Tucker Carlson’s Ship of Fools review, thoughts & notes

Narrated by: Tucker Carlson
Length: 6 hrs and 32 mins
Release date: 10-02-18

Listen to a sample here Ship Of Fools

“The only way that you solve a problem, is by honestly talking about it with the sum total of what you know about it… and that’s exactly what we cannot do.  Because the purpose is not to fix the problem, its for some people to feel like good people compared to others & others to maintain their control over the population” – Tucker Carlson in a 2018 Politicon debate


I’d been paying attention to a bit of Tucker Carlson on his show on Fox, not because I love Fox News, but because I think it’s important to get the other perspective.  I believe it can sharpen your own ideas on certain issues. (Know how the other side thinks kind of thing)

I saw a few segments for which I agreed with, and I liked his way of thinking… of asking.. Why is it that the other side (democrats) care so much about certain issues? And what happens when these issues fade from the lime light? I thought some of these clips were very insightful.

Note. He IS on Fox News, and they DO have an agenda which is Republican leaning… and his show which is 40 mins long (or something to that equivalent) so there’s a certain amount of crap that they cover and there’s going to be a certain amount that is perhaps not his true feelings yet he is guided to cover it because…well…FOX.

Some discussions are pretty good, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg_63wV7bL8 Pointing out the hypocrisies of the left such as their accusations of racism, yet sometimes doing exactly the same. Sometimes all that is needed is a simple admission of guilt & unfortunately nobody wants to do this of recent.

I’d also recently watched a debate with him at the Politicon 2018 conference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2SDFwu_JR8

(He was debating against someone that I really didn’t like so it wasn’t that difficult to side with him) Yet it was his debating skills and open to accepting ideas of the opposition that got to me.

What I do like is the Carlson seems to be open to learning new things, and will accept when he’s wrong. He also seems to hold a view that’s apart from the standard FOX right leaning agenda.

So when he went off by himself and wrote a book about he feels the system has been corrupted of recent years, I thought it’d be great to take a listen to it.


Its read by Tucker Carlson himself, so you get all the emphasis in the right places and considering that these issues are something that he’s passionate about, it gets you interested in such issues as well.

Topics talked about, Arguments & Fallacies

Generally his arguments are pretty good.  He points out a lot of information that I didn’t previously know about. (My focus is on all things China, including foreign and domestic policy and if that interacts with the USA…then I know that, but in general I know as much as the average educated American, in the fact that I’ve researched and gone into detail some things about key issues that interest me, but not everything. And I’m not American so I’m not subjected by the relentless media that doesn’t seem to care about what’s said anymore, but more about getting their opinion on the matter across)

His main topic throughout the book is on elites, and how they have been and are controlling the system to benefit them, but not necessarily the people of America.

He talks about various topics within this and points out a load of hypocrisies which is good to think about when deciding ‘should I take this person at their word or not?’

Essentially, from what it sounds like… he’s trying to get the average person to think a bit more about the situation around them. And in doing so he’s applying his own brand of reasoning and logic to state his case.

A list of some of the topics he goes through. (can read in more detail in the notes section):

-Big company hypocrisies (apple, facebook, yahoo, uber) and the politicians who support them whilst turning a blind eye to their human rights abuses.

-The 2 big political parties coming together to agree on big issues that are in fact immoral on many fronts. (war, making money regardless of workers conditions, fair trials, privacy etc) Bringing up certain politicians & business leaders viewpoints before they came to national prominence and how these viewpoints have changed once they came into the public limelight.

-Elites – specifically Chelsea Clinton and noting that whilst elites talk about a system based on merit, they play a different game and get by on connections that common people do not have access to, and after it all, claim to be ‘one of the people’, or ‘stand for the people’.

-Illegal immigration & the actual consequences of totally open borders. (Bernie Sanders Vox interview brought up. – Tucker defending Sanders)

-Military involvement

-Free speech, and the fact that he feels it’s under attack by both parties especially the democrats in recent years.

-The use of preconceived ideas to judge someone – raising the case of James Damor -ex google employee (very interesting series of events there) and how quick people are to judge & come to conclusions based on assumptions and not actually wanting to put in the effort to get to the truth. Argument being that this is of course wrong.

-Identity politics in the USA (a very big issue & problem) and the use of this by political parties to carve out ‘victories’ without necessarily helping the people, or in some case regressing the headway made on certain issues just to make a political standpoint.


-Male, Female equality – bringing up the wage myth (yep, turns out it’s a myth in America that women are paid less.. just like Australia, it’s just people politicising an issue to maintain or get power. – more information in the notes section)  + the education disparity myth between male & female graduates.

-The environment & ridiculous predictions and calls to action to securitise the issue for political gain.

A lot of this is very interesting and it’s well worth the listen. However a few thoughts just from this.

The topic of abortion seems out of place, he seems like he’s gone out of his way to bring the abortion topic into the fold of the book. You get the impression as a listener that he’s included it to meet certain checkpoints on his usual Fox Media audience.

Some of his arguments have logical fallacies like comparing India & China to the USA, when clearly those countries have gender biases, and he seems to portray the issue as either for or against, no middle ground…which is simply not true.

He overlying argument of the chapter that abortion comes up in is about issues being hijacked for political gain, which is a fair enough point by itself, but I feel like he’s having to reach out very far to incorporate abortion into this. (still some interesting points from this).  See notes for extra information.

His argument about free speech whilst good comes to a logical fallacy, whilst stating that people’s opinions should not be censored and that democrats sought to limit companies from propagating false narratives & information, he leads the reader to assume that companies have the same rights as individuals.  This is not true.  Yet he ploughs forward with confidence that many listeners would assume that as many things that came before this statement were true, then this one must be true also. This is classic sophistry. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Tucker did it on purpose, it could just be that he didn’t think about it enough.  Yet it pretty important when these examples are used to awaken people’s critical thinking skills on these issues.

What he doesn’t talk about

Don’t forget his main overlying topic is about elitism and the subjugating of the system. And again, it’s a noble topic to discuss, especially with his apparent aim of getting people to think critically.

Even though he brings it up very slightly in the introduction to the book, he doesn’t come back to the topic of Big Oil/ resource companies that subvert the rule of law through lobbying (legal corruption) to get massive tax concessions which they then use to support more lobbying to achieve less regulation to make more profit. All money that could be used to help support America.

