All Episodes
Previous Next
March 25, 2022 - Jimmy Dore Show
01:01:32
20220325_TJDS_20220325_Podcast_-_32522_12.08_PM
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We're doing our live stand-up tours.
We're going to Los Angeles, Orlando, Tampa, Columbus, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Des Moines, Omaha, Kansas City, and more.
Go to jimmydoorcomedy.com for a link for all the tickets and become a premium member.
You get all our bonus stuff.
establishment media sucks all gaslighting so good luck bullshit we can't afford fomenting this watch and see as the jack off the median speeds and jumps the medium and hits them head on it's the chimney door show you you you So we have some big controversy, some big and more trans controversy.
So the Babylon Bee got locked out of its Twitter for a tweet naming Rachel Levine its man of the year.
That was very insulting.
Here it is.
Babylon B's man of the year is Rachel Levine.
Now, that's misgendering, and that's against Twitter's policy.
Right.
And so they locked them out.
By the way, in other news, did you know that Twitter allows the Taliban to be on Twitter and also pornography?
No, I'm not talking softcore Instagram side boob pornography.
I'm talking hardcore, spread-eagled, medical text put grade butt hole images all allowed on Twitter.
But you can't post crazy crap like this by the Babylon Bee's gag.
That's a gag, not a good gag.
Yeah, I didn't.
I'm not even outside of any thing of the trans.
Like when I saw it, I just laugh at their things when I see them.
Usually I laugh at the Babylon Bee.
I did not laugh at that.
I didn't think that was funny.
Yeah, like that.
It's just like, it's fun.
Like, we got me and Kyle do stuff on there.
You got to be so.
Because, I mean, like, I don't know.
There's just like a funnier way to do a thing than that, but I didn't know the whole thing.
Okay, I'll let you do it.
Thank you.
No, I mean, it's like they didn't, that's not a joke.
It's just like the way they think.
You get to it later in the thing, but I understand a little better by the time you get to the end of this.
Okay.
All right.
So the satirical conservative site posted the notice from Twitter saying that the account was locked for violating the Twitter rules, specifically the policy against hateful conduct.
We received this notice that we've been locked out of our Twitter account for hateful conduct, said the B in an Instagram post.
We're told our count will be restored in 12 hours, but the countdown won't begin until we delete the tweet that violates the Twitter rules.
By the way, hateful conduct.
Hateful conduct.
That's the difference.
The people who post raw butthole shots love buttholes.
They don't hate them, and that's why they're allowed to post them.
The Taliban loves Jews in America.
No?
Am I wrong on that one?
I mean, apparently, I guess.
Okay, I'm stumped.
I guess they just get to decide.
Twitter just gets to decide what is what.
So by the way, I don't think they're going to take down that tweet.
The B said it would give up its account, which has 1.3 million followers before erasing the tweet.
We're not deleting anything, said the B. Truth is not hate speech.
If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it.
Now, I'm not so sure that that's the truth that they posted.
Well, that doesn't matter because now that you took a joke that me that's not sensitive went meh to, they have now made these guys into a man for all seasons.
Like, where, you know, like, because they have more integrity than B's, like, I don't, the joke's like, whatever, but good for them.
Like, screw your stupid platform.
And this is why you don't censor because now a joke that wasn't any good now has to be defended, right?
And 1.3 million people are going to not think how you want them to think.
And if anything, be less accepting of trans people.
I think that, I think that tweet actually would have a rebound effect, you know?
Yes.
It would make people more sympathetic to that trans woman for them doing that.
It did me, anyway.
I didn't think they should do that.
That's right.
And that's the, it's like a principle of, you know, I don't believe in the punching analogy, but there is a thing of now they screw.
Well, I mean, they don't care about the trans woman or anything, obviously, but they screwed up by doing because now I think the Babylon B did screw up.
Oh no, I mean by censoring them.
Babylon Bee just made a joke that's like really whatever.
And so you think, well you think that, well of course censorship is bad.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
The joke I just feel like, eh, like if I was writing, I'm writing, we'd sit there and noodle on things.
But now people are gonna have to defend that bad joke.
You know, you gotta get in a civil war over a thing that, oh.
They don't even like because of, well that's how I felt about, you know, when I defended Alex Jones.
You know, I wasn't defending Alex Jones, I was defending a principal.
I mean, you've definitely done the opposite of defend him.
You don't have to prove that.
I've definitely done the opposite of defend him, that's for sure.
Okay.
The Bee's Levine ding.
Oh, it was a ding.
Came shortly after the Time Magazine named the Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary one of its 12 women of the year.
So that's what brought this to attention, that trans woman was named by Time Magazine of one of its 12 women of 2022.
The former Pennsylvania Health Secretary reportedly transitioned from male to female in 2011 at the age of 53.
See, that's what I was talking about, where I'm like, okay, I get it a little better, because I thought it was very uncharacteristically, of Babylon be like not very, but I think it's a big deal.
So now I at least understand, you know, how they came to it.
Oh, but what they're thinking, the progression.
But I didn't see this before I saw that, so how am I gonna know?
has shown little tolerance for those who refer to Dr. Levine as a man representative Jim Banks Indiana Republican was suspended in October for a tweet saying the title of the first film first female four-star officer gets taken by a man referring to dr. Levine's promotion to four-star admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service commissioned course so however you feel about misgendering the what's that that's
not Surgeon General okay all right well Twitter's policy against hateful conduct includes comments that promote violence against threaten or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.
