Jan. 27, 2018 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
50:48
20180127_Hour_2
|
Time
Text
You're listening to the Liberty News Radio Network, and this is the Political Cesspool.
The Political Cesspool, known across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populist conservative radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the Political Cesspool is your host, James Edwards.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, as TBC rolls on this Saturday evening, January, what is today, the 27th?
That sounds about right.
January 27th.
Yeah, 27th.
We are, well, if you're in America, if you're where our guest is, it's already January 28th, wouldn't you know?
We don't just draw from the best that America has to offer.
We draw from the best the Western world has to offer, whether it's Europe or Australia.
And that's where we go now to Andrew Fraser, who is, of course, a racially aware former law professor who became a theology student at a divinity school in suburban Sydney, Australia.
He discovered there a multiracial college community of professedly Christian teachers and students promoting the postmodern culture of the other, where to be Christian is to celebrate the fact that Australia, Canada, and the United States, even England, are no longer Anglo-Saxon countries.
He wrote a book about it, as you well know, Dissident Dispatches, an alt-right guide to Christian theology.
When Drew last appeared with us last fall, a few months back, he was on to promote that book, which you obviously loved because we moved quite a few units through this show of that book.
And he's back with us tonight to talk about his classic article, Collateral Damage or Targets of Opportunity, Children of Divorce in the War of the Sexes.
But before we get to that, Drew, I understand you had a little problem with the book after your last appearance.
Tell us a little bit about that before we get down to the topic of interest for the show.
Well, the ADL, well, the book had an image of Bishop Pepe on the cover.
And Pepe the Frog, as you may know, was designated by the ADL as a hate symbol.
And the alleged originator of the image of Pepe the Frog teamed up with the ADL to hire a law firm that issued a notice to Amazon to take the book down so long as it had that cover.
So we had to, in effect, cave into that and produce a new cover for the book based around an image of Excalibur, which I, and I would like to formally and publicly thank the ADL for their interference in this because I actually do prefer the new cover.
It's actually a very nice cover.
You know, I was saying we moved quite a few units of the book in the fall.
There were some people who had ordered the book that had not yet been able to receive them because we ran out of the quantity that we had ordered and we couldn't get more copies until the cover was changed.
But the good news is the cover has been changed.
It's a very snappy new cover.
You can get the book online, of course, at Amazon.com, Dissident Dispatches by Andrew Fraser, Professor Fraser.
And for the people who were lacking their book, we fulfilled the last of those orders actually just last week.
So it's en route now.
That being said, so the good news is the book's still out there.
It's up.
It's on Amazon.
You can get it.
New cover, all that.
Case clothes.
We're moving forward.
A little bit more about Andrew Fraser's biography, in case you need it a little more.
He studied law and history in both Canada and the United States before moving to Australia where he taught law for many years.
At Macquarie University, he is the author of The Wasp Question, in addition to the book we were just talking about.
He's a lawyer, a professor, a theologian.
Now, that is one hell of a resume.
Keith Alexander, has anybody missed Keith this month?
Well, he's back now for this interview of Andrew Fraser's very important article.
Collateral Damage or Targets of Opportunity, Children of Divorce, and the War of the Sexes.
Keith and Andrew, take it away.
Andrew Keith here.
I've been after James for about, I guess, since before Thanksgiving to get you on so we could discuss this thought-provoking article that you wrote for the Occidental Observer.
It was published on June the 25th, 2017.
And as both a theologian and a lawyer, I can't think of anyone that would be more qualified to expound upon this topic than you.
What, for the benefit of the audience, is no-fault divorce?
Where did it come from?
And how widespread is it?
Well, I believe that it actually, the first jurisdiction, I could be wrong about this, but I believe the first jurisdiction to adopt it was in the U.S.
And then Canada and Australia followed very quickly behind.
And no-fault divorce is essentially just, as the title indicates, I mean, if you are dissatisfied with your marital relationship, you are entitled to sue for divorce without alleging any particular misconduct on the part of your partner.
It's just a matter of, I no longer love this person I want out.
