Conversations in Black and White
ROKKIT88, a black female, and Odeko, a white male, sit down and discuss issues about race and racism in America.
Conversations in Black and White
Project 2025: Race & Hidden Agendas
Be a part of the conversation!
*Disclaimer: ROKKIT88 had been driving for about 18+ hours before sitting down to record. Because of that, they say "ummm, uhh, and aannddd" quite a bit! Apologies.*
Can a document promising to empower individuals and shrink government hide a more sinister agenda? Conversations in Black and White takes you through the layers of Project 2025, unearthing its potential to selectively uplift certain groups while marginalizing minorities, women, immigrants, and disabled individuals. We challenge the listener to consider how a facade of equality and efficiency might mask fascist ideologies, especially in its stance on hiring practices and personal characteristics.
We also bring personal narratives into play, scrutinizing the complexities of affirmative action and meritocracy within federal job applications, particularly for disabled individuals. The episode dissects the influence of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and questions the viability of bipartisan collaboration in contemporary politics. Shifting focus to federal employee benefits, we compare them to the private sector's offerings, pondering whether job-related benefits should be the norm amidst proposed reductions and declining pension plans.
Our exploration doesn't stop at domestic issues. The conversation stretches to global perspectives, analyzing China's rise as a superpower and its impact on the U.S.'s geopolitical strategies. We delve into critical race theory and the contentious roles of education and government oversight, questioning the ethical standards of governance in today's world. From the potential rise of a Christian-based government to the erosion of individual identity in totalitarian regimes, this episode encourages listeners to scrutinize the balance between nationalism and globalism and their far-reaching implications.
Hello, this is Odeko and this is Rocket88. And this is Conversations in Black and White.
Speaker 2:Where we talk about race and racism in America.
Speaker 1:Last time we left off with a couple different things. We needed to do our homework and then we also started to. I guess we teased at one of the next topics on the pyramid of white supremacy.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:Which one do you want to? Which one do you want to jump into first? I?
Speaker 2:think we should start with Project 2025, because that's going to take the longest.
Speaker 1:You think so?
Speaker 2:Did you read it?
Speaker 1:That's a long book.
Speaker 2:It is a very long book. It is how far did you get.
Speaker 1:Probably a little less than a quarter of the way through. Okay, alrighty, I started speed reading and just jumping around.
Speaker 2:Yes, I had to, um, hit high points, which does not mean that either of us necessarily skipped around the document without getting the full story. Um, I had to look up some things when I was reading it. Some things have to do with some very, very specific government offices which we don't really need to know. All that, and I guess the main reason why, is because the entire document is basically a playbook for one very specific thing and it breaks down how to achieve this very specific thing.
Speaker 1:And what specific thing is that?
Speaker 2:Fascism.
Speaker 2:Define fascism uh, define fascism. Fascism is and I this is a thing that I actually had to look up um, so I'm going to refer back to this so that I don't sound like I am just pulling shit out of my ass and we're going to cuss on this one, by the way, because it's a very incendiary document Project 2025. So fascism is a far-right authoritarian and ultra-nationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy and subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Speaker 1:That is not what I got from this document.
Speaker 2:It's not really so what did you get from it? And I did actually, I kind of did want to start with what you got from it first, actually.
Speaker 1:Less government that's what it came off as to me, as is less government and give power back to back to individuals rather than corrupt leaders.
Speaker 2:Okay, so yeah, that is how the document presents itself. Absolutely, it's all about trimming the fat, cutting redundancies in government and eliminating bureaucracy, the goal of which, supposedly, is to put power back in the hands of the people. However, when you really, really really look at this document, it's quite specific about which people are going to be getting the power, and I'm going to say right now, outright, that the things that I have seen about people who are opposed to this plan, this document, I don't believe sat down and read it, because let's see a lot of the gist that I got from liberal people who are opposed to the document is that it presents itself like going back to the days of separate but equal, like going back to segregation, and I have to disagree.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I didn't get that from this at all.
Speaker 2:So reading the document like really reading the document, particularly when you start to get to the points where it's talking about general welfare. There's two things general welfare and when it talks about restructuring a lot of federal jobs, it is very much a separate but separate document.
Speaker 1:Do you have any examples of that?
Speaker 2:Oh sure, Absolutely so. One of the things that they were talking about is not only privatizing certain federal government sectors privatizing meaning letting an outside source oversee the sector, like a source that is not a government employee they also talk about eliminating certain hiring practices. So it presents itself as if, particularly like when the government is hiring, that they're supposed to primarily hire minorities, immigrants, women and disabled people, which is not the actual case but equal opportunity hiring practices have been under fire pretty much since they started in the 90s, so that's nothing new. Pretty much since they started in the 90s, so that's nothing new. And then, when it comes to general welfare that section of the document they're talking about repealing certain ways that we can identify ourselves, For instance, not necessarily being able to identify ourselves through race, gender we don't have to identify ourselves in terms of gender orientation or sexual orientation, but that is a part of the document and also disabled people okay, do you specifically have, like, where in this document any of that is?
Speaker 1:or okay, is this like? Not to not to downplay it or anything, I'm just trying to find where can I read about you read this freaking thing, man. I got like 20% in.
Speaker 2:Okay, alrighty, so you missed a lot. Possibly I'm a little burnt out from it. I get that this document is not a very hard read, but it is a really long one and it does kind of feel like homework and study.
Speaker 1:Yep, that's what it felt like.
Speaker 2:And you know if you're not in school or you know, not a nerd or not, someone who wants to I guess you know learn a lot about the information that is out there. And this document is quite public. It's kind of easy to see why there's so much misinformation about it or so many misconceptions, and I think some people are kind of trying to figure out how to explain why it's bad. And I'm going to tell you right now it's bad because it is. This document is a playbook for setting up a fascist government in the United States of America. Let's see. So when we come to where exactly in the document, I think I need to go back to the table of contents for it, which is how I was able to get so much information within the four days that I spent reading this. I didn't spend as long reading. Let's see. I didn't get the book before you, I got it after you did.
Speaker 1:That's fair.
Speaker 2:But I used the table of contents, especially when so much of it was detailing, like how certain offices in the white house specifically, but in um, you know, in our government work so even think about using table of contents that's because you're not as smart as I am. Okay, that was supposed to be a joke no, it was it was supposed to be a joke I'm not, I'm not mad, okay let's see pretty solid 69.
Speaker 2:Uh, one of the things that I had to learn in middle school was, um, how to study and take notes. I kind of wish that. I had taken more notes, but I definitely wouldn't have written down specific pages to refer to. That's for absolute certain.
Speaker 1:I was going to start highlighting things in this document and I was like this how?
Speaker 2:deep into this did.
Speaker 1:I want to get. That's what I was starting to question.
