fundamentally measurably Sperm counts across the west have plummeted They're down almost 60 percent since the 1970s Scientists don't know why Testosterone levels in men have fallen precipitously One study found that the average levels of male testosterone drop 1% every year Since 1987 and that's not related to age. In other words, the average 40 year old man in 2017 Would have testosterone levels 30% lower than the average 40 year old man in 1987 There's no upside to this trend lower testosterone means Lower testosterone in men is associated with depression Lethargy weight gain and decreased cognitive ability Nothing like this has ever happened to a population before What is going on and how can we fix it? So there's no question In every single way as explained here men are weak today I'm weaker than my daddy was You're weaker than your dad than your granddad in each generation. We just keep getting weaker It's not a judgment. These are facts We are not doing well at all And according to what I just read here from Tucker Cawson women are doing a whole lot better than we are next So i'm here to point some things out And clear up some facts and let you know that it's not all our fault I'm not saying we shouldn't take responsibility for various areas of our lives But there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that we're not Being told and we're not very clear about So in my three-part series beginning today I'm going to be talking about the hidden reasons for weakness in men. That's today's talk Got a lot of resources for that Tomorrow i'll be talking about exposing the dark mother for the 22 convention As it relates and returning to the father for the patriarch edition on saturday next The hidden reasons for weakness in men Next Today we're going to go through these three chapters number one the predictable pattern of male effeminacy There's a pattern of effeminacy that is built into our dna. I'm going to talk about that The cultural collapse the cultural causes of collapse for masculinity today And then number three feminism and the rise of a nice guy next The predictable pattern of male effeminacy next What exactly is meant by effeminacy in men? According to st. Thomas Aquinas of effeminacy is defined by st. Thomas Aquinas As an unwillingness to put aside one's pleasure in order to pursue what is arduous or difficult Sloth has the same definition. What's the difference? Sloth is an aversion to what's hard with effeminacy It's attachment to pleasure And i'm going to assert that there is an epidemic of effeminacy here in america And in the west next According to uh They're supposed to all show up there, but they're not as expanded upon by father chad rippager There are four kinds of effeminacy. Whoop there. I are number one sensual effeminacy This is following our lower appetites sensation over reason Some examples include sex addiction masturbation Sleeping in overeating playing video games getting drunk using drugs Number two, we have emotional effeminacy Following our emotions Feelings over reason examples include moodyness mood swings addiction to excitement and passion Good feelings Inflation, etc Next we have uh intellectual effeminacy Various examples of uh or intellectual effeminacy is actually seeking novelty Mental masturbation over resting In the truth examples of that are overthinking Overconsumption of books videos media addiction to argument Disatisfaction with intellectual calm. You see a lot of this in facebook comments Number four volitional effeminacy Egoism pride personal will over the will of god examples include overworking narcissism Doing what you want rather than doing what's right in an unwillingness to sacrifice effeminacy in men next So there's a predictable pattern of male effeminacy And i'm going to be talking a whole lot about that in the next few slides and it can be seen Here in what's referred to as the masculinity cycle this model can be imposed upon a single man's evolution his own life Or it could be super imposed upon the collective experience Starting at the top hard times Create strong men shout out to stephen arneo may he rest in peace Strong men create good times Good times create weak men And then weak men create hard times and i assert that we are sort of in the middle there between good times Creating weak men. I mean like we were totally there. We already asserted the numbers prove it I just laid it out there for you Men are weak. We're getting weaker our tests asked for own man juices dropping and in many ways we're We're turning into women. I'll show you more And so These good times are coming to an end if you're starting to pay attention and it's not a matter of being a doomsdayer or Be having a negative outlook on things. This is a normal natural Very repeatable often happens always happens pattern where these good times that create weak men create A situation where weak men create hard times and we're like right at the precipice of that And i'm going to show you a whole lot more here today to sort of hammer home that point next So, uh, this idea is really depicted very well in Will Durant's famous quote a nation is born stoic and dies a peccurian And its cradle religion stands and philosophy accompanies it to the grave In the beginning of all cultures a strong religious faith conceals and softens the nature of things The and gives men courage to bear pain and hardship patiently At every step the gods are with them And will not let them perish until they do Even a firm faith will explain That it was the sins of the people that turned their gods to an avenging wrath Evil does not destroy faith, but strengthens it If victory comes if war is forgotten insecurity and peace then wealth grows The life of the body gives way in the dominant classes to the life of the senses and the mind Toil and suffering are replaced by pleasure and ease Science weakens faith even while thought and comfort weaken virility and fortitude At last men begin to doubt the gods