Speaker 1: All Zone Media.
Speaker 2: Hey everyone, it's James here and I just wanted to
Speaker 2: share Basher's fundraiser again. He has a court date coming
Speaker 2: up and I know he's still hoping for any help
Speaker 2: you're able to provide with his legal fees. I know
Speaker 2: it looks like we've right God money we have, and
Speaker 2: we're super proud of that. Immigration legal defense right now
Speaker 2: costs an awful lot of money. So if you have
Speaker 2: the means to give, I know it would be hugely appreciated.
Speaker 2: The address for that is GoFundMe dot com, slash f
Speaker 2: slash standing with our family. We'll include that in the
Speaker 2: show notes too, And if you would like to reach
Speaker 2: out to us for anything else, you can reach us
Speaker 2: at the email cool Zone tips at proton dot me.
Speaker 2: If you send from an encrypted address, it will be
Speaker 2: end to end encrypted. We are encrypted on our end
Speaker 2: with proton Mail.
Speaker 3: This is it could happen here. Executive Disorder, our weekly
Speaker 3: newscast covering what's happening in the White House, the crumbling
Speaker 3: world what it means for you. I'm Garrison Davis this episode,
Speaker 3: I'm joined by Na Wong and Robert Evans. Were covering
Speaker 3: the week of August twenty first and August twenty seventh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we sure are.
Speaker 3: I can't believe cracker Barrel would do that. It's outrageous.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's clearly the biggest news.
Speaker 3: Thankfully they switched it back. They took the cracker out
Speaker 3: of the barrel, and thankfully though they've.
Speaker 1: Reversed course put the cracker back in.
Speaker 3: I really don't understand how it's how it's woke. I mean,
Speaker 3: I do understand, because I understand how this messaging works, but.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter anytime anything happens, and they can see
Speaker 1: a backlash forming you after the fact because people were
Speaker 1: starting to get pissed off about the fucking cracker barrel
Speaker 1: thing in the same way like that happen with fucking
Speaker 1: Games Workshop earlier this year, Like they redid their logo
Speaker 1: in a shitty way. It is the same like minimal bullshit. Yeah,
Speaker 1: everyone's doing it.
Speaker 3: It's it's not woke. Yeah, it's just incentivizing like capitalist conformity.
Speaker 3: This is why they've changed all of the buildings of
Speaker 3: like you know, McDonald's pizza Hut to the same structure,
Speaker 3: so you can use the property and resell it over
Speaker 3: and over and over again without having to do yes,
Speaker 3: big renovations. It's just all about capitalist efficiency. It's not
Speaker 3: about woke.
Speaker 1: It's got nothing to do with woke. But there's people
Speaker 1: whose whole like Chris Rufo, whose whole job is sitting
Speaker 1: around and as soon as you started to see the
Speaker 1: backlash forming it and realize like, oh, there's probably gonna
Speaker 1: be a spree of these companies coming in with these
Speaker 1: new minimalist logos. Because it's clearly a trend in like consultancies,
Speaker 1: right like it started happening. This is not the first one.
Speaker 1: So I'm just gonna look around until I see one
Speaker 1: of these that feels like it's got culture war potential,
Speaker 1: and Cracker Barrel is an obvious one, like if I'm looking,
Speaker 1: if I was looking out there, that's when I would
Speaker 1: pick right, Like.
Speaker 3: I think they're also responding to, like, you know, the
Speaker 3: past few years where we've been removing like racist caricatures
Speaker 3: from logos right with like like Entemima's and like Lando
Speaker 3: Lakes and using this in a similar way, except they
Speaker 3: took quite kay leaning against the barrel. Yeah, so it's
Speaker 3: part part part of that whole backlash as well. It's
Speaker 3: funny though I have seen like I don't. I don't
Speaker 3: know if it's from Chris Ruffo, but you know people
Speaker 3: similar in that orbit talking about how this thing actually
Speaker 3: is wokeism because minimalism is based on brutalism, which was
Speaker 3: invented by communists. So actually turning everything into this minimalist
Speaker 3: design is actually a plot from the Frankfurt School, the
Speaker 3: Communists taking over.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, it doesn't matter outside of the fact
Speaker 1: that people whenever you buy into it, like you're you're
Speaker 1: helping to feed like if you like, even dunking on.
Speaker 1: That's part of like the problem is that like, yeah,
Speaker 1: just talking about this shit at all fuels the feedback loop, right,
Speaker 1: And that's that's what this is, is a feedback loop
Speaker 1: that they're very good at manipulating for political purposes. And
Speaker 1: I'm not going to sit here and lecture you and
Speaker 1: say like stop commenting on this, stop talking about this stuff,
Speaker 1: but we do need to understand that this is the
Speaker 1: olds in the audience will remember the old Simpsons Halloween
Speaker 1: episode where the different like mascots from different companies like
Speaker 1: come alive and start murdering people in town. And the
Speaker 1: solution that's an old ad Man gives everyone is like, well,
Speaker 1: if you want to stop the monsters, just look away.
Speaker 1: Advertising feeds on attention, you know, and as every once
Speaker 1: everyone ignores the monsters, they go away. And unfortunately that's
Speaker 1: not how things actually work because there's three hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty million people in the country and so whatever you
Speaker 1: choose to do about this isn't going to matter. But
Speaker 1: the feedback loop is going to continue unabated. That much
Speaker 1: I can.
Speaker 3: Say cracker barrel has fallen and like Christ after three days,
Speaker 3: has rose again.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Great. Anyway, speaking of memes, unfortunately we should talk
Speaker 1: about this horrible mass shooting that is probably going to
Speaker 1: be the big story this week. I mean, I hate
Speaker 1: to reduce it to that, but yeah.
Speaker 3: We're recording this on Wednesday, a few hours after the shooting.
Speaker 3: This is in Minneapolis.
Speaker 1: Yes, there was a mass shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic school,
Speaker 1: Annunciation Catholic School. This happened earlier the day that we're
Speaker 1: recording this, So that's going to be Wednesday, August twenty seventh.
Speaker 1: As of right now at about two eleven pm PST,
Speaker 1: two children are dead, Seventeen people, mostly children, are wounded.
Speaker 1: The shooter is also dead, and the shooter has been
Speaker 1: identified as Robin Westman, who graduated from the school in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen.
Speaker 3: Their mom also worked at the school until very recently.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's not at all an unusual kind of situation.
Speaker 1: Mass shooters at schools often are either attending the school
Speaker 1: or recently graduated. There's been a couple of cases where
Speaker 1: a family member worked at the school. Like this stuff
Speaker 1: is all pretty standard for somebody shooting up a school.
Speaker 1: What's different is one of the things that's different is
Speaker 1: that the shooter basically followed in Brenton Tarrant the christ
Speaker 1: shooters footsteps by covering their firearms and the gear that
Speaker 1: they were wearing and draw like I guess drew or
Speaker 1: painted on I'm not sure. It looks like with like
Speaker 1: a white paint pen, like white out or something like that,
Speaker 1: a white paint pen and covered it. In the names
Speaker 1: of other mass shooters, references to racial annihilation memes like
Speaker 1: the Removed Kabab meme, which is in short, a memes
Speaker 1: celebrating the Bosnian genocide, and it was a meme that
Speaker 1: was specifically Brenton Tarrant had signaled in his like manifesto
Speaker 1: and I think on his gun he had a remove
Speaker 1: Kebob reference, but it's something he signaled and it was
Speaker 1: on the shooter's firearm as well as the names. I
Speaker 1: mean Tarrant. There's references to Tarrant on there. Timothy mc McVeagh,
Speaker 1: te mcvay's name, just the word McVeigh is painted on there.
Speaker 1: Ted Kazenski, the Unibomber, a.
Speaker 3: Whole bunch of other more recent mass shooters, people who
Speaker 3: are in like the mass shooter fandom, yeah, as well
Speaker 3: as just a collection of memes from like old memes.
Speaker 1: Too utterly unrelated to shooting, Like there's a loss meme
Speaker 1: on there, and if you're a lot of people are going, wait,
Speaker 1: what the fuck? Really? Yeah, and if you're too young
Speaker 1: for loss. There used to be a wet well. I
Speaker 1: think there still is a web comic called Control Alt Delete.
