Dr Steve Turley - The Liberal Meltdown Begins in Earnest

Shownotes and Transcript

Dr Steve Turley has been enjoying the liberal meltdown in his recent videos and he joins us to give us an analysis of what is happening. 
The legal case against President Trump keeps hitting roadblocks making all those with 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' so mad. 
Whatever they throw at 'The Don' just boosts his poll numbers. 
And the J6 narrative is unravelling with all the footage being released by the new House Speaker. 
Even Vivek is openly opposing the liberal consensus. 
And with Biden's poll ratings tanking and Alex Jones returning to Twitter there is much to be joyful about.

Steve Turley (PhD, Durham University) is an internationally recognized scholar, speaker, and author who is widely considered one of the most exciting voices in today’s growing patriot movement.
Dr. Steve’s popular YouTube channel has over 1 million subscribers and daily showcases his expertise in the rise of nationalism, populism, and traditionalism throughout the world. His videos, podcasts and writings on civilization, society, culture, education, and the arts are widely renowned.

Connect with Dr Steve and join the movement of Courageous Patriots...
WEBSITE:           https://turleytalks.com/
X:                        https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalks
YOUTUBE:         https://www.youtube.com/@DrSteveTurleyTV
PODCASTS:       https://podcasts.apple.com/am/podcast/turley-talks/id1520478046

Interview recorded 14.12.23

Connect with Hearts of Oak...
WEBSITE            https://heartsofoak.org/
PODCASTS        https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/
SOCIAL MEDIA  https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
TRANSCRIPTS   https://heartsofoak.substack.com/

Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... 
SHOP                  https://heartsofoak.org/shop/

*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.

Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 

Transcript

(Hearts of Oak)

Dr. Steve Turley, it's wonderful to have you back. Thanks so much for joining us once again.

The honour's all mine, Peter. It's great to be back with you.

Good to have you. And of course, if people are not following you, which I can't imagine, but in case they're not, at @DrTurleyTalks is your Twitter or X, however you want to call it, and @DrSteveTurleyTV on YouTube.
And of course, turleytalks.com is the website, turleytalks.com.
All those are in the description, whether we have people watching on different media or whether they're listening on the podcasting apps on the go.
Everything is in the description. Now, Dr. Steve, one of your titles of your videos caught my eye.
Many of them catch my eye and many of the thumbnails catch my eye as well.
But it was the, has the liberal media meltdown begun? 
And there are a lot of things happening, I think, to be hopeful about.
And of course, you often bring out a hopeful side where I think sometimes we may be guilty of seeing the doom and gloom and the negative.
So yeah, you're challenging the narrative on so many issues.
I think I wanted to pick up on some of those, the collapse of the narratives that we've seen.
And maybe we can start on the legal case against President Trump.
And obviously this is to make sure he does not run because he is the biggest threat to the establishment.
And that seems to be unravelling. Do you want to maybe let us know, again, half our audience is US, half is UK, but let us know what's been happening on that legal side?

Yeah, it's absolutely fascinating. So, you know, there's been several indictments against President Trump, but the main one, the one that's kind of leading it all is what's known as his J6 indictment, his, an indictment for supposedly criminal behaviour in a deliberate attempt to overthrow a Democrat election on January 6th, where our electors are certified and legitimated by Congress.
We go by an electoral college here.
You need 270 electoral votes to win. Every state in our 50 states has a certain number of electoral votes.
And then you send electors, 270 of them, you win.
That's basically, you send them to Washington, D.C., they get confirmed, they get certified, legitimated by Congress, and you win.
And there was a debate back a few years when this was happening of whether or not the vice president is the presider over the proceedings could actually reject electors largely because of ongoing controversies in their states or whether or not you could send alternative electors based on those controversies from your state.
And then the vice president has leeway. He has some freedom to determine which electors is going to be, is going to recognize.
That's all just part of the debate. I think it's relatively settled.
We do have it historically. It's been over 100 years, but we do have some precedent where the vice president can come in and exercise some, shall we say, judicial privilege in determining which electors he's going to receive or send back and then have the state work out the issue and then come back at another date, say, you know, January 18th or whatever, just set an arbitrary date for those states to work out whatever, uh, election controversy is issues.
They still have that, uh, play out. Well.
Trump is being accused of criminal behaviour in promoting alternative electors and promoting the vice president to reject the electors that were sent because of the controversy surrounding the November 3rd election.
And Jack Smith is the special counsel who is leading these charges.
He has a history of pushing, as I understand it, bogus charges against people.
He has a very, very bad overturning rate when it goes through the appellate process, the appeals court, the higher up court.
A lot of his convictions actually get overturned because he seems to be a little bit on the seedy side of things.
Anyway, what happened is that Trump's lawyers filed for appeals against Judge Chutkan's decision not to grant him or not to recognize his immunity as president.
And Chutkan is also a very controversial figure. She's considered very radical, left-wing and the like.
And the D.C. court circuit is seen as very radical and left wing and the like.

