S5128 - Russia Threatens To BOMB UK Warship, Threatens Nuclear Retaliation As US Military Falls To Wokeism
Russia Threatens To BOMB UK Warship, Threatens Nuclear Retaliation As US Military Falls To Wokeism. While Democrats and leftist media continually defend critical race theory and wokeness our adversaries must be gloating as our military falls to woekism.
Russia is done playing games and even China has said they will join in a counterattack on the US over its "provocations"
#Russia
#China
#WorldWarThree
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Russia is threatening to bomb the UK Royal Naval Vessel that entered into its territorial waters, even saying that nuclear retaliation is on the table for conventional warfare attacks.
In our next story, Joe Biden effectively threatens patriots by saying that the people quoting Thomas Jefferson will need some F-15s and nuclear weapons to go up against the U.S.
government.
In our last story, Christopher Ruffo, on Joy Reid's own show, debates her on the merits of critical race theory and, in my opinion, makes her look pretty bad.
If you like this show, please give us a good review.
And if you really like it, leave five stars.
And if you really, really like it, please share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Yesterday it was reported that Russia fired warning shots at a Royal Naval Vessel and
even dropped bombs in its path for crossing into what Russia says are its territorial
waters off of Crimea.
The UK and the West say that no, this is Ukrainian territorial waters, and Russia, you do not control it.
Therefore, we are moving through a well-known international route.
Well, according to one journalist on the HMS Defender, he said it was a deliberate move by the UK.
Of course, the UK is also denying any warning shots were fired, but I don't really believe the UK on this one.
Now, right now, tensions between the United States and Russia and China are getting worse.
More specifically, Russia and China sort of working together against the US.
We recently saw the war games 300 miles off the western coast of Hawaii, as well as China sending 28 warplanes into the Taiwanese air defense zone.
So yes, it is an opportunity for both Russia and China to get what they want.
And while they probably wouldn't normally want to work together, they seem to be.
The big news right now is that, well, Russia is threatening to bomb any vessel that crosses into Crimean waters.
This is a direct threat to the UK Royal Navy, and in turn, the Western Allies and NATO.
And some fear this is a dramatic escalation.
Maybe it's just some words, but as I mentioned yesterday, when Russia actually fired the warning shots, now they're saying, we will bomb you next time.
It is always a grain of sand being added to the heap.
It won't be one story that triggers the shot heard around the world, but this is the path we're on.
And boy, is it worrying, because now Russia has said they reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to U.S.
aggression.
And China, as I reported yesterday, as was reported yesterday, said that they will work with Russia to counterattack the U.S.
in response to provocations.
Think about what that means.
What China has basically said is, it's not just that if the U.S.
attacks us, we'll fight back.
It's that if you provoke us, we will counterattack.
The narrative is always that we are simply defending ourselves.
Right.
And I think the reason the UK is saying there was no warning shot fired is because if Russia does fire upon this Royal Naval Vessel, they can say it was without warning.
That's why I genuinely believe that, well, according to this BBC journalist, he heard shots fired.
Doesn't know where they were, they were off-range, but it seems like There may have actually been warning shots, and the next move will be to bomb these vessels.
Here's the game of chicken.
Will the Royal Navy say, try me, and send these ships back into Crimean waters?
Or will the UK say, Russia means business, and we are backing down?
There's something else happening in the news that is freaking me out.
You see, we can talk about war, and I think it's very important, but we're also now hearing from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, a general.
Well, that he's woke, and that they're absolutely indoctrinating the U.S.
military to be woke.
This is a horrifying development.
Our soldiers will be held back by strange racial theories that have nothing to do with international conflict.
And in fact, it will weaken them, and it is driving people to quit the armed forces.
I've met many of these people personally.
One man recently told me that he was on track to have a pretty good career until he saw the expansion of Wokeness and said, I'll have nothing to do with it, and he left.
What's left?
Well, I mean, take a look at the Proud Boys versus Antifa.
We know how those fights go.
Antifa, for sure, they're aggressive, but they're not typically those who would win.
Is that who we want in our armed forces?
And perhaps what we're seeing is a psychological component of the international conflict.
China, of course, would love it if our military is woke.
Putin recently gave compliments to Joe Biden about his focus and sharp wit.
Yeah, Joe Biden.
The guy who can barely talk straight.
Meanwhile, we are here in the U.S.
dealing with a massive internal conflict, which is probably why Russia feels so confident to threaten to bomb anyone who enters Crimean waters.
Well, let's read this news and see what's happening.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
and become a member to get access to exclusive members only segments for the Tim Cast IRL
podcast. Yesterday we had Michael Knowles on the show. You're going to want to watch that bonus
segment at Tim Cast IRL. But when you become a member, you're not just getting access to the
exclusive content, you're helping fund our new newsroom and the journalism that is being
produced as well as the expansion of content. We have a new paranormal and mysteries writers
joining. We are hiring new journalists. That's what you are supporting when you become a member.
But don't forget the most important thing you can do like this video, subscribe to this channel,
and share this video with your friends.
I don't have the marketing budget of CNN, and more importantly, YouTube props up.
Leftist propaganda and mainstream personalities with a establishment frame of perspective.
If you think what I'm saying is important, if you trust the work that I do and want to help support it, share this, because if everybody did, well, we'd get more viewers and ratings than CNN overnight.
Let's read the news.
First, from the Daily Mail, Russia threatens to bomb any warship that sails too close to Crimea after Moscow fired warning shots at British destroyer in Black Sea standoff.
They say the Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said on Thursday that any invading warships could be attacked the next time they sail too close to Crimea.
Moscow boasted that a Su-24 dropped four bombs in Britain's HMS Defender's path after it was ordered to change course after warning shots were fired from a patrol ship.
But Britain said the destroyer stayed in international waters and no shots were fired and the firing was from nearby Russian naval exercises.
Why would Russia lie when they could just do it?
I'm sorry, that's why I don't believe the UK.
There is an international precedent.
I would say that the UK would seek to be protected.
Let me reframe.
The UK can simply say, we were never warned if they get fired upon.
But why would Russia actually fire shots, then say they were warning shots, but they weren't?
If Russia wanted to claim warning shots were fired, they'd literally just do it, right?
The UK, I don't think, has the credibility on this one.
They say the ship was part of a convoy from NATO-backed Ukraine to fellow NATO ally Georgia, but its voyage took it past the disputed strategically important Crimea Peninsula that was invaded and seized by Moscow in 2014.
The Royal Navy insists the Freedom of Navigation Patrol took it through international waters and that Russia is trying to illegally claim ocean beyond its 12-mile territorial waters.
Two Black Sea Fleet Coast Guard ships continue to shatter the destroyer from a hundred yards away, while 20 military aircraft patrol the skies today.
The British Type 45 destroyer has been on operations in the Black Sea alongside American Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Laboon and Dutch warship HNLMS Evertsen.
The standoff was the first time since the Cold War that Moscow acknowledged using live ammunition to deter a NATO warship.
Reflecting the growing risk of military incidents amid soaring tensions between Russia and the West.
But it's not just Russia and the West.
Russia knows that because of the pressure that China is getting from the United States, there's an opportunity for a tacit alliance.
That if we challenge Russia, our forces will be spread too thin, and China could then move in on Taiwan.
It is almost a Mexican standoff, but not quite.
Russia and China aren't going to fight each other.
As soon as the United States makes a move against either Russia or China, the other can move in.
Now, in this instance, it's not so much about moving in.
Russia has been building up forces along the eastern border of Ukraine, though I think they pulled that back a little bit, leading many people to fear that Russia would invade eastern Ukraine and take even more territory.
For the time being, they already have Crimea, but they definitely want to defend it.
Daily Mail says after the standoff, Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday that in the future, Russia would fire on any intruding warships too close to the Crimean Peninsula because the security of our country comes first.
Well, check out these photos.
These are really amazing photos.
They mean it.
This is Russia's only warm water port.
