Speaker 1: It's been two years since Donald Trump lost election, and
Speaker 1: although a stubbornly high number of Republicans still don't believe
Speaker 1: he lost, they are at least coming around to the
Speaker 1: reality that he is no longer the president who is
Speaker 1: running the government right now, President Trump, well most of
Speaker 1: them are. For some the truth is just too much
Speaker 1: to bear. I found this out firsthand when I was
Speaker 1: told that amagare ally that Trump is still in charge
Speaker 1: of the military. He's running the government and the military,
Speaker 1: and he's running the military, so we should blame him
Speaker 1: for what happened in Afghanistan. Thank you for talking to
Speaker 1: George enjoycing President current President Trump. It makes me think
Speaker 1: of that famous courtroom quote from a few good men,
Speaker 1: you can't handle the truth. Although if you think about it,
Speaker 1: that's a quote from Colonel Nathan or Jessup, who as
Speaker 1: a member of the military of logic follows still reports
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump. Damn it, checkmate it again. This Jordan
Speaker 1: Clapper figures the conspiracy and today we're talking about out
Speaker 1: the military. The Trump is still in charge of the military.
Speaker 1: Conspiracy theory. It's just one of many military related conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: And we have two people here with us today who
Speaker 1: know a lot about them and the people who believe them,
Speaker 1: both outside and inside military ranks. They are Paul Zoldra,
Speaker 1: a veteran who covers military issues and as the editor
Speaker 1: of the weekly newsletter of The Rock that focuses on
Speaker 1: national security and defense. We're also joined by Dr Amy
Speaker 1: Cootter of Middlebury College, who has studied and spent time
Speaker 1: with militia groups like the oath Keepers. Guys, Welcome aboard,
Speaker 1: Nice to be here, Thank you for having me. Good
Speaker 1: to have you guys. All right, Paul, I want to
Speaker 1: start here, help us understand the logic behind the theory
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump is still in charge of the military.
Speaker 1: I mean, even with Ivanka bailing on the campaign, I'm
Speaker 1: not even convinced he's in charge of his family anymore.
Speaker 1: Walk us through this. How is he in charge of
Speaker 1: the military? Well, Jordan, he's the commander in chief. Still,
Speaker 1: he didn't lose the elect ship. I mean didn't you
Speaker 1: didn't you read That's how if you believe it, you
Speaker 1: can't achieve it and or convince a bunch of other
Speaker 1: people you have achieved it. It seems wild. So why
Speaker 1: do people actually think this? Um? It really boils down
Speaker 1: to his A lot of his supporters believe that he
Speaker 1: he did not lose the election. Um, and you know
Speaker 1: that's kind of coming into uh an interesting, interesting part
Speaker 1: where he's running for re election now, um, even though
Speaker 1: he didn't lose the last election, but even still, um, Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's the commander in chief and so if he's if
Speaker 1: he's still the president of the United States, then he's
Speaker 1: still the commander in chief and he's still has pole
Speaker 1: in the military and um and and oh by the way, um,
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of the military is is supportive Trump,
Speaker 1: and we'll you know, go with every his every word.
Speaker 1: I hope the sarcasm is coming through, by the way,
Speaker 1: I under I can hear some of the sarcasm in there.
Speaker 1: I guess what help me walk through a little bit
Speaker 1: of this sounds it sounds ridiculous, but it's not the
Speaker 1: only time I've heard this out and about. I know
Speaker 1: people are denying the idea that Donald Trump lost the election,
Speaker 1: but there are people who still believe, Okay, he lost
Speaker 1: and Biden is in charge, but that there is something
Speaker 1: going on that we cannot see where Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: in charge of the military apparatus. Can you speak to
Speaker 1: that mindset. I know it's it's not true, but but
Speaker 1: speak to the mindset. Where does something like that come from? Why?
Speaker 1: Why are there people who are grasping onto this? Is
Speaker 1: there like a military idea that there is some sort
Speaker 1: of shadow general, shadow leader? Like what? What? What? What
Speaker 1: draws people to this other than the inability to let
Speaker 1: go of the idea that Trump is still president? Well,
Speaker 1: I think it would come I think primarily you look
Speaker 1: back to the Q and on conspiracy of of you know,
Speaker 1: the there there's this big you know, massive underground you know,
Speaker 1: lizard galaxy of of uh, you know, democrats and celebrities,
Speaker 1: you know, stealing children and and doing all kinds of stuff.
Speaker 1: And that all came from h a person calling himself
Speaker 1: himself q uh. You know, many people became convinced by this,
Speaker 1: this whole idea of getting really highly classified information inside
Speaker 1: the government. And the idea was at that time was
Speaker 1: q Q was was inside you know, it was supportive
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration and fighting back against the so
Speaker 1: called deep state, uh, that is that is trying to
Speaker 1: thwart his agenda. And so you know, if you if
Speaker 1: you think that, if you can believe that that there's
Speaker 1: some you know, person inside the government who's not only
Speaker 1: sharing all this really highly classified information with the public
Speaker 1: on a message board. Uh. I don't see much separation.
Speaker 1: I don't see how you you know, how we go
Speaker 1: from that too, believing that Trump is still president. That's
Speaker 1: not that wacky when you think about it. You know,
Speaker 1: I think what always, what always makes me laugh within it, though,
Speaker 1: is the the belief in the fun parts, the wearing
Speaker 1: of the uniform and the stars and the power, but
Speaker 1: none of the accountability of what has happened. You know.
Speaker 1: We discuss the critical things that people are critical of
Speaker 1: the Afghanistan withdrawal, and the person that I talked to
Speaker 1: very clearly was like, no, no, he had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with that. It's almost as if you know, in
Speaker 1: military parliance, you have a dress uniform. Correct. I'm not
Speaker 1: somebody who was in the military, but I've definitely watched
Speaker 1: films that are about the military, and I have to
Speaker 1: understand that you have a dress uniform and you also
Speaker 1: as an infant treatment you're in Marines, correct, correct, Yes,
Speaker 1: you also have something you might wear functionally to go
Speaker 1: do dirtier, more applicable things. Right, camouflage, Yes, camo I
Speaker 1: knew it, Camo. I've done all the research, and it's
Speaker 1: as if believing in this theory is a belief that
Speaker 1: you only get to wear your dress whites and that
Speaker 1: there is no secondary part to it all, which is
Speaker 1: sort of emblematic of the whole American thought process. Um,
Speaker 1: I think you you actually you bring up a really
Speaker 1: good point, which is a lot of these conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: they hinge on people's ignorance of the military. You know,
Speaker 1: less than less than one percent of the of Americans
Speaker 1: serve in the military. Like it's a very small number.
Speaker 1: During World War Two, we had about ten percent of
Speaker 1: of the of Americans in the in in the military.