So what Trump's lawyers have been doing is they filed these appeals to higher up courts, the appellate court process to overturn Chutkan.
And now they the the appeal process may reject those appeals and send it back to Chutkan's court.
But as long as those appeals are playing themselves out, Chutkan can no longer conduct court.
She no longer has jurisdiction over the issue, over Trump and the litigation that he's facing as long as this appeals process goes on.
Now, Jack Smith knew that was going to happen.
And this appeals process can take months.
He knew that was going to happen. So he kind of, we have the expression here.
He jumped the shark. It comes from a happy days. The old, if you guys all know the old happy days sitcom with Fonzie and all that, when they, when their ratings were tanking.
They had a program devoted to Fonzie getting on some jet skis and jumping over a shark area.
And I forget it was in Hawaii or something like that. It was just this absurd attempt to try to get, garner attention or try to get people to take them seriously again. Well, Jack Smith has jumped the shark.
He's taking Trump's immunity claim all the way directly to the Supreme Court.
He's actually bypassing all appellate courts, going directly to the Supreme Court.
And then the Supreme Court said, fine, yeah, we'll take a look at it.
But we're not going to tell you when we're going to rule.
And that ruling could be this summer. It could be next.
It could be the following year. We just don't know. It just depends when they put on the dock.
So what happened is Jack Smith demanded, basically, in his appeal to the Supreme Court, You got to settle it.
Whatever your decision is, you got to settle it in this session, this Supreme Court session.
He never explained why they had to settle it in the Supreme Court.
He never explained why such a decision was needed to be hastened and the like.
And we all know why, because he needs it before the 2024 election.
So he's basically overtly admitting that this whole thing is a political sham, that the court trial is scheduled right now for March 4th.
Nobody thinks that's even remotely going to happen, not even remote, even before all of these appeals were being filed.
Now that it's in the hands of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court usually doesn't, you know, they don't publish their decisions until the summer.
They'll make a decision now, but they won't publish it till the summer.
Nobody's even taking that date seriously. And so it looks like Trump won't even be in trial before the 2024 elections.
And so Jack Smith, Chutkan and Biden, they're all, even DeSantis in a sense, because the only way DeSantis could ever possibly have a chance is if Trump was somehow removed because he was convicted, which wouldn't even happen in and of itself.
You can vote for anybody you want as president here in the States.
I mean, we see it all around the world, Lula in Brazil, or even Netanyahu in Israel.
I mean, there's plenty of people have been indicted who get who get elected no problem so anyway the uh right now you just have the weaponized legalist proponents with egg on their face and Trump looks like he's going to he's going to cruise through 2024 as things stand now we'll see what they come up with in terms of trying to take him out. 

Yeah because I always wondered why DeSantis was running I assumed that he was expecting the legal case to move forward and Trump to be stopped.
But the more legal issues are thrown at Trump, the more successful he is doing in the polls.
And I can imagine some strategists, there must be a few of them somewhere in the Democrat Party, wondering what we're trying is not happening.
And the last thing, I guess, the opponents want is Trump in court months before election, because that simply plays to his supporter base over a deep state.

