Speaker 1: I've been thinking a lot more lately about the idea
Speaker 1: of the media just not really being curious about something
Speaker 1: and that just being a major factor in the bias
Speaker 1: with which they report on the news. Kind of reminds
Speaker 1: me of the Jerry Seinfeld joke that he's like, Oh, wow,
Speaker 1: you just look at the newspaper and it really makes
Speaker 1: you think, if only one more thing had happened the
Speaker 1: day before, they had been able to fit all of
Speaker 1: the news of the day just so just squarely on
Speaker 1: the newspaper, just exactly there. If one more thing had happened,
Speaker 1: they'd have to print another page. Which makes the point
Speaker 1: the media selects what they're going to talk about. Local newspapers,
Speaker 1: local television stations, national newspapers, national television news, cable news,
Speaker 1: et cetera. They all have a kind of selection, and
Speaker 1: there is that This is part of the job of
Speaker 1: editors and folks who work in newspapers is to assign
Speaker 1: reporters to work on stories. How hard are you going
Speaker 1: to dig? And I think the bias that infects these
Speaker 1: people because it's pervasive, it's all up and down the
Speaker 1: chain of command within newspapers, media outlets, et cetera. I
Speaker 1: think we're now finally getting to the point where some
Speaker 1: of the people who own some of the newspapers, some
Speaker 1: of the media outlets, are realizing, Hey, this hard left
Speaker 1: anti Trump posture doesn't make sense. He got way more
Speaker 1: votes than he got more votes than Kamala Harris did.
Speaker 1: He beat her in the popular vote. Clearly we are
Speaker 1: out of step with much of the country here, almost
Speaker 1: a majority of the country. Now, let me give you
Speaker 1: a tale of two media stories to show you the
Speaker 1: lack of interest, the lack of interest that the media
Speaker 1: has in some things, and the extreme degree of interest
Speaker 1: the media has in other things. Pete hag Seth versus
Speaker 1: the young man who tried to murder Brett Kavanaugh. So
Speaker 1: some of you may recall barely. Maybe I don't know
Speaker 1: if you actually do recall, because it just got buried
Speaker 1: as a story. Nobody talked about it. In the spring
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty two, the draft opinion, a draft opinion
Speaker 1: of the US Supreme Court got leaked to the press.
Speaker 1: It was a leaked draft opinion of what looked like
Speaker 1: was going to be the majority opinion in the dis
Speaker 1: versus Jackson Women's Health Organization case. This was the case
Speaker 1: that was going to overturn Robie Wade Dobbs is going
Speaker 1: to go down as one of the most significant Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decisions in American history. Its draft decision got leaked
Speaker 1: to the press, which immediately ramped up public scrutiny, focus
Speaker 1: and anger on the political left against the conservative justices
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court, who it was assumed were supporting it.
Speaker 1: Between the release of the draft document and the actual
Speaker 1: issuing of the final Supreme Court decision, which I believe
Speaker 1: happened on June twenty fourth of twenty twenty two, a
Speaker 1: man was arrested at the home of Supreme Court Justice
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh. He had a gun, he had zip ties,
Speaker 1: he had rope, and after he was arrested, he told
Speaker 1: the cops straight up, my goal was to murder Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh and then kill myself, maybe to kill two other
Speaker 1: conservative justices. But this guy wasn't a dummy. He did
Speaker 1: the math. He knew how this would work if Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh had been murdered before the final issuing of the
Speaker 1: Dobs ruling, which is where we That was temporarily where
Speaker 1: we were. It was before the June twenty fourth release
Speaker 1: of the document. After the release of the draft. If
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh had been murdered, the Conservatives wouldn't have had
Speaker 1: five justices supporting that what became the majority decision. You
Speaker 1: would have only had four, and then Justice Roberts's mealy
Speaker 1: mouthed middle of the road concurrence would have been the
Speaker 1: controlling ruling if Kavanaugh had died. So this guy that
Speaker 1: you had the leak of the Supreme Court majority decision,
Speaker 1: protesters were protesting outside of Supreme Court Justices houses, this
Speaker 1: which President Biden and his Attorney General refused to enforce
Speaker 1: the law that says people can't do that outside of
Speaker 1: Supreme Court Justices houses. The draft decision was out there.