He doesn’t bring up the War On Drugs, which is a fairly major issue and ties into many of the issues he talks about including illegal immigration, crime etc.  And it’s a major issue that most (I understand that Tucker Carlson may not fit in the majority) but most Republicans talk about. Many elites corrupt this issue to maintain their voter base or to continue making money at the higher levels of government & to justify a large government.  Ending the ‘war on drugs’ would do America a lot of good to stamp out the elitist power that is going on with this issue whilst simultaneously allowing money to flow back into the economy (smaller government – law enforcement + tax revenue from legalised, in-America production) + stopping of illegal immigration from international drug smugglers.

Tucker Carlson is quick to point out the hypocrisies for Democrats/ leftists who are all about issues such as environmentalism yet when it comes to conflicting arguments such as illegal immigrants setting forest fires (good point made – read about it in the note) they conveniently ignore all cases of it because it would detract from their major points; yet when it comes to Tucker’s own point… he obviously hypocritically leaves out this juicy War On Drugs point. If you want to stamp out illegal immigration (the bad people) the War on Drugs is a key issue.

He does bring up the frustration of the people for the system that they live in, and points out this as a reason for voting for Trump.  A very apt thing to recognise in my view point. I wish he went into more detail about this, as he does in his speeches, but if the main topic is meant to be about America being subjugated by the elites, then rightfully so it remains a small part.


I get the impression that there are some things that while he may want to talk about.. he’s been guided to not talk about them due to his contract with Fox.  I’m not 100% sure of this, but that would be a logical assumption to make.

There’s a few logical fallacies that he makes, a few jump to conclusions that don’t really line up with what he’s saying.

Yet, I believe the point of this book is to get people to think critically about the state of America and this, he does very well.

Listen to it, take notes, and pause it when you don’t agree with something, do your own research into things he brings up, and you’ll find yourself learning a lot.

Overall it was a good book, and an enjoyable book.  It’s difficult not to get passionate about the issues when its presented with Carlson’s thinking.

The task Tucker has taken upon himself is an important one. It’s to get people to think critically and to get people to open up to not just their assumed idea of the situation, but to actually find out what’s going on.

Bernie Sanders is another person that does this very well, the difference being that Bernie is a little smarter, and actually names names of the big companies and individuals / the big issues that plague the country. Yet Tucker Carlson’s achievement is no less admirable. His audience from Fox is generally one that doesn’t think critically about a lot of things…that probably can’t cope with the big issues that Bernie Sanders brings up, or are not ready yet; but Carlson is starting to bring them to the table in terms of questioning basic held assumptions, and this is fantastic to see.

For everyone else, it’s an enjoyable and interesting read, take notes, question, don’t just not listen because you don’t agree with a couple of things, he makes some good points and you’ll probably learn a lot from what he has to offer.

Tucker talking about the book


Even at the start of the book, I’m left thinking…This is a book that I’ll listen to again.

He’s anti-war,
Anti-MASS immigration.

Wants government to do more about the opioid epidemic.

Discusses the elite ruling class and how insulated they are from the rest of Americans and how they got to be like that.

Essentially from the definitions, he is a Popularist.

From Wikipedia – In politics, populism refers to a range of approaches which emphasise the role of “the people” and often juxtapose this group against “the elite”. There is no single definition of the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various things since that time.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Message to voters from the system, ‘all your fears that democracy isn’t real…is true, it’s an oligarchy and they are trying to go around the system to restore the status quo which is elites in power.’

The book is about the elites.

 Chapter 1 -The convergence.

The history of two parties coming together I presume.

Washington Post is one of the most anti Trump newspapers out there. It’s now owned by Jeff Bezos of Amazon.

Calvinism/ Secular Calvinism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism

is a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice set down by John Calvin and other Reformation-era theologians.

Talks about Apple’s human rights records in China. And the Foxconn factories.

1974 Studs Terkel.

Working (work it) book with interviews for a bunch of blue collar workers. Later became a musical.

On Uber

Uber “as we move around out cities this week, let’s take a moment to think about what we could do to help”.

One obvious thing would be to treat its own employees more decently.

Ubers driver are contract workers therefore don’t receive compensation, leave, health insurance. They’ve averted the system to make millions on the backs of exploited workers.

MIT study found 3/4 of drivers made less than minimum wage on Uber.

Instead of being denounced as exploitative, it was lauded as a brilliant business model.

Zuckerberg & Facebook

Zuckerberg disliked his users.

Talks about Facebook data and how much it monitors you.

Studies have been done that showed Facebook likes and notifications gave users dopamine hits. And that it’s algorithm notifies you at certain times of the days to make the the dopamine hit happens at the right times because it will be more effective to uses. Thus becoming highly addictive.

A 2017 British study noted that Instagram was the most destructive for social media addiction.

No elites do anything about this.

Media rarely covers it either.

Compares Facebook to the cigarette companies.

Sometimes Facebook promoted issues as they were trending within the Facebook employees building, despite the fact they were NOT naturally trending on the platform as a whole. They in effect manipulated it to push an agenda. ‘Black lives matter’ was such an example. One Facebook employee was fired for writing ‘all lives matter’ on their personal Facebook page.

Me. Seems fairly authoritarian in terms of what messages are allowed and what is not.

Everyone is free to share their opinions , but we will shout ours louder, give more room for them…Oh and if you state yours…Yeah, you’re fired… But this platform is about the exchange of ideas. Well, is it? Because that’s not the example you’re laying down.

Many of this evidence was from evidence with Gizmodo and staff interviews. (Probably former staff)

In Feb 2015 blocked 55,000 pieces in 20 different countries at the request by foreign governments.

Recently eager to cave to demands of the Chinese government.

Yet of course when or if it happens it will be applauded rather than shunned.

About the Clinton’s & Chelsea Clinton

Talks about Chelsea Clinton as well.

Super elite.

At 23 she was making $120,000 a year at McKenzie.

At 26 she moved and started working for a chemicals industry analyst.

Went to Stanford university. (On merits only apparently…sure)

Went to the most prestigious Washington DC high school.