Speaker 2:The first 30 pages or so are acknowledgements forwards the people who specifically worked on this document and the organizations that contributed to this document.
Speaker 1:Yeah, which was nice to know some of these people, and one of the things that they kind of stress in that opening is that just because it's in this doesn't mean they all agree with it, that there are some things in this document that they did have disagreements on.
Speaker 2:So I'm from the South and I am going to use a Southern saying don't piss on my head and tell me that it's raining.
Speaker 1:So you think that's a lie in the beginning.
Speaker 2:Absolutely. But the reason why is the way that this document is set up and um, it is primarily the um brainchild of the heritage foundation, and the heritage foundation stresses a lot about what it quote, unquote, is not as an organization and tries to tout what it is, which you know is a think tank. But it's a think tank with a pretty specific goal, and that goal is fascism.
Speaker 1:Isn't that most think tanks? Most think tanks have a goal in mind? Absolutely, this is absolutely. I think tanks are just a problem and it showcases the problem with the, the two-party system that we have is is these think tanks come about and then people start to say, well, think tank a is heavily liberal or whatever like and sure it's. It's those, uh, there's a difference between.
Speaker 2:I think, uh, there's definitely a difference between being um a Republican and a conservative Republican, just as much as there is a difference between being a democrat and a liberal democrat. One of my hugest problems with the democratic party for a very long time has always been the fact that they just refused to unify and come together on certain things, which is particularly frustrating because much of the Democratic Party has the same goal in mind, but just did not seem to want to converge with each other to achieve these goals.
Speaker 1:Okay, so that right there. These goals, Okay, so that right there. What you just stated is how I view both sides is. It sounds like a lot of things. They want the same or similar resolution, but they won't come together because, well, no, they don't want to work together. They don't want to be seen working with the opposite side, like in this document. I was seeing there were certain what was it? They do want to have a nonpartisan government.
Speaker 1:They want dark money out of politics. They don't think that, um. They don't think that um. I can't even articulate it. Let me try to find it in the in the document.
Speaker 2:Okay. So I was looking for examples of um, looking for examples of let's see, actual discrimination. So let's see on. Let's see, on page 72, they start to outline the merit hiring in a merit system. Um, so they're proposing, um, that people be hired based on their knowledge, skills and abilities. Um, which, yeah, I not aware really of a time where, particularly in the federal government, people weren't hired on their knowledge, skills and abilities. And EEOC has been to extend opportunities to qualify people who are minorities, whether they're minorities based on their race, their religion, their gender or their ableism. When I say ableism, I mean like, are you disabled, are you or are you abled? Right, let's see. And they talk about cutting appeals processes when people believe that they have been discriminated against based on their based on those things. Because, again, this is going to be a long one. So I think the more breath I can save the better, and I don't think I have enough water to get through this Because it's a lot.
Speaker 2:So they want to scale back. How many people can file complaints on discrimination? They want to remove the hiring process. That includes hiring minorities of all kinds, let's see, because they're talking about how hiring preferences are being given right now, particularly to disabled people, but um, also to um, uh, black and female and uh people of other uh nationalities and creeds which, well, if let's see, currently I am, let's see, in the process of applying for a federal job. I am applying for a job at the VA.
Speaker 2:The federal government currently does have a comprehensive program for people who are disabled. They are actually encouraging disabled people to apply because there are more accommodations available in the federal sector for people like myself who are almost fully disabled and I am I am actually almost fully physically disabled. It sucks, I'm too young to retire and because I my insurance has changed I my insurance has changed I have to rebuild my case if I were to go back and file for social security, disability insurance Plus. You know, I like what I do and I would really like to be able to use my skills to help veterans of all kinds. So, let's see talking about that. If I have applied for a job, let's see. So I applied for two. There are seven positions available per job. So based on that, let's say I am the only minority who applied and I am including a female in that minority. If I'm the only minority who applied and the federal government no longer made any selections to extend opportunities to minority people, well then that means that two white guys are going to get hired.
Speaker 1:Before I ever even considered White guys are going to get hired before I ever even considered, I think that assumes a couple of things.
Speaker 2:I don't think it's an assumption because, again, this is why equal opportunity was. Equal employment opportunity was created in the first place was because minorities were not given a fair chance and what is this? Both in the government and um the private sector and what is a fair chance?
Speaker 1:what, what?
Speaker 2:would you consider qualified? If I'm qualified to do the job, I may not get the job based on discrimination against minorities, whether it be the fact that I am black, the fact that I'm a female, the fact that I'm disabled. Currently, there is a massive movement against the LGBT plus community, so I'm going to go ahead and admit although it's not a thing that I talk about very often is I'm going to go ahead and admit that I'm also non-binary and bisexual, so I could also be discriminated against for my gender identity and or my sexual orientation.
Speaker 1:Okay, that's the assumption that's being made. Is you're assuming these people will discriminate based off of those things?
Speaker 2:It's not an assumption if you go back and look at the history behind it.
Speaker 1:Behind what.
Speaker 2:What did I just say Behind? The history behind it, which was created when In the 90s it was created in the 90s.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:Because, minorities Because minorities 34.
Speaker 1:We're 34 years out, 30 plus years displaced from it. So it was placed. It was put in a time where it was needed, right. How long do we let this? Do you really believe that we?
Speaker 2:live in a time that it's no longer needed. I'm asking you honestly I didn't say that.
Speaker 1:I'm saying that we're 30 years removed from it. We as a society, I genuinely feel have gotten better. Do I think we're at the place where we can get rid of it? No, I don't, but I'm saying how long. Right now, I'm asking. I'm not saying I'm asking how long do we keep a policy like that? In effect, do we keep it in 100 years? We keep it in 50? In 60 years it's no longer needed, but it continues to remain a policy for another 40 years have we swung in the opposite direction then.
Speaker 2:Well then, you have to look at how many minorities hold federal government jobs.
Speaker 1:Okay, and let's say you have I'm going to keep the numbers really simple here. Let's say you have a thousand government jobs, okay, and in this example we only have a hundred people, a hundred minority people. Sure, 900 of those jobs aren't going to have somebody, like they're not going to meet their quota. So what do we do about those 900 jobs?
Speaker 2:If they're being held to practices of having to hire minorities.
Speaker 1:Yeah. I mean, if no minorities apply, you know, you hire the people who applied, okay, and if minorities apply but aren't qualified for the job, do I do?
Speaker 2:we still want those people in in those positions so now you're talking about the meritocracy that Project 2025 would like to put in place.
Speaker 1:Define meritocracy Thanks, google.
Speaker 2:get to retain your job, but also get your raises based on how well you perform versus without considering anything else, including how well how long you have been in service.
Speaker 1:Yeah, isn't that? I don't know that sounds sounds. Maybe I'm not seeing it through the correct lens here, so help me out. But if I go to the, the olympics, and I'm the best swimmer and I win because I'm the best swimmer. Like isn't that meritocracy? You're in direct competition with someone.
