Because I really want to get right into my guest because the
timing of this is absolutely perfect.
And you know what's funny is he was actually supposed to come on
the channel last Monday and I kind of DM Ed him.
I was like, can I push you off a week?
And the the reason for that, it wasn't anything to do with him.
It was that I wanted to really do a whole week on queer
Marxism. And it was like Monday was when
I was scheduled. I was like, I want my full queer
Marxism week. But then later in the week that
ended up getting shelved anyway. But the good news is that last
week there was this giant meltdown of the conservative
influencers or the classical liberal influencers where
they're all talking about people are woke, right, if they don't
like Winston Churchill and like all this stuff.
So I actually think this worked out beautifully.
Today we're going to be joined by one of my favorite people.
He is just one of the smartest people I know.
He is the managing, he a managing editor for the
Libertarian Institute. His name is Keith Knight.
He has been on the channel before and Keith has an article
up over on the Libertarian Institute.
And I will put this in the chat so you guys can have it up here.
He is going to talk talk to us about was Winston Churchill
really a hero or maybe is there more to the story of this?
And I swear this happened before the woke right Darrell Cooper
meltdown. We were going to do this anyway.
And I was just like, this is fate.
This is the universe smiling at us and telling us this is the
exact moment we should have this conversation.
So I am so excited to welcome him to the channel.
He's he's he's been on the channel before.
And I'm I'm, I think you guys are going to love him And
please, you know, give him a warm round of applause in the
chat. Mr. Keith Knight, welcome back
to the channel. How are you, Carlin?
I am doing excellent. It is so good to be back.
I just, it really brings me back to when I first read actively
unwoke how excellent your contributions are.
I'm sorry, I didn't know that you and James Lindsay were in a
spat. I'll have to look into the the
details on that. But excellent to see you.
Thank you again for having me on.
I, I really appreciate it. Well, did you know that like, so
I know you're a fan of like Dave Smith, right?
Because most of the libertarians are.
So according to James Lindsay, Dave Smith is part of the woke
right because he is supporting Candace Owens.
He's called him out by name a couple times.
And so congratulations, Dave Smith is now on the woke right
as well, according to James. I would love to get a definition
of woke right from James before I make a verdict on whether he's
completely full of shit or just partially full of shit on that
one. Hey, so we'll, we'll, we'll put
it like James that James doesn't need any more attention.
We can, we can talk about other things.
So I mean, like, what have you been thinking about?
So I, I did you watch the interview with Tucker Carlson
and Darryl Cooper? And what were your thoughts on
that? So originally on YouTube I saw
the title of a video that said How Winston Churchill ruined
Europe. And I was so shocked to see this
on YouTube, even more shocked to see that it was uploaded by
Tucker Carlson and the podcaster historian Darryl Cooper.
The reason this is so important is because in the last two
years, since February of 2022 when Russia went into Ukraine,
and especially since after October 7th of last year, every
single time there is a discussion on the moral
justification of the actions of our allies, Vladimir Zelensky or
the Israeli Defense Forces, every single debate, with 0
exceptions, has brought up the Second World War.
This myth of the Second World War, this creation of the
prevailing interpretation of past events is what allows
people to say good guy Zelensky, good guy Churchill, good guy
Netanyahu. Yeah, Netanyahu's the Churchill
of today. Well, I agree with that, but for
very different reasons than than people may think.
Putin, well, he's Putin's a bad guy.
You know who else was a bad guy? The head of the German Workers
National Socialist Party, Adolf Hitler.
So instead of bearing the opportunity cost of finding out
the details, the costs and benefits of these military
conflicts, people will put the Churchill stamp on the good guy
and put the evil Hitler stamp on the bad guy.
Without even knowing that this historical narrative is
completely mythical when it comes to the concept of it's
good countries versus bad countries, I will consider see
that this is a battle. The Second World War was a
battle of good versus evil. It was evil politicians versus
the good people in all countries.
That's my general thesis. That's why this is so important
today. So this myth cannot be used to
manipulate us into going to war with China over Taiwan or going
to war with Russia over Ukraine. Awesome, that's a great way to
start us out. Elena says, did I start
something? Elena's in the UK.
She's been doing her own research into a Churchill
lately. And so she probably is going to
have some opinions on that in the chat as well.
And and I really want to emphasize this point.
I mean, like, listen, I obviously have been through a
little bit of an ideological evolution lately and you know, I
don't need everyone to agree with me And and we do disagree
on things. And, and the thing of it is, is
a lot of people are saying right now, if you are saying that
maybe Winston Churchill wasn't actually this mythical hero,
they're actually saying that's like anti-Semitic or things like
that. But you are fully on like the
side of Israel, like in this in this conflict between them.
And is that an accurate statement?
I'm on the side of civilians in Palestine and civilians in
Israel. But Benjamin Netanyahu's an evil
mass murderer. So, so I misunderstood that.
Apologies, apologies. No, I I'm saying the way that
the myths are sold to us today is Netanyahu is the Churchill of
our day. And just as we have to get we
would have been behind Churchill 70 years ago, we got to back
Netanyahu today. He's fighting in this war
against evil. Every single Israel, Palestine
debate, the Second World War gets mentioned for a reason.
It's the myth they use to justify further mass murder
campaigns in the present. That's why this is really
striking at the root of the empire.
That's why the neocons and a lot of Republicans flip out.
Just at questioning this narrative.
So I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.
Oh, no, that might have been my misunderstanding.
I apologize. Been a busy day already, so I
appreciate the clarification, but no, I mean, I and I think,
but I do think this is really important to say because I think
it's, it's one of those things where like, you know, you, you,
I think are on the side of just like normal average people that
like aren't involved in this conflict at all.
And obviously there's a lot of I mean that like over 40,000
people in Palestine have been, you know, killed as a result of
this conflict. And of course there have been,
you know, what was this seven like 1200 people on October 7th
in Israel that have been killed as well.
We, we don't like want any of that either.
But it's one of those things where I feel like everyone has
kind of dug in their heels and they're saying like, like, like
you keep saying it's black and white, it is good or bad and
there's no kind of like in between to it.
And I think that this example of Churchill is, you know, I don't
know if you've seen this, but like in culture, like, I mean,
this is certainly happened with me and my community.
We've been going back and revisiting, you know, World War
2 and watching different perspectives on it.
And, and we recently watched a video about, well, it was about
a lot of things that happened to like the German people after
World War 2, but one of those things was the fire bombing of
Dresden and things like that. And, and, you know, a lot of
like the needless suffering that was created, like with Winston
Churchill kind of at the center of this whole affair.
So to the question was Winston Churchill evil this article that
you had on the screen? I go through a series of
exhibits and I want to start 1 by 1.
Here is Winston Churchill's original position as First Lord
of the Admiralty in the First World War.
Here is what Winston Churchill wrote in his own book titled The
World Crisis, 1911 to 1918. As first Lord of the Admiralty,
he's calling the shots for the Navy, Churchill says.
The British blockade treated the whole of Germany as if it were a
beleaguered fortress and avowedly sought to starve the
whole population, men, women and children, old and young, wounded
and sound into submission. Notice it wasn't him saying we
did this so we could kill Kaiser Wilhelm, the guy who was, you
know, the head of the military of Germany.
We are the good guys. We discriminate between guilty
parties and innocent people. He said this is a war.
Against the German population. I actually had to buy a copy of
that book because I did not think this quote was real.
But the link of the citation I use in the article will take you
to the exact page. I think it's 672 in his book.
So this alone was estimated by Martin Gilbert who's a very pro
Churchill historian. 762,000 German deaths as a cause result
of this starvation blockade. Today it's widely recognized if
China forms a blockade around Taiwan, that's an act of war and
the US will go to war with nuclear China over such an
action. Well, Winston Churchill openly
engaged in this and made millions of people suffer,
killing roughly 760,000. This is the first act of evil
which we could really pin on Churchill, his unwillingness to
discriminate between guilty and innocent parties.
Realize Henry Asquith, the Prime Minister of Britain, declared
war against Germany. This would have been in August
of 1914 because they passed through Belgium during their
invasion of France. This went back to an 1839
agreement that Britain had with Belgium that if their
independence were ever violated, Britain would declare war on
their behalf. So a law from 100 years ago
justified a mass murder campaign that involved conscripts
enslaving people to fight in this war just to protect the
people of France. The First World War ended with
1.3 million dead Frenchmen and French cities just torched to
the ground. That's what you get with war
guarantees. So Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager
are not great tough guys when they're saying we want to give
Ukraine a war guarantee. Well, Ukraine is having to bear
the cost for that because Russia sees it as in being a violation
of their sphere of influence. Just as John F Kennedy would not
have allowed nukes in Cuba, the Russians are not allowing NATO
to join Ukraine. You're not a nice guy if you're
saying the US should defend Taiwan against China.
