Speaker 1: This is Peter Wood, the author of Bath America and Rage.
Speaker 1: You're listening to All the Wright Radio with Depay.
Speaker 2: And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, to the radio show
Speaker 2: that you tell us you like so much, which has
Speaker 2: been around more than a decade, A Call to Rights
Speaker 2: with me, your host Steve Kadon Al the Wrights talks
Speaker 2: about many things about our constitution of Bill of Rights,
Speaker 2: American exceptionalism as we delve into so many of these topics,
Speaker 2: but the main theme of the radio show has and
Speaker 2: always will continue to be this always refuse to be
Speaker 2: a victim, because a victim is simply someone with no options.
Speaker 2: Always fight back legally and responsibly. And today, ladies and
Speaker 2: gentle I'm gonna we move down this particular archive of
Speaker 2: the cul to Rights Radio Show a brand new edition.
Speaker 2: Today in just one moment, be introducing our special guest today,
Speaker 2: Peter Wood, author of a brand new Encounter Books book
Speaker 2: entitled Wrath America and Rage. Peter Wood as President of
Speaker 2: the National Association of Scholars, an author of the new
Speaker 2: book Wrath America in Rage, as well as last year's
Speaker 2: acclaimed sixteen twenty a critical response to the sixteen nineteen project.
Speaker 2: A former professor of anthropology and college provost, he's the
Speaker 2: author of several books about American culture, including Diversity, The
Speaker 2: Invention of a Concept, and A be in the Mouth
Speaker 2: Anger in America Now. He joins us here on the
Speaker 2: Call the Rights radio show as we talk about the
Speaker 2: brand new book, and some of the backstory reads like this,
Speaker 2: Anger now dominates American politics, But it wasn't always so Happy.
Speaker 2: Days are here Again was FDR's campaign song in nineteen
Speaker 2: thirty two. By contrast, candidate Kamala Harris's twenty twenty campaign
Speaker 2: song work that Let them Get mad, they Gonna hate anyway.
Speaker 2: Both in left and the right now some in anger
Speaker 2: is the main way to motivate their supporters. After the election,
Speaker 2: both sides became even more indignant. The left accuses the
Speaker 2: right of insurrection and the right accuses the left of fraud.
Speaker 2: This is a book about how we got here, about
Speaker 2: how America changed from a nation that could be roused
Speaker 2: to anger but preferred self control, to a nation permanently
Speaker 2: dialed to eleven with that Peter Wood, good afternoon, and
Speaker 2: welcome to a call to write hard.
Speaker 1: Good afternoon, and thank you for having me.
Speaker 2: It's is thinct pleasure, sir, and reading your book. I
Speaker 2: find this most interesting, as we recommend many of the
Speaker 2: books that we get from these great authors to go
Speaker 2: to the top of the call the wright's bookshelf. But
Speaker 2: in simplicity, if you don't mind going back in the
Speaker 2: time tunnel here, describe to us a bit about a
Speaker 2: previous book called to be in the Mouth, and describe
Speaker 2: to the audience, and of course we encourage them to
Speaker 2: get a copy of it. What then, was the main
Speaker 2: theme of that particular book and how does it also
Speaker 2: translate and relate to today's topic about wrath.
Speaker 1: Well, that book came about as the result of a
Speaker 1: book before that titled Diversity, the Invention of the Concept.
Speaker 1: While I was working on Diversity, I began to run
Speaker 1: into a lot of people who seemed to be really
Speaker 1: angry that I was having trouble figuring out what they
Speaker 1: were angry over. They just seemed to be angry for
Speaker 1: anger's sake. So I pulled on that tread for a
Speaker 1: while and began to delve into the psychological literature and
Speaker 1: historical literature. And what I came up with, which is
Speaker 1: the substance of the book, was that there had been
Speaker 1: a kind of sea change in the American temperament. For centuries,
Speaker 1: Americans had urged on each other and attempted to maintain
Speaker 1: in their own lives a pretty strong ethic of self control.
Speaker 1: The angry person was often seen as foolish, or at
Speaker 1: least the person who got angry too often, or stayed
Speaker 1: angry too long, or became angry too frequently, and that
Speaker 1: individual then began to experience a lot of social friction.
