Wokeness EXPOSED in Corporate America, Big Tech & The Media - Will & Amala LIVE | Will & Amala

What's up guys, Will Whitt here. Obviously not at the studio, I am at my home in Denver, Colorado for a Christmas vacation. So this is a pre-recorded episode and we have some interviews for you today. One with Brett Mauser, a whistleblower, one with Raheem Kassam from National Pulse and one with Vivek Ramaswamy, the author of Woke Inc. All really good stuff. Highly recommend that you stick around and watch this and we're going to see you guys tomorrow for Will and Amu Live. Peace. Okay, guys, welcome back. You guys constantly have questions about Woke-ism, particularly as it pertains to corporate America. And we have a special guest on the show to talk about that today. His name is Vivek Ramaswamy. You might know him because he is an investor as well as an entrepreneur. But now he's an author. He just wrote a book called Woke Incorporated Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam. Welcome, Vivek. Thank you so much for being on. Glad to be here, guys. Yeah. So we actually, we had some correspondence before because we went through the same publisher for our books. Exactly. We're kind of competitors, but it's also, you know, it's friendly to get a co-op petition. Yeah, man. But I read your book, the audio book, actually. I do two times speed for when I'm reading the thing. It was really good, man. I was really impressed with everything I read about. And you had a couple lines in there and I wanted to talk to you about a few of them that I thought really hit me. You had the line, you pretend to care about something more than profit or power to get more of each. And when it comes to what your book is about, which is about Woke Inc., these corporations professing these lies of wokeness to try and get more people to buy their products or to say and have this virtue out there that they really are about all these things. When you're saying behind closed doors, they don't really actually represent these values at all that they're preaching. Do you think that most of the people, the CEOs and leaders of these Woke Inc. corporations, do you think they actually believe the things that they say when they come out with these mandates or virtues? You know, I think it's about 70-30. So in 70 percent of the cases, I think it is inauthentic. It's a cynical arrangement. It is the use of pretending like you care, as you said, about something other than profit and power precisely to gain more of each. It's about profit and power, by the way, because in some cases it's about exerting government influence. Sometimes that makes the CEO more powerful in a way that doesn't necessarily help the company, but helps the CEO. Sometimes it helps the company and the CEO. But that's the scammy kind of Woke capitalism. That's about 70 percent of what's going on. OK, I think that's Goldman Sachs. I think that's in large part a lot of the financial services industry. That's the scamming kind. I think that's different than the other 30 percent, which is actually authentic, which are leaders who say that, you know what, you only live once and I have a seat of corporate power and I'm going to make sure that my opinion matters more than everybody else's because I can. And I started writing the book, setting out to indict the first form of Woke capitalism, the sort of scammy and authentic kind. By the time I finished the book, I think it was a run for its money as to whether actually the authentic kind might even be the worst kind that is really a betrayal of what American democracy is about, because in a democracy, the way we settle our questions is through free speech and open debate where everyone's voice and vote counts equally. And what this new model of so-called stakeholder capitalism demands is actually that a small group of elites, because they wield market power, get to say that my opinion matters more than yours. And I'm going to use economic force to settle a question that should have been settled through free speech and open debate. So 70 30 is the answer to your question, right? You talk a lot about in the book as well, the CCP, China, their ties to America. A lot of people don't know about it. They don't know how connected China is to a lot of our corporations, especially media corporations, especially how it goes to being bought out in the swamp of D.C. right now with China. Could you talk a little bit about that and how they are influencing a lot of these these these woke diktats? Yeah, look, I'm not like some sort of puppet master behind the scenes, conspiracy theorist or anything like it. But I truly believe that China is playing the woke capitalist game to advance its geopolitical goals. And I think a lot of people have missed the geopolitical implications of wokeness where they understand the kinks in our armor far better than we understand the kinks in their armor and the kink in our armor as they see it, is that a democracy you're actually free to engage in self-criticism. Wokeness is the embodiment of self-criticism. And they're now using that to use the voices of corporations themselves to relentlessly criticize the United States without saying a peep about actual human rights atrocities in places like China that creates a false moral equivalence between the behavior of the US and the behavior of China that erodes our greatest geopolitical asset of all. That's not a nuclear arsenal. It is our moral standing on the global stage. So, for example, Disney might say it's not going to shoot a film in the state of Georgia if they pass an anti-abortion statute to signal their virtue to the left here at home. But they go last year to film Mulan in the Shenzhen province of China without saying a peep about the actual human rights atrocities being committed there, where there's over a million Uyghurs in concentration camps subject to forced sterilization, communist indoctrination and worse. And in fact, at the end of the film, they thank the CCP for allowing them the privilege of filming there. You can still see that in the credits to the film. You know, the filming of Top Gun by Paramount