They mourn the tragedy of knowledge and seek refuge in every passing delight Achilles at the beginning a peccurious at the end After david comes joe and after joe ecclesiastes Historically we can see good times creating weak men playing out perfectly in next American degeneracy next Rome in decadence next The bible and Babylon and if you take a look at the old testament it is simply a story of mankind doing this Getting getting saved screwing it up Destroying themselves and just over and over and over again a story or the image that you see there is From revelations which describes what it looks like when a society is about to go to shit It's a drunk woman Riding on a wild animal and if you think about that if you just take that imagery and you've been super positive Upon what's going on today a drunk woman riding an animal. Yeah, we're there next And in the beginning so What i'd like to do here is i'm going to read Genesis the origin story or the the origin story from the bible And i want you to i want you to see if you recognize this pattern. So i want you to i want you to see how that We're not only dealing with this today And i wasn't only a roman problem This has been a problem since day one our ancestor first man Genesis chapter one god says Let's make mankind in our image in our likeness So that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky Over the livestock and all the wild animals and over all the creatures that move on the ground God bless them and said to them be fruitful and increase in number fill the earth and subdue it God saw all he had made and it was good chapter two The lord god took the man and put him in the garden of eden to work it and take care of it And the lord god commanded the man you are free to eat from any tree in the garden But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for when you eat from it you will certainly die Lord god said it is not good for man to be alone I will make him a helper suitable for him So lord god caused the man to fall asleep and while sleeping he took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place of his flesh Then the lord god made a woman from the rib. He had taken out an atom and brought the woman to adam chapter three Now the serpent was the most crafty than any other wild animal in the lord god that the lord god had made He said to the woman Did god really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden? The woman said to the serpent we may eat fruit from the trees of the garden But god said you must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden. You must not touch it or you will die You will not certainly die The serpent said to the woman for god knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened And you will be like god knowing good and evil When the woman saw the fruit of the tree that was good for food and pleasing to the eye and was also desirable for gaining wisdom She took some and ate it then also gave some to her husband who was with her and he ate it Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized they were naked So they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves Then the man and his wife heard the sound of lord god as he was walking through the garden on a cool day and they hid from him Among the trees, but the lord god said to the man, where are you? The man answered I heard you in the garden. I was afraid because I was naked.  She gave it to me and I ate some of the fruit Then the lord god said to the woman, what is it that you've done?  He blames his wife He didn't even take responsibility for what happened He didn't even say man. Let me let me just take this into chin Let me just be a man about this.   Intellectual his pride in gaining Forbidden knowledge. There's a reason why god didn't want him to know the things that ultimately corrupted him and us and volitional following his own will over Following his own will but even worse. He follows the will of his wife And then blames her and takes no responsibility Often we want to blame eve but in fact adam was the first offender He did not protect the garden from evil. Thus his wife was seduced So it's very evident that there's a predictable pattern of effeminacy in men. This is nothing new Which stretches all the way back to the first man adam So there we have it. That's one reason why it's not your fault, right?  It seems next So In chapter two, we're going to discuss the cultural causes of collapsed masculinity Next so ideological subversion our great brainwashing. This is a kgb defector by the name of yori benzenoff He's one of the world's outstanding experts on the subject of soviet propaganda and disinformation and active measures in 1984 He gave this interview where he states Ideological subversion is the slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures in the language of the kgb Or psychological warfare What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every american To such an extent that despite the abundance of information No one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves Their families their community or their country It is a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages The first one being demoralization It takes from 15 to 30 years to demoralize a nation Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy In other words marxism Leninism ideology Is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of american students From another interview he expands on demoralization because this is key. We're totally in this demoralized state This is the process which can take about 15 to 30 years to perform During this stage the moral fiber and integrity of the country is put into question Thereby creating doubts in the minds of the people to do so manipulation of the media and academia is required to influence young people As the younger generation embraces new values such as marxism and leninism The older generation slowly loses control simply through attrition