Project 2025: Race & Hidden Agendas

Be a part of the conversation!

*Disclaimer: ROKKIT88 had been driving for about 18+ hours before sitting down to record. Because of that, they say "ummm, uhh, and aannddd" quite a bit! Apologies.*

Can a document promising to empower individuals and shrink government hide a more sinister agenda? Conversations in Black and White takes you through the layers of Project 2025, unearthing its potential to selectively uplift certain groups while marginalizing minorities, women, immigrants, and disabled individuals. We challenge the listener to consider how a facade of equality and efficiency might mask fascist ideologies, especially in its stance on hiring practices and personal characteristics.

We also bring personal narratives into play, scrutinizing the complexities of affirmative action and meritocracy within federal job applications, particularly for disabled individuals. The episode dissects the influence of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and questions the viability of bipartisan collaboration in contemporary politics. Shifting focus to federal employee benefits, we compare them to the private sector's offerings, pondering whether job-related benefits should be the norm amidst proposed reductions and declining pension plans.

Our exploration doesn't stop at domestic issues. The conversation stretches to global perspectives, analyzing China's rise as a superpower and its impact on the U.S.'s geopolitical strategies. We delve into critical race theory and the contentious roles of education and government oversight, questioning the ethical standards of governance in today's world. From the potential rise of a Christian-based government to the erosion of individual identity in totalitarian regimes, this episode encourages listeners to scrutinize the balance between nationalism and globalism and their far-reaching implications.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hello, this is Odeko and this is Rocket88.
And this is Conversations inBlack and White.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Where we talk about race and racism in America.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
Last time we left off with a couple different things.
We needed to do our homeworkand then we also started to.
I guess we teased at one of thenext topics on the pyramid of
white supremacy.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Right.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
Which one do you want to?
Which one do you want to jumpinto first?
I?

Speaker 2 (00:42):
think we should start with Project 2025, because
that's going to take the longest.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
You think so?

Speaker 2 (00:50):
Did you read it?

Speaker 1 (00:52):
That's a long book.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
It is a very long book.
It is how far did you get.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
Probably a little less than a quarter of the way
through.
Okay, alrighty, I started speedreading and just jumping around
.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Yes, I had to, um, hit high points, which does not
mean that either of usnecessarily skipped around the
document without getting thefull story.
Um, I had to look up somethings when I was reading it.
Some things have to do withsome very, very specific
government offices which wedon't really need to know.

(01:37):
All that, and I guess the mainreason why, is because the
entire document is basically aplaybook for one very specific
thing and it breaks down how toachieve this very specific thing
.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
And what specific thing is that?

Speaker 2 (01:58):
Fascism.
Define fascism uh, definefascism.
Fascism is and I this is athing that I actually had to
look up um, so I'm going torefer back to this so that I
don't sound like I am justpulling shit out of my ass and

(02:22):
we're going to cuss on this one,by the way, because it's a very
incendiary document Project2025.
So fascism is a far-rightauthoritarian and
ultra-nationalist politicalideology and movement
characterized by a dictatorialleader, centralized autocracy,

(02:44):
militarism, forcible suppressionof opposition, belief in a
natural social hierarchy andsubordination of individual
interests for the perceived goodof the nation or race, and
strong regimentation of societyand the economy.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
That is not what I got from this document.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
It's not really so what did you get from it?
And I did actually, I kind ofdid want to start with what you
got from it first, actually.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
Less government that's what it came off as to me
, as is less government and givepower back to back to
individuals rather than corruptleaders.

Speaker 2 (03:26):
Okay, so yeah, that is how the document presents
itself.
Absolutely, it's all abouttrimming the fat, cutting

(03:46):
redundancies in government andeliminating bureaucracy, the
goal of which, supposedly, is toput power back in the hands of
the people.
However, when you really,really really look at this
document, it's quite specificabout which people are going to

(04:09):
be getting the power, and I'mgoing to say right now, outright
, that the things that I haveseen about people who are
opposed to this plan, thisdocument, I don't believe sat

(04:33):
down and read it, because let'ssee a lot of the gist that I got
from liberal people who areopposed to the document is that
it presents itself like goingback to the days of separate but
equal, like going back tosegregation, and I have to

(04:53):
disagree.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
Yeah, I didn't get that from this at all.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
So reading the document like really reading the
document, particularly when youstart to get to the points
where it's talking about generalwelfare.
There's two things generalwelfare and when it talks about
restructuring a lot of federaljobs, it is very much a separate

(05:25):
but separate document.

Speaker 1 (05:32):
Do you have any examples of that?

Speaker 2 (05:36):
Oh sure, Absolutely so.
One of the things that theywere talking about is not only
privatizing certain federalgovernment sectors privatizing
meaning letting an outsidesource oversee the sector, like

(06:00):
a source that is not agovernment employee they also
talk about eliminating certainhiring practices.
So it presents itself as if,particularly like when the
government is hiring, thatthey're supposed to primarily

(06:23):
hire minorities, immigrants,women and disabled people, which
is not the actual case butequal opportunity hiring
practices have been under firepretty much since they started
in the 90s, so that's nothingnew.
Pretty much since they startedin the 90s, so that's nothing

(06:44):
new.
And then, when it comes togeneral welfare that section of
the document they're talkingabout repealing certain ways
that we can identify ourselves,For instance, not necessarily
being able to identify ourselvesthrough race, gender we don't

(07:12):
have to identify ourselves interms of gender orientation or
sexual orientation, but that isa part of the document and also
disabled people okay, do youspecifically have, like, where
in this document any of that is?

Speaker 1 (07:33):
or okay, is this like ?
Not to not to downplay it oranything, I'm just trying to
find where can I read about youread this freaking thing, man.
I got like 20% in.

Speaker 2 (07:50):
Okay, alrighty, so you missed a lot.
Possibly I'm a little burnt outfrom it.
I get that this document is nota very hard read, but it is a
really long one and it does kindof feel like homework and study

(08:12):
.

Speaker 1 (08:12):
Yep, that's what it felt like.

Speaker 2 (08:15):
And you know if you're not in school or you know
, not a nerd or not, someone whowants to I guess you know learn
a lot about the informationthat is out there.
And this document is quitepublic.

(08:35):
It's kind of easy to see whythere's so much misinformation
about it or so manymisconceptions, and I think some
people are kind of trying tofigure out how to explain why
it's bad.
And I'm going to tell you rightnow it's bad because it is.
This document is a playbook forsetting up a fascist government

(09:00):
in the United States of America.
Let's see.
So when we come to whereexactly in the document, I think
I need to go back to the tableof contents for it, which is how
I was able to get so muchinformation within the four days
that I spent reading this.
I didn't spend as long reading.

(09:21):
Let's see.
I didn't get the book beforeyou, I got it after you did.

Speaker 1 (09:27):
That's fair.

Speaker 2 (09:30):
But I used the table of contents, especially when so
much of it was detailing, likehow certain offices in the white
house specifically, but in um,you know, in our government work

(09:51):
so even think about using tableof contents that's because
you're not as smart as I am.
Okay, that was supposed to be ajoke no, it was it was supposed
to be a joke I'm not, I'm notmad, okay let's see pretty solid

(10:14):
69.
Uh, one of the things that I hadto learn in middle school was,
um, how to study and take notes.
I kind of wish that.
I had taken more notes, but Idefinitely wouldn't have written
down specific pages to refer to.
That's for absolute certain.

Speaker 1 (10:35):
I was going to start highlighting things in this
document and I was like this how?

Speaker 2 (10:42):
deep into this did.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
I want to get.
That's what I was starting toquestion.

Speaker 2 (10:46):
The first 30 pages or so are acknowledgements
forwards the people whospecifically worked on this
document and the organizationsthat contributed to this
document.

Speaker 1 (11:06):
Yeah, which was nice to know some of these people,
and one of the things that theykind of stress in that opening
is that just because it's inthis doesn't mean they all agree
with it, that there are somethings in this document that
they did have disagreements on.

Speaker 2 (11:27):
So I'm from the South and I am going to use a
Southern saying don't piss on myhead and tell me that it's
raining.

Speaker 1 (11:39):
So you think that's a lie in the beginning.

