Ladies and gentlemen, as promised, here is the second and final part of my tremendous interview with Dr. James Lindsay. In the first part, we talked primarily about domestic issues in education--the wokifying of academia. However, in the second part, we branched out, looking beyond the academy and discussing the intricate and insidious plot to bring down the Western world on behalf of a Marxist Utopian vision of a future that lives happily in the demented minds of a few very powerful, quite sadistic people. Enjoy.

"Nikola Tesla said, 'You will live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension.' We are at that point in history."

~Dr. James Lindsay

So, you do believe the DEI, CRT, and queering of the children are all being orchestrated by a particular group or a complicated web of people without a designated leader?

Yes. I think it’s probably closer to the second of those things, but I don’t think that the number of heads is as many as people fear. And certainly, for example, if Blackrock alone lost the ability to do proxy voting or something like that with their stocks, or if ESG was found to violate—as attorneys general are starting to give guidance—fiduciary trust it’s easy for a corporation to turn around a sue over being forced into ESG compliance, all of a sudden, a lot of this stuff is going to start to collapse very, very quickly. So, you have a relatively small group of people who have that much power, that much of a hand on the wheel. Schwab and whoever the top brass over at the World Economic Forum, that’s one. The leaders of the World Bank, that’s another. The UN is a weird entity. How it’s binding to anything is not at all clear to me, so I can’t answer about that. Bill Gates has his hands somewhere up there. Some of these other foundations are big enough to where you have to start asking questions: Rockefeller Foundation, Tides Foundation—these huge Big Money interests, and I’m just naming two, not to leave any of the others out. There are plenty. We can name the Open Society Foundation […], so Soros has hands on the wheel, as well, although his hands are different. He’s kind of frenemies with these people. […] But yeah, there’s a relatively small number of people—Larry Fink, of course, I shouldn’t have left him out. Whoever it is on the board at Vanguard because nobody knows who that is, which is its own huge mystery.

What about the numerous individuals who we know are linked to these organizations and are serving in government? Should they be targeted, too?

Yes, but much less, but still yes is the answer. So, knocking out Trudeau doesn’t achieve very much because they’re going to stick another one of their puppets in there. But flipping Trudeau—because he thinks he’s a rat who’s going to go to prison—to betray them, in other words, to spill his guts about all of it because, hey, you know what, Justin, we’ll give you amnesty, we’ll fly you home to Cuba or whatever, we’ll give you all the protection you need for the rest of your life, all you have to do is tell us what’s really going on here, and you’re out scot-free. That comes when the conditions are such that it looks like this thing might topple—they say that’s when the rats start to jump ship—so targeting them and making the pressure be on them so that decision weighs more and more heavily on their mind all the time.

Big corporate leaders are going to be in that list—these kinds of weird people who are deep into it like John Kerry and Al Gore. Probably, they’re never going to give up any information whatsoever, but keeping the pressure on, especially, the weaker of the puppets—because this is how you knock down a cartel. This is what we’re dealing with. This is how RICO works. You start with lower-level guys, you bring them in, you make a deal, you get them to talk, you go for a higher-level guy, you bring him in, you make a deal, you get him to talk—like the dominos until you get the head. This is how you knock down a cartel.

There are, actually, legislative maneuvers, though, right here that could severely curtail this cartel’s ability to do the damage that it’s doing, which would be […] more transparency in proxy voting, rethinking everything about how we do passive investment index funds, putting ESG on blast. […] So, there are things we can do outside of just going after the beast itself to limit its range and reach: breaking up these huge investment firms through anti-trust, investigating the criminal conspiracy between them that the World Economic Forum is facilitating. These are all different strategic things that could take place.