Speaker 1: It started in like the early two thousands. It might
Speaker 1: have gotten started in the late nineties, and it was
Speaker 1: part of like this, there's this boom in web comics
Speaker 1: in the late nineties when suddenly there's people are able
Speaker 1: to make their own comics online and make livings off
Speaker 1: of them. A whole bunch of guys made gaming comics
Speaker 1: after Penny Arcade, which is like the big one that
Speaker 1: blew up. And one of them was Tim Buckley, who
Speaker 1: did a comic called Control All Delete that was not good,
Speaker 1: and he tried to have a serious storyline where his
Speaker 1: character's girlfriend has a miscarriage, and the strip in which
Speaker 1: he finds her having a miscarriage is called loss. And
Speaker 1: it's gotten to the point where people are abstracting the
Speaker 1: four panels into like a minimalist line representation of how
Speaker 1: the blocking look like. It's a bit people have done
Speaker 1: everything like put loss memes on everything, like that's the
Speaker 1: joke at this point, more than a reference to the
Speaker 1: show is like, look at this new crazy place. Somebody
Speaker 1: put a loss meme, and.
Speaker 3: So yeah, it's a game.
Speaker 1: And a lot of what we're saying with the shooter
Speaker 1: is like, oh, this is the natural extent of a
Speaker 1: bunch of things, and a fucking mass shooter putting a
Speaker 1: loss meme on the bear or on the side of
Speaker 1: their gun before shooting up a school is the natural
Speaker 1: furthest craziest extent of the loss meme. Right.
Speaker 3: If this is anything, it is like a mimetic shooting.
Speaker 3: It is based on a whole bunch of memes about
Speaker 3: other mass shootings as well, specifically in the way that
Speaker 3: engages in like anti semitism and racism and includes slurs
Speaker 3: and catchphrases. It's not in the way that the shooter
Speaker 3: actually believes these things ideologically. It is just to gesture
Speaker 3: to them as they exist in the lineage of other
Speaker 3: mass shootings.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 3: It's a perfunctory use of slurs and of messaging that
Speaker 3: just kind of wraps around this whole like nihilistic fandom
Speaker 3: culture around other mass shooters, and like that is that's
Speaker 3: what this shooting is. I've watch now like seventeen minutes
Speaker 3: of video of the shooter like showing off their weapons,
Speaker 3: going through their diaries and journals, inspired by a whole
Speaker 3: bunch of like Eastern European mass shooters as well. And
Speaker 3: this shooter reminds me of participants of what's called the
Speaker 3: true crime community or TCC. Not as in like the
Speaker 3: genre of true crime podcasts or documentaries, but it's more
Speaker 3: of an online fandom based on a personal obsession with
Speaker 3: mass killers themselves and specifically school shooters. And this community
Speaker 3: encourages reenactments and tries to get some people to do
Speaker 3: their own mass shootings. Yeah, and this is not the
Speaker 3: first one of these we've had in this past year. Now,
Speaker 3: the shooting in Wisconsin last December I spent the rep Noow,
Speaker 3: which we reported on on NI could Happen Here, was
Speaker 3: also in this variant of like Columbiner True Crime community shootings.
Speaker 3: Repnow's name is on one of this shooter's rifles. Yes,
Speaker 3: there was a shooting in Tennessee a few months later
Speaker 3: which also referenced Repnow, done by a black white supremacist
Speaker 3: in cel whose manifesto was full of like plagiarized memes
Speaker 3: and other manifestos. It's about this, like yeah, this complete
Speaker 3: lack of meaning, Like they scatter shot all of these
Speaker 3: memes and references and like bits of manifestos and like
Speaker 3: images to just to make this whole mess of stuff
Speaker 3: to look at. But none of it actually means anything.
Speaker 1: Well, and the draining of meaning, the flattening of meaning
Speaker 1: is part of the pla. That's the point taking is
Speaker 1: taking a man who shot fucking fifty people to death
Speaker 1: and turning that into the same thing as a twenty
Speaker 1: year old joke about a comic strip in terms of
Speaker 1: its impact and severity, Because if that's no more serious
Speaker 1: or meaningful or painful than fucking a joke about Tim
Speaker 1: Buckley's dumbass cartoon. Like, once you get someone in a
Speaker 1: mind state where they accept that they're willing to accept
Speaker 1: a lot of terrible things, right, And the goal here
Speaker 1: is creating content in the form of mass shootings, right, Like,
Speaker 1: that is the goal, and that is also what people
Speaker 1: are consciously. A lot of people want to be a
Speaker 1: part of themselves. You mentioned the last year's shooting that
Speaker 1: committed by Samantha ruppnow, but there's also I found a
Speaker 1: December thirtieth, twenty twenty four article in Wisconsin Public radiowpr
Speaker 1: dot org their website. It talks about reupnow, but it
Speaker 1: also gives the story of thirteen year old Jamie Sitz,
Speaker 1: who killed herself in twenty twenty four and was a
Speaker 1: member of the true crime community. The police went through
Speaker 1: her phone and they found a bunch of memes and
Speaker 1: reference and like her contributing to online discussions and telegrams
Speaker 1: and stuff for PCC. She was obsessed with the Columbine Kids, right.
Speaker 1: She like engaged in a lot of those conversations, and
Speaker 1: she was posting about her plan to kill herself, but
Speaker 1: she was not interested in carrying out like a mass
Speaker 1: shooting or killing other people, and that fit in fine
Speaker 1: within the discourse like people in courage present basically right,
Speaker 1: Like yeah, I think part of the thrill hitary is
Speaker 1: just wanting to feel like you, sitting on your ass
Speaker 1: on the computer, you are impacting the world in part
Speaker 1: because you feel like that's the only chunk of the
Speaker 1: world that you've got right, and that's tied into the
Speaker 1: hopelessness and the nihilism of all of this. I found
Speaker 1: a just random poster on Reddit in a discussion of
Speaker 1: the TCC community. I actually really like this person's summary
Speaker 1: of it. And this is like seven years old. Interestingly enough,
Speaker 1: it's not a new phenomenon. It dates back to interwar
Speaker 1: period Germany. There were many Germans at the time who
Speaker 1: were fascinated with the topic of extremely grisly murder and torture,
Speaker 1: especially such instances where sexual arousal was involved. The German
Speaker 1: language even has a word for it, lust mort or
Speaker 1: lust murder. Serial killers were on the rise at the time,
Speaker 1: and many of them claimed to get extreme amounts of
Speaker 1: carnal pleasure from the act of killing or maiming, and
Speaker 1: there is this weird vein I found another study as
Speaker 1: I was looking into this that uses the true crime
Speaker 1: community term. It's from twenty fifteen by Naomi Barnes of
Speaker 1: Utah State University, and it was like looking into fandoms
Speaker 1: that had grown up around serial killers and around spree
Speaker 1: killers online. And Naomi is using the word true crime
Speaker 1: community for just the general terms of people who are
Speaker 1: interested in true crime, not in the way that you
Speaker 1: and I have been using it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because we're using this this term to refer to
Speaker 3: like a specific fandom around like around these shootings, not
Speaker 3: the general milieu of like true crime podcasts and like
Speaker 3: documentaries and people who are into that sort of content.
Speaker 3: We're referring to a much more niche group of people
Speaker 3: online who operate on like Telegram, discord, Tumbler, and other
Speaker 3: social media accounts.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 3: It's based around like specifically like like an obsession over
Speaker 3: actually doing these acts and like and and like they
Speaker 3: like cause play as these people. This isn't like your
Speaker 3: you know, average white woman who likes listening to true
Speaker 3: crime podcasts. This is this is something very different.
Speaker 1: No, and that's that's important. But it's also important to
Speaker 1: note that, like what you've been talking about, this this
Speaker 1: need to recreate, and not just prior to actually carrying
Speaker 1: out a shooting, because most of them don't ever do that.
Speaker 1: There's this need, this obsession with the aesthetics to want
Speaker 1: to own clothing and objects and whatnot that like look
Speaker 1: like Eric Dylan or whatever. Right, the column bine band shirt.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, And this does extend to the shootings, Like
Speaker 1: there's a number of shooters who have worn that KMFDM
Speaker 1: shirt because one of the columnbind guys wore.
Speaker 3: It cementthro up now and I believe this recent shooter
Speaker 3: also had had a KMDS shirt picked out.