Speaker 1: A guy was motivated by that draft decision to murder
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court justice to alter the outcome of what
Speaker 1: everyone saw was going to be one of the most
Speaker 1: monumentally important cases in the Supreme Court history. How much
Speaker 1: have you heard about that story about that individual person
Speaker 1: who tried to kill Brett Cavan. I honestly still don't
Speaker 1: know his name. I have to like look up his
Speaker 1: name in order to I have to like look up
Speaker 1: his name in order to do a story about it.
Speaker 1: We haven't heard anything about it for two years. We're
Speaker 1: now starting to hear some stuff about it. There's some
Speaker 1: stuff happening in the criminal trial. They're trying to his attorneys.
Speaker 1: He's got federal public defenders representing him because I believe
Speaker 1: it happened in the District of Columbia, or maybe the
Speaker 1: FEDS are prosecuting Actually, I'm not sure if it happened
Speaker 1: in DC or in either Virginia or Maryland. The Feds
Speaker 1: are prosecuting it because he's trying to assassinate a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court justice. They're trying to determine if his admissions to
Speaker 1: the cops should be entered into evidence against him. They're
Speaker 1: trying to determine if he is mentally competent to stand trial.
Speaker 1: But you've heard nothing about it. Let me just guarantee
Speaker 1: you if everything were reversed, If the Supreme Court, if
Speaker 1: a draft decision from the Court had been issued indicating
Speaker 1: that Rob Wade was going to be affirmed barely, and
Speaker 1: some nutjob pro lifer had been arrested at the home
Speaker 1: of Sonya Soda Mayor with the idea that he was
Speaker 1: going to murder her, it would have been the trial
Speaker 1: of the Center and the certainly the trial of the decade.
Speaker 1: Everyone would know that guy's name, and it would have
Speaker 1: become a universal referendum on the whole pro life movement.
Speaker 1: Does the pro life movement of a violence problem? Every
Speaker 1: pro lifer I would have been called that, do you
Speaker 1: condemn the actions of this man who wanted to assassinate
Speaker 1: Sonya Soda mayor every pro lifer would have been called
Speaker 1: on to condemn this person's actions with this sort of
Speaker 1: tone of like, hey, so when did you start beating
Speaker 1: your wife? Assuming that we all like violence. It would
Speaker 1: have been the trial of the century. But the media
Speaker 1: is just not interested in it because it was from
Speaker 1: their side. It was from the liberal side. It was
Speaker 1: someone obviously motivated by liberal politics wanting to assassinate a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice, and they just don't care. We got
Speaker 1: basically no coverage of this guy who tried to assassinate
Speaker 1: Breck Kavanaugh, and no further focus on the person who
Speaker 1: leaked that draft in the Dobbs case back in the
Speaker 1: spring of twenty twenty two, which obviously put the justices
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court at risk. I think the leaking
Speaker 1: of that decision was deliberately done to try to intimidate
Speaker 1: the justices in the majority to not rule as they
Speaker 1: were planning to. It was a clearly politically calculated move.
Speaker 1: Kui bono, who benefited? Who would have benefited from it?
Speaker 1: Clearly the left would have benefited. The whole point of
Speaker 1: it was to try to threaten, intimidate, put pressure on
Speaker 1: the Conservatives in the majority of that decision, and it
Speaker 1: put a target on their back because people realized, Hey,
Speaker 1: if we murder a couple of these Supreme Court justices,
Speaker 1: it can flip the outcome of the decision. And that's
Speaker 1: precisely what almost happened to Brett Kavanaugh. A guy was
Speaker 1: found right outside of his house with a gun in
Speaker 1: zip ties. Now no focus on the Supreme Court draft
Speaker 1: document leaker. They didn't identify the person. The Supreme Court
Speaker 1: had their the Marshal of the Supreme Court, who's like
Speaker 1: in charge of like security security guard work at the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court building. Oh, she's in charge of it. No,
Speaker 1: have the whole FBI investigated. It's amazing to me in
Speaker 1: a town. One of the things I kind of picked
Speaker 1: up on lately is how small of a town DC
Speaker 1: is in some ways, Like I says, some reporter saying something,
Speaker 1: this female reporter talking about a news anchor, this conservative
Speaker 1: female reporter, and it was this really sort of mean
Speaker 1: girl's ish comment about this one prominent news anchor and
Speaker 1: how vain he is because he goes to her gym
Speaker 1: and she sees and oh, he's always doing that. He's everyone.