Then got received at Oxford to study a Master’s in International Relations for which Oxford stated “we’re happy to extend and continue our relationship with the Clinton family”

Me. Basically she’s been elite from start to finish, and then her family claims that she’s one of the common people, or rather can represent the common people.

She’s floated from 1 amazing job to another, all not really having deserved it but hair on her name and her elite status…Which after a while the experience gained will have actually gained her a noteworthy position on her own credit. But she had a seriously unfair advantage compared to almost everyone else.

Chelsea got a special correspondent job with NBC towards her mother’s election and was reportedly paid 600,000 dollars a year. Far more than any other journalist or reporter. Insane as well considering she had never worked in television before nor had any experience with it whatsoever.

Had appeared on television for a total of 58 minutes. Paid her $26,784 for every minute on the air.

AIC board. Got paid 50,000 dollars a year + 200,000 a year in stock.

She apparently ‘rejects the concept of money’

Some media journalists stated that Chelsea was the product of nepotism & cronyism, or…’Playing through life on the easiest setting without even realising it.’

Yet most applauded her whilst dismissing the obvious advantages and said it was because of her own talents.

Me. Nepotism is exactly correct it’s the very definition of that.

Cronyism. = Same as nepotism yet based on friendships regardless of qualifications. Nepotism is solely on family relationships.

Chelsea wrote a children’s book that the publisher called targeted towards ‘tiny feminists and activists’

Me. Fucking ridiculous.

The husband is a hedge fund manager.

Read some of Chelsea Clinton’s tweets. Apparently they’re praised for being amazing. Yet they’re just absolute shit.

Tucker states, It didn’t occur to Chelsea though, in all of her brave writings, to challenge the system that raised her up but simultaneously kept others down, which extends the difference between rich and poor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Clinton for more information.

Back to chapter one of the book (chapter 2 in the audio files)  on Chelsea Clinton with her amazing vocabulary.

2013 profile in parade magazine

“Clintons concentration does not waver, she demonstrates a masterly command of the issues and swiftly zeros in in crucial questions. Statistics roll comfortably off her tongue praise comes as quickly as critical suggestions. Wonky words like ‘metrics’ and ‘cohort’ fit naturally into her carefully constructed sentences. ”

Tucker, “if you’ve graduated from high school, you might not consider words like metrics and cohorts particularly advanced vocabulary.

New York times disagree and celebrated Chelsea Clinton for suing words like

Anathema and behemoth 2009 article congratulated her for using the word ‘refracted’.

2014 Fast company praised Chelsea as being a fluent English speaker…But also a visionary innovator. ”  Chelsea is as forward thinking and open minded as any silicon valley entrepreneur of her generation”

Glamour magazine honoured Chelsea Clinton with one of their  2014 ‘women of the year’ awards. For her ‘important work at the Clinton foundation’ yet the magazine wasn’t specific about what that entailed.

She wrote a socially aware children’s book called ‘She Persisted’ 

Me. I would like to take a look at that children’s book. I wonder how many children actually read it?

Me. OK, I don’t know what the word anathema means, but I’m going to look it up.

Born in 1980

Anathema = (ecclesiastical) A ban or curse pronounced with religious solemnity by ecclesiastical authority, often accompanied by excommunication; something denounced as accursed. [from early 17th c.]
Synonyms: ban, curse
(by extension) Something which is vehemently disliked by somebody.
Synonyms: bête noire
(literary) An imprecation; a curse; a malediction

What would be a sentence I could use this in?

Chapter 2 – Importing a serf class

Basically on illegal immigration.

The “yes, we can”. Was originally from Cesar Chavez from Venezuela. https://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/08/us/cesar-chavez-president-obama/index.html for some extra reading.

Chavez was adamantly against illegal immigration yet somehow ironically people on the left currently state quotes from him to support their notion supporting illegal immigration.

The ‘wetbacks’ term came from Chavez. Originally he was the leader of the workers union.

From Wikipedia – the term was originally coined and applied only to Mexicans who entered the U.S. state of Texas from Mexico by crossing the Rio Grande, which forms the border between Texas and Mexico, presumably by swimming or wading across the river and getting wet in the process。https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetback_(slur)

Republicans don’t care about the territorial integrity of the country they live in.

At the same time Republicans weren’t sure about securing the border, they gave millions of dollars to African countries to secure their border. And 15 million dollars for yak herding to China.


When Bernie Sanders sat down with an interview with Vox, the interviewer suggested why not totally open the borders?

Even though Bernie supported amnesty international and a bunch of other immigration human rights institutions , he stated that by doing so to completely open the borders it would instantly make America poor.

He said that economically that was not the right more for America.

He was heavily criticised afterwards for saying so.

Yet in reality, that is the truth. There’s an economic component that can’t go away just by refusing to talk about it or just simply ignoring it

Me. Maybe try to look at that interview.



Passage from that article:

So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein. “Open borders?” he interjected. “No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.” The idea, he argued, is a right-wing scheme meant to flood the US with cheap labor and depress wages for native-born workers. “I think from a moral responsibility, we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty,” he conceded, “but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.”

There are two problems with Sanders’s view on this, one empirical and one moral. He’s wrong about what the effects of an open-border policy would be on American workers, and he’s wrong in treating Americans’ lives as more valuable and worthy of concern than the lives of foreigners.

The existing economic literature suggests that eliminating all barriers on movement between nations would increase world GDP by 50 to 150 percent. The midpoint estimate is that the world economy would double. That’s because people are much more productive in rich countries. Because of better technology, more skilled co-workers, better institutions, and the like, a worker doing the same job will earn vastly more for it in the US than in, say, Haiti. And if everyone were able to take jobs where they’d earn the most, the cumulative effect on the economy would be massive.

Me. The author of the article seems to be confusing legal immigration with illegal. Legal immigration is fine, which includes refugees, yet completely open borders is ridiculous. And I think both Bernie Sanders & Tucker Carlson make this point very well. It seems like another situation of people assuming that their definition (with all their connotations) is the actual definition, when in fact that’s not how it works.

Diversity for thee, but not for me. Even Obama says this.

On the politicisation of the environment

Sierra club
Changing on policies. Originally just about population stabilisation…Then radically changing the direction to increase immigration.

Playing the race card continually.
Check into the Sierra club. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Club

States that, the elites has redefined immigration as a moral issue and has thus shutdown debate over its costs.
For the affluent immigration has few costs and many benefits. Yet for the middle class and lower class it’s the opposite.