You got it. And I don't think they understood this. It's part of, I get, I think we're seeing the same thing in Britain.
Our ruling class just occupies such a different cultural space than the rest of the population, the vast majority of the population.
They didn't recognize that when they took a mugshot of Trump, they would be moving him from one cultural sphere into another cultural sphere.
Prior to the mugshot, he was a New York billionaire president.
After the mugshot, he suddenly shared an experience that many people, particularly in our underclass, have experienced or know someone.
So if you ask anybody in our inner cities, how many New York billionaire presidents do you know?
Zero. But if you ask them, well, how many people do you know who've been unfairly targeted by the man?
Who've had mugshots, been arrested? Well, all of a sudden that number goes up exponentially.
So Trump in just that one act, in that one picture too, you know, pictures are worth thousands of words, in that one act, the deep state where they recognized him or not moved him from one cultural space where he's actually in many ways very much removed and aloof from your average citizen to another cultural space that has tremendous amount in common with your, you know, your average citizen.
So that's where the populism starts to kick in.
They don't recognize that we're going through a legitimacy crisis right now.
I think it's both Europe, particularly Western Europe and the United States, where every poll shows that virtually all of our public institutions, from our government to our media, to our judicial systems, all are haemorrhaging trust and confidence among the people.
If I recall, there was Matthew Goodwin, a good British scholar, I'm sure you know him.
He did, in his book on nationalist populism, they did a study back in the 1960s, 70% of Brits saw the government operating for the good of most or all.
Today, it's basically 19%. I mean, it's just literally plummeted.
And in the United States, it's even worse.
In many respects, the United States may be the single most divided country on the planet right now.
I mean, that's not an exaggeration. The gap that exists between our ruling elite and the people is growing more and more by the day.
And that's precisely why I think every time you see Trump becoming a victim of weaponized legalism his polls go up every single time. And I couldn't agree with you more. I think if he got convicted it might be the biggest landslide we've ever seen.

How does the J6 narrative fit in this because the footage is out, speaker of the house released it all. I thought Tucker had released it but maybe I don't know, the speaker has now released it. And you put a video out, could it actually be your latest video on Vivek Ramaswamy on with CNN and challenging the J6 narrative and taking great joy in the fact that maybe CNN viewers had never come across this before and enjoyed that platform.
But how much does the J6 narrative and the videos release that information?
How much does that fit in with kind of where Trump is and maybe challenging some of the narrative going against him?

It is. Well, again, J6 was used and we talk a lot about, say, like what happened with Alex Jones.
J6 was used against Trump very much like the Sandy Hook shooting was used against Alex Jones.
It was an effective tool that the regime uses to isolate and seclude dissent.
That's a very, very important technique. We can develop that a bit more.
So J6 was for three years, almost three years now, right?
It was a very effective weapon against not just Trump, but the whole MAGA movement and America First that we're all in the end insurrectionists. That's what we are.
Give us a chance and we'll just overthrow the government and install some authoritarian despotic rule.
That is falling apart. That's just collapsing, especially, like you said, with the larger footage that Tucker had released when he was with Fox and just more and more of the footage that's been coming out via the network society where we have instantaneous access to digital information, bypassing the legacy media, the way email bypasses the post office, basically.
So I think Vivek did a good job in that.
In that CNN slaughter was, I think he articulated the process that a lot of people were going through.
If you had asked me three years ago, you know, did the FBI set up a bunch of well-meaning, but perhaps overzealous patriots, I would have, I would never have believed it.
But then, of course, we had the whole Russian collusion fraud of 2016, and that cost us $30 million with a special counsel and the like.
We had the whole Jussie Smollett race victim hoax.
We had the whole Brett Kavanaugh is a racist. We had the whole COVID lab leak theory is nothing but a conspiracy theory.
We had the Covenant Catholic school kids were a bunch of racists at a pro-life rally, of course.
Racists at a pro-life rally, you just let that hit you.
Every life is sacred, but darn it, I'm a racist. Right.
You know, the notion that Hunter Biden's laptop was just Russian disinformation.
Suddenly people start to say, wait a minute, we we're getting lied to all the time here.
Maybe there is something to this J6 setup.
And so I think that's in many respects, as I know, just on a personal note, I can't even count the amount of people I've talked to who've told me.
They always thought so-and-so was a crackpot who believed in a deep state and conspiracy theories and so forth.
And he said, I'm a believer now. After all of this, I'm an absolute believer.
And then the polls are proving it. The vast majority of voters here do believe the FBI had some involvement in it.
And of course, we have court documents that prove there were FBI agents in informants among the crowd.
There's still no confirmation of how many. There's a Louisiana Congressman who believes there's upwards of 200 that were in the crowd.
And so the entrapment charge seems to be pretty clear.
You know, we have a governor Whitmer, Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, and there was a whole like conspiracy to kidnap her.
We're finding out that was a conspiracy that was actually constructed and concocted by by the FBI to entrap some, I guess, militia members or people part of a patriot movement out there.
And they were, I think all of them were exonerated in court and the juries were very apologetic. They even had to go through this.
So more and more people recognize, yeah, there is a deep state that does try to entrap its citizens in a manner comparable to a Banana Republic.
And now you have a president, former president, who's the chief opposition candidate, who's being literally trumped up with bogus charges.
And they're recognizing something's not right here.
And the de-legitimation continues to go on.
That's the key. I think the division in our nation grows with every passing day.