Speaker 1: He's notorious at our gym for doing blah blah blah
Speaker 1: bla blah. So like this prominent national figure that everyone
Speaker 1: knows about because they go to the same gym or something.
Speaker 1: DC in the politics and media world is really a
Speaker 1: pretty darn small town people know people. The idea that
Speaker 1: the Meatia couldn't find the Supreme Court leaker find it
Speaker 1: hard to believe. I really find it hard to believe.
Speaker 1: I think they didn't want to find the leaker. That's
Speaker 1: what I think. I think if the media had real
Speaker 1: interest in it, they would have found the leaker. And
Speaker 1: I say this because of the other story that I
Speaker 1: want to contrast this with, where the media is very interested.
Speaker 1: Pete hag Seth, now Pete hag Seth, as you know,
Speaker 1: is Trump's nominee to serve as Secretary of Defense. His
Speaker 1: initial hearings for his initial confirmation hearings actually started today
Speaker 1: the Senate has taken up the Senate now that it
Speaker 1: is under Republican control following January third. On January third,
Speaker 1: new members of the Senate which worn in the new
Speaker 1: Republican majority, was sworn in. So they're having their initial
Speaker 1: confirmation hearings for Pete Hegseth. As some of you may
Speaker 1: may know, I think it was in twenty nineteen, Pete
Speaker 1: Hegseth spoke for an event in Monterey. It was a
Speaker 1: California Republican Women event, and the story is that he
Speaker 1: met a woman at a bar. He slept with her.
Speaker 1: She later tried to claim that it was sexual assault.
Speaker 1: The Monterey police investigated it. They did not arrest mister Hegseth.
Speaker 1: They did not charge mister Hegseath. They did not find
Speaker 1: any evidence. They decided not to pursue any criminal action
Speaker 1: against mister Hegseth. Now, I'll admit the story does not
Speaker 1: make me like Pete Hegseth. He's got a sketchy personal life.
Speaker 1: I like his attitude towards the military. I think it's
Speaker 1: an interesting it's an interesting pick. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: a bad pick. My caveat is his personal life is
Speaker 1: kind of a train wreck, and frankly, I think that
Speaker 1: can become a national security issue when you're talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, the guy cheated on like two or three wives,
Speaker 1: When you're talking about someone who's gonna be entrusted with
Speaker 1: highly sensitive classified military information, I don't know, some pretty
Speaker 1: young Russian thing in a skirt goes by, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's not like our adversaries would be above doing something
Speaker 1: like that. It's been known to happen in world history. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: I if you would, if we could completely put Hexas's
Speaker 1: personal life to the side, I think he's an interesting pick.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you how interested the media has been
Speaker 1: in that Monterey twenty nineteen event. Reporters from The Washington Post,
Speaker 1: New York Times, et cetera have been crawling over that story.
Speaker 1: Diane Pearce, who's a Clovis City council member, posted something
Speaker 1: to her Facebook page to say, I have been contacted
Speaker 1: multiple multiple times by reporters from various outlets. So I'm
Speaker 1: just going to state here for the record what I know.
Speaker 1: Because I was at that twenty nineteen Republican Women thing.