Speaker 2:You're in direct competition. Isn't that how jobs work too?
Speaker 1:You're not performing a job, so jobs, work that way too. I got to my position because I was the best at what I was doing.
Speaker 2:Okay. So I would argue that if you have been in service, particularly in the federal government, for a long time, it stands to reason that that is because you do your job well. And someone who got hired let's say I've been employed by the federal government at the VA for 10 years, okay, and I do my job well and have been being paid both on how long I've been there and how well I do my job. How fair is it for someone who got hired three months before we do our employee evaluations if that person, because they have similar numbers to mine got paid as much of a raise or more than me?
Speaker 1:So I'm not familiar with raises happening so quickly like that it is. Every place I've worked is one year after hire date. Never you got hired three months before we were going to give everybody a raise. No, it doesn't work like that. If I was hired three months before everybody got a raise, then I'm not getting a raise for 15 months until the next wave comes on.
Speaker 2:So it works in different ways and I am, let's see, applying for the same job for the same reason in both the federal government sector and in the private sector and with both of these employers that are considering me for hire. They do give raises and evaluations fairly regularly. And, let's see, the private sector job will pay you based on your skill set. So they are doing it merit-based, because skills is part of the merit. So they will pay you based on your skill set until you top out. When you top out in your pay grade, then they go to a merit-based system. So how good your numbers are, and they do evaluate your skill set. Let's see every three months. The federal government for the VA, particularly when you first hire on, will evaluate you rather regularly and that's primarily to figure out if they want to keep you or not. And then, yes, after, let's see after a certain point. Then, yes, everybody is evaluated, you know at the same time. But, yes, when you first come in, you are evaluated, I believe quarterly. It could be semi annually but I believe is quarterly, and that's that's kind of my point. And I have worked at places where you know somebody had been there six months before me and, as it just so happened, I started approximately three months before they were doing employee evaluations and they determined that that was enough time to also do my employee evaluation. I believe if I had been hired maybe like a month before evaluations, then that would have been different. I don't think I would have gotten an employee evaluation. I probably would have gotten it either at the end of the next fiscal year or perhaps 90 days after my hire date for like an initial evaluation, not for a raise necessarily, but I have been in situations where, you know, 90 days after my start date I was evaluated and did get a raise. So you know it depends, did get a raise, so you know it depends. Um, let's see. So we um okay.
Speaker 2:So yes, they do talk about um, privatizing, uh, certain um sectors of the federal government. They do talk about eliminating EEOC in the federal government sector. They also talk about kind of doing like a match based for a federal government job and how the same or a similar function is paid in the private sector. And I do believe that some people who work for the federal government and I'm talking about just employees, I'm not talking about people who hold an official office, I'm just talking about federal employees. I believe some of them would have an opinion about that, because there are several jobs in the federal government sector where the employee makes more than they would in the private sector, which is probably why they opted to apply for a federal job. It's because they knew that in the government sector they would have better benefits and better pay, and to some people myself included, mostly because I'm disabled the benefits are more important. And they are also talking about adjusting federal benefits for government employees.
Speaker 1:Should benefits be tied to your job, though?
Speaker 2:Should benefits be tied to your job?
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Has it ever been that way? The only way that I'm aware of it ever being that way is if you are a part-time employee, you're going to pay twice as much for your benefits as a full-time employee.
Speaker 1:Well, aren't you saying that if you work at one place, your benefits will be better? What did you say? Federal or private sector? Yes, don't have as good of benefits no, that's what I'm asking.
Speaker 2:I don't have as good of benefits? I don't think anyone has as good benefits as the federal government, the federal government still has a pension plan.
Speaker 1:Should you have to get a federal job to get benefits that are that good?
Speaker 2:In that sense you're tying to get benefits that are that good. Should you have to get that?
Speaker 1:In that sense, you're tying benefits to your job. It sounds like you're kind of saying, hey, if I don't get this job, then my benefits aren't going to be great. It shouldn't be like that. You should have benefits regardless of how good of a job you have.
Speaker 2:I don't disagree. However, they want to reduce the benefits that are available to federal employees, especially when it comes to health care and the pension plan.
Speaker 1:For federal employees.
Speaker 2:Yes for federal employees. For federal employees yes for federal employees no-transcript.
Speaker 1:I don't even know any jobs that do offer pension plans.
Speaker 2:I can only think of one.
Speaker 1:I think pensions have been just worked out.
Speaker 2:It is an employer that I worked for in Georgia and, yes, they did have a pension plan. Now whether or not they still have it I don't know, but when I worked there they did.
Speaker 1:In general, it sounds like pensions have been phased out. So to get rid of it in the government as well, well, no, I mean, yeah, well, fine in the private sector. But if it's been reduced in the private sector, why not reduce it in the federal government as well, in federal?
Speaker 2:jobs as well, and federal jobs as well. I feel like if you serve the federal government, you're also in service of the people, and that is something worth rewarding, and just like how veterans get those type of benefits veterans get those type of benefits.
Speaker 1:Okay, what about during COVID? Those essential jobs?
Speaker 2:What about them?
Speaker 1:We still had to have people at. Those aren't pension jobs, right? People working at the market, keeping stuff open. Right Were you getting a pension.
Speaker 2:Well, I was actually working in service of New York and Texas that were initial hotspots during COVID, so I was getting crisis pay and hazard pay from FEMA.
Speaker 1:Right, but was that pension? Was that pension pay?
Speaker 2:No, because it was a FEMA contract.
Speaker 1:Right. So it's almost like we're saying working in the government, you should get more benefits because you're more important. Well, covid showed otherwise. Because you're more important. Well, covid showed otherwise. Covid showed that just because you worked at the government didn't mean you were all that important Just because you were a federal employee didn't mean you were the bee's knees, those people still worked.
Speaker 2:My mother works for the state government of Georgia and she had to work from home during COVID.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:So yes, government workers were still employed.
Speaker 1:Why should they get something that other people don't get? Our goal in society is to make society work right, Like we're supposed to come together and help each other out. Why should federal people, federal employees, make a better benefit simply for being part of the government?
Speaker 2:Again, because you're working in service of the people.
Speaker 1:So were people who kept grocery stores open during the pandemic. So were people who, but they were making minimum wage, some of them, you know.
Speaker 2:And then there was COVID pay, but that went away.
Speaker 1:But that's not a pension, that's they're not getting the same benefits as federal employees.
Speaker 2:I'm not sure you know what a pension is.
Speaker 1:Yeah, define pension. That's what I'm looking at right now.
Speaker 2:It's a retirement plan, but you're talking more about like active pay Regular payment.