Speaker 1: So there were genuine sanctions against being too angry that
Speaker 1: began to change after World War II. Two sort of
Speaker 1: benchmark things were the growing popularity of Freudian psychoanalysis, which
Speaker 1: informed people that boddling up their anger was going to
Speaker 1: come back at them in the form of neurosis. And
Speaker 1: another thing about the same time was the importation of
Speaker 1: European existentialism, which was teaching that the authentic life is
Speaker 1: one in which you were led by your passions, with
Speaker 1: anger in particular. Well, these things kind of came together
Speaker 1: in the nineteen fifties, not a time we usually think
Speaker 1: of as especially angry, but there was an angry fringe,
Speaker 1: mainly on the coasts. But it was the sort of
Speaker 1: thing that gave rise to who For example, the very
Speaker 1: popular book A Catcher in the Rye, which is about
Speaker 1: a pissed off young man who wanders around New York
Speaker 1: for a few days, calling everybody he meets. The phony
Speaker 1: turns out at the end of the book that he's
Speaker 1: actually talking to his shrink, and so you get both
Speaker 1: the existentialist anger and the psychoanalytic anger wrapped up in
Speaker 1: what was one of the most popular books of his time.
Speaker 1: This is also the era in which figures like Alan
Speaker 1: Ginsberg or writing poems in which they denounced in really
Speaker 1: vulgar language their hatred of America. Being angry was a
Speaker 1: style suited the beat generation, who is also catching on
Speaker 1: in other places. It turned out that anger was almost
Speaker 1: the perfect match to the emerging protest movements. Well, of course,
Speaker 1: you've been protest movements way before that. Only the anger
Speaker 1: that could be summoned to bring real energy to a
Speaker 1: protest movement had a kind of validation in the opinion
Speaker 1: of the cultural elite. So all this is brewing in
Speaker 1: the nineteen fifties. I'm not going to try to retell
Speaker 1: a whole story since, but broke out in big ways
Speaker 1: in the nineteen sixties and then just grew and grew
Speaker 1: and grew, and that's what the book is about. It
Speaker 1: was written in the middle of Bush's presidency when a
Speaker 1: new version of this new anger, as I call it, proud,
Speaker 1: self righteous anger, flamboyant anger, had gripped the imagination of
Speaker 1: the American political left. So we suddenly had this cultural
Speaker 1: phenomenon translated into politics.
Speaker 2: Very interesting. I want to let our remind our audience
Speaker 2: out there. Special guest today is always here on the
Speaker 2: Cull to Rights radio show, but today indeed Ladies and Amazon,
Speaker 2: and I think goes right to the core of some
Speaker 2: of the basic problems that I think are rampant across
Speaker 2: America and maybe all the places around the world. Our
Speaker 2: special guest is Peter Wood, the president of the National
Speaker 2: Association of Scholars, an author of the book I'm holding
Speaker 2: in my hands here, a brand new Encounter Books book
Speaker 2: entitled Wrath America in Rage. He joins us from his
Speaker 2: offices in New York City. Peter just described to us,
Speaker 2: in case people may not really have a firm grip
Speaker 2: on this, you're an anthropologist by training. What's interesting and
Speaker 2: looking at how social things happened between different people and
Speaker 2: cultures and where we all came from way back in
Speaker 2: the Cosmic soup. But I wonder if you could just
Speaker 2: give us a simple explanation in your opinion of what
Speaker 2: the difference is between anger and wrath, and from what
Speaker 2: I'm reading in your book, obviously anger can transmute to
Speaker 2: the concept of wrath. Talk a little bit about that
Speaker 2: if you will. Well.
Speaker 1: I say early on in the book that the difference
Speaker 1: between anger and wrath is anger says, ah, how dare you?
Speaker 1: And wrath says I'm going to obliterate you. The difference
Speaker 1: is partly one of intensity, but it's also partly one
Speaker 1: of whether you are entertaining a hope for reconciliation at
Speaker 1: the end of this. Anger, even when it's red hot,
Speaker 1: usually expects there's going to come a time when I'm
Speaker 1: no longer angry, that we will settle things one way
Speaker 1: or the other. Raff no longer expects that. It just
Speaker 1: says you have gone so far that I have no
Speaker 1: choice now but to do whatever I can to obliterate you,
Speaker 1: just to take you out. That sometimes results in literal obliteration.