You're actually provoking a war with a nuclear power which will
get those very people killed. The Second World War Declaration
by Neville Chamberlain On September 3rd of 1939, the
National Socialist invade a city called Danzig, Poland, and as
it's referred to as the Polish War Guarantee, Neville
Chamberlain says if Hitler goes into Poland, we're going to
declare war against Germany. Well, the city he entered was
called Danzig, which according to Encyclopedia Britannica was
95% German. It was formerly a German city
before the Treaty of Versailles. This was worth declaring war and
enslaving men ages 18 to 41 into fighting against the National
Socialists in Germany And what happened to Poland?
This kind virtuous favor led to the death of 7 million Poles and
after the war Poland was under the occupation of the Soviet
Empire. It wasn't even a real war
guarantee cause the Soviets invaded on September 17th of
1939 and there was no declaration of war against the
Soviets. One thing Churchill said after
the end of the Second World War. This isn't a book titled The
Gathering Storm, published in 1948.
Churchill's own words says the human tragedy reaches its
climax. And the fact that after all the
exertions and sacrifices of hundreds of millions of people
and the victories of the righteous 'cause we have still
not found peace or security, and that we lie in the grip of even
worse perils than those we have surmounted.
What he's referring to is let me see, here is President
Eisenhower's book where he shows you how the Communists won the
Second World War. This communist occupation from
East Germany to Vladivostok plus China while they were sending
arms to Mao say Tongue, plus North Korea, plus Vietnam, Laos
and Cambodia under Ho Chi Minh at the time.
Not to mention all the Marxist in American universities.
Who, of course, just looking into them.
Joseph McCarthy was the most evil man, whoever lived.
So yeah, this is the reality of the Second World War.
It involved allying with Joseph Stalin.
And today they tell us we can't talk to Vladimir Putin.
Churchill's own words says we lie in the grip of even worse
perils than those we have surmounted by taking down the
biggest bulwark against communism.
You gave half of Europe to the Communists.
Yeah, I mean, that's one of the things like, so I was, I was
never really into world history, if I'm honest about it, like
like thinking about military history and wars and all that
stuff. Kind of like didn't interest me
at all. I don't know why my camera is
now freezing. Of course, it always has to.
Something always has to go wrong when I'm talking on the
Internet. Let's give that a second.
OK, I think I'm back. So, so I was never like in
school, like world history was never my thing.
I was, I loved American history. I loved like learning about the
Revolutionary War and the Civil War and all that stuff.
But like, I kind of glazed over World War 2.
And I've recently been like revisiting it and I've really
been trying to look at just a variety of sources.
So not not all far right perspectives, not all far left,
not like not anyone source of information.
Because I feel like we, we exist in this world now where everyone
is lying about everything and everyone is twisting everything.
And it's like, it's like, if you don't look at a variety of
sources of information, you're never going to get anywhere
close to like what the truth actually is.
And I don't know why this didn't even occur to me up until I
started kind of thinking about it, but the United States
literally allied with, allied with communists like lately.
And it just like it's, I feel like that's that one simple fact
because, you know, it's just so routinely overlooked.
And I think you just laid out like the consequences of that.
And not just the United States, but the United Kingdom and all
this stuff too. It's like it's mind boggling to
think about. We literally took the side of
the communist. Now, my argument is not that we
should have been on the side of Germany either.
My argument is that we should have stayed out of it entirely,
which is usually the correct decision.
It's also what we should have done with Ukraine.
It's what we should do with the Middle East.
We should just be not involved in it at all.
Am I right about that? Absolutely right.
I'm happy to get into the US involvement.
In fact, let's actually do that. So this is generally referred to
as. Well, Pearl Harbor was what made
it inevitable that the US enters the Second World War, it turns
out. Well, Hawaii was not a state
until 1959, but. Even if you say if American
troops are attacked, they must declare war against.
Everyone in this country, even if only a few members of the
political class conspire to murder Americans.
Here is a conversation between Winston Churchill and President
Roosevelt. This would have been August of
1941. This is according to the New
York Times on January 2nd, 1972. The articles titled War Entry
plans late to Roosevelt. Here's what Churchill said about
Roosevelt. President told the Prime
Minister Churchill in August of 41 he was looking for an
incident to justify opening hostilities against Nazi
Germany. Here are Churchill's quotes.
He obviously was determined that they should come in.
If he were to put the issue of peace and war to Congress, they
would debate it for months. The President said he would wage
war but not declare it, and that he would become more and more
provocative. If the Germans didn't like it,
they could attack American forces.
The President ordered these U.S. Navy escorts to attack any
German U boat which showed itself, even if it were two or
three 100 miles away from the convoy.
Everything was to be done to force an incident.
The President had taken this very well and made it clear that
he would look for an incident which would justify him in
opening hostilities. So there was a plan to provoke a
war with the Axis powers later on, Henry Stimson wrote in his
diary. Henry Simpson was the Secretary
of War at the time and I want to get this exact quote right.
He said the president brought up November 25th.
The event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps as soon as
next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an
attack without warning, and the question was what we should do.
The question was how we should maneuver them into the position
of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to
ourselves. On December 7th, Stimson writes
in his diary. When the news first came that
Japan had attacked us, my first feeling was of relief that the
indecision was over and that a crisis had come in a way which
would unite all our people. This was Roosevelt's motivation
for provoking an attack with either Japan or Germany.
This continued to be my dominant feeling in spite of the news of
catastrophes which quickly developed.
For I feel this country united has practically nothing to fear,
while the apathy and division stirred up by unpatriotic men
have been hitherto discouraging the final piece of evidence.
This wasn't released until 1999. This document, titled The
McCullum Memo, was released by a naval researcher.
His name is Robertsonette in a book titled Day of Deceit.
This is a memo written on October 7th of 1940.
So this provocation had been planned for more than a year.
So the idea that, well, if there were, you know, some conspiracy,
it would have been exposed by now.
The Pearl Harbor myth was under wraps for more than.
Half a century, so yes, this stuff can be kept secret, so
the. Memo was titled Estimates of the
situation in the Pacific and recommendations for action by
the United States, saying here's what I recommend we do.
It is not believed that the present state of political
opinion in the United States is capable of declaring war against
Japan without more ado, and it's barely possible that vigorous
action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their
attitude. Therefore, the following course
of action is suggested. Make an arrangement with Britain
for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly
Singapore. Make an arrangement with Holland
for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in
the Dutch E Indies. Give all possible aid to the
Chinese government of Shanghai Shack.
All of these things actually ended up happening.
This wasn't just, well, some kook wrote this down.
All of these things came to fruition between when the memo
was written and Roosevelt's declaration of war.
This would have been, I guess, December 8th of of 41.
The memo goes on to say completely embargo all U.S.
trade with Japan in collaboration with a similar
embargo imposed by the British Empire.
This was the Export Control Act of July 26th of the 1940.
So all of these things came to fruition.
Now, this memo is very clear evidence that the deep state at
the time was using it as a way to provoke an incident with
Japan because Americans were not going to go into a Second World
War, the First World War, which was also based on the Lusitania
deception. This was an armed merchant ship
off the coast of Ireland which the Germans attacked in the
First World War 116 thousand Americans were killed and the US
didn't enter until April of 1917, three years after the war
had started. So people were very weary.
So they had to provoke this incident at Pearl Harbor to
justify US entrance into the war.
It is not the case that, well, we tried to stay out, but we
were attacked out of nowhere. Again, it was state intervention
because governments with a access to a central bank, the
right to tax, the right to conscript, the legal double
standard on they can commit murder and not get charged with
murder. They just call it foreign
policy. And the fact that they control
compulsory education. This makes it much more likely
for them to go to war than any other organization.
They have every incentive to get people to get their limbs blown
off. And then decades later when you
question it they call you an evil anti semite.
Because we have primary documents.
We're conspiracy theorists 'cause we have primary
documents. They, on the other hand, are
like well. I have a.
Feeling that Hitler was going to take over the entire world, a
feat that's never been done many times attempted.
They just have theories. We have primary documents.
So I will also link this article on the Pearl Harbor myth from
the Libertarian Institute, which I wrote.
I titled it Justifying Evil, Pearl Harbor, and the Hiroshima
Myth. Awesome.
And I'll put, I'll go ahead and put that in the chat.
And I did put his earlier article in there about Churchill
guys in the chat. If you want to take him take a
look at that. Let me just get this to load for
a second. I mean, it really is like
bizarre. They one of the things that I
really kind of like come to understand about primary sources
is they're a little tricky because primary sources don't
make great clickbait content on the Internet.
And so it's kind of like this is like, because I do the same
thing with the far left, right. I just, I just watch their
videos. Literally I'd use primary source
evidence, that's all. Like, I will not look at
anything that's not primary source evidence, but that
doesn't make great clickbait content on the Internet.
And so it's very easy for people to, like, ignore this
information. But one of the things I was
trying to like emphasize, it's like anything in the world you
can find primary sources for. And if you just go to the
primary sources, you can usually suss out what happened.