Speaker 1: I didn't see Pete Haggseeth do anything. I didn't see
Speaker 1: him do anything bad all. He gave a talk for
Speaker 1: our event, and that was it. My own now, Diane
Speaker 1: Pierce said that my own. I know other people who
Speaker 1: were at this event, people who got contacted by national reporters,
Speaker 1: people who are not prominent people. Somehow the national media
Speaker 1: was able to get the guest list for this twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen Republicans Women shindig. They were able to crawl through
Speaker 1: that list and find all of the names of all
Speaker 1: the individual attendees, whom clearly they called every single person,
Speaker 1: crawling all over this twenty nineteen story about Pete hag
Speaker 1: Seth and his this alleged sexual assault that the Monterey
Speaker 1: Police thoroughly investigated and decided not to pursue, or as
Speaker 1: thoroughly as one can, I suppose. They are clearly so
Speaker 1: interested in this story they desperately want to make it
Speaker 1: into a story, desperately, so desperately that they're calling up
Speaker 1: random ladies from Fresno, California to try it. Hey, you
Speaker 1: were at this event in twenty nineteen, five years ago,
Speaker 1: six years ago, do you recall? You know? But we're
Speaker 1: not covering at all the story of the guy who
Speaker 1: almost assassinated Brett Kavanaugh. It takes us two full years
Speaker 1: to confirm the authenticity of Hunter Biden's laptop. The bias
Speaker 1: that the media has I think is most often being
Speaker 1: exercised at this level of what are we interested in?
Speaker 1: What are we going to cover? Because I think the
Speaker 1: and sometimes I think it's honest. I think they honestly think, well,
Speaker 1: no one wants to hear about that because they're liberals
Speaker 1: and they don't want to hear about it. I think
Speaker 1: sometimes it's honest, it's honest. I don't even know. Sometimes
Speaker 1: that it's some sinister motive. I think somepot, some crackpot
Speaker 1: thing a whole laptop allegedly full of Hunter Biden's emails
Speaker 1: that Rudy Giuliani got to a well whatever, no one's
Speaker 1: going to want to hear about that, and all these
Speaker 1: intelligence operatives say it's probably Russian disinformation anyway, so they're
Speaker 1: not interested in it. It just the compare and contrast
Speaker 1: between how swarmingly interested the media is over this twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen story about pig Pete hegseeth versus nobody cares about
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court leaker. Nobody cares about the guy who
Speaker 1: tried to murder Brett Kavanaugh no one cares that they
Speaker 1: just don't cover it. When we return a local story
Speaker 1: where maybe lack of interest led to a lack of
Speaker 1: coverage bit Wise and the Fresno be next on the
Speaker 1: John Girardi Show. My basic thesis is that media bias
Speaker 1: is most often exercised in the form of what do
Speaker 1: we actually cover? What stories do we actually cover or
Speaker 1: not cover? And I think very often liberals just aren't
Speaker 1: interested in covering Maybe it's a combo of genuine disinterests
Speaker 1: versus sort of political motivations, et cetera. They're just not
Speaker 1: really interested in covering stories that might be helpful to conservatives.
Speaker 1: Helpful to conservatives are harmful to liberals. And I was
Speaker 1: trying to think of a good example of this locally,
Speaker 1: and I don't even know how much this cuts one
Speaker 1: way or another conservative versus liberal. Although bit Wise did
Speaker 1: kind of try to code itself as a liberal leaning entity.
Speaker 1: They made a big deal about the fact that one
Speaker 1: of their co CEOs, Irma Olgwin, was a lesbian woman,
Speaker 1: and that she was the first lesbian CEO, one of
Speaker 1: the first lesbian Latina CEOs, blah blah blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: and that's the bit Wise story, the rise and fall
Speaker 1: bit Wise as a prominent local company that got way
Speaker 1: more press attention, way more press, adulation and love than
Speaker 1: seemed fitting. And then it all came crashing down when
Speaker 1: they all of a sudden they announced they were firing
Speaker 1: a bunch of their employees, and all of a sudden
Speaker 1: was like, Oh, they have no more money left, They're
Speaker 1: going out of business. And then oh, they've builked investors
Speaker 1: out of millions and millions, millions and millions of bit Wise,
Speaker 1: and never I warned people don't invest in them millions
Speaker 1: and millions of dollars. As Donald Trump would say, they
Speaker 1: bilked their investors out of millions and millions of dollars,
Speaker 1: and they might have given them false financials in order
Speaker 1: to encourage them to invest those millions and millions of
Speaker 1: dollars and to get loans and things like that. Kiddies,
Speaker 1: let me give you some criminal law one on one.