I've got better things to do with my life.
Well, is this widespread just in the English-speaking world, or does it go beyond the English-speaking world?
Is it a worldwide phenomenon?
What is it?
That's a good question.
I'm not really sure of the answer, but I would be surprised if it wasn't pretty common in Europe at the very least, possibly even in Japan.
I mean, all of the societies, modern industrial, post-industrial societies that have been influenced in any significant way by American culture, I suspect have been impacted by this cultural artifact, if you want to call it that.
In other words, an artifact of human design, not something organic or normal.
Which overturned centuries of tradition, which made marriage seem like a natural phenomenon, but it very quickly became evident that it's just, well, a matter of convenience now.
Well, you and I are both long enough in the tooth that we remember the days of fault divorce.
I actually used to practice some divorce law during that regime.
And that regime, for whatever flaws it may have had, at least recommended itself to people's innate sense of justice.
If you were the adulterer or the adulteress, the culpable party would be the one that paid the price in divorce court for the most part.
Now, you have this situation where they say, well, she's a terrible wife, but a wonderful mother.
So she gets a divorce.
Doesn't matter whether you're at fault or she is.
You have to support her and the children.
And basically, she can have her daddy-o move into the house with you.
I mean, with your children to help raise your children, and that's what I think sends a lot of men over the, off the rails or over the edge, psychologically.
Yeah, that's true.
And the thing is, there's absolutely no stigma attached to divorce anymore.
Certainly, when I grew up in a small town in Northern Ontario, I didn't know anybody who was divorced.
And I think I'm sure there were plenty of people who weren't altogether happy with their spouse in that town, but no one, to my knowledge, ever sought to get a divorce.
Well, we're going to get back on this topic with both feet after these words from our sponsors.
Okay, girls, about finished with your lesson on money.
Daddy, what is a buy-sell spread for gold coins?
Well, when you sell a gold coin to a coin shop that's worth, say, $1,200, you don't actually get $1,200.
But don't worry, we're members of UPMA now, so we don't have to worry about that.
Daddy, why somebody seals that gold?
We don't have any gold at the house.
It's stored safely in the UPMA vault, securely and insured.
But the SP 500 outperformed gold.
Daddy, gold is a bad investment.
Some people do think of it that way, but actually, gold is money.
And as members of the United Precious Metals Association, we can use our gold at any store, just like a credit card.
Or I can ask them to drop it right into Mommy and Daddy's bank account because we're a UPMA member family.
Find out more at UPMA.org.
That's UPMA.org.
Each week, the Political Cessapool, known worldwide as the South's foremost populist conservative radio program, hits the airwaves to bring you the other side of the news and to report on events which are vital to your welfare but are hushed up or distorted by the mainstream media.
However, to continue doing this, we need your support.
Go online at www.thepoliticalcesspool.org and make a safe and secure donation.
If you prefer not to make an online donation, you can send us a check or money order to the address on the website.
No matter which way you choose, the political cesspool needs your support.
Go online to www.thepoliticalcesspool.org and make a donation today.
We fought.
We learned.
We struggled.
We won.
Despite Obama's best efforts, the newspaper of the human resistance survives.
We have lived only to face a new nightmare, the war against the machines.
Read about our struggle in The Sovereign, newspaper of the resistance.
The Sovereign is a 24-page monthly tabloid newspaper about the war between man and machines.
We've tried reason.
We've tried legislation.
We've tried every peaceful means imaginable.
And all it's gotten us is shut out.
So now we fight the machines.
Order online today at thesovenews.com or find the sovereign at select newsstands.
Remember to read The Sovereign, newspaper of the resistance.
The human resistance's battle against the machines will be everlasting.
This is Mercy.
It was never our destiny to stop the age of Obama.
It was merely to survive it.
Together.
To get on the show and speak with James and the gang, call us toll-free at 1-866-986-6397.
And now back to tonight's show.
How about that last segment when Keith took us into the commercial break as if he had done this before?
I know it's been a few weeks since he's been with us.