Speaker 2 (11:42):
Absolutely.
But the reason why is the waythat this document is set up and
um, it is primarily the umbrainchild of the heritage
foundation, and the heritagefoundation stresses a lot about
what it quote, unquote, is notas an organization and tries to

(12:08):
tout what it is, which you knowis a think tank.
But it's a think tank with apretty specific goal, and that
goal is fascism.

Speaker 1 (12:20):
Isn't that most think tanks?
Most think tanks have a goal inmind?
Absolutely, this is absolutely.
I think tanks are just aproblem and it showcases the
problem with the, the two-partysystem that we have is is these
think tanks come about and thenpeople start to say, well, think

(12:42):
tank a is heavily liberal orwhatever like and sure it's.
It's those, uh, there's adifference between.

Speaker 2 (12:53):
I think, uh, there's definitely a difference between
being um a Republican and aconservative Republican, just as
much as there is a differencebetween being a democrat and a
liberal democrat.
One of my hugest problems withthe democratic party for a very

(13:13):
long time has always been thefact that they just refused to
unify and come together oncertain things, which is
particularly frustrating becausemuch of the Democratic Party
has the same goal in mind, butjust did not seem to want to

(13:37):
converge with each other toachieve these goals.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
Okay, so that right there.
These goals, Okay, so thatright there.
What you just stated is how Iview both sides is.
It sounds like a lot of things.
They want the same or similarresolution, but they won't come
together because, well, no, theydon't want to work together.

(14:04):
They don't want to be seenworking with the opposite side,
like in this document.
I was seeing there were certainwhat was it?
They do want to have anonpartisan government.
They want dark money out ofpolitics.
They don't think that, um.
They don't think that um.

(14:29):
I can't even articulate it.
Let me try to find it in the inthe document.

Speaker 2 (14:38):
Okay.
So I was looking for examplesof um, looking for examples of
let's see, actual discrimination.
So let's see on.
Let's see, on page 72, theystart to outline the merit

(15:04):
hiring in a merit system.
Um, so they're proposing, um,that people be hired based on
their knowledge, skills andabilities.
Um, which, yeah, I not awarereally of a time where,
particularly in the federalgovernment, people weren't hired

(15:24):
on their knowledge, skills andabilities.
And EEOC has been to extendopportunities to qualify people
who are minorities, whetherthey're minorities based on
their race, their religion,their gender or their ableism.

(15:48):
When I say ableism, I mean like, are you disabled, are you or
are you abled?
Right, let's see.
And they talk about cuttingappeals processes when people
believe that they have beendiscriminated against based on

(16:09):
their based on those things.
Because, again, this is goingto be a long one.
So I think the more breath Ican save the better, and I don't
think I have enough water toget through this Because it's a
lot.

(16:30):
So they want to scale back.
How many people can filecomplaints on discrimination?
They want to remove the hiringprocess.
That includes hiring minoritiesof all kinds, let's see,

(16:57):
because they're talking abouthow hiring preferences are being
given right now, particularlyto disabled people, but um, also
to um, uh, black and female anduh people of other uh
nationalities and creeds which,well, if let's see, currently I

(17:26):
am, let's see, in the process ofapplying for a federal job.
I am applying for a job at theVA.

(17:50):
The federal government currentlydoes have a comprehensive
program for people who aredisabled.
They are actually encouragingdisabled people to apply because
there are more accommodationsavailable in the federal sector
for people like myself who arealmost fully disabled and I am I
am actually almost fullyphysically disabled.

(18:10):
It sucks, I'm too young toretire and because I my
insurance has changed I myinsurance has changed I have to
rebuild my case if I were to goback and file for social

(18:31):
security, disability insurancePlus.
You know, I like what I do andI would really like to be able
to use my skills to helpveterans of all kinds.
So, let's see talking aboutthat.
If I have applied for a job,let's see.

(18:59):
So I applied for two.
There are seven positionsavailable per job.
So based on that, let's say Iam the only minority who applied
and I am including a female inthat minority.

(19:20):
If I'm the only minority whoapplied and the federal
government no longer made anyselections to extend
opportunities to minority people, well then that means that two
white guys are going to gethired.

Speaker 1 (19:42):
Before I ever even considered White guys are going
to get hired before I ever evenconsidered, I think that assumes
a couple of things.

Speaker 2 (19:53):
I don't think it's an assumption because, again, this
is why equal opportunity was.
Equal employment opportunitywas created in the first place
was because minorities were notgiven a fair chance and what is
this?
Both in the government and umthe private sector and what is a

(20:14):
fair chance?

Speaker 1 (20:16):
what, what?

Speaker 2 (20:16):
would you consider qualified?
If I'm qualified to do the job,I may not get the job based on
discrimination againstminorities, whether it be the
fact that I am black, the factthat I'm a female, the fact that
I'm disabled.
Currently, there is a massivemovement against the LGBT plus

(20:41):
community, so I'm going to goahead and admit although it's
not a thing that I talk aboutvery often is I'm going to go
ahead and admit that I'm alsonon-binary and bisexual, so I
could also be discriminatedagainst for my gender identity
and or my sexual orientation.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
Okay, that's the assumption that's being made.
Is you're assuming these peoplewill discriminate based off of
those things?

Speaker 2 (21:10):
It's not an assumption if you go back and
look at the history behind it.

Speaker 1 (21:16):
Behind what.

Speaker 2 (21:18):
What did I just say Behind?
The history behind it, whichwas created when In the 90s it
was created in the 90s.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
Right.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
Because, minorities Because minorities 34.

Speaker 1 (21:31):
We're 34 years out, 30 plus years displaced from it.
So it was placed.
It was put in a time where itwas needed, right.
How long do we let this?
Do you really believe that we?

Speaker 2 (21:45):
live in a time that it's no longer needed.
I'm asking you honestly Ididn't say that.

Speaker 1 (21:51):
I'm saying that we're 30 years removed from it.
We as a society, I genuinelyfeel have gotten better.
Do I think we're at the placewhere we can get rid of it?
No, I don't, but I'm saying howlong.
Right now, I'm asking.
I'm not saying I'm asking howlong do we keep a policy like
that?
In effect, do we keep it in 100years?

(22:11):
We keep it in 50?
In 60 years it's no longerneeded, but it continues to
remain a policy for another 40years have we swung in the

(22:34):
opposite direction then.

Speaker 2 (22:35):
Well then, you have to look at how many minorities
hold federal government jobs.

Speaker 1 (22:47):
Okay, and let's say you have I'm going to keep the
numbers really simple here.
Let's say you have a thousandgovernment jobs, okay, and in
this example we only have ahundred people, a hundred
minority people.
Sure, 900 of those jobs aren'tgoing to have somebody, like

(23:08):
they're not going to meet theirquota.
So what do we do about those900 jobs?

Speaker 2 (23:14):
If they're being held to practices of having to hire
minorities.

Speaker 1 (23:21):
Yeah.
I mean, if no minorities apply,you know, you hire the people
who applied, okay, and ifminorities apply but aren't
qualified for the job, do I do?

Speaker 2 (23:36):
we still want those people in in those positions so
now you're talking about themeritocracy that Project 2025
would like to put in place.

Speaker 1 (23:52):
Define meritocracy Thanks, google.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
get to retain your job, but also get your raises
based on how well you performversus without considering
anything else, including howwell how long you have been in
service.

Speaker 1 (24:21):
Yeah, isn't that?
I don't know that sounds sounds.
Maybe I'm not seeing it throughthe correct lens here, so help
me out.
But if I go to the, theolympics, and I'm the best
swimmer and I win because I'mthe best swimmer.
Like isn't that meritocracy?
You're in direct competitionwith someone.

Speaker 2 (24:44):
You're in direct competition.
Isn't that how jobs work too?

Speaker 1 (24:50):
You're not performing a job, so jobs, work that way
too.
I got to my position because Iwas the best at what I was doing
.

Speaker 2 (24:59):
Okay.
So I would argue that if youhave been in service,
particularly in the federalgovernment, for a long time, it
stands to reason that that isbecause you do your job well.
And someone who got hired let'ssay I've been employed by the
federal government at the VA for10 years, okay, and I do my job

(25:24):
well and have been being paidboth on how long I've been there
and how well I do my job.
How fair is it for someone whogot hired three months before we
do our employee evaluations ifthat person, because they have

(25:46):
similar numbers to mine got paidas much of a raise or more than
me?

