Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 13, 2019 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor

01:02:06

Justice for SJWs

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to another edition of Radio Renaissance.
	I am your host, Henry Wolfe, standing in for Jared Taylor today, who is out of the office, and I am here with the intrepid PK.
	PK, it feels good to be back in the hot seat.
	It seems like it's been a while.
	It's been far too long since you've graced us with your wisdom and wonderful presence.
	I know our listening audience is excited for what should be A fantastic June 13th, 2019 podcast.
	Well, I think it's probably more aptly described as riotous.
	As riotous.
	We'll get to that because we want to make sure that our listeners can still connect with us.
	Because one of the stories we're going to be talking about is the continued war on right-of-center YouTube channels.
	And if you're listening to us on YouTube, we encourage you, just in case our channel is scrubbed, Unceremoniously from the internet.
	Hit me up with an email.
	BecauseWeLiveHere at ProtonMail.com.
	Once again, it's a brand new email.
	Someone said, hey, get off of Gmail, PK.
	So I did it.
	BecauseWeLiveHere at ProtonMail.com.
	Shoot me an email one more time.
	That's BecauseWeLiveHere at ProtonMail.com.
	That's all one word.
	We will add you to our list so that you are kept abreast of any changes if we move over to BitChute, whatever becomes of us in this tech apocalypse that we're seeing.
	Yeah, and we'll send you out our weekly newsletter that we've started up and you'll get regular updates about what it is that we're up to.
	But to get into the riotous section of our podcast, you all may have heard, or maybe not actually, because this wasn't exactly front page news, but Memphis exploded into a riot last night after there was a young black man, 20 years old, who was killed by U.S.
	Marshals in front of a relative's house.
	And the community got together as it usually does and expresses its uh justified feelings about these things by throwing bricks and rocks concrete rocks spitting on police 24 officers were injured six of them had to be taken to the hospital police cars were smashed in a fire station was damaged the usual and this was only a this was only
	Maybe 120 people.
	This wasn't exactly what you would see going back to Baltimore in 2015 or Ferguson.
	This was only 120 people that were able to injure More than a score of police officers there in Memphis.
	Think about that.
	That's right.
	And the police wound up firing pepper spray and apparently that caused people to disperse and that was it.
	Well, Tammy Sawyer is a county commissioner there in Memphis and she's also a mayoral candidate.
	And she was very upset about some of the coverage that was coming out of this because it was focusing in on the fact that her constituents were attacking police and the police were responding with pepper spray.
	She wanted people to take a broader view.
	She said in a tweet storm on Twitter, she said, if you make a cake, you don't bake the eggs and put them in the batter.
	You mix everything together and then you bake the whole cake.
	So you can't start the story at they used tear gas because someone threw a rock.
	You have to start at 300 people filled the street because one of their own was murdered and shot more than a dozen times by U.S.
	Marshals.
	Then people threw a rock.
	Then there was tear gas.
	That is a different story.
	She says context changes everything.
	Well, here we are, PK, and I think we have to provide a little further context for our listeners.
	I think we owe them that because I think... I think Tammy Sawyer's not telling the full story there, and I think we're gonna have to go into it.
	You know, it's interesting.
	This was a long tweet storm.
	She also said, also, let's not use the racially coded word riot at NAACP because the NAACP tweeted out that they're monitoring the situation, you know, to make sure that law enforcement isn't doing anything to these wonderful members of the black community who are just throwing, you know, It's not really a rock.
	Patriot bricks.
	It's not a rock?
	They're bricks of grief and discontent.
	They're actually tennis balls.
	They're trying to play catch.
	That's right.
	Well, yeah, it's all part of the war on noticing.
	You can't call a riot a riot.
	And that's actually how she ended it.
	She said, Well, let's get into the depths of what's occurring.
	in quote, distracts and distances people from the depth of what's occurring and allows them
	to turn their backs on the community expressing hurt.
	Well, let's get into the depths of what's occurring.
	You've got the quote victim here was Brandon Weber, who's a 20 year old black man who is
	a father of two.
	I believe from two different women.
	One of those women actually went into labor at the time of the shooting or shortly after
	It's unclear from the reports.
	Um, and she actually posted a Facebook live video from her hospital bed, expressing her grief about the fact that her baby's father, uh, was just shot down by us marshals.
	And so this of course leads to the headlines, all the headlines on this, by the way, are, are, Our listeners will be very familiar with all of it, but you can go and look at Buzzfeed, the New York Times, Daily Mail, and they all read as though the U.S.
	Marshals are definitely guilty of just mowing this guy down.
	It says, young black man who was an honors student.
	They put that in the headlines.
	As though that's relevant?
	Look, what matters is did the guy do something wrong?
	Did the guy justify the U.S.
	Marshal shooting him?
	Not whether or not he was an honors student, not whether or not his baby's mama was going into labor.
	Was this 20-year-old black male threatening the lives of law enforcement agents who have the authority To exercise lethal force if they see that their lives are in danger.
	That's the only question.
	That's the only question, but that wasn't addressed in the titles of the major articles.
	The U.S.
	Marshals were there because he had multiple outstanding felony warrants.
	And they were there to arrest him.
	And they say that he came outside and got in a vehicle and started ramming several of their vehicles.
	Before exiting his own vehicle and waving an unspecified weapon around.
	Or he was in possession of an unspecified weapon.
	So they shot him apparently several times.
	The guy's father, Brandon Weber's father, says it was somewhere between 16 and 20 times.
	And that seems to be what really set off the community because they think that this guy, there were excessive number of bullets.
	I mean, there's a lot you could say about that.
	First of all, did they... what did the father do?
	Like, unclothe him and check, like, entry and exit wounds and, like, catalog the marks and stuff?
	I mean, that's kind of weird.
	And also, we know that police are told that when they have to exercise force, they're to...
	Emptying the magazine.
	That's just how they're trained.
	They're not told to do, you know, one or two shots in the leg.