Okay.
Oh, it's okay.
Yeah.
We should probably frame this policy in a fancy display case next to the Constitution at this point.
Our country's.
That's what we should probably do.
In a series of follow-up tweets, Babylon B CEO Seth Dylan explained that the account would be restored in 12 hours, but that the countdown won't begin until the tweet was deleted, which he refused to do.
So on Monday morning, Dylan further added, while the offending tweets remain live, the Babylon B is unable to post anything new.
But there's a lot of people who do this all the time.
There's an account called Michelle Obama is a man.
Isn't that wild that they let what in the name of J.K. Rowling is this shit?
Here's another one.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is not only a Russian asset, she's also a Russian asshat and a man.
So people are doing this.
This is the only difference between Alex Jones and Anne culture is Alex has bigger boobs and Ann has a bigger Adams.
So people do this kind of garbage.
Uh...
Thank you.
And Coulter is a man.
Carry on.
So people, yes, carry on.
Carry on censoring the people I don't like for the crimes I am also guilty of.
Carry on.
This is, you're telling me these Lindsey Graham is a guy, thought he was a woman.
So this happens all the time on Twitter, and they don't get all of them.
Oh, here's one.
Here's where Keith Oberman was tweeting about me and he misgendered me.
He said, time to he wanted to ban me, by the way.
That's his base.
That's his flex.
He's a fascist and he doesn't know it.
He thinks he's fighting fascism because he doesn't like Trump.
But he's way more of a fascist than Trump is.
I mean, Keith Oberman.
He says, time to ban this feral succubus.
No, succubus is a female.
Yeah, you're an incubus.
I'm an incubus.
So he's calling me a succubus.
That's misgendering me.
And that is supposed to get him kicked off Twitter, but no one cared.
You know, someone should tell Keith Oberman that he needs to have a more ambiguous discernment of good and evil or whatever.
So I think it's not, I don't think that I don't think that that was not some of Babylon B's best work.
In fact, it wasn't good.
Dude, you know, that's an interesting one after the swimmer.
Because somebody like, you know, I'll have friends or like somebody I used to text me when Levine got appointed.
And I felt like, no, I'm like, well, what is she like going to beat another general's time by 38 seconds?
Yeah, no.
Like, what's a job anybody, like, I don't give a.
She doesn't have an advantage by being a transition.
It's a disadvantage.
And so that's why.
But I do understand, even though I would just cut the joke because of this very issue, they're making fun of them putting her in the list of the best women, not the best surgeon, general, or whatever.
Whatever her health service.
Yeah.
So I understand the laughing at a list of the best women and like, oh, we got to include, I can see where you make a joke, but I didn't see that other article.
And even if it's unfair that she's on a list of the best women, that's still not like a sport.
That's still a nonsense thing like an award show where why would you even need to worry about the injustice of it?
So that's a lot of space to go after that.
And then you have problems where people aren't going to get it.
And then, but in fairness, now stupid Twitter, I'll give it to Babylon B, like, like, you know, people, that's what the hill you want to die on.
They're not really dying on the hill of that crappy joke.
They're dying on the hill of, no, you can't be hypocrites and throw this around.
We'll just not have the account.
So I actually do like that of them on this.
That they are not going to back down, you mean?
Yeah, even though I would be like, this joke sucks, I would.
And I'm not oversensitive where I'm like mad if somebody even said generally, but it's like, I don't want it for a joke where I didn't gut laugh when I saw it.
I don't want to have an issue.
I'm just against censorship across the board.
I'm just, you know, bad speech needs better speech.
And you were right about all the stuff that you're allowed to post.
And I don't need a Silicon, a nameless Silicon Valley bureaucrat or billionaire deciding what is okay and what isn't.
And I don't think that's okay, but I don't want to look at it.
And then why would make fun of Babylon B for doing that or something?
Yeah, you basically usurped your authority that should have been left to me or you to as comments like, eh, you know?
You make fun of how bad of a joke that is.
That's what I would do, probably.
I would go, wow, this is.
And that would, I bet you anything, because they're generally funny.
Those guys with Babylon B would accept that kind of criticism as people that have made me laugh so I know they're funny.
Yeah, yeah.
So often, often Babylon B has things I've retweeted even.
They're funny.
There's not one of those things.
And so, yeah, there you go.
It's just the hypocrisy.
Like the thing I'm like, oh, no, I'm not apologizing.
You just let all these people do this thing.
The Michelle Obama one.
How is that allowed?
How is that allowed?
I thought maybe it was a promotion for their new Netflix project and it's like a sitcom.
How is that allowed?
That's an account.
Yeah, so that's why we don't have those kind of laws.
It's much the way, like, say, drug laws are unevenly applied or any other thing.
This kind of policing should go first before we.
So it seems like selective enforcement.
Yeah, because it's not a public service.
It's a private company.
Like, why would you put them in charge of that?
I know.
Well, guess what?
The West Hands in Ukraine are as bloody as Putin's.
What?
You're not allowed to say that.
The View will want you investigated and arrested.
This is from Jonathan Cook over at Mint Press News.
Ukrainians will pay the price to wear down Russia, just as Syrians, Libyans, Iranians, Yemenis, Venezuelans, and Palestinians have paid the price as the United States has sought to attain the goals of its globe-spanning imperial project.
So there is a discursive nervous tick all over social media at the moment, including from prominent journalists such as Guardian columnist George Monbiot.