Pictures, they decide to take off the badges of both Japan and Taiwan. The Taiwanese flags on his jacket so much for being a maverick. Right. These are this is the hypocrisy. And so if you're a young person, you want to do a litmus test of a company to see are they in the 70 percent camp or the 30 percent camp when it comes to making a woke proclamation? There's actually a pretty easy way to do it. See what they're doing in China. If they're supplicating to the Chinese Communist Party and lying like a lapdog, an obedient lapdog over there while they bark and bite their masters here in the United States, you kind of understand which side of the game they're on. They're on the inauthentic side. Now, if somebody actually taking a principled stand in China, so be it. But you at least know that they authentically mean it. I still have an issue with the authentic model of capitalism here at home, but it's a very different issue than the kind of company that's really hypocritical and like a flag waving in whatever direction the wind blows on a given day. Of course, like Tim Cook from Apple talking about China and or not talking about China, but talking about diversity and all this stuff. And then they got the labor camps making the phones and the people say, we're going to kill ourselves. And what do they do? They put nets underneath the factory so that if people jump off, they don't die. Instead of giving these people better wages, they put nets underneath. Exactly. It's insane. Yeah. I mean, that's the Chinese way. And now, you know, I don't want to get off too far off on a tangent here, but it's a little bit gauche to say this, but it's but you got to speak, you know, in my opinion, you got to speak your opinion of what's true. I've studied as an exchange student in China. I think a big part of what we miss is that the essence of modern Chinese culture shaped in the backdrop of a communist Chinese party that has actually influenced that culture heavily is sort of an attitude of nihilism, the idea that might makes right. And if they're able to exercise force over our corporations, over companies like Apple or Airbnb or BlackRock or Nike or Disney or the NBA to say that you can't do business here if you criticize us, but we can use you as an instrument to then criticize the United States. They're living out that nihilistic worldview that force makes for rightness. And that's effectively the Chinese way today. And I'm curious because a lot of people are waking up to this. They're getting educated about this and they're rejecting all corporations and companies that have anything to do with wokeism or the CCP. And what we're seeing right now is a sort of split in the economy between people who want to support these businesses and don't. Now, you've come out and said that you're somewhat against creating these two parallel economies, one for the traditionalist and one for the wokest. What do you see is going to happen in America when it comes to the economy? I definitely don't want to see two economies by way of like a right wing economy and a left wing economy. That's for sure. I've come around on the idea of the the important role for a more traditionalist segment of the private sector and that potentially being a force for good. So the way the good version of this playing out is actually companies that step up and say, you know what? I do stand for certain basic universalist principles, the idea that as an American company, say we're one nation under God, that the content of your character trumps the color of your skin. The capitalism is a great system to lift people up out of poverty. We're not going to apologize for those things. Actually, those are our beliefs as a company. It's not a Republican message, a Democrat message, right wing message, left wing message. It's just a universalist message. I think there's about 100 million plus Americans today who are hungry for companies that will actually say that out in the open rather than embracing a woke orthodoxy. So I think that there's an opportunity to go sector by sector and take on a Goliath by being the David who arrives with that message and steal a million customers at a time. What I think is then going to happen is that your Black Rocks and your Nikes and your Disney's and your Airbnbs and you could just go down the list are going to then wake up and say, wait, on one hand, we just lost a million customers. But then that's going to prompt an introspection and a self-reflection where they say, actually, our approach to diversity and inclusion may not have been as diverse and inclusive as we intended. We might have screwed that up over the last five years. Let's rethink the approach. And I think that's actually going to be a good thing for the country. That's the good version. I think the bad version is we have the right wing version of coffee, the left wing version of coffee, eventually the right wing version of baseball and the left wing version of baseball. That could be the beginning of the end of the American experiment as we know it, because we require these apolitical sanctuaries to bring us together, whether we're black or white or Democrat or Republican. And that's what I don't want to see. But I think there's a more nuanced version of this, a more universalist version that actually could be a corrective force for good. And to be honest with you, in recent months, I've actually started to play more and more of a role in helping spawn that as an investor and as somebody who's helping get some of these enterprises off the ground, because I want to see them do it in the depoliticized way. Right. The left wing version of baseball where the bases are closer together, depending on your race. And you make statements about voting laws that make you sound more like a super PAC than a sports. Exactly. No, it sounds like a lot of fun. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. All the hot dogs are GMO free. What a joy. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. You talk about in the book, you say if you can claim if you claim to owe the public everything, you in turn owe them nothing. I thought that was pretty powerful when you were talking about J.P. Morgan, that these CEOs will kind of come and they will grovel to people and lie. What did you mean by that? And what do you see that as the future strategy of these people? Well, I think that look, I think that one of the secrets of being a CEO that they don't really teach in business school is that the more people you're accountable to, the less you are accountable to any given one of them. OK, well, stakeholder capitalism or so-called woke capitalism takes that to the to the infinite level to say that actually by being accountable to all of society, there's no metric to actually hold you accountable to any one of those actors. And any time that you're actually doing something that betrays the interests of one of those actors, you could just be claiming to advance the interests of someone else instead. It's one of the coups of the managerial class in this country. And I think that's one of the untold stories is really the pan sector rise of a managerial class in America that effectively is like a cancer affecting one institution at a time where the people who are supposed to be the stewards of the essential purpose of that institution are no longer actually responsible for running those institutions. You know, in a company, you have founders, you have employees, you have shareholders, but then you have the rise of this new C-suite hired managerial class that's supposed to intermediate their interests, but in a certain way manages to aggregate power for itself. You see the same thing happening in universities, too. I mean, I went to Harvard and Yale and whatever, and they were left to center when I went there. They're very different institutions today than they were then, because even if they were left to center, they were classically liberal in the sense that they valued free speech and open debate in a marketplace of ideas. But now you've seen the proliferation of these deanships and association associate deanships and diversity officers, the rise of a managerial class in the university that again has to justify its own existence and ultimately aggregate power for itself. That really sucks the life out of the essential purpose of that institution by empowering themselves instead. I think you see the same thing in government. The biggest illusion that I think the American people bear today is that the people that they elect and put in charge actually have more or less anything to do with the policies that actually get set that affect their lives when it's instead done by an unelected class of administrative states in an alphabet soup known as a government bureaucracy, what we call, I guess, the deep state, just like I was talking about deep corporate or deep academia. And I think that one of the roles that wokeness plays for the managerial bureaucrats is it creates this smoke screen, what I call the illusion of blowing woke smoke to deflect accountability for their actual failures in representing and being good stewards of the institutions they're supposed to serve. And I think that was actually like one of the under read chapters in my book is what I think I want to say. It's like chapter five or six. But I think that that's actually it's an untimely chapter for it's an untold part of the story. And I think that that's something that has implications that go far beyond just the you know, just the just the woke issues that I'm talking about. Yeah, I mean, it's hard to when you when you dive deep into this and realize that the politicians you elect are really not doing what you think they're doing and that there's so much more that the web is so much more tangled. How do you stay motivated in your fight against what's happening right now in the policy that they're legislating for and how it's having an effect on your life when really it's not those direct politicians who are at play here? Yeah, I mean, I think it's a matter of refocusing our efforts towards really winning what is a fundamentally cultural battle that has not not nothing to do with politics, but less to do with politics than you'd expect. I think the politicians are really just symptoms of a deeper cultural malaise in our country. The flip side is I think that we're each empowered to change our culture every day through the market behaviors we engage in, through the way we raise our kids, through the ways that we act on an everyday basis, through the decisions we make, whether we're the only person in a room who has a belief that we do. But are you actually courageous enough to speak up or not? That's going to drive much bigger change than who gets voted into a given office on a given day or courageous enough to see a company doing woke, terrible things and say, I'm no longer going to support this company. Yeah. Or to create a competitor or to be an entrepreneur and actually to seize that as an opportunity. But, you know, how many people have now said Coca-Cola, I'm not going to drink Coca-Cola. Yeah. I mean, look, I think that I think that, you know, I think that that could have an impact. The problem is consumer boycotts tend to be pretty short lived. I think that, you know, I'm not I'm not a big boycotts person. I am a big seize the market opportunity person. I do think that there's an opportunity to create an affirmative brand, to have a product that's just as good. That will involve somebody exhibiting real courage and a risk to take on an industry behemoth. But I think the opportunity is teed up for a new generation of entrepreneurs to do it. But yeah, I think that the point about shaping culture is that, you know, when you're voting at the ballot box, you're really making it somebody else's job. Yes, you have some agency in casting your vote, but you're making it somebody else's job. And that person only has one tool kit to use, which is like passing a law, which is often over inclusive in certain ways, under inclusive in others. It's a low resolution instrument to address a fine tuned problem. The thing about being able to address it in your everyday life through culture is it's what matters more. B, you're empowered to do it in the way you live your life every day and the way you interface with the people around you. So I think that's an opportunity and something that actually I find more uplifting than being despondent about the quality of the politicians who really, at the end of the day, don't matter very much, in my opinion. It's downstream from culture. Exactly. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. He said that for a long time and I think there's a lot of truth to it. Yeah. Yeah. So, Vivek, how can people support you in what you're doing other than buying your book? What other endeavors are you working on? How can people hop in on this? I appreciate it. I mean, I do think reading the book would be would be good. I mean, they can buy the book, too. My goal is also buy the book, guys. This isn't this is just to be honest, you know, about it's not a commercial endeavor for me. I mean, I really care about getting the message out there. I am. I am looking to, you know, to sort of. I haven't yet pulled the trigger on the on the following, but I'm not but I'm at the doorstep of it, of playing a role at the forefront of creating this new excellence first economy, an economy that prioritizes the unabashed, unapologetic pursuit of excellence through the creation of products and services for Americans who have been neglected, which I actually think happened to be the majority of Americans. I think that could be a big change in the drive for culture, too. So one of the things I'm evaluating doing and by the way, I've loved being in the first year for first full year of my career where I literally didn't have a plan. So I've really just been seeing where every next day takes me. Writing the book was my main focus for a good part of, you know, late last year and early this year. I've been, you know, hanging out with people like you guys, having great conversations about the book. That's been a lot of fun for me. But I'm at the cusp of thinking about, you know, possibly, you know, developing some sort of standing presence in sharing my own perspectives on not only these issues, but I think a lot of the cultural questions that we're grappling with in our moment, possibly through a show or something like it, and to pair that with my role as not just an entrepreneur and a founder, but also as a seed investor in backing, I think the kinds of entrepreneurs and co-founding with many of them spawning enterprises that I think can help drive that cultural change. So, so I think that stay tuned for, you know, businesses that come out of that, if and when I pull the trigger on that in early 2022. But I think that that is going to be a way that it's less about supporting me, but more about, I think, supporting a cultural revival that I hope will will benefit a lot of people and potentially create a lot of real value, too. I understand, man. You're on fire. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. You guys are on fire. You're like in your you guys are like in your 20s and rocking this intellectual breadth and everything in between. I'm impressed. Thank you so much. You figured it out young. I mean, at Goldman Sachs, you understand, right? Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. It's a different, different world. Yeah. Different world. Yeah. So well, thanks for having me. Yeah. Thanks, man. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. Yeah. Thank you. All right, everyone, we got Raheem Kassam, who is the editor in chief of The National Pulse, a great publication. Hope you guys are all checking it out, checking out their podcast, his podcast with Natalie Winters. What's going on, man? Good to have you here. Man, it's a busy few days. Thank you for having me. I know. Tell me about it. We're filming a lot of episodes for the future and just there's so much going on right now. There's so much going on. One of the things that that I saw on National Pulse that I felt like I had to get you on Facebook just admitted in court that its fact checks are just third party opinions. Now, this is big for me specifically. I actually just had posts removed off of Facebook because they said that they were false. And now it's coming out that these aren't actually essentially Facebook coming out and saying, oh, this is wrong there. It's merely just opinions. But somehow they still get to ban you from your page, even just based on other people's opinions. Yeah, that's right. I mean, Facebook is embroiled in this lawsuit at the moment, and this is where their lawyers have preferred this opinion that their fact checks in and of themselves are just third party opinions. Now, we've focused on Facebook fact checkers for quite some time. In fact, we had a little bit of a tete a tete with one of their top fact checkers, a group called Lead Stories. We've actually interviewed him before and talked to him about all of this. And it's really interesting how this process works. So Facebook effectively contracts with third parties like Alan Duke, like Lead Stories, like this group named in this lawsuit here. And what they do is they go through posts like yours, posts like ours, posts like John Stossel's, who's the lead party in this lawsuit. And he brings the case and says, hey, look, you know, you're claiming that I'm putting out fake news. That is defamatory. That is actually going to harm my business and give me a bad reputation, to which Facebook lawyers simply replied that actually their fact checks are not fact checks, as we might know them or you might think they are from using the word fact and maybe the other word check, but they are protected opinions by third parties. Now, these third parties are groups like Lead Stories, they're groups like Climate Feedback, which is specifically the one named in this case. But there are so many others. In fact, there are one hundred and three verified partners that Facebook uses to help itself, you know, quote unquote fact check articles all across their platforms. Where it really gets interesting to me is, of course, all of the people, the groups that have been deleted completely as a result of their most recent fact check industry, which is the covid-19 fact