Speaker 1: There's a thing. There's a word we use for lying
Speaker 1: to get money. Lying to get money is another way
Speaker 1: of saying fraud. When you read the word fraud, just
Speaker 1: think lying for money. And it's pretty good shorthand so.
Speaker 1: And by the way, in retrospect, I'll admit, you know,
Speaker 1: and it's not like I predicted it. I was not
Speaker 1: on the radio here talking about how the other the
Speaker 1: other shoes gonna drop on bit Wise. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: claim that I predicted it or anything because I didn't.
Speaker 1: I do recall though, one time having a private conversation,
Speaker 1: I gonna how much can I take credit for private
Speaker 1: conversations with my buddy producer Colton A producer. Colton works
Speaker 1: for me at Right to Life and he helps produce
Speaker 1: Right to Life Radio, which you can listen to Saturday
Speaker 1: mornings at nine. And he had started work for us
Speaker 1: and he does kind of a lot of techy things
Speaker 1: for us at Right to Life. And we were driving
Speaker 1: doing some work stuff and we were driving by downtown
Speaker 1: President we saw the sign for one of the Bitwise
Speaker 1: buildings in downtown and I knew Colton was kind of
Speaker 1: techie and he, you know, went to Presno State. I said, hey, Colton,
Speaker 1: what does Bitwise do exactly? And he said, you know,
Speaker 1: I applied for a job there and they were really
Speaker 1: big like that, had a lot of presents for us at
Speaker 1: Fresno State when I was there. I don't know what
Speaker 1: they do, and that was that was always sort of
Speaker 1: a sign to me of like, hmm, how solid is
Speaker 1: this company that neither one of us actually knows what
Speaker 1: they do? Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is
Speaker 1: this bit Wise and the Fresno b literally shared the
Speaker 1: same building, literally the same building, and the Fresno Bee
Speaker 1: never found out anything bad about bit Wise until after
Speaker 1: they announced they were firing all their staff, they were
Speaker 1: laying off all the staff. So what is that? Is
Speaker 1: that incompetence? Is that a lack of interest? Is it?
Speaker 1: You know, there's bit Wise, this kind of liberal coded
Speaker 1: kind of entity. Oh, we want to bring Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: to the San Joaquin Valley, you know, oh tech jobs
Speaker 1: and getting away from ag or. You know, they were
Speaker 1: this sort of liberal coded sort of entity. So did
Speaker 1: they just not want to look at bad things that
Speaker 1: they knew about it? I mean, they're very eager to
Speaker 1: go after you know, community Hospital or the asseemes or
Speaker 1: whatever allegis shenanigans are happening. And with Clovis Community, you know,
Speaker 1: I guess the asseemes are not as lib coded, but
Speaker 1: we don't want to go after bit Why is this
Speaker 1: company that's getting millions and millions of dollars in investment.
Speaker 1: That's literally right here in your building, this building you share.
Speaker 1: It's an interesting dynamic. Again. I just think the media
Speaker 1: exercises its bias chiefly in the form of what they
Speaker 1: are and aren't interested in. When we return the rise
Speaker 1: of dumb online influencers on the right and ways they
Speaker 1: are misleading young men next on the John Girardi Show.
Speaker 1: One thing that's been kind of encouraging is to see
Speaker 1: that Gen Z males shifting. They are shifting to the right.
