From Rumors to Reality: Trump, Perception, and Politics

What if everything you thought about current politics was built on a house of cards? Join us in a thought-provoking episode where Ron Brown, along with special guests Mikey Fever and the Grand Sheik, the National Press Secretary of MSTA Inc., embark on a deep dive into Project 2024 and the bewildering landscape of contemporary politics. We kick off with an urgent clarification, dispelling the alarming rumor about Donald Trump being shot, and then transition to a compelling examination of Naomi Wolf's revelations on governmental manipulation of public perception. Using the Boston Marathon bombing as a case study, we stress the necessity of questioning the authenticity of news events to stay informed and vigilant.

Have you ever questioned the true nature of political shifts and the ideologies driving them? We critically assess the controversial allegations surrounding a supposed shooting incident involving Donald Trump, hinting at possible inside involvement and its subsequent impact on legal cases against him. Our conversation broadens to explore the rise of Christian nationalism within American conservatism and its influence on the Republican Party, drawing links to socio-political polarization and identity power struggles. We also delve into the complex dynamics between experts and presidential appointees, the cultural repercussions faced by public figures in politically charged climates, and the importance of preparedness for unforeseen events.

Is the Republican Party evolving or merely diversifying its strategies? In our final chapters, we reflect on the journey of two brothers active in politics, emphasizing the importance of civic engagement and the role of diverse representation within the party. We dissect the intricacies of political marketing and identity politics, comparing the tactics of both major parties and the conditioning of public perception through media. From addressing the nuanced political beliefs held by many Americans to the critical nature of political discourse, this episode underscores the necessity of respectful dialogue and morally grounded participation to shape a positive political future. Tune in for an enriching exploration of today's political climate, filled with insights and reflec

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

All right, what's going on? Everybody, it's Ron Brown, lmt. I don't have to say the whole thing. We already know who I am. You know what I mean. I got the fatigue on it's wartime. You know what I mean. We got Mikey Fever in the building and we got the Grand Sheik in the building, national Press Secretary, msta Inc. You know, and you know he really needs no introduction, introduction, so let's go into it.

Speaker 1: 0:25

Project 2024 now I'm gonna be honest with you, with you brothers. Man, I have no, I no clue about what project 2025 is. I barely watch what trump is, what trump's doing. Honestly, just to keep it transparent, keep it a buck. I kind of stopped following politics a long time ago because I realized something's wrong with this system. Right now, I don't know what it is. I'm lost, so forget about it. This is crazy. Let me just focus on myself. That's what happened with that Agreed. What's next? What was the other one? And we're going to talk about Amber Rose. I saw a post you sent you know everybody about Amber Rose, so let's talk about it. Let's start off with Donald Trump. Donald Trump got shot in the ear, greased. He got shot by a sniper, young man, right, you got to correct that guy.

Speaker 2: 1:27

Donald Trump Shakur Y'all funny.

Speaker 3: 1:30

Y'all got jokes. So I mean, wow, there's a lot I can say about a lot of this, but I'm going to speak. I want to speak intelligently and I want to speak responsibly, because we're not getting a lot of this. But I'm going to speak intelligently and I want to speak responsibly Because we're not getting a lot of that. We're not getting a lot of that. Let's just keep it a buck. We're not getting a lot of responsible discourse on these matters. Right Back in, I believe it was 2015,. Maybe it might have been even before then. Yeah, it might have even been before then. There was there's this reporter by the name of Naomi Wolf, and there's this reporter by the name of Naomi Wolf, right, she worked for the White House. At a particular point asked her about the Boston Marathon. Remember the Boston Marathon bombing?

Speaker 2: 2:52

Yes, sir, 2013?.

Speaker 3: 2:54

That was 2013. So somebody had asked Naomi Wolf about that, and, yeah, she speaks on it. But what she's speaking on is the fact and this is what everybody needs to pay attention to the fact that there was a law passed. I forgot the actual name of the law, but the law made it legal. First, let me back up.

Speaker 3: 3:31

There's something that's called we call it state craft or spy craft, right, so we're talking about, like, what the CIA does. Okay, in the interest of American security, they do things that disrupt and overthrow other governments. The way in which they do it, among others, many ways that it's done, but one of the most common ways it's done is creating circumstances. How do you create circumstances and conditions? You insert an idea into a sufficient amount of people. How do you do that? An event? So how do they do it? We're talking statecraft here. We're talking spycraft.

Speaker 3: 4:24

Fake newspaper articles that's how it's done. Fake events, false flag events. What is this called? It's called propagandizing. You propagandize an entire population. Well, this is what's done all over the world. Okay, we'd be fools to think it's not done in the United States by the United States. Well, this law literally made it legal for the American government or agencies on behalf of to propagandize its own citizens. This is important people. Okay, naomi Wolfe herself said, a reporter and a consultant to the White House at one point said moving forward, every conscientious American citizen has to seriously question every event they see in the newspapers or on the news and have to ask themselves is it real or is it propaganda? Now she was speaking specifically in this case, about the Boston Marathon bombing and she basically was saying, yeah, that was a false flag event, specifically in this case about the Boston Marathon bombing, and she basically was saying, yeah, that was a false flag event, but real people died, so don't think that just because somebody physically actually expired, that it's not propaganda.

Speaker 2: 6:01

That's real. So, Reef, are you saying it's like the whack the dog movie? Absolutely and um, you said. As far as propaganda, as you mentioned, there are special interest groups that do input these emotions and events. It's like similar to like the hegelian dialect, like I'll create a conflict and give you the solution. Yes, yes, absolutely. This is, this is yes.

Speaker 3: 6:24

Yes, absolutely. This is what's happening. She said this a number of years ago, over 10 years ago.

Speaker 1: 6:36

So are you insinuating that this is the same thing happening with Trump right now?

Speaker 3: 6:43

How did? Who said this? Franklin Delano Roosevelt said it this way. He said everything that happens in politics happens on purpose. If it happened, it was meant to happen that way for you to see it. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that was meant to happen that way for you to see it.

Speaker 1: 7:08

Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that oh, wow, I got Dr Peshari in the building. Peace brother, we went to. Well, we didn't go to school together, we went to the same school. I think I saw him there, pecom, he's an acupuncturist and, uh, herbalist and everything like that. Pcu brother, the twins are in the building. What's up? The twins are in the building. You said, wow, what does that mean? Man, speak up. I want to. I want to see what you got to say about that awareness. Daily, what's up? Thank you for tuning in once again. Daily, what's up? Thank you for tuning in Once again, irie. What's going on? Peace to everybody in the chat. My bad, I don't mean to cut you off.

Speaker 3: 7:49

No problem. This is important to Hold on. This is very, very important to point out people. It's very important to point out that it is now legal to propagandize the American public, the American government. It's legal to do so. American author and political consultant who's openly saying you gotta question whether what you're watching is false flag or real news.

Speaker 2: 8:38

Like the moon landing.

Speaker 1: 8:40

Hey, you know what I'm saying so me like just not paying attention to politics a while ago.

Speaker 3: 8:47

It is a valid reason, right I'm sorry say that again bro so there's a valid reason for me not paying attention to politics at that, you know well, here's the thing, right, I get, not I get, because that's another aspect or another symptom, another effect of the cause is to overwhelm people so much that they just tune out. But you've got to remember, this is the American system of government, right, which means the people rule, by way of elected representatives, indeed, and we can't get around that, so we are not participating. That makes it better for the bad guys. Are our sleeves heavy? Do we have a lot? We got to work. Yeah, we got a lot.

Speaker 1: 9:41

Got a lot to learn.

Speaker 3: 9:42

We got a lot to learn, see, I'm glad you said that, brother. Right, I'm glad you said that we got to know the game we're in. Many of us are in the game and don't know the game because we're citizens, which we are. That means we're in the game.

Speaker 2: 10:00

Motions. They don't go with logic or follow policy.

Speaker 3: 10:03

And guess what that's called from the political perspective? Prophet Nobile Dali called it political slavery. Two types of political slavery, and this is really good to lead off with before we get into the actual topic. Two types of political slavery. One non-participation, that's type political slavery. The second type of political slavery is being compelled to one side, to one party or another party, whether that party really represents your interests or not. That is the part of. That is the level of political slavery that many of us are suffering from.

Speaker 1: 10:46

You did, brother, you did tell me that brother.

Speaker 3: 10:51

We are suffering from that. We're suffering from oh, I'm on the right, oh, I'm on the left. Okay, what are your issues? And when I say your, I don't mean issues as an individual. I mean what are the issues in your community, in your peer group, in your social group? That's what I mean. What are your issues?

Speaker 3: 11:18

See, the way the game is supposed to work, the political game is supposed to work, is it's issues-based politics, not party politics. Parties are vehicles and people get in vehicles and out of vehicles. As a reminder, you have people on the right. I'm not anti-right and pro-left or pro-left, I'm neither one. I just have to say that. Okay, but as a reminder, you've got people nowadays right on the side of the right talking about oh, the Democratic Party is the party of the KKK. Why would you, why would Black people vote for them? While on the surface that is true, the KKK was born out of people. I have to say that because parties aren't people, parties are vehicles. The KKK was born out of people, then affiliated with the Democratic Party I have to say it that way because that's accurate then affiliated with the democratic party. If you avail yourself study of the southern strategy, you will see the point in history where those very same people abandoned the democratic party and went to the republican party didn't you build on that last week?

Speaker 2: 12:43

yes, yes, see, there's the bloody shirt, that's right that's right.

Speaker 3: 12:48

So the so, so and and all it takes, all it takes to throw light on that is this during the time period in question, I'm talking pre-1965. Let's go to the 20s, 30s, whatever. Yeah, prophet Noble Juali said that the watchdog of the Moors is not a dog but an elephant. He said that why? Because at that time period the Republican Party championed abolitionism, it championed anti-slavery. That's what it did. But guess what people? Those issues were considered liberal issues, not conservative. So during that era of time, the Republican Party was considered the party of liberalism. The Democratic Party was the party of conservatism and conservatism. Well, those people that consider themselves conservative favored slavery. Their ideological descendants are where today?

Speaker 3: 13:54

The Republican Party and I'm not saying they're Republicans, listen, I'm going to be very, very accurate people I'm not saying they're Republicans, I'm saying they hijacked the Republican Party. Remember, parties are vehicles, not people. They hijacked the Republican Party, just like another interest hijacked the Democratic Party endurance of mind. To be able to tell the difference between the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle. That takes more brain power that many of us are willing to muster up, because that's not easy. Real thinking is not easy. That's why the prophet said if I can get you to think save yourself.

Speaker 2: 15:01

I learned a lot of nonsense that you wouldn't. A lot of misinformation.

Speaker 3: 15:03

You know what I'm saying yeah. That alone. What I just said, is very, very important as we go into the topic, because it's too easy for us to pick a side. See that Too easy. It's way too easy, and I don't want to get ahead of myself. But that's why they can put up and no disrespect to the system, but that's why they can put up an Amber Rose in front of our people and basically say this is your leader.