Making it so that the federal government or the United Nations has little or nothing to say about how any given local municipality is going to run its school. Just a very simple thing as far as the federal Department of Education, which is a huge problem because it largely takes dictation from the United Nations, especially when there are Democrats in charge of it. A very simple thing would be to pass a law through Congress that there will be some apportioning of federal education dollars, we’ll keep the whole federal education dollar thing going, but the federal education dollars will go directly to the state Departments of Education […] under some apportioning mechanism that we’ll assume can be designed in some relatively fair way, and via tenth amendment, it can dictate nothing to the states in terms of how they use that money. It’s up to the states to determine. That would cut so much head of the dragon—that’s like, not a head, it’s like lopping an entire arm off the friggin’ dragon. It can still fly and breathe fire and do other things, but that’s literally lopping off an arm. […] Now, of course, they could capture state governments, too—it’s not a perfect solution—but at that point, you’ve now severed the line going to the United Nations. California has to go cut a deal directly with the UN to adopt its policies. Whereas thirty other states might say, “You know what, we’re not doing UN crap.” All the comprehensive sex ed stuff is a direct UN program, by the way, that was finalized in 2004. That’s where it’s all come in. That’s where all that guidance comes from. So, these accountability lines can actually be severed in various ways that actually does a massive amount of damage without necessarily killing the beast.

You spoke on a separate occasion about the creation of the useless class, but if the goal is the Marxist Utopia, how will production occur if the lower classes are made literally useless?

There will be lots of production: robots. Robots will do the production for the vast majority of people. This is actually the vision that they have that they’re afraid of. It is that automation is reaching a point using AI and some other technology that they to power it to where 80% of the population will not be employable because it’s not only cheaper and easier but safer and less, in a sense, dehumanizing to have robots do everything.

So, […] you should look up, when you get the chance, the Qingdao Port in China. […] Qingdao Port is the most efficient port on earth, and it has zero employees, and it can unload container ships and get all of the pieces either to rail or to truck with zero employees, zero people, four times more efficiently than the next most efficient port on the planet. And so, this is a place where previously maybe 10,000 Chinese would have been employed—zero. Not two—zero. Somewhere in an office somewhere they have somebody overseeing and watching in case something happens. […] So, the production is going to be done by machines in the Marxist Utopia. Now, this actually kind of goes back even to Marx. He thought we were going to get to the point where technology would be sufficient where all the hard work is being done by machines, for him, now it’s AI-infused robots.

And the big issue, if you actually listen to, say, Yuval Noah Harari from the World Economic Forum or you listen to even Klaus Schwab or you read Klaus Schwab’s books, what do they say? The term “useless class” is not my invention. That’s Yuval Noah Harari’s word actually for them. As much as 75-80% of the world’s population will be unemployable because there will be no labor jobs left. Even agriculture will be done by robots and machines with a very small number, maybe, of overseers, but when AI is sufficient, you won’t need that anyway. All basic production and all basic manufacturing and all basic distribution will be done by AI. And so that creates a vast class, as Yuval Noah Harari also called them, of so-called “useless eaters.”

And so, what do you do with the “useless eaters”? Well, you rig up an entirely new system that generates enough profit to justify basically paying them to subsist in some kind of minimalistic way where they’re going to be moderately happy but maybe try not to produce more babies. And then, through something like a universal basic income program that gives you the sense that you’re buying and selling things, but it’s all sort of fake.

This is part of why they’re so bent on the idea of sustainability. They actually want to get people to think about having, consuming, and doing less because the belief within late Marxism—so, Marxism in the second half of the 20^th century going forward—has been that the—and Marx actually talked about this, but it’s really become prominent to their theory after they accepted in the 20^th century, 1940 to 1970ish, Marxists bit the bitter pill and accepted “capitalism delivers the goods.” That’s a direct quote. That’s a phrase they used. It allows people to build a good like, a better life. It delivers the goods.