Speaker 1 (25:55):
So I'm not familiar with raises happening so quickly
like that it is.
Every place I've worked is oneyear after hire date.
Never you got hired threemonths before we were going to
give everybody a raise.
No, it doesn't work like that.
If I was hired three monthsbefore everybody got a raise,
then I'm not getting a raise for15 months until the next wave
comes on.

Speaker 2 (26:16):
So it works in different ways and I am, let's
see, applying for the same jobfor the same reason in both the
federal government sector and inthe private sector and with
both of these employers that areconsidering me for hire.
They do give raises andevaluations fairly regularly.

(26:37):
And, let's see, the privatesector job will pay you based on
your skill set.
So they are doing itmerit-based, because skills is
part of the merit.
So they will pay you based onyour skill set until you top out

(27:00):
.
When you top out in your paygrade, then they go to a
merit-based system.
So how good your numbers are,and they do evaluate your skill
set.
Let's see every three months.
The federal government for theVA, particularly when you first

(27:24):
hire on, will evaluate yourather regularly and that's
primarily to figure out if theywant to keep you or not.
And then, yes, after, let's seeafter a certain point.
Then, yes, everybody isevaluated, you know at the same

(27:44):
time.
But, yes, when you first comein, you are evaluated, I believe
quarterly.
It could be semi annually but Ibelieve is quarterly, and
that's that's kind of my point.
And I have worked at placeswhere you know somebody had been

(28:06):
there six months before me and,as it just so happened, I
started approximately threemonths before they were doing
employee evaluations and theydetermined that that was enough
time to also do my employeeevaluation.
I believe if I had been hiredmaybe like a month before

(28:29):
evaluations, then that wouldhave been different.
I don't think I would havegotten an employee evaluation.
I probably would have gotten iteither at the end of the next
fiscal year or perhaps 90 daysafter my hire date for like an
initial evaluation, not for araise necessarily, but I have

(28:53):
been in situations where, youknow, 90 days after my start
date I was evaluated and did geta raise.
So you know it depends, did geta raise, so you know it depends

(29:16):
.
Um, let's see.
So we um okay.
So yes, they do talk about um,privatizing, uh, certain um
sectors of the federalgovernment.
They do talk about eliminatingEEOC in the federal government
sector.
They also talk about kind ofdoing like a match based for a

(29:38):
federal government job and howthe same or a similar function
is paid in the private sector.
And I do believe that somepeople who work for the federal
government and I'm talking aboutjust employees, I'm not talking

(29:58):
about people who hold anofficial office, I'm just
talking about federal employees.
I believe some of them wouldhave an opinion about that,
because there are several jobsin the federal government sector
where the employee makes morethan they would in the private

(30:19):
sector, which is probably whythey opted to apply for a
federal job.
It's because they knew that inthe government sector they would
have better benefits and betterpay, and to some people myself
included, mostly because I'mdisabled the benefits are more
important.

(30:39):
And they are also talking aboutadjusting federal benefits for
government employees.

Speaker 1 (30:50):
Should benefits be tied to your job, though?

Speaker 2 (30:53):
Should benefits be tied to your job?

Speaker 1 (30:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
Has it ever been that way?
The only way that I'm aware ofit ever being that way is if you
are a part-time employee,you're going to pay twice as
much for your benefits as afull-time employee.

Speaker 1 (31:10):
Well, aren't you saying that if you work at one
place, your benefits will bebetter?
What did you say?
Federal or private sector?
Yes, don't have as good ofbenefits no, that's what I'm
asking.

Speaker 2 (31:25):
I don't have as good of benefits?
I don't think anyone has asgood benefits as the federal
government, the federalgovernment still has a pension
plan.

Speaker 1 (31:37):
Should you have to get a federal job to get
benefits that are that good?

Speaker 2 (31:43):
In that sense you're tying to get benefits that are
that good.
Should you have to get that?

Speaker 1 (31:47):
In that sense, you're tying benefits to your job.
It sounds like you're kind ofsaying, hey, if I don't get this
job, then my benefits aren'tgoing to be great.
It shouldn't be like that.
You should have benefitsregardless of how good of a job
you have.

Speaker 2 (32:03):
I don't disagree.
However, they want to reducethe benefits that are available
to federal employees, especiallywhen it comes to health care
and the pension plan.

Speaker 1 (32:20):
For federal employees .

Speaker 2 (32:22):
Yes for federal employees.
For federal employees yes forfederal employees no-transcript.

Speaker 1 (32:36):
I don't even know any jobs that do offer pension
plans.

Speaker 2 (32:43):
I can only think of one.

Speaker 1 (32:46):
I think pensions have been just worked out.

Speaker 2 (32:48):
It is an employer that I worked for in Georgia and
, yes, they did have a pensionplan.
Now whether or not they stillhave it I don't know, but when I
worked there they did.

Speaker 1 (33:00):
In general, it sounds like pensions have been phased
out.
So to get rid of it in thegovernment as well, well, no, I
mean, yeah, well, fine in theprivate sector.
But if it's been reduced in theprivate sector, why not reduce
it in the federal government aswell, in federal?

Speaker 2 (33:21):
jobs as well, and federal jobs as well.
I feel like if you serve thefederal government, you're also
in service of the people, andthat is something worth
rewarding, and just like howveterans get those type of
benefits veterans get those typeof benefits.

Speaker 1 (33:42):
Okay, what about during COVID?
Those essential jobs?

Speaker 2 (33:49):
What about them?

Speaker 1 (33:50):
We still had to have people at.
Those aren't pension jobs,right?
People working at the market,keeping stuff open.
Right Were you getting apension.

Speaker 2 (34:03):
Well, I was actually working in service of New York
and Texas that were initialhotspots during COVID, so I was
getting crisis pay and hazardpay from FEMA.

Speaker 1 (34:18):
Right, but was that pension?
Was that pension pay?

Speaker 2 (34:22):
No, because it was a FEMA contract.

Speaker 1 (34:25):
Right.
So it's almost like we'resaying working in the government
, you should get more benefitsbecause you're more important.
Well, covid showed otherwise.
Because you're more important.
Well, covid showed otherwise.
Covid showed that just becauseyou worked at the government
didn't mean you were all thatimportant Just because you were

(34:45):
a federal employee didn't meanyou were the bee's knees, those
people still worked.

Speaker 2 (34:51):
My mother works for the state government of Georgia
and she had to work from homeduring COVID.

Speaker 1 (35:01):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (35:02):
So yes, government workers were still employed.

Speaker 1 (35:07):
Why should they get something that other people
don't get?
Our goal in society is to makesociety work right, Like we're
supposed to come together andhelp each other out.
Why should federal people,federal employees, make a better
benefit simply for being partof the government?

Speaker 2 (35:33):
Again, because you're working in service of the
people.

Speaker 1 (35:37):
So were people who kept grocery stores open during
the pandemic.
So were people who, but theywere making minimum wage, some
of them, you know.

Speaker 2 (35:49):
And then there was COVID pay, but that went away.

Speaker 1 (35:52):
But that's not a pension, that's they're not
getting the same benefits asfederal employees.

Speaker 2 (36:00):
I'm not sure you know what a pension is.

Speaker 1 (36:03):
Yeah, define pension.
That's what I'm looking atright now.

Speaker 2 (36:08):
It's a retirement plan, but you're talking more
about like active pay Regularpayment.
Yes, you're talking about activepay.
Do I believe that grocery storeemployees should have gotten
more money when they wererisking their lives to keep
stores open so that people couldeat Absolutely Just as much as

(36:32):
I do for people who ownedprivate chain restaurants and
continue to stay open?
Because, you know, when I wasin New York, I couldn't cook.
I was living in a hotel with nokitchen.
So I ate out every singlefreaking day.
I was there.

(36:53):
Same thing in Texas.
Again, I was in a hotel,couldn't cook.
It's not like it was a hotelwith a kitchen suite, because
you know they took what theycould get.
So, again, when I was in Texas,I had to eat out every freaking
day.
Do I believe that people whorisk their lives to feed the
public should have been paidmore?