Speaker 2:Yes, you're talking about active pay. Do I believe that grocery store employees should have gotten more money when they were risking their lives to keep stores open so that people could eat Absolutely Just as much as I do for people who owned private chain restaurants and continue to stay open? Because, you know, when I was in New York, I couldn't cook. I was living in a hotel with no kitchen. So I ate out every single freaking day. I was there. Same thing in Texas. Again, I was in a hotel, couldn't cook. It's not like it was a hotel with a kitchen suite, because you know they took what they could get. So, again, when I was in Texas, I had to eat out every freaking day.
Speaker 2:Do I believe that people who risk their lives to feed the public should have been paid more? During COVID 100% In California, washington, oregon, new York and Pennsylvania, healthcare workers in all of those states went on strike when they learned that people like me who went to help out during the crisis, received hazard pay and crisis pay because they lived there and were still risking their lives just every bit as much as I was. Matter of fact, they didn't have a choice but to risk their lives because that was their home, do? I believe that those people also should have gotten hazard pay and crisis pay. 100%, absolutely 100%. Let's see. We have to get off of this, because Project 2025 is not a whole lot about COVID.
Speaker 1:No.
Speaker 2:Although they do have misinformation in Project 2025 about vaccinations and masks.
Speaker 2:So I kind of want to shift over to some of the most alarming things about the plan for Project 2025, particularly because they make these things sound so good.
Speaker 2:They propose restructuring the checks and balances government system to where the congressional and judicial branch exists to support the president, rather than keep each other in check in order to uphold the Constitution. Their argument is that restructuring the current system of government to support the president is more in line with the original intent of the Constitution. So that's the first thing. Also, they want to stockpile more nuclear weapons, manufacture more military-style weapons in the US and one would think it would be so that Americans could arm themselves and continue misquoting the Second Amendment, right to bear arms. But it is actually the intent is to quote, unquote arm our allies. Also, they want to eliminate don't ask, don't tell in the military. They want to keep trans people out of the military. They want to reward military personnel based on how kill-happy they are rather than how long they've been in military service. They really, really, really, really want to go to war with China so bad that bad things about China are heavily documented in every single chapter of this document.
Speaker 1:That's not what I got from it. What I got from it was we need to break away from working with China. The nuclear stockpile was because I think somewhere in there it said China was increasing their supply, so we should probably do the same. I think Russia as well.
Speaker 2:China, russia and North Korea yes, they're all increasing their nuclear supply. That's correct.
Speaker 1:And I think that's what they're getting at or I thought that's what they were getting at here is that we should probably increase ours the same, because they're doing it. What else was I going to say? What did we talk about right after? What? Did you rapid fire right off after that? Oh, china. This document to me comes off as we need to stop working so much with China. We need to, um, basically cleanse our uh. How do, how do you say this? Um?
Speaker 2:uh, like our social.
Speaker 1:what's that yeah?
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Cleanse how we do business, uh, with China, and we need to to remove their. I mean, that's been a that's been a that's been a thing that's going around for a while.
Speaker 2:How true it is. Yes, um, also, please don't use the word cleanse. Yeah, clint, sounds a little hard line. It's a a an kind of an aggressive word to use when we're talking about how we deal with other countries and the people that come from those countries.
Speaker 1:It's fair. Um well, it wasn't anything to do with people who come from those countries. That's. That's not what I was trying to get at. I uh, my, my argument was I'm kind of making sure that I'm covering all bases as we talk anything to do with people who come from those countries? That's not what I was trying to get at.
Speaker 2:My argument was I'm kind of making sure that I'm covering all bases as we talk about this. Yeah, you're good.
Speaker 1:You're good. My logic there was this document talking about removing China's influence. We'll say the country, China, their influence. Through TikTok through social media, temu, all of that Sure how it's infiltrating our phones and potentially putting our children at risk. For I don't know. That's what I was trying to find out through half this document.
Speaker 2:That's what I was trying to find out through half this document. China is every bit a superpower in the world, not just in how China deals with the US, but how they deal with the entire world. Yes, they're very much seen as a superpower, which is probably why it wasn't great that Trump pulled us from the Paris Accords so quickly, because the first country to step in and say, well, you know, we will spearhead all of these things and, point of fact, they have been was China.
Speaker 1:So you know, Paris Accords yes, China.
Speaker 2:Why do they pollute so much? So let's see, since entering into the Paris Accords, according to China I have to state that outright according to China they have been fulfilling their promises. Again, as I said, this is according to China, china.
Speaker 2:however, I'd have to look into the paris accord and see what it's all about and chinese pollution rates and all of that that's very tedious however, um in terms of information that you will be able to find on whether or not china is actually fulfilling that promise. I wish you luck. I wish you all the best.
Speaker 1:To me that comes off as Because you probably will be rolling a boulder uphill. To me it comes off as just because you're part of the agreement or the accord, the Paris Accord doesn't mean you have to follow it. So why be part of it? Why talk the talk when you're not going to walk the walk?
Speaker 2:Well, it made China look really freaking good Globally. It made China look good globally.
Speaker 1:Sure sure To other global powers, but to your regular voter.
Speaker 2:Okay, so are you promoting nationalism over globalism?
Speaker 1:No, I'm here to talk. That's what I'm here for. I'm here to try and try to because we don't want this to be just us talking and agreeing right. We need some something that the audience might be thinking to themselves.
Speaker 2:And they probably are, which is you know why I asked the question? Because the way that you phrased the question is who cares how China looked globally, if the average American is like well, china still sucks and is a danger to the entire world? I mean, china has taken over Tibet and Taiwan, so I am not saying that China is great. What I'm saying, though, is how China presented itself globally, particularly in that moment, versus how the US did, does not make us look great, and global impression is important, and I think that the reason why perhaps the average American voter was fine with that is because, uh, trump didn't really understand the american role and the paris accords, so, rather than learn the role, um, he made several assumptions about it, uh, and then was like okay, we're out, so you know.
Speaker 2:And then that's what he presented to the US when he came back and did the press conference about. It was his many, many, many, many misconceptions about America's proposed role in the Paris Accords, which, again, was something that we said we would do, didn't necessarily have to do all of it, and a lot of the things that he thought we had proposed to do were very incorrect. Let's see Moving outside of that, because, again, I want to kind of stick with Project 2025, because it's a very, very long document and, again, I read arguably much more of it than you did.
Speaker 1:Sounds like it.
Speaker 2:And I did not get very far before I was like this sounds like, uh, fascism, um and then, like looking up a true definition of fascism, I was like, oh God, it is fascism.