Speaker 1: And what's interesting about that twenty fifteen study is that
Speaker 1: it is looking at the true crime community because columnbiners
Speaker 1: were already a thing. There'd been a number of copycat attacks,
Speaker 1: but the kind of social fandom around like that aspect
Speaker 1: of it had not really taken hold in a mass
Speaker 1: level in a way that the internet and virality could
Speaker 1: really make use of.
Speaker 3: It involved on Tumblr like in that era. Yes, it's
Speaker 3: more like an infant compared to like the fully grown
Speaker 3: version that it is now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And what's interesting to me is this this paper
Speaker 1: kind of catches the communities. It's starting to calv Off.
Speaker 1: And so there's a chunk of the paper where she's
Speaker 1: quoting from a couple of different people who went and visited.
Speaker 1: In one case, they visited like Adam Lanza's house and
Speaker 1: the Sandy Hook Elementary School, and it's people visiting places
Speaker 1: like that, sites associated with like mass shootings and the like.
Speaker 1: And she gives this mix of people being like, oh,
Speaker 1: like the first quesson he quotes who went to Lands
Speaker 1: of House is like, I was actually just really sad
Speaker 1: and I just wish none of it had ever taken place,
Speaker 1: Like it was all really horrible and it made me
Speaker 1: feel bad. But then a bit later she gives you
Speaker 1: responses from people who have the opposite reaction, Like there's
Speaker 1: this fella Paul, who does not specify which murder site
Speaker 1: they visited, but specified that it was a place where
Speaker 1: a murder victim's body was found. And Paul responded, Honestly,
Speaker 1: I felt a static like, Wow, I'm going to place
Speaker 1: someone was killed. What if there are ghosts the murderer
Speaker 1: him or herself? I was absolutely off. My kid, we
Speaker 1: dug up some dirt and we keep it in a
Speaker 1: little glass bottle. It's like a religious pilgrimage, right, right,
Speaker 1: And that's the static and that's what this starts to document.
Speaker 1: And that's where I'm like, oh, this is this study
Speaker 1: is mostly about an unrelated just a normal fandom, but
Speaker 1: you can see the bits like already popping up in
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, these people who are having these estatic almost
Speaker 1: again like almost like psychosexual experiences being at the site
Speaker 1: of a mass shooting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and the further country that is then doing one yourself.
Speaker 3: And obviously this also is like a part of like
Speaker 3: a suicidal drive, a suicidal intention. While a lot of
Speaker 3: people kill themselves in the course of the act, right,
Speaker 3: it's a way of making your suicide not just be
Speaker 3: about yourself.
Speaker 1: Right. And there's more to say about like the culture
Speaker 1: of fame in this country and like how how virality
Speaker 1: and whatnot has made it so that like these people
Speaker 1: tend to get what they want, or at least they
Speaker 1: know they've got a good chance of getting what they want, right,
Speaker 1: they're obviously not around to experience it, but like, as
Speaker 1: long as you do something sufficiently like weird and bloody,
Speaker 1: you're likely to get a good amount of attention for
Speaker 1: a while.
Speaker 3: So that's the actual like background of what this shooting was.
Speaker 3: I think now we should probably mention how the shooting's
Speaker 3: being talked about more broadly, Yeah, because it takes a
Speaker 3: very different angle from the actual like nihilistic, like TCC
Speaker 3: fandom aspect it is. It is making this a more
Speaker 3: about like woke contemporary politics, I suppose.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Cash Betel's announced that he's investigating this as as an
Speaker 3: anti Catholic hate crime.
Speaker 1: Yeah, which is just not true. I mean, it's almost
Speaker 1: certainly by a Catholic or somebody who was raised gath Like. Yeah.
Speaker 1: All the people who hate Catholics most are often lapsed Catholics.
Speaker 3: Very early on, people started claiming that this shooter was
Speaker 3: trans Now, a few years ago, they did change their
Speaker 3: name to Robin, and the name change petition stated that
Speaker 3: at the time they identified as female. At this point,
Speaker 3: we still know very little about the actual shooter beyond
Speaker 3: like the videos they posted on YouTube of their weapons
Speaker 3: and a journal written in cyrillic and a note that
Speaker 3: they left to their parents discussing their fear of dying
Speaker 3: of cancer due to vaping. I've not been able to
Speaker 3: look at their Internet presence or activities in the intervening
Speaker 3: years since changing their name, and their current gender identity
Speaker 3: is still not very clear. In a translation of their
Speaker 3: cyrillic journal, they discussed detransition quote, I don't want to
Speaker 3: dress girly all the time, but I guess sometimes I
Speaker 3: really like it. I know I am not a woman,
Speaker 3: but I definitely don't feel like a man. I regret
Speaker 3: being trans. I wish I was a girl. I just
Speaker 3: know I cannot achieve that body with the technology we
Speaker 3: have today. I also can't afford that I only keep
Speaker 3: my long hair because it is pretty much my last
Speaker 3: shred of being trans. I'm tired of being trans. I
Speaker 3: wish I never brainwashed myself. I can't cut my hair now,
Speaker 3: as it would be an embarrassing defeat and it might
Speaker 3: be a concerning change of character that could get me reported.
Speaker 3: It just always gets in my way. I will probably
Speaker 3: chop it on the day of the attack. Discussion of
Speaker 3: gender takes up a very small percentage of the journal.
Speaker 3: Most of their writing is about admiration for previous mass
Speaker 3: shooters and fantasizing about killing children from a very young age.
Speaker 3: On the cover of their journal, alongside a bunch of
Speaker 3: other like gun stickers, they do have a defend a
Speaker 3: quality Progress flag sticker with an AK forty seven YEP.
Speaker 3: From my perspective, this is just another one of those
Speaker 3: memes that they're wrapping into everything. On one of their magazines,
Speaker 3: they wrote I am the wokeler, why so queerious? Right
Speaker 3: on the other side of the magazine had an anti
Speaker 3: queer slur. So I view this type of stuff in
Speaker 3: the same way I view the inclusion of like the
Speaker 3: Lost meme or like Ted Kaczinski or all this other stuff.
Speaker 3: This this like memified version of trying to throw everything
Speaker 3: at the wall just to make everything mean nothing right.
Speaker 3: And it's it's extremely like obnoxious and annoying.
Speaker 1: But it it works.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it works. And I don't know what else
Speaker 3: I want to say on this, onlike the trends angle, we.
Speaker 1: Don't want to deny that like this is going to
Speaker 1: cause a problem, that this is going to be used
Speaker 1: by the right, like there will be There will certainly
Speaker 1: be rhetoric, and I've already seen rhetoric from you know,
Speaker 1: Jack posobc in that crowd around it.
Speaker 3: About trans people targeting Catholics.
Speaker 1: Well, this is why these people shouldn't have weapons or whatever,
Speaker 1: like this is why we should put them all in
Speaker 1: and I don't. I'm not going to minimize that that
Speaker 1: didn't start with this, that that kind of rhetoric, that
Speaker 1: conversation and this is useful to that crowd, and you
Speaker 1: know that is that is bad. I don't. We don't
Speaker 1: know what's going to happen or to what extent this is.
Speaker 1: Like we're talking right now that they clearly would like
Speaker 1: to use this and are trying to use this. One
Speaker 1: thing that I would point out and I don't know
Speaker 1: if this is certainly not an on balance optimistic thing,
Speaker 1: but making Americans focus on a mass shooting for more
Speaker 1: than a day or two not as easy as it
Speaker 1: used to be.
Speaker 3: No, Yeah, which is really devastating.
Speaker 1: It's not good that we're there, but like two people dead,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, like Americans ignore way bigger numbers all
Speaker 1: the time now the right, you know, there's not always
Speaker 1: a media campaign like there's going to be with this
Speaker 1: beyond trying to make this huge. But also they've done
Speaker 1: that before, right, they did that with the rep now shooting, right, Like,
Speaker 1: there were attempts to make that and it didn't.
Speaker 3: Every mass shooting, right, they have tried to pain it's
Speaker 3: been done by a transperson, and I think in some
Speaker 3: ways that has depowered this rhetoric as a tactic. Yeah,
Speaker 3: by claiming every shooter is trans, most Republicans already believe
Speaker 3: that to be the case. So whether this person either
Speaker 3: was trans or used to be trans, it may not
Speaker 3: matter that much to the right because they already think
Speaker 3: every shooter is trans. Like right, Trump's already targeting queer people.