All of their other ports are very, very far north.
In fact, Russia is north of North Korea, for a lot of people don't know that.
North of China.
So this gives them access to the Black Sea, which through the Bosphorus, Turkey, Istanbul, gives them access to the Mediterranean, and then out through these oceans.
Without Crimea, they're in trouble.
Back several years ago, When Ukraine was discussing joining NATO, and now they're saying, you know, effectively it's aligned with NATO, Russia knew that if NATO gained influence in Ukraine, they would lose access to the Crimean port.
So what happened?
Well, all of a sudden there was this referendum and Crimea voted to become Russia.
So here we go.
Russia took it because they could not let it fall to the West.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet and greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Russia released footage filmed from one of its Su-24M attack jets, which showed HMS Defender sailing off Crimea, but not the moment it alleges shots were fired and four bombs were dropped.
Issuing a stark warning, the Russian official said, What can we do?
We can appeal to common sense.
Demand respect for international law.
If this does not help, we can bomb, not only in the direction, but also on target.
If our colleagues do not understand, I warn everyone violating the state borders of the Russian Federation under the slogan of free navigation from such provocative steps because the security of our country comes first.
Backing up his comments, the Kremlin said Moscow would respond harshly to any similar actions in the future and warned against any further provocations.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov continued, if unacceptable provocative actions are repeated, if those actions go too far, no options to legitimately protect the borders of the Russian Federation could be excluded.
Ryabkov also warned that balancing on the brink of confrontation would have very serious consequences for anyone who tried to plan or carry out such events as he expressed outrage at the UK's behavior.
The diplomat said, this is a very serious situation. We condemn the actions of the British side.
The territorial integrity of the Russian Federation is inviolable.
The inviolability of its borders is an absolute imperative, and we will protect all this through
political, diplomatic, and when necessary, military methods.
Even going so far as to say, if they have to, they will respond with nuclear weapons.
Now, there's some very serious moral and ethical conundrums we face here with this conflict.
Russia, did they have the right to seize Crimea?
No.
Ukraine is sovereign.
They're not part of the Russian Federation.
The Soviet Union no longer exists.
But Russia was desperate.
They knew that if they lost this warm water port, they were in very serious trouble.
They need to use this port to bring in oil, for instance, to the Mediterranean.
Without that access, they would be cut off in many ways.
Certainly, there are other ports they have access to, but they're typically colder.
There's also the Northwest Passage, which has been opening up in recent years.
So Russia made their move.
Now it's fair to say, from the West's perspective, of course it was an invasion, it was illegal.
They claim the people of Crimea voted to join Russia?
Yeah, right.
Like anybody actually believes this.
The issue is, we're no longer in the era of kinetic warfare being the most effective warfare.
Information warfare, economic warfare, for instance, can be much more powerful.
So when the U.S.
issues sanctions against Russia, or Iran, or any other country, that pressure could lead to kinetic warfare because of desperation.
Russia, feeling the heat from the West and about to be boxed in, was forced to make a move.
And they really were forced.
Not that I'm saying the move was correct.
But what should they do?
Sit back and say, we will lose?
Not a fan of the moves they're making, but they do not want to become subservient, so they took action.
You wouldn't expect any less from anyone else.
Which means, the UK and the US, Western allies, may very well say, we will not accept that move by you, Russia, and we will continue to press upon Ukrainian territorial waters, Crimea, where Russia will then say, you are violating our territory, and the next time, a bomb does drop, and does strike this ship, and then we get war.
Newsweek reports, Russian General Defends Right to Use Nuclear Weapons if Existence of State is Threatened.
Isn't this a threat to the state?
Access to the Black Sea?
On Wednesday, General of the Army Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, raised concerns about the development of weapons blurring lines during the Moscow International Security Conference on Wednesday.
He stressed the need for treaties to keep nuclear weapons in check and categorized Russia's nuclear arsenal as being purely defensive.
While Russia's policy isn't to be aggressive with the use of nuclear weapons, TASS, the official Russian news agency, reported Gerasimov noted that the country reserves the right to deploy the measure as a response.
That response could be prompted by another country's use of nuclear or other mass destruction weapons against Russia or its allies, or In case of aggression against Russia with conventional weapons that endanger the very existence of the state.
Could it be that the UK having their HMS Defender go near Crimea could be a very, very serious threat?
And Russia might seek to end the war before it begins by firing an ICBM or some kind of other nuclear missile?
Perhaps.
I don't want to pretend like it's likely.
I don't want to be overly sensationalist.
Though they're saying it, I really, really think they're going to refrain from using nuclear weapons.
But you always got to be careful.
You can't operate under this idea that it can't happen here, because it can.
War has happened before.
It could happen again, and likely will.
They say in June 2020, Putin endorsed Russia's nuclear deterrent policy, which allows him to use nuclear weapons in response to a strike with conventional weapons.
Putin could also deploy nuclear weapons if Russia gets reliable information about the launch of missiles targeting its territory or allies, according to the AP.
With relations between the U.S.
and Russia at a post-Cold War low, Putin's signing of that document raised concerns about a potential conflict and supported Russia's consideration of America's stability to launch a military strike as a top threat.
Garisimov pointed to the development of nuclear weapons and the Allied bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a demonstration of the ability for a military confrontation to turn into a hot phase, given the danger a nuclear war would pose to the world.
Garisimov said preventing the conflict is the primary goal of strategic stability between the US and Russia.
But let's think about a game of chicken, when two cars are speeding towards each other.
Of course, neither wants to get hit.
But who blinks first?
You see, Russia will end up saying something like, we have been trying to prevent a nuclear war, but you keep pressing on our borders, sending ships through our territory.
You started this, not us.
That's how it will play out.
I'm not saying we will go to war, but I'm saying, should war happen, of course both sides will simply say, we have a right, and they're going to do it.
And then war happens.
And both sides are justified, both sides produce propaganda, both sides assert their moral right to do the things they're doing.
And then eventually someone gets wiped out.
And then history is written by the victors.
Now, should we go to war, I think we in the United States have very serious things to worry about.
From the Washington Post, top U.S.
military leader, quote, I want to understand white rage.
And I'm white.
Interesting.
They report Army General Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admonished lawmakers over questions about critical race theory at a Wednesday hearing, saying it is important for leaders to be well-versed in many schools of thought.
That doesn't make me a communist, Milley told the House Armed Services Committee.
So what is wrong with understanding the country, which we are here to defend?
Yes, you are free to read Mao and Marx and Lenin and anybody else, and it doesn't make you a communist.
But when you start blaming white rage, when you start saying, so what, we should be teaching Marxist theory, sorry, I think you are a communist.
Rep.
Mike Waltz, a Republican from Florida, criticized reports the U.S.
Military Academy at West Point teaches a course involving the theory, which broadly explores the idea that racism reaches beyond individual prejudice and affects minorities at the institutional level, particularly in criminal justice.
That is a dramatic oversimplification of what critical race theory is, but I digress.
A guest lecturer at the academy included phrases such as white rage, Waltz claimed, and he pressed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
The nation's first black Pentagon chief to investigate further.
Soon after, when the committee gave Milley a chance to expand, he launched into an impassioned defense of inquiry about U.S.
society and its racial dynamics.
He emphasized that the U.S.
Military Academy is a university.
Quote, I want to understand white rage and I'm white, Milley said.
Let me just point out, white rage is not a thing.
It is one of these ideological buzzwords with little meaning.
that is used for political purposes.
Certainly, there are white people.
Certainly, people of all races can be racist.
Certainly, white nationalism is a very, very bad thing.
But none of those things are motivators for what happened on January 6th.
They say Millie said, focused on learning more about the mostly white, mostly male mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6th.
The race of the individuals had nothing to do with January 6th.
And you see, this is the point.
They're trying to make it seem like the people on January 6th were white supremacists.
The chairman of the Proud Boys is not a white man.
They still try and claim he's a white supremacist, which makes literally no sense.