Speaker 1: Of course we're fighting a gigantic war, and that makes sense,
Speaker 1: but that, um, that number is is so much smaller
Speaker 1: now out and so what we what I've found from um,
Speaker 1: you know, just reporting on these issues for the past decade,
Speaker 1: being in the Marine Corps before that, most people have
Speaker 1: no idea how the military works, you know, I think, um,
Speaker 1: a lot of people think that we just you know,
Speaker 1: march around, we salute and and then you know, they
Speaker 1: like press a button, break glass and you go to war,
Speaker 1: and like there's a black box in there, nobody really
Speaker 1: understands what it's actually like. And and you know, the
Speaker 1: thing is that most of it's really boring. You know,
Speaker 1: we're just sitting around waiting, waiting to do things. Um,
Speaker 1: we're doing maintenance or other kinds of stuff. But those
Speaker 1: are less sexy parts of the military that the military
Speaker 1: itself doesn't really share all that much with the public. Um.
Speaker 1: And you know that ignorance really feeds these ideas. You
Speaker 1: know that the military is you know, doing nefarious things
Speaker 1: and you know they're up to no good. And and also, um,
Speaker 1: also the the idea that the military can do these
Speaker 1: amazing things with ease, you know, like uh like like
Speaker 1: the Benghazi attack could have just been stopped just just
Speaker 1: easily by by you know, the military just swooping in
Speaker 1: there with jets from Italy and stuff like that. Um,
Speaker 1: it takes more planning and and actually you know, diving
Speaker 1: in and figuring out how to actually do things. Uh.
Speaker 1: It's it's like it's it's almost like a comic book
Speaker 1: caricature of the military. Is what what you get from
Speaker 1: from a lot of Americans who just you know, don't
Speaker 1: really know any better. You're telling me even if you've
Speaker 1: played Call of Duty, that's not enough information to fully
Speaker 1: understand how the military works. I mean, the call of
Speaker 1: call of duty is realistic for combat experience. I know,
Speaker 1: enough said, enough said, enough said. I I much like
Speaker 1: if you watched Wag the Dog, you understand American politics
Speaker 1: as well. That and maybe half of American president. You
Speaker 1: get it. You know how this thing works. Now you
Speaker 1: should talk about it and fear the institutions and of themselves.
Speaker 1: If call of duty was more realistic, there would be
Speaker 1: soldiers sitting around really bored, you know, smoking cigarettes, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, really you know, bitching about their chain of
Speaker 1: command and complaining about um, complaining about you know, going
Speaker 1: out on patrol that day. Like that's that's the more
Speaker 1: realistic version of combat operations. The joke is, like, the
Speaker 1: joke is like, you know, combat is is ninety or
Speaker 1: one percent sheer, terror and boredom, and that that usually
Speaker 1: is is pretty accurate. Yeah, so, like bitching and moaning
Speaker 1: is a part of the military. So play a call
Speaker 1: of duty, but then make sure you watch a good
Speaker 1: season of curb your enthusiasm to get the full understanding. Right,
Speaker 1: I knew it, I knew it. U I want to
Speaker 1: actually fill out this. We're talking about the military here,
Speaker 1: but sort of our conversation today is going to fold
Speaker 1: in also the worlds of UH militias and citizen militians.
Speaker 1: So so I want to bring amy in amy. A
Speaker 1: lot of these conspiracy theories, they become incoherent the further
Speaker 1: you look into them. But I want to talk about
Speaker 1: what you've studied citizen militia's. Can you define for our
Speaker 1: audience what is a militia compared to what being in
Speaker 1: the military is. And also, as somebody who studied who's
Speaker 1: talked about militias, I'm curious if you have a militia
Speaker 1: code name, because I do and it's cold Brew and
Speaker 1: it got me a lot of cred with the Georgia
Speaker 1: State militia. Does everybody here get a cool nickname? Yes, sir?
Speaker 1: If you don't have one, will help get one for you.
Speaker 1: Could I be cold Brew or if that's taken a
Speaker 1: French price, cold Brew works better? I think you like that, Yes, sir,
Speaker 1: feels very bold yet smooth. Finished. Well to start with
Speaker 1: your first question, US domestic militias are civilian militias. They
Speaker 1: are intended to exist outside the military, outside the National Guard.
Speaker 1: And their members are people who really see it as
Speaker 1: their personal civic duty to kind of act in concert
Speaker 1: in some ways with the military, to be almost a
Speaker 1: civilian line of defense against potentially invasion, potentially natural disasters,
Speaker 1: anything in between. A lot of the members actually have
Speaker 1: military training. Among the groups I studied, about two thirds
Speaker 1: of the leaders and about one third of the other
Speaker 1: members had some service experience, and many of the others
Speaker 1: who did not kind of felt like they had missed out.
Speaker 1: They had wanted to be in the service but didn't
Speaker 1: qualify medically or for some of the reason didn't get
Speaker 1: that service, and this was almost like a surrogate for them. Um.
Speaker 1: Their experiences were really about trying to, in their view,
Speaker 1: stand up for their country, defend the constitution, um in
Speaker 1: the American way of life in terms of how they
Speaker 1: specifically defined it. And as to a code name, do
Speaker 1: you have a code name? Some of them actually did
Speaker 1: call me renegade because I would study them at a
Speaker 1: time when it was not really popular for liberal academics
Speaker 1: to be dealing with more conservative topics. Well, I will
Speaker 1: say this, I was talking with Amy offline a little
Speaker 1: bit about this, but uh, I read Amy's dissertation years
Speaker 1: ago because I am fascinating about militia's. I'm from Michigan,
Speaker 1: which if you're into militia's, Michigan is a great place
Speaker 1: to be. We got some o G militia action happening there, um,
Speaker 1: and I think what's fascinating about it is, Uh, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of talk about the effects of militia's and
Speaker 1: extremist groups uh recently, but you've been doing this for
Speaker 1: quite some time right now, when a lot of people
Speaker 1: I don't think look into is what is appealing about militia's,
Speaker 1: the process of militia's and the average militia go er.
Speaker 1: I think what I noticed with some of the time
Speaker 1: that I spent with a few militia members. I spent
Speaker 1: some time with some oathkeepers recently, uh, just hanging out,
Speaker 1: having fun, watching mail boxes, trying to save the election.
Speaker 1: And I hung out with some folks in Georgia way
Speaker 1: back when. And I think the military side of it
Speaker 1: is fascinating because there are some of those people, oathkeepers
Speaker 1: in particular, who are ex military folks, ex cops, who
Speaker 1: see it as an extension of their service. They made
Speaker 1: an oath to this country into the Constitution and this
Speaker 1: is their extension of it. There are other folks too
Speaker 1: who feel like uh just uh day players who wanted
Speaker 1: to be in the military, and perhaps some had very
Speaker 1: interesting stories about um an inability to get into the military. Uh,
Speaker 1: like you had an astigmatism, So now you wanna be
Speaker 1: in the militia. It's good enough? Okay, fine, I get it.
Speaker 1: Seeing a lot of cars playing here, there's military here,
Speaker 1: and then there's a lot of these people who are
Speaker 1: pretending to be military here. You know how you know,
Speaker 1: because they don't have badges, They just have notes from
Speaker 1: their life that says you can go for the weekend
Speaker 1: and hang out with your friends, but be back on time.