But what they said is that one of the reasons this is bad, and they had a number of reasons, is that it does so in a way that is not sustainable. If, say, the machines are taking care of all your basic needs—so nobody has to do basic-needs stuff—well, not everybody can be a “creative.” So, people have to make up goods and services that nobody actually needs. They have to knit little, fancy can koozies and things that actually people—nobody needs this—dog beds. Like, your dog doesn’t need a bed, right? All these little things, and people are going to make it, and it’s all personalized. So, you’re spending lots of energy to make useless products, and when that whole economy fills out, then you have to make another layer of even faker economy that produces stuff that even fewer people need for even less stuff, and eventually, their incorrect belief is that this is an inherently unsustainable project that will collapse under its own weight because it gets faker and faker and faker and heavier and heavier as you go. And so, when you now have a large number of people displaced from work, in a very short time through automation, you have a lot of displaced people, but then the thing they’re worried about is […], they frame in terms of: when the basic needs are met, other needs will seem as though they are basic needs, and then those will have to be met, and nobody can live without them. And then other needs above those will seem like they’re basic needs, and those will have to be met, and nobody can live without them. And eventually, it’s just too much to keep going, and you’re going to drain all of the material resources of the planet trying to satisfy people’s needs for bobbles, gadgets, plastic—that’s the words that they use—that nobody actually needs. And so, it’s an inherently unsustainable program.

So, what they want to make you do, in the words of Marcuse, is make you comfortable with less. And that’s the sustainable thing. “You don’t have to go on vacation. We can just put your VR goggles on, and it looks like you’re in Athens.” They call it virtual travel or digital travel. The whole travel industry is going freakin’ whole-hog into this, right now, to create fake travel through virtual reality. You can have mostly the experience. If you extrapolate that, though—and I don’t know if neural link is a real thing or not—but if you extrapolate it into the kind of techno-futurist mindset, well, if there is a chip in your brain that actually does that, you don’t have to go to Athens at all. You just download the script of the Athens experience into your head, and you remember it. You experience it. You lay down in your bed, close your eyes, and your brain tells you you’re in Athens walking around in the sun, just like a dream, but way more real, way more crisp, way more clear. And so nobody has to go to Athens. No fuel has to be expended.

So, these kind of techno-futurist guys, like Yuval Noah Harari, project into 2045, picturing that being the future of humanity. So, what do you do with these people? What do you do with all these people? Well, you get them content with this virtual life with very little, get them comfortable living that way, and slowly make sure there are fewer of them.

Should we be more skeptical then about the technological advances taking place?

I think we should be skeptical of these idiots’ ability to pull off what they want to pull off with it. They’re visionary, and there’s a place for being visionary, but they’ve just proven with a gigantic global experiment and an mRNA technology that they’re not quite as smooth as they thought they were. They’re not nearly as good as they think they are.

Regardless of whether or not the vaccine was necessary, whether it could’ve helped in principle, whether the science behind developing it was actually good—which it may have been—the thing was a freakin’ catastrophe in rollout. Everything that could possibly have not been right about this thing was not right.

I just saw something the other day—and with COVID you have to be so careful because what in the hell’s true and what’s not? It’s been so heavily censored that you’re reading snippets of this and reading snippets of that, nothing authoritative. If the CDC says something, you can’t trust it. So, you’re like, “I don’t know what’s true or not.” But I just saw this thing the other day that said as much as 50% of the batches, by the time they were delivered in needle, into people’s arms, were degraded, and so the mRNA inside of them had changed genetically into something else that does something different because it had sat too long in the freakin’ sun or just sat too long in the warehouse before it went from manufacture to delivery. As much as 50% of the samples they checked were degraded in terms of literally changing the genetic code that they were injecting into you. That’s an alarming failure if that’s true, just as an indicator.

There are other huge reasons. First of all, what are we dealing with: Fauci has four vaccines in his body right now, got COVID, took the pill that they spent $11B of taxpayer money developing, and immediately relapses into COVID again. Great job with the R&D, guys.