(37:16):
During COVID 100% In California, washington, oregon, new York
and Pennsylvania, healthcareworkers in all of those states
went on strike when they learnedthat people like me who went to
help out during the crisis,received hazard pay and crisis
pay because they lived there andwere still risking their lives

(37:40):
just every bit as much as I was.
Matter of fact, they didn'thave a choice but to risk their
lives because that was theirhome, do?
I believe that those peoplealso should have gotten hazard
pay and crisis pay.
100%, absolutely 100%.
Let's see.
We have to get off of this,because Project 2025 is not a
whole lot about COVID.

Speaker 1 (38:01):
No.

Speaker 2 (38:02):
Although they do have misinformation in Project 2025
about vaccinations and masks.
So I kind of want to shift overto some of the most alarming
things about the plan forProject 2025, particularly

(38:24):
because they make these thingssound so good.
They propose restructuring thechecks and balances government

(38:45):
system to where thecongressional and judicial
branch exists to support thepresident, rather than keep each
other in check in order touphold the Constitution.
Their argument is thatrestructuring the current system
of government to support thepresident is more in line with

(39:06):
the original intent of theConstitution.
So that's the first thing.
Also, they want to stockpilemore nuclear weapons,
manufacture more military-styleweapons in the US and one would
think it would be so thatAmericans could arm themselves

(39:30):
and continue misquoting theSecond Amendment, right to bear
arms.
But it is actually the intentis to quote, unquote arm our
allies.
Also, they want to eliminatedon't ask, don't tell in the

(39:50):
military.
They want to keep trans peopleout of the military.
They want to reward militarypersonnel based on how
kill-happy they are rather thanhow long they've been in
military service.
They really, really, really,really want to go to war with

(40:16):
China so bad that bad thingsabout China are heavily
documented in every singlechapter of this document.

Speaker 1 (40:29):
That's not what I got from it.
What I got from it was we needto break away from working with
China.
The nuclear stockpile wasbecause I think somewhere in
there it said China wasincreasing their supply, so we
should probably do the same.
I think Russia as well.

Speaker 2 (40:47):
China, russia and North Korea yes, they're all
increasing their nuclear supply.
That's correct.

Speaker 1 (40:53):
And I think that's what they're getting at or I
thought that's what they weregetting at here is that we
should probably increase oursthe same, because they're doing
it.
What else was I going to say?
What did we talk about rightafter?
What?
Did you rapid fire right offafter that?
Oh, china.
This document to me comes offas we need to stop working so

(41:18):
much with China.
We need to, um, basicallycleanse our uh.
How do, how do you say this?
Um?

Speaker 2 (41:29):
uh, like our social.

Speaker 1 (41:30):
what's that yeah?

Speaker 2 (41:31):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (41:32):
Cleanse how we do business, uh, with China, and we
need to to remove their.
I mean, that's been a that'sbeen a that's been a thing
that's going around for a while.

Speaker 2 (41:43):
How true it is.
Yes, um, also, please don't usethe word cleanse.
Yeah, clint, sounds a littlehard line.
It's a a an kind of anaggressive word to use when

(42:05):
we're talking about how we dealwith other countries and the
people that come from thosecountries.

Speaker 1 (42:11):
It's fair.
Um well, it wasn't anything todo with people who come from
those countries.
That's.
That's not what I was trying toget at.
I uh, my, my argument was I'mkind of making sure that I'm
covering all bases as we talkanything to do with people who
come from those countries?
That's not what I was trying toget at.

Speaker 2 (42:21):
My argument was I'm kind of making sure that I'm
covering all bases as we talkabout this.
Yeah, you're good.

Speaker 1 (42:25):
You're good.
My logic there was thisdocument talking about removing
China's influence.
We'll say the country, China,their influence.
Through TikTok through socialmedia, temu, all of that Sure

(42:45):
how it's infiltrating our phonesand potentially putting our
children at risk.
For I don't know.
That's what I was trying tofind out through half this
document.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
That's what I was trying to find out through half
this document.
China is every bit a superpowerin the world, not just in how
China deals with the US, but howthey deal with the entire world
.
Yes, they're very much seen asa superpower, which is probably

(43:17):
why it wasn't great that Trumppulled us from the Paris Accords
so quickly, because the firstcountry to step in and say, well
, you know, we will spearheadall of these things and, point

(43:39):
of fact, they have been wasChina.

Speaker 1 (43:40):
So you know, Paris Accords yes, China.

Speaker 2 (43:43):
Why do they pollute so much?
So let's see, since enteringinto the Paris Accords,
according to China I have tostate that outright according to
China they have been fulfillingtheir promises.
Again, as I said, this isaccording to China, china.
however, I'd have to look intothe paris accord and see what
it's all about and chinesepollution rates and all of that

(44:06):
that's very tedious however, umin terms of information that you
will be able to find on whetheror not china is actually
fulfilling that promise.
I wish you luck.
I wish you all the best.

Speaker 1 (44:23):
To me that comes off as Because you probably will be
rolling a boulder uphill.
To me it comes off as justbecause you're part of the
agreement or the accord, theParis Accord doesn't mean you
have to follow it.
So why be part of it?
Why talk the talk when you'renot going to walk the walk?

Speaker 2 (44:41):
Well, it made China look really freaking good
Globally.
It made China look goodglobally.

Speaker 1 (44:50):
Sure sure To other global powers, but to your
regular voter.

Speaker 2 (44:58):
Okay, so are you promoting nationalism over
globalism?

Speaker 1 (45:05):
No, I'm here to talk.
That's what I'm here for.
I'm here to try and try tobecause we don't want this to be
just us talking and agreeingright.
We need some something that theaudience might be thinking to
themselves.

Speaker 2 (45:22):
And they probably are , which is you know why I asked
the question?
Because the way that youphrased the question is who
cares how China looked globally,if the average American is like
well, china still sucks and isa danger to the entire world?
I mean, china has taken overTibet and Taiwan, so I am not

(45:48):
saying that China is great.
What I'm saying, though, is howChina presented itself globally
, particularly in that moment,versus how the US did, does not
make us look great, and globalimpression is important, and I

(46:08):
think that the reason whyperhaps the average American
voter was fine with that isbecause, uh, trump didn't really
understand the american roleand the paris accords, so,
rather than learn the role, um,he made several assumptions

(46:32):
about it, uh, and then was likeokay, we're out, so you know.
And then that's what hepresented to the US when he came
back and did the pressconference about.
It was his many, many, many,many misconceptions about

(46:53):
America's proposed role in theParis Accords, which, again, was
something that we said we woulddo, didn't necessarily have to
do all of it, and a lot of thethings that he thought we had
proposed to do were veryincorrect.

(47:16):
Let's see Moving outside ofthat, because, again, I want to
kind of stick with Project 2025,because it's a very, very long
document and, again, I readarguably much more of it than
you did.

Speaker 1 (47:37):
Sounds like it.

Speaker 2 (47:39):
And I did not get very far before I was like this
sounds like, uh, fascism, um andthen, like looking up a true
definition of fascism, I waslike, oh God, it is fascism.

(48:03):
It's one thing, I think, for theUS to have a fascist government
on a national scale, but whenyou take a look at everything
that is outlined in thisdocument in terms of our global
relations and our militarypersonnel, they want this to be

(48:30):
a worldwide thing, because theydo talk about pressing the UN
and NATO to support moreAmerican agendas.
They also want Americancompanies to have tentacles in

(48:54):
most of the first worldcountries globally.
Most of the first worldcountries globally.
Let's see, they say that it isto expand the American economy.
However, most of the Americaneconomy does actually rely on
small businesses, and I don'tsee small businesses being able

(49:18):
to open up shops in countrieslike Uganda or even the UK.
So it would be your biggercompanies that would have access
to this global outreach, and alot of people don't know this

(49:38):
this.
But when it comes to the superrich, there is no trickle-down
economics.
Um, I think, like it's what?
Like three percent of thecountry holds 90 of the wealth.
They do not spend that money inthe US.

Speaker 1 (49:57):
Oh, it's offshore bank accounts, but that's
another thing this documenttalks about is to get rid of
that.