The demand is that everyone not only condemn Russian President Vladimir Putin for invading Ukraine, but to do so without qualification.
What about Ary?
Yeah.
Here it is.
George Monbaug, Guardian columnist.
And this is what he says.
Any reluctance to submit is considered certain proof that the person is a Putin apologist or a Kremlin bot, and that their views on everything under the sun, especially Their criticisms of equivalent Western war crimes can be safely ignored.
And here's George Monbaught.
For years, I've been arguing with a faction within the anti-imperialist left that is neither anti-imperialist nor distinguishable in its foreign policy positions from the far right.
It is pro-Putin.
It recycles Kremlin propaganda and whitewashes atrocities.
Holy shit.
This dude's a classic dickhead, by the way.
He's got a bunch of great numbers, George Monbiot.
How convenient for all these Western leaders who have committed war crimes, at least as bad as Russia's current ones.
How convenient.
I have repeatedly described Russia's invasion as illegal.
I have regularly called Putin a war criminal.
And I have consistently compared Putin's deeds to the very worst actions taken by the West over the past two decades.
But none of that is enough.
More is always needed.
You're never quite, you're never quite loyal enough to your country.
You have to have never proven it yet.
You're not pure enough in your loyalty.
Yeah, don't you want to be on the lesser of two evil side of history?
The demand for unequivocal denunciation is a strange, if common one, and suggests that those insisting on it are being dishonest, if only with themselves.
The function of the demand is not to clarify whether any particular piece of information or an argument is credible.
It is intended purely as a gotcha meme.
I don't remember an instance that anyone condemned Tony Blair or George W. Bush for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 before they could be heard or taken seriously.
Or that the denounced, or that they denounced the U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan leader Mu Mar Gaddafi that plunged the country into murderous chaos.
I remember you had to pledge loyalty to George Bush and Tony Blair or else.
Yeah.
You couldn't remember that.
Or that they deplore the West's material support, deplore the West's material support of Saudi Arabia's slaughter of Yemen's population, including Britain's sale on planes, bombs, and training to Riyadh.
Or that they criticize the West's backing of head-chopping jihadists in Syria, who coincidentally now appear to be drifting into Ukraine to become our allies again, or that they decry decades of Western support for Israel as it has disappeared the Palestinian people.
Just to remind you, Britain is still today supplying bombs, missiles, aircraft, operational support, training, and special services to Saudi Arabia to continue years of mass murder of civilians in Yemen.
Every crime we deplore in Ukraine, we enable in Yemen.
And those are the things for which we, meaning Westerners, are directly responsible.
We elected the politicians who caused this unquantifiable suffering.
Those bombs were ours.
We ought to be clamoring for our leaders to be dragged to The Hague to be tried for war crimes.
By contrast, we, meaning Westerners, are not responsible for Putin or his actions.
I cannot vote him out of office.
Nothing I say will make him alter course.
And worse, anything I do say against him or Russia simply amplifies the mindless chorus of self-righteous Western commentary intended to cast stones at Russia's warmongers while leaving our own homegrown warmongers in place.
Westerners denouncing Putin won't make compromise and peace more likely.
It will make it less likely.
Russians need to be highlighting Putin's crimes as best they can to drive him to the negotiating table, while we need to be doing the same to our leaders to push them to the same table.
As long as our attention is on Putin and his crimes, it is not on our leaders and their crimes.
Those who insist it is quite possible to denounce both Putin and Western leaders at the same time are precisely the people who have been so half-hearted in holding our own leaders to account.
Monbiat, let us note, has not used a single one of his weekly columns at The Guardian to highlight the years-long plight of Julian Assange, locked away in a British dungeon for revealing U.S. and U.K. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is the gravest attack on a free press in living memory, and yet Monbiat used his most recent column to attack Julian Assan's supporters, like veteran journalist John Pilger, for not being voluble enough in denouncing Putin.
What really is the point of demanding Westerners denounce Putin unequivocally when the entire Western media and political class is directing our gaze exclusively at Russia's crimes precisely so Westerners don't look at equivalent Western crimes?
The truth is that in power politics, unequivocal denunciations are for politicians and diplomats and virtue signalers.
Condemnations may be emotionally satisfying, but the rest of us can put our energies to far better use.
For most of us, the better course would be to blow away the immediate fog of war and instead analyze our, meaning the West's, role in the unfolding events.
Even a cursory glance shows that the West's hands are not clean in Ukraine, not at all.
The meddling and hypocrisy have occurred in two stages, first from politicians and then from the media.
It was the choices made by Western politicians that provoked the invasion.
And Russian troops are in Ukraine, not because Putin is Hitler, mad, or a megalomaniac, though again, the invasion makes him a war criminal in the same mold as Tony Blair and George W. Bush.
Russian troops are there because he and his officials judge the West to be acting malevolently and in bad faith in their dealings with the Ukraine.
The Putin as madman or Hitler script deflects attention away from the very obvious fact that Western leaders willfully played fast and loose with the security of Ukraine and the safety of its population.
The West encouraged Ukrainians to believe that they would soon fall under NATO's security umbrella when in fact the West had no intention of protecting them and is not now only too evident.
Ukrainians were led to believe that the more Russians posture Russia's posture turned belligerent towards Ukraine, the more likely NATO would be to come to Ukraine's rescue and act as its savior.
Which, of course, incentivized the Ukrainian government to keep poking the Russian bear in the expectation that Kiev would have a NATO insurance policy up its sleeve.
It didn't.
It never did.
And current events show.