Speaker 2:It's one thing, I think, for the US to have a fascist government on a national scale, but when you take a look at everything that is outlined in this document in terms of our global relations and our military personnel, they want this to be a worldwide thing, because they do talk about pressing the UN and NATO to support more American agendas. They also want American companies to have tentacles in most of the first world countries globally. Most of the first world countries globally. Let's see, they say that it is to expand the American economy. However, most of the American economy does actually rely on small businesses, and I don't see small businesses being able to open up shops in countries like Uganda or even the UK. So it would be your bigger companies that would have access to this global outreach, and a lot of people don't know this this. But when it comes to the super rich, there is no trickle-down economics. Um, I think, like it's what? Like three percent of the country holds 90 of the wealth. They do not spend that money in the US.
Speaker 1:Oh, it's offshore bank accounts, but that's another thing this document talks about is to get rid of that.
Speaker 2:I did see that. I did see that To which I would kind of say, well, good luck, but it's all about looking good. Right, it's all about looking good and you know, again I'm going to be cussing and I'm going to say another Southern saying which is wish in one hand shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
Speaker 2:So you know, but you know it's, it's a very big talk, um. So I guess the question is why do I look at it and see fascism? And, aside from the fact that you didn't read as much as I did, why do you look at it and see something else?
Speaker 1:um, because when I think fascist, I don't think um giving power back to the people, that's not that's not fascism.
Speaker 2:It's not giving power back to the people. They're presenting it, um, as giving power back to the people.
Speaker 1:By taking it away from.
Speaker 2:It's giving power Okay, by taking it away from it's giving power Okay. So the problem is I don't disagree with the idea of there being less bureaucracy in our government. I am a liberal anarchist. I don't believe I'm an independent anarchist. I don't believe that our current system of government works. I believe that our current system of government let me rephrase I don't believe it works well and I believe that really the only way. I don't believe that we should have a bipartisan government and I do believe that the only way to promote any real change for anyone, and I do believe that the only way to promote any real change for anyone is to dismantle the system and start from the ground up.
Speaker 2:Having said that, this document wants to remove what they call bureaucracy, but what they're really wanting to remove is oversight. They want to remove the oversight that would keep the commander-in-chief in check. Currently, we have a system of checks and balances so that one government, one branch of government, um can't distort the constitution. Um, primarily because the constitution of the united states is the law of the land. Um. Oh, I'm going to go ahead and say that they do take arms against um. Let's see the belief that systemic racism exists in this country. They take arms against teaching what they call critical race theory, which is usually simply teaching American history, because, unfortunately for what, like 80% of the country, slavery is a part of our history, so teaching about it is not critical race theory. Critical race theory is actually a very complicated subject. It's a college level subject and it is something that people tend to minor in when they um major in social studies, whether they be african-american, um women, that kind of thing. Um, let's see.
Speaker 1:So yeah, so just to interject here real quick and again, I could be wrong, okay, right from what I've seen. So this is this is my own personal experience. It seems to me like the the term critical race theory entered the cultural zeitgeist so quickly within the past five years and, doing a quick search, it's been in in. It's been a thing since like the 1980s or 70s or something like that, but it entered the cultural zeitgeist which is now. You've got hundreds of thousands of people trying to understand this term and you've got tens of thousands of people trying to define it one way and tens of thousands trying to define it another way, and I think that's where some of the problem was coming from. Is sure, for a while nobody knew what that meant.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:And now we have misinformation on it. Now it seems like the terms have settled down into place. It seems like it could be wrong.
Speaker 2:It's documented several times throughout Project 2025.
Speaker 1:It's documented a lot, in their own terms.
Speaker 2:In their own terms. In their own terms Because they do not want slavery and segregation being taught in public schools, at least in its for lack of a better word current and inclusive form. I grew up in the South and I have to admit that my education on slavery from oh, I think, maybe third or fourth grade third grade was pretty comprehensive, except for a few things like how the Civil War started. The state of Georgia is actually quite honest about slavery and segregation and the Civil Rights Movement in terms of how they choose to teach it. It's a very comprehensive program, minus a few things that they do because they're to teach it. It's a very comprehensive program, minus a few things that they do because they're a southern state.
Speaker 2:Critical race theory does not entail teaching black history to white students. That's not what critical race theory is. Critical race theory is a very complex social theory in terms of how BIPOC people are treated in this country, how we are able to relate to non-BIPOC people and how we are able to relate to each other, and that is literally the simplest way that I can put it without going back to college and getting a degree in.
Speaker 2:African-American studies and minoring in critical race theory that's the simplest freaking way that I can put it is. Critical race theory has to do specifically with how black people, how we, survive in this country.
Speaker 1:That's a good point you make, that we're not going to be able to talk about it unless we go back to college and major or minor in it. So if any of our listeners out there want to sit in with us, talk to us about this at some point. I would love to sit down with us talk to us about this at some point um, I would, I don't know.
Speaker 2:I think that would be a great critical theory scholar.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think that would be a great scholar. Um, I'm sure we've got a con, a way to contact us somehow email or something, um, but I think that would be a really cool thing to do is sit down and talk with somebody who actually knows what they're talking about, rather, than not to say that we don't know anything.
Speaker 2:We're just here as the your average person, I would say again I look at this podcast and how we host it, as we are students of the human condition.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:So we study, we study the human condition and, particularly in this country, a lot of those constructs center around race.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Speaking of which.
Speaker 1:Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 2:What were you going to say?
Speaker 1:No, which okay, go ahead. What were you gonna say?
Speaker 2:uh, no, no, go ahead, but mine's not important okay, um, speaking of which, uh, when they, when we are in the general welfare section of the document, they do keep talking about rejecting the idea that racism in this country is systemic, although it is. It is systemic. Racism is actually written in the Constitution in several places If you read it. Having said that, they very early on talking about promoting Martin Luther King's dream of a colorblind society. I take issue with that quote, and very quickly, quickly. The reason is that, um, particularly uh, when, um, let's see, a lot of conservatives were, um proposing that, uh, teaching about our country's history in school as a way of teaching critical race theory, they kept misquoting martin luther king. Um, they kept misquoting Martin Luther King. They kept saying and I cannot stress this enough, this is a misquote. So anyone who has used it in this way, you're misquoting a great, complicated man who is now dead. Also, you can fucking Google the fucking speech. Stop misquoting him.
Speaker 2:I take issue with that Because they say that Martin Luther King's I have a Dream speech says that I dream of a day where I dream of a day in which children can be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. That is a misquote and Martin Luther King himself has said and I will give you the actual quote. He has said that he has regretted saying it because it is. It was a statement that was not written into his speech that he you know he was speaking very passionately when giving the I have a Dream speech, so it was an off-the-cuff statement that he made while giving the speech because the crowd was hyped up. What he said was I have a dream that my four little children can grow up in a country in which they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. That is a largely important distinction, particularly children.