Speaker 2: 15:40

And he got the vote, or die from 2004.

Speaker 4: 15:43

See what I'm saying.

Speaker 2: 15:44

We'll throw Diddy up in there. We'll throw Jay-Z with Hillary and Beyonce. You get it yeah.

Speaker 3: 15:52

And very few people at least openly ask the question what in the world do they got to do with social politics?

Speaker 2: 15:59

Exactly.

Speaker 3: 16:02

You see what I'm saying. What do they know about social politics? What do they know about social politics? What do they know about government?

Speaker 1: 16:11

Now I know you usually take things from knowledge of born right. So you know I don't want to, I didn't want to like let's not jump ahead. Right, right, exactly. I don't want to jump ahead. So we're back to Donald Trump. Right, he was shot. You say that it was, possibly it could have been propagandized.

Speaker 3: 16:38

Let's go from knowledge to born. Let's go from the known to the unknown. Let's go from the known to the unknown. What we don't know is the true motives of whoever orchestrated what took place. We don't know the true motives. Ok, we don't know the true motives, but I can tell you what we do know, and I don't have to, I'm just listen. I'm just repeating what other experts have already said. They've already stated the obvious. Let's start with the individual that did the shooting. Let's start with him. He ends up on a roof well within the perimeter, well within the perimeter, and a vantage point that should have been covered by the Secret Service and the police. Nobody can argue with that. No one can argue with that. No one can argue with that. What can we logically deduce from that statement, from those facts? What can we logically deduce? Here it is people. This is what we can logically deduce. He didn't get up there without help.

Speaker 2: 18:05

He was visible plain as day. He didn't get there without help. He was visible plain as day. He didn't get there without a system.

Speaker 1: 18:09

It's like an inside situation, like an inside job Right but see now inside brings up a couple questions.

Speaker 3: 18:16

You see what I'm saying. It could be what the pro-Trumpers are saying. The pro-Trumpers are saying that it was an inside job to get rid of Trump. Maybe, maybe, not. Okay, you know, let's look at it like this. There's that dreaded question. That's said in Latin, che bono, which means who benefits? So let's look at the entire scenario, how things happen. However they happen, who benefits? Tell me, it's obvious, who benefits. Who benefits?

Speaker 1: 19:03

From Trump.

Speaker 3: 19:05

Trump benefits Hands down, hands down. What happens days later? Oh, the the the secret documents case Dropped.

Speaker 1: 19:21

Oh, what Dropped.

Speaker 3: 19:24

Dropped Okay.

Speaker 1: 19:26

Dropped. Okay, they dropped it, oh sorry.

Speaker 3: 19:36

Yeah, they dropped it, bro. They dropped the charges.

Speaker 2: 19:39

Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3: 19:43

In the book of Revelations and I'm not making a prophecy, I'm just making a statement. In the book of Revelations it talks about a beast and it said that beast got its power from the dragon. I think Mikey knows where I'm going with this. In Revelations it says one of the heads of that beast was wounded and then the wound on that head Miraculously healed and then the people worshipped the beast and said who is like unto the beast? Who can make war with him?

Speaker 2: 20:16

Yeah, we can go further If you take that one out, those will know, let's look at some other things.

Speaker 3: 20:29

Let's look at security protocol. We've all seen the video. If not, it's around the scene, right, the video of the View of behind the podium when Trump is speaking. Seconds Before, seconds before the shots of behind the podium where Trump is speaking. Seconds before seconds before the shots rang out, a Secret Service agent, or someone dressed like one, starts doing two things. He starts moving the camera people and while he's moving the camera people, he's halfway ducked down already. And while he's moving the camera people, he's halfway ducked down already. He moves the camera people to an optimum place. For what?

Speaker 2: 21:20

For what? Why is he moving the camera people?

Speaker 3: 21:26

Catch the shot, capture. We saw the shots that were captured. Didn't we Very opportunistic, weren't they?

Speaker 2: 21:34

Very.

Speaker 1: 21:35

You know what I was thinking about when I heard the shots. Well, I wasn't there right, but I heard it on a video. What kind of caliber gun was that?

Speaker 3: 21:45

It was an AR-15.

Speaker 1: 21:46

AR-15.

Speaker 3: 21:49

Allegedly. Well, let's just say that the shooter had an AR-15. Let's just say that, yeah, let's just say that. Okay Now, which brings up another point that we know. Right Now, which brings up another point that we know right Standard procedure for such a security team. Right Standard procedure for such a security team. Would that include listen close Standard procedure for such a security team. Would that include listen close, holding the subject stationary right where the shots took place or allegedly were aimed?

Speaker 2: 22:34

No, it would have been shielded. It would have been shielded. I don't know that Exactly Okay.

Speaker 3: 22:40

With his head exposed.

Speaker 2: 22:42

Exactly.

Speaker 3: 22:47

Long enough to say fight a few times and pump his fist.

Speaker 2: 22:50

Mm-hmm.

Speaker 3: 22:53

And before they were told or before they were informed that there were. Because, first of all, how do they know it was just one shooter? How did they? All right, you see their word. Because, first of all, how do they know it was just one shooter? How did they? All right, you?

Speaker 2: 23:11

see yeah.

Speaker 3: 23:12

This whole thing is bad.

Speaker 2: 23:15

But you know. Say it again, Brother Mikey it wasn't surveilled correctly because nobody could not be a non-rufer. Only person that could be a non-rufer was law enforcement.

Speaker 1: 23:24

How about? How about? Hold on, I like this. I like what this brother said right here. Go ahead. Uh, he said the case was going to be dropped. It was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional.

Speaker 2: 23:37

That's true. She's probably referring to the second unconstitutional appointment.

Speaker 3: 23:41

I don't understand, you know, constitutional appointment. I don't understand. The case that I'm talking about in particular was the case on Trump having secret documents.

Speaker 1: 23:55

That's what I'm talking about. Okay, yeah.

Speaker 3: 24:01

Yeah, I was dropped. But back on what I was saying. I'm Another issue the sniper that took the shot right allegedly reported that he had a bead on the shooter A full three minutes and was told to stand down. And was told to stand down. How about the obvious, the other obvious stuff that people in plain view that were there for rally were pointing at the shooter minutes before and pointing them out to Secret Service and the police, who did nothing, See? So I say all that to say this Does this look like propagandizing? Absolutely? Do we know to what end? No, we don't, we don't, but propagandizing it looks like it. There's a, there's a lot of evidence pointing towards such an incident.

Speaker 1: 25:34

Yes, Okay, that being said, from the day he was appointed, he was not approved by the Senate. Jack Smith was not approved by the Senate. He was unilaterally appointed by Merrick Garland.

Speaker 3: 25:51

I'm not sure what that has to do with the.

Speaker 1: 25:53

It has to do with the this the documents case was unconstitutional, appointed by a special counsel, I think he's referring to after things happened. I think he said Trump's case was dropped, or something like that.

Speaker 3: 26:14

Yeah, that particular case was dropped days after this.

Speaker 1: 26:18

Yeah, so this is his response. It was his response to it.

Speaker 3: 26:23

Okay, gotcha.

Speaker 1: 26:24

Okay, so now to go. I want to go into Project 2025, because I don't know anything about that whatsoever. What is it exactly? Project 2025?

Speaker 3: 26:35

because I don't know anything about that whatsoever. What is it exactly? Project 2025. Project 2025.

Speaker 2: 26:40

It has the internet in a frenzy. People on social media are like losing their marbles.

Speaker 3: 26:46

Let's begin with this Project 2025. Let's begin with this. The obvious. Let's just start with the obvious stuff. The people, the architects we're talking about the Heritage Foundation, right and the people involved or connected to the Heritage Foundation or members of the Heritage Foundation that crafted this thing, that designed it right, are all connected to former President Trump, all of them Directly. Yet President Trump says I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I don't know what it is. What does that tell you? Let's just go with that. Let's just start with that psychologically. What does that tell you? Let's just go with that. Let's just start with that psychologically.

Speaker 2: 27:37

What does that tell you? You got to play it clean Distance himself, so the obvious don't be exposed. They work with him. I believe they work with him in his past, of course they do.

Speaker 3: 27:50

So that's again. It's like your son or daughter Right Saying I didn't eat the cookies, but they got cookie crumbs here. It's not. We're not even questioning whether they're telling the truth or not. We're questioning why are they lying now?

Speaker 1: 28:13

We're questioning why are they lying now? Okay, real quick.

Speaker 3: 28:19

If you could kind of bring me up to speed to what.

Speaker 1: 28:20

What the Heritage Foundation is. Say what.

Speaker 3: 28:22

What the Heritage Foundation is.

Speaker 1: 28:24

The Project 2025?.

Speaker 3: 28:27

So, Project 2025 is literally a plan of operation for Trump when he gets back in office. Notice the wording I used Okay, all right. Okay when he's back in office, when 45 becomes 47, it's a plan already put in place to be ready to go Okay when he's back in office. That plan was drafted by the heritage foundation, which is a right wing think tank. Okay, now let's be clear, and I mentioned it before. Let's be very clear when we say the right or right wing today, what are we really saying? What do we really mean? What's really meant? Let me not say what we really mean. What's really meant by right wing? What is defined as right wing today?

Speaker 3: 29:36

conservative issues that's what I would think of course, that's what you would think right, follow my example. Follow my example. A number of years ago, ro Roland Martin had Richard Spencer on his show. Richard Spencer at the time well, he still is, I believe he was a prominent Christian nationalist, a prominent white supremacist. His name was Richard Spencer. Roland Martin thought he had him on the ropes. He said you know, yeah, I'm a. You know I believe in human equality. You know I'm a man, I'm a Christian. Then he said are you a Christian? To Richard Spencer? Richard Spencer says okay, yeah. He goes no, no, what do you mean? What do you mean? You're either a Christian or you're not a Christian.

Speaker 3: 30:45

He thought he had Richard Spencer on the ropes. Richard Spencer says well, I'm a cultural Christian. He goes what do you mean? What do you mean? A cultural Christian? What do you mean? What do you mean a cultural Christian? What do you mean? Richard Spencer then says Right, only in recent time listen close people. He said only in recent time In our history, when he said our history, he's talking about quote unquote white people. He said only in recent time has Christianity been associated with a certain type of morality. He said I am a cultural Christian.

Speaker 2: 31:38

I believe that Christianity speaks to my identity.

Speaker 3: 31:40

That's what he said, I see where you're taking this.