	They don't do that.
	You know, this scene that happened in Memphis, which we're going to talk about this community and give you a 40,000 foot overview of where this actually happened here in a few seconds.
	These police shootings aren't like when you watch a show like CSI or one of these police dramas on television.
	This guy was ramming his car.
	I mean, I'm going back and I'm reading a story that's at the Memphis Commercial Appeal and they said, they made sure to point out that, you know, this guy was ramming, he was using his car as a weapon.
	He was ramming his vehicle into the officer's vehicles multiple times.
	It's not like this just happened once trying to get away.
	Going back and forth, back and forth, ramming.
	He was trying to injure, trying to hurt.
	obviously trying to kill these police officers and or US Marshals. You know we're still at a
	point where there there there's going to be an investigation we're going to find out more facts
	it's still early on but you know as rational people we can look and say okay well what's
	Who's on what side of what?
	And we use certain things for clues, just like when it was with the Michael Brown case, you know, when you're trying to determine whether or not he was guilty of attacking Darren Wilson.
	Well, one thing that might be interesting is the fact that he just held up a convenience store and I think basically stand up strangled the clerk.
	Just prior to that.
	The Asian clerk.
	The Asian clerk.
	And that took a few days to even come out.
	And there were surveillance images of that.
	So you get a hint of the mindset.
	Well, Mr. Weber, earlier in the day, had posted, I believe on Facebook, but in any case, he posted a video online of himself inside a car, rapping, smoking marijuana.
	And apparently at one point in the video, he turns and looks outside the window and he saw some police going by or something and he kind of laughs and then says something to himself or to the camera and he says the words quote they'd have to kill me okay so what what exactly is going on there is unclear we can't see the video because Facebook took it down
	But clearly he's in the mindset of thinking, wow, there's outstanding warrants for my arrest.
	Police will have to kill him.
	And so, you know, the community could have looked at this and said, well, you know, this is this is clearly he was maybe itching for something.
	And maybe what the U.S.
	Marshals are saying is true.
	That's certainly suggestive of that.
	Certainly suggestive enough that you would wait before you started rioting and attacking police and spitting on them.
	Put yourself in this situation.
	You're the cop.
	You're trying to go when there's a guy who is a... let's just say he's not exactly a positive example or a positive member of the community.
	He'd been arrested five previous times at 20 years old for driving and minor drug offenses, but still five arrests.
	Pretty good rap sheet at 20.
	So where this happens is in a 80% black zip code in Memphis.
	Now Memphis is, I think it's about 65% black right now.
	Let's put it into context real quick.
	Memphis is a city, back in 2016, the newspaper there, Memphis Commercial Appeal, Actually put on the headline after the Dallas police shooting when the member of black lives member shot five shot shot Shot and killed five white police officers.
	They actually said that it was a racial killing of whites.
	They then apologized the next day because of Blowback from the black community.
	They didn't want to make it seem that they were trying to stoke any racial fires.
	Negative racial fires.
	Of course, when it's black, that's fine.
	Now, let's go back to that thought that I had.
	You're this white police officer.
	You're a member of the U.S.
	Marshals.
	And you've just been involved in this shooting.
	All of a sudden, people start pouring out, Mr. Wolf, of their houses.
	and they start surrounding you.
	I mean, think about this.
	Well, they mostly heard about it on social media.
	They heard about it on social media, but they start to come around
	and the helicopters are going overhead.
	Thankfully, one of the main reasons that this didn't take off
	is because last night it started to rain.
	Ah, yeah.
	It started to rain, that dispersed the crowd.
	Think back a couple years ago to Charlotte.
	There was a situation where, I think there was a black guy who was shot by cops
	and someone tried to say that, oh, he was reading a book, he had a book.
	Do you remember this?
	He had a book.
	No.
	It turned out that he didn't have a book, he had a gun.
	But they tried to claim that this was a defenseless, he had no firearm, he had no weapon, and he was reading a book.
	This set off a chain of riots.
	It's always this herd it through the grapevine type situation that exacerbates these situations.
	Whether it's Memphis, whether it's Charlotte, or go back to 2014 in August when Darren Wilson had his interaction with Michael Brown and everything that happened after that.
	Well, what I'm always curious about here, I mean, the story, you know, we've heard this story before.
	You know, Black gets shot by police, parents come and say he didn't do anything, then the community riots, all the facts come in, we find out that the police were totally justified, and Everyone, that's a tiny blip of a media headline and everyone moves on.
	What's interesting about this story is that it hasn't taken off quite as much as some of the others.
	And maybe that's because there's less ambiguity here.
	But if you think about it, there haven't been, since Trump came into office, there haven't been any really big BLM stories.
	There hasn't been another Michael Brown.
	There hasn't been an Eric Garner, a Trayvon Martin, nothing on that scale.
	And, you know, I wonder why that is.
	And, you know, do you have thoughts on that?
	You know, I don't.
	One of the thoughts I have is I think a lot of this stopped after Dallas in 2016.
	July, I want to say it was July 7th or 8th.
	Don't remember the exact date, but we're talking about 2016 and the height of the election.
	And you have this racial terror attack on white cops.
	The BLM kind of fell off.
	You don't really hear about Black Lives Matter anymore.
	In fact, the only time you hear about Black Lives Matter is when we're talking about this bipartisan criminal justice reform, when everyone's excited about getting criminals out of jails.
	You know, you haven't really... In a lot of ways, the whole concept of law and order with President Trump has gone away.
	You don't hear about many situations in any urban areas anymore.
	I'll hazard a different theory, which is that I think that one of the reasons BLM took off
	was because you had a friendly administration, which was going to weaponize the DOJ to enter
	these consent decrees with these different cities and basically achieve a whole slew
	of left-wing agenda items that they wanted to push through that have nothing to do with
	the DOJ. So, the DOJ was going to have to make a decision on whether to fire a black man.
	And that's what we're going to be talking about in this episode. We're going to be talking
	about the DOJ's role in the DOJ's decision making process.