And you've done a number of videos on Biden's poll ratings.
I mean, you've got years worth of footage, basically, if you look at those poll numbers dropping, dropping.
Obviously, everyone says, well, it's the economy, stupid. Generally, that's what hits election chances. But then with everything else coming in, along with Biden being,
not knowing what day of the week it is, never mind when he is being led off stage.
How do all those factors play? Is it simply inflation or is it all those other factors that are playing into those? I mean, horrendous poll numbers.

Yeah, no, I think so. I think you set that up well. I think something much deeper is going on. 

Again Matthew Goodwin, I think, caught it very well in his book on national populism.
If people haven't read that, yeah...

I went to his book launch. I loved it 

Yeah it's, Matthews... I don't know if you've had him on your program, we got to have him on our our respective programs because he is really, and he and he's, well I should finish my sentence. He's really doing excellent work and he's bearing a lot of criticism from the woke academic world that says you're not allowed to even think in the categories.
Eric Kaufman is another one at the University of London, a Canadian expat out there.
Yeah, Matthew would call it a realignment, political realignment.
I think it's absolutely right.
I think you're seeing very same things happening both across the pond, both sides of the pond.
Back in 1960, 50% of the British population ascribed very strong loyalty to one of the major parties, either Tories or Labour.
Again, that figure today has dropped to like 10%. I think it was like 13%, exactly.
Just a huge, huge drop.
We're seeing something comparable here. What's happening is that because both parties, in our case, Republicans and Democrats, are just perceived as just occupying just such a different cultural space from their constituents, it's opening up opportunities.
I think it was Eric Kaufman who actually refers to them as bootleggers.
It's opening up opportunities for bootleggers, right?
So a bootlegger, You know, just for just we're all clear, you know, here in the States, we banned alcohol for a while during Prohibition.
And bootleggers were the ones that provided alcohol in the black market for people who wanted it.
When people want something, but the government isn't providing it, they're going to go and look for bootleggers to get it.
What we're seeing all throughout Europe, all throughout Europe, 300% increase in nationalist populist parties just over the last 10 years, and they're winning, right?
You guys are no longer in the EU because of a bootlegger. We're seeing bootleggers rise up.
We're seeing third, what I like to call third party candidates that is outside of your centre right, centre left parties rising up and giving the people, voicing the concerns of the people.
I mean, you just had that amazing election in the Netherlands a couple of weeks back with Geert Wilders.
I mean, I honestly believe, there was a time I thought he could pull it off back in 2017.
I think it was the last major election. It could have been at the tail end of 2016, where he's really, really close.
And then Mark Ruda ended up basically stealing his platform.
And they were able to paint him as the extremist and blah, blah, blah.
Those days are done. People see the establishment as the extremists because the establishment refuses to represent their values, interests, and concerns and continue to represent the values, interests, and concerns of the elite ruling class.
Again, I think it was Matthew Goodwin.
I'm going to fudge the data. I don't have it exactly in my head, but there was a Chatham House, the think tank study that found that it was something like 60, 70% of MPs believe that immigration is always good, whereas only about 20% of the voting population believe the same.
So the discrepancy between the worldviews is so dramatic.