Speaker 3: The right doesn't need an excuse to go after queer people.
Speaker 3: I don't think an event like this will make the
Speaker 3: hammer come down much harder. This could be a boy
Speaker 3: who cried wolf situation for the anti trans right, since
Speaker 3: their base already thinks that every mass shooter from the
Speaker 3: past three years is trans. I did a whole episode
Speaker 3: on this last year, called fake trans Terrorists. The Gun
Speaker 3: Violence Archive says that there have been two hundred and
Speaker 3: eighty six mass shootings in the United States so far
Speaker 3: in twenty twenty five. If one or two trans people
Speaker 3: do a mass shooting, that would still mean trans people
Speaker 3: at one percent of the population, are less likely to
Speaker 3: do a shooting compared to CIS people. There was like
Speaker 3: one legitimate trans mass shooting targeting a school a few
Speaker 3: years ago in Nashville, and if this happens to be
Speaker 3: the second, I don't think that this new brain Rod
Speaker 3: Columbine true crime community shooting will make much of an
Speaker 3: impact on trans people nationwide. Think of how quick conservatives
Speaker 3: moved on from the Zizians, and certainly being trans is
Speaker 3: not a motivating factor of this shooting. If you look
Speaker 3: at their writing and videos posted on YouTube before they
Speaker 3: did this, this nihilistic meme maximili has no trans causation.
Speaker 3: It has nothing to do with being trans. There's no
Speaker 3: coherent or ideological leftist screed, there's no pronoun pins. Their
Speaker 3: journal talks both about quote unquote hating fascism and inequality,
Speaker 3: while also hating Jews, Arabs, Mexicans, Indians, calling Somali's subhuman
Speaker 3: and criminal, writing that quote white people should rule the
Speaker 3: world unquote, but that minority should quote unquote have rights.
Speaker 3: While talking about ideological Nazi killers, they remarked, quote, I
Speaker 3: don't often find myself aligning with these killers specific ideologies unquote.
Speaker 3: They said that they disliked racism but also were racist.
Speaker 3: They wrote about killing quote unquote fags while also calling
Speaker 3: themself one on one of their weapons. This shooter and
Speaker 3: all the memes and rhetoric they use is most similar
Speaker 3: to the Rep. Noow shooting last December in Wisconsin in
Speaker 3: terms of the neo Columbiner school shooter obsession, as well
Speaker 3: as the white supremacist mimetic black in cell shooting in NNOC, Tennessee,
Speaker 3: last January. All these shootings are heavily referential, contradictory, and
Speaker 3: intentionally incoherent. Right, every single extremist political faction is represented there,
Speaker 3: because that that is the point, is combining all of
Speaker 3: these references two previous mass shootings, So they're incorporating everything
Speaker 3: they can and things that they just think are funny,
Speaker 3: like just a whole bunch of like meaningless memes.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 3: And that's vastly more important than whatever gender identity the
Speaker 3: shooter happens to have right now at this point in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, anyway, folks, there's going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of people going the sky is falling over what
Speaker 1: this is going to mean for people and how this
Speaker 1: is going to be used. And obviously this is terrible.
Speaker 1: I'm not telling you not to feel terrible about a
Speaker 1: mass shooting.
Speaker 3: You should feel bad about the actual mass shooting.
Speaker 1: You should feel bad about the mass shooting the sky.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy's been falling right, Yeah, let's give
Speaker 1: this one a little bit to see if it makes
Speaker 1: this sky fall any faster, or if in a week
Speaker 1: we're like, no, this guy's still falling at about the
Speaker 1: same rate, which isn't good. It's just what happens. It's
Speaker 1: where we are, all right, ads, and we're back.
Speaker 3: We can safely leave the brain rot in the previous
Speaker 3: section and now talk about something totally real. The economy.
Speaker 1: Yes, the economy, which never kills people.
Speaker 4: Okay, so speaking of things that have never killed any one, eye,
Speaker 4: that's so not true. The volkershaw killed so many people.
Speaker 4: But a very very critical rubicon was crossed on Monday
Speaker 4: of this week when Trump attempted to fire a member
Speaker 4: of the Federal Reserve Board, Lisa Cook. Now, Lisa Cook
Speaker 4: is refusing to step down under the fairly obvious justification
Speaker 4: that the president does not have the power to do this.
Speaker 4: Trump has been cooking a very weird thing, accusing her
Speaker 4: of mortgage fraud as a way to remove her from
Speaker 4: the Federal Reserve Board. But Trump does not have the
Speaker 4: power to do this. So we are in the midst
Speaker 4: effectively of a confrontation over this, where Lisa Cook has
Speaker 4: continued to just not actually leave her position at the
Speaker 4: Federal Reserve and is going to court. This is an
Speaker 4: extremely significant escalation of what up until this point had
Speaker 4: largely been a series of attacks on the Federal Reserve's governor,
Speaker 4: Jerom Powell. There are a few factors here that one
Speaker 4: of the most important things is Trump's anger over continuing
Speaker 4: high interest rates or sort of high interest rate. Trump
Speaker 4: wants to slash interest rates because he thinks it will
Speaker 4: make the economy grow more. Now, when I said this
Speaker 4: was the crossing of the rubicon, what this is is
Speaker 4: this is the beginning of the fight over whether the
Speaker 4: Federal Reserve is going to be an independent density right.
Speaker 4: Trump has been attempting to, as we've talked about in
Speaker 4: the show, appoint Stephan Miran as another one of the
Speaker 4: governors on the Federal Reserves Board. Miran very explicitly wants
Speaker 4: to eliminate the independence of the Federal Reserve. What to
Speaker 4: talk about exactly what that means in a second, But
Speaker 4: I want to read this quote from Fortune magazine report
Speaker 4: on it describing a JP Morgan analysis of the situation,
Speaker 4: because this has really spooked a bunch of major financial
Speaker 4: institutions for very obvious reasons.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 4: In a note on Friday, JP Morgan analysts, led by
Speaker 4: chief economist Bruce Cassman, highlighted key proposals such as giving
Speaker 4: atwill power to the President to fire FED by members
Speaker 4: and FED bank presidents, giving Congress control of the Fed's
Speaker 4: operating budget, and shifting the Fed's regulatory responsibility over banks
Speaker 4: and markets to the Treasury. So this is what Stefan
Speaker 4: Mihern has been proposing. This is what looks to be
Speaker 4: the long term plan of Trump and the people around him.
Speaker 4: Eliminating the Federal Reserve is a long, long time goal
Speaker 4: of the far right for an extremely convoluted variety of reasons.
Speaker 4: The FED in and of itself is an extremely confusing entity.
Speaker 4: Its creation has spawned a full century of academic arguments
Speaker 4: about what the States even is, and it's complicated to describe.
Speaker 4: Also because most of the information will not most, but
Speaker 4: a significant portion of the information about it is just
Speaker 4: anti Semitic conspiracy. Because this is eliminating the Federal Reserve.
Speaker 4: In the return to quote unquote, sound money is one
Speaker 4: of the key elements of a massive network of sort
Speaker 4: of right wing, very old right wing conspiracy theories. But
Speaker 4: I think that the thing that's best understood by people
Speaker 4: kind of is just about the Federal Reserve is the
Speaker 4: FED printer meme, and the Federal Reserve is the body
Speaker 4: that creates money like that is that is authorized to
Speaker 4: create the US dollar. That is why it's a Federal
Speaker 4: Reserve bank. It is critical on a level that is
Speaker 4: difficult to express to the entire functioning of the world economy. Now,
Speaker 4: the Federal Reserve Board is technically a government entity, but
Speaker 4: it is it was set up explicitly to be quote
Speaker 4: unquote non political. Now the extent to which that's true
Speaker 4: is fuzzy, obviously, But the point of it was so
Speaker 4: that there would be a large scale financial institution that
Speaker 4: controls like the money supply effectively, that that controls enormous
Speaker 4: portions of US sort of macroeconomics policy through its due
Speaker 4: as control of interest rates would not be able to
Speaker 4: be like directly interfered with by the President or Congress.
Speaker 4: That is that it's the whole point of this, you know.