	And we're going to be talking And it was trying to force them to diversify their police departments things like that.
	So the Obama DOJ entered a Dozens, I believe, of these consent decrees, uh, all around the country.
	And now that Trump DOJ is actually dismantling that regime and eliminating a lot of these consent decrees, these agitators, the media and their media allies know that it doesn't matter what they do.
	They're not going to get any political outcomes as a result of this, at least at the federal level.
	They're not going to have the, the DOJ being weaponized against these cities.
	The only thing they're going to have is, you know, political effects on the broader populace.
	And I would argue that this is another factor why they've kind of been put to the back burner.
	Because you'll remember better than anyone that this was all people were talking about.
	2014, 2015, 2013.
	BLM was, anytime you turned on CNN, MSNBC, even Fox News, they talk a ton about these cases.
	Everyone wanted to focus on them.
	But I think they moved them to the back burner because I think they realized that it backfired.
	And that because just one case after the other fell apart, and the Baltimore case, One case after the other fell apart, the officers were exonerated, and it was very clear that the black so-called victims were not victims at all.
	I think it just massively delegitimized people.
	It brought a lot of people over to our way of understanding, frankly.
	I mean, a lot of people say that that's what woke them up or whatever, because they saw the capriciousness of the media.
	Wasn't the genesis of Black Lives Matter the night of the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman verdict?
	I think I remember there were some black women who got really upset and they said, oh, you know, do black lives even matter?
	So you go back and I think that that was in maybe late 2012 when that took place.
	So then you really got things kick-started with the situation that happened in Minnesota.
	What was the guy's name who was shot in the back of the car?
	Castile?
	Was that Philando Castile?
	Yeah.
	And then you had, of course, obviously with Michael Brown.
	And then you had the Freddie Gray situation, everything that happened in Baltimore in 2015.
	It's fascinating to think now that the new mayor of Baltimore was the individual who during the riots, he tried to get the varying gangs to unite.
	To stop the violence, because the cops weren't doing their job.
	So he was like, well, let's just get the black gangs.
	I mean, you really couldn't write a script of what's happening in that city.
	And as you noted, Jeff Sessions, before he gave up his AG duties, Attorney General duties, he was going in and reviewing all these consent decrees that the Obama administration, that the Eric Holder DOJs had slapped on city after city after city.
	And that is a great thing.
	In that relationship, it's something you see throughout politics on the left, is you have
	basically what appears to be a grassroots movement, even though we know it's all astroturfed
	by Soros and others who are funding it.
	They have an ostensibly grassroots movement that provides the reasoning for government
	officials and others to step in and do the things that they wanted to do anyways.
	And it's the same kind of thing you see on college campuses, which is what we'll go to next, where you have activists on college campuses agitating for things that the left-wing administration fundamentally wants to grant them.
	They just want to have an excuse to do it.
	And our next story is another chapter in that ongoing what's up.
	One last point.
	The left wants to win.
	The left understands that political power, it's not in a vacuum.
	The left understands that, hey, we need to actually exercise what we were put in place to do.
	One of the main reasons why so many people are abandoning Trump is because, hey, this guy is part of this dying Republican establishment, unfortunately he's been co-opted by it, that is afraid to exercise political power and political authority.
	And if you don't do that, guess what?
	We're going to see the left step in.
	We're not going to talk about this story, but I think it's important to point out that in Colorado, Mr. Wolf, there was a big city council race and there was a Latino woman who won who During the primary, she defeated the incumbent who was actually the president of the Denver City Council.
	And what did she run on?
	What was her platform?
	Implementing communism by any means necessary.
	Now, until the right, and obviously the conservative Inc., the non-profit establishment that Basically is able to co-opt so much of the energy by promising to try and fight Whether it's prayer and school or these non, you know, these not these non-essential issues.
	The only issue that matters is Will white America be dispossessed to a point where they are?
	Electorally defeated before the election even happens as we see in California.
	That's all that matters if that happens then we are We're in a bad situation The left is always interested in actually exercising its power.
	That's a good point.
	And that's one thing that they tried to do in our next story at Oberlin College.
	A positive story.
	Well, this is an uplifting story because it's a place where, once again, the left overstepped and they played their hand too hard.
	Finally, they got something of a, uh, payback for it.
	So a case was just decided.
	It wrapped up, um, the, uh, the damages hearing was wrapped up actually just a couple hours ago as of this recording.
	And a whopping $33 million judgment has been levied against Oberlin College as a result of engaging in defamation, in intentionally inflicting emotional distress, and the interference of business relationships with a family-owned bakery that's just off of campus.
	And this story goes back to the day after the 26th election, and our listeners will remember That time.
	It was a jubilant time for people who were Trump supporters, but people who were not so much Trump supporters were very, very upset and they were lashing out in various ways.
	Wallowing their tears.
	That's right.
	And an Oberlin student, a black gentleman, decided to wash his sorrows away with some wine, which he decided to shoplift from this Bakery right off of campus.
	You call him a gentleman.
	I make that mistake occasionally with Jared.
	But I think it's actually funny.
	You're being facetious when you say it.
	My tongue is in my cheek.
	Exactly.
	Anyway, so he decided to lift this wine and on his way out he was confronted by one of the Gibsons.
	And the Gibsons, it's this family-owned bakery founded back in 1885.
	Five generations of Gibsons have worked there.
	This was, I believe, one of the younger Gibsons who's of working age, Alan Gibson, who followed him outside.
	And the black gentleman, Set himself upon Alan Gibson and attacked him.
	And the black gentleman's two female friends, accomplices ultimately, they proceeded to kick Alan Gibson while he was on the ground.
	And you might say to yourself, this is horrible.
	I mean, here's this guy Clearly not just a regular employee.
	I mean, he's a part owner in the business.
	This has been handed down to him through the generations.
	He takes it very seriously.
	Evidently, theft was a big issue at Gibson's.