A lot of people have been missing Keith.
Keith, like Eddie before him, has taken a couple of weeks off to tend to some personal affairs.
But he's back this evening because, as he mentioned, this interview with Andrew Fraser was something that we've been working to put together since November.
And this was the agreed upon date.
So here we go.
The topic, of course, is Professor Fraser's incredibly important article.
This is a topic that doesn't get as much play in this movement as it should, the title Collateral Damage or Targets of Opportunity, Children of Divorce in the War of the Sexes.
Continue, Keith.
Andrew, let me just say this in response to what you were talking about, the infrequency of divorce during our childhoods, our mutual childhoods, yours in Australia or in Canada and mine in the southern United States.
When I was growing up, I grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Memphis.
There was one divorce on the entire street, and it was so shameful that the family, even though they reconciled, had to move out of town.
The children were absolutely humiliated by the whole experience.
And I can tell you one other thing, a cultural footnote.
If you had a divorce, you could forget altogether about having any future in politics.
There was no way in the world that a divorced man or woman was going to be elected dog catcher, much less to any important office.
Was that the way it was?
Nelson Rockefeller comes to mind.
Yeah, but then we have Donald Trump today, who has had three marriages, and it doesn't seem to have slowed him down a bit.
It shows you how things have changed.
And the change was absolutely astounding.
I think that the divorce right now is at least 50%.
50% of marriages end in divorce.
On the other hand, you know, I don't know what it was back in the good old days, but it had to be something well below 20%.
I'd say even below 10%.
And when you have a change of this magnitude, you have to ask that eternal question, cui bono, for whose benefit?
Who benefited from the transformation of our divorce jurisprudence from a fault system to a no-fault system?
Whenever you go from a no-fault to a fault to a no-fault system, like even in automobile law, you blur the lines between what's right and what's wrong, which of course takes us right over into the religious aspect of this.
But who benefited from no-fault divorce?
Well, that is an extremely important question.
And the interesting thing about it is that very few people ask the question.
In fact, the article we're talking about was prompted by my experience of reading a book that dealt with the question of not who benefited, but who lost from it.
And the answer to that question given by a theologian called Andrew Root is the children of divorce.
And the interesting thing to me was that he really did not want to explore the question of why this change happened and who was driving it.
And so the article I wrote on this was essentially challenging his notion that the children of divorce are just simply the passive collateral damage to a change that came about just by through these abstract impersonal forces of modernity.
And I wanted to essentially explore the possibility that no-fault divorce came about as a deliberate campaign to subvert the traditional Anglo-American family.
And that campaign, the primary actors in it were feminists, of course, and also a large number of Jewish intellectuals who believed that the traditional American family was an authoritarian institution that could possibly, if left untouched, breed anti-Semitism and lead us to another show.
Well, in fact, you link the no-fault divorce movement to a kind of obscure pamphlet that people that are savvy about cultural Marxism are well aware of, part of the pamphlet series called Studies in Prejudice, and probably the most famous of the pamphlets in that series was Theodore Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality.
Would you expound on that for us briefly?
Yes, that was a very important piece of work and highly influential.
In fact, I can remember studying that text back in the late 60s when I went to graduate school in Chapel Hill.
The psychology department was really promoting it as a groundbreaking study.
Well, you know, apparently, let me just encapsulate it if I could, and you correct me if I'm wrong.
What the authoritarian personality basically advocated for was a move away from the patriarchal nuclear family as it existed in America, let's say, in 1950,
because Adorno and his cohorts felt that it created children that were going to be in group oriented and likely to become fascists or Nazis and wanted a different type of child to be developed by a different type of family.
They wanted an open, permissive society in which people felt allegiance to human race generally, but not to any particular part of the human race.
This was what led to like Dr. Spock permissive parenting theories and whatnot, and also to the whole feminization, the feminist movement, the sexual revolution, and this kind of feminic regime that we have now with the Me Too movement being the latest manifestation in which basically women control every aspect of the mating game.
Is that too much of a, am I painting with too broad a brush?