Speaker 4: It is effectively a measure to instill confidence that the
Speaker 4: US isn't going to just like turn the printers on
Speaker 4: and print a bunch of money from every other capitalist
Speaker 4: in the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and like so much. When that promise goes away,
Speaker 1: what happens, I don't know. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well, and this is this is something that I think,
Speaker 4: I think is not understood very well.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: The current conflict is largely over Trump wanting to be
Speaker 4: able to control the Federal reserves interest rates. Right, So
Speaker 4: he wants he wants the lower federal interest rates to
Speaker 4: make it make it cheaper to borrow money because he
Speaker 4: thinks this will pump more money back into the economy
Speaker 4: and this will make the economy grow. And he thinks
Speaker 4: that he's being like sabotaged by the FED. The Fed's
Speaker 4: worried about inflation. But I actually think that focusing just
Speaker 4: on that part of the Federal Reserve is significantly underestimating
Speaker 4: how important the Federal Reserve is to the entire structure
Speaker 4: of the economy. There are so many just sort of
Speaker 4: random things that it does that are not particularly well understood.
Speaker 4: I was talking about this earlier on a meeting, but
Speaker 4: the significant portion of the gold held by countries around
Speaker 4: the world is literally just keptain a vault under the
Speaker 4: New York Federal Reserve building, and that's just the sort
Speaker 4: of seemingly random thing that it does. I was reading
Speaker 4: about its payment system for reasons that I'll talk about
Speaker 4: in the episode to do about this next week. It
Speaker 4: just in a footnote about the payment system, there is
Speaker 4: a part where it says that the Federal Reserve runs
Speaker 4: the payment system for the World Bank. So this is
Speaker 4: something that is a critical, critical, an extremely complicated center
Speaker 4: of the entire capitalist world. Right, Its payment infrastructure has
Speaker 4: trillions of dollars a year and moving through it. If
Speaker 4: this infrastructure stops working or breaks a little bit, a
Speaker 4: lot of the very subtle management of the economy of
Speaker 4: the Federal Reserve does can stop working. And you know,
Speaker 4: again we've been talking mostly about interest rates and its
Speaker 4: ability to sort of print money, which is oversimplification, but
Speaker 4: you know, for example, the Fed also does these things
Speaker 4: like carries out these like massive overnight repo agreements, like
Speaker 4: inject liquidity into the market. There's all of these massive
Speaker 4: we are talking billions and billions of dollars of financial
Speaker 4: interventions that you basically never even hear about that have
Speaker 4: been stabilizing the economy since two thousand and eight. And
Speaker 4: this apparatus if it is dismantled, if it has directly
Speaker 4: seized control of by Trump. And and part of what's
Speaker 4: going on with this board is that Trump is trying
Speaker 4: to get a majority of the people on the Board
Speaker 4: of Governors of the Federal Reserve to be his appointment
Speaker 4: so that he can control it directly, and so they
Speaker 4: can start bringing it under directly under the control of
Speaker 4: I mean the president effectively. Right, this is something where
Speaker 4: if you unleash the doge people on the Federal Reserve
Speaker 4: and the payment system, the settlement and clearance systems stop working.
Speaker 4: We are talking about a catastrophe that it's unclear to
Speaker 4: me whether it's even been modeled. There are so many
Speaker 4: different complicated things that this institution does that these people
Speaker 4: do not understand particularly well at all and think that
Speaker 4: they can use to just sort of permanently create a
Speaker 4: bubble economy that they can ride. And this is the
Speaker 4: first sort of shot over the battle. Isn't even in
Speaker 4: the right where this is the first engagement over the
Speaker 4: fight for that. There's also been a lot of sort
Speaker 4: of taco analysis of this, arguing that this is actually
Speaker 4: Trump backing down from trying to fire Jerom Powell to
Speaker 4: just try to fire one of the Reserve board members
Speaker 4: that's not backing down. There's also a chance to heal that.
Speaker 4: If this works, he's going to try to fire Powell too.
Speaker 4: So we're gonna We're gonna keep watching a situation. I'm
Speaker 4: going to talk more about it next week when we
Speaker 4: know more, and also talk about what the Federal Reserve
Speaker 4: is as an institution, And we're going to continue monitoring the
Speaker 4: situation because it is extremely important and handing the keys
Speaker 4: over to these people is something that is dangerous enough
Speaker 4: that it is creating significant pushback among the actual people
Speaker 4: in finance and in the banking system who matter.
Speaker 1: Great, well, it's so good. I mean, we'll see if
Speaker 1: this means anything other than more suffering for you know people.
Speaker 1: I guess that's where I am, as like, is there
Speaker 1: even a level of fucking with the money that Trump
Speaker 1: can do that that's enough to seriously cause consequences for him?
Speaker 1: And there must be, but it's just hard to imagine
Speaker 1: if there was. It's this. Yeah, we'll see. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the fun thing with the big stories we've got
Speaker 1: this week is they're all like, well, could get a
Speaker 1: lot worse, could just stay as bad as it is
Speaker 1: right now. Well, we'll continue to wait to see what's
Speaker 1: going to happen with all of that. Speaking of something
Speaker 1: that we don't have to just wait and wonder what's
Speaker 1: going to go on, because the news changes every single week.
Speaker 1: Here's the tariff song.
Speaker 6: Rocket Jazz, Rocket Jazz, good sal locking rocking jazz, rocking jazz.
Speaker 3: Boy.
Speaker 4: Oh boy so, and yet another instance of the whole
Speaker 4: Trump backing down thing not happening. The tariffs on India
Speaker 4: that Trump had been threatening for the purchases of Russian
Speaker 4: oil have in fact taken effect. The terriff right on
Speaker 4: India is now fifty percent. This is a significant barrier
Speaker 4: to any trade between India and the US. It is
Speaker 4: again sort of unclear whether India is going to bow
Speaker 4: to the political pressure here because as with many of
Speaker 4: these terriffs, we've talked about this situation with Brazil fairly
Speaker 4: extensively on this show. The thing about imposing tariffs on
Speaker 4: a country to get them to fall in line with
Speaker 4: the American policy is that it pisses off everyone in
Speaker 4: the country, regardless of whether or not they would traditionally
Speaker 4: be US allies, and so there's you know, it creates
Speaker 4: a massive countervailing pressure against the financial incentive to fall
Speaker 4: in line and stop buying Russian oil. I also, very
Speaker 4: briefly want to talk about something that I think is
Speaker 4: a sort of part and parcel of the tariff policy
Speaker 4: that Garson you have mentioned wanted to talk about, which
Speaker 4: is like the US purchasing ten percent of Intel.
Speaker 3: Yes, socialism has been achieved. We did it. Now now
Speaker 3: you can finally call Trump a national socialist.
Speaker 1: That's right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And this is sort of a intensification, I guess,
Speaker 4: of a agree that we talked about a while back,
Speaker 4: where Intel was talking about giving part of its profits
Speaker 4: to the US. This is just the US government is
Speaker 4: just buying a stake in these companies.
Speaker 3: And this is.
Speaker 4: Actually a very very weird maneuver by the US because
Speaker 4: the US has obviously bought companies before, right, this is
Speaker 4: how a lot of the bailout worked. But the thing
Speaker 4: about if you look at the bailout from two thousand
Speaker 4: and eight and you look at the US like purchasing
Speaker 4: the automakers, the US got these really weird specific shares
Speaker 4: that don't give any kind of controlling interest. And here
Speaker 4: the direct rationale for this that the US should just
Speaker 4: own part of the chip manufacturers because they're effectively like
Speaker 4: domestic national security resources. Significant portions of the market think
Speaker 4: that this is going to be a continuing tread, and
Speaker 4: the US is going to continue buying stakes in these companies.
Speaker 4: There is a sort of symbiotic relationship here in the
Speaker 4: sense that on the one hand, it's obviously not great
Speaker 4: to have sort of stakes in you bought by the
Speaker 4: US governments and have US government federal policy directly dictating
Speaker 4: what these companies do. But on the other hand, it
Speaker 4: creates for these actual companies themselves, It creates a sort
Speaker 4: of symbiosis right where these people now have effectively guaranteed
Speaker 4: state backing that can bail them out of all of
Speaker 4: their unbelievably terrible business decisions around basing all of their
Speaker 4: production around AI. So yeah, and this this is all
Speaker 4: sort of part of the same hypernationalists direct.