So, what this tells you is, regardless of anything else, they think the technology is at one place, and it’s not there. Or the technology, in theory, is there, but in practice, is not there and is probably not going to get there. And so, whether it’s the technology itself, I don’t know. But when it comes to their ability to implement it: laughably worse. Which means, though, it’s going to be a humanitarian catastrophe everywhere they try. I mean, we’re talking absolute catastrophes. […] Nikola Tesla said, “You will live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension.” We are at that point in history.

If “capitalism delivers the goods” and has provided abundance and delivered countless people out of poverty, and if the world suffers whether these people succeed or not—either they fail and entire countries and economies are destroyed, or they succeed and we’re living under a Marxist dystopia—what is the point outside of pure malevolence?

There are two reasons if we take pure malevolence off the table, and one of those was already discussed. The religion of communism sees capitalism as an inherently unstable program. The religion of communism, […] they think that this is the destined trajectory of history; it is where history must necessarily go. This is the religion of communism: it is human beings’ jobs to work out the details to make it get there. Where Christians might say that “God used me x, y, z,” in various ways or “he called me to do x, y, z, and I had to do it within the best of my capacity,” communists believe that human beings exist in order to move the dialectic, and the dialectical process has a trajectory toward global communism which is a stateless, classless utopia where nobody has to work except at the minimum level necessary to do production or through their creative aspects. This is what Marx said, “The only true work is the work that you don’t have to do.” No other work is true work. He actually says that in the economic and philosophical manuscripts from 1844. He says that if it’s beholden to somebody else or even your own belly, it’s not true work because you’re doing it because something made you do it rather than because you just wanted to create something in the world. You have to be an idle creator in order to be doing true work.

So, their religion demands it, but part of that is they don’t believe in sustainability. They think that the system that we have right now is destined to collapse into either fascism or calamity, mass starvation—the whole thing is going to eventually fall apart, and everybody is going to lose out so much worse, and we could have avoided it. So, that’s the sustainability aspect. Like I said, the guys in the 40s through the 70s identified really two reasons why “capitalism delivers the goods” is bad. One is, it creates an unsustainable system.

The other, as another article of communist faith, is that by having a good life, we lose any interest in having an ideal life. We lose our utopian drive completely if we’re satisfied. So, Herbert Marcuse explains in the Essay on Liberation, that, yeah, we have a good life and we’re happy with it, but in so being, we become content and ignore completely that we could be having a better life, which would be the communist ideal where nobody has to work, there’s no suffering, we’ve transcended all private property and all diseases and all issues, and we live in a high-elven far-west of Tolkien blessed realm of communism.

The Marxist religion inherently rejects the hereafter—if all we have is, say, 80 years of life, then it’s over—what is the point of working toward utopia if it all essentially means nothing in the end?

Unfortunately, there are two answers to this. One is that Marxist philosophy, and thus the religion, is based off Hegel’s philosophy, and those are fundamentally anti-human. You can call it nihilistic, but it’s not. It’s this weird redirection of purpose: There are going to be other people later, and so, you are working in their benefit. You’re trying to build the kingdom for those who come after. This is one of the two answers. So, why should we condemn future generations to have to suffer in the only-good life if we could do what we have to do—our share of it—to bring them to the better life. So, for Hegel, and thus Marx, it’s not man himself that matters, it’s history itself, and history takes on the quality of the transcendent being. It’s not man that matters in, say, Christianity, it’s God and the worship of God. So, the intention is to create God’s kingdom here on earth for those people, whether it’s 80 years at a clip or whatever.

Just really quick, while you were asking the question, I looked this up because I just read this yesterday in a Marxist education book, and it says, right here—this is a foreword written by Henry Giroux, a Marxist educator,

“The utopian character of our analysis is concrete in its nature and appeal, and takes as its starting point collective actors in their various historical settings and the particularity of their problems and forms of oppression. It is utopian only in the sense that it refuses to surrender to the risks and dangers that face all challenges to dominant power structures. It is prophetic in that is views the kingdom of God as something to be created on earth but only through a faith in both other human beings and the necessity of our permanent struggle.”