check industry. Are they now telling us, are Facebook lawyers now telling us that actually medical terms and medical articles that are removed from Facebook because they, you know, go against perhaps the establishment narrative on certain things? Are they telling us that those are just third party opinions, too, because that will where that will be where it gets really interesting. Yeah, I mean, there's so much out there about, you know, Ivermectin or HCQ or any of those things that at a time, I mean, when you would post about that, you could get immediately banned. PragerU was in Facebook jail for a year for some of the things that we had posted about these different medications. And they just come in and they can just take you away. But now they're coming and saying it's opinion. What is the bigger implication of this in the sense of are these just opinions or can they still after this case, as you're saying, can they still use these opinions to justify banning someone off of their platform? Well, it opens up all sorts of different avenues now, doesn't it? Because, of course, a lot of these platforms claim to be platforms and not publishers. But what kind of platform that is afforded the protections of United States legislation then has third party people, third party organizations in a lot of and a lot of these places, extremely partisan third party organizations. I mean, we did an investigation into Lead Stories, one of the premium Facebook fact checkers. Almost all Lead Stories staff once worked at CNN, almost all Lead Stories staff that do donate politically donate to Democrat party causes and Democrat politicians. And I'm sure if you go through the same hundred and three verified partners, in fact, I've just given myself an assignment. That is what we'll do. You will find the very same thing across the board. So it's got those Section 230 platform versus publisher implications. But it's also got further implications for other people now, like yourself, like myself, to go to Facebook, maybe take lawyers to Facebook and say, aha, you've admitted here that you're not actually fact checking anything. So what's with the shield that you're putting up in front of people's posts? You're defaming them by doing so. Their audience might believe them less. Their business might be harmed as a result of it. And you've just admitted that they're just third party opinions. It's really it's really fascinating. Yeah. They want to have their cake and eat it, too, at the same time. You don't see many of these left wing pages being shut down or having this false information about it, even with all that, like, let's say the stuff about Jesse Smollett that just came out. Right. All of these people had lied about it or the stuff about Kyle Rittenhouse lied about it, said the wrong thing about it. But you're not seeing fact checks on these people's posts. Right. It's only on the people who are conservative. The Independent, I won't call it a newspaper because they don't actually print anymore. So just a website. But the Independent, owned by a Russian oligarch, based out of London, published that Kyle Rittenhouse had murdered two black Black Lives Matter protesters and just left it up there for four weeks and weeks. And nobody challenged him on it. Facebook didn't challenge him on it. Twitter didn't challenge them on it. They allowed to peddle this information, you know, on mass as a means by which, you know, to get these people hurt. Let's not forget, this isn't just some kind of theoretical study. They are putting people in the line of fire as a result of this, as a result of all of this. And now we learn that they don't actually use any real fact checkers here. They just use third party opinion. So I think they've really opened up a can of worms here. I'm personally very excited about it. And I'm studying this lawsuit intently to see where this goes. Yeah, but we know that Mark Zuckerberg himself, I mean, his foundation works entirely basically to elect many Democrats to office. Right. So to think that there is a political bias to this, I mean, it should just be obvious to people if you don't think there's a political bias to these things going on with the fact checks. I mean, it is clearly obvious. And in more in the political bias, you had an exclusive today, which I heard you I heard you talking about it yesterday on The War Room. And so that's why I wanted to bring you on to talk about this was an exclusive new Fauci Zuckerberg emails reveal offer of data reports to aid lockdown policies, vaccine development. So all of you guys can check this out of the National Poll. So we will have it linked down in the description of the show. But for for anyone else, what is going on here? Well, if you remember earlier this year, there were a bunch of emails released, a bunch of Fauci's emails that were released. They were foiled. And we went through them and other people went through them as well. And what we found was these stunning emails from Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO and founder of Meta, formerly Facebook. And they had redacted a bunch of information in there. So we went back to the U.S. government and we said, hey, we want more information about these emails. We want to we want to know if more emails between these two that occurred after this introduction back in March 2020. And sure enough, yesterday they came back to us and they said, yes, here they are. And so and so what we did is we went through them and found that actually the Chan Zuckerberg initiative, the the charitable or not for profit arm of the whole Zuckerberg empire actually offered Anthony Fauci and the NIH data from Facebook. That's that's people's data, your data, my data, ordinary people's data from all around the world, ostensibly, and said, hey, if we can use aggregate data reports to help facilitate decisions about lockdowns and specifically if we can give you money to help vaccine development, then, you know, you just let me know. Now, that's obviously like, as you and I know, that's not unheard of in these in these billionaire circles to be throwing money around. And Zuckerberg's