>> Let's just do a couple minutes on who you are and what got you to that stage.
And then we're gonna dive into all the issues and talk about love and healing crystals and
everything else.
>> I thought- >> So take it away.
>> I didn't know that was a specific question.
>> That's Marianne Williamson getting interviewed by Dave Rubin on his show.
And it started a little rocky, as you can see there, but it was actually a good interview.
I personally enjoyed watching it, I thought that she had great answers.
And this was one of the rare instances where Dave Rubin did what interviewers are supposed
to do, ask questions and have follow-up questions.
Maybe even pushing back on things that you disagree with.
Now, I wish that were true of other interviews he does.
But when he has individuals like Stefan Molyneux pushing his racist ideology on the program,
no pushback at all.
And I'll show you examples of that in just a second.
But before I do so, I want to give you some of the snippets of this interview that I thought
stood out.
Now let's go to the first video, and I'll kind of fill in the blanks.
>> When I knew I wanted to have you on the show was during the debate.
You said something that I thought, this is actually completely unheard of for a Democrat,
at least in 2019, to say.
You said, I do not believe that the average American is racist.
>> No, I don't.
>> And yet it seems if you watch mainstream media, we are just caught in, you're racist,
you are racist, you're a bigot.
You're a fascist, you're a homophobe, you're a transphobe, this endless game.
And unfortunately, and I say this as someone that I still consider myself liberal.
But I'm a lifetime Democrat, really, at least until the last two or so years.
A lot of that's coming out of the left and from the Democrats, this labeling of everyone
as racist.
>> Well, I hear you, and you're leaving out a very important factor.
Which is that the President, at least based on his tweets and his comments, is.
So I agree with you that a smug, self-righteous, intolerant left-winger is no less dangerous
to the emotional fabric of our country.
Than a smug, self-righteous, intolerant right-winger.
And some of the shutdown, you shut up, you didn't say the right thing, comes from the
left as much as the right these days.
I will give you that, and it's dangerous and it's wrong.
However, this president says things, and is involved in it right now, which by any measure
are racist comments.
>> I show you that clip because the whole brand that Dave Rubin is trying to put out
there is that he hates identity politics.
He hates talking about the racist issues.
He wants to talk about the issues that matter.
But all he does, over and over again, is talk about race.
He's the one who talks about race over and over again.
But he does so from the standpoint of, there's no racism in America, everything's great,
this is just oppression Olympics.
You wanna know what real oppression is?
I'm being censored on social media, that's real oppression.
Now, there are algorithm changes on social media that have affected everyone, this company
included.
But it's amazing how he claims that, there's too much attention on race relations in America.
But I'm gonna dedicate 95% of my show on race relations in America.
And he had her on specifically because he thought it was great that she said that she
doesn't believe most Americans are racist.
So it's amazing to me, anyway, go ahead.
>> This woman should not be president of the United States.
It's offensive at this point, and it's harmful.
When you find yourself as a white person essentially equating race to someone being shut down,
racism to saying the wrong things.
Those are not two of the same things, and words often cause actual violence.
This belief, this anti people of color, anti-immigrant, this anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from the
top is more than just someone saying the wrong thing.
And when you find yourself as a white person talking about race, and you start with the
both sides things.
You're thinking about, okay, that's where I'm gonna go with this, don't.
And she should be smarter than that.
>> Yeah, so Maytha, before you jump in, I actually wanna go to the next clip, because
we have a lot of video to get to.
And when we come back, I want you to comment on what happens in this next video.
>> I don't even really know who's talking about policy anymore, or really what I would
rather talk about all day long.
Which is how much government is needed to do anything, which I think would be a rich
place to have a discussion.
>> Yeah, but I don't know, I think it's more complicated than that.
I think we need to walk and chew gum at the same time.
>> So Dave Rubin argues that the left wing doesn't talk about policy.
That all we do is talk about racism and race relations in America.
Okay, I have a plan for that is literally a motto in one of the Democratic candidate's
presidential platforms.
Elizabeth Warren, I have a plan for that.
We talk about policy nonstop, but in his bubble, in his world, the only thing that makes him
money is to stoke racial tensions.
I said that you would be able to talk when we came back, I'm sorry, Maytha, jump in.
>> No, it's all good.
I think what we're seeing here is that people don't understand that identity politics includes
white nationalists, right?
That is an identity, and when you set white as neutral default, it obfuscates the fact
that it is part of the identity politics rhetoric.
So they're doing it way more than the people that allegedly are constantly obsessed and
trying to get you mind focused off of real material policies.
But I will say that I think that, I don't know if that clip was so fair to what she
goes into when she talks about race and racial economic disparity that exists in the US.
Because she does a stunning deep dive that- >> Into reparations, which was impressive.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, so I wish we could show you longer clips.
But I did not like the fact that she tried to draw this false equivalency between the
right and the left.
That was definitely a misstep, in my opinion >> It did, and people calling out racism compared
to people perpetuating it.
>> Right, right, right, no, absolutely, and I think the problem is that-
>> It's damaging, it's dangerous.
>> Yeah, and I think that sometimes what white folks think they can do to enter a conversation
is acquiesce the initial claim to delve deeper.