Speaker 1: But there's this funny balance of people wanting to serve
Speaker 1: people pretending to serve. And I guess I'm curious too
Speaker 1: of how you see that aligned with their relationships to
Speaker 1: the to to actual military forces. Did you find is
Speaker 1: do you often see it as in concert with the
Speaker 1: American uh military system, or is oftentimes some of these
Speaker 1: militias looking to act in case the military in and
Speaker 1: of itself is something that turns on the American people. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the relationship that militias have with the military is frankly
Speaker 1: quite complicated. It's something that they tend to like in
Speaker 1: the abstract, in theory at least, because they believe that
Speaker 1: military and national defense are kind of the primary functions
Speaker 1: of what the federal government is supposed to do. It's
Speaker 1: one of the few legitimate functions of the federal government
Speaker 1: from their perspective. But they think that in practice the
Speaker 1: military is prone to corruption or other problems that they
Speaker 1: see as being kind of endemic to the government as
Speaker 1: a whole. So it tends to be the case, and
Speaker 1: there there can be variation across units or even across
Speaker 1: sometimes individual militia members, but it tends to be the
Speaker 1: case that they really honor and revere veterans and service
Speaker 1: members themselves, but have a lot of distrust for the
Speaker 1: military as an institution, have a lot of distrust for
Speaker 1: military leadership. Paul, Does that go both ways? You know,
Speaker 1: the military world and those circles. What is the feeling
Speaker 1: for those in service when they look at the modern
Speaker 1: militia movement. There's military people in the militias, but also
Speaker 1: there are those people who are kind of uh, you know,
Speaker 1: we kind of call it stolen valor. If you're trying
Speaker 1: to kind of um, you know, represent yourself as as
Speaker 1: part of the military, you know, and you know, like
Speaker 1: some people will do it a whole lot, you know,
Speaker 1: throwing medals on their chest and stuff like that. Others
Speaker 1: will just kind of pretend and where the gear and
Speaker 1: you know there's like there's air software's and stuff that
Speaker 1: where all the gear. They look very military and represent
Speaker 1: themselves as if you know, like hey, I get yourr
Speaker 1: thank you for your service, free meal at Denny's or something. Um.
Speaker 1: But I I think I think, you know, military members
Speaker 1: probably looking at the militia, they think they're a bunch
Speaker 1: of geeks. You know, like you know, get a job
Speaker 1: like get do do uh you know, if you want
Speaker 1: to join the military, then join the military. It just
Speaker 1: looks like this kind of pretend defense thing and it
Speaker 1: really ignores the reality of of military operations and what
Speaker 1: the U. S. Military is capable of. You know, if
Speaker 1: you're looking at a militia, if you're in a militia
Speaker 1: and uh you're you're there, you know you're training to
Speaker 1: uh defend the constitution whatever that that that idea they
Speaker 1: think they are doing. Um. But you know, bottom line
Speaker 1: is is they're also thinking about potentially going up against
Speaker 1: the U. S. Military. Um, and that's not a winning battle,
Speaker 1: you know, like, uh, guys with guys with small arms
Speaker 1: aren't going to really do much against an army with
Speaker 1: you know, drones and and missiles and all kinds of stuff. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so it's it, it seems a little bit lopsided. UM.
Speaker 1: But I think I think also they tap into the
Speaker 1: military legitimacy of of wearing a uniform and and looking
Speaker 1: like you're organized, um, and you know, following some sort
Speaker 1: of chain of command. These are these are military concepts,
Speaker 1: and they they make you look you know, more professional. Um.
Speaker 1: And that's the reason why they seek out military members
Speaker 1: and veterans, because hows that lends them credibility and legitimacy
Speaker 1: among um, among their their followers and supporters. You know,
Speaker 1: even even if you're even if you're you know, if
Speaker 1: you're a uh you know, some nerd who could never
Speaker 1: could never get into the military, Well you can at
Speaker 1: least join the militia and be close to you know,
Speaker 1: former military members and kind of it kind of brushes
Speaker 1: off on you, Um, you are spilling that t spilling
Speaker 1: that tia that militia. Well, also I do think it
Speaker 1: also plays off of also the public perspective of the military.
Speaker 1: There's as as a civilian, I think there is a
Speaker 1: general misunderstanding of the ranks and the difficulties and the
Speaker 1: world of the military, and so somebody purporting to be
Speaker 1: a militia member who wears the outfit to talk to
Speaker 1: the talk um in a public setting is almost treated
Speaker 1: as a person with law enforcement bona fides or has
Speaker 1: has put in the time. It's it's like you, if
Speaker 1: you buy an ugh T shirts with flags on them
Speaker 1: and you have good enough posture than liberal elites like
Speaker 1: myself are going to let you get on a plane
Speaker 1: before them and they're not gonna say anything about it.
Speaker 1: So you can you can steal enough valor to get
Speaker 1: you in certain positions. Um, It's it's interesting. I'm curious. Amy.
Speaker 1: We talked about some of the perhaps with the goofier
Speaker 1: sides of that UH and the desire to be more
Speaker 1: legitimate like the military. But you look at something like
Speaker 1: January six and you have militia members, oathkeepers, proud boys,
Speaker 1: people who are storming the capital with a legitimate fear
Speaker 1: that the military in and of itself could be utilized
Speaker 1: against them. The one thing you couldn't help but notice
Speaker 1: was just how many people look like they were preparing
Speaker 1: for battle. From the tactical vest to the pitchforks, this
Speaker 1: rally felt charged. You can tell these people really love
Speaker 1: America by the number of weapons they brought to hurt
Speaker 1: other Americans. Where where where does a theory like that
Speaker 1: come from? And how do they get to that point? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, I think I can come from a few
Speaker 1: different places, but among some of the specific groups that
Speaker 1: I have spent time with, it's come in part from
Speaker 1: an interesting dynamic where everything that Paul just described as
Speaker 1: true that there are these folks who really want to
Speaker 1: attach on to the military sort of aura, if you will,
Speaker 1: and try to kind of claim some of that legitimacy.
Speaker 1: But also there are veterans who actively seek out something
Speaker 1: like a militia to join, and that can be for
Speaker 1: one of two reasons. Um One reason is that they
Speaker 1: kind of miss the camaraderie of the military. They've been
Speaker 1: honorably discharged, and they want to find a space where
Speaker 1: people are trying to look up to them and learn
Speaker 1: from some of their experiences. On the other hand, I've
Speaker 1: encountered some folks who really did not enjoy their military
Speaker 1: experience to say the least. Um, they really felt like
Speaker 1: there is no legitimate purpose to some of the conflicts
Speaker 1: that were involved in. One man in particular, for example,
Speaker 1: really believes um that Desert Storm was truly all about
Speaker 1: experimentation on service members, that there was no other legitimate
Speaker 1: purpose for it. He came back incredibly angry and told
Speaker 1: me that he wanted to join something like a militia
Speaker 1: as a way to figure out how to fight back
Speaker 1: against the government, to take a proactive stand against the government.
Speaker 1: So I think some of that kind of my mentality
Speaker 1: kind of seeps in there where even some people who
Speaker 1: have direct military experience kind of feed those narratives that
Speaker 1: the military might be the enemy. And usually that narrative
Speaker 1: is not about the rank and file, but again about
Speaker 1: the leadership or about the government, and then they're misleading
Speaker 1: the rank and file, and they're they're doing all this
Speaker 1: nefarious stuff that most military service members may not even
Speaker 1: be aware is happening. So they feel like it's their
Speaker 1: job to raise awareness of that to fight back against it.