Almost everyone that has been educated at university or even high school has a basic idea of supply and demand, they know that if there’s an overabundance of something the price falls because there’s not enough demand, the tracking boom crashed oil prices, it’s why printing money causes inflation….It’s why sand is cheap.

But does this work for labour markets too?

“Noo, of course not” says your elitist neighbour . Immigration is the one exception to the most basic law of economics.

“It increases the size of the economic pie, and everyone benefits….It’s like magic”

You’re happy to believe it because it can benefit you.

Chapter 3 -Foolish wars

Max boot. Foreign policy conflict expert https://www.cfr.org/expert/max-boot

Apparently he’s just circular approved. (echo-chamber)

Bill Clinton was a draft dodger?


Yes. He was a draft dodger, and then was pardoned by Jimi Carter later in life. Not too sure for what reason he was pardoned though. Was it his family connections or not?

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry & Joe Biden all voted for the war that would give Bush unlimited power to fight the war on terror.

Me. What was it informs Carlson’s take on the war on terror at the time? Was he a reporter at that time?? Maybe need to check this out?

He seems to have a lot of freedom in his show on the Fox network, however just how much freedom does that allow when it comes to such key issues as this?

MeHe raises a good point. What happens to countries after the media stop caring to report on it, after a major event has happened?

Obama presided over Gaddafi’s fall, yet Libya is now a failed state once again.

He didn’t do anything to put in place or workout and help the country get back on its feet.

And the media didn’t care…Because there were more interesting things to concentrate on.

Under Obama, at one point there were troops stationed in 800 military bases across 70 countries and the Pentagon was dropping bombs in at least 7 different countries.

The point is not that Obama = bad. The point is that the democratic party had turned to being opposed to war to being fundamentally supportive of it with few exceptions within the party.

John Kerry stood up and stated that the USA must intervene for Syria due to the human rights abuses. Despite the fact that nothing that was happening was risking Americans.

Me. Many people would ask, why Syria? Why not other countries? Other countries that continually have human rights abuses? (China, North Korea, many Africa countries)…Because this (Syria) was the rallying point of the day.

New York times is highly democratic party leaning. Not just left in terms of ideology, but sticking by the democratic party no matter what they state. …Which of course is not necessarily the left leaning viewpoint that many people might assume.

Assad government chemical weapons attack.

Carlson states sarcastically, When you’re pulling the trigger the spirit is always pure. When someone else is doing it, it is inherently evil.

Liberals believe they bomb countries for the same reason they used to oppose the bombing of countries….Because it makes the world a better place. It’s the intent that matters. (Me. That last part is true. But fair enough to do a full switch-a-roo in your viewpoints…it is hypocritical)

Trump in a GOP debate stated, that America should never have been in Iraq. That they knew there was no evidence that there were WMDs.

The chapter on Chelsea Clinton saying that her ‘big words’ were something a high schooler would know. Need to listen to that again.


Me. Who the fuck is bill crystal?  Tucker goes on about him for flip flopping around the place and constantly getting this incorrect by way of using no evidence to support whatever he’s claiming at any particular time.

Editor at the weekly standard.


Chapter 4 -Shut up, they explained.

Talking about free speech.

“Free speech makes free thought possible”

The idea that certain acts of free speech are so violent that they constitute assault. And therefore require violence to fight against it.

Therefore punching a person you don’t agree with under this premise is perfectly acceptable.

Pew research shows 40% of millennials believe the government should have the right to ban free speech with negative views towards minority groups.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ (actual article)

Me. Disagree with. He’s talking about free speech, yet he’s saying that the move was for Congress to ban companies from disseminating scientifically inaccurate materials was wrong.

Me. Is it? I don’t agree with that?  (This was in the context of climate change)

He states, that it amounts to the criminalisation of freedom of speech.

Me. I disagree with that. It’s a company doing it. That is fundamentally different.  (Talking about Exxon mobile)

James Damor had a degree in biology from Harvard

James Damor memo on Google’s political culture. Wrote a piece about gender preferences when it comes to work.

Need to take a look at that. Was demonstrably put down, fired, became a crisis, Vox called him a sexist.

Really need to see this article and judge for myself.


Speaking with Dr. Debra Soh on the memo. And explanations on what was actually written and the science behind it.

Ideological echo chamber

“It’s better to be outrageous than honest”

Joe Rogan interview.

James “they believe you can only be racist if you have power, and you can only be sexist if you have power”

Rogan, ” they really believe that? That’s a redefining of the term”

Joe Rogan interview with James Damore (2 hrs 39mins) [really good discussion, well worth the watch]

“We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism. On average, gender preferences differ in many ways”

Can I get the actual document as a PDF?

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf  The actual document. (I’ve read this, however i couldn’t see all the references, just a bunch of notes at the bottom of each page)

Chapter 5 -The diversity diversion

About identity politics.

Brings up the tax code abnormalities.

“The quickest way to control a population is to turn it against itself, divide and conquer, that’s how the British controlled India”

Me. There’s some stuff about segregation of race which I don’t think he’s stating all the facts.

He’s arguing that there shouldn’t be segregation for universities that have started implementing it. Yet my argument and I think their argument is that sometimes ‘safe spaces’ are necessary.

He equivocates this to a proper racist way back in the day saying that racists would have been proud of the decision, thus inferring that the school’s decision is racist.

It depends on the context of the situation.

Ta Nehisi Coates & the further segregation of black & white people


“This is how we lost the white man” Coates.

“The case for reparations”  America through the lens of racial grievance. 7000 words +

Apparently applauded for the most outstanding piece of journalism in years.

However it came to no real policy suggestions nor did it get to its point very quickly. Nothing changed but a bunch of rich white people felt slightly better about themselves for feeling bad from their ancestors.

“Between the world and me” Coates big book that Tucker says is unusually bad.

Apparently a finalist for the Pulitzer prize.

No 1. New York Times best seller. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Between_the_World_and_Me

Coates now writes comic books Black Panther & Captain America.

Trump out performed Mitt Romney with black and Latino voters.

Me. Technically it is true with the black voters….but really only just. Its only better by a few % points and they so overwhelmingly voted for the other side, that its almost negligible. Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

Blacks in general have not been impressed with his (Coates’) books.