other operations, CTCL, were like the elections last year. We've covered all of it. And we know all of that happens in your audience probably knows that happens where this gets really interesting is Senator Marsha Blackburn actually confronted Fauci about talking to Zuckerberg this year. And Fauci responded that he had no idea what she was talking about. Effectively, he lied. He lied to a U.S. senator. He's lied in the U.S. Senate. We know he's lied to Rand Paul before, but he lied about the lab leaks before. I mean, talking about all that. But this is really interesting to me because now we've bought him because it wasn't just one errant email back in March where he can turn and go, oh, I forgot about that one. There were a series of emails and a conversation back and forth. In fact, Fauci responds to Zuckerberg in this email chain. He says, thanks for the note and your offer to help. I will think hard about ways we may take you up on your offer. So how did he then go back to the Senate, to Marsha Blackburn and say, you know, I don't know what you're talking about. It's a lie. And frankly, he has to be held legally accountable. Do you think that'll happen? I mean, with everything going on, it seems to me I've been looking at the news recently. Amtrak has just, you know, ended its federal vaccine mandate for its employees, along with Oracle and L.A. USD schools just stopped their vaccine mandate for students. It seems like things are starting to get a little bit better here in the States. People are starting to wake up when you see this happening with Fauci. Do you think something like that will happen? I'm an eternal optimist. So when I wake up in the morning, I see Fauci in my head behind bars, you know, so I am an eternal optimist about these things. I understand, you know, that people people can get very frustrated about the slowness of this stuff. But we have actually made quite a lot of certainly a lot more headway into these things than Fauci's opponents did back in the 60s and 70s. If you recall, he was he was actually widely panned and rightly so by many people in the LGBT community over his handling of HIV. But they didn't get to this point where actually they could see his emails and know what he was saying and understand just how much in the pocket of big pharma he was. Now we're getting to know all that information relatively quickly. I do say relatively because I know people are frustrated by the speed of this. But I'm an optimist about these things. I think if we keep digging, keep digging, you're going to end up getting these people, the people around him, people like Peter Daschuk, who headed up the Wuhan lab from his Echo Health Alliance. Another Fauci gave him funding. He's now off the WHO's, you know, quote unquote, independent commission. Another one, Marion Koopmans. We got her as well. So these people are not totally untouchable. And if you dig hard enough, if you you know, we we work around the clock going through these documents. And I genuinely believe that somewhere down the line, at least in our lifetimes, these people will be held accountable for their actions, man. I'm hoping so. It seems tough. I mean, you see what's happening in places like Georgia right now where people are too weak to actually hold people accountable. Right. You have people who want to talk a big game and then say, oh, we're going to do something about it. And then they do nothing about it. So I really do hope that you're right. Give us some hope before before you go. What are you seeing right now in America? Do you think things are going to turn around? Well, I look at the polling. I look deep into the polling. I look at people's skepticism about what this regime right now. And I do not call it administration. I call it a regime, what they're doing, how people feel about the alternatives in the Democrat Party, like Kamala Harris, how people feel about new alternatives that we're hearing about now, the new old alternatives like Hillary Clinton. And then I look at what the political right is doing, you know, wonderful, you know, candidates coming up like like like masters and other folks like that. And I just it fills me with optimism. It fills me with hope. It fills me with knowing that actually what Trump did wasn't just what Trump did. He also paved the way for this new generation of fighters going forward. So I think America has a lot more ahead of it than a lot of other nations. I'm afraid my country, the United Kingdom, actually voted this week in favor of covid vaccine passports for everybody. So America really does have to fight because it is the last place in the world that has that that freedom at its core. And I feel you know, I feel down about where we are necessarily right now, but I feel great hope for the future. And just like Dennis Prager says, America, the last best hope of America falls, the rest of the world falls. God bless you, man. How can people follow you and everything that you're doing? Well, the national polls dot com is the site we all we have a podcast. People can subscribe to that. And we are 100 percent people funded. So if they want to help us out, the URL for that is fund real news dot com. Got it, man. And I got to get you and Natalie on the show, too. I'm writing a piece right now about how America shouldn't participate in the Beijing Olympics. And I would love to get your guys take on all that. Would love to. Anytime. Awesome, man. Thank you. Hi, everybody, and welcome back. We have an interesting guest on the show today, Brett Mauser. You may recognize his face if you follow Project Veritas and James O'Keefe, because he's a whistleblower out of San Antonio, CBS. Brett, thank you so much for being on the show. Thank you for having me. I want to hop right into it because I think nobody can tell the story of, you know, your whistleblowing and you talking about what's happening in terms of journalism in America better than you can. So what got you linked up with Project Veritas and how did you become a whistleblower? Well, it originally started about a year ago when I was just decided to take one of our multicultural trainings, which