What we have to understand here in the United States, Trump is a third-party candidate that won a major party nomination.
He's not a Republican. He's not a George W. Bush. He ran against George W. Bush.
He ran, and you're seeing it now with Nikki Haley and Chris, Chris, Christie, sorry, I always say Krispy Kreme. We have a donut shop here called Krispy Kreme.
So Krispy, we also call him Taco Bell.
You know, I, sorry, we've all been Trump-ized here, you know, but he turns everything into a WWE match, but yeah, he, you know, Trump is running against the establishment, Republican establishment, every bit as much as he's running against the Democrats, he's a third party candidate.
Who got a major party nomination. And so you can't, in my opinion, a real assessment of what's going on can't limit the dynamics solely to the economy.
You have to see this radical realignment happening as well.
And that's what we're seeing. We saw it in 2016 with the white working class who had always voted Democrat in every single presidential election since 1988.
Iowa, for example, voted for Mike Dukakis back in 88 when George Herbert Walker Bush got over 400 electoral votes.
They were one of the 10 states that voted for Dukakis.
Well, today, as of 2016, they're now voting 10, 20% for Trump.
We had almost 200 counties in Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, very, very white working class counties that had voted for every Democrat candidate since 1988, suddenly switch en masse and vote for Trump, some with a 40-point swing.
We saw, again, very similar dynamics happening during Brexit with the working class vote in Britain, as well as the December 2019 national elections where you had regions voting for the Tories that had never voted for the Tories, ever.
And Boris Johnson, of course, destroyed that coalition because he's again, he's part of this aloof cultural class that might play populist, but it fell apart.
And again, I think the Republicans are experiencing the same thing. Hence why.
And to me, this is very important.
When you put in a candidate other than Trump, the polls all re-equalize.
Now all the Democrat constituents go back to the Democrats.
Ohio is in play if you get rid of Trump. I've seen polls, if you put DeSantis in there, you put Chris Christie.
Biden wins Ohio in a landslide.
Very, very working class state that goes about 10 points pro-Trump.
Would suddenly either be a swing state or would turn blue.
So I think it's more than just the economy. I think it's this mass realignment of the working class toward a Trumpist populist paradigm.
And now we're seeing the non-white working class join up with that.
Obama won the non-white working class with a 70% margin back in 2012. 
Biden now has the non-white working class.
He's winning them by only a 10% margin. So it's a stunning collapse.
And they're not swinging to Republicans. They're swinging to Trump.
So that's why Trump has got to do what Boris Johnson failed to do.
And that is he's going to to have to, if he wins, he's going to have to command the authority to turn the Republican Party into a fully nationalist, populist, traditionalist party.
As long as they remain globalist, their fate, I think, is going to be the same as the Tories.

I agree. And you touch on immigration. I think immigration is a key thing because here, our conservative party have promised tens of thousands of our immigration numbers and we're now up to 700,000.
And the same there. I mean, Texas could build a wall and they're still arguing, discussing it. So I think that's a key issue.
And I think that's, I mean, we even, I think you put a video up recently, even CNN having to read out those poll numbers and announce Trump ahead in a number of states.
And I know we've had we've had Brandon Straka on before, the walk away campaign and Democrats beginning to realize that this is not the party they signed up to.
And tell us about that, because it's the left media beginning to admit what the polls are telling them.
And that is because Democrats are walking away.