Speaker 2 (50:09):
I did see that.
I did see that To which I wouldkind of say, well, good luck,
but it's all about looking good.
Right, it's all about lookinggood and you know, again I'm

(50:33):
going to be cussing and I'mgoing to say another Southern
saying which is wish in one handshit in the other and see which
one fills up first.
So you know, but you know it's,it's a very big talk, um.
So I guess the question is whydo I look at it and see fascism?
And, aside from the fact thatyou didn't read as much as I did
, why do you look at it and seesomething else?

Speaker 1 (50:54):
um, because when I think fascist, I don't think um
giving power back to the people,that's not that's not fascism.

Speaker 2 (51:06):
It's not giving power back to the people.
They're presenting it, um, asgiving power back to the people.

Speaker 1 (51:14):
By taking it away from.

Speaker 2 (51:16):
It's giving power Okay, by taking it away from
it's giving power Okay.
So the problem is I don'tdisagree with the idea of there
being less bureaucracy in ourgovernment.
I am a liberal anarchist.
I don't believe I'm anindependent anarchist.

(51:36):
I don't believe that ourcurrent system of government
works.
I believe that our currentsystem of government let me
rephrase I don't believe itworks well and I believe that
really the only way.
I don't believe that we shouldhave a bipartisan government and
I do believe that the only wayto promote any real change for
anyone, and I do believe thatthe only way to promote any real

(51:57):
change for anyone is todismantle the system and start
from the ground up.
Having said that, this documentwants to remove what they call
bureaucracy, but what they'rereally wanting to remove is
oversight.
They want to remove theoversight that would keep the

(52:21):
commander-in-chief in check.
Currently, we have a system ofchecks and balances so that one
government, one branch ofgovernment, um can't distort the
constitution.
Um, primarily because theconstitution of the united

(52:46):
states is the law of the land.
Um.
Oh, I'm going to go ahead andsay that they do take arms
against um.
Let's see the belief thatsystemic racism exists in this
country.
They take arms against teachingwhat they call critical race

(53:08):
theory, which is usually simplyteaching American history,
because, unfortunately for what,like 80% of the country,
slavery is a part of our history, so teaching about it is not
critical race theory.
Critical race theory isactually a very complicated

(53:33):
subject.
It's a college level subjectand it is something that people
tend to minor in when they ummajor in social studies, whether
they be african-american, umwomen, that kind of thing.
Um, let's see.

Speaker 1 (53:51):
So yeah, so just to interject here real quick and
again, I could be wrong, okay,right from what I've seen.
So this is this is my ownpersonal experience.
It seems to me like the theterm critical race theory
entered the cultural zeitgeistso quickly within the past five

(54:11):
years and, doing a quick search,it's been in in.
It's been a thing since likethe 1980s or 70s or something
like that, but it entered thecultural zeitgeist which is now.
You've got hundreds ofthousands of people trying to
understand this term and you'vegot tens of thousands of people
trying to define it one way andtens of thousands trying to

(54:32):
define it another way, and Ithink that's where some of the
problem was coming from.
Is sure, for a while nobodyknew what that meant.

Speaker 2 (54:41):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (54:41):
And now we have misinformation on it.
Now it seems like the termshave settled down into place.
It seems like it could be wrong.

Speaker 2 (54:50):
It's documented several times throughout Project
2025.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
It's documented a lot , in their own terms.

Speaker 2 (54:58):
In their own terms.
In their own terms Because theydo not want slavery and
segregation being taught inpublic schools, at least in its
for lack of a better wordcurrent and inclusive form.

(55:19):
I grew up in the South and Ihave to admit that my education
on slavery from oh, I think,maybe third or fourth grade
third grade was prettycomprehensive, except for a few
things like how the Civil Warstarted.

(55:41):
The state of Georgia isactually quite honest about
slavery and segregation and theCivil Rights Movement in terms
of how they choose to teach it.
It's a very comprehensiveprogram, minus a few things that
they do because they're toteach it.
It's a very comprehensiveprogram, minus a few things that
they do because they're asouthern state.

(56:04):
Critical race theory does notentail teaching black history to
white students.
That's not what critical racetheory is.
Critical race theory is a verycomplex social theory in terms

(56:27):
of how BIPOC people are treatedin this country, how we are able
to relate to non-BIPOC peopleand how we are able to relate to
each other, and that isliterally the simplest way that
I can put it without going backto college and getting a degree
in.
African-American studies andminoring in critical race theory

(56:49):
that's the simplest freakingway that I can put it is.
Critical race theory has to dospecifically with how black
people, how we, survive in thiscountry.

Speaker 1 (57:03):
That's a good point you make, that we're not going
to be able to talk about itunless we go back to college and
major or minor in it.
So if any of our listeners outthere want to sit in with us,
talk to us about this at somepoint.
I would love to sit down withus talk to us about this at some
point um, I would, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (57:23):
I think that would be a great critical theory scholar
.

Speaker 1 (57:25):
Yeah, I think that would be a great scholar.
Um, I'm sure we've got a con, away to contact us somehow email
or something, um, but I thinkthat would be a really cool
thing to do is sit down and talkwith somebody who actually
knows what they're talking about, rather, than not to say that

(57:45):
we don't know anything.

Speaker 2 (57:47):
We're just here as the your average person, I would
say again I look at thispodcast and how we host it, as
we are students of the humancondition.

Speaker 1 (58:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (58:03):
So we study, we study the human condition and,
particularly in this country, alot of those constructs center
around race.

Speaker 1 (58:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (58:17):
Speaking of which.

Speaker 1 (58:19):
Okay, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (58:21):
What were you going to say?

Speaker 1 (58:21):
No, which okay, go ahead.
What were you gonna say?

Speaker 2 (58:23):
uh, no, no, go ahead, but mine's not important okay,
um, speaking of which, uh, whenthey, when we are in the general
welfare section of the document, they do keep talking about
rejecting the idea that racismin this country is systemic,

(58:49):
although it is.
It is systemic.
Racism is actually written inthe Constitution in several
places If you read it.
Having said that, they veryearly on talking about promoting
Martin Luther King's dream of acolorblind society.

(59:11):
I take issue with that quote,and very quickly, quickly.
The reason is that, um,particularly uh, when, um, let's
see, a lot of conservativeswere, um proposing that, uh,
teaching about our country'shistory in school as a way of

(59:32):
teaching critical race theory,they kept misquoting martin
luther king.
Um, they kept misquoting MartinLuther King.
They kept saying and I cannotstress this enough, this is a
misquote.
So anyone who has used it inthis way, you're misquoting a
great, complicated man who isnow dead.
Also, you can fucking Googlethe fucking speech.

(59:54):
Stop misquoting him.
I take issue with that Becausethey say that Martin Luther
King's I have a Dream speechsays that I dream of a day where
I dream of a day in whichchildren can be judged not by
the color of their skin but bythe content of their character.

(01:00:16):
That is a misquote and MartinLuther King himself has said and
I will give you the actualquote.
He has said that he hasregretted saying it because it
is.
It was a statement that was notwritten into his speech that he
you know he was speaking verypassionately when giving the I

(01:00:42):
have a Dream speech, so it wasan off-the-cuff statement that
he made while giving the speechbecause the crowd was hyped up.
What he said was I have a dreamthat my four little children
can grow up in a country inwhich they will be judged not by

(01:01:04):
the color of their skin but bythe content of their character.
That is a largely importantdistinction, particularly
children.
Yes, particularly if you'regoing to use it to suggest that

(01:01:25):
children should not be learningabout slavery and segregation
and Jim Crow in the South,although that is every bit a
part of our history.
Although that is every bit apart of our history.
So he wasn't talking about allchildren In that moment.

(01:01:49):
He was talking about hischildren, who are black children
, yep, and to misquote him forone thing bastardizes the speech
, but it also is a hard thing tohear him be misquoted when,
again, you can Google the speechwithout coming to the

(01:02:12):
conclusion that you aremisquoting him to further your
own message.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
That's easy enough to look into these things nowadays
.
Absolutely.