Now, they argue, Joy Reid argued to Chris Rufo at MSNBC, that whiteness emerged after colonization because Europeans viewed Native Americans as lesser, and the easiest distinction they could make was that, well, they all appeared white, as it were, and thus, all of a sudden, certain European nations were deemed better than others, or something to that effect.
These are the arguments they use to justify why it is that a black man could be a white supremacist.
They call it political whiteness.
It's absurd.
It is illogical.
It's self-contradictory.
To hear the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say this is scary.
What's going to happen?
We're going to go to war with China, and he's going to say, well, you know, we have been colonizers, so maybe we shouldn't retaliate.
Well, we would go and defend Taiwan, but, you know, the Taiwanese and the Chinese, they're all ethnically similar, and therefore the white man shouldn't colonize Taiwan.
Is that the idea?
Should we leave South Korea because it's viewed as colonization?
I assure you this, my family is eternally grateful to the United States for what they did for South Korea.
And, uh, my family, you know, my grandfather who made a Korean woman, fought in World War II.
I'm sure they were very, very happy the United States came in and helped them.
And so much so that my grandmother married an American guy.
Should we leave and pull our troops out of South Korea?
It's an interesting question.
I'm not a big fan of intervention.
As of right now, I'm also not one to just be like, of all places, South Korea, we should abandon.
Now we can talk about Afghanistan, and there's a bunch of nuance in these stories, but maybe there's a good reason to get our troops out of many of these places.
The point is, If conflict does erupt, is there some kind of white rage that Mark Milley will be expressing that will prevent him from defending this country?
I think the answer is yes, 100%.
I think they will be blinded by this ideology and hate themselves to a degree that they won't do what needs to be done.
We don't want war.
We don't want nuclear bombs flying.
But I don't want our country taken over, and I don't want to die.
I don't think this country could be taken over because of the guns, but we don't want to see... It could be through economics and through influence, and that may be the case.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm saying a ground invasion.
Will we come to the point where Taiwan falls because we lack the political willpower to defend them?
Maybe.
Maybe.
It's hard to know what to do.
There's staunch anti-interventionists who say, so what?
None of our business.
But the last thing you want is a global superpower that is Chinese authoritarianism.
Chinese communist authoritarianism.
Here's another, it goes on.
What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the constitution of the United States of America?
What caused that, Millie asked.
I want to find that out.
You see how their framing is?
The framing he has is that it was simply white people, it was white rage, and they hate America, when in fact most of those people identify as patriots.
Like Joe Biden recently said, quoting Thomas Jefferson's Blood of Patriots, Tree of Liberty statement, he said, you would need F-15s and nuclear weapons to go up against us, which sounds a lot like a threat.
You mean tell me that people who follow the quotes of Thomas Jefferson, who are challenging the government because they do not feel it represents them, will need nuclear weapons to go up against you?
It's not the first time Joe Biden has said something like this, effectively saying he would nuke people.
What are you gonna do with a nuclear weapon?
You gonna blow up a city?
That's ridiculous.
So let's talk about this insane cult.
They say, only one elective course at the Academy, Politics of Race, Gender, and Sexuality, includes critical race theory in its syllabus.
Lieutenant General Daryl A. Williams, the university superintendent, said in a letter provided to Waltz, about 23 cadets take it a year, mostly by cadets majoring in political science, Williams said.
This is a lie.
What they're teaching is the application of critical race theory.
And more importantly, they're applying critical race theory to every single subject matter.
So what you get is, well, we had that viral photo of that one, I think it was a West Point cadet, showing, you know, took his hat off and inside it said, Communism will win.
You think he was wrong?
This guy who was in these academies saying this.
Yeah, they're infiltrating.
They will infiltrate, they will destroy, and they will rebuild.
And it's happening to our police departments.
So while we are greatly concerned about this external conflict with Russia or China, internally we are being eroded and destroyed.
Milley said he was offended that critics, among them GOP lawmakers and right-wing commentators like Tucker Carlson, have accused the military of being woke or something else because we're studying some theories that are out there.
Republicans for months have raked military and Pentagon leaders over policy and personnel changes, such as relaxing hair restrictions for women and reversing bans on open transgender service, as distractions fueled by a liberal agenda.
I think he's correct.
Gates had questioned the curriculum at the academy, later prompting the comments by Milley.
After the hearing, Gates took a swipe at Milley on Twitter, with generals like this, it's
no wonder we've fought considerably more wars than we've won.
I think he's correct.
I think Matt Gates is correct about Mark Milley.
The military is accused of being woke and weak, and Mark Milley comes out and capitulates
to something he truly does not understand.
Think about that for two seconds.
Anybody who actually watches the news and the statements made by Joy Reid and other critical race theorists and then read what they write knows they're lying.
For instance, Joy Reid said that critical race theory is not rooted in the tradition of Marxist philosophy.
Quite literally is.
And whose quote is that?
Kimberly Crenshaw, one of the prominent critical race theorists, and the individual who coined the term intersectionality, wrote that critical race theory was named to show people it was rooted in critical theory, which is rooted in Marxist philosophy.
They lie.
You need only read what they say to know they lie.
This man has no idea what he's talking about, and what he just did, one of the most dangerous things at a time when Russia's threatening to bomb our allies, was he said, I am a moron who has no idea what any of this is, and I am totally welcome to this subversive ideology which seeks to infiltrate, destroy, and then rebuild from the ashes.
I have no problem with this seeping into our military at a time when we are facing very serious conflict.
Putin knows it.
Xi Jinping knows it.
And here we are.
This ideology is one of the main reasons we are seeing this.
The New York Times, why police have been quitting in droves in the last year.
Nashville, North Carolina has been the hardest hit by police departures in the wake of George Floyd protests.
About a third of the force quit or retired.
I mean, it's that simple.
They're related.
Cops are quitting.
We're seeing more and more mainstreaming of the A-Cab.
All cops are bad.
The B means something else, but you get the point.
Internally, crime is skyrocketing.
The economy is in shambles.
This is the fault and the result of critical race theory ideology infecting our institutions.
From our news media, to movies, to video games, to our police departments, to local politics.
And with the fall of this Stability we will struggle to compete against our adversaries I Don't I'm not so convinced there will be a kinetic war because there doesn't need to be and I've long said this and that means you know violence
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Of course, not broke in the literal sense, figurative.
Meaning they will become weakened, unable to defend us, And then things get bad.
You could make arguments about the UK, you know, maybe they should avoid Crimea.
But there are military efforts and there are civilian efforts that take place in the Black Sea that Russia is at odds with.
So what do we do?
It's tough, isn't it?
You could argue the anti-interventionist idea that we should not get involved in these wars no matter what.
The United States is not Ukraine, nor are we Europe, and we should mind our own business.
There's challenges to that line of thinking.
And I'm fairly anti-war.
I say fairly because think of it this way.
Russia takes Crimea.
What's next?
What if Russia then takes Eastern Ukraine?
Do we just keep sitting back, watching Russia and China seize more territory?
China is violating certain treaties, and I think the Geneva Conventions are gonna be wrong, building artificial islands, military bases, trying to seize the South China Sea and attacking civilians who are in that area of the ocean.
Do we just sit back and say we will do nothing?
Now many people have said the United States is not the world police and we shouldn't.
But what if we do sit back and do nothing and allow China to just take whatever they want and then Russia takes whatever they want?
How long until Europe is Russia and all of Southeast Asia is just China?
And then we are faced with a very serious conflict.
Somebody recommended to me that I watch the episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine called In the Pale Moonlight.
It's a fantastic episode.
I know, I know, pop culture reference, but it's an amazing bit of writing.
You know, we truly had some profound thinkers in the 90s with some of these series.
In the show, if you're familiar with Star Trek, it's the Federation, and they're at war with something called the Dominion.
Because the Klingons are allied with the Federation, they're dragged into the war as well.
There's another empire called Romulans who refuse to enter the war because they have no qualms.