was where they told us not to be objective journalists anymore. And I recorded it basically just for posterity and also to be able to bring it as evidence to my my management to be able to say, hey, look, this is what was taught. Is this appropriate? And just kind of to cover myself, to have evidence to present. And I didn't plan on going. And then it wasn't until this past election when Project Veritas did a story here in San Antonio about voter harvesting and they didn't. I sent an email to my manager and said, hey, look, this is going on locally. Is there something that we can are we going to do anything about this? And about two or three days later, I got an email back saying, oh, well, we looked into it. Project Veritas is just a right wing organization. This was a hoax. She was on another channel and said she knew the cameras were there. And I was like, all right. And then two or three months later, she was arrested and they still didn't do a story. So at that point, I reached out and sent an email and I said, hey, you know, I can help out. And then from there, it just it was just a little contact here and there. And then I wound up having more of the unbiased, implicit bias training. And I was there ready with all my notes to counter the arguments in the training itself. And of course, they muted our mics. So I wasn't able to say much. So that's basically how it came to be. I started going in, reporting some of the things that were going on, getting things like my manager saying things like when I was talking about masks, you know, and presenting that children aren't really, you know, are not affected that greatly by it. And him saying, I don't want to debate the science. I'm not going to debate the science with you. People are afraid. Doesn't matter whether it's true or not. We're journalists. We're supposed to be all about the truth. Well, I'm glad that you came forward and tried to reach out and do something about this, because it's so often people like Will and I, we talk about how journalism and journalistic integrity is really no longer intact in this country. But it's so important to hear people who actually work in the field come out against it and say something. Now, you mentioned that one of the higher ups during this training said, you know, journalism is no longer about objectivity. We need to stop focusing on objectivity. Can you add context to that? What did she mean when she said we shouldn't focus on objectivity? Well, in the Project Veritas video, you can see some of the B-roll and some of the other additional slides that they presented. And one of them specifically said inclusive journalism is not talking to both sides. And other other steps such as don't don't seek interviews from both sides. Just look for thoughtful interviews. And then, of course, saying we have to explain the issue so that people understand it, not just present facts. So it's just the initial statement of saying, well, there's objective being objective is just no longer feasible. That can kind of be taken a little bit differently when you start going into the slot, the additional slides and the additional bullet points. You see specifically that they're saying that the journalist is supposed to be deciding and going towards a biased viewpoint and looking at the and the training specifically pointed out social justice and diversity and how if you're not paying attention, you're not watching the podcast, then you just don't care. And so it is, you know, they're in plain writing and not only just writing, speaking exactly what their new agenda is, they are pushing. And that's that was sort of the tipping point for me, because even about halfway through the training, I was like, OK, well, maybe this isn't that. And that's when it clicked on me that they were they were dividing us into race and socioeconomic status and sexual orientation. And they wanted us to list what we thought was most important in order of these these factors. And that's when I realized, oh, this is Marxism. They're teaching us to divide among the oppressor and oppressed. And and that's not where this country needs to be going. And that's sort of that was the tipping point for me, because there was there were moments where I was like, well, do I want to do this? Do I want to stand up? But it was that last training, I said, no, I've got to do something because they're dividing this country intentionally to to what ends. I can only guess. And for people who don't know where this is, where did this happen? This was in San Antonio, Texas. Great. One thing that you were talking about, James O'Keefe, while you were in your when you were talking with him was about history and you were talking about Russia. Now, I'm reminded about the Russian newspaper that was literally called Pravda, which meant truth. And basically the entire thing was full of lies. When you are seeing things happening right now in journalism in America and seeing analogies when it comes to Russia and other communist countries, what does that look like for the future of this country? I think it's as a history buff, I think you have to look at those events and realize that we're on the same road. I just watched a documentary about Greece and the Battle of Thermopylae and how the country, Greece was just a bunch of tribes and a bunch of small little communities. But when they had, when the Battle of Thermopylae happened, it brought everybody together and they were now Greek. It wasn't this community, that community. And the exact same thing is happening in reverse now. They are splitting us into groups so that we're easier to defeat. We're no longer Americans. We've got to be this community, that community. And there's no, they're trying to break away that pride of being an American and and putting labels on us. And that fractures the the the morale and the ethics of the of the country. And that eventually will lead to our downfall, just the way you see in Venezuela, just the way you saw in Cuba, just the way you're seeing it in Russia. And it is that that end goal, I believe, which is which is trying to bring down this great, great experiment that