Speaker 1: In some ways, that's the logic that kind of undergirds
Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers as an organization as a whole, because their
Speaker 1: their whole purpose was supposedly to remind military and law
Speaker 1: enforcement about the oaths that they took to serve the
Speaker 1: people as opposed to serving the government. I want to
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about that distrust there, Paul. You've
Speaker 1: written and you've been very critical of some of the
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories that have been perpetrated by Donald Trump. You've
Speaker 1: called him America's crazy uncle because of these conspiracies that
Speaker 1: he has spread, including one that claims Joe Biden killed
Speaker 1: Seal Team six to cover up the reality that Osama
Speaker 1: bin Laden was never shot and it was a body double,
Speaker 1: which is wild, but it was something that he pushed
Speaker 1: out there. What what what is the story behind that one?
Speaker 1: So this one is very very strange and weird, and
Speaker 1: it's it's worth noting right away that Rob O'Neil, the
Speaker 1: the Seal Team six member who who who claimed to
Speaker 1: have shot Bin Laden, he's credited with killing Bin Laden
Speaker 1: on that raid. He was and he's also a big
Speaker 1: fan of Donald Trump. But even he was like, whoa bro,
Speaker 1: can you kind of back this off a little bit?
Speaker 1: And and and pushed back on this theory. It goes
Speaker 1: back to the Seal Team sixth raid an Osama bin Laden.
Speaker 1: This happened in the seals went into Pakistan, they raided
Speaker 1: bin Laden's house, they killed him um and they they
Speaker 1: took his body back. They got a ton of intelligence
Speaker 1: for it. It was a very successful operation by by
Speaker 1: all kinds of measures. Uh. Soon after that, I'd say,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe within months or so, there was a
Speaker 1: helicopter crash in Afghanistan, um and a large number unfortunately
Speaker 1: of of of Navy seals were in that crash. And
Speaker 1: this this helicopter call sign was Extortion seventeen. And the
Speaker 1: theory of Extortion seventeen going down was that these were
Speaker 1: seals that were involved in the Bin Laden raid and
Speaker 1: in order to you know, keep them silent, to make
Speaker 1: sure that you know, and nothing nothing about the bin
Speaker 1: Laden raid that the government didn't want getting out, Obama
Speaker 1: killed them, made the made that made the helicopter crash somehow,
Speaker 1: and that it was a cover up of the of
Speaker 1: the bin Laden raid. And now we see that this
Speaker 1: is sort of refashioned into well, actually no, it was
Speaker 1: the Vice president at the time, Joe Biden, and he
Speaker 1: was the one who set down this helicopter for some reason. Um.
Speaker 1: And it it just it just doesn't make any sense. Um.
Speaker 1: And it also it also makes very little sense if
Speaker 1: if the government is trying to you know, suppress seals
Speaker 1: from you know, revealing the truth. And why is why
Speaker 1: is Rob O'Neil still alive? Why is Matt Bissonette, who
Speaker 1: wrote a book about the entire rade. Two seals have
Speaker 1: revealed details of this um and yet the government wanted
Speaker 1: to you know, take down take down a helicopter and
Speaker 1: and and you know, bring down the truth. It's it's
Speaker 1: totally ludicrous, um and and really really unfortunate. The thing
Speaker 1: about this, these conspiracy theories that people forget is that
Speaker 1: there are these were seals that went down in a
Speaker 1: helicopter crash. There's a pilot, their pilots in this in
Speaker 1: this crash, army pilots. They all have families, you know,
Speaker 1: they have they have friends, and there they they are.
Speaker 1: Now I'm sure affected by this conspiracy theory nonsense. Um.
Speaker 1: And you know, whenever there's some kind of new article
Speaker 1: coming out about the extortion seventeen cover up, um, it's
Speaker 1: you know, it's if that were if that were my
Speaker 1: loved one that that was lost I'd be pretty piste
Speaker 1: off by by this stuff. And it just continues and
Speaker 1: kind of snowballs and and you know, one conspiracy theorist
Speaker 1: cites the other conspiracy theorist, and it kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: goes on and on. Trump was challenged on this one
Speaker 1: by Savannah Guthrie during the election at a town hall.
Speaker 1: Just this week, you retweeted to your eight seven million
Speaker 1: followers a conspiracy theory that Joe Biden orchestrated to have
Speaker 1: Seal Team six, the Navy Seal To six, killed to
Speaker 1: cover up the fake death of Bin Lauden. Now, why
Speaker 1: would you send a retweet that was a retweet that
Speaker 1: was an opinion of somebody, But that was a retweet.
Speaker 1: I'll put it out there. People can decide for them side.
Speaker 1: How do you think members of the military react when
Speaker 1: they see a conspiracy theory like this? Probably like what
Speaker 1: the what the Like? Why are people believing this craft?
Speaker 1: Like that's that? That would be my initial reaction, like
Speaker 1: can we can we teach some more critical thinking skills
Speaker 1: in school? I look at these kinds of things and
Speaker 1: I think, like we are, uh, we are a society
Speaker 1: with a whole lot of people that are fooled by uh, misinformation, disinformation,
Speaker 1: And what I fear is is nation states using that
Speaker 1: to their advantage. And I'm talking about China and Russia.
Speaker 1: That is not a conspiracy theory that these these nations
Speaker 1: do this. They have substantial intelligence apparatus. Is they have
Speaker 1: information warfare specialists just as we do. And they have
Speaker 1: budgets that support this stuff. And so if you have
Speaker 1: a society that's already you know, not even not even
Speaker 1: able to discern fact from fiction, because you have a
Speaker 1: former American president, you know, throwing fuel on that fire, Um,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be uh, that's gonna be used to the
Speaker 1: advantage of China and Russia. UM. And it's not it's
Speaker 1: not propaganda. That's like, you know, like so obvious that
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's like suddenly you're, uh, you're gonna
Speaker 1: see some message that says, like, you know, Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: is the greatest leader of all time. It's it's more
Speaker 1: about egging these things on and and sort of adding
Speaker 1: more fuel to the fire and more b s to
Speaker 1: actually expand the amount of people who are or confused
Speaker 1: about what the truth is um or just questioning, questioning
Speaker 1: complete you know, reality of what's going on, and you know,
Speaker 1: there's examples of this stuff, and like like jade Helm.
Speaker 1: There was an operation in Texas, uh, this training exercise
Speaker 1: in which a huge number of conspiracy theorists you know,
Speaker 1: started talking about jade Helm um as you know, some
Speaker 1: kind of government take over, the military was going to
Speaker 1: take over the entire United States, and this training exercise
Speaker 1: was some kind of cover. Of course it was bogus
Speaker 1: and ludicrous, but you know that that's that's like our
Speaker 1: internal conspiracy stuff. And just imagine if if you know
Speaker 1: that that expands, that goes out, and you have China
Speaker 1: sharing this stuff that actually happened with jade Helm, right
Speaker 1: is it? Jade jade Helm specifically didn't Governor Abbott in
Speaker 1: Texas put troops activated groups because of that conspiracy, and
Speaker 1: China activated bots to gin up more chaos around it
Speaker 1: because they saw that as a weakness. Right it was.