Speaker 3: 31:44

You see it right, yeah, okay. Nationality, right. So we think a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus the Christ. That's not what they think a Christian is. That's why, as late as the 2000s, early 2000s, there's a play where Jesus is being played by a man whose skin looks like mine, and European Americans went crazy when they know that the historical Jesus didn't look like them. You understand what I'm saying? Okay. So when we say right, we're thinking, okay. Conservatism, yes. Promote business yes. Conserve money yes, right. Kind of strict on, maybe abortion Okay, get it. Promote business yes. Conserve money yes, right. Kind of strict on, maybe abortion okay, get it Right. It's not what they're thinking. It's not what the right is. Okay, it's not what the Republican Party is. The Republican Party was hijacked by a special interest group. That special interest group is Christian nationalism, make no mistake. When we're talking about Make America Great Again, when they say that, what are they talking about? They're talking about post-World War II, jim Crowism, america, make no mistake.

Speaker 2: 33:22

They're Puritanry. That's what it?

Speaker 3: 33:24

is it's Euro-Christian patriarchal rule, and everybody else is a distant second.

Speaker 2: 33:31

Sounds like CMB Clock of Destiny. It's that old the cross versus the crescent. It's what it of Destiny, it's that old the cross versus the crescent.

Speaker 3: 33:38

It's what it is. And the thing is that they're saying the quiet part out loud now. They're saying the quiet part out loud, now, right. So let's get into it, brother, ron. Right Again. Project 2025 it's called the Mandate for Leadership 2025, the conservative promise. They're not even listen. They're right out front with it. They're literally telling you we are, you ever had somebody follow me? You ever had somebody somebody follow me? You ever had somebody misjudge something you said and took it the wrong way and then said because you did that, I'm going to do it back.

Speaker 3: 34:26

So Trump being prosecuted, right, tried and sentenced on 34 crimes, 34. How is the quote-unquote right taking that? Oh, the Biden and Obama. They can't get over Obama, can't get over it. The Biden and Obama administrations have weaponized the federal government against Trump. This is what's being said. This is what's being said. So, therefore, project 2025 is us weaponizing the government against them, flat out, the government against them, flat out. It is a mandate. That's what it is. It is tit for tat, government weaponization. We are going to go after our enemies, our political enemies.

Speaker 3: 35:31

See, this is where we are with American politics today, the political climate. It is no longer two sides fighting for a better America. You know, or two perspectives with the same objective. It's no longer that. It's over. You've got one side saying they are patriots, meaning true Americans, and the others are worthy of death. That's what's being said. The others are worthy of death. You know how many videos are out there now Talking about people saying you all were just one inch that bullet, was one inch away From ending President Trump or ending Trump. You all were one inch away from ending President Trump or ending Trump. You all were one inch away. You leftists, you liberals were one inch away, one inch away from a bloodbath that you could never survive. This is the sentiment people Didn't Homeboy say that?

Speaker 2: 36:27

The founder of the Heritage Foundation said if the election is not stolen, if it goes clean, it could either be bloody or not, depending on how he said.

Speaker 3: 36:37

This is exactly what he said, and this is a guy with the Heritage Foundation Crafted Project 2025. He publicly said it. He said we are on the verge of a second American revolution and it will be bloodless if the left allows it. That's what he said, in other words. So these same people that are like, oh my God, political violence. They shot at Trump are the same people that have been chanting political violence for years now. For years, For years, they've been talking political violence.

Speaker 2: 37:17

Saturday mobilized. All of them, all these groups From Saturday. They got mobilized. They know what time it is now.

Speaker 3: 37:25

They motivated we have to make heads and tails of what we're dealing with. We have to see it with clear eyes, people, and clear eyes means you cannot be co-opted by one side or the other. You can't be, you can't be co-opted by one side or the other. See, the whole Project 2025 thing is a feigned response to Trump's legal prosecution. A feigned response to Trump's legal prosecution, oh. Federal government Okay, brother Sharif, that sounds crazy. Can you prove that? Sure, let's look at some of the significant points in Project 2025. Defunding the FBI and Homeland Security oh, that's in there. That's in there, woo, but follow me. But immunity to municipal police agencies Did you hear me?

Speaker 2: 38:39

I hear what you're saying, Reeve.

Speaker 3: 38:40

Did you hear me Immunity?

Speaker 2: 38:45

Immunity. I think it goes both ways. It's crazy, though I think it goes both ways. Immunity, yeah.

Speaker 3: 38:51

Okay, let's talk about that for a quick second. What are the implications?

Speaker 2: 38:58

Police get to do whatever they feel, but it could go both ways. Right, I'm going to play devil's advocate. Probably they're concerned about this whole migrant thing and people who are viewed as demagogues and creating violence. They feel like police could do whatever they want instead of waiting for higher ups to tell them what to do. Here we go you ready, neutralize, let's just call it. Let's just call it out. Yeah, of course.

Speaker 3: 39:27

How did we, how did we, how, what? What did we do just now with and again, this is not me saying I'm pro-left anti-right because I'm not. I'm not pro-left anti-right, I'm not pro-right anti-left either.

Speaker 2: 39:41

Exactly.

Speaker 3: 39:42

Okay, but we're going to call it what it is. What did we say? Has taken over the right Nationalists? Christian nationalism has taken over the right Nationalists. Christian nationalism is taking over the right Bottom line, bottom line, all right.

Speaker 3: 40:00

In 2005, the FBI published a report it's online, you can go download it Informing the government and the public that nearly every municipal police agency in the country has been infiltrated by white supremacist groups. I remember that. Now you have your answer. Why would they defund FBI and Homeland Security? Why do they want to defund those two? Here we go. People, the big here it is, listen close. The big reason they're saying we're going to do this huge, gigantic government overhaul Is to shrink government Because government has gone too big. The left wants big, overbearing government and so we want to shrink government. We want to make government small. Now follow me, I'm not mad at that. I'm not mad at having smaller government. But let's be real. Is the right really talking about smaller government when one of the points in Project 2025, right will place all independent agencies, like the Department of Justice, directly under presidential control?

Speaker 2: 41:31

Directly under presidential control, people Is that making government smaller directly under presidential control. People.

Speaker 3: 41:36

That's wrong. Is that being government small? No, that just turns a president into a king.

Speaker 2: 41:46

It's beyond executive orders huh.

Speaker 3: 41:49

That turns a president into a monarch. That's what it does. That's what it does.

Speaker 1: 41:57

That's what that does. So now, project 2025 is a project already created that's ready to roll out.

Speaker 3: 42:08

Ready to roll out, bro. Guess what one of the other tenants is? Shout out to Amber Rose. Shout out to you, know whatever. Guess what one of the other tenets is? Shout out to Amber Rose. Shout out to you, know whatever. Guess what one of the other tenets is in project 2025 eliminating African American studies at all levels of education eliminating banning books on slavery that's part of project 2025. Banning books on slavery that's part of Project 2025. Here's another one you ready Banning.

Speaker 2: 42:47

Muslims from entering the country. That's wild Yep. That's wild Yep. That's crazy. The benefits of doing that. Here's another one you ready Eliminating the Department of Education and putting what in place after doing that. Good question, good point.

Speaker 3: 43:11

Good question.

Speaker 1: 43:16

Ending birthright citizenship.

Speaker 3: 43:27

There's many more in Project 2025. Those are just some. Those are just some pretty interesting ones for our interest group aren't they that?

Speaker 1: 43:43

was wild man. That sounds wild.

Speaker 2: 43:44

I doubt that one. Yeah, I neither care for whether Republican or Democrat, because I look at it as the left wing, right wing. Same bird Politics make strange bedfellows. My concern is I'd like to know what's going to happen with the people and see if this thing does go into action. Will it create some kind of chaos? Some kind of uprising will take place.

Speaker 3: 44:15

I'm sorry say it again.

Speaker 2: 44:18

Will an uprising take place amongst the people?

Speaker 3: 44:22

We're definitely going to see that. Yeah, we're definitely going to see that.

Speaker 2: 44:32

I can see that happening Because you know I've been catching a little few Videos here and there. I just downloaded the document Myself. I'm gonna go through it and From what I see, as you mentioned, the nationalists take come taking place in there. They involve. I want to, I really want, I really want to what these other groups are willing to do to try To counter this thing well, here's the Thing.

Speaker 3: 44:54

Okay, make no mistake, christian nationalism right, christian nationalism. Christian nationalism wants to see a throwback to the 1940s America. They're not even quiet about it. That's what they want to see. The question we have to ask is are we okay with that?

Speaker 2: 45:34

I doubt that there we go. You say removing the birth, right. So say, for instance, you're not your parents, come to this land to give birth to you.

Speaker 3: 45:46

Brother, think about your situation, what that would say, what that means for my key fever.

Speaker 2: 45:51

Although I was born here, that means that by itself from my key fever, although I was born here, oh, that was the same.

Speaker 3: 45:56

That means that by itself would not get you citizenship. Find that funny.

Speaker 2: 46:10

I was born in killer County hospital, brooklyn, so good luck with that. So now, the question's now become what would be the criteria for citizenship? That's true, but that would negate them if we can go further back in the history.

Speaker 3: 46:30

You got it Okay, hold on. Hold on. Now you want to familiarize yourself With See. To the victor belongs the spoils. Am I right Of?

Speaker 2: 46:46

course, we know that already.

Speaker 3: 46:49

So the victor gets to determine what the criteria is, of course. So let's talk about the Chevron deference. People need to know what Chevron deference is, what it is Right, alright. So the Chevron deference issue right in generalizing it. You have different agencies. You've got government right. Let's make it. Let's take it to a local level, let's take it to New York City. You've got the Common Council right. Yep, that's Common Council, it's a legislative body. You got the executive body, which is the mayor and his cabinet, right Yep, okay, that's checks and balances. Right. Now, what do they manage? They manage the public pot. They manage the tax dollars. They manage the money on behalf of the people. And do what? Provide services on behalf of the people. And do what? Provide services on behalf of the people. But what do the people on the Common Council know about aviation? What do they know about trash disposal? What do they know about public safety? What do they know about? You get it.

Speaker 3: 48:10

So, what do they do? They contract out with agencies that are skilled knowledgeable in these fields, and these agencies then provide services on behalf of government. That's just smart.

Speaker 2: 48:30

Oh, so I got you. So Project 2025 negates all that In essence. I want to explain it.

Speaker 3: 48:33

So the viewers can negates all that In essence. I want to explain it so the viewers can really get it. In essence it does. Here we go In laws, follow me Regarding let's just say, let's say Vitamins, let's say vitamins and health food Any law regarding these things. Where there's any ambiguity in the law this is called the Chevron deference Any ambiguity in that law, the final determination is made by the expert. Get it by the expert, get it by the expert. So those on the right are saying, oh, that's an overreach of government and it's unconstitutional. So what's happened is that that's been pulled back, understand, so that the determination where there's ambiguity is now made by somebody appointed by the president.

Speaker 2: 49:41

That's crazy. So checks and balances have been.

Speaker 3: 49:46

Now the argument is like yeah, do you mean to tell me you believe that the heads of the FDA have your best interests? No, I don't believe they do.