Speaker 1: People shoot each other, that they do terrible things. I
Speaker 1: think in the political realm it means we can no
Speaker 1: longer compromise. There's no ground here for us to find
Speaker 1: a common ground at all. And to that end, it's
Speaker 1: a winner take all situation that I think describes where
Speaker 1: we are in America right now. The Left and I
Speaker 1: see no place at all in which they can reasonably meet.
Speaker 1: The people who call for a middle ground seem kind
Speaker 1: of weak and foolish that they don't truly understand what
Speaker 1: either side is saying. There is no real compromise between
Speaker 1: communism and the free market. There's no real middle ground
Speaker 1: between the fighting that we're going to be a nation
Speaker 1: with borders or a nation without borders. That's the place
Speaker 1: where we vended up. And it's clearly not just conceptual difference.
Speaker 1: These are passionately felt. The differences deep and powerful resentments
Speaker 1: on both sides, and out of those resentments them's a
Speaker 1: willingness to set aside the usual restrictions on how we
Speaker 1: behave towards people we disagree with.
Speaker 2: Well, Peter, I think this book again should be in
Speaker 2: every college curriculum and maybe even down into the high
Speaker 2: school level, because this is where I think all this
Speaker 2: education needs to or the whole story that needs to
Speaker 2: be told here, even maybe even in younger ages need
Speaker 2: to understand this. And even if this book was maybe
Speaker 2: written for a more mature audience age wise, wouldn't you agree.
Speaker 2: I mean, this should be taught. And I have to
Speaker 2: ask you this as a professor, have you taught this
Speaker 2: specific subject as a topic in a classroom situation? And
Speaker 2: forgive me if I'm not picking up on that, but
Speaker 2: from an anthropologist view, has that been one of your
Speaker 2: classes that you actually teach this very subject of wrath?
Speaker 1: You know it has not. By the time I got
Speaker 1: seriously interested in this topic, I was already on my
Speaker 1: way out of higher education. I spent twenty five years
Speaker 1: in the classroom, and I since moved over into the
Speaker 1: nonprofit world. I do to kind of work now, which
Speaker 1: prease me. I am no longer having to worry about
Speaker 1: being canceled by administrators or fellow back the members who
Speaker 1: dislike what I have to say. So, while you're talking
Speaker 1: to a free spirit here, I like, have not had
Speaker 1: too many opportunities to go back in front of students,
Speaker 1: simply because I'm now known to be outside the reservation.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir, talk to us about this. I mean, in
Speaker 2: your book, the many questions that you provide us. But
Speaker 2: I like to go deeper than that, because when you
Speaker 2: read these books, you know, I pick up some main
Speaker 2: themes out of every author that I get, and that's
Speaker 2: what I think every author tries to do. Maybe not
Speaker 2: every single point, but some, you know, resonate better with me.
Speaker 2: But concept here, I want to talk about this new
Speaker 2: anger and if you could define that a little better
Speaker 2: for this audience, because I find that most fascinating that
Speaker 2: anger was anger. But let's say in World War Two,
Speaker 2: when they was anger, how do we describe now today
Speaker 2: in our you know, post Trumpian world here with Biden
Speaker 2: in charge and the Democratic Party here in this country.
Speaker 2: And I'm not trying to attack them, I mean, how
Speaker 2: would you then describe the definition of new anger and
Speaker 2: how does it differentiate from the old?
Speaker 1: Well, the simplest way to defind new anger is that
Speaker 1: it's show off anger. The anger of times past always
Speaker 1: had about a certain holding back, a degree of reservation
Speaker 1: or even slight shame that being angry men, I'm no
Speaker 1: longer in control. But with what I call new anger,
Speaker 1: that element of hesitation is completely gone. People are celebrating
Speaker 1: their anger. They see it as empowering, as authentic, as
Speaker 1: bringing them applause, So you can perform anger now with
Speaker 1: the expectation that at least some of the people around
Speaker 1: you will clap and cheer. That is something new in America.