Speaker 1: What you're describing is our our susceptibility to conspiracies is
Speaker 1: a legitimate vulnerability to our own national security. I want
Speaker 1: to pause right there. I want to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit more about jade Helm after the break. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back, Paul. We were talking a little bit about
Speaker 1: jade Helm. Technically, what is it jade Helm fifteen, Um,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't know what number we're on
Speaker 1: of of the times that jade Helm has led to
Speaker 1: the collapse of the government. Say, I know, sometimes they
Speaker 1: throw a number on there. It sounds so much of
Speaker 1: these conspiracies they have to sound somewhere between a born
Speaker 1: Identity movie and um an exotic dancer. And if you
Speaker 1: can get that right right there in the middle, then
Speaker 1: it's gonna catch fire. And jade Helm was one of
Speaker 1: those corre. The thing is that that's that's crazy about
Speaker 1: the jade Helm conspiracy is that you had a whole
Speaker 1: lot of people who are thinking that this was some
Speaker 1: kind of government takeover. The military was you know, planning
Speaker 1: some kind of coup, and you know, the governor of
Speaker 1: Texas actually had troops from the National Guard, you know,
Speaker 1: activated and and and kind of keeping an eye on
Speaker 1: jade Helm activities, which is it's just wild to think
Speaker 1: about that you have straight up b s actually affecting
Speaker 1: policy makers and moving them to action. Uh, this is
Speaker 1: this is I mean, you know, part of it is
Speaker 1: is probably you know, i'd imagine there's some kind of
Speaker 1: politics at play where the governor is trying to kind
Speaker 1: of pretend like he's you know, he's, uh, he's doing
Speaker 1: something about this this problem. But I would really hope
Speaker 1: instead that you would say, hey, this is this is nutty,
Speaker 1: this makes no sense, and this isn't happening, and I
Speaker 1: don't actually waste National Guardsman's time sending them out to
Speaker 1: to take care of this um. But it's not like
Speaker 1: outside the realm of possibility to to think about these
Speaker 1: types of conspiracies or or just simple misinformation disinformation. The
Speaker 1: people that are making national security decisions, policy decisions, uh,
Speaker 1: movements in the military, they're susceptible to this this information
Speaker 1: just like anybody else. And you know, some of them
Speaker 1: have training on these types of things. Some are are
Speaker 1: you know, understand counterintelligence and information warfare UM. But a
Speaker 1: lot of them, a lot of them, don't, you know.
Speaker 1: They they're just like they're just like every other American
Speaker 1: you know, and they you know, so if you know
Speaker 1: where where you come from in America, that's that's your
Speaker 1: your neighbors are. Some of them are in the military,
Speaker 1: and they're still getting the same information that you're doing
Speaker 1: on Facebook. You know, they're still looking at it too.
Speaker 1: Oh no, don't say it. Don't say that. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're saying our susceptibility to conspiracies is a vulnerability at
Speaker 1: a national security level, especially when people in positions of
Speaker 1: power buy into this ship? Right? Do we are we
Speaker 1: handing out stars too easily? In the military? I look
Speaker 1: at I mean General Flynn. I don't know. General seems
Speaker 1: like a pretty big position. And General Flynn, now he
Speaker 1: believes in all the Q and on nonsense. He believes
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party is all demonic Satan worshippers. This man
Speaker 1: was a general and from all the movies I've watched,
Speaker 1: that's like tip top if I recall. So, what's what's
Speaker 1: going on there? Are we not vetting our generals enough?
Speaker 1: Or is this just what an American general looks like
Speaker 1: right now? Batshit crazy? Well, to be fair, he is
Speaker 1: not the first batshit crazy general that the U. S.
Speaker 1: Military has ever had. Uh if you look, well, is
Speaker 1: that a problem? I guess you know what? Is that
Speaker 1: a problem too? Because I think that brings up a
Speaker 1: larger question. Right, the military in and of itself, we
Speaker 1: we put the military and a pedestal, and rightfully so
Speaker 1: they protect our country and and keep us safe. Uh.
Speaker 1: And yet there's this American ideal of the wild general
Speaker 1: who goes on in their custer with all of his
Speaker 1: crazy dogs and what have you. From the beginning, there's
Speaker 1: stories of generals who's who let reality be damned and
Speaker 1: that makes them heroes. But is that a myth that
Speaker 1: is starting to erode and hurt us in modern day warfare. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's it's always a it's just generally a
Speaker 1: mistake to put uh put people, uh you know, high
Speaker 1: up military leaders, military members in general, on a pedestal.
Speaker 1: You know, they the we should we should we should
Speaker 1: respect and honor the U S military and service members
Speaker 1: who you know, I swear an oath to the Constitution
Speaker 1: and raise their raise their right hand to do so.
Speaker 1: That is something that most people don't do. And they
Speaker 1: they the vast majority of of of of them do
Speaker 1: do so honorably. Then there's people like Michael Flynn who
Speaker 1: rise up in the ranks and and and and and
Speaker 1: go go places up there. And the thing about Flynn
Speaker 1: is that he was he was a very widely respected
Speaker 1: uh intel guy. Um he he he's credited with with
Speaker 1: really sort of transforming the intelligence world and you know,
Speaker 1: on that sort of reputation, he moved up the ranks
Speaker 1: and he was he was eventually part of the leader
Speaker 1: of the Defense Intelligence Agency. It's like the military's version
Speaker 1: of the c I a UM and they deal with, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, gathering intelligence on foreign militaries. And you know,
Speaker 1: at that point there's a there's a there's a really
Speaker 1: famous Washington Post article about Flynn's time at d i
Speaker 1: A and after, and one of the quotes that I
Speaker 1: found really fascinating is is some some of the some
Speaker 1: of his subordinates started talking about his sharing of what
Speaker 1: we're called Flynn facts, which were basically ideas, crazy sounding
Speaker 1: ideas that he would put out there and try to
Speaker 1: get the intelligence to sort of molding to his idea. So,
Speaker 1: for example, he would say something like like like you know,
Speaker 1: there's definitely like an Iraqi correct connection to this thing,
Speaker 1: or you know the Iranians are behind this or something,
Speaker 1: and it's like, that's not actually how you're supposed to
Speaker 1: start with intelligence. You're supposed to like, like you don't
Speaker 1: want to find the bad guy, like you're telling me
Speaker 1: this one of the architects of the Iraq War, like
Speaker 1: the idea of oh, there's weapons of mess destruction over here,
Speaker 1: let's go invade this country. That's not a good starting
Speaker 1: point for a good clean intel. You actually want to
Speaker 1: have a starting point of of being open to being wrong.
Speaker 1: And but the military doesn't create that, right does Does
Speaker 1: the military create those types of people? It seems like
Speaker 1: that is a vulnerability in a modern uh modern military?
Speaker 1: Right you were a soldier? Were there any classes on
Speaker 1: with any improv classes about being wrong and saying yes
Speaker 1: and to any other idea yes and no? I? Um I?