Speaker 3: National socialism, if you will, Yes, kind of national sentence,
Speaker 3: but the most stupid for we've ever seen.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Yeah, I don't know, there's gonna be a lot
Speaker 4: of hype about this being like American state capitalism or something,
Speaker 4: and just ignore that, just just ignore it. It's bad.
Speaker 4: I think it's it's in the same category as a
Speaker 4: lot of the things here, which is that Trump administration
Speaker 4: is trying to consolidate as much power over the economy
Speaker 4: as they can, both in federal Reserve and through just
Speaker 4: straight up taking controlling parts of companies. This is a
Speaker 4: trend that's going to continue, and it's not good.
Speaker 3: Do you know what is good? Though? You beat me
Speaker 3: to that exactly, that's right. The fact that we get
Speaker 3: a nice ninety to to I don't know, one hundred
Speaker 3: and twenty second break to listen to these ads. All right,
Speaker 3: we are back. There has just been so much news
Speaker 3: this week it's kind of outrageous. Trump is continuing his
Speaker 3: attacks against the Smithsonian for for going woke is He's
Speaker 3: promised a Department of Justice lawsuit against California for their
Speaker 3: new redistricting map. A GOP House probe has begun to
Speaker 3: investigate if the DC crime stats have been faked this
Speaker 3: whole time, making it look like crime is low even
Speaker 3: though it's obviously super high as we all know. As
Speaker 3: Mia said, we have socialism now with ten percent of
Speaker 3: intel and Trump and Hague says announced that they want
Speaker 3: to change the name of the Department of Defense back
Speaker 3: to the Department of War because it quote unquote sounds stronger.
Speaker 4: Hey, this is this is the only one of those
Speaker 4: that I that I actually agree with. They should do this,
Speaker 4: Like calling it anything other than the Department of War
Speaker 4: is incredibly dishonest.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I wonder that I'll make it a harder sort
Speaker 1: of get people on board, increasing funding.
Speaker 5: So it used to be called the Department of War,
Speaker 5: and it had a stronger sound. And as you know, we.
Speaker 7: Won World War One, we won World War two, we
Speaker 7: won everything.
Speaker 8: Now we have a Department of Defense with defenders.
Speaker 5: I don't know if you people want to standing behind me,
Speaker 5: if you take a little vote, if you want to
Speaker 5: change it back to what it was when we used
Speaker 5: to win wars all the time, that's okay with me.
Speaker 7: All right, that's coming.
Speaker 5: You let me know if you want to do it.
Speaker 5: I think Department of War. It just sounded me.
Speaker 8: And you said, sir, behalf of the Department of Defense.
Speaker 1: Defense.
Speaker 7: I don't want to be defense only. We want defense,
Speaker 7: but we want offense too, if that's okay, So you'll
Speaker 7: make a decision. But you know, as Department of War,
Speaker 7: we won everything. We want everything, and I think we're
Speaker 7: gonna have to go back to that.
Speaker 3: All right, man, cool stuff happening in the FOE.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do like that when he starts that speech,
Speaker 1: he has to go like we won World War One,
Speaker 1: Like he's like, there's a question at the end there
Speaker 1: where he's like he's he's like, he's like, just make sure.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't really remember if we won
Speaker 1: that one or not, but we definitely won the second
Speaker 1: one and others.
Speaker 3: When as to how he would go about change the
Speaker 3: name as it requires an Act of Congress, Trump replied
Speaker 3: to quote, We're just gonna do it. I'm sure Congress
Speaker 3: would go along if we need that. I don't think
Speaker 3: we even need that, But if we need that, I'm
Speaker 3: sure Congress will go along.
Speaker 1: I don't know that we do we need I don't
Speaker 1: know if what you need to change the name of
Speaker 1: the Department.
Speaker 3: Of Defense, you do?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you do? That makes sense to do that.
Speaker 4: Auto Macro's sense right. What Trump is suggesting, heureus would
Speaker 4: wouldn't it simply be more efficient if there was simply
Speaker 4: a fearer, a single person to make all the decisions?
Speaker 3: He said a lot of things in that vein recently
Speaker 3: is like Congress being more of a symbolic, symbolic branch
Speaker 3: of government that if we need them, they'll probably just
Speaker 3: agree with me, but like we don't.
Speaker 1: Really that's your standard dictator stuff.
Speaker 3: That's how we's been talking about it recently.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 3: Earlier this week, a redacted transcript of Gallaine maxwells Gilen
Speaker 3: Jiselene Maxwell's meeting with Trump's DOJ has been released, where
Speaker 3: she denied that she ever witnessed President Trump engaged in
Speaker 3: inappropriate behavior, saying, quote, I actually never saw the president
Speaker 3: in any type of massage setting. The President was never
Speaker 3: gonna appropriate with anybody, and the times that I was
Speaker 3: with him, he was a gentleman in all respects unquote.
Speaker 3: She also denied allegations that Prince Andrew ever had sex
Speaker 3: with a minor in her home, saying that a substantiating
Speaker 3: photograph is quote unquote fake.
Speaker 1: Well, I can't imagine why she'd lie.
Speaker 3: And also claimed that there is no Epstein quote unquote
Speaker 3: client less. So yeah, that all about wraps that up.
Speaker 3: I think we got to the bottom of the whole
Speaker 3: Epstein case. We don't need to worry about this anymore.
Speaker 1: I would say, of all of those, the one of
Speaker 1: those that I might have believed before she denied it
Speaker 1: was that there wasn't an additional client list outside of
Speaker 1: what we've already seen like his black wole. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't keep all of
Speaker 1: that many notes on a criminal conspiracy.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't think here's a list of being like,
Speaker 3: here's all of my pedophile friends in one place.
Speaker 1: Here's what does make me wonder now, and this really
Speaker 1: is the first time I am, which is that they
Speaker 1: clearly came here with a list of Here is all
Speaker 1: of the things you need to say you didn't see.
Speaker 3: Like maybe or she's just savvy enough to know what
Speaker 3: to say, Like I don't even think, Yeah, we don't
Speaker 3: even need to an allege a larger conspiracy here. I
Speaker 3: think everyone involved in this is quite savvy and knows
Speaker 3: what they should say and shouldn't say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I think the conspiracy is obvious, Like.
Speaker 3: That's all there is. There doesn't need to be an
Speaker 3: explicit quid pro crow here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know. It's interesting to me that she
Speaker 1: brings up Prince Andrew. If nobody brought that up to
Speaker 1: her she was asked about it, That's what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is I believe there's a conversation we're not privy here too,
Speaker 1: where she got marching orders in exchange for getting you know,
Speaker 1: she's basically out on work release, right, I.
Speaker 3: Don't need to jump to such outrageous conspiratorial beliefs such
Speaker 3: as that.
Speaker 1: I'm okay with it at this point. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: know what to what extend it was, but yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't know this is this is pointless, like, yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't know if this helps with his base. I don't
Speaker 1: know that his base is going to be like, well
Speaker 1: if Gilan Maxwell says it.
Speaker 3: Nope, yeah, I mean people have responded positively, like Margor
Speaker 3: Taylor Green, who was previously going on a slight offense
Speaker 3: that on the Epstein things, has now fully come around
Speaker 3: being like, well, there you go. It's it turns out
Speaker 3: Trumpet isn't a pedophile after all. Thank goodness, that was
Speaker 3: a close call there.
Speaker 1: I know this is being disseminated to his influencer network, right,
Speaker 1: and to the network of people that he like uses
Speaker 1: for stuff like this. I'm wondering about the actual like
Speaker 1: voter base, fan base, like time will tell, and the
Speaker 1: folks who are a step or two further than Marjorie
Speaker 1: Taylor Green like the like the people who are more
Speaker 1: like on the Rogan side of things, like, does this
Speaker 1: really move the needle for them?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 1: I hate having the cares like this, Joe Rogan, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna buy this shlot, But this does seem like, yeah,
Speaker 1: shameful even for him.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think a lot of people can see
Speaker 3: that there's an incentive for going to say certain things,
Speaker 3: and I think people people are smart enough to understand that.
Speaker 3: I don't think she's going to tell the Trump's own
Speaker 3: DOJ about like a smoking gun involving Trump. Why would
Speaker 3: that help her try to get a pardon from the President?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: I think I think. I think the important thing for
Speaker 4: this is that like, the people who are going to
Speaker 4: believe this are the people who just don't want to
Speaker 4: believe that Trump did this, and this is this is
Speaker 4: a reinforcing thing that can feed them. But the question
Speaker 4: is what asks for everyone else? And it's not particularly
Speaker 4: compelling for them.