Speaker 1: On That kind of anger in which you win the
Speaker 1: support of your friends and try to take the breath
Speaker 1: away from you or pose a competitive sport of anger
Speaker 1: is what America has come to now. That might not
Speaker 1: sound to listeners as something that is especially new. If not,
Speaker 1: then I'd suggest a spending a few hours and going
Speaker 1: back and looking at movies of the pre nineteen fifties era.
Speaker 1: Think of Gary Cooper at High Noon, or any number
Speaker 1: of movies in which the lead character suffers insults and
Speaker 1: assaults but pulls himself back, refooses to engage until he's
Speaker 1: just pushed the limit, and then he'll react, but in
Speaker 1: a controlled way. That's gone. That's no longer our image
Speaker 1: of the hero or the protagonist. Now we go for
Speaker 1: the person who comes out guns blazing from the very start.
Speaker 1: This is a change in American temperament. It doesn't come
Speaker 1: automatically or overnight. That is, people have to be raised
Speaker 1: to expect that expressive anger is a virtue, not advice,
Speaker 1: and we have spent a couple of generations now teaching
Speaker 1: children to express themselves rather than to hold back their feelings.
Speaker 1: We are reaping the reward of that kind of social
Speaker 1: valuation of our emotions. If you think anger is what
Speaker 1: you need to do in order to be a full
Speaker 1: grown up person, you're probably going to get a lot
Speaker 1: more anger in your social life. And that's where we
Speaker 1: are well anger.
Speaker 2: Obviously, from the physiological side, I mean you and I
Speaker 2: would both agree, and I'm sure every person listening to
Speaker 2: this particular show, anger is never good for your health anyway.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's never any doctor that I've ever met,
Speaker 2: and I don't think you would doubt this that having
Speaker 2: anger in your system and theoretically do what called a stroke,
Speaker 2: heart attack and all that. We know that. But again,
Speaker 2: ladies and gentlemen, Peter Wood is our very special guest here.
Speaker 2: Great to have him here talking about a subject that
Speaker 2: really needs, in my opinion, Peter, to be taught at
Speaker 2: the mid levels and highest levels. And I think maybe
Speaker 2: through this particular program and what we find in your book,
Speaker 2: a brand new book from Encounter Books, Ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 2: you can get that book where the good books are
Speaker 2: sold in counterbooks dot com. He's where this is archive
Speaker 2: the book entitled Wrath American Raged. But I want to
Speaker 2: go on to something here. You can tend here that
Speaker 2: some wrath you believe is justified. And I'm reading this
Speaker 2: the popular will of Americans, this is what you're saying,
Speaker 2: has been thwarted by a combination of career as deletes,
Speaker 2: progressive ideologues, an unprincipled press, and a business class more
Speaker 2: tuned to global opportunities than to domestic flourishing. Flourishing, that's
Speaker 2: powerful stuff, my friend, and I would have to agree
Speaker 2: with you. I would find it hard for anybody unless
Speaker 2: they're living in a cave, to really disagree with many
Speaker 2: of the things that you just stated. Please please continue
Speaker 2: and describe in detail how you believe some wrath is
Speaker 2: also justified.
Speaker 1: Well, I have written this book in a more political
Speaker 1: mode than any of my other scholarly work. I'm engaged myself,
Speaker 1: and that I found mischief that was part of the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election very upsetting, but even more upsetting that
Speaker 1: we couldn't talk about it without being accused of being
Speaker 1: complicit in the Big Lie or something like that. So
Speaker 1: whatever evidence there was that the balloting was not completely
Speaker 1: on the up and up. I couldn't even be talked about,
Speaker 1: and that shutting down of public discussion me was a
Speaker 1: critical factor, and thinking I was no longer going to
Speaker 1: be the loose observer, I was going to be some
Speaker 1: kind of participant in this. Then came the January sixth
Speaker 1: riot in the capital, promptly hired by the mainstream press
Speaker 1: to be an insurrection with the Democrats and one voice
Speaker 1: declaring that yes, this was an attempt to overthrow the government,
Speaker 1: which made no immediate sense or any long term sense either,
Speaker 1: that if someone's being to overthrow the government, that it
Speaker 1: would at least show up with weapons and a plan,
Speaker 1: rather than an unruly crowd that wandered around and snapped
Speaker 1: selfies and in a few cases got into shoving matches.