They have a non-aggression pact.
Eventually, though, they are tricked into fighting this war.
But the general idea, and the reason I bring this up, is it's an excellent bit of thinking by the writers.
Now, I know, throw away all the sci-fi elements and all the fantasy elements, you're not a fan of this, but just think about what the idea behind this was.
You have a potential conflict between three major powers.
You've got Russia and China and the U.S.
Well, whoever is whoever in this analogy, you know, whatever.
If we just sit back as China takes what they want from Southeast Asia or from Taiwan, eventually they will control everything and we'll be facing an even greater threat.
Therein lies the big challenge.
I don't believe in the idea of preemptive war, but we're not talking about preemptive strikes.
Right?
We've seen that from the US.
Bad idea.
Bad.
We shouldn't do it.
Russia took Crimea.
There's no preemptive about it.
They literally took it.
Should the U.S.
just sit back and say, let them go to war with our allies and seize whatever land they want?
If we do, how long until they control so much territory, and they have so much production, that they're a real threat to stopping us, and we won't be able to do anything about it?
Eventually, you let the problem grow so large, and you'll be unable to do anything about it.
That's the big challenge.
Should the U.S.
or the U.K.
or anyone else free Crimea?
I know people from Ukraine.
I have friends from there.
I've done some stories from there.
I was there for quite a bit of time.
I think I was there for like a month and a half or two months once.
It was crazy!
I was there for a long time!
During the Euromaidan protests, it was the winter, I believe, of 2013 and then into 2014.
These people tell me that they want Crimea back, that there are many people who lived in Crimea but would cross back and forth for work and now they can't because of Russian occupation.
Should we free them?
If we do, Russia would certainly retaliate in desperation.
This is the crisis of war, and it's why there's no easy answer.
Some people just say, let them do whatever they want.
Okay, imagine this scenario.
Russia takes eastern Ukraine, takes Crimea, their influence spreads, they seize more and more of Ukraine, Europe is unable to defend itself, more and more countries fall along the eastern border, and forms a new pseudo-Soviet bloc.
And then eventually, they put pressure on us, they sanction us, they come to our borders, they go through South America, they go through Mexico.
Then we're confronting a major threat that we can't stop.
So I don't know what we do.
I don't have all the answers.
I can only tell you that the wokeness of the military freaks me out.
Because if it does come to trading blows, our military is being gutted from its core by people like Mark Milley who are too stupid to realize what's happening around them.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
In our efforts to combat extremism, we are confronted with some very serious moral and ethical questions about what kind of dissent is allowed.
Of course, many of us, you know, those who watch my videos, we're not happy with Antifa going around smashing up buildings, burning small businesses to the ground, and we're not happy with the ideology that backs it, nor are we happy with them gaining power.
So, of course, we say law enforcement should stop them.
But many of those people would not be happy with Gadsden flag waving patriots doing the exact same thing.
And of course, we see the federal government going hard after those who were involved in the January 6th riot.
So it is very difficult to know where that line is when we're talking about dissent and what is acceptable.
I'll tell you this, in my opinion, when Antifa goes around smashing up small businesses, they're not targeting government.
They're targeting regular working-class people.
Yeah, I'm not okay with that.
The Founding Fathers didn't say... The, the, uh...
A security of a free state must be maintained by destroying the small businesses of regular working-class people.
No, the Second Amendment says, a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Because it's specifically addressing when a government is no longer representing the people, and it's also specifically referencing should foreign invaders come to our soil.
I want to make sure that's clear.
Now, this story Joe Biden.
He said patriots who want weapons to take on the US gov would need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.
You know, this article we have, it's from TimCast.com.
And when I saw that headline, I was like, Biden says patriots who want weapons?
Is this a little hyperbolic?
Let me make sure we're not misframing this, because did Biden really say that?
Or did he say, you know, like extremists?
No, he literally said patriots.
He said the people who talk about the blood of patriots.
He's making a specific reference to those who say the people who love this country are willing to give their lives to defend it from tyranny and authoritarianism.
And then Biden effectively threatens them with, oh, yeah, well, you're going to need some F-15s and nuclear weapons, which is just ridiculous and absolutely not true.
Right now, Joe Biden wants to crack down on crime, he says.
So what does he do?
He targets gun owners, he targets gun stores, and he wants to use COVID relief funds for police departments to refund the police.
Now, To a certain degree, I would like to see police functioning and well-funded, but we're getting to this dangerous period where many of the good cops have been crushed and forced out.
Not that every single cop was good to begin with, but certainly the ones I've talked to, many of the guys who are like, I couldn't stand for what they were doing, so I left.
Yeah.
Now they're going to retain and replace these individuals.
They're going to retain the bad cops, and they're going to bring in the Praetorian Guard, the people who don't care, who will do exactly what they're told.
And that's where it starts getting worrisome when it comes to the expansion of policing as we're seeing it.
Joe Biden and his cult and whatever this group is that is occupying, you know, the cities in this country or I should say the institutions, the woke cult is what I'm trying to explain.
Whatever this group is, they're empowering themselves and they're moving as quickly as they can because I think they realize they will lose substantial power in 2022.
And I think they realize that come 2024, they'll probably lose what little power they have.
So they have to make strong, powerful moves to make sure that doesn't happen.
So of course, we're seeing some radical and nonsensical statements.
Eric Weinstein, you may be familiar with him.
He recently went off on Twitter following the death of John McAfee, who had said explicitly several times he would never take his own life, and now they're reporting he apparently took his own life, which most people don't actually believe.
But Eric said something really interesting about the group that's currently in control, or occupying, or whatever this thing is, and its centralization in the Democratic Party.
I want to read for you what he says and then go through why it's so significant and why Joe Biden is wrong.
There's a lot to talk about.
So let me just say this.
This is the crux of the story over at TimCast.com.
Biden says patriots will need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.
The reason this is so funny is that right now they're claiming there was an insurrection on January 6th.
That's right.
So let me get this straight.
You've got a guy with the Viking horns, no weapons, walking through a Capitol building, and it's the apocalypse, the insurrection.
But Joe Biden's gonna come out and say you need some nuclear weapons, you need some F-15s.
So which is it?
Do you actually believe that the insurrection was a very serious threat to this country?
Or are you just going after anyone who dare oppose you with an iron fist?
Seems like we know what's happening.
Now, I also mentioned there was a little old lady who got convicted of a misdemeanor charge.
Doesn't really help the narrative that this was an insurrection, was it?
So let me explain.
Right now, in Afghanistan, they are warning us.
They are saying that if we leave Afghanistan, the Taliban will take over in two seconds, and videos are starting to pop up saying just that.
That's strange.
Joe Biden said you need nuclear weapons to go up against us.
But we've been in this place for 20 years, and the moment we start leaving, it gets taken over by somebody else?
So they didn't need nuclear weapons to go up against us?
We could never win and stop the Taliban in 20 years?
You see the point?
The Second Amendment works.
And it's working.
Joe Biden would try to confuse you.
Many of these establishment Democrat tribalists who don't care about anything other than winning will try to confuse you.
The Second Amendment works and is working and I'll explain.
Some of you may have heard me explain this before, but for those that haven't.
When the police went to Breonna Taylor's house, and they kicked the door in, or broke the door in, Breonna Taylor's boyfriend fired at them, hitting a cop in the leg.
Horrifying story, and again, we don't want these things to happen, but this is important.
They initially charged Brannan Taylor's boyfriend, but the charges were dropped.
Why?
Because you have a right to defend yourself in your home from serious threats.
The security of a free state.
It's not just about fighting the government.
It's not just about fighting foreign adversaries.
It's about defending yourself.
You can't have a free state, a secure state, if individuals are under threat from criminals, from general violence.
To maintain our strength, we have the right to protect ourselves.
And think about it this way.
In some countries, they try to keep themselves strong and defended and protected by having a strong security state.
But we're going at it from the grassroots level.