Speaker 3: All Right, We have four executive orders to get through
Speaker 3: before we close this episode, starting off with cashless bail.
Speaker 3: On Monday, Trump signed two executive orders targeting cash's bail,
Speaker 3: one specific to Washington, d c which directs law enforcement
Speaker 3: to charge people federally and hold them in federal custody,
Speaker 3: and to use federal funding and services as leverage to
Speaker 3: pressure DC to change its cashless bail policies. The other
Speaker 3: executive order targets cashless bail nationwide and asks the Attorney
Speaker 3: General to make a list of quote, states and local
Speaker 3: jurisdictions that have, in the Attorney General's opinion, substantially eliminated
Speaker 3: cash bail as a potential condition of pre trial release
Speaker 3: from custody for crimes that pose a clear threat to
Speaker 3: public safety and order, including offenses involving violent, sexual or
Speaker 3: indecent acts, or burglary, looting, or vandalism. The Attorney General
Speaker 3: shall update this list as necessary. So, using that list,
Speaker 3: Trump's cabinet will then quote identify federal funds, including grants
Speaker 3: and contracts currently provided to cashless bail jurisdictions that may
Speaker 3: be suspended or terminated unquote, So it's trying to bribe
Speaker 3: states and local municipalities to cease cashless bail policies using
Speaker 3: federal funds, the same way that they've tried to do
Speaker 3: for a whole bunch of other anti WOUE policies Trump
Speaker 3: has tried to force onto unwilling states. Second Executive Order
Speaker 3: from August twenty fifth, titled Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag.
Speaker 3: Let's start with a clip from Trump. I don't want
Speaker 3: to just play super long Trump clips because they know
Speaker 3: that can be annoying. But the way that he talks
Speaker 3: about disorder is kind of more interesting than the way
Speaker 3: the order is written. But we will talk about some
Speaker 3: of those smaller details included in the actual text. But
Speaker 3: here's a clip from c SPAN.
Speaker 5: Flag burning all over the country. They're burning flags all
Speaker 5: over the world.
Speaker 3: They burn the.
Speaker 5: American flag, and as you know, through a very sad chord.
Speaker 5: I guess it was a five to four decision. They
Speaker 5: called it freedom of speech. But there's another reason, which
Speaker 5: is perhaps.
Speaker 8: Much more important. It's called death. Because what happens when
Speaker 8: you burn a flag is the area goes crazy. If
Speaker 8: you have hundreds of people, they go crazy.
Speaker 1: You could do other things, you.
Speaker 5: Can burn this piece of paper, you could, and it's
Speaker 5: when you burn the American flag. It incites riots at
Speaker 5: levels that we've never seen before. People go crazy in
Speaker 5: a way. Both ways. There's some that are going crazy
Speaker 5: for doing it. There are others that are angry angry
Speaker 5: about them doing it?
Speaker 8: Do you want to discuss that?
Speaker 5: Sure?
Speaker 9: What the executive order does there charges your Department of
Speaker 9: Justice with investigating instances of flag burning and then where
Speaker 9: there's evidence of criminal activity, that where prosecution wouldn't fall
Speaker 9: afoul of the First Amendment, and instructs the Department of
Speaker 9: Justice to prosecute those who are engaged in these instances
Speaker 9: of flagburn.
Speaker 5: And what the penalty is going to be. If you
Speaker 5: burn a flag, you get one year in jail, No.
Speaker 7: Early exits, no nothing.
Speaker 5: You get one year in jail. If you're burn a flag,
Speaker 5: you get And what it does is insight to write.
Speaker 7: I hope they use that language.
Speaker 8: By the way, did that insight to riot?
Speaker 3: I love it. He has to check, yeah, because God
Speaker 3: forbid him. Actually he's citing Trump Trumpe auto pen That's right.
Speaker 3: So included in the order, it says, quote, notwithstanding the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court's ruling on First Men protections, the Court is
Speaker 3: never held that American flag desecration conducted in a manner
Speaker 3: that is likely to incite imminent lawless action, or that
Speaker 3: is an action amounting to quote unquote fighting words, is
Speaker 3: constitutionally protected see taxes fe Johnson unquote. The order directs
Speaker 3: Theatery General to enforce criminal and civil laws against acts
Speaker 3: of American flight discration that cause harm unrelated to First
Speaker 3: Amendment expression, which could include charging people with violent crimes,
Speaker 3: hate crimes, a legal discrimination against American citizens, what violations
Speaker 3: of American civil rights, crimes against property and peace, as
Speaker 3: well as conspiracies and attempts to violate in aiding and
Speaker 3: abetting others to violate such laws, so it's like an
Speaker 3: anti rioting thing. The dj will also look for cases
Speaker 3: where American flag discration could violate applicable state or local laws,
Speaker 3: such as open burning restrictions, disorderly conduct laws, or destruction
Speaker 3: of proper laws, and will refer such matters to state
Speaker 3: and local authorities for potential action. Finally, the Secretary of
Speaker 3: State shall deny, prohibit, terminate, or revoke visas, residents permits,
Speaker 3: naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits, or seek to deport
Speaker 3: any foreignational that has engaged in American flag to secretion activity.
Speaker 3: So that's how they're going to go after it. Rober, Are,
Speaker 3: do you anything to say on this flag burning thing?
Speaker 1: I mean, they're waiting. I mean, and they didn't wind
Speaker 1: up waiting long. Someone did it immediately as they knew
Speaker 1: they would, so that they can get a case that
Speaker 1: they can take up to the Supreme Court. So we'll see,
Speaker 1: we'll see what happens. We'll see.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, they want to prosecute one of these things
Speaker 3: and appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: to maybe change that ruling so they can apply it
Speaker 3: more broadly. Right, So it's part of the same test
Speaker 3: that they've done with a number of other things that
Speaker 3: seems unconstitutional, it seems to violate Supreme Court rulings. Yeah,
Speaker 3: but the point is to test that and see if
Speaker 3: they can change it, just like they did with abortion.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Can we go further and if this works, if we
Speaker 1: feel like we made productress on this, can we start
Speaker 1: pushing and saying other things are incitement? Right? You know?
Speaker 1: Can we start going after people who aren't even present
Speaker 1: who write something that is like, well, this was incitement
Speaker 1: to write because they wrote about the police murdering this guy.
Speaker 3: Right, like a party of free speech strikes again.
Speaker 1: This is the kind of thing where can I wargame
Speaker 1: out would they try this if they can get that
Speaker 1: far yeah, they will if they can get that far.
Speaker 1: Will they get that far? You know, is the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court going to give them everything they want on this?
Speaker 1: I don't actually know. I really don't know. So I'm
Speaker 1: going to try not to doom spiral too much. Just
Speaker 1: you know, let's see, none of us have any choice
Speaker 1: in the matter at this stage.
Speaker 3: Finally, let's address the quote, additional measures to address the
Speaker 3: crime emergency in the District of Columbia. So it's another
Speaker 3: executive order from August twenty fifth. Trump wants to establish
Speaker 3: an online portal for Americans with law enforcement experience quote
Speaker 3: or other relevant backgrounds and experience to apply to join
Speaker 3: federal enforcementities to support the policy goals described in Executive
Speaker 3: Order one four three three. That's the Making a DC
Speaker 3: Safe and Beautiful Order from a few weeks ago. The
Speaker 3: Secretary of Defense is instructed to create and begin training, manning, hiring,
Speaker 3: and equipping a specialized unit within the District of Columbia
Speaker 3: National Guard who will be deputized to enforce federal law.