Again true facts no longer matter during the stage But rather creating perceptions are paramount. He continues Without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of americanism american patriotism The demoralization process in the united states is basically completed already for 25 years. This was 1983 Actually, it's over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where previously not all the experts would have dreamed of It's been such a tremendous success because most of it's done by americans to americans Thanks to a lack of moral standards as i mentioned before Exposure to true information does not matter anymore a person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information The facts tell nothing to him Even if I show him information with authentic proof with documents with pictures Even if I take him by force to the soviet union and show him concentration camps He will refuse to believe it until he receives a kick in his fat bottom When a military boot crushes his balls Then he will understand but not before that is the tragic situation of demoralization In order to better understand who and why This demoralization has taken place to such a great extent that we have an epidemic of effeminate men in america and the west First we'll take a look at the history and the philosophy of marxism leninism next The philosophy of marxism leninism originated as a proactive political praxis of the bolshevik faction of the russian socialist Democratic labor party In realizing political change in czarist russia Leninism allowed the bolshevik party to assume command in the october revolution in 1917 for the next few slides I will be uh referencing spreading the errors of russia a youtube video by census fidelium Marxist theory taught that when a great war finally broke out between the nations The working classes would unite and overthrow the governments Because according to marxist theory the workers of the world have much more in common with each other than they do with the bourgeoisie or the ruling class in their own countries But when world war one broke out the workers of the world did not unite with one another They fought each other the british working men fought great britain the french working man fought france The german working man fought for germany and so forth Not surprisingly it turned out that any given working man was more loyal to his country than he was to the counterparts from other countries From a marxist perspective, then world war one was a colossal flop In 1917 the marxist finally seized power in russia It looked like the theory was working, but it did not spread after the war So a series of attempts were made to spread the revolution There was a briefly lived soviet republic of bavaria. They held power for six months in 1918 In 1919 the communists uprising in berlin In 1919 the soviet republic of hungary which held up for 133 days But once again the workers didn't support these So the marxist regimes were quickly closed something was wrong marxism had a problem. It wasn't working So what to do next Cultural marxism Independently two marxist theories theorists george lucas of hungary and antonio graham she of idli Came up with the same solutions are and are credited with being the fathers of western version of marxism It's called cultural marxism They both taught that communism was impossible in the west until both western civilization and christianity were destroyed Since they blinded the working class to its true marxist intense george lucas recognized a great obstacle to the creation of a marxist regime was western civilization itself He said I can see revolution and destruction of society as the only solution for a worldwide of values We could this cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones So there in a nutshell we have the agenda of of cultural marxism Explained by one of its creators george lucas Antonio graham she the other creator of cultural marxism argued that the west would have to be De-christianized by means of what he entitled the long march to the institutions What he meant by this was that the culture must be the new battleground And that all the barriers to the acceptance of marxism must be removed or reconfigured according to marxist principles All cultural barriers to accept marxism should be reconfigured starting with the family Ie perverting gender roles removing the rule of the father Going through the churches the arts cinema theater literature science history entertainment schools colleges universities seminaries civic organizations the organs of mass media newspapers newspaper magazines radio television And so forth we're there next So what basically happened? how did we go from a theory a marxist theory in germany in europe to what we've got today Uh, which is a nation of emasculated effeminate men So what happened basically we've forgotten or have been demoralized to such an extent that we've forgotten who we are Our common principles even the things as basic as what it means to be a man And what it means to be a woman are completely lost That's how perverted we've become that's how demoralized we've become through this Ideological subversion that most of us don't even know what's going on and there's a lot of people that support this and love this shit Quoting the great historian christopher dawson who reflected in the consequences if Society you to lose its common principles and ideals. This is what would happen It is easy enough for an individual to adopt a negative attitude of crit or critical skepticism But if the society as a whole abandons all positive beliefs in its power it becomes powerless To resist the deep integrating Disintegrating effects of selfishness and private interest Every society rest in the last person on the recognition of common principles And common ideals and if it makes no moral or spiritual appeal to the loyalty of its members It must inevitably fall to pieces. So here we are watching what