If each and every individual is secure in their persons, then it's going to be impossible to penetrate, damage an economy, or take over this country.
So the Second Amendment works.
You see these police officers, who many on the left say were wrong and should be fired and all that stuff, fine.
They know, each and every one of these cops, they know If you enter someone's home, you better be sure because they could be armed.
Other countries don't have that.
Now, I don't want people shooting at anybody.
I don't care if it's a burglar.
We don't want people to be shot at.
The point is, you do have a right to defend yourself.
If someone breaks into your home and is threatening your life, you have a right to defend yourself.
Depending on your state, check your local laws.
Castle doctrine varies.
But for the most part, we have a right to keep and bear arms for this reason.
And that means even if it's a cop, Brant Taylor's boyfriend was cleared of all wrongdoing.
I don't like that any of that happened.
I wish Brenna Taylor survived.
I wish none of these cops had, you know, none of this had happened.
I wish the cop didn't get shot.
But you understand the legal ramifications are the result of recognizing these things do happen, and you gotta protect people's rights.
What does this mean?
In countries like Canada and the UK, they'll kick your door in, they'll beat your wife in front of you, and they'll drag her off.
We have seen videos of this happening.
So it's not about going up against Biden or the Capitol.
It's not about waging some kind of insurrection.
It's about literally just being secure in your persons and making sure the government knows that you have rights and they are on equal footing with you.
I should say this.
The government is of the people.
They should be below in terms of respect to people's rights.
But of course, the government is effectively an entity unto its own.
So they need to be sure, be it federal police, federal law enforcement, or law enforcement, that when you enter someone's property, they could be just as armed as you are.
In fact, I'll say this, a lot of people Conservatives are armed more than the police.
Like, you can go to a gun store and buy steel core bullets.
These have penetrating power.
There's reasons for it.
So I find it funny when the left keeps trying to bring up hunting and things like that.
Second Amendment says nothing of hunting.
Self-defense in the home.
There was a post by this guy.
He pretends to be a Marine, but he's an administrator.
He was a Marine, but he was an administrator, so he's not actually well-versed in firearms or anything.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but he keeps putting out these things like no AR-15 should ever be used for home defense.
Yes, they should.
They absolutely should.
Home defense involves shooting people when they break into your home and threaten your life.
Now again, I don't want that to happen, and I've argued with people that I would do my best to not have to defend myself in this way, but sometimes you have no choice.
But think about it.
A weapon of war should not be used in home defense.
That's what they say.
What is a weapon of war?
It's a weapon used in war.
Okay, what is war?
Combat between peoples.
So, what would you rather someone use?
A sabot slug 12-gauge Remington?
That's gonna put a 10-inch hole in some guy's chest when he comes in your house?
Yikes, it's gonna be really loud and the recoil will be massive, cuz that's a deer hunting weapon.
Or how about the weapon designed for combat against humans, because that's typically what you'll be defending yourself against.
The arguments are nonsensical.
I will stress for the millionth time, I wish none of this had to be.
But, stay off people's property, don't aggress against people, and protect yourself, your rights, and we shouldn't have to be dealing with this.
I think what we're seeing with Joe Biden, the comments he's making about gun control, which are really poorly thought out.
The guy struggles to speak.
And of course, the left's arguments are just meant to disarm the population, weaken us, because we are facing an occupation.
I'm going to make a bold statement right now.
We are under occupation.
The U.S.
has been conquered.
And you've probably heard people in the Tim Castanero podcast mention things, say things that are similar to this, but I'll explain.
I'll explain by showing you a thread from... Oh, you know what?
I don't know if I have the thread from Eric Weinstein pulled up.
Oh, I do, I do, I do.
Here we go.
Eric Weinstein said, John reached out to me, not all that long ago.
Mandatory racism, racism, exorcism at work, me too, witch hunts, shadow banning, build back better, trust and safety, TOS changes, compulsory speech, antifa denials, labor shortage claims, denial, etc, etc, is clearly a repudiation of all the US stands for, he was bugged by it all.
I want to stress too, just for YouTube, None of this has anything to do with any medical anything, but in any circumstance, do not take medical opinions from anybody other than your personal doctor.
That's what you need to know.
I think that's the right approach, but I'm just saying that just in case.
You go to your doctor, you don't get medical advice from people on the internet or on TV.
He says, if you mention the enormous number of issues that are behaving in the same totally artificial fashion, the reputation attacks soar from all sides.
What the hell has control of the U.S.
and why is it localized to the Democratic Party and its associated media and businesses?
I wish I could remember his call with more precision, but it was when I was in San Francisco, I couldn't believe I was known to him.
He says he will be taking a new approach to doxing reputational attacks or others as a result.
Having menaced over asking for Epstein as a fake disgraced financier to be called out by our press and connected to any intelligence services, this takes on a new meaning.
When you can't call your own damn teams for help, who can you even call?
I so hate this ish rip JM."
The most important thing that he said, in my opinion, was, what the hell has control of the U.S.
and why is it localized at the Democratic Party and its associated media and businesses?
A very excellent point.
What does have control of the U.S.? ?
Wokeness, the manipulation, the lies, everything Eric Weinstein pointed out, and their efforts in desperate attempts to go after our right to keep and bear arms.
This proves the Second Amendment works and is working.
The Second Amendment is not primarily going to be individuals marching through the streets in a militia to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
Simply by virtue of people being armed, the authoritarians that have control of the U.S.
and localize in the Democratic Party cannot make extremist moves against us.
Again, you take a look at these videos out of Canada and the U.K.
and it is interesting, to say the least.
When they kick the door in, and you watch the woman screaming, stop, what are you doing?
And they say, shut your mouth, and they whack her in the face, and they drag her out.
Not too dissimilar to the scene in V for Vendetta.
Now, okay, sure, in V for Vendetta, they were, like, blackbagging people and then executing them, and these people are getting arrested.
But you need to understand that people are more worried about the anticipation of something than the act itself.
So when you threaten someone with some kind of rendition, with kicking their door in and dragging them from their homes, they are more worried about the possibility than it actually happening.
This is true.
Most people are more worried about the anticipation, they fear the anticipation of pain, more so than the actual pain itself.
Think about it.
You ever... I should say... Excuse me.
The anticipation of pain is more worrisome or stressful.
Think about going to the dentist and you know they're going to give you that shot, that anesthesia.
You're sitting there like, you're stressed out because you know it's going to hurt and then literally two, three seconds it's done and it wasn't even that bad.
We're more concerned about, you know, with anticipation of it.
This is what they know.
They don't need to drag you from your home and throw you, you know, put you behind a building with a firing squad like in V for Vendetta.
That's what they say.
You don't need to do that.
They just need to scare you that you don't know what's going to happen to you and they're going to take you from your home.
Because of the Second Amendment, it makes it very difficult for them to do this.
I'll give you an example.
Very horrifying story.
They were serving a red flag warrant, or whatever you want to call it, to an old man.
I think this was in the Baltimore area.
He didn't know, and they show up to his house.
And they said, sir, we have a red flag, you know, warrant.
We're here to take your weapons.
And he answered the door with his weapon, and he said, you know, effectively, from my cold, dead hands.
And so that's what they did.
They killed him.
Red flag laws are bad because individuals should have notice to challenge.
If you want to do a red flag law, first of all, I think they're all bad in general.
But at the very least, there should be notice given that you have three months to respond or something like that.
To go to the court and file your response.
But they don't do that.
The police show up right away and say, hand over your weapons.
And that never goes well for anybody.
And that's exactly what we see in these circumstances.
And there's been more than one where people have been killed.
There's some very, very nasty stories.
I'm not going to say too much.
They're gruesome.
But you take a look at what the federal government and the Democrats have consistently done, and it seems more and more obvious that these are not American ideals.
That these individuals do not like you.
They do not like us.
And they have a large swath of brainwashed Americans marching in lockstep with them to give them exactly what they want.