	I read somewhere offhandedly remarked that they had something like $10,000 a year in theft, loss of property.
	And so this is something they took seriously.
	More than $1,500 a month.
	Now, obviously we don't know what their operating revenue was, but that's a substantial amount of money that they're losing.
	Right.
	A substantial amount.
	And go back and let's put one of the things into perspective here of what you just said.
	This... This business was founded in Oberlin back in 1885.
	That's only 50 years after Oberlin College is actually founded.
	H.W.?
	Yeah?
	This business has almost been around as long as this private liberal arts college.
	You know, again, let's not cry for this school.
	This school has an endowment of Well, we should finish telling the story.
	We'll finish telling the story, but let's just say this family is rooted in the community.
	The family is rooted.
	They're almost as old as the college itself.
	And so after the three black perps, the gentleman and his two female accomplices, were arrested, The students determined that this was an act of the broader student body.
	That is, determined this was an act of racial profiling.
	Of course.
	And because any time a black is arrested for shoplifting, it must be racial profiling, right?
	And the administration agreed.
	The dean of students who, I'm not sure if this was the case at the time, but she's now a vice president as well.
	Raimondo is her last name.
	Meredith Raimondo.
	She joined in protests that they organized outside the bakery.
	Apparently the protests were so massive that police were considering donning riot gear.
	Massive protests.
	She was helping.
	She allegedly helped pass out flyers.
	She allegedly talked into a bullhorn and supported the students.
	And listeners, you're gonna have to take my word for it, but Miss Raimondo, she really looks the part.
	Some of these pictures from the court hearings, she is She is your SJW's SJW.
	She looks like a brick.
	She was there urging on all the students and ultimately defaming this bakery is what the jury found.
	And so the students organized a boycott.
	The school joined in the boycott and stopped doing business with the bakery for a while.
	And they also, the school urged at least one of its suppliers to stop doing business with the bakery.
	Yeah, cancel all the contracts.
	So the bakery was hemorrhaging customers and they apparently had to fire several employees.
	They had 12 employees.
	Other than the family.
	And I think when we were talking pre-production you've noted that they had black employees.
	Yeah, they had at least one black employee that I saw and the family had to stop taking wages.
	I mean their business was in a death spiral.
	This over a hundred year old business.
	This targeted harassment, this racketeering that was going on by these left-wing agitators and again...
	They put their business into a despot.
	Yeah, and like I said going back, if our listeners, I know there's so much going on,
	but it is important to point out in context, because context I hear is king,
	Oberlin College is legitimately one of the most liberal, like SJW-infected institutions in the country.
	And that they would wage this war on this wonderful business that's been handed down.
	And again, as you said, it goes back to 1885.
	Grandpa Gibson, who's 90 years old and who's still involved with the business, think about this.
	His grandfather was one of the ones who started the business.
	Yeah.
	His father handed it down to him.
	I mean, this is such a beautiful story, and it's also, you know, I think in a lot of ways, reading this, you know, you think about college towns, all you have are chains, all you have are your McDonald's, your Irby's, your Wendy's, your Chick-fil-A's, but then you have this institution that is targeted It's just so evil.
	It's the kind of thing, it's the kind of business that hipsters should get behind.
	Yes!
	You know, but if you look at the Gibsons, they're not your, they're not liberals' favorite people.
	I mean, they look like just an upstanding, solid white family.
	A wholesome Midwest white family.
	Extremely wholesome.
	The backbone of our country.
	But the good news of the story is that justice was served in court this week.
	The, uh, as I mentioned, Oberlin College and Ms.
	Raimondo were found liable for defamation.
	Oberlin College was found liable for infliction of intentional emotional distress.
	And Ms.
	Raimondo was found liable for intentional interference of business relationships.
	The jury found, awarded them $11.2 million in compensatory damages.
	And then just today they had to come to a decision, they were closing arguments, they had to come to a decision on the punitive damages.
	And they awarded an additional $33 million in punitive damages, which apparently due to a cap in Ohio that's going to be brought down to $22 million because it can't be more than like twice the compensatory.
	So the bottom line is they awarded the maximum punitive damages that they could.
	So the community, through the jury, got together and said, no more.
	This cannot happen again.
	You can't destroy local businesses because of some racial witch hunt.
	One thing we should mention is that all three of those blacks eventually did plead guilty to shoplifting and to aggravated trespassing.
	And in addition, as part of the Uh, as part of their sentencing, they admitted that Gibsons was not engaged in racial profiling.
	Now, of course they could have admitted that, uh, several months earlier, right out the bat, after they were arrested and the protests and all that started and the boycotts, they could have said, Hey, you know what?
	We feel bad for what we did.
	Uh, it was us.
	They weren't racial profiling.
	They could have said it then, but look, They didn't.
	And the fact is they were, so by not doing so, they signed, they tacitly gave the green light to everything that happened.
	Well, as did Oberlin.
	Oberlin, the college, wouldn't retract the charge of racism.
	More importantly, they demanded that Gibsons report all suspected shoplifters, not to police, so that the students would get in trouble and have something on their record, but That's right.
	Slap them on the wrist.
	Slap them on the wrist, yeah.
	No, that happened after Gibson sued.
	I guess they demanded early on that the college retract its charge of racism.
	And the college, in return, demanded that Gibson stop reporting shoplifters to the police.
	I mean, it's just incredible.
	They're implicitly admitting that there was shoplifting that occurred.
	Well, I mean, think about what's happening all across the country.
	You've got Dallas, Texas, a situation where the district attorney now is like, yeah, you know what, we're not going to go after people who shoplift under $750.
	We're just not.
	And Chicago, Kim Fox, the new DA, one of the first things she said, you know what?
	If it's under $1,000, we're not going to prosecute.
	It's not going to be a felony.
	We're not going to do that.
	So in this case, they wanted the school.
	Again, this is a school that has an endowment of $887 million.
	They wanted the police.