And maybe some of it's hidden and maybe some of it's hard to
find. But like, stop listening to
people who are editorializing based on a political narrative
that they're trying to sell for whatever team they're playing
for. Just go to the documents and
read them. And the documents will say what
the documents say, right? Exactly.
You have to ask if the document is genuine because there are a
lot of fakes out there. I waited probably three years
before ever publishing the McCullum memo on the Libertarian
Institute because I'm like, this is pretty damning.
It's someone who's in a position to know, saying Here's what.
We can do. A year before they actually do
the things which caused the thing they intended to, which
caused the incident they intended to provoke, there is no
innocent explanation for. Any of this.
And Even so, you'd think that with all the propaganda we hear
about governments here to keep us safe, you would think that
the politicians would apologize or something like that if they
were just so innocent. They're like, oh, you've paid
all these taxes to be safe and we haven't kept you safe.
Our most fundamental duty. Well, you guys don't have to pay
income tax this year since we didn't hold up our end of the
bargain of the social contract. You never get that.
They're saying, well, we failed at our duty, so now we get more
money and more power and we get to kill people with impunity.
That's what happens. Consider what the reality of
what they really got pissed off about Darryl Cooper for.
Is the unequivocal fact that it was Winston Churchill who
initiated the terror bombing of civilians?
Neville Chamberlain stepped down after a debacle off the coast of
Norway, and Winston Churchill was appointed Prime Minister.
So again, the fight for democracy involved Franklin
Roosevelt, who put people in internment camps and enslaved
Americans with conscription. Churchill, who was not elected,
and Joseph Stalin, who was not elected.
That's who was behind the fight for democracy, which could never
be questioned. He initiates bombing in May of
1940. The Germans responded with
civilian bombing not till September with the Blitz in
1940. Here is a summary of the
discussions that went on in the cabinets by Charles Percy Snow.
He gave this lecture at Harvard in 1961 in a paper titled
Science and Government. It's actually a collection of
speeches. Charles Percy Snow, Someone in a
position to know, says the paper on bombing went out to top
government scientists. It described in quantitative
terms the effect of Germany, of the effect on Germany of a
British bombing offensive in the next 18 months.
The paper claim that given a total concentration of effort on
the production and use of bombing aircraft, it would be
possible in all larger towns of Germany, that is those with more
than 50,000 inhabitants, to destroy 50% of all the houses.
He's not the only source that I have on this.
Graham Spate wrote a book in 1944 before Dresden titled
Bombing Vindicated, where he says he was the principal
assistant secretary of air ministry.
He said retaliation was certain If we carried the war into
Germany, knowing Britain would have to bear the cost.
They still provoked a bombing campaign.
Yet because we were doubtful about the psychological effect
of propagandist distortion, of the truth that it was we who
started the strategic offensive, we have shrunk from giving our
great decision of May 1940 the publicity which it deserves.
That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision.
It was as heroic, as self sacrificing as Russia's decision
to adopt her policy of scorched earth.
It could have harmed us morally only if it were equivalent to an
admission that we were the first to bomb towns.
One final piece of evidence comes from Max Hastings.
In his book Bomber Command he uses a ton of primary documents,
especially one from a guy named Frederick Lindemann who was
Churchill's right hand man, a perfect the epitome of the UK's
deep state in the 1940s. So this paper said in 1938 / 22
million Germans lived in 58 towns of over 100,000
inhabitants, which with modern equipment should be easy to find
and hit. Investigation seems to show that
having's one having one's house demolished is most damaging to
morale. People seem to mind it more than
having their friends or even relatives killed.
Our calculation assumes of course, that we really get 1/2
of our bombs into to build up areas.
On the other hand, no account is taken of the large promised
American production 6000 heavy bombers in the period in
question. So it's just a long explanation
as to how are we going to attack the civilian population and
destroy morale so much that they end up refusing to obey the
National Socialists anymore. So this is more evidence that
Winston Churchill was evil because he didn't have the
common sense empathy to differentiate between guilty
parties, the National Socialists and the innocent parties.
The people of Germany who living under the Weimar Republic didn't
have 20,000 political ideologies to choose from.
They had terrible inflation and degeneracy under the Weimar
Republic or National Socialism. By the way, every democratic
socialist has way more in common with a National Socialist than
probably any of us do. So their options were very
constrained. So the German civilian
population should still be seen as as innocent by members of the
civilized community. I mean, like, so you could make
the argument that and, and, and, and I don't want to get into I,
I really don't want this to become a like, was Hitler good
or bad debate? Because I think that's also kind
of like, I, I like that that is definitely not a road I want to
go down. But like, you know, how I kind
of perceive this is that for a lot of people, like life did
become better in Germany under national Socialism.
And we can have issues with that all we want.
But I think that, you know, there was like it it, it did
bring back, you know, jobs, it like reduced inflation.
People were able to get homes, people were able to go on
vacations. Art and culture seem to come
back and flourish. And it's kind of one of those
things to me that I I kind of perceive.
Let me know if my perception is wrong about this.
Like tell me, I want you to tell me if I'm wrong and I know that
you will. And I won't be personally
offended. I won't get mad or anything.
But like, my perception of it is there was AI mean.
I'm not I'm not suggesting that Hitler was a perfect person at
all. I'm not suggesting that some of
the things that he did weren't awful and incredibly bad and
wrong. What I am saying is that life
did improve under Hitler for for a lot of people in Germany.
And for that, I think there was a lot of love for him.
I mean, you can see these rallies that he did where he
just had these like massive crowds, just like Trump rallies.
Yeah, I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler, but it was like that
kind of like giant spectacle. So people don't do that if they
don't love someone. And so that the impression that
I it with like the bombing campaigns that Churchill
elicited against the German people was in some respects I
agree with you. It was like to deflate morale,
to turn them against their leaders.
But it also kind of seems to me to send a message about to this
country that's trying to bring out, like, create some sort of
like national identity for itself, like, you will never do
this again. If you do this again, there will
be consequences for all of you. Am I right about that or am I
totally wrong? So.
Churchill actually summarized his intentions for the war and
the reason that Germany was basically his obsession from the
1930s. Actually, can I stop you right
there? Because this is actually perfect
with a super chat we got because Elena said earlier when
appropriate, can you ask our guest if he has any view on if
he believes Churchill went to the Second World War for the
reasons we're told? So perfect timing.
Thank you, Elena, for for asking that.
Because motive does matter. Whether you slip and fall and
accidentally stab someone or you conspire to murder them,
technically the same thing happens.
But the intentions of the actor certainly do matter.
And yes, I'm going to answer the Hitler thing.
But as far as Churchill's motives go, this is published by
Martin Gilbert, the Churchill Historian.
In a book titled Churchill a Life, he explains a letter
written from Lord Londonderry. Londonderry says to Churchill, I
should like to get out of your mind what appears to be a strong
anti German obsession. Churchill says you are mistaken
in supposing that I have an anti German obsession.
British policy for 400 years has been to oppose the strongest
power in Europe by weaving together a combination of other
countries strong enough to face the bully.
Sometimes it is Spain, sometimes the French monarchy, sometimes
the French Empire, sometimes Germany.
I have no doubt who it is now, but if France set up to claim
the overlordship of Europe, I shall equally endeavor to oppose
them. It is thus through the centuries
we have kept our liberties and maintained our life and power.
So any country that was a threat to British supremacy they would
have gone to war with. Just as that they consider
themselves a monopolist on the European continent.
Just as the Union would go to war with the Confederate
southern states before letting them secede and gain power
against them. Churchill was not going to let
there be a competitor to. To Britain.
That was his motive for picking on Germany in this case.
So yeah, a lot of it did have to do with nationalism.
But just as the US is vilifying China now that China's gone
from, you know, mass poverty and starvation under Mao to Deng
Xiaoping's socialism with Chinese characteristics,
basically their way of having capitalism to a very large
extent, which drastically increased the amount of wealth
in their society. Now they are a competitor.
So even though Richard Nixon was able to go to Beijing and shake
hands with Communist Chairman Mao, today, it's like, well, we
might have to go to war with China if they invade Taiwan.
It's the same thing. It's about weakening potential
competitors. This was.
Written in a document titled, Oh Gosh, I It, it was published in
1992 by Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney.
It's called Defense Planning Guidance, where they said, look,
the Soviets just fell. We are the sole superpower, our
primary objective. Needs to be making sure no other
superpowers going to basically grow to check our power.
It's called defense planning guidance 1992.
I don't have the exact wording in front of me, but that's why
there's this proxy war against Russia, to weaken Russia and
bleed them dry in Ukraine. That's.
Why It's a big new Burzynski armed Mujahideen fighters in
Afghanistan from 79 to 89 to fight the Soviet Union.
This is titled, this is called Operation Cyclone.
You can look for the details on that from 79 to 89.
So this is the policy that they engage in.