little remains of western civilization and masculinity Completely falling to pieces or more accurately being smashed to pieces Which is the explicit goal of cultural Marxism it's working it's working real well So a deeper question is how do we move from marxist theory in germany To a total annihilation of american and western masculinity How did we get here? next Now this rabbit hole goes very deep This is a lot of information Since time is short. We're going to focus for just a moment on the frankfurt school George Lucas we mentioned before played an important role in the founding of the frankfurt school in germany The school was founded in 1923 with a primary goal of translating marxism from economic terms and political terms Into cultural terms the frankfurt school may have turned out to be a little more than a Historical oddity had hitler not come to power in 1933 Given that every member was not only a marxist, but also jewish they fled germany with the help of columbia university The school reestablished itself in new york city at which point they shifted their focus from destroying Traditional western culture in germany to destroying it in the united states They believe there are two kinds of revolutions political and cultural they kept their focus on the cultural revolution One of its members comments one can rightly speak of a cultural revolution Since the protest is directed towards the whole cultural establishment Including the morality of existing society There is one thing we can say with complete assurance the traditional idea of revolution The traditional strategy of revolution has ended The ideas are old-fashioned What we must undertake is a type of diffuse and disparate disintegration of the system With reference to the system meaning patriarchy church patriotism country and paternity father and family All derived from the root word pattern meaning pattern uh meaning father If you want to destroy a culture you take out the father the pattern its root pattern They also recognize that the working class in america was not going to lead a marxist revolution Because it was becoming a part of the middle class america was doing great. We had no beef nobody Uh becoming a part of the middle class or the bourgeoisie the great middle class in america Who then would lead a revolution in the 1950s? Herbert marcusi answers the coalition will be made up of blacks students feminist women and homosexuals By crossing marx with freud they invented something called critical theory today you hear it called critical race theory Critical theory involves making the most destructive criticisms of every possible cultural norm in order to destroy the current social order At its purpose as is marxism For example anyone who is successful or holds a position of power is labeled as an oppressor Those who are not successful are victims Also someone who defends the notion that there's actually different social roles for women and men They're a male chauvinist or a misogynist Strong men alpha males fathers are the patriarchy their tyrants and so on Over time their influential writings continue to pour out contempt on the different institutions the traditional family The churches the arts cinema theater literature science history It's everywhere In institutions of so-called higher education cultural marxism was more commonly known as multiculturalism And more loosely known as political correctness And this is where we are The frankfort school also adopted techniques of psychological conditioning Today for example if the foot soldiers want to do something like normalized Transsexuality they don't argue the point philosophically They just make bruce Jenner into a woman next And put them on the cover of vanity fair magazine and call you a racist if you don't agree Woman of the year To note that the frankfort school uh men The men that created the frankfort school spent the war years in hollywood If you think hollywood is not totally corrupt Think again next Timothy matthews in the conspiracy to corrupt summarizes specific recommendations of the frankfort school number one the creation of racism offenses You gotta turn people against each other Continual change to create confusion. How many genders are there? The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children. I saw uh One of my students sent me a pamphlet of sorts that they're using in schools teaching children how to have butt sex Uh the undermining of schools teachers and authority everybody is a revolutionary everybody hates authority everybody thinks they're a rebel that it's laughable at this point Huge immigration to destroy identity There's a reason why The promotion of excessive drinking To destroy our bodies to effeminate men Uh empty of churches emptying of churches because churches represent the patriarchy Pattern represent authority represent represent uh An important part of what builds Western civilization how to destroy it and the church today is totally effeminate in every regard. It's an apostate uh Unreliable legal system dependency on the state and state benefits Control and dumbing down the media Encouraging the breakdown of the family. I mean which one of these hasn't uh Totally taken grip in our culture. None of them. We're there So uh given that our focus today is on the degeneration and degradation of masculinity I highlighted number 11 Encouraging the breakdown of the family because this is what we're focusing on here. Why men are effeminate?  