Yeah, no, you're absolutely right. That's it.
When we'll set it down, the Democrat coalition's unravelling.
That's one of the reasons why Biden is is is falling apart.
And the only gift we could give them is to put someone other than Trump in.
If you want to realign their coalition, that'll do it because voters don't trust Republicans and Republicans are giving them a wonderful opportunities not to trust them.
They try. They tend to stab them in the back every chance they get.
Yeah, we've had a couple of some sort of really impressive studies of late.
There was something called a split ticket analytics study.
That was a meta study of national trends going on politically.
And then Democracy Corps did more of a micro study of late on just the battleground states.
So again, because we're an electoral college, we're all clear because we're an electoral college system.
Forget California, they're going to vote blue. Forget Texas, it's going to vote red. Florida's going to vote red.
Blue states, and sorry, our blue is liberal, right? And our red is conservative.
I know it's the opposite there. Right, exactly.
But hopefully everyone could translate, right? Just mirror it.
And so for us, it comes down to about seven purple states, right?
So that'll work. Seven purple states. They could go either way.
And what is so fascinating, particularly in that democracy core study, is they really looked at the battlegrounds. And that's what we try to do in our polls.
We try to look at what's going on nationally, some national trends, but then you're going to have to drill down and see if those trends are corroborated and what's going on in the battleground states.
Because Biden could be doing great nationally.
He might be up two, three points in a poll, but that's only because the poll is skewed more to the population centres in LA and San Francisco and New York and Chicago.
They're they're going to vote blue no matter what. The question is, what's going on in those purple states?
And when you look at the purple states, it really does look like the Democrat coalition has unravelled.
When they divide up their voter demographics and they look at Gen Z and millennial voters, when you break them down by race, so you get really nitty gritty in the demographic breakdown.
Gen Z white voters favour Trump by 30 points.
It's stunning. Now, these are more or less you're under 30 voters, to make it simple.
And millennials, I think, are between 30 and 40, something like that.
So Trump is winning the white Gen Z vote. And again, overwhelmingly by 30 votes.
The white millennials are voting for Trump by 20 points.
Latino voters in the battleground states, Trump is winning them.
He's winning them by three points. Nationally, it's Biden by around five points, but that represents a 20 point decline from 2020.
When it comes to blacks, this is probably the most astonishing number.
Trump right now has black support. Even the New York Times has admitted that no Republican has seen in half a century.
He's up around 20 points.
It's just we haven't seen this with any Republican candidate. Biden right now nationally.
He's winning the black vote with 52% of the vote But that's down 30 points from 2020. He won the black vote far above that 85-90%. So Trump is seeing black support like we've not seen before. Women, I mean the battleground polling shows that Trump actually has a 25 point lead among not just white women, but even unmarried white women.
It's the unmarried. We, married women tend to vote Republican in the United States.
They tend to be much more traditionalist. It's the unmarried women that tend to be the Republicans women problem.
They talk about unmarried white women now are with Trump by 25 by 25 points.
We're even finding that he's within the hair's breadth of winning the college vote, those with college degrees.
So in the United States, I'm sure it's comparable in Britain, there's a tremendous political difference between those who have college degrees and those who don't, so-called working class.
And working class right now are just overwhelmingly voting Trump and are increasingly voting Republican, whereas the college degrees tend to overwhelmingly vote liberal.
They kind of got what we say they got woke.
You know, that's not going on in 2024.
Now, Trump is even leading actually among women with college degrees, white women with college degrees.
It's just, so we're seeing, in effect, the Democrat coalition just unravel right before for our very eyes.
And now, yeah, you have articles coming out on CNN saying Joe Biden has an electoral math problem.
I mean, it's a nice way of saying he can't win as these polls are playing themselves up, because it's not that Trump just has leads in these battleground states.
He has leads that are far beyond the margin of fraud, which is around one or two percent.
You can play around with the vote up to about 1% or 2%. Beyond that, there's really...
You know, you've exhausted all the precincts that you can suck out some extra votes from.
So he's winning by four, six, eight, 10 percent in these battleground state polls.
And there's just, they're freaking out.
They know they can't do 2020 again with the massive mail-in ballot campaign that they had.
So they're left to the weaponized legalism to try to take Trump out through through a conviction, but like you said earlier, convict him, as things stand with this process of de-legitimation his poll numbers are even going to go higher. 

Well you, that's the meltdown on the political side and the legal side and a massive part to disseminate information is the media and you've done quite a bit also on the meltdown in the media, specifically the woke media.
I think nothing signifies that more than Alex Jones going back on X or Twitter.
And Musk said he would put it out to the polls.
Here in the UK, we've seen our most probably high-profile controversial figures would be Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson, and they have both also been reinstated to Twitter.
Tell us about that, because it is a joy to watch the left freaking out at free speech being allowed to reign.