Speaker 2 (01:02:24):
Yeah.
So let's see.
In Montana, where I live, theydon't give children off for
Martin Luther King Jr Day.
So when that day came aroundlast year, I emailed the school
and was like my son will not beattending because we are going

(01:02:45):
to celebrate Martin Luther KingJr's birthday and that was the
day that it was observed.
It's always the Monday of orafter his birthday and on that
day, aside from listening to theBlack National Anthem yes,
that's a thing we also listenedto Martin Luther King's speech

(01:03:10):
during the March on Washingtonfor Equality and Jobs.

Speaker 1 (01:03:15):
That's fun.
I think that's a good way tospend the day.

Speaker 2 (01:03:22):
I think so too.
Not only can you read thespeech, fun, so you can also a
good way to spend the day.
I think so too.
And you know, not only can youread the speech, but you can
also go to youtube and spotifyand listen to the speech.
Um, I it's.
I don't have it memorized,don't have it memorized, but
Don't have it memorized.
But I will say this becauseit's important that is a speech

(01:03:42):
that needs to be taken intocontext in its entirety.
It is not only is it offensive,but it's also a mistake and a
disservice to try to pickthrough the speech to find
quotes that might further youragenda, because you know, the

(01:04:05):
only black man you know fromhistory, aside from Frederick
Douglass, said it that's a goodpoint, very good point to take
the speech in its entirety.
That's how it was given.

Speaker 1 (01:04:24):
We.
I think this was in Montana.
Actually, when I lived there insixth or seventh grade my
history class we had to listento a speech.
But granted, that was you knowhow many years ago 15, 20 years
ago now we don't talk about ageI don't know.

(01:04:46):
Well, my point is is I don'tknow what they're doing now, I
don't know what the curriculumholds, and I think also it
depends on the teacher as well.
So oh sure I would have beenlucky.
Arguably I could have beenlucky.
I don't want to say I was Icould have been lucky.
Arguably I could have beenlucky.
I don't want to say I was Icould have been lucky to have
gotten a teacher willing to haveus listen to that.

(01:05:07):
And then I'm sure that thereare other teachers out there who
just they talk about it andthat's it.
They say yes, you know, he gavethe speech.
These are some things from itblah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I can't I can't yeah, I can'tspeak on it.

Speaker 2 (01:05:27):
So, uh, for my son being a uh black student in
Montana, um, the school that hewent to, they he went to they
did not start teaching aboutslavery until sixth grade, which

(01:05:48):
I don't know I guess that couldbe considered tone deaf when
you consider that on the atleast on the East Coast as I
know it, children start learningabout it in the third grade.
Coast as I know it, um,children start learning about it
in the third grade.
Um, so I call that tone deafbecause it kind of like it
isolates a child from montanafrom the experiences of a child

(01:06:10):
from georgia or new york infourth and fifth grade, when I
lived in Montana, we werelearning about slavery.
Okay, he went to a privatesector school.
It wasn't a private school, butit was a school not within the

(01:06:31):
public district.

Speaker 1 (01:06:33):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:06:34):
Because it technically is not a part of the
major town.
Did he start going to school inMontana?

Speaker 1 (01:06:43):
No.
What grades in Montana has hedone?

Speaker 2 (01:06:49):
Third through.
He's in seventh now.

Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
So at least third through sixth yeah.
And not once since then.

Speaker 2 (01:06:59):
Wow, that's kind of shocking not until not until
sixth grade, and I did have toask him about it.
Um, because we were watchingsomething he likes.
So as a family we like to watchthe show blackish.
And let's see, there was asegment that they did on slavery
, uh, which was actually kind ofcool.

(01:07:21):
And then I looked over and Iwas like, has your school ever
taught you about slavery?
And he was like no, I can't saythat they did.
And I was like, so, as you'rewatching this sketch, you have
no idea what they're talkingabout.
And he was like no, no.
And I was like, okay, I, Ican't abide that.

(01:07:43):
So I paused it and probablywarped his brain by giving a
very nutshell-ish account of theblack experience in america up
until the um, up untiljuneteenth.

(01:08:03):
Oh my god, that is anotherthing.
So in the document I found thisinteresting they acknowledge 10
federal holidays rather than 11.

Speaker 1 (01:08:19):
Really.

Speaker 2 (01:08:21):
Really, why do you think?
I find that interesting andalso telling.

Speaker 1 (01:08:28):
Because one's missing .

Speaker 2 (01:08:30):
What's the one that's missing?
What is the 11th holiday?
Literally the 11th holiday.

Speaker 1 (01:08:35):
Sounds like Juneteenth.

Speaker 2 (01:08:37):
It is Juneteenth, but in this document.

Speaker 1 (01:08:45):
Federal holidays.
Compared to an employee atlarge private receives 13 days a
week.
Hold on A federal employee.
Here's, here's what I'm goingto read.

Speaker 2 (01:08:51):
Wow, you found the statement.

Speaker 1 (01:08:52):
A federal employee with five years experience
receives 20 vacation days, 13paid sick days and 10.
And hold on, let me, let mequote it correctly and all 10
federal holidays.
That's.
I think that's why it says 10federal holidays is currently
when this was written, in 2022,were there, were there 11

(01:09:13):
federal holidays or were there10?

Speaker 2 (01:09:15):
Yes, there were.
Juneteenth was made a federalholiday in 2021 and was first
observed in 2022.
And I know this for a factbecause I used to work next to
the VA 2021.

Speaker 1 (01:09:30):
Okay, well, I guess this document let me rephrase it
the document was released in2022.
I'm not trying to defend it,I'm just trying to put things
into perspective.
Maybe somebody's listening tothis podcast five years from now
.

Speaker 2 (01:09:44):
400 people worked on this document and five people
went through it to edit it.

Speaker 1 (01:09:50):
Okay, okay, we're getting off track.
If that was outdated.

Speaker 2 (01:09:54):
If that was outdated information, if it was written
pre-2021, they had fivedifferent times to correct it
and chose not to.

Speaker 1 (01:10:04):
All 10 federal holidays, compared to an
employee at a large privatecompany who receives 13 days of
vacation and eight paid sickdays.
Federal health benefits aremore comparable to the.
Oh okay, it just goes intobenefits and stuff like that.
It seems like the obvioussolution to the scrap and freeze
is to move closer to the marketmodel.
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:10:23):
We could probably confuse a lot of people.

Speaker 1 (01:10:28):
Yeah, you're right, you're right, it does, it does
only.
Yeah, let's do that.
Let's, let's take the time toread this whole document.

Speaker 2 (01:10:40):
I do not have enough spit dude.

Speaker 1 (01:10:44):
I don't have the brain capacity for it.
I don't have enough spit themental gymnastics that some of
the things I was reading wasgoing through.
I was just like this is I don'tknow To say A but mean B.

Speaker 2 (01:10:58):
It starts out as a lot there are some things Go
ahead.
I was going to say I lot um.

Speaker 1 (01:11:04):
There are some things which is good, which is uh.
I was gonna say that I mean,there are some things, but if
you put enough words in anydocument, I'm gonna agree with
some of it, you know there arethings that I don't, that I
can't disagree with um.

Speaker 2 (01:11:18):
For instance, our federal government is too fat,
there's too much of it and thereare redundancies.
So if we were going to talkabout trimming some unnecessary
offices, particularly in thefederal government, you know I'm

(01:11:40):
all for that, I'm all foreliminating redundancies, right.
That doesn't mean you agreewith the whole document.
The federal government, youknow I'm for, I'm all for that,
I'm all for, uh, eliminatingredundancies.

Speaker 1 (01:11:45):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:11:45):
Um, that doesn't mean you agree with the whole
document.
I don't agree with hardly any ofit, um, particularly when they
want to privatize so much of thefederal government and shift
the oversight to people, um,with no knowledge in knowledge
in the fields that they'resupposed to be overseeing, but

(01:12:06):
who wholly agree with the typeof government that they are
trying to put in place.
That's what they want.
They want people who agree withthe ideologies of the document
rather than people who have anykind of knowledge, whether it be
career, political or otherwise,in the field, to conduct the

(01:12:32):
oversight, and they want as manygovernment offices as possible
to report to the Secretary ofState or the Chief of Staff,
mostly the Secretary of State.
The Vice President would kindof be.