And I think that's what her strategy was, and I'm not saying I'm cool with that strategy.
But it was more interesting when you got further into the discussion, which does not defend
her initial comments.
I will say, to be transparent, she has Monday sermons in LA.
She's had them for decades, and I've been to them, and I-
>> Interesting.
>> Yeah, yeah, yeah, we can have maybe a postgame show about that.
>> He was very upset about those sermons because apparently she tries to get black and white
individuals to connect on a deeper level.
And he thinks that she does that out of white guilt.
>> Right, right, right, yeah, and the fact that, and again, he goes into, we shouldn't
be responsible.
I don't know if you have more clips around some of this stuff.
But it got really interesting around the Holocaust.
And how she pushed back on him with his un-acknowledging the harm that slavery, the genocide that went
with slavery, the genocide of Native Americans.
For him, he thought that the Holocaust, he was playing oppression Olympics again, again.
>> He was, it was oppression Olympics, and I thought that was one of her stronger moments
in the interview.
Where asks her, do you really think that slavery was as bad as the Holocaust was?
And she said, no one has a monopoly on pain.
And so she said, absolutely, it was terrible.
I'm paraphrasing, but she even asked him, have you read up on slavery in America?
>> Yeah.
>> He was like, yeah, yeah, I have, and I don't know if you have.
>> I wonder why she did this show?
>> Yeah, I know, I know, I'm actually, I would typically say I'm against it, but I think
she handled it well.
If you watch the entirety of the interview, you'll get what I'm saying, because she did
not back down.
There were moments where he pushed back, and you're about to see it right now, and she
wouldn't back down.
And I thought that that was actually impressive.
So let's go to the next clip, this is one of the examples where he pushes back.
>> There's all this underlying racial tension in this country, it's not spoken, it's resentment.
In my lifetime, I've certainly seen the ways in which racial issues have gotten better.
But at the same time, you see how certain things are unwinding, almost getting worse,
and so we need that interplay, that-
>> But yeah, that really feels right to you?
That feels like a media make-up to me.
I don't think racism, that's why I was so thrilled when I heard you make that statement,
I don't think most Americans are racist, it's such-
>> I don't think most Americans are racist.
That's not my experience, that's not my belief.
But what is my belief is that the average American is woefully undereducated about the
history of race in the United States.
>> Including Dave Rubin, and she was asked to provide examples of systemic racism, and
she did.
She cited various studies showing how the justice system is.
There's a difference in sentencing when it comes to black and white individuals.
When it comes to the use of drugs, black individuals, white people take drugs or use drugs at the
same rate.
But when you look at prosecution, the black community is prosecuted much more aggressively,
so she gives all of these examples.
And of course, it does nothing to persuade Rubin.
Because he's playing into the type of audience that loves the rejection of what's really
happening in the country.
And so I bring this up because one of the biggest criticisms that Rubin deals with.
And it's a legitimate criticism, and it's one of the reasons why I think it's a bad
idea for candidates to go on his show.
Is because he's had some of the worst people on that program, and he does not push back.
And his whole argument was, well, here's the thing, I don't wanna debate people, right?
I want them to feel comfortable sharing their perspectives and their viewpoints.
And I'm not there to make them uncomfortable or to fight back or debate them.
And he did that throughout the interview with Marianne Williamson.
He did not do that when he had Stefan Molyneux on, and this guy is just repulsive.
I'll give you an example right now, let's take a look.
>> There's not a lot of famous Jewish architects or engineers.
Because Jews test an average around the hundreds in spatial reasoning, but crazy high on verbal
acuity, verbal reasoning.
So of course, you would expect among novelists, among playwrights, among lawyers, where high
verbal IQ is very important, gonna find a lot Ashkenazi Jews.
And lo and behold, you do, so what that means is that, let's say, Ashkenazi Jews, sorta
120, 125 verbal IQ.
And there's a certain proportion of them the language field.
But it's not anything to do with Judaism, it's to do with IQ.
And so what that means is that if you look at any group of people wherein they're in
that IQ, they're gonna be equally represented or proportioned.
And then under that you have, I don't know.
The word Oriental's kinda come out of favor, which is kind of annoying in a way.
Because how do you differentiate people from India, people from sub, but East Asians, whatever,
the Chinese, Japanese, and so on?
103, 104, 105 IQ, in general, very high on spatial reasoning, which is why the software
engineers, other kinds of engineers, you see that.
Google has this, it's 40% or something like that of their engineers are East Asian.
>> Not much more, because after this diversity thing goes through, they're gonna just have
to pick everybody by color and all that nonsense.
>> But this is the thing, right?
So if you're looking at East Asians with very high spatial IQ, they're gonna be, quote,
overrepresented in those engineering fields, and so on.
Because everyone who's got that IQ is up there.
There just happen to be more of those, right?
>> So there's Stefan Molyneux trying to make the argument that different races have different
IQs.
And certain races are smarter than others, just perpetuating this nonsense.
And did you hear Rubin push back on that at all?
Did he do any research, or was there even a follow-up?
All he did was agree, and by the way, it's about to get worse.