is the democracy of America. One thing that I hear a lot when talking to people about this kind of stuff and kind of what you were saying when you were like, oh, maybe this isn't that big of a deal when you talk to people who are on the other side, or maybe who are these people giving this type of presentation to you, they say, well, this isn't that big of a deal. You know, you just have to get with the times. This is what's going on now in America. OK, these old things that we used to do in journalism, they're outdated and now we're working on something else. When you hear the argument from people where they say this isn't that big of a deal, what do you respond to tell them? Well, I'll say two things to that. I had confronted a reporter and I'm sorry, a fellow fellow promotions producer after the training and said this was Marxism. And he was like, well, I just don't see that. And my response was, well, just because you don't see it doesn't mean that's not what it is. By definition, that's what this is. The sky is blue. The grass is green. This is Marxism. But I do also tell them you've got to look back at history. The infamous quote, if you don't know your history, you're doomed to repeat it. And we're seeing that time and time and time again, especially when. It blows my mind that people can just push Venezuela out of their mind and not see the same things are happening. Of course, you have the infamous Einstein quote, you know, if you keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, that's the definition of insanity. And that's what socialism is, is they're trying to do this over and over and over again. And it doesn't work. And the way they lead, the way they get through to Martin, through socialism or communism, is this Marxist doctrine of separating and dividing people and and making one person, you know, one group of people, the fall guys, the bad guys. I try to emphasis history. You know, I have a YouTube show as well and always bringing in history to prove the point. It doesn't diverge. The path is constantly always the same. And to think that, well, this time will be different because I'm in charge or this person is in charge, is just pure egotism. You know, you've got to understand the way people are. And humans are going to human. And that's that's the understanding that and understanding history can help you avoid these pitfalls and can help help prevent America from falling down the same path as a Venezuelan. Yeah. And I'm paraphrasing a little bit. But Albert Einstein also said that mediocre minds will always try and destroy people who think outside the box. And that seems very indicative of the same place that journalism is in now. Yeah, absolutely. Now, Brett, I have one more question for you, because everybody is so scared to come forward. They're scared to be the whistleblower. They're scared to be you. What has been the response to what you've done? Have you gotten support? Hate? How are things at work now with with who you are and what you've done with Project Veritas? Well, I'm no longer at Ken's. Of course, there were there were vaccine mandates and all that stuff. And I needed to get out of my family. I have some health issues, so I want to devote some time to them. But in terms of the fall, the fallout, of course, when when you're when you're thinking about doing this, all sorts of things are running through your mind. Oh, what's going to happen? Am I going to lose friends? Am I going to lose family members? And overall, it's been the support has just been incredible. Even even former former reporters and anchors have contacted me and thanked me for what they did, because they left the news industry because of this very thing. So there has been a great amount of support. There, of course, are the naysayers. There was within five minutes of coming out, there was a YouTuber calling me an old white man that was scared of scared of someone who didn't agree with them. And anyone who's seen my show knows that that's completely not the case. I love debate. I love I love arguing and love talking about alternate opinions. And of course, you know, the station, the corporation that owns Ken's and all the other stations came out with their their statement, which basically doubled down on it and said that I was the reason that they needed this sort of training. And they said that I wasn't even news personnel. And but it's when I'm able to come on to shows like yours, I can just rebut that and debunk their their accusations. So I do recommend that if you feel cornered and that you do want to speak out and you see things like this happening, do it. It's not as bad as the fallout is not as bad as you think it is. And there are so many other support structures there. There are other other whistleblowers and other insiders that are there to support you and give you the advice that you need. And it's a great, great community. And I don't let fear keep you from speaking out the truth. That was one of the reasons that I had to do this is I look down the road and I said, this is where we're headed. I don't want to be watching the train cars go by and not have done something. And this was this was this is what I felt was something that I could do to stand up and try to prevent that. And then, well, how can people keep up with you, Brett? Well, I have a website called Not So Sane dot com. I try and teach people how to make films with no money. That was that was sort of my my pet project. And that's I have a show where I try to teach people about the things that go on behind the scenes of an independent film so they can be prepared and and help them know that they don't need Hollywood. They don't need to go through the Hollywood politics and all of that. You can just make your own movie. And that's I'm not so saying that film. I have a lot of episodes there. And of course, on YouTube, we have a series not so at not so same on YouTube. Great. Well, we appreciate you being on, man. Thank you for your insight and for being brave and sharing this and standing up for truth. Any more people like you, man? Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you.