Speaker 2: 49:56

We're taking a game, we're getting a little down.

Speaker 3: 49:57

But watch this, but watch this. You've got the head of FDA who, admittedly, whether his interests are favorable to mine or not, regardless of that fact, they're an expert in their field. I would rather listen to that individual than listen to an appointee who knows nothing about food and drugs. That's true.

Speaker 2: 50:27

All right, sounds like Monopoly to me, man.

Speaker 3: 50:31

This is what's happening right in front of our eyes right now. Like something like Monopoly to me, man. This is what's happening right in front of our eyes right now.

Speaker 1: 50:35

So how would we? Well, I have my own way of preparing for something like this, Like something this crazy. You know, the prophet said make sure you have 90 days of food stored.

Speaker 3: 50:50

There's a reason for that, bro. Guess what else he said. He said he came to warn us of the great and dreadful day which is sure to come. Of course, what are we looking at here? People see, some people on the side of the right would say, oh, you're advocating for the left. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. See, one of the things you know, people don't have to believe the way I believe. I believe in Prophet Noble Drew Ali. I believe he was a prophet. And what do prophets do? Prophesy. He said a great and dreadful day is sure to come. What does that tell me? It doesn't matter which way it goes, right or left, be prepared, the show's over. That's why he said I'm quoting one day the European is going to let you down. You're going to have to store a 90-day supply of food until your brothers from the East come to rescue you.

Speaker 2: 51:53

That's real.

Speaker 1: 51:55

Yeah, but who from the East?

Speaker 2: 52:02

Right, good question. I think we're on our own brother.

Speaker 3: 52:05

Here's the thing, brother ron. Like I said, with like for us, I was talking about details regarding the shooting recently. Right, there's certain things we do know and we can infer certain things based on what we know, but, ultimately, do we know the objective? We don't. All we can do at this point is do what? Watch and see how things unfold. See, watch and see how things unfold. That's all you know. But we have to watch objectively, we have to really and truly be objective. That's not easy, not at all. That's not easy.

Speaker 1: 52:46

You got to kind of step outside of yourself.

Speaker 3: 52:48

Right. Look at the polarization that we see sociopolitically inside the country. People are now treating political affiliations as if they're races.

Speaker 2: 53:00

Yeah.

Speaker 3: 53:01

Like race, like black and white Literally.

Speaker 2: 53:05

Ron, I know about that. Remember the situation I was dealing with, ron. What situation, qanon? Oh yeah, that was a crazy time. I got caught up. Oh man, that was crazy, crazy time Completely flipped on me Like you don't want to get involved. That means you're a sympathizer and you should all put your head out, isn't that crazy? I was like really Off with my head For what I didn't.

Speaker 3: 53:31

I'm taking that for granted. So we've got people right next to us On our left and our right, and, pun intended, We've got people on our left and our right Close to us that are saying pick a side In religious texts. Guess what that's called In the book of revelations. That's called what? The war of Armageddon. Oh, yep, Because the war of Armageddon is what? Separation sheep from the goats.

Speaker 3: 53:55

Everybody take, it's crazy man, the whole world is doing it right now, because the War of Armageddon is what? Separation Sheep from the goats? Everybody take a look, it's crazy man. The whole world is doing it right now. The whole world is retreating behind national lines right now. The whole world is doing it.

Speaker 1: 54:07

And the internet is helping it.

Speaker 2: 54:09

Sure is, sure is.

Speaker 1: 54:12

Or maybe the internet is helping us see more.

Speaker 3: 54:15

Possibly, but you got to have eyes clear to see or else you're going to have confirmation bias. You're only going to see what you want to see.

Speaker 2: 54:23

Look what's happened to Amber Rose. Just by standing next to on that stage, automatically she's negated from this quote-unquote culture. The same thing happened to that singer what was her name? Again, chrisette Michelle. When she was at the inauguration singing, they yanked her black cards from her.

Speaker 1: 54:42

So what happened? Okay, we got the brother on. Now. What's going on, brother? How you doing? You hear me?

Speaker 2: 54:54

Peace, peace, peace, peace you hear me.

Speaker 4: 54:55

Peace peace, peace.

Speaker 1: 54:57

Peace, peace, you hear me, I can hear you.

Speaker 4: 55:02

I'm trying to get you to my. I want my help if I plug the headphones in. All right, so I got you.

Speaker 2: 55:10

We can hear him loud and clear. Yeah, we can hear you All good.

Speaker 4: 55:14

We can hear you. Yeah, I'm good, I hear you, I hear you.

Speaker 1: 55:19

We can hear you. Yeah, I'm good, I hear you, I hear you. What's going on, brother, how you be, I'm welcome.

Speaker 4: 55:22

Peace, peace Greetings, good to see you, gentlemen. Yes, sir, brother Sharif, good to see you, good to see you Likewise, likewise. So while I was working on getting in, I don't know where y'all left off, because I was doing the technical thing.

Speaker 1: 55:38

I just want to go go into what you want to say. Well, first of all, introduce yourself to the people.

Speaker 4: 55:44

First and foremost, for those who don't know me, I'm Raheem, architect Soto, one half of the Urban Conservative, the urban part, which is important to understand. The urban part of the urban conservative is understanding reality beyond all narratives, all of them, whatever the narrative is. We need to understand the reality beyond that narrative because narratives are what shape a lot of your cosmogony, your political ideology. Whatever you got, there's a narrative at play there and sometimes there's some psychological phenomenon that take place that you will protect that narrative at all costs. So the urban part of the urban conservative is understanding reality beyond all narratives.

Speaker 4: 56:30

My brother and I, we consider ourselves Moors, we consider ourselves Americans.

Speaker 4: 56:36

We've built a 20 plus year career in politics and political consulting and running elections and being involved in the political process based on what Noble city council meetings. When we started to go do things in the community, we didn't see any Fez's in the building and that drove us even further to get more and more involved and to the point where my brother right now is running for Congress and US District 12 out in North Carolina. I myself serve as a Republican committeeman for the state, for the county, for the largest, second largest county in New York. We're here in Suffolk County and you know I've just I've been intimately involved at every level. I'm maybe two phone calls away from getting Trump on the phone, like I'm that we're that close to the structure where my congressman sitting congressman is one of the chairs of Homeland Security. The information that I get, the data that I get to look at and the ability to talk to people within the structure kind of changes the narrative of some of the things. So that's kind of who we are in a nutshell.

Speaker 3: 57:47

Very nice. First of all, I salute that kind of work. You know that's the kind of work that Prophet Noble Jali was involved in in 1928. Of work that Prophet Noble Jali was involved in in 1928. You know, we put together back in 2012 an agenda, and I say we, we put together an agenda for civic engagement back in 2012, called Operation Proclamation back in 2012. And when I say we, that was myself and another brother by the name of Brother Khalid Bey. That agenda got him elected in local government here in Syracuse, new York. He was a star legislator for 10 years. We put together a, you know, quote, unquote, black New York state um political, you know elected official consortium right In upstate New York. Also, he chaired economic development for the entire city for a full 10 years. You know, based on these things. So I salute that kind of work there, brother, yeah things.

Speaker 4: 58:56

so I salute that kind of work there, brother. Yes, I absolutely appreciate that kind of work, you know yeah, I definitely do yeah, so.

Speaker 4: 59:02

So my concern, ron and gentlemen, was this right, um, there was certain things said that could be taken a certain way, given the political climate that we're in. So, um, one of those things is this when you deal with people, it matters how far removed you are from a person or from a situation to be able to look at it objectively. That matters, at least to me. It matters Anybody that's doing, and I consider myself a research student, and so much is that one of my best friends happens to be one of the only black PhD researchers in the country. Black quote unquote black researchers in the country Shout out to Dr Jackson that has a PhD in actual research, that the level of research that we do. We got to understand something, and Dr Jackson always said this, and it's important Research is not a Google search.

Speaker 4: 1:00:01

You have to make sure that you're doing qualitative research, quantitative research and what's called mixed method research, and then, if you're going into research with a set mind frame or looking to validate something already, you're going to be robbing yourself of the truth if that's what you're in pursuit of by trying to validate one thing or the other. That's a fact. So so a couple of things that I just want to lay out there for those that are listening that, for example, we know lynn patton, we speak to Lynn Patton, we speak to these people and I would then have to say that people that I've known, which is possible that I could be being lied to, but I consider myself intelligent enough to discern when something is untrue. I just really believe in my mental faculties enough to be able to discern when somebody's, for lack of it, bullshitting me Right.

Speaker 4: 1:01:00

So one of the things we have to touch on is the, the, this whole idea about the Republican party. Now, the reason it touched the nerve with me, ron, and I was saying yo, I need to come on, is because we've put in a lot of work, a lot of work, and when I say a lot of work, brothers of work, and when I say a lot of work, brothers don't notice. The state of north, like, do y'all anybody know who's the current rnc chairman?

Speaker 4: 1:01:24

no I don't. Does anybody know? Does anybody know who? That is all right that that gentleman's name is michael watley. Okay, we know michael watley. I consider consider Michael Watley a friend. My brother, ali, considers Michael Watley a friend.

Speaker 4: 1:01:40

We, single handedly in the state of North Carolina, have gotten more black elected committee men, officials, district chairs, county chairs than any other state, and that's been done on purpose. These people, 99 percent of them, have been handpicked because they know what the agenda is within the community. So the idea that the party structure because the analogy that Brother Sharif gave is that these parties are a vehicle and if you don't get in the vehicle you can't go anywhere. There's no, unless you're going to find another method, right, which is possible. But if we look at political parties like a vehicle, we have to ask ourselves, well, what's the destination of the vehicle and who decides? Who's the navigator of this vehicle and what impact do you have on this vehicle? What year is the vehicle? What make and model is the vehicle? What kind of fuel does the vehicle take? Has the brakes been tuned up? Did it? Is it a stolen vehicle like? There's a lot of questions within that. That uh analogy right. And my thing is this if we don't pick a side, if we say we're not gonna have no side in it, it takes us out of the equation. Because there isn't right now, as it stands today, there's no third party candidates anyway. That's just a fact, right, it just doesn't exist.

Speaker 4: 1:03:05

So, from what, from what we would tell our folks, is the Republican Party perfect? Absolutely not. Are there bigots in the Republican Party? Absolutely. Are there bigots in the Republican Party? Absolutely. Are there bigots in the Democrat Party? Absolutely. Comma.

Speaker 4: 1:03:21

However, we have to pick a side and at this point, in the political narrative that we see unfolding in front of us, one side is on the side of evil and one side, for the most part, not every single individual, because, like brother Sharif said, these are people we talking about. But if you're going to side with the left, let's just say you have to take all the baggage that comes with it. You have to take that. This is the party that made it okay to marry your first cousin, to have marital relations with your cousin. We pulled up the map the last time I was on this show and I showed y'all the states where it's lawful to have marry your first cousin, and it's all Democrat, rand, democrat, blue, blue, blue states and the states where it's highly illegal are the Republican states, and there's other variations of that same idea.