They don't want any competitors. They are, as I say here, the
psychotic boyfriend who would rather see his girlfriend dead
than with another man. That literally is what we're
facing here. It's not that Churchill saw the
crimes of National Socialism. He saw the Holocaust happening.
Holocaust crimes against jewelry didn't really start until 41,
even though crystal knock. Was before.
But before then. So it's not like Churchill just
tried to have peace and then unfortunately the National
Socialist made him go to war. Chamberlain was the one who
declared war on behalf of Britain.
Churchill initiated the terror bombing and the plan to go to
war with any European rival was made with Lord Londonderry as
early as 1935. Again, no one is an explanation.
So therefore Winston Churchill is evil.
So I like, and This is why I love talking to you because I
know you're going to have the primary source receipts on this.
I know you're going to be able to point to like actual things
people said. And so I, this is like the
perspective that I always really appreciate about you, Keith.
Nick says gentleman's info is accurate from what I've studied.
Thank you, Nick, for that. Naruto says primary source
evidence doesn't feed outrage addictions.
Hey, ain't that, ain't that the truth?
And I want to encourage anyone, if people have questions for
Keith, please feel free to send them in the chat.
I am paying attention as I'm just trying to absorb all of
this. Amazing information he's giving
us. So I mean, so like, how do you
believe that people should perceive Winston Churchill
around like World War 2? Just like high level, you know,
how like, you know, obviously, like people are multifaceted.
I'm sure this was a complicated situation, but how should people
look at this? If they're grounding into
reality, they should probably look at Winston Churchill as an
opportunist who basically with access to a state apparatus was
able to get away with evil crimes he never would have been
able to get away with if they were more of a free market.
If people had the freedom to to disassociate with actors this
bad. Who were never even elected.
You keep bugging me about democracy and he's not even
elected when he's committing all these crimes, looking at these
people as opportunists who we don't have the freedom to
disassociate with. That is the lesson that is bet
you know, Jeff Bezos, very big, very powerful.
Dave Matthews, Taylor Swift, very big and powerful.
We can differ. We can disassociate peacefully
with them because they're in much more of a libertarian
arrangement with the rest of society.
But Winston Churchill when he's given the blank check of access
to a state apparatus. Drives the British Empire into
the ground. When he first started as First
Lord of the Admiralty the British Empire controlled like
25% of the Earth's but then he just kept over expanding with
the first and Second World War and that's why Britain is no
longer an empire. So we should look at Churchill
as someone who was an opportunist who was almost
certainly a psychopath. If we're referring to a
psychopath as someone with the inability or unwillingness to
engage in common sense empathy, that's not what we see with
Winston Churchill. Here's more evidence.
Charles de Gaulle was the head of the competing French
government in France. The France and Britain declare
war on Germany September 3rd of 1939.
In response, Germany invades France, installs the Vichy
government. The opposition government was
led by Charles de Gaulle, who was allied with Winston
Churchill. Here's what de Gaulle says on
page one O 4 of his book. Among the many people, in their
desire to emerge from an almost unbearable tension, went so far
as to say out loud that they wished the enemy would risk the
attack. Foremost among them, Mr.
Churchill found the waiting hard to bear.
I can still see him at Shakur's one August day, raising his
first toward the sky as he cried.
So they won't come. Are you in such a hurry?
I said to him, To see your towns get smashed to bits.
You see, he replied, The bombing of Oxford, Coventry, Canterbury
will cause such a wave of indignation in the United States
that they'll come into the war. Winston Churchill even supported
the bombing of British cities, knowing that that would pull the
US into the war. That's how Churchill should be
seen. A guy who's so psychotic, he's
not only unwilling to differentiate between guilty and
innocent people with regard to another nation, he supported
killing members of his own tribe, the group he claims to
defend. So this is there was almost
nothing admirable about him. He was a great speaker and a
very impressive writer. That is a take away that we can
certainly have, that we can really make sure that we don't
blindly follow someone just because they're a very good
orator. You got to look at the costs and
benefits each time. You know that.
I mean, that brings to mind something in regards to Israel
that is just mind boggling to me now.
And I want to know if like, like your perception of this and you
know what you have to say about it.
Do you know what the Hannibal directive is?
The Hannibal directive was authorized on October 7th and
that's what got the numbers up from a few 100 to 1200.
This is Israel's explicit policy of saying we would rather dead
Israeli civilians then having Israeli hostages which give
Hamas more negotiating power. Yes, I am familiar with the
Hannibal Directive. Unfortunately, I thought that
you, I thought that you would be.
And I got to tell you like I like.
Again, this is one of those things like foreign affairs has
never really interested me that much.
But when I found out about the Hannibal Directive and I was
like, you're telling me that Israel has been going around and
Netanyahu has been going around saying 1200 dead, 1200 dead.
And of course we mourn all dead. And like, that's that's a
tragedy. And I don't want to make light
of it. But the fact of the matter is
they killed a portion of their own people, including civilians,
to prevent them from being taken hostage.
And why is it, why aren't we screaming about that and saying
you guys like, I'm sorry, you guys lied to us in order to be
able to go in and to, and to, you know, I, I, I personally
think they're, they're listening a genocide or at least trying to
get all the Palestinians to leave Gaza.
So they can, you might disagree with me and I won't love your
opinion, but I think they're, they're listening a genocide
against the Palestinians. I think a lot of those
Palestinians are going to end up coming here as refugees.
So they're going to become our problem at the end of today.
Whereas if there hadn't been the complete leveling of Gaza based
on this lie that was perpetrated by Netanyahu, it's not a
complete lie, but it's at least a partial lie.
Then like a lot of this stuff wouldn't have like the type of
support that it that it does. What do you think?
Well, as far as what the what is happening in Gaza, whether or
not it's a genocide, I don't necessarily use that word
because then the argument becomes what is the definition
of genocide? What you have is a high tech
mass murder campaign where women, children and male
civilians are having to bear the cost of the suffering as a
result of Israel's blockade policy of Gaza since 2005.
Since what they what the IDF refers to as mowing the lawn,
which is where every now and then they go into Gaza and drop
a number of bombs and engage in a high tech massacre against the
civilian population to decrease their morale.
Same exact thing Churchill did just to scare the hell out of
them. See, they actually.
Block them from having certain foods, they say.
We decide what can come in and what can go out.
So just to make sure they're not using rockets, the problem is
it's not like there's a no rocket law or they just don't
allow Gaza to have a Second Amendment.
It's tons of food, tons of construction materials.
So if anyone did this to if China blockaded a port in
California, they would drop nuclear bombs on Beijing.
But Israel does this to Gaza for more than a decade.
And these terrorists of Hamas do not have big fighter jets that
they could declare war with and then start bombing civilians, so
they resort to terrorism. As a matter of fact, other
groups that resorted to terrorism were the Ergon, Stern
and Hagana Zionist gangs from 1917 up to May of 1948 when the
Zion estate was actually established.
The paper to look up on what's happening in Gaza was written in
the 1920s by a man named Zivyabatenski.
This is the founder of the Ergon terrorist group who wanted to
bomb Israel into existence. You engage in a number of
terrorist actions and that scares the civilian population
away. So you could bring in Jewish
immigrants to set up a Zion Estate, as dreamed up by
Theodore Herzl in his book The Jewish State.
Zevia Butinsky says the one thing we want is the one thing
the Arabs don't want, and that's Jewish immigration.
So how were they going to engage in such a fantastic feat?
One to empty the Arab population.
They engage in a number of acts of terrorism.
You can look up things like the Lavon affair, which did take
place after 1948, but the crimes of Ergon, Stern and Hagana,
which eventually became the Israeli Defense Forces.
It's not like they just got a country and then found a
military. It was just these terrorist
groups who were then given the stamp of approval of an official
state, Yabatinsky says. Basically, in a document titled
The Iron Wall, the only way we're going to get these people
to give up their land is to bomb ourselves into existence to
create an iron wall, which they cannot resist.
Even the most uncivilized tribes of the past, even when the
newcomers were bringing great technological innovations, never
gave up their father's homeland. So we're basically going to have
to. Ask them to leave and when they
don't we're going to have to resort to the acts of terrorism
which Ergon, Stern and Agana eventually did engage in.
So side note, population replacement generally seems to
be the Democrats theory as to how to gain power in the United
States by bringing in Haitians, Venezuelans and Somalians.
So this is a very common tactic. Stalin did the same thing in
Estonia, flooded the place with Russian immigrants to change the
balance of power. So it's very popular.
It's not a conspiracy theory. This is a state weapon that it
uses against the civilian population when it can't
convince it to change its mind, more or less.
So what's happening in Gaza was explained 100 years ago by
Zivyabatinsky in the Iron Wall. They want to scare them them and
bomb them out of the place just so they can go elsewhere in
order for the Zionist to have a monopolist state of their own.
It was really all laid out all back then.
That is what's happening now. It has nothing to do with
democracy. Of course.