We'll take special note of their plan The cultural Marxist plan to encourage the breakdown of the family since fatherless boys Are extremely affected by the degenerate culture. There's no question about it. I'll show you more One of the main ideas of the frankfort school was to exploit Freud's idea of pansexualism The search for pleasure the exploitation of the differences between the sexes the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women To further their aims. They would attack the authority of the father Deny the specific roles of father and mother Rest away from the families. They're right as primary educators of their children Abolish differences in education of boys and girls Abolish all forms of male dominance hence the presence of women in the armed forces Declare women to be an oppressed class and men to be oppressors next Satan's plan from the beginning. So let's return for a moment to the garden What we're dealing here With is a spiritual battle and it was satan's plan from the beginning in the first book of enoc chapter 69 Which describes how the fallen angels came to earth? and the third Was named godriel This is the one that showed all the deadly blows to the sons of men And he led astray eve And he showed the weapons of death to the children of men The shield and the breastplate and the sword for slaughter and all the weapons of death to the sons of men In the garden of eden there were many trees, but only one The tree of the knowledge of good and evil that was forbidden by ya or god In the beginning was the truth and the warning against false doctrine from the father of lies From this tree comes everything within our fallen world The lie told in the garden of eden is the same lie being told today The tree of knowledge represents false doctrine This is also the tree of knowledge in jewish mysticism Or cabala, which is the foundation for esoteric freemasonry Some people associate this with the illuminati or the deep state Or shadow governments or what some people are calling the cabal If you look closely enough, you might see a connection between jewish mysticism the cabala Freemasonry the occult marxism communist and the culture of death That's a rabbit hole. You can choose to go down on your own time If you're so inclined and be happy to discuss with it Uh discuss you discuss it with you later if you'd like, but one thing is for sure next Communism is from hell Communism is the end game of marxism And god rielle from the kingdom of satan is the one who showed the weapons of death to the children of men This is false doctrine designed to destroy us since the beginning Here you see how over a hundred million people have been killed have died over the past 100 years Uh in countries that have adopted communism And making no question about it. We're headed down this path 2020 is a monumental year We had a we got a crazy election coming up and it's going to weigh heavily on whether we keep edging in this direction towards satan's plan for cultural marxism to continue to brainwash and destroy us and the inevitable unfilting of the plan to turn The world into one world communist Society and you got to take down america america represents The father in the world the leader in the world the strong man in the world The big part of the reason why we're So hated and donald trump is so hated is because you can't have that you can't have strong men If you want a world that will yield to the blows of satan and you know, we got a lot of countries that have done it We might be next next feminism is also from hell And uh referring to godreal and he led astray eve by the way satan Is a title it is a description. I'm sorry not a title so that there were many fallen angels And uh and so and he led astray eve. This is where we are today Because our focus, uh in this talk is about men becoming weak. We really do need to take a look at feminism and man's reaction to it feminism is a child of Communism marxism as we alluded to earlier the destruction of the family is paramount to destroy a culture So what you got to do is you got to Turn the family against each other turn the woman against the man and there here we have it So, um, I'm going to quote here now from bob lewis in the feminist lie Or he states at its most basic level feminism began as a rebellion against marriage and family values Early feminists believe that once married a woman's identity disappeared To gain sympathy many early feminists reframed the institution of marriage as a form of slavery To support their view they pointed out that women didn't have many rights in society That were given to men while on a surface that this appears to be a complaint Upon closer inspection it completely falls apart next Uh, and if you're not sure if you're if there's any doubt here are some quotes about feminism from some women Feminists the complete destruction of the traditional marriage and the nuclear family is the revolutionary or utopian goal of feminism cultural Marxism it's being fulfilled next How will the family unit be destroyed the demand Alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question So that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively Women will feel freer to leave their husbands those oppressors And become economically independent either through a job or through welfare The subversion is so complete next The nuclear family must be destroyed Whatever its ultimate meaning the breakup of families is now objectively a revolutionary process Next of course our Talk here and my point here is that men are weak and the idea here is not to point out The dark side of the mother which is my next talk point out the dark side of women Is to show how the subversion the overtaking of cultural Marxism and The move towards communism and its children atheism and feminism Brings us to the place where we've got these issues. There's no question fatherlessness makes men weak All of these are reasons why the things I read from Tucker Carlson earlier are true There's no doubt that the breakdown of the family and the father and fatherlessness Contributes greatly to the weakening of men over the last 60 years. The graph on the left shows trends since the 1940s To the 2000s now. I know that's hard for you to read But you don't have to you can just look at the upward trends there starting at the top Birth rates to unmarried mother all the way to the left. That's the 1940s all to the right 2000s Divorce rates all the way to the left 