Speaker 1: Are you shocked at the fact that you're donating a
Speaker 1: substantial amount of money to facilitate Trump selection? Is that
Speaker 1: something you would have believed in the realm of possibility,
Speaker 1: say five years ago.
Speaker 2: So what's been reported in the media is simply not true. Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm not donating forty five.
Speaker 3: Million dollars amount to Trump.
Speaker 2: And now what I have done is I've I have
Speaker 2: created a pack or super pack.
Speaker 3: What do you want to call it? Yeah, which I
Speaker 3: simply call it the America Pack.
Speaker 1: And you want to tell everybody who's listening what a
Speaker 1: pack is.
Speaker 2: Because people, it's a political action committee. Yeah, it's an organization.
Speaker 2: It's a legal endy that can receive funding. That funding
Speaker 2: can then be used to help with political campaigns.
Speaker 1: Yep. And how does that differ from a direct donation?
Speaker 1: There are specific limits on direct donations to candidates, and
Speaker 1: the pack system is the way of putting a political
Speaker 1: structure in place that sort of runs parallel with the
Speaker 1: political with the formal political system.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can donate money directly to candidates, that amount
Speaker 2: is fairly small. Yeah, then and you can cate a
Speaker 2: lot more money to political action committee or super pac.
Speaker 3: There are various.
Speaker 2: Rules that govern the operation of packs and super facts.
Speaker 2: But that's it certainly allows for a lot more money
Speaker 2: in the system.
Speaker 3: Than would otherwise be possible.
Speaker 2: And these are used clear on the Democrat and Republican side, Yes,
Speaker 2: and I actually think that.
Speaker 1: So it's an open playing field on the pack side.
Speaker 3: Yes. Yeah.
Speaker 1: What are you hoping to accomplish with this? And what's
Speaker 1: the pack called?
Speaker 3: It's called the America Back America Pack. Remember, it's very
Speaker 3: easy to remember.
Speaker 2: And it's actually it's not meant to be sort of
Speaker 2: a hyperpotesan pact. It's actually the core principles of this
Speaker 2: America pac are. The intent is to promote the principles
Speaker 2: that made America great in the post place. So I
Speaker 2: wouldn't say that I'm, for example, maga of make America
Speaker 2: great again.
Speaker 3: I think America is great. I'm more a make America greater.
Speaker 2: And there's some core pillars, core values that have I think.
Speaker 3: Made America great.
Speaker 1: Could you elucidate y?
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So one of them is being a meritocracy as much
Speaker 2: of yes, as much of a meritocracy as possible, such
Speaker 2: that you get ahead as a function of your hard
Speaker 2: work and your skill and nothing else, which is why
Speaker 2: I have your posted.
Speaker 3: For example, things like Dei.
Speaker 1: Adrian Wooldridge documented the fact that the alternative to meritocracy
Speaker 1: historically is nepotism and dynasty.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, it's not equity, it's not equity.
Speaker 1: It's nepotism and dynasty exactly. So that's very much worth knowing.
Speaker 1: Meritocracy has its price because it's a severe judge. But
Speaker 1: the alternative is nepotism and aristocracy or dynasty.
Speaker 3: Okay, So meritocracy clearly America.
Speaker 2: It's not like America has been purely a meritocracy, but
Speaker 2: it has been more of a meritocracy than any other place.
Speaker 1: Which is good. That's good.
Speaker 3: That's good, which I regard as good.
Speaker 2: Promoting meritocracy, promoting freedom, freedom to operate, meaning the least
Speaker 2: amount of government intervention possible we want. And this is
Speaker 2: I think important to fight as because the national tendency
Speaker 2: over time, almost entropy, is that the hand of government
Speaker 2: gets heavier every year. Ye, the laws and regulations accumulate
Speaker 2: every year, and these laws and regulations are immortal.
Speaker 1: That's the evil uncle of the king. A very old story,
Speaker 1: very old story. The Egyptians were wrestling with that problem
Speaker 1: four thousand years ago.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you have to have some You have to
Speaker 2: really to take an active role in reducing the number
Speaker 2: of laws and regulations. Otherwise, as more and more those
Speaker 2: regulations are passed, eventually everything becomes legal and you start
Speaker 2: getting into these oil and situations where.
Speaker 1: And everyone's poor and miserable.