On the back of NATO's deception, recent Ukrainian leaders confidently fomented ethnic nationalism at home and thereby themselves played a dangerous game of chicken with their superpower neighbor.
That included coddling anti-Russian fascists at home and stoking a related civil war in the Donbass region by its ultra-nationalist allies against the Russian ethnic community living there as a way to drag NATO directly into the conflict.
So what they're saying is that Ukraine kept shelling those Russians in the eastern part of Ukraine, the Donbass, so that NATO would get dragged into this conflict.
And that's his.
So here's Salon.com, and this is from, oh, there's no fucking date on it.
March 10th, 2022.
Right after Nikita.
Here it is, March 10th.
It says, are there really neo-Nazis fighting for Ukraine?
Well, yes, but it's a long story.
It takes two people to write it.
I'll bet it's not that long an article.
No, Putin didn't wage war to denazify Ukraine, but that nation's shadowy far-right militias are big trouble.
Rokana says, ever since the Orange Revolution began under President Bush, the U.S. has been complicit in the rehabilitation and spread of neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
Enough is enough.
Our government must stand up against the Azov battalion and other fascist groups.
That's what he was saying before, but now he says arm the Nazis.
No, Rokana did a complete flip-flop.
So back to the mint press.
President Zelensky hasn't abandoned his pre-invasion intransigence.
He has entrenched, calling for Ukraine to be armed with nuclear missiles and for NATO to either impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine or give Ukraine the planes to enforce such a zone itself.
That Zelensky wants NATO to bail him out, especially after NATO was responsible for enticing him into a current confrontation with Russia is hardly surprising.
But the degree to which the Western media have pushed Zelensky's line means a strong majority of the U.S. public now favor Kiev's course of action, even though it would likely trigger World War III between nuclear powers.
So, no-fly zone over Ukraine, 59% of people support it.
But if you told people that a no-fly overs Ukraine would actually cause a war with Russia and us, then only 38% of the people support it.
So it goes down about 20%.
That's good.
So it's right there at 59%.
It's about where Democrats who want to have concentration camps for the unvaccinated.
It goes down to below concentration camp numbers.
How enthralled, how enthralled Westerners are to this media-confected suicidal narrative can be gauged by the number of armchair warriors in the West accusing anyone, taking a more cautious approach of not only being Putin apologists, but of denying the Ukrainian people their sovereign right to join NATO and fall under its protection.
But NATO membership isn't a sovereign right, and it shouldn't be viewed as some kind of glorified neighborhood watch scheme.
NATO is a military club.
States qualified to join if the other members agree that they want to commit to protecting that state.
If NATO members don't have the ability or will to defend another state, as is the case with Ukraine, then it's a crime to pretend that they do for the very reason the events unfolding now demonstrate.
In fact, it is not just ordinary crime.
It's a crime against humanity.
Every death in the current war, Ukrainian and Russian, could almost certainly have been averted had the U.S. and its NATO allies not led Ukraine up the garden path.
Had Ukrainians not believed that with enough pressure they could force NATO's hand in their favor, they would have had to accommodate Russian concerns well before the invasion, such as by committing to neutrality.
So again, what this story is telling you is what we've been telling you since the start of this, is that the United States has been wanting to provoke a reaction like this from Russia.
And they're using the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder to do it.
And they don't give a shit about them.
Yes.
So what we should be doing is telling Ukraine to remain neutral.
Don't join NATO or join Russia.
Stay neutral.
That's what Russia wants to.
Russia would have had no grounds or pretext, depending on how you wish to look at it, to invade Ukraine.
The media's madman and Hitler scripts are needed now to turn reality on its head, suggesting that Putin would have invaded whatever actions NATO or Ukraine took.
But if that is not true, and there is no evidence it is, then the blood of the victims of this war is most certainly on the West's hands, just as it is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Gaza, Yemen, and elsewhere.
The second hypocrisy is the current one being peddled in the Western media.
They want to flaunt a bogus moral concern about the suffering of Ukrainians under attack from Russia that they never show towards the victims of Western bombs and missiles.
So the victims in Ukraine are so worthy.
That's what Chomsky called worthy victims.
So the victims of our enemies are worthy victims.
The victims of the United States, they're unworthy victims.
So they never get shown on the news.
Terrible as the suffering of Ukrainians is, two weeks into the invasion, it is still a pale shadow of the decades of suffering of Palestinians in Gaza or of Yemenis under Saudi planes and bombs supplied by the West.
The prioritization of one over the other needs splaining.
I think they did explain it.
They said, but this is Europe.
I've heard that over and over.
John Mekoivi says the Guardian has published more stories about Ukraine just today that it has published about Yemen in all of 2022.
Social media warriors, much less sophisticated than the corporate media, readily rationalize this lack of interest in the West victims by dismissing them as terrorists or blaming them for living under terrorist regimes, or by simply insisting that they are further removed from us as the Britons and Americans somehow feel more of a natural affinity with Ukrainians than with Syrians or Palestinians or with Russians.
We don't unless the corporate media keeps insisting such a bond exists.
If that strategy fails, it is on to the next one, arguing that any effort to point out the utter hypocrisy of the Western media and its entirely hollow concern for Ukraine, Ukrainians, rather than for Ukraine as a pawn of the West colonial chessboard is so-called what a bowtery.
So if you mention any of this shit that he's mentioning or any of the shit we talk about, they go, oh, that's all what a boutery.