Hill writes, this book is pretty much treason to the movement and to America, it aims to divide rather than to bring together.  .

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/ta-nehisi-coates-black-critics-john-mcwhorter/ an article that explains viewpoints from both Jason D. Hill & John McWhorter on the disappointment and disapproval of Coates’ writing.

Princeton’s Cornell West, said Coates was the equivalent as the neo-white supremacists right.

John McWhorter (black dude) says the book is pretty much racist and would never have been disingenuously praised if the fact that Coates wasn’t a black author. States arguably it makes the racial situation worse.

Need to look at the people that claim one thing especially racial segregation, and do they practice what they preach when it comes to where they will live?

He says,  Identity politics …Belief that every American is part of a sub identity , tribalism. Easy way to run a country by playing off the different identity groups, however obviously the most divisive and cruel.

People hijacking rallies to promote their own agendas. “I believe in science” rally became about gender, immigration. Etc,  then the original point became worthless.

Asians in average earn more than whites and are incarcerated less than whites…Yet it’s the whites that get the blame because they earn more in average than blacks. For which of course statistics are taken out of context.

Me. Also the fact that the ‘whites’ are blamed for historical transgressions. Yet, obviously it wasn’t those individuals that were involved in that

Chapter 6 elites invade the bedroom

At this current point in time (2018) there are now more female managers then there are male.

Me. Don’t really agree with his link between feminism and abortion. Some fairly graphic stuff in there. And it seems like he’s just saying abortion or no abortion not the degrees that lay in between. (by which trimester its ok to do it, under which circumstances – incest, rape, economic conditions etc)

States the case that in India and China when there’s abortions there’s an imbalance and male populations increase. Infers that America may have this problem too. But of course he doesn’t take into consideration the cultural values of those particular countries, which is not particularly the value of the united states.

I feel like he’s going out of his way…Reaching out on a limb here to make his case.

I also feel that perhaps he needs to talk about this topic because it’s something that his audience has come to expect. (the Fox News audience who are mainly, (not all) but mainly right leaning.)

I don’t actually think it’s that important to where he’s going with the elites and the control.

At the same time contextually he was talking about the hijacking of issues, then perverting them to their own agendas. So in this context it does make sense. Yet… I feel something is missing, or maybe rather added even though it shouldn’t be just so that this issue can be touched on as well.

To be fair there are a lot of dumb arguments on the ‘for abortion’ front that he cites.

He also simplifies some findings.

Ie. In 2013 Sarah Dittum wrote a piece in the guardian title ‘why women have a right to sex selective abortion’ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/19/sex-selective-abortion-womans-right

“As far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter why any women wants to end her pregnancy, even the most terrible reason for having an abortion holds more sway that the best imagined reason for compelling a woman to carry to term. ”

Me. Jeez.

May 2012 Quotes from about planned parent-hood. “No planned parenthood clinic will deny a woman from having an abortion based on her reasons for having one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex selective abortions”

Tucker – in other words , abortion is more important than girls.

Me. That’s…Actually not the right point to take away from that. It COULD be a reason in those states that don’t prohibit it. But it doesn’t NECESSARILY mean that that is the case every time.

This is why I feel like this issue shouldn’t have been included in this book. Because whilst Tucker states many things with clear reasoning and easy examples…He has to really reach for this one (the abortion topic), and still comes to a non-logically correct conclusion.

He would have been better not including the issue… But then I also feel he was pressured to include it somehow, as it does read as well as the other issues and topics he brings up in the rest of the book.

Then goes in to talk about Saudi Arabia and female injustices there such as honour crimes.

And then the impact on immigrants to other countries.

Genital mutilation in America left over from immigrant cultures.

Me. Wow, yeah. That’s pretty insane.

2015 Cologne sexual assault referenced.

States that these practices…Including the raping and abduction of 1,400 female children around the age of 14 by a group of Pakistani men in England, was largely covered up because the British government didn’t want to be seen as attacking the Muslim community and singling out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

Tucker states, your assume the feminist community in America would be outraged by this…Yet.. there was no mention of it, even when Britain was supposed to hold the same liberal, democratic values as Americans.

A case like this stands against the progress women have made over the generations.

So why is it that feminists in America don’t seem to be interested in this issue?

Sheryl Sandberg’s ‘Lean In‘ book. 

Corporate chieftain.

Employees for Facebook came up with more than 70 gender preferences for their site.

Me. Did they? Why? Why does it matter? Why do people always have to be part of a group in America? Why can’t you just accept the individual?

This person is a nice person, so they’re a nice person. That person is a douchebag…Not because they’re trans, or decided to dress up as a woman when they have a beard…. But because that individual’s actions are in line with being a douchebag. If they’re a douche bag they’re a douche bag, grouping someone into a particular demographic no matter what that is…doesn’t change that.

Me. I really hope the rest of the world doesn’t become like this. America has always had a bit of a problem with that. But it shouldn’t have to rub off on other countries because we consume their movies and media.

Judge a person on who they are. If you like them, good, if you don’t, good. Move on. Judge people on who they are as an individual, how accepting they are towards you and by their actions. That’s all.

Why are women segregated by sex in Sport?   Because they’re biologically different.

Me. Fair enough point.

Family structures gender wage disparity. Marriage etc, raising of children.

Wtf is ‘passing’?

Talks about suicide.

And the gender imbalance in terms of education in terms of boys being more unruly than girls.

‌Turns out this 77c in the dollar is the same case as Australia.

Me. Although I think in America it’s not illegal for women to be paid less.

‌People with equal experience at exactly the same job get paid the same, sometimes women even more.

Australia’s case is that by law, a man & a woman at the same level, in the same job with the same work experience HAVE to be paid the same. It is actually illegal not to be paid the same.

From what I gather, in the USA it is much the same, yet it is rather the norm that people are paid the same. I don’t think its illegal to not pay the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_equal_work#United_States for further reading, it’s a bit ambiguous. Sometimes it looks like it IS illegal, sometimes that its not. Australia though it definitely IS illegal to pay females and males differently for the SAME job.

This 77c in the dollar stuff comes from people misinterpreting statistics or interpreting them in ways that support their idea, even though its not true.