Israel controls the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan
River. And no Palestinian in the West
Bank or Gaza has the right to vote or anything.
They're constantly killed. They live under martial law.
So it's just ridiculous that to say Netanyahu, good guy like
Churchill, Hamas bad guy like Adolf Hitler, that yeah, that is
some sort of connection that we can find between the present and
the past with the Israeli conflict.
Yeah. I mean, it's been absolutely
mind boggling to me to watch, honestly.
Like the conservative kind of like it.
Like it like it's like all of a sudden all these people who
claim to be anti war under Trump instantly became neocons again
once Israel became involved. And it was mind boggling to me
to watch like the reaction, especially when Netanyahu Yahoo
came and spoke in front of Congress.
And I'm sure you watch that speech.
But I was going, I was going Netanyahu is flat out saying,
hey, guys, you want to go to war with Iran on our behalf.
Let's go to war with Iran. Who wants to go to war with
Iran? And then Donald Trump comes out
and he starts saying, if I get assassinated, Iran did it.
And I'm like, you asshole, like what?
And then like the very first interview that JD Vance gave
after he got nominated for vice president, he said we need to
use the big bombs on Iran, not the little bombs on Iran.
And I'm like like you guys were anti war like 2 seconds ago.
What happened? Well, Israel happened.
What do you think the pro-life pro family position is anti war?
The fact that when God says thou shalt not murder, there wasn't
some asterisk. Well, unless you're part of a
group that wears camouflage and you're called the military.
That is my message to the right. They keep throwing more lies out
here with, well, Iran with Netanyahu in that speech said
for all we know, Iran is funding the protesters outside.
Now It's like, well, I don't know, Every time I log into XA,
Palestinian has his limbs blown off and his face is melted off.
Maybe that could arouse their suspicions.
Well, no, maybe it's just Iran that that would never upset
anyone. So it's just ridiculous.
Netanyahu spoke in front of Congress, I want to say in 2002
to Dennis Kucinich. And Dennis Kucinich built him a
broken bridge to retreat across. And he said Mr. Netanyahu, now
Netanyahu has been the Prime Minister of Israel on and off
since 1996. And Putin's a threat to
democracy, whatever. OK, so, so Kucinich, says Mr.
regional expert Netanyahu, are there any other countries
besides Iraq which we should go to war over and engage in regime
change? He goes, well, as I said, Saddam
Hussein in Iraq, that is certainly one.
Moammar Gaddafi in Libya is another which the US ended up
going to war against. He also mentions the regime in
Syria, who he says is catering has, I'm sorry, they're allied
with Hezbollah in Lebanon from the regime in Syria.
So this. Ended up being.
A war in Syria where the US fought against Bashar al Assad's
regime. Barack Obama came out and said
Assad is used tear gas against against innocent civilians.
He's a dictator. He's no longer fit for office.
Of course, we all know what ended up happening to Moammar
Gaddafi. He was killed in that video.
And then, you know, slave markets ended up running through
Libya. So basically what Israel is
doing is using the US to take out all its competitors in the
region. And the US has to bear the cost
of all these military conflicts, as do the people of Israel.
They're not exactly sitting high because of it.
But it's a few politicians who benefit at the expense of
everyone else now in Syria to go to war against Assad.
They couldn't just go to door to door and ask people, can you
take some time off work and come fight this war.
What they did was they looked for militant fighters who were
already fighters willing to kill.
The group that was willing to do this is Jabat al Nusra, who
pledged their allegiance to Abu Muhammad al Jaladi.
This is al Qaeda in Syria. They didn't break away from al
Qaeda until 2016. So the US government, it's
called Operation Timber Sycamore, on behalf of Israel,
was funding al Qaeda to fight the Bashar al-Assad regime in
Israel. So that is what we're up
against. It's not just like a well for no
reason, we just pick on Israel. Certainly, according to Philip
Zelikow, who was head of the 9/11 Commission, he said that it
doesn't really make much sense why the US would want to go to
war with Iraq, Israel. On the other hand, Iraq is
Israel's biggest competitor in the region, so that would really
make sense. It certainly seems like Israel
is calling the shots with regard to all this.
However, we can't take agency away from the American
politicians who lie us into these wars.
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bofowitz, George W Bush, as well as the
soldiers who sign up and do not refuse orders when when they're
given to him. So yes, that is the problem with
Israel and the US. Blind, blind allegiance and
blank check that they've given to Israel for heaven knows how
long. What role do you think AIPAC
plays in all? Of this.
AIPAC is the Jewish guilt mother who constantly goes around
saying, oh, you're not funding a campaign to murder innocent
people. That's really nice.
I hope there's not a hell. I don't.
I don't know too much about these specifics of AIPAC.
The most persuasive case that AIPAC is extraordinarily
influential in US politics is a book titled The Israeli Lobby
and Foreign Policy by Stephen Walt and John J Mearsheimer.
Mearsheimer is an absolute hero on the Ukraine issue, so it's
generally. Recognized that the American
Israeli political action committee.
Is extremely influential in American politics, both for
Democrats and Republicans. That's why you see so much
alignment with what what Israel tends to want, the US ends up
going along with. Since Harry Truman recognized
the Zionist state, it looks like they've had a very significant
influence in American politics. I don't know any more specifics
of. About a lot of things, but that
is the general consensus widely accepted among any people who
have researched it. It's like, well, Apac's
extremely powerful and you can look at how hysterical they get
when one guy, Thomas Massie, says, I'm not hanging out with
you. You're a foreign lobby
organization. It I, it doesn't really matter
to me the fact that whether they're foreign or domestic, if
they were making really good points and they were foreign,
I'd say, well, let's welcome them.
But it's the fact that they're trying to provoke us into a war
to fight Israel's wars on, on their behalf.
So, yeah, AIPAC is generally one of the biggest marketing forces
in America for Israel, but watch out for Russian interference.
Exactly. And you know, I mean, that's
generally like the impression I have about like AIPAC as well.
And I I'll just like cosign this idea of like the absolute
hysteria anytime anyone says something that is against AIPAC.
I mean, the reaction to Thomas Massie saying that basically
every politician in Washington DC has an AIPAC lobbyist on
speed dial. And and just like the absolute
hysteria that happens anytime anyone questions anything that
Benjamin Netanyahu does on the conservative right, you're
instantly like labeled as an anti Semite.
And now they're calling everyone the woke, right, if they dare
to, you know, talk about like the things you're talking about
with Churchill and World War 2 and all this stuff.
It, it really, it's, it's amazing to watch.
And I really do feel like, you know, October 7th to me, it was
one of those moments where you could see I, I, I felt like I
could see a lot of people in a whole new light where all of a
sudden a lot of people were calling for censorship of ideas
that they did not agree with, calling for the arrests of
students that were just sitting on a, on protesting.
I mean, the college protest did not start out with taking over
the buildings. The college protest.
And I know this because I was watching them like, just from
like live coverage on the ground from the beginning.
The college protest started out while it was an escalation that
had been happening since October 7th.
They didn't spring up out of nowhere, but they started out as
students literally sitting around on a lawn at a school
where they quite frankly pay tuition.
And then all of a sudden they're having the NYPD called out on
them and they're sitting on a lawn.
And it's like, you know, like maybe that's a little, a little
excessive. I like, we do still have the 1st
Amendment in this country. Maybe we should, you know,
respect the right of people to protest and express ideas
without calling the cops on them all the time.
When they're not doing anything wrong, they're not hurting
anything. They're just saying ideas you
don't like. And also this, the absolute
backlash on social media anytime someone says something that
might be considered against Benjamin Netanyahu or what the
government of Israel is doing, the backlash is severe.
And it's more severe than anything I that I've ever seen
come from the left, quite frankly.
What do you think? Yeah, it has just been amazing
because I went to state schools from elementary school to middle
school, high school. And then I went to Arizona State
University before getting kicked out.
And hey, if they want to give me that honorary PhD, I'd be happy
to submit The ultimate Case against the Churchill Cult for
my PhD thesis. What the what really is amazing
is that the constant vilification of whites that was
very evident from elementary school through college about how
whites are uniquely imperialist. Whites engaged in slavery,
whites engaged in Jim Crow, all these terrible things.
It was never really met with, hey, you can't be talking about
a group like that. But after about a week of
protests against Zionism and some people specifying Judaism,
Zionism is the plan for a Jewish monopolist state in Palestine.
Judaism, you're just referring to a race of people.
It's not really a religion because you can get like a 23 in
me and see if you're Jewish. It's not going to determine if
you're Protestant or Catholic because those are religions.
Judaism, I'm referring to a religion.
So finally their religion starts getting some heat, which I think
is totally unjust. I'm against all these arbitrary
divides. I really try and divide people
from smart verse ignorant and violent verse voluntarist as
much as I can. Finally they get a little heat
and they absolutely flip out. When the majority population was
relentlessly vilified non-stop. Not just by other students, by
the professors who grade your papers.