Speaker 1: You know the thing about that, well, the thing about
Speaker 1: that article that you know, it really sticks out to
Speaker 1: me is that you don't rise to this position without
Speaker 1: other people seeing warning signs on the way. And the
Speaker 1: thing about the military, um, you know, it's it's it's
Speaker 1: sometimes it is easier to pass the problem off to
Speaker 1: someone else than deal with it right now, you know,
Speaker 1: it's the federal government. And so it's hard to fire somebody,
Speaker 1: especially hard to get rid of somebody out of the military.
Speaker 1: And how do you get rid of somebody from the
Speaker 1: military who's you know, a little like saying some weird
Speaker 1: stuff like what is how do you put that in
Speaker 1: the performance review and justify it, you know, and so
Speaker 1: he he uh he and others have have sort of
Speaker 1: moved up into higher up ranks and and now we're
Speaker 1: kind of seeing the consequences of that where uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not Michael Flynn anymore. You know, it's General Flynn.
Speaker 1: It's all over his Twitter, it's you know, he introduced
Speaker 1: himself so much as General Flynn. And and yeah, I
Speaker 1: get it. You know, if you're retired general, sure, you
Speaker 1: want to you want to maintain their you know, the
Speaker 1: respect and you know kind of the dignity of that rank.
Speaker 1: But I'm not walking around, you know, telling everybody I'm
Speaker 1: Sergeant Zoldra, you know, like it's it's a it's a
Speaker 1: way to uh, you know, get more legitimacy to your ideas.
Speaker 1: And it's it's people here a lieutenant general, a former
Speaker 1: lieutenant general, or a former colonel um there. You know,
Speaker 1: there's there's lieutenant colonels out there that are sharing conspiracies
Speaker 1: that I've found and and people hear these because and
Speaker 1: they believe it because he's a general. Why would a
Speaker 1: general lie to me? You know, generals are very honorable
Speaker 1: and they they tell us the truth and they they've
Speaker 1: been there he's been in for a really long time,
Speaker 1: and so of course he's telling us the truth of
Speaker 1: out the the you know, the krack in being released
Speaker 1: and you know the uh the you know, the colonel
Speaker 1: telling us that the Green Berets have found mail in
Speaker 1: ballots at some secret facility in Europe that should have
Speaker 1: gone to Trump. You know, of course that's true because
Speaker 1: they're a colonel. I think there's there's a there's a
Speaker 1: secondary level of stolen valor that exists with folks like
Speaker 1: like Trump, who takes somebody like a General Flynn and
Speaker 1: they use his title as a way to bolster their
Speaker 1: own bs in a way that gives them credibility just
Speaker 1: because they're hiding behind the shield of somebody with the
Speaker 1: title like that. That that's but that's a whole that's
Speaker 1: a whole different. That's editorial I'm working on. I want
Speaker 1: to talk about some of these real life examples of
Speaker 1: theories and ideas that could put into action. I want
Speaker 1: to talk about the Wolverine Watchman. Uh, there's splinter group
Speaker 1: of the Michigan Liberty Militia and they're the guys who
Speaker 1: wanted to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer. I want to know a
Speaker 1: little bit about the story behind uh them and how
Speaker 1: they plotted to do exactly that. Yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think the main thing to know with them is that
Speaker 1: they have been stirred up by this broader milieu that
Speaker 1: we've been talking about, where conspiracism about a variety of things,
Speaker 1: but especially about COVID nineteam was kind of at the
Speaker 1: forefront of their motivation. UM. For them, it seems that
Speaker 1: they really believed that the lockdown efforts in Michigan and
Speaker 1: perhaps some that were being discussed nationally, we're really interpreted
Speaker 1: as government tyranny. They felt like it was going to
Speaker 1: slip into further tyranny, that that was just kind of
Speaker 1: the beginning of telling citizens what they could and could
Speaker 1: not do, and seemed to believe that it was their
Speaker 1: personal responsibility to do something about that. UM. And I
Speaker 1: think to Paul's earlier point, part of the reason this
Speaker 1: kind of conspiratorial thinking is damaging to our national security
Speaker 1: is not just what it can potentially open up internationally,
Speaker 1: but how it creates divisive content even among Americans. It's
Speaker 1: been really interesting to observe the militia movement over a
Speaker 1: long period of time because folks that I was watching
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eight, two thousand nine, two thousand ten,
Speaker 1: who were very skeptical of some conspiracy theories, who openly
Speaker 1: laughed at some of them that people kind of assumed
Speaker 1: were part and parcel of the militia movement. UM got
Speaker 1: turned on to more and more of them, especially during
Speaker 1: Trump's administration, especially as Q and on theories sort of
Speaker 1: spread across the Internet and especially on places like Facebook.
Speaker 1: And so I think that the idea that that some
Speaker 1: people have special knowledge or special insights into the way
Speaker 1: the world really works is a major variable creating some
Speaker 1: of this divisiveness and potentially creating the ability for some
Speaker 1: people to get so wrapped up in it that they
Speaker 1: feel like they have to commit violence to do something
Speaker 1: to course correct our culture here. I think that's that's
Speaker 1: a that's a great point. There's something special about feeling
Speaker 1: like you have that secret information UM, and that's something
Speaker 1: you can sort of build an identity around. It makes
Speaker 1: you feel like you have a sense of purpose. I
Speaker 1: guess the time that you spent with militia's talking to
Speaker 1: militia members, what is something that people don't understand about it?
Speaker 1: The modern militia movement that that you noticed. I think
Speaker 1: probably the major thing is that most militia members are
Speaker 1: average people. Like they They're really not social outliers. They
Speaker 1: have families, they have jobs. Militia activity is something that
Speaker 1: they care very much about, but they're not necessarily just
Speaker 1: centering their entire life around it in the way that
Speaker 1: we sort of stereotypically portray. And I think we have
Speaker 1: ignored that at our peril because something that I've been
Speaker 1: trying to get people to understand for a long time
Speaker 1: is that much of what they believe politically, ideologically in
Speaker 1: other ways too, is very similar to what a lot
Speaker 1: of Middle America believes, at least a lot of white
Speaker 1: Middle America. And I think that I kind of anticipated
Speaker 1: where we would go with the Trump election campaign and
Speaker 1: be on in ways that took a lot of people
Speaker 1: by surprise, because we we sort of dismiss militia ideology
Speaker 1: as fringe when actually they've just been a little bit
Speaker 1: louder and more comfortable with it in terms of sort
Speaker 1: of test owning it really when it's been something that's
Speaker 1: been shared among the a broader swath of the population
Speaker 1: really forever. But what do you say to somebody who
Speaker 1: here's militia and they're like, oh, those are white nationalists, Uh,
Speaker 1: far right extremists. How do you respond to how how
Speaker 1: far off are they with that assessment? You know, those
Speaker 1: elements do overlap, But I think that that's overly simplistic
Speaker 1: in a way that makes us downplay what real white
Speaker 1: nationalism is, makes us kind of miss opportunities for intervention
Speaker 1: potentially with people who aren't that extreme, people who could
Speaker 1: potentially be talked out of in some ways at least
Speaker 1: their conspiratorial thinking and some of that divisiveness as well.