Like when I say the United States is now occupying a third of Syria, the oil fields, they go, that's what a boundary.
That's not what a bowtery.
That's showing that we have completely double standards on the world stage.
And so you can't have Tony Soprano writing parket tickets.
It breeds contempt for the law.
By the way, you can buy a really nice carved colonial chessboard at the Whatabouttery.
The Whatabouter.
I love the Water Bowtery catalog.
It's bad enough that such reasoning is rooted in a profound racism that counts white Europeans as worthy victims and brown and black victims as collateral damage of supposed Western peacemaking.
But actually, the rot runs far deeper.
It is not just racism at work in the special treatment of Ukraine suffering over that of Iraqis, Yemenis, or Palestinians.
That could be solved through education and awareness raising.
No, the Western media's identification with Ukraine and consequently the public's identification with its plight is based on Ukraine's usefulness to the Western Imperial project, which is exactly what got us in this mess in the first place.
Washington planners seek the world's largely see the world largely in terms of high-stakes version of the children's party game, Musical Chairs.
As the chairs disappear, it is ever more important to make sure you, rather than your enemies, grab at the last seats.
That has required the U.S. and its allies to ever more aggressively isolate Russia and China, trying to sow divisions and make each feel threatened and isolated, which, as Moscow and Beijing more clearly understand Washington's strategy, has driven these two unlikely partners into each other's arms, China and Russia.
They go back.
Did you ever see when Khrushchev wrote about visiting Chairman Mao and Chairman Mao knew Khrushchev couldn't swim, so he wanted to meet in a pool?
Really?
No.
Mao swam around and Khrushchev had swimmies.
Or he had like a little floaty on his hand.
In Ukraine, meanwhile, the United States and its NATO allies appear to be doing what they can to drag out the war for as long as fucking possible.
Russia appeared initially to want a relatively short war of attrition to pacify Ukraine, forcing its nationalist government to drop aspirations to become a launchpad for NATO weapons and impose on it instead neutrality.
Of course, the conclusion even Westerners would draw if we weren't so propagandized by the media is that neutrality for Ukraine is inevitable, unless we are willing to risk the alternative of World War III.
Any delay in achieving neutrality for Ukraine as an outcome simply causes unnecessary death and suffering.
The U.S., by contrast, wants a long proxy war of attrition, converting supplying, supplying covertly supplying Ukrainian forces, indifferent as to whether they are nice ones or neo-Nazis, to bog down Russia in years of difficult guerrilla warfare and counterinsurgency.
The bloodshed will feed the hostility and unthinking racism of Western publics towards Russia and Russians, providing the pretext for Washington to sustain the West parallel economic war on Russia.
Ukrainians will pay the price as the U.S. seeks to wear down Russia, just as Syrians, Libyans, Iranians, Yemenis, Venezuelans, and Palestinians have paid the price as the United States has sought to attain the goals of its global spanning imperial project.
Washington understands that a weakened Russia might not have been able to save Bashar Assad's government from the takeover of Syria by the West Islamic State and Al-Qaeda allies there.
And in the future, it is hoped Moscow will be in no position to support others who resist Western hegemony, especially the pariah states of Venezuela, Iran, and China.
So we're trying to get Russia bogged down in a war in Ukraine like we got bogged down in Afghanistan as the hopes that Russia will be too caught up in the Ukraine war to go fuck with us when we try to do Venezuela or Syria or any of the other shit.
What are they going to interfere with?
Our blowjob of the Venezuelans for some oil?
For some oil now?
They're going to God blog?
So the West definitely has blood on its hands.
So the West definitely has blood on its hands in the West, in Ukraine, all over the globe.
But no one will talk about it in the news.
And that was a great article by Mint Press.
So now you know, I mean, you've known this, but it all bears repeating.
We should have OJ Simpson talk about the murder of the murderous Vladimir Putin.
And then when you go, well, what about?
He goes, that's what about her?
I've had it with your whataboutary.
Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member.
We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week, and it's a great way to help support the show.
You can do it by going to jimmydoorcompedy.com, clicking on join premium.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business, and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards.
Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member.
And if you haven't, you're missing out.
We give you lots of bonus content.
Thanks for your support.
So I don't even know what to say about this clip exactly.
I'll show it to you.
This is a CBS news interview with a Chinese diplomat talking about Ukraine and Russia.
And it's kind of jaw-dropping.
So, I mean, I've here we go.
Russia amassed more than 150,000 troops at China's border.
Well, that's why.
Well, just to be clear, China, you would friendly relations with Russia.
But you would recognize this in good, friendly, neighborly relations with 150,000 troops on the border of a neighboring country and then to send those troops into that country.
In those circumstances, why can't you condemn this as an invasion?
Don't be naive.
Condemn nation.
It sounds naive to say that's not invasion.
That doesn't solve the problem.
Now, this woman won't stop interrupting him because he's answering her question and she just starts taking in it.
He says, don't be naive.
And she said, well, it sounds like that's not what he's saying.
He's saying it's naive to think that China condemning Putin would have any effect.
And she cut him off before he finished his sentence.
And she got his intent completely wrong because she is a Karen.
I hate to use that term.
But it's crazy what she's doing.
Here, want to watch it again?
Here we go.
Russia amassed more than 150,000 troops at China's border.
Well, that's why.
Well, just to be clear, China, you would friendly relations with Russia.
But you would recognize this in good, friendly, neighborly relationships.
150,000 troops on the border of a neighboring country and then to send those troops into that country.