Speaker 2: Where action A is illegal and action B is legal,
Speaker 2: and there isn't anything you can do that is legal.
Speaker 2: Take an example of to give an exact example of
Speaker 2: some larfare that was leveled against SpaceX. For example, we
Speaker 2: were told for many years that we could not hire
Speaker 2: anyone who was.
Speaker 3: Not a permanent right they had to.
Speaker 2: So SpaceX develops advanced rocket technology, which is considered an
Speaker 2: advanced weapons technology because a core part of incontinental.
Speaker 3: Ballistic missiles yep.
Speaker 2: So there are only a handful of things in the
Speaker 2: sort of highest level of weapon technology, and rocket technology
Speaker 2: is one of those, because we could deliver a payload
Speaker 2: and basically bomb anywhere on Earth from anywhere on Earth.
Speaker 2: So I was sold to know in certain terms by
Speaker 2: the government that if we hired anyone who is not
Speaker 2: a permanent resident of the United States, you have either
Speaker 2: green card or a citizen, that I would go to prison. Oh,
Speaker 2: because the presumption if somebody is not a permanent resident
Speaker 2: is that they will leave the United States and take
Speaker 2: the rocket technology for SpaceX to potentially to countries that
Speaker 2: would cause harm to the United States.
Speaker 3: It's pretty solid reasoning, I think.
Speaker 2: And then a few years ago the Biden administration decided
Speaker 2: to sue SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers.
Speaker 1: Right right, Yeah, I remember that. I remember that.
Speaker 2: We're told on the one side that if we hire
Speaker 2: anyone who's not a permanent residence, we go to prison.
Speaker 2: Now we're told if we don't hire asylum seekers who
Speaker 2: not asylum not people who have been granted asylum seekers
Speaker 2: they asked fires to asilum, they're therefore not opponent resident.
Speaker 2: But if you don't hire it, then we also go
Speaker 2: to present.
Speaker 1: The purpose of being damned if you do and damned
Speaker 1: if you don't is to make damn sure that you're damned.
Speaker 3: Correct.
Speaker 2: So that's the kind of away that seemed to be
Speaker 2: insane and unfair. And why did divide administration because they
Speaker 2: can only process they can only do so many big
Speaker 2: cases per year.
Speaker 3: There's a finite number they can. Yeah, why would the.
Speaker 2: Justice Department of all the injustices that occur picked this
Speaker 2: as one of their biggest cases.
Speaker 1: Why why do you think I think.
Speaker 2: They probably had a I don't know, there was some
Speaker 2: law fe I think it was a I think it
Speaker 2: was political.
Speaker 1: I think it's a relationship to you.
Speaker 2: I don't know all the things. But this is before
Speaker 2: supporting Trump or anything like that. Yeah, in fact, i'd
Speaker 2: supported Biden and before that Hillary, before that Obama.
Speaker 1: So that's why I was asking if this comes as
Speaker 1: a shot.
Speaker 2: I don't know if it could just be random.
Speaker 3: It could be I didn't.
Speaker 2: Tell us what why pick us? Why do such a
Speaker 2: crazy lawsuit?
Speaker 1: Random's are bad. If it is random, that's still bad.
Speaker 1: That's just a marker of incompetence. But if it's not random,
Speaker 1: it seems too highly unlikely to be.
Speaker 2: Yes, And also why I attack SpaceX and not say
Speaker 2: Boeing Lackey.
Speaker 3: I think part of it might be that sex.
Speaker 2: Is not unionized, and the Democratic Party in the US
Speaker 2: is fundamentally controlled by the unions, so that I'm speculating here.
Speaker 2: But since we're not unionized, we're I think, a very
Speaker 2: happy workforce. And I'm out there on the out there
Speaker 2: on the factory floor, I don't see a few people
Speaker 2: are happy.
Speaker 3: It's a good vibe.
Speaker 1: They're engaged in something ridiculously exciting. It's at minimum, that's
Speaker 1: not nothing. People can go a long ways if they're
Speaker 1: part of a project that's aiming at Mars. Let's say
Speaker 1: that's definitely aiming up. That's really exciting. That's a real
Speaker 1: opportunity for people. What do you think of Trump?