So, they really do, they think they’re building Heaven on earth and that it takes us to do it. And that is the fundamental duty of conscience of the Marxists which is to create the ideal, explicitly, the kingdom of God here on earth. Herbert Marcuse, in Eros and Civilization, phrases it in terms of building and readmitting ourselves to the Garden of Eden, and he says that’s achieved by taking a second bite from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. So, they’re not lost on what they think they’re achieving theologically.

Now, there’s a second reason. Many of these techno-futurists—Yuval Noah Harari among them, probably Klaus Schwab among them—firmly believe that if you are at an age right now where you’re going to live fifteen more years, you’re going to live 500 more years because we’re going to get aging medical technology to a place—and I’ve heard people say that it already is, but I don’t see any evidence of this except that Klaus Schwab and George Soros are still alive (maybe) and that Hillary Clinton thinks she’s going to run for president again—but they think that we’re actually going to get to a place where we’re going to be able to outrun aging. You’ll be able to get a treatment in, say, five years that makes you live fifteen years longer, but before those fifteen years are up, you’ll be able to get another treatment that makes you live 30 years longer, and before those 30 years are up, you’ll be able to get another treatment that makes you live 100 years longer. And so, this is—I’m not kidding, some of these people who are leading this push believe that certain among us are going to get to live, essentially, forever. Whereas, because of these advances in anti-aging technology, which then creates a massive population problem on the planet, which is another reason why you have to separate into two classes: the anointed who get to live basically forever in the utopian world, and then the useless people who kind of operate in their 80 years at a clip, if they’re not anointed and not given access to the treatments.

There’s actually a dystopian novel called This Perfect Day by Ira Levin that explores this idea, where there’s this perfect society, but everybody has to take these medical treatments, these injections, every year. Everybody goes off to “retirement” around 60 and vanishes except the people who set up the society they all live in—this perfect society they live in—300 years ago, are all 300 years old. The reason they set it all up this way is they figured out the elixir of life or whatever.

Or if we get back into the Garden of Eden—go back to the theological language—why do you do that? Because it’s not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge you’re interested in or even the perfect garden. The fruit of the Tree of Life is there, as well, and then you live forever, and you truly become as gods. And so, this is the vision that they have: That they’re going to be able to master nature to the point where certain among them don’t die. And so, it’s not about 80 years. It’s about these people get to enjoy the planet as their personal Garden of Eden forever, and they only allow other people to exist so far as it benefits them.

So, this is the true vision. I don’t think Marx had that vision. I don’t think he could envision it, but Marcuse was already talking kind of in that direction 70 years ago, and certainly, the people today, you can actually read Yuval Noah Harari talking about us being on the precipice of this technology, so you know they’re salivating for it. TIME Magazine put out an issue a couple of years ago that shows a mannequin like it’s getting plugged into the matrix on the cover, and of course, Marc Benioff runs the great reset mag—I mean, TIME Magazine. He’s on the World Economic Forum board of trustees. The issue shows a mannequin with a wire, just like The Matrix, like a green light, getting plugged into the back of its head, and it says, “2045 The Year Man Becomes Immortal.” This is the vision that they have: is that certain small elect among them are going to be able to be immortal, and so it’s not “80 years at a clip, why bother.” They are building our eternal home for themselves through this massively advancing medical technology, even to the point to where if you died in some sort of accident—which they would think technology would basically minimize—that they could resuscitate the body. They’re doing experiments of this kind now. They brought some animal back from the dead a few weeks ago. I saw the headline.

These people are not normal. You actually mentioned and we took off the table malevolence. It’s difficult to appreciate the degree of psychopathy that comes attendant with these people. You probably heard, what do you call a guy who goes around and murders one woman after another after another after another? He lures them in—a Jack the Ripper kind of character, right. We have a word for that, right? “Serial Killer.” That, it turns out, is a very unsuccessful, low-level, pathetic serial killer because he might kill twelve people. What do you call a highly successful serial killer? The CEO of Pfizer? I don’t know, something like that.