For example on average there are more male engineers than female engineers.  They are all paid the same for the same experience. (a relatively high wage compared to other professions)

However there are more nurses & teachers that are female than male. Nurses & Teachers are fairly average in their salary. (teachers in America seem to be struggling a lot in fact)

When you take all the wages of all the people that are employed whether it be engineers, lawyers, nurses, teachers, etc. and ONLY look at the male female average incomes this produces a result that females are paid less.  Yet it doesn’t take into account that people are literally working different jobs that have a different pay scale.

Therefore the statistics are skewed to fit the narrative rather than what it actually shows, and that’s that the female- male ratio is higher in jobs that don’t earn as much compared to the ones where the female-male ratio is lower.

Research this yourself if you’re unsure, but generally this is how it goes. Obama, a president I really like who was able to focus on the American people often lied about this statistic, which is a shame because if you’re wasting money following issues that aren’t actually a problem… then you’ve lost quite a bit of respect in my mind. I think the conservatives have every right to ask… well if you’re clearly doing it for this, what other issues are you doing it for?

Evidence below: (Of which I’ve read both articles)


The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35.


The difference in Obama’s two statements is subtle but important. The 77-cent figure derived from a federal government measure does not apply to men and women who do the same job. Instead it refers to the average disparity between what men and women earn, period. All women’s earnings compared to all men’s earnings.

The CCC a 1930s era government program putting men to work for soil degradation , national parks, road construction etc. Hugely popular on a bi partisan level. They got paid 30$ a month and had to send $25 back to their families.

‘The KKK have less than 10,000 members between them.’

Me. Out of a population of more than 300 Million was what he was inferring, meaning pretty small.

Tucker, ‘and none of them have much power’

Me. Yes, but how many like the idea of it, but just haven’t subscribed to be a member? How much is this message influencing stuff, not by its membership numbers but by its message.

The NRA has members that’s 5% of the population yet casts a disproportionate shadow for allowing or rather not allowing meaningful gun policy to being talked about.

The point is in the message.

‘White identity politics will be a response but it won’t be because of Donald trump, it will be when identity politics is the only game there is.’

Chapter 5 (6 on the audio files) on identity. Near the end.

Chapter 6 (7 in the audio files)

On education

Women are outnumbering men in most educational statistics.

There’s an enormous amount of research data that state that the opposite to what many feminists are claiming.

Many people lament the lack of educational opportunities for women. At the time Obama was saying this. March 2009

More girls graduate from high school. Far more from college.
Women now earn 62% of associate degrees,
57% of bachelor degree,
60% of masters degrees.
52% of doctorates.
Gap even wider in non-white neighbourhoods.
70% of all masters degrees awarded went to black women. 30% to black men.

“The administration sought to close a gender gap that no longer existed.”

Me. That’s an interesting point. I’ll have to research that. No wonder many want smaller government, they feel the government is just wasting money on non-issues.

“Girls thrive when boys fail, this is the underlying assumption of modern feminism”

Me. I’m not sure that’s exactly what it’s arguing. I can understand that from all these examples it would be easy to come to that conclusion… Yet I doubt that’s the aim of the movement.

Sure there’s a lot of misinformed people in every movement, but that can’t be the case as a whole. If it is…Yeah, that should be fought tooth and nail.

Basically asks the question throughout this chapter. Why is it OK to discriminate against people based solely on their gender as the feminist movement does to men?…Based on something they cannot choose, yet obviously if a movement was designed to discriminate against gays, or females, or any other attribute of a person that they cannot change…Obviously nobody would stand for this, so why is it okay for the feminist movement to do it against men & have it approved by Congress??

That. Well if this, then why not this? Or if…Everyone agrees not to discriminate ABC based on DEF, then why is it okay to discriminate 123 also based on DEF?

Chapter 7 -They don’t pick up trash anymore

Talks about homelessness.

He seems to talk about homelessness “many cities tolerate record numbers of homeless people”.

Me. They tolerate it? It sounds like he’s inferring that it’s a choice to be homeless?

I wonder what his actual thoughts on this are?

Because it sounds like he’s equating the trash in the city, the human faeces, the hypodermic needles etc to the homeless people…Like they’re just part of the trash..? They’re humans, not objects. So far his point seems incredibly harsh. I wonder if he’ll go into detail about what got them there in the first place?

Edit. He does not. Yet his point is not that they’re there (the homeless), but that the trash they leave behind is there.

He states “the term environmentalism has changed, it’s now about empowering elites rather than cleaning up the environment.

Modern environmentalists will literally step over environmental hazards in their way to their jobs to ‘save the environment’ ”

Me. Hahah yes, that’s very true. There’s a movement at the moment that is Swedish I think licking up trash whilst you run. Modern environmentalists applaud this, yet will never participate. https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/inspire-me/101110383/swedish-plogging-is-the-hot-new-fitness-trend

Also…I’ve seen the lack of care for rubbish in new York, and I think many people have. People literally walking last piles of trash (they stack it directly in the street for some reason) to go off and tell others how to be more environmentally conscious.

In my opinion, Tucker Carlson’s point here is a valid one.

Me. For a guy that seems against the elites, he brings it up in such a small way, I mean every bit helps, however why not go after the massive issues he only touches on? Like the corporate tax rate? The fact that massive companies are getting massive tax breaks? That many massive companies are getting massive subsidies even though they obviously don’t need it, like the oil industry, the Koch brothers for instance?

Tucker & Bernie Sanders are very similar in the fact that they don’t like the elites. This as per the definition is popularism (in relation to the philosophical political lines of thinking)

The difference is that Bernie is left leaning, and Tucker is right. Also that Bernie is a whole lot smarter in my opinion and also has the audacity to tackle big issues and name names when it comes to who is actually subverting the system, a system that should have the direction of looking after the country and its people.

It IS important what Tucker does, as it engages the right leaning people and gets then to think about issues in a logical matter. Although I can’t help but think he sometimes draws incorrect conclusions from the evidence he presents and therefore misleads people sometimes. However I also wondering if the reason he doesn’t tackle the big issues is because he knows his general audience can’t handle it? . Chip away at illogical thinking bit by bit, and make them realise through their own thinking the big issues.

Whereas Bernie Sanders attacks the big issues straight away, provides mass context for it, and is unapologetic for it.