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna I don't subscribe to culture personality, So
Speaker 2: for me, it's really just got a choice of administrations
Speaker 2: and we have to pick one. And I think both
Speaker 2: that there are flaws on both sides.
Speaker 1: What do you think his flaws are. He's a complicated person,
Speaker 1: and I've been trying to sess him out and figure
Speaker 1: him out because some of the things that look like
Speaker 1: flaws might be advantages in disguise. He seems to me
Speaker 1: to be pretty good at standing up to psychopathic bullies,
Speaker 1: for example. Sure, and that's a useful skill, and it's
Speaker 1: not easy. You have to be a bit of a
Speaker 1: monster to manage that. And it isn't obvious to me
Speaker 1: how many of the even the divisive idiosyncrasies of Trump
Speaker 1: are the mirror image of his capacity to stand up
Speaker 1: to bullies. That's a tough call, man. So you've obviously
Speaker 1: decided to lay your what lay your efforts down on
Speaker 1: the side of the Trump administration in the forthcoming election.
Speaker 2: And so yeah, it's really I think we need a
Speaker 2: change of administration. I think many years ago, I think
Speaker 2: probably the Democratic Party was the party of meritocracy and
Speaker 2: of personal freedom. They used to be the free speech party. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and these days that they seem to be the censorship
Speaker 2: party under the guys who hates speech. So weirdly, in
Speaker 2: my view of the Republican Party is actually the party
Speaker 2: of that's the meritocracy party. Because the Democrats also promoting dei,
Speaker 2: which is really just another form of racism and sexism.
Speaker 1: It's the most pernicious form I think.
Speaker 2: So it's anti memocratic, fundamentally anti marriage.
Speaker 1: It insists on dividing people by groups right as a
Speaker 1: primary what would you say, conceptual distinction between individuals.
Speaker 3: Yes, race, ethnicity. I think Democratic Party is stoking division.
Speaker 1: I think the evidence for that's clear. All of this
Speaker 1: group identity nonsense has made things much more I can
Speaker 1: see it in Toronto. When my kids grew up in
Speaker 1: Toronto downtown, I would say they were race, they were race,
Speaker 1: ethnicity and gender blind. Yeah, they had an unbelievably diverse
Speaker 1: range of friends and no one cared. And even in
Speaker 1: Toronto that started to shift around with this emphasis on
Speaker 1: group division. It's a really ugly thing to see. So yeah,
Speaker 1: not good, not good.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So my view and is that at this point in
Speaker 2: the United States, the Republican Party is more in line
Speaker 2: with a meritocracy and with personal freedom.
Speaker 1: So I've never had a conservative many times with my
Speaker 1: left wing friends that say they'd refuse to talk to
Speaker 1: someone me included definitely, because I've invited prominent Democrats to
Speaker 1: come on my podcast in great numbers for a very
Speaker 1: long time, and I've got like absolutely nowhere with that.
Speaker 1: They'll talk to me in private, they will not talk
Speaker 1: to me in public, and so that's never happened.
Speaker 3: They're afraid of being shunned.
Speaker 1: Absolutely one percent. That's what they're afraid of. Sure, definitely,
Speaker 1: and they've told me that it's not a secret. But
Speaker 1: that's never happened. On the Republican side, I found it
Speaker 1: much easier because I've talked to a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: and a lot of Republicans, and I found it much
Speaker 1: much easier to talk to the Republicans. And that is
Speaker 1: somewhat of a shock. I wouldn't have necessarily expected that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I should be clear that it's not like
Speaker 2: I think the Republican Party is flawless. It certainly isn't
Speaker 2: got its issues. There are extremists within the Republican Party
Speaker 2: I don't agree with, but one has. It's a two
Speaker 2: party system. Essentially, you got to pick one or the other,
Speaker 2: and so you weigh the good and the bad. And
Speaker 2: my opinion is that the coin we need that the
Speaker 2: country would be better off with the Republican administration than
Speaker 2: a Democrat.
Speaker 1: Trump was pretty good at not having wars. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: which is actually quite a big thing. It's really a
Speaker 1: big thing. And what he did with the Abraham Accords
Speaker 1: that was a miracle. I think price for that.