Speaker 1: If we sort of paint them all with one brush,
Speaker 1: it is more of a blik picture than I think
Speaker 1: what we really have. We're gonna take a short break
Speaker 1: and we come back. We'll talk about what's next for
Speaker 1: military extremism here in the United States. Amy groups like
Speaker 1: the Oathkeepers have been emboldened by extremists of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party supporting them, but also hit with the realities of
Speaker 1: court sentences because of their role in January six. What's
Speaker 1: next for groups like the Oathkeepers? Yeah, I think probably
Speaker 1: with the Oathkeepers specifically, that they are done as we
Speaker 1: know them. Um, it's kind of interesting because the Oathkeepers
Speaker 1: have always had a bit of a mixed reputation within
Speaker 1: the broader militia world. Some people sort of appreciated what
Speaker 1: Stuart Rhodes and some of the other members were trying
Speaker 1: to do in terms of prioritizing oaths to civilians basically
Speaker 1: um whereas others thought that Rhodes was too big for
Speaker 1: his riches and speaking beyond what he was really able
Speaker 1: to do so based off of his own experiences and
Speaker 1: based off of how he kind of excluded some other
Speaker 1: long standing militia organizations when when he was first starting.
Speaker 1: So personally, I think that the trials and everything that's
Speaker 1: going to follow from that is going to be pretty
Speaker 1: devastating to the Oathkeepers as we have known them, But
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that the underlying ideology has gone away.
Speaker 1: Many groups that have previously affiliated as oath Keepers have
Speaker 1: just changed their name or taken down their Facebook pages
Speaker 1: or their other websites, and they still very much believe
Speaker 1: that the election was stolen that it is their personal
Speaker 1: responsibility to do something to prevent the next presidential election
Speaker 1: from being stolen. So I think headed into we're going
Speaker 1: to have to be incredibly cautious and keep an eye
Speaker 1: on the narratives that develop that as Trump continues his
Speaker 1: next campaign, as other people sort of try to out
Speaker 1: trump him. Um, we may see other figures even rise
Speaker 1: to the forefront in terms of their ability to appealed
Speaker 1: to these groups, to make them feel like their fears
Speaker 1: are legitimate. Paul, Um, I'm curious how we talked to
Speaker 1: people in the military, people in citizen militias. You served
Speaker 1: in the military, You served with white supremacists who had
Speaker 1: Nazi tattoos. Uh, how do you talk to someone like
Speaker 1: that about about their beliefs. I wish I had a
Speaker 1: good answer for this, Um, but it's UM, It's it's
Speaker 1: terribly difficult. UM. I can you know, you know, you
Speaker 1: brought up a point about the you know, Nazi tattoo.
Speaker 1: I was. I joined the Marine Corps in in you know,
Speaker 1: after nine eleven, and you know, got to my first unit,
Speaker 1: and UM, you know, one of my one of my
Speaker 1: senior senior marines, uh, you know, was a little bit
Speaker 1: higher in rank than than me, and he, you know,
Speaker 1: they were in charge, and I was the junior guy,
Speaker 1: and UM, I didn't know what it was at the time,
Speaker 1: but he had some he had some kind of like
Speaker 1: high all Hitler kind of coated tattoo um on his arm.
Speaker 1: And and it's you know, having a person like that
Speaker 1: in your unit, UM is incredibly dangerous. Uh. First and
Speaker 1: foremost that you know, can so discord among a close unit.
Speaker 1: You know the thing in the Marine Corps that we
Speaker 1: we talk about is is is a spree to cor
Speaker 1: this this sense of you know, working together. Um, and
Speaker 1: you're very very close and so uh and we're also
Speaker 1: we're also serving with uh you know black black you know,
Speaker 1: I got black grunts in my platoon. I've got you know,
Speaker 1: people from Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic and you know Mexico.
Speaker 1: Like it's all every it's it's just everybody. It's just
Speaker 1: a it's a mixed bag. It's all of America. And
Speaker 1: you have one one person who you know basically hates
Speaker 1: a portion of your platoon. UM. It kind of like
Speaker 1: makes you wonder, like what are they gonna Are they
Speaker 1: gonna do the right thing in combat? Will they will?
Speaker 1: They will they do? You know, will they will they
Speaker 1: protect the people that are you know they don't like um.
Speaker 1: You know it's there, there's that fear but but also
Speaker 1: it's it's it's the fear of of stealing weapons, stealing ammunition,
Speaker 1: and militias have UH done this many times in the past.
Speaker 1: There's there's plenty of examples of of of using military
Speaker 1: members who are parts of of militias or parts of
Speaker 1: UH you know, these kind of extremist groups and they
Speaker 1: basically use their military access to supply them with with
Speaker 1: guns and ammunition. It's also really concerning from an inteli
Speaker 1: standpoint to have have someone like that who who's you know,
Speaker 1: loyalty is maybe not with a hundred percent with the
Speaker 1: unit and with the military. When you have this dual
Speaker 1: loyalty to a militia group or or some you know,
Speaker 1: extremist group outside of the military, it's right for the
Speaker 1: Defense Department to wonder, you know, what are what are
Speaker 1: these what are these people doing? And um, it's it's
Speaker 1: a it's a real it's a real problem because once
Speaker 1: you're in inside, you're largely trusted. You know, you've made
Speaker 1: it through the basic training. You maybe have gone through
Speaker 1: some kind of security clearance or you know, but you're
Speaker 1: you're trusted. People aren't you know, skeptical of you or
Speaker 1: pushing back on you as much as they would a civilian.
Speaker 1: You know, that's outside of this military sphere. And and
Speaker 1: it's um, you know, it's it's the it's the supposed
Speaker 1: it's it's called an insider threat, and the military takes that,
Speaker 1: takes that very seriously. When it comes to like cybersecurity,
Speaker 1: there's insider threat uh, you know, software and things like that. Um,
Speaker 1: But there's not a lot to do for the insider
Speaker 1: threat for you know, the the guy like me who's
Speaker 1: joining the platoon and like this is my senior marine.
Speaker 1: I couldn't you know if I knew what that tattoo
Speaker 1: was at the time, Like how do I report that?
Speaker 1: What am I supposed to tell? People? Like? It shouldn't
Speaker 1: be a hard or difficult decision to get rid of
Speaker 1: you know what I think is a scumbag um um.
Speaker 1: You know, Like, but that's it's not always that easy.
Speaker 1: Is the military ripe for a conspiratorial thinking? UH? An
Speaker 1: institution that UH relies on loyalty but also blind faith
Speaker 1: can be hijacked by charisma and power to have people follow.
Speaker 1: I think the stand was something like of the folks
Speaker 1: charged on January six, Um, we're a part of the
Speaker 1: military at some point, does that number surprise you? Not?
Speaker 1: Not really, UM. I think it goes back to it
Speaker 1: goes back to what I said before, which is the
Speaker 1: military is a reflection of society. They're the people in
Speaker 1: the military. UM, They're they're not, you know, better or
Speaker 1: worse than the rest of America. UM. There just have
Speaker 1: all the guns. They have all the guns, and they
Speaker 1: should be better, shouldn't they shouldn't that be the goal.