In those circumstances, why can't you condemn this as an invasion?
Don't be naive.
Condemnation.
It sounds naive to say that's not invasion.
That doesn't solve the problem.
I would be surprised if Russia will back down by condamination.
Will they back down if your president asks Vladimir Putin?
At no point will she allow this guy to finish his answer at no point.
And she just keeps wanting him to say, condemn Russia.
To back down.
Will your president ask Vladimir Putin to back?
We have done so.
They wrote that.
And we'll continue to promote peace talks and urge Immediate fire.
And, you know, condemnation, you know, only doesn't help.
We need wisdom.
We need wisdom.
We need courage.
And we need good diplomacy.
Well, Vladimir, Vladimir Zelensky says he would like to meet with Vladimir Putin.
Vladimir Zelensky is in a bunker.
Vladimir Putin is at a political pro-war rally right now.
You can't have diplomacy when it is one country, the only one country willing to actually negotiate.
China has good relations with Russia, has good relations with Ukraine.
And China keeps close communications with the United States and with Europe.
They enable China to reach to all parties' concerns in the crisis.
So China's unique role can help their peaceful settlement.
Tell me that she just won't shut up.
She just won't shut up.
She does, tell me, tell me you're going to condemn him and just tell me.
Tell me, just tell me.
I think it's that.
He goes, well, I think it's naive.
He was saying, I think it's naive for you to think that condemning someone is going to change the situation.
And she didn't let him get out the point.
He goes, I think that's naive.
She goes, it's naive to think that that's an invasion.
No, that's not what he was saying.
And then she just talked over the rest of his answer.
She didn't even know what he said.
So this is what a foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid, pro-war corporate journalism looks like.
That was stunning.
That was stunning.
And I'm very pro-women reporter.
I'm very pro-women reporter.
And I wish there was a better term than she sounds like a Karen, but everybody knows what that means.
Like a woman, a suburban woman who's entitled and thinks everybody should care about her problems and listen.
Like she's got some, who the hell is this woman?
And she's just badgering this guy.
Are you going to condemn it?
Are you going to condemn?
Are you going to condemn it?
Are you going to condemn it?
Let me ask you another question.
Are you going to condemn it?
She would not.
The guy, his English is a second language.
Would you let him get a sentence out?
He's being thoughtful.
He's being thoughtful.
You know who's not?
The reporter, the journalist.
I have to do that, the journalist.
Russia amassed more than 150,000 troops at China's border.
Well, that's why.
Well, just to be clear, China, you would have friendly, good neighborly relations with Russia.
But you would recognize this in good, friendly, neighborly relations with 150,000 troops on the border of a neighboring country and then to send those troops into that country.
In those circumstances, why can't you condemn this as an invasion?
Don't be naive.
Condemn nation.
It sounds naive to say that's not an invasion.
I would be surprised if Russia will back down by contamination.
Will they back down if your president asks Vladimir Putin to back down?
Will your president ask Vladimir Putin to back?
And we will continue to promote peace talks and urge the immediate fire.
And, you know, condemnation, you know, only doesn't help.
We need wisdom.
We need wisdom.
We need courage.
And we need good diplomacy.
Well, Vladimir, Vladimir Zelensky says he would like to meet with Vladimir Putin.
Vladimir Zelensky's in a bunker.
Vladimir Putin is at a political pro-war rally right now.
You can't have diplomacy when it is one country.
I love her indignity.
See, it sounds like Zelensky's in a bunker.
Again, she's leaving out all the context, 100%.
This is a war that could have been stopped by Zelensky a long time ago, and he refuses to do so.
The same demands that Putin had before this are the same demands they have now.
Neutral Ukraine, stop shelling the people in the Donbass, and a promise to not be in NATO.
And there you go.
She's really indignant.
Let's watch the rest.
The only one country willing to actually negotiate.
I mean, and that's that's this is just garbage.
And, you know, the people who it's it's Joe Biden and Joe Biden's administration that is making cat and fodder out of the Ukrainian people, telling them that they'll support them, that you should do this, be talk be tough with Russia.
And we all know how this is going to end.
Russia's not going to lose the Ukraine war.
So, okay, a little bit more.
China has good relations with Russia, has good relations with Ukraine.
And China keeps close communications with the United States and with Europe.
They enable China to reach all parties' concerns in the crisis.
So China's unique role can help their peaceful settlement.
Tell me that I'm not sure if I can do it.
So Russia's in a unique role.
We can help avert this crisis.
And she just starts talking.
I don't want to avert this crisis.
I want you to condemn it.
Condemn it.
So this is that more that emotional release that people want.
I want Trump impeached.
I want him let out and hand covered.
So it's this inner, I want to see somebody pay.
This is her.
Can't you tell, say Putin, condemn him?
I want it for it.
It makes me feel emotionally better.
I want to see you condemn him.
And what will that get you?
Nothing.
Well, we could say you condemned him.
He's a bad.
We all get our five minutes of hate.
That's what that is.
I want to know there's someone I can hate and feel good about it.
That's what this is.
This is, and that's what the news gives you, by the way.
It gives you your five minutes of hate every night, but it turns out it's 22 minutes.
Unless you're watching cable, then it's non-stop.
So everybody says that, you know, we're fighting evil when we're fighting Putin, except we're fighting for evil, too.
We're fighting for evil.
You know that there's Nazis embedded officially into the Ukraine army, officially.
There are Nazi battalions, the Azov Battalion.