(01:12:53):
The Vice President wouldactually be a redundant role,
unless the next President-electis a single person, because the
vice president would beconducting things much in the
way a first spouse would.

Speaker 1 (01:13:06):
I've got a question I may have an answer.
Possibly it's just.
It's just a I don't know ifit's a thought experiment, just
something I'm now thinking about.
They have created this documentin case for a republican hire
or a higher uh for a republicancandidate.

(01:13:27):
Right, that is yes, it's notoutright.
And they even kind of go overthat is say trump, go out of the
race somehow.
I don't know, this is for thenext election, I know, but this
was written in 2022.
Finish in 2022.
Okay, let's.
I think that's what the bookwas getting at was this is for

(01:13:49):
the next Republican hire, or Ikeep saying hire, I mean, I
guess, being a president's kindof a job the next president the
next Republican president elect.
Right, right.

Speaker 2 (01:14:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:14:02):
So do you think that they have a document?
Maybe not on the books or theplay-by-play, or if he doesn't
get elected, if a Republicandoesn't get elected?

Speaker 2 (01:14:15):
Yes, I do.

Speaker 1 (01:14:17):
And where is that document?

Speaker 2 (01:14:19):
Because I don't think that any organization that put
that much time and energy intothis particular plan, which is
again to establish aninstitution of fascism, cannot
stress that enough, and we needto make the time for me to go
over why that would have put somuch time and energy into

(01:14:45):
documenting how to institutefascism into literally every
fabric of our society would nothave a contingency in place for
if, um, the next president electand again elections on tuesday,
um, if the next president electis not republican right.

Speaker 1 (01:15:01):
So is this?
How do I say this?
Could this just be adistraction?
Could?
It be a distraction like here's, here's project 2025 please,
please, be distracted by this sowe can keep.

(01:15:22):
I don't know this, I don't thinkso um and and I will the reason
why I will say it is this we'retwo different people who have
both read it and we gotdifferent impressions from it oh
there, but you read more, sohad I read apparently a hell of
a lot more than you did had Iread more, maybe, maybe I would
have gotten a differentimpression did you know what a

(01:15:44):
fascist government was before Iwould in this document I'm sure
I knew what it was at some point.

Speaker 2 (01:15:52):
I'm not going to retain maybe didn't have like
the label of it I'm not going toretain every single um
description of a government Iput myself.

Speaker 1 (01:16:07):
I backed myself into a corner.
I had nine days, which doesn'tsound like, or it sounds like,
plenty.
I had nine days to read 900pages.
That's 100 pages a day, right,and I read more than you did in
four days.
Oh, while having to drive 18hours by the way I work, nine to
well ten to seven Monday.
The way I work, 9 to 10 to 7,monday through Friday.

(01:16:31):
I, you know personal life got inthe way, so I bit off more than
I could chew.
I'll be first to admit that Iwant.
I wanted to.

Speaker 2 (01:16:40):
We all make our choices.
Mostly because every video Ilooked up online there was no
there had to be a bias and,based on the videos that I saw
talking about very brieflyproject 2025, I'm like there's
no way you read it.
There's no way you read thisthat's.

Speaker 1 (01:16:58):
That was kind of my every video.
I looked up on Project 2025, itwas everybody just ripping on
the whole thing.
I wanted something unbiased andthe best way to get that, I
thought to myself, was to readit myself.

Speaker 2 (01:17:11):
So it was kind of the way that they were ripping on
it was, you know, let's see,eliminating social programs yes,
this is true, that is very,very true.
Limiting social programs yes,this is true, that is very, very
true.
But they're projecting it in away where it was maybe
reversible.
If this plan goes into place,the only way to reverse it is to

(01:17:37):
assassinate the president-elect.

Speaker 1 (01:17:40):
I don't think so.
I think everything isreversible.
It's either that or completelyrevolt.
I think everything isreversible.
I think I don't want to sayeverything.

Speaker 2 (01:17:54):
Okay.
Russia was a political ally andthe major source of our oil
until Putin came into power, andever since then we have been
fighting not Russia, we've beenfighting Putin.

Speaker 1 (01:18:13):
We should be.

Speaker 2 (01:18:14):
And that man has been in power for a long time.
Right, kim Jong-un assassinatedhis own brother to assume power
, and he's still in power.

Speaker 1 (01:18:27):
He had other people assassinate him for him.

Speaker 2 (01:18:30):
Well, yes, that does not change the fact that for
five days it may have been three, three to five days CNN was
talking about his brother'sassassination and how
devastating it was and who couldhave done such a thing.
And three to five days later,kim Jong-un was like I did, I

(01:18:51):
did it what I swear to God hedid well, I mean, you can happen
to be watching the news when ithappened and I was just like,
oh, that's bad you can takeresponsibility for something you
didn't do.

Speaker 1 (01:19:07):
Why?

Speaker 2 (01:19:09):
He already, if his brother was assassinated.
He already had the presidentialoffice.

Speaker 1 (01:19:14):
To show like, hey, this is how I do things.
I guess, even if it wasn't him,I don't know, I don't know, I'm
just trying to think outsidethe box here.
I'm not trying to think outsidethe box here, I'm not trying to
give him benefit of the doubtor anything.

Speaker 2 (01:19:26):
I'm just playing devil's advocate.
I would say that could havebeen considered a war crime, and
it is.
But because he admitted to it,after assuming the quote unquote
presidential office, he becameuntouchable.

Speaker 1 (01:19:43):
I have to do more research into all of that.

Speaker 2 (01:19:49):
Okay, so in your defense, I actually happen to be
watching that scenario veryclosely because Kim Jong-il was
a horrible human being who gaveum the united station, the
united nations, a lot of griefwhen he started secretly
stockpiling nuclear weapons yeahso then, when he died, um kim

(01:20:16):
jong-un's brother, whose name Icannot remember for the life of
me, was supposed to assume thepresidency, which was humongous
because he was allying withSouth Korea.
He had visions of bringing NorthKorea to the table globally in

(01:20:40):
cooperation, as an ally toeveryone, and was going to
surrender the weapons that hisfather was stockpiling.
And apparently, kim Jong-unstill agreed with their father,
so he killed him.

Speaker 1 (01:20:54):
Interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:20:57):
So yeah, if the older brother had assumed power,
North Korea's government wouldbe so different today.

Speaker 1 (01:21:05):
At least that is the thought.
Was that around 2008 to 2010?

Speaker 2 (01:21:11):
Let's see I was working at the hospital so I
want to say maybe 2014?
.

Speaker 1 (01:21:20):
Oh, really, really Okay.
I was going to use the excuse.
I was still in school.
I didn't care too much aboutthe news back then, but that's
around the time I started caringabout news and now I've fallen
off.

Speaker 2 (01:21:37):
I have fallen off I started watching a lot of things
very heavily when we weregetting into 2014 because of a
lot of things that werehappening that still happen in
this country, but there justseemed to be like a whole bunch

(01:22:00):
of shit going on in 2014 leadingup to 2016.

Speaker 1 (01:22:05):
Yeah, that's fair.

Speaker 2 (01:22:06):
So I kind of I started paying way more
attention to the news then.
Okay, back to how can I readthis document and see fascism?
Firstly, because the checks andbalances system under Project
2025 will no longer exist andthe congressional and judicial

(01:22:31):
branches of government willstill exist, but they will exist
in support of the president,which is bad.
Also, anyone who does not agreewith the goal of the

(01:22:51):
presidential office will befired and replaced with someone
who does, whether they haveexperience in the office that
they've been appointed to or not, and Trump's already done this.
So that is already not great.
But when you look at it in thecontext, that it will be done to

(01:23:12):
promote the executive branchover either the congressional or
the judicial branch is a directviolation of the constitution
and would make thepresident-elect at that point in
time, if not a full-on dictator, at least an authoritarian,
which is the first part of thedefinition of fascism.

Speaker 1 (01:23:38):
Right.
Well, it's far, far rightauthoritarian.

Speaker 2 (01:23:48):
I'm sorry, what about Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:23:49):
Does not scream far right to you.

Speaker 2 (01:23:54):
I don't know the definition of far right.