Speaker 1: The people with the tanks and the guns should be
Speaker 1: better than all of us. They should be smarter, they
Speaker 1: should have the research for discipline, more loyal. Dear God,
Speaker 1: I hope that people with the tanks are better than me.
Speaker 1: They must be, they have to be. Look, look, Jordan,
Speaker 1: you're a dirt bag. So I'm sure they're better. Thank you.
Speaker 1: That makes me feel better, thank you, But for for Seriously,
Speaker 1: I think it's it's they're just like you and I, UM,
Speaker 1: and they're just as susceptible to this stuff. And and
Speaker 1: I I still I mean, just the other day I
Speaker 1: had a friend of mine, UM, you know, sharing something
Speaker 1: on on Instagram, like something about um funding for for
Speaker 1: the Ukraine war, um, and how it's way too much,
Speaker 1: you know, the the Biden administration is wasting all our
Speaker 1: money and sending nine billion dollars to this war and
Speaker 1: he could be spending it elsewhere. And you know, he
Speaker 1: was sharing it in like a positive manner, like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, this is crazy, and I it totally makes
Speaker 1: sense if you see that, like, oh, that's that's screwed up.
Speaker 1: And I looked at it. It's it's one of those things.
Speaker 1: And this happens a lot. It's like it's too good
Speaker 1: to check, and a lot of these things are just
Speaker 1: too good to check. And I looked, and I check
Speaker 1: because I care about this, this person as I served with,
Speaker 1: and I looked it up. It took me like basically
Speaker 1: five seconds to find the Congressional Research Service report, which
Speaker 1: is a nonpartisan outlet, and looking up Ukraine funding and
Speaker 1: it's right around nineteen billion. It's like a rounding error
Speaker 1: on the Department Defense budget. It's it's like the bang
Speaker 1: for our buck that we're getting in in security, in
Speaker 1: in um in US security and protecting Americans from our
Speaker 1: our competitor of ours, Russia, who's that has been a
Speaker 1: competitor of ours for a very long time and will
Speaker 1: be a competitor competitor of ours for a very long
Speaker 1: time that that that's spending is so small, and but
Speaker 1: but looking it up, you know, I'm like, I'm like, hey,
Speaker 1: here's here's the actual thing. And he's like, oh, thank you.
Speaker 1: You know, like some people, some people I've done that too,
Speaker 1: and they get pissed at me, you know, they they're
Speaker 1: really mad that I'm not buying into the conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: And it's like, it's it's hard to it's really hard
Speaker 1: to to push back on on on something like this
Speaker 1: when um, it's you've bought in so much to the
Speaker 1: idea that there's some kind of nefarious thing, you're closing
Speaker 1: off your mind to alternatives and and it's, um, it's
Speaker 1: just people. It's it almost becomes sign of kind of
Speaker 1: religious I think you should host some sort of Facebook
Speaker 1: class because that may be the only positive experience of
Speaker 1: people pushing back with an alternative point of view that
Speaker 1: was greeted with a thank you. Any kind of social
Speaker 1: media media this was. It was in the d m S.
Speaker 1: So I think, you know, we're nicer in the d
Speaker 1: M S if it's on the comments. You know, I
Speaker 1: gave you that's what this is. Slide into the d
Speaker 1: M S and give facts. That's what people need to do.
Speaker 1: It's about time. I actually, I actually do think that
Speaker 1: that is something we need to do. Um and more
Speaker 1: people should do that. You know. It's it's really, it
Speaker 1: really is like it is a bit um. It's it's
Speaker 1: it's it's a bit of a bummer to see, you know,
Speaker 1: like just these conspiracies flourish and then there's nobody that's
Speaker 1: like saying, like, here's the actual reality, you know, and
Speaker 1: I I will try my best if I think I
Speaker 1: might have a shot at at you know, correcting the
Speaker 1: record for at least one other person. Um. And and
Speaker 1: really that's that's the that's the point for me. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like it's like, yeah, you're not going to impact
Speaker 1: the entire world. You're not going to push back on
Speaker 1: on this this conspiracy mindset, um, and you know, just
Speaker 1: this the crazy amount of misinformation. No one person is
Speaker 1: going to be able to to to stop that all
Speaker 1: but one person can have impact on one other person,
Speaker 1: you know, like, and that's that's that's worthwhile. I was
Speaker 1: gonna say that I agree with that too. I Mean
Speaker 1: there's this academic research that talks about this backlash effect
Speaker 1: where if we factually correct conspiracy theories, people just kind
Speaker 1: of dig further into them. And I think that can
Speaker 1: be true in some circumstances, although I think it's just
Speaker 1: a little bit too pessimistic for me to believe that
Speaker 1: must be true always across the board. But if nothing else,
Speaker 1: especially in sort of those more public forums, when we
Speaker 1: say no, here's factual information, here's why the logic of
Speaker 1: this is wrong. I think at the very least it
Speaker 1: can prevent other people from slipping into that kind of
Speaker 1: thinking as well, that it might be a backstop too.
Speaker 1: You might not save that person, leave that man behind.
Speaker 1: That's a military concept, right, that's the laws, cause that
Speaker 1: person too bad. But maybe you can throw something down
Speaker 1: and they won't come rushing back in um amy. I
Speaker 1: want to ask, finally, what you expect to happen over
Speaker 1: the next few years with the citizen militia movement. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I always say I wish I had a
Speaker 1: crystal ball, because there are so many variables right now
Speaker 1: that it's difficult to know for sure what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: But I expect it's likely that we will have a
Speaker 1: resurgence once more, not just of militias, but of those
Speaker 1: groups that we tend to label right wing across the
Speaker 1: board headed into cycle because I think that there are
Speaker 1: multiple political actors who now have learned how to play
Speaker 1: into the fears of these groups in an instrumental kind
Speaker 1: of way, and who see them as something that they
Speaker 1: can weaponize for their own benefits. So I I expect
Speaker 1: that we will see um pockets of resistance. I don't
Speaker 1: think we'll see another January six. I think this is
Speaker 1: going to continue to be more about school boards and
Speaker 1: supposedly like culture war right type issues, but it's really
Speaker 1: about sort of who has a voice in culture, who
Speaker 1: has a voice in politics in a way that will
Speaker 1: absolutely show up in many of our campaign speeches, and
Speaker 1: what that election cycle is at least framed to be about,
Speaker 1: which I believe they're going to frame it to be
Speaker 1: more about sort of like the soul of America in
Speaker 1: a way that's going to be very appealing to a
Speaker 1: lot of these groups and galvanizing them into action. You
Speaker 1: hear that America the weapon of the future. It's us.
Speaker 1: We are being weaponized. Our susceptibilities are free thinking, we
Speaker 1: are being we are being weaponized. Uh well, thank you, guys,
Speaker 1: thank you to Paul, Thank you to Amy for joining
Speaker 1: us here. Today you're listening to Jordan Clapper Figures the Conspiracy.
Speaker 1: We'll see you next week. Listen to Jordan Clapper Fingers
Speaker 1: the Conspiracy from the Daily Show on Apple Podcast, the
Speaker 1: I Heart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.