If you had a penchant to kill 100 million people to see if you could do it as a psychopath, as a personal challenge, you’re going to not go one by one, you’re not going to buy an AR-15 or a knife, you’re going to figure out how to get yourself in a position of political or corporate power where you have that sway to be able to pull it off and then laugh as you get away with it. And the people who orchestrate these kinds of things tend to be those people, so I think that the absolute malevolence is actually an ingredient to this. We are being ruled by psychopaths.

What can the layperson do other than get informed to combat this large, complicated plan?

Becoming informed is not that useful on its own. You have to become informed and then share the information. […] Mattias Desmet has a point that these totalitarian regimes start the killing at the same point in every single case in all of history. Every mass formation psychosis, the killing starts at a certain point, and that’s when people stop speaking out. When the silence happens is when the killing starts. They don’t kill people to silence them. They wait until they’re silenced, then they start killing them. Of course, disarming them comes before silencing them, and then they kill them. […]

It turns out, this is a huge, vast, intricate machine, and obviously, nobody can understand it, and it seems like, “What am I going to do against the World Economic Forum,” but we just talking about a number of different things.

So, the right person being informed, and it can be your average layperson, saying something to the right other person. That sounds like some butterfly effect bull crap, but it’s not because I’ve seen it actually happen: Where I mention something to somebody about one of these things, so I was informed and I told them about it, just in a personal conversation, and they were like, “You know what, I know somebody.” And they gave a call—you don’t know who anybody knows—they gave a call, and with two calls later, we had a state attorney general cracking down on ESG.

And so, when you look at this thing has a giant machine, if you knock out one of their gears in that machine, it doesn’t work until they figure out how to replace the gear. So, breaking it is actually less hard than it sounds. And what you’re doing, if you say, “Well, that’s not going to stop the machine.” No, it slows the machine down until we can possibly create a situation where the people can be put in positions—whether it’s Nuremberg trials or it’s in Congress or whatever it is—that then we’ll start to hold this whole thing to account and pull it back. In other words, taking the operators of the machine and getting their hands right off the levers. […]

Exposing ESG for what it is has actually proven to be very fruitful. I have a strategy guy I speak to sometimes, who said explicitly that we are now bombing the foundation. They cannot pull off what they’re doing through the kind of bottom-up, demand-driven side that they need so it looks organic without the social-emotional learning component in schools. So, if you crack the education game, you’ve knocked a big, giant wheel off of their machine. You basically took off the fly wheel; the thing that gives it the energy to wind up and go—you’ve basically taken that out.

So, there are pieces that are within people’s grasps to be able to make changes on. How? Your average person joins a group—it doesn’t have to be Moms for Liberty, but let’s say Moms for Liberty—that’s tackling some of these issues in education. They’re building momentum. They’re getting the attention of politicians—people like Ron DeSantis can’t ignore, people like legislators. I mention DeSantis, but they’ve got chapters in close to 40 states now. They get attention, and these issues get in the hands of people who do have what access to power is necessary to take decision-making in the right direction.

Normally, we would depend on the media to do that. […]

So, these are realistic things. So, getting informed and then sharing the information. There is a movement that is trying to get these things done. One of the drags on the movement is skepticism that’s misguided skepticism. If I told you all this crap, you shouldn’t just say, “Oh, James Lindsay said… Okay.” That’s ridiculous. You should be skeptical. You should go check it out. You should go read maybe some of Klaus Schwab or Yuval Noah Harari. Check it out for yourself.