There's no gun problem in the United States.
That's a fact.
There isn't one.
There is a problem with crime, but that crime has been going down.
Violent crime has been on the decline for some time.
Now, I will absolutely say that when these lunatics go out with a gun and they attack several people, these are horrifying moments, and they're a problem, and they can be solved.
But it doesn't make sense.
Logically.
To go after the arms of legal, law-abiding citizens who actually would, like, are not going to engage in even combat with the United States.
You think about this.
You know, Joe Biden says you'll need an F-15 or a nuclear weapon.
But there are people who have tons of weapons, who if the government showed up and said, hand them over, they would say, okay.
Sure.
What am I going to do?
Go up against the government?
No, of course not.
Yet they want to take those weapons away too.
Because.
Right now, it's all about pressures.
What we're seeing, and the way I described it, I tweeted it, is that the U.S.
has been conquered.
Maybe it's a bit hyperbolic, but you understand, based on what Eric Weinstein is saying, that something has got a hold, is in control of the U.S.
Channels like mine, it's a pressure release valve.
Because there may be many law-abiding citizens who abide by these laws.
But when tyrannical government shows up with a bus and says, you're getting on the bus and we're shipping you off, people will say no.
And we know what happens to people without guns when they confront people with guns.
So there may be a regular working dad, a carpenter, who's got a few guns in his basement.
Maybe it's just for hunting.
But that is a problem.
Because if the government ever tried to do anything like pulling up a bus saying, you are an undesirable and get on board, the dad, the guy, would be like, I may only have a Ruger 10-22, but I will do what I can to protect myself.
Ruger 10-22, it shoots 10-20 long, I'm sorry, it shoots 22 long, they're not particularly large.
But the point is, right now, we can't fathom things.
We assume that it will never happen here, it will never get bad, but the Founding Fathers understood that it literally did.
And so it's better to keep and bear arms, saying, you know what, I understand it'll never happen here, but boy am I gonna keep and bear arms anyway, because you're better safe than sorry.
No, but we see what happens in these other places.
We see what happens in countries where they disarm the population.
Before any major genocide or rounding up of citizens, they need to disarm them first.
That's why it's imperative that people say no.
It shouldn't be an issue, right?
The United States government should not care that I'm saying this.
YouTube should not care I'm saying this.
Because the government's never gonna threaten to round people up and actually do it, right?
Right.
Okay.
So if you admit, government, that you will never send buses to round people up, then you shouldn't be worried about us having guns out of fear that you would.
So I'll stress that point, you know, about Biden saying F-15s and nuclear weapons.
Something weird is happening in this country.
We are being crushed every day.
The media is lying every day.
We got the story with Chris Ruffo and Joy Reid, and they just lie, and the media lies, and we know they lie.
Perhaps what's really happening is we are winning.
That's the important point.
Perhaps what's really happening is that we've been occupied for over a hundred years.
Perhaps what's happening is that that occupation is collapsing.
Many people point to Woodrow Wilson, the Federal Reserve, and now the system is aflame.
Maybe what's really happening is it's not centralized the Democratic Party.
It was centralized the Democrats and the Republicans until Trump broke the door down.
And along with his supporters.
And now they are struggling to maintain.
You see, the reality is they lied to us all the time.
It was always lies, lies, lies for the media.
We just didn't hear anything else.
Then the internet emerges.
Trump storms through the gates.
And now all of a sudden...
We're seeing the lies.
If it wasn't for our ability to communicate on the internet, we would just assume what CNN and MSNBC or whoever else was saying, we'd assume it was true, wouldn't we?
Many would still doubt it, but it's only because of our ability to communicate that this is changing.
So perhaps...
Those who are occupying the US, whatever the hell it is, say Eric Weinstein, they're losing, they're panicking, and so they're ramping up their efforts.
Steve Bannon said this to me a few days ago, we are winning.
Violence is wrong, we don't want it, because we are winning.
When these moms see what's happening to their children in these schools, they're going to lose it, because it seems that in response to the failings of this occupying force, they are turning up the heat in a desperate bid to try and regain control.
The faster they... They're in quicksand.
And they're struggling as fast as they can, which only drags them down further.
They need to relax.
Lay back.
Regain some composure, but they can't.
They're frantic.
They're falling apart.
So when these moms see what's happening to their kids in schools because these wokests have been ramping up too much, the establishment has been pushing too hard, the whole thing's gonna come crashing down, innit?
I certainly hope so.
And I think Bannon makes a really, really strong argument for why we are winning.
Michael Malice also makes a similar argument.
Now we can be pessimistic in the short term, but long term I'm also fairly confident.
I take a look at what I'm building here at TimCast.com.
You can see I'm in a new office right now.
It's going well.
And I firmly believe that this operation is going to be successful, and it's going to change the world.
But it's only because of your help.
It's only because of you who are members in making this possible, because of course we are under threat.
Of course if we ever become a true challenge to that power structure, they will do everything to destroy us.
And that means banning people.
But it also means when you get a milquetoast kind of channel like Tim Pool's, you throttle it.
You inhibit it.
You make sure fewer and fewer people see it out of sight, out of mind.
And that may work.
The problem they're dealing with is that we have the ability to share content.
So at the TimCastIRL podcast, people keep saying they're not getting notifications anymore.
It's unfortunate for those trying to shut this content down that we have people willing to share the videos.
We don't need your algorithms.
It's an uphill battle.
And it means we must be fighting every single day, figuratively.
But it's something we have to do.
So anyway, I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
In a tremendous victory for those who oppose critical race theory, Christopher Rufo appeared on Joy Reid's MSNBC show, and boy, did she look bad.
Chris Rufo, of course, is one of the leading experts on critical race theory as an opponent of the ideology, and regularly speaks out against it.
Joy Reid of MSNBC quoted him, called him out, and made some critical comments.
And then Rufo challenged her to a debate.
Effectively.
Well, Reed had him on the show.
She lied, she deflected, she refused to let him speak, and Chris still ended up making her and Critical Race Theory look stupid and bad.
Now, this debate wasn't that long, and it's quite difficult to say that this is the be-all end-all in one of the greatest moments ever, but it was a victory.
I'm sure by now you've heard me say, We had Steve Bannon on the TimCast IRL podcast.
Go to TimCast.com, become a member.
Check out the members-only segment we did because, hoo boy, is it spicy, and I waste no time asking the question that YouTube does not allow you to ask, but...
Bannon said, we're winning.
The violence is a problem.
The insurrection January 6th was a problem.
We're winning.
Come August 15th, when these parents go to school, when the kids go to school and the parents see what these kids are being taught, they're going to lose it.
School boards across the country are lighting up as parents say no to the cult ideology.
Seems to me that the establishment, the woke establishment, has become desperate.
They're flailing.
And so the best they can do is try and claw and grasp at straws and they just can't do it.
Now on this MSNBC show, I'm sure you'll hear from a lot of leftists saying like, Oh man, Christopher Ruffo looks so dumb!
I'm gonna prove that Christopher Ruffo is correct.
And it's not so much about whether he was correct or whether he looks good or bad.
Well, that's kind of what it's about.
It's the feeling you get, right?
What I want to say is, it's not about Christopher Rufo being able to prove anything.
Now, to me it is.
Maybe to you it is, because we care about facts and logic.
But what happened was, Reid looked flustered, confused, angry, emotional, and Chris Ruffo came with quotes and made clear distinct points.
Joy Reid did not.
This was a trouncing.
What we hope for is that regular people see the attitude of Joy Reid and say, I don't understand what she was talking about.
You see, We often say, or I often say, that conservatives spend too much time fighting in the left's battlefield, using their terms, making arguments in their ideology, and, in this instance, on their show.
The issue with this is, as I explained it is, if you have a red battlefield and a blue battlefield, and the red battlefield individuals are attacking blue, right?
Red versus blue.
What ends up happening when The Warriors of the Blue only ever talk to regular people to recruit them, but they only have ever seen red.