1940s all the way to the right 2000s Female head of household 1940s to the left 2000s to the right and then here's the cherry on top Incarcerated Americans which are 93 percent male 1940s to 2000s so we see that the breakdown of the family Is horrible in multiple different ways, but it is a direct reason why Men are in jail men are suffering that break down of the family. So the one on the right Uh, of course, you can't read that but I want to put it there and I can read it for you here The graph on the right shares some statistics about fatherlessness. It reads there is a crisis in america according to the u.s. Census Bureau 19.7 million children more than one in four live without a father in their home Consequently, there's a father factor in nearly all of societal ills facing america today Research shows when a child is raised in a father absent home He or she is affected in the following ways Four times greater risk of poverty more likely to have behavioral problems Two times greater risk of infant mortality More likely to go to prison more likely to commit a crime Seven times more likely to have teenage pregnancy more likely to face abuse and neglect More likely to abuse drugs and alcohol two times more likely to be obese Two more times two times more likely to drop out of school The two times more likely due to be obese has anybody seen this meme going around with arnold schwarzenegger's two sons Isn't it amazing to see that the son that was raised by arnold is fit and the one that was raised by his mother is fat All right two without the father. There's a twice as likely to be obese next Third chapter third and final chapter feminism and the rise of nice guys So this is now. I mean we went big picture, right? adam avid adam and eve we talked about cultural marxism We talked about feminism, but now we're getting closer to you guys and what this actually ends up looking like in the lives of basic men next Intersectional feminism, right?  They want nothing to do with black men I'm going to read now from their website. They're about page I copied this down about a month ago Since then they've changed it obviously because showing your cards sometimes isn't so good Especially if you show them too quick I couldn't believe how blatantly they were showing their cards so quickly But I guess we're there where they no longer have to hide the cultural Marxism does not have to hide anymore It's very obvious what's going on And they're making they're explicit about it. And here's what they say on the website We disrupt the prescribed nuclear family structure Right there By supporting each other as extended families or villages That collectively care for one another especially our children to the degree that mothers Parents and children are comfortable Where are the fathers if these women are so interested in about in the lives of black men They would recognize that not having a father in the home is a part of the is the main reason why there's so much chaos There's so much death and destruction They want nothing to do with the core issue. They want nothing to do with the solution There's stirs of sedition and chaos Continue They say oh no they say we're a We foster a queer affirming network When we gather we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking Chaos disruption destroying the culture from its most basic foundation. This Is not right But it's where we are next BLM is radical feminism And it's no it's not hidden at all you heard the objective of cultural Marxism This woman who's a co-founder Calls herself a trained marxist next BLM is from hell Co-founder discusses groups occult practices invoking spirits African ancestral worship. Okay Next so this is this is the result of intersectional feminism. This is how chaotic it has become This is how backwards we have become this is how We've been dead ended up. This is the extreme end of Gramsci and Lucas's work in the 1930s. We're here the result of radical feminism Um 2020 has allowed radical feminism to show its true colors Reveal its true motives and unfold its satanic plan to create chaos and havoc in america under the guise of social justice It's a lie If there was if there has been any doubt about the intentions of marxism Socialism and feminism it should now be very clear next If we go back to feminism or we go back to the frankfurt school, you'll notice that um the stated objectives of the frankfurt school Feminism seems to encourage each one of them. It's supposed to that's the point I've highlighted the ones that are most obvious the creation of racism offenses Intersexual feminism you got to pin everybody against everybody else and create as many different factions and Uh and and complaints as you possibly can that's what it does. That's what critical theory does. That's what its point is Continual change to create confusion once again. How many genders do we have feminism the teaching of sex and homosexuality to children feminism The undermining of schools teachers and authority That's sort of neutral But if you consider the father authority feminism Huge immigration to destroy identity feminism The promotion of excessive drinking at least in women I saw i mean the other day that said um Women today will will drink like your father, but they can't cook like your mother emptying of churches feminism An unreliable legal system and the empty in churches when I say feminism the church is totally effeminate From the catholic churches right through every single Pretty much every uh the nomination The unreliable legal system if you think about divorce rape divorce courts totally unreliable feminism dependency on the state and state benefits welfare feminism Control and dumbing down of america of the uh the media in america just watch How is it the ghostbusters are all all all of a sudden women? Why is every superhero woman now? It's laughable It's like men have men are weaker now and we need women to save us feminism Encouraging encouraging to break down on the family obviously feminism next Now You got to understand here that i'm not picking on women at all. I got three daughters I've been married to my wife for 18 years.  