Yeah, and just let that hit you, right?
Just so that a free press, a free media is freaking out over free speech.
It's, I mean, what's up is down, what's down is up.
Yeah, well, I think we all know what they're really freaking out about.
And they're finding their mechanisms, their tools of social control being wrenched away from them.
They are ultimately upset that Elon Musk is effectively disrupting one of the regime's most important tools of social control, which is the establishment's ability to isolate dissent.
Silencing dissent seems to involve two things.
When you read scholars of censorship, they focus on these two dynamics quite often.
I've found this very, very fascinating because we all focus on one dynamic, and that's the censorship proper, knocking somebody off the platform.
We saw that with, obviously, Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson alike.
We saw it with Alex Jones.
Just, you remove the microphone. That's it. You turn off the microphone, knock them off, problem solved, right?
Well, scholars have noticed when you go all around the world and you look at censorship techniques from authoritarian governments.
No, they know that the person is popular enough. You could turn off their microphone, but they're still going to have an audience.
You can still have public meetups, right? Email lists, direct mail, whatever.
There's all kinds of ways you can still drum up social dissent if the person is popular enough.
So that's why it can't just be the censorship proper.
There's another step to this, and authoritarian regimes use this all the time.
It's what leftist dissidents like Noam Chomsky refers to as manufactured consent.
And this is largely the role of the Western media. This is the role the Western media has been given, as it were, by the establishment or is carved out for itself by the establishment.
What our legacy media does here is they put forward a uniformity of not narrative.
It doesn't matter if you're looking at ABC, NBC, CBS, or channel four, BBC, or whatever. It doesn't matter what you're looking at.
It is a uniform narrative. Everyone is reading off the same script.
That's very important because if everyone is reading off the same script, no one person is saying it.
That's very important, right? Our founding fathers had a saying that we need to hang together or else we're going to hang separately.
They were going against the crown, as it were. And that's very much the principle.
We need to hang together. We need a uniform message.
And that way, no one person is saying it. We're all saying it.
And that uniform message, Noam Chomsky did a very, very good job in analyzing this.
The uniform message plays, it always plays off of pre-existing sentiments, pre-existing loyalties, prejudices, whatever you want to call them.
But the key is that the narrative, the uniform narrative, manipulates those pre-existing sentiments in such a way that strengthens the power of the regime.
And that's exactly what they did to Alex Jones.
The media unilaterally depicted Jones.
And again, that's the key. Everybody is saying it. He's a crackpot.
He's a crazed conspiracy theorist.
He's a threat to democracy. He's a Putin stooge. 
He wants you to poison yourselves in the midst of a pandemic.
And the piece de resistance, he is a cruel harasser of parents mourning over their murdered children.
That was the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, actually, which happened about 15 minutes from where I grew up in Connecticut.
So the key here is that the uniformity of the media's message deliberately creates, it aims to try to create a massive us, we the people, versus a very tiny, small them, or in this case, him or her.
And the reason why they're doing it, massing that kind of support, ironically, playing off of our sensibilities of poor parents who are mourning their kids and so on.
The reason why they're doing that is to silence any and all dissent against the regime.
So that's the key. It's not just the censorship.
That's bad enough. But again, if the person's popular enough, they'll find other ways of reaching people. No, no, no.
Manufactured consent is the means by which you destroy that popularity.
The media's unanimous narrative that deliberately seeks to isolate and thereby silence any and all dissent from the regime is its principal tool to increase its power and its manipulation.
And so I think that's why it seemed to, for so long, work so well with Alex Jones.
He seemed to have been pushed off the stage, and Tommy Robinson seems to have been pushed off that stage. Again, it's not just the microphone that got silenced.
People didn't want to be be associated with them anymore because of this uniform narrative that plays on our sensibilities in such a way that exploits them to increase the power of the regime.
That's the key. And so what did Elon Musk do?
He provided a massive communication network platform that invites these personalities back and thereby disrupts the unanimity of the media's narrative.
And destroys their ability to isolate and seclude dissent.
That's the key, I think, to the significance of what Elon has done.
And notice now what they're doing to Elon.
It's the same thing.