They hear that blue is bad.
They don't know anything about blue.
You don't talk about blue.
All that happens is they say, red, red, red, and you're like, no, no, no, red bad.
You get my point?
Everything is framed in their worldview.
Now in this instance, this is one of the rare victories where they invited someone into their home turf and it was a mistake.
They let him too close to home.
Rufo was now able to crack through Express some ideas to people who would normally never hear them, succinctly, precisely, and correctly.
Here's the story from Media Busters who say, kaboom!
On her show, Joy Reid gets sunk by Critical Race Theory critic.
They say, despite the best yet pathetic efforts Wednesday night to win a debate about Critical Race Theory by yelling over her guest, putting words in his mouth, and trying to deny reality, MSNBC Reid Out host Joy Reid didn't stand a chance against the Manhattan Institute's Christopher Ruffo.
Who she had a dust-up with on Twitter.
The highly contentious interview began with Reed throwing shade at Ruvo for going after her on Twitter and suggested he was the problem.
But despite quoting him and inviting him on the program, she failed to do her research and find out his background.
This is really interesting.
She said, are you an expert on race and racial theory?
Are you a lawyer or a legal scholar?
Yes, quite literally, Rufo is a legal scholar at the Manhattan Institute.
He is an expert on this.
Now let me just show you something very simple, before we spend too much time getting into the nitty-gritty of critical race theory, to prove my point.
Over at Mediaite, they say, Joy Reid and opponent of Critical Race Theory clash in trainwreck interview.
Next time, quote, give me at least a chance to complete two sentences.
Mediaite is not a right-wing website.
They actually lean fairly left.
And as you can see, even the way they framed it, Joy Reid wouldn't even let Rufo talk because she was wrong.
One of the funniest things she said.
Let me read a little bit of this.
Quote, You were reading it with the framing, calling me a political operative, which I'm not.
I'm actually a think tank scholar, Rufo shot back.
Rufo proceeded to call out and break down the four biggest lies Reid has told about critical race theory and its proliferation in public schools.
I want to stress this point right now for those that are listening.
I'm going to give you some resources and proof, and I'm going to show you citations to back up what Rufo says to prove what he is saying is true.
And you can use this video to share with your friends.
Maybe they don't want to see me ragging on MSNBC.
Sure, fine, but at least use the sources.
Rufo proceeded to call out and break down the lies.
You've claimed in recent weeks that critical race theory isn't being taught in schools.
You've claimed that most American public school students learn what you call Confederate race theory and are taught that slavery was, quote, not so bad.
You've claimed that state legislation will prevent schools from teaching about history of racism.
And finally, you've claimed critical race theory isn't rooted in the philosophical tradition of Marxism.
Instead of addressing Rufo on the topic and the merits of his argument, Reed chose to argue with him about who he's called out as a supporter of Critical Race Theory.
After reading some quotes from one of her friends, refuting his suggestion, Rufo quipped about how it's very interesting to me that so many people are running away from the label of Critical Race Theory.
Looking to use the words of critical race theorists against him, Rufo quoted Barbara Applebaum, who said all white people are racist, and Robin DiAngelo, who said white identity is inherently racist.
The use of quotes triggered Reed to launch into a shouting fit where she refused to let Rufo speak while he was calling her out for playing word games.
So what ends up happening is that Reed says, you know, a Robin DiAngelo is not a critical race theory, Kendi is not a critical race theorist.
They are.
Okay, here's what you need to understand.
The difference between critical race theory in practice, or critical practice as they call it, and academic critical race theory, which is teaching someone what critical race theorists think.
Ibram X. Kendi has stated, and I think I've got Christopher pointing this out, that his work is completely inspired, or I should say his work is inspired by critical race theory.
These people clearly take core ideology from critical race theory and expand upon it.
That's called creating a subset, right?
So, Reid just says, uh, she's not a critical race theorist.
White identity is inherently racist.
No.
So what you're doing is playing a series of word games.
No, no, says Reid.
Rufo says, you know that critical whiteness studies, that's ironic, is a subfield of critical race theory.
It is.
No, it's not.
These are deeply interrelated.
No, they're not.
They're not.
They're just not.
Reid isn't saying anything.
Look.
You can parade around and say, we win, we win, like with the Crowder vs. Ethan Klein thing.
The right can say we win, the left can say we win, but there is an objective reality about what makes sense and what doesn't and who won and who didn't.
And so I'll explain to you my argument.
I think it's stupid when people tribalistically are like, Crowder wins!
And the left is stupid tribalistically like, you know, Ethan Klein wins!
I'll make something very simple.
What I like to do is ask people who aren't involved in politics what they think.
And so what ends up happening is, you see a video from Steven Crowder, where he's like, hey Ethan, thanks for doing this, I really appreciate it.
So I'm, you know, curious, can you tell me where you think I was wrong?
Ethan Klein responds by bringing in someone else.
Now most people don't know who that someone else is, and I'm not going to say his name.
And the immediate response I get from friends is, wait, I don't understand.
I thought the Crowder guy was gonna debate the Ethan guy.
Why did the Ethan guy bring someone else in?
That's the first question asked.
unidentified
They don't go, OH SNAP ETHAN YOU GOT CROWDER WHAT WHAT?
I thought it was a debate between Ethan and Crowder.
Who's this other guy?
What's happening?
I'm confused.
Then everyone starts yelling and they go, I don't know what this is.
It doesn't make Crowder look bad.
He opened up honestly.
The people who are already predisposed to hate Crowder will hate him, and who like him will like him.
Now, when it comes to Reed and Rufo, the reason this is beneficial is that when a layman watches this, and you hear someone saying, Robin D'Angelo is a critical whiteness study, which, uh, studies, uh, a theorist, which is a subset of critical race theory, who has made these claims that all white people are racist, and the other person's going, no, no, no, excuse me, no, no.
That's right.
A very Trumpian tactic.
Of course, the people who liked Trump liked that he did, and the people who hated him didn't like that he did it, and truth be told, Trump narrowly won that election, and I know a lot of people who are like, I don't know what he's saying.
Now, there is a debate tactic that is beneficial in trying to shut down your opponent, but in my experience, and in my conversations, this went really, really bad for Reid, who came off as arrogant and confused, and the only thing she had to say was, no, no, that's not true, no, no.
That's it?
That's not an argument.
She should have said something like, well, hold on a minute.
You're saying that critical whiteness studies is critical race theory?
I mean, they're two different things.
You take a look at the writer Robin DiAngelo.
She is not known as a prominent critical race theorist, though she has written some critical race theory.
No, no, I reject the premise.
I think you're arguing too deeply and too broadly.
She didn't do anything like that.
Not that I actually agree with those arguments.
The point is, it is a subset.
No, no, no, she didn't even do that.
She said, no, no, no, no.
Reid even had the nerve to snap at Rufo and claim she doesn't allow people to just make up and say lies on the show.
Okay.
Alright, let's not waste time.
Let's go back to what Rufo said.
You claimed in recent weeks that critical race theory isn't being taught in schools.
Well, this is semantics.
What we know is that critical praxis is appearing in schools.
That is, they're taking the teachings of critical race theory and critical theory—Marxist thought—and injecting it into curriculum.
They're not going—I mentioned this before—the teachers aren't going, everybody, I'd like you to open up the latest book by Kimberly Crenshaw, and we're going to read her Vox article.
That's what the left is arguing, a semantic game.
It is being taught in schools.
It's being applied in schools, is a better way to put it.
You claim that most American public school students learn what you call Confederate race theory.
That's just absurd and not true.
The Confederates lost.
And are taught that slavery was, quote, not so bad.
That's insane.
The North won!
Where do you live, lady?
You claim the state legislation will prevent schools from teaching about the history of racism, and that's also absolutely false.
The legislation that was put forward by, say, Ron DeSantis, explicitly talks about disparaging people on the basis of race, and doesn't say you can't teach people about racism.