There wasn't really much resistance.
There weren't massive calls from Nikki Haley to strip these
organizations of their federal funding.
It was bash whites all you want for decades on end.
Even though the concept of slavery you can read the Code of
Hammurabi did not exactly originate in 1916, as Hannah
Nicole Jones would like us to believe.
It actually goes back thousands of years to the Middle East.
Because anytime anyone had a blank check or the ability to
exert massive amounts of force against another person for their
own personal benefit, they took that liberty.
Unfortunately, it's very sad to say.
All humans across all time. So when the idiots say the
lesson of history is don't be racist because that could lead
to slavery. The vast majority of slavery
existed before ships existed for you to go see other races in
different parts of the planet. So it's so pathetic that they
have gone. They've gotten so accustomed to
swimming with the tide, when the tide pushes against them a
little they get into to absolute hysterics.
So yes, the right wing snow flakery with regard to
questioning the Zionist regime I just think is pathetic.
There's nothing wrong with hating Zionism or really any
state operation. Of course I'm against hating
people because they're Jewish or any aspect of their race, but
Zionism? To call Zionism Judaism is just
absolutely sick and pathetic and I can't believe they call the
plan to violently establish a monopoly state is the same as
being born a certain race. That is just shocking that AIPAC
and the Ben Shapiro's of the world have convinced people and
the Dennis Prager's that that is the case.
It's just pathetic. Just admit you're wrong.
I will admire you guys more if you say, you know, I'm right
about everything except this one thing.
Shouldn't have had double standards for whites and Jews
when it comes to vilifying people.
Yeah. I mean, I said the same thing
over and over again. I was like, you know, because,
because again, like a lot of these, like a lot of these far
left groups that have been involved in the college protest.
I was, I was following them way before like October 7th.
I've been tracking them for a long time.
And it's like, you know, the, the narrative from the
conservative right, this is all anti Jewish.
They're all anti semites, They're all pro Hamas
terrorists. I'm like, that's not what's
going on at all. First of all, there are Jewish
organizations involved in the campus protest.
Jewish Voices for Peace is one of the chief organizing
organizations in the protest. And they're a far left group.
And I disagree with them on a lot, but you cannot tell me that
they're anti Jewish when they are in fact Jewish.
You can also look at, there were, if you look at footage
that was like on the ground at the campus protest, they were
having Shabbat dinners. They had rabbis come and talk to
them. There were a lot of Jewish
students involved. They did press conferences with
Jewish students where they were flat out saying this has nothing
to do with being Jewish. This has to do with the Israeli
government and a lot of these organizations on the campuses.
They existed. The boycott, divest, sanction
movement has existed forever on college campuses.
This is not a new thing. And a lot of these kid, these
protests were just extensions of the BDS protests that had
already been happening anyway. But no, it's like they ran with
this narrative and it was all anti-Semitism and anti Jewish.
And it's like if you actually looked at what was happening,
it's not about that at all. These are far left protests and
I, I fundamentally believe that some of them are genuinely
concerned about the Palestinian issue.
A lot of them though, they're just Marxists that are using
this as a way to advance their political ideology in the United
States. I've had communists on my
channel come and say that anti Fattah means worldwide socialist
revolution. That's what they mean when they
say anti Fattah. It's not about killing all the
Jews or anything like that. And it's just like, again, all
this primary source evidence exists out there and it's like
no one is looking at it. Well, it's very easy because if
the communists say free Palestine, it's like, OK, say
Israel's wiped off the map tomorrow by Iran.
Would Hamas usher in the free Society of egalitarianism and
homosexual equality that you guys want?
Is is that in their platform? Is that in their declaration of
rights? It's like, no.
Well, then why are you calling it free so long as the Zionist
state isn't there? Because it's literally just a
propaganda tool. Of course they have no real
connection to it. Mark Webber went on to, he's a
historian who went on, I think, the Montel Williams show, and
he's the one who said, why is it that we hear about the 6,000,000
so much and not the 20 million, 'cause when you say the 20
million, people seldom know who you're talking about.
The 20 million is a number from Encyclopedia Britannica claiming
that is the number of Chinese people who were killed by the
Japanese regime of Emperor Hirohito, which was evil.
But of course, that doesn't justify Hiroshima or anything.
In fact, taking down the Japanese regime who was
colonized Vietnam and Korea led to the US inheriting conflicts
in Vietnam and Korea. So I'm not justifying going to
war with Japan. However, why don't the 20
million victims of China get brought up as much?
The reason is because it's just not profitable for the overall
narrative. What these neocons hate about
and progressives also hate about this aspect of questioning
Churchill. They could always call Churchill
an. Imperialist who mistreated
Gandhi and the people of India. Calling out Churchill for his
crimes against the German civilian population is to say,
well, this narrative of history is just a bunch of white
supremacy. There's a lot of mass white
death that we have to ignore to say.
It was whites versus everyone. There were mass white deaths in
the American Civil War, the English Civil War, The First
World War was about 9 million white deaths.
The Second World War, millions of more white deaths.
It's a little harder for them to say America was a blatantly
white supremacist society and. And there was a patriarchy.
Well you can do this research on your own, but only one of the
genders was ever conscripted for the military in American
history. I won't say which gender it is,
you can check theselectiveservice.gov website
to find out, but it's not the gender you might think it is if
you hear from the progressives that all of American history is
just racist patriarchy. It was people who use the state
apparatus to their advantage when there was no check and
balance that there is in the free market.
When people are written these blank checks and they're given
state power, they're either evil 'cause that's who's attracted to
such power, or they engage in an action which raises their social
status and then later rationalize whatever they were
going to do afterwards. Yeah.
I want to run something by you. And this is a really specific
reference, so you might not have thoughts on it yet.
And I'm happy to send you the actual clip of this after the
show if you want more information.
But like, this whole thing is just like bringing to mind to me
something I watched on the channel, right?
It was right after October 7th. I want to say it was maybe like
in November of last year or something.
And it was a lecture that was given at, I believe, University
of California at Berkeley by a professor of Jewish studies out
of UC Santa Cruz. And I don't recall his name off
the top of my head, but it's definitely within the University
of California system and basically the art.
So what's been going on is that the left is trying to change the
definition of anti-Semitism in different ways.
That I think is it's just like they always play with these like
they play these language games, right?
One of the ways in which they're trying to change the definition
of anti-Semitism, and I think you might get a kick out of
this, is they're saying that you can't be anti-Semitic towards
Jewish people who have a lot of money and power because they're
pissed off at Bill Ackman for like going after.
To them, and so they're saying that you can't be anti-Semitic
towards Bill Ackman because he has all the power and all the
money. So so they're trying to change
it in that way. But this one professor in the
University of California system, he flat out said that that if
you oppose the immigration of black and brown people into the
United States, even if those people are not Jewish, that is
still anti-Semitism. What do you mean of that?
So this would be a general theory that the Jewish
population, being a world minority, is a minority in every
country except Israel. So any ethnic cohesion, any
dominant single dominant racial group within a geographical
area, France, England, Russia, Germany, America, that is a
threat to their survival as a group.
Therefore, what you need are large amounts of other groups to
come in. So no one group has so much
power that they could engage in the pogroms that the Russians
did or the Crystal Knox and Holocausts that that that the
Germans did in Poland. So that is why he's saying that
it's anti-Semitic, because when the Jews are a distinct minority
against a very clear majority, they're very likely to get their
rights trampled on. But if there are many competing
groups where there's no single white majority, then they feel
more safe. They feel safe in massive
diversity, and they feel unsafe in very heterogeneous societies.
This of course is bullshit because the wealthiest Jews on
planet earth did very well in America when it was a much more
white country than when it's becoming more diverse.
So please know I was just explaining a theory that some
Jews benefit from at the expense of everyone else, Just as some
whites. Less than 1% of whites benefited
from slavery, less than 1% of whites really benefited from the
invasion of Iraq. It's not like America benefited
some people in America. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
Halliburton, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, they benefit at the
expense of the larger population.
So when I point to Netanyahu getting very elevated and
monetary wealth and social status from the crimes of
Israel, I'm not saying this is what they Jews do.
I'm saying some people within that demographic exploit the
rest of the demo demographic so they could reap benefits at the
expense of everyone else. That's the logic of the
professor's statement. I I appreciate that that that
explanation on Earth. Who says did you see Tucker
Carlson recently said the Haitians aren't eating pets.
They're being ritualistically sacrificed by people engaging in
witchcraft. That's interesting.
What do you make of that, Keith? So he said this in his opening
monologue with a meeting he had with Charlie Kirk to an
audience. I have not seen this.
However, I wonder what the dominant religion is in Haiti.
And we know that witchcraft is certainly practice, probably in
San Francisco by those people at the Bohemian Grove every July
when they're worshipping that owl.
I don't know the details on the likelihood of Haitians engaging
in witchcraft, to what extent they take it so seriously that
they eat cats. I'm sure it, it is a thing,
though. That is absolutely devastating.