Cuz I have another clip on this, he just doesn't push back at all.
So when you have someone from the left on.
First of all, he rarely does, but let's say you do, right?
And it's no surprise that he's willing to do that when they're presidential candidates.
Why is it okay to push back, but it's not okay to do it when you have a disgusting,
repulsive little, words I can't say on this show right now, on your show?
>> Because when you don't consider words like what he just said, when you don't consider
that racist.
Then you believe, like Marianne said, that most Americans are not racist.
Because when you define racism as a Klan member in full-hood uniform burning a cross in front
of an old black lady's lawn.
And saying the N-word no less than 17 times.
And that's the only way you can be racist, then, yeah, sure, most Americans are not,
not a lot of racism.
And so that's how come he didn't push back on that, because he doesn't find that to be
a problem.
>> Well, that's why it is a, like we've been talking about, it's been an identity politics
rhetoric that they've been using.
Because if you would actually look at structures, you can connect the idea of race as not just
the explicit interpersonal stuff that is horrifying and horrific.
But you can make the connection to what Marianne Williamson later talks about, which is the
250 years of slavery, the 100 years of institutional racism.
The continued institutional racism that we see in criminalizing drugs with massive disparity.
The disparity between property levels that influence the quality of education that different
racial groups are getting, right?
So if you can't make those connections, then you can't understand.
That if you are profiting from a system that is hurting people actively, and has been for
hundreds of years.
Then you are a racist if you're not fighting directly against it.
>> And if you consider yourself an ally and someone who does fight against it, at what
point is it your responsibility to not go on shows like this?
At what point is it your responsibility to not help places like that make money?
At what point is it your responsibility to not give more shine and share your gigantic
platform with this man who puts you in a corner and praises you for something that you misspoke?
>> Yeah, let me be clear about something.
So I totally agree, that is such a good point.
Because when legitimate people go on shows like this, it helps them launder their racism
and launder their image.
And I think that that's incredibly destructive, because it legitimizes them.
And you're seeing this happen with a lot of the Trump-era repulsive people.
Lauren Southern is an example, she's like, I think I need to take a break.
I'm gonna take a break, I don't know what I'm gonna do next.
But she's gonna go away for a little while, right?
Possibly launder her image and come back, and maybe she's had an awakening.
Because the grift isn't working anymore, people are becoming more aware.
Gavin McInnes is another example, who offered me $11,000 to go on his show.
And I said no, I'm not gonna go legitimize this crackpot show, I have no interest in
that, right?
And then he did the same thing with David Pakman.
And even called into David Pakman's show pretending like he was someone else.
A liberal who wanted to encourage Pakman to watch the Gavin McInnes Show and possibly
go on, whatever it is.
These people are trying to change their image, because the grifting isn't working anymore.
And so I totally agree with you, in that people who are legitimate and care about doing the
right thing should just take a quick moment.
To think about the destructive nature of these programs and what they're doing to, maybe
unwittingly doing, to legitimize them.
>> Your actions have to be stronger than your words, though.
And I'm not saying people can't make mistakes.
This is not specifically just about her going on the show.
But your actions have to be stronger than your words.
And going on shows like that, whether you're trying to sell a book, whether you're trying
to gain popularity for your vanity presidential run.
But it says that my popularity, what I can gain from this, and these people who support
this are more important than the people that this rhetoric harms.
>> Right, especially if your message is that there needs to be a spiritual and moral awakening
in this country right now on that, yeah.
>> Right, this is an easy decision, no, I'm not doing that.
It should be easy, yeah.
>> I mean, that's her whole message.
>> And so when people say it's fake, I mean.
>> And one final thing, and I know we've gone too long with this.
But I have to show you the last video, and then we'll wrap this up.
The final part of Stefan Molyneux and the lack of pushback that we see from Dave.
>> Blacks make less money than Ashkenazi Jews, but if you normalize by IQ, they don't.
Again, it's heartbreaking stuff, and it is so difficult to absorb this into your daily
thinking because, but go ahead.
>> Well, I just want to pause you for a second.
Cuz it's interesting you're describing it as heartbreaking and a struggle, because that's
what I was gonna ask you.
Is that because you do talk about this stuff, I was gonna ask you, are you troubled by it?
>> No, it's horrible.
>> Because I don't know that I've gotten that, exactly, through your videos.
But I obviously haven't seen everything that you've done on this.
So hearing you frame it in that way is actually different than a bit of the impression I had
of you on this.
>> Do you know how much I would give Dave to know that it was just racism?
>> So there's Dave Rubin helping to launder the racism and the bigotry of Stefan Molyneux,
right?
So it goes back to what we were saying earlier.
>> Yeah, and so the thing that I will give Marianne Williamson credit for doing on the
Dave Rubin show is backing up everything she was saying with historical examples.
This guy gives zero historical examples, and out of context.
The IQ test, standardized intelligence test, that started in 1882 by this guy Francis Galton,
who is a eugenicist.
So everything that we understand of this test and what it's supposed to tell us is rooted
in racism.
And there's no challenging anything, of that I know, asking him to put it in historical
context at all.
So again, he's letting him off easy and letting the racism run buck wild.