Speaker 1 (01:23:55):
Okay, take the time to look it up, it feels like
those are terms far right, farleft, those are terms that are
just being thrown aroundnowadays Just because I don't
agree with somebody.
Far right is ultra conservativeand far left is ultra liberal.
What ideas follow that?
If you're far right, what?

Speaker 2 (01:24:18):
concept are you pushing?
It's outlined in the plan.
I'm getting to that.
So in the plan the governmentwould be, quote-unquote,
christian-based.
They would quote-unquotepromote women, children and

(01:24:41):
family primarily family as kindof like the center of society.
So let's see that ties into,like our abortion laws.

(01:25:03):
But it also removes a lot ofsocial programs that tend to
benefit single parents and it'sexclusive of people who are part
of the LGBT community.
Many people in the LGBTcommunity are not married,
probably won't get married, donot have kids, may not ever have

(01:25:27):
kids, and then a lot of singleparent families are working
class, poor anddisproportionately include black
families.
So there's that and I've alreadywe talked last time about you

(01:25:52):
know, not everyone in thiscountry is Christian that
government should not beoperated based on an
interpretation of a religion.
I'm going to go ahead and saythat, while I'm an atheist, I
was raised in the church and theChristian interpretation that I

(01:26:14):
have seen in conservativeRepublicans is not the Christ or
Christianity that I learnedabout in church.
I didn't learn about a savioror a God that promoted
discriminating against otherpeople.

(01:26:35):
I learned love your fellow man.
I learned turn the other cheek.
I learned let he who is withoutsin cast the first stone.
I definitely learned about awrathful God, but that's like a
lot of Old Testament stuff andthat is more of those are more

(01:27:00):
Judaism ideals rather thanChristian ideals, because, well,
the root of the word Christianis Christ.
So, Christians are mostly goingto focus on the New Testament
stuff, which is post-Christbeing born and turning 33.

(01:27:24):
There's a lot missing in theBible, by the way, and going off
on his own with 12 dudes toheal the blind, the sick,
resurrect the dead and promotehis own religion that he
ultimately ended up beingpersecuted and murdered for it

(01:27:46):
doesn't change the fact that theway that I see conservatives
uphold their version ofChristianity.
There is a lot of anti-Semitism.
There's a lot of anti-Semitism.
There's a lot of anti-Semitism.

(01:28:06):
There is a lot of rejecting thesystemic racism in this country
.
I'm not sure why they tend totie systemic racism with their
Christian ideals.
I'm really not.

(01:28:27):
I know that historically,slavery was defended using the
Bible, based off of Noah's threesons, the Noah that built the
ark.
One of his three sons walked upon him when he had passed out,

(01:28:48):
drunk and naked, and didn't sayor do anything.
And let's see, Can you hear me?
Okay, yeah, Okay.
So one of his other sons Ithink it was his oldest son,
like came up on him and put ablanket on him and ratted him

(01:29:09):
out.
The son who left him passed outnaked.
His name was Ham Noah.

(01:29:30):
Like, quote, unquote, likecursed him in a way that you
know all of his descendantswould live in bondage, if I'm
remembering it.
I see what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:29:34):
So here's the thing.

Speaker 2 (01:29:37):
I use that as Correct .
Here's the thing Nowhere in theBible does it say that Ham was
black Right.
Absolutely nowhere in the bibledoes it say that ham was black
right.
Absolutely nowhere in the bible.
Um, the, uh, uh, the.
And it is an attack, the attackon the lgbt plus community.
Um is something that I mean.

(01:30:00):
I've seen even people whoaren't like conservative
Republicans but profess to beChristian support and they tend
to cite Sodom and Gomorrah forthat.
So I have to say somethingbecause, again, I was raised in
the church and I learned aboutSodom and Gomorrah and the

(01:30:22):
Sodomites weren't punished forwell being sodomizers.
They were punished becausetheir leaders attempted to rape
two angels.
That is true, is in the Bibleand I can quote it.
There was a man who washarboring the two angels and the

(01:30:48):
sodomites knock on his door andsay something let's see.
I'm not sure if I can directlyquote this.

Speaker 1 (01:30:55):
Yeah, no, no, no.

Speaker 2 (01:30:56):
Something like send out your guests so that we may
know them.
They're talking about knowing,in the biblical sense and the
way that these passages arestructured, why the fuck they

(01:31:16):
had Shakespeare write this isbeyond me.
Because, shakespeare, there areentire college level courses,
uh um, structured aroundinterpreting and interpreting
Shakespeare's writings.
So why you would have one ofthe most long-winded,
quizzically quoted men inhistory, right Um?

(01:31:39):
Write a religious book that issupposed to be accessible to
everyone.
Why you have him write it isbeyond me.
However, the way that it'sphrased.
It's not.
They're demanding it and theirattempt is to take the two

(01:32:01):
angels without their consent.
So that's why the Sodomiteswere punished.
It had nothing to do with beinggay.

Speaker 1 (01:32:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:32:12):
And I've never read anywhere in the Bible where I've
never read anywhere else in theBible where it was a sin to be
gay.

Speaker 1 (01:32:20):
Awesome.
Go ahead, go ahead.
I've downloaded the Bible'sit's like 50 hours to listen to
it.
It's long over that.
Uh, trying to pull up audibleright now to see just how long
it is it's long, um, so yeah, so.

Speaker 2 (01:32:41):
So they want a their interpretation of Christianity
to be like the basis ofgovernment, the structure of
public schools, public schoolsthat choose to teach what they
consider to be critical racetheory or gender equality should

(01:33:03):
be defunded.
So and this is, we're talkingabout public schools, not
private schools they talk somuch about reverting children's
education back to the parent.
However, they want to prosecuteparents who who allow their

(01:33:26):
children to identify as anythingother than straight, male or
female.
So parents that have transchildren would literally be
persecuted for taking theirchildren for gender affirming

(01:33:49):
care.
And they do say like the sexualreassignment of a minor, no
doctor in the United States isgoing to sexually reassign a
minor.

Speaker 1 (01:34:01):
No doctor.

Speaker 2 (01:34:03):
Right, it's medically unethical.
Right, reassign a minor?
No, doctor, it's medicallyunethical.
So no credible licensedpracticing doctor in the US is
going to sexually reassign aminor Now.
They might help them withpsychological services.
They might help them to takehormone blockers so that when

(01:34:23):
they are old enough to sexuallyreassign, the transition will be
a lot easier.
Those are better examples ofgender affirming care.
And also, that is my kid so theparents can have control over
their children, as long as theparents raise the children the

(01:34:44):
way that you want them to beraised.

Speaker 1 (01:34:49):
So that's the Bible is 75 hours.
Yeah, jesus.

Speaker 2 (01:34:54):
Christ.

Speaker 1 (01:34:55):
So that would take me two weeks of listening to it at
work the entire time, and Ireally hate to cut the
conversation short here, but mystudio time is running out very
quickly.

Speaker 2 (01:35:05):
Oh, yeah, so.
I'm almost done.

Speaker 1 (01:35:08):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:35:09):
Let's see.
So that is kind of like thetotalitarian government
restricting hiring practices,social programs for minorities,
hiring practices, socialprograms for minorities, single
parents and people withdisabilities is a lot of that

(01:35:37):
natural hierarchy that'soutlined in fascism.
And again they want to sellarms to who they consider to be
our political allies and Ilooked this up.
They're talking about sellingthem to, let's see, countries in
Europe, countries in Asia andAustralia Not a single black or
brown country.
And again they're very muchwanting to go to war with Russia

(01:36:02):
.
And again they're very muchwanting to go to war with Russia
.
If we were to do that any timewithin the next five years, not
only would we lose, but we wouldkind of face global destruction
, which is not good, let's see.
And if we won, we wouldbasically be accomplishing what

(01:36:23):
Hitler never could, which is,again, well, that's what
fascists do, but it is a lot of.
You know, this is a system ofgovernment that works for people

(01:36:43):
who look and think and projectthemselves the way that they
want.
No longer would we be able toidentify individually.

Speaker 1 (01:36:57):
Okay, I've been Odeko .

Speaker 2 (01:37:00):
And I'm Rocket.

Speaker 1 (01:37:02):
This has been Conversations in Black and White
.
Thanks for listening.

Speaker 2 (01:37:05):
Thank you guys.