Speaker 2: I think this is something to be said that America
Speaker 2: needs a strong leader and with that we have the
Speaker 2: perception of strength. Now you have to admire Trump after
Speaker 2: getting shot with blood streaming down his face, he could
Speaker 2: have been a second shooter, who knows. Nonetheless, with fist pumping, fight, fight,
Speaker 2: actually being shot and this is not it's funny too. Yes,
Speaker 2: and he's brave. He has courage. This is instinctual courage.
Speaker 2: It's not calculated some arranged event. It's in the moment.
Speaker 1: You can see that then, because that was not of
Speaker 1: time when you're.
Speaker 3: Too true Courage in the moment.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, And if you want a leader who's going to
Speaker 2: deal with some very tough cookies out there, who's going
Speaker 2: to deal with with a food kimsong on or China, Yeah, China,
Speaker 2: and they will be, they will be. I'll think twice
Speaker 2: about messing with prompt yep. And poor Biden can't make
Speaker 2: it up the stairs. And obviously he's stepped out of
Speaker 2: the race. But it's nobody's going to be intimidated by Biden.
Speaker 2: It's it's impossible, but I think they will be intimidated
Speaker 2: by a guy who was first pumping after getting shot.
Speaker 1: We saw that, I think in his administration because it
Speaker 1: was pace did rain and that was quite That's a
Speaker 1: bit of empirical evidence. Can I ask you a little
Speaker 1: bit about one of the things that you've been relatively
Speaker 1: vocal about, and I understand that there's a personal connection
Speaker 1: to this as well. I am for what it's worth.
Speaker 1: I'm particularly unhappy with what my colleagues in the psychological
Speaker 1: field have done with regards to gender affirming care. I
Speaker 1: think they are a pack of contemptible cowards. Yes, and
Speaker 1: I think that everyone who's been involved in this in
Speaker 1: relationship to minors should go to prison.
Speaker 3: I agree.
Speaker 1: Okay, Why do you agree? What's your or in the
Speaker 1: water in this particular This is the worst medical and
Speaker 1: psychological malpractice I've ever seen anywhere, including what I've done,
Speaker 1: what I've studied. In reference to historical atrocity, eugenics, what
Speaker 1: do you call those prefrontal lobotomy even the sorts of
Speaker 1: things that were going on in Nazi Germany, at least
Speaker 1: the bloody Nazis knew it was wrong and tried to
Speaker 1: hide it. Yes, okay, So what's your Why are you
Speaker 1: engaged in this particular battle? You said you're going to
Speaker 1: move a couple of your company headquarters out of California
Speaker 1: because of the last legislative move that Gavin Newsom pode
Speaker 1: with regards to the transisue.
Speaker 2: So, yes, Reclaire was there were many things leading up
Speaker 2: to that point. Yes, And I feel it's not that
Speaker 2: it's the one stroll, it's just the final stroll.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Okay, cumulative issue.
Speaker 3: Fair it's a cumulative issue.
Speaker 1: So it's not dramatic grandstanding. It's no.
Speaker 2: And moreover, I have had conversations with GAMNUSM before where
Speaker 2: I said, if you passed legislation like this, if you
Speaker 2: sign legislation like this, in my view, puts children in danger,
Speaker 2: I will move my companies out of California.
Speaker 3: He knew that ahead of time.
Speaker 1: Okay, you've talked to them directly about this. What the
Speaker 1: hell is he doing? I cannot understand. I really cannot
Speaker 1: understand the.
Speaker 3: Democrats pandering's the far left.
Speaker 1: Why did the Democrat moderates constantly pander to the far left.
Speaker 1: I worked with the Democrats in California for five years
Speaker 1: trying to get them to separate themselves from the far left.
Speaker 1: They wouldn't admit that they existed even and they certainly
Speaker 1: would never separate them. They wouldn't admit, for example, that
Speaker 1: Antifa even existed. Sure, there's this unbelievable blind spot with
Speaker 1: regards to the far left. Radicals and the modern Democrats
Speaker 1: are I think they're useful idiots fundamentally so.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Going back to the so called gender affirming care, which
Speaker 2: is a terrible euphemism.
Speaker 1: That's for sure, it's it's.
Speaker 2: Really a child's sterilization is what it should be.
Speaker 1: No, there's mutilation too, Yeah, we want to make sure
Speaker 1: that amalga is.
Speaker 3: It's child mutilation.
Speaker 1: It's sterilization under the guise of gender affirming care and compact,
Speaker 1: right right, I.