No, I think that's exactly true.
And the dominant interpretation, of course, is that this is just a feature of modern life, that the breakdown of the family is essentially a progressive development because it opens up the door to all sorts of personal freedoms.
I mean, as we're seeing the personal freedom now to decide which gender you are this year.
And you and I, in our benighted past, thought there were only two genders, right?
Yeah, that's right, yeah.
And the thing is that, of course, Andrew Root, whose book I was discussing in my article, his book on children of divorce, to give him his due, he rejects this notion completely that this is a progressive development, that it's a form of social progress,
because he wants to highlight the suffering and alienation experienced by the children in families that break up.
The problem is that he, again, he doesn't like what's happening, but he doesn't see any agency behind it.
He's like most Christian humanists today who simply do not believe that the world is divided into the friends of the Christian faith and its enemies.
And I don't think there's any doubt that those who promoted no-fault divorce were the enemies of Christian families and Anglo-American society generally.
Well, we're going to name and shame those who are at fault, and we're going to look into the background of what the church's role should be in the divorce crisis after these words from our sponsor.
Proclaiming liberty across the land.
You're listening to Liberty News Radio.
Every day I wake up, it's almost like a battle.
It's like, well, you know, I could do this today.
I could go get drunk.
I don't like bear.
I'm an alcoholic because I can't, you know, stop drinking because it alters my mind, but I don't like alcohol.
And I had to keep telling myself that, you know, this is okay.
Everybody does this.
My whole life was just a big lie.
I can't control if I do take that drink because I'm an addict and I can't.
I admit yesterday's messed me up.
I don't have a very good memory.
I have a hard time remembering things when I learn them.
I can't concentrate on one thing for more than five or ten minutes.
Do you have fun until you hit rock bottom and it's not fun anymore?
I remember sitting in assemblies about drugs and I thought that's never going to happen to me.
I'm never going to be like those kids.
Here I am.
The choices that you make are choices you're going to have to live with.
A public service message from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Many of you have heard me talk about my vigor score.
You say, Sam, what on earth is all this vigor stuff about?
Well, vigor is defined as zest for life.
Your strength in body and mind, your energy levels.
It's kind of all wrapped into a term called vigor.
Would you like to improve your vigor score?
Well, you've got to first take the free test, get a hold of Kurt, C-U-R-T, at LibertyRoundtable.com or call Kurt Cosby at 801-669-2211.
I took the test, got a 13 out of 32.
Horrible, huh?
But I worked on it with Kurt with some natural health and healing.
And before you know it, now I've got an astounding 29 out of 32 on the vigor score.
Can you tell by the way I talk?
Oh, yes, my zest for life has never been better.
Get a hold of Kurt Crosby.
That's 801-669-2211 and take your free vigor test today.
And you can learn where you stand.
And then you can work on improving it to take the test again.
And oh, compare the results.
You will be delighted.
Get a hold of Kurt Crosby, Kurt, C-U-R-LibertyRoundtable.com or 801-669-2211 for your free vigor score test today.
I'm Michael Hill, president of the League of the South.
I and my compatriots are Southern nationalists.
We seek the survival, well-being, and independence of the Southern people, our people.
The League wants a South that enjoys the sweet fruits of Christian liberty and prosperity, but our current situation won't allow it.
We must have our independence from Washington, D.C. and the globalists.
The present system cannot be reformed.
Without independence, we will continue down this path of destruction.
To us, this is not acceptable.
I'm asking you, Southern man and woman, to join us today to free the South.
Call us at 256-757-6789 or see our website at www.leagueofthesouth.com.
God saved the South.
Oh, yeah-ho, now it's finally time.
It's time to jump back into the political cesspool to be part of the show and have your voice heard around the world.
Call us at 1-866-986-6397.
I tell you what, ladies and gentlemen, I've missed Keith.
Keith does a lot of heavy lifting on this show, and especially this hour, making my job very easy.
I've been, well, I've been doing everything but hosting radio this hour, thanks to Keith's incredible work.
I've actually been eating dinner.