	And apparently $1.4 billion in assets, I think, on top of that.
	Yeah.
	And so, just think about this.
	The award that the Gibson family won, it's not even 5%.
	It's not even 5% of the endowment.
	No.
	I mean, this is a very wealthy institution.
	It's not a major hit to them, but it's definitely a deterrent.
	That is a substantial spanking.
	A $33 million In damages, that is a substantial statement.
	But the audacity of the left to say, let's keep the police out.
	We want to protect our students and make them go right on a chalkboard.
	Or, I don't know, do colleges even have chalkboards anymore?
	Protect who?
	Like, this is the thing.
	This is where you have to feel kind of bad for all these left-wing agitators.
	They never can get a good victim.
	Never feel bad for the left.
	Well, talk about what happened in Memphis.
	I mean, this guy literally the same day is on film rapping, smoking marijuana, talking about how the police are going to have to kill him.
	He's been arrested five times already.
	You know, they just can't get, they can't get a guy who's got a clean record.
	And here you've got three students shoplifting wine from a local business, established business, And then kicking him and attacking him while he's on the ground.
	The owner, the heir of this business being attacked and kicked on the ground.
	And this is who the school went to bat for.
	In vino veritas.
	Yeah, there certainly is.
	Well, certain truths are unfortunately less and less able to be spoken.
	Yes, and I think it's fascinating because last week we implored our listeners, and we appreciate each and every one of you, tell a friend, tell a family member to always Listen to the latest edition of Radio Renaissance or Renaissance Radio, depending on Jared's mood.
	Once again, I do want to say that if you're still listening to this point and you haven't, take a moment, email us at BecauseWeLiveHere at ProtonMail.com so if anything happens to the channel, we'll be able to keep you informed of what happens next because what we're going to talk about happened on Sunday and it was a It was an unprecedented article above the fold in the New York Times.
	Sunday edition, New York Times called the making of a YouTube radical.
	And to backtrack for some of our listeners who may have missed last week's episode, YouTube has kicked up its censorship campaign.
	They outright banned 17 of our videos since that podcast went up.
	Oddly, they put another one of our videos under age restriction, which, again, these are all benign videos, just strictly fact-based.
	Everyone knows what tone American Renaissance strikes and how we keep things fact-based and scientific and sober, our commentary, and they just decided to take those 17 down and put an age restriction on another.
	That's the backdrop of this article is that there's a major ramp up in YouTube censorship and the New York Times just decides to pour kerosene on the fire.
	So they put out this front page story with a big spread of all these different hateful YouTubers, these dissonant YouTubers.
	Lauren Southern was on there.
	Stefan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson, really a lot of kind of alt-light people is what we would call them.
	And it was about this guy, Caleb Kane, who's a college dropout, who the article informs us became convinced through watching tons of YouTube videos that Western civilization was under threat from Muslim immigrants and cultural Marxists.
	Fact check true.
	Oh my.
	He became convinced that, uh, hold your- hold yourselves here.
	Innate IQ differences explained racial disparities.
	Fact check, also true.
	Wow.
	And that feminism was a dangerous ideology.
	Fact check, yes.
	I'm afraid that's true as well.
	Where did he learn these naughty views?
	Well, he learned them from the likes of Stefan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson, really a lot of alt-right people.
	Go back to, you know, if you guys haven't seen this cover, it's a collage of all these personalities, and Molyneux is on it three different times.
	Man, he must be, he was featured not once on the New York Times Sunday edition front page, but three times.
	Yes, and you talk about these figures, if you're willing to say anything that goes against the grain, that dares question egalitarianism, in my opinion you're doing something Positive.
	You're doing something great.
	You know, the whole alt-right, alt-light, all these labels, dissident right.
	If you go against the grain and go against this evil system that is trying to consolidate all power and kick people off their platforms for just daring.
	If you're telling the truth, let's just put it straight.
	If you're telling the truth.
	If you're being honest.
	If you're engaging honest about things like race, Sex, anything like that.
	Immigration, crime, religion.
	If you're telling facts, hate facts, then you are a suspect.
	And so the New York Times is talking about how this guy Caleb Kane was supposedly radicalized.
	It says, quote, the radicalization of young men is driven by a complex stew of emotional,
	economic, and political elements, many of which have nothing to do with social media. Here
	they're saying, wow, everything other than like the truth is influencing these people.
	It couldn't possibly be that like, hmm, maybe they found something that like, you know, isn't necessarily politically correct, but is also true.
	Maybe they found that on YouTube.
	No, it's, it's something somehow like, oh, it's because the guy dropped out of college.
	That must be what's responsible for him falling into this mire.
	But then they go on, further down the article, they explain that they kind of tip their hand here, what they're really after.
	They say, in reality, YouTube has been a godsend for hyper-partisans on all sides.
	It has allowed them to bypass traditional gatekeepers and broadcast their views to mainstream audiences, and has helped once-obscure commentators build lucrative media businesses.
	Well, we can't have that.
	The New York Times Of all people, surely doesn't have a dog in this fight, right?
	If people are looking to other authorities for their political commentary, surely that doesn't affect the New York Times readership.
	Any journalist, any journalistic entity that is daring to go to war with another one.
	And we'll talk about this in a few minutes.
	Think back to what happened with Infowars.
	Infowars is now at a point where they're not even being listed on Google.
	I heard.
	Nobody does that.
	When was the last time you went to Google and you said, I'm going to type this in, you look at the first page.
	That's why so many companies spend a lot of money with Google ads to try and boost where they are on the search engine with search engine optimization.
	And going back to this story, what you're talking about, you know, the radicalization of young men is driven by a complex stew of emotional, economic, and political elements.
	Many have nothing to do with social media.
	Think back to the glory days of YouTube.
	You know, Jared never monetized anything, and it's only been in the past, what, three years that you've seen this internship really start?
	Yeah, I'd say so.
	So, there was a moment where, had Jared monetized his channel, I think we talked about last week that they did the math, and he left three quarters of a million dollars on the table.