They shelled the East Ukraine, and they killed 14,000 civilians over the last eight years.
And then Putin invaded.
So right now, we told you before how they banned the opposition, they banned independent news.
We showed you that, how they shut down the TV news stations.
In Ukraine, I mean, I mean, Zelensky did that.
News stations that were critical of him.
He said they were spreading Russian propaganda.
And so he outlawed and shut down the news.
So now get this.
Ukraine's president Zelensky suspends 11 opposition parties using the same rationale Putin invokes when doing so.
They're subversive with ties to foreign enemies.
One of the parties has 10% of elected seats in Ukraine's parliament.
He just suspends 11 opposition parties.
Also, Zelensky nationalizes the TV news and restricts opposition parties.
Okay, here we go.
On Saturday and Sunday, Ukrainian President Voldemort Zelensky invoked his emergency powers under martial law to suppress several opposition political parties and implement a unified information policy.
In an address to the nation delivered Sunday, he announced a temporary ban on any activity by 11 political parties.
The ban includes the opposition platform for life party, which holds 43 seats in Ukraine's national parliament and is the largest opposition party.
Zelensky's information policy involves combining all national TV channels, the program content of which consists mainly of information and/or information analytical programs, into a single information platform of strategic communication to be called United News.
Reuters notes that until Saturday, privately owned Ukrainian media outlets continued to operate independently.
Zelensky said the measure was necessary to combat Russian misinformation and tell the truth about the war.
The best way you tell the truth is you start censoring.
That's how you get the truth out.
Zelensky is an autocrat in the style of Putin.
Erdogan, how do you say that?
That's the Turkish leader.
Isn't it Erdogan?
Erdogan.
That's it.
Erdogan and Orban.
In the latest, in a string of despotic actions to concentrate power in his hands, Zelensky bans 11 political parties, but he's a Biden administration puppet, so all is forgiven, even if heads, even if he heads an autocratic regime.
Here's my new fave.
Ukraine, this is from David Fromm.
Now, David Fromm is famous for calling the axis of evil and getting us involved in the Iraq war.
David Fromm.
He says Ukraine may be the first example in human history of a country that, under the pressure of war, is becoming more tolerant and more liberal.
Yeah, that's how you become more tolerant.
You ban the political opposition parties.
You ban all the news media.
And then you have Nazis torturing people in public.
They are shrink-racking them in the middle of winter into these posts and then torturing them.
I can't tell you what they're doing because YouTube, I can't show you what they're doing because YouTube will take down the video.
So I like what Sayyed Mohamed Morandi said to David From.
He said, I'm sure NATO-backed neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine, like right sector and the Azoff Battalion and C-14 have really turned a corner.
They're just like NATO-funded Al-Qaeda in Idlib, Syria.
We've been repeatedly told that they're also much more friendly now.
Care to visit?
So we also backed the Al-Qaeda and Idlib.
So just people in America don't know this.
This is in Syria.
Who are we fighting with in Syria?
We're fighting with Al-Qaeda.
Who are we fighting with in Ukraine?
We're fighting with Nazis.
And Americans don't know any of this.
They don't know we're literally in bed with the people we claim to hate the most to fight someone else.
Before it was Assad that no one had ever heard of until the United States wanted to overthrow him at the behest of the Arab Gulf states.
So there you go.
There's your free, there's the guy we're fighting with.
They're banning all opposition political parties.
They're banning all opposition media.
And they're centralizing.
You only get one choice of media now.
3 CP1.
When I was a kid, I always thought Russia was like that.
And now we're fighting with a country who does that stuff.
We're trying to defend them from Russia.
Okay, there you go.
There you go.
So if you thought there's a good guy in Ukraine, there isn't.
There are good people.
We sympathize with the people of Ukraine, the Russian people of Ukraine, the non-Russian people of Ukraine.
We sympathize with them.
But as far as this geopolitically, this is a game being played by NATO and Joe Biden, and they're using the people in Ukraine as pawns.
Because they don't, they know that they know how this is going to end.
And yet they're still doing this.
They know that the only way this can end is with Ukraine becoming neutral.
And everyone knows what the terms are going to be when this ends.
They're the same terms that they were when it started.
And it was the same terms they were eight years ago.
Stop shelling the people in the eastern part of Ukraine in the Donbass.
Give them autonomy.
Promise to never join NATO.
I'm pretty sure those are the demands.
We did a whole video on what Putin's demands were, and they've been that way for a long time.
And of course, it's the Minx agreement.
There's the Minx Agreement from 2014 that was supposed to stop the civil war in Ukraine.
And the Ukraine government didn't abide by it.
Neither did the United States.
We kept encouraging them to do that.
So there you go.
That's who we're in bed with.
That's the people.
That's the people we're fighting for for freedom and liberty and democracy.
They ban all the media and they banned all the opposition political parties.
So that's who we're fighting for.
And I wonder if you'll ever hear anything about this on the corporate-funded pro-war news.
So, what often happens in war, it's called false flags.
And so, you do an action, you blow something up, and you blame it on your enemy.
And that's to often to provoke war, to get your country to go along with the war, to give you a false pretense to invade another country.
And we saw this in Syria, but watch this.
So, this is UN Ambassador Linda Thomas Greenfield on with Jake Tapper.
And watch what she says.
The operation that they would use to justify using chemical weapons in Ukraine.
What does the latest intelligence suggest about how likely that might be and how might the U.S. retaliate if the Russians use chemical weapons in Ukraine?