It's true.
And listening, of course.
But anyway, fascinating topic, fascinating guest.
We got one more segment with Professor Andrew Fraser.
Keith, wrap it up.
Okay, let's just get back to Nathaniel, oh, Andrew Root.
Excuse me, not Nathaniel Root.
Why did I say that?
Andrew Root takes a position that the church should be like the Red Cross and not take sides in this combat, just treat the sick and wounded who are the people injured by it.
Now, you suggested that a good corrective for Christian marriage counselors and others who within the church treat the needs of people who have been injured and damaged spiritually by divorce, particularly the children, would be Roger Devlin.
What does Devlin have to add to the conversation?
I think he makes it quite clear that the problem of no-fault divorce actually needs to be understood in relationship to feminism.
I mean, it's really quite striking that Andrew Root does not notice that most divorces are initiated by women under this no-fault scheme.
Sorry?
Three-quarters, actually, I believe is the figure that you quoted in your article.
And of course, many men who initiate divorce have just given up because they recognize that their wives are totally fed up with them or whatever.
And Roger Devlin makes the point that men and women have very different understandings of what's going on in a relationship.
And the feminists exploited that different understanding to bring about no-fault divorce.
Specifically, I mean, it's very easy to pitch a narrative to women that if you don't love your husband anymore, you owe it to yourself, your own personal growth and development, to get out of this loveless marriage in which you are trapped.
And this is not a narrative that really speaks to the concerns of men.
Men don't stay in a marriage because they love their wives.
They don't leave a marriage because they are no longer romantically infatuated with their wives.
They stay in a marriage because it offers them the opportunity to exercise leadership in the family unit.
And even if they're personally unhappy in their relationship with the wife, they feel a sense of obligation to continue struggling along for the sake of the children.
But feminists, and I guess Jewish psychologists, have pandered to the worst instincts of female, what Devlin calls hypergamy,
the tendency of women to want to marry or just have access to men who other women find attractive.
And so if they no longer find their husband attractive, but other women find Joe Blogg's down the street attractive, they might be attracted into his, to orbit around him rather than their husband.
Well, one of Devlin's basic argument is that monogamy was established in order to control female sexual desire, not men's sexual desire, as many people believe.
Well, one thing that Devlin does point out is that heterosexual monogamy is inconsistent with gender equality, which is, of course, the hobby horse of feminists everywhere.
Because women, their carnal instincts are not like men's carnal instincts.
Men's carnal instincts tend to be polygamous.
If a man isn't raised right or doesn't have religion, he'll make a play for anything in skirts.
And most men will freely admit this.
Women, though, have been led to believe that they're incapable of any type of affront on this type of stage.
So consequently, they don't own up to their hypergamous carnal instincts, which is to marry up or mate up.
And quite frankly, women leave or fall out of love with men they don't look up to.
And things like affirmative action for women in the workplace, educationally, and gender equity and the whole feminist agenda are further weakening the foundation of Christian monogamy.
Is that a fair statement or not?
Oh, absolutely.
Yes.
And as you point out, I mean, monogamy has a strange, a paradoxical relationship to equality.
And actually makes for a greater equality among men, all of whom or most of whom under a monogamous regime have access to a woman that they can marry and have children with.
And furthermore, let me say this, Roger, at this point, let me just, another thing is that it benefits women because they have one man who is devoting all of his time, attention, energies, and wealth to the raising of their children.
Where if they go with the big daddy-o guy, the Mac Daddy, who has all sorts of women, they typically don't get that type of financial support.
And that gets to the whole issue of high investment parenting.
Basically, the divorce epidemic brought on by no-fault divorce has its worst effect on children and groups that raise their children under what you call the K-genetic strategy of low fertility, high parental investment.
Groups that don't have a tradition of high parental investment, their children don't seem to suffer nearly as much.
Is that a fair statement or not?
Yes, that's true.
And that's another thing I found quite frustrating about Root's book.
I mean, he tries to treat the plight of the children of divorce as an existential sort of issue that applies to every child of divorce altogether apart from race, nationality, ethnicity, and so on.