But what happens is—like today, I posted something about pilots, about flights, on Twitter. This huge backlog, they have a pilot shortage; they have a crew shortage. How did we get to that? I wonder. And it’s causing, to the point where the trend on Twitter was that Delta was canceling flights for the fourth of July week—hundreds of them—because they can’t fulfill them because there’s too much demand and there’s not enough pilots, and one canceled flight causes a cascade where they can’t fix anything now. And everyone’s catching either their new round of COVID, like Fauci, or they’re catching some other [cold]. Everybody’s catching stuff. There’s a lot of dipping out of work. There’s a shortage. They can’t fill up the gaps. There’s a few other FAA policy, idiotic things that all have to do with COVID and vaccines and so on. They’ve created this mess.

And so, I said, “They’re actually damaging the travel industry on purpose, and here are some consequences”—I did a thread. And this guy replies to me, “Actually, pilots are just getting sick.” And that kind of idiotic skepticism just drains energy. And so, when you run into these people who are just draining the energy—there is a movement that is growing out of the ground to fight against this stuff, and anything that drains its energy is just—and this is Twitter, so it’s not indicative of much, but you run into it in real life, too—it’s just a waste of time and energy.

And so, when you get more people informed, that lubricates the movement rather than being sand all up in the movement’s gears, if you will. You want the sand to be in their gears, not your gears. You want your gears well-lubricated.

So, the getting informed and sharing information thing facilitates that. It also facilitates movement-building, which is: get together, get informed, get organized, take action. What is a movement in a box? What does it look like? The most general thing you can say: start getting people together, get them informed on whatever the issue or topic is, start to organize around what you see as a direction to do something with that, and then take the action that you see fit, and then kind of keep the peddle to the metal or whatever. That’s a movement in a box.

Up until the last few months, at least, or maybe the past year, nobody in the world had the slightest clue what was going on. I still talk to government leaders—I have a call with a congressional office next week because they’re like, “What’s ESG?” They don’t even know what this stuff is.

We’re not feminists. It’s not “consciousness raising,” but we are actually, in a sense, behind that eight ball. So—I don’t know if the metaphor works for it but—we gotta slide the ball out from behind the eight ball a little bit. We’re in the get-informed stage of the movement-in-a-box. Then the organization is going to come out in a smarter way.

We just learned with COVID: Never attempt to cure something you don’t understand. What will you do? You’ll start jabbing people with all these things or give them Paxlovid, which apparently gives them COVID again—because you don’t understand what you’re trying to cure. So, if you have uniformed action, say, with this congressional office, it could come out and do some totally ham-fisted thing that works backward, in terms of the goals, unless they get informed. It’s just a stage of the process that we’re in.

So, the average person’s most valuable contributions right now are to get informed or to share the information or to support people, one way or another—it could be money, it could be moral support, it could be showing up to events, it could be getting butts in seats for other people who might be interested in events, whatever it is that facilitates that process. That’s one of the most valuable things. I met a guy at one of these organizational talk things that I went to, where I talked to the guy, and he was like, “Dude, I don’t know what you’re talking about.” And I was like, “Oh, I saw you wearing this shirt. You work here? I thought you were here for [the event].” He said, “Nope. I’m basically dumb, but they need somebody who runs errands, so I take people back and forth to the airport. I run down to Staples when they need some stuff. Whatever their little errands are, whatever it is. Maybe they need a cooler full of Coca-Colas for the event later this afternoon, I’m going to Walmart. I’m that guy because when I do that, these smarter guys, none of them have to do it.” And I think this guy was smart enough on his own to understand this, but there are a lot of ways you can contribute without just doing the information thing.

But if you look at the four-stage process: get people together, well, we’re doing that; get informed, we’re doing that, but still, we’re not done there; get organized, that’s coming into play where there’s a very organized push against CRT now—there are lawsuits, there are legal foundations, there’s all kinds of stuff that’s in motion with CRT and coming into the sexuality stuff now. I’ve written an affidavit, for example, for a lawsuit, and I’m just breaking open the nature of the Marxist education theory that’s at the heart of it. And they were like, “Wow. This actually sheds a lot of light on things. Very Helpful. It sounded like it was abstract and not useful, but it turns out to be really helpful to generalize.” And then, people can start taking that action.