Speaker 3: To quote the order quote, the Secretary of Defense shall
Speaker 3: immediately begin ensuring that each state's National Army Guard and
Speaker 3: Air National Guard are resource trained, organized an available to
Speaker 3: assist federal, state, and local law enforcement in quelling civil
Speaker 3: disturbances and in ensuring the public safety and order whenever
Speaker 3: the circumstances necessitate, as appropriate under law, in coordination with
Speaker 3: respective Adjuncts General, the Secretary Defense shall designate an appropriate
Speaker 3: number of each state's trained National Guard members to be
Speaker 3: reasonably available for rapid mobilization for such purposes. In addition,
Speaker 3: the Secretary of Defense shall ensure the availability of a
Speaker 3: standing National Guard Quick Reaction Force that shall be resource
Speaker 3: trained and available for rapid nationwide Deployant National Guard walking
Speaker 3: streets of DC are now carrying firearms after first being
Speaker 3: deployed without their service weapon, and since the operation in
Speaker 3: DC began on August seventh, there have now been over
Speaker 3: a thousand arrests, including dozens of undocumented immigrants. Currently, the
Speaker 3: Pentagon is planning to deploy thousands of National Guard to
Speaker 3: Chicago to continue Trump's alleged crime crackdown.
Speaker 8: I would have much more respect for princecour if he'd
Speaker 8: call me up and said, I have a problem, can
Speaker 8: you help me fix it? I would be so happy
Speaker 8: to do it. I don't love not that I don't
Speaker 8: have the right to do anything I want to do.
Speaker 8: I'm the president of the United States. If I think
Speaker 8: our country is in danger, and it is in danger
Speaker 8: in these cities, I can do it, no problem going
Speaker 8: in and solving you know, his difficulties. But it would
Speaker 8: be nice if they'd call and they say, would.
Speaker 3: You do it?
Speaker 1: He's hurt, poor guy. They want to ask him for help.
Speaker 3: His little fewings he's going to have to do. He's
Speaker 3: ano have to deploy the National Guard without putschool's approval.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 1: Gang In all of this focus on the people being
Speaker 1: killed and persecuted by the government, I don't think any
Speaker 1: of us has stopped and spent enough time thinking how
Speaker 1: does Donald Trump feel? And shame on us, you know,
Speaker 1: shame on us.
Speaker 3: But it's not just Chicago. On Friday, the Pentagon told
Speaker 3: Fox News at upwards of seventeen hundred National Guard troops
Speaker 3: will be mobilized in nineteen states to be deployed across
Speaker 3: the country to assist ice in the nationwide hunt for
Speaker 3: undocumented immigrants. The Guard will be activated in states like Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada,
Speaker 3: New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Speaker 3: and Wyoming, with effective status ranging from August through mid November,
Speaker 3: and operations expected to start in early September. Importantly, as
Speaker 3: we saw in DC, national guard from other states might
Speaker 3: deploy too states. Specifically, in the case where Trump doesn't
Speaker 3: get cooperation from the governor who is in control of
Speaker 3: the National Guard of each state, he can deploy national
Speaker 3: Guard from somewhere else, like what he did in DC,
Speaker 3: pulling national Guard from other Red states being deployed to
Speaker 3: d C but mobilized in those Red states. So national
Speaker 3: guards from all of these states could be deployed in
Speaker 3: a town near you, no matter where you live. And
Speaker 3: this operation specifically with these like seventeen hundred National Guard troops,
Speaker 3: is specifically to assist ice his plan to do this,
Speaker 3: like anti crime deployment in Chicago, is a separate yet
Speaker 3: similar plan. It's also pulling from National Guard. But these
Speaker 3: things are are two separate operations according to White House officials.
Speaker 4: And I think one of the important things about this
Speaker 4: is that, you know, obviously there's the part of this
Speaker 4: where it's like, yeah, they want to at the very
Speaker 4: least look like they're just occupying cities and they are
Speaker 4: arresting huge numbers of people, but they also just don't
Speaker 4: have the manpower to do this kind of stuff, which
Speaker 4: is why they're pulling the national Guards, why they're trying
Speaker 4: to expand the number of people on ice. This is
Speaker 4: why they're pulling National Guard out to do this kind
Speaker 4: of stuff, which that like, they don't actually have the
Speaker 4: repressive capacity to just occupy cities and they're trying to
Speaker 4: find the manpower to be able to do it.
Speaker 3: So we will keep an eye out in September for
Speaker 3: these possible military deployments around the country. Yep, Hey everyone,
Speaker 3: this is Garrison recording a short update on Thursday since
Speaker 3: we have a little bit more information about the Minneapolis,
Speaker 3: Minnesota school shooting. So right after we recorded, rumors started
Speaker 3: circulating that this shooter was linked to neo Nazi satanic
Speaker 3: pedophile groups nine A and seven six four. Someone on
Speaker 3: Twitter found a neo Nazi forum account that they alleged
Speaker 3: belonged to this school shooter. This account used in nine
Speaker 3: A symbol and an affiliated Twitter account made other nine
Speaker 3: A references. These claims gained a lot of traction from
Speaker 3: leftist accounts and armchair experts. On Twitter and Blue Sky,
Speaker 3: lots of people were very eager to talk about something
Speaker 3: else besides that this shooter was trans and many pinned
Speaker 3: the blame on seven sixty four, the child exploitation group
Speaker 3: that operates on discord and telegram that Blackmaile's children and
Speaker 3: encourages some to commit acts of violence like school shootings.
Speaker 3: I talked about seven sixty four on my Nihilist Violent
Speaker 3: Extremism episode from earlier this year. As these claims spread online,
Speaker 3: I remained skeptical because this shooter did not seem to
Speaker 3: really fit the profile of A nine A or seven six'
Speaker 3: four grooming. Victim this shooter did not really seem like
Speaker 3: an ON ninea. Acolyte they more closely resembled The True
Speaker 3: Crime community. Fandom and while Sometimes True Trime community OR
Speaker 3: tcc may USE O nina references because other mass shooters
Speaker 3: have or because previous mass shooters have been affiliated WITH
Speaker 3: nina and related, GROUPS i did not see much evidence
Speaker 3: linking this shooter TO o NINE a based on the
Speaker 3: videos they posted to. YouTube and while Some Nazi satanist
Speaker 3: types have helped facilitate The columbiner OR tcc fandom there
Speaker 3: was no solid evidence linking a group like seven to six'
Speaker 3: four to this. Latest shooting the shooter was in their.
Speaker 3: Mid twenties they weren't a fourteen year old being groomed
Speaker 3: into doing a. Mass shooting and Then on, thursday morning
Speaker 3: the forum account alleged to Be the minneapolis shooter and
Speaker 3: the source of claims calling them A on nina or
Speaker 3: sen six four grimmy victim started posting again on. The
Speaker 3: forum it wasn't the. Shooter's account the shooter did not fit.
Speaker 3: That profile they weren't in A Cult, nazi satanist they
Speaker 3: were obsessed with, mass killers and translations of their cerelic
Speaker 3: journal have helped to. SUBSTANTIATE this a journal entry discussed
Speaker 3: taking pleasure in dressing up as a. School shooter QUOTE
Speaker 3: today i assembled a school shooter cause play quote and
Speaker 3: in translations of, their journal they made explicit References To
Speaker 3: True CRIME, community tcc saying that they might cringe if
Speaker 3: they joined AN online, tcc community and it could make
Speaker 3: them not want to follow through on doing, an attack
Speaker 3: DOING online tcc fandom as mostly full. Of POSERS quote
Speaker 3: i think joining a community would alienate my future unquote
Speaker 3: AND quote i feel a very small PORTION of tcc
Speaker 3: FEELS as I do harbor's admiration of. Intent unquote one
Speaker 3: more UPDATE before i closed the episode. Earlier Today, ON
Speaker 3: Thursday rfk junior was asked if he would now be
Speaker 3: looking into if gender transition drugs. Cause violence he responded
Speaker 3: by saying that they were already doing studies looking, into
Speaker 3: that and then quickly pivoted to talking about quote launching
Speaker 3: studies on the potential contribution of some OF the ssri
Speaker 3: drugs and some of the other psychiatric drugs that might
Speaker 3: be contributing to. Violence unquote this lines UP With rfk
Speaker 3: junior's general focus on, PSYCHIATRIC drugs SSRIs, depression medication as
Speaker 3: he has. Previously stated that's all for us today On
Speaker 3: It Could. Happen here we reported.
Speaker 1: The news we reported.
Speaker 10: The news It Could happen here is a production Of Cool.
Speaker 10: Zone media for more podcasts From Cool, zone media visit
Speaker 10: our website coolzonmedia, dot com or check us out On the,
Speaker 10: iHeartRadio App, apple podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts
Speaker 10: can now find sources for It could happen here listed
Speaker 10: directly in. Episode descriptions thanks. For listening