	I know people who were making $3,000 a day at the height of YouTube. And then it started to trickle
	out right after the election is when things really hit. Paul Joseph Watson as one example was
	making a ton of money when his channel was monetized. A ton of money. I know he was
	employed by InfoWars as well.
	So when he got demonetized, he wasn't going to become broke.
	But he was making a ton of money every day through his YouTube video.
	Well, if that's your only revenue stream.
	Because why?
	Because people watched his stuff and they liked his stuff.
	And they kept watching.
	And this is intolerable to the New York Times because they want to be that traditional gatekeeper.
	They want to be the one who decides who gets a voice and who doesn't get a voice.
	Yeah, the digital ombudsman.
	And that's exactly what they're doing here.
	The digital ombudsman.
	They're acting as The gatekeepers, they're trying to say, oh, implicitly, they're saying YouTube radicalized this guy.
	Oh, because he thinks feminism is dangerous?
	Wow!
	Like, that's so radical.
	The guy doesn't even... Caleb Cain, he went on Twitter and he said he never even became, like, alt-right or anything.
	He was just alt-light.
	He was a civic nationalist.
	He didn't even develop a racial consciousness.
	He just had patriotic, Trumpist kind of views.
	I think I read somewhere where he actually got a girlfriend and he started going to church and got active in the community.
	Oh yeah, and it made it out like that was a bad thing.
	It was like, oh yeah, he started calling himself a tradcon, which is short for traditional conservative, and going to church.
	And he met a girlfriend there.
	And it's like, wow, going to church and meeting a girlfriend, this is radical stuff!
	Someone put an end to it!
	Someone censor these guys!
	What a horror!
	This must be stymied.
	This must be stopped.
	The article is trying to diagnose where did things go wrong?
	Where did YouTube go wrong?
	And what they blame is YouTube's recommendation algorithm.
	So if you watch a video on YouTube, you get recommended certain other videos on the side.
	Most of our listeners will be familiar with that.
	And apparently, around 2012, YouTube started favoring not videos that had... people were basically gaming the system.
	They would have these clickbaity titles, these very provocative thumbnails, and then the videos themselves would be lousy.
	And so people would stop watching them after they clicked on them.
	So YouTube went away from focusing on clicks, specifically, to focusing their algorithm a little more on watch time.
	So what that means is they keep track of how long you actually watch the video before you click away or click to another video or close the window or whatever.
	And what that does is it favors content that's actually good.
	Like if you actually are watching it, it's actually good.
	Yeah.
	People upvote it, they give it a thumbs up.
	The author of the New York Times article, it's pretty funny, he says this favors the far right.
	Because apparently we have videos that people actually want to watch.
	And implicitly what he's saying is that it was better when they were just people were clicking on clickbait.
	Like what this guy implicitly wants is BuzzFeed cat videos to be and makeup tutorials to be like what YouTube is all about.
	They don't want podcasts like this one.
	That people actually enjoy listening to for many minutes at a time.
	Yes.
	Being on YouTube.
	They want just nonsense that people don't even want to watch.
	You know, I'm looking at our data right now and I do want to thank all of our listeners who take the time to like each individual video.
	If you do enjoy this podcast, I encourage you to like the video.
	That actually helps our standing on YouTube.
	That's true too, but yeah, we actually got, American Renaissance got an honorable mention in the article.
	It says, you know, eventually he got to the truly dark and disturbing videos.
	Those didn't couch their racist and anti-semitic views and sarcastic memes, and they didn't speak in dog whistles.
	One channel, run by Jared Taylor, the editor of the white nationalist magazine American Renaissance, posted videos with titles like, Refugee Invasion is European Suicide, which I guess is supposed to be self-evidently horrifying.
	I suppose readers in the New York Times are just supposed to be horrified because of that title.
	So it just mentions Jared Taylor and American Renaissance offhandedly, but The way this article ends is, after talking about the truly horrifying people, is actually self-refuting.
	It's hilarious.
	It's trying to say that, oh yeah, YouTube algorithm feeds people towards these extreme views.
	Well, the way this guy got supposedly de-radicalized is by watching a video that was recommended to him.
	It was a debate between Lauren Southern and a liberal atheist named, who goes by Destiny.
	And he watched the debate, hoping to cheer on Southern, and he found that Destiny's arguments were more convincing.
	And so he watched more of Destiny's content, he started watching some other left-wing people's content, and eventually he became a leftist, and he abandoned his alt-right, kind of civic nationalism.
	So what's the problem?
	YouTube recommended videos which supposedly refuted the arguments of right-wing people, and the guy went on with his life.
	This is a normal process.
	You know, people, people...
	Try on different political views, and then for whatever reason, they abandon one, try on another.
	It's a normal part of growing up.
	It's a normal part of living your life and engaging in inquiry and politics.
	So it's supposed to be couched under the title, The Making of a YouTube Radical, and yet, as you stated, the algorithm worked, he watched videos, he then watched more videos, and the so-called YouTube Radical, this right-winger, Yeah, he became a leftist and now he's producing videos talking about what a leftist he is.
	So, fine.
	That's what should happen.
	That's what the left used to believe in.
	If our ideas are so transparently false, why don't you just refute them?
	Why don't you just have us debate on your shows and then trounce us?
	You know, that's the obvious thing to do.
	But the fact is, the New York Times, by publishing articles like this, with its very clear subtext, and all the other media organs who push for censorship and all that stuff, they don't have the faith in their views that someone like Destiny has.
	Destiny has gone on debates with not just Lawrence Southern, I think he's done debates with Nick Fuentes and others, And so he actually has some courage of his convictions.
	He's willing to debate things and engage in the marketplace of ideas.
	This is how politics is supposed to take place.
	It's supposed to work in an actual country.
	Think back a couple years ago to when Heather MacDonald and Charles Murray, they were attacked by these left-wing mobs when they tried to speak on campus.