Speaker 1: There was no real violence to speak of, except violence
Speaker 1: perpetrated by the capital police. And yet for all of this,
Speaker 1: we saw people thrown into prison for nine, ten eleven months,
Speaker 1: oftentimes without serious charges against them, and then manhandled and
Speaker 1: brutally treated in prison. That didn't sound like America to me.
Speaker 1: And this, of course comes on top of a whole
Speaker 1: lot of other things that have been occurring in the
Speaker 1: country that are upset many millions of people. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to say they're just Trump voters who got upset
Speaker 1: by this. I think a lot of this felt deeply
Speaker 1: grieved about how to pull out from Afghanistan was handled,
Speaker 1: or deeply grieved about what's happened on our southern border,
Speaker 1: the unleashing of inflation, and a kind of heedless attempt
Speaker 1: to rejigger all our elections in the future by allowing
Speaker 1: the kinds of things that occurred in twenty twenty to
Speaker 1: be imposed across the whole country by the will of Congress. Well,
Speaker 1: that hasn't happened yet, but not for lack of trying.
Speaker 1: These things add up to a sense, I believe among
Speaker 1: kinds of people I'm talking to about it, that we
Speaker 1: no longer have a self governed country, as the consent
Speaker 1: of the people who have a government has been overridden
Speaker 1: by an elite that is much more interested in meaning
Speaker 1: and paining power for itself. And that these are matters
Speaker 1: that I think rightly induced a sense of almost despair
Speaker 1: among people. That's been modified somewhat by the results of
Speaker 1: the elections in Virginia and some other places in the
Speaker 1: last month. But we are Nonetheless, I'd say at a
Speaker 1: stage feeling that something terrible has happened to our ability
Speaker 1: to be a self governed country and that something must
Speaker 1: be done about that.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: That's more or less the psychological position or the state
Speaker 1: that I'm in when I wrote the book, and she
Speaker 1: continues to be foremost, how I think we are based
Speaker 1: as a country now with the prospects of going forward,
Speaker 1: we have, in my view, a deeply incompetent president, one
Speaker 1: who probably is suffering from psychological prayalty and worse, along
Speaker 1: with this kind of shadow government behind him which is
Speaker 1: using his peril of state opportunity to impose all sorts
Speaker 1: of rules by a mere pot rather than by the
Speaker 1: actual couldn't agreement.
Speaker 2: Pat, Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And I think as
Speaker 2: we move forward in the interview here, we only have
Speaker 2: a few more minutes with you today, but this is
Speaker 2: fascinating to me, and I'd like to spend more time
Speaker 2: with you in the future around this in a different format,
Speaker 2: but that we can talk about that privately. But for
Speaker 2: the people listening today, I just want to remind everybody
Speaker 2: our producer here, Richard Dugan Station CAZy SBA in Plus
Speaker 2: ninety and Santa Barbara, California appreciate his time and helping
Speaker 2: making this all happen. But for all of you out
Speaker 2: there in the Call to Rights audience, these are the
Speaker 2: things that they would be asking if they were doing
Speaker 2: this in a live format on the air. This is
Speaker 2: pre recorded. Ladies and gentlemen. You know, you write a
Speaker 2: response to the sixteen nineteen project, and I just wanted
Speaker 2: to see, you know, shame on people that they don't
Speaker 2: know too much about this, but not so much shame
Speaker 2: that they can't learn. Give us the main tenant that
Speaker 2: you disagree with in the sixteen nineteen project, because I
Speaker 2: think this has you know, we could spend hours talking
Speaker 2: with you about this and your response. Of course, as
Speaker 2: the opposite side of the equation, what's the biggest offensive
Speaker 2: thing that you find in the sixteen nineteen project that
Speaker 2: the listeners would weally need to know about.