If you join in the CRT fight, you’re probably not just going to be informing at this point. That one’s mature. So, now you’re figuring out what to join and to take action and what kind of action to take, and you’re going to work in the organizational phase. If it’s something like this queer theory stuff, everybody’s still like, “Why are there drag queens?” So, we’re still informing. If it’s something like critical education theory or it’s ESG or any of that, we’re very early in the informing phase, but I can tell we’re far ahead of where the regime thought we would be because Klaus Schwab, in his interviews, look like he’s about to give live birth to a baby elephant. In virtually every one, he’s very agitated: “Ziss is vy ve must take immediate action!” Usually, he’s sitting back, and he’s all calm. And now, he’s really stressing out.

ESG just had a catastrophic return. All the articles are looking at the catastrophe in Sri Lanka, and they’re saying, “Well, it was ESG that did that.” So, all of a sudden, these things are getting hit. My strategic friend said, “The foundations are getting hit.” And if that’s true, it’s only a matter of time, but that requires as many people to basically pick up a piece of information artillery—or maybe all they do is carry the shell to the guy, Senator Tom Cotton, to put the shell in the artillery gun. He’s got the gun. “Well, look, I’ve got this incendiary bomb you didn’t think of.” “Well, okay, let’s fire it.”

That’s the kind of stuff that needs to be happening right now.

To conclude this incredible conversation, what is the path forward for New Discourses?

Right now, I’m still in this emergency, let’s explain what’s going on in these very big trends of theory, kind of mode. We’ve got Critical Race Theory, I feel like I’ve nailed down. Critical Education Theory, I’m maybe a third of the way through what I need to do. Queer Theory, I don’t know how much I need to do. It’s weird enough on its own, but people need to know some to get a little grounding on it. So, I’m going to continue as-is for the moment, but the goal really is, I said from the beginning, I want it to be DARPA for the culture war. I want it to be where you go out— let’s say, if you’re not a super expert in these issues, but you’re concerned, and you’re informed, and you want to do something—I want it to be the thing people can point at and say, “That’s there, so I know what I’m talking about.” And you can go engage with that, and then you’ll know what you’re talking about.

So, it’s still building out in that regard, as far as where it goes. I’ve tossed around ideas. Do I partner with somebody? I’m not closed to that, entirely. I’ve tossed around ideas like, do I try to start building out like a Turning Point USA-style chapter model? And it’s obviously got its uses, like study groups in every city or college or whatever else—but at the same time, I don’t really want to have to manage that. I don’t need a kegger taking place at a New Discourses chapter at LSU, and somebody gets killed, and it’s my fault somehow. I know there are ways to deal with that, but scaling, in that regard, I don’t know if it’s something I want to do. I may or may not. I see that value.

Right now, I’m trying to shift into doing a lot more proactive workshops to get people together, to where some of it’s me teaching, and some of it’s people spending time networking and building out battle plans or whatever, and then they can choose to use those networks however they want. So, I’m about to do my third such workshop this year, before too long, in DC. I had two last year. I’ve got at least another one after this planned for this year, probably late in September in Idaho. So, I’m trying to get around and do that sort of thing, and my goal is to get people equipped with the information to have the vocabulary necessary to take this on.

Now, should that vocabulary become sufficiently clear for most people, then I’ll probably end up shifting into a consulting and advisory role. I don’t actually want to build a TPUSA chapter thing, but I can see where there might be enough value for me to bite that bullet and do it, I just kind of don’t want to do that.

The Louder with Crowder Dot Com Website is on Instagram now!Follow us at @lwcnewswire and tell a friend!

5 TERRIFYING MOMENTS From the World Economic Forum | Louder With Crowderwww.youtube.com