Speaker 4: 1:04:15

So at this point, I just wanted what I would like is for there always to be balance in the discussion, because when there's no representation from either side, only one thing flies, only one narrative gets shown. So the other narratives don't even get put on the table for discussion. And, like I told you, ron, I'm not up for a debate because I don't think that's productive. I think a conversation of putting all the food on the table and letting people discern is the best thing. So I wanted to be very careful about how we introduce some of these concepts.

Speaker 4: 1:04:48

Now, I agree with some of the things the brother was saying. The things I disagree with are the narrative surrounding the party as it stands today. I know people that were there in Pennsylvania. I know people, like I said, we're not. If you go on my Instagram and you see we're with, I'm not going to start name dropping, but if you go, look, we're in these rooms, like we're in the rooms where these things happen, because that's where we need to be and, once again, noble Drew Ali said it part and parcel of the said government. So we got in there and got to work at the highest level that we're. You know that our finances and our relationships would take us, so we have to be.

Speaker 4: 1:05:26

I think we have to be careful about the light that we paint the vehicle that's getting us as a people to where we need to go, because we don't need people jumping out the car. If everybody jumps out the car and and and they take let's say they take brother ron's position where I'm opting out of that that's too much right. Then the, the evil people or the people with nefarious motives get to be the elected officials and you can marry your cousin, you can you start to pass laws that make make pedophilia lawful. You start to pass laws where it's a free for all. So I just think there needs to be a balance brought to that and with this whole shooting thing, with the idea behind the Republican Party being taken over by Christian nationalism, it's true, but to a degree, because we have to talk about the people under the tent.

Speaker 4: 1:06:21

The republican party today, that narratives, those ideas are being shaped by people like us.

Speaker 4: 1:06:27

We have that level of influence where 10 years ago they didn't have a quote-unquote minority engagement plan they't have.

Speaker 4: 1:06:35

They weren't going into the hood. All you had, like they were literally some of these people didn't know how, and when we got in the rooms, this was one thing that was always said to us, and we tell our Republican colleagues to stop saying it I don't see color. Clearly, I'm tan, unless you're colorblind and you literally don't see color. What you mean to see is I judge people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. That's a better statement to make than to say you don't see color because I get what you're trying to say. So, like I said, I think I think we need to have a representation of the sides present when some of these discussions are had Not so much to defend but to say, okay, well, that's your perception or position on it. Now here we come from the inside of that to say, well, this is our counterpoint to some of those, some of those things, which is, you know, like I said, I just think is the right and exact thing to do cool, cool, cool indeed, indeed.

Speaker 1: 1:07:38

Okay, so, uh, as far as the republican uh party, how would you describe it currently like? How would you describe it now?

Speaker 4: 1:07:47

so this. There's a couple of things that need to be understood. You have the republican Committee. That's not the Republican Party. The Republican Party is hyper-local. You have Republicans in the party, but you so, for example, I'm in the town of Southampton, there's a town of Southampton Republican Committee, then there's the Suffolk County Republican Committee, then there's the state committee. That's the way it's arranged.

Speaker 4: 1:08:20

So the way that I see the quote unquote party, the way that I see it right now, it's a big tent party. We've never, we've never seen this level of and I use this word in its true sense this level of diversity, not just in skin color, not just in ethnicity, not just in a nation of origin, but in thought. We have so many wonderful people bringing ideas to the table within the party structure. Now you have all these coalitions. For example, you have the Sikh Republican folks, you got the Muslim I'm Muslim you got the Muslim Republicans. You got the Latino Republican. You got so much diversity of thought within the party and the leadership who's willing to listen and implement the changes that we make. That's how you end up in North Carolina with your first black lieutenant governor being Mark Robinson. That's how you end up with that, because when we came to the table and we said, well, y'all need to market more in Mecklenburg County, y'all need to make sure that y'all X, y and Z and those things get implemented and they prove an effective. I got a plaque in the other room from the Trump campaign for 2020 because of the work we did here in the state of New York and I made sure that we did not service just the suburban communities, just the white communities. We went into Rochester, we went into Middletown, we went into places that normally don't get attention from the Republican Party, because we understand the lingo, we understand the cultural nuances of going into a quote-unquote Black community or Latino community, which the Republicans that were in power openly understood. They didn't know. So the way that I see the party today is as a big tent party that is open to those that have ideas, that want to see prosperity, that want to see and pull yourself up from your bootstrap mentality, which is no different than the things Malcolm X spoke about, which is no different than the things you know Dr Martin Luther King spoke about, or even Noble Drew Ali, for that matter. When we start talking about political awareness, civic engagement, community economics, these are all things that the modern Republican Party stands for.

Speaker 4: 1:10:32

There's a platform that was just put out and I would share the space. It's a 16-page document that spells out the party and instead of me telling you what I think it says, we could just pull it up and read it and then say I agree with that, I agree with that, I disagree with that, and the previous this is what I think of it now. The previous party platform was like two6 pages and it read like a? Um, it was too wordy. We got it down to 16 pages and it doesn't read like a a christian nationalist document. It doesn't read like that. You know why? Because we are a nation made up of various religions, blah, blah, blah.

Speaker 4: 1:11:17

So that's how I see the Republican Party as a big tent party that is inclusive to all of the many, many minorities that make up this country. Because there's a mistake that people make and say that black people are the minority and white people are the majority minority and white people are the majority. That's. That's not objectively uh, quantitatively true, because all white people are not the same. Some of them are from germany, some of them are from northern germany, some of them are from britain, some of them are from hungary, so they don't even identify as one homogenous group. It's just a fact. So there, so there's a, there's a. You know, to me the party, like I said, right now is it's a big tent party, that is is.

Speaker 4: 1:12:02

And this idea of make America great again, I don't agree with the idea or the premise that it is a return to post world war two era Jim Crow. No, from from being involved with the shaping of the platform and being involved with the party. When we say what I've deduced is when we say make america great again and the people that I've talked to it was a point and I think you brothers agree with this statement there was a point in our history, in the recent history, that you would look that crazy if you didn't like black people and you didn't like hip-hop. People would look at you like you lost your mind, like you know, like even Cat Williams had a joke about it, like you don't like black people, what, like it was strange. So that's real, that's a real sentiment and you know, I don't.

Speaker 4: 1:12:47

I think that the point that we're trying to get back to is where we've seen the most growth in entrepreneurship, growth in entrepreneurship, when we see the most growth in community responsibility.

Speaker 4: 1:12:59

When we see that the idea that we're all Americans and then everything past that we could, you know, we could agree to disagree with and have a beer. I think you know Joe Blow should run be the city commissioner Well, I think Mary should be the city commissioner and we have our disagreements and then we go have a beer or, you know, go have a meal after that. When I hear, make america great again. That's what I hear and what I've, what I've been able to talk to people directly involved at the highest levels. That's the point of make america great again. When we're energy independent, when, when inflation is brought under control, when we're respected around the world for being the beacon of light and freedom, because people are not trying to escape here, people are not dying to leave here, they're dying to come in. So I mean that's the, that's what I see. You know the Republican Party as and what the goals and the aspirations of the party are.

Speaker 1: 1:13:55

Now, as far as what the Republican Party like, the overall image of the Republican Party over the years has been predominantly white right and white conservative. Right Now, when did that image?

Speaker 4: 1:14:17

change. So there's a to me again. There's a narrative at play there. There's a narrative I play there because the narrative is is that that's the republican party? Let's ask a question when did democrats elect their first quote, quote, unquote black representative? And then let's ask the same question about the Republican Party. I mean, we could, we could look that up fairly easily. You don't. You don't have until the 50s to have a black Democrat where you can go back to 18, 70 something and have black Republicans elected to the house of representatives and other positions. So the narrative, the narrative is because we're dealing with a numbers game, all right If we make up if this 42 million quote, unquote black people, right, for the sake of the conversation, because I know we mores, but we're going to say black people, if we have 42 million black people in a country of 350 million people, right, if I go into Jamaica Queens and it's most, it's 87% black, right, that's just what it is in Jamaica Queens. Now, that's what it is here in America.

Speaker 4: 1:15:29

So the party started the party about 15, 20 years ago, did a very and I will say this with no problem they did a very poor marketing job and they've not, they've, recent times started picking it up. But Republicans had did a poor marketing job because they were sticking to morals and they were sticking to. Well, if we just do the right thing, that type of thing, not playing identity politics like the left does. The left does a great job of doing what's called identity politics and for those who don't know what identity politics is, I suggest you look it up. It's a very, very important mechanisms that's used in the creation of propaganda, in the conditioning of the mind, because that's what government actually means, that's what the word actually means is to control the mind. That's literally what the word means. So what we run into is that the, the party I would say about it's only been about 12 years, that this emphasis, maybe 15.

Speaker 4: 1:16:35

That this, that this idea of people looking into the history of the party. But remember, we got 40 years of entertainment conditioning us that the Republican Party is just rich old white men. That's every comedy joke, along with black man can't get no credit. We've every single comedian on Comic View had a black man can't get no credit joke. I'm going to bank joke. So now we start to be conditioned to this idea.

Speaker 4: 1:17:01

But we don't talk about those brothers from 1870, something. We don't talk about? The black mayors, we don't talk about them, we don't get into that because, so you know, to answer your question, I think that this is a fairly new um push from the Republican Party to change that facade or that narrative, but only because you have people that have came into the party. Your Dr Ben, you got other people that came into the party and identified with the party. That you know again, we only how many years into the internet versus X amount of years with literature. So you know, it's a conditioning issue, um, that we can't escape, and it's just, it's a matter of fact that we've been conditioned to to think that um.

Speaker 1: 1:17:45

So you know, is it true somewhat so, would you say, the left pushed a narrative to, for us to believe that the left is for black people and the right is more for white people.

Speaker 2: 1:18:00

Lyndon B Johnson they go back to that.

Speaker 4: 1:18:05

I would say that the left, the political left, and when we say the political left, we got to make sure what we're talking about here, because you can be, this idea of separating right and left is a funny thing. So, yes, the left has pushed this narrative because if I appear to be your savior, right, if I go into a community where people are starving and I show up with sandwiches, it don't matter what I talk about after I fill your stomach, it don't matter. That is a plan. That I fill your stomach, it don't matter. That is a plan that is a very strategic thing. It's as old as humanity. If I feed you, I can start to have some more leeway with you mentally because I feed you. So some of the early socialists, communists and I showed this on the show before the J Edgar Hoover document about the Negro and the communist, on the show before the J Edgar Hoover document about the Negro and the communist. So a lot of the arguments were manufactured around that time and purposely input into the community. So, yes, the left has a 85% hold on black voters. They, black people, vote 85 to 87% Democrat because of the historical precedents that's been said Grandma was a Democrat, great grandma was a Democrat and I'm a Democrat and vote blue, no matter who.