Speaker 2:Yes, particularly if you're going to use it to suggest that children should not be learning about slavery and segregation and Jim Crow in the South, although that is every bit a part of our history. Although that is every bit a part of our history. So he wasn't talking about all children In that moment. He was talking about his children, who are black children, yep, and to misquote him for one thing bastardizes the speech, but it also is a hard thing to hear him be misquoted when, again, you can Google the speech without coming to the conclusion that you are misquoting him to further your own message.
Speaker 1:That's easy enough to look into these things nowadays. Absolutely.
Speaker 2:Yeah. So let's see. In Montana, where I live, they don't give children off for Martin Luther King Jr Day. So when that day came around last year, I emailed the school and was like my son will not be attending because we are going to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr's birthday and that was the day that it was observed.
Speaker 2:It's always the Monday of or after his birthday and on that day, aside from listening to the Black National Anthem yes, that's a thing we also listened to Martin Luther King's speech during the March on Washington for Equality and Jobs.
Speaker 1:That's fun. I think that's a good way to spend the day.
Speaker 2:I think so too. Not only can you read the speech, fun, so you can also a good way to spend the day. I think so too. And you know, not only can you read the speech, but you can also go to youtube and spotify and listen to the speech. Um, I it's. I don't have it memorized, don't have it memorized, but Don't have it memorized. But I will say this because it's important that is a speech that needs to be taken into context in its entirety. It is not only is it offensive, but it's also a mistake and a disservice to try to pick through the speech to find quotes that might further your agenda, because you know, the only black man you know from history, aside from Frederick Douglass, said it that's a good point, very good point to take the speech in its entirety.
Speaker 2:That's how it was given.
Speaker 1:We. I think this was in Montana. Actually, when I lived there in sixth or seventh grade my history class we had to listen to a speech. But granted, that was you know how many years ago 15, 20 years ago now we don't talk about age I don't know. Well, my point is is I don't know what they're doing now, I don't know what the curriculum holds, and I think also it depends on the teacher as well.
Speaker 1:So oh sure I would have been lucky. Arguably I could have been lucky. I don't want to say I was I could have been lucky. Arguably I could have been lucky. I don't want to say I was I could have been lucky to have gotten a teacher willing to have us listen to that. And then I'm sure that there are other teachers out there who just they talk about it and that's it. They say yes, you know, he gave the speech. These are some things from it blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker 1:I can't I can't yeah, I can't speak on it.
Speaker 2:So, uh, for my son being a uh black student in Montana, um, the school that he went to, they he went to they did not start teaching about slavery until sixth grade, which I don't know I guess that could be considered tone deaf when you consider that on the at least on the East Coast as I know it, children start learning about it in the third grade. Coast as I know it, um, children start learning about it in the third grade. Um, so I call that tone deaf because it kind of like it isolates a child from montana from the experiences of a child from georgia or new york in fourth and fifth grade, when I lived in Montana, we were learning about slavery.
Speaker 2:Okay, he went to a private sector school. It wasn't a private school, but it was a school not within the public district.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:Because it technically is not a part of the major town. Did he start going to school in Montana?
Speaker 1:No. What grades in Montana has he done?
Speaker 2:Third through. He's in seventh now.
Speaker 1:So at least third through sixth yeah. And not once since then.
Speaker 2:Wow, that's kind of shocking not until not until sixth grade, and I did have to ask him about it. Um, because we were watching something he likes. So as a family we like to watch the show blackish. And let's see, there was a segment that they did on slavery, uh, which was actually kind of cool. And then I looked over and I was like, has your school ever taught you about slavery? And he was like no, I can't say that they did. And I was like, so, as you're watching this sketch, you have no idea what they're talking about. And he was like no, no. And I was like, okay, I, I can't abide that. So I paused it and probably warped his brain by giving a very nutshell-ish account of the black experience in america up until the um, up until juneteenth. Oh my god, that is another thing. So in the document I found this interesting they acknowledge 10 federal holidays rather than 11.
Speaker 1:Really.
Speaker 2:Really, why do you think? I find that interesting and also telling.
Speaker 1:Because one's missing.
Speaker 2:What's the one that's missing? What is the 11th holiday? Literally the 11th holiday.
Speaker 1:Sounds like Juneteenth.
Speaker 2:It is Juneteenth, but in this document.
Speaker 1:Federal holidays. Compared to an employee at large private receives 13 days a week. Hold on A federal employee. Here's, here's what I'm going to read.
Speaker 2:Wow, you found the statement.
Speaker 1:A federal employee with five years experience receives 20 vacation days, 13 paid sick days and 10. And hold on, let me, let me quote it correctly and all 10 federal holidays. That's. I think that's why it says 10 federal holidays is currently when this was written, in 2022, were there, were there 11 federal holidays or were there 10?
Speaker 2:Yes, there were. Juneteenth was made a federal holiday in 2021 and was first observed in 2022. And I know this for a fact because I used to work next to the VA 2021.
Speaker 1:Okay, well, I guess this document let me rephrase it the document was released in 2022. I'm not trying to defend it, I'm just trying to put things into perspective. Maybe somebody's listening to this podcast five years from now.
Speaker 2:400 people worked on this document and five people went through it to edit it.
Speaker 1:Okay, okay, we're getting off track. If that was outdated.
Speaker 2:If that was outdated information, if it was written pre-2021, they had five different times to correct it and chose not to.
Speaker 1:All 10 federal holidays, compared to an employee at a large private company who receives 13 days of vacation and eight paid sick days. Federal health benefits are more comparable to the. Oh okay, it just goes into benefits and stuff like that. It seems like the obvious solution to the scrap and freeze is to move closer to the market model. Yeah.
Speaker 2:We could probably confuse a lot of people.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you're right, you're right, it does, it does only. Yeah, let's do that. Let's, let's take the time to read this whole document.
Speaker 2:I do not have enough spit dude.
Speaker 1:I don't have the brain capacity for it. I don't have enough spit the mental gymnastics that some of the things I was reading was going through. I was just like this is I don't know To say A but mean B.
Speaker 2:It starts out as a lot there are some things Go ahead. I was going to say I lot um.
Speaker 1:There are some things which is good, which is uh. I was gonna say that I mean, there are some things, but if you put enough words in any document, I'm gonna agree with some of it, you know there are things that I don't, that I can't disagree with um.
Speaker 2:For instance, our federal government is too fat, there's too much of it and there are redundancies. So if we were going to talk about trimming some unnecessary offices, particularly in the federal government, you know I'm all for that, I'm all for eliminating redundancies, right. That doesn't mean you agree with the whole document. The federal government, you know I'm for, I'm all for that, I'm all for, uh, eliminating redundancies.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:Um, that doesn't mean you agree with the whole document.