I don't care how you twist it Or kind of special terms you give to it.  Well, what does that mean 25 of them are in mental health medication 45 of american children are born to unwed mothers 67 married uh 67 of marriages and in divorce and 80 of the divorces are initiated by women 93 of alimony is paid from mental women and 83 of women receive primary custody of their children If you're a woman and you listen to that you might say wow that sounds great But check this out 72 of the inmates in state prisons were raised by single mothers You're not doing a good job by yourself. We're meant to do a good job by yourself. You need us next Nice guy syndrome This is the man. This is the man's reaction to feminism because we've basically Taking it into but Nice guy syndrome is the sad reaction Uh to feminism by the modern emasculated man in order to elaborate I'm going to read a few pages from a chapter one in the iron john book about men During the 60s another sort of man appeared The feminist movement encouraged men to actually look at women Forcing them to become conscious of concerns and sufferings that the 50 male labored to avoid As men began to examine women's history and women's sensibility Some men began to notice that there was a female side within them and started paying attention to it This process continues to this day and I would say that most contemporary men are involved with it in some way There's something wonderful about this development and yet I have the sense that there's something wrong The male in the past 20 years has become more thoughtful and gentle But by this process, he's not become more free He's a nice boy who pleases not only his mother, but also the young woman. He's living with In the 70s I began to see all over the country a phenomenon we might call the soft male Sometimes even today when I look out in an audience Perhaps half the young male or what I would call soft They're lovable valuable people. I like them There's a gentle attitude towards life in them and their whole being But many of them are not happy You quickly notice the lack of energy in them They are life preserving but not exactly life giving Ironically, you often see these men with strong women who positively radiate energy The strong or life giving woman who graduated from the 60s so to speak Or who have inherited an older spirit Play an important role in producing this life preserving but not life giving man I first learned about the anguish of soft men when they told their stories in early men's gatherings When the younger men spoke it was not uncommon for them to be weeping within five minutes The amount of grief and anguish in these younger men was astounding Grief flowed from their trouble in their marriages and their relationships They had learned to be receptive, but receptivity wasn't enough to carry their marriages through troubled times In every relationship something fierce is needed once in a while Both the man and the woman need to have it But at the point when it was most needed often the young man came up short He was nurturing but something else was required for his relationship and for his life The soft male was able to say I can feel your pain and I will take care of you and comfort you But he was not able to say what he wanted and stick by it Resolve of that kind was a very different matter So as we wrap up part one of my talk here with our focus on what has become of men in the last 60 years or so Now we've grown weak. I'm going to pull some insights from The book no more mr. Nice guy by Robert Glover next And uh, and here here's a list from his book of characteristics of nice guys Maybe you could see some part of yourself in this soft Nice guys are givers Nice guys fix and caretake Nice guys seek approval Nice guys avoid conflict Nice guys hide their flaws Nice guys repress their feelings Nice guys try to be different than their fathers Nice guys are more comfortable relating to women Nice guys don't make their needs a priority Nice guys make their partner their emotional center Next what's wrong with being a nice guy? Nice guys are dishonest They're hiding themselves. They're not being true.    There's nothing to do You'll either be forced to change or you'll die But if you like to dig deeper into your soft core and usher forth any remnant of strength Lying deep within stick around the remainder of my talks this weekend. We'll show you how next So just to recap We began with the predictable pattern of male effeminacy We saw how it is Ever-present omnipotent within us and always has and will be Doesn't mean that we got to slide down that road. In fact when things start getting hard that's when The remnant will rise And so if you're becoming a strong man if you are a strong man if you want to be a strong man We need you We're going to desperately need you.   Everything's so fake. It's made up Stefan Arneo says in his book hard times create strong men That when times are good Everybody wants mommy in charge and I got kids so I recognize that Times are good. Everybody wants mommy in charge. Everything's okay. Mommy. Everybody looks to mommy When times are bad when there's a crisis in the home when there's something go hard going on Everybody turns to daddy to fix it You'll recognize this in your own home as I do and we'll recognize it as a society and then finally my last uh, or I'm I'm sorry. Uh, my second was I talked about the collect cultural collapse or the causes of uh class masculinity we spoke about Ideological subversion The great brainwashing that has been going on over the past 70 plus years We talked about cultural Marxism and its plan to destroy The west destroy all take over the entire world really but it doesn't do it with bombs and bullets It does it with media through hollywood through the music the music is is horrible.  