But if, in fact, it's true that, let's say, in African-American communities, there's a totally different reproductive strategy, which involves perhaps a single woman having a variety of relationships with a number of men.
It's quite often the case that a child may not actually know his or her father, who his father is.
And so if that's the case, divorce, it can't be that much of an existential crisis.
Well, when 72% of children in the black community today, they say, are born to single parents to their mother who's not married.
Yeah.
And so the whole idea of a stable nuclear family is pretty much alien to African American folkways, it would appear.
And so another reason to focus on just exactly who was behind this change to no-fault divorce, because it's clearly the case that the negative effects of it on children are most obvious and most pronounced among white American families, not black American families.
And I would argue that that was by design.
Well, we'll have to leave it at that.
45 minutes with you goes by far quicker than it should.
I'll encourage everyone to check out your article, Collateral Damage or Targets of Opportunity, Children of Divorce and the War of the Sexes.
It's at Kevin McDonald's website, theocidentalobserver.net.
Also, check out Andrew Fraser on Amazon.com, Andrew Fraser, F-R-A-S-E-R.
Buy his books, The Wasp Question, and dissident dispatches if you don't already have them.
Drew, thanks so much for being with us all the way from Australia tonight.
God bless you, sir.
We'll talk to you again soon.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
Bye.
We'll be back with more Jack Ryan right after this.
Right after these messages here on the Liberty News Radio Network.
As a parent, is receiving a faith-based, character-focused education for your children difficult to find?
Do you believe that godly principles should be a central component in your child's education?
Imagine a school where faith and integrity are at its center, where heritage and responsibility instill character.
For over 40 years, American Heritage School has been educating both hearts and minds, bringing out academic excellence.
This is the school where character and embracing the providence of a living God are fundamental, where students' national test scores average near the 90th percentile.
With American Heritage School's advanced distance education program, distance is no longer an issue.
With an accredited LDS-oriented curriculum from kindergarten through 12th grade, your children can attend from anywhere in the world.
American Heritage School will prepare your child for more than a job.
It will prepare them for life.
To learn more, visit American-Heritage.org.
That's American-Heritage.org.
Liberty is not free.
Its costs are innumerable.
Without monetary funding, the valiant efforts of freedom-loving Americans become diminished or outright defeated.
We present a solution, the Give Me Liberty Fund.
The plan is quite simple.
Invite individual Americans to contribute less than a dollar a day.
These monetary funds are used to promote liberty-minded media, organizations, events, candidates, movements, and speakers.
In the spirit of transparency, all expenditures are published.
Patriotic business owners provide discounted products and services to Give Me Liberty Fund members.
Our greatest strength is in numbers.
Go to GiveMeLibertyFund.com and become part of the solution today.
GiveMeLibertyfund.com.
Participate in the peaceful restoration of the greatest and freest country in the world.
Ladies and gentlemen, what is the KQ?
You know, the kosher question.
Most Americans purchase their groceries while having no idea that almost every essential food product on the shelves is certified kosher by one of over a thousand rabbinical agencies across the country.
Indeed, the kosher question encompasses not only food and religion, but also affects our economics and politics.
In an effort to promote awareness to this kosher question, developers have recently published an app for your smartphone that will not only educate users on this little-known phenomenon, but also features a database of food products that have not been kosher certified.
The CoCertified app has prominent advertisement on TPC's homepage, or you can check out its website at co-certified.com.
Wouldn't it be proof to start eating in favor of your own interests?
The CoCertified app will be your start.
Download it now at co-certified.com.
That's K-O-S-C-H-E-R-T-I-F-I-E-D dot com.
Straight on the show.
Call us on James's Dime at 1-866-986-6397.
Season you try.
No hell below us above us only sky.
Imagine all the people living for today.
Okay, everybody.
Now, you know, when Jack Ryan comes on, he has his theme for the week, and he has music to, I guess, illustrate that theme in a certain manner of speaking.
And, well, with that song, that could scare you.