Speaker 1: And I've even noticed this kind of anecdotally, just I
Speaker 1: do a lot of stuff with Right to Life of
Speaker 1: talking to teenagers. I talk for a lot of church
Speaker 1: confirmation programs and youth groups and things like that, all
Speaker 1: up and down, all up and down the San Joaquin
Speaker 1: Valley where it's usually some churches youth group or confirmation group,
Speaker 1: and they have me come in as a guest speaker,
Speaker 1: and I've seen more and more how open and accepting
Speaker 1: young men are to some of our pro life messages.
Speaker 1: Sort of anecdotally, but it's been sort of impressive how
Speaker 1: the left has so often banked on younger people voting
Speaker 1: for them and then those young people over time get
Speaker 1: smarter and start actually paying taxes and realize, hey, maybe
Speaker 1: it's dumb to keep voting for Democrats, wasn't. It's a
Speaker 1: quote assigned to Winston Churchill that if you're not a
Speaker 1: communist when you're twenty, you have no heart, and if
Speaker 1: you're not a conservative when you're fifty, you have no brain,
Speaker 1: or something like that. So for young men to already
Speaker 1: be kind of conservative leaning is sort of a head start.
Speaker 1: And now it's contrasted with the overwhelming liberalism of young women,
Speaker 1: which is kind of disturbing. It's sort of disturbing to
Speaker 1: see this dichotomy between boys and girls in their or
Speaker 1: young men and young women in their twenties to teens. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: one of the things I've seen with this sort of
Speaker 1: right word shift among young men, which is not altogether positive,
Speaker 1: and I think any of these kind of political and
Speaker 1: social shifts and movements we have to be clear eyed
Speaker 1: about and not just uncritically accept them as either great
Speaker 1: or terrible. Is the rise of the right wing media influencer. Now,
Speaker 1: one of the interesting things about the right wing media
Speaker 1: influencer is that they get sort of labeled as right
Speaker 1: wing by the media and young men on the right
Speaker 1: tend to like them, even though most of these people
Speaker 1: were not very conservative to begin with. Like, people are
Speaker 1: referring to Joe Rogan as a right wing podcaster or
Speaker 1: a right wing media influencer or something like that because
Speaker 1: he endorsed he ultimately wound up endorsing Donald Trump. Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan was a Bernie Sanders supporter, like five minutes ago. Okay,
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan was not a conservative. He's not He's not
Speaker 1: very conservative on a lot of things. A lot of
Speaker 1: these alleged right wing influencers are not even really all
Speaker 1: that political some of them, and if they are political,
Speaker 1: they're not even really necessarily that right wing. They have.
Speaker 1: They were sort of disenchanted with Kamala Harris and he's
Speaker 1: sort of fascinated by Donald Trump, but I wouldn't. I mean, like,
Speaker 1: you have comedians who have podcasts like Theo Von. This
Speaker 1: was like a kind of a significant moment in the campaign.
Speaker 1: Theo Von, who's a comedian from Louisiana who's really funny.
Speaker 1: He had Donald Trump on his podcast and it was
Speaker 1: kind of a fascinating interview where he talked about his
Speaker 1: prior addiction to cocaine and Trump was talking with him
Speaker 1: about it because Trump Trump famously is something of a
Speaker 1: teetootler and doesn't touch alcohol, in part because Trump's own
Speaker 1: brother sort of destroyed his life through alcoholism, and so
Speaker 1: Trump has it was actually this really almost kind of
Speaker 1: a moving conversation that you would have never expected from
Speaker 1: these two people. But theo Von's not like a political
Speaker 1: guy at all. He's a comedian. And more and more
Speaker 1: you're seeing conservatives going to these platforms that are not
Speaker 1: necessarily very right wing or very left wing, just because
Speaker 1: that's where a lot of young men are. And you
Speaker 1: saw Kamala Harris not go to them. Why because she
Speaker 1: was surrounded by dumb, stupid moron millennial staffers who remember
Speaker 1: that one time in two thousand and nine, Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: said the N word, not because he was calling someone
Speaker 1: an N word, but like saying it to discuss it
Speaker 1: or something, And therefore Joe Rogan is a bad or.