Speaker 4: 1:19:25

We had a Senator, black Senator, come on our podcast. Uh, senator Ford came on the podcast Democrat, still a Democrat, and said that he felt terrible about being a part of that machine because he went into the community and promoted the agenda of vote blue no matter who. And he said, had it not been for him having a conscious and his, his, you know religious God, his, you know choice, speak to him and say yo, this ain't right. He came on our show and spilled the beans and say, yeah, they, we go in there and we rely on low information voters. We rely on the bet crowd, who don't want to watch politics, who don't who's who will read an opinion, an opinion from a pundit, but won't sit through a four-hour house committee meeting. Who? Who will cherry pick something? And then, you know, pay attention to the joy behars, the, the joy reads of the world, but won't actually pull the document, forget what somebody told you. The law said pull the law, read it. But they depend, they 100 depend on that side of the aisle being low information voters, emotional voters.

Speaker 4: 1:20:41

That's why you hear so much talk about reproductive rights and you hear so much about Roe v Wade being overturned, like here in New York, because we got a healthy black population in New York. You got one candidate running for New York, one who is talking about reproductive rights in New York. Now here's how you can prove without any shadow of a doubt that that's just the talking point. New York is Democrat. Ran like one, oh four to 30. Some some bizarre number like that.

Speaker 4: 1:21:11

We're outnumbered retardedly in the legislature almost to the point where ain't no catching up right. It's almost a lost cause to run in the New York legislature unless you're in the purple district. So the idea that they're going to keep hammering, they're going to the Republicans are going to take abortion away. It will never happen in New York. It will never happen. So it's a scare tactic. Will never happen. So it's a scare tactic, it's marketing. So yes, 100. The left depends on identity politics and keeping and I'll use the term, I know we don't like it, but depends on minorities being low information voters, can you?

Speaker 3: 1:21:48

can you define for the audience identity politics?

Speaker 4: 1:21:51

yeah, perfect, we could do that. Um, so there's several. First off, there's several definitions to it, but let's just pull, let's just pull it up. So and we tell y'all when we read this stuff that wikipedia is not the end, all be all, but it is a good starting point.

Speaker 4: 1:22:08

Identity politics based on a particular identity, such as ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, caste and social caste.

Speaker 4: 1:22:20

The term could also encompass other social phenomena which are not commonly understood as exemplifying identity politics. So when you hear somebody, you hear this term, you'll hear a term called intersectional, where you have, uh, I'm black, I'm a gay black man and I'm intersectional because I intersect at the two places of being a minority and gay. When, when you see crafted ads right. So in politics we do what's called crafted ads, I'll shoot an ad. This is a perfect example of identity politics. I'll shoot an ad and I'll, and I'll shoot a variation of the ad to run in Harlem, because black people in Harlem have a different lingo than, say, black people in Jacksonville, mississippi, right. So identity politics is playing on the things that you are emotionally connected to, based on your ethnicity, based on your gender, based on your religious construct, and using those unbeknownst to you to shape a narrative to get you to play a part in it is the best way to explain what identity politics is.

Speaker 3: 1:23:31

Very cool, I would agree with that. Now here's my next question. Would you say that replacement theory is identity politics?

Speaker 4: 1:23:38

would I say replacement theory.

Speaker 3: 1:23:40

All right, explain replacement theory replacement theory is the theory that non-white people are replacing white people in america and it's a cause for alarm, and that the so-called european population is now an endangered species and they got to do everything they can to oh, we're, oh, we're going with Francis Cress Welsing here.

Speaker 4: 1:24:00

No no no, she kind of is the grandmother of that. She came with the whole identity of the idea that the white man is worried because the black man is going to outproduce them. She 100% has some of that going on. Here's what I just told somebody yesterday In 50 years, everybody's going to be beige. Everybody's going to be beige. Why? Because you can't control who you fall in love with. You have no, you have no control over who you're going to meet, what, what, what did, what that relationship is going to turn into, and who you fall in love with. So do I think? Do I think white? I know a lot of white people and none of them are worried about that. From my personal experience, I mean, like I said, I know a lot, a lot of people and I've never heard anyone express that. Do I think it's a valid theory? I mean, it's a theory, could it? It? Could it be true? It sounds good, it sounds good, but I don't.

Speaker 3: 1:24:59

I don't think the reason I bring it up, dear brother, is because it's a huge talking point with the far right base.

Speaker 4: 1:25:07

Right.

Speaker 3: 1:25:08

So that's why I asked the question. So now, let's OK, I have a question based on your definition of identity politics, would you say that replacement theory is identity politics?

Speaker 4: 1:25:21

So. So I think the question begs then what percentage Right? Because we got to deal with with quantitative Right, we got to deal with numbers. If we got just an even number. We got a million Republicans, how many of them would qualify as far right? If we got a million Democrats, how many of them would qualify as far right? If we got a million Democrats, how many of them would qualify as far right versus who would find themselves in the middle, being somewhat of a moderate?

Speaker 4: 1:25:45

Now here's the thing that most people don't know about Republicans Most Republicans and when I say most, most, well over half are not extremist. I am liberal when it comes to certain subject matter and I'm conservative when it comes to other subject matter. So, for example, if you are a gay man, I don't care, I'm not against you because you're, I have no, just keep it away from the children. I don't think homosexuality should be promoted in the library and I don't think heterosexuality should be promoted. Sex should not be promoted to children until they're of age, where they're doing reproductive studies and learning to reproductive. So I'm liberal.

Speaker 4: 1:26:30

Most Republicans are moderate, like most Democrats. When you get, when you strip away all of this hyper partisanship, when you strip that away. Most of us are in the middle moderates and we want to just take care of our family. So my question would be well, how many people are on the far right? Because I know a few that I would qualify and in our group and on the right side of things? We got a term for them brother Sharif. You know what we call them? We call them the, we call them the bat shit crazies would you say here's my next question.

Speaker 3: 1:26:59

Would you say that jd vance is extremist?

Speaker 4: 1:27:04

um, I would say that from what I know about jd vance, no um what I support replacement theory that's it now we're back to the original question.

Speaker 3: 1:27:14

Is replacement theory identity politics based on the definition?

Speaker 4: 1:27:18

No, that's an opinion that he supports that. I've never heard him say he supports that, so I can't. If you can show me where he said he supports that, then I'll accept that he supports that I just sent you an article from PBS.

Speaker 4: 1:27:31

Now listen. So now we got to ask, because once you send the article, what side of the aisle is that coming from? Is that him and his words, or someone saying that he said that, which is a difference? There's a big difference between someone saying something and someone saying someone said something. There's, those are two different things. Hello.

Speaker 2: 1:27:53

Peace, peace. Are you referring, like saying, the judge can this by the policies that they enforce, that they back up? That's what, that's what you're trying to know.

Speaker 4: 1:28:02

No, I'm saying, I'm saying sharif.

Speaker 1: 1:28:04

I didn't get that.

Speaker 4: 1:28:04

I didn't get that article yeah, I'd like to see the article as well. What is it? A pbs article, oh?

Speaker 2: 1:28:11

okay, I see, I see what you're saying hold, hold on, let's see, because honestly, I'm like how Ron says I'm in the middle of it, I choose neither side. I just listen to what they say, like all right, I got some good points here. I got some good points here, but I step back.

Speaker 1: 1:28:27

But you know what, though, mike? They both made a good point. If we don't choose, then you know that's our fault.

Speaker 4: 1:28:34

Please share, then you know that's our fault. Please pull up that article when you can.

Speaker 3: 1:28:37

Okay, sure, let me speak to that right Prophet. Noble Jali didn't play party politics, he played issues and people politics, something that the brother said that I agree with 100%. He was talking about himself. He said in certain issues he's conservative leaning, in other issues he might be liberal leaning. That's accurate and that's intelligent. But let's be real. People Today's America has been socialized into being. They believe that you're only one or the other and that is entirely false. And this is where we are today.

Speaker 3: 1:29:17

You see, what I'm saying. That's a problem. And so, while you know, our brother was talking about polarization on the side of the left and the left, you know, working to polarize people. Yes, I agree, the right does it too. Both sides do it. Prophet Noble Juwali andor's Science Symbol of America. And we're not advocating a third party either, because, again, parties are vehicles. During the time of Prophet Noble Drew Ali, he supported the Republican Party. Why Not? Because it was the Republican Party. He supported the Republican Party because the Republican Party, the issues that the Republican Party at that time supported, were pro-Asiatic issues.

Speaker 4: 1:30:07

Can you put that in a private chat, brother? All right, yeah, put that, because I can't really see it on the screen. I'd like to read that.

Speaker 3: 1:30:15

Yeah, but again, that's what he but again that's what said, that's what he supported you.

Speaker 4: 1:30:21

So so in my professional, just so we are aware this in my professional capacity, right and let me grab. Let me grab one right here in my professional capacity, what I do on a day-to-day basis to earn a living is I produce a newspaper okay, and here's the newspaper right here.

Speaker 4: 1:30:40

Right, just so y'all can see, it's a physical newspaper. We produce 20 pages every week, from top to bottom and um the. The reason I bring that up is because journalists right, there's a difference between journalism and opinion pieces. Okay, so now let's see what we got here Several mainstream Republican Senate candidates drawing on the great replacement conspiracy theory. Right, so they've acknowledged it that it's a conspiracy theory Once confined to the far right fringes of US politics, to court voters this campaign season. Now, this is opinion. We've already got to admit this is an opinion.

Speaker 3: 1:31:17

Well, how do we know that when this is an AP piece?

Speaker 4: 1:31:20

OK, so because it is so, hold on. But the AP has writers and when you get down to the bottom it'll tell you who wrote it. Right here at the bottom AP writer Lisa McCaskill in Washington and Washington and Thomas Beaumont in Des Moines, iowa, contributed. So now it's not just a blanket statement. Now the question has to be asked do those two people have an agenda? Is the PBS publication owned by Democrats on the left? Is 80%, 90% of American media owned by the left? The answer is yes, it's without question, and I can show and prove that with no problem. I can show and prove that the majority problem, I can show and prove that the majority of the companies, mass media companies, what we call legacy media, are left-leaning media companies.

Speaker 3: 1:32:05

But here's my question. Here's my question. Well, first let me make a statement. What you've just done here, sir, is that you've made a blanket indictment on a piece you haven't even read yet. No, I didn't. We were reading the piece and I didn't made a blanket indictment on a piece you haven't even read yet.

Speaker 4: 1:32:17

No, I didn't. We were reading the piece and I didn't make a blanket indictment on the piece. I made an indictment. I stated a fact that PBS is a left leaning outlet, that the AP is a left leaning outlet. Because what I do, what I do right, is called journalism. So I also have to check the credibility of the writer. I have done that. Yes, yes, I know who these two writers are and I know what their registered voter registration is. That's how thorough we get with the research. So I know, listen. Yes, that's why I went right to the name.