Speaker 1: Well, if I had to say just one thing, I
Speaker 1: would say the sixteen nineteen project paints a false picture
Speaker 1: of American history by treating slavery absolutely central to every
Speaker 1: development that has ever occurred, political, economic, religious, or otherwise.
Speaker 1: But if you want to take it down to basic facts,
Speaker 1: slavery didn't begin in Virginia in sixteen nineteen. It was
Speaker 1: a world wide institution before that. It happens that there
Speaker 1: was no slavery in Virginia, and slaves brought there by
Speaker 1: parrots in that year actually were set free. They served
Speaker 1: as indentured servants and then were given their own freedom
Speaker 1: and went on to integrate with the rest of the
Speaker 1: people in Jamestown. Because the sixteen nineteen Project claims that
Speaker 1: the American Revolution was fought by the Patriots in order
Speaker 1: to sustain these the institution of slavery, there's not a
Speaker 1: shred of historical evidence that supports that claim. That's preposterous.
Speaker 1: At the New York Times, Nicole Hannah Jones not only
Speaker 1: laid it out in her original one hundred page statement
Speaker 1: in the New York Times magazine, but has now produced
Speaker 1: a six hundred page book in which she repeats it.
Speaker 1: So there's no backing down on the part of these people.
Speaker 1: They also claim, for example, that Abraham Lincoln fought the
Speaker 1: Revolutionary War for racist reasons, he wanted to exile American
Speaker 1: blacks abroad, and that the More was fought really for
Speaker 1: the purpose of segregation and exclusion. He says, or she
Speaker 1: says that the Blacks have fought all their battles alone
Speaker 1: over the course of centuries. That too, is preposterous. Abolitionist
Speaker 1: movement was largely a white one, the civil rights movement
Speaker 1: was thoroughly integrated, and so on. In many cases, the
Speaker 1: sixteen nineteen project is a kind of long, long list
Speaker 1: of falsehood's errors, not accidental, but deliberate, because they're there
Speaker 1: to support a direct political line to the idea that
Speaker 1: Nicole Hannah Jones wants to see billions of dollars in
Speaker 1: reparations paid the Blacks, and she needs to soften up
Speaker 1: the American public of this strong sense of guilt to
Speaker 1: achieve this political goal. So it's a con it's the
Speaker 1: effort to trick people into believing something is true, which
Speaker 1: is the thought true.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm glad that people like yourself out there, Peter,
Speaker 2: and on this radio show, just to give you a
Speaker 2: little back background, for fifteen years, we've been talking with
Speaker 2: the audience, not at the audience, about American exceptionals or
Speaker 2: constitutional bull of rights, and always stressing to this audience
Speaker 2: that we are a constitutional republic and not just to
Speaker 2: continue to hear the blather of democracy, democracy, democracy and
Speaker 2: I'm sure with what I understand from what I've read
Speaker 2: in your book, and I think I can get the
Speaker 2: picture that you be obviously more right side conservative towards
Speaker 2: the Constitution and the rule of law. My big fear here,
Speaker 2: and I just wanted you to comment on this as
Speaker 2: we close out the show in just about a few
Speaker 2: minutes here, But you're always welcome back here, sir in
Speaker 2: the live version where we can get the callers involved too.
Speaker 2: Is that this I'm concerned and not worried about groups
Speaker 2: like Black Lives Matter. I have not a racist bone
Speaker 2: in my body, and I'm sure you do not either.
Speaker 2: What we're hearing here, and I look deep into this,
Speaker 2: the allegations of Maoist and you know, very very communist
Speaker 2: tendencies for violence and things of this nature. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's just going to be to the point where where
Speaker 2: people in America obviously are going to reach a tipping point.
Speaker 2: And I hope that their anger doesn't go to wrath,
Speaker 2: because it seems like in many people's estimation, God forbid,
Speaker 2: if we were to even get into a secondary thing
Speaker 2: called a civil war. I wondered what you might advise
Speaker 2: people out there, What can the average citizen do hearing
Speaker 2: all this bladder that comes from mainstream media about how
Speaker 2: everybody on this side of the equation, if you're more
Speaker 2: of a conservative constitutionalist, that were either racist, or if
Speaker 2: some foreign country their foreign planet. I mean, it's concerning
Speaker 2: to everybody. What can average people do to protect themselves
Speaker 2: from what seems to becoming Well, there are.