Speaker 1: Theovaughn said a bad word about in a comedy special
Speaker 1: one time. So oh, we can't go on there. Because
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris's campaign was full of the stupidest human beings imaginable,
Speaker 1: who are so convinced that this and this is oh
Speaker 1: my god, this is such a millennial versus Zoomer cultural difference. Okay,
Speaker 1: Millennials being people born more or less from I don't know,
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty four to nineteen ninety five, I don't know,
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty one to nineteen ninety five ish, and then
Speaker 1: Zoomers being people born after nineteen ninety five. Basically, the
Speaker 1: difference between these two groups is, you've got Zoomers are
Speaker 1: just so much less hung up over people being canceled.
Speaker 1: Millennials here that one person, one time said one thing bad,
Speaker 1: and that person is verboten bad. Because Millennials have this
Speaker 1: extreme angst of being judged negatively by their more liberal
Speaker 1: leaning peers or by the more liberal leaning culture and
Speaker 1: themselves being canceled. They want to be sure that they
Speaker 1: have the right opinions about the right kinds of things,
Speaker 1: and if you say a wrong word, then oh, you're
Speaker 1: a bad person. Meanwhile, Zoomers are just like willing to laugh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, less hung up on these things. Seemingly, now,
Speaker 1: these are positive. I find some of these things to
Speaker 1: be positive. However, other aspects of this are not positive.
Speaker 1: Where this attitude that basically, anyone coming from the right
Speaker 1: must therefore be a friend. Anyone on the left is bad,
Speaker 1: but anyone coming who is vaguely right coded, who is
Speaker 1: quote anti woke coded, is therefore automatically a friend. And
Speaker 1: this brings me to someone like Andrew Tait. So let's
Speaker 1: talk about him. Andrew Tait was a professional kickboxer. He
Speaker 1: then got into business interests where basically he promoted women
Speaker 1: as OnlyFans models. By OnlyFans model, what we mean is
Speaker 1: he by only fans model, what I mean is pornography. Okay.
Speaker 1: So women who go on to OnlyFans men pay for
Speaker 1: subscriptions to watch view their erotic content videos where they
Speaker 1: take the clothes off. That's what only fans is, okay.
Speaker 1: So Tate would help promote them to get them more views,
Speaker 1: et cetera, and would take a cut of their earnings.
Speaker 1: There's a word for that. It's called being a pimp.
Speaker 1: That's what he is, Okay. There are more and more
Speaker 1: unsavory allegations, including audio clips of him talking on the
Speaker 1: phone with some of these women that he was their
Speaker 1: allegations that he raped some of these women, that he
Speaker 1: physically abused these women. He has been accused of sex
Speaker 1: trafficking in Romania, where he basically his background. I think
Speaker 1: he's like half British and he sort of seems to
Speaker 1: have been splitting his time between Great Britain and Romania.
Speaker 1: In Romania, he and his brother were arrested in charge
Speaker 1: with sex trafficking and he sort of wound up making
Speaker 1: a name for himself, appearing on lots of podcasts and
Speaker 1: doing his own podcasts and things like that, talking about
Speaker 1: like being successful and how to be successful and how
Speaker 1: to work hard and how to exercise. That you've got
Speaker 1: to exercise. You gotta work hard, you gotta That's how
Speaker 1: he leads you to success. He promoted what's called an MLM,
Speaker 1: a pyramid scheme for young men to subscribe to his
Speaker 1: Top G academy. He refers to himself as a top
Speaker 1: G a top gangster. I guess is what that means,
Speaker 1: which I guess is appealing to some people. Sign up
Speaker 1: for this and you can be as successful as me.
Speaker 1: And he got a bunch of stupid young men to
Speaker 1: give him a bunch of money with the idea of
Speaker 1: you give me a bunch of money, and I teach
Speaker 1: you about how to promote OnlyFans models yourselves. And the
Speaker 1: problem is that he's received because he's sort of now
Speaker 1: he's said a bunch of non PC things. By the way,
Speaker 1: he also converted to Islam specifically for the misogyny that
Speaker 1: that was the specific reason why. Basically he liked the
Speaker 1: idea of in Islam that you can have polygamy and
Speaker 1: women had to shut up, and that that or at
Speaker 1: least the interpretations of Islam common in certain countries in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. He's specifically converted to his for that reason.