Speaker 3: 1:32:50

So what I'm saying to you is so wouldn't that be making a blanket statement on a piece you have not read yet?

Speaker 4: 1:32:55

no, I made an indict. I I made a statement saying that PBS is left-leaning and the AP is left-leaning. Then I said we've already ventured into an opinion piece. Because guess what's not in this piece? Citations. When you are stating facts, you come with citations. So when you open my newspaper and I state something, as a matter of fact, I cite my sources.

Speaker 4: 1:33:21

But I said the piece, we're gonna read it right now okay, we're gonna read it right now, so let's, let's do this because we already got a few words in it. But all right, so here we go. In some cases the comments have gone largely overlooked, given the hardline immigration rhetoric that has become commonplace among conservatives during the trump era. But a weekend mass shooting in buffalo that may have been inspired, may have been, see, may have been inspired by the racist theory. So when you see, may have been, we know what may have been. Means. That's, this is this, is this rhetorical devices that are used when crafting news articles that most people are not aware of because they're not professional writers. That may have been inspired by the racist theory is drawing new attention to the GOP's growing embrace of white nationalist creed. That's an opinion.

Speaker 4: 1:34:14

Three weeks ago in Arizona, republican Senate candidate Blake Masters accused Democrats of trying to flood the nation with millions of immigrants to change the demographics of our country. Period. Now the reason Blake Masters made that accusation and now we got to deal with the facts. The reality of it is there is a 100% agenda to give ID cards to illegal immigrants. There's a push in 16 states, including California, new York and other states, to have illegal immigrants in this country. Vote. It's not a foot debate, there's no two ways about it. There's a non-citizen who is the Board of Elections Commissioner right now in California, just appointed a few months ago Non-citizen. So Blake Masters made that because we got to add context. When you read that, they don't add the context to that.

Speaker 4: 1:35:10

A few days later in Missouri, senate hopeful Eric Schmidt, the state attorney general, said Democrats were fundamentally trying to change this country through illegal immigration. And in Ohio, republican Senate nominee JD Vance accused Democrats of trying to transform the electorate, warning of an immigrant invasion. Vance told Fox News see the citation I have decided they can't win unless they bring a large number of new voters to replace the voters that are already here. Period. Now the point that the reason he's saying this statement is because we could go to city council meeting, at the city council meeting across this beautiful country and see that even registered quote unquote black people that are registered Democrats have had enough. Especially in Chicago, especially in Atlanta, some of the Republican campaigns denied their statements amounted to replacement theory. So they denied it. They said no.

Speaker 4: 1:36:08

But among the experts there's a little question. Who are the experts? Five experts on hate speech who reviewed the Republican candidates' comments confirmed that they promote the baseless racist theory, even though Republicans don't mention race directly. Are we going to get a name of these so-called experts? I don't think so. This is another literary device. When you don't want to, you could just say I can make that up. I could say five experts said that I'm the best cook in America. What does that mean? Who are the five experts? This is how you read. You don't just read it and then go oh well, five experts said it. Who are the experts? Experts in what? Experts on hate speech, all right.

Speaker 4: 1:36:50

Comments like these demonstrate two essential features of great replacement conspiracy theory. They predict a radical doomsday, saying that it is all part of an August rated plan. It's only the language that has been softened, said American University professor Brian Hughes, associate director of the polarization and extremism research and innovation lab. The basic story is they tell the same one we see and extremism research and innovation lab. The basic story is they tell the same one we see.

Speaker 4: 1:37:21

In a white supremacist chats across the internet an enemy is orchestrating doom for white Americans by plotting to fill the country with non-whites. Indeed in mainstream interpretation of replacement theory in the US baselessly suggests Democrats are encouraging immigration from Latin America, so more like-minded potential voters replace traditional Americans, says Mark Pickovich, senior research fellow at the ADL. Now is there any question at this point that the ADL is a leftist organization? Is anybody on this podcast going to tell me that the adl is a centrist organization? Is anybody going to say that the american university, whose benefactors, largest benefactors, are democrats? It's not a foot debate. I'm making claims that could be easily verified, but dear brother, here again, let's.

Speaker 3: 1:38:13

Here's the problem, brother. Right. Here's the problem, brother Right. Here's the problem A broken clock is right twice a day.

Speaker 4: 1:38:23

And it's wrong all day. Most of the day it's wrong, even though it's right. Twice it's wrong. 99% of the time it's absolutely incorrect, but twice a day it's right. That's fine. 98% of the day is wrong.

Speaker 3: 1:38:36

Here's my point, your brother, what you've just done with this article right is bad shirt. You haven't said that it's wrong.

Speaker 4: 1:38:48

Hold on, yo, wait, wait, wait. I've pointed I. So you can't say someone's opinion is wrong. It's an opinion piece. I can't tell you your opinion's wrong.

Speaker 3: 1:38:57

Can I finish? You've not said that the statements made in the article are wrong. You just said we shouldn't believe it because of who wrote it.

Speaker 4: 1:39:06

No, that's not what I said. What I said was that it was written by. See, you can't put words in my mouth. Okay, go ahead. I said that it was written by leftists. Not once did I say don't believe it If we rewind this tape. I never one time said don't believe anything in this. That's not what I said. What I said was, and what we agreed to earlier, is that there's a narrative being spun here. Somebody is spinning a narrative and this is called an opinion piece. That's what this is. There's no citation. Then, when I'm reading something and for those of you and I really encourage this when you are reading, it matters in matters of politics that you know who wrote the piece and what their stance is. Because what happens is is, if I read a piece that's intended for me to think something is true, is there an opposing side to that argument? Is there a piece that is counter to the piece we're reading right now? But let me do this because we're almost through the piece. Indeed, a mainstream. Oh, we read that Such a message has become a central component of the modern day conservative movement's appeal to voters.

Speaker 4: 1:40:12

Former President Donald Trump repeatedly warned of an immigrant invasion on the southern border and he was slow to condemn white supremacy. Shortly after taking office, trump shared a social media post with someone username white genocide tm. Replacement theory is being investigated as a motivating fact in the buffalo supermarket shooting which killed 10 black people and left three other people injured. President excuse me, president, joe biden condemned replacement theory directly and those who spread it, although he did not name names After meeting with the victim's family Tuesday in Buffalo. Hate through the media and politics, the Internet has radicalized angry, alienated and lost isolated individuals into falsely believing that they will be replaced, that that were replaced by others, by the people who don't look like them, biden charged. I call on all Americans to reject the lie. The Democrat president continued, and I condemn those who spread the lie for power, political gain and profit.

Speaker 4: 1:41:15

Representative Liz Cheney, who was ousted from the House Republican leadership for her outspoken criticism of Trump, blamed her own party on Monday for enabling white nationalism and supremacy and anti-Semitism. History has taught us that what begins with words ends in far worse, cheney tweeted. Gop leaders must renounce and reject these views and those who hold them. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was asked three times Tuesday in different ways about replacement theory if leaders have to speak about it or believe it themselves, and declined to fully respond. Well, certainly, the episode of this horrible episode in Buffalo is a result of a completely deranged young man who ought to suffer severe as possible penalty under the law, he said. Asked about Biden's call to reject the lie, mcconnell shifted responsibly more responsibility. More broadly, racism of any sort is abhorrent in America and ought to be stood up to by everybody, both Republicans, democrats, all Americans.

Speaker 4: 1:42:16

In a poll released last week by the AP North for Public Affairs Center for Public Affairs research found that about one in three americans believe an effort is underway to replace us born americans with immigrants for electoral gain. Now we gotta uh, let me. I clicked on the study because I wanted to see what, what the pool was. I want to see what kind of study polish was, who was polled, how many people where they from fox news popular personality tucker carlson has been one of the theory's biggest proponents. A five-year study worth of Carlson showed by the New York Times found 400 instances in which he talked about Democrat politicians and others seeking to force Democratic change through immigration. But so far at least, less attention has been focused on Republican candidates preparing to face voters in the coming weeks and months who have, in some cases, promoted the theory again and again. So how much more we got? Because this is a lot.

Speaker 4: 1:43:12

So now, if we're talking about replacement theory in this sense right, I would say, do I believe it's true? I would have to look at what's being proposed in the House and in the Senate. I would ask are there laws being drafted in the House and in the Senate? I would ask are there laws being drafted? Is there legislation in the 50 states right now being drafted to allow non-citizens to vote? Is that a fact or is that a fiction? If it's a fact, does that lend credibility to the idea that they're trying to add or replace voters? Because I think one thing could be true that they're trying to add voters. I don't think they can necessarily replace a voter, but I true that they're trying to add voters. I don't think they can necessarily replace a voter, but I think they're definitely trying to add voters because again we we have like we could google real quick legislation drafted for illegal migrants to vote here in new york, california, washington dc.

Speaker 4: 1:44:05

Mean, you know, this again is an opinion piece and it doesn't say that JD Vance said he supports or denies it. It just doesn't say that we see the Senate spoke man, the Biden's administration, while Tony US and immigrants, and immigrants, of course, and flooding all 50 states. That's true. I mean, I I see a couple of citations, but most of the references come from what we call left-leaning media again. So I mean, for what that's worth, again, this is somebody saying what they think people believe. This is not the people themselves saying they, uh, believe in replacement theory. I'd like to see JD Vance say I subscribe to, to um, you know to, to replacement theory. Like I'd like to see JD Vance say I subscribe to, to um you know to, to replacement theory. Like I'd like to see somebody say I'd like to see Sharif Bay say I like pork chop sandwiches. I don't want somebody to tell me that Sharif told them. No, no, no, call Sharif. Let him tell me he likes pork chop sandwiches. That's where I'm at with that gotcha, okay.

Speaker 1: 1:45:08

Okay. So, brother Sharif, are you? You finish on your point in regards to?

Speaker 3: 1:45:14

replacement theory. That was one particular point about replacement theory, because the brother brought up identity politics. I remember the more science symbol of America. We definitely play identity politics. So let's start. You know, that's just what it is. Of course we play identity politics, absolutely we play identity politics. We just do it properly. Context Now as relates, and so my point, the point I was bringing up, was the brother was saying that the left plays identity politics. My point is that the right plays identity politics as well.

Speaker 4: 1:45:48

Both sides play identity politics, both sides, and so now, when you say the more science temple plays identity politics, is that to the detriment of our people or is that to the benefit of our people?

Speaker 3: 1:46:00

Well, it doesn't Well. Well, that's irrelevant in this particular case. I'm going to tell you why because you didn't contextualize the left-playing identity politics.

Speaker 4: 1:46:10

Okay, so let's put it in context.

Speaker 1: 1:46:13

Hold on a second. We said we're not going to do a debate. No, no, no, not a debate bro.