Speaker 3: Can't it's evil.
Speaker 1: Literally, can't imagine anything worse than that.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's evil. I mean you're taking kids who are
Speaker 2: obviously often far below the age of consent.
Speaker 1: Fused, miserable.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 2: The reality is that almost every child goes through some
Speaker 2: kind of identity crisis part of puberty exactly, it's just
Speaker 2: part of growing up. If so, it's very possible for
Speaker 2: minif for adults, to manipulate children into who are having
Speaker 2: a natural identity crisis, into believing that they are the
Speaker 2: wrong gender, and especially and that they need to be
Speaker 2: the other gender or they need to avoid r who
Speaker 2: needs scoop you a goal and that the and then.
Speaker 3: That will solve all their problems, and that will solve
Speaker 3: their problems.
Speaker 2: And then they give them sterilizing drugs which are called
Speaker 2: also a misnomer, pure puberty blocker. These are sterilization drugs,
Speaker 2: so they can never have children again. Yep, they can
Speaker 2: have double messed ectomies, have.
Speaker 1: Their forearms stripped to build non functioning penises.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's macab And we have an age of consent
Speaker 2: for a reason. That the reason you can't get say tattoos,
Speaker 2: blow age eight, or drink or drive. There are ages
Speaker 2: I wish you could do things because if we allow
Speaker 2: children to take permanent actions when they're ten, twelve, fourteen
Speaker 2: years old, they will do things that they subsequently greatly regret.
Speaker 1: Yes, I've interviewed a couple of people who's done exactly
Speaker 1: that and it's right damn painful. So I think you
Speaker 1: doing Why are you willing to make this an issue?
Speaker 1: Do you think.
Speaker 3: It happened to one of my older boys?
Speaker 2: Where I was, I was essentially tricked into signing documents
Speaker 2: for one of my elder boys, Zayre. This is before
Speaker 2: I had really any understanding what was going on and
Speaker 2: that we had COVID gone on, and there was a
Speaker 2: lot of confusion, and I THOUGHTOW might commit suicide.
Speaker 1: That was a lie right from the outset. No reliable
Speaker 1: clinician ever believed that. There was never any evidence for that.
Speaker 1: And also if there's a higher suicide rate, the reason
Speaker 1: is because of the underlying depression and anxiety and not
Speaker 1: because of the gender dysphoria. And every goddamn clinician knows
Speaker 1: that too, and they're too cowardly to come out and
Speaker 1: say it, and so that, and then we end up
Speaker 1: in exactly when I saw that lies start to propagate.
Speaker 1: It just made the hair on the back of my
Speaker 1: next stand ups. I see. So you're telling parents that
Speaker 1: unless they agree to this radical transformation that their children
Speaker 1: are going to die. And you think that's moral, and
Speaker 1: you think that's true. That is so pathological that it's
Speaker 1: almost incomprehensible. I can't imagine anything worse. I can't imagine
Speaker 1: the therapist doing anything worse than that, or sitting by
Speaker 1: idly and remaining silent. Well, his colleagues are doing it.
Speaker 2: It's incredibly evil, And I agree with you that people
Speaker 2: that have been promoting this should go to president.
Speaker 1: It won't stop till that happens. Yeah, it'll just go underground.
Speaker 1: There's all puberty blockers are being accessed online by kids
Speaker 1: all the time through non medical channels. Yeah, it's not
Speaker 1: going to stop. Okay, So I see.
Speaker 2: So that's so I was into doing this, and it
Speaker 2: wasn't explained to me that puberty blockers are actually just
Speaker 2: sterilization drugs anyway, and I lost my son essentially. They
Speaker 2: they call it dead naming for a reason. Yeah, all right,
Speaker 2: And so the reason it's called dead naming is because
Speaker 2: your son is dead. So my son is Zavier is dead,
Speaker 2: killed by the work mind virus.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to hear that. Yeah, I can't imagine what
Speaker 1: that would be like.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And there's lots of people in that situation now,
Speaker 1: it's not pretty, and lots of demolished kids. Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's good. That's a good reason to be the final.
Speaker 2: Straw, right, So let's I about to destroy the work
Speaker 2: mind virus after that, and we're making some progress.
Speaker 3: Join the club, yeah,