Speaker 1: So that's lovely. So this is not a good person,
Speaker 1: all right. This is not a Christian person. This is
Speaker 1: not like someone we should be promoting as a positive
Speaker 1: role model. And yet people on the right keep putting
Speaker 1: him on their platforms to talk to him because it
Speaker 1: gets clicks. They keep platforming him, promoting him as if
Speaker 1: he's some kind of acceptable person and not you know,
Speaker 1: a pimp and a sex trafficker. Tucker Carlson even had
Speaker 1: him on, which you know, I've liked Tucker Carlson a lot,
Speaker 1: but clearly Tucker is feeling the sting of not having
Speaker 1: a show on Fox News, and it's leading him to
Speaker 1: talk to literally anybody I guess that will generate him
Speaker 1: eyeballs and views, and it leads me to you know,
Speaker 1: I hear people anecdotally talking about this problem that all
Speaker 1: kinds of young even Christian men, are like watching Andrew
Speaker 1: Tate stuff and think Andrew Tate is cool, and think,
Speaker 1: you know, putting Andrew Tate quotes in their yearbooks, even
Speaker 1: in like Christian schools and things like that. And why
Speaker 1: is that? Well, I think, in large part, is there
Speaker 1: a lack of cool Christian men out there who can
Speaker 1: serve as role models for people? I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've always had kind of the Tim Tebow types of
Speaker 1: the world. I was reading this from this woman named
Speaker 1: Helen Roy who writes for a lot of different conservative publications.
Speaker 1: But one of the things she so her comment on
Speaker 1: this that I thought was smart was it's not a
Speaker 1: lack of positive role models like the Tim Tebow types.
Speaker 1: That We've always had good Christian male role models, and
Speaker 1: even right now there are better role models than Andrew Tait.
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan's a cool guy. Who ever did sex trafficking?
Speaker 1: I don't know, nor is the problem like that's an
Speaker 1: overly feminized society. We have women in the workplace. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not the reason. That's a cheap scapegoat, she writes.
Speaker 1: I think part of it is his approach to women
Speaker 1: makes sense for a culture where ninety nine percent of
Speaker 1: boys by the time they're twelve have been exposed to
Speaker 1: real hardcore pornography. Pornography is so pervasive among teenagers and
Speaker 1: teenage boys especially, and it's this massive problem that I
Speaker 1: think anyone as a Christian has to combat, has to
Speaker 1: grapple with that. It's warping our perception of among our
Speaker 1: young men, of what it actually means to be a man.
Speaker 1: I think you're seeing more young men correctly identifying that
Speaker 1: sort of theft. The lefty vision of what it needs
Speaker 1: to be a young man is wrong. But pornography has
Speaker 1: so warped their perceptions that they're finding this meaning in
Speaker 1: the wrong places too. When we return, Gavin Newsom's still
Speaker 1: chugging on with his special anti trumping Session of the
Speaker 1: Legislature next on The John Girardi Show. Since he is
Speaker 1: an incredibly vain man, Newsom can't admit that he's wrong,
Speaker 1: but kind of has to admit there are bigger priorities
Speaker 1: right now than stopping Donald Trump at all. Costs, especially
Speaker 1: when he needs federal money to help with the wildfires.
Speaker 1: So the Republicans in the legislature said, hey, why are
Speaker 1: we still going forward with this special legislative session for
Speaker 1: Trump proofing California giving the Attorney general a bunch more
Speaker 1: money to sue Donald Trump or to sue the Trump administration. Rather,
Speaker 1: so we should be having a special session on combating wildfires.
Speaker 1: And so Newsom said, it's a special session for stopping
Speaker 1: Trump and combating wildfires. Great job, gav Yes, that'll preserve
Speaker 1: your ability to run for president. I'm sure that'll do it.
Speaker 1: John J already shows see you next time on Power Talk.