So we see that we've taken it hook line in sinker Big part of the reason why we are effeminate. I would also add to that the tremendous amount of Pollution that has our testosterone levels dropping and then feminism as the and and then Intersectional feminism or radical feminism as the long arm Of this subversion the long arm of cultural Marxism And how it has created a generation of nice guys Where we're all really suffering and the whole world is suffering in a weird of different ways next And so that's it. That's my talk Thank you for sticking around and listening to me as I read from my notes First time doing something like that. I'm usually a lot more animated out behind the thing But uh, I'll stick around for the next 10 minutes. If you guys got any questions about anything I said there Thank you This is man. We are at a crossroads crossroads times are getting tough because we are growing weak And it is not your fault like I said This has been a great brainwashing.   We've got to grow stronger Otherwise you saw the hundred million people die in the past 100 years We're going to very Calmly easily tuck our tails under and march off to our demise Get on those trains as they take us to concentration camps In the same way that nobody questions anything about what's going on in the streets or with this virus these days You're not going to ask any questions when they ask you to go into the gas chamber You become way too soft, man So of course I have a lot to say about that, but once again i'm open they called me yo eliot For 10 years on youtube people ask me questions. That's how I became who I am. I like answering questions to make something up Yes, sir I don't care what you do as long as I can hear you Stand it back there and try to read it tough Can you hear me? I can hear you. Perfect. Uh before I ask a question. Would it be possible to go back to that? Good times make uh good times weak man chart real quick that chart. Well If it's possible if not, okay, because he's gonna have to like I don't have a clicker. Okay. You cool. Um All right. Well, you could slide up there. I guess you got it Let's slide down a little bit further Yeah, right there right in the middle Okay, cool perfect um, the reason why I want to ask particularly that you know the chart is that um When I saw that it it really hit me hard because um Um I feel I can personally relate to that Because uh, uh, what do you call it? Before I ask a question. I kind of want to you know, uh kind of what you like bro. Yeah, I put it up there Hopefully everything I said here just gave you guys something to think about man, right? So, um, um, I guess I was I'll be I wasn't in you know, four years four years relationship at that um Be I feel like it kind of opened me, you know when I saw that it really over my eyes in a way that um It really did make me it really it really softed me in in a lot of ways Which let which led me to being an extra extra nice guy Yeah, so I guess my question is I mean, I don't always I mean It's it I feel it's facts that you know hard times really does make you stronger But I don't always want to be in the hard times either, you know so I guess my question is What would you recommend or If it's too broad, um If you just give me kind of example, I don't recommend anything You got to understand that this is an archetype. This is a pattern. This is built in it's going to happen Okay, you're gonna do this you're gonna do it over and over in your life We're gonna do it over and over in civilization The key here is awareness Okay, you got to just be able to know because if you don't know and things start getting hard, right? Right, rather than recognizing.  That's all Okay So yeah, that's that that's my question like how do you stay balanced? It's what would you recommend to stay balanced? You don't think balance just be when it's just like riding a bike You know you stay balanced by Just recognizing that you're balanced Got you recognizing that this is what it is and it will always be what it is And you just got to be able to see it awareness is transformative in and of itself You don't have to do anything about it, but you need to know about it. Does that make sense? Yeah.  Right, right. Yeah, okay Yeah, that's my question. I use myself for example.  Okay Things got easy and then I got soft. Right, right. That's what I would have to right I recognize it in myself, but I know it ain't gonna stay that way Right, it can't stay that way.  I'm always just watching. Gotcha. That's it. Just have to stay aware. Okay Awesome. Thank you. You got it, bro. That's all it's time. We have give it up one more time for Elliott Hulse I'm talking to mr. Elliott Hulse. Welcome to the show. Thanks for having me Absolutely as always and I think one of the best speakers we've ever had this convention in our entire 14 year history Without further ado, please let me welcome back to the 21 convention stage Elliott Hulse Elliott Hulse is a father A husband And a man a man who inspires men a man who helps men be good at being men And today He's gonna help you become a better patriarch and set yourself up for success. So let's give it up for Elliott Hulse Patriarchy is the future He actually has over two million followers He's one of the biggest youtubers in florida and the united states are on the world An amazing man a strong man or a strong father. Anyway, without further ado Please let me welcome for the first time ever to the 22 convention stage Elliott Hulse One last point that I want to make that was really what broke my heart was to discover that feminism which Sound to most people in our world like some sort of a good thing a progressive thing uh, ultimately is The agenda is to break down the family destroy the family. It's the stated purpose of feminism and so In a world where men are weak because there's No fathers families are being destroyed. It really seems like feminism is the long arm of This movement to destroy our world