I'm, I'm, I'm sincerely disturbed by the amount of
videos that I've had to see on my timeline of people barbecuing
cats in the past. Like couple.
It really is disturbing. I'm like, and dogs, I'm like,
can you guys just stop posting this stuff?
It's like, it's like the same thing.
I'm going to go on a little bit of a tangent here.
It's like the same thing when conservatives post literal gay
porn on Twitter where I have to see penises and peeing and all
this stuff. And I'm like, I was not, I was
not emotionally prepared for this.
I don't want to see gay porn on my Twitter.
Can you guys please stop? And they're like, no, you have
to look at this. I'm like, no, I don't, I'm
sorry, like no, just stop. Mac B says the right engages in
linguistics like the left. Yes they do LK says his Estonia
Estonian facts on importing Soviets is 100% thank you LK.
And then Kate says here war is young men dying and old men
talking. Is it true the voice actor for
Winnie the Pooh did Churchill's speeches because Churchill was
too drunk? That that is something that was
popularized in a book titled Facts You Didn't Know About
History. And his name is Norman.
I forget his last name. That is something I've heard.
That is not anything that I've really looked into.
It's important to know. I waited until Churchill wrote
this down, put it in the book, sent it to a publisher, and then
I put it there. So maybe some of his speeches
were not exactly him talking, but either way you should come
out and clarify if someone else is doing the the talking for
you. I'm not sure if it was the the
Winnie the Pooh guy, but that's why I try to hang him with his
own words in his own books. Yeah, which I think is always
the smartest way to do it. Nick says Reagan said that
professor of Jewish studies is Dorian Bell.
That article in that video clip is on my sub stack.
Guys, if you want to see that clip where they're talking about
if you oppose black and brown immigration from the southern
border, even even if they're not Jewish, then it's anti-Semitic.
So I do have that archived on the sub stack for you.
So Keith, like, where do you see all this going?
How does this play out? Because I'm kind of in a
position right now where I'm in a I'm, I'm in a state of I don't
care because I kind of feel like if Kamala gets elected
president, we're going to war with Iran.
If, if, if Trump gets elected president, we're going to war
with Iran. Am I wrong?
Is there any hope? Like, so the biggest amount of
hope, it seems like Iran would be the most likely just 'cause
they don't have the nuclear arsenal that China or Russia has
and because they are in the crosshairs of Israel and
Israel's very influential in American politics.
So Iran unfortunately, is the biggest one, the one that's most
likely to take place. The best news that we have is on
November 15th of 2022, there was a bomb that went off in Poland
and killed 2 civilians. Vladimir Zelinsky came out and
said Russia has bombed Poland, NATO must respond.
To which the Pentagon didn't really have much of A statement
for a few hours and it was shocking.
Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense is his title, I believe,
came out and said upon further investigation, it looks like
this was in fact a Ukrainian defense missile.
But ultimately Putin is still at fault.
And we're looking into the matter further because Putin's
aggression has really caused this conflict which made Ukraine
bomb and it went in the wrong direction.
So that's that's the issue. Now, it's worth noting that they
didn't just run along with Zelensky and say, Yep, Russia's
now bombed Poland. Poland is a NATO ally.
We're declaring Article 5 and going to war with Russia.
What they want they, they really just want to enslave you.
But if you resist enslavement, then they'll engage in murder.
It's not that murderers at the top of their list, but it's
something they're willing to do if people don't succumb.
So there are certain moments where it's like, look, we don't
really want war with Russia. We just want to really, really
weaken Russia. So it could be the case.
They don't really want war with Iran.
They just want to sanction them to death.
Please. The Israelis, they know that
they lost a 20 year war in Afghanistan to the Taliban.
That was NATO's first ever declaration of war was in
September or October of 2001. And after 20 years, 10s of
thousands of civilian lives, thousands of American soldiers,
trillions of dollars, the Taliban took over Kabul in 11
days. And they think going to war with
Iran, who has 80 million people in their civilian population, a
geographical area much bigger than Afghanistan, that's who
they want to go to war with. The war in Iraq led to the rise
of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the empowerment and
expansion of Iranian influence in the area, the Shia influence
in the area. So look, they don't, they have
to know behind closed doors, they're like, unless we're
willing to drop our entire nuclear arsenal on a country,
we're going to lose a war. So we just have to create these
boogeymen to get the people scared so they're willing to
give up their freedom, so they don't engage in tax resistance,
so they obey the regulations and see us as the general savior.
It's a very good scam we got going.
We would hate to over expand just as the British Empire did.
Over expand like Napoleon's empire did.
The Austro Hungarian Empire was the empire to start the First
World War. They lost 1,000,000 people and
their empire was non existent within a decade.
So they know there are costs to going to massive conflicts and
the soldiers just don't have the allegiance to the ruling class
that they did maybe in the 90s or something.
So I think it's not necessarily that profitable for them to go
to war. However it still is a way that
they could really unify Americans.
George Bush after September 11th had a 91% approval rating.
Very well could be that. That's what Biden, Kamala or
Trump end up looking for as a way to unify the population.
Unfortunately. Who do you trust these days for
sources of information? Because I got it again, I got to
tell you like after October 7th, they kind of became all bets are
off and I stopped trusting basically anyone.
So who do you read that you're like, these are my go to sources
for information about like what is actually happening?
So as managing editor of the Libertarian Institute, other
people do most of the writing and I look through links there.
What I try to do is go as close to the primary documents as I
can. You look at a situation say
October 7th, you look at who was involved.
All right, Hamas and the IDF. So immediately you look at the
Hamas media office and you can read a document titled Operation
Al Aqsa Flood and that is the Hamas explanation of what
happened and why. You then can look at Haaretz and
the time of Israel, which after October 7th said the IDF
embraced the Hannibal Doctrine. You can all also look at the
Times of Israel saying that Netanyahu's plan to support
Hamas and make it so the PLO, Palestinian Liberation
Organization, which was previously under Arafat, it's
now referred to as Fatah. He wanted to weaken them.
So what he did was he had a plan with both parties in the Israeli
parliament to allocate funds for Hamas in order to bolster their
social status within the region so they could have no partner
for peace. A collection of quotes.
It's not just he didn't stop them from accessing funds.
There was an explicit plan for the head of Mossad went to Qatar
to make sure that funds were authorized to go to Hamas.
The plan is so Natali Bennett and Benjamin Netanyahu can say,
look, we have we don't have a partner for peace.
We want to give the Palestinians their state.
We can't. What do you want us to negotiate
with Hamas? A bunch of terrorists?
So that's unfortunate. So when October 7th happens, you
look at Hamas, find what they say about the situation, and
find what the new The Times of Israel and Haaretz are saying
about the situation. You also want to look at people
who have a very good track record on the issue.
This includes Scott Horton, the director of the Libertarian
Institute, with his book Enough Already Time to End the War on
Terrorism, where he gets into history of Israel.
People like Jeremy R Hammond who wrote a book Obstacle to Peace,
people like Sheldon Richmond who wrote Coming to Palestine.
These are people who've developed a very good reputation
when it comes to using primary sources to make their case for
the fact that the Israel Palestine conflict, again, is
not good country versus bad small concentration camp or
whatever you want to call Gaza. It certainly is not a state that
has a monopoly that they could actually enforce in this area.
So you want to look at the situation, look at primary
sources and look what people with good reputations about this
situation has said in the past. So looking at places like even
the Wall Street Journal or just earlier when I quoted the New
York Times, you will find articles from mainstream
outlets. So you have to say what is their
real incentive here in publishing this?
And when you have something like what I sided with Franklin
Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, they do not really have an
incentive to lie. The incentive really matters.
If OJ Simpson had come out before he died and said I didn't
kill my wife, that would not be big news.
But if he said I killed my wife, well, he has an incentive to say
he didn't. So this is something that should
pique our interest. So when establishment sources
stay, say things that are in opposition to what the Deep
state and AIPAC really want us to think, then we could see that
someone really is motivated by an attempt to get the truth out.
Get as close to primary sources as you can.
Always make sure you're reading multiple sides of the equation.
That includes people want to know about the Second World War.
There's a book titled Collection of Speeches 1922 to 1945, and
it's Hitler's speeches at that time.
So you want to go and look at what was he saying in 1933 when
he got elected? What was he saying when he went
into Poland in 39? What was he saying in 35 when he
remilitarized the Rhineland? What was he saying in his last
days, knowing that the Bolshevik are just miles away from seizing
Berlin? This is how you get an accurate
understanding of what's happening.
Yeah, no, I totally agree with that.
And that's actually something we're going to do because now
there are all these, there are all these, like, AI
reconstructions of Hitler's speeches.
And again, I'm not saying that Hitler was like a good person or
like anything like that. What I am saying is that the man
made public statements that are reflective of what he was
thinking at the time. And whether or not those public
statements are true was a different thing.