I also wonder what would happen if Tucker Carlson and Bernie Sanders got talking for a Joe Rogan kind of experience a 2.5 hour kind of talk. Not a timed, say as much of my stuff on a particular platform…and ignore the other person kind of deal that is the usual for Tuckers television show, but really have time to say what they really mean.

I think that would be very interesting.

I don’t think Tucker equates to Bernie Sanders , yet he does play a very key role that often goes overlooked.

Me. He doesn’t talk about the war on drugs…So far. That’s a very important issue to discuss. And with his logic and reasoning thus far I would assume that he’d be against it.

Yet that may not be what the majority of his Republican viewers think. So I think maybe rightly so it was left out of this book.

Yet, I can’t say for sure I know his thinking on that particular issue.

Talks about wind turbines the companies that run them, and their legal exempt status against protected birds and wildlife.

Turns out in land wind turbines kill many eagles and condors (only 300 birds in the wild critically endangered)

And offshore (sea) turbines kill many aquatic animals due to noise pollution.

https://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds Seems like its true. And maybe Tucker actually underestimated the figures.

http://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-slayers-theyre-made-out-to-be-heres-why-79567 Provides the opposite argument, however data is from 2006, 12 years behind the current data & looks at the situation when wind farms were relatively small in number. Therefore can’t really be taken into the current context.

Me. I will have to check the numbers in this, because it may well be true, but like with anything you’re looking at the goods and the bad and if it’s worth the payoff you go ahead. But who is making those decisions, and exactly how great are the numbers that he’s talking about?

He said 600,000 bats are killed each year due to wind turbines… Which is a big number. But what about the endangered birds?

He states that in California it was found that 40% of the forest fires were set by illegal immigrants. States, that in many cases the fires were deliberately set to mislead border agents. In other cases (non-illegal immigrants, yet he doesn’t expressed point that out) it was from campfires and gun shots.

Me. Is this actually true? I will have to check that out.

That’s a pretty interesting statistic if it is.

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fires-immigration-20171019-story.html Seems like a lot of conjecture and no real proof of it.


Me. Seems like humans cause 90% of forest fires. Its entirely possible that people fleeing border police set fires like Tucker claims to provide a distraction to ensure escape. I would imagine that the figure isn’t readily available because of identity politics and whoever brings up the issue is ostracised and accusations of racism are levelled, despite the fact that this may actually be the root cause. Just like the issue of small crimes in Western Australia supposedly being caused by the natives or the area. Anyone that even tries to research this is ostracised as well.

An unbiased look at why there are more deadly fires in the US. (not more fires, but more deadly) can relate to the Hurricane issue as well as.  https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/05/california-wildfires-its-a-people-problem/

“This is a people problem,” said Jon Keeley, “What’s changing is not the fires themselves but the fact that we have more and more people at risk.”

Me. Very true, and makes sense. And I think this exactly applies to the Hurricane problem. Hurricanes are more destructive because more people are living in the area + more expensive infrastructure in the area of which hurricanes happen.

Also, he states that environmental groups ignore the fires in these cases. Inferring that because it has the illegal immigrants component to it, they don’t want to get caught up in the mess that that will follow.

Basically saying that illegal immigration, including Mexican gangs operating in national parks are responsible for many of the environmental issues including Fish die offs, poisoning of natural flora. Yet many environmentalists often ignore this particular part because it conflicts with the firmly held beliefs of immigration that doesn’t support their other firmly held belief on the environment. Essentially it doesn’t support their narrative.

What is the DACA program? To end amnesty to illegal immigration?

I need to look this up too.


DACA was an Obama era policy. Trump aims to reverse DACA.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy that allows some individuals who were brought to the United States illegally as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for a work permit in the U.S. To be eligible for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their records. Unlike the proposed DREAM Act, DACA does not provide a path to citizenship for recipients, known as Dreamers.[1][2] The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.

Me. To be honest, I don’t really understand this. There’s just so much reading to be able to understand what is what. Essentially though DACA was Obama policy to give opportunities to children of illegal immigrants.
The thing about taking children away at the border was in fact a Democratic policy (under Bill Clinton) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44303556 The article is written to make it look like it was all Trump, yet in fact Trump made the existing law more harsh. He made it a criminal offence instead of a civil one, and implemented a zero tolerance for it.

In 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the Flores Settlement law that required unaccompanied minors who arrive in the US to be released to their parents, a legal guardian or an adult relative, If no relatives are available then the relevant government agency can appoint an appropriate adult to look after the child.

And in 2008, Republican President George W. Bush signed an anti-trafficking statute that requires unaccompanied minors to be transferred out of immigration centres within 72 hours. Neither of these recommends separating families.

True, however in the Flores Settlement law (Clinton) IF their parents are not legal, & IF a legal guardian or an adult relative is not available THEN the government is legally allowed to place the child in the care of their choosing. (Whatever that may be) Essentially meaning it is permissible by law, and the basis of that law was from Bill Clinton (democrat).

Yet… the Bush law states they can only remain in the immigration centre for 72 hours. After that they must be transferred out.  I think under Trump, they are held for longer.

There’s a lot of misinformation on this issue, but it seems like these are the facts.

In a way Trump & his administration is correct… in a different way, he is not.

In February, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of a mother from Congo to have her seven-year-old daughter returned to her, after the little girl was held separately for more than four months during their application for asylum. The same organisation is seeking a nationwide injunction against separating families.

Me. In this case, held for 4 months. It is most definitely illegal.

I think a good topic for debate would be “using exact definitions in the modern world and what it means for debate and meaningful discussion.”

Me. Also , I really wonder how much Tucker Carlson’s Fox show is steered due to Fox’s agenda, rather than what Tucker Carlson actually wants to talk about?

I believe that this book is a movement away from what he is guided to talk about on his show, however I also feel there’s still pressure in what to talk about, or maybe what to leave out.

What the fuck is environmental racism?
Why are those 2 equated?
Is a term used to describe environmental injustice that occurs in practice and in policy within a racialized context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_racism

States the hypocrisies of Leonardo DiCaprio, Richard Brandon, Bill Gates, Elon Musk in terms of stating about climate change but then renting or flying in personal private jets that emit ginormous carbon footprints.