Speaker 1: A number of things that can be done. I would
Speaker 1: start by saying, be as politically engaged as you possibly
Speaker 1: can be. That is your parent, go and show up
Speaker 1: at school board meetings. If you're being ordered by state
Speaker 1: authorities to do things that you think are wrong or dangerous,
Speaker 1: refuse to do them civil disobedience. As part of this,
Speaker 1: I strongly urge you to exercise your Second Amendment right
Speaker 1: be armed and know how to use your arms. That
Speaker 1: I would ever want to incite any kind of violence,
Speaker 1: but I think having an armed citizenry is a powerful
Speaker 1: protection against usurpation by authorities that mean to disuse their power.
Speaker 1: We are a constitutional republic. Know the laws, obey the laws.
Speaker 1: At least bay of the laws that you know are
Speaker 1: rounded in do judicial process, and are not just usurpations
Speaker 1: by people who want to steel power for themselves. Those
Speaker 1: are the basic things to do. You've got to be smart,
Speaker 1: thing got to be able, and those two things go together.
Speaker 2: Sure, these words are very important. I want to thank
Speaker 2: you so much for being part of this culture, writes
Speaker 2: episode again, Ladies andentlemen, thank you the listeners for being
Speaker 2: with us for over fifteen years. As you've heard me
Speaker 2: say many times and proud to say it. We talk
Speaker 2: about our constitution, a bill of rights, that we are
Speaker 2: a constitutional republic. And what Peter Wood is talking about here,
Speaker 2: he's not looking to inflame us. He's looking to say, Hey,
Speaker 2: there's the story and the connectivity between anger and wrath.
Speaker 2: And I believe from what he's saying in the book,
Speaker 2: and you'll get the message loud and clear if you
Speaker 2: do get a copy of this book again entitled Raff
Speaker 2: American Rage Peter W. Wood, he's the author. Go to
Speaker 2: Encounter books dot com, or for that matter, right Peter,
Speaker 2: wherever good books are sold, and I'm sure all over
Speaker 2: Amazon this book is found at the speed of light.
Speaker 2: I want to thank you, sir for being part of
Speaker 2: this radio show, and I hope you'll come back in
Speaker 2: a time when we do many town hall forums. And
Speaker 2: I think your conversational topic today belongs equally up on
Speaker 2: a giant zoom screen with an audience of people that
Speaker 2: I'm sure would like to even ask questions. So if
Speaker 2: you'd mind, can that in the future, we'd love to
Speaker 2: have you as part of the team. I'd be happy
Speaker 2: to do that. Thank you, Thank you very much. That
Speaker 2: concludes this interesting edition is always at least not in
Speaker 2: my mind, but in your mind as you tell us
Speaker 2: who like the radio show so much. Again, I want
Speaker 2: to thank our producer, doctor d Richard Dugan, Radio Station KZSB.
Speaker 2: That's AM twelve ninety in that beautiful hamlet of Santa Barbara, California,
Speaker 2: doing the honors of producing this particular episode. And I
Speaker 2: always remind everybody out there, I always remember this, refuse
Speaker 2: to be a victim, because one a victim is amply
Speaker 2: someone with no options. Again, always think yourself, ladies and gentlemen,
Speaker 2: because what is what happens if you don't you become
Speaker 2: a victim. A victim is a please someone with no options.
Speaker 2: Always fight back legally and responsibly. We'll see you next
Speaker 2: week on a Call to rights as we wish each
Speaker 2: and every one of you the best of the holiday season.
Speaker 2: A happy Honka, i'm urry Christmas and happy Holidays, and again,
Speaker 2: thank you Peter Wood for being our special guest here
Speaker 2: on a Whole to Rights with me, Steve Kates, if
Speaker 2: you'd be so kind enough sort to stay on the
Speaker 2: line as we go to the heartbreak here on the
Speaker 2: radio show. Thank you, Peter. We hear
Speaker 1: Mm hmm