Jake, as you know, the Russians came to the Security Council on Friday with the spurious accusations that the U.S. was supporting Ukraine's chemical weapons programs.
And I'm not going to give that any more amplification here.
What we see happening is, again, this is a false flag effort by the Russians.
They are advancing what they might intend to do.
We've seen it happen before.
They are the ones who've used chemical weapons.
They use them in Syria.
They've used chemical weapons against their own people.
And we are concerned that they may use chemical weapons in Ukraine.
We've been clear, if they escalate to this level, we will respond aggressively to what they are doing.
You've seen the consequences so far of our actions against Russia and against Putin.
And they are feeling those consequences.
And they will feel more if they take this unfortunate decision to use chemical weapons.
So what she's doing there is it's, well, we did this in Syria, right?
So Barack Obama did this.
So what she's saying is that if Russia uses chemical weapons, we're going to do something militarily, the United States.
That's what she's saying.
That's what it sounds.
That's what I heard.
Barack Obama did this gaffe.
This isn't a gaff on her, but this is what Barack Obama did with Syria.
I think this is around 2013-14.
This is what he said.
We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.
That would change my calculations significantly.
So now, why was that a blunder?
Because Barack Obama gave the people in Syria a reason to do a false flag chemical attack, which is exactly what happened because he said if they did that, that would draw the United States in.
He had a red line.
So now all somebody had to do is stage a chemical attack, blame it on Assad, and now the United States has to go in.
So do you see the similar so, and that happened, by the way?
That did happen.
There was a false flag, chemical attacks, and Trump bombed it, sent some bombs.
And it was, well, let's hear what Aaron Mate has to say about this.
You know, Aaron Matei, friends of the show, he's been doing great work on Syria, been doing great work on Ukraine, Russia, and Russia Gate, and here he is.
And so they're basically people inside the Biden administration are recycling the same playbook now.
They want, I suppose, the option of military intervention in Syria, in Ukraine.
So now they're putting out this new red line, or they're floating these allegations as a possibility, and the media is going along with it.
Nobody is mentioning that, you know, for example, when the UN ambassador says that Russia used chemical weapons in Syria, it wasn't even Russia accused of doing it.
It was Russia's ally, Syria.
And no one, of course, can mention all the reporting that's come out from Seymour Hirsch, the leaks from Obama administration officials, and later on from the OPCW, all of which undermined the allegations against Syria.
You just can't mention that because once you mention it, you have to look at the evidence that's there, and the evidence that's there totally undermines the narrative that Russia and Syria were guilty of chemical attacks.
So they're following the same playbook.
Seems like they want to be able to have a so there must be people in Joe Biden's administration who wants to do some kind of military maneuvers or at least have the option open.
And all they have to do is say, oh, they did a chemical attack.
Look, here's the chemical attack.
So now if you're Ukraine and you want the United States to send more military and to protect you, what would you do if you were Ukraine?
Would you stage a false chemical attack to provoke that from happening, just like was done in Syria and Aaron revealed and the OPCW whistleblowers revealed?
That's not illogical for them to do that.
That's very logical for them to do that.
And for them to be doing that on TV, for this UN ambassador to come out and say that stuff and use the false accusation that Russia used chemical weapons in Syria when it was actually the people who were supposedly fighting on our side.
So, and by the way, the United States used phosphorus and Fallujah.
We used depleted uranium tip bombs.
So this, again, this idea that the United States, by the way, we had a torture program, Barack Obama, we tortured some folks.
We tortured Chelsea Manning.
And we have a torture facility still to this day running smoothly in Cuba, Guantanamo Bay.
And so that's what it seems like.
It seems like get ready for if you.
So so now when if there's a chemical attack.
Which, by the way, doesn't make sense to me, it wouldn't make sense.
For Putin to do a chemical attack, he could win this.
Conventional weapons.
So I don't understand why they would do that.
But I understand why someone would would want it to appear that that has happened, because then that would open the door for the United and the people in the United States would be clamoring for us to go in there militarily.
So there you go.
And let me let me just play what Aaron says one more time.
So they're basically people that the Biden administration are recycling the same playbook.
Now they want, I suppose, the option of military intervention in Syria, in Ukraine.
So now they're putting out this new red line or they're floating these allegations as a possibility.
And the media is going along with it.
Nobody is mentioning that, you know, for example, example when the UN ambassador says that Russia used chemical weapons in Ukraine in Syria it wasn't even Russia accused of doing it it was Russia's ally Syria and no one of course can mention all the reporting that's come out from Seymour Hirsch, the leaks from Obama administration officials, and later on from the OPCW, all of which undermined the allegations against Syria.
You just can't mention that because once you mention it, you have to look at the evidence that's there.
And the evidence that's there totally undermines the narrative that Russia and Syria were guilty of chemical attacks.
So we'll see what happens.
So in the next few days, if you hear, is there another video of him?
But amazingly, they're just going along with the exact same playbook because there are obviously some people inside the Biden administration that want to preserve the option of using military force.
They're going along with the exact same playbook.
So there is the playbook.
Draw a red line.
If they use chemical weapons, we got to do something.
So be very skeptical of all the reports you hear about something like this.
And of course, the first casualty in war is the truth.
And telling you the corporate media, well, that's why you're watching the show, because you know you can't get the real story from the corporate media.
You got to become a premium member.
Go to jimmydorkomedy.com, sign up.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
Don't freak out.
Don't freak out.
That's it for this week.
You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me.
▲
Export Selection