	Now go back 50 years.
	A guy like George Lincoln Rockwell would go to campuses all across the country and people would listen to him.
	I don't know if you can still find these YouTube videos, but there are thousands of people, well-dressed, in attendance.
	Obviously, there are probably far more people who are against his ideas than who are there to listen to him, but they listen with rapt attention.
	And they actually are Engaging, as opposed to someone like Charles Murray and the individual, I don't remember her name, they were attacked when Charles Murray tried to speak on campus.
	I think this was two years ago, 2017.
	They had to actually run to a getaway car because a mob was chasing them.
	Now think, we're only talking about The internet.
	We're talking about digital conversations, and it's a monologue.
	When you watch a video, you are allowing us into your home, into your car, if you're working out, listening to this podcast.
	It's a monologue.
	You know, HW and I are having a wonderful conversation.
	We appreciate you listening.
	But, civility in this country...
	It's at a terrifying- The liberal ideal is people sitting and listening to people who they radically disagree with and maintaining their own ideas or changing their minds or debating them.
	Whatever.
	I mean, that is how it's supposed to happen, but- In a civil society.
	In a liberal society.
	The left has abandoned that liberal ideal of free speech, of debate, of free inquiry, And instead, they stifle people they disagree with.
	They don't allow them onto campuses, they want to take them off of YouTube, and so on.
	Well, deplatforming, as you stated.
	It's all about shutting the people up who they disagree with.
	And so you can only assume that they just don't have the confidence in their ideas.
	I think that the election of Trump really shook them, because it showed that they don't have the grip over people that they thought they did.
	And ever since then, they've been trying to lash out and delegitimize not only Trump, but any dissident views.
	And furthermore, they've been trying to silence.
	Anyone certainly who supports Trump, but anyone who has any dissident ideas.
	And there's really no reason to support Trump anymore!
	I know.
	But just today we heard that a big channel, Black Pigeon Speaks, I haven't watched much of his stuff, but he's a generally right-leaning guy.
	500,000 subscribers.
	Think about that.
	leaning guy. 500,000 subscribers. Think about that. 500,000 people have seen
	enough of him that they said, wow, I want to subscribe to that channel. That way I
	get alerts whenever his stuff comes up. 500,000 people. I mean, that's
	a substantial portion of the population has decided that they want to hear his
	Banned.
	I don't look at Nielsen ratings anymore.
	I can't imagine.
	Are there even CNN shows in primetime that are getting 500,000 views?
	Not much over that.
	Not much over that.
	So they just banned him unceremoniously.
	A lot of, you know, we talked about this a little bit earlier, but, you know, the New York Times having a dog in the fight here.
	Talking about the traditional gatekeepers.
	You know, the broader context of this is that all of these media platforms, actually pretty much with the exception of the New York Times, are hemorrhaging.
	All the people pushing censorship the hardest.
	Think Progress, there was just a headline, their business is suffering.
	HBO announced this week that it's canceling Vice News Tonight.
	Yes.
	Everyone heard a couple months back about the massive layoffs at BuzzFeed.
	CNN's doing massive layoffs.
	All of these major media companies are hemorrhaging employees, income, and so on.
	And why is that?
	First of all, because they've thoroughly delegitimized themselves in the age of Trump.
	Also, there's some secular factors.
	Obviously, advertising revenue is being allocated differently.
	Google and Facebook are making a lot more of it than these platforms are.
	So that's definitely at play too.
	But ultimately, People like us and different content creators on YouTube are rivals to these organizations for attention.
	We're all competing for what's really a zero-sum of people's attention.
	They want it because eyes on their articles, eyes on their videos, that's how they get their money.
	They want people clicking stupid cat videos that no one wants to watch or watching left-wing commentary that no one wants to hear.
	That's another funny concession in the article is that they say that left-wingers haven't been nearly as successful on YouTube building up their channels.
	And the author says it's partly because they're not quite as good at being funny and having memes.
	Their stuff is stale, and no one wants to hear it.
	And also you can hear it on like, broadcast television.
	You hear it everywhere.
	People yearn for this stuff.
	People thirst for anything that goes, that dares, that...
	Positions the dominant ideology the zeitgeist in the wrong way and that's the same reason that the right has always been so good on talk radio.
	I remember the first time that somebody sent me a link to YouTube and the only thing I use YouTube for was trying to find obscure 80s songs from movies.
	Nice.
	I was like oh man I remember the soundtrack and there was this Awesome song, and you would type in one of the lyrics and all of a sudden there it was.
	It'll probably be banned pretty soon for being heteronormative.
	I think you regrettably might be correct, but I remember someone sent me a video of, remember that crazy conspiracy zeitgeist?
	I think that was the name.
	You have to remember, the Wild Wild West People will be shocked in a couple years when the totalitarians completely win and everything's off the internet.
	But it was the wild, wild west.
	You had the strangest videos that now, they're not even on there.
	But YouTube would recommend it!
	I know.
	It's truly bizarre that Alex Jones isn't on YouTube anymore.
	It's bizarre that Colin Flaherty isn't on YouTube.
	He's been banned five times!
	Oh, and now Black Pigeon Speaks?
	He's got 500,000 subscribers.
	Poof.
	Gone.
	Tons of work put into that channel.
	Doesn't matter.
	So, we know the major media and all these think tanks, left-wingers, are behind this stuff.
	Who benefits?
	Who else?
	Cui Bono.
	Who else is behind it?
	There was a big headline this week that got passed around a lot in our circles.
	It actually wasn't a big headline.
	Of course!
	It was in something called The Observer about a joint summit called the After Charlottesville Project.
	It's the second meeting of this project.
	It'll be meeting in San Francisco next month and it is being sponsored by the Comcast NBCUniversal One other foundation and most notably the Soros fund
	charitable foundation. Well, that's not gonna surprise You know, it's not called the after Charlottesville
	projects funded by the Soros foundation Which is going to figure out the quote best practices on
	the fight against hate and extremism That's the goal.