Speaker 4: 1:46:18

Not a debate, no, not a debate, no. But the reason I ask that question is because, had he answered in the affirmative, that playing out All right. So let's try this a different way. If the left plays identity politics and 85 percent of the voters vote Democrat and some large portion of Democrat ran, cities like Cleveland, ohio suffer from catastrophic poverty, suffer from we lead in diabetes. We lead in diabetes. We lead in hypertension. We lead in obesity. We lead in ailments. We lead in dropping dead from heart attacks. Right, the identity politics have a negative effect on the population.

Speaker 4: 1:47:00

Now, I didn't demonize identity politics. I said that the right hasn't done a good enough job of it because they don't like that. They want to say things like I don't see color. When you do see color, what you mean to say is I don't judge people based on the criteria of their skin color. I base it on the content of their character. That's a better statement to say I don't see color. I need you to see that I'm melanated. I need you to see that that's not a melanated brother or sister, whatever the case may be. So if the brother says the more science temple of America plays identity politics, it has to serve one end or the other in context, because what's the identity politic? What is because politics is defined as the control of resources, politic? What is because politics is defined as the control of resources?

Speaker 3: 1:47:49

politics is defined as the the. That's not. That's not the definition of politics, but go ahead no, what?

Speaker 4: 1:47:53

okay, loosely speaking, politics is the controlling. Let's do one, let's do one better, let's do one better, let's just, let's just stop right there, and then we'll go right here, and we'll go right here to polit politics. Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups or other forms of power relations among individuals, which is what I just said.

Speaker 3: 1:48:15

So now we know what you did? Is you conflated politics with government?

Speaker 4: 1:48:18

government no, no, no, no, no.

Speaker 3: 1:48:19

This is the definition of politics is the set of activities the definition you just read, I I agree with. But that definition agrees with what I stated. What you stated prior was you conflated. That definition you gave for politics is actually one for government.

Speaker 4: 1:48:34

No, this is literally what I just read. I'm saying that politics I gave a loose definition is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status, which is something more is like to talk about. We like to talk about status. The branch of social science that studies politics and government is referred to as political science, and we know that, to break down to our seven liberal arts, right, we get into that science. And we know that, to break down to our seven liberal arts, right, we, we get into that. That's a whole nother conversation. You need law, you need history, psychology, sociology, economics. You need a bunch of things that are directly related and in tandem with political science. I'm saying, as the if the more science temple, which you said, plays identity politics, is it neutral, is it to a benefit or is it to a negative? My observation as being a more and being around the more science temple for I don't know how many years, I would say it's a positive, because I've never once heard a more tell another more right to go smoke crack. I've always I've only heard you for the last 10 years talk about self-improvement 15 years. Talk about martial arts. Talk about uplifting the community through your identity. That's all I've ever heard. I have not one negative thing that I could say. Brother Sharif Aneel Bey is promoted to the community.

Speaker 4: 1:50:01

Do I agree with everything? No, but that's the nature of things. I don't have to agree. But when what you do is a benefit to the community, it's a benefit to the community. It's not. There's no shame in that, or, you know, there's nothing wrong with being a benefit. But the identity politic itself is a tool. It's not the thing, it's a tool. It's that tool could be used to create a negative ideology, a negative personality, a negative identity, which is the black identity, which is the hood, ghetto identity that's being reinforced. That's not a positive identity politic. There's nothing positive about leading a hypertension, high blood pressure and diabetes. And if the, if the identity politic you're promoting lends to that, none of us are going to get on here and say that's positive.

Speaker 3: 1:50:48

The only reason I brought that up was to I'm saying this to reset the conversation, right. The only reason I brought that up is because you brought up you said. You said the left plays identity politics. Full stop, full stop. You did not contextualize it, and so that leads the viewers to believe that you're saying or implying that the right doesn't play.

Speaker 4: 1:51:16

No, no, no, no, bro, you was here, but you was here when I said the right doesn't do a good job of it, which means they do it. They just haven't done it as well as the left. You're leaving that part out and trying to recraft my statement, and when we go back to the tape, that's what was said.

Speaker 3: 1:51:32

I'm not doing that at all bro, but that's what just happened.

Speaker 4: 1:51:35

I said the right doesn't do a good job of it because they want to say they don't see color, we're all just one, we're all just American. That's not what the left is doing.

Speaker 3: 1:51:45

That's that's my statement. Can I finish what I was saying?

Speaker 1: 1:51:52

hello. Yep, oh, it's, it's a computer, probably dropped off. Oh, okay, okay, hey, brother, you there, yo, okay, so can't hear you, we can't hear you, so we're going to wrap this one up. We're going to wrap this one up. It was a great podcast. If you brothers want to hop on again next week and do this again, that'll be peace. If anybody has anything to say, you say you can say it right now.

Speaker 2: 1:52:28

It's formative.

Speaker 1: 1:52:33

Can you hear?

Speaker 2: 1:52:33

me. Yeah, I was informative from both sides. As they say, we should do our parts by getting involved, but I'm objective. I listen to both sides, see what they got to say, but I also watch policies. I examine these characters that are appointed these positions. I listen to both sides, see what they got to say, but I'll also watch policies and I examine these, these characters that are appointed these positions. I study the history, you know, which is very much important. As Sharifa said, you got to study the person's history, their past, what policies they signed behind, what bills they pushed for, the determination from them. But to this day, I step back and just watch these guys.

Speaker 1: 1:53:04

But just like I think what we lack well, me personally I would say, and I would say you too, because you, you're doing the same thing I'm doing is just stepping back I think, with, with we're lacking, is education, at this point, political education, how to look things up. You know what I mean. To get more of an objective, uh, a point of view, versus, um, you know, someone's trying to spin a narrative.

Speaker 2: 1:53:30

No, that's why I say that I look at the candidates like this jd vance, dude, right, everybody, somebody who was not nominated. I went back, went on google, went back to like stuff from like 2016 2017 to see what bills he was behind. Any politicians I do that with. I'm like I don't want to know what's going on now. I want want to see what Bills you were behind. I just choose not to get involved. Last time I voted was I'm going to be real was 2004, when he got caught up with that whole Kerry and Bush thing. I'm like it's the same thing, same game. We didn't play. You know what I'm saying.

Speaker 1: 1:54:07

I don't want to get into. You know what I'm talking about. Reeves, they're both on the 322. We might lose subscribers, being that we haven't voted in such a long time. At least everybody knows now.

Speaker 3: 1:54:17

Hey Brother Rahim, All you all are doing is just verbalizing what a lot of people just won't verbalize Exactly.

Speaker 1: 1:54:24

Brother Rahim, this is why I wanted to bring you on for the political piece, because it's needed Now. If I was equipped with enough education to vote, I would. I would vote. So that's why we need to bring you up here. Your mic, your mic is down.

Speaker 3: 1:54:51

Still down One of the things that I wanted to say. I'll be brief because I know you got to cut out. One of the things I wanted to say you know the brother had mentioned. He said one side is evil. That's a dangerous thing to say, because now we got it, because because now we got to gauge what's evil. See, because what? I agree that there's some things on the side of the left that the side of the left supports, that I absolutely, unequivocally not in favor of, absolutely, absolutely. Are there a bunch of things on the side of the right, absolutely.

Speaker 4: 1:55:16

Sure.

Speaker 3: 1:55:16

So. So, when we get to the point, we start pointing to the other side and saying that they're evil. We've got to be real careful, because now it's no longer like. It's like what I said in the early, in the early part of the show. Now it's no longer two opposing views going towards the same thing. It's one side saying they're american and the other side saying they're not, and now you set the stage for political violence, which is exactly what we're seeing. And when you, when we're at the stage of political violence, we are now, as my good brother rasha med said, a third world country with a Gucci belt.

Speaker 4: 1:55:47

So can you hear me now? Yes, sir.

Speaker 3: 1:55:50

Yes.

Speaker 4: 1:55:52

So I wanted to throw this out there because, like Sharif, contextualizing what I said, one side is evil. We're talking about the Democrat party, not the people. The party, the party is evil when you start to allow certain things to happen that our side is not going to stand for. I don't care what republican you talk to. There's some things that are off the table whole another point I want this what I really I wanted to get off.

Speaker 4: 1:56:19

I publicly want to thank sharif publicly, because a lot of times, because we have differences of views On certain things, we don't Applaud our brothers from a distance. So, sharif, I still Don't look familiar to you. Me and you spoke 12, 13 years ago, long time ago. I've been watching you on the internet for many, many months. Right, I appreciate you. I respect the work that you're doing. I respect the work that you do. I respect that you have stayed true to the course in which you believe in and I want everybody to know that we can disagree without becoming disrespectful Absolutely.

Speaker 4: 1:57:01

We can get heated, we can raise our voices. At the end of the day, me and Sharif can share a meal. I feel that from his character. No, that's a fact and I want you to know on air live. That that's my sentiment. I'm not here to debate, I'm here to present information that may put it all on the table and let the people decide. And then me, I look to learn. I'm a student first, so I learn from everyone. I learn from Ron, I learn from Mikey, I learn from you. I learn in every engagement. So I just wanted to again thank the brothers for the opportunity to come on, even though I interrupted the show, and I wanted to give you, sharif, your flowers and say Islam, brother and respect, yes, sir, I appreciate you and you know likewise for you, dear brother.

Speaker 3: 1:57:47

You know, I learned some things on this show. Also, you're 100% correct, we can disagree and not be disagreeable. Yes, sir, right, we can definitely do that, and that is an aspect of Islamism that we have to demonstrate more, right, right, you know what I mean. We got to demonstrate that more, you know. So I agree with that 100%. You know, we don't always. You know, unity doesn't mean uniformity. They're not synonymous. How about that?

Speaker 4: 1:58:22

See, Yo, it's funny. You said to Ron, when good people don't get involved, that's when the chaos ensues and that's when bad people get in. I literally said that to him verbatim the other day. I said, brother Ron, we need brothers like you that got more rules, that may not have all the information yet, because that's just learning yet, because that's just learning, that's learning rules of etiquette, parliamentary procedure, how to run a meeting, how to do so. That's information, that's data points that you may have. But we need more people like you and Mikey, who don't have skin in the political game, to get involved in the political game, because guess what? They're not going to be able to do, at least from my observation, they're not going to be able to offer you the poison fruit to make a bad decision for your people. That's my point. But yeah, we'll stop right there, man, I appreciate you.

Speaker 1: 1:59:13

That's a fact. Thank you, brothers. Oh, go ahead.

Speaker 2: 1:59:21

You had something to say I like to show those people out there that get angry. Shout out to Donald Trump Shakur, you know what I'm saying? Shout out, that's it, I'm done.

Speaker 1: 1:59:34

Yo peace, everybody in the chat. Thank you for tuning in again NYP Talk Show, New Yorker's Perspective, and we're out of here. Peace.