It is. And to finish off on this, you've got the schizophrenia of the legacy media.
I mean, I saw Piers Morgan in the UK was interviewing Zuby, the rapper, And they were discussing Alex Jones and Piers was saying, well, how dare you? How can you have Alex Jones on Twitter?
And they're arguing about whether you could or not.
But then I think back, well, Piers Morgan had Alex Jones on his show maybe six months ago, eight months ago.
So he's happy to have him on his show because the left realise it's a boost of, I mean, the left must have been, the media must have been so sad whenever Trump didn't turn up at those primaries. because it does boost that rating.
And going into election year, they want Trump, but they don't.
That's the same thing, the debate on the social media.
I mean, Twitter actually being free, that is a game changer.
Not that Twitter is where everyone finds, it is part of society, but everything else, you've got TikTok, you've got so many avenues of information.
And I think I'm curious to see how those play out in an election year with the mainstream media being desperate to get a glimpse of Trump for their ratings, but the new media, the Twitter is actually opening up and free speech reining.

Yeah, you're absolutely right, Peter. We talk about a lot on the channel, this phenomenon known as the network society.
We are moving into a very quickly, if not, we're already there, I think in many respects, we're in a whole different social order in many ways.
So back in the day, social order was primarily determined by proximity.
And so in the 19th century, early 20th century, it's where the great cities, industrialized cities amassed.
And then we had a whole media world rise up around them, you know, from the Washington Post to the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the L.A.
Times, the Chicago Tribune, the London Times, the Wall Street Journal.
They all revolve around these massive population centres, because if you wanted to go anywhere in the world for like, you know, if you want to go up the social ladder, you had to be where the action was happening.
If I want to make it in the country music, I had to move to Nashville.
Or if I want to make it in finance, I had to move to Wall Street or London.
If I want to make it in gambling, I had to move over to Las Vegas.
You had to be where the action is happening.
We don't have to do that anymore.
One of the most famous singers right now is Oliver Anthony.
You probably see the rich men north of Richmond.
And Oliver Anthony became this massive, massive country music hit, not by making it big in Nashville, not by getting signed by any kind of New York record executive.
He made it big because of a camcorder and YouTube singing in his backyard in rural Virginia.

And he ends up on the Joe Rogan show. 

Exactly, exactly.
Who again, and you just keep pushing that, who again is an independent content creator, totally independent of any kind of major network and so forth.
So what we're living in the midst of now is the recalibration society, not around proximity, but around networks.
So all you need is access to the network, namely the internet, just like you and I are doing right now. We're across the pond from each other, and yet I feel like I'm closer to you than somebody just 10 feet away from me over here.
We now have access to what's going on, irrespective of proximity.
You don't have to be where things are. You just have to tap into what things are, as it were.
And what does that mean? That means now we all have access to disestablish, decentralize digital information instantaneously. We don't need a legacy media mediating it for us.
They don't have a monopoly over that information anymore.
The first pictures of some event around the world don't come to us from satellite trucks with CBS News splashed across the windows. They come from people's smartphones.
Everybody with a phone is now a cameraman and everybody with a social media platform is now a commentator.
We all have access to the same information, which means now we can fact check the fact checkers.
We can fact check the legacy media in real time now.
And they don't know how to handle this because they're still living as if the big mass industrial age is the primary mechanism of social order. It's not anymore. It's networks.
It's instantaneous, disestablished, decentralized digital information.
That's why the independent content creator with Tucker Carlson being probably the king of them right now, the independent content creators, the future of it.
It's not big conglomerate media corporations like Fox.
They're losing They're losing viewers.
CNN is losing viewers. MSNBC is losing viewers. All the major newspapers are losing readers because the independent content creator who has just as much access to the information as anybody in the media is seen as more trustworthy precisely because they're not under the pressures, the professional pressures of pushing that uniformity of message.

Absolutely. And that Tucker Carlson network will be one that we are all watching intrigued at what comes out of that.
But Steve, thank you so much for coming.
I love just picking off some of those videos that you've touched on, on the meltdown on those different sectors.
So thanks so much for coming along and sharing your thoughts on those.

Oh, thank you, Peter. It's always an honour to be here.
Many of your viewers may know I got my doctorate across the pond at Durham.
And I always, always love visiting with my British brothers. So thank you, sir.