Van Jones to Democrats: “Nobody Talks That Way at the Barbershop.”

CLAY: We have been talking, Buck, about CBS, NBC, ABC, even a little bit of MSNBC, but certainly of late at CNN they are starting to react to basic truths that are coming through time after time with all of this polling. Joe Biden. I was looking at the Real Clear Politics. They do the best job out there of collating all the polls. Biden is below 39% approval, and he’s been down there at the lowest levels of his support for the last half of this month or so, continuing to go down as opposed to bounce back up as Democrats need in time for the midterms.

Well, Van Jones — who we’ve talked about before on this program — is one of the more, I would say, rational and intelligent analysts who looks at things from a Democrat perspective. He’s on CNN, and listen to him slam the elitism of the Democrat Party. Everyone is in shock on this panel at CNN to suddenly hear the truth.

CLAY: Buck, this is what I hear all the time, and this is where I come from the sports perspective. Just talk to people like they’re normal. We’ve talked about “Latinx.” We’ve got a huge number of people with Hispanic backgrounds that have no idea what that means. BIPOC? There’s a lot of black and Asian… This “people of color reference,” it doesn’t work. It’s an elite level of, frankly, incompetence that is characterizing the Democrat Party right now, and I think the only way you recognize this is with a really big ass kicking, which I think we’re gonna get in ’22 and in ’24.

BUCK: Think of just the belief behind using the term “Latinx,” which the Hispanic community does not use. Irrespective of their political assertion — Democrat, Republicans — they don’t use this.

CLAY: That’s right.

BUCK: No one uses this except people who are a part of the elite apparatus of the Democrats, and what’s so interesting is that those individuals also claim to be using it on behalf of what they refer to now as a “marginalized communities.” It’s a very broad, very vague term, intentionally so. But it’s because if you were to say “Latino” or “Latina,” you are using “gendered language.” This is fascinating. So does that mean now that the entire language…? Anyone who knows some of the romance languages, European languages like French, Spanish. There’s gender all over the place, right?

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: Male and feminine pronouns.

CLAY: Every word has a gender association with it.

BUCK: Yeah, every word has a gender association. So are we now — and, by the way, this is again where we say these things, and it used to be I think the thinking was, “This is the point on…” I think we had a caller who said, “You don’t need to have LeBron James go into the WNBA to prove the point. If you had a six-foot-eight men’s college basketball player that person would probably score 80 points a game or something.”

So the examples we use to expose the absurdity of the left, it’s important that everybody understands that the true left these days would actually embrace the absurdity, meaning the next step. They aren’t even at a point now where they’ll say, “No, no, we wouldn’t want to do that.” It’s just a question what they think is politically achievable. So if they thought they could get people to entirely change language — meaning the basic structure of language like French, Italian, German.

All these things that have masculine and feminine pronoun usage, but also just nouns are masculine and feminine. We have all these different words in our own language we can’t say “mankind” anymore, right. It’s “personkind.” You see this. Their control of language is meant as manipulation, and you always have to remember that. Our friend Chris Rufo over the weekend, Clay, shared the gender vocabulary and how incredibly Orwellian it is.

Orwell used to write about the usage of words to bring about certain political outcomes, and it was not just 1984. He wrote essays on this.

These are all phrases — this is from Chris Rufo — that you see everywhere. The mere usage of those phrases is oftentimes going along with things that are either in dispute or flatly untrue, and that’s why Van Jones is sitting there saying, “Hey, guys, they’re starting to figure this game out a little bit.”

CLAY: And, by the way, this is what drives Democrats, I think, particularly crazy. A lot of this is across racial lines. We were talking earlier about the idea of male swimmers, for instance, being able to identify as female swimmers. Do you know who overwhelmingly rejects that conceit? Black sports fans. Asian sports fans. Hispanic sports fans. And obviously white sports fans. This is something that crosses every line that supposedly is being used to identity politics us in terms of big differences.

And it’s that brings people together because it’s a fundamental lie that is being overwhelmingly rejected by all people who understand basically sports. And that’s why I think it’s so powerful and it’s why Democrats can’t even figure out how to defend it themselves. I mean, this swimmer reportedly said, “I’m the Jackie Robinson of swimming.”

No, no, no. You’re a dude who decided to identify as a chick. Jackie Robinson was a black man. He couldn’t change that. You just decided, “I wasn’t that great of a male swimmer. Now I’m gonna be a great female swimmer,” and you’re gonna refer to yourself as “the Jackie Robinson of swimming”? It’s insulting to anyone with a functional brain.

BUCK: And you could also see how immediately the left gets very angry about the notion of transracialism, which is fascinating on many levels, right, meaning the idea that you could change your race — and we have seen cases of people who have effectively said or lives their lives as though they were a different race than what they actually were, right?

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: So the left does not accept that.

CLAY: That is super racist thing to do.

BUCK: That is super racist, and it’s so interesting because even in our very broad racial categorization, are highly imprecise at best, right? You’ll notice that there are people who are let’s say they have of their four grandparents, one is black or one is Latino or what, and they’ll identify as that when the reality is they’re actually many different things.

BUCK: It’s who we all are as human beings. We all have access to 23andMe. We all see there’s a lot of different things that make each and every one of us. But we have these very clear categorizations that are laid out and that have political resonance for people and that have — as the Supreme Court as referred to it, or at least one Supreme Court justice — the racial entitlement state that has been built in this country, where certain skin color gives you certain things. That is the reality of the affirmative action programs that exist in so many places and that the Supreme Court is reviewing. Is that this term, I think ,or is that…?

CLAY: That’s the fall. It’s gonna be in the fall. But there’s a reason why to your point, Buck, someone who’s 25% Hispanic, right — three white parents within one who is Hispanic — identifies as Hispanic for purposes of applying to colleges. Because even though you’re one quarter Hispanic, that advantage is substantial or one quarter black.

BUCK: This is the other thing: This is morally indefensible. People play games with this all the time. And that’s why I do think they’ve pushed this all to a point where people who are acting in good faith and people who just wanted to be left alone have realized, they won’t leave you alone.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: Meaning, the Democrat apparatus is not gonna say, “Hey, if you’re just accepting of using these different terms…” It’s not, “Please use the term Latinx if you feel like doing it.” It’s “Just give it time; everybody’s gonna have to use that term — or else.” Look what they’ve done with “undocumented.” You hear it everywhere. It’s “illegal immigrants,” folks. People are breaking the law. It’s undocumented all over the place.