Me. But…Do they do anything to counter this? I’m pretty sure Elon Musk does.

Al Gore too. When that was pointed out.

Fly’s privately. His home uses 21 times the electricity as the average private home.
New York times.  ‘All Gore’s climate footprint doesn’t matter ‘
Although apparently he offsets this with investment in green technology.

“Caring deeply is the only thing that matters”

The Paris climate agreement.

States about all the ABC (USA) news articles that state predictions about global warming of which none of them come true. And everyone else’s including Gordon brown, prince Charles, the foreign minister of France said just 500 days to avert climate chaos…Etc. etc.

9 dollar gasoline by 2015 as predicted in 2012.

The country will be on fire by 2020, a billion people impoverished. (Despite the fact that there’s already about this many people impoverished).

None of them were true. None of there were anywhere near true.

Me. I wonder if I can find that article Tucker quoted?

I couldn’t find that exact article. It doesn’t mean its not true, just that I can’t find it. I have heard people make such preposterous claims even in Australia, yet its usually made by people on morning shows… that no one should really pay attention to. Although if its misleading that also needs to be addressed as there are some truly simple people out there.

NASA predicted in 2009 that Barack Obama had 4 years to save the planet.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama (actual article)

States that there’s lot that humans don’t know about many things, not just climate change. We don’t really know how the human brain works.

Me. I think he kind of infers that we don’t know a lot about a lot, so why don’t we just ignore the whole thing. I don’t think that’s actually what he’s saying but I think much of his audience will come to that conclusion by themselves. So in knowing that, you have to be very careful about what you say and how you say it, and give enough context to give it proper meaning and weight.

“Hubris is the enemy of accurate conclusions”.

Me. What is the exact definition of hubris? Not just what I think it means…
= Excessive pride, presumption or arrogance.

“When you assume a scientific debate has been settled…you begin predicting $9 gasoline.”

“Legitimate research requires relentless scepticism, a humility about conclusions, and a willingness to examine preconceived assumptions. Science isn’t a scroll of revealed knowledge or a discrete body of pre-approved facts, it’s a process by which we can gradually, incrementally understand how the world works”.

Me. Very true, and good point to make and reaffirm in the face of many people that just take assumptions to be knowledge.

William Wilson 2016 essay. In First Things talking about scientific regress. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress

Analysed just how wrong science has got it even in recent years.

Researchers recreated 100 psychological studies to see if they could get the same results.

Hard sciences. Too apparently but I didn’t get the example.

I’ve read a few books on this topic, and what he says is correct. Science, even hard science is all over the place, statistics are manipulated to fit the narrative, and inaccurate studies are made constantly to again fit the narrative. Social sciences are even worse for this.

<<Reading Bad science & book dad was reading.

Political uses of science Pelki dude. (I couldn’t find who this guy was with a quick google search, name may not be spelt correctly.)

He wrote a paper that suggested that economic progress was more of a factor than climate change for hurricanes and the destruction they cause.

Says there’s more infrastructure than 100 years ago and therefore it costs more when it’s destroyed.

Me. That’s actually a really good point. Also, were they measuring the destruction of hurricanes 100 years ago?

Was seen to be unacceptable.

See if I can find this article. (I can’t find out who the guy is, so finding the article is difficult, especially if it’s been shunned)

Tucker states “within academia the pressure to conform to climate orthodoxy…Has rendered the scientific method irrelevant.”

“When science no longer requires evidence, and no longer tolerates scrutiny, it’s no longer science, it’s dogma”

Bill Nye the science guy. What are his qualifications?

He has a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering, designed & invented a hydraulic resonance suppressor tube used on Boeing 747 airplanes, whilst working at Boeing. And has worked in television running all manner of experiments and research on his children’s television show. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

He’s just confirming presumed ideas without using any evidence apparently.

Me. Is this true?

Nye, “Questioning any part of climate orthodoxy, is tantamount to denying science and is both unpatriotic and unconstitutional”

Me. Can I actually get this quote? Or article or whatever?

Apparently it was a twitter post, so it didn’t have to be accurate. Couldn’t find the exact post.

In an interview he suggested jailing people who disagreed with his views on climate change.

Me. Wow.. that’s a pretty fucked up thing to say.


Earth day 2015 Obama’s climate change video, Nye was in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBPC9ltzs2Q It’s a fairly boring speech. (10 mins of rhetoric)

2 kinds of environmentalists.



Me. He…Doesn’t actually say what the 2 kinds are.

I was kind of expecting him to say so.

Yet I presume what he was trying to go for, was people that say everyone else has to change…but they don’t lead by example, and those that do lead by example and care about what’s right in front of them.

But then…Also those that question the information that’s in front of them. And this seems to be lacking in most of America, and every issue has been politicised so as to shame people that don’t agree or even just question the argument that one particular group believes in.

Still wish he would have just finished his thought and said what the 2 kinds were…Rather than telling a fishing story and seeing trash increasing along the river banks.

Epilogue – Righting the ship

Democracies must remain egalitarian.

If they (the people) are ignored they will rise up.

They will elect presidents like Donald Trump to try and shake things up.

Will continue to elect incredibly radical leaders.

2 ways to combat this:

  1. Suspend democracy. If your voters can’t reach educated opinions with critical thinking then you shouldn’t let them vote.

“You don’t give suffrage to irrational voters in the same way you wouldn’t give shotguns to toddlers…They’re not ready for the responsibility”.

But there’s a cost, you can’t install autocracy without widespread violence and bloodshed, especially in a secular society.

“Saudi Arabia doesn’t have revolutions because most Saudis accept that their royal family was installed by god”

“Nobody in East Germany ever believed that about their government, which is why they needed machine guns and a wall to stop their citizens from fleeing” there’s no transitioning from democracy in America without a civil war.

Me. The other point he didn’t make is, who’s to say that the elites won’t still be in charge , but now they’ve got absolutely nothing to hold them back?

  1. Attend to the population.

Figure out why and what the people want. Give them back some of their power.

“You can’t force enlightenment by force in a democracy, you can only persuade”

“If you want to save democracy, you have to practice it”

Acknowledgements: – Matt Labash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Labash
-Neil Patel.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Patel_(political_advisor)
For deep intellectual conversations.

-Brother and father.

-Pfifer researchers on the show.