But what they're doing here, is what they're actually saying is that the 1619 Project, which is attempting to teach people an alternate version of history, or a reframing that isn't inherently true, by banning that, they're saying, that's the history of racism.
They are lying to you.
Now here's my favorite part.
Finally, you've claimed Critical Race Theory isn't rooted in philosophical tradition of Marxism.
I would like to play a game with all of you.
I would like to play a game where I pull up the sources and prove to you that it is in fact true.
I bring you now to Critical Race Theory, the key writings that formed the movement, by Kimberly Crenshaw.
Crenshaw is one of the foremost notable figures in terms of Critical Race Theory.
In this book, From 1995, published by the New York New Press, distributed by W.W.
Norton & Co., we get this, which says on page 29, Principally organized by Kimberly Crenshaw, Neil Gutanda, and Stephanie Phillips, the workshop drew together 35 law scholars who responded to a call to synthesize a theory that, while grounded in critical theory, was responsive to the realities of racial politics in America.
Indeed, the organizers coined the term critical race theory to make it clear That our work locates itself in intersection of critical theory and race, racism and law.
To be sure, while we have emphasized throughout the liberal and critical polls against which critical race theory developed, in experience such dialectic relations produce less of a sharp break and more of a creative and constatory engagement with both traditions.
This is true not only of the content of critical race theory, but it is true well of the work workshops participants indeed both liberal race theorists and critical legal theorists have been deeply engaged in critical race discourse and so on and so forth.
The key takeaway, just to clarify again, is that they say ...that to make it clear that our work locates itself in the intersection of critical theory and race.
They say they used the phrase critical race theory to make it clear that it is rooted in critical theory.
Now, I bring you to Stanford.
If Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not enough for you in terms of appropriate sources, sorry, I can't help you.
The Stanford from Plato.Stanford.edu says, Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Critical Theory, published March 8, 2005.
Critical theory has a narrow and broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences.
Critical theory is the narrow sense, in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School.
Okay.
The Frankfurt School was a school of social theory and critical philosophy associated with the Institute for Social Research and Goethe University Frankfurt founded in the Weimar Republic during The European interwar period.
The Frankfurt School comprised intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents dissatisfied with the contemporary socioeconomic systems.
Capitalist, fascist, communist of the 1930s.
The Frankfurt Theorists proposed that social theory was inadequate for explaining the turbulent political factionalism and reactionary politics occurring in the 20th century liberal capitalist societies.
Critical of capitalism and of Marxist-Leninism as philosophically inflexible systems of social organization, the school's critical theory research indicated alternate paths to realizing the social development of society as a nation.
The Frankfurt School perspective of critical investigation is based upon Freudian, Marxist, and Hegelian premises of idealist philosophy.
To fill the omissions of 19th century classical Marxism, which did not address 20th century problems.
To put it simply, they were critical a bit of some Marxism, Leninism, and it's very similar to what we see in critical race theory.
The critical race theorists felt that critical theory itself didn't understand American political race politics.
So they created critical race theory to build upon critical theory, which was built upon the Frankfurt School.
The Frankfurt School was not happy with classical Marxism, and they expanded upon that.
And from there you expand into critical theory, etc., etc.
It is all rooted in Freudian, Marxist, and Hegelian premise of idealist philosophy.
There is so much to break down in the root of what this is.
But there's a reason why they lie and claim it's not Marxist, it's not happening.
Because they know regular people in this country With their limited understanding of Marxism, still do not like it.
It's why when you hear people say things like cultural Marxism, when they refer to critical race theory, the left and the media screech and say it's a conspiracy theory and it's not true.
It's effective.
Cultural Marxism is the better way to frame things.
Unfortunately, and with all due respect, people like Christopher Rufo keep engaging in battle on the leftist terms.
Say, Identitarianism.
Say, you just want law based on race.
Well, Martin Luther King had a dream and was not a fan of judging people on the color of their skin.
Let them respond in any way they want.
Say, okay, sure, fine, it's a great point, but I'm not gonna judge someone based on the color of their skin.
It's not gonna happen.
I don't know.
You take it up with Dr. King.
I know the man believed a lot of things, and he believed a lot about specific policies, but we don't judge people based on their race.
Sorry, that's not how it works.
It needs to be referred to as either wokeness in the simplest terms, identitarianism in a more specific term, or perhaps cultural Marxism.
You need to not use the left language, as I explained earlier on.
What happens is when Christopher Rufo engages in a debate on critical race theory, the framing is always around that ideology.
And as the saying goes, out of sight, out of mind.
So what happens?
Well, the people who hear this only hear critical race theory.
They don't hear other ideas.
They're not hearing classical liberalism.
They're not hearing about freedom or individuality.
They're only hearing about critical race theory.
This means that people's worldview will be rooted in these ideas, either for or against them.
And as I said, out of sight, out of mind.
If every day you wake up and you think to yourself, man, I sure do hate critical race theory.
It's the only thing you're thinking about.
You're still thinking about it.
Your conversations are still centered around it.
When you start talking with people about it, some people will agree and some people won't.
I've made this point many, many times in the past few years.
One of the reasons there's no such thing as bad press is that when you put out a message, some people hate it and some people like it.
If someone smears you in the media, I'll put it this way.
Let's say CNN says, Christopher Rufo is dumb.
There's a lot of people who read CNN who hate CNN.
No joke.
So they'll immediately be like, well, I like Christopher Rufo.
So it's still good for him.
In this instance, I will stress that Reid looked really bad because she had nothing to say, other than, you're wrong, no, you're wrong, wrong, wrong.
Similar to how Trump did that debate.
Sure, I can find it funny.
I don't think it's particularly effective.
Maybe in this setting, it's not as effective.
In a political setting, it may be a bit more effective to shut down your opponent, prevent them from speaking.
That maybe was what she was trying to do because she really had nothing.
It's still a problem though that we keep engaging the left in their terms.
So long as they control cultural institutions and we are constantly fighting them and not fighting for things, we are going to be fighting a downhill battle.
We're on their turf.
They control the ground.
They can say what they want.
They can ban who they want.
And even in this capacity, Joy Reid said, I can do my show how I want and stopped Rufo from talking.
That's part of the problem.
Again, I think it made her look bad.
And this was all around good, good, good for those who oppose critical race theory.
And there are some pitfalls we can address.
The problem is the left won't engage in conversations in the other direction.
Rarely will a conservative try to actually go on a right-wing show.
Why?
They understand how this works.
It's to their advantage.
This is why you'll see these leftists who ambush people like Crowder.
They won't actually organize.
Well, in this instance, that guy's desperate and it's so cringey.
But I've reached out to many leftists who refuse to do it.
Guess what happens?
The only leftists who agree to do these discussions and debates are those with tiny followings and are desperate for attention.
Not all of them, but many of them.
The prominent leftists know, do not fight them on their home turf.
As Ian Crosland said on the Tim Cast IRL podcast, don't fight an alligator underwater.
If you were going to fight an amphibious creature, you'd do it where you have the advantage.
So here's what happens.
So long as we keep going to their battlefield to fight them, we keep losing.
Perhaps, one of the things that needs to happen.
Okay, you can go to these school boards, you can protest this stuff, and I have respect for those who are doing it.
But one of the things that needs to happen, I would say, is...
School board parents going to school board meetings should propose things should demand Classical liberal teaching I demand we teach classical liberal praxis and apply John Locke to all of our teachings and see what they say before something right now you've got people in the middle saying no and And you can only pull them so far away where you're constantly battling them, but they're pulling and taking ground.
If you're further in a different direction, say you're over here classical liberal, and you're telling these people no, then you can end up in the middle.
It's the big ask.
Trump knows it.
You say, I want a million dollars, and they go, a million dollars?
That's crazy!
Okay, fine, give me half a million.
Oh, wow, 50% off.
You see how it works?
You want to sell something that's worth $10, and you say, give me $20 for it.