	The purpose of the conference is to bring together the private tech sector with authorities who have the quote best practices on the fight against hate and online extremism.
	And we all know what that means.
	It means censorship.
	Deplatforming.
	Deplatforming.
	So no surprise that Soros would be behind this.
	Also, given our previous discussion, no surprise NBC would be behind it.
	There are competitors to them on YouTube.
	But who is behind it, which might surprise our readers, is the Koch Brothers.
	I thought you were going to say the ADL.
	No, no, no.
	The Charles Koch Institute is sponsoring this little shindig as well.
	They've joined up with the ADL, the Center for American Progress.
	All these tech companies are going to be there.
	Big names, Eventbrite, Mozilla, Pinterest, Patreon, Airbnb.
	In their press release, they had a statement from Michael Singer, who's the former mayor of Charlottesville.
	Who says now more than ever is the time to create communities that value diversity inclusivity and positive change and PK you've got to love the doublespeak they're talking about Inclusivity and diversity in the same breath you're talking about tech censorship.
	It really is that's that's the world that they want this is a this is a confab of the of the extreme left, Soros, we know what Soros is all about, and then the Koch brothers.
	The Koch brothers are a left libertarian free market ideologues.
	They own a lot of major corporations and they use a lot of that excess capital to spend and to splurge on candidates and on causes that they believe will enhance liberty, freedom, Yeah, they've essentially- Individualism.
	They've essentially, they are the George Soros on the supposed right.
	And what they've done is created an astroturfed supposed right of all these silly organizations that just push for tax cuts and basically advantages for the Koch's businesses.
	Open borders.
	Open borders, super pro-immigration.
	Ostensibly, they're supposed to be against identity politics, but they actually have an organization called the Libre Initiative.
	which is a hispanic advocacy group supposed to convince hispanics to become conservative so once again which is working really well in denver well once again it's just another situation where they support identity for everyone except whites but this this is the coke brothers and so you have to realize people think you know for the left the coke brothers are these bogeymen right because they want like They want people to starve in the streets, they want to get rid of the welfare state, they want no taxes on anybody.
	But really what you see is that they're just the other side of the globalist coin.
	That you've got Soros, Soros, the Venn diagram between Soros and the Koch brothers is like a massive overlap.
	Maybe they disagree.
	Soros wants to rip people off by convincing them climate change is something they need to fund things for.
	But the Kochs want to rip people off because they want all this cheap labor coming in.
	Of course they don't like the tariffs because that affects their businesses.
	They can't have anything that would affect globalism or outsourcing of jobs.
	Anything that would rebuild the manufacturing sector.
	So the globalists Center to this Venn diagram is there and you see it in this summit Yeah They're getting together with the top names from big tech and they're going to talk about how best They can keep people like you and me from using basic services online Oh, and again, this goes to what we were just talking about that if they had the confidence in their ideas Why wouldn't they just?
	Present them. They've certainly got enough money. They've got enough organizations putting their ideas for it
	But guess what? No one wants to listen to their BS. No one wants to listen to these
	Tired Reaganite talking points about low taxes and all this stuff. Trump just blew them out of the water
	Yeah, they just they announced they're not gonna support his reelection
	They don't support any Trump Ian candidate the only candidate they support is Justin Amash the guy who
	wants a Republican who wants to impeach Trump and then he also
	voted to go after Attorney General Barr
	I mean, these are people who, in a lot of ways, are more venomous to the right than Soros.
	That's right.
	But you have to, you have to, people have to realize it.
	They have to realize that the Koch brothers are in no way on our side.
	They're advocating for the dispossession of the American worker.
	They're advocating for the dispossession of white America via massive unchecked immigration.
	They do want people to live in poverty.
	They want the elimination of the welfare state.
	This is their agenda and they think that Basically us, I mean that's really what this summit is about, are standing in the way of that.
	We are the only opposition.
	We are in opposition to it.
	And that's the fact too, is that the left likes to claim that it's opposition to all these things, but here you have the ADL And Soros teaming up with the Koch brothers.
	What's that about?
	If the Koch brothers are these nasty guys, what's going on here?
	How can they share the same space?
	How can they breathe the same air?
	Because to them, freedom is the illumination of our ideas from the marketplace.
	That is liberty.
	That is freedom.
	As long as we are dispossessed from infecting anyone else's mind so that the New York Times never has to expend the energy and pay a journalist to investigate the radicalization of a certain platform.
	Insert platform X here.
	For a couple months.
	And that's what happened.
	That's right.
	Well, so much for their purported worship of the Constitution, the First Amendment.
	It's irrelevant.
	You know, free inquiry, debate, free speech, all these things.
	Yeah, not so much.
	They're just gonna get together and squelch it.
	So if we have any listeners in the San Francisco area, that might be a fun thing to try.
	I doubt you could probably even get in.
	It's probably like the Bilderberg Conference.
	I actually poked around a little bit.
	I don't even think you can register for it.
	It's a closed-door meeting, I guess, and they're just going to talk about censoring us.
	Maybe someone could try and sneak inside or something.
	Yeah, that's all they want.
	Again, we are the Primary opposition.
	If you're listening to this, I don't want to go on... What's that?
	The whole John Connor idea from the Terminator.
	You are the resistance!
	Well, no, it's basically true.
	You are!
	We're broadcasting behind the Iron Curtain here.
	Or into the Iron Curtain.
	And that's what's happening.
	So, we are going to continue broadcasting for as long as we have breath, dear listeners.
	We will fight.
	But!
	No more today.
	No more today, but I do encourage you, if you haven't, take a moment, email me.
	BecauseWeLiveHereAtProtonMail.com.
	Once again, BecauseWeLiveHereAtProtonMail.com.
	We'll keep you updated on whatever happens in regards to the channel, so you'll be able to listen every week to the latest edition of Radio Renaissance.
	So, for HW, this has been PK.
	Our podcast time is up.

▲