But we can learn about why he did what he did and kind of like
again, hinge back into reality. Because even with the, even with
Hitler, I feel like there's, there's been things that that
are distorted when it comes to like the myth around World War 2
where he has to be the ultimate, like most evil thing that ever
existed. And I'm not saying, I'm not
saying he was good. Again, I'm not saying he was
good. But there's more to the story
than just this one-dimensional perspective on it.
And there was, I think like an arc of this.
And so that is something that we're going to be watching on my
other on my rumble channel cuz I'm not doing that on YouTube.
But there have been all these like AI recreations of his
speeches now where they're doing it in English.
And you can actually see him giving it.
And it leaves honestly like a much different impression than
if you see it in German because German is a bit of a harsh
language sometimes. And I think it sounds angrier
sometimes than he actually was, although he certainly was a very
passionate speaker on on many occasions.
So two final things about why we should be skeptical of the
Allied countries politicians as well as the Axis.
Colonel Karla Kausen's research at the Canadian Forces College
estimates that 600,000 German men, women and children died as
a result of the direct bombing campaign of German cities during
the war from 39 to 45. Many thousands more were wounded
and mutilated. Millions more were left
homeless. In the prosecution of the
bombing campaign, the British Commonwealth lost 55,000
aircrew, 18% of which were Canadian.
So 600,000 deaths. You better have such a good case
that these deaths should have happened.
We're totally right to be mad about the 40,000 dead
Palestinians. And I get that it's a bigger
proportion of, you know, the certain of Gaza.
You know, 2 million I think is their general population.
600,000 people were supposed to just blindly say this was just
an inherently good thing. Churchill had exhausted every
single alternative and couldn't stop going to war.
If you watch Hitler's speeches, he's one of the greatest
speakers you'll ever hear, first of all.
And in one of the speeches, he says, if something should happen
to me in this military conflict, my second in command is Goring,
and my third in command is Rudolf Hess.
Now imagine Winston Churchill allocated all these resources to
just conspiring to murder Adolf Hitler.
I don't know how things would have turned out differently.
But say he did that and he murdered Adolf Hitler.
It's not like Goring or Hess ever could have mobilized the
German people in the way that Hitler did.
He really was extremely unique in the same way Vladimir Lenin
is extremely unique with his brilliance and his ability to
communicate effectively. Again, these are evil people.
The question is what would happen if they were taken out.
I don't think Germany could have committed the atrocities or
engaged in unnecessary expansion.
Maybe they could have fought the Soviets, but not engaged in
crimes. And, you know, Warsaw and
Rotterdam and London that that they ended up doing.
So there is an alternative, which is they could have gone
after the one guy who was actually guilty of of these
crimes. But 600,911 was 3000.
And we just, you know, mourned the 23rd year anniversary of it
and it was a tragedy. We're talking about 600,000,
1000 people, a lot of whom, let's say 99%, had nothing to do
with orchestrating the crimes of the National Socialist regime.
One more quote just about the Allies in general, here is
former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.
He was the Secretary of Defense during Vietnam, but in the
Second World War he worked under Curtis Lemay, and he was keeping
statistics about the US bombing campaign in Japan, McNamara says
in a documentary titled The Fog of War.
Proportionality should be a guideline in war.
Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then
bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional in the
minds of some people to the objectives we were trying to
achieve. You're not going to really
convince yourself if you look at this information that there were
good countries and bad countries.
The only consistent thesis is the pro-life, pro freedom, pro
family position that the people in countries generally are good.
The psychopaths have every incentive to seize the power of
the state. And we could say all the
politicians on all sides were evil and the conscripted
soldiers and dead civilians are the one who really deserve our
empathy. And that's why we should oppose
mass murder campaigns in the future, because that's an actual
lesson we can extract from these atrocities in the past.
I appreciate that. One last question for my Dragon
balls. If China went to war with with
Taiwan today, would the US really stand up for the island?
How much is rhetorical smoke versus actual fire?
It seems the odds would not be in our and the allies favor.
That is a very good question because it gets to the
difference between the rhetoric which they used to inflamed the
passions of their constituents versus what would actually go
down. I I think the US would respond
militarily. This is Joe Biden's position on
60 minutes and it was never clarified by the director of
National Intelligence. Biden was explicitly asked on 60
minutes. So unlike Ukraine, where we're
just sending assistance and some volunteers are going, but not at
the direction of the president, You're saying U.S. troops would
fight on behalf of Taiwan against the government of China.
Joe Biden says, well, that's what we signed on to and the.
Viewer asking for clarification. So you would send U.S. troops
and Biden says yes. So that is the official
position. They very well might do it.
Or they could just say, say China stages a coup and now
Taiwan is completely under the control of China.
If the claim is we don't want them to have access to
semiconductors, why don't we just keep trading with China
like we already trade with them billions of dollars a year or
sorry, microchip investors, you're going to have to build
your new facility in Texas or Arizona.
Intel came to Arizona when they didn't like the deal that they
were getting wherever they came from.
So there are very low cost, easy alternatives to peace, which is
decriminalize all capitalist acts between consenting adults
in America. And we would have an economy
that China could never compete with.
But they don't have that incentive.
They have the incentive to go to war.
I am afraid that because they really see China as the ultimate
competitor, that they would go to war with China and threaten
nuclear weapons to be used because it's just such a threat
to their ego. The concept that there's a
bigger kid on the block, This would be the justification.
They're already playing with matches with regard to giving
that using NATO fighter pilots to go into Moscow to fight on
behalf of Zelensky's regime. So Taiwan is definitely one that
I'm really scared of. And it's completely
unjustifiable that JD Vance is a hawk on this issue when he
should just say, you know what I don't like when we employ people
in other countries while there's poverty in America.
We're going to abolish all commercial regulation and
incentivize everyone to invest in America.
That's what's going to create jobs.
That's what gives consumers more options.
That's what increases the supply of chips.
That's what lowers the the cost of these items so more people
can have access to them at lower income levels.
That the free market really is a great, what you could call
bulwark against the reality of mass warfare because it's
cheaper to trade with people than to go conquer them when
you're creating enemies and you might get shot at and killed and
your family might also have to suffer.
China's one I'm really afraid of, but there's no that there's
nothing like what what the neocons tell us.
Our hands are tied. We have to go to war.
There's no other option. There is another option that
doesn't really involve the military at all.
Decriminalize all capitalist acts between consenting adults
so our economy cannot be competed with man Keith Knight,
thank you so much again for coming on the channel guys, just
in case you you missed it, I want to just point you to
Keith's awesome article over on the Libertarian Institute, which
is a definitely a source you guys should keep and pay
attention to. I put that link in the chat.
This is the ultimate case against the Churchill cult,
which he has just published, which has all the facts that you
can, all the primary sources that he's been citing throughout
this thing. And this is one of the reasons I
love talking to Keith because he brings the primary sources and
he's so knowledgeable about all this stuff and I really
appreciate it. You can also follow him, follow
him on Twitter at an under score Capitalist, and I highly
recommend you do. I just think he's one of the
most intelligent people out there commenting on this stuff
right now. Always brings a great kind of
even keel perspective to it, which I really appreciate.
Keith, thank you so much again for coming on the channel.
I have one gift for the audience.
If you want this book, Domestic Imperialism, 9 Reasons I left
progressivism, go to libertarianinstitute.org.
Look in the book section for domestic imperialism and you'll
get a free PDF of the entire book.
This is 15 years of research in a very, very thin, easy to read
book. Oh, we love that.
Like like good meaty research, but easy to read and not that
much to read. So, so I love that.
So guys, again, that's libertarian institute dot dot
org. Thank you for coming out today,
Keith. Certainly you're welcome back on
the channel anytime and would love to have you.
And guys, just so you know, we're going to be wrapping up
the stream now, but we do have a community Zoom call coming up in
a little bit. We do community Zoom calls every
Monday at 7:00 PM and we do them on Wednesdays at noon.
And how you get invited to my community Zoom call is you head
over to my sub stack, which is Karlin Karl yn.substack.com.
You can listen to the new podcast.
I've listened, I've put up saying basically James Lindsay,
it's time to put up or shut up and debate me.
You can read the very specific grievances that I have with
James. If you don't want that drama,
hey, check check out the unwoke Zine project because last week
we did a great 2 hour workshop where we taught you how to make
basically unwoke propaganda and it was awesome and it was
amazing. That's completely free available
now on the sub stack and of course one of the best
resources. If you are new to my work and
you want to get introduced to the radical far left, head over
to the sub stack, click on How to speak Socialist at the top,
and access the four hour on demand crash course where I will
bring you through dozens of clips from radical far leftist
trainings to show you what the left is saying to breakdown the
language to explain it. There is no one else with this
type of content on the Internet and it is completely free for
you guys. Please watch it, please share
it, and I will be back tomorrow for another stream at 5:00 PM.
Take care guys. Thank you for coming out, we'll
see you soon. Bye.