Speaker 2:I don't agree with hardly any of it, um, particularly when they want to privatize so much of the federal government and shift the oversight to people, um, with no knowledge in knowledge in the fields that they're supposed to be overseeing, but who wholly agree with the type of government that they are trying to put in place. That's what they want. They want people who agree with the ideologies of the document rather than people who have any kind of knowledge, whether it be career, political or otherwise, in the field, to conduct the oversight, and they want as many government offices as possible to report to the Secretary of State or the Chief of Staff, mostly the Secretary of State. The Vice President would kind of be. The Vice President would actually be a redundant role, unless the next President-elect is a single person, because the vice president would be conducting things much in the way a first spouse would.
Speaker 1:I've got a question I may have an answer.
Speaker 1:Possibly it's just. It's just a I don't know if it's a thought experiment, just something I'm now thinking about. They have created this document in case for a republican hire or a higher uh for a republican candidate. Right, that is yes, it's not outright. And they even kind of go over that is say trump, go out of the race somehow. I don't know, this is for the next election, I know, but this was written in 2022. Finish in 2022. Okay, let's. I think that's what the book was getting at was this is for the next Republican hire, or I keep saying hire, I mean, I guess, being a president's kind of a job the next president the next Republican president elect.
Speaker 1:Right, right.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:So do you think that they have a document? Maybe not on the books or the play-by-play, or if he doesn't get elected, if a Republican doesn't get elected?
Speaker 2:Yes, I do.
Speaker 1:And where is that document?
Speaker 2:Because I don't think that any organization that put that much time and energy into this particular plan, which is again to establish an institution of fascism, cannot stress that enough, and we need to make the time for me to go over why that would have put so much time and energy into documenting how to institute fascism into literally every fabric of our society would not have a contingency in place for if, um, the next president elect and again elections on tuesday, um, if the next president elect is not republican right.
Speaker 1:So is this? How do I say this? Could this just be a distraction? Could? It be a distraction like here's, here's project 2025 please, please, be distracted by this so we can keep.
Speaker 1:I don't know this, I don't think so um and and I will the reason why I will say it is this we're two different people who have both read it and we got different impressions from it oh there, but you read more, so had I read apparently a hell of a lot more than you did had I read more, maybe, maybe I would have gotten a different impression did you know what a fascist government was before I would in this document I'm sure I knew what it was at some point.
Speaker 2:I'm not going to retain maybe didn't have like the label of it I'm not going to retain every single um description of a government I put myself.
Speaker 1:I backed myself into a corner. I had nine days, which doesn't sound like, or it sounds like, plenty. I had nine days to read 900 pages. That's 100 pages a day, right, and I read more than you did in four days. Oh, while having to drive 18 hours by the way I work, nine to well ten to seven Monday. The way I work, 9 to 10 to 7, monday through Friday.
Speaker 1:I, you know personal life got in the way, so I bit off more than I could chew. I'll be first to admit that I want. I wanted to.
Speaker 2:We all make our choices. Mostly because every video I looked up online there was no there had to be a bias and, based on the videos that I saw talking about very briefly project 2025, I'm like there's no way you read it. There's no way you read this that's.
Speaker 1:That was kind of my every video. I looked up on Project 2025, it was everybody just ripping on the whole thing. I wanted something unbiased and the best way to get that, I thought to myself, was to read it myself.
Speaker 2:So it was kind of the way that they were ripping on it was, you know, let's see, eliminating social programs yes, this is true, that is very, very true. Limiting social programs yes, this is true, that is very, very true. But they're projecting it in a way where it was maybe reversible. If this plan goes into place, the only way to reverse it is to assassinate the president-elect.
Speaker 1:I don't think so. I think everything is reversible. It's either that or completely revolt. I think everything is reversible. I think I don't want to say everything.
Speaker 2:Okay. Russia was a political ally and the major source of our oil until Putin came into power, and ever since then we have been fighting not Russia, we've been fighting Putin.
Speaker 1:We should be.
Speaker 2:And that man has been in power for a long time. Right, kim Jong-un assassinated his own brother to assume power, and he's still in power.
Speaker 1:He had other people assassinate him for him.
Speaker 2:Well, yes, that does not change the fact that for five days it may have been three, three to five days CNN was talking about his brother's assassination and how devastating it was and who could have done such a thing. And three to five days later, kim Jong-un was like I did, I did it what I swear to God he did well, I mean, you can happen to be watching the news when it happened and I was just like, oh, that's bad you can take responsibility for something you didn't do.
Speaker 1:Why?
Speaker 2:He already, if his brother was assassinated. He already had the presidential office.
Speaker 1:To show like, hey, this is how I do things. I guess, even if it wasn't him, I don't know, I don't know, I'm just trying to think outside the box here. I'm not trying to think outside the box here, I'm not trying to give him benefit of the doubt or anything.
Speaker 2:I'm just playing devil's advocate. I would say that could have been considered a war crime, and it is. But because he admitted to it, after assuming the quote unquote presidential office, he became untouchable.
Speaker 1:I have to do more research into all of that.
Speaker 2:Okay, so in your defense, I actually happen to be watching that scenario very closely because Kim Jong-il was a horrible human being who gave um the united station, the united nations, a lot of grief when he started secretly stockpiling nuclear weapons yeah so then, when he died, um kim jong-un's brother, whose name I cannot remember for the life of me, was supposed to assume the presidency, which was humongous because he was allying with South Korea.
Speaker 2:He had visions of bringing North Korea to the table globally in cooperation, as an ally to everyone, and was going to surrender the weapons that his father was stockpiling. And apparently, kim Jong-un still agreed with their father, so he killed him.
Speaker 1:Interesting.
Speaker 2:So yeah, if the older brother had assumed power, North Korea's government would be so different today.
Speaker 1:At least that is the thought. Was that around 2008 to 2010?
Speaker 2:Let's see I was working at the hospital so I want to say maybe 2014?.
Speaker 1:Oh, really, really Okay. I was going to use the excuse. I was still in school. I didn't care too much about the news back then, but that's around the time I started caring about news and now I've fallen off.
Speaker 2:I have fallen off I started watching a lot of things very heavily when we were getting into 2014 because of a lot of things that were happening that still happen in this country, but there just seemed to be like a whole bunch of shit going on in 2014 leading up to 2016.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's fair.
Speaker 2:So I kind of I started paying way more attention to the news then. Okay, back to how can I read this document and see fascism? Firstly, because the checks and balances system under Project 2025 will no longer exist and the congressional and judicial branches of government will still exist, but they will exist in support of the president, which is bad. Also, anyone who does not agree with the goal of the presidential office will be fired and replaced with someone who does, whether they have experience in the office that they've been appointed to or not, and Trump's already done this. So that is already not great. But when you look at it in the context, that it will be done to promote the executive branch over either the congressional or the judicial branch is a direct violation of the constitution and would make the president-elect at that point in time, if not a full-on dictator, at least an authoritarian, which is the first part of the definition of fascism.