You probably want to be wondering, why is that particular song playing on this particular trick?
Well, Jack Ryan's theme for the week is stupid bad music and stupid things our ancestors said and did.
Go, Jack.
All right, sir.
Good to see you there.
Thanks for playing that great, very inspirational song, John Lennon's Imagine.
What do you think of that song?
You think it was like a good, what?
How do you think it was like a good song?
Very practical for regular people in Tennessee or how did you like that song?
Yeah, well, you know, that's one of the tricks.
I know my producer is telling me I was breaking up a little bit, so maybe people didn't hear fully, but that's the trick that they do with it.
And it's like Billy Joel's music.
Well, Billy Joel has a lot of good songs, but Billy Joel's Only the Good Die Young in particular.
That is a very catchy, good song in terms of the melody and even like John Lennon's Imagine.
It's just a theme that we're supposed to imagine that there are no countries.
We're not supposed to imagine that there's no religion, that one billion Muslims don't exist, and we're all supposed to give up our possessions and live as one.
You really understand that John Lennon was under the spell of this terrible Asiatic communist, Yoko Ono.
And this guy and Yoko Ono were living in the Dakota on Central Park West in Manhattan.
The wealthiest building and stuff.
You're supposed to give up all your possessions.
You know, why don't they give up their possessions?
So why don't we tell like people, like the people in Murphysville, Tennessee, to give up your possessions and embrace the entire world?
I think this is the most god-awful, terrible song propaganda of all time.
And I think that John John Lennon stopped this year, and that was the end.
And then he backed away from it.
And he said that he wasn't involved in politics.
So this was as bad as it got.
And he did.
So I think that is the most worst, god-awful propaganda communist international song of all time.
So I was sharing it with our audience.
Yeah, well, it's like I said, you have your theme, which is anchored by a song each week that sort of Introduces the theme and how better, what better of a song to introduce the theme of stupid bad music and stupid things our ancestors said and did than John Lennon's imagination.
But it's just like, like I said, now that is the most extreme example.
A lot of something to do with movies.
The Good Die Young song all about.
It's a catchy song.
I like the song, but the message is the Christian girl needs to go out and be a slut.
Yeah, well, our enemies, the enemies of the South, the Emmas are people.
They're always trying to recruit artists, singers, actors to promote their agenda.
And so it's usually rough that we have a hard time.
We can't get people to live to work in Hollywood and stuff.
We usually get older people, Charlton Hesson and Rod Reagan, at the end of this time, because our enemies will always get the young artists and they will corrupt them and they'll try to do this program.
So this was John Lennon at his worst, at his bottom time.
And the song, the theme is like good and good music, but the lyrics are just god-awful terrible.
So that I wanted to present that as a theme on my show this week.
Stupid bad things, stupid, bad music, and stupid things our ancestors said and did.
Right.
I mean, you could sing along to that song, but then you got to listen to the words.
But again, that's how they make it attractive.
Well, as far as music goes, that's probably the worst example we can come up with from one of the biggest performers in the history of the art.
But certainly stupid and bad things our ancestors said and did.
John Lennon hardly takes the cake on that one.
What else do you got for us?
Okay, now so there ones we want to look for.
We want to honor our ancestors, the history and things like that.
Look at Braveheart that these Scottish guys were going that they were perfect, beautiful, and they spoke Latin and stuff like that.
They didn't have like bad teeth.
So I want to comment on another stupid thing that he had.
We really respect our contributors and then the Constitutional stuff.
There's a lot of problems with the Constitution, and particularly the Declaration of Independence.
So I want to honor one of the stupid things that one of our founding fathers did, Thomas Jefferson.
I'm going to quote up right here.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
That among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
So he's saying these things that every single man in the world is created equal.
That they're like, and you're looking at him like, well, what about like the 12 illegitimate child of some crack addict or some like one?
And let you understand that this guy wrote this at the time when he was a slave owner.
The great classical civilizations, Egypt, Greece, Rome, they all had slavery and things like that.
We had to deal with this issue, George Washington's previous slaves.
But Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner when he wrote this stuff that all men are created equal.
And so just think if you're a British, you know, one back in England and they're revolting and there are some Masonic guys that are talking about universal equality, but he was a slave owner.
So in my opinion, right now, Thomas Jefferson was just mouthing off and was he might as well just be John Lennon after this song.
He was mouthing off and he was saying stupid stuff and we've all dealt with this stuff like now.
Well, I mean, it is because of that, one of the primary reasons is because of that, that we have this nonsense.
And of course, Jefferson didn't believe that and Washington didn't believe that.
All of these same people, of course, restricted immigration in our very first immigration acts to free white men who had lived here for X number of years.
So they didn't believe it.
But of course it's because of that partly that the you have these fools say that America is is really an idea and not a not a blood and soil nation, which is wrong.
Right.
You know, so that's I mean, Lieutenant, we all do do and say stupid things at certain times.
John Lennon did, I think Thomas Jefferson did there.
He did other practical things.
So other things that we did, stupid things like, okay, look at the football.
I'm very much down on American football.
It's violence, head injuries, injuries.
The college football is like there.
But the actual name of football, well, where do we get the name of football?
Like it's a derivative of rugby.
It's the British sport of rugby where you do the forward pass.
But Americans called it football, which is the name of the game of soccer that is in the British game that they did.
And so they just got the wrong name.
That the only people that kick the ball on American football are the punters and the field goal people.
So we just got the wrong name.
So whether you like American football or what, we got the wrong name.
We said it.
And so somehow, some of our great-grandparents, they didn't say stupid stuff.
And we have to just deal with the situation now.
That's a little more trivial than your previous example, but actually a little bit, a little comic relief.
Yeah, yeah, of course, anyone who would look at that sport and went, why is it named football?
Because you don't use your feet at all in that.
They're not using their foot.
me they're just so hit in the head so many times that they don't know the name of the game you know that you've got you know so that's kind of like i'm going to choke on that one jack Well, if you got another example, and again, how could you limit it?
How could we possibly work in a representative sampling of stupid bad things our ancestors said and did in a 10-minute segment on commercial radio?
I mean, there's no shortage.
We've done a few with imaginary shortage.
Okay.
But I want to add in on one another is our like our measuring systems.
Okay.
The metric system is based on science that water boils at 100, it freezes at 100 at zero.
Our system is based on the foot.
Okay.
So, you know, that they went in and they measured some barbarian guy's foot.
Okay.
And I have, you know, my foot is 12 inches long, but different men have different size feet.
They have different size pinkies and other anatomies.
They could have measured some people.
So that's not a very scientific way to go is just to measure people's anatomy or something like that.
So that wasn't that wasn't very scientific.
That was something stupid that we did.
We're there with it.
But we've got that one.
So I'm going to say we want to honor our ancestors.
We want to be proud to it.
But we just have to understand the spot that a lot of our grandparents, great-great-grandparents, way off, they did said and did stupid stuff.
And so that doesn't shouldn't impact on us how we live our life now.
It's a balanced, a nuanced approach to viewing.
We honor them, we love them, but that doesn't mean that everything they ever did was right.
Now, very quickly, Jack, we only have seconds remaining.
We, of course, movie, book, and music recommendations.
Go, go, go.
Okay, okay, my book recommendation is Radical Chic by Thomas Wolfe.
It's about this fundraising party for the Black Panthers done by Lennon Bernstein in the late 60s.
You know, Leonard Bernstein did great music with the, you know, is there, but it's like, what do you wear to a Black Panther party?
And there.
So it's like, just nail it.
My movie recommendation is Goodbye Lennon, The Last Days of East Germany, Socialist East Germany.
It's a very romantic movie.
And it also, come that Eastern Europe in the 70s, 60s and 70s was actually a good place.
It was a place that I recommend.
So those are my recommendations.
Thank you so much, brother.
Love your segment.
Look forward to it every week.
And we'll talk to you again in seven days.
We'll be back for the third hour of Virginia Abernethy right after this.