Speaker 1:Right. Well, it's far, far right authoritarian.
Speaker 2:I'm sorry, what about Trump.
Speaker 1:Does not scream far right to you.
Speaker 2:I don't know the definition of far right.
Speaker 1:Okay, take the time to look it up, it feels like those are terms far right, far left, those are terms that are just being thrown around nowadays Just because I don't agree with somebody. Far right is ultra conservative and far left is ultra liberal. What ideas follow that? If you're far right, what?
Speaker 2:concept are you pushing? It's outlined in the plan. I'm getting to that. So in the plan the government would be, quote-unquote, christian-based. They would quote-unquote promote women, children and family primarily family as kind of like the center of society. So let's see that ties into, like our abortion laws. But it also removes a lot of social programs that tend to benefit single parents and it's exclusive of people who are part of the LGBT community. Many people in the LGBT community are not married, probably won't get married, do not have kids, may not ever have kids, and then a lot of single parent families are working class, poor and disproportionately include black families.
Speaker 2:So there's that and I've already we talked last time about you know, not everyone in this country is Christian that government should not be operated based on an interpretation of a religion. I'm going to go ahead and say that, while I'm an atheist, I was raised in the church and the Christian interpretation that I have seen in conservative Republicans is not the Christ or Christianity that I learned about in church. I didn't learn about a savior or a God that promoted discriminating against other people. I learned love your fellow man. I learned turn the other cheek. I learned let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I definitely learned about a wrathful God, but that's like a lot of Old Testament stuff and that is more of those are more Judaism ideals rather than Christian ideals, because, well, the root of the word Christian is Christ.
Speaker 2:So, Christians are mostly going to focus on the New Testament stuff, which is post-Christ being born and turning 33. There's a lot missing in the Bible, by the way, and going off on his own with 12 dudes to heal the blind, the sick, resurrect the dead and promote his own religion that he ultimately ended up being persecuted and murdered for it doesn't change the fact that the way that I see conservatives uphold their version of Christianity. There is a lot of anti-Semitism. There's a lot of anti-Semitism. There's a lot of anti-Semitism. There is a lot of rejecting the systemic racism in this country. I'm not sure why they tend to tie systemic racism with their Christian ideals. I'm really not.
Speaker 2:I know that historically, slavery was defended using the Bible, based off of Noah's three sons, the Noah that built the ark. One of his three sons walked up on him when he had passed out, drunk and naked, and didn't say or do anything. And let's see, Can you hear me? Okay, yeah, Okay. So one of his other sons I think it was his oldest son, like came up on him and put a blanket on him and ratted him out. The son who left him passed out naked. His name was Ham Noah. Like, quote, unquote, like cursed him in a way that you know all of his descendants would live in bondage, if I'm remembering it.
Speaker 2:I see what you're saying.
Speaker 1:So here's the thing.
Speaker 2:I use that as Correct. Here's the thing Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Ham was black Right. Absolutely nowhere in the bible does it say that ham was black right. Absolutely nowhere in the bible. Um, the, uh, uh, the. And it is an attack, the attack on the lgbt plus community. Um is something that I mean. I've seen even people who aren't like conservative Republicans but profess to be Christian support and they tend to cite Sodom and Gomorrah for that. So I have to say something because, again, I was raised in the church and I learned about Sodom and Gomorrah and the Sodomites weren't punished for well being sodomizers. They were punished because their leaders attempted to rape two angels. That is true, is in the Bible and I can quote it. There was a man who was harboring the two angels and the sodomites knock on his door and say something let's see. I'm not sure if I can directly quote this.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, no, no.
Speaker 2:Something like send out your guests so that we may know them. They're talking about knowing, in the biblical sense and the way that these passages are structured, why the fuck they had Shakespeare write this is beyond me. Because, shakespeare, there are entire college level courses, uh um, structured around interpreting and interpreting Shakespeare's writings. So why you would have one of the most long-winded, quizzically quoted men in history, right Um? Write a religious book that is supposed to be accessible to everyone. Why you have him write it is beyond me. However, the way that it's phrased. It's not. They're demanding it and their attempt is to take the two angels without their consent. So that's why the Sodomites were punished. It had nothing to do with being gay.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And I've never read anywhere in the Bible where I've never read anywhere else in the Bible where it was a sin to be gay.
Speaker 1:Awesome. Go ahead, go ahead. I've downloaded the Bible's it's like 50 hours to listen to it. It's long over that. Uh, trying to pull up audible right now to see just how long it is it's long, um, so yeah, so.
Speaker 2:So they want a their interpretation of Christianity to be like the basis of government, the structure of public schools, public schools that choose to teach what they consider to be critical race theory or gender equality should be defunded. So and this is, we're talking about public schools, not private schools they talk so much about reverting children's education back to the parent. However, they want to prosecute parents who who allow their children to identify as anything other than straight, male or female. So parents that have trans children would literally be persecuted for taking their children for gender affirming care. And they do say like the sexual reassignment of a minor, no doctor in the United States is going to sexually reassign a minor.
Speaker 1:No doctor.
Speaker 2:Right, it's medically unethical. Right, reassign a minor? No, doctor, it's medically unethical. So no credible licensed practicing doctor in the US is going to sexually reassign a minor Now. They might help them with psychological services. They might help them to take hormone blockers so that when they are old enough to sexually reassign, the transition will be a lot easier. Those are better examples of gender affirming care. And also, that is my kid so the parents can have control over their children, as long as the parents raise the children the way that you want them to be raised.
Speaker 1:So that's the Bible is 75 hours. Yeah, jesus.
Speaker 2:Christ.
Speaker 1:So that would take me two weeks of listening to it at work the entire time, and I really hate to cut the conversation short here, but my studio time is running out very quickly.
Speaker 2:Oh, yeah, so. I'm almost done.
Speaker 1:Okay.
Speaker 2:Let's see. So that is kind of like the totalitarian government restricting hiring practices, social programs for minorities, hiring practices, social programs for minorities, single parents and people with disabilities is a lot of that natural hierarchy that's outlined in fascism. And again they want to sell arms to who they consider to be our political allies and I looked this up. They're talking about selling them to, let's see, countries in Europe, countries in Asia and Australia Not a single black or brown country. And again they're very much wanting to go to war with Russia. And again they're very much wanting to go to war with Russia.
Speaker 2:If we were to do that any time within the next five years, not only would we lose, but we would kind of face global destruction, which is not good, let's see. And if we won, we would basically be accomplishing what Hitler never could, which is, again, well, that's what fascists do, but it is a lot of. You know, this is a system of government that works for people who look and think and project themselves the way that they want. No longer would we be able to identify individually.
Speaker 1:Okay, I've been Odeko.
Speaker 2:And I'm Rocket.
Speaker 1:This has been Conversations in Black and White. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 2:Thank you guys.